RPG with fast narrative combat, mostly like a back and forth between the player and gamemaster with fast resolution, is there something like this?
Mainly just depends on gm/players.
Google angry gm. He has a whole schtik on combat pacing.
The tldr version of his articles- during combat he asks for what the pc does. If there isn't an immediate answer the pc essentially looses a turn.
>>47606153
fate
im totally serious
Really depends on the players. In my groups, some of my friends think ahead, and are ready to go with their actions. Others, have to stare down, re re re read their character sheets, and hum and hah over what becomes just a half action aim and single shot.
>>47606153
Play one of the tigher OSR games, apply >>47606256 with the timed turns and give bonuses if players do stuff that would give them an advantage.
For example snapping a guards spear, pushing people into each other, tripping and riposting an attacker, ect. would give minor mechanical bonuses if players were snappy about it.
Its far more in the GM/players than the system, although you won't get what you are after with the 3.5/4/Pathfinder crowd
>>47608257
From personal experience at least, 4e seems a lot more forgiving than 3.PF when it comes to combat.
Powers give a simple effect that can be used during combat and PCs are treated as heroes capable of supernatural feats that aren't hampered by the RAW/RAI.
>>47608822
While I agree in spirit, in practice there are a lot of status effects and damage riders that tend to compound the further along you get. I adore 4e for its encouraging teamwork from the mechanics on up-- but even with the damage bump/hp reduction I wouldn't call its combat particularly fast.
Hong Kong Action Theatre if it can still be found. Its got a great scaling system so heroes can plough through crowds of mooks, but still struggle to beat the villain
>>47608862
I think it also depends on whether or not you're dealing with one big dude or a bunch of weenies that gang up on you.
>>47606153
>RPG with fast narrative combat, mostly like a back and forth between the player and gamemaster with fast resolution
Dungeon World is exactly that.
>inb4 omg it's shiiiiit here's a giant image macro
Fuck you nerds, my group loved it.
>>47606153
Dungeon World's combat is quick and reactive, and actually pretty fun once everyone gets the hang of it.
Shame it's attached to an otherwise mediocre system.
>>47606153
Wushu Open
>>47609157
>>47609139
By extention, all PbtA games that involve significant combat.
>people unironically suggesting 4e
It has the slowest combat of any RPG I've ever played.
You could literally spend a whole evening on a single encounter.
>>47609139
Wow, nice anecdotal evidence you shill
>>47609439
You're right that it's slow, and a terrible suggestion for OP, but it's not the slowest combat around. I don't know what is, but I know Shadowrun used to be much worse.
>>47606153
Once everyone's got the system down reasonably well, and has a little imagination, FFG's Star Wars RPG is the epitome of narrative + combat
>>47609439
I'm guessing you've never played Shadowrun 5e with a hacker on the team?
Also, it's only slow because combat is much more involved and teamwork/strategy is actually required. Stuff is still happening every turn.
>>47606153
>fast
theoretically any system when the players get enough experience. I don't know how you'd build a combat engine around speed.
>narrative combat
exalted 3e
>>47606256
He is the epitome of bad gms. Don't take any of his advice. He is a salty cock and I don't want any of his advice anywhere near any table I play at.
He literally thinks the best rpers are min maxers. You can't make that shit up.
>>47606153
One Roll Engine, especially REIGN, might be just the thing. Especially the fast part: there are no separate To-Hit and Damage rolls, and everyone rolls their dice at once, not in order of Initiative. I've never played a game with faster combats.
>>47610281
This is why people hate 4e.
It plays like a tactical wargame.
You spend the vast majority or your time in combat. Whether or not the combat is engaging or not is subjective. Personally I find it very tedious.
In my opinion, RPGs should be equal parts exploration, puzzle-solving, and combat. 4e is like 75% combat.
It's not even that combat is complex, it's quite simple, but it's just so time consuming that people just get bored and lose interest in the overarching plot and, ultimately, the game itself.
Combat should be a means to an end. One way of solving problems. Not the focal point of the entire game.
>>47610419
>You spend the vast majority or your time in combat.
hasnt that been the case for every single edition of DnD?
>>47610430
In old school (early TSR) D&D, most of your time is spent trying to avoid combat, because odds of a TPK are high, especially at low levels. Combat is a failure state, not the default.
>>47610430
It absolutely has been. 4e just made it "worse" by giving everyone the same breadth of options that magic users had.
DnD has always, always been 100% about going into dungeons and killing monsters. Everything is secondary to that an exists to facilitate that.
>>47610430
>hasnt that been the case for every single edition of DnD?
No it hasn't.
Combat was always presented as one of the many options to resolve situations.
Oftentimes, players would be awarded more XP by completing tasks without resorting to violence.
The problem is that young players these days have the "WoW mentality" of killing everything in sight for XP having been raised on video games.
>>47610419
To each their own.
I liked how powers and monster abilities always swung the battle and changed the state of your advantage swiftly and I also enjoyed how the game focused on delivering long but rewarding combat scenarios where utilizing 100% of the party's abilities was the difference between life and death.
It made you feel like a team of badasses taking on the world, though I can understand why that might not appeal to everyone.
>>47610478
Going into dungeons? Yes.
Killing monsters? Sometimes.
Look at old modules like the Tomb of Horrors.
There's actually very little combat in it. The majority of the module comprises traps and puzzles.
There were also often ways in which combat could be avoided and situations in which it was wise to do so.
These days, players just assume that if a monster is encountered that it must be the appropraite challenge rating for them so they try to kill it, so they do. After all, that's what video games do right?
>>47610478
>DnD has always, always been 100% about going into dungeons and killing monsters.
Except in early editions, where XP was gained for treasure brought out of the dungeon, and XP for killing monsters was a piddly consolation prize that was not at all worth the risk.
In those editions it was about going into dungeons, NOT fighting monsters any more than strictly necessary, and getting out with as much loot as you could manage.
>>47610513
It's not a bad game.
It's just not D&D.
I think it could have been quite successful if it weren't marketed as such.
>>47610338
t. anonymous faggot on the internet
>>47610761
But he's not wrong.
>>47608187
This is why giving players too many options is a bad idea.
>>47608935
>>47608862
>>47608822
I absolutely LOVE 4e, but even I must admit its biggest pitfall is slow combat. Granted, when you compare it to tactical skirmish games like warmhordes, battletech, or mordheim, which it is easily as tactically deep as, it comes out VERY MUCH on top of the heap in terms of speed.
However >>47606153 was asking for something that 4e explicitly does not do. My two suggestions would be FATE, Dungeon World, or my personal favorite: Hi-Lo Heroes.
>>47610419
Making combat tactically deep enough to be a game in and of itself is not a flaw. If your DM sucks so bad he can't make the rest of the game fun enough to be a game in and of itself, so you spend all your time on combat, that's on him.
>>47610677
>It's just not D&D.
>It's just not OGLd20, which I have come to equate in my mind as the only thing that can possibly be "D&D" because I'm a millennial who started playing after the OGL dominated the market.
FTFY
When 3e came out, it "wasn't real D&D" but "MTG edition made by shitty WoTC sellouts"
When 2e was revised it "Wasn't real D&D"
When D&D got an "a" attached to its name, or got a 2nd edition, it "Wasn't real D&D"
Every edition, save 3e/3.5/PF/[Insert-Genre]d20 (which are intentionally the same game) and 5e (which is just a heavily polished 3e... not a bad thing, just not something new) have been something fundamentally new and different from that which came before.
![ce3cdaafd1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/tgqJWwh.jpg "ce3cdaafd1[1].jpg")
>>47611783
t. samefag
>>47612856
What is it with 4e fanboys on /tg/? Is this where you all congregate and circlejerk?
4e was the biggest departure for the series in terms of both gameplay and flavour.
It was badly received and WotC (hopefully) won't make the same mistake again.
>>47612972
>4e was the biggest departure for the series in terms of both gameplay and flavour.
Compared to what? The "change" from 3e into 3.5? The "Change" from 3.5 into PF? I'd bet good money that you started with an OGL game, and have played so many OGL games that you can actually tell the difference between the three aforementioned games. Unless you've been around for an edition change that wasn't a shift away from OGL (3/3.5/PF into 4e) or a shift back to OGL-in-all-but-legal-definition (4e into 5e) you don't know what you're talking about. There is a whole quarter century of D&D that existed independent OGL and that cannot be measured by its similarity to or difference from OGL.
>>47610761
I'd rather be an anonymous faggot than a horrible manchild gm supporting faggot.
>>47613144
Provide evidence of your claim that "he thinks the best rpers are min maxers."
Honestly you just strike me as a salty faggot that he's done more for the hobby than you ever have.
>>47613238
He was a guest on the Happy Jack podcast and they got a listener question regarding rpers and min maxers.
"I agree with you, min maxers make the best roleplayers."
He then went on a very long spiel (one of many on the episode) about how min maxing is the best way to play. I would bring up the exact episode, but I'm at work.
>>47613273
>I have time to shitpost on 4chan at work but not to substantiate my claims while taking someone's opinion out of context
k lol
>>47612856
I remember trying to get into 3.5 after playing Baldur's Gate for five years. Felt weird.
>>47613297
Yeah, you got me. That clearly never happened and Angry is a benevolent glorious god because I don't feel like sorting through like a year of podcasts to find the episode let alone a time stamp.
All I know is that he was a massive prick for that entire episode. Pedantically claimed Fate isn't an rpg, and said meta gaming is fair.
Although to be fair, that is the only exposure I have had to him. But he was just such a massive cunt.
>>47606153
Off the top of my head: Fate/Fate Accelerated, Marvel Heroic and the rest of Cortex Plus if it clicks with the group, any Powered By the Apocalypse game, Risus.
>>47613273
I think there's probably a breakdown in communication here regarding the definition of 'min/maxing'.
Min/maxing is having low lows for the sake of having higher highs--specializing in one thing to the detriment of something else. And, having those mechanically-derived/reinforced character flaws *can* mean you have more things to play with in RP.
>>47613342
>Pedantically claimed Fate isn't an rpg
Okay, *now* he sounds like a jackass.
>>47609174
The most accurate answer.
>>47608163
I was actually about to say Fate Accelerated.
>>47613096
4e completely and utterly changed the way classes worked after its predecessor (to the point where it changed the entire feeling of the game, where combat and non-combat felt clearly separated).
3.X, meanwhile, just updated some classes and added skills and feats. It was all complete shit, but it wasn't that big of a departure from 2e.
>>47618127
>It was all complete shit, but it wasn't that big of a departure from 2e.
Except for the emphasis on builds, the emphasis on the RAW, the disparity between casters and martials, locking away most basic martial abilities behind feats, and the game focusing on combat to gain XP over its predecessors that focused more on exploring tombs and taking loot.
3.PF was arguably as massive a departure from OSR as 4e was a departure from 3.PF.
>>47618407
>3.PF was arguably as massive a departure from OSR as 4e was a departure from 3.PF.
Holy fuck stop lying!
4e is a completely different game. Every class was given exactly the same amount of powers with different cooldowns (at-will, encounter, daily)
The mechanics are ripped straight from an MMO. I even remember Mearls talking about how much WoW the devs were playing at the time.
The result is something completely alien to D&D. It bears almost no resemblance to the previous editions of D&D and that's why it was so poorly received.
People want D&D not tabletop WoW.
>>47618675
Every edition of D&D is different, every single one, but for relatively different reasons.
Also, at-will, encounter, and daily powers made more sense than, say, racial spell like abilities that could only be used X times per day for arbitrary reasons that made no sense to the race.
I mean, I can understand why a power that deals three times your normal damage output is a daily power but I cannot for the life of me understand why an Ifrit, whose part fire elemental, can only use burning hands once per day when they're always on fire
>>47610549
>Tomb of Horrors.
Tomb of Horrors is not in any way a standard TSR adventure.
>>47618803
>Every edition of D&D is different, every single one, but for relatively different reasons.
Yes but 4e clearly stands out as the most "unique" and not in a good way.
Cooldowns on powers make absolutely no sense other than "muh class balance".
Explain to me why a fighter can't hit you with his shield more than once per encounter?
Fuck that. Do we really need 30 powers that basically do the same thing (i.e. hit your enemy with an axe) so that players have to memorise that shit or spend 15 minutes deciding what they want their character to do so that the group can do more that one fucking encounter per game session?
>>47612972
Compared to the 2e to 3e change? I think not
>>47618940
>4e clearly stands out as the most "unique"
LBB OD&D is pretty unique, in its own way. For one thing, you're meant to use an actual wargame for combat resolution.
>>47618940
>Cooldowns on powers make absolutely no sense other than "muh class balance".
Actually it makes perfect sense.
At wills are basic powers that you can reasonably expect someone to perform without straining or overextending themselves, such as the fighter's cleave which simply allows you to strike at one adjacent enemy.
Encounter powers are abilities that are more powerful but either take more effort to perform or will only work on an opponent who is unaware of the blow, such as the fighter's spinning sweep which not only deals damage but knocks an enemy prone.
Daily powers are abilities that are even more powerful than encounter powers but require almost all of your personal store of power to perform without injuring yourself, such as the fighter's brute strike which allows you to deal three times the damage of a normal swing with a standard attack.
>Explain to me why a fighter can't hit you with his shield more than once per encounter?
Because his opponent is aware of the tactic and is less likely to fall for it again and the Fighter isn't willing to leave himself open in case his opponent has a defense to counter it.
>Do we really need 30 powers that basically do the same thing (i.e. hit your enemy with an axe) so that players have to memorise that shit or spend 15 minutes deciding what they want their character to do so that the group can do more that one fucking encounter per game session?
Oh my mistake, you're one of those 3.PFags who haven't read the book and only hate because people talk about how much they hate it.
My mistake.
>>47618945
I guarantee that you never played back when 2e was current.
The biggest change between 2e and 3e was that THAC0 became BAB.
>>47619145
>will only work on an opponent who is unaware of the blow
But you can fight the same person multiple times over different encounters.
>>47618945
Yeah, 3aboos forget, but it was a huge shift. I started in '81 and 3e was the first edition change where I was like "nope, I'm out."
This guy too, though his complaints are almost humorous in retrospect.
>>47619162
And that ability scores suddenly became a lot more important.
>>47618940
>Cooldowns on powers make absolutely no sense other than "muh class balance".
You mean, kinda like how a soldier and a wizard being equally dangerous makes no sense other than class balance?
The entire D&D class system is a (failed) attempt at stopping you crybabies from flipping the table when the guy with the dagger who's good at picking pockets isn't as lethal as the guy who shoots fireballs.
Besides, D&D edition wars are stupid, you are all playing a dense, clunky system that is badly out of touch with the fantasy genre in general.
D&D is basically Star Wars episode 1-3, long, effects packed crap that has none of the oomph of the source material and mainly exists as a a way to cash in on retards who'll buy anything with a Jedi in it.
At least 4th edition was an attempt to give D&D players what they all want deep down: World of Warcraft in paper form, so I respect it for not half-assing it like previous and later editions.
>>47619145
Dude, just stop it. Attempting to justify those mechanics as anything but pure games design decisions with no connection to the lore runs smack into the wall of common sense.
If you can only do something once per day, why doesn't that take into account the times when you more or less whiff your roll, or factor in things like how exhausted your character is, or if it's especially in the zone etc?
"Personal store of power" if you use up your personal store of power on ability A, how come you can still do ability B?
Daily cooldowns are nothing except a button with a timer on it to minimize the amount of crying over what abilities would be op if you could do them more often.
>>47619145
Look at this fag desperately trying to defend his broken, nonsensical, failure of a system.
It's sad really. I mean, even the developers agree that 4e was poorly executed.
>Because his opponent is aware of the tactic and is less likely to fall for it again and the Fighter isn't willing to leave himself open in case his opponent has a defense to counter it.
Are you seriously suggesting that you can't hit your opponent with a shield twice in a single battle because he's somehow "wisend up to your tactics?" How the fuck are you supposed to hit him more than once with your sword then? What about a different opponenent?
4e makes absolutely no sense mechanically. It's a bunch of gameplay mechanics given fancy names so that things are "balanced".
It's a fucking MMO on paper and caters to the lowest common denominator of gamers that were raised on League of Legends and PewDiePie videos.
You should be ashamed of yourself for defending it here.
>>47619185
>inject critical hit systems
2e had at least three ways of handling crits, one straight out of WFRP.
>Ctrl f "gurps"
>0 responses
Wtf
>>47619170
Okay, that's easy to explain to.
In the heat of battle, you're hesitant to try the same move twice, both because you're afraid that your opponent can defend and because you're afraid that he can counter it.
After the encounter is over, you stop and think about different ways you can apply your maneuver in future conflicts so it isn't as obvious.
You then encounter the guy you fought before, only this time, rather than swinging your sword in a telegraphed arc towards a shin, you decide to swing your sword towards a knee after you lock blades with him.
So, since your opponent wasn't expecting you to swing your sword that way, you strike at his leg and he falls for the same trick because you applied it in a different way.
Or at least, that's how I see it.
>>47619218
>You mean, kinda like how a soldier and a wizard being equally dangerous makes no sense other than class balance?
Say that to my face, wizard, not online, and see what happens.
>>47619270
Oh sod off.
All you ever fought were wizards who relied on gimmicks and mystic mental dominance, that you defeated on pure stubbornness or with the aid of magical objects gifted to you by other wizards (yeah, People of the Black circle, magical belt much?)
Besides, brooding old priests who's ace in the hole is TURNING THEIR DAUGHTER INTO A TIGER is not exactly the same as fighting someone who can fly and set things on fire with his mind.
I respect where you're coming from, but do realize that you never had to deal with retarded D&D wizards who never should have been playable characters to begin with at the power levels they let them have.
>>47619218
>At least 4th edition was an attempt to give D&D players what they all want deep down: World of Warcraft in paper form, so I respect it for not half-assing it like previous and later editions.
That's clearly not what they wanted since everyone abandoned 4e and, for the first time in history, D&D actually had some serious competition with PF.
>>47619270
As cool as Conan is, he wouldn't really stand a chance against a D&D wizard like Elminster or Larloch.
>>47619218
>Dude, just stop it. Attempting to justify those mechanics as anything but pure games design decisions with no connection to the lore runs smack into the wall of common sense.
Compared to what?
3.PF where practically everything your character could do was abstracted to hell and back?
>If you can only do something once per day, why doesn't that take into account the times when you more or less whiff your roll, or factor in things like how exhausted your character is, or if it's especially in the zone etc?
Because when you push your body past limits it wasn't meant to go, you still feel the shockwave even if you miss a powerful swing.
It's not like your body just snaps back to normal after you throw a punch so hard that you actually rip the muscle fibers in your arm or something.
>"Personal store of power" if you use up your personal store of power on ability A, how come you can still do ability B?
For the same reason why a wizard who ran out of 5th level spell slots was still able to cast spells that were 4th level and lower or 6th level or higher.
You're digging from a similar store of power but you aren't necessarily drawing from the same exact source of power.
>Daily cooldowns are nothing except a button with a timer on it to minimize the amount of crying over what abilities would be op if you could do them more often.
Okay, so what does that make 3.PF where certain races could only perform their racial powers X times per day?
You still never answered my question.
>>47618803
At will and encounter abilities were one of the greatest things about 4e
As much as /tg/ talks about do everything wizards when your out of spells all you can do in previous editions was sit back and crossbow shit for no other reason than "fuck you I said so" I didnt pick a magic class to only do magic X times per day
And on the martial side they got to do some pretty cool shit too with the dailys like inflicy status effect like daze of make your melee attack a burst area effect
Sure it was 80% combat and sure it was a MMO based wargame but 4E had some pretty good ideas
>>47619170
The best I've ever heard it explained is to think of 4e combat in a cinematic sense. Since I can't remember what the powers do off the top of my head, let's just say the Fighter has a power that lets him hit an enemy with his shield to do weapon damage and knock the target prone. There is nothing stopping the Fighter from hitting anyone with his shield, but it would be little better than using an improvised weapon. In order to get the big benefit from the power, some special circumstance had to occur: the Fighter caught the enemy off guard, found an opening in his defenses, got a sudden surge of strength, something like that, and such opportunities can be reasonably thought of to present themselves only once in a particular combat. Rather than such circumstances being decided by chance or by playing mother-may-I with the GM, 4e decides to let the player decide when his character sees a gap in the enemy defenses or what have you.
>>47619328
>As cool as Conan is, he wouldn't really stand a chance against a D&D wizard like Elminster or Larloch.
That's true, but that's merely evidence of how D&D has redefined the wizard's power level up, and up, and up while leaving martials in the dust; a problem which had its roots early on, but which reached its apex with the ridiculous caster supremacy of 3E.
There's nothing about wizards versus martials that says they can't be on an equal footing. There are plenty of mythological heroes that could easily wipe the walls with Elminster or Larloch, but they're excluded from D&D, because martials get jack shit.
>>47619328
I said it was an attempt, not that it succeeded.
>>47619344
Answered what question? Who do you think you're replying to?
And are you SERIOUSLY going to argue that 3 different ways of hitting someone uses up different, separate sources of power that are all just enough for one attack each and need exactly a day to recharge?
How about just accepting that hey, it's a games design decision, not meant to accurately model the lore of the setting, and stop whoring out your suspension of disbelief just to make wotc look good.
>>47619228
>How the fuck are you supposed to hit him more than once with your sword then?
Because you're hitting him with your sword in different ways that he's not expecting.
Y'know, like how the encounter/daily powers for the Fighter describes?
>What about a different opponenent?
They saw you use it on their friend and want to avoid having that shit happen to them?
It's not really that difficult to explain, you're just being obtuse and refusing to acknowledge how easily it makes sense.
>4e makes absolutely no sense mechanically. It's a bunch of gameplay mechanics given fancy names so that things are "balanced".
>It's a fucking MMO on paper and caters to the lowest common denominator of gamers that were raised on League of Legends and PewDiePie videos.
So what you're really saying is
>I never read the book but people said it's bad so I'm going to sperg out and explain how it doesn't FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL right to my autistic brain.
>>47619344
Mate, you're defending a version of the game where a fighter can't do something as simple as a shield bash more than once per encounter because it wouldn't be balanced otherwise.
Just admit that it was flawed and move on.
>>47619389
You guys need to stop it with the mythical heroes bullshit, the heroes in the sources that inspired D&D were never mountaincleaving god bullshit levels of powerful, and there's a reason evil wizards are the stereotypical bbeg that needs a band of lucky heroes to lay him low.
The mistake D&D made was not making wizards in the lore more powerful than the warriors, because that's how things work in MSOT fantasy settings, the mistake was letting people play wizards that powerful, in a game that mostly revolves around killing shit and where class system and characterization mainly revolves on what flavour of killing you can do.
Giving fighters retard anime powers that are completely contrary to what most people expect from high fantasy and sword and sorcery is clearly a much worse option than just reining in what power level of wizards should be playable.
Make the player wizards reasonable, instead of making the warriors unreasonable.
>>47619398
>They saw you use it on their friend
Then it should work on the guy who was distracted by my buddy trying to stab him.
>>47619398
>Y'know, like how the encounter/daily powers for the Fighter describes?
Oh yeah like all the varied and intersting powers like
>Sure Strike
>Wicked Strike
>Reaping Strike
>Lunging Strike
>Dual Strike
>Brute Strike
>Weapon Master's Strike
>Steel Serpent Strike
et fucking cetra
I mean holy shit at least WoW comes up with cool names for its abilities. This is beyond a joke.
But yeah there's no way you'd be able to hit anything with your shield more than once per encounter even if you're fighting against multiple opponents. Nope that just wouldn't make sense right?
>>47619392
>Answered what question?
The question I asked you a few posts ago which basically comes down to
>"Why is an Ifrit, who is part fire elemental, unable to use burning hands more than once per day?"
Because there's no real reason why except for balance made from a game design decision, which is exactly what you're shitting on 4e for doing.
>And are you SERIOUSLY going to argue that 3 different ways of hitting someone uses up different, separate sources of power that are all just enough for one attack each and need exactly a day to recharge?
It's stated fairly clearly in the book that the powers you utilize draw upon three different sources of power.
Martials draw from their own stores of physical strength and stamina, Arcane draws from their own stores of mana to cast spells, and Divine draws from their own stores of faith which they use to perform miracles and invoke favor from their deities
Have you even read the book, let along played a game of it before /pfg/ "convinced" you why it's the worst thing since Hitler?
>>47619389
I think the huge disparity between martials and casters in D&D is because most of the creators of the game and its various settings played Casters
Hell most named wizards and spells were named after former characters from the creators home games
>>47619410
No, because it makes sense for why you wouldn't want to rely on just one move to get you by through every single encounter you come across.
Do you just expect the enemy to just sit back and take it on the chin? No, because even the dumbest creature would be wary of something that hurt them and do everything in their power to avoid getting hit by that attack again.
Just because you can't accept it doesn't mean that it isn't a viable explanation.
>>47619466
>"Why is an Ifrit, who is part fire elemental, unable to use burning hands more than once per day?"
That one comes from the 'you can only hold so many arcane energy matrices in your brain at any one time, then you must rest to recover them' thing that explains how wizards work.
>>47619468
Early D&D history doesn't bear that out. The people involved in early D&D's development played and tested all the classes.
But then in early D&D a high level fighter and a high level wizard were still a pretty good match in a duel.
>>47619465
So because they all have the word "strike" in their name, it means that they're all the same?
Holy shit, just read the book.
>>47619462
Not necessarily, because the guy who your buddy tried to stab would be working off of adrenaline and wary of anything that you could possible do.
It's kinda like how a cornered rat will fight so viciously that they can potentially kill things like snakes and cats; when you're facing death and any mistake could lead you to your doom, you're going to be working off of instinct and snap decisions to try and avoid damage while eliminating the threat in front of you.
>>47619603
>would be working off of adrenaline and wary of anything that you could possible do.
And the guy I shield bashed wasn't?
>>47619524
So why can you use something like Slash and Pummel at-will but Shield Bash only once per encounter?
We both know why, but you just don't want to admit it.
>>47619541
>That one comes from the 'you can only hold so many arcane energy matrices in your brain at any one time, then you must rest to recover them' thing that explains how wizards work.
But that's the thing, it's not the Ifrit casting burning hands like a wizard, this is a special ability that the Ifrit has because he's part fire elemental.
If we're talking about a dude who is practically made of fire, how is it that his hands don't burn something more than once per day?
>>47619465
Since I have the rulebook in front of me let me say how those are different
>Sure Strike
At-Will Forego strength bonus on attack for +2 to hit
>Wicked Strike
At-Will -2 to hit to use both strength and constitution modifiers with two handed weapon
>Reaping Strike
At-Will Half Strength modifier damage on a miss. If you're wielding a two-handed weapon, you deal damage equal to your Strength modifier
>Dual Strike
At-Will make a secondary attack if using two weapons
>Brute Strike
Encounter 3[W] + Strength modifier damage.
>Weapon Master's Strike
At-Will 1[W] + Strength modifier damage. In addition, the target takes an additional effect based on the weapon you wield.
"Axe: The target takes extra damage equal to your Constitution modifier.
"Mace: You slide the target 1 square.
"Heavy Blade: Until the end of your next turn, you gain a +1 power bonus to AC against the target's attacks.
"Spear or Polearm: Until the end of your next turn, the target provokes opportunity attacks from you when it shifts."
>Steel Serpent Strike
Encounter 2[W] + Strength modifier damage, and the target is slowed and cannot shift until the end of your next turn.
>>47619468
Actually, Gary Gygax apparently hated mages and couldn't understand why anyone would want to play one over the Fighting man.
He also couldn't understand non-human characters, which is why Dwarves and Elves had a level cap that was lower than playing an ordinary human.
>>47619638
Is that really different to you?
I mean, you're still just hitting the monster with your sword.
>>47619629
>it's not the Ifrit casting burning hands like a wizard,
Especially since Efreet can't cast Burning Hands.
>>47619625
Because Slash and Pummel is using your free hand to punch a guy its more a fighting style then individual move
>>47619648
>Gary Gygax apparently hated mages
Well, that's bull. Mordenkainen was one of his characters.
>>47619689
Riiight. So your opponent won't fall for being hit by a shield more than once but he's completely oblivious to your tactic of hitting him with your free hand...
Do you honestly not see how fucking retarded your arguments are?
>>47619694
Hey, one time in Dodge City, Gary Gygax killed a man, just to watch him die!
>>47619668
All of those things are level one powers of course you just hit things you don't start doing more stuff until a few levels later
And a few are style moves like Dual Strike which lets you two weapon fight without taking multiple feats and Weapon Master's Strike which gives you differnt options based on weapon choice
Is there anything more delicious than martifalfag tears?
>>47619625
Because pummel/slash are basic attacks that wouldn't take much out of a Fighter of reasonable skill while a shield bash is something that opens an opponent's guard by slamming their face with a hunk of metal that they previously used to stave off attacks with that actually does require a degree of skill to pull off effectively without accidentally leaving yourself open in the process.
>>47619734
Does a fighter really need 30 different powers at level 1? Does any class for that matter?
It's needlessly complex.
>>47619712
Not the Anon your arguing with but
So your opponent won't fall for being hit by a shield more than once but he's completely oblivious to your tactic of hitting him with your sword...
Do you honestly not see how fucking retarded your arguments are?
>>47619616
He got bashed in the face and is now stunned or something.
Savage Worlds, especially if you use the "Countdown" mechanic on indecisive players.
>>47619761
Well that's exactly what I'm saying.
Why does your opponent learn to dodge your shield bashes but not your sword swipes.
Oh right... Because they have different names like Omnislash and Bladestorm got it!
>>47619754
>Does a fighter really need 30 different powers at level 1? Does any class for that matter?
What are spell lists
also you pick your powers each level you don't get all of them. but you wouldn't know that because you never played the game you just went strait to pathfinder and hopped on the 4e hate wagon
>>47619754
Actually, you only get 11 powers at level 1.
Four at-wills, four encounter powers, and three dailies.
Also, it's incredibly simple once you understand how it works and it's quite intuitive once you start getting more powers that have their own unique effects and such.
Also, a well-trained fighter would have several techniques that he could do to take out enemies, it's not just swinging a hunk of metal around until one or both parties succumb to injury.
>>47619712
Would you expect someone to punch you with their free hand while you're locking swords with them?
>>47619817
There are literally thousands of spells in D&D. There are four tomes of the Wizard's Spell Compendium.
There are only so many ways you can hit something with your sword.
Not that I'd expect a 4e babby to understand this.
4e is basically the result of martialfags complaining that wizards have more interesting things to do in combat. Well duh! They cast spells. That's obviously going to be more varied that swinging a piece of metal around.
>>47619812
You know I have better things to do than convince you that the system isn't shit just because you don't like it
I like elements of 4E it had some great ideas to this day I will occasionally play it
if you don't like it fine
if you think its WoW video gamey weebshit fine
Other people like it
The game is not bad
Your taste is as subjective as the rest of us
People can like different things
I like 4th Edition you like COCK
>>47619888
>Well duh! They cast spells. That's obviously going to be more varied that swinging a piece of metal around.
Only because you've decided it to be so. Magic isn't real, so all the rules are made up. If most magic is long ritual casting, and all you can do in combat is simple beamspam, then the sword swinger is going to have more interesting options.
>>47619888
>There are literally thousands of spells in D&D. There are four tomes of the Wizard's Spell Compendium.
Okay...
It's still a lot of bullshit to expect someone to remember considering each spell has its own rules and limitations to consider and there's, as you said, thousands of spells to choose from.
I'd rather remember 30 powers for my 4e Fighter than try memorizing 1000+ spells for my 3.PF caster.
>There are only so many ways you can hit something with your sword.
Yet there are probably thousands of books on proper swordsmanship that differ depending on which sword you're talking about.
You wouldn't wield a longsword the same way you'd wield a rapier or a katana for example and each blade has its own unique form that requires their own fighting style to maximize effectively.
Of course, I wouldn't expect a 3.PFag to understand this.
>>47606153
Feng Shui. At least 1e, havn't looked at 2.
It's literally designed to run action movies.
>>47619959
Pretty much this
Magic is only as powerful as you make if
Martials are only as weak as you make them
If you wanted you could have a system were martials and caster have the same LEVEL of power
But the game designers decided arbitrarily to make casters stronger
And before you say Martials going toe to toe with Casters is weeb anime bullshit i suggest you look at western mythology which was fuul of Super Strong OP warriors
>>47619959
That's the crux of the problem. Casterfags try to define the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable in order to win by definition. "Duh, you can't have balance when one guy is a god who can alter reality to match his every whim with no limits whatsoever and the other guy can only poke you with a pointy stick that breaks on a 1 durr hurr hurr"
Where is it written that that's what wizards and martials have to be?
>>47620029
see>>47619431
Westaboos are just as bad as weeaboos. Fuck off with your mythological bullshit. You're a guy with big muscles and a sword. That's it. You're not a demigod.
>>47620039
Cry moar martialcuck.
>>47620080
>stop mentioning mythology 'cause I don't have a good answer for that
Boy, you guys REALLY don't like to be reminded of martials who can do more than hit stuff with a hunk of metal, huh? I could go on about the shit King Arthur's knights did without being "demigods," but you don't wanna hear it. I understand.
>>47620080
>You're not a demigod
Says fucking who you
You and the rest of the casterfags who want to keep the power to facefuck reality to yourselves
I don't even play D&D any more because of you idiots I play classless point buy systems like GURPS or Mutants&Mastermind or fucking ORE where my character can do whatever the fuck he wants
>>47620141
Yeah because comparing gods and demigods to normal humans is really helpful.
>>47620177
Okay then stay butthurt martialcuck.
You know there's nothing stopping your from rolling a wizard, sorc, warlock or priest if you think casters are so OP.
>>47620256
Wizards&Warlocks 3.9258 Edition
Where every class is a caster
>>47620256
Just going to keep pretending you won with that "hurr demigods" horseshit, huh? King Arthur is disappointed by the depths your faggotry.
>>47620303
"Why would you play 4e? Everybody's a caster!"
"Mad that martials can't do anything in 3E? Just have everybody play a caster!"
You can't make this shit up!
>>47606153
ALP QUEST
Complete with all the back and forth you can handlekiddo :^)
>>47620329
>roll a fighter
>mad that all you can do is hit things with a sword
You can't make this shit up!
>>47620308
King Arthur is no match for a D&D wizard. He's also a__________________cuck__________________
>>47620393
Nobody is a match for D&D wizards because WotC and the legions of casterfags have decreed it so
I like magic I like to play magic characters but I can say that D&D class balance is non-existent and fucking retarded
>>47620393
>I don't know about the crazy shit that some of Arthur's knights got up to
>it's only demigods that do crazy shit and you can't be a demigod because I said so
>wizards get godlike power when they level up and that's okay
>fighters just get +1 to hit, because it would be crazy to get godlike power when you level up
>>47620442
>waaaaaah muh class balance
>why isn't everything perfectly balanced according to my personal preferences ;_;
Martialfag tears are delicious.
>>47620505
>why isn't everything perfectly balanced according to my personal preferences
this coming from a Casterfag
>>47620493
Wizards get godlike power when they get to level 17+
At low levels they're so fragile that a kobold can one-shot them.
I'd say it's a fair tradeoff.
Don't like it? Go play something else martialfag.
So... why exactly could a Barbarian in 3.5 only get really mad a certain amount of times per day?
Like even if I kill his family in front of him and he's not fatigued if he raged against a goblin a few hours ago then he still can't really fucking mad again.
>>47620393
>>roll a fighter
>>mad that all you can do is hit things with a sword
Yeah, it's all in the name.
>roll a MAGIC user
>complain when you can't use mundane solutions
Pour yourself a drink? Nope, have to use Unseen Servant
Go up stairs? Better have Levitate or Fly
Carriage? Floating Disk.
Trying to do anything as a wizard without using spell slots is obviously cheating. When will arcaneboos learn?
also bringing this back
>>47620533
3aboos and casterfags love them some special pleading, that's why.
OP here ,thanks for answering my question guys, now i know that i should stay away from dnd
>>47620552
>>47620393
You can't actually be that dense.
is there something like dnd 2.5?
>>47620783
Check the OSR trove for "AD&D 3" which is a fanmade system designed to be what its creator believes TSR would have done had they not folded.
>>47620783
>>47620837
AD&D 2.5 is also a nickname for AD&D 2e with all the Player's/DM's Option rulebooks in play.
>>47606256
That's a massively dickish and passive aggressive way to do things, and fuck anybody who employs it.
It's a fucking game, not a reflex test.
>>47620862
does it uses AC?
>>47606153
Anything rules-light with a good GM. Rather than having strict rules for every maneuver (which leads to you repeatedly doing the most effective one, and forsaking the vast majority of your options), the GM improvises modifiers and effects for your attacks based on your description and the current situation. Maybe look into something like Barbarians of Lemuria.
>>47621117
All D&D uses AC. Is there a reason you ask? Would you rather have armor reduce damage than your chance to hit?
>>47621117
Yes.
>>47621204
i thought it used THAC0
>>47621222
THAC0 = To Hit Armor Class Zero
AC = Armor Class
It's right there in the name.
Are you talking about descending vs. ascending AC? Because that's pretty easy to convert.
>>47621222
THAC0 = To-Hit Armor Class (AC) 0.
THAC0 is just a solution for handling rolls vs AC, that did away with the old To-Hit tables. You rolled a D20 (plus any magic modifier if you were lucky enough to have one) and subtract the result from your THAC0 to see what AC you just hit.
>>47621243
>that's pretty easy to convert
>>47621222
>>47621243
>>47621267
>>47621273
Really, THAC0 is just a different way to solve the exact same problem. It's sort of like having 2 groups of 2 items each and trying to figure out how many there are in total: you could add 2 and 2, or you could multiply 2 and 2.
With BAB, you roll, add your score and see if it overcomes the AC's target number. With THAC0, you start with your score, modify it by your target's AC, and roll directly vs. this new number. All the same bits are there; just jumbled up in different orders.
>>47621062
I've not read any angry GM stuff, and he may take it to far, but I like the pacing of a game to mirror the immediacy of the peril. If you let people sit around and think for a minute or two before deciding what to do, not only does combat take much longer, but the battle seems much more distant.
I hardly ever make anybody actually lose a turn, but I will prompt people, and if they continue to dawdle, I might have their initiative rank slip a bit. Maybe I give one enemy a partial or even full turn before coming back to them. Even this rarely comes into play, because my players generally comply with my urging. And really, my biggest concern is not to have dead space, so if a player is asking questions about the scene or something, that's free time. It's when they just sit there and think that's the problem.
>>47621515
In Paranoia, on the other hand, I used to ask someone what they'd do, and if the paused for more than a moment, I yell "FOUR, THREE, TWO, ONE!" and if they didn't blurt out an action by the time I was done, they'd freeze in the middle of battle.
>>47620080
>Fuck off with your mythological bullshit. You're a guy with big muscles and a sword. That's it. You're not a demigod.
I'm just gonna remind you that most famous casters had divine, demonic or superhuman ancestry. Merlin and Gandalf are the big two, and it applies to both of them. So why exclude folks like Hercules and Gilgamesh?
>>47619431
>the heroes in the sources that inspired D&D were never mountaincleaving god bullshit levels of powerful
D&D was mostly inspired by swords & sorcery, where spell casters didn't have that sort of power either. Or at least if they do, it requires rituals and build up, and they can't just pull a bunch of uber powerful spells out of their ass on a whim.
>>47621643
>D&D was mostly inspired by swords & sorcery, where spell casters didn't have that sort of power either. Or at least if they do, it requires rituals and build up, and they can't just pull a bunch of uber powerful spells out of their ass on a whim.
I absolutely agree, which is why the logical solution isn't to give mythic bullshit powers to warriors, but to rein in the casters.
>>47621555
If you think that Merlin and Gilgamesh were more important to D&D than Conan, Elric, The sword in the Stone and Lord of the rings, you are an absolute retard.
Mythic level warrior heroes were not the norm, and hadn't been for a long time, and still isn't.
You might as well argue that Moses should be the model for what Clerics should be able to do., he's at least more relevant for where fantasyin the 70s than Gilgamesh.
>>47620569
>>47620552
You fucking retards are still missing the point that Magic being more powerful and scary than martial ability is the norm in mainstream fantasy, because that's how most people like it.
You are arguing that worldbuilding is pure games design, which it is not.
Most people prefer martial characters to be brave men relying on muscle and steel, not demi-gods with magic in their veins.
The problem is that you're convinced that the solution is to give warriors kamehamehas and double jumps, when the obvious, simple, and better for the world building, solution is to rein in playable casters.
Let players play apprentices, alchemists with minor mystic abilities, renegade wizards trying to decipher old tomes or make strange pacts and who rely on rituals and more involved magic than just flying around and shooting fireballs.
World building is not a balance issue, deciding where to set the limit for character powers is.
You can have a setting with god-like wizards and honest fighters without a drop of divine blood in them, like MOST FANTASY, without letting players play the godwizards.
But for some fucking reason you keep insisting that instead of putting a lid on magical retardation and bringing the wizards in line with warriors, we need to make the entire world retarded, by letting warriors have mythical powers that are not in any way the norm in fantasy, no matter how many times you scream gilgamesh.
>>47622679
>You might as well argue that Moses should be the model for what Clerics should be able to do
He's basically THE inspiration for the Invoker class in 4e. That and Elisha.
>You dun pissed off my god now, you gunna have a bad day.
>>47622709
>waaaaaa m-my way is better!!
it's like you don't get why it's called "high fantasy" at all
>>47622709
>Let players play apprentices, alchemists with minor mystic abilities, renegade wizards trying to decipher old tomes or make strange pacts and who rely on rituals and more involved magic than just flying around and shooting fireballs.
And when they DO advance? Should the martial player just stop playing his character?
>>47622709
Either way of doing things is acceptable: either restraining reducing caster power to correspond with martial power, or increasing martial power to correspond with caster power (or, I guess, an in between, where you reduce casters a bit and boost martials a bit). The point is that there is no compelling reason why martials have to be more powerful, and there are gameplay reasons why they should not be.
>>47622877
How about we do neither because there's absolutely no reason to except to appease martialfags who think that their musclemen should be invincible.
Fighters are more powerful in the early game and wizards are more powerful in the late game. That's the way it's always been and there's no reason to change it. Stop trying to fix something that isn't broke.
Don't like it? Then I suggest you play something else orroll a wizard
>>47622945
>Fighters are more powerful in the early game
Except...they are not. In rocket tag early level stuff wizards have the biggest rocket (Though less ammo than the fighter)
>>47622975
Wizards literally get 1-shot at low level before they get Mirror Image and other such spells.
Wizards can't do shit without martials tanking for them.
>>47622945
>Fighters are more powerful in the early game and wizards are more powerful in the late game.
Except that unless you're playing old school D&D, it's not remotely balanced (and even there, casters tend to come out on top overall).
>>47622999
Martials ALSO get 1-shot. A fighter has 10+Con mod HP. Basically any monster with a 2 handed weapon can one shot a fighter on a good roll.
That and 3.5 martials have zero ability to 'Tank'. They can't punish enemies for going for the squishies and AoO are damn easy to avoid unless the terrain is super generous.
>>47623016
What are you talking about?
Be specific.
Have you ever even played a wizard?
My first charcter was a wizard back in 2e. At level one you had had 1 spell per day (charm person in my case) and then you had to hit enemies with your quarterstaff for 1d4 dmg with a THAC0 of 20. You also had a maximum of 4 hit points.
Wizards were extremely fragile back then and virtually useless until level 3-4.
>>47623045
You're joking right?
If a fighter is getting 1-shot then you're fighting an enemy that is way above your normal CR.
>>47623079
A great sword deals 2d6 damage. A goblin with 10 strength can one shot the fighter with it. Let alone someone with an actual strength score of note.
That +1.5x Strength to damage for 2 handed weapons makes it VERY easy even for low level monsters t one shot a fighter.
>>47623097
That's assuming that the fighter has less than 15 Con (possible, but unlikely), that monster can actually hit him (not a given), and even then then there's only like an 8% chance of that happening.
Where are you even finding goblins wielding greatswords? Don't they get a penalty due to their small size anyway?
>>47623136
>>47623097
Meanwhile a wizard can get one shot by a fucking kobold with a stick.
>>47623147
Actually, due to size the stick would do 1d3 damage and the kobold has less than 10 strength. He couldn't take out the 4 HP wizard in one hit.
>>47623058
Gary Gygax commented on casters getting out of hand. The basic problem is that the amount by which caster power increases grows at every other level. Going from 1st to 2nd, a wizard gains a first level spell. Going from 7th to 8th, he gains a third and a fourth level spell. Meanwhile, even with multiple attacks, fighters damage output falls behind monster hit points.
So, yes, wizards are quite vulnerable at low levels, but there are simply more levels above the range where they're running about equal to fighters than there are below (a good deal more, in actuality, though many of them see infrequent use).
But then there is a reason I set old school apart. Shit is a lot closer to being fair.
>>47620530
Even at level 1 they have the potential to one-shot encounters.
For example, Sleep and Color Spray.
The only real reason why casters don't just rape everything immediately is the fact that they only start out with only like four spells, plus cantrips.
>>47623169
Let's just hope that the wizard has 4 hit points then.
My point is that wizards are extremely fragile in the early game.
I think it's a fair tradeoff that they become powerful in the late game to compensate.
>>47623179
The only edition where people have complained about wizards being out of hand is 3.5
They're fine in every other edition.
>>47623188
Having the potential to one shot an encounter doesn't really mean anything. Sure if every single creature fails their saving throw but when does that ever happen?
On the other hand if those kobold crossbowmen take aim at the wizard he's toast pretty much guaranteed.
>>47610419
4e is a tool, to teach dms how to mix combat with other things.
explore, while you're being hounded, solve puzzles, while you're fighting a battle, combat is there to give a faster pacing.
check out how combat works in the fell's five comics (the 4e d&d comics), rarely there is 'just a fight', there are time sensitive objectives, enemys to diplomance, traps to activate, people to save.
if you're just swinging your +6 dick around, yeah, boring as fuck, but it's possibly the best edition to learn how to make a fight more dynamic.
>>47623205
>My point is that wizards are extremely fragile in the early game.
Everyone is extremely fragile in the first level, even the Fighter can only take so much focus fire before dying.
I mean, they have low HP and AC sure but it's not like it's really that hard for a mage to pump HP or AC with feats in 3.PF.
>>47623230
>Having the potential to one shot an encounter doesn't really mean anything.
It does when the game is built around rocket tag.
>Sure if every single creature fails their saving throw but when does that ever happen?
It's trivially easy to pump your spell DC in 3.PF. That and most CR .5-1 creatures have poor Will saves.
>On the other hand if those kobold crossbowmen take aim at the wizard he's toast pretty much guaranteed.
Okay, and if 5-6 kobolds are all focusing their efforts on the Fighter, he's pretty much guarenteed to die to numbers.
>>47623230
>The only edition where people have complained about wizards being out of hand is 3.5
That's simply not true.
>>47619355
>a MMO based wargame
I still cannot for the life of me understand why 4E is always compared to MMO when it's blatantly a srpg like Final Fantasy Tactics.
>>47623652
It's whatever's the easiest comparison, 3.x was bemoaned as "the Diablo of D&D" when it came out despite the fact that it bares barely any resemblance to it.
I think part of the problem with the wizard/fighter dynamic is that modern depictions of magic in most games is extremely flashy, but most depictions in fiction and film(the good ones anyway) are often much more subtle, or more involved.
This is because flashy powerful magic is really fun, but thematically boring. Gandalf doesn't shoot fire, he shoots beams of light and throws pinecone grenades. Thusla Doom doesn't disintegrate Conan, he shoots a magic snake arrow.
While flying and shooting fireballs can make for a more fun fantasty, it raises the question, "if all that it takes for this is book learning, why aren't there more wizards? Why does Anyone still use a sword?"
By making wizards less DBZ and more arcane and weird I think you could greatly improve the health of D&D by a lot.
>>47623440
OD&D wizards were relatively tame due to having many roadblocks that prevented them from getting too big for their britches.
You had to deal with shit health, shit THAC0, a relatively low number of spells, spell speeds that could be overcome by certain weapons, and the fact that every spell they learned had to be copied by a scroll or spellbook.
4e wizards were balanced due to the fact that every class in the game operated around powers. Spells that would've only cost a standard action to cast and had the potential end encounters in one turn were turned into either encounter power or daily powers.
For example, sleep, a spell that slows opponents and has the potential to put them to sleep, is a daily power. If this were 3.PF, sleep would only cost a single level 1 spell slot and had the potential to end low level encounters due to many CR 1 creatures having poor Will saves.
5e wizards are relatively balanced, though some 3.PF power level does leak through at times. Concentration keeps the wizard from stacking spells onto himself and they also receive less spell slots for their more powerful spell levels, with level 9 spells only receiving one slot, compared to 3.PF where you received four.
Though spells themselves also became much more powerful to compensate, thanks to the ability to spend upper level spell slots to buff the power of lower leveled spells. While this does help reduce the redundancy of the spell list, it also makes it so every spell in the game has the potential to become game-breakingly powerful the more spell slots you have.
Or at least, that's my understanding of it.
>>47623774
I know but like,I'd fucking kill for a MMO that uses 4E's system.
The closest to that is like Wakfu or Dofus I guess.
>>47623826
>While flying and shooting fireballs can make for a more fun fantasty, it raises the question, "if all that it takes for this is book learning, why aren't there more wizards? Why does Anyone still use a sword?"
Because it's HARD.
That's like saying "why aren't there more doctors or neuclear physicists if all it takes is book learning? Why does anyone still work at Walmart?"
Wizards are much rarer than fighters in any setting. The 2e PHB explains this in some detail. Fighters are quite common. Anyone can pick up a sword and with a bit of training become somewhat proficient as a fighter. Magic doesn't work like that.
Wizards are exceptional individuals even among adventurers.
>>47623898
Well yes they are rarer in the more of those settings, but that just doesn't jive with the supposed nature of a wizard, because literally anyone can be a wizard, provided they get the right education.
Hence a government can just start training wizards and use them for Anything. Magic power would be the number one concern for any organization. It wouldn't be feasible to field an army of soldiers when 5 wizards would do the trick. The more wizards they train, the easier it is to get wizards.
Sure you can hand wave the setting however you want, but that is what causes the disconnect we have between what we want from our wizards and warriors and what we get.
>>47623962
As I already stated, Wizards are exceptional people.
Not just anybody can become a wizard. It's not just like reading a book and tada! I can shoot laser beams from my eyes!
You need to be of exceptionally high intelligence and study for years to become a wizard.
Remember that we're talking about medieval fantasy where swathes of the population are completely illeterate, let alone intelligent enough to become wizards.
Also, govts would probably view magic as a threat and wouldn't just start training wizards willy nilly.
The point remains that anyone can become a fighter with a bit of training. Not just anyone can become a wizard however, and it takes a lot of training to do so.
IIRC the 2e PHB stated that there's like 1 wizard for every 1000 fighters or something.
>>47623898
>Anyone can pick up a sword and with a bit of training become somewhat proficient as a fighter.
WOW ANON THAT IS SOME SERIOUS TALKING OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASS YOU'RE DOINGReminder that training in the sword started when you were 8.
>>47624046
From the 2e DMG:
>"Fighters are by far the most common character types in normal campaigns. They must meet the least stringent class requirements and are drawn from the biggest pool of talent-- soldiers of innumerable armies, mercenary companies, militias, palace guards, temple hosts, and sheriff's men."
>"Wizards are the most iconoclastic and self-important of all the character classes, for
they are unique among all character classes. The peasant can pick up a sword and fight; a
pious man can hope to serve his faith; a local wag can spin a good tale; and an unprincipled cad can rob the local merchants. But no one other than a wizard can cast magical spells. The need for highly specialized training truly sets them apart, and they know it."
Literally anyone can be a fighter. There are no requirements other than being able to hold a weapon.
>>47624044
Well yeah you Say that wizards are extra exceptional, but the lore just doesn't back you up. It just requires a brain and training. It's even common for people to multi-class into it.
I mean it's more a matter of opportunity than of skill. Like you said, most are dirt farmers, but that dirt farmer who made friends with the local wizards becomes his apprentice.
I mean what's the standard age for a wizard at level one? 20? It doesn't require an inborn "spark" unless you hand wave it.
Think of it like guns, guns are harder to make than swords by a long shot. Guns are a threat to governance too, but they still took over the world in about 100 years.
>>47624119
So it's a bunch of writers talk out of their fucking ass as well then.
>soldiers of innumerable armies, mercenary companies, militias, palace guards, temple hosts, and sheriff's men
Because these things are all completely incomparable in terms of training and skill.
>>47624119
>Literally anyone can be a fighter. There are no requirements other than being able to hold a weapon.
This is so fucking wrong it's disgusting.As to be expected of a bunch of lazy fat bullied nerds.
>>47624160
>this
It's all just handwaved. They say they are super rare, but there's no real reason for it besides "because"
Literally anyone can be a wizard. There are no requirements other than having a book.
>>47624157
Of course the lore backs me up. The lore backs me up, the writers back me up, the designers back me up...
Fighters are far more common than wizards for good reason: it's much easier to be a fighter than it is a wizard.
Much the same way that it's much easier to be an office drone than a neurosurgeon.
I know you don't "like" it becuase you're a stubborn martialfag but the evidence and lore is right there in front of you.
If learning magic was easy then, as you say, everyone would be doing it.
>>47624160
You're the only one talking out of your ass.
As I've already explained several times: any able bodied person has the potential to be a great fighter. The same is not true for wizardry.Your intellect, for exmple, would simply not be sufficient to learn even the basics.
>>47623898
Anybody can learn a few charms and hexes, but only an elite few have the strength, agility and focus to become a Fighter. The training is long and grueling, and many who stick it out have their progress halted by injuries... those that aren't killed along the way, that is. Being a caster is nothing. Mana flows through us all and with practice, anybody can learn to manipulate it. Sure, some are more gifted than others, but anybody can do it. No, the hard path lies with the Fighter, but so much greater too is the glory.
>>47624173
Anyone can be a figher with proper training.
This is true even today anon. Anyone can join the army provided they're not physically or mentally handicapped.
>>47624193
>Literally anyone can be a wizard. There are no requirements other than having a book.
And an INT score far above average.
Do you guys even play D&D? Do you understand the lore at all?
>>47624231
>This is true even today anon. Anyone can join the army provided they're not physically or mentally handicapped.
This is not a comparison to 15th century trained combatants.
To imply that you can learn and master these weapons in a short amount is retarded.
The think that an idiot could do this as well is also retarded.
>Do you guys even play D&D? Do you understand the lore at all?
We seem to be saying that D&D is fucking stupid.Because it is.
>>47624223
Yeah that's why there are so few fighters and so many wizards right?
Becoming a wizard = years of study and training under the guidance of another wizard willing to teach you
Becoming a fighter = do a few pushups and some weapon practice
>>47624258
Becoming a fighter = years of study and training under the guidance of another fighter willing to teach you
Becoming a wizard = Being born with magic powers because your grandma got fucked by something magic.And because you're fat and lazy and the big boys were mean so now you get to punish them with your special powers.
>>47624213
Well yes, you Say that but... no, it kinda doesn't. Just look at the rules. Only thing a wizard has is an above average int score. 11 is enough to cast magic missile. Think about that average dude, trains awhile, has a magic gun you can't dodge and never misses. All official lore backs up the rules in some way. You're referencing irrelevant outdated material to back up your claims.
I'm not even arguing that spell casters are OP. I'm saying that what serves as inspiration for the Sword part of D&D (conan, lord of the rings)doesn't jive with how wizards are presented. Which makes swords Obsolete in relation to magic.
>>47606153
FATE
>>47624258
>Yeah that's why there are so few fighters and so many wizards right?
Yep.
Becoming a fighter = years of rigorous training under the guidance of a master of battlefield arts.
Becoming a wizard = recite a few charms your mother used to sing to you when you were a child.
>>47624251
Are you blind or just stupid?
This is straight from the DMG:
>"Fighters are by far the most common character types in normal campaigns. They must meet the least stringent class requirements and are drawn from the biggest pool of talent"
>"They must meet the least stringent class requirements "
>"They must meet the least stringent class requirements "
>"They must meet the least stringent class requirements "
>D&D is fucking stupid
Then what are you going on about? We're talking about D&D.
You're welcome to go play a game where everyone is a wizard and fighters are these rare prodigies among men.
Not sure where you'd find a game like that but it seems there's a market for it amongst retards on /tg/
>>47624231
>And an INT score far above average.
In 2e, you only need an INT of 9 to cast up to 4th level spells.
>>47624290
Except that the lore and rules clearly state that the opposite is true.
I guess you can always homebrew it...
>>47624304
In 3.X you only need a 14 for 4th level. Which still isn't that high.
>>47624213
>Of course the lore backs me up.
You realize how circular your argument is, right? We say that they fucked up the balance between casters and martials, and that there's no reason why caster classes should be any more special or powerful than martial classes and your response is what? That the folks who misbalanced casters and martials have lore that supports misbalanced casters and martials? You don't say?
>>47624300
>Not sure where you'd find a game like that but it seems there's a market for it amongst retards on /tg/
>Thinks farmers with guisarme are equivalent to Swiss pikemen
>Calls other people retarded
Anon I think you need to sit down and do some reading.
>>47624213
>Much the same way that it's much easier to be an office drone than a neurosurgeon.
I prefer to think of it as being much easier to be a professor than an Olympic gymnast or MMA champion.
>>47624213
Are you the same 3.PFag who was shitting himself over 4e?
Because if you are, realize that all you really need to cast a level 1 spell is a 12, which is only really above average intelligence that any reasonably educated person can attain.
>>47624213
>Fighters are far more common than wizards for good reason: it's much easier to be a fighter than it is a wizard.
Well, yeah, because books are kinda rare.
It's got nothing to do with ability, but with money and luck.
Anyone can be a billionare, but few are.
>>47624342
Exactly, education is what is is because it can work for Anyone. Physical attributes cannot just be learned.
>>47624320
Then go play another game. We're talking about D&D.
>>47624327
Nice strawman.
The martialfag butthurt is particularly strong today.
I honestly don't know why you fags don't just homebrew your own system where fighters are the only class and wizards can only light candles and read palms.
I'll keep playing the most popular RPG of all time.
>>47624310
>Except that the lore and rules clearly state that the opposite is true.
But that's a lot of where the problem springs from. The conception of fighters vs. wizards leads to class imbalances, especially when anything superheroic is labeled as "magic" and removed from the purview of noncaster classes.
>>47624231
>Anyone can be a figher with proper training.
And anyone can be a wizard with proper training as well.
It's just that you're too autistic to realize that spending years learning how to handle a longsword is just as involved as spending years learning how to cast a magic missile.
>>47624363
See, that's what we're talking about. By discussing our issues with the system we can homebrew our own solutions to it. You're just in here trying your Damnest to act like a superior jackass, which I suppose is the whole point of your posts isn't it?
>>47624342
Your level 1 figher is not the equivalent of an MMA champion.
You fucking retards always think that fighters are Hercules incarnate or something. Read the fucking PHB. A level 1 figher is only slightly better than a town guard.
>>47624359
Phisical attributes can be trained. DYEL faggot?
>>47624394
You know you're the only one in here calling people a faggot?
Every hear the saying "if everyone you meet is an asshole"?
>>47624363
>I honestly don't know why you fags don't just homebrew your own system where fighters are the only class and wizards can only light candles and read palms.
Or I could play an edition that respects both classes equally.
>I'll just keep eating shit
Good for you anon, go rot away in your poison.
>>47624310
>Except that the lore and rules clearly state that the opposite is true.
Not really, a rogue with the a decent enough "use magic device" can use a wand just as effectively as a caster.
An INT of 11 is enough to cast a level 1 spell.
And even prestidigitation is listed as a minor magical effect that even novice casters have access to.
I mean, if you really want mages to be OP and martials to be shitty, you can always just go back to 3.PF where nerds like you belong.
>>47624374
>"Wizards are the most iconoclastic and self-important of all the character classes, for
they are unique among all character classes. The peasant can pick up a sword and fight; a
pious man can hope to serve his faith; a local wag can spin a good tale; and an unprincipled cad can rob the local merchants. But no one other than a wizard can cast magical spells. The need for highly specialized training truly sets them apart, and they know it."
>"The need for highly specialized training truly sets them apart, and they know it."
>"The need for highly specialized training truly sets them apart, and they know it."
>"The need for highly specialized training truly sets them apart, and they know it."
>>47624394
>Read the fucking PHB. A level 1 figher is only slightly better than a town guard.
Then why should a level one Wizard be better than a simple hedge mage?
>>47624363
>Then go play another game. We're talking about D&D.
"The balance of D&D is screwed up."
"No, it's not. D&D says so. Look at the lore."
"But the conception of the caster / martial divide is the root of the problem. It doesn't have to be that way. You could approach it differently."
"Hey, I'm trying to talk about D&D here."
So basically, D&D is the way it is because that's the way it is? Well argued.
>>47606153
>RPG with fast narrative combat, mostly like a back and forth between the player and gamemaster with fast resolution, is there something like this?
Dogs in the Vineyard.
Have you tried not playing D&D?
>>47624417
And what edition is that?
>>47624418
A rogue doesn't have an innate ability to cast spells.
I really can't believe that you guys are this retarded.
Think of every fantasy novel, movie, tv show, game... There are ALWAYS more warriors than wizards. Why do you think that is?
Because the requirements to become a warrior are far less stringent that the requirement to become a wizard.
Show me a single setting where the reverse is true.
>>47624465
>Because the requirements to become a warrior are far less stringent that the requirement to become a wizard.
Yes.
"Stringent" meaning "books are hard to produce before the printing press came into existence and wizards cannot take on more than a few apprentices because they are careful to not expose their secrets too much".
Magic in D&D is not a natural ability. It's an acquired skill that anyone can get with dedication.
>>47624437
He isn't much better.
Level 1 wizards are weak.
>>47624440
Okay keep crying about how those mean casters ruin your fun on 4chan all day.
What is this accomplishing? If you think casters are OP in D&D then go play something else.
D&D is the way it is because people like it that way. You can criticise it all you want but it's the most popular RPG around for a reason.
>>47624432
They're only unique because there's relatively few mages out there that are willing to teach acolytes.
Think about it, most high level mages either become hermits sitting in a tower, liches who commit atrocities for the sake of knowledge, or are just all around nutters who turn random people into newts.
Learning magic isn't rare because magic is somehow more involved than any other path, it's just rare because most mages either end up dead or crazy from the knowledge they've amassed.
>>47624432
>The need for highly specialized training
This is basically a thing for every single discipline in the world. You literally cannot master anything without specialized training and at least a decade of effort. Trying to pretend that magic is somehow special when the requirements are the exact same as for anything else (study and effort) is just fallacious.
>>47624394
>Your level 1 figher is not the equivalent of an MMA champion.
He could be if you wanted him to. There's nothing that's forcing you to set wizard power levels any higher than a fighter's. I mean, what's your argument "but in REAL LIFE, magicians are so much more powerful than kung fu masters" or some shit? Because I have to tell you that I think I could take down a magician much more easily than some martial arts practitioner.
>>47624463
Great meme, very appropriate usage
>>47624465
That's just it. The wizards in those settings are either wizards that are tied into the same innate flaws (official D&D lore) or they are thematically completely different from WoTC wizards.
>>47624394
>Your level 1 figher is not the equivalent of an MMA champion.
Just having a class in D&D already makes you superhuman.
Class levels in D&D mean that you have the divine spark of the hero and can learn how to walk on air just by training really hard.
The moment you make a character, you are squarely in superhuman territory.
>>47624486
Yes but the amount of dedication required (learning to read, learning to read several ancient languages, finding someone to teach you, obtaining the reagents for spells, etc...) is higher than the dedication required to become a fighter which again is
>go to the local barracks and ask to train with them
Do you think it's easier to join the army or to be a brain surgeon?
Anyone can join the army. You need to study for years to be a brain surgeon. Sure anyone can potentially do it but not everyone is dedicated enough.
>>47624490
>Level 1 wizards are weak.
Right so holding that as true.
Why is a level 20 wizard Merlin but a level 20 fighter isn't Hercules?
Considering they have both amassed the same about of experience.
>>47624490
>You can criticise it all you want but it's the most popular RPG around for a reason.
Oh, I know this one! Brand recognition!
Also, which edition are you talking about? Because liking one edition does not mean you like another. Or to look at it another way, do you know what the most hated RPG is? D&D.
> If you think casters are OP in D&D then go play something else.
That's certainly one option, and it's entirely relevant to the thread. But you could always alter D&D in an effort to improve your experience with it. It's what they've tried to do each time they released a new edition for it.
>>47624465
>Why do you think that is?
Because most mages are fucking nutters and live in secluded locations that are practically impassable?
>Because the requirements to become a warrior are far less stringent that the requirement to become a wizard.
Yes, because it's much easier to find an okay swordsman to teach you basic techniques than finding both a teacher willing to teach you spells and books that you can study from.
>Show me a single setting where the reverse is true.
Xanth?
>>47624502
I'd say it's a bit of both. Finding someone to teach you magic is half the battle. You'd have to prove yourself to them in some way.
>>47624504
MMA champs are the best fighters in the world. So they'd be much higher than level 1.
>I could take down a magician much more easily than some martial arts practitioner.
This is just getting silly now.
>>47624503
You're arguing against the people who wrote the game and pretty much every single fantasy writer in history... But okay whatever floats your boat dude.
If you really think doing a few pushups and some drills everyday is "specialised training"...
>>47624538
A level 20 fighter is far, far stronger than Hercules.
He would laugh at the titans of the Hercules movie, and every challenge that Hercules defeated would be a non-effort.
What do you think Hercules is?
>>47624523
>join the army
>get put into first row
>die in first engagement
sasuga
Now we are getting to a point where we are about to argue two different things.
Is this about magic being harder to *learn*? Because in that case I call bullshit. Learning ancient languages and shit is just as hard as eating correctly and exercising properly while always learning new things about your body and new tricks in fighting.
Is this about the barrier to entry being higher for magic?
Yes, it sure as fuck is.
Really any setting post printing press would end up with all wizard armies, logically.
>>47624557
A guy who can do more than "hit someone with a bit of metal".
>>47624538
Not this shit again...
see>>47619431
>>47624556
>I'd say it's a bit of both. Finding someone to teach you magic is half the battle. You'd have to prove yourself to them in some way.
But that's the thing though, once you find a dude who is willing to teach you, anyone can learn magic provided they aren't braindead simpletons.
It's not like magic is some inherently abstract thing that only the "chosen few" can have access to, it's a skill just like any other.
>>47624576
Anon my point goes both ways.
>>47624575
I think you should be more clear, because a high level fighter is stronger than the "Strongest of all Heroes" in basically every way. Even more than just killing.
If you want someone who is more versatile, you should use that terminology.
>>47624549
>Yes, because it's much easier to find an okay swordsman to teach you basic techniques than finding both a teacher willing to teach you spells and books that you can study from.
As an aside, wouldn't learning wrong things be more apparent for mages than for fighters?
A fighter can train into a dead end with a shitty trainer.
A mage will most likely notice if he's getting taught wrong. Either by dieing or by nothing happening.
>>47624605
>look up the 12 labours of Hercules
Couldn't a mid-level fighter do all these in way less than 12 years?
>>47624556
>You're arguing against the people who wrote the game and pretty much every single fantasy writer in history
Hercules held up the fucking sky.
>MMA champs are the best fighters in the world. So they'd be much higher than level 1.
MMA champs are the best fighters in our world. I doubt they'd last very long vs. a dragon though.
>This is just getting silly now.
Just now? You're the one who's saying how much harder it is to be a wizard than a fighter when there's no such thing as a wizard.
>>47624636
If his GM let him.Which is probably unlikely.
>>47624556
>If you really think doing a few pushups and some drills everyday is "specialised training"...
In case you didn't know, you can't actually reach the peak of physical ability nor master any martial art just by repeating drills and doing push-ups. Mastery of the body is not particularly easier than mastery of the mind. It just requires less resources.
And no, in most fantasy setting magic is something that is either a skill that can only be cultivated by a select few because few people are born with the inherent ability to do so or because magic is kept as a great secret. It hardly ever has anything to do with how difficult studying magic is in itself, unless it's a low-fantasy setting where the simplest of spells requires years or decades of study.
These are not problems in D&D. The only reason there aren't many mages in D&D is because books are expensive and hard to find and consecutively there are few people who have mastered enough magic to qualify as teachers, meaning that you can't exactly popularize magic academies and shit.
>>47624556
>ou're arguing against the people who wrote the game and pretty much every single fantasy writer in history.
Oh, so you are THAT kind of guy.
Go die in your autism cave or something.
I have a setting. You don't speak for me.
Go die in a fire.
>If you really think doing a few pushups and some drills everyday is "specialised training"...
And don't start your fucking "joke's on you" bullshit. The only one who's making an ass of himself is you.
>>47624639
I hate to break it to you, but even a wizard couldn't hold up the sky, that's just metaphorical.
>>47624590
DOTS I guess
>>47624559
It's pointless to argue about this since magic doesn't exist in the real world. There's no way for us to measure the difficulty in learning it.
However, I am going on what the writers and game designers have stated: fighters are the msot common class because they have the lowest requirements. Wizards are the rarest because they have the most stringent.
I really don't know why we're still arguing about this. I get it, you're a martialfag and think that wizards are OP. That's your opinion. But the literature clearly states that you're wrong about magic being as simple to learn as swinging a sword.
>>47624549
>Xanth?
Never heard of it
>>47624650
Mastery of the body is very easy, you just need to do 100 pushups, 100 squats, and run 6.2 miles every single day.
>>47624576
>>47624598
To add to that in relation to 3.PF wizards should be nerfed into the fucking ground considering how hard they break fucking EVERYTHING.
And it leaves you in this position of balancing wizard proofing shit without also TPKing your party.
