Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.42811809 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

What, precisely, makes the classes of D&D 5e so "rigid"?

5e was released back in August 2014 and there have been many Unearthed Arcana articles for customization since then, plus you can just homebrew and reflavor your own options.

>> No.42811824

>>42811809
Umm... nothing. Is this really a problem with 5e? I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain about it aside from the usual "HAVE YOU TRIED NOT PLAYING DND?" comments.

Is this some kind of bait?

>> No.42811828

>>42811809
There aren't any trap options (other than maybe the pet ranger.)

A lot of things were made so that nearly anyone can do things that were heavily specialized in 3.x, like finesse weapons.

Bounded accuracy.

The lack of heavy feat reliance.

>> No.42811927

They tried to make every class viable. This is why 5e is shit, even though it has many nice changes.

>> No.42811942

>>42811809
3.5 shits just chafe at not havin 80 splatbooks to fuck up the game with.

>> No.42811981

>>42811809
This was such a boring show.

>> No.42812029

>>42811927
Isn't that 4e in s nutshell as well?

>> No.42812046

>>42812029
>Isn't that 4e in s nutshell as well?
No, because 4e is a different game. 5e is supposed to be "3.5e but fixed" edition. They made a lot of really nice changes, but they fucked up trying to make every class viable at too many things. They tried to make things TOO equal.

>> No.42812052

>>42812046
4e nakn criticism was that every class was the same and had "no RP".

>> No.42812053

>>42812046

In what way? Is everyone a spellcaster now?

>> No.42812061

>>42812053
Sortoff, weapon users have not!spells to let them do stuff.

>> No.42812069

>>42812061

Oh? I haven't looked into it yet.

>> No.42812072

>>42811828

>he actually thinks Beastmaster is a trap option, and not just an inferior but entirely playable class archetype

I want theorycrafters to leave.

>>42812046

>but they fucked up trying to make every class viable at too many things. They tried to make things TOO equal.

What the fuck?

What the fuck are you people smoking. One person will say the game is casters edition lite, and then this nigga saying everyone is too equal but 4e is "different," when 4e applies to their comment but 5e doesn't at all.

4e made everyone casters. 5e made martials viable classes without resorting to "they use magic too."

Do you people even play, or do you just peruse the PHB and whiteroom theorycraft?

>> No.42812082

>>42812072
Holy shit that is one sad manlet.

>> No.42812084

>>42812072

>4e made everyone casters. 5e made martials viable classes without resorting to "they use magic too."

Do you people even play, or do you just peruse the PHB and whiteroom theorycraft?

>> No.42812090

>>42812082

What did you fucking say about me, you little bitch?

>> No.42812092

>>42811809
>plus you can just homebrew and reflavor your own options.
This is never, ever a justification for anything. If people sell you a product, it should be a satisfying product the way it is, not something that needs to be fixed and adjusted so you can have fun or have balanced encounters.

That being said I didn't read 5e so I don't know. What I heard of it does not encourage me to move on from 4e.

>> No.42812110

>>42812061
I don't think you have read 5e

>> No.42812114

>>42812084

Whut?

I've run a game for longer than there has been a DMG, and the Champion Fighter is actually the best at... *gasp* tanking and straight damage dealing.

He uses action surges occasionally but I don't compare that to magic or 4e's surges; it's still martial attacks through and through, because all it is is an extra action.

>> No.42812119

>>42812114

That was in reference to 4e with the whole 'Everything in 4e is a wizard'

>> No.42812123

>>42812114
>it's still martial attacks through and through, because all it is is an extra action.
So what you're saying is that they gave that class a free haste ability and called it not magic?

>> No.42812124

>>42812110
Not since it was Next

>> No.42812125

>>42812114

>Tanking

Get that MMO talk out of D&D discussion.

>> No.42812148

>>42812125
But that's proper 4e memerie, anon.

>> No.42812150

>>42812125
What's the matter, did that trigger you? Are you afraid you won't be able to look down on people as much if you are put on the same level of MMO players?

Suck it up bitch, it expresses the concept well enough. Remember: you are not special.

>> No.42812154

They nerfed magic/psionics into oblivion and thus lowered the power level of everything so martials wouldn't feel "underpowered." They also kept the 4e tradition of making every martial class basically the same. There are no prestige classes to represent concepts. There are no feat trees to specialize in things. Everyone can do everything because inequality is bad. Everyone is the same.

>> No.42812163

>>42812148
No that'd be Defender.

>> No.42812167

>>42812154

> They also kept the 4e tradition of making every martial class basically the same.

Wait...what? You'd be hard pressed to say that a 4e Warlord and Fighter are the same and they are the two Martials the closest together. Then you get stuff like Skald which is vastly, vastly different to anything else.

>> No.42812180

>>42812163

That and very few 4e Defenders liked actually tanking in an MMO sense. Fighters had the defenses to maybe pull it off (Though not all. Brawler Fighters preferred to just grab a guy and keep him personally out of the battle) but Swordmages? Swordmages hate having to take an attack.

>> No.42812185

>>42812163
It may sound rude but I really heard someone talking about "tanking" and "ganking" in their 4e games, to my full displeasure. Maybe it's more common to other people than on your area?

>> No.42812212

>>42812072
>4e made everyone casters.
>Do you people even play, or do you just peruse the PHB and whiteroom theorycraft?
I do hope that no further comment is necessary.

>> No.42812226

>>42812180
I dont even remember there being hard taunts as associated with MMO tanks, mostly it was a case of messing with the enemys prioriry, IMO debuffs of free sttacks on enemies is a lot more interresting "tanking" than "next 2 rounds you have to attack me"

>> No.42812231

>>42812226

Yeah. It was very soft control combined with hard punishment.

There were a few pulls to get people up close/away from allies but nothing that forced target priority

>> No.42812252

>>42812185
It's common to people whose frame of reference is video games.
Which are quite common nowadays.

>>42812226
It was "either you attack me or you hit less and eat an attack from me". How exactly that was implemented differed from class to class and often within a class itself.

>> No.42812287

>>42812072
>4e made everyone casters
>If martials can do anything more then just "I make a full attack" then they are wizards.

I want this epic maymay to die

>> No.42812297

>>42812287
We said caster, not wizards.

Wizards still had 3 times as many abilities and spellbooks to let them exchange powers where sveryone else were stuck with what they chose apart from 1 retcon per level.

>> No.42812304

>>42812252
>It's common to people whose frame of reference is video games.
>Which are quite common nowadays.
That's the future, anon.

>> No.42812308

>>42812252

Well, Shielding Swordmages didn't have extra attacks. They doubled up on 'Attacks vs other people suck'.

They heavily reduced damage vs their allies...then tended to fuck off to the other side of the battle to make the enemy have to go through the entire team to get to the guy throwing up the protective wards.

>> No.42812327

>>42812297
>Wizards still had 3 times as many abilities and spellbooks to let them exchange powers where sveryone else were stuck with what they chose apart from 1 retcon per level.

I really don't understand what's wrong with this. If you want to hit things with your sword, you hit things with your sword. Surprisingly, this is a pretty specialized class to begin with, but there are still many other normal things you can specialize in as well. If you want to use magic, you use magic. Surprisingly, there are more ways to use magic than there are ways to use a sword. Damn those casters for picking OP classes.

>> No.42812331

>>42812304
>LoL
>game
In the most technical sense, maybe.

>> No.42812339

>>42812327

Presumably because 2 characters of equal level should be equally effective.

That and 'There is more ways to use magic' is really making assumptions as what magic can DO is entirely up to the game.

>> No.42812345

Daily reminder Pathfinder is the superior system.

>> No.42812350

>>42812345
>Daily reminder that Pathfinder is 3.5 with a bandaid and beltsbeltsbelts.

>> No.42812351

Okay, you know what? Explain to me precisely what you mean when you say that 4e "made everyone caster".

Someone explain it to me because I do not understand

>> No.42812368

>>42812351

In 3.5, Spellcasters there were several ways of showing abilities that all ended up being very similar under the surface.

4e decided to simplify it by having a common way of expressing abilities rather than a heap of different ways as well as making classes more modular by letting the swap out things of the same level easily.

>> No.42812384

>>42812339
>Presumably because 2 characters of equal level should be equally effective.
Equally effective at what? There will always be many, many more ways to use reality distorting magic than there are ways to hit something with a pointy stick.

>> No.42812387

>>42812327
> If you want to hit things with your sword, you hit things with your sword. Surprisingly, this is a pretty specialized class to begin with

>All martial disciplines are the same

>> No.42812390

>>42812384

>Always

You've clearly never played 7th Sea. A lot of the magics in that system are VASTLY less versatile than what you can do with that pointy stick.

>> No.42812398

>>42812308
But they're pretty much the exception along with Entangling Swordmages who didn't have an extra attack per se, either.

>>42812339
What does the Wizard's wider range of potential abilites have to do with effectiveness? They have a class feature that gives them a little more flexibility and it's not even something you can just decide during combat.

>>42812351
It all boils down to "Martials now have more options than Full Attack and that is terribad."
Some very opinionated people simply have a problem with abilities of non-casters being expressed in the same format as those of casters.

>> No.42812400

>>42812390
>A lot of the magics in that system are VASTLY less versatile than what you can do with that pointy stick.
Sounds shitty and I would never touch it with a 10ft pole.

>> No.42812412

>>42812398

>What does the Wizard's wider range of potential abilites have to do with effectiveness? They have a class feature that gives them a little more flexibility and it's not even something you can just decide during combat.

Oh, that was in answer to the whole 'Why do martials expect to be as good as wizards?'.

Not directly related to 4e wizards.

>> No.42812416

>>42812400

So 'Magic should be better than swordplay and I get pissy if it's not'

>> No.42812422

>>42811927
>now I can't complain about how the edition only makes wizards worth playing/feed my power trip by playing a wizard and overtaking the game!

>> No.42812444

>>42812412
...but that was an answer to a very 4e-specific post.

>> No.42812449

>>42812444

No, it was in answer to:

>If you want to use magic, you use magic. Surprisingly, there are more ways to use magic than there are ways to use a sword. Damn those casters for picking OP classes.

>> No.42812457

>>42812400
Oh, okay. I get you now. I didn't know I was talking to an 11 years old. Sorry, I thought you were older. Should be a bit clearer from now on.

>> No.42812468

>>42812416
>So 'Magic should be better than swordplay and I get pissy if it's not'
Magic should always be better than swordplay. Magic swordplay has the ability to surpass normal magic.

>>42812422
>>>now I can't complain about how the edition only makes wizards worth playing/feed my power trip by playing a wizard and overtaking the game!
>ban wizard
>suddenly magic isn't so "overpowered"
I never understood why so many faggots think they should be able to muscle their way through the tarrasque or any similarly powerful enemy.

>> No.42812481

>>42812468

>Magic should always be better than swordplay.

Why? That's entirely setting-based and even then doesn't have a heap of mythological basis.

>> No.42812483

>>42812457
>Oh, okay. I get you now. I didn't know I was talking to an 11 years old. Sorry, I thought you were older. Should be a bit clearer from now on.
>I think restricting the use of magic is a good thing because I want to be able to beat down a magic (using) monster with my ancestor's normal steel sword

>> No.42812489

>>42812481
>That's entirely setting-based
The setting in D&D is chock-fucking-full of magic monsters!
Who would have guessed!?

>> No.42812495

>>42812489

Most of which kill you with big nasty claws and teeth.

>> No.42812499

>>42812457
Age and maturity are two almost entirely unrelated concepts.
Also, trolls have 100% immunity to logic and ad hominems.

>> No.42812501

>>42811809
I hope you are happy OP because now, thanks to your shit, we have another EDITION WARS thread!!!

>> No.42812502

>>42812483
>I am a giant casterfag

>> No.42812512

>>42812501
EVERY D&D thread on this board devolves into an edition war sooner or later by necessity.
It's (for once) not OP's fault.

>> No.42812519

>>42812495
>Most of which kill you with big nasty claws and teeth.
And spell like abilities
And magic resistance to things (like normal weapons)
And supernatural abilities
And magic
And more magic
And even more magic

Yeah. They kill you with big nasty MAGIC claws and MAGIC teeth. You can't hurt them with your normal steel sword because of their MAGIC resistance to normal weapons.

Surprisingly, MAGIC bypasses these defenses. Who would have guessed!?

>>42812502
>why can't i kill the vampire with my iron longsword

>> No.42812522

>>42812519
>why can't i kill the vampire with my iron longsword

I dunno, Dracula got killed with a bowie knife. Why CAN'T you kill a vampire with a longsword?

>> No.42812523

>>42812519
>implying I play the sort of shit edition you seem to play
You can kill a vampire with a bit of wood and a hammer.

>> No.42812525

>>42812512
so not true, I witness a number of DnD thread that didn't devolve into this shit!

>> No.42812531

>>42811809
Oh, yeah. I guess your question never really was answered before this thread turned into a shit-flinging contest.

The complaint chiefly stems from a relative (!) lack of mechanical customization options compared to 3.PF and 4e. 13th Age has the same "problem".

>> No.42812532

>>42812522
>Dracula got killed with a bowie knife.
That's dumb.
>Why CAN'T you kill a vampire with a longsword?
Because they're resistant to normal weapons, as they should be.

>>42812523
>You can kill a vampire with a bit of wood and a hammer.
This is standard. I was talking about face to face combat.
You still ignored the fact that you want to kill a vampire head-on with an iron longsword and some elbow grease.

>> No.42812538

>>42812531
>"problem"
Despite your implication, it actually is a huge problem.

>> No.42812541

>>42812525
As much as I'd like to...

>> No.42812552

>>42811809
>What, precisely, makes the classes of D&D 5e so "rigid"?

You know how in the original diablo the "classes" were really more about starting stats, because spells were things you found as loot, and like all the weapons and armor were all only limited by your stats and sometimes level, rather than class restricted? So you could if you were crazy enough, build a tanky choppy sorceror, or a spell casting warrior if you wanted to.

And then in diablo 2 you could only cast spells if your class was allowed to, and most of the armor and items were for specific classes only as well as limited by stats? So to wear barbarian or sorceress or necromancer gear you had to spec your character the exact same way each time you played, so necromancers were always the same necromancer and sorceresses were always the same sorceress, and while the skill tree might have allowed some variety there were trap skills and objectively better than their alternative spells, and you'd have to play similarly due to your stats anyway so you'd want spells that complement with that play style rather than go with spells that complement a completely different play style.

Well, in contrast to that, D&D5e is diablo 3.

>> No.42812554

>>42812532

>Because they're resistant to normal weapons, as they should be.

Except THE literature vampire got his ass caved in by a guy with a bowie knife.

Why should they be resistant to non-magical weapons? Do you want to make Fae immune to cold iron next?

>> No.42812559

>>42812538
Even though I know better than to ask...
How so?

>> No.42812563

>>42812532

>This is standard. I was talking about face to face combat.

People have these things that fire bits of wood at very high speed long distances. That might cause a vampire issues.

>> No.42812565

>>42812532
You seem to be working off 3.X, where fighters are shit. I'm working off 2, where the fighter will end up throwing the vampire out of the window in short order.

>> No.42812572

>>42812563
I don't think arrows are big enough to count as stakes.

>> No.42812573

>>42812565

Man, now I'm having fond memories of a lightning rail fight in 4e. So very, very many people got hurled off the side.

>> No.42812577

>>42812572

Crossbow bolts are fairly steaky.

>> No.42812580

>>42812572

Why not? It's a pretty big piece of wood through he heart. A crossbow bolt can be pretty big too.

>> No.42812581

>>42812565
Oh, yes. Let me add:
>face to face combat
What sort of moron goes into battle against a vampire without hunting for every dirty trick possible?

>> No.42812587

>>42812581
You have no idea...

>> No.42812589

>>42812580
Arrows are not big. They are long, but quite narrow.

>> No.42812593

>>42812554
>>Why should they be resistant to non-magical weapons?
Because vampires are resistant to normal weaponry, or heal faster than most things can hurt them, in almost every single one of their origins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vampire_traits_in_folklore_and_fiction#Supernatural_powers

>>42812565
>where the fighter will end up throwing the vampire out of the window in short order.
And it probably doesn't hurt them too much because they heal the damage back in seconds.

>>42812563
>>People have these things that fire bits of wood at very high speed long distances. That might cause a vampire issues.
I would rule against this. I would rule that the act of pounding the stake into the chest of the vampire with a hammer is a specific ritual that they are weak to. Firing a ton of stake shaped projectiles at them does not fulfill the requirements.

>> No.42812601

>>42812581
>What sort of moron goes into battle against a vampire without hunting for every dirty trick possible?
It was the first monster that came to mind. Same thing goes for werewolves, demons, devils, anything with fast healing or DR, etc. What I should have said was
>you want to fight magic monsters who use magic and are made of magic and have magic resistances to things with a nonmagical weapon because otherwise it's unfair. muh caster supremacy!

>> No.42812603

>>42812593

...yeah, see how Bram Stoker's Dracula has 'Yes' next to basically every one of those powers?

He still died to the bowie knife because 'Heals faster' doesn't help when you are dead. Again.

>> No.42812607

>>42812593
>I would rule against this. I would rule that the act of pounding the stake into the chest of the vampire with a hammer is a specific ritual that they are weak to. Firing a ton of stake shaped projectiles at them does not fulfill the requirements.

And that would be entirely your own houserules and have nothing to do with...anything other than your own rules.

>> No.42812611

>>42812601
Vampires die in 3 rounds if you throw them in a river.

>> No.42812615

>>42812601

Yes because no one has every mytholgically killed a vampire, werewolf or demon without magic.

...no, wait. That's not right. In fact, the times when magic WAS needed for that is very rare.

>> No.42812629

>>42812603
>He still died to the bowie knife because 'Heals faster' doesn't help when you are dead. Again.
Good luck doing enough damage to overcome the fast healing or DR of a vampire in almost any other setting with a bowie knife or dagger without sneak attack shenanigans. Bram Stoker's vampire was weak.

>>42812607
>And that would be entirely your own houserules and have nothing to do with...anything other than your own rules.
As is the case with high RPM stake shooting guns.

>>42812611
>Vampires die in 3 rounds if you throw them in a river.
>I'm just going to hold the supernaturally strong vampire in the river

>>42812615
>Yes because no one has every mytholgically killed a vampire, werewolf or demon without magic.
You're still missing the point, and you're wrong. If the wielder of the normal sword is a demigod (read: magic user), it doesn't count.

>> No.42812635

>>42812629
>supernaturally strong
>18/79
>supernaturally
Nah lad.

>> No.42812648

>>42812629

>Good luck doing enough damage to overcome the fast healing or DR of a vampire in almost any other setting with a bowie knife or dagger without sneak attack shenanigans. Bram Stoker's vampire was weak.

>You're still missing the point, and you're wrong. If the wielder of the normal sword is a demigod (read: magic user), it doesn't count.

Alright...find where a wizard WAS needed to kill those things.

Also: VtM vampires who don't artistically focus on the toughness power don't particularly like bowie knives to the heart either.

In fact, there is very few settings/systems where you can't just kill a vampire with a sword if you are good enough at sword.

>> No.42812657

>>42812648

>artisitically.

Dammit. Austistically.

>> No.42812660

>>42812648
2e requires +1 or better magic weapons, but it's expected your players are smart enough to do things like set the vampire on fire.

>> No.42812670

>>42812629

>demigod (read: magic user)

Where does this assumption come from? That every demigod is a magic user. I don't recall Hercules knowing magic missile.

>> No.42812678

>>42812635
>22
>not supernaturally strong
I don't know what the fuck your numbers mean, but they're probably wrong.

>>42812648
>Alright...find where a wizard WAS needed to kill those things.
Any folklore involving any sons of gods, supernaturally strong or hardy humans, etc. They are all wizards or are using magic and are therefore magic users.

I don't care about VtM. The vampire was just the first thing that came to mind.

>In fact, there is very few settings/systems where you can't just kill a vampire with a sword if you are good enough at sword.
Sure, if you're much stronger than the vampire you're fighting. If you're facing the vampire at a level where you should be, you are going to have a tough time killing it with a normal weapon.

>>42812670
>I don't recall Hercules knowing magic missile.
Godly powers/abilities are magic.

>> No.42812683

>>42812678
forgot my image

>> No.42812687

>>42812678

>Any folklore involving any sons of gods, supernaturally strong or hardy humans, etc. They are all wizards or are using magic and are therefore magic users.

Ok, name one that fought a vampire.

Because so far, I'm coming up blank of very many depictions of them that were not killed by mundane humans until you hit Castlevania.

>> No.42812691

>>42812678
18/79 is the 2e number, where 18/99 is the maximum STR a human can have at chargen. As I said, I don't play shitty WotC D&D.

>> No.42812694

>>42811809
I haven't seen that. Nothing has made me think they are any more rigid than any other class system. Except maybe Ars Magica, which is only just sorta of a class system.

Maybe your issue is that there are not a dozen splat books out for it yet?

>> No.42812698

>>42812683

22 strength is something a PC could have without magic at 8th level. Heck, FIRST level if they are an orc.

They are strong but not outside the realms of PCs.

>> No.42812703

>>42812683

>> No.42812718

>>42812698
>22 strength is something a PC could have without magic at 8th level. Heck, FIRST level if they are an orc.
>>42812691
>18/79 is the 2e number, where 18/99 is the maximum STR a human can have at chargen
>if I roll 10d6 out of order, and drop the lowest 5, they're within the realm of your average PC!

>>42812687
>>Ok, name one that fought a vampire.
Can't think of one. Like I said, the vampire isn't the fucking important part. God damn. There are plenty I can think of where the killer of the MAGIC BEAST is a god/magic user/divine/etc.

>> No.42812730

>>42812718

Average PC? No.

A non-magical PC? Very much so. 18 base str orc. Done.

>Can't think of one. Like I said, the vampire isn't the fucking important part. God damn. There are plenty I can think of where the killer of the MAGIC BEAST is a god/magic user/divine/etc.

And I can think of many where they are not. Sir Palamedes killed the Questing Beast and he was 'Just' a Knight.

>> No.42812736

>>42812718
>average
Nice to see the goalposts have moved.

>There are plenty I can think of where the killer of the MAGIC BEAST is a god/magic user/divine/etc.
How about Saint George faggot?

>> No.42812743

>>42812718
>Can't think of one. Like I said, the vampire isn't the fucking important part. God damn. There are plenty I can think of where the killer of the MAGIC BEAST is a god/magic user/divine/etc.

In how many of those was being a god/magic user actually a requirement for what he did rather than something he did while he happened to be a god?

I'm pretty sure that Odysseus didn't rely on being descended from gods to beat the Cyclops.

>> No.42812754

>>42812092
>If people sell you a product, it should be a satisfying product the way it is
> What I heard of it does not encourage me to move on from 4e.
You know there are huge problems with balance in 4e right? Some got officially fixed (but you need to read the article, not so good for casual players). And others were just left.

>> No.42812762

>>42812730
>Sir Palamedes killed the Questing Beast and he was 'Just' a Knight.
>An abomination only the chosen can kill.
>Arthurian knights
>Not magical or superhuman
Nice try

>>42812736
>How about Saint George faggot?
Not sure where you're going to try to go with this, but it's okay because I can end it here.
>SAINT
>George
>Blessed by god
>Not magic/divine/etc

>>42812743
>I'm pretty sure that Odysseus didn't rely on being descended from gods to beat the Cyclops.
>Just because he was a demigod doesn't mean his being a demigod had anything to do with his ability
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w5JqQLqqTc
How many stories have you read about John the Slave rising up and killing a Gorgon?
Werewolf?
Hydra?
Demon?

>> No.42812772

>>42812762
>Saint George
>blessed by god
>implying saints have any real powers

>> No.42812774

>>42812762

...in what way was Paladomes magical?

>> No.42812778

>>42811927
So should some classes not be viable?

>> No.42812783

>>42812774
>>...in what way was Paladomes magical?
>Chosen one
>Doesn't even kill the Questing Beast in most legends

Neo wasn't magical either he was just a normal guy who happened to be the chosen one.

>> No.42812785

>>42812762
You understand that Arthurian knights are relatively low-level fighters, right?

>> No.42812797

>>42812772
I don't know where he was trying to go with Saint George in a discussion about killing magical monsters without any magic, but if there are such legends, then it is almost assuredly because of divine favor.

>> No.42812811

>>42812785
>You understand that Arthurian knights are relatively low-level fighters, right?
And surprisingly, none of them kill many magic monsters, except when they're the chosen one.

>> No.42812816

>>42812762
In not D&D, ordinary oeople are granted divine favour by doing what is considered impossible deeds, not vice versa.

So... have you tried not using shit as your base of recerence for everything?

>> No.42812817

>>42812797
The only magic Saint George uses is the Sign of the Cross. Then he stabs the crocodile.

>> No.42812821

>>42812811

Lancelot kills an awful lotta stuff.

>> No.42812834

>>42812821
Because he's the chosen one.

>> No.42812843

>>42812834

...in what prophesy?

>> No.42812848

>>42812817
>>42812816
>Literally uses holy magic before he attacks
>He's not using magic! I swear!

Yes, getting a bunch of people to convert to Christianity and gaining divine favor is magic. Fortifying yourself with divine barriers is magic.

>> No.42812856

>>42812848
>holy magic
>sign of the cross
I can make the sign of the cross too. Am I a wizard now?

>> No.42812863

>>42811809
No true multiclassing. The abilities are basically just 4e powers and have no flexibility. It's shit.

>> No.42812867

>>42812848

...divine barriers?

He fortified his spirits with a non-magical religious symbol. Or am I a wizard if I make the sign of the cross?

>> No.42812869

>>42812856
You don't have any legends written about you fighting dragons, and your name is not SAINT faggot.

Here's not not!magic!!

>> No.42812882

>>42812867
>>42812856
>In this way a person dedicates the day to God and calls on him for strength in temptations and difficulties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_of_the_cross#Catholicism

It's not magic guys because it doesn't work in real life!!

>> No.42812885

>>42812869
>butthurt

>> No.42812887

>>42812869
So mother therese had magic oowers?

>> No.42812892

>>42812869
>St. George
>not lancing it to death
Swordfags amirite

>> No.42812896

>>42812887
Magic powers of bullshit, maybe.

>> No.42812898

>>42812887
>So mother therese had magic oowers?
Did she kill magic monsters? If not she is irrelevant to the discussion.

>>42812885
>mad because wrong

>> No.42812903

>>42812898
I'm not the one who used two exclamation marks.

>> No.42812911

>>42812898
>i-it doesn't count!
What a faggot.

>> No.42812919

>>42812903
>I'm not the one who used two exclamation marks.
>punctuation = butthurt
What?

>>42812911
>What a faggot.
>let me bring up this completely unrelated point and then call you a faggot for pointing out its irrelevance
You win.

>> No.42812928

>>42812869
>Implying sainthood has anything to do with divine favour

Its a method of stripping a person of their personal achievements and instead atribbuting them to divine benevolence.

>> No.42812937

>>42812882
St george isn't a D&D character.

>> No.42812945

>>42812928

Actually, you can't be declared a Saint without POSTHUMOUS miracles. Their own achievements are generally attributed to them.

>> No.42812947

>mfw this thread

This isn't even an edition war any more! This is some weird vampire mary sue circle jerk, what the actual fuck!?

>> No.42812968

>>42812928
No one else could kill the dragon until a Saint came along, with the blessing of god, and fortified himself with the cross (divine magic).

That's only one legend, too. The other version absolutely requires magic for him to kill the MAGIC beast.

>>42812937
I feel like you haven't been here for the whole discussion, and haven't read 90% of it either. You keep making posts that are irrelevant to the discussion, which is:
>you want to be able to kill magic monsters with magic abilities and magic armor and magic weapons without any magic at all because otherwise it's caster supremacy

>> No.42812973

>>42812945
That's not how sainting works. You get sainted for great works done during your life, as it's kind of hard to saint someone for deeds done after their death.

>> No.42812978

>people still feeding the troll
Goddamn why is /tg/ so easy to bait nowadays?

>> No.42812983

>>42812968
>No one else could kill the dragon until a Saint came along,

He wasn't a saint until AFTER he killed the dragon.

>> No.42812998

>>42812978
Im painting 2000 sq feet of wall, so I relish the distraction.

>> No.42813002

>>42812983
>He wasn't a saint until AFTER he killed the dragon.
Story doesn't say that, and he still called upon God for divine favor (magic) before he did anything.

Who fucking cares, anyway. It's one example some guy pulled out of his ass. The fact of the matter is that most legends involving the slaying of magic or supernatural beasts requires the use of magic weapons or supernatural users. You shouldn't be able to kill the Tarrasque with your longsword even if you're level 20. Why? Because he's a fucking magic monster with magic resistance to normal weapons.

>> No.42813004

>>42812973

Actually, in almost every case the miracles are posthumous.

You also need 3 of them, with the church having Devil's advocates who are charged with trying to prove it wasn't a miracle.

Becoming a saint is actually a really involved process that you can't really do before you die.

>> No.42813006

>>42812973
You get sainted for great works (a life worth imitating) AND at least two miracles. The miracles can be posthumous, but don't HAVE to be.

>> No.42813013

>>42813004
>>42813006
How do you perform miracles after you're dead that don't involve resurrecting yourself?

>> No.42813015

>>42813002
>In muh deeundee

>> No.42813016

Do we need to remind people that magic doesn't exist? I mean the butthurt about saints and magic is worrying. To be a saint verified miracles (which don't exist if scrutinized, just as a reminder) needs to be attributed to the servant of god, by the church. By definition to be a saint you must have performed miracles (by god's grace, achieved through piety otherwise it's just witchcraft) if you do not do this you're considered Venerable, which means you're an alright person and the church thinks you'll go to heaven.

To make it clear to be a saint you need to be 'magical', which doesn't exist.

>> No.42813024

>>42813002
The tarasque of legend was killed by peasants.

>> No.42813026

>>42813013
Magic, motherfucker.

>> No.42813031

>>42813013
People fist themselved with your severed arm stump and are cured of infertility, or licks the corpsewax off your body and survive the pox.

>> No.42813032

>>42813013

Generally it involves relics of your life or people asking you to intercede and then getting a miracle.

The body is mortal, the spirit is immortal.

>> No.42813033

"This is your brain on 3rd Edition D&D" the thread.

>> No.42813038

>>42813024
>The tarasque of legend was killed by peasants.
>Let me just leave out the part where another Saint uses more divine magic to charm the beast before it LETS the peasants kill it.

>> No.42813040

>>42813013
Generally you're a pretty cool guy of some renown, and appear in visions to the sick and they get better, or guide people out of a dire situation.
I think miracles nowadays are mostly curing stuff, but you used to be able to get away with all kinds of weird stuff, like suspending water in the air or taming horrible animals or chilling in furnaces.

>> No.42813042

>>42812973
mate no it's definitely miracles after death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization#Roman_Catholic_procedure_since_1983

you wrong, niqqua

>> No.42813043

>>42813002
Ok.
From now on wizads and sorcerers are removed as playable characters, now they can only dispense sage advise and send you on quests.

>> No.42813046

>>42813033
>"This is your brain on 3rd Edition D&D" the thread.
More like "this is your brain on >caster supremacy: the thread"

>> No.42813049

>>42813033
Do you think I can argue that, as a vampire is a magical monster, it counts as a magical weapon for purposes of hurting a vampire?

>> No.42813054

>>42813038
Still killed by peasants. I highly doubt some French dirtfarmer had a +2 flaming longsword. By your own logic, a charm spell wouldn't be enough to make the 3.5 tarrasque vulnerable to peasants.

>> No.42813055

>>42812973
No, quite a few saints are because of miracles attributed to their corpses.

>> No.42813059

>>42813013
orthodox faiths sometimes consider the condition of relics, under the idea of 'incorruption'

Sounds like a lich tbh but tomayto/tomahto

>> No.42813062

>>42813046
What's the difference?

>> No.42813065

>>42813002
In all fairness George wouldn't have won without the magic Orange tree.

>> No.42813071

>>42813054
>Still killed by peasants. I highly doubt some French dirtfarmer had a +2 flaming longsword. By your own logic, a charm spell wouldn't be enough to make the 3.5 tarrasque vulnerable to peasants.
I don't know if there are rules for voluntarily lowering your magical resistances. In this case, the tarasque was unstoppable until the Saint charmed it and caused it to lower its resistances. It was ONLY stopped because of magic.

Also, I didn't say it was a charm spell. I said it was divine magic.

>> No.42813082

>>42813062
>What's the difference?
There actually isn't any caster supremacy if you ignore blithering retards who think their iron longsword should be able to bypass an Ancient dragon's DR, and get mad when magic isn't the same.

>> No.42813093

>>42813082
>wizard finds a martial thread

>> No.42813099

>>42812345
I just don't get how some people are so deluded.

3.5 and pathfinder are the same game. Pathfinder is just a bit cleaner with skills and combat maneuvers.

3.5 is a hodgepodge of unbalanced shit where you are either a full caster or have to take multiple options from multiple splatbooks to be extremely good at one thing, which the caster can still do better. It works for groups who like to power game and or who have a DM that sets hard limits on what is available.

4e has tightly balanced rules for grid based tactical combat, with very light rules for non combat. In my mind, it is the final fantasy tactics of dnd. I use it for my FFTA game and my "stuck in a mmo" game where it shines, but I don't think it's the right system for role play heavy games such as intrigue, investigation, or exploration.

5e is the continuation of 2e and 3.5 where power levels have been scaled back, magic items are now rare and awesome, not required, and martial characters feel heroic without being outclassed constantly. Fighters can take down 3-4 guys at once in a surge of adrenaline, rogues truly are skill monkies, and all the while the wizard still retains the role of either aoe damage and debuffs or utility that doesn't invalidate other classes. 5e is the game for what dnd core idea- be a hero in a vaguely medieval world exploring lost dungeons and fighting monsters, maybe visit cities with a splash of stealth or political scenes.

I think if you step back and just see the systems as being designed for certain types of games, and don't only use one got everything, you'll get good mileage out of them. The answer of "try not dnd" is valid when people complain, but there are many DMs who, if they try to run anything that doesn't have that recognition of dnd, players simply won't be interested. Mr personally, my network of players are casual and not into the tabletop scene, so they don't want to constantly learn new systems like I do.

>> No.42813109

>>42813099

...I don't really get how people say that 4e has much less out of combat than say, 3e. Both of them are 'Roll a skill vs a DC' for 90% of out of combat that isn't a spell/ritual.

>> No.42813120

>>42812384
equally effective at being adventurers.

generally if one character is more versatile, they are less powerful at any specific thing as a result, or otherwise have some disadvantage that prevents them from dominating everything. that's why they call it "jack of all trades, master of none". not "master of all trades, fuck the rest of you".

>> No.42813128

>>42813120
Wizards were limited by the fact that they had to actually find spells to learn them, and the fact that any hit would disrupt a spell, which was usually the last thing to go off in combat.

>> No.42813130

>>42813120
>Thats why they call it Bard not Wizard

>> No.42813135

>>42813128
Also taking almost twice ad much xp per level as a rogue

>> No.42813136

>>42812061
You're thinking 4e

5e has literally nothing like that

>> No.42813139

>>42813120
>not "master of all trades, fuck the rest of you"
Ban wizard. There, problem solved.

>> No.42813140

>>42813109
The big part is that 4e actually had a better system for involved skill scenes, but 3.5 fans just see a smaller list of skills and that 80% of the book is combat focused and assume.

>> No.42813148

>>42813099
>Fighters can take down 3-4 guys at once in a surge of adrenaline
Fighters can do this in 3.5, too, if you build them right.

>> No.42813170

>>42813148
If you build then right being the key operator. You have to dig around splatbooks to do it, and at the cost of any utility.

>> No.42813174

>>42813148
You mean make them a wizard?

>> No.42813182

>>42813174
>You mean make them a single wizard spell

>> No.42813188

>>42813170
>You have to dig around splatbooks to do it
This isn't a bad thing
>and at the cost of any utility.
This is wrong, and even if it wasn't, how much "utility" did you want your big strong guy with a pointy stick to have? Master of disguise? Potion maker? There are plenty of ways for an optimized 3.5 fighter type to have utility AND be viable.

>>42813174
>>42813182
nice memes!

>> No.42813206

>>42813188
Please explain. I've played 3.5 for close to a decade now. Fighters in 3.5 are a trap option unless your DM reigns in what is available.

>> No.42813219

>>42813188
High Swim and Jump skill is not Utility.

>> No.42813222

>>42813170
Naw. Its perfectly possible to make a 3.x fighter who can lock down a whole enemy encounter for a round (independent of his devastating attacks), and then effectively shut down all spellcasting and movement within reach, sending anyone flying if they move a muscle, and then taking a bucket of dice worth of damage as they are slammed along the wall or ceiling.

Making a good 3.x fighter is of course like doing taxes, with lower returns than a caster, but they're still capable of being totally amazing against monsters, stock NPCs, and casters when they actually are able to reach melee.

Its not that, in terms of power and versatility, they aren't good compared to other editions, its that they're tiresome to make and overshadowed by most other classes.

>> No.42813240

>>42813206
You must be playing with shitty builders then. I'm not going to do it for you. Google optimized 3.5 fighter.

>>42813219
Those are not the only skills you get, and fighters get a ton of feats so they can stand to take some flavor ones.

>> No.42813271

>>42813240
No. I play with people who just prefer to play something that doesn't start with a handicap, like clerics, druids, wizards, or psions.

>> No.42813287

>>42813222
You've hit my point on its head really. You have to spend hours pouring over options and in the end you can easily be out shined.

>> No.42813292

>>42813219
Intimidate isn't particularly amazing but works on a very broad section of the MM, bypasses will saves (generally the intimidate resistance check is MORE favorable than a will save, but if you're facing some abomination like a nymph blackguard intimidation would still work fine) and whatever is immune to intimidate generally can be destroyed in one full power attack. They can also use intimidation with greater versatility, including to disable a whole encounter for a round every encounter.

They're still only tier 4 at high optimization, though.

>> No.42813348

>>42813292
>Tier 4
Little. Red. Raiding. Hood.

>> No.42813364

>>42813348
Only vaguely familiar, its been probably half a decade since I've dicked around in 3.x. Isn't that a typical 3.x clusterfuck of no one class in particular, not a fighter though?

>> No.42813383

>>42813364
Well to get it working properly (ie doings around 500 damage per hit) you need a shitton of Fighter Bonus feats, around 8 if i remember well. Combine with the right weapon enchantments and a level 20 Raptoran fighter can easily kill anything with hit dice in 1 round.

>> No.42813407

>>42813348
>Nonlawful Nonevil Dragonborn Half-Orc Feat Rogue1/Cleric1/Psychic Warrior1/Barbarian1/Warblade4 (Tome of Battle 21)/Psychic Warrior+1/Fighter1/Warblade+9/Fighter+1
Totally a core fighter guys.

>> No.42813412

>>42813383
Meanwhile, full casters can kill multiple things, teleport anywhere, fly, do it at a range, raise the dead, and generally do everything without any drawback.

>> No.42813431

>>42813407
>Totally a core fighter guys.

No one ever said that, and core fighters add nothing to the discussion.

It is, however, a level of optimization that makes me want to puke.

>> No.42813455

>>42813412
You mean except from the fact that at the same levels the fighter can do the stuff mentioned, nearly every creature has either a Spell Resistance of "FUCK YOU" , project antimagic fields or are better casters that them ?

>> No.42813465

>>42813455
Better casters AND fghters than any on the group.

>> No.42813468

>>42813455
C'mon man, antimagic molests fighters about as badly as it does wizards.

No one wants to look at how terrible high level martial types are without their items.

>> No.42813489

>>42812061
>one Fighter subclass has Maneuvers which never do anything crazier than making a single creature Frightened or pushing things around
>one Monk subclass which actually just casts spells and is complete garbage

>> No.42813494

>>42813431
That is a little red raiding hood build.

The discussion is the core 5e fighter compared to a 3.5 "fighter", so core is a perfectly reasonable thing to bring up.

>> No.42813576

>>42812593
>vampire traits
You mean the little shits who are weak to anything religious? And I mean ANYTHING religious? Everything that is canonically a weakness to vampires in old folklore and early stories has its roots in being a religious symbol for SOME sort of people. It's not even Christian religious symbols like the cross / crucifix that he's weak to, but pretty much any faith. The sun? Running rivers? Garlic? Silver?

Dracula is proper fucked if he ever meets a cow. There's a billion goddamn Hindu who think those things are holy. Hell, the same people who hold garlic in such high esteem that it begins to magically harm Dracula also like the fucking moon, so I guess ol' Bitey can't even leave his castle unless it's overcast.

Vampires are terrible. A lady in FR could strip down and waggle her tits at a vampire and he should have to recoil from the burning light of Sune or some shit.

>> No.42813587

>>42813576
I know this is satire, but Sune isn't lawful and good. Also, good luck holding a cow before you in a firm and commanding fashion.

>> No.42813606

Characters of different classes should be equally powerful at the same level. That's the purpose of levels after all. An accurate measurement of power.

>> No.42813613

>>42813140
I've always loved the gripe that 4E is bad for roleplay because it lacks a ton of bullshit skills.
>well I don't have big numbers on my character sheet next to 'Cheesemaking' so I guess I can't do that
[insert tired ROLL play joke here]

>> No.42813619

>>42813606
No, that's the purpose of XP. You may not know this, but different classes used to need different amounts of XP to go up levels.

>> No.42813634

>>42813587
And nature druids were lawful and good?
The vampire weaknesses derive from anything "holy", there's no greater specifics attached to it than that or one faith setting the standard. If there were, it'd be Christianity, and they'd say all the other stuff is heresy.

>> No.42813682

>>42813613
It might be that you don't have a way to quantify how good you character is at cheesemaking, so you just have to make something up when the GM asks if you're a good enough cheesemaker to beat Llewellyn, the village cheesemaker.

>> No.42813718

>>42813634
>And nature druids were lawful and good?

They weren't, but we're talking about the D&D vampire, since you did mention FR and this is a D&D-ish thread. They aren't bothered by, say, a pile of crosses, a cross on the floor, or a cross on the door, but only a cross firmly presented (if, in your campaign setting, the cross is a lawful good holy symbol).

>> No.42813719

>>42813682
Right. And it's true for any edition of D&D. Even 3.5 with all the fixings doesn't have an entry for the Underwater Basketweaving skill, or difficulty charts, or other rules for it.

>> No.42813730

>>42813718
Sounds like some shit vampires that aren't obeying proper vampire lore then.

>> No.42813767

>>42813730

Keep in mind that "proper vampire lore" is strictly "whatever muh feelings dictate to be proper at the moment."

>> No.42813793

>>42813718
They don't take damage, but they can be held at bay by LG holy symbols presented with conviction.

>>42813719
2e has an optional and basically unused alternative to the optional non-weapon proficiency system called Secondary Skills. You take one, and that SS represents a career or something you have training in (like cobbling), and you can use that SS to argue that you should know how to do something (like fix boots).

>> No.42813829

>>42813619
This isn't AD&D anon. All classes go up a level at the same XP.

>> No.42813840

>>42813829
>This isn't AD&D
That seems to be the root of the problem, yes.

>> No.42813861

>>42813793
Yup. Hence pointing out how, say, a cow isn't going to be a useful holy symbol aside from the occasional hindu storm giant etc.

>> No.42813881

>>42813861
Are Hindus LG?

>> No.42813902

>>42812869
George's name wasn't St. George until after his death...

>> No.42813919

>>42813881

Depends on whether they restrict themselves to designated shitting streets or not.

In all seriousness I'm 99% sure there's at least one LG Hindi god who'd be relevant.

>> No.42813935

>>42812869
This story makes me laugh about how badly it is written (compared to Beowulf or the Epic of Gilgamesh or so forth, not comparing it to modern stuff) every time.

>convenient enchanted orange tree

>> No.42813973

>>42811809
If someone is saying the classes themselves are rigid, that might be because multiclassing is mostly dead.

Much like in 3rd and 4th edition, you periodically get Ability Score Increases, but now, instead of being tied to your character level, they're tied to your level in a specific class.

A fighter 6 with the Eldritch Knight subclass gets two ASIs; a fighter 3 wizard 3 gets none.

>> No.42813985

>>42813935
>orange tree of Remove Poison
Must have been Dark Sun.

>> No.42814036

>>42811809
5E isn't a rigid game. It's the softest D&D edition yet, and in a good way.

Virt just shitposts a lot. Ignore him.

>> No.42814054

>>42814036
The classes are very clearly defined but flexible within themselves. I don't see how people think they're rigid unless they are approaching it from a stand point of dnd vs non dnd.

>> No.42814062

>>42814036
>It's the softest D&D edition yet,
Confirmed for never so much as looking at a copy of OD&D.

>> No.42814148

How was OD&D softer? Genuinely curious. I assume because there were, like, 3 classes? Was that the one where Rangers and Paladins were Fighter subclasses?

>> No.42814166

>>42814148
No, that's the one where Rangers were a Dragon class and Paladins and Thieves were in the supplemental works.

>> No.42814176

>>42814148
OD&D was basically a hodge podge with no particular formulation. OD&D + dragon magazine supplements + some cleanup basically resulted in 1e AD&D, just like how 2e AD&D was a cut down 1e with some DMag content for the most part.

>> No.42814178

>>42814148
It's got some rules for combat, some rules for character advancement, and some for wandering about the wilderness.

>> No.42814194

>>42814148
Like >>42814176 says, most of this shit is cobbled-together house rules that were made up on the spot when needed.

>> No.42814211

>>42814166
Now that's my kind of party.

>> No.42814655

>>42812565
>the fighter will end up throwing the vampire out of the window
I'm sorry, but Defenestrating Sphere is a spell. Your fighter is clearly magic.

>> No.42814906

>>42814036
Virt got permabanned though

>> No.42815538

>>42813071
You're moving the goalposts as hard as physically possible

>> No.42815568

>>42814655
I didn't know a strength check was equal to magic.

>> No.42816030

>>42813973

To be fair, in 3.5 multiclassing got really, really out of hand while in 3.PF you tended to get punished HARD for trying to multiclass unless you really knew what you were doing. I don't know how 4e handled multiclassing.

>> No.42817769

>>42816030
4e handled multiclassing adequately. It was usually better to go 'pure' if we're talking straight numbers but it allowed a decent amount of utility. However going overboard was also one of the only reliable ways in 4e to make a bad character, besides picking an absolute trash essentials class.

>> No.42818266

>>42812678
>Godly powers/abilities are magic.
That's true, but being an inherently magical being is not the same thing as being a caster. If Hercules threw lightning around like Zeus, then that'd be different, but Hercules is just really good at fighting. If I give a robot a Colt Single Action Army, that doesn't mean that the ~150 year old revolver is now cybernetically powered.

Magic doesn't necessarily equal casting, here, tell me if this makes martials into casters or not.

>All PC classes are that of innately magical people, how they utilize this magic and how they are affected by it is what differentiates them.
>Casters directly control and weaponize their magic, using spells
>Martials use their innate magical ability passively, being magically strong, magical fighting expertise, etc.

If you notice, martials as described lack the one requirement of being called a caster, actually casting spells.

>> No.42818521

>>42814062
>softer than OD&D
u kiddin nigga
OD&D is literally only 1 degree of separation from a wargame -- each class is envisioned like a military unit. A fighting-man fights and a magic-user uses magic just like an infantryman marches, a cavalier rides, and sniper snipes. That's a function they're trained to perform on command and they do it. Now, if you mean "soft" as in with a greater average amount of on-the-spot houseruling and DM fiat used per session, that's absolutely true, but if you mean soft as in flexible in the sense that OP is talking about, OD&D is by far the most rigid of all D&D.

>> No.42818638

>>42818266

And you even get examples of something becoming magical having nothing to do with spells in certain media, too.

In Berserk, the fuckhuge sword Guts uses is initially just a ridiculously huge slab of iron the guy had sharpened and called a blade, but it more or less becomes a magical demon-bane sword because he's killed so many fucking demons with it.

Which I did think was an interesting fluff concept for inherent magical bonuses. If you're constantly, and I mean CONSTANTLY, fighting and being subjected to magical stuff, some of that rubs off without you learning spells.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action