[ 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.12019503 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

I mean honestly, looking past game balance, why aren't the guys who bend reality NOT the most powerful? It's fucking magic. Perhaps if it came at a cost it'd be understandable, but there really should be no reason to make magic less powerful when that's the point of magic itself.

>> No.12019516

Because it's game.
Because they have never been the most powerful.
Because 3.5e took a system meant to make them powerful glass cannons and removed all the balancing factors.

Because OP asks too many damn questions.

>> No.12019518

Paradigm of the setting.

>> No.12019520

Because no system has AFAIK managed to make an entirely dynamic magic system, they rely on set spells, limiting what the magic user can do.

>> No.12019535

rolled 18, 18 = 36

What makes certain people able to wield magic? If anyone can, then wizards should not be able to freely bend reality. The power should come at a cost to the person.

>> No.12019551

Go play Mage. You are god in that system, and you don't need to worry about staying balanced with funny-sword-guy

>> No.12019552

They are supposed to be the most powerful. The problem is that the level system incorporates them from level 1, where it should incorporate them from level 4, or make them a prestige class. The objection is not that the wizard is all-powerful, but that he can be all-powerful and other options are meant to be equal.

>> No.12019558

it does, the user's body is left under-developed and is more susceptible to harm

>> No.12019566

>why aren't the guys who bend reality NOT the most powerful? It's fucking magic.

Because this interpretation of magic is childish and only used by people on power trips UNLESS it's a magic-only setting.

>there really should be no reason to make magic less powerful when that's the point of magic itself.

That's not the point of magic.

The point of magic is doing something otherwise undoable, irrelevant to power. This doesn't mean that it can do everything otherwise undoable.

Knock it off, 3aboo.

>> No.12019568


>>Not always been the most powerful

Setting wise, it's pretty much wizards who cause all sorts of shit. Magic often supersedes the natural order. Most of the monsters are magical.

Magic trumps reality brah.

>> No.12019571

Okay? Bending reality doesn't mean much, what if the only bending reality ability I had was to make leafs purple?


>> No.12019581

There's a reason that "A wizard did it" has become synonymous with lazy worldbuilding/storytelling/anything-ing.

When magic is all over the place it ain't special no more, and ain't as... well... magical.

>> No.12019590

Well, if they are the most powerful why are they hanging out with fighters? In fact, why even give the option to be a fighter? Who would want to show up to the table to sit there doing nothing except menial tasks? Unless everyone is fighter. But that's no fun. So everyone gets to be a wizard too!
Oh Look! We're playing Ars Magica.

>> No.12019594


>>Implying doing the impossible doesn't make you more powerful

Seriously if I can throw fireballs around it makes me a SHIT TON more dangerous than a guy who swings a sword. This isn't about edition, it's about bitching that magic is "OP" when the whole idea of magic itself is "OP."

>> No.12019595


Because only insecure little nerds view magic that way. Now go back to your computer science club and stop bugging the real people.

>> No.12019599

Because in a perfect, pristine, blemish-free world there would be no players. No one to be sidelined, no one to be bored and frustrated, no one would suffer because they couldn't bend reality at will.
This would be the Wizard's World.

And you can be there. Stand up, go get your dice, walk into an open outdoor area, and start being awesome. Roll as many dX's as you like, and describe the results of your titanic arcane might in a proud, ringing voice.
All hail you!

>> No.12019609

I mean honestly, looking past game balance, why aren't the guys who eats bricks for breakfast the most powerful? It's fucking manliness. Perhaps if it came at a cost it'd be understandable, but there really should be no reason to make manly men less powerful when that's the point of manliness itself.

>> No.12019610

So, taking this thread in a different direction: Where should the boundaries of magic be? What should magic be unable to do?

>> No.12019614

It's impossible to balance magic users with mundane fighters and thieves without making one or the other useless, or at least a hell of a lot less powerful.

>> No.12019624


This, I like. Everyone's a wizard, it's just that they had a career before becoming a wizard that differentiates the type of wizard they become. But why does it sound familiar?

> Mage, Ars Magica, KOTOR 1

Oh, right.

>> No.12019630


No it isn't. You just have to realize that PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER doesn't kick in until the level where PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER is appropriate.

>> No.12019638

Low Magic setting was here.

High Magic is lame.

>> No.12019646


Yeah, and the fighter is never going to get there because he wields a dinky little sword.

>> No.12019648


>> No.12019661


Actually 4e does this well by having epic/paragon level fighters more like divine beings with Exalted type powers than dinky sword fighters.

>> No.12019665


OP here. This pretty much.

>> No.12019675


You would have a point, except that the Fighter you're working with is Emperor Gilgamesh The Worldfucker.

And you don't get to complain about it, because you're the one who said they wanted to play at PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER levels.

>> No.12019679


In other words, they're given magic.

Or superpowers if you prefer. It's the same shit in the end.

>> No.12019681

Being able to break physics one way doesn't imply being able to break them every way possible.

You're a fucking moron.

>> No.12019691

... OH GOD CAPTCHA IS Z̥̭̬͋͆̿Ä͎̫͔̗̰̥́̌ͫͥ̆̋L̦͖̎̓ͯ̀̍̚G̫͎̓̋̓ͯO͉̗̖ͯ̂ͅ!͇̲̦ͬͭ͌̋̒

>> No.12019694

Just play Mage.

>> No.12019696

In my homebrew, magic will be balanced. And it's not even hard.

Spells will fizzle, they will take long(er) to cast, they will require a cost/incur penalties or if none of the above they will be less powerful.

>> No.12019698

This, complaining that wizards are powerful is complaining that most cops can't defeat superman.

>> No.12019700


>Emperor Gilgamesh The Worldfucker.

Bet he's got magic powers and superhuman capabilities.

>> No.12019704


Actually, if you go by the 3.5 Fluff, the Weave pretty much says I'm right about this. Physics takes a back seat to magic.

>> No.12019715

Superhuman, yes. Magic, no.

>> No.12019719


Same shit in the end.

>> No.12019724

Doesn't mean that your character has the ability to operate at that level.

>> No.12019725

I think the better way to look at it is sure, eventually a wizard should be able to remake the world with a spell, but the whole point of levels is that a level 10 fighter is supposed to be roughly as strong as a level 10 wizard. If a level 20 wizard could remake the world then a level 20 fighter should be able to cut it in half
That said just ban most of the core classes if you actually care about game balance that much. It smooths things out really fucking well if casters gravitate towards the Expanded Psionics Handbook and the melee types go towards Tome of Battle

>> No.12019730

OK lemme explain here. In games centred around magic users (Mage) this line of logic is ok. In DND, a game based around party dynamics, options and working together for tactical combat, this is not OK. DnD is not a competition. Not against the GM, not against the other PC's. It's a game where you can play make believe and have fun with them. Having one option be inheritable "better" no longer makes Chargen a sequence of choices, it makes them a sequence of problems. When you have a bunch of options and it's clear one of them is better than the other you got a poorly designed game, especially when the other options are presented as being just as viable as the others.

>> No.12019731

3.5e is retarded. In fact, D&D is fucking retarded. Your point is moot.
But he's not WIZARD which was OPs problem to begin with.

>> No.12019733


>why aren't the guys who bend reality NOT the most powerful?
All things equal, the guy who can cast spells should be better than the guy who cannot. And they should automatically be able to do cooler things.

>> No.12019734

No, it isn't. One is magic, the other is not. The Wizard isn't superhuman, he only has magic.

>> No.12019737


So you basically want both casters and melee to be horribly OP?

>> No.12019744

Be a wizard, summon meteorites.

Be a fighter, throw mountains.

Be a thief, steal time.

>> No.12019746

Wrong. All things being equal means all things should be equal.

>> No.12019747

D&D is fucking worthless, we all know this. Move on, play a better system or make a better homebrew. What the fuck do you want from us?

>> No.12019750


A wizard is a superhuman, retard.


Better than having only one of them overpowered.

>> No.12019751


It's better than having one be horribly OP and another be horribly DerPy.

>> No.12019752

Magic should be as powerful is in the setting. It's not like all the magic should be completely unstoppable. Read a little, there are stories about shitcrazypowerful mages, and mages with little power, casual, or etc. There are settings wich put restrictions on the mages(like obligatory diet, places where his magic may or may not work, conditions, etc). You can't say how magic should work unniversally, because you would be so narrowminded like the fags that want absolute balance always.

you were the one that brought up d&d.
>>Because it's game
you're the tipical "that guy" that makes roleplaying rollplaying and a competition, i hate you and all you represent.

>> No.12019753

3.5 is shit and irrelevant.

>> No.12019762

>I mean honestly, looking past game balance, why aren't the guys who bend reality NOT the most powerful?
because no mage is even half as badass as Beowulf.

>> No.12019766

>A wizard is a superhuman, retard.
No, he isn't. No in the way Emperor Gilgamesh The Worldfucker is.

>> No.12019767


Actually 4e is pretty good in this regard.

And so is Fantasy Craft, which was based off DnD.

>> No.12019768

ITT: people who have never played anything other than D&D 3.5 and think "magic" is synonymous with "do anything you want, in six seconds flat, with no drawbacks or consequences."

In WFRP the guys who bend reality aren't the most powerful because there's a good chance a demon will eat them or their head will explode.

IN D&D 2E the guys who bend reality aren't the most powerful until really high levels because they're super fragile and die really easily, and if they get scratched they can't cast that round.

>> No.12019772


Magic and super strength can both be considered super powers.

Because normal people don't have them. See? IT'S ALL THE SAME SHIT.

>> No.12019773


That's fair enough. I like you, Anon.

>> No.12019774

I'll assume we're talking about wizards vs. everyone else in some form of fantasy RPG...

If we're talking D&D, where there are levels, one might naturally assume that two characters of the same level are... on the same level, power-wise. In some other point-buy system, one would likely assume that a spellcasting capability would be costed reasonably given its power compared to something else. In any case, wizards aren't supposed to be most powerful because if you're making a game, if your measures are going to be worth fuck all, they need to be accurate.

You're free to run games where wizards get free levels of awesome / moar powahz, but trying to sell a pre-broken system is usually a BAD IDEA.

>> No.12019781

And in Discworld it usually takes the same amount of energy as doing it by hand. So you might as well not bother.

>> No.12019787

Who in the fuck is Emperor Gilgamesh the World Fucker and what kind of powers does he have?

>> No.12019789

When everyone wields fabulous unlimited secret powers things risk devolving into "i kill u" "nuh uh" "yuh huh" "nu uh infinity" as two or more magical faggots desperately try to out-bullshit each other.\

Not everyone should be Goku.

>> No.12019790

Neither books are really OP. Compared to a fighter, sure, but they have trouble fighting things at the appropriate CR
If you're talking about the break the world thing, god no. I prefer low magic, but if these classes are interacting with each other they should at the very least be almost in the same league. I probably should have said level 40 instead of 20 in my post though

>> No.12019791

Fine. All OTHER things being equal, you autistic fuck.

>> No.12019792

Emeperor [10]

World-Fucking [20]

>> No.12019795

> This.

>> No.12019800

>Wizards are nerds and so they should be cooler and better than jocks

>> No.12019802

No. They all suck humongous amounts of donkey dick because they both feature level and class systems. Any system that uses levels or classes is terri-bad by default, definition and necessity. And they have BOTH.

>> No.12019804

Metatrolling is not a art.

>> No.12019805

basically the first mythological hero

this guy is a king, half god, and a dick, and a superhero basically

>> No.12019806

Conan was here.

Magic-Users die when you stab them.

>> No.12019813


Most of it is mundane stuff that is taken up to an extreme beyond which most mortals can do.

You can lift a chair? He can lift a house. You can cut a guy with a knife? He can cut through a fully armoured ogre with his 12ft long fullblade. You can send a guy reeling back a step with a punch? He can kick your ass into the milky way. The biggest difference between him and the wizard is that the wizard is summoning fire from nowhere whereas what he's doing makes some amount of sense, though it's obviously exaggerated.

>> No.12019817

Okay. You get to be the useless guy that can't do shit, and I'll be the dude with a ton of options and potential.

Sorry dude, we can't all be Goku.

>> No.12019819

Why should they be, OP? Why can't magic be a similar way of accomplishing the same goals? Why does magic have to provide more return than you put in to it?

All the fantasy tropes I've seen that deal with 'shortcuts' like that never end well for the wizard.

>> No.12019820


Oh THAT guy.

Dude, he'd get fucked in half by a 10th level DnD wizard, what the hell are you talking about?

>> No.12019825

>All things equal, the guy who can cast spells should be better than the guy who cannot. And they should automatically be able to do cooler things.
You're completely fucking retarded.

>> No.12019828

Only in 3.x.

I hate 3aboos who have never played anything else and think all fantasy should be just like 3.x.

>> No.12019830


Yup. Yup. I'm glad you think that. Now why don't you let the guys who play these games enjoy them while you go play GURPS or something?

>> No.12019831

You have a nice opinion, there.
You DON'T know who Gilgamesh is???

>> No.12019834

I think that the OP means, in a rather "mundane" setting in which classes like fighter and thief are completely down to earth all things considered, that wizards are obviously supposed to be more powerful than they are because they have fucking magic.

>> No.12019839

Mage Armour and Shield here. Not necessarily.

>> No.12019840

>play GURPS


>implying you play GURPS, rather than endure it

>> No.12019845

They can't be. If one side is equal in all ways but also has additional capabilities then they are somehow not equal. In D&D terms they aren't the same level.

>> No.12019848

The way I've always looked at it is that the levels represent something different for each class. Like...a level 1-5 fighter is already considered a proficient warrior type person (relative to other random sword using npc's. Town guards and such), whereas a wizard of the same level is considered a very weak example of his class. It might not be till level 10 that the wizard is even considered average, and level 15 till he's considered a legitimately powerful wizard. The fighter of the same level is already considered a freaking awesome warrior by that time though.

>> No.12019849

You mad, bro? Wizards summon demons. Fighters hit things with their swords. Wizards throw fireballs. Fighters hit things with their swords. Wizards conjure mists and storms. Fighters hit things with their swords.

>> No.12019854

This guy eats tarrasques and shits gods. You do not know what you are talking about.

>> No.12019855

>I'm a 3aboo!

Yes, yes.

Doesn't stop everything else from having non-broken casters, even Ars Magica.

>> No.12019868


I think you'd be quite amazed at all the stuff "hitting guys with swords" can do.

>> No.12019873

I activate the Charles Atlas Superpower trope.

If a wizard can cast Haste on himself to make himself go faster, than a fighter of a similar level should be able to sprint about as fast for extended periods of time. If that wizard can fly, the fighter should be able to jump like the fucking Hulk.

In fact, fighter = Hulk, wizard = Dr. Strange.

>> No.12019874

The idea behind "not everyone should be goku" is that ideally no one should be goku, because goku is overpowered as fuck, man.

But in a system where Goku is a class and Being Overpowered is his skill, would you expect people to decide to be Krillin?

So then you wind up with a party full of Gokus in a world populated and dominated by other Gokus. And that's terrible.

>> No.12019879

This is stupid. This way, the level system has no function other than being useless.
Yes, what you stated is fact (in D&D anyway). The thing that makes you a blubbering retard is that your proclaim this is how it's supposed to be.

>> No.12019880

Did I say that casters should be more powerful than melees? Nope. I said all things being equal--that is, the caster being completely equal to the fighter in all ways except for his abilities to cast spells--the wizard should win. Because he throws fire and the fighter stabs things with a sword.

Now, in terms of mechanics, these two should be balanced out by the fighter being damn hard to kill and being damn good at stabbing. But then all things aren't equal, now are they?

>> No.12019881

>You mad, bro? Wizards summon demons.
...via an hours-long ritual that drains part of their life-force and can be interrupted.

>Wizards throw fireballs.
...tiny, weak, ineffectual fireballs that are harder to hit a warrior with than an arrow.

>Wizards conjure mists
A small mist Conan can easily find them in.

>and storms.
Give them enough time and enough blood sacrifices and they can change weather patterns. Conan will get to them anyway, and break their arms.

>> No.12019884

>that is, the caster being completely equal to the fighter in all ways except for his abilities to cast spells


You're a retard.

>> No.12019886


Dante uses magic and has superpowers.

Seriously, guys, just give fighters superpowers and all these problems will go away.

>> No.12019895

>...via an hours-long ritual that drains part of their life-force and can be interrupted.
>hours-long rituals
Summon monster with infernal list and such.

>> No.12019896

That's the point, bro. Maybe you should calm the fuck down, yeah?

>> No.12019900


Fighters in DnD DO get superpowers at higher levels.

That's the point of reaching higher levels.

>> No.12019903

Right. I agree with all of this. I don't like the way D&D does wizards.

>> No.12019904

I don't mind a party full of Gokus, depending on the setting. Being all-powerful is fun. It's just a different kind of fun than a party full of all Krillins.

You're right though, the two don't mix very well at all.

>> No.12019905

Not 3.5, fag.

>> No.12019910


They neither get enough of them or early enough. Wizards are way too fucking powerful to justify this.

>> No.12019917

>Did I say that casters should be more powerful than melees?
Let me quote you from an earlier post:
>the guy who can cast spells should be better than the guy who cannot.
Yes. Yes you said that.

>> No.12019920

Then stop arguing that wizards are automatically more powerful than non-wizards.

>> No.12019921


>They neither get enough of them

Maybe in 3.5

>early enough

Again. Maybe in 3.5.

Fighters get way awesome shit in 4e and Soldiers are pretty awesome in Fantasy Craft.

>> No.12019926

Am I a fighter? A wizard? A thief when I use the Mug materia?

Who the fuck knows?!

>> No.12019933

>takes quote out of context

>> No.12019939


Oh, yeah, I know that.

4E fighters are essentially superheroes.

>> No.12019942

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension, broski.

>> No.12019945

Fireball should be the highest level spell there is. This would balance things.

>> No.12019951

You've got to consider the fact that magic is an invention - just as the entire fantasy world is.

The power of these "reality bending", "fucking magical" abilities is decided by none other than the person creating the setting.

It's just as easy to imagine magic that can only occur once in a life time for gifted individuals, immediately gives you a deadly stroke after usage... and invariably produces nothing more than a temporary, faintly glowing orb of blue light. A gift of photons at the cost of your life.

This, however, past the novelty value of the idea, wouldn't be very fun in the long run.

Which brings me to some of the reasons why people want to make the "power" of magic comparable to the physical capabilities of "non-magical" heroes in fantasy RPGs:
Fantasy RPGs are usually, at least in part, "games" in the broadest definition of the word.
Equal opportunities and some degree of "fairness", you will see, is at the heart of almost all of the popular games out there.
People simply find it less fun to be the BMX Bandit when the Angel Summoner does all the work by hardly lifting a finger - without risking life and limb in the process by performing, say, an unusually daring jump.

What if i find it a more entertaining fantasy universe if, say, the Fighter class was closer to Kratos from God of War... or at last capable of being amazing somehow. Imagine a world where magic is a part of everything... Wizards just spend a lot of time and effort bending it to their will - which is why they have such intrinsic control over the forces of nature and why warriors are only... Say... Throwing Ogres at Dragons and jumping up and sucker-punching dragons.
I'd at least find that entertaining.

>> No.12019953



>> No.12019955

You claimed that when everything is equal the wizard should be more powerful. There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, you're just an idiot.

>> No.12019956

It's not out of context. Not unless you were completely inept at conveying that context.

>> No.12019962

>Summon monster with infernal list and such.
Are you talking about some specific game? That doesn't sound like a very good game. Maybe you should play a different one.

>> No.12019975

>so mad

>You claimed that when everything is equal the wizard should be more powerful
Yes. Because he should be more powerful. But in an ideal game, everything wouldn't be equal, now would it?

>It's not out of context. Not unless you were completely inept at conveying that context.
Or maybe you're just a gigantic retard.

>> No.12019979

It irks me when a system doesn't let you make a non-superpowered character. It bugs me even more when your character has superpowers and the game doesn't acknowledge that their abilities stem from some fantastic feature of the setting.

I'm still waiting for a 4e beholderkin with an antimartial central eye, which prevents martial powers from being used.

>> No.12019981

You should look into Earthdawn. Everyone is a magic user of some sort, whether they directly control it and cast spells or use it to imbue themselves with greater prowess.

>> No.12019999

>Imagine a world where magic is a part of everything...
Earthdawn called. It's everything any of you ever wanted out of a Fantasy RPG.

>> No.12020001

What this guy says is sensible.
The skew is in what is required.
A magi starting out is weak as hell, both in his art and physically, while a fighter is already decent at what he does and fit to boot. The scaling of power is what is usually out of whack, as well as the costs of "being able to manipulate reality".
Magic wielders usually had to bust their asses for even the most minor in advancements of their craft. Days of searching for buried secrets, tasks set on them by older magi that would push them to the limits, then more days of trying to comprehend what they have learned to the point of not fucking up the casting and blowing themselves up. While the wizard struggled for every small advancement, fighters simply needed to keep going, surviving battles and testing themselves against new and mightier foes.
By the end, the wizard should be a master of his chosen form of magic (real important here, CHOSEN FORM, not EVERYTHING), while only deities and the truly mighty should be able to properly match a fighter that has fought countless foes in countless situations.
They should each represent absolute, superhuman mastery of their chosen method. However, this isn't applied as much as it should be, in my opinion.
Also, in Mage, you need some manner of prep time and serious discretion to avoid any Paradox. Even then, it's not always something huge. I use a manner of very minor things, annoyances really, that add up into serious problems.

>> No.12020003

The problem is that "not wanting a party of gokus" is kind of problematic for 3.5 since it's sort of designed to be high magic as fuck. You really need to make a good deal of changes unless you want to just ban a bunch of classes. Playing a heavily tweaked 3.5 game can be fun though. Force everyone to play as commoners
From 5 and up the base characters have more or less been pretty classless (granted in 5 you simply just assigned them classes until you didn't need to anymore)

>> No.12020005

All the characters in FFVII are classless as they are more defined by the materia they equip than their own inherent abilities. This is what I consider one of FFVII's fatal flaws from a game stand point.

On the subject at hand. A Fighter with X exp and a Wizard with X exp should be about equal. Otherwise the entire level system becomes completely meaningless. Pre-3e DnD recognized that Wizards were the most powerful characters by giving them the slowest advancement scheme. Eventually the weaker classes would be 3-4 levels higher than the Wizard. Doing away with that was one 3.x DnD's worst mistakes.

>> No.12020006

>Yes. Because he should be more powerful. But in an ideal game, everything wouldn't be equal, now would it?
You make no fucking sense.
>Because he should be more powerful
>But in an ideal game, everything wouldn't be equal, now would it?

>> No.12020009

magic is better because its magic, cry more non-magictards

>> No.12020011

>party full of Krillins
And suddenly i am filled with earning for "Krillin Quest: Tap that Android Ass!"

>> No.12020012

>Batman, Green Arrow, etc bug me
Sorry, bro. Sucks to be you, I guess. I'll be enjoying my "non-superpowered" crimefighter in Mutants & Masterminds.

>> No.12020024


>> No.12020025

The way I see it, all the high levels and big names bend reality. Not just wizards - fighters go on to become legendary generals like Hannibal or Alexander or that mongol dude, bards become Fucking Elvis, rogues become so sneaky the world forgets they exist and so on. They all change the world in their own ways, wizards merely have the easiest time seeing what the fuck they're doing.

>> No.12020028

because in an ideal game nonmagictards need to suckle on my wizardly cock, because magic is better, because it is magic

>> No.12020030

Go back to playing D&D kid. Real men play systems where you don't get power boosts just because you're a lonely nerd.

>> No.12020031

>You make no fucking sense.
Fighters should have more HP and the ability to laugh off blows that would kill the wizard. If the wizard had the same ability, then he would be more powerful because of his magical aptitude on top of that. However, the wizard should be frail and weak while the fighter is MANLY STRONG.

>> No.12020033

>Yes. Because he should be more powerful.
You still seem to be struggling with the understanding that when things are not equal they are not equal. If the magic user is in all ways identical to the non-magic user in terms of capabilities other than his magic, then he is overall more powerful i.e. not actually equal. In games this is frequently shown by giving the magic user a higher level.

tl;dr it isn't the magic that is more powerful, just it's user.

>> No.12020034

I vote that we make wizards infinitely powerful to better reflect their standing in the universe.

And then not let people play them.

>> No.12020036

From a gameplay point of view, a mage starting weak and ending strong vs a fighter starting strong and ending mediocre, only really works in a single-player game. In something such as D&D (and similar games), you have party balance to deal with, and having the party change that wildly over the course of the game would be disastrous.

>> No.12020043

I didn't say that. In fact, I didn't say anything apart from asking questions. Why so butthurt?

>> No.12020054

Basically middle earth campaign up in this?

>> No.12020059

That's actually a good idea.
Give Fighters options to take Supernatural powers which have spell like effects, or which give bonuses/do something unique.
Heck, make one of the 15th level or greater ones 'Anti-Magic field, 1 round/Lvl per day'

There, Fighters and shit are now hard ass.

>> No.12020061

This is completely counter to your other statements that wizards should be more powerful.
I'm not even sure what you are trying to say.

>> No.12020064

Call of Cthulhu was here.

Magic-users lose their minds, their health, their sanity, and their sexual potency when they abuse their powers.

>> No.12020068

Vladimir Taltos said it best, "No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will really cramp his style."

>> No.12020078

Like Deathlords in Exalted? No thank you.

>> No.12020080

Batman and Green Lantern both rely on fantastical technology, much like Iron Man.

Take away their gadgets, and they've got nothing but bad writing to make them more effective than real people could possibly be.

>> No.12020081

The problem with d&d, is that he tries to make the game fun and evade problems making all balanced.

But wizard should stop balancing, and start developing methods to nullify jerks that make the game unfun.

"That guy" will be "That guy" no matter how well balanced is the game.

However, an unbalanced game can be completely fun with good people.

>> No.12020085

and then you have 4th edition. is it so hard to understand why so many people here hate it?

>sturatin ftrengthen

>> No.12020089

You are now playing 4E, which took the completely wrong approach to the problem.

The solutions to wizards being way more powerful than fighters isn't to make fighters be wizard-powerful. It's to make wizards be fighter-weak.

>> No.12020098

That's easy for him to say. He's a witch, has anti-magic equipment, and counts some of the Empire's most powerful sorcerers among his friends.

>> No.12020099

Sadly, stoneskin isn't terribly subtle.

>> No.12020103

>However, an unbalanced game can be completely fun with good people.

And completely unfun with good people who make the wrong choices.

>> No.12020111

Batman has got some superhuman plot armor bullshit going on. If you took "a well conditioned, fit, intelligent, and wealthy man" and stuck him in an unarmored costume then had him act the way Batman does, in a game that takes the "magic sucks, grimdark nintendohard high mortality 4life" hardline he would be fucking *dead* before the week was out.

Batman has narrative superpowers, rather than magical or superscience ones.

>> No.12020113

CoC is one of the best systems ever. One of the reasons is you can't even powergame in it unless your GM is herpderp.

>> No.12020114

you know, there are people that doesn't want to play conan the barbarian.

>> No.12020118


The thing about game balance is that when people mistakenly pick bad options despite the fact they're genuinely good players who're interested.

I couldn't tell you how many times we lost a player to 3.5 because he wanted to play a Monk or a Soulknife and every time the DM had to chew him out on how much the class sucked and he wound up having to make a cleric or something.

>> No.12020119

... Says who? Who died and made you god-emperor of mankind?

Also, i believe Exalted called, asked if you wanted to eat dirt now or later.

>> No.12020120


3.5 Bard. Core books.

Fucking broken.

>> No.12020122

You know, that picture makes me realize that Vlad is a giant Brust self-insert.

>> No.12020148

Bard is fine beyond 1st level.

The broken 3.5 classes are Wizard, Cleric, Druid(Too fucking powerful by far), Sorceror(mini-Wizard), Ranger(bad at most things, but salvagable with non-core material), Fighter, and Monk(shit tier).


>> No.12020159

Just let them make the class anyways. And hand the sheet over to somebody who can optimize.

Or shit, just give them full BAB. That's not a great fix, but it'll at least get the player out of "shit tier" and into "playable". If the DM had to bitch them out, he's not very creative.

>> No.12020177


So, according to that list, the only core classes that are properly balanced are... bard, rogue and barbarian?

... Huh. I'd play in a party with only those classes.

>> No.12020179

It doesn't, actually. Still not good at anything.

>> No.12020182

Magic is Better.

>> No.12020191

Two thirds god, actually.

>> No.12020194


4e did tone down wizards. What are you talking about?

>> No.12020197

heh lookit them nonmagical scrubs bout to get stomped on

>> No.12020200

Yes. Those are the only true core-only Tier 3-4 classes, and even then the 4s could do with boosts.

>> No.12020209


Dick DM will make any system bad broski.

>> No.12020214

I know, but it doesn't make the books any less entertaining. Also am I the only one that imagined Loiosh's "voice" sounding like Beavis of "Beavis and Butthead?"

>> No.12020215


One could argue, the more work you have to do with a system outside the core rules, the less of a "good system" it is.

It just removes the point of having CHOICES when those choices need to be fixed. It's got nothing to do with "creativity" it has to do with the GM already having a million and one things on his plate and balancing a system with his two hands isn't something we should have to do.

>> No.12020217

A soulknife with full BAB is better than a fighter in many ways (worse in some, but still). Does the DM bitch out people wanting to play fighters, too? Sometimes people just want to roll dice and kill things, not have to pick from 20 spells just to watch something save anyways.

>> No.12020228

Exalted is the shittiest game in existence. Enjoy your meaningless trite shit while I have meaningful fun.

>> No.12020232

Fighters aren't actually good at that.

>> No.12020233

Sure, but I've had more fun with Rifts than a good number of "good" systems.

>> No.12020241

Yes. I always imagined him sounding like an Italian mobster.

>> No.12020245


How'd you do that?

Now I want you to think if you actually had fun with the mechanics or if you weren't just laughing over the absolute stupidity of the setting.

>> No.12020251

I'll say this about 3rd. I hate how I either have to start as a fighter or a human or something if I want to make a ranged combatant that has ANY chance of hitting my target. The fucking prime shot / precise shot chain makes the lower levels unbearable for shooters. Moreso if you're using a crossbow, 'cause now you need to cram rapid reload and crossbow sniper in there.

>> No.12020258

It has everything to do with creativity. If you slavishly follow the "rules" of a gaming system rather than using your imagination (you know, the point of playing a PnP RPG), you might as well just load up NWN or WoW on your computer and skip everything else. Following the rules to a T and refusing to make up new concepts for players shows nothing but a lack of imagination.

>> No.12020262

D&D was like that originally, anyway.
I don't mind 4E's approach because at high level, a fighter HAS to be more than merely a normal example of his race to stand toe to toe with deities and creatures that deities would be challenged by.
Why a "Guy with a sword" must always be a "Guy with a sword" and little else confuses me.

>> No.12020274

The mechanics aren't nearly as bad as people make them out to be. They require a little more DM oversight in order to keep things from getting stupid (aka Vagabond Unskilled OCC vs Glitterboy; start with nothing vs start with power armor), but it's easy enough to take it seriously and still have a ball.

>> No.12020280

OP: Because you're assuming the setting as "like medieval times except plus magic". If that's the case, then no shit magic is going to be more powerful. If you want to avoid it, drop that assumption.

>> No.12020292


At 7th level, a bard can have +30 to his diplomacy checks.

Which, IIRC, according to the DMG, if he rolled a natural 20 on a Diplomacy Check, he would be so FUCKING persuasive and so FUCKING eloquent, that the GODS THEMSELVES would take note and come down to listen.

>> No.12020294

>Why a "Guy with a sword" must always be a bad thing and isn't badass enough for some people confuses me.

>> No.12020302

ITT: Lots of people with bad DM's.

If every other encounter is "giant monster that charges mindlessly at the party fighter while flailing its claws, broad daylight, no notable terrain features, Final Destination", then you shouldn't be surprised when the game turns out to be dull and easily broken.

Solution: Find a DM who knows the difference between "genuine tactical challenge" and "this monster has more HP and damage than the last one".

>> No.12020304

Reading the inane chatter in this thread, I figured out what would be the ideal system for you: D&D 6E.

The PC now have one stat, respectively called STAT. It represents the relative power of your character. Then you roll a d20. You add that to the STAT, and see whether you beat the task DC or whether you can overcome the STAT+d20 of the enemy monster.

That's it. Nothing else. Just STAT. Everything else would be role-playing. You could be a wizard, and say your STAT rolls are magic, or you can be a fighter, and say that your STAT rolls are physical prowess. All classes gain STAT at the same rate.

There. Perfect balance, and completely unfun.

What's more, is that I am sure that this is what it will eventually become.

>> No.12020308

So you can't have fun without meaning? Isn't having fun itself the meaning? While I can enjoy a deep storyline immensely, sometimes you just want to play a martial artist specializing in drunken-exorcism-gun-fu.

Besides, I have yet to find anything keeping Exalted from having involving storytelling. In fact, I've seen lots of evidence otherwise.

>> No.12020324

That's a problem with Diplomacy, not the Bard.

>> No.12020327


No, you do some shit like Dragonlance does and make casting magic physically exhausting, not just spell gone from mind.

IIRC from the 3rd Edition books, every time you cast a spell, you make a CON check against a DC of 10 + Spell level. First failure you're fatigued. Second you're exhausted. Third you can't cast any more spells until you've rested, as though to memorize new spells.

>> No.12020332


No, it's a problem with a Bard Spell that gives you a +20 bonus to Diplomacy.

>> No.12020338

A Firetruck being the ultimate weapon against vampires disagrees. Rifts is pure silliness.

>> No.12020353

And? The Bard isn't the only way to get Diplomacy that high.

>> No.12020355

Diplomacy in RAW is also part of the problem, for sure.

>> No.12020373

Magic is a tool and, by extension, so are spellcasters.

All of the greatest stories revolve around the men and women that are otherwise incapable of harnessing the power of magic. The Heroic Knight going to the Dark Mountains to beat the shit out of the Evil Wizard that was making Bad Shit happen, the Wily Rogue taking advantage of the Wealthy Friar so he can Be Famous, the Mighty Barbarian outclassing The Mooks with his Brute Strength so he can crush That Guy that did Something Bad. If the protagonist has dealings with a wielder of the magical arts, it's to get himself patched up, to get help to counter another spellcaster, or to destroy him with nothing more than his strength or skill.

If the spellcaster is the protagonist, it's almost exclusively the result of better-than-average storytelling, the tale of that spellcaster struggling against more skilled/powerful individuals, and/or a combination of the previous two in conjunction with the protagonist's flaw(s).

>> No.12020385

Shadowrun has a very similar system. Spells cause "drain", with more powerful spells doing more damage to yourself. It can get to the point where you can literally kill yourself to launch off that super-potent spell.

Since damage (both "stun" and "physical) in Shadowrun also makes it harder for you to do anything (penalities to all rolls), it makes magic a considerably riskier business than in other systems.

>> No.12020388

Magic in most settings isn't "do anything you want in six seconds with zero potential for repercussions and failure". AD&D did fairly well, spells took a minute to cast and took up most of the round in casting with any damage you took resulting in the spell failing.

That said, most of the traditional spellcasting drawbacks work poorly in the scope of a game as well. Going insane or dying for using the primary capability of your character isn't much fun.

My personal preference for 3.5 magic is to use the starwars sage edition action system (you get one swift action, one move action, and one standard action per turn, a move action can be used to perform a swift action, and a standard action can be used to perform a move action). Each spell would take a number of swift actions to cast equal to 1+(spell level*2) (so a zero level spell would take 1 swift action, while a first level spell would take 3) that can be spread out over multiple rounds, with a minimum of one swift action spent per round to cast a spell.

The casting times might be a bit long for high level spells.

>> No.12020412


An amusing side effect of what you're discussing here is that pretty much every standard protagonist in fiction is a Warlord/Something in 4e.

>> No.12020446

A Firetruck with a priest blessing the water is the ultimate weapon against vampire, you mean.

>> No.12020449


I don't see the relevance, largely because I haven't had the time to read over the 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons book.

Why? What separates a Warlord from the standard fighter/thief/wizard/cleric setup?

>> No.12020454


It's also good for purging Sparky the Sundevil.

>> No.12020463

It seems like everybody in this thread with a few exceptions are talking about magic from a purely mechanical standpoint without taking into account the campaigns settings limitations (or lack there of) upon magic. The way I see it magic is just another form of power. People who can't do it themselves will either be ruled or find a way to control those who do. The other point is that the prime material plane would have a limiting factor on magic otherwise it couldn't exist as a stable plane. At some point if too much magic is being thrown around it will eventually kill off enough people to where it can't be used as much. Due to the corrupting nature of power this eventual destruction.

The way I see wizards functioning in D&D is one of three ways.
1. They rule as an elite and powerful caste of beings. Thus they bring wizards through their awkward early levels.
2. Wizards are in a political, moral, or forced pact with non-magic users who have a way of counteracting them. (magic, regulation, sheer numbers, indoctrination, etc.)
3. Wizards are incredibly rare because few survive they're squishy as hell starting our or that magic is inherently rare. Those that are alive are most likely experienced, powerful individuals. Those without magic likely aren't aware of their existence and they like it that way. They're subtle enough to influence events without some stompy, lucky, fighter hitting them with an axe.

TLDR just my outlook on making wizards sensible in a campaign.

>> No.12020475

>At some point if too much magic is being thrown around it will eventually kill off enough people to where it can't be used as much

>> No.12020478

Didn't a single round take a minute back then? Of course casting spells would take that long
Anyway I've thought about making it so the casting time of a spell would be as many move actions instead of simply being a standard action (so a forth level spell would take 2 rounds and wouldn't allow you to move for example), but I just haven't bothered to think over the actually implications of that

>> No.12020502

Well, the rounds were also managed differently in AD&D. It wasn't "I take my turn, you take your turn, they take their turn, and we all wait politely for them to finish". Everybody declared their actions at the start of the round and rolled initiative to see who finished what first. Since all spells included a large penalty to initiative, this meant that there was a very good chance someone would go before you finished casting your spell and left you very vulnerable to interruption.

>> No.12020517


Warlords are individuals who are competent fighters, but whose primary skill is leadership. In other words, the Warlord is Captain Kirk/King Arthur/Aragorn to the Fighter's Worf/Lancelot/Gimli. (There is also the Tactical Warlord, who is less The Hero and more The Smart Guy, but whatever.)

>> No.12020538


Ah. Inspiring figures that can get more out of the people around them than they thought they had, as well as being capable combatants. Basically, bards without the magical bits.

It fits, almost better than I care to admit. I'll look into the books when I finally have time on my hands. Thanks for the information.

>> No.12020558

I prefer the wizard-as-technogeek interpretation.

They can make magic devices, but most of them can be used by other people, and generally more effectively if they've spent their time practicing the use of the items rather than the theory of how they work.

They can also do powerful and complex spells for purposes other than creating devices, but not quickly and not cheaply.

However, the big difference from a modern technologist is that wizards are both jealous of their secrets and effective as generalists. Rather than schools, they have apprentices, who rarely receive their final secrets unless and until the master has died a natural death at a ripe old age, and even then the master might hold back. They rarely sell the devices they make, instead equipping subordinates and allies. They tend to be paranoid, and keep other wizards at arm's length as rivals and potential spell-thieves.

>> No.12020571


3.5 has utterly ruined a generation of roleplayers, and thanks to the OGL it's ruined a generation of PnP games too.

>> No.12020581

I was talking more specifically about d&d wizards, and because I'm more familiar with them and they're system of magic. I base these observations off that system in which if you toss around meteor swarms, time stops, and wishes you are gonna seriously fuck up the balance of the world especially with 3.5 crafting system. This would essentially lead to a magical arms race or an intercession by the gods if carried out a logical extreme. Thus magic would have to reach a point of equilibrium at some point or the prime material plane would become some fucked up unstable magical mess in the cosmology. Which is fine if you want a setting like that.

Earthdawn looks interesting though, I'll have to read up on it so I know what I'm talking about with that particular system.

>> No.12020593

Earthdawn has basically what you're talking about, with a Lovecraftian twist to it. I believe you won't be disappointed.

>> No.12020637


>3.5 Wizard against Gilgamesh
>guy claims wizard would win

Ha ha ha, oh wow.

When the wizard gains the ability to travel back in time without a plot device, it might become a fair fight.

His Fortitude is unmatched, his Will insurmountable, his Reflexes legendary. Rolling a natural one doesn't result in automatic failure due to his demigod nature, attempting to throw spells that do not depend on saves is a joke due to the complete futility of the effort, and all of the Celerity in the world will only give you more time to consider how brutally fucked you are about to be.

Your only hope is that the bard can buy your safety with an amusing song.

>> No.12020677


I have many fond memories of SR3e. Those d6s came in handy when I picked up Warhammer 40K

>> No.12020697

It kinda did, didn't it?

>> No.12020726


I like the ideas of spell matrixes and casting "raw" magic. Does Earthdawn allow all players to cast?

In my particular setting I played in/dm assisted the Prime material actually exists in the physical sense as we know in our universe. It is in fact a planet and it has essentially an impermeable barrier to the other planes but is coterminous with a traditional D&D plane. This made certain spells involving interdimensional but not extradimensional effects possible. There are places where magical instabilities had lead to small holes in the fabric of the physical universe. These places were warped and guarded fiercely by servants of the patron Deity of that physical world or were taken over by dark gods. Wizards are exceedingly rare though divine magic was more common. Epic casters were even more rare (were talking like under ten epic characters total in this setting.) Therefore everyday events are influenced by these people and everyday blokes actually did the doing with magical backing.

>> No.12020745

No joke.

3.x: the edition where Fireball sets stuff on fire but Scorching Ray and Flame Strike and Produce Flame don't.

>> No.12020755


Yeah, 'cause there's no person around whose job it is to moderate the game and interpret the rules who could decide that such things should cause combustibles to combust.

Rules are a framework, trolls.

>> No.12020765

While I love the Warlord class, I do find it slightly irritating on a conceptual level due to what >>12020412 said. Should there really be a class in being the main character in a team-based game?

And sure, you can say that just because someone has the class doesn't mean they become the main character, but that rings a bit hollow when they literally have abilities based on the undying devotion the other PCs have to them.

>> No.12020772

Rules are a framework, but 3.5's framework is clunky and poorly welded together.

>> No.12020784


Then it's a bad framework.

>> No.12020787

>Should there really be a class in being the main character in a team-based game?
The Warlord isn't the main character. My rogue is the "party leader" in our game. The Warlord is the one we listen to in combat because of his TACTICAL GENIUS.

>> No.12020796

>Yeah, 'cause there's no person around whose job it is to moderate the game and interpret the rules who could decide that such things should cause combustibles to combust.
Of course there is, and of course he should.

*So why does Fireball need to spell out that it sets shit on fire*?

>> No.12020800

>you can house rule the game to fix it
>so the rules aren't bad!

>> No.12020813

For people like Touhoufag.

>> No.12020832

Furthermore, fireball says it melts gold, silver, etc. Should Scorching Ray do this? Should Produce Flame? Is it OK to hit a guy with Scorching Ray if I don't want to melt his big-ass golden torc because it's valuable? Clearly I can't hit him with a fireball.

Then why don't all the other fire spells say so (except the ones that do)?

>> No.12020859

If's he's named creed so help me god I will hunt you down and slap your balls till they fall off.

>> No.12020886

His name is Severian Tallerond-Ashe the Third, Esquire.

>> No.12020888

Because 4e makes so much sense amirite?

>> No.12020897


That's really a petty issue in the grand scheme of things though.

I meant more along the lines of how a lot of 3.5 players can't even comprehend the idea of ANY system that deviates from 3.5 To them, roleplaying games are 3.5, full stop, no exceptions. Anything that deviates in any way (including prior or following editions of D&D) is Wrong, and Not Roleplaying.

That's why they insist things like Magic Should Be the Best No Matter what like it's a fact. That's how 3.5 did things, therefore that's how it is.

>> No.12020899

Do you mean "second wind"? Because healing surges are just an endurance track, kind of like the HP vs Reserve Points alternate rules in Unearthed Arcana.

>> No.12020915

>I meant more along the lines of how a lot of 3.5 players can't even comprehend the idea of ANY system that deviates from 3.5
Do you have any proof of this besides troll posts on 4chan? Even anecdotal evidence will do.

>> No.12020917


Because the concept of finding an untapped store of vigor in the middle of combat had never been seen before 4th Edition.

It's not like it's an ancient literary device or anything, I mean sheesh, 4fags.

>> No.12020922

And I'm sure that perspective of yours has nothing to do with you going into 3.5 threads to talk about 4th ed or whatever

>> No.12020951

swordmage was here

Fighters and Wizards are faggots.

>> No.12020963

Warblade was here. You're a fag

>> No.12020965


No, I do not. It's purely based on my own observations of edition wars as they occur on this and other boards.

>> No.12020973


I do. We run an open 4e game at a local game shop, and at least once a month we will have a couple 3.5 players (different ones every time, obviously) who show up, find out what edition we're playing, and then start bitching about how 4e killed their mothers until we're forced to tell them to leave for disrupting the game.

>> No.12021005


>We run an open 4e game at a local game shop
>open game

Your not doing it right.

>> No.12021011


We (the three DMs) mainly use it as a recruiting base for our personal games.

>> No.12021047

I just don't understand that at all. I'm a long-time D&D player (started with AD&D2, moved on to 3 and then 3.5), and I gave 4E it's fair dues. I'll give the game credit in balancing the players fairly well, and for de-emphasising the need for magic items (something that sorely needed to happen after 3.5). What I don't like, well, I just can't really put my finger on it. I'd be willing to give it another shot, if I found a good game.

My point is, 4E isn't the end of the world, and what it changed is largely not "bad". That people even think "editionwars" are a good idea boggles my mind. It's not like you don't have a wealth of 3.5 books to keep you going for another decade, at the very least (hell, you can play for years on just core). Haters gettin' mad, I say.

>> No.12021144

3.5 vs 4 is basically the 2 camps from 2.5 (pre 4E) RAW vs RAI. same fight just the RAI moved to 4E and the RAW stayed with 3.5E since it is obviously more rules oriented which suits their needs better than 4E.

>> No.12021263


I can sympathize with them on the whole "having to buy new books" thing, and to a small extent on the change of mindset, but that's no excuse for being an irrational asshole. But yeah, at this point we've got tables that play 4e, Pathfinder, and one that plays AD&D2, and I haven't met anyone who's still sore about 3.5 and wasn't a classic THAT GUY for about a year, so I'd say it's hit a point of stability.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.