Muggles in D&D

>ok
>yes, but its not YOU arbitrarily restricting you, it's the system design limiting your fightyman options
>yes
>yes, but that should not be happening with classes presented as equals

And now you go into autismal exaggeration.

Fighter is not an NPC class, it's a PC class and they should be on the level with PC classes.
Preferably by doing it in the system acknowledging their superhuman physicalness. Adding spell-slinging is a different flavour of a character, after all.

>Or, rather: if you're going to go out of your way to build Colossus, and refuse to have multiple powers, don't bitch about how Dr. Strange is more fun to play because he has multiple powers.
If you're playing superheroes you can have a platter of groundpound/shockwave attacks to go with your Colossus shtick.

>Beowulf.
What about Beowulf?

He kills Grendel? Great, so he's like, a level 6 character.

Beowulf is Peak-Mundane-Martial.

And he's like fucking level 6ish. That's the problem.

Beowulf more or less kills a troll. A level 20 character fights demon-princes and colossal dragons, and potentially literal cthulhu. If you hit Level 30 or equivalent, I would expect you to be killing actual gods. All such characters should have more up their sleeve than "I hit stuff".

Beyond 5-6 you should be going full wuxia, jumping 35 feet, running on water, balancing on twig-thin branches, and wall running, prince-of-persia style, at the very least, and as the levels climb up past 10, you'll need more than that.

You can already murder shit just fine. It's in every other way that you're a fucking benchwarmer.

Yeah, just forget the time he held his breath for a literal week, swimming in full plate across the sea and other shit like that.

>yes, but that should not be happening with classes presented as equals
No, it shouldn't. I agree.

>Fighter is not an NPC class, it's a PC class and they should be on the level with PC classes.
They should be, but they're not. They're somewhere between commoner and a reasonable character class.

>If you're playing superheroes you can have a platter of groundpound/shockwave attacks to go with your Colossus shtick.
Fighter does just fine in combat, but sure. Those would be fitting extra powers.

I am not saying that the classes should not be equally viable.

I am saying if you're unwilling to accept a character with superhuman capabilities in order to keep up with your friends in a game where everything has superhuman characteristics, (see and >it's not remotely D&D at that point. That's more a combative Ars Magica. D&D is the game where a non-magical knight when up against the goddess of dragons herself, a foe that the greatest mage of his generation couldn't beat and struck her down.
),

then you can't bitch about it later and expect any sympathy.

It's uh, been a while. I don't remember any of that shit.

Allowing mundane types to do shit like that would help. It probably wouldn't be enough, but it would help.

Really? Being sixth level lets you hold your breath for hours? That's news to be.

And your entire argument is flawed anyway, since you're making the assumption that 3.5 spellcasting is the only sort of way spellcasting can work in any setting, which is just dumb.

How many times have you seen a work of fiction with a master necromancer, horde of skeletons and all, who goes to sleep for 8 hours and is suddenly an expert in divination? Or pyromancy? Or all of these at once? And to do any of this requires no lengthy rituals, but instead just mere seconds of time.

Of course martials are benchwarmers when you're comparing heroes of myth to gods. Actually, scratch that. I don't even think Greek gods have the sheer versatility a 3.5 wizard does.

Give an example of a magic user in fiction or mythology who you would consider to be level 20, if Beowulf is level 6.

I think one of the issues is that when someone wants to be a proper fighter, they want to feel like a proper fighter rather than a spellcaster whose magic ability is hitting things with a sword.

I certainly feel that way, and one of the new players I was with felt the same. Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone.

So the issue then, is that they want to play a game where combat itself is dirt simple for them, other than positioning, and yet they can still compare to other members of the party - spellcasters in particular.

I do believe that extraordinary or supernatural abilities could solve it. I think they'd prefer extraordinary as it technically isn't magic. It could be something like having the combat experience hone their body and skills, providing more passive bonuses than you normally get.

I think they hold some right to complain because they have a playstyle they want to experience and it's struggling. It's not an optimal playstyle, but tweaks are possible and if everyone optimizes then you've really limited the number of playstyle available. It is a game designed to be fun after all.

Supernatural =/= magic. Get it through your goddamn thick skull, or stop fucking cunting about it.

Given that I'd peg Dr. Strange at somewhere around 15ish, that's going to be entirely D&D characters, or perhaps Overlord.

That's my point. D&D is a game that covers the full range from low power to very high power.

every class should cover that range, and you can't cover the range of "street urchins to named archangels" if you're going to insist that your class can't have any abilities beyond what an olympic athlete can manage. It just doesn't fucking work.

Then they need to be willing to except extraordinary abilities that can compete with magic. And that's fine.

But if you want to play your grim & gritty mundane detective or medieval soldier, then don't expect it to work out beyond the low levels, because the high levels are when you should be approaching the power of archangels and demon-lords.

If that's what you want to play, stick to e6, and let other people have fighters that can actually keep up at higher levels.

I think the thing OP fails to reconcile is that people want their fighters to be mundane, but he doesn't believe mundane characters capable of awesome feats.

Rather than taking their extreme levels of durability and strength to their logical conclusion, as they can swim through lava and bite through rock with ease, he feels the need to codify it with 'supernatural utility powers' or 'god blessings'.

If I'm playing a mundane fighter and get to that point, I don't need a feature telling me that I've gained the supernatural ability to smash through rock. Just let me smash through the damn rock, mundanely, and stop insisting that anything outside of what can happen in real life must be a magical effect.

I can build a fighter that beats the Paizo adventure paths by himself without using any 3rd party content. You overestimate how difficult they are.

I think the OP's point is that D&D allows fighters to stay mundane only at the low levels, and you cannot keep pretending to be just a regular joe at high levels when the game mechanics push you into accepting supernatural powers. You can of course gimp yourself purposefully by not using magic and magic items, but then you shouldn't complain about the other players overshadowing you and your ability to contribute.

>if you're going to insist that your class can't have any abilities beyond what an olympic athlete can manage

No, that's YOU insisting that. I already pointed to Beowulf as an example. He isn't a demi-god. He isn't magic. He's doing these incredible feats because he's capable. He is at least level 10, if not higher.

Why not look to AD&D instead, where fighters were godly at all levels without fancy powers through having the ability to shrug off most of anything and kill most of anything with ease, while Wizards had to cower and hide because spells actually took minutes of time to cast and could be interrupted with a dart.

Why do you insist that Wizards be gods and then complain when people don't want you altering Fighters to be Wizards so they can be gods as well?

If you wanted to play a game with only Wizards, just say so.

Curious, how would you go about doing that?

OP Here.

Nope.

I object to fighterfags bitching about not being able to keep up, while despising any capability to do awesome things.

They throw a fit if you redefine skill DCs to allow cool shit at the upper levels, for instance.

I dont care whether you fluff it as a magical effect or not. Not in the slightest.

I care when you insist that "real fighting men can't do X because it would not make sense for someone to do in real life".

X, could be:
>Determining some of an enemy's stats just by looking at them (CR, HP, and which save is their lowest, for example).
>Jumping large distances.
>Running long distances along or up a wall prince of persia style.
>Running on water.
>Double-jumping.
>Flash-step type shenanigans.
>Travel powers for teleportation of any kind.
>Probability control.
or whatever. I don't care *WHAT* else they can do, or how it's fluffed, I just want them to be able to do something level-appropriate BESIDES murder.

Point is, all you can currently do is kill things, and I'm sick of being told it's no longer D&D if the fighter can do cool shit and keep up, by the same people who then bitch that the wizard/cleric/bard/druid/paladin/magus can all do cool shit, and he feels less useful.

Well, could the AD&D fighter duplicate Beowulf's achievements without the help of magic, at any level? I just don't see D&D as a system being able to support 'mundane characters doing awesome feats' concept. It's built around characters supplementing their ability with magic.

>You overestimate how difficult they are.
I'm not talking about adventure difficulty.

I don't doubt that's possible.

is more or less the problem. They won't accept the ability to do any level-appropriate cool shit, under any definition, but then still bitch and moan that the other players can do more cool shit than them.

Anyone who thinks Fighters shouldn't get supernatural abilities at higher levels to keep up with a high-magic world is a fucking idiot. Even if they come from training, they're beyond the limitations of 'reality', like monks.
This should be a fucking sticky.

Just optimize him out the ass.

First I'm playing as a human.

I would use a Eldritch Guardian + Mutation Warrior fighter first of all and grab a Sage Familiar. I now have my required knowledge skill covered. Then I VMC Barbarian. I never take classes levels in Barbarian, just use it for VMC. As a human I consider taking FCB in either HP or skill ranks. Skill ranks are valiable for non-knowledge skills I need.

The most dangerous time is level 3 or lower, as the build hasn't kicked in and HP is scarce. After level 3 the character turns on completely and is no longer in danger of losing encounters. By level 8 he can by himself take on encounters in the book solo easily. To survive early on I take Tribal Scars, putting my level 1 HP at ~20. Saves I can optimize separately like a proper autist. Likely will have to take things like Heroic Defiance as failing a debilitating save becomes much more dangerous alone.

UMD becomes valuable to activate wands more than anything to stay healed as between encounters he is gonna need to go back to full.

From here on out I just optimize him to hell and back. His saves are very high as is his HP. Using discoveries he can fly, using feats he can teleport. He has plenty of skill ranks once he buys a int headband to cover non-knowledge skills he requires.

On a whole it'd be rough, but doable. I've build fighters strong enough to do it before.

>I object to fighterfags bitching about not being able to keep up, while despising any capability to do awesome things.

Alright, that I can concede to. Where I contest is when people try and 'fix' it by giving Fighters effects they label magical or supernatural and wonder why the people who want mundane fighters are complaining.

I'm fine with martials doing epic stuff, I just want it to be because of their skill rather than it being some supernatural thing.

If I were playing a mundane ranger, for example. I don't want the ability to supernaturally teleport home. I want the ability to have my survival skills and tracking so high that I could navigate my way home from the bottom of hell in a day.

Not something one could do in real life, but also not reliant on magic or gods, save for the one portal to jump through to transfer planes.

>Beowulf more or less kills a troll.

Didn't he also stab the troll's mother, who was basically an eldritch abomination, to death afterwards?

Literally in pathfinder fighters can use their warrior's spirit to infuse their sword with magic powers on the fly. They can teleport, inflict curses, mind control, and more using Item Mastery (which they can get as a bonus feat using the Advanced Weapon Training feat). Fighters can grow wings and fly (certain archetypes). Hell they got plenty of magic.

I should also mention he killed the troll with his bare hands while also butt-naked.

You mentioned Beowulf. Sure, I underestimated his level, and you pointed out some shit he could do that I did not recall at all.

Beowulf is in fact a step in the right direction.

>Why do you insist that Wizards be gods and then complain when people don't want you altering Fighters to be Wizards so they can be gods as well?
The wizards are already nearly gods, thats what level 20 IS.

I want a level 20 character to be as good as expected from a level 20 character, PERIOD.

The piddly fighters are only level 20 in attack damage, not in any other way. That's my problem with it.

I'm entirely happy having mundane or slightly larger than life fighters, at the levels where that is appropriate.

At level 20 that is no longer appropriate, because at level 20 you fight colossal dragons and demon lords and archfey and archangels. You can build your own realities. That is what level 20 already is.

My problem with fighter fags who hate the idea of buffing the fighter is that their idea of a level 20 fighter is more or less just a level 5 fighter with better damage; and that's just not how the difference in levels works.

>I object to fighterfags bitching about not being able to keep up, while despising any capability to do awesome things
Who are you even talking about? I usually see the exact opposite. Wizardfags justifying fighters being shit because they have no magic to take advantage of.

And I don't rightly care what the origin of the capabilities is, I just expect characters of a given character level to have the appropriate degree of versatility and raw non-numerical power, and find it infuriating to hear person after person bitch about their fighter being incapable while throwing a fit any time someone tries to give them capabilities more like their peers.

Man do I wish more fighter players would actually take this stuff.

They're still on the weak side in terms of versatility, but this would go a long ways.

In my experience, wizard players just want the fighter to do better, and fighter players throw a fit when you try to have fighters do extraordinary things, while simultaneously ignoring the extraordinary things they can already do.

People like this guy,
and others like him I seem to run into once a month.

>And I don't rightly care what the origin of the capabilities is

And some people do. Thus, trying to tell fighters to sprout magical wings and shoot lasers from their swords doesn't sit well with some people.

Personally, I'd prefer caster versatility brought down and martial versatility brought up to somewhere near the middle. You don't need batman wizard levels of power to be a level 20 character and fight demons.

In terms of 3.5, a better mid-point would be stuff like Bard or the Tome of Battle where you're specialized, but have a bit of extra versatility outside your main thing, or you sacrifice that specialization for more versatility, but have less raw power because of it.

I believe that a Fighter with more implicit options and maneuvers to choose from could fit perfectly well alongside a Wizard who only had Illusions. At epic levels, they can start achieving those sorts of epic deeds that fit with their characters.

Not everyone needs to sprout wings and fly once they hit level 7

I expect this problem wouldn't come up so often if they did a better job defining character levels, what types of characters/creatures have that level, what sorts of things you should be capable of at a given character level, and how much versatility characters of that level should have.

Fighterfags often seem to have this idea that the game is far lower powered than it actually is at the higher levels, because of past editions where they don't have the variety, or power, only the ability to murder better. Many of them seem to have no idea how the other 70% of the character classes stack up.

Does playing with Psionics and ToB actually keep everyone viable and happy? If so, I'd bite the bullet and pull out 3.5 again with those classes exclusively, justify it with the setting.

This. Basically it comes down to differing expectations, one player wants a gritty low powered adventures crawling in the mud, but the game itself turns increasingly high fantasy super heroes campaign as the characters level up. At that point the player has to either accept it and start optimizing, or keep complaining about getting stuck as the BMX bandit. Neither option is very fun for some people, hence this thread.

>And some people do.
>Entire post entirely misses the point.

>"All I can do is kill stuff"
>"I hate how I useless I am outside combat now that we're not low level chumps"
>"Noncombat options better than what regular real life people can do? Comparable in power to what the magic-capable classes can do? Fuck that, what do I look like, a fucking wizard?"

>Psionics and ToB only
yes. Some classes will still be a bit better than others, but yes, that works fine. Until you get that guy who bitches about how he can't play a fucking fighter.

You can accomplish the same thing, but much better, with Pathfinder using only Ultimate Psionics and Path of War 1&2. If you really want to allow Paizo classes, too, the ones to look at are the other T3/T4 classes.

So why not acknowledge how the game works, and run a low level campaign when you want low level, and a high level campaign when you want high level, and the full range when you want the full progression; rather than insisting that your fighting man class needs to stick to low-level shit in all ways but HP damage?

That guy is just saying a non magical guy should be on par with a magical guy, all else being equal. How does that translate into fighters shouldn't be able to do awesome things? He literally says, "Look at this awesome thing this fighter did. Why isn't that replicated within the system?"

Fighters can do awesome things without just giving them magical powers.

>wizard players just want the fighter to do better
Wizard players want fighters to not be fighters, is what you mean. It has nothing to do with playing a fighter optimally.

I, too, rely on memes rather than actual play experience, since that would mean meeting actual people!

>Wizard players want fighters to not be fighters, is what you mean. It has nothing to do with playing a fighter optimally.
At level 20?

Yeah, at that point your fighter should be fucking Iron Man, not Daredevil.

Who are you talking about?

In-play, most of the fighter players whine about not being as useful outside of combat, just to a lesser extent than the ones on the internet.

And I've done a lot of gaming, but all of it is in meatspace. I can't vouch for your roll20 games or pbps.

>At level 20?
Especially at level 20, as the power gap becomes more meaningful at higher levels. But instead of just letting fighters smash open locks and jump large gaps like a wizard can with a simple unlock or flying spell, the system busts out a bunch of formulas where your improvements have only a mediocre impact.

100%

Wizard players want high level fighter players to be as useful as an equal level Bard, Paladin, or Magus/Eldritch Knight.

Not as useful as a level 3 magus but with level-appropriate damage output and defenses.

That's the question, isn't it? I guess some people are just stuck with one idea how the game should be played and refuse to budge. They'd probably be happier with an OSR clone with lower power level in general.

The fighter players would, yeah, I expect so.

The wizard players like what they get to play as, they're just sick of the fighter players whining about it.

Or, if not OSR, I bet the fighter players would fucking love d20 Conan. And I'd be happy to play it with them. But not all the time. When I want to play 3.x/Pathfinder, I enjoy my T1/2/3 high-level gameplay, and that is explicitly why I'm playing it.

Comparing us to OP is an insult to faglords, user.

>because other people whine, you should stop playing that thing i dont like
3.5 is fun, so long as youre not playing a basic fighter/rogue/spellless ranger /core only monk. same with pathfinder. its why our group keeps going back to pf again and again in addition to the other games we play.

we also play 5e, but its not so good for high powered campaigns, or campaigns with pvp as a plausible possibility.

>5e not so good for campaigns with pvp as a plausible possibility.
Out of curiosity why you think so?

The difference in math between how PCs are built and how Enemies are built.

PC damage is set up to take out roughly 25-45%(call it 35%) of Monster HP if you hit with your attacks. Monsters have ~2.8-8.7x(Call it an average of 5.75x) the HP of PCs.

0.35%HP*5.75x=201.25%HP

Instead of taking out a third of your target's HP like if you were hitting a monster, the odds are good you will drop them in a single round if you target a PC instead, with your average damage output being double their HP.

Compared to Pathfinder, where monster HP and damage output is roughly equal to a like-level PC's HP and damage output (PC damage is still higher with any kind of charop, but nowhere near to the same degree as in 5e).

Huh, didn't think about it that way. Interesting!

If I were the one designing 5e, monster HP would have been on nearly the same scale as PC HP, and PC damage would have been roughly 1/5 what it is now, for that reason.

yes that's true but
>playing d&d
it's totally like you WANT to roleplay silly over the top animu magical shit and not classical fantasy.
Well at least you're honest about that, unlike dnd fighterfags who are trying hard to achieve the impossible because "muh most popular bestest system" and are too blind to see that their beloved system is kicking them right in the balls at every turn.

Issue #1 with 3.PF fighters is that the game doesn't properly protect their status as the biggest, baddest beatstick on the block. There's a place for gish classes, summoned monsters, and animal companions, but they need to lag behind fighters (instead of easily surpass them with stacking bonuses).

Issue #2 is that they lack "utility" (aka multitarget instant save or lose against any save you want by level 5). Obviously the solution here is to nerf "utility", not spread that shit even farther around.

I'm not averse to more supernatural fighters but entirely mundane fighters can work just fine. As long as they are irreplaceable and necessary, they will be viable.

>I'm talking to/about the fighterfags who throw a fit when you suggest they take a ToB/PoW/Gish class, and instead paradoxically bitch and moan about how they can't keep up as BMX bandit while refusing to play any class on par with Angel Summoner or accept any class buffs that bring them up to the versatility level of Angel Summoner.

well
have fun beating that strawman, i guess?

the rest of the game works fine and needs no nerfs. fighter is the outlier, its the one in need of fixing.

in pathfinder i can point to all the fighter buffing options and say "you picked the shitty fighter features this is your own fault. you want a respec, go ahead"

or i can say "all fighters have the myrmidon archetype" and that will also fix most of the issue.

>D&D its like you WANT silly over the top animu magic shit.
Thats what D&D is good for.

if i wanted classical fantasy I'd look at HARP, GURPS, or Pendragon, or Unisystem.

if I wanted pulp sword and sorcery I'd look at d20 Conan, or Cinematic Unisystem, or GURPS.

The WORST problem of D&D is separation of "mundane" and "magical" with magical being always strictly better. When you look at it, everything terrible or inconsistent in D&D stems from it

>mud hut villages existing in Monty Python Peasants reality bubble right next to forgotten technomagical catacombs
>"if you want to be good you MUST be magic, but i don't want to be magic, but i want to be good, but i don't know how" mentality
>Magic being comic book super powers with no downside whatsoever
>hundreds of other examples

there are thousands of other examples, but there's one thing that's at the root of it all - the insistence that in magical mythical world of D&D said magical and mythical is lazilycoverin mundane like a fancy carpet covering a dung pile.

meant to quote
for the second half.

strawman implies the scenario doesnt actually happen. ive run into this an obnoxious number of times, including yet another time today which is the reason for this thread.

I'll second it. I've seen it happen as well. Its utterly insane, and I don't know why those stupid fucks act like that.

Is it a D&D thing

I never played D&D (okay, once and it was 5e) and i haven't met these people.

yes ive only seen it in d&d.
most other rpgs are classless to begin with, and also most other rpgs dont cover the same powerscale range that d&d does.

Its a 3.PF thing. Its not really a thing in 5e.

>Tell me why I'm wrong, if you can.

Because
-not every character wants to play someone with supernatural/magical abilities
-players have free choice of what class they want to play, and it's not up to you to tell them how to have fun
-multiclassing exists if you want to mix things up later
-the DM can always step in and change things up if for some reason a player is getting bored of their character as is
and most importantly
-by level 20 you're expected to have like nearly something like 750,000 gp net worth, and can just buy magic items to do things that caster can do, and negate the effects of magic on you, so it's not like you will never get to do magic stuff

I've played plenty of non magic users before, and I've never had a problem with having fun.

the mechanical issue still exists in 5e, but less so, and rather than these loonies wanting the fighter buffed to the power levels of the other 75-80% of the game, or choosing a game that actually does low magic fantasy or sword and sorcery, they demand the majority of the game should be redesigned and dragged down to their level by pulling out nearly everything people like about them.

nah, still alive and well in 3.9 edition

>and can just buy magic items

Sorry if facts trigger you.

>buying magic items
>a "fact" in D&D

crawl back to the paizo forums where you belong

Want me to start posting specific pages and quotes or something?

feel free to post any post canon quotes

ill ignore them

Magic items alleviate the power gap and not fully, and call me a weeaboofag if you want, but i prefer strength of my character stemming from -himself- rather than from being covered in magic items like a christmas tree.

People demanding "muh strictly mundane hardened veteran fighter who only knows how to sword" are a silly bunch, but there's an underlying problem with "mundane-magical" dichotomy that shouldn't exist in high-magic setting such as D&D.

pg 137 of the DMG explains go limits for a city, and on page 142
>"The magic items described in Chapter 7 all have prices. The assumption is that, while they are rare, magic items can be bought and sold as any other commodity can be. The prices given are far beyond the reach of almost everyone, but the very rich, including mid- to high-level PCs, can buy and sell these items or even have spellcasters make them to order."

as i said

post canon

>for that reason
That reason is you are trying to enable pvp bullshit, which has rarely ever, if ever, worked in D&D, which is expressly designed to be a teamwork based game.
You are trying to enable the game to not work, user, the way it is supposed to, by shitlords who want to stroke their epeen.

>what are the wealth by level rules
unless your gm is using the inherent bonuses *optional rule* replacement mechanic, WBL is a rule, and an important one, at that. in 3.x, your level-appropriate-gear is a critical part of your character.

>Magic items alleviate the power gap and not fully,
With a simple ring of spell turning, a martial character becomes extremely hard for a caster to deal with.
And at level 20, optimized martial characters can regularly kill casters in 1 round.
Maybe by power gap, you meant utility though?
And that's true, but a fighter for example obviously isn't a utility class, and its up to the player to decide what role they want.
And utility of casters being useful varies depending on the focus and execution of the campaign.

>and call me a weeaboofag if you want, but i prefer strength of my character stemming from -himself- rather than from being covered in magic items like a christmas tree.
There's nothing wrong with that.
It just means you prefer a certain kind of character over another.

>People demanding "muh strictly mundane hardened veteran fighter who only knows how to sword" are a silly bunch,
If that's what they choose to play,
and you seem to suggest there's a fair number of them,
then why does it bother you?

>but there's an underlying problem with "mundane-magical" dichotomy that shouldn't exist in high-magic setting such as D&D.
The setting is whatever you want it to be dude.

>in 3.x

okay user, I understand now
(*^_^)

@50330949
>post canon
>a direct quote from the DMG about buying, selling, having items made to order isn't good enough
You don't deserve a (you) from me.

>epeen
>thinks everyone plays shitty roll20 games or whatever with strangers instead of meatspace with people they actually like.
kek.

ive basically never had any negative pvp experiences, they all added to the game in entertaining and meaningful ways.

sorry it was confusing

i meant post-canon (fan fiction etc), not that i wanted you to post some canon quotes, re read the sentence with that understanding

ntgb
i agree with most of this, but there are setting constraints imposed by the game mechanics you play with.

>then why does it bother you?

It doesn't bother me much, but i feel like they're having strange expectations, both of D&D(which doesn't really support non-magical fighters, like, at all) and hardened veteran archetype (who, despite everything a veteran SHOULD know only has 5 skill points per level to go around and proficiencies in swording, swording 2:swording harder and swording in a fancy way that only works with 2 enemies from an entire monster manual despite being a high level swording feat, see point 1).

>With a simple ring of spell turning, a martial character becomes extremely hard for a caster to deal with.
That is false on face, and you know it. It requires you to be single target, which means even a fireball, which is not a targeting spell, goes right past it.
>martials can kill casters
That isn't even what we are talking about, and even if it was, casters have long had spells like "I win initiative".
>you mean utility
Everything that you have said so far is telling me that you don't actually understand the limits that casters can push in 3.pf because you've never seen them played that well, whereas you've seen the basic ubercharger build which can come online within 6 levels, 4 feats and 2 magic items.

Ah, yes. Items. Let's look at those, shall we.

well, we're in a thread talking about how fighter players bitch and moan retardedly in the edition thats most fun to play a mage, and thats 3.x. so, yes.

in 3.x, wbl is an important rule, the enemies even assume youre getting level appropriate magic item bonuses. in 5e, however, magic items are optional, and have a smaller effect on your math.

For the record? Making chainmail takes about a WEEK.

Well if everyone wants to use a setting that does work well within the game mechanics, I don't see a problem with changing the rules as needed.

Or just use any other system you like.

It sounds like you've got some really specific problems with how D&D handles martial classes.
You can't please everyone I guess, but it was at least a popular system, and lots of people got to have fun playing it.

If you don't like it that's fine.
Personally, when my group plays 3.5/PF, it starts out normal, but eventually descends into overpowered madness, where people are chucking cannonballs faster than the speed of sound, summoning elder gods to do their bidding, and becoming high tech assassin robots.
So I guess I'm in the same boat as you somewhat.

You know, I've been playing 1st edition Mutants and Masterminds recently.
And maybe it'd be more your speed.
It's basically 3.5 mechanics, but without classes.
You just build your character using power points.
We home ruled a few minor things we didn't like, but beside that, it's been a lot of fun.

And you don't even need to make up your own rules to throw cannonballs at mach 3.

>
>there's an underlying problem with "mundane-magical" dichotomy that shouldn't exist in high-magic setting such as D&D.
if you want to drop it, ban plain cavalier/gunslinger/fighter/rogue/barbarian/spellless ranger/slayer, and replace them with other classes and/or make some archetypes innate.

maybe all fighters are either psionic or myrmidons, in addition to any other archetypes. maybe you just cut fighter and the player makes due with the 6 PoW classes.

3e, i.e. Diablo on paper, was never real D&D, and I'm glad that 5e acknowledges that

>>A fighting man, dashing rogue, nonmagical ranger, and barbarian without ancestor magics are perfectly fine concepts for low level D&D.
>They cease to be reasonable character options after the low-mid levels (like 5ish)
See, that is why the scope of D&D is complete bullshit. Mere 6 of 20 levels are for new heroes to reasonably capable human beings. After that, it starts getting increasingly preposterous. Buw what can I say? That is the US fantasy genre for ya - where suspension of disbelief has to take the backseat behind "cool" and "epic" power fantasies.

>That is false on face, and you know it. It requires you to be single target, which means even a fireball, which is not a targeting spell, goes right past it.

I said it makes the character extremely hard to deal with.
Being limited to aoe spells only doesn't fit that description?

>That isn't even what we are talking about,
It's hard to read someone's mind and know what they're talking about when they use vague words like "power gap"
And besides, I'm not even sure you're the person that post was from.

>Everything that you have said so far is telling me that you don't actually understand the limits that casters can push in 3.pf because you've never seen them played that well,
No, I actually know how to make yourself 100% immortal with a single high level spell and a single magic item using only core rules. (player handbook+DMG only)
But I haven't ever seen a system that can't be abused, and the fact that lots of different classes can make cheesy builds really doesn't bother me.

it would be better to ban the snowflake classes though

the fighter is the baseline for what the game is supposed to be about, he is litterally the original class from before there were classes, before they added the magic user as a second option

couldnt agree more

they should have never removed the hit die restriction

>Beowulf is Peak-Mundane-Martial.
>And he's like fucking level 6ish. That's the problem.
>Beowulf more or less kills a troll. A level 20 character fights demon-princes a
Well, yes. The power levels of D&D are typical for what we have to consider US fantasy, which is at times detached from its european roots. If we compare the european fantasy genre, picking two of its most outstanding games Warhammer Fantasy and DSA (Dark Eye), we can see that power levels are generally toned down to sane levels here.

>inb4 munchkinism in those games
I know it exists, I have been there. It's still GENERALLY distinctly below US fantasy levels.