Does 5E fix the martial/caster power gap?

When your product is so shitty that half of your playerbase leaves for a knock-off made by literally whos, you know you fucked up.

OP didn't ask about 4E, he asked about 5E. He didn't ask for a comparison to 4E either, so you're the one in the wrong thread, friendo.

And that is relevant to the point, how exactly?

Follow the comment chain cupcake.

Denies that the caster/martial disparity can be fixed.

Refutes that statement. Stating that 4e fixed the caster/martial disparity.

Denies against all evidence that 4e is D&D

The point is, it "fixed" the problem by introducing much more other problems, WoTC will never try this again, and you should stop being an obnoxious 4rrie and bringing up your shitty game when nobody asks you to.

>'real' D&D
That's just the thing. 3.5 seriously fucked up the martial/caster dynamic by removing most distinguishing features of martial classes and giving casters the tools to reliably invalidate what little niches martials had left.
And yet that very same 'Diablo edition' is considered 'real' D&D?

It lessened it, but it didn't fix it entirely.

No? It fixed the problem by changing the basis of the game, as I described in . Doing something not in your preference isn't innately a problem, it's just a different approach that some people enjoyed and some people did not.

See my point about your shitty wargame. Glad we agree on the issue.

Except it isn't a shitty wargame, it's a very enjoyable RPG which simply makes a different set of fundamental assumptions about-

Ohh, you're a troll. Right, sorry, it always takes me a while to pick up on things.

>it's a very enjoyable RPG
All those who left DnD for Pathfinder clearly disagree. WoTC clearly disagrees to, since when creating 5e they scrapped everything from their failure.

It "fixes" it by reducing spells to damage. Poison? That's just damage now, so it might as well not exist. A fighter can kill a few goblins and suddenly become immune to poison and disease. Why? Because 10% of the community threw a bitchfit over being able to reduce ability scores, so they nixed it. Now everything is damage. Mind flayer mindblast? That's straight damage. See, if it can't be represented by damage, it doesn't belong in 5e, because anything else would unbalance the game. SoD spells are not nerfed but instead completely reduced, they are effectively fireball, there is no fucking difference. There is no point to playing a caster or a martial because they both deal damage in different ways, their roles are essentially the same, and now thanks to 5e neutering everything to straight damage, DPS is all that matters. Damage escalates by level which was never fixed and the game is so overly structured that, while it's hard to build a shitty character, none of your choices actually matter and are there to give the illusion that you can build interesting characters when in fact you essentially only have 2 to 3 options by class.

The feats are complete shit. 5e is so bad at balancing feats that some of them give ability score bonuses (+1 instead of +2, as in the feat is only worth half a feat) and since you have to give up ASIs there is basically no reason for them. In fact there's no reason to trade ASIs for feats at all, seeing as ASIs are buffed out to hell, going from nonexistent to +1 per 4 levels to +2 per 4 levels, meaning that every fighter is going to end up with 20 Strength, so ability scores might as well not exist at all, they are just another supporting mechanic for the main mechanic of leveling up, they don't define anything unique or interesting about your character. All level 20 rogues have a 20 Dex so why even bother having Dex if they are all going to have the same fucking Dex?

5e is chock-full of shit but it's an ok edition.

>it's just a different approach that some people enjoyed and some people did not.

>Except it isn't a shitty wargame, it's a very enjoyable RPG

Except the only roleplaying mechanic 5e has is the stupid fucking background mechanic that just adds extra bookkeeping and does stuff that most players either did already, or didn't do because they didn't want to define their background at that point. D&D tries to add cool new RP mechanics to show that it's with the times and can jive with all these narrativist games that are being shit out by every flannel-clad yuppie with a blog, when in reality most people play D&D because it stays the fuck out of the way of the roleplaying, which really doesn't need rules. This is why AD&D, despite being an autistic shit mess, is still probably D&D's best edition. Pretty much all the rules were combat. And you know what? That was good, because that's the only time we really need the rules. We don't need rules for whether you convinced the bartender of some shit, that evolves naturally in conversation. You're playing a 20 Charisma character and are roleplaying him at passable level for a shitty high school film project? Okay, he probably gives you the shit you want. Lack of diplomacy / persuasion rolls meant no "OMG NAT20 I AUTOMATICALLY SEDUCE ORCUS" bullshit that is going around the community these days thanks to Critical Roll and similar garbage. And 5e just eats it all up, and encourages it. In fact part of the reason Merals raped chargen to death was so people would share more tabletop stories online instead of talking about their builds. So we get stupid-ass nat20 / nat1 LOL stories that are fucking garbage. So yeah, 5e is a """roleplaying game""" but if you are holding it up as a standard for that then you are the kind of idiot that the TTRPG community needs less of.

...Holy fuck, you're very angry.

Define "fix"

>since when creating 5e they scrapped everything from their failure.

Exactly. This is what is so fucking retarded about the Wizards of the Coast design strategy. "If we fucked something up once, let's bury it and never speak of it again." So instead of getting a consistent improvement with each new edition (like with something like GURPS where each edition is an evolution and perfection of the system) we get an entirely new game system, because each time they dump their notes in the fire pit and start from scratch. As a result, D&D's fanbase is so fractured that there is no possible way to pander to all of them without creating a bland shitmess like 5e. In fact most of why 5e is good, is BECAUSE it's bland. It's easy to learn and doesn't have many mechanics beyond the basic D&D ones that everyone knows. Yet it adds just enough stupid shit that, against the background of normalness, it sticks out like a sore thumb. Like the 20 level cap, 20 stat cap alongside unprecedented ASI-by-level rate, shitty feats, overly-structured classes, and stupid-ass AD&D legacy multiclassing. Not to mention the stupid healing surges and 1/day fighter abilities. And the fact that PVP is fucked because damage outputs get ridiculous for some reason. Why is this? I will never know. For starting from scratch, Wizards manages to make the same fucking mistakes over and over, while throwing the few gems of progress they make into the trash alongside everything else.

>No, because it can't be fixed
Yes, it can.

>As a result, D&D's fanbase is so fractured
d&d fanbase is fractured because its made from people that should be playing different rpgs but somehow are playing d&d.

If I like 70s progressive rock, I search for bands that do that kind of sound, I dont keep trying just new (and old) mainstream rock bands and then complaining that they arent what I want

Sad thing is, that's how TSR handled it. They fixed a lot of 1E's shit in 2E. Then WotC and Hasbro came along and fucked the whole thing six ways from Sunday.

By "fix", OP is referring to soothing the ravaged, bleeding anuses of anyone who tried playing a martial in D&D 3.5. Disregarding the fact that most 3.5 players were bluepilled as fuck when it came to playing casters, and just dumped fireballs and other damage spells, and ignored the more powerful options. Or that most spellcasters weren't jackasses who set out to obliviate the rest of the party by creating wands of knock or scroll of knock or find traps or whatever. That's not to say caster supremacy doesn't exist, it does, and it's a serious problem. But it's become such a meme that it infuriates everyone to the point that the 3.5 IDF comes out in every thread and creates a huge shitstorm. The result is something like 5e where all spells deal straight damage and shit like Fly is nerfed... why? Oh because fighters have difficulty damaging flying opponents. So buff ranged combat. If your fighter carries zero ranges weapons then he deserves to be beaten by a wizard who flies over his head. What's funny about that last sentence, too, is that martialcucks will literally call it out as an example of caster suprmacy. They think that if a wizard can do anything that requires some level of thought to counter, it should be removed, or nerfed into oblivion. "Wizard casting spells means I need to take out my javelins instead of swinging muh stick? JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE CASTER PATRIARCHY". They are pretty much approaching Tumblr-feminazi levels of self-indulgent delusion at this point. They are so full of themselves thinking that any time a caster does something to one-up a martial, it is another example of caster supremacy. They use everything to feed their persecution complex. As a result, casters are nerfed into just being shitty and boring, because neither group understands what balance actually means.

By fixing the power gap I hope you mean widening it so as to make the casters completely unreachable by the rough brutes?

I would imagine a large portion of those people didn't actually play it before moving onto Pathfinder. I know I was one of them, and looking back now 4e introduced a lot of ideas that I actually like and have seen adopted in newer games (to me). That being said I do ultimately agree with the guy who said its more tactical wargame than RPG, for better or for worse.

> It's a "4rrie is buttblased because 5e is more popular than his game, and he does not understand why" episode

Book of Nine Swords did more to fix the power gap than 5e did.

Though I feel that the best way to fix the gap is to make caster's spellcasting rarer and more difficult to pull off. Instead of blowing their load every battle and immediately taking a nap, higher-level spell slots should take an entire week to come back, or otherwise have a long casting time while lower-level spell slots aren't consumed at all. Kind of the way 5e did things with cantrips and spell slots, but to a more extreme degree.

Then you have shit like the party trying to protect the wizard as he spends three or four rounds getting off a heavy-duty Meteor Shower spell, or something like that, while a lower level party has the wizard throwing out sparks here and there, with maybe a single heavy-duty spell he can cast.

.... Did you even read my post? I complained about ASIs literally doubling, and once per day abilities being bad, and somehow you got from that that I like 4e?

4e had a lot of great ideas. It is my least favorite D&D edition but I give it credit on a lot of levels. For one, it actually balanced the numbers (to-hit numbers) for the first time in D&D's history. It wasn't perfect but it was a step in the right direction. Damage was somewhat more balanced among classes, as everything was brought into the same framework. Most of what made 4e fail, was the Dungeons and Dragons brand name. It just didn't work. It's like the Starship Troopers movie: it wasn't bad, but it really wasn't Starship Troopers, was it? It took me a long time to appreciate the 4e design choices, before I realized that 90% of 4e's good ideas were probably arrived at by mistake. My theory was confirmed when 5e came out a few years later and everything good about 4e was thrown in the toilet, while the shitty parts of 4e were kept in. This led me to formulate the Murphy's Law of Wizards of the Coast Game Design, whose contents should be self-explanatory.

>Book of Nine Swords did more to fix the power gap than 5e did.

Yep, making everyone a spellcaster, does help to fix the power gap between martials and spellcasters. The old "if you can't beat them, join them" strategy. It's effective. A bit of a cop-out, but effective. And ignores the fact that most of why people hated Book of Nine Swords was not the balance, but the stupid fucking shitload of rules involved in playing a martial just to be on par with wizards (and still not be).

>Though I feel that the best way to fix the gap is to make caster's spellcasting rarer

Agreed. Wizards should get cantrips, and then one spell per level per day. Period.

I am full-on buttfucking serious, by the way. This isn't bait or trolling. D&D's spellcasting seriously needs to eb restructured like this.

The caster/martial disparity, at least in terms of utility, cannot be fixed without changing some fundamental assumptions of D&D.

You cannot have entirely mundane martials constrained to the rules of the real world function on the same level as high fantasy wizards. It just does not work. The two are functionally incompatible.

So how can you make it work? Either Martials need to do more, or Casters need to do less.

The Book of Nine Swords or 4e approach is one way of doing this, giving martials more resources to use to do awesome stuff, suspending the idea that they're entirely mundane (Although Bo9S can still be fluffed as such) or no longer having a strict one to one link between fluff and mechanics.

AD&D had elements of both, with casters being slower and weaker and martial classes having a lot of ancillary benefits that later editions of D&D scrapped.

Using a resource based mechanics does not mean something is a spellcaster. That's a rather ridiculous D&Dism which doesn't mean anything if you actually think about it.

It expands the gap from where it was in 4E actually.

This desu. Bring casters back to where they were in Basic.

>stupid fucking shitload of rules
It's literally the same system casters use. What are you talking about?

No? The Manoeuvre system is very different to spellcasting, but it's also pretty simple. Certainly no more complicated than magic.

At this point I don't think there's any way to fix the martial power gap because as a group no one knows what they want the balance to look like.

You have people who love weeaboo fightan magic, cinematic swashbuckling, "normal" knights, and people who are dirt farmers with swords and all of them fucking hate each other. If you appease one side grogs will harp forever about how a fighter is doing stupid anime bullshit while the other will whine about only being able to run around and stab things.

At that point as a company why bother?

As someone that plays an angry cleric of the war domain, i find warcaster to be a pretty useful feat.

that said, i did take variant human, so i had a feat to use anyways.

Honestly, I liked the way maneuvers worked. They weren't spells, they were 'attack AND' for the most part. You make an attack AND the attack hits touch AC. You make an attack AND attack a second enemy. You make an attack AND stun them if they fail a DC.

It was an interesting way to make playing a martial more fun than
>full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack.

And what shitload of rules? 'Use selected maneuvers once per encounter' is too difficult?

I think that instead of just a single spell level per day, a wizard's spell selection would each have requirements, like the Book of Magic's Binder. If you take Summon Monster as a spell, you first have to capture a creature of some kind, put it into a ritual, and then it's a pumped up magical version of itself that you can summon. You can't just automagically summon a fiendish tyrannosaurus, you have to capture a T Rex first.

Or maybe give higher-level spells a longer casting time. Rather than spending 1 round to be able to throw meteors down, you spend 3 to throw 3 times as many meteors down. Same damage per round, but an interruption is bad news.

And finally, give spells a longer delay between uses. Instead of one spell slot a day, each individual spell a wizard uses has its own delay. Firebolt or whatever has a Recharge of 2 rounds, once you have the requirements (Like bat guano or whatever), so you can only throw it out once every three rounds. But Time Stop or whatever can only be used once a month, or whatever.

A sorcerer would have less requirements, but only knows a handful of spells. A wizard would know a shitton of spells, but only a limited amount of time to fulfill the requirements.

4e did its best, but 5e stuck its dick right in there and opened it up again.

>Using a resource based mechanics does not mean something is a spellcaster.

It does when you mechanically structure it the exact same way.

Book of Nine Swords did it in 3.5, then 4e applied it to the entire system.

>It's literally the same system casters use.

Like i said, it's a stupid fucking shitload of rules. The same triangular spell matrix bullshit that 5e maintains then claims it's not Vancian casting on a technicality (which is actually correct, but 5e magic is still shite).

>AD&D had elements of both, with casters being slower and weaker and martial classes having a lot of ancillary benefits that later editions of D&D scrapped.

An unprepared wizard was mincemeat. d4 hit dice, shitty armor and automatic spell failure on taking damage put a serious dent in their power. Without miniatures, it was also pretty much impossible to consistently have them shielded from melee by the tougher guys. However, the system still had the built-in potential for abuse - when given time to just cast a few spells in advance, a wizard was an invulnerable, unreachable killing machine that completely left fighters in the dust. At high levels, they had spells that invalidated entire classes.
I don't think attaching great risk to great rewards is "balancing" when the reward disparity between classes is that enormous.

But the Book of Nine Swords doesn't structure it the same way? Manoeuvres work completely differently to spells.

4e used a single universal power system, sure, but Bo9S was distinct from other parts of 3.5.

And don't forget, if you were one of those three classes, you had methods of regaining those maneuvers mid-combat. Not to mention stances that were permanent bonus' given you weren't prone.

>They weren't spells, they were 'attack AND' for the most part. You make an attack AND the attack hits touch AC. You make an attack AND attack a second enemy. You make an attack AND stun them if they fail a DC.

You are so simple-minded it's actually kind of funny. No shit it wasn't ACTUALLY spellcasting, you moron. We are talking about the mechanics here.

> And what shitload of rules? 'Use selected maneuvers once per encounter' is too difficult?

I can design dice mechanics that use algebra and they won't be too difficult for most of Veeky Forums since they graduated high school for the most part, but that doesn't mean they are a good idea. Stop using the "if you don't like over complicated mechanics you just lack the brainpower for them" argument, it's stupid beyond belief.

>full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack.

Ahhhhh there's that false dichotomy again. Remember, there are two (2) choices: either play a boring full-attacking fighter, or use once-per-day prepackaged fighter maneuvers. Those are the only two game design options for how martials work. Merals said it, so it must be true!

Ignoring the fact that forcing Martials to be able to do their cool stuff only once per day, actually hurts them. Why limit it?

There should be a power gap

>You can't just automagically summon a fiendish tyrannosaurus, you have to capture a T Rex first.

Except the faggots who play D&D will never accept that. Go float that idea in the 5eg. Go float the idea of kill spells having huge backlash damage, or forcing the caster to make a save or die himself. They will shoot down the idea and when you ask for reasons why they will stutter and go "b-b-b-b-because it's stupid, that's why!" See, D&D is set up a certain way, where casters don't need any input to their spells. They can't have any cost. All the stuff you're suggesting is kind of cool (except the recharge shit which is a nightmare to bookkeep for), but it will never be part of D&D. Because a D&D spell having an in-written cost or downside, is antithesis to the very fabric of the game for some reason. Partly because D&D is high fantasy not low fantasy, but mostly because D&D players are autistic pieces of shit.

>4e used a single universal power system, sure, but Bo9S was distinct from other parts of 3.5.

How does that go against anything I said?

>And don't forget, if you were one of those three classes, you had methods of regaining those maneuvers mid-combat.

More shit to mark up and erase on my character sheet! Wonderful! What's that you say? Use tokens? Use dice? How about design a non-resource-based system for interesting martial combat, you stupid fucks. Why does "interesting" equate to spending superiority dice, or encounter powers, or whatever else bullshit you've pulled out of your ass? Why can't you just make martials do good things that I don't have to spend like spells? It's bad enough this game is so based around Hit Points that I have a tally going 360 degrees around my character sheet, but now I need to constantly track whether I've used up six different class features, my Second wind, my racial daily, and all my fucking superiority dice? Fuck off. Playing a martial in 3.5 was literally better because choosing how much to Power Attack was more fun than deciding which shitty maneuver with an edgy name to use next.

Please, don't make a fool of yourself like this.

This is one of the most embarrassing posts I've seen on Veeky Forums, and that's coming from someone who witnessed someone trying to explain why he was uploading pictures of his sister shitting on his chest in /b/.

No, that's stupid.

Then explain how I am making a fool out of myself. The reason D&D magic is overpowered shit is because casterfaggots whine about powerful magic having any downsides, while martial fags whine about irrelevant shit like Fly being OP because they don't have a goddamn ranged weapon.

Give the martials abilities to counter casters' bullshit. For example there was a feat in 3.5 that let someone do a normal DC 20 spot check to see an invisible person. It was high level, sure, and it grated against the normal mechanics that give invisibility a straight bonus to Hide, but it was at least a good idea.

> inb4 some martial cuck spergs out with "no it's not! fighter abilities should be able to automatically counter everything a wizard does 100% of the time because if a wizard ever beats my big strong meat man, it's an example of why the D&D devs were all pathetic virgins who thoughts brains > brawn"

>playing a caster or a martial because they both deal damage in different ways
So how do you fix it because going back to 3.5 where a caster can end any engagement in several different ways while the martial can only go through HP is even more bullshit.

What in the holy fuck are you even talking about? Do you even know how the Book of Nine Swords worked?

>I'm an idiot so people shouldn't get fun mechanics to play with

>Then explain how I am making a fool out of myself.

I don't think I can. You don't have the base level of intelligence to understand what people are talking about, so no one can explain anything to you.

>For example there was a feat in 3.5 that let someone do a normal DC 20 spot check to see an invisible person.

Like, have you never heard of the listen skill? It existed in 3.5. Detecting an unarmored invisible person trying to move quietly had a DC of 10, or opposed to a move silently check.

I guess 4e really did do everything right.

1-10 fighters should be stronger, 11-20 wizards should start to take the lead

>Detecting an unarmored invisible person trying to move quietly had a DC of 10, or opposed to a move silently check

Cool. You know they're there. You know what else lets you know that? A sword between the ribs.

>magical backlash
There are one of two ways this can happen
Either its major enough that casters just flat out avoid those spells and thus you change the feel and more or less remove those spells without actually removing them or you make it so small that it does nothing. Just tossing a coin to see whether you or your opponent is out of the fight is dumb and will only be used in situations where they, both as a caster and as a party, should not win.

> anyone who doesn't want to erase a hole in their character sheet over the course of the campaign, and be limited to doing a cool whirlwind attack to only once per day because of arbitrary reasons, is an idiot.

If that's your stance, I will argue no further.

>Actually said martialcucks unironically
>Actually thinks casters are now total shit
110% total autism right here folks

>I don't understand how the mechanics I'm complaining about work

>it can't be fixed
This is absolute bullshit.

Yeah. See, I like that. Because it's a very powerful spell but it has a consequence. High-risk high-reward as opposed to no-risk high-reward.

Another option is to give the save a flat bonus (something that D&D devs have a hateboner for for some odd reason) to reflect the fact that it's a more powerful spell and thus for balance it should be easier to save against.

Or put hit dice / level limits on the victims like cloud kill and the like.

But that requires actual thought and effort, so let's just make finger of """"death"""" deal 7d8+30 necromantic damage instead. See, it's necromantic damage, so it's different from a fireball! It's still a cool death spell! It's still cool, right guys? Right guys? Right?

> I've never played 4e so I think a computer keeps track of which dailies I've used so far.

No, that's not what levels mean.

>I'm playing a combatant, who wants to hurt people
>What's that? Do damage (the mechanical quantification of "hurt")? Fuck that!
There are people who really think this way.

Except you were talking about the Book of Nine Swords too, as if it worked the same way?

>We are talking about the mechanics here
Just because you can't use a maneuver consecutively and repeatedly doesn't mean it's automatically identical to spells.

>only once per day
What?
I never saw anything like that. Where did you get that from?

I mean, if you want to full attack repeatedly or abuse Pounce and iterative attacks you can. It's just boring as hell because you just do the same thing repeatedly.

Fuck feat taxes, though.

Yeah, probably not. A guy can dream, though. I was thinking something like Spell Component or Focuses, just exaggerated. You could buy a 'T-Rex focus' from a different wizard who makes a living binding animals, it'd just be expensive. And once you have that, you can summon a fiendish T-rex.

If you can think of a system that isn't resource-based and isn't boring, go for it.

I already did, for my homebrew RPG that'll never see the light of day.
The way it works is that each maneuver has 'qualities', both negative and positive. A Power Attack would be a maneuver that has a -2 Attack quality, but a +2 Damage quality. A different maneuver could be, say, a +4 (Swift Action) quality, but then you'd need to make up enough negative qualities for it to be at a 0. Like, say, -2 Attack and -2 Damage. Or a -2 'limited to X weapon type' attack.

Then as a martial levels, they replace or update their maneuvers and combat style. A monk-type or brawler-type martial would essentially get a free -2 'limited to unarmed weapon type' and a -1 'no armor' quality to their maneuvers instead, so you could get 'Clever punch' with a +3 to attack, or 'heavy punch' with a +3 to damage, or whatever. All sort of custom attacks and stuff. High level martials would get a free -1 quality called like 'Superiority' or whatever.

>Finger of death is just fireball
>Raises target as zombie who always under your control
Looks like someone isn't planning long term

>casters are nerfed into just being shitty
AHAHAHA
Fuck right off with this shit. Casters are still the best classes in 5e its just now the other ones can keep up. Cleric and Bard are now followed closely by Pally.
>if your fighter carries no ranged weapons
Yes because this is the problem here in 3.5, the fighter not bringing a bow with him and not the fact that the wizard will never just be flying but surrounded by half a dozen force fields and summons to take hits for him.

I want 4e contrarians to leave

> In other words, you can’t use an expended maneuver again until you rest for a brief time or perform a specific action in combat that allows you to recover one or more expended
maneuvers.

It's resource expenditure. It's spellcasting. Come up with another excuse for why I can't do the maneuver again.

> inb4 "i'm tired"
> inb4 "well abstraction of luck"
> inb4 "muh narrative"

Or, y'know, I could just kill them with a fireball and raise them as a zombie. Better yet I can kill multiple targets with a fireball and get loads of zombies.

Fighters have to refill their pocket Sand bar man

So we can have two sets of classes suck for half the game, assuming anyone plays a full campaign. Great idea!

>Yes because this is the problem here in 3.5, the fighter not bringing a bow with him and not the fact that the wizard will never just be flying but surrounded by half a dozen force fields and summons to take hits for him.

So delete protection from arrows which was a gay-ass spell anyway? And windwall. Those spells always get forgotten yet somehow the fact that a wizard can FLY was the big issue in 5e, so fly had to require concentration. It's not enough for wizards to be less powerful, they have to be less cool, too.

>Raise them
They're not permanently under your control, creatures at higher levels are usually immune to fire damage, and that requires multiple spell slot uses than just one

>It's resource expenditure. It's spellcasting.

Not all resources are spells you fucking troglodyte.

>assuming anyone plays a full campaign.

And levels 1-10 get more play than 11-20, so martials will be stronger overall. I don't see what you're whining about, martialcuck. You want casters to be worthless little geeks like they were in 1e, too? Oh look I can cast magic missile then die! Yayyy! That way you can feel like a big man beating the shit out of those mean pesky wizards. Is Gygax giving you hate-wood for spellcasters from beyond the grave, or is something else going on here?

>It's resource expenditure. It's spellcasting.

>Oh because fighters have difficulty damaging flying opponents. So buff ranged combat. If your fighter carries zero ranges weapons then he deserves to be beaten by a wizard who flies over his head.
Except that scales off of dex, which is a secondary stat to most fighters. And let's not get started on how shit ranged combat is if you're not dedicated.
>hat's funny about that last sentence, too, is that martialcucks will literally call it out as an example of caster suprmacy.
Except a wizard can do that with a single spell choice and has a shit ton of other options. A fighter has to be specially built from the ground up to even attempt to counter that.

Calm down, user. You're going to have a stroke.

Alternately why not just design the game well from the start?

>Not all resources are spells you fucking troglodyte.

That's true. You can also expend ammunition, potential energy, gamers' patience, and similar things. None of that explains why my swordsage's blade of fire attack can only be used once before resting.

OH yeah, that's right.

Because it's magic.

As is 4e fighter abilities. In fact if anything they are even more so.

>Because it's magic
That doesn't explain it either, you mongoloid.

This ain't an MMO niggas, it's not like they're useless either, just less powerful overall, level 20 wizards should be demi-gods

Except nothing is being expended, you stupid jackass. It's a dissociated mechanic with no link to the actual in-game world, therefore it doesn't actually exist and it's just an asspull by shitty developers. Get the fuck over it and be glad that 4e players are even allowed to still exist.

Thrown weapons scale off strength.

A javelin now and then isn't much a problem, and you're going to fight flying monsters eventually anyway. Why not take them?

Your swordsage's blade of fire attack requires you to refuel your blade, obviously.

Or it's a technique that requires qi or whatever the fuck.

... Or do you think Monks are casters too?

Because apparently, "designing the game well from the start" translates to "make every character a caster like they were in 4e."

4e martials ARE casters, by the way. Deal with it.