True facts: The concept of this book, and martials having powers in 4e, wasn't bad at all...

This is about the long and short of it. DnD doesn't need a huge variety of activated/limited use powers for Martials; while a huge fan of turn to turn options myself, something more limited along the lines of Fantasy Crafts tricks+no feat gating for basic maneuvers like trips and disarms to remain viable from 1-20 would have served 3.5 better alongside a downwards rebalance for casters. Options are there in the system, it's just that the numbers do not support them.

More so than the martials being weak, caster spell lists being so incredibly powerful invalidated so many goddamn adventure ideas. It's pretty damn hard to write around the wizard having scry+teleport+gate, etc, and that's just utility stuff.

Yes, but they're shit because they are balanced against Champion's class "features". Champion should have had four attacks, and Battlemaster should have resembled Warblade.
Book of Weaboo Fightan Magic for 5e when?

>No, lazy. At least you're up front about just wanting to start a slapfight.
I'll be completely honest user I haven't had sleep in a fucking while and I honestly do want a thread about how those things weren't bad and only added that last part due to my tiredness/ shitposting being the only way to get a thread noticed these days. So you right, you right, that part was unneeded.

I mean, I do genuinely believe part of the reason martials are weak is due to caster players, on some, perhaps multiple levels, but that is a conversation that isn't gonna go anywhere so no need to start it.

isn't this book the book that make warriors cast spells as well

better not nigger, I do not like that at all

manouvers are bought.

3,5 you can disarm by anouncing the action to the dm and doind the checks
5e niggers are too dumb and disarming gets locked until a single archetype with lvl3
manouvers is retarded nigger shit, 5e is a ghetto system

>They're shit
They're one of the best martials though, best DPR and battlefield control martial around. But you have to remember 5e is dial down to 1 compared with some of the past D&D editions, back in 3.5 you killed an army of mariliths at 10th level? now 10 goblins can still obliterate you at 10th level

Fantasy Craft has an awful lot of skill gating for basic manoeuvres like trips and disarms. Actually it requires you to pump a variety of skills just so you don't get locked down by an enemy deciding to spa trip or whatever.

>isn't this book the book that make warriors cast spells as well
Wait what?

>isn't this book the book that make warriors cast spells as well
I am reasonably sure spell swords are older than 3.5, friend. Probably older than D&D, infact!

>Book of Weaboo Fightan Magic for 5e when?

just use this

The fighters=jocks so they must suffer meme just irritates me, because i remember the days it was tossed around as a joke and then somehow migrated into unquestioned orthodoxy. It's easy to understand how D&D evolved to a place where wizards can do anything - that magic spells get to break the rules while the guy with mundane skills has to operate within the rules but with higher numbers just feels intuitively right.

Still dozens of times worse than ToB.

casters are weaker in 5e so there's less of a gap to fill

>Implying any GM is going to let me use it
I don't want to sound like a cunt, and I'm sure you did that with the best intentions, I'm also not blaming you, but I hate most homebrewers for what you just did, just because your GM uses it doesn't mean other GMs are going to give it a go, when we say "I wish we had this" we mean officialy, homebrews don't help 99% of the time.

It lets the Fighter-equivalent cast such amazing magical spells like "I attack and ignore damage reduction" or "I charge and full attack" or "I Whirlwind Attack twice" or "I follow your movement when you move" or "I block an attack/spell with my sword" or "I charge and so do my allies". The Paladin and Monk/Ninja/Eldritch Knight equivalent classes get maneuvers that are magical, but those classes had magical abilities in the first place.

>- that magic spells get to break the rules while the guy with mundane skills has to operate within the rules but with higher numbers just feels intuitively right.

It does, and in theory this could be done in a way that doesn't make you go "why not just play a wizard." Sadly, D&D has not done this, and it probably never will.

>3,5 you can disarm by anouncing the action to the dm and doind the checks
And then you eat an attack of opportunity, botch the roll, and get disarmed yourself because you don't have the feats for it. If you're up against something that can be disarmed in the first place.

Oh wow, this post in one sentence encapsulates one of the big problems that /40krpg/ constantly suffers from.

Get a better GM

Most GMs do that.

youtube.com/watch?v=7Jm_eUQSYAk

You're kind of a dumb cunt, especially if your entire argument is based around you admitting you have the persuasive abilities of three-foot tall mosquito.

I honestly think if any sort of revised PHB comes out, they just need to make battle master and champion be one and the same. Champion is just so worthless on it's own. Make up a third archetype, like I dunno, one focused on making dual wielding better or something.

You literally cannot make a persuasive argument when the other person's position is defined entirely by their feelings. An argument against feelings is by definition a personal attack, and feelings can't change by logical argument.

>Champion is just so worthless on it's own

...doesn't it have, like, the highest potential reliable damage output among martials?

Regardless, I think the Champion should continue to exist because I want there to be a basic Fighter option who's just a straightforward warrior, the same as how the Rogue gets the thief and the Barbarian gets the berserker.

Or you don't get how the well is poisoned so that homebrew is autobanned from almost every table and won't even be entertained, you dumb fucker.

I'm not familiar with them, what happened?

Just play 4E.

I'd argue that skill-gating for them is a cheaper/easier investment than feat-gating; particularily egregious was comparing, say, Pathfinders grapple chain to FCs grapple-chain. In Pathfinder, the grapple chain is Unarmed Strike/Improved Grapple/Greater Grapple, and the first two feats only buys the ability to punch someone without getting an AoO and being able to grab someone without an AoO. The only thing that's an actual upgrade, instead of removing a terrible in-game penalty they slapped on the maneuver, is the third feat, which lets you spend both your actions on grappling instead of just one. Versus FC, where the grab feats start with a special stance that lets you reflexively trip or grab when someone misses you, a modifier on your unarmed strikes that lets you sprawl people who fail an attached fort save, and a trick that turns trips into risky, limited use, hard-hitting piledrivers. On top of that, the real investment you're going into is Attack Check vs Attack Check for disarm, Notice for Feint (who DOESN'T want notice? But the value of sensory skills being too high is another argument), Sense Motive for Distract, Athletics for Grapples, and Acrobatics for trips. Most characters, just by going into their normal skill progression, are going to be highly resistance to at least half or more, before they even start investing to resist. And there's nothing wrong with player characters having specific maneuver weakpoints; gives them something to worry about. The Soldier with shit Sense Motive is now going to have a reason to punch the taunting bandit with good CHA instead of just fighting the biggest damage dealer first.

For all its flaws FC had the right idea with feat design; they're flavorful, fun chains that have you buying new maneuvers and abilities instead of boring +2 modifiers or removing terrible penalties.

>.doesn't it have, like, the highest potential reliable damage output among martials?
If combats lasted more than 12 turns, they don't.
12 turn combat? Champion is king

See, what I said, most homebrewers think homebrewing is allowed in every table. Fun fact: It, by an incredible large margin, isn't.

Monsters aren't and ToB still didn't close the gap between spellcasters and martials, it just put martials where they should have been in the first place.

12 turns is pretty long for combat. D&D is balanced around combat lasting between 4-6 or so turns, if I recall correctly.

I argue that world changing and encounter solving magic should be removed from the hands of players entirely, and used only as a plot device.

Nerf casters. Hard.

I'll admit, I'm not the most knowledgeable on the system, but I don't know how it could be considering none of it's abilities have anything to damage, unless you count grabbing a fighting style that does more damage. And easier crits, I guess. That said, if it does have the highest potential damage output, I would love to know how.

Now I agree the fighter is useless in 5th ed, I tried hard to make one. Thanks to them making the 1st (5-6) levels suck to keep out muilt-classing, unpowered them at the levels they tended to own in the past. Barbarians out damage them and need less equipment. Rangers and Paladins have useful skills and unity spells. 5th made STR next to useless playing into the 90Ib DEX fighter (most marry sues in moives/shows today).

>actually wanting all classes to be equal
casters being overpowered is baked in to dnd lore at this point

i mean would you rather go explore in the tower of a powerful wizard, or of a guy who can hit things with a hammer real good?

The 40kRPGs are a dead line. FFG lost the licence, and GW isn't renewing it. So what they have is what they get, and they're missing a LOT of material. They have one single turbo-autist that makes a ton of homebrew for the missing stuff, but any mention of homebrew causes a shitstorm for a number of reasons. People still deep down want official material but also realize that there will never be any more, causing angst. But the biggest thing is 8th edition changed the canon and the homebrew uses the newest books, which leads to nucanon/trucanon shitflinging. Everyone has a different view of what 40k feels like, so when that feeling is attacked, they strike back. As an example, Mechanicus Tech Guard (old canon) vs Mechanicus Skitarii Rangers and Vanguard (new canon). The former is seen as old news and not exciting, and the latter is seen as disrespectful to the source and a cash grab. Neither side gets along, and thus there's argument.

The thing is the guy who can hit shit with a hammer real good should also be a warlord with a fortress and a small army at his call.

That's what fighters used to be like, before 3e fucked everything up.

>Champion is just so worthless on it's own.
Spoken like a true wizaboo. Why don't you try playing one?
>Make up a third archetype, like I dunno, one focused on making dual wielding better or something.
So like, Ranger?

How I hate GMs that can not deal with players having a choice. This in 5th ed where there is very little choice to be had

>You literally cannot make a persuasive argument when the other person's position is defined entirely by their feelings.

That's when it's the easiest, since they have nothing to ground themselves on. I'm sorry you can't actually talk to people.

What I fail to understand is why you want to act like everyone is as stupid as you must be, and to act like there's a universal blanket ban in order to try and support a largely empty argument.

Aside from you relying entirely on anecdotal evidence to support your points, you really don't have much of a case if you're hoping to lament about some fictional "most" groups when these are groups people wouldn't want to play with from the start. If you really want to pretend everyone in the world is mindlessly stubborn and won't listen to any suggestions, I guess that just means I'm dealing with people I should probably not bother with, and end the conversation here.

If you like martials so much why wouldn't you play GURPS or the Riddle of Steel or Mythras or whatever?

>Ranger
>Better at dual wielding
Not better than your fighter who also gets to add Str/Dex to the off hand, and at 1st level instead of 2nd like Ranger

That army was fluff and ribbons, and still nothing compared to what mages got.

You can still have a choice and create change in the world without being an overland flighting god mate.

Pretty sure it's the crit-fishing coupled with Great Weapon Master letting you re-roll the 1s on damages with a Critical.

Only because the retards decided that magic=near unstoppable divinity.

Despite nearly every hero of myth being an extraordinary man punching wizards and gods alike into submission.

>i mean would you rather go explore in the tower of a powerful wizard, or of a guy who can hit things with a hammer real good?

5e has both a CR 12 archmage and a CR 12 warlord statblock to use for that. I guess the warlord would have a castle rather than a tower though.

Sure, I have no fact, only 5 different cities, 2 different countries, 12 different groups and almost 20 different GMs which is anectodal evidence, I don't care you're the luckiest mofo around and you can come to your GM with D&Dwiki homebrewed stuff and get a "sure" 10/10 times, I can't. I dind't find a single GM that accepted homerules from other people. So, in what way "use this" helps me? nothing, it doesn't help me, your homebrew doesn't help me in the slightless, so your post replying to "I wish we had this officially" is useless.

>Sure, I have no fact, only 5 different cities, 2 different countries, 12 different groups and almost 20 different GMs which is anectodal evidence,

user the fuck you doing having so many groups and DMs.

The book was only bad cause it made existing martials useless

>your anecdotal evidence doesn't matter
>but mine does
>also I don't know how talking to people works

This is bs, everybody accepts homebrewing

They were already useless user.

They were already useless.

I traveled a fucking lot. I still do.

I accept homebrewing. Hell, I homebrew a lot of stuff myself. I find it fun.

Not him, but it is called being an oldbeard and/or being in a job that requires mobility, like say the military.

I'm 41 and been in a similar number of groups over the 30 or so years I've been playing.

2 cents - After 20 years of gaming in a collage town, I agree with this. I go as far to add 3 parity stuff rarely even gets looked over.

Everyone accepts homebrewing from inside the group. The only times I've ever seen homebrew that came from out of the group get greenlighted were community-wide agreed upon houserules for 4E and in a ToB-only game, homebrewed martial disciplines from GitP.

Did it manage to make them double useless?

Blame the deluge of shit third party products from the d20 glut for that one.

The key idea is that we're throwing out all arguments that rely entirely on anecdotal evidence to support them. More importantly, even if some groups don't allow any 3rd party material, that really doesn't mean anything, and trying to press that as if it were a point is just a really lame attempt at dismissing 3rd party material right off the bat.

Champion is pretty good. It get really ridiculous when you go Half-Orc for Savage Attacks (extra damage die on a crit) with a greataxe (1d12), and then take the Great Weapon Master feat to add a +10 to damage (you could also take the UA feat but it is pretty minor and not many people actually play with UA stuff).

But even without all that, it's still pretty good. People forget that Fighters get extra attacks, up to four at level 20. That's a lot of rolls that could be an 18 or 19 crit.

Third party material gets dismissed because it's almost never allowed.

>things aren't allowed because they aren't allowed

circular

Yes and most Pathfinder 3th party is not play tested as well as it should. We tried play with the Psi-powers book once. The combo of the Psi healer and a Cleric broke the game. Doing this was the GMs idea so it did not stop until a level 4 we were took out a elder Dragon

>D&Dwiki

That's not the entirety of homebrewed stuff, and is a particularly poor example because none of that is really published and almost none is peer reviewed.

In general, the homebrewed options DM's tend to dislike are those for player characters. However, most DM's have absolutely no problem with homebrew for NPCs, items, subsystems, dungeons, traps, and so on.

So, just suggest to your DM to look at a homebrew for ideas for NPCs and the like, and after they've looked at the material, ask if the material seems balanced enough for PCs.

If you're relying on personal anecdotal evidence for the entirety of your argument, consider yourself dismissed.

But, user, 3pp Psionics from PF are literally a carbon copy from 3.5 Psionics, I can't find anything new from that book a part from improving stuff that needed to be improved like Soul Knife

Hell, even with just 3 attacks at level 11, I think the odds of getting a crit hang somewhere around 1 in 3, don't they?

Why greataxe and not greatsword? More dice to re-roll off of Great Weapon fighting style. 4d6 re-rolling 1s or 2s once is better than 2d12 re-rolling 1st and 2s, isn't it? And the average damage of 4d6 is a bit higher than the average damage of 2d12.

That ToB for 5e got posted in here several times, I tried to bring it to two different GMs, no chance. That's why I maybe started a little mad with the reply.

And homebrewing being allowed isn't anecdotal evidence?

That's probably a failure to understand the rules more than it is Vitalist actually breaking the game.

Looking through it, that example is not a particularly good set of homebrew as far as balance goes. I'd really hesitate myself to include several of the options in the book.

It definitely needs more playtesting, and I've always felt that homebrew should err on the side of being weaker, rather than stronger, than official options.

Are you trying to say no one ever allows any third party material? Because, you'd have to provide evidence of that before your argument held any weight.

>poorly-chosen terminology
Like what? That a bunch of PFaggots can't accept they're fulfilling basic roles within the party's composition in order to succeed unless they're all broken as shit wizards?

Geez, those edition war scars still haven't healed for some people, have they.

>homebrew should err on the side of being weaker
Unless is meant to fix something see wot4e monk

The psi healer can take healing from anyone at any time and heal someone else. Pathfinder Cleric heal area of effect as a bonus action. So everyone got healed but only 2 needed it. Start every round fully healed. Psi Melee fighters/Tanks get Damage Reduction. See where this is going

>Why greataxe and not greatsword?
Greatsword = 2d6 + 2d6 (Crit) + 1d6 (Half Orc's Savage Attack) = 5d6, or 5 to 30 damage

Greataxe = 1d12 + 1d12 (Crit) + 1d12 (Half Orc's Savage Attack) = 3d12, or 3 to 36 damage

I'll grant you, though, that they're pretty comparable, and with Great Weapon fighting style, greatsword may edge greataxe out overall.

Actually you'd have to provide evidence of third party material being allowed more often than it's banned.

When one side refuses to accept that there are any flaws at all, or worse, attempts to call those flaws features and then continues to not only claim superiority but taint the waters of possible players, yes i'm salty. Both 4 and 5 have some large flaws but any PF player, not even 3.5 guys most of the time, will claim their shit don't stink.

Not at all, because the "argument" of third party material doesn't rely entirely on the idea that all groups must accept it. It doesn't even rely on the idea that most groups accept it.

On the other hand, your attempt to dismiss it relies entirely on all groups never accepting any form of third party material, and at best you only have anecdotal evidence that some groups don't.

Thats literally the cleric's problem though, not the psy classes.

I know right? No one wanted to play one even after we broke it. We paid 3 NPC Vitalist to follow us a max mind group range at first. Then someone muilt-class for a few levels.

>I've always felt that homebrew should err on the side of being weaker, rather than stronger, than official options

y tho

>When one side refuses to accept that there are any flaws at all, or worse, attempts to call those flaws features and then continues to not only claim superiority but taint the waters of possible players, yes i'm salty.

Holy shit, I knew that people who got in deep in the edition wars were crazy, but I didn't realize anyone so butthurt was still around and hadn't just killed themselves.

You're one hell of a survivor.

>CR 19 dragon as a 4th level party
Let me triple doubt that. That monster insta drops to 0 HPs anyone at that level with one attack, and it has 6. Even if you heal him back he's prone, if he stands up he dies.

That monster also has spells that rape your party.

They need to just bite the bullet and give maneuvers to every martial archetype except champion. Champion can go without so the autists that can't not use options presented to them have a containment class.