Caster types have various useful spells that serve them in a plethora of situations

How about I have your enemies start wearing armour that lessens magical damage, then have a mini-campaign of finding the man creating anti-magic armour and letting the party decide his fate, you all getting loot in the process such as a helmet with an eye emblem on it's forehead that looks at any man that relies on magic and emitting a ear piercing hum sound only by casters, or an iron shield that absorbs magical attacks and then redirects them at you?
How about that Mr.Magic man?

Couldn't magic man just loot that gear and use it against other magic man, and otherwise just focus on summoning magic and buffs/debuffs that don't deal damage anyway?

Also, that doesn't fix non-magic man still doing shit all when he isn't killing things.

Play in a non-magic setting or in a setting where magic has actual restrictions.

He might, he might. That would be pretty smart of him in all honesty. Or maybe it would start to change his magic, making it weaker and him slowly get weaker and weaker after using magic.
Also, I'm just shitposting, we all know anybody smart doesn't play to win in these games, they're about having fun and being an ultra god of superkilldeath that one shots every encounter and makes the table hate you doesn't seem that fun.
Then again, this is OP we're talking about, maybe he is that big a faggot.

No, talking about quality. You seem to have a different opinion, but overall the general consensus in the roleplaying community is that they are not simply good, but great games.

If you passionately believe otherwise, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Why not play 4th edition?

Because I'm not a faggot.

Not him, I was the user you were talking to before him, but I concur. I prefer AD&D 1e compared to the other sets, and while others can play what they want, I'm not going to play them. Oh well, at least if everyone is having fun, then it's fine to me.

Who would ever willingly play a non-caster in d&d?

>bandwagon fallacy

And I'm certain back in the day Zeus really did chuck lightingbolts from the clouds.

People who don't play to win

People who think knights, soldiers, and/or warriors are really cool?

because martials are better at damage than wizards are.

like, massively better.

when was the last time you saw a creature that was immune to a martial attacking it with a magical weapon, literally all I can think of are oozes.

how common is fire resistance? cold resistance? fire immunity, lightning resistance, poison immunity, all common as dirt.

legendary resilience allows you to no sell the wizards ninth level spell, won't do shit to an axe to the face, melee and ranged weapon attacks scale FAR better than wizard spell save DC, especially since they don't have to worry about magic resistance or magic immunity or any other shenanigans.

and when you're playing caster in the first three levels you are one bad roll from death at all times, its a nerve wracking experience and likely the cause for all these paranoid wizards.

skillful types also tend to do less damage than martials because their bonus damage to make them competitive in combat is gated behind arbitrary restrictions like a rogues sneak attack.

you ever seen a level ten rogue get stabbed to death by two quicklings? fuck you ever seen a rogue try to fight on its own full stop? I have, its fucking hilarious.

basically, if you want to contribute to the team while at the same time pulling your weight in combat, pick a caster or a skillmonkey, if you want to be an autistic murderhobo who can eat damage that would tpk a caster party then proceed to shit out unholesome amounts of damage during his turn, you pick a martial.

its in the fucking name, martial types for martial situations

>bandwagon fallacy

Saying that something that is popular and well-received is popular and well-received isn't bandwagon fallacy, it's literally a statement of fact.

Your subjective opinion of its quality is contrary to the subjective opinion of the majority of roleplayers. You can argue about your subjective opinion, but that's not quite the same as your claims about the ultimate quality of the game being objective.

I hope understanding this helps you in the future.

...

t. Martial

This guy gets it.

>contrary to the subjective opinion of the majority of roleplayers.
>Majority....
Did you poll all the roleplayers?
If you didn't, then your post is based on zero facts.

>all the roleplayers
Polls work on polling samples of the population.

And, there's never been any evidence that contradicts that the majority of roleplayers play D&D, with 5e being the dominant game, followed by 3.PF. Everything from convention stats, amazon sales numbers, and online gamefinding sites corroborate with that assertion. Even the old Veeky Forums polls revealed that the majority of Veeky Forums played D&D, moreso than any other game, even non-RPGs.

Do you have something that might lend credence to your assertion of the contrary?

>Probably because those are some of the best games on the market. Easily top 10, if not top 5.
You mean worst.

That's quite an extreme opinion. I won't even hesitate to call it hyperbole.

3.x is objectively terrible game, not the least because of the effect it has on the fanbase. Go on, just try to get someone whose first game was 3.5 to play something that isn't based on it...

>objectively

Demonstrably false.

>Go on, just try to get someone whose first game was 3.5 to play something that isn't based on it...

Likewise, demonstrably false, and not really relevant to the discussion.

If you want to continue to propose that your personal subjective opinion, one that only a minority of roleplayers share, is actually an objective truth, than please say so, so that I can end this discussion with you by saying that you don't respect other people's opinions and thus can't discuss something as subjective as the topic of roleplaying games.

I grew up on 3.5e and had no problem moving to Exalted and later Anima, nor did any of the friends in my friendgroup with a similar experience. Of course this is just anecdotal evidence, but I'm not sure what effect you're trying to describe.

>Demonstrably false.
Go on and demonstrate, then.

So,retards.

Just specialize the caster types so that every class can bring something useful and something powerful without some being able to do everything.

You don't have to do complete anti magic though. Once had a magic detector that reacted to spell being casted in the wilderness around an antagonist lair, so the group had to approach man vs wild style or they would alarm the enemies too soon.

>the wizard just runs out of it and casts an instantaneous conjuration spell
>try to follow but slowed down by armor
>the magic boots that helped me run faster don't work anymore
>mfw

>mages aren't overpowered because you can homebrew a bunch of shit to target them specifically

>Saying that something that is popular and well-received is popular and well-received isn't bandwagon fallacy, it's literally a statement of fact.

That isn't a fallacy, true.

>No, talking about quality. You seem to have a different opinion, but overall the general consensus in the roleplaying community is that they are not simply good, but great games.

This is, though.

Just because something sells well and has very numerous fans doesn't make a thing good. This is as true for Justin Bieber, Twilight, as it is for D&D.

The effect is distorted for D&D because it has such a huge dominance on such a small market, since Hasbro/WotC is backing it.

>
And, there's never been any evidence that contradicts that the majority of roleplayers play D&D, with 5e being the dominant game, followed by 3.PF.

If majority of people are eating at McD, is it because McD is good, or is it because it's convenient and affordable?

This is what 5e is. Convenient. It's everywhere and it's not offensively bad. Which is par for course. D&D had always been a pretty solid mid-tier system.

>It's widely played, therefore it's good
And now I'm going to make an analogy with all the shitty things in move, tv show, litterature, and all the entertainement business and then you're going to go "nu uh! muh critics!" and then I'm gonna say that rpg critics are not on par, at all, with literary critics, and you're gonna say "nu uh! you don't have it either!" and it's going to be long and tedious

So to keep it short, it's a bad game and you're a dipshit

Not before you tell me whether or not you think your opinion is objective truth or not. I don't want to waste any more time arguing with someone who can't accept that other people might have opinions different than their own.

And, basically, if you agree that it is subjective, since the very concept of their being a universally agreed-upon standard for what makes a game terrible or not is ludicrous, there's no reason for further demonstration, since people enjoying the game is enough to show that the game is not terrible, especially when we're talking about the majority of people who play roleplaying games.

I think this discussion is over.

>Should we scrap the idea of dedicated, unskilled warriors as adventurers altogether to introduce more game balance?
No, they still have their uses. Then again, I'm just here to say that I would hold Megumin's hand and not let go.

That's just argumentum ad populum, though. Something doesn't have to be "universally agreed upon" for it to be objectively true.

Please, go to Veeky Forums and do this with Twilight.

I want to see what happens.

Yes

He'd probably just get banned.

>bad game design can't be objective
What blows my mind with this shit is that game are not fucking art. It's not a fucking book, it's not a painting, it's not a sculpture.
It's a fucking book of rules. Of fucking course it can be objectively bad.

If you need to do a bunch of stuff to rein in one group specifically, doesn't that mean that group was overpowered? Otherwise they wouldn't need to be reined in.

>Just because something sells well and has very numerous fans doesn't make a thing good.

That's not what's being said.

The statement is "The majority of the roleplaying community believes it is good."
And that's true.

If you disagree, your opinion is that of the minority. That's nothing to be ashamed about, but it should make you hesitate a little before trying to assert your opinions as anything other than opinions that most people disagree with, such as in the case of recommending what games people you are unfamiliar with should play.

D&D is good for a lot of reasons, enough that it's actually almost silly to have to make such an obvious statement. It's probably best to try and understand them, instead of assuming that everyone is simply wrong and that they only like it because they're stupid and you are so much smarter than them.

No no, I meant that since you're overpowered, I'll make it harder for you too win.

>>Caster types have various useful spells that serve them in a plethora of situations
>>They also need to be good in combat because TTRPG usually emphasize combat
>>Skillful types have various useful skills that serve them in a plethora of situations
>>They also need to be good in combat because TTRPG usually emphasize combat

Then why not only having those?

The rules are used in different ways by different people, and different people want different things out of different rules.

It's subjective, through and through.

You don't like D&D? That is your SUBJECTIVE opinion, because you disagree with the rules, their usage, how you used them, and so on and so forth. That doesn't invalidate the people who do like D&D, enjoy and agree with its mechanics, and use them in a manner that aligns with the style of game they enjoy.

Comprehend this much? Life is going to be hard for you if you can't.

DELET THIS

that's literally what OP asked

>It's subjective, through and through.
No it isn't. Your fallacy doesn't become any less fallacious just because you keep repeating it.

>You don't like D&D? That is your SUBJECTIVE opinion, because you disagree with the rules, their usage, how you used them, and so on and so forth. That doesn't invalidate the people who do like D&D, enjoy and agree with its mechanics, and use them in a manner that aligns with the style of game they enjoy.
People liking something doesn't mean it can't be objectively flawed.

Bad is a poor word to describe it by, so the others are out of line saying that, because that IS subjective.

D&D is flawed, though.

Just play a good game like anima: beyond fantasy

I'm trying to address this very thing in the RPG I'm writing I know, I know, just like everyone else

My primary way of addressing this is to do something similar to D&D's half-assed band-aid that is Three-Pillar Experience. Every skill, every roll, every choice that a character makes should be directly tied to one of those three things (Combat, Exploration, Social Interaction). No classes, but different skills that excel in one of those three things (whether it's sword swingin', spell slingin', or song singin'), players progress via choosing different skills upon level up, and all the skills tie back to one of those core things.

Play 4e
Play 2e

Yeah but you could at least just say that at least of the skilfull types are warriors and empharize about how warriors are well rounded adventurers.
And it could make to say that mages types are a lot more specialized. (Magic is very hard and requires specialization, mages are rare so it's statiscally impossible for them to be really good at other things,ect...)

>Polls work on polling samples of the population.
Funny...

Then why isn't Hillary potus?

Polls are unrealistic and not reliable at best. At worst, they're biased and phoney.

Saying the majority of (x), dislikes a thing without asking a majority of (x), leads to false findings.

>D&D is flawed, though.

No one said otherwise, and really, all games are.

>People liking something doesn't mean it can't be objectively flawed.

An "objective flaw" is something like early editions of OWoD and how the dice mechanic actually made it so that you had a higher chance of critical failure the more skilled you became. Most "objective" flaws get fixed before a next edition gets printed, and most are actually even errata'd before that.

Compared to that, D&D has very few "objective" flaws. It certainly has a lot of subjective ones, especially depending on who you ask (and who they played with), but nothing quite on the level of anything resembling a major objective flaw. People will complain about it being too deadly or not deadly enough, about certain themes or flavors or mechanics they personally don't like, or about how the game is not balanced in the way they like, but those are all still subjective opinions. And, even if people do agree on something like it not being balanced, how unbalanced it really is and how important that is to the overall game remains highly subjective.

Hence, why most discussion about D&D dives quickly into the realm of subjectivity, especially because people are trying to prove such absolutely subjective statements as "D&D is terrible".

>Do you have something that might lend credence to your assertion of the contrary?
Two things.

1) lots of free PDFs online means people aren't buying what they get free
2) 3.5 is old. People playing it already have the books the need. Thus sales aren't an indicator of people playing.

I can find no flaw in your post. Well said.

Would you happen to have any sort of evidence whatsoever? Simply saying "we can't be certain" doesn't really do much to uproot what evidence we do have.

Basically, all the best evidence we can get points to D&D being the most popular game by a wide margin. If you could produce some better evidence that contradicts what we do have, you might have something worth saying,

I agree that d&d is the most common. That's based on what I've seen. But I don't see everything. And polls are rarely reliable.

If your evidence is "muh polls", then you've got no evidence.

Hey 4e was pretty good on that front. Mostly because it made 'Use skills' the core of everyone outside of combat rather than having spells replace skills.

THIS
If spells aren't the go-to out of combat resolution mechanic, the balance rights itself to a spectacular degree.
Maybe not perfectly, but a fuckton.

I think that people in general really underestimate the versatily of having superhuman strength.

Polls, sales, convention stats, gamefinder sites, all point to it not just being the most common, but dominating by a wide margin.

Even if we extended the margin of error to ridiculous amounts and went ahead with your somewhat unreasonable decision to throw out any and all polls, the evidence all seems to show that D&D is played by the majority of people who play roleplaying games.

If you just want to keep saying "you've got no evidence" when you haven't produced any evidence of your own to contradict what evidence we do have available, I don't even know how you intend to argue anything other than an appeal to uncertainty.

>I think that people in general really underestimate the versatily of having superhuman strength.
People really do.

I mean, it's not like being able to lift a metric ton doesn't open up just as many options as having high DEX or INT or anything. Then again, D&D isn't really known for giving martials love in this regard, especially if they focus on STR.

>DM's in general really underestimate the versatility of having superhuman strength
It seems like everyone forgets that 14+ in a stat makes you abnormal.

It's like how people will make an 18+ strength character and describe them as "yeah I was just some average guard" while they're able to dead lift 1000 pounds

Yeah, but that's because of the d20 making a +4 bonus good but not THAT good. If you were rolling 2d6 like (despite my problems with it) Dungeon World, +4 is a big fucking deal. They'll usually only be beaten by an average person on a fumble.

It's not that they underestimate it, it's that the mechanics for representing Strength suck shit in every modern edition.

It's more that the mechanics are intended to be used with a much wider range than simply "strong guy vs. weak guy" but things like "house cat" vs. "dragon," yet while still allowing some chance of exciting contests between things like a human and a troll or even a giant.

It has weaknesses, especially when trying to ask questions about realism on the lower end of the spectrum, but it makes up for it by making its actual use during the game not just a forgone conclusion and instead a dynamic feature that can lead to unexpected (ie, exciting) results.

Forgot to mention that 3 out of 4 of those editions have casters that dominate most STR guys in STR contests.

It's not exciting, it's shit. That's one of the things that should be nearly deterministic.

To each their own, I guess.

How does that work? Is it clerics buffing themselves to become better fighters?

the only real option is to make martials into superhuman powerhouses but neckbeards dont want that because most are history autists that want them to be realistic fighters in an unrealistic world

so martials are pretty much shits out of luck

3.5: THE ENTIRE POLYMORPH LINE. There are things in core that give you 41 STR before enhancement bonuses or anything - at level 12.
PF: Druid pets can start with 20 STR and they gain access to better STR bonuses than other classes, Summoner gets a pet with absurdly high natural STR just from size bonuses, Synth Summoner IS the pet with high STR.
5E: Polymorph again, except now nobody can actually beat you.

Yeah, but then you also get situations where the party barbarian loses an arm - wrestling contest to some regular schlub because 1d20+5 loses to 1d20 26.25% of the time instead of only 5.4% of the time on 2d6.

True, it's why I like how 2e handled ability checks

>Making Intimidate checks with Arcana
Asshole do you SEE how magically spooky i am?

Miss those utilities.

CoDzilla only sort of counts because they actually invest for their STR. Unless they're Animal or Transformation domain, in which case they don't have to lift a finger, they get Polymorph and/or Shapechange and then get to apply it to outcheese everyone.

That's why for an arm wrestling contest you have both participants just Take 10, or not even roll.

If only martial actually did have superhuman strenght, most DMs wont let you carry a boulder even at 20 STR

>and instead a dynamic feature that can lead to unexpected (ie, exciting) results.
Yeah, it's so exciting to watch Smash Meatchunk fail checks in the things he specialized in while everyone else succeeds because the bonuses are tiny until 15 levels into the game.

Fuck OFF with this shit.

>Is it clerics buffing themselves to become better fighters?
Not him, but for the Big Three:

>Wizards
As the other user mentioned, the polymorph line. As early as level 3 (in 3.5e) you can get some limited use out of it, and it only gets more obscene as time goes on.

>Cleric
You only need one,LITERALLY ONE, buff that makes up for the BAB and hp gap between cleric and fighter and gives you some bonus STR to boot: divine power. You can use Persistent Spell shenanigans to cast it once and make it last all day, or you can use some Complete Champion stuff to cast it spontaneously (if you have the war domain, which you have no reason not to have if you're playing a melee oriented cleric). ONE spell makes you a fighter but with a very extensive spell list.

>Druid
Doesn't even need a spell to do the same thing as the cleric. He only needs a feat: Wild Casting (and really, why would you ever NOT take that feat as a druid?). You can argue about the pros and cons of druids vs clerics (druids are better at melee with lower investment/less shenanigans but can't use armor or magic weapons and have a less powerful spell list), but what's clear is that both of them outshine the fighter with relatively little investment.

>CoDzilla only sort of counts because they actually invest for their STR.
Divine Power already adds +6 STR though. Even assuming that the cleric has a paltry 12 STR, divine power buffs it up to a respectable 18 str. Now let's assume the cleric had very good rolls and started out with 16 str. That's boosted up to a whoopin' 22 str. How can a fighter even hope to compare?

Divine Power is an enhancement bonus: it's gradually obsoleted by gear or gets persisted to stand in for a +6 belt while also buffing their core statistics up to the Fighter's level. The real problem child in the Cleric's spell list is Righteous Might, which isn't just personal, it would be a much healthier spell if it wasn't, but it gives +8 size bonus to STR for a single size increase.

That's really not how it ends up being if you've actually played the game. And played the game in a fashion that wasn't specifically so you can get angry at it.

>Take 10
Pretty sure you can't do that in that kind of situations.
> not even roll.
That's really unexciting. Why even have die at that point?

Which is stupid. If you allow casters to break physical law barriers then so should martials. Otherwise casters are basically Gandalf the Grey if we don't arbitrarily apply restrictions to martials but not casters.

Yes, it is how it actually ends up being. You'd have to be retarded or actually lying to think otherwise.

This is why, mechanically, you restrict spellcasters into support/healing roles and let the fighters actually be the best at fighting. That way, Rogues offer their skills, Spellcasters offer supporting magic, and Fighters are there to actually fight.

By about level 5 you can see bonuses higher than +10. On a d20 roll, that's fairly significant.

Also, why are you so angry and petulant?

>it's gradually obsoleted by gear
Yeah, the strength bonus does. The extra hit points and especially the BAB increase are what makes it worth your while start to finish though. The strength bonus is just icing on the cake.

Also, remember how I said that it can be quickened through Complete Champion shenanigans (a certain prestige class if I remember correctly)? Now imagine casting divine power and righteous might in the same turn. You "lose" one turn to become a gore machine that makes the fighter look like a heavily armored pack mule.

I personally think that the stat system is just outdated design. It's way too granular.
What's even the difference between a guy with 15 DEX and one with 16? Would you think of them as any different?
DnD should just go full perks. You could have a "superhuman strength" perk, and any character with it would be remarkably strong, or a "superhuman dexterity", or both, or none of those kind of perks in which case the character is just about average in term of body.

On stats? No you don't. You might see a +8 from a raging Barbarian that has a STR buff on him. You're not seeing more than that.