How does one make a " quadratic fighter"?

Well done

But its fun

this

>stop playig D&D

Stop being stupid.

quadratic progression is dumb

Except that's wrong, you retard.

All it does is allow you to make saving throws and do more damage.

for some reason I did read it as quadriplegic at first

>I've never been to Veeky Forums or /g/: The Post
Let me guess, Veeky Forums "native," sometimes visits Veeky Forums and only hits up /b/ and /aco/ for porn?

Initiators are still pretty linear. ToB did a lot to bridge the gap and fi you combineit with 3.5 books that take "magic" down a notch like Psionics, Incarnum, etc. You can actually get a fun game.
Except thats wrong you retard. It allows you inflict debuffs, deal with DR without begging the caster/magic item dependency, deal with status effects that would require magic to deal with, heal, teleport, draw aggro, and do AoE damage.

/g/ only has [code] and Veeky Forums is a cesspool I wouldn't touch with the business end of möbius strip

I don't know about parity with spellcasters, but in any fantastic setting, simply remove the law of diminishing returns on human performance.

When every high level wizard can polymorph themselves into a dragon, I got no issues some high level burly bearded fuck out in the wilderness bench pressing bigger and bigger rocks until he starts tossing horses at people.

Why not just play a game with linear wizards

They need to get a lot more power ever level, so we have to multiply the variety of abilities they get.

Id say something like:

Weapon Skills: Basically a list of special abilities that acts as a sort of spell list for fighters. They can make an attack roll and, if they beat the DC of the weapon skill, perform a weapon skill that can be used with that type of weapon. They might not be magical in nature, but that doesn't mean they are not powerful. Include debuff abilities here, as well as a package of anti-caster tricks like punching the wizard in the throat to silent him or cutting the connection between a caster and all of their summons.

Legendary weapons: PCs are Special, and their deeds become legend. Much like how the heroes find powerful weapons from bygone heroes, someday someone will consider what you have now a weapon of legendary power. After level 10 or so, the fighter can regularly choose weapons they have wielded and give them power permanent upgrades, often unique ones. This is how you end up with stuff like an evil blade that makes enemies save against fear whenever you draw it, or a bow that can shoot fireballs a few times a day.

Battle Cries: The Fighter learns a small number of Battle Cries, which last for a few rounds and he can only have one in effect at a time. The earlier BCs are just area effect buffs. Then they learn area effect Debuffs, and eventually the ability to outright deny a specific action of an enemy as a duration based effect (aka: choose an action/school of magic. That cant be used by anyone, friend or foe, in the area for the next 3 rounds).

Its gross and messy, but if you want fighters to go quadratic they need to have as many tools and as much power as wizards. Its not pretty , but that's how you do it.

There is also the Mythos classes. Bellator is pretty much all about fightery things.

I have but one bump. It is my gift to this thread

>People keep saying more combat options such as debuffs and anti-caster things
Holy shit are you people dumb. The problem isn't the options within combat ( well, it is a little ) . It's the problem with options for everything outside of combat.

>Problem only occurs in one system and its derivatives
>Telling people not to use that system and its derivatives is stupid

Yeah, okay.

You could also just use 4e which works and is balanced. Though is also correct, out of combat tools is usually overlooked. Having a better skill system is an option but it's usually not impactful enough and casters are almost as good at it as martials.

If you do that you will end up with whine about muh anime.

Eh, out of combat utilities start stepping on the toes of the Skill-monkey classes...
5e did step in the right direction with multi-attacks and the Action Surge though.

>Kills enemies weaker than him provided he does at least 1 point of damage
>Applies excess damage to other enemies
>Does not suffer multiattack penalties, his total number of attacks scales according to his total attack bonus
>Can move freely during full attacks, and gets a free 5-foot step for each attack he gets.

There. Whenever the fighter's turn comes up, he wipes out entire rooms.

Don't forget there was a counter that let you roll to block anything that had an attack roll, including melee/ranged touch attack spells.

The problem was never the Fighter class, as written it's fine. The problem is there are no scaling high-end combat feats with a BAB requirement that prevents other non-martial classes from taking them.

That's exactly the problem he's describing, 5e (at least at low levels) has very little gap between casters and martials - in battle. Outside of fighting, the casters are still kings. The skills do nothing to change this, if the GM makes skills really effective then bards will be even better than they already are and rogues may step up to join the paladin in power. Martials in general don't gain more skills, and only rogues/bards have expertise.

I don't mind there being a class that's just about combat. The problem is hen that class isn't also the BEST at combat. If all the class can do is fight, then once Initiative is rolled, it should be the Fighter's world, and you all jut live in it.

That's what happens when designers use their games to get back at all the jocks that made fun of them for being nerds.

>I don't mind there being a class that's just about combat.
Well then you are an idiot, because it's a role playing game, not a wargame.

Scaling feats are better than prerequisites. You won't have enough feats to take even a handful high level feats, but you very much can take scaling feats that become more powerful as you level up. Add some feat to feat scaling and you'll be golden.

Something like:

-Dodge-
You add you BAB as a dodge bonus to AC.

If you have other feats it gains additional bonuses.

If you have Improved Initiative - you are not Flat Footed in Surprise round.
If you have Combat Reflexes - you get an AOO every time someone misses you.

And so on.

>>Problem only occurs in one system and its derivatives

Lie.

>Telling people not to use that system and its derivatives is stupid

Truth.

Now, quit being stupid,

>implying 5e isn't pandering to 3aboos while sneaking in actual good design from 4e when they can get away with it.
Pathfinder is what you're talking about.

Look at shadowrun to see how awful asymmetrical class focus can be in a party game. Apocalypse World gets away with it because of its structure and lack of party, but it would never work in D&D.

Like this.

>Problem only occurs in the heads of people who sit around shitty message boards all day because they can't actually get in a game
Fixed that for you

True, but Fighters also have 7 Ability Score improvements to the Rogues' 6 or the Bards' 5, and Ability Improvements can be traded out for Extra Feats, one of which is Ritual Caster that allows you to cast those Ritual Utility Spells of a particular Spell Casting Class.

It could be done ok. If game has more or less three classes - Warrior, Expert and Sage.

They could and will have some abilities outside their respective strengths but they will be limited in width. Like say a warrior knows everything there is to know about killing people, waginag war and so on, and may have some skills on the side that step on toes of experts and sages but maybe 3-5 at max.

On the other hand expert is the guy that is all about practical skills, talking to people, finding things, helping the group to move through wilderness and so on. He could take care of himself in a fight and maybe knows a couple of small magic tricks but is nowhere close to warrior or sage in this matters.

And sage is the guy you turn to when you encounter weird things, magic or monsters that combine all of the above. He also knows all the ancient lore, dead languages and so on. So while bandits maybe a fighter forte dealing with a ghost is when you need a sage. He could also whack people with his staff and may have a couple more mundane tricks but most of the time sticks to his own devices.

And then you have monsters that need all three archetypes to work together to beat them - only sage knows what exactly you need to do and can provided needed magic, only expert could help setup it all up in such a way that you won't die immediately and get all the equipment needed, and warrior is the guy that gets to implement it all and work all the hiccups in the plan that will happen.

Utility feats are weak though, and come too late. A fighter that doesn't go polearm (where there's like 3 feats that synergize and you want them before taking utility), still wants to spend 1-2 ASIs maxing their main stat, which is before/after getting a weapon feat like GWM/SS/SM, so at best with a starting main stat of 18, you're getting those rituals at level 8. Polymorph comes at level 7. It's too little too late, and especially at level 10 and beyond caster supremacy starts really setting in. And that's not even tackling the fact that fighters are so good at combat because of their ASIs so you would be trading in-combat power which is still needed, to get a hint of out-of-combat utility.

That would work if there were three pillars or similar in D&D, but it's all centered on combat and beyond that it depends on the setting/campaign. Besides, if you keep combat the same it will still be tedious for those that aren't able to contribute (the Shadowrun problem), and by adding rules to the other characters' specialties those aspects may also slow down with the warrior unable to do much.

>And then you have monsters that need all three archetypes to work together to beat them
This is a very different type of game, and I'm not convinced it would be "expert/warrior wait for the sage to do their research, warrior/sage wait for the expert to set up the encounter, sage/expert wait for the warrior to finish it all.

>so at best with a starting main stat of 18, you're getting those rituals at level 8. Polymorph comes at level 7.
Uh, Polymorph's not a ritual in 5e, and is also subject to Concentration...

Yeah it should go more for the high fantasy feel not the declared D&D's "dungeon crawl" with warrior being able to take on multiple enemies while sage and expert either use environment to survive, or beat enemies one by one, or setting up some kind of a trap.

>expert/warrior wait for the sage to do their research, warrior/sage wait for the expert to set up the encounter, sage/expert wait for the warrior to finish it all.
Think more cinematic. Monster barges in and throws everyone around, warrior takes it on with maneuvers and attacks trying to beat it or at least confine. Sages lists its weak points and starts casting spells needed to make it vulnerable (if say it is a golem with forcefield or whatever). And expert either looks for some pillar to trap it under or uses some of his mundane tricks to cloud its vision and other senses.

I mean for casters, polymorph is gained at level 7. So while the fighter finally gets ritual caster to have a piddly bit of out of combat utility, the wizard/druid/whatever has already been turning the BSF into a giant ape for a level and will soon improve that to a T-Rex. Polymorph is, in my experience, the point where casters start to really show their supremacy, so if Fighters only start getting out-of-combat utility after this point, it's as good as not getting it at all.

tex is shit

So ... nothing has changed. Because "warrior beats/confines the monster, sages list weak points and cast spells to make it vulnerable, expert uses tricks to further weaken it" means the whole "warrior is best in combat" is false. What you're describing there is a class system of a game focused on combat, ergo the classes become different ways of dealing with combat and different roles within it. AKA how D&D works.

If the three of them are doing all that shit to beat monsters in jolly co-operation, what happens out of combat? How will this not lead to the cited problem, where warriors aren't significantly better in combat, and the others have options outside of it? You could make the warriors also do stuff out of combat, but that's what you argued shouldn't be needed.

There is a difference. Because when the group doesn't deal with monsters, loaded up on magic and being the size of the house, warrior could murder most of opposition single-handedly. Maybe even all of them but it would take too much time and cooperating with party members would make it faster and less dangerous, especially for said party members.

In D&D when a warrior comes up to an NPC wizard there is really nothing it could do to said wizard to make it move. In this setup intimidation and outright beating people to get what you want becomes very much possible. You take a big hammer and declare that the guy across of you is a nail.

In D&D martials don't have a warhammer really. At best they have a kitchen knife.

Compare it to GURPS or d6 Fantasy where getting on the bad side of a fighter could kill you before you even get to act.

So, through intimidation and beating them, you are now able to contribute via mechanics outside of combat. That doesn't really gel with , cause you're no longer just about combat, even if you fluff out-of-combat utility as fighting. It's still being able to do more than just combat. And that's a good thing.

Everyone gets to work in each of the parts just differently and with most of the work done in their area of expertise. I said in initial post that everyone will have some bleedthrough to other parts just limited.

Expert and sage participate in combat but they prefer to not fight directly or to do it from some cover. Warrior doesn't get to know who to ask pointed questions in town to get needed information, at least not without beating half of the said town. And when group deals with genies, ghosts, fairies, lovecraftian horrors and other weird shit they need sage to do it without getting into debt or selling their souls.

Frankly if we were to stay more or less within d20 framework just making classes to have strengths in each of the game parts would be easier. And more recognisable.

I believe there were 2 versions, the low level that just let you block it and the high level that let you redirect it to any nearby target

and lets be honest here: using your sword/shield to deflect the wizard's deathray into his own servant is something that should be BASELINE for fantasy warriors

5e massively stepped down the amount of spells casters can be throwing around. Being able to throw around tons of utility spells are what made spellcasters arguably really powerful out of combat.

That's not easy to do anymore, especially not without gimping your ability to deal with combat if you do get into an unexpected fight. Because if a wizard expends all their spells dealing with non-combat shit they really will be completely useless in a fight. And extremely vulnerable.

Any wizard should always be extremely cautious about using too much of their power, lest they get fucking bodied.

How do we make monks great again?

>I'm incapable of playing a character with a personality unless the rules allow it

3.5 Square meals a day

That's some Monkey D. Luffy shit right there.

Yeah caster supremacy is nowhere near as bad as 3.pf. But that doesn't mean it isn't still a problem. Concentration doesn't mean fuck all when you cast wish, and even low level with invisibility, charm person etc. it can do a lot. Just because there are limitations to it doesn't mean it's balanced. And the problem with utility spells has always been to be able to just bypass encounters so trading combat strength for it isn't an issue. If you can polymorph, banish, charm, blind, etc. the enemy and leave them, who cares if you don't have fireball? And most of the spells that do this kind of stuff isn't even worse than "combat" spells when you're stuck in a brawl. Poor resource management is not a drawback, that's just a player using their abilities badly and a fighter could do the same using action surge to run away (dash+disengage) when he doesn't really need to instead of using it to dish out some extra damage in a big fight.

And sadly the book of weeabo fightan magik is still our brightes ray of hope for DnD

And the PF faggots, of course, just ignored it.

You know that Path of War is the Tome of Battle of PF, right?

>top ten most brutal anime murders

A quadratic fighter needs options, lots of them. So many in fact it's like playing several classes at once. Which is the problem with Wizards and CoDzillas.

ToB and Path of War do much for alleviating some of the linearity of fighters, but they often don't go far enough if you wish to keep wizards as supreme godmen that are basically 9 classes in one (Abjurer, Conjurer, Diviner, Enchanter, Evoker, Illusionist, Necromancer, Transmuter, and Universalist).

A sensible alteration of the way this works is the nerfing of Wizards into a specialists of one school of magic, barring them from ToB/PoW multiclassing, and giving the fighting man's lots of weeaboo fightan magic.

Which existed before PF was released and could have been easily worked into the core rules of PF.

It's not even a later supplement but 3rd party stuff. Not to say that 3rd party is bad, just that the PFtards would have only needed to pick it up to make their game less shit.

Name another system where it happens. I'll wait.
>Can prove problem exists
>Numerous people have pointed out the problem
>Developers of system have admitted to the problem
>Still somehow imaginary

Yeah, okay.

>the wizard/druid/whatever has already been turning the BSF into a giant ape for a level
Uh, again, 5e Polymorph is subject to Concentration, meaning he can only have the one continuous Spell going at a time and need to make a CON save every time he takes damage.
The Morphee also gets the forms MENTAL Stats, so good luck with that.

>Being able to throw around tons of utility spells are what made spellcasters arguably really powerful out of combat.
>That's not easy to do anymore, especially not without gimping your ability to deal with combat if you do get into an unexpected fight.
Well you do have Ritual Casting, but again the Fighter can get that with a Feat and INT or WIS of 13 or greater, and it's for things like Detect Magic...

If your dm just allows you to polymorph into any animal without having first seen it, he's shit.

Meant to reply to him.

HAHAHAHA get it because it's not really anime!
>>>/facebook/

A: Stop playing D&D
B: Realize this is only a problem in the minds of people that spend all their free time sitting around theory-hammering a table-top RPG, and the the people simple enough to buy into their ramblings.

D&D's actual combat system is outdated, dry, and rife with issues that cannot be amended by "fixing" a single class. It's stagnant, it's stupid, and it's still, to this day, trying to shoehorn in rules form a navel battle skirmish game into representing individual human beings on a person-by-person scale.

If there are no rules for social aspects you're not playing an rpg, you're playing freeform.

It easily happens in GURPS if the GM makes a few common mistakes.

Though, you're probably gonna play the "Well, every game is technically derived from D&D card," which would be amusing

Here's your (you), you dimwitted troll.

In GURPS you also have ways to overcome it through other means. As long as players are of comparable skill and knowledge it should not be a problem.

>As long as players are of comparable skill and knowledge it should not be a problem.

Same could be said for D&D.

No. You can't beat a wizard with a fighter at same level of skill. Unless you get extremely lucky. Maybe around up to 6 level if we are not talking about charop but more or less normal if competent builds. At high levels you can't beat casters at all.

In GURPS points allow you to build your abilities piecemeal and in case you need a counter or some new way of interaction wit the world you could add it in.

Play 4e?

Or you could play something else, like the dark eye, which is germans arch-rpg or traveller, which are mostly skill based systems and have magic / psionics.

>No. You can't beat a wizard with a fighter at same level of skill.

Yes. Yes you can. You honestly don't even understand the issues involved with the whole fighter vs. wizard argument, and seem to seriously believe it to be a PVP issue in a cooperative game.

You dumb fuck. Quit bleating memes you don't even understand already.

Oh boy I sure do love how 5e made it so wizards can only use mirror image/blink simultaneously and cast shield or absorb elements on call while chucking their choice of fireballs or lightning bolts or cones of cold, but have to choose between whether they also want to be flying or completely paralyzing one or more enemies.

It's also nice how they can only recovery any number of slots adding up to 6th lvl once a day during a short rest, or use their pearls of power to recover up to a third level slot, or draw a prepared spell slot free from their rings of spell storing, or use one of the multitude of staves and wands only they can attune to and use charges to cast whatever the fuck the item lets them regardless of what spells they personally know or whatever slots they may have left.

Man 5e really did fix so much. Best edition ever.

No I don't mean only PvP you imbecile. Fighters/Martials can't beat wizard in general in anything. Except maybe raw damage, because not many wizards bother to build for that. High level wizards can even have physical stats higher than the fighter.

There is a good challenge where characters need to solve different problems using their abilities. Even using magical items left and right most martials, besides ToB classes, get rekt in like half to two thirds of them. And even ToB classes suffer in some of them, but at least they have areas where they shine.

Play 4e?

>Wargaming is freeform
ok

Deja de jugar D&D tio.

Wizards cant build for damage, really. You can get maximize and/or empower maybe, if we're talking 3rd edition, but even that only really starts to up your damage at very high levels. Other than that there's kinda just nothing you can do, since it's all caster level.

Anywho, whether a caster dominates or not in any given situation depends on a massive amount of variables. They certainly don't just dominate any possible situation all the time.

Uhm... yes, resource management is a drawback. Especially when you have to decide what exact resources you'll have access to ahead of time.

And honestly, you're massively exaggerating a wizard's ability to resolve situations, even if they just so happens to have just the right spells, which they wont.

Play anima, pick Technician or Tao.

How make lore friendly fighters as powerful as mages? I am thinking about "soul"related "magic"

Play 4e?

Doesn't allowing for more attacks as you level up mean Fighters' fighting power is quadratically improved as time goes by?

You know. You often hear about martial character not getting as much as casters because they're contrained to physical realism.
But when I think of the DnD feat system, if no single feat breaks physics then stacking 5 times as many feats doesn't break physics either. Right? You can introduce tons of skill monkey stuff. Special manouvers, reactions, into total overpowered god territory if you'd like.

maybe dont give them twenty magical items

Or two. Or any. And be sure to ban class features and spell selections too.

>pc's physically changing over the course of the adventure
yay or nay?

Let them use their strength to divert rivers & shit. That's from myth. Let them jump to the goddamn moon. Let them hook the sun. Or play a system where magic has a thought out reason for having the spells & options (Warhammer/Shadowrun) & not the grab bag of spells that D&D has. I love D&D thankfully my players are shit with spellcasters, but if anyone tried to do somekind of bullshit I would just nix/make rare certain spells from the game. You don't have to let them take Wish/Simulacrum/Genesis if you don't want to.

Look at the post above you. Basically exactly what you're looking for.

Yes. If one were to consider raw damage alone it's actually the exact opposite of the usual perception, at least as of level 5 and onwards.

Wizards are the linear ones because just about every damage dealing spell 3rd level and up does a linearly increasing caster level x d6 of damage. Meanwhile fighters' damage add together factors making their individual attacks stronger with getting more attacks to become exponentially stronger.

Of course, wizards do get many other things besides raw damage.