The defining warrior of both medieval history and medieval fantasy is the knight in shining armor

Then stop presenting an issue in a handful of systems as a monstrously endemic problem.
It's not, so stop fronting like it is.

It's pretty endemic. You even got a free counterexample of your absolute statement.
Only one free one, though. After that you have to pay.

You can name 3-5 systems where magic is overly powerful, and I can name 10 that are not so.
But please, continue this shitpost thread in my absence.

Look, I know you're desperate, but you're not getting another taste until you pay up.
I don't care how cheap your rates are, we're talking about my rates.

>and I can name 10 that are not so
Not him, but it'd be nice if you stopped being bitter and named 10 of them.

It's also a pretty big problem in vampire: the masquerade.
I can't really think of any major game that doesn't have this problem. The only semi-major ones that have even a lesser version of this problem are the ones that are like "magic is still mad OP, but in exchange, you'll be fucked by demons"

So you admit that you have no idea what you're talking about and are just spouting bullshit?

Nah. I'm just making the guy pay if he wants an argument.

It's not a pretty big problem. Blood sorcery is more versatile yes but disciplines themselves are varied and powerful enough you don't ever get to 3.5 levels.

You're the one who started the argument though. You're being very silly.

Have you BEEN to the WoD general?
It's a big problem.

>In most fantasy settings fighting on horseback is suboptimal
This is less a matter of missed opportunity cost than any deliberate downgrade to mounted combat. The thing is that many fantasy games/rpgs take place in dungeons or castles, neither of which are safe or large enough for large horses. So the feats, talents or skills you took to be useful on horseback aren't useful in that context. It doesn't hurt you but you miss out on abilities that might help you more in a dungeon.

I gave him a free taste of a counterexample to his sweeping statement.
That's how you get people hooked. This is business 101. Have you never sold drugs before?

I am curious about these other 10 settings.

>I can't really think of any major game that doesn't have this problem
Exalted, 4e, fantasycraft, GURPS, FATE, cypher, mutants and masterminds, any given PbtA game

I dunno, sounds to me like you get hurt pretty hard by taking feats for focusing mounted combat when mounted combat is rarely viable. Especially in DnD where feats and such are pretty rare occurances and can make or break a character.

You mean blood magic or mage vs any other splat?

But you didn't really. Your counterexample had nothing to do with the argument at large. What, do you promise people crack and then hand them an apple and go "Welp, you're gonna have to pay me for more!"

None of those are even slightly major except for MAYBE gurps, which has magic be as broken as you feel like it being.

>vampire: the masquerade
It's your fault for unironically playing oWoD.

It had to do with the post it was replied to, which was enough.
I mean, it's not like the post replying had anything to do with the argument at large.

Well no, they all have large followings and sell well, you don't get to just blanket say any counter example doesn't count
But going by that logic the only major game that exists period is d&d. In which case the answer is 'because that's what people want'

>Why even label it as medieval then?
Technology level, government, and culture. If you think that knights define the middle ages you are an idiot, that's like saying the information age was the time when the sterotypical white collar job was a middle manager working in an office.

the answer is always because that's what people want, user.

>shadowrun
Not medieval

>vampire: the masquerade
Not medieval

>but it's a problem in D&D!
And what do we say to the faggots who complain about a problem that's localized to the Dungeons & Dragons-derived systems?

>Look buddy, I'm not the kind of person who researches things before I post about them

Yeah.

>DnD is bad
You'd think that this wouldn't need explaining at this point.

>>The defining warrior of both medieval history and medieval fantasy is the knight in shining armor
Agreed.

>>In most fantasy settings magic horribly trounces martial prowess
Somewhat agreed. "Many" would be more accurate than "most".
But yeah, often: mage > knight > unarmored warrior
Mage knight for the win.

>>In most fantasy settings fighting on horseback is suboptimal
Literally never seen this.
A lack of representation of horseback fighting does not necessarily make it suboptimal.

>>In most fantasy settings there are no rules for jousting
See
>setting ≠ system
There are many relevant aspects of medieval society that are not represented in a rules system.
Like lace production.

>Why even label it as medieval then?
Do you eat buffalo wings?
Were they made in Buffalo?
Relax and dial down the autism, you'll live longer.

If you'd read, he said it was only a problem a specific game and its' derivatives had, and you have several examples to the contrary.
I am sorry it makes you upset that this problem is more widespread than you thought?

This should be a banner for Veeky Forums in general.

I still want that 'maybe the internet was a mistake' post to be a banner

Why do you call yourself "he"?

you got your sides confused user, even if everyone on each was samefagging, that usage of he still works since it was talking about the opposing side.

Unless, I guess, he's arguing that EVERYBODY in the argument is the same samefag, which I hadn't considered.

Only if you compare Mage to other splats in a system that doesn't really support cross splat play.
It's not a problem in any of the individual games, and Thaumaturgy is versatile, but not more powerful than other disciplines for what they do.
FFG 40k (all of them save DH1e and Black Crusade): 4
Shadowrun (editions 1-3): 3
Fantasycraft
Hackmaster
Riddle of Steel
GURPS
Paranoia
Fate
Scion
WoD (technically, as Mage is it's own splat in it's own game that doesn't reflect on other splats/games)
Basic D&D (until you go pat 10th level)
4e D&D
Exalted 1e
ADEva
WHF

>Look, buddy, I'm not an E-warrior who does extensive research

Wanna know how we can tell?

half of those don't even HAVE magic, ya phony.

You must be really thirsty to get that argument if you keep trying this without paypal information.

All of them have supernatural effects that clearly work against the established rules of the setting (ADEva) or flat out have magic (all the others).
Amuse me, why doesn't Paranoia have magic (Mutant powers)? WHF (sorcerers)? Exalted (charms and etc)? RoS (rituals)?

>D&D and systems based on it
>"most fantasy settings"

Mutant powers aren't magic ya jamook

>Major urban centers
>International trade
>Absolute monarchies
>National identity
>Full Plate
>Firearms
>Standing (professional) armies
>Exploration
>Rediscovery and intensive research on ol
>Explosion in literacy and the written word

All of these are closer to the Reformation than Medieval. Blame it on Americans not knowing their history.

Everyone on Veeky Forums is really just one really drunk Finn talking to himself.

So, what do we do if the dreamer awakens?
Can we order him more booze so he doesn't?

>Rediscovery and intensive research on old civilizations

Fixed, noticed I didn't finish that point.

Why exalted 1e? Sorcery isn't more powerful then native charms in 2e or 3e either in my experience

>fighting on horseback is suboptimal

That's just a matter of most RPG being dungeon-crawlers.

I have little experience with 2e and 3e, so I didn't comment on them.

Wasn't magic less powerful or at least much more fragile in oldschool editions?

>In most fantasy settings magic horribly trounces martial prowess
Except that's not even remotely true.

You can actually make a full-time rider character functional by using a short race.

I dunno, DnD has a -lot- of settings.

Are we about to go CHIM

the defining characteristic of medieval times is that there was no magic. also Arthurian cycles.

Jousting as an act barely registers really; you're talking about a very specific act that really only took place in a period of about two, maybe three centuries where tournements developed from a more practical military-focused event that essentially was grand field maneuvers to a more organised, safer display of western european military aristocractic virtures.

>the defining characteristic of medieval times is that there was no magic.
Not OP, but ...?
As opposed to all those other time periods that *had* magic?

Your post is especially asinine since OP specifically included "medieval fantasy".
OP was an ass, but you're approach was dumb.

Nope, it's pretty clear you are a smelly moron.

>he doesn't geek the mage first.

>In most fantasy settings fighting on horseback is suboptimal
I thought it's just because you generally dismount to enter a dungeon or cavern.

>expecting people to pay you to defend your own argument.

>I can't really think of any major game that doesn't have this problem.

D&D 4e.

Martial is the strongest power source with the highest optimization ceiling, without contest.

idk
Psionics can get up to some really fun shit.

Harrier Battleminds are GOAT.

But it's not the power source with the highest optimization ceiling.

Ah yes, because they got an extra book full of trap options and fighters natively get an extra +1 to their attacks (depending on the build) means martials are so much better.

Dude, fighter is basically the best defender in 4e.

Warlord is the strongest leader.

>because they got an extra book full of trap options

What are you talking about?

Martial Power 1 and 2 are hella power creep.

>In most fantasy settings rape is the most ethical thing in the universe.

We're playing a Ravenloft campaign, my warrior is using the knightly archetype. She's actually from not!WW1, fortunately for her she was trained as an Ardita so she can fight in melee. She's overall finding that Strahd's domain is roughly about as scary than being in the trenches, but at least you can hunt for food and not worry about snipers.

>GURPS
That's only because the default GURPS 4e magic system is the shittiest set of rules I've ever seen. I played GURPS Sorcery once and the line "it's recommended that the GM set a die limit for spells because the rules in this book don't have limits" appears in 2 or 3 sidebars.

>In most fantasy settings magic horribly trounces martial prowess

It did even in Malory's time. At least the sorcerers tended to be.

This is an excellent list of games designed so magic has no significant advantage or even specific disadvantages over martial capability.

Wouldn't that just sorta negate the idea of having a horse though? Since you'll be riding a much smaller, weaker animal while doing less damage yourself but only being marginally harder to hit than your ally?

That sort of depends on the game you're playing. But in something like Pathfinder, you're still faster and hit harder than a normal sized person, while also being relevant in places normal sized mounted warriors can't access.

True, I haven't tried it, but it just sorta feels like it'd make you "like a normal fighter except with a bit more maneuverability, and I can get mobility killed."

It's also a thing in Ars Magica. (Not necessarily a problem because wizard supremacy is the point of that game, but definitely a thing.)

Yeah. But it works, and that's kinda the point.

>setting has plate armor but no guns because the writer is a retard that thinks guns somehow led to the industrial revolution

Why are you quoting me I mentioned none of this shit? I simply mentioned that knights are not the core of the middle ages. If OP cared about other shit he should have mentioned his problems with the government and technology levels. Instead he just bitched about knights. Also not every setting is forgotten realms.

Magic and wizards Being overpowered happens mainly in tabletop games. It rarely bleeds into other mediums.

Play Runequest faggot.
Buy a horse.
Get on your horse.
Attack closest evens and enjoy being a blender of steel and hooves.

In a setting where tanks, full auto machine guns and autonomous killing robots are a thing and mages are still the vastly superior choice, there must have something give wrong during game dressing.

DnD and it's numerous offspring are a pest.

>Why even label it as medieval then?
It isn't. It's a label faggots like you applied to fantasy games where it was never meant to apply.

>Is it? Is it really most user? Or are you thinking of one very prevelent example which faces a problem only it and it's immediate derivatives do?

3rd/3.5/3.PF have completely ruined a generation of roleplayers and we will be dealing with the damage for years, if not decades, to come.

user... fighting on horseback is really powerful DnD.
With about three feats and a lance, you can deal x4 damage on all of your attacks when charging on horseback.
People usually just don't go this route because yeah, dungeons and stuff. But wise knights don't mount horses, they go for dire lions, megaraptors or giant spiders.

This seems like a good thread to ask: how is the magic balance in Savage Worlds? My group is switching to it next session and I'm the only melee guy in a group of mages

>attacking a dungeon on a horse
It doesn't work most of the time.

Bump please

This. People want their OP mages.

Nah in AD&D casters were still gods but if you actually lived to that point you deserved to be. You needed to be level 10 to do it and your xp progression sucks shit through a crazy straw. To make matters worse you have to find neat spells or get them from another wizard. Then after all that your spells have easily interrupted casting times.

The only live wizards were the good and the lucky.