Be DM

You know there is a heap of RPGs where martial characters have resource management, right? Like L5R has 'once per encounter' abilities too.

It does when the game assumes that the only way to become awesome is by popping spells that allow you to do so.

Besides, nowadays every martial class has a caster variant, but nobody's raising a stink over the Fighter having the option to go EK.

B-b-but 4e called them “Powers”! REEEEEE

Martials weren't spellcasters. Their abilities were martial powers. Dumbass.

Nope. They were, mechanically, spells.
Also 4e nerfed or removed 90% of the problem spells from 3.5.

I'm stuck because two of my best friends from high school who make the game fun get really annoyed at the thought of playing any other system.

Thanks for volunteering your abject ignorance on the subject! You can leave now.

You gotta understand though, martials are designed to be shitty so that people end up choosing to become a mage once they understand how the game works.

They're the red shirt you make to fuck around with the mechanics while mages are the main character who actually moves the plot along.

It's a shame but it actually requires a high IQ to understand how to play a caster in D&D.

No. They were, mechanically, martial. Hence why they all had the "martial power" mechanic.

>Also 4e nerfed or removed 90% of the problem spells from 3.5.
Isn't that what people have been suggesting be done for years?

Yep, 3.5 had them too. And they were shit. They are metagame shit. Please explain, in logical in world terms, why I cannot use a daily power more than once per day? You cant, you stupid buttfucker, because every "logical" explanation you have is EASILY shot down. "Muh tired" then I should get more used per day for higher Con. "Muh situational" well then why do I get to pick EXACTLY when I use it? It makes no sense and is illogical. Magic in d&d represents the expenditure of magic energy that is replenished one time. This makes sense because wizards are magic. Magic can do what it wants. Martials aren't magical. They can't have this excuse. Now go back to your heroclix superhero war game and leave real gaming to the adults, thanks.

More and more, I'm coming around to the fact that 4e was the best edition of DnD precisely because it was the farthest from being dnd, what with all the sacred cows it killed.

Actually it's not, because mages have a logical reason for it. Martials don't, because they don't have the convenient excuse of magic. Nope it's not a retarded d&d- ism, that's not an argument, you're gonna have to do better than that.

They're a narrative abstraction. Game rules are not physics.

You have a kick someone really hard power. Doing so once is okay, but causes stress injuries that make you unable to safely do it again until you rest and treat your injuries.

Nope. It's a retarded D&Dism. All the rest you need is

To be fair, he’s partially right. 4e did nerf or remove a bunch of broken spells, which is why 3aboos despise it so much. When people start crying that 4e didn’t support roleplaying or out-of-combat situations, what they’re really saying is that casters no longer have a gigantic sack of “I win” buttons.

Not an argument. Nothing I said is ignorant. Stop posting Reddit- tier whinging.

No, you fucking nigger, they worked like spellcasters have in the last several editions. It doesn't matter what you call them, you stupid motherfucker. They were mechanically wizards. You cunts wasted my time on this shit game for 2 years. Burning those books with my friends once I showed them a better system (5e) was one of the happiest days of my .

>they worked like spellcasters have in the last several editions.

so? That fixed the issue.

That's a retarded reason to like it.

>I don't know what I'm talking about but if I keep shouting about it people will listen to me!

Okay. Actually having read the books might help you not seem like an idiot though.

The out of combat thing is silly. All of 4e's powers are so well defined with tags that you can pretty easily improvise their out of combat effects. I never had an issue with it, only ignorant morons did.

>Please explain, in logical in world terms, why I cannot use a daily power more than once per day?

Because it's a narrative abstraction?

>Not an argument
>Reddit
>you fucking nigger
We can see here a 3aboo making his mating call. We can only hope it goes unanswered.

D&D is not a narrative game, and you are yet to show a good reason why it is a "retarded d&d ism". 4e being balanced comes from the nerfing of wizard spells, which was rolled back somewhat in 5e but still mostly kept the same. The balance in 4e had nothing to do with the shitty AEDU system and it was widely discarded. 5e is just as well balanced as 4e and there is no reason to play the former over the latter.

I never said I liked it user. "best edition of DnD" is not high praise. Step out and experience the hobby outside the prison of your favorite brand.

>No, you fucking nigger, they worked like spellcasters have in the last several editions.

Spellcasters in previous editions didn't have at-will OR encounter powers. So they 'acted like spellcasters' in that spellcasters had some overlap with a single category of abilities? You might as well say spellcasters acted like martials due to at-will cantrips.

>only ignorant morons did.
When you're making statements like this without grounding, it usually is because you're a fucking idiot yourself.

>narrative abstraction
>in world term

Please explain, in real world terms, why my 5e battlemaster can only attempt to push someone with a thrown pebble a few times before needing to rest an hour.

D&D is not a narrative game. Deal with it.

I hate 3.5. So fuck off. I play 5e because there is nothing it doesnt do that 4e does besides the shit parts of 4e which is 90% of the game.

Makes no sense when you consider there might be healing magic on hand. Or you might not care about injuring yourself.

>5e is just as well balanced as 4e and there is no reason to play the former over the latter.

It's really, really not. 5e has serious issues with the adventuring day, since everyone works on a very different system there. You need the GM to very carefully tailor exactly how many encounters and how much room there is for short rests (Which benefit some classes but not others and don't benefit all classes equally) for balance purposes, which is very artificial if you are trying to put it into an actual series of events other than 'You are exploring a dungeon'.

All roleplaying games are narrative games to a greater or lesser extent, and narrative abstractions of that sort have always existed in every edition of the game.

5e is 'balanced' in that now martials can deal decent damage. They're still completely fucked in terms of flexibility and utility. If you want to play an interesting martial character who actually has fun options, 4e surpasses 5e in every respect.

>D&D is not a narrative game.
Of course not, hence why it's abstracting the narrative in favor of gamist balance mechanics.

hitpoints=/=meatpoints. healing magic restores your stamina, not your wounds.

>happiest days of my .
Of your what?

OF YOUR WHAT?

>Missing the point

So you are asking for an in-world term for something that expressly doesn't exist in-world? That is remarkably pointless.

>healing magic restores your stamina, not your wounds.
Ok. And as to the second point?

Well, he couldn't say life. He doesn't have one.

It's there and for it's problems are you gonna tell me I can hop on roll20 and find a CYBERPUNK game. NOT fucking shit-tier shadowrun, not anime bullshit but a juicy rain-drenched bleak ass transhuman game to enjoy?
No? then I'll stick to dnd

You are absolutely right.
It's not a retarded "D&D-ism", I don't know what was thinking.

It's just plain old retarded.

3.PF is known to cause extreme levels of brain damage with continued exposure. Symptoms include treating D&D as a physics simulation (only for martial characters) and screeching at any system that does differently.

It isn't about injuring yourself later, it's that you're already injured, and aren't physically capable of pulling off that move.

Look for Sprawl.

It always amuses me how the people who bitch about powers never seem to acknowledge the inherently abstract nature of tactical combat.

In a tense melee, how are your PC's aware of the relative positions and actions of every other participant? How do they always know the right place to be, even if the action they're responding to might be completely out of their line of sight? Do you insist on insanely complex double blind setups?

Of course not. Because it's an abstraction you're familiar with. That's the only difference, familiarity, rejecting something because it's new and different.

Aw, are you the same disabled guy from yesterday? Still having a hard time with these concepts, huh? Don't worry, if you keep trying to understand them you'll figure it out!

DM yourself you moron.

That just raises more questions, my man. So have given yourself an injury that prevents you from kicking really hard. Ok. Does this injury slow you down? Can you climb? Can you run? Can you pull off a different power that involves kicking?

Does this 'injury' exist in any form other than as something that prevents you from doing the same kick move again?

It isn't even that powers are an abstraction they aren't familiar with. They are intimiately familiar with it, because they all played clerics, druids, and wizards in 3.pf. The reason is that it brought the cucks up to their level and made things balanced. And the grognards that rebelled against 4e couldn't handle balance. They wanted cuck classes in the game so they could trick new players into playing them and feel superior.

>Does this 'injury' exist in any form other than as something that prevents you from doing the same kick move again?

No.

I've played dozens of RPGs that aren't d&d. GURPS, savage worlds, apocalypse world, world of darkness, all flesh must be eaten (Unisystem), some shit called project biomodus, a bunch of others, even FATE. Stop strawmanning.

Still waiting on this one, 5efags.

>"if it's not 100% similar, then it's not the same at all"

There's always something to be said for honesty.

Wow look a bunch of assertions with no arguments or examples to back them up! You sure have me convinced!

But as said, it's as much like they made spellcasters like martials as they made martials like spellcasters. Spellcasters didn't get 2/3 of the stuff 4e had them with. If anything, it's more like they made everyone Bo9S.

>narrative abstractions of that sort have always existed in every edition of the game
Oh really? Show me where they are in 1e and basic.

...

Tactical combat

Hit Points

Class levels

>They're still completely fucked in terms of flexibility and utility.
>"WAHHHHHH I CAN'T DO EVERYTHING."
What the fuck do you martialcucks want? You're like spoiled children, impossible to satisfy. Honestly I wish wizards hadn't listened to you at all and just make martials sacks of hit points like they should be.

Prove how its retarded.

Prove how 3.5 causes brain damage and please do so with medical examples. Thanks.

Ah, the traditional tactic of “my side needs vague points that sound right, your side needs citations for every single point made, ESPECIALLY the obvious ones or it’s all irrelevant.”

Sprawl? Alright, let's take a look
>Style
>Edge
>Cool
>Mind
>Meat
>Synth
A little unusual and a combination of stats and skills imo, but nothing outta the ordinary.
>Driver: a real human bean
>Fixer: face
>Hacker: "I'm in"
>Hunter: urban ranger
>Infiltrator: "Gentlemen"
>Killer: "I am heavy weapons guy"
>Pusher: "I don't wanna sell you deathsticks"
>Reporter: Khalisah al-Jilani
>Soldier: Muh nazi's
>Tech: young or grizzled and named "doc"
Alright user. This actually looks halfway decent. No fucking elves, no magic, no soft sci-fi calling itself cyberpunk. I would actually like to know more

To be able to play a heroic martial character in line with fiction and mythology? Someone broadly capable both in and out of combat with their own fields of expertise that are equivalent but distinct from the abilities of spellcasters?

Something which, y'know, a lot of other systems have achieved.

When I played 3.pf I played exclusively martials. Also I hated playing martials in 4e and even 5e. Stop making strawmen.

5e assumes that you're fighting 8 encounters between each long rest. Granted, it does state that not every single encounter needs to be combat but considering combat is the easiest means to gain XP and non-combat encounters boil down to "roleplay with this guy" or "witness this setpiece" it's generally more exciting to assume that you're getting into combat more often than not.

Alright then. Several classes (Battlemaster, Warlock etc) get most of their power on a short-rest basis, while full on spellcasters get most of their power on a long rest basis. The more short rests you have between each long rest, the better the former classes get in comparison to the latter, while the latter get significantly more powerful if the number of encounters is low as there is very little between each long-rest.

However, in many environments the set '2-3 long short rests between each long rest' isn't really feasible for a GM. Travelling in the wilderness, urban adventures, sailing are all examples of such where it is generally not feasible for the GM to maintain the careful 'You need an hour rest every now and again but not too often between each chance for an eight hour rest'.

Brilliant! it's like dming and playing are separate experiences that cater to different needs, or that cyberpunk is a less then desirable setting as there are no Adventurer Guilds. Thanks user, your unique fucking insight and never before seen answer have changed my life

Then you're on the other side of the cuckoldry fetish. His comment is still 100% accurate.

Martialcucks are the niggers of D&D.

They always want handouts but don't want to actually improve themselves because then they'd "be mages 'n' shieet!"

>implying people don't have physical resources (stamina, fatigue, whatever)
>implying they can't choose to push themselves to defend/attack/move better at critical times
Martials should have more options. I GM a different system, but I've had many players who've played D&D in the past, and all of them remarked about how much _more_ they can do, how many options they have. They really like it.

None of those are narrative. Increasing skill is entirely part of the real world. Hit points are not narrative, they are directly representative of how tough and skilled a character is and an NPC would know it's hard to kill that PC in one blow due to his skill and toughness. As for tactical combat, there is about that that is narrative.

>i loved licking the druid's balls in 3.5e
>when 4e and 5e removed my ability to do so, I hated it
>I am not a cuck

During battle, you work up a sweat. Sweat gets in your eyes making it hard to aim that pebble.
Archers don't sweat, and are immune to this effect.

It's okay user, lots of "people" enjoy being cucked.

Check out the pdf share thread, it should be somewhere on r3muz.

They want to play a decent fighting man character, like back in the early days of D&D.

Nothing about what you said is obvious. 5e might be easy mode but 4e is no less so, so there's no point in making the argument if you're comparing with 4e.

Playing 'Mother May I?' with the GM is not a replacement for actual mechanics, doubly so if the system provides no guidelines for the GM to actually make use of.

>To be able to play a heroic martial character in line with fiction and mythology? Someone broadly capable both in and out of combat with their own fields of expertise
You can do that in 3.5.
Now watch how you redraw the parameters of what you want until you at literally arguing for being hercules at level 1. That, my friends, is the state of martialcucks.

I'm not sure how you got that idea from what I posted.

>They want to play a decent fighting man character, like back in the early days of D&D.
Y'mean back when HP values were reasonable and casters actually had roadblocks to their kit?

Sorry grandpa, those days are over, we mages 'n' shit!

So in the real world, you hit an arbitrary point and then get stronger? Hey, wait a minute, that sounds like more of a storytelling convention, doesn't it?

As for hit points... No. They've never been that.

Tactical combat, wraps around to the points in When you look at it, it's a terrible model for actual fighting. It more resembles a fight scene in a fantasy movie or novel... And hey, isn't that interesting?

My battlemaster wears a pink breast cancer themed headband that keeps sweat out of his eyes. What now?

>"cuck cuck cuck"
4e players, everyone! This is the "argument" they have.

Because martialcucks are so brain damaged that they assume that every game hamstrings their efforts at every turn.

Prove it.

And if you go to the Tome of Battle, aka proto 4e, then thanks for proving my point.

>As for hit points... No. They've never been that.
Actually yes they have.

Except it literally started from a post against them, and they're just mockingly repeating it?