>dies to action economy

>>97664800
Why yes, a Black male Human fighter, to express the unrivaled apex of masculine physicality.

>>97664829
He's playing a fighter, not a Thief.

>>97664800
Care to show your current character sheet?

If i want to slay people in melee i would rather pick a barbarian

>>97664852
It's my life, don't you forget

>>97664800
Who are you quoting?

>>97664800
>Centuries worth of warrior art
>Uses shit ass LLM
Tie a bungee cord around your neck and jump from a bridge.

File: Human Champion Fighter.jpg (25 KB, 522x587)

25 KB JPG

I'm usually a Wizard chad but I though about giving martials a try. Every single one I have played has been super boring. Conceptually they are very fun but with the standard dnd mechanics it feels like playing a stripped down NPC statblock compared to a Wizard.

>>97664852
No.

File: 2nd Edition Dungeon Maste(...).png (123 KB, 748x508)

123 KB PNG

>>97665894
>Every single one I have played has been super boring.
That's because they are roleplay oriented for combat. You don't have Magic The Gathering Card abilities to pop from an arsenal of "gimme's".

>>97666518
A spellcaster can RP within combat as well on top of having more mechanical depth. The most fun martial subclasses are the ones that give you more abilities or make you a quarter caster.

>>97664991
Cope and seethe anti-AI tranny.

>>97666532
>A spellcaster can RP within combat as well on top of having more mechanical depth.
They can't, really, spells are largely pre-determined and highly mechanical. There is less lee-way in casting a fireball, than wrestling an orc to ground and breaking his arm.

Do Dex Polearm fighters get to join the club?

Or is this a Str only club?

>>97666548
Many spells are poorly defined and offer creative ways to use them. What you're describing is represented by
>Grapple
>Restrain
Which a fighter could do with the appropriate feat. The image you posted just tells fighter players to imagine they are having more fun while playing the most boring class in the game.

File: 1f75aa90448e7ff5de627d587(...).png (357 KB, 743x472)

357 KB PNG

>>97666559
>Many spells are poorly defined and offer creative ways to use them. What you're describing is represented by
The overwhelming majority of spells are explicitly described with tight cast windows, static effects, and explicitly described consequences. There are a few deliberately written to be more open ended, but those are spells that are mostly ignored, like Prestidigitation and Ghost Sound.

>Which a fighter could do with the appropriate feat. The image you posted just tells fighter players to imagine they are having more fun while playing the most boring class in the game.
That's a complete strawmanned rewording of what it actually says, which is to allow a character to attempt something in combat even if it isn't detailed in the rules, or bends them in reasonable ways. That's not "imagining" anything, that's grounded in-game consequences for player-imagined actions. Why are you being a fuck-stupid nigger-tard? Very strange.

>>97666533
>ai advocate
>look inside
>Brainless chud

Every time.

>>97666592
Not every spell is completely defined, it's a common thing to discuss the outcome of a spell. You would know this if you played.

A fighter can attempt things not explicitly defined by the rules the same as any other character. It is not a unique trait of them.

>>97666612
wtf, I love ai now

>>97666616
>Not every spell is completely defined, it's a common thing to discuss the outcome of a spell. You would know this if you played.
Depends on the spell, but largely it isn't, you would know this if you played, since most of these are just Magic Cards thrown out by casters who never think twice about the results.

>A fighter can attempt things not explicitly defined by the rules the same as any other character. It is not a unique trait of them.
Sure, but his melee capabilities make him better at it in combat than most, naturally, much like most of the capabilities of a wizard, like flying, teleportation, water-breathing, and so on, can all also be achieved by other classes through magical or holy items, relics, or artifacts, some of which go beyond the scope of a wizard's ability, which he has no equivalent to, like a Sword of Sharpness.

>>97666650
These magic cards lead to different options that can be pushed in ways beyond the rules, same as the basic attack action (the extent of what fighters can argue from).

Wizards can also acquire magic items which increase their spread of capabilities. Fighters can certainly get a high damage number, but that doesn't equate to actual viable options to play with consistently.

>>97666661
>These magic cards lead to different options that can be pushed in ways beyond the rules,
Melf's Acid Arrow. How does that work beyond its defined usage on its spell card?

>Fighters can certainly get a high damage number, but that doesn't equate to actual viable options to play with consistently
There are weapons that allow them to shoot lightning, instantly decapitate enemies, armor that grants invisibility, or spider-climb ability. Literally what are you talking about? You've never played a tabletop game in your entire life. You're just shitposting at this point.

>>97666682
>How can the ability to create acid and throw it from a range be used in a creative way
Far more ways than swinging a sword. You can use it to melt through metal or stone that may be impeding you, just off the top of my head. Wizards get that spell on top of many more!

Wizards can innately shoot lightning, innately have instant kill abilities, innately turn invisible, innately have spider climb or even fly. This is before you even factor in magic items.

I recommend you play a spellcaster, or perhaps try running a game of dnd. It will become apparent that the spellcasters are the hardest to plan around and tend to be the most creative, even though they have the breadth of tools needed to not have to be. I've creatively played fighters and barbarians and seem them creatively played, but they are always limited in scope compared to spellcasters who can also be creative with far more tools.

>>97666702
>Far more ways than swinging a sword. You can use it to melt through metal or stone that may be impeding you, just off the top of my head. Wizards get that spell on top of many more!
That's not at all equivalent to a sword, since a sword could also be used to cut or bash through rock or metal through sundering, more effectively too compared to the amount of damage Melf's Acid Arrow does. That's a horrible, horrible usage of the spell, and being that it's "just off the top of your head", shows me you are incapable of actually thinking creatively at all. On top of this, acid wouldn't react with glass, while a sword would, so it's also more limited in the materials it can reasonably effect. So far it's not looking good for Acid Arrow.

>Wizards can innately shoot lightning, innately have instant kill abilities, innately turn invisible, innately have spider climb or even fly. This is before you even factor in magic items.
No they can't. They have a spell which shoots lightning. That's not innate magical abilities, that's learned knowledge. You can't even get the basics of the setting we're basing this entire hypothetical on correctly. I imagine you're a nightmare to play with, if you ever were to play to begin with, and would get kicked out almost immediately for your refusal to understand anything about the game.

>I recommend you play a spellcaster, or perhaps try running a game of dnd.
I've DM'ed numerous games going on 25 years now. I'm plenty familiar with how spellcasters work, and every player plays them the same way, similar to the meme of them saying "I swing my sword", all's they do is wait their turn, cast their spell, and if they are somehow blocked from doing that, they complain and whine and say "I can't do anything!"

>I've creatively played fighters and barbarians
No you haven't, you can't even understand the core concept of a tabletop game. I doubt you've even ever made a character sheet.

>>97666742
Can the sword do that from range? Can the sword hack through several feet of solid stone? The creative solutions you have posted have all just been
>Wrestling
>Swinging sword in a different way
So about the same level of creativity, but already the ability to throw acid gives more options than swinging a sword. Not to mention wizards can also summon things that can swing swords.

I was speaking about the mechanics of the game, the wizard player does not need to earn the ability to cast spells. They get more spells on level up, and can learn even more by seeking them out in game. This actually gives the wizard player even more options as they can not only make more use out of magic items, but make their own magic items as well. Wizards in earlier editions were also encouraged to create entirely new spells.

I don't believe you have DM'd for 25 years if you think fighters are unique because they can "take actions not clearly defined in the rules". Any class can do that.

>>97664800
>likes fighters
>thinks of fighting atop a mountain of corpses against cannon fodder
>uses AI slop

Your mother deserves cancer.

>>97666773
>Can the sword do that from range?
If it's thrown as an improvised weapon.

>Can the sword hack through several feet of solid stone?
Given enough time, yes. Melf's Acid Arrow however, cannot, so not only is your comparison wrong, it's also mismatched. 4d4 damage and 2d4 secondary damage as instanced damage from an attack is nowhere near enough to get through feet of solid rock. Maybe a couple inches.

>So about the same level of creativity, but already the ability to throw acid gives more options than swinging a sword.
It doesn't, really. You can't disarm with throwing acid, you can't effectively sunder with it, you can't make controlled cuts with it. Acid, as a whole, is far less versatile than a sword, or bladed weapon in general.

>the wizard player does not need to earn the ability to cast spells.
They do. That's the entire basis of their class. Their existence depends on it. In fact, if they lose their spell book, they lose their ability to cast lightning bolts, or whatever they have written down in them. The fighter can just pick up another weapon, or steal the enemy's weapon if he loses his, or hell, he could push/throw/kick them off ledges using his bonus to-hit and high strength bonus, which he innately has.

You're so wrong and you don't even know it. Which is what I expect from a no-games. Casters are fun for the spectacle they entail, but once you blow your load, it's a lot of waiting and a lot of running away and hiding, unless you're playing on a high level campaign where the DM for some reason allows you to pre-build and pre-buy your loadout, while in a real game you'd have to find most of your magical items, and even a lot of the spells you cast. A significant portion of their spell list must be acquired through play.

5e and path 2e nerfed the spellcasters.....

File: IMG_5716.jpg (57 KB, 700x706)

57 KB JPG

>>97664829
Let me guess, in European armor right?

>>97666848
A sword thrown from range has the same potential to get through an obstacle as acid?

Sword swings are better at getting through solid rock than acid? If we are looking at it outside of the rules it makes sense that acid would eat through rock faster than a sword. You are falling back on established rules, the damage stat, as a basis. I thought the point of this exercise was rewarding creativity?

Why can't you disarm with throwing acid? You could melt the weapon and avoid the user's hand. Why can't you sunder with acid? You can melt down the middle. Why can't you make controlled cuts? You can ensure the acid only hits certain areas, especially with some creativity such as constructing a tool to funnel it (Crafting, another thing Wizards have more tools to do).

Yes the spellbook is an important piece of equipment that the Wizard requires, but it is replaceable all the same. You can make multiple spellbooks, though just like the fighter you get your starting stuff for free. Difference is the fighter requires finding magical items to keep up with just the Wizard's spellbook, meanwhile the spellbook innately grows more powerful while the Wizard can also add more spells to it beyond the free ones AND take magic items of his own.

The fighter can certainly push someone off a ledge with strength, but wizards have spells that push better than the fighter. The wizard can summon strong monsters to push people off of ledges. Anything a fighter "creatively" can do a Wizard can do RAW, and can also exceed the figher's options with their own creativity.

>Has never played a low to high level game
Lmao who the fuck am I talking to here. Do you only play low levels and high level oneshots? What kind of games do you play? A fighter needs to find magic items too. The Wizard meanwhile can make magic items, can make spells on top of the free ones they get.

And still, Wizards can be creative. Once they run out of spells they're basically a fighter with less damage

>>97664800
You couldn't find a non-AI image to post?

>>97667537
>If we are looking at it outside of the rules it makes sense that acid would eat through rock faster than a sword.
Lol, absolutely not. If we look at it outside of the rules, acid would take literal hours, if not days to eat through solid roc, and even then, there are many types of rock that are non-reactive to acid, such as silicas, granite, basalt, quartz...A sword, a sharpened steel blade, would at least be able to chip it faster. IRL, acid does not eat through material that quickly. Its dissolving potential is already sped up significantly in this fantasy setting as-is, so you want to speed it up AGAIN just to match a basic mundane weapon? Seems kind of pathetic.

>You could melt the weapon and avoid the user's hand.
That's not you being creative, that's you dictating the results and backseat DM'ing. You could individually target the user's hand to get them to drop the weapon, but you'd suffer a significant penalty for making a targeted attack against such a small agile target.

>why can't you make controlled cuts?
Because it's a liquid, which is inherently more difficult to control than a solid object. This is basic common sense. Secondly, Melf's Acid Arrow is a ranged spell and "bursts". The only way you'd be able to use it in a somewhat controlled manner is if you had it in a vial, which is now mundane and martial-based.

>but it is replaceable all the same
Doesn't matter if it's replaceable, if it's lost you need to get another one in order to have your caster function. It's a far bigger risk, and far more important to your class. The entire reason for your class existing is because he carries around a book. Sorcerer negates this risk and would be a better example.

>The wizard can summon things
Another finite, expendable resource with a specific time window and a narrow usage, and the fact that summoned creatures generally last only a couple rounds per level, disappearing shortly after being called.

>>97667537
>>Anything a fighter "creatively" can do a Wizard can do RAW, and can also exceed the figher's options with their own creativity.
Except they can't. Laughably stupid no-games post.

Fighters and other martial characters can repeatedly attempt actions without expending resources. A wizard’s solutions usually rely on spells, which are limited, specific, must be prepared before-hand, and he does not have universal access to the entire list of spells for his class, so he only has a limited selection available for his limited usage of them.

For example:
>fighter can attempt to break down a door indefinitely.
>wizard might use Knock, but that costs a spell slot.

If the wizard runs out of spells, they lose that option entirely. The fighter’s approach remains available. Secondly, the Fighter has options for which the spellcaster has literally no actual spell equivalent, such as grappling, bull rushing enemies off ledges, disarming weapons, and tripping opponents. Sure, he could use spells "Creatively", but again, the few spells he could attempt to do that with, he won't, because most spellcasters are no-brained gooners who only do what it says within the extension of what it says on their spell card. If a spell caster were to attempt any of those on his own, he would likely fail miserably. RAW does not grant spellcasters equal capability.

Be more of a no-games please.

>And still, Wizards can be creative. Once they run out of spells they're basically a fighter with less damage
Oh, there you go, peak no-games niggertard stupidity. Except for the fact you have next to zero weapon or armor specializations, worse health, and worse to-hit.

>>97667475
Every edition of D&D except for 3rd has significant drawbacks to spellcasters.

>>97668298
This is acid that does enough damage to instantly kill a few normal fighting men, not stuff you can buy in a grocery store. A mundane sword would also chip and break when stabbing at solid stone, even with a strong fighter that can swing fast (the only meaningful fighter ability) that sword would logically break.

Would a fighter not receive a similar negative to trying to disarm someone mid combat? That is, after all, more difficult that hitting someone's torso.

It is a liquid that is also described as an arrow, and again here is an example that even the "super well defined" acid arrow spell comes down to interpretation about the extent of its creative use.

A Sorcerer is still a spellcaster, if you followed the conversation you could see it is martials being boring and lacking in options vs spellcasters.

The wizard can also attempt to shove things without a summon, as there is nothing preventing the wizard from putting a good stat into STR. Though I will concede the fighter excels at continuous manual labor vs a wizard. Maybe if a campaign took place in a warehouse with no spells allowed the fighter would exceed the wizard's options and usefulness.
>>97668335
What is a resourceless action a fighter can take that a Wizard cannot, other than attacking more (which isn't a creative solution, just a bigger number).

A wizard can attempt to break down a door indefinitely and has far more options to attempt it. A wizard with no spells makes the same strength check as a fighter, with no negatives.

A wizard can easily grapple with spells that entangle their opponents, can push or even teleport enemies off of ledges, can disarm enemies or even charm them, can knock them over. All of these things can be done by RAW spells, not even counting creative interpretation or use.

>No games
In every game I have played the spellcaster players are always the more creative. When creativity is rarely matched, the spellcaster still has more options to play off of.

File: do2f7dv80e051.png (971 KB, 827x929)

971 KB PNG

Why is it always cavalry armor with you people? You can have infantry plate armor, it will just be a little less covering of the face and legs, since infantrymen require less weight for long marches and more visibility so they don't get flanked. You shouldn't be fighting with a plate-visor and that style of plate if you're on foot.

File: Fimir.png (8 KB, 251x201)

8 KB PNG

>>97664800
There has never been a single DM in the history of D&D who has said this. Who are you quoting?

My DM nerfed Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master because he said it made martials too strong. So we all played spellcasters and nobody has gone down once, spellcasters are so much stronger it isn't even funny.

>>97668395
>This is acid that does enough damage to instantly kill a few normal fighting men, not stuff you can buy in a grocery store.
Okay, and how much rock does 4d4 then 2d4 damage from acid melt away? If you say "a couple feet", well okay, I'm loading my fighter up with vials of acid then and now he's going to dig to the center of the earth with it, or he could toss a couple at the support structure of a castle and now he's a castle-killing-tier character.

>would a fighter not receive similar penalties to disarming someone mid combat?
No, he wouldn't, because Disarm is a combat maneuver that has already been designed and calculated to take everything into account before-hand. Targeting a hand with a spell trying to hope he drops or is disarmed as a result is an improvised solution.

>Acid arrow comes down to interpretation
It very specifically says what it does, being projected on its own immediately after being cast. It might be in the shape of an arrow, or it could be vaguely pointed. The specific shape is mostly irrelevant. Either way, you aren't going to drip-feed it anywhere, unless you re-write the spell.

>you could see it is martials being boring and lacking in options vs spellcasters.
You've been exemplifying the lack of options for spellcasters, so I don't know what you're talking about. They have spells to use, yes, but they are circumstantial, limited, specific in usage and applicability, and materially dependent on books and components. Most of the options you want to say spellcasters have access to, martials have access to through magic or holy items, many of which have no spell equivalent, and a wizard would never use due to armor or weapon specialty restrictions. The only time a fighter can't "keep up" is if you keep him in the same state he was in at level 5, at level 15, which never happens. A level 15 fighter is going to be using spellblade weapons, dwarven throwers, nine-live-stealers, blinding shields, armor of etherealness, etc.

File: jej.jpg (22 KB, 317x267)

22 KB JPG

>>97668335
>Except for the fact you have next to zero weapon or armor specializations, worse health, and worse to-hit

>>97668494
I would say more than the equivalent damage from a sword, but less than the equivalent damage of a pick-axe. Also a wizard could buy vials of acid, or make vials of acid, or make infinite acid with acid splash. You got incredibly hung up on this one example only to get BTFO constantly, it's pretty funny.

Disarm is a combat maneuver for the battle master fighter, which requires a resource. So already this is the fighter depending on something RAW to make it stand out, not an instance of the fighter being "more able to be creative" which was your original point if you remember.

How big is the spell? Is the arrow small and thing enough to make a precise hit? Again, up for interpretation.

This entire conversation has been you picking one of the most limited spell and me showing you how even the acid arrow has more use cases beyond just targeting enemies. Also how it isn't 100% cleanly defined. Spellcasters also have access to magic or holy items, and can also make them.

Why would a wizard need weapon proficiencies when spells do more damage? As the wizard gains magic items he gains even more spells, past a certain level a spellcaster never effectively runs out of spell slots. A level 15 wizard has greater access to powerful magic items than the fighter due to being able to craft them, information gathering spells, and generally better social and information gathering stats such as Int, Wis or Cha (all primary stats depending on the caster).

And even after all of this you have not given 1 (one) instance where a fighter has more options than a wizard. The fighter has the same repeatable free resource of attacking multiple times, that's it.

>>97668395
>The wizard can also attempt to shove things
And will fail.

> as there is nothing preventing the wizard from putting a good stat into STR
Sure if he wants to play a Strong wizard, he could do that. He would purely be utility strength though, since all of his combat stats would put him in jeopardy if he were to wade into combat.

>Though I will concede the fighter excels at continuous manual labor vs a wizard. Maybe if a campaign took place in a warehouse with no spells allowed the fighter would exceed the wizard's options and usefulness.
Who says spells need to be restricted? Just wait 4 hours for the wizard to blow all of his spells trying to be a utility monkey and you're good to go.

>What is a resourceless action a fighter can take that a Wizard cannot, other than attacking more (which isn't a creative solution, just a bigger number).
Grappling, sundering, disarming, tripping, bull rushing, tanking through durability, just simply wearing heavy armor, or using martial weapons. I mean he theoretically could use those, just like a Fighter theoretically could cast spells with a ring of spell storing.

>A wizard can attempt to break down a door indefinitely and has far more options to attempt it
He really doesn't. He could certainly have more options to circumvent it, but almost all of those options would be available to the Fighter at some point as well. Teleportation? He can do it. Phasing through it? He can do. Destroying it? Very easily he can do it. This is all besides the argument though. You've moved the goalposts.

>can easily grapple with entangling spells
That's not grappling.

>can push
He will fail.

>or teleport enemies, disarm, charm, knock them over
There is no wizard spell that forcibly disarms an enemy, but other than that, every single one of those has a specific, limited, expendable usage, and almost all of them allow saving throws.

>in every game I have played
Shut the fuck up already, it's quite obvious you've never played.

>>97668529
>Also a wizard could buy vials of acid, or make vials of acid, or make infinite acid with acid splash
Acid splash is not persistent. Its duration is instantaneous. More backseat DM'ing.

>for the battle master fighter
Wrong, it's a basic ability. Although you're referring to 5E, which it then falls under "Grabbing Items". Although 5E is liquid dog-shit, so I'm not referring to 5E.

>which was your original point if you remember.
Yes, which you've derailed the conversation away from because you know it's true. The conversation was initially about spells not being able to be used creatively. You've thusly fallen back on the obvious and predictable argument of slowly backtracking to "the wizard has more spells so he has more options", thus handing the argument to me on a silver platter in that you rely on spells to play the game, not your creativity.

>This entire conversation has been you picking one of the most limited spell and me showing you how even the acid arrow has more use cases beyond just targeting enemies.
That is quite the delusional cope-posting since you've been refuted at every angle and shown to not understand the rules, or even how to bend the rules, or how to be creative with a spell without altering the core of its function essentially backseat DM'ing to create the outcome you desire.

It's quite sad really.

>the rest of your post
Coping retarded nonsense.

>>97664948
>Cavalry plate armor despite being on foot
>Uses a longsword despite that being a sideary
>Has a short sword as well instead of a rondel dagger

>>97668549
What makes the fighter innately better than the wizard at shoving people? There isn't any inherent ability to the fighter that makes their strength higher. In fact the wizard could craft a magic item to set their strength to a high value if they so pleased.

The wizard still has cantrips that do similar damage to mundane weapons, they scale with level too.

Grappling is not unique to fighters. Sundering isn't (there are blade themed spells), disarming isn't (wizard can also charm people to disarm themselves), wizards can trip or shove with spells. Wizards can make magical armor, create temporary HP. Hell many clerics can wear heavy armor and use martial weapons on top of spellcasting and other features.

Yup, exactly, a wizard has all the options of a fighter and more. I never once moved the goal post, if you hover over the little numbers in the post you can go back and view how it started, with me stating clearly that spellcasters have more options than fighters. Which is an objectively true assertion

What effectively makes grappling with your arms and grappling with magical vines different?

Why would he fail?

You can disarm someone with Command, fighters attempting to disarm also let the enemy use a saving throw, on top of burning a maneuver. Keep in mind only a specific fighter subclass can RAW disarm. If your DM allows anyone to disarm with normal attacks then the wizard can disarm just the same!

It's obvious you have never touched a spellcaster since you think it similar to the martial. Hell I'm not sure you've even watched the game be played.

File: hero-image.fill.size_1248(...).jpg (113 KB, 1248x702)

113 KB JPG

>>97664800
>this image causes wand jockies to seethe for absolutely no reason

>>97668589
The effect of the acid still happens, similar to how a blade striking the stone is "instantaneous". Work on your english.

What are you referring to if not 5e? You used Melf's Acid Arrow's 5e damage as an example

Spells absolutely can be used creatively, I haven't even seen an example of a fighter being creative that can't be covered RAW or "creatively" through a spell.

File: brazilhuman.webm (2.93 MB, 198x360)

2.93 MB WEBM

>>97664829

>>97668643
poatan let himself go huh

>>97668599
>what makes the fighter innately better at shoving people
Higher strength. Higher BAB. More likely to take feats specialized in that.

>there isn't any inherent ability to the fighter that makes their Strength higher
High STR doesn't benefit the wizard equally, and if the wizard does have a high STR, they definitely aren't going to use it to bull rush an enemy, who will still likely defeat them because of their higher BAB, and the risks that comes with physically confronting enemies as a wizard.

>wizards can trip or shove with spells.
Which are all resource-limited, situational, and often subject to saves, and the penalties are often fixed, while BAB, Strength, and additional feats will scale long-term.

>Yup, exactly, a wizard has all the options of a fighter and more.
They literally don't, unless you're willing to make huge sacrifices. Just more no-games cope posting.

> I never once moved the goal post,
You quite obviously have. Was originally about being creative in roleplay scenarios, to you acting like a petulant child and being willfully retarded, redirecting the argument back to "Wizards have more spells so they have more options", which is the antithesis of the argument. You're just a timmy card abusing dipshit who's shitposting and wasting my time.

>with me stating clearly that spellcasters have more options than fighters. Which is an objectively true assertion
No, it's not. It's a highly subjective assertion based on circumstance and resource dependency. You're wrong, but you just don't know it yet.

>Why would he fail?
Welp, the target succeeded their Reflex save, now the spell is completely wasted and he can ignore it and you are completely out of viable grappling options!

>you can disarm someone with command
Which only works on creatures with at least 1 intelligence. Mindless constructs, undead, and many extraplanar beings are immune. That's a pretty big list. On top of that, they can completely negate it with a successful will check.

>>97665894
>Play a lvl.11 Champion Fighter (2024 5e)
>Basically auto pass all Athletics checks with a +9 w/Advantage and free Heroic Inspirations every turn
It's all you need. 90% of all problems in this game can be pushed, dragged, thrown or climbed.

>>97664800
>uses a meme about a highly eccentric man not fitting into society
>while talking about his normie npc taste

>>97668604
Wizards can make their own potions and what they make are likely to not be made of fail like that guy's potions

>>97668609
>The effect of the acid still happens,
>similar to how a blade striking the stone is "instantaneous". Work on your english.
This is laughably retarded.

>Spells absolutely can be used creatively, I haven't even seen an example of a fighter being creative that can't be covered RAW or "creatively" through a spell.
I'm still trying to see you work around using Melf's Acid Arrow creatively, and utterly failing, so I think that says just about all that needs to be said on the subject. I rest my case.

>>97668699
Playing a caster is the new normie. If you play a human male fighter you're a right wing neo nazi racist.

>>97664829
Your subclass is "cuckold".

>>97668715
Nah, that's not what normie means. Neither rightie dnd players nor leftie dnd players are normies. Your taste is normie because it matches millions of people who don't know what dnd is. If you somehow got your sports fan uncle or something to play and described the context, he'd just think about swining a sword around.

>>97668411
Uh....what? That armor has been used on foot historically.

>>97668755
>If you somehow got your sports fan uncle or something to play and described the context, he'd just think about swining a sword around.
Nah, he'd think it's gay nerd shit where you pretend to be a little sissy boy fair throwing "lightning bolt"s like that infamous meme video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_ekugPKqFw

>>97668766
>can't entertain a hypothetical even when it's spelled out
I see you did eat breakfast this morning, my apologies.

>>97668780
Dude you're fucking stupid. You said he's a normie who'd think about swinging a sword around, and I just said it would be the opposite. Holy shit you dumb faggot cunt, kill yourself, or go get rekt by that other fag in this thread, you seem to be good at that.

>>97668788
>"if you somehow"
Read.

>>97668681
>Higher strength. More likely to take feats specialized in that.
Not innate.
>High STR doesn't benefit the wizard equally
It does. The reason wizards don't pump strength is because it's never a niche worth filling.

>>97668681
Bull rushing doesn't apply BAB you retard.

>>97664800
I play Fighters and Barbarians alot, alls im saying is I'm guaranteed to be still standing after combat. Sure the enemy can target our casters but then they ignore the rapidly approaching unga bunga beatstick who will either send them back home in soup cans or shoulder check them into oblivion

>>97668757
>That armor has been used on foot historically.
Only when they were forced to because their horses were killed or couldn't be used

>>97669004
The same principle applied to every other type of armor including none.

>>97669043
No. Foot infantry plate armor had less leg armor and typically an open face helmet to help with movement and visibility.

>>97669095
No they didn't.

File: 0d42809afe8d6347a5492aaf0(...).jpg (351 KB, 1029x1482)

351 KB JPG

>>97669097
Yes, they did.

>>97669104
The only reason those guys aren't mounted up is because they can't afford it, ergo
>Only when they were forced to because their horses [...] couldn't be used

File: giuseppe-rava-first-engli(...).jpg (59 KB, 550x367)

59 KB JPG

>>97669109
Yes. Plate armor was cheap. Horses were expensive.

>>97668481
No DM ever has.

It's a strawman HMFfags make up because it's better than internalizing the real reason everyone groans and sighs in disappointment whenever they reveal their PC is; an ex town guard turned mercenary, who prefers not to talk unless he has to, is only in it for the gold, has no real drives or aspirations to do with said gold, has a quantum family that doesn't exist until they have to to prove he doesn't have strained relationships and isn't an incel, and who's single flaw, if pushed, is that he's 'moderately racist'.

Of course, it can't be that the character design is actually shit for a tabletop role playing game based around talking, or that the player is a shit player who invariably can't make it work when they actually do play games, or is just kind of an ass to sit next to.
It must be everyone else who's just mad or normie or not as based and redpilled.

>>97668715
It's not being right wing, it's being terminally uncreative and a shit player who thinks he's a god tier player for copypasting a character archetype and not realizing he needs to actually play it well too.

There is considerable overlap with being a HMFfag and being a modern right winger, as both demographics are irony poisoned, obsessed over image, and terminally insincere to the point where they don't have the capacity to put heart and sincerity forward to be creative anymore, and can only copy and mimic and posture, leading to the obsession over their image and perception above dealing with truth and fact.

But being a HMFfag doesn't make you authoritarian leaning.

File: hytnpd&d.jpg (79 KB, 831x445)

79 KB JPG

>>97665894

>>97666533
Too much blabbering, not enough jumping.

>>97664800
You can't do this in D&D by the nature of combat

>>97666702
>try running a game of dnd
This is exactly the problem. You need to play a different system

>>97667498
You're behind the times, anon. In Britain the historians have discovered that history was white washed and that the original inhabitants of Britain, Ireland, and Scotland had skin black as any African. Same for Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Also the Royal Family was heavily black and gay, and Great Britian was heavily multi-ethnic and multi-cultural up until the invention of photography.

>>97666532
If only there was an edition like this . . . oh, wait . . .

>>97666548
Sure, but if you were casting a Bigby's Hand spell? I'd say it's fair game.

>>97669116
Correct. Munitions armor was in fact cheap, and was turned out in mass quantities. All of the images you are posting are from well into the Renaissance, with armor in general fading because guns were becoming very effective, and you simply CANNOT make limb armor thick enough to stop bullets.

Knights absolutely fucking wore closed helmets and leg armor on foot, to the point where there are different forms of cuisse that actively interfere with your ability to sit on a horse for foot combat. Period accounts from the French specifically discuss knights, on foot, fearing the sides of their visors being penetrated by arrows. They dismounted before the battle even started, so clearly they could've removed their visors if they so desired.

>>97668707
>acid arrow doesn't apply the effect of acid but does deal damage using acid
What a hilariously retarded claim

File: 1770914503022609.gif (1007 KB, 300x186)

1007 KB GIF

>>97670673
Absolutely atomic truth nuke that cattle brain'd autists are incapable of swallowing. Human fighters can actually be fun and enjoyable characters, but unfortunately the type of player most likely to choose that archetype is an insufferable loser that projects their IRL failings onto their in-game avatar.

>>97668395
>What is a resourceless action a fighter can take that a Wizard cannot, other than attacking more.
I’ll do you one better and give you something that martials do better than casters (and Wizards specifically) even when they’re not acting at all: surviving combat. Martials objectively take less damage on average than unarmored casters because of their armor (or for Monks/Barbarians their AC boosting features), and even if they got unlucky and took hits they are more likely to just eat it because they will ALWAYS have more HP than the Wizard, even if they have the same CON score due to hit dice. The only casters that can tank relatively well without wasting spell slots or PSR/PLR features are Cleric and Paladin. Also, weapon masteries are infinite use, and even if you make a Wizard take ungodly amounts of non-magical utilities via feats, many martials get class-specific buffs to their abilities without them

>>97681027
Wizards can wear armor.

>>97664800
You do it to have an excuse to post AI sloppa?

>>97681049
Not without explicitly taking it as a feat, whereas martials all either get some armor proficiency or get class features that boost their AC at all times in plainclothes. As a Wizard you are not getting armor proficiency without actively choosing it over making your casting better.

You want a Wizard specifically who can do physical shit too? Just pull the trigger and multiclass

>>97681202
So as I said, they can do it.

But there's no incentive to actually do so because it's a complete joke compared to their other options.