>>2599042Unless we make the computer/videogame RPGs ourselves, I don't think we could influence how magic users and martials turn out in them.
>>2599099>remove meleefags entirely, they [magefag HEADCANON; autism possible] in a world of magic.Wrong and unsurprisingly narrow-minded as I have come to expect from people with the "MAGIC SUPREMACY! Why? Because it is and it just works (but I totally still care about being realistic, guys!)" mindset.
If martials could become (significantly) stronger, tougher, faster, etc. than real life people and able to resist the effects of spells and resist being damaged by magic (through their willpower, race or otherwise) to some extent, there could still be meleefags.
A fantasy fighter could cut down your wizards before they waved their hands to weave spells if said warrior was fast and strong enough or even after the wizards did if the fighter was able to dodge, tank or resist their spells.
>EXPLAIN HOW THAT COULD WORK!What, do you want an explanation of how Khajiit being born different forms depending on the phases of the moon could work realistically, too? It's fantasy and physical feats beyond what could actually be done has been a thing since forever.
The above and magic can "just work" in a fantasy setting. I don't need to explain how they do if impossible stuff (such as magic) are in the setting.
>uh... how about settings where advanced technology is the magic?!1. That's the lamest trope.
2. It's virtually(?) sci-fi (basically irrelevant to me).
3. Yes, I do think melee-onlyfags wouldn't be a thing there.
I agree 100% martials with real world limits imposed on them would not stand against depictions of magic users (outside of game mechanics) who are reality-warping, time-stopping gods-by-a-different-name who can raise armies of the dead though.
However, martials with "realistic" limits in unrealistic settings (such as those with magic) are for those who are honorary neurodivergents and people obsessed with underdogs.
