# Why Shouldn't Martial Characters have powers?



## Deekin (Oct 30, 2007)

One of the Interesting stances I keep running across in 4th ed disscussion is that Fighter-type characters should be limited to the relm of realism, or it's not D&D.

I'm just wondering where this stance comes from. In a setting game where over half the classes can wield magic, why is the poor man with the sword stuck maxing out at the human maximum, while the wizard is so much father beyound this. Why is it ok for a Wizard to level mountain, while if the Warrior does anything superhuman it's badwrongfun.

If a fighter dedicates himself to his swordfighting as much as a wizard dedicates himself to magic, why shouldn't he be able to take on armies by himself? Why should he not be able to act faster than any mere mortal?


----------



## wayne62682 (Oct 30, 2007)

The best guess I can take is that: A) Fighters have never had "powers" (i.e. the old "It wasn't this way in 1st edition, so it should never be this way!" grognard argument), and/or B) People see ToB-style stuff as giving warrior types magic, which means they aren't warriors, or C) Some asinine and off-base comparison to anime, because anime warriors get cool, quasi-magical powers most of the time


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Oct 30, 2007)

Because fighters are martial characters. They are skilled in what they do, but what they do is mundane. They swing a sword (or axe, halberd, spear, etc) and do it with style and even what appears to be superhuman skill at high levels but they are fundamentally non-magical. 

I swear by all that is holy that if 4e has fighters with actual magical powers, not flashy, cinematic, non-anime moves but actually magical crap sputtering out of their swords I will not buy another thing from WoTC. If that crap were to be made a part of the core D&D assumptions regarding what D&D warriors are like I will not  DM or play 4e.    I would stick to Conan D20 and True20 and pay no further attention to D&D from that point on.

D&D warriors are Conan, Aragorn, Beowulf, King Arthur and not friggin Inuyasha. ::chokes back some vomit::

Wow, I found my deal-breaker.....lucky me.  :\ 



Sundragon


----------



## delericho (Oct 30, 2007)

For me it depends on whether they _can_ have kewl powerz, or whether they _must_ have kewl powerz.

Aragorn, Conan and Lancelot should all be valid examples of high-level martial characters just the same as Darth Vader or Li Mu Bai.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Oct 30, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> For me it depends on whether they _can_ have kewl powerz, or whether they _must_ have kewl powerz.
> 
> Aragorn, Conan and Lancelot should all be valid examples of high-level martial characters just the same as Darth Vader or Li Mu Bai.




Fair enough....it is an issue of can or must.

In a traditional D&D campaign warriors aren't ki/chi empowered martial artists they are warriors whose prowess comes from skill alone with their weapons. If there is a supplement that allows for a more asian or exotic flavor, that's cool but it shouldn't be the assumption regarding what your common everyday swordswinger is like. I prefer my core D&D western pseudo-medieval/dark ages and not a wierd hodge-podge that sucks the life out of any actual culture by blending everything together in a flavorless goo.

I am happy that the monk is going to be out of the first PHB for this very reason.

Something is lost when you can't just play a man who trusts his steel and his wits. Damn do I feel old.



Sundragon


----------



## wingsandsword (Oct 30, 2007)

1. Because there is the idea that magic is somehow left to characters that are trained and experienced in magic, and that learning to swing a sword around and wear armor doesn't inherently grant you the power to make magical attacks and send energy beams from your sword (despite it looking cool in a video game).

2. Setting portability.  Not every D&D game is set in a high-magical world where everybody and their brother has magical powers.  One of my favorite D&D games to run was a very-low-magic quasi-historic game set during the 3rd Crusade (largely using the old AD&D 2e Crusades Historical Reference book).  Only one PC had any spellcasting (a Paladin, so Paladin abilities and spells was all they had).  If every single class in the PHB has spellcasting, supernatural, or spell-like abilities it gets very hard to play a campaign like that without completely rewriting the system.

3. Because traditionally sources like Lord of the Rings and Arthurian legends are a source for inspiration for fighters in D&D, and Aragorn and Boromir, and Lancelot and Arthur had incredible skill, but what they could do was still bounded in the realm of the physically possible and not supernatural (unless their weapon itself was supernatural), and they were more about raw physical skill and martial prowess than using magic they'd learned to devastate their foes.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Oct 30, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> For me it depends on whether they _can_ have kewl powerz, or whether they _must_ have kewl powerz.
> 
> Aragorn, Conan and Lancelot should all be valid examples of high-level martial characters just the same as Darth Vader or Li Mu Bai.



This is a good point, though I wouldn't call it "kewl."  Would you call Darth Vader or Li Mu Bai "kewl" to their face?  Not if you wanted to live long you wouldn't. 

D&D should be flexible as to the archetypes it presents.

But I expect the Thief and Fighter will be pretty "martial only."  We already know (1) there's a Sword-Mage in the works for future supplements, and (2) there's no way, under the current 4E ruleset to recreate the Bo9S Swordsage.  Those two facts tell me that the "Martial" characters are pretty non-flash.


----------



## med stud (Oct 30, 2007)

D&D warriors of high levels are far more capable than any skill can make anyone in the real world. No amount of skill and prowess can make you survive 12 seconds in lava or defeat an elephant with a dagger (for two examples). So as high level warriors have always been over the top you might as well add some interesting and evocative over the top choices for them.


----------



## med stud (Oct 30, 2007)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> 3. Because traditionally sources like Lord of the Rings and Arthurian legends are a source for inspiration for fighters in D&D, and Aragorn and Boromir, and Lancelot and Arthur had incredible skill, but what they could do was still bounded in the realm of the physically possible and not supernatural (unless their weapon itself was supernatural), and they were more about raw physical skill and martial prowess than using magic they'd learned to devastate their foes.




Even that is not clear cut as at least Aragorn could heal wounds using Athelas and defeated Sauron using the Palantir. It was because Aragorn was a king more than a trained skill but still it was accomplishments that hadn't anything to do with his physical prowess.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Oct 30, 2007)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> 2. Setting portability.  Not every D&D game is set in a high-magical world where everybody and their brother has magical powers.  One of my favorite D&D games to run was a very-low-magic quasi-historic game set during the 3rd Crusade (largely using the old AD&D 2e Crusades Historical Reference book).  Only one PC had any spellcasting (a Paladin, so Paladin abilities and spells was all they had).  If every single class in the PHB has spellcasting, supernatural, or spell-like abilities it gets very hard to play a campaign like that without completely rewriting the system.



I agree, with the caveat that there should be feats or even skill options to create a setting in which even the most "mundane" characters may have some magical options. But having several non magical classes and those sorts of feats allows the widest variety of settings with the smallest effort.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 30, 2007)

Deekin said:
			
		

> In a setting game where over half the classes can wield magic, why is the poor man with the sword stuck maxing out at the human maximum, while the wizard is so much father beyond this.



What makes that stance particularly puzzling is that _every_ character class not only can wield magic via items, it's practically mandated that they do so by higher level.


----------



## Stormtalon (Oct 30, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Because fighters are martial characters. They are skilled in what they do, but what they do is mundane. They swing a sword (or axe, halberd, spear, etc) and do it with style and even what appears to be superhuman skill at high levels but they are fundamentally non-magical.
> 
> I swear by all that is holy that if 4e has fighters with actual magical powers, not flashy, cinematic, non-anime moves but actually magical crap sputtering out of their swords I will not buy another thing from WoTC. If that crap were to be made a part of the core D&D assumptions regarding what D&D warriors are like I will not  DM or play 4e.    I would stick to Conan D20 and True20 and pay no further attention to D&D from that point on.
> 
> ...




I'd have to say it would depend on how fighters might get such powers and how "essential" they end up being.  I, for one, would have no problem if, as a racial option, some minor abilities filtered through at high level.  Eladrin Fighters with some sort of raw magic or fey-based strikes (or alternately temporarily gaining preternatural deftness and grace), dwarves channeling the strength of the mountains and hell, even tieflings with some sort of attack based on their specific heritage -- all these would be appropriate avenues for something along those lines.  Of course, to take that sort of thing, they'd have to play trade-off and maybe give up some equivalent purely-martial ability that they'd otherwise get by following the straight-up fighter paths.

Meanwhile, the straight-fighter path with zero racial abilities should be just as viable as any of the racial paths, but with feats of pure prowess and skill, as should the human and halfling (at least) paths.

I guess what I'm saying here is as long as they fulfill the following conditions:

1) are optional
2) tied deeply to race
and 
3) are not clearly better than the non-magical abilities otherwise available

then a few magical powers available to fighters would be acceptable, in my view.


----------



## Henry (Oct 30, 2007)

Actually, a lot of people think "powers" and they think of Swordsages running fire trails, or hitting their enemies and the enemies exploding in flames, or of a warrior pulling a shadow teleport or shadow garrotte effect out of nothing. It can be "powers" without looking magical.

The Foe Hammer effect can be a good example. Once per minute or so, a fighter can find the perfect opening in a combat to launch an EXACT attack that hits a creature in a weak point in its defenses -- one which ignores any damage reductions it has. He can't do it all the time because the opportunity doesn't present itself.

He can bolster his allies' will saves by his voice, and his reassurance, just by being there, yelling a battle cry.

He can use a special martial throw to dislodge his opponents' footing, or throw them off a cliff. None of these are magical, nor need to be described as such. They're all things that you could argue could be even done in the real world. Aragorn, Roland, and King Arthur could have done any and all of these things (even the martial throw, because contrary to popular belief even Western martial arts wasn't just two people slugging it out with swords till one dropped - there are plenty of feints, off-balance maneuvers, etc. in honest-to-God-anything-goes combat.)


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 30, 2007)

Because the Fighter is still a non magical human.


> Why is it ok for a Wizard to level mountain, while if the Warrior does anything superhuman it's badwrongfun.



IMHO the wizard should be risking his mind body and soul to have a chance at wielding such power. The Fighter is still a human. Arthur was still human, Beowolf was still human. 







> If a fighter dedicates himself to his swordfighting as much as a wizard dedicates himself to magic, why shouldn't he be able to take on armies by himself? Why should he not be able to act faster than any mere mortal?



With Great Cleave the fighter is a threat to an army, especially if the _Autohit on a "20", automiss on a "1"_ is dropped. 4 atatcks in six seconds to a "mortal's" one attack is acting much faster.


----------



## mhensley (Oct 30, 2007)

Easy, verisimilitude.  When I play a fighter, I want to cleave skulls with my broadsword and trust in the power of muscle and steel.  Over the top skills I can deal with.  Magic powers are right out.  This is totally a deal-breaker for me.  If I can't play Conan in D&D, I'll play something else.  Right now the problem with 3.5 is that phb fighters are so overpowered by most of the newer classes (duskblade, etc.) that it isn't fun to play one anymore.  If 4e can fix that without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I'll play.


----------



## Anthtriel (Oct 30, 2007)

Aragorn and Lancelot are not valid examples of high level fighters. Not in the rules as is, and certainly not if you empower the fighters more (which frankly, is necessary).

High Level D&D fighters kill armies by themselves. It's a long and tedious process, but since low level warriors can barely even hit him, the Level 20 Fighter in the RAW can beat hundreds of them. Lancelot and Aragorn don't fight against hundreds enemies by themselves at once, not even against more than ten or so, when they are surrounded. That is anime territory.

Hell, Aragorn can do nothing but run from the Balor. The Level 20 fighter would be able to fight that demon. How? Certainly not by swinging his sword a little better. Aragorn is around level 9 oder 10 at best. He doesn't even need to compete against high level magic.


Face it, if fighters are supposed to compete with high level wizards, who move mountains and bend reality, they need something more. I don't refer to jumping hundreds of feats, or flying without magic, but they certainly need supernatural toughness, supernatural strength and supernatural speed (in attacking at least).

If a Level 20 fighter fights, he should be like Sauron in the Fellowship of the Ring movie. Easily smashing dozens of enemies at once, virtually invincible. Anything less than that, and they are limited to a servant.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 30, 2007)

med stud said:
			
		

> D&D warriors of high levels are far more capable than any skill can make anyone in the real world. No amount of skill and prowess can make you survive 12 seconds in lava or defeat an elephant with a dagger (for two examples). So as high level warriors have always been over the top you might as well add some interesting and evocative over the top choices for them.




*Re:  Lava:*  This is why many DMs (myself included) use a varient set of lava rules.  They go:  If you are immersed in lava, you die.  No save.  It is far easier to rewrite the lava rules than it is to rewrite the fighter class.

*Re:  Elephants:*  The 1e DMG suggested that certain attacks simply shouldn't be allowed to be effective, based upon common sense and real-world expectations.  For instance, a giant centipede should not be dangerous to a storm giant.  I'm not sure, though, that defeating an elephant with a dagger is physically impossible......though I'd sure as hell bet on the elephant!


----------



## ehren37 (Oct 30, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Because fighters are martial characters. They are skilled in what they do, but what they do is mundane. They swing a sword (or axe, halberd, spear, etc) and do it with style and even what appears to be superhuman skill at high levels but they are fundamentally non-magical.
> 
> I swear by all that is holy that if 4e has fighters with actual magical powers, not flashy, cinematic, non-anime moves but actually magical crap sputtering out of their swords I will not buy another thing from WoTC. If that crap were to be made a part of the core D&D assumptions regarding what D&D warriors are like I will not  DM or play 4e.    I would stick to Conan D20 and True20 and pay no further attention to D&D from that point on.
> 
> ...




Spoken like someone who's never actually read the Tome of Battle or seen what a warblade really is. Unless disarming a guy with a strike, smacking someone so hard they fall down, hitting someone really hard, finding a weak spot in armor or hitting 2 guys with a standard action is a flashy magic power.

The crusader is on par with a paladin. The swordsage is your quintessential fighter/mage type, simplified into one package. No one disputes they dont have magical abilities. However, if fighter/mages (or bladesingers, or duskblades or whatever) and paladins arent anime, I have a hard time believing the other 2 are as well.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 30, 2007)

Warriors with superpowers doesn't necessarily mean Asian. Beowulf has superhuman strength - enough to tear off Grendel's arm. Gawaine's strength is magical, reaching a peak at noon each day. And Cúchulainn's warp spasms are just insane.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 30, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Because fighters are martial characters. They are skilled in what they do, but what they do is mundane. They swing a sword (or axe, halberd, spear, etc) and do it with style and even what appears to be superhuman skill at high levels but they are fundamentally non-magical.




There is nothing fundamentally non-magical, or mundane, about being a "martial" character.  "Martial" just means "of, relating to, or suited for war or a warrior".  In a world of magic, I would think things that are suited for war would use magic.

Where does this concept of "fundamentally non-magic" come from?



> I swear by all that is holy that if 4e has fighters with actual magical powers, not flashy, cinematic, non-anime moves but actually magical crap sputtering out of their swords I will not buy another thing from WoTC.




And I suspect you will.  Because you're reacting out of emotion right now, but you won't want to leave this hobby and the peer group you have found that comes with it.  So instead you will grumble about it, but eventually accept it and maybe even come to like it (or at least some aspects of it).



> If that crap were to be made a part of the core D&D assumptions regarding what D&D warriors are like I will not  DM or play 4e.    I would stick to Conan D20 and True20 and pay no further attention to D&D from that point on.
> 
> D&D warriors are Conan, Aragorn, Beowulf, King Arthur and not friggin Inuyasha. ::chokes back some vomit::
> 
> ...




It's not Inuyasha either.  It's likely something entirely different, and tailorable at will.  It's what you decide to make of it.  Just like it always was.


----------



## Henry (Oct 30, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Something is lost when you can't just play a man who trusts his steel and his wits. Damn do I feel old.




It's still there, as I said. I started out with similar reservations myself, but when I looked I didn't realize that there's plenty there even for a more classic fantasy warrior, I had just neglected it.

If looking at the Book of Nine Swords stuff as an example, plenty of stuff in the White Raven and Iron Heart dsiciplines are darned effective, and very non-magical in description. It's cool to have a D&D fighter who can slug it out, or dodge around avoiding op-attacks, but how much more cool, and still well in-character, to have him strike a blade about to hit him out of the way with a veritable "Storm of Blades" from his unbelievable parry-work? (make an attack and use the total as your AC, instead of your actual AC, immediate action). 

It's great to have him yell a battle cry and charge, but what if he can use his military mind and prowess to co-ordinate a simultaneous charge of a squad of 10 men to DEVASTATE an enemy's front line? (War Master's Charge?)

Even more dramatic are the maneuvers which use a foe's power against him - it's a staple of fantasy fighting moves to leave an opening in your defenses, and then finish the enemy with their overextended counter. Feigned opening does just that. Mighty Throw lets you pull the classic "grab an enemy, throw him off-balance, and toss him 10 feet prone". There's plenty of "western fighter" room in there, but it's just mechanics that give Warrior-types a taste of resource management, combined with the kinds of things that DMs normally work into the descriptions of finshing moves in good D&D games.


----------



## cerberus2112 (Oct 30, 2007)

Anthtriel said:
			
		

> High Level D&D fighters kill armies by themselves. It's a long and tedious process, but since low level warriors can barely even hit him, the Level 20 Fighter in the RAW can beat hundreds of them.




The RAW would require checks to avoid fatigue, which the fighter would eventually fail.  When he collapes into a heap from exhaustion, he is easily caught by several dozen coup-de-grace attempts.  That's enough critical hits to eventually fell him.  The long and tedious process consigns him to death, eventually . . .


----------



## Deset Gled (Oct 30, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> What makes that stance particularly puzzling is that _every_ character class not only can wield magic via items, it's practically mandated that they do so by higher level.




Which is another something that a lot of people complain about.  The Forsaker and VoP are both very popular for this reason.

Sometimes, I just want to play a character that doesn't require any magic to be effective.  If I have the option to play a character that does nothing but use magic, I also want a the option to play character that uses no magic.  A wizards shtick (used to be) doing something very powerful a limited number of times a day, while a fighter couldn't do anything as amazing but could do it all day long.  I like having both extremes, not one extreme and middle ground.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 30, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> What makes that stance particularly puzzling is that _every_ character class not only can wield magic via items, it's practically mandated that they do so by higher level.



Yes. In high level D&D everyone has superpowers. Whether they are Green Lantern or Doctor Strange doesn't matter that much - they're both basically wizards.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 30, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Easy, verisimilitude.




Ah, the "realism" argument again, despite it having been debunked already multiple times in this thread.

Your fighter does things already that defy realism, and he/she does it while looking like a Christmas tree of magic items.  Who are you trying to kid with this "realism" claim about fighters? With the exception of the first few levels, fighters do not adhere closely to realism.



> When I play a fighter, I want to cleave skulls with my broadsword and trust in the power of muscle and steel.




You want to hit them four times in a matter of seconds at an inhuman speed, using a magical sword, protected by your magical armor.  And afterwards, you want to jump an inhuman height, hold your breath for an inhuman amount of time, climb up sheer cliffs in an inhuman manner, and use inhuman feats to further enhance your already inhuman abilities.

Who are you guys trying to kid here?  There is nothing "realistic" or "normal" about a mid level fighter, and a high level one is completely alien to what we know of as human abilities.



> Over the top skills I can deal with.  Magic powers are right out.




So you care about the flavor justification for alien actions, but you don't care about the actions themselves.  So...what's stopping you from changing the flavor of things? You could ALWAYS adapt that part of the game the easiest.



> This is totally a deal-breaker for me.  If I can't play Conan in D&D, I'll play something else.




The only barrier to you playing Conan in 4e will be your own imagination.


----------



## FourthBear (Oct 30, 2007)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Which is another something that a lot of people complain about.  The Forsaker and VoP are both very popular for this reason.
> 
> Sometimes, I just want to play a character that doesn't require any magic to be effective.  If I have the option to play a character that does nothing but use magic, I also want a the option to play character that uses no magic.  A wizards shtick (used to be) doing something very powerful a limited number of times a day, while a fighter couldn't do anything as amazing but could do it all day long.  I like having both extremes, not one extreme and middle ground.




That you *can* do it is one thing.  It's how effective that's going to be in the game world that's the question.  Obviously, you can play even a "powered" fighter and simply refuse to use or take any of the powers because it doesn't match with your character conception.

However, I don't see any clear way to balance a non-powered, martial character with a D&D style mid-to-high level magic wielder.  How is the mundane, won't-even-use-magic-items character going to take on an invisible, flying mage who can teleport and fling fireballs?  Or fight an incorporal death-dealing phantom?  Or deal with any number of situations found in a traditional D&D campaign?

I agree with others that the D&D doesn't really have a good conception of a high level fighter.  Just a Heroic fighter with bigger numbers.  Unless you remove the high powered wackiness of what will be Paragon and Epic play, I think a character conception that is strictly "non-powered" will be hindered by its very narrow definition.  And I don't know if we should hobble all of the other classes with wider character concepts in order to suit this.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 30, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Ah, the "realism" argument again, despite it having been debunked already multiple times in this thread.



Verisimilitude is not just realism. It is about the fantasty world being true to itself. Being the best swordsman in the world does not let you defy gravity. 

A setting MIGHT let somone use thier life force to do so with the proper training, but that is the setting itself.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 30, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Warriors with superpowers doesn't necessarily mean Asian. Beowulf has superhuman strength - enough to tear off Grendel's arm. Gawaine's strength is magical, reaching a peak at noon each day. And Cúchulainn warp spasm's are just insane.




Exactly. 

Since some people dislike the term 'magical' as a descriptor, how about 'mythic' instead?


----------



## med stud (Oct 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> *Re:  Lava:*  This is why many DMs (myself included) use a varient set of lava rules.  They go:  If you are immersed in lava, you die.  No save.  It is far easier to rewrite the lava rules than it is to rewrite the fighter class.
> 
> *Re:  Elephants:*  The 1e DMG suggested that certain attacks simply shouldn't be allowed to be effective, based upon common sense and real-world expectations.  For instance, a giant centipede should not be dangerous to a storm giant.  I'm not sure, though, that defeating an elephant with a dagger is physically impossible......though I'd sure as hell bet on the elephant!




If you remove lava you can add that a high level fighter can jump down two 60 ft cliffs in a row and be able to keep going afterwards. You can also add different kinds of explosions and the fact that the fighter could be blind sided by a lion without the possibility of being killed or maimed; that is outside human prowess and skills.

Even if someone is armed with a weapon capable of hurting an elephant, like a big axe or spear, I don't think it's possible in the real world for anyone to defeat a healthy, full grown elephant one on one. I just can't see how that would happen.

The existance of HP alone makes it impossible to view a high level fighter as realistic.


----------



## Dragonblade (Oct 30, 2007)

I can certainly understand why some people like their fighters to not be magical. But I like over the top flashy effects.

Tome of Battle did a good a job of mixing disciplines that were still powerful but did not have overt magical effects like Iron Heart with disciplines that were flashy like Desert Wind.

Perhaps 4e will maintain this tradition and make everyone happy.

As an anime fan, I want to play a magical fighter that can do flashy stuff like cleave stone, make a 30ft. teleport step, and erupt flames around him. I'm hoping to see more of this in 4e, but I can understand that its not everyone's cup of tea.


----------



## Rel (Oct 30, 2007)

Hey, Mistwell, why don't you back off on the snarky assumptions about what other people think.


----------



## mhensley (Oct 30, 2007)

FourthBear said:
			
		

> However, I don't see any clear way to balance a non-powered, martial character with a D&D style mid-to-high level magic wielder.  How is the mundane, won't-even-use-magic-items character going to take on an invisible, flying mage who can teleport and fling fireballs?  Or fight an incorporal death-dealing phantom?  Or deal with any number of situations found in a traditional D&D campaign?




I think it can be done.  Give a high level fighter tons of hit points and high saves to protect him from spells.  Now give him the ability to blow thru magical defenses.   And to really even things out, give him the ability to coup de grace an aware opponent.


----------



## mhensley (Oct 30, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Verisimilitude is not just realism. It is about the fantasty world being true to itself. Being the best swordsman in the world does not let you defy gravity.




QFT


----------



## timbannock (Oct 30, 2007)

Certainly IMHO...

I thought when I first looked at 3.0 that Feats _were_ the fighter's cool powers, seems as a significant majority of them were directly related to combat and combat rules.  Then it seemed like feats got stolen from the fighter, and soon there were feats that made wizards and sorcerers just as good in melee, or feats that made druids or clerics better than the fighter at thwacking things.

3.5 seemed to bring the feats back to the fighter with PHB2 (as well as Comp Warrior, but that should be obvious).

It feels to me like this was part of the design philosophy of 3.0 that just ended up falling by the wayside when feats could become such a huge way to give any character a way to break, defy, or bend the rules in this way or that.  I'm not sayings feats are broken, or any specific type of feats are, but, as a whole, a lot of feats are a way for a character to do "something that you can't normally do" with what you have, whether it be a class, race, or other limitation.

Anyway, my point is: I think crazy cool maneuvers should continue to be feats.  I don't think gravity-defying super-maneuvers should be feats in the Core Rules, but they are perfectly acceptable in some settings/genres.  Martial characters should have access to cool manuevers -- whether or not they are gravity-defying super-maneuvers -- just like wizards have lots of spells and rogues have lots of skills and everybody else has their thing.  Cool maneuvers could simply be the new versions of spring attack, or whirlwind strike, or whatever...they don't need to be supernatural to be cool (or effective).

Sorry for the rambling.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 30, 2007)

Deekin said:
			
		

> I'm just wondering where this stance comes from. In a setting game where over half the classes can wield magic, why is the poor man with the sword stuck maxing out at the human maximum, while the wizard is so much father beyound this. Why is it ok for a Wizard to level mountain, while if the Warrior does anything superhuman it's badwrongfun.




For the same reason that Batman doesn't fly without an airplane, and can't generally lift cars and throw them at people.  And why not everyone in D&D is a magical elf....

If _everyone_ has special, cool superhuman powers, then those powers... aren't special at all.  Thanks, I played Earthdawn, and the fact that every single PC was highly magical with flagrant powers made all the powers mean less...

We need classes for those who don't _want_ their characters to be magic-users in different clothing.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Oct 30, 2007)

*Enter Martial Maneouvers*



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Warriors with superpowers doesn't necessarily mean Asian. Beowulf has superhuman strength - enough to tear off Grendel's arm. Gawaine's strength is magical, reaching a peak at noon each day. And Cúchulainn warp spasm's are just insane.




Indeed, we need to establish that "Fighters with powers" doesnt necessarily mean "anime magical girl shooting stars from a shiny sword". 

How the heck are we supposed to believe that Conan "tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet," If a 10th level wizard can get rid of him with a wink???

We need martial maneouvers that, while remaining non-magical, can present a challenge to high level magic-using foes.

Oh, guess what? you can find examples of such maneouvers in _The Book of Iron Might_, by (who else) Mike Mearls! 

In fact, if you implement the Combat Maneouvers (for Fighters, Rangers, Paladins and Monks) and the Combat Skill Uses (for Bards and Rogues), and simultaneously place some sensible restrictions on several spells in the SRD, you stop having to worry about the casters in the party using the meleers as servants.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 30, 2007)

delericho said:
			
		

> For me it depends on whether they _can_ have kewl powerz, or whether they _must_ have kewl powerz.
> 
> Aragorn, Conan and Lancelot should all be valid examples of high-level martial characters just the same as Darth Vader or Li Mu Bai.



*Aragorn commanded an army of the undead.* Why do people think he had no kewl powerz?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Mercule (Oct 30, 2007)

For me, it's a flavor thing.  I'm under no illusions that any real person could do what a 20th level fighter could.  But, when I play a sword-slinger, I want it to feel like a sword-slinger, not a spell-slinger.  A fighter 20 should be a fighter++, not a fighter/wizard.  The moves may be exaggerated, but they should still be recognizable as extensions of what he was doing at 1st level.

That means that the +6d6 damage that penetrates DR is fine, but +2d6 damage from summoned flame on the sword isn't.  It's not a balance issue.  The mega-strike damage is just a much more in-flavor with a fighter than is the flame-strike damage.  Making a strong guy, inhumanly strong works, too.  Making an improbably jump is one thing, but the fairy-prancing in Crouching Tiger-like movies isn't the image I want coupled with my dwarves.

I guess, if I could pick a mental image for high-level martial characters, it would be "300".  I may be missing something, but I don't recall any flaming weapons or fairy-prancing.  There were a lot of extremely unlikely defenses, attacks, and feats of endurance, though.  That's the feel I want from my epic fighters.

I'm okay with a ninja-like class (i.e. swordsage) or a crusader who channels faith into martial prowess.  I just also want the option of having my Leonidas as formidable.

As an aside, I really hope the ranger ends up a martial class.  Removing the ranger spells and replacing them with some appropriately extraordinary and/or supernatural (to use the 3E classification) maneuvers that replicate them would be much better, flavor-wise.  I'm thinking _Shadow Hand_ with nature instead of shadows.  That might even get me to buy into a ranger with d8 hit dice and/or medium BAB (I'd still prefer d10 HD, though).


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 30, 2007)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> As an anime fan, I want to play a magical fighter that can do flashy stuff like cleave stone, make a 30ft. teleport step, and erupt flames around him.




I _hate _anime, and I want to play that character.

Book of 9 Swords really opened D&D up for me. I won't go back.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Oct 30, 2007)

Fighters do exceed the human maximum.  With a single swing a of sword a fighter can kill 8 men in six seconds, this is accomplishable at low levels.  By level 20 he can take or 100s or 1000s of a opponents, with out even using magic items.

I think people are more against flashy abilities being given to fighters.
Most people I don't object to abilities like stunning fist or rage, which aren't flashy or supernatural in nature being given to fighter types, but mechanically are similar to how magic works.

I don't own Bo9s but from what I understand at least some of the characters that can be made using that book have flashy magicky abilities, and as this book has been cited as a source of inspiration for 4e, people are afraid of what will happen to fighters.

Frankly I think the system has room for fighter types both with flashy supernatural abilities and those of a more mundane nature, either through various talent trees or different classes.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 30, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> We need classes for those who don't _want_ their characters to be magic-users in different clothing.




The problem though is how do you balance that with magic? I mean, as soon as you get to level 5, you hit flight and you can be invisible at the same time. Without magic, the guy who focused on being a melee specialist is just simply *BONED*.

My problem with this discussion is that I don't think Conan, Aragorn and Arthur WERE high-level characters. I think you can duplicate them in using the E6 modification to the rules and they'll be as impressive as the equivalent-levelled wizard in such a system but in standard D&D? Never.

Even with the different XP tables in 1e/2e, did anyone honestly think a 18th level fighter (without the use of magical items which I agree basically turn him into Green Lantern...good analogy) was a match for a 16th level wizard?

I stand by my statement when this discussion always comes up (Fighter/ magical or not). Gygax should;ve NEVER allowed magic in the hands of players in the form of clerics/wizards.


----------



## FourthBear (Oct 30, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> I think it can be done.  Give a high level fighter tons of hit points and high saves to protect him from spells.  Now give him the ability to blow thru magical defenses.   And to really even things out, give him the ability to coup de grace an aware opponent.




I think that given the designer's statements and Mike Mearls' previous work, I do think that abilities such as you describe likely in the cards.  I think that 4e will probably do a better job than previous editions at balancing classes at high levels and reducing the need for magic items.  But I have to admit that I don't think it will eliminate either of the issues.  Magic simply gives too many abilities that qualitatively and dramatically change a character's scope of actions.

Martial Power: Tightly and narrowly defined abilities around melee and missile combat techniques, coupled with some defensive options
Arcane Power: Flight, teleportation, shape-changing, mind control, etherealness, planar gates, summoning monsters, invisibility, illusions, enhancement of attributes, divination, pretty much any imaginable super power AND increased melee and missile combat ability


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 30, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> The problem though is how do you balance that with magic?



You make Magic a threat to the wielder. Use it to roast a mook and you'll be safer tha if you meleed with him and risked his counter attack,  but try to blow up mountains on a whim and Magic makes you a stain roughly the size of said mountain.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 30, 2007)

med stud said:
			
		

> If you remove lava you can add that a high level fighter can jump down two 60 ft cliffs in a row and be able to keep going afterwards. You can also add different kinds of explosions and the fact that the fighter could be blind sided by a lion without the possibility of being killed or maimed; that is outside human prowess and skills.




Falling rules?  Easier to fix than rewriting a class.

Explosions?  Depends very much on what the "explosion" means.

Charging lion?  Depends very much on what "blindsided" means.  D&D has a pretty flexible "real world" definition to its rules, and the surprise attack that doesn't kill you might well indicate that you weren't really blindsided and got out of the way.  Hit points can represent fatigue, exertion, and sheer luck as well as the ability to take damage.



> Even if someone is armed with a weapon capable of hurting an elephant, like a big axe or spear, I don't think it's possible in the real world for anyone to defeat a healthy, full grown elephant one on one. I just can't see how that would happen.




Again, I'd lay odds on the elephant, but it isn't a physical impossibility.

People have done a lot of things in real life that might strike one as unlikely if they had happened in fiction or in a game.  The world record fall without serious injury is a lot farther than 60 feet, for instance.  I can recall one case where a man was attacked by a grizzly and killed it with a broken arrow held in one hand (and survived), and another case where a hunter got too close to a swan's nest and was beaten to death by the bird's wings.

And, of course, when people speak of verisimilitude, they are talking (as frankthedm wisely notes) about the inherent rules of the fantasy world, not the inherent rules of the real world.  The real question is, IMHO, how close is the fantasy world to the real world?  For some, "Everyone can fly" is close enough.  For others, "being really good with a sword means you can defy gravity" is way too far.

As Henry pointed out, you can have nifty, useful abilities that do not shatter world assumptions, and are not simply magical powers.  I have no problem with this sort of thing at all (and it is part of my homebrew 3.X).  I have no problem with options that allow characters to be good at a sword _and_ defy gravity.

I want a game that allows for characters like Conan, Tarzan, Solomon Kane, Beowulf, Fafrid, Indiana Jones, Doc Savage, and their ilk, as well as more mystically-oriented characters.  I was able to tweak 3.X into that game.  The question for me is, how much work will it be to do the same with 4.0?

RC


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Oct 30, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> *Aragorn commanded an army of the undead.* Why do people think he had no kewl powerz?
> 
> Cheers, -- N




He also lived to be 210 years old, and his supernatural healing abilities were what convinced the regular people of Minas Tirith that he was indeed their returned King.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Oct 30, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I guess, if I could pick a mental image for high-level martial characters, it would be "300".  I may be missing something, but I don't recall any flaming weapons or fairy-prancing.  There were a lot of extremely unlikely defenses, attacks, and feats of endurance, though.  That's the feel I want from my epic fighters.




The only problem I have with this is that the Spartans in "300," awesome and over-the-top as they seem to our mundane eyes, are really on MID-level fighters.  In 4e terms, I think they'll be excellent examples of what fighters can be the 'paragon' levels - levels 10-20.  Most cinematic fantasy heroes are in this same range, including the movie versions of Aragorn and Legolas and Conan and Achilles.  I can maybe see Beowulf at the extreme upper end of this range.

But an epic fighter (or a high-teens fighter in 3e) is beyond that level.  He's not really a "fantasy novel" character any more, he's a "mythic" character.  He's on par with the Achilles of the original epic: LITERALLY (and magically) invulnerable except for his one weak point.  Or Heracles, who briefly takes the load of THE ENTIRE WORLD off a titan's shoulders.  As awesome as Leonidas is, he's not going to be hoisting planets, and he can still be killed by someone who bypasses or overwhelms his skill.

Eventually, you hit that point where fighters, like all other PCs, are mythic characters or superheroes.  They pass through Gritty, Pulp and Action Movie and hit a level where what they're doing is not even remotely related to what actual humans do.  HOW they go about doing their demigodly deeds matters less than the fact they're doing them.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 30, 2007)

In earlier editions it was...

Wizard: "wow, I'm a 17th level wizard and now I can call a swarm of meteors, kill with a word and become anything I want, what new things can you do as a level 17th fighter?"

Fighter: "Nothing really, just swing my sword slightly better"

That's why I'm completely in support of fighters having powers.  Really I think at 17th level a fighter should be able to move 60 feet and attack everything in his path of movement, or he should be able to strike a massive blow that does 3d6 damage from bleeding 5 rounds after the strike, or be able to boost his Str, Dex and Con by +8 for a few rounds, so that they don't seem left behind in the dust by the wizard.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 30, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> *Aragorn commanded an army of the undead.* Why do people think he had no kewl powerz?
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Yes, but he used an artifact (Stone of Erech) to do that, and it was a limited-use power:  Corsairs of Umbar, Battle of Pelanor Fields.

RC


----------



## Mallus (Oct 30, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> If _everyone_ has special, cool superhuman powers, then those powers... aren't special at all.  Thanks, I played Earthdawn, and the fact that every single PC was highly magical with flagrant powers made all the powers mean less...



What about superhero games?

It's my experience that uninteresting implementations of powers/special abilities are uninteresting (look, up in the sky, it's Captain Tautology!). That every character has some form of extraordinary ability doesn't, well shouldn't, make any specific ability more or less interesting during play. 



> We need classes for those who don't _want_ their characters to be magic-users in different clothing.



I think you'd need a different game system. In D&D, everyone relies on magic, eventually. And by 'eventually' I mean 'as soon as they find/can afford it'. This is one of the most consistent features throughout the various editions. 

It doesn't make much difference to me if one character flies by mumbling a few words and gesticulating wildly while another flies by knocking the heels of his enchanted boots.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Oct 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I want a game that allows for characters like Conan, Tarzan, Solomon Kane, Beowulf, Fafrid, Indiana Jones, Doc Savage, and their ilk, as well as more mystically-oriented characters.  I was able to tweak 3.X into that game.  The question for me is, how much work will it be to do the same with 4.0?




As much as I like every one of the characters you're talking about, RC, to me none of them work now, or have ever worked, as high-level D&D characters.

If I'm playing a game with a shallower power curve (say, one that starts Pulp and ends Pulp, like Spirit of the Century or Pulp HERO), then that's fine.  I actually prefer such games, and dislike the Chump/Skilled Mortal/Pulp Hero/Minor Super/Mythic or Superhero progression of D&D, but it's there and it seems to be at least a fairly popular aspect of the system.

Doc Savage and Beowulf are probably the highest power-level characters on that list, and frankly, a 20th level fighter would rend them without even blinking.  A 20th level fighter is Heracles or Achilles or Cuchulain, and even a peak-level human remotely grounded in the 'real world' is nothing but a speedbump to him.  By the same token, that 20th level fighter would have been a speedbump to Doc Savage or Beowulf (or even Indy, probably the weakest character on that list) at 1st level, because he wasn't anywhere close to a pulp hero's power level, or frankly to an average real-world warrior's.

On Mars, compared to the lower-gravity, lower-muscle-mass opponents he faces there, John Carter is MAYBE on a level where he rates as a threat.  He's about the closest literary (as opposed to mythic) figure I can think of to a 20th level fighter, because he does in fact wipe out armies (of monsters, no less), defeat every single opponent he faces, conquer a planet purely by being faster, stronger, more cunning and a better fighter.  But John Carter pulls off feats that, if a character on an Earth-like planet did them, would be 'anime' or 'wuxia' or at least 'mystical' - his superleaping is better than most comic book superheroes, albeit it's explained by his environment.  Later in life, he even has quasi-mystical powers.

Wanting D&D to allow for pulp and/or sword and sorcery heroes, at least out of the box, would require it to be a pulp and/or sword and sorcery game out of the box.  It isn't.  It passes briefly through that power level around levels 4-12, but outside of that, it's either grim n' gritty (1-3) or fantasy supers/mythic (13+).


----------



## yipwyg42 (Oct 30, 2007)

The thing that I've always thought about D&D was it was its own type of fantasy.  Basically D&D has with its core 3 books set what defaults about the game is like. 

For example in 3.5 characters are assumed to have a set amount of magic items to keep them on par with the challenge ratings of monsters.  Yes you can manipulate this, however you have to adjust the challenge ratings of the monsters so they don't overrun the characters.

Alot of what I have read on d20 sites say they want to run low magic, Conan, etc... type campaigns.  Yes you can do this with D&D , however I think it is better to use a system that is tailored for it.

Conan for example has a modified d20 system that mimics the sword and sorcery tropes.  Casters are dangerous but they are nowhere near on par with 20th level wizards in a typical D&D game.

I guess what I am saying if I really wanted to, I could run a World of Darkness type game, where players play vampires, werewolves, etc... with the standard 3.5 system.  I think though it would be better handled with Monte Cooks world of darkness d20 though.

I plan on switching to 4th edition as soon as it comes out.  What I have read so far, I really like.  They are changing with the times.  I finally see D&D taking things from modern fantasy novels. This might not make everyone happy, but they need to keep up with the times, if they want to stay number one.


----------



## Mercule (Oct 30, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> The only problem I have with this is that the Spartans in "300," awesome and over-the-top as they seem to our mundane eyes, are really on MID-level fighters.  In 4e terms, I think they'll be excellent examples of what fighters can be the 'paragon' levels - levels 10-20.  Most cinematic fantasy heroes are in this same range, including the movie versions of Aragorn and Legolas and Conan and Achilles.  I can maybe see Beowulf at the extreme upper end of this range.
> 
> But an epic fighter (or a high-teens fighter in 3e) is beyond that level.  He's not really a "fantasy novel" character any more, he's a "mythic" character.  He's on par with the Achilles of the original epic: LITERALLY (and magically) invulnerable except for his one weak point.  Or Heracles, who briefly takes the load of THE ENTIRE WORLD off a titan's shoulders.  As awesome as Leonidas is, he's not going to be hoisting planets, and he can still be killed by someone who bypasses or overwhelms his skill.
> 
> Eventually, you hit that point where fighters, like all other PCs, are mythic characters or superheroes.  They pass through Gritty, Pulp and Action Movie and hit a level where what they're doing is not even remotely related to what actual humans do.  HOW they go about doing their demigodly deeds matters less than the fact they're doing them.




I think you've just nailed why I've never cared for uber-level D&D games.

I don't have a problem with the idea of playing Hercules.  I just have a problem with the notion that he could have started at ECL 1.

Achilles...  Well, I could buy into the feel of having someone quest for that invulnerability around level 20.  I'm not saying magic doesn't have it's place -- if the _sword_ flames, that's cool; if the _fighter_ makes a semi-random weapon flame, that's wizard territory.  The rest of what Achilles did was still "mundane", by which I mean rather improbable but an exaggeration of mundane fighting techniques.

....

I think my best-case scenario would be to have levels 21-30 be at the inhuman/wuxia/superhero level, *including* all the spells that demand fighters have those powers.  I'm really almost as opposed to many of the higher level spells as I am to pseudo-magical warriors.  I'll just play up to 20th level and have "300" be the top of the food chain.


----------



## Anthtriel (Oct 30, 2007)

cerberus2112 said:
			
		

> The RAW would require checks to avoid fatigue, which the fighter would eventually fail.  When he collapes into a heap from exhaustion, he is easily caught by several dozen coup-de-grace attempts.  That's enough critical hits to eventually fell him.  The long and tedious process consigns him to death, eventually . . .



And how many warriors will the Level 20 Great Cleave fighter have slain by them? Per round, a fighter with a Spiked Chain and Great Cleave kills 25 of them. Even going mere 40 rounds, 4 minutes, would equal 1000 dead enemies.
Do you mind reciting the fatigue rules? I only found -6 penalties, not enough to stop the fighter. I realize he will eventually killed by the few attacks that do hit him (unless he invested into Damage Reduction), but that won't stop him from killing an army by himself.
And he can punch-out not one, but multiple elephants. At once.

That's not something Aragon or Lancelot can do. It's what Sauron, Siegfried or Hercules can do.

A high-level fighter without the ability to jump 60 feet or summon magical flame to his sword should be a very viable character build, but he will always have supernatural strength, reaction and speed. Just because he already has all that in 3.5, whether you like it or not.


----------



## FourthBear (Oct 30, 2007)

I suspect that the reason the designers have broken up the game into Heroic, Paragon and Epic tiers is to conceptually break up the various game-changing powers into each.  So Heroic will have PCs with abilities you could imagine from a Conan or Fafhrd and Grey Mouser novel.  Paragon will start introducing things like flight, invisibility and short range teleportation.  Epic will be where you get the really wonky stuff, like long range teleportation, radical shape-changing, etherealness and such.  Hopefully this way they'll arrange for future supplments and power sources to roughly follow these as well.  So every power could be labelled Heroic, Paragon or Epic and then to "dial down" the wackiness you could only allow Heroic powers in your game.  Could be.


----------



## PeterWeller (Oct 30, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> For the same reason that Batman doesn't fly without an airplane, and can't generally lift cars and throw them at people.




At the same time, Batman can outfight Superman, outwit the Flash, and solve any crime put before him.  Batman, Green Arrow, and Captain America all make good cases for fighters to have "powers" that put them on par with more overtly magical or mystical characters.  With the exception of Cap's vaguely defined Super Soldier Serum, none of these guys have inherent powers, yet they are on par with their powered peers because of sheer grit, skill, and will.  Sometimes they might have to rely on a magical item (Bats using kryptonite boxing gloves) to defeat their opponent, but for the most part, they rely on their skills to get them by in a world where people can move mountains.

I think most people are just worried that all of a sudden Fighters will be able to summon forth magic flames and fly through the air.  I'd expect the powers to be much more mundane in their fluff.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 30, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Verisimilitude is not just realism. It is about the fantasty world being true to itself. Being the best swordsman in the world does not let you defy gravity.




Your personal belief about the word aside, the word means "depicting realism" or "truth".  That's it.  The definition is not specific to fantasy worlds or being the best swordsman and gravity.  All the responses about realism address people claiming it's about "Verisimilitude", which is just a fancy way of saying "I want realism in my depictions".  Swordsmen who are able to swing a sword strong enough to decapitate creatures in a single blow four times in a matter of seconds are not realistic or a depiction of "truth".  Doing it with a magical sword, while wearing magical armor and a magical cloak and having magical healing potions that they can grab and drink in a matter of seconds is also not realistic or a depiction of "truth".  Being able to leap from a 100' cliff and live from the fall because you have a lot of experience killing monsters is not realistic or "truth".  That's the responses to this "Verisimilitude" claim, and they hold up.  Verisimilitude is not compatible much with D&D.

If you guys mean something different than realism, then quit using the wrong word


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 30, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Wanting D&D to allow for pulp and/or sword and sorcery heroes, at least out of the box, would require it to be a pulp and/or sword and sorcery game out of the box.  It isn't.  It passes briefly through that power level around levels 4-12, but outside of that, it's either grim n' gritty (1-3) or fantasy supers/mythic (13+).




As I said, I could tweak 3.X into the game I wanted; the question is how much tweaking will 4.0 require?


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 30, 2007)

Rel said:
			
		

> Hey, Mistwell, why don't you back off on the snarky assumptions about what other people think.




Will do


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 30, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I think my best-case scenario would be to have levels 21-30 be at the inhuman/wuxia/superhero level, *including* all the spells that demand fighters have those powers.  I'm really almost as opposed to many of the higher level spells as I am to pseudo-magical warriors.  I'll just play up to 20th level and have "300" be the top of the food chain.




That might be a very good solution.

RC


----------



## med stud (Oct 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I want a game that allows for characters like Conan, Tarzan, Solomon Kane, Beowulf, Fafrid, Indiana Jones, Doc Savage, and their ilk, as well as more mystically-oriented characters.  I was able to tweak 3.X into that game.  The question for me is, how much work will it be to do the same with 4.0?
> 
> RC




In that case I really don't think D&D is what you are looking for (I assume you have played a lot of games and that you are more experienced than me, but still). I came from a very BRP- influenced game where a character could get extremely skilled and extremely dangerous but still was vulnerable to a crossbow bolt in the back.

The first thing I noticed when looking through D&D for the first time was that a 3rd level fighter had no in game reason to be afraid when he was held up by someone with a crossbow; he could just take the bolt. I liked it in a way, since mortality in D&D wouldn't be as high as in the game I played in before but it also told me that I had to change the focus of the adventures; in the old game, you could always threaten the players with numbers, no matter how skilled the PCs were compared to the enemies. In D&D that's not true, you have to bring opponents that are approximatly at their skill level.

To bring my reasoning back on topic, I think that D&D is and has always been a game about over the top protagonists and when I first saw Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon I thought to myself that the movie was a close match to D&D while I always thought that it was a shame that you couldn't duplicate Conan in D&D, at least not if Conan was to have a level above maybe 5.

So in keeping with that vein I think over the top abilities for warriors do nothing to detract from the "fighter feel" and do lot to add interesting, powerful abilities to warriors.

I agree with most though that I would like to see "physical themed" powers for warriors more than magical fires and teleporting in a flash.


----------



## Henry (Oct 30, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> What about superhero games?
> 
> It's my experience that uninteresting implementations of powers/special abilities are uninteresting (look, up in the sky, it's Captain Tautology!). That every character has some form of extraordinary ability doesn't, well shouldn't, make any specific ability more or less interesting during play.




You've hit on exactly the reason why I mostly play super-hero one shots, but play lower-level D&D all the time. Just super-powers themselves in proliferation make them less interesting to me, so when everything is "far beyond mortal men," it doesn't hold my interest.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 30, 2007)

med stud said:
			
		

> The first thing I noticed when looking through D&D for the first time was that a 3rd level fighter had no in game reason to be afraid when he was held up by someone with a crossbow; he could just take the bolt.




That's what houserules are for; 1e actively encouraged them.

In my version of 3.X, I use a variation of the WP/VP variant, so that someone who has the drop on you can target your Wound Points....a much lower threshold than Vitality Points.  In my setup, you regain VP = Lvl/5 minutes of rest, and you can take fatigue damage to your VP, making mobs far more dangerous than they are in the RAW.

I also rewrote classes and spells to tone down magic while upping fighting ability.  I grabbed some classes from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed, too, while ditching the ones from the PHB that I didn't think fit the world I was describing.

I slowed down level progression, but made some "epic" feats available as early as 5th level.  There's a lot more.....my "core rules" are over 600 pages & replace the PHB and part of the MM (normal animals).  I cobbled a lot from 3rd party publishers, and really the huge "Houserules" are a way of having everything in one book.

Anyway, because of third-party publishers in particular, 3.X is convertable to almost anything that you want.  Heck, my Doctor Who game uses 3.X/d20 System as its (very nominal) basis!


RC


----------



## PeterWeller (Oct 30, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> There is nothing fundamentally non-magical, or mundane, about being a "martial" character.  "Martial" just means "of, relating to, or suited for war or a warrior".  In a world of magic, I would think things that are suited for war would use magic.
> 
> Where does this concept of "fundamentally non-magic" come from?




You're not using the 4E definition of Martial, which is a power source derived from skill, dedication, and pure physical ability.  That's where this concept of "fundamentally non-magic" comes from.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Yes, but he used an artifact (Stone of Erech) to do that, and it was a limited-use power:  Corsairs of Umbar, Battle of Pelanor Fields.



 Are you saying that *anyone* could have commanded that undead army? It was *just* the effect of his artifact?

Or are you just pointing out some details that could be used to hand-wave powers for martial dudes?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 30, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Are you saying that *anyone* could have commanded that undead army? It was *just* the effect of his artifact?
> 
> Or are you just pointing out some details that could be used to hand-wave powers for martial dudes?
> 
> Cheers, -- N





Nope.  It had to be a descendent of Isildur (the artifact being keyed to his bloodline).  If Sauron had waited a generation to arise, it might have been Aragorn's son (if he had one) or the opportunity might have passed forever.  Thinking about this in D&D 3e terms, it might best be described as an incantation that requires both a particular bloodline, a particular action (walking the Paths of the Dead), a particular location (Stone of Erech), and can be used only once, lasting for a finite time (two battles, must be against forces of Sauron).

I don't think that "once in a lifetime" abilities are the sort of "kewl powerz" that people are worried about in 4e, though.  Do you?

RC


----------



## med stud (Oct 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That's what houserules are for; 1e actively encouraged them.
> 
> In my version of 3.X, I use a variation of the WP/VP variant, so that someone who has the drop on you can target your Wound Points....a much lower threshold than Vitality Points.  In my setup, you regain VP = Lvl/5 minutes of rest, and you can take fatigue damage to your VP, making mobs far more dangerous than they are in the RAW.
> 
> ...




That's true but then you have to house rule pretty much and you have to balance those house rules against the existing rules and you have to come up with them etc. Besides, when discussing a game I prefer to discuss the game as written, even if I intend to house rule it. This is because someones house rules may be great but I don't know them/don't want to take the time to learn them good enough to be able to discuss them. My POV is that D&D as written is about over the top action (and I think it's one of the strengths of D&D).

I really think that this discussion went OT with this. Not to be disrespectful or anything but I think it's best for the thread if we end this discussion here


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 30, 2007)

med stud said:
			
		

> My POV is that D&D as written is about over the top action (and I think it's one of the strengths of D&D).




Definitely true of 3e.

Gary Gygax recently said that none of his players was all that high level in his own campaign though, spanning 10 years of continuous play.  I imagine that his game, as a result, was more pulp-action than Wuxia.

Anyway, to each his own.

RC


----------



## Mallus (Oct 30, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> You've hit on exactly the reason why I mostly play super-hero one shots, but play lower-level D&D all the time. Just super-powers themselves in proliferation make them less interesting to me, so when everything is "far beyond mortal men," it doesn't hold my interest.



Aha... okay that makes sense. I don't so much care about the number and scale of abilities, just what I can do with them under a specific DM/GM and rule set. 

In a way, I prefer superhero games for exactly the reason you dislike them; since everyone has superpowers, it encourages me to be more creative in both my character design and play, so my guy will stand out a bit from the pack.


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Oct 30, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> I swear by all that is holy that if 4e has fighters with actual magical powers, not flashy, cinematic, non-anime moves but actually magical crap sputtering out of their swords I will not buy another thing from WoTC.




I'll join you, brother.  I'm excited about 4e based on the whole "shiny new possibilities" idea, but if fighters can leap 50 feet and float through the air like some @*()$%*@*(& wuxia warrior, then I too shall retire from "new" D&D and focus on running 3.5 until my dying day.

Wuxia powers in optional Oriental-type sourcebook = fine.
Wuxia powers in core rules and assumptions = vomit-inducing.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Oct 30, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Verisimilitude is not just realism. It is about the fantasty world being true to itself. Being the best swordsman in the world does not let you defy gravity.



This doesn't make any sense at all. If verismilitude is a fantasy world being true to itself, then why does verismilitude require any truth to our reality?

A cheap Hong Kong Kung Fu film has verismilitude (at least, if it isn't a bad film it will). There will be people running around, doing impossible things, fighting at superhuman levels, and defying gravity. However, all the characters in the film acknowledge the possibility of such feats, and the usual methods of acquiring the ability to perform such feats. It is internally consistent, and thus has verismilitude. As long as the film convinces the audience that the training methods and mysticism are reasonable, then there is no problem with verismilitude or suspension of disbelief.

It is the same principle as magic in D&D. As a whole, there is no realistic basis for the idea that just because you read enough books, you can go around rebuilding the fabric of the universe. However, all D&D says is "yes, it is possible, and everyone in the game world accepts this", and that is enough.

There is no reason whatsoever to accept a double standard of "mages are fine, but warriors have to be mundane". It is exactly that: a double standard. Why should "reading books lets you do amazing things" be true, and "training your body lets you do amazing things" be false?

Anyways, I grew up playing fighting games, watching anime, reading mythology, etc. I want warriors to be a lot more cool then they are right now. I want it so that at higher levels, D&D fighters can do stuff like Sol and Ky can. Here is a youtube link for those who have never seen them fight in the Guilty Gear videogame series. Forgive the bad quality, it as good as I could find. All I can say is that those two prove that just having flaming or electrical magic weapons and being _skilled_ with flaming or electrical magic weapons should be two very different things.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I don't think that "once in a lifetime" abilities are the sort of "kewl powerz" that people are worried about in 4e, though.  Do you?



 He had *very few fights* compared to a D&D character. His "once in a lifetime" works out to what, 20% of all his battles?

Yeah. 1/5 of all fights means once in a *day* for a D&D dude.

Scale, mang.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## BBQ (Oct 30, 2007)

I think fighter powers and such will be much like the strong, fast, and tough hero talents from d20 Modern. Those talents include abilities to ignore hardness (or at least, parts of hardness...), extreme endurance feats, melee "smash" powers, speed increases, dodging bonuses, defensive rolls, damage reduction, elemental resistances, stamina bonuses, extra hitpoints, the ability to remain conscious after getting very badly hurt, and one of my favorites: second wind (which heals the character a fairly decent amount of damage). 
Put those into a fighter, and I think you can still see the medieval Conan-Arthur-Drizzt-Aragorn-Beowulf feel. 

Dragon-Tail-Cut/Wallop, as it was described, sounded logical enough. You hit the person hard enough, it knocks them down (that's what I gathered from it). It's not hyper-magical power, but it's cool and makes realistic sense.

I am not a fan of anime. There are few that I actually like, and I do think that D&D should make the effort to avoid a large amount of anime-style powers. However, I will admit that anime does have it's place in fantasy fiction, and should be allowed to have a voice in D&D. I think that the anime stuff should be reserved for classes like the swordmage, however, and should stay semi-seperated from regular D&D. As much as I loathe World of Warcraft for the effect it's having on fantasy fiction, I would rather see elements from WoW in my D&D campaign than elements of Inuyasha or Ninja Scroll.


----------



## Simplicity (Oct 30, 2007)

I'm fine with fighters having interesting abilities.  I'm not okay with fighters spouting magical effects as part of the normal career path.  There should be a place in D&D for the non-magical grunt.  Sure, they can be of mythic proportions, but they should not be shooting fireballs from their swords.  Good examples are Hercules or Beowulf.  Sure, they're silly strong, so strong it's not "realistic".  That's the point.  They're paragons of training.  They represent an unachievable perfection to which a normal person can strive.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 30, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> There should be a place in D&D for the non-magical grunt.



And that place is called '1st level'...


----------



## Counterspin (Oct 30, 2007)

You've either got to scale fighters up from what they can do in the real world, or scale wizards and their ilk down from what they can do in fantasy, or some combination thereof in order to maintain balance in combat.  I'd rather keep the flashy important magic and give up some of the realism for fighters.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 30, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> I'm excited about 4e based on the whole "shiny new possibilities" idea, but if fighters can leap 50 feet and float through the air like some @*()$%*@*(& wuxia warrior, then I too shall retire from "new" D&D and focus on running 3.5 until my dying day.



20th level fighter
Strength 32 (16 base, +6 item, +5 from levels, +5 inherent)
23 ranks in Jump
Skill Focus (Jump)
Jump +37

He can leap 50 feet on a roll of 13 or better.


----------



## Exen Trik (Oct 30, 2007)

I don't see the big deal here, martial powers look to be essentially what certain feats were. Don't let the name 'powers' make you think it has to be magical, mystical, or somehow videogamey.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Oct 30, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> 20th level fighter
> Strength 32 (16 base, +6 item, +5 from levels, +5 inherent)
> 23 ranks in Jump
> Skill Focus (Jump)
> ...



You've forgotten _boots of springing and striding_ for 5,500 gp -> +5 competence on jump checks. And, for even more ludicrous stuff, add a _potion of jump_, CL 9 for 450 gp -> +30 enhancement on jump
_________________
= +72 on jump => can leap 73 ft. on a roll of 1 or better. And don't even think of adding a bard to the mix. Or one of the +2/+2 feats. And synergy bonuses with Tumble. And that's just core. Even from standing, he can leap quite a distance. 

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Henry (Oct 30, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> And that place is called '1st level'...




Not anymore, it won't.  Leastways, if all the hype is true and it's as similar to SWSE as is said.


----------



## Mercule (Oct 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Gary Gygax recently said that none of his players was all that high level in his own campaign though, spanning 10 years of continuous play.  I imagine that his game, as a result, was more pulp-action than Wuxia.




As were my 1E games.  Even during my Monte Haul days, 10th level was pretty darn significant.

Generally, a year of play would net you about 5 levels.  Most of my campaigns lasted about a year.  There were a couple of "sequels" that added another year and a few levels on.  Most of the world-shaking action happened at 7-10th levels.  The only 1E PC in my game to make it above 12th or so level ascended to sainthood, then godhood.

That said, I don't mind spreading out the numbers to make 29 opportunities to level up.  I don't even mind running/playing in games that are at the saint/epic or godly levels.  Actually, I might even embrace that, with the understanding that 21+ level characters have transcended mortality (or, at least, humanity).  Having "normal" personages at those levels is a different matter, entirely.  So, if you draw that line, I'm fine with the fighters manifesting supernatural fighting abilities -- they get to do it because they've picked up the "outsider" type or are multiclassed fighter/demi-deity.

I don't know why I'm fine with that distinction.  I just don't see swinging a sword to be a magical act, even if it's swung ludicrously well.  And I don't want the flaming weapon, stadium-sized long jumps, or carrying of planets to be just an extension of the fighter's skill.  That breaks my suspension of disbelief and my mind immediately attributes it to wizardry unless another reasonable explanation is given.  I can buy into transcendence/tranfiguration, though.  Again, don't ask why -- I don't know.


----------



## Mercule (Oct 30, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Wanting D&D to allow for pulp and/or sword and sorcery heroes, at least out of the box, would require it to be a pulp and/or sword and sorcery game out of the box.  It isn't.  It passes briefly through that power level around levels 4-12, but outside of that, it's either grim n' gritty (1-3) or fantasy supers/mythic (13+).




Coincidentally (or not so much, IMO), those levels (4-12) are where it's been said "the math works".  I have to admit that I don't just want to see 4E extend the math of those levels, but the feel, also.  Actually, I'm a little sad that 1-3 appear to be disappearing.  Grim-n-gritty is much, much more my style than super-heroic.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 30, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> You've forgotten _boots of springing and striding_ for 5,500 gp -> +5 competence on jump checks.



The boots give an extra +4 to jump checks for +10ft movement. But I had to stop somewhere.   

Good call on the potion and tumble synergy bonus, I didn't know about those.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 30, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Not anymore, it won't.  Leastways, if all the hype is true and it's as similar to SWSE as is said.



Good point. Make that '1st level in the non-heroic class'.


----------



## BBQ (Oct 30, 2007)

A little note for the people who're mentioning Beowulf: in his 3e incarnation (see Dragon magazine back issue #329), he's listed as being only a 15th level fighter. Perhaps that's not his level by the time he fights the dragon, but during the battles with Grendel and his mother...


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Oct 30, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Coincidentally (or not so much, IMO), those levels (4-12) are where it's been said "the math works".  I have to admit that I don't just want to see 4E extend the math of those levels, but the feel, also.




Agreed.

My preference is for a system that allows for plenty of mechanical character growth within the upper part of the pulp range (I'd say roughly D&D's levels 9-12 for fighters and multiclassed characters, and levels 3-7 for pure spellcasters).  This fits both Sword and Sorcery and JRPG style fantasy, the two types I'm interested in.



			
				Mercule said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm a little sad that 1-3 appear to be disappearing.  Grim-n-gritty is much, much more my style than super-heroic.




MASSIVELY disagree.  I flatly refuse to play D&D below 3rd level, and would never even think of running it.  I can't see a single thing about it that could be construed as fun, much less appropriate to any genre of fantasy I'm familiar with.  Plus, it's yet another dramatic and unexplained shift in tone, feel and power level.

That new groups used to be introduced to this totally atypical play strikes me as a huge weakness of the current rulesset; removing level 1 as 'beware of housecats and 10 ft. falls' level is the single best change I've heard about 4e.


----------



## renevq (Oct 30, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> And that place is called '1st level'...




Tsk. It's called NPCville. 

I don't get how people mention powers and automatically knee-jerk into "it's magic anime!!!!" In Bo9S, the only one who had this flavor was the swordsage, and he was a Mystical Warrior/ Wuxia/ Anime character by design, a "caster" who could do cool stuff in a per encounter mechanic. He was never a fighter analogue. The Warblade, which showcased what a fighter type could do with the per encounter system, had no magical or supernatural abilities, but nicely scaling stuff which fit very well with the power level expected (e.g., the level 9 maneuvers are Save or Die, two Full Attacks in a round, 2d6 CON damage, lead an army in a charge and +100 damage in an attack as a standard action. You'd think a 17th level character who's spent all his time honing his fighting skills should be able to do this). The fact that they are implementing this mechanic into 4th is very nice, and will make high level fighters worth playing without going for the christmas tree effect. I plan on adressing power differences from here till the day I play 4th by replacing Fighters, Paladins and Monks with Warblades, Crusaders and Swordsages. It just makes for more balanced parties.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 30, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> The problem though is how do you balance that with magic?




Carefully, and with great skill and imagination.  Just because we don't see the solution, doesn't mean one (or even many) doesn't exist. 



> I mean, as soon as you get to level 5, you hit flight and you can be invisible at the same time. Without magic, the guy who focused on being a melee specialist is just simply *BONED*.




This is the 4e forum, right?  Do we have confirmation that in 4e flight and invisibility are both available at level 5?  If not, consider that part of the balance may come in the form of pushing some spell-powers out, rather than buffing up the fighter earlier...



> My problem with this discussion is that I don't think Conan, Aragorn and Arthur WERE high-level characters.




I don't think they were ever game characters at all, high or low.  D&D has never, in any edition, modeled Tolkien well.  Conan you get close just by disallowing PC spellcasters, I think.  Which is not a big deal, as there are precious few spellcasters in Conan anyway.


----------



## Simplicity (Oct 30, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Good point. Make that '1st level in the non-heroic class'.




Just because you enjoy magic coming out the pores of your heroes doesn't mean that all D&D players do.  I like to play lower levels.  Many people do.  You want a magically-inclined fighter, play a swordmage.  That's what that class is for.  

Plus why the heck are people crying for balance between fighters and wizards?  They're two different things; two different roles in a party; two different styles of play.  It's a good thing that D&D can accomodate those different styles.  If you have someone in the party overshadowing someone else, that's a bad thing.  But I certainly haven't seen wizards overshadowing the rest of the party in 3.5e.  DRUIDS, yes.  Wizards, no.  

I don't care if your wizard can cast fireball.  If he doesn't have a fighter between him and the enemy, he's not going to last very long.  3.5e wizards are if anything weaker than they were in 2e (given that it's not unusual to run into magic resistant, elemental resistant, or evasion having enemies).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 30, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I don't care if your wizard can cast fireball.



Fireball isn't the problem.

Charm Person, Invisibility, Web, Fly, Polymorph, Teleport, Wall of Force, Plane Shift, Forcecage and Time Stop are part of it, not to mention plenty of other spells.


----------



## Simplicity (Oct 31, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Fireball isn't the problem.
> 
> Charm Person, Invisibility, Web, Fly, Polymorph, Teleport, Wall of Force, Plane Shift, Forcecage and Time Stop are part of it, not to mention plenty of other spells.




Any save-or-you're-out-of-the-combat spell is a problem.  That's just a flaw in D&D's design.  Agreed.  Wall of Force, Forcecage and Teleport are hardly "I win" buttons.  More like "I tie" buttons.  They're certainly annoying from a player and a DM perspective.

The rest are simply reasons why it's good to have some magical help along.  Wizards are powerful, and their powers are varied.  Fighters are more specialized.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 31, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> For the same reason that Batman doesn't fly without an airplane, and can't generally lift cars and throw them at people.  And why not everyone in D&D is a magical elf....
> 
> If _everyone_ has special, cool superhuman powers, then those powers... aren't special at all.  Thanks, I played Earthdawn, and the fact that every single PC was highly magical with flagrant powers made all the powers mean less...
> 
> We need classes for those who don't _want_ their characters to be magic-users in different clothing.




Bringing this back from 1st page.  Batman is a perfect example of the Christmas Tree effect of D&D.  He's got "all those wonderful toys" to back up the fact that he's superior to a normal human in every possible way.  Yup, he doesn't have any "super" powers, but, with all his gadgets and goodies, he's pretty much just as super as anyone else.  

Or, put it another way, what super power does Batman lack?  He can fly, be super strong, bulletproof, see and hear long distances, practically omniscient - all due to his toys true.  But, how often is Batman without his toys?  

So, you have a choice, you can either stick with the Batman style of PC, and go with the Christmas Tree at high levels, or you can go the 1e route and make high level play unattainable.

Neither seems like very good choices to me.  I'll take the third option of giving fighters special abilities that are not magically tied, much like the Knight class currently, and go with a game that actually functions at all levels.


----------



## FourthBear (Oct 31, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Fireball isn't the problem.
> 
> Charm Person, Invisibility, Web, Fly, Polymorph, Teleport, Wall of Force, Plane Shift, Forcecage and Time Stop are part of it, not to mention plenty of other spells.




I would definitely agree with that.  An evocation, blast-em-all style wizard is likely the easiest type of mage to balance against the fighter.  It's the illusion, divination, transportation and other spells that change the nature of the game world (as well as the immediate combat grid) that make magic-using so potent.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 31, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Just because you enjoy magic coming out the pores of your heroes doesn't mean that all D&D players do.



Who said anything about liking it? I'm simply talking about what I've observed since I started playing back in the mid 1980's. My personal experience has been that D&D has always been PC-magic heavy, and this is backed up by all of the published game materials I've read.

Are you seriously arguing that standard D&D is or ever was low-magic? Have you thumbed through any 1st editions modules lately?

The amount of magic in the game isn't in question; it's whether that magic comes from an imaginary ring or from somewhere deep inside your character's imaginary elf-body. 



> You want a magically-inclined fighter, play a swordmage.  That's what that class is for.



Or I could just play a fighter. With magic items. Because it's the exact same thing.


----------



## Henry (Oct 31, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> MASSIVELY disagree.  I flatly refuse to play D&D below 3rd level, and would never even think of running it.  I can't see a single thing about it that could be construed as fun, much less appropriate to any genre of fantasy I'm familiar with.  Plus, it's yet another dramatic and unexplained shift in tone, feel and power level.
> 
> That new groups used to be introduced to this totally atypical play strikes me as a huge weakness of the current rulesset; removing level 1 as 'beware of housecats and 10 ft. falls' level is the single best change I've heard about 4e.







			
				Simplicity said:
			
		

> I like to play lower levels. Many people do.




By contrast, the lower levels (approx 1 through 5) are my favorite levels of play, too. IMO it's those levels where the most character-building, defining moments come from - when your PC is the weakest they'll ever be, and where an act of heroism is more meaningful than after they have scores of powers and hit points.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 31, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> By contrast, the lower levels (approx 1 through 5) are my favorite levels of play, too. IMO it's those levels where the most character-building, defining moments come from - when your PC is the weakest they'll ever be, and where an act of heroism is more meaningful than after they have scores of powers and hit points.



Well said. My campaign is finally leaving the low levels behind (everyone should be level 4 in the near future), but the sheer terror of being still somewhat ordinary people thrust into extraordinary situations has its charms.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Oct 31, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> If looking at the Book of Nine Swords stuff as an example, plenty of stuff in the White Raven and Iron Heart dsiciplines are darned effective, and very non-magical in description.



Forget the _Tome of Battle_, and look at _Iron Heroes_. *One* of those classes uses magical abilities - *everyone else* is as "mundane" as you can be when you're essentially capable of picking up any old longsword and cutting a giant the size of a mountain to ribbons.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Oct 31, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Making an improbably jump is one thing, but the fairy-prancing in Crouching Tiger-like movies isn't the image I want coupled with my dwarves.
> 
> I guess, if I could pick a mental image for high-level martial characters, it would be "300".  I may be missing something, but I don't recall any flaming weapons or fairy-prancing.



That's not insulting at all. Asian mythical martial arts are just fairy-prancing, eh?


----------



## Exen Trik (Oct 31, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> That's not insulting at all. Asian mythical martial arts are just fairy-prancing, eh?



Well, I've seen that movie. Loved that movie. I love the whole wuxia genre. And I'm going to have to agree, lightly tip-toeing across the land at hundreds of feet per step is very much like fairy-prancing 

I think the main difference is whether you ever need to actually land between jumps instead of hopping off of one toe from tree branches, water and clouds. But I guess an extra +20 to balance would take care of that too.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Oct 31, 2007)

I'm all for powers for high-level fighters and other martial characters. In 1e and 2e, a high-level fighter had basically one thing to do, in combat or outside it: go up to a critter, and whale at it with a sword. This becomes immensely boring, when compared to the stuff all the other classes can do.

3.* helped to fix this by giving fighters access to plenty of feats which both enhanced their combat abilities at higher levels and gave them much more options. Despite this, fighters lagged somewhat behind other classes, especially the full casters (who've always been the darlings of D&D).

ToB, with its combat maneuvers, was a huge leap to the correct direction, IMO, and as people repeat (to deaf ears, it seems), much if not most of what it had to offer was non-magical. (And there's a difference between mundane and non-magical; a 20th-level fighter may be non-magical in his abilities, but he damn well shouldn't be mundane!)


----------



## Mallus (Oct 31, 2007)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Asian mythical martial arts are just fairy-prancing, eh?



And 300's gorgeous, oiled, and half-naked _Spartans_ wasn't fairy-prancing?!


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 31, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Because fighters are martial characters. They are skilled in what they do, but what they do is mundane. They swing a sword (or axe, halberd, spear, etc) and do it with style and even what appears to be superhuman skill at high levels but they are fundamentally non-magical.




I agree with this sentiment. It's not wrong IMHO to have the option of warrior characters with something magical, but it should not be the default. Fighters and Rogues are cool to me because what they achieve, they achieve without no stinkin' magic tricks   (and this said by someone whose favourite PC type is the Wizard, but often wants to play the other types as well).


----------



## hong (Oct 31, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> And 300's gorgeous, oiled, and half-naked _Spartans_ wasn't fairy-prancing?!



 They're not DOLLS!!!! They're **ACTION FIGURES!!!1**

*cry*


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Oct 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> They're not DOLLS!!!! They're **ACTION FIGURES!!!1**
> 
> *cry*




Hong is my new idol.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 31, 2007)

Anyone willing to give some opinions as I'm somewhat find it hard to udnerstand why "extreme strength" is still considered mundance, yet "fireballs" are right out.

Here's an anime fight however, there are no fireballs or anything like that.

Would you say that this would be appropriate for a high level fighter and if so, WHAT level?

Jubei-Chan Sword Fight

For say japanese D&D gamers as evidenced by the abilities of the typical fighter in a FF-game, growing up in a culture that believes in Qi/Ki/Chi, the idea that a human can train themselves to hurl a ball of energy would be considered "Mundane". In fact, high strength a la Hercules might be more likely considered magical...


----------



## WhatGravitas (Oct 31, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Would you say that this would be appropriate for a high level fighter and if so, WHAT level?
> 
> Jubei-Chan Sword Fight



At the beginning, I was okay with that... but then, they started hopping through a forest (that's something I can grok, see the 3.5E jump skill), hacking apart trees while running (a bit pointless... but okay). Then they produced "shockwaves"... and at that, the video lost me (and I'm only talking about the powers they've showed, not about the aesthetics, like the sudden movements).

Counter-example: Have you seen Samurai Champloo, especially the last episodes, but also the fight with the blind assassin? That's higher level D&Dish to me.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 31, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Or I could just play a fighter. With magic items. Because it's the exact same thing.



In one scenario, the power comes from yourself, in the other, it comes from an item. The character itself is "mundane". That seems to be the critical difference. If it makes sense to you or me to see this distinction as important, is another question. 

Having "powers" doesn't have to mean that they feel magical. But magical items definitely do feel magical.  
There aren't many stories where heroic martial characters rely on a buckload of magical items - maybe a magical sword But dozens of different items, all concentrating on making you better at being a warrior? Certainly not. 

In 3.x, such items where neccessary. Iron Heroes showed you can redesign your classes so they don't need them. And it also showed you can give them powers that don't feel magical, either. 

So I don't really worry that I will have problems in 4th Edition with powers for martial characters.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 31, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Counter-example: Have you seen Samurai Champloo, especially the last episodes, but also the fight with the blind assassin? That's higher level D&Dish to me.
> 
> Cheers, LT.




Yes...I hadn't thought about this show before when considering these arguments, but I think you've nailed what I view as powerful fighters right on the head.  I'm not against anime influences in D&D, but I would prefer the more toned down types.  Another example  would be the the Rurouni Kenshin (Samurai X) movies: "Trust" & "Betrayal"...NOT THE TV SHOW( That's where we start seeing supposed warriors w/the magic).  The movies are a great example of a warrior who has trained his body and has a natural talent for...well, killing.  He faces off against numerous enemies, but never throws ki energy balls or sonic sword shock waves...He's just a badass fighter that's perfected the art of the warrior.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 31, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> He had *very few fights* compared to a D&D character. His "once in a lifetime" works out to what, 20% of all his battles?




You need to go back and read the books, my friend.

Aragorn has had a very long and distinguished adventuring career prior to joining the Fellowship, and was often Gandalf's ally in more serious ventures.  Within the novel itself, he drives off the Nazgul twice in the Fellowship, as well as several "encounters" (using 4e terms) with orcs in Moria, plus a cave troll.  He also tells Frodo of having captured Gollum in the Fellowship, which certainly involved a fight.  Last, but not least, he faced orcs (admitedly, only Legolas did any shooting) on the Anduin, and then fought them when Boromir fell.  He also faces supernatural wolves just before entering Moria.

In the Two Towers, we learn that hunting orcs is nothing new to Aragorn.  They are a Favoured Enemy, and there are few alive who know more about them than he.  And, in TTT, he fights orcs.  At Helm's Deep he smites them hip and thigh.  He wades in a sea of orcs and men in that battle, and triumphs.  Not finished yet, he then goes an engages in mental combat with Sauron himself, and wrests the Palantir of Isengard from him (<-- Kewl Powerz Alert!).  He passes through the Paths of the Dead (which, though a non-combat encounter like Cadaraz in Fellowship, is a true challenge) and fights the Corsairs of Umbar, securing their fleet and freeing the southern allies of Gondor from the forces that beseige them.  We also learn in this book that Aragorn is no stranger to Rohan and Gondor, having ridden in battle with the Rohirim, and having entered Minas Tirith as a soldier.

In Return of the King, Aragorn fights in the battle of Pelanor Field, which in the book is not simply a bunch of ghosts sweeping over the battlefield.  He then goes and fights the amassed armies of Sauron with nary a ghost to help him....orcs, trolls, and men.  And, while Frodo's/Gollum's action in destroying the Ring prevents the mind of Sauron from directing the battle and enforcing morale, surviving and triumphing is no small feat.

LotR doesn't represent Aragorn's "Adventure Path" (which started 50 years ago), but it does represent an arc of three adventures on his rise to glory.  Does the average D&D character face more discrete combats in three adventures?  Perhaps.  But, if so, the average D&D character doesn't face as many _opponents_ over the course of three adventures.

IMHO, of course.    

RC


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Oct 31, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> ToB, with its combat maneuvers, was a huge leap to the correct direction, IMO, and as people repeat (to deaf ears, it seems), much if not most of what it had to offer was non-magical.



The problem is not "deaf ears" it's that those who have been talking non magic ToB are using a different definition of powers (different, imo, from the one implicitly established in the first post as well) and talking at cross purposes with those they think they are debating. I'm not going to scour the thread, but I can't recall anyone objecting to fighters having different tactical option in combat (though they may dislike "silly" names and flavor). The question in the first post was why fighters shouldn't do explicitly magical things, and folks have answered that. Why shift the definition of powers to include non magical specialty moves? 

There are no deaf ears, people are just ignoring non sequitors to what they are talking about.


----------



## hong (Oct 31, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You need to go back and read the books, my friend.
> 
> Aragorn has had a very long and distinguished adventuring career prior to joining the Fellowship, and was often Gandalf's ally in more serious ventures.




Writing six chapters of backstory instead of allowing the character to develop organically in play is so anime.


----------



## glass (Oct 31, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> I agree with this sentiment. It's not wrong IMHO to have the option of warrior characters with something magical, but it should not be the default.



This is about the 27th time someone in the thread has said this. Where is it coming from?

Everything I have heard so far about fighters has been perfectly mundane (by any definition where a 3.5e fighter is 'mundane'). AFAIK, we don't have any evidence that overtly magical powers for fighters are the default (or even possible!)


glass.


----------



## glass (Oct 31, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Why shift the definition of powers to include non magical specialty moves?



Er, because we are talking about D&D 4e, and the only powers we have seen any evidence of have been non-magical speciality moves?

When people are talking about the next edition of D&D, is it unreasonable to conclude that they are talking about the next edition of D&D?



glass.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 31, 2007)

glass said:
			
		

> This is about the 27th time someone in the thread has said this. Where is it coming from?



Fear.
-> Anger.
-> Hate.
-> Suffering.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 31, 2007)

Barring the Death Touch and Punch Through Grave powers, _Kill Bill_ gives a pretty good idea of how Wuxia I would be willing to allow high-level mundane characters to get.  I think that a good number of abilities are completely fine (though I dislike the word "powers" for mundane abilities), including many of the things discussed in this thread, in the PHB2, ToB, and Iron Heroes.  In fact, I use them already.

I also use a handy "cool effect" rule that works like this:  You want to create a cool effect rather than do damage?  Attack with a -5 to hit; your opponent might get an opposed roll.  This covers most special combat manuevers, and doesn't require you to remember all of the exceptions.

Want to create a cool effect _and_ do damage?  Attack with a -10 to hit; your opponent might get an opposed roll against the effect, but not the damage.

As with Iron Heroes, you can roll with a -4 to give your opponent a -2 penalty on his next action, to the roll of your choice (described when you make your roll).

Because I use a weapon skill system (which I've posted on EN World somewhere....), a warrior can pump up his attack to make these sorts of things work, if he is skilled in the weapon type he is using.

My mundane monk replacement, the Shadowfist, gains all its powers from reading body language and understanding dance.  The Shadowfist builds up energy for powerful blows, manuvers its target by careful dance steps, avoids blows with fluid grace, and is more powerful when they gang up on you.....

There are lots of good options for "mundane" characters that don't feel (to me, at least) like wizards in drag.  I really hope that 4e uses them.  This is one area, in fact, where I think it likely that my wishes will come true.  If anything, some of the revealed wizard powers seem more "warrior in drag" than I would like.

RC


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Oct 31, 2007)

glass said:
			
		

> This is about the 27th time someone in the thread has said this. Where is it coming from?
> 
> Everything I have heard so far about fighters has been perfectly mundane (by any definition where a 3.5e fighter is 'mundane'). AFAIK, we don't have any evidence that overtly magical powers for fighters are the default (or even possible!)





			
				the original post in the thread in question said:
			
		

> I'm just wondering where this stance comes from. In a setting game where over half the classes can wield magic, why is the poor man with the sword stuck maxing out at the human maximum, while the wizard is so much father beyound this. Why is it ok for a Wizard to level mountain, while if the Warrior does anything superhuman it's badwrongfun.




It's coming from people answering the question asked in the first post.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 31, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> At the beginning, I was okay with that... but then, they started hopping through a forest (that's something I can grok, see the 3.5E jump skill), hacking apart trees while running (a bit pointless... but okay). Then they produced "shockwaves"... and at that, the video lost me (and I'm only talking about the powers they've showed, not about the aesthetics, like the sudden movements).
> 
> Counter-example: Have you seen Samurai Champloo, especially the last episodes, but also the fight with the blind assassin? That's higher level D&Dish to me.
> 
> Cheers, LT.



 Yep (great show and I just love the narrator that comes in with those esoteric facts about the era and people) and I'm absolutely stunned people think Samurai Champloo would be considered *high-level*.

I personally considered that Jubei-Chan sword fight only around 14-15th level (using the 1E/2E/3E scale of D&D) when compared to what a wizard/cleric of the same level is capable of.

Samurai Champloo to me is 10th level at the HIGHEST for the final fight.

I see early Conan at 1st level, Conan during his thief days in the city as 3rd level, Pirate Conan as 5th and finally, King Conan at 7th when compared to the capability of the equivalent level wizard.

By 15th level, the fighter should be fast enough that he can literally walk on AIR, have enough strength and speed that just swinging his sword can blow away mooks because simply put, his companion was doing that 10 levels back.

Anyone remember Remo the Destroyer flick where the guy walked on wet cement?


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 31, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> In 3.x, such items where neccessary. Iron Heroes showed you can redesign your classes so they don't need them. And it also showed you can give them powers that don't feel magical, either.
> 
> .




While I'm a fan of Iron Heroes, it should be noted that IH works best in a setting where there are no D&D mages analogs. 

Seriously, unless the 4E Seriously nerfs the capability/power of magic, "mundane" characters will be at a disadvantage compared to magical characters.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 31, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Anyone remember Remo the Destroyer flick where the guy walked on wet cement?



I love that film. Mind you, he's a monk, not a fighter.

As hong says, everything's okay provided the fighter can't do it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 31, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Anyone remember Remo the Destroyer flick where the guy walked on wet cement?




_Remo Williams:  The Adventure Begins_?  Yup.

And I would hardly say that there is no place in D&D for such abilities, but this seems more a facet of mystical training (forget the name of his Korean trainer) than something strictly "mundane".

IMHO, of course.

RC


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 31, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I love that film. Mind you, he's a monk, not a fighter.
> 
> As hong says, everything's okay provided the fighter can't do it.




I honestly am stunned that many people don't think a fighter should eventually by level 15 be able to master his body and move over mud/water/air as he could walk on regular ground back when he was level 1.

For those interested, here's the Samurai Champloo fight that Lord Tirian was referring to.

What level are these guys on the docks?

Personally, I'd say no higher than 10th (and that's me being generous...)


----------



## Imaro (Oct 31, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I honestly am stunned that many people don't think a fighter should eventually by level 15 be able to master his body and move over mud/water/air as he could walk on regular ground back when he was level 1.




Well one of my problems with this line of thinking, IMHO, is this sort of blurs the line between Fighter/Monk/Psi-users.  In my mind a Fighter is someone who masters weapons and combat( he may increase his physical abilities through combat training, but that's not his focus)...On the other hand a monk is someone who masters his body and spirit and can apply tis to a point as far as weapons (note I'm talking D&D here).  

Why should a fighter be able to run across water, that's a mastery of the body...I would prefer him to have esoteric weapon techniques, strategic bonuses, positioning maneuvers, etc...but if he wants to run across water or leap extraordinary distances, then multi-class.  They claim in 4e it will be easier and equal to single class characters.

Besides with enough blurring of the lines why not just drop classes all together?


----------



## Mallus (Oct 31, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Besides with enough blurring of the lines why not just drop classes all together?



Now you're talking!


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Oct 31, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Besides with enough blurring of the lines why not just drop classes all together?




Because apart from the arbitrary and rather odd function of 'niche protection,' classes also make it much easier for a new player to grasp the game's gameplay and basic setting tropes, make it easier to provide a reasonably balanced tactical game, and allow for theoretically faster character advancement.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Oct 31, 2007)

"Why Shouldn't Martial Characters have powers?"


Because it is D&D not Earthdawn.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 31, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> There aren't many stories where heroic martial characters rely on a buckload of magical items - maybe a magical sword But dozens of different items, all concentrating on making you better at being a warrior? Certainly not.



Right... I find this whole 'I want my character to be mundane but his equipment extraordinary" business baffling, but to each his own.

Frankly, I'm happy that 4e seems to be moving away from the "commoditiztion of wahoo" found in the previous edition.


----------



## Mercule (Oct 31, 2007)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> MASSIVELY disagree.  I flatly refuse to play D&D below 3rd level, and would never even think of running it.  I can't see a single thing about it that could be construed as fun, much less appropriate to any genre of fantasy I'm familiar with.  Plus, it's yet another dramatic and unexplained shift in tone, feel and power level.




I expected the disagreement.  Grim and gritty is a flavor and doesn't have to appeal to everyone.  I'm less fond of it than I used to be, and won't miss it much.  Still....



			
				Exen Trik said:
			
		

> mhacdebhandia said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Exen has the right of it.  I meant fae, nothing else.  I couldn't really think of a better description for it, but it does fit IMO.  

That mode of movement is something that I just find incongruous with a pseudo-Medieval European flavor.  I don't care if the game can handle more than that, but it's roots are generally pseudo-Medieval European or pulp.  That flavor is what I'm interested in.  

It would be completely different if I were saying L5R shouldn't support wuxia or Exalted characters should be able to opt for being generally mundane.  But, I started playing D&D because it acceptably modeled the genre I found most interesting.  My interests and style have shifted a bit within that genre, but haven't really changed in a big way.  I would be unhappy to have to leave the game after all this time, not because I've changed, but because the game has.

Rules updates are good -- great, even.  I'll gladly admit 1E had quite a few warts.  Just don't change the flavor of the game, or what it's intended to model, too much. 



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> I honestly am stunned that many people don't think a fighter should eventually by level 15 be able to master his body and move over mud/water/air as he could walk on regular ground back when he was level 1.




That's not mastery of his body.  That's mastery of the environment around him.  The fighter's path isn't one of mastering the earth or air.  It's honing his fighting ability.  The wizard masters the environment.  

I find it difficult to believe that some people have a hard time with that distinction.  If that's not your preferred play style, great.  But you can't honestly fail to see why someone might feel a fighter (without arcane study) should never be able fly without outside aid.

I'm not talking about the studious monk, contemplative philosopher-warrior, or even the devout paladin.  I'm talking about the mentally deficient, raging lump of muscle who will never learn to read, but has a body built for killing things.  He learns the sword, he fights and fights until he is better than any man alive.  He eschews books, gods, and anything else that he cannot feel with his hands and see with his eyes.  There is no calm meditation, only tantric thrashing and howling.  His skill, strength, and toughness eventually surpasses anything found on Earth and would be considered and unnatural.  But, in a world with demons lords plotting, he is ideal for a front line combatant.  

He may have acquired a magic sword, or even a ring that lets him fly, but these things effects are things that he wouldn't learn on his own.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> Right... I find this whole 'I want my character to be mundane but his equipment extraordinary" business baffling, but to each his own.




"Mundane" may not be the best word.  If you've played Mage (Ascension or Awakening), I'm more referring to the split between Coincidental and Vulgar magics.  In D&D, I want the vulgar stuff reserved for the arcanists or other mystics.  What the fighter does may be ludicrously improbably, but it isn't quite as flashy as a fireball.


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Oct 31, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Besides with enough blurring of the lines why not just drop classes all together?




Let's drop all classes, races, attributes, and hit points.  Let's also drop saving throws and magic.  Hell, while we're at it let's drop "dungeons".  All games will involve wildnerness exploration.  Then we'll drop "dragons" as well.  

Grrrrrrr.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 31, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> Let's also drop saving throws and magic.  Hell, while we're at it let's drop "dungeons".  All games will involve wildnerness exploration.  Then we'll drop "dragons" as well.
> 
> Grrrrrrr.



No dungeons or dragons? Now *you're* talking. But let's replace 'wilderness exploration' with 'exploring enormous fantasy cities'.


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Oct 31, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Because fighters are martial characters. They are skilled in what they do, but what they do is mundane. They swing a sword (or axe, halberd, spear, etc) and do it with style and even what appears to be superhuman skill at high levels but they are fundamentally non-magical.
> 
> I swear by all that is holy that if 4e has fighters with actual magical powers, not flashy, cinematic, non-anime moves but actually magical crap sputtering out of their swords I will not buy another thing from WoTC. If that crap were to be made a part of the core D&D assumptions regarding what D&D warriors are like I will not  DM or play 4e.    I would stick to Conan D20 and True20 and pay no further attention to D&D from that point on.
> 
> ...




Seriously, why don't you stick with Conan d20 and True20? That's the direction a lot of people I know are going. In fact Conan 2nd edition looks pretty much exactly what I want. Anyone got a copy they'd sell before I go hunting on the net?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 31, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Right... I find this whole 'I want my character to be mundane but his equipment extraordinary" business baffling, but to each his own.



Solution: Make the magic sword the PC, not the numb-nuts who's carrying it.

Actually that's not a bad idea for a oneoff - all the PCs are magic items, probably sentient weapons.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 31, 2007)

Anime sucks for examples, and honestly I don't care.

What I'm looking for Martial Characters to do are things on the level of what you see in Low-Budget Low-Special Effects Hong Kong Action movies.  More like Fists of Fury, and many of the 1970's ealy 1980's films, that didn't rely of flashy special-effects.


----------



## Simplicity (Oct 31, 2007)

The reason that people don't want fighters walking on air is that each of these classes has previously had very distinct sources from literature.  The Ranger is a tribute to Aragorn.  The Fighter is a tribute to the classical mythological/medieval warrior (from European mythology).  The wizard is Gandalf, Merlin, et al.  If 4e changes these sources, people who were previously very familiar with the source material will be alienated.  Hercules did not clean out the stables with a chi blast from his quivering palm.

I'm fine if there is a class which can gain the ability to walk on air and use chi.  Sounds like a monk to me.  The monk's source material is eastern mythology.  If there's some feats that let a fighter be more monky (okay, that's *not* the right word), then that's fine with me too.  You have your peanut butter.  Just allow me the opportunity to eat my chocolate without your damn peanut butter in it.

I dislike the fact that all asian fighters have to fit under a badly named "monk" role.  But short of changing that name or having multiple fighter paths, I've not sure what the solution there is.


----------



## Enforcer (Oct 31, 2007)

Personally, if Fighters are similar to characters from Tome of Battle, as it's been hinted they will be, I'll be a very happy gamer.

With Tome of Battle you get both "total badasses of skill" (Iron Heart, Stone Dragon, White Raven, Diamond Mind) and the whole "mystical warrior tradition" (Desert Wind, Devoted Spirit) thing going on, and they don't really overlap. Swordsages? Mystical. Warblades? Badasses of skill. Crusader is mystical too. All of this works for me. And so long as there's an option to have characters like a Warblade with all non-magic maneuvers who are still badasses at higher levels, I think we'll be just fine.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 31, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Fear.
> -> Anger.
> -> Hate.
> -> Suffering.




You are making this all up by yourself  :\ As Kahuna said, I merely answered the thread question.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 31, 2007)

Personally I prefered the Swordsage, and you could have a non-mystical one, if you didn't choose any Desert Wind or Shadow Hand maneuvers.  

They were the monk that's better than a monk, and the "wizards" of martial magic, as opposed to the "sorcerers" of martial that Warblades were.  

One of my friends actually described the swordsage as being too powerful, because they could do things that the rogue and wizard could do with the right maneuvers, and had enough skill points to be able to do roguish things.


----------



## Engilbrand (Oct 31, 2007)

I love the Bo9S. I like the idea of Fighters having powers. Knockdowns and massive-damage cuts are obvious. What else, though? I like the Tiger Claw or whatever school from 9S. It's about attacking fast and there are some things for jumping. While I don't believe that a Fighter should be able to fly, I have no problem with one being able to jump a ridiculous height or distance. I have no problem with a high level Fighter being so well trained that he can cut through a boulder or climb fast.
People are talking about Monks being the only ones who train their bodies. Monks train their bodies for purity or to ignore pain. Fighters train their bodies to physical perfection.
D&D is fundamentally magical in nature. Magic permeates everything. How is it difficult to believe that powerful Fighters, people who subject themselves to magical things on a daily basis and even hop between planes, wouldn't be affected by it. That's how I would explain it. Most people don't have a connection to the realm of magic. They just know that it's there. Adventurers, though, come into contact with it so much that it's like anything else. The body eventually adapts in one way or another. By high levels, why shouldn't a Fighter be able to ignore damage, jump 50 ft, fall 60 ft without care or take a Fireball with a smile? They've reached, and exceeded, the limits of the human body.

Batman- A powerful character with a lot of magical devices.

Captain America- This is how I view a high level 4E character. He's beyond the limits of a normal human. He's stronger, faster, heals quickly, can jump from a building and land without a problem and can fight multiple people for a long span of time. All that he really has is a shield. No "powers", but he's definitely beyond the realm of "I can fight good with my sword." that some people think Fighters should be relegated to. I mean, he's gone toe to toe with the Hulk! (We'll just ignore that he was recently killed with a gun.)

Superman- No magical devices. Just a super powerful being.

A world of magic will probably be like the Marvel universe. Some people are just born different and with different abilities. In D&D, these are the people who become adventurers. They have an innate connection to magic that makes them better at whatever they do. If it's a Rogue, there's no reason he shouldn't be able to disappear into shadows at high levels. If it's a Ranger, why shouldn't he be able to track a squirrel through a forest for a few miles. Wizards tap directly into magic and make it do anything that they want it to do. The martial classes just have an innate connection that improves them over time and causes them to excel at whatever they do. They can't do anything that's out of their realm of expertise, but they go beyond what they "should" be able to do if you use "real world" terms for a MAGICAL FANTASY setting.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Oct 31, 2007)

First, I am going to agree that Samurai Champloo caps out at 10th level at _most_. It is practicaly the definition of Heroic levels, with a few characters going around, fighting personal battles that do not have a significant effect on anything but a local scale. And really, the heroes of that series could do very little against a D&D magic user.

Jubei Chan 2 and Rurouni Kenshin (as well as my own Guilty Gear example) are all Paragon level characters, people who stand far above the norm and affect entire nations and societies.

For Epic characters, the limit needs to be pushed even higher, to the realm of mythological heroes. I mentioned it in an older thread on this topic, but the Ramayana is a good model for this level of combat. The Rahshasa King Ravana is the closest mythological parallel to a D&D demon lord or archdevil, and the battle between him and the hero Rama is described as the two shooting _millions_ of arrows at each other from their flying chariots. A fighter _needs_ to be well beyond a normal fighter to stand toe-to-toe with a demon lord.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> _Remo Williams:  The Adventure Begins_?  Yup.
> 
> And I would hardly say that there is no place in D&D for such abilities, but this seems more a facet of mystical training (forget the name of his Korean trainer) than something strictly "mundane".
> 
> ...



Well, I think this is the fundamental source of disagreement. I have to ask the question, where is the boundary between "mundane" and "mystical", and why is it important?

I don't agree that the concepts of "ki" or such should be outside the realm of the fighter. While I may agree that they are "mystical", they are not "magical". If you think about it, "ki" is just an elaborate model for internal biology, chemical processes, and various forms of chemical, potential, and kinetic energy. It is a tool for training the body and skills of a warrior, by letting him understand how his own body works. "ki" being a form of magic is nothing but a bad D&Dism.

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing for magic ki blasts to be given to fighters, but jumping far, runing fast, and slicing trees in half should be easy for a very high level fighter. In essence, such things are just a fighter doing the same things he has done all along, except better.

As a whole, I just don't agree that fighters should be limted to the mundane. Mundane is, pretty much by definition, boring. Mundane and fantasy (especially heroic fantasy) don't mix. I still want fighters to be weapon-users who defeat their opponents with skill, strength, and technique, but that is merely a limitation to the "physical" and to "weapon-mastery", not a limitation to the "mundane". I don't see it as stepping on the mages' toes at all.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 31, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> The Ranger is a tribute to Aragorn.



Seeing as the first ed. version could cast 'fireball' and the following versions where either two-weapon fighters or super-archers, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the D&D ranger has been a _bad_ tribute to Aragorn.



> The wizard is Gandalf...



As he would appear in comic books.



> Hercules did not clean out the stables with a chi blast from his quivering palm.



He might as well have. He was the son of Zeus, not some normal man at the very edge of physical ability. His Labors involve near Justice League levels of superhuman ability. 

Which point are you trying to prove with this?


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Oct 31, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Actually, a lot of people think "powers" and they think of Swordsages running fire trails, or hitting their enemies and the enemies exploding in flames, or of a warrior pulling a shadow teleport or shadow garrotte effect out of nothing. It can be "powers" without looking magical.
> 
> The Foe Hammer effect can be a good example. Once per minute or so, a fighter can find the perfect opening in a combat to launch an EXACT attack that hits a creature in a weak point in its defenses -- one which ignores any damage reductions it has. He can't do it all the time because the opportunity doesn't present itself.
> 
> ...




As someone who doesn't like the flavor of supernatural/magical powers in the martial classes, this is a good point.  I don't mind if a martial character can do something incredible but I don't want them to be permeated with supernatural/magic because I don't like that flavor.  Sometimes I want to play Batman, not Superman.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 31, 2007)

D&D assumes a world in which magic permeates the very being of existence so that it can be manipulated by humanity, so I find it odd at the presence of "non-casters." You would think that even warriors would be able to cast a spell to strengthen their shields, guide their arrows, to start a minor fire, or something along those lines.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 31, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Well, I think this is the fundamental source of disagreement. I have to ask the question, where is the boundary between "mundane" and "mystical", and why is it important?




I agree that this is the fundamental source of disagreement.    

"Mundane" is anything that doesn't seem to require the laws of physics to be broken, or on which the players involved can at least suspend disbelief that physics is unbroken.

"Mystical" is something that seems to require the laws of physics to be broken, or that which the players involved can no longer suspend disbelief as to physical possiblity.

As such, both terms are pretty subjective.  They are important only as they relate to what given players want from their gaming experience, and how suspension of disbelief re: physical possibility affects whether or not they are getting what they want.

A great game would allow for the widest range of possibilities, of course, but if we can't have that, most of us would like to be able to easily find players for the sorts of games we like.....and that, generally, means that D&D follows our playstyle more than it veers away from it.  Indeed, AFAICT, that is what all of these 4e arguments are about, regardless of who is posting, or what is said.  

We want to be able to find players for a game that can easily be played in a playstyle we enjoy.  And we don't all enjoy the same playstyle.

RC


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Oct 31, 2007)

Aldarc said:
			
		

> D&D assumes a world in which magic permeates the very being of existence so that it can be manipulated by humanity, so I find it odd at the presence of "non-casters." You would think that even warriors would be able to cast a spell to strengthen their shields, guide their arrows, to start a minor fire, or something along those lines.



This is, imo, a completely viable idea for a fantasy world, and one which you can model using D&D, esp with some of the new feats in, for instance, Complete Champion. To say, however, that D&D by default assumes such a world is taking the narrow view. It is just as easy to play D&D in a world where magic is possible but always requires an effort to power and then control. 

Classes with no explicitly mystical/magical abilities hard coded into them (but with options for all classes to dabble/enhance themselves) allows for both visions.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 31, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> This is, imo, a completely viable idea for a fantasy world, and one which you can model using D&D, esp with some of the new feats in, for instance, Complete Champion. To say, however, that D&D by default assumes such a world is taking the narrow view. It is just as easy to play D&D in a world where magic is possible but always requires an effort to power and then control.
> 
> Classes with no explicitly mystical/magical abilities hard coded into them (but with options for all classes to dabble/enhance themselves) allows for both visions.



True, so perhaps it will come to pass in some future supplement. Some of this, BTW, was present in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, AU's Mystic Secrets, and Transcendence. AU/AE's world assumes that in such a magical world, even the akashic "skill-user" obtains these in mystical supernatural means and that warriors can perform combat rituals to enhance their abilities.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 31, 2007)

Aldarc said:
			
		

> D&D assumes a world in which magic permeates the very being of existence so that it can be manipulated by humanity, so I find it odd at the presence of "non-casters." You would think that even warriors would be able to cast a spell to strengthen their shields, guide their arrows, to start a minor fire, or something along those lines.



That's RuneQuest.


----------



## GSHamster (Oct 31, 2007)

I think it has more to do with the nature of magic, than it does with fighters.

Magic bends reality. That's pretty much the definition of magic.
Fighters don't have magic.
Therefore, Fighters are bound by reality.


----------



## Simplicity (Oct 31, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Seeing as the first ed. version could cast 'fireball' and the following versions where either two-weapon fighters or super-archers, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the D&D ranger has been a _bad_ tribute to Aragorn.




You might not like it, but to not recognize the reference is just plain incorrect.



> As he would appear in comic books.




I guess that depends on how the wizard is played, and what comic books you're talking about.  But since this was just laying down a foundation, it doesn't really matter.



> He might as well have. He was the son of Zeus, not some normal man at the very edge of physical ability. His Labors involve near Justice League levels of superhuman ability.
> 
> Which point are you trying to prove with this?




He was the son of Zeus, but also the son of a mortal.  He's meant, however, to represent mortal men not a god.  If you don't like him, feel free to pick any of the other people on Wikipedia's Epic Hero list.  Some are demigods, some are not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_hero

The point is that the Epic fighter IS the Epic hero (as described on Wikipedia).  That's the source for the class, and meant to be the original inspiration for playing it.  It's fine if D&D 4e mucks with that concept a bit, as long as there is a place for those sorts of Epic heroes in D&D 4e.  If fighters are walking on air and shooting fireballs without some sort of magical item...  Then we're not talking about the same kind of guy.

And yes, there's a distinct difference between a class which lets you walk on air, and a magical item which lets you do it.


----------



## Enforcer (Oct 31, 2007)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> I think it has more to do with the nature of magic, than it does with fighters.
> 
> Magic bends reality. That's pretty much the definition of magic.
> Fighters don't have magic.
> Therefore, Fighters are bound by reality.



This assumes, incorrectly in my opinion, that magic is the only thing that bends reality. Fantasy storytelling often gives warrior characters abilities, that, while not magic, bend reality due to super-human feats of strength or skill.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 31, 2007)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> Fighters don't have magic.



Only if you ignore their equipment.

Every D&D character gets magical powers as they level. I'd prefer a system where more of those powers inhere to the user (and not his or her stuff). Rationalizing them isn't an issue for me -- "For your service to Athena she grants you this boon", "It's seems the fiend blood you were bathed in when you slew Demonicus has left you _changed_, Myghtor".


----------



## apoptosis (Oct 31, 2007)

There are obvious playstyle differences and different aesthetics that people want the game to show.

Do people think it is even possible to have both styles able to be played by the same game.

For me - I want magic-using characters to be able to accomplish things nonspellusers cannot (albeit at a great cost). 

Others want spellusers and nonspellusers to basicaly be able to accomplish the same scope of tasks.

I personally dont believe a game will be able to do both and still be a particularly good game.

Just curious if people believe a game can accomodate VERY different styles and ideas in a way to make both types of gamers happy.


----------



## Victim (Oct 31, 2007)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> There are obvious playstyle differences and different aesthetics that people want the game to show.
> 
> Do people think it is even possible to have both styles able to be played by the same game.
> 
> ...




I can't think of any version of DnD in which magic generally comes at great cost.  I generally consider the 'cheapness' of magic one of DnD's distinguishing characteristics, in fact.


----------



## Mercule (Oct 31, 2007)

Aldarc said:
			
		

> D&D assumes a world in which magic permeates the very being of existence




Huh?  D&D is a game where devoted knights, mercenary fighters, and cunning rogues set out to earn fame and/or fortune or to fulfill some other agenda.  Often, they enlist the aid of scholars of the arcane or devout priests.  The natural world is pretty similar to ours, with the exceptions of greater human potential, supernatural critters, and mystic arts that require much study and effort to master.


----------



## med stud (Oct 31, 2007)

Running on air may be out of style for a Western hero but incredible feats of physical power is not. Odysseus, not even known for his great strength, had a bow that required such strength to use that none of the suitors could string it(? or at least use it). I have a distinct memory of some Nordic hero (not a god) who could jump much farther than humanly possible. Cuchulain could throw an axe through 10 needles' eyes. There was a story about Egyptian suitors that had to jump 40 meters to win the hand of a princess (and one made it). In short, Western mythology has it's share of impossibly physically able heroes that don't use magic.

I think as long as an ability can somehow be explained by physical prowess it's OK. Jumping 60 feet? Sure. Smash down a stone wall? Sure. Hit a target 100 yards away with bow and arrow in complete darkness? Sure. This defenition leaves out flying, turning invisible or summoning demons, something I consider to be the field of magicians.


----------



## Seeten (Oct 31, 2007)

Give me the Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords, or give me 3.5E.

Tome of Battle broke all the rules in every conceivable delicious way. 

It created a "Monk" that makes me drool to play one, it created a "Fighter" That is a wonder to behold, with exciting options, skills, and abilities, who doesnt cry out, "I 5 foot step, and swing my sword, again!!!!" Every single round of combat. It created a Paladin who can lead, and heal, by swinging his weapon.

If 4th Edition is based on this as its cornerstone, all I can say is "Hallelujah" and God be praised.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 31, 2007)

med stud said:
			
		

> Running on air may be out of style for a Western hero



 Bugs Bunny?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 31, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Huh?  D&D is a game where devoted knights, mercenary fighters, and cunning rogues set out to earn fame and/or fortune or to fulfill some other agenda.  Often, they enlist the aid of scholars of the arcane or devout priests.  The natural world is pretty similar to ours, with the exceptions of greater human potential, supernatural critters, and mystic arts that require much study and effort to master.



Maybe in pulp fantasy, but not necessarily in D&D; look at magic as technology Eberron or psionic land Dark Sun.


----------



## apoptosis (Oct 31, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> I can't think of any version of DnD in which magic generally comes at great cost.  I generally consider the 'cheapness' of magic one of DnD's distinguishing characteristics, in fact.




I agree. Initially the most that could be said is that there were few spell slots and that was the cost (along with bad HD etc.)

I just added that, because that is what i prefer.

My overall point was "can a system work for both playstyles and work well"

Mostly just a question on peoples perceptions and thoughts.


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Oct 31, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Bugs Bunny?
> 
> Cheers, -- N




But he falls as soon as he realizes he's running on air!


----------



## TwinBahamut (Oct 31, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I agree that this is the fundamental source of disagreement.
> 
> "Mundane" is anything that doesn't seem to require the laws of physics to be broken, or on which the players involved can at least suspend disbelief that physics is unbroken.
> 
> ...



Well, when you use those definitions, I think the conversation would be better suited to a different set of terms (since Mundane has negative connotations and Mystical has different definitons that conflict with yours), but I guess I will use your terms and defnitions for now.

First, I need to ask for clarification. When you say "laws of physics", are you just referring to basic principles like conservation of energy, gravity, etc, or are you also referring to the real world physical limits of the human body? In other words, can a person cut through a tree trunk twice with two cuts of a sword, in less than 6 seconds, and still be "mundane"?

However, on the suspension of disbelief idea... I think it is important that there is a wide gap between what is _actually possible_, and what people are _willing to believe is possible_. Often people are willing to accept far more than what is possible, and sometimes people do not accept what is actually quite possible. As such, I don't think it is useful to equate suspension of disbelief and the actual laws of physics like you do. I do not think that the two are closely related enough for their combination to be applicable.

I will, however, admit that suspension of disbelief is very important, and that is has ties to the real world. However, these ties only exist when mediated through human perception of the real world, and human imagination. Genres and tropes of fiction influence the limits of suspension of disbelief as much as the real world itself.

To clarify a bit, I think the classic "unprotected person being immersed in lava, yet still surviving" scenerio is a classic example of going beyond the boundary of suspension of disbelief. However, this has as much to do with human ideas of the destructiveness of lava, as much as it does with physical reality. After all, most people would worry about the heat, rather than the crushing weight of the lava. Fewer still are the people who know that it is impossible to be immersed in lava, because people are _far_ less dense than magma, and would easily float. However, because of this misconception, the idea of a person who can survive lava _so long as they have proper protection from the heat_ is quite within normal suspension of disbelief. I have played videogames with that concept, and haven't blinked an eye at it.



> A great game would allow for the widest range of possibilities, of course, but if we can't have that, most of us would like to be able to easily find players for the sorts of games we like.....and that, generally, means that D&D follows our playstyle more than it veers away from it.  Indeed, AFAICT, that is what all of these 4e arguments are about, regardless of who is posting, or what is said.
> 
> We want to be able to find players for a game that can easily be played in a playstyle we enjoy.  And we don't all enjoy the same playstyle.
> 
> RC



This is all obvious enough, but I am glad there is someone who said it without adding bias.


----------



## med stud (Oct 31, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> But he falls as soon as he realizes he's running on air!




That's what Int 3 is for, being too dumb to realize it


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 31, 2007)

Wednesday Boy said:
			
		

> .  Sometimes I want to play Batman, not Superman.




The problem I have with this is that the reason why Batman is viable in the JL is because
a) Everyone else is written so that Batman is the smartest which is just not happening in D&D
b) Batman has all the toys to keep up a.k.a the Xmas tree effect.

:re Finding gamers
RC, I understand where you're coming from but this might actually be striking the death-knell for D&D as a hobby. More and more, the kids that are actually interested in fantasy will equate Naruto/Jubei Chan 2 as what a "fighter" should be and WOTC ignores them at their own peril

It wouldn't be so bad if the D&D game DIDN'T ALSO provided so many classes that used magic.

re: D&D's heritage
Given that the first three classes were fighting-man, magic man and healer, I'd argue that MAGIC has ALWAYS been a larger part of D&D than the mundane.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 31, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> But he falls as soon as he realizes he's running on air!



 Except when he makes the joke about law school, after someone else falls.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 31, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> If 4th Edition is based on this as its cornerstone, all I can say is "Hallelujah" and God be praised.




And they make fun of _me_ for being a fanboy! 

(of course...you're absolutely right. But that's beside the point!)


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 31, 2007)

> Huh?




D&D has always assumed quite a magic-rich world as it's baseline.

Point #1: Spellcasting PC classes have been in the majority.
Point #2: Magic items have been quite common
Point #3: Magic has never cost anything more than spell slots, a resource that is added to certain characters.
Point #4: Otherwise mundane characters cannot learn magic unless they have the proper training, which is just a multiclass away.
Point #5: Monsters requiring magic items to harm have been common
Point #6: "Ancient Empires" have left behind buckets of items.
Point #7: 1st-level characters can cast magic.

Etc, etc, etc. In fact, when you change the mechanics of magic to be rare and powerful and costly, it has a marked effect on the game world -- imagine FR done through the lens of Call of Cthulu style magic (it's a lot of fun!). 

If you think magic is somehow rare or difficult in D&D, you're going directly against what is suggested in the rules for every edition of the game.

Now, it can still be special and nifty. I once did a DMG demographic extrapolation for an "average" D&D character, and found out they might be familiar with some low-level bard magic worked nearby. But something like a Fireball would still be pretty shocking, and a Meteo Swarm would be freakin' apocalyptic.


----------



## Mercule (Nov 1, 2007)

Aldarc said:
			
		

> Maybe in pulp fantasy, but not necessarily in D&D; look at magic as technology Eberron or psionic land Dark Sun.




Eberron and Athas are settings that use the D&D system, but they do not define D&D.  If you look back twenty-five years, the core of D&D was Greyhawk or homebrews that had similar assumptions.  It may be possible to use the D&D system for a setting that is "infused with magic", but that isn't what D&D is.

I honestly have no issue with D&D expanding in scope to include Eberron, Athas, Planescape, etc.  I think it's great.  The kernal of pseudo-Medieval pulp fantasy needs to remain a part of it.  Not as something that can be accomplished by trimming a bunch of material from the PHB, but as part of the default build.

Yes, monks were in the 1E PHB.  They can fit into that pulp mold, even.  The swordsage can stay.  All I want is the option of running a game that doesn't require heavy FX to be competitive at the higher levels.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 1, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Yes, monks were in the 1E PHB.  They can fit into that pulp mold, even.  The swordsage can stay.  All I want is the option of running a game that doesn't require heavy FX to be competitive at the higher levels.




But that's the core assumption of D&D since the 1E PHB. Strip a 20th level fighter of his magical gear and do the same to the wizard and even in 1E, that fighter is just plain screwed. Hell, there's a good chance that a regular 10th level fighter with magical gear would be a more effective team member than the 20th level non-magical gear fighter.

This paradigm has been true since 1E was released....


----------



## JDJblatherings (Nov 1, 2007)

> Point #1: Spellcasting PC classes have been in the majority.
> Point #7: 1st-level characters can cast magic.




OD&D, 3 base classes, 1 could cast spells at 1st level.
BECM D&D, 7 base classes, 2 could cast spells at 1st level.
AD&D (PHB only), 11 base classes, 4 could cast spells at 1st level.
2E,  8 base classes,  2 could cast spells at 1st level
3E (PHB only), 11 classes,  5 could cast spells at 1st level.


----------



## glass (Nov 1, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> It's coming from people answering the question asked in the first post.



No it isn't. The original post you conveniently quote mentioned 'superhuman', not 'wuxia' or 'anime' or magical.


glass.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 1, 2007)

Deekin said:
			
		

> I'm just wondering where this stance comes from.




Sanity.

There are already games out there, like Ars Magica and Exalted, where everyone is a wizard. Being a rogue or swordsman should be something to be proud of, not a day job for Goku.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 1, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Well, when you use those definitions, I think the conversation would be better suited to a different set of terms (since Mundane has negative connotations and Mystical has different definitons that conflict with yours), but I guess I will use your terms and defnitions for now.




Mundane doesn't have negative connotations for me in this sense.  I'd be happy using other terms.  



> First, I need to ask for clarification. When you say "laws of physics", are you just referring to basic principles like conservation of energy, gravity, etc, or are you also referring to the real world physical limits of the human body? In other words, can a person cut through a tree trunk twice with two cuts of a sword, in less than 6 seconds, and still be "mundane"?




I don't think that there is an objective answer to this.

I assume that you are not talking about a sapling, so I would answer that for me this would be something more than mundane, something less than mystical.  It would fall into a grey area.  In one of the Tarzan novels, Tarzan throws a spear at a charging rhino, killing it.  The spear passes almost through its body.  This is another grey area for me; it certainly seemed jarring when I was reading the book.

I agree with you that "there is a wide gap between what is _actually possible_, and what people are _willing to believe is possible_. Often people are willing to accept far more than what is possible, and sometimes people do not accept what is actually quite possible."  I was actually trying to say something of that nature.

One of the things I didn't bring up at all is the existence of that grey area.  For instance, in some anime, I take the hyperkinetic activity to be shorthand for how it _feels_ to be in battle....not unlike the combat scenes in _Gladiator_.  Nor do I mind the idea that some warriors become something more than human through their dedication and willpower.  I just want more than one path, some of which better represent a mundane warrior, and others a mystical warrior.

"uspension of disbelief is very important, and that is has ties to the real world. However, these ties only exist when mediated through human perception of the real world, and human imagination." might end up in my .sig.

My world is "middle magic" -- neither grim n' gritty nor Wahoo! 24/7.  It has a place both for the mystic warrior (paladins, totem warriors, bear warriors, dervishes) and the mundane (fighter, non spellcasting ranger, some rogue builds).  Mundane characters sometimes dabble in the mystical, and mystical characters sometimes dabble in the mundane.  That's a good fit for the type of game I enjoy running.  

I hope that something like this is possible in 4e.  And, as I said earlier, it seems likely to me that it will be.  If anything, the wizard is beating up the warrior and taking his stuff (arcane strike, for example).    


RC


----------



## Goken100 (Nov 1, 2007)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> 1. Because there is the idea that magic is somehow left to characters that are trained and experienced in magic, and that learning to swing a sword around and wear armor doesn't inherently grant you the power to make magical attacks and send energy beams from your sword (despite it looking cool in a video game).
> 
> 2. Setting portability.  Not every D&D game is set in a high-magical world where everybody and their brother has magical powers.  One of my favorite D&D games to run was a very-low-magic quasi-historic game set during the 3rd Crusade (largely using the old AD&D 2e Crusades Historical Reference book).  Only one PC had any spellcasting (a Paladin, so Paladin abilities and spells was all they had).  If every single class in the PHB has spellcasting, supernatural, or spell-like abilities it gets very hard to play a campaign like that without completely rewriting the system.
> 
> 3. Because traditionally sources like Lord of the Rings and Arthurian legends are a source for inspiration for fighters in D&D, and Aragorn and Boromir, and Lancelot and Arthur had incredible skill, but what they could do was still bounded in the realm of the physically possible and not supernatural (unless their weapon itself was supernatural), and they were more about raw physical skill and martial prowess than using magic they'd learned to devastate their foes.



What he said.

I'm particularly concerned with #2.  Pick up any fantasy novel and you'll find a character that can be modeled with the 3.X Fighter.  If this continues to be true in 4E, I'm happy.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 1, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> :re Finding gamers
> RC, I understand where you're coming from but this might actually be striking the death-knell for D&D as a hobby. More and more, the kids that are actually interested in fantasy will equate Naruto/Jubei Chan 2 as what a "fighter" should be and WOTC ignores them at their own peril




I've got no problem with a D&D that includes classes modelled after the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers and Xena Warrior Princess if it is also capable of modelling Conan.  I've got no problem if some modification is required.

That said, Howard's work is currently being reprinted, as is Burroughs'.  There is a comic book version of _A Princess of Mars_ (and possibly a film) in the works.  A lot of older fantasy novels (LotR, Narnia, The Dark is Rising) are seeing a renewed interest due to films based on them.  Conan has an excellent comic, Solomon Kane and Kull are slated for comics next year.  In the short story market, anyway, it is a lot easier to sell a pulp-like fantasy story than a Wahoo! D&D fantasy story.  That pendulum is ever-shifting, and WotC ignores the older material at its peril, too.

(Not that I am certain that the world setting of 4e _does_ ignore older material.  Points-of-light is pretty Conan/pulp fantasy/old D&D.)



> re: D&D's heritage
> Given that the first three classes were fighting-man, magic man and healer, I'd argue that MAGIC has ALWAYS been a larger part of D&D than the mundane.




I would agree.  Magic is a larger part of the Conan stories than the mundane, too.  However, there is a difference between magic being a large part of the world and the primary focus of the protagonists.

Even if the first three classes were fighting-man, magic man, and healer, if fighting-man gets played more often than the other two (because he is more likely to survive at lower levels, for example), then the game can offer three choices while being focused on the mundane from the PC's/protagonists' perspective.

I tend to think that D&D offers three great potential experiences:  Mundane people encountering the weird and unusual (the basis of about half the pulps and most of the so-called "weird fiction"), unusual people encountering the weird and unusual (another common pulp trope, though unusual in this case is about as far from the norm as Doc Savage or Tarzan), and weird people encountering the mundane (a more post-modern take on the genre, added to the mix mostly by 3e).

I'd be happiest with a game that could do a fantastic job of offering all three of these experiences, but I am not certain that could be done without a DM advice section the size of a telephone book.    

Thoughts?

RC


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Nov 1, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> The problem I have with this is that the reason why Batman is viable in the JL is because
> 
> a) Everyone else is written so that Batman is the smartest which is just not happening in D&D
> b) Batman has all the toys to keep up a.k.a the Xmas tree effect.




That's true, his intellect, gadgets and writers let him do incredible, over-the-top things but he's still a non-superpowered character.  His skills are ridiculously phenomental but he's still "magic"-less (with the assumption that magic in D&D is equal to superpowers in comics).  And that's the sort of flavor that I prefer in martial fantasy characters.

Maybe a better example is that sometimes I want to play Han Solo (completely no Force powers) instead of Luke (or some other Force wielding combatant)?


----------



## Mallus (Nov 1, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> You might not like it, but to not recognize the reference is just plain incorrect.



Yes, D&D rangers are inspired by Aragorn the Ranger, I realize that. I also realize that D&D rangers throughout the various editions were never faithful recreations of Aragorn. In fact, they deviated so far from their supposed source of inspiration --I'm talking about 1st edition AD&D, mind you-- the class might as well have gotten the Kamehameha Wave from DBZ or the 5-Points Exploding Heart Technique as class abilities. 

I'll say it again: D&D rangers never resembled Aragorn, so to suggest that 4e should stick close to the classic archetypes like ones Tolkien provided ignores the fact that earlier editions weren't faithful to them in the first place.



> I guess that depends on how the wizard is played



I'd say it more a matter of the wizard's spell list. Mechanically speaking, D&D wizards are far closer to Dr. Strange and Zatara than they are Gandalf or Merlin.



> And yes, there's a distinct difference between a class which lets you walk on air, and a magical item which lets you do it.



You're right. You can't _sell_ a class ability.

I'm not trying to say you should like magic-&-wahoo heavy D&D. All I'm saying is that your characterization of D&D as a game that's traditionally been faithful to its self-professed literary and mythological roots isn't accurate. D&D has always been it's own brand of weirdness, at a pretty far remove from its sources.


----------



## Mercule (Nov 1, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> But that's the core assumption of D&D since the 1E PHB. Strip a 20th level fighter of his magical gear and do the same to the wizard and even in 1E, that fighter is just plain screwed. Hell, there's a good chance that a regular 10th level fighter with magical gear would be a more effective team member than the 20th level non-magical gear fighter.
> 
> This paradigm has been true since 1E was released....




Yes and no.  

First, I'd say that 1E wasn't really intended to play to the higher levels.  Most demi-human level limits were single digits.  The only class that was reliably unlimited in advancement was the thief, a decidedly mundane class.  "Name level", which is where the rules structure changed, was at 10th level.  You could play higher level characters (the magic-user spell progression was listed up to 36th level, IIRC), but play tended to break down much like 3E epic levels, maybe worse.

Second, take a look at the most likely magical equipment for a 1E fighter.  80%+ of it won't be adding new abilities.  It will boost the fighter's inherent strengths.  Bonuses to-hit and damage, reducing armor class, increased strength, etc.  Even the common items that don't play to an existing strength of the fighter work more to negate the advantages of magic wielders: boosted saves, anti-magics, etc.  That's a far cry from saying that the fighter should be able to inherently summon fire or teleport.

Third, in 1E, magic-users were designed to be more powerful that fighters at higher levels.  Part of that, no doubt, was the idea that it was magic that grossly broke the natural laws and fighters weren't magic.  I don't really agree with the disparity, but the way to fix it is not to give fighters overtly magical abilities. 

I've heard many comments to the effect that the Hero System doesn't work particularly well at the lower end of the scale (spies, westerns, etc.) or that GURPS doesn't handle cosmic characters great or any number of other remarks about what a given system does versus what it does well.  D&D has never, in its entire existence, handled high-powered characters particularly well across the board.  Personally, I always found 1E and 2E practically unplayable once 5th level or higher magics were involved.  The only good higher level games I participated in were fighter, ranger, and thief heavy, maybe with a multi- or dual classed wizard.  My experiences in 3E are somewhat better, but still nothing compelling -- though that may be because of the the mechanical bloat more than the actual power level.

3E (or the 2E options books, but I skipped them) was the first real attempt to treat higher levels (10 or 15+) in cohesive, balanced manner.  The result was the exaggerated Christmas tree effect, which was (IMO) pretty painful.  Yes, items were important in prior editions, but nowhere near as much as in 3E.  Pulling out the dependence of a 1E 20th level fighter on items, or his relative lack of power to magic-users isn't really a great argument.  By that level, 1E had already exceeded it's "sweet spot" and the issue is the exact same one we're already trying to solve.

I guess my answer to the original question is:  I'm all good with *super-human* abilities for high-level fighters.  I just hope that doesn't equate to *supernatural* abilities.

If Tome of Battle's warblade is any indication, I think I'll actually be pretty happy.  The basic mechanics could use some tweaking, but the maneuvers seem pretty good, so long as things  like Desert Wind and Shadow Hand are reserved for monk-like characters (or a later "ki" power source to separate them entirely).  

In fact, I'm totally supportive of a system that introduces distinct fighting styles.  The idea of being able to say, "You are obviously a student of Count Basil," is just too cool and something that is near the top of my list of wants for D&D.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 1, 2007)

We've been told that, as a martial character, the 4e fighter won't be supernatural. We've also been told that casters and non-casters will be better balanced. (I'd like to see them completely balanced.)

If Mearls can pull this off, and I rather think he might, he's a brilliant designer.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 1, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> We've been told that, as a martial character, the 4e fighter won't be supernatural. We've also been told that casters and non-casters will be better balanced. (I'd like to see them completely balanced.)
> 
> If Mearls can pull this off, and I rather think he might, he's a brilliant designer.




It is possible to at LEAST make the division between magic and mundane *smaller* (spells aren't better than skills, using magic at high levels is dangerous etc..)

However, Mearls et al are then going to hear the cries of other D&D players who'll want to know why magic got nerfed so badly.


----------



## Engilbrand (Nov 1, 2007)

Batman is being used as an example of someone without "powers". That's only true to a point. Even ignoring all of his gadgets (magic items), what is he capable of? He's so perfectly trained that he can take a ton of punishment and keep going, doesn't need nearly as much sleep as anyone else and is still perfectly coherent, his aim and reflexes are, for lack of a better word, perfect. He can easily jump over multiple people while wearing a heavy suit. He can jump from a high point and land without much of a care.
Realistically, Batman cannot exist. His abilities are superhuman. He's beyond what is capable in reality. Well, in our reality, at least. For the DC Universe, though, he's possible. Like any comic (fantasy) universe, you're bound to have things that push the limits of what we are capable of. Normal people in the DC Universe can't do what Batman can do. There are few who can, though. They are the major heroes and villains who train themselves to what is inherently possible for THAT Universe. Not for ours.
For the D&D Universe, magic permeates everything. We already know that people are capable of a lot more. Look at the ability to jump from a cliff and survive it without much injury. This is not our reality. High level "mundane" characters should be just like Batman. They are the heroes and villains who tap into what is possible in that Universe and do things that the common man can't possibly do.
I'm reading the Conan comics. Conan is not a normal person. While he can't do overtly supernatural things, he definitely pushes himself beyond what is realistic. Why? Because it's possible in his Universe so that he can be the "hero" (antihero?). The same goes for Red Sonja. The literary and theatrical characters push beyond what is real according to us. If they weren't able to do what we can't, they would die fast and we wouldn't care.
4E Fighter "powers" will probably be just like Batman: ridiculous moves that involve doing things that us "Normals" just can't do. And that's what makes it cool.


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Nov 1, 2007)

Engilbrand said:
			
		

> Batman is being used as an example of someone without "powers". That's only true to a point. Even ignoring all of his gadgets (magic items), what is he capable of? He's so perfectly trained that he can take a ton of punishment and keep going, doesn't need nearly as much sleep as anyone else and is still perfectly coherent, his aim and reflexes are, for lack of a better word, perfect. He can easily jump over multiple people while wearing a heavy suit. He can jump from a high point and land without much of a care.
> Realistically, Batman cannot exist. His abilities are superhuman. He's beyond what is capable in reality.




Excellent point.  I don't care how well trained a real-life martial artist is, there's no way he's going to mow down 30 thugs at once.  But Batman can do this without breaking a sweat.  And besides, Batman's gadgets, for the most part, are not even remotely realistic by rigid real-life standards.  But as you say, they are "realistic" within the parameters of comic book fantasy.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 1, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> My world is "middle magic" -- neither grim n' gritty nor Wahoo! 24/7.  It has a place both for the mystic warrior (paladins, totem warriors, bear warriors, dervishes) and the mundane (fighter, non spellcasting ranger, some rogue builds).  Mundane characters sometimes dabble in the mystical, and mystical characters sometimes dabble in the mundane.  That's a good fit for the type of game I enjoy running.
> 
> I hope that something like this is possible in 4e.  And, as I said earlier, it seems likely to me that it will be.  If anything, the wizard is beating up the warrior and taking his stuff (arcane strike, for example).
> 
> ...



You make a lot of good and interesting points (and I am begining to think that our opinions are far closer than I realized), but there is one thing you say that I disagree with. You seperate the spell-casting characters as the mystical, and the non-spellcasting characters as the mundane. That isn't what I want, really. I think what I want the most is a character who can be mystical by your definition, but not be a spell-caster. A person who can be superhuman without magic. Someone who has inherent power, rather than gaining temporary power through a spell.

I do think that D&D can accomodate all of these different play styles, but I think it might require a slight shift in people's perceptions of how a class changes with levels. For the most part in 3E, a character's class tends to stay the same across their entire career. However, it might be better if there is a radical shift in a class at particular phases. Namely, a class should feel different in the three different gameplay modes.

At Heroic levels, the fighter should be mundane. This is the Conan level.

At Paragon levels, the fighter should exist in the grey area. This is the Beowulf level.

At Epic levels, the fighter should be mystical. This is the Chuculainn level.

Conan is a great model for fighters, but I think he only remains a good model at Heroic levels. For higher level characters, it is fine if Conan steps aside, and lets other kinds of characters (like Beowulf and Chuculainn) become the model. This way, three different feels for the game can be maintained with the same class.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 1, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> You make a lot of good and interesting points (and I am begining to think that our opinions are far closer than I realized), but there is one thing you say that I disagree with. You seperate the spell-casting characters as the mystical, and the non-spellcasting characters as the mundane. That isn't what I want, really. I think what I want the most is a character who can be mystical by your definition, but not be a spell-caster.




Got 'em.  But, I made 'em prestige classes, like warriors who can turn into bears, multiple types of paladin, etc.  I wanted to lay down the main archetypes, and then work in sub-archetypes as well.  However, the Totem Warriors (stolen from AE) _are_ a form of mystical warrior and are a core class.  I also devised racial levels for all races & subraces (including human variants) in my world, and some allow access to mystical abilities.



> At Heroic levels, the fighter should be mundane. This is the Conan level.
> 
> At Paragon levels, the fighter should exist in the grey area. This is the Beowulf level.
> 
> At Epic levels, the fighter should be mystical. This is the Chuculainn level.




This would be fantastic, frankly -- allowing the group to set max level in order to make any world play in whatever style they like.  I know this idea's come up before, and I hope that this is exactly what we see in 4e.  Or 5e.  I can be patient.    

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 1, 2007)

Just as a side note, TwinBahamut, I agree completely that mystic powers =/= spellcasting, and have modified several classes as a result of that belief.  I took a lot of inspiration from Green Ronin's _Testament_ setting, which is excellent in terms of trying to model a world in which gods are actually important, as well as _Arcana Evolved_ and _Iron Heroes_.

Heck, in my world you can play a fey that can warp reality to make others get lost, and who can turn into an undine (merman-like creature) without any spellcasting at all......

RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 1, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Got 'em.  But, I made 'em prestige classes, like warriors who can turn into bears, multiple types of paladin, etc.  I wanted to lay down the main archetypes, and then work in sub-archetypes as well.  However, the Totem Warriors (stolen from AE) _are_ a form of mystical warrior and are a core class.  I also devised racial levels for all races & subraces (including human variants) in my world, and some allow access to mystical abilities.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, I think it is likely that we get in 4e, since they introduced these three "tiers" now. Though it might take 5e to perfect it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 1, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Well, I think it is likely that we get in 4e, since they introduced these three "tiers" now. Though it might take 5e to perfect it.




Yep.

As I said, I don't think it's the warrior-types who are going to be screwed up in this edition.  It is the magic-types that have me concerned.  

RC


----------



## Mercule (Nov 1, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As I said, I don't think it's the warrior-types who are going to be screwed up in this edition.  It is the magic-types that have me concerned.




I'm not sure there will be an issue, but I could live with it.  I prefer fighters with wizardly sidekicks to the inverse (though, my real preference would be parity).

Otherwise, I'm with you on the 10/20/30 breakdown.  My campaigns will almost certainly include some sort of transformative event around 20th level or just before.  Something that clearly announces that the PCs have had their horizons expanded and the mystical flash of the epic fighters isn't entirely an outgrowth of skill with blades, but has some resonance attached to it.

Either that, or have the PCs start at 11th level and declare that they have a birthright that makes 11th the new 1st.  Either way, the farmboy doesn't start as a 1st level commoner and make it to 30th level wirework without some sort of elusive spark or enlightenment.

In putting it together, this sounds roughly what WotC is intending (the tiers, spark optional).  I'm pretty excited about that.  It would also seem that extending the spell progression out to level 25+ could be great, if they defer some of the more potent spells.  A wizard that can stop time or grant wishes is generally just as far beyond my vision of normal events in my settings as is fairy-prancing fighters.


----------



## gizmo33 (Nov 1, 2007)

Deekin said:
			
		

> If a fighter dedicates himself to his swordfighting as much as a wizard dedicates himself to magic, why shouldn't he be able to take on armies by himself? Why should he not be able to act faster than any mere mortal?




Well, for one, human fighters in DnD *are* mortals.  There's no real flavor justification for mortal human fighters having god-like abilities.  And they do have super-human physical abilities already in 3E.  See for reference - any thread regarding falling damage.  Or also consider the fact that there are already threads discussing how a 3E 20th level Barbarian could already kill 1000 normal mooks without breaking a sweat.  

I guess being able to kill 100 mooks single handedly just isn't special anymore.  I can't wait to see 10th Edition.

3E fighters already act faster than commoners.  Way faster.  But what earlier could be chalked up to luck or divine intervention will be much more cartoonish once a DnD fighter is capable of whirlwinding his way around the battlefield in 2 rounds like the Tasmanian Devil.  I'm assuming that you're not going to decrease hitpoints or BAB increases.  So AFAICT this is just about piling more powers onto the existing character.  I think there are other/better ways to balance the wizard and fighter.


----------



## Patlin (Nov 1, 2007)

Low level human fighters are ordinary mortals.  Mid level? On par with Batman.  High level? Definitely not 'ordinary mortals.'


----------



## ZappoHisbane (Nov 1, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I'm assuming that you're not going to decrease hitpoints or BAB increases.  So AFAICT this is just about piling more powers onto the existing character.  I think there are other/better ways to balance the wizard and fighter.




Part of the balance in 4e will come from the fact that iterative attacks are gone.  So in a sense, BAB has been scaled back a fair bit.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Nov 1, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Well, for one, human fighters in DnD *are* mortals.  There's no real flavor justification for mortal human fighters having god-like abilities.  And they do have super-human physical abilities already in 3E.  See for reference - any thread regarding falling damage.  Or also consider the fact that there are already threads discussing how a 3E 20th level Barbarian could already kill 1000 normal mooks without breaking a sweat.
> 
> I guess being able to kill 100 mooks single handedly just isn't special anymore.  I can't wait to see 10th Edition.
> 
> 3E fighters already act faster than commoners.  Way faster.  But what earlier could be chalked up to luck or divine intervention will be much more cartoonish once a DnD fighter is capable of whirlwinding his way around the battlefield in 2 rounds like the Tasmanian Devil.  I'm assuming that you're not going to decrease hitpoints or BAB increases.  So AFAICT this is just about piling more powers onto the existing character.  I think there are other/better ways to balance the wizard and fighter.




From what we've been told the power curve won't be as steep in 4e, so these things shouldn't occur till later.
4e=kewl powers not more power (or so it would seem).


----------



## Zamkaizer (Nov 1, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Well, for one, human fighters in DnD *are* mortals.  There's no real flavor justification for mortal human fighters having god-like abilities.  And they do have super-human physical abilities already in 3E.  See for reference - any thread regarding falling damage.  Or also consider the fact that there are already threads discussing how a 3E 20th level Barbarian could already kill 1000 normal mooks without breaking a sweat.
> 
> I guess being able to kill 100 mooks single handedly just isn't special anymore.  I can't wait to see 10th Edition.
> 
> 3E fighters already act faster than commoners.  Way faster.  But what earlier could be chalked up to luck or divine intervention will be much more cartoonish once a DnD fighter is capable of whirlwinding his way around the battlefield in 2 rounds like the Tasmanian Devil.  I'm assuming that you're not going to decrease hitpoints or BAB increases.  So AFAICT this is just about piling more powers onto the existing character.  I think there are other/better ways to balance the wizard and fighter.




Like what?

To make a more substantial post, I agree with the designers decision to make inherent skill a source of supernatural power, as being extraordinarily skilled at things based in reality, like wielding a sword, makes much more sense than being extraordinarily skilled at thing with no basis in reality, like casting a spell. Of course, one might truly believe that magic exists, in  which case - to quote Wolfspider - indeed.


----------



## hong (Nov 2, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Well, for one, human fighters in DnD *are* mortals.




So are wizards.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> So are wizards.




I wonder though, will 4E make the *fighter* a viable BBEG at high levels? Since practically forever, high level humanoid BBEGs have always been wizards/sorcerors and I wonder if Mearls et al will be able to change this....


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 3, 2007)

Deekin said:
			
		

> One of the Interesting stances I keep running across in 4th ed disscussion is that Fighter-type characters should be limited to the relm of realism, or it's not D&D.
> 
> I'm just wondering where this stance comes from.



Back in 1971 Chainmail was first published.  It was a Medieval Miniatures Wargame.  At the rear of the booklet there were two appendices, each building on the other.  The first was an option to include Fantasy creatures into your medieval army battles.  Some of these included Dragons, Wizards, and Heroes (fighting men).  The second appendix contained rules for playing these fantasy creatures as Skirmish Miniatures against each other.  

Three years later this boxset comes out as Supplement to the Chainmail rules.  It doesn't contain any combat information, but assumes the 2nd appendix option for use during play.  Instead it changes everything from a skirmish-level miniatures combat to a game where people play the actual role of the creatures. 

The characters one could play by default were Fighting-men (swords), Magic-Users (sorcery), and Clerics (a mix of the two).  

There were no rules for many things, but there were no rules against adding more either.  In fact, most everyone did just that.  They changed the rules, added and removed, and generally did want they wanted to the game.  

The mindset you ask about started, however, with magic as the province of the M-U, combat as the province of the F-M, and a weaker mix of the two for Clerics.  There already was a class who could deal out both combat and magic.  

And superpower heroes weren't generally thought as a medieval fantasy.  It was simply not prevalent in the fantasy fiction up until that time.  In fact, that might be one of the most significant changes between contemporary fantasy fiction and traditional: that everyone uses the Supernatural, even the most mundane heroes.  



> In a setting game where over half the classes can wield magic, why is the poor man with the sword stuck maxing out at the human maximum, while the wizard is so much father beyound this. Why is it ok for a Wizard to level mountain, while if the Warrior does anything superhuman it's badwrongfun.



It's not badwrongfun.  It's perfectly legitimate and probably highly desired by kids today.  



> If a fighter dedicates himself to his swordfighting as much as a wizard dedicates himself to magic, why shouldn't he be able to take on armies by himself? Why should he not be able to act faster than any mere mortal?



Well, wizards are always going to be better through sheer versatility.  A fighter cannot chop down a mountain with his sword, but a high level wizard can _and_ defeat an entire army as you state above.  Combat is not the only thing magic can effect, but by basing all classes upon combat they lose their definition.  Every mage is a battle mage, every fighter is a magic warrior.

The question isn't any longer, "Why don't they include magic for Fighters?", but, "Will they include options for non-magical Fighters and non-combat Wizards?"


----------



## med stud (Nov 3, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> In fact, that might be one of the most significant changes between contemporary fantasy fiction and traditional: that everyone uses the Supernatural, even the most mundane heroes.




I think this is also from traditional Asian fantasy becoming more mainstream in the West. I kind of like this type of cross pollinations. I'm of the belief that hybrids generally are stronger than pure breeds.


----------



## med stud (Nov 3, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I wonder though, will 4E make the *fighter* a viable BBEG at high levels? Since practically forever, high level humanoid BBEGs have always been wizards/sorcerors and I wonder if Mearls et al will be able to change this....




I've been thinking about this a bit and I think it's much because of the fact that a wizard can get away if too hard pressed; a BBEG that is a fighter generally has no way of escaping which means that he doesn't serve well as a recurring villain.

In 3rd edition fighters also make lousy villains because they don't have any "leading" skills available. One of the few things I liked more with the older editions is that a high Int and Cha could take you a long way when it comes to leading large organizations.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 3, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> So are wizards.



Not all of them.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## jasin (Nov 3, 2007)

med stud said:
			
		

> One of the few things I liked more with the older editions is that a high Int and Cha could take you a long way when it comes to leading large organizations.



They could?

I mean, obviously, the implication was there that if you wanted to be a leader, you need Cha and Int (and Wis, I'd suppose), but were there any actual rules for that?


----------



## med stud (Nov 3, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> They could?
> 
> I mean, obviously, the implication was there that if you wanted to be a leader, you need Cha and Int (and Wis, I'd suppose), but were there any actual rules for that?




No but as there were no rules for leading stuff it made sense that those two abilities would make the difference. In 3e there are skills for this which makes the skills the most important.


----------



## Archmage (Nov 3, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> > In a setting game where over half the classes can wield magic, why is the poor man with the sword stuck maxing out at the human maximum, while the wizard is so much father beyound this. Why is it ok for a Wizard to level mountain, while if the Warrior does anything superhuman it's badwrongfun.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not badwrongfun.  It's perfectly legitimate and probably highly desired by kids today.



I am no "kid" (whether you go by age or D&D experience) and it's something I'd like to see. The warrior shouldn't necessarily be able to level mountains, but should be able to unleash some pretty fearsome combat effects. The warrior should probably get more powerful single-target effects than wizards can use, to offset the casters' versatility and area-effect power.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 3, 2007)

Archmage said:
			
		

> I am no "kid" (whether you go by age or D&D experience) and it's something I'd like to see. The warrior shouldn't necessarily be able to level mountains, but should be able to unleash some pretty fearsome combat effects. The warrior should probably get more powerful single-target effects than wizards can use, to offset the casters' versatility and area-effect power.



I'm not calling anyone a kid.  I'm suggesting D&D's primary audience has different tastes than 30 years ago.  

And I agree with the rest of your post only if you change every "SHOULD" to "OPTIONALLY CAN".  

This overwrought "Play my way or rebuild the whole system" style of game design can only drive players away.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Nov 3, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> I'm not calling anyone a kid.  I'm suggesting D&D's primary audience has different tastes than 30 years ago.
> 
> And I agree with the rest of your post only if you change every "SHOULD" to "OPTIONALLY CAN".
> 
> This overwrought "Play my way or rebuild the whole system" style of game design can only drive players away.




Yes, but it is easier to take something you don't like out of the game than to add ideas. Both have the potential to skew other aspects of the game you didn't contemplate. But the latter takes work. Even if you are creative and come up with new rules ideas that you enjoy, you have to admit it takes more effort than just saying no to something that someone else has already created.

Too many rules you don't enjoy? Then older editions of the game may be better for you. Or different systems entirely. As long as you can find players you're good to go. Otherwise you have to decide between learning to like a game that looks like something you won't enjoy or having no game. To each his own.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 3, 2007)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> Yes, but it is easier to take something you don't like out of the game than to add ideas. Both have the potential to skew other aspects of the game you didn't contemplate. But the latter takes work. Even if you are creative and come up with new rules ideas that you enjoy, you have to admit it takes more effort than just saying no to something that someone else has already created.
> 
> Too many rules you don't enjoy? Then older editions of the game may be better for you. Or different systems entirely. As long as you can find players you're good to go. Otherwise you have to decide between learning to like a game that looks like something you won't enjoy or having no game. To each his own.



Right, being designed out of the D&D community.  Not fun.  I hope it never happens to you or anyone else.

D20 is a POS when it comes to changing what you don't like.  Everything hangs together so intricately, if you change one thing you might have broken a dozen others.  

And it isn't all about removal, altering, or adding.  The easiest solution is simply to build a modular system with rules with multiple options you choose to use at your table based upon what works for the group.  I'm suggesting flexibility rather than brittleness is better game design.


----------



## Roland55 (Nov 3, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Fair enough....it is an issue of can or must.
> 
> In a traditional D&D campaign warriors aren't ki/chi empowered martial artists they are warriors whose prowess comes from skill alone with their weapons. If there is a supplement that allows for a more asian or exotic flavor, that's cool but it shouldn't be the assumption regarding what your common everyday swordswinger is like. I prefer my core D&D western pseudo-medieval/dark ages and not a wierd hodge-podge that sucks the life out of any actual culture by blending everything together in a flavorless goo.
> 
> ...




Don't let it bug ya!  I feel old every morning ... when I go to the mirror to shave.

But I get over it fast.


----------



## Roland55 (Nov 3, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> If looking at the Book of Nine Swords stuff as an example, plenty of stuff in the White Raven and Iron Heart dsiciplines are darned effective, and very non-magical in description. It's cool to have a D&D fighter who can slug it out, or dodge around avoiding op-attacks, but how much more cool, and still well in-character, to have him strike a blade about to hit him out of the way with a veritable "Storm of Blades" from his unbelievable parry-work? (make an attack and use the total as your AC, instead of your actual AC, immediate action).
> 
> It's great to have him yell a battle cry and charge, but what if he can use his military mind and prowess to co-ordinate a simultaneous charge of a squad of 10 men to DEVASTATE an enemy's front line? (War Master's Charge?)
> 
> Even more dramatic are the maneuvers which use a foe's power against him - it's a staple of fantasy fighting moves to leave an opening in your defenses, and then finish the enemy with their overextended counter. Feigned opening does just that. Mighty Throw lets you pull the classic "grab an enemy, throw him off-balance, and toss him 10 feet prone". There's plenty of "western fighter" room in there, but it's just mechanics that give Warrior-types a taste of resource management, combined with the kinds of things that DMs normally work into the descriptions of finshing moves in good D&D games.




Agreed.  I can live with this.  I can even enjoy it.  BTW, there is nothing 'fantasy' about the use of counters; counters are fundamental to many empty hands fighting styles.

Since D&D happens entirely in the mind ... it's important to establish the right 'mental landscape' for your game.  I'm not surprised to see folks fighting to retain their accustomed game contexts -- and I expect the WOTC designers will accomodate this.  

Nobody benefits from a niche game design.  Well, nobody who cares about a company's viability, anyway.


----------



## Roland55 (Nov 3, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> For the same reason that Batman doesn't fly without an airplane, and can't generally lift cars and throw them at people.  And why not everyone in D&D is a magical elf....
> 
> If _everyone_ has special, cool superhuman powers, then those powers... aren't special at all.  Thanks, I played Earthdawn, and the fact that every single PC was highly magical with flagrant powers made all the powers mean less...
> 
> We need classes for those who don't _want_ their characters to be magic-users in different clothing.




Whoa!!!   

Hear, hear!  That was extremely well-said.  I'm with this guy!


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 3, 2007)

Roland55 said:
			
		

> Whoa!!!
> 
> Hear, hear!  That was extremely well-said.  I'm with this guy!



I agree.  I want more than two class choices.  War Mages and Magic Warriors.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 3, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> At Heroic levels, the fighter should be mundane. This is the Conan level.
> 
> At Paragon levels, the fighter should exist in the grey area. This is the Beowulf level.
> 
> At Epic levels, the fighter should be mystical. This is the Chuculainn level.




I think this sounds a very good plan   

I know I want to play "human-like" fighter-types and rogue-types when I play one... If this is not possible beyond a certain level, all I have to do is play below that level, and I certainly can live with that.


----------



## Stalker0 (Nov 3, 2007)

> Originally Posted by Umbran
> For the same reason that Batman doesn't fly without an airplane, and can't generally lift cars and throw them at people. And why not everyone in D&D is a magical elf....
> 
> If everyone has special, cool superhuman powers, then those powers... aren't special at all. Thanks, I played Earthdawn, and the fact that every single PC was highly magical with flagrant powers made all the powers mean less...
> ...




Problem with this mindset is, that batman is just as "magical" as any other superhero just in a different way....technology. Batman has the coolest gadgets, he has a lot of technology that compensates for the fact that he is a mere mortal.

In dnd, we have the same thing in form of magic items. And at high levels, you see fighters relying on magic items for things like flight, elemental protection, etc. Just because they don't have demon blood or cast an incantation, doesn't mean they aren't endowed with supernatural powers.

However, dnd has a problem the comic book world doesn't. Batman has technology because he's rich and he often develops much of it. In dnd, a party will acquire magic items over the many levels, and there's no "fighter only" sticker on them. Even your supernatural wizards will get magic items. So the tech advantage Batman has is gone, it would be the equivalent of having Superman with a utility belt.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 3, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Problem with this mindset is, that batman is just as "magical" as any other superhero just in a different way....technology. Batman has the coolest gadgets, he has a lot of technology that compensates for the fact that he is a mere mortal.



 Yup yup yup. Batman's powers are all his "wonderful toys". Without them, he's a competent martial artist, a good socializer, and rich. But otherwise mundane.

Taking away Batman's utility belt is like taking away a Wizard's spell component pouch, or dropping Superman in a kryptonite mine.

Batman's powers have a techie flavor, but they're no less super in terms of functional power than Spiderman's powers (which are half and half).

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Archmage (Nov 3, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> I agree.  I want more than two class choices.  War Mages and Magic Warriors.




But playing a fighter should not be a suboptimal choice, as it is now, as it was in 1e and 2e. I'm not saying that fighters should be able to do fighter-fireballs, but shouldn't they be something more than a flunky that buys time for the wizard to win the day? I recently played an armored melee character who was the toughest guy (hardest to kill) in the party in a high-level campaign, and do you know what his biggest individual contribution in a fight was after level 15? Being a dragon chew-toy (grappled by its bite attack and taking damage from it every round) while the rest of the party defeated several half dragon giants and routed an army (at which point I was finally released and had little impact on the fight). Yay, fun. Funny story afterwards but not fun during. (btw, don't cast aspersions on the way the DM played the dragon - there was a legitimate plot reason it focused on my character)

It's been mentioned several times in this thread how several of the disciplines from 9 Swords are not martial arts/wire fighting in nature. There's one for example, called appropriately enough finishing move, that simply deals more melee damage with a normal attack the closer your opponent is to death. There's a stance that lets you do extra damage on attacks at the cost of an armor class penalty. How is that making a fighter a magic warrior? It's just enhancing his melee ability so he can do more than stand around and take damage. Many of the 9 Swords maneuvers also encourage movement rather than standing in one spot just to get multiple attacks. If you want to that, there will probably be abilities to enhance that option, but if you don't want to you're not pigeonholed there. 

Finally, let's say there are more mystical-type abilities than you'd like - just change the flavor text! If there's an ability that allows the fighter a version of the _blink_ spell, instead describe it as a lightning-fast series of parries. Voila! Same effect, but now it's martial skill instead of mysticism.

*edit* Just noticed that my post is right after Nifft's.  Opus is THE iconic penquin!


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 3, 2007)

I really dislike the "if everyone is special, then no one is" argument as it pertains to this discussion.

In this case, it is arguing that fighters being special would somehow make wizards less special, which is a "bad thing". As such, it is arguing that fighters should not be special, so that wizards can still be special.

In other words, it is saying that fighters should only exist to make the wizards look better.

I don't agree with that idea at all. The _PCs_ are the ones who should be special, and the _NPCs_ should exist to make the PCs look better.

Besides, the whole argument is based on some quality of "specialness", which means nothing. I am not really sure if it is a "false dilemma" argument or not, but it is certainly related. You can have two different characters, who are both interesting, and yet are still both very different. The idea that there will just be "War Mages and Mage Warriors" is not based on anything logical or reasonable.


----------



## PeterWeller (Nov 3, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Yup yup yup. Batman's powers are all his "wonderful toys". Without them, he's a competent martial artist, a good socializer, and rich. But otherwise mundane.
> 
> Taking away Batman's utility belt is like taking away a Wizard's spell component pouch, or dropping Superman in a kryptonite mine.
> 
> ...




Ehh, Batman is a lot more than a competent martial artist, good socializer and rich.  He's amongst the world's best martial artists, and most of the other members of that rarefied group learned their skills from him.  He's also the world's greatest detective, Sherlock Holmes on overdrive.  Then there's the genius super scientist angle.  Really, even without all of his gadgets, Batman is pretty superhuman because he's the peak human in so many areas.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 4, 2007)

Did I miss something, or is there even a shred of evidence to suggest that 4e fighters will have mystic powers available to them at all, much less as default?


----------



## Nifft (Nov 4, 2007)

Archmage said:
			
		

> *edit* Just noticed that my post is right after Nifft's.  Opus is THE iconic penquin!



 Okay. But Tux is the iconic pen*g*uin.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## FireLance (Nov 4, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Did I miss something, or is there even a shred of evidence to suggest that 4e fighters will have mystic powers available to them at all, much less as default?



I believe it was mentioned that all classes would have at will, per encounter and per day abilities. Extrapolating from the maneuvers in the Book of Nine Swords (which was cited as one of books that the concepts of 4e gameplay were tested in), this could include a number of apparently supernatural or mystical abilities. So, it is certainly possible that 4e fighters wil have mystic powers, but so far, there has been no real evidence (in my view) that they will be the only powers available, or even the default powers.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 4, 2007)

@ *Cadfan*: I suspect it's the fact that ToB is being discussed as a preview. Martial adepts can throw around mystical stuff (though they don't have to do so).



			
				PeterWeller said:
			
		

> Ehh, Batman is a lot more than a competent martial artist, good socializer and rich.  He's amongst the world's best martial artists, and most of the other members of that rarefied group learned their skills from him.  He's also the world's greatest detective, Sherlock Holmes on overdrive.  Then there's the genius super scientist angle.  Really, even without all of his gadgets, Batman is pretty superhuman because he's the peak human in so many areas.



 Batman's super-sleuth skills are *as a game mechanic* no different from Superman's X-Ray Vision, though. Both are "gimmie a special clue" powers. An an analogy, compare a Paladin's _detect evil_ to a Rogue's Sense Motive + Spot.

Genius super scientist is just Batman's backstory for some of the wonderful toys. Compare to Superman's "power source" (being an extra-terrestrial). How often does it matter, in a strictly mechanical sense?

Flying vs. utility belt grapple hook + electro-motor. They mainly differ in that the latter can't be used in certain environments. Thus, you won't find Batman fighting in outer space or out in the open desert (where you can find Superman fighting).

Batman's armor vs. Superman's bullet-proof skin... again, only matters if you take away Batman's toys / throw Superman in a kryptonite mine. Both happen about equally often. 

In other words, the difference between Batman and Superman is mainly flavor. There's some power-level stuff too, like Superman would probably need to be higher level than Batman, but there's not a huge gap in their functional power array. The stuff they can do isn't all that different, even if the flavor (how the do it) is quite distinct.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Archmage (Nov 4, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I believe it was mentioned that all classes would have at will, per encounter and per day abilities. Extrapolating from the maneuvers in the Book of Nine Swords (which was cited as one of books that the concepts of 4e gameplay were tested in), this could include a number of apparently supernatural or mystical abilities. So, it is certainly possible that 4e fighters wil have mystic powers, but so far, there has been no real evidence (in my view) that they will be the only powers available, or even the default powers.



And it's a popular misconception that Book of 9 Swords is all about _Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon_ fighting in the bamboo stuff. I had the same misconception until I actually read the book.  The Desert Wind and Shadow Hand disciplines are very mystical (in fact, most of those maneuvers are explicitly supernatural). Iron Heart, Stone Dragon, and Diamond Mind, not so much. 



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> Okay. But Tux is the iconic pen*g*uin.
> 
> Cheers, -- N



Hmmm, is that a weird typo or what? How the heck did I transpose a q and a g?  Guess I suck at penguin proselytizing.


----------



## Henry (Nov 4, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I really dislike the "if everyone is special, then no one is" argument as it pertains to this discussion.
> 
> In this case, it is arguing that fighters being special would somehow make wizards less special, which is a "bad thing". As such, it is arguing that fighters should not be special, so that wizards can still be special.
> 
> In other words, it is saying that fighters should only exist to make the wizards look better.




I don't know if that's the argument, or if it's that fighters posessing innate magic would make MAGIC less special, not wizards. The way old D&D was, everyone had a niche -- the wizards were "magic guy (or gal)". Fighters were the ones who could stand toe to toe with an enemy and not go down in one or two hits. Clerics were a bit of both -- Thieves could do things that even magic couldn't do, originally, such as find traps, pick pockets, etc. Later, in AD&D, mages stepped on other people's toes, but they could only do it a few times a day. Still later, mages can step on other people's toes, and thanks to metamagics and easier to craft magic items, they, and especially clerics, can step on other people's toes ALL DAY LONG, practically. So it's natural to want something more "flashy" for each class, so that one or two classes don't hog all the fun (especially at high levels).

The only thing is, the dependency that classes had on one another, and the stereotypes, has diminished along the way. In a way, the new systems in 4E is one way to get classes to depend on one another again. A fighter will need the "strikers" and "leaders", just as they'll need the fighter once again to keep them out of harm's way.

The problem is that all of us fantasy buffs of Conan, Fafhrd and the Mouser, Arthur and Merlin, Caramon and Raistlin, etc. can't shake that image of the sort of ordinary world, graced with just a touch of the fantastic, even if our own home games don't always play out that way, and the non-supernatural fighter was one way, perhaps the last way, to keep in touch with that older fantasy image.

Me, as long as I can still make fighters that have unstoppable ripostes, undefeatable tumbles, and irresistible swings, instead of fire trails, mirror images, and fiery exploding swings, then I'll be happy. I'm happy with an ability that allows STR damage even on a miss, or a devastating penetrating spear attack, or extra attacks with flails - those are still rooted in skill, even if it's skill that is stretching the bounds of plausiblity a little.


----------



## Warbringer (Nov 4, 2007)

I think it was Noonan that said all classes would have 'powers'; for many that means magical (in a fantasy setting) or mystic (in a superhero setting).

Personally, I dont see it going that way.

I think that the martial powers will have more in common with IH manueuvers than B9S maneuvers and the cross-over is that they will be more like the former, but using the per encounter/will structure of the latter.

Powers won't be mystical, woont be avoidable by spell resistance, will become flashy comabt moves, ala 300, that leave the mundane in awe.

Now, powers for rogues, i'm at a loss at hw this will work without crossing into the mystical, ala Shadow Hand from B9S


----------



## PeterWeller (Nov 4, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> In other words, the difference between Batman and Superman is mainly flavor. There's some power-level stuff too, like Superman would probably need to be higher level than Batman, but there's not a huge gap in their functional power array. The stuff they can do isn't all that different, even if the flavor (how the do it) is quite distinct.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




That I agree with, I was just saying Bats is a lot more capable than just a dude with gadgets.  He is a pretty decent analogy for a 3E Figher, a total BA, who is toting gear that puts him on par with other BAs possessing inherent power sources.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 4, 2007)

PeterWeller said:
			
		

> Ehh, Batman is a lot more than a competent martial artist, good socializer and rich.  He's amongst the world's best martial artists, and most of the other members of that rarefied group learned their skills from him. .




Er, comic book geek moment.

That's not true as Batman doesn't even rank in the top 5 and the only ones he has personally taught were the Robins and none of them ever get ranked in the top 10.


----------



## hong (Nov 4, 2007)

Warbringer said:
			
		

> Now, powers for rogues, i'm at a loss at hw this will work without crossing into the mystical, ala Shadow Hand from B9S




People who want to play ninjae won't be bothered about that.


----------



## PeterWeller (Nov 4, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Er, comic book geek moment.
> 
> That's not true as Batman doesn't even rank in the top 5 and the only ones he has personally taught were the Robins and none of them ever get ranked in the top 10.




Well yeah, there are better martial artists than Batman and the Bat family, but still, we're talking about the top 20-50 martial artists in the world, many of which learned their skills from Bats.  Batman isn't the world's greatest martial artist, but he's in the top ten, owns one of the two largest corporations in the world, and is the world's best detective, and is amongst the world's top ten scientists.  Dude's frikking super powered on his own even before you add in all his toys, which was my point.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 4, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Me, as long as I can still make fighters that have unstoppable ripostes, undefeatable tumbles, and irresistible swings, instead of fire trails, mirror images, and fiery exploding swings, then I'll be happy. I'm happy with an ability that allows STR damage even on a miss, or a devastating penetrating spear attack, or extra attacks with flails - those are still rooted in skill, even if it's skill that is stretching the bounds of plausiblity a little.




Somehow, I think this is exactly what we'll see.  Looking at ToB, you can do exactly this.  You can also do the funky shooting fire from your petoot as well.  But, I think, especially given what we've already heard, that the fighter's abilities will be decidedly non-magical sounding.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Nov 4, 2007)

I firmly hope we have excellent non-magical powers available for martial characters at every level of play.


I have equal hope that we have ridiculously fantastic superhuman powers for martial characters at higher levels of play.


Certainly, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon completely opened my eyes to how wide fantasy should be, but...


Achilles, man, Achilles.

He wrestles a river.  Sure, to get out of it he has to call in a god to turn into a sheet of fire and nuke the battlefield enough to convince the river to call uncle, but he still wrestles a river.

Why?  Because he has killed so many men that the river is afraid it will be dammed by all the corpses.

At some point I want the option to play that in DnD.  I want to throw martial world breakers at my players.  Men and Women of will and fury so terrible they cause the gods to tremble.

Invulnerability's got nothing to do with it.  I just want that level of mythopsychodrama that portrayal of traumatic fury as a feedback loop for the pathetic fallacy to be available as something the PCs have to grapple with in themselves and others.

At the same time:

I would feel cheated if someone missed the opportunity to take that guy out with a character who was mundane in all ways except for a superhuman level of competency.


----------



## Henry (Nov 4, 2007)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Certainly, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon completely opened my eyes to how wide fantasy should be, but...
> 
> 
> Achilles, man, Achilles.
> ...




I can just see the reaction of one of my players in particular...

_DM: ...your devastating attacks cleave all 4 of the orcs in one huge sweep. They fall, clearing the battlefield, finally.

Player:Whew! Good LORD I didn't think he'd have to face all 1200 of those damned orcs!

DM: That's when the river rises off from its banks, and glares at you.

Player: {looking directly at me} Excuse me?_


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Nov 4, 2007)

It's when the DM starts describing the river as entering a wrestler's stance that you really start calculating how much money you owed him for that pizza.


----------



## erc1971 (Nov 4, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Because fighters are martial characters. They are skilled in what they do, but what they do is mundane. They swing a sword (or axe, halberd, spear, etc) and do it with style and even what appears to be superhuman skill at high levels but they are fundamentally non-magical.
> 
> I swear by all that is holy that if 4e has fighters with actual magical powers, not flashy, cinematic, non-anime moves but actually magical crap sputtering out of their swords I will not buy another thing from WoTC. If that crap were to be made a part of the core D&D assumptions regarding what D&D warriors are like I will not  DM or play 4e.    I would stick to Conan D20 and True20 and pay no further attention to D&D from that point on.
> 
> ...




QFT - Amen Brother!


----------



## Archmage (Nov 4, 2007)

erc1971 said:
			
		

> Sundragon2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So Inuyasha shouldn't be an _option_? And where do I join the committee that decides who D&D warriors are? Sundragon's apparently on it. Posts like this indicate not reading the many parts of this thread that point out the NON-magical nature of most of the Book of Nine Swords' maneuvers. There are two of nine disciplines that are largely supernatural (three if you include Devoted Spirit, which are paladinish/priestish in flavor), and the entire "Book of 9 Swords is a 4th edition preview" gets judged on those two (or three) disciplines. I don't think anyone's saying that *every* warrior has to be an oriental mystic....but if that's one option among several, how is that a bad thing?


----------



## Nifft (Nov 5, 2007)

PeterWeller said:
			
		

> That I agree with, I was just saying Bats is a lot more capable than just a dude with gadgets.  He is a pretty decent analogy for a 3E Figher, a total BA, who is toting gear that puts him on par with other BAs possessing inherent power sources.



 The funny thing about this? The best analogue for Batman in D&D is the Wizard.

The Wizard is the one with the "utility belt" of situational tricks (scrolls & prepared spells). He's the smart guy who can make those Knowledge and Craft (alchemy) skill checks. He's the one who, given a lot of money and a secure location, can make the solution to absolutely any problem.

The Wizard is Batman except for the *Kapow!* -- but a Wizard can even do that a few times per day.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## FireLance (Nov 5, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> The funny thing about this? The best analogue for Batman in D&D is the Wizard Artificer.



IMO.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 5, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> IMO.



 You could be right.  I don't play in Eberron, and haven't looked at that class in quite a while, but I do recall he had a really good Wealth -> Damage potential.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Nov 5, 2007)

Archmage said:
			
		

> So Inuyasha shouldn't be an _option_? And where do I join the committee that decides who D&D warriors are? Sundragon's apparently on it. Posts like this indicate not reading the many parts of this thread that point out the NON-magical nature of most of the Book of Nine Swords' maneuvers. There are two of nine disciplines that are largely supernatural (three if you include Devoted Spirit, which are paladinish/priestish in flavor), and the entire "Book of 9 Swords is a 4th edition preview" gets judged on those two (or three) disciplines. I don't think anyone's saying that *every* warrior has to be an oriental mystic....but if that's one option among several, how is that a bad thing?




I am on it if you must know....the secret cabal whose sole duty it is to keep Inuyasha, his  furry little kitten-demon ears and his little Japanese schoolgirl love interest out of D&D...We are called *Animassacre* and take our jobs very seriously.   

Seriously though, I am not saying that there is no place for mystical Asian warriors...I am just saying that they belong in an Asian themed sourcebook the same way African style animistic shamanism doesn't belong in D&D core pseudo-medieval fanstasy either. I personally love variants, actually a lot more than I enjoy pseudo-medieval vanilla fantasy. I just don't feel that D&D's core assumptions should be anything but a somewhat vanilla high fantasy/sword and sorcery fantasy.

I don't want superheroes, anime furry demonspawn, buster swords, elves with donkey ears or everyone being a spellcaster in core D&D....there are plenty of sourcebooks that can tackle variants. I loved Athas, but that doesn't mean I want psionicist, half-giant, gladiators in the PHB1 for 4e.



Sundragon


----------



## FireLance (Nov 5, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Seriously though, I am not saying that there is no place for mystical Asian warriors...I am just saying that they belong in an Asian themed sourcebook the same way African style animistic shamanism doesn't belong in D&D core pseudo-medieval fanstasy either. I personally love variants, actually a lot more than I enjoy pseudo-medieval vanilla fantasy. I just don't feel that D&D's core assumptions should be anything but a somewhat vanilla high fantasy/sword and sorcery fantasy.



So, would any of the following be inappropriate for a high-level fighter in a somewhat vanilla high fantasy/sword and sorcery fantasy setting?

1. Make a single attack that deals +100 hp damage.
2. Make a single attack that deals 2d6 Constitution damage.
3. Make two rounds' worth of attacks in a single round.
4. Make an attack that kills an opponent if he fails a Fortitude save.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 5, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> So, would any of the following be inappropriate for a high-level fighter in a somewhat vanilla high fantasy/sword and sorcery fantasy setting?
> 
> 1. Make a single attack that deals +100 hp damage.




Definitely inappropriate. In addition to provoking a check for massive damage, it allows for cleaving of adamantine walls in a single stroke.

The rest sort of depend on how you conceptualize game design elements.


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 5, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> So, would any of the following be inappropriate for a high-level fighter in a somewhat vanilla high fantasy/sword and sorcery fantasy setting?
> 
> 1. Make a single attack that deals +100 hp damage.
> 2. Make a single attack that deals 2d6 Constitution damage.
> ...




They would all work in a fantasy/sword and sorcery setting IMO.

1. Make a single attack that deals +100 hp damage.
  Sure HP are abstract, it can be described as something like a move designed to cut things in half.  It does crap loads of damage because it cuts things to there core.

2. Make a single attack that deals 2d6 Constitution damage.
     Any vital organ strike works for this, lung piercer, intestine slash etc.

3. Make two rounds' worth of attacks in a single round.
     Adrenaline rush pure and simple a variation on a barbarians rage.

4. Make an attack that kills an opponent if he fails a Fortitude save
    A death blow of some kind.  A decapitating attack, neck snapping fun for the whole family, the smash nose into brain thing.  

Manifesting a flaming slash that does one of the above exmaple on the other hand I don't think is appropriate for a fighter, A sword mage a ninja sure flaming slash all you want.  A fighter doesn't seem to fit.  


If they were going with like only 3 classes and that was to cover all the options then yeah but the flaming slash under the warrior class.  If you are going tohave a bunch of classes you can have more specific classes that avoid flaming doom.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 5, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Definitely inappropriate. In addition to provoking a check for massive damage, it allows for cleaving of adamantine walls in a single stroke.



Well, technically, an adamantine wall 3 inches thick has hardness 20 and 120 hp (SRD on Epic Obstacles), so that ability in itself isn't going to get you through it in a single stroke. But yes, you can get through 2-inch thick adamantium doors (hardness 20, 80 hp) as a standard action.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 5, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Definitely inappropriate. In addition to provoking a check for massive damage, it allows for cleaving of adamantine walls in a single stroke.
> 
> The rest sort of depend on how you conceptualize game design elements.



So, is a Barbarian raging and wailing at the wall with Power Attack innapropriate? After all, the WotC Character Optimization boards have already figured out that a straight Barbarian can take down an adamantine wall faster than a Warblade using that +100 damage move.

I really don't see the difference, myself.

Anyways, what is with the Inuyasha hate? In the end, he is an immortal half-demon who has lived for over a hundred years, and uses a magic sword crafted from his demon father's fang, a weapon considered to be the strongest in the world. Most of his powers come from a demon heritage and a powerful artifact weapon. Why are people even comparing a guy like that to mundane warriors? He isn't even intended to be an example of a mundane warrior. Besides, he is a dog, not a cat.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 5, 2007)

2-handed weapon + Power Attack + full attack = (base damage) + 40 per attack, times four attacks.

Subtract hardness 20, you get 20 * 4 attacks = 80 damage.

*Everyone can do it already.*

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 5, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Problem with this mindset is, that batman is just as "magical" as any other superhero just in a different way....technology. Batman has the coolest gadgets, he has a lot of technology that compensates for the fact that he is a mere mortal.




(1)  Batman isn't magical; his gadgets might be though.  Bat-anti-shark utility spray?  Who'd have thought of that?

(2)  George Reeve could _fly_ as Superman.  I never saw Adam West fly without a Batcopter.





What?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 5, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Er, comic book geek moment.
> 
> That's not true as Batman doesn't even rank in the top 5 and the only ones he has personally taught were the Robins and none of them ever get ranked in the top 10.




Bigger comic book geek moment here....When Batman recently fought the Karate Kid (supposedly best hand-to-hand fighter ever, from the Legion of Superheroes), Batman _won_.  Of course, he cheated to do so, but the KK _did_ decide that Batman was vastly underrated as a martial artist.

Also, it is now pretty normal for any "combat fighter" type to claim having trained with Batman.

RC


----------



## Engilbrand (Nov 5, 2007)

I stand by the idea that Batman isn't "normal" by our standards. He's impossible in the real world. He's possible in his reality because he's special. In D&D, PCs are special. They can already do impressive things, even at low levels. For their reality, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to do the ridiculous things. The Bo9S maneuvers that were magical all belong to the Swordsage, so that doesn't even really count as a Fighter. Can anyone give me a good reason that a powerful Fighter shouldn't be able to jump 20 feet straight up in the air wearing Full Plate within the bounds of the D&D world? It's not "realistic" doesn't count because it's not our world.


----------



## The Merciful (Nov 5, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Definitely inappropriate. In addition to provoking a check for massive damage, it allows for cleaving of adamantine walls in a single stroke.



Then the problem is that the rules don't pit hardness of the tool used (sword) against the hardness of the wall.

I also do find it a tad hypocritical to wail about fighters becoming part time magic-users when every other core class in D&D is that already (rogues have "use magic device" class skill, Davy Crocketts "entangle" enemies, and Sir Lancelotts cast "protection from evil" on themselves. Errrm...

I do think fighters, rangers, rogues and paladins should all be non magical in flavor, but they also should be varied, interesting, and on par with casters powervise. (Heck, I think in fiction a warrior's prime anti-caster tactic was to charge the sorcerer and and depicate the geezer before he could do any harm.)


----------



## shilsen (Nov 5, 2007)

Engilbrand said:
			
		

> Can anyone give me a good reason that a powerful Fighter shouldn't be able to jump 20 feet straight up in the air wearing Full Plate within the bounds of the D&D world? It's not "realistic" doesn't count because it's not our world.




There isn't a good reason. We're talking about a world which approximates much better to the reality of myth and legend (more than in most fantasy literature), where sufficiently skilled people with no magical ability can swim through a raging river (Achilles) or across an ocean (Beowulf) in full armor. I'd say that jumping 20 ft straight up fits perfectly with the context.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 5, 2007)

There should be internal consistency to the gameworld, and multiple character archetypes should be possible.

This means that a grim, gritty fighter without magical abilities should be possible.

I just think its ok to represent that with, say, an Iron Heart warblade.  The closest he comes to a magical ability is the ability to shrug off magical effects, and the flavor for that is just that he's so determined that he can force his way through something like Hold Person.

Its admittedly not the best drafted ability in the game, and if you read it overbroadly on purpose it gets crazy, but I don't think it counts as magical or mystical if its read in the spirit the flavor text indicates it was intended.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 5, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Bigger comic book geek moment here....When Batman recently fought the Karate Kid (supposedly best hand-to-hand fighter ever, from the Legion of Superheroes), Batman _won_.  Of course, he cheated to do so, but the KK _did_ decide that Batman was vastly underrated as a martial artist.
> 
> Also, it is now pretty normal for any "combat fighter" type to claim having trained with Batman.
> 
> RC




As a longtime poster on Comicbook resources and lurker on newsrama, I speak for many when I say,

"BATGOD"

There is no way that Batman should even have a chance in hell against karate kid. A guy who could stalemate PRE-CRISIS Daxamites/Kryptonians a.k.a "We can push planets and blow out suns!!!".

It's already been SMvsFL'd already....


----------



## Mercule (Nov 5, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> In other words, the difference between Batman and Superman is mainly flavor. There's some power-level stuff too, like Superman would probably need to be higher level than Batman, but there's not a huge gap in their functional power array. The stuff they can do isn't all that different, even if the flavor (how the do it) is quite distinct.




I can't totally argue with that.  But, that doesn't mean flavor doesn't matter.  It absolutely matters.  As much as I like Superman's Boyscout complex, I'm a much bigger fan of Batman for just the reason of the flavor of a human skill-monkey over an alien demigod.

It's the same thing with exaggerated mundane fighters (Hollywood physics++) vs. wuxia wirework fighters.  I don't really care if both can bypass DR with their sword -- I care that the "mundane" fighter does it through skill and years of practice in recognizing small flaws while the wuxia fighter channels ki energy (just to pick an example).  Similar flavor preferences apply to falling 100 ft. and walking away, breaking down doors, or jumping big holes.

Channeling energy, whether universal or personal, is magic.  I don't want my stories of superheroic fighters to be told in terms of magic.  I want them framed by a lifting of the physical and skill limits of humans.  It's a very subtle difference, and the end result is often the same, but it's a flavorful difference.

And, ultimately, flavor is a personal, aesthetic opinion.  It is rarely right or wrong.  It's not wrong for people to want the wuxia-style of overtly supernatural high-level fighters.  But, there's nothing wrong with the people who want more mundanely themed high-level fighters.  It's just the difference is preferring Western myths to Eastern myths.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 5, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I can't totally argue with that.  But, that doesn't mean flavor doesn't matter.  It absolutely matters.  As much as I like Superman's Boyscout complex, I'm a much bigger fan of Batman for just the reason of the flavor of a human skill-monkey over an alien demigod.
> 
> It's the same thing with exaggerated mundane fighters (Hollywood physics++) vs. wuxia wirework fighters.  I don't really care if both can bypass DR with their sword -- I care that the "mundane" fighter does it through skill and years of practice in recognizing small flaws while the wuxia fighter channels ki energy (just to pick an example).  Similar flavor preferences apply to falling 100 ft. and walking away, breaking down doors, or jumping big holes.
> 
> ...





+ Rep


----------



## Mallus (Nov 5, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I don't want my stories of superheroic fighters to be told in terms of magic.  I want them framed by a lifting of the physical and skill limits of humans.



Isn't that just another way of saying "I don't want to play high level fighters"? 



> But, there's nothing wrong with the people who want more mundanely themed high-level fighters.  It's just the difference is preferring Western myths to Eastern myths.



Several posters have already pointed up that the heroes of Western mythology are far from mundane. They did things like wrestle rivers and shoot 1,000,000+ arrows in the course of a single battle, so in that regard, these tales are irrevocable told in terms of magic, or at least that's how they're received in audiences full of rational-type people.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 5, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> It is rarely right or wrong.  It's not wrong for people to want the wuxia-style of overtly supernatural high-level fighters.  But, there's nothing wrong with the people who want more mundanely themed high-level fighters.  It's just the difference is preferring Western myths to Eastern myths.



 Are you calling Superman "wuxia", or is this a tangent?

Regarding "channeling energy" vs. "years of practice / seeing flaws" -- if there's no functional difference in the mechanics, why can't you just add whichever flavor you like? As long as we're going off on the east vs. west tangent, let's be practical: the dude practicing with a sword in the east may say he's "channeling ki", while the dude in the west says he's just had a lot of practice, but under the hood they are probably doing the same thing -- and what specifically that thing is, is up to you and your DM's campaign setting.

Seriously, what's the difference between "skill guides me" vs. "ki guides me" vs. "Crom guides me"? If it can't be dispelled, it's as good as mundane.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 5, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Well, technically, an adamantine wall 3 inches thick has hardness 20 and 120 hp (SRD on Epic Obstacles), so that ability in itself isn't going to get you through it in a single stroke. But yes, you can get through 2-inch thick adamantium doors (hardness 20, 80 hp) as a standard action.




Uh, you seem to have forgotten the base damage of the attack. Assuming you can do at least 40 hp, yes, Virginia, you can cleave the adamantine wall in one stroke.

Is a barbarian chewing through with Power Attack also silly? Of course. It's slightly less silly, in that it at least looks like he has to work hard. But it's still silly. That doesn't really alter the argument much.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Nov 5, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Er, comic book geek moment.
> 
> That's not true as Batman doesn't even rank in the top 5 and the only ones he has personally taught were the Robins and none of them ever get ranked in the top 10.




Counter-Comic Book Geek Moment.

Last I checked, this last year, Batman was listed in top 5 with Batgirl -1 ranking above him.  I think Nightwing ranks as well.

He beats Lady Shiva fairly regularly, but my understanding is that any fighter in the top 10 can beat any other fighter.  The hierarchy just tells you who would have odds in a tournament.

I don't know, however, if Dragon and Karate Kid were listed.

And, of course, Batman cheats.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 6, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Uh, you seem to have forgotten the base damage of the attack. Assuming you can do at least 40 hp, yes, Virginia, you can cleave the adamantine wall in one stroke.



Hence the use of the phrase "in itself". Power Attack, in particular, could help get you through it in one attack. Of course, if it was really vital to the adventure that a high-level character using a high-level ability could not get through a wall in a single attack, the obvious solution is to increase the thickness of the adamantine wall to six inches instead. (Cue Internet spam joke reference, e.g. "Fighters bursting through your adamantine walls make you feel small?")



> Is a barbarian chewing through with Power Attack also silly? Of course. It's slightly less silly, in that it at least looks like he has to work hard. But it's still silly. That doesn't really alter the argument much.



He makes it look simple, but what you don't see is all the hard work he's put into getting to the point where he can pull it off. It's as hard as casting _meteor swarm_ or _mass heal_, really.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 6, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> He makes it look simple, but what you don't see is all the hard work he's put into getting to the point where he can pull it off. It's as hard as casting _meteor swarm_ or _mass heal_, really.




Well, sure. But you have to consider what the barbarians at the office will think about you come Monday.


----------



## Mercule (Nov 6, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Isn't that just another way of saying "I don't want to play high level fighters"?




Not at all.  It means I don't want my high level fighters to have to be vulgar.  I will absolutely agree that there is a point at which there is nothing left but blatant mysticism.  Wrestling an ogre and breaking his neck barehanded is one thing, doing that to a dragon is another, and holding up the Earth is something else.  Each of those pushes the "man behind the curtain" factor a bit.  I happen to find a lot of the wuxia tropes to be closer to the last that the first, YMMV.



> Several posters have already pointed up that the heroes of Western mythology are far from mundane. They did things like wrestle rivers and shoot 1,000,000+ arrows in the course of a single battle, so in that regard, these tales are irrevocable told in terms of magic, or at least that's how they're received in audiences full of rational-type people.




True.  I've also said I'm fine with wuxia-like bits at the extremely high (25-30) levels, or even occasionally below that.  I most certainly don't want to see them being the assumed norm prior to 21st level and vanishingly rare below 10th.



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> Are you calling Superman "wuxia", or is this a tangent?




Tangent.  I don't mind him being an alien, but he deals with too many extraterrestrials for my tastes (granted, it's a common problem in lots of comics).  Different objection, but similarly flavor-related.



> Regarding "channeling energy" vs. "years of practice / seeing flaws" -- if there's no functional difference in the mechanics, why can't you just add whichever flavor you like? As long as we're going off on the east vs. west tangent, let's be practical: the dude practicing with a sword in the east may say he's "channeling ki", while the dude in the west says he's just had a lot of practice, but under the hood they are probably doing the same thing -- and what specifically that thing is, is up to you and your DM's campaign setting.
> 
> Seriously, what's the difference between "skill guides me" vs. "ki guides me" vs. "Crom guides me"? If it can't be dispelled, it's as good as mundane.




As long as the books don't add the "ki guides me" explanation through names, flavor text, or some other means, that's great.  Sometimes a game book has to add flavor or come off reading like a dictionary.  IMO, the default D&D flavor should lean toward the "skill guides me" or "Crom guides me".  Either that, or make it completely clear that the mechanic does not reflect the flavor by giving counter/multiple examples.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 6, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> As long as the books don't add the "ki guides me" explanation through names, flavor text, or some other means, that's great.  Sometimes a game book has to add flavor or come off reading like a dictionary.  IMO, the default D&D flavor should lean toward the "skill guides me" or "Crom guides me".  Either that, or make it completely clear that the mechanic does not reflect the flavor by giving counter/multiple examples.



 Oh, I get it. You're a Crom Fundamentalist.

Seriously, you can rename stuff much easier than you can re-design it. It seems ... stingy, if you will, to wish that a character *you* don't want to play should be unsupported for everyone else.

If the same mechanic can support "In Pelor's glorious name!" and "BY CROM'S WRATH!" and "Old John's Hammer!" and "Tiger Claw Attack!", why not let them?

 -- N


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 6, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> As a longtime poster on Comicbook resources and lurker on newsrama, I speak for many when I say,
> 
> "BATGOD"
> 
> ...




Supergirl schooled Kate Kid a few months back.  He couldn't even land a punch.

One of the  many example how the last year or two in comics should be called, "When Bad Writing Attacks."


----------



## Ahglock (Nov 6, 2007)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Counter-Comic Book Geek Moment.
> 
> Last I checked, this last year, Batman was listed in top 5 with Batgirl -1 ranking above him.  I think Nightwing ranks as well.
> 
> ...




Shiva had always ranked higher than Batman.  After the last Crisis they are in the I can write any crap I want mode, because we can say its a new universe and new continuity.


----------



## shilsen (Nov 6, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Oh, I get it. You're a Crom Fundamentalist.
> 
> Seriously, you can rename stuff much easier than you can re-design it. It seems ... stingy, if you will, to wish that a character *you* don't want to play should be unsupported for everyone else.
> 
> ...



 What the penguin said. That's precisely the approach I take and why I loved the Book of Nine Swords approach. I could take exactly the same mechanics and use it with a change in flavor to make two drastically different melee characters. 

For example, I've used the Shadow Garrote maneuver (5d6 damage as ranged touch attack; Fort save or flatfooted) to represent a warrior with supernatural abilities drawn from shadow magic, and to represent a rogue who grabbed a dagger off a table and hurled it at a chink in someone's armor. Shadow Jaunt (teleport 50 ft to a spot you have line of sight/effect to) can be a mystic disappearing in a cloud of shadow and appearing elsewhere, and it can be a swashbuckler leaping up, grabbing the chandelier and swinging across the chamber to land on the other side.

Just because a book has a certain flavor already present doesn't mean I have to slavishly follow it.


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 6, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Just because a book has a certain flavor already present doesn't mean I have to slavishly follow it.




The confidence to divorce fluff from mechanics is one that generally comes with experience as a DM, as novice DMs tend to cleave very closely to the Book As Written.

4e is a wonderful opportunity for the designers to provide DMs with the tools and 'permission' to make their games their own from day one.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 6, 2007)

Happened to be perusing the Spell Compendium tonight and noticed a Bard spell:  War Cry.  Basically, you cast it, get a +4 to hit and damage on a charge, don't take an AC penalty for charging and, if you hit and do damage, your target needs to make a will save or be panicked for 1 round.

Is there any reason that can't be a fighter maneuver?  Seems a perfectly legit one to me.  Yes, it's currently written as a bard spell, but, meh, change the flavour a bit and poof, instant fighter goodie.

Actually, on further look, I noticed there's a whole bunch of bard spells between 1st and 3rd level that would work beautifully as maneuvers.  Never mind stuff like Warning Shout from the paladin that removes the flat footed condition from all allies and wakes anyone sleeping.  Seems good to me.

I think, like Bo9S, we're going to see a pretty decent mix of, for lack of better words, "martial training moves" and "mystical moves" that people can mix and pick.  And, I'm going to bet that they're going to change the introductory text to downplay the wire-fu inspirations a bit.


----------



## shilsen (Nov 6, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> The confidence to divorce fluff from mechanics is one that generally comes with experience as a DM, as novice DMs tend to cleave very closely to the Book As Written.
> 
> 4e is a wonderful opportunity for the designers to provide DMs with the tools and 'permission' to make their games their own from day one.



 True. I hope that the whole issue of using the same mechanics but changing flavor to fit your game is something heavily emphasized in the DMG, the MM, and other books.


----------



## Henry (Nov 6, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Is there any reason that can't be a fighter maneuver?




Perhaps the fact that it screams "WARLORD"? 

But I agree. Come 4th Edition, martial characters should be getting some mechanics that help emulate flashy non-supernatural battlefield maneuvers to give alternatives to the walking up bamboo and leaving fire-trails.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Nov 6, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Perhaps the fact that it screams "WARLORD"?
> 
> But I agree. Come 4th Edition, martial characters should be getting some mechanics that help emulate flashy non-supernatural battlefield maneuvers to give alternatives to the walking up bamboo and leaving fire-trails.




I'm certain they will.  The abilities mentioned so far for fighters don't seem to look excessively supernatural.

However, it would be nice to have the option to run up walls, balance on hairs, and sling force-duplicates of my sword at distant enemies.

Brad


----------



## Mercule (Nov 6, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Just because a book has a certain flavor already present doesn't mean I have to slavishly follow it.




I never said one did.  But, if the flavor is dealt out heavily enough, it becomes more trouble than it's worth.

And, since you are fine with rewriting the flavor, I appreciate your willingness to omit flashy martial effects from D&D.


----------



## Mercule (Nov 6, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I think, like Bo9S, we're going to see a pretty decent mix of, for lack of better words, "martial training moves" and "mystical moves" that people can mix and pick.  And, I'm going to bet that they're going to change the introductory text to downplay the wire-fu inspirations a bit.




I think you're pretty much right on.  I haven't really seen any indication that I'll be unhappy with what's going to come in 4E.  I'm actually rather pleased with Bo9S, though Desert Wind and Shadow Hand are marginalized IMC.  If the mysticism in 4E is at the same level, I'll be fine.

My main issue is with people who seem to be hell-bent on proving that there is something wrong with wanting to skip the wire-work.  I don't know how many times I can say that I don't see any issue with it in a game, it just isn't the flavor I like and I would prefer that it not be a featured, assumed, or necessary part of D&D play, even at higher levels.  Yes, I know I can rewrite the flavor.  I've played through 5+ versions of (A)D&D and have never had to change the flavor to get the feel I wanted from it and I wouldn't expect to have to in the future.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 6, 2007)

Deekin said:
			
		

> One of the Interesting stances I keep running across in 4th ed disscussion is that Fighter-type characters should be limited to the relm of realism, or it's not D&D.
> 
> I'm just wondering where this stance comes from. In a setting game where over half the classes can wield magic, why is the poor man with the sword stuck maxing out at the human maximum, while the wizard is so much father beyound this. Why is it ok for a Wizard to level mountain, while if the Warrior does anything superhuman it's badwrongfun.
> 
> If a fighter dedicates himself to his swordfighting as much as a wizard dedicates himself to magic, why shouldn't he be able to take on armies by himself? Why should he not be able to act faster than any mere mortal?




I don't mind martial types having "powers", but I don't like that they are called "powers".  That should be reserved specifically for Psionics.  Just call the maneuvers...


----------



## PeterWeller (Nov 6, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I don't mind martial types having "powers", but I don't like that they are called "powers".  That should be reserved specifically for Psionics.  Just call the maneuvers...




I think "powers" is being used as a generic convenience.  Fighter powers may very well be called maneuvers.


----------



## gothmaugCC (Nov 6, 2007)

As far as I can tell, for good or ill, they are re-working DnD into a new fresh form. Whether or not it resembles its predecessors is irrelevant, the change is comming, so we better get used to it. 

Personally I like my dnd Fighter types modeled after boromir, Inigo Montoya, sir lancelot, and other warriors of great skill and renoun. If the new edition gives me "powers" that mimic physical attacks (like cleave or a knockback ability) then i'll be happy. If 4th edition gives me the ability to shoot fire out of my sword, then thats not what I personally consider a FIGHTER..

BUT>>> it IS what I think a fighter/wizard mix should be able to do. After reading the manuevers in book of nine swords, it felt that my fighter had become a swordmage. Which can be cool in its own right, but isnt My quintisential fighter. 


As for Conan, beowulf, and other pulp/sword and sorcery fighters...well I play those type of characters in mongooses Conan D20. Magic is just too intregrated into the core mechanics of 3rd edition to pull off a convincing low magic pulp world where magic is a rare and terryfying thing.


----------



## Deekin (Nov 6, 2007)

gothmaugCC said:
			
		

> As far as I can tell, for good or ill, they are re-working DnD into a new fresh form. Whether or not it resembles its predecessors is irrelevant, the change is comming, so we better get used to it.
> 
> Personally I like my dnd Fighter types modeled after boromir, Inigo Montoya, sir lancelot, and other warriors of great skill and renoun. If the new edition gives me "powers" that mimic physical attacks (like cleave or a knockback ability) then i'll be happy. If 4th edition gives me the ability to shoot fire out of my sword, then thats not what I personally consider a FIGHTER..
> 
> ...




Books of 9 Swords common misconceptions.

Swordsage= Monk+ Wizard/fighter- These are the only class in the book that can shoot fire from there swords, through people 60ft through the air, teleport through shadows, and all the other magical stuff. They have are the only class with  Access to Desert Wind(Magical Fire blade stuff), Setting Sun (Magical Throw people stuff), and Shandow Hand (Magical Ninja stuff).

Warblade- Limited to Diamond Mind (Superior Concentration and Awareness), Iron Heart (Supreme Mastery of the Sword), Stone Dragon (Hit stuff hard so it breaks, and make yourslef tough), Tiger Claw (Feral, brutal barbarian style), and White Raven (Leadership, helping others manuvers)

Crudsader- Paladin Analog, Liminted to Stone Dragon, White Raven and Devoted Spirit(Semi-magical healing, protect others manuvers.)

If you look at it, you Have three ways of doing manuvers. Skill guides me (Warblade), Crom guides me (Crusader), and ki guides me (Swordsage).


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Nov 6, 2007)

Granted we still don't know what all the powers are, and what are the types of talent trees.

Just remember that not all fighters will be human.

Because I have a suspicion that pure fighters of certain PC races can get overtly supernatural powers, if they wanted to.  

For all you know dwarves can use some sort of earth magic power without having a single level in a "spellcasting" class.  Eladrin Fighters might be able to substitute certain powers for wizard spells, and Tieflings fighters might be able to substitute for warlock invocations (Fell Flight anyone? for a flying fighter).

Honestly, mystical fighters are already there, even humans ones, since multiclassing exists and apparently a fighter 7/ wizard 3 is just as effective as a fighter 10 or wizard 10 or even fighter 3/ wizard 7.


----------



## Mercule (Nov 6, 2007)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Honestly, mystical fighters are already there, even humans ones, since multiclassing exists and apparently a fighter 7/ wizard 3 is just as effective as a fighter 10 or wizard 10 or even fighter 3/ wizard 7.




I'm not too happy with the idea of fighters of any race getting overtly mystical abilities as a class feature.  If it's part of the racial trees (I'm assuming such things exist), then it sounds like a good idea.

Also, I'm totally behind effective (and overtly mystic) fighter/mage multi-classing.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 7, 2007)

For me, it all depends on not what the fighter can do.

It depends on what the WIZARD and CLERIC can do. Since the days of 0D&D, through 1E/2E and up to 3.x, magic at high levels has been "It".

A 20th level 1e fighter stripped of his magical gear is simply boned (can't even damage foes of that level), a 10th level 2E fighter without access to magical flying is at the mercy of any flying foes (oh look, the wizard can fly about 5 levels back) and we all know about the Xmas tree effect of the 3.x fighter.

If at 5th level, a 4E wizard can still fly (probably, this isn't true given how it seems like magic is getting nerfed) and yet people only want "walking on branches" by 25th level, I'd say the fighter is just as useless as before.

EVERYTHING in this thread depends on what the MU can do IMO. People keep insisting they WANT Conan, Inigo Montoya etc yet not one of those "classic" fighters would be an effective partymember in a D&D world....


----------



## Hussar (Nov 7, 2007)

Really, the problem with classic fantasy fighter archetypes is that in classic fantasy, wizards were (rarely) the protagonist.  At best they were a Deus Ex Machina for getting the hero out of sticky places.  Classic fantasy stories, particularly Sword and Sorcery genre books don't fit very well into D&D and never really did.  D&D is just far too high fantasy - PC spellcasters, non-human races, a plethora of magical enemies - to fit into the standard S&S mold.  Think about it, Conan fights mostly non-magical enemies.  They would count as dire animals in D&D terms usually.  Not always, of course, but, typically.  And, once the wizard's minions are defeated, Conan easily dispatches the wizard.

That doesn't work in D&D.


----------



## Deekin (Nov 7, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Really, the problem with classic fantasy fighter archetypes is that in classic fantasy, wizards were (rarely) the protagonist.  At best they were a Deus Ex Machina for getting the hero out of sticky places.  Classic fantasy stories, particularly Sword and Sorcery genre books don't fit very well into D&D and never really did.  D&D is just far too high fantasy - PC spellcasters, non-human races, a plethora of magical enemies - to fit into the standard S&S mold.  Think about it, Conan fights mostly non-magical enemies.  They would count as dire animals in D&D terms usually.  Not always, of course, but, typically.  And, once the wizard's minions are defeated, Conan easily dispatches the wizard.
> 
> That doesn't work in D&D.




QFT.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Nov 7, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Really, the problem with classic fantasy fighter archetypes is that in classic fantasy, wizards were (rarely) the protagonist.  At best they were a Deus Ex Machina for getting the hero out of sticky places.  Classic fantasy stories, particularly Sword and Sorcery genre books don't fit very well into D&D and never really did.  D&D is just far too high fantasy - PC spellcasters, non-human races, a plethora of magical enemies - to fit into the standard S&S mold.  Think about it, Conan fights mostly non-magical enemies.  They would count as dire animals in D&D terms usually.  Not always, of course, but, typically.  And, once the wizard's minions are defeated, Conan easily dispatches the wizard.
> 
> That doesn't work in D&D.





grapple the wizard...he's dead.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 7, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> grapple the wizard...he's dead.




Only problem is that D&D makes it too easy for the wizard to simply avoid being grappled in the first place.

I mean, *fly* is a classic example. If faced with a wizard who has that cast, (and given that people don't want leaping fighters like we see in wuxia films), the guy who has focused on melee combat is simply at a horrendous disadvantage.

Not only that, but even the speed of spells seems to be faster as you go up in levels due to the fact that spells increase in range as you level, yet they take the same time to reach you (Ex: A fireball cast by a 5th level mage is slower than a fireball cast by a 20th level mage...)


----------



## JDJblatherings (Nov 8, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Only problem is that D&D makes it too easy for the wizard to simply avoid being grappled in the first place.
> 
> I mean, *fly* is a classic example. If faced with a wizard who has that cast, (and given that people don't want leaping fighters like we see in wuxia films), the guy who has focused on melee combat is simply at a horrendous disadvantage.
> 
> Not only that, but even the speed of spells seems to be faster as you go up in levels due to the fact that spells increase in range as you level, yet they take the same time to reach you (Ex: A fireball cast by a 5th level mage is slower than a fireball cast by a 20th level mage...)





climb, jump...grapple.  Think. don't stand in the open (or a big room) and wait to get fried.  Get that wizard chasing you into a 10-15 foot high corridor or a thru a doorway(eventually he will) and them you got him. oh yeah...Bows and arrows, best way to deal with a flyingmage..hi everyone I'm soft and easy to see...


----------



## Hussar (Nov 8, 2007)

The only problem being, by the time the wizard has caught up to you, he's got Mirror Images, Stoneskin, Bull's strength, and any number of other spells up, meaning he's going to come and kick your ass.

Or, better yet, flies out of range, starts summoning and buries you under monsters.

Or, Web.  You're stuck in the same place for several rounds, have no special abilities that allow you to get out of the web, and, since we're insisting on low magic settings, you shouldn't have any strength buff items either.  Hrm, Mr. Wizard now has 5 or 6 free rounds of raining death on you before you can do anything.

The idea that a plain jane fighter has even a remote hope against a wizard past about 7th level is laughable.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Nov 8, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The only problem being, by the time the wizard has caught up to you, he's got Mirror Images, Stoneskin, Bull's strength, and any number of other spells up, meaning he's going to come and kick your ass.
> 
> Or, better yet, flies out of range, starts summoning and buries you under monsters.
> 
> ...





of course D&D solves that proble by having the plain-jane fighter accompnaied by his buddy the rogue, the cleric and the Wizard.  The fighter isn't really supposed to be there alone, neither is the wizard. 
I franky think a fighter has to be an idiot (or a bad roller) not to be able to beat a wizard of equal level, regardless of level. He just can't do it by calling out the wizard to meet him on a nice big open featureless plain.


----------



## Deekin (Nov 8, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> of course D&D solves that proble by having the plain-jane fighter accompnaied by his buddy the rogue, the cleric and the Wizard.  The fighter isn't really supposed to be there alone, neither is the wizard.
> I franky think a fighter has to be an idiot (or a bad roller) not to be able to beat a wizard of equal level, regardless of level. He just can't do it by calling out the wizard to meet him on a nice big open featureless plain.




 

1st-4th level- Wizard Hits fighter with sleep or color spray. Fighter loses.
5th-9th level- Wizard has fly and protection from arrows. Fighter loses.
10th-20th level- Wizard Scries on fighter, buffs, telelports to fighter, and hits him with a save or lose. Fighter looses.

I'll admit, that if you catch a wizard unprepared, under the right circumstance a fighter can win. The problem is the wizard can change those circumstances so easily.


----------



## Enforcer (Nov 8, 2007)

Loses. One "o" only.

As for an actual response to the post, most Wizard save or die spells are Fortitude saves, which the Fighter can usually beat. The smart Wizard will do something with Will saves, like _dominate person_.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 8, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> of course D&D solves that proble by having the plain-jane fighter accompnaied by his buddy the rogue, the cleric and the Wizard.  The fighter isn't really supposed to be there alone, neither is the wizard.
> I franky think a fighter has to be an idiot (or a bad roller) not to be able to beat a wizard of equal level, regardless of level. He just can't do it by calling out the wizard to meet him on a nice big open featureless plain.



Let me illustrate what people are really complaining about.

Fighters need wizards.

Wizards do _not_ need fighters.

See the problem?

Also, the "balanced team" thing is a problem, since a party of nothing but clerics, or nothing but druids and their animal companions, might well be much stronger than a balanced team.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Nov 8, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Let me illustrate what people are really complaining about.
> 
> Fighters need wizards.
> 
> ...





huh?  Wizards most certainly need Fighters.  10th level wizards don't get to be 10th level wizards without any fighters hanging about.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 8, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> huh?  Wizards most certainly need Fighters.  10th level wizards don't get to be 10th level wizards without any fighters hanging about.




Right, right.  But that's the point where the wizard buys the fighter a nice golden watch, pats him on the shoulder, and puts him in a nursing home.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 9, 2007)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> huh?  Wizards most certainly need Fighters.  10th level wizards don't get to be 10th level wizards without any fighters hanging about.



Well, what do they need Fighters for? Or rather, what do they need fighters for that they can't do just as well with good spell selection and preparation?

A good wizard can overcome any obstacle within the rules for D&D with careful planning and use of resources. If nothing else, they can always summon or call a creature to temporarily serve as a fighter.

A fighter needs the assistance of magical classes like wizards, clerics, or druids in order to get around certain problems, like magical effects that need to be dispelled. There are many problems that the fighter can not solve alone, no matter how high level he is or what feats he has chosen.

As such, a Fighter needs a wizard (or equivalent) in order to get through adventures. A team of four or five fighters would be unable to survive high level D&D play. However, there are no situations where a Fighter is absolutely needed, so a team of five wizards (or other spellcasters) would not miss a fighter at all.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 9, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Well, what do they need Fighters for? Or rather, what do they need fighters for that they can't do just as well with good spell selection and preparation?
> 
> A good wizard can overcome any obstacle within the rules for D&D with careful planning and use of resources. If nothing else, they can always summon or call a creature to temporarily serve as a fighter.
> 
> ...




QFT.

This is what I most think 4E is aiming to solve. Given that they have been pretty explicit about how the fighter is still "realistic" at mid to high levels, the only thing I can think of is that they have seriously nerfed magic (and given that SoD is out, Wish is gone and they are well aware of the Scry-Buff-Teleport combo, it seems a certainity ihigh level D&D magic got whacked).

I'm just wondering if the big cry from players of 4E once we get it isn't that the fighter has wuxia influences but that the wizard is a shadow of his former self. Will the people happy that the fighter is still "normal" be as supportive if it means the neutering of the wizard?


----------



## Zamkaizer (Nov 9, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Given that they have been pretty explicit about how the fighter is still "realistic" at mid to high levels, the only thing I can think of is that they have seriously nerfed magic (and given that SoD is out, Wish is gone and they are well aware of the Scry-Buff-Teleport combo, it seems a certainity ihigh level D&D magic got whacked).




I don't think they've stated this, explicitly or otherwise. Is their a source you can cite?


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Nov 9, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I'm just wondering if the big cry from players of 4E once we get it isn't that the fighter has wuxia influences but that the wizard is a shadow of his former self. Will the people happy that the fighter is still "normal" be as supportive if it means the neutering of the wizard?




I certainly would be happier to see a nerfed wizard than a buffed fighter.  The power curve of D&D spellcasters is far too steep for my tastes, speaking as someone who mostly wants to recreate the flavor of most fantasy media in a sound Tactics/RPG.

A nerfed wizard, especially in terms of abilities that completely dominate skirmish-level combat, would better fit everything I want to do, from Final Fantasy to Conan.


----------



## JohnSnow (Nov 9, 2007)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> QFT.
> 
> This is what I most think 4E is aiming to solve. Given that they have been pretty explicit about how the fighter is still "realistic" at mid to high levels, the only thing I can think of is that they have seriously nerfed magic (and given that SoD is out, Wish is gone and they are well aware of the Scry-Buff-Teleport combo, it seems a certainity ihigh level D&D magic got whacked).
> 
> I'm just wondering if the big cry from players of 4E once we get it isn't that the fighter has wuxia influences but that the wizard is a shadow of his former self. Will the people happy that the fighter is still "normal" be as supportive if it means the neutering of the wizard?




For my part? Yes. I have no problem with putting more limits on the wizard's power at high levels. The best thing, IMO, would be to flatten out the wizard's power curve, so that he's stronger and more competitive with the other classes at the low levels and weaker at the high levels than he is now.

That goes for the cleric and the druid as well, btw.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 9, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> For my part? Yes. I have no problem with putting more limits on the wizard's power at high levels. The best thing, IMO, would be to flatten out the wizard's power curve, so that he's stronger and more competitive with the other classes at the low levels and weaker at the high levels than he is now.
> 
> That goes for the cleric and the druid as well, btw.




Very much agreed.

The wizards and to a degree, other core casters, need to be brought on par with roughly what a fighter can do at a given level.  As well, the fighter needs to come up a fair ways as well.  

It shouldn't be that the wizard is outdamaging the fighter by multipliers after certain levels.  Never mind all the other things that wizards can do as well.


----------

