Fifth Edition Modules: So a Wizard and a Warlord walk into a bar...

41 posts / 0 new
Last post
More Info On Modules

Don't know about you guys, but I'm tentatively interested in seeing where the rabbit hole leads. A 3.5 Wizard sharing space with a 4e character? Interesting...

...Especially if it ends up as was discussed in the other thread, and we get Fighters cutting mountains when Wizards reshape reality. Certainly sounds potentially workable, at least. What does the rest of CharOp think? Getting preemptively ready to remake Pun-Pun?
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
Assuming they can pull it off, there's one line here that kind of puts a damper on that idea:

" yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced."

I would presume that 'relatively balanced' means no Pun-Pun.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
"At its heart, D&D isn't about rules. "

BLASPHEMY 
Assuming they can pull it off, there's one line here that kind of puts a damper on that idea:

" yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced."

I would presume that 'relatively balanced' means no Pun-Pun.



You would, but since when has that stopped us?
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
What they have described so far has basically just been the O4e/Essentials split. If you want a "complex" character, play a Weaponmaster. If you want a "simple" character, play a Knight. They've hinted at bringing the same kind of options to the DM side, but there still aren't any actual details about how that works.

(If I'm playing a Wizard, and I have a lot of powers that refer to slides of specified length or the construction of walls, but my DM opts not to use the "tactical combat" module that uses a battle grid... what happens?)
Honestly, this sounds like a pile of BS that's entirely unlikely to work in practice.
It's going to be important to have in a party an even mix of characters who use THAC0 and those who use the new system, just to ensure that someone can hit the monsters!
What Rokku said.
It's going to be important to have in a party an even mix of characters who use THAC0 and those who use the new system, just to ensure that someone can hit the monsters!



lol
"The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord" Romans 6:23
Where do people get that they're merging characters from different editions into one game? It is very clear what they're attempting to do, in my opinion.  I think they're going to fail miserably (when you try to please everyone, you usually please none)... but their intent is clear.

You won't be bringing in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition characters to the same table. They will all be 5th edition (or whatever they end up calling the next iteration of D&D). They will just vary in complexity, which they believe will satisfy die-hard players of each previous edition.
You won't be bringing in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition characters to the same table. They will all be 5th edition (or whatever they end up calling the next iteration of D&D). They will just vary in complexity, which they believe will satisfy die-hard players of each previous edition.



Well, I was joking a bit. I like the *idea* of varied complexity, as long as there are still options for any archetype I want. 

I'll be pretty unhappy if the only wizard is a vancian wizard, and the only fighter is a basic attack fighter - even if there are varying levels of complexity among different classes.

For what it's worth, I like that we have a slayer and a barbarian, even though I'd rarely if ever play the slayer.

Tome of battle was used as a playtest for 4th edition at the end of 3.5. It makes sense that essentials was the playtest for the simpler modules in 5th. In fact, essentials is easy, phb style is normal, psionics and hybrids are advanced. We already have modules in 4th, and they do work together decently enough. They seem like they're just expanding on these distinctions to make a 5th edition in an attempt to win back some players.
Give me 3.5 back and I shall rule the world.
On the CO IRC, generally as TorpedoFish.
Vain? Me? NEVER.
57223408 wrote:
You're the straightest shooter I know on these boards. You don't mince words about your opinions, and I respect that about you. The whole fiasco you described in the last State of the CO Forum was particularly enlightening (and kind of disappointing with regards to how they see us).
56868168 wrote:
Ah, Tsuyo. When your post isn't one sentence long full of asterisks, you have much wisdom to share with us .
From the IRC:
(19:52) RuinsFate: You know, I was gonna agree with something PalOn said... but I think I'm just gonna through my lot in with tsuyo's sudden train-wreck grade interjection. (01:45) Nausicaa: yes your rage is a righteous rage :D (01:45) Nausicaa: righteous rage of torpedo
My sci-fi writing.
Where do people get that they're merging characters from different editions into one game? It is very clear what they're attempting to do, in my opinion.  I think they're going to fail miserably (when you try to please everyone, you usually please none)... but their intent is clear.

You won't be bringing in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition characters to the same table. They will all be 5th edition (or whatever they end up calling the next iteration of D&D). They will just vary in complexity, which they believe will satisfy die-hard players of each previous edition.


Yes.

I'm just not sure that they'll get what they're hoping for.

But here's to hoping!
"The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord" Romans 6:23
A simple character with no real options next to a crazy complex character, eh? Sounds like 3.5 again. Now, I love 3.5 (I have a game of it going right now), but the way they're phrasing it, this doesn't sound like what I think they're after.

We shall see. I'm guardedly optimistic. I like 4e plenty, but I've never felt as deeply attached to it as I did/do to 3.5, so I'm mostly OK with the fact that it's changing. We'll see whether it's any sort of improvement, of course, but that goes without saying.
It sounds like a continuation of the Essentials paradigm. People play e-classes alongside o-classes.
Tome of battle was used as a playtest for 4th edition at the end of 3.5. It makes sense that essentials was the playtest for the simpler modules in 5th. In fact, essentials is easy, phb style is normal, psionics and hybrids are advanced. We already have modules in 4th, and they do work together decently enough. They seem like they're just expanding on these distinctions to make a 5th edition in an attempt to win back some players.


You might have a point, here.  I hope to goodness that you do, because it's a good one.  If this is what 5e looks like, hopes are going up.  Expectations remain low, however.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
Tome of battle was used as a playtest for 4th edition at the end of 3.5. It makes sense that essentials was the playtest for the simpler modules in 5th. In fact, essentials is easy, phb style is normal, psionics and hybrids are advanced. We already have modules in 4th, and they do work together decently enough. They seem like they're just expanding on these distinctions to make a 5th edition in an attempt to win back some players.


You might have a point, here.  I hope to goodness that you do, because it's a good one.  If this is what 5e looks like, hopes are going up.  Expectations remain low, however.


I hope this is correct as well.  Simple characters for the neophytes or undedicated who just want to game.  Normal those those in-between.  And Advanced for dedicated CharOpers.  So classes would be typed by Role, Complexity, Power Source?
Further, proof that not all classes must follow an AEDU method from the "testing" of Essentials.  Maybe they'll make the Wizard an ADU style with more Dailies to make up for the lack of Encounter powers, resembling a cross between Vanacian and 4e spellcasting.

I'm hoping they'll keep the Theme as the third choice for customizability for a class as Core.
Give me 3.5 back and I shall rule the world.


Are you absolutely sure about that ?
(evil grin)


**


One of the tidbits in the OP's link ...
anyone could already do simplified PCs in the various editions,
but 4e made it rather easy to do, with Companion Characters.
Monster +1 level ... v ... Monster +0 level = long term win.

Here comes your 19th forums breakdown ... ohh who's to blame, it ain't 5E driving you insane.

 

Tome of battle was used as a playtest for 4th edition at the end of 3.5. It makes sense that essentials was the playtest for the simpler modules in 5th. In fact, essentials is easy, phb style is normal, psionics and hybrids are advanced. We already have modules in 4th, and they do work together decently enough. They seem like they're just expanding on these distinctions to make a 5th edition in an attempt to win back some players.



This is definitely what I feel they are going for. In fact, the developers have said that one of the problems in 4e is power bloat. Too many similar powers that nobody cares about. Essentials was the initial solution to that problem and I predict that we will see the full implementation of the solution in 5e.

I expect to to see less powers in 5e, more crossover powers such as Power Strike, and more optional features in addition to Background and Theme (I'm thinking optional roleplaying feature). Maybe these will also be modules?

Right now, skill challenges feel incomplete and inadequately developed. Much of the creative roleplaying hinges on the player and there is nothing inherent with skills that bring out the roleplayer in people. Hopefully 5e will improve on that front with some of the initial RP aspects that we saw in essentials such as wilderness knacks and so forth.



I'm hoping they'll keep the Theme as the third choice for customizability for a class as Core.



I want them to keep themes, but they MUST be balanced better. There's only a handful of themes that most characters would ever consider, and several of those you only take if you're a specific class or race.

The themes are fine, as there are always 3 to 5 unpopular things to every popular one.

For example, I have 2 guardians, 1 fey beast tamer, 2 scholars, 2 yakuza, 1 cavalier, 1 hordelands nomad, 1 wilder and I can't remember what the rest are right now.
You could allow for a certain amount of systemic complexity variety if you design your races and classes with a baseline value shared by all members of the race/class and a variable portion that determines the rest of the crunch/fluff.  Then you make the variable portion optional.

Let's, for argument sake, call it Race and Heritage for races and Class and Kit for classes.

Here's a racial example.

Elf - +2 Wisdom, Medium size, Speed 7, Low-light vision, Speak Common and Elven, Fey Origin, Trance.

As an elf, you may choose one of the following heritages:


  • Dark- +2 Cha, +2 Intimidate and Stealth, Darkvision, Cloud of Darkness/Darkfire

  • High - +2 Int, +2 Arcana and History, proficient with longsword, Eladrin Education, Eladrin Will, Fey Step.

  • Wood - +2 Dex, +2 Nature and Perception, proficient with long and shortbow, Wild Step, Group Awareness, Elven Accuracy.


If you play WITH heritages, you get the full 4e experience with an elf.  If you play WITHOUT heritages, your elf looks and feels a whole lot more like a 1e/2e elf.

The same thing goes with classes.  You get a base set of features and abilities for choosing fighter.  Then, if you use kits, you pick from Knight, Slayer, or Duelist and get some additional abilities/powers.  With kits, the game plays like 4e.  Without kits, the game plays like 1e/2e.

The trick, naturally, is assigning enough of the class abilities to the class versus the kit to ensure if your group is mixed, the person without a kit doesn't feel entirely robbed of the fun.

Plus you can reduce the number of semi-duplicated races and classes in the system.  The 4e Eladrin, Elf, and Drow are easily reduced to a single elf race without the loss of their distinctiveness.  Likewise you could make Human and give them heritages of Mankind, Half-Elf, and Half-Orc.  Gnome could include tinker, earth, and fey varieties.  Halflings can be both shirefolk and kender.
One of the problems with stat penalties in earlier editions meant that your class was often limited by that penalty, you could play it, but at a disadvantage.  For example the halfling fight coudl start with a 18 in str, reduced to 16, and this would put him behind fighter with that penalty, and more so vs. half-orc that had a bonus. 

When they put out the bonus system and eliminated the penalty you actually lost more options than the penalty.  Rather than being restricted from just str based classes for a halfling, you had to look for Dex or Cha classes.  So a Halfling warrior could even start with a 18 in str, but only by sacrificing his other ability scores and still being behind the half orc that could stack the 18 in str and have a 20, and still have the dex bonus that was useful to the class.  

Some people probably disagree that with the idea that WotC has that you have an 18 primary and 16 secondary than as long as you have a bonus to one or the other you can be functional but compare a Halfling Druid, with 18 Wis, 16 Dex to an Elf Druid with 18 Wis, 18 Dex, 13 Con, the Elf has more ac, ref, hp, fort, skills etc.. 

For roleplay it works but I felt that their system really narrowed your character's focus rather than increased it.  I also think you have to be very careful on which stat you pick for a primary if you do use Estlor's system.  If you look at the Elves, Dex is far more common than Wis as a racial stat, I imagine it would be more likely to be Dex Primary, Cha/Int/Wis for the class variants.   
I felt that their system really narrowed your character's focus rather than increased it.


Agreed.

Also, I feel we should try to point out examples in fiction for what a non-magical hero should be able to do relative to the magical ones, Conan is a solid heroic tier, Herculese depends on the story.  Buffy probably ends up somewhere in late paragon by the end of the last series, but definitely starts way down around level 1 in the first series. 

If anyone has ideas for a character that would fit Epic Warrior Without Personal Magic, I'm sure it would do the system a *lot* of good to share.  Thor from the comics maybe?
I think what they are trying to say in this article is that you will be able to make good characters both in a simple way (IE Essentials from 4e or an Archer Ranger) and that are simple to play, while at the same time being able to do the nonsense we come up with on these forums and still have both be reasonably balanced against each other under the same rules system. 

I would like it if they were able to do this, as it would make it easier to hit "optimized" numbers, while at the same time giving us here at Charop the option to do lots of wacky things. If it works, it would be a very good thing IMO. (Emphasis intentional)
It's not a matter of Right vs. Left, it's a matter of right vs. wrong My Charop Works Who Am I Really? The Theme Handbook I'm an
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
I felt that their system really narrowed your character's focus rather than increased it.


Agreed.

Also, I feel we should try to point out examples in fiction for what a non-magical hero should be able to do relative to the magical ones, Conan is a solid heroic tier, Herculese depends on the story.  Buffy probably ends up somewhere in late paragon by the end of the last series, but definitely starts way down around level 1 in the first series. 

If anyone has ideas for a character that would fit Epic Warrior Without Personal Magic, I'm sure it would do the system a *lot* of good to share.  Thor from the comics maybe?



Haraclese is very firmly in the epic tier, even if he doesn't show it right from the get-go.

Other than him: Gilgamesh fought gods on roughly equal footing, Beowulf killed ogres and dragons and sea-monsters left and right, largly singled handedly, Roland (from the Matter of France, the guy who weilded Durandal) once cut a massive hole in a cliff-face entirely by accident because of his raw awesome and that of his sword, The Green Man from Authurian myth demonstrates no magical power beyond being impossible to kill, Arthur could not be defeated so long as he had the scabbard to Excalibur (his wounds wouldn't bleed), and the rest of the Knights of the Round Table were all varying descriptions of the Best Ever (Lancelott especially).

The Bible has Samson, who fought armies by himself with an improvised weapon. Celtic Mythology has Cuchulainn, a mighty warrior who did numerous mighty and amazing things with strength alone (he also went into mad frothing rages where he killed indescriminately and with terrible speed, so makes a good example of an epic barbarian).

Looking at pop culture: Kratos is probobly the best example of an epic-tier fighter in recent memory (possibly only prior to becoming the God of War, if you think deity counts as personal magical power), if not a sterling example of a decent human being. The first thing he does in the game is kill a giant three headed sea serpent, by himself, after its just finished slaughtering its way through an entire greek naval fleet. If that's not epic tier, I don't know what is.

There's a lot of examples of mighty heroes without personal magic, all over the place.
As long as all the +x magic items are an optional module and not a fundamental aspect of the game I'll be happy. In fact there should be two magic item modules, one for those that want all the +x magic items and one for those that want magic items that grant new abilities but have no numerical effect on combat stats.

This is my one major complaint with D&D. Magic items should be about cool/interesting abilities, rather than having a numerical impact on key combat stats. For instance, if I gain a magic longsword at level 5 I want it to do something awesome, I want it to still be relevant at level 20 and I don't want to be penalised in combat if I ever have to use a non-magical longsword.
When they put out the bonus system and eliminated the penalty you actually lost more options than the penalty.


You're right about the effect, but not about the cause. The issue is that boosting your primary attack stat is far more important in 4e than in 3.5. Given the fact that 3.5 (for a Fighter) has a Base Attack Bonus that scales as 1/lvl vs. 1/2lvl in 4e, your attack stat contributes proportionally less of your attack bonus in 3.5 than it does in 4e. And then your ability score will only increase by one every few levels, which means the modifier grows more slowly as you level, as well. Combined with multiple attacks per round, that made the system more forgiving of a 16 starting stat.

If all that changed between 3.5 and 4e was that all races were normalised to get two bonus stats instead of a mix of bonuses and penalties, the relative preference for certain races toward certain classes wouldn't have changed. Instead, the fact that the ability score contribution to your attack bonus gained in relative importance between the editions is what causes 4e to have tighter class/race couplings.
If anyone has ideas for a character that would fit Epic Warrior Without Personal Magic, I'm sure it would do the system a *lot* of good to share.  Thor from the comics maybe?



There're various Hindu and Siamese myths that involve a lone hero doing impossible things. I remember reading about an otherwise normal human who can pull some crazy stunts with a bow, such as firing arrows so fast it burns in the air, or shooting an entire volley as effectively as a thousand trained archers. No magic, no divine intervention, no artifacts, just raw skill and power.
If anyone has ideas for a character that would fit Epic Warrior Without Personal Magic, I'm sure it would do the system a *lot* of good to share.  Thor from the comics maybe?



There're various Hindu and Siamese myths that involve a lone hero doing impossible things. I remember reading about an otherwise normal human who do some crazy stunts with a bow, such a firing arrows so fast it burns in the air, or shooting an entire volley as effectively as a thousand trained archers. No magic, no divine intervention, no artifacts, just raw skill and power.



Plenty of Japanese and Chinese support as well. Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Jounrey to the West (maybe not exactly fitting the goal). I'm sure there are others.
I'm gonna raise the ante, and go real history for inspiration. Now to be honest, I downtuned the standard of "Epic" a bit, but let's be honest. These badasses did incredible superhuman things in REAL LIFE. If they were transported to fiction and upgraded as such, they'd punt a hole through the DnD multiverse, demote deities to minions, and generally curbstomp the entire collection of monsters from all Monster Manuals. At once. In the same battle.

Alexander the Great: Conquered a LOT of the ancient world, doing it with what could basically be considered concentrated awesome. COULD be argued to be more of a warlord, but considering his feats (Both historical as mythical) it's a toss-up.

Agis III: "Despite being outnumbered roughly two-to-one, Agis wasn't going to back down from any opportunity to drench the tip of his spear in a few gallons of human plasma. Screaming the most horrible profanities they could think of as they went, A3 charged out in front of his men and fought like a goddamned madman, slashing people with his Spartan blades, before receiving a disturbing number of reciprocal wounds across his chest, head and legs." - Cracked.com

Lack of time prevents me from looking more up but... There's plenty of real life examples that get as close to epic as is naturally possible. I have to say though, that like Alexander, most of them (Sun-Tzu, Atilla, Hannibal) are technically as much Warlord as Fighter.

Oh, one thing that just came to mind: Caesar. They pretty much made him a god back in Roman times. A GOD. If that doesn't  count as Epic, I don't know what does.
It's going to be important to have in a party an even mix of characters who use THAC0 and those who use the new system, just to ensure that someone can hit the monsters!

nah, you look for the loophole in the system that allows you to use THAC0 and the new system simultaneously with the same character. If you don't roll high enough to hit, you roll low enough to hit.

In fact, the developers have said that one of the problems in 4e is power bloat. Too many similar powers that nobody cares about. Essentials was the initial solution to that problem and I predict that we will see the full implementation of the solution in 5e.

Essentials martial subclasses are *in general* the wrong solution to that problem - although that strategy does have the advantage that it was less disruptive and didn't break the underlying assumptions of 4E as badly as a good solution, and I don't object to having such builds as long as they aren't the only builds of those classes.

To avoid duplicating powers across classes, put powers in pools that are tied to something other than class. Power source and role are some obvious choices. You can still also have class-specific powers.

To avoid having duplicate-but-slightly-better powers within a class, have the powers scale.

When they put out the bonus system and eliminated the penalty you actually lost more options than the penalty.  Rather than being restricted from just str based classes for a halfling, you had to look for Dex or Cha classes.

Says who?

The issue is that boosting your primary attack stat is far more important in 4e than in 3.5. Given the fact that 3.5 (for a Fighter) has a Base Attack Bonus that scales as 1/lvl vs. 1/2lvl in 4e, your attack stat contributes proportionally less of your attack bonus in 3.5 than it does in 4e. And then your ability score will only increase by one every few levels, which means the modifier grows more slowly as you level, as well. Combined with multiple attacks per round, that made the system more forgiving of a 16 starting stat.

In 4e the sum of changes in your half-level bonus, changes in your attack stat bonus, changes in your enhancement bonus, and changes in your feat bonus from Expertise... total up to a level bonus.

The math for defenses simularly works out to, in effect, being a level bonus. 
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
The main interface will probably be something like attacker rolls 1d20 + bonus vs. opponent's (AC, Fort...).  

Closed set of skills with an optional module to expand the skills into a 3.5 skill set.  thus a 4e character with a + 10 to social skills would be equivilant to a 3.5 rogue that spent his points to all the different social skills.  The DM could call for a bluff check and the 4e character would add 10, the 3.5 rogue would look up his bluff bonus.

 If they have modular combat systems creating monster stat blocks is going to be a mess.
DPR King Candidates 3.0
How much damage should I shoot for?
You're fired : 1 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .2 KPR Fair Striker : 2 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .4 KPR Highly Optimized : 3 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .6 KPR Nerfbat please : 4 Kills Per 5 Rounds = .8 KPR It's OVER 9000!!!!!: 5 Kills Per 5 Rounds = 1+ KPR
DPR? KPR? KP4R? Bless you
DPR = Damage Per round ~= Chance to hit * damage on a hit KPR = Kills Per Round. 1 Kill = 8*Level+24 damage = DPR/(8*level+24) KPNR = Kills Per N Rounds. How many standards can you kill in N rounds?
My understanding might be different from everyone else's here, but I don't think they intend for different rulesets to exist at the same table.  The DM chooses the ruleset modules and players build their characters to them.  So any given player could go from 1E style to 4E style for different DMs, but every player at each game will conform to the same ruleset.

 If they have modular combat systems creating monster stat blocks is going to be a mess.


This is one of my bigger fears as well.  I love the simplicity of the 4e monster stat block.  Even a 5e stat block that assumes ALL of the modules (perhaps blocked out or color-coded by module?) gives too much information to DMs running simpler modules.  It will require you to constantly be thinking about what module you're running inside of your head so you don't accidentally use a more advanced module's attack, or whatever. 

 If they have modular combat systems creating monster stat blocks is going to be a mess.


This is one of my bigger fears as well.  I love the simplicity of the 4e monster stat block.  Even a 5e stat block that assumes ALL of the modules (perhaps blocked out or color-coded by module?) gives too much information to DMs running simpler modules.  It will require you to constantly be thinking about what module you're running inside of your head so you don't accidentally use a more advanced module's attack, or whatever. 



More likely, monsters will be the one constant and all the modules will be balanced, theoretically, around that, varying mostly in complexity rather than power level. Maybe adding modules will add XP to the DM's encounter budget. 


I hope that monsters will be a constant, and that their stat block is as simple as (or simpler than) the 4e stat blocks. 

The additional XP budget for modules is an interesting thought, but that would indicate that the more complex modules do, in fact, generate higher-powered characters.  Of course I'm not (yet) buying the claim that characters can exist in the same party using different modules and still be balanced.  This is especially the case if they try to give fans a quasi-3.x Wizard/Druid/Cleric and versions of the classes more reminiscent of 4e. 
I'm gonna raise the ante, and go real history for inspiration. Now to be honest, I downtuned the standard of "Epic" a bit, but let's be honest. These badasses did incredible superhuman things in REAL LIFE. If they were transported to fiction and upgraded as such, they'd punt a hole through the DnD multiverse, demote deities to minions, and generally curbstomp the entire collection of monsters from all Monster Manuals. At once. In the same battle.

Alexander the Great: Conquered a LOT of the ancient world, doing it with what could basically be considered concentrated awesome. COULD be argued to be more of a warlord, but considering his feats (Both historical as mythical) it's a toss-up.

Agis III: "Despite being outnumbered roughly two-to-one, Agis wasn't going to back down from any opportunity to drench the tip of his spear in a few gallons of human plasma. Screaming the most horrible profanities they could think of as they went, A3 charged out in front of his men and fought like a goddamned madman, slashing people with his Spartan blades, before receiving a disturbing number of reciprocal wounds across his chest, head and legs." - Cracked.com

Lack of time prevents me from looking more up but... There's plenty of real life examples that get as close to epic as is naturally possible. I have to say though, that like Alexander, most of them (Sun-Tzu, Atilla, Hannibal) are technically as much Warlord as Fighter.

Oh, one thing that just came to mind: Caesar. They pretty much made him a god back in Roman times. A GOD. If that doesn't  count as Epic, I don't know what does.


As far as "real life epic level" goes, here's an example of a sneaky ranged ranger or rogue might be able to accomplish.  Simo Hayha, most confirmed kills of a single soldier in history ever.
badassoftheweek.com/hayha.html
Maybe I should rephrase, sine the point of asking the question was so that the Devs didn't need to go looking this up:

What did these guys *do* that made them Epic?  Other than "Win lots of fights"

Things like "cutting a hole in a mountain by accident" is exactly what I'm trying to get examples of: things that could help make Epic Fighters actually *Epic* fighters.
I'm gonna raise the ante, and go real history for inspiration. Now to be honest, I downtuned the standard of "Epic" a bit, but let's be honest. These badasses did incredible superhuman things in REAL LIFE. If they were transported to fiction and upgraded as such, they'd punt a hole through the DnD multiverse, demote deities to minions, and generally curbstomp the entire collection of monsters from all Monster Manuals. At once. In the same battle.

Alexander the Great: Conquered a LOT of the ancient world, doing it with what could basically be considered concentrated awesome. COULD be argued to be more of a warlord, but considering his feats (Both historical as mythical) it's a toss-up.

Agis III: "Despite being outnumbered roughly two-to-one, Agis wasn't going to back down from any opportunity to drench the tip of his spear in a few gallons of human plasma. Screaming the most horrible profanities they could think of as they went, A3 charged out in front of his men and fought like a goddamned madman, slashing people with his Spartan blades, before receiving a disturbing number of reciprocal wounds across his chest, head and legs." - Cracked.com

Lack of time prevents me from looking more up but... There's plenty of real life examples that get as close to epic as is naturally possible. I have to say though, that like Alexander, most of them (Sun-Tzu, Atilla, Hannibal) are technically as much Warlord as Fighter.

Oh, one thing that just came to mind: Caesar. They pretty much made him a god back in Roman times. A GOD. If that doesn't  count as Epic, I don't know what does.


As far as "real life epic level" goes, here's an example of a sneaky ranged ranger or rogue might be able to accomplish.  Simo Hayha, most confirmed kills of a single soldier in history ever.
badassoftheweek.com/hayha.html

Dude, that article was epic. Simo Hayha is my new hero.
Dude, that article was epic. Simo Hayha is my new hero.


+1!
Sign In to post comments