Community

Zinegata wrote:

I already gave real-game examples where Normal Badasses suceed anyway with under-optimized characters and pointed out Belkar purely to demonstrate the point using a well-known character among the community.

BTW, I got the trope title wrong. It's supposed to be Badass Normal: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadassNormal

And yet, most of the time the "normal" badass simply fails while the Wizard and the Druid just wipe encounters both inside and outside of combat with little support from the rest of the party.

thecasualoblivion wrote:

And yet, most of the time the "normal" badass simply fails while the Wizard and the Druid just wipe encounters both inside and outside of combat with little support from the rest of the party.

Show statistical proof that most D&D combats end within 1 round purely due to the actions of the Druid or Cleric.

Because I'll be perfectly blunt with you - I've played optimized, Divine-Metamagic enabled Clerics and there are occassions when I played them very ruthlessly (no holding back). Yet they've never dominated combat as you describe.

OTOH, my Clerics are still under level 10, so the Save or Die arms race has yet to start. But that's still quite a few levels away and it again it pretty much demonstrates that "most" D&D encounters being arbitrarily ended by a finger waggler is simply unsubstantiated hearsay.

Ardent wrote:

If you look at it that way, I suppose I can understand your confusion.

Try this: play against seam. A Dragonborn Wizard is unoptimized by comparison to an Eladrin Wizard, and you haven't even done anything besides pick race and class. Does that mean your Dragonborn Wizard is going to suck? No, it does not. He will, however, probably fail his attack rolls 1-2 times more per night than an Eladrin would. This could make the difference between seeming a competent, always-on kind of Wizard and a bumbling, doddering sort of the Fizban the Fabulous cut of cloth.

A Dragonborn Wizard is "weaker" than an Eladrin Wizard, but he's still pretty strong and probably even tougher to kill. They're more or less on the same level on the power curve, with the Dragonborn just a notch or two lower.

The point of being a "normal" badass is to play someone who has powers that really aren't on the same level as everyone else. Because again, when you succeed, it's more awesome that way.

It is much more impressive to win if you're outpowered 2:1 (or worse!), rather than being only slightly weaker than your opponent.

I've been the competent background guy -- as Picard is wont to say, a "Number One" -- for a long, long time. I still sort of am, although there's a world of difference between every day and every once in a while (somewhere around 3 months of the year). Cleaning up after my boss doesn't make my boss any less competent, or me any more competent. He has to focus on the "big picture," while I can worry about "attention to detail." Could he do my job? Absolutely. Could I do his? Possibly, won't know until I have to, but my "day job" does have a lot of "big picture analysis" involved, so there's a strong possibility I'm qualified.

I've seen coworkers get despondent about not being promoted, not being put "in charge" of a project, not given the command they think they deserve. This is exactly why in a fantasy situation nearly everyone wants to be "The Hero." Very few of us are satisfied being in the background when we have the ability to define where the foreground lies.

Wizards simply caters to the largest crowd; the one that wants to be "The Hero."

The point is however, that even in the old system you can still have everyone be "The Hero" so long as you have a bit of experience. This makes it a worse "introductory" game than 4E, but in the long run people are gonna get tired of just playing "The Hero" and branch out to other roles.

Badass Normal is one such role that I often see. Some players pick characters precisely because they are weak so that their achievements are magnified. Moreover, these characters are often played a lot more smartly or aggressively, which sometimes trumps even the power of a Codzilla. Going back to Belkar (I know he's a narrative character but he's a fun example), one of the reasons why he's so successful is because he doesn't hesitate to act or kill anything - something that Roy or V aren't really capable of since they're "sit down and plan" types.

Badass Normals played in real games aren't much different. The successful ones tend to play their characters in a smart, aggressive manner that's coupled with creative solutions (that work within the framework of the rules).

I do not mean this in a belligerent way, but I'm going to go ahead and call the fallacy of false dichotomy on this one.

It seems to me that a good number of those who are enjoying the new D&D are those who have been around the systems a bit. By this I mean those who have dove into the breadth of RPG's out there (and I don't mean other D20 systems).

One of the largest complaints I've heard from the Non-D&D loving crowd (and this predates AD&D2e and continues till the current edition) that D&D is one of the most generally restrictive Role Playing games on the market, though depending on the person, no more so than any other class based system.

So to say that such a restrictive game is being called restrictive by the fans of the game is, in my opinon, not looking at the bigger picture. Vampire players say 3.x is inherently prohibitive, Hero players say the same, GURPS- same, Shadowrun, Ironclaw, Rolemaster (but for much different reasons), Etc.

I think only Palladium players and WHFRP players are the only "gamer type" that I've not heard complain about how restrictive it is to play *any* edition of the game.

As such that is the basis for my calling false dichotomy on the OP.

So Badass Normal is fun. Perhaps.


But why should I be forced to play one?

Because that's what previous editions did. They said "You are not a spellcaster. Therefore you suck. Therefore the laws of physics apply to you and only you. Therefore you will not get Nice Things, three-fourths of the game's options are out of your hands, and your possible actions per round can be counted on one hand as you watch your party members do Better Than You. Because you are not special."

When did the rules get to say how special my character can be? Why should one member of the party get Super Special Awesome stuff while my character is restricted to two sticks and a rock regardless of how either of us wish to play? Why should character classes be separated into Cool and Uncool, with the former better than the latter 99% of the time? Why should I have to pine for a single moment in the spotlight, watching my friends bend the world to their whims? Why, conversely, should I have to worry about toning down my Cool character to allow my friends to have an interesting game? Why should the boundary between Cool and Uncool even exist?

Some people like playing weak characters. Power to them.
Some people like playing characters just as strong as everyone else. Power to them.
Some people like playing a total badass of a character. Power to them.


Some people believe their style of play is the One and Only, the Alpha and Omega, the Best, the only thing worthwhile, the shining pillar of gaming amongst the dredge of pathetic masses. The thing to which the entire system should conform, the method by which all should be evaluated. The. Playstyle.

...

No. Power. To Them.