|
8 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 7:59AM
#391
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
And like I keep saying. Garthanos it would be impossible for me to enjoy a game solely devoted to what you want. I think your desires are pretty far on one end. I imagine a lot of 4e players wouldn't like what your talking about.
I'm not sure exactly what percentage but it's a big one that cares about the fighter not going too far in the realism category. We obviously aren't fighting for perfect realism either as I can hold up any fighter from any edition and say unrealistic. The definition of supernatural is NOT natural. Not mundane. So when something is done that's supernatural, it's magic.
What I don't understand is why some of you fight so hard for a class that is non-magical but you still want it to be magical just not named as such. What would be wrong with having a mundane fighter and another class based upon some supernatural version that clearly is magic? Then groups could ditch one or the other. You might even use the regular fighter for NPC warrior types.
But playing the game you describe Garthanos and Seerow is just not fun for me. So if we are all going to get along in the same system we need options. We don't need (neither of us) to be told that our viewpoint is not valid. Judgments about whether a game is fun or not is an individual assessment. I do think D&D has a long tradition of being one way. I think that way should be supported no matter what. But I'm totally open to expanding the audience by offering other options.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 8:20AM
#392
|
|
|
And. Has zero to do with the salmon leap or standin head first on a spear and the list of feats attributed to others who didnt partake of the geasa or drink the hyde potion
Even without gaining the ability from some external source, surpassing the bounds of what is physically possible is magical. Its not the kind of magic that wizards use and it wasn't bestowed upon you from some god, but its still a magical quality even if it isn't a magic spell. Just my opinion of course. I also think fighters should at some point be capable of feats that rival the gods through training, perseverance and the strength of will.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf) 
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 8:36AM
#393
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I also think fighters should at some point be capable of feats that rival the gods through training, perseverance and the strength of will.
But it has to be extremely unimpressive you cant acrobatically jump through enemy lines or the like.
You cant pole vault on your spear you have to trudge in the mud like a good little commoner.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 8:41AM
#394
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Speaking of Cu Culaines teachers he has multiple and goes around learning moves from teachers a bit like a wizard learning new spells (sometimes learning them so fast the astound the teachers) .... hmmmmm.
Well, there we have it.
Obviously he is a Wizard.
He learned magic to make him better at Fighting.
Being good at fighting doesn't make one a Fighter.
Using weapons doesn't either.
His secret techniques are obviously spells and he must be a caster.
Non-casters are perfectly mundane and normal.
And don't try to sneak in monastic training or parkour, because that's the result of pseudo-mystical super human training that only a tiny fraction of people can ever attain. It might as well be magic.
If any untrained, asthmatic, fourth point of contact heavey, lay-about can't do it, it's obviously Magic, or pseudo-mystical, non-D&D Wuxia filth that is a contaminant in our perfected, pure, myoptic medieval fantasy adventuring.
My only regret is that this isn't as much of a Strawman as I wish it were.
In a less vitriolic form, and across multiple posters, I have seen every one of those arguements in this thread.
Strawman? looks made of steel.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 8:44AM
#395
|
|
|
Let me try to understand your position here...
What do you feel is the most important, because it does not appear clear at all..
What if you can only choose one thing?
* The figher is given abilities that make it cool and awesome, interesting mechanically to play and useful from lvl 1 to the epic endgame.
* The fighter is given flashy, mythical and supernatural abilities that allow them to perform feats that is clearly both beyond human ability but also lets them violate physics in a cinematic way.
I have a hard time to understand why anyone would choose the second alternative given that choice...
But in case you are actually selecting the bottom choice... why?
Is it because you think it is impossible to design a cool and awesome fighter without this?
In that case I very much disagree.
Is alternative one no good if it does not include alternative two, that is... is it that magical abilities are needed, just for the sake of it? If this is the case... why does it have to be named 'fighter'?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 8:45AM
#396
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
They are will give those who want the dirt simple ... wow I can hit it hard fighter but I am unconvinced I will get anything approaching what I want D&D failed to let you build Beowulf and all the rest of of the Mythic fighters in the past and only came close in 4e cant imagine why they might approach it in the next iteration.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 8:50AM
#397
|
|
|
Okay.. so that's alternative two then?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 8:54AM
#398
|
|
|
I also think fighters should at some point be capable of feats that rival the gods through training, perseverance and the strength of will.
But it has to be extremely unimpressive you cant acrobatically jump through enemy lines or the like.
You cant pole vault on your spear you have to trudge in the mud like a good little commoner.
Your targetting that response at the wrong person.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf)
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 10:24AM
#399
|
|
|
Let me try to understand your position here...
What do you feel is the most important, because it does not appear clear at all..
What if you can only choose one thing?
* The figher is given abilities that make it cool and awesome, interesting mechanically to play and useful from lvl 1 to the epic endgame.
* The fighter is given flashy, mythical and supernatural abilities that allow them to perform feats that is clearly both beyond human ability but also lets them violate physics in a cinematic way.
I have a hard time to understand why anyone would choose the second alternative given that choice...
But in case you are actually selecting the bottom choice... why?
Is it because you think it is impossible to design a cool and awesome fighter without this?
In that case I very much disagree.
Is alternative one no good if it does not include alternative two, that is... is it that magical abilities are needed, just for the sake of it? If this is the case... why does it have to be named 'fighter'?
Because the design goals stated that those are the type of characters that the fighter represents. If you can't create the type of characters that the design goals are targeting then they have failed to achieve their goals. If Beowulf is to be represented as a fighter, then fighters need to be able to achieve that level of prowess. If that means that level of skill and strength is "magical" so be it, because that was the design goal.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf)
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 11:20AM
#400
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
I imagine a lot of 4e players wouldn't like what your talking about.
Uh, yeah, I can pretty much guarantee that.
Not mundane. So when something is done that's supernatural, it's magic.
Not-Mundane = Magic? I've been waiting for a long time to have reason to use this video.
Can't we please get away from that ridiculousness? I don't even care if it's technically correct - it's not how (most people) use the term "magic" in regards to D&D, and it does nothing but derail (already precarious) discussions.
But I'm totally open to expanding the audience by offering other options.
Why not other options within the Fighter class? Why does it have to be another class? You can ignore a class, but you can't ignore options within a class?
I mean, yeah, I have no desire for some of the ridiculousness that Garthanos suggests (though sometimes I wonder if he doesn't mean something different than what he says - particularly when his examples don't really jive with what he originally called the same thing; like what was it, "Riding the Spear" into battle, and then later describing it as a pole-vault? Those are... very different things.) But maybe having a Fighter "maneuver" that let you add a single CS die (or hell, even more than that if you want really superhuman powers) to a Str- or Dexterity-based check (even if you limited it to movement)?
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
