At least not until epic levels when he is just supernaturally good.
Nyeh that is your caveat as near as I can tell, we have heard arguments against knocking somebody back even five feet (though not in this thread maybe) ... see that is far too unrealistic.
I certainly don't have an issue with 5 feet. Especially with the high strength scores that fighters usually have.
Nyeh that is your caveat as near as I can tell, we have heard arguments against knocking somebody back even five feet (though not in this thread maybe) ... see that is far too unrealistic.[/quote]I certainly don't have an issue with 5 feet. Especial
I certainly don't have an issue with 5 feet. Especially with the high strength scores that fighters usually have.
I think it was really somebody who didnt like tracking character positions... We seem to see people with poor ability to identify well - why they do or dont like a given thing.
The whole reason for "magical" moves is to allow/enable that higher levels mean progressing in to a state of epically good... not an I have to be a different class to get the cool stuff that feels like a Herakles move.
And with attributes capping around 20? ummm since when?
I think it was really somebody who didnt like tracking character positions... We seem to see people with poor ability to identify well - why they do or dont like a given thing.The whole reason for "magical" moves is to allow/enable that higher levels
In your D&D that's true, but not in everyone's. You don't get to be the one who decides how we all have to play D&D.
Yes, in everyone's. If you're playing a game in which fighters cast spells, it isn't D&D. D&D is a game with character classes, which do different things. The primary differentiation of the wizard class is that they cast spells, and fighters don't. That's not me saying this. It's Mearls, who has called class differentiation "the centerpiece of the game.". And the Design team. And every edition of the D&D rules, ever.
Again, some people seem to think "playstyle" includes options like "doesn't have hit points" or "is a freeform, unclassed game," or "doesn't have the six attributes." You can certainly make a game like that, loosely based on D&D. But it isn't D&D any more.
"Fighters master mundane tactics and weapon skills. They don’t need spells or some sort of external source of magical power to succeed. Fighters do stuff that is within the limits of mundane mortals. They don’t reverse gravity or shoot beams of energy." - Mike Mearls, Senior Designer, DDN.
Yes, in everyone's. If you're playing a game in which fighters cast spells, it isn't D&D. D&D is a game with character classes, which do different things. The primary differentiation of the wizard class is that they cast spells, and fighters don't
I certainly don't have an issue with 5 feet. Especially with the high strength scores that fighters usually have.
I think it was really somebody who didnt like tracking character positions... We seem to see people with poor ability to identify well - why they do or dont like a given thing.
The whole reason for "magical" moves is to allow/enable that higher levels mean progressing in to a state of epically good... not an I have to be a different class to get the cool stuff that feels like a Herakles move.
And with attributes capping around 20? ummm since when?
If attributes cap at 20, and stats overall stopping much lower than 3e and 4e, then stats above 18 will mean more like in 1e and 2e.
As for "magical" moves, I'm all for modules with magical maneuvers and demi-god births as a module. You should be able to play the game you like
I think it was really somebody who didnt like tracking character positions... We seem to see people with poor ability to identify well - why they do or dont like a given thing.The whole reason for "magical" moves is to allow/enable that higher levels
In your D&D that's true, but not in everyone's. You don't get to be the one who decides how we all have to play D&D.
Yes, in everyone's. If you're playing a game in which fighters cast spells, it isn't D&D.
So, AD&D isn't D&D because a fighter might get a Book of Infinite spells, and 3e isn't D&D because a fighter could take a level of sorcerer and cast some spells, and 4e isn't D&D because a fighter could take a mult-class Warlock feat and cast Dire Radiance once per encounter. And D&D:NEXT isn't D&D because a fighter could take some feat or background and cast a cantrip or two.
Yes, in everyone's. If you're playing a game in which fighters cast spells, it isn't D&D. [/quote]So, AD&D isn't D&D because a fighter might get a Book of Infinite spells, and 3e isn't D&D because a fighter could take a level of sorcerer and cast so
Nobody here wants to use phsyics to precisely measure what can and cannot be done. However, some of us also don't want things that are clearly impossible via physics, either. I couldn't care less about leverage and how that applies to arm strength and the length of a short sword to determine damage. I don't want real life. However, I also don't want the fighter to be able to lift his arms and fly into the air like superman, either. That's blatantly physically impossible. Similarly, I don't want a fighter to be able to swing his sword and in 6 seconds take a swing at 20 people within 15 feet of him. At least not until epic levels when he is just supernaturally good. There is a big difference between what we want and "real life + magic".
Within the scope of the overall mechanics, it's impossible to match real-world physics but that's not exactly what I'm saying. Using the 60-ft drop analogy, that's not a problem with a specific class not being magical or adhering to realism, that's a fault of the overall game and the HP sub-system. And actually, I'd rather that part BE more realistic. 60 ft. + falls SHOULD be near fatal and the rules would be better if they reflected it, not just a fist full of d6's every X amount of feet. It'd be better if it was something like "You lose 1/2 your HPs if you fall more than 40' and your dead if you fall 60' or more." No, what I'm talking about is holding classes like the Fighter and Rogue to the limits of reality that you were just describing. I'm not saying that mundane is wrong or bad or shouldn't be 99.9% of what the Fighter and Rogue are about. But I am saying is that sometime, somewhere down the road there should be ways of making these classes more magical in nature, by not having them spend an exceptional amount of resources or jump through hoops to obtain these fantasy-like qualities. IT doesn't mean that DMs have to accept them but it should be an option.
As for "magical" moves, I'm all for modules with magical maneuvers and demi-god births as a module. You should be able to play the game you like
Which is pretty much what we're asking for, some module to come out that a Fighter can plug effects and maneuvers into this aresnal, ala Tome of Battle style. This doesn't mean that he 1) MUST use the multiclass mechanic, 2) MUST use feats to gain these effects, or 3) MUST choose a very specific Background for these choices to be made. So were the DM to allow a D&D:Next style supplement (we'll call it Tome of Battle) to be used, a Fighter can look into that book, decide that he likes being able to immolate his weapon (Burning Blade manevuer) over Lunge and he might decide to take a maneuver that allows him toJump exceedingly far (Sudden Leap maneuver) in the same action as attacking or a maneuver that pushes through Resistances (Stone Hammer maneuver) or one that allows a short jaunt through shadows (Shadow Jaunt maneuver).
All of these are supernatural, and I'd suspect they wouldn't be in the PHB. But something down the road for the fantastic would be nice and not have to jump through different hoops to obtain.
Within the scope of the overall mechanics, it's impossible to match real-world physics but that's not exactly what I'm saying. Using the 60-ft drop analogy, that's not a problem with a specific class not being magical or adhering to realism, that's a
So, AD&D isn't D&D because a fighter might get a Book of Infinite spells, and 3e isn't D&D because a fighter could take a level of sorcerer and cast some spells, and 4e isn't D&D because a fighter could take a mult-class Warlock feat and cast Dire Radiance once per encounter. And D&D:NEXT isn't D&D because a fighter could take some feat or background and cast a cantrip or two.
A Book of Infinite Spells can cast magic missile. The fighter doesn't. A 3e or 4e character who has MULTI-CLASSED to sorcerer is no longer "a fighter." Duh. As for DDN, see Mearls' quote, above. Again, not me saying this. D&D says this. The design team says this. You can decide that your pawn moves as many times as you can sink a basketball shot, and you can even call it "chess," but that's not going to be supported by the rules of the game.
A Book of Infinite Spells can cast magic missile. The fighter doesn't.A 3e or 4e character who has MULTI-CLASSED to sorcerer is no longer "a fighter." Duh.As for DDN, see Mearls' quote, above. Again, not me saying this. D&D says this. The design
Within the scope of the overall mechanics, it's impossible to match real-world physics but that's not exactly what I'm saying. Using the 60-ft drop analogy, that's not a problem with a specific class not being magical or adhering to realism, that's a fault of the overall game and the HP sub-system. And actually, I'd rather that part BE more realistic. 60 ft. + falls SHOULD be near fatal and the rules would be better if they reflected it, not just a fist full of d6's every X amount of feet. It'd be better if it was something like "You lose 1/2 your HPs if you fall more than 40' and your dead if you fall 60' or more."
I've toyed with idea of making falls cause damage along a range of percentages. That would make them more dangerous and allow a first level character to match a 20th level character in terms of fall survival. I just don't have the time to devote to making it workable.
No, what I'm talking about is holding classes like the Fighter and Rogue to the limits of reality that you were just describing. I'm not saying that mundane is wrong or bad or shouldn't be 99.9% of what the Fighter and Rogue are about. But I am saying is that sometime, somewhere down the road there should be ways of making these classes more magical in nature, by not having them spend an exceptional amount of resources or jump through hoops to obtain these fantasy-like qualities. IT doesn't mean that DMs have to accept them but it should be an option.
I agree. I just think that unless the fighter/rogue is in epic levels, the abilities shouldn't be a part of the class itself, but rather a module or modules of some sort.
Which is pretty much what we're asking for, some module to come out that a Fighter can plug effects and maneuvers into this aresnal, ala Tome of Battle style. This doesn't mean that he 1) MUST use the multiclass mechanic, 2) MUST use feats to gain these effects, or 3) MUST choose a very specific Background for these choices to be made. So were the DM to allow a D&D:Next style supplement (we'll call it Tome of Battle) to be used, a Fighter can look into that book, decide that he likes being able to immolate his weapon (Burning Blade manevuer) over Lunge and he might decide to take a maneuver that allows him toJump exceedingly far (Sudden Leap maneuver) in the same action as attacking or a maneuver that pushes through Resistances (Stone Hammer maneuver) or one that allows a short jaunt through shadows (Shadow Jaunt maneuver).
All of these are supernatural, and I'd suspect they wouldn't be in the PHB. But something down the road for the fantastic would be nice and not have to jump through different hoops to obtain.
Yeah. I'm definately okay with that. I'd personally become giddy with happiness if they made a demi-god module where you could start playing sons of deities at first level and go from there. Them's some good supernatural fighters
I've toyed with idea of making falls cause damage along a range of percentages. That would make them more dangerous and allow a first level character to match a 20th level character in terms of fall survival. I just don't have the time to devote to
I'm waiting with anticipation for the next playtest packet,
But...
As I see it right now the Fighter is NOT competing with the Cleric and Wizard from level 11 upwards (neither is the Rogue, but that's not the point here).
So the "mundane only" Fighter has ALREADY failed.
Now, either the expand on what is allowed under the "mundane" to include superhuman but not supernatural capabilities (running faster, jumping higher, lifting more, blows which instantly kill etc) from lvl 11 onwards or they need to actually add supernatural abilities after lvl 10 and politely inform the "mundane only" crew that lvl 11 up is optional anyway and they can stick it.
It would be nice, though, to think that the Fighter is flexible enough and open enough as design space that we could see another Crusader or Swordsage (using Divine or Arcane supernatural manuevres) done in Next simply through optional systems rather than entirely new classes.
I'm waiting with anticipation for the next playtest packet, But...As I see it right now the Fighter is NOT competing with the Cleric and Wizard from level 11 upwards (neither is the Rogue, but that's not the point here).So the "mundane only" Fighter
Here's an interesting idea: Separate 'hit points' which are an abstract plot armor in a way in any case, from actual injuries taken.
Hit points being no more than bruises and blood loss, but add an option for broken bones, larger cuts, pierced tissue etc. which would be a bigger deal than just hit point loss.
I've seen some interesting implementations for that, so I know it can work.
OTOH, it's more rules and book-keeping and all that.
How do you feel about giving fighter NARRATIVE awesome at higher level? Say, x/day "you automatically crit" type stuff, or "during off-screen time you went to this lost temple and got this item you need" or, "It's just a flesh wound" kind of stuff.
Personally, I don't want to have too much narrative gameplay elements in DnD - others game already do that, but it's certainly a way to help a non-magical character.
One cool example comes from Dresden Files, where the really quite powerful wizard is in trouble, the non-magical character just happens to appear at the right place, at the right time. with a chainsaw.
Of course, you could make 'non-magical' it's own special thing, in form of a spell resistance, but that's a whole other thing.
Page does not exist! :-P[/quote]Interesting. I reloaded it and it worked, so... Here's an interesting idea: Separate 'hit points' which are an abstract plot armor in a way in any case, from actual injuries taken.Hit points being no more than bruises
Here's an interesting idea: Separate 'hit points' which are an abstract plot armor in a way in any case, from actual injuries taken.
Hit points being no more than bruises and blood loss, but add an option for broken bones, larger cuts, pierced tissue etc. which would be a bigger deal than just hit point loss.
I've seen some interesting implementations for that, so I know it can work.
OTOH, it's more rules and book-keeping and all that.
Yeah. The book keeping is why I stopped using such systems a long time ago. I'd rather just use the current method or that percentage of hit points lost method if I ever get the time to create it.
Page does not exist! :-P[/quote]Interesting. I reloaded it and it worked, so... Here's an interesting idea: Separate 'hit points' which are an abstract plot armor in a way in any case, from actual injuries taken.Hit points being no more than bruises
Maxperson, small (and not really germain to the thread) but in a strawman argument, the "strawman" is the poor version of the real argument, not the person making it. It could be the time here or the too much coffee, but it seems like you are using the term to mean the arguer rather than the (simplified to point of being an undair representation) argument.
No. When people here make an argument and people here alter that argument from what it originally was into "real life + magic", and then respond to their alteration, it's a clear Strawman.
And while I know no-one would say something like that (because it is nuts) I think that is what some of us hear when people talk about "mundane" fighters, because there is nothing "mundane" about them, and not just in a "well trained" way.
If what you hear is what you know no one would say, then you need to take a moment and clear your head so that you can see what is actually being said.
O.k. Let me try that again
You claiming that this is an example of a "straw man" argument is spot on. If that is what people are doing (and it may well be) then yes, an example of strawman.
I was not saying you were incorrect in atribution, just that the way you said it made it sound like the person doing it was the metaphorical "straw man". The phrase refers to the argument, not the person making it.
If you said something which was widely believed, but not based on fact and I said "that sounds like an old wise tale" and you said "errr, the phrase is 'old WIVE'S tale'" it would be similar. This post wasn't saying you were wrong, just your usage of that particalar phrase seemed a little odd. Also, not an attempt to criticise, just a "dude, check your zipper" type heads up.
No. When people here make an argument and people here alter that argument from what it originally was into "real life + magic", and then respond to their alteration, it's a clear Strawman. If what you hear is what you know no one would say, then yo
So, AD&D isn't D&D because a fighter might get a Book of Infinite spells, and 3e isn't D&D because a fighter could take a level of sorcerer and cast some spells, and 4e isn't D&D because a fighter could take a mult-class Warlock feat and cast Dire Radiance once per encounter. And D&D:NEXT isn't D&D because a fighter could take some feat or background and cast a cantrip or two.
A Book of Infinite Spells can cast magic missile. The fighter doesn't.
IIRC, the Book gave its owner the abilty to cast the spell it's open to. Each time he casts it, the page might turn, but he is casting a spell. The book needn't even be present.
Though I certainly agree about multi-classing and 5e feats missing the point.
In any case, the Fighter has never actually cast spells in D&D, even in 4e he used exploits, and could, perhaps, learn to use rituals, but never cast spells - which were, by definition, arcane powers, while the fighter's were all martial. And, the sort of 'magical' fighter that was brought up in this thread wouldn't be casting spells, either - no hand waving, chanting, casting time, interruptions or bat guano involved - just chanelling magic in some other, more fightery, way.
A Book of Infinite Spells can cast magic missile. The fighter doesn't.[/quote]IIRC, the Book gave its owner the abilty to cast the spell it's open to. Each time he casts it, the page might turn, but he is casting a spell. The book needn't even be
Desert Wind (Boost) [Fire] Level: Swordsage 1 Initiation Action: 1 swift action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: End of turn Your blade bursts into flame as it sweeps toward your foe in an elegant arc. A subtle yet precise twisting of your blade unlocks the power of flame. When you initiate this maneuver, fire trails from your melee weapon. For the rest of your turn, your melee attacks deal an extra 1d6 points of fire damage + 1 point per initiator level. This maneuver is a supernatural ability.
How would you equate this with a mundane manuever? It does more than trip, push, shove, or toss throw the barroom window. You mentioned a cost, what is that cost? Picking one or another is not a cost. It is simply picking one of many from a list.
Earlier I argued that such manuevers should be given to the gish classes only and that the gish classes should have less HP than a mundane fighter. But that was shot down as a tax.
As for giving these manuevers to gish classes only I would be content if these manuevers filled spell slots so that the gish becomes a true mix of fighter/magic user. Likewise those manuevers which are roguish/assassinesque can be given to those "gish" classes that are more like thief/magic users.
That just deals 1d6+1 point per level of extra damage for one round. Only thing supernatural about it is that it's fire.
In ToB's case, the cost was that it spent your swift action, in addition you couldn't re-use a maneuver without recovering them. An issue in late 3.5 was that non-magical types rarely had any use for swift actions anyway.
Sorry about butting in. I have a thing about ToB.
Wrong. The power deals 1d6+1 point per initiator level.
That just deals 1d6+1 point per level of extra damage for one round. Only thing supernatural about it is that it's fire. In ToB's case, the cost was that it spent your swift action, in addition you couldn't re-use a maneuver without recovering them.
In your D&D that's true, but not in everyone's. You don't get to be the one who decides how we all have to play D&D.
Yes, in everyone's. If you're playing a game in which fighters cast spells, it isn't D&D. D&D is a game with character classes, which do different things. The primary differentiation of the wizard class is that they cast spells, and fighters don't. That's not me saying this. It's Mearls, who has called class differentiation "the centerpiece of the game.". And the Design team. And every edition of the D&D rules, ever.
Again, some people seem to think "playstyle" includes options like "doesn't have hit points" or "is a freeform, unclassed game," or "doesn't have the six attributes." You can certainly make a game like that, loosely based on D&D. But it isn't D&D any more.
"Fighters master mundane tactics and weapon skills. They don’t need spells or some sort of external source of magical power to succeed. Fighters do stuff that is within the limits of mundane mortals. They don’t reverse gravity or shoot beams of energy." - Mike Mearls, Senior Designer, DDN.
So, what's the limit of "mundane tactics and weapon skills"? Are we going for the limits of what people have done in reality (which are further than some people believe or want, based on things posted on these forums)? How about the limits of Beowulf, R3K Guan Yu, Lancelot, Siegfried, or Robin Hood? Or should we allow Cuchullain, Achilles, Guts or Gilgamesh?
Yes, in everyone's. If you're playing a game in which fighters cast spells, it isn't D&D. D&D is a game with character classes, which do different things. The primary differentiation of the wizard class is that they cast spells, and fighters don't
Right. They have the perfect vehicle to use to add a module to the game that allows for magical fighter maneuvers. I'm just saying that those maneuvers should not be a part of the class itself, but only exist as a module.
Other than semantics and minor details (like having some other class feature rather than parry), what's really the difference between having a magical fighter manuever module and just having some kind of gish class?
One is a fighter and one is a spellblade or something. Class has meaning. If you start just throwing whatever you like into classes, class loses its meaning and you might as well just go classless and let people spend points on abilities.
I mean, badass-normal fighter and magical-sword-blasts fighter are fairly different concepts. Are they really so similar that they have to be the same class?
Other than semantics and minor details (like having some other class feature rather than parry), what's really the difference between having a magical fighter manuever module and just having some kind of gish class?[/quote]One is a fighter and one is
Right. They have the perfect vehicle to use to add a module to the game that allows for magical fighter maneuvers. I'm just saying that those maneuvers should not be a part of the class itself, but only exist as a module.
Other than semantics and minor details (like having some other class feature rather than parry), what's really the difference between having a magical fighter manuever module and just having some kind of gish class?
One is a fighter and one is a spellblade or something. Class has meaning. If you start just throwing whatever you like into classes, class loses its meaning and you might as well just go classless and let people spend points on abilities.
I mean, badass-normal fighter and magical-sword-blasts fighter are fairly different concepts. Are they really so similar that they have to be the same class?
No. That's the point. When you add magic to a fighter, it becomes a different class.
Other than semantics and minor details (like having some other class feature rather than parry), what's really the difference between having a magical fighter manuever module and just having some kind of gish class?[/quote]One is a fighter and one is
Once you got into 2nd and 3rd edition the removal of the traditional weaknesses of wizards meant that a fighter anywhere near balanced was going to be far beyond mundane in effect if not name. 4th did a good job with a martial power source. 1st had it pretty good because of a whole bunch of rules governming magic-users and illusionists that actually restrained them well.
Once you got into 2nd and 3rd edition the removal of the traditional weaknesses of wizards meant that a fighter anywhere near balanced was going to be far beyond mundane in effect if not name. 4th did a good job with a martial power source. 1st had i
Once you got into 2nd and 3rd edition the removal of the traditional weaknesses of wizards meant that a fighter anywhere near balanced was going to be far beyond mundane in effect if not name. 4th did a good job with a martial power source. 1st had it pretty good because of a whole bunch of rules governming magic-users and illusionists that actually restrained them well.
You're comparing apples and oranges. 2e and 3e wasn't balanced, so trying to use 2e and 3e to say that balanced fighters = magical is bupkis. 5e spell casters are already weaker than 3e and being tweaked all the time, so it's perfectly reasonable to think that fighters can (and should) stay mundane.
You're comparing apples and oranges. 2e and 3e wasn't balanced, so trying to use 2e and 3e to say that balanced fighters = magical is bupkis. 5e spell casters are already weaker than 3e and being tweaked all the time, so it's perfectly reasonable t
Once you got into 2nd and 3rd edition the removal of the traditional weaknesses of wizards meant that a fighter anywhere near balanced was going to be far beyond mundane in effect if not name. 4th did a good job with a martial power source. 1st had it pretty good because of a whole bunch of rules governming magic-users and illusionists that actually restrained them well.
You're comparing apples and oranges. 2e and 3e wasn't balanced, so trying to use 2e and 3e to say that balanced fighters = magical is bupkis. 5e spell casters are already weaker than 3e and being tweaked all the time, so it's perfectly reasonable to think that fighters can (and should) stay mundane.
I suppose we shall have to wait and see what the final product looks like. I would be surprised, which has happened before, if they decide to make a fighter highest DPR and best defenses and call that balanced without adding features to a fighter that appear impossible with mundane physics. BTW, 2nd and 3rd wasn't balanced because precisely the fact that fighters weren't supernatural/magical in ability. Wizards became that and clerics did as well by removing all the penalities and difficult parts of casting.
Very expensive reagants? Turns not rounds to cast spells? Aging or losing attributes? Attracting the attention of extraplanar critters? Pitiful HPs. Something like 40 hps for a level 15 wizard? Poor Saves in many categories? Most of that was gone. Which is why 2nd and 3rd wasn't balanced. Wizards and Clerics had all the cool tricks but none of the downfalls. This is what made 2nd and 3rd unbalanced. Not that the designers said "hey lets screw the fighter and rogue". So it is a fair comparison, your objections notwithstanding.
You're comparing apples and oranges. 2e and 3e wasn't balanced, so trying to use 2e and 3e to say that balanced fighters = magical is bupkis. 5e spell casters are already weaker than 3e and being tweaked all the time, so it's perfectly reasonable t
If we're looking for a fighter class that's entirely mundane (at least in flavor) and yet very well balanced against spellcaster classes, I feel like there must be SOME edition between 3rd and 5th worth looking at...
Seriously, the 4e fighter was a powerful class that remained completely mundane through EPIC tier. If we want to examine how this worked, it's fairly simple: first off, they unloaded almost all powerful non-combat spells to "rituals." Second, they nerfed many aspects of spells to make them fit in the tactics game better. (As a fairly simple example, the radius of Fireball was greatly reduced.) And third, they recognized that there's nothing inherently "supernatural" about dealing, withstanding, or avoiding a ton of damage.
5e is clearly taking a different view on spellcasters: look at Meteor Swarm, for example. Assuming the meteor damage doesn't stack, the damage is fairly mediocre for such a high-level spell. But the range is a MILE, which means the wizard can take out an entire enemy camp while he's still a speck on the horizon. Fly, teleport, and other iconic wizard spells are equally game-changing. That becomes the spellcaster's greatest niche at higher levels: changing the terms of engagement.
Can the fighter match a wizard in tactical situations? Of course. That same Meteor Swarm will barely make a dent on an equal-level fighter, and the fighter can probably kill the wizard in a round. (Possibly even in one swing.) Should a fighter have the ability to destroy an enemy camp from a mile away, in the name of "balance"? Of course not. I think this is where there's a hole in the current game which the "legacy" system is supposed to fill: a higher-level martial character needs ways to be as important in the exploration and social pillars as he is in the combat pillar.
If we're looking for a fighter class that's entirely mundane (at least in flavor) and yet very well balanced against spellcaster classes, I feel like there must be SOME edition between 3rd and 5th worth looking at...Seriously, the 4e fighter was a po
BTW, 2nd and 3rd wasn't balanced because precisely the fact that fighters weren't supernatural/magical in ability. Wizards became that and clerics did as well by removing all the penalities and difficult parts of casting.
No. They weren't balanced because spell casters had too much power.
No. They weren't balanced because spell casters had too much power.
BTW, 2nd and 3rd wasn't balanced because precisely the fact that fighters weren't supernatural/magical in ability. Wizards became that and clerics did as well by removing all the penalities and difficult parts of casting.
No. They weren't balanced because spell casters had too much power.
Or conversely, the fighters didn't have enough. One thing that is common in these games is power creep and ignoring/houseruling away penalties. Utility spells combined with effective combat spells will always trump swinging a sword. I mean unless you plan on restricting the spell list to what a fighter could do mundanely...
No. They weren't balanced because spell casters had too much power.[/quote]Or conversely, the fighters didn't have enough. One thing that is common in these games is power creep and ignoring/houseruling away penalties.Utility spells combined with ef
In your D&D that's true, but not in everyone's. You don't get to be the one who decides how we all have to play D&D.
Yes, in everyone's. If you're playing a game in which fighters cast spells, it isn't D&D.
Mearls was talking about the core, the required parts of the system. He was not saying that no options can or should exist for the classes to be more than their roots. He was just pointing out that the classes have to be designed to do what their roots do. A list of entirely optional magical maneuvers doesn't change the fighter class's abilities to fulfill its roots or to be entirely mundane. No one has to allow optional material they don't like. No one has to choose to use optional material they don't want to use. As I said before, you don't get to be the one who decides how we all have to play D&D. Not even Gygax got to decide that, and he was far more integral to the hobby than any one player or DM in the game's fan base.
Yes, in everyone's. If you're playing a game in which fighters cast spells, it isn't D&D.[/quote]Mearls was talking about the core, the required parts of the system. He was not saying that no options can or should exist for the classes to be more t
Right. They have the perfect vehicle to use to add a module to the game that allows for magical fighter maneuvers. I'm just saying that those maneuvers should not be a part of the class itself, but only exist as a module.
Other than semantics and minor details (like having some other class feature rather than parry), what's really the difference between having a magical fighter manuever module and just having some kind of gish class?
One is a fighter and one is a spellblade or something. Class has meaning. If you start just throwing whatever you like into classes, class loses its meaning and you might as well just go classless and let people spend points on abilities.
I mean, badass-normal fighter and magical-sword-blasts fighter are fairly different concepts. Are they really so similar that they have to be the same class?
No. That's the point. When you add magic to a fighter, it becomes a different class.
Wow. Then that's a crapload of classes for WotC to make. They have to not just make the fighter, but a version of the fighter with one magical ability, and then remake that same class with a different magical ability until they have versions of the fighter that have every different magical ability. And then do it again for fighter + 2 abilities. Or, they could let people use a light touch by offering optional magical maneuvers so people can decide if they want their fighter to have zero magic, 10% magic, 50% magic, etc.
Sorry about the snark, but you don't need to have different classes to add just a touch of magic to the martial classes. You just need to have options. A fair amount of class bloat can be eliminated through robust options. And, as long as they stay optional, no one is forced to use anything they don't want to.
Other than semantics and minor details (like having some other class feature rather than parry), what's really the difference between having a magical fighter manuever module and just having some kind of gish class?[/quote]One is a fighter and one is
Wow. Then that's a crapload of classes for WotC to make. They have to not just make the fighter, but a version of the fighter with one magical ability, and then remake that same class with a different magical ability until they have versions of the fighter that have every different magical ability. And then do it again for fighter + 2 abilities. Or, they could let people use a light touch by offering optional magical maneuvers so people can decide if they want their fighter to have zero magic, 10% magic, 50% magic, etc.
And that would be a fairly hefty Strawman. That is not my argument at all right there There is a big difference between fighter and fighter + magic being different classes, and every single magical ability requiring a different class. I said the former, not the latter.
Sorry about the snark, but you don't need to have different classes to add just a touch of magic to the martial classes.
If you have a class that is completely non-magical and you add magic, it is no longer the class it was. If people want to do that for their fighters, it should be optional, but not part of the "core" fighter.
And that would be a fairly hefty Strawman. That is not my argument at all right there ;) There is a big difference between fighter and fighter + magic being different classes, and every single magical ability requiring a different class. I said th
Wow. Then that's a crapload of classes for WotC to make. They have to not just make the fighter, but a version of the fighter with one magical ability, and then remake that same class with a different magical ability until they have versions of the fighter that have every different magical ability. And then do it again for fighter + 2 abilities. Or, they could let people use a light touch by offering optional magical maneuvers so people can decide if they want their fighter to have zero magic, 10% magic, 50% magic, etc.
And that would be a fairly hefty Strawman.
It would if I were asserting that was your opinion. It was just part of the snark, which I then apologized for. I know you've always been pretty rational in our discussions about the inclusion of options for classes to be more than their roots.
Sorry about the snark, but you don't need to have different classes to add just a touch of magic to the martial classes.
If you have a class that is completely non-magical and you add magic, it is no longer the class it was. If people want to do that for their fighters, it should be optional, but not part of the "core" fighter.
I disagree. I would agree with you if the added magic was automatically included in the class' abilities and either had to be opted-out of or couldn't be opted out of. However, options that must be opted-into do not impose upon the essence of the class. If they did, then one could easily say that certain feats that provide magic make a fighter character no longer a fighter. However, that's just not accurate, and it's equally inaccurate with optional material that is more directly related to the class itself.
And that would be a fairly hefty Strawman.[/quote]It would if I were asserting that was your opinion. It was just part of the snark, which I then apologized for. I know you've always been pretty rational in our discussions about the inclusion of op
How, exactly, is a "Flaming Sword" maneuver different from a flaming sword found on the ground? Either way, a previously "completely non-magical" class has suddenly become "magical".
How, exactly, is a "Flaming Sword" maneuver different from a flaming sword found on the ground?Either way, a previously "completely non-magical" class has suddenly become "magical".
Wow. Then that's a crapload of classes for WotC to make. They have to not just make the fighter, but a version of the fighter with one magical ability, and then remake that same class with a different magical ability until they have versions of the fighter that have every different magical ability. And then do it again for fighter + 2 abilities. Or, they could let people use a light touch by offering optional magical maneuvers so people can decide if they want their fighter to have zero magic, 10% magic, 50% magic, etc.
And that would be a fairly hefty Strawman.
It would if I were asserting that was your opinion. It was just part of the snark, which I then apologized for. I know you've always been pretty rational in our discussions about the inclusion of options for classes to be more than their roots.
Yeah. I got the appology. The reason I called it a Strawman is because you quoted my actual argument, and then the response was a twisting of it. That heavily implies that you were asserting the new argument to be the same as my actual argument. Anyway, it really doesn't matter. You acknowledged it and we can move on
I disagree. I would agree with you if the added magic was automatically included in the class' abilities and either had to be opted-out of or couldn't be opted out of.
The person who I was responding to with my comment asked me some questions. That aspect of this thread wasn't about the abilities as options, but how those abilities as part of the fighter class affected things.
However, options that must be opted-into do not impose upon the essence of the class.
I agree, but the portion of the thread you jumped into here wasn't about that
And that would be a fairly hefty Strawman.[/quote]It would if I were asserting that was your opinion. It was just part of the snark, which I then apologized for. I know you've always been pretty rational in our discussions about the inclusion of op
Um. A flaming sword has nothing to do with the class.
So what you are saying, essentially, is that a maneuver a DM could easily ban and a magic item a DM could easily ban, both of which produce the same end result, are completely different things?
Call me crazy here, but fighter waving a fiery sword around has altered his class quite a damn bit, regardless of how that sword ended up on fire.
So what you are saying, essentially, is that a maneuver a DM could easily ban and a magic item a DM could easily ban, both of which produce the same end result, are completely different things?Call me crazy here, but fighter waving a fiery sword arou
Is leaping 30 ft in the air magical? 50 ft? Is punching a hole through a solid wooden door magical? A 2 ft thick stone wall? Is being able to wrestle an ogre and win even though it is twice your size magical? A giant? A dragon? Is being able to perform incredible feats of athletics and endurance such as swimming for a week straight, holding your breath for an hour, or climbing an oiled marble wall magical?
These are all things I would like to see as available options for high level fighters but I don't consider them magical. They seem to be part of the genre. Do some people consider these magical capabilities?
I'm still confused.Is leaping 30 ft in the air magical? 50 ft?Is punching a hole through a solid wooden door magical? A 2 ft thick stone wall? Is being able to wrestle an ogre and win even though it is twice your size magical? A giant? A dragon?Is be
Um. A flaming sword has nothing to do with the class.
So what you are saying, essentially, is that a maneuver a DM could easily ban and a magic item a DM could easily ban, both of which produce the same end result, are completely different things?
Yes. You see, there are OTHER factors involved here that make it so. An ITEM has nothing to do with altering a CLASS.
Call me crazy here, but fighter waving a fiery sword around has altered his class quite a damn bit, regardless of how that sword ended up on fire.
You are factually in error. Try this little experiment. Have one of your fighters pick up a flaming sword. Then, go open your PHB and see if the fighter class has been altered to reflect that. If there is no alteration, then your class has not been altered. Now, your CHARACTER has been altered, but character =/= class.
So what you are saying, essentially, is that a maneuver a DM could easily ban and a magic item a DM could easily ban, both of which produce the same end result, are completely different things?[/quote]Yes. You see, there are OTHER factors involved h
You are factually in error. Try this little experiment. Have one of your fighters pick up a flaming sword. Then, go open your PHB and see if the fighter class has been altered to reflect that. If there is no alteration, then your class has not been altered. Now, your CHARACTER has been altered, but character =/= class.
Try this little experiment. Have one of your fighters take a Flaming Sword maneuver from Hypothetical Sourcebook. Then, go open your PHB and see if the fighter class has been altered to reflect that. If there is no alteration, then your class has not been altered.
Try this little experiment. Have one of your fighters take a Flaming Sword maneuver from Hypothetical Sourcebook. Then, go open your PHB and see if the fighter class has been altered to reflect that. If there is no alteration, then your class has
Can a fighter in your mind rip a trolls arm off and beat him to death? (see grendal)
If I want to make a mythic and legendary fighter, can I perdorm extreme acts of super heroism, and do amazing things normaly left to spells, as long as I keep to myth and legends of real worls heroes?
Can a fighter in your mind rip a trolls arm off and beat him to death? (see grendal)If I want to make a mythic and legendary fighter, can I perdorm extreme acts of super heroism, and do amazing things normaly left to spells, as long as I keep to myth
You are factually in error. Try this little experiment. Have one of your fighters pick up a flaming sword. Then, go open your PHB and see if the fighter class has been altered to reflect that. If there is no alteration, then your class has not been altered. Now, your CHARACTER has been altered, but character =/= class.
Try this little experiment. Have one of your fighters take a Flaming Sword maneuver from Hypothetical Sourcebook. Then, go open your PHB and see if the fighter class has been altered to reflect that. If there is no alteration, then your class has not been altered.
Except you guys are arguing for these abilities to be added to the fighter class IN THE BOOK in some form or other. Come up with a valid argument, will ya?
Edit: Have you given up on the non-functional "flaming sword alters a class" argument?
Try this little experiment. Have one of your fighters take a Flaming Sword maneuver from Hypothetical Sourcebook. Then, go open your PHB and see if the fighter class has been altered to reflect that. If there is no alteration, then your class has
Even if there were zero magical fighter maneuvers in the PHB, the fighter could still multiclass or use dabbler feats like the Hedge Wizard specialty (and I'll bet there will be a similar feat for dabbling in the new swordmage class) to get some magical abilities. I feel like that's kind of the point of having a class-based system with multiclassing: each class can be fairly rigid in what it does, because those players who want to blur the boundaries (e.g. a wizard that heals, or a fighter that uses magic) can multiclass to get that effect.
Even if there were zero magical fighter maneuvers in the PHB, the fighter could still multiclass or use dabbler feats like the Hedge Wizard specialty (and I'll bet there will be a similar feat for dabbling in the new swordmage class) to get some magi
Even if there were zero magical fighter maneuvers in the PHB, the fighter could still multiclass or use dabbler feats like the Hedge Wizard specialty (and I'll bet there will be a similar feat for dabbling in the new swordmage class) to get some magical abilities. I feel like that's kind of the point of having a class-based system with multiclassing: each class can be fairly rigid in what it does, because those players who want to blur the boundaries (e.g. a wizard that heals, or a fighter that uses magic) can multiclass to get that effect.
While they can do that, multiclass doesn't provide a variable dial for how much you want to dabble. It's very possible that someone may want their fighter to just have a single magical maneuver. At that point, multiclassing is like using a jackhammer to knock on a door.
While they can do that, multiclass doesn't provide a variable dial for how much you want to dabble. It's very possible that someone may want their fighter to just have a single magical maneuver. At that point, multiclassing is like using a jackhamm
Edit: Have you given up on the non-functional "flaming sword alters a class" argument?
No.
The only functional difference between "DM, may I have a sword that's on fire?" and "DM, may I have an ability that makes sword be on fire?" is that the first one usually doesn't consume a character resource.
Either way, there's a fighter out there doing magical things now.
No.The only functional difference between "DM, may I have a sword that's on fire?" and "DM, may I have an ability that makes sword be on fire?" is that the first one usually doesn't consume a character resource.Either way, there's a fighter out there
Even if there were zero magical fighter maneuvers in the PHB, the fighter could still multiclass or use dabbler feats like the Hedge Wizard specialty (and I'll bet there will be a similar feat for dabbling in the new swordmage class) to get some magical abilities. I feel like that's kind of the point of having a class-based system with multiclassing: each class can be fairly rigid in what it does, because those players who want to blur the boundaries (e.g. a wizard that heals, or a fighter that uses magic) can multiclass to get that effect.
While they can do that, multiclass doesn't provide a variable dial for how much you want to dabble. It's very possible that someone may want their fighter to just have a single magical maneuver. At that point, multiclassing is like using a jackhammer to knock on a door.
I would like there to be feats for that.
While they can do that, multiclass doesn't provide a variable dial for how much you want to dabble. It's very possible that someone may want their fighter to just have a single magical maneuver. At that point, multiclassing is like using a jackhamm
You are factually in error. Try this little experiment. Have one of your fighters pick up a flaming sword. Then, go open your PHB and see if the fighter class has been altered to reflect that. If there is no alteration, then your class has not been altered. Now, your CHARACTER has been altered, but character =/= class.
Try this little experiment. Have one of your fighters take a Flaming Sword maneuver from Hypothetical Sourcebook. Then, go open your PHB and see if the fighter class has been altered to reflect that. If there is no alteration, then your class has not been altered.
Except you guys are arguing for these abilities to be added to the fighter class IN THE BOOK in some form or other. Come up with a valid argument, will ya?
Have they? I haven't seen them arguing for these things not to be an option. I know I want it as an option, but I do want it in the book. I don't want have to buy a different book, or pay for a DDI sub and print off the pages so I can ask my DM if Ican use it.
Try this little experiment. Have one of your fighters take a Flaming Sword maneuver from Hypothetical Sourcebook. Then, go open your PHB and see if the fighter class has been altered to reflect that. If there is no alteration, then your class has
Even if there were zero magical fighter maneuvers in the PHB, the fighter could still multiclass or use dabbler feats like the Hedge Wizard specialty (and I'll bet there will be a similar feat for dabbling in the new swordmage class) to get some magical abilities. I feel like that's kind of the point of having a class-based system with multiclassing: each class can be fairly rigid in what it does, because those players who want to blur the boundaries (e.g. a wizard that heals, or a fighter that uses magic) can multiclass to get that effect.
While they can do that, multiclass doesn't provide a variable dial for how much you want to dabble. It's very possible that someone may want their fighter to just have a single magical maneuver. At that point, multiclassing is like using a jackhammer to knock on a door.
As I mentioned in the bolded part of that post, the "dabbler" feats provide a more fine-tuned way to get a single spell or maneuver or whatever without dedicating a whole level to it.
While they can do that, multiclass doesn't provide a variable dial for how much you want to dabble. It's very possible that someone may want their fighter to just have a single magical maneuver. At that point, multiclassing is like using a jackhamm
Even if there were zero magical fighter maneuvers in the PHB, the fighter could still multiclass or use dabbler feats like the Hedge Wizard specialty (and I'll bet there will be a similar feat for dabbling in the new swordmage class) to get some magical abilities. I feel like that's kind of the point of having a class-based system with multiclassing: each class can be fairly rigid in what it does, because those players who want to blur the boundaries (e.g. a wizard that heals, or a fighter that uses magic) can multiclass to get that effect.
While they can do that, multiclass doesn't provide a variable dial for how much you want to dabble. It's very possible that someone may want their fighter to just have a single magical maneuver. At that point, multiclassing is like using a jackhammer to knock on a door.
I would like there to be feats for that.
Again, with feats, it depends on how much you get? A feat is a fairly significant resource, especially at the moment where you only get 4 of them. If you don't get enough from the feat, then it feels like a concept tax. If they put any kind of attribute requirement on the feat, then it flat out becomes a concept tax. If you get too much from the feat, it's an OP feat. But optional maneuvers let you trade things of equal power, and they let you do it on a micro scale (just one magical maneuver) or on the macro scale (only magical maneuvers).
While they can do that, multiclass doesn't provide a variable dial for how much you want to dabble. It's very possible that someone may want their fighter to just have a single magical maneuver. At that point, multiclassing is like using a jackhamm
Even if there were zero magical fighter maneuvers in the PHB, the fighter could still multiclass or use dabbler feats like the Hedge Wizard specialty (and I'll bet there will be a similar feat for dabbling in the new swordmage class) to get some magical abilities. I feel like that's kind of the point of having a class-based system with multiclassing: each class can be fairly rigid in what it does, because those players who want to blur the boundaries (e.g. a wizard that heals, or a fighter that uses magic) can multiclass to get that effect.
While they can do that, multiclass doesn't provide a variable dial for how much you want to dabble. It's very possible that someone may want their fighter to just have a single magical maneuver. At that point, multiclassing is like using a jackhammer to knock on a door.
As I mentioned in the bolded part of that post, the "dabbler" feats provide a more fine-tuned way to get a single spell or maneuver or whatever without dedicating a whole level to it.
Except that a feat is currently a very significant resource. Sacrificing one martial maneuver to get a magical maneuver of equal power is a fair trade. As long as your DM allows you to pick magical maneuvers, you really shouldn't need to spend a feat to do that.
While they can do that, multiclass doesn't provide a variable dial for how much you want to dabble. It's very possible that someone may want their fighter to just have a single magical maneuver. At that point, multiclassing is like using a jackhamm
Except that a feat is currently a very significant resource. Sacrificing one martial maneuver to get a magical maneuver of equal power is a fair trade. As long as your DM allows you to pick magical maneuvers, you really shouldn't need to spend a feat to do that.
First off, if I had one quick-fix request for Next, it'd be for more feats. I see no reason you shouldn't get one every odd-numbered level or something.
Second, you're pretty limited in how many maneuvers you get too. Since the dabbler feats typically add a new ability rather than forcing you to swap (like the 4e multiclass feats did), it's probably worth the feat slot.
And I'm not sure what you mean by a "concept tax" in the previous post. Defining your concept is what feats are FOR. It is their entire purpose. You can use a feat to say "my fighter can harness some magical power" or "my fighter is great with a shield" or "my fighter is especially skilled at persuasion."
If it helps, think of it this way: a wizard (or even a swordmage) pays for his magical prowess by having fewer HP, worse armor, lower single-target melee damage, etc. The advantages he gains include better AOE damage, control effects, and so on. Now, if they just invented some magical maneuvers for the core fighter, in order to keep those abilities mechanically balanced they'd have to stick within the fighter's bailiwick. For example, you could have a Fiery Strike attack that adds a bit of damage, but having an AOE fire attack would probably be unbalanced. (If the core fighter can do that, who would want to play a swordmage?) But if the fighter has to pay a "feat tax" or even a "class level tax" to access those magical abilities, it's okay for the abilities to step outside the fighter's traditional role. Meaning that a fighter who gains access to magical powers via feats or multiclassing is actually more distinct and mechanically interesting than a fighter who just had access to fighter maneuvers that were magical in flavor but served the same role as other fighter maneuvers mechanically.
First off, if I had one quick-fix request for Next, it'd be for more feats. I see no reason you shouldn't get one every odd-numbered level or something.Second, you're pretty limited in how many maneuvers you get too. Since the dabbler feats typically
Except that a feat is currently a very significant resource. Sacrificing one martial maneuver to get a magical maneuver of equal power is a fair trade. As long as your DM allows you to pick magical maneuvers, you really shouldn't need to spend a feat to do that.
Second, you're pretty limited in how many maneuvers you get too. Since the dabbler feats typically add a new ability rather than forcing you to swap (like the 4e multiclass feats did), it's probably worth the feat slot.
Arcane dabbler is a concept tax because of the attribute requirement. I'll discuss that below, so I'd like to ignore that objection just for the moment. I do agree with you that a feat that adds two extra abilities is a viable feat. Of course, if you just made a list of optional magical maneuvers, then you could simply create a feat that grants 2 maneuvers and leave the question of magical or not up to the individual playgroups.
And I'm not sure what you mean by a "concept tax" in the previous post. Defining your concept is what feats are FOR. It is their entire purpose. You can use a feat to say "my fighter can harness some magical power" or "my fighter is great with a shield" or "my fighter is especially skilled at persuasion."
A concept tax is when you are required to spend a resource that you shouldn't need to spend in order to fulfill your character concept. Concept taxes can involve feats, backgrounds, attribute scores, or any other limited resource.
Examples: 1) Attribute requirements on feats are a concept tax because they require you to have an attribute of a certain level (if you're point-buying, you'll see this tax even more clearly through having to pay out your points to meet the attribute prereq.) to take a feat. 2) The original DDN two weapon fighting feat. Anyone should be able to be a two weapon fighter and not have to spend a feat. In the current playtest, they can (although I wish they'd stuck with the original feat's rules for 2 attacks at half damage). 3) Proficiency with the whip. As a special weapon you need to blow a feat to be proficient with it. 4) Requiring someone to spend a feat just so they can cast an iceball instead of a fireball (not the option to cast it either way, but just being able to only cast it as an iceball).
Now, if they just invented some magical maneuvers for the core fighter, in order to keep those abilities mechanically balanced they'd have to stick within the fighter's bailiwick.
That's specifically what I'm asking for. It makes sense to me that fighters might learn magic that relates directly to what they do. As a class that relies on melee weapons to do their thing, fighters face the threat of disarm constantly. It makes a lot of sense that a fighter could learn to recall a disarmed weapon to their hand. That kind of magic makes total sense for a fighter to want to learn.
Second, you're pretty limited in how many maneuvers you get too. Since the dabbler feats typically add a new ability rather than forcing you to swap (like the 4e multiclass feats did), it's probably worth the feat slot.[/quote]Arcane dabbler is a con
A concept tax is when you are required to spend a resource that you shouldn't need to spend in order to fulfill your character concept. Concept taxes can involve feats, backgrounds, attribute scores, or any other limited resource.
Examples: 1) Attribute requirements on feats are a concept tax because they require you to have an attribute of a certain level (if you're point-buying, you'll see this tax even more clearly through having to pay out your points to meet the attribute prereq.) to take a feat. 2) The original DDN two weapon fighting feat. Anyone should be able to be a two weapon fighter and not have to spend a feat. In the current playtest, they can (although I wish they'd stuck with the original feat's rules for 2 attacks at half damage). 3) Proficiency with the whip. As a special weapon you need to blow a feat to be proficient with it. 4) Requiring someone to spend a feat just so they can cast an iceball instead of a fireball (not the option to cast it either way, but just being able to only cast it as an iceball).
I see what you're saying here. I bolded what I think is the key distinction: resources you shouldn't need to spend. In my mind, the attribute requirements in Next so far aren't really a tax; they're just making sure your character meets the basic requirements for that concept to make in-game sense. If your character is below average intelligence (under 11), they're just plain not smart enough to cast even basic wizard cantrips. (Of course, I think there should be an equivalent feat for learning charisma-based sorcerer spells, but that's a separate point.) It doesn't matter how strong and tough you are; in a typical D&D world like FR, you can't just punch the Weave into doing what you want.
I agree with you on two-weapon fighting, whip proficiency, and "iceballs." Those last two examples are tricky, though, because being too liberal on those kinds of cases can lead to problems too. For example, fire resistance or immunity is pretty common in monsters, so a "forceball" might be a lot more powerful than a "fireball." Likewise, if you didn't need to blow a feat on the whip, it might be overpowered. The solution to cases like this, I think, lies in a combination of fair DM houseruling and careful game design. Two-weapon fighting and whips should be designed so that anyone who's decent with weapons should be able to use them at a basic level, but all the cool tricks can be unlocked with feats; the "iceball" seems like a clear house rule to me, and as a DM I'd readily grant that to a player who was obviously doing it for roleplaying rather than power-gaming reasons.
Now, if they just invented some magical maneuvers for the core fighter, in order to keep those abilities mechanically balanced they'd have to stick within the fighter's bailiwick.
That's specifically what I'm asking for. It makes sense to me that fighters might learn magic that relates directly to what they do. As a class that relies on melee weapons to do their thing, fighters face the threat of disarm constantly. It makes a lot of sense that a fighter could learn to recall a disarmed weapon to their hand. That kind of magic makes total sense for a fighter to want to learn.
I see what you're saying here and it makes a lot of sense. The tough part here is making sure that these magical maneuvers don't marginalize the "mundane" fighter. In the example you give, if there aren't any mundane chained gauntlets or other ways for non-magical fighters to avoid being disarmed, this maneuver effectively creates a penalty for any fighter who DOESN'T want to be magical. But it's definitely worth consideration.
As a guiding principle, though, I think I'd still like to see the design for the fighter focus on purely mundane abilities. Just in design terms, I think the clearer the core concept they're working with, the better-tuned the class will be. As I think I said early in this thread, though, having magical maneuvers in a sidebar next to the mundane maneuvers certainly wouldn't be a problem for me, and I think that's a solution that would satisfy most people. (I'd venture to say that anyone who wants those maneuvers banned from the PHB, or conversely anyone who wants them blended with other maneuvers so you can't tell them apart, is verging on demanding that others play the way they like.)
I see what you're saying here. I bolded what I think is the key distinction: resources you shouldn't need to spend. In my mind, the attribute requirements in Next so far aren't really a tax; they're just making sure your character meets the basic req
As a guiding principle, though, I think I'd still like to see the design for the fighter focus on purely mundane abilities. Just in design terms, I think the clearer the core concept they're working with, the better-tuned the class will be. As I think I said early in this thread, though, having magical maneuvers in a sidebar next to the mundane maneuvers certainly wouldn't be a problem for me, and I think that's a solution that would satisfy most people. (I'd venture to say that anyone who wants those maneuvers banned from the PHB, or conversely anyone who wants them blended with other maneuvers so you can't tell them apart, is verging on demanding that others play the way they like.)
1>Is leaping 30 ft in the air magical? 1b>50 ft? 2>Is punching a hole through a solid wooden door magical? 2b>A 2 ft thick stone wall? 3>Is being able to wrestle an ogre and win even though it is twice your size magical? A giant? A dragon? 4>Is being able to perform incredible feats of athletics and endurance such as swimming for a week straight, holding your breath for an hour, or climbing an oiled marble wall magical?
These are all things I would like to see as available options for high level fighters but I don't consider them magical. They seem to be part of the genre. Do some people consider these magical capabilities?
!> No, 1b> Yes, 2> No, 2b> Yes, 3> Orgre No, Giant or a dragon Yes, 4> Yes
To me it is just common sense, but obviously alot of people would rather play that way fine, but make it optional not core.
!> No, 1b> Yes, 2> No, 2b> Yes, 3> Orgre No, Giant or a dragon Yes, 4> YesTo me it is just common sense, but obviously alot of people would rather play that way fine, but make it optional not core.
To me it is just common sense, but obviously alot of people would rather play that way fine, but make it optional not core.
OK, it looks like you're going in general with the "physically possible for a real human" = "non-magical". Which is fine. But I really want you to explain why jumping 30 feet in the air is non-magical in that scenario.
OK, it looks like you're going in general with the "physically possible for a real human" = "non-magical". Which is fine. But I really want you to explain why jumping 30 feet in the air is non-magical in that scenario.
1>Is leaping 30 ft in the air magical? 1b>50 ft? 2>Is punching a hole through a solid wooden door magical? 2b>A 2 ft thick stone wall? 3>Is being able to wrestle an ogre and win even though it is twice your size magical? A giant? A dragon? 4>Is being able to perform incredible feats of athletics and endurance such as swimming for a week straight, holding your breath for an hour, or climbing an oiled marble wall magical?
These are all things I would like to see as available options for high level fighters but I don't consider them magical. They seem to be part of the genre. Do some people consider these magical capabilities?
!> No, 1b> Yes, 2> No, 2b> Yes, 3> Orgre No, Giant or a dragon Yes, 4> Yes
To me it is just common sense, but obviously alot of people would rather play that way fine, but make it optional not core.
Your common sense is now defining Beowulf as a magic user. I'm fairly sure that if you're running a game where spellcasters are on a power level equivalent to Lina Inverse and higher than Merlin, then warriors who can at least be equal to Beowulf, Lancelot, R3K Guan Yu, or Robin Hood aren't exactly unreasonable.
!> No, 1b> Yes, 2> No, 2b> Yes, 3> Orgre No, Giant or a dragon Yes, 4> YesTo me it is just common sense, but obviously alot of people would rather play that way fine, but make it optional not core. [/quote]Your common sense is now defining Beowulf as
If answer to all of lawolf's questions isn't yes, abitrary restrictions are being applied.
Compare: Is a particular use of magic magical, or god-like. Where do you draw _that_ line?
This is not to say that arbitrary restrictions are bad, per se. It just should be noted that they ARE arbitrary, and that reality is unrealistic.
If answer to all of lawolf's questions isn't yes, abitrary restrictions are being applied. Compare: Is a particular use of magic magical, or god-like. Where do you draw _that_ line? This is not to say that arbitrary restrictions are bad, per se. It j
1>Is leaping 30 ft in the air magical? 1b>50 ft? 2>Is punching a hole through a solid wooden door magical? 2b>A 2 ft thick stone wall? 3>Is being able to wrestle an ogre and win even though it is twice your size magical? A giant? A dragon? 4>Is being able to perform incredible feats of athletics and endurance such as swimming for a week straight, holding your breath for an hour, or climbing an oiled marble wall magical?
These are all things I would like to see as available options for high level fighters but I don't consider them magical. They seem to be part of the genre. Do some people consider these magical capabilities?
!> No, 1b> Yes, 2> No, 2b> Yes, 3> Orgre No, Giant or a dragon Yes, 4> Yes
To me it is just common sense, but obviously alot of people would rather play that way fine, but make it optional not core.
first, if sense were common more people would have it...
Second, you say leaping thirty feet is non magical but fifty is, at what distance does it become magical? You Say solid wood (like oak I would guess) would be non magical but stone is magic? I have seen martial artest int he real world break stone, and most people without very specilized training can't punch through oak? Ogers are ok to wrestile but giants are not, even though they can be very similar sized?
You seam to have your own thoughts on what a fighter can anc can not do that is not even consistant with itself, but you think everyone should then be limited to it.
If answer to all of lawolf's questions isn't yes, abitrary restrictions are being applied. Compare: Is a particular use of magic magical, or god-like. Where do you draw _that_ line? This is not to say that arbitrary restrictions are bad, per se. It just should be noted that they ARE arbitrary, and that reality is unrealistic.
If you look close enough you can find the most important rule "Fighter's can't have nice things"
!> No, 1b> Yes, 2> No, 2b> Yes, 3> Orgre No, Giant or a dragon Yes, 4> YesTo me it is just common sense, but obviously alot of people would rather play that way fine, but make it optional not core. [/quote]first, if sense were common more people woul
To me it is just common sense, but obviously alot of people would rather play that way fine, but make it optional not core.
OK, it looks like you're going in general with the "physically possible for a real human" = "non-magical". Which is fine. But I really want you to explain why jumping 30 feet in the air is non-magical in that scenario.
I really wanted to say Yes that is magical, but I am or was trying to flex a little.
OK, it looks like you're going in general with the "physically possible for a real human" = "non-magical". Which is fine. But I really want you to explain why jumping 30 feet in the air is non-magical in that scenario.[/quote]I really wanted to say
Jumping 30 feet in the air sure isn't natural. With armor maybe 3 feet.
Strength 10 people can jump 3 feet without a die roll, when not armored.
On the other hand, while even the most athletic human probably can't jump beyond 7ft, they can TRAVEL, if there's a foothold, quite a bit of more than that in 6 seconds. See Parkour. Most of those people have str/dex in the 12-14 range, and no more, if not less. Also, usually the things they do are things they can succeed most of the time, meaning a roll LESS than 10 on a 20-side die - more likely a roll less than 5.
However, that's in real life. Not in stories. Now, to make rules work properly, you have two options:
1. You can acknowledge you're in a story and add a mechanism to represent that - fate points, stunt bonuses or somesuch.
2. You can acknowledge that these people CAN, in fact, do these amazing things, and have the rules support those.
Strength 10 people can jump 3 feet without a die roll, when not armored. On the other hand, while even the most athletic human probably can't jump beyond 7ft, they can TRAVEL, if there's a foothold, quite a bit of more than that in 6 seconds. See Par
Extreme maneuvers might be better categorized as Legendary or Mythic without being Magical.
An attack which does fire instead of slashing damage may actual be magical, I think its useful to differentiate.
Extreme maneuvers might be better categorized as Legendary or Mythic without being Magical.An attack which does fire instead of slashing damage may actual be magical, I think its useful to differentiate.
Jumping 30 feet in the air sure isn't natural. With armor maybe 3 feet.
Strength 10 people can jump 3 feet without a die roll, when not armored.
On the other hand, while even the most athletic human probably can't jump beyond 7ft, they can TRAVEL, if there's a foothold, quite a bit of more than that in 6 seconds. See Parkour. Most of those people have str/dex in the 12-14 range, and no more, if not less. Also, usually the things they do are things they can succeed most of the time, meaning a roll LESS than 10 on a 20-side die - more likely a roll less than 5.
However, that's in real life. Not in stories. Now, to make rules work properly, you have two options:
1. You can acknowledge you're in a story and add a mechanism to represent that - fate points, stunt bonuses or somesuch.
2. You can acknowledge that these people CAN, in fact, do these amazing things, and have the rules support those.
Right, leaping 30 feet across or up is magical. Parkour is climbing and jumping down. My contention is that fighters ought to be able to do amazing things that cannot be explained with just physics. It might not be magic but it's not quite natural or normal is my point.
Strength 10 people can jump 3 feet without a die roll, when not armored. On the other hand, while even the most athletic human probably can't jump beyond 7ft, they can TRAVEL, if there's a foothold, quite a bit of more than that in 6 seconds. See Par
Right, leaping 30 feet across or up is magical. Parkour is climbing and jumping down. My contention is that fighters ought to be able to do amazing things that cannot be explained with just physics. It might not be magic but it's not quite natural or normal is my point.
30 feet across is just world class athlete record holder... ok 29 ft 6 in..with a gust of wind.
And 60 foot with a pole for vaulting (see ancient celtic acrobatic fighting style for a context to use this).
Vertical Pole Vaulting is more like 20 feet.
30 feet across is just world class athlete record holder... ok 29 ft 6 in..with a gust of wind.And 60 foot with a pole for vaulting (see ancient celtic acrobatic fighting style for a context to use this).Vertical Pole Vaulting is more like 20 feet.
1>Is leaping 30 ft in the air magical? 1b>50 ft? 2>Is punching a hole through a solid wooden door magical? 2b>A 2 ft thick stone wall? 3>Is being able to wrestle an ogre and win even though it is twice your size magical? A giant? A dragon? 4>Is being able to perform incredible feats of athletics and endurance such as swimming for a week straight, holding your breath for an hour, or climbing an oiled marble wall magical?
These are all things I would like to see as available options for high level fighters but I don't consider them magical. They seem to be part of the genre. Do some people consider these magical capabilities?
!> No, 1b> Yes, 2> No, 2b> Yes, 3> Orgre No, Giant or a dragon Yes, 4> Yes
To me it is just common sense, but obviously alot of people would rather play that way fine, but make it optional not core.
Your common sense is now defining Beowulf as a magic user. I'm fairly sure that if you're running a game where spellcasters are on a power level equivalent to Lina Inverse and higher than Merlin, then warriors who can at least be equal to Beowulf, Lancelot, R3K Guan Yu, or Robin Hood aren't exactly unreasonable.
Some of the abilities I described are in now way magical, but they are beyond the realm of strict realism. Those abilities often come up in fantasy media and literature including mythology (Lancelot had the strength of ten men, Beowulf ripped off the arms of a troll, etc). I think the D&D fighter (at higher levels) should be equal to the fighter's of myth and legend, or at the very least have options in the core rules to choose such abilities.
Afterall, it is unrealistic to believe that a regular human could ever defeat a 12ft tall Ogre let alone creatures like 30 ft long dragons and golems made of solid iron. People already bend their suspension of disbelief in so many ways while playing D&D and just don't realize it because that is the way things have always been (tradition!). I'd simply like to see a change that allows for the fighter (and other martial classes) to be what the PHB has always said they could be - a hero from myth and legend.
!> No, 1b> Yes, 2> No, 2b> Yes, 3> Orgre No, Giant or a dragon Yes, 4> YesTo me it is just common sense, but obviously alot of people would rather play that way fine, but make it optional not core. [/quote]Your common sense is now defining Beowulf as
Right, leaping 30 feet across or up is magical. Parkour is climbing and jumping down. My contention is that fighters ought to be able to do amazing things that cannot be explained with just physics. It might not be magic but it's not quite natural or normal is my point.
30 feet across is just world class athlete record holder... ok 29 ft 6 in..with a gust of wind.
And 60 foot with a pole for vaulting (see ancient celtic acrobatic fighting style for a context to use this).
Vertical Pole Vaulting is more like 20 feet.
Hey, if we are gonna allow tech to help you could hang glide for quite a bit!
30 feet across is just world class athlete record holder... ok 29 ft 6 in..with a gust of wind.And 60 foot with a pole for vaulting (see ancient celtic acrobatic fighting style for a context to use this).Vertical Pole Vaulting is more like 20 feet.[/
If you think the wizard gets more 'fun' out of the class because you think it has more effect than a fighter (neither of which premise I agree with, but YMMV)... Play a wizard. Stop trying to turn the fighter into one.
Happily, the Design Team agrees with this principle. So has every single edition of D&D, ever. If you wish to repudiate the principle, you are looking for a different game.
If you think the wizard gets more 'fun' out of the class because you think it has more effect than a fighter (neither of which premise I agree with, but YMMV)...Play a wizard. Stop trying to turn the fighter into one.Happily, the Design Team agrees
If you think the wizard gets more 'fun' out of the class because you think it has more effect than a fighter (neither of which premise I agree with, but YMMV)... Play a wizard. Stop trying to turn the fighter into one.
Happily, the Design Team agrees with this principle. So has every single edition of D&D, ever. If you wish to repudiate the principle, you are looking for a different game.
Please read through the list of abilities I asked for high level fighter's to have the option to acquire. Do any of those seem very "wizardly" to you?
Please read through the list of abilities I asked for high level fighter's to have the option to acquire. Do any of those seem very "wizardly" to you?
People want the fighter to be awesome, but not in the same way than the wizard.
You should feel awesome the wizard lets you carry his gear. Low strength score, realistic encumberance, mule and donkey moduel banned by DM and there will be a need for a fighter or 2.
You should feel awesome the wizard lets you carry his gear. Low strength score, realistic encumberance, mule and donkey moduel banned by DM and there will be a need for a fighter or 2.
Transcendant heros arent always born that way... if your spell caster needs to be born awesome to become more competant than gods like the game has always allowed.. lets make sure that wish spell and his overpowered neighbors becomes ONLY accessible via a module too.
And even many who were born "special" didnt know exaclty why ie retconning seems common in legend and myth (ie the explanations come up with after the fact).
Transcendant heros arent always born that way... if your spell caster needs to be born awesome to become more competant than gods like the game has always allowed.. lets make sure that wish spell and his overpowered neighbors becomes ONLY accessible
Your assertion is bunk. When CuhCulaine and Beowulf or Lancelot and Herakles... start reading books and using incantations let us know.
Or in other words.
STOP misrepresenting other people who you obviously dont understand.
Oh, we understand, most D&D characters are not born demigods.
They should bring out an epic "module", so at 1st level your character can strangle snakes in his cot as a toddler, and that sort of thing.
Transcendant heros arent always born that way... if your spell caster needs to be born awesome to become more competant than gods like the game has always allowed.. lets make sure that wish spell and his overpowered neighbors becomes ONLY accessible via a module too.
And even many who were born "special" didnt know exaclty why ie retconning seems common in legend and myth (ie the explanations come up with after the fact).
I never understoop the reasoning behind allowing people to play demigods (Gandalf, Circe, Merlin) if they were wizards but not if they were fighters. Hell Beowulf and Lancelot weren't even demigods. And most stuff a D&D wizard could do would put those mythological caster demigods to shame.
Oh, we understand, most D&D characters are not born demigods.They should bring out an epic "module", so at 1st level your character can strangle snakes in his cot as a toddler, and that sort of thing. [/quote]Transcendant heros arent always born that
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conductPlease keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal a
Transcendant heros.. arent always born that way...
The ones you specifically named were. Maybe you should choose your examples with more care if you don't want them used against you.
Sorry Beowulf very much not even a Demigod.. CuhCulain had large amounts of story dedicated to learning the feats which made him awesome... and Lancelot huge amounts of dedication to becoming the best. Ie diirectly about advancement.
The examples are also mostly from the 2e players handbook under fighter.
The ones you specifically named were. Maybe you should choose your examples with more care if you don't want them used against you.[/quote]Sorry Beowulf very much not even a Demigod.. CuhCulain had large amounts of story dedicated to learning the fe
Transcendant heros.. arent always born that way...
The ones you specifically named were. Maybe you should choose your examples with more care if you don't want them used against you.
Sorry Beowulf very much not even a Demigod.
Because mortals can do what he did?
The ones you specifically named were. Maybe you should choose your examples with more care if you don't want them used against you.[/quote]Sorry Beowulf very much not even a Demigod. [/quote]Because mortals can do what he did?
Transcendant heros.. arent always born that way...
The ones you specifically named were. Maybe you should choose your examples with more care if you don't want them used against you.
Sorry Beowulf very much not even a Demigod.
Because mortals can do what he did?
Thats the issue, you are right that mortals cannot do what Beowuld did. Mortals can't cast spells either. Fantasy characters from myth and literature can though. D&D gave Beowulf and other such "superhuman mortals" as examples of what the fighter is on a number of occasions. Why is it then unreasonable to expect the fighter to be able to recreate such a character (at high levels)?
The ones you specifically named were. Maybe you should choose your examples with more care if you don't want them used against you.[/quote]Sorry Beowulf very much not even a Demigod. [/quote]Because mortals can do what he did? [/quote]Thats the issu
D&D fighters have always been supernatural. A D&D fighter can kill a dragon. I sincerely doubt that a real world olympic fencer can even think about trying to kill a fire-breathing intelligent tyrannosaur. Those who believe that a mundane high level fighter ever existed in D&D are deluding themselves.
D&D fighters have always been supernatural. A D&D fighter can kill a dragon. I sincerely doubt that a real world olympic fencer can even think about trying to kill a fire-breathing intelligent tyrannosaur. Those who believe that a mundane high level
But, not withstanding a spell, a mortal cannot jump a 50-foot chasm.
Here, take this longsword, go fight an elephant.
Now, quadruple the elephant's size and give it armor plating equal to an Abrams tank, agility and natural weapons of a great cat despite it's impossible size and a flame thrower. Then tell me how you kill it with your longsword, mortal.
Of course they can.But, not withstanding a spell, a mortal cannot jump a 50-foot chasm. [/quote]Here, take this longsword, go fight an elephant. Now, quadruple the elephant's size and give it armor plating equal to an Abrams tank, agility and natural
They are not supernatural at low levels but they have always been that at high levels. An high level fighter always resembled Cuchulain more than Conan.
They are not supernatural at low levels but they have always been that at high levels. An high level fighter always resembled Cuchulain more than Conan.
But, not withstanding a spell, a mortal cannot jump a 50-foot chasm.
Here, take this longsword, go fight an elephant.
Now, quadruple the elephant's size and give it armor plating equal to an Abrams tank, agility and natural weapons of a great cat despite it's impossible size and a flame thrower. Then tell me how you kill it with your longsword, mortal.
Easy, if you know what you are doing, you can kill most animals on this planet with a good-sized knife, let alone magic weapons, and buddies doing stuff.....
Of course they can.But, not withstanding a spell, a mortal cannot jump a 50-foot chasm. [/quote]Here, take this longsword, go fight an elephant. Now, quadruple the elephant's size and give it armor plating equal to an Abrams tank, agility and natural
But, not withstanding a spell, a mortal cannot jump a 50-foot chasm.
Here, take this longsword, go fight an elephant.
Now, quadruple the elephant's size and give it armor plating equal to an Abrams tank, agility and natural weapons of a great cat despite it's impossible size and a flame thrower. Then tell me how you kill it with your longsword, mortal.
He didn't. The magic user that crafted his gear, the wizard doing most the damage/distracting, and the cleric that buffed and healed him so he didn't die killed the dragon. He just provided the "not dying quickly" to the fight. Honestly, It had more to do with the shield then the longsword.
Of course they can.But, not withstanding a spell, a mortal cannot jump a 50-foot chasm. [/quote]Here, take this longsword, go fight an elephant. Now, quadruple the elephant's size and give it armor plating equal to an Abrams tank, agility and natural
A dragon is not an animal. It is more intelligent than most humans. Senevri is right. Either you are superhuman or you can't kill a dragon in a fair fight.
A dragon is not an animal. It is more intelligent than most humans. Senevri is right. Either you are superhuman or you can't kill a dragon in a fair fight.
Modern concepts of dragons ofcourse are scaled differently than back in the day... it actually means we need to scale the fantasy hero appropriately too.
Modern concepts of dragons ofcourse are scaled differently than back in the day... it actually means we need to scale the fantasy hero appropriately too.
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conductPlease keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal a
Seriously? An argument on the plausibility of dragon slaying? Sweet, I'm in.
I think Steely Dan is less concerned with whether or not it's possible to kill an armoured murder beast than he is with how people are permitted to go about doing it.
Run up the dragon's foreleg, flip onto its head, stab it in the eye = You're doing it wrong!
Shoot it through a chink in its scales from two hundred yards 'cause that's the way ol' Bard did it = Totally plausible. Totally.
I'll say this much... I hate anime-esque maneuvers, but that doesn't make me right in telling someone else at another table that they're wrong for liking such things.
My table can be gritty, their table can be flashy. Everybody gets what they want. If I go over to his table, I'll ninja-run with the best of 'em. He comes to mine, he'll adapt to the mood and style of my game. That's how it should be.
With that said, however, my personal preference is for very lively, but more "realistic" style combats. There was this story I once read by Nancy Varien Berbereck (yes, even I have read a Dragonlance anthology) that created a very vivid image of combat against a dragon. That one stuck with me.
Honestly, if you want a system that provides options for running more "realistic" combats... D&D is not exactly the best choice available.
Edit: Also, erleni, from what I've seen of your opinions on the direction the game should take, you of all people should be able to understand the opinions of an individual that has very set ideas regarding what they like and what they do not like in their games.
Seriously? An argument on the plausibility of dragon slaying? Sweet, I'm in.I think Steely Dan is less concerned with whether or not it's possible to kill an armoured murder beast than he is with how people are permitted to go about doing it.Run up t
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.Continued discussion in this manner can result in administrative action on your account.You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizard
@ planar rambler: I was not stating where I wanted the game to go, just that it was in the past. I opened a new thread to discuss different visions of an high level fighter and hope it will be useful.
@ planar rambler: I was not stating where I wanted the game to go, just that it was in the past. I opened a new thread to discuss different visions of an high level fighter and hope it will be useful.
@ planar rambler: I was not stating where I wanted the game to go, just that it was in the past. I opened a new thread to discuss different visions of an high level fighter and hope it will be useful.
Seriously? An argument on the plausibility of dragon slaying? Sweet, I'm in.
I think Steely Dan is less concerned with whether or not it's possible to kill an armoured murder beast than he is with how people are permitted to go about doing it.
Run up the dragon's foreleg, flip onto its head, stab it in the eye = You're doing it wrong!
Shoot it through a chink in its scales from two hundred yards 'cause that's the way ol' Bard did it = Totally plausible. Totally.
Both cool, depending.
...go easy with the Tolkien brush...
Both cool, depending....go easy with the Tolkien brush...
No, nothing to do with liking it, fighters are not inherently supernatural, deal with it.
But, there's no real reason to forbid players from ever choosing to be.
No, nothing to do with liking it, fighters are not inherently supernatural, deal with it.[/quote]But, there's no real reason to forbid players from ever choosing to be.
No, nothing to do with liking it, fighters are not inherently supernatural, deal with it.
But, there's no real reason to forbid players from ever choosing to be.
I think the 4e description of the martial source summed it up nicely. Martial characters aren't supenatural, but they can perform superhuman feats. Supernatural or not is a "flavor" thing. A wizard and a cleric could each burn foes with fire, but they have very different ideas about how they're doing it - the cleric is not an arcanist, no matter that he's performing feats that rival the wizard's. By the same token, the fighter might perform feats that rival what a barbarian or swordmage or warden or so forth might do, but they do so in different ways, ways that are not, strictly speaking, supernatural. No spells get cast, no primal spirits invoked, but the enemy gets cut to ribbons just the same.
No, nothing to do with liking it, fighters are not inherently supernatural, deal with it.[/quote]But, there's no real reason to forbid players from ever choosing to be.[/quote]I think the 4e description of the martial source summed it up nicely. Mar
D&D fighters have always been supernatural. A D&D fighter can kill a dragon. I sincerely doubt that a real world olympic fencer can even think about trying to kill a fire-breathing intelligent tyrannosaur. Those who believe that a mundane high level fighter ever existed in D&D are deluding themselves.
That's not supernatural. That's fantasy. There's a difference.
That's not supernatural. That's fantasy. There's a difference.
But, not withstanding a spell, a mortal cannot jump a 50-foot chasm.
Here, take this longsword, go fight an elephant.
Now, quadruple the elephant's size and give it armor plating equal to an Abrams tank, agility and natural weapons of a great cat despite it's impossible size and a flame thrower. Then tell me how you kill it with your longsword, mortal.
Show me a first level fighter who can do all of that. We mortals are first level........if that.
Of course they can.But, not withstanding a spell, a mortal cannot jump a 50-foot chasm. [/quote]Here, take this longsword, go fight an elephant. Now, quadruple the elephant's size and give it armor plating equal to an Abrams tank, agility and natural
There is a big difference between fighter and fighter + magic being different classes, and every single magical ability requiring a different class. I said the former, not the latter.
