PDA

View Full Version : [D&D 3.5] Straining the Limits of Mundane when making a Powerful Warrior



JeminiZero
2010-05-16, 02:01 AM
One of the main complaints about D&D 3.5 is that Melee does not scale nearly as well as Casters at high levels. And in turn, one of the more of quoted examples of how D&D should be like, is Conan the Barbarian.

But Conan seems to live in a world where magic is not nearly as strong as D&D. But this extends beyond the weaker mages and into every other aspect of combat in Conan's World. Cimmeria does not seem to have creatures like the Tarrasque, a monster so friggin strong it can level continents, and so friggin tough that mortal armies cannot even hope to slow it down (except by offering themselves as munchables).

In short, D&D isn't Cimmeria. It isn't even remotely close (at least not without banning a whole lot of stuff, and copious rule zero). Everything is just so much stronger. The net result is that many Melee classes (either official or homebrew) that can keep up with casters tends to do stuff so fantastic, it stops being a mundane badass, and starts looking more like a Warrior with some magic. Case in point: Psychic Warriors. Even the recently publicized Warmarked has many abilities that are apparently magical, even if the label beside them says (Ex). (The fact that you don't need to choose the abilities is besides the point here. All I'm saying is that the creators of the Warmarked felt it necessary to include such abilities.*).

*Note: I am not saying that there is anything wrong with a being a Warrior with Magic, or that the Warmarked is a bad class since it appears to be one. Many people play these classes and are perfectly happy with them.

Now, I am most familiar with 2 tabletop game systems: D&D 3.5 and M&M 2e. M&M 2e as some of you might be aware, is meant to simulate the superhero genre. So the point I am trying to make, will be coloured somewhat by this. But the point is thus: D&D is a world where Casters can reshape reality and High Level Enemy Monsters can level cities. If you want a 100% Mundane Badass Warrior (i.e. excluding PsyWars and the like) that can go against this sort of thing, you are going to have to think bigger than Conan. Instead, you probably want him to be something more like the Incredible Hulk.

This goes beyond mere brute force, consider the following comparison between the Hulk and the Tarrasque:

Similiarities:
1) Both are insanely strong/tough monstrousities that can flatten mortal armies and level cities.

Cosmetic Differences:
1) One is red, the other is green.
2) The Tarrasque is (usually) bigger, and has more limbs.
3) The Tarrasque will try to eat you whereas the Hulk will not.

Mechanical Differences:
1) The Hulk can punch like a gattling gun if he really wants so.
2) The Hulk can leap from continent to continent. Or he can jump sufficiently high to punch jets out of the sky. The Tarrasque on the other hand is a sitting duck against anything that flies, although it can dash really fast, once per minute or so.
3) The Hulk can rip out fragments of the ground, and hurl it at flying enemies. The Tarrasque despite comparable strength cannot replicate this, although common hill giant can.
(Incidentally, if the hulk uses a sufficiently big rock, M&M treats it as an area attack, which automatically hits, reflex for half)
4) The Hulk can clap his hands together so hard, it creates a shockwave that blows enemies in the vicinity away.
5) The Hulk can stomp the ground so hard it creates an earthquake.

And so on and so forth. In short, the greatest mechanical difference between the Hulk and the Tarrasque, is that the Hulk can do far more things with his brute strength. Now, ToB has *some* things that try to provide such options for the Mundane Badass. (Any of the extra damage single strike maneuvers, Stone Dragon's Earthquake strike, Iron Heart Surge).

But it still falls short in some repects. (I.e. no jumping 200 ft into the sky and bringing a flyer down. Even a Warblade needs either some means of flying, or at least, the ability chuck siege weaponry as most ranged attacks can't cut it against Windwall... But this is neither here not there.)

TL;DR: If we wanted to build a 100% Mundane Badass Warrior in D&D, that could get by without *any* apparent magic, he would probably start to look something like the Incredible Hulk. And ToB already emulates this to some degree.

But for those who do want to play totally Mundane Warriors, would it be acceptable if you could in fact, fight almost exactly like the Hulk (excluding stylistic choices like weapons and armor or the lack thereof)? Would it strain the suspension of disbelief if your Warrior could jump 200 ft into the sky, and then slam his Greataxe repeatedly into that pesky Wizard? Or if he could reshape the scenery with his bare hands, and fling portions of it his foes?

Learnedguy
2010-05-16, 02:19 AM
But for those who do want to play totally Mundane Warriors, would it be acceptable if you could in fact, fight almost exactly like the Hulk (excluding stylistic choices like weapons and armor or the lack thereof)? Would it strain the suspension of disbelief if your Warrior could jump 200 ft into the sky, and then slam his Greataxe repeatedly into that pesky Wizard? Or if he could reshape the scenery with his bare hands, and fling portions of it his foes?

Depends on your views of Charles Atlas Superpowers. I mean, you're not a badass normal anymore, but your powers aren't magic or anything. It's just very intense training.

Good examples of Charles Atlas Superpowers are One Piece (Zoro, Sanji, Usopp), especially the later chapters, when the "normals" starts to throw buildings at each other.

Personally, I find Charles Atlas Super humorous and flavourful:smallbiggrin:

Melamoto
2010-05-16, 03:13 AM
I agree with this idea. I think that to make it happen, you need feat chains that extend up to high levels, giving constant bonuses that help achieve these things. Like, say, a "Leap Skyward" feat that lets them jump incredibly high, with a 2-3 feat long chain taken over the course of levels 10-20 or so. Or perhaps feats that let them stretch the rules of combat; so for example, letting them attack multiple enemies along the route of a charge, or taking "Full Attacks of Opportunity". So fighters would have a use for all those bonus feats, and they could ultimately decimate lower level creatures and characters, perhaps achieving quadratic scaling status. The only downside of this is that it would make Fighters overpowered compared to other melee classes. Unless they were given bonus feats too, of course.

IcarusWings
2010-05-16, 04:22 AM
I think that there is nothing wrong with stretching reality, as long as there is no magic.

e.g. moving very very very fast, leaping into the air 200ft? fine. Making your sword have FIRE! no.

Drakevarg
2010-05-16, 04:30 AM
Personally the main reason I dislike the way things like ToB work is that alot of the stances and whatnot (I'm not actually familiar with the system, since I just find it conceptually distasteful. As such my knowledge comes mostly from playing alongside them in PbP) don't seem to have much of a connection between what they're doing and what happens as a result. (i.e., Take pose X, now target Y is easier to hit by EVERYONE.)

One reason I play Fighters alot is that they are mechanically VERY simple. As they should be. If I wanted a laser gun with 78 settings I'd play a Wizard. I want a sword. Which is comprised of a sharp and pointy piece of metal with a non-sharp section for holding. It's function is you put the sharp and pointy parts into other thing's fleshy bits and they go away. Very easy to keep track of.

What the Tarrasque has, and what you would want to go with (in my opinion) if you want a Fighter than can stand up to casters, is to take the relevent numbers in making things be dead and you be not dead, and make them very very high.

I've heard alot of arguements in the past that "melee fighters want more options in combat than 'I full attack again'". NO I BLOODY DON'T. I want to hit this snarling thing in front of me until it goes away and get back to the story.

Eldariel
2010-05-16, 04:44 AM
What the Tarrasque has, and what you would want to go with (in my opinion) if you want a Fighter than can stand up to casters, is to take the relevent numbers in making things be dead and you be not dead, and make them very very high.

Know what the issue here is? Tarrasque sucks. It might hurt, but it really, really does. Anything without spells on those levels is merely a toy, not a player. Level 9 Wizard could defeat the Tarrasque without real risk to himself quite consistently (How? Allip.).

The Tarrasque cannot threaten a Wizard outside an Anti-Magic Field. He simply doesn't have the options required for Wizard to not be immune to everything he can throw at him. And that's really the bottomline in the "mundane sucks"-issue; the problem of warriors isn't that their numbers are too low. It's that they don't have the relevant options to get through various magical issues, while casters have no trouble at all finding a spell to get through mundane issues.


I've heard alot of arguements in the past that "melee fighters want more options in combat than 'I full attack again'". NO I BLOODY DON'T. I want to hit this snarling thing in front of me until it goes away and get back to the story.

Well, there's an exception to every rule, but I've heard a lot to the contrary from a lot of people myself included. Every guy in games I've played has generally decided to play Fighter for a dozen levels, grow dead bored and switch to Warblade.

Greenish
2010-05-16, 04:49 AM
Personally the main reason I dislike the way things like ToB work is that alot of the stances and whatnot (I'm not actually familiar with the system, since I just find it conceptually distasteful. As such my knowledge comes mostly from playing alongside them in PbP) don't seem to have much of a connection between what they're doing and what happens as a result. (i.e., Take pose X, now target Y is easier to hit by EVERYONE.)They do have fluff descriptions on what you do (such as shout instructions to allies).

One reason I play Fighters alot is that they are mechanically VERY simple. As they should be. If I wanted a laser gun with 78 settings I'd play a Wizard. I want a sword. Which is comprised of a sharp and pointy piece of metal with a non-sharp section for holding. It's function is you put the sharp and pointy parts into other thing's fleshy bits and they go away. Very easy to keep track of.Whatever tickles your fancy, but your sentiment is hardly universal.

What the Tarrasque has, and what you would want to go with (in my opinion) if you want a Fighter than can stand up to casters, is to take the relevent numbers in making things be dead and you be not dead, and make them very very high.You can make a charger to deal enough damage to kill everything in Monster Manuals 1 to 4 in one round. That hardly seems to be a solution to anything though.

I've heard alot of arguements in the past that "melee fighters want more options in combat than 'I full attack again'". NO I BLOODY DON'T. I want to hit this snarling thing in front of me until it goes away and get back to the story.You aren't exactly the only melee fighter.

Drakevarg
2010-05-16, 04:50 AM
Know what the issue here is? Tarrasque sucks. It might hurt, but it really, really does. Anything without spells on those levels is merely a toy, not a player. Level 9 Wizard could defeat the Tarrasque without real risk to himself quite consistently (How? Allip.).

The Tarrasque cannot threaten a Wizard outside an Anti-Magic Field. He simply doesn't have the options required for Wizard to not be immune to everything he can throw at him. And that's really the bottomline in the "mundane sucks"-issue; the problem of warriors isn't that their numbers are too low. It's that they don't have the relevant options to get through various magical issues, while casters have no trouble at all finding a spell to get through mundane issues.

And this is why I go out of my way to make spellcasters miserable.

Speaking of which, next time my party gets together I'm murdering the sorcerer. Simple as that.


You aren't exactly the only melee fighter.

Nor are the people who present this arguement. What makes me wrong and them right?

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-16, 05:15 AM
Nor are the people who present this arguement. What makes me wrong and them right?
Nothing. Then again, if fighters had 300 options, and one of them was your style, wouldn't that satisfy both views?

In short? More options doesn't need to remove the option to be simple.

crazedloon
2010-05-16, 06:05 AM
well in all truth these things are very possible, It just requires the proper feat choices as well as as only a little DM assistance.

The DMG has rules for hardness and hit points. Use this this to break the ground to pieces to cause difficult terrain, or create weapons to use to fight your enemy.

leaping dragon and a few other feats will boost your jump checks (not to hard to get it around +40) which allows you to make rather high jump, add feats such as battle jumper and roof jumper to do a lot of damage.

of course there are more options and ToB does make things easier but a lot of the problems for a fighter is all the things you can do are very rule intensive (so you need a good knowledge of them) as opposed to a simple standard action of a mage.

Greenish
2010-05-16, 06:12 AM
leaping dragon and a few other feats will boost your jump checks (not to hard to get it around +40) which allows you to make rather high jump, add feats such as battle jumper and roof jumper to do a lot of damage.Jumping 200' into the air is DC 800 jump check.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2010-05-16, 06:17 AM
Goliath Fighter 6, Dungeoncrasher ACF, Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Knockback, Brutal Throw, Rock Hurling. Perfect for an E6 game (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=352719), because this is probably the most dangerous mundane warrior possible in that context. Otherwise, trade Rock Hurling for Cleave and get ten levels of War Hulk.

crazedloon
2010-05-16, 06:25 AM
Jumping 200' into the air is DC 800 jump check.

yes, however I find such a feat silly.

If you want to play a mundane warrior doing great things, do not play in a high fantasy world.

lets take your example of the hulk to a much more broad approach. Look at the world where hulk lives.
-high level psions: Jean Gray, Prof X, ect who can bend minds and the world around them
-high powered mages: scarlet witch, Dr Strange
-ToB users: Wolverine (yes those are tiger claw maneuvers) Gambit (desert wind) Dare Devil (diamond mind) ect
-Magic Item users (artificers) : Nick fury, Mr Fantastic
-Racial templates: The hulk (his abilities do not come from training but inborn power)
-Acquired Templates: The Juggernaut (demons are awesome)

than you have your simple fighter
The Captain. What can he do?
-he is stronger, faster, smarter than a normal human (heroic stats)
-he knows a lot of combat maneuvers (feats)
-he knows a few special tricks (ToB feats picked up)

But really as fighters in DnD when it comes down to it he is really really weak. He can beat low tier (power wise) supers through smart planning and use of the field of combat (which comes down to a player thinking about combat) not abilities (which you are attempting to emulate)

If you ask me this is the problem with most fighters. They expect to win with a sharp stick. That is not how a fighter wins he does it with his head first. You are in a world with vastly superior beings, use your head and get some tricks whether it be the trap set hours before the combat or some magic items. Also friends help (i.e. this is a group game)

If you don't want to do that than play a barbarian and insist you play in some Conan wanna-be game. Normal DnD is not meant for you

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-16, 06:34 AM
yes, however I find such a feat silly.

If you want to play a mundane warrior doing great things, do not play in a high fantasy world.

lets take your example of the hulk to a much more broad approach. Look at the world where hulk lives.
-high level psions: Jean Gray, Prof X, ect who can bend minds and the world around them
-high powered mages: scarlet witch, Dr Strange
-ToB users: Wolverine (yes those are tiger claw maneuvers) Gambit (desert wind) Dare Devil (diamond mind) ect
Wolverine uses regeneration and has grafts, as well. Daredevil has Blindsight.


-Magic Item users (artificers) : Nick fury, Mr FantasticDon't forget Tony Stark


-Racial templates: The hulk (his abilities do not come from training but inborn power)
-Acquired Templates: The Juggernaut (demons are awesome)

than you have your simple fighter
The Captain. What can he do?
-he is stronger, faster, smarter than a normal human (heroic stats)
-he knows a lot of combat maneuvers (feats)
-he knows a few special tricks (ToB feats picked up)He also is a magic item user, with an indestructible shield.


But really as fighters in DnD when it comes down to it he is really really weak. He can beat low tier (power wise) supers through smart planning and use of the field of combat (which comes down to a player thinking about combat) not abilities (which you are attempting to emulate)

If you ask me this is the problem with most fighters. They expect to win with a sharp stick. That is not how a fighter wins he does it with his head first. You are in a world with vastly superior beings, use your head and get some tricks whether it be the trap set hours before the combat or some magic items. Also friends help (i.e. this is a group game)

If you don't want to do that than play a barbarian and insist you play in some Conan wanna-be game. Normal DnD is not meant for you
I find the bolded mindset offensive. "normal D&D" is a game built from the ground up to be mutable and changeable.

And if a fighter can only win with 17 hours of advance planning and foreknowledge...

Well, he's kinda screwed when his opponents can see the future.

Greenish
2010-05-16, 06:43 AM
yes, however I find such a feat silly.What feat? :smallconfused:

crazedloon
2010-05-16, 06:44 AM
Wolverine uses regeneration and has grafts, as well. Daredevil has Blindsight.
regen = devout spirit healing maneuvers
blindsight = hear the air


Don't forget Tony Stark
He also is a magic item user, with an indestructible shield.
of course I am not going to list them all (and it is broken all the time)


I find the bolded mindset offensive. "normal D&D" is a game built from the ground up to be mutable and changeable.

And if a fighter can only win with 17 hours of advance planning and foreknowledge...

Well, he's kinda screwed when his opponents can see the future.

I am sorry it is a little blunt, let me clarify. A non tailored game of DnD where even the basics (i.e.) phb is available is not meant for you. With well meaning DMs/PCs or class/ability restrictions you can make a perfectly fun game with normal fighters shining without uber optimization.

Indeed the more basic you get the less viable the fighter gets....

Also here is a rather ironic twist. A fighter expects to be able to walk into a fight and win without preparation? But a wizard is expected to have scryed 10 times, communed 3 times, set up contingencies, summoned a few friends and than tailored a list for an encounter. Thus the reason they win? But why can the fighter not do the same thing? Indeed for him it is harder to do since it requires more effort, a little more gold and some RPing (we wouldn't want that would we) but when it gets to the fight if he too has prepared than he stands a better chance.

Now I am not going to say a fighter can beat a wizard (we all know this debate it would be dumb to derail this thread for that) however that is only because a lot of the options for a wizard is made easy by simply having them spelled out in a single spell.

Want to grapple well? Black tentacles
Want to hide well? Invisibility
Want to learn something about someone without meeting them? Scry
ect

but for many of these they can be done without being a wizard they are just not as easily done or have as many things on the same character (the above examples took 3 spells but may take 2+ characters)

Grapple? well built fighter
Hide? Rogue with max hide and item selection
Learn things? Gather info and some RPing

What ToB does in my eyes is allow some things to be simply spelled out for the fighter so they do not need to jump through hoops to get what they need. What this thread seems to want is just that, a simple way to jump through the hoops


What feat? :smallconfused:

the feat of jumping 200' (as non magical but a normal "martial" thing)

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-16, 07:06 AM
regen = devout spirit healing maneuvers
Incorrect. Wolverine can take a bullet to his brain, get thrown through a wood chipper, and then incinerated in a furnace. While he is out? He'll heal. He has Regeneration, or at the very least, a very high Fast Healing.


blindsight = hear the airThat's blindsense. Not blindsight. Which means that now daredevil misses what he's aiming at half the time. 1/4 with blindfighting.

Nope, that's not daredevil either. Have you actually read the comics you describe?


of course I am not going to list them all (and it is broken all the time)



I am sorry it is a little blunt, let me clarify. A non tailored game of DnD where even the basics (i.e.) phb is available is not meant for you.

Indeed the more basic you get the less viable the fighter gets....
And your solution? Fiat until you have Fighter McStabby, the psychic instrument of DM Fiat, who always has the perfect trap set.

When the fighter needs that to compete? He's not competing. The style of play you describe is how highly intelligent characters with the ability to divine the future act. In other words? Wizards.



Also here is a rather ironic twist. A fighter expects to be able to walk into a fight and win without preparation? But a wizard is expected to have scryed 10 times, communed 3 times, set up contingencies, summoned a few friends and than tailored a list for an encounter. Thus the reason they win? But why can the fighter not do the same thing? Indeed for him it is harder to do since it requires more effort, a little more gold and some RPing (we wouldn't want that would we) but when it gets to the fight if he too has prepared than he stands a better chance.
Oh, that's simple. The wizard has a primary stat of intelligence, and class features which directly contribute to that.

Fighter? He needs UMD, half his WBL on scrolls, and DM Fiat by generous roleplaying help, to even begin to approach what a wizard can do with a good night's sleep, an hour of preparation, and a couple rounds of casting. Then the wizard, who didn't waste tons of gold on trying to copy another class, can use his WBL to augment his class features.

See where this is going? No amount of "RP" will discover mechanical solutions without mechanical answers... or Fiat. If the DM wants to say, "why yes, Fighty McStabby, since you asked around so well, and had such a good plan, here you go, have this information", that's fine. That's also Fiat. The DM without fiat would say, "Make a gather information check, with a +2 circumstance bonus for a good plan."


Now I am not going to say a fighter can beat a wizard (we all know this debate it would be dumb to derail this thread for that) however that is only because a lot of the options for a wizard is made easy by simply having them spelled out in a single spell.There are over 600 spells in the Player's handbook alone. All the options are in a single spell? :smallamused:


Want to grapple well? Black tentacles
Want to hide well? Invisibility
Want to learn something about someone without meeting them? Scry
ect

but for many of these they can be done without being a wizard they are just not as easily done or have as many things on the same character (the above examples took 3 spells but may take 2+ characters)Exactly. That is why a fighter is flat out inferior as exists. He can try as hard as he possibly can, devote crazy resources to a singular task... And then a caster will surpass him in that task with 2 spells.


Grapple? well built fighterWell built fighters can't grapple against freedom of movement.


Hide? Rogue with max hide and item selectionWhich will fail against blindsight, touchsight, mindsight, etc.


Learn things? Gather info and some RPingWhich will not gather any info, and isn't always available. For example, if we're going RPing? Let's say you're on a time crunch. Do you have the HOURS that Gather info takes?

It's not just that a wizard can do what the other classes do. In most cases, the wizard does them BETTER than the specialist. Which is why mundane isn't ever going to match up without a rebuild. You can't make most heroes with mundane only.


What ToB does in my eyes is allow some things to be simply spelled out for the fighter so they do not need to jump through hoops to get what they need. What this thread seems to want is just that, a simple way to jump through the hoopsExcept that it doesn't.

It allows inferior things to be spelled out for the fighter, so that he has more ways to be inferior. ToB does not allow for the OP's idea to make fighters more like the Hulk.

The OP asked for a Harley, and you're offering him a Power Wheels.

Morty
2010-05-16, 07:22 AM
I think people are approaching it from a wrong direction. If we want mundane people to be able to beat magic users, then perhaps it's magic users who need to be less ridiculously omnipotent. Otherwise, the attempts to bring the "mundane" characters to their level quickly become magic by any other name.

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-16, 07:40 AM
I think people are approaching it from a wrong direction. If we want mundane people to be able to beat magic users, then perhaps it's magic users who need to be less ridiculously omnipotent. Otherwise, the attempts to bring the "mundane" characters to their level quickly become magic by any other name.

On the other hand, if magic is nerfed too much, it's mundane.

crazedloon
2010-05-16, 07:41 AM
Incorrect. Wolverine can take a bullet to his brain, get thrown through a wood chipper, and then incinerated in a furnace. While he is out? He'll heal. He has Regeneration, or at the very least, a very high Fast Healing.

That's blindsense. Not blindsight. Which means that now daredevil misses what he's aiming at half the time. 1/4 with blindfighting.

Nope, that's not daredevil either. Have you actually read the comics you describe?

wow you seem very defensive of me attempting to place a rather broad example to a few character... yes there are better ways to represent their abilities in DnD I am sorry for not doing it Wo is me? :smallannoyed:


And your solution? Fiat until you have Fighter McStabby, the psychic instrument of DM Fiat, who always has the perfect trap set.

When the fighter needs that to compete? He's not competing. The style of play you describe is how highly intelligent characters with the ability to divine the future act. In other words? Wizards.

ok this is just not thought out and a poor argument.... You seem to think a highly intelligent character must be a wizard. This is not true at all, many of the worlds great minds were not scientists or mathematicians (RL equivalents to wizards) but were generals and warriors.

He is not divining the future he is just asking the correct NPCs the correct questions. Having PC NPC interaction that does not involve hack and slash is not fiat, that is called Role playing and that is what this game is about. You are playing a game which expects the characters to move around a world and interact with said world, not just sit in one place until the wizard is done talking to the DM for an hour, telporting and killing a target. If you want to play that sort of game than you are Roll playing and of course a fighter will never have a role in that game.


Fighter? He needs UMD, half his WBL on scrolls, and DM Fiat by generous roleplaying help, to even begin to approach what a wizard can do with a good night's sleep, an hour of preparation, and a couple rounds of casting. Then the wizard, who didn't waste tons of gold on trying to copy another class, can use his WBL to augment his class features.

ok again talking to NPCs to find out things is not Fiat that is part of the game.....
Also this is not a **** measuring contest between the fighter and a wizard and you play in groups for a reason (i.e. to cover eachothers weaknesses) so yay a wizard can help the fighter by doing those things which cost money while the Fighter talks to NPCs or progresses the plot.



See where this is going? No amount of "RP" will discover mechanical solutions without mechanical answers... or Fiat. If the DM wants to say, "why yes, Fighty McStabby, since you asked around so well, and had such a good plan, here you go, have this information", that's fine. That's also Fiat. The DM without fiat would say, "Make a gather information check, with a +2 circumstance bonus for a good plan."

that is not Fiat that is how the game works....
If you go to the corner store and ask the desk clerk how to get to the next corner store and he tells you, that is not DM fiat that is how people act. This is a game which emulates life. If your DM does not reward Role-playing than once again you are Roll-playing which is a different beast entirely

and your example is fiat because the DM has made an arbitrary addition to your Gather info check. Which actually shows me quite clearly that you Roll-play




Well built fighters can't grapple against freedom of movement.

but he can when his group wizard cast dispell magic on the freedom of movement (once again a team game)



Which will fail against blindsight, touchsight, mindsight, etc.

darkstalker will stop all but mindsight and touchsight, the later of which can be dealt with by dispel psionics (from local wizard/psion)

mindsight is a rather specific feat which means your DM has decided he would like other options to be the way around or through the encounter.


Which will not gather any info, and isn't always available. For example, if we're going RPing? Let's say you're on a time crunch. Do you have the HOURS that Gather info takes?
Hours only if you want to Roll play it. Most DMs who enjoy Role playing will allow a short NPC conversation to give useful info without an actual test. Most cliche games start this way, stranger walks into tavern sees group gives them quest. Congratulations you just did a gather info check without the role and without hours to get the info.



It allows inferior things to be spelled out for the fighter, so that he has more ways to be inferior. ToB does not allow for the OP's idea to make fighters more like the Hulk.

The OP asked for a Harley, and you're offering him a Power Wheels.

yes it does, he want to attack like a Gatling gun there are plenty of build which abuse the many attacks given by certain maneuvers combined with extra full round action and more.

you want to throw heavy things grab hulking hurler (not ToB but it was one of the tings hulk does)

you want to cause earthquakes and throw people away from you, all those can be done via ToB just add a little flavor change (there are maneuvers which do effects similar if not exactly like the above powers)


On the other hand, if magic is nerfed too much, it's mundane.

what is your definition of mundane?

Morty
2010-05-16, 07:44 AM
On the other hand, if magic is nerfed too much, it's mundane.

That may be, but even if it's true - which I'd personally argue - high-level D&D magic has a long way to go before it becomes mundane.

Runestar
2010-05-16, 08:05 AM
When I think of epic fighters (and warblades by that extension), Hulk doesn't come to mind. Rather, more of wuxia-style fighting. :smallredface:

Granted, I admit to picking up ToB only after I read this comic, which is why I fell in love with ToB immediately. :smallcool:

http://www.mangafox.com/manga/the_celestial_zone_i/

http://www.mangafox.com/manga/the_celestial_zone_i/v10/c040/6.html

Philistine
2010-05-16, 08:18 AM
I think that there is nothing wrong with stretching reality, as long as there is no magic.

e.g. moving very very very fast, leaping into the air 200ft? fine. Making your sword have FIRE! no.
I find this amusing, because a flaming sword is actually possible (though impractical) in the mundane world, whereas a human jumping 200' into the air is not. Plus - someone who calls himself "merlin" is saying "don't use magic"? Oh, the irony.

On the other hand, if magic is nerfed too much, it's mundane.
How do you figure that? If anything, I'd say that adding any kind of meaningful difficulty or drawbacks to the process of creating radical, reality-warping effects would make magic less mundane. Adding some sort of price or problem associated with the use of magic - such that it's no longer obviously the best answer for everything - ought to make it more special, not less, when it's actually used.

Plus, it'd go some way toward creating a balance between ZOMGCASTERS!!11!!11!!1!!!!!!11111 and the poor, pitiful melee types. (Not "restoring" a balance, because you cannot restore something that never existed.)

Foryn Gilnith
2010-05-16, 08:21 AM
Somebody earlier mentioned Captain America. According to Wikipedia, these are his powers, as far as I can tell...

Immune to alcohol (poison immunity/resistance, in D&D)
Immune to many diseases
Expert tactician
Excellent field commander
Good reflexes
Good senses
Martial artist (incorporates gymnastics)
Mastery of his weapon
Immune to hypnosis (through "focus", according to the article)

Warblade can hit several of these points, though not quite all. White Raven for tactics (field command has to come more from the player, unless the skill system for that becomes more developed). Diamond Mind for reflexes, senses (Hearing the Air), and resistance to mind-affecting effects (probably the poison/disease thing too, since Concentration scales faster than Fortitude). Add some more focus on the Weapon Aptitude-type abilities and a fighter has Captain America-level weapon expertise.

All that's left is the magic items and the gymnastics (which are frustratingly difficult to reach as a Warblade, given the demands of the skill system), and we've hit all of Captain America's powers. There's quite a bit more to Captain America than what's listed on this minor section of Wikipedia, of course, but it's a start.

Runestar
2010-05-16, 08:26 AM
Plus, it'd go some way toward creating a balance between ZOMGCASTERS!!11!!11!!1!!!!!!11111 and the poor, pitiful melee types. (Not "restoring" a balance, because you cannot restore something that never existed.)

What do you think ToB has been trying to do? Exactly that - make melee fun again.


I find this amusing, because a flaming sword is actually possible (though impractical) in the mundane world, whereas a human jumping 200' into the air is not.

Jumping that high is not impossible, if we continue to extrapolate the existing skill checks. For example, with a high enough skill check, a rogue can stand on air without the aid of magic or even squeeze through a wall of force. So I suppose a fighter could jump that high by using the air around him as a sort of staircase and leapfrogging from one block to the next. :smallsmile:

JeminiZero
2010-05-16, 08:33 AM
-Racial templates: The hulk (his abilities do not come from training but inborn power)
-Acquired Templates: The Juggernaut (demons are awesome)


Nitpick: The Hulk is also using an Acquired Template, one which he shares (to some extent) with the Abomination.



If you ask me this is the problem with most fighters. They expect to win with a sharp stick. That is not how a fighter wins he does it with his head first. You are in a world with vastly superior beings, use your head and get some tricks whether it be the trap set hours before the combat or some magic items. Also friends help (i.e. this is a group game)




Also here is a rather ironic twist. A fighter expects to be able to walk into a fight and win without preparation? But a wizard is expected to have scryed 10 times, communed 3 times, set up contingencies, summoned a few friends and than tailored a list for an encounter. Thus the reason they win?

But why can the fighter not do the same thing? Indeed for him it is harder to do since it requires more effort, a little more gold and some RPing (we wouldn't want that would we) but when it gets to the fight if he too has prepared than he stands a better chance.


Actually, in practical play, the Wizard generally expects to win with a similiar amount of preparation as the Warrior. Wizards more often than not, get by using a handful of favorite tricks that work against most enemies, without necessarily preparing anything specific (e.g. Batman uses Battlefield Control, Cindy/Mailman hurls Orbs.). An approach similiar to Warriors, albeit far more effective.

In fact, given the same amount of information, a Wizard can prepare better, since he can change spells like he changes clothes. Whereas the Warrior (and the Sorcerer) are stuck stockpiling approrpiate items.


He is not divining the future he is just asking the correct NPCs the correct questions. Having PC NPC interaction that does not involve hack and slash is not fiat, that is called Role playing and that is what this game is about. You are playing a game which expects the characters to move around a world and interact with said world, not just sit in one place until the wizard is done talking to the DM for an hour, telporting and killing a target. If you want to play that sort of game than you are Roll playing and of course a fighter will never have a role in that game.


Also this is not a **** measuring contest between the fighter and a wizard and you play in groups for a reason (i.e. to cover eachothers weaknesses) so yay a wizard can help the fighter by doing those things which cost money while the Fighter talks to NPCs or progresses the plot.

The problem however is that ANYONE can plan and prepare like that (discounting for the moment those RPing mindless brutes like the Hulk, or social outcasts like... er... can't think of a Marvel example).

To further elaborate, imagine for a moment that the Wizard didn't have the fighter. The wizard could just as well make the gather information checks himself. Or he could send his planar bound Succubus to do it. The fighter in this case is not doing anything special. He's essentially acting like the Party Secretary, handling the Wizard's fight schedule and all.



than you have your simple fighter
The Captain. What can he do?
-he is stronger, faster, smarter than a normal human (heroic stats)
-he knows a lot of combat maneuvers (feats)
-he knows a few special tricks (ToB feats picked up)

But really as fighters in DnD when it comes down to it he is really really weak. He can beat low tier (power wise) supers through smart planning and use of the field of combat (which comes down to a player thinking about combat) not abilities (which you are attempting to emulate)


For practical gameplay, comparison between classes tends to assume similiar background conditions i.e. similiar amounts of preparation. So while the Fighter might* be able to beat a high level Wizard in a planned ambush, he probably won't fare so well in a straight fight. And it is the straight fight which comes up more often that not.

*Assuming the Fighter hits the correct Wizard amongst his multlple mirror images, and manages to roll 20's repeatedly while using a Vorpal Weapon, in a manner that doesn't trigger the Wizard's badly worded contingencies.


what is your definition of mundane?

This is in fact the very question this thread is trying to pose. Lets assume for the moment someone homebrewed a D&D base class version of the Incredible Hulk. Does this Hulk-Warrior's ability to jump 200+ ft in the air, and throw mountains at enemies stop being mundane, even if such acts were done without magic?

Prodan
2010-05-16, 08:35 AM
Personally the main reason I dislike the way things like ToB work is that alot of the stances and whatnot (I'm not actually familiar with the system, since I just find it conceptually distasteful. As such my knowledge comes mostly from playing alongside them in PbP)
Wouldn't your opinion be better if you actually learned about the system?


don't seem to have much of a connection between what they're doing and what happens as a result. (i.e., Take pose X, now target Y is easier to hit by EVERYONE.)


Assassin's stance gives you sneak attack. Works for me.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-05-16, 08:39 AM
Wouldn't your opinion be better if you actually learned about the system?

Yes, but the conceptual flaws of Tome of Battle are relevant. Damned wuxia feel has made it obscenely difficult for me to sell the book to some people.

Panigg
2010-05-16, 08:42 AM
If you want a melee that can keep up with a caster, just get a couple levels of ToB classes. That usually does the trick.

Prodan
2010-05-16, 08:44 AM
Yes, but the conceptual flaws of Tome of Battle are relevant. Damned wuxia feel has made it obscenely difficult for me to sell the book to some people.

This is where you copy+paste the mechanics of ToB, refluff the classes and maneuvers, and sit back and enjoy the praise people give you for making such a great product.

Greenish
2010-05-16, 08:47 AM
Yes, but the conceptual flaws of Tome of Battle are relevant. Damned wuxia feel has made it obscenely difficult for me to sell the book to some people.…You went there. :smallsigh:

Godskook
2010-05-16, 09:10 AM
Personally, I think that western culture has a major disconnect on hero power levels. There's a really poor in-between ground that can't really be covered in most of our fiction, and it starts at about L5, with Batman, Conan and similar running around, and ends at about L12-15 range, where the hulk/batman crowd shows up. There's not really any 'middle ground' characters.

I think this is one of the reasons why ToB feels so 'wuxia' to most people: Japan does a better job with the power level gradient in their fiction. I mean, look at One Piece, where Ussopp is decidedly 'mundane' through out most of the story, and then, at Water 7, nearly kicks the day-lights out of Luffy, and it wasn't just equipment doing that. He took a beating no 'mortal' could take and live through.

On a reltated note, I've been working on a feat series that's hopefully a bit more 'mundane', and my first playtest is registering that its at least teir 3 by ToS standards(still in progress).

Zen Master
2010-05-16, 09:29 AM
The way I play the game, it's fairly simple. Do away with flight and teleportation - then give the fighter some forms of defense against, and attack against, magic.

Mind you, the way I play also includes rarely if ever progressing past level 12-14 or so. And using hardly any sources outside core. And ... so on.

Anyways, any time a wizard teleports away he has retreated and counts as defeated.

But still - with enough ways to defend against save-or-sucks or save-or-dies, and enough damage and stamina to last, the fighter will have an equal footing against the wizard.

Sure, the wizard can win. So can the fighter. As is should be.

Ernir
2010-05-16, 10:19 AM
This is in fact the very question this thread is trying to pose. Lets assume for the moment someone homebrewed a D&D base class version of the Incredible Hulk. Does this Hulk-Warrior's ability to jump 200+ ft in the air, and throw mountains at enemies stop being mundane, even if such acts were done without magic?

I wouldn't call it exactly mundane, but it would satisfy my desire for a "nonmagical superhero".

And in fact, I am brewing a class like this. Not exactly Hulk, but jumping 50'+ in the air, smashing through brick walls, not starting to drool the moment someone says "roll a Will save", and actually being "fast enough" to stop immediate-action spells are on the list of ingredients.

true_shinken
2010-05-16, 10:32 AM
Cosmetic Differences:
1) One is red, the other is green.
And there is even a Red Hulk!



3) The Tarrasque will try to eat you whereas the Hulk will not.
Ultimate Hulk will, actually, try to eat you.


Mechanical Differences:
1) The Hulk can punch like a gattling gun if he really wants so.
Excuse me, what? Tarrasque is more like a gattling gun than the Hulk ever was if you give him Rapidstrike.


3) The Hulk can rip out fragments of the ground, and hurl it at flying enemies. The Tarrasque despite comparable strength cannot replicate this, although common hill giant can.
(Incidentally, if the hulk uses a sufficiently big rock, M&M treats it as an area attack, which automatically hits, reflex for half)
I believe it does not automatically hit, no. At least melee area attacks made by giant creatures don't, so I expect this not to auto hit as well.


But it still falls short in some repects. (I.e. no jumping 200 ft into the sky and bringing a flyer down. Even a Warblade needs either some means of flying, or at least, the ability chuck siege weaponry as most ranged attacks can't cut it against Windwall... But this is neither here not there.)
You CAN get a Jump check very freaking high with ToB, specially if you use stuff like Footsteps of the Divine.

Also, nice comparison and good point.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-05-16, 11:26 AM
…You went there. :smallsigh:


Tome of Battle: Book of the Nine Swords deliberately blends the genres of Far East action games and the “typical” D&D game world.

The game designers went there.

Thrawn183
2010-05-16, 02:46 PM
There was a thread fairly similar to this a while back. I might as well post a brief version of my thoughts again.

Only special people have levels. Take the skills away from commoners. Commoners either succeed or fail at what they're trying to do, and they never do anything truly amazing. You can now use the skill system with vastly lower DC's. Make swimming up a waterfall a DC 30 swim check, heck maybe even a DC 25 depending on what level you want characters to be able to do that. The same with Jump DC's. The same with Ability Checks. Adamantine wall in your way? DC 25 strength check to break it down.

Granted there would have to be some other changes, like making most skills only able to be attempted once, and you'd have to be willing to assign break DC's to things like walls of force.

Really, I think making melee characters spend their precious, precious feats on something like the ability to jump really high isn't the right way of going about things.

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-16, 03:31 PM
ok this is just not thought out and a poor argument.... You seem to think a highly intelligent character must be a wizard. This is not true at all, many of the worlds great minds were not scientists or mathematicians (RL equivalents to wizards) but were generals and warriors.True. Those can be accurately represented with an intelligence of 14-16. Wizards can push 30-40 in that stat, easily.

It's like comparing someone who can get a college diploma to someone who can create cold fusion in his backyard because he's bored.


He is not divining the future he is just asking the correct NPCs the correct questions. Having PC NPC interaction that does not involve hack and slash is not fiat, that is called Role playing and that is what this game is about. You are playing a game which expects the characters to move around a world and interact with said world, not just sit in one place until the wizard is done talking to the DM for an hour, telporting and killing a target. If you want to play that sort of game than you are Roll playing and of course a fighter will never have a role in that game.
The game uses both. Mechanical interactions form the basis of the game's rules. If you want to speak to NPC's in an attempt to Gather Information? There's a skill for that. That's not roll-playing. That's establishing that a rogue has an advantage over a fighter when it comes to social interaction.


ok again talking to NPCs to find out things is not Fiat that is part of the game.....But circumventing the rules of the game to provide characters without the defined means to solve a challenge with an arbitrary means to do so? That is.


Also this is not a **** measuring contest between the fighter and a wizard and you play in groups for a reason (i.e. to cover eachothers weaknesses) so yay a wizard can help the fighter by doing those things which cost money while the Fighter talks to NPCs or progresses the plot.No. The wizard can do those things, while the ROGUE talks to NPC's using his superior social skills. Meanwhile? The fighter can polish his armor. Because if it doesn't involve his very limited skill set, or putting the sharp end of an object into an enemy? It's outside the fighter's realm of expertise.

You know what I call pretending that:
a fighter with a 10 charisma and no ranks in gather information
is
Detective D. Tracy, crossed with KGB operative
?

I call it poor role-playing. Much like pretending that a character with an 8 intelligence is a genius.

that is not Fiat that is how the game works....
If you go to the corner store and ask the desk clerk how to get to the next corner store and he tells you, that is not DM fiat that is how people act.
True, that is. And that would represent very basic information. Now, if you're trying to get information on, say, poison shipments through cliffport? That's a gather information check, and that requires 1d4 hours, a few gold, and a roll. Otherwise, the "skills" section is meaningless.


This is a game which emulates life. If your DM does not reward Role-playing than once again you are Roll-playing which is a different beast entirelyThe DM absolutely should reward role playing. I offer XP bonuses, circumstance bonuses, and more, for good role playing.

I offer talks with players who try to role play a 22 intelligence when their character's a 12, or crazy skill in gathering information when he has all the social grace of a bull moose. I call that "bad role-playing".


and your example is fiat because the DM has made an arbitrary addition to your Gather info check. Which actually shows me quite clearly that you Roll-play I do both, actually.

Allowing Fighter McStabby to get information without a roll, however, devalues the character who purchased ranks in gather information. It devalues the character who picks up the Investigator feat.

Oh, and my +2? Has a rules-based rationale (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#favorableAndUnfavorableConditions) .

Yours? Makes any class with a good skill list pointless.


but he can when his group wizard cast dispell magic on the freedom of movement (once again a team game)So, you're saying that in order for the fighter to function, he needs assistance from the wizard.

On the other hand, the wizard needs no such assistance from the fighter. After all, anything you've claimed a fighter can do here? A commoner can do. Another wizard can do.

If it's a team game, then the Fighter is the chubby kid who's always picked last. Because nobody wants him.

In other words? Mooching off your allies to be able to function isn't an example of a team-game. It's an example of dependency.


darkstalker will stop all but mindsight and touchsight, the later of which can be dealt with by dispel psionics (from local wizard/psion)Yes, darkstalker will. However, that doesn't change the fact that a wizard with 2 spells, can duplicate an entire class's ability.


mindsight is a rather specific feat which means your DM has decided he would like other options to be the way around or through the encounter.So is Darkstalker, champ.


Hours only if you want to Roll play it. Most DMs who enjoy Role playing will allow a short NPC conversation to give useful info without an actual test. Most cliche games start this way, stranger walks into tavern sees group gives them quest. Congratulations you just did a gather info check without the role and without hours to get the info. Most DM's who do Role-play, but actually respect that without the rules, the game's nothing more than a group of kids in the backyard playing cowboys and indians, realize something.

When information is given at the DM's pace, by the DM's decision, it's storytelling. When information is sought out by players, it's gather information.

Based on everything you're saying, there shouldn't even be social skills. After all, the 6 Cha orc should be able to deal with people just as well as the 24 Cha bard, right? It's all role-playing, right?

Or might a 6 cha represent a lack of social skills? Might a gather information check modifier of -2 indicate that you suck at it?

Might that be something that should be role-played?

After all, if you're role-playing the 6 intelligence character as if he were Albert Einstein, that may not be an example of accurate character depiction.

Part of role-playing is taking what you're given, and making the numbers make sense.

You can role-play attempts to gather information all day long. If you don't want to roll for it, then the rules say you get no information.

A lot of people imagine this antithesis between "Role-playing" and "Following the rules of the game". There isn't. It's a fabricated straw-man, devised to make your opponent look foolish. One can role-play within the boundaries of the rules, and can have a quite enjoyable experience.

After all, if I describe how my commoner attacks, and it's a really good description, should it automatically hit? No. There are rules for it, to keep it from being a bunch of 7 year olds with cap guns, arguing over who hit who.

Drakevarg
2010-05-16, 03:42 PM
Wouldn't your opinion be better if you actually learned about the system?

Probably not. Again, I find in conceptually distasteful. I play DnD combat like I play Soul Calibur. I mash "X" until the opponent stops moving.


Assassin's stance gives you sneak attack. Works for me.

Calling it something does nothing to explain it. I could come up with "Shoot Fire Out Of My Ass Stance", that doesn't mean that doing so would MAKE SENSE.

Terazul
2010-05-16, 04:00 PM
Calling it something does nothing to explain it. I could come up with "Shoot Fire Out Of My Ass Stance", that doesn't mean that doing so would MAKE SENSE.

Sure it does. You trained in a special stance that let you shoot fire out of your ass. Not seeing the problem, here.

Joking aside: You take a stance/get into a mental form that lets you more easily strike your opponents when they are unaware or distracted, targeting their weak points/anatomy (which is what sneak attack does). There, done.

A stance doesn't have to be a "pose", way of standing, it's just called one so that everyone knows we're talking about a mechanical benefit that is always on, as opposed to a Strike, or Boost.

Drakevarg
2010-05-16, 04:14 PM
You take a stance/get into a mental form that lets you more easily strike your opponents when they are unaware or distracted, targeting their weak points/anatomy (which is what sneak attack does). There, done.

Eh. Sounds like a Mary Sue masquerading as a gameplay mechanic. "Yay, I get sneak attack without any of the drawbacks of cross-classing into Rogue!"

CyMage
2010-05-16, 04:17 PM
Probably not. Again, I find in conceptually distasteful. I play DnD combat like I play Soul Calibur. I mash "X" until the opponent stops moving.


And that's your choice on how to play, but coming and trying to debate about something you don't fully understand or have personal experience with, makes you look foolish.

Frozen_Feet
2010-05-16, 04:25 PM
The whole headline of the topic is stupid.

A warrior past level 5 is not mundane. Even without magic, he is extra-ordinary and superhuman.

Part of the debacle that surrounds "martial can't have nice things" is the view that pertaining to physical laws is the same thing as pertaining to human limitations, forgetting that both laws of physics and human limitations are vastly different within RAW and given settings.The skill and level system allow for a paltry commoner to potentially become world-class in a couple of skills during few levels.

It is also possible to be superhuman without being, in any way, supernatural. Now here, comes another part of the problem - never mind there are dragons flying around, some people find it offending to their suspension of disbelief that a human could transcend realistic limitations without magic. Maybe they could give leeway to Warforged or Thri-Kreen... but humans? Nuh-nuh.

Now, what do I think a high-level warrior should be able to do? Well, lesser beings should flee from him when he looks at them badly. He should be able to punch through metal walls as if they were paper. He should be able to fall from orbit and shrug it off. He should be able to mow down rows after rows of lesser enemies without breaking a sweat. He should be able to stop an angry charging boar with one hand, wrestle trolls and win, snatch a boulder thrown by a giant mid-air and fling it back, lead legions to conquer the world, level a forest with casual swings of his sword and leap through the battlefield by stepping on the heads of his foes.

Guess what, most if that can be done with core rules. Quite a lot even before level 10, actually. The trouble is, all these awesome things seize to be of any significance when unrestrained magic is available, or if the DM doesn't make scenarios where they're useful.

So what if a level 10 fighter can cleave through hundred of level 1 warriors? Your next fight is against that level 11 dragon anyway! Plus, the wizard could have nuked them all with fireballs in half the time. So what if you can run faster than any athlete, or leap like a tiger, when the wizard can fly at will or stop time itself?

What use is swinging a sword, if all opponents past certain points are ghosts or devils who couldn't care less 'bout good ol' steel anyway? So what if you can get a thousand warriors to follow you, if the local priest can summon a host of angels?

I echo the sentiment said by some others in this thread: martial doesn't need to be brought up, at least not in the form new mechanics; ToB is quite a nice fix, and giving the Fighter a decent skill list and points would go far to make them viable. Instead, magic needs to be brought down to a level where it simply isn't the solution to everything, always.

Terazul
2010-05-16, 04:27 PM
Eh. Sounds like a Mary Sue masquerading as a gameplay mechanic. "Yay, I get sneak attack without any of the drawbacks of cross-classing into Rogue!"

Yeah totally. Using this stance my class gave me to get 2d6 non-advancing sneak attack, from a discipline only available to the rogue-like class anyway is so hardcore. Why does something being good for melee have to be "Mary Sue"? Especially when it makes sense?

icefractal
2010-05-16, 04:38 PM
I think purely mundane characters do work ... in their own level range. It's just that level 20, or usually even level 10, is outside of that range. Conan is somewhere between 6th and 10th level. All real-life warriors are 6th or below. And in that range, they usually work fine. Still lacking in out-of-combat ability but that can be fixed by a lot more skill points and some lower skill DCs.

Outside that, "realistic" warriors don't stack up too well, but to be fair, they aren't usually facing realistic foes either. Take a look at the high-CR creatures - do any of those look like something a realistic person would be able to defeat without an army?


Beyond that, you've got to expand, and aside from the obvious possibility of mixing in spellcasting or innate supernatural power, there are two basic options. Which one fits better is pretty much a matter of opinion.

One is Charles Atlas Superpowers, as mentioned in this thread. It does keep the character fully non-magical, but on the other hand it ascribes abilities to practice that might be jarring.

The other is "I don't need to understand magic to kill you with it", where the warrior learns to effectively use magic items - probably more effectively than the people who made them (just as a pilot can fly the plane better than the engineer who designed it). For instance, stabbing people with wands that start continually firing, wiping a scroll along your blade to transfer the spell to the next person you hit, backstabbing someone with a cold-iron dagger and stealing their protective spells, and so forth. One the one hand, this certainly isn't non-magical. On the other hand, it may be more plausible as something achieved by training alone.

jseah
2010-05-16, 05:09 PM
^Some nice ideas:
Basically, the problem boils down to two things.

Magic breaks the rules of reality. Whatever you do to that, magic will then allow more options than non-magic that doesn't break the rules of reality.
Therefore, you either make magic follow the rules of reality (in which case it's not magic anymore) or you make non-magic break the rules of reality (and you end up with the conclusion above)

Because more options is almost certainly better than more power.
Unless you can somehow make this go away (and I'll like to see you try) you can't get away from the problem.


It's that simple.
(btw, 4E non-magic may as well be magic)

Greensleeve
2010-05-16, 05:12 PM
Now, what do I think a high-level warrior should be able to do? Well, lesser beings should flee from him when he looks at them badly. He should be able to punch through metal walls as if they were paper. He should be able to fall from orbit and shrug it off. He should be able to mow down rows after rows of lesser enemies without breaking a sweat. He should be able to stop an angry charging boar with one hand, wrestle trolls and win, snatch a boulder thrown by a giant mid-air and fling it back, lead legions to conquer the world, level a forest with casual swings of his sword and leap through the battlefield by stepping on the heads of his foes.

Guess what, most if that can be done with core rules. Quite a lot even before level 10, actually. The trouble is, all these awesome things seize to be of any significance when unrestrained magic is available, or if the DM doesn't make scenarios where they're useful.


Could you give some examples of how you would do this within core before level 10? I'm not trying to start a debate or anything, I agree with what you said about what a warrior should be able to do. I'm just curious as how you would accomplish some of these things.

Since this may lead to thread de-railment, feel free to PM me an answer.

Godskook
2010-05-16, 05:40 PM
Calling it something does nothing to explain it. I could come up with "Shoot Fire Out Of My Ass Stance", that doesn't mean that doing so would MAKE SENSE.

Stances exist in the real world martial arts, including western ones, such as Fencing, so why not in our games?

Also, that's a fallacious argument that applies equally well to feats, such as power attack, combat reflexes and improved initiative. Especially so since these feats have no 'explanation' about them.

The Glyphstone
2010-05-16, 05:49 PM
Yup, the weekly ToB thread, right on schedule.

*sets alarm for the Monks are Balanced thread*

Drakevarg
2010-05-16, 05:53 PM
Stances exist in the real world martial arts, including western ones, such as Fencing, so why not in our games?

Also, that's a fallacious argument that applies equally well to feats, such as power attack, combat reflexes and improved initiative. Especially so since these feats have no 'explanation' about them.

Eh. I should probably shut up anyway. My points essentially consist of "All I want to keep track of are my attack and damage rolls. Everything else is irrelevent gimmickery."

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-16, 06:13 PM
Eh. I should probably shut up anyway. My points essentially consist of "All I want to keep track of are my attack and damage rolls. Everything else is irrelevent gimmickery."

In real martial arts, there's much more to consider. Grapples, holds, strikes, terrain, and more.

There's a reason that martial artists can break stone with their fist. It's a specific strike, practiced hundreds and thousands of times.

You see irrelevant gimmickery.

Most people see "options".

If you just want something that simple, great. You can do that with D&D. But begrudging people for liking options?

Drakevarg
2010-05-16, 06:14 PM
If you just want something that simple, great. You can do that with D&D. But begrudging people for liking options?

I'm mostly bitter that "simplicity" seems to go hand-in-hand with "incompetance."

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-16, 06:24 PM
I'm mostly bitter that "simplicity" seems to go hand-in-hand with "incompetance."

None of us have stated that. It's a playstyle. No one playstyle is right or wrong. It's all about what works for each person. Me? I like options and abilities. Some players? Want something quick, dirty, or simple. I can appreciate that. There's times when I don't want anything complex. Granted, those times are rare, but they do exist.

Diff'rent strokes, Diff'rent folks.

Tinydwarfman
2010-05-16, 06:43 PM
I'm mostly bitter that "simplicity" seems to go hand-in-hand with "incompetance."

Unfortunately, in D&D, a simple character is actually generally fairly incompetent. Versatility is almost always better than sheer power. This is sometimes extrapolated back onto the player playing the character. I would suggest a game like RISUS to you, where everyone uses the exact same mechanics, and they are quite simple. It is very fun though, especially if you prefer roleplaying to roll-playing. (the entire ruleset fits onto 6 pages)

crazedloon
2010-05-16, 06:51 PM
I will admit before I address your reponse I have to clarify a few things.

When I have been referring to fighter I meant the non caster (so everything from fighter->rogue->ToB) my intentions was not to draw this into a ridiculous fighters suck argument because that gets this discussion no where. This is a discussion of more commonly accepted mundane vs magic

I am not taking this personally and I hope you are not ether :smallwink:

with the above in mind I am ignoring a few comments which are more directly a fighters suck comment and responding to those comments which are a global problem for the mundane


True. Those can be accurately represented with an intelligence of 14-16. Wizards can push 30-40 in that stat, easily.

It's like comparing someone who can get a college diploma to someone who can create cold fusion in his backyard because he's bored.
now this is actually misnomer in my opinion

high intelligence means you can better understand certain things than the less "intelligent" but just because you have int 30 does not mean you are fantastic at everything. Your int 30 may represent the fact you can easily peel back the fabric or reality (because you understand it better) or know ancient text long forgotten (because you have spent so many skills in knowledge X) however if you have no ranks in knowledge (warfare) or the like you are just as likely to look foolish when talking about it as any other person. Your high int just means you are better at formulating hypothesis

What I am referring to is the street smart fighter (see above explanation of what I mean by fighter) who has social skills and more mundane knowledges. His role when compared to the wizard with int 30 is to be social adept and adaptive, he is street smart vs book smart. He might not be able to peel back the layers of reality but he knows how to talk to people and/or how to set up traps and fight.

I will admit this is a reason I do not like the fact that Int determines skills. Some people learn things (skills) in real life not through intelligence but natural talent or experience. However DnD assumes a wizard should be able to read a book and be as good at those things as the person who lives it.


The game uses both. Mechanical interactions form the basis of the game's rules. If you want to speak to NPC's in an attempt to Gather Information? There's a skill for that. That's not roll-playing. That's establishing that a rogue has an advantage over a fighter when it comes to social interaction.
But circumventing the rules of the game to provide characters without the defined means to solve a challenge with an arbitrary means to do so? That is.
well you seem to be ignoring a few words in the rules

Action
A typical Gather Information check takes 1d4+1 hours.

note my emphasis this means there are checks which take less time. This is represented by your role playing, your DM or you as DM can than ask for a gather info check. This will translate rule wise to how well your character controlled his ticks or natural speech to not seem to desperate for info or what have you. This check will than dictate whether the NPC will give up the info you need (a failed roll may just mean you look shifty or he wants more money)

what you are speaking of is the more general nebulous use of the skill where the DM zooms out to Narrative time where the players decide what to do for hours at a time. This check (which takes 1d4+1 hour) is what allows the PC to avoid the above ingame interaction.

The difference is it is a lot simpler to gain a circumstance bonus when you actually role-play it because then you have the chance to word questions correctly and catch characters in lies and the like (things that can not be done with the more nebulous use of the skill)


Allowing Fighter McStabby to get information without a roll, however, devalues the character who purchased ranks in gather information. It devalues the character who picks up the Investigator feat.
indeed that is true however saying that some good role play will not result in useful info is a sure fire way to discourage role play IMHO because why go through the half hour DM player interaction of a IC conversation when it can be boiled down to a single roll. Again this is my opinion and you seem to agree with your xp rewards and the like


Oh, and my +2? Has a rules-based rationale (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#favorableAndUnfavorableConditions) .
sure they are outlined in the rules however applying them and determing what gives the bonus is still fiat (fiat being when a DM has to make a decisions which is not strictly spelled out in the rule)

anytime the DM decides an effect happens which is not in the rules, i.e. the opponent falling down after a particularly timely critical, or the wizard finding a spellbook with the spell he needs or the rogue using parkour to ascend a wall, that is DM fiat. Simple things which are spells out, i.e. what it takes to hit, what skill checks equate to are not. As one can imagine DM fiat is over 90% of a game.


On the other hand, the wizard needs no such assistance from the fighter. After all, anything you've claimed a fighter can do here? A commoner can do. Another wizard can do.

In other words? Mooching off your allies to be able to function isn't an example of a team-game. It's an example of dependency.

indeed a group of wizards can do pretty much anything however they will eventually run into the DM fiat situation where they will wish they had a fighter. That locked door when they are out of knock spells, that antimagic field trapping them in a room, that pesky BBEG with anti scry spells but a lot of rumors about him ect. Yes it is fiat which makes the wizard less useful but in my opinion it is also fiat which makes situations doable by only a wizard.



So is Darkstalker, champ.

the difference being that as a PC feat you are making your character good at something (this can be compared to picking the correct spells when you level) while the other one is the DM making situations for the PCs to overcome. One is how your character plays the other is how the whole game does. We (in this thread) are talking about how a player can play as a mundane bada** so DM choices and how they can reduce your bada** should not be considered a way that makes you less awesome because the DM always has a way to do that, its called rule 0.

With that in mind I simply was pointing out ways you can be awesome (more than mundane without not being mundane) at something without magic.


When information is given at the DM's pace, by the DM's decision, it's storytelling. When information is sought out by players, it's gather information.
but it is still up to the DM whether the information you seek is available. This in the end is the same decision as to whether you can obtain the knowledge through NPC interaction without a check. It comes down to DM preference whether he likes more rolls or likes to let the game flow easily.


You can role-play attempts to gather information all day long. If you don't want to roll for it, then the rules say you get no information.
where does it say that? Please point out in the rules of the game (which you seem to be arguing here) that a player can not learn something from asking a question in game? By this logic if a DM wanted to give his players info he couldn't because they have to roll for it. That is the essence of roll playing where nothing is achievable without a roll.


One can role-play within the boundaries of the rules, and can have a quite enjoyable experience.

After all, if I describe how my commoner attacks, and it's a really good description, should it automatically hit? No. There are rules for it, to keep it from being a bunch of 7 year olds with cap guns, arguing over who hit who.
Indeed I will agree with you here. However what you are arguing is not that a player should auto hit due to a good description but that an actual conversation should never be fruitful as far as plot is concerned unless an roll is thrown. You are trading your cap gun for a calculator.

jseah
2010-05-16, 06:52 PM
Unfortunately, in D&D, a simple character is actually generally fairly incompetent. Versatility is almost always better than sheer power.
And if the problem is to be truly solved, a way to balance versatility against simple power is needed. Which is very difficult, since versatility is a method of exploiting weaknesses... very hard to predict that, since it's shtick is being adaptive.

Or you can run away from the problem by taking away versatility and leaving a less... versatile replacement. Like 4E did.
Not saying that 4E was bad, just that that was the way it was designed. If WotC (whatever I'd like to say about them, they publish the game I'm playing) couldn't find a way to solve the versatility vs power problem, then I doubt we can.

EDIT: I'm not ruling out some clever idea from someone out there however. If there is, I would certainly like to hear it.

Prodan
2010-05-16, 07:14 PM
Probably not. Again, I find in conceptually distasteful.
But you don't really know much about it other than a superficial knowledge. Don't pre-judge something because you don't like the cover.



Calling it something does nothing to explain it. I could come up with "Shoot Fire Out Of My Ass Stance", that doesn't mean that doing so would MAKE SENSE.

Depends. Does it involve refried beans and a zippo?