PDA

View Full Version : Is "Warrior" doomed to be a boring concept?



Endarire
2011-05-24, 01:22 AM
Think of every warrior you've ever seen or played. They had one thing in common: They tried to hit things (usually very hard) and generally tried not to get hit.

"Warrior" in this context isn't meant to mean "Ninja" or "Mystic" or "Gish." It's closer to a mundane guy in a fantastic setting. I mean "Warrior" as the Strong Guy Who Hits Things, not The Very Damaging Poison-Spewing, Teleporting, Firebreathing Guy.

Tome of Battle (D&D 3.5) and various systems try to spice up combat but don't change the fundamentals.

What do you think?

Shinizak
2011-05-24, 01:34 AM
Hmm I think the problem is that the warrior is only as fun or boring as you make it, the difference is that the mage is given more tools. I've played very interesting fighters and enjoyed every second of it because I was able to jump, dive, and be generally in the thick of things.

Coidzor
2011-05-24, 01:37 AM
When you've got wizards throwing around fireballs and such, someone whose shtick isn't making use of any impressive powers himself and rather relying on just hitting things good/lots/hard/well is not going to be very impressive without being made of Badass. And even then, mechanically being badasss still doesn't count for much if your options in and out of combat are hobbled in comparison to everyone elses'.

Magic and other supernatural sources have got some advantages because each spell is a tool and tools are fun to make while there are more physical limitations on the toolkit of a warrior... and indeed, audience expectations put a harder cap on the metaphysical/philosophical extent of his skill.

I don't believe it's intrinsically doomed, but I do believe that as it is envisioned, the amount of baggage people have about mundanes and warrior types is more of an albatross around the neck of anyone who would make them interesting than anything so metaphysical as the concept being doomed in and of itself.


Why you fight is far more interesting than how or even what you fight.

Of course, I have strayed from concept into execution in my analysis.... but, I stand by it nonetheless. Our baggage is the real limitation here.

Totally Guy
2011-05-24, 01:39 AM
Why you fight is far more interesting than how or even what you fight.

Tvtyrant
2011-05-24, 01:45 AM
The biggest problem is the rules bend over backwards to pander to the none-warrior types in ways that make no sense. Why would reading books give you more HP? Why would hiding let you hit harder? The entire basis of BaB and HD is borked because they don't make any sense for none warriors, but are automatically given to them.

For instance a 12th level wizard with negatives in all physical stats is technically as skilled at sword fighting as a 6th level warrior. Why? What justification exists for them getting good at sword/knife fighting from studying books all day? If they have enough time to knife practice after each day as well as research new spells and prepare their old without losing caster levels, why doesn't the warrior have enough time to research spells at a slower rate without losing BaB? And how are the wizards getting HD? Do they work out in their seemingly impossible amount of free time?

3.X/P grants tremendous favors to casters by giving them abilities they can't possibly have earned, and gives the warriors nothing to make up for it.

Feriority
2011-05-24, 01:47 AM
The problem isn't with the "Warrior Archetype", but with the gulf between the narrative and the game mechanics.

In high fantasy, the swordsman is as much an epic hero as the wizard is, because he's doing exciting things in close combat. In most RPGs, because combat is so heavily abstracted, that boils down to "swing at them, hope they don't swing back as hard", while the wizard has tactical variety from the range of spells they can cast. It's not that the fighter doesn't have a variety of options, but that the mechanics assume that your fighter is already doing all the ducking and weaving, the probing and thrusting, the whirling and slashing; the tactical range of "cool things you can do in a close-quarters fight" is condensed into that single attack roll, rather than you explicitly choosing between them.

How do you fix this? Well, having stances and maneuvers helps; now, you can explicitly manage those tactical options, and get mechanical benefits and disadvantages from them. Having specific combat abilities helps too; one of D&D 4e's strengths is that every class is drawing on a set of powers, rather than just enhancing basic attacks, so each of your cool tricks is mechanically represented, and you have as many of them as everybody else.

Something like Exalted's stunt system is also useful - since it encourages detailed narrative description, your 'attack roll' turns into you describing the detailed actions you're taking in the fight. Having mechanical rewards for good description and interaction with the environment is definitely a good thing if you like that sort of description; it shouldn't be too hard to adapt to other games.

Ravens_cry
2011-05-24, 01:52 AM
In a game where combat is fairly abstracted, but still the focus, like D&D 3.X, a pure mundane warrior is not going to be the most nuanced character. That said, it is only as "boring" as you feel it is.
I made a Ranger who used traded away spell-casting and barely used his animal companion. In fact he was aggressively mundane, practically magiphobic, and downright stringent when it came to the law. He was a blast to play though, really butted heads in a delightful way with some of the other characters.
As for options out of combat, they are less limited then one might think.
My favourite character of all time spent downtime developing relationship with an NPC, spent much time with them, courting them, sent letters to them, and solicited after their health whenever possible, proposed and eventually married them in a lavish fashion, having rejected immortality to be with their loved one instead, all without touching the dice or rules ONCE. And I still get a feeling of "that was AWESOME!" whenever I think about it, a high point in my role-playing career.

Coidzor
2011-05-24, 01:58 AM
And how are the wizards getting HD? Do they work out in their seemingly impossible amount of free time?

3.X/P grants tremendous favors to casters by giving them abilities they can't possibly have earned, and gives the warriors nothing to make up for it.

HD are things that warriors couldn't possibly have "earned," in the way you've described, much less anyone else.

Tvtyrant
2011-05-24, 02:00 AM
HD are things that warriors couldn't possibly have "earned," in the way you've described, much less anyone else.

No? So what are they? The closest the system comes to it is how "tough" you are, but the Wizard has no valid way for getting tougher. And the BaB thing still stands.

Jude_H
2011-05-24, 02:01 AM
No.
A system doesn't have to be about combat,
A combat system doesn't have to be about hitting and blocking.
A combat system doesn't have to make hitting and blocking boring.

Hazzardevil
2011-05-24, 02:07 AM
I think the problem is that the warrior can fight, it's just outside of combat he can't do much except make it start, not a good thing to do.

Coidzor
2011-05-24, 02:08 AM
No? So what are they? The closest the system comes to it is how "tough" you are, but the Wizard has no valid way for getting tougher. And the BaB thing still stands.

That's constitution and strength. HD and HP are how much punishment you can take before dying, which working out does not make any bit of sense as far as "earning," and you're not supposed to accept them in the way you seem to want to force them to be accepted anyway as they're a metagaming concept and if you wanna make them actualized in the game you'd do better with something metaphysical (http://www.worldofprime.com/)to go with the metagame rather than something physical that doesn't fit.

And if you wanna make an imagination contest of it, wizards, for instance, could become more suffused with arcane vigor as they study more and more lore and cast and memorize more and more spells, such that their flesh is as it is not out of mere flesh and blood but knitted together with additional layers and webs of magic. There ya go. An explanation.

This really goes towards illustrating my point with the shackles of expectations that limit the Warrior archetype from touching on all its interpretations and expressions in RPGs in general by holding it to a much greater extent than anything else in the game to what an individual player could do or conceive of doing himself physically.

Aux-Ash
2011-05-24, 02:15 AM
Another problem a lot of fantasy games (but not all of them) is that the creators seem to either abstract or be ignorant of the width and flexibility in melee. Few people seem to be aware that it takes almost 8 years of practise every day to become an even remotely competent warrior. Let alone a skilled one. That combat is amazingly lethal where a single mistake means the difference between life and death.
Rather than picture this contest of wit, skill and finesse they make "warriors" dumb brutes who have a "hit the target the hardest" contest. They don't even differentiate between the various types of weapons, despite that there's a vast difference between how different weapons are used.

It also ties in with allowing mages to do whatever they wish at no repercussion. To do what they do warriors have to risk life and limb to rush into the melee and fight... so how is it fair that mages should be able to do so much more at a much much lower risk to themselves?

And finally... the stereotypical fantasy warrior class is a composite of all warrior archetypes... despite that this is a massively wide field. Half of being a knight is the social leadership aspect. Soldiers learn survival on the march the hard way. "Barbarian" warriors are often farmers, fishermen and/or traders by the side. Duelists travel far and wide and will have seen many cultures and speak many languages. Mercenaries are used to dealing with merchants and scare people into providing what they want. Men-at-arms stoic discipline and usually knowledge of the law.
All those are condensed into one of or a few classes, which often means that the non-combat angle is abandoned to provide a class with as much width as possible... at the expense of depth.
That many rpgs focus solely on the combat-side of things makes it worse... since every warrior in history had non-combat role that was just as, if not more, important.

My favourite rpg, a swedish game called Eon, does not marginalise the warriors at all. All combat is extremely lethal and a skilled warrior in plate truly shines. Magic is dangerous to the user and a single hit can kill even the toughest, which makes someone trained in not getting hit (a warrior) a very invaluable participant in combat.

Jude_H
2011-05-24, 02:18 AM
I think the problem is that the warrior can fight, it's just outside of combat he can't do much except make it start, not a good thing to do.
I think you're talking about a specific and deeply flawed game, rather than the archetype. The Warrior archetype includes all the intrigue of Arthurian legends, all the over-the-top heroics of Heracles, and hell, all the things a soldier does when he's not killing people. Certain games are just really terrible at modeling that.

WitchSlayer
2011-05-24, 02:24 AM
The fantasy games I play don't have that problem.

Killer Angel
2011-05-24, 02:25 AM
I think you're talking about a specific and deeply flawed game, rather than the archetype.

Yes. If we look only at the mechanics, there are many RPGs that favor the creation of warrior types very versatile in many things. Pick GURPS and it's skill system, for example... it's fairly easy to create a fighter with scouting / hiding abilities and developed social skills.

Godskook
2011-05-24, 02:28 AM
For instance a 12th level wizard with negatives in all physical stats is technically as skilled at sword fighting as a 6th level warrior.

This is hyperbole, man. Even assuming the non-elite array, you're talking about a 15% difference in capability before we even get into feat choices. And using logical feat choices for a caster and warrior, we're talking about possibly comparing a shock trooper to a wizard with *0* combat feats.

And then there's the fact that if you wanted to play a caster/warrior type, you could easily do so. Hell, with precocious apprentice, you can enter spellsword with a single level in wizard.

NichG
2011-05-24, 02:37 AM
The problem with the warrior concept isn't that its just mechanically weak in D&D. You could use an ubercharger as an example, and it wouldn't be 'weak'. However, it would still be a 'hit things really hard and they die' type of character, where thats his only real schtick.

I think the real problem with the warrior archetype is that its almost made for a solo adventure. Think about it this way: if you just have a warrior, then the story is about he survives all sorts of fantastical challenges with his martial skills, cannyness, etc. Because he's the only character, he drives the plot. When he runs up against challenges he doesn't have mechanical advantage in, he has to be clever to pass them, and so thats also part of the game.

Now look at a warrior and wizard duo. The warrior is still good at hitting things and taking or dodging blows compared to the wizard. Heck, lets say he's the ubercharger from the beginning, and if he decides that an enemy will die and can get to it in a straight line, it dies. However, he will almost certainly be overshadowed by the wizard when it comes to anything but a fight, and even many times in a fight he'll rely on the wizard for, e.g., flight rather than doing something clever and risky like jumping from a tree or trying to bring the fight to a cave. Outside of combat, if the duo runs into a chasm, the wizard teleports them across or summons a giant owl or something and neutralizes the challenge before the warrior gets a chance to be clever. If they run into a tricky social situation, the wizard has charm person and other such things. If they want to spy, the wizard has invisibility.

The wizard is an extreme case, but it applies for a lot of other classes too. They have mechanics that let them directly do things that in a traditional warrior story would be done by 'cleverness' rather than training. And so the warrior is left with a very subservient position.

I'd say if you wanted to make the warrior interesting, either run a solo game or try to emphasize their non-hitting-things aspects: he could be a leader of men, an experienced strategist, etc. Then you have to give those things mechanical support and more importantly make it hard for other characters to get those things.

Earthwalker
2011-05-24, 02:43 AM
I would say no, I don't think "Warrior" is a boring concept already. In a small number of games it has been demoted to boring but thats not true in all games and as others have said its as interesting or as dull as you make it.

Project_Mayhem
2011-05-24, 02:56 AM
I think the issue is mostly with D&D here. Most other games that have any focus on warriors tend to be better at balancing them against everything else.

There's nothing intrinsically boring about being the sword guy - its just that one of the more popular systems has messed it up

Killer Angel
2011-05-24, 02:56 AM
Now look at a warrior and wizard duo. The warrior is still good at hitting things and taking or dodging blows compared to the wizard. Heck, lets say he's the ubercharger from the beginning, and if he decides that an enemy will die and can get to it in a straight line, it dies. However, he will almost certainly be overshadowed by the wizard when it comes to anything but a fight, and even many times in a fight he'll rely on the wizard for, e.g., flight rather than doing something clever and risky like jumping from a tree or trying to bring the fight to a cave. Outside of combat, if the duo runs into a chasm, the wizard teleports them across or summons a giant owl or something and neutralizes the challenge before the warrior gets a chance to be clever. If they run into a tricky social situation, the wizard has charm person and other such things. If they want to spy, the wizard has invisibility.


This is more a problem of D&D, rather than RPGs in general.
Endarire seems to focus more to D&D (seeing the OP's references, such as ToB), but the concept is more general, and within many game systems it's not boring at all.

potatocubed
2011-05-24, 03:59 AM
I think the issue is mostly with D&D here. Most other games that have any focus on warriors tend to be better at balancing them against everything else.

There's nothing intrinsically boring about being the sword guy - its just that one of the more popular systems has messed it up

Yeah, I'm thinking of 7th Sea here - being a swordsman in that is awesome. Combat in 7th Sea isn't as abstracted as D&D, so movement and positioning and your choice of attacks and parries actually matters.

Or consider L5R, where 'being the sword guy' is the default position. (Even shugenja are 'sword guys' of a sort.) Combat in that is not quite as detailed as 7th Sea, but the focus of the game is less on swording and more on the other things you can do.

Compare with D&D, where Bob the Fighter is missing the tactical options of 7th Sea and the out-of-combat prowess of L5R. It's no wonder a straight fighter seems boring. You can overcome it to an extent with roleplaying, but you're working against the system assumptions the whole way.

Drakevarg
2011-05-24, 04:24 AM
No, definitely not. What's more impressive, someone who uses a massive hyperspace arsenal to vaporize the enemy from three cities over, or the John McClane type who goes against a massively better equipped enemy with nothing but the weapon in his hand and anything he can find on the way, and still makes it out on top?

Boci
2011-05-24, 04:37 AM
No, definitely not. What's more impressive, someone who uses a massive hyperspace arsenal to vaporize the enemy from three cities over, or the John McClane type who goes against a massively better equipped enemy with nothing but the weapon in his hand and anything he can find on the way, and still makes it out on top?

Problem is, if he consistently makes it out on top, then either:

a. the enemies are not that massively better equipt
b. the enemies are pretty weak
c. the DM is fudging rolls

A and B and to a certain extent c are fine in a novel, can can kill the fun for many players in an RPG.

Drakevarg
2011-05-24, 04:41 AM
Problem is, if he consistently makes it out on top, then either:

a. the enemies are not that massively better equipt
b. the enemies are pretty weak
c. the DM is fudging rolls

A and B and to a certain extent c are fine in a novel, can can kill the fun for many players in an RPG.

Alternatively it's because the warrior is smarter than the enemies. Are you assuming straight-up combat here? A warrior played boringly is boring, surprisingly enough. So is a mage that spams fireball until he runs out.

Combat Reflexes
2011-05-24, 04:42 AM
No, definitely not. What's more impressive, someone who uses a massive hyperspace arsenal to vaporize the enemy from three cities over, or the John McClane type who goes against a massively better equipped enemy with nothing but the weapon in his hand and anything he can find on the way, and still makes it out on top?

...you are totally right except for one small detail: Mr. John McClane won't make it out on top, because that's not what D&D is based on.
D&D was originally designed to be a cooperative/tactical game where every party member has to contribute, but the creators kind of lost it with the (full) spellcasters. Wizards can do easily without fighters, but the reverse is not true. A fighter without magical augmentation, protection, flight and such things isn't going to last long in a CR-appropiate battle.

tl;dr: d&d monsters are designed to kill fighters, but fighters aren't designed to kill monsters (at least not without heavy optimization)

Boci
2011-05-24, 04:44 AM
Alternatively it's because the warrior is smarter than the enemies.

Smart character requires a smart player.


Are you assuming straight-up combat here?

Its not a given, but isn't that going to be quite common for warrior characters?


A warrior played boringly is boring, surprisingly enough.

Isn't that quite a problem if the default playing style of an architype is apparantly inherantly boring?

Kurald Galain
2011-05-24, 04:46 AM
Think of every warrior you've ever seen or played. They had one thing in common: They tried to hit things (usually very hard) and generally tried not to get hit.
Sure. Are they doomed to be boring? Heck no. Ever played a Brujah vampire, a Get of Fenris garou, or a Street Samurai in Shadowrun? Yep, those are the warriors. Nope, not boring at all.

IIRC Tome of Battle contains several ways to actually turn you into a Very Damaging Poison-Spewing, Teleporting, Firebreathing Guy.

Drakevarg
2011-05-24, 04:47 AM
A fighter without magical augmentation, protection, flight and such things isn't going to last long in a CR-appropiate battle.

Which he doesn't necessarily need a mage on-site for, does he? I'm not talking about pulling a warrior from a low-magic campaign and tossing him into standard DnD. We're assuming for the purposes of this discussion that the warrior is equipped with whatever the game system in question assumes he should be equipped with.

Plus, this is a discussion of the warrior concept in gaming as a whole, not DnD warriors in particular.


Smart character requires a smart player?

Is being dumb an inherent quality of people who play warriors?


Its not a given, but isn't that going to be quite common for warrior characters?

But not inherent to it. It's also quite common for people who play mages to play blasters, because they're lazy and only rolled one because they wanted to set things on fire with their brain. Less common than people who play warriors to smack things with their swords until they fall down, no doubt, but still common.


Isn't that quite a problem if the default playing style of an architype is apparantly inherantly boring?

"Default" does not mean "right." And no, it in no way makes it inherently boring. "Inherently boring" would imply that no matter what you did with it, being a warrior will not be interesting. This is patently false.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you (indeed I probably am), but you're seeming to approach the issue that the only way to make warriors interesting would be to play them as usual, but with a particular build that would somehow make them interesting. This is not the way to go. When all you have is a hammer, get creative with the hammer instead of trying to build a better one.

Morty
2011-05-24, 04:55 AM
I have to concur that warriors being boring is only - sometimes - a problem in D&D. 3rd editon D&D screws it up royally, but other games tend to give fighter types non-combat skills - which is how it should be - and don't include overpowered magic that leaves them in the dust. And even in D&D 3e you can still roleplay your straight-classed fighter in an exciting way despite the mechanics getting in your way.

Boci
2011-05-24, 04:58 AM
Is being dumb an inherent quality of people who play warriors?

Only as much as being smart.


But not inherent to it. It's also quite common for people who play mages to play blasters, because they're lazy and only rolled one because they wanted to set things on fire with their brain. Less common than people who play warriors to smack things with their swords until they fall down, no doubt, but still common.

Setting things on fire with your mind should be an equally viable concept in RPGs to a warrior who just straight up hits things.


"Default" does not mean "right."

Its not right to play a warrior character who just hits things?


And no, it in no way makes it inherently boring. "Inherently boring" would imply that no matter what you did with it, being a warrior will not be interesting. This is patently false.

Sorry, misunderstood you.


Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you (indeed I probably am), but you're seeming to approach the issue that the only way to make warriors interesting would be to play them as usual, but with a particular build that would somehow make them interesting. This is not the way to go. When all you have is a hammer, get creative with the hammer instead of trying to build a better one.

But such a broad architype shouldn't need the ability for on the spot creativity. IF you have no creativity then maybe RPGs aren't for you, but some people can only be creative when they have time to think, which isn't a problem for a character concept, but wouldn't it make it hard for them to play a warrior?

Drakevarg
2011-05-24, 05:02 AM
Only as much as being smart.

But that still leaves the possibility of a warrior being played smart, and by probable extension, interestingly.


Its not right to play a warrior character who just hits things?

It's not right to play ANY character who JUST does anything.


But such a broad architype shouldn't need the ability for on the spot creativity. IF you have no creativity then maybe RPGs aren't for you, but some people can only be creative when they have time to think, which isn't a problem for a character concept, but wouldn't it make it hard for them to play a warrior?

Quite the opposite, I'd think. Such a broad archetype should facilitate the ability for on-the-spot creativity. After all, such a vague concept as "warrior" shouldn't require one to be Errol Flynn, Conan, or King Arthur. The door should be open for any of them and more, don't you agree?

Killer Angel
2011-05-24, 05:03 AM
And even in D&D 3e you can still roleplay your straight-classed fighter in an exciting way despite the mechanics getting in your way.

Even in D&D, you can build a ranger as a warrior type, and it's chassis will certainly give you more options (outside combat) then a fighter.

Edit: of course, the D&D figther is built in a very poor way, but the warrior concept is still feasible.

Eldariel
2011-05-24, 05:05 AM
No. D&D is the posterchild of this problem and the editions solve the thing differently.


3.5 Ed has Warblade, which is anything but boring. Lots of variable combat abilities, in-depth options that matter, decent skills & class features. Warblade is competent at all aspects of melee combat (and not horrible at range if you give it ranged weapon profs either) making for a more engaging game experience. They could use few extra maneuvers known but beyond that, the idea and the execution is very successful.

Older versions basically had more point to the various combat styles with the various weapon-vs-armor tables, weapon speeds and such like that. This alone gave Fighters some more options than just hitting things since it mattered that you're a master of a hundred weapons and that each of the weapons works differently. Also, older editions were particularly favorable for doing creative stuff based on your surroundings. While 3.X tends to want you to have X skill or feat to pull something off, if you wanted to swing of the chandelier or whatever in AD&D, for example, you just stated your intent, maybe rolled some dice and went for it.


Obviously, everything would be better combined; a bit more open skill/feat system for 3.X (for example, allow doing stuff that'll become a future skilltrick for you before actually gaining the points, as a sort of "learning" of it or whatever; most books don't have the hero practicing the stunts he pulls a hundred times, he does them on the spot 'cause he has to), return of Weapons Matter-mentality, and expanded combat styles á la Warblade with plenty of room for making your own maneuvers (á la spell creation) to do precisely what you want, as long as it's non-magical.

Boci
2011-05-24, 05:05 AM
But that still leaves the possibility of a warrior being played smart, and by probable extension, interestingly.

But such a broad type of character should not require a smart player. To say a factotum requires a smart player is fine, but a warrior shouldn't.

Drakevarg
2011-05-24, 05:08 AM
But such a broad type of character should not require a smart player. To say a factotum requires a smart player is fine, but a warrior shouldn't.

But my point is that the archetype of "warrior" is not doomed to be a boring concept, as per the thread title. It can be used interestingly, and thus the answer to the OP is "No."

Boci
2011-05-24, 05:10 AM
But my point is that the archetype of warrior is not doomed to be a boring concept, as per the thread title. It can be used interestingly, and thus the answer to the OP is "No."

True, but do you agree that the requirement of a smart player is a problem?

Drakevarg
2011-05-24, 05:14 AM
True, but do you agree that the requirement of a smart player is a problem?

Well, yes and no. After all, a mage who blasts incessantly is no more interesting to me than a warrior who hits things with his sword incessantly. So really, the idea is less "a creative player is necessary for a warrior to be interesting" and more "a creative player is necessary for a character to be interesting."

Is this a problem? Perhaps. Is it one that can be solved? Not really. Adding more flash to the character concept does nothing if the player can't bring it to life.

Boci
2011-05-24, 05:27 AM
Well, yes and no. After all, a mage who blasts incessantly is no more interesting to me than a warrior who hits things with his sword incessantly. So really, the idea is less "a creative player is necessary for a warrior to be interesting" and more "a creative player is necessary for a character to be interesting."

I dunno, Nuclear Dan's characters seemed interesting enough, but imagine if he tried to play Lothar.

Drakevarg
2011-05-24, 05:34 AM
I dunno, Nuclear Dan's characters seemed interesting enough, but imagine if he tried to play Lothar.

I haven't the slightest idea who that is, so I'm afraid I can't retort.

Boci
2011-05-24, 05:42 AM
I haven't the slightest idea who that is, so I'm afraid I can't retort.

Its from "another gaming comic", I was hopeing you had read it. Basically Joe Chaos is a powergamer who uses every advantage within the rules available to him and knows every single book, thus his elven(?) fighter Lothar is a good character. Nuclear Dan only ever makes fire based characters who know nothing else (although in more recent games this has changed).

If you haven't read the comic, then my point is whilst limited, a blaster mage is more inherantly interesting than a warrior who just hits things.

Drakevarg
2011-05-24, 06:03 AM
If you haven't read the comic, then my point is whilst limited, a blaster mage is more inherantly interesting than a warrior who just hits things.

If that's what floats yer boat. Doesn't float mine. I'd rather strong-arm someone off a cliff than set him on fire.

Boci
2011-05-24, 06:06 AM
If that's what floats yer boat. Doesn't float mine. I'd rather strong-arm someone off a cliff than set him on fire.

I prefer warriors to wizards as well, but I still think that a blaster is more inherantly interesting than a warrior. Even your short example there presents problems. Does the gaming system allow you to push enemies around? At what cost? What are your chances of success? How much resources do you need to spend on an ability that won't always be useful? Why was the enemy standing in a position where you could push them off a cliff?

Drakevarg
2011-05-24, 06:11 AM
I prefer warriors to wizards as well, but I still think that a blaster is more inherantly interesting than a warrior. Even your short example there presents problems. Does the gaming system allow you to push enemies around? At what cost? What are your chances of success? How much resources do you need to spend on an ability that won't always be useful? Why was the enemy standing in a position where you could push them off a cliff?

Considering I tend to roll characters with really high STR scores (mid-twenties by level 5, preferably), grappling someone and dragging them to a cliff isn't terribly difficult.

But besides, doesn't that list of caveats defend the warrior in terms of interesting gameplay? After all, interesting doesn't mean "wins all the time." Tension is big, and there's no tension without chance of failure.

Boci
2011-05-24, 06:16 AM
Considering I tend to roll characters with really high STR scores (mid-twenties by level 5, preferably), grappling someone and dragging them to a cliff isn't terribly difficult.

If we are talking about D&D 3rd edition then you need improved unarmed strike and improved grapple, you need one round to initiate the grapple, 1 round to pin, however many rounds you need drag him to the cluff, and then you need to let go of them and successfully bullrush them. That sounds like a suboptimal tactic.


But besides, doesn't that list of caveats defend the warrior in terms of interesting gameplay?

Not really IMO. You are spending resources on a trick that is not going to available every time, possible quite rarely.


After all, interesting doesn't mean "wins all the time." Tension is big, and there's no tension without chance of failure.

But with so many chaces of failure for such a great investment to me wpould be a disapointment.

Drakevarg
2011-05-24, 06:20 AM
If we are talking about D&D 3rd edition then you need improved unarmed strike and improved grapple, you need one round to initiate the grapple, 1 round to pin, however many rounds you need drag him to the cluff, and then you need to let go of them and successfully bullrush them. That sounds like a suboptimal tactic.

Why the two feats? Just have a high CON on top of it and deal with the punches. Suboptimal? Yes. Satisfying? Also yes.


Not really IMO. You are spending resources on a trick that is not going to available every time, possible quite rarely.

It was a contextual example. My point being is I prefer to do violence with my fists. Or sharp pieces of metal in those fists. Whatever.


But with so many chaces of failure for such a great investment to me wpould be a disapointment.

That's the gamble you have to take. Which to me makes it all the more satisfying when you actually pull it off.

The Big Dice
2011-05-24, 06:20 AM
The problem isn't warrior characters. I've played knights, scouts, mercenaries, fencers, samurai, gunslingers, street samurai, monks and power armour pilots without any of them feeling boring.

Of course I've played a D&D fighter too and gotten extremely frustrated with a system, but that's not the fault of the archetype I was trying to play. It's the fault of the system for it being incredibly restrictive.

D&D combat boils down to "Let's you and me trade blows until one of us runs out of hit points." And that's inherently boring. Sure, you can say magic opens up more options. But really all it does is give some status effect or do larger amounts of hit point damage. And that is also fairly boring after a while.

The problem is, to explore alternative combat options in 3.5 D&D means paying a feat tax. Or worse, playing a Monk.

Boci
2011-05-24, 06:25 AM
Why the two feats? Just have a high CON on top of it and deal with the punches. Suboptimal? Yes. Satisfying? Also yes.

Then your grapple attempt provokes an AoO and taking any damage from causes the attempt to automatically fail.


That's the gamble you have to take. Which to me makes it all the more satisfying when you actually pull it off.

I'm not denying it will be satisfying when you pull it off. But it will be frustrating the 5 other times when you try and fail to pull it off, taking damage and achieving nothing for your efforts.

Drakevarg
2011-05-24, 06:29 AM
Then your grapple attempt provokes an AoO and taking any damage from causes the attempt to automatically fail.

Which is what AC is for. Another core part of the "default" warrior build.


I'm not denying it will be satisfying when you pull it off. But it will be frustrating the 5 other times when you try and fail to pull it off, taking damage and achieving nothing for your efforts.

At which point you shrug and cave his face in. Sounds like a win/win.

Boci
2011-05-24, 06:34 AM
Which is what AC is for. Another core part of the "default" warrior build.

So your warrior character reguarly makes grapple attempts without improved grapple?


At which point you shrug and cave his face in. Sounds like a win/win.

If your definition of win is wasting precious time and taking damage before finally doing what you should have done in the first place.

Drakevarg
2011-05-24, 06:37 AM
So your warrior character reguarly makes grapple attempts without improved grapple?

I make grapple checks whenever there's a conveniently located ledge to toss them off of. Which is surprisingly often. And I don't think any of my builds have involved the Improved Grapple feat.


If your definition of win is wasting precious time and taking damage before finally doing what you should have done in the first place.

My definition of win is my enemy being a red smear on the floor and me being around to laugh at it.

Boci
2011-05-24, 06:45 AM
I make grapple checks whenever there's a conveniently located ledge to toss them off of. Which is surprisingly often. And I don't think any of my builds have involved the Improved Grapple feat.

And how many times did you get nothing but sword in your face for your efforts?
And what about the bullrush attempt? Does your chracter have improved bullrush?


My definition of win is my enemy being a red smear on the floor and me being around to laugh at it.

Which would seem far more achievable b y just hitting them, rather than grappling them, pinning them, moving them into position, letting them go and bullrushing them.

A lot of things could go wrong there.

Drakevarg
2011-05-24, 06:51 AM
And how many times did you get nothing but sword in your face for your efforts?

Surprisingly rarely. Luck, perhaps.


And what about the bullrush attempt? Does your chracter have improved bullrush?

Honestly I never bothered to bullrush. I just hoisted them over the edge and let go.


Which would seem far more achievable b y just hitting them, rather than grappling them, pinning them, moving them into position, letting them go and bullrushing them.

A lot of things could go wrong there.

Like I said earlier: Efficient? No. Funny? Hell yes.

Boci
2011-05-24, 06:54 AM
Honestly I never bothered to bullrush. I just hoisted them over the edge and let go.

That sounds problomatic, and I'm pretty sure its a house rule. Not the worst house rule, but its not going to be employed by every group.


Like I said earlier: Efficient? No. Funny? Hell yes.

Funny when it works yes. When all you get is bashed in the face? Not funny, emberrassing. When they break your grapple and move away from the cliff? Not funny, but at least its not emberrassing either. When the above happens three times in a row? Not funny, and borderline emberrassing.

FatJose
2011-05-24, 07:00 AM
It doesn't help that spell casters are made up BS while warrior types in D&D are created by people who know nothing about actual combat and also have a hard on for Gandalf. Seriously, didn't do the research. Why do you need Improved Unarmed? You don't. That should be automatic. Everyone in war knows how to fight with their fists unless they were just a teenaged boy that was given a pitchfork and told to deal with it. Soldiers have always had to learn how to use their fists for the very real risk of having to go unarmed in the middle of a battle. But you need to waste a feat instead of having it in your proficiencies. So get proficiency with javelins AND darts but not my god given hands? Really?!

Drakevarg
2011-05-24, 07:01 AM
That sounds problomatic, and I'm pretty sure its a house rule. Not the worst house rule, but its not going to be employed by every group.

I think it's less a houserule and more an ad hoc ruling. After all, Bullrushing implies that you're shoving someone, not dangling them over and just letting go.


Funny when it works yes. When all you get is bashed in the face? Not funny, emberrassing. When they break your grapple and move away from the cliff? Not funny, but at least its not emberrassing either. When the above happens three times in a row? Not funny, and borderline emberrassing.

Like I said, due to my obscenely high STR I rarely have to worry about them breaking grapple. The one time I can recall it happening, the enemy in question ran off (this was before we realized the "can run a number of rounds equal to CON" rule existed, which would've meant I could easily catch him). On the other hand, it was a DMPC I was trying to kill, so perhaps my efforts were futile in that case.

And I rarely bother with the same tactic twice in a row. If at first you don't succeed, find something else to kill them with. Preferably something just as awesome.


Why do you need Improved Unarmed? You don't. That should be automatic. Everyone in war knows how to fight with their fists unless they were just a teenaged boy that was given a pitchfork and told to deal with it. Soldiers have always had to learn how to use their fists for the very real risk of having to go unarmed in the middle of a battle. But you need to waste a feat instead of having it in your proficiencies. So get proficiency with javelins AND darts but not my god given hands? Really?!

I'm inclined to agree with you, even if I would have phrased it in a manner somewhat less rant-scented.

Boci
2011-05-24, 07:05 AM
I think it's less a houserule and more an ad hoc ruling. After all, Bullrushing implies that you're shoving someone, not dangling them over and just letting go.

True, but dangling someone off a cliff edge is very dangerous unless they are so weak that you do not pose any threat to you by ad hoc ruling they should have a chance of pulling you with them.


Like I said, due to my obscenely high STR I rarely have to worry about them breaking grapple.

Its easier to boost escape artist checks than grapple. Plus they could teleport, such as via anklet of translocation.


And I rarely bother with the same tactic twice in a row. If at first you don't succeed, find something else to kill them with. Preferably something just as awesome.

I didn't mean in the same fight, I mean against multiple opponents. You need a chain of good rolls, the enemy only needs 1 to break it.


I'm inclined to agree with you, even if I would have phrased it in a manner somewhat less rant-scented.

Sounds like a good house rule to me. Remove improved unarmed strike and make unarmed attack a martial weapon that deal 1d3 subdual damage.

Drakevarg
2011-05-24, 07:10 AM
True, but dangling someone off a cliff edge is very dangerous unless they are so weak that you do not pose any threat to you by ad hoc ruling they should have a chance of pulling you with them.

I actually had that happen once. I punched my way back up the cliff. It was even more awesome than just dropping him would've been.


Its easier to boost escape artist checks than grapple. Plus they could teleport, such as via anklet of translocation.

Good thing that's yet to come up then. If it does, I will retort with a hammer to the face.


I didn't mean in the same fight, I mean against multiple opponents. You need a chain of good rolls, the enemy only needs 1 to break it.

Ah. Well, the probability of a splat-worthy cliff to be handy multiple fights in a row isn't too high, and as funny as the result is even that gets boring after a while for the same reason spamming fireball into crowds of mooks does. Gotta mix up the massacre.

Boci
2011-05-24, 07:13 AM
I actually had that happen once. I punched my way back up the cliff. It was even more awesome than just dropping him would've been.

Getting knocked off a cliff doesn't sound awesome to me. The fact that you survived and then punched your way back up is, but were that my character it would be slightly over shadowed by the fact that it was my fault it happened to me in the first place.


Good thing that's yet to come up then. If it does, I will retort with a hammer to the face.

Having wasted time with a suboptimal tactics.


Ah. Well, the probability of a splat-worthy cliff to be handy multiple fights in a row isn't too high, and as funny as the result is even that gets boring after a while for the same reason spamming fireball into crowds of mooks does. Gotta mix up the massacre.

I thought you said a chance to use that tactic came up suprisingly often.

Drakevarg
2011-05-24, 07:18 AM
Getting knocked off a cliff doesn't sound awesome to me. The fact that you survived and then punched your way back up is, but were that my character it would be slightly over shadowed by the fact that it was my fault it happened to me in the first place.

The character in question was an adrenaline junky to begin with, and regardless of how you wound up in such a position, the fact that you climbed back up by punching handholds into the ice kind of trumps everything else.


Having wasted time with a suboptimal tactics.

I'm in no rush.


I thought you said a chance to use that tactic came up suprisingly often.

By "surprisingly often" I mean "at least once in every one-shot campaign I've ever been in," when I would expect "that one time twenty sessions ago."

FatJose
2011-05-24, 07:28 AM
I'm inclined to agree with you, even if I would have phrased it in a manner somewhat less rant-scented.

It is pretty ranty, right?

It's just such a weird thing to see in a game. I've never encountered it in any other rpg. I could see it if the fluff was different. Say, you get penalties of some kind when fighting someone waving a sword around because you have to get in much closer than usual when unarmed, but its just a flat "Can't do it right."

Anyway, I think Warriors can be fun for risk takers. I think that's a big factor. With mages, everything is pretty much guaranteed to work when the battle is going as planned. Mage in the rear, Fighters in the front, enemies in the open. But with the reliance on skill or raw ability checks for a melee characters that often don't even have the class skills needed and very sparse combat maneuvers like feinting...wait..standard action? What is this? I don't even...
Okay, I guess it just comes down to not enough options without stretching yourself thin for things that shouldn't even require feats to do. Mages are given reality breaking spells by the truckload while melee characters have to spend the few feats they get on innocuous abilities. It's rewarding being the underdog, though.

Partysan
2011-05-24, 07:30 AM
There's two problems.
One is abstraction. While each spell is made out to be very specific, melee combat is heavily abstracted to attack being one standardised maneuver, there being no active defense, little tactical choices and HP are a chapter on their own. Everyone who practices martial arts knows, that melee is extremely diverse and exciting, but many games can' portray it that way because of oversimplification and unrealistic mechanics.
The other one is this pidgeonholing. Others have already said that a fighter usually would have to be trained in quite a variety of other mundane skill that are useful in the context of war and in the society and environment they live in. This also goes back to limited tactical options as mentioned in the first paragraph, because those take out the possibility of using your smarts in a fight. If you just want to keep swinging, no one is stopping you, but you also shouldn't be stopped if you want to do more.

P.S.: IUS does actually make a bit of sense - fighting armed opponents unarmed is dangerous and requires special training, although I'd concur that most trained warriors would have gotten that training.

Drakevarg
2011-05-24, 07:31 AM
It's rewarding being the underdog, though.

It's also rewarding to hear the satisfying WHUMPF of a warhammer being introduced to some poor sod's midsection, a sound that them mages in the back will never get to truly appreciate.

FatJose
2011-05-24, 07:37 AM
It's also rewarding to hear the satisfying WHUMPF of a warhammer being introduced to some poor sod's midsection, a sound that them mages in the back will never get to truly appreciate.
Hopefully the DM will give you that. Part of melee characters being boring is often the DM being boring.

PersonMan
2011-05-24, 07:52 AM
I've found that melee/warrior-concepts are only boring if you aren't willing to do unusual things with them, or do them in unusual mechanical ways.

For example, one of my own more recent "warrior" concepts is a soldier from a society based completely around fighting, with tons of weird cultural quirks and the like, who feels little to no emotion and can tap into a deep well of inner power to activate what she calls the "ultimate defense". She runs around with a massive spiked chain tearing things to shreds and avoiding hits when she can(she usually just takes 'em, though).

Mechanically, she's a gestalted wizard/swiftblade//Barbarian/fighter/frenzied berserker, who starts major combats with buff rounds granted by the time stop-esque thing allowed by swiftblade. Fluff-wise, she's only sort of magic, but it's more of an instinctive amplification of her martial skills. I've actually used the same build for several different concepts, almost all of which are "warriors who go into unstoppable killing machine-mode during important fights".

Essentially, if you're willing to use one of 3.5s strengths you can just refluff any of the numerous subsystems to your liking(presuming that you have a DM willing to let you do so) to play fun warriors.

Project_Mayhem
2011-05-24, 08:04 AM
With regards to the whole cliff situation - I think this is further evidence of the point that I and several others have made. D&D 3.5 is not good for this stuff. You have to spend loads of resources, or suck up a high failure chance (statistically unlikely high strength aside), to do something kinda standard that doesn't explicitly have rules.

Don't get me wrong - chucking someone off a cliff is awesome, thematic, and is the kinda thing that makes warrior types cool. It just doesn't work in D&D with any real degree of optimisation in play

Lord Raziere
2011-05-24, 08:22 AM
Nope, its not. just look at Exalted, there is a lot of craziness a Dawn can pull off with just a few melee charms and some stunting. You just need to translate that to other RPG's.

T.G. Oskar
2011-05-24, 08:55 AM
Seems to me like the difference between...say, Final Fantasy and Wizardry, or Final Fantasy and Bushido Blade...

As in: combat is either an abstraction meant to be "easy" (HP allowing the character to survive more hits than possible, while damage slowly becomes pointless unless you can apply multipliers to it) or is impossibly lethal (a hit with a sword can leave you armless, and that's if you have some luck). D&D, the poster child of RPGs up until recently and the precursor to many console RPGs (Wizardry, Might & Magic and Elder Scrolls as examples) serves as one, while White Wolf goes straight to the other side (because, really, being a badass warrior that gets two-shot if careless doesn't compare to a charismatic guy who can make an entire room adore him with a simple wink). It's mostly in which point of that abstraction you wish to be; more lethal and "realistic" (to the extent that you're a supernal being fighting other supernal beings and thus you might have some resilience to a few things but not to others), or less lethal and "epic" (to the extent that you can get bloodied, your veins popping out blood by the minute and you still fight like if you weren't hurt. ToB in D&D did a lot to deal with what's mostly a mechanical problem (spellcasters having several more options than warriors inside of combat), but warriors still have to deal with having spellcasters outpace them out of combat, if only because there's few options outside of combat for them, on a system that has its game balance inclined towards combat. Compare to, say, Exalted, where combat gets easily bloody if you're stingy with motes but if you spend them like a retiree on a casino and shine like a Christmas tree, then you can pull off things that definitely don't bore the player.

I find description to be a point of interest, and something that's usually not mentioned. Sure; saying "I hit the enemy" 20 times will be boresome, but if the DM describes the results well, they won't get bored. If applying that to ToB, you definitely get the people's attention, and thus get less bored (eventually, the lack of options will become the focus of your boredom, but at least you can distract them with "you make a spin, stab the enemy, it spontaneously combusts and starts spinning around, flailing and consuming itself until what remains is ashes" at 6th level or so). Description is something other systems encourage the players to use, providing minor bonuses or even recovering an expended utility while at it (for example, describing exactly what you attempt to do on Exalted won't net you motes, but it may net you an extra dice of attack or damage, or maybe enable you to use Willpower for an automatic success), which is something D&D lacks on its core rules, relying usually on DM fiat to provide it or carefully constructed feats which don't compare by any means to a spellcaster's incantation, especially if the latter has multiple uses (Alter Self, I'm looking at you!).

Another thing, resuming the lethality thing, is that on other games you're usually discouraged into entering combat. WW is notorious on that, and Shadowrun is even worse; both games usually rely upon the character to defuse the situation before even drawing your weapon or else do several tricks to escape, generally leading into an inescapable combat where you may go all out because there's little option, and then probably rest, regroup and tail it out of there. That discouragement is partly because vitality resources are limited (and you get some severe penalties for doing so; imagine a -5 penalty on attack rolls and AC if your HP drops to less than 80%, and that's being conservative), partly because you don't have many easy buttons (you do, but you risk losing them for the really important battle because they're a bit too expensive or they require Willpower which you can't replenish very easily) and partly because it allows others to do their job (such as the diplomat defusing the situation through speech, or a viable threat of a bomb placed by the skill-monkey) without them having to draw their weapons. You might get into one or two battles, but recovering from the fallout tends to take quite a bit, and may go counter to your concept.

I really can't tell anything beyond D&D, WW (and partly Shadowrun, though not earlier editions) and GURPS (which seems to be roughly in the midst of the two, but that's speaking from 3rd Edition), but combat generally gravitates between deadly (and not so entertaining if the lethality rate is too high) or constant but not varied. Still, playing a Warrior archetype really depends on how the player and the GM work it out; usually if you consider doing something risky, you might actually pull something interesting; like, going against probability, throw a longsword over three range increments and confirm the critical hit that slays a runaway creature, or chaining smites that cause a mass Atonement effect just because of lucky shots. Note that the latter two actually happened on D&D games (and partly were done by me, at least the last one because the first one was entirely mine as a player), but on other systems, while possible, might also imply expending a resource too valuable (Edge/Willpower) or probably something detrimental. It does indicate that sometimes, for the sake of the story and the entertainment of the players, it's best to bend the rules a bit (particularly on D&D) or tame them (in the case of a WW/Shadowrun game with many warriors around).

lesser_minion
2011-05-24, 08:57 AM
Why should it be? The burden of awesomeness rests on the player, not on her character.

The idea that anything even remotely realistic is 'boring' or 'tedious' is a far worse example of harmful baggage than the belief that warriors should behave vaguely like real-life martial artists.

One of the main problems is that magic is a blank slate -- it doesn't come with the same built-in set of checks and balances that non-casters have. In 3e, the designers took that slate and did what every talentless hack does -- instead of building in sensible checks and balances (or even bothering to devise an internally-consistent set of rules for how magic works in the D&D world), they made the magic system into a great steaming pile of do-anything tripe.

The other issue, as has already been mentioned, is that combat is so abstract that a lot of what the warrior does is handled in the same way, even when it could be far more interesting.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-05-24, 09:00 AM
I have to echo the statements that a "warrior" concept, at least in D&D and its iterations, is only as boring as you make it.

Sure, you can just say your fighter is a generic so-and-so from the bland farm down Insignificant Way, but that's really more a lack of imagination on the player's part than a fault of the system.

Yes, Warriors in the d20 model lack the sheer tactical advantages of a wizard, but then again, wizards are supposed to be rare, and while they may become invincible relatively quickly there have been and always will be more warriors. Besides, he's gotta run out of spells at some point. :smallbiggrin:

The Glyphstone
2011-05-24, 09:06 AM
I have to echo the statements that a "warrior" concept, at least in D&D and its iterations, is only as boring as you make it.

Sure, you can just say your fighter is a generic so-and-so from the bland farm down Insignificant Way, but that's really more a lack of imagination on the player's part than a fault of the system.

Yes, Warriors in the d20 model lack the sheer tactical advantages of a wizard, but then again, wizards are supposed to be rare, and while they may become invincible relatively quickly there have been and always will be more warriors. Besides, he's gotta run out of spells at some point. :smallbiggrin:


http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p116/ArcherYiZe/reserve_motivator.jpg
:smallbiggrin:

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-05-24, 09:06 AM
http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p116/ArcherYiZe/reserve_motivator.jpg
:smallbiggrin:



Party pooper. :smalltongue:

Alchemistmerlin
2011-05-24, 09:16 AM
No, but we're probably doomed to see this thread again forever.

Kregor
2011-05-24, 09:25 AM
I think warrior is boring to those who don't like playing warriors.

I had a friend who took Druid first time she played. Hated it. You could watch her across the table and know she was wishing she was somewhere else. Next time, experimented with a spell caster. Same problem. I think the level of involvement she wanted to invest in the game was lower than the amount expected of a spellcaster. I think we were on the verge of losing her when I suggested Barbarian. She loved it. We played on and off for a year, and I finally asked her if she was okay with Barbarian since all she did was hit things. She said yes. She loved kicking in doors, and going nuts. Most of the party's excitement was caused by her going all Leeroy in every dungeon. Sure The wizard was blowing away enemies too, but without her taking the damage for the party... I think that was her favourite part. When I would tell her "You take 30 damage," and you'd hear the wizard and rogue choke, and she'd casually mark it down, look up and say, "I'm still good."

I will say that in the same group, another friend started a wizard as his first character and loved it. He's never played anything but spellcasters since.

Like I said, if you love being a warrior, it's not boring. If you play the game and involve yourself in the story, you make it interesting to you. It's about fitting a character to your style of play.

Jay R
2011-05-24, 09:35 AM
Sir Lancelot
D'Artagnan
Boromir
Reepicheep
John McClane
George S. Patton
Sergeant York
Zorro
Cordell Walker

No, the warrior concept is not boring. So why is playing one eventually boring?

Here's a clue. If you play long enough, and only play the game mechanics, the wizard concept will get boring too. It just takes longer because there are more details to fiddle with first. Every couple of levels the options change, so you need to play lots of wizards over lots of campaigns for it to happen, but eventually those game mechanics will get boring too.

The original observation about a limited set of game mechanic options (try to hit things and not get hit) is true.

But none of the warriors listed above are boring. So why are warrior PCs getting boring?

Go back to that list. When you think about Lancelot, do you think first about his hit points, or his doomed love for Gwenevere? Is D'Artagnan about his to-hit roll or his Gascon pride? Is Boromir about his CON score or his deep desire to save Gondor in any way possible?

If your character is just a bag of game mechanics, it will eventually become boring. And the bag with the fewest game mechanics becomes boring first.

More importantly, if the game only uses the game mechanics, then that's all the players can deal with, no matter how much time they try to spend on character development.

Think about your favorite warrior movie. How much of the movie is fight scene, and how much is romance, intrigue, puzzle-solving, etc.? If you are put in moral dilemmas and puzzles to solve and intrigue to thread your way through, then your mind is active, and the game is fascinating. If you are facing your hundredth set of monsters, you're doing what you've done ninety-nine times before. That's boring.

lesser_minion
2011-05-24, 09:45 AM
Nope, its not. just look at Exalted, there is a lot of craziness a Dawn can pull off with just a few melee charms and some stunting. You just need to translate that to other RPG's.

Exalted. The game where the rules require a character to have exotic powers -- or to be on the cusp of gaining them -- before she can be considered worthy of their notice.

I don't think it really constitutes an improvement here -- it's not fixing the disease, it's embracing it.

Aron Times
2011-05-24, 09:51 AM
Three pages without mentioning the Martial power source in D&D 4e? Between their cool powers and class features, plus skills, plus Martial Practices (mundane versions of rituals), martial characters have a lot going for them. In fact, a pure-martial party is completely viable since you don't need casters to craft magic items for you.

Boci
2011-05-24, 09:55 AM
Three pages without mentioning the Martial power source in D&D 4e? Between their cool powers and class features, plus skills, plus Martial Practices (mundane versions of rituals), martial characters have a lot going for them. In fact, a pure-martial party is completely viable since you don't need casters to craft magic items for you.

Wouldn't you be missing a controller?

Friv
2011-05-24, 09:58 AM
Well, the concept is still "Warrior", it's just moved to magic warrior.

But yeah, Exalted isn't the best example.

Glancing over at my bookshelf, I can see Adventure, Mutants and Masterminds, Weapon of the Gods, Serenity, and several World of Darkness books.

* In Adventure, being a warrior is fun. You end up with "plot-altering" powers, but they're specifically designed to emulate action hero tropes, rather than being actively magic.
* Mutants and Masterminds allows for Batman very high up the power scale without any penalty. You can play a warrior with no superpowers, give him tons of feats, skills, and defenses due to his incredible training, and have someone capable of standing with the super-powered people. He's sort of a combination warrior/skill-monkey at that point, but that's part of the idea.
* Weapon of the Gods uses kung fu training right out of epic kung fu movies, so I don't know if you could it if you won't allow Exalted, but warriors are awesome regardless.
* Serenity soldiers aren't any less awesome than Serenity skill-folks, since there's no magic in the setting.
* World of Darkness tends to discourage fighting, but there's enough fighting stuff in most of the games for warriors to be useful.


There are really three questions here:

#1) (The one I thought was being asked) Can a character who is designed around physical combat be as interesting in a game as one designed around non-standard combat? The answer is yes, but not in D&D.
#2) (The one that seems to be being asked) Can a character with absolutely no magical tricks stand up to one who has magic out the gills? The answer is yes, but only in settings where magic is not overwhelmingly stronger than non-magic.
#3) Can a character be interesting if combat is literally the only thing they're capable of? The answer is not easily.

Partysan
2011-05-24, 09:59 AM
*snip*

Yes, it's the roleplaying that makes a character interesting, but that's not exclusive to warriors. Any character, regardless of how good or bad the mechanics are, is only interesting because of his personality, that's why we call it roleplaying. That doesn't change the fact that the warrior concept is gamistically bad represented, especially in D&D.

Aron Times
2011-05-24, 10:09 AM
Wouldn't you be missing a controller?
Contrary to popular belief, having one of each role is not strictly necessary. Besides, all martial classes have some way of locking down the enemy, so collectively, the entire party serves as a controller.

I'm actually in an all-martial (sort of, see below) party right now:

1. Warlord - Me. Martial Leader
2. Fighter|Ranger - Martial defender and striker.
3. Rogue - Martial Striker
4. Ranger|Seeker - Martial striker and primal controller.

Boci
2011-05-24, 10:14 AM
Contrary to popular belief, having one of each role is not strictly necessary.

I know. I've played in a group that had 3 strikers and two defenders. High character mortality rate.

Incanur
2011-05-24, 10:29 AM
The warrior concept suffers no such dark fate. Now, wizards and company are inherently more powerful or versatile, but that's not an insurmountable obstacle. In my homebrew system, martial characters hold the advantage of precision against the mage's raw force.

Toofey
2011-05-24, 10:35 AM
I think Warriors are as fun or boring as you make them, the funniest part to me are the people who play bland as toast warriors and just roll dice and then only are willing to play bland as toast warriors they just roll dice with.

also tactically something that gets missed is that warriors have a much higher damage potential against individual targets. (I don't know if this still holds in 4e) and in some older versions have a higher general damage potential than wizards.

The Big Dice
2011-05-24, 10:42 AM
Yes, it's the roleplaying that makes a character interesting, but that's not exclusive to warriors. Any character, regardless of how good or bad the mechanics are, is only interesting because of his personality, that's why we call it roleplaying. That doesn't change the fact that the warrior concept is gamistically bad represented, especially in D&D.

I'm not sure if that's meant to be a GNS related point, so I'll let the fact that D&D should really be considered a Simulationist system go, and not get into my usual debunking mode.

The problem with warriors in D&D is exclusively the system. One of my favourite character concepts is the light fighter. No heavy armour, sometimes two weapons, sometimes not. Usually the lightest armour I can get away with and designed around the idea of exploiting ranges of combat. Often with a sideline of stealth. But not like a D&D Rogue.

Except I can't do that with D&D. The closes I can get is a Ranger, which comes with a whole bunch of baggage I don't want. And I can't concentrate of defensive techniques or making mobility work in my favour with D&D. Not without paying a massive feat tax and being forced to delay my concept for several levels.

And that's a flaw in the system, not the character concept. And I don't want to play a light, mobile fighter in six or seven levels. I want to be able to play my concept out of the box, at least in a limited form if not to full potential.

What it boils down to is, D&D is a very complex and technical system that does't allow you to play the character you want unless yo're prepared to jump through an array of hoops to get there.

Kiero
2011-05-24, 10:46 AM
Hmm I think the problem is that the warrior is only as fun or boring as you make it, the difference is that the mage is given more tools. I've played very interesting fighters and enjoyed every second of it because I was able to jump, dive, and be generally in the thick of things.

Got it in one, as far as I'm concerned.

I only play "warriors", I've yet to get bored with doing so. I'm hoping to play a straight up tank in our next game, rather than my more usual brand of mobile skirmisher.

Knaight
2011-05-24, 10:47 AM
Also tactically something that gets missed is that warriors have a much higher damage potential against individual targets. (I don't know if this still holds in 4e) and in some older versions have a higher general damage potential than wizards.

This is in the general role playing board. There are games other than D&D, and they warrant consideration, so this is far from a universal statement. There are systems where "higher damage potential against individual targets" is a nonsensical concept, and it is certainly not something ingrained in the concepts under the umbrella of warriors.

Now, concerning the thread as a whole, I'd say the reason "warrior" can be viewed as boring in many systems concerns the interaction of a few traits of these systems. Combat in them tends to be slow, it might take an hour to resolve a fight. Unless your reading speed is atrocious, no well written combat scene takes an hour to read, and no well made film combat scene takes an hour to go through. As such, at those time scales, something besides the allure of combat scenes in film or literature must be present to prevent it from being dull. Frequently, characters that fall under the "warrior" archetype in these cases don't have that, as what that is is typically interaction with the game as a game, as opposed to elements of the game, such as the setting and characters that, if good, inherently lend interest.

Now, both of those things must be true to suck the fun out of the archetype in certain situations. Consider Burning Wheel, where only the first is the case, and "warriors" are thus fun. Consider most rules light systems, where only the second is the case, but its over quickly and "warriors" are thus fun. If both of these are the case, it is a failure of the system, and given that so many people seem to feel that "warriors" are boring, and given that this board is D&D centric, one could call it a flaw in certain editions of D&D. I personally only see this particular flaw in 3rd, and perhaps 2nd if one has most every option in play.

hamishspence
2011-05-24, 10:50 AM
The problem with warriors in D&D is exclusively the system. One of my favourite character concepts is the light fighter. No heavy armour, sometimes two weapons, sometimes not. Usually the lightest armour I can get away with and designed around the idea of exploiting ranges of combat. Often with a sideline of stealth. But not like a D&D Rogue.

Except I can't do that with D&D. The closes I can get is a Ranger, which comes with a whole bunch of baggage I don't want. And I can't concentrate of defensive techniques or making mobility work in my favour with D&D. Not without paying a massive feat tax and being forced to delay my concept for several levels.

There is the scout from Complete Adventurer- with its skirmish ability
The warblade from Tome of Battle might be able to fill this "light fighter" role out of the box.

Boci
2011-05-24, 10:53 AM
There is the scout from Complete Adventurer- with its skirmish ability
The warblade from Tome of Battle might be able to fill this "light fighter" role out of the box.

There's also the swashbuckler.

Seb Wiers
2011-05-24, 10:56 AM
No? So what are they? The closest the system comes to it is how "tough" you are, but the Wizard has no valid way for getting tougher. And the BaB thing still stands.

Arguably, the wizard has MORE valid ways of getting tougher; a steady diet of exotic herbs, hard-chi meditation, warding tatoos, "mind over matter" ability, minor expendable protection magics, etc would better explain the huge increase in "hit points" than any level of mundane physical toughness can.
Its perhaps worth considering that the process of becoming a Lich might just be the logical (over)extension of methods that wizards use to make themselves harder to kill (IE, increase their hit points).

Frozen_Feet
2011-05-24, 11:29 AM
No, it's not.

Robin Hood and Conan fall under the very broad concept of "warrior". So do Sun Tzu, Miyamoto Musashi, Audrey Murphy, Simo Häyhä, Genghis-khan and Alexander the Great. So do Usopp, Sanji, Roronoa Zoro, or Heracles, Achilles and Gilgamesh.

Within D&D 3.5 system, there are loads of problems on the way of being warrior - most importantly, the somewhat arbitrary distinction between beatstick and skillmonkey. Out-of-the-box, the most basic warrior type, the Fighter, just doesn't get the skills and abilities it should logically have. Splatbooks improve this somewhat, but a warrior still has hard time to shine because everyone else gets improved much more. Most importantly, even a straightclassed Fighter is awesome... compared to lower-level fighters or other less skilled adversaries. It's against their supposed equals that they fall short.

How lucky, then, that D&D 3.5 is not the only system in existence. :smallwink:

Roderick_BR
2011-05-24, 11:30 AM
Obligatory reference: Kratos, from God of War. Granted, he fights with a few artifact weapons, but still, most of his fighting style is made of awesome.
Some claim that if his character sheet were made in D&D, he'd use the ToB rules, instead of being a "common" D&D fighter (or barbarian, or whatever), because he does more than just stand in front of a big burly monster hacking away with a weapon with a +(whatever) bonus.
He could easily be used as example of what a high-level warrior for D&D should be like.

Seb Wiers
2011-05-24, 11:35 AM
The problem with warriors in D&D is exclusively the system. One of my favourite character concepts is the light fighter. No heavy armour, sometimes two weapons, sometimes not. Usually the lightest armour I can get away with and designed around the idea of exploiting ranges of combat. Often with a sideline of stealth. But not like a D&D Rogue.

Try a halfling knight (or slayer) with 20 dex and str as a minor stat. Take Melee Training (dex). Since all your attacks are basic melee / ranged, you still hit just fine, and only do slightly less damage, while having better mobility and equal (if not better) AC (better vs OA, and you can force a re-roll each encounter, so yeah- really dodgy).
This is one of the things HotF* is actually rather nice for.
Of course, there's also the Scout, pretty much the paragon of 2 handed fighty-ness, complete with a stance that grants extra stealth and bonus damage when you have combat advantage.

The Glyphstone
2011-05-24, 11:44 AM
Try a halfling knight (or slayer) with 20 dex and str as a minor stat. Take Melee Training (dex). Since all your attacks are basic melee / ranged, you still hit just fine, and only do slightly less damage, while having better mobility and equal (if not better) AC (better vs OA, and you can force a re-roll each encounter, so yeah- really dodgy).
This is one of the things HotF* is actually rather nice for.
Of course, there's also the Scout, pretty much the paragon of 2 handed fighty-ness, complete with a stance that grants extra stealth and bonus damage when you have combat advantage.

Touche, sir, touche.

Tengu_temp
2011-05-24, 11:53 AM
Without reading the whole thread, just the OP:

No. Between 3.5's ToB, 4e's martial classes and a whole lot of other games that make completely mundane characters mechanically interesting (Fate, Burning Wheel, GURPS - just to name a few), warriors can be as badass and interesting as characters using magic, superpowers or other supernatural tools. They're boring only when the game designer goes with the "fighters should be simple, casters should be complex" mindset, because simple usually translates here to simplified, boring and with no options.

Incanur
2011-05-24, 11:54 AM
Within D&D 3.5 system, there are loads of problems on the way of being warrior - most importantly, the somewhat arbitrary distinction between beatstick and skillmonkey.

Yes, that's critical. Also the distinction between archer and melee combatant. Countless fantasy and mythological heroes excelled at all three roles.

Ravens_cry
2011-05-24, 12:07 PM
I know I promote this like I get money for it, but in the 3.5 SRD alone, the Thug Sneak Attack Fighter variants combine to make a pretty decent light fighter, in my opinion.

Seb Wiers
2011-05-24, 12:12 PM
Hopefully the DM will give you that. Part of melee characters being boring is often the DM being boring.

And how. In the Hârnmaster games I play, the "warriors" (its a classless system) have a lot of fun due to the very graphic use of a hit location system. Attack and defenses are handled in an abstract, but the results of hits most certainly are not!
Meanwhile the magic system, while very powerful and flexible, is hard to make sustained use of (classic "magic causes fatigue", combined with a rather nasty death spiral where fatigue inflicts penalties on EVERYTHING, including defenses).
I would't say the character types are balanced, but they are both interesting to use.

CarpeGuitarrem
2011-05-24, 12:13 PM
Why you fight is far more interesting than how or even what you fight.
Do I scent some Mouse Guard/Burning Wheel here? :smallbiggrin:

The Big Dice
2011-05-24, 12:16 PM
Try a halfling knight (or slayer) with 20 dex and str as a minor stat. Take Melee Training (dex). Since all your attacks are basic melee / ranged, you still hit just fine, and only do slightly less damage, while having better mobility and equal (if not better) AC (better vs OA, and you can force a re-roll each encounter, so yeah- really dodgy).
This is one of the things HotF* is actually rather nice for.
Of course, there's also the Scout, pretty much the paragon of 2 handed fighty-ness, complete with a stance that grants extra stealth and bonus damage when you have combat advantage.

That is exactly the problem with D&D. you've gone to specialised splatbooks and haven't answered the fundamental problem that defenses are a factor of equipment, not training. Sure, a +5 Dex bonus gives +5 to your AC. But armour that gives a +4 with a max Dex bonus of +3 is giving you +7. And armour that's got a +7 with a max Dex of +1 is going to be even better.

Dex is almost irrelevant in D&D, other than for Weapon Finesse or ranged combat. And both of those choices aren't exactly optimal unless you're willing to cherry pick from multiple books. At the end of the day, the guy with the better armour is always going to be harder to hit, with extras like amulets the like not making any difference because at a given point everyone is likely to have them.

D&D is built on the assumption that gear is everything. But I like to be able to make a character that can engage in close combat. Not grappling, getting inside the reach of your weapons and exploiting weak spots in your defenses. And I can't do that in D&D. There's no option for stabbing your foot with a dagger to pin you to the spot. There's no allowance for attacking your eyes or hands or other lighly armoured body part.

In a system like GURPS, I can build a character capable of taking apart someone with the best armour, despite not being able to get damage past that armour. And all without stepping outside core. D&D doesn't allow that level of versatility of concept for melee characters.

Kalirren
2011-05-24, 12:17 PM
+! to everyone who voiced similar opinions in the thread before me.

Warriors are not generally boring. Warriors are boring in 3.5 because they speak an obsolete system language. The game has shifted focus from talking about the state of combat in HP to talking about the state of combat in terms of action economy.

IMO there are two ways to fix this. Way zero is to not play warrior-types in 3.5.

Way one is to privilege warrior classes, and replace 3.5 caster classes with classes that have caster-flavored powers but still fundamentally talk in HP, and don't screw with the action economy of warrior classes. This is what I find the tier system is intended to do.

Way two is to privilege caster classes, to homebrew some other way of playing warrior-types in 3.5, a true equivalent to full casters, that enable warriors to have warrior-flavored powers but still talk in action economy. This often works within groups but doesn't translate well to online play. This is the road Wizards started walking when they published ToB and its maneuvers system, and later committed to when they published 4E where all powers, martial or arcane, were described in the same system language.

Just_Ice
2011-05-24, 12:43 PM
Before 3E, being anything but a fighter tended to have pretty steep requirements, none of which you were getting on 3d6. It was still sort of a sucky class, but spells took longer to cast and were easier to interrupt, and really there was a good chance that everyone was either going to be a fighter or a thief.

Since stat requirements were taken out and Fighters were not changed greatly from 2E (feats were probably intended to make up the difference though obviously they did not) it became very easy to pick one of the classes that totally outpaced them in terms of optinos. Additionally, magic was streamlined to both be slightly less powerful, but also much less troublesome to the caster. Additionally, 4d6 drop worst and "pick whatever one for whatever stat" becoming the norm has made SAD even more viable. That's one reasonable explanation for fighters sucking in 3.5, though it was pretty much just as bad in 2E, as Monsters were brutal and even more poorly CRed.

Warriors will forever be awesome, gritty, skin-of-your-teeth archtypes, but some degree of exclusive pandering to magic-users will always exist. Like Jedi, swords, and vampires, they're just more popular than their relevant alternatives.

Incanur
2011-05-24, 01:15 PM
Dex is almost irrelevant in D&D, other than for Weapon Finesse or ranged combat.

That's quite an exaggeration. Dex adds to initiative, which is perhaps the most critical roll at higher levels. It's just that the best ways to get Dex involve transforming yourself into some critter with a high score. Warrior types often want Dex as much as Con, thank to Combat Reflexes and so on.


At the end of the day, the guy with the better armour is always going to be harder to hit, with extras like amulets the like not making any difference because at a given point everyone is likely to have them.

Heavy armor only provides much advantage at lower levels. It doesn't help at all against touch attacks.

Tengu_temp
2011-05-24, 01:18 PM
AD&D and old DND fighters were more powerful in comparison to casters, yeah, but they were still boring - casters had spells that gave them numerous options, all fighters could do in battle was walk around and hit stuff with their swords. You could try something non-standard, but that depended heavily on the DM: some said "okay, you can push the goblin into the fireplace, but that requires making an attack roll with a -4 modifier and then you have to roll better on strength than the goblin", to which most people responded with "forget it, I'll just hit him with my sword like I did with every other goblin".

Just_Ice
2011-05-24, 02:07 PM
AD&D and old DND fighters were more powerful in comparison to casters, yeah, but they were still boring - casters had spells that gave them numerous options, all fighters could do in battle was walk around and hit stuff with their swords. You could try something non-standard, but that depended heavily on the DM: some said "okay, you can push the goblin into the fireplace, but that requires making an attack roll with a -4 modifier and then you have to roll better on strength than the goblin", to which most people responded with "forget it, I'll just hit him with my sword like I did with every other goblin".

I'm just saying that it worked when the system was young and everyone kinda sucked, but carrying it into a newer version made sure fighters got screwed.

The Big Dice
2011-05-24, 03:10 PM
That's quite an exaggeration. Dex adds to initiative, which is perhaps the most critical roll at higher levels. It's just that the best ways to get Dex involve transforming yourself into some critter with a high score. Warrior types often want Dex as much as Con, thank to Combat Reflexes and so on.
I don't see how one roll, which can be circumvented and made irrelevant by a spell anyway, invalidates Dex being almost useless in D&D. Ignoring the word almost doesn't change that Dex isn't that useful for most builds, other than as a tertiary consideration.

And heavy armour protects against more attack types than not wearing armour does. Your flat footed AC will be better and so will your conventional AC. So out of three defense numbers, the unarmoured guy is marginally better off against rays and orbs. Which is cold comfort when everything else is hitting his flat footed or normal AC.

Boci
2011-05-24, 03:14 PM
I don't see how one roll, which can be circumvented and made irrelevant by a spell anyway, invalidates Dex being almost useless in D&D. Ignoring the word almost doesn't change that Dex isn't that useful for most builds, other than as a tertiary consideration.

And heavy armour protects against more attack types than not wearing armour does. Your flat footed AC will be better and so will your conventional AC. So out of three defense numbers, the unarmoured guy is marginally better off against rays and orbs. Which is cold comfort when everything else is hitting his flat footed or normal AC.

Mithril chainshirt is generally considered better than fullplate. No speed reduction, no ACP, slightly cheaper and at higher levels the incresed MDB can actually result in a higher AC.

Killer Angel
2011-05-24, 03:19 PM
And heavy armour protects against more attack types than not wearing armour does. Your flat footed AC will be better and so will your conventional AC. So out of three defense numbers, the unarmoured guy is marginally better off against rays and orbs. Which is cold comfort when everything else is hitting his flat footed or normal AC.

While I generally agree, isn't that the reason you usually try to combine high dex with celestial armor? to have the best of both worlds. :smallwink:

Boci
2011-05-24, 03:21 PM
While I generally agree, isn't that the reason you usually try to combine high dex with celestial armor? to have the best of both worlds. :smallwink:

Isn't celestial armour just a mithril breastplate with the limited duration fly bonus?

Incanur
2011-05-24, 03:30 PM
I don't see how one roll, which can be circumvented and made irrelevant by a spell anyway, invalidates Dex being almost useless in D&D.

A higher levels, that one roll determines who gets to drop their nuke first. :smallamused:


Ignoring the word almost doesn't change that Dex isn't that useful for most builds, other than as a tertiary consideration.

Third priority out of six stands far from almost useless! But for AoO types it's tied with Con for second place.


Mithril chainshirt is generally considered better than fullplate. No speed reduction, no ACP, slightly cheaper and at higher levels the incresed MDB can actually result in a higher AC.

Indeed. According to many, AC itself becomes less relevant beyond the early stage of the game. The increased movement from light or no armor enables attacks and allows to avoid or escape obstacles. Personally, I wish armor were more of an advantage in 3.x D&D than it is currently.

Killer Angel
2011-05-24, 03:38 PM
Isn't celestial armour just a mithril breastplate with the limited duration fly bonus?


It's a +3 chainmail, with +8 as max dex bonus.

Remmirath
2011-05-24, 03:52 PM
I don't think warriors are inherently boring. They're just as interesting, conceptually, as any other class to me - and more than some (druids and monks, for instance).

They do suffer somewhat in many 3rd edition D&D games. Not the ones I've played in, but I can't deny that it happens frequently. I think it mostly comes down to the playstyle of the groups involved, since the fighter really only suffers a good deal if certain assumptions hold true (15-minute adventuring day as opposed to 8-hour+ adventuring day, versatility being more than theoretically useful, wizards having access to spells from various non-core sources, havin only the exact magical items from the DM's guide, resolving out-of-combat situations with statistics instead of roleplaying, et cetera).
I think that the design really is so that the wizard will be very powerful in a few encounters, and then mostly or completely run out of spells and from there on the fighters will shine. If that's not happening, well, yeah, it can be pretty annoying to be the fighter.

I don't mind just attacking things every round while playing a fighter, because it is interesting to me. I even dislike activated abilities and powers and such, because then it starts to feel as though the class is blurring the line between 'fighter' and 'mage', which I only really want to do if I'm playing a fighter-mage.

Just_Ice
2011-05-24, 04:07 PM
Fighter with doubleplate is pretty hilarious for nearly ten levels.

Arbane
2011-05-24, 05:35 PM
. You could try something non-standard, but that depended heavily on the DM: some said "okay, you can push the goblin into the fireplace, but that requires making an attack roll with a -4 modifier and then you have to roll better on strength than the goblin", to which most people responded with "forget it, I'll just hit him with my sword like I did with every other goblin".

Bingo. If the system (or the GM) punishes out-of-the-box thinking, the players are going to try to stay in the box.

dsmiles
2011-05-24, 05:56 PM
@OP: A concept is only as boring as the player makes it. Warriors can be just as fun and interesting as any other concept. YMMV.

Lord Raziere
2011-05-24, 07:11 PM
Bingo. If the system (or the GM) punishes out-of-the-box thinking, the players are going to try to stay in the box.

which is why more systems should have things like Stunts. which awards out-of-the-box thinking.

so pushing a goblin into the fireplace should have a +2 modifier.

Ravens_cry
2011-05-24, 07:16 PM
Fighter with doubleplate is pretty hilarious for nearly ten levels.
What is doubleplate and what edition is it from?

Boci
2011-05-24, 07:41 PM
which is why more systems should have things like Stunts. which awards out-of-the-box thinking.

so pushing a goblin into the fireplace should have a +2 modifier.

Problem is, what some actions is varies from person to person To you, pushing the goblin into the fireplace is out-of-the-bix thinking, to me its a decent use of the combat mechanics, to someone else it could be silly.

Partysan
2011-05-24, 08:38 PM
I'm not sure if that's meant to be a GNS related point, so I'll let the fact that D&D should really be considered a Simulationist system go, and not get into my usual debunking mode.

The problem with warriors in D&D is exclusively the system. One of my favourite character concepts is the light fighter. No heavy armour, sometimes two weapons, sometimes not. Usually the lightest armour I can get away with and designed around the idea of exploiting ranges of combat. Often with a sideline of stealth. But not like a D&D Rogue.

Except I can't do that with D&D. The closes I can get is a Ranger, which comes with a whole bunch of baggage I don't want. And I can't concentrate of defensive techniques or making mobility work in my favour with D&D. Not without paying a massive feat tax and being forced to delay my concept for several levels.

And that's a flaw in the system, not the character concept. And I don't want to play a light, mobile fighter in six or seven levels. I want to be able to play my concept out of the box, at least in a limited form if not to full potential.

What it boils down to is, D&D is a very complex and technical system that does't allow you to play the character you want unless yo're prepared to jump through an array of hoops to get there.

I get the strange feeling from that post that you are trying to argue against me even though you are of the same opinion as me. I was responding to a point saying that warriors are as interesting as casters because they can be roleplayed as well as casters. My point was that this doesn't change the fact that D&D makes warriors less interesting to play (and more difficult to build) than casters. Which is exactly what you elaborated.

And no, I don't believe in GNS as it stands, but I consider its terminology useful. And I'd call D&D a much more gamist than simulationist system, but let's not go there.

Kaervaslol
2011-05-24, 08:54 PM
Warriors are the best class. Human Warrior with hand and a half sword is the best thing ever.

I play 2e.

MeeposFire
2011-05-24, 10:09 PM
Contrary to popular belief, having one of each role is not strictly necessary. Besides, all martial classes have some way of locking down the enemy, so collectively, the entire party serves as a controller.

I'm actually in an all-martial (sort of, see below) party right now:

1. Warlord - Me. Martial Leader
2. Fighter|Ranger - Martial defender and striker.
3. Rogue - Martial Striker
4. Ranger|Seeker - Martial striker and primal controller.

Or just use a hunter. All the stuff that matters are 100% martial.

1. Warlord-Leader
2. Slayer-Striker
3. Hunter-controller
4. Fighter (weapon master)- defender

Or replace the hunter with a ranged ranger and make the fighter a polearm fighter and that is plenty of control. Also it should be said that this party is fully viable and is in fact quite nasty. All warrior parties in 4e are easy to make and viable.

Also for a light weapon warrior you could go tempest fighter, brawler fighter, arena fighter, one handed talent fighter, or a slayer (just go shocktrooper and it is very good). Light armor/weapon warriors are a 4e specialty.

4e is probably the single most warrior friendly version of D&D.

Coidzor
2011-05-24, 10:19 PM
Except when it comes to things that aren't hacking things up. Still seems to fall short on the out of combat ability to interact with the world end.

Mastikator
2011-05-25, 02:38 AM
In D&D games? Yes.

In other games? No. I for one have played interesting warriors. Several in fact, all different, the only thing connecting them is the fact that they use weapons to kill things. But all with different motives, goals and attitudes.

MeeposFire
2011-05-25, 04:16 AM
Except when it comes to things that aren't hacking things up. Still seems to fall short on the out of combat ability to interact with the world end.

Not really they are very good in non-combat situations.

The warlord- can provide you the CHA based skills or INT skills.
Hunter-brings Dex skills and wisdom skills.
Slayer-Dex and str (and probably trained in endurance)
Weapon master-str+wisdom (also probably trained in endurance)

Since the game assumes 5 players just take two warlords one int based one cha based (which can be very different in play style) or be a lazy warlord and go INT and CHA so you can get all skills with somebody as primary in this party (except endurance as the lone con skill but that is rarely useful in non-combat stuff). If you want a cha based warrior you could sub a knight for the weapon master as they can be CHA based no problem so be a fighter and the party face (favorite is a tiefling multiclassed with paladin so I can get marks in addition to my defender aura and a full powered melee basic attack). If that is not good enough I can probably make the party fit nearly any suite of skills/ability scores you desire and keep everybody primary martial characters.

NichG
2011-05-25, 01:47 PM
You need skills. The minimalist archetype of the warrior (i.e. Thog) will be unable to interact well outside of combat aside from comic relief and getting the party into trouble. However, as pointed out, there are many other archetypes of warriors that are competent in many other things. Once you go there, you've escaped the cage at least somewhat. Class-wise, you've turned him into a warrior-rogue, or a ranger, or a paladin, or an L5R character where 'fighting' is covered by only two of several skills that even a Bushi will be expected to have.

The D&D, 2 skill point low Int Fighter, though, is in trouble there.

Ravens_cry
2011-05-25, 01:56 PM
In D&D games? Yes.

In other games? No. I for one have played interesting warriors. Several in fact, all different, the only thing connecting them is the fact that they use weapons to kill things. But all with different motives, goals and attitudes.

Whose to say you can't have that in D&D? My favourite character of all time was a D&D warrior type, who was enjoyable for just those reasons, goals, motives and attitudes.

The Big Dice
2011-05-25, 02:45 PM
I get the strange feeling from that post that you are trying to argue against me even though you are of the same opinion as me. I was responding to a point saying that warriors are as interesting as casters because they can be roleplayed as well as casters. My point was that this doesn't change the fact that D&D makes warriors less interesting to play (and more difficult to build) than casters. Which is exactly what you elaborated.
I do agree with you to a point. But the problem with D&D is, a well roleplayed third wheel is still a third wheel. There's a logical fallacy that sums this up, but I forget off the top of my head which one it is.

The Druid's pet is better at the fighting things side of play than my warrior type character. The Bard is better at the social mechanics of play and that in pretty much every other situation, the Wizard or Cleric will have the ability that matters.

The problem isn't the play, it's the mechanics that underpin the play. The tools that enable play. At least with the D&D 3.5 system. There have been multiple times when I've been very tempted to homebrew the Weapon Mastery system from the old Rules Compendium into 3.5 to adress this issue a little. But it's a lot of work and some of my players get confused easily, so I never bothered.

Maybe one day...

And no, I don't believe in GNS as it stands, but I consider its terminology useful. And I'd call D&D a much more gamist than simulationist system, but let's not go there.
If you use the GNS terms in the way that their names would suggest they should be used, that's fair enough. But GNS doesn't define terms by the same standards as the English language. And it doesn't define Gamism or Simulationism much past chess and things Ron Edwards didn't like when he was writing the stuff.

Which is why I try to avoid using terms from the core conceit of GNS.

Eric Tolle
2011-05-25, 03:27 PM
"You see, my mule don't like people laughin'. Gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it..."

"When some wild-eyed, eight-foot-tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head up against the barroom wall, and he ., and you remember what ol' Jack Burton always says at a time like that: "Have ya paid your dues, Jack?" "Yessir, the check is in the mail.""

"True! I carry my adornments only on my soul, decked with deeds instead of ribbons. Manful in my good name, and crowned with the white plume of freedom.But, I have no gloves. A pity too. I had one -the last of an old pair -and lost that. Very careless of me. A gentleman offered me an impertinence. I left it -in his face."

If the warriors in your game can't be that interesting, then either you're playing with the wrong system, or the wrong referee. Our then again, it might be the player.

I myself have had no problem making interesting warriors in systems such as Pirates of the Seven Skies, Runequest, Jaws of the Six Serpents, Traveller, Champions, Star Wars, True20, and various versions of D&D. What's the problem with your games?

Partysan
2011-05-25, 03:32 PM
I do agree with you to a point. But the problem with D&D is, a well roleplayed third wheel is still a third wheel. There's a logical fallacy that sums this up, but I forget off the top of my head which one it is.

The Druid's pet is better at the fighting things side of play than my warrior type character. The Bard is better at the social mechanics of play and that in pretty much every other situation, the Wizard or Cleric will have the ability that matters.

The problem isn't the play, it's the mechanics that underpin the play. The tools that enable play. At least with the D&D 3.5 system. There have been multiple times when I've been very tempted to homebrew the Weapon Mastery system from the old Rules Compendium into 3.5 to adress this issue a little. But it's a lot of work and some of my players get confused easily, so I never bothered.

Maybe one day...
I agree with you, that's why I don't understand which of my points you are arguing against. The one saying that the mechanics don't matter because you can roleplay well wasn't me, in fact I was arguing against that point. And by the way I think it falls under a Stormwind Fallacy variant.
I have actually gotten to a point where I could make a very nice D&D 3.75 out of combined variants and a bit of brewing, but I decided it wasn't worth the effort and I'd rather write a new system based on better assumptions than D&D.

If you use the GNS terms in the way that their names would suggest they should be used, that's fair enough. But GNS doesn't define terms by the same standards as the English language. And it doesn't define Gamism or Simulationism much past chess and things Ron Edwards didn't like when he was writing the stuff.

Which is why I try to avoid using terms from the core conceit of GNS.

True. The way I use the words is closer to their colloquial meaning and to someone who has actually studied GNS they'd probably make less sense. But I don't want to use them correctly as in GNS because then it wouldn't make any sense. To me at least.

candycorn
2011-05-25, 03:40 PM
The biggest problem is the rules bend over backwards to pander to the none-warrior types in ways that make no sense. Why would reading books give you more HP? Why would hiding let you hit harder? The entire basis of BaB and HD is borked because they don't make any sense for none warriors, but are automatically given to them.

For instance a 12th level wizard with negatives in all physical stats is technically as skilled at sword fighting as a 6th level warrior. Why? What justification exists for them getting good at sword/knife fighting from studying books all day? If they have enough time to knife practice after each day as well as research new spells and prepare their old without losing caster levels, why doesn't the warrior have enough time to research spells at a slower rate without losing BaB? And how are the wizards getting HD? Do they work out in their seemingly impossible amount of free time?

3.X/P grants tremendous favors to casters by giving them abilities they can't possibly have earned, and gives the warriors nothing to make up for it.
This makes about as much sense as asking why fighters could possibly get better at riding a horse from doing pushups all day and swinging a sword at a training dummy.

The act of gaining a level supposes that you do a wide variety of things in that level. Saying that all wizards do is read books is like saying all hunters do is kill rabbits. How, for example, does a fighter who only uses a greatsword get more accurate with a bow?

Or a flail?
Or a sling?

Cause, you know, fighters only use greatswords, right?

Just like wizards only read books. I mean, they don't cast spells, get attacked by level appropriate encounters, adventure, fire off ray attacks, or any of that stuff. They just read books....

Right?

gunnar11
2011-05-25, 04:12 PM
The question here really isn't: Is "Warrior" doomed to be a boring concept?
It's: Is it doomed to be a boring concept in D&D 3.X?
In that case: yes it is. But what you really want to know isn't the concept of the warrior, cause yeah, warriors really just hit and pray they don't get hit instead. What the warrior does is covering. He covers a thief's sneak attack, he covers the casting time of a wizards/cleric's spell.
The warrior isn't meant to be the one taking the glorious moves. He is meant to be "the backstage person", the one arranging everything for the rest of the people.
Also, the damage every class can take (except warrior-classes) is almost nothing. I assure you that on a 10th level, sure, a wizard can manage. The problem lies on the 1st levels: Cantrips, really? A mage can't survive the first levels. A warrior is needed to protect him, as he is useful from 1st level already.

Delwugor
2011-05-25, 04:50 PM
Is a "warrior" boring?
Last night playing my namesake, originally a Palladium Dwarven Mercenary converted to D&D 3.5 Fighter/Barbarian.
Series of bone platforms with rollout bone bridges at the beginning fighting Duergars on the first bridge, kept getting hit by arrows from below. Raging with a critical arrow hit to the hip. Finish off the plated Duergar and run down platforms and bridges till get to 3 archers behind a barrior. Vault over the barrier and start slaying them smashing the crap out of them.
One bridge which breaks loose everyone makes their reflex save except the hafling's war dog (what a suprise). I make a second reflex and catch it before too late. I'm trying to figure out how to climb and keep the dog when Duergar spell casters show up at top and they are not polite. My character tosses the dog all the way up to the platform and then climbs up quickly. Swinging around with battle axe against an invisible opponent, he pops up and stabe me with dagger in neck, I turn around and slice him in 2.
Finally face a Duergar Vampire. Rage, charge it and it turns into cloud, keep swinging and miss of course. Other character sees bone throne and a coffin underneath, and screamed to my character to smash it. Run smash smash smash. The Vampire controls the halfling who then starts shooting at me with bow of wounding - 3 times per round (ouch ouch ouch). Destroy casket and attempt to knock halfling out, finally succeed (missed 3 rounds in a row). Faced the Vampire and gets the final hit which causing it to go insubstantial - oh and some useless warrior type just destroyed the coffin.

Anyone want to guess how bored I was for 4 hours last night?

Swordguy
2011-05-25, 04:57 PM
In general, no.

In reference to D&D 3.x specifically: if all you can see when you look at a character is the underlying mechanics, and not the personality formed from whole cloth by the player, then yes. It is probably doomed to be a boring concept. However, that is your fault as a player - not being able to see the whole character. There's far more than just mechanics that make a character interesting.

(To be fair, D&D 3.x doesn't help matters by virtue of mechanics, true, but even with a horribly sub-optimal character can be interesting if played well. And that's on the player, not the system.)

The Big Dice
2011-05-25, 05:44 PM
In reference to D&D 3.x specifically: if all you can see when you look at a character is the underlying mechanics, and not the personality formed from whole cloth by the player, then yes. It is probably doomed to be a boring concept. However, that is your fault as a player - not being able to see the whole character. There's far more than just mechanics that make a character interesting.

(To be fair, D&D 3.x doesn't help matters by virtue of mechanics, true, but even with a horribly sub-optimal character can be interesting if played well. And that's on the player, not the system.)
The problem is, I don't care how well played or interesting the personality is with your character. If you're not happy with it, you're going to get bored. And yes, this is possibly more true for a character that dominates everything without actually meaning to. BUt with a character that just feels ineffective in every situation you get in to, it goes past frustration and into asking for the chance to play a new character.

Partysan was right about the Stormwind Fallacy, by the way. Mechanical strength or weakness has nothing to do with how well a character is played. But it can have a huge bearing on how much fun it is to play that character.

And that's really what the 'doomed to be boring' thing is all about.

dsmiles
2011-05-25, 06:10 PM
Partysan was right about the Stormwind Fallacy, by the way. Mechanical strength or weakness has nothing to do with how well a character is played. But it can have a huge bearing on how much fun it is to play that character.

And that's really what the 'doomed to be boring' thing is all about.
That's not necessarily 100% true for everybody. Some people can play a mechanically 'uninteresting' character, but love the story that goes with it. (Not the part about the Stormwind Fallacy, just that second bit. Optimization and Roleplaying are not mutually exclusive.)

Jude_H
2011-05-25, 06:11 PM
I do agree with you to a point. But the problem with D&D is, a well roleplayed third wheel is still a third wheel. There's a logical fallacy that sums this up, but I forget off the top of my head which one it is.
That's a false dilemma, if you mean they aren't mutually exclusive.

That's not the relevant question, though. It's trivial to demonstrate that the Fighter has few explicit abilities in D&D3e, it's easy to show that D&D3e is written under the assumption that explicit abilities are the only abilities and it's not hard to extrapolate that the Fighter becomes a third wheel under those limitations.

The problem is that it's overwhelmingly difficult to rationally demonstrate that being a third wheel is less interesting than being a primary mover in campaign achievements. A minimally subjective platform of "What is interesting?" would just be the starting point, and as every Monk flamefest, balance discussion, "fighter v. wizard" post and thread containing the words "meaningful contribution" or "pulling their weight" will demonstrate, this is an extremely subjective topic with an extremely varied array of responses.

The underdog's subplots can be more interesting than the omnipotent superhero figure's overarching conflict. It's hard to say.

Personally, I agree that D&D's focus on the tactics/wargame, combined with its restrictions on the Fighter's tactical options makes the Fighter a pretty dry class to play. I still don't think it can be dismissed that some players prefer to roleplay a Fighter (a weaker optimization option with an accessible concept) than one of its mechanically interesting spinoffs with a specific and often offputting role, like a Psychic Warrior, Warblade or Totemist.

navar100
2011-05-25, 07:30 PM
The problem isn't with the "Warrior Archetype", but with the gulf between the narrative and the game mechanics.

In high fantasy, the swordsman is as much an epic hero as the wizard is, because he's doing exciting things in close combat. In most RPGs, because combat is so heavily abstracted, that boils down to "swing at them, hope they don't swing back as hard", while the wizard has tactical variety from the range of spells they can cast. It's not that the fighter doesn't have a variety of options, but that the mechanics assume that your fighter is already doing all the ducking and weaving, the probing and thrusting, the whirling and slashing; the tactical range of "cool things you can do in a close-quarters fight" is condensed into that single attack roll, rather than you explicitly choosing between them.

How do you fix this? Well, having stances and maneuvers helps; now, you can explicitly manage those tactical options, and get mechanical benefits and disadvantages from them. Having specific combat abilities helps too; one of D&D 4e's strengths is that every class is drawing on a set of powers, rather than just enhancing basic attacks, so each of your cool tricks is mechanically represented, and you have as many of them as everybody else.

Something like Exalted's stunt system is also useful - since it encourages detailed narrative description, your 'attack roll' turns into you describing the detailed actions you're taking in the fight. Having mechanical rewards for good description and interaction with the environment is definitely a good thing if you like that sort of description; it shouldn't be too hard to adapt to other games.

I like this answer.

Cerlis
2011-05-25, 09:07 PM
people hit the nail on the head in regards to all the amazing stuff about melee fights is condensed into attack rolls, AC and Combat Modifiers.

A rogue isnt "Sneak attacking" he is suprising his opponent and plunging a dagger into his thigh.

and further DnD is based on Fantasy Genre, where every hero who doesnt die in the first scene is a 10th lvl fighter or more and being able to cut a Candle in half without knocking it over is common place. So being able to fight is no big deal. Legolas and Gimely dont make a name for themselves by killing scores of orcs, they make a name by doing stuff like crushing a buncha them with an Olyphont or whatever. Being clever. stuff you can do in game but there are barely mechanics for or not opportunity for. Even Gandalf can sword fight. Its as common as breathing in Fantasy. So the amazingness of a fighter comes out in their character or unique action.

Seb Wiers
2011-05-25, 10:05 PM
That is exactly the problem with D&D. you've gone to specialised splatbooks and haven't answered the fundamental problem that defenses are a factor of equipment, not training. Sure, a +5 Dex bonus gives +5 to your AC. But armour that gives a +4 with a max Dex bonus of +3 is giving you +7. And armour that's got a +7 with a max Dex of +1 is going to be even better.

Dex is almost irrelevant in D&D, other than for Weapon Finesse or ranged combat.

That sounds like 3 / 3.5 terminology (never played it) - I'm pretty sure that in 4e its not the case for several reasons.
-The classes I mentioned are not from a "specialized splatbook" - they are both from the first book in the Essentials line.
-There is no (non magical) armor that gives +4 and allows ANY dex bonus to AC. The only way to get a Dex (or Int, or in some cases, Con) bonus to AC is to stick with Light Armor, which maxes out at +3 (plus a possible +2 for a heavy shield). Armor with +5 (chainmali) or better means you never get any dex bonus.
So yeah, unless you have the proficiency for heavy armor, your Dex (or other AC boosting stat) is VERY relevant. And even if you do (as with my halfling knight or slayer example), it can actually be just as good to voluntarily stick with light armor. Its actually slightly better, because heavy armor has a movement penalty, while light does not, but may still grant you just as good (or better) AC.


D&D is built on the assumption that gear is everything. But I like to be able to make a character that can engage in close combat. Not grappling, getting inside the reach of your weapons and exploiting weak spots in your defenses. And I can't do that in D&D. There's no option for stabbing your foot with a dagger to pin you to the spot. There's no allowance for attacking your eyes or hands or other lighly armoured body part.

In a system like GURPS, I can build a character capable of taking apart someone with the best armour, despite not being able to get damage past that armour. And all without stepping outside core. D&D doesn't allow that level of versatility of concept for melee characters.

I think those special attacks you are talking about would be translated as various abilities / stances in 4e. You'd probably be limited in how many times you could do it per day / fight, and it would be a bit less directly representational, but unless you actively try to avoid envisioning them as such, they work.

That being the case, very directly simulational systems like Gurps can be quite rewarding for folks who like to envision specific tactical styles. I enjoy the Hârnmaster games a friend of mine runs for a similar reason- you get a very clear idea of the exact moves being used (or at least the results) and can (to a lesser extent in HM than Gurps) focus on a specific technique / target zone.

Lonely Tylenol
2011-05-26, 05:47 AM
For instance a 12th level wizard with negatives in all physical stats is technically as skilled at sword fighting as a 6th level warrior. Why? What justification exists for them getting good at sword/knife fighting from studying books all day? If they have enough time to knife practice after each day as well as research new spells and prepare their old without losing caster levels, why doesn't the warrior have enough time to research spells at a slower rate without losing BaB? And how are the wizards getting HD? Do they work out in their seemingly impossible amount of free time?

Wizards cast touch spells.

Also, your argument simply isn't true; a Wizard at 12th level with negatives in all physical stats is technically as skilled at sword fighting as a 1st level warrior class with the appropriate physical stats. Why? A Wizard's total Attack Bonus for melee attacks is likely to be +5 (+6 BAB, -1 Strength penalty), whereas a Fighter's total Attack Bonus for melee attacks is also likely to be +5 at level 1 (+1 BAB, +4 Strength). So a Wizard at 12th level, a level assumed by many to be "legendary" status, where most people in their craft are just beginning to bend reality to their will and crash over city walls with legions of trained owlbears and zombies... Are about as proficient with a blade as the guy who just stepped out of Fighter College yesterday.


It's also rewarding to hear the satisfying WHUMPF of a warhammer being introduced to some poor sod's midsection, a sound that them mages in the back will never get to truly appreciate.

Have I ever introduced you to the epic-level Wizard spell, Bigby's Pimp Hand?


AD&D and old DND fighters were more powerful in comparison to casters, yeah, but they were still boring - casters had spells that gave them numerous options, all fighters could do in battle was walk around and hit stuff with their swords. You could try something non-standard, but that depended heavily on the DM: some said "okay, you can push the goblin into the fireplace, but that requires making an attack roll with a -4 modifier and then you have to roll better on strength than the goblin", to which most people responded with "forget it, I'll just hit him with my sword like I did with every other goblin".

I think that's mostly a product of "by the books" DMing--something I'm quite guilty of myself--but if the DM can think out-of-the-box, these things can usually go a lot more smoothly. Our Fighter almost had a "Brock Samson" moment last session (if you've seen the show, we're talking about the one where he leaps backward through the car's windshield into the driver's seat, crushing the driver, and then resumes driving); our Fighter (who is a specialized leaper) was charging at a man riding a dire rhino in an attempt to leap into the air, kick the rhino rider off in mid-jump, and either assume control of the rhino or leave it riderless, when, unfortunately, the DM intervened. I mean, he most likely did this out of a legitimate concern that our friend was going to be trampled underfoot by a dire rhino when he rolled a natural 1 on his jump check (with my Jump spell and his modifiers, this was still equal to a 44, or an 11-foot high jump, but a miss is a miss, and his dice are out to kill him), but it still would have been more interesting to see him try.

The Glyphstone
2011-05-26, 11:59 AM
But.....skill checks don't fail on 1's....:smallannoyed:

Tyndmyr
2011-05-26, 12:18 PM
But.....skill checks don't fail on 1's....:smallannoyed:

Of all the misunderstood rules/house rules, I think that one has caused me the most annoyance. It can lead to some very silly situations indeed. And it also devalues skill monkeys, IMO.

Lonely Tylenol
2011-05-26, 10:17 PM
But.....skill checks don't fail on 1's....:smallannoyed:

Typically no, but I can see using a Jump skill to mount a charging rhino and dismount its rider in one fell swoop as demanding exigent circumstances; if the Jump check didn't somehow flub, it would be the attack roll, or something of the equivalent. In this case, it's not like he could just fail to jump (as I said, his +43 bonus means every jump is the equivalent of an 11-foot vertical jump or better), but he could fail to estimate the distance, and so on.

The point is, somehow, there would have been a way that this devolved into a disaster scenario, though I still would have rather seen it play out.

Eric Tolle
2011-05-28, 05:32 PM
The problem is, I don't care how well played or interesting the personality is with your character. If you're not happy with it, you're going to get bored.

Contrarywise, if one doesn't like the character, then it doesn't matter how awesomely overpowered the character class is, it won't be fun.

You get a lot of people online who are unclear on that concept. So you get someone asking for some rpgs in making a barbarian, only to get a Geek Chorus telling him how should play a cleric instead. "No, I don't like clerics, I want to play Conan, not Father Ted!" "Of course you want to party the Father Ted, he's way more powerful than Conan!"

Kind of like the one guy in every group who interrupts the female player when she's giving her character backstory to say she should be playing a gnome not an elf, because gnomes make the most optimized druids to be always wildshaped into a bear riding a bear summoning bears.

dsmiles
2011-05-28, 05:39 PM
Contrarywise, if one doesn't like the character, then it doesn't matter how awesomely overpowered the character class is, it won't be fun.

You get a lot of people online who are unclear on that concept. So you get someone asking for some rpgs in making a barbarian, only to get a Geek Chorus telling him how should play a cleric instead. "No, I don't like clerics, I want to play Conan, not Father Ted!" "Of course you want to party the Father Ted, he's way more powerful than Conan!"

Kind of like the one guy in every group who interrupts the female player when she's giving her character backstory to say she should be playing a gnome not an elf, because gnomes make the most optimized druids to be always wildshaped into a bear riding a bear summoning bears.
But why play Conan, when you could be Conan (http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-way-of-the-barbarian-infusing-your-spiritual-life-with-conan/)? :smalltongue:

Seriously, though. You've got a point. Power does not automatically equal fun. Neither does characterization, though. There's a careful balance that needs to be found by each individual player that makes them happy.

Knaight
2011-05-28, 05:53 PM
Seriously, though. You've got a point. Power does not automatically equal fun. Neither does characterization, though. There's a careful balance that needs to be found by each individual player that makes them happy.

Its hardly a careful balance. Power and characterization are not parts of a zero sum game, you can essentially have as much of either as you want, within the restrictions applying to each.

The Big Dice
2011-05-28, 07:38 PM
Its hardly a careful balance. Power and characterization are not parts of a zero sum game, you can essentially have as much of either as you want, within the restrictions applying to each.
I think there's a sweet spot between the two. Two much power gets boring. But then so does all character and no capability. Somewhere in between lies that nexus of being the best you are at what you do and being a well played, richly layered character.

It's hard to hit that sweet spot, but it's always what I try to aim for on the rare occasions I get to play instead of GM.

dsmiles
2011-05-28, 07:46 PM
It's hard to hit that sweet spot, but it's always what I try to aim for on the rare occasions I get to play instead of GM.
I know the feeling. All my players are too new to GM. I can't wait for the next couple of months to pass, maybe one of them will want to wear the big hat.

Geigan
2011-05-28, 07:51 PM
"You see, my mule don't like people laughin'. Gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it..."

"When some wild-eyed, eight-foot-tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head up against the barroom wall, and he ., and you remember what ol' Jack Burton always says at a time like that: "Have ya paid your dues, Jack?" "Yessir, the check is in the mail.""

"True! I carry my adornments only on my soul, decked with deeds instead of ribbons. Manful in my good name, and crowned with the white plume of freedom.But, I have no gloves. A pity too. I had one -the last of an old pair -and lost that. Very careless of me. A gentleman offered me an impertinence. I left it -in his face."


Ooh, yay, quoting! I love quoting.:thog:

I see the man across from me. We are of a like mind as we speak the same language. It doesn't matter if we were born half a continent away, on the same village, or even on separate planes. We both write our responses to one another on our respective bodies. My sword is my pen, my strikes words, his blood the ink, his body the paper. Others think they can write the language but they're pathetic fumblings are as a child scratching on paper for the first time. I pay no mind to their words as they mean nothing to me. No, this man before me is the one I wish to make known my meaning too. For him I will write the most beautiful poem yet.

"You think you can swing this hammer boy? You think just because you can lift its weight, you've earned the right to serve? You're wrong. This hammer ain't for forge work or pushing down nails. This is a messenger of death. I do not wield it to defend honor, I wield it because it is my duty to end those who would end us. If you cannot accept the burden of the beings you kill, the weight of their lives ended early by your choice, then you dinnae have the strength to lift so much as a toothpick for the service we require."

Knaight
2011-05-28, 09:04 PM
I think there's a sweet spot between the two. Two much power gets boring. But then so does all character and no capability. Somewhere in between lies that nexus of being the best you are at what you do and being a well played, richly layered character.

I'd say it isn't a matter of between the two. I'd say that both of them are separate, and you want something in between the extremes of each.

Consider power. Too little power, and odds are you can't realize your character concept, every character worth the name can do something, and one who can't do anything breaks verisimilitude into tiny little pieces. However, too much power also gets boring, as every character has something they can't do, and a character without limits also breaks verisimilitude into tiny little pieces. Added to this is the need for the characters to fit within the setting.

As far as characterization goes, too little is an indicator that there is no character. Too much, and we are looking at a character that is essentially a focal point that pushes out other characters.

Roderick_BR
2011-05-29, 03:45 AM
No? So what are they? The closest the system comes to it is how "tough" you are, but the Wizard has no valid way for getting tougher. And the BaB thing still stands.
Maybe they get tougher by channeling so much mystical energy daily, that would fry a commoner. That, and wizards need to face monsters everyday, like the other adventurers, gaining resistance as they live through it. HP is as much experience and resistance as it is raw physical strentgh.
I think it's fair for a high level wizard to be tough as a low level fighter. He just can't possibly be as tough as a same level fighter.