Why not give them (semi)superhuman feats?

[13_CBS]

Although I've never played D&D before and haven't the slightest bit in experience at all, I'm aware of the "fighters/monks/etc are underpowered" concerns. I also apologize if a similar thread like this has been made.

I was thinking; at higher levels, why not grant the non-caster classes superhuman abilities that somewhat emulate spells? By superhuman I mean things you might find in...oh, let's just say, anime.

Does anyone here watch Rurouni Kenshin? For those who have not, RK is an anime set during the 1880's-90's era Japan, featuring a red-haired wandering swordsman who has ridiculous sword and physical skills. These include sprinting at extreme (almost a blur) speeds, cutting straight through metal poles with a blunt sword, run along walls, jump onto tall buildings, smash the ground so hard that the flying debris can knock out weaker people, and draw his sword so quickly that the sword can leave a vacuum in its wake.

No, I'm not saying that D&D fighters should be more anime like; the above example was just that, an example.

So my question is; why not give the non-casters superhuman abilities/feats? This certainly won't be the end all solution, and having superhuman physical skills won't neccesarily save Rob the Fighter from that wizard's mind-affecting spell. But it's a step forward, right?

If not, why?

[illathid]

You should look at the Book of the Nine Swords...

[13_CBS]

Hmm...I forgot to say that I'm generally unaquainted with D&D lore as well...

Thus, I have no idea what the Book of Nine Swords is about.

[Ramza00]

Most people don't like giving warriors superhuman feats for then they no longer seem like warriors. In reality though you need to do so. Why shouldn't fighters be moving at super speeds or flying when a wizard can warp reality with wish?

This is what in effect TOB does, luckily most of the warriors still seem warrior like even if what they can do is still superhuman.

[13_CBS]

Ah, so that's the Tome of Battle.

...so I guess I've wasted 5 minutes of my life posting this thread?

[Ramza00]

No you didn't

But do read up on it, and consider buying it. It is probally the best 3.5 supplement or in the top 5.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/953787200

[reorith]

No you didn't

But do read up on it, and consider buying it. It is probally the best 3.5 supplement or in the top 5.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/953787200

quoted for the truth

[AtomicKitKat]

Monks can fling their "Ki" as a force(?)ball for the cost of 2 Stunning Fist attempts. About 10 per day before Extra Stunning.

I read a Wizards CO board thread where someone turned a Warforged into the Capcom game version of Iron Man, complete with "Proton Cannon".

[Nerd-o-rama]

Okay, let's just clear this up right now:

In a PvP setting, a well-played caster usually beats a well-played noncaster, especially with prior knowledge (hence the Wizard=Batman analogy).

In a party setting, all class archetypes are useful at some point or another, whether in some kind of combat, social interaction, or exploration/dungeon crawling. Spellcasters can do many of these things, but other classes can do them better. Warriors can do fewer of these things well, but they're good at what they can do. Good enough that Wizards don't obsolete them.

Except Complete Warrior's Samurai.

[Stormcrow]

Ah Samurai... its not your fault.

With the right load outs a warrior can go toe to toe with a Caster in a pitched battle. What he needs is some SR :P. A warriors greatest strength in my oppinion is that he functions at all but full effectiveness even in an Anti- Magic field. Sure his magic gear doesnt work. But hes not useless. Silence doesnt make him a worse fighter etc.

[crazedloon]

In a PvP setting, a well-played caster usually beats a well-played noncaster, especially with prior knowledge (hence the Wizard=Batman analogy).

Ill take the enlarged ogre fighter with spiked chain in the 30 foot room over a spell caster anyday :smallwink:

[13_CBS]

...until said ogre fails his will save against a save-or-die spell...

And of course, how often would the ogre find himself fighting a wizard in a 30 foot room?

[Ramza00]

Ill take the enlarged ogre fighter with spiked chain in the 30 foot room over a spell caster anyday :smallwink:
Wizard teleports out, destroy's rooms ceiling (he cast fly after teleporting out) and decides whether he make the fighter his servant (dominate), or use his orb of force/orb of fire wand and bbq said fighter.

[crazedloon]

...until said ogre fails his will save against a save-or-die spell...

And of course, how often would the ogre find himself fighting a wizard in a 30 foot room?

I'm just saying that you cant say such broad things as there are exceptions.

how is the caster getting that spell off if he is getting powerattacked everytime he tries to cast a spell. Then there is the fact that casters have d4s which realy wont last long vs ogre with power attack :smallwink:

[Thomas]

I don't know, by making the DC 15 Concentration check to cast defensively? Wow, that was easy...

[Nerd-o-rama]

Making a Concentration check to cast defensively is trivial for a high-level caster. Also, he only needs to dodge one attack if the fighter readies against him casting, 'cause Teleport, Time Stop, Celerity, etc.

I agree though, there are always exceptions. We can try to one-up each other all night and get nowhere, so I concede that I did say "usually."

[13_CBS]

In anycase, is giving fighter-type characters superhuman feats a viable way to help alleviate the problem?

Yes? No?

[Stormcrow]

There is no problem really.
It comes down to Roleplay or Rollplay.
If your Roleplaying it isn't an issue. If your Rollplaying your fix will help.

[Ramza00]

In anycase, is giving fighter-type characters superhuman feats a viable way to help alleviate the problem?

Yes? No?
How much of D&D is artificial circumstances such as arena combat?

[13_CBS]

Er...don't ask me, I've never played D&D before...

[Nerd-o-rama]

There is no problem really.
It comes down to Roleplay or Rollplay.
If your Roleplaying it isn't an issue. If your Rollplaying your fix will help.
Please, for the sake of everything that various people hold holy, would people stop using this cliché? It's a ridiculous oversimplification, and not even clever in the first place.

And the answer is: almost none of it, except in the rare campaign that is specifically a Player vs. Player arena.

[13_CBS]

But I've heard that much of the problem comes from the "fact" that non-casters tend to be outdone by wizards in Player vs. DM + Monsters situations. Wouldn't giving the non-casters these feats help them be more effective against monsters?

[Nerd-o-rama]

Not really. A party of varied PCs does well enough already. Due to the limitations of actions in combat and creativeness of DMs, it's rare for anyone to be unpleasantly overshadowed.

Besides, if you wanted to balance casters and warriors, do so by lowering the power level of the casters.

[Stormcrow]

I wasnt actually trying to use a Cliche but more attempting to use what i believed to be Cannon having seen it so often. The argument i was trying to make is much like your own. If your DM is doing his job then you wont feel outclassed, pretty much ever. There will be things that each character has to take on for some reason.

In games based on RPG's the casters flounce the non-casters. The reason. Because you can't innovate. That i guess is what evens the odds.

[Ramza00]

In games based on RPG's the casters flounce the non-casters. The reason. Because you can't innovate. That i guess is what evens the odds.

Give me a good explanation why the Fighter will feel outclassed by the Ranger 5/MoMF 10/Warshaper 4/X 1 (Ranger using the wildshape variant?)

And that isn't a full caster, that is just a wildshaper.

[13_CBS]

I find it rather unfortunate that the casters must be nerfed in order for the non-casters to be able to shine, but, for the 3rd time, Ive never played D&D, so...

[Nerd-o-rama]

I wasnt actually trying to use a Cliche but more attempting to use what i believed to be Cannon having seen it so often. The argument i was trying to make is much like your own. If your DM is doing his job then you wont feel outclassed, pretty much ever. There will be things that each character has to take on for some reason.
...Cannon?

[Draz74]

Real answers (i.e. without turning into an argument):

Yes, casters are more powerful than melee characters; rediculously so at high levels. Whether this is a problem or not depends on the individual players. Some people honestly don't mind being outclassed by their party members. Other people want to be able to contribute equally, and that doesn't mean that they're "rollplaying instead of roleplaying."

Giving melee types extra cool, powerful feats or feat-like abilities at high levels is one way to mitigate the problem. I personally like the Fighter Fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30692) that Bears With Lasers came up with a couple weeks ago. However, if you don't mind an anime flavor to your spellcasters (I do!), then Tome of Battle: The Book of the Nine Swords is indeed a cool option.

Or instead of pumping up melee types (or you could even do both!), you can cut spellcasters down a little bit. If you make the two classes meet somewhere in the middle, they will still be able to handle things in the game fairly well according to the CR system (which is what we're really trying to balance characters against anyway!).

[Zincorium]

...Cannon?

...Canon. And to actually respond meaningfully,


I wasnt actually trying to use a Cliche but more attempting to use what i believed to be Cannon having seen it so often. The argument i was trying to make is much like your own. If your DM is doing his job then you wont feel outclassed, pretty much ever. There will be things that each character has to take on for some reason.

In games based on RPG's the casters flounce the non-casters. The reason. Because you can't innovate. That i guess is what evens the odds.

It is a cliche, and one that's as insulting now as it was when first coined, although it's usually unintentional now. I don't think anyone took it badly, but in the future it would be nice if you'd avoid using those terms, since they have a lot of baggage associated with them and the people who bring them up.

Saying that if the DM is doing his job well all then well is accurate to a point, but it presumes that the DMs job in general, and this aspect in particular, are easy enough that DMs of all levels of experience will be able to do so.

Game balance for many DMs is a constantly shifting morass of opinions informed and uninformed, varying experiences, and misconceptions. While it may be simple to only pick monsters that give the fighter an edge (things with low hit dice but high SR, for instance) it's often going to seem unrealistic and forced.

If you start with a balanced game, then no alterations will need to be made, and the DM can focus on the rest of the game without needing to worry that the fighter or bard are feeling shortchanged.

As far as innovation, you're right, that ball is squarely in the caster's court, mainly because there are umpty-gazillion spells out there for the casters to know and they can for the most part choose several each level. Even fighters and psychic warriors, who get the greatest number of feats, don't get that constant large reward each and every level. Tome of battle comes very close to giving melee classes that, but only really for the ones listed in it.

Personally, I support the idea that feats should give bonuses and effects that, while not strictly magical, are far beyond what could be accomplished in real life. Splitting large objects in twain, going up walls of an alley by leaping from one wall to the other and back, or even just moving far faster than the caster classes can react without powerful magic seem both fair and imminently appropriate for warrior types. Restricting what a character can do in a world where simply saying the right words and moving your hands a certain way can literally change the way physics work smacks of an extreme double standard.

[Stormcrow]

I'm sold.
I appoligise to anyone i offended with my earlier reference i was unaware of the negative conotations.

The feats your describing are just that "feats" as in the definition of the word, actions undertaken that are impressive in nature. Like the 12 labours of hercules and the like...

I think a usuable 1/day would probably be enough if you took a few of them. or maybe CL/4 or something. I'm going to homebrew some "Martial Study Feats" myself. Taking a cue from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

"Through study you can teach your body to do increadible things" thats the premise i'll use.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Well, aside from the misspelling, I was also curious how the phrase "rollplay vs. roleplay" could be considered canonical in any sense of the word. My metaphorical arched eyebrow must not have conveyed this.

Anyway, no offense taken, and I can see the argument for creating more "superhuman" feats. If some people (casters) can do impossible things (magic) through strict training or inborn talent, it stands to reason that other people (warriors) can do other impossible things (supernatural combat maneuvers) with other strict training or inborn talent.

However, in the interest of my own laziness and my current players' complete disinterest in/inability to do powergaming, forgive me if I don't bother messing with a whole new set of feats and class abilities. D&D is balanced enough to be massively fun for all in its core setup as a cooperative team game, and I don't want to mess with something that isn't broken.

[Ramza00]

However, in the interest of my own laziness and my current players' complete disinterest in/inability to do powergaming, forgive me if I don't bother messing with a whole new set of feats and class abilities. D&D is balanced enough to be massively fun for all in its core setup as a cooperative team game, and I don't want to mess with something that isn't broken.

It may not be broken, but its heavily skewed. Luckily with ToB, smart dms, and reasonable players it is still very playable and very fun :smallsmile:

[Nerd-o-rama]

Well, I think it's very playable and very fun with just smart DMs and reasonable players, but otherwise, I think we're in agreement.

[Ramza00]

Well, I think it's very playable and very fun with just smart DMs and reasonable players, but otherwise, I think we're in agreement.
Yeah we are mostly in agreement its just bickering over small details.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Who's bickering?

...I'm kidding.

[Ramza00]

Who's bickering?

...I'm kidding.
Whatever you say wife :smallcool: