PDA

View Full Version : Antagonist fighters and rogues



arrowed
2016-10-07, 10:23 AM
A necromancer raises an army of the dead to claim power. A cleric prepares to summon the avatar of his evil god. A sorceress enchants the ruling monarch into becoming her pawn.
In D&D at least, casters make great, versatile BBEGs. Fighters and rogues, on the other hand, seem to be restricted to leading armies and thieves'/assassin's guilds respectively. Are there any other ways that a more mundane archetype can be an interesting and original BBEG? My experience in RPGs is mainly D&D so I'm mainly looking for options that would work in that kind of system. Thanks in advance for any ideas. :smallsmile:

Flickerdart
2016-10-07, 11:02 AM
Are there any other ways that a more mundane archetype can be an interesting and original BBEG?

The classic way is to sell your soul to a fiend. Leading armies of demons is better than leading armies of dudes, and you get a nice helping of Outsider power for yourself. Or you can be a descendant of an Outsider and get that sweet half-X template. Or you can ride a dragon, or find a cool artifact sword.

But as you might have noticed, a huge reason for why mundanes suck is that their power is largely outsourced. Unless you have a level 30 fighter in an E6 world, most of what makes him special is going to be his list of alliances.

DodgerH2O
2016-10-07, 11:10 AM
A necromancer raises an army of the dead to claim power. A cleric prepares to summon the avatar of his evil god. A sorceress enchants the ruling monarch into becoming her pawn.
In D&D at least, casters make great, versatile BBEGs. Fighters and rogues, on the other hand, seem to be restricted to leading armies and thieves'/assassin's guilds respectively.

I don't really agree with your conclusion. See OOTS for how a Fighter can end up turning the ruling monarch into a pawn. There's no reason a Rogue couldn't acquire an artifact or set in motion a ritual that summons the avatar of an evil god or raises an army of the dead.

If your issue is intrinsic power and versatility then it's really a system related issue, not an archetype related issue. If it's plot hooks you just need to be more creative (which might be the reason for this thread I suppose.)

Beelzebub1111
2016-10-07, 11:12 AM
What about Maurauding Orc Warlords?

I once had a game where we were up against a vampire orc warlord that defied all the conventions of traditional vampire hunting. Also, he had vampire minotaurs as his lieutenants. That was rough.

Thrudd
2016-10-07, 11:29 AM
A fighter or rogue might be very powerful or dangerous in the possession of powerful magic items or artifacts.

MrZJunior
2016-10-07, 11:37 AM
A fighter might be an old retired general who won a great victory long ago and was granted a title for it. Now he is using his new contacts in the nobility and old contacts in the military to plan a coup/rebellion/what have you. He rarely if ever fights himself, he has other people to do that for him.

Rogues can be heads of spy networks, think James Bond vs Specter rather than the feds vs gangsters. Grand plots to make lots of money/take over the world, all sorts of magical gadgets, and many high tech hidden fortresses.

Karl Aegis
2016-10-07, 12:09 PM
They are balls of stats that either overpower society or not. If they can overpower society, they become the ruler of it. If they don't they need a bigger ball of stats. Fighters and rogues have been the victims of poor design decisions for a while now. What separates them from random animals is what out of class resources they can muster up from outside their class. Generally speaking, these are things that anyone with a big enough ball of stats can accomplish like kidnappings and arson.

Leewei
2016-10-07, 12:17 PM
Rogue antagonists tend to be most present in detective stories. Look at their treatment in Sherlock Holmes or that sort of thing for inspiration.

Fighter villains are common enough in mythology. Leaders of raiders or hostile tribes are good examples of this. So are evil sheriffs, black knights, and vengeful swordsmen.

Esprit15
2016-10-07, 12:55 PM
I haven't had that issue. My first game, the DM went with the classic "Orc warlord uniting the tribes to take over the human and eleven lands."

beargryllz
2016-10-07, 01:00 PM
Rogue and fighter are two of the *most* versatile archetypes for either heroes or villains. Many other classes have pigeon-holed roles and specific backgrounds, traits, and alignments that restrict them to fewer options than a rogue or fighter would have.

More rogues have "enchanted" their monarchs to achieve their ulterior motives than all magic users combined, for example. At least, that is what I would assume, even in a fantasy world.

If you want a versatile BBEG, rogue and fighter are the best places to start

Flickerdart
2016-10-07, 02:18 PM
"Orc warlord uniting the tribes to take over the human and eleven lands."
Eleven is quite a lot of lands.

Inevitability
2016-10-07, 03:04 PM
Just because fighters and rogues don't get flashier spells doesn't mean a 1st-level one is the same as a 20th-level one. At higher levels, even a mundane can eliminate a few dozen highly guarded people unseen, or fight an entire army.


Eleven is quite a lot of lands.

He's thinking big: orc warlords gotta take risks.

NRSASD
2016-10-07, 03:24 PM
In 2nd edition, fighters were nigh impossible to hinder with magic just because their saves were that stupendously good. As others have said though, if a fighter is running the show he'll be wielding a more subtle political power than actually conjuring legions of minions himself. This doesn't make him any less deadly as either a BBEG lurking in the shadows or as a boss fight, because any villain worth the name knows the weaknesses and leverage points of their allies and doesn't hesitate to exploit them.



Orc Warlord #1: Hah! My invasion was the best! I wrenched the ten Dwarven realms from their slaughtered kings' cold fists!

Orc Warlord #2: Think that's impressive? MY invasion goes to eleven! (kingdoms)

Grod_The_Giant
2016-10-07, 05:49 PM
If a character isn't running a large organization-- and there are plenty of non-spell-based ways that could happen-- he operates kind of like a PC. Moving through places and societies, accumulating contacts and artifacts, manipulating existing power structures, killing, blackmailing, making deals...

RazorChain
2016-10-07, 06:13 PM
A necromancer raises an army of the dead to claim power. A cleric prepares to summon the avatar of his evil god. A sorceress enchants the ruling monarch into becoming her pawn.
In D&D at least, casters make great, versatile BBEGs. Fighters and rogues, on the other hand, seem to be restricted to leading armies and thieves'/assassin's guilds respectively. Are there any other ways that a more mundane archetype can be an interesting and original BBEG? My experience in RPGs is mainly D&D so I'm mainly looking for options that would work in that kind of system. Thanks in advance for any ideas. :smallsmile:

Your first fallacy is letting the system dictate your thoughts.

Don't think class or stat blocks when you design a villain.

You have to separate personal power from different kinds of power like social power. A villain can wield and project power through henchmen, riches, social status, alliances, knowledge etc.

A fighter could lead a cabal of necromancers through his force of personality, he is the glue that binds them together and allows them to work together through his leadership skill.

A rouge could have massive resources through wealth and a spy network and outsmart and manipulate his foes.

A nobleman could wield social power and have built a block of alliances that renders him nigh untouchable legally and if the PC's go murderhobo on his ass then they would suffer serious consequences.

Pfhagthyeh
2016-10-08, 05:58 AM
A strong antagonist could feasibly fit any niche with any kind of race/class configuration, but a great antagonist could make their race/class irrelevant. I'm sure nobody would fear Sauron more after learning that he had levels in Warlock or whatever. I've had antagonists that directly faced the PCs in combat, and astounded them with their physical might, or blasted the hell out of them with magic, or infuriated them with sneaky cheating and fighting dirty. None of them compare to the BBEG that doesn't even make an appearance until halfway through the campaign, always spoken of in hushed tones until the PCs finally get a crack and they get their **** wrecked.

That being said, I actually prefer to have my bosses antagonists be fighters or rogues or something of that sort. A rogue who is a master thief and stole a series of powerful magic items, which now make him nigh-impossible to catch. A fighter who rose through the ranks in the military to stage a coup d'état. A rogue/warlock with the Archfey patron and Mastermind archetype who leads a cult of personality devoted to worshipping him as a messiah and uses magically charmed devoted followers to fight with no regard for their own lives in a kind of bloody Jihad.

Darth Ultron
2016-10-08, 07:07 AM
A necromancer raises an army of the dead to claim power. A cleric prepares to summon the avatar of his evil god. A sorceress enchants the ruling monarch into becoming her pawn.
In D&D at least, casters make great, versatile BBEGs. Fighters and rogues, on the other hand, seem to be restricted to leading armies and thieves'/assassin's guilds respectively. Are there any other ways that a more mundane archetype can be an interesting and original BBEG? My experience in RPGs is mainly D&D so I'm mainly looking for options that would work in that kind of system. Thanks in advance for any ideas. :smallsmile:

So necromancer leads and army to claim power vs fighter leads army to claim power. Where you you see the big difference? Is the necromancer ''restricted'' to leading an army? How is the necromancer general more ''versatile'' then a fighter general?

The sorceress charms a monarch vs the rogue blackmailing them. Where you you see the big difference? Is the sorceress ''restricted'' to leading an army? How is the sorceress charmer more ''versatile'' then a rouge charmer?

If your not talking about game mechanics, then anyone can do anything and be interesting, exciting, original or whatever else you want or like.

Gensuru
2016-10-08, 07:13 AM
Fighters are restricted to leading armies? Sarevok Anchev, BBEG of Baldur's Gate, more or less lead a conspiracy involving Bandits, Doppelgangers, Merchants and Sabotage and he was "just" a fighter. The only armies involved in that mess were, ironically, NOT under his direct control. And the guy still almost started a war and nearly became Archduke of Baldur's gate.


You'd think OotS had Roy show often enough that a fighter needn't be the "dumb brute" archetype. A fighter in D&D is a person who faces all sorts of magical beasts and people with freaky abilities with nothing more than his body, his weapons and his tactical thinking. I don't think there is anything preventing a fighter from using ambush tactics. Or entering a room with the alchemical equivalent of a flashbang paving his/her way. Given all the supernatural threats, any fighter who reaches a high level is probably a stonecold, cunning bastard who knows exactly when to rely on others to get the job done and how to take someone or something down as fast and as efficiently as possible. A smart fighter does not simply fight a giant head on. A smart fighter will find ways to make up for the difference in size and physical power. A dumb brute just gets smashed into paste.


Also, the Forgotten Realms wiki tells me that in 2nd and 3rd edition Jarlaxle was a fighter. A cunning leader of a sectretive group, decked out with more magical tools than i care to count, quick on his feet, witty, clever and a charismatic manipulator....and he's a FIGHTER.


Don't even get me started on Rogues. Not every Rogue is a pickpocket, or even a thief. Give a Rogue some charisma and the right kind of magical item and with a bit of clever trickery they can just as easily become the leader of a cult. Or trick their way into a position of high authority in some military organisation or a church. Rogues are versatile. And you don't need to be a powerful mage to keep various monsters or even other mages in line. You just need to fool said followers into thinking that you are that powerful.

Heck, give a rogue some kind of artifact that animates the dead and while your adventurers are busy searching nearby crypts for the Necromancer responsible, the Rogue is busy poisoning the wells and causing strife to maximise the death-toll.

arrowed
2016-10-08, 07:35 AM
Thanks for the replies, you've given a lot of good examples, some of which I should have remembered myself :smallredface:, and a lot of helpful ideas. :smallsmile: I guess what I'm trying to ask is what features inherent to the fighter lend themselves to BBEG stuff, such that it makes sense that the BBEG is a fighter rather than any other class. For example it makes sense for a warlock to lead a demonic cult, or a rogue to orchestrate political unrest etc. I realise it's a bit of a dumb question and I wasn't very clear in the original post, so thanks again for the replies.

Slipperychicken
2016-10-08, 12:01 PM
I'd have a fighter main-villain be a leader. He would be the most fearsome because he would have members of several other classes (and their minions), all working toward whatever end he has in mind. Perhaps his allies would be an "anti-party" in that they have a similar composition to the PCs. That would be in addition to his own formidable battle-prowess and a diverse group of soldiers. His leadership skills would give his allies a strong boost to morale, making them much less likely to break or run.

The fighter's understanding of tactics, supply, and strategy would make him well-positioned to use his allies to their potential. A party expecting a straight, fair fight would not get one because the fighter-villain knows about war. They'd likely enter his throne-room and find themselves attacked on all sides, a barrier dropping behind them (or perhaps on them), subjected to anti-magic spells from his wizard and apprentices, negative status effects like blindness or deafness, poisoned bolts and arrows readied from above to interrupt spellcasting, burning oil hurled toward them as a DoT, nets thrown at them to hold them down, mobbed by soldiers, and eventually the fighter himself would emerge alongside his elite guard, benefiting from the buffs and healing of his court-priest. His room would be well-prepared with cover and traps to confound the party and make it difficult to target the highest-value targets.


Perhaps if the party wished to defeat the fighter-villain, they would spend much of the campaign taking apart his power-base, with which he could crush them if they tried to simply charge his keep.

Reboot
2016-10-08, 03:11 PM
You'd think OotS had Roy show often enough that a fighter needn't be the "dumb brute" archetype. A fighter in D&D is a person who faces all sorts of magical beasts and people with freaky abilities with nothing more than his body, his weapons and his tactical thinking. I don't think there is anything preventing a fighter from using ambush tactics. Or entering a room with the alchemical equivalent of a flashbang paving his/her way. Given all the supernatural threats, any fighter who reaches a high level is probably a stonecold, cunning bastard who knows exactly when to rely on others to get the job done and how to take someone or something down as fast and as efficiently as possible. A smart fighter does not simply fight a giant head on. A smart fighter will find ways to make up for the difference in size and physical power. A dumb brute just gets smashed into paste.

The thing about Roy is that his mental stats are WAY higher than most fighters. And to be a competent leader/planner/etc, you need good INT and WIS to make & execute the plans, and good CHA to get people to follow you.

Not such a problem for a BBEG as a PC, of course, but D&D encourages fighter-as-dumb-brute for the class to be effective in a physical fight.

Inevitability
2016-10-08, 03:15 PM
The thing about Roy is that his mental stats are WAY higher than most fighters. And to be a competent leader/planner/etc, you need good INT and WIS to make & execute the plans, and good CHA to get people to follow you.

Not such a problem for a BBEG as a PC, of course, but D&D encourages fighter-as-dumb-brute for the class to be effective in a physical fight.

Not really. Feat prerequisites and skills encourage at least some degree of mental ability. For one, a fighter who wants to use Combat Expertise needs 13 intelligence: that's far above average. Another example would be the classic intimidate-based fighter, for who Charisma is a secondary (if not primary) stat.

If we instead look at 4e, wisdom is an essential ability for fighters there. In 5e, any fighter going Eldritch Knight will need intelligence, and other builds exist that encourages focusing on wisdom or charisma.

Lord Raziere
2016-10-08, 04:49 PM
How I'd do antagonist BBEG "fighter":
PC Wizard: Disintegrate!
BBEG: Sorry, I'm immune to anything save-or-die, because I'm just that tough. save your silly magic for the magician shows, now behold: my abjuration-breaking hammer passed down from my father, no it not enchanted, its just made of a material that just hates abjurations that much. But I'm also prepared in other ways:
*thousands of archers surround wizard*
BBEG: your not the only one, who can prepare. Did you think I got this far, got this strong without killing a wizard or two? My armies will conquer the world, and I will rule by my strength alone.

antagonists, especially big bads are not character classes. they are people who have gotten whatever abilities make them badass villains, that make it so that you can't just easily solve them in one move. because if your BBEG was just 20 levels of fighter who'd easily die to some cheap scry and die tactic, he would've been dead long ago, so he isn't. he is whatever that you can't beat easily.

basically? I give my villains this power:
Immune to Anti-Climaxes. any power that would end his threat early or render him a joke, just doesn't work for reasons.

Knaight
2016-10-08, 06:51 PM
The institutional vs. personal power split has already been mentioned, but it's worth observing two things: that personal power can lead to institutional power in various ways, and that a great deal of institutional power can be in the hands of someone without much in the way of personal power. A child monarch may well have a big army they can order around, that doesn't mean they're a high level fighter. So the antagonist's abilities here are worth looking at in two main respects:
1) How can they convert personal power into institutional power?
2) What can they do directly with personal power?

The use of the term "fighter" and "rogue" suggests D&D 3e-5e plus assorted spinoffs, but a lot of this is less system dependant and more archetypical. One of these people is a warrior who is extremely dangerous in a straight fight, the other one a warrior who is less extremely dangerous (but still extremely dangerous) in a straight fight who also has a variety of stealth and deception related skills. I realize the classes don't necessarily map perfectly to that across all games - you could easily have a very powerful warrior who's institutional power is based mostly around a spy network that keeps track of written orders moving around, who personally intercepts orders they don't want and who is a master forger who passes along orders to hijack the institutional power of existing militaries - but that seems like the core concept. So now we have four main things.
1a) Fighters leveraging personal power into institutional power.
1b) Rogues leveraging personal power into institutional power.
2a) Fighters directly using personal power.
2b) Rogues directly using personal power.

Actually going into these in depth would involve several walls of text, so I'll just throw down a couple of suggestions. Personal fighting power could be used as an entrance point into existing martial institutions, and rising in their ranks could give institutional power. Getting arrangements from duels, demonstrations of might, etc. could get institutional power. Building a reputation from personal power can be used as a gateway to institutional power. Training students and getting them (and their subsequent students) loyal to you could be used as a gateway to institutional power. Personal power can be used to get money which is then used to buy institutional power. On the rogue side, much of that still applies. Blackmail and forgery are other obvious entry points.

As for personal power, consider the behavior of PCs. There's no reason NPCs couldn't do similar.

Dragonexx
2016-10-08, 07:00 PM
I'm generally opposed to doing that sort of thing. One of the great things about D&D is that most options available to enemies are available to the players as well. It's better if the npc's are playing by the same rules as the players. And it's not like there aren't plenty of ways to avoid fight ending powers already in the written rules. It's also not really satisfying if the party only triumphs because of DM fiat.

If nothing else, actually codify the rules you've written. Create a new prestige class for him. Make a unique monster. Actually write down specific rules that create the fight you want to happen. (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=476599#476599)

Also, as to fighters leading armies. Nothing about the fighter class makes them specifically better at tactics or leadership. In fact, since leadership is keyed off of charisma, bards and sorcerers make better and easier leaders.

Gensuru
2016-10-08, 07:23 PM
Thanks for the replies, you've given a lot of good examples, some of which I should have remembered myself :smallredface:, and a lot of helpful ideas. :smallsmile: I guess what I'm trying to ask is what features inherent to the fighter lend themselves to BBEG stuff, such that it makes sense that the BBEG is a fighter rather than any other class. For example it makes sense for a warlock to lead a demonic cult, or a rogue to orchestrate political unrest etc. I realise it's a bit of a dumb question and I wasn't very clear in the original post, so thanks again for the replies.


I think in order to answer that you'd first have to clearly define what traits/features you consider to be inherent to fighters in the first place. After all the class can be rather versatile.

The way I see it, fighters are inherently good at combat through any means available to them. In order to lead a group in a battle, the fighter needs to have at least a basic understanding on the tactical abilities of the people involved. He need not understand how a fireball spell works but he does need to factor its effects into his strategy. Even the stereotypical army is far more than just a gathering of fighters. You have scouts, archers, supporters, medics and the likes to command and use efficiently. You have to maintain supply lines, organize patrols, staff outposts and, depending on your situation, finance the whole darn operation. Do you have any idea how much paperwork there is in managing an army? Even if the fighter in question isn't a leader of armies and thus needn't overly concern himself with logistics he's generally expected to be able to understand the various specialized purposes of the weapons he can wield. A sword, a spear and a bow are all weapons a fighter is trained to use yet they all have different strengths and weaknesses.


Let's look at your example of a necromancer and his army of undead. Yes, the Necromancer can raise such an army. But how well can he actually use it? Does having the intelligence and education to understand the arcane concepts required to animate dead tissue grant the him the practical training, experience and mindset required to actually put that army to good use?

Mages tend to analyse things and situations carefully. As such they might be inclined to retreat and think if anything goes wrong (assuming they don't just fall apart when their carefully crafted plans are disrupted). Clerics need certain rituals to go off without a hitch for their power. You don't want to summon an evil god with an incomplete ritual. Assuming you can, at all. How well does an Enchantress do after you have found the McGuffin needed to break her hold over the king? A fighter is used to acting and reacting quickly to a change in circumstances in the thick of battle. A fighter BBEG is a force in his own right. Take away his army and corner him and you still have a powerful combat specialist with experience and potent magical equipment to deal with. Lots of hitpoints, good armor class, can deal a fair amount of damage and (if he's smart) he will be prepared to deal with his weaknesses. A helmet to protect him from mental attacks, a ring of free movement, something to increase his magic resistance in general, etc.



I think the biggest issue though is for you to clarify your idea of what a fighter is. Why does a fighter being the leader of a demonic cult not make sense to you? Why can't a fighter orchestrate political unrest? What is so unthinkable about a fighter using his cult to demonically empower himself (or his weapon/armor) and gain an army of zealots at the same time? What is so odd about a fighter causing political unrest in order to profit from the resulting (civil-)war? A rogue might want to profit from selling weapons as the tensions mount but war is what the fighter class is technically made for. As much as i dislike using the same example twice but: Sarevok had his own cult and was causing political unrest between Baldur's Gate and Amn with the intent of using the resulting war to ascend to Godhood. That's both of your recent examples done by the same Fighter-BBEG.

SpoonR
2016-10-08, 10:31 PM
Black Company setting, Croaker and Narayan Singh. Fighter and Rogue, roughly. Both would make nasty, nasty BBEG. Both get their most interesting bits from outside their class description.

Ignoring stats for the moment, a fighter knows how to fight. That can include personal combat, leading a squad, leading an army, training peasants... A Wiz may have a higher INT, but that doesn't give them interest or capability at successfully ordering people on a muddy battlefield. On the group-combatant side of things, you don't need to be a cleric to lead a cult. You need to be acknowledged as leader by the minions (and probably by whoever the group worships). Cult of the god of murder, rebellious nobles, mercenary band, squad of Khornate Berserkers. Cult of insane stargazers would be interesting - you lead because you don't look at the stars, you're the only person in there sane and able to make plans. Also, from Shadowrun, the mercenary is supposed to be the one who knows tactics, how to deal with patrons without being backstabbed, how to get military toys tailored for this mission, etc. Not just 'hes the guy with the machine gun'.

On the 'BBEG is a killing machine, with no support network', go to town on the idea of 'I found just the right items to take over the world'. Poison, especially if poison detection is uncommon. Amulet of mind shielding / non locating to prevent a teleport pop&drop, ranged weapon that can tag any wizard in line of sight, good armor, save enhancer. Basically, imagine the gear requests of a PC who wanted to solo a lich. Or, make the BBEG a non-spellcasting dragon.

Not sure where a kobold using Grimtooth's traps would fall.

Minions, tricks up their sleeve, tools to run away and fight another day. Everything a mage can do, a fighter can do with equipment or smarts. Ultimately, decide on origin & motive, general context, figure out needed abilities. After that you can decide on class, and how much ability is innate vs gear.

Other fighter/rogue types from fiction. Conan. Elric of Mel most of the time (seemed pretty rare for him to use magic, usually it's just him and his sword of life draining). Real world soldiers (grenades and fireballs aren't that different if you're the target). Batman. Predator. Keyser Soze.

For some reason I want to include Hamburgler in that list. Time for bed.

Inevitability
2016-10-09, 01:13 AM
How I'd do antagonist BBEG "fighter":
PC Wizard: Disintegrate!
BBEG: Sorry, I'm immune to anything save-or-die, because I'm just that tough. save your silly magic for the magician shows, now behold: my abjuration-breaking hammer passed down from my father, no it not enchanted, its just made of a material that just hates abjurations that much. But I'm also prepared in other ways:
*thousands of archers surround wizard*
BBEG: your not the only one, who can prepare. Did you think I got this far, got this strong without killing a wizard or two? My armies will conquer the world, and I will rule by my strength alone.

antagonists, especially big bads are not character classes. they are people who have gotten whatever abilities make them badass villains, that make it so that you can't just easily solve them in one move. because if your BBEG was just 20 levels of fighter who'd easily die to some cheap scry and die tactic, he would've been dead long ago, so he isn't. he is whatever that you can't beat easily.

basically? I give my villains this power:
Immune to Anti-Climaxes. any power that would end his threat early or render him a joke, just doesn't work for reasons.

How do you deal with players who are angry about your DM fiat?

When you disintegrate people, they die. That's a basic rule of the game world. It can be broken: maybe a monster is spell-resistant, or maybe a villain is just an illusion, but you explicitly said you don't care why: you just want your villain to survive until the campaign's final battle, giving him complete immunity to everything until then.

Once the final battle occurs, I assume the fighter won't have thousand of archers with him, and won't be immune to damaging spells?

Cluedrew
2016-10-09, 05:01 PM
Once the final battle occurs, I assume the fighter won't have thousand of archers with him, and won't be immune to damaging spells?If the party manages to pry them away from the fighter, then yes.

I don't think it is odd that any powerful figure would be prepared against those sorts of things. Probably even in the form of magic items. Just because the fighter is not a magic user does not mean that they don't understand that magic exists and then figure out how to use it to their advantage (indirectly).

Personally, I feel fighters fit quite well into the leader archetypes. The bard may make people laugh, they may even realize that the wizard is more intelligent, but the fighter is the one they will band behind. Even when they shouldn't.

Lord Raziere
2016-10-09, 09:03 PM
How do you deal with players who are angry about your DM fiat?

When you disintegrate people, they die. That's a basic rule of the game world. It can be broken: maybe a monster is spell-resistant, or maybe a villain is just an illusion, but you explicitly said you don't care why: you just want your villain to survive until the campaign's final battle, giving him complete immunity to everything until then.

Once the final battle occurs, I assume the fighter won't have thousand of archers with him, and won't be immune to damaging spells?

Would you prefer the alternative?:

*BBEG dies*
Everyone else: oh no, we're all idiots and can't defeat anyone who uses magic just because we don't have it, lets all just stand around and die to the wizards spells and allow him to carve his way to get the magic items we don't use, here lets just form a carpet for the magic-user to walk along instead of creating non-magic ways to stand up to magic, or train ourselves to become immune to certain spells like smart people would do because not everyone can use it.
*You win the game, because none of your expectations or skills were challenged. the end.*

what I'm not allowed to come up with non-magic ways to defeat magic? that seems unfair to me.

If DnD was meant to be a world where the only heroes that matter are magic using classes, then you wouldn't have any classes where you have only mundane power. therefore its more logical that mundane and magic power are supposed to be equal in its specialness granting to people within, otherwise mundanes would only be mooks and only magical classes would be available for the players. the fact that people have through fanon constructed their own perception of strength is their own limitation when they cannot handle any form of strength outside of it as I just demonstrated. and the fact that mechanically one source of power doesn't grant as much power as the other even though they are PC's is a design flaw in a world where your supposed to be heroes above all the things you fight, as well as any chicanery of magic that can take out a foe far easier than they should which robs the fights of challenge or anything interesting about it.

Esprit15
2016-10-10, 03:22 AM
The issue is that when playing the game, the rules form a sort of social contract between the players and the DM. When you as a DM just decide that parts of the game stop working because they're inconvenient, you break that contract. It would be like playing basketball where one team is allowed to travel and foul, while the other team isn't, with the justification being that it makes the game more interesting. You say that the BBEG just can't compete, but at that point, you should either make them a stronger class (Warblades shake off spells pretty easily), play the game at a level that the effects that you want to avoid, or give them items to grant immunities and resistance to those effects, but just saying "That doesn't work because I want the battle to go longer" is being a sore loser.

Gensuru
2016-10-10, 05:52 AM
Unless the players ask to see the BBEG's character sheet isn't the difference more one of attitude and presentation? "The BBEG has a helmet that protects him from mind altering magic" and "mind altering spells don't work on the BBEG because i say so" functionally come down to the same effect, don't they? Granted, one shows that you put some actual thought and planning into your BBEG but at the end of the day a Boss who just keels over after a single hit/spell isn't much to write home about. It is, after all, a game. Generally, the goal would be to find that fine line between success and challenge, right?

That said, the attitude does seem rather callous. There are enough ways ingame to get certain results without blatantly resulting to bullcrap like "my totally non-magical hammer of Chuck Norris shall now smite through your chosen class abilities because i have an axe to grind with magic users and can't be arsed to put some actual respect and thought into the game". What, do "mundane" fighters become somehow less worthwhile if they pick up a sword that was blessed by a god, enchanted by a mage, enhanced by resting in a place of power for a few decades or plain made from some kind of magic immune (or otherwise special) material? If that's your problem, why not stick to nonmagic settings and campaigns?

Give him magical items. Heck, give him that cult we talked about and have one of the effects be that their worshop/rituals grant him certain protections and enhancements. Fighter BBEGs also don't need to be human. What's wrong with a fighter BBEG who happens to be a vampire, demon or an ogre?


A fighter BBEG with the right kind of equipment and a high enough level doesn't even need much in the way of followers. Top it off with some kind of vampiric blade that grants him eternal youth so long as he keeps killing people with it and you have a powerful, mobile BBEG for the players to try and chase down. Plenty of random encounters along the way. Maybe even some people who don't want the PCs to provoke the BBEG.

Inevitability
2016-10-10, 05:53 AM
Raziere, let's look at a similar case. The wizard now casts Wish or Gate or some other big, XP-draining spell. You fiat it into not working, and the player has now lost lots of XP and gold. How is this fair?

You're within your rights to say 'I dislike save-or-die abilities because they make the game less interesting, please don't use them', but do so before the game.

You can come up with ways for mundanes to defeat magic, but what you described isn't 'coming up', it's 'making up'. You're pulling the 'reasons' out of a certain orifice without really caring whether they make sense.

You say you're making the game 'more fun', but that's not for the DM to decide. If all players are okay with a game where BBEG's get one-shotted, why not let them have their fun?

redwizard007
2016-10-10, 07:44 AM
*Rant about non casters shouldn't suck*


You're right, sort of... Your big bad shouldn't be one roll away from death with no back up plan. That's 1 part bad mechanics, and 2 parts poor planning.

Think like a PC when building major NPCs. "How do I @#%$ that guy right in his eye socket?" PC wizard spams disintegrate? Custom magic item to spell turn. PC rogue does 746d12 back stab? Special Armor of fortitude negates 90% of the time. Cleric can roast undead? Necklace of not being obviously undead might come in handy. Etc., etc. Etc.

The key here is to keep it in game mechanics. Odd or unique powers granted by faith, magic, prestige, or astrological events are all fair game. So are unique combinations of magic items that the PCs are unlikely to duplicate. You can even get lazy and point out that each time BBEG shrugged off a brutal spell effect one of his medals turned from gold to iron ("the oops, forgot you had that ability" method.) All of these possibilities preserve at least a little verisimilitude, and dignity, while allowing your big bad to survive a few combats. It also gives the PCs specific targets to neutralize through whatever means they can come up with. A result you should allow to proceed with varying degrees of success.

What you want to avoid is falling into the malarkey that gets thrown around the playground about how mundane classes can't hang with spell casters without a crutch. Rip the crutch out of their hands and beat them to death with it.

ngilop
2016-10-10, 11:45 AM
I haven't had that issue. My first game, the DM went with the classic "Orc warlord uniting the tribes to take over the human and eleven lands."
Eleven is quite a lot of lands.

Or is it not enough lands?

either way, I have had more BBEG be rogues/Fighters than wizards/clerics/random magic users.

I guess because sicne D&D is so caster centric its just so easy to say 'the main bad guy has spells, yo" You actively have to think of cool way to make the Mundane guy a threat at large.

The 'Orc' warlord is a very common theme wherein 'orc' could mean any number or races.

You can also subvert the theme like my friend did in my first College campaign as a player ( back in 2003-2005) Turns out the Orc were the good guys and the human empire was the bad guys. Its more complicated than that but that's the short of it.