PDA

View Full Version : How Mundane is enough?



Artemician
2007-09-15, 02:19 AM
The original thread was locked for inflammatory language, but I have asked permission from the moderators and the original poster to restart this thread in a more civil manner, and both have agreed.

In discussions online forums, we surely have come across people who criticize the Tome of Battle as "too supernatural", and say that they wish to play a Human Fighter as a mundane fighter, not a supernatural blade-adept.

This begs the question of: "What would constitute a Mundane fighter? Obviously videogame style blasts of fire from my sword ala Desert Wind might be a bit too much,. But what's an acceptable measure of mundane? Is it okay to cleave a stone in half with your sword? What about to fall a large distance like a Dragoon from FF? Hitting multiple enemies with a thrown weapon?
Avoiding an explosion like a fireball in a bland area with no cover, and not moving to do so? Spell resistance?

So.. let's start the ball rolling.


I prefer to limit "mundane" characters to NPC's, myself, unless everyone's going to be that way. I mean, they're just going to be unimpressive next to the guy that can think you dead, the guy that can raise the dead with a prayer, and the guy who turns into giant magical beasts. Being able to use a sword sort of nifty just doesn't match that, neither according to mechanics nor sensibly.

I'm fine with ToB. If the wizard is thinking people dead, the option to create fire with your sword makes you sound at least a little formidable in his presense.


Well, the way I see it:

If you do something anyone can do, but just so much _amazingly_ better that the _consequences_ of your action is ridiculous, that's mundane.

If you can do something other people _can't_ do, even a less impressive version of, making it an entire different kind of action, that's not mundane.

Thus, making an attack for 100 damage is mundane; the damage comes from the same sources as a normal attack, there's just more of it. Using a maneuver to deal 100 damage is not mundane; you're using secret-squirrel-magic-jutsu to do something a commoner can not do on any scale, not even for 1 point of damage. They have to use their mundane option.


Considering that, eventually, PCs will be going up against gigantic regenerating turtles and "Those damn crabs", it helps alot when you can do more than poke them with a sharp stick. But that's not the case in a low magic setting, of course.

Kioran
2007-09-15, 03:31 AM
I think mundane can be pretty much described as "whatever a low-to-midlevel" bruiser Monster or any high-lvl NPC-Class (with the exception of Adept) can do. Things I´d call "HD-based". These things? Normal people or beings can do them without a hint of magic or Magic heritage. Also, there are some possible exceptions, like Sneak Attack or Evasion(which is oversimplified, but at least I think mundane).
But mostly anything else isn´t. That isn´t saying characters should all be mundane, just that there should be a mundane Option of at least approximately the same power.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-15, 04:13 AM
Get this: Mundane fighters with no super-awesome movie action hero style abilities? There's a way to make that. You play a level 1 Warrior.

Done and done. Problem solved. Now you can play a totally mundane warrior! No action hero stunts. No magic swords. No epic prowess.

If you want to slay things with incredible magic powers and toenails bigger than YOU, then you'd better have something a bit more extraordinary on hand than an average human swinging a sword in a completely ordinary manner. Because a thousand average humans with swords actually totally couldn't kill that.

I mean, seriously, look at any video game, movie, or book where the heroes actually take down the equivelent of, say, level 10 or higher encounters. Now look how bloody ridiculously awesome and NOT mundane they are. We're talking Kratos and Beowulf and so forth here, people. Tales of high level heroes tell you that you're totally supposed to be able to do totally extraordinary things like punch a giant's head clear off. Heck, even fairly low level heroes are totally awesome. Take, for example, Sin City's Marv being able to take being run over by a speeding car repeatedly, or making his save vs a coup de grace (an electric chair, as it were), and saying "Is that all ya got, you pansies?" And yes, low-mid level fighters can save against a coup de grace, and that's totally okay, because heroes are supposed to do crazy stuff like that. That's why your level 5 Fighter or Barbarian or Warblade or whatever can actually get stabbed repeatedly and still totally kick people's asses as if nothing had happened.

If you don't want to play a high level hero, the problem is easily, easily solved by... not playing a high level hero. Shocking, I know. Play NPC classes and have a grunts game or something. I'm completely serious. There's totally nothing wrong with that.

As for ToB...
The flavor in no way requires you to be supernatural (though a few maneuver choices available give you the OPTION to be), just to be extraordinary (which even a Fighter is, really). And really, a warblade has pretty much the same bloody flavor as a Fighter. You can totally make your old Fighter character as a Warblade, and he'll be totally the same flavorwise. Just more mechanically competent. If you're one of those people that has a LOT of trouble with flavor concepts for some reason (You know, the kind of people who think that a Disintegrate ray MUST be green in color, because the description says so, and you're not allowed to change the flavor!), though, I offer this helpful link to help remedy that problem:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=849692

Enjoy.

Kiero
2007-09-15, 04:35 AM
Mundane enough for me: heroes don't require gadgets or kewl powerz to do awesome things. This is my objection to magic items, which detract from the abilities of the protagonist. People often assume (largely because of the way they're hardcoded into D&D 3.x) that if you don't like magic items you want a gritty game where characters die easy.

I don't. I want a game where they matter more than their gear, and a warrior can pick up any weapon he's trained in and kick much ass. We never saw Conan fretting over whether he'd packed the right combination of magitech to ensure maximum optimal damage output. He just used whatever weapon was to hand, and that changed from story to story.

Crow
2007-09-15, 04:44 AM
To One Winged4ngel:

Please tell me how in the world Beowulf was supernatural in any way other than a huge strength score.

Please.

What the most people are talking about are "magical" type abilities. All the examples you listed don't require "magic".

Anyways, My biggest problem with ToB is the clunky-ass mechanic it uses, that while not calling it magic, ends up feeling like it anyways.

Zincorium
2007-09-15, 04:50 AM
I honestly see a severe believability problem with a universe where a mundane (which I take to mean as: existing or capable of existing in the real world) character of any sort could hope to last three seconds with a fire breathing reptile bigger than a house. Can you play it that way? Sure. But I'm going to have to bite my tongue a lot in a game like that.

On the other hand, a mystic warrior who harnesses the power of meditation and internal chi to go beyond human possibility seems perfectly fitting in a world where magic exists. It's far more reasonable in my eyes, because if you can gain world-bending power either through simple piety and belief or the rigorous study of textbooks, why would you throw that away?

I don't believe that a character's power should be based on magical items or spells known, but I just don't see any attraction whatsoever in playing a character who is nothing more than a real world human in a world of things that are so much more interesting.

Crow
2007-09-15, 04:59 AM
I honestly see a severe believability problem with a universe where a mundane (which I take to mean as: existing or capable of existing in the real world) character of any sort could hope to last three seconds with a fire breathing reptile bigger than a house. Can you play it that way? Sure. But I'm going to have to bite my tongue a lot in a game like that.

On the other hand, a mystic warrior who harnesses the power of meditation and internal chi to go beyond human possibility seems perfectly fitting in a world where magic exists. It's far more reasonable in my eyes, because if you can gain world-bending power either through simple piety and belief or the rigorous study of textbooks, why would you throw that away?

I don't believe that a character's power should be based on magical items or spells known, but I just don't see any attraction whatsoever in playing a character who is nothing more than a real world human in a world of things that are so much more interesting.


There are human beings that can take down an attack helicopter or armored vehicle (with the right tactics and equipment). That doesn't require magic. Who's to say a mundane couldn't win through tactics and determination, plus a fair bit of exceptional skill?

Kiero
2007-09-15, 05:14 AM
I don't believe that a character's power should be based on magical items or spells known, but I just don't see any attraction whatsoever in playing a character who is nothing more than a real world human in a world of things that are so much more interesting.

Obviously the sword and sorcery genre is not for you.

StickMan
2007-09-15, 05:28 AM
This fix for the fighter right here is what I think people want when the want a mundane fighter. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56408)

I think people just want to see a fighter who does not use magic but uses lots of training and tactics. You don't need magic to do these things just, a class that is a master of the basics of combat.

Morty
2007-09-15, 06:06 AM
It's a fine line and very relative thing.
Basically, for me "mundane enough" is when fighter isn't doing something human just plainly couldn't do, like flying or teleporting. Extraordinary feats like jumping great distances or bashing through rock are fine, as long as they're done by high-level characters. I don't find ToB too supernatural myself, with exceptions of Shadow Hand and Desert Wind disciplines. I don't like ToB, but it has nothing to do with it being too "supernatural", because it's not.

Dhavaer
2007-09-15, 06:24 AM
Mundanity is for low levels and NPCs. Although I would love to see a soap opera with level 15+ D&D characters.

I agree that less 'stuff' based power would be nice. By level 20 have, say, a magic weapon and any two of armour, shield, ring, amulet, cloak, etc, and nothing more except disposables. They should scale with level, too, to get rid of the need for mirabicaries to trade in the old stuff. And change effect depending on class
For example: Sorra the level 8 warblade finds Char, a magical longsword, which for her acts as a +1 flaming longsword. Preferring greatswords, she gives it to Drusas, the level 10 warmage. Char gives Drusas +2 caster level on all his fire spells. Later, Drusas offers Char as tribute to Mishka, a great warlord (and level 17 swordsage). Mishka can wield the sword as a +2 fiery burst speed longsword and he gains inferno blade as a bonus readied maneuver.

Ecalsneerg
2007-09-15, 07:15 AM
I think if you want mundane, you should play d20 modern or something. 3.5 e D&D is severely magic-dominated, and low-magic is hard to pull off.

d20 modern is easily adapted to be in a 'medieval' setting (d20 past, anyone?)

Matthew
2007-09-15, 07:34 AM
It's all relative. Boromir, Faramir, Aragorn, Thorin Oakenshield, Conan, Tanis, Sturm, Caramon; that sort of thing. They're all a cut above your average professional warrior, but they don't rely on internal supernatural power.

Odyssesus, Hector, Siegfried, Hector, Paris, Arthur, Gawain, Roland, Beowulf, Oliver, Beues of Hamtoun, Guy of Warwick, Tristan and a host of other Middle English heroes would probably also qualify. Many of these have external supernatural aid, usually expressed as divine favour. I'm okay with that, as it's not usually dominant, even if not always passive.

I'm okay with heroes occasionally doing amazing things, it's when they do them as a matter of course that I start to get bored.

dr.cello
2007-09-15, 08:12 AM
For the sake of those who seem to think that 'mundane' means 'boring,' I'd like to note that 'magic/mundane' is probably one of the more common dichotomies in fantasy fiction. Mundane is 'anything which isn't magic.'

I like the idea of a mundane character in a world filled with magic and giant dragons and such. I like, basically, boss battles in the Zelda games. You don't usually win through anything more than skill with a sword, and being maneuverable. You win through primarily mundane means. I like that. Quickness, strength, skill. While your average person could not do things like this, they are not manifesting fireballs or anything like that--they're just better, stronger, faster.

A good place to look for mundane abilities is rogue and swashbuckler, two of my favorite classes, precisely because they are a mundane person in a world of magic and giant monsters. Where the wizard and sorcerer gain more arcane power as time wears on, the rogue and sorcerer just learn how to stab people better, or learn a little flourish that makes a hit in vital locations crippling as well as painful.

So how mundane is mundane enough? When I use a class ability, I want to feel like it's not just some spell/maneuver/stance that I know and have a finite number of that won the day. I want to feel like my character's skill, strength, training, panache, or whatever did it.

It's one of the reasons I don't like playing blaster mages, either. I never really feel like it's my character doing it. With illusions, enchantments, and so on, there's a definite aspect of my character involved (and if you make the flavor right, summoners, but otherwise summoning spells are among my least favorite). (Sometimes I don't mind blaster mages, though, but I am fickle on this subject and that's neither here nor there.)

Pegasos989
2007-09-15, 08:47 AM
To One Winged4ngel:

Please tell me how in the world Beowulf was supernatural in any way other than a huge strength score.

Please.

What the most people are talking about are "magical" type abilities. All the examples you listed don't require "magic".


Yes, they do.

Or well, as ToB, you don't necessarily call it magicbut it ends up feeling the same none the less. ;)



If a fighter is capable of enduring dragon's breath that corrodes the stone around him by just being so "tough" it is supernatural. Nobody in real life can do even a smaller version of it. If there is acid that corrodes large areas of stone, people in there die unless they are supernatural.

If a fighter is able to punch a dagger through dragons' scales, though the scales are much harder than the dagger - and possibly even so thick that the dagger would hardly go through it all - by just being strong enough, it is supernatural.




Fighters are just as supernatural as any other character or creature in DnD. He isn't just a lot stronger and more skillfull version of a normal human when he stands nearly unharmed against the acid that corroded stone around him, he is already supernatural..


The diffrence is, that fighters are less varying in their supernaturality. While others gain all new cool abilities, the mundane fighter become flavor wise supernatural too but game mechanically the thing they do in combat stays the same. "Soak damage, hit, damage, soa...".


This is why I like ToB. It doesn't make fighters any more supernatural than they were. Just adds something new to the ways they are.

Crow
2007-09-15, 08:56 AM
The things your talking about have nothing to do with "supernatural" or not. The issues you cite are issues with the Hitpoint system and how you interprit it.

Taking a bunch of damage from a dragon's breath and still living to you means standing there and bathing in it while it melts the rocks around you.

Taking a bunch of damage from a dragon's breath and still living to me means using your skill and athletiscism to get out of the way of most of it (Evasion would be a greater version of this, but you still get a reflex save whether you have evasion or not. Ever wonder why?).

Pegasos989
2007-09-15, 09:03 AM
The things your talking about have nothing to do with "supernatural" or not. The issues you cite are issues with the Hitpoint system and how you interprit it.

Taking a bunch of damage from a dragon's breath and still living to you means standing there and bathing in it while it melts the rocks around you.

Taking a bunch of damage from a dragon's breath and still living to me means using your skill and athletiscism to either get out of the way of most of it (Evasion would be a greater version of this, but you still get a reflex save whether you have evasion or not. Ever wonder why?).

Well, that isn't how the game is built, really.

Reason: you can be unconcious when the dragon breathes directly at you and you still survive due to the sheet amount of hitpoints. How do you explain that by being athletic? With paladins it is easy, the god protects you. However that is already the supernatural explanation that doesn't work for the "mundane" fighters. (EDIT: Imagine that bruce lee - high level mundane fighter or monk - was unconcious and suddenly a dragon appeared and breathed in a way that corroded stone floor around him. He has skills, he has training, he is tough but as a mundane person, how do you explain that?)

Also, non-supernatural explanation of falling 700 feet and being close to unharmed (easy for high level barbarian or fighter) by just being so tough? You can't just say "well, athletism" as I don't think (feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that there is any kind of movement that would negate the falling damage from high heights. Sure, I have seen martial artist jump off 2 or three story buildings' roofs because they are still going forward too and can change the energy to that by proper rolls but 700 feet of direct falling? No way bruce lee (a high level mundane fighter type, I would say) would have done that.




On the other hand, if you can explain all that kind of things with mundane flavor, doing so on martial adepts should be really easy too.

Riffington
2007-09-15, 09:12 AM
The difference isn't really between supernatural/mundane. As has been pointed out, the ability to take a fall from 7 stories and keep on going is supernatural.

The difference is Western vs Eastern myth. Sure, baby Hercules could crawl out of his crib and strangle big snakes. But he'd attribute it to divine might, not to his "Grip of the Unrelenting Tiger"

Now, I like the Eastern flavor. I think D&D long ago stepped away from "this borrows from the two great mythologies: Greek and Norse". But that flavor permeates the rules, not just the flavor text. The basic premise of "special moves that work once or twice per fight" is just not a European thing.

Morty
2007-09-15, 09:20 AM
The difference isn't really between supernatural/mundane. As has been pointed out, the ability to take a fall from 7 stories and keep on going is supernatural.

The difference is Western vs Eastern myth. Sure, baby Hercules could crawl out of his crib and strangle big snakes. But he'd attribute it to divine might, not to his "Grip of the Unrelenting Tiger"

Now, I like the Eastern flavor. I think D&D long ago stepped away from "this borrows from the two great mythologies: Greek and Norse". But that flavor permeates the rules, not just the flavor text. The basic premise of "special moves that work once or twice per fight" is just not a European thing.

Sweet Jesus, not this again.
If the only thing that bothers you is the names of manuevers, change them. I agree that manuever mechanics is bad, but it's not really "un-european".
And falling from 700 feet and living through it is just badly designed rules where people that are supposed to be mundane are doing superawesome things without even being particulary high-level.

Pegasos989
2007-09-15, 09:23 AM
The difference isn't really between supernatural/mundane. As has been pointed out, the ability to take a fall from 7 stories and keep on going is supernatural.

The difference is Western vs Eastern myth. Sure, baby Hercules could crawl out of his crib and strangle big snakes. But he'd attribute it to divine might, not to his "Grip of the Unrelenting Tiger"7

Good point, I completely agree.


Now, I like the Eastern flavor. I think D&D long ago stepped away from "this borrows from the two great mythologies: Greek and Norse". But that flavor permeates the rules, not just the flavor text. The basic premise of "special moves that work once or twice per fight" is just not a European thing.

But a lot of classes already have such. Most have used /day mechanic instead of /encounter but same thing, really.

Druids use wild shape and after some levels, the amount is around once per encounter.
Going towards more mundane, paladins have similar smite.
And even more mundane, barbarians have similar rage.

Also, a lot of half-mundaneish classes and prestigeclasses have such. Ravagers with their daily con damaging strikes, stonelords which can, if I recall, heal themselves with mud once per day...

Matthew
2007-09-15, 09:23 AM
On the other hand, if you can explain all that kind of things with mundane flavor, doing so on martial adepts should be really easy too.

Nobody said it is easy to explain away every inconsistancy in the rule set. Honestly, if a fighter falls off a 1,000' Cliff, I rule he's dead. Same if a Dragon breathes flames on his unconscious body. I treat them the same as the Drowning Rules, if it seems like they should be dead, they are. When the rules contradict the reality of the game world, it's the rules that are wrong. More inconsistancies to have to explain away as mundane is undesirable, in my opinion.

On the other hand, if I want to play a more supernatural style game of D&D, I won't bother to explain these inconsistancies and I will use Tome of Battle.

Pegasos989
2007-09-15, 09:25 AM
Sweet Jesus, not this again.
If the only thing that bothers you is the names of manuevers, change them. I agree that manuever mechanics is bad, but it's not really "un-european".
And falling from 700 feet and living through it is just badly designed rules where people that are supposed to be mundane are doing superawesome things without even being particulary high-level.

How come you say they are supposed to be mundane and it is a rules flaw? I really think that it was intended that high or even mid level fighters aren't mundane.

Pegasos989
2007-09-15, 09:29 AM
Nobody said it is easy to explain away every inconsistancy in the rule set. Honestly, if a fighter falls off a 1,000' Cliff, I rule he's dead. Same if a Dragon breathes flames on his unconscious body. I treat them the same as the Drowning Rules, if it seems like they should be dead, they are. When the rules contradict the reality of the game world, it's the rules that are wrong. More inconsistancies to have to explain away as mundane is undesirable, in my opinion.[/I].


Okay, you are naturally free to play your version of DnD with the version of "Fighter types are mundane because I remove all the rules allowing them to be not mundane" if you enjoy it (though I likely wouldn't).

However, just remember that that is just houseruling that fighters aren't what they are by following the mechanics - supernatural.

To tell the truth, I don't see what's the point of ruling that fighters become non-supernatural again unless you also rule that wizards won't gain spells... :/

Riffington
2007-09-15, 09:35 AM
But a lot of classes already have such. Most have used /day mechanic instead of /encounter but same thing, really.



I think it's not quite the same thing. The /day mechanic is a ham-handed attempt at balance. It works fine, but there's really no good explanation for some of them, just "this sounds fair". If it introduces any flavor, it's a "this thing is very tiring", or "your magic is limited".

The maneuver recovery mechanisms introduce a different flavor there: the character is setting himself up for a special move. Obviously, there's going to be more evolution in these kind of rules, but it's moving towards a place where you can see your enemy setting up a move or combo and try to stop it. Or at least "attack now before he recovers".

Matthew
2007-09-15, 09:38 AM
Okay, you are naturally free to play your version of DnD with the version of "Fighter types are mundane because I remove all the rules allowing them to be not mundane" if you enjoy it (though I likely wouldn't).

So do you allow Characters who are drowning to reset to 0 Hit Points? Come on, it's not 'my version', it's just not RAW. I'm just following the lead of previous editions which said exactly what I'm saying. If it seems like they're dead, they are. It applies equally to all classes, not just Fighters.


However, just remember that that is just houseruling that fighters aren't what they are by following the mechanics - supernatural.

Of course it's a House Rule, but so is fixing the Drowning Mechanic. Examine the way Feats interact with Mounted Charges. D&D is full of holes, it doesn't make it 'supernatural', it just makes it a game.


To tell the truth, I don't see what's the point of ruling that fighters become non-supernatural again unless you also rule that wizards won't gain spells... :/
Erm, what? The point is just the same as it is in Swords and Sorcery type fiction, to distinguish between those who can and those who cannot use magic. A Character surviving a long fall or a Fireball whilst unconscious isn't evidence of supernatural ability, it's just an artefact of the system. It can be explained by divine intervention or dumb luck by the RAW or the game rules can be ignored in favour of more mundane consequences.

Morty
2007-09-15, 09:41 AM
How come you say they are supposed to be mundane and it is a rules flaw? I really think that it was intended that high or even mid level fighters aren't mundane.

Living through falling great distances isn't particulary hard even or not-so-high levels. And in my personal opinion, fighters should be blatantly non-mundane on fairly high levels.
That, and falling from great heights ought to be deadly for everyone. But that's just me.

Fhaolan
2007-09-15, 10:51 AM
The difference isn't really between supernatural/mundane. As has been pointed out, the ability to take a fall from 7 stories and keep on going is supernatural.

The difference is Western vs Eastern myth. Sure, baby Hercules could crawl out of his crib and strangle big snakes. But he'd attribute it to divine might, not to his "Grip of the Unrelenting Tiger"

Now, I like the Eastern flavor. I think D&D long ago stepped away from "this borrows from the two great mythologies: Greek and Norse". But that flavor permeates the rules, not just the flavor text. The basic premise of "special moves that work once or twice per fight" is just not a European thing.

Hrm... If you study the Spanish sword fighting style known as the Mysterious Circle, or perhaps Manciolino's Opra nova (a Venetian fight manual) you will see maneuvers with names like 'iron gate of the wild boar', and 'closed long tail', and so on.

Stupid names for fighting stances and maneuvers are not Eastern. Westerners did it too. It's just that Eastern Martial Arts has better PR and because of the Western attitude of 'It's exotic/foreign, so it must be *better*.'

Just like everyone thinks martial arts is purely Oriental. There are many European martial arts from the Medieval and Ancient periods. Greek wrestling, Pankration, Khridoli, Glima, Savate, Jogo do Pau are all historical martial arts from Europe. And they all have silly names for their maneuvers.

Crow
2007-09-15, 10:59 AM
Okay, you are naturally free to play your version of DnD with the version of "Fighter types are mundane because I remove all the rules allowing them to be not mundane" if you enjoy it (though I likely wouldn't).

However, just remember that that is just houseruling that fighters aren't what they are by following the mechanics - supernatural.

To tell the truth, I don't see what's the point of ruling that fighters become non-supernatural again unless you also rule that wizards won't gain spells... :/

Dude, you are not playing fair here. You keep bringing up issues which are almost the sole responsibility of the Hitpoint system. It has nothing to do with fighters being supernatural or not, as it applies to every class in D&D. Commoners are supernatural by your standards.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-15, 11:39 AM
Dude, you are not playing fair here. You keep bringing up issues which are almost the sole responsibility of the Hitpoint system. It has nothing to do with fighters being supernatural or not, as it applies to every class in D&D. Commoners are supernatural by your standards.

In a world where gods walk the earth, dragons make regular lunch of large standing armies, the dude with the pointy hat can kill half the town without even thinking about it, and the neighbor's housecat is a credible threat to anyone of first or second level, damn straight commoners'd better be supernatural.

D&D's world--at least, any of the worlds that are supported by book releases by WotC--are very fantastic: there are inhabitants in these worlds that are more powerful as infants than standard humans are when they're thirty. As such, one can safely assume that humans in the D&D universe aren't exactly humans as they are in our universe.

Mundaneness, in a high-fantasy setting like D&D, is frequently lethal. If it so happens that you're lucky enough that it's not lethal and you're still mundane, you're not a hero. And D&D is about heroes, last I checked.

Ever notice how there are almost no heroes in fantasy stories that are about 'some guy'? They're almost always about some sort of exceptional person--whether that be heritage, magical prowess, extraordinary martial prowess, or something else entirely. They're all supernatural, because that's what's interesting.

Indon
2007-09-15, 11:54 AM
If a fighter is capable of enduring dragon's breath that corrodes the stone around him by just being so "tough" it is supernatural. Nobody in real life can do even a smaller version of it. If there is acid that corrodes large areas of stone, people in there die unless they are supernatural.

If a fighter is able to punch a dagger through dragons' scales, though the scales are much harder than the dagger - and possibly even so thick that the dagger would hardly go through it all - by just being strong enough, it is supernatural.


A level 1 commoner has a 5% chance of doing either of those. The Fighter isn't any more 'supernatural' than the commoner; he's just more consistent.

psychoticbarber
2007-09-15, 12:24 PM
Ever notice how there are almost no heroes in fantasy stories that are about 'some guy'? They're almost always about some sort of exceptional person--whether that be heritage, magical prowess, extraordinary martial prowess, or something else entirely. They're all supernatural, because that's what's interesting.

This is also true for characters who are "The son of a random poor farmer." They always end up not really being the son of a random poor farmer, or else they are, but their mother was really a princess with magical powers. Look at Rand from the Wheel of Time (or don't, really, either way works).

I think the idea is not to be mundane in the sense that the character is boring and not special (though some people do advocate that), I think that the people who argue in favour of the mundane are really arguing in favour of the character's strengths being the character's, instead of being owed to maneuvers or magical weapons.

I think that's not quite fair, though, to the ToB characters, because characters who use maneuvers worked very hard to learn them (presumably, at least). The character spent a lot of time learning to hit things really hard in a particular way that does a lot of damage, or to move quickly, or to be able to sense opponents that she cannot see.

Mundane characters can use the ToB mechanics with no problems at all. Personally, I find mundane to be fine, it's exceptional that I want to be, and I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

Golthur
2007-09-15, 12:59 PM
If I'm in a wuxia sort of phase, then I don't bother, and all of the ToB sort of stuff is cool. But sometimes, I want to run a campaign that doesn't have that feel. Sometimes, I even want to run (gasp!) low fantasy using D&D rules.

When I'm in this mode, what I want for "mundane" (which is a poor choice of word, really, since it automatically implies "boring" due to the nature of English) is this: if it's something that a hero could do because of their strength, speed, toughness, or skill - even if the results might be somewhat outlandish - I'm cool. However, I don't want flames shooting out of their weapons, teleportation over short distances, no hadoukens or anything like that.

Falling, and using the wall with expert tumbling so you can survive a drop of 200' feet? Sure, cool. Even landing and rolling just so would be pushing it, but likely OK. Running along walls a la Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? Not so cool. Managing to find the one weak spot in the dragon's armour that lets you shove your sword under his scales? Cool. Using supernatural power to punch your steel blade through the scales? Not so much.

Skilled combos; deflecting your opponent's attack to create an opening; whittling him down with dozens of extremely quick, well-placed blows; or striking an extremely vital part of his anatomy? All well within the bounds of "strength, speed, skill, toughness".

Rules like "you get a Reflex save even if you're unconscious" are things I can do without, even though they're RAW. I don't like them and I usually change them - since, to me, a Reflex save implies you're leaping or rolling out of the way. If you can't, too bad.

Matthew
2007-09-15, 01:00 PM
In a world where gods walk the earth, dragons make regular lunch of large standing armies, the dude with the pointy hat can kill half the town without even thinking about it, and the neighbor's housecat is a credible threat to anyone of first or second level, damn straight commoners'd better be supernatural.

Heh, friggin' House Cats. Another good example of when the rules become FUBAR. Once again, though, where the rules do not support the Campaign World, it is the rules that are wrong. The game rules will always be an imperfect expression of a Game World; they aren't immutable laws of physics. I don't think it's considered normal in the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk or Eberron for a House Cat to be a threat to Commoners (or any other conventional high fantasy world).


D&D's world--at least, any of the worlds that are supported by book releases by WotC--are very fantastic: there are inhabitants in these worlds that are more powerful as infants than standard humans are when they're thirty. As such, one can safely assume that humans in the D&D universe aren't exactly humans as they are in our universe.

I imagine that's true, but those are surely exceptional cases (and probably somewhat Mary Sue).


Mundaneness, in a high-fantasy setting like D&D, is frequently lethal. If it so happens that you're lucky enough that it's not lethal and you're still mundane, you're not a hero. And D&D is about heroes, last I checked.

Depends how you define Mundaneness. Heroicness is a concept relative to normality.


Ever notice how there are almost no heroes in fantasy stories that are about 'some guy'? They're almost always about some sort of exceptional person--whether that be heritage, magical prowess, extraordinary martial prowess, or something else entirely. They're all supernatural, because that's what's interesting.

I dunno, isn't that the theme of Lord of the Rings? There's a huge difference between being partially descended from 'fey folk' and being a Bhaal Spawn.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-15, 01:06 PM
I dunno, isn't that the theme of Lord of the Rings? There's a huge difference between being partially descended from 'fey folk' and being a Bhaal Spawn.

...not really, no. The hobbits are chosen because they have special resistances to magic and are strangely persistent, according to Gandalf. Frodo in particular is chosen because of his relationship to Bilbo. Aragorn/Strider is the lost king. Legolas is an expert elven archer, and Gimli is descended from those who raided Smaug's lair. Gandalf is a wizard on par with Sauron's lieutenant, in terms of power. Boromir is a prince. Gollum is a twisted shadow of a hobbit who has been around forever. None of these people are ordinary.

Crow
2007-09-15, 01:16 PM
...not really, no. The hobbits are chosen because they have special resistances to magic and are strangely persistent, according to Gandalf. Frodo in particular is chosen because of his relationship to Bilbo. Aragorn/Strider is the lost king. Legolas is an expert elven archer, and Gimli is descended from those who raided Smaug's lair. Gandalf is a wizard on par with Sauron's lieutenant, in terms of power. Boromir is a prince. Gollum is a twisted shadow of a hobbit who has been around forever. None of these people are ordinary.

Once again missing the point...

I'm retiring from this thread.

Matthew
2007-09-15, 01:17 PM
Samwise isn't ordinary?! As far as I am aware, LotR is mainly about the Hobbits, which is why everything is written from their perspective. The general theme is that even small people with virtually no special powers can make a difference. Sure, Frodo and co are more resistant to the effects of the Ring than Men, but that's true of all Hobbits, it's not a special ability of just one. By the end of the story they have become exceptional, but it's not like they started that way.

That said, Bilbo is marked out from other Hobbits as being possibly descended from a Fairy and that might extend to any of the Hobbits from that line (I think 'Tookishness' is in play). However, that's a fairly wide net to cast and we never see any evidence of special powers being the result.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-15, 01:22 PM
Samwise isn't ordinary?! As far as I am aware, LotR is mainly about the Hobbits, which is why everything is written from their perspective. The general theme is that even small people with virtually no special powers can make a difference. Sure, Frodo and co are more resistant to the effects of the Ring than Men, but that's true of all Hobbits, it's not a special ability of just one. By the end of the story they have become exceptional, but it's not like they started that way.

Thank you for that line there. Is there any particular reason D&D shouldn't be the same way?

Matthew
2007-09-15, 01:27 PM
Thank you for that line there. Is there any particular reason D&D shouldn't be the same way?

Fax, I'm not arguing that there should be no growth for Characters, mechanical or otherwise. Pippin and Merry don't acquire Wuxia powers, they get taller (from drinking Entwash) and they become more decisive and confident. They lead the Shire 'up in arms', but they couldn't have taken on all Sharky's men by themselves. It's a matter of scale, which is what I was referring to before.

[Edit]
I have no problem with D&D as a vehicle for high powered/high fantasy/high magic adventure. I just don't think it needs to be the only way to play or even thought of as the default way that best suits the rules.

Paragon Badger
2007-09-15, 02:13 PM
*expects to be pelted by tomatoes*

Look at Drizzt, a character probably just shying from epic levels. He doesn't have all that many magic weapons, sure a +2 or so scimitar here and there, but nothing that's so o-my-gawd-uber-magicks!

Read how R.A. Salvatore describes the fighting in those books, (although he can... go on a bit of a tangent)

The rogues of his books are "silent like shadows", beyond the comparison of any special forces on earth. Drizzt and Zaknafien's duels are like, Star Wars Episode 1-3 speed/technique/intensive quality.

Now, if you've seen any real fights, with swords or fists, you know that they NEVER look as cool as they do in the movies. Movie fights are coreographed so perfectly that even two 'meat n' potatoes' fighters are fluidly fighting eachother... instead of real fights, where two opponents are apprehensive and don't always hit square on (or at all), or preform grappling techniques with flaws.

Drizzt fights anyone as if the battle was coreographed and practiced with the other fighter for weeks or months in advance. This is true of all fighters, i think.

Oh..and I really doubt that humans from earth and D&D humans are the same at all.

Humans mostly exist in fantasy settings merely to serve to allow believability and/or an emphathetic response.

I mean, you will never be able to emphathize with Zork, a Powyu sorceror, if she dies a tragic death in the book your reading...

...But Eyowunda, the human wizard, is much easier to connect with, as a player or as a reader.

Even non-human races are 'human'oid. Elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and even half-orcs are all 'human' in a storytelling sense.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-15, 02:15 PM
If I'm in a wuxia sort of phase, then I don't bother, and all of the ToB sort of stuff is cool. But sometimes, I want to run a campaign that doesn't have that feel. Sometimes, I even want to run (gasp!) low fantasy using D&D rules.

When I'm in this mode, what I want for "mundane" (which is a poor choice of word, really, since it automatically implies "boring" due to the nature of English) is this: if it's something that a hero could do because of their strength, speed, toughness, or skill - even if the results might be somewhat outlandish - I'm cool. However, I don't want flames shooting out of their weapons, teleportation over short distances, no hadoukens or anything like that.

Falling, and using the wall with expert tumbling so you can survive a drop of 200' feet? Sure, cool. Even landing and rolling just so would be pushing it, but likely OK. Running along walls a la Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? Not so cool. Managing to find the one weak spot in the dragon's armour that lets you shove your sword under his scales? Cool. Using supernatural power to punch your steel blade through the scales? Not so much.

Skilled combos; deflecting your opponent's attack to create an opening; whittling him down with dozens of extremely quick, well-placed blows; or striking an extremely vital part of his anatomy? All well within the bounds of "strength, speed, skill, toughness".

Rules like "you get a Reflex save even if you're unconscious" are things I can do without, even though they're RAW. I don't like them and I usually change them - since, to me, a Reflex save implies you're leaping or rolling out of the way. If you can't, too bad.

ToB allows plenty of character builds that are definitely that level of "mundane." And it offers some that aren't. Just use the ones that aren't, don't condemn the whole book for giving you options.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-15, 02:17 PM
Fax, I'm not arguing that there should be no growth for Characters, mechanical or otherwise. Pippin and Merry don't acquire Wuxia powers, they get taller (from drinking Entwash) and they become more decisive and confident. They lead the Shire 'up in arms', but they couldn't have taken on all Sharky's men by themselves. It's a matter of scale, which is what I was referring to before.

Actually, it's not so much a matter of scale, but a matter of focus. Pippin and Merry, continuing your example, were not fighters, instead being leaders. They were exceptional within their archetype.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-15, 02:18 PM
Actually, it's not so much a matter of scale, but a matter of focus. Pippin and Merry, continuing your example, were not fighters, instead being leaders. They were exceptional within their archetype.

Yeah. They were like, high level commoners by the end. If you want to play commoners, that's a totally fine idea for a campaign. But that's not what a PC class generally is supposed to be.


To One Winged4ngel:

Please tell me how in the world Beowulf was supernatural in any way other than a huge strength score.

Please. I didn't ever say he was supernatural in a way other than a huge strength score, did I? He's extraordinary by way of a huge bloody strength score (or, possibly, extraordinary by maneuvers that make him totally seem like he does), and extraordinary by way of fighting skills. Note that Tome of Battle offers a *lot* of abilities that represent things just like that, without being in any way magical. Plenty of the abilities in ToB are extraordinary, ranging from being able to attack two enemies in a turn with a whirling strike to ripping out an enemy's innards with a killing blow to intimidate your foes. Only a handful are supernatural (or extraordinary to the extreme), and MOST of them are Devoted Spirit or Swordsage-only (swordsage being the only class in the book with a real notable wuxia style to it). It's entirely common for ToB characters to totally just look like Fighters, except that they don't suck for some reason.


Anyways, My biggest problem with ToB is the clunky-ass mechanic it uses, that while not calling it magic, ends up feeling like it anyways.

I've never found it clunky, nor have I ever found it to feel even REMOTELY like magic. In fact, it feels a lot more like a real fight than using the same bloody attack over and over again. Tempest puts it well.


The fact that you are "ready" to do a particular maneuver includes several different factors. There's a reason they call it "ready" instead of merely "prepared" or similar.

Off the top of my head, things that contribute to the proper execution of a particular combat technique (drawing from my mediocre martial arts and moderate fencing experience -- the latter of which I'm certain NineInchNall exceeds me in) include:
1) Your posture. Good luck executing a full lunge without first returning to a position similar to en guarde.
2) Elements of timing (both in terms of cadence and footwork). You can't realistically fleche more than once (well, you shouldn't be using a fleche at all, but still) because the nature of the move makes it impossible to execute again without "recovering" (actual term). Yes, this involves your OPPONENT as well; if your opponent has a perfect defense on a particular side, you need to break that defense (for instance, by misdirecting him with a feint to guard somewhere else) before you can attack that side.
3) Elements of mental preparedness. As a neophyte fencer, I was still learning to process particular lines of attack, and had difficulty in mapping openings to those lines. I would often hone in on a particular skill from drills -- be it something as elementary as, a feint to a particular sector followed by a disengage and a lunge, or as complex and opponent-dependent as an unusual whipping strike to the hand, or as flashy as taking leading toe in epee -- and look for opportunities to apply it, often missing other obvious approaches as I focused on what I wanted to use. As I grew in experience, I got more adept at readily recognizing these methods of attack and could track them more and more instinctively -- one could say that my number of readied maneuvers increased.

The "recovery" mechanic in the ToB is one way of representing all of these limitations. Is it a perfect method? No. There's just too many variables to track. However, is it *purely* metagame balancing? No. There's enough of reality in it to strike a balance between gameplay and simulationism. Exactly how much is up to debate -- I'd say it's better than hit points, but worse than encumberance.

There's a reason they use "ready" and "recover" and similar terms as compared to "prepare" -- because what they're modelling is NOT a prepared-and-practiced kata-style attack, but rather a practiced, disciplined attack that needs particular circumstances to be pulled off (i.e. if you're doing a Nightmare Blade or similar, it's presumed that you're hitting somewhere vital). It's not a perfect system, but it's good enough for me. And I would definitely not call it vancian by any stretch of the imagination, even if you expand "vancian" to include spontaneous casters.

Matthew
2007-09-15, 02:40 PM
Actually, it's not so much a matter of scale, but a matter of focus. Pippin and Merry, continuing your example, were not fighters, instead being leaders. They were exceptional within their archetype.

I don't think you're following me. The Scouring of the Shire is a small scale version of the Scouring of Middle Earth, in which Merry, Pippin, Samwise and Frodo are scaled versions of 'Greater Lords'.

The scale I was referring to, though, was with regards to how much of the 'supernatural' you want in your campaign. It's not necessary for Fantasy Heroes to have supernatural powers or origins. Some do and some do not. The degree of supernatural power they possess is relative to what is 'normal' in the world they inhabit. What I don't get is why people are saying that Fighters must be supernatural in order to be Heroes in Dungeons & Dragons. There are plenty of examples in the literature that surrounds the game of Heroes who are not supernaturally empowered.

I get the strong feeling that a lot of people want to pigeon hole D&D as only capable of supporting one style of fantasy. There are things it is not suited to, for sure, but why seek such narrow confines? It's almost like people want to say "D&D is this", instead of asking "What can I do with D&D?"

Golthur
2007-09-15, 02:40 PM
ToB allows plenty of character builds that are definitely that level of "mundane." And it offers some that aren't. Just use the ones that aren't, don't condemn the whole book for giving you options.
Who said I did?

EDIT: In fact, I'm generally in support of the goals ToB attempts to accomplish - to bring fighter power up, and to give them more options than just "I full attack", "I charge and attack", "I full attack again".

I don't condemn the entire book - but it would be nice if the maneuvers were neatly divided along these lines, rather than me having to go through the whole thing and allow/disallow individual maneuvers based on "feel". I'm a busy guy, I've got adventures to write - I don't need stuff sucking more time away from my already-too-limited writing time.

However, I'd also have to change the maneuver recovery mechanisms, since it adds a very "spell-casting"y element to the whole ToB maneuver system. That is, it makes it feel magical, not mundane. Iron Heroes' token system, my own vitality burn, or a battle focus system (a la psionic focus) has better flavour for lower-fantasy than the current ToB rules.

As I said, sometimes I feel like wuxia/very high fantasy - other times, no. Depends on the theme/mood of whatever I'm writing. Some themes fit perfectly, others are destroyed by it.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-15, 02:53 PM
I don't think you're following me. The Scouring of the Shire is a small scale version of the Scouring of Middle Earth, in which Merry, Pippin, Samwise and Frodo are scaled versions of 'Greater Lords'.

The scale I was referring to, though, was with regards to how much of the 'supernatural' you want in your campaign. It's not necessary for Fantasy Heroes to have supernatural powers or origins. Some do and some do not. The degree of supernatural power they possess is relative to what is 'normal' in the world they inhabit. What I don't get is why people are saying that Fighters must be supernatural in order to be Heroes in Dungeons & Dragons. There are plenty of examples in the literature that surrounds the game of Heroes who are not supernaturally empowered.

I get the strong feeling that a lot of people want to pigeon hole D&D as only capable of supporting one style of fantasy. There are things it is not suited to, for sure, but why seek such narrow confines?

Ah, I see.

Well, fighters with ToB are supernatural only in specific circumstances--at least mechanically. And the maneuvers in question that are mechanically extraordinary but probably difficult for a normal human are still just difficult for a normal human but still doable, particularly when measured against the standard that Golthur gave earlier.

I think a lot of confusion over "supernatural" stems from the Supernatural descriptor.

Reel On, Love
2007-09-15, 02:58 PM
Keep in mind that a third-level commoner can have Martial Study(Burning Blade), and therefore periodically make his quarterstaff burst into flames. With kung fu.

Look, even if there are supernatural powers out there, they can obviously be channelled and used by mundane people in relatively mundane (i.e., consistent and achieved through training) ways. If a certain mindset plus a certain set of moves makes one's weapon burst into flame that doesn't harm it, you can teach that, and you can learn that. Using it isn't any different than using a magic sword that you activate with a command word.

Edit: Oh, yeah--and if I'm looking to build a gritty, "mundane" scrapper, know what I do that with? Tome of Battle. Swordsage for Shadow Blade, some Warblade, into Bloodclaw Master, a classic ToB combo. The result is a knife-fighter with vicious flurries of attacks and a lot of mobility, andthe flow of a fight when playing one is a damn sight more realistic than a regular Fighter's, I'd say.

P.S. C'mon, Improved Sunder. "Okay, I'll try to sunder Sir Fancypants' sword." You're cutting through his freaking sword with your sword! And you can do that consistently! That's a lot less mundane than at least 80% of ToB's maneuvers.

Matthew
2007-09-15, 03:09 PM
Uh, yeah, if you're using Tome of Battle, which is rather the point. The question is not what can be done via the RAW, but what is 'too much' for some people and why?

Tome of Battle has some excellent Manoeuvres/Rules/Ideas, but I wouldn't want to incorporate it wholesale.

Reel On, Love
2007-09-15, 03:15 PM
A level one human commoner with a dex a couple of points above an average 11 (you have to expect some standard deviation) or a level 3 elven commoner can have Deflect Arrows. If an archer fires an arrow at him, he will reflexively and without fail swat it out of the air so long as he can see it coming. At level 3 the human can pick up Snatch Arrows and catch the arrow.

And that same commoner can take one of any number of feats in the Complete Arcane that let him cast a few cantrips as SLAs. The fighter should be allowed to be no more mundane than the old farmer who swats arrows out of the air and magically changes the taste of his food and the color of his shirt, don't you think?

The point here is that given the nature of the game, some mundanity requirements are ridiculously stringent and would require the exclusion of, well, a whole huge chunk of the game, from HP to arrow-swatting commoners to some characters surviving mile-long falls.

And the "commoner with Burning Blade" example wasn't meant to be ridiculous so much as show that even techniques that invoke supernatural powers can be learned and harnessed by mundane people, in a supernatural world.

Matthew
2007-09-15, 03:16 PM
Again, it's not a question of what can be done via the RAW, but what is too much for some people. A Commoner could take a Level of Adept and cast Spells, it doesn't mean they should.

Zincorium
2007-09-15, 03:18 PM
There are human beings that can take down an attack helicopter or armored vehicle (with the right tactics and equipment). That doesn't require magic. Who's to say a mundane couldn't win through tactics and determination, plus a fair bit of exceptional skill?

With the right equipment, meaning either rocket launchers, grenades/mines, or anti-material rifles. And even then it's difficult. Without those items, you realistically cannot defeat an armored vehicle. Even special forces under those circumstances would run from a tank rather than confront it directly, because even if it somehow worked, at least half of them would be dead.

The only thing remotely equivalent to advanced equipment like that in D&D is magic items. Which I already stated I don't like the characters being tied to. So your analogy, while accurate to a degree, reinforces a stereotype I'm trying to get away from.



Obviously the sword and sorcery genre is not for you.

The Sword and Sorcery genre does not have mundanes for heroes in the way that I think of them. I like it just fine.

But D&D is not that, it has things like paladins, rangers, gishes, etc. Playing a straight fighter without magical equipment is just not a good use of the D&D ruleset, any more than playing a talking rabbit is a good use of it. There are better options for both of those.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-15, 03:19 PM
Again, it's not a question of what can be done via the RAW, but what is too much for some people. A Commoner could take a Level of Adept and cast Spells, it doesn't mean they should.

Ah, but see at that point we're discussing flavor preference, which--despite campaign setting fanboyism and D&D book releases--is a matter of opinion that varies from person to person.

Reel On, Love
2007-09-15, 03:21 PM
Again, it's not a question of what can be done via the RAW, but what is too much for some people.

You'll always be able to find people for whom any given thing is too much. If your standards of "mundane" are so stringent some of the very basic elements of D&D (which "commoners learning cantrips" fits in with just fine) aren't mundane enough, well, pick a different game. I don't see the sense or logic in wanting to play Joe Can't-Do-Anything-Physically-Impossible in D&D.

And a lot of people accept high HP, arrow deflection, etc. for their mundane characters. My point is that learning a cantrip or learning a supernatural maneuver isn't any different than learning how to knock arrows away or sunder swords or something.

Matthew
2007-09-15, 03:29 PM
Ah, but see at that point we're discussing flavor preference, which--despite campaign setting fanboyism and D&D book releases--is a matter of opinion that varies from person to person.

Absolutely, but to look at the first post, that appears to be the subject of the Thread. I think the only measure of mundane is going to be preferential. If ToB is too much for some people, then it's likely that so is an otherwise Common Farmer deflecting Arrows with his bare hands. It's always going to be a matter of context, supernatural relative to the Game World you're playing in.
It's like Tippy's point (if I remember it correctly) that an Army of Golems is a much better use of D&D resources than a conventional Army. Yet, we know from the history of Greyhawk that conventional Armies are the norm, not armies of Golems.


You'll always be able to find people for whom any given thing is too much. If your standards of "mundane" are so stringent some of the very basic elements of D&D (which "commoners learning cantrips" fits in with just fine) aren't mundane enough, well, pick a different game. I don't see the sense or logic in wanting to play Joe Can't-Do-Anything-Physically-Impossible in D&D.

It may fit in just fine for you, but I can't say I have seen a lot of evidence for that as common in Default D&D. I think that the attitude, 'just play something else' is exactly what annoys people in these circumstances. D&D need not be a fixed genre, it can't do everything, but there is a lot it can do. I think that Ptolus is probably a good example of a Campaign world where that would be more relatively normal, but as described by Cook, Ptolus is D&D with the volume turned all the way up (though I'm not sure it really is higher than Eberron, maybe they bought a new sound system for that).


And a lot of people accept high HP, arrow deflection, etc. for their mundane characters. My point is that learning a cantrip or learning a supernatural maneuver isn't any different than learning how to knock arrows away or sunder swords or something.

It may not be different for you, but for some people it's very different. Mechanically, these things are very similar, but this isn't really a question purely of mechanics, it's contextual.

Roderick_BR
2007-09-15, 03:31 PM
To One Winged4ngel:

Please tell me how in the world Beowulf was supernatural in any way other than a huge strength score.

Please.

What the most people are talking about are "magical" type abilities. All the examples you listed don't require "magic".

Anyways, My biggest problem with ToB is the clunky-ass mechanic it uses, that while not calling it magic, ends up feeling like it anyways.
I think that ToB maneuvers depends on which maneuvers are being used.
Most of Desert Wind's maneuvers are supernatural. Making your sword burst into flames just because you willed it, or make a small fire elemental pop out of nowhere? It's some sort of magic, or maybe minor psyonic power.
Then, we have others, like Devoted Mind, that can, or not, be supernatural.
The ability to heal wounds, for example: The character may be manifesting minor divine power as he fights, it can be like psyonics, where the character brings forth mind power from inside, or just a cinematic way to show that he recover fast from wounds, since Hit Points can be considered a virtual form of resistance.
The, many abilities, like Iron Heart, are like super-powered feats, granted through super training. It gets very cinematic, as the character can make maneuvers that others can't, for lack of power, but, in theory, is not magical in nature, like swinging your weapon once, and hitting two enemies at once (like a minor version of the Whirlwind Attack feat).

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-15, 03:35 PM
Who said I did? Ah, I'm sorry that was unclear. It wasn't supposed to be targeted at you, but at the "general audience." Telling THEM not to condemn.

Riffington
2007-09-15, 03:59 PM
Just like everyone thinks martial arts is purely Oriental. There are many European martial arts from the Medieval and Ancient periods. Greek wrestling, Pankration, Khridoli, Glima, Savate, Jogo do Pau are all historical martial arts from Europe. And they all have silly names for their maneuvers.

This is a good point. In reality a good many things we consider "Eastern" have existed/originated in the West, and vice versa. Cinderella probably was first told in China. Most of the chivalry we associate with the European Middle Ages was invented in the antebellum American South.

But we still have our mental shortcuts. We call certain styles and flavors Western, and others Eastern. Some DM's don't think monks fit into their campaigns; others will go that far but not so far as Tome of Battle.

Riffington
2007-09-15, 04:09 PM
With the right equipment, meaning either rocket launchers, grenades/mines, or anti-material rifles. And even then it's difficult. Without those items, you realistically cannot defeat an armored vehicle. Even special forces under those circumstances would run from a tank rather than confront it directly, because even if it somehow worked, at least half of them would be dead.

You have the details, but missed the big point. There is nothing supernatural about destroying a tank, or even in setting a good ambush for it. But when you can stand up in front of it and say "shoot me with the cannon and the machinegun, and then it's my turn" and know that a direct hit won't kill you... now you need a backstory like "dipped in the river Styx".

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-15, 04:13 PM
Just like everyone thinks martial arts is purely Oriental. There are many European martial arts from the Medieval and Ancient periods. Greek wrestling, Pankration, Khridoli, Glima, Savate, Jogo do Pau are all historical martial arts from Europe. And they all have silly names for their maneuvers. Yeah, I hate when people do that. Heck, medieval knight styles for various weapons (like swords) often had silly maneuver names too. They didn't call it "sword slash." They called it "diving eagle lunge" or whatever. In Europe. Get over it, people.


You have the details, but missed the big point. There is nothing supernatural about destroying a tank, or even in setting a good ambush for it. But when you can stand up in front of it and say "shoot me with the cannon and the machinegun, and then it's my turn" and know that a direct hit won't kill you... now you need a backstory like "dipped in the river Styx".

Not only that, but a tank is totally puny compared to a wyrm that breathes fire far more deadly than being immersed in molten lava, and cast spells that makes reality his *****, and is at least as well armored at the tank BEFORE he buffs himself.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-15, 04:17 PM
You have the details, but missed the big point. There is nothing supernatural about destroying a tank, or even in setting a good ambush for it. But when you can stand up in front of it and say "shoot me with the cannon and the machinegun, and then it's my turn" and know that a direct hit won't kill you... now you need a backstory like "dipped in the river Styx".

You know, a Rogue or Monk with Improved Evasion can avoid an SAS missile explosion with no damage. How is that any less "supernatural"?

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-15, 04:21 PM
How does a commoner learn a cantrip? Without training as a wizard, that is.

I don't consider high levels of magic 'too much'. What I do consider 'too much' is treating magic as exactly the same thing as non-magic. Other than recovery being ugly (that quoted block aside, it's a really abysmal representation of preparedness to perform an action), my only real objection to ToB used straight is when it presents such choices as: 'shall I learn to temporarily summon a fire elemental, or learn to hit with two weapons at once?' These are equivalent options for a swordsage.

Well, that and juxtaposing 'A coruscating aura of purple energy surrounds you...' with claiming that the effect described (which is full of things that make no non-magical sense besides) is not supernatural. All throughout the Devoted Spirit maneuver list.

The ability to heal wounds, for example: The character may be manifesting minor divine power as he fights, it can be like psyonics, where the character brings forth mind power from inside, or just a cinematic way to show that he recover fast from wounds, since Hit Points can be considered a virtual form of resistance.
That's one I have a particular hate for. Even if we ignore various oddities with only healing wounds fast while hitting things (we have a perfectly serviceable Fast Healing mechanic for that), there is the minor issue that it heals other people as well.

If it's supernatural? I'd still hate it, because I don't see why hitting things and healing things should be connected even when divine power is involved, but at least it wouldn't be impossible.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-15, 04:32 PM
How does a commoner learn a cantrip? Without training as a wizard, that is.

I don't consider high levels of magic 'too much'. What I do consider 'too much' is treating magic as exactly the same thing as non-magic. Other than recovery being ugly (that quoted block aside, it's a really abysmal representation of preparedness to perform an action), my only real objection to ToB used straight is when it presents such choices as: 'shall I learn to temporarily summon a fire elemental, or learn to hit with two weapons at once?' These are equivalent options for a swordsage.

Well, that and juxtaposing 'A coruscating aura of purple energy surrounds you...' with claiming that the effect described (which is full of things that make no non-magical sense besides) is not supernatural. All throughout the Devoted Spirit maneuver list.

That's one I have a particular hate for. Even if we ignore various oddities with only healing wounds fast while hitting things (we have a perfectly serviceable Fast Healing mechanic for that), there is the minor issue that it heals other people as well.

If it's supernatural? I'd still hate it, because I don't see why hitting things and healing things should be connected even when divine power is involved, but at least it wouldn't be impossible.

Er, Devoted Spirit is one of two (three?) Disciplines that explicitly state that they are supernatural.

And commoners learn cantrips with their first level feat (one of two, if they're first level humans), taking one (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Insightful,CAr) of (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Night_Haunt,CAr) those (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Soul_Of_The_North,CAr) feats (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Communicator,CAr) in (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Necropolis_Born,CAr) Complete Arcane that gives you a few cantrip SLAs.

Zincorium
2007-09-15, 04:46 PM
You have the details, but missed the big point. There is nothing supernatural about destroying a tank, or even in setting a good ambush for it. But when you can stand up in front of it and say "shoot me with the cannon and the machinegun, and then it's my turn" and know that a direct hit won't kill you... now you need a backstory like "dipped in the river Styx".

There is nothing supernatural about doing it now- with equipment that has no mundane analogue in D&D. There most certainly would be something supernatural about destroying a tank or tank-like-critter with muscle powered weapons made of ordinary metal. Tactics are irrelevant in that situation.

It can't happen in the real world, thus contradicting the definition I've been using of mundane. Having the skill and prowess to take out a dragon in hand to hand combat would be well into the realm of the fantastic, 'magical' or otherwise.

If you aren't going up against dragons, or undead, or any of the myriad of obviously supernatural and incredibly powered creatures that populate the typical D&D world, if instead you were going up against other mundane opponents, then being a highly skilled mundane is a reasonable proposition.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-15, 04:53 PM
Er, Devoted Spirit is one of two (three?) Disciplines that explicitly state that they are supernatural.
I may have missed it (and it certainly would be accurate), but I can't find such a statement. Do you have a page reference? Every other 'supernatural' discipline specifies with each maneuver that that one is supernatural (while occasionally dropping one here and there that I would have tagged). Devoted spirit doesn't so label any maneuvers.

And commoners learn cantrips with their first level feat (one of two, if they're first level humans), taking one (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Insightful,CAr) of (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Night_Haunt,CAr) those (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Soul_Of_The_North,CAr) feats (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Communicator,CAr) in (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Necropolis_Born,CAr) Complete Arcane that gives you a few cantrip SLAs.
I did think of those, but on checking now that you point them out the language (obviously a copy and paste job) is "An innate talent for magic grants..."

Not exactly a matter of 'learning', though certainly a case of commoners having magic. Pretty powerful magic, sometimes...Cause Fear is not a cantrip. :smalleek:


There is nothing supernatural about doing it now- with equipment that has no mundane analogue in D&D. There most certainly would be something supernatural about destroying a tank or tank-like-critter with muscle powered weapons made of ordinary metal. Tactics are irrelevant in that situation.
Tactics aren't really. If you can get on top of a tank, it's got no defenses left but the entry hatch. Which may not even be latched, depending on circumstances...tank commanders seem to spend a lot of time standing in the open hatch.

Of course, that's much like killing the dragon by a heavy lance charge into its eyeball while it's asleep.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-15, 04:56 PM
I may have missed it (and it certainly would be accurate), but I can't find such a statement. Do you have a page reference? Every other 'supernatural' discipline specifies with each maneuver that that one is supernatural (while occasionally dropping one here and there that I would have tagged). Devoted spirit doesn't so label any maneuvers. What source are you using? The book itself?


I did think of those, but on checking now that you point them out the language (obviously a copy and paste job) is "An innate talent for magic grants..."

Not exactly a matter of 'learning', though certainly a case of commoners having magic. Pretty powerful magic, sometimes...Cause Fear is not a cantrip. :smalleek:

Cause fear has its uses at low levels, but its 4 HD limit is a bit constraining.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-15, 05:00 PM
What source are you using? The book itself?
Yes.

Cause fear has its uses at low levels, but its 4 HD limit is a bit constraining.
5 HD actually, from the SRD, but still certainly a limit. Which means without rebuilding allowed to trade it in, it certainly isn't overpowering in the long term. For a level 1 commoner it's pretty impressive though.

Kioran
2007-09-15, 05:20 PM
Well, I stated on the first page that, if not in this world, in a standardized D&D world I´d consider everything a lvl 20 commoner/Expert/warrior could do mundane. it might be due to the higher power scale, the oversimplification (falling damage, Evasion) or due to whatever. Point is, sooner or later, anyone could do it with HD, the innate potential anything living posseses.

So, thanks to martial study, that includes all ToB disciplines except for Shadow Hand, Desert Wind or Devoted Spirit. While I loathe the thought, It might be true - since it only includes maneuvers up to and including 5th spell lvl. I can definitely live with that. Anything else, is, per that definition, either magic, or for most of you who seem to have less problems with the latter, Epic. Anything Supernatural, is, of course, magic.

The thing is, even in a world where almost anyone can learn magic through talent and determination, a world where giant lizards spew flames, some people really do things with just their grit and muscle. I know people who can split stones with their bare hands, there are people who can climb up facades in a flash.
Jumping 10 Meters (DC 30) might be a bit "unrealistic", but it´s just an extension of the normal scale, and thus "mundane" in a high-power world. In this world, people can cut through wooden posts with swords while others can´t, simply by moving faster and hitting at the right angle. Hitting a Dragon the same way is also just an extension of that.

There should be options for being mundane and effective. And you can explain your regular "I power attack for 7" as all kinds of different attacks. In fact, it leaves you a lot more room to do your creative thing than a maneuver, even though it´s mechanically unspectacular.
In 2nd Ed, the Fighter was more or less a Melee monster, having more hit dice than most other PCs, good THAC0, nice saves but not much else (except for Superstrength and iterative attacks). Multiple attacks, hard to kill, exceptionally strong? Sounds like a Monster to me, and I think there should be a PC-Class that lets you be that Monster again, It´d at least be an interesting Fighter-Fix. And, by my definition, mundane........

Seriously, being less than OMGWTFBBQpwnz0r isn´t death. It´s not like we need to be the best from the outset on, clawing your way to the top is more rewarding than being "Karl Koks" from the beginning on........

Riffington
2007-09-15, 10:01 PM
There is nothing supernatural about doing it now- with equipment that has no mundane analogue in D&D. There most certainly would be something supernatural about destroying a tank or tank-like-critter with muscle powered weapons made of ordinary metal. Tactics are irrelevant in that situation.

Big picture you are correct. But tanks can be destroyed by crowbars, pickaxes, mauls, cliffs, etc. It's only when they shoot at you that you have difficulties.

Zincorium
2007-09-15, 10:04 PM
Big picture you are correct. But tanks can be destroyed by crowbars, pickaxes, mauls, cliffs, etc. It's only when they shoot at you that you have difficulties.

They can also run you over. The M1 moves at over 40 MPH. Not easy to outrun. And yeah, there is the possibility that there is no one currently occupying the tank, but that's not exactly a combat situation, now is it?

Kioran
2007-09-16, 02:28 AM
They can also run you over. The M1 moves at over 40 MPH. Not easy to outrun. And yeah, there is the possibility that there is no one currently occupying the tank, but that's not exactly a combat situation, now is it?

A Tank may be fast (and the M1 has a gas turbine, for good acceleration as opposed to the diesel Engines of many European tanks(not more final speed though) - downside: high fuel consumption), but it´s not agile. In fact, in any city or a rocky hillside or a landscape of trenches, the tank is very vulnerable, that´s why there´s the "Panzergrenadier" - an infanterist trained for moving with tanks and screening them. Modern NATO-tanks are almost impervious against frontal assault.
Getting to them requires surprise and good aim, hitting the tracks, or better, the engine, from behind or the side, with an anti-tank rocket or Rifle (the Tankgewehr M1918 springs to mind - the first and most powerful of its kind, from WW1). It can, however, be done, and a properly armed squad of infantrymen (or one seriously badass mofo :smallbiggrin: ) is a credible threat to a tank.

Tanks are bad analogies for dragons, however.

Kiero
2007-09-16, 05:07 AM
The Sword and Sorcery genre does not have mundanes for heroes in the way that I think of them. I like it just fine.

Which has precisely nothing to do with my point. The genre doesn't feature big flashy magic, nor a preponderance of magic items. The protagonists are heroes because they're that good, not because they carry golfbags of magitech around with them.

Absence of high magic makes heroes more exceptional, not less. Unless you're stuck with 3.x of course.

dr.cello
2007-09-16, 05:30 AM
People continue to confuse 'extraordinary' and 'magical.' I'd say 'supernatural,' but that, like 'mundane,' seems to be a sticking point. Look at the rogue's class abilities list: all of them are labeled 'extraordinary.' That's the point: it's something you can theoretically imagine a person doing--someone who, usually, has either honed their reflexes to a very fine point, or who has learned all of the really nasty ways to hurt someone. It is not something an average person can do, but it's something you could see happening in an action movie without suddenly blinking and saying 'whoa now, when did this turn magical?'

I have no problem with some over-the-top maneuvers. I don't want perfect realism in a fantasy RPG. I want some cool movie-like maneuvers. I rather like ToB, though I, like many, would rather it feel slightly less Eastern (and yes, I realize that Western Martial Arts have silly names for their maneuvers; all the ones I know, however, are in German, and the point remains the perception is there)--I don't have a problem changing the flavor. I just don't like fire shooting out of swords. I don't like something which is magical, or wouldn't function in an anti-magic field. Mostly because even if there is something supernatural to the abilities my rogues, swashbucklers, and other non-magic-users do, I don't like it when suddenly they're shooting fire out of their swords. And to be honest, what I dislike about the ToB is that it's only really available to three classes (or people who waste feats on it, I suppose).

Here's the difference. If my rogue is somehow imbued with supernatural power--some form of destiny or something, I don't know--it feels more like he has the magic that all heroes have: the magic of narrative causality (call it destiny, divine favor, or what have you, it really just means 'this character is imbued with awesomeness so he can tell a good story). If my rogue starts shooting fire from his hands, it feels like he's just picked up a magical ability for no good reason, especially since in my backstory he was originally just a pickpocket.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-16, 06:22 AM
Absence of high magic surrounding the hero either means that you have removed high magic from the setting, or that the writer is pulling utter bull with the plot.

Look at Vlad Taltos. Not much for magic or magic items...when he was a small fry, and it nearly killed him any number of times when people got the drop on him via teleportation. Then, later, when he needs to survive serious opposition, he winds up hauling around two fairly substantial artifacts and a seemingly unique magic item of unclear magnitude, and at least one innate talent. Between which (and a battery of magically strong friends) he can more or less avoid being instantly killed. Note, though, that he never attained more than minor magical power himself...maybe not even local average for most purposes. His personal badass points were all in mundane violence of his particular style.

Malazan Book of the Dead? Magitech out the ears, and it seems impossible (from the first book) for mundanes to stand against magic without using it themselves. And most of the characters would be grease spots if any of various bigger things ever decided to swing harder.

If stuff in either the Valdemar or Tortall settings counts as 'sword and sorcery', I'd note that first-rank characters there pretty much always have at least one variety of magic on hand. And the ones that don't tend to keep their noses out of things that do. Light on magitech, except the bits around the wizard war in (pre-)Valdemar, but what magic items there are are significant and used to the full.

Also...Um, what is sword and sorcery to you that it doesn't involve big flashy magic? Big flashy swords are pretty much a given, so the sorcery doesn't belong in the genre title if it isn't pretty impressive.

Matthew
2007-09-16, 07:15 AM
Conan is Sword and Sorcery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_and_Sorcery), Ulzgoroth. The tendency in the genre (but by no means the universal experience) is for magic to be downplayed or for it to be the province of evil doers. Now, Conan has his fair share of magic items over the course of his career (and I don't mean fair in the 3e sense), but magic on the whole is not in the foreground and Conan himself, whilst being extraordinary, does not possess any supernatural powers (though he has a bloodline of kings, by way of Kull the Atlantean, if I recall correctly).

It is all a matter of degree, though, rather than absence and presence. That is not to say that Sword and Sorcery cannot also be High Magic, just that most people think of it as not, since the term was originally coined to describe Conan. It is a genre label that is sometimes conflated with Low Fantasy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_fantasy), probably partly because Conan is also often described as belonging, perhaps even defining, that genre. Dungeons & Dragons is usually thought to be High Fantasy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Fantasy), but its roots are as much in Sword and Sorcery as in Tolkien. There is a lot of overlap between these labels. Then there is Heroic Fantasy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroic_fantasy), which is yet another supposedly distinct genre.

Riffington
2007-09-16, 11:02 AM
Matthew is absolutely right about a large genre of fiction: the main characters are separate from the great wizards. There is a good reason for this: it is very difficult to write good stories with sorcerous heroes because their capabilities are hard to understand.

In a good story, the character's limits are pushed in some way. In an adventure story, those will include physical limits - running to exhaustion, being pummeled, etc. If the character is magical, those will include magical limits - Harry trying for a Patronus (or a Potions class assignment). But that means you have to define the limits. You have to spend pages and pages explaining how magic works and what the character can/cannot do. It was fun in Harry Potter, but most authors would do better spending that time/space on plot or character development.

So the limits of magic or price of magic can be in the background in Lord of the Rings or in Conan. Why doesn't Gandalf summon a horde of skeletons? Has he not learned how? Would it cost his soul? Who knows - he can't or won't and that's ok because the story is about Sam and Frodo. If Gandalf were the main character we'd have to answer that.

D&D takes the time and effort to spell out the limits of magic. It takes a whole lot of pages, and it's all spelled out. A D&D Conan might be "non-supernatural", but his player probably has the range/duration of Hold Person memorized. I.e. all that hard work has been done for you,

Now, of course there's holes in the magic system - there will be if you're building a world so different from what we know. The existence of Open Locks should be more strongly incorporated into lockmaking theory. How many campaigns really understand the ramifications of Detect Evil*, etc. Rowling's world has its flaws as well - if Mrs. Weasley has such strong magic, why does she spend hours knitting awful sweaters for presents...
But while a nonmagic hero lets you build a magical world and let him ignore the inconsistencies, you lose this benefit if there are wizard PCs.


*Society cannot ignore this spell. It would be incorporated into the penal code (Best case: "this thief is sentenced to serve until no longer evil"; much worse scenarios exist) or banned as a violation of human rights.

Kiero
2007-09-16, 04:11 PM
Malazan Book of the Dead? Magitech out the ears, and it seems impossible (from the first book) for mundanes to stand against magic without using it themselves. And most of the characters would be grease spots if any of various bigger things ever decided to swing harder.

Are we reading the same series (it's Malazan Book of the Fallen, incidentally)? This is where Malazan soldiers all use ordinary equipment, with the exception of explosives, which seem to be proof against just about anything.

There's no magitech at all, there's hardly any magic items besides a few artifacts (like Dragnipur) and stuff made out of otataral (ie anti-magic).

Have you read beyond the first book?


Also...Um, what is sword and sorcery to you that it doesn't involve big flashy magic? Big flashy swords are pretty much a given, so the sorcery doesn't belong in the genre title if it isn't pretty impressive.

Conan almost never had any magic gear (nor even consistent gear). Elric had that stupid sword, but then I haven't read a great deal of Moorcock. Sword and sorcery is quite distinct from high fantasy precisely because it doesn't have magic everywhere. The "sorcery" in the title is usually foul, evil eldritch pacts with demons and other nasties, the use of which corrupts, but can be defeated with cold (non-magical) steel.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-16, 05:21 PM
Are we reading the same series (it's Malazan Book of the Fallen, incidentally)? This is where Malazan soldiers all use ordinary equipment, with the exception of explosives, which seem to be proof against just about anything.

There's no magitech at all, there's hardly any magic items besides a few artifacts (like Dragnipur) and stuff made out of otataral (ie anti-magic).

Have you read beyond the first book?
Not yet, though I intend to. But going off that first book, we've got:
-explosives (magic? Not sure just now).
-Anti-mage missile, otataral-based? (the thing that, IIRC, blew up a monster older than the human species).
-Likewise, otataral dust and the sword.
-A demon in a bottle. With the existence of many more implied.
-A divinely enhanced sword (For much of the book).
-Offers of magical support by the assassin guild that were never, if I recall, made clear.
-Frequent use of Warrens as transport counts to some degree.

-misc. artifacts in possession of innately magical beings, such as the (obsidian?) swords of the empire's pseudo-undead, Dragnipur, and Moon's Spawn (unless that's just supported by constant magic?).

These aren't widely disseminated to the troops because they were essentially expendable...as fairly clearly demonstrated in the first chapter.


Conan almost never had any magic gear (nor even consistent gear). Elric had that stupid sword, but then I haven't read a great deal of Moorcock. Sword and sorcery is quite distinct from high fantasy precisely because it doesn't have magic everywhere. The "sorcery" in the title is usually foul, evil eldritch pacts with demons and other nasties, the use of which corrupts, but can be defeated with cold (non-magical) steel.
I bow to my failure of definitions. In my defense, I was led astray by the term being attached to all manner of books that don't at all fit what you're identifying it as by reviewers. But I should really know better than trust reviewers.

Thank you for the wikipedia references, Matthew, though they do seem to define mostly by reference.

*Society cannot ignore this spell. It would be incorporated into the penal code (Best case: "this thief is sentenced to serve until no longer evil"; much worse scenarios exist) or banned as a violation of human rights.
Modern society might have that problem, unless they decided it was inadmissible in court because of the difficulty of proving anything it extracts.

D&D society? Why not? Petty criminals aren't worth the casting anyway. Capital punishment is the preferred solution for serious crimes. You only hold someone for a long time if you think you may want them alive for some particular reason later, and then you probably don't care about their alignment. Human rights? 18th century thinking there, for the more part. Nobility won't be too eager to exploit the spell openly either. Think historically. That would amount to giving the clergy (of whatever god) the power to denounce anyone they want. As individuals.

Being evil isn't really that big a deal, unless you've made it important that people think you aren't. And it's as easy as a second level spell to spoof all forms of alignment detection for 24 hours, anyway...

Kiero
2007-09-16, 06:20 PM
Not yet, though I intend to. But going off that first book, we've got:

There's a lot that isn't continued from the first book, which was written some time before the rest of the series. More to the point, I'm drawing on seven books worth of material, where you've got just one.


-explosives (magic? Not sure just now).

Not magical, chemical. They're just explosives.


-Anti-mage missile, otataral-based? (the thing that, IIRC, blew up a monster older than the human species).

Not sure what you're referring to here. Unless you're talking about someone taking the Tyrant, Raest's Finnest (which is like a medicine bundle where he stored his magical power).


-Likewise, otataral dust and the sword.

Again, otataral and stuff made from it are anti-magic, and more like physical properties than magical. Anything made of otataral dispels magic. There's no "investment" besides mixing it up with whatever's being forged. That's not a magic item enchanted to do something.


-A demon in a bottle. With the existence of many more implied.

One genuine "magic item", I'll give you that. Yet a one-shot item and hardly something everyone had. I'll note they don't appear again in the series.


-A divinely enhanced sword (For much of the book).

One of just two magic swords in the entire book (and almost the series). Chance doesn't do much besides being able to wound the Hounds. Dragnipur is an artifact.

We don't see all and sundry armed with enchanted anything. Not weapons, not armour, nothing.


-Offers of magical support by the assassin guild that were never, if I recall, made clear.

Magic, but not magic items - your claim was of magitech. Meaning enchanted gear. Most of the assassins were mage-assassins.


-Frequent use of Warrens as transport counts to some degree.

Magic, not magic items again.


-misc. artifacts in possession of innately magical beings, such as the (obsidian?) swords of the empire's pseudo-undead, Dragnipur, and Moon's Spawn (unless that's just supported by constant magic?).

The stone weapons used by the T'lan Imass are indeed magical, otherwise a lot of them wouldn't be possible at all. Then again all the Imass are magical themselves. But once again, they're not like D&D magic items. The magic does nothing besides preventing them shattering.


These aren't widely disseminated to the troops because they were essentially expendable...as fairly clearly demonstrated in the first chapter.

They're not widely available at all (again unlike D&D), through seven books we've never seen Malazan soldiers with magic weapons, and they're the stars of the show. They use ordinary gear, yet that doesn't prevent them kicking ass.

Erikson's game of old, upon which the series is based, apparently started out as an AD&D game, them converted to GURPS. Perhaps given the way things are he didn't like magic items (besides artifacts) much either.

Riffington
2007-09-16, 08:38 PM
D&D society? Why not? Petty criminals aren't worth the casting anyway. Capital punishment is the preferred solution for serious crimes. You only hold someone for a long time if you think you may want them alive for some particular reason later, and then you probably don't care about their alignment. Human rights? 18th century thinking there, for the more part. Nobility won't be too eager to exploit the spell openly either. Think historically. That would amount to giving the clergy (of whatever god) the power to denounce anyone they want. As individuals.

Being evil isn't really that big a deal, unless you've made it important that people think you aren't. And it's as easy as a second level spell to spoof all forms of alignment detection for 24 hours, anyway...

Well there are a lot of possibilities, but each has huge ramifications. The effect may be unpredictable, but it will surely be huge.

Long jail sentences have been around a long time, and are a staple of fantasy fiction. You certainly care about criminals' alignment, whether during the sentencing or the jail - and if it's a 1st level spell, it's worth casting. Human rights have been debated for centuries, but the important bit is that many D&D campaigns use them.

Nobility will be very eager to exploit the spell openly. A noble simply needs to ask himself: "will I show up as evil and be unable to bribe the inquisitor?" If the answer is no, some will use that tool for all it's worth. Personal gain is a far greater motivator than some kind of class consciousness.

Most importantly, um, being evil is really that big a deal. Find me someone who can say "Oh Jared? Sure he's evil [child molester], but I've never had any problems with him. Very nice, throws good BBQs, great with the kids".
If churches use the tool of Detect Evil and the government doesn't, that might give churches a lot of social capital with the people.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-16, 10:07 PM
Long jail sentences have been around a long time, and are a staple of fantasy fiction. You certainly care about criminals' alignment, whether during the sentencing or the jail - and if it's a 1st level spell, it's worth casting. Human rights have been debated for centuries, but the important bit is that many D&D campaigns use them.
What fantasy fiction? You may be right, but political incarceration of people you wanted to use later aside I can't think of cases.

Around the first millennium, 'human rights' were of kind of limited interest. There was a specific church doctrine issued forbidding certain forms of violence and robbery toward peasants and clergy, under threat of excommunication. This was not previously considered to be implied. Pretty much every advance of individual rights was put through by violence, commercial pressure, or political maneuvering by higher powers against lower.

I don't know what D&D campaigns tend to do, but following modern rules of evidence would seem downright bizarre.

Nobility will be very eager to exploit the spell openly. A noble simply needs to ask himself: "will I show up as evil and be unable to bribe the inquisitor?" If the answer is no, some will use that tool for all it's worth. Personal gain is a far greater motivator than some kind of class consciousness.
Many nobles in medieval Europe were hesitant to make assorted forms of symbolic submission to the church, because it would limit their power and that of their descendants. Making detection as evil legally actionable is a long way beyond permitting the local bishop to crown you.

In addition, simply put, how do you exploit it? Evil people are useful to you, whether or not you are evil yourself. Evil is unsavory, but it isn't incapable of contributing to society. Not to mention capable of contributing to your personal gain.

Most importantly, um, being evil is really that big a deal. Find me someone who can say "Oh Jared? Sure he's evil [child molester], but I've never had any problems with him. Very nice, throws good BBQs, great with the kids".
If churches use the tool of Detect Evil and the government doesn't, that might give churches a lot of social capital with the people.
Detect evil tells you that someone has the evil alignment. Look at what that actually means for a minute...it certainly gives you no idea as to why they're evil. It could be they are a child molester or murderer. It could be they use slaves, which may be a legitimate business practice, or merely treat serfs harshly. It could be they're a professional soldier. It could be they've never actually done anything substantially evil, out of fear of punishment, but would cheerfully be a bloody-handed warlord if there weren't already someone holding the title.

Also, a society willing to witch-hunt its evil members is going to quickly find it has a lot more evil members than it thought. Active willingness to sacrifice others for own benefit?

Riffington
2007-09-17, 07:07 AM
In addition, simply put, how do you exploit it? Evil people are useful to you, whether or not you are evil yourself. Evil is unsavory, but it isn't incapable of contributing to society. Not to mention capable of contributing to your personal gain.



The simplest way is to find one rival who is evil, and use that as evidence against him or better yet: as justification for his assassination or imprisonment. Others may not want to condemn too quickly... "why are you worried? You aren't evil... are you?"

Witch killings have been common in many societies - despite rather poor tests for witches. And while the targets change, most societies have something they demonize. In Saudi Arabia (and elsewhere), a woman may be stoned for adultery - even if she was raped. In the US, a man can be imprisoned for a decade for owning artwork that we think might produce thoughts of child molestation.

It is useless to ask if the nobility approve of this - they are powerless to stop such practices anyway.

Now you are right that societies are different. Some may seek out chaos rather than evil, or good, or whatever. But how many campaigns have you played where the PCs don't use "He's evil" as an excuse to kill? If their attitude has nothing to do with society's, then your game may have weirder issues than the mere existence of magic.

Serenity
2007-09-17, 07:16 AM
Me, personally, I've never played in a campaign where "he's evil" is justification to kill. Then again, my groups have always been very into the Eberron concept of loose alignment.

D&D does not and really has never equaled medieval Europe. It looks like it in some ways, but most settings are quite a bit more progressive.

Kioran
2007-09-17, 08:39 AM
I´ve made a more powerful Fighter Class based on my rant - I think it´s still mundane: Wild Fighter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56992)

Riffington
2007-09-17, 09:44 AM
Me, personally, I've never played in a campaign where "he's evil" is justification to kill. Then again, my groups have always been very into the Eberron concept of loose alignment.

Interesting. Tell me how your players would react in the following situations:
"You have followed the thief who stole your ring, and discovered that he is in fact the Baron of Weirton. You manage to sneak into his keep, and get as far as the Eastern staircase when you see men guarding the stairs. They are on alert since the Baron knows you are in town, but they have not yet seen you."
A: the two men are dressed in the garb of lay clergy of Heironeous.
B: the two men are dressed in the black robes and skulls of cultists of Vecna.

Most groups would be eager to slay the cultists before they make a sound, but would have serious compunctions about murdering the good guards.



D&D does not and really has never equaled medieval Europe. It looks like it in some ways, but most settings are quite a bit more progressive.
Most settings, absolutely. And different settings react differently to the Detect Alignment spells. But you'll be hard pressed to imagine a place where the spell shouldn't have huge ramifications.

The point I'm making is that if you don't have the ghosts of Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, and Twain working 24/7 with you, you can't possibly predict the social ramifications of every spell. Your campaign, whatever it is, has huge plot holes if you include magic. Sword and Sorcery authors sidestep the issue by putting the magic (and the plot holes) in the background so they don't have to explain everything. D&D puts the magic in the players' hands, so you are stuck with those holes in the forefront of your campaign, and must patch them as best you can.

Starbuck_II
2007-09-17, 10:23 AM
Interesting. Tell me how your players would react in the following situations:
"You have followed the thief who stole your ring, and discovered that he is in fact the Baron of Weirton. You manage to sneak into his keep, and get as far as the Eastern staircase when you see men guarding the stairs. They are on alert since the Baron knows you are in town, but they have not yet seen you."
A: the two men are dressed in the garb of lay clergy of Heironeous.
B: the two men are dressed in the black robes and skulls of cultists of Vecna.

Most groups would be eager to slay the cultists before they make a sound, but would have serious compunctions about murdering the good guards.


Can I detect them as evil? If they are than I don't care what they serve. Also Mr. H dislikes evil. So they aren't really clergy.

If no detection, than I'll try to get past them as I know not if they are bad guys. Either by stealth, misdirection, or combat.

Belial_the_Leveler
2007-09-17, 10:55 AM
Psst, wanna know a secret?

A housecat is a damn dangerous opponent IRL if it wants to attack. My mother is a vet and I'm helping from time to time. Now, we were castrating (is that the right word?) a female cat. The cat had that HUGE opening in its belly so we could cut stuff out and suddenly the cat decides to wake up (we later found out the anesthesia shots were ineffective due to bad manufacture from the factory).

The cat slipped/broke bonds I'd be hard pressed to break/slip myself (I weight 200+ pounds btw), slashed at both me and my mother then jumped upwards six feet, walked on the ceiling and landed in the next room. For ten minutes until it calmed down it was impossible for three people to restrain it without risking losing eyes or fingers. I still have scars from that night more than a year ago. And it did all that with its entrails spilling out of its belly.

So, a housecat is a credible opponent. :smalleek:

Kiero
2007-09-17, 11:43 AM
So, a housecat is a credible opponent. :smalleek:

Provided you're not actually trying to kill it.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-17, 11:53 AM
The simplest way is to find one rival who is evil, and use that as evidence against him or better yet: as justification for his assassination or imprisonment. Others may not want to condemn too quickly... "why are you worried? You aren't evil... are you?"
Evidence or justification to who? The court of public opinion? Not a big factor, and not necessarily effective with them either. The other nobles? They don't care. They don't have to pretend to. They can also accuse you of lying, whether they believe it or not, if they want to.

If you've arranged everything else so that people don't want to give you trouble for your activities, this might give them an excuse not to when they otherwise would have felt obliged to. But you don't actually have to use the spell, in that case...lying about it works too. And if they do want to, it's easy to discredit or ignore your claim.

As for witch hunts based on this, there are a couple problems. One, as I (not very) subtly suggested, is that witch-hunting for evil-aligned people is evil, and will get you a feedback problem. The other is that you need someone to perform the Detect Evils. Good clerics won't finger people for the mob based on alignment. St. Cuthbert, hard as he is, isn't going to tolerate too much of that either (though throwing known villains to the mob while the opportunity is there would be his style). Chaotic Neutral clerics will take one look at things and run away as fast as they can. And if you start taking directions on witch-finding from clerics of evil gods, you really need to stop a moment and think about what you're doing.

Interesting. Tell me how your players would react in the following situations:
"You have followed the thief who stole your ring, and discovered that he is in fact the Baron of Weirton. You manage to sneak into his keep, and get as far as the Eastern staircase when you see men guarding the stairs. They are on alert since the Baron knows you are in town, but they have not yet seen you."
A: the two men are dressed in the garb of lay clergy of Heironeous.
B: the two men are dressed in the black robes and skulls of cultists of Vecna.

Most groups would be eager to slay the cultists before they make a sound, but would have serious compunctions about murdering the good guards.
Willing service to a dark god generally implies evil alignment, but means a lot more. Whether being a cultist of Vecna merits summary execution is debatable, but it's a defensible position. And it certainly casts them as enemies of society and (extended) humanity who it's only mildly wrong to wipe out because they got in the way.

If they were dressed in the Baron's livery, and someone checked their detect evil status (positive), and then the group unhesitatingly killed them, that would be grounds for a hard look at the party's alleged alignments (unless already evil).

Most settings, absolutely. And different settings react differently to the Detect Alignment spells. But you'll be hard pressed to imagine a place where the spell shouldn't have huge ramifications.

The point I'm making is that if you don't have the ghosts of Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, and Twain working 24/7 with you, you can't possibly predict the social ramifications of every spell. Your campaign, whatever it is, has huge plot holes if you include magic. Sword and Sorcery authors sidestep the issue by putting the magic (and the plot holes) in the background so they don't have to explain everything. D&D puts the magic in the players' hands, so you are stuck with those holes in the forefront of your campaign, and must patch them as best you can.
In backstory, all dice rolls are fudged.

That is, you can build societies that are very unlikely and have no real problem. If you build a society that is inherently unstable, but inexplicably static, or that you can't put together an explanation for, you've got problems. If the history is merely full of points where anyone can say "why would they think that was a good idea?", you're just following in reality's footsteps.

If you haven't asked yourself 'what implications do zone of truth and detect evil have?', and come up with coherent answers, that's a problem too.

Tobrian
2007-09-17, 11:56 AM
Originally Posted by Zincorium View Post
I don't believe that a character's power should be based on magical items or spells known, but I just don't see any attraction whatsoever in playing a character who is nothing more than a real world human in a world of things that are so much more interesting.Obviously the sword and sorcery genre is not for you.

Huh? It says "sword and sorcery", you know. Zinc just said "I just don't see any attraction whatsoever in playing a character who is nothing more than a real world human in a world of things" that are magical. How in heck does that contradict the idea of "sword and sorcerery" genre? If anything it is the epitome of that genre.

[EDITED to add]


Get this: Mundane fighters with no super-awesome movie action hero style abilities? There's a way to make that. You play a level 1 Warrior.

Done and done. Problem solved. Now you can play a totally mundane warrior! No action hero stunts. No magic swords. No epic prowess.

If you want to slay things with incredible magic powers and toenails bigger than YOU, then you'd better have something a bit more extraordinary on hand than an average human swinging a sword in a completely ordinary manner. Because a thousand average humans with swords actually totally couldn't kill that.

I agree. No-one forces you to play 3rd or 4th edition D&D. Instead of whining how the setting doesnt suit your tastes anymore (I have my own criticisms of it, but this isn't the time or place for elaborating on it) and demanding that it is changed to suit your expectation, why not pick up a copy of Harnmaster RPG? It has a good working rule system. The World of Harn is a low-magic medieval setting with just a touch of the supernatural here and there, more sword than sorcery, with no reliance on tons of magic items, and descriptions of how a medieval feudal system worked. (Whereas D&D is anything, but NOT "medieval", sorry, no. It has never been.) Supplements come with detailed maps of countries, cities (such as exist) and castles.


There are human beings that can take down an attack helicopter or armored vehicle (with the right tactics and equipment). That doesn't require magic. Who's to say a mundane couldn't win through tactics and determination, plus a fair bit of exceptional skill?

Right. With modern high-tech equipment. Magical weapons and magical item gear in D&D is simply the fantasy world's equivalent of all the high-tech gadgets a character uses in i.e. a d20 Spycraft or a Millenium's End mercenary game. If you want to claim someone can bring down a flying helicopter or a tank with their bare hands, I'm sure the army would be interesting to hear about this trick.


Mundane enough for me: heroes don't require gadgets or kewl powerz to do awesome things. This is my objection to magic items, which detract from the abilities of the protagonist. People often assume (largely because of the way they're hardcoded into D&D 3.x) that if you don't like magic items you want a gritty game where characters die easy.

I don't. I want a game where they matter more than their gear, and a warrior can pick up any weapon he's trained in and kick much ass. We never saw Conan fretting over whether he'd packed the right combination of magitech to ensure maximum optimal damage output. He just used whatever weapon was to hand, and that changed from story to story.

I agree with you that characters should be less defined by their cool equipment and more by what they are or can do; that is one major complaint that I have when reading supplements like the WotC d20 Magic Item Compendium, it makes D&D feel like a game of World of Warcraft. D&D has become ever more than before a game of strategic combat first, roleplaying second, where it is implied that everyone can and should go shopping for custum-build magic items and weapons because (as the game designers themselves have said in interviews on power balance and magic items) the game is designed with the idea that a character of level X will have access to certain spells and items, otherwise he won't survive, sorry.

But the claim "heroes don't require gadgets or kewl powerz to do awesome things" is nonsense. Then what about Batman? Professor Gadget? The warrior guy in Chinese Ghost Story who used mystic rune magic to make high jumps, paralyse his enemies, etc.?

So, Conan. Well, Conan lived in a relatively low-magic setting. Bashing things with a swords worked because monsters didn't have DR. And really, all you saw on screen was that Conan bashed things with a weaponand they fell over. Now step back for a moment and look at another game system, namely the old World of Darkness, and specifically the game line about Hunters. Hunters didn't have "obvious" mystical powers like all thew vampires, mummies, werecreatures, sorcerers and awakened mages in the same world. But they were divine protectors of mankind, and whatever source they drew their powers from, it allowed Hunters to do things like i.e. pick up ANY item and use it as a devastating weapon against creatures like werewolves who usually could only be really harmed by fire or silver (because they quickly regenerated any mundane damage they took). Or withstand a vampire's mental domination. Or sense supernatural creatures. Just because from outside their combat prowess LOOKED mundane (you saw a housewife fly into a rage, pick up a flat iron and beat some odd hairy guy twice her size to death with it) didn't mean it wasn't supernatural.

Look at the Earthdawn RPG. Everyone there, every class has some sort of semi-magical knack or talent, even the fighters. The "spellcasting" classes merely cast obvious spells. The warriors, rangers, sky pirates etc simply incorporate their inate quasi-magical class abilities into their own physical prowess or fighting style. Like monks in D&D. Is the monk "mundane" enough?


To One Winged4ngel:

Please tell me how in the world Beowulf was supernatural in any way other than a huge strength score.

Granted, Beowulf is a bad example, but take all those Heroes, like Cuchulain, in Irish myths. Celtic warrior heroes in the more "mystic" tales were able to jump onto a thrown flying spear and "ride" it towards the enemy. Um, yes? Or turn themselves into forest animals without explicitely being seen as spellcasters.

In GURPS RPG, any human with a physical attribute score above 20 is superhuman by definition. GURPS Supers supplement lists superstrength side by side with things like flight or body of iron. Superstrength or being able to survive impossible odds is simply less obvious than throwing a fireball. Unless you start throwing elephants. Now, an elephant can have STR 50 in GURPS and merely be an normal animal. It's all relative.

Riffington
2007-09-17, 12:50 PM
As for witch hunts based on this, there are a couple problems. One, as I (not very) subtly suggested, is that witch-hunting for evil-aligned people is evil, and will get you a feedback problem. The other is that you need someone to perform the Detect Evils. Good clerics won't finger people for the mob based on alignment.

This went totally by me, because I hadn't imagined that you could really think it's evil.
I know good people who want to arrest (and/or execute) every pedophile they can find. They're willing to do it with less proof than a detect spell. They may be misguided on that, but they sure aren't evil. There were good people involved in burning witches, too. I know some good people who think Senator McCarthy was absolutely right and that everyone on his list should be in jail.

Now, if you start throwing around pitchforks and torches there's an issue. But a lot of social structures allow good people to arrest or kill the evil, and sleep just fine at night. Manipulating the system for personal benefit can be done in an evil way, but it need not be evil.

Kiero
2007-09-17, 12:56 PM
Huh? It says "sword and sorcery", you know. Zinc just said "I just don't see any attraction whatsoever in playing a character who is nothing more than a real world human in a world of things" that are magical. How in heck does that contradict the idea of "sword and sorcerery" genre? If anything it is the epitome of that genre.

Simply put, the "swords" of the genre's title are the heroes, and the "sorcery" the villains. Magic is evil, comes at a terrible price, and is always bested by steel and grit.


But the claim "heroes don't require gadgets or kewl powerz to do awesome things" is nonsense. Then what about Batman? Professor Gadget? The warrior guy in Chinese Ghost Story who used mystic rune magic to make high jumps, paralyse his enemies, etc.?

What do any of those have to do with heroic fantasy?


So, Conan. Well, Conan lived in a relatively low-magic setting. Bashing things with a swords worked because monsters didn't have DR. And really, all you saw on screen was that Conan bashed things with a weaponand they fell over.

No, Conan is pretty much the epitome of the sword and sorcery genre. Which is low-magic by definition, because (Elric aside...) heroes of S&S don't use magic.


Now step back for a moment and look at another game system, namely the old World of Darkness, and specifically the game line about Hunters. Hunters didn't have "obvious" mystical powers like all thew vampires, mummies, werecreatures, sorcerers and awakened mages in the same world. But they were divine protectors of mankind, and whatever source they drew their powers from, it allowed Hunters to do things like i.e. pick up ANY item and use it as a devastating weapon against creatures like werewolves who usually could only be really harmed by fire or silver (because they quickly regenerated any mundane damage they took). Or withstand a vampire's mental domination. Or sense supernatural creatures. Just because from outside their combat prowess LOOKED mundane (you saw a housewife fly into a rage, pick up a flat iron and beat some odd hairy guy twice her size to death with it) didn't mean it wasn't supernatural.

WoD isn't a heroic fantasy setting. It might stretch to urban fantasy, but that's a different genre.

Personally, I thought Hunter was poor precisely because it turned the protagonists into monsters to let them fight monsters. Buffy/Angel had a much better take on the theme, allowing actual normal human beings (who weren't psychos) to fight the darkness and win.


Look at the Earthdawn RPG. Everyone there, every class has some sort of semi-magical knack or talent, even the fighters. The "spellcasting" classes merely cast obvious spells. The warriors, rangers, sky pirates etc simply incorporate their inate quasi-magical class abilities into their own physical prowess or fighting style.

Never played it, haven't seen anything to date that interests me about it. In fact "everyone has magic" is a big turn-off for me.


Like monks in D&D. Is the monk "mundane" enough?

The monk doesn't belong in D&D, IMO. Don't get me wrong, I love my wuxia, just not in my heroic fantasy.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-17, 01:09 PM
Manipulating the system for personal benefit can be done in an evil way, but it need not be evil.

Interestingly, you've just defined Lawful Evil.


Simply put, the "swords" of the genre's title are the heroes, and the "sorcery" the villains. Magic is evil, comes at a terrible price, and is always bested by steel and grit.

According to who? The Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_and_sorcery) mentions nothing about magic only being the field of villains.

Tobrian
2007-09-17, 01:11 PM
(snip) As for witch hunts based on this, there are a couple problems. One, as I (not very) subtly suggested, is that witch-hunting for evil-aligned people is evil, and will get you a feedback problem. The other is that you need someone to perform the Detect Evils. Good clerics won't finger people for the mob based on alignment. St. Cuthbert, hard as he is, isn't going to tolerate too much of that either (though throwing known villains to the mob while the opportunity is there would be his style). Chaotic Neutral clerics will take one look at things and run away as fast as they can. And if you start taking directions on witch-finding from clerics of evil gods, you really need to stop a moment and think about what you're doing.(snip)

If [the guards] were dressed in the Baron's livery, and someone checked their detect evil status (positive), and then the group unhesitatingly killed them, that would be grounds for a hard look at the party's alleged alignments (unless already evil).

Interesting. I applaud your take on things, because I usually end up playing the NG character and "voice of ethics" in many groups. :smallfrown: But if slaying an NPC who has detected as "evil" merely on the grounds of him being evil while he is standing there is a questionable act, a lot of players, gamemasters and D&D GAME WRITERS are in a lot of trouble.

Because I've come across this attitude often: "the paladin is justified, nay, expected to "execute" any evil-aligned person on sight (or at least drag him in front of a court to be sentenced and hanged). Otherwise he loses his paladin status for idly letting evil go free." Even the official description of the lawful good alignment in the PHB talks of "paladins slaying evil without mercy". Of course, even the most rigid gamemasters usually don't force players to have their paladins go through the streets and drag off every evil merchant to the cells simply for standing there. (Because the merchant or mafioso usually has friends in high places.)

But D&D writers gave us such gems as the Gray Guard PrC (see Complete Scoundrel), pretending that the Gray Guard is 100% able to keep his lawful good alignment and paladin levels while torturing heretics and people of chaotic alignment for being... um, chaotic? No, I don't want to start another thread on the Gray Guard here... please. I started one before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2102900#post2102900), it's in the archives.

Riffington
2007-09-17, 01:14 PM
Interestingly, you've just defined Lawful Evil.


Yes, lawful evil is someone whose main tendency is to manipulate systems for personal benefit. We have all done it on occasion, and most of us are good. Its a matter of habit.

Tobrian
2007-09-17, 01:26 PM
Simply put, the "swords" of the genre's title are the heroes, and the "sorcery" the villains. Magic is evil, comes at a terrible price, and is always bested by steel and grit.(snip)

No, Conan is pretty much the epitome of the sword and sorcery genre. Which is low-magic by definition, because (Elric aside...) heroes of S&S don't use magic.(snip)

The monk doesn't belong in D&D, IMO. Don't get me wrong, I love my wuxia, just not in my heroic fantasy.

If your definition of "heroic fantasy/sword and sorcery" genre is THAT narrow, I can't help you there.


Personally, I thought Hunter was poor precisely because it turned the protagonists into monsters to let them fight monsters. Buffy/Angel had a much better take on the theme, allowing actual normal human beings (who weren't psychos) to fight the darkness and win.

I beg to differ. Buffy was anything but not a normal human. Wasn't that the point of being "the chosen one, the Slayer"?? Willow, Giles and Wesley were all arcane spellcasters, and both Giles and Wesley had developed combat abilities on top of that. Everyone else either got some added special (like prophecy) or was a straight warrior with knowledge about the supernatual monsters' weaknesses. Where did Xander every win singlehandedly against a powerful monster? Never.

And then please don't forget two things: in the Buffyverse, everyone can technically cast ritual spells if he knows how to recite the spell from some dusty old grimoire. And your basic neonate vampire (and most older vampires too) had no special abilities besides improved strength... no flight, no mental domination. Everyone with average strength could stake them through the chest and poof them into a cloud of dust, or beat them to death with a shovel. Only a few "elite" vampires rose from the grave and gained instant martial arts powers. But even freaking goddesses could conveniently be fought using nothing but Buffy's whack-them-with-a-big-weapon method (granted it was a magical hammer). One Big Bad demon was killed with a rocket launcher. The moment Buffy or Angel ran into an enemy that was intangible or had strong magical powers, they had a real problem.

Deepblue706
2007-09-17, 01:48 PM
When I play a game like D&D, I don't want my martial classes to be any less mundane than Conan. Maybe they can get divine aid, help of a friendly wizard, or whatever...but I absolutely detest how many people like to play characters who are equivalents to mythological beings. When I play a high-level Fighter in D&D, I imagine someone at the very limits of human capabilities, but not beyond them. I want someone who is highly capable, but not someone asbolutely unbeatable by a mortal being.

Why do I like to envision my character to be less "heroic" in power, as some would say? Well, for several reasons: Firstly, I believe that the reason why myths can get so ridiculous, sometimes, is because heroic deeds are exaggerated, making them more a tale to tell. As far as commoners would be able to tell, the PCs are as amazing as those in tales that follow this mantra:

"Celtic warrior heroes in the more "mystic" tales were able to jump onto a thrown flying spear and "ride" it towards the enemy. Um, yes? Or turn themselves into forest animals without explicitely being seen as spellcasters"

But, I would never actually want to do something so ridiculous, as I don't feel like I'm playing a heroic mortal, anymore, but the guy who can't lose. What sense of glory can you have, if you're so amazing that you'd have no excuse if you lost? There's a saying that goes along the lines of "You cannot be brave without first feeling fear". I think it applies rather nicely. I don't want to play a game specifically designed for me to win, because if I do win, I don't have any feeling of accomplishment. I want to earn the victory, and that's something that mortal heroes have to do. Too many fantastic abilities make it seem like nothing more than child's play.

That, and, I think what defines a hero is his actions, not his stat array, his levels, or his magic sword. There's a reason why the PHB expresses games with over 30 point buy values to be "high powered", and that's because it's understood by the developers that while an 18 is reaching the human peak, a 15 in your most important attribute is not a bad thing. People who have "good" stats as opposed to "amazing" stats can easily be just as brave or daring.

Like with stats, actual combat abilities need not extend beyond the normal human range, as simply being "good" can take you far, if you are merely persistent and hard working. By giving players such magnificent powers and abilities so carelessly, you make D&D no longer an actual game, but moreso a group of friends sitting at a table, taking turns saying "Watch what crazy move I'm pretending to do next!"

Yeah, I'd rather being preoccupied with thinking my character might die if I'm not careful. It's hard to imagine the super-duper warrior-guy who summons lightning from his sword and breathes fire will actually come close to dying, unless he's fighting an equally powerful opponent, who would likely have very similar powers, at which point the game is so detatched from reality that I wonder why it is I need all this nonsense to experience someone displaying heroics. I'd rather see something less tied to flashy gimmicks to draw my attention, with more focus brought to how the hero simply tries to find the strength to endure a simple, but trying circumstance. The circumstances themselves should have the emphasis, not the special effects. Truly, I think some of that is lost when the game travels into the higher realms of fantasy.

Kiero
2007-09-17, 01:52 PM
If your definition of "heroic fantasy/sword and sorcery" genre is THAT narrow, I can't help you there.

You like mixing your genres, I don't. A little pulpish influence I can handle in my fantasy. Supers or wuxia? No thanks. Supers I don't like and wuxia I prefer on it's own.


I beg to differ. Buffy was anything but not a normal human. Wasn't that the point of being "the chosen one, the Slayer"?? Willow, Giles and Wesley were all arcane spellcasters, and both Giles and Wesley had developed combat abilities on top of that. Everyone else either got some added special (like prophecy) or was a straight warrior with knowledge about the supernatual monsters' weaknesses. Where did Xander every win singlehandedly against a powerful monster? Never.

I'm talking about the roleplaying games here, not the shows. Have you played them? They handle a wide range of possibilities, including that whole "Chosen One and Scoobies" quite well. Without levels either.


And then please don't forget two things: in the Buffyverse, everyone can technically cast ritual spells if he knows how to recite the spell from some dusty old grimoire. And your basic neonate vampire (and most older vampires too) had no special abilities besides improved strength... no flight, no mental domination. Everyone with average strength could stake them through the chest and poof them into a cloud of dust, or beat them to death with a shovel. Only a few "elite" vampires rose from the grave and gained instant martial arts powers. But even freaking goddesses could conveniently be fought using nothing but Buffy's whack-them-with-a-big-weapon method (granted it was a magical hammer). One Big Bad demon was killed with a rocket launcher. The moment Buffy or Angel ran into an enemy that was intangible or had strong magical powers, they had a real problem.

Which is apropos of nothing when we're talking about the RPG. I prefer the Angel game's approach here: no fast-casting PCs, magic is all ritual-based.

Matthew
2007-09-17, 01:59 PM
I agree. No-one forces you to play 3rd or 4th edition D&D. Instead of whining how the setting doesnt suit your tastes anymore (I have my own criticisms of it, but this isn't the time or place for elaborating on it) and demanding that it is changed to suit your expectation, why not pick up a copy of Harnmaster RPG? It has a good working rule system. The World of Harn is a low-magic medieval setting with just a touch of the supernatural here and there, more sword than sorcery, with no reliance on tons of magic items, and descriptions of how a medieval feudal system worked. (Whereas D&D is anything, but NOT "medieval", sorry, no. It has never been.) Supplements come with detailed maps of countries, cities (such as exist) and castles.

Why categorise people who don't like the stylistic direction D&D is heading in as whiners? It's a legitimate complaint. I don't know why people like to say "Hey, don't like D&D, play something else." I'm sure that anyone who complains about D&D is aware that there are other games available, even low magic D20 Games, such as Conan. What they want is for D&D to either be more like these games or for it to be viable to play D&D in that style. Monte Cook and the DMG occasionally discuss 'turning the dial up and down', but it does seem like 3e is much more closely tied to 'one style' of playing than any previous version of the game.
Once again, though, we're in a situation where D&D can either 'play out of the box' or 'be a toolbox'. The current design direction seems to be towards 'play out of the box', which I think is fine, but the default 'level' they have chosen is not my preferred mode of fantasy adventure.

Telonius
2007-09-17, 02:29 PM
For the fluff aspects, "Mundane" is part of what a Fighter is. At high levels, his sword (or axe, or whatever) should be a whirling circle of death, able to injure anything that comes near him. He should be able to get in close to the nastiest beasts out there, and poke through their defenses. He should be able to anticipate attacks, dodge and parry them. His reaction time should be nearly supernatural.

The Fighter's power comes from his own skill and training, not from any arcane source (though a magic sword never hurts). He doesn't wreathe his body in fire, or jump fifty feet in the air, or fly, or walk on water, or shoot fireballs from his eyes. His magic sword might deliver some kind of energy attack; but that comes from the weapon, not himself.

On the other hand, while he can't actually make time stop, sometimes his reactions are so fast that it appears that way to the observer. He can't drop an enemy's defenses entirely, but if there's a single crack in the armor he can find it. Except for Monks, almost no one pushes their body to the point that the Fighter does. A Fighter realizes that anyone can achieve what they do, but few choose to undertake the grueling hard work and training it takes.

For what he looks like at level 20 (in 3.5 terms)... If he's an archer, he's Robin Hood, or Ulysses. If he's a swordsman, he's Lancelot, Sigurd, or Inigo Montoya. (Okay, maybe Inigo's more of a Rogue or Swashbuckler, but that's about the skill level I'm talking about). He's pushed himself to the limits of what human beings can do with a sword.

That's my vision for what the Fighter should be. Here's hoping they let me play that guy in 4.0.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-17, 02:41 PM
This went totally by me, because I hadn't imagined that you could really think it's evil.
I know good people who want to arrest (and/or execute) every pedophile they can find. They're willing to do it with less proof than a detect spell. They may be misguided on that, but they sure aren't evil. There were good people involved in burning witches, too. I know some good people who think Senator McCarthy was absolutely right and that everyone on his list should be in jail.

Now, if you start throwing around pitchforks and torches there's an issue. But a lot of social structures allow good people to arrest or kill the evil, and sleep just fine at night. Manipulating the system for personal benefit can be done in an evil way, but it need not be evil.
Witch-hunting people who do some specific evil thing is one thing. Witch-hunting people with the Evil alignment is something else, something that has never been seen in the real world that I'm aware of. Detect evil tells you nothing about what the person scanned has done, and is very vague in informing on what they might do. There is no 'detect pedophile' spell. It tells you that, in some way, the person scanned would have no compunction about hurting, oppressing, or killing others if it were in their interests.

That encompasses exactly the sort of hunt you describe. There aren't any redeeming features to it, except that whatever population started it will reduce their representation in the gene pool substantially.

No social structure I've ever heard of allows good (or less than good) people to arrest or kill 'the evil', with or without sound sleep. Arrest or kill certain categories of people (murderers, etc.) who likely are evil? Certainly. Anyone who annoys enough people (innocently or otherwise) to form a mob? Sometimes. The evil in general? Out here there isn't exactly a consensus definition, you know?

For what he looks like at level 20 (in 3.5 terms)... If he's an archer, he's Robin Hood, or Ulysses. If he's a swordsman, he's Lancelot, Sigurd, or Inigo Montoya. (Okay, maybe Inigo's more of a Rogue or Swashbuckler, but that's about the skill level I'm talking about). He's pushed himself to the limits of what human beings can do with a sword.

That's my vision for what the Fighter should be. Here's hoping they let me play that guy in 4.0.
I doubt they will at level 20. Because level 20 at present is quite a lot more power than those characters need...

Fax Celestis
2007-09-17, 02:50 PM
For the fluff aspects, "Mundane" is part of what a Fighter is. At high levels, his sword (or axe, or whatever) should be a whirling circle of death, able to injure anything that comes near him. He should be able to get in close to the nastiest beasts out there, and poke through their defenses. He should be able to anticipate attacks, dodge and parry them. His reaction time should be nearly supernatural.

The Fighter's power comes from his own skill and training, not from any arcane source (though a magic sword never hurts). He doesn't wreathe his body in fire, or jump fifty feet in the air, or fly, or walk on water, or shoot fireballs from his eyes. His magic sword might deliver some kind of energy attack; but that comes from the weapon, not himself.

On the other hand, while he can't actually make time stop, sometimes his reactions are so fast that it appears that way to the observer. He can't drop an enemy's defenses entirely, but if there's a single crack in the armor he can find it. Except for Monks, almost no one pushes their body to the point that the Fighter does. A Fighter realizes that anyone can achieve what they do, but few choose to undertake the grueling hard work and training it takes.

For what he looks like at level 20 (in 3.5 terms)... If he's an archer, he's Robin Hood, or Ulysses. If he's a swordsman, he's Lancelot, Sigurd, or Inigo Montoya. (Okay, maybe Inigo's more of a Rogue or Swashbuckler, but that's about the skill level I'm talking about). He's pushed himself to the limits of what human beings can do with a sword.

That's my vision for what the Fighter should be. Here's hoping they let me play that guy in 4.0.

They let you play that guy now with the ToB.

Here, let me demonstrate:


At high levels, his sword (or axe, or whatever) should be a whirling circle of death, able to injure anything that comes near him. Try any number of maneuvers, though Thicket of Blades is probably the closest.


He should be able to get in close to the nastiest beasts out there, and poke through their defenses. Mobility and damage increasing maneuvers via Desert Wind. If you don't like supernatural maneuvers--a valid complaint--try Stone Drgaon: it allows you the ability to literally break through your foe's damage reduction.


He should be able to anticipate attacks, dodge and parry them. Any number of maneuvers, again, though particularly those from Diamond Mind.


His reaction time should be nearly supernatural. How about the three maneuvers in Diamond Mind (Action Before Thought, Mind Over Body, Moment Of Perfect Clarity) that let you replace a save with a Concentration check? Sounds about what you're looking for there.


The Fighter's power comes from his own skill and training, not from any arcane source (though a magic sword never hurts). He doesn't wreathe his body in fire, or jump fifty feet in the air, or fly, or walk on water, or shoot fireballs from his eyes. Apart from the overtly supernatural disciplines (Devoted Spirit, Desert Wind, and Shadow Hand), this is applicable here.


On the other hand, while he can't actually make time stop, sometimes his reactions are so fast that it appears that way to the observer. Time Stands Still, Dancing Mongoose, Raging Mongoose, Blistering Flourish, Steel Wind...there's many ways--and to many degrees--to do this, most of which are--again--not supernatural.


He can't drop an enemy's defenses entirely, but if there's a single crack in the armor he can find it. This is mostly within the realm of Shadow Hand, though Diamond Mind and Stone Dragon, again, have much in the way of surpassing your foe's defenses.


A Fighter realizes that anyone can achieve what they do, but few choose to undertake the grueling hard work and training it takes. ...which is nearly exactly what the Warblade's description is. And, from what I posted above this, you can see that the majority of maneuvers and disciplines I indicated are not supernatural, well within the bounds of reality, and are available to the Warblade. The Warblade is what you're asking for in a Fighter, just with a different name.
EDIT: In fact, try this:
The fighter was born for conflict. Swift, strong, enduring, and utterly confident in his martial skills, he seeks to test himself against worthy foes. Battle is beautiful to him -- a perfect moment in which life hangs suspended on the bright edge of a sword. Sheer combat skill is important to a fighter, so he trains intensely with his chosen weapons. But even more important are his athleticism, endurance, daring, recklessness, and joy in the hour of danger. Fighters, often called sword princes, live for the chance to test themselves in battle -- the stronger the foe, the greater the glory once an enemy is defeated.

Abilities: Pure physical perfection is a fighter's ideal, so Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution are all vital to him. Because mastering a bewildering variety of martial maneuvers is difficult, Intelligence is also important to a fighter, because he appreciates the bonus skill points, and many of his class features reward a high Intelligence bonus. Given the choice between Wisdom and Charisma, a fighter is more likely to boost the latter -- the better to wear the mantle of glory he hopes to win with his deeds on the battlefield.

Races: The warrior cultures that give rise to fighters are most often found in human, elf, and hobgoblin lands. Admiration for athletic prowess, the martial ideal, and sheer physical daring is common among these races. The githyanki also take great pride in their martial skill, and a number of fighters can be found among this race. Dwarves appreciate a fighter's martial prowess but might shy away from overweening praise. Halflings generally admire athletic prowess, but most find the stringent requirements of this class too challenging. Half-orcs and savage humanoid races generally do not appreciate beauty in motion in quite the same way that their more civilized counterparts do; they fight to destroy their enemies, not to cover themselves in glory. Gnomes feel no particular need to try themselves in battle; they are happy with their normal pursuits.

Alignment: A fighter can choose any alignment, though many prefer chaotic over lawful. After all, a fighter seeks to win glory through individual deeds of prowess, so he is unlikely to adopt a personal code emphasizing obedience over freedom to improvise. Good fighters are champions of the weak and downtrodden; evil ones are vicious warlords who exult in the defeat and humiliation of their foes.
This is the Warblade description with "warblade" replaced with "fighter".

horseboy
2007-09-17, 02:51 PM
Look at the Earthdawn RPG. Everyone there, every class has some sort of semi-magical knack or talent, even the fighters. The "spellcasting" classes merely cast obvious spells. The warriors, rangers, sky pirates etc simply incorporate their inate quasi-magical class abilities into their own physical prowess or fighting style. Like monks in D&D. Is the monk "mundane" enough?


Yeah, I wish that D&D would just come out and say that the fighter is using some sort of supernatural ability to create a kinetic shield protecting him. It would help verisimilitude so much. No more "Why is it that the first 6 hits have no effect, but the 7th one kills him out right?" or the ever popular the "mundane" fighter jumps off the deck of his spelljammer, belly flops through the atmosphere, hits the planet, and bounces twice. Then he gets up, dusts himself off and walks over to the port authority to tell him his ship will be coming in in a few minutes. (And that was in 2nd, before his hps doubled)

It's mundane for me holds a degree of reality involved. I hit you with a sword and it has consequences, not just mark off a few points.

nagora
2007-09-17, 02:54 PM
This begs the question of: "What would constitute a Mundane fighter? Obviously videogame style blasts of fire from my sword ala Desert Wind might be a bit too much,. But what's an acceptable measure of mundane? Is it okay to cleave a stone in half with your sword? What about to fall a large distance like a Dragoon from FF? Hitting multiple enemies with a thrown weapon?
Avoiding an explosion like a fireball in a bland area with no cover, and not moving to do so? Spell resistance?


I don't have any interest in playing a fighter who can do any of those things unless there is some in-game reason why he specifically can do them which is very nearly totally unique to him (or her). If I want that sort of tat I can play any one of hundreds of dull video games that pretend to be RPGs.

nagora
2007-09-17, 03:01 PM
Yeah, I wish that D&D would just come out and say that the fighter is using some sort of supernatural ability to create a kinetic shield protecting him.

Well, certainly in 1ed, that's pretty well what it said. HP are a small part luck, a small part (for high levels) physical stamina, a big part increased skill, and a big part a supernatural ability which can be called "blessing of the gods" or even a sixth-sense or whatever. Hit points are not physical damage.

When a character falls 200 feet and survives the DM should be explaining how their incredible luck resulted in landing in a shallow swamp or some trees with vines strung between them or something that broke their fall. If nothing in the area justifies this the DM is totally within their rights to say "Take the damage rolled and also make a saving throw or die".

Indon
2007-09-17, 03:17 PM
...which is nearly exactly what the Warblade's description is. And, from what I posted above this, you can see that the majority of maneuvers and disciplines I indicated are not supernatural, well within the bounds of reality, and are available to the Warblade. The Warblade is what you're asking for in a Fighter, just with a different name.

The fact remains that mechanically, ToB classes are Vancian. It may be Vancian _swordcasting_, rather than Vancian spellcasting, but the mechanics are equivalent. A commoner has about the same access to maneuvers as he does to magic; very little. But every commoner has access to attack, sunder, disarm, grapple, etc (albeit often at a penalty). Attacking is common. Maneuvers, even reflavored to look like attacks, are not. Mr. Commoner can't do it, or often anything remotely like it, even on a natural 20.

Sure, you could try to flavor maneuvers to be mundane. Salmon do similar actions just to mate, if I recall. But that doesn't mean you aren't swimming against the mechanics the entire way.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-17, 03:20 PM
The fact remains that mechanically, ToB classes are Vancian. It may be Vancian _swordcasting_, rather than Vancian spellcasting, but the mechanics are equivalent. A commoner has about the same access to maneuvers as he does to magic; very little. But every commoner has access to attack, sunder, disarm, grapple, etc (albeit often at a penalty). Attacking is common. Maneuvers, even reflavored to look like attacks, are not. Mr. Commoner can't do it, or often anything remotely like it, even on a natural 20.

Sure, you could try to flavor maneuvers to be mundane. Salmon do similar actions just to mate, if I recall. But that doesn't mean you aren't swimming against the mechanics the entire way.

The only reason you're "swimming upstream", as you put it--a good metaphor, actually--is because the ToB mechanics were tacked on afterward, as an expansion. If they were supported throughout the core rules instead of only as an add-on, it'd be a lot easier to implement into "everyday" NPCs.

But this is nothing new: you run into the same problems with Psionics, Incarnum, Truenaming, Shadowcasting, Binding, Warlocks, Ninja, and Dragon Shamans.

horseboy
2007-09-17, 03:22 PM
No social structure I've ever heard of allows good (or less than good) people to arrest or kill 'the evil', with or without sound sleep. Arrest or kill certain categories of people (murderers, etc.) who likely are evil? Certainly. Anyone who annoys enough people (innocently or otherwise) to form a mob? Sometimes. The evil in general? Out here there isn't exactly a consensus definition, you know?

America does. There's been several local court cases where the defendants have pleaded "Your honour, he needed killin'."
Besides, it's not that they're going to be witch hunted for being evil, so much as "He's pinging evil, put him under surveillance until we find out why."
Alternately, you could picture something akin to the Zhodani. They had "thought police wandering around in every street. They scanned everyone's mind making sure some one wasn't "thinking evil thoughts". If they detected someone doing that, they went into his house, took him and any subversive propaganda they found there and brought him to a "hospital". There they treated him, through psychology, psychotropic drugs and aversion therapy. If they can't help him, they put him down for the sake of society.

Indon
2007-09-17, 03:26 PM
The only reason you're "swimming upstream", as you put it--a good metaphor, actually--is because the ToB mechanics were tacked on afterward, as an expansion. If they were supported throughout the core rules instead of only as an add-on, it'd be a lot easier to implement into "everyday" NPCs.

But this is nothing new: you run into the same problems with Psionics, Incarnum, Truenaming, Shadowcasting, Binding, Warlocks, Ninja, and Dragon Shamans.

Very much agreed.

A system where the default mechanic is more enabling would allow for much more impressive mundane characters; "Badass Normals", if you will. As it is, without magical mechanics, there isn't much variety in D&D combat.

Tobrian
2007-09-17, 03:26 PM
The fact remains that mechanically, ToB classes are Vancian. It may be Vancian _swordcasting_, rather than Vancian spellcasting, but the mechanics are equivalent.

Since Gary Gygax's D&D owes more to Fritz Lieber's "Fafrd & Grey Mouser" stories and Jack Vance's bizarre world of "Dying Earth" than to Tolkien, I don't see the problem here.


A commoner has about the same access to maneuvers as he does to magic; very little. But every commoner has access to attack, sunder, disarm, grapple, etc (albeit often at a penalty). Attacking is common. Maneuvers, even reflavored to look like attacks, are not. Mr. Commoner can't do it, or often anything remotely like it, even on a natural 20.

And how do you know that when looking at it from outside? How do you know that a character who just did a backflip over an enemy's head did an acrobatic maneuver and not a high Tumble check? Stop thinking so games-mechanically. "Maneuvers" is simply a term, a game mechanic to define what the PCs can do.

Last time I checked, D&D heroes are supposed to be these larger-than-life heroes, even if they're just whacking things with swords... they're not supposed to be "just like commoners only with better HD".

Matthew
2007-09-17, 03:39 PM
Last time I checked, D&D heroes are supposed to be these larger-than-life heroes, even if they're just whacking things with swords... they're not supposed to be "just like commoners only with better HD".

This brings up a good point. What are 'Dungeons & Dragons Heroes' supposed to be? Is there actually a definition, or are we all working from different points of view? I don't think of Player Characters as Heroes, I think of them as Adventurers. Is there a difference? Is it truly not acceptable for them to be differentiated from Commoners mainly by Hit Dice and Attack Bonus?

Jayabalard
2007-09-17, 03:42 PM
In a world where gods walk the earth, dragons make regular lunch of large standing armies, the dude with the pointy hat can kill half the town without even thinking about it, and the neighbor's housecat is a credible threat to anyone of first or second level, damn straight commoners'd better be supernatural.None of those are a given in D&D.


Ever notice how there are almost no heroes in fantasy stories that are about 'some guy'? They're almost always about some sort of exceptional person--whether that be heritage, magical prowess, extraordinary martial prowess, or something else entirely. They're all supernatural, because that's what's interesting.it's not all that rare and while there's usually something special about the hero, they're often quite ordinary. Nor is anything magical (the opposite of mundane) necessary for them to be exceptional.

The difference between a complete mundane, and a magician who gets tired while manipulating a feather and can just barely light a candle is pretty much non-existent.

Same goes for a wizard who only knows one spell and doesn't use it.

or a border lord who manages to slay a dragon because of good planning and his mistresses poison.


Obviously the sword and sorcery genre is not for you.obviously you have a much narrower idea of what the sword and sorcery genre is.

Indon
2007-09-17, 03:56 PM
And how do you know that when looking at it from outside? How do you know that a character who just did a backflip over an enemy's head did an acrobatic maneuver and not a high Tumble check? Stop thinking so games-mechanically. "Maneuvers" is simply a term, a game mechanic to define what the PCs can do.


But we aren't outside, which allows the mechanics to work against our reflavoring efforts.



Last time I checked, D&D heroes are supposed to be these larger-than-life heroes, even if they're just whacking things with swords... they're not supposed to be "just like commoners only with better HD".

This thread is about what makes a hero a really really awesome normal person, as opposed to a Magical Hero. You can be larger-than-life either way, but there is a distinction.

Jack Mann
2007-09-17, 04:04 PM
This brings up a good point. What are 'Dungeons & Dragons Heroes' supposed to be? Is there actually a definition, or are we all working from different points of view? I don't think of Player Characters as Heroes, I think of them as Adventurers. Is there a difference? Is it truly not acceptable for them to be differentiated from Commoners mainly by Hit Dice and Attack Bonus?

My working definition for a D&D adventurer is someone capable of fighting and surviving against CR-appropriate challenges. Doing so with style is a plus. This is where the fighter class fails. At high levels, there are few ways for a fighter to contribute to a fight. This is not because he's outclassed (though he is), but because he has no way to bring his abilities to bear against an enemy. Just adding hit points and attack bonus isn't enough. He needs, ultimately, ways to attack a flying dragon. He needs to be able to rush a demon and survive. He should be an exceptional individual. No, not necessarily supernatural. I'm fine with his abilities coming from training, or being Just That Good. I prefer it, in fact. But yes, he should be able to do things a peasant can't, because a peasant can't do the things a fighter has to be able to do to keep up with the adventure.

Of course, Joe Sharecropper could always pick up a sword and try to be an adventurer himself. If he's got the stuff of heroes in him, he can become a powerful warrior himself. Not everyone does. Some don't have the discipline. Some don't have the physical power. Some don't have the courage.

But some do. And it's not some magic that makes them that tough. It's something that's part of them. Something they can do for themselves. The effects may seem magical, but it all comes down to the strength of their arm in the end.

That is what a fighter should be, in my opinion. A Badass Normal. Someone who doesn't use magic, but still does things that the ordinary person can't. Personally, I think Tome of Battle does that pretty darned well. And if 4th gets him off of his magic sword addiction, so much the better.

Tobrian
2007-09-17, 04:11 PM
or a border lord who manages to slay a dragon because of good planning and his mistresses poison.
Heh. Is that a reference to "Dragonsbane" by Barbara Hambly? :smallsmile: Yeah that was a great novel.


Why categorise people who don't like the stylistic direction D&D is heading in as whiners? It's a legitimate complaint.

No, a legitimate complaint is saying a game mechanic does not manage to achieve the basic intent the designers had in mind.; or that a world setting is bland and unoriginal.

What Kiero did was:

First he claims that D&D is "sword & sorcery".

Then he goes on to arbitrarily and narrowly define the "heroic fantasy/sword & sorcery" genre as always "low-magic", where PCs are only allowed to whack things with swords and all spellcasting should be a) dangerous, b) evil, c) restricted to NPCs.

He claims that D&D worlds are low-magic which is not only debatable but plain factually wrong. But he wants them to be low-magic because he doesn't like a high-magic setting.

Then he claims/demands that anything resembling "Eastern-style" martial arts and sword magic should have no place in normal D&D, because "sword & sorcery" is again narrowly defined by him as a genre of European knights and barbarian heroes. (Funnily, you never see people who want D&D to be solely "medieval" in flavour complaining about elves, dwarves, gnomes etc.)

This flies in the face of the clearly stated design intent of the 3rd and 4th edition ("cool effects and action gaming"); the game designers have said in their articles that they want to follow the "cultural hodgepodge" route, magic-saturated setting approach that is common in modern fantasy and MMORPGs, where all sorts of character concepts can freely exist alongside each other. (I don't have heard a good name for this new genre yet, but it IS a genre in its own right.)

Look, if you don't like a setting, flavour or genre, then don't play it. I pointed out alternatives, like Harnmaster. D&D isn't my first-game-of-choice either, neither mechanically or settings-wise, but I don't feel entitled to demand that the designers rewrite their game to suit my special tastes. :smallannoyed:


Originally Posted by Kiero
Simply put, the "swords" of the genre's title are the heroes, and the "sorcery" the villains. Magic is evil, comes at a terrible price, and is always bested by steel and grit.(snip)

No, Conan is pretty much the epitome of the sword and sorcery genre. Which is low-magic by definition, because (Elric aside...) heroes of S&S don't use magic.(snip)

The monk doesn't belong in D&D, IMO. Don't get me wrong, I love my wuxia, just not in my heroic fantasy.


I don't know why people like to say "Hey, don't like D&D, play something else." I'm sure that anyone who complains about D&D is aware that there are other games available, even low magic D20 Games, such as Conan. What they want is for D&D to either be more like these games or for it to be viable to play D&D in that style.

Why? Seriously, man. Why should game company X rewrite their RPG so that it is exactly like that other RPG that better suits your taste? You don't like the direction D&D is taking, but you don't want to switch to another game either... Make up your damn mind.

And what is D&D? The settings, the style, or the d20 system (which could be used completely independently)?


Monte Cook and the DMG occasionally discuss 'turning the dial up and down', but it does seem like 3e is much more closely tied to 'one style' of playing than any previous version of the game.

D&D has always been a system where the rules enforce a certain style of play, and it's geared towards mostly dungeon-crawling.

Tobrian
2007-09-17, 04:16 PM
--double post--

Kioran
2007-09-17, 04:19 PM
Last time I checked, D&D heroes are supposed to be these larger-than-life heroes, even if they're just whacking things with swords... they're not supposed to be "just like commoners only with better HD".

I believe exactly that should be the case. Your better HD make you a little tougher, give you a better chance to survive under various kinds of duress(saves), and might give you additional tricks and knowledge(skills). You can now do the same things as commoners, maybe slightly better, or more different things. This enables you to pick out your shticks and specializations, and enables some heroics, but there is little you can do that a high-lvl specialized Warrior or Commoner couldn´t have done.
What makes you heroic is that you play the same game as the commoners, and can be a paragon and role model for them, or an intimidating figure commanding respect. Maybe you are slightly better, but they might reach up to you. You´re not only a hero because you are way more powerful. You still need to earn that distinction.
A Warblade or powerful Wizard? So far above a commoner that they can´t even see him anymore, and certainly no Paragon cause to a commoner anything he does abovve lvl 9 is Epic. You´re not a hero or the peoples champ, you are an outside force. Suddenly it´s not a human against a monster but two forces of nature clashing above our heads. They´re not rooting for their fellow man anymore, but wishing that those with these powers go away before they destroy their village.

Seriously, soon as 99,58% (I think that´s three sigma) of the NPCs don´t even compare to the PCs anymore, they lose their immersion in the world.

Indon
2007-09-17, 04:21 PM
This flies in the face of the clearly stated design intent of the 3rd and 4th edition ("cool effects and action gaming"); the game designers have said in their articles that they want to follow the "cultural hodgepodge" route, magic-saturated setting approach that is common in modern fantasy and MMORPGs, where all sorts of character concepts can freely exist alongside each other. (I don't have heard a good name for this new genre yet, but it IS a genre in its own right.)[/I]


The makers of Exalted called it "Cinematic", I do believe. And if D&D's objective was to play like Exalted then they failed catastrophically.

The reality of D&D little resembles the 'clearly stated design intent' of 3'rd edition (To be honest, what 3'rd edition actually _is_ would probably be well-characterized by the term "spellpunk", IMO). Personally, I hope 4'th edition doesn't either, I already have the Exalted books and if D&D tries to be that game, I'll have no reason to buy it.

Matthew
2007-09-17, 04:22 PM
My working definition for a D&D adventurer is someone capable of fighting and surviving against CR-appropriate challenges.

What is CR appropriate, though? I think it's kind of backwards to construct Player Characters capable of facing fixed Challenges from the Monster Manual and I wonder now if that is my main disconnect with 3e. I remember opening the Monster Manual II, taking one look at the Banshee entry and the mind just boggling; 169 Hit Points? In AD&D they had about 35 Hit Points, an Armour Class of 0 [3e 20] and THAC0 13 [3e AB 8], but they were pretty deadly.
Perhaps the perceived problem is not at all the Heroes in Dungeons & Dragons, but the Challenges that they face. In fact, the more I look at the 3e discrepency between a Fighter 1 and a Fighter 20 (or more importantly a Wizard 1 and a Wizard 20), the more I am drawn towards this conclusion.

horseboy
2007-09-17, 04:28 PM
The difference between a complete mundane, and a magician who gets tired while manipulating a feather and can just barely light a candle is pretty much non-existent.

Well, do Perverts exist in D&D to help further his training? :smallwink:

Matthew
2007-09-17, 04:30 PM
No, a legitimate complaint is saying a game mechanic does not manage to achieve the basic intent the designers had in mind.; or that a world setting is bland and unoriginal.

Say what? So it's not a legitimate complaint to look at D&D and say it no longer suits your style of play?


Look, if you don't like a setting, flavour or genre, then don't play it. I pointed out alternatives, like Harnmaster. D&D isn't my first-game-of-choice either, neither mechanically or settings-wise, but I don't feel entitled to demand that the designers rewrite their game to suit my special tastes. :smallannoyed:

Why is it always people who don't like D&D all that much who want to cram it into one 'style of play' and insist others play different games if they want a different experience?


Why? Seriously, man. Why should game company X rewrite their RPG so that it is exactly like that other RPG that better suits your taste? You don't like the direction D&D is taking, but you don't want to switch to another game either... Make up your damn mind.

No, what is being said is why are they rewriting D&D so it no longer conforms to it's previous incarnations? I don't care all that much what they do with D&D, as I do play other games (including AD&D), but it's bogus to say that it's not alright to make complaints about the system no longer being to your taste. Nobody is saying "Hey company X, do as I say". They are saying, "Hey company X, this is how I play D&D and the kind of game I like to play." If they then say, "Well this is how we're going to design it and I'm afraid it's not to your taste," you vote with your wallet. I have been voting with my wallet since 3e came out, but the creation of 4e is obviously the time to voice my preferences.


And what is D&D? The settings, the style, or the d20 system (which could be used completely independently)?

A good question.


D&D has always been a system where the rules enforce a certain style of play, and it's geared towards mostly dungeon-crawling.

This is nonesense. It was originally conceived as such, but 2e moved so far away from that idea that the system began to suffer under the strain, but the area that it did cover was *very* broad.

Are you actually familiar with AD&D, Tobrian, or are you just going on what you have heard about it? I don't mean this as an attack, I'm just interested to know, because what you're saying seems to run so contrary to the kinds of things that were being done with 2e during the 90s.

horseboy
2007-09-17, 04:39 PM
Why is it always people who don't like D&D all that much who want to cram it into one 'style of play' and insist others play different games if they want a different experience?Effort to reward ratio.


No, what is being said is why are they rewriting D&D so it no longer conforms to it's previous incarnations? I don't care all that much what they do with D&D, as I do play other games (including AD&D), but it's bogus to say that it's not alright to make complaints about the system no longer being to your taste. Nobody is saying "Hey company X, do as I say". They are saying, "Hey company X, this is how I play D&D and the kind of game I like to play." If they then say, "Well this is how we're going to design it and I'm afraid it's not to your taste," you vote with your wallet. I have been voting with my wallet since 3e came out, but the creation of 4e is obviously the time to voice my preferences.
Very true. I keep vacillating on if I'm interested or not. I'm seeing good and bad here. I'm morbidly curious about 4e. I'm curious if I'd consider it "viable".

Jack Mann
2007-09-17, 04:42 PM
*Shrugs* I'm afraid that those big challenges are just built into the game. It's dungeons and dragons, after all. It's very unlikely that they'll ever make an edition that doesn't have oversized, flying, fire-breathing lizards. If you have dragons, you need adventurers capable of fighting them. You can design the dragons to be less powerful than in 3rd, but they'll still be beyond anything your average peasant can fight, because that's the standard conception of dragons. Dragons are supposed to be powerful.

D&D is heroic fantasy. Always has been, even with parties that aren't exactly "heroes" in the modern sense. They do things ordinary people can't, like fighting dragons and demons. They might start out not that different from normal folks, but as they gain levels, they're going to learn to do things that others can't. They're going to rise above. But if all the fighter has to bring to the table is "I hit things with my sword," he's likely to fall behind. He needs a way to get in close to do that, which means options for mobility. He needs to be able to do damage to creatures that are resistant to damage. He needs options. Heck, without options, playing a fighter becomes boring. "I roll 1d20 to hit, and then roll damage." If that's the entirety of your options in combat, you might as well write a program to take care of it for you, while you go grab some chips and a soda.

Indon
2007-09-17, 04:47 PM
He needs options. Heck, without options, playing a fighter becomes boring. "I roll 1d20 to hit, and then roll damage." If that's the entirety of your options in combat, you might as well write a program to take care of it for you, while you go grab some chips and a soda.

But what prevents the existence and use of mundane options?

D&D, as it stands, has little variety in the way of mundane mechanics, causing people to want to resort to fancy, independent, non-mundane rulesets to get their character fix. But what if there were more standard options?

Matthew
2007-09-17, 04:54 PM
*Shrugs* I'm afraid that those big challenges are just built into the game. It's dungeons and dragons, after all. It's very unlikely that they'll ever make an edition that doesn't have oversized, flying, fire-breathing lizards. If you have dragons, you need adventurers capable of fighting them. You can design the dragons to be less powerful than in 3rd, but they'll still be beyond anything your average peasant can fight, because that's the standard conception of dragons. Dragons are supposed to be powerful.

Sure, it's just the degree I'm thinking about. Dragons have gotten more and more powerful, but Commoners (and Level 1 Fighters) have remained pretty much the same. Consequently, they are becoming higher and higher level Encounters and the 'Heroes' are being beefed up along the way.


D&D is heroic fantasy. Always has been, even with parties that aren't exactly "heroes" in the modern sense. They do things ordinary people can't, like fighting dragons and demons. They might start out not that different from normal folks, but as they gain levels, they're going to learn to do things that others can't. They're going to rise above. But if all the fighter has to bring to the table is "I hit things with my sword," he's likely to fall behind. He needs a way to get in close to do that, which means options for mobility. He needs to be able to do damage to creatures that are resistant to damage. He needs options. Heck, without options, playing a fighter becomes boring. "I roll 1d20 to hit, and then roll damage." If that's the entirety of your options in combat, you might as well write a program to take care of it for you, while you go grab some chips and a soda.

It's the power increments here though, isn't it? Most of my AD&D games cover levels 1-9 or so and at Level 5 or 6 they're facing challenges that have been shifted to CR 12+ in 3e. Fighters got the crap nerfed out of them in 3e, that's very true.

Jack Mann
2007-09-17, 04:57 PM
Hey, "mundane" options are perfectly all right, so long as they let the fighter do his job. And I think that ToB did a serviceable job in this area, giving warblades plenty of good, mundane options in a fight.

dyslexicfaser
2007-09-17, 04:58 PM
I believe exactly that should be the case. Your better HD make you a little tougher, give you a better chance to survive under various kinds of duress(saves), and might give you additional tricks and knowledge(skills). You can now do the same things as commoners, maybe slightly better, or more different things. This enables you to pick out your shticks and specializations, and enables some heroics, but there is little you can do that a high-lvl specialized Warrior or Commoner couldn´t have done.
What makes you heroic is that you play the same game as the commoners, and can be a paragon and role model for them, or an intimidating figure commanding respect. Maybe you are slightly better, but they might reach up to you. You´re not only a hero because you are way more powerful. You still need to earn that distinction.
A Warblade or powerful Wizard? So far above a commoner that they can´t even see him anymore, and certainly no Paragon cause to a commoner anything he does abovve lvl 9 is Epic. You´re not a hero or the peoples champ, you are an outside force. Suddenly it´s not a human against a monster but two forces of nature clashing above our heads. They´re not rooting for their fellow man anymore, but wishing that those with these powers go away before they destroy their village.

Seriously, soon as 99,58% (I think that´s three sigma) of the NPCs don´t even compare to the PCs anymore, they lose their immersion in the world.

I feel that this is the crux of the disagreement.

You want to play a tougher commoner. And hey, that's okay. Just because he would get mauled by a wizard doesn't mean he wouldn't be fun to play.

I have no problem with playing a larger-than-life hero who can do things that are amazing. He can't stop time or bring down a swarm of meteors or whatever, but he's still much more than Joe Citizen. And I like that. No offense to Joe, there.

I look at it through the lens of the famous Comparisons article (no link off the top of my head), that demonstrates - by the numbers - that an olympic athlete is essentially level 4. Level 5's are at the peak of physical condition: they are the world-record breakers. So even regular fighters who are above level 5 are astounding, even superhuman. And if you're going to be superhuman anyway, I want to be able to do the fun stuff, too. That's all.

Indon
2007-09-17, 04:58 PM
Hey, "mundane" options are perfectly all right, so long as they let the fighter do his job. And I think that ToB did a serviceable job in this area, giving warblades plenty of good, mundane options in a fight.

What makes a maneuver any more mundane than a spell or psionic ability?

dyslexicfaser
2007-09-17, 05:02 PM
What makes a maneuver any more mundane than a spell or psionic ability?
Well, some are over the top, but pretty much all low-level maneuvers (except the 3 supernatural styles, of course) are completely and utterly mundane.

Wolf Fang Strike, for example? You get to stab someone, then punch them, too. Amazing!

Jack Mann
2007-09-17, 05:05 PM
Sure, it's just the degree I'm thinking about. Dragons have gotten more and more powerful, but Commoners (and Level 1 Fighters) have remained pretty much the same. Consequently, they are becoming higher and higher level Encounters and the 'Heroes' are being beefed up along the way.

It's the power increments here though, isn't it? Most of my AD&D games cover levels 1-9 or so and at Level 5 or 6 they're facing challenges that have been shifted to CR 12+ in 3e. Fighters got the crap nerfed out of them in 3e, that's very true.

Granted. D&D has undergone something of a power hike. Myself, I rather like that, but it's a matter of taste. But even a 5th level fighter was able to do things that Joe Peasant couldn't, or else they wouldn't have called in the fighter. It may have just boiled down to hitting harder, but there's no reason it can't be turned into a system of special moves and abilities.

Indon
2007-09-17, 05:05 PM
Wolf Fang Strike, for example? You get to stab someone, then punch them, too. Amazing!

But you still can't do it without the specialized training required to learn the ability.

And then you can only do it with certain weapons; no great clubbing someone then punching him.

Meanwhile, anyone can sunder, and with any weapon, or no weapon at all. That's a _mundane_ option.

Reel On, Love
2007-09-17, 05:06 PM
What makes a maneuver any more mundane than a spell or psionic ability?

I... uh... what?
Everything from the fact that they're (Ex) to the fact that anyone can learn them to the fact that the things all of the ones that aren't (Su) do are no more remarkable than the things feats do to the fact that they generally involve nothing more than hitting people in particularily effective ways, rather than changing the world with your mind.

Seriously. Even real combat styles have maneuvers that you can't just do over and over whenever.

Edit: that's bull. You can perform a maneuver of any school with any weapon, and anyone can learn them (Martial Study). They're different from feats because they require special training (much like anyone can learn to fight unarmed, but if you want to learn the one-inch punch you're gonna do something like Wing Chun for years).

Jack Mann
2007-09-17, 05:09 PM
What makes a maneuver any more mundane than a spell or psionic ability?

It's generally an extraordinary ability, for one (I'm disregarding supernatural maneuvers, and maneuvers that probably should be supernatural, since there are plenty of others to choose from). For another, many of them are just extensions of things a real warrior could do, along the lines of the 3rd edition fighter's special abilities (chopping a sword in half, surviving a 300 foot fall without suffering any long-term damage, actually having a chance against a dragon). It's special, in that not everyone can do it, but it's not powered by anything but the fighter's inborn talents and training.

It doesn't need to be truly realistic to maintain verisimilitude.

Matthew
2007-09-17, 05:13 PM
Well, some are over the top, but pretty much all low-level maneuvers (except the 3 supernatural styles, of course) are completely and utterly mundane.

Wolf Fang Strike, for example? You get to stab someone, then punch them, too. Amazing!

Heh, that's very true. There are plenty of Manoeuvres that should just be conventional Combat Options or perhaps Feats.


Granted. D&D has undergone something of a power hike. Myself, I rather like that, but it's a matter of taste.

Indeed, and I think that is part of the Mundane/Magical dichotomy being explored here. People's taste with regard to D&D varies as much as it does with fantasy in general.


But even a 5th level fighter was able to do things that Joe Peasant couldn't, or else they wouldn't have called in the fighter. It may have just boiled down to hitting harder, but there's no reason it can't be turned into a system of special moves and abilities.

Absolutely, the question is only one of degree, I think. It just depends on how your suspension of disbelief interacts with D&D.

Indon
2007-09-17, 05:17 PM
I... uh... what?
Everything from the fact that they're (Ex) to the fact that anyone can learn them to the fact that the things all of the ones that aren't (Su) do are no more remarkable than the things feats do to the fact that they generally involve nothing more than hitting people in particularily effective ways, rather than changing the world with your mind.


-I'll give you that they aren't classified as magic. But if you houseruled that a caster used spells but they for some reason weren't considered (Su), it still wouldn't be mundane. If anything, it seems it'd be _less_ mundane.

-Maneuvers are just as availible as spells and psionics in the D&D universe. "anyone" can learn _those_, too... with the correct set of stringent training, the 'right stuff', etc.

-Most psionic effects generally involve nothing more than hitting people (psionics being 'blastier' than spells).

-You don't need the equivalent of class levels just to hit precisely or anything like that... unless it's a Maneuver. And even then, Maneuvers are severely restrictive in how they are executed. In this respect, they are spells.



Seriously. Even real combat styles have maneuvers that you can't just do over and over whenever.

You can't stab over and over with a sword, either, you'll get tired eventually in the exact same way. But there's no mechanic for that in D&D. Maneuvers are different.

And even if there weren't, the Eldritch Blast can be done all day, how mundane is that? Would it _become_ mundane just by changing it from (Su) to (Ex), so that you're somehow shooting a blast of air? Heck, we could rename it the Sonic Boom, of Street Fighter fame.

Edit:


Heh, that's very true. There are plenty of Manoeuvres that should just be conventional Combat Options or perhaps Feats.

This is my ultimate point. We have mundane options already, and maneuvers they ain't. Instead, maneuvers are an additional magic system, reflavored to seem mundane. But maneuvers still behave like spells, they still expend like spells, and they require the same degree of criteria to attain as spells.

Reel On, Love
2007-09-17, 05:37 PM
-I'll give you that they aren't classified as magic. But if you houseruled that a caster used spells but they for some reason weren't considered (Su), it still wouldn't be mundane. If anything, it seems it'd be _less_ mundane.
It would be stupid and inappropriate to label spells as (Ex) (incidentally, they aren't labelled as (Su) or anything else) unless you wanted to seriously change the premises of the world.
But maneuvers are (Ex) in order to point out that they're just, well, extraordinary abilities. And that's appropriate. Mechanically, it just means you can use'em in a dead magic zone, but it gets the point across.


-Maneuvers are just as availible as spells and psionics in the D&D universe. "anyone" can learn _those_, too... with the correct set of stringent training, the 'right stuff', etc.
Except that's not true. Flavor-wise, often, if you don't have the talent you're screwed. Mechanically, if you don't have the right mental stat, you're screwed. If you don't take a class level, you can't do it.


-Most psionic effects generally involve nothing more than hitting people (psionics being 'blastier' than spells).
I'm not even going to dignify this with a response beyond telling you to go read the freakin' power list and pointing out that the first five powers in the list are "join an Astral Caravan trip", "create an attraction to something", "make some arrows out of nothing", "make yourself know things better", and "psionic featherfall".
Seriously, psionics are mostly hitting stuff? Are you that hard up for coherent arguments? I'm really amazed to see that posted.


-You don't need the equivalent of class levels just to hit precisely or anything like that... unless it's a Maneuver. And even then, Maneuvers are severely restrictive in how they are executed. In this respect, they are spells.
Martial Study, no class levels needed. What's more, anyone can take those class levels, even if they have 8s in all their stats.


You can't stab over and over with a sword, either, you'll get tired eventually in the exact same way. But there's no mechanic for that in D&D. Maneuvers are different.
It's not about getting tired.
If I initiate a running fléche, I'm then going to be engaged, and I can't do it again... unless I take the time to pull back.
If I'm in the Fool's Stance with my arming sword, I can't do the same things I can do if I'm in the Lower Stance.
Maneuver recovery doesn't represent this perfectly, of course, but I'd say it's better than "I trip him. I trip him. I trip him. I trip him. I trip him. I trip him."


And even if there weren't, the Eldritch Blast can be done all day, how mundane is that? Would it _become_ mundane just by changing it from (Su) to (Ex), so that you're somehow shooting a blast of air? Heck, we could rename it the Sonic Boom, of Street Fighter fame.
Obviously the Eldritch Blast isn't mundane, and no one is arguing that it is.


Edit:

This is my ultimate point. We have mundane options already, and maneuvers they ain't. Instead, maneuvers are an additional magic system, reflavored to seem mundane. But maneuvers still behave like spells, they still expend like spells, and they require the same degree of criteria to attain as spells.
We have mundane options, so anything we add can't be mundane! Wait. No.

Maneuvers are explicitly not a magic system. They are not spells. They do not act like spells. You can learn them without taking class levels, and you don't have to have a certain amount of talent (or pre-requisite mental attribute) to learn them. The only similarity is that you have to recover them before you can use them (which you do in totally unrelated ways, flavor-wise and mechanically) and they're divided into nine levels.

tbarrie
2007-09-17, 05:39 PM
Well, do Perverts exist in D&D to help further his training? :smallwink:

The average table can be expected to have one or two.

Jack Mann
2007-09-17, 05:58 PM
Well, do Perverts exist in D&D to help further his training? :smallwink:

That's pervects, thank you.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-17, 07:07 PM
The Tome of Battle Maneuvers are in general nothing a level 1 commoner couldn't do (beside the often cited Shadow Hand and Desert Wind). Seriously.

When people on the boards say that most maneuvers are just hitting someone really hard or really fast, they aren't lying. Really. Set your biases aside for a few minutes and reread the book.

The primary goal of ToB is to allow warriors to adjust their fighting styles throughout a battle. You finally get the option of fighting dragons differently than you would goblins and of trying new approaches in a fight when one thing doesn't work.

I haven't played a fighter class for more than one session at a time for four years because they weren't fun to play. I would try using a bear warrior or a Paladin, but there weren't options outside of combat and even then, it got old using and reusing the one maneuver I'd specialize in (just defending against grapples would waste half of my feats). I played Bards when the party needed a tank because whether good at their job or not, they at least have options.

That's what Tome of Battle does and it does it effectively. It, for the most part does it without any trace of using a magic system. If you taught a player to play a Warblade, he wouldn't feel at all like a spellcaster in disguise; he'd just be an ordinary mundane fighter. He wouldn't have any more visible abilities than a Warrior NPC, but he would have choices and decisions to make; more than just "roll a d20, roll damage" or [Grapple/Trip/Bull Rush/Disarm/Sunder: pick one].

Matthew
2007-09-17, 07:24 PM
Thing is, though, you don't need Tome of Battle to do that, you just need an imagination and a reasonable DM. The mechanisation of D&D is just one approach. Your Characters aren't limited to the things described in the Combat Section of the PHB (or, at least, they shouldn't be). The DMG unfortunately only touches on the subject, but it does mention it.

Reel On, Love
2007-09-17, 07:37 PM
Thing is, though, you don't need Tome of Battle to do that, you just need an imagination and a reasonable DM. The mechanisation of D&D is just one approach. Your Characters aren't limited to the things described in the Combat Section of the PHB (or, at least, they shouldn't be). The DMG unfortunately only touches on the subject, but it does mention it.

Yeah, you don't need a set of good, well-balanced, fun-to-use mechanics for anything.
But they help.

Riffington
2007-09-17, 07:40 PM
America does. There's been several local court cases where the defendants have pleaded "Your honour, he needed killin'."
Besides, it's not that they're going to be witch hunted for being evil, so much as "He's pinging evil, put him under surveillance until we find out why."
Alternately

Yeah, pretty much. I don't pretend to know what every society will do with the power to detect evil. Hell, the very existence of the spell proves the objective existence of evil, which changes moral philosophy in ways that would take me a lifetime to describe.
But I do know that some good people will use it in good ways and in harmful ways, and that societies will learn from their mistakes... and then go ahead and repeat those same mistakes.

Incidentally, I like campaigns where characters are hesitant to kill. But this is not the norm for D&D. Just look at the number of paragraphs dedicated to ways of harming or killing others (with a few short sidenotes on ways of avoiding making damage nonlethal) compared to any other endeavor. The Monster Manuals are filled with evil creatures to slay, with a lot more detail given on their combat prowess than their habits/psychology/ecology. Google gives 4 times the hits for "Melf's Acid Arrow" as opposed to "Tenser's Floating Disk"; the former also has many more substitutes.

As a philosophical point, I do not believe that there are evil people who have simply lacked the opportunity to do evil acts. Evil is a habit that must be exercised. It may take the form of malicious gossip rather than murder, but it always involves actively harming others. There are people who have become evil once they obtained power - this does not mean they were evil all along.

Matthew
2007-09-17, 07:42 PM
Yeah, you don't need a set of good, well-balanced, fun-to-use mechanics for anything.
But they help.

Sometimes they help and sometimes they don't. It's all relative to the kind of game that you play. In the case of ToB, I don't find the extra layer of rules particularly helpful as written (the non adept rules particularly suck), but that goes for a lot of 3e. That said, there is plenty there that is worth using.

Indon
2007-09-17, 09:03 PM
It would be stupid and inappropriate to label spells as (Ex) (incidentally, they aren't labelled as (Su) or anything else) unless you wanted to seriously change the premises of the world.
But maneuvers are (Ex) in order to point out that they're just, well, extraordinary abilities. And that's appropriate. Mechanically, it just means you can use'em in a dead magic zone, but it gets the point across.


Oh?

Say I make a new class. I call it the Alchemist, or somesuch. It uses "formulae", which just happen to mimic the effects of the majority of the Sor/Wiz list. A commoner can't do it without taking Alchemist class levels (or maybe they can take a feat that gives them a couple simpler formulae). When I use a formulae, I can't use it again until I 'make another batch'.

I guess my Alchemist is mundane.




Except that's not true. Flavor-wise, often, if you don't have the talent you're screwed. Mechanically, if you don't have the right mental stat, you're screwed. If you don't take a class level, you can't do it.


Flavor-wise, a Wizard and Psion achieve their powers through discipline and study... the same as the ToB classes. The Sorceror fits your description, at least. You have a point about minimum score, at least. And you can get spells and psionics from feats too (mostly spells), or even racial abilities.



I'm not even going to dignify this with a response beyond telling you to go read the freakin' power list and pointing out that the first five powers in the list are "join an Astral Caravan trip", "create an attraction to something", "make some arrows out of nothing", "make yourself know things better", and "psionic featherfall".
Seriously, psionics are mostly hitting stuff? Are you that hard up for coherent arguments? I'm really amazed to see that posted.

Isn't the first maneuvers on the list Desert Wind, the blatantly supernatural discipline?



Martial Study, no class levels needed. What's more, anyone can take those class levels, even if they have 8s in all their stats.


I'm pretty sure it's been noted in this thread that there are feats which can grant you spell-like abilities. It might have been the 4'th ed. wizards thread, though...



It's not about getting tired.
If I initiate a running fléche, I'm then going to be engaged, and I can't do it again... unless I take the time to pull back.
If I'm in the Fool's Stance with my arming sword, I can't do the same things I can do if I'm in the Lower Stance.
Maneuver recovery doesn't represent this perfectly, of course, but I'd say it's better than "I trip him. I trip him. I trip him. I trip him. I trip him. I trip him."

If I hit my opponent and somehow attain temporary near-invulnerability to injury because I hit him, nothing like that keeps me from doing it again.

And as for being interesting, that doesn't make maneuvers any more mundane; it just means that perhaps normal tactical options should have been redesigned rather than ignored in favor of a(nother) specialized ruleset.



Obviously the Eldritch Blast isn't mundane, and no one is arguing that it is.


My point was regarding rechargability.



We have mundane options, so anything we add can't be mundane! Wait. No.




Maneuvers are explicitly not a magic system. They are not spells. They do not act like spells. You can learn them without taking class levels, and you don't have to have a certain amount of talent (or pre-requisite mental attribute) to learn them. The only similarity is that you have to recover them before you can use them (which you do in totally unrelated ways, flavor-wise and mechanically) and they're divided into nine levels.

Maneuvers are a reflavored Vancian magic system. They are quite obviously 'non-magical' spells. They have save DC's, their very own system in fact. You DO need a certain amount of talent to get them; just not a mental attribute.

Maneuvers are used by rote.

Maneuvers require special abilities or class features to use, and can not be used, at any level of proficiency, untrained.

Maneuvers are divided into specialized 'schools'.

Your ability to gain higher-level maneuvers is based on your class level in designated classes, and non-designated class levels slow your maneuver progression... though there are some PrC's that give you full maneuver progression, if I'm not mistaken.

Many maneuvers have multiple, 'lesser' or 'greater' versions.

Maneuvers get written on, and are learned from, scrolls.

Oh, and there's a skill you use to identify someone using a maneuver. It's a class skill for maneuver classes.

-If I'm not mistaken, all of the above sentences work equally well if you replace the word 'maneuver' with 'spell'. However, they don't work if you replace 'maneuver' with 'combat ability' or 'special attack'.

But, perhaps here we come to a difference of opinion. If you think that all it takes for something to go from decisively non-mundane, to mundane is a reflavoring, then that's your opinion and I can't change it.

I feel that a spell by any other name is still a spell, and that the ToB is a sloppy and obvious (I'm not saying I don't find the ToB interesting, mind you) attempt to make sword-mages by reflavoring standard magic systems and modifying the mechanics where such a reflavoring failed to make any sense.

Roog
2007-09-17, 09:15 PM
For those people who say that (Ex) martial maneuvers are not mundane...

Do you consider SA to be mundane (or not), and if so what makes it different from maneuvers?



#Edit

And how about Death Attack (eg Assassin)?

Serenity
2007-09-17, 09:16 PM
Can you walk into a martial arts academy and do a perfect jump kick, or block the strikes of the head of the dojo? No. Martial artists in the real world do things that normal people can't do without extensive training. I guess my friend who's about to earn her blackbelt isn't mundane.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-17, 10:18 PM
Thing is, though, you don't need Tome of Battle to do that, you just need an imagination and a reasonable DM. The mechanisation of D&D is just one approach. Your Characters aren't limited to the things described in the Combat Section of the PHB (or, at least, they shouldn't be). The DMG unfortunately only touches on the subject, but it does mention it.
Yes, you can do useful things in combat with any class if you're intelligent, but that wasn't my point. The point I was trying to convey is the beaten-to-death one about how you can make Conan as a Warblade without him being any less mundane than he would be as a Ranger; actually he would be more so.

The cause for association between maneuvers and spellcasting is that they use a similar mechanism. If somebody were shown the ToB system without first knowing the bizarre Wizard spell preparation system, it wouldn't occur to them that they were actually casting spells. The only cause to associate Strikes with the supernatural is that WoTC used a similar and thus more balance-able mechanism to govern master swordsplay as they did to govern the calling of lightningbolts from the sky. It is a purely metagame analysis with no reflection in the character's actions.

[Edit:]

-If I'm not mistaken, all of the above sentences work equally well if you replace the word 'maneuver' with 'spell'. However, they don't work if you replace 'maneuver' with 'combat ability' or 'special attack'.
That's because all of your comments are entirely metagame-based. From a character's standpoint, as they get better at fighting (in the form of levels) they... well, get better at fighting (in the form of completely mundane maneuvers with completely mundane effects*).

*Unless you want supernatural effects for your character, in which case the option is open.

asqwasqw
2007-09-17, 10:46 PM
The thing about being mundane is that most people define it as something an average person can do given enough skill/time. Other people define it as something an average person could do if given an extension on power. So for both cases, while you can not make you sword on fire, you can be able to dodge your enemy's attacks.

But what about teleportation, stopping magical attacks? Some people consider this mundane, some do not. After all, Teleportation is just moving really fast, stopping magical attacks just a higher form of resistance. However, it is not a form of resistance that an average person could achieve given an infinite time, but something an average person could achieve given an infinite extension to his abilities.

Bosh
2007-09-17, 11:41 PM
I love mundane low/zero-magic games since you can recreate real history without worrying about how the magic would affect society. But D&D is really a very very bad system for the more mundane side of things, everything from hit points to levels works against it. Because of this I'm happy that 4ed seems to be taking a clear-cut high fantasy approach to things so that I can use 4ed for high fantasy and something else for more mundane things.

Kioran
2007-09-18, 01:55 AM
Yeah, you don't need a set of good, well-balanced, fun-to-use mechanics for anything.
But they help.

The ToB isn´t that mechanic. Ideally, an improved combat mechanic gives anyone a chance at doing things like

- jumping to grab hold of a Dragon
- Snaring him and pulling him down
- jump over the Goblins head to hit his leader

by using (wait for it....) Skills. Giving most martial classes a few more Skill ranks wouldn´t hurt, but apart from that, a charged mechanic (like spells, more so in fourth than in 3rd) like ToB with arbitrary high damage is a stopgap inserted into an already broken system. But apparently, it´s what all classes will be like in 4th ed, which makes me cry....

In martial arts, of course I can´t execute an Ushiro-Geri against an opponent in front of me in Zenkutsu-dachi - I have some limited options because of my stance, but.......I´ll let you in on a secret: I can change my relative distance and position to the opponent. I can change my stance in comat fairly easy, not only once as a swift action. I don´t run out of "x-punch", I don´t need to wait a few seconds before I could do another "x-punch", I simply need an opening.
And of course a layman could one-inch-punch. The result would be pathetic, but there´s nothing preventing him from going through the motions.

I don´t care if these are all Meta-game considerations - Metagame plays into my suspension of disbelief as well. I want the mechanics to serve the game, not be fored to constantly rationalize my twinkage(3rd. Ed Narcolepsomancer) or my "Fighter" running on Batteries (Warblade) woth some "RP". "RP" should be more than justification for the "awesome" stuff I do in combat.

Matthew
2007-09-18, 06:02 AM
Yes, you can do useful things in combat with any class if you're intelligent, but that wasn't my point. The point I was trying to convey is the beaten-to-death one about how you can make Conan as a Warblade without him being any less mundane than he would be as a Ranger; actually he would be more so.

The cause for association between maneuvers and spellcasting is that they use a similar mechanism. If somebody were shown the ToB system without first knowing the bizarre Wizard spell preparation system, it wouldn't occur to them that they were actually casting spells. The only cause to associate Strikes with the supernatural is that WoTC used a similar and thus more balance-able mechanism to govern master swordsplay as they did to govern the calling of lightningbolts from the sky. It is a purely metagame analysis with no reflection in the character's actions.

Sure, I was just pointing out that you don't need Tome of Battle to fight a Dragon differently from a Goblin.

Serenity
2007-09-18, 07:07 AM
Maybe so, but I don't think it's ever a bad idea to give the players more options unless they're mechanically unbalanced. Most DMs don't want to be adjudicating new combat rules on the fly on any regular basis.

Kiero
2007-09-18, 07:43 AM
Maybe so, but I don't think it's ever a bad idea to give the players more options unless they're mechanically unbalanced. Most DMs don't want to be adjudicating new combat rules on the fly on any regular basis.

Unless you're someone for whom "more rules" isn't a good thing. It's a bad idea if you don't like add-crunch, adding stuff isn't value neutral.

Matthew
2007-09-18, 07:48 AM
Maybe so, but I don't think it's ever a bad idea to give the players more options unless they're mechanically unbalanced. Most DMs don't want to be adjudicating new combat rules on the fly on any regular basis.

I think it depends on the format in which they're presented and how well they are integrated with the existing Rules. I don't know about most DMs, but I quite like adjudicating combat on the fly and definitely find it preferable to having to look up a rule for every unusual action.

Serenity
2007-09-18, 07:57 AM
Not every DM does, and even if they do enjoy it, they might not be very good at it. I think its ridiculous to design a game to wok off of DM fiat, because not all DMs are created equal.

nagora
2007-09-18, 08:15 AM
Not every DM does, and even if they do enjoy it, they might not be very good at it. I think its ridiculous to design a game to wok off of DM fiat, because not all DMs are created equal.

Well, if you attempt to make rules for everything instead of allowing the DM to do their job you achieve two things: 1) The game becomes a stilted and stale video-game wannabe, and 2) The DM never gets any better because s/he is constantly tied up by crappy rules instead of using their imagination.

It's impossible to rule for everything so the DM should be encouraged to make rulings and thereby make their game work for their players instead of trying to force rules, made up by another DM (and not even a good DM) for that DM's group of rather limited play-testers, to make sense.

So don't give me that "I think its ridiculous to design a game to wok off of DM fiat" routine because it's a damn sight more ridiculous to think you can make a decent game without DM fiat.

Indon
2007-09-18, 08:39 AM
The cause for association between maneuvers and spellcasting is that they use a similar mechanism. If somebody were shown the ToB system without first knowing the bizarre Wizard spell preparation system, it wouldn't occur to them that they were actually casting spells. The only cause to associate Strikes with the supernatural is that WoTC used a similar and thus more balance-able mechanism to govern master swordsplay as they did to govern the calling of lightningbolts from the sky. It is a purely metagame analysis with no reflection in the character's actions.


It's not 'more balance-able'. It's just more powerful, because it's based off spellcasting.

And it's based off spellcasting because rather than fix combat to give meleers more options that they could _all_ use, Wizards decided to make everyone spellcasters.



That's because all of your comments are entirely metagame-based. From a character's standpoint, as they get better at fighting (in the form of levels) they... well, get better at fighting (in the form of completely mundane maneuvers with completely mundane effects*).


I'm not my character. I see they aren't playing in a mundane system, but instead a poor copy of the Exalted charm system, or a reflavoring of the D&D magic system. As I already noted, I have the Exalted books. I don't need D&D to be like this. I want it to be _mundane_. I don't want to have to pick Secret-squirrel-martial-masters to do things in combat. I just want to have more things that can be done in combat.

Matthew
2007-09-18, 08:58 AM
Not every DM does, and even if they do enjoy it, they might not be very good at it. I think its ridiculous to design a game to wok off of DM fiat, because not all DMs are created equal.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but your stating the case rather strongly; I'm not talking about playing a game without rules. 3e has plenty of potential to use DM fiat and is designed so that large sections of it do work with reference to that. For instance, the DMG tells you to make up rules for combat situations not covered by the Combat Rules. That's no different from any other RPG. Whether you use supplements or not, the option is always there, it's just preference as to whether you limit yourself to what is written. The RAW (ignoring for the moment that the RAW itself tells you to make up rules and adjust the game to your taste) is not the be all and end all of D&D, it's just the basis.

There's not a lot of difference between adding a bunch of modifiers together, assigning a DC and rolling 1D20 and just assigning a percentage chance to something.

internerdj
2007-09-18, 12:43 PM
It's not 'more balance-able'. It's just more powerful, because it's based off spellcasting.

And it's based off spellcasting because rather than fix combat to give meleers more options that they could _all_ use, Wizards decided to make everyone spellcasters.

I see no reason that a game system should tie the flavor or the source to a particular ability. My ideal system would be where mechanically there would be no difference mechanically between combat casting and mundane fighting. In my mind, there is no reason that a ranged area effect damage "spell" has to be magical or fire. What is the difference between learning a "spell" which needs special preparation before use and special handling during use and uses actual physical components and me preparing a special chemical concoction that needs careful preparation, special handling to prevent my destruction or the failure of a reaction during the final use. Its all in how tightly the flavor is bound to the rules.

Free falling: while luck is often the case in many of these survival cases, people have survived falls of 33,000 feet. In 1944 a Flight sergeant fell 18,000ft without a parachute and survived completely uninjured. While they are extremely lucky about circumstances, with a PC we are talking about someone who is by design much tougher than any world record holder at high levels.

It may not be your thing but you have a much bigger propogating problem if you start saying well noone is that tough, because it sends ripples throughout the design and balance of the game. What I hear is that we should be able to do low power or high power from begining to the level cap, magic has to be balanced with mundane, and we should be able to take on any creature no matter which power level we prefer, is that right? That is a tough task and whoever does it will put everyone in the RPG business out of business for now and ever.

Telonius
2007-09-18, 12:48 PM
They let you play that guy now with the ToB.

Here, let me demonstrate:

Try any number of maneuvers, though Thicket of Blades is probably the closest.

Mobility and damage increasing maneuvers via Desert Wind. If you don't like supernatural maneuvers--a valid complaint--try Stone Drgaon: it allows you the ability to literally break through your foe's damage reduction.

Any number of maneuvers, again, though particularly those from Diamond Mind.

How about the three maneuvers in Diamond Mind (Action Before Thought, Mind Over Body, Moment Of Perfect Clarity) that let you replace a save with a Concentration check? Sounds about what you're looking for there.

Apart from the overtly supernatural disciplines (Devoted Spirit, Desert Wind, and Shadow Hand), this is applicable here.

Time Stands Still, Dancing Mongoose, Raging Mongoose, Blistering Flourish, Steel Wind...there's many ways--and to many degrees--to do this, most of which are--again--not supernatural.

This is mostly within the realm of Shadow Hand, though Diamond Mind and Stone Dragon, again, have much in the way of surpassing your foe's defenses.

...which is nearly exactly what the Warblade's description is. And, from what I posted above this, you can see that the majority of maneuvers and disciplines I indicated are not supernatural, well within the bounds of reality, and are available to the Warblade. The Warblade is what you're asking for in a Fighter, just with a different name.
EDIT: In fact, try this:
The fighter was born for conflict. Swift, strong, enduring, and utterly confident in his martial skills, he seeks to test himself against worthy foes. Battle is beautiful to him -- a perfect moment in which life hangs suspended on the bright edge of a sword. Sheer combat skill is important to a fighter, so he trains intensely with his chosen weapons. But even more important are his athleticism, endurance, daring, recklessness, and joy in the hour of danger. Fighters, often called sword princes, live for the chance to test themselves in battle -- the stronger the foe, the greater the glory once an enemy is defeated.

Abilities: Pure physical perfection is a fighter's ideal, so Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution are all vital to him. Because mastering a bewildering variety of martial maneuvers is difficult, Intelligence is also important to a fighter, because he appreciates the bonus skill points, and many of his class features reward a high Intelligence bonus. Given the choice between Wisdom and Charisma, a fighter is more likely to boost the latter -- the better to wear the mantle of glory he hopes to win with his deeds on the battlefield.

Races: The warrior cultures that give rise to fighters are most often found in human, elf, and hobgoblin lands. Admiration for athletic prowess, the martial ideal, and sheer physical daring is common among these races. The githyanki also take great pride in their martial skill, and a number of fighters can be found among this race. Dwarves appreciate a fighter's martial prowess but might shy away from overweening praise. Halflings generally admire athletic prowess, but most find the stringent requirements of this class too challenging. Half-orcs and savage humanoid races generally do not appreciate beauty in motion in quite the same way that their more civilized counterparts do; they fight to destroy their enemies, not to cover themselves in glory. Gnomes feel no particular need to try themselves in battle; they are happy with their normal pursuits.

Alignment: A fighter can choose any alignment, though many prefer chaotic over lawful. After all, a fighter seeks to win glory through individual deeds of prowess, so he is unlikely to adopt a personal code emphasizing obedience over freedom to improvise. Good fighters are champions of the weak and downtrodden; evil ones are vicious warlords who exult in the defeat and humiliation of their foes.
This is the Warblade description with "warblade" replaced with "fighter".


Sadly I do not own ToB, and won't be purchasing any new books until 4th ed comes out. Thanks for the heads-up on it.

Still, it shouldn't have taken almost the entirety of 3.x's run to make that character possible.

Indon
2007-09-18, 12:59 PM
My ideal system would be where mechanically there would be no difference mechanically between combat casting and mundane fighting.

And that's certainly a fair ideal to have. And, really, in such a system there wouldn't be any obvious mechanical tells as to what is mundane and what is not, because everything would be the same core mechanic. So description really would mark the difference between mundanity and, well, non-mundane.

But D&D is not that kind of game. D&D is a game with a primary mechanic (mostly described in core, but supplimentable through things such as variant rules), and legions of secondary mechanics governing sets of additional abilities (generally described in sourcebooks). Everyone has access to the primary mechanics. Not everyone has access to the secondary mechanics, which prevent them from being the bread-and-butter of the universe that marks something as 'mundane'.

Serenity
2007-09-18, 01:07 PM
I don't think DM fiat is a bad thing. I have never said that. Rule 0 is very important. But I also think there needs to be a very solid foundation of rules; games do not live on DM fiat alone. From what I understand of nagora's description of 1e the game required DM fiat left and right. That's fine if you've got a skilled DM with a good feel for what he can reasonably do with that fiat and how to make adjustments. If you have a less talented DM, things can easily become confusing and arbitrary.

Tome of Battle provides a mechanically well-balanced series of options for meelee types, 2/3 of which are not at all out of line with what could be achieved by great dedication and hard training. To denigrate that because 'players and DMs should already be coming up with mechanics for that on their own' seems...disingenuous.

Matthew
2007-09-18, 01:21 PM
I don't think DM fiat is a bad thing. I have never said that. Rule 0 is very important. But I also think there needs to be a very solid foundation of rules; games do not live on DM fiat alone. From what I understand of nagora's description of 1e the game required DM fiat left and right. That's fine if you've got a skilled DM with a good feel for what he can reasonably do with that fiat and how to make adjustments. If you have a less talented DM, things can easily become confusing and arbitrary.

That's the problem with second hand descriptions, you're not going to get the full story. Basically, AD&D worked on the principle that any task not described in the Rulebook had a percentage chance of success. It didn't matter what type of Dice you used, as long as they were in line with the percentage chance. You could look at it like this:

0% - Impossible Task
20% - Extremely Difficult Task
40% - Difficult Task
60% - Easy Task
80% - Very Easy Task
100% - Certain of Success

...but in actual fact every DM was left to decide this for himself. Modifying the difficulty of the task were any number of factors. You could take the Character's Race into account, his Attributes, his Class, his Level, his Background, the Circumstances, etc... This system governed everything not otherwise described.

All that 3e does is formalise these percentages and modifiers, treating them as 5% increments governed by precise mathematical formula, which can then be altered by any number of Circumstance Modifiers. It is essentially the same system, but with a lot more maths.


Tome of Battle provides a mechanically well-balanced series of options for meelee types, 2/3 of which are not at all out of line with what could be achieved by great dedication and hard training. To denigrate that because 'players and DMs should already be coming up with mechanics for that on their own' seems...disingenuous.

I'm not against Tome of Battle, it's fine for what it is. All I am saying is that, strictly speaking, if somebody sings its praises because it allows Characters to do things they should always have been able to do, then they are overlooking the fact that the RAW already gives you permission to do whatever you like. At the end of the day *everything* is up to the DM. He can include ToB or not include it, similarly he can allow your Character to do X, or not. ToB is a good resource, I'm not disputing that; personally, I feel it could stand to be better, but that's a subjective opinion.

internerdj
2007-09-18, 01:28 PM
And that's certainly a fair ideal to have. And, really, in such a system there wouldn't be any obvious mechanical tells as to what is mundane and what is not, because everything would be the same core mechanic. So description really would mark the difference between mundanity and, well, non-mundane.

But D&D is not that kind of game. D&D is a game with a primary mechanic (mostly described in core, but supplimentable through things such as variant rules), and legions of secondary mechanics governing sets of additional abilities (generally described in sourcebooks). Everyone has access to the primary mechanics. Not everyone has access to the secondary mechanics, which prevent them from being the bread-and-butter of the universe that marks something as 'mundane'.
I agree that D&D does a poor job of this separation, but I don't really agree that mundane has to be limited to primary mechnics. Again, D&D did a poor job of this, but the primary mechnics should lay out the basics of how things then very specific (read: more obscure) things should be laid out in secondary mechanics. What has to be avoided is that in these obscure paths you don't render the basic stuff unusable. In reality a boxer is a very tough opponent and boxing has 4 very mundane attacks. You put a boxer up against an eastern marital artist (equal skill level) and no matter how obscure his training, he is going to have his work cut out for him. What TOB did was the final straw that broke the basic fighter's back.

Indon
2007-09-18, 01:36 PM
I agree that D&D does a poor job of this separation, but I don't really agree that mundane has to be limited to primary mechnics. Again, D&D did a poor job of this, but the primary mechnics should lay out the basics of how things then very specific (read: more obscure) things should be laid out in secondary mechanics. What has to be avoided is that in these obscure paths you don't render the basic stuff unusable. In reality a boxer is a very tough opponent and boxing has 4 very mundane attacks. You put a boxer up against an eastern marital artist (equal skill level) and no matter how obscure his training, he is going to have his work cut out for him. What TOB did was the final straw that broke the basic fighter's back.

Aren't more 'obscure' things more 'special', and thus less mundane?

As for ToB's power inflation, well, arguably that's inevitable to some degree in a game system.

Truwar
2007-09-18, 01:37 PM
Well, if you attempt to make rules for everything instead of allowing the DM to do their job you achieve two things: 1) The game becomes a stilted and stale video-game wannabe, and 2) The DM never gets any better because s/he is constantly tied up by crappy rules instead of using their imagination.

It's impossible to rule for everything so the DM should be encouraged to make rulings and thereby make their game work for their players instead of trying to force rules, made up by another DM (and not even a good DM) for that DM's group of rather limited play-testers, to make sense.

So don't give me that "I think its ridiculous to design a game to wok off of DM fiat" routine because it's a damn sight more ridiculous to think you can make a decent game without DM fiat.

First of all, the rules are not a straightjacket for the DM, they are a framework that allows them to make decisions on the difficulty of tasks a player wishes to engage in, based on the skills and attributes the player has chosen for their character.

And while 3ed in not perfect and I am sure 4th will not be either(I believe these are the rule systems you are referring to), they provide a much easier framework to correlate the player’s ideas of what their characters can do and what the DM allows them to do.

When things rely to heavily on DM fiat it takes a lot of the story telling power away from the players because so much of their capabilities are come up with on the fly by the DM instead of chosen by them.


There's not a lot of difference between adding a bunch of modifiers together, assigning a DC and rolling 1D20 and just assigning a percentage chance to something.

Except that the percentage chance is based much less on the player’s perception of their character and much more on the DMs perception of their character.

Matthew
2007-09-18, 01:44 PM
First of all, the rules are not a straightjacket for the DM, they are a framework that allows them to make decisions on the difficulty of tasks a player wishes to engage in, based on the skills and attributes the player has chosen for their character.

And while 3ed in not perfect and I am sure 4th will not be either(I believe these are the rule systems you are referring to), they provide a much easier framework to correlate the player’s ideas of what their characters can do and what the DM allows them to do.

When things rely to heavily on DM fiat it takes a lot of the story telling power away from the players because so much of their capabilities are come up with on the fly by the DM instead of chosen by them.

You're saying this like the Player has no input as to how the percentages are decided. Co-operative games like D&D require co-operation between Player and DM, as well as Player and Player. It's not a power struggle. Ideally, the mechanics should be almost invisible to Players and so I see no real problem in having them mainly in the hands of the DM. All the same, if the Player and DM are not co-operating with one another then there is going to be a problem.


Except that the percentage chance is based much less on the player’s perception of their character and much more on the DMs perception of their character.

Not at all. It is based more on the DMs understanding of what is and is not plausible in his game (though, in 3e any number of Circumstance Modifiers can be applied to the same effect), but the Player's perception of the Character has just as much importance as it does in 3e. The only difference is that these things are neither defined nor constrained by a particular rule. Contrary to popular opinion, Fighters can sneak, hide, search, listen and observe in AD&D, probably better than they can in 3e.
That said, if you're using 2e Non Weapon Proficiencies, then the situation is much more similar to 3e.

To be clear, I have nothing against extensively and precisely defined systems, I just don't think they are, in the long run, any better than broadly defined systems.

internerdj
2007-09-18, 01:44 PM
Aren't more 'obscure' things more 'special', and thus less mundane?

As for ToB's power inflation, well, arguably that's inevitable to some degree in a game system.
I was refering to mundane vs magical. What a neurosurgeon does is not mundane (everyday for most people) nor is it magic (bending the laws of physics) but it is mundane (within the realm of believability of normal human accomplishment in that multiverse) and obscure.

That is true.

Truwar
2007-09-18, 03:49 PM
You're saying this like the Player has no input as to how the percentages are decided. Co-operative games like D&D require co-operation between Player and DM, as well as Player and Player. It's not a power struggle. Ideally, the mechanics should be almost invisible to Players and so I see no real problem in having them mainly in the hands of the DM. All the same, if the Player and DM are not co-operating with one another then there is going to be a problem.

I am not saying that a player has NO input in how percentages are decided, I am saying that the player has LESS input in how percentages are determined. In AD&D, if a player thinks of his fighter as an excellent jumper but the DM does not imagine the character in the same way, the percentage chance a DM assigns the fighter to jump a gorge is not going to reflect the players notion of their character.

The DM and Player could sit down and decide all of the skills a character is good at before hand but this would basically be an ad-hoc version of the 3ed skill rules. It is not a matter of the DM & Player not cooperating, it is a matter of the Dm not being able to read the player’s mind.


Not at all. It is based more on the DMs understanding of what is and is not plausible in his game (though, in 3e any number of Circumstance Modifiers can be applied to the same effect), but the Player's perception of the Character has just as much importance as it does in 3e. The only difference is that these things are neither defined nor constrained by a particular rule. Contrary to popular opinion, Fighters can sneak, hide, search, listen and observe in AD&D, probably better than they can in 3e.
That said, if you're using 2e Non Weapon Proficiencies, then the situation is much more similar to 3e.

I agree that 2e AD&D NWP are much more similar to 3e and I view 3e as a simple evolution of these rules. The 3e rule system simply allows the player to explain HOW good a jumper he is to the DM in a quantified format.

I do have to disagree that the player’s vision of the character has as much importance in a system where DMs make on the fly decisions on the difficulty of a task for a character based on a less defined description of a character than he would get in 3.

That being said, I think it all comes down to what players and DMs are comfortable with. Neither end of the spectrum is good, in my opinion. On one end you would have someone basically reading the players a story with no input and on the other end you have “videogame” format.

If you love AD&D, more power to you. I loved playing AD&D (heck I loved playing Basic D&D) but I also enjoy 3e. It all comes down to the style of play you are comfortable with. I simply think it is unfair to say that more definition of player abilities through rules = bad roleplay.

Matthew
2007-09-18, 04:09 PM
I am not saying that a player has NO input in how percentages are decided, I am saying that the player has LESS input in how percentages are determined. In AD&D, if a player thinks of his fighter as an excellent jumper but the DM does not imagine the character in the same way, the percentage chance a DM assigns the fighter to jump a gorge is not going to reflect the players notion of their character.

The DM and Player could sit down and decide all of the skills a character is good at before hand but this would basically be an ad-hoc version of the 3ed skill rules. It is not a matter of the DM & Player not cooperating, it is a matter of the Dm not being able to read the player’s mind.

And what I am saying is that this is not the case. The DM can still over rule a Player in 3e and prevent him spending Character Points on his Jumping Skill or apply Circumstance Modifiers that make him specifically less good at jumping (oh, you've got a gammy leg, -2 Circumstance Penalty).
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear here. AD&D is an ad hoc version of 3e; the difference between the two is mostly one of formalisation. I don't think this is bad, I just think it's different.


I agree that 2e AD&D NWP are much more similar to 3e and I view 3e as a simple evolution of these rules. The 3e rule system simply allows the player to explain HOW good a jumper he is to the DM in a quantified format.

I do have to disagree that the player’s vision of the character has as much importance in a system where DMs make on the fly decisions on the difficulty of a task for a character based on a less defined description of a character than he would get in 3.

That being said, I think it all comes down to what players and DMs are comfortable with. Neither end of the spectrum is good, in my opinion. On one end you would have someone basically reading the players a story with no input and on the other end you have “videogame” format.

You can well disagree, but I don't see how it can be supported. If the Player tells the DM "my Character is good at jumping", then the DM can take that into consideration. Indeed, you can be a better jumper than you could be in 3e or a worse one. It's entirely up to the Player and the DM.
I don't think that putting the game into the hands of the DM creates a story telling atmosphere. The only difference you have in a Skill assigned system and a non Skill assigned system is how the DM determines what you have to roll. The outcome is the same. You have to roll X.


If you love AD&D, more power to you. I loved playing AD&D (heck I loved playing Basic D&D) but I also enjoy 3e. It all comes down to the style of play you are comfortable with. I simply think it is unfair to say that more definition of player abilities through rules = bad roleplay.

Please understand that I have nothing against 3e or increased character definition by numbers. I just don't think that it is any better and I can do without the additional complications when building NPCs. 1e and 2e have their share of problems, just the same. All RPGs do.

Indon
2007-09-18, 04:17 PM
I was refering to mundane vs magical. What a neurosurgeon does is not mundane (everyday for most people) nor is it magic (bending the laws of physics) but it is mundane (within the realm of believability of normal human accomplishment in that multiverse) and obscure.


But when a player wants to play a 'mundane' character, isn't what they want often a combination of both?

Such a player might not want to cast fireballs, but a +1 sword is, despite being magical, hardly noticable to them; common magical items are, essentially, mundane to them.

nagora
2007-09-18, 04:23 PM
I am not saying that a player has NO input in how percentages are decided, I am saying that the player has LESS input in how percentages are determined. In AD&D, if a player thinks of his fighter as an excellent jumper but the DM does not imagine the character in the same way, the percentage chance a DM assigns the fighter to jump a gorge is not going to reflect the players notion of their character.

Well, that's a communication breakdown. How's the DM supposed to allow for the character's abilities if the player never tells them? (I much prefer, both as player and DM, for the DM to hand out PCs and then surprise the PLAYER with what the character can do, but that's another story).


The DM and Player could sit down and decide all of the skills a character is good at before hand but this would basically be an ad-hoc version of the 3ed skill rules.

No, I've seen it work many times in many games. Ad hoc system would probably be an improvement with any experienced DM. For beginners, I'd admit that even the 3ed skill rules would probably be better.


It is not a matter of the DM & Player not cooperating, it is a matter of the Dm not being able to read the player’s mind.

Well, exactly! If it's not on the character sheet or mentioned in the player's introduction to the character then how's the DM to know?


I do have to disagree that the player’s vision of the character has as much importance in a system where DMs make on the fly decisions on the difficulty of a task for a character based on a less defined description of a character than he would get in 3.

I disagree with your disagreement! Mostly because you are mistaking numbers for character definition. The mass of numbers on a 3ed character sheet are instead of character description. They are crude abstractions that pale beside a decent player's verbal backstory of their character and what s/he is good at. Skill levels are fine for tournament play where you have to pin things down but they're really not that much use for real social roleplaying with a bunch of mates in a campaign where everyone knows each other's characters well.

This is what I meant about wanting feats to be unique to characters: a feat that's just picked off a list is boring; it means nothing except a bunch of bonuses to some souless die roll somewhere. I want to look at a character sheet and think "Wow! there must be a great story about where that feat came from!" and then have the player tell me about the adventure where she learnt the Shield Leap or the Spear Dance or the Secret of the 8th Point. That's a good game, not piles of bloody numbers.

If characters start out mundane it makes the marvels they can do later all the greater and all the more fun. When everyone has feats and magic, feats and magic become mundane and ultimately I can get all the mundane I need at work.


If you love AD&D, more power to you. I loved playing AD&D (heck I loved playing Basic D&D) but I also enjoy 3e. It all comes down to the style of play you are comfortable with. I simply think it is unfair to say that more definition of player abilities through rules = bad roleplay.

It does if the designer's ideas are too inflexible and the players are unwilling to move beyond the rules when those rules no longer serve the game-reality.

Truwar
2007-09-18, 05:07 PM
Well, that's a communication breakdown. How's the DM supposed to allow for the character's abilities if the player never tells them? (I much prefer, both as player and DM, for the DM to hand out PCs and then surprise the PLAYER with what the character can do, but that's another story).

No that is not another story; that is EXACTLY why you like AD&D better than 3ed. and that is the prime difference between AD&D and 3ed. It is not a communication breakdown when the DM does not have exactly the same picture in his mind that the player does.

In theory you could write a background that would provide just as much information about your characters capabilities as a 3ed character sheet but then would just have a pile of words that tell EXACTLY the same story as the pile of numbers. It seems to me that you enjoy a game where the DM has more direct influence over what kind of characters the players are playing.

That is fine and it lends itself well to AD&D but I think it is inaccurate to describe 3ed. as some kind of soulless dumbed down version of AD&D because it quantifies characters in a slightly different way.


Well, exactly! If it's not on the character sheet or mentioned in the player's introduction to the character then how's the DM to know?

That is exactly the point of the 3ed skill system. It gives a general idea to the DM of how the player sees his character. When paired with a good background it is a very handy tool for conveying the player’s vision of their PC.


I disagree with your disagreement! Mostly because you are mistaking numbers for character definition. The mass of numbers on a 3ed character sheet are instead of character description. They are crude abstractions that pale beside a decent player's verbal backstory of their character and what s/he is good at. Skill levels are fine for tournament play where you have to pin things down but they're really not that much use for real social roleplaying with a bunch of mates in a campaign where everyone knows each other's characters well.

This is what I meant about wanting feats to be unique to characters: a feat that's just picked off a list is boring; it means nothing except a bunch of bonuses to some souless die roll somewhere. I want to look at a character sheet and think "Wow! there must be a great story about where that feat came from!" and then have the player tell me about the adventure where she learnt the Shield Leap or the Spear Dance or the Secret of the 8th Point. That's a good game, not piles of bloody numbers.

If characters start out mundane it makes the marvels they can do later all the greater and all the more fun. When everyone has feats and magic, feats and magic become mundane and ultimately I can get all the mundane I need at work.

I fear I am going to have to disagree with your disagreeing with my disagreement… ((at least I think so…:smallsmile: )) Just because Power Attack is the same feat name for whatever character takes it, does not mean it must be absent of a good rp description. You could easily call your power attack “the Strike of the Raptor” and go in to loving detail about it is a high arching attack that batters down your opponents defense like an enraged bird of prey.

You could just as easily be a bad rp’er playing AD&D. “My fighter attacks” is even more boring than “My fighter power attacks for three points”. Not MUCH more boring but still every bit as soulless and free of RP as the 3e characters “power attack”. Good rp and a solid set of rules are not mutually exclusive things.