Critiquing the "Guy At The Gym" Fallacy

[AntiAuthority]

EDIT: This thread's line of thought has moved far beyond my OP, anyway, if anyone wants to PM me about any martial fixes they have for high level martials, or what they feel about superhuman martials should be capable of from a conceptual level, go for it, I look forward to reading interpretations on them.


Before we begin, I want to say that this is my first post here, and I’ve read a few other threads about the Martial-Caster Disparity, Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard, and the “Guy at the Gym” Fallacy… So I decided to put my own thoughts on the subject into words, and see what other people interested in the subject have to say about it. These are just my opinion, but I do want to see what others have to say on the matter. This started out as me writing about the parts of the fallacy I noticed and problems with it, but then sort of took on a life of its own and I decided to post this here.

I’m going to say up front, I’m not going to tell you not to play a completely mundane character if you want to, that’s not what this is about. What I am going to point out is that a Level 20 character is anything but mundane though.
Let me know your thoughts on this if you agree or disagree. Or if the formatting is too confusing...
I wrote this mostly with 3.5E/Pathfinder and D&D 5E in mind, but I feel it can apply across the various editions of D&D (and derivatives), so I put it in the general Roleplaying Games forum. By the way, please let me know if this violates any forum rules.

The Guy At The Gym Fallacy in a nutshell: Mundane/martial characters should be limited to the limits of what is possible in our world. Magic is exempt from this same logic.

How it can manifest:

SCENARIO 1:
Player: So I’d like to use my sword to cleave through this door… I do about 70 points of damage
DM: Sorry, but that’s a steel door.
Player: But cannonballs do less damage than my attack on average…
DM: It’s not humanly possible, I don’t care if your character can do this much damage in a single round. You’re still just a guy with a sword.

SCENARIO 2:
Caster Player: I cast Fly and soar off the building! Let’s see them catch me now!
Martial Player: I jump off the building! The enemy can’t follow me down here with how little hit points they have!
GM: Caster Player, you’ve flown away from them and appear to be safe.
Caster Player: Yeah!
GM: Martial Player, you’re dead.
Martial Player: Why!?
GM: You jumped off a 50 story building and landed on concrete.
Martial Player: But my Hit Points-
GM: No human being could survive that, I don’t care how many hit points you have...
Martial Player: But I tanked like 5 Fireballs on the way here, I got clubbed by a Hill Giant last week and a Dragon set me on fire earlier yesterday!
GM: I don’t care, it’s not humanly possible to survive a fall from that height. And Hit Points are just an abstraction of damage, you’re not really tanking those blows… But fine… Most of the bones in your body are broken.
Martial Player: *Noticeable Frustration*

SCENARIO 3:
Martial Player: Ok, I do 200 points of damage to the Adult Red Dragon… Is it dead?
GM: Yes. Your swings had enough strength behind them to kill the mighty beast.
Martial Player: Ok, I’ll try to get through the locked door it was guarding…
GM: Yeah, it’s a thick metal door, you can’t bust through it.

On the surface, these might seem reasonable to some people… But there are huge amounts of cognitive dissonance at play here. The thing is, people want to hold martial characters (also known as mundane characters) to the same standards as a regular human being, while allowing magical characters to be able to do things that are outright impossible because “it’s magic.” Martial characters are essentially being told to just be what a guy at the gym in our world can do, while magical characters are allowed to become omni-magic gods.

It’s odd because the martial characters are routinely breaking the physics of our world through the amount of damage they can inflict and endure. The DM in this scenario is selectively ignoring the logical consequences of everything that should happen if they want to hold these characters to the boundaries of people in our world.
Let’s go ahead and continue the above scenarios of what the GM would consider perfectly reasonable despite limiting them afterwards.

SCENARIO 1 EXTENDED:
Player: So I’m through the door…
GM: You caused a lot of noise, about 12 guards are rushing towards you.
Player: Ok, I go ahead and engage them.
*Several Rounds later*
GM: You’ve killed all 12 of the guards and barely taken any damage.

Note: This is particularly strange, as I doubt anyone in the real world could kill 12 heavily armed men that have the home field advantage. Even trained MMA fighters say they’d probably run if they had to fight against 2 or more people. This character is both held outside the realms of our physical limitations and also within it at the same time, depending solely on what the GM considers possible. Then again, there is a legend of a Viking warrior killing 100 men before going down, but I doubt he was allowing them to surround him like the character in this scenario was, so… Possible I suppose.

SCENARIO 2 EXTENDED:
DM: You broke your legs…
Martial Player: Yeah…
Caster: I cast Regenerate/Heal!
DM: Your legs are now healed. Just in time too, because the enemy just released their two Enlarged Tyrannosauruses near where you are.
Martial Player:… Ok, I’ll attack.
*Several rounds later*
DM: You killed the two enlarged dinosaurs with your sword, what now?

Note: This part in particular is very confusing, as there is no way normal human being could possibly defeat an animal as large as dinosaur with just a sword and shield. If this is a Barbarian with no armor, it gets even more jarring. Now take into account that dinosaurs weighed several tons by themselves, these are Enlarged dinosaurs… No human being on our planet, whether they’re a weight lifter or a heavily trained warrior, is going to be able to kill such a massive animal in melee. They’d be lucky if the first hit didn’t just kill them on the spot. Let alone fighting two. This character is blatantly superhuman in terms of durability and striking power, but the DM still treats him like a regular human despite doing things that are physically impossible in our world.

SCENARIO THREE EXTENDED:
Player: So… I can’t get through the thick door…
DM: No, but you can probably find the key somewhere…
Player: But aren’t dragons basically reality warpers and have scales harder than metal? Why can I kill one of them but not get through this door?
DM: Not humanly possible…

Note: The DM is ok with having this character kill what amounts to a giant monster that, realistically, shouldn’t be bothered by the tiny mortal poking it with what amounts to a needle. Then the same DM wants this character to be hindered by something like a locked door.

As you can see, this is very confusing and makes it clear that the boundaries of what martial characters can do are an arbitrary line based solely preconceived notions that don’t hold up under even the most basic of questions.

Hit Points Are An Abstraction of Damage:

There are players who believe Hit Points are an abstraction of damage and they don’t represent physical durability. Because martial characters are just normal people, it’s impossible they’re surviving these types of attacks. This is another extension of the Guy at the Gym Fallacy, as someone who trains their body extensively isn’t going to be able to survive much more damage than the average person… There are, however, a few problems with the opinion Hit Points aren’t physical durability as well.

Hit Points Represent Dodging:

I’ll be the first to say that yes, it can represent that to a degree. Not in the sense that you’re completely dodging an attack, so much as you’re turning the blow into a glancing one. Understandable… Except it doesn’t really make sense for the much more powerful monsters.

Characters who do this regularly are superhuman in terms of reflexes. Take real world fighters for example, they’re able to dodge some attacks from other human beings, but nobody is perfect enough to dodge every single attack thrown at them ever. Now keep in these, that professional martial artists can get hit by other human beings… This brings up two things that should outright show PCs are superhuman.


These normal human beings are so incredibly skilled at dodging that they’re able to dodge attacks from monsters and beings many times more powerful than the average man. These completely normal human beings are dodging attacks from ogres, trolls, giants, lions, tigers, bears, dinosaurs, armies of well trained men, dragons, eldritch abominations and demigods all the time… Every single fight. That is so far beyond anything anyone in the real world can do that there is no way these characters can be called normal or even peak human. If MMA fighters can get punched by other MMA fighters, I seriously doubt something as powerful as even an Ogre would have trouble hitting a peak human warrior. Or show me a man who goes into the wilderness and regularly fights dens of lions with melee weapons (or his bare hands) without getting hit once.

There is a form of dodging, yes, it’s called AC. When something gets pass your AC, it actually hurts you, so you are taking damage when you take hit point damage…

What’s being regenerated when a monster with Fast Healing or Regeneration starts getting Hit Points back every round? They’re regenerating dodges?



In summation, being able to dodge attacks entirely is ok for AC, but HP probably represents physical durability to a degree.

Hit Points Represent Mitigating Damage:

I have no problem with this either, but a glancing blow from getting punched by a human is probably not the same thing as a glancing blow from something like a Frost Giant. This is part of the previous point about “Hit Points Represent Dodging”. And mitigating damage has another term: Damage Reduction.

Hit Points Represent Plot Armor:

About that… This goes both ways for Hit Points. If Hit Points are called Plot Armor, what’s being healed when a character drinks a potion or a cleric casts Cure Wounds? They’re not called Cure Plot Armor. Same issue with Fast Healing and Regeneration on monsters, are they regenerating plot armor every round? And if it isn’t durability, that means that the second a Monster hits 0 HP or whatever negative value would kill it, it goes from “perfectly healthy giant monster” to “dead giant monster” in the span of 6 seconds.

Hit Points Don’t Represent Physical Durability:

This one in particular has a large issue with it. If Hit Points don’t represent durability, then it works both ways… So not only are these characters with hundreds of hit points just as vulnerable as a normal human being, so are the monsters. Let’s take this to its natural conclusion…


That Troll got ran through by a sword, doesn’t matter how many hit points it has or can regenerate, it’s just dead. Hit Points don’t represent physical durability, so this automatically kills it.

A Fighter with 200 hit points has their throat slit by someone in their sleep. They’re just normal human beings.

A Fire Giant is just as likely to die from getting shot in the head by a pistol as average man. Hit Points aren’t durability, so it’s just as dead as a man when shot by a bullet.

An Ancient Red Dragon is just as likely to die from some hobo shanking it in its sleep. Once again, Hit Points don’t recognize durability so it’s as dead as a normal human being in this scenario, regardless of how many hit points it has.

You can kill the Tarrasque by hitting it really hard in the skull with a hammer.



See the issue here? If Hit Points don’t matter, there’s nothing stopping an ordinary human being from just sneaking up on something like the Tarrasque and slitting its throat… And since Hit Points don’t represent durability or health, it’s just as dead as anything else that has its throat slit. Regeneration is just an abstraction of damage too by the same logic, as regenerating plot armor won’t bring you back from death. Damage Reduction is also an abstraction of what’s happening, since it affects Hit Points, which aren’t related to actual health, so it shouldn’t matter either if you get a slit throat.

Think of it this way… The average human has less hit points than a large, predatory animal. A large predatory animal has more hit points to represent their toughness/durability. Magical beasts (such as the Tarrasque) have more hit points than large, predatory animals to represent their toughness. PCs have more hit points than some of these creatures to represent how tough they are. If you want Hit Points to not represent durability, then it should be applied to everything, otherwise it’s just a double standard.

It Reduces Martials to NPCs.

In a way, the current rules (to an extent) and opinions of Martial characters as being “Guys at the Gym” reduces them from legendary heroes to what would be NPCs in any other story. There’s nothing special or extraordinary about this character, he’s just a normal person who is there solely because the audience needs someone to identify with. Would you enjoy playing the Audience Surrogate who needs to be saved and is only alive because the main antagonist doesn’t consider you as much of a threat as say Dr. Strange? If you want to be that person, alright, but it would make much more sense if such a character were a low level character traveling with much higher level characters, or playing an NPC, instead of insisting a Level 20 Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue/Monk character is just a really skilled person who can somehow take on reality warping demi-gods. If you want to play a normal human fighting against impossibly overpowered enemies, why not just play a much lower character or an NPC, as that’s what they would amount to in a team based story.

It Means Casters and Martials Are Playing Two Different Games.

I’ve seen this on a few different forums, but the gist of it is, “Martials are playing Lord of the Rings, Casters are playing Mythology, Anime and Comics”.

Imagine Martials are playing as Aragorn, Gimli, and John McClane and in general fantasy and action heroes… While Casters are playing as Dr. Strange, Bayonetta, Zeus, and Naruto. It’d be more fair if Martials got to be more along the lines of Ryu Hayabusa, Kratos, Dante, Goku, Cu Chulainn or Thor, but as it stands the “Guy At The Gym” Fallacy keeps Martials much lower than Casters of the same level.

It Reduces Levels to Completely Arbitrary Numbers.

This one in particular is really disturbing. A Level 20 character is expected to be able to face off against things that would be considered far beyond the reach of an ordinary human being… By saying “Levels don’t matter” it removes the entire concept of even having levels at all. If a Level 20 Fighter can be beaten by a Level 10 Wizard, the concept of Levels don’t mean anything in regards to martial classes.

The strongest CREATURES in OUR world are at the lower end of midlevel.

In both D&D 3.5E and D&D 5E, even the mightiest of the dinosaurs like the tyrannosaurus is just CR 8-9. By even having levels (and appropriately being able to handle things with the appropriate CR) that go into the double digits, characters are already more powerful than the most powerful animals to walk our world… So why treat them like they’re still confined by our limitations?

“Because It’s Magic!”

I don’t quite understand why magic gets a free pass but martial might doesn’t. Using spell components in the real world won’t let you make a fire ball, neither will picking up a sword let you cleave a large animal in two with a single blow like high level martials can. The arguments that magic doesn’t have to be explained while martials being able to perform superhuman feats is also pretty hypocritical, as it’s giving one a free pass but ignoring another valid answer solely because of preconceived ideas. Either casters get a free pass, and martials do too, or neither do and both need to be explained.

Magic Is Supposed To Be Superior To Weapons.

… Based on what? There’s nothing to really support this beyond people saying it is. Just saying, “Because magic” isn’t more of an explanation than me saying, “Because training.” In some settings, magic is actually inferior to just picking up a gun or a sword and just killing your enemy, so why must it be superior here? This explanation in particular just sounds like an appeal to emotion without anything to back it up.

What’s the Justification for Training Making You Superhuman?

What’s the justification for reading books making you a reality warper? The same logic applies, only magic gets a pass because “it’s magic” which isn’t any more of a reason than training really hard makes you beyond human.

Martial Characters Were Divine In Some Way In Mythologies, So They’d Need To be Divine In the Game Too To Justify Being Superhuman

True, but Merlin was part demon and Gandalf was essentially an angel. By using this logic, you’re giving them a free pass because magic.

If we wanted to apply the same logic, Wizards shouldn’t be able to become nearly as powerful as they are through studying, as they would need to have a divine lineage to be able to do anything. That means Wizards need to be explained too, as only Sorcerers are able to use magic if we use this reasoning. If Wizards can get a free pass because they studied really hard, why can’t martials get one too by training really hard?

Also, I could just be forgetting parts of the story, but Beowulf was not divine in any way and he could swim for days on end and not be able to use normal swords without shattering them because of how strong he was.

Level 20 is Peak Human:

No, not even close. At the present moment, the world’s best human wouldn’t break into the double digits in terms of level. A Level 10 character is expected to be able to hold their own against beasts like Frost Giants and predator dinosaurs, as well as being able to easily dispatch of things like large, modern predatory animals.
A Level 20 character would be capable of:


Surviving getting mauled by several large, predatory animals at once and be fine.

Get shot a bunch and be able to sleep it off.

Stroll through lava.

Jump out of planes without parachutes and be fine.

Down several containers of poisons and be perfectly fine.

Dodge lightning strikes and explosions at near point blank range.

Routinely defeat animals capable of easily killing a normal man… Who here thinks Conner McGregor would be able to go punch out several bears with incredible easy? Mike Tyson? Muhammad Ali?



For sake of reference, a tyrannosaurus isn’t even a CR 10 creature. A Level 20 character would destroy several CR 10 creatures. No human being on the planet would be able to defeat a CR 4+ creature with their bare hands and come out of it only slightly annoyed.


Captain America is Peak Human, but he’s not Level 20.
Action Heroes are Peak Human, but they’re not Level 20 either.
A highly trained soldier isn’t Level 20 either.
Real world fighters are NOT Level 20.
Level 20 characters share CR with (or are at least around the same ball park) and are expected to fight things like reality warping demon lords, dragons, eldritch abominations, etc… Mike Tyson in his prime isn’t going to punch out an elephant, let alone a Balor or an Adult Red Dragon. Mike Tyson is nowhere near Level 20. People who believe he is, is why the fallacy exists.
So… Let’s go ahead and look at something interesting (to me anyway).
Frost Giants, those things that Thor fights, are CR 9.
A Tyrannosaurus, those giant animals that would destroy even the world’s best warrior in melee, is CR 9.
A Gorilla (AKA ape), one of those animals that would maul anyone in the real world is beyond CR 4 in both 3.5E and 5E. There are videos online showing how powerful l they are.
Brown Bears are below CR5… They would also maul any real world human being in melee.
All except the Frost Giants are real world creatures, and like I said, all of them are below CR 10. A Level 20 character is far beyond that. A Level 20 character, regardless of class, is beyond the power of our strongest animals so shouldn’t be held by the same limitations as them.



“D&D/Pathfinder and other such games model settings in the vein of Lord of the Rings.”

Actually, D&D/Pathfinder doesn’t have a particular setting in mind. It has the standard fantasy tropes, along with classes like Monks (Eastern fantasy, where superhuman warriors are common), Psions (psychics are not in traditional fantasy), creatures from various world mythologies and eldritch abominations taken from the Cthulhu Mythos. There’s also aliens in Pathfinder, not too sure about D&D though. Regardless of game or edition, I think the second ki using monks are introduced, you shouldn’t limit yourself to traditional fantasy tropes. These games are a Fantasy Kitchen Sink, they don’t accurately model one particular setting, and trying to force the “completely mundane warrior” into such a setting is simply trying to force your personal preferences onto other players.

It’s Too Wuxia/Anime to Have Superhuman Warriors.

Monks are powered by ki, and Shonen anime has ki in it to explain why the characters can perform the superhuman feats present… So why is this an issue to anyone? Monks are already in the game, as is ki, and Martials in general are already performing blatantly superhuman feats from numbers alone.

Also, there’s a feat called Smash from the Air for D&D 3.5E/Pathfinder that lets characters at Level 9 (well, ones with +9 BAB) smash ballista bolts and boulders from the air as long as they’re considered a projectile weapon… So the Martial is clearly superhuman in this instance. No one is going to see a guy smash a flying boulder out of the air with a sword and think, “Yeah, that’s completely within the realms of a normal human.” That’s something I’d expect from anime, not Lord of the Rings.

And about it being too anime/wuxia… It’s not so much that, as anime looks a lot like mythology.

Hercules held up the sky and split a continent because he didn’t feel like taking the long way around it.

Thor made canyons by hitting mountains really hard, lowered the ocean by drinking it and lifted the world serpent to the point where it was feared he might accidentally destroy the world.

Beowulf, as I mentioned above, could swim for days, tore off Grendel’s arm, swam down for about a day or so (been a while since I read the story), and couldn’t use the swords of ordinary men without shattering them because of his strength.

Cu Chulainn could throw stone pillars around, lift up a portion of a castle, killed a man by throwing a chess piece through his skull and use a stone from a sling to kill hundreds of people.

Sun Wu Kong could leap incredibly long distances and battle the armies of Heaven when he felt like it.

The “Guy At The Gym” Fallacy Taken To Its Logical Conclusion (No Double Standards).

This is what the Guy At The Gym Fallacy would look like if you wanted to really enforce the limitations of real life onto a fantasy game.

Whenever a character of any class doesn’t have the right AC to dodge an attack by something CR 4+… You’re dead. Doesn’t matter how many hit points you have, you just die because “nobody in the real world could survive getting hit by something this strong.”

The second a spell like Fireball is used, “You all are dead if you fail the save, and the rest of you are crippled if you do… And no, Rogue, I don’t care if you take no damage from your class, nobody can dodge an explosion at point blank and not get a little injured.”

You fail a save to dodge a spiked pit trap? “You’re dead, nobody is surviving getting impaled by all those spikes. Your hit points aren’t going to help you here.”

Whenever a character hits another character with an absurdly high amount of damage, “Yeah, you hit it for 100 damage… But because of how much force you hit the enemy with, your sword and the bones in your arms are shattered because people can’t hit things that hard without hurting themselves.”

Whenever a high level martial character is forced to fight a large monster in melee, “Yeah, so, that 100 points of damage isn’t getting really doing much… You’re the size of this thing’s fingernail, how do you expect to even damage it? I don’t care if it’s a magic sword or not, imagine an ant trying to kill you by biting your toe, it’s not going to happen unless you have an allergic reaction to it. Oh, it attacks and you’re dead. Yeah, AC doesn’t matter when all it has to do is raise its foot and lower it on you.”

This next part is also what I feel is applicable if this fallacy is also applied to Casters too, since if Martials are just regular people then…

“Magic doesn’t exist in the real world, so a Level 20 Wizard is just David Copperfield at max level… Yeah, that’s fun, right?”

“I don’t care what your spells say, a Level 20 Cleric is just a mega preacher, use your flock of followers to get stuff done.”

“A Level 20 Druid is just a hippy who likes animals. They can’t turn into a bear, but they take drugs that make them hallucinate becoming a bear… And no, you can’t talk to animals either.”

Does it sound fun to limit fantastic characters to the limits of what real people can do? Why apply it to just martials but not everyone? Why apply selective limits on fantasy characters to the limits of what real world people can do at all? If a fantasy magic user can be a reality warper that surpass mythological/anime/comic book casters, why not let fantasy martials be able to pull off some mythological/anime/comic book levels of power? If a fantasy martial is limited to what real world people can do, so should fantasy casters, otherwise it’s just a double standard.

This also brings up serious questions I have about how these normal human beings are even alive long enough to make it to Level 20, as realistically, anything should be capable of one shotting them. I also have to wonder why anyone would even bother bringing this person on a journey into the Abyss/Hell/whatever.

Then It’d Just Be Giving Them Magic With a Different Name

Not particularly, as a lot of what I, and I hope others, would like to see from Martials with skills and abilities appropriate for their level isn’t necessarily magic. There’s no casting, it works in an anti-magic field, and it’s done because the characters are just so inhumanly strong that they can pull off things like leaping miles into the air and cleaving mountains in half. If we qualify anything that isn’t possible in our world as magic, then literally the Hulk, Superman, Spider-Man, Goku, Kenshiro and all other martial characters are casters… Which I don’t agree with, as a lot of them have a distinction between spellcasters and incredibly powerful warriors.

I’m not even against letting martials cleave holes into other planes of existence through being just so superhumanly skilled at cutting things, or letting Rogues be so skilled at stealing things that they can pick metaphorical locks. Would it be magic? If mythological heroes violating the laws of physics counts as magic, then yes… Otherwise, no.

In summation.

I’m not against people wanting to play ordinary, down to earth heroes, but those characters probably wouldn’t be above Level 10 at the most… It’d be like arguing a Level 20 Cleric is a mega priest instead of someone approaching the level of a demi-god.

Wanting to play such characters are fine, but it’d probably be less confusing to put the proper level on them and maybe just play an NPC at that point, otherwise you’d end up with trying to pass off someone like Dr. Strange as Merlin when the levels are completely different.

As an aside, I’d like to say I think it would be better if the classes were more transparent with how superhuman characters are after a certain level. A Level 20 Barbarian feels far less powerful than a character at Level 20 should be.

[The Insanity]

Try this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?588107-What-exactly-is-the-quot-guy-at-the-gym-fallacy-quot) thread.

[Drache64]

Try this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?588107-What-exactly-is-the-quot-guy-at-the-gym-fallacy-quot) thread.

That's a necro-thread He can't comment there. I also think he's better off creating a new thread with a solid premise that can inspire better discussion.

Hello, AntiAuthority!

Welcome to the play ground, great first post conversation!

I think you make a lot of solid points I will consider as a DM. I think this is not a system agnostic issue however, I think 5e makes things more grounded to an extent, whereas a Pathfinder/3.5 allow things to get a bit more out of control.

I would expect a 3.5/PF barbarian to reach demigod level feats, I would think a 5e Barbarian is more or less just a very skilled combatant with crazy resistance. Essentially street level Luke Cage vs Hulk.

Though I would like to add that I am currently playing a Caster Goliath with 14 STR and I get treated as much stronger than the Aaricokra (SP?) Paladin with an 16-18 in STR simply because I am a Goliath.

This is a fallacy I see many DMs do simply because I play a Goliath, they tend to favor them as strong imposing characters regardless of playstyle or stats.

[The Insanity]

That's a necro-thread He can't comment there.
He can't. It's closed. He can read it tho.

[Koo Rehtorb]

People who object to the fact that D&D devolves into fantasy superheroes/anime bull**** would be better served by playing a different system that avoids that sort of thing. If you insist on playing D&D you ought to lean into the absurdities inherent to the system.

[Cluedrew]

To Antiauthority: I think we are going to get along. This is well organized, well argued and well formatted. I think the scenario 1 & 3 are kind of the same but other than that this is a well polished essay. Admittedly I agree with everything I read in it so maybe I'm just biased. Also your name gives me hope.

[Son of A Lich!]

I'd like to add that Vancian Spell Casting (Having spells "Prepared" that are fired off a finate amount of times in a day, typically) is a violation of Grod's Law - You can't and won't balance something by making it complicated to use.

When we get into the Quadratic caster problem, I usually say it's often unfair for later level play when some monsters are designed to have qualities that require (Or at least, are easily solvable by) spells slots being expended either in benefit of the Martial or that the Martial has X item that alleviates this. This creates a rift in teamwork, not encourages it. For example, Black Dragons usually live in Swamps and have wings. Monks are not natively proficient in ranged weapons aside from darts (and Javelins? I think? AFB right now, but I'm almost 100% sure they can't use Bow and arrows). If I don't have the Black Dragon in a cave (Which is an odd place to set up camp in a swamp), the Monk has to have a means of attacking at range or flight. Further, Black Dragons have acid breath and Monks have good Dex saves, but no native means of protecting themselves from said Acid damage. Further, Black Dragons have Spell casting and no native means of countering spells. So, the Casters in the party have to make some decisions on what is the best use of their actions to keep the Monk in the fight at all.

In other words, the Monk is actively weakening the greatest strength of the Casters abilities - they have to make sure he can participate in the fight in the first place by using their resources to enhance the Monk to their level.

If I were to drop something like a ring of flying prior to this encounter, the only reason the Monk needs it more then the Wizard or Cleric is that the Monk has no native means to fly... but if a wizard can cast a spell to allow him to fly, it allows the wizard to stay further out of harms way while the Monk would use it to get into harms way, by nature of being a Monk. Further, some of the few advantages Monks do have is in mobility which a ring of Flying would actively be a detriment to. Leap of the Clouds doesn't mean much if you can fly.

When playing with new players who don't have experience in D&D, and I tell them to play whatever class speaks to them, they usually steer away from spell casters because it's more complicated, but the Bards and Clerics/Druids and wizards that do play spell casters, they tend to get really frustrated when people start competing for magic items to let them step up to the spell casters level.

Either way, the magic items saves them a spell slot that don't have to cast anymore either on themselves or on their Mundane team mates, but more often then not, it makes it feel like a chore to make sure your team mates have the ability to do what the game is expected to have available to them. Resist elements, Magic attacks of some kind to get around resistances (Why do Rangers get one-uped by Wizards in Killing Werewolves!?), Elemental attacks to capitalize on weaknesses, a way to undo Debuffs used by your opponents, and so so many more examples that are just soaked into the bones of this system.

Not to mention straight up instances where Magic is the only means of overcoming a problem. A Barbarian isn't going to lift a block of stone or something to undo Petrification for example.

The argument that Wizards only have so many spell slots available and have to pick out their spells ahead of time is a red herring - Unless a wizard is very new to the system, they aren't going to prepare "Leomund's instant counting" as a first level spell slot when Shield is available to them. And if you ever have a spell prepared that you wish you didn't, just ignore it exists and don't prepare it again. Instead, prepare what you wish you did have prepared in that instance.

Then, the problem becomes constantly putting your party on a clock so that the limited spell slots becomes an issue... except it isn't, because if going in without spell slots is going to cause a defeat of the party (See above, with the black dragon example), then the party has the choice of almost automatically losing OR waiting until day break to get spell slots back and taking a half victory (Yes, the children were devoured by the hag, but the Hag has been slain so no more children will be eaten).

"But what if the Wizard doesn't have that spell prepared" is NOT a counter argument I listen too, anymore. I've run too many games where wizards are able to trivialize encounters single handily without going Nova. If they do go Nova, the party drops everything to take a long rest so he can be at full strength.

This is why I want to use M&M to play D&D from here on out.

[Max_Killjoy]

Part of the problem is the inverse guy in the gym fallacy -- the way some gamers insist that their martial characters who can do all these things and who are supposed to be balanced with high-level casters... are still utterly mundane and not "extra-normal" or superhuman or magical at all. That is, THEY insist that their martial character IS the "guy at the gym", and that this "guy at the gym" is able to take down epic wizards and demigods and ancient dragons.

I'd also add that this issue is NOT setting or system agnostic. It's a big problem in the D&D series of systems... much less of a problem or not a problem at all in other systems.

[Mechalich]

“Because It’s Magic!”

I don’t quite understand why magic gets a free pass but martial might doesn’t. Using spell components in the real world won’t let you make a fire ball, neither will picking up a sword let you cleave a large animal in two with a single blow like high level martials can. The arguments that magic doesn’t have to be explained while martials being able to perform superhuman feats is also pretty hypocritical, as it’s giving one a free pass but ignoring another valid answer solely because of preconceived ideas. Either casters get a free pass, and martials do too, or neither do and both need to be explained.

In D&D, 'magic' means drawing on some other force than just muscles and nerves. That force varies, ranging from hacking the code of reality (arcane magic), borrowing power from a divine entity (divine magic), channeling the power of the mind (psionics), and a whole bunch of other obscure forms including monk Ki and so on. D&D absolutely allows martials to acquire supernatural powers through various means, but just training your body is supposed to have limits roughly in the normal human zone.

There is a reason for this setup, and it has to do with overall world design methodology. The idea is that you take a 'normal' medieval world and then you add magical elements rather than making an explicitly magical world. The problem D&D has - especially editions from 3e onwards - is that it adds too much magic. There's too much frosting on the cake.


What’s the Justification for Training Making You Superhuman?

What’s the justification for reading books making you a reality warper? The same logic applies, only magic gets a pass because “it’s magic” which isn’t any more of a reason than training really hard makes you beyond human.

There is a justification for being a reality warper in D&D - there's actually several since there are various different methods for becoming one. There isn't one for training really hard to become superman. That doesn't necessarily mean there shouldn't be, just that there isn't in standard D&D. You can add a new one - Tome of Battle kind of does - and that's a perfectly acceptable approach.


“D&D/Pathfinder and other such games model settings in the vein of Lord of the Rings.”

Actually, D&D/Pathfinder doesn’t have a particular setting in mind. It has the standard fantasy tropes, along with classes like Monks (Eastern fantasy, where superhuman warriors are common), Psions (psychics are not in traditional fantasy), creatures from various world mythologies and eldritch abominations taken from the Cthulhu Mythos. There’s also aliens in Pathfinder, not too sure about D&D though. Regardless of game or edition, I think the second ki using monks are introduced, you shouldn’t limit yourself to traditional fantasy tropes. These games are a Fantasy Kitchen Sink, they don’t accurately model one particular setting, and trying to force the “completely mundane warrior” into such a setting is simply trying to force your personal preferences onto other players.

There are literally hundreds of D&D novels, spread across several settings. We absolutely do know what sort of setting D&D/Pathfinder has in mind. It's not Lord of the Rings level, true, but it's nowhere near the level of power displayed by high Tier, high Optimization 3.X edition characters. The worlds that D&D wants to be (even though it fails to model them properly) restrict the presence of magic and with the exception of the highest reaches of the mighty still allow normal humans with normal human abilities to contribute.


The “Guy At The Gym” Fallacy Taken To Its Logical Conclusion (No Double Standards).

This is what the Guy At The Gym Fallacy would look like if you wanted to really enforce the limitations of real life onto a fantasy game.

Whenever a character of any class doesn’t have the right AC to dodge an attack by something CR 4+… You’re dead. Doesn’t matter how many hit points you have, you just die because “nobody in the real world could survive getting hit by something this strong.”

The second a spell like Fireball is used, “You all are dead if you fail the save, and the rest of you are crippled if you do… And no, Rogue, I don’t care if you take no damage from your class, nobody can dodge an explosion at point blank and not get a little injured.”

You fail a save to dodge a spiked pit trap? “You’re dead, nobody is surviving getting impaled by all those spikes. Your hit points aren’t going to help you here.”

Whenever a character hits another character with an absurdly high amount of damage, “Yeah, you hit it for 100 damage… But because of how much force you hit the enemy with, your sword and the bones in your arms are shattered because people can’t hit things that hard without hurting themselves.”

Whenever a high level martial character is forced to fight a large monster in melee, “Yeah, so, that 100 points of damage isn’t getting really doing much… You’re the size of this thing’s fingernail, how do you expect to even damage it? I don’t care if it’s a magic sword or not, imagine an ant trying to kill you by biting your toe, it’s not going to happen unless you have an allergic reaction to it. Oh, it attacks and you’re dead. Yeah, AC doesn’t matter when all it has to do is raise its foot and lower it on you.”

You're exaggerating here, a lot. First of all, many CR 4+ monsters aren't particularly physically strong at all. A CR 11 Hezrou only has a strength of 21, significantly weaker than a rhino, and people do survive getting hit and even gored by rhinos. With regard to fireball, explosions are funny and do weird things, besides, a fireball doesn't project any solid matter on its own, making actually less dangerous than your average grenade, which is by no means an instant kill to everyone in a room if you toss one in. A fall into a pit trap might not be fatal, depending upon armor, how much force you fall with, how you hit, and a lot more. People can and do kill very large animals in melee - humans have been killing elephants with spears since the stone tool era, large animals have large arteries and can be sliced and bled to death if you know what you're doing.


Does it sound fun to limit fantastic characters to the limits of what real people can do? Why apply it to just martials but not everyone? Why apply selective limits on fantasy characters to the limits of what real world people can do at all? If a fantasy magic user can be a reality warper that surpass mythological/anime/comic book casters, why not let fantasy martials be able to pull off some mythological/anime/comic book levels of power? If a fantasy martial is limited to what real world people can do, so should fantasy casters, otherwise it’s just a double standard.

The existence of viable martial characters who are simply normal humans in a setting does not mean you can't have characters with supernatural powers and still have balance between the two groups. It just means there's a ceiling on how powerful those characters can be. This ceiling is dynamic and depends on how much technology the normal humans have access too. A world in which an infantryman walks around in powered Iron Man armor can have adventures alongside a wizard of far greater power than a guy with a steel sword and chain mail.


Then It’d Just Be Giving Them Magic With a Different Name

Not particularly, as a lot of what I, and I hope others, would like to see from Martials with skills and abilities appropriate for their level isn’t necessarily magic. There’s no casting, it works in an anti-magic field, and it’s done because the characters are just so inhumanly strong that they can pull off things like leaping miles into the air and cleaving mountains in half. If we qualify anything that isn’t possible in our world as magic, then literally the Hulk, Superman, Spider-Man, Goku, Kenshiro and all other martial characters are casters… Which I don’t agree with, as a lot of them have a distinction between spellcasters and incredibly powerful warriors.

I’m not even against letting martials cleave holes into other planes of existence through being just so superhumanly skilled at cutting things, or letting Rogues be so skilled at stealing things that they can pick metaphorical locks. Would it be magic? If mythological heroes violating the laws of physics counts as magic, then yes… Otherwise, no.

Mythological heroes violating the laws of physics absolutely counts as magic. Any violation of the laws of physics qualifies, for a sufficiently broad definition of magic. If you want to be super-generic you can call it 'phlebotinum-dependent' but it doesn't really matter. The fact that characters with superpowers can have different kinds of superpowers with completely different flavors, focuses, and justifications has nothing to do with the difference between characters who have superpowers and those who do not.


Part of the problem is the inverse guy in the gym fallacy -- the way some gamers insist that their martial characters who can do all these things and who are supposed to be balanced with high-level casters... are still utterly mundane and not "extra-normal" or superhuman or magical at all. That is, THEY insist that their martial character IS the "guy at the gym", and that this "guy at the gym" is able to take down epic wizards and demigods and ancient dragons.

Many gamers are extremely hesitant to embrace the reality that, in fantasy world X, only the powered people matter and everyone else is a helpless drone doomed to suffer at their merest whim. They want the mundane peasant to be able to take down the evil wizard, because as long as they can carry that particular torch they have a light against the overwhelming grimdark of a fantasy setting where only a tiny number of high-level people matter and the best you can hope to be is their pet. Exalted, it is worth noting, was actually brave enough to come out and build a setting where only the Exalted mattered, and really only a sub-fraction of those (700 people were the only ones of consequence in the whole world), and that setting is positively drowning in grimdark.

Superhero settings - which is what you get if you give D&D martials power equal to the casters - have huge issues that rely on massive quantities of cognitive dissonance both to function and to avoid falling into their own grimdark pit. I suspect a lot of support for the 'inverse guy at the gym' including by many well known fantasy novelists, comes from this place.

[Max_Killjoy]

Mythological heroes violating the laws of physics absolutely counts as magic. Any violation of the laws of physics qualifies, for a sufficiently broad definition of magic. If you want to be super-generic you can call it 'phlebotinum-dependent' but it doesn't really matter. The fact that characters with superpowers can have different kinds of superpowers with completely different flavors, focuses, and justifications has nothing to do with the difference between characters who have superpowers and those who do not.


Because some players don't like "magic" used in a broad sense and kept taking it to mean "spellcasting" or similar even when it's explained that a far broader meaning is intended... some of us started using terms like "extra-normal".




Many gamers are extremely hesitant to embrace the reality that, in fantasy world X, only the powered people matter and everyone else is a helpless drone doomed to suffer at their merest whim. They want the mundane peasant to be able to take down the evil wizard, because as long as they can carry that particular torch they have a light against the overwhelming grimdark of a fantasy setting where only a tiny number of high-level people matter and the best you can hope to be is their pet. Exalted, it is worth noting, was actually brave enough to come out and build a setting where only the Exalted mattered, and really only a sub-fraction of those (700 people were the only ones of consequence in the whole world), and that setting is positively drowning in grimdark.

Superhero settings - which is what you get if you give D&D martials power equal to the casters - have huge issues that rely on massive quantities of cognitive dissonance both to function and to avoid falling into their own grimdark pit. I suspect a lot of support for the 'inverse guy at the gym' including by many well known fantasy novelists, comes from this place.


From past conversations, there's also the factor of "my heroes from fantasy were extraordinary men, but fundamentally human and not magic at all, who defeated sorcerers and warlocks through the strength of their arm and the wits of their head and the grit of their heart and the steel of their sword." They want to play Conan or the like, defeating the wicked diabolist or dark necromancer. If there's a wizard ally, they're like the wizard in the Conan movie. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, it's a huge part of the genre and can be a lot of fun... but D&D just is not the system for that campaign.

[Cluedrew]

Mythological heroes violating the laws of physics absolutely counts as magic. Any violation of the laws of physics qualifies, for a sufficiently broad definition of magic.You know I often joke that I have four definitions of the word magic. Today or yesterday I counted them and realized the list had grown to 5.

However here only two of them are important: the literary definition of magic which is what is impossible in real life but possible in the story and the thematic definition of magic covering hidden secrets, divine intervention and occult forces. Mythological heroes breaking our laws of physics is the former but may not be the second. Being stronger than a real human could be just because you trained hard (and maybe have good genes from a divine parent) isn't magic. There is no hidden secret... OK a kind of indirect divine intervention but definitely no occult forces. (And that isn't what I meant by divine intervention, if it was any setting created by gods would entirely be magic.)

So what I guess I am saying is "for a sufficiently broad definition of magic" is the problem because often in these discussions aren't using the broader definitions of magic, but a narrower one that has to do with the look and feel and not the mere plausibility of it all. Of course I don't know if AntiAuthority was using this meaning, but the post makes more sense if they were, so I figured they were. There is a The Giant quote about assumptions fitting the text that would go well here.

[Mechalich]

From past conversations, there's also the factor of "my heroes from fantasy were extraordinary men, but fundamentally human and not magic at all, who defeated sorcerers and warlocks through the strength of their arm and the wits of their head and the grit of their heart and the steel of their sword." They want to play Conan or the like, defeating the wicked diabolist or dark necromancer. If there's a wizard ally, they're like the wizard in the Conan movie. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, it's a huge part of the genre and can be a lot of fun... but D&D just is not the system for that campaign.

Well, D&D works okay for that campaign...in E6. It is entirely possible for a party of characters who are mostly mortal and don't have an explicitly innate superhuman powers (they probably have a bunch of gear) to defeat a level necromancer or a CR 12 Young Adult dragon. It's also possible for a thousand man army to take down a tribe of frost giants, but not a platoon of vrocks.

D&D is discordant. A huge amount of D&D fiction is based on having an E6-style world, limiting the presence of high-level casters, powerful monsters, and the like. Heck, in the original Dragonlance Chronicles, the dragons themselves are straight up smaller than they would later become. At the same time, there's also D&D fiction about high-level wizards running around and manipulating reality on a scale that renders armies and swords irrelevant and the juggling act to try and pretend you can have both these things in the same world (FR most notably) is constant and I'm pretty sure requires a massive amount of cognitive dissonance on the part of Ed Greenwood.

D&D's development involving working from a lot of sources - Nehwon is probably the best example - that had guy at the gym martials with a solid ceiling on their capabilities who faced down supernatural threats that did not exceed the ability of such persons (with a modest boost from equipment or intelligence) to defeat, while at the same time also containing characters with access to supernatural powers that were exponentially greater but who were 'plot-device only elements.' Ningauble and Sheelba could turn Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser inside out with a thought, but they just...don't. The initial design of D&D unfortunately took examples that weren't capable of operating as characters on the same playing field and conflated them together.


So what I guess I am saying is "for a sufficiently broad definition of magic" is the problem because often in these discussions aren't using the broader definitions of magic, but a narrower one that has to do with the look and feel and not the mere plausibility of it all. Of course I don't know if AntiAuthority was using this meaning, but the post makes more sense if they were, so I figured they were. There is a The Giant quote about assumptions fitting the text that would go well here.

The thing is, its the broader definition that matters, not the look and the feel.

Basically there are several ways to produce a fictional world.

Method One: the world fundamentally follows the same rules as our own with regard to physical laws in ordinary circumstances, but there are extraordinary circumstances were those laws can be violated. I would summarize this as 'Normal, but...' This is the most common way to build a fantasy world and the overwhelming majority of settings are built this way.

Method Two: the world is fundamentally different from the known universe and follows a completely different set of laws. It's an outright magical world. However, whatever the rules to this world might be, they apply everywhere. There's no 'magic' there's simply the powers that exist in this world according to the new physical laws. This method is common in 'everyone has magic' types of fantasy settings. Jim Butcher's Codex Alera setting, where every object is tied to a 'fury' based around one of the classic elements, works this way.

Method Three: the world is fundamentally different from our own at the level of physical laws and there's ways to violate those laws too as a form of 'magic.' Settings of this nature tend to have major coherency problems, because it is often difficult to tell what is responsible for what. Warhammer 40K probably qualifies as a good example. Many isekai anime also do this - as the fantasy world will have some particular rule set and the titular character will have the special ability to violate those rules because they're from another world.

Method Four: screw the rules. Worlds of this nature simply do not have internal consistency. There are no laws of physics there is only what the narrative demands. This is more common then you might think and includes new worlds created in stories heavy on folklore (many of the works of Charles de Lint), magical realism (Pan's Labyrinth), or cosmic horror (HP Lovecrafts dreamlands stories).

For game purposes you're generally making a world using either Method One or Method Two. The trick here is that building a world with any sort of decent verisimilitude using the latter is really, really hard (Codex Alera, which I mentioned above, if a fun set of action-adventure novels, but totally fails this test). Outright magical worlds are therefore more common in video games, which can drastically limit the ability of characters to interact with their worlds and therefore simply shunt everything that doesn't make sense off-screen. JRPGs do this all the time.

In tabletop, however, characters can go anywhere, do anything they want, and they can interact with society in far more complex ways than 'go into the dungeon/ruined city/hellscape and kill the elder evil.' It is impossible to detail a magical world sufficiently that it will anticipate what players will actually try to do within it, in order to make the game work you have either provide some sort of default scenario for GMs to fall back on or you have to say 'f-it, everything is crazy' which tends to mean giving up and going down the method four path (Planescape does this, as do some other dimension-hopping type games) but this has storytelling.

We can see how the fallback method works best in the case of games that are set in the present day on Earth. The genius of Vampire: the Masquerade, for example, was the word 'masquerade' a plausible explanation for how you could have our world in the late 20th century + vampires (VtM has tons of problems, but the masquerade idea at the core is a solid one). In fantasy games like D&D the backdrop can't be the modern world, so instead the design simply turns the clock back 6-12 centuries to the Medieval Period and establishes that as the new default. That's a wildly imperfect method, since it doesn't properly consider the impacts of the supernatural on how development occurred, but it's a workable one. However, you can only do this in a Method One design. An inherently magical world will not produce a recognizably quasi-medieval world, instead it will produce something unique that is dependent upon its magical system. Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight Archive is a useful example here, because he made a fairly determined effort to determine how his world would actually work and absolutely everything is different, down to the basic ecology.

So the difference between 'gained superpowers by just training really hard' versus 'gained superpowers by studying the secrets of sword BS' isn't just semantic, it reflects a fundamental difference in how the fantasy world functions.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, D&D works okay for that campaign...in E6. It is entirely possible for a party of characters who are mostly mortal and don't have an explicitly innate superhuman powers (they probably have a bunch of gear) to defeat a level necromancer or a CR 12 Young Adult dragon. It's also possible for a thousand man army to take down a tribe of frost giants, but not a platoon of vrocks.

D&D is discordant. A huge amount of D&D fiction is based on having an E6-style world, limiting the presence of high-level casters, powerful monsters, and the like. Heck, in the original Dragonlance Chronicles, the dragons themselves are straight up smaller than they would later become. At the same time, there's also D&D fiction about high-level wizards running around and manipulating reality on a scale that renders armies and swords irrelevant and the juggling act to try and pretend you can have both these things in the same world (FR most notably) is constant and I'm pretty sure requires a massive amount of cognitive dissonance on the part of Ed Greenwood.

D&D's development involving working from a lot of sources - Nehwon is probably the best example - that had guy at the gym martials with a solid ceiling on their capabilities who faced down supernatural threats that did not exceed the ability of such persons (with a modest boost from equipment or intelligence) to defeat, while at the same time also containing characters with access to supernatural powers that were exponentially greater but who were 'plot-device only elements.' Ningauble and Sheelba could turn Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser inside out with a thought, but they just...don't. The initial design of D&D unfortunately took examples that weren't capable of operating as characters on the same playing field and conflated them together.




The thing is, its the broader definition that matters, not the look and the feel.

Basically there are several ways to produce a fictional world.

Method One: the world fundamentally follows the same rules as our own with regard to physical laws in ordinary circumstances, but there are extraordinary circumstances were those laws can be violated. I would summarize this as 'Normal, but...' This is the most common way to build a fantasy world and the overwhelming majority of settings are built this way.

Method Two: the world is fundamentally different from the known universe and follows a completely different set of laws. It's an outright magical world. However, whatever the rules to this world might be, they apply everywhere. There's no 'magic' there's simply the powers that exist in this world according to the new physical laws. This method is common in 'everyone has magic' types of fantasy settings. Jim Butcher's Codex Alera setting, where every object is tied to a 'fury' based around one of the classic elements, works this way.

Method Three: the world is fundamentally different from our own at the level of physical laws and there's ways to violate those laws too as a form of 'magic.' Settings of this nature tend to have major coherency problems, because it is often difficult to tell what is responsible for what. Warhammer 40K probably qualifies as a good example. Many isekai anime also do this - as the fantasy world will have some particular rule set and the titular character will have the special ability to violate those rules because they're from another world.

Method Four: screw the rules. Worlds of this nature simply do not have internal consistency. There are no laws of physics there is only what the narrative demands. This is more common then you might think and includes new worlds created in stories heavy on folklore (many of the works of Charles de Lint), magical realism (Pan's Labyrinth), or cosmic horror (HP Lovecrafts dreamlands stories).

For game purposes you're generally making a world using either Method One or Method Two. The trick here is that building a world with any sort of decent verisimilitude using the latter is really, really hard (Codex Alera, which I mentioned above, if a fun set of action-adventure novels, but totally fails this test). Outright magical worlds are therefore more common in video games, which can drastically limit the ability of characters to interact with their worlds and therefore simply shunt everything that doesn't make sense off-screen. JRPGs do this all the time.

In tabletop, however, characters can go anywhere, do anything they want, and they can interact with society in far more complex ways than 'go into the dungeon/ruined city/hellscape and kill the elder evil.' It is impossible to detail a magical world sufficiently that it will anticipate what players will actually try to do within it, in order to make the game work you have either provide some sort of default scenario for GMs to fall back on or you have to say 'f-it, everything is crazy' which tends to mean giving up and going down the method four path (Planescape does this, as do some other dimension-hopping type games) but this has storytelling.

We can see how the fallback method works best in the case of games that are set in the present day on Earth. The genius of Vampire: the Masquerade, for example, was the word 'masquerade' a plausible explanation for how you could have our world in the late 20th century + vampires (VtM has tons of problems, but the masquerade idea at the core is a solid one). In fantasy games like D&D the backdrop can't be the modern world, so instead the design simply turns the clock back 6-12 centuries to the Medieval Period and establishes that as the new default. That's a wildly imperfect method, since it doesn't properly consider the impacts of the supernatural on how development occurred, but it's a workable one. However, you can only do this in a Method One design. An inherently magical world will not produce a recognizably quasi-medieval world, instead it will produce something unique that is dependent upon its magical system. Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight Archive is a useful example here, because he made a fairly determined effort to determine how his world would actually work and absolutely everything is different, down to the basic ecology.

So the difference between 'gained superpowers by just training really hard' versus 'gained superpowers by studying the secrets of sword BS' isn't just semantic, it reflects a fundamental difference in how the fantasy world functions.



I think we've both tried to explain these two things, in our own ways, multiple times, whenever this sort of topic comes up.

IMO, "guy at the gym" fallacy, both straight and inverse, is just a symptom of actual problems, not the core problem itself. And those problems are in the incoherent "have it all ways at once" worldbuilding, and in trying to cram multiple dissonant incompatible inspirations into a single game.

[AntiAuthority]

Was not expecting this many replies so soon, so I'm going to reply to various people in one post, as I wasn't sure how the forum looks on double/triple posting.


Link .

I read it before I decided to start this thread, noticed it hadn't been updated in a while so decided to start my own.


That's a necro-thread He can't comment there. I also think he's better off creating a new thread with a solid premise that can inspire better discussion.

Hello, AntiAuthority!

Welcome to the play ground, great first post conversation!

I think you make a lot of solid points I will consider as a DM. I think this is not a system agnostic issue however, I think 5e makes things more grounded to an extent, whereas a Pathfinder/3.5 allow things to get a bit more out of control.

I would expect a 3.5/PF barbarian to reach demigod level feats, I would think a 5e Barbarian is more or less just a very skilled combatant with crazy resistance. Essentially street level Luke Cage vs Hulk.

Though I would like to add that I am currently playing a Caster Goliath with 14 STR and I get treated as much stronger than the Aaricokra (SP?) Paladin with an 16-18 in STR simply because I am a Goliath.

This is a fallacy I see many DMs do simply because I play a Goliath, they tend to favor them as strong imposing characters regardless of playstyle or stats.

Thank you for the welcome! And yeah, that doesn't sound fair, I rolled up a Half-Orc and got 18 in strength and would be annoyed if my Half-Orc with a higher strength was treated as weaker than someone with a lower score. And fair enough about Barbarians, but adding on Great Weapon Master helps with dealing a lot of damage, my DM has voiced frustrations that my character is too tanky to kill quickly and is doing a lot of damage... I almost killed a sphinx and he was frustrated because it wasn't supposed to be that easy for characters of our level to kill, and my character does it almost single handedly (though I did get two Nat 20s back to back, coupled with Great Weapon Master gave me another attack... Though I forgot to apply Savage Attack from being a Half-Orc).


People who object to the fact that D&D devolves into fantasy superheroes/anime bull**** would be better served by playing a different system that avoids that sort of thing. If you insist on playing D&D you ought to lean into the absurdities inherent to the system.

True, I really don't see how "normal guys" can survive against something like a Balor.


To Antiauthority: I think we are going to get along. This is well organized, well argued and well formatted. I think the scenario 1 & 3 are kind of the same but other than that this is a well polished essay. Admittedly I agree with everything I read in it so maybe I'm just biased. Also your name gives me hope.

I can kind of see what you mean, I was mostly just trying to cover the three parts of the fallacy I had an issue with... Normal guys should have died the second a dragon attacks them. And glad I inspired hope in someone.


I'd like to add that Vancian Spell Casting (Having spells "Prepared" that are fired off a finate amount of times in a day, typically) is a violation of Grod's Law - You can't and won't balance something by making it complicated to use.

When we get into the Quadratic caster problem, I usually say it's often unfair for later level play when some monsters are designed to have qualities that require (Or at least, are easily solvable by) spells slots being expended either in benefit of the Martial or that the Martial has X item that alleviates this. This creates a rift in teamwork, not encourages it. For example, Black Dragons usually live in Swamps and have wings. Monks are not natively proficient in ranged weapons aside from darts (and Javelins? I think? AFB right now, but I'm almost 100% sure they can't use Bow and arrows). If I don't have the Black Dragon in a cave (Which is an odd place to set up camp in a swamp), the Monk has to have a means of attacking at range or flight. Further, Black Dragons have acid breath and Monks have good Dex saves, but no native means of protecting themselves from said Acid damage. Further, Black Dragons have Spell casting and no native means of countering spells. So, the Casters in the party have to make some decisions on what is the best use of their actions to keep the Monk in the fight at all.

In other words, the Monk is actively weakening the greatest strength of the Casters abilities - they have to make sure he can participate in the fight in the first place by using their resources to enhance the Monk to their level.

If I were to drop something like a ring of flying prior to this encounter, the only reason the Monk needs it more then the Wizard or Cleric is that the Monk has no native means to fly... but if a wizard can cast a spell to allow him to fly, it allows the wizard to stay further out of harms way while the Monk would use it to get into harms way, by nature of being a Monk. Further, some of the few advantages Monks do have is in mobility which a ring of Flying would actively be a detriment to. Leap of the Clouds doesn't mean much if you can fly.

When playing with new players who don't have experience in D&D, and I tell them to play whatever class speaks to them, they usually steer away from spell casters because it's more complicated, but the Bards and Clerics/Druids and wizards that do play spell casters, they tend to get really frustrated when people start competing for magic items to let them step up to the spell casters level.

Either way, the magic items saves them a spell slot that don't have to cast anymore either on themselves or on their Mundane team mates, but more often then not, it makes it feel like a chore to make sure your team mates have the ability to do what the game is expected to have available to them. Resist elements, Magic attacks of some kind to get around resistances (Why do Rangers get one-uped by Wizards in Killing Werewolves!?), Elemental attacks to capitalize on weaknesses, a way to undo Debuffs used by your opponents, and so so many more examples that are just soaked into the bones of this system.

Not to mention straight up instances where Magic is the only means of overcoming a problem. A Barbarian isn't going to lift a block of stone or something to undo Petrification for example.

The argument that Wizards only have so many spell slots available and have to pick out their spells ahead of time is a red herring - Unless a wizard is very new to the system, they aren't going to prepare "Leomund's instant counting" as a first level spell slot when Shield is available to them. And if you ever have a spell prepared that you wish you didn't, just ignore it exists and don't prepare it again. Instead, prepare what you wish you did have prepared in that instance.

Then, the problem becomes constantly putting your party on a clock so that the limited spell slots becomes an issue... except it isn't, because if going in without spell slots is going to cause a defeat of the party (See above, with the black dragon example), then the party has the choice of almost automatically losing OR waiting until day break to get spell slots back and taking a half victory (Yes, the children were devoured by the hag, but the Hag has been slain so no more children will be eaten).

"But what if the Wizard doesn't have that spell prepared" is NOT a counter argument I listen too, anymore. I've run too many games where wizards are able to trivialize encounters single handily without going Nova. If they do go Nova, the party drops everything to take a long rest so he can be at full strength.

This is why I want to use M&M to play D&D from here on out.

I agree entirely, I don't like playing casters because of how complicated memorizing their spells can be. It gave me choice paralysis the first few times I tried playing them, as I was unsure of what type of spells to use.

And yes, a Monk would need a Wizard to remain relevant in a fight against a flying enemy like a dragon. The Monk isn't an equal, so much as someone the Wizard has to focus on keeping alive/useful during the fight while the Wizard figures out if sparing a few spells would be worth protecting their ally or not.


Part of the problem is the inverse guy in the gym fallacy -- the way some gamers insist that their martial characters who can do all these things and who are supposed to be balanced with high-level casters... are still utterly mundane and not "extra-normal" or superhuman or magical at all. That is, THEY insist that their martial character IS the "guy at the gym", and that this "guy at the gym" is able to take down epic wizards and demigods and ancient dragons.

I'd also add that this issue is NOT setting or system agnostic. It's a big problem in the D&D series of systems... much less of a problem or not a problem at all in other systems.

Yeah, I've seen posts where people try to claim their completely normal character is somehow surviving strikes from giant monsters and leaving because they don't want to play a superhuman character. Like I said, just play a low level PC or an NPC, that makes way more sense.

And if it's not system agnostic, should it be moved to another forum or is this one ok?


In D&D, 'magic' means drawing on some other force than just muscles and nerves. That force varies, ranging from hacking the code of reality (arcane magic), borrowing power from a divine entity (divine magic), channeling the power of the mind (psionics), and a whole bunch of other obscure forms including monk Ki and so on. D&D absolutely allows martials to acquire supernatural powers through various means, but just training your body is supposed to have limits roughly in the normal human zone.

Where is it stated that D&D martials have to have normal human limitations? Simply by leveling up and gaining feats, they're capable of doing a lot more damage than a real world human being can handle, along with enduring it.




There is a justification for being a reality warper in D&D - there's actually several since there are various different methods for becoming one. There isn't one for training really hard to become superman. That doesn't necessarily mean there shouldn't be, just that there isn't in standard D&D. You can add a new one - Tome of Battle kind of does - and that's a perfectly acceptable approach.

Even without magical items, the characters are blatantly far beyond what anything a normal human being could achieve in real life though.



There are literally hundreds of D&D novels, spread across several settings. We absolutely do know what sort of setting D&D/Pathfinder has in mind. It's not Lord of the Rings level, true, but it's nowhere near the level of power displayed by high Tier, high Optimization 3.X edition characters. The worlds that D&D wants to be (even though it fails to model them properly) restrict the presence of magic and with the exception of the highest reaches of the mighty still allow normal humans with normal human abilities to contribute.

I've never read any of the D&D novels myself, but this does bring up a question I had... Why can normal humans even be effective against high CR monsters? I don't mean in groups or anything, I mean 1v1.


You're exaggerating here, a lot. First of all, many CR 4+ monsters aren't particularly physically strong at all. A CR 11 Hezrou only has a strength of 21, significantly weaker than a rhino, and people do survive getting hit and even gored by rhinos. With regard to fireball, explosions are funny and do weird things, besides, a fireball doesn't project any solid matter on its own, making actually less dangerous than your average grenade, which is by no means an instant kill to everyone in a room if you toss one in.

A fall into a pit trap might not be fatal, depending upon armor, how much force you fall with, how you hit, and a lot more.

These were more my imitations of DMs that believe that such things would realistically kill a normal human being, and if the "Guy At The Gym" Fallacy were to be played completely straight, this is how a lot of DMs who believe in the fallacy could rule these situations while saying it's realistic. Not my own personal beliefs though.


People can and do kill very large animals in melee - humans have been killing elephants with spears since the stone tool era, large animals have large arteries and can be sliced and bled to death if you know what you're doing.

The thing is, I don't mean with a team or by catching an animal by surprise. Imagine you're given a sword and have to face off against a tiger that knows you're there and is ready to fight. It's not sick or old, it's in its prime and ready to fight. There's no room to maneuver around it to play to the environment or lay traps, it's just you vs this animal.

How many people do you think could 1v1 a large animal like this without getting seriously injured? And imagine they do this sort of thing on a daily basis, sometimes having to fight two or three such animals at a time. All by themselves and their own strength. That's what I mean.

But assuming you meant the giant monsters that probably tower over anything seen in the real world, like a Kaiju sized one... I seriously doubt a normal person could reliably hurt one of these things, especially enough to do a significant amount of damage to it in 6 seconds. It really is like what I said with the ant situation, could a tiny person with what amounts to a thumbtack be able to kill with it when they only come up to your toe? Maybe their ankle...




The existence of viable martial characters who are simply normal humans in a setting does not mean you can't have characters with supernatural powers and still have balance between the two groups. It just means there's a ceiling on how powerful those characters can be.

Why does there have to be a ceiling on how powerful these characters are? And how could these characters conceivably be useful in a situation against something many times more powerful than a normal human without instantly being killed?


This ceiling is dynamic and depends on how much technology the normal humans have access too. A world in which an infantryman walks around in powered Iron Man armor can have adventures alongside a wizard of far greater power than a guy with a steel sword and chain mail.


Why do martial characters need to be limited to technology? They have more hit points than some of the monsters they kill and can do more damage than monsters a lot stronger than them, so why?



Mythological heroes violating the laws of physics absolutely counts as magic. Any violation of the laws of physics qualifies, for a sufficiently broad definition of magic. If you want to be super-generic you can call it 'phlebotinum-dependent' but it doesn't really matter. The fact that characters with superpowers can have different kinds of superpowers with completely different flavors, focuses, and justifications has nothing to do with the difference between characters who have superpowers and those who do not.

Not necessarily, I think the context of the world should be taken into consideration as well...

Otherwise, everything in sci-fi, can be called magic. Hercules lifting the sky is magic. Thor lifting the world serpent is magic. Superman shouldn't be able to fly because of yellow sunlight, so he's magic. Spider-Man got super powers instead of radiation poisoning, so he's magic. Bruce Banner gaining plenty of mass when he transforms violates physics, so the Hulk is magic too.

From Iron Man's technological weaponry, Green Lantern being able to use an alien ring to create light constructs, to Ben Tennyson's watch all violating what is physically possible in our world would count as magic even though they're technology based heroes.

Like how Ruby Rose from RWBY is a teenage girl who can wield a massive scythe while moving at incredible speeds and cut down swathes of large monsters with incredible precision. She's not magic (the show goes out of its way to establish her plainly physics breaking stunts aren't magic) and the physics of her universe seem to be similar to ours, but it's treated as being completely normal (not magical, just a product of her being exceptionally talented) within the context of her own universe.

Just because something doesn't obey the same laws as our world doesn't make it magic within the context of their own.

Otherwise, anything in any story, regardless of genre, from alien watches, to alien rings, psychic aliens that transcend space-time, radioactive dinosaurs, giant gorillas, shape shifting aliens, robots being sent backwards in time while wearing synthetic flesh and giant mecha, would count as magic since they can't exist according to the physics of our world. They violate the rules of our universe, yes, but they're treated as science or freaks of nature in their own.



Superhero settings - which is what you get if you give D&D martials power equal to the casters - have huge issues that rely on massive quantities of cognitive dissonance both to function and to avoid falling into their own grimdark pit. I suspect a lot of support for the 'inverse guy at the gym' including by many well known fantasy novelists, comes from this place.


From past conversations, there's also the factor of "my heroes from fantasy were extraordinary men, but fundamentally human and not magic at all, who defeated sorcerers and warlocks through the strength of their arm and the wits of their head and the grit of their heart and the steel of their sword." They want to play Conan or the like, defeating the wicked diabolist or dark necromancer. If there's a wizard ally, they're like the wizard in the Conan movie. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, it's a huge part of the genre and can be a lot of fun... but D&D just is not the system for that campaign.


Yeah... I don't understand why people have to insist that their Level 20 character is just a normal guy. It's pretty jarring the more I read about it. Once again, I recommend they just play a low level NPC or something if they want to be that type of character.


You know I often joke that I have four definitions of the word magic. Today or yesterday I counted them and realized the list had grown to 5.

However here only two of them are important: the literary definition of magic which is what is impossible in real life but possible in the story and the thematic definition of magic covering hidden secrets, divine intervention and occult forces. Mythological heroes breaking our laws of physics is the former but may not be the second. Being stronger than a real human could be just because you trained hard (and maybe have good genes from a divine parent) isn't magic. There is no hidden secret... OK a kind of indirect divine intervention but definitely no occult forces. (And that isn't what I meant by divine intervention, if it was any setting created by gods would entirely be magic.)

So what I guess I am saying is "for a sufficiently broad definition of magic" is the problem because often in these discussions aren't using the broader definitions of magic, but a narrower one that has to do with the look and feel and not the mere plausibility of it all. Of course I don't know if AntiAuthority was using this meaning, but the post makes more sense if they were, so I figured they were. There is a The Giant quote about assumptions fitting the text that would go well here.

Pretty much, just look at it from the perspective of the story itself. It's impossible for something like Godzilla to exist in our world, but he's treated as a creature of science in his own, so his movie is considered sci-fi instead of fantasy.


Interesting stuff about being discordant and worldbuilding.


I really liked this one, in that I agree that the physical laws of the universe could be different... Though attaching the word magic makes me think of spell casting. Probably just a personal thing though. Different universes have different rules, and while it may appear magical to us, would probably just be something normal there.

Such as Ki in Dragon Ball being distinct from magic, while if you were to bring someone capable of using Ki to our world, they'd appear to be magic themselves.

Or Superman flying because yellow sunlight radiation shouldn't give him that power, but he'd seem to be magic to our perspective.

Or speedsters in comics violating every single law of physics but still not being considered magic.

If any of this seems confusing, let me know, I'm tired and probably shouldn't be typing so much late at night, but I saw some things I wanted to respond to so went for it.

[Mechalich]

Not necessarily, I think the context of the world should be taken into consideration as well...

Otherwise, everything in sci-fi, can be called magic. Hercules lifting the sky is magic. Thor lifting the world serpent is magic. Superman shouldn't be able to fly because of yellow sunlight, so he's magic. Spider-Man got super powers instead of radiation poisoning, so he's magic. Bruce Banner gaining plenty of mass when he transforms violates physics, so the Hulk is magic too.

From Iron Man's technological weaponry, Green Lantern being able to use an alien ring to create light constructs, to Ben Tennyson's watch all violating what is physically possible in our world would count as magic even though they're technology based heroes.

Yes, all physics-defying technologies in sci-fi can be called magic. They don't have to be, but that's an argument about semantics, not functionality. Everything in speculative fiction that involves clearly violating known physics can, and should, be grouped under a single umbrella at times when discussing design.


Like how Ruby Rose from RWBY is a teenage girl who can wield a massive scythe while moving at incredible speeds and cut down swathes of large monsters with incredible precision. She's not magic (the show goes out of its way to establish her plainly physics breaking stunts aren't magic) and the physics of her universe seem to be similar to ours, but it's treated as being completely normal (not magical, just a product of her being exceptionally talented) within the context of her own universe.

The laws of physics in RWBY are clearly different from our own - otherwise ordinary humans can draw on their 'aura' to do any number of things that ordinary humans can't do, and the Grim violate all kinds of biological principles just by existing. RWBY is an example of a Method Three world from my post above - its a magical world with different physical laws from our own and it has powers within that world that violate those laws (which the characters refer to in-universe as magic). It's worth noting that RWBY has terrible world-building and cannot be utilized as a TTRPG setting without drastic modifications, as has been discussed on this forum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?582153-How-would-you-make-RWBY-s-worldbuilding-better).


Just because something doesn't obey the same laws as our world doesn't make it magic within the context of their own.

Otherwise, anything in any story, regardless of genre, from alien watches, to alien rings, psychic aliens that transcend space-time, radioactive dinosaurs, giant gorillas, shape shifting aliens, robots being sent backwards in time while wearing synthetic flesh and giant mecha, would count as magic since they can't exist according to the physics of our world. They violate the rules of our universe, yes, but they're treated as science or freaks of nature in their own.

Yes, you can have a world with alternative physics. Those exist. And while D&D probably qualifies (since it includes supposedly natural creatures that can't stand up under their own weight, among other things), it plays extremely coy with this in most settings because once you admit your world is a magical world the typical quasi-medieval setting framework breaks down. All of the 'standard' D&D settings (Greyhawk, FR, Eberron, Mystara, even Ravenloft to a degree) go to considerable effort to pretend that the laws of physics are normal and that everything else, including something as basic as giants, are exceptions. Only Planescape freely admits to the insane incoherence at the heart of D&D, but there are limits on the kinds of stories Planescape can effectively tell as a result.

Worlds with alternative physics are hard to do in tabletop, because you cannot rely on the wide range of tools to deceive, hide, obscure, trick, and outright ignore the issues that arise from such worlds in narrative fiction. The laws of physics of the real world are robust, and everyone at a table has an intuitive understand of what is and is not possible (yes, some GMs can be overly restrictive and others overly permissible in this regard but everyone is at least on the same page). In the case of magical worlds with alternate physics its likely that no one - including the original creator (it is the rare author who's an actual theoretical physicist, that list is pretty much limited to Greg Egan) - really has a good grasp on what's going on. If you read shared world fiction, for instance, it quickly becomes clear that different authors place the limits of various phenomena in wildly different places (use of the Force in Star Wars is a good example. In The Force Unleashed the Apprentice pulls a Star Destroyer out of orbit, something that probably made Lucas swear violently the first time someone told him about it).

Magical worlds are wide open to bizarre exploitation. In the case of D&D a notable option is the necropunk world. Undead violate the conservation of energy, and as a result can be used to create what is essentially a totally free robot labor force. Doing such a thing is perfectly permissible under the rules, but it destroys the world as a viable gameplay space.

Narrative fiction gets around this because the author controls all characters and simple arranges it so that nobody does that, but a game world can't be built that way. This is an extremely important design principle that divides the structure of narrative setup from game setup. In a narrative you can eliminate potential world breaking issues by through the simple justification that no one wants to do that. In a game, anything that characters can do must be assumed as something that they will do, and if it destroys the setting it must be made impossible to do.

DBZ is a very clear example here. In DBZ every major PC or NPC analogue can destroy the Earth - and consequently end the series and slaughter most of the core cast - at any time. However, Toriyama controls the characters and they just don't do that. Except, one time a character - Freiza - showed up and didn't respect everyone else's norms and he did blow up the Earth. That meant Toriyama had to utilize a brand-new deus ex machina (literally described as a 'do-over') to prevent the entire setting from imploding.


Pretty much, just look at it from the perspective of the story itself. It's impossible for something like Godzilla to exist in our world, but he's treated as a creature of science in his own, so his movie is considered sci-fi instead of fantasy.

You're positing a divide that doesn't exist. Science fiction includes fantastical and blatantly impossible things all the time, only the hardest of hard sci-fi forbids them. The difference between fantasy and science fiction involves story structure and theme, not plot or setting elements.


I really liked this one, in that I agree that the physical laws of the universe could be different... Though attaching the word magic makes me think of spell casting. Probably just a personal thing though. Different universes have different rules, and while it may appear magical to us, would probably just be something normal there.

Such as Ki in Dragon Ball being distinct from magic, while if you were to bring someone capable of using Ki to our world, they'd appear to be magic themselves.

Or Superman flying because yellow sunlight radiation shouldn't give him that power, but he'd seem to be magic to our perspective.

Or speedsters in comics violating every single law of physics but still not being considered magic.


The best umbrella term is probably Phlebotinum (https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/phlebotinum) which broadly refers to any story element that is not explicable and whose explanation doesn't really matter. TV Tropes uses this term extensively (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppliedPhlebotinum?from=Main.Phlebotinum). If any phenomenon that violates the laws of the universe in which it appears, irrespective of the in-universe explanation, can be considered phlebotinum. To some extent this can even be extended to things that actually exist, but which are used in an absurd way for the purpose of furthering the plot - nanotechnology being a common offender in this regard.

[Lord Raziere]

Yes, all physics-defying technologies in sci-fi can be called magic. They don't have to be, but that's an argument about semantics, not functionality. Everything in speculative fiction that involves clearly violating known physics can, and should, be grouped under a single umbrella at times when discussing design.


Not really. its frustrating and confusing more than anything to do this than not. different things have different reasons WHY they violate this or that and therefore I can't call them the same things. every time people insist upon it, they oversimplifying it and ignoring important things of why they are designed differently from other things within it.

[Zombimode]

I'd also add that this issue is NOT setting or system agnostic. It's a big problem in the D&D series of systems... much less of a problem or not a problem at all in other systems.

I really don't know how excatly this a D&D specific problem, seeing that D&D (at least 3.5) supports a wide range of warrior-type characters, none of which are limited by "realism".
You can see this by the examples the OP mentioned: ALL of them are actually possible for a D&D martial character.

This is a DM/player problem.


Regarding the "Guy-at-the-Gym"-fallacy: Somehow this problem (and many, many others) simply vanished due to me an my players not being teenagers anymore.

[Mechalich]

I really don't know how excatly this a D&D specific problem, seeing that D&D (at least 3.5) supports a wide range of warrior-type characters, none of which are limited by "realism".

The Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue are all explicitly non-magical classes and are all in Core. They are all also completely incapable of keeping pace with caster classes (something true of partial casters such as Paladins and Rangers as well, to a less extreme degree). At any level above 10 these classes have no chance whatsoever to compete with properly built counterparts from the caster classes and begin to lose contribution capability as early as level 6. While the power of high-level fighters certainly exceeds human norms in a small number of limited ways (moderately superhuman endurance, the ability to large creatures in unreasonable ways), they have no unique access to any such abilities (any skill-based ability to beat human limits is also available to experts, an NPC class), and they capacity is dwarfed by that of high-level full casters. A single 20th level wizard, reasonably but not ridiculously optimized, can slaughter a literally infinite number of equally constructed 20th level fighters given a modicum of prep time. To even contribute minimally at high level martial classes, including rangers and paladins, must rely on magical equipment they are incapable of producing.

The simple fact is that the power ceiling for martial characters and caster characters is in nowhere near the same place. This is extremely obvious in D&D fiction, simply compare the exploits of the the best known martial - Drizzt Do'urden - with those of the best known caster - Elminster. Place side by side, its difficult to reconcile their worlds as the same, and elminster is extremely un-optimized for a wizard (even by 2e standards, seriously).

"Guy at the Gym" thought processes absolutely contributes to this disparity. There is considerable resistance to elevating martials to the power level necessary to compete with casters. The backlash to Tome of Battle, 3.5's best attempt to do so, was substantial. Heck there are still those who contend that the Monk class 'doesn't belong' in D&D, an opinion that is only of limited consequence because the Monk is weak. And then there's 5e, which took the step of imposing an artificial ceiling on power overall, bounded accuracy, and included certain caster-specific nerfs rather than boost martials.

There are very reasonable world-building reasons to maintain 'guy at the gym' limitations in a setting. Those limits need no apply to any PCs - in a superhero setting they almost certainly would not - but they apply to the masses. If they don't your world is an explicitly magical world with all the complications that entails (as an aside, many settings are Earth+weirdness designs, and for those to work the masses absolutely must be bounded by existing physics). Most D&D settings explicitly reject that, leaving them a nonsensical mess.


Not really. its frustrating and confusing more than anything to do this than not. different things have different reasons WHY they violate this or that and therefore I can't call them the same things. every time people insist upon it, they oversimplifying it and ignoring important things of why they are designed differently from other things within it.

Kitchen sinking a setting so that there are myriad different sources of power to break the laws of physics is generally a bad thing. D&D having divine magic and arcane magic and nature magic and bardic magic and psionics and demon pacting and truenaming and ki power and etc, etc. is terrible design. Even if the power of different characters takes different forms its better that all their powers should derive from the same metaphysical well (or perhaps two opposed ones).

Regardless, from the perspective of the 'guy at the gym' you can either break the laws of physics or you can't, and this either something everyone can do or something only special people can do. Whether or not a character can be viable in a system without breaking the laws of physics is much more important than how they break them.

[King of Nowhere]

People who object to the fact that D&D devolves into fantasy superheroes/anime bull**** would be better served by playing a different system that avoids that sort of thing. If you insist on playing D&D you ought to lean into the absurdities inherent to the system.

Or they can stick to E6. You can run E6 with still the pretense that martials are peak humans and casters are limited enough that they can't be demigods

[Kaptin Keen]

It's always difficult to discuss this sort of thing, basically because it's all based on assumptions. Both IRL assumptions, and RPG assumptions.

How hot is a fireball? Apparently, we all assume it basically burns any living thing to a dry, blackened crisp. But why is that so, when we know perfectly well that it's clearly survivable? An extraordinarily lucky commoner can survive a low level fireball. It requires a save, and a crappy damage roll, but it's survivable.

At the same time, what limits do we impose on the 'guy at the gym'? I'm one guy at one gym, and no one would mistake me for an olympic contender, but a guy once tried to punch me in the face, and I caught his fist in my hand* - a trope often seen in movies, and one not generally expected in real life. With sufficient timing, a guy with a sword can fight a tiger and win. Tigers aren't made of some sort of blade proof material, and if he does it just right, the 'guy at the gym' could cut the tigers throat, midleap, and suffer not a scratch.

I saw an interview with a guy who leapt from a plane at 6000 feet, and his parachute didn't open. He fell 6000 feet, fell flat on the ground, and survived. When his mates (whose parachutes did open) landed and ran to him, he stood up. He fell back down again, because his leg was broken, but not only did he survive - he was relatively ok, all things considered.

If you watched Band of Brothers, you saw Sgt. Winters run straight through a german occupied village to communicate with allies on the other side - then back again. While I remain somewhat hesitant, I've read that account at least twice before, in WWII historical literature. Was he super humanly fast? No. And that's not the point.

The point is heroics. Surviving by the slimmest margin, just because. We're not playing 'the guy at the gym'. We're playing Conan, or Ethan Hawke, or Sgt. Winters. Real world limitations do not apply, not because of physics, but because of story.

Can you survive jumping off a building? Yes. Of course you can. It's no fun if the story is you jumped off a building and died. It's fun if you jumped off, broke your ankle, limped off, and killed another 7 enemies with your teeth and bare hands.


*We were both sufficiently surprised by this that the ensuing fight never happened.

[Mechalich]

I saw an interview with a guy who leapt from a plane at 6000 feet, and his parachute didn't open. He fell 6000 feet, fell flat on the ground, and survived. When his mates (whose parachutes did open) landed and ran to him, he stood up. He fell back down again, because his leg was broken, but not only did he survive - he was relatively ok, all things considered.

There's a difference been improbable and impossible. You can build up improbable coincidences one after another if you want without ever hitting on a strictly impossible act. This tends to become rather ridiculous after a point of course, but it is a line that can be towed. John Wick, for example, pulls off all sorts of extremely stylized stunts that are full of one highly dubious maneuver after another, but at the same time, never quite crosses into the blatantly impossible. He may suffer remarkably little inconvenience from having bullets strike his body armor, for example, but bullets don't bounce of his skin, and if he does get hit, he bleeds. The entire magical system of Mage: the Ascension was built around exactly this sort of hair splitting, and if you want to give non-empowered characters this kind of potency as a way of keeping up with those powered-by-phlebotinum you absolutely can.

In D&D, however, and especially in D&D 3.X, the gap is simply far too wide to bridge in this way. The rogue and the barbarian arguably do get 'action hero' type powers in evasion, rage, and some other tricks. That puts them above the fighter, but it doesn't make them competitive at higher levels.



The point is heroics. Surviving by the slimmest margin, just because. We're not playing 'the guy at the gym'. We're playing Conan, or Ethan Hawke, or Sgt. Winters. Real world limitations do not apply, not because of physics, but because of story.


This is illustrative of an extremely important point with regards to narrative fiction versus games. 'Because of story' is a perfectly acceptable excuse in a narrative, it is not acceptable in game rules because the game is being defined by multiple people at once and may present an impossible to resolve disagreement (if you can play freeform games without the use of rules, good for you, but the entire point of having rules is to provide a dispute resolution mechanism). If you want 'because of story' to be a meaningful function in a game context you have to represent it mechanically. Many games do this, usually through the use of some form of metagame currency that allows players to shift probability curves and make what would have been incredibly unlikely nearly certain. That is certainly an option, one that may or may not be accommodated by an in-universe explanation (Star Wars, for example, has one behind its Force Points).

However, and I mentioned this above, your story will have all sorts of non-special people in it who don't get any benefit from metagame currency. John Wick shoots ~80 people in the head in his first film outing, those unfortunate mob flunkies aren't benefiting from his ability to bend probability and if they tried to pull the stunts he did would fail miserably. You have to consider how the rules represent those people.

[Cluedrew]

The thing is, its the broader definition that matters, not the look and the feel.You have outlined why the broader definition is also important. But nothing you have said forbids the thematic definition from being important as well. In fact that is my stance, they are both important. I don't have time to go into lots of detail, but the first bit of evidence is pretty simple. Why are people using the word magic to mean that thing? Its because that is in fact the difference they are trying to talk about.


So the difference between 'gained superpowers by just training really hard' versus 'gained superpowers by studying the secrets of sword BS' isn't just semantic, it reflects a fundamental difference in how the fantasy world functions.Why can't training really hard (possibly have an talent for it, cap it off with some practical experience) be enough? I grant you the Olympics in such a world be pretty extreme compared to ours, but it is a different world, so why not?


Was not expecting this many replies so soon, so I'm going to reply to various people in one post, as I wasn't sure how the forum looks on double/triple posting.Welcome to the Playground.

Also I think the forum rules discourage but do not forbid chain posting, there is a green box near the top of the index pages with a link.

[Max_Killjoy]

Why can't training really hard (possibly have an talent for it, cap it off with some practical experience) be enough? I grant you the Olympics in such a world be pretty extreme compared to ours, but it is a different world, so why not?


Because to say that an ability or level of ability is achievable via "an Olympic degree of training" is to say that vast numbers of people are able to reach that level or near that level.

Only one person holds the Olympic or World record for an event at any one time, but there are many thousands of high school and college athletes who come within percentage points of that record time or height or weight or distance every year. (Compare the world records to the US high school records for any track and field event.) There are about 1800 people who play in the NFL in any given season, but there are orders of magnitude more who are almost good enough, or good enough but didn't get a break, or good enough but got injured, or good enough but didn't like it enough, or... Same with other sports.

The notion of the "elite athlete" as somehow vastly better than everyone else involved in the sport/competition, rather than simply one end of a distribution curve, is a complete myth -- even the "all time greats". The nature of the competitions and the sports media's obsession with "star power" grossly exaggerate the gap between "the greats" and "the guy who played 5 years as a backup".

[Kesnit]

With sufficient timing, a guy with a sword can fight a tiger and win. Tigers aren't made of some sort of blade proof material, and if he does it just right, the 'guy at the gym' could cut the tigers throat, midleap, and suffer not a scratch.

I saw an interview with a guy who leapt from a plane at 6000 feet, and his parachute didn't open. He fell 6000 feet, fell flat on the ground, and survived. When his mates (whose parachutes did open) landed and ran to him, he stood up. He fell back down again, because his leg was broken, but not only did he survive - he was relatively ok, all things considered.

If you watched Band of Brothers, you saw Sgt. Winters run straight through a german occupied village to communicate with allies on the other side - then back again. While I remain somewhat hesitant, I've read that account at least twice before, in WWII historical literature. Was he super humanly fast? No. And that's not the point.

We're not playing 'the guy at the gym'. We're playing Conan, or Ethan Hawke, or Sgt. Winters. Real world limitations do not apply, not because of physics, but because of story.

The idea for D&D is that a high level fighter should be able to do all of those things multiple times a day (or several days in a row) and walk away from it EVERY TIME. The reason we remember that skydiver, or SGT Winters, is because they did something completely abnormal. And while such things would be abnormal for a LVL 1 commoner, they should be par for the course for a LVL 20 Fighter.

[Keltest]

In general, whenever something like this comes up in my games, I just declare the martials to be using magic as well. High level D&D is high fantasy, magic is everywhere. Even when you don't have explicitly magical beings like elves who can just cast spells as a racial ability, by the time youre operating at that level, there is nothing remotely interesting that's entirely non-magical. Even regular animals get magical "dire" versions just to keep them relevant pretty quickly. Getting to high level means magic has infused your being, making you explicitly superhuman. Rogues can create pockets around them where the fireball doesn't hit. Fighters can get smacked in the face with a giant sword and only need to pause to spit out a tooth. They aren't casting spells or channeling an aura or whatever, its just a fundamental part of their being, like a dwarf's ability to see in the dark.

[kyoryu]

John Wick, for example, pulls off all sorts of extremely stylized stunts that are full of one highly dubious maneuver after another, but at the same time, never quite crosses into the blatantly impossible. He may suffer remarkably little inconvenience from having bullets strike his body armor, for example, but bullets don't bounce of his skin, and if he does get hit, he bleeds.

I think this is both the best counter to the "fallacy" and the best way to interpret things.

I play a lot of Fate, where a "hit" is pretty explicitly not a "hit". So I tend to think of rules producing constraints on narration.

So if a crossbow does 1d6 damage (I forget), and a specific warrior has 40 hit points, that doesn't mean he can get hit with a crossbow roughly ten times and go walking around like a porcupine. It means that he didn't get hit. Maybe he dodged the shooter at the last second. Maybe the bolt grazed him. Maybe he dove out of the way a bit and scuffed his knee. Maybe it deflected off of his armor, leaving a bruise. I don't know.

But people don't get hit in the face with a crossbow bolt and live, so if he didn't die, he didn't actually take a strong shot.

Yes, this means that you can't actually "hit" someone with a crossbow on your first shot, no matter how lucky. I'm okay with this, as it makes for better gameplay. YMMV.

The corollary to this is that if you do something where the outcome is certain, then don't involve the dice. 1 in a million chances aside, falling from an airplane is this.

[Quertus]

It Reduces Levels to Completely Arbitrary Numbers.

This one in particular is really disturbing. A Level 20 character is expected to be able to face off against things that would be considered far beyond the reach of an ordinary human being… By saying “Levels don’t matter” it removes the entire concept of even having levels at all. If a Level 20 Fighter can be beaten by a Level 10 Wizard, the concept of Levels don’t mean anything in regards to martial classes.

Wow. What a first post. How many times did you memorize "Wall of Text" today? Because that's impressive.

One thing that really struck me was this bit. Level 10 Paper covers level 20 Rock is not inherently a problem, so long as you accept that style, and there's also level 5 Scissors that can cut that level 10 Paper. Bonus points if there's also Spock and Lizard.

There are things that might matter. Things related to balance of contribution in encounters you face, for insurance. So, if all encounters are Scissors, who cares if Paper beats Rock?

In other words, this little bit could easily be a thread all on its own.

[Willie the Duck]

I really don't know how excatly this a D&D specific problem, seeing that D&D (at least 3.5) supports a wide range of warrior-type characters, none of which are limited by "realism".

It's going to be a D&D-specific problem simply because D&D is the spot where most people have issues with the caster-martial divide. Outside of the basic issue that there are simply some problems that the guy who can break 'the rules' can solve that anyone with even superheroic normal abilities can't solve (planar travel, anything from Marvel that you need Dr. Strange or Professor X that Hulk/Thor/Wolverine simply can't address), D&D also has had a history of making the spellcasters 'strictly better' even at problems not in the category of 'only they could solve.' There are a huge number of caveats, particularly if you cut across all editions, but it is definitely where a lot of people have come upon the situation to the level that it becomes a gripe-worthy situation.

[Morty]

The "Guy at the gym fallacy" is mostly a gross oversimplification of the fundamental incongruence in D&D's world-building and its interaction with the rules that people above me have described in greater detail (not that I agree about everything there, but that's neither the time nor place). And the general flailing about when it comes to portraying any of the powers at work.

It's not a uniquely D&D problem, perhaps, but D&D is the only franchise that has incredibly powerful spell-casters, non-casters that are supposedly able to work in the same party as said casters and a setting where mundane kings and dukes run things with their mundane armies of people with spears and swords. Superhero settings, as mentioned, are probably the closest analogue, funnily enough.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's going to be a D&D-specific problem simply because D&D is the spot where most people have issues with the caster-martial divide. Outside of the basic issue that there are simply some problems that the guy who can break 'the rules' can solve that anyone with even superheroic normal abilities can't solve (planar travel, anything from Marvel that you need Dr. Strange or Professor X that Hulk/Thor/Wolverine simply can't address), D&D also has had a history of making the spellcasters 'strictly better' even at problems not in the category of 'only they could solve.' There are a huge number of caveats, particularly if you cut across all editions, but it is definitely where a lot of people have come upon the situation to the level that it becomes a gripe-worthy situation.

There's also the simple fact that many systems don't have the very steep power scale that D&D characters go through as they "progress".

[kyoryu]

There's also the simple fact that many systems don't have the very steep power scale that D&D characters go through as they "progress".

And many systems do not allow the trivial use of high-powered magic in the way that D&D 3.x does.

[Morty]

And many systems do not allow the trivial use of high-powered magic in the way that D&D 3.x does.

D&D's casual use of powerful magic is very much an exception, rather than the norm. Even when you compare it to systems where super-powerful magic is the point... though, honestly, D&D is also partly such a system, at least on high levels.

[Kaptin Keen]

@Mechalich:

You say a lot of things I cannot disagree with. However - this bit:


'Because of story' is a perfectly acceptable excuse in a narrative

This I can disagree with.

My games are a narrative. It's a child of many fathers - but it's still a narrative. I take responsibility for making it an interesting narrative for all involved (and .. mostly succesfully, I hope), and if I need to chuck the rules out the window to make it work, then out the window they go.

Though, I have to confess I simply do not play high level. And in the context of this discussion, I realise that's cheating: I avoid the problem, rather than solve it. Or ... solve it by avoiding it. Whatever.

But the point stands: A fighter in my games will be able to do incredible things. Kill dozens of enemies, survive incredible amounts of damage, basically be Conan - or John Wick, if you like. Of course, the same is true for a wizard. They just require less axl grease to work.

The only problem is that often, players don't realise. They don't try outrageous stuff because the rules say they can't. It's propably unfair to blame them, but on the other hand, I don't want to tell them they can't, because, well, throw all restraint aside and the game becomes just .. stupid.


The idea for D&D is that a high level fighter should be able to do all of those things multiple times a day (or several days in a row) and walk away from it EVERY TIME. The reason we remember that skydiver, or SGT Winters, is because they did something completely abnormal. And while such things would be abnormal for a LVL 1 commoner, they should be par for the course for a LVL 20 Fighter.

Yes - that's what I'm saying.

[King of Nowhere]

take also into account that a high level fighter is using magical equipment to do superhuman stuff. his belt make him over twice as strong, his bracelets make him much harder, all that kind of stuff. what can be done by a high level martial without any equipment is quite underwhelming, short of high op

[Willie the Duck]

take also into account that a high level fighter is using magical equipment to do superhuman stuff. his belt make him over twice as strong, his bracelets make him much harder, all that kind of stuff. what can be done by a high level martial without any equipment is quite underwhelming, short of high op

Therein certainly lies a disconnect. Fighters and the like never were truly mundane, as even before the WBL days of 3e, a bit part of a fighter's power level was that most of the magic item treasure table was geared towards them (and, particularly with intelligent swords with X/day spell powers, often made them 'spellcasters through another avenue').

[kyoryu]

Also keep in mind that the "guy at the gym" is... just that. Probably a level 1 commoner type, with a decently high (14-16) strength.

That's not a benchmark to use for a highly trained warrior.

[Willie the Duck]

Also keep in mind that the "guy at the gym" is... just that. Probably a level 1 commoner type, with a decently high (14-16) strength.

That's not a benchmark to use for a highly trained warrior.

I think you are missing the point of the topic. There's no actual gym, or guy at one. The OP laid out the concept in the first post-- "The Guy At The Gym Fallacy in a nutshell: Mundane/martial characters should be limited to the limits of what is possible in our world. Magic is exempt from this same logic." If the highly trained warrior is limited to what is possible in our world, then they are constrained by TGATG thinking, regardless of whether they are at the level, or above the level, of a level 1 commoner with 14-16 Strength.

[Talakeal]

To the OP:

A lot of your post boils down to the D&D HP system being an incoherent mess. This isnt exactly news, and I wouldnt use the D&D HP system to try and draw any conclusions about the game world.


You have a succinct definition of the "guy at the gym" fallacy, I have never seen one before and have even started threads trying to find it. The post that coined the term is less of a fallacy and more of a meandering rant, mostly against strawmen.


Some people like playing Lord of the Rings / Conan, others like playing fantasy superheroes. The problem is that 3.5 tries to be everything at the same time and fails. I personally prefer Dragonlance, and dont have a problem with the feel of any edition of D&D except third.

High level martials have a ton of magic items in D&D. This means that most of your examples will never actually come up in play and are mostly just hypothetical talking points. Also, 3E casting is so broken that super powers ain't going to help martials keep up.

Also, you keep talking about people "playing NPCs," isn't that a contradiction?

[Max_Killjoy]

Also, you keep talking about people "playing NPCs," isn't that a contradiction?


I wish it were a contradiction. But at least in the way I use the phrase, I've seen it happen more often than I'd like.

What I mean by it is, "for this setting and campaign, the character you are trying to play is an NPC" -- it can range from Mr I Want To Stay Home And Bake, who never, even over a long campaign, develops a motivation to adventure of any kind, and still has to be dragged along... to Mr I'm Deliberately Constructed Poorly, who for example needs a certain Skill to use his Power, but refuses to invest in that Skill "because it would violate the character concept"... to Mr Slice of Villager Life who wants to RP villager interactions and tasks all day and never do anything risky or adventurous... to Mr But This Character Type Is In All The Fiction I Love, I Don't Care If It's Always A Side Character.

And it's usually the same player repeatedly.

[Jay R]

This thread started with a long, serious, well-written explanation for why the original poster prefers to play a certain way. There's is nothing wrong with either the description or the logic.

The only problem comes in when somebody starts to believe that "How I prefer to play" is the same thing as "How everybody should prefer to play".

I agree with his statement that Fighters (or at least Fighters who don't have a reasonable complement of high-level magic items. or a relevant Prestige Class) have far less raw power than casters at 20th level. This is certainly a problem with playing at that level, but it doesn't crack the list of top five reasons I don't like playing at that level.

What some people call "The Guy at the Gym Fallacy" isn't a fallacy; it's simply one way to design a fantasy RPG. And it's the way I prefer.

I don't want to play a party that can attack all of Sauron's armies at once and win. I want to play a group of nine adventurers who often hide from large groups of goblins, run from a Balrog, and are trying to accomplish a covert mission without being seen.

I don't want to play a musketeer who could defeat all of Richelieu's guards and all of the Huguenot army; I want to play musketeers who make a name for themselves by winning a 4 vs. 5 melee, and then again by holding a bastion for a single hour.

I don't want to play a group that can defeat Darth Vader and the entire empire in a straight-up battle; I want to play the intrepid heroes who heroically face long odds trying to slip in and sabotage its greatest weapon.

In short, I want to act heroically, which means taking risks to defeat enemies with greater power than my group has.

The high-level problem isn't that Fighters don't become Great Powers beyond humanity; it's that casters do. And the solution was built into original D&D: when the PCs become powerful enough that roaming the wilderness isn't risky, then settle down, build a keep, and face armies with your armies. [Or just retire the characters. I'll be retiring my 14th level Fighter/Ranger/Horizon Walker after next Saturday's game.]

I'm not trying to tell you to play my way. Play the game you love the way you love to play it.

I'm telling you that I will play the game I love the way I love it -- even if my tastes are different from yours.

[Morty]

I think a concise way to sum it up is that: yes, there exists a problematic assumption that non-casters need to be restricted to realistic human capabilities. But it's just a case of people being wrong and stubborn; D&D has never done a very good job properly portraying their intended power level. Or... power level in general.

Mind you, it sure would help if people arguing for realism knew what realism is, which is often not the case.

[Cluedrew]

You have outlined why the broader definition is also important. But nothing you have said forbids the thematic definition from being important as well. In fact that is my stance, they are both important. I don't have time to go into lots of detail, but [now I do!]OK so I have sorted me head a bit more and so yes, from a world building perspective the literary definition of magic is more important. But there is more to this problem than world building, notably character aesthetics (maybe I should call it the aesthetic definition of magic instead of the thematic definition).

In that a warrior feels different from a spell-caster. Regardless of power-level they are very different archetypes and if anyone has a counter argument to that I will hear it. And people want to play characters from both of those (and many others and their more narrow subsets), even if it is impossible.

Punching though a brick wall is impossible. But it feels a lot more like a warrior than chanting and having it crumple or turning into a ghost form and walking through it. Wall runs, jumping onto a nearby roof or snatching an arrow out of the air, for a fit and agile acrobat why not? Its better than spider climb, a short range teleport or a force-field.

There are people stick "because its magic" in the background because that makes them more comfortable than "because its cool", but as long as you maintain that feel (which plastering the world magic around isn't going to help but it shouldn't break it) then it doesn't really matter. How they got that so-called-magic and how they can use it is usually much more important to that feel than whether we could do it or not.

And that is why I believe the thematic/aesthetic definition of magic is also important in these conversations.



Why can't training really hard (possibly have an talent for it, cap it off with some practical experience) be enough? I grant you the Olympics in such a world be pretty extreme compared to ours, but it is a different world, so why not?Because to say that an ability or level of ability is achievable via "an Olympic degree of training" is to say that vast numbers of people are able to reach that level or near that level.Yes, which is why the Olympics are extreme and not just one person taking gold again and again. Drop down the proportion because most people are still farmers and don't have time to do that without starving. I have left behind the idea the PCs are the only ones above "level 0" in so many works that finding another reason to do it. On the other hand...


The notion of the "elite athlete" as somehow vastly better than everyone else involved in the sport/competition, rather than simply one end of a distribution curve, is a complete myth -- even the "all time greats".Magic is also a myth. And I think sports culture is doing a enough to present that myth I'm not worried about perpetuating in my work. Especially when it presented in the same light as the unbelievable ones. So really I don't understand the issue.

[Max_Killjoy]

OK so I have sorted me head a bit more and so yes, from a world building perspective the literary definition of magic is more important. But there is more to this problem than world building, notably character aesthetics (maybe I should call it the aesthetic definition of magic instead of the thematic definition).

In that a warrior feels different from a spell-caster. Regardless of power-level they are very different archetypes and if anyone has a counter argument to that I will hear it. And people want to play characters from both of those (and many others and their more narrow subsets), even if it is impossible.

Punching though a brick wall is impossible. But it feels a lot more like a warrior than chanting and having it crumple or turning into a ghost form and walking through it. Wall runs, jumping onto a nearby roof or snatching an arrow out of the air, for a fit and agile acrobat why not? Its better than spider climb, a short range teleport or a force-field.

There are people stick "because its magic" in the background because that makes them more comfortable than "because its cool", but as long as you maintain that feel (which plastering the world magic around isn't going to help but it shouldn't break it) then it doesn't really matter. How they got that so-called-magic and how they can use it is usually much more important to that feel than whether we could do it or not.

And that is why I believe the thematic/aesthetic definition of magic is also important in these conversations.


Personally I've never had much use for "because it's cool" -- it's an open-ended standard that ends up excusing everything and anything, the core of the kitchen-sink problem. And one root of D&D's problem of trying to be a lot of incompatible things at once.




Yes, which is why the Olympics are extreme and not just one person taking gold again and again. Drop down the proportion because most people are still farmers and don't have time to do that without starving. I have left behind the idea the PCs are the only ones above "level 0" in so many works that finding another reason to do it. On the other hand...


In the modern world, most people are doing something else and don't have the time and resources to train to an Olympic contention level -- but a lot of people have time while still in high school or college to reach 90% of an Olympic level. On the other hand, most people aren't doing physical labor for 8+ hours a day, either, so there's a tradeoff.




Magic is also a myth. And I think sports culture is doing a enough to present that myth I'm not worried about perpetuating in my work. Especially when it presented in the same light as the unbelievable ones. So really I don't understand the issue.


I know it's not a popular stance, but I'm firmly of the opinion that anything that can be done "just by training" implies things about the entire setting, not just a handful of PCs and other exceptions, that if the body of a human in a particular setting can be trained to extreme degree X, then there will be many more people who can at least train to extreme degree 0.9X, and many many more people to degree 0.8X, and so on, that a distribution curve is inevitable based on whatever the nature of the human body is in that setting. If someone can train to leap over 20' walls and deadlift multiple tons, then that says things about the human body that are different than in our world.

BUT, I'm also not at all bothered by the idea that it's possible to do something besides or in addition to physical training, that takes the character into "extra-normal" territory, which is "magic" under that very broad definition that was mentioned earlier.



This thread started with a long, serious, well-written explanation for why the original poster prefers to play a certain way. There's is nothing wrong with either the description or the logic.

The only problem comes in when somebody starts to believe that "How I prefer to play" is the same thing as "How everybody should prefer to play".

I agree with his statement that Fighters (or at least Fighters who don't have a reasonable complement of high-level magic items. or a relevant Prestige Class) have far less raw power than casters at 20th level. This is certainly a problem with playing at that level, but it doesn't crack the list of top five reasons I don't like playing at that level.

What some people call "The Guy at the Gym Fallacy" isn't a fallacy; it's simply one way to design a fantasy RPG. And it's the way I prefer.

I don't want to play a party that can attack all of Sauron's armies at once and win. I want to play a group of nine adventurers who often hide from large groups of goblins, run from a Balrog, and are trying to accomplish a covert mission without being seen.

I don't want to play a musketeer who could defeat all of Richelieu's guards and all of the Huguenot army; I want to play musketeers who make a name for themselves by winning a 4 vs. 5 melee, and then again by holding a bastion for a single hour.

I don't want to play a group that can defeat Darth Vader and the entire empire in a straight-up battle; I want to play the intrepid heroes who heroically face long odds trying to slip in and sabotage its greatest weapon.

In short, I want to act heroically, which means taking risks to defeat enemies with greater power than my group has.

The high-level problem isn't that Fighters don't become Great Powers beyond humanity; it's that casters do. And the solution was built into original D&D: when the PCs become powerful enough that roaming the wilderness isn't risky, then settle down, build a keep, and face armies with your armies. [Or just retire the characters. I'll be retiring my 14th level Fighter/Ranger/Horizon Walker after next Saturday's game.]

I'm not trying to tell you to play my way. Play the game you love the way you love to play it.

I'm telling you that I will play the game I love the way I love it -- even if my tastes are different from yours.


You're not really describing higher-level D&D, then, unless you ban spellcasting past a certain (and quite low) point.

And "GATGF" isn't simply about the overall power level, it's about a disparity in the standards for what can be accomplish by a "martial" character vs a "spellcasting" character within D&D.

[Cluedrew]

The only problem comes in when somebody starts to believe that "How I prefer to play" is the same thing as "How everybody should prefer to play".You are right but isn't that just a power level thing? Like do you want the martials to be hiding while the wizard destroys the army? I suppose you could but it feels odd.


Personally I've never had much use for "because it's cool" -- it's an open-ended standard that ends up excusing everything and anything, the core of the kitchen-sink problem.Funnily enough that's the same issue I have when "because it's magic" gets out of hand. So I agree, this is another way that they are similar. I think the solution though is to pick a particular type of cool/magic you are going for in a particular setting and sticking to it. And some times that cool/magic involves super-human feats with little additional explanation.


I know it's not a popular stance, but I'm firmly of the opinion that anything that can be done "just by training" implies things about the entire setting, not just a handful of PCs and other exceptions, [...]Also agreed, but I have three general solutions:
Just ignore that implication as part of the premise. This is the most common solution, its crude but it can work.
Add a little bit extra (you did mention this but I have some stuff to say too). For instance I never said "just by training" (I think, if I did I misspoke) I mentioned training, aptitude and experience. The aptitude could just be an extension/exaggeration of the normal curve but cuts it down a bit. The experience then lets us focus in on the adventurers, as most stories with this sort of thing do.
Embrace it. Possibly the rarest solution but I've done it and it really sends waves out into world building.

[LameGothMom]

People who object to the fact that D&D devolves into fantasy superheroes/anime bull**** would be better served by playing a different system that avoids that sort of thing. If you insist on playing D&D you ought to lean into the absurdities inherent to the system.

I agree with this. There are so many RPGs that have less fantastic implications where supernatural physicans/high magic is less common. It's not the right game if you can't accept this.

[AntiAuthority]

It's always difficult to discuss this sort of thing, basically because it's all based on assumptions. Both IRL assumptions, and RPG assumptions.


Fair enough.


At the same time, what limits do we impose on the 'guy at the gym'? I'm one guy at one gym, and no one would mistake me for an olympic contender, but a guy once tried to punch me in the face, and I caught his fist in my hand* - a trope often seen in movies, and one not generally expected in real life. With sufficient timing, a guy with a sword can fight a tiger and win. Tigers aren't made of some sort of blade proof material, and if he does it just right, the 'guy at the gym' could cut the tigers throat, midleap, and suffer not a scratch.

Yeah, it is possible to kill a tiger with sufficient training and a weapon. The Maasai tribe would hunt lions as a rite of passage too. Gladiators would also be forced to fight against predatory animals.

The thing is, imagine them doing this within the span of 6 seconds. Then they do it again to the next tiger. And again. They're one shotting these animals as easily as you or I would kill an ant or rodent. They're just hitting it hard enough to kill it, though I suppose you could argue it's represented as an attack against a vital area, though that's what I considered crits to be... Either way, imagine a guy at the gym doing this daily, or even several times in one day and completely curbstomping the tiger.

Also, consider the tiger is probably going to be scratching at this person and there's a chance they'd die in this encounter. A normal human could beat these things, but I severely doubt it would be over in what's basically the blink of an eye, and the character could also just as easily kill 2 or 3 other lions with ease.


I saw an interview with a guy who leapt from a plane at 6000 feet, and his parachute didn't open. He fell 6000 feet, fell flat on the ground, and survived. When his mates (whose parachutes did open) landed and ran to him, he stood up. He fell back down again, because his leg was broken, but not only did he survive - he was relatively ok, all things considered.


Pretty much, only the person who did this didn't get up and essentially walk it off. Then he could go and do the same thing again and again just for fun.


If you watched Band of Brothers, you saw Sgt. Winters run straight through a german occupied village to communicate with allies on the other side - then back again. While I remain somewhat hesitant, I've read that account at least twice before, in WWII historical literature. Was he super humanly fast? No. And that's not the point.


Yeah, weird things can happen in real life. Like I mentioned above, a viking is rumored to have killed 100 men before dying.


The point is heroics. Surviving by the slimmest margin, just because. We're not playing 'the guy at the gym'. We're playing Conan, or Ethan Hawke, or Sgt. Winters. Real world limitations do not apply, not because of physics, but because of story.


Slightly off topic, I have the Conan stories by Robert E. Howard, was Conan blatantly superhuman in these stories too? I've heard Comic!Conan is more powerful, but I really don't know too much about the character at the moment.


Can you survive jumping off a building? Yes. Of course you can. It's no fun if the story is you jumped off a building and died. It's fun if you jumped off, broke your ankle, limped off, and killed another 7 enemies with your teeth and bare hands.


If a Level 20 character broke their ankle after jumping off a building, I have to wonder how they'd survive getting hit by something like a Stone Giant.


There's a difference been improbable and impossible. You can build up improbable coincidences one after another if you want without ever hitting on a strictly impossible act. This tends to become rather ridiculous after a point of course, but it is a line that can be towed. John Wick, for example, pulls off all sorts of extremely stylized stunts that are full of one highly dubious maneuver after another, but at the same time, never quite crosses into the blatantly impossible. He may suffer remarkably little inconvenience from having bullets strike his body armor, for example, but bullets don't bounce of his skin, and if he does get hit, he bleeds. The entire magical system of Mage: the Ascension was built around exactly this sort of hair splitting, and if you want to give non-empowered characters this kind of potency as a way of keeping up with those powered-by-phlebotinum you absolutely can.

Never seen the John Wick movies myself, but I know a little about them... And about body armor being why he's not dead and also representing his HP... I think it falls under AC, or possibly Damage Reduction? It's hitting him, so it's beating his AC, but the Damage Reduction is stopping the bullet from killing him, though it would do some (possibly negligible) HP damage from the force of the bullet.


Because to say that an ability or level of ability is achievable via "an Olympic degree of training" is to say that vast numbers of people are able to reach that level or near that level.

Only one person holds the Olympic or World record for an event at any one time, but there are many thousands of high school and college athletes who come within percentage points of that record time or height or weight or distance every year. (Compare the world records to the US high school records for any track and field event.) There are about 1800 people who play in the NFL in any given season, but there are orders of magnitude more who are almost good enough, or good enough but didn't get a break, or good enough but got injured, or good enough but didn't like it enough, or... Same with other sports.

The notion of the "elite athlete" as somehow vastly better than everyone else involved in the sport/competition, rather than simply one end of a distribution curve, is a complete myth -- even the "all time greats". The nature of the competitions and the sports media's obsession with "star power" grossly exaggerate the gap between "the greats" and "the guy who played 5 years as a backup".

Well, something I think should be considered about issues training hard enough to become superhuman.

A lot of people have social lives outside of training, might be injured, could be forced to stop due to other commitments or just not have interest in doing such things. Couple this with the very real possibility that a lot of them would die if they had a random encounter with something of a much higher CR than they can take, and... Yeah.

Also, this might sound like a broken record, but why isn't training really hard an ok answer, but studying (training your brain essentially) enough to become able to alter reality is?


To the OP:

A lot of your post boils down to the D&D HP system being an incoherent mess. This isnt exactly news, and I wouldnt use the D&D HP system to try and draw any conclusions about the game world.

Fair enough, but then you run into problems with how characters are surviving encounters against otherworldly monsters and not being killed.



You have a succinct definition of the "guy at the gym" fallacy, I have never seen one before and have even started threads trying to find it. The post that coined the term is less of a fallacy and more of a meandering rant, mostly against strawmen.


Thank you!


Some people like playing Lord of the Rings / Conan, others like playing fantasy superheroes. The problem is that 3.5 tries to be everything at the same time and fails. I personally prefer Dragonlance, and dont have a problem with the feel of any edition of D&D except third.


To each their own.



High level martials have a ton of magic items in D&D. This means that most of your examples will never actually come up in play and are mostly just hypothetical talking points. Also, 3E casting is so broken that super powers ain't going to help martials keep up.


I'd have to disagree with you on giving martials super powers not being a way to help martials. To me, if a Wizard goes from essentially a new student at Hogswarts to becoming able to create personalized dimensions/stop time/fly/transform into other animals... Why can't my Fighter split a mountain or outrun thoughts? But this is just my interpretation on what would work... Those are types of characters I'd expect to be facing off against things that can just teleport around or laugh while pelting the equally leveled martial with ranged attacks from the sky.

And which of my examples are hypothetical?


Also, you keep talking about people "playing NPCs," isn't that a contradiction?


Actually, there are NPC classes in 3.5E, while in 5E they aren't labeled as such but they have the same names as they did in 3.5E. They're not super powerful heroes, they're just background characters that represent real life people like you or me.


This thread started with a long, serious, well-written explanation for why the original poster prefers to play a certain way. There's is nothing wrong with either the description or the logic.

Thank you, I put a lot of effort into the OP.


The only problem comes in when somebody starts to believe that "How I prefer to play" is the same thing as "How everybody should prefer to play".

I wasn't really trying to tell anyone how to play, more pointing out the flaws in how a Level 20 character isn't just a guy who is still within the realms of reality.

Closest example I could think of is a player insisting their Level 20 Wizard is really only as powerful as David Copperfield, instead of being more like a comic book superhero.

The best way to represent characters that are prevalent in fantasy stories where the warriors are just humans is with low levels, otherwise you can run into a Level 20 Wizard trying to act like they're Dumbledore when they're much more powerful. If this makes sense.


I don't want to play a party that can attack all of Sauron's armies at once and win. I want to play a group of nine adventurers who often hide from large groups of goblins, run from a Balrog, and are trying to accomplish a covert mission without being seen.


That's not really what I'm saying. A Level 20 character would probably have broken the Balrog in half, as it appeared to be just a big, fiery monster in the movie. Why would such a character hide from Sauron's armies? A Level 6 character, I can see, not a Level 20 one.


I don't want to play a musketeer who could defeat all of Richelieu's guards and all of the Huguenot army; I want to play musketeers who make a name for themselves by winning a 4 vs. 5 melee, and then again by holding a bastion for a single hour.


A Level 20 character wouldn't be struggling against normal characters. What you're describing sounds more in line with a lower level character.


I don't want to play a group that can defeat Darth Vader and the entire empire in a straight-up battle; I want to play the intrepid heroes who heroically face long odds trying to slip in and sabotage its greatest weapon.


It still sounds like you want to play a low level character fighting against higher level characters. I don't see what the issue is, but when a character is high level, they're anything but someone that would struggle in this sort of situation.


In short, I want to act heroically, which means taking risks to defeat enemies with greater power than my group has.


This is pretty much saying you want to play a low level character who faces off against higher level/higher CR character. I don't see the conflict in this.


The high-level problem isn't that Fighters don't become Great Powers beyond humanity; it's that casters do. And the solution was built into original D&D: when the PCs become powerful enough that roaming the wilderness isn't risky, then settle down, build a keep, and face armies with your armies. [Or just retire the characters. I'll be retiring my 14th level Fighter/Ranger/Horizon Walker after next Saturday's game.]


I think I understand, and agree casters are incredibly powerful... I think it would be great if martials got to be on a comparable level of power. But if we bring the power of casters down, then we have this weird question of why these people aren't instantly destroyed when they try to fight against something that's a threat to entire planes of existence.


I'm not trying to tell you to play my way. Play the game you love the way you love to play it.

I'm telling you that I will play the game I love the way I love it -- even if my tastes are different from yours.

Same, I'm not trying to force my opinion onto what type of game you should play, but I was mostly pointing out how a lot of low level campaigns/characters that you seem to be interested in shouldn't try to masquerade a high level character as a normal person, as it can cause a lot of dissonance with the power levels. A Level 3 character hiding from the armies of Sauron is perfectly understandable, a Level 20 character that could, through numbers alone, instantly kill just about anything in Sauron's army... Not so much.


I think you are missing the point of the topic. There's no actual gym, or guy at one. The OP laid out the concept in the first post-- "The Guy At The Gym Fallacy in a nutshell: Mundane/martial characters should be limited to the limits of what is possible in our world. Magic is exempt from this same logic." If the highly trained warrior is limited to what is possible in our world, then they are constrained by TGATG thinking, regardless of whether they are at the level, or above the level, of a level 1 commoner with 14-16 Strength.

Actually, I think (could be wrong) you, kyoryu and I are all on the same page. He's agreeing that a normal person (such as a gym rat) with an NPC class wouldn't be comparable to a high level warrior with stats befitting a hero. That's how I read it anyway.

[Talakeal]

Thank you!

Not sure that I meant it as a compliment :smalleek: but, you're welcome.

I don't think there is actually a universally accepted definition of GATGF, so you might run into a lot of people who disagree with yours.


FI'd have to disagree with you on giving martials super powers not being a way to help martials. To me, if a Wizard goes from essentially a new student at Hogswarts to becoming able to create personalized dimensions/stop time/fly/transform into other animals... Why can't my Fighter split a mountain or outrun thoughts? But this is just my interpretation on what would work... Those are types of characters I'd expect to be facing off against things that can just teleport around or laugh while pelting the equally leveled martial with ranged attacks from the sky.

Sure, more power helps them be better, but they already have super-powers in the form of magic items. And while I don't know what "outrun thoughts" actually means, stuff like splitting mountains and leaping tall buildings and outrunning locomotives and stuff won't help one bit to keep up with 3.5 wizards who are astrally projected from slowed time demiplanes with an infinitely expandiny army of gated arch-angels while polymorphed into something that can cast XP free wish every round. All the while you are stuck in a force cage, because those don't allow a save and don't care how strong or fast you are, if you can't teleport or disintegrate you just can't get out.



And which of my examples are hypothetical?

Well, for example, most fighters will have magical and / or adamant swords and belts of giant strength at high level, so I can't imagine a DM arguing that they just can't cut through a door.


Actually, there are NPC classes in 3.5E, while in 5E they aren't labeled as such but they have the same names as they did in 3.5E. They're not super powerful heroes, they're just background characters that represent real life people like you or me.

But those classes still get the same outrageous HP and BaB scaling as every other class. The difference between a fighter and warrior is literally just 1hp per level, tower shield proficiency and 10 bonus feats.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, something I think should be considered about issues training hard enough to become superhuman.

A lot of people have social lives outside of training, might be injured, could be forced to stop due to other commitments or just not have interest in doing such things. Couple this with the very real possibility that a lot of them would die if they had a random encounter with something of a much higher CR than they can take, and... Yeah.

Also, this might sound like a broken record, but why isn't training really hard an ok answer, but studying (training your brain essentially) enough to become able to alter reality is?

Honestly, I don't think either one is OK, and that "just training to human max" isn't enough to get magic, either -- at some point, the character has to either be born with, be given, or unlock/seize something extra that goes beyond just "working out his brain meats".

[AntiAuthority]

Sure, more power helps them be better, but they already have super-powers in the form of magic items. And while I don't know what "outrun thoughts" actually means, stuff like splitting mountains and leaping tall buildings and outrunning locomotives and stuff won't help one bit to keep up with 3.5 wizards who are astrally projected from slowed time demiplanes with an infinitely expandiny army of gated arch-angels while polymorphed into something that can cast XP free wish every round. All the while you are stuck in a force cage, because those don't allow a save and don't care how strong or fast you are, if you can't teleport or disintegrate you just can't get out.

About the outrunning thoughts part, it's based on Norse Mythology where a man (I thin he was just a normal man) was able to somewhat keep pace with (but still lost to) the embodiment of thought itself.

And while those things wouldn't be able to allow a character to defeat a character who can just teleport away... I'd say allow this character to be able to tear open portals into the Wizard's realm. Maybe the ability to No Sell magic or even turn it off temporarily. As just a start.





Well, for example, most fighters will have magical and / or adamant swords and belts of giant strength at high level, so I can't imagine a DM arguing that they just can't cut through a door.


Fair enough, but it's not impossible for a player to either have their magic weapon stolen or destroyed (such as by a rust monster).

And even without magic, a character in 3.5E (with Vital Strike and Power Attack) or in 5e (Great Weapon Master) can do massive amounts of damage. They can do enough damage to kill giant monsters, but not enough to get through a metal door...?


But those classes still get the same outrageous HP and BaB scaling as every other class. The difference between a fighter and warrior is literally just 1hp per level, tower shield proficiency and 10 bonus feats.

It's sort of bad when an NPC class is almost as powerful as a PC class. It makes Fighters seem like glorified NPCs. Then again, I've often heard Fighters are pretty bland as other PC classes can outdo them at well... Fighting.

In a way, it feels like the system itself is unsure of whether high level characters are superhuman or just normal people.

But I also meant from a story perspective. It feels like a high level martial PC is essentially an NPC in the story of the super powered caster. They're not as powerful, can't do as many tricks or anything unique, they almost feel like a sidekick or a pack mule if you were to watch or read in the form of a story.

[Knaight]

There's also the simple fact that many systems don't have the very steep power scale that D&D characters go through as they "progress".

Or if they do they own it a bit more. I'm not going to call Scion a well designed game, because White Wolf can't do mechanics, but nobody goes into it under the impression they're playing ordinary people or that there won't be ridiculous apotheosis shenanigans.

D&D in particular is in an unusual place for a few reasons. Part of it is that it's most everyone's first system, so there's a habit of defaulting to it where it doesn't work well that tends not to exist for other systems (a few generics can see this, but said generics also tend to have a wider range). Part of it is that there's so much in the game that creates an extremely specific setting, but also a fair amount of text that presents it as a generic fantasy setting.

[Mechalich]

Well, something I think should be considered about issues training hard enough to become superhuman.

A lot of people have social lives outside of training, might be injured, could be forced to stop due to other commitments or just not have interest in doing such things. Couple this with the very real possibility that a lot of them would die if they had a random encounter with something of a much higher CR than they can take, and... Yeah.

There's still the proportionality issue.

Let me throw out an example. I'll use distance running, since it recently made the news in a big way. The current marathon record is now just under 2 hours - by one of the best runners of the post-industrial era with a precision targeted training regimen, advanced technological support, and copious amounts of assistance from others during the event itself. However, running hobbyists train for marathons all the time, and it's quite common for such a person to complete a marathon in around 3.5 hours (an 8-minute-per-mile pace). For men competing in the Boston marathon this year the average finish time was under 3.5 hours for all age categories below 55 - a group thousands strong. Framed this was, a hobbyist with a modest amount of training in their off time can complete the race in only 175% of the time needed by the very best in the world under ideal conditions.

Now, imagine a world in which people can train to run with superhuman speed and endurance. In this scenario Eliud Kipchoge is still the best in the world, because he's got tons of natural talent and he trains relentlessly for marathons with a laser focus. to make the record obvious, let's increase his capabilities by a full order of magnitude and have him go ten times faster. Now he completes his record setting marathon not in just under 120 minutes, but in just under 12 - he's running at 130 miles and hour! If we assume proportionality of results to training, then a hobbyist marathoner can still complete the 26 mile run in 175% of the time, or 21 minutes, meaning they run at 74 miles an hour, faster than a cheetah and over far more distance than the cat can sustain.

Congratulations, now you have a world in which people who train modestly by running every day and putting in a hard run on the weekends can run around faster than you can legally drive on most highways. The resulting world is nothing like Earth. It's a magical world and you have to completely rebuild human civilization to account for this capability.

Now, you can indeed avoid all this by discarding proportionality. Well, you say, only the truly committed elite get access to "special" training regimes that allow them to unlock abilities levels far beyond the human norm. That's fine, you can certainly do that, but once you do, it's just superpowers all over again, there's just a 'you must train this fanatically to ride this ride' gatekeeper (which has consequences of its own, since it means everyone with powers will be desperate, fanatical, or both).


Also, this might sound like a broken record, but why isn't training really hard an ok answer, but studying (training your brain essentially) enough to become able to alter reality is?

Well, first of all, a huge number of settings, and even some D&D classes, don't allow studying to do that. Many, such as Star Wars or the Wheel of Time, explicitly require that those who master the mystic arts have some sort of inborn trait that normal people just don't get. Even when this isn't explicit it is often implied that learning to become a wizard requires some sort of 'special nature' that ordinary people don't have.

Beyond that, even if the mastery of magic is purely based on studying esoteric knowledge, it has the advantage that there's no baseline and therefore proportionality can be ignored. All human beings can run, so training to have superhuman running speed means a distribution curve with every other human on it somewhere. Humans don't have a natural ability to cast spells, which means you can arbitrarily anchor the distribution curve wherever you want. This means you can position it so that only the 1% of the most talented have any magical ability at all and that no matter how hard the hobbyists train they won't get anywhere.

Now, it is absolutely true that D&D does not do this. D&D says anyone with Int 10+ or Wis 10+ or Cha 10+ can learn to cast spells, which as a practical matter is a stupidly massive portion of the population. This is in fact a massive problem for D&D, which has both too much magic and magic that is way too powerful. Consequently the actual D&D rules - most extremely in 3.X but for other editions too - don't produce anything like the quasi-medieval backdrop presented in setting books and fiction with the possible exception of Dark Sun (which, huh, has special rules that limit magic). Overt permissiveness of magical use is an issue, especially for worldbuilding. Outright magic worlds where literally everyone in the population has magical powers to some degree - I mentioned the Codex Alera up-thread, it's a nice, popular example, tend to have cataclysmic verisimilitude issues.

[KineticDiplomat]

Well, we seem to have run into the classic D&D problem: it is an ultra Roll-play power fantasy where there is zero narrative consistency. In a system like that, you kind of expect balance in a way you wouldn’t for a Role-play system.

But it is a festering pile of dung at actually balancing any of it, meaning that in the power fantasy, several classes are fundamentally weaksauce and completely run over.

If it were a system about stories as opposed to “Mighty and Mightier”, that might not matter. But it’s not; it’s a system about how strong you can get while being uber.

If it were a system where certain niches were important because not everything could be solved through punching (not literally), maybe other classes would matter. But everything can be solved through punching, and casters have the strongest arms (again, not literally).

So what do you do with a crap system? Don’t play it. Go find any one of dozens of well regarded systems and play them instead. We live well beyond the days of yore where the hobby was two guys in a dorm with a monster manual. I guarantee that if there is a style you want to play, there probably a mechanically sound and community vetted system that will put the D&D on the back burner. If you’re lucky, you’ll spark interest from the rest of your table as well and never need to D&D again.

[Kaptin Keen]

Yeah, it is possible to kill a tiger with sufficient training and a weapon. The Maasai tribe would hunt lions as a rite of passage too. Gladiators would also be forced to fight against predatory animals.

The thing is, imagine them doing this within the span of 6 seconds. Then they do it again to the next tiger. And again. They're one shotting these animals as easily as you or I would kill an ant or rodent. They're just hitting it hard enough to kill it, though I suppose you could argue it's represented as an attack against a vital area, though that's what I considered crits to be... Either way, imagine a guy at the gym doing this daily, or even several times in one day and completely curbstomping the tiger.

Also, consider the tiger is probably going to be scratching at this person and there's a chance they'd die in this encounter. A normal human could beat these things, but I severely doubt it would be over in what's basically the blink of an eye, and the character could also just as easily kill 2 or 3 other lions with ease.

If it isn't over in the blink of an eye, the human isn't going to win. Humans cannot fight tigers, that's simply not doable. But humans can do things tigers can't, most notably think. So the human knows what the tiger is going to do: It's going to leap for the throat, because that's how tigers kill. Human waits, human times his strike perfectly, human wins.

In principle, a sufficiently trained and experienced human could do this over and over again.


Pretty much, only the person who did this didn't get up and essentially walk it off. Then he could go and do the same thing again and again just for fun.

What a boring story that would be. If a character decided to jump off things all the time just because he thought he could, I'd let him die. But if he does it once or twice because that's the ... let's say heroic ... thing to do, then I'll ro


Yeah, weird things can happen in real life. Like I mentioned above, a viking is rumored to have killed 100 men before dying.

Yes. That's my point, not yours. I'm the one arguing that the outer limits of what's humanly possible are much wider than you allow for.


If a Level 20 character broke their ankle after jumping off a building, I have to wonder how they'd survive getting hit by something like a Stone Giant.

Depending on the hight of the building, I'd say jumping off is way more dangerous than getting hit by a giant. You can't deflect a 200' fall.

But that's so much not the point. If a human just stands there and let's a club that's basically the equivalent of a speeding car hit him square in the chest - he's dead, instantly.

But I hope that's not how you play the game.

[Ignimortis]

So what do you do with a crap system? Don’t play it. Go find any one of dozens of well regarded systems and play them instead. We live well beyond the days of yore where the hobby was two guys in a dorm with a monster manual. I guarantee that if there is a style you want to play, there probably a mechanically sound and community vetted system that will put the D&D on the back burner. If you’re lucky, you’ll spark interest from the rest of your table as well and never need to D&D again.

Good luck finding a system without an explicit setting that also supports a zero-to-god power curve and also allows a multitude of concepts, usually not found together at any one point, to be realized.

[Cluedrew]

The resulting world is nothing like Earth. It's a magical world and you have to completely rebuild human civilization to account for this capability.And the same is not true for magic? As far as I am concerned we are already on this path, why not go a little bit further.

Although if don't want to have things go that far, mess with the curve a bit. The best in the world goes up by 10 times but the hobbyist only say doubles. Not that has no effect but it keeps things from being quite as insane. Until you realize there are wizards everywhere.

To Ignimortis: Mutants & Masterminds fits that description. Legend also does but does have a default setting. Those are the only two I can think of off the top of my head. I don't know what sort of power curve GURPS has.

[AntiAuthority]

If it isn't over in the blink of an eye, the human isn't going to win. Humans cannot fight tigers, that's simply not doable. But humans can do things tigers can't, most notably think. So the human knows what the tiger is going to do: It's going to leap for the throat, because that's how tigers kill. Human waits, human times his strike perfectly, human wins.



In principle, a sufficiently trained and experienced human could do this over and over again.

Ok, but what you said can apply to a low level character just as much as a high level one. Only thing is a high level Character could also be surrounded by 8 lions and still win within a few seconds.




What a boring story that would be. If a character decided to jump off things all the time just because he thought he could, I'd let him die. But if he does it once or twice because that's the ... let's say heroic ... thing to do, then I'll ro


Ok, but let me try something to see if I can get the same feeling down.

"What a boring story that would be. If a character decided creating incinerating enemies all the time just because he thought he could, I'd let him fail. But if he does it once or twice because that's the ... let's say heroic ... thing to do, then I'll ro"

At that point, why even bother having rules for characters if you would just ignore them because you don't like them?

You could just as easily say, "Yeah, using magic here wouldn't be cool, so your spells don't work." Would a caster player enjoy being told that?

That'd be the same thing as the DM examples I used above ignoring things in the rules because the DM doesn't believe in such things. How is that any different?

I addressed this already in the OP with, "Hit Points Are An Abstraction of Damage" and "It Reduces Levels to Completely Arbitrary Numbers."

Do you have anything to support your reasoning beyond you just wanting it to be that way because a normal person probably wouldn't survive throwing themselves off of extremely high places on a daily/hourly basis? If there's a reason, please tell me, otherwise you're subscribing to the "Guy At the Gym" fallacy.


Yes. That's my point, not yours. I'm the one arguing that the outer limits of what's humanly possible are much wider than you allow for.


Yes, real world athletes can push the boundaries of what was considered impossible, like the logging challenge.

I'm agreeing with you here, I don't understand why you seem bothered by this?


Depending on the hight of the building, I'd say jumping off is way more dangerous than getting hit by a giant. You can't deflect a 200' fall.

But that's so much not the point. If a human just stands there and let's a club that's basically the equivalent of a speeding car hit him square in the chest - he's dead, instantly.

But being able to deflect what amounts to a speeding car with a shield multiple times doesn't lead to the character having their arm broken? How much sense does that make?

I've addressed this in my OP, you're saying the same thing that I pointed out the flaws with already. What you're saying sounds a lot like those DMs in the hypothetical situations that I used in the OP.

I'm using numbers/feats/mechanics/the rules and you seem to be using the story by itself. Everything you said seems like you trying to fit high level characters into your preexisting ideas of what a low level character would look like, but still wanting to call it high level.

Kratos is a high (or possibly mid) level character (based on the types of monsters he kills), but you don't see people trying to force him to go on low level adventurers and be cautious of low level monsters.



But I hope that's not how you play the game.

Why does it matter to you how I play my games?





Honestly, I don't think either one is OK, and that "just training to human max" isn't enough to get magic, either -- at some point, the character has to either be born with, be given, or unlock/seize something extra that goes beyond just "working out his brain meats".

This sounds like a Willing Suspension of Disbelief issue, but I have different views on it than you.




There's still the proportionality issue.

Let me throw out an example. I'll use distance running, since it recently made the news in a big way. The current marathon record is now just under 2 hours - by one of the best runners of the post-industrial era with a precision targeted training regimen, advanced technological support, and copious amounts of assistance from others during the event itself. However, running hobbyists train for marathons all the time, and it's quite common for such a person to complete a marathon in around 3.5 hours (an 8-minute-per-mile pace). For men competing in the Boston marathon this year the average finish time was under 3.5 hours for all age categories below 55 - a group thousands strong. Framed this was, a hobbyist with a modest amount of training in their off time can complete the race in only 175% of the time needed by the very best in the world under ideal conditions.

Now, imagine a world in which people can train to run with superhuman speed and endurance. In this scenario Eliud Kipchoge is still the best in the world, because he's got tons of natural talent and he trains relentlessly for marathons with a laser focus. to make the record obvious, let's increase his capabilities by a full order of magnitude and have him go ten times faster. Now he completes his record setting marathon not in just under 120 minutes, but in just under 12 - he's running at 130 miles and hour! If we assume proportionality of results to training, then a hobbyist marathoner can still complete the 26 mile run in 175% of the time, or 21 minutes, meaning they run at 74 miles an hour, faster than a cheetah and over far more distance than the cat can sustain.

Congratulations, now you have a world in which people who train modestly by running every day and putting in a hard run on the weekends can run around faster than you can legally drive on most highways. The resulting world is nothing like Earth. It's a magical world and you have to completely rebuild human civilization to account for this capability.

Now, you can indeed avoid all this by discarding proportionality. Well, you say, only the truly committed elite get access to "special" training regimes that allow them to unlock abilities levels far beyond the human norm. That's fine, you can certainly do that, but once you do, it's just superpowers all over again, there's just a 'you must train this fanatically to ride this ride' gatekeeper (which has consequences of its own, since it means everyone with powers will be desperate, fanatical, or both).

To be honest, I'm not sure how to respond to this. I have heard of such principles before (what with talent not being some ultra rare thing that only a few people possess), but I don't quite feel like I can give an accurate argument for or against it. My apologies.




Well, first of all, a huge number of settings, and even some D&D classes, don't allow studying to do that. Many, such as Star Wars or the Wheel of Time, explicitly require that those who master the mystic arts have some sort of inborn trait that normal people just don't get. Even when this isn't explicit it is often implied that learning to become a wizard requires some sort of 'special nature' that ordinary people don't have.

Beyond that, even if the mastery of magic is purely based on studying esoteric knowledge, it has the advantage that there's no baseline and therefore proportionality can be ignored. All human beings can run, so training to have superhuman running speed means a distribution curve with every other human on it somewhere. Humans don't have a natural ability to cast spells, which means you can arbitrarily anchor the distribution curve wherever you want. This means you can position it so that only the 1% of the most talented have any magical ability at all and that no matter how hard the hobbyists train they won't get anywhere.

Now, it is absolutely true that D&D does not do this. D&D says anyone with Int 10+ or Wis 10+ or Cha 10+ can learn to cast spells, which as a practical matter is a stupidly massive portion of the population. This is in fact a massive problem for D&D, which has both too much magic and magic that is way too powerful. Consequently the actual D&D rules - most extremely in 3.X but for other editions too - don't produce anything like the quasi-medieval backdrop presented in setting books and fiction with the possible exception of Dark Sun (which, huh, has special rules that limit magic). Overt permissiveness of magical use is an issue, especially for worldbuilding. Outright magic worlds where literally everyone in the population has magical powers to some degree - I mentioned the Codex Alera up-thread, it's a nice, popular example, tend to have cataclysmic verisimilitude issues.

This sounds like a personal Willing Suspension of Disbelief going on here. I grew up with settings that encouraged hard work giving one super powers (Shonen manga), being incredibly smart allows you to use magic/be psychic (or they're that smart because they're able to use magic or are psychic...), and being able to be so charismatic that you can alter reality. This sounds like it varies depending on the person doing it.






So what do you do with a crap system? Don’t play it. Go find any one of dozens of well regarded systems and play them instead. We live well beyond the days of yore where the hobby was two guys in a dorm with a monster manual. I guarantee that if there is a style you want to play, there probably a mechanically sound and community vetted system that will put the D&D on the back burner. If you’re lucky, you’ll spark interest from the rest of your table as well and never need to D&D again.

You do have a point, but that could easily apply to anything anyone is critical of. At that point, why bother with constructive criticism? People (including me) criticize things because they want to see it improve. I put this up on a forum because I also wanted people to criticize my points so I could improve it by stamping out the flaws. Just saying, "Play another game" to me sounds like, "Don't try to fix or improve upon an already existing thing."

But still, at that point, what's the point of criticizing anything by that logic?

[Max_Killjoy]

And the same is not true for magic? As far as I am concerned we are already on this path, why not go a little bit further.

Although if don't want to have things go that far, mess with the curve a bit. The best in the world goes up by 10 times but the hobbyist only say doubles. Not that has no effect but it keeps things from being quite as insane. Until you realize there are wizards everywhere.


Whether magic really changes things fundamentally depends on how accessible, common, and capable the magic is. Magic that just allows relatively minor boosts in efficacy, reliability, etc, to existing human capabilities (say, blessing of a fire or forge spirit making a forge maintain just the right temperature, but stillr requiring the smith to do the work) is meaningful, but doesn't radically alter the culture or society.




To Ignimortis: Mutants & Masterminds fits that description. Legend also does but does have a default setting. Those are the only two I can think of off the top of my head. I don't know what sort of power curve GURPS has.


GURPS and HERO have whatever power curve the GM decides on and the players agree to. The starting CP/XP, and the rate of gaining CP/XP, and the limits on attributes and skills and powers and such, are all "toolkit".





This sounds like a Willing Suspension of Disbelief issue, but I have different views on it than you.


See signature. :smile:

[Talakeal]

At that point, why even bother having rules for characters if you would just ignore them because you don't like them?

You could just as easily say, "Yeah, using magic here wouldn't be cool, so your spells don't work." Would a caster player enjoy being told that?

That'd be the same thing as the DM examples I used above ignoring things in the rules because the DM doesn't believe in such things. How is that any different?

Conversely, if the rules always trump DM judgement, why even bother to have a DM?

If something, be it magic or mundane, doesn't make sense, I am going to step in.

Note that this almost never happens in actual play and is more about edge cases that usually only come up in discussions where people are trying to nitpick the rules, and if it does come up in actual play it is, in my experiance, almost certainly resulting from a caster trying to break the game rather than a artial just trying to get by.

[AntiAuthority]

Whether magic really changes things fundamentally depends on how accessible, common, and capable the magic is. Magic that just allows relatively minor boosts in efficacy, reliability, etc, to existing human capabilities (say, blessing of a fire or forge spirit making a forge maintain just the right temperature, but stillr requiring the smith to do the work) is meaningful, but doesn't radically alter the culture or society.

In regards to world building, it's easier to just take a preexisting culture and throw in magic than building a civilization from the ground up with magic in mind.

But some simple questions come into play, like, "If magic is so overwhelmingly powerful, wouldn't natural selection make it so that plenty of people have magic?"

Along with, "Why haven't mages just taken over the world? There's always that one jerk that feels the world owes them, and they have the power to take whatever they want."

"Since these humans have often have fantastic origins, are they really normal people like us?"

"How would humans have even been able to survive long enough to begin building civilizations when a lot or passing monsters could have casually enslaved/killed the masses if they felt like it?"

Probably others I can't think of at the moment, lol.

I'm fine with a Fantasy Kitchen Sink setting.





See signature. :smile:

I grew up watching Shonen anime, so... Mine is probably a lot different from someone who grew up 50 years ago only reading Conan and Cthulhu Mythos. It tends to vary from person to person.




Conversely, if the rules always trump DM judgement, why even bother to have a DM?

To have fun while telling a story using pre-existing (or modified) rules. I think the main job of a DM is to make sure everyone's having fun. Rules are there to help people have fun by letting them get creative with how they create their characters and test their abilities in the DM's world.

I doubt many people would find it fun if their DM just told them, "No, I don't care how minmaxed or specialized your character is, I'm not letting you do this thing." when they tried to do something they thought their characters should be able to do. Especially if it feels like the DM is ignoring a character that's well within the rules because the DM just doesn't like something their player is trying to do.

I've been that person and it felt like the DM was being vindictive, even if he just couldn't wrap his head around my character doing something that few regular people could survive.

Another player I know was noticeably disappointed when they tried something and the DM refused to let them do it because the DM didn't care about the rules, only about what a normal person could do.

I also read some threads on Reddit about similar occurrences.

But ultimately, I think the purpose of the DM is to make sure everyone's having fun, and to use the rules as a guide as to how to do that. Having a DM just pick and choose what doesn't work for them, even if you designed your character with this concept in mind, even if the rules say it's fine, doesn't sound fun to me. Especially if the DM also allows something else that's impossible (or just very unlikely) to happen, it'd feel like they were being arbitrary with their reasoning and there's no baseline except for what the DM was in the mood for at that point in time... At which point, why bother trying to do fantastic things since the DM could just ignore anything you do because, "I just don't like it"?


If something, be it magic or mundane, doesn't make sense, I am going to step in.


I can respect this reasoning, but what makes sense to you might not make sense to someone else.

Take dragons for example, they should not be able to fly under their own power. Giants and titans probably also wouldn't make much sense, as their hearts would probably explode from how large they are.

A lot of monsters don't make sense, but I ignore that because it's a different world and a fantastic one. These are fantastic creatures that fantastic people are fighting against.

I think what does and doesn't make sense to us flew out the window as soon as using items and talking lets you create a fireball. Doesn't make sense to us... But these characters are fantastic ones, not realistic ones.

[KineticDiplomat]

Re: criticism and other games. For the sake of brevity, I’ll keep this to a few main points:

1) Constructive criticism is a tool, and like all tools we measure it’s usefulness by how successfully it accomplishes/helps us accomplish the job.

2) The job you want done is to avoid martials being constrained to “realism” while magic gets “it can do whatever it wants”, and by extension avoid the martials-are-close-to-worthless-and-by-the-way-the-world-makes-no-sense thing.

3) What you don’t like is fundamentally built into the rules and mechanics of D&D, and is particularly exacerbated by the fact that D&D is first,foremost, and entirely about ubermensch fighting increasingly absurd enemies.

4) The community at large plays it the way it is written, to the point where I’ve literally seen posts on this board about how dumb some new guy was for not thinking up a soul based warlock healer and instead took “cleric” because he though the party needed a healer. Where you can find “tier” systems in signatures that relegate martials to being a joke class.

Conclusion: what you want is so fundamentally against the grain of what D&D and its players are that, as a tool, criticism is unlikely to change anything. There are times when it would be the tool to use, but not this time. This isn’t tweaking an understanding about an aspect of the game, it’s an attack on the very basis of the game. Changing your system will have far more effect, and far faster, than hoping one long essay on a fan board will.

Unless of course you take pleasure in arguing this sort of thing - and let’s admit it, if we didn’t, few people would post. In which case fire away. If you do, however, you may find that presenting other people with false dilemmas is somewhat sophomoric.

[Willie the Duck]

Slightly off topic, I have the Conan stories by Robert E. Howard, was Conan blatantly superhuman in these stories too? I've heard Comic!Conan is more powerful, but I really don't know too much about the character at the moment.

Conan, in the books, is probably one of the primary reasons why this standard was set for D&D fighters to begin with (along with contemporaries like Fafhrd) -- virtually everything he does in the books is something someone somewhere in the real world could have physically done, he just always succeeds (unless the plot demand he fail). He always succeeds at one-in-a-thousand type shots. He doesn't even do much one-in-a-million type things with routine success (he takes on a half dozen or so men multiple times, but about half the time that's how he ends up in a gaol cell or the like).



Well, we seem to have run into the classic D&D problem: it is an ultra Roll-play power fantasy where there is zero narrative consistency. In a system like that, you kind of expect balance in a way you wouldn’t for a Role-play system.

But it is a festering pile of dung at actually balancing any of it, meaning that in the power fantasy, several classes are fundamentally weaksauce and completely run over.

If it were a system about stories as opposed to “Mighty and Mightier”, that might not matter. But it’s not; it’s a system about how strong you can get while being uber.

If it were a system where certain niches were important because not everything could be solved through punching (not literally), maybe other classes would matter. But everything can be solved through punching, and casters have the strongest arms (again, not literally).

So what do you do with a crap system? Don’t play it. Go find any one of dozens of well regarded systems and play them instead. We live well beyond the days of yore where the hobby was two guys in a dorm with a monster manual. I guarantee that if there is a style you want to play, there probably a mechanically sound and community vetted system that will put the D&D on the back burner. If you’re lucky, you’ll spark interest from the rest of your table as well and never need to D&D again.

Most of us got past canards like 'Roll-play vs. Role-play' back when most D&D discussion was on Usenet subs. However, there is a decent point that D&D's narrative consistency, is, well, inconsistent. It has never really figured out what to do with high levels if you don't retire to kingship (which, to be fair to pre-3e versions of the game, is what the system expected you to do).

That said, the assumption that people even want to go play some other game fails on the first pass. It has a unique place in the gaming culture as a common point of reference that a huge majority of (US in particular) gamers have played and know well enough to game even with strangers can not be overstated in terms of value. If a certain level range plus playstyle plus priorities tends to break apart, that's often a small price to pay. Because the game can be played, readily and easily, depending on what you are willing to do, constrain yourself to, or put up with. That's how things like #6 exist, or games where everyone agrees to a certain tier range of classes (using the 3e concept of tiers, in this example), or have a specific focus of gameplay where what each character can mechanically do is not a major contributor towards party success (such as the name-level king&commander play mentioned before).

[kyoryu]

It has a unique place in the gaming culture as a common point of reference that a huge majority of (US in particular) gamers have played and know well enough to game even with strangers can not be overstated in terms of value.

Additionally, it has in many ways *defined* roleplaying... hit points, armor... many mechanics that we take for granted are lifted directly from D&D. It is the common infrastructure that many other games assume as a foundation, even as they make changes upon it.

[AntiAuthority]

2) The job you want done is to avoid martials being constrained to “realism” while magic gets “it can do whatever it wants”, and by extension avoid the martials-are-close-to-worthless-and-by-the-way-the-world-makes-no-sense thing.

Correct, I do want this. As well as possibly helping anyone who is on the fence with this in the process.


3) What you don’t like is fundamentally built into the rules and mechanics of D&D, and is particularly exacerbated by the fact that D&D is first,foremost, and entirely about ubermensch fighting increasingly absurd enemies.


Where is it fundamentally built into the rules? Could you elaborate?


4) The community at large plays it the way it is written, to the point where I’ve literally seen posts on this board about how dumb some new guy was for not thinking up a soul based warlock healer and instead took “cleric” because he though the party needed a healer. Where you can find “tier” systems in signatures that relegate martials to being a joke class.


Not too sure what this has to do with anything?

Also, you could argue that it's often the most vocal segment doing this sort of thing, as is common on the internet, not necessarily the community at large.


Conclusion: what you want is so fundamentally against the grain of what D&D and its players are that, as a tool, criticism is unlikely to change anything. There are times when it would be the tool to use, but not this time. This isn’t tweaking an understanding about an aspect of the game, it’s an attack on the very basis of the game. Changing your system will have far more effect, and far faster, than hoping one long essay on a fan board will.


How exactly am I attacking the very basis of the game? What is the basis of the game exactly, so I can know we're on the same page?

It's been said multiple times in this thread by other people that D&D is inconsistent, so what basis am I attacking?


Unless of course you take pleasure in arguing this sort of thing - and let’s admit it, if we didn’t, few people would post. In which case fire away. If you do, however, you may find that presenting other people with false dilemmas is somewhat sophomoric.

How exactly am I presenting people with false dilemmas?

[Talakeal]

I am starting to think that this thread, and to a lesser extent the original GATGF thread, are less about balancing casters and martials than they are about playing by RAW and not using house rules.

[Son of A Lich!]

I am starting to think that this thread, and to a lesser extent the original GATGF thread, are less about balancing casters and martials than they are about playing by RAW and not using house rules.

Well, when you are talking about game balance, we need a jumping off point to be on the same page. House Rules, by definition, are not supported in the Rules as they are written. I could say "Wish is not a spell mortal casters can cast in my game and I never had a problem with balancing Martials and Casters" but that doesn't help the discussion on why Casters out class Martials in D&D.

[Kaptin Keen]

Ok, but what you said can apply to a low level character just as much as a high level one. Only thing is a high level Character could also be surrounded by 8 lions and still win within a few seconds.

Nah - there's much more parity at lower levels, and all characters are much closer to RL limits of what's humanly possible.


Ok, but let me try something to see if I can get the same feeling down.

"What a boring story that would be. If a character decided creating incinerating enemies all the time just because he thought he could, I'd let him fail. But if he does it once or twice because that's the ... let's say heroic ... thing to do, then I'll ro"

At that point, why even bother having rules for characters if you would just ignore them because you don't like them?

You could just as easily say, "Yeah, using magic here wouldn't be cool, so your spells don't work." Would a caster player enjoy being told that?

That'd be the same thing as the DM examples I used above ignoring things in the rules because the DM doesn't believe in such things. How is that any different?

That's only even remotely comparable if you've paid zero attention to what I'm actually saying.

I go out of my way to make players - and characters - feel special and powerful.

That can't be done by taking away player agency.

So no.


I addressed this already in the OP with, "Hit Points Are An Abstraction of Damage" and "It Reduces Levels to Completely Arbitrary Numbers."

Do you have anything to support your reasoning beyond you just wanting it to be that way because a normal person probably wouldn't survive throwing themselves off of extremely high places on a daily/hourly basis? If there's a reason, please tell me, otherwise you're subscribing to the "Guy At the Gym" fallacy.

Yes, real world athletes can push the boundaries of what was considered impossible, like the logging challenge.

But being able to deflect what amounts to a speeding car with a shield multiple times doesn't lead to the character having their arm broken? How much sense does that make?

I've addressed this in my OP, you're saying the same thing that I pointed out the flaws with already. What you're saying sounds a lot like those DMs in the hypothetical situations that I used in the OP.

I'm using numbers/feats/mechanics/the rules and you seem to be using the story by itself. Everything you said seems like you trying to fit high level characters into your preexisting ideas of what a low level character would look like, but still wanting to call it high level.

Kratos is a high (or possibly mid) level character (based on the types of monsters he kills), but you don't see people trying to force him to go on low level adventurers and be cautious of low level monsters.

You're putting your head in a vice with the words 'THE RULES' on it. You don't have to. Quite literally, you can just not do that, and it stops.

You wanna know how I justify letting a guy jump off a roof? It's not like it's ever come up, in precisely that way. So I'm going to describe one way it has come up, and one way I'm making up as I go.

First, the suicide stabber: One of my games featured a mage who used a fly spell to fly from a platform out into the open space inside his tower - to rain fire on the PC's. The PC's had no way of flying, and no easy way to reach the mage. The rogue decided to just jump for it, grab onto the mage, and stab him to death. Proceeded to do so too. And when the mage died, his spell failed, and both dropped like a sackful of bricks.

Clearly, I allowed the rogue to push off from the mage, and catch himself on a lower platform. He failed that, but I allowed a second check which he made, to land on a lower platform still, and suffer a pile of damage.

Now, let's say we have a guy leaping off a tall building. It's that or get torn to shreds by the BBEG's goons, who are just seconds behind. Our hero looks out over the sheer drop, and notices a scaffolding - way down, but not lethally so. He could make that jump. Then, from the scaffolding, he might - just might - be able to jump across to some tall trees, and from there down to the street.

In not cheating, I'm not coddling the player or holding his hands - I may be adding a few hitherto unknown details to the terrain, but I'm rewarding my player being inventive and decisive, supporting his agency.

That is not a bad thing. And it neatly moves things inside the realm of reason, so my fighter can feel cool and powerful - despite not being a full caster class.

Why does it matter to you how I play my games? [/QUOTE]

Frankly - I don't. But this is a discussion, and you're one part of it, and .. it seemed to make sense. Is all =)

[Talakeal]

Well, when you are talking about game balance, we need a jumping off point to be on the same page. House Rules, by definition, are not supported in the Rules as they are written. I could say "Wish is not a spell mortal casters can cast in my game and I never had a problem with balancing Martials and Casters" but that doesn't help the discussion on why Casters out class Martials in D&D.

Right, but all of the examples in both this thread and the original are about DM house rules / rulings that limit martials rather than actual published rules, and when I said I tend to make rulings and house rules to limit casters far more often than I do to limit martials, the OPs response boiled down to it always being best to play by RAW.

[AntiAuthority]

Nah - there's much more parity at lower levels, and all characters are much closer to RL limits of what's humanly possible.

Yeah, at lower levels, but you seem to be insisting it's the same at higher levels. Or am I misunderstanding something?




That's only even remotely comparable if you've paid zero attention to what I'm actually saying.

I go out of my way to make players - and characters - feel special and powerful.

That can't be done by taking away player agency.

So no.

But you also typed on the previous page...


If a character decided to jump off things all the time just because he thought he could, I'd let him die.


It sounds like you're taking away the player's agency to decide what falls are and aren't deadly to their character, regardless of hit points or what type of challenges they'd faced and survived before.



You're putting your head in a vice with the words 'THE RULES' on it. You don't have to. Quite literally, you can just not do that, and it stops.


I get that you're ignoring rules. I stand by rules being a guideline, not a straight jacket. Feel free to houserule.

My main issue is people insisting things have to be this way, pointing to select parts of the rules while ignoring other parts of them and trying to enforce their personal opinions on how things work without anything to back it up beyond them saying so. There's no rhyme or reason beyond house rules that other people try to enforce on others.



First, the suicide stabber: One of my games featured a mage who used a fly spell to fly from a platform out into the open space inside his tower - to rain fire on the PC's. The PC's had no way of flying, and no easy way to reach the mage. The rogue decided to just jump for it, grab onto the mage, and stab him to death. Proceeded to do so too. And when the mage died, his spell failed, and both dropped like a sackful of bricks.

Clearly, I allowed the rogue to push off from the mage, and catch himself on a lower platform. He failed that, but I allowed a second check which he made, to land on a lower platform still, and suffer a pile of damage.

While cool, why have you kept insisting that the way you roleplay high level characters as lower level concepts? That's mostly what the entire "Guy At The Gym" fallacy is about.


Now, let's say we have a guy leaping off a tall building. It's that or get torn to shreds by the BBEG's goons, who are just seconds behind. Our hero looks out over the sheer drop, and notices a scaffolding - way down, but not lethally so. He could make that jump. Then, from the scaffolding, he might - just might - be able to jump across to some tall trees, and from there down to the street.


This sounds a lot like a low level character if he's running away from goons and needs luck to survive falling.



That is not a bad thing. And it neatly moves things inside the realm of reason, so my fighter can feel cool and powerful - despite not being a full caster class.


The realm of reason for people that go and kill possibly dozens of giant monsters within a few minutes?

Earlier you said:


That's only even remotely comparable if you've paid zero attention to what I'm actually saying.


But I'm getting the impression you aren't paying much attention to what I've said or why. I've gone over this multiple times already with you, but you keep saying the same things, leading to me saying the same things in response that I covered in the OP.

But let's see if we can come to an understanding.

Is a Level 20 character, to you, within the realms of what is possible for humans today? I figure we can work from there.




I am starting to think that this thread, and to a lesser extent the original GATGF thread, are less about balancing casters and martials than they are about playing by RAW and not using house rules.



Right, but all of the examples in both this thread and the original are about DM house rules / rulings that limit martials rather than actual published rules, and when I said I tend to make rulings and house rules to limit casters far more often than I do to limit martials, the OPs response boiled down to it always being best to play by RAW.


Hm, I'm sorry if my intentions seem confusing.

I am in favor of balancing martials with casters. My issue is with some people (not even necessarily in this thread, but in general) that think casters should automatically be superior to martials. Much like how I'd be bothered if people figured weapons should be superior to magic. I feel a character of a certain level should have powers appropriate to that level, as opposed to being limited to what someone at one of our gyms/Olympics could accomplish.

The reason I wrote this topic is to point out the flaws in trying to limit high level characters to the realms of our reality. As well as open discourse on why people can back up why fantastic characters are limited to our real world's limits.

The rules, even as inconsistent as they may be, sort of support this. What with CR, levels and scaling these characters to the types of enemies they'd be expected to fight. Even from a story perspective, I don't see how a mortal man is supposed to be able to contend with things that can warp reality.

If it's still confusing, I can try to elaborate, but the main point I'm making is, "If Casters can be more than normal men, why can't Martials? Let everyone be beyond the realm of real world people if they're a high enough level."

[Talakeal]

"If Casters can be more than normal men, why can't Martials? Let everyone be beyond the realm of real world people if they're a high enough level."

Because then they would be stepping on the monks toes.

[Kaptin Keen]

Is a Level 20 character, to you, within the realms of what is possible for humans today? I figure we can work from there.

Lets.

No. What a level 20 character can do is not within the realm of what is possible for human beings. But if I'm doing things right, neither is what a level 1 character can do. It is, I admit, a lot closer. But no, I do try to make even low level characters fantastic. It is, after all, fantasy.

And .. as an aside, I'm pretty sure I said early on that this whole discussion is kinda cheating on my part ... because I never play with high level characters. I'm mostly E6.

[AntiAuthority]

Because then they would be stepping on the monks toes.

Actually, I was including Monks as Martials because they use ki, not magic. It's in my OP, but...


It’d be more fair if Martials got to be more along the lines of Ryu Hayabusa, Kratos, Dante, Goku, Cu Chulainn or Thor, but as it stands the “Guy At The Gym” Fallacy keeps Martials much lower than Casters of the same level.



Ryu Hayabusa is a ninja, but he does have access to Ki like monks (making me think he'd have levels in Monk or be some kind of archetype...). Goku possesses Ki as well, but it's noted to be different in his universe from magic (Goku is just a full monk). They're the types of characters I was talking about bringing up to the level of casters.

But ignoring that, why is it fair for casters to step on a martial's toes? And why is it ok for one class to be inherently weaker than the other, when they share the same level? Isn't there a problem if one group has to suck for another group to shine? I'm for balance for everyone.

Also, how do you justify characters that are within the realm of humanity being important beyond lower levels?

How do you justify the absurd amounts of carnage they can cause with a piece of sharpened metal?



Lets.

No. What a level 20 character can do is not within the realm of what is possible for human beings. But if I'm doing things right, neither is what a level 1 character can do. It is, I admit, a lot closer. But no, I do try to make even low level characters fantastic. It is, after all, fantasy.

And .. as an aside, I'm pretty sure I said early on that this whole discussion is kinda cheating on my part ... because I never play with high level characters. I'm mostly E6.

... I don't understand what we were arguing about then lol. Sounds like we're in agreement to an extent about characters on that scale not being regular humans.

But yeah, everything you described so far makes a lot of sense for an E6 campaign.

[Talakeal]

Actually, I was including Monks as Martials because they use ki, not magic. It's in my OP, but...




Ryu Hayabusa is a ninja, but he does have access to Ki like monks (making me think he'd have levels in Monk or be some kind of archetype...). Goku possesses Ki as well, but it's noted to be different in his universe from magic (Goku is just a full monk). They're the types of characters I was talking about bringing up to the level of casters.

But ignoring that, why is it fair for casters to step on a martial's toes? And why is it ok for one class to be inherently weaker than the other, when they share the same level? Isn't there a problem if one group has to suck for another group to shine? I'm for balance for everyone.

Also, how do you justify characters that are within the realm of humanity being important beyond lower levels?

How do you justify the absurd amounts of carnage they can cause with a piece of sharpened metal?


I am all for balance to, but your way of achieving balance is to simply remove martials from the game, which is the worst way to achieve it.

Note that monks already have plenty of supernatural powers, yet they are still usually considered worse than rogues, barbarians, and fighters.

I justify carnage because all living creatures have weak spots and hig level characters are augmented with tons of spells and fantastical equipment, a fighter with purely mundane gear will get smacked down by a similarly levelled monster.

[AntiAuthority]

I am all for balance to, but your way of achieving balance is to simply remove martials from the game, which is the worst way to achieve it.

How am I removing martials? They're not casting spells, their abilities can work in anti-magic fields, they don't draw their power from an outside source, they don't draw their power from a cursed/bless bloodline, they're just superhumanly skilled and have bodies far beyond what a normal human can do.

Think about what I said with Thor. Thor isn't a caster, he's a martial that uses a magic weapon. Or Beowulf, he's not a caster, he's just a martial with very high stats/a high level.

And why is that the worst way to achieve balance?


Note that monks already have plenty of supernatural powers, yet they are still usually considered worse than rogues, barbarians, and fighters.


I thin Monks, in addition to every other martial, need a buff. Or to stop having people justify keeping them at a lower power level than they currently are.


I justify carnage because all living creatures have weak spots and hig level characters are augmented with tons of spells and fantastical equipment, a fighter with purely mundane gear will get smacked down by a similarly levelled monster.

But this brings me back to my question on how these characters can do this even with mundane equipment? A high level character could easily kill something like a tiger, with or without magic equipment.

And while the characters might have magic equipment, they're still a soft, squishy human and there's nothing stopping a competent enemy from just slitting their throats.

Or getting thrown around by giant monsters should be breaking their bones.

Couldn't a character just set up an anti-magic field and kill the squishy martial inside?

This also means the martials are dependent on their magic gear/dependent on having casters make their magic gear for them as opposed to being self reliant.

Also, that goes back to rendering levels a meaningless concept in games.

[Kaptin Keen]

... I don't understand what we were arguing about then lol. Sounds like we're in agreement to an extent about characters on that scale not being regular humans.

But yeah, everything you described so far makes a lot of sense for an E6 campaign.

I think we're arguing about ... you see it as a problem? And I don't.

Or - and this is entirely feasible - I forgot what the argument was about along the way. Regardless, I think the 'guy at the gym' thing is a pretty good measure of how extreme any given action is. Like the leaping off a building. The guy at the gym could - potentially - do that and live. Like the guy whose parachute didn't open. It can happen, therefore a fantasy hero could reasonably expect to get away with it.

Unlike, say, swimming through lava. That is not possible.

But 'the guy at the gym' shouldn't be ... a limit. Just a measurement - like the meter. There's a guy at my gym who could actually armwrestle an ogre and have a shot at winning. He could potentially survive a fall from a plane, but he couldn't swim lava. On an unrelated sidenote, I'm always baffled why anyone would want to be that huge.

When I was in the ... 6th or 7th grade, I would sometimes fight - for fun (and profit) a whole bunch of 5th graders. Like, 4-5-6 of them. Toss them about, shake them off, grab one by the arm and swing him into the others. That's what a fighter should be, against a bunch of rank and file guard dudes. Just ... superior. I mean, not that I was 'superior' - other than being a year or two older.

And .. you know, I think you agree with me? Except, you feel the rules are stopping you?

[AntiAuthority]

I think we're arguing about ... you see it as a problem? And I don't.

Or - and this is entirely feasible - I forgot what the argument was about along the way. Regardless, I think the 'guy at the gym' thing is a pretty good measure of how extreme any given action is. Like the leaping off a building. The guy at the gym could - potentially - do that and live. Like the guy whose parachute didn't open. It can happen, therefore a fantasy hero could reasonably expect to get away with it.

Pretty much, the entire fallacy hinges on keeping PC characters with enough levels within our scope.


Unlike, say, swimming through lava. That is not possible.


Yep, not a man in the world could do that, but I'd expect such things from a guy who considers getting set on fire by an irritated dragon an average day.



But 'the guy at the gym' shouldn't be ... a limit. Just a measurement - like the meter. There's a guy at my gym who could actually armwrestle an ogre and have a shot at winning. He could potentially survive a fall from a plane, but he couldn't swim lava. On an unrelated sidenote, I'm always baffled why anyone would want to be that huge.


I agree again!


And .. you know, I think you agree with me? Except, you feel the rules are stopping you?
[/QUOTE]

Sort of, it's complicated. I'll break it down into two main parts.

1. The belief that martial characters should be limited to what is possible on our world, that's what bothers me the most so I made this thread to challenge that belief. The issue is that the people who say this tend to not have much reason beyond it not being something characters can do in the real world.

2. Martial characters, as per the rules, ARE superhuman... Sort of. It's like the rule set itself isn't quite sure either. On one hand, you give them the ability to do absurd amounts of damage, take several lethal blows in a row and for the case of 3.5E let them do blatantly superhuman feats of power... But they're also not scaling properly to their level like a caster would. It's like the game itself isn't quite sure on how to handle it, so leaves it more ambiguous than with casters.

I could just go play another game, but I genuinely want to hear what people have to say on this and see if they can bring up solid reasons for why D&D isn't a superhero game at later levels. I started a similar thread on Reddit a while back, and when questioned on it, people just tended to avoid giving solid reasons, leading me to think they were just doing it because they felt it was right.

I'm fine with house ruling it, but not fine with the game itself wants to place such characters, and definitely not ok with other players dictating, "D&D doesn't have such characters, go play another game" and when questioned on their reasons for why D&D isn't or can't be this way, tend to avoid why what they said is true and often just defaults to, "Because it's not that type of game." Which leads me back to the appeal to emotion part in the OP.

... So I suppose you could say my main problem is with trying to enforce the "Guy At The Gym" fallacy on others without any reasons for why martial characters can't be more than a "Guy At the Gym".

Let me know if I need to elaborate more.

[Koo Rehtorb]

1. The belief that martial characters should be limited to what is possible on our world, that's what bothers me the most so I made this thread to challenge that belief. The issue is that the people who say this tend to not have much reason beyond it not being something characters can do in the real world.

I mean, it's an unstated aesthetic preference is why. I don't want fantasy superheroes: the game. I think it's dumb. Now you can say, and I'd agree, that people should just play a different game. But it's not always that simple. You don't know other games exist, all everyone else wants to play is D&D, you can't afford another game, you're irrationally attached to the only system that you know, you like most things it does and it still fits better than any other choice, whatever. There's lots of reasons why people hack a system instead of playing an entirely new one.

[Knaight]

I mean, it's an unstated aesthetic preference is why. I don't want fantasy superheroes: the game. I think it's dumb. Now you can say, and I'd agree, that people should just play a different game. But it's not always that simple. You don't know other games exist, all everyone else wants to play is D&D, you can't afford another game, you're irrationally attached to the only system that you know, you like most things it does and it still fits better than any other choice, whatever. There's lots of reasons why people hack a system instead of playing an entirely new one.

Especially D&D - because if you already have more than one game a lot of these don't apply. You probably know there are good free options, you clearly aren't that attached to any one game, etc. Whatever th market leader is will have some weird use cases because of it.

[Morty]

I mean, it's an unstated aesthetic preference is why. I don't want fantasy superheroes: the game. I think it's dumb. Now you can say, and I'd agree, that people should just play a different game. But it's not always that simple. You don't know other games exist, all everyone else wants to play is D&D, you can't afford another game, you're irrationally attached to the only system that you know, you like most things it does and it still fits better than any other choice, whatever. There's lots of reasons why people hack a system instead of playing an entirely new one.


Especially D&D - because if you already have more than one game a lot of these don't apply. You probably know there are good free options, you clearly aren't that attached to any one game, etc. Whatever th market leader is will have some weird use cases because of it.

Which, of course, turns the whole thing into an unsolvable problem, because someone is going to be unhappy - people who want superhuman non-casters, people who don't, or people who want powerful high-level casters. I guess a potential solution is explicitly and purposefully variable power levels, but I don't see it happening.

(Also I don't think the power level of high-level D&D casters has any place in a good and healthy game, even after 5E dials it back a notch. But that's beside the point)

[Talakeal]

Which, of course, turns the whole thing into an unsolvable problem, because someone is going to be unhappy - people who want superhuman non-casters, people who don't, or people who want powerful high-level casters. I guess a potential solution is explicitly and purposefully variable power levels, but I don't see it happening.

(Also I don't think the power level of high-level D&D casters has any place in a good and healthy game, even after 5E dials it back a notch. But that's beside the point)

Actual super hero games manage it. You just need to worry about your own character and not everyone else's.


I'm fine with house ruling it, but not fine with the game itself wants to place such characters, and definitely not ok with other players dictating, "D&D doesn't have such characters, go play another game" and when questioned on their reasons for why D&D isn't or can't be this way, tend to avoid why what they said is true and often just defaults to, "Because it's not that type of game." Which leads me back to the appeal to emotion part in the OP.

... So I suppose you could say my main problem is with trying to enforce the "Guy At The Gym" fallacy on others without any reasons for why martial characters can't be more than a "Guy At the Gym".

Let me know if I need to elaborate more.

Because D&D was originally created to emulate the high fantasy and sword and sorcery genres, and some people still prefer that to shonen anime or medieval super heroes.

Its the same reason they still make James Bond and Rambo movies in the action genre rather than just suiting up the character in tights and a cape and joining the MCU.


How am I removing martials? They're not casting spells, their abilities can work in anti-magic fields, they don't draw their power from an outside source, they don't draw their power from a cursed/bless bloodline, they're just superhumanly skilled and have bodies far beyond what a normal human can do.

You are removing the "Badass-normal" character concept from the game, which is what a lot of people want when they roll a fighter.



Think about what I said with Thor. Thor isn't a caster, he's a martial that uses a magic weapon. Or Beowulf, he's not a caster, he's just a martial with very high stats/a high level.

Thor is literally a god.

Beowulf, on the other hand, is pretty much exactly like a current D&D fighter. He is just a regular guy with a magic sword who is really good at beating up monsters and feats of physical endurance.



And why is that the worst way to achieve balance?

Because variety is fun. Simply removing things until only things that are the same is left makes for a bland and boring game. See most complaints about 4E.



I think Monks, in addition to every other martial, need a buff. Or to stop having people justify keeping them at a lower power level than they currently are.

Who does that though? I have never actually seen a GM nerf martials for "realism". I have seen a few people ban monks outright for not fitting in with their campaign aesthetic, but I haven't seen anyone actually go out of their way to screw over martials playing within the rules.



But this brings me back to my question on how these characters can do this even with mundane equipment? A high level character could easily kill something like a tiger, with or without magic equipment.

There are people in real life who can kill tigers with mundane equipment. Again, I don't think anyone is actually arguing that a high level person be "realistic" or "mundane" they just prefer an aesthetic that correlates towards what someone could, theoretically, do in real life.



And while the characters might have magic equipment, they're still a soft, squishy human and there's nothing stopping a competent enemy from just slitting their throats.

Couldn't a character just set up an anti-magic field and kill the squishy martial inside?

Yep. Sure can. Coup de grace. massive damage, and instant death rules do exist. And at reasonable levels of optimization they work just as well on casters as martials.



Or getting thrown around by giant monsters should be breaking their bones.

As I said early, HP are an inconsistent mess. They represent toughness, morale, fatigue, luck, plot armor, and skill at dodging, but exactly which they represent at any given moment is ever shifting.



This also means the martials are dependent on their magic gear/dependent on having casters make their magic gear for them as opposed to being self reliant.

Yep. Just like wizards are dependent on their spell books and components and clerics are dependent upon the favor of their god.

If you want to play a truly self reliant character, I suggest you go with a monk or a psion rather than making gear dependant concepts into something they aren't.




Also, that goes back to rendering levels a meaningless concept in games.

How so?

[FaerieGodfather]

Just trying to wrap my head around all of the people accusing the OP of "trying to turn D&D into something that it's not" are all the people who can't accept that the way that hit points have worked in the game for forty-five years are the way that hit points are supposed to work in the game.

[Mechalich]

Which, of course, turns the whole thing into an unsolvable problem, because someone is going to be unhappy - people who want superhuman non-casters, people who don't, or people who want powerful high-level casters. I guess a potential solution is explicitly and purposefully variable power levels, but I don't see it happening.

(Also I don't think the power level of high-level D&D casters has any place in a good and healthy game, even after 5E dials it back a notch. But that's beside the point)

D&D sells to people who want different things, and to some degree there's been deliberate decisions to accommodate those divergent choices and produce a system that is incoherent in order to maximize sales and market share rather than create a system that is robust. This is something that I mentioned several times in the balance thread - making a good game and making a popular one are not only not directly correlated they have an actively inverse relationship in some areas.

D&D has long worked quite well at low levels. 3.X in particular incorporates a lot of detailed tactical, movement, and hazard rules that are extremely useful for the low-level dungeon-crawling experience. Compared to the rest of the marketplace it is a genuinely good system for running that particular type of game, one supported by a truly vast array of options. It's still a high-magic fantasy kitchen sink at that point and has problems attendant to that, but they can be mostly papered over.


(Also I don't think the power level of high-level D&D casters has any place in a good and healthy game, even after 5E dials it back a notch. But that's beside the point)

I agree, and I think that many people involved in game design also agree, but they choose to include that content anyway because there's people who want to see it even if its not actually playable. The Pathfinder Bestiary 6 lists 32 monsters with a CR of 21 or higher (not counting ancient dragons), including various archdevils and archdaemons. These things aren't meant to see play in any sort of serious game - you don't fight Mammon in person - but there's some fragment of the fanbase that wants to see stats on these things and it allows them to fill up book space.

This isn't unique to D&D, lots of games give in to fan pressure and produce options for things that really shouldn't see play. White-Wolf printed a book for exalted that had stats for the Unconquered Sun - the literal sun god - because they could. Star Wars games regularly stat up things like the Executor, something that no party-level group is going to engage in a meaningful space battle with. It's a reccuring temptation.

[AntiAuthority]

Because D&D was originally created to emulate the high fantasy and sword and sorcery genres, and some people still prefer that to shonen anime or medieval super heroes.

In AD&D, an 8th level Fighter was given the title Superhero.
(http://lost.spelljammer.org/Dawnspace/level.htm)


Its the same reason they still make James Bond and Rambo movies in the action genre rather than just suiting up the character in tights and a cape and joining the MCU.


I don't understand what this has to do with anything? James Bond and Rambo would be low level concepts.


You are removing the "Badass-normal" character concept from the game, which is what a lot of people want when they roll a fighter.



How many times have I said such characters would probably be better simulated at lower levels? Playing a badass normal is perfectly ok, but you can't have someone that could break two t-rexes in half in a few seconds then claim they're just low level character concepts.

Anything else would result in a situation where you try to roleplay a Level 20 character as Aragorn, when they're on the same level to face threats like Kratos or Dante.

All three use swords, but two are vastly more powerful than one. Have you read my OP? I've covered this the concept of nobody in the real world breaking into the double digits.

Do you have any reason why a Level 20 Martial is just a guy? I've provided reasons for why I think they aren't, so could you provide reason to counter it? I'm curious as to your reasoning for why.


Thor is literally a god.


And so is Loki, but you aren't against casters being able to replicate god-like feats, but you are against (mortal) martials doing it.


Beowulf, on the other hand, is pretty much exactly like a current D&D fighter. He is just a regular guy with a magic sword who is really good at beating up monsters and feats of physical endurance.


So Beowulf is a regular guy to you and an example of what a Fighter should be? You just compared him to a D&D Fighter, but are against the concept of me making these characters superhuman.

But in the epic, let's see what Beowulf does but is still a regular guy...




The world record at the moment for swimming without stopping is just under 2 days, Beowulf swam for 7.

The current record for holding a breath while underwater is a little over 24 minutes, Beowulf held his breath while swimming down for a day. Then he proceeded to fight Grendel's mother while still underwater.

Beat the (invulnerable to mortal weaponry) monster that would come and kill the warriors inside the building every night... Beowulf didn't even use weapons (mainly because it'd be useless). He then tore the monster's arm off with his bare hands... Looking online, it's very difficult to tear off someone's arm, let alone a giant's.

Carried Grendel's head, which was too heavy for four men to barely lift.

Cut a dragon in half.


How's he a regular guy? Admittedly, he killed Grendel's mother with a giant, enchanted sword, but he didn't need it to kill Grendel and the dragon. He was already extremely powerful without enchanted weapons.

He's the type of hero you'd expect to go out and kill monsters like it's his job. Basically a properly scaled character, though I'd say he's not Level 20, he is a higher level concept than the other characters brought up (besides other mythological heroes).

How am I trying to get rid of the badass normal character if you agree that he's what a D&D 5E Fighter is?

He wasn't magic, he was just a martial. So great at fighting that the dragon only managed to stalemate him when he was essentially an old man, far from his prime.



Because variety is fun. Simply removing things until only things that are the same is left makes for a bland and boring game. See most complaints about 4E.


I have no opinion on 4E, as I've never played it for myself, but from what I've heard... It's because Martials were just casters by a different name. I don't want that.



Who does that though? I have never actually seen a GM nerf martials for "realism". I have seen a few people ban monks outright for not fitting in with their campaign aesthetic, but I haven't seen anyone actually go out of their way to screw over martials playing within the rules.


My DM has in the past. But also, you earlier typed...


If something, be it magic or mundane, doesn't make sense, I am going to step in.


I wasn't sure how to interpret that, I figured you were saying you wouldn't let a martial do some BS mythological hero/anime stunts because it didn't make sense (in a sense, nerfing)... But I probably need more context, could you elaborate on what you mean by this?


There are people in real life who can kill tigers with mundane equipment. Again, I don't think anyone is actually arguing that a high level person be "realistic" or "mundane" they just prefer an aesthetic that correlates towards what someone could, theoretically, do in real life.


Alright, but why try to force that version of reality onto others?

Also, slight aside but you typed...


Again, I don't think anyone is actually arguing that a high level person be "realistic" or "mundane"


Going back a little bit...


I am all for balance to, but your way of achieving balance is to simply remove martials from the game, which is the worst way to achieve it.



How am I removing martials? They're not casting spells, their abilities can work in anti-magic fields, they don't draw their power from an outside source, they don't draw their power from a cursed/bless bloodline, they're just superhumanly skilled and have bodies far beyond what a normal human can do.


You are removing the "Badass-normal" character concept from the game, which is what a lot of people want when they roll a fighter.

Along with...


If Casters can be more than normal men, why can't Martials? Let everyone be beyond the realm of real world people if they're a high enough level.




Because then they would be stepping on the monks toes.


With those in mind, it sounds like you're trying to limit martials to realism from earlier context.


As I said early, HP are an inconsistent mess. They represent toughness, morale, fatigue, luck, plot armor, and skill at dodging, but exactly which they represent at any given moment is ever shifting.


I've covered my thoughts on HP in the OP, would be interested in someone telling me their interpretation of how this would work.


Yep. Just like wizards are dependent on their spell books and components and clerics are dependent upon the favor of their god.


Wizards and Clerics get those things as class features. They can make their own magic items. Fighters can't.


If you want to play a truly self reliant character, I suggest you go with a monk or a psion rather than making gear dependant concepts into something they aren't.


Like Beowulf? He didn't need magic equipment (except that time he was fighting underwater after swimming for a day against a giant).

Why can't a Fighter be like Beowulf, who you compared him to earlier, in that they don't need magic weapons to stay relevant except in very specific cases where they may or may not be exhausted/at a severe home field disadvantage?



How so?

A Level 5 character being able to consistently defeat a Level 10 character 1v1. The Level 10 character wasn't a proper Level 10 character, they were much lower character with a bigger number than their actual power level.

A CR 19-20 creature (like a Balor because I'm unimaginative) is a creature capable of taking on a party of Level 20 characters. A Level 20 character is expected to be able to hold their own in a fight against such a beast.

Or say a Level 20 Wizard and a Level 20 Fighter facing off against an Adult Black Dragon with just their own class features/power. The Wizard has a lot of options on what to do and can hold their own against the lower CR enemy. The Fighter is going to stand there and hope the thing gets within real of him, or if he has a bow, use that to try to kill the monster that's likely avoiding him until its breath recharges. The Level 20 Fighter is powerful, but not as powerful as things a Level 20 Character should be expected to fight.

At that point, Fighters aren't really Level 20, they've got an over inflated number but none of the appropriate power to back it up. They have the health of a Level 20 character, but not the other powers.

So, in that light, it renders levels to, "You're this level, but the strength between levels varies wildly depending on what class you are. So, a Level 10 for this character might only be as strong as a Level 5 for another character."

[Max_Killjoy]

Actual super hero games manage it. You just need to worry about your own character and not everyone else's.


Because D&D was originally created to emulate the high fantasy and sword and sorcery genres, and some people still prefer that to shonen anime or medieval super heroes.

Its the same reason they still make James Bond and Rambo movies in the action genre rather than just suiting up the character in tights and a cape and joining the MCU.


You are removing the "Badass-normal" character concept from the game, which is what a lot of people want when they roll a fighter.


Thor is literally a god.

Beowulf, on the other hand, is pretty much exactly like a current D&D fighter. He is just a regular guy with a magic sword who is really good at beating up monsters and feats of physical endurance.


"Regular guy with a sword who is really good at beating up monsters" pretty much also caps out far below level 20.

It's fine, great even, to want to play those characters, and to enjoy playing those characters, but in D&D that leaves you with two issues:

1) Superheroic is as superheroic does. If your character is doing superheroic things, then your character is superheroic, full stop, and it doesn't matter many "just a regular guy" stickers you slap on them.
2) D&D spellcasters become "medieval super heroes" as they go up in level, there's no way around it, and there's a disconnect if "just a regular guy" is doing things that balance with that level of power.


There's a reason that the version of Batman from the Justice League comics who routinely keeps up with the demigods on that team is a bit of a joke character to many readers at this point.

[Cluedrew]

On Superhuman: I looked up anyone with 23 strength or more can walk around with more gear than the world weight-lifting record. Even in 5e that started cutting back on the scores you can go to 30 right? That sounds pretty superhuman.

On D&D's Goal: I think D&D is trying to cover all of them. It cover the gritty low fantasy at low level and progresses to the over the top action fantasy at high level. If its not it has even more work to bring the casters into line.

Also I don't care. No system should present such a double-standard as an equality. You can play at a level were a real world contribute, or you can go above that. But you can't do both. And if that is what D&D wants to do it will always fail or have to operate on contrivance.

That was unusually harsh for me, I must be in a mood.

[Arbane]

Actual super hero games manage it. You just need to worry about your own character and not everyone else's.

I am required by Federal Law to post the Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit clip at this point. :smallbiggrin:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw



AntiAuthority, a little advice from bitter personal experience: If you're replying to someone else's posts one sentence at a time, the likelihood of actual communication is very low.

[Talakeal]

In AD&D, an 8th level Fighter was given the title Superhero.

So are Batman and The Punisher.


I don't understand what this has to do with anything? James Bond and Rambo would be low level concepts.


How many times have I said such characters would probably be better simulated at lower levels? Playing a badass normal is perfectly ok, but you can't have someone that could break two t-rexes in half in a few seconds then claim they're just low level character concepts.

That's a... really circular argument.

But are you telling me that you couldn't imagine someone like Tarzan defeating two T-rax's in combat in a pulp action story?



Do you have any reason why a Level 20 Martial is just a guy? I've provided reasons for why I think they aren't, so could you provide reason to counter it? I'm curious as to your reasoning for why.

The whole "just a guy" thing is just name calling / straw manning. Nobody actually thinks a level 20 character is "just a guy", but I am saying that you could make a character who would be an appropriate level 20 character (minus the magic items) without doing anything that is impossible in real life (minus the abstractions that are built into the core rules of the game).



And so is Loki, but you aren't against casters being able to replicate god-like feats, but you are against (mortal) martials doing it.

I am ok with a wizard doing some of the stuff Loki does, just like I am ok with a fighter doing some of the stuff Thor does. But, as gods, they are both terrible benchmarks for what classes should be able to do.



So Beowulf is a regular guy to you and an example of what a Fighter should be? You just compared him to a D&D Fighter, but are against the concept of me making these characters superhuman.

But in the epic, let's see what Beowulf does but is still a regular guy...

snip

How's he a regular guy? Admittedly, he killed Grendel's mother with a giant, enchanted sword, but he didn't need it to kill Grendel and the dragon. He was already extremely powerful without enchanted weapons.

He's the type of hero you'd expect to go out and kill monsters like it's his job. Basically a properly scaled character, though I'd say he's not Level 20, he is a higher level concept than the other characters brought up (besides other mythological heroes).

I said Beowulf is just like a high level D&D fighter; a normal guy except for his ability to beat up monsters and superhuman feats of disturbance, and you refute this by listing examples of beating up monsters and performing superhuman feats of endurance?



How am I trying to get rid of the badass normal character if you agree that he's what a D&D 5E Fighter is?

So are you saying you are fine with a 5E fighter then?



My DM has in the past.

Please do tell.



I wasn't sure how to interpret that, I figured you were saying you wouldn't let a martial do some BS mythological hero/anime stunts because it didn't make sense (in a sense, nerfing)... But I probably need more context, could you elaborate on what you mean by this?

I was referring to things like bucket healing and commoner railguns. I might be tempted to treat a player engaged in suicidal behavior to show off as a coup de grace, but that's not something that would actually come up in a game, just forum discussion.

Now, to use your example; there is a huge difference between nerfing someone and trying to maintain a consistent tone.

If you want to describe your attacks as over the top anime stunt, that might not be appropriate for a sword and sorcery game, just like in your ideal anime game it wouldn't be appropriate for me to describe my attack as dropping an anvil on your head, squashing you flat, and make you walk around all crumpled up and emitting accordian noises until you blew yourself up again by sticking your thumb in your mouth and taking a deep breath, even though that might be appropriate in Toon.


Alright, but why try to force that version of reality onto others?

From a mechanical perspective, they need to tone down the power of the stronger classes and buff the weaker classes, because games are most fun when everyone can contribute, and right now the disparity is just too dang high for the game to run as advertised based on the default settings and CR guidelines listed in the DMG.

From a narrative perspective, I see it as the complete opposite. I don't see people saying you can't roll a warblade and play it as chu-chalain, or a monk as Goku, or a barbarian as The Hulk.

What I do see though, is a lot of people telling me I am not allowed to play a high level fighter and RP him as Captain America or Conan, because it makes their god-wizard feel less special.




I've covered my thoughts on HP in the OP, would be interested in someone telling me their interpretation of how this would work.

I can show you a quote from 1E where Gary Gygax explains that HP represents combat skill and not just meat.

Also, one problem with the HP as meat explanation, large animals like elephants, dinosaurs, and whales are just as able to survive a fall from orbit or immersion in lava as a high level fighter is.



Wizards and Clerics get those things as class features. They can make their own magic items. Fighters can't.

Not sure why that matters, but if it does, there are feats and classes that can allow a martial to forge their own magic items. Iron Man is a valid concept for a martial.



Why can't a Fighter be like Beowulf, who you compared him to earlier, in that they don't need magic weapons to stay relevant except in very specific cases where they may or may not be exhausted/at a severe home field disadvantage?

In 3E everyone, casters included, is expected to have a ton of magic items, and the game is built around it.

Fighter is designed as a weapon master in D&D. If you want to be an awesome unarmed character, PF has the brawler class and I am sure 3E has a PRC for it. But you absolutely can and should be able to play Beowulf.



A Level 5 character being able to consistently defeat a Level 10 character 1v1. The Level 10 character wasn't a proper Level 10 character, they were much lower character with a bigger number than their actual power level.

A CR 19-20 creature (like a Balor because I'm unimaginative) is a creature capable of taking on a party of Level 20 characters. A Level 20 character is expected to be able to hold their own in a fight against such a beast.

Or say a Level 20 Wizard and a Level 20 Fighter facing off against an Adult Black Dragon with just their own class features/power. The Wizard has a lot of options on what to do and can hold their own against the lower CR enemy. The Fighter is going to stand there and hope the thing gets within real of him, or if he has a bow, use that to try to kill the monster that's likely avoiding him until its breath recharges. The Level 20 Fighter is powerful, but not as powerful as things a Level 20 Character should be expected to fight.

At that point, Fighters aren't really Level 20, they've got an over inflated number but none of the appropriate power to back it up. They have the health of a Level 20 character, but not the other powers.

So, in that light, it renders levels to, "You're this level, but the strength between levels varies wildly depending on what class you are. So, a Level 10 for this character might only be as strong as a Level 5 for another character."

Are we talking fluff or crunch here?

Crunch-wise, I agree, 3E martials need huge buffs and 3E casters need huge nerfs. (And AD&D / 5E to a much smaller degree).

Fluff wise, there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone who wants to play a character who makes up for their lack of powers with exceptional skills, someone like Batman or The Punisher.

[Arbane]

I am ok with a wizard doing some of the stuff Loki does, just like I am ok with a fighter doing some of the stuff Thor does. But, as gods, they are both terrible benchmarks for what classes should be able to do.


True. High-level wizards in 3.5 are MUCH stronger than Loki. :smallbiggrin:

[Talakeal]

I can show you a quote from 1E where Gary Gygax explains that HP represents combat skill and not just meat.

Actually, I am just going to post it now to save myself the trouble later:

“It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage – as indicated by constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the “sixth sense” which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection.”

[Lord Raziere]

So are Batman and The Punisher.

Fluff wise, there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone who wants to play a character who makes up for their lack of powers with exceptional skills, someone like Batman or The Punisher.

I don't know what your arguing for or against but....

Keep in mind, that superhero universes and the heroes within them are quite possibly the most ridiculously powerful characters to exist, even the "normal" superheroes. Batman is an intellect greater than the entirety of human civilization, can solve any case, is a near mind reader in his deductive reasoning, prepares for the most ridiculous of scenarios and takes on gods and other such entities, and pretty much makes any level 20 human fighter look like a scrub.

while the Punisher has been a super since 1974. thats almost 50 years of marvel continuity, he is probably almost as powerful in other ways simply because of all the built up things that has happened in his stories, just like Batman.

using these people as an example is to use human paragons of excellence that could probably defeat any being outside of their universe with ease through the sheer amount of planning, training and pragmatism they use to take down every single person that has ever decided to mess with them. the greek demigods of old are weak compared to the things these guys have done, and will probably continue to do.

eighth level? pfff.hahahahahahahahahaha.

they left that behind long ago.

[Quertus]

Conversely, if the rules always trump DM judgement, why even bother to have a DM?

Because the GM knows the module, the content, the "secrets" that the players cannot easily roleplay pretending not to know.

Because the GM is the eyes and ears of the characters, responsible for bridging the gap for the players between our world and theirs.

Because someone has to run everyone who isn't a PC.

Honestly, IME, tables run better when rules not just trump GM, but when, in fact, the players adjudicate the rules whenever possible.


True. High-level wizards in 3.5 are MUCH stronger than Loki. :smallbiggrin:

Old modules expect you to kill Loth around, what, level 8? 20th level characters should be so far beyond the gods.

[Keltest]

Old modules expect you to kill Loth around, what, level 8? 20th level characters should be so far beyond the gods.

Define "old". in AD&D 1e, most meaningful progression capped out at around level 10. The difference between a 10th level wizard and a 20th level wizard was approximately 20 HP.

[AntiAuthority]

"Regular guy with a sword who is really good at beating up monsters" pretty much also caps out far below level 20.

It's fine, great even, to want to play those characters, and to enjoy playing those characters, but in D&D that leaves you with two issues:

1) Superheroic is as superheroic does. If your character is doing superheroic things, then your character is superheroic, full stop, and it doesn't matter many "just a regular guy" stickers you slap on them.
2) D&D spellcasters become "medieval super heroes" as they go up in level, there's no way around it, and there's a disconnect if "just a regular guy" is doing things that balance with that level of power.


I'd say the duck test is in order here...




AntiAuthority, a little advice from bitter personal experience: If you're replying to someone else's posts one sentence at a time, the likelihood of actual communication is very low.

Yeah, I'm starting to see how it could get confusing and take away from the bigger point. Less time consuming lol.




So are Batman and The Punisher.



That's a... really circular argument.



Too tired to respond to everything (and it seems to be having us miss each other's points), but a few things stick out.

How is what I said a circular argument?

Why is it me pointing out something earlier editions of D&D (like AD&D calling 8th level fighters Superheroes) not completely meshing with something you said was promptly ignored with no explanation beyond Batman and Punisher?

And about HP, yes, Gary Gygax said that... But he also intended for D&D to be a war game, the game has changed immensely since those days and he lost control over his own creation, so his words are valid for the versions of D&D he worked on. It'd be like arguing that the Wright Brothers have say over how modern airplanes work.

EDIT: Also, you said nobody's arguing that a Level 20 character is just a guy, and I'm not quite sure what you stance is... Can you boil it down? I think keeping it shorter would be better here.

[Arbane]

Old modules expect you to kill Loth around, what, level 8? 20th level characters should be so far beyond the gods.


https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/NrkAAOSwcP5c3Odo/s-l640.jpg


Someone pointed out to me that in AD&D spells of 6th level and up aren't dungeon explorer spells, they're dungeon administrator spells. Once a Magic-User hits name level, they're expected to become the Mad Wizard Who Made a Trap-Filled Monster-Infested Labyrinth For Funsies.

[Kraynic]

And about HP, yes, Gary Gygax said that... But he also intended for D&D to be a war game, the game has changed immensely since those days and he lost control over his own world, so his words are valid for the versions of D&D he worked on. It'd be like arguing that the Wright Brothers have say over how modern airplanes work.

To be honest, it really hasn't changed all that much. It is still a game that revolves around killing things and taking their stuff, and anything else is very secondary. How efficiently certain types of characters can kill things and take their stuff has changed over time, but that is about it.

[AntiAuthority]

To be honest, it really hasn't changed all that much. It is still a game that revolves around killing things and taking their stuff, and anything else is very secondary. How efficiently certain types of characters can kill things and take their stuff has changed over time, but that is about it.

True, but that leaves me with a variety of questions, such as the ones I posted in OP.

Also, just making sure I'm not misunderstanding, but didn't the gods in AD&D have very hit points? I remember hearing Lolth had about 48, but I don't know much about older editions of D&D, but something about rolling lower being a better thing.

[Arbane]

True, but that leaves me with a variety of questions, such as the ones I posted in OP.

Also, just making sure I'm not misunderstanding, but didn't the gods in AD&D have very hit points? I remember hearing Lolth had about 48, but I don't know much about older editions of D&D, but something about rolling lower being a better thing.

You might be thinking of Armor Class (which went down in older editions)? More HP is always better, regardless of edition.

IIRC, Lolth had an exceptionally low 66 hitpoints, but a hard-to-hit AC and a big home-turf advantage.

In 1st ed Deities & Demigods, looks like most gods had HP in the 200-400 range, but you weren't expected to fight them. (Not that that stopped anyone...)

[Mechalich]

Also, just making sure I'm not misunderstanding, but didn't the gods in AD&D have very hit points? I remember hearing Lolth had about 48, but I don't know much about older editions of D&D, but something about rolling lower being a better thing.

In 1e and 2e AD&D hit point totals were much lower, for almost everything in the game. There's two main reasons for this. First, constitution bonuses for bonus hp were extremely limited. You did not recieve any Con bonus HP unless you had a 15 or higher and, unless you were a 'warrior' (which meant fighter, ranger, or paladin, plus a few classes added later like Gladiator) it capped at +2 per hit die, a limit that applied even to deities. Second, you stopped receiving Con bonus HP when you stopped rolling hit dice and moved into static HP advancement - when this happened varied from class to class but was usually level 10-ish. That, of course, is the second thing, especially since the static HP boost was always less than the average roll on a die for HP. This limit didn't apply to monsters - but essentially everything got flat d8s for hit dice (here and there arbitrary bonuses could be found), resulting in HP totals that are pitiful compared to their counterparts later. Here's a nice, obvious example: a 2e Balor has 13 HD, so it has 59 hit points. A 3.5 Balor has 290 hit points, almost 5 times as many.

Now the big reason that this discrepancy matters is that, while HP totals are so much higher in 3.X (especially at higher levels where essentially everything has a giant Con bonus), is that raw damage values are roughly the same from one edition to the next. A medium longsword, for instance, does 1d8 damage in both editions (if anything it actually does less in 3e because in 2e weapons dealt more damage when attacking big enemies for some reason). A fireball does 1d6 per caster level in both editions. As a result, attacks that were effective in 2e - such as hitting for an average of 10 damage - swiftly become laughable in 3.X, but while there were certain bonuses to damage put in place (character strength was assumed to be higher for one) they weren't enough and characters intending to hit for damage have to jump through numerous hoops to keep up with the HP treadmill.

This change in the damage dynamic meant that finding ways to kill things that didn't rely on direct HP damage became much more important. This also tied in to changes in the rules for disabled enemies. In 2e, a disabled enemy (one you zonk with sleep for example) means you get a free attack. In 3e, it means you coup de grace them. Likewise, mechanics like flat-footed also mean that enemies that are merely immobilized became much easier to hit. This combined with a change in how saving throws and magic resistance worked to make SoS and SoD spells much more effective (also you got a lot more of them because of the new rules about bonus spells). The result was a fundamental switch in the basic tactics between editions. In 2e the basic strategy was 'hit it until it dies.' In 3e that strategy became 'disable it and then wail on it while it squirms.'

Now, for all that, Casters are still significantly more powerful than martials in 2e, especially at higher levels, but a lot of that has to do with out-of-combat utilization of spells and also the ability to use certain spells like projected image to rig fights so they remain untouchable. However, so long as you play within a dungeon-shaped box the discrepancy is much, much less noticeable - as you can see in a game like Baldur's Gate II.

[Satinavian]

True, but that leaves me with a variety of questions, such as the ones I posted in OP.

Also, just making sure I'm not misunderstanding, but didn't the gods in AD&D have very hit points? I remember hearing Lolth had about 48, but I don't know much about older editions of D&D, but something about rolling lower being a better thing.
There is also the thing that Gygax didn't like the players to continue playing after they got to a medium level and had intended for them to retire successful characters to start anew from lv 1. So there were published stats for gods and mythical heroes with an intentional low level to give the players with vastly higher level characters a hint that they were playing the game "wrong".
This is also the reason for the insane amount of xp that higher level required. Intended to scream "Isn't it boring sitting so long at the same level ? Retire already !"

But the earlier editions had a wonky idea about what levels actually meant. Just compare the stats of dieties with the various versions of Conan that got published over time and you will see how that does simply not mesh at all.


Additionally, it has in many ways *defined* roleplaying... hit points, armor... many mechanics that we take for granted are lifted directly from D&D. It is the common infrastructure that many other games assume as a foundation, even as they make changes upon it.
Hit points are popular, but the vast majority of systems i know use armor as damage reduction. And outside of direct clones basically no one uses the alignment or the Vancian casting.

I don't think the actual D&D rules are that influential. Tabletop RPGs copy each other all the time but in many cases other solutions are more popular than how D&D does things.

[Kaptin Keen]

Pretty much, the entire fallacy hinges on keeping PC characters with enough levels within our scope.



Yep, not a man in the world could do that, but I'd expect such things from a guy who considers getting set on fire by an irritated dragon an average day.

But again, that's an assumption. Oh ... not entirely, there are tropes telling us how no fire is hotter than dragonfire - but still: It's our assumptions telling us that getting his by dragonsbreath instantly turns you to cinders.

There was an episode, when I went to school. Henrik, a classmate, fumbled a gas bunsen burner. I don't really know how he managed to do it, but first he got it turned into a tiny fireball, the entire burner surrounded by a halo of burning gas. Then he tried to shake it - to put it out - resulting only in the burner flying off it's hose, and the fire now coming straight out of the hose.

By this point most of the class including the teacher had fled the room. For reference the gas was coming from a 20000 liter tank under the school, and being out in the hallway would have done them precisely zero good.

At this point, Henrik was ... slightly panicky. I'm guessing he also wanted to be out in the hallway. I tried to ... simply turn off the gas, but Henrik in his panic pointed the hose at my hand by accident. He then somehow managed to rip the hose off the spout, while simultaneously pointing the tip of it at the spout, meaning that fire was now merrily issuing directly from the spout. At this point, I turned off the gas.

The point of this story is that two 12 year olds fooled around with hot, burning gas for actually quite a while, fire went everywhere - and no one got hurt. Not a single burn. Henrik, who was uniquely unfortunate, then later tried to clean a model airplane by candlelight, tipped over the bottle of rinsing agent, tipped over the candle into the rinsing agent, then tried to stamp out the ensuing fire with his hands - which were soaked in rinsing agent. He wore plastic bags on his hands for a month.

So it all depends. It makes sense that a heroic character would be able to dodge, deflect or otherwise avoid getting insta-crisped. That doesn't mean that diving into hot, burning magma is suddenly feasible.


I agree again!

Unacceptable! The internet is in uproar =)


Sort of, it's complicated. I'll break it down into two main parts.

1. The belief that martial characters should be limited to what is possible on our world, that's what bothers me the most so I made this thread to challenge that belief. The issue is that the people who say this tend to not have much reason beyond it not being something characters can do in the real world.

2. Martial characters, as per the rules, ARE superhuman... Sort of. It's like the rule set itself isn't quite sure either. On one hand, you give them the ability to do absurd amounts of damage, take several lethal blows in a row and for the case of 3.5E let them do blatantly superhuman feats of power... But they're also not scaling properly to their level like a caster would. It's like the game itself isn't quite sure on how to handle it, so leaves it more ambiguous than with casters.

I could just go play another game, but I genuinely want to hear what people have to say on this and see if they can bring up solid reasons for why D&D isn't a superhero game at later levels. I started a similar thread on Reddit a while back, and when questioned on it, people just tended to avoid giving solid reasons, leading me to think they were just doing it because they felt it was right.

I'm fine with house ruling it, but not fine with the game itself wants to place such characters, and definitely not ok with other players dictating, "D&D doesn't have such characters, go play another game" and when questioned on their reasons for why D&D isn't or can't be this way, tend to avoid why what they said is true and often just defaults to, "Because it's not that type of game." Which leads me back to the appeal to emotion part in the OP.

... So I suppose you could say my main problem is with trying to enforce the "Guy At The Gym" fallacy on others without any reasons for why martial characters can't be more than a "Guy At the Gym".

Let me know if I need to elaborate more.

I still feel you could get the game to work the way you want by being ... a bit creative with how you use the rules. Or you know, by house ruling and/or just breaking them. I often use the house rule that barbarian rage let's you break various enchanments - like Charm or Hold Person. Not that that, in itself, suddenly and magically balances everything =)

But if your beef is that the system shouldn't need crutches to make melee characters feel relevant - then I couldn't agree more.

[Cluedrew]

But if your beef is that the system shouldn't need crutches to make melee characters feel relevant - then I couldn't agree more.That's the "symptom" of the issue that is really impossible. I can imagine an urban fantasy campaign where none of the "martial" characters really approach peak human - let alone exceeds it - while magic users do impossible things and it would be fine. Because urban fantasy impossible things tend to be subtle, hard to set up and handily countered by a two-by-four. Unless the big demon summoning ritual actually works. Then you are going to need a lot of two-by-fours.

But in the action fantasy worlds D&D and many other systems take place in, that doesn't work. Magic is too big, too direct and too convenient for a normal human being to stand up to it. Hence martials either have to go beyond normal human - well beyond Olympian even - or be left behind. Ars Magica left them behind, but by giving every class a 20 level track D&D "promised" not to... but then it did anyways.

[Lucas Yew]

Another golden thread, especially the first post. To the OP, keep up the good work and spirit, your very first post was a fantastic summary! Nice forum name, by the way.

Anyway, about the topic (and the first post which I greatly agree with). From the POV of a wuxia fan + GURPS heartbroken(*) dude, in the case of two 20th level D&D characters, one magical and other supposedly not, and the former is clearly superior in mechanical spotlight gaining capabilities, the latter was conned of their XP values spent on purchasing their "mundane" class features, and that's a game design felony, in my adamant opinion. And don't even mention that only the latter depend on external addons (example: magic items) to stay relevant on the CR treadmill, like a life support.

To haphazardly sum this up, I think you should redefine the character Level (/HD/CR) structure to actively work as a certain benchmark of what you can accomplish in the game universe. Luckily, we can use the casters' main toys, spells, in setting the examples; by level 17, any classed character should be capable of doing something awesome comparable to bending reality, raining down 4 miniature meteorites, stopping time, and the like.

But, what about the at-will and limited balancing? Well, I actually grew to think that it might be impossible; so instead of prepare and quickly consuming spell slots to steal the show instantly, as an alternative spellcasting system the spellcasters will rather spend actions charging up their intended spells at-will, probably getting backlash psychic damage or the like when interrupted (hence requiring non-caster bodyguards on a serious adventure). The more potent the effect is, the more actions it should take and more backlash it will risk; and higher level spellcasters will gradually have discounts on the action economy to make those big guns not too impractical to use in dire situations...

----

(Edits)

Come to think of it, if a guy can solo a 10m long mature dragon and pulverize it to shreds in 18 seconds via sharpened steel, yet has serious trouble kicking open a shut metal door in a similar time frame, that's just so messed up and wrong in verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief.

----

(*) I vowed to never play game rules that ain't OGL/CC/something-similar-in-legal-freedom; and if not for that, I would play only GURPS for its state as an immense lure for simulationist players.

[Kraynic]

True, but that leaves me with a variety of questions, such as the ones I posted in OP.

Also, just making sure I'm not misunderstanding, but didn't the gods in AD&D have very hit points? I remember hearing Lolth had about 48, but I don't know much about older editions of D&D, but something about rolling lower being a better thing.

It has been a long time since I played AD&D, but (if I remember right) you generally didn't actually fight the gods. You fought avatars of the gods, which (when defeated) would ban the physical presence of that god(dess), archdemon, or whatever from your plane for 100 years. This probably varies by DM, but when I was playing the gods were more powerful on their own plane. I don't remember HP being the difference, but the amount of help that surrounded them when you wanted to take them on in their own home.

It has been a long time though, and since I didn't retain any books from AD&D or 2E over the years, I could be wrong (or could have been setting/house rule influenced). Also, none of the DMs I played under ran any published modules, so that may very well affect things as well.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's the "symptom" of the issue that is really impossible. I can imagine an urban fantasy campaign where none of the "martial" characters really approach peak human - let alone exceeds it - while magic users do impossible things and it would be fine. Because urban fantasy impossible things tend to be subtle, hard to set up and handily countered by a two-by-four. Unless the big demon summoning ritual actually works. Then you are going to need a lot of two-by-fours.

But in the action fantasy worlds D&D and many other systems take place in, that doesn't work. Magic is too big, too direct and too convenient for a normal human being to stand up to it. Hence martials either have to go beyond normal human - well beyond Olympian even - or be left behind. Ars Magica left them behind, but by giving every class a 20 level track D&D "promised" not to... but then it did anyways.

Which gets us into my "what will you give up?" comments that I try to post in a way that doesn't irk people, but I guess I fail at.

D&D gives up coherence, especially on the worldbuilding side.

Ars Magica gives up any notion of "non-mages" keeping up with "mages".

Exalted gives up any notion that PCs aren't "superhuman".

Other systems/settings "give up" high-powered PC spellcasting or all PC spellcasting ( "give up" in quotes because they never had it to begin with, by design).

etc.

[Kaptin Keen]

That's the "symptom" of the issue that is really impossible. I can imagine an urban fantasy campaign where none of the "martial" characters really approach peak human - let alone exceeds it - while magic users do impossible things and it would be fine. Because urban fantasy impossible things tend to be subtle, hard to set up and handily countered by a two-by-four. Unless the big demon summoning ritual actually works. Then you are going to need a lot of two-by-fours.

But in the action fantasy worlds D&D and many other systems take place in, that doesn't work. Magic is too big, too direct and too convenient for a normal human being to stand up to it. Hence martials either have to go beyond normal human - well beyond Olympian even - or be left behind. Ars Magica left them behind, but by giving every class a 20 level track D&D "promised" not to... but then it did anyways.

I don't agree at all. Casters just need to be susceptible to 2-by-4's. Checks and balances. Casters need ways to deal with melee's, and melee's need ways to deal with casters. The example I used earlier is a ... simple tool to do a tiny bit of that - letting specifically barbarians laugh at attempts to disable them. That doesn't stop the wizard from teleporting away, but it certainly stops the barbarian from becoming irrelevant (in any situation where forcing the wizard to teleport away would be considered a win, at least).

So no. If I was designing the game, wizards would chose quite specifically among spells - each option gained would others lost. And any melee class would have quite specific ways of dealing with casters. Such as barbarian being able to beat CC. Sure, I'd have to put some thought into precisely how I'd make it all work. For one thing, if I were designing a game, spells like fly and teleport would not be usable in combat. Or for that matter any other spell that quite simply negates entire other classes.

[Lord Raziere]

Other systems/settings "give up" high-powered PC spellcasting or all PC spellcasting ( "give up" in quotes because they never had it to begin with, by design).


Do you count what optimized Mutants and masterminds spellcasting can do in that? Sufficiently well-designed alternate effects can probably replicate anything a high level caster can do, and a sufficiently powerful Variable effect can pretty much cast any spell ever.

Not that this stops a physical superman from having a bunch of punchy attack alternate effects doign the same things or whatever....heck those are probably cheaper. less need to spend anything on range or area.

[Max_Killjoy]

Do you count what optimized Mutants and masterminds spellcasting can do in that? Sufficiently well-designed alternate effects can probably replicate anything a high level caster can do, and a sufficiently powerful Variable effect can pretty much cast any spell ever.

Not that this stops a physical superman from having a bunch of punchy attack alternate effects doign the same things or whatever....heck those are probably cheaper. less need to spend anything on range or area.


I don't know M&M well enough to really answer that. Does it have specific powers, or does it work like HERO, with the mechanical power built from basic building blocks to model the fiction-level ability the character has? HERO is so deeply different from D&D etc because of this -- you can model any attack that just hits stuff at range as an Xd6 Blast, and it doesn't matter if it's throwing rocks, a laser cannon, or telekinetic strike.

[Lord Raziere]

I don't know M&M well enough to really answer that. Does it have specific powers, or does it work like HERO, with the mechanical power built from basic building blocks to model the fiction-level ability the character has? HERO is so deeply different from D&D etc because of this -- you can model any attack that just hits stuff at range as an Xd6 Blast, and it doesn't matter if it's throwing rocks, a laser cannon, or telekinetic strike.

I mean....all those can be modeled with:

Damage, Ranged, 20 points, rank 10

if you want to be make the least effort.

a telekinetic strike if its invisible has Subtle attached to it. if you want to it to be true telekinesis with damaging power its:
Move Object, Subtle, Damaging, 40 points, rank 10

a laser cannon if sufficiently powerful can have Area(Line) instead, which hits everything in that line no matter how far.

while throwing rocks can be modeled with:
Damage, Strength-based, Ranged, 20 points, rank 10

so depends on how far you want to model it.

[AntiAuthority]

That doesn't mean that diving into hot, burning magma is suddenly feasible.

I was mostly going by hitpoints (In 3.5E anyway) and how a Mature Red Dragon dragon can do more damage with their breath weapons than being submerged in lava, on average. But how I interpret HP is not going to fit with everyone else.




Or you know, by house ruling and/or just breaking them.


I've been thinking about house ruling this next time me and my group play Pathfinder, incase anyone wants to play a martial... Probably not, I seem to be the only person in the group who likes doing that, except for the guy that sometimes plays a Rogue. He's perfectly aware that such characters aren't useful compared to casters at high level, but I'm not too sure he'd want his rogue to be anything but a regular, if talented, thief.


But if your beef is that the system shouldn't need crutches to make melee characters feel relevant - then I couldn't agree more.


Definitely lol.




But in the action fantasy worlds D&D and many other systems take place in, that doesn't work. Magic is too big, too direct and too convenient for a normal human being to stand up to it. Hence martials either have to go beyond normal human - well beyond Olympian even - or be left behind. Ars Magica left them behind, but by giving every class a 20 level track D&D "promised" not to... but then it did anyways.

Could you elaborate on Ars Magica? But yeah, I clearly agree about martials either needing to go well beyond what an Olympic athlete can do to remain relevant in a cosmic battle against ancient evils with possibly armies under their command. Dude with a magic sword somehow remaining relevant there without really thick plot armor just leaves a lot of questions... :smallconfused:




Another golden thread, especially the first post. To the OP, keep up the good work and spirit, your very first post was a fantastic summary! Nice forum name, by the way.

Glad you enjoyed it! I put a lot of work into it.


Anyway, about the topic (and the first post which I greatly agree with). From the POV of a wuxia fan + GURPS heartbroken(*) dude, in the case of two 20th level D&D characters, one magical and other supposedly not, and the former is clearly superior in mechanical spotlight gaining capabilities, the latter was conned of their XP values spent on purchasing their "mundane" class features, and that's a game design felony, in my adamant opinion. And don't even mention that only the latter depend on external addons (example: magic items) to stay relevant on the CR treadmill, like a life support.


I get what you mean, never played GURPs for myself though, but it does reduce levels to a pointless level instead of indicating the power of something.


To haphazardly sum this up, I think you should redefine the character Level (/HD/CR) structure to actively work as a certain benchmark of what you can accomplish in the game universe. Luckily, we can use the casters' main toys, spells, in setting the examples; by level 17, any classed character should be capable of doing something awesome comparable to bending reality, raining down 4 miniature meteorites, stopping time, and the like.


Pretty much this is what I had in mind, comparing martial classes to casters of the same level and giving them powers appropriate to being on that level.




Just trying to wrap my head around all of the people accusing the OP of "trying to turn D&D into something that it's not" are all the people who can't accept that the way that hit points have worked in the game for forty-five years are the way that hit points are supposed to work in the game.

I'm not sure why people seem to think I'm attacking or trying to destroy D&D. As far as I knew, there wasn't really a standard on what D&D is except a game where you go out, explore dungeons, fight monsters and get money.




There is also the thing that Gygax didn't like the players to continue playing after they got to a medium level and had intended for them to retire successful characters to start anew from lv 1. So there were published stats for gods and mythical heroes with an intentional low level to give the players with vastly higher level characters a hint that they were playing the game "wrong".
This is also the reason for the insane amount of xp that higher level required. Intended to scream "Isn't it boring sitting so long at the same level ? Retire already !"

... This leads me to wonder, did he want epic levels to even exist?




Here's a nice, obvious example: a 2e Balor has 13 HD, so it has 59 hit points. A 3.5 Balor has 290 hit points, almost 5 times as many.


I have an AD&D Deities and Demi-God book, taking a look inside, I do remember being impressed by the stats of the deities... Then I remembered I had no idea how stats work in AD&D lol. But I do remember the numbers seemed rather smaller than I expected.




Which gets us into my "what will you give up?" comments that I try to post in a way that doesn't irk people, but I guess I fail at.

D&D gives up coherence, especially on the worldbuilding side.

Ars Magica gives up any notion of "non-mages" keeping up with "mages".

Exalted gives up any notion that PCs aren't "superhuman".

Other systems/settings "give up" high-powered PC spellcasting or all PC spellcasting ( "give up" in quotes because they never had it to begin with, by design).

etc.

This is true, I do wish the system would be less ambiguous about PCs as either peak humans or something more.

Just outright say something like, "Beyond X level, your characters leave the realms of what is possible for the most capable people in our world, and become closer to action Heroes. As they progress up these levels, they will become more and more fantastic, until they resemble mythological deities and heroes, rather than real world warriors."

Or just explain, "Martial characters are inherently inferior to magical characters, by playing one, you won't be able to keep up with the raw power of magic. In order to keep up, your character will gain magical abilities or their level will cap out much faster than a magic user's."

Or even, "All PCs, regardless of class or access to magic, are beyond the scope or anything that can be achieved in our world."

Then you have titles like Superhero popping up for Level 8 Fighters in AD&D, muddying the waters. Which is more than being a Hero... Which is really weird when a Level 1 Fighter is considered a Veteran by the titles, instead of a rookie.

[Cluedrew]

Which gets us into my "what will you give up?" comments that I try to post in a way that doesn't irk people, but I guess I fail at.Yeah pretty much. I think there might be a few difference between that argument and your usually "what will you give up?" but I can't remember what it is right now.


I don't agree at all. Casters just need to be susceptible to 2-by-4's.You are going to elaborate on exactly you don't agree with because everything you said seems to align with what I did.


Could you elaborate on Ars Magica? But yeah, I clearly agree about martials either needing to go well beyond what an Olympic athlete can do to remain relevant in a cosmic battle against ancient evils with possibly armies under their command. Dude with a magic sword somehow remaining relevant there without really thick plot armor just leaves a lot of questions... :smallconfused:Please note I have never played Ars Magica, I have heard about it and I got the downloadable version from the site which I read once a while ago.

Ars Magica is a caster focused system. Casters are the focus, with people with particular non-magic skills coming in second and the fighter equivalent body guards last. However the system does not hide the fact and has other systems to accommodate for it. The most famous being that everyone can make and play multiple characters so you will shift around whether you are the caster or the support within one game. The other is that time frames are usually measured in months. So you might run an entire "adventure" to get stuff for the caster while the caster is working on some magic work in their workshop. The adventuring party would then not have any casters in it.

It also takes a very Medieval view of magic. The casters aren't heroes, and the assumption seems to be you will be going after what they want. The introduction follows a new caster who goes from a holy man to a rapist and his teacher goes insane. Of a very different tone than D&D.

[Knaight]

That's the "symptom" of the issue that is really impossible. I can imagine an urban fantasy campaign where none of the "martial" characters really approach peak human - let alone exceeds it - while magic users do impossible things and it would be fine. Because urban fantasy impossible things tend to be subtle, hard to set up and handily countered by a two-by-four. Unless the big demon summoning ritual actually works. Then you are going to need a lot of two-by-fours.

That really is a key part here. If ridiculously powerful magic involves a process along the lines of "let me spend a month preparing a ritual, which I'll then cast over a week" it causes far fewer balance problems than powerful magic involving a process along the lines of "yeah, give me three seconds". This is especially true if the central engagement of the game is the party as a group overcoming challenges; Smallville works fine with both Superman and Lois Lane as characters because the focus of the game is on interpersonal relationships, which Superman's powers are pretty orthogonal to.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah pretty much. I think there might be a few difference between that argument and your usually "what will you give up?" but I can't remember what it is right now.


I just gave examples instead of going through my usual breakdown of nested options.




Please note I have never played Ars Magica, I have heard about it and I got the downloadable version from the site which I read once a while ago.

Ars Magica is a caster focused system. Casters are the focus, with people with particular non-magic skills coming in second and the fighter equivalent body guards last. However the system does not hide the fact and has other systems to accommodate for it. The most famous being that everyone can make and play multiple characters so you will shift around whether you are the caster or the support within one game. The other is that time frames are usually measured in months. So you might run an entire "adventure" to get stuff for the caster while the caster is working on some magic work in their workshop. The adventuring party would then not have any casters in it.

It also takes a very Medieval view of magic. The casters aren't heroes, and the assumption seems to be you will be going after what they want. The introduction follows a new caster who goes from a holy man to a rapist and his teacher goes insane. Of a very different tone than D&D.


It should come as not surprise that one of the original creators of the game was Mark Rein-Hagen... because the writing is "mature".

[Duff]

Hit Points Are An Abstraction of Damage:

snip
Hit Points Represent Dodging:

snip

Hit Points Represent Mitigating Damage:

snip

Hit Points Represent Plot Armor:

snip

Hit Points Don’t Represent Physical Durability:



The correct answer from a D&D fan for the question "How do hit points work?" is
"Very well thank you!"

[Kaptin Keen]

You are going to elaborate on exactly you don't agree with because everything you said seems to align with what I did.

Really? Aha! Well in that case .... I reread your post, and I can see how it can easily mean the direct opposite of what I thought it did.

Sorry - my bad =)

[AntiAuthority]

Hm, I may not have been getting my point across in regards to levels. Such as playing a low level character concept with a high level character, and the issues it could cause. Instead of using a martial for this example, I’ll use two well-known casters to show it.

If you tried swapping these two characters, who are of different levels, it should become clear what type of issues could arise from putting them in stories they’re under leveled/over leveled for but insisting that they can do it. It’s not a perfect fit, as D&D won’t fit perfectly with anything, but I feel it should get my point across. I’ll be listing their spells and the types of challenges they face and explain why they’re X level concept.

For these casters, I looked up information on them, and my search results are probably missing some things, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong about any of their spells/feats. It’s been years since I saw anything about Caster 1 (Who is an iconic character), but Caster 2 (who I picked because of how iconic they are as a caster, along with helping to further my point) had a neater wiki section and Respect Thread for me to compare D&D spells to. Caster 2 in particular has way too much backstory for me to accurately cover, so consider these the barebones version.

Caster 1 is considered to be the most powerful caster from the Harry Potter series, Albus Dumbledore. Yes, he’s technically a Sorcerer by D&D/Pathfinder standards, as he had to be born able to use magic, but he’s called a Wizard and he went to a wizarding school to learn how to harness his magic, so I’ll call him a Wizard. Some of his spells would be considered high level spells in D&D, but we’re also going to factor in his opposition and what he was expected to be able to defeat. Because I haven’t read any of the books or seen the entire series in a while (the plot is very hazy except for the last film(s)), I know I’m going to forget something so I decided to look at a Respect Thread for Dumbledore to help me out.

Let’s look at his list of spells/abilities…


Teleport (Apparate)
Animate Object (Animating the statues to fight for him)
Control Water (surrounded Voldemort with it)
Fly (Self Explanatory)
True Seeing (could see an invisible chain)
Wall of Fire (Firestorm, technically?)
Fireball (Firestorm again, technically? Along with those energy blasts that kind of look like fire, but they might just look like it… It might just be me they look like flames too.)
Telekinesis
Shield



Impressive spells, yes. He was expected to be able to handle any magical beasts that wandered (or were let in) to his school like the Troll. He could easily defeat a normal human being in a fight, and could defeat plenty of Inferi (undead). His enemies were other Wizards and fantastic beasts.

Caster 2 is Dr. Strange from the Marvel comics. Sorcerer Supreme, a member of the Illuminati, a very powerful caster. I know some things about him (I used to look up info on comic characters when I was younger) and this is the information I found on his comic incarnation.

His spells don’t really have different names like Harry Potter, so not as many things in parenthesis this time. His spells/abilities include…


Immortality/Unaging (It’s a possible capstone ability in 3.5E for Wizards).
Astral Projection (self-explanatory)
Banishment (He has banished plenty of beings, including powerful demons)
Telepathy/Telepathic Bonds
Fly
Hypnotism
Time Stop
Teleport
Ether Step/Etherealness (can become intangible)
Plane Shift (can travel to other planes)


Also impressive spells. Dr. Strange has defeated super powered beings like the Incredible Hulk and incredibly old, extra-dimensional conquerors.

They both have access to spells that are high level in D&D 3.5E and 5E. The difference between them are the scaling of the types of enemies they’re facing and the level of power they’d need to be at to face such beings.

Dumbledore is a powerful Wizard and would defeat any normal person in a real fight. The scale of his conflict, though, are against other wizards (several Death Eaters took a few moments to destroy a bridge) and fantastic beasts that… Would probably get killed by our world’s military in a fight. Fairly low level stuff. It’s currently unclear if guns beat wands, as guns are faster than incantations, but wands allow one do a myriad of things. He could definitely handle a CR 9 monster like a tyrannosaurus, as they’er around the range of the types of fantastic beasts he’s expected to be able to slay.

Dr. Strange squares off against dimensional conquerors like Dormammu (who possesses similar abilities to Dr. Strange). Dormammu is nigh omnipotent in his own realm, and even then, Dr. Strange is capable of holding his own against him. These are the types of things high level characters are expected to fight (such as Balors and Pit Fiends essentially being extra-dimensional conquerors).

You could swap them, yes. Would you be playing as the same concept character by ignoring their level? Not quite…
You could swap Dr. Strange and Dumbledore, as they’re both wizards.

Dr. Strange, however, would be capable of solving the plot of Harry Potter by himself. Voldemort would be annoying, but not anything Dr. Strange couldn’t handle with his vast power. The scale of Harry Potter is far below his level, and he could exist within it, but he's essentially Zeus or Odin pretending to be a street magician.

Dumbledore would not be able to defeat the extra-dimensional beings Dr. Strange has faced off against and would die.
The scale is far outside of his level. He could function within it to an extent, yes, but not against a high level enemy that was serious about killing him.

Yes, Dr. Strange could pretend to be a low level concept… But mechanically, he isn’t. Dumbledore could pretend to be a high level concept… But mechanically, he has some of the spells, but he would almost definitely get crushed by a high CR enemy that wasn't screwing around.

Trying to play Dr. Strange as a low level character would be dishonest, as the player would essentially be playing on God Mode while insisting they aren’t. Trying to play Dumbledore as a high level character would be equally as dishonest, as you’d need a LOT of plot armor (or the GM holding back a lot) to justify him not instantly being destroyed as soon as an enemy gets serious, as well as justifying how someone of this power could defeat such an enemy.

I’m not telling anyone to not play such characters, but I’m pointing out the problems that would arise out of trying to force a character into a concept not appropriate for their level.

The same applies to martials.

A low level martial is expected to be facing off against threats that, while difficult, people could defeat with weapons and/or enough people. Still bound by challenges within the real world (even if they exist in comics or fantasy novels).

A high level martial character is expected to be able to defeat (or at least hold their own against) extra-dimensional conquerors and ancient, eldritch abominations. Far beyond the challenges of the real world (such as something you'd expect to see in a comic book or high fantasy anime).

Essentially, a high level character could emulate a lower level concept, but they'd be actively restraining themselves the entire time to not just solve the conflict. A low level character concept could try to pretend to be a high level concept, but they'd instantly get killed and would need a lot of plot armor to remain relevant.

The reason I chose the comic book version of Dr. Strange is to highlight that a high level caster concept would probably look more like a fantastic comic hero. Anime also has such characters that are scaled to face the types of enemies that are far out of the scale of the real world. Other characters of the same level should be scaled to face similar threats.

The levels are what matter, not the class. A character of X level is expected to be able to fight against a concept of X level. Whether it be a magic user or a really powerful warrior, the concept of their level should reflect their abilities, and their abilities should reflect the types of challenges they’re expected to fight.

[Kaptin Keen]

Well, in that case I give you HELLBOY!!

Hellboy is a martial character who defeats God-level multi-dimensional conquerors. Generally speaking, he does so with a sword, a large pool of hitpoints, and sarcasm. Sure, he has a few other things going for him, but by and large, that's the game: Fighter vs Universe.

I'm generally speaking against taking imaginary concept A and comparing it to imaginary concept B. The question of ... who is stronger, the Hulk or Superman, or whether Dumbledore or Dr. Strange, or IronMan or .. is it Cable? The answer is no.

These are all narrative constructs, and the strenghts of the super villain are tailored to the strenghts of the hero. It all takes place inside a universe designed to fit itself - not the one three doors over.

Who is stronger, Hellboy or Thanos? The answer is no.

And a fighter can win against a high level wizard, if you do it right. It takes some oil for the squeaky hinges, but it's not impossible, or even implausible.

[Max_Killjoy]

Hm, I may not have been getting my point across in regards to levels. Such as playing a low level character concept with a high level character, and the issues it could cause. Instead of using a martial for this example, I’ll use two well-known casters to show it.

If you tried swapping these two characters, who are of different levels, it should become clear what type of issues could arise from putting them in stories they’re under leveled/over leveled for but insisting that they can do it. It’s not a perfect fit, as D&D won’t fit perfectly with anything, but I feel it should get my point across. I’ll be listing their spells and the types of challenges they face and explain why they’re X level concept.

For these casters, I looked up information on them, and my search results are probably missing some things, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong about any of their spells/feats. It’s been years since I saw anything about Caster 1 (Who is an iconic character), but Caster 2 (who I picked because of how iconic they are as a caster, along with helping to further my point) had a neater wiki section and Respect Thread for me to compare D&D spells to. Caster 2 in particular has way too much backstory for me to accurately cover, so consider these the barebones version.

Caster 1 is considered to be the most powerful caster from the Harry Potter series, Albus Dumbledore. Yes, he’s technically a Sorcerer by D&D/Pathfinder standards, as he had to be born able to use magic, but he’s called a Wizard and he went to a wizarding school to learn how to harness his magic, so I’ll call him a Wizard. Some of his spells would be considered high level spells in D&D, but we’re also going to factor in his opposition and what he was expected to be able to defeat. Because I haven’t read any of the books or seen the entire series in a while (the plot is very hazy except for the last film(s)), I know I’m going to forget something so I decided to look at a Respect Thread for Dumbledore to help me out.

Let’s look at his list of spells/abilities…


Teleport (Apparate)
Animate Object (Animating the statues to fight for him)
Control Water (surrounded Voldemort with it)
Fly (Self Explanatory)
True Seeing (could see an invisible chain)
Wall of Fire (Firestorm, technically?)
Fireball (Firestorm again, technically? Along with those energy blasts that kind of look like fire, but they might just look like it… It might just be me they look like flames too.)
Telekinesis
Shield



Impressive spells, yes. He was expected to be able to handle any magical beasts that wandered (or were let in) to his school like the Troll. He could easily defeat a normal human being in a fight, and could defeat plenty of Inferi (undead). His enemies were other Wizards and fantastic beasts.

Caster 2 is Dr. Strange from the Marvel comics. Sorcerer Supreme, a member of the Illuminati, a very powerful caster. I know some things about him (I used to look up info on comic characters when I was younger) and this is the information I found on his comic incarnation.

His spells don’t really have different names like Harry Potter, so not as many things in parenthesis this time. His spells/abilities include…


Immortality/Unaging (It’s a possible capstone ability in 3.5E for Wizards).
Astral Projection (self-explanatory)
Banishment (He has banished plenty of beings, including powerful demons)
Telepathy/Telepathic Bonds
Fly
Hypnotism
Time Stop
Teleport
Ether Step/Etherealness (can become intangible)
Plane Shift (can travel to other planes)


Also impressive spells. Dr. Strange has defeated super powered beings like the Incredible Hulk and incredibly old, extra-dimensional conquerors.

They both have access to spells that are high level in D&D 3.5E and 5E. The difference between them are the scaling of the types of enemies they’re facing and the level of power they’d need to be at to face such beings.

Dumbledore is a powerful Wizard and would defeat any normal person in a real fight. The scale of his conflict, though, are against other wizards (several Death Eaters took a few moments to destroy a bridge) and fantastic beasts that… Would probably get killed by our world’s military in a fight. Fairly low level stuff. It’s currently unclear if guns beat wands, as guns are faster than incantations, but wands allow one do a myriad of things. He could definitely handle a CR 9 monster like a tyrannosaurus, as they’er around the range of the types of fantastic beasts he’s expected to be able to slay.

Dr. Strange squares off against dimensional conquerors like Dormammu (who possesses similar abilities to Dr. Strange). Dormammu is nigh omnipotent in his own realm, and even then, Dr. Strange is capable of holding his own against him. These are the types of things high level characters are expected to fight (such as Balors and Pit Fiends essentially being extra-dimensional conquerors).

You could swap them, yes. Would you be playing as the same concept character by ignoring their level? Not quite…
You could swap Dr. Strange and Dumbledore, as they’re both wizards.

Dr. Strange, however, would be capable of solving the plot of Harry Potter by himself. Voldemort would be annoying, but not anything Dr. Strange couldn’t handle with his vast power. The scale of Harry Potter is far below his level, and he could exist within it, but he's essentially Zeus or Odin pretending to be a street magician.

Dumbledore would not be able to defeat the extra-dimensional beings Dr. Strange has faced off against and would die.
The scale is far outside of his level. He could function within it to an extent, yes, but not against a high level enemy that was serious about killing him.

Yes, Dr. Strange could pretend to be a low level concept… But mechanically, he isn’t. Dumbledore could pretend to be a high level concept… But mechanically, he isn’t.

Trying to play Dr. Strange as a low level character would be dishonest, as the player would essentially be playing on God Mode while insisting they aren’t. Trying to play Dumbledore as a high level character would be equally as dishonest, as you’d need a LOT of plot armor (or the GM holding back a lot) to justify him not instantly being destroyed as soon as an enemy gets serious, as well as justifying how someone of this power could defeat such an enemy.

I’m not telling anyone to not play such characters, but I’m pointing out the problems that would arise out of trying to force a character into a concept not appropriate for their level.

The same applies to martials.

A low level martial is expected to be facing off against threats that, while difficult, people could defeat with weapons and/or enough people. Still bound by challenges within the real world (even if they exist in comics or fantasy novels).

A high level martial character is expected to be able to defeat (or at least hold their own against) extra-dimensional conquerors and ancient, eldritch abominations. Far beyond the challenges of the real world (such as something you'd expect to see in a comic book or high fantasy anime).

Essentially, a high level character could emulate a lower level concept, but they'd be actively restraining themselves the entire time to not just solve the conflict. A low level character concept could try to pretend to be a high level concept, but they'd instantly get killed and would need a lot of plot armor to remain relevant.

The reason I chose the comic book version of Dr. Strange is to highlight that a high level caster concept would probably look more like a fantastic comic hero. Other characters of the same level should be scaled to face similar threats.

The levels are what matter, not the class. A character of X level is expected to be able to fight against a concept of X level. Whether it be a magic user or a really powerful warrior, the concept of their level should reflect their abilities, and their abilities should reflect the types of challenges they’re expected to fight.




A more general note that D&D progresses through multiple "genres" as well as raw power scales as levels increase, creating a sort of dissonance between characters who most naturally fit at different points on that ladder, has come up before.

I have not had a chance to read the 5e DMG cover to cover, so maybe it's finally in there, but... I think it would help D&D a lot if there were an explicitly explored option to simply start characters at a certain level and have any "progression" be more, what's a good word for it... piecemeal.

[Talakeal]

Stuff about Dr. Strange.

Comic book Dr. Strange is one of the most inconsistent characters in comics, and that's saying something. He is exactly as powerful as the plot needs him to be, which is sometimes very strong indeed.

However, while I would say that he is a higher level than Dumbledore, I don't think they are fundamentally different character concepts, and a leveled up Dumbledore or a leveled down Dr. Strange would be pretty similar on paper. Heck, movie Dr. Strange, who is still undoubtebly Dr. Strange, would probably fit right in with one of the Harry Potters films, although his magic style is a bit light on wands and heavy on martial arts, so the aesthetic might be odd.

Also, imo, Dormammu is much stronger than a Pit Fiend or Balor, I would put money on him over most demon princes or lords of the nine.



How is what I said a circular argument?

Why is it me pointing out something earlier editions of D&D (like AD&D calling 8th level fighters Superheroes) not completely meshing with something you said was promptly ignored with no explanation beyond Batman and Punisher?

And about HP, yes, Gary Gygax said that... But he also intended for D&D to be a war game, the game has changed immensely since those days and he lost control over his own creation, so his words are valid for the versions of D&D he worked on. It'd be like arguing that the Wright Brothers have say over how modern airplanes work.

EDIT: Also, you said nobody's arguing that a Level 20 character is just a guy, and I'm not quite sure what you stance is... Can you boil it down? I think keeping it shorter would be better here.

You said they are best used at low level because they are low level concepts, to me that is circular.

Punisher and Batman are both labelled as super heroes yet they do not have any super powers, just like an 8th level fighter.

HP are inconsistent. They have meant many things to many authors over the years. Trying to prove that one interpretation is the correct one is impossible as there simply isn't one explanation that can't have holes poked in it.

My stance:

Mechanically, all classes should be roughly balanced mechanically (2E and 5E are close enough) and that people should be more tolerant of other people's aesthetic preferences, be they other players in the same group or other groups entirely.

Personally, I just want people to stop telling me I shouldn't be allowed to participate in high level play because I prefer more grounded characters. I want to fight dragons, I want to save the world, I want to destroy evil artifacts and foil the schemes of wicked gods, I want to battle evil archmages and defeat the Lich King and his undead hordes, I want to be a hero; I just want to do it as an underdog who succeeds through skill, courage, and determination rather than a demigod who succeeds through overwhelming displays of power.


Edit: Also, I really am interested in hearing about the house rules you have encountered that nerf martials. That really would be a more interesting conversation than rehashing the same CMD debate I have had with Cosi fifty times by this point.

[Arbane]

Personally, I just want people to stop telling me I shouldn't be allowed to participate in high level play because I prefer more grounded characters. I want to fight dragons, I want to save the world, I want to destroy evil artifacts and foil the schemes of wicked gods, I want to battle evil archmages and defeat the Lich King and his undead hordes, I want to be a hero; I just want to do it as an underdog who succeeds through skill, courage, and determination rather than a demigod who succeeds through overwhelming displays of power.


Try FATE, not D&D.

The problem with this is that this is a game not a conventional story, the rules and the dice are cruel and merciless and don't care how well-roleplayed you are, and most of us aren't as good at improvising to bypass game-stated power-levels as author-supported fictional characters.

If nothing else, D&D Fighters STILL don't have any good way to dodge mind-control spells.

[AntiAuthority]

Well, in that case I give you HELLBOY!!

Hellboy is a martial character who defeats God-level multi-dimensional conquerors. Generally speaking, he does so with a sword, a large pool of hitpoints, and sarcasm. Sure, he has a few other things going for him, but by and large, that's the game: Fighter vs Universe.

I only saw the original movies and some scans from the comics, but based on everything I know about him, Hellboy would be a mid-level character with an artifact (his stone hand).

Reason why I think he's mid-level is because the creatures he fights (and struggles against) are also things that a mid-level fighter would be able to defeat without an artifact.

He killed giants in melee, so could a mid-level fighter.

He was able to defeat his way through a group of skeleton warriors (Draugar, I presume), which a midlevel fighter could also do.

He can get chewed on by a hydra, as could a mid-level Fighter.

He gets knocked out by an explosion while falling, a higher level Fighter wouldn't.

A high level character would probably be strolling through the above.

He would still be defeated by a high level Wizard, unless there's something I'm missing.

But I am curious, how powerful are these god-like entities? Like omnipotent, city busters, planet busters, etc.?


I'm generally speaking against taking imaginary concept A and comparing it to imaginary concept B. The question of ... who is stronger, the Hulk or Superman, or whether Dumbledore or Dr. Strange, or IronMan or .. is it Cable? The answer is no.


It's more to show the differences in concept levels.


Who is stronger, Hellboy or Thanos? The answer is no.


This is super relevant to what you're saying. May he rest in peace.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4_zFYnnn2Y)



And a fighter can win against a high level wizard, if you do it right. It takes some oil for the squeaky hinges, but it's not impossible, or even implausible.


Agreed, but if two characters are of the same level, I feel there's a problem if one is vastly more powerful than the other.




A more general note that D&D progresses through multiple "genres" as well as raw power scales as levels increase, creating a sort of dissonance between characters who most naturally fit at different points on that ladder, has come up before.


Agreed, it goes from "save the town from goblins with your ordinary strength" to "save the world from a demonic invasion with your beyond human abilities."




Comic book Dr. Strange is one of the most inconsistent characters in comics, and that's saying something. He is exactly as powerful as the plot needs him to be, which is sometimes very strong indeed.

While his power level fluctuates (see upper video) based on the writer, he has still repeatedly defeats enemies that would be considered high CR in D&D.




You said they are best used at low level because they are low level concepts, to me that is circular.


Hopefully the above text helped get my point across better. But Rambo is fighting against regular humans, as is James Bond. Neither of their enemies are capable of single handedly being a threat to a country/planet/dimension through raw power like a high CR enemy would be.


Punisher and Batman are both labelled as super heroes yet they do not have any super powers, just like an 8th level fighter.


From Merriam-Webster...

Definition of superhero
: a fictional hero having extraordinary or superhuman powers
also : an exceptionally skillful or successful person

Thor and Superman are also labeled as super heroes and they do have powers.

I can't prove an 8th level Fighter has super powers. You can't prove they don't.

I can prove a high level fighter is expected to fight high CR enemies, where a regular human being would probably be dead within a few seconds.

I can prove that a high level fighter is able to last for extended periods of time against creatures far more powerful than regular human beings, where a regular human being would be dead really quickly. Whether through being incredibly skilled at dodging or just tanking the blows. I haven't seen anyone poke holes into my explanation of why HP isn't that yet, but I'm open to hearing why it's wrong.

I can prove that a high level fighter can do incredible amounts of damage to fantastic beasts that would kill a normal man several times over, where a regular human being might not be able to even hurt them, regardless of how trained they are.

The entire reason I brought up the Superhero title in the first place is because you typed...


Because D&D was originally created to emulate the high fantasy and sword and sorcery genres, and some people still prefer that to shonen anime or medieval super heroes.


I responded to something you said, about original D&D and medieval superheroes to show it isn't just high fantasy and sword and sorcery genres.



My stance:



Personally, I just want people to stop telling me I shouldn't be allowed to participate in high level play because I prefer more grounded characters. I want to fight dragons, I want to save the world, I want to destroy evil artifacts and foil the schemes of wicked gods, I want to battle evil archmages and defeat the Lich King and his undead hordes, I want to be a hero; I just want to do it as an underdog who succeeds through skill, courage, and determination rather than a demigod who succeeds through overwhelming displays of power.

Who is trying to telling you how to play your character concept?


Edit: Also, I really am interested in hearing about the house rules you have encountered that nerf martials. That really would be a more interesting conversation than rehashing the same CMD debate I have had with Cosi fifty times by this point.


Not quite sure I'd call it a "house rule" so much a the DM was just using "common sense" as he called it.

My memory is terrible at recalling things on the spot, but I'll go with the most recent example.

In 5E, I've made a Totem Warrior (has Bear Totem for first two Totems) Barbarian with a high strength and Great Weapon Master. With the Bear Totem, your carrying capacity is doubled to what it already is. We've been killing plenty of giant monsters, and the DM has put us into a dungeon with (some) metal doors.

Me: I'll cleave it in half.
GM: Is your greataxe magic?
Me: No...
GM: You'll just break your sword then.
Me: But I'm doing a lot of damage...
GM: And you'll destroy your sword by hitting it against a metal door. (This same issue comes up against stone doors too)

Also in 5E, someone activated a trap while exploring a dungeon. I can't remember the exact details, but it was a battering ram type trap, and we weren't sure what other pressure plates would activate.

Me: As it's going in, I'll try to break its mechanisms by pulling on the log.
GM: Well, you crushed your hand.
Me: But my strength and Bear Totems...
GM: You're not strong enough to do that.
Me:...

I think there was another time when this came up in 5E, but I'm drawing a blank at the moment.

There was also a time in Pathfinder where a fellow player of mine wanted to pull off some amazing ninja moves by "backflipping from the ground floor to the roof." He rolled really high on the dice, the GM said, "You're not able to do that." Admittedly, he was a low level character, but the GM made it clear that even if he were a much higher level (even Level 20), it still wouldn't have worked.

When I pointed out my current thoughts on the "Guy At The Gym" Fallacy, the GM said, "Do you wanna play D&D or not?"

There's also also this lovely thread on Reddit.
(https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/anxskv/how_it_feels_to_be_a_lvl_18_gestalt_mythic_fighter/)

[Talakeal]

Try FATE, not D&D.

The problem with this is that this is a game not a conventional story, the rules and the dice are cruel and merciless and don't care how well-roleplayed you are, and most of us aren't as good at improvising to bypass game-stated power-levels as author-supported fictional characters.

If nothing else, D&D Fighters STILL don't have any good way to dodge mind-control spells.

No offense, but FATE and other narrative / story games do nothing for me.

D&D isn't perfect, but (aside from 3E) it works well enough; and the rules are abstract enough that you can imagine a wide variety of descriptions for it.

[Max_Killjoy]

Personally, I just want people to stop telling me I shouldn't be allowed to participate in high level play because I prefer more grounded characters. I want to fight dragons, I want to save the world, I want to destroy evil artifacts and foil the schemes of wicked gods, I want to battle evil archmages and defeat the Lich King and his undead hordes, I want to be a hero; I just want to do it as an underdog who succeeds through skill, courage, and determination rather than a demigod who succeeds through overwhelming displays of power.


This is a perfect example of the "inverted guy-at-the-gym" I mentioned upthread.

If you want to play "an underdog who succeeds through skill, courage, and determination", then that campaign needs to stay at lower levels of D&D, or use a different system entirely.

Characters who are thoroughly grounded in a "largely like real world' setting (see, D&D's quasi-medievaloid published and implied settings) just don't function as high-level characters on the power scale of 3.x or 5e, without simply throwing credibility and coherence out the window.

Batman and the Punisher work because their foes aren't throwing around massive supernatural power, or because they're in fiction and have massive amounts of authorial fiat on their side, or both. Go to HERO, which was built for a wide scale of superheroic campaigns based on different character point totals for the builds, and put an objectively-statted Batman or Punisher in a game with a bunch of objectively-statted superhumans, they come out to a lower point total, and the player of that PC has to work a LOT harder to keep up in a campaign built around the other characters. But then, HERO has zero "story" Powers, and authorial fiat amounts to raw fudging on the part of the GM to protect the lower-point-total Batman or Punisher PC.

It becomes more stark in that system because power level and progression aren't all muddled up as "character level" in the HERO system -- power level is dominated by initial character point totals (75-100 for "heroic" campaigns, anywhere from 250 to 500 for various sorts of "superheroes" campaigns), and progression is say 3 to 6 CP/XP at a time.

Modelling D&D's progression curve into HERO would start characters out at 75 points, and then quite unevenly take them up into several hundred points, with different classes getting big chunks of points at different points along the ladder. At some point, the "underdog who succeeds through skill, courage, and determination" character just runs out of things that the player can justify spending points on.




No offense, but FATE and other narrative / story games do nothing for me.

D&D isn't perfect, but (aside from 3E) it works well enough; and the rules are abstract enough that you can imagine a wide variety of descriptions for it.


Problem is, a comic book character who is a "peak human" keeps up with massively powered superhumans in large part via "narrative fiat".




Who is trying to telling you how to play your character concept?


I can't speak for Talakeal, but responses in the past have included "don't tell me how to RP my character" and variants, I guess under the assertion that things like concept-mechanics-setting intersection are "roleplaying".

[Talakeal]

Problem is, a comic book character who is a "peak human" keeps up with massively powered superhumans in large part via "narrative fiat".

Right. Which is why a lot of people consider HP to be a measure of "plot armor" rather than meat, which is exactly the sort of thing the OP seemed to be rallying against.

[Rhedyn]

This is all really specific to WotC D&D. Basically all forms of OSR side-step this.

I would agree that "grounded" concepts just are not high level. That's why most OSR games end at level 10 and games like Godbound require "martials" to have divine powers. You could be a demi-god of Might, Sword, and Endurance, but by virtue of being a demi-god, you can wield the mightiest form of magic, divine miracles.

"The Guy at the Gym" is great rule short-hand to determine what a character can do without needing tons of rules. But you sometimes need to break that. Once your Fighter is slaying multiple castle sized dragons in melee combat at once, they are not regular dudes. The rules are silly if they do not capture your new prowess (hence why most OSR games end at level 10 where your HP is still low enough that most high falls still kill you).

In Stars Without Number, your level 10 Warrior will probably die fighting 12 one HD guards. A Heroic Warrior would slaughter them, but he could also sacrifice HP to bypass obstacles like the metal door through heroic effort.

I'm just saying, your rules are dumb and you are expecting the GM to fix that. (Or your rules are so cumbersome that the GM ignores them in favor of verisimilitude being a lot easier to run)

[malachi]

If you want to play "an underdog who succeeds through skill, courage, and determination", then that campaign needs to stay at lower levels of D&D, or use a different system entirely.

Or, if the intent is to literally be an 'underdog', you should intentionally play a lower level PC (and possibly intentionally choose not to level up).

Why does ensuring that all classes at level X can meaningfully contribute to campaigns designed for a party of characters at level X mean that you can't choose to play a character of lower than level X in order to play an underdog?

This, of course, is assuming that people mean something along the lines of "someone who is known to have disadvantages compared to their competition". If, instead, people mean something more along the lines of "someone who is objectively weaker than their competition but is able to use guile, cunning, luck and other hard-to-model qualities to overcome", that doesn't sound like it fits the class concept of a fighter/barbarian/ranger/paladin/monk - although it could sometimes fit the class concept of a rogue (except for the key components of luck and other hard-to-model qualities).

With that second definition of an underdog, I envision lots of interactions with the environment - coupled with corny one-liners.
The character that best embodies that definition of an underdog, to me, is Caiaphas Cain from some of the Warhammer 40k novels. His role in the military is to basically be military police / morale enforcement (typically by shooting anyone in the head who shows signs of low morale / running away). His primary goal in life is to survive long enough to retire. He frequently ends up outnumbered, outgunned, and runs away - only to happen across some fortuitous circumstances that allow him to turn the tide of his original predicament (and look like the smartest and most courageous hero around). That does sound like a concept that would be plenty fun to play - but I don't see anything in D&D that is particularly suited for mechanically implementing it outside of DM fiat and setup. However, that character could have that concept mechanically implemented in a game like FATE (from my memories of briefly reading through the Dresden Files version of FATE).



This brings to mind the party that Quertus brings up occasionally: Basically-Thor, a sentient potted plant (that may or may not be able to communicate or move), and some number of other players (probably 10+, if I recall his normal group size).
In a game like D&D, would Basically-Thor and the potted plant be represented as having the same level?
In a game like HERO / GURPS, would those two have the same number of ability points (or whatever the unit of character-building currency is in that game)?




For those who want to play underdogs (and see that as a reason for maintaining a large disparity between contribution levels of classes at any given level), are you talking about my 1st or 2nd definition of underdog, or are you talking about some other definition?

[AntiAuthority]

This is a perfect example of the "inverted guy-at-the-gym" I mentioned upthread.

If you want to play "an underdog who succeeds through skill, courage, and determination", then that campaign needs to stay at lower levels of D&D, or use a different system entirely.

I have to agree, though I'd imagine a normal person traveling with higher level characters to be what that would look like.






Right. Which is why a lot of people consider HP to be a measure of "plot armor" rather than meat, which is exactly the sort of thing the OP seemed to be rallying against.

Where are the holes in what I said about HP? I know it varies from person to person, but so far, nobody has pointed out why there's an issue with the way I described them as meat.. And I have several questions on why Cure Wounds is called Wounds instead of Plot Armor and what's being damaged when something beats a character's AC?

You're free to play however you want, I'm not going to try to force my opinions on anyone, and you can rightfully ignore me if I start trying to dictate to you how you play your characters. I have no intention of being that person that demands everyone play my way. I was just pointing out that such character concepts work better at lower levels than higher levels.

I do have to ask though. Why are you so against me saying high level martials are far beyond what a normal human or even action hero can do? I've been putting out reasons for why I believe they are, why I think they could be better and you keep telling me what D&D is and isn't. Like how D&D is a high fantasy swords and sorcery genre that should keep martials bound by realism because otherwise they'd be stepping on a Monk's toes... And it isn't a superhero game... So, how is that different from you trying to force your preferred style of play onto me?





This is all really specific to WotC D&D. Basically all forms of OSR side-step this.

I would agree that "grounded" concepts just are not high level. That's why most OSR games end at level 10 and games like Godbound require "martials" to have divine powers. You could be a demi-god of Might, Sword, and Endurance, but by virtue of being a demi-god, you can wield the mightiest form of magic, divine miracles.

"The Guy at the Gym" is great rule short-hand to determine what a character can do without needing tons of rules. But you sometimes need to break that. Once your Fighter is slaying multiple castle sized dragons in melee combat at once, they are not regular dudes. The rules are silly if they do not capture your new prowess (hence why most OSR games end at level 10 where your HP is still low enough that most high falls still kill you).


Agreed, I'd probably start letting characters do blatantly superhuman stunts around the time they can reliably murder giants and only come out of it slightly injured. Or getting bitten/grappled by large animals and coming out of it pretty much fine. Or having a pissed off dragon freeze people in solid blocks of ice but my character, who was closer to the dragon's breath, being ok (this happened with a small white dragon once, it was the hardest fight of our character's lives up until that point).





Or, if the intent is to literally be an 'underdog', you should intentionally play a lower level PC (and possibly intentionally choose not to level up).

Playing an under leveled character would be the perfect example of playing an underdog that has to rely on their grit, luck and cunning to beat superior enemies. It adds challenge to the game and doesn't break immersion too, as you're the same level as a real world person but are fighting against things far outside of what you should be able to handle (aka fighting a higher level enemy).

[Talakeal]

When I see "Guy at the Gym Fallacy," it normally reads to me like an argument against the "Captain Hobo Problem". As someone who prefers martial characters, this always strikes me as telling me that I am having badwrongfun at their expense.

Captain Hobo Problem

A theoretical character in a system which generically surcharges game effects based on their utility and directs the player to fluff their effects post-hoc. He's used as a shorthand for the dangers of assigning weak fluff without regards to its relative in-game effect; Captain Hobo's super-speed is described as being the side-effect of 'too much energy drinks and vodka', his 12d6 attack (the max he's allowed to buy out of chargen) is a broken chair leg, his toughness is described as 'layered clothes from Goodwill with cardboard and tape', etc.
The problem with Captain Hobo is that merely by existing he makes everyone else's character less cool. Your badass magical martial artist with mastery over the four elements is only as effective at superheroics as a drunken smelly guy. A less extreme but no less illuminating example would be someone playing a James Bond clone whose PP7 could do more damage than the mortar shots of Artillery Man or someone playing a Conan clone who could outwrestle someone's Superman expy.
Stop by Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards and Magician Superhero Problem to see what can happen if you naively attempt to avert the Captain Hobo problem.


Where are the holes in what I said about HP? I know it varies from person to person, but so far, nobody has pointed out why there's an issue with the way I described them as meat.

Ok, I got one for you: Why is it (virtually) impossible to kill a hill giant by falling damage? Regardless of the height, the odds of a hill giant dying from a fall are significantly less than one in a million, yet from everything we know about physics, a larger person should be significantly more susceptible to falls from extreme heights than one of ordinary size.

Is the hill giant super humanly tough?

If so, then why is a super humanly tough fighter killing a super humanly tough giant any easier for you to believe than an ordinary fighter killing an ordinary hill giant?


Like how D&D is a high fantasy swords and sorcery genre that should keep martials bound by realism because otherwise they'd be stepping on a Monk's toes... And it isn't a superhero game... So, how is that different from you trying to force your preferred style of play onto me?

From my perspective, you are removing character options from the game while I am trying to add to them.

A monk is someone who uses chi to enhance themselves and reach a state of perfection that transcends humanity. Fighters are masters of armed combat who utilize tools (usually magical ones) to enhance themselves beyond what is ordinarily possible.

If you want to merge them, D&D has you covered, multi classes exist, so do sword sages.

But by saying that every high level fighter has to be more than merely human and able to perform shonen style feats, you are mushing together two separate archetypes and telling people who want to play the pure thing to take a hike or stick to the kiddie table.

Again, this is just how I hear it, not some statement of objective fact.

Stating that D&D is a high fantasy game not a super hero game isn't really me stating a preference, its an objective fact. Just google D&D and look at the first summary that pops up, and then do the same to Champions or Aberrant or Mutants and Masterminds.


Or, if the intent is to literally be an 'underdog', you should intentionally play a lower level PC (and possibly intentionally choose not to level up).

Why does ensuring that all classes at level X can meaningfully contribute to campaigns designed for a party of characters at level X mean that you can't choose to play a character of lower than level X in order to play an underdog?

This, of course, is assuming that people mean something along the lines of "someone who is known to have disadvantages compared to their competition". If, instead, people mean something more along the lines of "someone who is objectively weaker than their competition but is able to use guile, cunning, luck and other hard-to-model qualities to overcome", that doesn't sound like it fits the class concept of a fighter/barbarian/ranger/paladin/monk - although it could sometimes fit the class concept of a rogue (except for the key components of luck and other hard-to-model qualities).

For those who want to play underdogs (and see that as a reason for maintaining a large disparity between contribution levels of classes at any given level), are you talking about my 1st or 2nd definition of underdog, or are you talking about some other definition?

It is mostly a narrative thing; the idea of someone who has to overcome hardships to defeat a great evil is to me much more compelling than a demigod smooshing everyone who doesn't agree with him. Batman beating up Bane seems heroic, Superman beating up Bane just looks like a bully.

From a mechanical perspective, I would like everyone to be more or less equal, but if there is an imbalance (and there will be) I prefer to be on the weaker side of it. D&D tends to already have a mechanical bias against non casters, I don't see any reason to compound this by capping them at low level.




From Merriam-Webster...

Definition of superhero
: a fictional hero having extraordinary or superhuman powers
also : an exceptionally skillful or successful person

Thor and Superman are also labeled as super heroes and they do have powers.

I can't prove an 8th level Fighter has super powers. You can't prove they don't.

I can prove a high level fighter is expected to fight high CR enemies, where a regular human being would probably be dead within a few seconds.

I can prove that a high level fighter is able to last for extended periods of time against creatures far more powerful than regular human beings, where a regular human being would be dead really quickly. Whether through being incredibly skilled at dodging or just tanking the blows. I haven't seen anyone poke holes into my explanation of why HP isn't that yet, but I'm open to hearing why it's wrong.

I can prove that a high level fighter can do incredible amounts of damage to fantastic beasts that would kill a normal man several times over, where a regular human being might not be able to even hurt them, regardless of how trained they are.

The entire reason I brought up the Superhero title in the first place is because you typed...



I responded to something you said, about original D&D and medieval superheroes to show it isn't just high fantasy and sword and sorcery genres.

Ok, so Super Heroes typically have powers but not always. Let's get away from that term then. What I am saying is that D&D typically models itself on stories where the majority of the characters are more or less ordinary humans like Conan or Lord of the Rings, while a setting where the everyone (who matters) has super powers will start to resemble a different genre more like something you see in superhero comics.




My memory is terrible at recalling things on the spot, but I'll go with the most recent example.

In 5E, I've made a Totem Warrior (has Bear Totem for first two Totems) Barbarian with a high strength and Great Weapon Master. With the Bear Totem, your carrying capacity is doubled to what it already is. We've been killing plenty of giant monsters, and the DM has put us into a dungeon with (some) metal doors.

Me: I'll cleave it in half.
GM: Is your greataxe magic?
Me: No...
GM: You'll just break your sword then.
Me: But I'm doing a lot of damage...
GM: And you'll destroy your sword by hitting it against a metal door. (This same issue comes up against stone doors too)

Also in 5E, someone activated a trap while exploring a dungeon. I can't remember the exact details, but it was a battering ram type trap, and we weren't sure what other pressure plates would activate.

Me: As it's going in, I'll try to break its mechanisms by pulling on the log.
GM: Well, you crushed your hand.
Me: But my strength and Bear Totems...
GM: You're not strong enough to do that.
Me:...

I think there was another time when this came up in 5E, but I'm drawing a blank at the moment.

There was also a time in Pathfinder where a fellow player of mine wanted to pull off some amazing ninja moves by "backflipping from the ground floor to the roof." He rolled really high on the dice, the GM said, "You're not able to do that." Admittedly, he was a low level character, but the GM made it clear that even if he were a much higher level (even Level 20), it still wouldn't have worked.

When I pointed out my current thoughts on the "Guy At The Gym" Fallacy, the GM said, "Do you wanna play D&D or not?"

There's also also this lovely thread on Reddit.
(https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/anxskv/how_it_feels_to_be_a_lvl_18_gestalt_mythic_fighter/)

I wasn't there, but both of those examples all sound like a DM just trying to play by the rules and comic up for reasons why you couldn't just bypass the mechanics for disabling devices rather than an active attempt at limiting martials.

As for the Reddit story, that just sounds like a jackass DM. There is no excuse for being a stickler for the rules when it comes to martials but letting magic users ignore the rules. Also, I am pretty sure a "guy at the gym" could run 25' in 5 seconds and could easily bullrush someone through a glass window.

[Tvtyrant]

When I see "Guy at the Gym Fallacy," it normally reads to me like an argument against the "Captain Hobo Problem". As someone who prefers martial characters, this always strikes me as telling me that I am having badwrongfun at their expense.

Captain Hobo Problem

A theoretical character in a system which generically surcharges game effects based on their utility and directs the player to fluff their effects post-hoc. He's used as a shorthand for the dangers of assigning weak fluff without regards to its relative in-game effect; Captain Hobo's super-speed is described as being the side-effect of 'too much energy drinks and vodka', his 12d6 attack (the max he's allowed to buy out of chargen) is a broken chair leg, his toughness is described as 'layered clothes from Goodwill with cardboard and tape', etc.
The problem with Captain Hobo is that merely by existing he makes everyone else's character less cool. Your badass magical martial artist with mastery over the four elements is only as effective at superheroics as a drunken smelly guy. A less extreme but no less illuminating example would be someone playing a James Bond clone whose PP7 could do more damage than the mortar shots of Artillery Man or someone playing a Conan clone who could outwrestle someone's Superman expy.
Stop by Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards and Magician Superhero Problem to see what can happen if you naively attempt to avert the Captain Hobo problem.



Ok, I got one for you: Why is it (virtually) impossible to kill a hill giant by falling damage? Regardless of the height, the odds of a hill giant dying from a fall are significantly less than one in a million, yet from everything we know about physics, a larger person should be significantly more susceptible to falls from extreme heights than one of ordinary size.

Is the hill giant super humanly tough?

If so, then why is a super humanly tough fighter killing a super humanly tough giant any easier for you to believe than an ordinary fighter killing an ordinary hill giant?



From my perspective, you are removing character options from the game while I am trying to add to them.

A monk is someone who uses chi to enhance themselves and reach a state of perfection that transcends humanity. Fighters are masters of armed combat who utilize tools (usually magical ones) to enhance themselves beyond what is ordinarily possible.

If you want to merge them, D&D has you covered, multi classes exist, so do sword sages.

But by saying that every high level fighter has to be more than merely human and able to perform shonen style feats, you are mushing together two separate archetypes and telling people who want to play the pure thing to take a hike or stick to the kiddie table.

Again, this is just how I hear it, not some statement of objective fact.

Stating that D&D is a high fantasy game not a super hero game isn't really me stating a preference, its an objective fact. Just google D&D and look at the first summary that pops up, and then do the same to Champions or Aberrant or Mutants and Masterminds.



It is mostly a narrative thing; the idea of someone who has to overcome hardships to defeat a great evil is to me much more compelling than a demigod smooshing everyone who doesn't agree with him. Batman beating up Bane seems heroic, Superman beating up Bane just looks like a bully.

From a mechanical perspective, I would like everyone to be more or less equal, but if there is an imbalance (and there will be) I prefer to be on the weaker side of it. D&D tends to already have a mechanical bias against non casters, I don't see any reason to compound this by capping them at low level.



Ok, so Super Heroes typically have powers but not always. Let's get away from that term then. What I am saying is that D&D typically models itself on stories where the majority of the characters are more or less ordinary humans like Conan or Lord of the Rings, while a setting where the everyone (who matters) has super powers will start to resemble a different genre more like something you see in superhero comics.




I wasn't there, but both of those examples all sound like a DM just trying to play by the rules and comic up for reasons why you couldn't just bypass the mechanics for disabling devices rather than an active attempt at limiting martials.

As for the Reddit story, that just sounds like a jackass DM. There is no excuse for being a stickler for the rules when it comes to martials but letting magic users ignore the rules. Also, I am pretty sure a "guy at the gym" could run 25' in 5 seconds and could easily bullrush someone through a glass window.
The basic issue is that the "guy at the gym" requires keeping everyone else down to that level, or letting that player just be worse then everyone else. 3.5 did the latter, 4E did the former. You simply cannot balance the person who summons groups of T-Rex's bolstered by demonic energy with the person who benches 500 lbs. Either the magic guy has to be limited in what they can do, or the latter has to accept being inferior.

Other classics include a mundane scout vs. a druid in hawk/insect form, falling and not dying vs people who can fly, etc. Personally I prefer taking casting out of normal abilities and making them rituals with long casting times, and people's abilities are all mundane, but that only works if people don't want to play Harry Potter style wizards.

[malachi]

When I see "Guy at the Gym Fallacy," it normally reads to me like an argument against the "Captain Hobo Problem". As someone who prefers martial characters, this always strikes me as telling me that I am having badwrongfun at their expense.

Captain Hobo Problem

A theoretical character in a system which generically surcharges game effects based on their utility and directs the player to fluff their effects post-hoc. He's used as a shorthand for the dangers of assigning weak fluff without regards to its relative in-game effect; Captain Hobo's super-speed is described as being the side-effect of 'too much energy drinks and vodka', his 12d6 attack (the max he's allowed to buy out of chargen) is a broken chair leg, his toughness is described as 'layered clothes from Goodwill with cardboard and tape', etc.
The problem with Captain Hobo is that merely by existing he makes everyone else's character less cool. Your badass magical martial artist with mastery over the four elements is only as effective at superheroics as a drunken smelly guy. A less extreme but no less illuminating example would be someone playing a James Bond clone whose PP7 could do more damage than the mortar shots of Artillery Man or someone playing a Conan clone who could outwrestle someone's Superman expy.
Stop by Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards and Magician Superhero Problem to see what can happen if you naively attempt to avert the Captain Hobo problem.



Ok, I got one for you: Why is it (virtually) impossible to kill a hill giant by falling damage? Regardless of the height, the odds of a hill giant dying from a fall are significantly less than one in a million, yet from everything we know about physics, a larger person should be significantly more susceptible to falls from extreme heights than one of ordinary size.

Is the hill giant super humanly tough?

If so, then why is a super humanly tough fighter killing a super humanly tough giant any easier for you to believe than an ordinary fighter killing an ordinary hill giant?



From my perspective, you are removing character options from the game while I am trying to add to them.

A monk is someone who uses chi to enhance themselves and reach a state of perfection that transcends humanity. Fighters are masters of armed combat who utilize tools (usually magical ones) to enhance themselves beyond what is ordinarily possible.

If you want to merge them, D&D has you covered, multi classes exist, so do sword sages.

But by saying that every high level fighter has to be more than merely human and able to perform shonen style feats, you are mushing together two separate archetypes and telling people who want to play the pure thing to take a hike or stick to the kiddie table.

Again, this is just how I hear it, not some statement of objective fact.

Stating that D&D is a high fantasy game not a super hero game isn't really me stating a preference, its an objective fact. Just google D&D and look at the first summary that pops up, and then do the same to Champions or Aberrant or Mutants and Masterminds.



It is mostly a narrative thing; the idea of someone who has to overcome hardships to defeat a great evil is to me much more compelling than a demigod smooshing everyone who doesn't agree with him. Batman beating up Bane seems heroic, Superman beating up Bane just looks like a bully.

From a mechanical perspective, I would like everyone to be more or less equal, but if there is an imbalance (and there will be) I prefer to be on the weaker side of it. D&D tends to already have a mechanical bias against non casters, I don't see any reason to compound this by capping them at low level.



Ok, so Super Heroes typically have powers but not always. Let's get away from that term then. What I am saying is that D&D typically models itself on stories where the majority of the characters are more or less ordinary humans like Conan or Lord of the Rings, while a setting where the everyone (who matters) has super powers will start to resemble a different genre more like something you see in superhero comics.




I wasn't there, but both of those examples all sound like a DM just trying to play by the rules and comic up for reasons why you couldn't just bypass the mechanics for disabling devices rather than an active attempt at limiting martials.

As for the Reddit story, that just sounds like a jackass DM. There is no excuse for being a stickler for the rules when it comes to martials but letting magic users ignore the rules. Also, I am pretty sure a "guy at the gym" could run 25' in 5 seconds and could easily bullrush someone through a glass window.



I think there's some miscommunication happening here.

AntiAuthority started the thread by saying something I interpreted as "Because people cite GATG, certain characters arbitrarily have their class features removed. To stop this removal of class features, we should realize that all PCs at a certain level surpass the limits of what is physical on earth." One example was comparing the maximum falling damage dealt to increasing HP values (a class feature), or comparing various situations (fighters can kill dragons with scales that are better than platemail in a relatively short amount of time, but can't break down a stone or metal door).

The suggested solution to this discrepancy between the game mechanics and our understanding of what PCs can and cannot do is to say "Characters that are only expected to contribute to encounters/situations that real-world humans could contribute to should have a certain level-range. Characters that are expected to be equal to the challenge of contributing to encounters/situations that would be expected to end in a quick and grisly demise for any real-world human should have a different level-range."


Talakeal, it appears that you hear this as "You are wrong for wanting to play characters with only the capabilities of real-world humans" and/or "The only characters that should exist in D&D-like games are ones who eventually grow beyond the capabilities of real-world humans." I do not believe that AntiAuthority is saying that, and I personally do not believe that.

Talakeal, you also said that you get the impression that concern about being held to GATG levels of capability actually comes from a concern that having a non-supernaturally-powered character at level X makes all of the supernaturally-powered characters at level X look bad. I'm trying to rephrase your questions to adequately determine if I understand them: am I roughly in the right direction of interpreting your last post?

When you brought up the scenario about the hill giant, I think that you're getting AntiAuthority backwards. AntiAuthority has no issue with thinking "something about the hill giant is different than expected with our world's physics, because it can survive a fall that should have creamed it". He also wouldn't have an issue with a supernatural fighter taking on that supernatural hill giant in one-on-one combat. What he does have an issue with is when a character can get hit for 20d6 damage (which coincidentally happens to be the maximum falling damage) in combat without being instantly killed, but would be killed by DM fiat if the same character took 20d6 damage from falling.

One example AntiAuthority brought up was having non-supernaturally-powered characters being unable to break down a metal door - despite that door 30 HP / inch of thickness and 10 hardness (so a power-attacking fighter should be able to break it much faster than they could kill a dragon, yet one action is allowed and the other is not) - simply because no one from our reality could (according to some DM) break down a metal door with a sword.



You answered my question by stating:

It is mostly a narrative thing; the idea of someone who has to overcome hardships to defeat a great evil is to me much more compelling than a demigod smooshing everyone who doesn't agree with him. Batman beating up Bane seems heroic, Superman beating up Bane just looks like a bully.

From a mechanical perspective, I would like everyone to be more or less equal, but if there is an imbalance (and there will be) I prefer to be on the weaker side of it. D&D tends to already have a mechanical bias against non casters, I don't see any reason to compound this by capping them at low level.


The part in bold looks to me like you think that any given character of level X should be roughly comparable to another. That's a point of agreement between you and I.
The part in red looks like what you think I was recommending. I am not recommending that non-casters or any other class be restricted to a certain level cap. What I am saying is that a certain set of classes (typically those without an overtly supernatural power source) tend to be told "no, you can't do that" when the rules either explicitly say that they can do that (fall over 200 ft and survive, break down a metal door) or that they can actually do more difficult things - or sometimes simply imply that they should be able to do a thing.

I believe that the intent of the mechanics for 3.5, 4e, and 5e was that a character of level X should be roughly comparable to another character of the same level, regardless of class, on average. I also believe that the implementation of 3.5 (in particular) fell far short of that due to a combination of either over-valuing the worth of at-will options or getting hung up by something along the lines of the GATG fallacy.


Let me ask you another question. Which of these scenarios do you think fits the "underdog" goal you had earlier? (NOTE: I don't have access to 3.5 stuff, so I'm using guidelines from 5e)
(A) A level 10 fighter fights a wyvern and wins (deadly encounter)
(B) A level 10 wizard fights wyvern and wins (deadly encounter)
(C) A level 5 fighter fights a wyvern and wins (3x deadly encounter)
(D) A level 5 wizard fights a wyvern and wins (3x deadly encounter)
(E) A level 10 fighter fights a wyvern and wins (deadly encounter). Later, the fighter levels up to level 20.
(F) A level 10 fighter fights a wyvern and wins (deadly encounter). Later, the fighter finds out he has raw magic running through his veins, and eventually becomes a Fighter 11 / Sorcerer 9.
(G) A level 20 fighter fights a wyvern and wins (easy encounter)


In this, I think that all cases but (G) qualify as an "underdog" encounter (regardless of whether the character has magic or not, or later grows stronger, or develops magic).
In that, the intent isn't to cap anyone at any level. If a PLAYER wants to be an underdog, they have the choice of player at a lower level than the other characters, but they could just as easily be an underdog Wizard as an underdog Fighter (of course, there are other things that could make someone an underdog, like bad stats or an intentionally wrong build; but something as core as the CLASS should not be provided simply as an underdog option for players).

[AntiAuthority]

When I see "Guy at the Gym Fallacy," it normally reads to me like an argument against the "Captain Hobo Problem". As someone who prefers martial characters, this always strikes me as telling me that I am having badwrongfun at their expense.

Captain Hobo Problem

A theoretical character in a system which generically surcharges game effects based on their utility and directs the player to fluff their effects post-hoc. He's used as a shorthand for the dangers of assigning weak fluff without regards to its relative in-game effect; Captain Hobo's super-speed is described as being the side-effect of 'too much energy drinks and vodka', his 12d6 attack (the max he's allowed to buy out of chargen) is a broken chair leg, his toughness is described as 'layered clothes from Goodwill with cardboard and tape', etc.
The problem with Captain Hobo is that merely by existing he makes everyone else's character less cool. Your badass magical martial artist with mastery over the four elements is only as effective at superheroics as a drunken smelly guy. A less extreme but no less illuminating example would be someone playing a James Bond clone whose PP7 could do more damage than the mortar shots of Artillery Man or someone playing a Conan clone who could outwrestle someone's Superman expy.
Stop by Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards and Magician Superhero Problem to see what can happen if you naively attempt to avert the Captain Hobo problem.



About Captain Hobo... I looked that up on Google, nothing about that came up at all. Did you coin the term or is it pre-existing?




Ok, I got one for you: Why is it (virtually) impossible to kill a hill giant by falling damage? Regardless of the height, the odds of a hill giant dying from a fall are significantly less than one in a million, yet from everything we know about physics, a larger person should be significantly more susceptible to falls from extreme heights than one of ordinary size.

Is the hill giant super humanly tough?

If so, then why is a super humanly tough fighter killing a super humanly tough giant any easier for you to believe than an ordinary fighter killing an ordinary hill giant?

... You're asking me why the fantasy giant that lives in the fantasy world isn't conforming to the laws of our world? Why the fantastic creature that would probably be suffering the square-cube law in our world isn't suffering from it in a fantasy world?

Second, yes, I would say something like that would be superhumanly tough. You could even use it being superhumanly tough to explain how it doesn't have glass bones, blood pressure issues or having severe trouble being able to even stand upright without external help like the a real person of a much shorter height would be would be. I remember reading the world's tallest man had a host of health issues, including not being able to stand on his own, and he was much lighter than a Hill Giant would be.

Third, yes, I can see a superhuman fighter killing a superhuman giant when he's dealing out more than enough damage to kill a regular man 10x over. A Commoner has 4 HP. A hill giant in 5E does 3d8+5 damage, that's enough to kill a Commoner nearly twice over even if the giant rolled all 1s. Yes, there are frail people in or world, but I doubt a regular human being is going to be able durable to take that much damage without instantly getting splattered or maimed so bad that the fight's over then and there... Much like how getting hit by a regular size club could potentially mess up a normal person, a giant one would probably be worse.

Slight tangent, but a lot of monsters in fantasy wouldn't work in real life. Dragons wouldn't be able to fly, and they'd need hollow bones. Trolls would be walking tumors or withered husks that would almost certainly die before they reached adulthood. Invisible creatures shouldn't be able to see anything since light is passing through their entire bodies. If you want to bring real world physics into it, congratulations, a lot of monsters in D&D are now dead, blind, incredibly fragile and generally harmless.


From my perspective, you are removing character options from the game while I am trying to add to them.


Yeah, from your perspective, that's not what I'm doing though. I'm trying to add more options, but you're telling me I'm doing it wrong.



A monk is someone who uses chi to enhance themselves and reach a state of perfection that transcends humanity. Fighters are masters of armed combat who utilize tools (usually magical ones) to enhance themselves beyond what is ordinarily possible.


So it's ok when you force your preconceived ideas of what a Fighter is onto me, but wrong when someone else does it? Alright then.


But by saying that every high level fighter has to be more than merely human and able to perform shonen style feats, you are mushing together two separate archetypes and telling people who want to play the pure thing to take a hike or stick to the kiddie table.


Actually, I've presented evidence that a high level fighter is more than a regular person, but you keep ignoring it.



Stating that D&D is a high fantasy game not a super hero game isn't really me stating a preference, its an objective fact. Just google D&D and look at the first summary that pops up, and then do the same to Champions or Aberrant or Mutants and Masterminds.


I googled it, and what came up is, "Dungeons & Dragons is a fantasy tabletop role-playing game originally designed by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. It was first published in 1974 by Tactical Studies Rules, Inc."

Yes, it's a fantasy game, nobody is arguing against that. It also had the Superhero title in it, but you also ignored that too because it was convenient and your only reason was, "Batman and Punisher don't have superpowers... Even if they're the exception, the title has to apply like it would for them.". It also has ki using monks in it, but you ignored that too. I'm getting the impression you're going to ignore everything else I say, even if it's in the game itself like "8th Level Fighters are called Superheroes, there's ki using Monks, eldritch abominations and plenty of other things."




Ok, so Super Heroes typically have powers but not always. Let's get away from that term then. What I am saying is that D&D typically models itself on stories where the majority of the characters are more or less ordinary humans like Conan or Lord of the Rings, while a setting where the everyone (who matters) has super powers will start to resemble a different genre more like something you see in superhero comics.


Like AD&D has Superheroes in it? Doesn't matter, you'll ignore that it can be a superhero game even if it says "Superhero". Where were superheroes in Conan and Lord of the Rings? I loved when the Superman expy turned back time by flying around the world really fast when it looked like Frodo was about to lose.

Like D&D has psionics in it? Doesn't matter, you'll ignore it can be a sci-fi game. Where were all the psionics in Lord of the Rings and Conan? My favorite part of that movie was when the Carrie expy made the Balrog's brain explode.

Like D&D has Monks in it? Where were all the ki wielding, Eastern themed warriors in Conan and Lord of the Ring? I don't recall the Wuxia character doing flying kicks dozens of meters into the air and oneshotting Orcs with ki strikes, but I must have not seen that in the background during the Battle of Helm's Deep.

As far as I'm aware, none of those exist in the stories you cite D&D is meant to replicate. It's almost like you're inserting your personal biases into the game and trying to pass them off as facts to me... Essentially telling me how to play the game. But it's different when you do it, right?

Burden of proof falls on you. I've presented things from older editions of the games, features in the game, etc. All you've done is say you feel it's not right. So please, present concrete evidence that I can debate you on.

And about superheroes... Batman and Punisher are the exceptions. Punisher isn't really a superhero, so much as an anti-hero. You decided, based on the same preconceived ideas I covered in my OP, that a Level 8 Fighter must be like them, instead of like the vast majority of people called superheroes that have super powers. But I suspect you'll ignore this too. You're taking the two that would be considered outliers and asserting that it MUST mean this.

And as an aside... I'm still not forcing you to do anything. You came into the thread and started saying I was trying (or heavily implying it) to force you to play character concepts that you didn't want to play. You can leave the thread at any point in time, I can't make you do anything you don't want to.

I've said multiple times that you can just play a low level character if you want to be the underdog in a party. You could play a high level character concept, just don't go trying to enforce to people online that it's still a low level character concept as an objective fact. You can do whatever you want. You could leave this thread, but that you keep coming back and trying to enforce your personal interpretation of the game onto me is very confusing, especially when you haven't presented anything concrete on why your way is objectively true beyond you saying it is. You can do what you want, just don't try to act like it's a fact without anything backing it up.

I'll just ask this. Do you have anything to say beyond your personal feelings on why such and such is this? Because that's all you've been doing this thread. I've been presenting rules (like damage and falling rules, which you ignored), character titles (which you ignored), feats (like smashing boulders from the air), things that fall outside of traditional fantasy already being in the game (like monks and psychics). All you've done is say how you feel things should be with no evidence beyond what appears to be your personal feelings. So, please present something concrete that I can argue against, otherwise it'll just continue this cycle of you making baseless claims, me refuting them with a simple Google search, then you ignoring them and saying the same thing in a slightly different way. Or you could just leave, as I'm not forcing you to be here or play a different character concept than what you want to play.




You simply cannot balance the person who summons groups of T-Rex's bolstered by demonic energy with the person who benches 500 lbs. Either the magic guy has to be limited in what they can do, or the latter has to accept being inferior.

But why must the person that can summon dinosaurs be superior? I'm a supporter of superhuman warriors myself...




I think there's some miscommunication happening here.

AntiAuthority started the thread by saying something I interpreted as "Because people cite GATG, certain characters arbitrarily have their class features removed. To stop this removal of class features, we should realize that all PCs at a certain level surpass the limits of what is physical on earth." One example was comparing the maximum falling damage dealt to increasing HP values (a class feature), or comparing various situations (fighters can kill dragons with scales that are better than platemail in a relatively short amount of time, but can't break down a stone or metal door).

The suggested solution to this discrepancy between the game mechanics and our understanding of what PCs can and cannot do is to say "Characters that are only expected to contribute to encounters/situations that real-world humans could contribute to should have a certain level-range. Characters that are expected to be equal to the challenge of contributing to encounters/situations that would be expected to end in a quick and grisly demise for any real-world human should have a different level-range."


Talakeal, it appears that you hear this as "You are wrong for wanting to play characters with only the capabilities of real-world humans" and/or "The only characters that should exist in D&D-like games are ones who eventually grow beyond the capabilities of real-world humans." I do not believe that AntiAuthority is saying that, and I personally do not believe that.

Talakeal, you also said that you get the impression that concern about being held to GATG levels of capability actually comes from a concern that having a non-supernaturally-powered character at level X makes all of the supernaturally-powered characters at level X look bad. I'm trying to rephrase your questions to adequately determine if I understand them: am I roughly in the right direction of interpreting your last post?

When you brought up the scenario about the hill giant, I think that you're getting AntiAuthority backwards. AntiAuthority has no issue with thinking "something about the hill giant is different than expected with our world's physics, because it can survive a fall that should have creamed it". He also wouldn't have an issue with a supernatural fighter taking on that supernatural hill giant in one-on-one combat. What he does have an issue with is when a character can get hit for 20d6 damage (which coincidentally happens to be the maximum falling damage) in combat without being instantly killed, but would be killed by DM fiat if the same character took 20d6 damage from falling.

One example AntiAuthority brought up was having non-supernaturally-powered characters being unable to break down a metal door - despite that door 30 HP / inch of thickness and 10 hardness (so a power-attacking fighter should be able to break it much faster than they could kill a dragon, yet one action is allowed and the other is not) - simply because no one from our reality could (according to some DM) break down a metal door with a sword.



You answered my question by stating:


The part in bold looks to me like you think that any given character of level X should be roughly comparable to another. That's a point of agreement between you and I.
The part in red looks like what you think I was recommending. I am not recommending that non-casters or any other class be restricted to a certain level cap. What I am saying is that a certain set of classes (typically those without an overtly supernatural power source) tend to be told "no, you can't do that" when the rules either explicitly say that they can do that (fall over 200 ft and survive, break down a metal door) or that they can actually do more difficult things - or sometimes simply imply that they should be able to do a thing.

I believe that the intent of the mechanics for 3.5, 4e, and 5e was that a character of level X should be roughly comparable to another character of the same level, regardless of class, on average. I also believe that the implementation of 3.5 (in particular) fell far short of that due to a combination of either over-valuing the worth of at-will options or getting hung up by something along the lines of the GATG fallacy.


Let me ask you another question. Which of these scenarios do you think fits the "underdog" goal you had earlier? (NOTE: I don't have access to 3.5 stuff, so I'm using guidelines from 5e)
(A) A level 10 fighter fights a wyvern and wins (deadly encounter)
(B) A level 10 wizard fights wyvern and wins (deadly encounter)
(C) A level 5 fighter fights a wyvern and wins (3x deadly encounter)
(D) A level 5 wizard fights a wyvern and wins (3x deadly encounter)
(E) A level 10 fighter fights a wyvern and wins (deadly encounter). Later, the fighter levels up to level 20.
(F) A level 10 fighter fights a wyvern and wins (deadly encounter). Later, the fighter finds out he has raw magic running through his veins, and eventually becomes a Fighter 11 / Sorcerer 9.
(G) A level 20 fighter fights a wyvern and wins (easy encounter)


In this, I think that all cases but (G) qualify as an "underdog" encounter (regardless of whether the character has magic or not, or later grows stronger, or develops magic).
In that, the intent isn't to cap anyone at any level. If a PLAYER wants to be an underdog, they have the choice of player at a lower level than the other characters, but they could just as easily be an underdog Wizard as an underdog Fighter (of course, there are other things that could make someone an underdog, like bad stats or an intentionally wrong build; but something as core as the CLASS should not be provided simply as an underdog option for players).

Yeah, you pretty much nailed my position to a T there. It's me wondering, "How isn't my dude a heap of broken bones after getting hit with basically a tree?" Then me wondering, "Why am I now a heap of broken bones after falling?" Then me killing 5 giant monsters but being unable to cut through a metal door without risking breaking my weapon. Stuff along that nature.

[Tvtyrant]

But why must the person that can summon dinosaurs be superior? I'm a supporter of superhuman warriors myself...


Right, that is the point I was making.


Fighters can be superpowered and balanced with superpowered wizards.

Fighters can be mundane and not balanced with superpowered wizards.

Wizards can be mundane and balanced with mundane fighters.



You can't take mundane fighters and superpowered wizards and expect any form of balance. In 3.5 a Wizard could summon/bind better fighters then the fighter while also still being a wizard. In 4E they were balanced because the Wizard was mundane. You could make a game where fighters are super and balance it with super wizards (say Tome of Battle and a Beguiler.) But mundane and super don't balance together, which is why the Guy at the Gym is seen as a fallacy. It expects one person to accept real world rules and another not to, and also that they play nicely together.

[AntiAuthority]

Right, that is the point I was making.


Fighters can be superpowered and balanced with superpowered wizards.

Fighters can be mundane and not balanced with superpowered wizards.

Wizards can be mundane and balanced with mundane fighters.



You can't take mundane fighters and superpowered wizards and expect any form of balance. In 3.5 a Wizard could summon/bind better fighters then the fighter while also still being a wizard. In 4E they were balanced because the Wizard was mundane. You could make a game where fighters are super and balance it with super wizards (say Tome of Battle and a Beguiler.) But mundane and super don't balance together, which is why the Guy at the Gym is seen as a fallacy. It expects one person to accept real world rules and another not to, and also that they play nicely together.

Sorry I didn't catch that sooner, but I agree. One of my favorite posts on this idea is from the Paizo forum...


You can bring martials up to the level of Cu Chulainn or you can bring casters down to the level of characters like Thoth-Amon or Gandalf, but trying to maintain a world where Gimli and Naruto are best buddies who go from level 1 to level 20 together is a huge part of why martial/caster disparity exists in the first place. Gimli manifestly does not belong in the world of Naruto Shippuden, and Naruto obviously would have annihilated the enemy forces of the Lord of the Rings. These two concepts and types of fantasy are practically anathema to each other they're so different. If you want to balance martials and casters, you have two directions, or a middle ground compromise.

[Mechalich]

Right, that is the point I was making.


Fighters can be superpowered and balanced with superpowered wizards.

Fighters can be mundane and not balanced with superpowered wizards.

Wizards can be mundane and balanced with mundane fighters.



You can't take mundane fighters and superpowered wizards and expect any form of balance. In 3.5 a Wizard could summon/bind better fighters then the fighter while also still being a wizard. In 4E they were balanced because the Wizard was mundane. You could make a game where fighters are super and balance it with super wizards (say Tome of Battle and a Beguiler.) But mundane and super don't balance together, which is why the Guy at the Gym is seen as a fallacy. It expects one person to accept real world rules and another not to, and also that they play nicely together.

This is all true. I would add that another reason why Guy at the Gym thinking propagates is that fantasy worlds of the middle type: mundane fighters who are not balanced with superpowered wizards, are the most commonly encountered form in fantasy fiction, especially serious or 'adult' fantasy fiction. Worlds of fantasy supers - with super fighters, super wizards, or just everyone being super for some reason, tend to be poorly structured with bad worldbuilding and are often targeted at 'young adult' audiences (shounen manga is literally defined by the 'boy' demographic). Likewise, bringing wizards down to the mundane level and balancing them with warriors requires massive nerfs (4e reduces wizards, but also buffs warriors 'healing surges' and the like are anything but mundane) and severely restricts their powers, especially within the sort of quick-use timeframe most games demand. A 'wizard' whose powers take weeks to invoke isn't really a playable character.

So instead fantasy fiction produces worlds with wizard supers and nominally mundane fighters and then utilizes a variety of storytelling devices to provide an illusion of balance and they usually codify the wizards as sufficiently rare such that the mass of the population serves as a balance measure at the worldbuilding level. Neither of these methods work in games, unfortunately.

This creates a major problem in that tabletop RPGs are often trying to translate a fantasy universe that is not balanced into the form of a game that is, giving the designers an impossible task. The Wheel of Time, for example, was made into a d20 system RPG, even those people who can Channel are supers in that world and those who cannot Channel are not. D&D, has much the same problem, in that it drew upon source materials - the works of Tolkien, Robert Howard, Fritz Leiber, and Jack Vance especially - that had mundane warriors and super wizards.

What this means is that, if you pick a fantasy universe that has this imbalance in place and convert it into a game you have to determine which role the characters are going to play and all characters need to play that role in a given campaign. For instance, if you run the Wheel of Time, either everyone in the party can channel, or no one can, and the campaigns on either side of the divide will unfold very differently.

[Cluedrew]

Stating that D&D is a high fantasy game not a super hero game isn't really me stating a preference, its an objective fact. Just google D&D and look at the first summary that pops up, and then do the same to Champions or Aberrant or Mutants and Masterminds.Yes but that isn't to say it has nothing common with a superhero game. Or anime or mythology or any other gene that people have used to dismiss fixes to D&D. Admittedly considering how broad superhero stories and anime are that's actually pretty hard to avoid. So if we cut out the entire overlap with either, we probably don't have content left.

Point of this rant. What exactly are the things from the superhero gene that you don't want to see? I would further ask if any of them are associated with particular power levels because... I mean you can only be so grounded when a team of 5 can save a nation from its otherwise inevitable doom.



Fighters can be superpowered and balanced with superpowered wizards.

Fighters can be mundane and not balanced with superpowered wizards.

Wizards can be mundane and balanced with mundane fighters.
I think you are mixing up plausibility and power level. ... I guess because we are arguing between mundane/grounded and low-power vs. fantastic and high-powered this might be a nitpick but the mundane wizard, low- or high-powered, is probably an entertainer. And the high-powered mundane fighter is probably a famous UFC fighter whose main power is by their large social media presence.

[Lord Raziere]

Sorry I didn't catch that sooner, but I agree. One of my favorite posts on this idea is from the Paizo forum...

Well what to do expect, when you don't give enough thought into empowering the gimli? you can't perfectly emulate any character from fiction anyways and have to accept compromise when it goes beyond the scope of the fiction its based on. a gimli-personality is nothing hard to do fluff wise, nor is someone wielding an axe, heck there is an entire naruto village that are a bunch of stubborn earth-magic users from a land of stone with a miniature kage. its called Iwagakure, just change the name to Gin Li, give him Earth release and a big axe on his back, allow him to shoot spiky needles from his beard using the same jutsu jiryaiya does for his hair, and you have a good concept for an Iwa jounin at the very least.

[Tvtyrant]

I think you are mixing up plausibility and power level. ... I guess because we are arguing between mundane/grounded and low-power vs. fantastic and high-powered this might be a nitpick but the mundane wizard, low- or high-powered, is probably an entertainer. And the high-powered mundane fighter is probably a famous UFC fighter whose main power is by their large social media presence.

I'm using mundane to mean "things that can be done in RL." Almost everything a 4E wizard does outside of rituals can be replicated with a bunch of grenade cannisters. Flashbangs, smoke grenades, tear gas cannister, fire bombs, etc.

A 3.5 wizard can turn into almost anything, fly, teleport, bind things stronger then them, create any material or item in the world, etc.

[Max_Killjoy]

Right, that is the point I was making.


Fighters can be superpowered and balanced with superpowered wizards.
Fighters can be mundane and not balanced with superpowered wizards.
Wizards can be mundane and balanced with mundane fighters.



You can't take mundane fighters and superpowered wizards and expect any form of balance. In 3.5 a Wizard could summon/bind better fighters then the fighter while also still being a wizard. In 4E they were balanced because the Wizard was mundane. You could make a game where fighters are super and balance it with super wizards (say Tome of Battle and a Beguiler.) But mundane and super don't balance together, which is why the Guy at the Gym is seen as a fallacy. It expects one person to accept real world rules and another not to, and also that they play nicely together.



This is all true. I would add that another reason why Guy at the Gym thinking propagates is that fantasy worlds of the middle type: mundane fighters who are not balanced with superpowered wizards, are the most commonly encountered form in fantasy fiction, especially serious or 'adult' fantasy fiction. Worlds of fantasy supers - with super fighters, super wizards, or just everyone being super for some reason, tend to be poorly structured with bad worldbuilding and are often targeted at 'young adult' audiences (shounen manga is literally defined by the 'boy' demographic). Likewise, bringing wizards down to the mundane level and balancing them with warriors requires massive nerfs (4e reduces wizards, but also buffs warriors 'healing surges' and the like are anything but mundane) and severely restricts their powers, especially within the sort of quick-use timeframe most games demand. A 'wizard' whose powers take weeks to invoke isn't really a playable character.

So instead fantasy fiction produces worlds with wizard supers and nominally mundane fighters and then utilizes a variety of storytelling devices to provide an illusion of balance and they usually codify the wizards as sufficiently rare such that the mass of the population serves as a balance measure at the worldbuilding level. Neither of these methods work in games, unfortunately.

This creates a major problem in that tabletop RPGs are often trying to translate a fantasy universe that is not balanced into the form of a game that is, giving the designers an impossible task. The Wheel of Time, for example, was made into a d20 system RPG, even those people who can Channel are supers in that world and those who cannot Channel are not. D&D, has much the same problem, in that it drew upon source materials - the works of Tolkien, Robert Howard, Fritz Leiber, and Jack Vance especially - that had mundane warriors and super wizards.

What this means is that, if you pick a fantasy universe that has this imbalance in place and convert it into a game you have to determine which role the characters are going to play and all characters need to play that role in a given campaign. For instance, if you run the Wheel of Time, either everyone in the party can channel, or no one can, and the campaigns on either side of the divide will unfold very differently.


Well said, on both parts.

Exactly what I've tried to say in the past when this has come up -- "something has to give" and "an RPG is not authorial fiction, just because something works in a book or move, doesn't mean it will work in an RPG."

The fourth option that comes up is "Fighters can be called mundane on the fiction level, but be balanced with superpowered wizards on the mechanical level"... and what gives there is any notion of coherence. And yet in past discussions, that's been the option some posters very vocally and vehemently said they'd take... and insist that everyone else take, too, I guess, expressing some degree of disdain for any other listed option, dismissing them as utterly unnecessary.

[Son of A Lich!]

One of the things I love about M&Ms is that it comes with a standard scale that everyone can play too (The game assumes Power Level 10), and you can scale down or up for difficulty.

The real difference here between M&M and D&D is that M&M always has a counter, and it's usually cheaper then the gimmick. For a conjurer, you could take the power effect Create and limit it too walls or domes, then add regeneration and vulnerability to fire for a Wall of Wood Spell, AOE Damage for a wall of Fire Spell, Impervious and Affects Incorporeal for a Wall of Force or just have a lot of wall for a Wall of Stone. After the initial purchase, each would be 1 pp more. If the Caster is stunned in combat, he loses the wall just like D&D (By setting the duration to Concentration). A bruiser, barbarian type of character could always punch through it with enough of a focused effort. Casters are encouraged to theme their spells to their party and help as needed, with things like limited or full immunity [Fire] and affects other or an Area of Effect and Selective.

But most importantly, they cannot upstage their companions - Your summons fall with one hit, if they don't, they are too weak to actually do much but hassle the opponent, if they are heroic and equal level to the party, they disappear when you try to do anything else (As you can't array your Summons without losing the Summon) and it is so expensive at that point you don't have other options. At my table, I house rule that minions, side kicks and the ilk share your turn - You can choose a move action between you or your pet, but not both. The benefit of getting to choose an attack with your companion is well worth the points put into it.

So if you want to simply attack creatively, a bruiser type character is perfectly fine. If you want to shape shift into animals, that's cool. but since 1 turn per player and PL limits are a thing in Mutants and Masterminds, a wizard is never able to just create a wall that cannot be undone unless another wizard says so.

Hell, Cinnamon Top in the webcomic I'm working on is a monk with 9 different alternate forms based on the different martial arts types he is practicing at the time. She can jump well in Lolipop, but she can literally teleport Caffine, Fly with Red Hot and can break items with a touch using Jaw Breaker.

Winter Crunch has a number of different abilities dependent on what terrain he is in and what he is fighting - Because he's a ranger, and it just makes sense that he has plans in place for anything he encounters.

Ironically, Sour Grape, the warlock/wizard/witch guy has the LEAST variation in his build, because he doesn't need it. He can move people around the battle field, fly and go ghostly with a blast attack and a deflection shield he can give to other party members. He can develop new powers he may need with the Ritualist advantage, but that functionally saves him a Hero Point that literally anyone in the party can use on the fly.

---

But yeah, in D&D, you have to account for the variability that wizards and other casters bring to the table and it's ability to drastically swing the fight to their side, especially if you aren't giving the same capacity to everyone in tandem. It's not about how much damage a wizard can do, wizards shouldn't be doing damage. Wizards shouldn't be taking damage. A wizard can see a group of enemies and by himself ask the question of how do you deal with him plus the group. A wall of fire completely changes an encounter, a fog cloud changes the encounter, invisibility changes the encounter, and the enemies only hope is to have a mage on their own side which then brings up the counter issue that the only thing that fights a mage is another mage and makes the non-casters feel like they are playing on the side lines of everyone else's game.

I think the best thing WotC could do to balance the tides, at least a little bit, is create a list of PC spells that they can learn on their own, Rare spells that have to be encountered and learned with help of a tutor, and vile spells that should only be cast by Villains and some extremely powerful allies which the players are never expected to learn. Having to earn Fireball makes it feel like earning a magic item, and helps put them on par with fighters who are very Magic item dependent. The Vile Spells could possibly be awarded as Boons in some scenarios.

[SIDE NOTE: I just realized that this would also help expand level 20+ play, as a wizard could go his entire career without learning a spell he really wants to add to his repertoire and never had the chance in the game play up to 20. That's kinda cool, it would have to be fleshed out a bit more though]

And you can expand this idea with common things various classes need (Like Barbarians needing a counter charm effect, for example) and have the players approach the GM and say they were looking for thing XYZ and the DM can put it into the lore of the quests they are on. Not to mention it just fits Monks so well to travel to monasteries to learn their techniques from masters. I could even see a way to help the MAD characters get less dependent on their oft-maligned stats (Like a paladin that learns combat damage and attack bonus with his charisma - interestingly enough, this would make the temptation into Hexblade a bit of a character development moment; Does he wait for his boon? or does he take the easy pact?). And Fighters could just learn cool maneuvers that simply are not available to the other PCs like Disarming or... well... just feats without ASIs.

I dunno, it would be a bit of a home brew project, but I think I would rather just stick with M&M for ease of use and execution.

[Kaptin Keen]

I only saw the original movies and some scans from the comics, but based on everything I know about him, Hellboy would be a mid-level character with an artifact (his stone hand).

Reason why I think he's mid-level is because the creatures he fights (and struggles against) are also things that a mid-level fighter would be able to defeat without an artifact.

He killed giants in melee, so could a mid-level fighter.

He was able to defeat his way through a group of skeleton warriors (Draugar, I presume), which a midlevel fighter could also do.

He can get chewed on by a hydra, as could a mid-level Fighter.

He gets knocked out by an explosion while falling, a higher level Fighter wouldn't.

A high level character would probably be strolling through the above.

He would still be defeated by a high level Wizard, unless there's something I'm missing.

But I am curious, how powerful are these god-like entities? Like omnipotent, city busters, planet busters, etc.?

It's more to show the differences in concept levels.

This is super relevant to what you're saying. May he rest in peace.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4_zFYnnn2Y)

Agreed, but if two characters are of the same level, I feel there's a problem if one is vastly more powerful than the other.

Well, the stone fist is more of a trademark, I feel. Sure, it punches hard, but it's not like it's some sort of all-powerful superweapon. I've only seen the movies, never read the comics, but I feel he mostly uses it to bust open doors.

Hellboy fights what is basically the cthulu mythos. Tentacly things from beyond the universe of reason and sanity. And he does so in a very fighter-esque way. Giant fist, giant revolver, giant sword (I think he grabs that one from a statue, actually), giant pool of HP. But the point is that he doesn't have any powers to alter reality - except for such changes as may be seen from punching someone repeatedly in the nose with a stone fist. Other's have those powers - Hellboy just wades in, delivers grumpy rebuke, and wins. He's everything a fighter could ever dream of being: Extremely hard to kill, and able to solve most problems by punching them until they go away.

And such is the case for most of our heroic mundanes. Conan does this, Roland of Gilead does this, Batman (kinda) does this. And it's what the fighter and other melee classes should be - conditionally unstoppable juggernauts that casters need to fear, primarily because they do not stop, and you're in trouble if they tie you down long enough to begin punching you.

[Rukelnikov]

I read most of the thread (I skimmed some of the lengthiest posts), and there are multiple things being discussed here, and in many cases what seems to me as missconceptions in a lot of posts.

I'll start by the titular subject the (in)famous "Guy at the Gym Fallacy". What the OP mentions in hisopening post is strictly in contrast to what the original (maybe the term existed before idk) thread mentions, a thread which I read quite some time ago but skimmed a bit today when I found such discrepancies.

The GATGF doesn't talk about "no human could jump 10 meters up in the air, so you cant jump 10 meters", the GATGF doesn't talk about """real world""" limitations, but about innate humanoid capacities limitations: Humans can't fly.

Quoted from the thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?303089-The-Guy-at-the-Gym-Fallacy):

"They do things we can do. Not that we can do them as well. We can jump; they can jump 50 feet. We can shoot a bow; they can shoot a man at 500 yards with a crooked sight. We can swim; they can swim across the ocean. You know... maybe if the guy doing laps at the gym could.

This mindset forms the core of the Guy at the Gym fallacy. Because they do things that we can do, they cannot do things we cannot do. It's that simple!"

I have to say this is the first time I encounter the "fallacy" being used fo what is basically house rules, since most of the examples in the OP are just that, they dont follow RAW, and thus cannot be considered a problem of the system. I did find it invoked many times for the kinds of things Bekeleven used it for.

Having explained what I understand the "fallacy" speaks about (and such examples have been used in this thread intertwined with the DM house rule nerf ones), I consider it a fallacy in the sense that the reasoning he uses to explain the validity of such supposed fallacy is faulty, and contradicts himself.

Bekeleven started his post with: "No matter how high level a Barbarian or Rogue get, picturing them being able to heal the injuries/afflictions of others for instance, or raise the dead, strains disbelief."

Thats a valid invocation of the suppossed fallacy, a "mundane" cannot raise the dead.

But he also wrote the following: "In other words, for nearly every justification of why mundanes can't do something, there's equally valid fluff for why it makes sense without magic. I made a class that's so genre savvy he can spot illusions by "what doesn't make dramatic sense." How is that less reasonable than a man being fast enough and buff enough to take out a small army? How is that less reasonable than a man with a sword running 20 feet, jumping in the air, and his landing strike cleaving a house in two?"

This is not a valid argument, since his starting point is one not covered by the "fallacy" itself. Humans dont have a measurable capacity for genre-saavyness that can be turned up to 1001. He is using something not mundane to support his point that the supernatural can be achieved mundanely without stretching disbelief.

In my view of this situation, if for whatever reason a character can create a universe or plane (not the flying ships :P) it stops being mundane. Anything that is beyond the scope of human but arbitrarily powerful as I want can be considered a finctional mundane in a "Like real life, but..." setting, which dnd mostly is, or tries to be in what have been their (semi)canon settings across editions. So a character with the powerset of The Thing can be a perfectly "mundane" character, but a character with the powerset of any other of the FF is not.

A point which has been touched in the thread is the system agnosticity of this subject, and I fully believe it is system agnostic, since the same can happen in WoD or M&M, spend all your PPs and dont get a single power, not even device if you wanna go full puritan, Batman Costumed Adventurer and Martial Artists, are examples of this in that book. However, notice how both these settings are the type of "Like real life, but...".

Compare it with the Land of Ooo from Adventure Time, or the world of the Looney Tunes, in such a setting a mundane can easily achieve feats that would be considered supernatural in other settings, like being crushed like a piano in the living room, and the next second entering said living room from the kitchen door. Consider how such an event is treated in universe, and you can easily tell what is supernatural in each setting and what is mundane. Elmer may seem annoyed at Bugs resiliency to his many attemps at hunting him, but he still perceives Bugs as a bunny, because in such a setting, he is. If something like that happened in a "Like real life, but..." setting, people would be freaking out as they cant comprehend what is going on, a clear clue that such an event is far from mundane.

This last part of the analysis though, relies on the poorly defined notion of when a setting is "life real life, but..." and when it isn't. So my stance is that, while I cannot categorize settings in properly defined sets, I can tell there is a treshold upon which the GATGF is a valid claim, like in Looney Tunes ones, "why can't I blow some air into the crushed character and bring it back to life mundanely?", and others where it is not, for instance Middle Earth.

This begets the question, are Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk settings where coming back to life is seen as something mundane? In my opinion, no, they are not. And thus the opening line of Belekeven's post that coined the term of the GATGF defeated itself, by using an example of wanting a mundane perform something seen as supernatural in-setting, and still be able to call it mundane. (Such characters though, could probably try to travel to whaterver afterlife the dead characters rests in and try to bring them back to the world of the living, and still be mundane, because that is in compliance with the settings rules)

This went on longer than I thought it would, so I wil just write a line or two about the other subjects I've seen touched in this thread and planned to addressed. PCs above certain levels are definitely superhero material, this is supported by rules and lore, and has been this way since at least 2e. The signature I like the most from this forum depicts this perfectly, even when what the sig aims at is another comparison, paraphrasing "In 2e a 20th lvl fighter can survive a fall from the atmosphere and be in perfect condition a month later or two, in 5e a 6th lvl wizard can survive a fall from the atmosphere and be combat ready an hour later". That's the rules support of superhero material since at least 2e, for the fluff support, look no further than 3e's Legend Lore:

"When completed, the divination brings legends (if any) about the person, place, or things to your mind. These may be legends that are still current, legends that have been forgotten, or even information that has never been generally known. If the person, place, or thing is not of legendary importance, you gain no information. As a rule of thumb, characters who are 11th level and higher are “legendary”"

I don't remember what else I was gonna write about.

[Talakeal]

I can't speak for Talakeal, but responses in the past have included "don't tell me how to RP my character" and variants, I guess under the assertion that things like concept-mechanics-setting intersection are "roleplaying".

Are descriptions of how your character does things not part of playing the character?


The basic issue is that the "guy at the gym" requires keeping everyone else down to that level, or letting that player just be worse then everyone else. 3.5 did the latter, 4E did the former. You simply cannot balance the person who summons groups of T-Rex's bolstered by demonic energy with the person who benches 500 lbs. Either the magic guy has to be limited in what they can do, or the latter has to accept being inferior.

Other classics include a mundane scout vs. a druid in hawk/insect form, falling and not dying vs people who can fly, etc. Personally I prefer taking casting out of normal abilities and making them rituals with long casting times, and people's abilities are all mundane, but that only works if people don't want to play Harry Potter style wizards.

The thing is, games are not real life. Just like in authorial fiction you can use plot armor and narrative contrivinces, game mechanics can tinker with probability to make things seem a lot fairer than they would in a perfectly realistic simulation.

Imagine, for example, a super simple game: Both characters describ their characters however they want within the context of fantasy adventurers living in the forgotten realms. Then, when they fight, both roll a dice and add their level. Whoever rolls higher wins, and the DM narrates that victory however they like.

[Max_Killjoy]

Are descriptions of how your character does things not part of playing the character?


Not when the player tries to describe the character doing something that is flatly impossible for that character within the context of the campaign's setting, and not when the player's description of the actions is in direct conflict with the player's description of the character.

That is, the player does not get to say "my character is a peak human who succeeds on sinew, grit, wit, and steel"... and then describe the character doing things that are blatantly extra-normal for such a character in the setting and situation at hand.

They don't get to say "I'm playing Frank Castle" via what they tell the GM and what they put on the character sheet... and then describe their character in-play as if it was the Hulk or Thor or Dark Phoenix. They don't get to say "I'm playing Conan" and then chin-block Meteor Swarms.

[AntiAuthority]

Well, the stone fist is more of a trademark, I feel. Sure, it punches hard, but it's not like it's some sort of all-powerful superweapon. I've only seen the movies, never read the comics, but I feel he mostly uses it to bust open doors.

Apparently he can turn into a giant version of himself in the comics, wasn't quite sure what to make of that or what level he'd be at that point lol. But yes, Movie!Hellboy's hand is a really effective bludgeon.


Hellboy fights what is basically the cthulu mythos. Tentacly things from beyond the universe of reason and sanity. And he does so in a very fighter-esque way. Giant fist, giant revolver, giant sword (I think he grabs that one from a statue, actually), giant pool of HP. But the point is that he doesn't have any powers to alter reality - except for such changes as may be seen from punching someone repeatedly in the nose with a stone fist. Other's have those powers - Hellboy just wades in, delivers grumpy rebuke, and wins. He's everything a fighter could ever dream of being: Extremely hard to kill, and able to solve most problems by punching them until they go away.


Going by what I remember from the movies, they aren't really on the same level of power as the creatures from the Cthulhu Mythos. In Hellboy, they're treated as really big, slimy monsters, but remind me if I'm misremembering that.

In Cthulhu Mythos, you have big, slimy monsters, but they're more than just that. They can drive people mad by simply being looked up, drive people insane through their dreams, shapeshift and a whole host of other things. Even when Cthulhu was "beaten" it was because the ritual wasn't completed and he'd reform at a later date. Then at the upper tier are essentially concepts such as Yog-Sothoth being space-time itself... And then Azathoth, who has to constantly be played music to stay asleep, because if he wakes up, the universe itself will end because it's just a dream he's having.

I think Hellboy could handle the big monsters, as could a mid-level fighter, but I don't see them being able to take on concepts like the Outer Gods or things that could drive them insane if they just looked at them.

I know it won't translate over perfectly, but...

Even a Dark Young of Shub-Niggurath is only CR 12 in 3.5E. I'm sure Hellboy could take something like that with a sword and raw strength.

A Star-Spawn of Cthulhu is also a CR 20 enemy, but it would depend on if Hellboy is capable of resisting Insanity.

A Daughter of Shub-Niggurath is a CR 20 creature, and he could get through the DR. But the Daught has access to 8th level Druid spells. Not sure Hellboy could fight gravity being reversed or being unable to hit the Daughter because of Sanctuary. Then are the pheromones...

Cthulhu himself is CR 30, and could likely drive Hellboy insane unless he has mental resistances to things of this nature. Along with not being able to truly kill Cthulhu, as he would just reform, and if slain again would just go back to slumber because he's not entirely on the physical plane. And Cthulhu could just leave if he wanted to through Greater Teleport whenever Hellboy gets close to actually destroying his physical shell. This is assuming Cthulhu didn't decide to just drive him insane while Hellboy's sleeping.

The Outer Gods that are above them would be outside of Hellboy's league, as in the Lovecraftian Lore, they terrified the god of dreams so much that he promised to never sleep again... But eventually gave into sleep and died.

Went on a slight rant, but Hellboy seems to be a mid-level character because he's struggling against beings that are just really big but don't have any of the insanity-inducing, metaphysical shenanigans going on that the Cthulhu Mythos has in it.

If he had ways to resist the mental effects, shut down their ability to just teleport away and permanently kill an immortal being that exists on another plane of exist, maybe. But with everything I've seen of Movie!Hellboy, he probably couldn't take on anything too high from the Cthulhu Mythos, as the Great Old Ones are probably out of his reach, literally as they could just leave... Or in the case of Rhan-Tegoth, Movie!Hellboy would get hit by Imprison and trapped somewhere underground, with possibly no one able to free him.

... Now I'm just thinking about Cosmic Horror and want to play Bloodborne again.




Well what to do expect, when you don't give enough thought into empowering the gimli? you can't perfectly emulate any character from fiction anyways and have to accept compromise when it goes beyond the scope of the fiction its based on. a gimli-personality is nothing hard to do fluff wise, nor is someone wielding an axe, heck there is an entire naruto village that are a bunch of stubborn earth-magic users from a land of stone with a miniature kage. its called Iwagakure, just change the name to Gin Li, give him Earth release and a big axe on his back, allow him to shoot spiky needles from his beard using the same jutsu jiryaiya does for his hair, and you have a good concept for an Iwa jounin at the very least.

That... Actually fits rather well. But yeah, it's not a perfect fit to replicate a character in a game, but it can get pretty close.

[Mechalich]

Hellboy fights what is basically the cthulu mythos. Tentacly things from beyond the universe of reason and sanity. And he does so in a very fighter-esque way. Giant fist, giant revolver, giant sword (I think he grabs that one from a statue, actually), giant pool of HP. But the point is that he doesn't have any powers to alter reality - except for such changes as may be seen from punching someone repeatedly in the nose with a stone fist. Other's have those powers - Hellboy just wades in, delivers grumpy rebuke, and wins. He's everything a fighter could ever dream of being: Extremely hard to kill, and able to solve most problems by punching them until they go away.

And such is the case for most of our heroic mundanes. Conan does this, Roland of Gilead does this, Batman (kinda) does this. And it's what the fighter and other melee classes should be - conditionally unstoppable juggernauts that casters need to fear, primarily because they do not stop, and you're in trouble if they tie you down long enough to begin punching you.

Hellboy has a lot of immunities that mostly derive from simple being Hellboy. Batman, likewise, has 'I am Batman!' written on his character sheet with a whole bunch of miscellaneous bonuses attached. Conan also has similar traits that he gets by virtue of being a Cimmerian (and due to certain baggage attached to the author that forum rules prohibit discussing), though he does get ganked by wizards on a semi-regular basis.

Now, building a system whereby mundanes gain immunity to magic as they gain experience is an option, though it can be mechanistically tricky. Star Wars Saga Edition uses this method, and the utility of damaging Force Powers swings wildly depending on level. It also creates worldbuilding implications - if only the heroes can resist magic, then the wizards can still go all Jafar-snake-staff on the Sultans of the world. In the Hyborean Age of Conan it is actually strongly implied that this is the case for many of the kingdoms of the world. This isn't necessarily bad, many famous fantasy series have gone this route, but it is something that matters. AD&D 2e, with it's flat save values and magic resistance was much closer to this than later editions, and (somewhat amusingly) for Drow was exactly like this. Drizzt, for instance, had something like 85% MR in 2e, spells just bounced off him. However, this method doesn't eliminate the advantages casters gain through utility abilities like flight or shapeshifting, and tends to be bypassed by summoning, so it only really works if certain abilities are banned.


The thing is, games are not real life. Just like in authorial fiction you can use plot armor and narrative contrivinces, game mechanics can tinker with probability to make things seem a lot fairer than they would in a perfectly realistic simulation.

You can only use plot armor and narrative contrivances in a game if the game has rules for such things, as in through some form of metagame currency like Fate Points, otherwise you're just engaging in favoritism, and this doesn't really solve balance issues between concepts because everyone gets these things.


Imagine, for example, a super simple game: Both characters describ their characters however they want within the context of fantasy adventurers living in the forgotten realms. Then, when they fight, both roll a dice and add their level. Whoever rolls higher wins, and the DM narrates that victory however they like.

Sure, you could have a game like this, but if one character has fantastical powers and the other does not, the GM is going to have either describe the character with fantastical powers as an idiot, ignore some of their abilities, or utilize some other form of chicanery and it probably won't be satisfying to the audience. I mean, you could write a comic book in which Hawkeye defeats Dr. Doom in single combat, but it would involve monstrous amounts of cheese (comics do regularly invoke cheese at such levels, once you learn to spot it, it becomes immersion-breaking in a hurry).

[Quizatzhaderac]

As I see it, any game with a leveling system has one (or more) huge unrealistic element in it. Any armed melee combat system where fights last more than three seconds has a huge unrealistic element in it. My preference is to just bite the bullet and have HP be one ridiculous thing upfront.

Regarding author fiat and "merely improbable" characters: The regularity of rules breaks these. If we run any king of simulation on Sergeant York (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_York) we realize that he was very lucky. When we try to run we almost never get the same outcome. If we want the same outcome, we need to stick in extra rules like "Germans have -5 to spot" "Five times per round, a 20th level rifleman can call for a re-roll of any shot directed at him".


It Reduces Levels to Completely Arbitrary Numbers.For the sake of enumerating all of the possibilities:

It's possible to have the levels not matter, in some aspects of the game, but not others. For example these are "regular" people outside of combat. If we're doing this in a balanced way, we're say that rogue can't jump over a ten foot wall (world records is 8-ish), but also that a fireball isn't able to ignite it.

I'm not actually saying this is good (and IMHO largely defeats the purpose of having a game with interpret-able rules).


Basically there are several ways to produce a fictional world.

Method One: the world fundamentally follows the same rules as our own with regard to physical laws in ordinary circumstances, but there are extraordinary circumstances were those laws can be violated. I would summarize this as 'Normal, but...' This is the most common way to build a fantasy world and the overwhelming majority of settings are built this way.

Method Two: the world is fundamentally different from the known universe and follows a completely different set of laws. It's an outright magical world. However, whatever the rules to this world might be, they apply everywhere. There's no 'magic' there's simply the powers that exist in this world according to the new physical laws. This method is common in 'everyone has magic' types of fantasy settings. Jim Butcher's Codex Alera setting, where every object is tied to a 'fury' based around one of the classic elements, works this way.

Method Three: the world is fundamentally different from our own at the level of physical laws and there's ways to violate those laws too as a form of 'magic.' Settings of this nature tend to have major coherency problems, because it is often difficult to tell what is responsible for what. Warhammer 40K probably qualifies as a good example. Many isekai anime also do this - as the fantasy world will have some particular rule set and the titular character will have the special ability to violate those rules because they're from another world.

Method Four: screw the rules. Worlds of this nature simply do not have internal consistency. There are no laws of physics there is only what the narrative demands. This is more common then you might think and includes new worlds created in stories heavy on folklore (many of the works of Charles de Lint), magical realism (Pan's Labyrinth), or cosmic horror (HP Lovecrafts dreamlands stories).

For game purposes you're generally making a world using either Method One or Method Two. The trick here is that building a world with any sort of decent verisimilitude using the latter is really, really hard (Codex Alera, which I mentioned above, if a fun set of action-adventure novels, but totally fails this test). Outright magical worlds are therefore more common in video games, which can drastically limit the ability of characters to interact with their worlds and therefore simply shunt everything that doesn't make sense off-screen. JRPGs do this all the time.
I would say that method two is really the default. Fantasy intentionally draws from pre-modern literature and worldviews such that many fantasy tropes pre-date our conception of them as unrealistic. In fact, I'd say the worldview and magical thinking (or at least deconstructions thereof) are defining aspects of fantasy. In absence of a compelling story/style reason the authors will pick something consistent to history, literary conventions, or reality. IMHO, it's the difference between one and two is just really a matter of degree of stylization and how much implications are thought out.

As an example, LotR: It isn't "normal" until Gandalf casts a spell. It's abnormal in every scene that contains a hobbit.

Three just seems consistent with your definition of magic. If you're glossing over how the narrative frames those differences from our world, Star Trek's warp drive is just as magic as Troy's telepathy, as Q's omnipotence.

Regarding four and magical realism, I think that's a tremendous example of how narratives frame things. Pan's Labyrinth is a story about a girl with an overactive imagination who gets shot by her fascist stepfather; absolutely nothing unrealistic or magical there. Except the previous statement is obviously stupid. The movie presents the faeries, Pan, and the labyrinth as completely real and merely allows the possibility of rationalizing it away. Likewise John Wick frames constant improbable things as realistic. The Ulster cycle was not written about a different world or a demigod, it's just that literature had different standards of credibility back then and people didn't see Cu Cuchulain's actions as supernatural.

In fact, "supernatural" wasn't a word yet. And that word comes from philosophy, so we specifically know someone was creating a new concept and not just using a different word. "Magic" meant "that stuff Persians do".
It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage – as indicated by constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the “sixth sense” which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection.First note that he doesn't actually say what hit points represent. He says they aren't exclusively health points, and listed several vague and contradictory options.

Second: The issue of representing this is in the rules. As the OP covered, the rules consistently treat it as health points, regardless of never using the term.

In 5E, I've made a Totem Warrior (has Bear Totem for first two Totems) Barbarian with a high strength and Great Weapon Master. With the Bear Totem, your carrying capacity is doubled to what it already is. We've been killing plenty of giant monsters, and the DM has put us into a dungeon with (some) metal doors.

Me: I'll cleave it in half.
GM: Is your greataxe magic?
Me: No...
GM: You'll just break your sword then.
Me: But I'm doing a lot of damage...
GM: And you'll destroy your sword by hitting it against a metal door. (This same issue comes up against stone doors too)

Also in 5E, someone activated a trap while exploring a dungeon. I can't remember the exact details, but it was a battering ram type trap, and we weren't sure what other pressure plates would activate.

Me: As it's going in, I'll try to break its mechanisms by pulling on the log.
GM: Well, you crushed your hand.
Me: But my strength and Bear Totems...
GM: You're not strong enough to do that.
Me:...

I think there was another time when this came up in 5E, but I'm drawing a blank at the moment.

There was also a time in Pathfinder where a fellow player of mine wanted to pull off some amazing ninja moves by "backflipping from the ground floor to the roof." He rolled really high on the dice, the GM said, "You're not able to do that." Admittedly, he was a low level character, but the GM made it clear that even if he were a much higher level (even Level 20), it still wouldn't have worked.

When I pointed out my current thoughts on the "Guy At The Gym" Fallacy, the GM said, "Do you wanna play D&D or not?"

There's also also this lovely thread on Reddit.
(https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/anxskv/how_it_feels_to_be_a_lvl_18_gestalt_mythic_fighter/)If you want to be a wise-***, here's what a player could say.

Although I agree with Talakeal that the situation of "DM just doesn't want the door/trap bypassed" needs to be considered; are the casters getting to blow through doors? Although I guess they could maybe say "These doors are no ordinary metal".

Second example:
Player: Well what is my strength score?
DM: Huh? it's on your sheet.
Player:The number on my sheet says I can lift a log, you just said I'm not that strong, so my sheet must be wrong.

However and equally wise-*** DM could respond.
DM:You're right, reduce your total strength to 18.

The linked example:
Player: Is it a plexiglass window?
DM: No, it's just regular glass.
Player:The 50's kind we never use to make windows with anymore because kids would accidentally break them all the time?
DM: whatever they had in the 15th century.
Player: They didn't put glass in windows then. Pre-industrial glass isn't clear and is basically a semi-precious stone in terms of expense.

[Max_Killjoy]

Any armed melee combat system where fights last more than three seconds has a huge unrealistic element in it.


Um... I think the people who are recovering the armed combat techniques of the past would really, really disagree with that statement. Some fights last 3 seconds, some last notably longer, from what I've seen of their work.

[Arbane]

I wasn't there, but both of those examples all sound like a DM just trying to play by the rules and comic up for reasons why you couldn't just bypass the mechanics for disabling devices rather than an active attempt at limiting martials.


"As always, magic is limited by your imagination - if you can imagine it happening, it does. And martial powers are limited by your imagination - if you can imagine a reason why it can't happen, it doesn't." - LightWarden


Like AD&D has Superheroes in it? Doesn't matter, you'll ignore that it can be a superhero game even if it says "Superhero". Where were superheroes in Conan and Lord of the Rings?

And about superheroes... Batman and Punisher are the exceptions. Punisher isn't really a superhero, so much as an anti-hero.


Try the Silmarillion - that's where Tolkien put all the REALLY over-the-top mythical stuff. (Sauron used to be the sidekick of the Silmarillion's main baddie.)

Batman and the Punisher DEFINITELY have superpowers - mostly dodging bullets and surviving beatings that would leave a normal person in an iron lung.

[Lord Raziere]

"As always, magic is limited by your imagination - if you can imagine it happening, it does. And martial powers are limited by your imagination - if you can imagine a reason why it can't happen, it doesn't." - LightWarden

Speak for yourself.

I can imagine a guy punching space to make portals, punching time to travel through it, want to conjure? punch through possibility to grab a thing before it exists and pull it into existence. I can imagine a punchy guy doing anything and I don't care for why they can't. ya'll are shooting yourselves in the foot.

[Max_Killjoy]

Speak for yourself.

I can imagine a guy punching space to make portals, punching time to travel through it, want to conjure? punch through possibility to grab a thing before it exists and pull it into existence. I can imagine a punchy guy doing anything and I don't care for why they can't. ya'll are shooting yourselves in the foot.


Which makes "I punch stuff" a just different special effect for the same sort of powers that "I make rude gestures and say strange words" guy has. Your "martial" character is now doing broad-meaning magic. No amount of "but my character just punches stuff" will change the fact that "I punch stuff" guy is doing exactly the same things as the spellcasters, and is just as extra-normal as any spellcaster who can do the same things with different special effects.

(Remember that "magic is as magic does" thing I used to say, that people hated? This is exactly where it comes from.)

Also, I think you're missing the point of Arbane's post... it appears to be snarking against the same double-standard that your comment is openly rejecting, and not at all embracing or endorsing that it.

Of course, some of that double-standard comes from, well, the players who don't want any icky "magic" or "extra-normal" or "superhuman" on their Conan beating up sorcerers characters (see, inverse-guy-at-the-gym-fallacy mentioned previously).

[Lord Raziere]

Which makes "I punch stuff" a just different special effect for the same sort of powers that "I make rude gestures and say strange words" guy has. Your "martial" character is now doing broad-meaning magic. No amount of "but my character just punches stuff" will change the fact that "I punch stuff" guy is doing exactly the same things as the spellcasters, and is just as extra-normal as any spellcaster who can do the same things with different special effects.

(Remember that "magic is as magic does" thing I used to say, that people hated? This is exactly where it comes from.)

Also, I think you're missing the point of Arbane's post... it appears to be snarking against the same double-standard that your comment is openly rejecting, and not at all embracing or endorsing that it.

Of course, some of that double-standard comes from, well, the players who don't want any icky "magic" or "extra-normal" or "superhuman" on their Conan beating up sorcerers characters (see, inverse-guy-at-the-gym-fallacy mentioned previously).

I also hate the double-standard, yes. But at the same time, without clarification quoting that can sound like a confirmation of the concept, than a deriding of it.

Again, what you consider magic and not magic is your problem. and what you consider "the same" is also only your problem, because the differences are in the margins. if you don't make enough differences in the margins, of course they're going to seem the same, you just have to make the two have different limitations rather than more limitations than the other.

[Max_Killjoy]

I also hate the double-standard, yes. But at the same time, without clarification quoting that can sound like a confirmation of the concept, than a deriding of it.

Again, what you consider magic and not magic is your problem. and what you consider "the same" is also only your problem, because the differences are in the margins. if you don't make enough differences in the margins, of course they're going to seem the same, you just have to make the two have different limitations rather than more limitations than the other.

So what's the "margin" between making a rude gesture and saying a funny word causing a hole in time and space to open up... and punching reality so hard that it causes a hold in space and time to open up?

In both cases an act of dubious causality has caused the seemingly impossible to happen.

[AntiAuthority]

As I see it, any game with a leveling system has one (or more) huge unrealistic element in it. Any armed melee combat system where fights last more than three seconds has a huge unrealistic element in it. My preference is to just bite the bullet and have HP be one ridiculous thing upfront.

It would depend on the skill of the combatants from what little I know about HEMA. But a trained knight against a peasant would probably only last more than three seconds because said peasant is running away from the knight lol.



If you want to be a wise-***, here's what a player could say.

Although I agree with Talakeal that the situation of "DM just doesn't want the door/trap bypassed" needs to be considered; are the casters getting to blow through doors? Although I guess they could maybe say "These doors are no ordinary metal".

Second example:
Player: Well what is my strength score?
DM: Huh? it's on your sheet.
Player:The number on my sheet says I can lift a log, you just said I'm not that strong, so my sheet must be wrong.

However and equally wise-*** DM could respond.
DM:You're right, reduce your total strength to 18.

The linked example:
Player: Is it a plexiglass window?
DM: No, it's just regular glass.
Player:The 50's kind we never use to make windows with anymore because kids would accidentally break them all the time?
DM: whatever they had in the 15th century.
Player: They didn't put glass in windows then. Pre-industrial glass isn't clear and is basically a semi-precious stone in terms of expense.

Yeah, I'll remember those for if it happens again. But I talked to the DM about it, and he was still on the side that my character wasn't leaps and bounds stronger than a normal human, but he has been encouraging me to use my strength more when he realized I wasn't having that much fun being a one trick pony that just hits enemies and can't force open a door. With the trap, he said it was because, "There's no rules for it, so I just ruled you hurt yourself." With the bashing down doors bit, he says the bashing down door bits was because it was to essentially stop us from sequence breaking... And my character's habit of hitting things until it works is kind of annoying... And my tendency to use Great Weapon Master to kill things is annoying... And that time I really messed up a sphinx asking us riddles was annoying... In my defense, that last time was because I got two Nat 20s in a row while using Great Weapon Master, which activated my Savage Attack (though I think I forgot to apply those to the damage) along with a bonus attack (which missed). To be honest, he seems annoyed by my character just hitting stuff and being somewhat overpowered compared to the enemies of our campaign. We ARE fighting a nigh immortal Wizard with a nigh limitless supply of Clone bodies, so I think it's logical to be as powerful as possible...


"As always, magic is limited by your imagination - if you can imagine it happening, it does. And martial powers are limited by your imagination - if you can imagine a reason why it can't happen, it doesn't." - LightWarden



Try the Silmarillion - that's where Tolkien put all the REALLY over-the-top mythical stuff. (Sauron used to be the sidekick of the Silmarillion's main baddie.)

Batman and the Punisher DEFINITELY have superpowers - mostly dodging bullets and surviving beatings that would leave a normal person in an iron lung.

Comic Book regular humans are not normal humans though, Batman can split a tree in half by kicking it :smallsmile:

And I've heard about the Silmarillion, something about a guy killing a bunch of Balrogs by himself?


Speak for yourself.

I can imagine a guy punching space to make portals, punching time to travel through it, want to conjure? punch through possibility to grab a thing before it exists and pull it into existence. I can imagine a punchy guy doing anything and I don't care for why they can't. ya'll are shooting yourselves in the foot.

Actually... You're not the first person to imagine something along these lines through sheer strength... (https://static1.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11131/111318370/5777846-2949293038-YVtus.png)

[Lord Raziere]

So what's the "margin" between making a rude gesture and saying a funny word causing a hole in time and space to open up... and punching reality so hard that it causes a hold in space and time to open up?

In both cases an act of dubious causality has caused the seemingly impossible to happen.

:smallamused:

The Incantation:
you have range, furthermore, its ritualized and precise, also someone can see doing it and interrupt it from range with a counter spell. in a ways its more complicated, because you need to decide where it manifests, whether you can pull off the strange word and incantation in time, all of which could be harder in combat than you might think

The Punch:
you don't have range, but its far faster and much less likely to be interrupted unless someone can grab your hand in time, and even then you just punch with your other fist. however the person who studied it likely has more fine control that the puncher does not.

the puncher therefore can probably do his hole-punching far more repeatedly and quickly when they need to, and a incanter can probably do more things with it when you need something with more finesse, nuance and flexibility. because the puncher is specialized punching until they break space and time. an incanter is someone who studies space and time and thus specializes in space-time itself and thus can do more things with space time. thats a world of difference.




Actually... You're not the first person to imagine something along these lines through sheer strength... (https://static1.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11131/111318370/5777846-2949293038-YVtus.png)

Awesome. Great minds think alike. :smallcool:

[Cluedrew]

That is, the player does not get to say "my character is a peak human who succeeds on sinew, grit, wit, and steel"... and then describe the character doing things that are blatantly extra-normal for such a character in the setting and situation at hand.(Please note that I am going to say a bunch of this about the unspoken assumptions in this statement but because they weren't spoken I am guessing at what they are. If I'm wrong consider this to be a representative statement instead of anything Max_Killjoy has said. OK let's get this started.)

But to fix this statement all we have to do is change "peak [real-world] human" to "peak [fantasy] human". In other words if you assume, sinew, grit, wit and steel are not that same in that world as they are in ours than why would what you can achieve with them remain the same? I am writing a story with a superhuman character in it, the main character actually, and they are considered to be merely competent by the standards of that world. Because you can be stronger, faster and braver* than any real world-human being in that world. So the bar is set higher for them.** In fact the whole reason the protagonist is superhuman is A) shenanigans and B) to keep them at a better power-level compared to everyone else.

From a high-level setting/story building view, "magic exists"*** can be considered a setting premise, something that needs no additional justification as it just is. "People can exceed realistic human limits" is also a premise you could use. Both will have world building implications you should deal with and maybe you could offer some explanation for why they are different, but eventually you will have to say "because that's the setting".

In fact they are very similar except for the look and feel difference. And I guess the Guy at the Gym fallacy is treating them like they are not.


"As always, magic is limited by your imagination - if you can imagine it happening, it does. And martial powers are limited by your imagination - if you can imagine a reason why it can't happen, it doesn't." - LightWardenFor balancing games I have my own version: "Magic is limited by your imagination, any limit you can imagine it can have." Which I think is an important reminder if you need to lower the effectiveness of a magic user but is not really the point of this thread.

* OK that one is a joke, but stronger and faster are serious.
** This might be the "character in the setting" bit and one of the reasons I added the disclaimer.
*** Along with any rules about what magic does and how it works to give it flavour and to keep it consistent.

[Max_Killjoy]

:smallamused:

The Incantation:
you have range, furthermore, its ritualized and precise, also someone can see doing it and interrupt it from range with a counter spell. in a ways its more complicated, because you need to decide where it manifests, whether you can pull off the strange word and incantation in time, all of which could be harder in combat than you might think

The Punch:
you don't have range, but its far faster and much less likely to be interrupted unless someone can grab your hand in time, and even then you just punch with your other fist. however the person who studied it likely has more fine control that the puncher does not.

the puncher therefore can probably do his hole-punching far more repeatedly and quickly when they need to, and a incanter can probably do more things with it when you need something with more finesse, nuance and flexibility. because the puncher is specialized punching until they break space and time. an incanter is someone who studies space and time and thus specializes in space-time itself and thus can do more things with space time. thats a world of difference.


All of that is just differing implications of the special effects, the basic power remains the same -- putting holes in space and time.



(Please note that I am going to say a bunch of this about the unspoken assumptions in this statement but because they weren't spoken I am guessing at what they are. If I'm wrong consider this to be a representative statement instead of anything Max_Killjoy has said. OK let's get this started.)

But to fix this statement all we have to do is change "peak [real-world] human" to "peak [fantasy] human". In other words if you assume, sinew, grit, wit and steel are not that same in that world as they are in ours than why would what you can achieve with them remain the same? I am writing a story with a superhuman character in it, the main character actually, and they are considered to be merely competent by the standards of that world. Because you can be stronger, faster and braver* than any real world-human being in that world. So the bar is set higher for them.** In fact the whole reason the protagonist is superhuman is A) shenanigans and B) to keep them at a better power-level compared to everyone else.

From a high-level setting/story building view, "magic exists"*** can be considered a setting premise, something that needs no additional justification as it just is. "People can exceed realistic human limits" is also a premise you could use. Both will have world building implications you should deal with and maybe you could offer some explanation for why they are different, but eventually you will have to say "because that's the setting".

In fact they are very similar except for the look and feel difference. And I guess the Guy at the Gym fallacy is treating them like they are not.

For balancing games I have my own version: "Magic is limited by your imagination, any limit you can imagine it can have." Which I think is an important reminder if you need to lower the effectiveness of a magic user but is not really the point of this thread.

* OK that one is a joke, but stronger and faster are serious.
** This might be the "character in the setting" bit and one of the reasons I added the disclaimer.
*** Along with any rules about what magic does and how it works to give it flavour and to keep it consistent.

I wasn't talking about things that are a little outside realistic human capacity, or are unrealistic in combination (see, the "super solider" who combines peak strength, endurance, speed, agility, balance, etc all in one person, rather than the specialized expression of a single peak attribute). You're right in that when someone setting up a "secondary world" shifts things to "peak fantasy human" and that's significantly different from "peak real-world human", that has worldbuilding and storytelling (if you're into that, or actually writing a story) implications / consequences -- the problem is the settings these games take place in rarely, RARELY follow through on those implications / consequences.

Often, those implications / consequences will be directly counter to the sort of setting the players (GM and otherwise) want.

And ironically, the worldbuilders for these settings will sometimes go too far in the other direction, depicting much of the world as weak and sickly "dung ages" serfs, rather than as people who were engaged in daily manual labor, walking everywhere, carrying burdens, etc.

Personally, I have no issue with the idea of a parallel "trained really really hard until they discovered a way past the limits of most people" path for both "spellcasters" and "martials", one just has to realize that in both cases the character really does become "extra-normal" or "superhuman". But then as noted we run into both the original and the inverse of GATG fallacy, with some on both sides being nearly offended that the "martial" character is exceeding human limits and effectively "doing magic" (broad sense).

[Lord Raziere]

All of that is just differing implications of the special effects, the basic power remains the same -- putting holes in space and time.


and your point is?

differing implications make all the difference in the world. you can't just shoo those away, just like if I went up to you and shoo away the implications of the world-building you like so much just because it resembles basic fantasy or whatever.

not being willing to sacrifice something for martials and casters to be equal at high levels to work is not my problem. perfection isn't something that exists and don't care if both warriors and mages having such power inconsistent or whatever other flaws it has. the point is not to figure out how to make all this contradicting stuff work, but to figure out what you want most and thus what you need to prioritize over other things. for the high-power balance and awesome I crave, anything else is simply not a priority. compromise and sacrifices has to happen somewhere and this whole debate being hashed out over and over again, simply has taught me that most people who discuss this simply can't prioritize to make it happen because they are too focused on perfectionistic ideals of an all-encompassing perfect game or something and thus struggle with sacrificing one valuable game aspect for another.

or are like you: your priorities simply aren't fit for making that happen. gotta filter out the noise before you can make a symphony, and you don't like the right notes. nothing wrong with that or having ideals, your just not the right person for the job.

as for the "guy at the gym guys" well- they don't like the concept of martials doing cool things anyways so, why should their opinion matter for fixing this? do we consider the opinion of people who don't like pizza for making pizza? I think not.

[Cluedrew]

To Max_Killjoy: If I understand you correctly I have nothing to say that wouldn't just be a world discussion which I'm going to skip because I don't think it needs to be discussed more in this thread. Fingers crossed.

To Lord Raziere: If I may attempt to summarize your post "A coherent setting is useless if the game set in it isn't fun." Is that what you are saying?

Although I think guy at the gym calibrated heroes work fine for low-powered heroes, if all the heroes are scaled to match.

To AntiAuthority: I had a thought, what would you describe the main purpose of this thread? Did you have a particular point about the guy in the gym fallacy you wanted to make, did you want to describe it detail or something else?

[Max_Killjoy]

To Max_Killjoy: If I understand you correctly I have nothing to say that wouldn't just be a world discussion which I'm going to skip because I don't think it needs to be discussed more in this thread. Fingers crossed.

To Lord Raziere: If I may attempt to summarize your post "A coherent setting is useless if the game set in it isn't fun." Is that what you are saying?


A game/campaign without a coherent setting -- and by extension without coherent characters -- isn't fun.




Although I think guy at the gym calibrated heroes work fine for low-powered heroes, if all the heroes are scaled to match.


As long as the characters are all at a power level that's compatible, or the players are happy with PCs at different power levels, and all the PCs have power/concept coherence, everything works.

It's when players want PCs of incompatible power levels, and/or incoherent concept vs power, that thinks break down.

[AntiAuthority]

To AntiAuthority: I had a thought, what would you describe the main purpose of this thread? Did you have a particular point about the guy in the gym fallacy you wanted to make, did you want to describe it detail or something else?

The main point of the thread was pointing out the flaws of claiming martial characters are bound by the rules of realism at higher levels, and to have people argue for or against it for reasons as to why they are or aren't bound by the limits of people in our world.

If it were to have a secondary objective, it'd be giving such characters level appropriate abilities to help them reflect the level of power at that level. Whether it be someone strongly argue how such characters are bound by realism and giving them abilities on that level, or giving evidence for such characters being far beyond the realms of realism and giving them the abilities to be relevant at high levels.

[Lord Raziere]

To Lord Raziere: If I may attempt to summarize your post "A coherent setting is useless if the game set in it isn't fun." Is that what you are saying?


I would say that is a thing you can take away from it, but I wouldn't say its all I'm saying, even if I can't summarize it myself.


A game/campaign without a coherent setting -- and by extension without coherent characters -- isn't fun.


see, this is what I'm talking about when I say Max here doesn't have the right priorities to fix a problem like high-powered martial/caster disparity. his concern for a coherent setting is just noise to fixing it- an unneeded sound or voice, and an unneeded part to consider. we can talk about whether a balanced martials and casters fit into a setting when the mechanics for doing are actually fixed and balanced. until then, its an entirely different conversation that has no bearing on doing so. talk about integrating it in a believable way when we actually have mechanics that work for playing them in the first place, until then its not the primary concern from my perspective. the primary concern is making sure its balanced and fun mechanically, and while I love fluff, its called fluff for a reason, its mutable and flexible to a degree that crunch is not.

I'm not going to get into whether a coherent setting by itself makes or break the fun value of a setting, thats a third separate conversation altogether.

[Mechalich]

A game/campaign without a coherent setting -- and by extension without coherent characters -- isn't fun.

That's overly broad. You can absolutely have coherent characters in an incoherent setting, and incoherent settings can be great fun. What they cannot do is properly utilize certain kinds of conflict.

Person vs. Nature, Person vs. Society, and Person vs. Technology conflict all require a sufficient baseline level of coherency for those things to even meaningfully exist. This precludes classic plotlines like 'overthrow the evil empire' because a certain level of coherency is necessary for you to define why the evil empire is evil. Likewise you cannot have any of the typical bitter struggles for survival that characterize person vs. nature if the environment is inconstant.

Lack of coherency modifies Person vs. Person conflict as well. Notably it reduces the sphere of potential actors with which a character can engage to those who match up with their current circumstances. In the simplest case of absurd differences in personal power, interactions between one person and the next cease to be person vs. person conflicts and shift into the person vs. supernatural/fate category (Batman v Superman, to use a well known example, isn't actually a conflict between two people its a conflict between a man and a god).

Without coherency story conflict relies on Person vs. Self and Person vs. Supernatural/Fate conflicts. This sort of thing is extremely common in literature. Magical realism, notably, tends to focus on Person vs. Self conflicts. The oeuvre of noted modern folklorist/urban fantasist Charles de Lint resides in this realm. Most of the work of HP Lovecraft represents encounters between people and unknowable and incomprehensible supernatural elements as Person vs. Supernatural often in wholly incoherent spaces like the Dreamlands. These types of stories are, however, poorly suited to use in collaborative gameplay - it can be done, but it's not common and games of this nature tend to prove difficult to maintain as individual players warp the tale to their personal desires and disregard those of others.

As a result, most games placed in incoherent or low-coherency settings rely on simplistic person vs. person conflicts - the kind of storytelling used in superhero comics, shounen manga, and the like - where the dramatic arc amounts to 'For reasons A, B, and C, I hate you so, so much.' This is perfectly workable. The action-anime s.CRY.ed distilled this down to almost its purest form by simply having the two main characters scream each others names as loudly and angrily as possible (Ryuuuuuhouuuuuu! Kazzzzzzuuuuumaaaaaa!) before repeatedly punching each other into paste. It's great fun. It's mindless stupidity. These things can both be true at once.

In terms of game design, it needs to be considered what sort of in-game narratives are intended to unfold, what kinds of experiences are characters intended to have, and what sorts of conflicts and resolutions will occur. If what is happening matters to any of this, then a robust setting with internal coherency matters. However, if but what does it mean? is the only important point of resolution, then it doesn't. Within the context of D&D, Planescape is notable for very clearly caring only about the meaning behind events. The setting is wildly absurd, but that's the point because it provides endless fodder in the search for meaning beyond just that which is real or comprehensible.

To the extent that personal power levels impact setting robustness and verisimilitude - and they do, especially at extremes - sometimes it makes sense to sacrifice coherency for cool if you were just going to tell a straightforward person vs. person conflict anyway. This is particularly reasonable in audio-visual media where the underlying conflict my be entirely subordinate to the impact of the set pieces - the anime studio GAINAX is famous for this approach - and to the extent that tabletop has an audio-visual component in the form of banter with friends and rolling piles of dice, this can be an effective approach in tabletop (many games provide mechanisms for players to revel in some sort of extremely low-probability result drastically changing circumstances for no easily justifiable in-universe reason through critical hits, explosion dice, and other mechanics for precisely this reason).

However, the opposite is true and when the actual in-universe events are important, then setting coherency is extremely important because otherwise the rendition of those events will fail to sustain suspension of disbelief and they fall apart into meaninglessness.


see, this is what I'm talking about when I say Max here doesn't have the right priorities to fix a problem like high-powered martial/caster disparity. his concern for a coherent setting is just noise to fixing it- an unneeded sound or voice, and an unneeded part to consider. we can talk about whether a balanced martials and casters fit into a setting when the mechanics for doing are actually fixed and balanced. until then, its an entirely different conversation that has no bearing on doing so. talk about integrating it in a believable way when we actually have mechanics that work for playing them in the first place, until then its not the primary concern from my perspective. the primary concern is making sure its balanced and fun mechanically, and while I love fluff, its called fluff for a reason, its mutable and flexible to a degree that crunch is not.

Any given system can take two characters, give them abilities that are mechanically exactly the same, fluff them differently, and thereby achieve balance. This is extremely common in video games, which often have 'mirror classes' which do the exact same thing as another class while have different visual effects. If I fluff one such class as a martial and another as a caster, then martials and casters are balanced. The MMO SWTOR does this extensively, such that being healed by mysterious mystical powers or advanced nanoprobes has exactly the same in game effect. If you disregard the fluff and the issues of setting coherency and verisimilitude that follow from it, then not only does balancing casters and martials vanish as a problem, the very differentiation between the two - which is wholly a product of the fluff to begin with - disappears. Balancing little packages of equations moving across a grid map where the backdrop is immutable and the name and appearance of the effect is totally window dressing (which is how most tactical RPGs work) isn't difficult to do.

[AntiAuthority]

What does everyone think a Level 10+ character should have in terms of abilities to reflect them being on that level of power?

Personally, I'd say something like hitting the ground hard enough to split the earth, or possibly striking things beyond the physical and being able to hurt spirits... Or just pulling a Thor and being able to put valleys into mountains.

Hm... Come to think of it, a lot of stuff you'd see in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ws7BeK6DS0) would probably be a good place to start for me. Or something like this. (https://youtu.be/d7O5JjGuprE?t=234) I'd put Cloud as a Fighter with a magic (or would it just be high tech since it doesn't have any magical properities of its own?) sword, Kratos as a Barbarian (or a Fighter/Barbarian multi-class because of his Spartan training) with a magic axe and The Stranger (for spoilers) as a Monk (or unarmed fighter). Not sure if any of them would be Level 20 or higher though. All would have some form of DR, really high strength and probably some form of Fast Movement.The Stranger, and to a lesser extent Kratos, also have Fast Healing/Regeneration. All of them, however, have the type of power to consistently treat killing giant monsters as just another day in their adventures as well as tanking blows from them.

[Koo Rehtorb]

A level 10+ character should be able to haunt people, because they should have died by that point and you should have started a new game.

[Arbane]

A level 10+ character should be able to haunt people, because they should have died by that point and you should have started a new game.

<SARCASM>Thank you for your contribution. Be sure to close the lid and flush.</sarcasm.>


What does everyone think a Level 10+ character should have in terms of abilities to reflect them being on that level of power?

As someone said in another thread on this well-beaten horse, "If the Cleric can bring the dead back to life and the Wizard can build their own personal universe, the Rogue ought to be able to sneak into the Underworld and steal the Queen of the Dead's crown jewels."

[Max_Killjoy]

see, this is what I'm talking about when I say Max here doesn't have the right priorities to fix a problem like high-powered martial/caster disparity. his concern for a coherent setting is just noise to fixing it- an unneeded sound or voice, and an unneeded part to consider. we can talk about whether a balanced martials and casters fit into a setting when the mechanics for doing are actually fixed and balanced. until then, its an entirely different conversation that has no bearing on doing so. talk about integrating it in a believable way when we actually have mechanics that work for playing them in the first place, until then its not the primary concern from my perspective. the primary concern is making sure its balanced and fun mechanically, and while I love fluff, its called fluff for a reason, its mutable and flexible to a degree that crunch is not.


And to think I edited my last post multiple times trying to not come across as a jerk. Wasted time, I guess.

If the "characters" are just vapid excuses for a pile of mechanics, then any two piles of mechanics can be balanced. And I guess that works, if you view RPGs as an excuse to smash piles of mechanics into each other repeatedly.

However, if you're actually interested in the characters as characters first, and the mechanics reflect those characters, and how they interact with their world and with each other... then "just throw some fluff on it" doesn't work at all. If the character and their intersection with the setting don't conceptually justify high-powered mechanics, the no amount of saying "screw it, have some more power" and slapping mechanics on that character will make the characters themselves actually balanced beyond the most mechanistic level.

The reason "inverse guy at the gym fallacy" occurs, repeatedly, is because those players insist on a concept that simply cannot justify being balanced with 3.x or 5e spellcasters etc, on the fiction or the mechanical level, with other characters -- and then they demand that the entire fictional universe contort and distort just to allow their concept to fit.

I have a thing for shadow-based characters, but if someone were running an Avatar:TLA/LOK campaign, it wouldn't be fair of me to demand a "shadow bender" character. And likewise, if someone is running a high-level 5e campaign, then a player can't fairly demand to play a character within real world normal physical limits and without any magic of any kind... who can somehow, through the power of determination and massive plot contrivance, defeat any sort of spellcaster or dragon or giant in the campaign.

[Lord Raziere]

I have a thing for shadow-based characters, but if someone were running an Avatar:TLA/LOK campaign, it wouldn't be fair of me to demand a "shadow bender" character. And likewise, if someone is running a high-level 5e campaign, then a player can't fairly demand to play a character within real world normal physical limits and without any magic of any kind... who can somehow, through the power of determination and massive plot contrivance, defeat any sort of spellcaster or dragon or giant in the campaign.

Then come up with a setting specifically for those to exist with everything else you just listed and make them separate from the usual one. its easy. mechanics are hard in comparison to making up an entire shadow-bender nation for an alternate reality Avatar, while 5e is such a non-setting that its more of a mechanical problem getting that example to work than anything else, because what the 5e "setting" actually is so vague and up to interpretation and filling in the blanks that I'm not sure what consistency you feel you have to defend there.

[Max_Killjoy]

Then come up with a setting specifically for those to exist with everything else you just listed and make them separate from the usual one. its easy. mechanics are hard in comparison to making up an entire shadow-bender nation for an alternate reality Avatar, while 5e is such a non-setting that its more of a mechanical problem getting that example to work than anything else, because what the 5e "setting" actually is so vague and up to interpretation and filling in the blanks that I'm not sure what consistency you feel you have to defend there.

I'm not going to ask a GM to pretzel their entire setting just so I can have my special-snowflake character... I'm either going to find a character who fits the setting, or I'm going to gracefully decline participation. Likewise, as a GM, I'm not going to pretzel my entire setting just to accommodate a PC that is inappropriate to the setting... such as "I punch holes in spacetime because I'm so good at punching" guy in most fantasy settings (never mind in ANY science fiction setting).

I'm not defending 5e's implicit setting, it's already a mess -- I'm assuming a hypothetical GM who has created or modified a setting that makes sense.

[Lord Raziere]

I'm not going to ask a GM to pretzel their entire setting just so I can have my special-snowflake character... I'm either going to find a character who fits the setting, or I'm going to gracefully decline participation. Likewise, as a GM, I'm not going to pretzel my entire setting just to accommodate a PC that is inappropriate to the setting... such as "I punch holes in spacetime because I'm so good at punching" guy in most fantasy settings (never mind in ANY science fiction setting).

I'm not defending 5e's implicit setting, it's already a mess -- I'm assuming a hypothetical GM who has created or modified a setting that makes sense.

Well why are you playing with the guy demanding to play shadow-bender if your not accommodate him? you either get that out of that sorted out up front or don't play with him.

and if said hypothetical GM made a setting that made the determination guy make sense without magic?

[Max_Killjoy]

As someone said in another thread on this well-beaten horse, "If the Cleric can bring the dead back to life and the Wizard can build their own personal universe, the Rogue ought to be able to sneak into the Underworld and steal the Queen of the Dead's crown jewels."


What makes that get a bit tricky is that we're looking at Power, Power... and Story Arc. Unless you really want one of the Rogue's Class Abilities to be "Roll DEX against DC25 to see if you stole the Queen of the Dead's crown jewels out of the underworld".

And maybe that's something to stop and think about... something that's an entire story arc for most characters, is roughly equivalent to a couple of things accomplished out of a spell slot each by a Cleric or Wizard.





Well why are you playing with the guy demanding to play shadow-bender if your not accommodate him? you either get that out of that sorted out up front or don't play with him.


In that example I'm the guy who'd want to play a shadow-bender, but would also be grown up enough about it acknowledge that the special-snowflake character doesn't belong in an Avatar:TLA/LOK campaign.

Just like one can't play a shadow-weave mage in Forgotten Realms without the character being Shar's *#%!$.




and if said hypothetical GM made a setting that made the determination guy make sense without magic?


If "determination" crosses the threshhold and allows the character to do things that are otherwise impossible, like open spacetime portals by punching the universe in the junk, then it's broad-meaning magic... it's extranormal, it's superhuman. No way around it. No amount of "but he's just full of grit" cover that sort of thing... the character isn't Stephan Curry hitting 30' foot jumpers with relative ease, the character is tossing the ball blindly over this shoulder and hitting baskets mounted on speeding cars as they zoom by 500 feet away behind him, over and over 100s of times in a row.

If any old elite boxer or martial artist can junk-punch holes in reality, then I'm expecting some very rigorous worldbuilding dealing with that fact.

[Arbane]

And maybe that's something to stop and think about... something that's an entire story arc for most characters, is roughly equivalent to a couple of things accomplished out of a spell slot each by a Cleric or Wizard.


Yep. A few versions of this thread ago, someone made a list of classic plots that are literally epic quests for the snivelling peas-er, non-casters, and one spell slot apiece for the magic types.



If any old elite boxer or martial artist can junk-punch holes in reality, then I'm expecting some very rigorous worldbuilding dealing with that fact.

Very few D&D settings apply that kind of worldbuilding effort to any old wizard being able to do likewise....

[AntiAuthority]

What makes that get a bit tricky is that we're looking at Power, Power... and Story Arc. Unless you really want one of the Rogue's Class Abilities to be "Roll DEX against DC25 to see if you stole the Queen of the Dead's crown jewels out of the underworld".

And maybe that's something to stop and think about... something that's an entire story arc for most characters, is roughly equivalent to a couple of things accomplished out of a spell slot each by a Cleric or Wizard.

Embrace the power... But seriously, you bring up a good point. Then again, it might reflect how something incredibly difficult for low level characters would be something such a character could do in a few moments if they felt like it. I'm not really in favor of nerfing casters myself though.

A D&D Cleric and Wizard would be able to kill the tension in most stories though...

Cleric: Quicksilver died? Let's wait until the fighting's over, I can just revive him. What's this about an Agent Coulson? Yeah I can get him too. What's that? Your uncle died after telling you about great power comes with great responsibility because you weren't responsible? That's so sad... I'll bring him back for you.

Wizard: If things get really bad with this Infinity Stone madness, I could just teleport them to another dimension... Like, I don't think Thanos could reach them there. He needs all of them, and I'm probably the only one here who can reach my personal dimension. You know what? How about I do that, then I possess Thanos and make him kill himself?

... Huh. The Wizard could have prevented Infinity War, while a Cleric could have brought back all the killed people in the movies to remove the tragedy.

Somewhat related (to me anyway), has anyone noticed how in 3.5E, most of the high CR creatures have caster levels (or caster-like abilities), while very few have levels in martial classes? I can't actually think of any high CR creatures with such levels, but... Huh. Really says something about the mechanical power of martial classes when they're not considered worthy for a BBEG to use.

[Max_Killjoy]

Very few D&D settings apply that kind of worldbuilding effort to any old wizard being able to do likewise...


First, that's usually to the detriment of those settings.

Second, I don't consider the wizard "any old boxer", I consider him another example of a character who "crossed a threshold" and is no longer "any old" anything. IMO there are a lot more people who know about magic from years of study, than have figured out how to do magic. I realize this breaks with the idea in D&D's implicit setting that anyone who has a high enough INT and a couple years of backstory can be a wizard...

[Lord Raziere]

Very few D&D settings apply that kind of worldbuilding effort to any old wizard being able to do likewise....

Again, thats Max killjoy's personal preference or inflexibility due to prioritizing setting over everything else. he will never sacrifice what he thinks a setting should be, so he can't actually solve this because any solution that actually does anything to equal the standard set by the wizards, because he is concerned about a completely different problem of wizards also not making sense. he is essentially complaining against two problems at the same time, when you need to solve one before you solve the other, in steps.

honestly, I think of setting before anything else to- I mostly play freeform which is nothing but- its that mechanics need good mechanical base before you start applying any setting to it. mechanics and setting need to work together, and even if the mechanics sometimes need modifying to better fit setting, its generally better to start with good mechanics and modify them a little for a setting than start with a setting and make entirely new mechanics for that setting alone, because while you can make a setting first then mechanics, its something entirely new to learn, it can't be applied anywhere else, and you generally want to make sure players don't have to learn new things because they generally don't like doing that.

[AntiAuthority]

I'm all for mechanics and lore, but can we stay focused on how it relates to the Guy At the Gym Fallacy, the types of powers high level martials would have, etc.?

This seems to be moving more towards world building than that.

[Lord Raziere]

I'm all for mechanics and lore, but can we stay focused on how it relates to the Guy At the Gym Fallacy, the types of powers high level martials would have, etc.?

This seems to be moving more towards world building than that.

Agreed, world-building is a separate discussion that Max Killjoy repeatedly brings up in these discussions and is his own personal issue not the focus of the thread.

as for me, I dunno, how wizards got so powerful is by taking every wizard they can and accumulating them and what they do into a generic archetype, so I guess to emulate that we start by taking every martial and what they do that we want and just lumping them all into a single archetype?

[Arbane]

First, that's usually to the detriment of those settings.

Second, I don't consider the wizard "any old boxer", I consider him another example of a character who "crossed a threshold" and is no longer "any old" anything. IMO there are a lot more people who know about magic from years of study, than have figured out how to do magic. I realize this breaks with the idea in D&D's implicit setting that anyone who has a high enough INT and a couple years of backstory can be a wizard...

...And this doesn't also apply to people with sufficiently good kung-fu because....?

[Mechalich]

What makes that get a bit tricky is that we're looking at Power, Power... and Story Arc. Unless you really want one of the Rogue's Class Abilities to be "Roll DEX against DC25 to see if you stole the Queen of the Dead's crown jewels out of the underworld".

And maybe that's something to stop and think about... something that's an entire story arc for most characters, is roughly equivalent to a couple of things accomplished out of a spell slot each by a Cleric or Wizard.


I think it's that there are certain abilities that are, in and of themselves, story components. Raising someone from the dead is a very good example. I mean, in the classic story centered on this ability - that of Lazarus - it's literally the only action in the entire tale, everything else is people talking about it. And it's these sorts of abilities - ones that interact with the story directly, that are the hardest to balance mechanically.

Very roughly, abilities can be divided into tactical and story (or strategic) abilities, with the latter being much more difficult to manage than the former. Tactical abilities that operate only in the tactical environment - they are used to eliminate/bypass/ameliorate or otherwise push the party past obstacles on the way to achieving the designated objective(s) for that operational environment. Many games have a distinct 'tactical map' into which characters are dumped where they utilize these skills.

Story abilities are those that, entirely on their own, change the story when used, or, if they have become ubiquitous, change the nature of the story entirely. Raising the dead, for example, either changes the story by being able to overwrite a seemingly significant outcome in the death of a character, or renders death itself more like a temporary 'time out' rather than an actual loss (Schlock Mercenary, through its gradual embrace of ever more transhumanist concepts over time, represents a surprisingly good example of exploring this sort of impact at the moment it propagates through a fictional universe). Likewise teleportation is either a way to bypass whole chunks of story and/or significant time barriers, or it drastically changes how logistics, movement, and strategy work in a fictional universe. The Wheel of Time, where all the major factions gradually acquire a sort of teleportation circle capability as the story proceeds, includes good examples of how this drastically changes its fictional world.

Martial type characters, traditionally, get very few if any story level abilities. That's largely because 'hurting people' in all its many forms, is a tactical ability pretty much no matter how you slice it (yes at certain truly extreme (ie. nuclear) levels of damage this breaks down, but most settings with any attempt at being serious will cap damage well below this). You attack something in order to damage, disable, or kill it, all of which are objectives. This is similar for roguish characters, sneaking, hacking, sleight-of-hand, these are all actions that work in service of an objective (your average heist film might include hundreds of uses of specific rogue-type abilities, all in the service of a single theft), but it is highly unusual that they are a story element on their own.

Balancing different character concepts is much easier when you're just talking about tactical abilities. Many tactical RPGs, where all action is confined to the tactical map and everything else is cutscenes, do this quite effectively. Even in D&D, if you confine the characters in the tactical frame the way D&D video games do, class balance improves drastically.

Obviously, it's not a good idea for a tabletop RPG to confine characters solely to the tactical frame (among other things, video games already provide that experience, arguably in a superior fashion), but it's questionable whether they should have story abilities, and it's quite ridiculous to have characters like Tier I casters who have all the story abilities available to be accessed as needed. For the purpose of action heavy epic fantasy in the D&D style, characters in the Tier IIi-IV range like Rangers and Dread Necromancers who each have a couple of highly specific story abilities, make more sense. In the world of comics, most characters who have a story-level ability usually have just one as their entire schtick - like Weather Wizard or the Purple Man.


...And this doesn't also apply to people with sufficiently good kung-fu because....?

I had a long post earlier in the thread about proportionality that goes into this in detail, but I'll try to summarize quickly.

First, unarmed combat is a thing that humans can naturally do, casting spells is not. Second, because unarmed combat is a thing people can already do, it has a pre-established baseline. We can measure what kind of capability a person in average shape with no training can do. Because casting spells is not a natural trait, it has no pre-established baseline. That means, as a designer, I can set the baseline anywhere I want. Specifically, I can set it to zero and have people with no magical training at all have absolutely no ability to do magic. This extends into training. We can measure the capabilities of a person who trains in martial arts over time. We can even divide this training into levels of capacity if you want and while the levels themselves will be arbitrary they can still grade progress effectively. For magic, because there's no pre-existing numbers, as the designer I can set the progression of mastery however I want.

So if you increase the capabilities of humans at something like unarmed combat past pre-existing values, what happens is that you stretch the entire known curve of capability to the right. This has even happened historically. World records in sports are newly set continually, but they don't happen in a vacuum. Even as the point at the furthest edge of the curve extends, the overall curve shifts. Olympic track runners are faster now then they were fifty years ago, but so are high school students due to shared advances that can be traced mostly to technology.

Consequently, if you simply increase the boundaries of human physical achievement, you get a whole batch of follow-up effects. If even one person can just train to become One Punch Man, then tens of thousands of people can train to become Captain America.

Now, critically, this doesn't happen if the explanation behind the same increase in achievement is a supernatural one. If the guy with kung-fu sufficient to punch holes in space-time isn't just 'really strong' but is instead 'channeling ki' then the problem disappears because ki channeling has no natural analogue and you can once again set arbitrary break points like 'you must train under a waterfall for seven years to unlock the true essence of ki manipulation.' Naruto (amazingly) is actually a good example of this - as all Naruto powers, including running really fast and punching really hard, are based on 'chakra manipulation' which is just magic by another name.

When you have the arbitrary ability to set an innate talent level to 0, you can take advantage of the power of multiplying by 0. Infinite Effort X Zero Talent = Zero Development, but as long as you have some inherent talent level you can't do that.

[Kaptin Keen]

Apparently he can turn into a giant version of himself in the comics, wasn't quite sure what to make of that or what level he'd be at that point lol. But yes, Movie!Hellboy's hand is a really effective bludgeon.

Going by what I remember from the movies, they aren't really on the same level of power as the creatures from the Cthulhu Mythos. In Hellboy, they're treated as really big, slimy monsters, but remind me if I'm misremembering that.

In Cthulhu Mythos, you have big, slimy monsters, but they're more than just that. They can drive people mad by simply being looked up, drive people insane through their dreams, shapeshift and a whole host of other things. Even when Cthulhu was "beaten" it was because the ritual wasn't completed and he'd reform at a later date. Then at the upper tier are essentially concepts such as Yog-Sothoth being space-time itself... And then Azathoth, who has to constantly be played music to stay asleep, because if he wakes up, the universe itself will end because it's just a dream he's having.

I think Hellboy could handle the big monsters, as could a mid-level fighter, but I don't see them being able to take on concepts like the Outer Gods or things that could drive them insane if they just looked at them.

I know it won't translate over perfectly, but...

Even a Dark Young of Shub-Niggurath is only CR 12 in 3.5E. I'm sure Hellboy could take something like that with a sword and raw strength.

A Star-Spawn of Cthulhu is also a CR 20 enemy, but it would depend on if Hellboy is capable of resisting Insanity.

A Daughter of Shub-Niggurath is a CR 20 creature, and he could get through the DR. But the Daught has access to 8th level Druid spells. Not sure Hellboy could fight gravity being reversed or being unable to hit the Daughter because of Sanctuary. Then are the pheromones...

Cthulhu himself is CR 30, and could likely drive Hellboy insane unless he has mental resistances to things of this nature. Along with not being able to truly kill Cthulhu, as he would just reform, and if slain again would just go back to slumber because he's not entirely on the physical plane. And Cthulhu could just leave if he wanted to through Greater Teleport whenever Hellboy gets close to actually destroying his physical shell. This is assuming Cthulhu didn't decide to just drive him insane while Hellboy's sleeping.

The Outer Gods that are above them would be outside of Hellboy's league, as in the Lovecraftian Lore, they terrified the god of dreams so much that he promised to never sleep again... But eventually gave into sleep and died.

Went on a slight rant, but Hellboy seems to be a mid-level character because he's struggling against beings that are just really big but don't have any of the insanity-inducing, metaphysical shenanigans going on that the Cthulhu Mythos has in it.

If he had ways to resist the mental effects, shut down their ability to just teleport away and permanently kill an immortal being that exists on another plane of exist, maybe. But with everything I've seen of Movie!Hellboy, he probably couldn't take on anything too high from the Cthulhu Mythos, as the Great Old Ones are probably out of his reach, literally as they could just leave... Or in the case of Rhan-Tegoth, Movie!Hellboy would get hit by Imprison and trapped somewhere underground, with possibly no one able to free him.

... Now I'm just thinking about Cosmic Horror and want to play Bloodborne again.

I'm not going to go into the whole 'this universe vs that universe' thing.

What Hellboy fights are other-dimensional, reality altering monsters of godlike power. They are, for what it's worth, entirely equivalent with the Old Gods or Great Old Ones - also, quite obviously, inspired by them to the point of copyright infringement.

The whole 'well Cthulhu could just ...' line of reasoning isn't going anywhere. I see no reason to think the crown prince of madness (Hellboy) could be driven mad by Cthulhu. He is obviously susceptible to all manner of being tossed around, but his large pool of HP doesn't seem impressed. And he can generally smash his way out of any sort of attempts to block his way.

So you can say 'well, Imprisonment' to which I reply 'well, Stone Fist' - and we've gone precisely nowhere. You can say 'well, Insanity then' and I can reply 'he's the actual prince of Hell, he's simply not impressed!'

Hellboy is a fighter who fights the reality altering monsters you claim he cannot fight.

Of course your average 10th level fighter isn't usually the actual prince of Hell - but he may very well have a magic item that let's him defeat ... whatever. That's what the game is all about: The GM needs to provide the tools to win. Otherwise it's not a game, it's just an inane ego-wank for the GM.

[Satinavian]

What Hellboy fights are other-dimensional, reality altering monsters of godlike power. They are, for what it's worth, entirely equivalent with the Old Gods or Great Old Ones - also, quite obviously, inspired by them to the point of copyright infringement. They may be inspired but they are specifically weakened enough that punching them becomes an option so that Hellboy can fight them.

And that is only done because it is a Hellboy story and thingt Hellboy can do have to be relevant in a Hellboy story.


Would i wish the same treatment for ab RPG ? (A character is a punch gay so the universe must change that punching solves most prblems ). No, i don't. While problems that are punchable should occur often enough if a punch-huy is in the group, they should not be presented as more common In-Universe or more important than one would expect.

If one player does want to play a nonmagic bard, i won't change the universe in a way that singing solves all or most problems either. Why should punching get some special treatment ?

[Lord Raziere]

If one player does want to play a nonmagic bard, i won't change the universe in a way that singing solves all or most problems either. Why should punching get some special treatment ?

Why should reading some books get some special treatment?

[Cazero]

If one player does want to play a nonmagic bard, i won't change the universe in a way that singing solves all or most problems either.
Well, you don't need to. Charisma checks enhanced with Perform skill checks are already covered by the rules, and a nonmagical Rogue is perfectly suited to excel at those.

[Satinavian]

Yes, but the completely mundane song does not open holes in the fabric of reality or vanquish Cthuluh. So why should punching get those abilities but not singing ? Or literally every other mundane ability one could specialize in ?

[Kaptin Keen]

Why should punching get some special treatment ?

Because it's a game?

Yes, fights that Hellboy fight are designed to be winnable by Hellboy. And games with Fighter should feature fights winnable by Fighter. I'm not convinced I see your point - are you saying that you, as GM, would toss Fighter into a fight he couldn't possibly win, then laugh uproarioushly at him for picking a class that cannot win such a fight?

Because then, at least, we have a genuine disagreement: I consider my job to be to entertain, and present manageable challenges.

[Morty]

I'm all for mechanics and lore, but can we stay focused on how it relates to the Guy At the Gym Fallacy, the types of powers high level martials would have, etc.?

This seems to be moving more towards world building than that.

That's just the thing. You cannot just focus on this (rather dubious to begin with) fallacy or "high level martial powers", never mind that "martial" has ceased to mean much in those discussions by now. It's all connected to mechanics, lore and world-building of the game.

[GloatingSwine]

Because it's a game?

Yes, fights that Hellboy fight are designed to be winnable by Hellboy. And games with Fighter should feature fights winnable by Fighter. I'm not convinced I see your point - are you saying that you, as GM, would toss Fighter into a fight he couldn't possibly win, then laugh uproarioushly at him for picking a class that cannot win such a fight?

Because then, at least, we have a genuine disagreement: I consider my job to be to entertain, and present manageable challenges.

Which is where we come back to the crux of the problem.

If you have a Fighter and a Wizard at the same time, the sort of big problems that are a challenge to the Wizard are totally inaccessible to the Fighter if you insist that the Fighter must be limited to the physical capabilities of the guy at the gym.

Therefore either you can't have those sort of problems, and those sort of Wizards, or you need to make the "nonmagical" characters able to strongly affect Big Magic Stuff in a way that makes them feel consistent with what they already are, without relying on a Wizard at any point in the process.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm all for mechanics and lore, but can we stay focused on how it relates to the Guy At the Gym Fallacy, the types of powers high level martials would have, etc.?

This seems to be moving more towards world building than that.

ONE of the problems underlying "GATGF" is the worldbuilding, the lore. GATGF-characters are very often characters who violate the lore of the setting.

"But I want to play a character who gets by on wits and steel, don't you dare say he's superhuman or extra-normal or magic in any way! I don't care that all the other characters are demigods and archmages, he should be able to outshine them all on grit and determination alone!" or "I want to play a barbarian rogue who bests sorcerers and demons without any of his own magic!"... in a high-magic setting, something like high-level 3.x or 5e.

The reason worldbuilding and setting and lore come up is because GATGF is often a result of a player saying "screw everyone else's enjoyment, and all the work the GM put into the campaign, I want to play my anime-expy and I'm going to play my anime-expy"... and then complain about how THEIR fun is being "ruined" when the GM says "save that character for another game, it doesn't fit in here at all".

[Cluedrew]

The main point of the thread was pointing out the flaws of claiming martial characters are bound by the rules of realism at higher levels, and to have people argue for or against it for reasons as to why they are or aren't bound by the limits of people in our world.

If it were to have a secondary objective, it'd be giving such characters level appropriate abilities to help them reflect the level of power at that level. Whether it be someone strongly argue how such characters are bound by realism and giving them abilities on that level, or giving evidence for such characters being far beyond the realms of realism and giving them the abilities to be relevant at high levels.I'm going to try collect up this and a few other ideas, let me know what you think.

All fantastic (aka of fantasy/fiction) abilities should be treated equally. That is any deviation from reality has the same set of concerns, roughly establishing the new rules and figuring out the consequences of those rules. For fantastic abilities the particular concerns are things, what can you do with them, costs to using them, who can learn them and how do they learn them. I would argue that from this perspective magic, super martial arts, physic powers or just being better than the best are identical. In that you have to ask yourself the same questions, the answers will be different. And that is just for the new rules, but the process of figuring out what these new elements do to the setting is the same as well.

For picking a set of fantastic abilities to give the PCs there are a couple of concerns. If you can build the right setting you can stick any group of thematic abilities together so really I think this comes down to balance and expression. That is picking different types of abilities so people can pick the ones they like and making sure they fit together. Balance is a pretty impressive topic in its own right and there is an ongoing thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?597945-Why-does-the-party-need-to-be-balanced) about it.

In other words for all abilities we have the same 3 step (and overly simplified) process: pick the ability, make them work together and update the setting to fit.


That's just the thing. You cannot just focus on this (rather dubious to begin with) fallacy or "high level martial powers", never mind that "martial" has ceased to mean much in those discussions by now. It's all connected to mechanics, lore and world-building of the game.Could you elaborate. Besides guy at the gym is not actually a logical fallacy I don't understand what you are saying.

[AntiAuthority]

What Hellboy fights are other-dimensional, reality altering monsters of godlike power. They are, for what it's worth, entirely equivalent with the Old Gods or Great Old Ones - also, quite obviously, inspired by them to the point of copyright infringement.


I had to rewatch scenes of the movie for context, so let me if I'm misremembering anything.

The thing is, when did the squid display god-like powers beyond being really big? The Right Hand of Doom was blotting out the sky, not the squid. When was it warping reality?



That's just the thing. You cannot just focus on this (rather dubious to begin with) fallacy or "high level martial powers", never mind that "martial" has ceased to mean much in those discussions by now. It's all connected to mechanics, lore and world-building of the game.

After reviewing the posts, you are correct, but my main concern was that the world building aspect was starting to overtake the concept of character levels, abilities, etc. As long as it stays focused on the "Guy At The Gym" Fallacy it's fine, but it seemed to be going more into world building implications as it went on.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think it's that there are certain abilities that are, in and of themselves, story components. Raising someone from the dead is a very good example. I mean, in the classic story centered on this ability - that of Lazarus - it's literally the only action in the entire tale, everything else is people talking about it. And it's these sorts of abilities - ones that interact with the story directly, that are the hardest to balance mechanically.

Very roughly, abilities can be divided into tactical and story (or strategic) abilities, with the latter being much more difficult to manage than the former. Tactical abilities that operate only in the tactical environment - they are used to eliminate/bypass/ameliorate or otherwise push the party past obstacles on the way to achieving the designated objective(s) for that operational environment. Many games have a distinct 'tactical map' into which characters are dumped where they utilize these skills.

Story abilities are those that, entirely on their own, change the story when used, or, if they have become ubiquitous, change the nature of the story entirely. Raising the dead, for example, either changes the story by being able to overwrite a seemingly significant outcome in the death of a character, or renders death itself more like a temporary 'time out' rather than an actual loss (Schlock Mercenary, through its gradual embrace of ever more transhumanist concepts over time, represents a surprisingly good example of exploring this sort of impact at the moment it propagates through a fictional universe). Likewise teleportation is either a way to bypass whole chunks of story and/or significant time barriers, or it drastically changes how logistics, movement, and strategy work in a fictional universe. The Wheel of Time, where all the major factions gradually acquire a sort of teleportation circle capability as the story proceeds, includes good examples of how this drastically changes its fictional world.

Martial type characters, traditionally, get very few if any story level abilities. That's largely because 'hurting people' in all its many forms, is a tactical ability pretty much no matter how you slice it (yes at certain truly extreme (ie. nuclear) levels of damage this breaks down, but most settings with any attempt at being serious will cap damage well below this). You attack something in order to damage, disable, or kill it, all of which are objectives. This is similar for roguish characters, sneaking, hacking, sleight-of-hand, these are all actions that work in service of an objective (your average heist film might include hundreds of uses of specific rogue-type abilities, all in the service of a single theft), but it is highly unusual that they are a story element on their own.

Balancing different character concepts is much easier when you're just talking about tactical abilities. Many tactical RPGs, where all action is confined to the tactical map and everything else is cutscenes, do this quite effectively. Even in D&D, if you confine the characters in the tactical frame the way D&D video games do, class balance improves drastically.

Obviously, it's not a good idea for a tabletop RPG to confine characters solely to the tactical frame (among other things, video games already provide that experience, arguably in a superior fashion), but it's questionable whether they should have story abilities, and it's quite ridiculous to have characters like Tier I casters who have all the story abilities available to be accessed as needed. For the purpose of action heavy epic fantasy in the D&D style, characters in the Tier IIi-IV range like Rangers and Dread Necromancers who each have a couple of highly specific story abilities, make more sense. In the world of comics, most characters who have a story-level ability usually have just one as their entire schtick - like Weather Wizard or the Purple Man.


It would probably serve game designers working on magic systems well to consider this, and move "story component powers" over to Rituals rather than Spells, and restrict Spells to the "tactical powers". This would make the "story component powers" a bigger deal to cast, and maybe open them up to non-spellcaster characters. The Fighter PC can't cast spells in combat, but he can learn the day-long ritual to summon the spirits of the dead (see, Odysseus).

When I saw that 5e had "ritual casting", I thought maybe they were going to make this split, but it turned out to be just a way to cast spells without using spell slots. Meh.




I had a long post earlier in the thread about proportionality that goes into this in detail, but I'll try to summarize quickly.

First, unarmed combat is a thing that humans can naturally do, casting spells is not. Second, because unarmed combat is a thing people can already do, it has a pre-established baseline. We can measure what kind of capability a person in average shape with no training can do. Because casting spells is not a natural trait, it has no pre-established baseline. That means, as a designer, I can set the baseline anywhere I want. Specifically, I can set it to zero and have people with no magical training at all have absolutely no ability to do magic. This extends into training. We can measure the capabilities of a person who trains in martial arts over time. We can even divide this training into levels of capacity if you want and while the levels themselves will be arbitrary they can still grade progress effectively. For magic, because there's no pre-existing numbers, as the designer I can set the progression of mastery however I want.

So if you increase the capabilities of humans at something like unarmed combat past pre-existing values, what happens is that you stretch the entire known curve of capability to the right. This has even happened historically. World records in sports are newly set continually, but they don't happen in a vacuum. Even as the point at the furthest edge of the curve extends, the overall curve shifts. Olympic track runners are faster now then they were fifty years ago, but so are high school students due to shared advances that can be traced mostly to technology.

Consequently, if you simply increase the boundaries of human physical achievement, you get a whole batch of follow-up effects. If even one person can just train to become One Punch Man, then tens of thousands of people can train to become Captain America.

Now, critically, this doesn't happen if the explanation behind the same increase in achievement is a supernatural one. If the guy with kung-fu sufficient to punch holes in space-time isn't just 'really strong' but is instead 'channeling ki' then the problem disappears because ki channeling has no natural analogue and you can once again set arbitrary break points like 'you must train under a waterfall for seven years to unlock the true essence of ki manipulation.' Naruto (amazingly) is actually a good example of this - as all Naruto powers, including running really fast and punching really hard, are based on 'chakra manipulation' which is just magic by another name.

When you have the arbitrary ability to set an innate talent level to 0, you can take advantage of the power of multiplying by 0. Infinite Effort X Zero Talent = Zero Development, but as long as you have some inherent talent level you can't do that.


And that's what I mean when I say it resolves the worldbuilding issues if there's a "threshold" that has to be crossed before the person can do these extra-normal things. So as your examples note, there's no level of simply "punching stuff" that will ever allow someone to open a hole in spacetime, but if they've "unlocked their inner energy" and learned the correct technique, then they can do it.

Of course, that also requires the player to accept that in this setting, in this campaign, if they want their character to be able to punch holes in spacetime, the character has to have crossed that threshold into the extra-normal.

[Lord Raziere]

ONE of the problems underlying "GATGF" is the worldbuilding, the lore. GATGF-characters are very often characters who violate the lore of the setting.

"But I want to play a character who gets by on wits and steel, don't you dare say he's superhuman or extra-normal or magic in any way! I don't care that all the other characters are demigods and archmages, he should be able to outshine them all on grit and determination alone!" or "I want to play a barbarian rogue who bests sorcerers and demons without any of his own magic!"... in a high-magic setting, something like high-level 3.x or 5e.

....But DOES that violate lore? does it really?

because here is the thing, all the settings that fantasy is based on....whats the usual most basic protagonist? not some wizard, shaman, dragon or whatever.

its some guy. with a sword. often from some little village, often farmer. the most common and basic thing you can be in a medieval setting. and thus, the most relatable and down to earth. it grounds the whole thing with a perspective, an origin of commonality.

even if they don't end up being magical, they often end up becoming king with armies and such. but they still were once the farm boy.

its a common desire, because its basically a rags to riches story but with feudal nobility and knighthoods. you pick up a sword, go out and fight a monster, and the king is like "your awesome at fighting these things, here have a knighthood" they work their way up until they become king. its as fantastical and unrealistic as a modern person becoming rich through pure hard work.

yet, DnD is nothing BUT a rags to riches story. its all about that money, that status, that achievement. that moving up. its a human desire, probably as old as classes and castes. so of course, a wizard being god-well thats a bit more rich than being a mere king eh? why can't the fighter do the same, see? and if it ain't your hard work, it doesn't appeal.

so given that DnD is rags to riches story and therefore a world, constructed to serve the purpose of facilitating that story in many forms, how can a fighter getting to the top-most possible place of wealth in fantasy-godhood-NOT be in keeping with its setting? to not achieve this I'd say, violates the lore much more!

[Rukelnikov]

....But DOES that violate lore? does it really?

because here is the thing, all the settings that fantasy is based on....whats the usual most basic protagonist? not some wizard, shaman, dragon or whatever.

its some guy. with a sword. often from some little village, often farmer. the most common and basic thing you can be in a medieval setting. and thus, the most relatable and down to earth. it grounds the whole thing with a perspective, an origin of commonality.

even if they don't end up being magical, they often end up becoming king with armies and such. but they still were once the farm boy.

its a common desire, because its basically a rags to riches story but with feudal nobility and knighthoods. you pick up a sword, go out and fight a monster, and the king is like "your awesome at fighting these things, here have a knighthood" they work their way up until they become king. its as fantastical and unrealistic as a modern person becoming rich through pure hard work.

yet, DnD is nothing BUT a rags to riches story. its all about that money, that status, that achievement. that moving up. its a human desire, probably as old as classes and castes. so of course, a wizard being god-well thats a bit more rich than being a mere king eh? why can't the fighter do the same, see? and if it ain't your hard work, it doesn't appeal.

so given that DnD is rags to riches story and therefore a world, constructed to serve the purpose of facilitating that story in many forms, how can a fighter getting to the top-most possible place of wealth in fantasy-godhood-NOT be in keeping with its setting? to not achieve this I'd say, violates the lore much more!

Simple, because the rules of the setting are what dictate what is "mundane" and what is not. Creating life out of thin air is not (in dnd canon-ish settings), if you can do such a thing, you are not mundane.

[Max_Killjoy]

....But DOES that violate lore? does it really?

because here is the thing, all the settings that fantasy is based on....whats the usual most basic protagonist? not some wizard, shaman, dragon or whatever.

its some guy. with a sword. often from some little village, often farmer. the most common and basic thing you can be in a medieval setting. and thus, the most relatable and down to earth. it grounds the whole thing with a perspective, an origin of commonality.

even if they don't end up being magical, they often end up becoming king with armies and such. but they still were once the farm boy.

its a common desire, because its basically a rags to riches story but with feudal nobility and knighthoods. you pick up a sword, go out and fight a monster, and the king is like "your awesome at fighting these things, here have a knighthood" they work their way up until they become king. its as fantastical and unrealistic as a modern person becoming rich through pure hard work.

yet, DnD is nothing BUT a rags to riches story. its all about that money, that status, that achievement. that moving up. its a human desire, probably as old as classes and castes. so of course, a wizard being god-well thats a bit more rich than being a mere king eh? why can't the fighter do the same, see? and if it ain't your hard work, it doesn't appeal.

so given that DnD is rags to riches story and therefore a world, constructed to serve the purpose of facilitating that story in many forms, how can a fighter getting to the top-most possible place of wealth in fantasy-godhood-NOT be in keeping with its setting? to not achieve this I'd say, violates the lore much more!

Yes, it does. Because none of that is the lore in question. The lore in question is "how does this world work?", "what can magic do and not do here?", "what are the people here like?", etc.

And D&D is, ironically, a horrible system for those "stories". It's not rags to riches, poor farm boy to warrior-king -- that's not the setting or story that the system shows us. It shows us a setting full of "hero to demigod" stories, dominated by a plethora of magics.

Not that I really think those sorts of "stories" are all that common in gaming...

[Lord Raziere]

Yes, it does. Because none of that is the lore in question. The lore in question is "how does this world work?", "what can magic do and not do here?", "what are the people here like?", etc.

And D&D is, ironically, a horrible system for those "stories". It's not rags to riches, poor farm boy to warrior-king -- that's not the setting or story that the system shows us. It shows us a setting full of "hero to demigod" stories, dominated by a plethora of magics.

Not that I really think those sorts of "stories" are all that common in gaming...

1. that is your problem since you don't count the rags to riches thing being apart of the world when it is. it totally is, its your problem that your ignoring it, not mine that I'm including it.

2. which is the point of arguing for balance, to make it less horrible for them.

3. yes they aren't, but they are desired, which is why some things need to be changed to amtch those desires.

[AntiAuthority]

We posted at the same time, lol, I decided to just make this its own post.


All fantastic (aka of fantasy/fiction) abilities should be treated equally. That is any deviation from reality has the same set of concerns, roughly establishing the new rules and figuring out the consequences of those rules. For fantastic abilities the particular concerns are things, what can you do with them, costs to using them, who can learn them and how do they learn them. I would argue that from this perspective magic, super martial arts, physic powers or just being better than the best are identical. In that you have to ask yourself the same questions, the answers will be different. And that is just for the new rules, but the process of figuring out what these new elements do to the setting is the same as well.

Pretty much, except I'm not too concerned with what the abilities would have on such settings. I may be misunderstanding something, but I'm pretty much just saying not to go too far into emulating what a society of such characters would have on the effects of the world... Sort of like how Watchmen established what effect superheroes would have on the world, as opposed to what sort of abilities a character of X level could accomplish or what being a character of X level meant in regards to power.

Dr. Manhattan is an amazingly powerful character, but I'm not too concerned with what his abilities would have on society like being turned into a walking WMD because of the government for this thread... Or the glory that is the Tippyverse and what such characters of that level would have on society at large, but not for my thread. Admittedly, the things in this thread weren't there, but I was starting to worry it would get derailed to that point.

[Keltest]

I'd just like to point out that a rags to riches story has absolutely nothing to do with what class you are in D&D. Its perfectly possible to start as a farm body who found grandpa's scroll of magic missile in the basement one day, and end up as Supreme Archmage of the Realm, slayer of 10,000 dragons, demons, devils and other nasty things that start with D.

The problem is that Lord of the Rings style fantasy where everybody is basically just a heroic guy (ignoring that everybody except for Boromir is explicitly superhuman in some way) caps out around level 5 or so. Past that, youre beyond heroism and into superheroism, in deed if not in power. But the fighter wants to keep pretending that its still just Aragorn or Boromir even though theyre getting into adventures that Hellboy would be struggling with.

[Satinavian]

Because it's a game?

Yes, fights that Hellboy fight are designed to be winnable by Hellboy. And games with Fighter should feature fights winnable by Fighter. I'm not convinced I see your point - are you saying that you, as GM, would toss Fighter into a fight he couldn't possibly win, then laugh uproarioushly at him for picking a class that cannot win such a fight?

Because then, at least, we have a genuine disagreement: I consider my job to be to entertain, and present manageable challenges.
No, in a game with a fighter i will make sure there are enough challenges, problems and plot hooks for a fighter. But i won't change the setting in a way that the central conflicts and problems of the setting are something than can be solved with a sword.

So depending on what the setting exactly is, it is very likely that a fighter is not the most important person around or at least he is not important because of his fighting abilities.

Also i don't play D&D and won't actually have a Fighter. But i might have characters with strong melee skills. But considering that a significant number of adventures cebter around investigation or environmental hazards or politics or mysteries or exploration, "punching things" is not particularly often useful. And that is fine.

[Max_Killjoy]

1. that is your problem since you don't count the rags to riches thing being apart of the world when it is. it totally is, its your problem that your ignoring it, not mine that I'm including it.


Again, not the sort of lore in question. The lore in question isn't someone's precious story, it's the facts of the setting.




2. which is the point of arguing for balance, to make it less horrible for them.


You're not really arguing for balance, you're arguing for a system to be built (or contorted) around a very narrow and particular type of "story". "I want to play the story I want to play, no matter what" is just a different version of "I want to play the character I want to play, no matter what".

But D&D could easily be balanced, if the designers and fans were willing to give SOMETHING up.

The scope and scale of magical power that spellcasters gain access to.
The idea that Fighters, etc, must be "non-extra-normal" while still being balanced.
The notion that "non-extra-normal" characters are valid PCs for D&D, particularly at higher levels.


Instead, D&D tries to have it all, to eat the cake and have it to, refuses to decide if it's a system for a Conan to LotR sort of campaign, or an over-the-top superhuman slugfest campaign where EVERY PC eventually has some sort of extra-normal capability that sets them apart from most people in the setting campaign, or whatever... and so we go around and around and around.




3. yes they aren't, but they are desired, which is why some things need to be changed to amtch those desires.


Personally I've never met anyone who wanted that "story", and it seems rather niche in online discussions.




I'd just like to point out that a rags to riches story has absolutely nothing to do with what class you are in D&D. Its perfectly possible to start as a farm body who found grandpa's scroll of magic missile in the basement one day, and end up as Supreme Archmage of the Realm, slayer of 10,000 dragons, demons, devils and other nasty things that start with D.

The problem is that Lord of the Rings style fantasy where everybody is basically just a heroic guy (ignoring that everybody except for Boromir is explicitly superhuman in some way) caps out around level 5 or so. Past that, youre beyond heroism and into superheroism, in deed if not in power. But the fighter wants to keep pretending that its still just Aragorn or Boromir even though theyre getting into adventures that Hellboy would be struggling with.


Exactly.

Which is why, when this subject comes up, I point out that the problem is at least as much about the inverse of the fallacy -- the assertion that the Fighter, etc, must be purely not-extra-normal, not-magic, not-superhuman, not-etc.

If people are holding the Fighter to the what the "GATG" could do, then it's often because both the game and some players insist that their Fighter is, in fact, THE GUY AT THE GYM. If they don't want the Fighter to be held to GATG limits, then all they have to do is stop insisting that's what he is no matter what. Let the Fighter, etc, be extra-normal when the progression takes the game into blatantly extra-normal territory.

[Talakeal]

@Max Killjoy:

I agree with most everything you are saying about setting consistency, but I think you are taking it a little too far.

A perfectly consistent setting is completely impossible for a multitude of reasons.

Personally, I am content to see a story that reasonably could have happened, rather than demanding that it be something that was likely to happen.



What does everyone think a Level 10+ character should have in terms of abilities to reflect them being on that level of power?.

Are you familiar with the Tome of Battle? If so, how do you feel about the powers it provides?

[Max_Killjoy]

@Max Killjoy:

I agree with most everything you are saying about setting consistency, but I think you are taking it a little too far.

A perfectly consistent setting is completely impossible for a multitude of reasons.

Personally, I am content to see a story that reasonably could have happened, rather than demanding that it be something that was likely to happen.


I'm not looking for perfectly consistent, just internally coherent, and not continuously trying to get a noose around the neck of my disbelief.

"Reasonably could have happened" is a perfectly valid standard for the whole story, but what I see happen instead is "it could have happened' used for every little thing until it's a pileup of the hypothetically plausible.

[Cluedrew]

Pretty much, except I'm not too concerned with what the abilities would have on such settings.I guess what I'm trying to say (to everybody) is that it doesn't matter. Regardless of what your standards for world building or how little work you want to put into explaining your fantastic abilities, it doesn't matter what type of fantastic abilities you have. Wizards can break a setting's logic just as easily as martial artists, but if you put the work in both can be made to fit into an internally consistent world. In other words I agree that most world building is actually off topic for this thread, because it is an orthogonal issue to the one proposed in the first post of this thread.

Now if someone want's to argue they aren't orthogonal that is something we can talk about. I could see arguments in that direction but most are cleanly countered by "choose fantastic abilities appropriate for the story/setting you want to create". But if no one has any of those I think we should finish this world building aside.

[Morty]

Could you elaborate. Besides guy at the gym is not actually a logical fallacy I don't understand what you are saying.

:smallconfused: There's not much to elaborate on. The point is that you can't discuss giving purportedly non-magical people superpowers without having to discuss the world-building and lore implications of it.

[AntiAuthority]

as for me, I dunno, how wizards got so powerful is by taking every wizard they can and accumulating them and what they do into a generic archetype, so I guess to emulate that we start by taking every martial and what they do that we want and just lumping them all into a single archetype?

You know, I liked this concept and spent a while writing a list of characters from various forms of fiction to show what a composite character would look like... But I let my laptop go into standby for a second, tried to post it, and all of it was lost... I don't feel like today was a productive day lol.

But anyway, I noticed repeating patterns with the abilities of such a "composite martial" character that wasn't specialized but could emulate all martials in virtually any fiction, much like a D&D Wizard can. The specific characters will be put in bold, as I'm aware links can become broken with time.

Such a character would have nearly limitless strength (being able to bench press mountains/continents/planets/the universe and hitting things that are just as heavy as the universe if not threatening the stability of the universe) (Sun Wukong can carry two mountains, Superman can tow planets around on a chain and "lifted eternity" (if that's quantifiable), The Incredible Hulk (616) has limitless anger in that he can get infinitely stronger with anger, Asura from Asura's Wrath can also become infinitely stronger with rage, and Goku and Beerus were supposedly close to destroying the universe/several realms during their fight in Dragon Ball Super), wrestle titanic beasts (Mythological!Thor wrestled the World Serpent while it was disguised as a cat), the ability to just leap to places instantly to follow teleporting enemies (The Incredible Hulk's preferred method of travel, Spider-Man can also do this but to a lesser extent, same with Saitama from One Punch Man), cause natural disasters by hitting things (not even the ground) really hard (Hulk and Red She-Hulk and the shock wave ended up destroying the planet they were on), know virtually every language in existence (Batman is fluent in several languages, along with Wonder Woman), so skilled they can essentially do things that are technically humanly possible if a human had a reaction time so low that things would be standing still for them (Cu Chulainn can thread a needle through the eye of another needle 50 times, 616 Captain America can dodge bullets because he "sees faster", 616 Spider-Man can knock poison tablets out of several people's mouths as they're activating, and Superman read several medical books within an extremely short period of time), becoming immune to being killed the same way twice (Berserker!Hercules from Fate series; Doomsday from DC Comics), enter a berserk state (Wolverine's Berserker State that turns him into a more vicious killer, 616 Thor's Warrior Madness that increases his strength 10x, Mythological Cu Chulainn's warp spasm, Mythological Hercules' fits of rage, God of War's Kratos' Spartan Rage, any Berserker-class servant from the Fate series had to have gone berserk at some point in their lives resulting in a boost to their physical stats at the cost of their sanity) intimidate things that technically shouldn't be able to be intimidated like constructs (Mythological Thor terrified a golem this badly, Mr. Fixit/Grey Hulk traumatized a shark and terrifies people in general... Including the representation of a man's inner evil), scare people so much with their battle cries that lesser warriors just fall over dead from fright (Mythological Cu Chulainn did this), have a super computer for a mind (Superman can read several books in an instant; Batman is the world's greatest detective; Sherlock Holmes being able to piece together clues from observation; 616 Captain America can learn virtually any weapon within seconds, has a photographic memory, can apply any military tactic to a combat situation in real-time), be able to sense ill intent (Goku from Dragon Ball has the power to detect evil, and Naruto from... Naruto has the power to detect malice as well, allowing him to find shape shifters that had infiltrated the Shinobi Allied Forces), have knowledge of all fighting styles and weapons (Batman knows supposedly every martial art on the planet, Kratos from God of War can use virtually any weapon he can put his hands on, Captain America can learn how to use any weapon, Yujiro Hanma from Baki the Grapplier knows many fighting styles), can learn a new fighting style relatively/very quickly and often times improve upon it (Task Master from Marvel Comics can learn by watching others, Yujiro Hanma can learn a martial art by watching it/fighting against it and use it more effectively than the person he was copying it from) use ki to enhance strength (Goku from Dragon Ball, Iron Fist from Marvel Comics), use ki to create fire balls (Goku's iconic Kamehame Wave in Dragon Ball, Ryu's also iconic Hadouken from Street Fighter), use ki to fly (anyone in Dragon Ball), use ki to slow down aging (Hamon in JoJo's Bizarre Adventure seems to be heavily inspired by the concept of ki, as is Nen from Hunter x Hunter, and both slow down the user's aging process, allowing them to stay in their primes for longer), move so fast they create after images (Ryu Hayabusa from Ninja Gaiden, speedsters from comics also tend to do this), move so fast that people can't perceive their movements (616 Spider-Man can move faster than the eye can follow, Conan can as well in an illustration where the narration says the woman can't see him slashing off an ape-like monster's arm, any speedster character in anime and comics) , move faster than lightning (or light itself) (The Flash once made a bet with two power entities that he could beat them in a race back to Earth from where they were, and they agreed as, "Nothing can move faster than instantaneous teleportation"... The Flash won the race. The Flash literally outran teleportation), move fast enough to block dozens/hundreds/thousands/millions of projectiles at once (Sun Wukong once blocked millions of attacks, Wonder Woman herself also blocked stingers from bee-men that were (according to The Flash) moving at "1500 rounds per second"), be able to hear conversations across town/miles/other planes of existence (Cu Chulainn could hear conversations across various distances while Sun Wukong can hears conversations in Heaven while he's on Earth), if polymorphed or turned into a statue they can continue to move and keep fighting enough to still injure normal people (or whatever transformed them) despite being in a much smaller/weaker body and packing a punch many times heavier than something of that size is capable of/being able to move at all as an inanimate object (616 Thor was once transformed into a frog... But he still retained his super strength as it was his "birthright as Thor" and could still injure humans in his frog form by smashing himself into them way harder than a normal frog could; Vegito from Dragon Ball Z was once turned into a piece of candy and, unlike every other instance this happened, was still capable of movement and started beating the one who turned him into candy with his new form, essentially he was a candy bullet), swim across the ocean (Beowulf swam for about 7 days straight), drink toxic substances like molten metal/poison (Sun Wukong drank molten metal and was more or less fine), drink so much that the geography changes (Mythological and 61 Thor both drank so much water that it lowered the sea level), be fine getting stabbed by armies of mortal men (Sun Wukong seems to ignore such attacks, the the Grey Hulk (the weakest one) has knives shatter on his skin, Superman has bullets bounce off of him), survive getting dipped in the sun (Two Supermen flew Superboy Prime through a red sun... It didn't kill them, but it did severely weaken them), be fine getting stabbed by armies of gods (Sun Wukong didn't seem too bothered about the armies of gods trying to murder him with weapons or the elements), be invulnerable except for one tiny spot (Achilles was invulnerable except for his heel), plow through armies of men and monsters (Cu Chulainn, Sun Wukong, pretty much any video game character ever), smash the weapons of gods in a single blow (Sun Wukong once broke a god's weapon in this manner), be able to be boiled alive by fire so hot that it can set a mountain range on fire (Sun Wukong, once again did this, but he was being boiled by this same heat source for over a month and only came out with a few burnt hairs), resistance to magical effects (Any Saber-, Archer-, Rider- and Lancer-Class Servants in that magic can bounce off them), be able to actively shatter magical effects (616 Thor shattered one of Loki's illusions with Mjolnir, Asta from Black Clover possesses an Anti-Magic sword that lets him cut through spells/constructs/summons), being able to see through like they're not even there (Sun Wukong could see through someone who was shapeshifted), will metaphysical entities out of existence through disbelieving in them (Conan did this once to a demonic bear), the ability to resist telepathic probing capable of brainwashing entire groups of people as well as actively hurt the person reading their mind over the mental link through a form of psychic backlash/psychic avatar (616 Spider-Man had "mental anti-bodies" that appeared as various Spider-Man to attack the intruder (the intruder made it clear he wasn't even sure how he ended up inside Spider-Man's mind), 616 Wolverine had a psychic try to enter his mind only to be put into a dark hallway where Weapon X/Berserker Wolverine killed his psychic avatar (the intruder ended up catatonic as a result), 616 Thor was only a little dazed by a psychic capable of "leaving a civilization senseless"), have perfect immune systems that are incapable of getting sick and any poisons/genetic weapons introduced being destroyed by the immune system within the span of a few weeks to about a few moments (616 Bruce Banner claims he's never been sick since becoming the Hulk, 616 Wolverine adapted a resistance to a DNA weapon), force their way out of dimensions through sheer strength (Super Buu from Dragon Ball did this by screaming), destroy other dimensions through brute force (616 Hulk did this to the Dark Dimension), go to other planes of existence by punching their way through the walls of reality (Superboy Prime once did this, and effectively reset reality... Sidenote, he also hit someone hard enough that they started remembering things from other dimensions), steal from the gods themselves (Prometheus did this in Greek Mythology, but he was a Titan...), talk their way out of any problem, have such precise aim that they can hit a fly by the wings from a long distance while also turning the strike into what amounts to missile (Archer from Fate did this by sniping Berserker in Fate Stay Night), walk into the underworld and beat up the god of death in a fight/beat the god of death in a contest until their loved one is brought back to life (Hercules did this in the Disney movie, I also remember him doing it in the mythology for a loved one), punt other people into the sky through hitting them that hard (Spider-Man once did this to Grey Hulk), destroy people's souls (Beerus of Dragon Ball Super is capable of using his godly ki to destroy a person's soul), their soul is able to continue beating people up if removed from its body (once again, Sun Wukong did this when his soul was removed from its body), the ability to survive fatal wounds like having their hearts torn out and living for a few more minutes (One more time, Sun Wukong can be just fine as a head and regenerate his body, Cu Chulainn managed to gather his innards), be able to resist time manipulation (Goku in Dragon Ball Super could resist Hit's Time Skip, while Tatsumi from Akame ga Kill essentially resisted being frozen by Esdeath's time stop), give them the abilities to heal/regenerate from almost anything from the span of a few hours to about 5 seconds (Spider-Man has a healing factor that lets him sleep off things like broken bones, burned eyes and can flush out foreign substances very quickly... He has to take way more pain killers than the average person as a result), rally people behind their causes with a few inspirational words, wrestle and kill aspects of reality itself like old age, death and fear (Mythological Thor wrestled with Old Age, Kratos from God of War killed Thanatos/the God of Death, absorbed the souls of Hades, and Fear!Zeus) and to top it all off... And they can do this for a month to almost a year before needing to rest for a little bit because they only need to sleep every few months, and only then, for like a few hours at the most (Ultimate Captain America only needs "an hour or two of sleep every week", Guts from Berserk can run for days on end, Sun Wukong mentioned he only needs to sleep about once a month, and 616 Thor can engage in battle against beings for months at a time). And if fate itself is trying to murder them, they can go, "Lol nah fam" and do their own thing... Or just technically fulfill their destined death then come back like it doesn't matter by just willing themselves alive (Asura from Asura's Wrath is killed multiple times over the story, and ends up forcing himself back to life through his overwhelming rage and determination, each time getting shorter and shorter before he just came back). If someone tries to force them out of existence, said character can go, "No, screw you, I like existing." (Jack Rakan from Negima was essentially reduced into nothing but molecules and just sort of forced his way back into existence. Sol Badguy from Guilty Gear had his past self die, but continued to exist despite the time paradox because he willed himself to continue existing).

Adding on their gifts/magic, they'd be able to turn invisible (Cu Chulainn had this spell), have items that boost their strength (Thor's belt that doubles his already prodigious strength), be even more nigh invulnerable (the fur Hercules made from the Nemean Lion's pelt, the Golden Fleece that can reflect attacks), have a weapon far too powerful for a normal man to ever hope to use, wield weapons far too heavy to use (Guts' Dragonslayer is far too heavy for a regular human being to use as a regular weapon, Sun Wukong's staff weighs about 9 tons), be able to shapeshift (Sun Wukong once again), create clones of themselves (Sun Wukong pops up on this list alot, but Naruto is also capable of doing this through chakra), ask the gods for divine help, take the weapons of the gods they've killed and use them like they've been training with said weapon for all their life (Kratos in God of War usually does this), be able to stop time (Dante can do this at will, Kratos can at certain locations, the Prince of Persia can do this through the Sands of time), armors that will let them keep fighting until every single drop of blood is drained from their body (The Berserker Armor from Berserk), upgrade their weapons by killing more enemies, a sword capable of cutting through space (Yamato from Devil May Cry has this ability), soul devouring weapons (Molag Bal's mace from The Elder Scrolls comes to mind) and mess with the strings of fate (Kratos again).

So... Yeah... Sounds pretty OP.




:smallconfused: There's not much to elaborate on. The point is that you can't discuss giving purportedly non-magical people superpowers without having to discuss the world-building and lore implications of it.

Not really the point of the thread, you don't need to understand the implications of how Ki affects societies or lore in Dragon Ball, it just works. Harry Potter has magic in it, but the world is basically ours with magic thrown in, despite the wizarding world being incredibly old.

I'm not talking about world building, I'm talking about characters, their level of power and arguing why they are or aren't this way based on what they're expected to contend against. The reasons for why can vary based on raw talent, magically reinforced bodies, radioactive powers, mutations, genetic modification, ki, chakras, psychic abilities, divine power, being the reincarnation of ancient warriors, etc. The thread isn't about talking about what sort of world would produce such characters, but what kind of powers a character of this level would need to be able to remain relevant at a concept of this level.




Are you familiar with the Tome of Battle? If so, how do you feel about the powers it provides?

I haven't really read it, but I have read a little bit of Path of War, I keep getting distracted whenever I try to. Going to get around to it.

[Kaptin Keen]

But i won't change the setting in a way that the central conflicts and problems of the setting are something than can be solved with a sword.

And my point is that there are no things that cannot be solved with a sword.

[Mechalich]

The 'Guy at the Gym' issue is, ultimately, an issue of worldbuilding and setting consistency.

In a pure mechanical sense you can match up numbers any way you want, regardless of how absurd the results may be. Disgaea is a good example of how this works. In Disgaea a can make a character who can, completely unarmed, punch a level 9999 demon lord in the face and destroy them utterly. At the same time I can make a mage character who casts 'Tera Star' and watch an animation play out that implies detonating a supernova on the face of the same demon lord and do zero damage. This happens because Disgaea is completely controlled by a set of mathematical formulas and the visual effects are completely and totally arbitrary. Which is why you can turn them off to speed up the game and not change the gameplay experience in any way.

You can absolutely build a game system in which a character can cut the Earth in half with his sword 'because reasons.' If you don't care about the plausibility of the outputs, then the issue simply disappears. Video games do this a lot, as anyone who's every complained about their inability to open a locked door while carrying a massive rocket launcher knows. This is linked to the 'Captain Hobo' idea on the inputs end - if the game doesn't force characters to define powers within some set of plausibility guidelines then you can produce characters whose abilities come with an aesthetically absurd backdrop. A useful reference frame here is imagine statting out Looney Tunes characters. You can explicitly do this in generalist point-buy systems like GURPS, but bringing a 500-point version of Bugs Bunny to adventure alongside 'Spellmaster the Lich-Lord' produces absurd results.

I would stress, again, that absurd results are not, in any way, inherently bad. There are plenty of great works of art that are surrealist in origin, absurd in presentation, or simply completely disregard trying to present a coherent fictional world, because the existence of such a thing is beside the point they are trying to make. In fact, sometimes the absurd results are themselves the point - as in parody or comedy - OOTS is a modest example of this, while Disgaea waves its 'this is a parody, demands for rigor will be beaten with squeaky hammers' flag high.

'Guy at the Gym,' therefore, represents a shorthand for portions of the setting design process. The reason it's described as a fallacy is that the idea itself is based on assumptions that may or may not hold in a given setting or may apply.

Some of those assumptions:
1. The setting contains an in-universe means to bypass basic human limits - this will hold in most speculative fiction settings, but it doesn't always. Historical fiction or alternative history may mandate that normal limits remain in place all the time. Likewise games that allow improbably outcomes through the use of metagame currency after the fashion of the more restrained class of action film (ie. John Wick 1, not John Wick 3) may claim that humans are humans without stretching plausibility too much.
2. The ability or abilities to bypass human limits is both non-universal and non-technological. In a setting where literally everyone has some sort of phlebotinum-based powers, there are no guys at the gym (meta-stories about 'un-sorcerers' excepted), there are just people who are weaker or stronger in the use of whatever form of powers there happen to be. Likewise, if the powers in question are technological in nature, then their distribution becomes a matter of in-universe economics and politics, not any inherent character trait.
3. The ability or abilities provided by phlebotinum are more powerful than what a person without such abilities could ever achieve - with particular relevance to achievements in whatever core experience the game is expected to deliver (for example, in a game about mecha pilots, the ability to shoot lasers from your eyes might not be all that helpful). Note that technological assistance plausibly increases the capabilities of the people without phlebotiliminum to match the people with phlebotinum (note that this means technology that is integrated into the setting, not phlebotinum based one-offs like Iron Man's armor or Ant-Man's suit). The Punisher, for example, is far better able to match a wizard character with the exact same stats in the 21st century with his massive arsenal of military hardware than if you dump him into the tenth century and make him fight with swords and bows.
4. Characters without phlebotinum are intended to work along side of, or represent individual level threats too, characters with phlebotinum. That is, ordinary people aren't simply background noise. Meaning Hawkeye and Black Widow are expected to be viable concepts in a system that also allows Dr. Strange and Thor.

D&D, of course, meets all these assumptions, but not every setting does. There are a number of space fantasy settings, notably, that allow advanced technology to make up the gap against Phlebotinum-based superpowers. Warhammer 40K, for instance, does this at least in principle (it's a weird setting and I'm not particularly familiar with the mechanics, but I believe this is at least the idea) or to a certain degree. Likewise, there are a number of game setups where all characters will have phlebotinum from the start and explicitly be operating on a different level than that of the ordinary puny mortals, Exalted, for example, is very much produced in this vein.

You can eliminate the problem by overriding essentially any one of those assumptions. You can make a game where everyone is a normal human or one where everyone has powers, or one where all powers are technological in nature, or where powers aren't strong enough to beat out the normals, or where the normals are irrelevant. None of these things are hard to do. However, all of them have setting consequences. Making everyone a normal restricts character options - if all wizards are just stage tricksters like David Copperfield then you don't get to play with magic. If all powers are technological then economics and politics take up a huge place in your game structure (read the Eclipse Phase books, they're free, for a good idea of how this applies). If the powers available aren't stronger than what normal people can do they tend to be extremely limited in scope, highly esoteric, or just unsuited to the pace of tabletop gameplay. If ordinary people are reduced to background noise, you've created a world ruled by the supers and the implications of that are usually unpleasant. And of course you can always eliminate the problem by sacrificing setting coherency, because it simply doesn't matter at that point.

The problem D&D has is that all these assumptions hold and D&D generally (Planescape is the exception) wants to pretend to having coherent settings. This doesn't actually work and D&D settings hold together only through a combination of authorial fiat and special pleading even in the published setting materials never mind at an actual table with the gloves off, and the consequential result has been that certain concepts the game claims to support aren't actually powerful enough to function within a large portion of the designated gameplay space (depending on edition approximately levels 10 and above). This was never a conscious design choice, its an accretion of decisions made over the history of the game, with a very messy ultimate result.

[Lord Raziere]

You know, I liked this concept and spent a while writing a list of characters from various forms of fiction to show what a composite character would look like... But I let my laptop go into standby for a second, tried to post it, and all of it was lost... I don't feel like today was a productive day lol.

*snip*

So... Yeah... Sounds pretty OP.



Thank you. this is good demonstration the real source of fictional OPness: its not about magic, its about the accumulation of deeds, the building up of history. dnd 3.5 wizards are just the most noticeable accumulation. with this method, its not about what wizards or fighters should be able to do, its the acknowledgment of things that fighters have already done, and simply making them all options that you can choose among many. none of it would be required and a GM would be allowed to limit them as they would limit spell lists for their specific campaign, but the point is for fighter to be open to any source to draw their history and inspiration from, no matter how many people like or dislike a single source.

a GM can limit a wizard by simply altering the spell lists so that aren't as ridiculous, with this method, a fighter will the same level of mutability an optional yet utilizable power. so that at a theoretical optimization level they are just as powerful as wizards, yet in practice a GM would limit them as they would limit a wizard.

Thus this solves all problems: anyone who dislikes the power such fighters would have can feel free to GM to gate it. for everyone else, the options would be there, across many splatbooks.

[Keltest]

And my point is that there are no things that cannot be solved with a sword.

How are you going to create food for 300 hungry townsfolk whose crop failed this year?

[Willie the Duck]

How are you going to create food for 300 hungry townsfolk whose crop failed this year?

Enough uses of the sword will eliminate their need for food.

[Lord Raziere]

How are you going to create food for 300 hungry townsfolk whose crop failed this year?

I mean.....all food is technically just well-prepared corpses of other life, so its just a matter of finding something big enough and killing it to bring back....

[Keltest]

I mean.....all food is technically just well-prepared corpses of other life, so its just a matter of finding something big enough and killing it to bring back....

Coincidentally, I actually happen to know something about hunting for your food (many of my family members and friends hunt), and for the most part you cant really just kill a dragon and haul its carcass back to the town a day away and get anything usable from that. Even assuming that the whole thing is edible (a dubious claim by itself) youre looking at maybe a day, at most, in warm and/or wet conditions before the meat becomes dangerous to eat even after cooking. You basically have to prepare it on the spot, almost immediately after killing it. And frankly, just due to the added mass, I think killing a dragon sized deer for food would actually yield significantly less edible material in the long run than killing enough deer to make into a dragon sized pile of meat. You just wouldn't be able to cool it down fast enough to save it all.

[Mechalich]

How are you going to create food for 300 hungry townsfolk whose crop failed this year?


I mean.....all food is technically just well-prepared corpses of other life, so its just a matter of finding something big enough and killing it to bring back....

This is actually a good example of the divide between tactical and story abilities.

A tactical ability character could indeed, as Lord Raziere notes, solve a famine by marching out into the wilderness, slaughtering something large and edible, and hauling it back (and if they can cut through dimensions they don't have to worry about environmental depletion either). However, it still involves going through a process of meeting multiple tactical objectives: locate food source, successfully approach within range, subdue food source, return food source to base; in order to fulfill the overall story goal.

A story ability character, by contrast, just uses the 'create foodstuffs' ability and the problem is solved.

Now, the general priors for speculative fiction suggest that to solve this particular story problem a 'martial' character will have to conduct the quest, while a 'caster' character will handwave the problem via story abilities. However, that's purely a matter of tradition. The warrior could simply slice open the sky and cause it to rain down manna, while the wizard might engage in a complex and multi-stage quest to track, slay, and retrieve a great beast for provisions. In some ways the Guy at the Gym Fallacy is a form of slavish adherence to priors that conflate a concept, in this case 'warrior' with a certain ability set.

This set of assumptions is much more prevalent in Western tradition than Eastern tradition (probably for religious reasons that are not to be discussed), and martial types in Eastern settings tend to have far fewer hang-ups about grabbing some phlebotinum and bypassing natural human limits. It remains normal for people without phlebotinum (often ki, or chakra, or some similar source of 'spirit energy') to still be bound by said limits. It's also common in Eastern traditions for there to be seemingly a greater degree of comfort with settings where only a tiny super-human elite determined everything that's important (probably for cultural and political reasons that are not to be discussed).

It's probably worth noting that the tactical vs. story ability issue - which has major implications for game balance - can occur without any explicit supernatural powers at all. A good example is the stories of Sherlock Holmes. In those stories Dr. Watson actually has quite a few tactical abilities - he's a doctor, he's got combat experience, he tends to get along well with people, and he's a man of good social standing. Holmes, meanwhile, is usually a curmudgeonly misanthropic jerk with a compulsion to offend, showboat, and otherwise irritate just about everyone he meets, but he's got the 'figure it all out' story ability and that's why his character is the one with the name in the title (this is being slightly unfair, Sherlock puts in a good deal of detective work in many stories, but I think the example remains useful).

The implication here is that even very weak story abilities can balance out a strong set of tactical abilities. In fact, this is how DC typically handles Batman v. Superman - by giving Batman the 'knows things' story ability as a counter to Superman's tactical invincibility (though this works better when Oracle takes up the 'knows things' role and isn't actually on-site and forced to dodge death blasts a normal human can't actually dodge). However, when tactical characters are limited to the abilities only a human being could possess without augmentation, they can be sidelined almost completely by characters with even very weak supernatural story abilities. For example, the actual vampire powers (the disciplines) given to a starting character in VtM are actually rather weak (especially if you spread out the dots), but they immediately outclass mortals who don't get any of them in terms of one to one ability to contribute to gameplay.

[Lord Raziere]

This is actually a good example of the divide between tactical and story abilities.

A tactical ability character could indeed, as Lord Raziere notes, solve a famine by marching out into the wilderness, slaughtering something large and edible, and hauling it back (and if they can cut through dimensions they don't have to worry about environmental depletion either). However, it still involves going through a process of meeting multiple tactical objectives: locate food source, successfully approach within range, subdue food source, return food source to base; in order to fulfill the overall story goal.

A story ability character, by contrast, just uses the 'create foodstuffs' ability and the problem is solved.


I mean....

this is assuming the fighter isn't some godlike super-speedster/hunter tracker who can fell big beasties in one blow and knows exactly where to get one of those on earth and can do the whole thing in two seconds.

which is equivalent to what a high level wizard can do in some regards. its still same level of power, just requires a different train of thought.

Edit: or that the create foodstuffs ability doesn't have as many steps as the ones you outline just in different forms, and that your framing the foodstuffs ability somehow bypasses their own knowledge of how to make food or anything, knowledge of chemistry, physics, quantum mechanics, the amount of energy needed to make sure the food exists, how much big of a ritual circle you need to draw, whether it needs a special ink from a special monster, how much research and calculation it takes to make all this work and so on.

like, wizards are supposed to be smart and hard working right? why do they get to skip over all the nitty-gritty details of how their powers work? there is more to creating food than just the food just suddenly appearing, there is an implicit bunch of factors underneath that.

[Lucas Yew]

@Max Killjoy: (and to the whole thread too post-first comma)

While I get that the crux of your belief is that the inverse-GATG Fallacy is more problematic than the straight one, I still believe that the latter (plain GATGF) is the bigger problem. It's mainly because of this tidbit:

The straight GATG Fallacy seems to be more prevalent in the developer community, if not the player one.
{ex. Monte Cook (obviously), (and maybe) Skip Williams (who seemingly hates the "simpler" sorcerers), etc.}

As such, the fallout is way more destructive for the roleplaying game environment than it's supposed difficulty for getting fixed quickly, and hence all these forum debates that while educative are also quite depressing.

[Ignimortis]

You know, I liked this concept and spent a while writing a list of characters from various forms of fiction to show what a composite character would look like... But I let my laptop go into standby for a second, tried to post it, and all of it was lost... I don't feel like today was a productive day lol.

But anyway, I noticed repeating patterns with the abilities of such a "composite martial" character that wasn't specialized but could emulate all martials in virtually any fiction, much like a D&D Wizard can.

*snip*

So... Yeah... Sounds pretty OP.


That's a good post. I'll bookmark it for future use. If you could supply the sources for those, I'd be very happy as well!

[Satinavian]

This is actually a good example of the divide between tactical and story abilities.

A tactical ability character could indeed, as Lord Raziere notes, solve a famine by marching out into the wilderness, slaughtering something large and edible, and hauling it back (and if they can cut through dimensions they don't have to worry about environmental depletion either). However, it still involves going through a process of meeting multiple tactical objectives: locate food source, successfully approach within range, subdue food source, return food source to base; in order to fulfill the overall story goal.

A story ability character, by contrast, just uses the 'create foodstuffs' ability and the problem is solved.That mostly happens because D&D does not really care about what you call story abilities and handles them as some kind of "it's not fun, let's make it a spell to get it done" mechanism. In many other games, supernatural story abilities are way more fleshed out and better balanced. Creating large amounts of food or usable raw materials is not an easy thing for casters and a thing like fabricate simply does not exist and is replaced by a large number of weaker crafting magic, if at all. Repair is considered an extremely useful and powerful magic. But i wouldn't say that those systems have weaker magic, they just value things differently, pay attention to non-combat application of supernatural abilities, flesh them out, actually value them for what they can do and balance them.


This set of assumptions is much more prevalent in Western tradition than Eastern tradition (probably for religious reasons that are not to be discussed), and martial types in Eastern settings tend to have far fewer hang-ups about grabbing some phlebotinum and bypassing natural human limits. It remains normal for people without phlebotinum (often ki, or chakra, or some similar source of 'spirit energy') to still be bound by said limits. It's also common in Eastern traditions for there to be seemingly a greater degree of comfort with settings where only a tiny super-human elite determined everything that's important (probably for cultural and political reasons that are not to be discussed).The eastern tradition assumes that everyone has ki (or language variations of the same idea). There is no real distinction between supernatural heroes and normal people, the latter only didn't train enough, don't have the knowledge to use it or can't put themself through the often ascetic life that is needed for selfimprovement.
There is no wizard vs. martial. They both just train their ki and then can do ridiculous things, There might be preferences of use or secret arts or pacts with other supernatural beings, but basically they are all the same.


I mean....

this is assuming the fighter isn't some godlike super-speedster/hunter tracker who can fell big beasties in one blow and knows exactly where to get one of those on earth and can do the whole thing in two seconds.

which is equivalent to what a high level wizard can do in some regards. its still same level of power, just requires a different train of thought.First you would have to assume that such beasts exist in the first place. That is not a given, expecially if the world has is to have a somewhat believable ecology. Second, in a famine those beasts tend to get hinted anyway, so what does one more hunter contribute ? Third, preparation is not that much a problem as others make it to be. You would hunt those in groups and then have enough hands to actually prepare the meat in far less than a day. That is how hunting big animals for food is traditionally handled.

Still, even if all of that works, "Hunting" is a very different set of skills than "using a sword".


Edit: or that the create foodstuffs ability doesn't have as many steps as the ones you outline just in different forms, and that your framing the foodstuffs ability somehow bypasses their own knowledge of how to make food or anything, knowledge of chemistry, physics, quantum mechanics, the amount of energy needed to make sure the food exists, how much big of a ritual circle you need to draw, whether it needs a special ink from a special monster, how much research and calculation it takes to make all this work and so on.

like, wizards are supposed to be smart and hard working right? why do they get to skip over all the nitty-gritty details of how their powers work? there is more to creating food than just the food just suddenly appearing, there is an implicit bunch of factors underneath that.There are many other systems where it is as complicated to solve this stuff via magic and you have to consider all those small details.

There are also quite commonly rules for hunting that boil down to "reach number x to get y rations with your hunting/survival skill", so it is not as if the nonmagical way never gets simple rules.


And i also don't like the habit of D&D to take every supernatural ability of stories and make a wizard (and maybe sometimes a cleric) spell out of it. It does not only make the wizaed stupidly overpowered, it also leads to "I hav this character from a story with a supernatural ability, how do i build it" -> "Make a wizard and pick the right spell". But that also is mostly a D&D problem as many other systems use way more specialized casters. And often semi-casters that can choose their few abilities from a very wide list.

[Lord Raziere]

First you would have to assume that such beasts exist in the first place. That is not a given, expecially if the world has is to have a somewhat believable ecology. Second, in a famine those beasts tend to get hinted anyway, so what does one more hunter contribute ? Third, preparation is not that much a problem as others make it to be. You would hunt those in groups and then have enough hands to actually prepare the meat in far less than a day. That is how hunting big animals for food is traditionally handled.

Still, even if all of that works, "Hunting" is a very different set of skills than "using a sword".


Guy at the Gym Fallacy right there. nothing says that the Fantasy Fighter can't do all tha in two seconds, just as a wizard can't suddenly cast any spell from any school of magic to instantly solve the problem.

we can also say that the conjure foodstuff might not exist as well. we can also put a bunch of limitations on that through logic. anything else is just a double standard.

[Satinavian]

Guy at the Gym Fallacy right there. nothing says that the Fantasy Fighter can't do all tha in two seconds, just as a wizard can't suddenly cast any spell from any school of magic to instantly solve the problem.The divine avatar of the Hunt can, the mundane human can't. The "Fantasy Fighter" can be one of them or something between.


we can also say that the conjure foodstuff might not exist as well. we can also put a bunch of limitations on that through logic. anything else is just a double standard.There is no double standard. Either "conjure food stuff" magic exists or not. If it exists, it is a useful ability.

[Lord Raziere]

The divine avatar of the Hunt can, the mundane human can't. The "Fantasy Fighter" can be one of them or something between.

There is no double standard. Either "conjure food stuff" magic exists or not. If it exists, it is a useful ability.

The divine avatar of all the magic can, but a fledgling apprentice can't. the "Wizard" can be one of them or something between.

Either the monster exists for the fighter to kill or it doesn't, if it exists, its a useful corpse to eat.

both of these things depend on the GM allowing them, there is no difference.

[Satinavian]

The divine avatar of all the magic can, but a fledgling apprentice can't. the "Wizard" can be one of them or something between.

Either the monster exists for the fighter to kill or it doesn't, if it exists, its a useful corpse to eat.

both of these things depend on the GM allowing them, there is no difference.
Don't see a problem with any of that.

Except that i don't like DM fiat and the rules should give you those results instead.



I don't have any problems with martials (people fighing with weapons as main shtick) getting cool supernatural stuff. I do have a problem with that supernatural stuff being declared to be a completely normal and not at all supernatural or magic ability. You can't punch holes in reality just by punching harder. But if a fighter wants to learn teleport magic or aquire some innert teleporting ability from a monster by getting its teleporting organs crafted on. Or finds a ritual that lets him bind his soul to some other plane which allows him to take shortcuts through it giving him teleporting abilities ... all of that is fine.

But not teleporting via punching. Or teleporting via singing or teleporting via cooking or teleporting via needlework or ... teleporting via any other ability that has nothing to do with teleporting. And yes, that does include magic as well. There will be no teleporting via fireballing either.

[Lord Raziere]

Don't see a problem with any of that.

Except that i don't like DM fiat and the rules should give you those results instead.



I don't have any problems with martials (people fighing with weapons as main shtick) getting cool supernatural stuff. I do have a problem with that supernatural stuff being declared to be a completely normal and not at all supernatural or magic ability. You can't punch holes in reality just by punching harder. But if a fighter wants to learn teleport magic or aquire some innert teleporting ability from a monster by getting its teleporting organs crafted on. Or finds a ritual that lets him bind his soul to some other plane which allows him to take shortcuts through it giving him teleporting abilities ... all of that is fine.

But not teleporting via punching. Or teleporting via singing or teleporting via cooking or teleporting via needlework or ... teleporting via any other ability that has nothing to do with teleporting. And yes, that does include magic as well. There will be no teleporting via fireballing either.

So.....do you just not have GMs in your games or what? cause you can't really escape that.

No, THAT is unacceptable magic copying to me. more than any reality-hole punching. with reality-hole punching I know that the results from the characters own efforts.

with your method, the fighter is nothing but a magic-super soldier, which is separate character concept than a fighter.

[Satinavian]

So.....do you just not have GMs in your games or what? cause you can't really escape that.We do have GMs. But i mostly play systems that are not D&D and are also not mostly about combat but at the same time very crunchy, so that you have tremendous rule support for mundane non-combat activities.


No, THAT is unacceptable magic copying to me. more than any reality-hole punching. with reality-hole punching I know that the results from the characters own efforts.

with your method, the fighter is nothing but a magic-super soldier, which is separate character concept than a fighter.Well, if the fighter doesn't want to be a magic super soldier, he will obviously be limited to the human possible. And stay significantly weaker than a magic-super soldier in many ways. But if the system is balanced, he might be able to invest his build ressources elsewhere, maybe getting social skills or influence/status or learn a craft or compliment his fighting with other mundane options.

The only means to go over mundane (= worldly, like in this world) limits is to aquire explicitely supernatural abilities.

Or to warp the world that what would traditionally supernatural is actually explicitely natural there, but somehow i doubt what you want is a world where creatures called humans despite having little in common with our humans have telepotation and other stuff as innate abilities and the fighter can just train to get more reach with it than the average guy.

[Kaptin Keen]

How are you going to create food for 300 hungry townsfolk whose crop failed this year?

Any number of ways. The most obvious has to be 'kill a large monster and eat it.'

But your question fails to be of relevant scale. You should ask 'how are you going to kill Valmordra the All-Ender, whose very skin is adamantium, and whose breath sears flesh from bone instantly?'

It bears mentioning that ... oh, let's say Valmordra lives atop the Mountain of Regrets, which is both literally and metaphorically the place every bad thing that ever happened to any living thing goes to die. This isn't reachable by any mortal means, and also it's on fire. Just because.

So our hero, Fighter McGuy sets out to kill Valmordra because of reasons. It's an impossible quest, but he decides first that being able to pierce adamantium skin seems relevant. So he kills Hathmog the Orc King, who carries Sever - a vorpal blade. That done, he finds a potion of stoneskin. This takes some doing, because potions are only level 3, and stoneskin is level 5. But Gwarlyn the Old, the First Treant, can brew such potions, and does so in exchange for a white lilly from a distant mountaintop where his first love - a patch of frost lillies - still grows.

Ok, now Fighter McGuy can actually fight Valmordra. He still needs to get there. No mortal means can reach the Mountain of Regrets - but divine ones can. So he finds a local god - let's call her Skithula the Witch Queen (a demi-goddess of hags, swamps and foul smell) - beats her up, and tells her to open a portal to the foothills of the Mountain of Regrets.

By pure happenstance, he inherited a ring of fire resistance from his dad, so fire isn't an issue.

Queue climactic battle. The end.

[Lord Raziere]

We do have GMs. But i mostly play systems that are not D&D are are also not mostly about combat but at the same time very crunchy, so that you have tremendous rule support for mundane non-combat activities.

Well, if the fighter doesn't want to be a magic super soldier, he will obviously be limited to the human possible. And stay significantly weaker than a magic-super soldier in many ways.

The only means to go over mundane (= worldly, like in this world) limits is to aquire explicitely supernatural abilities.

Or to warp the world that what would traditionally supernatural is actually explicitely natural there, but somehow i doubt what you want is a world where creatures called humans despite having little in common with our humans have telepotation and other stuff as innate abilities and the fighter can just train to get more reach with it than the average guy.

1. No, the fighter can be just as strong just with training, the arcane soldier isn't stronger, they're just tapping into a different source of strength.

2. making a lot of assumptions there

3. see, this a train of logic that comes up a lot: your not flexible. you either demand one thing or demand another with no in betweens. this is why you'll never fix this, both of these possibilities invalidate the desired character concept of this discussion. until you can accept a world where a person who with training become extraordinary without magic, yet does not suddenly make everyone just as strong as him by the fact he merely exists, your never going to understand, and you might as well forget discussing this ever again, because your solution does not solve this to me, and never will. all your doing is demanding conformity to your logic, not considering possibilities outside of it.

its a my way or the highway, "super soldier or aliens" mentality. you think that just because its not this supersoldiers it has to be aliens and there is no other explanation. the training could be secret and kept secret so that random kids don't go becoming super-strong and crushing boulders irresponsibly, people might simply not care about being super-strong superman despite a logician proclaiming the contrary there is more important things in life than power after all, and you'd be surprised by what people don't care about. lots of this fiction involving such physical training just make the fighter community a separate one that exists right alongside normal society and normal people being afraid of fighting just don't go near places with fighters, considering them a different class of people that is dangerous to associate with.

your assuming every single human is a knowledge- hungry person obsessed with power and that society will inevitably grab for all secrets and share them to the world in an inexorable march of "knowledge wants to be free" and determined to spread all improvements everywhere just like our own. that is not human nature. its quite easy to make a culture that won't automatically upend what it means to be human with new knowledge, real humans had successfully been doing that for thousands of years until what, a couple centuries ago?

its a common worldbuilders fallacy: "any change to the world must automatically be universal and affect everyone on every level". with no thought on how the change can be limited or controlled so that society can continue to function as it always has without being irrecoverably radically changed forever.

[Satinavian]

Well, that would exactly the Eastern method i commented on above.

Everyone has ki-powers. Those are the basis for pretty much all the impressive things the heroes of the stories do. But most people don't train it to that extend because that is timeconsuming and bothersome.

But those powers are not Nonmagic because eastern magic uses the very same concepts. There is no difference between an eremite sage casting a spell that does x or an eremite sage doing a secret martial arts technique that does x. Those are literally the same things. (That, theoretically everyone could do with enough dedication and time).

[GloatingSwine]

Everyone has ki-powers. Those are the basis for pretty much all the impressive things the heroes of the stories do. But most people don't train it to that extend because that is timeconsuming and bothersome.

And the ones that do we call "player characters".

No matter what fluff words you use to explain it, player characters in RPGs are not normal humans, because they inhabit realities where the limits of physiology are much much more generous. With a few levels under their belt, and without any items, the "mundane" D&D fighter is faster, stronger, and more skilled than an earth-human will become with a lifetime of practice and training.

That's what fundamentally makes the guy at the gym fallacy a fallacy, because earth-human standards do not apply to RPG player characters, not even ones in "mundane" settings really because they learn faster, heal faster, and become more capable more broadly.

[Satinavian]

And the ones that do we call "player characters".

No matter what fluff words you use to explain it, player characters in RPGs are not normal humans, because they inhabit realities where the limits of physiology are much much more generous. With a few levels under their belt, and without any items, the "mundane" D&D fighter is faster, stronger, and more skilled than an earth-human will become with a lifetime of practice and training.

That's what fundamentally makes the guy at the gym fallacy a fallacy, because earth-human standards do not apply to RPG player characters, not even ones in "mundane" settings really because they learn faster, heal faster, and become more capable more broadly.
Don't generalize "player characters in RPGs" from D&D. A character in Shadowrun is hardly more skilled than an earth-human with a lifetime of practice and training and also stops to be faster and stronger or more resiliant if you take his equippment and implants away. An investigator in Call of Cthuluh is also not faster, stronger and more skilled than your average human, not even with experience.

And that is actually the more common way human PCs are modelled. As well within the bounds of humanity.


But yes, if the setting and system would be using ki, it is likely that those humans that train it, are in the focus of character creation.

[Lord Raziere]

And the ones that do we call "player characters".

No matter what fluff words you use to explain it, player characters in RPGs are not normal humans, because they inhabit realities where the limits of physiology are much much more generous. With a few levels under their belt, and without any items, the "mundane" D&D fighter is faster, stronger, and more skilled than an earth-human will become with a lifetime of practice and training.

That's what fundamentally makes the guy at the gym fallacy a fallacy, because earth-human standards do not apply to RPG player characters, not even ones in "mundane" settings really because they learn faster, heal faster, and become more capable more broadly.

Exactly. This whole discussion of world-building ignores that this is about empowering the PCs, not about screwing up their worlds. they can keep their worlds however they want as long as I can keep my unique PC, and if I or any other person wants their unique PC to be batman or saitama solar exalted-esque guys, one has a right to play them no matter what other people complain about it, they don't want to play with that, thats just not their preference. its not my preference that the optimizers play god wizard, but its not right for me to stop them from playing that. its only fair the people who want god fighter get that as well, is all I'm saying.

[Mechalich]

But most people don't train it to that extend because that is timeconsuming and bothersome.

This justification method is difficult to balance correctly. After all, if the time-consuming and burdensome magical practice produced outcomes inferior to the conventional practice, for example if forging a sword with magic produces a worse sword than the typical hammer+anvil approach, then no one would bother to learn it at all, because it would be useless. On the other hand, if the time-consuming and bothersome method produces superior outcomes, the level of burden has to be immense to prevent widespread adoption. This is difficult to configure without either requiring all potential magic-users to be fanatically obsessive, in which case your world is one in which all wizards are insane, which obviously have rather significant consequences. Or demanding a time investment such that only the rich can undertake magical study because everyone else is too busy working to avoid starving. This has significant consequences too, and it is tied to a socially elitist system wherein, if the magic is actually real (as opposed to BS that Chinese scholar-gentry thought would make them immortal) provides a tangible reinforcement behind a supernatural-powers caste system.

That's not to say that this can't work. In fact it can work well when the powers that result from such prolonged and extensive study are limited to esoteric endeavors that have no real world equivalent and aren't easily adapted to replace and known form of labor. Settings wherein anyone can study to hunt ghosts, for instance. This also can work if the esoteric powers provide an outcome that is functionally equal to the conventional method, for instance if martial zen makes you just as good as a veteran soldier, but not better than one, which allows a game to utilize aesthetics that wouldn't actually work in the real world (in which an unarmed guy in a smock is no match whatsoever for one in plate armor with a halberd) while not imposing a major world-building burden.


Don't generalize "player characters in RPGs" from D&D. A character in Shadowrun is hardly more skilled than an earth-human with a lifetime of practice and training and also stops to be faster and stronger or more resiliant if you take his equippment and implants away. An investigator in Call of Cthuluh is also not faster, stronger and more skilled than your average human, not even with experience.

And that is actually the more common way human PCs are modelled. As well within the bounds of humanity.

Quite. And, equally important, even if the PCs are 'special' for some reason and get to bypass human boundaries, this doesn't eliminate human boundaries as a measure in the setting because NPCs bound by those limitations will continue to exist and the rules need to be able to represent them just as effectively as they do the PCs. If human characters without any form of phlebotinum appear in a setting at the character level (meaning the players aren't representing gods or something) and interact with PCs directly it is important to know what the limits to their abilities are. Vampire: the Masquerade games are not intended to ever have human PCs, but the vampires make tests against fully human NPCs all the time and GMs may even need to build dozens of such NPC stat blocks during a campaign.


its a my way or the highway, "super soldier or aliens" mentality. you think that just because its not this supersoldiers it has to be aliens and there is no other explanation. the training could be secret and kept secret so that random kids don't go becoming super-strong and crushing boulders irresponsibly, people might simply not care about being super-strong superman despite a logician proclaiming the contrary there is more important things in life than power after all, and you'd be surprised by what people don't care about. lots of this fiction involving such physical training just make the fighter community a separate one that exists right alongside normal society and normal people being afraid of fighting just don't go near places with fighters, considering them a different class of people that is dangerous to associate with.

your assuming every single human is a knowledge- hungry person obsessed with power and that society will inevitably grab for all secrets and share them to the world in an inexorable march of "knowledge wants to be free" and determined to spread all improvements everywhere just like our own. that is not human nature. its quite easy to make a culture that won't automatically upend what it means to be human with new knowledge, real humans had successfully been doing that for thousands of years until what, a couple centuries ago?

its a common worldbuilders fallacy: "any change to the world must automatically be universal and affect everyone on every level". with no thought on how the change can be limited or controlled so that society can continue to function as it always has without being irrecoverably radically changed forever.

Any new method that is economically superior in the aggregate to the existing method for producing its intended outcome has extremely strong pressures in favor of its adoption and eventually complete erasure of the old method as anything other than a curiosity. This is a natural process, namely evolution. It's also something that we've seen happen countless times in human history - changes in agricultural practices following the 'discovery' of the Americas by Columbus, for example. Yes, existing processes, through a position of a priori advantage can use accumulated assets to prevent the adoption of a new one. However, this depends on some sort of barrier being in place to prevent a change from triggering a evolutionary cascade and it tends to eventually fail (it took Europe a while to adopt potatoes, but eventually, they were everywhere, even in France, they were just too useful to discard).

If a person can 'just train' to unlock new abilities then there's no barrier. The argument from myself, and I believe from Satinavian as well, is that 'learning to manipulate ki' or 'learning to cast spells' or any other sort of pre-requisite breakthrough serves to produce exactly the sort of barrier you intend. And generally that barrier needs to be pretty substantial. Humans are willing to dedicate vast amounts of energy on a personal and societal level in the completely futile search for supernatural powers. In a scenario where those powers actually exist and can provide demonstrable results, the level of effort that would be input should increase exponentially.

Super-strength, by the way, is probably the best candidate for an ability to inevitably spread as far as possible, because it has vast utility in almost every field of manual labor. In fact an overwhelming fraction of the tools humans have invented throughout history from the lever to the front-end-loader have been for the purpose of providing mechanical advantage to increase available strength. If a method to reliably train humans to utilize super-human strength, even something modest like doubling the generalized strength based athletic tests of a person, that ability would be massively game-changing today in the 21st century and every country on the planet would be forced to adopt the technique in industry and military applications or face destruction within a generation.


Exactly. This whole discussion of world-building ignores that this is about empowering the PCs, not about screwing up their worlds. they can keep their worlds however they want as long as I can keep my unique PC, and if I or any other person wants their unique PC to be batman or saitama solar exalted-esque guys, one has a right to play them no matter what other people complain about it, they don't want to play with that, thats just not their preference. its not my preference that the optimizers play god wizard, but its not right for me to stop them from playing that. its only fair the people who want god fighter get that as well, is all I'm saying.

Yes, all supported concepts within the framework of a specific game should be able to reach equal levels of power within the game framework. Of course that's true. However the game design is under no obligation at all to support an specific maximum power level or any particular concept. It is perfectly acceptable to make a fantasy world with traditional wizards who wield nearly cosmic power and warriors who are utterly ordinary humans who no ability to exceed natural limits at all - it's just that in the game built around that world all PC characters will perforce have to be wizards. This isn't even unusual - that's the framework for Harry freaking Potter.

If you bring a concept to a game scenario that the setting does not support the GM is under no obligation to allow concept and has in fact very good reasons to forbid it as it will likely be destabilizing.

[Satinavian]

Exactly. This whole discussion of world-building ignores that this is about empowering the PCs, not about screwing up their worlds. they can keep their worlds however they want as long as I can keep my unique PC, and if I or any other person wants their unique PC to be batman or saitama solar exalted-esque guys, one has a right to play them no matter what other people complain about it, they don't want to play with that, thats just not their preference. its not my preference that the optimizers play god wizard, but its not right for me to stop them from playing that. its only fair the people who want god fighter get that as well, is all I'm saying.
You can play your unique PC as often as you want. You just need to find a campaign where it fits. If you can't do that, tough luck.

[Max_Killjoy]

@Max Killjoy: (and to the whole thread too post-first comma)

While I get that the crux of your belief is that the inverse-GATG Fallacy is more problematic than the straight one, I still believe that the latter (plain GATGF) is the bigger problem. It's mainly because of this tidbit:

The straight GATG Fallacy seems to be more prevalent in the developer community, if not the player one.
{ex. Monte Cook (obviously), (and maybe) Skip Williams (who seemingly hates the "simpler" sorcerers), etc.}

As such, the fallout is way more destructive for the roleplaying game environment than it's supposed difficulty for getting fixed quickly, and hence all these forum debates that while educative are also quite depressing.


My argument is not so much that the inverse is a bigger issue, but rather than it is to point out that the inverse is one of the root causes of the GATGF, and one of the major impediments to fixing it.

That is, those in the overall game community who demand that the "Fighter", etc, be completely "non-extra-normal", "non-supernatural", etc, and yet able to keep up with or defeat the most powerful magic-enabled characters (spellcaster or otherwise) are one of the causes of system and setting elements that look like or are GATGF in the first place.

To me, this is simply a matter of some gamers (and developers/designers) wanting incompatible and mutually exclusive things in the same system and/or setting, and the entire thing could be resolved by just letting go of the character-concept kitchen sink and acknowledging that not all characters are suitable for all settings or campaigns.

The player who likes playing ultrawizards can't do it in the most recent (and officially endorsed) Conan system/setting, the mechanics aren't there and the setting doesn't support it. Magic is dangerous to use and limited in effect.

I wouldn't be able play a shadow-bender in a canon Avatar:TLA campaign.

The player who wants to play a gunslinger wouldn't be able to in a historical bronze-age campaign.

The player who wants to play a normal (if peak ability across multiple aspects) human will hit a ceiling in D&D where the character either has to accept being beyond human abilities and into the "extranormal", or stop leveling up and accept being a literal underdog to the rest of the characters. Even with the balance problem Fighters have, they eventually reach "this guy ain't normal" territory -- to actually keep up with the spellcasters as those classes stand now, the Fighter would need even more "this guy ain't normal".




You can play your unique PC as often as you want. You just need to find a campaign where it fits. If you can't do that, tough luck.


Exactly.

There should be discussion about what sort of campaign and setting and system is going to be used between all the players before things get started, involving all the players (GM and everyone else). But once that's agreed on and work on the campaign starts, everyone needs to honor the terms of the agreement, or bow out. Demanding to play a character who is blatantly misplaced in a campaign or its setting is violating that agreement.

[AntiAuthority]

About the Guy at the Gym Fallacy being a world building issue, it's not, it's a, "I don't believe a real world person could do this sort of thing, so this fictional character with tons of bonuses shouldn't be able to either." It's essentially forcing limitations of humans from our world onto an entirely different. I agree, this partially ties into world building, but it sounds more like a problem with the GM's/player's sense of immersion being broken by having super martials.

If you want to talk about world building, the types of powers that could exist in such a setting, why the general population doesn't have access to this type of power, etc. just start your own thread on what sort of world or universe could produce someone that can bench press a planet, shout until reality sits down and listens to them, run faster than light and justify why not everyone is doing it or what the use of magic would be in a world where training can get you this far.

I'll probably post on it, but can we focus on arguments for or against, "Characters are at this level of power at Level X"? Or, "Why these characters should and shouldn't be bound to the rules of our reality"? Independent of the setting or what sort of justifications the author gives, what sort of power should a character of this level possess?




That's a good post. I'll bookmark it for future use. If you could supply the sources for those, I'd be very happy as well!

Went ahead and put some examples from fictional characters in bold, as links can get broken with time. Also removed and added some examples, as well as putting it in a spoiler tag.

[Max_Killjoy]

About the Guy at the Gym Fallacy being a world building issue, it's not, it's a, "I don't believe a real world person could do this sort of thing, so this fictional character with tons of bonuses shouldn't be able to either." It's essentially forcing limitations of humans from our world onto an entirely different. I agree, this partially ties into world building, but it sounds more like a problem with the GM's/player's sense of immersion being broken by having super martials.

If you want to talk about world building, the types of powers that could exist in such a setting, why the general population doesn't have access to this type of power, etc. just start your own thread on what sort of world or universe could produce someone that can bench press a planet and shout until reality sits down and listens to them.

I'll probably post on it, but can we focus on arguments for or against, "Characters are at this level of power at Level X"? Or, "Why these characters should and shouldn't be bound to the rules of our reality"? Independent of the setting or what sort of justifications the author gives, what sort of power should a character of this level possess?


It's inherently a setting issue because "humans here are significantly different from the humans in our world" or "humans here can do X to greatly exceed the limits we have in our world" are core fundamental setting elements with both immediate and far-reaching effects.

The only "solution" to the problem being discussed that doesn't have an impact on the setting is the one that says "internally consistent and coherent setting doesn't matter, every character and their powers are an island, and whatever explanation we want to give them is fine, even if those explanations all conflict." It's the kitchen-sink-uber-alles, rule-of-kewl, Dragon Ball Stupid option. And it doesn't have an impact on the setting because at that point you don't have a setting, you have a cheap 2d backdrop.

And then there's the irony of the gamer who says "I don't care about your setting crap"... while demanding that others care about their precious snowflake character concept.

[AntiAuthority]

It's inherently a setting issue because "humans here are significantly different from the humans in our world" or "humans here can do X to greatly exceed the limits we have in our world" are core fundamental setting elements with both immediate and far-reaching effects.

The only "solution" to the problem being discussed that doesn't have an impact on the setting is the one that says "internally consistent and coherent setting doesn't matter, every character and their powers are an island, and whatever explanation we want to give them is fine, even if those explanations all conflict." It's the kitchen-sink-uber-alles, rule-of-kewl, Dragon Ball Stupid option. And it doesn't have an impact on the setting because at that point you don't have a setting, you have a cheap 2d backdrop.

And then there's the irony of the gamer who says "I don't care about your setting crap"... while demanding that others care about their precious snowflake character concept.

What I'm saying is, take Saitama for example. He's a character of X Level. Put him in any other setting, and he'd still be a character of X Level. He has the abilities of a character of X Level. He lives in a world with other superhumans, yes, and his strength is unusual because he broke his limiter, but he he's still a character of X Level.

I feel the simplest way to get rid of the Guy At the Gym fallacy would be for the rule books to just say, "Yeah, characters in this world aren't bound by the same limitations as ours."

You're trying to create a coherent world with high level characters, I understand, a story I'm writing has the same question. I can understand your desire to make a logical world, but this isn't the thread for that. Start your own thread on the world building of such a world if you want to talk about it in great detail.


And it doesn't have an impact on the setting because at that point you don't have a setting, you have a cheap 2d backdrop.


EDIT: You're right, this isn't a setting. It's about power levels and characters of X Level having this level of power.

[Cluedrew]

There is no double standard. Either "conjure food stuff" magic exists or not. If it exists, it is a useful ability.OK, something character-ability focused for me to grab on to. I'm going to unpack all the assumptions in the statement "If it exists, it is a useful ability." So can conjure food stuff help feed a village of 300 in a time of famine if it exists:
Even if it exists the caster at the village may not be able to cast it at all. It may be outside their area of practice for instance. We will assume that they can.
Even if they can cast it may not produce enough food. If it doesn't produce enough food it must be able to be cast repeatedly (no once a day limit or something) and the caster must be able to cast it enough times (if it produces food for one person, that is a serious concern). We will assume that it can just be scaled to produce however much food it needs.
Any required facilities must be either be present or be able to set up in time. If no facilities are required its fine, a simple magic circle could be set up in time. A high grade magical laboratory might be out of scope. We will assume that any required facilities are trivial to prepare.
The ingredients to activate the spell must be able available. Which is to say they must be more readily available and expendable than food. Discarding anything like human sacrifices if it requires raw food (being a preparation spell) or expensive/rare ingredients than the village might not be able to acquire enough. We will assume that there are no ingredients.
Under these assumptions than yes, it is useful.

As a final note this may actually be separate from the point Satinavian was trying to make because I think it was about upper bounds and best cases, but here you can see what would go into that best case as compared to a more nuanced and restrained magic system.




That's just the thing. You cannot just focus on this (rather dubious to begin with) fallacy or "high level martial powers", never mind that "martial" has ceased to mean much in those discussions by now. It's all connected to mechanics, lore and world-building of the game.Could you elaborate. Besides guy at the gym is not actually a logical fallacy I don't understand what you are saying.:smallconfused: There's not much to elaborate on. The point is that you can't discuss giving purportedly non-magical people superpowers without having to discuss the world-building and lore implications of it.I will agree that if we were making a system that is a conversation we should have. But we are not doing that so I think it is fine to zone in on a particular section to discuss it in more detail. Besides the world building cannot really happen until we have figured out what fantastic abilities the martial has and we are not at that point yet. Also could you elaborate on why martial has lost its meaning.

[Max_Killjoy]

What I'm saying is, take Saitama for example. He's a character of X Level. Put him in any other setting, and he'd still be a character of X Level. He has the abilities of a character of X Level. He lives in a world with other superhumans, yes, and his strength is unusual because he broke his limiter, but he he's still a character of X Level.

I feel the simplest way to get rid of the Guy At the Gym fallacy would be for the rule books to just say, "Yeah, characters in this world aren't bound by the same limitations as ours."

You're trying to create a coherent world with high level characters, I understand, a story I'm writing has the same question. I can understand your desire to make a logical world, but this isn't the thread for that. Start your own thread on the world building of such a world if you want to talk about in great detail.



EDIT: You're right, this isn't a setting. It's about power levels and characters of X Level having this level of power.

I'm not talking about A setting, I'm talking about ANY setting, for ANY game. This is at the theory / meta level, not about any particular setting, but about how settings integrate with everything else in the campaign -- system, character, etc.

Put "one punch man" in other settings, and he... wait you can't because he doesn't fit those settings.

"Characters in this world aren't bound by the same limitations as ours"... is a statement about the setting, or rather a hanging set of questions AND consequences. As soon as you make that statement, you're unavoidably telling us something about the world the characters live in.

If you ignore the setting issues, you'll never address all the root causes of the problem being discussed here.

[GloatingSwine]

Don't generalize "player characters in RPGs" from D&D.

D&D is where the guy at the gym fallacy is most relevant because there's a wide delta between what can be done with and without "magic".

In games where the delta between abilities of otherwise similar characters is narrow, the conflict which generates it doesn't exist anyway.

[AntiAuthority]

I'm not talking about A setting, I'm talking about ANY setting, for ANY game. This is at the theory / meta level, not about any particular setting, but about how settings integrate with everything else in the campaign -- system, character, etc.

Put "one punch man" in other settings, and he... wait you can't because he doesn't fit those settings.

"Characters in this world aren't bound by the same limitations as ours"... is a statement about the setting, or rather a hanging set of questions AND consequences. As soon as you make that statement, you're unavoidably telling us something about the world the characters live in.

If you ignore the setting issues, you'll never address all the root causes of the problem being discussed here.

I feel there's a miscommunication. Saitama is an X Level character. He is an X level character, regardless of setting. He's able to take on X Level threats.

His specific abilities might not fit with any random setting, but he's still an X Level character. Same as how Superman is an X Level character, he would still be an X Level character if he were put in Dragon Ball, even if his powerset didn't quite mesh with that setting. Goku is an X level character, regardless of if you put him into Pokemon. They have abilities on par with an X Level character. Crossovers and vs debates work on the same logic, the character doesn't lose their powers just because they're in a new setting, they still have that level of power.

Character Levels/power levels are independent of setting.

EDIT: Probably the best way I can explain it. As per how D&D/Pathfinder works, imagine a Fantasy Kitchen Sink with whatever you want thrown in, the entire bestiary too. Based on what you know about CR, Levels and such in D&D's rules, scaling them to the types of threats they're expected to face, what sort of abilities do you expect a high level martial character of X Level to have?

[MeimuHakurei]

I feel there's a miscommunication. Saitama is an X Level character. He is an X level character, regardless of setting. He's able to take on X Level threats.

His specific abilities might not fit with any random setting, but he's still an X Level character. Same as how Superman is an X Level character, he would still be an X Level character if he were put in Dragon Ball, even if his powerset didn't quite mesh with that setting. Goku is an X level character, regardless of if you put him into Pokemon. They have abilities on par with an X Level character. Crossovers and vs debates work on the same logic, the character doesn't lose their powers just because they're in a new setting, they still have that level of power.

Character Levels/power levels are independent of setting.

The correct way of addressing the issue in D&D is to play a Cleric/Wizard and fluff/play him exactly like a Fighter... who happens to be several order of magnitudes more competent at Fightering than actual Fighters. Maybe then people might get an inkling about what's going on.

[AntiAuthority]

The correct way of addressing the issue in D&D is to play a Cleric/Wizard and fluff/play him exactly like a Fighter... who happens to be several order of magnitudes more competent at Fightering than actual Fighters. Maybe then people might get an inkling about what's going on.

Long ago I realized, "Why is the squishy caster better at simulating Thor than the really strong Fighter/Barbarian?" And I came to understand there was something very wrong with the scaling of levels for certain classes as a result.

[Talakeal]

Isn't the whole topic about worldbuilding at its core?

There is literally not ability that couldn't be given to a martial if you are ignoring setting concerns.

[Keltest]

Isn't the whole topic about worldbuilding at its core?

There is literally not ability that couldn't be given to a martial if you are ignoring setting concerns.

Indeed. If youre willing to let somebody punch a hole in reality by literally punching, that person is in practice a wizard, even if they look more militant when they do it.

[Ignimortis]

Indeed. If youre willing to let somebody punch a hole in reality by literally punching, that person is in practice a wizard, even if they look more militant when they do it.

How are they a wizard if they're not using spellcasting to do it? This issue often exists, because there are at least three ways of looking at things.

1) Everything that's not possible in our world is magic.
2) Everything that's possible by the physics of the setting isn't magic, magic is when those physics are broken by an external interference (usually spellcasting).
3) Everything that's possible is possible to do through several power sources, and magic is just another word for spellcasting.

GATGF heavily relies on 1, because if martial characters are defined by not doing magic, and if everything that breaks IRL physics is magic, then they can't do that, and thus magic is inherently superior, because it can break the laws of the world

If we take 2 as the base instead, the issue becomes less prominent, if not non-existent, because that means martials can do IRL-impossible things while staying "non-magical" in-setting.

Take Final Fantasy XIV, for example. It's a world that functions somewhat similarly to ours as in there are planets and suns and people usually die from a sword to the gut and can't jump twenty feet up willy-nilly. However, its' physical base is entirely different - everything that is operates on Aether, a sort of mana mixed with lifeforce.

Why does something become a desert? Overabundance of fire-aspected aether in the area. Why do some creatures take a lot of damage before dying? Their personal aether reserves are high and so their lifeforce can sustain them longer. How do martial characters do things they do without using mana, ley lines, spells and magic implements? They utilize their own aether, aspected to their specific skill-set. Warriors can cleave so hard the air waves cleave the target five more times, or strike the earth and make it rise up as a giant shield of mountains. Dragoons can jump 50 feet high while decked in heavy armor. Samurai strikes echo in snow or cherry blossoms.

If we take 3 as the base, then the issue doesn't exist, because training super hard or using your own soul as your power source can produce the same things (or things of the same level) as magic.

[digiman619]

Whenever someone tries to pull the 'that's physically impossible' card to stop a martial from doing something that the rules say they should, my preferred response is "Other than gravity and magnetism working most of the time and humanoids being able to breathe air and eat to survive, what makes you think physics exists?"

[Keltest]

How are they a wizard if they're not using spellcasting to do it? This issue often exists, because there are at least three ways of looking at things.

They are using spellcasting to do it. It just looks different than what you think of as spellcasting.

[GloatingSwine]

Indeed. If youre willing to let somebody punch a hole in reality by literally punching, that person is in practice a wizard, even if they look more militant when they do it.

The problem you're encountering is that you're confused as to the nature of reality.

In fantasy RPG games where there are wizards, they are part of reality. They aren't breaking the laws of physics with magic, magic is part of the laws of physics where they live.

And if someone can via the combination of training and experience represented by many levels of punch-guy, punch a hole in reality it is because reality is more punchable* where they live.




* Such as it is in the DC Universe, where Superboy Prime did, in fact, punch reality and cause all sorts of retcons to happen.

[Keltest]

The problem you're encountering is that you're confused as to the nature of reality.

In fantasy RPG games where there are wizards, they are part of reality. They aren't breaking the laws of physics with magic, magic is part of the laws of physics where they live.

And if someone can via the combination of training and experience represented by many levels of punch-guy, punch a hole in reality it is because reality is more punchable* where they live.




* Such as it is in the DC Universe, where Superboy Prime did, in fact, punch reality and cause all sorts of retcons to happen.

Explain to me the difference between casting a spell by wiggling your fingers and chanting, and casting a spell by punching the air and grunting.

[GloatingSwine]

Explain to me the difference between casting a spell by wiggling your fingers and chanting, and casting a spell by punching the air and grunting.

They have to be learned different ways, and require different training and muscle memory. That's what makes one a wizard and the other a punchguy, all the other steps they took on the path to getting to the place where they can make holes in reality.

[Keltest]

They have to be learned different ways, and require different training and muscle memory. That's what makes one a wizard and the other a punchguy, all the other steps they took on the path to getting to the place where they can make holes in reality.

I just want you to understand that from where I sit, it seems like youre waving two different brands of electric drill at me and insisting that because theyre different brands, that makes them entirely different things.

Sure, theyre superficially different, but when you get down to the fundamentals, what are they actually doing to distinguish themselves from each other?

[Ignimortis]

I just want you to understand that from where I sit, it seems like youre waving two different brands of electric drill at me and insisting that because theyre different brands, that makes them entirely different things.

Sure, theyre superficially different, but when you get down to the fundamentals, what are they actually doing to distinguish themselves from each other?

It's more of a fundamental on the level "those two tools are both powered by electricity", but one is a drill and the other one is a jackhammer. The wizard uses their knowledge of the magical formulas inherent in the world, builds a spell contour with those words and gestures, sends in some magical energy he has learned to accumulate, and a hole between two places appears. The punch guy punches hard enough to compress space and time by the sheer force invested in their movement, also creating a hole between two places.

Can you drill a hole in a wall? Sure, if you pick the right points to drill and then give the wall a light push, a part of it will just fall out. Or you can break through it with a jackhammer.

[GloatingSwine]

I just want you to understand that from where I sit, it seems like youre waving two different brands of electric drill at me and insisting that because theyre different brands, that makes them entirely different things.

Sure, theyre superficially different, but when you get down to the fundamentals, what are they actually doing to distinguish themselves from each other?

Because one's a hammerdrill with a chisel head and the other's a normal drill with a flathead screwdriver. They're different tools, arrived at in different manners and for different applications.

To which you might say "but they're both power tools", and I would say "yes, they both represent player characters".

Being far beyond the normal limits of the world isn't the domain of "magic" in fantasy RPGs, it's "being a PC or narratively significant opponent thereof". (Were that not the case there would be no need for adventurers, they are by definition special cases).

[Keltest]

Because one's a hammerdrill with a chisel head and the other's a normal drill with a flathead screwdriver. They're different tools, arrived at in different manners and for different applications.

To which you might say "but they're both power tools", and I would say "yes, they both represent player characters".

Being far beyond the normal limits of the world isn't the domain of "magic" in fantasy RPGs, it's "being a PC or narratively significant opponent thereof". (Were that not the case there would be no need for adventurers, they are by definition special cases).

Ok, let me put it this way. Do you believe the cleric and wizard are both spellcasters? If so, why is this reality-puncher not a spellcaster?

[GloatingSwine]

The cleric and wizard both pre-prepare their effects from a broad range of selections. They have not learned to take a few specific arts to levels which produce superhuman effects, but effects still defined by a narrow range implied by their means of application .

They have taken a different path and arrived at a different place to our putative reality-puncher, even if some of the things they can do are the same.

(In D&D terms we'd be talking spells vs. spell like or Ex abilities)