PDA

View Full Version : The Hypocrisy of D&D



Grey Paladin
2008-03-09, 12:43 PM
Time and time again D&D claims that the most powerful people in our world were level 6, at the most, and that D&D characters are so vastly superior to these that populate our world and that comparing a high level Fighter to the greatest warriors on earth will put them all to shame.

Why then, do we limit high level Fighters to the achievements of their inferior, mortal, brethren from out world?

Look at the gap in skill between the greatest warriors(level 6) of earth and 'mere' veterans of countless battles(level 1), our heroes seem to be border superhuman in some aspects, performing maneuvers that seem outright impossible to the lesser best-of-the-best level 1 veterans and defeating an unthinkable number of foes, one of which would be the equal of a level 1 (=elite) character, without even sweating.

Why then, is there hardly any difference between the abilities of level 6 Warriors and level 11 ones?

Sure, a level 11 warrior deals more damage, and can aim his attacks better, but this difference is hardly the same in scale as the one between a level 1 Fighter and a level 6 one. Level 6 Warriors hit the plateau, the epitome of skill we have observed on Earth, from this point until the end of their career they don't truly learn any truly new tricks but simply improve on their old ones.

We do not advance Warriors beyond this point because we have our world to relay upon, the reason Spellcasters are so powerful is that the difference between level 18 and 19 is as dramatic as the one between 1 and 2.

A first level Wizard can put a bunch of people into sleep, a 6th level Wizard can throw a Fireball and fly, a level 20 one can reweave reality to the form he desires.

A first level Fighter can hit stuff with a sword, a 6th level Fighter can take down a couple of foes in a single attack while avoiding fire and shrugging off fatal wounds as if they were scratches, a level 20 one can do the exact same thing a level 6 Fighter can but hits a lot harder.

In conclusion: A Fighter that slashes a moutain in half,survives a landslide, or jumps 100 feet up into the air isn't magical in any way, this is simply the natural progression we have halted because we refused to imagine anything we deem as impossible(because we couldn't percieve the act in our world) for a mortal to do without the aid of unnatural forces.

The only way to balance Spellcasters with mere 'mortals' is to understand this and rewrite the non-magical classes with this in mind.

Dr Bwaa
2008-03-09, 02:00 PM
In conclusion: A Fighter that slashes a moutain in half,survives a landslide, or jumps 100 feet up into the air isn't magical in any way, this is simply the natural progression we have halted because we refused to imagine anything we deem as impossible(because we couldn't percieve the act in our world) for a mortal to do without the aid of unnatural forces.

I completely agree with you. Every attack made by a 20th-level fighter is treated as Thundering (as his weapon(s) creates a sonic boom every time he swings it); running full-speed through an opposing army with a sword in front of him and leaving a bloody, decimated trail of bodies in his wake should be old hat; hitting the ground with his great maul causes severe structural damage to nearby castles...

I have a paper to write in the next five hours, and now I'm going to spend four of them homebrewing. Fantastic :smallbiggrin:

Deepblue706
2008-03-09, 02:07 PM
@Grey:

That's one take on it, I suppose.

However, I don't think martial characters should be able to slice mountains in half - I think that's silly. However, when I say that, I am, by no means, saying Wizards aren't silly already.

Instead of making the Fighter as powerful as the Wizard, I'm actually more for making the Wizard as powerful as the Fighter. There's plenty of room for fantasy gaming at the lower spectrum, because even that is pretty high, if you look at it from another perspective. Personally, I think D&D is cinematic enough with things like Power Attack - I'd much prefer a guy with a sword to still be a guy with a sword, even if he's the best damn swordguy ever to have existed. Expand his powers beyond what most humans should expect to do, and I'm okay. Expand his powers beyond what any real human could ever hope to do, and suddenly I'm bored.

Wizards, I think, should actually have a hard time with magic. 3.x's magic system (and I suppose earlier ones as well?) treats the casters far too leniently with their spells. If more spells had drawbacks and misfires, or were simply more difficult to learn, I think that might balance out things too.

Ulrichomega
2008-03-09, 02:13 PM
But then people start being mad that he's becoming too magical, and you get threads like this one saying the exact opposite.

As I see it, yes, that is one of the best ideas that I have ever heard, but i don't agree. A fighter has one purpose. Kill the monster with a sword. He does this very well. The reason that a fighter doesn't get better is that he is getting better, but not in the way you see it. You underestimate how strong a 20th level fighter is. He probably could run through an army like that with the right feats from various splatbooks.

As for wizards, drawbacks are good, but you again get threads like this asking why wizards are penalized for being too powerful. It's a vicious cycle I tells ya'.

Disdain
2008-03-09, 02:19 PM
I agree a lot with the OP. Spellcasting simply scales a lot more drastically than martial combat.

I correct myself. Spellcasting is better than martial combat. It can kill more people, kill stronger people, protect more people, protect more potently. The only advantage that martial combat has over spellcasting is a subjective one. It's cooler to kill someone with a sword than wave your hand and make him explode. IMHO.

Furthermore, spellcasting isn't nearly as item dependent as martial combat. To avoid getting hit at any reasonable rate in CQC, a fighter at 20th MUST have a number of magical items adding at least four different AC bonuses. To HIT any 20 CR creature he must have a similiarly powerful weapon. By comparison, a powerful arcane spellcaster can simply end things before it even comes to melee. Or, if she feels that her saving throws aren't hard to make without her stat-buffing items, she can buff herself.

In short, to be any kind of competition at high levels and even APPEAR to scale anywhere close to spell casters, a fighter has to look like some sort of creepy gypsy vendor; numerous, ironically, magical trinkets hanging from his body.

Paul H
2008-03-09, 02:25 PM
Hi

I think the point is being lost here. Surely the game is supposed to be 'fantasy', not realistic.

If you want realism - I've played D20 Modern, including a scenario of a covert attack against a N Korean nuclear facility. HALO jump from modified C130, take out the guards. Threat of N korean nuclear arms was in the news. Actual Satellite photos of the very real site downloaded from the 'net. All done with low level characters.

Cheers
Paul H

Disdain
2008-03-09, 02:47 PM
I don't believe realism is the point here. The point is one of scale and balance. Why does fantasy mean that spellcasters have to be disproportionately powerful?

Again, nobody is disagreeing with the idea of being able to twist reality, or kill twenty men effortlessly, we're disagreeing with how such things line up in terms of level and capability.

Also, D20 Modern definately scales with real life differently. A real American soldier can wear heavy armor (according to the rulebook), use rifles, burstfire, double tap, and operate grenade launchers. Just that is.... nine feats.

By contrast, a knight could wear heavy armor and swing a sword. Thats all free with fighter.

BRC
2008-03-09, 02:57 PM
My personal Take on levels (I posted it in another thread) was somthing like this, using the example of an NPC blacksmith.

At level five he is known as being a skilled blacksmith, the best of the averages. For your average joe, this would be the height of his skill.

At level seven he is known as being a very skilled blacksmith, he proably recieves out-of-town orders from other towns and cities.

At level ten or so, he is proably the best blacksmith in the region, a local lord or some equivilant proably commissions him for stuff or just hires him on full-time.

At level fifteen he is truely considered great, the king proably took him in to be a high-ranking royal armorer.

At level twenty he is a god amongst blacksmiths, Proably living in a well-guarded forge/compound with apprentences. Either that or he is commissioned by the greatest kings and emporers to build them stuff. At this point he proably only works because he want's to. His work will go into museums and he will be hailed as one of the greatest blacksmiths of all time.

KIDS
2008-03-09, 03:00 PM
While I don't take it to the extent of slashing through mountains or leaping 100 ft. in the air, the assumption here is quite right. I prefer ToB as a reasonable middle ground and don't ask for a lot more...

Kurald Galain
2008-03-09, 03:02 PM
Time and time again D&D claims that the most powerful people in our world were level 6, at the most, and that D&D characters are so vastly superior to these that populate our world

That premise was thoroughly rebutted and stomped into the ground in a recent thread.

But yeah, neither DBZ nor Street Fighter probably count as "magical", and both have fighters capable of destroying mountains with a blow.

Yogi
2008-03-09, 03:11 PM
There are works of fiction and genres in general which have fighters fight on par with powerful wizards and be able to defeat them. It's called Anime (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76rOXy9w8Ik). Buffing fighters to be on par with spellcasters will make battles look more Animesque, with guys with huge swords leaping 15 feet into the air, then bringing down their weapon to unleash a massive shockwave that tears through an army.

Just make each spell cost Exp and that should balance things out.

Disdain
2008-03-09, 03:12 PM
While I don't take it to the extent of slashing through mountains or leaping 100 ft. in the air, the assumption here is quite right. I prefer ToB as a reasonable middle ground and don't ask for a lot more...

I'm sorry, what's ToB?

Edit: Alternatively, you could just nerf spellcasters. By the time a 20th level fighter can effortlessly kill a hundred people, a 20th level wizard could do... maybe double that number and some infrastructure with a spell that requires utmost concentration an maybe ten minutes. Fair.

MorkaisChosen
2008-03-09, 03:33 PM
ToB is Tome of Battle, which contains sword-swingers doing amazing feats of amazingness.

I agree that magic should be a bit more risky- I like Dark Heresy's psychic powers- they get extremely powerful at high levels, but daemons just might eat your psyker's soul...

Xefas
2008-03-09, 03:44 PM
There are works of fiction and genres in general which have fighters fight on par with powerful wizards and be able to defeat them. It's called Anime (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76rOXy9w8Ik). Buffing fighters to be on par with spellcasters will make battles look more Animesque, with guys with huge swords leaping 15 feet into the air, then bringing down their weapon to unleash a massive shockwave that tears through an army.

This is really ignorant, by the way. This would be like me saying "Oh, you know what? Fighters not being on par with Wizards is 'Live-Actionesque', and you know what Live Action is like? Battlefield Earth, Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, and anything done by Lindsay Lohan."

Anime is a style- a look. It is not a genre. Sure, you get really bad stuff like Naruto with very few redeeming qualities whatsoever, but not all Anime is like that. Watch some actually good Anime. Watch the first episode of Cowboy Bebop, or maybe Death Note if you can find it subtitled.



I'm sorry, what's ToB?

It's the Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords. It makes fighter-types on par with Spellcasters. A lot of the fluff is really silly, but easily discarded. For instance, it'll have an ability that allows you to attack with both weapons as a standard action while dual-wielding. Very simple, very easily explainable, very mundane. What do they call it? "Wolf Fang Strike! WATCHA!!!" Regardless, whether the Wizards of the Coast employee who flavored it is a moron or not, its a good book if you look past the names.

Grey Paladin
2008-03-09, 04:15 PM
lordhenry:I'm working on a homebrewed Warrior myself, perhaps we can compare our work once we are both finished?

Deepblue: Then simply do what I do: play D&D E6 =)

Ulrich: D&D is highly modular- the mere existence of levels of such power does not means you must use them and not cap your games at level 9

Disdain: Balance is only one out of many points of this post, realism is another

Paul H: This was one of my points, but I disagree that a realistic game cannot be ran through the usage of the D&D ruleset- customizing classes and placing a level cap is all you need to do.

Comrade Bloddy:My take of levels goes like this:

A first level Warrior is a veteran of many battles, perhaps a local hero- the equivalent of a War Hero.

At 5th level said Warrior is a hero of legend, who is pushing what we perceive as the limits of the human body- The greatest warriors Earth has ever seen.

A 10th level Warrior does the 'impossible' on constant basis and merely seeing him fight forever alters one's perception of the rules of this world- the equivalent of a mythological hero.

A 15th level Warrior strikes fear in all who see him by merely existing, being attacked by a 2-Dimensional monster on earth would likely freak you out as much as being attacked by this guy because both of them shatter what you accepted as truth in a rather similar way- the equivalent of a Russian/Chinese Fairy-tale hero.

A 20th level Warrior is a god of battle, there is no other way to put it.

KIDS: Actually I think ToB characters are far more powerful then what I have described here, what I suggest is rewriting ToB without the Kamehameha attacks

Kurald: I believe this to be utterly incorrect, but I did not think I could convince the visitors of that thread otherwise so I didn't bother to argue

Yogi: 1-5 is Low Fantasy, 6-10 is High Fantasy, 11-15 is Wuxia, 16-20 is Super Heroes. D&D is highly modular, all I want to attempt to do is to write a single class that can be used in all styles of play by merely capping it at the correct point

Yogi
2008-03-09, 04:23 PM
This is really ignorant, by the way. This would be like me saying "Oh, you know what? Fighters not being on par with Wizards is 'Live-Actionesque', and you know what Live Action is like? Battlefield Earth, Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, and anything done by Lindsay Lohan."Ignorant? I said it would be more like Anime. You then acted like it was a bad thing and compared Anime with Battlefield Earth. Who's ignorant again?

BRC
2008-03-09, 04:23 PM
Comrade Bloddy:My take of levels goes like this:

A first level Warrior is a veteran of many battles, perhaps a local hero- the equivalent of a War Hero.

At 5th level said Warrior is a hero of legend, who is pushing what we perceive as the limits of the human body- The greatest warriors Earth has ever seen.

A 10th level Warrior does the 'impossible' on constant basis and merely seeing him fight forever alters one's perception of the rules of this world- the equivalent of a mythological hero.

A 15th level Warrior strikes fear in all who see him by merely existing, being attacked by a 2-Dimensional monster on earth would likely freak you out as much as being attacked by this guy because both of them shatter what you accepted as truth in a rather similar way- the equivalent of a Russian/Chinese Fairy-tale hero.

A 20th level Warrior is a god of battle, there is no other way to put it.


Hmm, I would think of it more like this


A first level warrior is fresh from boot camp. He knows how to use weapons and wear armor (proficiency) and he's got some talent for sticking sharp objects where you don't want them, but not much more than your standard peasant (Look at his BAB, its 1, not much better than a commoner)

A fith level warrior is the vetern of many battles, he proably hasn't recieved much official recognition besides promotion to sergant, if that. His skills have been honed in the way only battle can.

A Tenth level warrior either possesses buckets of natural talent, years of experience, or some combination of the two. Even if he didn't intend to he has achieved special recognition. He is proably a commander of some sort, using his experience in the battlefield to lead his men. Though well known in his own army, and maybe by individual parts of other armies, he is far from a household name.


A fifteenth level warrior is proably a high-ranking commander or famous knight. His standard strikes fear into the hearts of his foes and warms those of his allies. He is the stuff that bards write stories about. Expect him to be well known amongst neighboring kingdoms.


A twentieth level warrior can no longer be called a warrior, the term "Compressed Army" suits them much better. They don't fight battles, they win them. People who have never heard of the nation they fight for have heard of them, their very presence makes generals surrender without a fight.

Grey Paladin
2008-03-09, 04:50 PM
You have forgotten to include the -4 due to the lack of proficency and having to roll for hit points at level 1 (Personaly I don't think commoners even deserve levels or more then a single point of HP)

BRC
2008-03-09, 04:55 PM
You have forgotten to include the -4 due to the lack of proficency and having to roll for hit points at level 1 (Personaly I don't think commoners even deserve levels or more then a single point of HP)
Yes, but Proficiency is what you get in basic training. Proficiency you can get swinging a sword against a sack of straw. A Lack of Proficiency means you don't know the proper way to handle the weapon, you can pick that up with training or on the battlefield. Attack Bonus on the other hand, I consider only really gainable by experience. The problem with your theory that 1st level=Hardened Vetern means that fresh-from boot camp recruits, or even people who have seen some combat, are technically commoners who don't know how to wear armor or swing a sword any better than they did when they were recruited.

Grey Paladin
2008-03-09, 05:08 PM
I admit that in 3rd edition it is not core (Nor was it core in 2E, to be honest only 1E titled level 1 characters as veterans), but I treat rookies as Fighters with 1+CON HP and proficiencies, all Saves at 0 and 0 BAB- no feats.

They are vastly superior to commoners, but Fighters are still much more powerful- Hit Points and feats are reserved for heroes.

If you prefer levels to be worth less, like it is standard in 3E, you can just downgrade all my descriptions by 1 step and place your level 1 description instead of my own. my point, however, remains.

BRC
2008-03-09, 05:11 PM
I admit that in 3rd edition it is not core (Nor was it core in 2E, to be honest only 1E titled level 1 characters as veterans), but I treat rookies as Fighters with 1+CON HP and proficiencies, all Saves at 0 and 0 BAB- no feats.

They are vastly superior to commoners, but Fighters are still much more powerful- Hit Points and feats are reserved for heroes.

If you prefer levels to be worth less, like it is standard in 3E, you can just downgrade all my descriptions by 1 step and place your level 1 description instead of my own. my point, however, remains.
Ah, my levels were according to how I interpreted RAW, and I assumed you were doing the same thing.

Grey Paladin
2008-03-09, 05:16 PM
My apologies for being unclear, I am just so used to playing with this metagame in mind that sometimes I forget it is not the only one-
Changing 6 to 10-11 will properly adjust my claim to fit Core D&D.

Avor
2008-03-09, 05:30 PM
In my D&D world, there are alot more fighters than there are magic users. A level 6 wizzard can kick ass, but he can't kick the ass of about 120 level 6 fighters.

This is due to the fact it's easy being a fighter, they get hitpoints and a sword. Immage playing a solo D&D game from level one. A fighter kills some gnolls, levels up, gets loot. A mage takes anything more than a 2 points of damage is down and out.

At high levels, yes, a mage gets more neat things, while mages are doing their thing, fighters are after cool magical things. So by the time high levels are in play, the fighter could very well be immune most things, and with just switching a few items around, can totaly counter a particular wizzard.

Blanks
2008-03-09, 05:32 PM
That premise was thoroughly rebutted and stomped into the ground in a recent thread.
No it wasn't :smallsmile:
The debate ended (as they often do), with everyone sticking to what they believed originally and having learned a bit from each other.

Xefas
2008-03-09, 05:50 PM
Ignorant? I said it would be more like Anime. You then acted like it was a bad thing and compared Anime with Battlefield Earth. Who's ignorant again?

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to compare D&D to Anime. I'm saying it's bad to compare D&D to bad Anime. The video you linked to is a good example. It showed a 7-minute long segment of a single fight. And, if I recall correctly, that battle actually lasted longer than they show in the single youtube. That's...excessive, to put it mildly.

I certainly wouldn't want D&D to devolve into entire sessions of "I am stronger because of *this*!" "No, but wait, I have learned to do this, so ha ha!" "No it can not be, but in fact, it is I who have been holding back!" "Oh noes, but in reality, I have improved *this here* since last we met!"

And so far, D&D combat takes between 20-60 seconds in 'in-game' time, which is good. You set that guy on fire, he kicks over a table and shoots you in the face with an arrow, your teammate charges in and decapitates someone, etc. It's all over fast, and the plot moves on. The plot is greater than continuous muscle flexing. If you've seen one fight that takes 5 episodes to show, then you've seen them all.

Oh, and they shout their attacks out, and sit there doing nothing while their opponent gets ready to do his super special awesome mega attack. Those are also lame elements of bad Anime. If D&D ever requires you to sit there taking no action for 5 rounds (30 seconds) while the Wizard charges up his unblockable death ray, then something is horribly wrong.

Neon Knight
2008-03-09, 06:04 PM
Ignorant? I said it would be more like Anime. You then acted like it was a bad thing and compared Anime with Battlefield Earth. Who's ignorant again?

What he objected to was you equating anime with "guys with huge swords leaping 15 feet into the air, then bringing down their weapon to unleash a massive shockwave that tears through an army," which is a blatant lie. He also interperted your statement as saying making this kind of thing more "Animesque " was negative thing, which was probably an incorrect interpretation.

In turn, you misinterpreted his statement. He wasn't saying that Anime was like Battlefield Earth. He was saying that you equating anime, a medium, to a specific genre that was represented by anime was like equating live action with specific genres that have been represented in live action.

To further show your error, your statement was equivalent to saying "music is all about grunting and screaming and really loud noise," or "music is about some dude rhyming about how he deals drugs and abuses women of loose virtue." Its equating a medium to a genre represented by that medium.

There are anime series were the individuals possess no special powers and fight in a 100% conventional manner. There are anime series that contain absolutely no combat of any sort and focus exclusively on relationships. In fact, the sheer proliferation of anime is such that I am willing to bet you can find anime of every genre, from film noir to romance to action to horror. Its only Americans (well, probably not only Americans, given the number of that equate comic books and cartoons with childish entertainment. The French have had a thriving comic industry for decades.

In fact, on a side digression, people doing that sort of "leaping 15 feet into the air, then bringing down their weapon to unleash a massive shockwave that tears through an army" thing can't even be said to be to be confined to one genre. Some of the folk stories of various peoples I've read contain material of exactly the same caliber. I remember some African folk tale involving a general charging a mountain and carving a tunnel through it completely with a sword.

On a further digression, the Sword and Sorcery genre of fiction, as exemplified by Conan (yes, the Conan) features big awesome manly men offing powerful evil sickly wizards. So phooey on you. ey.

Newtkeeper
2008-03-09, 06:05 PM
So, let's see, your point is that not only are melee combatants underpowered, they are, relative to casters, boring.


In other news, the sky is blue.

And re: 7 minutes for a single fight: go watch the second and third LOTR movie. Gees, I never thought I'd be defending anime.

Stormcrow
2008-03-09, 06:18 PM
World ending oversized swordsmen are the provence of Exalted. Not D&D. I've all but removed the "Great" weapons from my games for that reason. People get the wrong idea about the way you fight with them and it quickly degenerates into muscle flexing contests.

I agree with the point that the suggested modifications to fighters will bring a flavouring of the _majority_ of anime to the game. I acknowledge and enjoy anime and understand that not all of it is as described. But a lot of it is, and I for one don't want it at my table.

Neon Knight
2008-03-09, 06:30 PM
I agree with the point that the suggested modifications to fighters will bring a flavouring of the _majority_ of anime to the game. I acknowledge and enjoy anime and understand that not all of it is as described. But a lot of it is, and I for one don't want it at my table.

No it isn't. That kind of anime is most commonly seen in America for the same reason action movies do better in foreign countries; violence is a universal language. If you don't understand a word the characters are saying, The Matrix or Equilibrium is more interesting than a more dialog heavy film, and subtitles, depending on the translator, can be little better than having no subtitles at all. There's a reason the original Godzilla did so well; it doesn't take much to understand a gigantic lizard stomping on a city. Had it been more dialog and language based, it might have failed.


It does not compose the majority of anime overall, however. Just a lot of it which Westerners are exposed to, and that's slowly changing as more and more anime flows in.

Demented
2008-03-09, 06:46 PM
Okay, reflex action might have influenced my posting here. :smalltongue:


Why does it have to be an anime swordsman, anyway?

Why can't it be Gears of War with greatswords instead of chainsaws?

Xefas
2008-03-09, 06:58 PM
Kasrkin, you explained my statements far better than I ever could and you certainly know your stuff.

I kind of want to say more, but don't know exactly what I should...

Ummm, you're awesome and stuff. :smalltongue:

Neon Knight
2008-03-09, 06:59 PM
Okay, reflex action might have influenced my posting here. :smalltongue:


Why does it have to be an anime swordsman, anyway?

Why can't it be Gears of War with greatswords instead of chainsaws?

Could you elaborate a bit, please? Are you asking why do people equate powerful fighters with "anime" swordsmen?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-09, 07:04 PM
Three words (Obvious trope): ToB. And just because of one stupid line in the introduction, and the retarded belief that you have to yell out your attacks when you execute them, pretty much.

If that was the question.

Grey Paladin
2008-03-09, 07:10 PM
I have stated that the reason that Spellcasters are overpowered (and that D&D is hypocritical) is our refusal to advance them like we advance Warriors- you can either raise Warriors to mythical levels of power or reduce Wizards to Low Fantasy to restore both inner realism and crunchy balance.

What is 'anime' about that?

I can assure you mountain cleaving lake drinking Warriors existed long before Bambi(Father of anime), ditto for Low Fantasy.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-09, 07:13 PM
Bambi = anime.

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/549290/2/istockphoto_549290_purple_elephant_w_paths.jpg

EVERYTHING IS RUINED FOREVER!

Grey Paladin
2008-03-09, 07:18 PM
I delight in shattering childhoods :smallbiggrin:
(seriously, look it up)

kemmotar
2008-03-09, 07:24 PM
Well...comparing or making D&D into anime like bleach, naruto, dragonball and other flashy combat anime would certainly be a bad thing. IMHO fighters might need styles which they can master and use increasingly well. Pretty much like the shadowcaster(or whatever he was called in faerun). You can master a variety of paths or follow few of them to more powerful techniques. Most fighter builds are an assortment of unrelated feats which you make into a patchwork of abilties. some times you can match many things into a single powerful path but that is not the case most of the time.

By giving a fighter 20 feats you give him the choice to follow any path he wants, problem is there are very few feat trees that are both useful to complete and are long enough to both define your character and personalize him. Everyone gets the basics, power attack, cleave, etc. You can choose whether you use two weapons, what kind of weapon, what armor etc, but you don't really have a large amount of specialization and personalization unless you really exert yourself in the exercise and then you might be useless in a number of encounters. Whereas spellcasters have a large assortment of spells which they can choose and use. Spells to complement them, feats to make more powerful the casting of specific spells, boost a school or increase the effect of spells. Then they can choose PrCs with uber powers and can do pretty much anything they want, in their own personal idiom and destroy a mountain or two while they're at it coz they got bored. That's magic.

However, fighters(of all kinds) should be the opposite, they may be unable to destroy mountains but they should each be the best(by level 20) in their style. The heavilly armoroued hammer wielding paladin/warrior should be able to shrug off the worst attacks as if they were nothing, use sheer will to shrug off mindcontrolling spells. Whereas quicker kind should be able to more around, confuse the enemy, strike weak spots, dodge spells(even spells that don't recquire attack rolls, it should be very difficult to actually target someone constantly moving around you, not just declare that he must make a will save...). Rogue/assassin types should be able to foil the most complex divination spells to reach their target, with minds and bodies as slippery as eels. Now all a wizard needs to do is select the opponent's bad save, cast a save or suck spell targeting the save and make them ineffectual. A wizard with contingeny and foresight can do the above without the assassin actually being aware of the fact that the wizard knows about it. At level 20 nobody can fight a wizard...except another wizard...the only fights that can happen are between the rest of the classes(not including druid and cleric...)

I hate playing casters for exactly this reason, it's not really a challenge and i get bored even before character creation...whereas fighting types are more challenging...though that doesn't mean it's always fun getting upstaged by the caster...i think ToB was in the right direction though there should be a bit more personalization. I think that is the direction for them in 4E though i'm not sure...i'll wait till it finally comes out and see what it's all about...in the meanwhile, unless you homebrew something, 3.5 isn't getting any official fixes...so our only hope is that 4E will fix a few things...

Grey Paladin
2008-03-09, 07:46 PM
Kemmotar: I am working on a Fighter homebrew that fits the concept of any highly trained Warrior, it uses mudane (AKA no Fire) homebrewed manuvers and my old Force of Will ability.

My one problem with it is that it is incapable of representing weak minded brutes or undisciplined barbarians . .

Rutee
2008-03-09, 07:48 PM
What precisely is the problem with making flashy combat for fighters possible? This seems to be a semi-common complaint.

Orzel
2008-03-09, 07:55 PM
A powerful warrior should be equal to a "monster". A giant, a troll, a dinosaur. Some scary beast that kill whatever it hits unless you are also a beast or magically shielded. A 10th level martial character would be a monstrous humanoid minus the horns, claws, hooves,and wings. They would slowly gain the attributes of natural animals. A deer's speed, elephant strength, bat's hearing etc. All the freakish movie hero/villian stuff. If a fighter attacks you and you aren't an equal or higher level fighter, you die or divine intervention kicks in. When the town guard surrounds him at the diner, he can chuck his orange in the captain's eye and knocks the sap unconscious. Then he KOs the rest with his spoon and bacon.

But D&D puts the reality chains on them hard. When my fighter breaks off a doorknob and beats someone with it.... it's not considered a save or die.

Grey Paladin
2008-03-09, 07:58 PM
Orzel: Agreed on becoming a 'monster'/army slaying, disagreed on Save or Die w/ doorknob

Rutee, If you are refering to me:
In my opinion- nothing, I've just figured that given the fact Core Fighters are utterly un-flashy and ToB fighters are neon wizards with swords I'd write a middle-ground class for these that would like to strike a balance between(/Fighters and Wizards) the two extremes.

Rutee
2008-03-09, 08:01 PM
Nah, not specifically to you. It genuinely seems like a general complaint.

StGlebidiah
2008-03-09, 08:16 PM
I agree a lot with the OP. Spellcasting simply scales a lot more drastically than martial combat.

I correct myself. Spellcasting is better than martial combat. It can kill more people, kill stronger people, protect more people, protect more potently. The only advantage that martial combat has over spellcasting is a subjective one. It's cooler to kill someone with a sword than wave your hand and make him explode. IMHO.

Martial Combat's other advantage (in theory at least, before you start travelling time or between planes or something) is that you can do it as much as you want so long as you're alive. Spells per day is supposed to balance that part, but when you can contingent shift to a plane where a day passes in no time and then come back, it kinda removes the "drawback."

Disdain
2008-03-09, 09:36 PM
What precisely is the problem with making flashy combat for fighters possible? This seems to be a semi-common complaint.

Yeah, seriously. I don't understand that at all. Even if you doubled the number of feats a fighter got, there's still nothing that allows you to jump 100feet in the air, slash a mountain in half and land causing a shockwave to scatter lesser men like twigs. Absolutely nothing. You could kill people better but the most you could do is clear out eight men around you and scare the shat out of everyone.

Furthermore, like people have already pointed out, I take offense to the concept of 'anime-esque' being overtly flashy. Big swords were not a Japanese idea. Had you read the epic poem Beowulf you would know that (and perhaps you did). There is plenty of anime that, again, as people have said, is 100% conventional, and more anime on top of that that isn't necessarily flashy even though the main character is doing something ridiculous like killing 100 men in a single sitting. Case in point, Berserk. Choosing to illustrate your example with a show for adolescents is like me choosing to call all sports bumbling and clumsy by illustrating it with some little league soccer.

All that is besides the point, because D&D doesn't have a particular flavor anyway. Its a system for fantasy roleplaying. I could choose to do it 'anime-style' or I could choose to do it in an extra-irritating fashion (my opinion) by doing steam/mage-punk. Choosing not to make the game balanced on the grounds that it slants it toward a particular 'genre' (not really, its a medium) is a delusion completely in your head, Yogi.

Demented
2008-03-09, 09:52 PM
Could you elaborate a bit, please? Are you asking why do people equate powerful fighters with "anime" swordsmen?

Yes.
Though, I was in somewhat of a hurry since I had just made a long post about character levels in D&D, then realized it was absurdly off-topic and needed to delete it a-prompto.

Hence, I made what was either an undeniably stupid question, or an ambiguously rhetorical one.

After all, it's fairly obvious the entire problem is because nobody ever bothered to tell what kind of combat Odysseus engaged in. Well, they did, but it's kind of difficult to work eye-stabbing and fornication with lesser dieties into a compelling playable base class.

Edit:
As Grey_Paladin also pointed out, there's also a lack of respect for physically-induced save-or-dies. Shoving a doorknob through someone's eye socket is simply not done, unless it's a part of an exotic/mystical maneuver. Sometimes not even then.

Stormcrow
2008-03-09, 10:00 PM
No it isn't. That kind of anime is most commonly seen in America for the same reason action movies do better in foreign countries; violence is a universal language. If you don't understand a word the characters are saying, The Matrix or Equilibrium is more interesting than a more dialog heavy film, and subtitles, depending on the translator, can be little better than having no subtitles at all. There's a reason the original Godzilla did so well; it doesn't take much to understand a gigantic lizard stomping on a city. Had it been more dialog and language based, it might have failed.


It does not compose the majority of anime overall, however. Just a lot of it which Westerners are exposed to, and that's slowly changing as more and more anime flows in.

Alright. Firstly, I'm Australian, not American.
Secondly, I watch my anime In Japanese.
Thirdly, I largely buy my anime without the _ability_ to watch it in english.

The problem here is not "bad" anime so much as it's good anime. Let me explain so you don't feel the need to flame me. Yes there are anime films of each and ever genre, but each and every genre doesn't influence Dungeons and Dragons. Pretty much action, adventure, comedy and fantasy. To be very narrow in scope.

The problem isn't your Dragon Ball Z's, Naruto's, One Peices and Bleach's. The problem is Akira, the problem is Trigun, the problem is anime where not only are the characters very powerful but also plausible.

They are "realistic" in a way that the others arent. I love anime, I love D&D but I want to keep them seperate. I don't watch "violent westerner anime" but there is a trend stemming from as you said the folklore of most nations for the protagonist to be special. In the majority of films across all mediums I have seem coming from the "east" the key characters are significantly more special than the people around them. In reasonable, understandable ways.

Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to keep my D&D in a 500AD setting or so.

Neon Knight
2008-03-09, 10:34 PM
Alright. Firstly, I'm Australian, not American.
Secondly, I watch my anime In Japanese.
Thirdly, I largely buy my anime without the _ability_ to watch it in english.


I hope you'll accept my apologies for not reading you location. I use American references because its all I have to offer; I'm aware that manga is popular in France, due to the aforementioned decades of thriving French and Belgium comics culture, but beyond that I don't have a clue. The subtitle and language comments were to explain the "action movies do good in foreign countries" spiel and were not in any way directed against you. If I've caused any offense I'm sorry.



The problem here is not "bad" anime so much as it's good anime. Let me explain so you don't feel the need to flame me. Yes there are anime films of each and ever genre, but each and every genre doesn't influence Dungeons and Dragons. Pretty much action, adventure, comedy and fantasy. To be very narrow in scope.


Well, I'm the kinda guy who would try to run a film noir esque game in DnD, so maybe this is just me, but I think all genres and, theoretically, all media can affect DnD. Of course, I use DnD for everything out of sheer laziness and familiarity with the system. If you're an individual that uses DnD for a specific genre and nothing else, then I feel you are justified in your desire to keep those media influences out of DnD.



The problem isn't your Dragon Ball Z's, Naruto's, One Peices and Bleach's. The problem is Akira, the problem is Trigun, the problem is anime where not only are the characters very powerful but also plausible.

They are "realistic" in a way that the others arent. I love anime, I love D&D but I want to keep them seperate. I don't watch "violent westerner anime" but there is a trend stemming from as you said the folklore of most nations for the protagonist to be special. In the majority of films across all mediums I have seem coming from the "east" the key characters are significantly more special than the people around them. In reasonable, understandable ways.


Well, the majority of people I know in real life watch Naruto. Some of them have watched stuff like Trigun, but the popularity of Naruto is much greater; they have large discussions on the bus about what are effectively filler episodes.

I would expect the proliferation of Naruto/DBZ etc. popularity would make it the source of the problem, and most of the people who oppose "anime" influence cite these programs as exemplars of what they despise. Your problem may be a bit more individual than theirs, and I may have accidentally lumped you in with them or at least assumed you shared similar views. I apologize once again.



Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to keep my D&D in a 500AD setting or so.

I use DnD differently, as I've stated. I think everyone uses DnD differently.

On a note of curiosity, 500 A.D. is the Dark ages. Do you literally make everything in the game conform to the time period (i.e. no plate armor, little writing, etc.) or is it merely a dark ages economic and political structure?

Stormcrow
2008-03-09, 11:24 PM
The people who write are usually monks and clerics and some landed fighters and paladins. It mosty comes across in the unstable political structure and the power of the religious sects.

There is very minimal platemaile at this point. I use 500AD in this post more loosely as an attempt so show the flavour. I have a campaign setting in the works that spans cultures and settings across history so I can understand and respect using D&D differently.

The reason I moved beyond the Naruto's and DBZ's is because I think that a DM can look at that, and look at the player's request and see it for what it is. With deeper more insightful anime, with the plausible explainations and biographical explanation it blurs the line and makes it seem reasonable.

Artemician
2008-03-10, 02:12 AM
Stormcrow:

What does anime bring to the table exactly? High Powered, yet plausible Warriors? Those have existed since the days of Cuchullain, Arthur, Achilles, Sundiata and Hung Tuah.

If you want to game in a low-power setting, that's fine. But Anime has not upped the power scales any more than what is already rampant in ancient legends.

Rutee
2008-03-10, 02:16 AM
Artemician voices my concerns succinctly. Why are we arguing about anime? It's really not that germane to the conversation, it seems like. We're talking about the flashiness of melee, right? Did I mess up the topic and get it wrong?

Matthew
2008-03-10, 06:19 AM
Stormcrow:

What does anime bring to the table exactly? High Powered, yet plausible Warriors? Those have existed since the days of Cuchullain, Arthur, Achilles, Sundiata and Hung Tuah.

If you want to game in a low-power setting, that's fine. But Anime has not upped the power scales any more than what is already rampant in ancient legends.

My guess is that the tendency in western analysis is to 'play down' the crazier things that happen in legends and literature. Certainly, I have read many medieval chronicles that do just that on adapting legendary material. A common statement is "I do not know the truth of this, but I found it written that blah, blah, blah." Otherwise, the text itself is modified in some way. Many times 'amazing things' are treated by scholars as metaphors or exaggerations that are understood by the audience to not be literal renderings of events. For instance, the spear of Richard Couer de Lyon in the Middle English account of his life is described thus:

"He bare a shafte that was grete and stronge,
It was fourtene fote long;
And it was bothe grete and stoute,
One and twenty inches aboute."

That's patently 'crazy talk' and doesn't make a lick of sense in the relatively 'realistic' context of the poem, but that's what it says.

Subject matter rendered in anime, however, has a tendency to accept at face value or exaggerate already legendary events. Partly, this is because anime is a medium that allows the artist a much greater freedom of depiction than live action film, but mainly exaggeration of physical actions seems to be the convention and it's certainly prominant in popular culture just at the moment, which makes it easily identifiable.

To be clear, I couldn't care less how other people want to imagine their games, but I think it is worth trying to understand why anime is associated with outlandish physical events at the moment (and to be fair, Hollywood action films like Rambo II or Commando were doing much the same thing long before anime was introduced to the west).

Deepblue706
2008-03-10, 09:49 AM
*stuff*

Yeah, pretty much agree with all of that. I haven't actually ever seen Commando or Rambo II (or any Rambo, actually) before, but I would imagine, like most movies about super-tough soldiers running through jungles, that the hero is more often really, really tough than outlandishly physical able, in general. Are these movies really that outlandish?

I believe many people may make the association of crazy-powerful swordfighting ability, etc, with anime simply because It's absent in many other facets of the media. Action movies in America often show the hero dealing with pretty much anything other than being shot in the heart or head. And then, when they go after the bad guy and his lackeys, they're all just poor shots. The hero, himself, rarely does flashy acrobatics.

Let's take a look at a popular action movie like Die Hard. I loved that movie (and the third one - hated the others, tho). John McClaine might not be too realistic a hero, but he didn't do backflips, and he wasn't a master of Gun Fu. He didn't have any artistic approach to killing bad guys. He just did it (and occassionally delivered a funny line). He got shot, he got beat up, he had to do a bunch of crazy stunts that probably shouldn't have worked - but he even recognized that as he was doing them. Half of the movie was Bruce Willis shouting obscenities as he desperately ran around as his character was trying not to die. He was highly cinematic because he was able to take a lot of punishment, but that's more subtle than a lot of the mainstream anime shows display their heroes doing.

People forget about exactly how many punches John McClaine takes to the face. But, they know what a punch is, and that taking one can hurt. However, most aren't sure enough of where one reaches "too many hits", because most haven't been in those kind of fights, and thus a certain level of violence against the protagonist in this manner is deemed acceptable, and somewhat realistic.

However, people don't forget when characters start doing something people can't ever hope to do a single time. A fair amount of popular anime stands out in this regard - which is why things like ToB abilities are associated with anime. I mean, doesn't ToB have an ability that makes flames spout from the tip of your sword, or something? Frankly, I would be tempted to call that anime - but apparently, it's Wu Shu, or something (maybe I'm mistaken). I really never had any desire to look further than that, because regardless, my opinion holds it's dumb, and that's all I really care to know. Which is how a lot of people feel about things they find distasteful.

Neon Knight
2008-03-10, 06:13 PM
I haven't actually ever seen Commando or Rambo II (or any Rambo, actually) before, but I would imagine, like most movies about super-tough soldiers running through jungles, that the hero is more often really, really tough than outlandishly physical able, in general. Are these movies really that outlandish?

Rambo II featured arrows that, while possessing only slightly larger than normal arrowheads, were somehow packed with enough explosive material to turn a man into a meat fountain.

I don't remember too much about Commando. I think Arnie ended up killing his opponent by shoving a lead pipe through him. Improvised Weapon Specialization for the win!

A better example in my mind is Predator. If you have any idea of the actual physics involved with mini-guns you would realize that using them as personal weapons, heck even as crewed weapons, and to some degree as land vehicle based weapons is a very, very inefficient idea and for the most part physically impossible (for personal weapon use, anyway.)



I believe many people may make the association of crazy-powerful swordfighting ability, etc, with anime simply because It's absent in many other facets of the media. Action movies in America often show the hero dealing with pretty much anything other than being shot in the heart or head. And then, when they go after the bad guy and his lackeys, they're all just poor shots. The hero, himself, rarely does flashy acrobatics.


I feel this is actually due to the fact that special effects technology wasn't up to the task of portraying these things in live action movies until very recently, and there are still limits on what you can achieve with CGI.

The limit of drawn art is the artists talent and imagination.



However, people don't forget when characters start doing something people can't ever hope to do a single time. A fair amount of popular anime stands out in this regard - which is why things like ToB abilities are associated with anime. I mean, doesn't ToB have an ability that makes flames spout from the tip of your sword, or something? Frankly, I would be tempted to call that anime - but apparently, it's Wu Shu, or something (maybe I'm mistaken). I really never had any desire to look further than that, because regardless, my opinion holds it's dumb, and that's all I really care to know. Which is how a lot of people feel about things they find distasteful.

Wuxia is the term I see used most. Wu Shu seems to refer to a specific martial art. Although it has many names; sometimes I've heard it referred to as Wire Fu. And I always forget it. I've watched so many movies the only two I can remember are Enter the Dragon and Hero. (Man, do I love Hero.) In other words, I've become acclimated to it. Just as you have become acclimated to people taking tons of punches and suffering no ill effects.

I've always questioned that line of thinking in the last sentence. If all you have is your perception that it is dumb, how can you trust that without concrete evidence to back that perception up?

For example, that ToB ability is limited to one class form the book, the Swordsage, whose fluff basically states that he is a blade mage. Alright, it doesn't outright say it, but everything about it is quasi-mystical. Those flame blade maneuvers? Labeled as supernatural abilities. Don't work in Anti-Magic fields. Magic in everything but name. The Swordsage is essentially a gish. The Crusader is essentially a divine gish. They're both almost exclusively limited to melee, and don't posses the super magic of Wizards, but they do overtly supernatural things, and their fluff implies divine and arcane magical use.

Warblades, on the other hand, are basically Fighters. Fighters that don't suck, but they do nothing a Fighter of equivalent level couldn't do (alright, alright, there are a few isolated maneuvers, but they constitute less than 10% of the total available to a Warblade.)

But you don't know that. Because of something you've heard, because of a perception, you reject the entire book, including a large amount of material that wouldn't offend your sensibilities in the slightest.

I don't care how many people so this, its wrong. I don't agree with or like objectivism, but I don't blacklist objectivist literature and arguments. I seek to understand the opposition, to understand what I dislike.

horseboy
2008-03-10, 09:50 PM
You know what? I'm going to try and start a new meme. Fighters aren't broken, weapons are. What's the core problem? After around 5thish level a fighter's weapon stops being effective. Meanwhile the wizard always has a level appropriate spell that will take care of the combat, which is what the Fighter is supposed to be doing.
Their extra attacks are supposed to make up for it, but because they require that they stand perfectly still to get them, that doesn't come about realistically often enough.
So either weapons need to be effective at every level or, at the very least, a fighter needs to be able to make his weapon effective at any level.

Deepblue706
2008-03-10, 10:06 PM
I've always questioned that line of thinking in the last sentence. If all you have is your perception that it is dumb, how can you trust that without concrete evidence to back that perception up?

Actually, I was just making a point. I really don't think it's *dumb*, but I personally don't find the aesthetics of what I know to be imposible too appealing. For instance, I didn't imagine a mini gun being an easy weapon to use, but I figured if you're a "Sexual Tyrannosaurus" like Jesse Ventura, then it's no big deal.



For example, that ToB ability is limited to one class form the book, the Swordsage, whose fluff basically states that he is a blade mage. Alright, it doesn't outright say it, but everything about it is quasi-mystical. Those flame blade maneuvers? Labeled as supernatural abilities. Don't work in Anti-Magic fields. Magic in everything but name. The Swordsage is essentially a gish. The Crusader is essentially a divine gish. They're both almost exclusively limited to melee, and don't posses the super magic of Wizards, but they do overtly supernatural things, and their fluff implies divine and arcane magical use.

Yeah, that seems like the deal. I really just don't like the aesthetical approach because, while it implies the use of magic, the applications appear so restrictive that I wouldn't get what I want out of what is provided.



Warblades, on the other hand, are basically Fighters. Fighters that don't suck, but they do nothing a Fighter of equivalent level couldn't do (alright, alright, there are a few isolated maneuvers, but they constitute less than 10% of the total available to a Warblade.)

However, the class name Fighter sounds better to me than Warblade. Plus, I like the extensive modularity of the Fighter.



But you don't know that. Because of something you've heard, because of a perception, you reject the entire book, including a large amount of material that wouldn't offend your sensibilities in the slightest.

Actually, I have checked out the book - I think it's an okay way to boost martial classes, but I just dislike the feel of it. It doesn't offend me as much as I might make you think, it's just that much found in ToB is not in the style I find most appealing.



I don't care how many people so this, its wrong. I don't agree with or like objectivism, but I don't blacklist objectivist literature and arguments. I seek to understand the opposition, to understand what I dislike.

That's certainly high of you.

Neon Knight
2008-03-10, 10:11 PM
Whoops. :smallredface: I'm sorry I misinterpreted you on that.



That's certainly high of you.

I'm not going to pretend that it makes me better, or that I truly understand the opposition's position, or that it changes my opinion, or that I examine the material 100% free of any bias.

All it really does is show that I at least tried to understand both sides of the issue. I don't think it makes me morally or intellectually superior; I just feel I understand the issue overall better than someone who only exposed themselves to one side of the issue.

I see I made a grave error in assuming you fell into the latter category, and beg your apologies.

Deepblue706
2008-03-10, 10:28 PM
Whoops. :smallredface: I'm sorry I misinterpreted you on that.

I'm not going to pretend that it makes me better, or that I truly understand the opposition's position, or that it changes my opinion, or that I examine the material 100% free of any bias.

All it really does is show that I at least tried to understand both sides of the issue. I don't think it makes me morally or intellectually superior; I just feel I understand the issue overall better than someone who only exposed themselves to one side of the issue.

I see I made a grave error in assuming you fell into the latter category, and beg your apologies.

Well, I was purposefully being vague just to confuse people. So, no worries.

Stormcrow
2008-03-10, 11:06 PM
You know what? I'm going to try and start a new meme. Fighters aren't broken, weapons are. What's the core problem? After around 5thish level a fighter's weapon stops being effective. Meanwhile the wizard always has a level appropriate spell that will take care of the combat, which is what the Fighter is supposed to be doing.
Their extra attacks are supposed to make up for it, but because they require that they stand perfectly still to get them, that doesn't come about realistically often enough.
So either weapons need to be effective at every level or, at the very least, a fighter needs to be able to make his weapon effective at any level.

4E has you covered Mearls and Noonan revealed in the most recent podcast that a fighter's weapon damage scales with level.

Blanks
2008-03-11, 06:00 AM
Yeah, pretty much agree with all of that. I haven't actually ever seen Commando or Rambo II (or any Rambo, actually) before, but I would imagine, like most movies about super-tough soldiers running through jungles, that the hero is more often really, really tough than outlandishly physical able, in general. Are these movies really that outlandish?

Being a reader of www.fark.com (weird news from around the world), I have read my share of tales of physical prowess.

The editors there are especially fond of people with nicknames. Whenever you read a headline about someone with a nickname, you KNOW the article is going to contain badassery.

1)
4 men invade chinese tea shop in Italy, tie up 50 year old chinese traditional "medicine man" and 2 ladies. Can't find cash so they threaten to rape the 2 women. After which this dude firstname "The Doctor" lastname, breaks free of the ropes, kills 2 of the men in the shop, kills one in the streets while they are fleeing and leaving the last one to escape with a gaping wound.
(4 armed men, 1 "The Doctor" who is tied up)

2)
An icelandic fishing ship captain is cleaning his ship in a port when someone falls into the water and is attacked by a shark. Stupid shark, stay clear of people nicknamed "The Iceman"...
The captain hops into the water AND DRAGS THE SHARK ONTO DRY GROUND and kills it.
(1 shark in water, 1 old geezer)

my point:
I am on the "realism please" team, but sometimes people do stuff that just seems ... magical for lack of a better word.

Grey Paladin
2008-03-11, 06:24 AM
Assuming that we have hit the limit of the human body(&/brain) is what's unrealistic. (Mind you, I don't believe humans will ever be able to slash mountains in half, but I have little doubt that we haven't even touched the tip of what we are capable of)

Roderick_BR
2008-03-11, 08:27 AM
You know, that's quite right. In D&D, level 4 or 5 is the limit of "normal" beings, with anything above being super-human in nature, but some classes lack good options for high level. Fighters, in this case, just lack good feats.
Something I was thinking was to take some epic feats, and turn them into normal feats. This idea is based on some things I saw around: The "tiers" in 4e, that maximum 6th level game idea (don't remember the name now), and how some epic level feats are lame.
One very basic idea I had, with critical hits: make Improved Critical have a bab +6 requisite (now even a 6th level warrior can have it), grab the Overwhelming Critical and make it non-epic, with a bab +12, Str 15 or something, and requiring only Power Attack and Improved Critical as requisite feats. Then, make the Devastating Critical available as a non epic feat, with a bab+18, Improved Critical, Power Attack, Overwhelming Critical, Cleave, and a Str 19+.
I don't think anyone will find this broken compared to what a wizard can do, and would fit the "slicing a mountain in half" feel a high level fighter could give it's player.
Actually, now I'm going to write some new stuff at my lunch break. (has been awfully busy with work... fortunately I'll get some days off soon)

Yahzi
2008-03-12, 12:14 AM
Assuming that we have hit the limit of the human body(&/brain) is what's unrealistic. (Mind you, I don't believe humans will ever be able to slash mountains in half, but I have little doubt that we haven't even touched the tip of what we are capable of)
A hundred years of Olympic records suggests the limit isn't all that far away.

Demented
2008-03-12, 04:37 AM
We could breed better humans. It's just that nobody wants to do it. There's not a particularly good stock anymore either.

Failing that, there's always genome modification and steroids. :smalltongue:

Grey Paladin
2008-03-12, 10:21 AM
/*
* What limits the body is our lack of capability to actualy use our brain properly
*/

qube
2008-03-12, 11:12 AM
It is not a genre. Sure, you get really bad stuff like Naruto with very few redeeming qualities whatsoever, but not all Anime is like that. Watch some actually good Anime. Watch the first episode of Cowboy Bebop, or maybe Death Note if you can find it subtitled.when people say, "anime" they sometimes mean stuff like the sub-section Shonen (sorry for the spelling - Naruto, Bleach, DBZ, ...). Get used to it, and don't get a fuss.

Cowboy Bebob btw isn't much better: the guy gets shot at a more then a dozen times, but almost never gets hit ...

I on the other hand, would like 2 classes:

- the 'anime' warrior: one that can do that the anime/shonen stuff
It's fun to run around with a big fragging sword, jump from building to building, crush entire mountains with a single hit of my 5ft blade, and unleash chaos as I strike -what seems for me- motionless men.

- the 'realistic' warrior: plain and simple. Gimli in action: armor, shield and axe. "The guy in front of me gets hit by the axe. the second guy gets shield bashed, the third guy gets the axe again. the forth and fifth get bullrushed into some spike or wall, the sixth runs away, the seventh gets the axe again, and I throw the axe in the sixths back; I draw my warhammer while shieldbashing the eigth, and crush the ninths head. I let the tenth run away in fear, while I get my axe from some guys back. "

Artemician
2008-03-12, 11:39 AM
I on the other hand, would like 2 classes:

- the 'anime' warrior: one that can do that the anime/shonen stuff
It's fun to run around with a big fragging sword, jump from building to building, crush entire mountains with a single hit of my 5ft blade, and unleash chaos as I strike -what seems for me- motionless men.

- the 'realistic' warrior: plain and simple. Gimli in action: armor, shield and axe. "The guy in front of me gets hit by the axe. the second guy gets shield bashed, the third guy gets the axe again. the forth and fifth get bullrushed into some spike or wall, the sixth runs away, the seventh gets the axe again, and I throw the axe in the sixths back; I draw my warhammer while shieldbashing the eigth, and crush the ninths head. I let the tenth run away in fear, while I get my axe from some guys back. "

I want the third class!

- the archetypal warrior: spawned right from the loins of various hero myths: Cuchulain and Hang Tuah in action. I'm so manly, it spills out of my very skin. I can slice through rock chunks with a single blow, impale people's brains using my trusty javelin from a great distance, mud(ice)-wrestle polar bears, scream so loud that stones crack, keep fighting for days and nights without sleep, have arrows break on my rock-hard skin, and all the while I want to look damn manly while doing it.

Deepblue706
2008-03-12, 12:47 PM
I want the third class!

- the archetypal warrior: spawned right from the loins of various hero myths: Cuchulain and Hang Tuah in action. I'm so manly, it spills out of my very skin. I can slice through rock chunks with a single blow, impale people's brains using my trusty javelin from a great distance, mud(ice)-wrestle polar bears, scream so loud that stones crack, keep fighting for days and nights without sleep, have arrows break on my rock-hard skin, and all the while I want to look damn manly while doing it.

I want a fourth:

- the mortal warrior: birthed from a very real world where death is highly possible, and where heroes are made, not born. People like William Wallace (as portrayed in Braveheart) or characters like Conan the Barbarian (I refer to the movie). They don't defeat every foe alone, and sometimes even fail - but they still show they're more badass than the rest through guts and determination (occassionally accompanied by some wit and dumb luck). While capable of great things, they come face to face with their own mortality on a regular basis, and sometimes they do even die. They deal with the limitations of being human, suck it up, and kick ass until either they or their enemies are dead.

And I want this hero to be able to stand up and fight well at all levels because of badassery, not because of Super FireSword Technique 33 and 1/3.

Rutee
2008-03-12, 12:58 PM
I want a fourth:

- the mortal warrior: birthed from a very real world where death is highly possible, and where heroes are made, not born. People like William Wallace (as portrayed in Braveheart) or characters like Conan the Barbarian (I refer to the movie). They don't defeat every foe alone, and sometimes even fail - but they still show they're more badass than the rest through guts and determination (occassionally accompanied by some wit and dumb luck). While capable of great things, they come face to face with their own mortality on a regular basis, and sometimes they do even die. They deal with the limitations of being human, suck it up, and kick ass until either they or their enemies are dead.

And I want this hero to be able to stand up and fight well at all levels because of badassery, not because of Super FireSword Technique 33 and 1/3.

You have a fundamental problem then. You can not stick to human limits and kick ass in DnD. It's functionally impossible.

Grey Paladin
2008-03-12, 01:07 PM
You have a fundamental problem then. You can not stick to human limits and kick ass in DnD. It's functionally impossible.

I should just stop posting, Rutee perfectly summarizes my points with one-liners.

Rutee
2008-03-12, 01:24 PM
It's funny because the thought occurred to me that I need to expand on that a bit. Namely.. Even I don't think you should be able to stick to human limits and trump magic. I think you should be able to transcend the physically possible without the study of magic, sure, but as long as magic is breaking human limits (Some would argue that it's the entire point to magic), you can't stick to them and still expect any semblance of usefulness next to people who don't.

nagora
2008-03-12, 01:59 PM
You have a fundamental problem then. You can not stick to human limits and kick ass in DnD. It's functionally impossible.

You can if you keep the opponents at human levels. No giants, trolls, dragons, etc.

Not very interesting and well outside the original scope of the game, but I think you could do it.

Noble Savant
2008-03-12, 02:39 PM
People, I don't think you really understand this. This whole "gritty realistic hero" idea is still in the system Grey is suggesting. As he said in the first post, the low level fighters (1-3 mainly) are those warriors. Anything above that is already quite special. Above 8th level the fighter should be doing feats you expect to see from specialists in the Olympics at the very least.

If you aren't happy with this idea, then you need to fix everything to fit this logic. People seem to have an aversion to making magic "realistic" because it is already inherently unrealistic. That shouldn't matter though; a wizard and a fighter of equal level should be just as powerful. At 8th level they should both either be: the standard not so special people, with powerful but not especially horrendous abilities; or they should be legendary heroes, capable of feats far beyond the ken of the common man.

It is up to the person who runs the game; just make sure to balance it.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-12, 02:56 PM
Cowboy Bebob btw isn't much better: the guy gets shot at a more then a dozen times, but almost never gets hit ...

Gotta jump in and disagree with you here. CB is one of the more realistic anime's out there. Spike (and Spike almost universally alone) can dodge bullets and pull off a lot of badass stuff because he is packing cyberware. If you are familiar with Shadowrun and/or Cyberpunk, he is packing Wired Reflexes and at least one Cybereye. Most of the people he fights are unaugmented humans, or as is the case in the first episode, a guy using combat drugs. The fights with augmented people, he gets beat up, shot and otherwise wounded.

Jet gets shot a lot, but usually he blocks the shot with his cyberlimb.

Faye typically avoids fights, surrenders or otherwise uses he CHA based skills to deal with situation.

finally, Ed usually avoids physical combat altogether.

The people that give Spike a real run for his money in CB are Vicious and various other augmented or highly trained enemies. Even standard mooks though get lucky shots in and can wound him, it is just that he is a smart opponent uses cover and range to protect himself.

Cuddly
2008-03-12, 03:03 PM
Either fighter needs to be scaled up to wizards (turning armies to pulp, smashing mountains, etc) or wizards scaled down to fighters. Maybe give them spell advancement as the adept (same selection, except it tops at 6th level spells at 17th level).

Deepblue706
2008-03-12, 03:12 PM
You have a fundamental problem then. You can not stick to human limits and kick ass in DnD. It's functionally impossible.

Yes, I know. The system plainly isn't built that way. It's pretty much why I prefer GURPS - which can support grim and gritty games to high cinema fantasy to superheroes. I think D&D would be better off if it would be similarly modular.

Rutee
2008-03-12, 03:17 PM
It.. kind of sort of is. There's like.. 3 or 4 levels of it, and E6. But no, in general, DnD just isn't meant to be real and gritty. That's why there are no penalties for wounds.

Deepblue706
2008-03-12, 03:17 PM
It's funny because the thought occurred to me that I need to expand on that a bit. Namely.. Even I don't think you should be able to stick to human limits and trump magic. I think you should be able to transcend the physically possible without the study of magic, sure, but as long as magic is breaking human limits (Some would argue that it's the entire point to magic), you can't stick to them and still expect any semblance of usefulness next to people who don't.

Well, I certainly don't feel magic shouldn't go beyond the bounds of normal people - but I'm in the camp who feels things like System Shock and Spell Failure/Mishaps aren't actually a bad idea for your higher arcana. It becomes less of an issue of "What's the most effective spell against this foe" and more of "What can I do without damaging the fabric of space and time" or "What doesn't damn the souls of myself or my friends". Not only do I see this as a good concept for game balance, but I find it more inherently interesting on a fluff level, as well.

Deepblue706
2008-03-12, 03:24 PM
It.. kind of sort of is. There's like.. 3 or 4 levels of it, and E6. But no, in general, DnD just isn't meant to be real and gritty. That's why there are no penalties for wounds.

Well, the lower levels do work somewhat. Personally, I've never tried E6 - though I've heard it's worth a shot. But, I'm certainly not debating on whether or not D&D was meant to be gritty. And, I don't exactly need it to be "gritty" - but perhaps, I would be happier if it were only slightly less cinematic. Of course, I would not expect the system be formed around that concept; I only wish it were a viable option well-supported by a set of rules.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-03-13, 09:53 AM
I've been wondering how a game set in a standard D&D fantasy world would play out using Mutants & Masterminds. Finally, magic and muscle are equal in game mechanics!

Considering a high-level D&D Wizard is Doctor Strange, I don't see why high-level D&D Fighters couldn't be Thor or the Incredible Hulk.

Tobrian
2008-03-13, 10:04 AM
Four words:
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Blanks
2008-03-13, 03:56 PM
properly buffed (bulls strength and rage) my 8 level barbarian can bench press 1400 pounds. Not the Hulk but not "joe average" either.

Oh, and he isn't optimized in any fashion. Core only, and someday i can do it without the bull strength.

Surely someone on this board could make it into tons he could lift (no need to prove it).

Stormcrow
2008-03-13, 06:50 PM
Can you benchpress in a rage, I thought you couldn't do fine motor actions, maybe that was an earlier version...

Tsotha-lanti
2008-03-14, 01:39 AM
Can you benchpress in a rage, I thought you couldn't do fine motor actions, maybe that was an earlier version...

I'm not sure how lifting things is a "fine motor action" ? The only limitation is using skills or feats that require concentration. You're perfectly free to lift and or throw big things. I've used rage to lift something inordinately heavy before, and it seems like a fine use for it. (Heck, there's a rage feat for smashing doors and other items.)

Koga
2008-03-14, 01:43 AM
@Grey:
However, I don't think martial characters should be able to slice mountains in half - I think that's silly. However, when I say that, I am, by no means, saying Wizards aren't silly already.
Why not? Have you seen one piece? Normal humans like Sanji and Zollo are doing increddible things like kicking down moutains and ****.

Now that's what I call a fighter!

One Piece=Tome of Battle
Naruto=Psionics

Reinboom
2008-03-14, 02:25 AM
Well, I certainly don't feel magic shouldn't go beyond the bounds of normal people - but I'm in the camp who feels things like System Shock and Spell Failure/Mishaps aren't actually a bad idea for your higher arcana. It becomes less of an issue of "What's the most effective spell against this foe" and more of "What can I do without damaging the fabric of space and time" or "What doesn't damn the souls of myself or my friends". Not only do I see this as a good concept for game balance, but I find it more inherently interesting on a fluff level, as well.

The problem with that in games, at least, while I played AD&D...

The spells that gave those 'balancing' negatives? We just never played with.
Wasted book space.
The negatives were too severe to even consider them.

Grey Paladin
2008-03-14, 04:16 AM
Spells with drawbacks tend to be ridiculously abusable- either they are not worth casting(as SweetRein has mentioned) or have a drawback that can be worked around-thus negating it, I recall killing swarms of vermin with Haste by aging them and summoning caoco fiends from orbit.

(I wouldn't call 2E the epitome of balance, by the way, Dig could destroy armies and Phantasmal Killer was Die or Suck most of the time)

Blanks: Good luck penetrating Admantite (supposedly ten times as hard as a diamond) with your steel blade and 'punny' (when compared to a dragon) strength.

Koga: Not helping my case . . . :smalltongue:

Roderick_BR
2008-03-14, 05:15 AM
Why not? Have you seen one piece? Normal humans like Sanji and Zollo are doing increddible things like kicking down moutains and ****.

Now that's what I call a fighter!

One Piece=Tome of Battle
Naruto=Psionics
Correction: Naruto = Spellcasting.
I mean, they "concentrate", focus their energy (chi, mana, whatever), and even need to make the classic hand gestures! Not forgetting that they learn those moves, either from someone else, or from scrolls. Very wizard-ish to me.

And just because I love that game so much, I'm forced to mention God of War. Kratos is clearly some sort of Warblade/Swordsage. Just check the way he fights. Thing is, I think that a regular fighter should be able to do what he does, not specialized classes like the ToB ones.
And yeah, he does carry a pair of artifacts, but even if you give those for a regular fighter, he won't do so well (2 one-handed weapons with reach, probably +5 or higher bonuses with keen and fire burst. You lose the benefit of using either two-handed with Power Attack, and TWF sucks in D&D).

tyckspoon
2008-03-14, 05:29 AM
Good luck penetrating Admantite (supposedly ten times as hard as a diamond) with your steel blade and 'punny' (when compared to a dragon) strength.

Two-handed weapon + high strength + Power Attack for full against an inanimate object, using the option to take a full round action to auto-hit.. level 8 Barbarian can sink 8, doubles to 16, and should have at a minimum +4 damage from Strength bonus. He's breaking the hardness; all of his damage roll and any higher Strength goes to HP. Adamantine isn't all that hard to damage. Harder to make a Sunder attempt against when you don't have the luxury of striking an unattended block, yes, but the D&D rules make it quite easy to cut up a harder substance with a substantially softer one.. primarily because D&D only gives a nod to material hardness in Adamantine's ability to ignore lesser hardness when striking things (but not when being struck.)


Correction: Naruto = Spellcasting.
I mean, they "concentrate", focus their energy (chi, mana, whatever), and even need to make the classic hand gestures! Not forgetting that they learn those moves, either from someone else, or from scrolls. Very wizard-ish to me.

I would design most of them as sorcerers using a spell-points variant. Chakra works a lot more like power points than Vancian spell slots, and with the exception of certain special cases (Naruto Rule 1: Sharingan Cheats.) it's not all that common for people to learn a new jutsu as easily as a Wizard rolling his spellcraft at a scroll. There are also a number of ninja that work really well as PsyWarriors under the self-buff-and-smash-face paradigm. And now let's get back on topic, if anybody can remember what it is.

Blanks
2008-03-14, 06:19 AM
Blanks: Good luck penetrating Admantite (supposedly ten times as hard as a diamond) with your steel blade and 'punny' (when compared to a dragon) strength.
Are we talking fluff or crunch here:

Fluff:
Maruk the barbarian: "Adamantite is hard. Meet my good friend the ˝halfing/˝titan from char-ops, he is a bit stronger than me".
*adamantite runs away crying*

Crunch:
Adamantite gives a good AC as armor, which has got very little to do with strenght, and a lot more to do with level. It gives a +3 enchantment max, which isn't very much after all.
If you want me to smash through a wall of it, I deal (6,5weapon+6str+2rage+2magicaxe+2bullstrenght+8pow erattack)=26 damage pr. hit
2 hits a round means i go through an inch in 6 seconds :smallcool:

Probably messed up the math a bit, but you see my point i am sure :)

EDIT:
Ninjas helping me - sweet :)

Grey Paladin
2008-03-14, 07:38 AM
Fluff, and a Halfing/Titan doesn't fits this kind of arguments :smalltongue:

Tsotha-lanti
2008-03-14, 07:52 AM
Crunch:
Adamantite gives a good AC as armor, which has got very little to do with strenght, and a lot more to do with level. It gives a +3 enchantment max, which isn't very much after all.
If you want me to smash through a wall of it, I deal (6,5weapon+6str+2rage+2magicaxe+2bullstrenght+8pow erattack)=26 damage pr. hit
2 hits a round means i go through an inch in 6 seconds :smallcool:

That's not even remotely how the rules work? Adamantine armor has no enhancement bonus in 3.5, it gives you DR; and it has "40 hit points per inch of thickness and hardness 20" (as per the SRD/DMG).

A wall of it is pretty tough to hack through. It also ignores any DR lower than 20 when used as a weapon, but unfortunately D&D has no rules for breaking your weapons when trying to smash things.

Blanks
2008-03-14, 08:17 AM
That's not even remotely how the rules work? Adamantine armor has no enhancement bonus in 3.5, it gives you DR; and it has "40 hit points per inch of thickness and hardness 20" (as per the SRD/DMG).

A wall of it is pretty tough to hack through. It also ignores any DR lower than 20 when used as a weapon, but unfortunately D&D has no rules for breaking your weapons when trying to smash things.

Ah, sorry there, im using 3.0. I was just hoping it had not changed too much.

DR is the same though. depending upon my aim (powerattack) i will deal 6 damage to him for each hit. And my character isn't optimized in any way and only level 8.

Blanks
2008-03-14, 08:26 AM
Fluff, and a Halfing/Titan doesn't fits this kind of arguments :smalltongue:

But it did really sound like something they would come up with if asked to max strength.

Its never just dwarf or halforc or something. Its always "halfgiant/halfgnome of dragonblood and celestial demonthingie with a slice of lemon on top"...


So if you are talking fluff, we just need to maximize crunch to make the crunch follow the fluff :)

I leave that to someone who have memorized the entire SRD :smallredface:

Khoray
2008-03-14, 03:12 PM
On a somewhat related notes, D&D monks should be much stronger, based on the rule of 6; William Cheung, a real person, would get so many more attacks per round than a level 20 monk in flurry that it's not even funny. He's been recorded to have punched eight times, at full force, in one second. That's 48 attacks per round. That should equate with level 6 or so, right? A level 20 monk, thus, should have hundreds of attacks per round. Dragonball Z, and the whiny anti-fan-boys (those who are just as annoying as fanboys in their derision instead of love) who complain about punching a guy that many times being "too anime."

Tsotha-lanti
2008-03-14, 03:31 PM
On a somewhat related notes, D&D monks should be much stronger, based on the rule of 6; William Cheung, a real person, would get so many more attacks per round than a level 20 monk in flurry that it's not even funny.

The number of attacks has nothing to do with the number of attacks. I realize this is blurrier in 3.0 and 3.5 than it was in AD&D (where one round was, what, 1 full minute?), but it's all an abstraction. A single hit by a 1st-level monk could be three fast kicks or a whole 6 seconds of pummeling an opponent. An attack by an unarmed Greater TWFing flurrying 20th-level could consist of a hundred kicks and punches thrown at the opponent.

D&D combat is hugely abstract.

Blanks
2008-03-14, 05:32 PM
He's been recorded to have punched eight times, at full force, in one second.
Was anyone punching him at the time so he had to avoid being hit? Combat isn't the same as record attempts.

Still impressive though :smallcool: