fighters vs mages in fantasy

[Indon]

So why continue arguing with him? Its obvious at this point that no matter the argument he will not change his mind. I still contend that "mundane" fighters/barbarians/whatever can simply be lower leveled than the ones who impossible tasks.

I disagree. I feel that having fundamentally different curves can better reflect consistency of a gimmick (i.e. Spells/Maneuvers are at X level of power at a given level, but combat attacks or Vestiges are at Y at the same level). As both of these classes progress in power, they do so in different ways - the Spell/Maneuver user neccessarily focuses on his gimmick, while someone who has a less powerful gimmick, or none at all, focuses on other aspects of the system. So aside from being flavorfully different, it's mechanically distinct as well.

[Thinker]

I disagree. I feel that having fundamentally different curves can better reflect consistency of a gimmick (i.e. Spells/Maneuvers are at X level of power at a given level, but combat attacks or Vestiges are at Y at the same level). As both of these classes progress in power, they do so in different ways - the Spell/Maneuver user neccessarily focuses on his gimmick, while someone who has a less powerful gimmick, or none at all, focuses on other aspects of the system. So aside from being flavorfully different, it's mechanically distinct as well.

"Swinging a sword really well" only goes so far. Maneuvers reflect various things you can do with a sword (or any weapon).
Level 1 --> Slash
Level 5 --> Double Slash
Level 10 --> Cleave
Level 15 --> Slash with the force to destroy a tree
Level 20 --> Slash with the force to destroy a mountain

This could be an example of one set of abilities. When I refer to the impossible I do not mean magical. I refer to more powerful extensions of previous abilities that would not be possible for a real-life person.

[Oslecamo]

Roland /did/ get his power from his virtue. That's the point. God doesn't intervene for him, even though he fights for God. He's THE Paladin; He doesn't use the version that, after considerable semantic drift, found itself in DnD's book. Seriously guys; This is why you have to divorce "The Definition DnD uses" from "The Definition myth uses".

Except that there are a LOT of myths, but only one 3.5 D&D edition.

The legend of King Artur in particular. It's a very very old story, and as the centuries passed people added more and more stuff to the story make it more impressive.

So what do you call "the definition myth uses"? Can I use any version of the story I want and call it the "definiton"? Then I chose the story where Roland is actually an ordinary human and had a normal sword and wasn't fighting sarracens but actually other christians and nothing impossible hapened, wich is the original one, and was deturped by the years.

And also, I made perfectly clear that not only casters can do impossible things. What I said was that fullcasters can do things even more impossible than noncasters.

So, for example, you give durandal to a fighter and he cleaves mountains.
But you take an high level caster and he creates mountains out of thin air.

Both are impossible things, but the creating the mountain is even more impossible than destroying it.

Remember, everything in D&D is impossible, but there are some things that are more impossible than others.

[Khoray]

If Conan is involved in a power comparison, everyone is week. With his back up against a wall, to prevent flanking, he can kill anything.

[Ascension]

So what do you call "the definition myth uses"? Can I use any version of the story I want and call it the "definiton"? Then I chose the story where Roland is actually an ordinary human and had a normal sword and wasn't fighting sarracens but actually other christians and nothing impossible hapened, wich is the original one, and was deturped by the years.

But really, who would want to even try to model a strict version of reality for melee combatants in the same setting that freely accepts as much supernatural stuff as D&D does? If everybody but the fighter and the rogue is supernatural in some way, why can't they be superhuman too?

There's a reason I'm playing D&D instead of a historical wargame. In fact, I would go so far as to say that no combat-focused RPG can be modeled on strict reality. People are way too fragile to live a considerable length of time unless the bulk of what they're doing isn't combat.

[Dan_Hemmens]

But really, who would want to even try to model a strict version of reality for melee combatants in the same setting that freely accepts as much supernatural stuff as D&D does? If everybody but the fighter and the rogue is supernatural in some way, why can't they be superhuman too?

Because, quite simply, not everybody wants their characters to have "superhuman" abilities in that sense. The problem is modeling "just that good" under the current system without introducing quasi-supernatural powers.

The thing about Conan, for example, is that he wasn't supposed to be superman: swords still cut him, it's just that he was just that good. The problem is that in D&D there's a limit to how "good" they're willing to make you before they assume that you have to have a supernatural power. It's sort of a Catch-22.


There's a reason I'm playing D&D instead of a historical wargame. In fact, I would go so far as to say that no combat-focused RPG can be modeled on strict reality. People are way too fragile to live a considerable length of time unless the bulk of what they're doing isn't combat.

Strict reality, no. Narrative causality, certainly.

There's a big difference between these three ways of describing a character.

1) A master swordsman who has not, yet, been killed by an arrow.
2) A master swordsman who can parry arrows.
3) A master swordsman whose flesh is impervious to arrows.

All three are valid justifications for a character with loads of HP, but the more "Extraordinary" or "Supernatural" abilities you add to a character, the more it winds up having to look like 2 or 3.

[Indon]

"Swinging a sword really well" only goes so far. Maneuvers reflect various things you can do with a sword (or any weapon).
Level 1 --> Slash
Level 5 --> Double Slash
Level 10 --> Cleave
Level 15 --> Slash with the force to destroy a tree
Level 20 --> Slash with the force to destroy a mountain

This could be an example of one set of abilities. When I refer to the impossible I do not mean magical. I refer to more powerful extensions of previous abilities that would not be possible for a real-life person.

Maneuvers reflect various gimmick-oriented things you can do with your weapon.

Rather than having the maneuver-line to destroy progressively more powerful things, just have rules for destroying trees and mountains with the force of your blow (preferably improvements upon Adamantine-Greataxe mining rules).

And rather than the maneuver-line to gain progressively higher DR when you hit, introduce a single feat (or heck, even a combat action) which, Power-Attack-style, allows you to hold back damage from your attack in favor of getting a percent of that damage held back as DR.

These are capabilities that have less prominent or just plain don't use gimmicks. They involve a character utilizing simple mechanics built into his system rather than calling upon unique special abilities.

Edit: Thinker, reading over your post, were you actually at any point disagreeing with me, or trying to work out clarification as to the function of gimmick-based capabilities?

[Oslecamo]

But really, who would want to even try to model a strict version of reality for melee combatants in the same setting that freely accepts as much supernatural stuff as D&D does? If everybody but the fighter and the rogue is supernatural in some way, why can't they be superhuman too?

There's a reason I'm playing D&D instead of a historical wargame. In fact, I would go so far as to say that no combat-focused RPG can be modeled on strict reality. People are way too fragile to live a considerable length of time unless the bulk of what they're doing isn't combat.

And that is one of the beatifull things of D&D. You can have nonmagical, almost mundane warriors and reality twisting mages side by side.

And then there's equipment and prc and multiclassing and whatever you want.

Actually, this reminds me that some of the CO guys at the wotc forums are always stating that class is a completely abstract concept in the game. Nobody forces you to take 20 levels of fighter. If you want more flashy stuff for your myth warrior, by all means pick other classes and prc and magic equipment to compliment it.

So, your fighter 20 is a character as valid as your fighterX/barbarianY/warbladeZ/rogueW where X+Y+Z+W=20.

And still there are people playing single fighters along single wizards out there.

Look here for example in this game diary:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=983447

Being superhuman is a choice of the player, and I greatly respect wotc for giving me that choice, and don't make my character grow a second head and start shooting lasers from his eyes if I don't want to.

[Ascension]

Being superhuman is a choice of the player, and I greatly respect wotc for giving me that choice, and don't make my character grow a second head and start shooting lasers from his eyes if I don't want to.
*Sigh* When did I EVER imply that I want the fighter to be two headed and have eye lasers? I'm not saying that every fighter should be superhuman, I'm saying that high level fighters should be superhuman. Don't get me wrong, I like low-powered play. I generally avoid higher level campaigns for the precise reason that magic starts getting insane at a certain point. I'm just saying that if you're playing a high-level game, everybody should be on more or less the same plane of ridiculousness, the fighter through amazing feats of non-magical physical prowess and the mages by warping the very fabric of reality to suit their fancy.

[horseboy]

And that is one of the beatifull things of D&D. You can have nonmagical, almost mundane warriors and reality twisting mages side by side.And then does it in such an ugly, ugly, ugly coyote ugly way.

[Dan_Hemmens]

*Sigh* When did I EVER imply that I want the fighter to be two headed and have eye lasers? I'm not saying that every fighter should be superhuman, I'm saying that high level fighters should be superhuman. Don't get me wrong, I like low-powered play. I generally avoid higher level campaigns for the precise reason that magic starts getting insane at a certain point. I'm just saying that if you're playing a high-level game, everybody should be on more or less the same plane of ridiculousness, the fighter through amazing feats of non-magical physical prowess and the mages by warping the very fabric of reality to suit their fancy.

The problem is that there's two ways you can do that, one of which won't satisfy you and one of which won't satisfy the people who want fighters to stay "non magical".

Either (1) You can make high level fighters really, really, really tough, but still limited to the laws of physics, so they can dish out huge amounts of damage (which is abstract anyway) on a full attack, but they won't be able to fly or teleport or anything like that. This won't satisfy your desire to put them on a level with Wizards, because Invisible + Flying + Teleportation = Win pretty much no matter what you're up against. (2) You can give them "wuxia" style abilities, so they can walk on air and parry Meteor Swarms with their bare hands or deliver Sneak Attacks against abstract concepts. The people you're arguing with are never going to see these abilities as anything but magical, and that sort of thing just plain doesn't fit into many settings.

The answer basically is to have a "tiered" system of classes, but the problem there is that flavour-wise, the Martial Adepts don't actually fit in that well with the Trad Fantasy Casters, while the Trad Fantasy Casters actually fit thematically alongside the Vanilla Fighters just fine.

[horseboy]

The answer basically is to have a "tiered" system of classes, but the problem there is that flavour-wise, the Martial Adepts don't actually fit in that well with the Trad Fantasy Casters, while the Trad Fantasy Casters actually fit thematically alongside the Vanilla Fighters just fine.That, or, have weapons actually be dangerous, even to high level characters.

[Frosty]

Those peopel who want realism should really go play another system. It's not what DnD is designed for to be honest.

[Ascension]

Either (1) You can make high level fighters really, really, really tough, but still limited to the laws of physics, so they can dish out huge amounts of damage (which is abstract anyway) on a full attack, but they won't be able to fly or teleport or anything like that. This won't satisfy your desire to put them on a level with Wizards, because Invisible + Flying + Teleportation = Win pretty much no matter what you're up against. (2) You can give them "wuxia" style abilities, so they can walk on air and parry Meteor Swarms with their bare hands or deliver Sneak Attacks against abstract concepts. The people you're arguing with are never going to see these abilities as anything but magical, and that sort of thing just plain doesn't fit into many settings.

That's not really an accurate assessment of what I want. I think previous posts have made it clear that completely Western fantasy/myth/legend can, will, and does incorporate fantastic physical accomplishments. I don't want a high-level fighter to walk on air or anything like that, at least not without magical assistance. What I do want him to be able to do is rip the arms off of monsters with his bare hands (Beowulf), slice through an armored, mounted rider, killing him and his mount in one mighty blow (I certainly think I remember this from The Song of Roland, but it's been a while since I read it), and walk out of a Meteor Swarm in one piece not because he parried it, but because he's just that tough. He doesn't match a wizard by being able to do the same sort of stuff, he matches a wizard by being able to take everything the magic wielder can dish out and keep coming. He doesn't win a battle of force against magic, he wins a battle of attrition.

Oh, sure, he should have weaknesses. But then, so should the wizard.

[Dan_Hemmens]

That's not really an accurate assessment of what I want. I think previous posts have made it clear that completely Western fantasy/myth/legend can, will, and does incorporate fantastic physical accomplishments. I don't want a high-level fighter to walk on air or anything like that, at least not without magical assistance. What I do want him to be able to do is rip the arms off of monsters with his bare hands (Beowulf), slice through an armored, mounted rider, killing him and his mount in one mighty blow (I certainly think I remember this from The Song of Roland, but it's been a while since I read it), and walk out of a Meteor Swarm in one piece not because he parried it, but because he's just that tough. He doesn't match a wizard by being able to do the same sort of stuff, he matches a wizard by being able to take everything the magic wielder can dish out and keep coming. He doesn't win a battle of force against magic, he wins a battle of attrition.

Oh, sure, he should have weaknesses. But then, so should the wizard.

The thing is, D&D fighters are capable of all that stuff already. An "armoured, mounted rider" has no more hit points than anybody else, all the armour does is make them harder to hit, and a Fighter 20 has BAB out the wazoo. He can walk out of a Meteor Swarm in one piece because he's got 20D10 + 20*CON Modifier Hit Points.

Such a character still loses a battle of Attrition against a mage, because the mage can fly above him and drop crap on his head from a great height. The mage can do this all day.

What makes Mages tougher than fighters isn't that Fighters can't beat up monsters, it's that mages can completely bypass the need to beat up monsters. A fighter can hack his way through a dungeon full of monsters, but a Wizard can scry-teleport into the middle of the damned thing, then teleport out again in three combat rounds.

[Oslecamo]

That's not really an accurate assessment of what I want. I think previous posts have made it clear that completely Western fantasy/myth/legend can, will, and does incorporate fantastic physical accomplishments. I don't want a high-level fighter to walk on air or anything like that, at least not without magical assistance. What I do want him to be able to do is rip the arms off of monsters with his bare hands (Beowulf), slice through an armored, mounted rider, killing him and his mount in one mighty blow (I certainly think I remember this from The Song of Roland, but it's been a while since I read it), and walk out of a Meteor Swarm in one piece not because he parried it, but because he's just that tough. He doesn't match a wizard by being able to do the same sort of stuff, he matches a wizard by being able to take everything the magic wielder can dish out and keep coming. He doesn't win a battle of force against magic, he wins a battle of attrition.

Oh, sure, he should have weaknesses. But then, so should the wizard.

Hmm, the fighter can already do all of that actually.

Meteor swarm is the easiest. d10 HD+good con means basically that the meteor shatters in the fighter's head.

Slice the armor, knight and mount? Sundering cleave+power attack+greater cleave allows you to actually destroy the enemy's weapon or armor at your choice, kill the low level mook and then kill the horse and all the other knights around him and his horses and the little rat in the ground.

Ripping off the monster's arms? Well, that's a little trickier, but I think technically you can choose to sunder the enemy's natural weapons, aka cuting off the dragon's claws, wings, tail and finnaly the head.

Since you can choose to target an Hydra's head, I don't see anything wrong with it.

[hamishspence]

Epic actually had some interesting ideas, even if they were not always well implemented. Skill checks for things not strictly possible, like climbing a glass wall, tracking a flying creature through the air, balancing on things like string, water, cloud. Without any abilities using the "supernatural" descriptor.

So, things can be done in game impossible to do by physics. This is a fair example of "Superhero" rules.

Personally I think the problem is magic has little downside. Spell slots do not give a feeling of the caster being really drained by his magic the way some fiction describes.

4th ed has per day and per encounter limits. Some things just cannot be done more than once a day. Good start, but still not giving that exhausting feeling. L. E. Modesit's Spellsong books has awesomely powerful wizards, who put most epic magic to shame, yet there are limitations on what they can do, and dangers of overuse of magic. You do not get that feel in 3.5 at the moment.

also, magic is a little too spread out. Better to narrow the fields a little. Perhaps not to the extent of specialisation that the warmage, dread necromancer, beguiler have, but narrower than the present-day 3.5 wizard.

[Dr Bwaa]

One problem I see with all this is that I don't think hit dice scale appropriately. Using average rolls, a fighter will only have 6.5 hit points per fighter level, compared to the mage's 2.5: just over twice the mage's HP. I don't think anyone would argue that a mage should be able to (negating all magic resistance, because that's not the point) get hit by half a meteor swarm and walk away just fine, but that's what the system currently gives us.

I think high-level fighters should, in addition to just more feats (and the more HP that I think they should get), get all the benefits of the Legend PrC (Ultimate PrC's), starting at lvl 16. So, by lvl 20, they cannot die if they can keep making fort saves, they gain super-leadership for armies, gain Favor of the Gods (automatic natural 20s a few times/day), gain the ability to cleave until their movement for the round runs out, and so on. I think this might help to approximate the way casters ramp up in power in comparison to melee fighters.

EDIT: @Hamishspence: I agree wholeheartedly.

[Rutee]

The answer basically is to have a "tiered" system of classes, but the problem there is that flavour-wise, the Martial Adepts don't actually fit in that well with the Trad Fantasy Casters, while the Trad Fantasy Casters actually fit thematically alongside the Vanilla Fighters just fine.

The problem with that is that Warblades with say, Iron Heart basically /are/ traditional Fighters, thematically, just you know, /useful/. Not every style is evocative of wuxia.

Again, there's no way, without Martial Adepts, to model the feats that we've laid out for traditional western fantasy heroes, as it stands.


What makes Mages tougher than fighters isn't that Fighters can't beat up monsters, it's that mages can completely bypass the need to beat up monsters. A fighter can hack his way through a dungeon full of monsters, but a Wizard can scry-teleport into the middle of the damned thing, then teleport out again in three combat rounds.
Which is still a different problem, it's true.

[Oslecamo]

Personally I think the problem is magic has little downside. Spell slots do not give a feeling of the caster being really drained by his magic the way some fiction describes.

4th ed has per day and per encounter limits. Some things just cannot be done more than once a day. Good start, but still not giving that exhausting feeling. L. E. Modesit's Spellsong books has awesomely powerful wizards, who put most epic magic to shame, yet there are limitations on what they can do, and dangers of overuse of magic. You do not get that feel in 3.5 at the moment.


Didn't you get the memo? Wotc hates making abilities that weaken your character in someway.

The closest thing I can remember is the barbarian's rage making the barbarian feel tired for the rest of the battle, but if your rage ends and the battle still didn't end then something is very wrong.

Anyway, should magic be self exhausting, then it would mean your caster starts the day rocking and ends up having to cower because he has an handfull of penalties over him

This isn't fun for the mage player. You don't want a class that only workcs half the day.

It's a great things in history, saying that the mages risk something every time they cast, but in an actual game works badly.

For example, in warhammer40k, where mages(psykers) risk to be eaten by demons every time they use their powers, psykers make only a very small part of the army.

In particular ork psykers are badly used at all, because altought they have powerfull powers their risk of something going wrong is the bigger of all, and half of the time he'll end up blowing up your own troops. So almost nobody plays them.

[Talya]

The problem with that is that Warblades with say, Iron Heart basically /are/ traditional Fighters, thematically, just you know, /useful/. Not every style is evocative of wuxia.


In a rare moment of agreement with Rutee, this is entirely true.

I love ToB. It has the potential to be very "Wuxia" driven, and I dislike a lot of schools and maneuvers because of that feel, but much of it is very "natural," flavor-wise. There's nothing flashy-supernatural about it. (This is probably why Warblade is by far my favorite class in the book.)

And for the stuff that is, hell, it's called "Blade-Magic" for a reason. It's not always supposed to be naturally possible.

[Oslecamo]

The problem with that is that Warblades with say, Iron Heart basically /are/ traditional Fighters, thematically, just you know, /useful/. Not every style is evocative of wuxia.

Again, there's no way, without Martial Adepts, to model the feats that we've laid out for traditional western fantasy heroes, as it stands.


Please, point out a western model wich the martial adepts can copy and the fighter can't, whitout using supernatural maneuvers.

And since we're at it, point out a situation where the martial adept is usefull and the fighter isn't.

[Rutee]

I love ToB. It has the potential to be very "Wuxia" driven, and I dislike a lot of schools and maneuvers because of that feel, but much of it is very "natural," flavor-wise. There's nothing flashy-supernatural about it. (This is probably why Warblade is by far my favorite class in the book.)

And for the stuff that is, hell, it's called "Blade-Magic" for a reason. It's not always supposed to be naturally possible.

We are however, left with a problem. What Casters can do to a 'traditional' location (Scry/Teleport/Teleport) is left without non-Caster counters. Any ideas on how to fix this? Don't feel the need to limit yourself in any fashion based on setting. We have to start with the basics before the specifics.

[horseboy]

And since we're at it, point out a situation where the martial adept is usefull and the fighter isn't.When you've only got the $ for 1 book.

[Oslecamo]

When you've only got the $ for 1 book.

Then you don't have martial adepts at all.

Tome of battle demands the PHB to play. The fighter comes in the PHB. So to play the martial adepts you need more money than to play the fighter.

[Dan_Hemmens]

The problem with that is that Warblades with say, Iron Heart basically /are/ traditional Fighters, thematically, just you know, /useful/. Not every style is evocative of wuxia.

Again, there's no way, without Martial Adepts, to model the feats that we've laid out for traditional western fantasy heroes, as it stands.

I'm not familiar with the Martial Adepts rules, but as I and others have pointed out, most of what you describe western fantasy heroes doing are well within reach of a high level fighter, because they're mostly just flavour text added onto a kill.

There's absolutely zero reason that you can't describe a full power attack that kills an armoured opponent as "cutting them in half", or the killing blow to the Grendel as "ripping its arms off".

Allowing Fighters an actual "cut some guy in half" power would be game breaking in exactly the same way as called shots are game breaking and, as you and I seem to agree, it doesn't solve the "Scry/Teleport/Teleport" problem.

[horseboy]

Then you don't have martial adepts at all.

Tome of battle demands the PHB to play. The fighter comes in the PHB. So to play the martial adepts you need more money than to play the fighter.
Nope, there's the SRD. Fighters still need MIC, Complete Adventurer & Complete Warrior.

[Rutee]

No, only some of the feats (Not to be confused with Feats) have shown themselves. I'm still not sure how you inflict the heighest Fear status (I think it's Terrified?) on an army of 10,000, Martial Adept or not. Or cleave through mountains (Not burrow through them with a sword; I already did the math on that. Actually /cleave/ them). How would I redirect a river through sheer strength? We need to start somewhere to get to Scry/Teleport/Teleport. And I think clever players have shown that you need well and truly overwhelming power to overcome clever casting.

[Dan_Hemmens]

No, only some of the feats (Not to be confused with Feats) have shown themselves. I'm still not sure how you inflict the heighest Fear status (I think it's Terrified?) on an army of 10,000, Martial Adept or not. Or cleave through mountains (Not burrow through them with a sword; I already did the math on that. Actually /cleave/ them). How would I redirect a river through sheer strength?

As you point out, that's not possible with either Class - tbh it's not that possible with Wizards either - and most of those are the sorts of feats which aren't really appropriate for fighters in a lot of campaigns. Those are what a lot of people would define as "magic". I'm not saying that they're right, just that a lot of people genuinely don't want their fighters to be able to cut mountains in half.

[mostlyharmful]

And since we're at it, point out a situation where the martial adept is usefull and the fighter isn't.

It's not a matter of useful, although there are cases when they are and a fighter isn't, it's a matter of fun/varied/specializable. When you're level 14 PC has a choice of three tricks around which they can be built, trip, charge or riding charge and they simply repeat it ad infinitum there's a great deal to be said for choosing stances and boosts and counters and varining up the attack routines and abilities. It's all about the fun which "I charge for three bajillion damage.... oh look there's anouther mook, I do it again. And again. And again......" doesn't really cover.

[Rutee]

As you point out, that's not possible with either Class - tbh it's not that possible with Wizards either - and most of those are the sorts of feats which aren't really appropriate for fighters in a lot of campaigns. Those are what a lot of people would define as "magic". I'm not saying that they're right, just that a lot of people genuinely don't want their fighters to be able to cut mountains in half.

My problem was never with calling it magic; My problem was calling it magic, then turning around and saying it belongs to the casters.

As to the actual problem, I'm starting too specific. Assume, for a moment, that you can't cut down on Wizards, at all (I agree to an extent with you; Their largest offense is that one magus can access an /enormous/ pool of magic). People are probably more :E about cutting down a class then boosting another one. How would one go about making Fighters equivalent, in a different way, to magi?

[Oslecamo]

My problem was never with calling it magic; My problem was calling it magic, then turning around and saying it belongs to the casters.

As to the actual problem, I'm starting too specific. Assume, for a moment, that you can't cut down on Wizards, at all (I agree to an extent with you; Their largest offense is that one magus can access an /enormous/ pool of magic). People are probably more :E about cutting down a class then boosting another one. How would one go about making Fighters equivalent, in a different way, to magi?

Okay, let's review what arcane fulcasters can do.

Throw elemental attacks? Check.
Summon minions? Check.
Mind control and fear effects? Check.
Buffing? Check.
Debuffing? Check.
Transforming? Check.
Mobility? Check.
Counters against magic? Check.
Spying? Check.
Extra attacks and combat tricks? Check.
Defense? Check.
Terrain control? Check.

Hmm, what's left? Healing, wich they actually can do in desesperate cases, via limited wish or summoning of creatures with healing powers.

The only thing the wizard has trouble doing is weapon combat builds that deal insane damage. But as already stated, the wizard has several spells to keep away from combat.

To mostlyharmful: some people actually enjoy the simplicity stabbing the enemy in the face with great strenght again and again and again untill they die.

To horseboy:if you can bother to search the SRD, you can bother to search the wotc forums and google and easily find all the good feats. They even bother to make lists for you of the best combinations . So there is no excuse to don't making that uber fighter build other than lazyness.

[Dan_Hemmens]

My problem was never with calling it magic; My problem was calling it magic, then turning around and saying it belongs to the casters.

As to the actual problem, I'm starting too specific. Assume, for a moment, that you can't cut down on Wizards, at all (I agree to an extent with you; Their largest offense is that one magus can access an /enormous/ pool of magic). People are probably more :E about cutting down a class then boosting another one. How would one go about making Fighters equivalent, in a different way, to magi?

Unified Conflict Resolution (http://nre.wikidot.com/).

In D&D, I genuinely don't think there's a way to do it. You could give them more skill points, giving them more to do outside combat, but that nerfs skillmonkeys. About the only way to do it would be to give Fighters per-day a abilities which had the same mechanical effect as all the Mage's most broken spells, and try desperately to reflavour them so they didn't seem magical (like a "monstrous aspect" power, allowing you to fight in the "style" of another creature, mimicing the Polymorph tree).

But basically I don't think it can be done.

[Rutee]

Fair enough. May I ask if you had anything specific in mind to limit casters?

[Dan_Hemmens]

Fair enough. May I ask if you had anything specific in mind to limit casters?

Not really, I'm not a D&D player so I don't spend much time working on D&D houserules. "One school only" might actually be a really good start (and no Conjuration).

[horseboy]

To horseboy:if you can bother to search the SRD, you can bother to search the wotc forums and google and easily find all the good feats. They even bother to make lists for you of the best combinations . So there is no excuse to don't making that uber fighter build other than laziness.I have never been to the wotc forums. I really don't have any interest in them, let alone dealing with them. Having to ask someone which 87 different splat books I need to make a CORE class actually do their job is not a system I'm going to be interested in.

[Talya]

Fair enough. May I ask if you had anything specific in mind to limit casters?

Why should they be limited? Casters are supposed to be able to do stuff that melees cannot...that's what makes it magic.

[Rutee]

Why should they be limited? Casters are supposed to be able to do stuff that melees cannot...that's what makes it magic.

I have not seen a single example of a mythic caster who gets to be what a DnD caster is. Notwithstanding that "Magic" and "Melee" Are really just different ways for getting the same things done in my book.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Why should they be limited? Casters are supposed to be able to do stuff that melees cannot...that's what makes it magic.

No, being the subtle and little understood art of commanding eldrich forces at great personal risk is what makes it magic.

Just because somebody can raise the dead, that's no reason for them to be able to throw fireballs. Just because somebody can throw fireballs, that's no reason for them to be able to fly. Just because somebody can conjure demons from the pits of hell, that's no reason for them to be able to raise the dead, fly, or throw fireballs.

[Oslecamo]

Fair enough. May I ask if you had anything specific in mind to limit casters?

You could do what wotc is doing in 4e:

1-No long duration buffs that last all day.

2-No summoning or biding or anything that allows you to get more actions than normal.

3-Eliminate all the save or die and mind control stuff.

4-No gigantic range spells, mainly scrying stuff.

5-Nerf polymorph and transformation effects.

6-Limitate mobility powers to just a few time per days and for a short short duration.


There. What's left is blasting and around half of the control spells, plus "fair" buffing and debuffing.

[Oslecamo]

No, being the subtle and little understood art of commanding eldrich forces at great personal risk is what makes it magic.

Just because somebody can raise the dead, that's no reason for them to be able to throw fireballs. Just because somebody can throw fireballs, that's no reason for them to be able to fly. Just because somebody can conjure demons from the pits of hell, that's no reason for them to be able to raise the dead, fly, or throw fireballs.

This is actually a very good idea.

Wotc tried to implement it with the new fullcasters:

Beguiller-enchantment and illusion specialist.
Dread necromancer-master of death and life.
Warmage-blaster at arms.

They actually were popular, but the shaddow of the original wizard and sorceror never disapeared.

However this demands that some schools of magic get severly nerfed. Conjuration in particular can pretty much do anything with splatbooks.

[Talya]

No, being the subtle and little understood art of commanding eldrich forces at great personal risk is what makes it magic.

Just because somebody can raise the dead, that's no reason for them to be able to throw fireballs. Just because somebody can throw fireballs, that's no reason for them to be able to fly. Just because somebody can conjure demons from the pits of hell, that's no reason for them to be able to raise the dead, fly, or throw fireballs.

But why limit yourself? Once you have a command of magic, go all out! Learn how to do everything you possibly can!

Anyway, sounds to me like you would prefer the sorcerer over the wizard. Hey, sorcerer is the only spellcaster I've ever played. And I sorta like it. I still prefer playing melee.

The wizard can't melee. Any buffs he can cast to make him better at melee, he'd do better casting on the fighter. Melee is the bread & butter staple of D&D all the way up to level 20...things don't typically die due to spells...they die due to people swinging weapons at them, from level 1 up to great wyrms. Yes, a wizard can do some spectacular things, but not often, and not without constant danger of instant death. The so-called imbalance caused by would-be batmen does not exist except in message-board threads and games with crappy DMs.

[Rutee]

The Sorceror can still pick up every spell /type/, if not necessarily every spell.

But indeed, why limit yourself? That's why I support Norrisisms and impossibly good negotiation as methods of getting things done :smallwink:

[Jayabalard]

Those peopel who want realism should really go play another system. It's not what DnD is designed for to be honest."You're doing it wrong, play a different game" is not generally a good argument. D&D, as it's written, can accommodate a lot of different play styles; even the people who want something fairly gritty and realistic. You just have to use more option rules and houserules to pull that off.

Very few people want absolute realism, but many people have certain elements that they expect to be realistic or at least close to it in order for them to find the story believable.


Because one sucks and is intended to be unfantastic, according to you and Oslecamo, and the other gets to be superhuman in every sense of the word? Sounds rational to me at least.Even if I agreed with your assessment (and I don't, since I don't agree that the punisher sucks) why does that block them from being in the same game? I still don't see any problem with it.


Model != Represent. Try again.The wizard doesn't represent all of the mythical and fictional characters who cast spells, just a particular type of spell casting archtype, and it really only represents one type of magic (vancian spell casting).

This is the same as the D&D fighter class; does not represent all of the mythical and fictional characters who fight, just a particular type of warrior archtype.


Other mythical and fictional archetypes? What mythical archetype? Fighters are patently non-fantastic, according to you. How do you model /any/ mythical archetype if you're not explicitly allowed to break reality in at least some fashion, by the rules?You model them using classes other than the fighter, obviously. That's one of the nice thing about having so many classes. If you want a mundane fighter you pick the fighter class. If you want one that has additional supernatural powers, you pick one of the classes that has the abilities that you want.


Because you say so? Really, all you seem to do is to say "no" without providing any weighing arguments.I don't see any validity in the "you can just call it something other than magic and it stops being magical" arguments; changing the name of something does not change it's nature.

For the most part, I expect that anything that is unrealistic should have an "it's magic" type explanation: spells Vancian or otherwise, psionics, powers bestowed by the gods/demonic deal/other magically powered source, powers from fey or fell lineage, ultra-high-tech, use of magical items, etc. For me, "he's just that badass" is not on the list of things that allow someone to move past what people can realistically do, and as far as I'm concerned, handwaving away unrealistic abilities as "badassness" is not valid.

[Oslecamo]

That reminds me, there is an alternate world story where the punisher goes berseker and kills ALL the other marvel superheros and villains. Whitout super powers. Whatsoever.

That's what being joe common in super world means.

[Rutee]

"You're doing it wrong, play a different game" is not generally a good argument. D&D, as it's written, can accommodate a lot of different play styles; even the people who want something fairly gritty and realistic. You just have to use more option rules and houserules to pull that off.
Air Bud Clause. DnD does its absolute best to not encourage realism.


Even if I agreed with your assessment (and I don't, since I don't agree that the punisher sucks) why does that block them from being in the same game? I still don't see any problem with it.
Oh FFS. I mean that one, compared to the other, is weak and incapable of doing things. You /really/ don't see, even the /potential/ for a problem when one person can do everything, and the other finds their limited area of expertise /completely/ outmoded? You're a smart person; You have to at least see how that /could/ cause problems.


You model them using classes other than the fighter, obviously.
You mean like I'd have to represent a capable unarmed combatant with a class besides the Monk? Do you not see the problem with having to move from the most obvious classes?


I don't see any validity in the "you can just call it something other than magic and it stops being magical" arguments; changing the name of something does not change it's nature.
Indeed; Why then do these purely physical acts that heroes have accomplished become "Magic" to you?


For the most part, I expect that anything that is unrealistic should have an "it's magic" type explanation: spells Vancian or otherwise, psionics, powers bestowed by the gods/demonic deal/other magically powered source, powers from fey or fell lineage, ultra-high-tech, use of magical items, etc. For me, "he's just that badass" is not on the list of things that allow someone to move past what people can realistically do, and as far as I'm concerned, handwaving away unrealistic abilities as "badassness" is not valid.

Given that you /started/ your post with complaints along the lines of "You can't tell me how to play", are you /certain/ you want to phrase your subjective values as purely objective? Please say yes; I find sustenance from irony.

[WalkingTarget]

But why limit yourself? Once you have a command of magic, go all out! Learn how to do everything you possibly can!

It sound to me like that's their point. Spending a lifetime learning the dark arts of necromancy gives you the power to raise the dead to do your bidding. There's no logical reason that this would prepare you for turning somebody into a newt or make yourself able to fly.

The argument is that currently, all wizard spells are Magic! and are therefore completely compatible with each other but there's no reason that has to be the case. It makes just as much sense that if instead of Magic! they were broken up into different "flavors" that operate as if they were separate disciplines entirely. The existing schools already provide a framework for this.

Fighters are good at one thing, physical combat. Forcing a specialization on wizards would make it so that they are similarly focussed (damage spells or mind control spells or buff/debuff, etc). I'm not a houseruling expert either, so I don't know how that would work out in play, but the disparity in utility between a single-class fighter and single-class wizard is the crux of the discussion IMO.

[Jayabalard]

Oh FFS. I mean that one, compared to the other, is weak and incapable of doing things. You /really/ don't see, even the /potential/ for a problem when one person can do everything, and the other finds their limited area of expertise /completely/ outmoded? You're a smart person; You have to at least see how that /could/ cause problems.Nope. I don't see a problem; it wouldn't bother me in the slightest to play a character that much weaker than another. It doesn't bother me at all if someone else can out perform my character in everything that mine can do.


You mean like I'd have to represent a capable unarmed combatant with a class besides the Monk? Do you not see the problem with having to move from the most obvious classes?I don't see the monk as the most obvious choice for that. Classes that have some touch of magical abilities would obviously be better choices as an unarmed combatant.


Given that you /started/ your post with complaints along the lines of "You can't tell me how to play", are you /certain/ you want to phrase your subjective values as purely objective? Please say yes; I find sustenance from irony.I don't see any complaints along the lines of "you can't tell me how to play" ... just a couple of statements outlining why that's not a very good argument for this sort of discussion, where we're talking about our opinions on fighters vs mages in fantasy.

Nor do I see anything in that quote that is phrased as purely objective. "I expect", "for me" and "as far as I'm concerned" pretty clearly denote those statements as my subjective opinion.


For the most part, I expect that anything that is unrealistic should have an "it's magic" type explanation: spells Vancian or otherwise, psionics, powers bestowed by the gods/demonic deal/other magically powered source, powers from fey or fell lineage, ultra-high-tech, use of magical items, etc. For me, "he's just that badass" is not on the list of things that allow someone to move past what people can realistically do, and as far as I'm concerned, handwaving away unrealistic abilities as "badassness" is not valid.Emphasis added.

[Rutee]

Nope. I don't see a problem; it wouldn't bother me in the slightest to play a character that much weaker than another. It doesn't bother me at all if someone else can out perform my character in everything that mine can do.
You know, you could have answered a general question with a general answer. "Yes, I could see how /one/ may have a problem with this", and managed to stick to your guns without looking stubborn.


I don't see the monk as the most obvious choice for that. Classes that have some touch of magical abilities would obviously be better choices as an unarmed combatant.
....So you don't see how the class that specializes in unarmed combat, and says as much as the class focus, could possibly be seen as the most obvious choice for an unarmed combatant.

Notwithstanding that they /do/ have a touch of magical abilities. If we define "Magic" as "Superhuman", at any rate, which seems to have been the assumption you operate on.


I don't see any complaints along the lines of "you can't tell me how to play"
You missed your own response that started with "You're doing it wrong, play a different game' is not a valid statement'"?


Nor do I see anything in that quote that is phrased as purely objective. "I expect", "for me" and "as far as I'm concerned" pretty clearly denote those statements as my subjective opinion.

Emphasis added.

Mm, missed that, evidently.

[Dan_Hemmens]

But why limit yourself? Once you have a command of magic, go all out! Learn how to do everything you possibly can!

But the point is that the same logic applies to non-casters. Why limit yourself, once you have a command of non-magic, learn how to do everything you possibly can.

Non-magicians get to be good at doing one thing by non-magical means, two at the outside. Fighters get fighting, Rogues get sneaking (and fighting), rangers get wildnerness survival (and fighting), Bards get music (and a bit of spellcasting).

Magicians, though, automatically get the ability to everything "magic".

The point (as Walking Target correctly identifies) is that there is no actual reason (other than historical inertia) that learning Evocation once you already know Necromancy should be any easier than, say, learning to be fantastically socially adept when you already know how to fight with a sword.

[Morty]

But why limit yourself? Once you have a command of magic, go all out! Learn how to do everything you possibly can!

Um, I don't know, because stories and games with obscenely powerful casters with nigh-unlimited power tend to be boring and spawn "why bother with non-magic" questions?



I don't see any validity in the "you can just call it something other than magic and it stops being magical" arguments; changing the name of something does not change it's nature.


You're perfectly right, it doesn't. However, in case of ToB manuevers, it's not the case, as Strike of Perfect Clarity can be named Cut His Head Off With A Single Strike and nothing changes except the name. Because, you know, Strike of Perfect Clarity is nothing more than just attacking with deadly precision and strenght.

[Talya]

Um, I don't know, because stories and games with obscenely powerful casters with nigh-unlimited power tend to be boring and spawn "why bother with non-magic" questions?



And yet no spellcaster in D&D has nigh-unlimited power. The Wizard doesn't dominate in actual play the way people like to pretend he does.

[Morty]

And yet no spellcaster in D&D has nigh-unlimited power. The Wizard doesn't dominate in actual play the way people like to pretend he does.

He dominates enough for this to be a problem. It ain't rocket science. If players aren't TLN-worshipping powergamers, it might not kick in very soon and not always, but it does pose a problem on higher levels in perfectly normal groups.

[Talya]

He dominates enough for this to be a problem. It ain't rocket science. If players aren't TLN-worshipping powergamers, it might not kick in very soon and not always, but it does pose a problem on higher levels in perfectly normal groups.

Without houseruling a thing, I could DM TLN in a campaign along with a poorly optimized monk, and make the monk more useful in the average fight.

[Morty]

Without houseruling a thing, I could DM TLN in a campaign along with a poorly optimized monk, and make the monk more useful in the average fight.

I won't argue if you could or couldn't, but if you have to, it's not a sign of good game design, is it? And the wizard player -who doesn't have to optimize to be better than monk- isn't going to be happy if you screw him over just because of the class and spells s/he chose.

[Paul H]

Hi

Going back to the original post - the difference between fighters & magic is simply "horses for courses..."

At low levels the Fighter is powerful because he can fight several encounters each day, without having to rest & recover his 'abilities' like spellcasters. But I've played too many scenarios where lvl 1 PC's come across a monster with DR5/Magic, and the Cleric's Magic Wpn spell makes the difference between win/lose.

Clerics are always popular because PC's perform better when alive and buffed.
Arcane casters become more important at mid-high level games.

Don't forget without spellcasters there's no magic items/weapons/armour. Without spellcasters the fighter is useless against incorporeal creatures. (Magic weapons required).

Which is why all the best fantasy stories/games always include a mix.
(Lord of the Rings. Arthurian legend, etc).

Cheers
Paul H

[horseboy]

....So you don't see how the class that specializes in unarmed combat, and says as much as the class focus, could possibly be seen as the most obvious choice for an unarmed combatant.Give it up Rutee, you've got a better chance with EE.

[Worira]

So, harking back all the way to the first page:



Conan. 'nuff said.
Not exactly old fiction.


LoTR counts as "old fiction", but Conan doesn't?

[Thinker]

Without houseruling a thing, I could DM TLN in a campaign along with a poorly optimized monk, and make the monk more useful in the average fight.

How? Would everything suddenly sprout SR 20 + CR/HD? Would things suddenly have abnormally high Touch AC and Saves? The biggest problem I have found with "balancing" via gameplay is that with spellcasters its an all-or-nothing approach. Either the wizard gets to dominate or he gets to do nothing.

You could "put them on a time limit," but this only means that the wizard might simply save up his spells for when he needs them and stop doing anything all together. If you expect everyone to be trying to overcome all the challenges equally this could spell out disaster.

So how do you limit the spellcasters through regular gameplay?

[Skjaldbakka]

Well, you start by advising the player to play a monk by writing 'rogue' on character sheet, and taking Improved Unarmed Stike, I would imagine. :smallwink:

More seriously, I would imagine Talya runs an RP-heavy game in which combat takes a back seat. Monks are flavorful, which makes them fun to play in that scenario. I imagine it wouldn't be much fun to play a straight up fighter in one of her games though.

[horseboy]

So, harking back all the way to the first page:
LoTR counts as "old fiction", but Conan doesn't?
Conan is pulp fiction, LotR is literature. Granted, any more there's not a whole lot of difference.

[Talya]

While you are right Skjald, that's not what I was referring to.

High SR (or magic immune) targets with lower armor class, with abilities to deal with whatever spells the wizard happens to have prepped for the day. If he use divination to try to prep, make sure he was technically told the truth, but in the most deceptive or incomplete manner possible by the spell used (which is the whole point of divination...if a DM ever gives you a straight answer on an important divination, she failed. Fill the letter of the divination, but keep them guessing.)

The hard part in combat is not keeping the melee types as useful as the wizard, but keeping them as useful as each other. The monk can be more useful than a wizard in a given encounter, but the fighter/barbarian/rogue/martial adept/ranger/paladin/{insert favorite melee class here} is likely to be better than the monk, regardless, except in a few situations where speed, high saving throws, and the like are very important. But then the wizard is likely more powerful again. Monks suck, which is why I used one as an example.

Also, knowledge is important. The wizard relies on knowing the strengths and weaknesses of their enemies...so never use a stock monster--this is especially important if your players like reading monster manuals. Improve everything through normal advancement rules. Use PC classes during the improvement process. Use magic items and gear that give it abilities or defenses the wizard would not be aware of. At the same time, give it a weakness...perhaps even something the wizard has the spell to exploit...if he figures it out.

[Skjaldbakka]

People that play spellcasters in my games get a bit frustrated at my DM style. I don't like big bad monsters to go down easy. I build them so save/lose and save/fail spells don't work well on them, because they make the combat anti-climactic. Which means the fighters shine, because my casters learn to throw quck takedown spells in the fights leading up to the big bad, and to throw buffs/dispels during 'boss' fights.

[Talya]

People that play spellcasters in my games get a bit frustrated at my DM style. I don't like big bad monsters to go down easy. I build them so save/lose and save/fail spells don't work well on them, because they make the combat anti-climactic. Which means the fighters shine, because my casters learn to throw quck takedown spells in the fights leading up to the big bad, and to throw buffs/dispels during 'boss' fights.

That's exactly the type of thing i am talking about, yes. It also gives Sorcerers a good reason to turn "Blaster" in that final fight and throw orbs at them. Good show...

[Rutee]

So.. because I can forcibly balance the game, the game is balanced per RAW? Good show indeed.


LoTR counts as "old fiction", but Conan doesn't?
I don't see why not. LotR is only what, 60 years old? 70? That's pretty damn new. No, seriously, that's really new compared to things like literature that predates modern day Germany.


Conan is pulp fiction, LotR is literature. Granted, any more there's not a whole lot of difference.
Yeah, but nobody specified on arbitrary qualifiers of 'high' or 'low'. Just 'fiction'. :P

[Talya]

So.. because I can forcibly balance the game, the game is balanced per RAW? Good show indeed.


That's not invoking rule 0 at all, Rutee. That's using the rules as written...selecting appropriate encounters and improving monsters/npcs is part of RAW.

Anyway, I'm the one who has constantly said the PC classes shouldn't be balanced. The world/DM needs to be balanced...then the class balance won't matter so much.

[Rutee]

He explicitly states that he has to build his monsters, so I sincerely doubt that he's 'just selecting appropriate encounters'. Quick, how would you nullify a caster by auto-killing Save/Lose or Save/Die, while still letting them work.

And that's honestly ridiculous; PC classes should be balanced in the core book, period, end of discussion. You wanna have a LotR style world where Magic reigns supreme? Fine; You houserule it to that. I want an epic-myth style game (and suddenly go insane and decide that magic shouldn't be mythic)? I houserule it to that. The default the game operates on should be balanced, with as few setting assumptions as is humanly possible made for us; What few assumptions the game has right off the bat should be non-exclusive (Wizards getting to do everything, and Fighters one thing, is what we would term an 'exclusive' assumption, because it leaves a rather sizable segment of the classes out). Unless DnD wants to be a game with a pre-written setting, which isn't a bad thing, but means I'd probably drop it (Since the only use I find from it is that it's 'varied'.)

[Oslecamo]

He explicitly states that he has to build his monsters, so I sincerely doubt that he's 'just selecting appropriate encounters'. Quick, how would you nullify a caster by auto-killing Save/Lose or Save/Die, while still letting them work.


Monster in D&D have a lot of room for optimization whitout needing to beind or create rules.

Adding class levels, templates, choosing other feats, skill tricks, it's all fair game, but can completely change the focus of the monster.

The caster prepared loads of save or die? Let him face some hordes of undeads, vermins and plants and he'll be back to plain old "fair" blasting in no time.

Druid/cleric thinks he's the uberest all buffed? Let him face the dragon wich buffs himself with antimagic field. I assure you, the druid/cleric will think twice before claiming he's the best at melee.

But if you insisit in throwing monsters with low will saves and no magic defense but with high DR, strenght and AC, then of course the fighters will feel underpowered.

[horseboy]

Druid/cleric thinks he's the uberest all buffed? Let him face the dragon wich buffs himself with antimagic field. I assure you, the druid/cleric will think twice before claiming he's the best at melee.Then how does the fighter get past it's DR/magic if it's magic weapon no longer works?

[Oslecamo]

Then how does the fighter get past it's DR/magic if it's magic weapon no longer works?

Because the dragon's damage reduction is supernatural, and thus negated by his own antimagic field. A small self penalty is true, but much better than fall prey to enemy save or dies, since they seem to be so common, and dragons are smart.

[Artemician]

Because the dragon's damage reduction is supernatural, and thus negated by his own antimagic field. A small self penalty is true, but much better than fall prey to enemy save or dies, since they seem to be so common, and dragons are smart.

Why would it be? Having very tough scales qualifies as Supernatural now?

[Rutee]

The thought occurs to me that we went back to arguing DnD, rather then arguing fictional roots. Which is a no-win.

[Reel On, Love]

High SR (or magic immune) targets with lower armor class, with abilities to deal with whatever spells the wizard happens to have prepped for the day. If he use divination to try to prep, make sure he was technically told the truth, but in the most deceptive or incomplete manner possible by the spell used (which is the whole point of divination...if a DM ever gives you a straight answer on an important divination, she failed. Fill the letter of the divination, but keep them guessing.)
That school of thought is no more acceptable with Divinations than it is with Wish. ("And then you die!") Of course, I have no idea who really uses divinations to find out the next day's encounters, in-game, beyond a "what's the most common creature type in that dungeon we need to go to?" sort of deal.

High-SR targets with low AC with abilities to deal with the wizard's spells, like... what? You need these to have good saves, too. And a decent touch AC. That is really, really limiting. I can't think of more than a handful of such monsters.


Also, knowledge is important. The wizard relies on knowing the strengths and weaknesses of their enemies...so never use a stock monster--this is especially important if your players like reading monster manuals. Improve everything through normal advancement rules. Use PC classes during the improvement process. Use magic items and gear that give it abilities or defenses the wizard would not be aware of. At the same time, give it a weakness...perhaps even something the wizard has the spell to exploit...if he figures it out.
This is what Knowledge checks are for--they tell you important things (like weak save, immunities, etc) about monsters if you make the check.
You can give every monster a Cloak of Resistance +5, but then the players *take* the loot and become unreasonably wealthy.

The wizard relies on an overlapping spell selection that can hit any of a number of weaknesses, not on knowing the specific weaknesses of the exact thing they'll be fighting.



People that play spellcasters in my games get a bit frustrated at my DM style. I don't like big bad monsters to go down easy. I build them so save/lose and save/fail spells don't work well on them, because they make the combat anti-climactic. Which means the fighters shine, because my casters learn to throw quck takedown spells in the fights leading up to the big bad, and to throw buffs/dispels during 'boss' fights.
Buffs, dispels, and debuffs, are all part of what makes Batman Batman. Casting Haste and then hitting the high-save BBEG with Ray of Clumsiness followed by Empowered Escalating Enfeeblement followed by Split Ray of Exhaustion is great for high-save melee BEEGs. Batman can and does play well with others; he just remains overwhelmingly useful.



Monster in D&D have a lot of room for optimization whitout needing to beind or create rules.

Adding class levels, templates, choosing other feats, skill tricks, it's all fair game, but can completely change the focus of the monster.
It is hard to change the focus of the monsters without significantly upping the CR. Choosing feats smartly is a good way to make a monster tougher--but few feats make you good against casters (and does it really make sense for every creature the party fights to have Mage Slayer, Pierce Magical Protection, Combat Reflexes, and Stand Still)?


The caster prepared loads of save or die? Let him face some hordes of undeads, vermins and plants and he'll be back to plain old "fair" blasting in no time.
Glitterdust works on undead, vermin, and plants. So does Slow. So does Ray of Enfeeblement. So do a bunch of other save-or-loses, debuffs, &etc. There are tons of non-blaster-y options against these things (and mindless undead are downright dangerous to throw at the party if the wizard got a couple scrolls of Command Undead).

Once the caster starts faicng "hordes" of undead, vermin, and plants, where do these creatures go? Does the area the party's in change overnight, if he prepares spells to deal with them?


Druid/cleric thinks he's the uberest all buffed? Let him face the dragon wich buffs himself with antimagic field. I assure you, the druid/cleric will think twice before claiming he's the best at melee.
1) You need a dragon who casts sixth level spells. What about until then?
2) Dragon + AMF spells "TPK", pretty much *period*. NONE of the PCs are a significant threat to it! A CR-appropriate dragon is a *lot* tougher in melee than the party fighter... and that's assuming a fighter WITH his magical equipment. Without it, it kills him in one Power Attacking full attack.
Dragon + AMF is cheese on par with Candle of Invocation abuse. It's not OK.


But if you insisit in throwing monsters with low will saves and no magic defense but with high DR, strenght and AC, then of course the fighters will feel underpowered.
Monsters don't need to have "low" will saves--keep in mind that an equal-CR dragon will fail its Will save against the wizard's highest level spells 40-50% of the time! More, with debuffs.

[Oslecamo]

Why would it be? Having very tough scales qualifies as Supernatural now?

By the rules, yes. Check the errata of MM 3.5, damage reduction/magic is supernatural and thus negated by antimagic field.

But Rutee is right in that one. We should go back to the original topic.


My problem is that there are too many myths, and many times the stories are self contraditory and/or have several versions and/or interpretations and you can pretty much claim whatever you want from them.

For example, it's entirely possible to say that moises was actually a completely regular person who took advantage of a serie of natural mistfortunes in Egypt completely off his control to free his people.


Or we could say he was a mighty mage using uber magic.

Both versions are correct on their own, but they contradict each other.

So what do we do in these kind of situation?

Myths aren't reality. Myths are what people say they are.

In some myths mages pwn fighters and in others fighters pwn mages. There are myths for everything and anything. Using all myths and fantasy as a base won't go very far. We need to narrow the material used.

[Jayabalard]

You know, you could have answered a general question with a general answer. "Yes, I could see how /one/ may have a problem with this", and managed to stick to your guns without looking stubborn.Except that I don't see how having the punisher and Dr Strange in the same game could be problem. I have never seen a problem in a game due to disparate power levels of characters; I have seen problems with players who actively work on hogging the spotlight, but that's independent of the power level of the characters involved. I answered honestly, giving my opinion, and denoting it as such, which is much better than making a statement implying my opinion is the only way to see something and that anyone who disagrees is an idiot.


....So you don't see how the class that specializes in unarmed combat, and says as much as the class focus, could possibly be seen as the most obvious choice for an unarmed combatant.... "I don't see the monk as the most obvious choice for that."

seems like I answered that before you asked it :smalltongue:


Notwithstanding that they /do/ have a touch of magical abilities. If we define "Magic" as "Superhuman", at any rate, which seems to have been the assumption you operate on.There are classes that have more supernatural abilities that make them better combatants. I would expect them to obviously be better choices as an unarmed combatant.


You missed your own response that started with "You're doing it wrong, play a different game' is not a valid statement'"?Actually, it was that it's "not generally a good argument." not that it's invalid. Nothing in that is complaining (as far as I can tell), just a brief explanation of why it's not a useful argument in a thread like this.

[Rutee]

Except that I don't see how having the punisher and Dr Strange in the same game could be problem. I answered honestly, giving my opinion, and denoting it as such, which is much better than making a statement implying my opinion is the only way to see something and that anyone who disagrees is an idiot.
Forgive my saying, but given that other people have laid out reasons why this could be a problem for them, and that I asked "Whether it could possibly cause problems", not whether it would spefically cause them for you. Hence, general question. Oy vey.


... "I don't see the monk as the most obvious choice for that."

seems like I answered that before you asked it :smalltongue:
I don't know what to tell you. It's the class that flat out states that it specializes in unarmed combat, and is the only one that does so in the core book. Horseboy is correct; If you can not possibly see how one could possibly find this the obvious choice for unarmed combat..


Actually, it was that it's "not generally a good argument." that that it's invalid. Nothing in that is complaining, just a brief explanation of why it's not a useful argument in a thread like this.

Oh for gods sakes. I sincerely doubt you want to argue in legalese, so don't skim over obvious meaning in colloquial speech. You start the post with why what you do later isn't a good argument. You defeat yourself.

[Jayabalard]

Forgive my saying, but given that other people have laid out reasons why this could be a problem for them, and that I asked "Whether it could possibly cause problems", not whether it would spefically cause them for you. Hence, general question. Oy vey.Sorry, I don't really remember anyone giving a reason why the Punisher and Dr Strange in the same story is a bad thing, just your assertion that it would obviously be a problem.


Oh for gods sakes. I sincerely doubt you want to argue in legalese, so don't skim over obvious meaning in colloquial speech.It's not legalese... I did not complain, nor did I call his argument invalid. I just pointed out why the "go play another system" argument "is not generally a good argument."

[Rutee]

Sorry, I don't really remember anyone giving a reason why the Punisher and Dr Strange in the same story is a bad thing, just your assertion that it would obviously be a problem.
*Facepalm*
People have pointed out the problems when one character outmodes the other utterly, in virtually every field possible. Those two are good analogies; There is nothing the Punisher could do that Dr. Strange could not, if he were of a mind to, since he's a walking D.E.M.


It's not legalese... I did not complain, nor did I call his argument invalid. I just pointed out why the "go play another system" argument "is not generally a good argument."

....

[horseboy]

Except that I don't see how having the punisher and Dr Strange in the same game could be problem.
If you choose to play the Punisher next to Dr. Strange you are accepting your characters limitations. When you choose to play the Hulk next to Dr. Strange, but he winds up as the Punisher because of system limitations that's a problem.
Not that Fank isn't freaking cool, mind you.

[Oslecamo]

I don't know what to tell you. It's the class that flat out states that it specializes in unarmed combat, and is the only one that does so in the core book. Horseboy is correct; If you can not possibly see how one could possibly find this the obvious choice for unarmed combat..


Actually, what it says in the PHB class section is that monks are "skilled at fighting whitout weapons or armor".

It then goes around explaining how the monk's main strenght is his ability to pass unoticed among the common people because it doesn't carry any kind of specific equipment, and how the main objective of any monk is attaining perfection of body and mind.

The monk was never designed to be the supreme unarmed warrior.

It was designed to be an hybrid fast scout/skirmish resistant to dirty tricks.

[Jayabalard]

People have pointed out the problems when one character outmodes the other utterly, in virtually every field possible. I don't agree that those problems are caused by the difference in character power level in and of itself. Those all are caused by a difference between the player's expectations on their power level and what their actual power level is.

There is no inherent problem with playing the Punisher next to Dr. Strange.


If you choose to play the Punisher next to Dr. Strange you are accepting your characters limitations. When you choose to play the Hulk next to Dr. Strange, but he winds up as the Punisher because of system limitations that's a problem.I agree.

[horseboy]

I agree.So then comes the next questions: "Does the PHB bill the fighter as being Frank or Hulk, or the ability to be either? What character does the fighter class deliver? How many splat books must one buy to be the other?

Edit: Hang on, Logan and Hulk are expressions of Barbarian, let's instead go with Frank and Ben Grimm for fighter.

[Rutee]

I don't agree that those problems are caused by the difference in character power level in and of itself. Those all are caused by a difference between the player's expectations on their power level and what their actual power level is.

There is no inherent problem with playing the Punisher next to Dr. Strange.
Paraphrased, "there's no problem unless the players feel there is". Yes. Exactly. The PHB presents these as equal. Or at least, it puts no indication whatsoever that there is as vast a gulf as there is, in terms of capability. Given the presentation of the game altogether, it's a reasonable assumption that the classes can contribute equally. I consider it likely that people who feel useless will have less fun, because that's been my experience all around. And of course, it's reasonable to assume that the Fighter, who is billed as an equal character, can contribute equally.

Of course, this is still arguing DnD, rather then a fighter's place according to Fantasy. Does anyone besides Oslecamo, who still seems to labor under the belief that people like Herakles are full casters, think that the PHB's representative swordswinger should be weaker then the PHB's representative spellslinger?


So then comes the next questions: "Does the PHB bill the fighter as being Frank or Hulk, or the ability to be either? What character does the fighter class deliver? How many splat books must one buy to be the other?I don't know what they need to perform the role they say they do, but fighters are "The best all around fighters", who rely on others for "Support". Fighters are basically billed as being deadly, truly capable combatants.

[horseboy]

I don't know what they need to perform the role they say they do, but fighters are "The best all around fighters", who rely on others for "Support". Fighters are basically billed as being deadly, truly capable combatants.Well, if weapons were actually dangerous past level 4thish that'd certainly help. :smallannoyed:

You know, after thinking about it, The Thing really is a good expression of a high level fighter. Always in heavy armour, to the point you wonder about how he poops. Stupidly high HPs. Amazing strength, yet not as good as someone "magical". Charisma dump stat, yet still played like he's smooth. Can do 1 thing well outside of combat.

In the realms of archetypes, it seems like the "magic guy" is usually in a support role, unless it's an apprentice.

[Rutee]

I think Magicians as characters tend more towards a support role, really. Sometimes like Q, but instead of SCIENCE, they use MAGIC, or as advisers (Sometimes with divinations, sometimes just as advisers. The other common use I can think of is rendering specialized magical protections inert so that the protagonists (Usually melee themselves) can beat the hell out of someone.

I think.. Rand Al'Thor gets to be stupid powerful DnD-style magi? I didn't get very far in that particular series (The library only had the first two books, but the other Aes Sedai seemed more specialized). I'd list examples, but I'd rather look for more protagonist magicians. It doesn't seem to say much when a support character plays a supporting role.

Zhuge Liang, I guess, might qualify. He's pretty much how I see a Diviner, who moves out of the advisor role at the death of his Lord. In the novel, he was credited with near complete prescience (To the point of writing instructions to his children long before he died, which they followed to save themselves after his death), which he used to the best of his rather able abilities. He manages one minor non-divination-style mystical ability, which is to cause the wind to blow in an unseasonly direction, allowing for a major fire attack.

So that's two 'Magus' protagonists, one who's rather limited in scope, one who isn't, both who manage to be awesome. Who else comes to mind?

[Oslecamo]

Of course, this is still arguing DnD, rather then a fighter's place according to Fantasy. Does anyone besides Oslecamo, who still seems to labor under the belief that people like Herakles are full casters, think that the PHB's representative swordswinger should be weaker then the PHB's representative spellslinger?

Rutee, would you please stop puting words in my mouth? I never said Hercules was a fullcaster.

What a said is that he gets a starting race wich grants him super strenght and god knows what else abilities, wich are completely independant of whatever class levels(training) he took, and are the main reason why he manages to do what he did.

I have a friend who has the D&D deities and demigods book. I think it had the greek stuff. Wanna me to go there and look for Hercules, since you seem to have some respect for what the game producers say?