The Guy at the Gym Fallacy

[Coidzor]

It's a DC 4000 Jump Check to jump over a 1000' tall mountain, apparently.

[JaronK]

I think the way it should be in D&D is that at low levels casters do impossible things to possible degrees while mundanes should do possible things to possible degrees. At high levels, casters do impossible things to impossible degrees while mundanes should do possible things to impossible degrees.

For example, at low level a caster might do an impossible thing (move objects with their mind, mentally manipulate someone) to a possible degree (unlock a door, charm the person) while a mundane might do a possible thing (use lockpicks, speak well) to a possible degree (unlock a door, charm a person). At high levels, the caster does an impossible thing (creating a summoning magic circle, launching fire from their fingertips) to impossible degrees (ask a god a question, kill an entire battalion of enemies) while mundanes should do possible things (punch really hard, shoot a bow) to impossible degrees (punch through the fabric of reality to grab hold of a god and ask it a question, launch a hundred arrows to kill a battalion of enemies).

JaronK

[Gemini476]

I think the way it should be in D&D is that at low levels casters do impossible things to possible degrees while mundanes should do possible things to possible degrees. At high levels, casters do impossible things to impossible degrees while mundanes should do possible things to impossible degrees.

For example, at low level a caster might do an impossible thing (move objects with their mind, mentally manipulate someone) to a possible degree (unlock a door, charm the person) while a mundane might do a possible thing (use lockpicks, speak well) to a possible degree (unlock a door, charm a person). At high levels, the caster does an impossible thing (creating a summoning magic circle, launching fire from their fingertips) to impossible degrees (ask a god a question, kill an entire battalion of enemies) while mundanes should do possible things (punch really hard, shoot a bow) to impossible degrees (punch through the fabric of reality to grab hold of a god and ask it a question, launch a hundred arrows to kill a battalion of enemies).

JaronK

...Are you aware of the Nasuverse, perchance? It's anime (Fate/Zero and Fate/Stay Night, also Visual Novels), but it has a magic system that is very similar to what you said. Magecraft can do anything that would be technically possible without it, such as shoot fireballs (lighter+aerosol) or communicate over long distances (shouting, walking over and talking, telephones.) Magic meanwhile does the things that are impossible without it, like time-travel or bringing back the dead, but is "lost" if those things later become possible.

I'm mostly mentioning this because there is certainly some fictional basis for this type of magic, even if it's from Urban Fantasy.


Oh, and for the guy who mentioned the Elder Scrolls? Mundane characters are hardly mundane, what with dodging arrows like Neo, Thu'ums and being the frikkin' Nerevarine. And if you get into the lore it gets even more superhuman.

[Equilibria]

The Monkey King, one of the most iconic monk-characters in the whole world, once jumped over a mountain.

Except that it was the hand of the Gautama-Buddha, and the Monkey King ended under a heavy stone.

Spoiler

Show

Then again, it's not clear if the Monkey King really jumped over a mountain, was just hypnotized by the Buddha into believing he did that, or the Buddha manipulated reality to make the mountain into his hand at his whim.

He also defeated (or at least fooled) a god (several??).

I wouldn´t enjoy a game in which that was possible.

[Gwendol]

On the ToB classes: it's possible to argue that they're mostly high tier 4 since they don't do much outside of combat (but they do combat really well). Also, the fighter, while considered tier 5, can be pushed to tier 4 with some support (Zhent fighter, dungeoncrasher).

But that's all a crapshoot really, since it doesn't change the fact that the more magic you access the higher on the tier list you find yourself (more or less).

I don't get the fallacy though? It seems to partly hinge on the idea that a class is also a profession. 3.5 is the system where classes mean the least in the game. They are really just vehicles to acheive the hero you want, and in that sense the fighter can be a great class.

[eggynack]

I don't get the fallacy though? It seems to partly hinge on the idea that a class is also a profession. 3.5 is the system where classes mean the least in the game. They are really just vehicles to acheive the hero you want, and in that sense the fighter can be a great class.

If there's any fallacy, I've always considered it to be the fact that magic is considered to be somehow distinct from reality. If you say certain words, and raise a focus into the air, and make crazy symbols with your hands, and that causes you to fly, you're not breaking the laws of physics. You're merely enacting laws of physics that are different than what we're used to. This is especially true given that magic is perfectly consistent, repeatable, and testable. I don't see why something similar can't be true for a fighter. Maybe his sword can cut into the heart of man to learn the truth of things, or maybe he can smash his hammer against the earth and make earthquakes. These things might not be a component of our mundane physics, but I don't see why it can't be a part of theirs.

[Gemini476]

physics

Oh, and do note that the physics of 3.5 are clearly extremely different from our own. Even ignoring bad editing like the three different models of physics for falling, you can have two people who jump in the same parabolic trajectory, but they travel through it at different speeds.

Killing catgirls, etc.

[Bhaakon]

Oh, and do note that the physics of 3.5 are clearly extremely different from our own. Even ignoring bad editing like the three different models of physics for falling, you can have two people who jump in the same parabolic trajectory, but they travel through it at different speeds.

Killing catgirls, etc.

Lots of people like to run games devoid of catgirls, if you catch my meaning.

Drawing a distinct line between mundane and magical is clearly a stylistic preference, not a fallacy, as is the precise flavor of the magical power you prefer in your setting. As long as those are the points at issue, we might as well be arguing over what color dice to roll.

[Lord Raziere]

this discussion I guess is one of the reasons why Exalted exists: to allow super-powerful "mundane" archetypes to have their ridiculous feats of jumping over mountains and cutting the earth in half and other such incredible stuff through pure physical combat instead of spellcasting.

that and you really don't understand (anime) martial arts if you think its "physical", martial arts isn't about your fist. its not about the physical body.
the fist is merely the package for the true attack, the energy inside. think of the fist like a bullet, the bullet itself is harmless, its the fact that it has the kinetic energy of a focused explosion making it zoom towards you that is the problem.

its the same with all anime martial arts, and some real world martial arts- sure it has a physical aspect, but all of its more about the internal focus of your energy and learning how to manipulate it better. anime martial arts just take this and be a little more literal and fantastic about it….and wuxia as well

so really, the martial stuff being over-the-top and leaping over mountains is more plausible in a fantasy universe- because that worlds energies is permeated with magic. and at some point, everyone is going to have some form of magical energy, and martial artists are obviously going have way to focus that energy to do certain things. its not that they are ridiculously strong or anything, its just that they know how to focus all their energy exactly to make certain things happen.

a martial artist doesn't fight a dragon with strength. they fight knowing how the energy flows through their body and where to strike and how to disrupt that flow or even change the energy within into something else. the reason that they can cause earthquakes is because they know exactly how to focus their energy to achieve that cascade effect throughout the earth.

sort of like someone throwing a pebble into a pond. now imagine that everything is a pond, and that if you throw the pebble right, you can make any kind of ripples you want.

[Just to Browse]

I think the way it should be in D&D is that at low levels casters do impossible things to possible degrees while mundanes should do possible things to possible degrees. At high levels, casters do impossible things to impossible degrees while mundanes should do possible things to impossible degrees.

For example, at low level a caster might do an impossible thing (move objects with their mind, mentally manipulate someone) to a possible degree (unlock a door, charm the person) while a mundane might do a possible thing (use lockpicks, speak well) to a possible degree (unlock a door, charm a person). At high levels, the caster does an impossible thing (creating a summoning magic circle, launching fire from their fingertips) to impossible degrees (ask a god a question, kill an entire battalion of enemies) while mundanes should do possible things (punch really hard, shoot a bow) to impossible degrees (punch through the fabric of reality to grab hold of a god and ask it a question, launch a hundred arrows to kill a battalion of enemies).

JaronK

There are still very fundamental limitations to what mundanes can do without it feeling dissonant. When you can shoot a thousand arrows to clear out armies, or one giant arrow that pieces a hundred people, you feel less like an actual vanilla action hero and more like a sorcerer reskinned as a fighter.

[eggynack]

Drawing a distinct line between mundane and magical is clearly a stylistic preference, not a fallacy, as is the precise flavor of the magical power you prefer in your setting. As long as that the point at issue, we might as well be arguing over what color dice to roll.

That's the thing of it though. I don't really understand how a distinct line between magical and mundane makes sense. Magic is pretty clearly physics. My usual example is a real life guy shooting fireballs. Like, let's say some guy popped up with the ability to spontaneously create fireballs. He's really doing this, and he subjects himself to testing, and everyone's really cool about it.

Afterwards, would it make sense to say that the laws of physics are broken? Perhaps as we understand them. However, the real answer is that the laws of physics that we have merely need to be revised to account for this new factor, and then things just kinda settle around that new state of existence. We'd have new scientific laws like, "energy cannot be created or destroyed, unless you accumulate enough bat guano. In that case, go right ahead." Maybe there will be some way to slot this stuff directly into our current understanding of physics, and maybe there'll need to be a hardcore revision of everything we hold true, but the end result won't be "physics, unless magic." It'll be, "magic, because physics."

[Firechanter]

On the ToB classes: it's possible to argue that they're mostly high tier 4 since they don't do much outside of combat (but they do combat really well).

It's possible to argue the sky is green, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. T3 means you can do multiple things well. Nowhere does it say that these things have to be inside and outside of combat. While Crusader and Warblade do have little out-of-combat utility (but still more than a Fighter), they both fill at least _two_ roles in combat (as I said, Defender+Leader and Striker+Leader, respectively), and fill them not just so-so, but very well; simultaneously if need be. (I'm counting the Crusader's predisposition for Lockdown as Defending, although it could also be classified as small-scale Controlling.) And they can even heal themselves up in combat if they want, without losing their attacks!
And as for Swordsages, they can fight reasonably well and they do have out-of-combat utility (short-range teleport by itself accounts for a lot).
Ergo, all three of them are T3. Maybe low-ish compared to the casters, but they are there nonetheless.

[Bhaakon]

That's the thing of it though. I don't really understand how a distinct line between magical and mundane makes sense.

Because magic doesn't exist in the real world. Yes, that's imposing baggage from the real world onto a fictional one in a way that might not make sense in the internal logical of that fictional world, but there it is. The whole point of playing a mundane character, for some, is that they're not magical. At all.

[eggynack]

Because magic doesn't exist in the real world. Yes, that's imposing baggage from the real world onto a fictional one in a way that might not make sense in the internal logical of that fictional world, but there it is. The whole point of playing a mundane character, for some, is that they're not magical. At all.

Perhaps, but that's kinda where we get into fallacy territory, rather than the realm of preferences. Imposing baggage from the real world onto a fictional one in this manner is, as you noted, illogical. That also gets us back to the main point of the thread. You say that mundane folks can't be magical at all, where being magical is defined as doing stuff you can't do in the real world, but the implications of that are problematic. They mean that a guy with a big hammer can't use it to make an earthquake, because no one on earth can do that. The fallacy lies in the idea that we should be able to draw one to one parallels between everything mundane and something in real life, and any expansion of that is viewed as magical. It's a problematic limitation, and I assert that it is an artificial one as well.

[Bhaakon]

Perhaps, but that's kinda where we get into fallacy territory, rather than the realm of preferences.

Preference are not necessarily logical, so trying to argue against them with logic is itself fallacious.

I'll call it the "trying to account for taste fallacy."

It's a problematic limitation, and I assert that it is an artificial one as well.

Fiction is artifice.

[DeltaEmil]

He also defeated (or at least fooled) a god (several??).

I wouldn´t enjoy a game in which that was possible.

Chinese gods aren't that special compared to D&D 3e spellcasters. They're just immortal slightly better-than-average-human beings, which is why the Monkey King could easily terrorize the gods by flinging celestial horse droppings at them, ruined banquettes, did other toilet-humor things so disgusting that the Celestial Emperor had to call the Gautama-Buddha himself to stop the Monkey King.

Funnily enough, my example becomes an allegory about tier differences that are older than D&D in how a mighty monk (the Monkey King, God of Martial Arts) still got easily owned by a reality-reshaping sage.

Spoiler

Show

The Monkey King then leveled as enlightened one , because knowledge is greater than martial prowess, even the physical might of the mighty Monkey King. Enlightenment needs to be nerfed.

[Equilibria]

Perhaps, but that's kinda where we get into fallacy territory, rather than the realm of preferences. Imposing baggage from the real world onto a fictional one in this manner is, as you noted, illogical. That also gets us back to the main point of the thread. You say that mundane folks can't be magical at all, where being magical is defined as doing stuff you can't do in the real world, but the implications of that are problematic. They mean that a guy with a big hammer can't use it to make an earthquake, because no one on earth can do that. The fallacy lies in the idea that we should be able to draw one to one parallels between everything mundane and something in real life, and any expansion of that is viewed as magical. It's a problematic limitation, and I assert that it is an artificial one as well.

Nope, still preference

If you want to play in a world where there are no similarities between real world and fantasy world physics then that´s cool with me.

But i want to play in a world where i can succeed without (what i define as) complete over the top action.

You may not agree, but that´s a matter of preference.

[DarkSonic1337]

There are still very fundamental limitations to what mundanes can do without it feeling dissonant. When you can shoot a thousand arrows to clear out armies, or one giant arrow that pieces a hundred people, you feel less like an actual vanilla action hero and more like a sorcerer reskinned as a fighter.

Isn't arrow rain like a staple of fantasy archery?

I mean come on, why can't archers be more like Hawkeye? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gSrgtYCw_U#t=1m36s

His super can shoot BACKWARDS to make sure it hits. And he's got poison arrows, net arrows, piercing arrows (as in they pierce through multiple targets) and all kinds of goodies.

[BWR]

I mean come on, why can't archers be more like Hawkeye? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gSrgtYCw_U#t=1m36s

His super can shoot BACKWARDS to make sure it hits. And he's got poison arrows, net arrows, piercing arrows (as in they pierce through multiple targets) and all kinds of goodies.

Meh, Hawkeye's an inferior rip-off of Green Arrow.

Lo! the pointless derailment begins.

[Gemini476]

There are still very fundamental limitations to what mundanes can do without it feeling dissonant. When you can shoot a thousand arrows to clear out armies, or one giant arrow that pieces a hundred people, you feel less like an actual vanilla action hero and more like a sorcerer reskinned as a fighter.

High level Fighters shouldn't be action heroes, they should be Epic Heroes, like Herakles, Achilles, Gilgamesh and their like. They should be just about invulnerable death-machines that can kill a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass. They should go against armies, and their arrows should blot out the sun.

Actually, (near-) invulnerability to physical damage seems to be somewhat common in legendary heroes (see also: King Arthur and the sheath of Excalibur). Why is the Barbarian the only one with DR or Fast Healing?

[The Rose Dragon]

But i want to play in a world where i can succeed without (what i define as) complete over the top action.

You may not agree, but that´s a matter of preference.

So you want to play a game without superheroes, while playing a system designed with the prevalence of superheroes in mind.

[Equilibria]

Chinese gods aren't that special compared to D&D 3e spellcasters. They're just immortal slightly better-than-average-human beings, which is why the Monkey King could easily terrorize the gods by flinging celestial horse droppings at them, ruined banquettes, did other toilet-humor things so disgusting that the Celestial Emperor had to call the Gautama-Buddha himself to stop the Monkey King.

Funnily enough, my example becomes an allegory about tier differences that are older than D&D in how a mighty monk (the Monkey King, God of Martial Arts) still got easily owned by a reality-reshaping sage.

Spoiler

Show

The Monkey King then leveled as enlightened one , because knowledge is greater than martial prowess, even the physical might of the mighty Monkey King. Enlightenment needs to be nerfed.

If the Monkey King jumped Mountains and the Buddha guy defeated him by altering reality it only goes to show that casters are to powerful... Even when faced with a monk that could jump mountains.
Only when the Monkey King got some magic of his own could he prevail.

Conclusion: casters need to be nerfed, and mundanes need to get some shiny new toys

[Gwendol]

It's possible to argue the sky is green, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. T3 means you can do multiple things well. Nowhere does it say that these things have to be inside and outside of combat. While Crusader and Warblade do have little out-of-combat utility (but still more than a Fighter), they both fill at least _two_ roles in combat (as I said, Defender+Leader and Striker+Leader, respectively), and fill them not just so-so, but very well; simultaneously if need be. (I'm counting the Crusader's predisposition for Lockdown as Defending, although it could also be classified as small-scale Controlling.) And they can even heal themselves up in combat if they want, without losing their attacks!
And as for Swordsages, they can fight reasonably well and they do have out-of-combat utility (short-range teleport by itself accounts for a lot).
Ergo, all three of them are T3. Maybe low-ish compared to the casters, but they are there nonetheless.

Ok, let's restate T3:

Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

Then, there are the challenges:

Situation 1: A Black Dragon has been plaguing an area, and he lives in a trap filled cave. Deal with him.

Situation 2: You have been tasked by a nearby country with making contact with the leader of the underground slave resistance of an evil tyranical city state, and get him to trust you.

Situation 3: A huge army of Orcs is approaching the city, and should be here in a week or so. Help the city prepare for war.

Crusader: Will have a hard time contributing to the exploratory and trap avoidance phase of the quest of situation 1
May be able to contribute to situation 2 (has diplomacy and intimidate as class skills), but have no to little chance of actually finding the underground slave resistance.
Situation 3: Yup, this is what the crusader does

Warblade: Again, not exactly shining at getting past a trap-filled dungeon. Dragon-slaying though, will contribute.
Situation 2 again can't contribute meaningfully until the resistance leader is found
Situation 3: May be able to kill legions of orcs by himself

The swordsage I'm not going to touch, as it is quite clearly T3. The other two though, can't really see how they are that much different from a barbarian, warlock, or the other T4.

[Equilibria]

Gemini476: High level Fighters shouldn't be action heroes, they should be Epic Heroes, like Herakles, Achilles, Gilgamesh and their like. They should be just about invulnerable death-machines that can kill a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass. They should go against armies, and their arrows should blot out the sun.

I disagree strongly... like Hercules strongly.

This sort of over the top action only serves to bore me.

Remember the Disney version of the three musketeers?
At the convent when the 4 heroes are supposed to fight each other they are interrupted by the Cardinals guards. That fight is 7 vs. 4 and is (IMO) very cool.

Then look at the version with the flying ships (can´t remember who's responsible for that travesty). Same scene, only 4 against 300. BORING!!!!!

That sort of battle takes all the tension out of it as the bad guys are so clearly outmatched... The heroes are in no real danger.

The Rose Dragon: So you want to play a game without superheroes, while playing a system designed with the prevalence of superheroes in mind.

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: I think their are several grades between the tier 5 classes and the tier 1 classes. While superheroes to you may mean being able to throw planets out of their course by clapping loudly, i´m merely suggesting that hawk eye to is a superhero. Hawk eye can´t alter reality, but he is very good at shooting arrows.
So to me, a high level character of any class should be at hawk eye level, not Dr. Strange.

[Firechanter]

Tier 3 still is not about being able to do _everything_. You are mixing that up with Tier 1.

How does a Bard do all of these challenges better?

He doesn't have Trapfinding and may easily be stumped at the 1st task, unless he is specifically built towards this.
He'll do the 2nd task much better, if he took the right skills.
And task 3, just like the Melees, he can contribute in battle, by inspiring courage etc., but I don't see what that has to do with _preparing_ for war.

Dread Necro?
He can set off all the traps for cheap with his undead minions (provided they don't reset too fast, and also you can _bet_ that this will alert the dragon).
Finding a rebel leader and getting him to trust you will be... difficult. His very presence may be counter-productive.
Defending a city, well, undead minions, if he's allowed to desecrate the local graveyards / necropolis.

And so on. Tier 3s _aren't_ equally awesome at everything and in every situation.
On the other hand, Crusie and Warbie are _clearly_ much more competent and versatile than, say, the Barbie, who can do exactly one thing in combat (Hulk Smash) and one thing outside combat (getting along in the wilderness).

[The Rose Dragon]

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: I think their are several grades between the tier 5 classes and the tier 1 classes. While superheroes to you may mean being able to throw planets out of their course by clapping loudly, i´m merely suggesting that hawk eye to is a superhero. Hawk eye can´t alter reality, but he is very good at shooting arrows.
So to me, a high level character of any class should be at hawk eye level, not Dr. Strange.

Well, for one thing, Hawkeye is incredibly over the top. Even in the Avengers movie, where he is toned down quite a bit from his, say, the Ultimates incarnation, he shoots down dozens and dozens of opponents without getting a scratch, at ridiculous ranges and highly suboptimal conditions.

For another, Hawkeye is a pulp hero, in a world with actual superheroes, and he suffers for it. Again, in the movie, throwing Hawkeye at Loki or the carriers would accomplish nothing (hell, the first one actually got him mind controlled). His narrative job was to prevent minor threats from piling up on the actual superheroes and prevent them from solving the real issues.

So to me, there is no problem with what you want (a game where you top at pulp heroes), or what D&D wants to offer (a game where you start as pulp heroes - what it actually offers is problematic in many ways, but that's another thread). The problem is that those two don't match at all, and the ideal solution is not trying to change D&D to fit what you want, but simply playing something else.

[Gwendol]

I'm not mixing things up, please don't assume what I think.

The bard doesn't have to (do better), just contribute in most situations and do one thing quite well.
The bard would excel at 2, contribute meaningfully at 3, and has features allowing him to also help out in 1 (inspire competence?), although not the class strongest suit.

[DeltaEmil]

If the Monkey King jumped Mountains and the Buddha guy defeated him by altering reality it only goes to show that casters are to powerful... Even when faced with a monk that could jump mountains.
Only when the Monkey King got some magic of his own could he prevail.

Conclusion: casters need to be nerfed, and mundanes need to get some shiny new toys

I can easily see the whole story about the Monkey King being a D&D game evening, where a new player comes with his totally twinked out monk class character and starts derailing the GM's campaign by challenging other d00ds, making the GM (as the Celestial Emperor) call an experienced veteran player who arrives with his high level spellcaster to deal with the problem.
Sun Wukong: "Sweet! Monks are the strongest class evar!!!"
Siddhārtha: "Are you that sure? They kinda strike me as rather weak."
Sun Wukong: "What do you know? You're playing a totally lame pacifist dressed in a pansy robe!"
Siddhārtha: "I'm sure monks can't do all those things you claim. They can't even jump that high."
Sun Wukong: "You're such a n00b. Monks are pretty cool guys. Teyh kung fu punch and don't afraid of anything. A pacifist pansy like you that can't even kung fu punch knows nothing."
Siddhārtha: "Meh. According to the rules, monks can't even jump over a tiny anthill. I'm not that impressed."
Sun Wukong: "Pshaw. My character can jump over a mountain even on a roll of 1. That's how awesome monks are."
Siddhārtha: "Really? Can you prove your claim? Could your monk for example jump over... that huge mountain that we never noticed before and seems to have come out of nowhere but of course was always there?"
Sun Wunkong: "Easy" *rolls* "With my modifiers, that's over 4000 feet! See? That's how awesome monks are!"
Siddhārtha: "Psych! That mountain was just my character's hand. Also, he shrunk your monk down without any chance of noticing it at all (also, no saving throw allowed). And now my character puts a heavy rock on your monk that has a magical curse on it which makes it that only someone of pure heart can break the stone!"
Sun Wukong: "HAXX! Spellcasters are OP! I'll play a spellcaster the next time!"

And then John was a Zombie Monkey King was a Buddha.

[Equilibria]

Well, for one thing, Hawkeye is incredibly over the top. Even in the Avengers movie, where he is toned down quite a bit from his, say, the Ultimates incarnation, he shoots down dozens and dozens of opponents without getting a scratch, at ridiculous ranges and highly suboptimal conditions.

For another, Hawkeye is a pulp hero, in a world with actual superheroes, and he suffers for it. Again, in the movie, throwing Hawkeye at Loki or the carriers would accomplish nothing (hell, the first one actually got him mind controlled). His narrative job was to prevent minor threats from piling up on the actual superheroes and prevent them from solving the real issues.

So to me, there is no problem with what you want (a game where you top at pulp heroes), or what D&D wants to offer (a game where you start as pulp heroes - what it actually offers is problematic in many ways, but that's another thread). The problem is that those two don't match at all, and the ideal solution is not trying to change D&D to fit what you want, but simply playing something else.

The first two paragraph i agree with. While he is powerful he can do nothing to the more powerful heroes and would be foolish to try. But as a 20 lvl character i have no problem with me being at Hawk Eye equivalent power level, just not at level one.

And while Hawk Eye is powerful he still can´t alter reality. The problem comes when Thor and Hulk (the tier 1-2 classes) are their to. Then Hawk Eye (the lower tier classes) becomes almost useless.

The third paragraph however i must disagree with.
You say that D&D is a game that wants you to end up as a reality altering super being that chrushes gods and worlds alike.

I say that is not true.

While the higher tiered classes could lead you to believe that, you can just as easily say that the lower tier classes are proof that D&D want you to play at my prefered power level.

So if the answer for you is to up the power level for the mundanes then you to are changing the game and neither of us should be playing (as per your post). I would instead present the possibility that D&D can accomodate all levels of power, and that neither your nor my prefered playstyle is the right one.

Their is no right and wrong... only preference

[Turion]

I'm not mixing things up, please don't assume what I think.

The bard doesn't have to, just contribute in most situations and do one thing quite well.
The bard would excel at 2, contribute meaningfully at 3, and has features allowing him to also help out in 1 (inspire competence?), although not the class strongest suit.

To expand a bit:
Situation one: inspire competence, hide from dragons, summon monster + silence, miscellaneous scrying.
Situation two: invisibility, charm, dominate, images etc..., more scrying, dimension door.
Situation three: ALL the buffs. ALL of them.

No idea how a DN would handle these, honestly, as they're not my thing.

I don't think anybody's saying t3 means "does everything." On the other hand, "always has something to do" sounds pretty accurate to me. That does describe the Bard or Beguiler (or Factotum, much as I hate to admit it). It doesn't describe the Warblade, though.