Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 135
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Banned
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    Here's a challenge for you. What do all of these characters have in common?

    • Just about every "swordsman" character (Lloyd or Asbel, for instance) in any Tales of... game.
    • The Amazon and Assassin from Diablo II and Diablo II: Lord of Destruction.
    • The Dragonborn from Skyrim, specialising in anything other than magic.
    • A melee Runescape character with an Abyssal Vine Whip and Dragonfire Shield, with points in the Prayer skill.
    • Most Soul Reapers from Bleach, especially the ones who use their Zanpaku-to a lot more than Kido.
    • All of the named, non-psyker DOWII characters, and DOWII characters from The Last Stand.
    • Most League of Legends characters who fight in melee, such as Kayle, Garen and Riven, most AD carries, like Ashe, and a few others such as Teemo.


    If your answer was "They're all fighter-types" then you're correct. However, there is another point to this: Every last one of them uses some form of magic. Lloyd and Asbel have anything from Demon Fang up to the ability to call lightning bolts down on their foes. The Diablo II, Dawn of War II and League of Legends characters all have abilities of at very least questionable mundane-ness (Like Cyrus becoming completely invisible by "Hiding" - which uses up his "energy," *Cough* Mana *Cough*) and others have abilities of absolutely no mundane-ness (magic arrows, psychic hammers, the ability to heal, the ability to create this big-ass arrow out of nowhere...). Even the LoL character Garen, who is so mundane that he doesn't even have a mana bar, can still make this massive sword come out of nowhere and kill you dead. The dragonborn kills people by shouting "Fus ro da!" in their faces. RS characters' "Special attacks" may be forgivable as they are weapon functions, but the prayer skill is some serious divine magic. And don't get me started on the soul reapers.

    However, we don't generally think of most of these characters as being magical - maybe Kayle and the soul reapers are a bit iffy, but you quite clearly see the distinction between fighter-types, caster-types and gish-types in Tales of... games, you don't question why sergeant Cyrus' squad can hide in front of an eldar's nose, and you barely even stop to consider your Protection From Magic as you rush in to fight an enemy spellcaster, or your ability to throw people off a mountain by shouting at them. Even with the Amazon and Assassin, you take the ability to have explosive arrows and teleport-kicks in stride. The Assassin still has a melee feel to it.

    Garen is again an obvious point here: He spins at utterly impossible speeds while moving forwards at his normal pace, is able to stop you from using your own abilities, summons a literal shield (or three) to float around him blocking your attacks, and he drops a giant sword on you, all the while seeming like a perfect exemplar of a "Fighter."

    Even the Soul Reapers seem to be able to maintain some semblance of being a fighter type, even as they use magic and magic weapons to level entire city blocks as they battle.

    My point here is that, especially in such a high-power world as Dungeons and Dragons, no player character should really be expecting to walk around being "Mundane," and furthermore that it is wholly possible to be a fighter-type, with the feel of being a fighter-type, without actually being firmly grounded in reality.

    Therefore, should the next fighter fix have some magic-esque, (Sp) or (Su) abilities?

    Spoiler: On ToB
    Show
    Tome of battle is mundane, although it encompasses things which don't really make sense as mundane. It acts more like the Diablo II Barbarian: Give something fairly realistic-I-guess abilities and then throw on a few which aren't really realistic but oh well, and then present it as a fun mundane class.

    And almost nobody liked playing the Diablo II barbarian.
    Last edited by Jormengand; 2013-11-06 at 03:00 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grod_The_Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    They should not have spell-like abilities, which can be dispelled and blocked by SR or anti-magic field or magic-immune foes. That's silly. That's clearly magic, whatever you label it.

    Supernatural abilities are better, in that they are less like magic, but they are still blocked by an antimagic field. Still magic, which is no good-- if I want to play a character who doesn't use magic, I should be able to do such a thing.

    What your "fighter" should have, though, are (Ex) abilities which break the laws of physics.

    STaRS (and STaRS Lite)
    A non-narrativeist, generic rules-light system, by me. Now officially released!

    Grod's Guide to Greatness
    A big book of player options for 5e, by me

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use
    Giants and Graveyards: My collected 3.5 class fixes and more.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Just to Browse's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    Nitpick: Garen doesn't summon a sword anymore, he just smites them with the power of Demacia (whatever that means). Also, when they did the cinematic for him, they removed his crazy spin-to-win and replaced it with a flourish because it wasn't realistic.

    Not that this isn't a good argument, it's just that some things don't translate all that well from video games --> cinematics/RPGs.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Banned
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    What your "fighter" should have, though, are (Ex) abilities which break the laws of physics.
    But the entire point of an Ex ability is that it obeys the laws of physics, or the laws of nature - hence why it is not supernatural (above nature) but extraordinary (out of the ordinary).

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    They should not have spell-like abilities, which can be dispelled and blocked by SR or anti-magic field or magic-immune foes. That's silly. That's clearly magic, whatever you label it.

    Supernatural abilities are better, in that they are less like magic, but they are still blocked by an antimagic field. Still magic, which is no good-- if I want to play a character who doesn't use magic, I should be able to do such a thing.
    While I might feel happy for a couple of Garen-esque things to happen in an AMF, I would not be best pleased if Asbel ran in and started chucking lightning bolts at someone or an Assassin teleported in to kick the poor caster in the face, and I'd be a little suspicious of the invisible scouts and possible explosive mushrooms (TEEEEMOOOO!!!!)

    Ex abilities which break the laws of physics are also magic: that's how they can break the laws of physics. If you want to use the D&D system to play a mundane, and you don't like the idea of anyone with any magic whatsoever, you probably don't want someone who can tell reality to sit in the naughty corner as easily as any wizard could manage. In an antimagic field.

    Your "mundane" is no more mundane for having (Ex) written after its class feature titles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just to Browse View Post
    Nitpick: Garen doesn't summon a sword anymore, he just smites them with the power of Demacia (whatever that means). Also, when they did the cinematic for him, they removed his crazy spin-to-win and replaced it with a flourish because it wasn't realistic.

    Not that this isn't a good argument, it's just that some things don't translate all that well from video games --> cinematics/RPGs.
    I haven't played LoL in ages, but even the fact that Garen used to do these things and was still the epitome of what it means to be a fighter proves my point to some degree. And dammit, I loved the spin-to-win!
    Last edited by Jormengand; 2013-11-06 at 03:24 PM.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grod_The_Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    But the entire point of an Ex ability is that it obeys the laws of physics, or the laws of nature - hence why it is not supernatural (above nature) but extraordinary (out of the ordinary).
    Quote Originally Posted by SRD
    Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.
    (emphasis mine).

    While I might feel happy for a couple of Garen-esque things to happen in an AMF, I would not be best pleased if Asbel ran in and started chucking lightning bolts at someone or an Assassin teleported in to kick the poor caster in the face, and I'd be a little suspicious of the invisible scouts and possible explosive mushrooms (TEEEEMOOOO!!!!)
    That's funny, I'd be unhappy if I said "I want to play a warrior, not a caster" and someone hands me a guy who shoots lightning bolts and teleports.

    If high-level casters start turning into gods, high-level noncasters need to start turning into superheroes. Making everyone cast spells is not a solution.
    Last edited by Grod_The_Giant; 2013-11-06 at 03:58 PM.

    STaRS (and STaRS Lite)
    A non-narrativeist, generic rules-light system, by me. Now officially released!

    Grod's Guide to Greatness
    A big book of player options for 5e, by me

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use
    Giants and Graveyards: My collected 3.5 class fixes and more.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Banned
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    That's funny, I'd be unhappy if I said "I want to play a warrior, not a caster" and someone hands me a guy who shoots lightning bolts and teleports.

    If high-level casters start turning into gods, high-level noncasters need to start turning into superheroes. Making everyone cast spells is not a solution.
    Did you read any of my examples, or did you just come in here to advertise your homebrew and ignore the entire point of my thread?

    My point is that a fighter-type does not need to be mundane. He doesn't need to cast spells either - they can have (Su) class features. That's why the ToB was unpopular, because it tried to give them mundane spellcasting.

    Having things which go well with fighting but aren't mundane (like teleporting up to someone you want to attack, having a Thor's hammer type ability, firing exploding arrows, spinning to win, sending a wave of energy along the ground by swinging your sword, dodging people by shouting and having a flaming telekinetic sword) is what a large number of main characters in games do. It's more realistic to have "Fighter-esque T1" than "Realistic T1" as a design goal, not least due to the AMF abuse potential with Arcane Archers and Myths, for example.

    The Myth is literally the same concept as my ones, only with an (Ex) tag instead of a (Su). If I wanted a mundane who just-so-happened to break the laws of physics, I could give him the extraordinary ability to teleport - the fact that teleportation is clearly impossible is irrelevant: it can still be (Ex).
    Last edited by Jormengand; 2013-11-06 at 04:10 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grod_The_Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    Did you read any of my examples, or did you just come in here to advertise your homebrew and ignore the entire point of my thread?
    I did read your post, in which you seem to be arguing that these various video-game characters, who do things like shooting lightning bolts and summoning giant magic swords out of nowhere should be our models for how to make high-level fighters.

    I don't dispute that "warrior plus supernatural powers" is a valid character concept. I don't dispute that you can make a very effective class by doing so.

    However, I do think there is a sizable portion of players, myself included, that want a character who does not use magic-- or at least not obvious magic. If I wanted to shoot lightning bolts at things, or summon giant animated weapons, I'd play a wizard. (Or at least a gish). If I pick up a fighter... I don't. I want to play a character who depends on their own strong body and mind.

    In which case, there is a difference between "nonmagical" and "supernatural," and it's subtler than just slapping (Ex) on things that would otherwise be (Su) or (Sp). The "superhero" fighter I referred to doesn't manifest any abilities a normal member of his race can't... he just dials them up to 111. Don't give me random flight. Give me the ability to leap huge distances and because I'm Just That Strong. (I can jump in real life, but not fly. Jumping for miles Hulk-style is just a development of that).

    STaRS (and STaRS Lite)
    A non-narrativeist, generic rules-light system, by me. Now officially released!

    Grod's Guide to Greatness
    A big book of player options for 5e, by me

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use
    Giants and Graveyards: My collected 3.5 class fixes and more.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Here.

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    That's why the ToB was unpopular, because it tried to give them mundane spellcasting.
    I don't think this is the reason why ToB was "unpopular". Rather, from my observations, people shunned ToB for completely different reasons, including:

    • It's more powerful than 3.5 core mundanes (and thus must be broken to inexperienced DMs).
    • Weeaboo Fightan Magic
    • It's a new, drastically different system that not everyone wants to learn.
    • It was printed at the very tail end of 3.5, so people have less time to get used to it.
    • Martial classes seem very powerful at first level when they can one-shot stuff with ease.
    • Weeaboo Fightan Magic


    ToB did have a lot of supernatural maneuvers. Devoted Spirit for crusaders all had a divine theme, while Desert Wind and Shadow Hand were pretty blatantly supernatural with (Ex) tags. A lot of people actually disliked it because of this, comparing it to basically anime sword magic and giving the book that (admittedly pretty funny) nickname.

    So yeah, I don't know if giving melee (Su) abilities will be any more popular than ToB is.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2012

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    To its core, all a class needs to be tier 1 is a list of options that covers every possible situation, and the capacity to switch easily between option. While it is easy for spellcasters to do it because FYIM, giving magic to fighter-type characters will not necessarily solve the issue. Also, a T1 fighter-type is most likely quite different from a T1 mundane. The Myth class is a good example of the former, but it's status as a mundane class may be argued over. Conversely, there are plenty of media examples of the latter, but they do not necessarily qualify as fighter-type.
    Quote Originally Posted by Razanir View Post
    "I am a human sixtyfourthling! Fear my minimal halfling ancestry!")
    Quote Originally Posted by Zweisteine View Post
    So the real question is, what is a Ling?

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Rebonack's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The King's Grave

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    We've got a T1 Fighter. It's called a Cleric with Persistent Divine Power.

    The problem with trying to make a martial class into a T1 is.. well... the stuff that a T1 can do is kind of silly. I would go so far as to say that T1 is just plain bad kit design since they can do anything while overshadowing other classes that specialize in doing that thing they just effortlessly replicated.

    Ideally the Fighter should be THE BEST at his particular brand of monster-bopping while still being useful when his preferred brand of monster-bopping isn't an option. Give him Expert style class skills and skills per level so he has things to do aside from monster-bopping, give him class features that improve his mobility and allow him to shrug off effects that prevent him from monster-bopping monsters. Make it so shutting him down isn't trivial for a lot of high level encounters. That would potentially allow him to work well with other functional classes.

    But unless the Fighter can somehow create his own personal pocket universe made of chocolate fondue or nuke someone he doesn't like from a different plane of existence or decide to build the Death Star whilst funding his work with salt cows or mail Explosive Rune bombs to people and then switch up his game-breaking combo on a day to day basis then he isn't ever going to be T1.

    Personally? I think not being T1 is a good thing.
    Warning! Random Encounter™ detected!
    The Eternal Game Nightmære Stuff
    It doesn't matter whether you win or lose, just how awesome you look doing it.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    I suppose a fighter with Final Fantasy class limit breaks could do Teir 1 stuff. Omnislash could outdamage most things a wizard can do. Limits like Great Gospel can make most clerics jealous.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Rizban's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Aldhaven
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    I definitely like the ideas of high tier fighter types. But, really, to hit tier 1 as a mundane, you need to be able to punch reality hard enough to rewrite history a la Superboy or at least fracture it enough to stop time or create your own demiplane...

    Also, please don't reproduce this:
    Spoiler: Links to my content threads
    Show
    Quod tibi vis fieri, facias.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    kestrel404's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2009

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    I see these threads come up every once in a while, and I've yet to be satisfied by a 'tier 1' fighter. At best, they end up as tier 2 - and usually it's tier 3 or lower, because they're pretty much always lacking in the one thing that defines tier 1.

    Tier 1 is all about versatility. It's not a power thing - you can become godly-powerful as a tier 4, and still be tier 4 because you only have godly power when confronted with a combat situation, or a leadership challenge, or a social situation. Even if you can manage all 3 at once, that's only tier 2 at best.

    To be Tier 1, you need to be able to say that for every possible challenge that the DM can throw at you, you have CHOICES as to how to overcome, by yourself and with no help beyond the resources listed on your character sheet.

    You need to be able to say:
    Combat against a Demon - I have 3 abilities that will end this encounter in one round, and 2 others that will make it so the combat doesn't have to happen at all.
    Combat against a horde of Orcs - Same as above, but more choices.
    The King wants you to rescue his daughter - An ability that lets you do it while standing in the throne room, and another one that takes you straight to where she is AND which makes both of you invulnerable for the rest of the day.
    A serial killer is getting into locked houses at night and his next victim is one of three important NPCs - You can either identify the guy from what you know by interrogating summoned archangels, or you can set traps in all the locations he might strike, or you can just create bodyguards for all the NPCs out of thin air.

    And on, and on.

    That is an example of the Tier 1s in the game now. Most of them are significantly more powerful and versatile than the examples listed above, once you include splatbooks.
    Homebrew:

    Iron Chef Trophies:
    Spoiler
    Show

    Iron Chef X - 3rd (My first entry!)
    Iron Chef XI - 4th
    Iron Chef XIII - 4th
    Iron Chef XIV - Honorable Mention (and 4th place)
    Iron Chef XVI - 3rd place
    Iron Chef XVIII - 1st place
    Iron Chef XXXIV - 2nd place




  14. - Top - End - #14
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    AstralFire's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    How are Tales characters not well-represented by Tome of Battle, but rather this hypothetical not-Tome of Battle Fighter?

    Tales swordsmen can frequently shoot shockwaves across the ground, hover and spin in mid-air, strike with 30+ stabs in 4 seconds, vertical leap four times their height slashing on their way up AND down, and punch someone so hard that a Lion comes out. And that's not including very frequent elemental abilities, like Rising Phoenix, Sonic Thrust, Lightning Blade, and Hell Pyre - which are recurring abilities in the series, usually granted to even non-magical swordsmen. Desert Wind is the spitting image of this.

    But they also mix this in with ordinary sword slashes and thrusts and parries. I could very comfortably make a Magic Swordsman discipline for Tome of Battle that would encompass everything, including a Mystic Arte.

    Even how swordsmen are supposed to rely on TP makes sense with Tome of Battle. As they attack, they recover their abilities. At high levels, their ability pool is so large that it takes an absurdly long fight to require them to recharge at all, and they can just continually chain techs.

    Not to mention, Tome of Battle is VERY popular. It's just polarizing.
    Last edited by AstralFire; 2013-11-07 at 11:55 AM.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Banned
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    Quote Originally Posted by kestrel404 View Post
    I see these threads come up every once in a while, and I've yet to be satisfied by a 'tier 1' fighter. At best, they end up as tier 2 - and usually it's tier 3 or lower, because they're pretty much always lacking in the one thing that defines tier 1.

    Tier 1 is all about versatility. It's not a power thing - you can become godly-powerful as a tier 4, and still be tier 4 because you only have godly power when confronted with a combat situation, or a leadership challenge, or a social situation. Even if you can manage all 3 at once, that's only tier 2 at best.
    This here is the exact reason why I'm not seeing a T1 mundane ever working. You can, however, possibly have something which feels like a fighter-type and still goes around telling reality to sit in a corner while he creates seven of himself and knows everything. I could quite easily write the Diablo II assassin up as a T2 without really thinking too hard about it, and it could quite possibly be made a T1. It could still feel like a mundane assassin, just without being one.

    Quote Originally Posted by AstralFire View Post
    How are Tales characters not well-represented by Tome of Battle, but rather this hypothetical not-Tome of Battle Fighter?
    Because Tales swordsmen feel like fighters who happen to use magic, ToB characters feel like spellcasters who use "Weaboo Fightin' Magic" as others put it, and are trying to pretend they're fighter-types. ToB feels like a mage who happens to use a sword; Asbel and Lloyd feel like swordsmen who happen to use magic.
    Last edited by Jormengand; 2013-11-07 at 11:57 AM.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    AstralFire's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    To you, maybe. If you were to put a Tales Swordsman next to Aragorn, I would certainly call the former a Wizard. What makes the Tales Swordsman feel relatively non-magical is the abundance and grandiose nature of the magic around him.

    Heck, a Tales swordsman next to someone focusing solely on Iron Heart, Stone Dragon and White Raven would still feel considerably more magical.

    That feels like a very hypocritical statement when Tales Swordsmen frequently carry moves like First Aid, Healing Wind, Guardian Field, and Eruption - this includes Kratos/Zelos, Asch, Flynn, and others.
    Last edited by AstralFire; 2013-11-07 at 12:02 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Rizban's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Aldhaven
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    Quote Originally Posted by AstralFire View Post
    How are Tales characters not well-represented by Tome of Battle, but rather this hypothetical not-Tome of Battle Fighter?

    Tales swordsmen can frequently shoot shockwaves across the ground, hover and spin in mid-air, strike with 30+ stabs in 4 seconds, vertical leap four times their height slashing on their way up AND down, and punch someone so hard that a Lion comes out.

    But they also mix this in with ordinary sword slashes and thrusts and parries.

    Not to mention, Tome of Battle is VERY popular. It's just polarizing.
    I have 2 problems with ToB.
    1. It effectively invalidated the majority of what came before.
    2. There are effectively no limits to your abilities. Almost everything is is limited to uses per day, including spells. Maneuvers are not.

    ToB should have been more along the lines of Complete Scoundrel, offering new systems and options to existing classes rather than creating a new set of classes that are just inherently better.

    My personal houserules for ToB, when we use it, are:
    ToB base classes are banned.
    Initiator Level = Base Attack Bonus
    There are no limits to the number of maneuvers/stances you can gain from feats.
    Nonspellcasters gain 1 maneuver from any school each time they gain an iterative attack.
    ToB PrC entry requirements are usually a bit relaxed.

    This incorporates ToB into the existing material without supplanting it, gives a nice little boost to noncasters, and it makes Fighter typically the best Initiator due to bonus feats.



    My feeling is that if you're going to try to bring mundanes up in power, it needs to take a similar approach. Don't make an all new class that invalidates earlier classes. Make something previously published classes can use to become better.



    To touch on my second point, spellcasters in my games are generally pretty limited, because I don't allow 5 minute adventuring days. If spellcasters in my games blow all their spells, they end up hiding a lot later in the day. Magic was supposedly "balanced" around this point. While it doesn't really balance things, it helps a lot at mid levels.
    Last edited by Rizban; 2013-11-07 at 12:04 PM.
    Spoiler: Links to my content threads
    Show
    Quod tibi vis fieri, facias.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Djinn_in_Tonic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Stuck in a bottle.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    ToB feels like a mage who happens to use a sword; Asbel and Lloyd feel like swordsmen who happen to use magic.
    To stave off the next million posts and the death spiral of this thread, I'll summarize those million posts.

    [Name Here] thinks Tome of Battle feels like Fighters pretending to be mages. [Other Name Here] thinks this is fine/isn't the case/is something else entirely. Nobody has any tangible arguments to convince everyone else, as it's almost entirely about how the classes "feel" to different people.

    Repeat ad infinitum.

    Ingredients

    2oz Djinn
    5oz Water
    1 Lime Wedge


    Instructions

    Pour Djinn and tonic water into a glass filled with ice cubes. Stir well. Garnish with lime wedge. Serve.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Banned
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    Quote Originally Posted by AstralFire View Post
    That feels like a very hypocritical statement when Tales Swordsmen frequently carry moves like First Aid, Healing Wind, and Eruption - this includes Kratos/Zelos, Asch, Flynn, and others.
    You're confusing "Swordsman" (Lloyd) with "Magic Swordsman" (Kratos/Zelos). Magic Swordsman is a gish. Swordsman isn't, but that doesn't stop them using magic.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    AstralFire's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    That's certainly a better way of integrating Tome of Battle into the normal system, but I make no secret of the fact that I consider the normal system to be pretty bad. As a DM, I frequently banned all PHB classes except for Bard and Rogue and ran XPH and ToB instead. They're better designed systems (IMO, of course).

    I am fine with people not liking ToB because it supplants the normal system. I'm objecting to the idea that somehow ToB feels like "mages with swords" when you're using Lloyd Irving as a headliner for mundane swordsmen.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Banned
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn_in_Tonic View Post
    To stave off the next million posts and the death spiral of this thread, I'll summarize those million posts.

    [Name Here] thinks Tome of Battle feels like Fighters pretending to be mages. [Other Name Here] thinks this is fine/isn't the case/is something else entirely. Nobody has any tangible arguments to convince everyone else, as it's almost entirely about how the classes "feel" to different people.

    Repeat ad infinitum.
    My point is that a lot of people aren't happy about the current state of ToB, hence the seven million and four fighter fixes out there. The fact that some people are is fine - they can use ToB if they want to. The rest of us (which seems to be a majority) can use something else if we don't like the way ToB works. Invalidating an entire concept because only half of people like it doesn't make sense - I'm sure the majority of people don't play 3.0e, myself included: that doesn't mean that 3e is objectively bad, only that 3.5 changed some things that some people didn't like so some people could have something new.

    Quote Originally Posted by AstralFire View Post
    mundane
    Okay, trying to make you understand the purpose of this thread is a lost cause, isn't it?
    Last edited by Jormengand; 2013-11-07 at 12:10 PM.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    AstralFire's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn_in_Tonic View Post
    To stave off the next million posts and the death spiral of this thread, I'll summarize those million posts.

    [Name Here] thinks Tome of Battle feels like Fighters pretending to be mages. [Other Name Here] thinks this is fine/isn't the case/is something else entirely. Nobody has any tangible arguments to convince everyone else, as it's almost entirely about how the classes "feel" to different people.

    Repeat ad infinitum.
    Hey Djinn. Been a while. :)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    You're confusing "Swordsman" (Lloyd) with "Magic Swordsman" (Kratos/Zelos). Magic Swordsman is a gish. Swordsman isn't, but that doesn't stop them using magic.
    Guy is clearly just a flat-out Swordsman, and you're saying that this isn't magic?

    I'm pretty sure that Severing Wind should count, not to mention the psuedo-infinite Self-FOF he gets with Dragon Tempest there, too.

    EDIT: I'm aware of how your opening post begins. You should identify specific things that ToB doesn't do that your hypothetical not-ToB should do to address this issue.
    Last edited by AstralFire; 2013-11-07 at 12:12 PM.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Rizban's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Aldhaven
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    My point is that a lot of people aren't happy about the current state of ToB, hence the seven million and four fighter fixes out there. The fact that some people are is fine - they can use ToB if they want to. The rest of us (which seems to be a majority) can use something else if we don't like the way ToB works. Invalidating an entire concept because only half of people like it doesn't make sense - I'm sure the majority of people don't play 3.0e, myself included: that doesn't mean that 3e is objectively bad, only that 3.5 changed some things that some people didn't like so some people could have something new.


    Okay, trying to make you understand the purpose of this thread is a lost cause, isn't it?
    My point in discussing ToB is as I said above. Throwing out the system entirely and supplanting it with something new isn't the same as revising existing material up to 3.5. I'd prefer to see a supplemental system that is then incorporated into previous material.
    Spoiler: Links to my content threads
    Show
    Quod tibi vis fieri, facias.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Djinn_in_Tonic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Stuck in a bottle.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    Invalidating an entire concept because only half of people like it doesn't make sense.
    What if that concept is inherently broken?

    It's fairly well known that D&D is an extremely unbalanced system. And, as such, there are times when it is easier to scrap something and replace it then it is to patch it. ToB basically does that, if you want your game brought up to a Tier 3+ enviroment.

    But, further, it doesn't invalidate the Fighter, because, regardless of your opinion on Tome of Battle, nobody is making you use it.

    Back on the Thread Topic: I understand the reason behind the thread though, and it's a good question to ask. I think, however, that (Su) abilities are basically mandatory for a T1-2 Fighter type.

    The issue is that D&D has such a huge spread of levels and power ranges. We don't have myths about 20th level Fighters to reference. The closest we have is stories about characters like Sun Wukong, Hercules (although I'd consider him far below 20th level), and so forth: characters with divine or supernatural abilities, immense martial skill, and a strange combination of mundane and the supernatural.

    It's hard to make something that we don't have a conceptual reference for: our closest approximation is probably the sort of stuff Exalted, video games, and comic books have at their height of "martial" power, and that stuff seems to make many people recoil due to "fightan magicks."

    I don't think there's a solution that will appease anything more than a small fraction of D&D's fanbase, unfortunately. Short of rewriting the entire mechanics of the system to make physical combat a more rewarding prospect.

    Quote Originally Posted by AstralFire View Post
    Hey Djinn. Been a while. :)
    Hey-o! And yes. Yes it has.
    Last edited by Djinn_in_Tonic; 2013-11-07 at 12:20 PM.

    Ingredients

    2oz Djinn
    5oz Water
    1 Lime Wedge


    Instructions

    Pour Djinn and tonic water into a glass filled with ice cubes. Stir well. Garnish with lime wedge. Serve.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Banned
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    Quote Originally Posted by AstralFire View Post
    and you're saying that this isn't magic?
    "Swordsman isn't, but that doesn't stop them using magic."
    "but that doesn't stop them using magic."
    "doesn't stop them using magic."
    "using magic."

    This (Apart from Kratos' grave spell) is an acceptable level of magic for my purposes; IHS'ing the plane of fire is not. Lloyd is swinging his sword and doing things with it: Asbel is a bit further out on the magic level but manages to make throwing down lightning bolts feel like a fighter attack. That's what I want to achieve. ToB, as it stands, reads as spellcasting which happens to work in an AMF.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    kestrel404's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2009

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    This here is the exact reason why I'm not seeing a T1 mundane ever working. You can, however, possibly have something which feels like a fighter-type and still goes around telling reality to sit in a corner while he creates seven of himself and knows everything. I could quite easily write the Diablo II assassin up as a T2 without really thinking too hard about it, and it could quite possibly be made a T1. It could still feel like a mundane assassin, just without being one.
    Oh, I'm sure a T1 'Mundane' is entirely possible - it's just that you're going off on the wrong trail. You don't want a Fighter - the Fighter is trained and disciplined in a particular style, even multi-school fighters tend to be all about combining a limited number of specific arts or honing all arts into one path, and most importantly they specialize in combat and tend to ignore the other things

    In order to get T1 versatility, you need to be able to handle all kinds of challenges with equal capabilities. You're not talking about warrior or a fighter, then - they're too focused on the fight. What you need to consider is the SOLDIER - the modern day version, who's job includes scouting terrain, dealing with civilians, planning the allocation of resources and field repair of complicated technical equipment - and that's the common ground pounder - specialists and special forces tend to be MORE versatile, rather than less.

    If you want to make a T1 'fighter', focus on what can be accomplished through extensive military training, including specialist and officer training.

    And for a T1 mundane, look towards 'mad scientists' - really, in a lot of ways you could easily re-fluff the Artificer as a T1 mundane without much in the way of changes. They already get most of their versatility through feats and skills, with their 'spell list' being mostly means of doing 'quick and dirty' what they could otherwise normally do with time and materials.
    Homebrew:

    Iron Chef Trophies:
    Spoiler
    Show

    Iron Chef X - 3rd (My first entry!)
    Iron Chef XI - 4th
    Iron Chef XIII - 4th
    Iron Chef XIV - Honorable Mention (and 4th place)
    Iron Chef XVI - 3rd place
    Iron Chef XVIII - 1st place
    Iron Chef XXXIV - 2nd place




  27. - Top - End - #27
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grod_The_Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    You're confusing "Swordsman" (Lloyd) with "Magic Swordsman" (Kratos/Zelos). Magic Swordsman is a gish. Swordsman isn't, but that doesn't stop them using magic.
    You keep saying that "magic swordsman =/= swordsman who uses magic," but I fail to see any distinction between the two. All of your examples look like gish to me.

    You're complaining that ToB is "too magic," and proposing that it be replaced by a system where fighters are explicitly magic-users in some capacity or another. Do you see the contradiction there?

    STaRS (and STaRS Lite)
    A non-narrativeist, generic rules-light system, by me. Now officially released!

    Grod's Guide to Greatness
    A big book of player options for 5e, by me

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use
    Giants and Graveyards: My collected 3.5 class fixes and more.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Zaydos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Erutnevda

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    See I'm going to second what Djinn said.

    I'm also going to question: The problem with ToB seems to be that the maneuvers feel like spells in their mechanical implementation, i.e. I activate ability X as opposed to "I make a three attacks allowing me to make my ultimate combo move" or something mechanically dissimilar/at-will?
    Peanut Half-Dragon Necromancer by Kurien.

    Current Projects:

    Group: The Harrowing Halloween Harvest of Horror Part 2

    Personal Silliness: Vote what Soulknife "Fix"/Inspired Class Should I make??? Past Work Expansion Caricatures.

    Old: My homebrew (updated 9/9)

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Djinn_in_Tonic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Stuck in a bottle.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    IHS'ing the plane of fire is not.
    Using the ability that almost everyone will agree is one of D&D's best examples of rules confusion, bad mechanical writing, and poor implementation as an example is probably something we should avoid.

    Asbel is a bit further out on the magic level but manages to make throwing down lightning bolts feel like a fighter attack. That's what I want to achieve.
    What in Tome of Battle doesn't feel like it could be a fighter attack to you? Assuming throwing down lighting bolts CAN feel like a fighter attack, which this post seems to imply is the case.

    Edit: This isn't meant to be a "You should like Tome of Battle" post/comment. I'm actually trying to find out where you issue with it lies in more detail, so we can discuss what other approaches could work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zaydos View Post
    I'm also going to question: The problem with ToB seems to be that the maneuvers feel like spells in their mechanical implementation, i.e. I activate ability X as opposed to "I make a three attacks allowing me to make my ultimate combo move" or something mechanically dissimilar/at-will?
    In my experience, Zaydos has hit the nail on the head. Is it the structure, mechanics, and use of the maneuvers that's causing the issue?
    Last edited by Djinn_in_Tonic; 2013-11-07 at 12:30 PM.

    Ingredients

    2oz Djinn
    5oz Water
    1 Lime Wedge


    Instructions

    Pour Djinn and tonic water into a glass filled with ice cubes. Stir well. Garnish with lime wedge. Serve.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    AstralFire's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: T1 mundane, or T1 fighter-type? (Idea)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    "Swordsman isn't, but that doesn't stop them using magic."
    "but that doesn't stop them using magic."
    "doesn't stop them using magic."
    "using magic."

    This (Apart from Kratos' grave spell) is an acceptable level of magic for my purposes; IHS'ing the plane of fire is not. Lloyd is swinging his sword and doing things with it: Asbel is a bit further out on the magic level but manages to make throwing down lightning bolts feel like a fighter attack. That's what I want to achieve. ToB, as it stands, reads as spellcasting which happens to work in an AMF.
    Why does it read as spellcasting which happens to work in an AMF? You are aware that the overwhelming majority of ToB maneuvers involve a weapon strike, yes? Even Desert Wind?

    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn_in_Tonic View Post
    What in Tome of Battle doesn't feel like it could be a fighter attack to you? Assuming throwing down lighting bolts CAN feel like a fighter attack, which this post seems to imply is the case.
    The specific move he's talking about - which is most famously used by Kratos/Zelos, the Magic Swordsmen - involves spearing someone with your sword while lightning hits them from above.

    This seems very similar to most Desert Wind maneuvers to me. There are exceptions, yes... like the swordsmen firing shockwaves (Demon Fang, Azure Edge), healing themselves (Center), focusing their power (Steel), creating a defensive energy field (Guardian)...
    Last edited by AstralFire; 2013-11-07 at 12:32 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •