D&D General Why the resistance to D&D being a game?

[Gammadoodler]

nothing he does is outside the range of what I would expect a D&D Fighter to be able to do (if you ignore the setting / technology).

The same is not true for Ironman, Hulk, …

Apologies for the double post. But also this is backwards thinking.

It's less a matter of "Do John McLain's actions fall within an acceptable range of a D&D fighter:

It's more a matter of "Do a D&D fighters' exploits at all levels reliably map to John McLain's level of capability"

To me, the answer is a definitive "No".

 

[M_Natas]

So if it's magic, it's okay to 'break D&D'?

It is not breaking D&D if it is a magical effect. Because magical effects (Spells) are governed by its own set of rules ingame and out of game.

 

[Oofta]

So here's the thing, the "fighter's need to be mundane crowd" (including yourself on many many occasions) point to John McLain and other 80's action heroes as their go to reference point for what fighter capabilities should be..

..at any level.

What we don't get..ever..including just now with you..again..

..is how the tactics, capabilities, and vulnerabilities of these 80s action heroes actually square with the scope, tactics, and hazards relevant in high level D&D adventures.

High level melee fighters are not hiding in air vents from "mercenary no 5" and "unnamed lackey with machete". They are running toward them by the most direct path, slicing them down and then running past their corpses, again by the most direct path, to the hulking fire lizard beyond.

This just isn't 80's action heroes' brand of combat, and, in my opinion, we should stop acting like it should be.

How many enemies are there? What CR are they? Why not use hit-and-run tactics if that's the best option? There is nothing in the rules about how a fighter would approach this situation, which is why it's so baffling.

Like I said, to recreate the feel I'd make my PC dex based with proficiency in stealth. If I'm outnumbered and I know the enemy can easily call for reinforcements, I would absolutely try to pick the enemy off one by one. Are the enemies CR 3 veterans? Level 9 champions? Maybe CR 5 gladiators?

I still have no idea what you're trying to get at. High level fighters may go in guns ... umm ... swords blazing in your games. They certainly do in many movies with Schwarzenegger or Stalone but you were asking specifically about Die Hard.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It is not breaking D&D if it is a magical effect. Because magical effects (Spells) are governed by its own set of rules ingame and out of game.

Then why can't we have something non-magical with its own set of rules in and out of game?

Like the exact ability that's being discussed.

What about doing some pelvic thrusts and eating an insect makes subverting the idea that the DM gets to decide how NPCs react suddenly okay when it 'broke the game' perviously?

 

[Campbell]

Looks like an awful rule ready to be misused and leading to a lot of discussion about what a reasonable request is.

Way to miss the point (that we should be responsible in the way we discuss play techniques so as to not be dismissive of and misdescribe the way that other people play roleplaying games).

Also that this is General D&D thread and not a 5e thread so we should take care to respect the full legacy of the game.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Magic goes beyond the mundane, by definition. Put some restrictions on how and when you can cast, nerf a few spells (just a few), combine that with fighters actually being able to make a lot of attacks and kill a lot of stuff quickly (a cleave mechanic and a reduction in hit points across the board would help), and a rough balance and a rough grounding could be achieved.

If fighters are limited to the mundane, they CAN’T make a lot of attacks or kill stuff quickly. My response was prompted by your comment regarding a mundane fighter that would have difficulty fighting off a single lion.

If we assume that wizards are to be mechanically balanced against mundane fighters, “nerfing a few spells (just a few)” isn’t sufficient.

 

[Lanefan]

But in terms of sheer luck, there's another point to be made here. Over the years I've learned via their statements that many of the posters who tend to group around certain positions, @Micah Sweet and @FrogReaver , probably @Lanefan , perhaps @Oofta , etc. tell us that 'plausibility', and specifically a kind of sense that the PCs are 'not special' in a 'plot sense' is a key factor for them. For example in terms of rejecting any sort of player-side non-diagetic game elements, and 'narrativist' game structure which explicitly puts the center of attention on the PCs as being 'stars of the game', etc. Sheer luck is a direct assault on that, yet it seems to mysteriously get a by.

You called?

Having not read any of this thread up to here, I'm not sure how things got to this point; and thus if I'm off in left field here let me know.

But reading this passage in isolation it seems you're suggesting sheer luck isn't a part of, and fights against, a plausible and realistic game. I disagree. Luck is and always has been part of the game (otherwise it wouldn't use dice); and luck can run good or bad or in between. Sometimes a character does get lucky. Sometimes the character's foe gets lucky. Them's the breaks.

But if you're suggesting characters should be consistently lucky all the time, then that's not luck any more; it's a thumb on the scale.

That is, if we take @Manbearcat's fighter/lion analysis seriously, and I do as a starting point, then fighters MUST either be, in all respects, FAR beyond the range of human ability in multiple dimensions, OR they must be the luckiest people who have ever lived, by orders of magnitude! I mean, which is it? You have only doors A) and B), or else you must occupy a position I would call 'C', which is a completely incohorent mental state in which it is 'natural' for people to suddenly become 10x more physically capable as soon as lions (or orcs, etc.) show up. I don't see how ANY of A, B, or C is self-consistent with their view of plausibility.

Ah, now I see: it's the old super-fighter discussion again.

My answer - unpopular though it may be - is to either eschew the sort of levels where fighters become supers or to have it that the fighter's super-like abilities* are gleaned mostly from her magic items.

* - hit points excepted; those don't make sense in any form. That said, soft-capping hit points at a certain level a la 1e has some design merits.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But they all influence the mind, and characters use what they know to adjust their behavior, so my deception example holds.

If I can convince the barkeeper that there is a fire in his kitchen, he will go do something about that.

The fear example is obviously influencing the mind. This one is particularly interesting because someone else mentioned rational behavior and self preservation. I think it is actually fair to compare against older editions here, and it's worth noting that the old "panicked" condition actually forced the character to run away, disregarding self preservation.

The fact that we can't decide what a creature is doing is only because there are no mechanics to do so, not because there can't be any realistic mechanics that do so.

How does running away from what you see as a threat equal disregarding self-preservation? Is it opposite day already?

 

[Lanefan]

Come now. You are only one failed wisdom check away from MY PC, Fighty McFightface, from baiting you into melee. And this is one place where our view of PCs differs vastly. In my conception, Fighty isn't some generic thing, the Fighter class is a unique description of HIM, and nobody else! In all of history there is only one Fighty granted with the ability to do this! I mean, OK, maybe there are legends of others before him, way back when, etc. So, you are right, people are NOT vulnerable to this, except there's this one amazing guy... legends will be made about that guy!

No.

If one fighter can do it then all fighters, given the same training (i.e. level, feats, etc.), can do it. Whether or not said fighters have 'PC' or 'NPC' stickers on their foreheads is irrelevant.

Your PC is not special in the setting just because he's your - or anyone's - PC.

 

[Gammadoodler]

How many enemies are there? What CR are they? Why not use hit-and-run tactics if that's the best option? There is nothing in the rules about how a fighter would approach this situation, which is why it's so baffling.

Like I said, to recreate the feel I'd make my PC dex based with proficiency in stealth. If I'm outnumbered and I know the enemy can easily call for reinforcements, I would absolutely try to pick the enemy off one by one. Are the enemies CR 3 veterans? Level 9 champions? Maybe CR 5 gladiators?

I still have no idea what you're trying to get at. High level fighters may go in guns ... umm ... swords blazing in your games. They certainly do in many movies with Schwarzenegger or Stalone but you were asking specifically about Die Hard.

Swarzenegger and Stallone also mostly don't attack directly. They stowaway aboard seaplanes, or cover themselves in mud, or emerge from the threateningly from the tall grass covered in grease paint. They set elaborate traps using tree trunks and tripwires. They hide in the shadows and pull dudes into corners to slit their throats while whispering punchlines to the bad guys' corpse.

With extremely limited exception, 80's action heroes act like rogues, not fighters.

They're nor strolling through the battlefield, putting tanks and choppers in a headlock. Which is the kind of thing you might see a high level D&D fighter attempt with a reasonable expectation of success.