D&D General What does the mundane high level fighter look like? [+]

[Fanaelialae]

TBF, yes, it has always allowed an all-one-class party, in that choice of class has always been equally weighted, even back in the day when there were stat preq and race limits, everyone could easily end up all playing one class.
Thing is, if that class wasn't cleric, there'd be new characters rolled up every session until you had one or two. And, while later editions expanded the list of classes that could step into that all-important if not exactly popular 'bandaid' role, it's never entirely made party composition irrelevant.
(even the usual exception, 4e, demanded a mix of roles, and thus classes - though all one Source was easily possible.)

A one class party isn't impossible. It's just more challenging (both for the DM and players). I believe all of the 2e Complete Handbooks had advice for running mono-classed parties.

I played in a 2e campaign with no casters that went to a fairly high level (I want to say 9th?). My forum handle is actually my character's surname from that campaign. If we hadn't picked a fight with the Kraken (from Clash of the Titans, so basically an aquatic Tarrasque) it would have gone even farther. It was a close fight, so maybe even if our dice hadn't gone cold mid-fight.

Prior to that we only had one or two character deaths, despite regular and challenging combats. The DM mitigated the larger issues by allowing the heal proficiency to recover a few HP once per combat. There were also herbal healing potions that we could create if we were proficient in herbalism, which we crafted constantly. We were often down HP, but the party also had high damage and strong mitigation, so we managed.

 

[Aldarc]

Hrunting: Beowulf's sword

Hrunting was given to Beowulf by Unferth and it famously fails against Grendel's Mother, forcing Beowulf to discard it during the fight.

 

[Tonguez]

We know Tolkien borrowed heavily from existing myth and mythology. In some cases, nearly word for word.
Did you see that list of mythological items I provided earlier? The way Tolkien describes the Black Arrow, and the history behind it, are exactly the same way almost all of those items are described in mythology and folklore.

Those two things aren't an accident. Tolkien doesn't write accidents. There is a reason he decided to write the history and lore of the arrow in the same way as all of those other items were. I've even read somewhere that the black arrow was inspired by the sword Beowulf found in Grendel's lair. Ie., a specially enchanted weapon that is the only one to kill the big bad antagonist when mundane weapons fail. Since we know just about everything outside of the language in LotR/Hobbit were pulled from mythology, this is entirely plausible and probable.

There is every reason to consider the Black arrow a powerful magical item considering the above. I don't see how you can ignore it unless you have a bias to want to dismiss the fact that almost every hero in story relied on a magical weapon to defeat the monster.

The thing is Tolkien in The Lay of the Children of Hurin also created the arrow Dailir that belonged to Beleg Strongbow and specifically states that after shooting the arrow, even unsought it would always be found by Beleg.

I'd accept that Dailir was a magic arrow (not least for being Named), the wording used for Bards Black Arrow is different, so is that difference enough to distinguish Dailir as Magic and the Black Arrow as 'not-magic', certainly something to think about...

Then Dailir he drew, his dart beloved;
howso far fared it, or fell unnoted,
unsought he found it with sound feathers
and barbs unbroken

 

[Baron Opal II]

Hrunting was given to Beowulf by Unferth and it famously fails against Grendel's Mother, forcing Beowulf to discard it during the fight.

That's what happens when you have a +1 sword and it needed to be +2.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Hrunting was given to Beowulf by Unferth and it famously fails against Grendel's Mother, forcing Beowulf to discard it during the fight.

Hrunting was a sword that granted victory in battle by anyone who used it except Grendel's mother, which was intentional by Unferth. And what happened right after that? Beowulf grabbed an ancient powerful (magical) sword from Grendel's lair to do the job. So he still needed a magical weapon.

 

[Aldarc]

Hrunting was a sword that granted victory in battle by anyone who used it except Grendel's mother, which was intentional by Unferth.

A nice little editorializing there. This part is debated by scholars.

And what happened right after that? Beowulf grabbed an ancient powerful (magical) sword from Grendel's lair to do the job. So he still needed a magical weapon.

Sure, but Hrunting is not the sword that I would use to make the argument that you are wanting to make.

 

[Sacrosanct]

A nice little editorializing there. This part is debated by scholars.


Sure, but Hrunting is not the sword that I would use to make the argument that you are wanting to make.

The argument I'm making is that in nearly every case of a warrior defeating epic enemies, they have a magical powerful weapon to help them. That's no different with Beowulf. Hrunting guaranteed success against all enemies except Grendel's mother. And for that, he used a different ancient powerful sword. So I'm not sure what you're trying to argue against.

 

[Bluenose]

The argument I'm making is that in nearly every case of a warrior defeating epic enemies, they have a magical powerful weapon to help them. That's no different with Beowulf. Hrunting guaranteed success against all enemies except Grendel's mother. And for that, he used a different ancient powerful sword. So I'm not sure what you're trying to argue against.

In the specific example of Beowulf, a magic weapon is useful to him in one out of three of his main fights. He uses bare hands against Grendel and a knife against the dragon - and it's fair to note that Wiglaf's sword isn't apparently anything special. Might need a better example of a hero depending on magic than this particular one.

 

[Sacrosanct]

In the specific example of Beowulf, a magic weapon is useful to him in one out of three of his main fights. He uses bare hands against Grendel and a knife against the dragon - and it's fair to note that Wiglaf's sword isn't apparently anything special. Might need a better example of a hero depending on magic than this particular one.

You mean other than the entire list I provided earlier? I'd also argue that a named weapon/heirloom of kings is in fact something special.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This gets things the wrong way round - it treats the mechanics as fixed and departs from the tropes, rather than telling us what the mechanics should be reflecting.

The same thing applies to were-hyenas, which Conan kills in Queen of the Black Coast with single shots and blows.

A mundane high level fighter should be able to kill with one blow, as these literary and legendary heroes were able to.

I disagree. If we’re talking “mundane” warriors, killing with one blow may be a thing…depending on what’s getting killed. There’s an ill-defined line between mundane one-shotting and supernaturally doing likewise.

And to be honest, a lot of heroes of legend were anything but, and many that actually got started out in various editions of D&D were often multiclassed (so not strictly mundane) or considered demigods. Or both.

Beowulf, for instance, exhibited abilities far beyond mere mortals, like being able to hold his breath for hours, and wielding a giant’s sword which was so heavy only the giant was able to lift at all.

St. George, as a Paladin, would also not be mundane in D&D terms.

FWIW, if I think of mundane heroes from mythology, first in my mind is Odysseus. He’s definitely stronger and more accurate than most humans, as evidenced by the archery stunt when he finally gets home, but not so far beyond the pale that those are his most notable traits. It’s his wits that make him stand out among the other legendary Greek warriors.