Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheOneGargoyle" data-source="post: 8492066" data-attributes="member: 6924207">I thought this was kind of the point of this discussion. If a player wants to play a non magic martial type, they're not going to choose an EK, Rune Knight, Arcane Trickster, Storm Herald, etc and would go for something more like BM, Assassin, Beserker, etc. For those players, how do we ensure they have equivalent capability & potential for fun (I think this is the bit we agree on) but in a way that makes sense for char concept & world building internal consistently (this might be the bit we disagree on?) The discussion hasn't been limited to only non combat power. We have had pages of discussion that have involved both combat & non combat aspects. I gave the Tony Stark example as a way of explaining that character abilities should be assessed within the framework of a char concept & telling a story, and that there is (& should be) more to an RP char than their magic items. This applies to any character, whether martial or caster. By that standard, there is more to Thor than just Mjolnir, more to Arthur than just Excalibur, more to Elric than just Stormbringer, etc. Do you dispute this? Hehe, dude, take a chill pill. There's no need for implications like that. Part of this conversation related to specific combat examples, including one post by the OP of the thread exploring what an epic level martial was capable of doing within the rules. My choice of items related to that discussion. Ok, well I guess we can agree to disagree on that one. I think maybe we're seeing it differently because we're comparing apples with oranges because when we say within the rules I'm considering all of the rules of the game, which includes the DM-ing and world building whereas you were looking at just class rules. Maybe? Depends, are you expecting to be able to play batman at the height of his career at 1st level? That's not really how D&D works. In order to play batman in D&D I would think you would need a very high level character. And yes, obviously if you choose a char concept that relies on a background like billionaire that doesn't yet exist in the game, you would need your DM on board. That's why there are guidelines for creating new backgrounds in the rules. Just like if you said to your DM that you wanted to play a Jedi in D&D, you might talk about it, and create a new background which corresponded to being a member of the order, and model it on a Kensai but swap out a couple of the class features which don't quite fit in exchange for being able to cast the jump spell with Ki, take the telekinetic feat, and agree that at some point you'll be looking to quest to gain a sun blade.  Does this all need the DM on board? Of course it does, because that's kind of the point of playing a tabletop RPG isn't it? But wait, this was a magical character not a martial! <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😛" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" title="Face with tongue    :stuck_out_tongue:" data-shortname=":stuck_out_tongue:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />So are you saying that a player that deliberately chooses a character archetype that is purely about combat, ie "Fighter", and puts absolutely none of their available build resources over many many levels into anything outside fighting, should nonetheless have comparable supernatural abilities outside combat as a character who is defined by their entire concept as pursuing those supernatural abilities? Que?</blockquote>

Verification