Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5954771" data-attributes="member: 95493">Was that directed at me?Perhaps it has to do with the fact that there is an in-game, as well as mega-game, reason for the wizards to be able to move mountains vs letting the fighters being able to do it - via magic.I don't think it seriously comes down to not wanting fighters to have nice things. I know that personally I want my fighter to be effective, I have always done whatever I can to make him effective and always made sure he was respected as a fine combatant in my preferred edition (3.5) even when people try to tell me I'll never stand a chance against the wizard.But once again, for me, it comes down to the fact that wizards have magic, and for that reason I'm very much okay with them breaking what I understand to be reality. Whereas fighters don't and therefore shouldn't be able to. I can understand people who would like their fighter to be Superman, since the wizards are of course Zatana but I don't see that as being DnD's wheelhouse.Now, I can certainly see variations where this is true, along with builds or prestiges or whatever they do to allow customized characters but that shouldn't be the norm, that should be on top of the norm.Sure, let me quote the entire thing once again so there is no confusion.You quoted in reverse order of course. But let me try and clarify.If something is what you want to play, refer to my comments about Superman above, that is fine. More power to you. I can even understand those options being available in Core vs a module.What I am saying is that fighters should not be Hercules. They shouldn't have herculean power. They aren't gods with nigh impossible strength. They are mortals. Until that human fighter BECOMES a god (or half-god) and ascends to join the other olympians he shouldn't be able to redirect rivers. Hercules redirecting rivers is a feat of his immense strength, it isn't and shouldn't be a fighter "power".What is more, in those quoted parts, I replied what something shouldn't be. Not what something Should be. So I don't really see the contradiction.I can understand if I had said that fighters SHOULD have the power to do XYZ instead of ZYZ but that isn't it. Hell, I didn't even say that they should be limited by our real world reality. (At least I didn't say that here.)I DID go on to say that I can understand training to allow anyone to become Jet Li. I see that as perfectly fighter able. I can even understand allowing asian cinema type moves. I don't agree, and never will, that a fighter of any stripe should be Hercules' equal UNLESS he becomes a god. A GOD is the reason for the abilities, being a fighter is secondary.I can honestly see Hercules performing the same feats (pardon the term but I saw nothing better that applied) if he was recorded as being a sage and magic user. It is an element of his divine heritage that allowed him to perform great acts, not the fighter in him. The fighter in him allowed him to FIGHT WELL.Give me an example of fighting, not an example relating to a greek god, that's all I'm saying. For this reason, and only this reason, I say that SHOULD has no business being near "fighters should be equal to Hercules", especially since they shouldn't. God-fighters sure, but no one else.My entire comment goes away if he had said "equivalent to Arthur and the knights of the round table" but that isn't the comparison made.</blockquote>

Verification