Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Complex fighter pitfalls
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5954790" data-attributes="member: 95493"><p>I don't advocate that at all. I provide a reason why it is possible. You advocate that the fighters better be 'magical' too or else get out. I would rather keep both classes around and just reduce the availability of magic being able to do ANYTHING without reason or cause.</p><p></p><p></p><p>If you'll note both of my posts in this thread you'll see that IF the fighter becomes a god then that is fine. Epic path or no. Otherwise they shouldn't display godlike powers.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay, first I would speculate that either the Irish king has some form of magic, god-blood in his veins or simply DIDN'T do what he is known to have done. If he is just a "fighter" then there is no earthly explanation of how he could have done what he did without <em><strong>magic</strong></em>.</p><p></p><p>I would propose this because he is an example from the real world (not one of 4e) where people who aren't gods or don't have magic aren't typically able to perform such feats (again I can't think of a better term).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So the solution you propose is to remove anyone who can't wield magic... because ... people who can wield magic are overpowered? Mine would be to remove (or decrease) those who are overpowered, *shrug* that is just my preference I guess. I would prefer to eliminate things that would break my game instead of making EVERYONE in my game have powers that can break the game.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It isn't necessary to "Bring us all together" by appeasing the lowest common denominator. It is peferable to make a good system with internal consistency and then get everyone to play by the new rules instead of trying to take bits and pieces from all the old editions and string them together to form a new Frankenstein of an edition where no one is happy. It is definitely preferable to avoid taking controversial aspects of previous editions, thereby pissing people off who disliked that aspect, and introducing it into a new edition.</p><p></p><p>Also, it doesn't have anything to do with 4e's anything. It has to do with simple expectations and what the game should do. I understand you want no one but magic users in the game but I don't see that happening any time soon so maybe "advocating" it isn't really getting you anywhere Tony.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 5954790, member: 95493"] I don't advocate that at all. I provide a reason why it is possible. You advocate that the fighters better be 'magical' too or else get out. I would rather keep both classes around and just reduce the availability of magic being able to do ANYTHING without reason or cause. If you'll note both of my posts in this thread you'll see that IF the fighter becomes a god then that is fine. Epic path or no. Otherwise they shouldn't display godlike powers. Okay, first I would speculate that either the Irish king has some form of magic, god-blood in his veins or simply DIDN'T do what he is known to have done. If he is just a "fighter" then there is no earthly explanation of how he could have done what he did without [I][B]magic[/B][/I]. I would propose this because he is an example from the real world (not one of 4e) where people who aren't gods or don't have magic aren't typically able to perform such feats (again I can't think of a better term). So the solution you propose is to remove anyone who can't wield magic... because ... people who can wield magic are overpowered? Mine would be to remove (or decrease) those who are overpowered, *shrug* that is just my preference I guess. I would prefer to eliminate things that would break my game instead of making EVERYONE in my game have powers that can break the game. It isn't necessary to "Bring us all together" by appeasing the lowest common denominator. It is peferable to make a good system with internal consistency and then get everyone to play by the new rules instead of trying to take bits and pieces from all the old editions and string them together to form a new Frankenstein of an edition where no one is happy. It is definitely preferable to avoid taking controversial aspects of previous editions, thereby pissing people off who disliked that aspect, and introducing it into a new edition. Also, it doesn't have anything to do with 4e's anything. It has to do with simple expectations and what the game should do. I understand you want no one but magic users in the game but I don't see that happening any time soon so maybe "advocating" it isn't really getting you anywhere Tony. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Complex fighter pitfalls
Top