Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5987824" data-attributes="member: 996">I've gamed with more than a few different groups over the years, and at conventions, so my experiences run the gammut.  But, while I've rarely seen 'martial' get a fair shake in a D&D rule, I've never seen it get a fair shake when it comes down to DM rulings, or, worse, the long-winded discussions/debates D&D games could often break down into.  I never really reflected upon the phenomenon, though, until 3e, when the fighter finally looked like a real participant in the game.  You could do complex, detailed build-to-concepts, there were lots of more detailed rules with more options in combat.  It looked like the fighter had arrived.  Unfortunately, they'd also stripped away every real limitation on casters you could think of (save DCs scaled, more spells/day, more hps/better AC, Touch attacks, concentration doing away with spell interruptions, feats doing away with components, and so forth).  While I'd noticed, before that 'realism' only seemed to come up when the fighter (or benighted thief, poor thing), tried to do something, I hadn't realized how universal or pernicious it was until the "Fighter SUX" threads got rollling....It's a pretty sad, quite pervasive attitude in the D&D community, and one at odds with the relative 'popularity' of the fighter class.  Garthanos has this theory that it's 'geeks' vicariously getting back at 'jocks' by ruling against the big dumb fighter...  My theory is more that it's just easier to accept magic doing whatever, because there's no point of reference, while martial abilities have a clear point of reference IRL.  Sometimes I think his might be right. ;(Spells did a lot more and more complex rules that tended to be more vague and open-ended, so there is that, in earlier editions - you'd expect more adjudications of spells than of "I attack the orc on the right with my axe."  But, you'd also expect them to fall evenly on the side of reigning in magical power (disallowing what the spell does mechanically) as setting it loose (allowing more than the spell does, mechanically).  IMX, it shakes out more towards the latter, with the former coming up only after a spell has demonstrably broken the game.  Of course, the former is fiercely resisted by the player, while the latter is passionately championed, so there's that self-interest going into it, too.  Adjudication of martial options is less common, and usually a lot simpler.  If it's not something the DM feels is realistic (and that varies), he'll say no, if it's anything that might work a little better than a boring old attack, he'll give it some massive penalty.</blockquote>

Verification