D&D 5E Martial Characters vs Real World Athletes

[Hussar]

In addition to this, particularly for a character like Batman, it really depends on who Batman is hanging around with. Batman in Justice League is vastly more powerful than Batman on his own. For example, in the Justice League cartoons, Batman survives getting thrown into a wall by Darkseid. Think about this for a second, a character strong enough to punch Superman and make it hurt, grabs Batman and chucks him into a wall.

Batman should be a red smear on the wall.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1. My point was that a list of names doesn't mean much when there's nothing in the rules or actual gameplay that supports it.

Actually, the fact that the list of names is not supported by the rules or game-play /is the point/. A D&D fighter cannot come close to accomplishing the things attributed to the characters of myth and legend that are held up as examples of fighters. Conversely, a spellcaster can often do the full range of things displayed by the figures of myth and legend held up as examples of them - all those examples, and more. A single of fairly high level, for instance, can duplicate not only most of the things attributed to Merlin (and, really, there aren't that many), but those attributed to Circe, Medea, and Prospero for good measure. At only 5th level, he can handle most of the actual magics displayed by Gandalf, as well, though he's not mythic, but literary.

That's really the crux of the disconnect.

The /excuse/ is 'realism,' and it's a really, really, bad excuse.

You're misunderstanding or misrepresenting the "realism argument." The idea is that mundane classes should rival magical classes in power WITHOUT needing any supernatural abilities.

That's a nice idea. It's never worked.

Got any other ideas?

If you want a badass with a sword who can shatter castle walls and throw orcs around like rag dolls, I'm right there with you, but that is a different class concept. .. as soon as we can stop arguing over the class name "fighter" and definitions of "magical" or "supernatural" powers, we can start making that happen.

Actually, until we can get over the hurdle of definitions of 'magical,' supernatural, mundane, and so forth, we can't get anywhere, because the 'realism' excuse will keep getting used to cripple 'mundane' characters.

First of all, no hero in a fantasy setting is really /mundane/, they may have mundane origins, but they're out there in a fantastic world, doing extraordinary things. Secondly, something that's not precisely reaal-world 'realistic' isn't necessarily supernatural. Take your example of shattering a castle wall. People aren't strong enough to shatter castle walls. But, physical force applied to a castle wall can shatter it, and people can exert physical force, it's just a matter of degree. In a fantasy world, freed from the dull, mundane limitations of RL physics, nothing stops an increadibly strong hero (or giant or whatever) from breaking through a castle wall by main strength. It's not supernatural, because castle walls are just objects and objects can be broken by main strength, it's just an extreme example of main strength. What would be supernatural would be shattering the same wall with a spoken word, or by tracing runes on it.

Fighters don't have to be /mundane/ to avoid being supernatural. The 'realism' argument is bunk. If you want realism, avoid the fantasy genre.

One issue is differing playstyles: Some people may want their character to be Hercules, but maybe others want to play someone who doesn't have magic, like Hawkeye or Batman*.

It's not that simple. It's not, one side of the debate wants to play one sort of character and the other side another. It's some folks want to play non-caster characters who are equal to the sources of inspiration in genre, and the other is determined to stop them (even as casters surpass their sources of genre inspiration).

That's a double-standard, and one that has impacted the quality of D&D, as a game, and the civility of it's fanbase, throughout it's history.

 

[Andor]

Actually, the fact  It's not that simple.  It's not, one side of the debate wants to play one sort of character and the other side another.  It's some folks want to play non-caster characters who are equal to the sources of inspiration in genre, and the other is determined to stop them (even as casters surpass their sources of genre inspiration).  

That's a double-standard, and one that has impacted the quality of D&D, as a game, and the civility of it's fanbase, throughout it's history.

That is a great steaming pile of freshly laid self-righteous victemhood. And it's completly false on many, many levels.

First D&D is much more closely tied to literary heros and tropes than to mythic ones. There are games tied to Myth, D&D is not and never has been one of them. Furthermore those literary influences contain large chunks of the Swords and Sorcery genre where magic is not easy, and never free. Within that genre to do anything supernatural essentially requires invoking dark forces. Ergo the heros of that genre do not use magic. They are larger than life, but it's John McClane larger than life, not Beowulf.

Secondly while you are proudly claiming victemhood your are rather pointedly ignoring the simple fact that a Class designed to play as Hercules cannot also portray Fafhred and Conan. Why is it you must be allowed your perferred playstyle, but others cannot? 

Thirdly, this means your claim that the conflict is miscast is patently false. Worse you're disingenuous even about your own goals. A "Mythic Hero" class won't cut it, it must be a fighter, even a Totem barbarian is too far for you to bend. Why?

Fourth the heroes you cite are not mortal, mundane characters, except possibly Beowulf whose ancestry and training are not gone into as best I recall. Hercules is a demigod. Chu Chulain was trained and armed by supernatural powers. 

Fifth, who on earth is stopping you from running any game you choose in whatever manner pleases you? Who exactly "is deterimined to stop" you and how are they accomplishing this? 

Lastly, since I sincerly doubt that ninja hit squads will kill your dog if you play Fantasy Hero or Heroquest or even *gasp* houseruled D&D your whole rant is noting but one true wayism where you alone know what is good and right and the evil badwrongfun game designers lurk in the shadows to ruin your dreams. 

Poppycock! The game designers made 5e in response to mountains of feedback. If it's not to your likeing that doesn't mean it's wrong it simply means the majority of feedback providers preferred to play Porthos and Lancelot rather than Hercules and He-Man. Nor does it mean you are wrong, except in this absurd pose of victimization you have assumed. If you wish to play Mythic heros who can punch through castle walls there is nothing stopping you from playing any of dozens of games that will accommodate you, or from writing your own house rules. If you want suggestions, I'd have a look at Exalted, Fantasy Hero, perhaps Gurps Fantasy + Supers, HeroQuest, Godlike, or any of the superhero RPGs. If you want to write a Mythic Hero class for 5e I'd be happy to help with that too. But please stop this ridiculous claim a default fighter that is closer to Aramis than Thor is somehow a great conspiracy bent on stopping you from having fun.

 

[Stalker0]

Secondly while you are proudly claiming victemhood your are rather pointedly ignoring the simple fact that a Class designed to play as Hercules cannot also portray Fafhred and Conan.

It can using the leveling and tier system.

At 10th level fighter can be Conan, and a 20th level one Hercules.


I know for me personally, I am okay with fighters staying mundane up to a certain point. I just think there comes a point in the level system....where the demands of character power become such that the chains of "reality" need to start fading away. A 16th-20th level game is a different beast than a 10th level one...so to me its okay if the characters start to become different beasts of their own.

Now the counterargument is "I don't want my Conan to become Hercules as I level"....but honestly that's a truth to Dnd's level system. I can't play Conan at 1st level, 1st level play is just not designed for that style of game. So its unfair to expect 20th level to play the same as 10th. Its a different experience, and I think the martial classes have to be more "mythically equipped" to handle that experience.

 

[Tony Vargas]

First D&D is much more closely tied to literary heros and tropes than to mythic ones. There are games tied to Myth, D&D is not and never has been one of them.

D&D lifts many monsters and magic items from myth and legend, and has called out heroes of myth and legend as examples of classes.

Of course, it also draws heavily on literature, and even film and pop culture. The D&D Homunculus, for instance, owes much more the Harryhausen than Paracelsus.

But that really doesn't help, as the same double-standards apply there. Wizards out-cast Gandalf and Mazirian as readily as Merilin and Medea. Fighters fall shy of Conan as much as Beowulf.

Furthermore those literary influences contain large chunks of the Swords and Sorcery genre where magic is not easy, and never free. Within that genre to do anything supernatural essentially requires invoking dark forces.

While, in D&D, casting is both easy & very often free (plenty of V,S spells out there), not to mention /very/ dependable.

the simple fact that a Class designed to play as Hercules cannot also portray Fafhred and Conan.

Why is that a fact? Why couldn't a fighter class have enough meaningful choices to emulate any one of those?

Fourth the heroes you cite are not mortal, mundane characters, except possibly Beowulf whose ancestry and training are not gone into as best I recall. Hercules is a demigod. Chu Chulain was trained and armed by supernatural powers.

A lot of characters in myth & legend have supernatural origins. Circe is a daughter of Poseidon, Merlin the son of an incubus, Morgana a faerie, Gandalf a Maiar. That doesn't seem to disqualify them as sources of inspiration for spellcasters to /exceed/ in ability.

That they are not mundane is part of the point, the genre is a fantastic one, as are the characters in it. Yet the double-standard allows that only for casters.



 

 

[Sadras]

Now the counterargument is "I don't want my Conan to become Hercules as I level"....but honestly that's a truth to Dnd's level system.

IMO, that counterargument is weak, weak I tell you!

Some pages ago, I said that 5e seems (since we have not seen the DMG yet) to have missed an opportunity to cater for both camps using this tiers system, but my post got lost in all the verbiage.
The solution is simple - follow an E6-like model for PCs at different levels depending on the type of game they wanted, otherwise continue levelling as per normal and advance your Peasant Hero to become a Conan, to become a Hercules.

If they wanted to do it now, one way would be to swap out later fighter class features for mythical powers or perhaps mythical power bursts could be governed by HD cost, its not like the current system does not contain options. All is not lost!
In the immortal words of Black Adder "Hope springs eternal Baldrick!"

 

[pemerton]

Comparing game characters to fictional ones is usually an exercise in futility. Fictional characters have all sorts of advantages that game characters generally do not, first and foremost being 'whatever the writer wants to have happen'.

If you compare a wizard PC to literary wizards and note that the wizard PC is more powerful; and then compare a fighter PC to literary warriors and note that the fighter PC is less powerful; I'm not sure why the comparison was futile.

As for giving RPG players the resources to dictate, within limits, what happens to their PCs: the technoloy exists. 5e even deploys it - eg via the fighter's action surge ability. It's just that a mechanically capable fighter, especially at higher levels, needs even more ways to break out of the ordinary action economy and action resolution mechanics.

TD&D is much more closely tied to literary heros and tropes than to mythic ones. There are games tied to Myth, D&D is not and never has been one of them. Furthermore those literary influences contain large chunks of the Swords and Sorcery genre where magic is not easy, and never free. Within that genre to do anything supernatural essentially requires invoking dark forces. Ergo the heros of that genre do not use magic.

In what sense is D&D closely tied to these literary heroes and tropes when (i) it is chock-full of heroes who use magic, and (ii) that magic is easy, free and has little or no connectin to dark forces?

 

[Uchawi]

Because we are having these arguments every month from the playtest to final release, does demonstrate that 5E has some very fine constraints on what it allows classes to perform in regards to ability. Which I don't mind, except for there is no way to control complexity at the table so I may implement a more complex fighter or even a simple wizard. Martial classes are pretty much set in stone, while casters can re-invent themselves to fit the situation depending on spell selection. And that is the biggest offense from my viewpoint, that classes like the fighter do not have a universal mechanic like maneuvers. At least at that point there are mechanics built into every class (maneuvers or spells) to change the impact on the game. So one person's pile of gold in reference to liking 5E, is another person's steaming pile. YMMV.

 

[WayneLigon]

In what sense is D&D closely tied to these literary heroes and tropes when (i) it is chock-full of heroes who use magic, and (ii) that magic is easy, free and has little or no connectin to dark forces?

Unless he is literally talking about old-school classic literature, lots of fantasy books (esp. those written in the Nineties and beyond) use the D&D tropes these days.

 

[Andor]

In what sense is D&D closely tied to these literary heroes and tropes when (i) it is chock-full of heroes who use magic, and (ii) that magic is easy, free and has little or no connectin to dark forces?

It is tied in some of the underlying assumptions that drove the earlier versions of D&D. Today a lot of that trope has bled out of the system over the years, but people still want to retain the possibility of portraying these world. Which you can do if there exist mundane classes, but you cannot do if there are no mundane classes.

If I wanted to run as swords and sorcery game I could pretty easily do it by saying classes are limited to Barbarians (No Totem), Fighters (No Eldritch Knights), Rogues (No Arcane Tricksters) and Warlocks. And then taking a pretty hard look at race selection.

Unless he is literally talking about old-school classic literature, lots of fantasy books (esp. those written in the Nineties and beyond) use the D&D tropes these days.

Yes, of course I'm talking about the original literature. It's still read in some circles. And there is a reason we still discuss D&D spell casting in terms of Jack Vance.

However not all modern fantasy (thank God) is D&D deriviative. Lois BuJold's fantasy works portray two universes where magic exists but looks nothing like D&Ds commonplace yet only for combat magic. (Chalion and the Lakewalker books.) A lot of modern fantasy is urban monster genre stuff which does not resemble D&D although it's usually pretty close to World of Darkness.

The point being that some people want to portray D&D worlds where things look like you would expect them to look, unless someone is tapping into otherworldly powers. And there is nothing wrong with that. For most of D&Ds history the assumption has been that heroes are extraordinary people and run in extraordinary circles. Yes a highlevel planescape group might use +1 swords as units of currency, but the majority of people in a D&D world like Greyhawk are assumed to be peasant farmers who have seen little magic in their lives except perhaps a hedge wizard at a carnival or a wondrous everburning torch that one time they went to the big city. Now, not everyone likes that, in fact Eberron was pretty much a reaction to that trope and it is hugely popular.

I am not saying, in the slightest, that one way is better than another. I am saying that "Mundane" classes serve the valuable function of supporting a classic playstyle/world building ethos. Given 5es direct goal of bringing back old players they could not possibly have failed to support it and met their design goals.

So with that in mind I see no point in compaining that the fighter does not do a job he was never supposed to do, of portraying mythic heroes like Beowulf and Hercules who do flatly superhuman things like wrestleing rivers and holding their breath for a day. That is a job for another class, or at very least a different sub-class. Champion ≠ Demigod.