Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zustiur" data-source="post: 5966653" data-attributes="member: 1544">I didn't mention adamantium. I said 'DC 17'. Agreed, but it was necessary for the point of the conversation here...  Yes, that's what I thought too. I'm not happy about that being a valid answer given the situation the other characters are in. How might we fix that? 4E seems to suggest that everyone should get everything back over night, just like the cleric. I don't find that answer satisfying. I'm looking for alternatives. Something we agree on. I'd suggest that it should take the rogue a lot less time to achieve this at high level than at low. You seem to have missed the point of my post entirely. I want to know what you think should happen. I was not asking you to tell me what I think. I already know what I think.The no items, captured scenario exists entirely to present a situation where a high level party might be faced with a DC 17 door in the first place. In fact, it basically exists because I knew someone was going to say "Fighters need to be more than magic item mules unless they can make their own magic items." Which you did.I'm asking what the difference should be between low level play and high level play. What should a fighter be able to do differently (bearing in mind that we're talking about the person, not his equipment)? If you believe the fighter should be able to plait steel bars, I want to understand why. Is it that you see all characters as 'beyond human' in a comic book super hero kind of way? Do you see fighters as somehow transcending their humanity to become godlike in some manner? Perhaps you feel that the close presence of magic (items and spellcasters) throughout their adventuring life has altered their DNA, giving them super-human abilities. I want to know, so that I can understand why you think an otherwise non-magical human fighter should be able to bend steel that easily.Thank you for seeing what I was getting at.The fundamental question here is 'what is a fighter?' But I'll focus on a different question first:"What should a fighter be able to do?"There really seems to be two sides to this argument; those who want the fighter to remain mortal, albeit highly trained, and those who want him to transcend the abilities of mortal man. I can easily accept wizards bending the rules of physics, because they're utilizing an imaginary force (magic) to do so. Yet, it has long been established that DND fighters do not utilize that force, so why should they be able to [for example] bend steel as if it were rope?This is about the type of story being told as much as anything else.One story remains a lot more consistent with reality as we know it - Steel is hard to bend. The other pushes ever further into the realms of the fantastic - where we invent adamantine, god-steel and other imaginary substances specifically to ensure that the world can provide a consistent level of challenge to these god-men.Do we let logic dictate the mechanics, or do we come up with mechanics first, then make up a million fantastic clauses (or replacements for steel) to ensure that those mechanics make sense?Do we let the story dictate the mechanics, or do we let the mechanics dictate the story?</blockquote>

Verification