Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5967592" data-attributes="member: 87792">That's not the difference <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I'm purposely not giving a fictional justification.&nbsp; This is because the fictional abilities tend to be fairly similar across epic myths, legends, and high powered stories.&nbsp; But the fictional justification differs from legend to legend and story to story.&nbsp; What I'd do in the rulebook is say that &quot;To play this class above this level you are literally superhumanly strong and tough and should give a reason for it in your background.&nbsp; Example reasons are...&quot;But there doesn't need to be one single justification to be superhumanly strong, tough, and fast, and at even higher levels with effects extrapolated way beyond the realms of common sense.&nbsp; You just need a source of power - whether you're a living natural channel for the ambient magical energy of the universe, a demigod, or even a literal avatar of war, or just trained in Secret Special Techniques doesn't matter.&nbsp; You're going to be able to do absurd things with your strength and weapons and do them in ways that are pretty consistent across a range of stories through different myths and cultures.And your definition as far as I know matches up with no known myths, legends, or stories.&nbsp; It means that someone who wants to play Conan, Hercules, or Lancelot can't.&nbsp; What they end up playing is a &quot;D&amp;D Fighter&quot; rather than what they consider a fighter to be.I don't think anyone's ignoring that.&nbsp; What I am arguing is that1: Most of them are pretty low level where this is not an issue2: The high level ones aren't fighters.&nbsp; They are rogues.&nbsp; Cunning, trickery, and not being there in the first place.&nbsp; See Batman in the JLA or The Black Widow in the Avengers movie.&nbsp; Both are non-superhuman (although push the limits).&nbsp; And neither one of them is ever going to go toe to toe with the things the fighters fight.The first case is good.&nbsp; But I believe you have it backwards.&nbsp; It's not that fighters replicate the vorpal effect - it's vorpal trying to do what fighters do.&nbsp; In the second I really don't get why the wizard and artificer can't both do this better than the fighter - they after all know both the theory and the practice.&nbsp; It just seems like random toe-stepping to me that cuts against both archetypes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5967592, member: 87792"] That's not the difference :) I'm purposely not giving a fictional justification. This is because the fictional abilities tend to be fairly similar across epic myths, legends, and high powered stories. But the fictional justification differs from legend to legend and story to story. What I'd do in the rulebook is say that "To play this class above this level you are literally superhumanly strong and tough and should give a reason for it in your background. Example reasons are..." But there doesn't need to be one single justification to be superhumanly strong, tough, and fast, and at even higher levels with effects extrapolated way beyond the realms of common sense. You just need a source of power - whether you're a living natural channel for the ambient magical energy of the universe, a demigod, or even a literal avatar of war, or just trained in Secret Special Techniques doesn't matter. You're going to be able to do absurd things with your strength and weapons and do them in ways that are pretty consistent across a range of stories through different myths and cultures. And your definition as far as I know matches up with [I]no[/I] known myths, legends, or stories. It means that someone who wants to play Conan, Hercules, or Lancelot can't. What they end up playing is a "D&D Fighter" rather than what they consider a fighter to be. I don't think [I]anyone's[/I] ignoring that. What I am arguing is that 1: Most of them are pretty low level where this is not an issue 2: The high level ones [I]aren't fighters[/I]. They are rogues. Cunning, trickery, and not being there in the first place. See Batman in the JLA or The Black Widow in the Avengers movie. Both are non-superhuman (although push the limits). And neither one of them is [I]ever[/I] going to go toe to toe with the things the fighters fight. The first case is good. But I believe you have it backwards. It's not that fighters replicate the vorpal effect - it's vorpal trying to do what fighters do. In the second I really don't get why the wizard and artificer can't both do this better than the fighter - they after all know both the theory and the practice. It just seems like random toe-stepping to me that cuts against both archetypes. [/QUOTE]

Verification