Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5972215" data-attributes="member: 87792">Interesting.&nbsp; Because that really wasn't my reading.&nbsp; Mine was that there were people (e.g. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] or [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION]) who seem unhappy with the very idea of a fighter being more than mundane.&nbsp; There are other people (e.g. me or @pmerton) who think that the fighter can not fulfil the fighter archetype if they remain merely mundane - instead they become messy red smears at high level.&nbsp;On the Batman tangent, yes Batman does use a lot of brute force against Killer Croc, Red Hood, and Bane.&nbsp; But fundamentally in D&amp;D terms, Croc and Bane are effectively about the power of ogres - and Red Hood is a near mirror match.&nbsp; Batman's personal villains in his own universe are written at the power level where you can do that - I think the only one of Batman's recurring villains who won't go down to being hit round the head with a sledgehammer is Clayface, and none of them have the physical power even of a young red dragon.&nbsp;On the other hand Batman behaves very differently on the Justice League because hitting his enemies wouldn't get him very far.&nbsp; He'll take out White Martians.&nbsp; But the concept of getting in a slugging match with them would be silly.&nbsp;And this reaches to the core of the issue.&nbsp; To @pmerton and myself, fighters are defined by the way they behave.&nbsp; A fighter is the big strong guy who leads from the front - tough, heavily armoured, and highly skilled.&nbsp; But most of all front, centre, and taking the battle to the enemy in an extremely obvious and destructive manner.&nbsp; And if the fighter fails to allow this to work as a playstyle then the fighter fails as a class.&nbsp; To the other side the fighter is defined by who he is - and defined by mundanity at that.&nbsp; If the fighter can't do his job then the attitude appears to be &quot;sucks to be you&quot; - especially as the fighter can't really do any other job either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5972215, member: 87792"] Interesting. Because that really wasn't my reading. Mine was that there were people (e.g. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] or [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION]) who seem unhappy with the very idea of a fighter being more than mundane. There are other people (e.g. me or @pmerton) who think that the fighter can not fulfil the fighter archetype if they remain merely mundane - instead they become messy red smears at high level. On the Batman tangent, yes Batman does use a lot of brute force against Killer Croc, Red Hood, and Bane. But fundamentally in D&D terms, Croc and Bane are effectively about the power of ogres - and Red Hood is a near mirror match. Batman's personal villains in his own universe are written at the power level where you can do that - I think the only one of Batman's recurring villains who won't go down to being hit round the head with a sledgehammer is Clayface, and none of them have the physical power even of a young red dragon. On the other hand Batman behaves [I]very[/I] differently on the Justice League because hitting his enemies wouldn't get him very far. He'll take out White Martians. But the concept of getting in a slugging match with them would be silly. And this reaches to the core of the issue. To @pmerton and myself, fighters are defined by the way they behave. A fighter is the big strong guy who leads from the front - tough, heavily armoured, and highly skilled. But most of all front, centre, and taking the battle to the enemy in an extremely obvious and destructive manner. And if the fighter fails to allow this to work as a playstyle then the fighter fails as a class. To the other side the fighter is defined by who he is - and defined by mundanity at that. If the fighter can't do his job then the attitude appears to be "sucks to be you" - especially as the fighter can't really do any other job either. [/QUOTE]

Verification