D&D General What does the mundane high level fighter look like? [+]

[Tony Vargas]

The fighter is not likely to kill an orc without the optional rules of feats, magic items, or multiclassing.

2d6+5 is not higher than 15.
1d10+7 is not higher than 15.

And you're not guaranteed to hit either. But the point is that you can cleave through several orcs, not that you're guaranteed to. Your suggestions do not guarantee success either, and I don't think a rule should. We roll the dice for a reason after all.

Conversely
8d8 averages 36, and half of that is more than 15 ... save or no save, those orcs are toast... well, orcsicles ....

Why would anyone learn magic if it was no better than doing things the old-fashioned way?

People devote their lives to learning to fake magic (or trying to master real magic and failing, because it doesn't exist).
I don't doubt for a moment that people would enthusiastically pursue magic, even if it were objectively no better at adventuring tasks, overall, than the extraordinary skills of non-magic-using adventurers.

I think you've got it exactly backwards. This wouldn't need to be a + thread if what you're asserting was the case. Mundane is a design limit, not a descriptor, and the goal is to figure out what the high levels ought to look like with it in mind.

Mundane is certainly a descriptor, and, even if you take it as a design limit, as well, there's nothing about the supernatural as descriptor or as design limit that /requires/ it to be strictly superior.
D&D was bungled from the start and magic has been OP the whole time. People are used to that, but aside from that familiarity/inertia, there's no reason or need for it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

People devote their lives to learning to fake magic (or trying to master real magic and failing, because it doesn't exist).
I don't doubt for a moment that people would enthusiastically pursue magic, even if it were objectively no better at adventuring tasks, overall, than the extraordinary skills of non-magical adventurers.

Then it is functionally equivalent, which is what 4e did. That's certainly not what I want, then or now.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Why would anyone learn magic if it was no better than doing things the old-fashioned way?

because it does different things to what you can do the old-fashioned way rather than better things,

the fighter action surges and blocks a bunch of damage, the rogue can pick locks and sneak around,
the wizard makes you fly and creates tiny hut, the cleric wards you from damage and summons divine spirits to attack

 

[Pedantic]

Mundane is certainly a descriptor, and, even if you take it as a design limit, as well, there's nothing about the supernatural as descriptor or as design limit that /requires/ it to be strictly superior.

I regret bringing it up. It's not relevant here, we can engage somewhere else if we need to have that tired discussion again.

D&D was bungled from the start and magic has been OP the whole time. People are used to that, but aside from that familiarity/inertia, there's no reason or need for it.

See, that's the thing that's been set outside the bounds of discussion by the + thread. We're here to solve for a high level mundane character, given the limitations of mundanity as an aesthetic, and the high levels being what they are.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Then it is functionally equivalent, which is what 4e did. That's certainly not what I want, then or now.

no better overall is only functionally equivalent, well, overall. There's plenty of room to be different within that. That's part of what balance is - choices being viable - and yes, 4e did not do that as badly as other eds.

You were asking why someone would study magic if non-magical means could be as effective. There's clearly some good reasons. To get into D&Disms more, a character would study magic based on aptitude, if you have a high INT and low STR & CHA, you'll do a lot better studying wizardry than signing up to be a squire or seeking out a warlock's pact, for instance.

We're here to solve for a high level mundane character, given the limitations of mundanity as an aesthetic, and the high levels being what they are.

Which makes using mundanity as a limiter rather than a descriptor problematic.

 

[Manbearcat]

None of that is going to make me like minion rules (or the rest of 4e's combat engine for that matter). The comment above about Flee Mortals and actual verisimilitude-based in-universe lore? That has a shot.

I don't see how this connects to anything written in my post to any degree. Your reflex, after reading my post, is "Manbearcat of the internet is trying to make me like minion rules (or 4e's combat engine)?"

Let me be clear: I hold absolutely no illusion that such a thing could ever come about and I'm totally disinterested in trying to convince you otherwise.

What I am interested in is precisely what I wrote in the post you quoted.

1) What is going on in your mental model that churns out "feels like cheating?" Simply, what is happening in your head that substantively compels you to feel that way. Its not magic. Its thoughts that lead you to that place. What are they? Are they just idiosyncratic "feels" or is there more?

2) Why is AD&D (1e or 2e) exempt from those thoughts?

There is has to be some kind of interesting conversation there. Something about the mechanics of 1e or 2e gating of minion-status via HD vs 4e's iteration of the same...or something else.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, those sound like gnolls to me. Still pretty hard to oneshot, but not outright impossible.

I'm not talking about Gnolls I'm talking about the demonic hyenas in the REH story Queen of the Black Coast:

When dawn spread its white veil over the river, there were no men to be seen: only a hairy winged horror that squatted in the center of a ring of fifty great spotted hyenas that pointed quivering muzzles to the ghastly sky and howled like souls in hell. . . .

Something moved in the blackness under the trees. Etched abruptly in the rising moon, Conan saw a darkly blocked-out head and shoulders, brutish in outline. And now from the shadows dark shapes came silently, swiftly, running low—twenty great spotted hyenas. Their slavering fangs flashed in the moonlight, their eyes blazed as no true beast's eyes ever blazed.

Twenty: then the spears of the pirates had taken toll of the pack, after all.​

But ultimately hit points are weird, and they lead to combats working differently than in a lot of fiction (or reality) if you focus on blow to blow descriptions, but I'm not sure that really is worth worrying about too much.

I'm just saying that we can't say "this monster in this piece of fiction is this monster in the MM". Do what you want, but to me it makes no sense to do so. I agree they have demonic rabies and are perhaps more intelligent, more vicious than normal hyenas. Doesn't necessarily give them 58 HP in a book where HP isn't even a concept.

I guess I just don't get this at all. Hit points aren't a concept in any fiction I'm aware of - but their function in a RPG is to mediate and structure the creation of fiction. If the hp rules - as these are spread out over build rules and action resolution rules - don't underpin the creation of sensible fiction, then what are they for?

The idea that, when playing a RPG, I would just forget about the fiction for minutes or tens of minutes at a time, and play a board game, and then switch back into the fiction once the board game is finished, is to me completely at odds with the goal of verisimilitude.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There is has to be some kind of interesting conversation there. Something about the mechanics of 1e or 2e gating of minion-status via HD vs 4e's iteration of the same...or something else.

So my memories of 2e are really blurry, but presumably there the low HD monsters were just that? There weren't several separate statblocks to represent the same fictional entity like in the 4e?

 

[Scribe]

Why would anyone learn magic if it was no better than doing things the old-fashioned way?

Because some people just are adverse to good, honest, non-magical, non-supernatural, fully mundane, blood, sweat, and tears.

For those people, there is Magic.

 

[Pedantic]

I'll take a stab:

1) What is going on in your mental model that churns out "feels like cheating?" Simply, what is happening in your head that substantively compels you to feel that way. Its not magic. Its thoughts that lead you to that place. What are they? Are they just idiosyncratic "feels" or is there more?

I imagine this largely comes down to anchoring stat blocks as precise descriptions of the creatures they represent. Wolves are like so, so changing one of their properties to produce different gameplay undermines their role. You have not defeated a real wolf, instead the wolf was modified to allow you to defeat it. Comparison to other wolves is thus invalidated, and the fantasy you're trying to deliver doesn't happen, because instead of the character demonstrating something about themselves, they've taken advantage of a property of the opponent, and worse, a property that was induced specifically for them to do so.

2) Why is AD&D (1e or 2e) exempt from those thoughts?

I'm less confident in the appeal here, but I think it's about the origin of the mechanics? The AD&D mechanic is a property of the character, instead of a property of the monster.