Why Shouldn't Martial Characters have powers?

Sundragon2012 said:
Because fighters are martial characters. They are skilled in what they do, but what they do is mundane. They swing a sword (or axe, halberd, spear, etc) and do it with style and even what appears to be superhuman skill at high levels but they are fundamentally non-magical.

I agree with this sentiment. It's not wrong IMHO to have the option of warrior characters with something magical, but it should not be the default. Fighters and Rogues are cool to me because what they achieve, they achieve without no stinkin' magic tricks :cool: (and this said by someone whose favourite PC type is the Wizard, but often wants to play the other types as well).
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Anyone willing to give some opinions as I'm somewhat find it hard to udnerstand why "extreme strength" is still considered mundance, yet "fireballs" are right out.

Here's an anime fight however, there are no fireballs or anything like that.

Would you say that this would be appropriate for a high level fighter and if so, WHAT level?

Jubei-Chan Sword Fight

For say japanese D&D gamers as evidenced by the abilities of the typical fighter in a FF-game, growing up in a culture that believes in Qi/Ki/Chi, the idea that a human can train themselves to hurl a ball of energy would be considered "Mundane". In fact, high strength a la Hercules might be more likely considered magical...
 

AllisterH said:
Would you say that this would be appropriate for a high level fighter and if so, WHAT level?

Jubei-Chan Sword Fight
At the beginning, I was okay with that... but then, they started hopping through a forest (that's something I can grok, see the 3.5E jump skill), hacking apart trees while running (a bit pointless... but okay). Then they produced "shockwaves"... and at that, the video lost me (and I'm only talking about the powers they've showed, not about the aesthetics, like the sudden movements).

Counter-example: Have you seen Samurai Champloo, especially the last episodes, but also the fight with the blind assassin? That's higher level D&Dish to me.

Cheers, LT.
 

Mallus said:
Or I could just play a fighter. With magic items. Because it's the exact same thing.
In one scenario, the power comes from yourself, in the other, it comes from an item. The character itself is "mundane". That seems to be the critical difference. If it makes sense to you or me to see this distinction as important, is another question. :)

Having "powers" doesn't have to mean that they feel magical. But magical items definitely do feel magical. :)
There aren't many stories where heroic martial characters rely on a buckload of magical items - maybe a magical sword But dozens of different items, all concentrating on making you better at being a warrior? Certainly not.

In 3.x, such items where neccessary. Iron Heroes showed you can redesign your classes so they don't need them. And it also showed you can give them powers that don't feel magical, either.

So I don't really worry that I will have problems in 4th Edition with powers for martial characters.
 

Lord Tirian said:
Counter-example: Have you seen Samurai Champloo, especially the last episodes, but also the fight with the blind assassin? That's higher level D&Dish to me.

Cheers, LT.

Yes...I hadn't thought about this show before when considering these arguments, but I think you've nailed what I view as powerful fighters right on the head. I'm not against anime influences in D&D, but I would prefer the more toned down types. Another example would be the the Rurouni Kenshin (Samurai X) movies: "Trust" & "Betrayal"...NOT THE TV SHOW( That's where we start seeing supposed warriors w/the magic). The movies are a great example of a warrior who has trained his body and has a natural talent for...well, killing. He faces off against numerous enemies, but never throws ki energy balls or sonic sword shock waves...He's just a badass fighter that's perfected the art of the warrior.
 

Nifft said:
He had very few fights compared to a D&D character. His "once in a lifetime" works out to what, 20% of all his battles?

You need to go back and read the books, my friend.

Aragorn has had a very long and distinguished adventuring career prior to joining the Fellowship, and was often Gandalf's ally in more serious ventures. Within the novel itself, he drives off the Nazgul twice in the Fellowship, as well as several "encounters" (using 4e terms) with orcs in Moria, plus a cave troll. He also tells Frodo of having captured Gollum in the Fellowship, which certainly involved a fight. Last, but not least, he faced orcs (admitedly, only Legolas did any shooting) on the Anduin, and then fought them when Boromir fell. He also faces supernatural wolves just before entering Moria.

In the Two Towers, we learn that hunting orcs is nothing new to Aragorn. They are a Favoured Enemy, and there are few alive who know more about them than he. And, in TTT, he fights orcs. At Helm's Deep he smites them hip and thigh. He wades in a sea of orcs and men in that battle, and triumphs. Not finished yet, he then goes an engages in mental combat with Sauron himself, and wrests the Palantir of Isengard from him (<-- Kewl Powerz Alert!). He passes through the Paths of the Dead (which, though a non-combat encounter like Cadaraz in Fellowship, is a true challenge) and fights the Corsairs of Umbar, securing their fleet and freeing the southern allies of Gondor from the forces that beseige them. We also learn in this book that Aragorn is no stranger to Rohan and Gondor, having ridden in battle with the Rohirim, and having entered Minas Tirith as a soldier.

In Return of the King, Aragorn fights in the battle of Pelanor Field, which in the book is not simply a bunch of ghosts sweeping over the battlefield. He then goes and fights the amassed armies of Sauron with nary a ghost to help him....orcs, trolls, and men. And, while Frodo's/Gollum's action in destroying the Ring prevents the mind of Sauron from directing the battle and enforcing morale, surviving and triumphing is no small feat.

LotR doesn't represent Aragorn's "Adventure Path" (which started 50 years ago), but it does represent an arc of three adventures on his rise to glory. Does the average D&D character face more discrete combats in three adventures? Perhaps. But, if so, the average D&D character doesn't face as many opponents over the course of three adventures.

IMHO, of course. ;)

RC
 

Lurks-no-More said:
ToB, with its combat maneuvers, was a huge leap to the correct direction, IMO, and as people repeat (to deaf ears, it seems), much if not most of what it had to offer was non-magical.
The problem is not "deaf ears" it's that those who have been talking non magic ToB are using a different definition of powers (different, imo, from the one implicitly established in the first post as well) and talking at cross purposes with those they think they are debating. I'm not going to scour the thread, but I can't recall anyone objecting to fighters having different tactical option in combat (though they may dislike "silly" names and flavor). The question in the first post was why fighters shouldn't do explicitly magical things, and folks have answered that. Why shift the definition of powers to include non magical specialty moves?

There are no deaf ears, people are just ignoring non sequitors to what they are talking about.
 

Raven Crowking said:
You need to go back and read the books, my friend.

Aragorn has had a very long and distinguished adventuring career prior to joining the Fellowship, and was often Gandalf's ally in more serious ventures.

Writing six chapters of backstory instead of allowing the character to develop organically in play is so anime.
 

Remove ads

Top