Why Shouldn't Martial Characters have powers?

[Henry]

What about superhero games?

It's my experience that uninteresting implementations of powers/special abilities are uninteresting (look, up in the sky, it's Captain Tautology!). That every character has some form of extraordinary ability doesn't, well shouldn't, make any specific ability more or less interesting during play.

You've hit on exactly the reason why I mostly play super-hero one shots, but play lower-level D&D all the time. Just super-powers themselves in proliferation make them less interesting to me, so when everything is "far beyond mortal men," it doesn't hold my interest.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The first thing I noticed when looking through D&D for the first time was that a 3rd level fighter had no in game reason to be afraid when he was held up by someone with a crossbow; he could just take the bolt.

That's what houserules are for; 1e actively encouraged them.

In my version of 3.X, I use a variation of the WP/VP variant, so that someone who has the drop on you can target your Wound Points....a much lower threshold than Vitality Points. In my setup, you regain VP = Lvl/5 minutes of rest, and you can take fatigue damage to your VP, making mobs far more dangerous than they are in the RAW.

I also rewrote classes and spells to tone down magic while upping fighting ability. I grabbed some classes from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed, too, while ditching the ones from the PHB that I didn't think fit the world I was describing.

I slowed down level progression, but made some "epic" feats available as early as 5th level. There's a lot more.....my "core rules" are over 600 pages & replace the PHB and part of the MM (normal animals). I cobbled a lot from 3rd party publishers, and really the huge "Houserules" are a way of having everything in one book.

Anyway, because of third-party publishers in particular, 3.X is convertable to almost anything that you want. Heck, my Doctor Who game uses 3.X/d20 System as its (very nominal) basis!


RC

 

[PeterWeller]

There is nothing fundamentally non-magical, or mundane, about being a "martial" character. "Martial" just means "of, relating to, or suited for war or a warrior". In a world of magic, I would think things that are suited for war would use magic.

Where does this concept of "fundamentally non-magic" come from?

You're not using the 4E definition of Martial, which is a power source derived from skill, dedication, and pure physical ability. That's where this concept of "fundamentally non-magic" comes from.

 

[Nifft]

Yes, but he used an artifact (Stone of Erech) to do that, and it was a limited-use power: Corsairs of Umbar, Battle of Pelanor Fields.

Are you saying that anyone could have commanded that undead army? It was just the effect of his artifact?

Or are you just pointing out some details that could be used to hand-wave powers for martial dudes?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Raven Crowking]

Are you saying that anyone could have commanded that undead army? It was just the effect of his artifact?

Or are you just pointing out some details that could be used to hand-wave powers for martial dudes?

Cheers, -- N

Nope. It had to be a descendent of Isildur (the artifact being keyed to his bloodline). If Sauron had waited a generation to arise, it might have been Aragorn's son (if he had one) or the opportunity might have passed forever. Thinking about this in D&D 3e terms, it might best be described as an incantation that requires both a particular bloodline, a particular action (walking the Paths of the Dead), a particular location (Stone of Erech), and can be used only once, lasting for a finite time (two battles, must be against forces of Sauron).

I don't think that "once in a lifetime" abilities are the sort of "kewl powerz" that people are worried about in 4e, though. Do you?

RC

 

[med stud]

That's what houserules are for; 1e actively encouraged them.

In my version of 3.X, I use a variation of the WP/VP variant, so that someone who has the drop on you can target your Wound Points....a much lower threshold than Vitality Points. In my setup, you regain VP = Lvl/5 minutes of rest, and you can take fatigue damage to your VP, making mobs far more dangerous than they are in the RAW.

I also rewrote classes and spells to tone down magic while upping fighting ability. I grabbed some classes from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed, too, while ditching the ones from the PHB that I didn't think fit the world I was describing.

I slowed down level progression, but made some "epic" feats available as early as 5th level. There's a lot more.....my "core rules" are over 600 pages & replace the PHB and part of the MM (normal animals). I cobbled a lot from 3rd party publishers, and really the huge "Houserules" are a way of having everything in one book.

Anyway, because of third-party publishers in particular, 3.X is convertable to almost anything that you want. Heck, my Doctor Who game uses 3.X/d20 System as its (very nominal) basis!


RC

That's true but then you have to house rule pretty much and you have to balance those house rules against the existing rules and you have to come up with them etc. Besides, when discussing a game I prefer to discuss the game as written, even if I intend to house rule it. This is because someones house rules may be great but I don't know them/don't want to take the time to learn them good enough to be able to discuss them. My POV is that D&D as written is about over the top action (and I think it's one of the strengths of D&D).

I really think that this discussion went OT with this. Not to be disrespectful or anything but I think it's best for the thread if we end this discussion here

 

[Raven Crowking]

My POV is that D&D as written is about over the top action (and I think it's one of the strengths of D&D).

Definitely true of 3e.

Gary Gygax recently said that none of his players was all that high level in his own campaign though, spanning 10 years of continuous play. I imagine that his game, as a result, was more pulp-action than Wuxia.

Anyway, to each his own.

RC

 

[Mallus]

You've hit on exactly the reason why I mostly play super-hero one shots, but play lower-level D&D all the time. Just super-powers themselves in proliferation make them less interesting to me, so when everything is "far beyond mortal men," it doesn't hold my interest.

Aha... okay that makes sense. I don't so much care about the number and scale of abilities, just what I can do with them under a specific DM/GM and rule set.

In a way, I prefer superhero games for exactly the reason you dislike them; since everyone has superpowers, it encourages me to be more creative in both my character design and play, so my guy will stand out a bit from the pack.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

I swear by all that is holy that if 4e has fighters with actual magical powers, not flashy, cinematic, non-anime moves but actually magical crap sputtering out of their swords I will not buy another thing from WoTC.

I'll join you, brother. I'm excited about 4e based on the whole "shiny new possibilities" idea, but if fighters can leap 50 feet and float through the air like some @*()$%*@*(& wuxia warrior, then I too shall retire from "new" D&D and focus on running 3.5 until my dying day.

Wuxia powers in optional Oriental-type sourcebook = fine.
Wuxia powers in core rules and assumptions = vomit-inducing.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Verisimilitude is not just realism. It is about the fantasty world being true to itself. Being the best swordsman in the world does not let you defy gravity.

This doesn't make any sense at all. If verismilitude is a fantasy world being true to itself, then why does verismilitude require any truth to our reality?

A cheap Hong Kong Kung Fu film has verismilitude (at least, if it isn't a bad film it will). There will be people running around, doing impossible things, fighting at superhuman levels, and defying gravity. However, all the characters in the film acknowledge the possibility of such feats, and the usual methods of acquiring the ability to perform such feats. It is internally consistent, and thus has verismilitude. As long as the film convinces the audience that the training methods and mysticism are reasonable, then there is no problem with verismilitude or suspension of disbelief.

It is the same principle as magic in D&D. As a whole, there is no realistic basis for the idea that just because you read enough books, you can go around rebuilding the fabric of the universe. However, all D&D says is "yes, it is possible, and everyone in the game world accepts this", and that is enough.

There is no reason whatsoever to accept a double standard of "mages are fine, but warriors have to be mundane". It is exactly that: a double standard. Why should "reading books lets you do amazing things" be true, and "training your body lets you do amazing things" be false?

Anyways, I grew up playing fighting games, watching anime, reading mythology, etc. I want warriors to be a lot more cool then they are right now. I want it so that at higher levels, D&D fighters can do stuff like Sol and Ky can. Here is a youtube link for those who have never seen them fight in the Guilty Gear videogame series. Forgive the bad quality, it as good as I could find. All I can say is that those two prove that just having flaming or electrical magic weapons and being skilled with flaming or electrical magic weapons should be two very different things.