Why Shouldn't Martial Characters have powers?

[Deekin]

One of the Interesting stances I keep running across in 4th ed disscussion is that Fighter-type characters should be limited to the relm of realism, or it's not D&D.

I'm just wondering where this stance comes from. In a setting game where over half the classes can wield magic, why is the poor man with the sword stuck maxing out at the human maximum, while the wizard is so much father beyound this. Why is it ok for a Wizard to level mountain, while if the Warrior does anything superhuman it's badwrongfun.

If a fighter dedicates himself to his swordfighting as much as a wizard dedicates himself to magic, why shouldn't he be able to take on armies by himself? Why should he not be able to act faster than any mere mortal?

 

[wayne62682]

The best guess I can take is that: A) Fighters have never had "powers" (i.e. the old "It wasn't this way in 1st edition, so it should never be this way!" grognard argument), and/or B) People see ToB-style stuff as giving warrior types magic, which means they aren't warriors, or C) Some asinine and off-base comparison to anime, because anime warriors get cool, quasi-magical powers most of the time

 

[Sundragon2012]

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 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. If that crap were to be made a part of the core D&D assumptions regarding what D&D warriors are like I will not DM or play 4e. I would stick to Conan D20 and True20 and pay no further attention to D&D from that point on.

D&D warriors are Conan, Aragorn, Beowulf, King Arthur and not friggin Inuyasha. ::chokes back some vomit::

Wow, I found my deal-breaker.....lucky me. :\



Sundragon

 

[delericho]

For me it depends on whether they can have kewl powerz, or whether they must have kewl powerz.

Aragorn, Conan and Lancelot should all be valid examples of high-level martial characters just the same as Darth Vader or Li Mu Bai.

 

[Sundragon2012]

For me it depends on whether they can have kewl powerz, or whether they must have kewl powerz.

Aragorn, Conan and Lancelot should all be valid examples of high-level martial characters just the same as Darth Vader or Li Mu Bai.

Fair enough....it is an issue of can or must.

In a traditional D&D campaign warriors aren't ki/chi empowered martial artists they are warriors whose prowess comes from skill alone with their weapons. If there is a supplement that allows for a more asian or exotic flavor, that's cool but it shouldn't be the assumption regarding what your common everyday swordswinger is like. I prefer my core D&D western pseudo-medieval/dark ages and not a wierd hodge-podge that sucks the life out of any actual culture by blending everything together in a flavorless goo.

I am happy that the monk is going to be out of the first PHB for this very reason.

Something is lost when you can't just play a man who trusts his steel and his wits. Damn do I feel old.



Sundragon

 

[wingsandsword]

1. Because there is the idea that magic is somehow left to characters that are trained and experienced in magic, and that learning to swing a sword around and wear armor doesn't inherently grant you the power to make magical attacks and send energy beams from your sword (despite it looking cool in a video game).

2. Setting portability. Not every D&D game is set in a high-magical world where everybody and their brother has magical powers. One of my favorite D&D games to run was a very-low-magic quasi-historic game set during the 3rd Crusade (largely using the old AD&D 2e Crusades Historical Reference book). Only one PC had any spellcasting (a Paladin, so Paladin abilities and spells was all they had). If every single class in the PHB has spellcasting, supernatural, or spell-like abilities it gets very hard to play a campaign like that without completely rewriting the system.

3. Because traditionally sources like Lord of the Rings and Arthurian legends are a source for inspiration for fighters in D&D, and Aragorn and Boromir, and Lancelot and Arthur had incredible skill, but what they could do was still bounded in the realm of the physically possible and not supernatural (unless their weapon itself was supernatural), and they were more about raw physical skill and martial prowess than using magic they'd learned to devastate their foes.

 

[Irda Ranger]

For me it depends on whether they can have kewl powerz, or whether they must have kewl powerz.

Aragorn, Conan and Lancelot should all be valid examples of high-level martial characters just the same as Darth Vader or Li Mu Bai.

This is a good point, though I wouldn't call it "kewl." Would you call Darth Vader or Li Mu Bai "kewl" to their face? Not if you wanted to live long you wouldn't.

D&D should be flexible as to the archetypes it presents.

But I expect the Thief and Fighter will be pretty "martial only." We already know (1) there's a Sword-Mage in the works for future supplements, and (2) there's no way, under the current 4E ruleset to recreate the Bo9S Swordsage. Those two facts tell me that the "Martial" characters are pretty non-flash.

 

[med stud]

D&D warriors of high levels are far more capable than any skill can make anyone in the real world. No amount of skill and prowess can make you survive 12 seconds in lava or defeat an elephant with a dagger (for two examples). So as high level warriors have always been over the top you might as well add some interesting and evocative over the top choices for them.

 

[med stud]

3. Because traditionally sources like Lord of the Rings and Arthurian legends are a source for inspiration for fighters in D&D, and Aragorn and Boromir, and Lancelot and Arthur had incredible skill, but what they could do was still bounded in the realm of the physically possible and not supernatural (unless their weapon itself was supernatural), and they were more about raw physical skill and martial prowess than using magic they'd learned to devastate their foes.

Even that is not clear cut as at least Aragorn could heal wounds using Athelas and defeated Sauron using the Palantir. It was because Aragorn was a king more than a trained skill but still it was accomplishments that hadn't anything to do with his physical prowess.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

2. Setting portability. Not every D&D game is set in a high-magical world where everybody and their brother has magical powers. One of my favorite D&D games to run was a very-low-magic quasi-historic game set during the 3rd Crusade (largely using the old AD&D 2e Crusades Historical Reference book). Only one PC had any spellcasting (a Paladin, so Paladin abilities and spells was all they had). If every single class in the PHB has spellcasting, supernatural, or spell-like abilities it gets very hard to play a campaign like that without completely rewriting the system.

I agree, with the caveat that there should be feats or even skill options to create a setting in which even the most "mundane" characters may have some magical options. But having several non magical classes and those sorts of feats allows the widest variety of settings with the smallest effort.