Why Shouldn't Martial Characters have powers?

[Raven Crowking]

Well, I think this is the fundamental source of disagreement. I have to ask the question, where is the boundary between "mundane" and "mystical", and why is it important?

I agree that this is the fundamental source of disagreement.

"Mundane" is anything that doesn't seem to require the laws of physics to be broken, or on which the players involved can at least suspend disbelief that physics is unbroken.

"Mystical" is something that seems to require the laws of physics to be broken, or that which the players involved can no longer suspend disbelief as to physical possiblity.

As such, both terms are pretty subjective. They are important only as they relate to what given players want from their gaming experience, and how suspension of disbelief re: physical possibility affects whether or not they are getting what they want.

A great game would allow for the widest range of possibilities, of course, but if we can't have that, most of us would like to be able to easily find players for the sorts of games we like.....and that, generally, means that D&D follows our playstyle more than it veers away from it. Indeed, AFAICT, that is what all of these 4e arguments are about, regardless of who is posting, or what is said.

We want to be able to find players for a game that can easily be played in a playstyle we enjoy. And we don't all enjoy the same playstyle.

RC

 

[Kahuna Burger]

D&D assumes a world in which magic permeates the very being of existence so that it can be manipulated by humanity, so I find it odd at the presence of "non-casters." You would think that even warriors would be able to cast a spell to strengthen their shields, guide their arrows, to start a minor fire, or something along those lines.

This is, imo, a completely viable idea for a fantasy world, and one which you can model using D&D, esp with some of the new feats in, for instance, Complete Champion. To say, however, that D&D by default assumes such a world is taking the narrow view. It is just as easy to play D&D in a world where magic is possible but always requires an effort to power and then control.

Classes with no explicitly mystical/magical abilities hard coded into them (but with options for all classes to dabble/enhance themselves) allows for both visions.

 

[Aldarc]

This is, imo, a completely viable idea for a fantasy world, and one which you can model using D&D, esp with some of the new feats in, for instance, Complete Champion. To say, however, that D&D by default assumes such a world is taking the narrow view. It is just as easy to play D&D in a world where magic is possible but always requires an effort to power and then control.

Classes with no explicitly mystical/magical abilities hard coded into them (but with options for all classes to dabble/enhance themselves) allows for both visions.

True, so perhaps it will come to pass in some future supplement. Some of this, BTW, was present in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, AU's Mystic Secrets, and Transcendence. AU/AE's world assumes that in such a magical world, even the akashic "skill-user" obtains these in mystical supernatural means and that warriors can perform combat rituals to enhance their abilities.

 

[Doug McCrae]

D&D assumes a world in which magic permeates the very being of existence so that it can be manipulated by humanity, so I find it odd at the presence of "non-casters." You would think that even warriors would be able to cast a spell to strengthen their shields, guide their arrows, to start a minor fire, or something along those lines.

That's RuneQuest.

 

[GSHamster]

I think it has more to do with the nature of magic, than it does with fighters.

Magic bends reality. That's pretty much the definition of magic.
Fighters don't have magic.
Therefore, Fighters are bound by reality.

 

[Simplicity]

Seeing as the first ed. version could cast 'fireball' and the following versions where either two-weapon fighters or super-archers, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the D&D ranger has been a bad tribute to Aragorn.

You might not like it, but to not recognize the reference is just plain incorrect.

As he would appear in comic books.

I guess that depends on how the wizard is played, and what comic books you're talking about. But since this was just laying down a foundation, it doesn't really matter.

He might as well have. He was the son of Zeus, not some normal man at the very edge of physical ability. His Labors involve near Justice League levels of superhuman ability.

Which point are you trying to prove with this?

He was the son of Zeus, but also the son of a mortal. He's meant, however, to represent mortal men not a god. If you don't like him, feel free to pick any of the other people on Wikipedia's Epic Hero list. Some are demigods, some are not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_hero

The point is that the Epic fighter IS the Epic hero (as described on Wikipedia). That's the source for the class, and meant to be the original inspiration for playing it. It's fine if D&D 4e mucks with that concept a bit, as long as there is a place for those sorts of Epic heroes in D&D 4e. If fighters are walking on air and shooting fireballs without some sort of magical item... Then we're not talking about the same kind of guy.

And yes, there's a distinct difference between a class which lets you walk on air, and a magical item which lets you do it.

 

[Enforcer]

I think it has more to do with the nature of magic, than it does with fighters.

Magic bends reality. That's pretty much the definition of magic.
Fighters don't have magic.
Therefore, Fighters are bound by reality.

This assumes, incorrectly in my opinion, that magic is the only thing that bends reality. Fantasy storytelling often gives warrior characters abilities, that, while not magic, bend reality due to super-human feats of strength or skill.

 

[Mallus]

Fighters don't have magic.

Only if you ignore their equipment.

Every D&D character gets magical powers as they level. I'd prefer a system where more of those powers inhere to the user (and not his or her stuff). Rationalizing them isn't an issue for me -- "For your service to Athena she grants you this boon", "It's seems the fiend blood you were bathed in when you slew Demonicus has left you changed, Myghtor".

 

[apoptosis]

There are obvious playstyle differences and different aesthetics that people want the game to show.

Do people think it is even possible to have both styles able to be played by the same game.

For me - I want magic-using characters to be able to accomplish things nonspellusers cannot (albeit at a great cost).

Others want spellusers and nonspellusers to basicaly be able to accomplish the same scope of tasks.

I personally dont believe a game will be able to do both and still be a particularly good game.

Just curious if people believe a game can accomodate VERY different styles and ideas in a way to make both types of gamers happy.

 

[Victim]

There are obvious playstyle differences and different aesthetics that people want the game to show.

Do people think it is even possible to have both styles able to be played by the same game.

For me - I want magic-using characters to be able to accomplish things nonspellusers cannot (albeit at a great cost).

Others want spellusers and nonspellusers to basicaly be able to accomplish the same scope of tasks.

I personally dont believe a game will be able to do both and still be a particularly good game.

Just curious if people believe a game can accomodate VERY different styles and ideas in a way to make both types of gamers happy.

I can't think of any version of DnD in which magic generally comes at great cost. I generally consider the 'cheapness' of magic one of DnD's distinguishing characteristics, in fact.