Why Shouldn't Martial Characters have powers?

[Raven Crowking]

:re Finding gamers
RC, I understand where you're coming from but this might actually be striking the death-knell for D&D as a hobby. More and more, the kids that are actually interested in fantasy will equate Naruto/Jubei Chan 2 as what a "fighter" should be and WOTC ignores them at their own peril

I've got no problem with a D&D that includes classes modelled after the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers and Xena Warrior Princess if it is also capable of modelling Conan. I've got no problem if some modification is required.

That said, Howard's work is currently being reprinted, as is Burroughs'. There is a comic book version of A Princess of Mars (and possibly a film) in the works. A lot of older fantasy novels (LotR, Narnia, The Dark is Rising) are seeing a renewed interest due to films based on them. Conan has an excellent comic, Solomon Kane and Kull are slated for comics next year. In the short story market, anyway, it is a lot easier to sell a pulp-like fantasy story than a Wahoo! D&D fantasy story. That pendulum is ever-shifting, and WotC ignores the older material at its peril, too.

(Not that I am certain that the world setting of 4e does ignore older material. Points-of-light is pretty Conan/pulp fantasy/old D&D.)

re: D&D's heritage
Given that the first three classes were fighting-man, magic man and healer, I'd argue that MAGIC has ALWAYS been a larger part of D&D than the mundane.

I would agree. Magic is a larger part of the Conan stories than the mundane, too. However, there is a difference between magic being a large part of the world and the primary focus of the protagonists.

Even if the first three classes were fighting-man, magic man, and healer, if fighting-man gets played more often than the other two (because he is more likely to survive at lower levels, for example), then the game can offer three choices while being focused on the mundane from the PC's/protagonists' perspective.

I tend to think that D&D offers three great potential experiences: Mundane people encountering the weird and unusual (the basis of about half the pulps and most of the so-called "weird fiction"), unusual people encountering the weird and unusual (another common pulp trope, though unusual in this case is about as far from the norm as Doc Savage or Tarzan), and weird people encountering the mundane (a more post-modern take on the genre, added to the mix mostly by 3e).

I'd be happiest with a game that could do a fantastic job of offering all three of these experiences, but I am not certain that could be done without a DM advice section the size of a telephone book.

Thoughts?

RC

 

[Wednesday Boy]

The problem I have with this is that the reason why Batman is viable in the JL is because

a) Everyone else is written so that Batman is the smartest which is just not happening in D&D
b) Batman has all the toys to keep up a.k.a the Xmas tree effect.

That's true, his intellect, gadgets and writers let him do incredible, over-the-top things but he's still a non-superpowered character. His skills are ridiculously phenomental but he's still "magic"-less (with the assumption that magic in D&D is equal to superpowers in comics). And that's the sort of flavor that I prefer in martial fantasy characters.

Maybe a better example is that sometimes I want to play Han Solo (completely no Force powers) instead of Luke (or some other Force wielding combatant)?

 

[Mallus]

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

Yes, D&D rangers are inspired by Aragorn the Ranger, I realize that. I also realize that D&D rangers throughout the various editions were never faithful recreations of Aragorn. In fact, they deviated so far from their supposed source of inspiration --I'm talking about 1st edition AD&D, mind you-- the class might as well have gotten the Kamehameha Wave from DBZ or the 5-Points Exploding Heart Technique as class abilities.

I'll say it again: D&D rangers never resembled Aragorn, so to suggest that 4e should stick close to the classic archetypes like ones Tolkien provided ignores the fact that earlier editions weren't faithful to them in the first place.

I guess that depends on how the wizard is played

I'd say it more a matter of the wizard's spell list. Mechanically speaking, D&D wizards are far closer to Dr. Strange and Zatara than they are Gandalf or Merlin.

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.

You're right. You can't sell a class ability.

I'm not trying to say you should like magic-&-wahoo heavy D&D. All I'm saying is that your characterization of D&D as a game that's traditionally been faithful to its self-professed literary and mythological roots isn't accurate. D&D has always been it's own brand of weirdness, at a pretty far remove from its sources.

 

[Mercule]

But that's the core assumption of D&D since the 1E PHB. Strip a 20th level fighter of his magical gear and do the same to the wizard and even in 1E, that fighter is just plain screwed. Hell, there's a good chance that a regular 10th level fighter with magical gear would be a more effective team member than the 20th level non-magical gear fighter.

This paradigm has been true since 1E was released....

Yes and no.

First, I'd say that 1E wasn't really intended to play to the higher levels. Most demi-human level limits were single digits. The only class that was reliably unlimited in advancement was the thief, a decidedly mundane class. "Name level", which is where the rules structure changed, was at 10th level. You could play higher level characters (the magic-user spell progression was listed up to 36th level, IIRC), but play tended to break down much like 3E epic levels, maybe worse.

Second, take a look at the most likely magical equipment for a 1E fighter. 80%+ of it won't be adding new abilities. It will boost the fighter's inherent strengths. Bonuses to-hit and damage, reducing armor class, increased strength, etc. Even the common items that don't play to an existing strength of the fighter work more to negate the advantages of magic wielders: boosted saves, anti-magics, etc. That's a far cry from saying that the fighter should be able to inherently summon fire or teleport.

Third, in 1E, magic-users were designed to be more powerful that fighters at higher levels. Part of that, no doubt, was the idea that it was magic that grossly broke the natural laws and fighters weren't magic. I don't really agree with the disparity, but the way to fix it is not to give fighters overtly magical abilities.

I've heard many comments to the effect that the Hero System doesn't work particularly well at the lower end of the scale (spies, westerns, etc.) or that GURPS doesn't handle cosmic characters great or any number of other remarks about what a given system does versus what it does well. D&D has never, in its entire existence, handled high-powered characters particularly well across the board. Personally, I always found 1E and 2E practically unplayable once 5th level or higher magics were involved. The only good higher level games I participated in were fighter, ranger, and thief heavy, maybe with a multi- or dual classed wizard. My experiences in 3E are somewhat better, but still nothing compelling -- though that may be because of the the mechanical bloat more than the actual power level.

3E (or the 2E options books, but I skipped them) was the first real attempt to treat higher levels (10 or 15+) in cohesive, balanced manner. The result was the exaggerated Christmas tree effect, which was (IMO) pretty painful. Yes, items were important in prior editions, but nowhere near as much as in 3E. Pulling out the dependence of a 1E 20th level fighter on items, or his relative lack of power to magic-users isn't really a great argument. By that level, 1E had already exceeded it's "sweet spot" and the issue is the exact same one we're already trying to solve.

I guess my answer to the original question is: I'm all good with super-human abilities for high-level fighters. I just hope that doesn't equate to supernatural abilities.

If Tome of Battle's warblade is any indication, I think I'll actually be pretty happy. The basic mechanics could use some tweaking, but the maneuvers seem pretty good, so long as things like Desert Wind and Shadow Hand are reserved for monk-like characters (or a later "ki" power source to separate them entirely).

In fact, I'm totally supportive of a system that introduces distinct fighting styles. The idea of being able to say, "You are obviously a student of Count Basil," is just too cool and something that is near the top of my list of wants for D&D.

 

[Doug McCrae]

We've been told that, as a martial character, the 4e fighter won't be supernatural. We've also been told that casters and non-casters will be better balanced. (I'd like to see them completely balanced.)

If Mearls can pull this off, and I rather think he might, he's a brilliant designer.

 

[AllisterH]

We've been told that, as a martial character, the 4e fighter won't be supernatural. We've also been told that casters and non-casters will be better balanced. (I'd like to see them completely balanced.)

If Mearls can pull this off, and I rather think he might, he's a brilliant designer.

It is possible to at LEAST make the division between magic and mundane *smaller* (spells aren't better than skills, using magic at high levels is dangerous etc..)

However, Mearls et al are then going to hear the cries of other D&D players who'll want to know why magic got nerfed so badly.

 

[Engilbrand]

Batman is being used as an example of someone without "powers". That's only true to a point. Even ignoring all of his gadgets (magic items), what is he capable of? He's so perfectly trained that he can take a ton of punishment and keep going, doesn't need nearly as much sleep as anyone else and is still perfectly coherent, his aim and reflexes are, for lack of a better word, perfect. He can easily jump over multiple people while wearing a heavy suit. He can jump from a high point and land without much of a care.
Realistically, Batman cannot exist. His abilities are superhuman. He's beyond what is capable in reality. Well, in our reality, at least. For the DC Universe, though, he's possible. Like any comic (fantasy) universe, you're bound to have things that push the limits of what we are capable of. Normal people in the DC Universe can't do what Batman can do. There are few who can, though. They are the major heroes and villains who train themselves to what is inherently possible for THAT Universe. Not for ours.
For the D&D Universe, magic permeates everything. We already know that people are capable of a lot more. Look at the ability to jump from a cliff and survive it without much injury. This is not our reality. High level "mundane" characters should be just like Batman. They are the heroes and villains who tap into what is possible in that Universe and do things that the common man can't possibly do.
I'm reading the Conan comics. Conan is not a normal person. While he can't do overtly supernatural things, he definitely pushes himself beyond what is realistic. Why? Because it's possible in his Universe so that he can be the "hero" (antihero?). The same goes for Red Sonja. The literary and theatrical characters push beyond what is real according to us. If they weren't able to do what we can't, they would die fast and we wouldn't care.
4E Fighter "powers" will probably be just like Batman: ridiculous moves that involve doing things that us "Normals" just can't do. And that's what makes it cool.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

Batman is being used as an example of someone without "powers". That's only true to a point. Even ignoring all of his gadgets (magic items), what is he capable of? He's so perfectly trained that he can take a ton of punishment and keep going, doesn't need nearly as much sleep as anyone else and is still perfectly coherent, his aim and reflexes are, for lack of a better word, perfect. He can easily jump over multiple people while wearing a heavy suit. He can jump from a high point and land without much of a care.
Realistically, Batman cannot exist. His abilities are superhuman. He's beyond what is capable in reality.

Excellent point. I don't care how well trained a real-life martial artist is, there's no way he's going to mow down 30 thugs at once. But Batman can do this without breaking a sweat. And besides, Batman's gadgets, for the most part, are not even remotely realistic by rigid real-life standards. But as you say, they are "realistic" within the parameters of comic book fantasy.

 

[TwinBahamut]

My world is "middle magic" -- neither grim n' gritty nor Wahoo! 24/7. It has a place both for the mystic warrior (paladins, totem warriors, bear warriors, dervishes) and the mundane (fighter, non spellcasting ranger, some rogue builds). Mundane characters sometimes dabble in the mystical, and mystical characters sometimes dabble in the mundane. That's a good fit for the type of game I enjoy running.

I hope that something like this is possible in 4e. And, as I said earlier, it seems likely to me that it will be. If anything, the wizard is beating up the warrior and taking his stuff (arcane strike, for example).


RC

You make a lot of good and interesting points (and I am begining to think that our opinions are far closer than I realized), but there is one thing you say that I disagree with. You seperate the spell-casting characters as the mystical, and the non-spellcasting characters as the mundane. That isn't what I want, really. I think what I want the most is a character who can be mystical by your definition, but not be a spell-caster. A person who can be superhuman without magic. Someone who has inherent power, rather than gaining temporary power through a spell.

I do think that D&D can accomodate all of these different play styles, but I think it might require a slight shift in people's perceptions of how a class changes with levels. For the most part in 3E, a character's class tends to stay the same across their entire career. However, it might be better if there is a radical shift in a class at particular phases. Namely, a class should feel different in the three different gameplay modes.

At Heroic levels, the fighter should be mundane. This is the Conan level.

At Paragon levels, the fighter should exist in the grey area. This is the Beowulf level.

At Epic levels, the fighter should be mystical. This is the Chuculainn level.

Conan is a great model for fighters, but I think he only remains a good model at Heroic levels. For higher level characters, it is fine if Conan steps aside, and lets other kinds of characters (like Beowulf and Chuculainn) become the model. This way, three different feels for the game can be maintained with the same class.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You make a lot of good and interesting points (and I am begining to think that our opinions are far closer than I realized), but there is one thing you say that I disagree with. You seperate the spell-casting characters as the mystical, and the non-spellcasting characters as the mundane. That isn't what I want, really. I think what I want the most is a character who can be mystical by your definition, but not be a spell-caster.

Got 'em. But, I made 'em prestige classes, like warriors who can turn into bears, multiple types of paladin, etc. I wanted to lay down the main archetypes, and then work in sub-archetypes as well. However, the Totem Warriors (stolen from AE) are a form of mystical warrior and are a core class. I also devised racial levels for all races & subraces (including human variants) in my world, and some allow access to mystical abilities.

At Heroic levels, the fighter should be mundane. This is the Conan level.

At Paragon levels, the fighter should exist in the grey area. This is the Beowulf level.

At Epic levels, the fighter should be mystical. This is the Chuculainn level.

This would be fantastic, frankly -- allowing the group to set max level in order to make any world play in whatever style they like. I know this idea's come up before, and I hope that this is exactly what we see in 4e. Or 5e. I can be patient.

RC