Why Shouldn't Martial Characters have powers?

[AllisterH]

So are wizards.

I wonder though, will 4E make the *fighter* a viable BBEG at high levels? Since practically forever, high level humanoid BBEGs have always been wizards/sorcerors and I wonder if Mearls et al will be able to change this....

 

[howandwhy99]

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.

Back in 1971 Chainmail was first published. It was a Medieval Miniatures Wargame. At the rear of the booklet there were two appendices, each building on the other. The first was an option to include Fantasy creatures into your medieval army battles. Some of these included Dragons, Wizards, and Heroes (fighting men). The second appendix contained rules for playing these fantasy creatures as Skirmish Miniatures against each other.

Three years later this boxset comes out as Supplement to the Chainmail rules. It doesn't contain any combat information, but assumes the 2nd appendix option for use during play. Instead it changes everything from a skirmish-level miniatures combat to a game where people play the actual role of the creatures.

The characters one could play by default were Fighting-men (swords), Magic-Users (sorcery), and Clerics (a mix of the two).

There were no rules for many things, but there were no rules against adding more either. In fact, most everyone did just that. They changed the rules, added and removed, and generally did want they wanted to the game.

The mindset you ask about started, however, with magic as the province of the M-U, combat as the province of the F-M, and a weaker mix of the two for Clerics. There already was a class who could deal out both combat and magic.

And superpower heroes weren't generally thought as a medieval fantasy. It was simply not prevalent in the fantasy fiction up until that time. In fact, that might be one of the most significant changes between contemporary fantasy fiction and traditional: that everyone uses the Supernatural, even the most mundane heroes.

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.

It's not badwrongfun. It's perfectly legitimate and probably highly desired by kids today.

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?

Well, wizards are always going to be better through sheer versatility. A fighter cannot chop down a mountain with his sword, but a high level wizard can and defeat an entire army as you state above. Combat is not the only thing magic can effect, but by basing all classes upon combat they lose their definition. Every mage is a battle mage, every fighter is a magic warrior.

The question isn't any longer, "Why don't they include magic for Fighters?", but, "Will they include options for non-magical Fighters and non-combat Wizards?"

 

[med stud]

In fact, that might be one of the most significant changes between contemporary fantasy fiction and traditional: that everyone uses the Supernatural, even the most mundane heroes.

I think this is also from traditional Asian fantasy becoming more mainstream in the West. I kind of like this type of cross pollinations. I'm of the belief that hybrids generally are stronger than pure breeds.

 

[med stud]

I wonder though, will 4E make the *fighter* a viable BBEG at high levels? Since practically forever, high level humanoid BBEGs have always been wizards/sorcerors and I wonder if Mearls et al will be able to change this....

I've been thinking about this a bit and I think it's much because of the fact that a wizard can get away if too hard pressed; a BBEG that is a fighter generally has no way of escaping which means that he doesn't serve well as a recurring villain.

In 3rd edition fighters also make lousy villains because they don't have any "leading" skills available. One of the few things I liked more with the older editions is that a high Int and Cha could take you a long way when it comes to leading large organizations.

 

[Nifft]

So are wizards.

Not all of them.

Cheers, -- N

 

[jasin]

One of the few things I liked more with the older editions is that a high Int and Cha could take you a long way when it comes to leading large organizations.

They could?

I mean, obviously, the implication was there that if you wanted to be a leader, you need Cha and Int (and Wis, I'd suppose), but were there any actual rules for that?

 

[med stud]

They could?

I mean, obviously, the implication was there that if you wanted to be a leader, you need Cha and Int (and Wis, I'd suppose), but were there any actual rules for that?

No but as there were no rules for leading stuff it made sense that those two abilities would make the difference. In 3e there are skills for this which makes the skills the most important.

 

[Archmage]

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.

It's not badwrongfun. It's perfectly legitimate and probably highly desired by kids today.

I am no "kid" (whether you go by age or D&D experience) and it's something I'd like to see. The warrior shouldn't necessarily be able to level mountains, but should be able to unleash some pretty fearsome combat effects. The warrior should probably get more powerful single-target effects than wizards can use, to offset the casters' versatility and area-effect power.

 

[howandwhy99]

I am no "kid" (whether you go by age or D&D experience) and it's something I'd like to see. The warrior shouldn't necessarily be able to level mountains, but should be able to unleash some pretty fearsome combat effects. The warrior should probably get more powerful single-target effects than wizards can use, to offset the casters' versatility and area-effect power.

I'm not calling anyone a kid. I'm suggesting D&D's primary audience has different tastes than 30 years ago.

And I agree with the rest of your post only if you change every "SHOULD" to "OPTIONALLY CAN".

This overwrought "Play my way or rebuild the whole system" style of game design can only drive players away.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I'm not calling anyone a kid. I'm suggesting D&D's primary audience has different tastes than 30 years ago.

And I agree with the rest of your post only if you change every "SHOULD" to "OPTIONALLY CAN".

This overwrought "Play my way or rebuild the whole system" style of game design can only drive players away.

Yes, but it is easier to take something you don't like out of the game than to add ideas. Both have the potential to skew other aspects of the game you didn't contemplate. But the latter takes work. Even if you are creative and come up with new rules ideas that you enjoy, you have to admit it takes more effort than just saying no to something that someone else has already created.

Too many rules you don't enjoy? Then older editions of the game may be better for you. Or different systems entirely. As long as you can find players you're good to go. Otherwise you have to decide between learning to like a game that looks like something you won't enjoy or having no game. To each his own.