Why Shouldn't Martial Characters have powers?

[shilsen]

The confidence to divorce fluff from mechanics is one that generally comes with experience as a DM, as novice DMs tend to cleave very closely to the Book As Written.

4e is a wonderful opportunity for the designers to provide DMs with the tools and 'permission' to make their games their own from day one.

True. I hope that the whole issue of using the same mechanics but changing flavor to fit your game is something heavily emphasized in the DMG, the MM, and other books.

 

[Henry]

Is there any reason that can't be a fighter maneuver?

Perhaps the fact that it screams "WARLORD"?

But I agree. Come 4th Edition, martial characters should be getting some mechanics that help emulate flashy non-supernatural battlefield maneuvers to give alternatives to the walking up bamboo and leaving fire-trails.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Perhaps the fact that it screams "WARLORD"?

But I agree. Come 4th Edition, martial characters should be getting some mechanics that help emulate flashy non-supernatural battlefield maneuvers to give alternatives to the walking up bamboo and leaving fire-trails.

I'm certain they will. The abilities mentioned so far for fighters don't seem to look excessively supernatural.

However, it would be nice to have the option to run up walls, balance on hairs, and sling force-duplicates of my sword at distant enemies.

Brad

 

[Mercule]

Just because a book has a certain flavor already present doesn't mean I have to slavishly follow it.

I never said one did. But, if the flavor is dealt out heavily enough, it becomes more trouble than it's worth.

And, since you are fine with rewriting the flavor, I appreciate your willingness to omit flashy martial effects from D&D.

 

[Mercule]

I think, like Bo9S, we're going to see a pretty decent mix of, for lack of better words, "martial training moves" and "mystical moves" that people can mix and pick. And, I'm going to bet that they're going to change the introductory text to downplay the wire-fu inspirations a bit.

I think you're pretty much right on. I haven't really seen any indication that I'll be unhappy with what's going to come in 4E. I'm actually rather pleased with Bo9S, though Desert Wind and Shadow Hand are marginalized IMC. If the mysticism in 4E is at the same level, I'll be fine.

My main issue is with people who seem to be hell-bent on proving that there is something wrong with wanting to skip the wire-work. I don't know how many times I can say that I don't see any issue with it in a game, it just isn't the flavor I like and I would prefer that it not be a featured, assumed, or necessary part of D&D play, even at higher levels. Yes, I know I can rewrite the flavor. I've played through 5+ versions of (A)D&D and have never had to change the flavor to get the feel I wanted from it and I wouldn't expect to have to in the future.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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?

I don't mind martial types having "powers", but I don't like that they are called "powers". That should be reserved specifically for Psionics. Just call the maneuvers...

 

[PeterWeller]

I don't mind martial types having "powers", but I don't like that they are called "powers". That should be reserved specifically for Psionics. Just call the maneuvers...

I think "powers" is being used as a generic convenience. Fighter powers may very well be called maneuvers.

 

[gothmaugCC]

As far as I can tell, for good or ill, they are re-working DnD into a new fresh form. Whether or not it resembles its predecessors is irrelevant, the change is comming, so we better get used to it.

Personally I like my dnd Fighter types modeled after boromir, Inigo Montoya, sir lancelot, and other warriors of great skill and renoun. If the new edition gives me "powers" that mimic physical attacks (like cleave or a knockback ability) then i'll be happy. If 4th edition gives me the ability to shoot fire out of my sword, then thats not what I personally consider a FIGHTER..

BUT>>> it IS what I think a fighter/wizard mix should be able to do. After reading the manuevers in book of nine swords, it felt that my fighter had become a swordmage. Which can be cool in its own right, but isnt My quintisential fighter.


As for Conan, beowulf, and other pulp/sword and sorcery fighters...well I play those type of characters in mongooses Conan D20. Magic is just too intregrated into the core mechanics of 3rd edition to pull off a convincing low magic pulp world where magic is a rare and terryfying thing.

 

[Deekin]

As far as I can tell, for good or ill, they are re-working DnD into a new fresh form. Whether or not it resembles its predecessors is irrelevant, the change is comming, so we better get used to it.

Personally I like my dnd Fighter types modeled after boromir, Inigo Montoya, sir lancelot, and other warriors of great skill and renoun. If the new edition gives me "powers" that mimic physical attacks (like cleave or a knockback ability) then i'll be happy. If 4th edition gives me the ability to shoot fire out of my sword, then thats not what I personally consider a FIGHTER..

BUT>>> it IS what I think a fighter/wizard mix should be able to do. After reading the manuevers in book of nine swords, it felt that my fighter had become a swordmage. Which can be cool in its own right, but isnt My quintisential fighter.


As for Conan, beowulf, and other pulp/sword and sorcery fighters...well I play those type of characters in mongooses Conan D20. Magic is just too intregrated into the core mechanics of 3rd edition to pull off a convincing low magic pulp world where magic is a rare and terryfying thing.

Books of 9 Swords common misconceptions.

Swordsage= Monk+ Wizard/fighter- These are the only class in the book that can shoot fire from there swords, through people 60ft through the air, teleport through shadows, and all the other magical stuff. They have are the only class with Access to Desert Wind(Magical Fire blade stuff), Setting Sun (Magical Throw people stuff), and Shandow Hand (Magical Ninja stuff).

Warblade- Limited to Diamond Mind (Superior Concentration and Awareness), Iron Heart (Supreme Mastery of the Sword), Stone Dragon (Hit stuff hard so it breaks, and make yourslef tough), Tiger Claw (Feral, brutal barbarian style), and White Raven (Leadership, helping others manuvers)

Crudsader- Paladin Analog, Liminted to Stone Dragon, White Raven and Devoted Spirit(Semi-magical healing, protect others manuvers.)

If you look at it, you Have three ways of doing manuvers. Skill guides me (Warblade), Crom guides me (Crusader), and ki guides me (Swordsage).

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Granted we still don't know what all the powers are, and what are the types of talent trees.

Just remember that not all fighters will be human.

Because I have a suspicion that pure fighters of certain PC races can get overtly supernatural powers, if they wanted to.

For all you know dwarves can use some sort of earth magic power without having a single level in a "spellcasting" class. Eladrin Fighters might be able to substitute certain powers for wizard spells, and Tieflings fighters might be able to substitute for warlock invocations (Fell Flight anyone? for a flying fighter).

Honestly, mystical fighters are already there, even humans ones, since multiclassing exists and apparently a fighter 7/ wizard 3 is just as effective as a fighter 10 or wizard 10 or even fighter 3/ wizard 7.