Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 3865026" data-attributes="member: 5100">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.</blockquote>

Verification