The reason why fighters will never have nice things.

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

Ravengm wrote: Uniqueness and a wealth of usable options are what sells a character for me (both in personality and in actual mechanics). The Artificer kind of falls short in both categories, since the same idea can be duplicated with a Wizard that takes some crafting feats. Obviously it's not exactly the same, but you can more or less make a character with similar goals and sets of abilities without ever touching the Artificer.
Well, part of the problem is that the wizard is a 'do everything' class. Yes, Artificers are redundant when you have wizards, but so are Beguilers, Necromancers, Summoners, etc.. If I had my druthers, the split between the classes would be something like:

Wizard: Specializes in blasting and quick summons.
Artificer: Specializes in transmutation and conjurations.
Warlock: Specializes in enchantment and illusions.
Diabolist: Necromancy and Divination.
Magus: Assorted elemental effects, emphasis on short-range, buffs, and 'originates from square' effects. Ephemeral, I know.

You could have some overlap like allowing a Warlock to cast a fireball occasionally but for the most part the best and earliest access to a doodad is internal to the class. Artificer I feel is probably the strongest archetype since it had a unique flavor to it even when it was being smothered conceptually by the wizard.
MGuy wrote:. I've said it before that a "fighter" only means something when you attribute a definition to it. Your definition of "fighter" for this discussion seems to specifically be " someone who can only fight" then you go on to make the assertion that fighters can't do anything else and if they are then they aren't a fighter. This of course holds true because you specifically define "fighter" as that.
I'm sorry, the terms are confusing. I tried to clarify if with 'Vanilla Action Hero' to differentiate melee fighters like the Fighter from, say, Anime Fighters and Paladins and such.

But basically, when we say 'fighter' we mean 'character who could do anything a preternaturally but not impossibly skilled/athletic human could do'. Which neatly encompasses the rogue, barbarian, knight, slayer, etc. as well. We call them 'Vanilla Action Heroes' because they can be represented by characters in action movies and literature that don't have supernatural effects. Because of flawed human perception writers can fudge these characters around a bit without breaking willing suspension of disbelief. For example, you can establish a VAH as being unable to reliably dodge bullets nor tank them, but you can still fire at Bruce Willis with like a million bullets and have him still come out okay even though we know in real life these characters would've been deader than disco. But when you show Bruce Willis (or Bruce Lee or Val Kilmer or Vin Diesel or etc.) taking a harpoon through the heart and still going at full blast you've left the realm of realistic. In other words, you can show characters doing implausible things but not impossible things. The problem obviously is that in D&D you have to do explicitly impossible things after a certain point or fall behind.

Fighter sort of got used to encompass all of these characters since they're the focus of the attention; they obviously suck even compared to other Vanilla Action Heroes because no one expects them to pick a lock or lead a barbarian tribe. In theory if you inserted a game effect that got the Fighter up to Wizard level you'd boost all of their other barely-more-competent mundane normals, too, so they get the bulk of attention.

I'm saying that the Classical Fighter (and by extension other Vanilla Action Heroes) are defined as characters that don't do magical things. I am also saying that characters that don't do magical things can't get nice things at high level. Therefore Classical Fighters / DMFS / VAHs don't get nice things. In other words, when people say that I am saying a priori that Fighters Are Defined As Not Getting Nice Things, they're not seeing the syllogism.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

Ravengm wrote: The problem is, essentially, that people want to play suboptimal characters and they actually are offended by your attempts to make them not fail at life, because it goes against what their mental image of a heroic blademaster is. The problem is, when you're fighting gods, phenomenal cosmic power is exponentially more useful than doing a lot of situps and swinging 3 feet of metal around.
And the reason why fixes consistently fall flat is that in order to uphold this image they're in denial of the fundamental problem. They want a character that is defined as being fundamentally mundane but still able to keep up with magical characters, so they keep trying to add layers of deception like Gift Cards to Magical Item Marts and Class Feature of +50 damage w/swords. The problem with this deception is that they don't suddenly have an epiphany that this means that the archetype must evolve, it's just an excuse not to give them real plot-affecting schticks because. People say otherwise, but again, look at this thread. All of the examples people gave of Magical Item Gift Card Fighters are low level or have a limited schtick range, meaning that it's not obvious that while their fighting ability continues to keep pace their actual plot-affecting ability is not because they're still at the point where you can solve an adventure by hiding in the bushes and throwing cats and/or get Plot McGuffins falling into your lap.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
User avatar
Ravengm
Knight
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Ravengm »

Lago PARANOIA wrote: Well, part of the problem is that the wizard is a 'do everything' class. Yes, Artificers are redundant when you have wizards, but so are Beguilers, Necromancers, Summoners, etc.. If I had my druthers, the split between the classes would be something like:

Wizard: Specializes in blasting and quick summons.
Artificer: Specializes in transmutation and conjurations.
Warlock: Specializes in enchantment and illusions.
Diabolist: Necromancy and Divination.
Magus: Assorted elemental effects, emphasis on short-range, buffs, and 'originates from square' effects. Ephemeral, I know.

You could have some overlap like allowing a Warlock to cast a fireball occasionally but for the most part the best and earliest access to a doodad is internal to the class. Artificer I feel is probably the strongest archetype since it had a unique flavor to it even when it was being smothered conceptually by the wizard.
Wizard was a lazy example, but anyone with a couple feats to burn and either casting ability or some way to skirt around it can do it too. It loses a bit of its uniqueness when multiple people can pick up on your "thing". I absolutely agree that the flavor aspect of the Artificer is strong, but mechanically it shies away from being unique.

That's mostly why I'm a fan of giving spellcasters the Dread Necromancer treatment with a limited spell list. It pidgeonholes the class, but it's preferable to having multiple classes that feel the same overall, like Wizard vs. Sorcerer or Fighter vs. Ranger vs. Rogue vs. whateverotherclassthatstabsfools. Your list seems a good starting point.
Random thing I saw on Facebook wrote:Just make sure to compare your results from Weapon Bracket Table and Elevator Load Composition (Dragon Magazine #12) to the Perfunctory Armor Glossary, Version 3.8 (Races of Minneapolis, pp. 183). Then use your result as input to the "DM Says Screw You" equation.
sabs
Duke
Posts: 2347
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:01 pm
Location: Delaware

Post by sabs »

One of my favorite Fighting types to play is A Spell Sword, whose magic revolves around self-augmentation, and counter spelling. He's Magically fast, agile, strong, and his weapons are augmented by his magic.

He's not a VAH, but if I want to play a VAH I don't want to play High level D&D. There are better games for that.
User avatar
tzor
Prince
Posts: 4266
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by tzor »

One of the problems with trying to define a fighter is that D&D is, by its nature a “hack and slash” type of game. (And if you think it’s bad now, consider first edition where rounds were one minute and there was “facing rules” to boot.) Thus, when we come to the notion of the fighter, we generally limit our fighter archetypes to something that looks as stupid as King Arthur against the Black Knight (yes I’m showing my first edition roots; the sword of sharpness was removed from the game many editions ago).

The PVF doesn’t quite live in this world either. He really lives in a more cinematic combat system. His many variations consist from the barbarian fighter to the swashbuckler fighter. 4E might have some more options for this cinematic dimension to a fighter’s combat, but like everything in 4E (promises, promises) it falls short. This becomes important because the fighter’s fantastic shtick is action, unlike the spell user’s fantastic shtick which is special effect. Thus to give the fighter “good things” you don’t really need to throw in any magic items whatsoever (unless that magic item in and of itself duplicated technology because a big gun is also a key element in the generic fighter, but that is merely saying magic item x takes the place of a M16), what you need is the ability to put more fighter type actions into the combat system. Often when you do that, people cringe.

It gets even more annoying when you realize that the PVF is not above the haughty separation of weapon and non-weapon combat; that the sword wielding barbarian is clearly not above giving a swift kick to knock back the opponent a little, or slam at the opponent with his side for the same effect. He is not above using anything that is around him (the chair, the candlestick, or even the table) as a distraction or defence. Standing around swinging a sword is neither interesting nor fantastic. Oddly enough standing around throwing orbs of fire somehow is both. Therein lies the problem.
User avatar
RadiantPhoenix
Prince
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Trudging up the Hill

Post by RadiantPhoenix »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:I suppose it's possible in theory to have a Collect-A-Thon hero and have it be balanced with people who gain credible non-combat schticks but I'm not holding my breath. You have very few examples from fiction to draw from to support this. I mean, seriously, Batman? King Arthur? Soma? Just look at this goddamn thread.
Which Soma are you talking about, there are like a half dozen fictional characters named Soma; the one from Castlevania has the completely not VAH/DMF schtick of eating peoples' souls for superpowers.

I don't see any reason why the Collect-A-Thon hero (probably a good generic name for it as opposed to metroidvania hero) couldn't get plenty of interesting non-combat items as well so long as there is not a strong incentive to trade those non-combat items for more combat ones.
And even if you could conquer all of that stuff, there's still the underlying problem of the 'this character can use magical items in a way other people can't' is a completely redundant archetype. The artificer already does that shit. The artificer can use rocks in a way people can't. The DMF only seems different because you repackaged and duplicated the artificer with a weakness of 'can't make his own shit' and you arbitrarily made a distinction of 'upgrading swords with your brainpower and science' and 'upgrading swords with your inner moxie'.
And here's one way to solve that is this: you don't get to completely trade away the ability to make the items; instead, you have the ability to simply declare that you find a certain number of (magic) items of your choice, preferably something that will solve the latest obstacle; for example, if you're about to assault a necromancer's keep, you might decide that you find a Shirt of Wraith Stalking to let you do reconnaissance unmolested, or if your destination were at the other end of a coal mine fire you could find a ring of fire resistance.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

Again, that's exactly what the motherfucking artificer already does. When it comes time to investigate a coal mine fire they come across a Meteoric Rock and a Dragon Bone and they make a ring of fire resistance out of it. If they're about to assault a necromancer's keep they fish out a Lich's Skull from their laboratory and combine it with the Mummy's Death Shroud to make a Shirt of Wraith Stalking. You still haven't solved the underlying problem that your character is a redundant archetype, that instead of finding the raw goods they find the finished material.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
sabs
Duke
Posts: 2347
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:01 pm
Location: Delaware

Post by sabs »

If you have a Tattoo Warrior, and a Tatoo mage.

The Mage imbues tattoos with magical properties when he puts them on people.

A Warrior is someone with combat skills who has had a Mage cover him from head to toe with magical tattoos.

Are they redundant arch-types?
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

Yes, because you could push the Tattoo Mage right into the Tattoo Warrior or vice-versa and save space. The only real difference between the characters is that the Tattoo Warrior probably has more melee-focused tattoos, but there's already a glut of 'melee-range frontliners with magical powers' classes in the game once you include the classics. Tattoo Mage, if it existed at all, would be an Artificer variant we published in Dragon after the first year. I'd only consider publishing a Tattoo Warrior when I was running out of ideas for extra classes, like when I was on my fourth Player's Handbook or something.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
User avatar
RadiantPhoenix
Prince
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Trudging up the Hill

Post by RadiantPhoenix »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Again, that's exactly what the motherfucking artificer already does. When it comes time to investigate a coal mine fire they come across a Meteoric Rock and a Dragon Bone and they make a ring of fire resistance out of it. If they're about to assault a necromancer's keep they fish out a Lich's Skull from their laboratory and combine it with the Mummy's Death Shroud to make a Shirt of Wraith Stalking. You still haven't solved the underlying problem that your character is a redundant archetype, that instead of finding the raw goods they find the finished material.
I suppose you're right. Perhaps making a character like this one of the iconic artificers/gadgeteers would help resolve some of the problems, especially if there were a good list of sample magic item sets with cool castlevania-y powers for players to easily pick up and use without having to invent them themselves (and then have to convince the DM that it's not too powerful)
User avatar
Chamomile
Prince
Posts: 4632
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 10:45 am

Post by Chamomile »

So there's a dying breed of stupid grognards who want to play underpowered characters. Sounds like their problem. Why do we care?
User avatar
RadiantPhoenix
Prince
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Trudging up the Hill

Post by RadiantPhoenix »

Because some people have enough problems finding players for their games without excluding some people who actually want to play TTRPGS?
sabs
Duke
Posts: 2347
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:01 pm
Location: Delaware

Post by sabs »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Yes, because you could push the Tattoo Mage right into the Tattoo Warrior or vice-versa and save space. The only real difference between the characters is that the Tattoo Warrior probably has more melee-focused tattoos, but there's already a glut of 'melee-range frontliners with magical powers' classes in the game once you include the classics. Tattoo Mage, if it existed at all, would be an Artificer variant we published in Dragon after the first year. I'd only consider publishing a Tattoo Warrior when I was running out of ideas for extra classes, like when I was on my fourth Player's Handbook or something.
Lets pretend that there are no other classes.
is the Tattoo Mage and Tattoo Warrior redundant?

The Tattoo Warrior has combat skills, combat oriented tattoos, maybe he knows how to activate the magic in combat ways. He's got more HP, he's bigger, stronger, etc.

Tattoo Mage:
Knows how to create tattoo magic. What if it takes 15 years, and countless study to become good at it, and you tend to not have time to learn how to fight, while studying.

Should they still both be 1 class?
When the Warrior implied d8 to d12, and the Mage implied D4-D6?
User avatar
Chamomile
Prince
Posts: 4632
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 10:45 am

Post by Chamomile »

Then it's still your problem and nothing to do with the system, market, or sub-culture at large.
User avatar
Psychic Robot
Prince
Posts: 4607
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

Post by Psychic Robot »

Lets pretend that there are no other classes.
is the Tattoo Mage and Tattoo Warrior redundant?

The Tattoo Warrior has combat skills, combat oriented tattoos, maybe he knows how to activate the magic in combat ways. He's got more HP, he's bigger, stronger, etc.

Tattoo Mage:
Knows how to create tattoo magic. What if it takes 15 years, and countless study to become good at it, and you tend to not have time to learn how to fight, while studying.

Should they still both be 1 class?
When the Warrior implied d8 to d12, and the Mage implied D4-D6?
give him a d8 and 3/4 bab and let the tattoos dictate how the character plays
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
You do not seem to do anything.
sabs
Duke
Posts: 2347
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:01 pm
Location: Delaware

Post by sabs »

But now you've broken a paradigm of Wizards get D4, Warriors get D10, and Clerics are OP.

What if those tattoos effectively give him access to the same power level and spells as a Wizard? It's just that instead of a spellbook and spell slots, he has Tattoos with activations per day.

Maybe then, everyone should be a fighter? But you can purchase feats that give you spell slots? :)

Everyone gets 1 feat slot per level, plus another one every 3 levels.
On feat is: Wizard, You can cast 5 cantrips, and 2 1st level spells.
User avatar
Psychic Robot
Prince
Posts: 4607
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

Post by Psychic Robot »

the solution is to make the tattoo warrior/mage different from a spellcaster.

if you just want a wizard with tattoos, then just play a wizard and roleplay his tattoos as giving him powers (true strike can be an eye tattoo that glows when cast, mage armor can be a tattoo of armor that grows on the body, etc.)
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
You do not seem to do anything.
sabs
Duke
Posts: 2347
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:01 pm
Location: Delaware

Post by sabs »

okay, but then what does the Tattoo Warrior look like?
CapnTthePirateG
Duke
Posts: 1545
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Post by CapnTthePirateG »

Refluffed Warrior of Darkness?
OgreBattle wrote:"And thus the denizens learned that hating Shadzar was the only thing they had in common, and with him gone they turned their venom upon each other"
-Sarpadian Empires, vol. I
Image
User avatar
tzor
Prince
Posts: 4266
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by tzor »

Psychic Robot wrote:if you just want a wizard with tattoos, then just play a wizard and roleplay his tattoos as giving him powers (true strike can be an eye tattoo that glows when cast, mage armor can be a tattoo of armor that grows on the body, etc.)
Actually, I would like to see a tattooed wizard as one whose spell book was his own body. Spells memorized could be darker and fade when cast. Perhaps all spells have at least one stomatic element, the need to trace the tatoo with a finger in order to activate the spell.

But, really, that's just a lot of fluff.
sabs
Duke
Posts: 2347
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:01 pm
Location: Delaware

Post by sabs »

The whole point, was:
A Fighter who is Artificer like, but a Fighter is redundant, and you should just play an Artificer.

Except that the artificer has D4 hit die, and Wizard bab.

What if you want to play A Warrior, who has magic boosters. Why is that redundant and you should just play a Wizard with Spells that make him warrior like.
User avatar
RadiantPhoenix
Prince
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Trudging up the Hill

Post by RadiantPhoenix »

tzor wrote:[Actually, I would like to see a tattooed wizard as one whose spell book was his own body. Spells memorized could be darker and fade when cast. Perhaps all spells have at least one stomatic element, the need to trace the tatoo with a finger in order to activate the spell.

But, really, that's just a lot of fluff.
Complete Arcane has rules for using your body as a spellbook.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

sabs wrote: Lets pretend that there are no other classes.
is the Tattoo Mage and Tattoo Warrior redundant?
No, of course not, but if there aren't any other classes then Mongolian Shark-Humper, Visigoth Maize Grower, and Islamic Body Hair Magician aren't redundant either. It's a useless question to ask because in the context of D&D there are a suite of pre-included classes and also a queue of classes that have priority. Assassin, Bard, Artificer, Ninja, etc.. are pretty high up there, Tattoo Mage is seriously like the 30th inclusion, between Inquisitor and Barrier Priest.

Also 3rd Edition, BAB, its hit dice, and the idea of high-double digit hit points can go fuck themselves. If the only reason for the inclusion of Tattoo Warrior or Collect-A-Thon Warrior is to shift some inherently numbers around then they can go fuck themselves, too. If you were doing the modestly more balanced 4E approach you could do some shit like trading in class features for an extra hit point per level or whatever. It's seriously not all that important.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
User avatar
Psychic Robot
Prince
Posts: 4607
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

Post by Psychic Robot »

sabs wrote:okay, but then what does the Tattoo Warrior look like?
Image
Last edited by Psychic Robot on Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
You do not seem to do anything.
Post Reply