| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing - though most often in such fantasy there's little to no indication he could. But you're mistaking the "punch out a rhino" argument. Normally it's not "level 20 fighter shouldn't be able to", it's "level 20 fighter can (really by level 7/8 or earlier if designed for unarmed) and that's superhuman, so why resist letting them be superhuman in other ways?"
It's always been a question of degree - how superhuman is enough or has the right feel and what your perspective is. The ones who think fighters aren't superhuman enough always downplay the aspects in which they are superhuman. Meanwhile, the ones who think they're superhuman enough are always pointing out the ways in which they are superhuman. And there's not a whole lot of agreement between the two perspectives - that's why I think the positions get so entrenched and the internet debates so heated.
From what I'm reading, though, it's not a issue with a fighter being superhuman but it's that the class isn't very interesting to most. Barbarians, to me, were the go to class if you want to see martials jump very high and smash stuff like the Hulk, which they do well at. The fighter to me is a basic, easy to learn class that just fights.
I'm not sure why anyone would question if even a 10th level fighter is superhuman. Anyone familiar with this game should be able to tell just by taking a quick glance at the character sheet. Real world people don't get HP in the hundreds, nor do they share the same challenge rating as a gigantic crocodile that can swallow entire elephants (CR 9 Dire Crocodile)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK then.What if Aragorn (or Jaime Lannister, or whoever) was actually able to do so that whole time, and we never saw it, because secretly rhinos ain't crap (level 4 CR)?
I'm not sure what you mean by "secretly rhinos ain't crap." I mean, I know what rhinos are; there are several at the zoo, just up-river from where I type. If you're suggesting that they are "secretly" bulletproof, flight-capable, and use their horns as grenade launchers.... well, they aren't. And if what you're looking for in a game is a higher degree of realism, that's not the direction I think you want to go.
On the other hand, if you're simply saying that instead of calling them CR 4 we call them CR 40, that doesn't actually change the issue, because people will simply claim that Aragorn had to be a 200th level ranger instead of 20th.
Similarly:
Why is the idea of rewriting the system so that Aragorn is level 12 a problem?
It's not a problem, but it's not a solution, either.
Yes, it's easy enough to rewrite the system so that today's level X characters are tomorrows 2X charaters. At odd levels, you improve your hit dice, BAB and saving throws, while at even levels you get the special abilities such as the bonus feats and whatnot. So now Aragorn has the abilities of a 5th level ranger, which becomes a 10th level ranger..... but the basic core rules now cover levels 1-40, and everyone who wants to see their character be the Bestest Evar will whine about how Aragorn has to be a level 40 character because he killed some orcs that had to be level 40 because they fought Aragorn who had to be level 40.
It's not a problem, but it's not a solution. I don't get taller if you measure me in centimeters; I don't get shorter if you measure me in inches.
Interesting perspective. Because I see it differently. Those who emphasize how fighters are and need to stay mundane ignore all they ways they already aren't, while those wanting to bring them up to a narrative par with casters point out how they're already not mundane - it's just that their superpowers come just from getting bigger numbers and while they break out of "mundane" they're still too limiting to keep them from really competing.Nothing - though most often in such fantasy there's little to no indication he could. But you're mistaking the "punch out a rhino" argument. Normally it's not "level 20 fighter shouldn't be able to", it's "level 20 fighter can (really by level 7/8 or earlier if designed for unarmed) and that's superhuman, so why resist letting them be superhuman in other ways?"It's always been a question of degree - how superhuman is enough or has the right feel and what your perspective is. The ones who think fighters aren't superhuman enough always downplay the aspects in which they are superhuman. Meanwhile, the ones who think they're superhuman enough are always pointing out the ways in which they are superhuman. And there's not a whole lot of agreement between the two perspectives - that's why I think the positions get so entrenched and the internet debates so heated.
That's my view as well. Longer post coming in regard to a post upthread that will discuss this in more depth. Prepare for incoming novel, I'm afraid....
It's not. It's the most limited class in the game. You are weapon-man.
There is not one character concept the Fighter can achieve that the above classes cannot also fulfill.
I am fairly sure all the feats, all the equipment training and all the archetypes do stack up to cause such massive variance in the ways you can make a Fighter that you can create something actually unique with the class.
And it does not actually have to be "good". There is no real standard it must pass. It can exists as self-expression.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All right, Aragorn is level 5-6. Merlin, maybe level 8 based on the most impressive piece of combat magic he performs (petrify). Roland probably doesn't need to be much higher level than that for his Deeds.
Pathfinder takes those characters and extends their progression to level 20. What are the level 14-16 classes modeled on?
That's actually a very good quesiton. As far as I can tell, the answer is "no one." They're not modeled on anything.
As I wrote earlier, in AD&D, 9-10th level characters were the expected pinnacle of PC accomplishment, at which point you retired from active adventuring and played Diplomacy instead. ("Gondorian army moves from Rohan to Isengard. Gondor army in Fanghorn supports move from Rohan to Isengard") There weren't any direct models of higher level characters. While higher level spells were in the books, they were there mostly as plot devices, monster gimmicks, and powerful magic items --- you might get a ring of wishes, but you sure weren't supposed to cast it yourself. [Indeed, fighters stopped getting better at hitting things at level 17!]
When the designers moved to 3.0, one of the big design goals was to simplify things and get rid of all those gawdawful charts and tables. Rather than consulting the to-hit table, every character got a to-hit bonus that scaled (linearly) with level, and so forth. This makes it very easy to extrapolate the numbers for high-level characters, much easier than in AD&D. A 63rd level fighter, for example, would have a +63 BAB with 15 iterative attacks, 63d10 hit dice, a reflex save of +21, and so forth. He also has 32 feats (from odd levels) and 31 bonus combat feats.
Similarly, the feats themselves scale nicely. We have
* Weapon Focus (which grants +1 to hit)
* Greater Weapon Focus (which grants another +1 to hit), requires Weapon Focus
and we can add....
* Superior Weapon Focus (which grants another +1 to hit), requires Greater Weapon Focus
* Über Weapon Focus (which grants another +1 to hit), requires Superior Weapon Focus
* Awesome Weapon Focus (which grants another +1 to hit), requires Über Weapon Focus
[snip]
* Penultimate Weapon Focus (which grants another +1 to hit), requires Antepenultimate Weapon Focus
* Ultimate Weapon Focus (which grants another +1 to hit), requires Penultimate Weapon Focus
I'm sure you get the idea.
This is the epitome of "linear fighter."
I can do the same thing for wizards -- a 63rd level wizard should have a +31 BAB, and should be capable of casting 32nd level spells (which require Int 42 to cast), but here the design principles fail me. I have no idea what a 32nd level spell should look like, or even a 16th level spell. When Gygax wrote wish, he kind of maxed out the design space. What's left after "you can do anything?"
So it's very easy to give any character, martial or magical, bigger numbers to reflect leveling up, but casters don't just get bigger numbers. And at some point, any set of numbers is going to get larger than any arbitrary number that one sets as the peak of human accomplishment. Since I think that punching a rhino to death is not possible for a human, I think that even fighters achieve that well before level 12 (as shown upthread).
So what's the model? There is none. Gygax never needed it, nor did the 3.0 designers. But somewhere well before level 12, we leave the realm of fiction and enter that of myth. How strong was Hercules? I don't know. He was as strong as the plot required him to be -- at one point, he carried the entire sky on his shoulders, so how heavy is the sky? How tall was Paul Bunyan? As tall as the plot required him to be. If Paul Bunyan had arm-wrestled Gilgamesh, who would have won? Could Superman lift Mjolnir?
There are some people in this thread (not naming names) who assume that anyone who wants to improve the abilities, scope and assumptions of martial characters want this done by Paizo themselves changing the game to suit their wishes. This is not to say that there aren't people who do want that (admittedly, I think it would be overall better for the game, but I understand that my "mundanes have no place in a high fantasy setting so everyone should be or become magical to some degree" opinion on the matter isn't the most broadly-accepted and I'm willing to take what I can get), but I don't think that's what the majority of people who want augmented martials think. No one wants to take your mundanes away from you; not even me. But plenty of us are tired of martials only being allowed to be mundane. We want our martials (and only ours. If you like your mundane martials where they are, you can keep them) to be unbound by the common-sense rules of our reality. We want all high-levels to have superhuman abilities for anyone who wants them, not just a select few.
If you don't want your high-level characters to have superhuman abilities, then fine. You don't have to play that way and you don't have to play with anyone who does want that. As much as I would like the core rules to express my view of what a high-fantasy swordsman or archer should look like, I don't have a problem if it's relegated to third-party content. Quit looking at people who want to play their way in their space that you don't have to inhabit or even deal with and tell them that they're not allowed to. What we do doesn't affect you. You don't have to play with us and we have no intention of forcing you to. You already have the rules you want. You don't have to use the rules we want, but we'd certainly like to be able to use them ourselves.
Couldn't agree more. I'm all for options don't really care if it's 3pp or Paizo provided it's not changing the chassis.
Whether we call it magic, supernatural ability or superhuman there needs to be some classes that don't have it. For me if can't be conceived as a result of skill or ability then it shouldn't be forced to be part of these characters. So no leaping 50 ft chasms, no turning invisible, no tearing wholes in reality or outrunning a bullet.
The level progression is a reward and incentive to keep adventuring. Developing your character is an important part of the game. Im not sure what the problem is with adding feats, and non-magical abilities as part of the progression of the fighter class. Hitting faster and harder is a fighters thing.
And yet all those spells were in there and there was no clear "These are only for NPC use".
As I wrote earlier, in AD&D, 9-10th level characters were the expected pinnacle of PC accomplishment, at which point you retired from active adventuring and played Diplomacy instead. ("Gondorian army moves from Rohan to Isengard. Gondor army in Fanghorn supports move from Rohan to Isengard") There weren't any direct models of higher level characters. While higher level spells were in the books, they were there mostly as plot devices, monster gimmicks, and powerful magic items --- you might get a ring of wishes, but you sure weren't supposed to cast it yourself. [Indeed, fighters stopped getting better at hitting things at level 17!]
No, there wasn't. And if you were having fun, EGG wasn't going to drop by your parents' basement and tell you to cut it out.
But even back then, one thing I noticed (as did the rest of the kids I played with) was that C/MD was a thing. All of our superheroic god wannabes were casters, because high level fighters, at that level, were actually pretty boring, because all they did was hit things.
I do think that establishing a formal "Levels go up to 20" standard, even with special rules for Epic levels past that, encouraged players to expect to play the whole range,
I agree. If there's no top, and no capstone, then there's no reason to strive to hit the (nonexistent) top. Especially since a level 18 fighter plays just like a level 118 fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whether we call it magic, supernatural ability or superhuman there needs to be some classes that don't have it.
Why?
I'm serious. Why not just play a commoner, then?
And what keeps you from being a drain on the party resources when you get to the level where everyone else is dodging bullets, stopping freight trains, and leaping tall buildings in a single bound?
In what sense does it make sense to talk about Commissioner Gordon as being "the same level" as Batman?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The level progression is a reward and incentive to keep adventuring. Developing your character is an important part of the game. Im not sure what the problem is with adding feats, and non-magical abilities as part of the progression of the fighter class. Hitting faster and harder is a fighters thing.
You know, that's exactly what E6 does.
"Instead of simply ending the campaign at 6th level, E6 characters advance as normal through 6th level and then continue to earn feats after that point (in the original E6, one feat was earned for each additional 5,000 experience points). An E6 character with many feats beyond 6th level is certainly more powerful than a 1st, 3rd, or even 5th level character, but they can no longer singlehandedly wade into armies of opponents without fear."
So when we've been telling you all thread that you want to play E6, we knew exactly what we were talking about. Your character can "advance" as much as you like while still remaining firmly in the realm of the cult, the canny, and the scrutable.
The level progression is a reward and incentive to keep adventuring. Developing your character is an important part of the game. Im not sure what the problem is with adding feats, and non-magical abilities as part of the progression of the fighter class. Hitting faster and harder is a fighters thing.You know, that's exactly what E6 does.
"Instead of simply ending the campaign at 6th level, E6 characters advance as normal through 6th level and then continue to earn feats after that point (in the original E6, one feat was earned for each additional 5,000 experience points). An E6 character with many feats beyond 6th level is certainly more powerful than a 1st, 3rd, or even 5th level character, but they can no longer singlehandedly wade into armies of opponents without fear."
So when we've been telling you all thread that you want to play E6, we knew exactly what we were talking about. Your character can "advance" as much as you like while still remaining firmly in the realm of the cult, the canny, and the scrutable.
I can't help but really wanting to have Aragorn or even the entire Fellowship to be on the front of that E6 PDF, lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not. It's the most limited class in the game. You are weapon-man.
There is not one character concept the Fighter can achieve that the above classes cannot also fulfill.
I am fairly sure all the feats, all the equipment training and all the archetypes do stack up to cause such massive variance in the ways you can make a Fighter that you can create something actually unique with the class.
And it does not actually have to be "good". There is no real standard it must pass. It can exists as self-expression.
I'm hard-pressed to find one. 90% of Fighter archetypes are weapon specialists, just locking the class into even more narrow weapon selection.
The ones that remain typically mimic other class' abilities anyway (Viking, Mutation Warrior, and Martial Master for examples).
The Advanced Weapon and Armor Training likewise do this. They are typically focused on giving the Fighter more skills to use (which the good classes already have), more raw numbers in a certain areas like Will saves (which good classes already have), or cribbing class abilities from other classes (like Weapon Spirit).
Whether we call it magic, supernatural ability or superhuman there needs to be some classes that don't have it.Why?
I'm serious. Why not just play a commoner, then?
And what keeps you from being a drain on the party resources when you get to the level where everyone else is dodging bullets, stopping freight trains, and leaping tall buildings in a single bound?
In what sense does it make sense to talk about Commissioner Gordon as being "the same level" as Batman?
Expecting him to play a Commoner is unreasonable.
A low level Warrior is what he's describing.
Also I absolutely believe that party could handle a balor with relatively little risk or expending many resources. The literal one thing martials do is quite a lot of damage very quickly. The balor will be lucky to survive the pummelling charges from the monk and brawler.This theoretical party of fighter-swashbuckler-rogue-brawler presumably has a GM who doesn't make the most of magic-using monsters (or has houserules to make martials better), or they wouldn't have survived so long with that party composition. But sure, if the balor, a monster with CL 20 casting, were to act like a martial in a fight against martials, yeah, it's an easy fight.
But the fact that every single member of the group has a poor Will save is certainly a powerful temptation for the balor to open with crowd control, fly out of range, and keep it a ranged battle with its numerous gtfo abilities (unholy aura, telekinesis, the whip, teleport). Not even mentioning the balor's magic items, that's a difficult fight. One the party could very well TPK in if their own choice of magic items wasn't up to snuff.
The balors +11 initiative is not likely to beat the initiatives of even half of these martials, especially with at least 3 high dex requirements. At least half this party will win initiative and the balor will die before it gets to go.
Also i havent seen a single person post a level 20 character with less than +22 to its will save. The balors dominate has a 25% chance of working. Not a great way to spend your standard.
Hitting faster and harder is a fighters thing.Until it reaches a scope you feel is 'too far'
Until it reaches a level that can no longer have been conceived to come through skill or experience. Yes. So leaping a 35 foot cavern sure but giving someone the ability to jump over a 2 storey house - no thanks.
I think a discussion could be had to determine what that limit was - I wouldn't insist on it being my opinion ; p let's be clear I have no problem with a method to build a superhuman fighter. I suggest through expanded feats and archetypes but a new class would do just as well.
Im serious. Why not just play a commoner, then?"
What a bizarre jump!
A: I want a play a great swordsman and fighter, who is driven by his desire to excel in bladesmanship. I also want him to be an expert tactician using different tactics to tackle the enemies weakenesses. I'd also like him to be a protector who shields the weaker members of the party from harm, so he's got to be tough and resilient.
B: You could play a paladin or a ranger, what about a brawler or Magus, cavalier?
A: Nah, I'm not a fan of spells, I want to be able to do stuff as often as I want without worrying about recording spells and charges used all the time. I don't want there to be a limit to what I can achieve In a day. Also i don't like the idea of being beholden to a church or nature And want an ace suit of full plate. The cavalier could work but the whole mount and leadership thing doesn't appeal to me.
B: ok, I suggest a commoner.
A: WHHHAATTT
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why not just play a commoner, then?
And what keeps you from being a drain on the party resources when you get to the level where everyone else is dodging bullets, stopping freight trains, and leaping tall buildings in a single bound?
In what sense does it make sense to talk about Commissioner Gordon as being "the same level" as Batman?
Expecting him to play a Commoner is unreasonable.
A low level Warrior is what he's describing.
Except he doesn't want a "low-level" anything. He wants a high-level character with no capacity to do anything beyond what the guy at the gym can manage.
That's a commoner. Even a 12th level warrior could probably solo a rhino, which is.... superhuman.
Im serious. Why not just play a commoner, then?"What a bizarre jump!
Not really. You don't want your character to excel at anything, because within the scale of the Pathfinder levels, anyone who actually "excels" quickly becomes superhuman. And you don't want superhuman.
Of course the first problem people run with E6 and E8 is that nothing really supports it.
You either have to by hand convert all modules and adventure paths to it or concede from playing most premade material.
Or only use premade materials intended for parties no more than a few levels higher than your level cap [say max level 9-10 for E6]Of course the first problem people run with E6 and E8 is that nothing really supports it.
You either have to by hand convert all modules and adventure paths to it or concede from playing most premade material.
Specifically, E6+5 feats is supposed to be equivalent to level 7; E6+10 feats is supposed to be equivalent to level 8, and E6 is never supposed to quite equal level 9.
So run all the level 7-8 modules you like. Adventure paths are a bit harder, but you could certainly run up to the level 7 bits of them. So you could easily do the first two books of Skull and Shackles, for example, and then run the first third or so of Maiden, Mother, Crone as a standalone set of adventures.
Or only use premade materials intended for parties no more than a few levels higher than your level cap [say max level 9-10 for E6]
I doubt they survive it.
And that really thins the selection you can use.Oh and a ramble on the current topic.
Pathfinder ruleset at the same time enables the supernatural, but does not make it absolutely necessary by default. Usually if the GM forces the scenario to "play smart" does things usually go like they do.
The classic dragon problem. Dragon can both be up in the air, doing nothing but casting spells from out of reach of anything. Or it can be down there, doing full attacks and using natural attacks. Completely changes the difficulty and other aspects of the encounter. But, are both cases valid narratives?
I am sure Paizo forums is full of threads with the point "Well why haven't the wizards just taken over the whole fantasy land by now?! Nobody can stop the optimized wizard!"
Pathfinder ruleset at the same time enables the supernatural, but does not make it absolutely necessary by default. Usually if the GM forces the scenario to "play smart" does things usually go like they do.
The classic dragon problem. Dragon can both be up in the air, doing nothing but casting spells from out of reach of anything. Or it can be down there, doing full attacks and using natural attacks. Completely changes the difficulty and other aspects of the encounter. But, are both cases valid narratives?
I am sure Paizo forums is full of threads with the point "Well why haven't the wizards just taken over the whole fantasy land by now?! Nobody can stop the optimized wizard!"
Oh, both cases are entirely valid narratives, and a smart dragon would choose the one that seemed (to him) to be tactically soundest. (A dumb or arrogant dragon might decide to go toe-to-toe with the fighter just to Assert His Authority, which is also a valid narrative.... and the GM has to decide which one he wants to use, possibly bumping the physical prowess of the dumb/arrogant dragon to correct for the substandard tactics.)
I think there's more of an issue when smart opponents can't use good tactics because the players and PCs are limited, and so the GM feels compelled to pull punches. There's a thread elsewhere about how certain parties are completely unprepared for darkness spells. That, unfortunately, ends up taking a great swath of monsters away completely because things would end up in a TPK.
Why not just play a commoner, then?
And what keeps you from being a drain on the party resources when you get to the level where everyone else is dodging bullets, stopping freight trains, and leaping tall buildings in a single bound?
In what sense does it make sense to talk about Commissioner Gordon as being "the same level" as Batman?
Expecting him to play a Commoner is unreasonable.
A low level Warrior is what he's describing.
Except he doesn't want a "low-level" anything. He wants a high-level character with no capacity to do anything beyond what the guy at the gym can manage.
That's a commoner. Even a 12th level warrior could probably solo a rhino, which is.... superhuman.
But a sufficiently high level Commoner is still superhuman. A 20th level Commoner fights as well as a 10th level Warrior. This is all levels, not class. All class does is determine WHEN you break the bonds of humanity.
I am sure Paizo forums is full of threads with the point "Well why haven't the wizards just taken over the whole fantasy land by now?! Nobody can stop the optimized wizard!"
The forums?
How about the SETTING? Most of the major antagonists in the setting (any of the Runelords and Tar Baphon come to mind) are wizards. The latter was basically one dude and an army he literally made himself and he took the power of an artifact, a god's Herald, and an entire army of Paladins to take down. That only because he nuked the artifact and was weakened by backlash enough for the army and Herald to seal him (not kill him).
A: I want a play a great swordsman and fighter, who is driven by his desire to excel in bladesmanship. I also want him to be an expert tactician using different tactics to tackle the enemies weakenesses. I'd also like him to be a protector who shields the weaker members of the party from harm, so he's got to be tough and resilient.In High Level Pathfinder this looks something like Mihawk [or post-timeskip Zoro without the weird 3 swords s*&#] from One Piece.
I appreciate thats your take and I can see that you have a lot of anime influences (amongst many others) on your views of what high level play should be be.
I would re-phrase your point to be "In high level Pathfinder I prefer this to look something like..." apologies if this puts words in your mouth.
The fighter can be used to replicate a character influenced by Robin Hood, Maximus Meridius, Janie Lannister or Ned, King Arthur, Felix Jaeger, Pretty much any dwarf warrior in existence (bar Gotrek who's clearly a barbarian). It doesn't mean these characters are replicas of those figures but they are based on them.
I have no interest in playing Cu Cuhlein, Gilgamesh, Or Thor. That's not my thing.
When I run a fighter I don't accept that I have to stop playing with my balanced party at 6th level because of your prejudices about what a high level campaign should look like. The style and nature of the high level campain will be determined by the other players at my tables not by you.
I can't help feeling this discussion isn't working because it's between a group of people who see Caster Martial Disparity and those who see it as a Caster Martial Difference. I don't have a problem with a CMD because it poses no power or narrative problems at our table. Therefore for our table and those like it we don't feel the need to dramatically change the fighter. the threads are full of people who don't see CMD as a problem but I absolutely acknowledge that others do. That's why I advocate your calls for options but say don't change the chassis - create a new class.
In fairness Kyrt that is exactly what you have done. You haven't altered the fighter, you've created a new class. If the fighter doesn't fit in the world your game system reflects thats cool not to include it. However Pathfinder/D&D does allow 20th level fighters to exist in them and has for the last 20 years +.
But the thing is, the wizards still lose.
Hell, they can possibly lose to a party of 4 martials if it comes to it. They still do not rule the world. They still somehow always get beaten by something.
Is it not true that, there are still moments when even Paizo just makes the game work like Heroquest? Smart tactics, sure, but here comes the crucial part. Can we consider smart tactics always good roleplaying? Is bad tactics bad roleplaying? It is very curious to me how any GM should use bad judgement intentionally as a resource. I know from bad experience that players can never win against the GM if he actually takes it as PvP.
If something can, should it?
It's interesting, the tactics for Balor actually say use spell abilities when the opponent avoids them. The balor as written in the bestiary would relish the chance to get up close and personal with its whip and sword - it isn't a succubus after all.
Ironically Gandalf slew the Balrog with a sword. Which if you think about it is probably something a 20th level fighter could better represent than any other character. [with maybe the exception of a paladin]
But a sufficiently high level Commoner is still superhuman. A 20th level Commoner fights as well as a 10th level Warrior. This is all levels, not class. All class does is determine WHEN you break the bonds of humanity.
The warrior I discussed doesn't want to be stuck with the weaponskill and resilience that Harry Potter would have at the same level.
The commoner argument is an attempt to falsely accuse people advocating for a non-magical chassis (as a the basis for the fighter) as wanting them to have the abilities of a typical person which is of course nonsense. Suggesting playing a commoner is an attempt to reduce the argument as-absurdem which just doesn't work in this case.
[edited: thanks for the spot Sundaken]
Can you rewrite that so it makes sense? It looks like auto-correct or something mangled your post.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no interest in playing Cu Cuhlein, Gilgamesh, Or Thor. That's not my thing.
But you want your not-Thor to fight the same type of enemies, or overcome similar challenges (in magnitude) as Thor, correct?
The commoner argument is an attempt to falsely accuse people advocating non-magical chassis as wanted the abilities of a typical person which is of course nonsense
I don't know that it is. I think it's confusion at the request for a class that operates "mundanely" to run in a high fantasy environment. Basically, why ask for Aragorn (or similar) to be running in a campaign against interplanar demons and dieties? If one wants a character of that fashion, it would make sense for such a character to fight things of its ilk (ie epic6). If you want to fight big, powerful monstrosities, it would make sense that your character be comperably equipped.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no interest in playing Cu Cuhlein, Gilgamesh, Or Thor. That's not my thing.But you want your not-Thor to fight the same type of enemies, or overcome similar challenges (in magnitude) as Thor, correct?
The commoner argument is an attempt to falsely accuse people advocating non-magical chassis as wanted the abilities of a typical person which is of course nonsenseI don't know that it is. I think it's confusion at the request for a class that operates "mundanely" to run in a high fantasy environment. Basically, why ask for Aragorn (or similar) to be running in a campaign against interplanar demons and dieties? If one wants a character of that fashion, it would make sense for such a character to fight things of its ilk (ie epic6). If you want to fight big, powerful monstrosities, it would make sense that your character be comperably equipped.
I think that's very well put.
Aragorn fights orcs. Gilgamesh fights epic unique monsters that have been designed by the gods themselves to be a terror to human beings (Humbaba, Gugalanna). D'Artagnan fences with the Cardinal's guard and the Comte de Rochefort. Herakles kills the Nemean Lion and the Stymphalian Birds. Ivanhoe jousts with Brian de Bois-Gilbert. Thor tries to drink the Sea, out-eat Fire, lift the World Snake, and wrestle Old Age.
Which do you want to fight, The-Sword?