TNE: Nonmagical Fighter Idea Lab
Moderator: Moderators
Caedrus had a thread (I think in this forum, IMOI) a while back about separating magical powers into clearly defined thematic and mechanical effects. Something like that is really a Good Idea, and though I think it bogged down cuz Frank and Caedrus started arguing over (basically) semantics, I bet something like that could let people still have powerful, badass magic-users that are limited in their power but don't have arbitrary "DO NOT ENTER" signs.
Out beyond the hull, mucoid strings of non-baryonic matter streamed past like Christ's blood in the firmament.
-
CatharzGodfoot
- King
- Posts: 5668
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: North Carolina
Combining two recommendations made multiple times in this thread (rituals and well defined 'magiphysics') would go a long way towards helping fighters while (probably) not pissing off the 'nonmagical fighters' crowd. When every single character has the capability of using teleportation circles by filling the channels with oil and then setting the waystones alight in the proper order, you don't have to have a character that feels magical to get in on the action. If divination rituals involve contacting ancestral spirits or gods, you don't have to 'do magic'; just pull an Odysseus. If gryphons are commonly kept as combat mounts, they're no more 'DM bullshit magic items' than horses.
The reason that some people pick locks and others use knock does not have to be because the pickers are muggles. Lockpicking might just require more effort or dexterity to learn, so that even though it's a superior technique you'll have wizards messing around with metal spirits if an expert isn't available.
Shadowrun magic isn't full solution for a number of reasons. At the very least, all of the 'nonmagical' characters are using Sufficiently Advanced Technology.
The reason that some people pick locks and others use knock does not have to be because the pickers are muggles. Lockpicking might just require more effort or dexterity to learn, so that even though it's a superior technique you'll have wizards messing around with metal spirits if an expert isn't available.
Shadowrun magic isn't full solution for a number of reasons. At the very least, all of the 'nonmagical' characters are using Sufficiently Advanced Technology.
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
Dear god no. Maybe for a spiritual creature or a puzzle monster, but not for a PC. This is just unfun and a kick in the nads to anybody who wants to play a wizard.MartinHarper wrote:Brainstorming in the spirit of this thread:RandomCasualty2 wrote:Well what we really need to do is set up something that magic can't do.
Bridges
There's a naked elf on the other side of the iron bridge, and the wizard...
- Can't cross over running water
- Is weakened by the presence of iron
- Can't touch man-made structures
Aladdin's Cave
There's a cave full of wonderful goodies, and the wizard...
- Can't enter a home uninvited
- Cannot use fire magic without the power of the sun
- Is forbidden from owning anything except his robe and his begging bowl
What's wrong with the wizard being a true generalist? He keeps his versatility, but can't completely win the game by himself. The jack of all trades archetype is one that has never really been pulled off well and outside of the rogue the wizard has the closest shot at being that.
If that doesn't sound good, why not just make him take a while to spool up to full power/put in a drain mechanic a la Shadowrun?
FrankTrollman wrote: Halfling women, as I'm sure you are aware, combine all the "fun" parts of pedophilia without any of the disturbing, illegal, or immoral parts.
K wrote:That being said, the usefulness of airships for society is still transporting cargo because it's an option that doesn't require a powerful wizard to show up for work on time instead of blowing the day in his harem of extraplanar sex demons/angels.
Chamomile wrote: See, it's because K's belief in leaving generation of individual monsters to GMs makes him Chaotic, whereas Frank's belief in the easier usability of monsters pre-generated by game designers makes him Lawful, and clearly these philosophies are so irreconcilable as to be best represented as fundamentally opposed metaphysical forces.
Whipstitch wrote:You're on a mad quest, dude. I'd sooner bet on Zeus getting bored and letting Sisyphus put down the fucking rock.
I guess the biggest reason is that, just like you said, the jack of all trades archetype has never really been pulled off well, and for a reason. If your power is to-be-decently-good-at-a-shitload-of-things, then you're constantly going to end up overshadowed by your chums. If we can come up with a good way to be a generalist, then sure.Mask_De_H wrote:What's wrong with the wizard being a true generalist? He keeps his versatility, but can't completely win the game by himself. The jack of all trades archetype is one that has never really been pulled off well and outside of the rogue the wizard has the closest shot at being that.
If that doesn't sound good, why not just make him take a while to spool up to full power/put in a drain mechanic a la Shadowrun?
Wizard would probably work better if it was actually a number of other classes like "Beguiler" and "Warmage," or "Conduit" if you want something a bit more customizable. Unless every spellcaster has clear limitations on what they can and cannot do, fighters are almost guaranteed to end up majorly marginalized.
Out beyond the hull, mucoid strings of non-baryonic matter streamed past like Christ's blood in the firmament.
-
RandomCasualty2
- Prince
- Posts: 3295
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm
While I'm not really a fan of arbitrary restrictions, the true generalist thing has to go. That's what makes the wizard so godly in the first place. The fact is that doing something magically tends to be awesome anyway, so you should have to be really focused at what you do, and that should have weaknesses. You should have to be an illusionist or a fire mage, not "whatever the hell I feel like being today."Mask_De_H wrote: Dear god no. Maybe for a spiritual creature or a puzzle monster, but not for a PC. This is just unfun and a kick in the nads to anybody who wants to play a wizard.
What's wrong with the wizard being a true generalist? He keeps his versatility, but can't completely win the game by himself. The jack of all trades archetype is one that has never really been pulled off well and outside of the rogue the wizard has the closest shot at being that.
Really, I think the first thing you want to do is kill the versatility. It shouldn't be that you necessarily need a warrior to win, but if you want an all magic user party to work, you should need to mix types. So the illusionist, pyromancer, white mage, druid party can handle a variety of stuff, but a party of 4 illusionists is going to be seriously lacking against some challenges.
-
Spaghetti Western
- 1st Level
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:00 am
"
Really, I think the first thing you want to do is kill the versatility. It shouldn't be that you necessarily need a warrior to win, but if you want an all magic user party to work, you should need to mix types. So the illusionist, pyromancer, white mage, druid party can handle a variety of stuff, but a party of 4 illusionists is going to be seriously lacking against some challenges."
This is perfect
Really, I think the first thing you want to do is kill the versatility. It shouldn't be that you necessarily need a warrior to win, but if you want an all magic user party to work, you should need to mix types. So the illusionist, pyromancer, white mage, druid party can handle a variety of stuff, but a party of 4 illusionists is going to be seriously lacking against some challenges."
This is perfect
-
8headeddragon
- Apprentice
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:51 am
Generalist types in 3e got us:
Bard
Factotum
Chameleon
Mystic Theurge
On one end of the spectrum we have people that hate these classes because they're useless, and on the other end of it we have people that will play them but only if they can pull off a monster build. I refer back to my statement that for all the complaints about "11", anything short of it gets considered "1".
However, among casual gamers and those that don't study the rules too carefully they will play weaker yet more generalized characters because they wanted to be a jack of all trades. Generalists can work, but they can't be omnipotent, and yet they need to be capable of surviving without omnipotence.
To keep contributing to the nonmagical fighter issue, the above can probably apply if the nonmagical fighter finds enough ways to impact the battlefield/journey. Dedicated archers get the parlor tricks like economical poison arrows and are much better at setting stuff on fire with burning arrows. Dedicated DMFs get more ways to embarrass you in melee. And a generalist can exist there if he can wield a bow in a shootout while providing decent support in a brawl-- more than almost anyone else could, but not as much as the experts.
Bard
Factotum
Chameleon
Mystic Theurge
On one end of the spectrum we have people that hate these classes because they're useless, and on the other end of it we have people that will play them but only if they can pull off a monster build. I refer back to my statement that for all the complaints about "11", anything short of it gets considered "1".
However, among casual gamers and those that don't study the rules too carefully they will play weaker yet more generalized characters because they wanted to be a jack of all trades. Generalists can work, but they can't be omnipotent, and yet they need to be capable of surviving without omnipotence.
To keep contributing to the nonmagical fighter issue, the above can probably apply if the nonmagical fighter finds enough ways to impact the battlefield/journey. Dedicated archers get the parlor tricks like economical poison arrows and are much better at setting stuff on fire with burning arrows. Dedicated DMFs get more ways to embarrass you in melee. And a generalist can exist there if he can wield a bow in a shootout while providing decent support in a brawl-- more than almost anyone else could, but not as much as the experts.
The Wizard, Cleric, Druid and Sorceror are all generalists as well.
I mean, look at the Cleric in 3.5. They:
[*]Can use melee to fight
[*]Can search for and disable traps
[*]Can use a bow to fight
[*]Can use save or dies to take down enemies
[*]Can use direct damage spells
[*]Can heal others
[*]Can buff themselves and others
[*]Can use diplomacy
[*]Can summon a lot of monsters
Limiting the generalist classes to those with the flavour text of being a generalist class is stupid. And if we're making a new game, we have to be careful that this doesn't happen.
What Random, Sphagetti and MGuy are saying is that having a class that can do all those competently is a bad idea. Not necessarily that they should all be in highly specific roles and niches, but that having a generalist is boring. A problem with the Cleric and Wizard is that they were designed around being able to use Divine or Arcane magic, instead of being designed to be able to do certain things.
I mean, look at the Cleric in 3.5. They:
[*]Can use melee to fight
[*]Can search for and disable traps
[*]Can use a bow to fight
[*]Can use save or dies to take down enemies
[*]Can use direct damage spells
[*]Can heal others
[*]Can buff themselves and others
[*]Can use diplomacy
[*]Can summon a lot of monsters
Limiting the generalist classes to those with the flavour text of being a generalist class is stupid. And if we're making a new game, we have to be careful that this doesn't happen.
What Random, Sphagetti and MGuy are saying is that having a class that can do all those competently is a bad idea. Not necessarily that they should all be in highly specific roles and niches, but that having a generalist is boring. A problem with the Cleric and Wizard is that they were designed around being able to use Divine or Arcane magic, instead of being designed to be able to do certain things.
Last edited by Parthenon on Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Other than the generalists are boring part I agree with Parthenon. Other people have begun mentioning it as well but I think that the range of spells along with the ability of a number of spells to instantly empower a caster with the skills and abilities other classes have to work for, should be gotten rid of.
The only way I can see to make Muggle PCs work is if mundane abilities are more "powerful" while magic is more "convenient."
So you can magic up a company of 20 demon soldiers at a moments notice without worrying about how to feed them, but you can train and lead 100 soldiers if you can supply them.
Telepathy flawlessly and instantly sends a message 1 mile, while trained pidgeons laboriously carry it 10 miles.
Knock instantly opens simple locks but does nothing to complex ones which can be slowly picked.
A stone fortress can be conjured in a day but it's easily shattered, unlike the one which is built over months.
---
Doing it that way requires strict limits of the scope of magic effects. It also the "Wizard" archetpye, where "wizard' means "guy who only ever uses magic," but you can still play Gandalf.
It also takes some specific setting choices and hard choices about what effects to include, since the mundane but superior version of resurrection, teleport, and plane shift aren't obvious to me.
So you can magic up a company of 20 demon soldiers at a moments notice without worrying about how to feed them, but you can train and lead 100 soldiers if you can supply them.
Telepathy flawlessly and instantly sends a message 1 mile, while trained pidgeons laboriously carry it 10 miles.
Knock instantly opens simple locks but does nothing to complex ones which can be slowly picked.
A stone fortress can be conjured in a day but it's easily shattered, unlike the one which is built over months.
---
Doing it that way requires strict limits of the scope of magic effects. It also the "Wizard" archetpye, where "wizard' means "guy who only ever uses magic," but you can still play Gandalf.
It also takes some specific setting choices and hard choices about what effects to include, since the mundane but superior version of resurrection, teleport, and plane shift aren't obvious to me.
I think the slow, laborious, but more efficient method of resurrecting your dead Fighter is training a replacement and giving him the dead guy's stuff.
Alternately, visiting or fighting your way out of the land of the dead. Depending on the power scale of the game.
Alternately, visiting or fighting your way out of the land of the dead. Depending on the power scale of the game.
"No, you can't burn the inn down. It's made of solid fire."
Fighting your way back from the dead may depend more on the the setting's ruling on what the after-life is. In the Eberron setting one of the houses have a long range messaging system that is open to the public for use. Anyone can just go to one of their kiosks (they have a number of them in all major cities and at least one in smaller cities) and you can send a message far and wide to other people.
Last edited by MGuy on Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Everything is setting-dependent. Game rules system and setting work best if developed together, or even setting-first. Otherwise, when you derive the kind of setting the rules produce, you are guaranteed to get something you didn't want.
D&D changes a lot from setting book to setting book, but they're still ultimately fairly similar if you compare them to other game systems.
D&D changes a lot from setting book to setting book, but they're still ultimately fairly similar if you compare them to other game systems.
"No, you can't burn the inn down. It's made of solid fire."