Shitty character concepts need to die

[Username17]

Then help me out, what are the goal posts here? What mechanics do you absolutely need to have to be viable at level 20?

Actual 20th level doesn't work. It's not even coherent. Normally, when I make a class that goes up to 20th level, the 20th level capstone is just "You win D&D", because it doesn't fucking matter. We won't go there.

But along the way to 20th level, you do encounter quite a bit of stuff. As far as combat goes, it is indeed mostly "the enemies now have bigger numbers", which is because most of the combat advancement is essentially empty shuffling of palette swaps. 4e is of course even worse about this. However, there are a number of important changes in how combat functions even so:

• Monsters that are immune to swords and arrows because they are an uncountable number of bees or something and literally ignore anything that isn't an AoE.
• Monsters that are immune to swords and arrows because they are not solid.
• Monsters that are effectively or actually immune to swords and arrows unless they fulfill some arbitrary criteria like "being silver" or "being lawfully aligned".
• Monsters that are immune to swords and arrows because they are on another plane of existence.
• Monsters that are immune to swords and arrows because they are under water or ground.
• Monsters that are effectively immune to swords and arrows because they are only modestly slowed down by death (body jumpers, reforming vampires, and so on).
• Monsters that are immune to swords and arrows because you fight them in a completely different context like dream worlds or magic chess matches or psionic conflict.

And aside from the whole "you literally cannot punch this monster regardless of what numbers you nominally have for punching actions", there's also growth in "numbers" that have nothing to do with your attack and damage rolls. Combats get physically larger, meaning that you need to be able to strike enemies that are farther away and you need to be able to move longer distances in shorter times. But combats also get physically "larger" in the sense that the opposition "there are some Orcs" never actually goes off the table, but it stops being half a dozen Orcs and eventually becomes dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of Orcs. To the point that Orcs themselves become an effectively unstabable swarm, where your ability to make attack rolls ceases to have any relevance because the MC isn't bothering to keep track of exactly how many Orcs there even are.

And of course, the enemy is also attacking you, which means that your "numbers" had better include various defensive numbers lest you die outright. Remember that not only do you need to roll against harder saves, but that you need to make more saves and the consequences of failing them are worse. So much so that you're going to need some sort of recovery abilities, because iterative probability is a bitch and there is absolutely no way you're getting through a lot of high level encounters without being slain/blinded/petrified/cursed/whatever. But team monster also does all kinds of crap that doesn't even let you roll dice. Battlefields fill up with darkness, solid fog, brambles, stone, poison gas, lava, deadly cold, and even impenetrable force fields. You need to be able to bypass those obstacles somehow, and recall that some of them specifically and explicitly cannot be physically moved through.

And not to put too fine a point on it: this is just battles. Quest locations can also be:

• On the other side of the planet.
• Under the sea.
• Several miles up into the air.
• On the Moon.
• In another plane of existence.
• In an undisclosed location somewhere in a trackless wilderness that is hundreds of kilometers across.
• In an unmarked building among tens of thousands of others just like it.
• Completely on fire, without oxygen, or in some other way impossible to survive in for more than a few seconds.

We also have social issues. The basic "convince an NPC of something" task doesn't really change if that NPC is the mayor, the sultan, or the Efreeti Sultan, so many social abilities actually scale effectively and automatically to higher level play without even having to change the numbers. But you also introduce "oratory", where you now need not just to persuade a dude but to propagandize people by the thousands or millions. And you need to be able to gather information that is completely segregated from any possible local legend or rumor because the quest in question is in one of those hard to reach places.

And that's just to start. We haven't even gotten to the inane one-upsmanship of higher level play, where we have one of the preceding issues that is further exacerbated by the fact that it is arbitrarily "even more" and thus cannot be dealt with by the "normal" high level magic bullshit you need to deal with that sort of thing. Like the various death magic that not only kills you, it also requires that you get a higher level magic effect shaken over your corpse before you are allowed to undo death by the "normal" means of reviving the dead. D&D actually has a lot of that going on, which is why there's dispel magic, break enchantment, regeneration, and miracle that are all needed to overcome various curses of whatever sundry strengths they happen to be.

This one-upsmanship, while a big deal game mechanically, is not a terribly big deal conceptually. You get afflicted by curses, and you need to get rid of those curses, and only magic will do that. But if you describe it without game mechanics, dispel magic and break enchantment aren't really different. So when you're talking abstractly and without tying yourself down to a specific game system, the various tiers of counters don't really matter for purposes of the conceptual limits of a character. I can't really imagine a character who was conceptually capable of breaking a curse that was breakable with dispel magic but conceptually incapable of breaking a curse that needed at least break enchantment. And this is actually why I came down so hard on Virgil when he claimed that he had envisioned conceptual space for a "kill a dude" effect that was maximum level - because "kill a dude" is a first level effect and the higher tier versions of it aren't any more conceptually different than dispel magic and break enchantment.

-Username17

[RadiantPhoenix]

Here is your 20th level quest:

You are four 20th level characters. Stop this from driving the PHB races extinct. You have access to your class features. Go.

[Chamomile]

Gandalf is in the same power tier as Sauron (the latter's only advantage in terms of actual ability is the One Ring serving as a phylactery that lets him not die when killed). And Sauron can get himself bigger armies of minions just fine, due to not having any compunctions against breeding slave races, mind control and deceiving people.

First off, no he isn't. He hypothetically could be, but he's not. Second off, the power tier of Sauron is seriously not that impressive in D&D terms, because the incredible omnipotence you're ascribing to Gandalf are like third-level spells, and Sauron at the height of his power and wearing the One Ring is totally struck down by a mundane prince who's maybe fifth level. Aragorn's army might take unreasonably high losses of like thirty guys taking down just Gandalf, but that is still a speedbump compared to the total size of the armies of Gondor. And that is also assuming they don't just launch a volley of arrows at him from extreme distance.

Finally and most importantly, Sauron is an immortal being with the ability to breed himself an army, yeah. And K's model is perfectly capable of representing that because all it means is that Sauron breeds himself up Gothmog who has the minion-controlling abilities. Sauron has mundane lieutenants coming out of his ears, there is no possible argument that K's model of mundane lieutenants (or, in the case of less hierarchical parties, mundane allies) being required for army management doesn't map to Sauron.

Your arguments are increasingly tangentially related to what I'm actually saying. You're saying a lot of things and some of them are even true, but none of them actually have anything to do with what I'm arguing.

Also, your point about the fight with the balrog is pitiful. "We don't see it happen, therefore I will assume Gandalf demonstrates capabilities that can defeat an army during that fight."

[Kaelik]

Sauron has mundane lieutenants coming out of his ears, there is no possible argument that K's model of mundane lieutenants (or, in the case of less hierarchical parties, mundane allies) being required for army management doesn't map to Sauron.

There is no possible argument that K's model of mundane lieutenants being required for army management doesn't map to Gothmog.

Gothmog has lieutenants who also give orders, therefore by K's logic, Gothmog the character also cannot be given any army related abilities.

While the story differences between "Sauron can create an army he controls" and "Sauron can create an army he can't control, but he can also create a slave that controls that army" might be basically non existent, it is still true that Sauron is in both cases a cooler character than "the guy who can't create an army, but can appoint commanders to control the army if he is given one."

And that is what K's "sub-commander = no army" argument boils down to.

[K]

Gothmog has lieutenants who also give orders, therefore by K's logic, Gothmog the character also cannot be given any army related abilities.

How does the idea of "don't give spellcasters army abilities" map to this extremely poor conclusion? Gothmog is not a spellcaster.

Serious fail, both as a troll and as a conclusion.

[RadiantPhoenix]

First off, no he isn't. He hypothetically could be, but he's not. Second off, the power tier of Sauron is seriously not that impressive in D&D terms, because the incredible omnipotence you're ascribing to Gandalf are like third-level spells, and Sauron at the height of his power and wearing the One Ring is totally struck down by a mundane prince who's maybe fifth level. Aragorn's army might take unreasonably high losses of like thirty guys taking down just Gandalf, but that is still a speedbump compared to the total size of the armies of Gondor. And that is also assuming they don't just launch a volley of arrows at him from extreme distance.

Technically, in the fight where Sauron is struck down at the end of the Second Age, there are at least four named characters against him:

• Gil-Galad, the last high king of the Noldor
• Elendil the king of Arnor and Gondor
• Elendil's son Anarion
• Elendil's son Isildur

The first threetwo die. Gil-Galad and Elendil have named magic weapons.

EDIT 1: I reread the passage; Anarion actually dies earlier

Gandalf's demonstrated capabilities should only be taken as a lower bound of the power levels of Maiar, because the wizards are specifically forbidden to use force to rule or to defeat Sauron. They are also weakened by being in the bodies of Men, as opposed to being able to take forms they might find more useful.

Finally and most importantly, Sauron is an immortal being with the ability to breed himself an army, yeah. And K's model is perfectly capable of representing that because all it means is that Sauron breeds himself up Gothmog who has the minion-controlling abilities. Sauron has mundane lieutenants coming out of his ears, there is no possible argument that K's model of mundane lieutenants (or, in the case of less hierarchical parties, mundane allies) being required for army management doesn't map to Sauron.

Actually, Gothmog was dead by the time Morgoth was kicked out and Sauron became independent.

Sauron got power (several times) by manipulating people into doing his bidding. Galadriel is notable for being one of the few people not fooled by him (because she's a mind-reader).

---

Speaking of Galadriel:

After the fall of the Dark Tower and the passing of Sauron the Shadow was lifted from the hearts of all who opposed him, but fear and despair fell upon his servants and allies. Three times Lórien had been assailed from Dol Guldur, but besides the valour of the elven people of that land, the power that dwelt there was too great for any to overcome, unless Sauron had come there himself. Though grievous harm was done to the fair woods on the borders, the assaults were driven back; and when the Shadow passed, Celeborn came forth and led the host of Lórien over Anduin in many boats. They took Dol Guldur, and Galadriel threw down its walls and laid bare its pits, and the forest was cleansed.

Which seems to rather clearly imply that she was, in fact, knocking down a large fortress on her own (as opposed to with a lot of people helping, as with the battle).

[K]

Which seems to rather clearly imply that she was, in fact, knocking down a large fortress on her own (as opposed to with a lot of people helping, as with the battle).

Well, the sentence starts with "they," so it sounds a lot like she ordered her army from the previous sentence to do those things.

It's the exact same sentence as something like "Grant then took Lexington from the Union," meaning Grant's army and not him personally beating a Union army without an army.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Well, the sentence starts with "they," so it sounds a lot like she ordered her army from the previous sentence to do those things.

It's the exact same sentence as something like "Grant then took Lexington from the Union," meaning Grant's army and not him personally beating a Union army without an army.

My understanding has it as two separate parts.
"They took Dol Guldur," ('they' being Galadriel's husband and the elves of Lórien)
"... and [then] Galadriel [did stuff to the place]"

[Chamomile]

Technically, in the fight where Sauron is struck down at the end of the Second Age, there are at least four named characters against him:

• Gil-Galad, the last high king of the Noldor
• Elendil the king of Arnor and Gondor
• Elendil's son Anarion
• Elendil's son Isildur

The first three die. Gil-Galad and Elendil have named magic weapons.

Okay, sure, that puts Sauron at maybe level 8, tops, so if Gandalf were equal to him then he'd still probably die if he had to fight hundreds of Dunadain rangers alone. I mean, there is a reason Sauron bothered with a gigantic army, and it's because neither he nor his minions could kill armies on their own. Lord of the Rings is totally within the bounds of power where having a giant army makes the equal of a caster.

Gandalf's demonstrated capabilities should only be taken as a lower bound of the power levels of Maiar,

While this is true, it doesn't really help the case that Gandalf is capable of defeating Aragorn's armies on his own.

Actually, Gothmog was dead by the time Morgoth was kicked out and Sauron became independent.

Different Gothmog. We're talking about the guy at Pelennor fields. In the book he's briefly mentioned as leading the retreat. In the movies he's that ugly deformed orc who leads the army and gets his head chopped off by Aragorn.

Which seems to rather clearly imply that she was, in fact, knocking down a large fortress on her own (as opposed to with a lot of people helping, as with the battle).

Really? Because the implication I'm getting is that the army Celeborn brought did it, and Galadriel just gave the order. Either way, that has nothing to do with the abilities of Gandalf.

[Kaelik]

How does the idea of "don't give spellcasters army abilities" map to this extremely poor conclusion? Gothmog is not a spellcaster.

Because you justify your claim that relevant fiction doesn't ever have any wizards with armies by claiming that anyone with subcommanders doesn't really have an army. Therefore Gothmog also doesn't have an army in the fiction.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Technically, in the fight where Sauron is struck down at the end of the Second Age, there are at least four named characters against him:

• Gil-Galad, the last high king of the Noldor
• Elendil the king of Arnor and Gondor
• Elendil's son Anarion
• Elendil's son Isildur

The first three die. Gil-Galad and Elendil have named magic weapons.

Okay, sure, that puts Sauron at maybe level 8, tops, so if Gandalf were equal to him then he'd still probably die if he had to fight hundreds of Dunadain rangers alone. I mean, there is a reason Sauron bothered with a gigantic army, and it's because neither he nor his minions could kill armies on their own. Lord of the Rings is totally within the bounds of power where having a giant army makes the equal of a caster.

Assuming there were only the four, and assuming they were all level five, an even fight would have been if Sauron was level nine.

Gandalf's demonstrated capabilities should only be taken as a lower bound of the power levels of Maiar,

While this is true, it doesn't really help the case that Gandalf is capable of defeating Aragorn's armies on his own.

The appropriate action for Gandalf to take if Aragorn's armies attack him is to run away even if he's more powerful than them. Or surrender and pull an anti-Sauron.

Actually, Gothmog was dead by the time Morgoth was kicked out and Sauron became independent.

Different Gothmog. We're talking about the guy at Pelennor fields. In the book he's briefly mentioned as leading the retreat. In the movies he's that ugly deformed orc who leads the army and gets his head chopped off by Aragorn.

Huh. Didn't know that.

Actually, the wiki says it's not specified exactly what type of being he is.

Which seems to rather clearly imply that she was, in fact, knocking down a large fortress on her own (as opposed to with a lot of people helping, as with the battle).

Really? Because the implication I'm getting is that the army Celeborn brought did it, and Galadriel just gave the order.

Given that you've used similar logic in your claim that only the named characters in the siege of Barad-dûr fought Sauron, I'm inclined to think you're trying to have things both ways.

If it had been the army doing it at Galadriel's command, I would expect the text to have said something along the lines of, "... and Galadriel had the walls thrown down and..."

Either way, that has nothing to do with the abilities of Gandalf.

Well, it's a little relevant, because it sets some reference points for capabilities, but it is entirely plausible that Gandalf was less powerful than the most powerful elf of the third age.

[K]

How does the idea of "don't give spellcasters army abilities" map to this extremely poor conclusion? Gothmog is not a spellcaster.

Because you justify your claim that relevant fiction doesn't ever have any wizards with armies by claiming that anyone with subcommanders doesn't really have an army. Therefore Gothmog also doesn't have an army in the fiction.

That's not a logical conclusion.

Listen dude, I'm not claiming or justifying anything. I'm not trying to prove something about the source material, so you need to stop treating this like you are a fanboy and this is an attack on the source material.

I'm proposing a game mechanic that reflects the source material and improves the game. On that basis, you can accurately represent the source material by making various spellcaster-ruler villains into Team Evil parties where certain members have certain abilities. By doing this, you can represent Team Evil and the PC party with the same set of rules, get the added bonus of a game with more tactical and narrative depth, and can allocate specific plot powers to non-spellcasters and make them more playable PCs.

If you want to criticize this mechanic, you are going to have to come up with something better than "I want spellcasters to have all the abilities because I can't imagine spellcasters who aren't good at everything." Arguing that point just makes you look like a child and/or a troll because you aren't discussing the merits or flaws of the proposal in any kind of rational way.

An actual criticism would look like this: "If the game adopts this model, the game can't do _______ in the story/game. This flaw outweighs the proposed benefits." Then you elaborate on the strength of the flaw versus the strength of the benefit.

Understand?

[K]

=

Really? Because the implication I'm getting is that the army Celeborn brought did it, and Galadriel just gave the order.

Given that you've used similar logic in your claim that only the named characters in the siege of Barad-dûr fought Sauron, I'm inclined to think you're trying to have things both ways.

If it had been the army doing it at Galadriel's command, I would expect the text to have said something along the lines of, "... and Galadriel had the walls thrown down and..."

Except that sentence would be a lot less cool and well-written despite being more exact.

In fact, you reasoning actually lends itself better to the opposite argument. If Galadriel personally knocked down the walls, it wouldn't be written in the same sentence as the acts of the army and would instead get it's own sentence and/or paragraph that explicitly details how she is a badass.

In writing fables, playing up the cool things and abbreviating the boring bits is the rule. Since the sentence is abbreviated, we can assume it's the boring interpretation.

[Chamomile]

The appropriate action for Gandalf to take if Aragorn's armies attack him is to run away even if he's more powerful than them.

Irrelevant. The subject of discussion is what PCs would do with the power available to Gandalf, and "win by losing" is probably not the first plan they would try. The argument has been made that since Gandalf can light a few trees on fire he is clearly capable of outperforming Aragorn's armies in combat. And this argument is clearly wrong, because a single casting of fireball does not match up against 100+ knights of Dol Amroth.

Actually, the wiki says it's not specified exactly what type of being he is.

Yes. He's clearly an orc in the movies, but barely even there in the books.

Given that you've used similar logic in your claim that only the named characters in the siege of Barad-dûr fought Sauron, I'm inclined to think you're trying to have things both ways.

Except I'm not arguing that only the named characters in the siege of Barad-dur fought Sauron. In fact, I'm pretty sure he'd have killed a bunch of other nameless mooks, too. But whatever advantage is gained by the heroes of the Last Alliance by virtue of the fact that Sauron killed a bunch of level ~2 no-name elves is cancelled out by the fact that those heroes are also fighting a bunch of similarly leveled no-name orcs. In fact, that there were tens of thousands of combatants running around that battlefield means that we can't really say for certain what the relative power of any of those combatants were. It's possible that Gil-galad could've taken Sauron on his own if they'd fought one to one and that Sauron just walked into that fight way more fresh than his opponents. The opposite is also possible.

The original point made about Sauron, though, is that he was in fact totally killed by a totally mundane dude and therefore even if Gandalf is exactly as powerful as Sauron at his height and wearing the Ring, that still means Aragorn's army would totally prevail over Gandalf in a straight fight. That a few more guys with swords might have helped doesn't change anything with relevance to the actual argument.

[hyzmarca]

And this is actually why I came down so hard on Virgil when he claimed that he had envisioned conceptual space for a "kill a dude" effect that was maximum level - because "kill a dude" is a first level effect and the higher tier versions of it aren't any more conceptually different than dispel magic and break enchantment.

-Username17

I'm not sure about kill a dude effects, but you can certainly have kill dudes effects that are conceptually different from each other.
A thrown Javelin isn't that different in principle from a MIRVed ICBM, but the sheer level of damage caused is conceptually higher-level than the guy with a Javelin. Likewise, the Death Star is conceptually higher level than an ICBM.

If I were engineering a theoretically maximum level kill dudes power, it would be something like -
Destroy Universe (EX): You have read from the Grand Grimoire and know the True Name of the DM. You need only speak it backwards to unmake the setting, consigning all that exists to true oblivion.

[OgreBattle]

Ok, so we've established that tiers are the way to go

Explain the idea of tiers in the DMG with Conan as Heroic and Gilgamesh further past that.

1-10 in Player's Handbook I
11-20 in PHBII

I wonder if the D&D/PF audience would largely find that acceptable though. Some folks refuse to touch Tome of Battle because the warblade 'is overpowered' (along with Warlocks).

[RadiantPhoenix]

Irrelevant. The subject of discussion is what PCs would do with the power available to Gandalf, and "win by losing" is probably not the first plan they would try. The argument has been made that since Gandalf can light a few trees on fire he is clearly capable of outperforming Aragorn's armies in combat. And this argument is clearly wrong, because a single casting of fireball does not match up against 100+ knights of Dol Amroth.

I'm of the opinion that Gandalf is primarily a social character, despite the fact that the term 'wizard' has come to refer to a much more combat-oriented archetype. I'm not sure if he'd win or lose a fight, but that's not the best application of the abilities he has, and is an action that is likely to get him smacked by his bosses later if he "wins".

Assuming a 'simple' fight, I would guess that thirty is probably within an order of magnitude of the number it would take, depending on the composition of the army. I agree that he probably wouldn't win the fight, even if it were composed entirely of mundane dudes with sharp bits of mundane metal, unless he had some help. Depending on the nature of his form, he might even die when they beat him if they chose to do so.

The original point made about Sauron, though, is that he was in fact totally killed by a totally mundane dude

It's not at all clear that Gil-Galad {is/was} a totally mundane dude. He was the High King of the Noldor, and was one of the people Sauron tried to get to forge the rings of power. Celebrimbor (the leader of the group that actually forged the nineteen) was only approached after Sauron failed to con Gil-Galad and Elrond.

Elendil and Isildur are also not certainly mundane, although almost certainly more mundane than Gil-Galad and Elrond.

---

If I were engineering a theoretically maximum level kill dudes power, it would be something like -
Destroy Universe (EX): You have read from the Grand Grimoire and know the True Name of the DM. You need only speak it backwards to unmake the setting, consigning all that exists to true oblivion.

So, in other words: Table Flip (Meta): Flip the table over and walk away. Everything is utterly destroyed.

[Chamomile]

I'm of the opinion that Gandalf is primarily a social character,

Well, yes, very much so. Which is why trying to argue that his pyrotechnic tricks make him more personally powerful than Aragorn's entire army is really stupid. I can't remember who was originally arguing that (I think it was one of those people without an avatar), but that's what I was actually addressing.

It's not at all clear that Gil-Galad {is/was} a totally mundane dude.

Granted, but he died and Isildur killed the dude who did it, so it is still fundamentally true that Sauron is vulnerable to being stabbed to death, even when he has the power of the One Ring on his side. All this stemming from the argument that Gandalf is equally powerful to Sauron, Sauron could not be killed by any amount of mundane sword waving, therefore neither can Gandalf. And absolutely none of that is correct.

Why does Isildur count as not mundane, though? He's like seven feet tall and a Dunedain, yes, but that's not magic, that's good breeding.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Granted, but he died and Isildur killed the dude who did it, so it is still fundamentally true that Sauron is vulnerable to being stabbed to death, even when he has the power of the One Ring on his side. All this stemming from the argument that Gandalf is equally powerful to Sauron, Sauron could not be killed by any amount of mundane sword waving, therefore neither can Gandalf. And absolutely none of that is correct.

If someone said Gandalf couldn't be at least discorporated by mundane sword waving, I would say, "I'm not convinced of that"

Also, Narsil is an artifact sword from the first age.

Why does Isildur count as not mundane, though? He's like seven feet tall and a Dunedain, yes, but that's not magic, that's good breeding.

Isildur cursed an entire kingdom to never rest for around three thousand years (see: Aragorn's future army of ghosts). I don't think that counts as mundane.

[Chamomile]

Also, Narsil is an artifact sword from the first age.

One which Aragorn also has.

Isildur cursed an entire kingdom to never rest for around three thousand years (see: Aragorn's future army of ghosts). I don't think that counts as mundane.

Ah, yes, that. Didn't have any application in his Sauron murder, though.

[Daztur]

What I'd do:
-Make "have a big old book of spells" be expensive enough that the fighter is going to have a better suite of useful magic items than the wizard to even things out a bit and get fighters out of GTFO situations (winged boots, yadda yadda yadda).
-Slant the saving throw math so that fight level fights are mostly immune to instant-lose spells (like polymorph).
-Make magic hard to cast and easier to interrupt and various things that wizards use to avoid being interrupt easier for fighters to get around.
-Beat high level spells with the nerf back to get the rest of the way.

Overall it's just easier to break the wizard's power level down than build the fighter's power level up.

[darkmaster]

Yes, but this thread isn't about balancing the fighter and wizard, it's about why completely mundane characters can't function in high level games. See, they don't have any utility abilities.

That said, what if we made magical items into class abilities. So, wizards get "Has Spell Book" and the fighter gets "Has Artifact Sword" and then the fighter gets more different items he can pull out when the fuck ever and the wizard and fighter both have similar abilities. Hell, I wouldn't complain if the wizard could choose between different spell books that he could have, effectively rolling "fire mage" and "scryer" and "walking artillery piece" into one class and giving them a similar suite of utility powers.

[Red_Rob]

Ok, so we've established that tiers are the way to go

Explain the idea of tiers in the DMG with Conan as Heroic and Gilgamesh further past that.

1-10 in Player's Handbook I
11-20 in PHBII

I wonder if the D&D/PF audience would largely find that acceptable though. Some folks refuse to touch Tome of Battle because the warblade 'is overpowered' (along with Warlocks).

The good thing about the tiers approach is that if you call the 11-20 stuff 'Epic' or somesuch then players that want to play LOTR rather than have their swordsman inevitably end up as Captain Marvel can just say "Oh, we don't play that Epic stuff, its ridiculous" and save face. I'm convinced the reason that people who are into low fantasy want mundane classes that go up to 20 is because that's what is presented to them in the PHB. By lowering that limit they feel they are only getting 'half a game'.

On a side note, by splitting the game up this way you can also claim your game has functioning Epic rules for the first time in D&D history.

[Username17]

Can we please stop shitting on this thread by humoring K and Chamomile as if they had an actual argument? We've already established that K and Chamomile are trying to have it not only "both ways", but many ways, and they have to move the goalposts all to hell and gone even when trying to get their bullshit to explain individual characters. To whit:

• They apparently think they can write off any character who has tiny men if they are simultaneously a spellcaster and have sub-commanders, and they refuse to use similar logic to write-off non-spellcasters who also have subcommanders.
• Nonetheless, there are spellcasters whose tiny men come in small enough numbers or are a sufficiently poorly organized horde that they actually don't have sub-commanders, and they write those spellcasters off for no reason at all.
• Furthermore, there's all the magic armies which can be quite large, organized, and powerful and still all 100% follow the spellcaster and the spellcaster alone, and K and Chamomile discount this reality for even less reason.

Please. This is not an honest argument. K and Chamomile are being extremely stupid and shitting on the thread. Do not pretend that they are making good points or even attempting to have an honest debate. They are not. They have latched on to an extremely stupid idea and they are making extremely dishonest arguments to back it up. Stop getting sucked into LotR minutiae, because it doesn't fucking matter. K and Chamomile was sunk the moment we showed a clip of Jafar giving orders that weren't filtered through a named character, and Chamomile's rant that it doesn't count because Mook #2 got promoted to named character status in the sequel is laughable on the face of it. Everything since then has just been K and Chamomile being stubborn assholes.

Ok, so we've established that tiers are the way to go

Explain the idea of tiers in the DMG with Conan as Heroic and Gilgamesh further past that.

1-10 in Player's Handbook I
11-20 in PHBII

I wonder if the D&D/PF audience would largely find that acceptable though. Some folks refuse to touch Tome of Battle because the warblade 'is overpowered' (along with Warlocks).

The idea is that you're going to want the "Hero" and the "Berserker" and the "Scout" to be plausible characters for the first ten levels. That means that your assumed structure for fantastic (or even distant/hidden) locations is as a secondary quest objective. So because characters at this level do not (or at least may not) have abilities that allow them to adventure under the sea, the Sahuagin war quest has to come in two parts: part one gets the characters some method to get to the bottom of the sea, and in part two they have a showdown in the Trench of Sharks.

You're going to want to scale some things in order to make things easier on the mundane characters. Incorporeal enemies should be pushed back until after you're ready to allow mundane heroes to forge their own magic weapons. So more like level 6 than 3e's level 3 for the first unliving shadows. The first tier of curses should be curable with mundane superstitions rather than requiring magical undoing for all of them. My suggestion would be to go the After Sundown route and have about three categories of curses that are undone by simple mundane sounding actions that mundane characters can do (such as sleeping under a cold iron horse shoe for fairy curses or getting your skin pierced by silver for lycanthropy). Then the curses that require actual sorcery to undo can be brought in at high level.

Raising the dead in the first 10 levels should be a big questy deal. Because that way we aren't force feeding every party a Cleric. Enemies that attack you while staying safely in another plane of existence or under ground simply should not appear before level 11. Monsters that respawn on death (body jumpers, trolls, vampires) should do so only quite slowly in the Heroic tier (like maybe an hour), and have normal mundane ways to prevent monster recurrence (burning troll bodies, wooden stakes in vampires, etc.).

Battlefield bigness should be reigned in for the Heroic tier. The expected battlefield shouldn't ever get bigger than you could plausibly race across with a gryphon mount, and it should mostly stay in the warhorse mount range. Enemies shouldn't normally come in groups larger than 100 and should basically never come in groups larger than 400. Mundane characters still need to be able to set fire to oil. Because swarms of bees. Also Trolls.

-Username17

[Chamomile]

Frank, I want you to pay careful attention because you are apparently not getting my actual argument.

I don't care if you can find an example of a spellcaster who gave orders to mundane troops directly, because it doesn't matter. What matters is that for purposes of game balance, restricting armies to classes that don't already have a ton of stuff going for them is helpful, and all existing stories can be told using this same paradigm. Precisely zero stories are made impossible using K's model. Even if Razoul wasn't totally a guy who exists and is in charge of his men and is shown to still be in charge of them independently of Jafar, it wouldn't matter, because you can tell the exact same story if he is. It doesn't matter that the Wicked Witch of the West isn't shown to have a leader of her flying monkeys, because it is trivially easy to invent one. Whining about how one line of a movie doesn't perfectly map to a proposed game mechanic and claiming that this obviates the mechanic is absurd.