vagrant wrote:Not 'dude who swings a sword' because that's idiotic, but the dude that seriously knows every detail and has played out the combat scenario in his head five million times. A non-wizard tactical master.
No wonder the fighter is doomed to suck so very, very hard. Even the people who hate fighters like me and Kaelik can't fuck up the concept as hard as their so-called fans.
Let me ask you this:
[*] Why exactly should that flavor, especially in a game like D&D, be restricted to a fighter? Why can't, and indeed shouldn't, a 'tactical master' be a barbarian or a monk or a paladin or, hell, a wizard? All of those archetypes are well-supported in fiction as being badass Mary Tzu warlords and personal fighters. Giving the fighter the role of 'tactical master' means shitting on the faces of the Shao Khans and the Raohs and Thulsa Dooms and Darth Vaders and Sun Lis and Ganondorfs and so on.
[*] What ELSE should a fighter do? What does a fighter do to justify their existence over a ranger or a paladin once we get past the 'fights really damn well in close-range squad based combat'?
So you're telling there's absolutely no difference between a fighter like Sherlock Holmes (the Hollywood movie 'version') who trains to know the weakness of every monster and every possible enemy and a random fucking legionnaire?
I hope that's not what you're saying, because that's fucking retarded. Just like the rogue is the sneaky fucker doesn't mean the wizard or the barbarian or the cleric can't be sneaky, its that the rogue does it fucking better, while he's in a threeway with your mom and the mayor's daughter in the middle of town square.
Yes, the other guys can be 'tactical masters.' But their powers aren't explicitly running off the power source we call 'tactical badassery', so they don't get to fucking combat focus and foil action and all the other nice shit that comes with being a Tome Fighter.
Ganondorf: Also poster child or "FULL POWER ATTACK! FULL POWER ATTACK! FULL POWER ATTACK!"
Edit: Well, usually. He did break out actual swordplay in Wind Waker.
Last edited by Maxus on Fri Sep 06, 2013 6:26 am, edited 3 times in total.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
Yes, Lago, if you refuse to let any schtick that could be exclusive to the Fighter be exclusive to the Fighter, he will be left without anything to do. Likewise if you spread magic around until absolutely everyone has it but say that only Fighters get to be tactical experts, you'll end up with Wizards that suck and which nobody wants to play. Congratulations once again on your matchless ability to point out the obvious and act like it is both a stunning revelation and in support of arguments it has nothing to do with.
Last edited by Chamomile on Fri Sep 06, 2013 6:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chamomile wrote:Yes, Lago, if you refuse to let any schtick that could be exclusive to the Fighter be exclusive to the Fighter, he will be left without anything to do. Likewise if you spread magic around until absolutely everyone has it but say that only Fighters get to be tactical experts, you'll end up with Wizards that suck and which nobody wants to play. Congratulations once again on your matchless ability to point out the obvious and act like it is both a stunning revelation and in support of arguments it has nothing to do with.
+0.5.
In Lago's defence, it doesn't make sense to claim that tactical mastery is completely impossible to any possible degree for any particular class - but then, as vagrant pointed out, non-Rogues can sneak around and strike from ambush just fine, they merely lack post-human abilities in that area. If a hobo with a rank of UMD acquires a magic item he can use it, just not as well or as reliably as a real Wizard/Cleric/Cock Hurler. Heck, Barbarians already have a not-supernatural only-we-can-do-it-this-well ability in Rage - normal people get no mechanical benefit from being angry in combat, let alone Rage Dice, fast healing, and being able to key everything off of your Fort save.
Kaelik wrote:Because powerful men get away with terrible shit, and even the public domain ones get ignored, and then, when the floodgates open, it turns out there was a goddam flood behind it.
I'm not arguing against the idea of a class being 'the best of the best' in their role, I'm just saying that Fighters can't lay claim to the 'tactical combat master' title. In source material, characters reminiscent of monks have a stronger claim to the throne than characters reminiscent of fighters. Wizards have a stronger claim to the throne than Fighters.
The number of fighters who can claim the title of 'tactical combat master' in fantastical fiction settings is not zero or even insignificant. But they're only a small share of the pie and they're not consistently better than their wizard/rogue/monk/super-scientist/civilian counterparts. As someone noted with the rogue, the rogue archetype can credibly lay claim to the title of 'super-sneaky guy, sneaks like none other' even with other 'sneaky' classes like the monk available. Because that archetype forms the lion's share of the sneaky guys in fiction.
Now, having to share the title of 'tactical combat master' or 'ritual master' or 'healy guy' with other archetypes doesn't in of itself make the archetype worthless. An archetype can make itself stand out with a collection of titles, like the druid or paladin. If you're not the best-of-the-best you can still have a spot on the team by virtue of having a useful combination of titles that aren't replicated by other character. As seen by the 3E D&D druid, the druid really isn't the best of the best in any category but is still considered to be way overpowered because they can make a credible claim to be the 2nd-best character in nearly everything.
So with that in mind, what does this envisioning of the fighter bring to the table? He can't be 'supreme tactical combat master' because that's shitting on all of the other characters. He can be 'one of the the top-tiers in tactical combat mastery', but apparently that's all he does. And we already have several classes that already have that title in addition to some other spoon.
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Fri Sep 06, 2013 7:22 am, edited 4 times in total.
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.
zugschef wrote:The fighter class is so incredibly stupid and redundant, that I just can't think of any reason why discussing this piece of crap has any merit.
+1
Yes, the "fighter" is seriously a concept that can and should be laid to rest. Let it die already.
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
If you want a game modded right you have to mod it yourself.
OgreBattle wrote:How is this any different than rationalizing Sneak Attack or Death Attack?
A rogue/assassin can look at a guy/dragon/abberation and find his hurty spot, just because.
If you look at actual design statements from actual D&D designers like that rat bastard Andy Collins, you'll find that they didn't rationalize Sneak Attack and Death Attack. They tried to sneak in hazy nerfs to those abilities all the time based on concerns of 'realism'.
You can and should of course ignore it and not require the rogue to submit to random special pleading inspections to use Sneak Attack. However, once you go 'it just works, OKAY?!' route you've opened up the door to Captain Hobo; you can still have such abilities in the game, but you'll have to scrutinize and line-item veto each proposed ability. Given both the thematic and mechanical complaints of Foil Action, I and other people feel that the ability has gone too far when it's attached to the Fighter idiom.
If the paladin or psychic warrior or ranger was using it and it was fluffed as using holy power to disrupt supernatural leylines or psychic energy to alter probability or asking for the intercession of malevolent nature spirits, then no one would care. But we're explicitly allowing fighters to get away with using Three Stooges antics.
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Fri Sep 06, 2013 10:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
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.
Anyone wanna give me the definition for the term Captain Hobo?
"Lurker and fan of random stuff." - Icy's occupation
sabs wrote:And Yes, being Finnish makes you Evil.
virgil wrote:And has been successfully proven with Pathfinder, you can just say you improved the system from 3E without doing so and many will believe you to the bitter end.
Alternatively, if you want to distill the Captain Hobo Problem down to one sentence: Batman dodges Omega Beams.
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.
You know, I'm still fucking pissed off about that. I used to prefer Batman over Superman, until that bullshit happened.
Then again, can't blame anyone except the fans and bad writers who give those fucking fanboys the Batman wankery they wanted.
"Lurker and fan of random stuff." - Icy's occupation
sabs wrote:And Yes, being Finnish makes you Evil.
virgil wrote:And has been successfully proven with Pathfinder, you can just say you improved the system from 3E without doing so and many will believe you to the bitter end.
icyshadowlord wrote:Then again, can't blame anyone except the fans and bad writers who give those fucking fanboys the Batman wankery they wanted.
Foil Action is the new Batman Dodges Omega Beams.
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.
Nah, I'm still more pissed off about Batman Dodges Omega Beams than I am about Foil Action.
However, I'll third the thing that Mguy and Zugschef said. The Fighter doesn't really have a place in D&D anymore.
Actually, I recall a thread where this conclusion was drawn more than once. Even the class name is retarded when you think about it.
Edit: I doubt the whole Batman Dodges Omega Beams thing is even canon. Then again, Ghost Rider beat Galactus with the Penance Stare once.
Last edited by icyshadowlord on Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Lurker and fan of random stuff." - Icy's occupation
sabs wrote:And Yes, being Finnish makes you Evil.
virgil wrote:And has been successfully proven with Pathfinder, you can just say you improved the system from 3E without doing so and many will believe you to the bitter end.
It happened in the Justice League Unlimited animated series. The series finale, if I remember correctly.
And yes, it was pretty iffy. They were clearly going for "Batman avoids the beam until he can maneuver a Parademon to intercept it", but the animation completely fails to sell that, so it looks like the beam just stops tracking him after a few seconds.
Last edited by Schleiermacher on Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Schleiermacher wrote:And yes, it was pretty iffy. They were clearly going for "Batman avoids the beam until he can maneuver a Parademon to intercept it", but the animation completely fails to sell that, so it looks like the beam just stops tracking him after a few seconds.
I'd go as far to say that it would've been impossible to sell that ability without having to stealth-nerf Omega Beams or stealth-buff Batman. It was a fundamental problem with the scenario; you may as well be trying to write a scene of 'Batman survives a full-force punch to the head from The Thing'.
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.
And this is why I refuse to believe that Batman is a normal human.
"Lurker and fan of random stuff." - Icy's occupation
sabs wrote:And Yes, being Finnish makes you Evil.
virgil wrote:And has been successfully proven with Pathfinder, you can just say you improved the system from 3E without doing so and many will believe you to the bitter end.
"Lurker and fan of random stuff." - Icy's occupation
sabs wrote:And Yes, being Finnish makes you Evil.
virgil wrote:And has been successfully proven with Pathfinder, you can just say you improved the system from 3E without doing so and many will believe you to the bitter end.
Picking on Silver Age comics is unsporting. And I would like to point out that the very next panel after the ones Ogre posted is this one:
That Batman can pull the trigger before the beam hits him, I can buy. And that the bullet is depicted as hitting Darkseid before the beams hit Batman I can chalk up to artistic license for the sake of lending the death (yeah, yeah, I know) of one of DC's premier characters the emphasis it deserves.
Last edited by Schleiermacher on Fri Sep 06, 2013 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Schleiermacher wrote:That Batman can pull the trigger before the beam hits him, I can buy. And that the bullet is depicted as hitting Darkseid before the beams hit Batman I can chalk up to artistic license for the sake of lending the death (yeah, yeah, I know) of one of DC's premier characters the emphasis it deserves.
Looking at the page where he shoots, Darkseid is already reeling from the bullet when he fires the Omega Beam. The main one I think of when it comes to dodging is the animated series version where he runs behind some cover as it chases him.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
Schleiermacher wrote:
That Batman can pull the trigger before the beam hits him, I can buy. And that the bullet is depicted as hitting Darkseid before the beams hit Batman I can chalk up to artistic license for the sake of lending the death (yeah, yeah, I know) of one of DC's premier characters the emphasis it deserves.
Here's what happened after that:
"However, the Omega Sanction does not actually kill its target, but sends its consciousness back in time. Although the presence of Batman's corpse would suggest that he is dead, at the conclusion of Final Crisis it is revealed that Batman has been sent to the distant past, and it is later revealed that the corpse assumed to be Wayne's was in fact that of Darkseid's clone....
There just happened to be a corpse of Batman's clone around because some time before this showdown...
..."Last Rites" told the tale of Batman being mentally probed by Darkseid's minions Mokkari and Simyon, in an attempt to cull the personality traits that make Batman the successful super-hero that he is in order to transplant them into cloned bodies. The plan fails due to the clones, imparted with Batman's memories and thoughts, "clawing out their own eyes." Mokkari wonders aloud, "How does Batman process this degree of stress?" and "What kind of man can turn even his life memories into a weapon?"
So
-Batman did not die
-Batman can't be cloned because his hurt is too big
-Neanderthals are a supersticious and cowardly lot
[Lots of stuff happens]....Wayne materializes at Vanishing Point, the vast archive of all history that exists at the end of time, moments before the death of the universe. Here, Bruce's memories return, and the entire truth comes out: Darkseid never intended to kill him with the Omega Sanction, but instead relied on him to survive, building up more and more destructive "Omega Energy" within his body every time he jumped through history
Last edited by OgreBattle on Fri Sep 06, 2013 1:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
And I would like to point out that the very next panel after the ones Ogre posted is this one:
