Fighters Jumping on Dragons

[nockermensch]

Stubbazubba, quick, get him! There's no way a shitty fighter thread being ruined is as serious and tragic as dying of ebola! Tell him he's a shitty person and his analogies are terrible and inappropriate.

Okay, fine, fuck it. I will stop feeding the moron and let you have your fighter thread. But to be honest, I don't think any of you have any fucking idea what eachother's positions are, and have spent the majority of this thread in entirely different boxing rings beating up strawmen painted up like they are the person you are trying to argue with and not being able to tell the difference. Some basic questions for everyone:

1) Do you think there exists a power level at which mundane characters (or characters using their mundane capabilities) should be able to cling to a resisting dragon as it flies through the sky? Note that I said mundane characters, so I mean people who do not have any special abilities or +$TEXAS bonuses to clinging beyond the domain of relatively ordinary human capability.

2) Do you think there exists a power level at which martial characters should be able to cling to a resisting dragon as it flies through the sky? Note that I did not say mundane characters, I said martial characters, so I mean people who could potentially have special abilities or +$TEXAS bonuses to clinging beyond the domain of relatively ordinary human capability.

3) Do you think it is appropriate for the DM to allow characters who have no special abilities beyond the domain of relatively ordinary human capability to attempt to perform wildly non-mundane tasks upon request by extending existing systems like attacks, ability checks, or skill checks?

The short version: Yes, of course, irrelevant.

Long version:
1) Skills like "ride", "climb", "jump" and "balance" are mundane, right? If so, then somebody with high enough numbers on these skills should be able to grab and stick to a resisting dragon's back.

2) If you're adding class abilities on the top of skills, then the answer becomes "of course".

3) You don't get that the domain of relatively human capability left the building at the moment colossal monsters were put on the game. I mean, some people decide to deal with the fact that D&D world is full of impossible bullshit by rationalising that's all "magic". To the extent that they think that magic serves as a "you need to be this tall to play here" barrier and shit on non-magical ideas. But this is stupid, because they're doing that for a world that has gryphon cavalry and colossal dragons with 250' flying speed that can use the Wingover feat without exploding, and therefore has different physical parameters.

[Kaelik]

DSM, have you ever read a book of prose fiction? Cover to cover, the whole thing? Because if you had, you would find that the "logical content" you're waving like a flag is necessary, but insufficient for a good analogy. The logical connection you're convinced is the end point of an analogy is not that. It is to analogy what putting the landing gear down on a plane is to landing said plane; you can't do it without it, but there's a lot more work to be done after that.

If you ever read a book of prose fiction, you would know that prose fiction uses analogies for different purposes than philosophy and law. Philosophy and law are engaged in arguments, and prose fiction is involved in entertainment. You don't want your analogies to literally put people to sleep, and your prose fiction analogies should probably not be completely unrelated to each other and invalid. But if your entire point is that an analogy meant to be for arguing should conform to the purpose of literary analogies instead of the purpose of argumentative analogies you are completely wrong on at least 2, possibly 4 levels.

I think this is the crux of the issue. When you actually think deeply about the body strength and physical dexterity needed to hang onto and climb a giant, moving, scaled intelligent adversary it seems that this would be impossible, right?

Well, guess what? Giant insects wouldn't be able to breathe due to the size limits of tracheal breathing systems. Giants would break their legs walking due to the inverse square law. Harpies would need a sternum that projected 6 feet in front of their body to provide the thrust needed to fly. Fantasy games break the laws of physics in a hundred genre-appropriate ways. In a Fantasy game genre-appropriate trumps realistic 9 times out of 10, otherwise you don't even get past the first random encounter.

For me this is a matter of CR, not realism. I can't speak to Lago, but for me that is what it comes down to. I also don't think level 5 characters should be able to outgrapple CR 5 Giants.

Complaining that Conan riding a Dragon is an example of Captain Hobo is doing a disservice to one of the core themes of Fantasy gaming - that larger than life heroes can perform seemingly impossible actions to triumph over evil. So yes, a Fighter needs the stats and abilities to pull it off and yes the game should support such actions mechanically - but just because a character doesn't have an explicit powersource by level 5 doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to perform in-genre actions.

Here is the thing. You are completely fucking wrong. The genre you are fapping to is single author fiction. If you are level 5 in D&D, you shouldn't be doing anything but dying instantly to a dragon big enough for you to ride. If you are over level 5, you should damn well have a goddam non mundane power source. Commoner 6 (and Fighter 6) are things that don't make sense.

Grappling uses BAB as an element, so this looks like the best place to start. However, if I could pin my opponent by beating them in a grapple check, that is in all ways superior to holding on to them. If I make it a straight normal grapple maneuver, it'll never be used and it doesn't really support the image I have in my mind.

Let's talk about the image in my mind. I used to have a cat that climbed people. It would often sit on my shoulder while I walked around. It didn't impede me in any real way (ie, I wasn't grappled), but the cat couldn't easily do anything except move with me. So it looks like I'm wanting a situation where the character 'riding' the dragon is considered grappled, but the creature he is riding is not.

Improved Grab looks a little like the opposite of what I want. If you're a kraken, you can make a Grapple Check with a -20 penalty and your opponent is considered grappled, and you're not. Since the 'grappled condition' is pretty much a bad thing, and the 'not grappled' condition is better in every way, I think this could work in reverse.

Our VAH can make a Grapple Check with a +20 bonus. If he succeeds, he is considered grappled and his opponent (the dragon) is not. While 'holding on' he moves with the dragon and can make no movement of his own. He's denied is Dexterity bonus to AC, he can't attack with anything but light weapons, etc. Like Improved Grab, I'd say you can only do this to a creature that is one or more size categories larger than you (if you hold onto someone the same size as you are, they're going to be impeded no matter what).

Looking at the Young Adult Blue Dragon (CR 11) with a Grapple check of +28, it looks like our VAH of appropriate level has a decent shot at 'holding on'.

The only real benefit it provides him is that he can continue to use melee attacks while the creature flies around - that and it could look cool. The dragon would have to take some actual actions to remove the VAH, but if he's smart, he'd probably tend to ignore the worthless grub hanging on to him and take out the cleric and wizard first. But ultimately, something like that would work the way I think it should. I've seen lions clinging to an elephant's back in a similar way and it seems about right.

Except 1) The difference between imposing a condition on someone else and having a condition imposed on you represents what, for obvious balance reasons, should be a substantially different modifier.

2) There are very good reasons that the other party holding on to you should probably have some effects, which would modify the DC more.

[MGuy]

DSM did you not notice the thing where someone tried that already.

We've already had the "I'm sure no one REALLY means no dragon riding evar!" and they were met with resounding silence for pages.

I actually listed what Lago's, kaelik's, and Frank's arguments were. kaelik hasn't changed what he's said since the thing started (hilariously even with DSM trying to reimagine his words) and his argument is just as irrelevant as I said it was when he first said something.

Lago pretty much has said that he doesn't believe VAHs should share in awesome (Fighters can't have nice things) because he is offended by nonmagic people having things that the rules don't explicitly allow them to have. More over he doesn't 'seem' to believe that the rules should be expanded to make their awesome scale for reasons I really don't understand so I will assume it's the continued idea that Fighters can't have nice things. I've been trying to wrap my head around how someone who posts here so regularly, and knows how the whole "Fighters can't have nice things" is a joke, still seems to be holding true to that idea.

Frank actually agrees with everyone, except curiously he is acting like stubba and anyone who disagreed with Lago and kaelik are wrong. That sounds bizarre but this is exactly the case. He even doubled down on how much he agrees with everyone and still managed to be angry about it.

DSM seems to be only now discovering that a bunch of irrelevant things have been being flung around and I guess he was too busy wagging his finger at people for making fun of kaelik and his idiotic analogue and believes he's the first one to discover this.

[DSMatticus]

@Nockermensch:

1) Waving your arms around and speaking gibberish is mundane. If you are so good at waving your arms around and speaking gibberish that fire comes out of your hands, that is not mundane. There's a reason I said +$TEXAS bonuses as things that might potentially separate mundanes (like powerlifters) from martials (which might include high-level concepts like Hercules). It is a deliberate distinction between characters who are conceptually limited by the realm of human possibility and characters who are not.

3) I have no idea why the existence of a colossal dragon says anything about your character's ability to do the impossible. Question #3 is not about whether crazy impossible shit exists; it does. It is about whether or not crazy impossible shit needs to be on your character sheet in order for you to attempt it. Waving your arms around and speaking gibberish until fire comes out of your hands is crazy and impossible. Do you think characters should need to have burning hands on their character sheet before casting burning hands? Do you think characters should need to have super good at dragon clinging on their character sheet before clinging to dragons super good? Note that this question is agnostic with respect to the actual mechanical implementation of what "cling to dragons super good" looks like. Maybe it's a specific ability, maybe it's a +$TEXAS bonus and a pointer to a check somewhere else in the rules. It's a question about whether you need an ability, any ability at all, that corresponds to that action before attempting it, or if "the rules don't tell me I can't and I want to try" is sufficient. Assuming the action is wildly non-mundane, of course.

[Lago PARANOIA]

To answer DSMatticus:

1.) Ideally, unless it's a specific and intentional feature of the system (for example, in this universe dragons have an evolutionary quirk that makes them super-easy to ride) and/or we're talking about sub-elephant sized, strengthed, and intelligent dragons the answer to this is 'no'.

2.) Yes. Assuming that we're using a 3.5E young red adult dragon as our straw model, I'd say that the lowest-powered martial character that I can see doing this without a specific adaptation is Dogi from the Ys series.

3.) Depends on how plausible the extension is. I know, it's really fucking ambiguous. But honestly, if the player is able to come up with a really kickass or at least thought-out Scooby-Doo plan to do this I will hear them out. For example, if Conan's plan is to trick a dragon into consuming or breathing some kind of sedative beforehand then slap on a custom-made saddle with special adhesive and also points out an anatomical exploit such as unusual vertebrae and micro-gills then I'll at least let them roll dice.

[deaddmwalking]

1) Do you think there exists a power level at which mundane characters (or characters using their mundane capabilities) should be able to cling to a resisting dragon as it flies through the sky? Note that I said mundane characters, so I mean people who do not have any special abilities or +$TEXAS bonuses to clinging beyond the domain of relatively ordinary human capability.

I think my answer hinges on what you mean by 'resist' in this instance. In real life it is possible that you might cling to a roller coaster without being strapped in without getting thrown off - at least for a short time. If resistance means barrel rolls, I would consider this on the upper edge of 'mundane ability'. If it means holding on while the dragon pulls you away, I'd consider this impossible unless someone has imposed some serious penalties to the dragon or you've gotten a +$Texas bonus. If you're stronger than a dragon, you're not 'mundane'.

2) Do you think there exists a power level at which martial characters should be able to cling to a resisting dragon as it flies through the sky? Note that I did not say mundane characters, I said martial characters, so I mean people who could potentially have special abilities or +$TEXAS bonuses to clinging beyond the domain of relatively ordinary human capability.

Yes. I think that there is a power level at which martial characters could cling to a resisting dragon - pretty much at all levels of play. Now wrestling a tornado or other tall tale feats, maybe not. A dragon is a corporeal opponent so 'has thumbs' is sufficient justification to consider possibly holding on (though not to juggle a dragon or tie it in knots, etc).

3) Do you think it is appropriate for the DM to allow characters who have no special abilities beyond the domain of relatively ordinary human capability to attempt to perform wildly non-mundane tasks upon request by extending existing systems like attacks, ability checks, or skill checks?

I don't think I understand the question. Like, should a 'normal person' be able to make a check to jump over the moon? I mean, sure, they can make a jump check but they're going to be told before they roll that jumping over the moon would be impossible. Back to the dragon - a relatively young strong commoner (like a blacksmith) might have a chance to cling to a dragon on account of being relatively strong (but within human norms). His 93 year old grandfather, however, might not be able to succeed even with a 20. It's a question of bonus relative to the DC. But in principle, if you run into a situation that the rules don't cover (like jumping on a creature in 3.x) the right call is to try to extend the existing rules to cover that situation if possible. I'd consider 'clinging to a roller coaster' as 'wildly non-mundane' in the real world but well short of 'fantastic'. Likewise falling from a great height (like an airplane) and surviving is non-mundane, but it certainly isn't impossible.

[erik]

Would it be sensible if there were an action where you could attempt to glom on to a creature at least 2 sizes larger than you, with a difficult but not out of reach DC, say Climb/Ride DC 20 to attach, but that they could remove you with a successful grapple check or attack? Maybe oppose Ride check DC vs. (Grapple check +X or Damage +X).

Like when Merry and Pippin jump onto the cave troll's back to stab it a bit after it skewers Frodo, and a few seconds later it grabs em and tosses em off. Merry and Pippin also climb a stationary Ent, but are promptly grabbed once it decides to resist. They later ride it, but as a willing mount.

I think there's room for a mechanic to begin mounting/clinging, but that it should fairly trivial for an unwilling monster to knock off the clingers unless they're like master bronco riders... on a bronco. So not a special ability written on their character sheet, just by virtue of having a +$TEXAS bonus.


So for DSM's 1-2-3 ?'s

1) No mundane character should have a high enough bonus to expect to do something fantastical. Kinda defeats the purpose of fantastical.

2) If they're to the point where they are getting some phlebotinum then potentially, yeah. But effectively grappling a dragon big enough to mount is on a very high tier because dragons be fucking ridiculous. That's like a trial for a demigod of strength.

3) I think it is okay to extend skills into non-mundane territories. There's precedent such search finding magic auras, disable device taking down magic glyphs, and of course epic skill usage. The DCs should be out of reach of people lacking phlebotinum (i.e. PC levels). In an ideal world all PC classes would have a power source to justify this.

[DSMatticus]

Alright, so four things, three of which are fairly trivial but I feel the need to say.

First (trivial): It's kind of crazy that you think clinging to a resisting dragon in flight is within normal human capabilities even for the young and fit. Imagine trying to cling to the body of a crashing helicoptor (dragons don't have conveniently placed landing bars) as it spins wildly out of control. But it's not really important in the grand scheme of things.

Second (trivial): In the context of TTRPG's, mundane doesn't mean "boring." It means "earthly, as opposed to supernatural." It's just a way of saying a character who doesn't have a magical or !magical power source and doesn't have magical or !magical abilities like spellcasting or superstrength. Holding on to a roller coaster stuck upside would certainly not be boring, but it would not be wildly non-mundane in the sense that doing a pull-up is an earthly display of strength and not a supernatural one. Just clearing up some terminology, so we're on the same page.

Three (trivial): I'm pretty sure in 3.5 you could approximately cover jumping onto a dragon with a move action to jump and a standard action to initiate a grapple or similar maneuver when your movement takes you close to the dragon. It might require spring attack or some bullshit to take the action during your movement, I honestly can't remember how jumping and falling work.

Four (non-trivial): The rules fail to cover infinite things. There are an infinite number of things I can suggest to my DM, and the rules are going to fail to cover more of those things than not by infinity. It might sound reasonable to you to extend existing rules to cover the gaps, but that is genuinely crazy territory where characters get to write class features they don't have on their character sheet because their player asked to try something they can't mechanically do and the DM said yes either out of pity or favoritism or whatever. That's... bad. It's bad if it happens a lot during low level play, and it's even worse if it happens a lot during high level play.

At low levels, "is a human with functioning hands" is a meaningful ability for interacting with your environment, and to some extent the game is going to import assumptions about minor things people can use their hands for and that's fine. But "what does +$TEXAS strength do?" actually needs to be defined by the rules and not left up to the DM, because superstrength does not actually exist in the real world and because superstrength works differently in every single setting it appears in and because even the fictional depictions of superstrength are wholly inconsistent with the world people understand. Superstrength is an arbitrary ability that does arbitrary things, and if you aren't willing to defer to the rules then it's impossible for players to know what having superstrength actually means. And not knowing what your abilities do (or not knowing what the abilities you could have had do) until your DM tells you is disempowering.

3) I think it is okay to extend skills into non-mundane territories. There's precedent such search finding magic auras, disable device taking down magic glyphs, and of course epic skill usage. The DCs should be out of reach of people lacking phlebotinum (i.e. PC levels). In an ideal world all PC classes would have a power source to justify this.

That is actually an answer to a different question, which is "do you think the same ruleset which handles mundane tasks can be extended to !mundane tasks." It's actually pretty arbitrary whether you separate the mundane and the !mundane using different-sized bonuses when interacting with a shared common subsystem multiple RNG's wide or by giving !mundanes abilities that are !mundane - or some combination of the two.

The question is, "your player asks to do something fantastical not governed by the rules. There are no abilities and there are no DC's. Wat do?"

[erik]

The question is, "your player asks to do something fantastical not governed by the rules. There are no abilities and there are no DC's. Wat do?"

Ehhh, I'd probably do it on a case by case basis, but usually not I suspect.

I'm actually hard pressed to find something completely out there that I'd allow. I'd probably want some sort of precedent to work from.

[MGuy]

Four (non-trivial): The rules fail to cover infinite things. There are an infinite number of things I can suggest to my DM, and the rules are going to fail to cover more of those things than not by infinity. It might sound reasonable to you to extend existing rules to cover the gaps, but that is genuinely crazy territory where characters get to write class features they don't have on their character sheet because their player asked to try something they can't mechanically do and the DM said yes either out of pity or favoritism or whatever. That's... bad. It's bad if it happens a lot during low level play, and it's even worse if it happens a lot during high level play.

At low levels, "is a human with functioning hands" is a meaningful ability for interacting with your environment, and to some extent the game is going to import assumptions about minor things people can use their hands for and that's fine. But "what does +$TEXAS strength do?" actually needs to be defined by the rules and not left up to the DM, because superstrength does not actually exist in the real world and because superstrength works differently in every single setting it appears in and because even the fictional depictions of superstrength are wholly inconsistent with the world people understand. Superstrength is an arbitrary ability that does arbitrary things, and if you aren't willing to defer to the rules then it's impossible for players to know what having superstrength actually means. And not knowing what your abilities do (or not knowing what the abilities you could have had do) until your DM tells you is disempowering.

So pretty much what I've been saying? You realize that I've been pretty much hitting up Lago with this sort of sentiment since near the beginning of the thread right? In fact I've been doing so again for like the last page. I'm pretty sure everyone on board with the dragon riding thing has pretty much been saying there needs to be a way to roll this shit up and it has been pointed out time and again no one is specifically talking about forcing the GM to ass pull rules. It might seem like that but the only reason that kept coming up is because Lago, kaelik, you, and even Frank keep bringing it up while pretty much everyone else has been saying 'the rules need to exist' and which skills they personally believe should cover it.

[DSMatticus]

Actually, no. That is not what you've been saying. You started this argument by carving out the position that the solution to the problem was to declare that fighters are !mundane. While it's by definition true that mundane characters cannot do fantastic things and !mundane characters can do at least one fantastic thing, declaring that fighters are !mundane does not actually tell you which fantastic things fighters can do.

Grab your 3.5 MM and flip to the orc warrior. Scribble "superstrength" in the special qualities. Nothing else, just that single word. Now, tell me; what can that orc warrior do that it couldn't do before? Well, the answer is obviously who the fuck knows, because superstrength doesn't mean anything in the context of the mechanics. If you left it up to individual DM's, you would get a different answer each and every single goddamn time.

You seem to be suggesting that the game should not have mundane martials. That's fine and dandy, but it does nothing to address the dilemma being discussed. It was honestly a pretty weak response to Lago when you first said it (Lago had made the fairly tame suggestion that being an earthbender has greater MTP utility than eye lasers - pretty fucking sure that holds, and you'll note neither of those characters is mundane), but here it's completely irrelevant because question #3 isn't really framed in terms of whether or not the character is mundane - only whether the rules support or do not support them taking the action they want to take, and if not, whether they should be allowed to try anyway.

[MGuy]

Actually, no. That is not what you've been saying.

Oh my, well I guess I'm going to finally find out what I was saying since you're going to decide that 'for' me.

You started this argument by carving out the position that the solution to the problem was to declare that fighters are !mundane.

Is that how I started out this conversation? I believe I started out this conversation saying that fighters should just get a stunting ability that had listed possible effects. Then I moved to just saying a general rule about performing a specific maneuver (jumping on and clinging to a dragon) should just be written since Lago flipped his shit about fighters having a stunting ability.

While it's by definition true that mundane characters cannot do fantastic things and !mundane characters can do at least one fantastic thing, declaring that fighters are !mundane does not actually tell you which fantastic things fighters can do

The fuck? I can't even get Lago to admit that perhaps super strong and super skilled characters should get to do more shit and you're pointing out how saying characters aren't mundane doesn't tell you what they should do? Fuck you. I GAVE a fucking example AND referenced something that had more examples.

Grab your 3.5 MM and flip to the orc warrior. Scribble "superstrength" in the special qualities. Nothing else, just that single word.

I'm well aware how the mechanics as they are don't do dick to represent superstrength meaning any damn thing. Here, let me quote myself:

It is pretty strange isn't it? That a person can take up a wooden stick and eventually be able to break creatures made entirely of rock with it but they can't even jump very high. I think the preferable solution is that skills and other things should scale. I'm not really sure 'why' there's a jump limit nor am I sure why having a bunch of ranks in swim doesn't allow you to handle being underwater longer. It really should and the fact that it doesn't (at least as far as DnD is concerned) really should be changed. The fact that awesome scaling seems present in 'some' of the things your numbers allow you to do while being very specifically capped in other places is something I don't like. That's why I'm such a fan of Tarkisflux's Tome of Prowess.

You seem to be suggesting that the game should not have mundane martials.

More like I'm pointing out the obvious fact that higher level people are beyond mundane, but keep going.

That's fine and dandy, but it does nothing to address the dilemma being discussed.

Well you are right about that. It suuuuure is irrelevant unless you consider that the whole thing started with Lago then kaelik being upset about how 'mundane' people get to do not mundane stuff. Since then it's been people basically saying that the rules should be expanded to include more awesome for higher leveled people with the numbers. This has been met with a lot of strawman arguments with the worst and most consistent one being about how it is bad to let people who don't have magic do 'whatever' they want.

It was honestly a pretty weak response to Lago when you first said it (Lago had made the fairly tame suggestion that being an earthbender has greater MTP utility than eye lasers - pretty fucking sure that holds, and you'll note neither of those characters is mundane), but here it's completely irrelevant because question #3 isn't really framed in terms of whether or not the character is mundane - only whether the rules support or do not support them taking the action they want to take, and if not, whether they should be allowed to try anyway.

Yes, Lago made an irrelevant statement about how you shouldn't let fighters do 'whatever' they want at the drop of a hat because 'special treatment'. This was after I said that you could just give them a specific ability with an array of effects and then I just said make a general rule for it (dragon riding) instead.

Whether or not that's relevant with your third question I don't really care because the whole question is irrelevant when considering the fact that people have been basically saying the rules should be expanded so that GMs don't have to ass pull rules completely in the dark. That perhaps the higher echelons of what one can do with their skills should be expanded upon so that mysteriously super strong, rock breaking barbarians can perhaps finally be able to jump to a respectable high level height. The whole 'thing' this has been about is that Lago and kaelik basically saying that if they saw a character in DnD doing shit as mild as what the kid from Shadow of the Colossus did the entire game their entire butt would be hurt and people have been responding that perhaps then the rules should cover doing shit like that because it should obviously be in the game.

[DSMatticus]

So don't make it a class based ability or balance point? I thought 'fighters can't have nice things' was supposed to be a joke not something that anyone on here specifically enjoyed enforcing no matter how minor the benefit.

In any case, I do think this ties into the 'Martial Characters Can't Have Nice Things' - riding a surfboard is something that people do, and while it isn't easy, it can be done. Riding a bronco is something that people do, and while it isn't easy, it can be done. I don't believe that riding a dragon would necessarily be more difficult - if you fall while riding a dragon, you likely fall onto the dragon.

Martial Characters Don't Have Nice Things not because there's somehow a conspiracy to keep the hard-working nonmagical proletariat down, maaaaaan. They don't have nice things because they're supposed to be bound by realism and exist in a universe that's supposed to model ours unless otherwise noted and they're up against characters who have a well-noted list of exceptions. Benoist tried to pull this same shit, that how a DM that didn't give the martials sufficient amounts of DM Pity even at the cost of breaking WSoD or causal logic was them being a fighter-hating tyrant. And it's just as convincing an argument now as it was then.

And like it or not, it's always going to be a balance point. Any TTRPG, no matter how humble, is going to have occasions where a player needs to or at least can stray outside what's written on their character sheet or defined in the rules in order to advance the story. And some character options will be superior to other options. A Magician or Super-Scientist superhero is always going to have an easier time with MTP than an Earthbender or a Firebender. And an Earthbender or a Firebender is always going to have an easier time with MTP still than Wolverine or Cyclops. It's just something that you have to account for unless you're willing to go partial or even full Captain Hobo.

Furthermore, deaddmwalking and anyone else, I am not interested in discussing your retarded hypothesis about how riding a dragon is supposed to be analogous to riding a horse. Even if you were somehow able to convince me of this -- and with your weak-ass special pleading equivocations, you're not going to be able to -- that still doesn't change the underlying point that what's plausible to one MC won't be plausible to another. Thus if your class requires the Maim Master to sign off on all of your major stunts but not on another character's stunts, then there's no chance for balance.

Or, and here's a thought, you just don't bound them to 'realism' as an excuse to not allow them to do amazing things. The only one in this entire thread pulling the 'martials must be realistic' excuse is you and I'm not sure why you're repeating this mantra with a straight face here. None of of are Benoist and so no one gives here gives a flying fuck about keeping martials realistic. You're the only one. Benoist wanted to make the claim that fighters can be both realistic and get special treatment. No one here is saying either of those things.

They don't have nice things because they're supposed to be bound by realism and exist in a universe that's supposed to model ours unless otherwise noted and they're up against characters who have a well-noted list of exceptions.

Or, and here's a thought, you just don't bound them to 'realism' as an excuse to not allow them to do amazing things.

Notice that you did not say, "or, and here's a thought, you just give them a well-noted list of exceptions." The statement you are responding to has two legs, one of them is specifically the leg you think is important to you, and there you are kicking the other one. Fuck, here's an earlier one:

But eventually you'll come to a situation with no rules and you can either say 'no...just no' or you can try to figure out something that makes sense.

You see, that's just the fucking thing. What 'makes sense' to some DMs doesn't make sense to other DMs. Especially if you're going to bring realizms or even sorta-realizms into it. Some people see a non-ranged, non-phlebtonium'd fighter jumping on the back of a dragon and stabbing it to death as cool and knot-cutting and empowering. Other people see it as pandering and retarded and immersion-breaking. And in absence of a specific rule otherwise, who the fuck are you to say that me and Kaelik are wrong?

That's why a class whose balance point is MTP-style stunting, especially if they're supposed to be VAH-flavored stunts, is doomed on first principles.

So don't make it a class based ability or balance point? I thought 'fighters can't have nice things' was supposed to be a joke not something that anyone on here specifically enjoyed enforcing no matter how minor the benefit.

What you did not say: "So don't make it MTP-style stunting?" What you did say: an incoherent objection about how it shouldn't be a class ability or balance point that makes me wonder if you even know what the fuck you're talking about or even what anyone else is saying.

I find it pretty god damn funny all the times you have managed to avoid the exact objection you think you've been making all along in favor of random stupid bullshit - despite fairly perfect opportunities to make what you now think was your point. Perfect opportunities as in "respond to the exact same sentence, except address the second half instead of the first."

Whether or not that's relevant with your third question I don't really care because the whole question is irrelevant when considering the fact that people have been basically saying the rules should be expanded so that GMs don't have to ass pull rules completely in the dark.

But eventually you'll come to a situation with no rules and you can either say 'no...just no' or you can try to figure out something that makes sense.

Uh, no. deaddmwalking answers #3 "yes, it would be appropriate." He prefers a robust ruleset where he doesn't have to do that very often, by his own words, but he will answer yes to #3, also by his own words. He answered yes on page 1 before I'd asked and he answered yes on page 9 after I'd asked. He will hand out stealth class features of the fantastic variety. People have been arguing with him about whether or not that is appropriate to do for at least as long as they have been arguing about rape. You probably missed it because apparently your brain shuts down when you hear the r-word, but that's an argument that totally happened and telling us all it's "irrelevant" just tells us you genuinely don't even know what the fuck has been happening in this thread.

[name_here]

Okay, so, firstly I don't think clinging onto a dragon is quite as difficult as people seem to think. Most dragons, including the DnD Monster Manual dragons, do have features on their back to cling onto in the form of spines, frills, and obviously the base of the wings. They are larger and stronger than horses, but the first makes clinging onto them easier and the second is not particularly relevant because the entire point of getting on their back is to keep them from reaching you. Obviously, they can attempt aerial rolls or sudden dives to shake people off, or fly under a bridge or crash through a building to crush people on their backs with debris, but I do not think clinging to a near-cylindrical spike under those conditions requires you to be stronger than a hill giant. Note that it is entirely possible for a half-orc barbarian with no magical items whatsoever to be as strong as a hill giant at level 6.

On a more general point, I think the idea that there is a huge conceptual gap between "guy who is very strong" and "guy who has supernatural strength", such that they cannot be represented by the same class, is bullshit. The second is simply a progression of the first and can be reached with or without explicit justification. They are both distinct concepts from the one which can operate at high levels with human physical capabilities, that being "guy who is fairly normal but very smart", which is admittedly difficult to support in a game because the players are not sufficiently smart, and at higher levels it becomes more of a leadership role.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I'm going to make a raelizmz argument here: there does not appear to be a part of a dragon's body that it can't cover with its breath weapon, and it can reach just about anywhere with its bite, too.

[name_here]

I am personally not entirely convinced the head can get much further back than it is in that picture. Even if it can, there's obviously the back of the neck.

[deaddmwalking]

Uh, no. deaddmwalking answers #3 "yes, it would be appropriate." He prefers a robust ruleset where he doesn't have to do that very often, by his own words, but he will answer yes to #3, also by his own words. He answered yes on page 1 before I'd asked and he answered yes on page 9 after I'd asked. He will hand out stealth class features of the fantastic variety. People have been arguing with him about whether or not that is appropriate to do for at least as long as they have been arguing about rape. You probably missed it because apparently your brain shuts down when you hear the r-word, but that's an argument that totally happened and telling us all it's "irrelevant" just tells us you genuinely don't even know what the fuck has been happening in this thread.

No, I won't. A class feature is something that a class gets. I'm talking about extending the general rules (skills, grappling) to not clearly defined situations that they appear to apply. Since those are not class features, I am not handing out stealth class features. I am specifically saying 'these are things that anyone with the base attributes that puts these things in the realm of possibilities should be able to attempt, and anyone includes fighters. I have said at several times that Fighters suck and Wizards are likely to be better at these maneuvers because Wizards have abilities that can make them better. But that still doesn't mean that Fighters might not have the raw abilities to succeed (and these are likely to include things like Strength and BAB).

I'm going to make a raelizmz argument here: there does not appear to be a part of a dragon's body that it can't cover with its breath weapon, and it can reach just about anywhere with its bite, too.

Yes, if you're clinging to a dragon it could take an action to include you in a breath weapon or bite you or any number of other things. The fact is, by clinging to the dragon, the Fighter might make himself worth responding to. If he stands around on the ground waving his sword threateningly while the dragon flies past, the dragon can safely ignore him. He's honestly still not as big a threat hanging to his back as the wizard or cleric, but if the Fighter is hoping to contribute anything to the combat, he has to make himself a threat that cannot be safely ignored. So there you go. The dragon will waste actions killing a fighter instead of a real threat.

[DSMatticus]

Larger things are not easier to cling to. Go hug a wall. If that wall started moving, would you feel like you were secured in place? Now go hug a lamp post. If that lamp post started moving, would you feel like you were secured in place? You cling to things by reaching around them and applying force with your arms, which in turn pulls your body towards that thing. That is literally impossible to do if you cannot get your arms arounds around that thing.

Now, you probably could get your arms around parts of D&D dragons. Red dragons are the size of a fucking tiger until CR 13, and they're the size of an elephant until CR 20. D&D dragons are fucking small. The above image is an epic level threat minimum. But that's something of a separate problem.

No, I won't. A class feature is something that a class gets. I'm talking about extending the general rules (skills, grappling) to not clearly defined situations that they appear to apply. Since those are not class features, I am not handing out stealth class features. I am specifically saying 'these are things that anyone with the base attributes that puts these things in the realm of possibilities should be able to attempt, and anyone includes fighters. I have said at several times that Fighters suck and Wizards are likely to be better at these maneuvers because Wizards have abilities that can make them better. But that still doesn't mean that Fighters might not have the raw abilities to succeed (and these are likely to include things like Strength and BAB).

1) Even if you were right this is the most pointlessly nitpicky shit.

2) You aren't right. Hypothetical: spellcasting is a skill check anyone can attempt, not a class feature. Casters get a +$TEXAS bonus to this skill check, and all of the DC's are completely unreachable without the +$TEXAS bonus. Would you be here telling us that spellcasting isn't a class feature, it's just a thing any character can do, and some are better at it than other's?

Whether or not the things your character can do are listed in the class entry or in a general subsystem with which they get to interact more deeply is a layout decision. It's a completely meaningless discussion. At the end of the day some characters can do X, and some characters can't do X. If you add class features to a class, that's more things some characters can do and some others can't do. If you add functionality to general subsystems at which some characters are better at than other characters, that's more things some characters can do and some others can't do. If you add that functionality on a whim after the fact, then that's fundamentally no different from putting information about character abilities in the DMG; it's just a bunch of shit players didn't know and were expected to make decisions around anyway.

[MGuy]

Stuff

You are very funny. Let's dig a bit deeper from where you cherry picked these.

But you've just reversed position from no way if there are no defined rules to totally acceptable but ridiculously difficult in most cases. That's a big difference.

I don't mean to advocate for the Benoist ideal. I prefer a robust rule set that covers most actions. I also like procedural rules where applying the rules to new situations follows from the existing rules. But eventually you'll come to a situation with no rules and you can either say 'no...just no' or you can try to figure out something that makes sense.

You see there's a point dead made that Lago cut off and you seem to be ignoring which would give context to my reply to him and even if you 'did' get confused on that very same page I said:

So don't make it a class based ability or balance point? I thought 'fighters can't have nice things' was supposed to be a joke not something that anyone on here specifically enjoyed enforcing no matter how minor the benefit.

Are you smarter than the dragon? No. Are you stronger than the Dragon? No. Are you more skilled than the Dragon? No.

Your class ability better be magical sticky effects, because if not you have no reason to be able to do this at all.

Like, think about what you are insisting, you are insisting that you should have a 100% chance of succeeding on an action opposed against an enemy of apparently infinite CR, because you have given no reason to think your arbitrary must always succeed ability to ride on the back of your enemies would in any way be hampered by any possible attribute of the enemy.

If you are going to make your own class called "enemy rider" maybe you can get away with it, but if you think all the members of an NPC class should be able to do this you are a fucking idiot.

I don't think you know what I'm insisting. You're pulling out percentages, infinite CR horse shit, 'always succeed', and whatever other assumptions straight out of your ass. Most of what you're arguing against isn't even something I implied. What I'm insisting on is very simply that the game should be able to handle people jumping on things to attack them. That the rules say when X jumps on Y it does Z.

I've no idea why you're worried about how smart a dragon is because that sure as fuck doesn't have anything to do with whether or not someone can jump on them. I also don't know why you keep talking about classes because I just said, in the thing you quoted me on to 'not' make it class ability or balance point. So it's fine that there is an argument you made up to defeat and all but that's just your own fail version of it. It's good though that you can freely admit that your ideas are stupid.

So even if you were 'confused' by what I was saying because I didn't take the extra step of quoting the part of what dead said that Lago cut out I cleared it up.
and again...

It doesn't matter how 'easy' it is for an intelligent dragon to realize what it can do to get you off because even if I gave a damn about the particulars of how non intelligent creatures deal with people riding them vs sentient ones it still wouldn't have dick to do about the fact that the rules should cover how those interactions go.

and just in case you want to act like I wasn't addressing specific things about what Lago was saying here it is:

Your 'reverse' question doesn't answer dick. How 'bout you answer my question?

The point of my question was to show you that the premise behind your rabbinical questioning was based on special pleading. If you're going to let a PC cling to and fight/ride a dragon because they have a lot of HP and levels and BAB, what's your excuse for not letting a PC hide in plain sight as an immediate action because they have improved evasion? What's your excuse for not letting a PC with a high concentration skill get extra saving throws because of long-lasing mind-affecting affects?

You're headed down a bottomless well of madness if you argue that DMs should generically allow PCs to infer new abilities through 'just because' old abilities because such extrapolation seems 'plausible'. Not just because DMs have a differing idea of what's plausible but because there are infinitely many special exceptions or extrapolations you could come up with.

So a combination of slippery slope and the 'terror' that creating rules for specific interactions means that people are going to argue with GMs about how they should be able to use specific abilities that they have to acquire that have specific outcomes will be used for something else? How does that make sense to you? Your slippery slope fear mongering aside what the fuck does creating rules for common interactions such as forcefully clinging onto shit equate to using defined abilities to do things they don't do? Like where are you finding the connection between those two obviously different things?

and

So a combination of slippery slope and the 'terror' that creating rules for specific interactions means that people are going to argue with GMs about how they should be able to use specific abilities that they have to acquire that have specific outcomes will be used for something else? How does that make sense to you?

If the base, pre-instantiated mechanics is a 'just because' and you build off of that, then the extrapolated course of action is also a 'just because'.

But the danger of using 'just because' to justify new actions is that it doesn't exclude anything. Anything can be justified in-story with 'just because'. Firebending won't by itself allow you to turn into a hulking dragon, but 'just because' can.

Your slippery slope fear mongering aside what the fuck does creating rules for common interactions such as forcefully clinging onto shit

There is a difference between instantiation and extrapolation. I don't need an narrative explanation as to how I can survive a 500-foot fall with my full 150 hp, even though hp is a total 'just because' explanation in D&D. It's written in the rules, I can do that, no questions asked. If someone explicitly wrote a rule for attaching to and fighting bigger-than-me creatures, then that's the end of that.

LAGO are you high? There are CLEAR reasons why you would want to have rules for interactions as common in the source material as jumping on a large creature's back. This isn't just a thing I pulled out of my ass this is something that people want to have in their game and think is cool. I'm not even sure at this point if you do realize my entire point is that you write a rule that says you can do X. You've been ranting on and on about how you can't let people do X because it's bad that it isn't magic. Then when I ask you why you are upset with another 'unrealistic yet mundane' thing you say 'it's ok because there's a rule for it'. The fuck?!

This is what I got from trying to convince Lago that the rules should cover this kind of ground. Him saying that 'without rules' you shouldn't just make shit up and ignoring the fact that I've been talking about making more rules. Whenever pressed about whether or not rules 'should' be made to actually give something like having superstrength some meaning he goes silent.

Now I could go on and talk about how you seem to be on a trip, re-imagining what people have said but you know I'm not gonna do that because since dead is actually in the discussion I don't have to spend pages trying to make believe he said something he didn't.

[DSMatticus]

I prefer a robust rule set that covers most actions. I also like procedural rules where applying the rules to new situations follows from the existing rules. But eventually you'll come to a situation with no rules and you can either say 'no...just no' or you can try to figure out something that makes sense.

Uh, no. deaddmwalking answers #3 "yes, it would be appropriate." He prefers a robust ruleset where he doesn't have to do that very often, by his own words, but he will answer yes to #3, also by his own words. He answered yes on page 1 before I'd asked and he answered yes on page 9 after I'd asked. He will hand out stealth class features of the fantastic variety. People have been arguing with him about whether or not that is appropriate to do for at least as long as they have been arguing about rape. You probably missed it because apparently your brain shuts down when you hear the r-word, but that's an argument that totally happened and telling us all it's "irrelevant" just tells us you genuinely don't even know what the fuck has been happening in this thread.

MGuy, I'm not reading the rest of your post. I'm not reading the rest of any of your posts. Your actual fucking complaint is that I'm cherry-picking quotes and taking people out of context, and your evidence of that is... to quote people saying the exact things I said they said almost verbatim. You're going on ignore. Not because you are an idiot, though you are, but because you clearly have no intention to contribute anything to this thread other than wildly destructive noise. There are plenty of other people in this thread at least capable of having this discussion, and the sooner you stop posting the easier that will be for them to do.

[PhoneLobster]

DSM, the only idiot on the forum who...

Wailed and cried that he was being called a cherry picker. So he responded to a tiny portion of MGuy's post (with very small quotes from other posters entirely). Then stated he wasn't reading further and was putting MGuy on ignore.

Yes, he actually cherry picked, and even described himself cherry picking even as he screamed foul and threw a tantrum at being called a cherry picker.

Yes, it was all "Cherry Picker? CHERRY PICKER! Well, watch me respond to a small out of context quote by someone else and state that I am ignoring everything else you said! WHO IS THE CHERRY PICKER NOW?!"

That is fucking Olympic gold level stupid.

It's almost as good as that time he declared in advance he would not read my Saga review because he knew it would jump to biased conclusions regardless of the material reviewed.

If only he actually ever pulled though on the promises of ignoring people.

[MGuy]

Hahahaha. I suppose it's good that you stopped where you did so you didn't get the chance to actually read the part where the only reason I brought it up was in reference to why I made my response to Lago. Instead you stop short enough to make believe I was saying that 'you' didn't understand dead and you didn't even make it to the end where I said I specifically WASN'T going to try to defend dead's statements. Very convenient of you.

[deaddmwalking]

2) You aren't right. Hypothetical: spellcasting is a skill check anyone can attempt, not a class feature. Casters get a +$TEXAS bonus to this skill check, and all of the DC's are completely unreachable without the +$TEXAS bonus. Would you be here telling us that spellcasting isn't a class feature, it's just a thing any character can do, and some are better at it than other's?

If the +$TEXAS bonus is available without being a caster, yes, I wouldn't call spellcasting a class feature. I'd refer to the free +$TEXAS bonus as a class feature.

Example: Wizards gain a +20 bonus on Spellcasting Skill Checks.

The +20 bonus is a class feature. Assuming that the roll is a d20 and the lowest roll required to cast a 0 level spell is 20, anyone could theoretically cast a spell. If the DC were 25 but Intelligence added to your roll, I would say anyone with a +5 INT or better could cast a spell.

By way of analogy, if holding on to a dragon required a DC 25 Attack Roll (modified by STR and BAB) anyone with a +5 STR could perform the action. Anyone with a +5 BAB could perform the action. Anyone with more than a +5 STR and/or +5 BAB would be better at performing that action.

The class feature are the benefits you get for being a member of that class. I don't consider benefits of your race to be class features, either, if it matters.

[DSMatticus]

If X requires a DC 25 roll, then characters who have a +15 bonus can succeed 55% the time and might try it, and characters who have a +5 bonus can succeed 5% of the time and will never try it. If X is introduced mid campaign, then all the characters who have that +15 bonus have gotten a new toy they did not have before, and all the people who have a +5 bonus really haven't because that is not an action worth attempting.

I used an example where the numbers were off the RNG from one another because characters with the +$TEXAS bonus get 100% of the benefits of X and characters without the +$TEXAS bonus get 0% of the benefits of X, but even if you collapse the numbers until both characters are within an RNG the character with a higher bonus gets proportionally more value out of X than the character with the lower bonus. The example is obvious, but the reasoning behind it extends down to as small a difference as the system is capable of representing.

If you are better at some type of roll because of your class features, whether or not the things you can do with that roll are class features is... a semantics argument. A layout argument. A modelling argument. It is absolutely not a meaningful argument, because the meaningful argument is that it's an action you can viably take as a result of the class you choose, and it just so happens that the rules for it are written somewhere else in the book.

[deaddmwalking]

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that it is unfair to determine the rule that will apply the first time a situation comes up because if the rule favors characters with higher BAB and Strength (but is otherwise something anyone can do ) because a wizard character might feel bad that they chose ultimate power instead of a slight relative advantage in an attack related endeavor.

That strikes me as crazy.

Further, if the types of things that make you better at a task are well known (even if the specific mechanics are unknown) this is a moot point.

Please note that I am not saying that Fighters should have a class feature that makes them particularly good at dragon riding. I've posited that wizards would be better because of their actual abilities. It just happens that any character has the raw material to attempt the check, and those with sufficient bonuses have a chance to succeed. A 20th level Fighter (if such a thing ever actually existed) would have better numbers than a 10th level Fighter, who would have a better chance than a 1st level commoner (all else being equal ).

Saying 'anyone can use grapple in a new way' doesn't inherently favor any specific class - it does favor anyone who has invested in grappling, but that does not make it a 'stealth class feature'.

Regarding a 5% chance of success - of course sometimes people would do it. If I were a 20th level Fighter, succeeding at casting gate every 5th fight is better than any other option I have.

It's possible for people to interact with each other on opposite ends of the RNG as long as they're both on it. There will be tasks that are impossible for beginners, but there will also be tasks that are merely difficult for beginners - but may still be impossible for an expert to fail. Tumble (as written) is a good example of this. Some characters despite having a rank in the skill don't have a bonus high enough to succeed at a particular task - but eventually they will have a bonus that makes failure impossible. It's the difficulty of the task relative to your ability that matters - really the only thing that matters.