Fighters Jumping on Dragons

[Kaelik]

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.

No he is saying that if fighters were already balanced with wizards, then by definition you just made them more powerful, and thus unbalanced.

If fighters weren't balanced with wizards before this made up ability, then you shouldn't have them as fucking PC classes in the first fucking place.

So your ability that you just made up right now after character creation helps some characters more than others, and if they were well balanced before, you hurt that. And if they weren't, then fuck that aspect of the game you should fix that with rules before you start wasting time making up stupid rules for stupid stunts.

[deaddmwalking]

That doesn't follow. Grappling is something everyone has access to and Class isn't the primary determining factor regarding level of access. Even if it were, having additional options that are usually less effective than existing options don't impact power level at all - if it cost resources it would be a trap option.

Fighters are not balanced in the game. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

My position is not that Fighters should be able to jump on unwilling creatures. My position is that jumping on an unwilling creature is an action trope that the game should support. If the game supports it, every character with the base qualifications should be able to attempt the action. If the base qualifications are any combination of attack, strength or skill use, any character (even those without phlebotium) can attempt it.

Further, saying characters with phlebotium can attempt the action without the ability written on their character sheet seems to be exactly the position you're against. That would further unbalance the classes... THE HORROR!

[MGuy]

That doesn't follow. Grappling is something everyone has access to and Class isn't the primary determining factor regarding level of access. Even if it were, having additional options that are usually less effective than existing options don't impact power level at all - if it cost resources it would be a trap option.

Fighters are not balanced in the game. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

My position is not that Fighters should be able to jump on unwilling creatures. My position is that jumping on an unwilling creature is an action trope that the game should support. If the game supports it, every character with the base qualifications should be able to attempt the action. If the base qualifications are any combination of attack, strength or skill use, any character (even those without phlebotium) can attempt it.

Further, saying characters with phlebotium can attempt the action without the ability written on their character sheet seems to be exactly the position you're against. That would further unbalance the classes... THE HORROR!

According to DSM that is not your position. Better rewrite this before he sees it.

[TiaC]

Ok. Let's throw out some statements and see what people think, because there are like four different threads of discussion here.

1. Captain Hobo is something designers should avoid.

2. Fighter and other mundane classes should only be 6 levels long.

3. A ruleset should handle a wide variety of situations and provide suggestions for handling situations that are not covered.

4. If a player wants to do something that is not covered by the rules, the GM should at least try to kludge something together.

5. If a player wants to do something that is not covered by the rules, the GM should try to kludge together something that will be tactically viable.

6. Riding on an unwilling dragon is cool.

7. Adding unannounced houserules is acceptable in certain situations.

One more: 8. Should genre tropes be used to decide if an action is reasonable?

[DSMatticus]

Well, you can frame it as a balance issue, in that if your classes are already balanced arbitrary DM buffs will make them not balanced, and if they aren't balanced arbitrary DM buffs will not fix that because different DM's will give different arbitrary DM buffs when prompted.

But it's also just a simple matter of agency. If you aren't willing to tell everyone what superstrength does up front, then the choice between superstrength and magical underpants is uninformed, and that is disempowering. I hope we can all agree that hiding the mechanics of the players' abilities from them is bad, and obviously any rule that hasn't been written yet is hidden from the players.

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.

Okay, this is probably accidental, but it's getting annoying.

Do you notice how you keep switching back and forth between a general discussion about design and specific complaints about 3.5's failings? Stop doing that. This discussion is system-agnostic. You know it's system-agnostic. Your very next post after this one contains the phrases "the game should support..." and "if the game supports it...", which are not phrases that make sense in the context of discussing the rules as they exist. Because we are not discussing the rules as they exist. We are having a general discussion about "how shit should be," and we are having it in terms of 3.5-like mechanics because, well, D&D is everyone's default for this shit.

Porting in 3.5's balance problems to levy "fighters need all the help they can get" as an argument is just taking a piss on the conversation. I don't think you intend to do that, but you're doing that and you should stop. This isn't the only place where it's happened; you did it multiple times in that post, and again in the next. You're right, fighter shouldn't be a shitty class and it is. Moving on.

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.

Take the stealth rules and replace them with a bunch of empty page space. Every player at the table will still know how to get better at stealth (increase ranks, increase dex, decrease size). Not a single player at the table will know what the fuck improving stealth does. That's awful. The numbers on a character sheet mean absolutely nothing in a vacuum; they're just symbols. You could replace them with drawings of fruit.

You need actual rules somewhere telling you what you can use those numbers (or fruits) to do, and if your DM is making that up on the spot then it's impossible for the player to know what those ranks are buying them - and it's impossible for the game to be balanced, because the author also doesn't know what the ranks (which have an opportunity cost decided by that author) are buying the player.

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'.

This is just dumb. "Anyone can add their intelligence modifier to the saving throw DC's (again, if the DC was already int-based) of any of their abilities or spells." Tell me that doesn't favor wizards over fighters in two different ways. I dare you.

Unless you are planning to say that every class is equally capable of investing in grappling (wut), then yes, adding functionality to grappling favors the classes which can or do invest more in grappling. That is really obvious. And yes, some classes are going to be better at grappling than others. In 3.5, that's the wizard, because magic. In 3.5 that wasn't shit, it'd probably be a martial. If giving up magic doesn't make you better at being a martial and doing martial things, why the fuck did you give up magic?

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.

Level 5 rogues don't actually go adventuring with level 15 clerics. The fact that different characters might be able to do the same thing at different levels is... okay. Whatever. Can they do the same thing at the same level, whatever the level may be? No? Then what's your point?

[tussock]

You're right, fighter shouldn't be a shitty class and it is. Moving on.

I'm just going to point out that the whole reason this exploded is because people disagree with that.

For instance, I'm in a thread over on rgfd where people are right now saying that riding a bucking bronco is some sort of weird epic magic-only trick that a basic mundane 1st level Warrior type may not even attempt. Times infinity because dragons. Oh, wait, that's this thread.

between a general discussion about design and specific complaints about 3.5's failings? Stop doing that.

This is a thread about fixing a specific failing of 3.5 by designing something new. How could anyone not switch between discussions of 3.5's failings and general game design principles? That's the whole thread!

[Sakuya Izayoi]

Ok. Let's throw out some statements and see what people think, because there are like four different threads of discussion here.

#1: Captain Hobo is fine in a party of Captain Hobos. Captain Hobo would fit right in at a FATE table where everyone agreed to play comical VAHs. You could have a scenario like the plot of They Live except the entire party can see the aliens or something. Captain Hobo is a problem when everyone else wants to have high level magic or superpowers and he can just One-Punch Man them.

#2: I'd rather them not be mundane at all. I would have the DMF going Tony Stark or Raiden and the monk all God Hand and the rogue doing shadow magic by level 1, instead of having to Elothar into those kinds of options.

#3: Yes. Being able to eyeball DCs/TNs as a player feels empowering to me.

#4: It should be an extrapolation of existing rules, and should be written down somewhere persistent, like a notebook that gets taken to every session, or on Google Drive.

#5: Tactically viable against a dragon is a tough call when DRAGON's AREN'T REAL. Which is why you should try to use the rules if at all possible, and only Shitmuffin something up as a last resort.

#6: I like it in Monster Hunter (which is a multiplayer game where the PC is decidedly not a special snowflake, unlike Shadow of the Colossus), but MonHun dragons are not geniuses.

#7: It's necessary due to no ruleset being perfect. It's a problem if you do it carelessly like Shitmuffin.

#8: Feng Shui? Yes. FATE? Yes. Champions? The tropes should be baked into the crunch, and otherwise depend on the players playing a superhero game in good faith instead of VAH hobos. D&D? D&D invented its tropes.

[Stinktopus]

For instance, I'm in a thread over on rgfd where people are right now saying that riding a bucking bronco is some sort of weird epic magic-only trick that a basic mundane 1st level Warrior type may not even attempt.

A professionally trained bull rider with gear specifically for bull riding is considered pretty awesome if he can stay on for 12 seconds.

Now, put heavy armor on that guy and have him use one of his hands to try and stab the bull. It isn't going to go well.

I think part of the dragon-rider discussion has been lost. The whole point of "Shadow of the Colossus"/"Dragon's Dogma" monster climbing is reach the magic soft spots that insta-kill the monster. This is pretty much outside the realm of standard, hit-point attrition RPGs.

[tussock]

There it is again.

Bull riders are bareback with one hand on a rope and lose points for staying low or doing a bunch of other things that would help them stay on. It's a performance art with rules designed to make most people fall off, not actually a life-or-death struggle to stay on a bull.

As demonstrated by the contest where people jump on a bull and wrestle it into submission almost instantly by simply leaning on one horn and putting it a little off-balance. Well, a calf, but that's a safety issue should the animal roll on them.

Heavy armour should obviously be an advantage, as should having stabby things instead of hands. Fechtbuchs are full of illustrations of people in armour using swords to hang onto each other. You should skim some.


And more importantly, PCs are supposed to be better than real people. Real people do this shit with severe handicaps to show off, and succeed a lot on all but the highest level bulls. Dragons are better, yes, but so are the PCs above ~3rd level.

[name_here]

1. Depends on your definition. Designers should avoid having "a character who is not good enough to compete", but not "a character whose thing is being strong".

2. Fighter and other mundane classes should be made to be competitive past level six. I do not terribly mind if they require magic gear for flight and suchlike so long as it makes sense to have a fighter with magic gear instead of an additional wizard. Personally I also don't mind if they channel their chi or whatever to get intrinsic flight.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. If it is genre-appropriate for it to be tactically viable.

6. Very.

7. If they are urgently required to resolve an action.

8. Totally.

[Dogbert]

1. Captain Hobo is something designers should avoid.

Captain Hobo is not even possible in d&d, only in effect-oriented systems, in which it's an unavoidable risk, it's one of the prices to pay for flexibility, and to me flexibility is NOT negotiable.

2. Fighter and other mundane classes should only be 6 levels long.

In d&d? Yes. No point in ripping players off.

3. A ruleset should handle a wide variety of situations and provide suggestions for handling situations that are not covered.

Perhaps, but in some systems, some options are not only unsupported, they're actually contrary to the game's design objectives. And in a game that's all about "magic haves and have nots" like d&d, well...

4. If a player wants to do something that is not covered by the rules, the GM should at least try to kludge something together.

If the rules do NOT cover the situation at all, yes... players can't see the BSOD on your face. The dragon-riding thing? It's "covered" (by extrapolation), just impossible.

6. Riding on an unwilling dragon is cool.

The moment the dragon is unwilling it's automatically rodeo riding, but yes it's damn cool... saying the game in question conceptually supports such (unlike d&d, if you're a SoL muggle).

7. Adding unannounced houserules is acceptable in certain situations.

The bottom line is my and my player's fun, and we have fun being awesome, so yes.

One more: 8. Should genre tropes be used to decide if an action is reasonable?

Always. And then, d&d is its own genre by itself, and muggles getting nice things goes against the d&d genre.

Now, while some d&d fiction feature the VAH, the game itself has never included Codified GM Pity in the RAW, so the best I can say of d&d fiction is that it's "d&d inspired."

[zugschef]

2. Fighter and other mundane classes should only be 6 levels long.

No, classes like the fighter shouldn't even exist (including the class name).