Its a thug. Its a brute. Its a fighter!

[Elennsar]

We all know that having a RAW fighter in the group is like having the French in a war or a rock and roll band on a commando raid.

No one likes that, with the possible exception of the people who play druids.

So as stated in another thread, the first thing we need to do is make "I'm a warrior/fighter/whateverthefuck." actually encompass something besides "hit things with swords".

That's not a role even if he can do it in a level appropriate way.

Now, this thread is assuming that phlebtonium based powers are fairly minor or at least subtle ("able to hold his breath for three days straight" as an ability of Beowulf is a lot easier to fit into a world where people hit each other with swords than fireball) - as is generally the case in the literature where people hit each other with swords.

So giving the warrior class/es powers where they can use phlebtonium to shatter armies and nations and kingdoms along with the wizards doesn't work.

We don't want that. Those who do, there's several threads on this site about making those kind of fighters, we're not interfering with yours, please don't interfer with ours.

So. We want to have things based on the literature - more or less.

Okay.

First off, what do we have in mind?

The "warrior types" you'd want for something based on Gemmell or Howard are not quite the same as the ones you'd want for something based on Tolkien, or Moorcock, or Moon.

Or Kurtz.

So what kind of warrior types are we trying to conjure up?

Let's answer that and start thinking of what they can do.

The other way to look at it...

What do we want (and what do NOT want) wizards (defined as people whose special schtick powers are reliant on phlebtonium) to do?

If magic is good for seeing (unclear) visions of the future, you still want scouts.

If you are better off using a spell than a Spot check, you don't.

[Anguirus]

I'm rather fond of a lot of the roles that magic allows for in D&D. I think magic users should be able to heal (or buff in general), control battlefield conditions, or gain important information better than non-casters. Non-casters, then, would interact socially, deal damage, and make information actionable.

[Caedrus]

The broader role than "guy who hits things with weapons" could be, say "professional soldier" and/or "knight."

Professional soldiers need to be able to, for example, form plans, set ambushes, be tactically aware, or (in the case of say, bounty hunters) track people down. Knights add on the frequent need to be able to live in a courtly situation.

That covers a whole lot of skills and non-combat roles right there.

[Elennsar]

The broader role than "guy who hits things with weapons" could be, say "professional soldier" and/or "knight."

Professional soldiers need to be able to, for example, form plans, set ambushes, be tactically aware, or (in the case of say, bounty hunters) track people down. Knights add on the frequent need to be able to live in a courtly situation.

That covers a whole lot of skills and non-combat roles right there.

Indeed - and it sounds like we need to ensure that courtly situations or other such situations ("dealing with people") has to be important - characters have to be able to interact besides grunting incoherently.

I'm rather fond of a lot of the roles that magic allows for in D&D. I think magic users should be able to heal (or buff in general), control battlefield conditions, or gain important information better than non-casters. Non-casters, then, would interact socially, deal damage, and make information actionable.

Why so for controling battlefield conditions, or important information?

Battlefield conditions being interfered with by mages in the sense of turning a wide area into mud, I can see - but I wouldn't want that to be an easy power.

Better with important information rules out scouts and spies if not carefully handled.

[Gelare]

I think magic users should be able to heal (or buff in general), control battlefield conditions, or gain important information better than non-casters. Non-casters, then, would interact socially, deal damage, and make information actionable.

This might just be me, but I think that making social interaction the purvew of non-casters is a very bad mistake. Not from a mechanical standpoint, but because this is a role-playing game, and every single character, even the Charisma 3 half-orc, needs to be able to engage in social interaction. That's the kind of game I'd want to play, anyway. If you have a situation where everytime the players need to talk with someone who isn't themselves, they send the rogue and the GM to chat while everyone else plays Smash, that is a very bad mistake.

[violence in the media]

I think that the "fighter" and "rogue" roles should be combined. Rogues wind up doing a lot of stuff that I envision fighter-types pulling off, as well as handling all their potential social stuff.

Still, you can't give all the social acumen to fighters, because then you're missing out on the archetype of the enchantress that wins socially with sex and sorcery.

I like the holding breath for three days idea as well. Breathless was one of my favorite traits in 3.x.

[norms29]

I'm rather fond of a lot of the roles that magic allows for in D&D. I think magic users should be able to heal (or buff in general), control battlefield conditions, or gain important information better than non-casters. Non-casters, then, would interact socially, deal damage, and make information actionable.

Firstly, what exactly does "make information actionable" mean? I can't parse that in a way that makes sense in context.

secondly, I have to question if having one set of classes take "healing, buffs and battlefield control" and giving the other "damage dealing" as the extent of their combat role is balanceable even in principle.
and even if it is, does having "deal damage" as your sole role in combat going to have any kind of meaningful tactical choices to make?

[Anguirus]

I'm rather fond of a lot of the roles that magic allows for in D&D. I think magic users should be able to heal (or buff in general), control battlefield conditions, or gain important information better than non-casters. Non-casters, then, would interact socially, deal damage, and make information actionable.

Why so for controling battlefield conditions, or important information?

Battlefield conditions being interfered with by mages in the sense of turning a wide area into mud, I can see - but I wouldn't want that to be an easy power.

Better with important information rules out scouts and spies if not carefully handled.

Battlefield control like turning areas into mud, making walls, making obstructions in general. As for the information, I don't know if scouts and spies should be as good at information gathering as magic users. Using that information should be the job of scouts and spies. Infiltration can be useful in ways other than information gathering.

Firstly, what exactly does "make information actionable" mean? I can't parse that in a way that makes sense in context.

secondly, I have to question if having one set of classes take "healing, buffs and battlefield control" and giving the other "damage dealing" as the extent of their combat role is balanceable even in principle.
and even if it is, does having "deal damage" as your sole role in combat going to have any kind of meaningful tactical choices to make?

Make information actionable in the sense that, once we know where the hostage is hidden some one needs to go get her. I see magic as support. Whether magic is used to support other magic, itself, or non-magic isn't important.

[Elennsar]

Well, let's see what we can do without phlebtonium to start with, so no Breathlessness...yet.

Social stuff...we don't need every individual character able to do it well enough to be worth having.

"Hulking, brighter-than-he-looks bodyguard." is not necessarily a bad thing to play - despite the fact he has "nothing to do" during part of the game.

Anything where the PCs are able to fill any role really shouldn't enforce roles.

Battlefield control like turning areas into mud, making walls, making obstructions in general. As for the information, I don't know if scouts and spies should be as good at information gathering as magic users. Using that information should be the job of scouts and spies. Infiltration can be useful in ways other than information gathering.

You still are left with the fact that making a Spot or Listen check is not nearly as useful as casting a spell, which renders them much less useful.

Part of what they do means they need to be able to do gather information. It isn't their only valuable skill, but robbing them of it is like saying that magic handles long ranged combat and then insisting that anyone would care to make (or bring) a longbow.

[Panzeh]

Fighter types should at high levels be able to shrug off things like fireballs by putting up their dukes, with the power of being just that good ala Street Fighter.

[Elennsar]

That just turns them into yet another phlebtonium driven thing, which does not work for representing Conan, a knight of the Round Table, Drizzt, Aragorn, Druss, or several other characters.

If we can't represent those guys in a game, we have a problem.

[Anguirus]

You still are left with the fact that making a Spot or Listen check is not nearly as useful as casting a spell, which renders them much less useful.

Part of what they do means they need to be able to do gather information. It isn't their only valuable skill, but robbing them of it is like saying that magic handles long ranged combat and then insisting that anyone would care to make (or bring) a longbow.

I don't know I agree with this. Why does having someone else be good at something negate the fact that you are ok at it? With your longbow example one might want to bring a longbow because it synergies well with things that they are the best at (like staying out of close combat). Even if they don't do ranged combat the best they still benefit by being able to attack at range. Similarly, making mages not the best at damage dealing doesn't mean that they shouldn't try.

[Grek]

They should have armour, a shield, magic tattoos, something that allows them to counter fireballs and other magical stuff. What exactly that takes the shape of is a thematic concern.

[Elennsar]

I don't know I agree with this. Why does having someone else be good at something negate the fact that you are ok at it? With your longbow example one might want to bring a longbow because it synergies well with things that they are the best at (like staying out of close combat). Even if they don't do ranged combat the best they still benefit by being able to attack at range. Similarly, making mages not the best at damage dealing doesn't mean that they shouldn't try.

Because it essentially says "We have a ____, we don't need you."

This isn't so bad for things the party needs multiple things of - but it does mean that if you are picking someone to gather information, you get a mage, not a scout or a spy.

I wouldn't mind if a mage was sometimes good at it (there are things you want to consutl a seer for) - but having it be better to have the mage "on point" (whatever that would mean) doesn't feel right.

As for a longbow: But why would you want to use that method of staying out of close combat as opposed to a mage's method?

They should have armour, a shield, magic tattoos, something that allows them to counter fireballs and other magical stuff. What exactly that takes the shape of is a thematic concern.

That could just be making it so that magic that "directly effects other beings" (I.e. would require a saving throw) is difficult.

[violence in the media]

That just turns them into yet another phlebtonium driven thing, which does not work for representing Conan, a knight of the Round Table, Drizzt, Aragorn, Druss, or several other characters.

If we can't represent those guys in a game, we have a problem.

Could it work if you made the player pick a theme for his phlebtonium and then stick with it? That way you'd mask it a little bit and it works slightly differently for each character.

Examples of various fighters mechanically resisting the fireball:

Ryu puts up his dukes and it dissipates harmlessly on his awesome karate. This costs him some sort of action.

Lancelot deflects the fireball with his shield, flames searing harmlessly around him. Others might sizzle.

Conan ducks behind an object or creature, which gets fried. Kind of screwed out in the open.

Aragorn is shielded by destiny and gets to place the fireball's ground zero somewhere else and was probably never really targeted to begin with. Must be aware of the spellcaster.

These aren't balanced or playtested, but you get the idea. Some things seem more "mundane" than other things and that's fine. One person could flip out and dodge fireballs, the next could be so cool that fire can't burn them. Whatever.

The thing is that you'd have to stick with whatever shtick you originally picked. So Lancelot will never be able to redirect a fireball like Aragorn, and Conan will never have one simply fizzle like Ryu.

[Anguirus]

I don't know I agree with this. Why does having someone else be good at something negate the fact that you are ok at it? With your longbow example one might want to bring a longbow because it synergies well with things that they are the best at (like staying out of close combat). Even if they don't do ranged combat the best they still benefit by being able to attack at range. Similarly, making mages not the best at damage dealing doesn't mean that they shouldn't try.

Because it essentially says "We have a ____, we don't need you."

This isn't so bad for things the party needs multiple things of - but it does mean that if you are picking someone to gather information, you get a mage, not a scout or a spy.

I wouldn't mind if a mage was sometimes good at it (there are things you want to consutl a seer for) - but having it be better to have the mage "on point" (whatever that would mean) doesn't feel right.

As for a longbow: But why would you want to use that method of staying out of close combat as opposed to a mage's method?

If you price the abilities appropriately you don't lose anything in being able to scout as well as having a mage. In any event, my opinion is clearly the minority. A lot of people don't like support roles in the way that I do and I can appreciate that. As for the longbow, why would you want to use my proposed method? Depends on what your mage can do. In current D&D, there is no reason not to be a caster but I can imagine a caster that is devastating at range but not very mobile. When compared to a heavily mobile ranged combatant that sucks at range the choice is more difficult.

[Elennsar]

Could it work if you made the player pick a theme for his phlebtonium and then stick with it? That way you'd mask it a little bit and it works slightly differently for each character.

No. Because the point of playing those characters instead of the Tome Fighters Shatter Armies Too is that they aren't that high phlebtonium or laughing off fireballs and they still kick ass.

So we need a game for that level, not just for the people who laugh at fireballs.

In current D&D, there is no reason not to be a caster but I can imagine a caster that is devastating at range but not very mobile. When compared to a heavily mobile ranged combatant that sucks at range the choice is more difficult.

Now that's not an unreasonable situation - firepower for mobility or vice-versa has always been something that can go either way.

[zeruslord]

Conan does laugh at fireballs. At no point in the Howard stories does any fireball actually hit him for real damage but there are scenes where he uses his catlike reflexes and barbarian instinct to leap out of the way while people around him die. Conan has phlebotinum that makes him immune to most of what a wizard in his setting is throwing down without calling n stuff from beyond the void. Sometimes it's his incredible strength of will, sometimes it's his reflexes, sometimes it's his instinct, and sometimes it's just that he doesn't know he should be hypnotized. All of these are used in Howard stories.

[violence in the media]

Ah, so you're going strictly low-powered with this.

[Elennsar]

Conan does laugh at fireballs. At no point in the Howard stories does any fireball actually hit him for real damage but there are scenes where he uses his catlike reflexes and barbarian instinct to leap out of the way while people around him die. Conan has phlebotinum that makes him immune to most of what a wizard in his setting is throwing down without calling n stuff from beyond the void. Sometimes it's his incredible strength of will, sometimes it's his reflexes, sometimes it's his instinct, and sometimes it's just that he doesn't know he should be hypnotized. All of these are used in Howard stories.

Does Conan at any point face fireballs? Or similar effects.

Wizards in Conan's setting are not particularly potent - at very few points is a mage someone who can't be dispatched by a strong willed and quick witted (quick footed doesn't come up as much vs. sorcerers as far as I know) swordsman.

So that's the thing. Conan probably would fall beneath a high powered D&D mage, but he doesn't fall beneath the wizards of his setting.

Ah, so you're going strictly low-powered with this.

If that's the term for Conan/Aragorn/Drizzt/etc., yes.

If there's nothing between "Earthlike" and "superpowers", we have a problem.

So in any case, we need something where magic is useful, but not dominant.

And similarly, we need something where the classes actually are more useful.

So what do we want? A game with knights and rangers and mercenaries and...well?

What is interesting here?

My creative energies are mostly tied up in my other projects (including Arturius), so I'm not sure what kind of setting/s we want to build around "warriors are useful without being phlebtonium machines".

[Orion]

Noncombat abilities for non-spellcasters:

Options:

1: Noncasters are the specialists in using devices. Including magic items, if they exist.

2: Noncasters are specialists in organization, they lead tiny men.

3: I forget

[Anguirus]

Noncombat abilities for non-spellcasters:

Options:

1: Noncasters are the specialists in using devices. Including magic items, if they exist.

2: Noncasters are specialists in organization, they lead tiny men.

3: I forget

We could just make a big ass list of roles (both combat and non-combat) and then assign them to classes and then fill in the phlubtonium later.

Let me try and start.

Combat: Ranged Damage, Close combat damage, status effects (removing enemy actions), battlefield control (enemy positioning), Combat buffs, Combat debuffs, aggression control, healing

Non-combat: Gather information (can be sub-divided into types of information), social interactions (can be sub-divided into types of social interactions), Bypassing non-combat obstacles (such as locks and traps [can be sub-divided]), travel (may have combat applications), inspiring new plot points

I'm sure these lists are not comprehensive and I think you guys should add to them and then we can decide how equivalent they are and how to divvy them up and then, finally, decide the flavor of phlubtonium to assign to each of the classes that this process will inspire.

[Elennsar]

Why is it that we have to make phlewhatever?

Why can't we have Spot checks work fine without making them able do Super Feats?

I'm not against phlwhatever, but I really don't want Yet Another Way to Make People Without It Suck.

If the only way hitting people with swords is useful is making those sword blows virtually lightning bolts, we can't represent merely Exceptional Heroes.

[koz]

Why is it that we have to make phlewhatever?

Why can't we have Spot checks work fine without making them able do Super Feats?

Because past level 5 in DnD, without phlebtonium, you are nothing. Quite simply put, the skill system itself indicates that you stop being conventionally human (i.e. phlebtonium-deprived) once you break 5th level. This is not a conjecture, not speculation, not opinion, but FACT.

Therefore, if you want non-casters to mean ANYTHING past that point, you need phlebtonium there.

[Elennsar]

No kidding - but we already have the Tomes and five other things for phlebtonium mania.

Why can't we just represent people who are merely exceptional (if larger than life) and not able to perform super feats in a game for once?