Fantasy warriors: How powerful can you tolerate them being?

[Agrippa]

In much of the pulp stories that inspired D&D it's warrior heroes were highly accomplished men, but still limted to just above-average human skill. Yet in certain works of modern fiction and ancient mythology, I'm looking you Irish Myths there are quitre a few warriors with superhuman skill and ability. Perhaps this is an innate power that took time developing with in the hero or is the result of intense training and bestowment. From Captain America to Cu Chulainn these combatants are great physical powerhouses, practically gods amung men. So the question is this, what are your limits for fantasy heroes? Are they at most more like heroes from the old pulps, such as the great Conan or those of Irish Myth, namely Cu Chulainn? There are no wrong answers for this one, it's all just a matter of opinion.

[Xondoure]

A fantasy warrior can tear apart the multiverse for all I care, so long as the story, conflict, and characters are interesting. Power can be used as a crutch for competent storytelling but that doesn't mean it can't also be used well.

[Traab]

Its a lot like defining pornography. I cant really define it, but I know it when I see it. Its not like there is a hard and fast rule like, "The hero may only be 3.74x as strong as a normal human, and 2.43x faster." Alot of it is determined by the world the hero is involved with, the strength and type of the bad guys, and other hard to quantify factors.

I once read a story where we learned that the main character was 13x stronger in magic than the previous most powerful person in that world. Then she went through a ceremony and became unimaginably more powerful than that. Literally off the scale to the point where there was no way to really compare, like trying to determine how much more powerful a dragon is than an ant. Or like comparing some random fat kids martial arts ability to bruce lee after you just stabbed his wife in the face. But it was ok in the context of the story, because she never really USED that level of power. Not until the grand finale at least. In fact, that was a part of the story, iirc, she didnt WANT to use that kind of power because it was too great. So it worked out ok.

So really, you cant just say that "x" is the cutoff point and more is too powerful, it just doesnt work that way.

[Giggling Ghast]

Are you asking about the power level of warriors, or are you really asking about the power level of warriors in relation to wizards? Because that's what these threads tend to boil down to: whether or not the guy with the sword can match up the guy who can make reality bend to his will by wiggling his fingers and spouting mangled Latin.

I have no problem with warriors performing acts well beyond the ability of the average human. My tolerance ends somewhere around Dragon Ball Z: once the ability to destroy a planet becomes trivial, that's about as far as I'm willing to take it.

[Remmirath]

I don't really care so long as the story interests me and the characters interest me, and so long as it doesn't seem silly within the story.

It does usually seem less interesting to me if the hero is never really challenged, but that's dependent not only on the hero's power but on the power of the enemies that he's facing, so that's fairly hard to nail down (especially since non-combat challenges would also count) - and I'm sure there are some exceptions to that, somewhere.

[warty goblin]

My general feeling is that making characters have completely over the top powers seldom adds anything to the story. Anymore I really don't read fantasy for the fantastic parts, so having people who can punch through tank armor or what have you doesn't attract me. If anything it usually does the reverse, since the more crazy over the top the powers are, in my experience the more likely the story is to fixate endlessly on them. This bores me, since stories like this tend to read like the author confused the chapter on leveling up in their D&D manuals for character development.

It's not a hard and fast rule by any means, but it is a strong enough correlation it certainly plays a role in determining what books I read.

[Ravens_cry]

Batman, maybe a bit below, unless supernatural elements are explicitly invoked. Jedi are cool, but Jedi have a supernatural element, the Force. Spiderman is cool, but he has a supernatural element, superpowers.

[Axolotl]

As long as there's some threat or conflict there's no upper limit on what I'll tolerate and enjoy. I mean Elric could slice his way through gods without a great deal of effort but the price he had to pay to be able to do it means there was still tension in the story.

[GolemsVoice]

The story and threats have to fit the power of the hero. There is no real upper limit, and no real lower limit, aside from wishing that the characters are actually competent at what they're doing. Unless, again, them being not so competent is an important element of the story.

[TheEmerged]

Are you asking about the power level of warriors, or are you really asking about the power level of warriors in relation to wizards? Because that's what these threads tend to boil down to: whether or not the guy with the sword can match up the guy who can make reality bend to his will by wiggling his fingers and spouting mangled Latin.

I have no problem with warriors performing acts well beyond the ability of the average human. My tolerance ends somewhere around Dragon Ball Z: once the ability to destroy a planet becomes trivial, that's about as far as I'm willing to take it.

Can I play devil's lawyer for a moment?

In a lot of fantasy, the feats warriors do bend the laws of reality just as much -- just in a different direction. The wizard bends reality and & ball of fire explodes. The warrior bends reality and somehow forces his opponents to fight him one on one instead of dogpiling him

[Fiery Diamond]

A fantasy warrior can tear apart the multiverse for all I care, so long as the story, conflict, and characters are interesting. Power can be used as a crutch for competent storytelling but that doesn't mean it can't also be used well.

I feel this way - the specific level of power isn't the point. Characters are most important, then conflict, then story, in that order for me.

I cant really define it, but I know it when I see it. Its not like there is a hard and fast rule like, "The hero may only be 3.74x as strong as a normal human, and 2.43x faster." Alot of it is determined by the world the hero is involved with, the strength and type of the bad guys, and other hard to quantify factors.

So really, you cant just say that "x" is the cutoff point and more is too powerful, it just doesnt work that way.

I also agree with this. Power should be tailored to the set of assumptions that the setting and story are built on. This is why the "Mary Sue Litmus Test" doesn't work: it assumes a main character who can take on an army battalion is a Mary Sue when that's not a fair assumption.

I don't really care so long as the story interests me and the characters interest me, and so long as it doesn't seem silly within the story.

It does usually seem less interesting to me if the hero is never really challenged, but that's dependent not only on the hero's power but on the power of the enemies that he's facing, so that's fairly hard to nail down (especially since non-combat challenges would also count) - and I'm sure there are some exceptions to that, somewhere.

Also important points here. It shouldn't be ridiculous within the context of the story. A story where the greatest warriors could punch through a foot of solid steel but the main character can blow up a castle by blowing on it would be stupid.

And the fact that non-combat challenges also count is important too. So is the fact that having to limit one's power can be a challenge. I have a running narrative that revolves around several characters who are at the level of blowing chunks out of planets if they go all out but most of their conflicts occur within cities.

The story and threats have to fit the power of the hero. There is no real upper limit, and no real lower limit, aside from wishing that the characters are actually competent at what they're doing. Unless, again, them being not so competent is an important element of the story.

And this is a nice finishing touch.

[Weezer]

And the fact that non-combat challenges also count is important too. So is the fact that having to limit one's power can be a challenge. I have a running narrative that revolves around several characters who are at the level of blowing chunks out of planets if they go all out but most of their conflicts occur within cities.

A good example of this is Thomas Covenant from Donaldson's series "Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever". He has what is essentially unlimited power and yet isn't able to use it except in the most dire of circumstances because he has too much power, enough that he can accidentally cause the unmaking of the world. So despite his ultimate power he needs to rely on mundane means and allies to accomplish his quests.

Third Trilogy Spoilers

Spoiler

Show

And one of his companions, Linden, ignores the danger of his power and uses it to bring Covenant back from the dead, thus waking the beast that brings the apocalypse. OOPS.

[Zaydos]

Is the warrior a Badass Normal?

If they're supposed to be a Badass Normal Conan is just about the sweetspot. He can take down ancient, horrible gods, because they aren't really gods but simply dangerous monsters (in D&D terms I'd peg him as fighting CR <8 threats) which have been mistaken for gods. Tarzan is a little over the top, and John Carter is too much even though I did in fact love that series (he also was somehow immortal, able to teleport by being killed, and on a world with vastly reduced gravity so he actually gets put in the supernatural category).

If they're supposed to have supernatural powers then the power level goes way up. Once it boils down to just show casing cool powers, though, it's too much. One Piece, Bleach, Naruto all are too power focused for my tastes (as is Superman except when he's facing something really his level). Dragonball Z gets an excemption based on nostalgia, not quality. On the other hand Corum (from Michael Moorcock's works) and Elric are in a rather sweet spot as far as supernatural heroes are concerned.

Correction: Elric wavers above and below the sweet spot due to his dependency on Stormbringer. Those horribly few times he relied upon his herbal potions he hit a major sweet spot of sheer badassness.

[Jerthanis]

Really, I think it depends on the setting. If the setting reflects how good you can be while remaining ultimately mundane, then they can be as powerful as you like.

Kung Fu settings, for instance, are largely self-consistent despite the fact that if your kung fu is big enough, you can jump over mountains and split castles asunder with a kick merely through sufficient training. The setting reflects this in that, for example: armies of warlords tend to give monasteries where these people train wide berth, or annihilate them through trickery because they are aware these people are unstoppable warriors. In addition, people in the world sort of understand that in order to take out a Kung Fu warrior, you need another Kung Fu warrior.

On the flipside, if nobody reacts to these people in a realistic way, it will feel out of place. If it's the modern day and people can easily learn to run faster than cars, and yet cars are still used as the primary means of getting around, then something is off. In the same way, if warriors can cut through stone walls with their swords, then stone walls had better not be the primary means of defense a castle would employ.

[TheSummoner]

How powerful should they be?

Powerful enough to win when it matters, but not so powerful that these victories are trivial, easily won, or foregone conclusions.

It should also try to stay consistant and avoid... well... getting to the point where it's just silly...

[Tengu_temp]

Like a lot of people said before, what matters most is the comparable level of the warrior to the challenges that lie before him. There is an upper level of power beyond which things become too ridiculous and too hard to relate to, but I can think only of one piece of fiction that reached it: Dragonball Z, where in the later arcs pretty much all characters can travel to whatever place they want instantly or almost instantly, detect each other with very good accuracy and effortlessly destroy planets. It's okay if an over-the-top series reaches this power level for the finale and then ends, but if it stays there, the narrative suffers.

[factotum]

but I can think only of one piece of fiction that reached it: Dragonball Z, where in the later arcs pretty much all characters can travel to whatever place they want instantly or almost instantly, detect each other with very good accuracy and effortlessly destroy planets.

Strange, I was thinking about DBZ when I read the subject of the thread. Don't get me wrong, I like DBZ a lot, but the constantly-increasing power level of the participants just got silly quite rapidly.

I think Druss (from the book Legend, by David Gemmell) is a pretty good example of what I think is reasonable. He's just an enormously strong human (he's capable of breaking a padlock with his bare hands when he's in his sixties), but he's as prone to getting laid low by injury as anyone else--in fact, he's killed by poison one of his opponents treacherously put on his blade.

[Mordar]

How powerful should they be?

Powerful enough to win when it matters, but not so powerful that these victories are trivial, easily won, or foregone conclusions.

QFT.

Relative power is very important to me...characters have to have enough "uber" to get them well clear of the mooks, but not so much as to require their enemies to succeed at Xanatos Gambit-style plots to put them in danger. Make us believe the hero can be beat, even if he won't be...and make sure it doesn't require "Good = Dumb" to happen...

The power scale that surrounds them is very important as well, even if it is not an issue of direct conflict. Taking your examples, it is important that Conan's power be of similar scope as Thulsa Doom's, even if they are very different power sources...Conan's melee and stealth vs. Doom's/Amon's magic and political power. The "rivalry" is enhanced by having different spheres of power, but also by knowing that there are other priests, warriors and thieves out there that are at least competitive...such as Thoth-amon, Red Sonja, Belit or Subatai (yes, I am crossing media).

As far as the Celtic heroes go...they can be as powerful as you want...so long as the firbolgs, the anti-heroes, the Morrigans of the story are on an equal footing (again, even if that power is in a different sphere than our spear-wielding machine of death). As long as there is a reasonable way for them to defeat one another, I'm happy. Just gotta be careful with those enchanted weapons that make people unbeatable...

Funnily enough, I think the problem is far greater with villians than heroes...all too often in order to show us how bad, evil and horrible the villian is meant to be, they are shown to be nearly all-powerful. How can our hero possibly top them? Why, with a nice piece of deux ex machina, of course! This is the greater trap in the genre, I think, be it modern fantasy or fantasy fantasy.

- M

[Eldan]

Strange, I was thinking about DBZ when I read the subject of the thread. Don't get me wrong, I like DBZ a lot, but the constantly-increasing power level of the participants just got silly quite rapidly.
.

That, however, I think are different problems. For one thing, the storytelling was really pretty bad for large parts, as was the pacing. And rapidly increasing powerlevel is also not quite the same as a power level that was always high and had the world built around it to fit.

[Shpadoinkle]

Depends on the setting. Like Zaydos, unless the game is explicitly high-powered, I find Conan to be a great reference point. Warriors should be able to kill eldtrich abominations... but they should need either godlike luck, incredibly powerful weapons, or a lot of people helping them.

In a standard D&D setting? I have zero problems with fighters eventually becoming strong enough to cleave the damn planet in half with a single blow, if they somehow survive long enough to reach that kind of level. As a more general rule of thumb? I think a fighter should be able to kill a monster with a CR equal to his level about half the time, assuming both of them are alone and properly armed, aware of each other, the fighter has appropriate WBL (in usable items- a lone fighter with all his WBL in wands is kind of screwed no matter what) and neither has a home field advantage.

[Fiery Diamond]

Depends on the setting. Like Zaydos, unless the game is explicitly high-powered, I find Conan to be a great reference point. Warriors should be able to kill eldtrich abominations... but they should need either godlike luck, incredibly powerful weapons, or a lot of people helping them.

In a standard D&D setting? I have zero problems with fighters eventually becoming strong enough to cleave the damn planet in half with a single blow, if they somehow survive long enough to reach that kind of level. As a more general rule of thumb? I think a fighter should be able to kill a monster with a CR equal to his level about half the time, assuming both of them are alone and properly armed, aware of each other, the fighter has appropriate WBL (in usable items- a lone fighter with all his WBL in wands is kind of screwed no matter what) and neither has a home field advantage.

I really don't know whether it's funny or sad that people come to threads in the media section and throw about terms and concepts related to gaming, RPGs, and D&D specifically as though that's the perfectly normal way of looking at all fiction as if no fantasy exists outside of gaming. I'm leaning toward funny. I've seen this happen several times with different posters. I think part of it comes from people who generally post in the gaming section not really paying attention to the fact that the thread is not in the gaming section. The other part of it, and this is the part I'm not sure is funny or sad, is that gaming is such an integral part of many people's lives on forums like this that they really DO tend to think of fiction in terms of gaming.

I'm not really one to talk, though. I'm a massive video gamer and have my own issues as a result.

[DomaDoma]

As long as opposing characters can reasonably be a match for the powerful character, it doesn't wreck the conflict. That's the main thing.

[SuperFerret]

I really don't know whether it's funny or sad that people come to threads in the media section and throw about terms and concepts related to gaming, RPGs, and D&D specifically as though that's the perfectly normal way of looking at all fiction as if no fantasy exists outside of gaming. I'm leaning toward funny. I've seen this happen several times with different posters. I think part of it comes from people who generally post in the gaming section not really paying attention to the fact that the thread is not in the gaming section. The other part of it, and this is the part I'm not sure is funny or sad, is that gaming is such an integral part of many people's lives on forums like this that they really DO tend to think of fiction in terms of gaming.

I'm not really one to talk, though. I'm a massive video gamer and have my own issues as a result.

It's still a media section on a forum that's dedicated to gaming (by way of a webcomic about gaming), so naturally gaming bleeds into everything. If you want strict media, there are forums for that as well.

Reminds me of a time I mentioned Mutant Registration in a Politics section on a Superhero forum.

[Kato]

Hm... I have seen Lagann-hen and enjoyed it. Is that enough for an answer

Okay, in all seriousness, it depends. In a well written story they might as well be able to destroy the multiverse but i guess that requires quite a level of skill.
In general I like planet-busting as a basic scale because if a villain ha planet busting powers it's usually hard for a hero to stop him and he could just take a planet hostage. Sure, this works on smaller scales but this is where I think it gets ridiculous most of the time...

[BlackDragonKing]

How powerful should they be?

Powerful enough to win when it matters, but not so powerful that these victories are trivial, easily won, or foregone conclusions.

This. This. SO MUCH THIS.

It's a major problem I have with YA fiction; a lot of the authors don't seem to understand the difference between making the protagonist a good fighter and trivializing fighting in the book because the protagonist is just that much better than anyone else.

A book called Graceling, for example, had a main character with a special magical talent for killing, but was a 15-year-old girl with the physical abilities of a 15-year-old-girl trained to fight. This doesn't stop her from marching unarmed into a room with 200 trained soldiers surrounding her knowing perfectly well she'll kill every last one of them if they start a fight. When you make characters that powerful, it trivializes the idea of that character needing to fight, and forces you to create a bad guy who can avoid getting into fights; rather than some big battle at the end, the final confrontation is over the second the protagonist remembers to strike a single blow.

Typically people will roll their eyes at people without some pretty incredible factors aiding them taking on men in the hundreds and winning easily. Being smaller-scale can work just fine, particularly when your characters don't have uberpowers of the universe; in The Two Towers, Gimli and Legolas killed like 84 orcs between them at the battle of Helm's Deep despite defending a fortress against 10,000 of the buggers. A warrior taking on 43 men and coming out on top is a badass. A warrior taking on 200 men and coming out on top is likely getting some incredulous stares from the audience.

[Tengu_temp]

Eh, that depends entirely on the setting. In some of them, the big battles are between important, powerful named characters, and killing 200 mooks in a battle is nothing too unusual.

The other part of it, and this is the part I'm not sure is funny or sad, is that gaming is such an integral part of many people's lives on forums like this that they really DO tend to think of fiction in terms of gaming.

Funny, it's the opposite for me - I tend to think of my games in terms of fiction.

[factotum]

Gimli and Legolas killed like 84 orcs between them at the battle of Helm's Deep despite defending a fortress against 10,000 of the buggers. A warrior taking on 43 men and coming out on top is a badass.

83, actually--Gimli took forty-two at the last count, and Legolas admitted he'd passed his own total by one.

Still, that example does indicate the differences very well--Gimli even got lightly wounded while taking down his 42 enemies, which some of the more ridiculous heroes in fiction would consider made him a nancy boy who couldn't handle himself in a fight!

[mangosta71]

I like my heroes to have weaknesses that can be exploited so that there's a real, significant chance of failure. I prefer heroes that win through outsmarting their opponents rather than flat-out overpowering them. Tangent spoilered.

Spoiler

Show

That's why I lost interest in DBZ after Frieza - at that point it was all about who had the highest power level. My favorite character was Krillin, who was able to win until that point with his discs of awesome. But then suddenly chopping your opponent into tiny little foe-shaped bits wasn't enough to take him out of the fight any more. And getting smacked with a blow that would have shattered a planet wasn't enough to mess up the combatants' hair.

In essence, I like my heroes to be human (not necessarily in strength/ability). The LotR party is great in this respect - Gimli isn't single-handedly taking on 42 guys at a time, he's part of an army, taking opponents as they come, and he happens to kill 42 by the time the battle ends. Boromir is a one-man whirlwind of death, but eventually he's overcome by superior forces. Book Legolas, as opposed to movie Legolas, is successful because he stays the hell out of the thick of the fighting so he can snipe effectively. Everyone is focusing on what they do well and working as part of the group. (Groups are always more interesting than solitary heroes due to social dynamics). As the story unfolds, there's the sense that a random arrow can strike down one of the main characters at any time. That tension is something that's missing from a lot of the stories that are told today.

[An Enemy Spy]

I hate it when the hero can take down tons of bad guys effortlessly, particularly when his opponents are supposed to be battlehardened warriors. Sometimes it seems like the hero is the only person in the world capable of kicking butt, and everyone else is just his target.
When you are surrounded by fifty enemies, it's time to either surrender or resort to trickery, not to smile and charge, knowing that a mere fifty men could never hope to defeat you, no matter how well armed and trained they are.
There's another thing. People who have never picked up a weapon in their life being able to defeat enemies who have been fighting since they could walk. Redwall is very guilty of this. How am I supposed to believe a group of kids can routinely beat over a dozen bloodthirsty bandits and barbarians over and over with no casualties at all? It gets ridiculous at times.

[Tazar]

I'm good with the full range of power, from utter normal and average fighter to Rand "I blow up armies for breakfast" Al'Thor.