Critiquing the "Guy At The Gym" Fallacy

[Lord Raziere]

correction: wizardly incantations are NOT things that "everyone can do" they are things that only people with high enough intelligence can do, assuming they get the proper education. or sorcerers with genetics can do.

as for those demigods, what of it? such old polytheistic, animist religions considered everything to have gods in them. that gods and spirits were as natural as anything else, the atom of their age. at such levels, the distinction being god and natural physics becomes meaningless.

they are not examples of a badass normal, but they are examples of what characters should be able to achieve. it should not be the GM's place to dictate the source of my characters power. it doesn't matter if a knight strength comes their hard work or from a god, it can be fluffed either way, and the last thing I want when I'm in the middle of an awesome fight for the GM suddenly come in and say "no you can't do that! you have to say an incantation and describe the flowing arcane energies!" for a really powerful sword swing of an armored warrior to cleave a dragons head off.

as for concepts that don't fit settings....allow me to demonstrate why that is a meaningless concept:

take power armor. a normal sci-fi concept, it can do a bunch of technological things and whatnot. doesn't fit a fantasy setting, right?

but now take a GM who doesn't want power armor in their setting considering it not fitting, but still wants enchanted items, so they make it so that each object can only be enchanted once and that enchantment can only do one thing.

but then you can just take a suit of plate armor and disassemble it into its various parts. These various parts are all separate objects. so the enchanter simply enchants one part at a time with different enchantments doing different things. So when they put the armor back together, and wear it, all those enchantments still work because all the parts of armor are technically separate objects and always have been, they are just interlocked in a way they act like one object when they aren't. and thus when used together, all the enchantments replicate the effects of having power armor and can be used as power armor in a fantasy setting.

any system can be exploited to do things it did not intend and remain perfectly consistent. consistent worldbuilding does not prevent such things from occurring, they only establish the rules for how the concept can appear despite the efforts to prevent it. its only the dreaded "GM fiat" that can truly prevent the scary "unfitting character concept". all rules have their loopholes.

thus it is better to be open-minded to many concepts rather than not. as optimizers demonstrate, the are more than willing to find these loopholes and exploit them to do things not-intended anyways and give the GM a headache, just because rightly or not, they feel as if they're being restricted, thus causing problems with a game even if no consistency was violated. better to allow things on your terms than to not allow it at all.

If you are so insistent on considering any fighter able to be on the same level as wizards as "magic", just for the sake of consistency then, you are not allowing the concept that is desired, plain and simple. your not playing fighters, your only playing another wizard, or mage. one who looks like a fighter, but isn't and can't be because of the requirements you impose. your not empowering the fighter. your turning it into something else that is no longer a fighter. I like gishes and sword mages yes, but they are not fighters nor would I consider a sword mage being the same as the concept I'm talking about. I would not roleplay them the same, I would not use them the same. if I'm playing a fighter I expect to be both equal to the wizard and non-magical always even if godlike. If I'm playing a sword mage I expect to be equal to the fighter or wizard and magical always even if godlike. hybrid concepts like sword mages are completely separate concerns that change the concept entirely, as they need an entirely different backstory from the fighter and different considerations to make them work from the start. if your not allowing equal fighters, just call what you want sword mages, but don't give me a class that is unequal and expect me play just because of "Consistency" or call anything with magic in it a fighter.

[Mechalich]

it should not be the GM's place to dictate the source of my characters power.

No, it absolutely is the GM's - or the GM acting on behalf of setting designers whose work the GM has decided to use - place to tell you the source of your character's power. In most settings the source of said power is quite clearly defined in any case and there are probably a limited number of sources of phlebotinum available overall (in some settings there is only technology). The player does not get to invent new ones.

it doesn't matter if a knight strength comes their hard work or from a god, it can be fluffed either way

It absolutely does matter, with the context of a setting that actually exists - which is something every game possesses - what is and is not possible. Settings where only one of those options are available and settings where both are available but they work differently are just as possible as ones where both are available and work the same way and all of those settings will have significantly different fluff as a result. Fluff is not fungible.

if I'm playing a fighter I expect to be both equal to the wizard and non-magical always even if godlike.

This is an illogical expectation, permitting it to be true will lead to bad storytelling. I cannot think of any fantasy story ever that has been written this way that wasn't either a joke or terrible, actually I can barely even think of terrible fantasy stories written this way because even lousy authors generally understand that this does not work. Even the freaking MCU admitted as much - they had Vision say 'You can't beat me Clint' in Captain America: Civil War when he briefly tussled with Hawkeye, and Hawkeye fully admitted it to be true.

[AntiAuthority]

This is an illogical expectation, permitting it to be true will lead to bad storytelling. I cannot think of any fantasy story ever that has been written this way that wasn't either a joke or terrible, actually I can barely even think of terrible fantasy stories written this way because even lousy authors generally understand that this does not work. Even the freaking MCU admitted as much - they had Vision say 'You can't beat me Clint' in Captain America: Civil War when he briefly tussled with Hawkeye, and Hawkeye fully admitted it to be true.

My apologies if I'm misunderstanding, rough day and this thread is growing way quicker than I can read all the posts.

But what if it were Vision vs Hulk? Or Vision vs Thor? Neither of them are magic (except for the guy that uses magic equipment), but just use weapons (even if the Hulk turns the environment itself into a weapon). It's not exactly illogical if the martials are scaled up to god-like levels themselves.

Fun fact, the reason why Hulk and Thor weren't in Civil War's comic storyline (and very likely the movie version) is because whichever side had them on it effectively have an "I win" button, which are why both were off the planet when it happened. That implies they're stronger than Vision.

[Max_Killjoy]

My apologies if I'm misunderstanding, rough day and this thread is growing way quicker than I can read all the posts.

But what if it were Vision vs Hulk? Or Vision vs Thor? Neither of them are magic (except for the guy that uses magic equipment), but just use weapons (even if the Hulk turns the environment itself into a weapon). It's not exactly illogical if the martials are scaled up to god-like levels themselves.

Also, fun fact, the reason why Hulk and Thor weren't in Civil War's comic storyline (and very likely the movie version) is because whichever side had them on it effectively have an "I win" button, which are why both were off the planet when it happened. That implies they're stronger than Vision.

In the "just-so story" context of comic books, all three of them are effectively "magic", in the broad sense.

• Thor is literally a god, he has "god of lightning magic" and "Asgardian prince magic".
• Hulk has "gamma ray magic" and "fueled by anger" magic.
• Vision has "technology and infinity stone magic" (that's an infinity stone in this foreheard in the MCU, right?)

And I know that using "magic" that way isn't popular, but it needs to be done sometimes regarding this topic to make the point clear.

Superhuman is as superhuman does, magic is as magic does -- if a character can do superhuman things, then that character is superhuman. Especially in "superhero" comics, where the "just-so story" explanations for everything and kitchen-sink fantasy-physics and plot-driven power levels make everything a muddle.

[Lord Raziere]

No, it absolutely is the GM's - or the GM acting on behalf of setting designers whose work the GM has decided to use - place to tell you the source of your character's power. In most settings the source of said power is quite clearly defined in any case and there are probably a limited number of sources of phlebotinum available overall (in some settings there is only technology). The player does not get to invent new ones.



It absolutely does matter, with the context of a setting that actually exists - which is something every game possesses - what is and is not possible. Settings where only one of those options are available and settings where both are available but they work differently are just as possible as ones where both are available and work the same way and all of those settings will have significantly different fluff as a result. Fluff is not fungible.



This is an illogical expectation, permitting it to be true will lead to bad storytelling. I cannot think of any fantasy story ever that has been written this way that wasn't either a joke or terrible, actually I can barely even think of terrible fantasy stories written this way because even lousy authors generally understand that this does not work. Even the freaking MCU admitted as much - they had Vision say 'You can't beat me Clint' in Captain America: Civil War when he briefly tussled with Hawkeye, and Hawkeye fully admitted it to be true.

1. and I'm not. the fighter being a class in DnD, has a power source of being good at fighting with no magic involved. that is supposed to play at the same levels as the wizard, face the same threats a wizard, fight alongside the wizard, and thus equal. to suddenly say I need to draw upon magic halfway through is to be inconsistent with the core rulebooks of DnD and thus its core setting. I'm only upholding true consistency, unless 6th edition decides to make all fighters require magic.

2. And all three could not exist and discussion could be completely pointless. but lets focus on whats actually important, rather than settings where this issue isn't even relevant: all you want is a sword mage not a real fighter. the fact that settings of alternate set ups exist, is tangential.

3. I cannot think of a single story when inequality didn't lead to terrible storytelling, where a single protagonist soared ahead of everyone else because of a special destiny, unearned while their allies stood on the sidelines unable to do anything. your example is about a villain vs. a hero, not a hero working alongside another, it is irrelevant to this discussion.

[Lvl45DM!]

This is an illogical expectation, permitting it to be true will lead to bad storytelling. I cannot think of any fantasy story ever that has been written this way that wasn't either a joke or terrible, actually I can barely even think of terrible fantasy stories written this way because even lousy authors generally understand that this does not work. Even the freaking MCU admitted as much - they had Vision say 'You can't beat me Clint' in Captain America: Civil War when he briefly tussled with Hawkeye, and Hawkeye fully admitted it to be true.

Except Clint totally beat him, twice. He lost in a straight fight, but he stunned him with lightning arrows and would've completely succeeded in his task of liberating Wanda if she wasn't vacillating, and later in the airport brawl he shoots with with more lightning arrows and Vis disappears from the fight for a while, likely stunned and incapacitated.

Meanwhile Corvus Glaive is a (in context) a martial with a magic weapon who wrecks Vis twice over. Blocking his laser, having a weapon made of a special material that thwarts his phasing, his stealth skills all lead to Vis losing.

Because theres no such thing as 'power levels' just uses an applications of power. With the power of WRITING any character can fight a god, take down a complex mafia hierarchy, solve a crime and stop a meteor. And if you can't write your main characters all being useful, then why are the useless ones main characters? And if you can't let your players all contribute to the game if they are fighters then why even let them be fighters?

[Max_Killjoy]

No, it absolutely is the GM's - or the GM acting on behalf of setting designers whose work the GM has decided to use - place to tell you the source of your character's power. In most settings the source of said power is quite clearly defined in any case and there are probably a limited number of sources of phlebotinum available overall (in some settings there is only technology). The player does not get to invent new ones.


It absolutely does matter, with the context of a setting that actually exists - which is something every game possesses - what is and is not possible. Settings where only one of those options are available and settings where both are available but they work differently are just as possible as ones where both are available and work the same way and all of those settings will have significantly different fluff as a result. Fluff is not fungible.

Yeap -- at the end of the day, it's the setting that determines what is and is not a viable concept, what are and are not viable powers, and what is and is not a viable source of those powers. If a setting doesn't have guns, then "gunslinger" will never be a viable concept, and "guns" will never be a viable "power source".

"I want to play X" in a setting where X clearly just does not exist... topped off with "if you won't let me play X, you're the bad guy" and "how dare you ruin my source of enjoyment by keeping it from ruining your source of enjoyment"... I just don't get it.

This is an illogical expectation, permitting it to be true will lead to bad storytelling. I cannot think of any fantasy story ever that has been written this way that wasn't either a joke or terrible, actually I can barely even think of terrible fantasy stories written this way because even lousy authors generally understand that this does not work. Even the freaking MCU admitted as much - they had Vision say 'You can't beat me Clint' in Captain America: Civil War when he briefly tussled with Hawkeye, and Hawkeye fully admitted it to be true.

Indeed... "I can be superhuman without being superhuman" or "I can be extranormal without being extranormal" is... just an odd claim.

[Max_Killjoy]

Except Clint totally beat him, twice. He lost in a straight fight, but he stunned him with lightning arrows and would've completely succeeded in his task of liberating Wanda if she wasn't vacillating, and later in the airport brawl he shoots with with more lightning arrows and Vis disappears from the fight for a while, likely stunned and incapacitated.

Meanwhile Corvus Glaive is a (in context) a martial with a magic weapon who wrecks Vis twice over. Blocking his laser, having a weapon made of a special material that thwarts his phasing, his stealth skills all lead to Vis losing.

Because theres no such thing as 'power levels' just uses an applications of power. With the power of WRITING any character can fight a god, take down a complex mafia hierarchy, solve a crime and stop a meteor. And if you can't write your main characters all being useful, then why are the useless ones main characters? And if you can't let your players all contribute to the game if they are fighters then why even let them be fighters?

And yet comic book writers are often guilty of writing blatantly contrived situations and power efficacy based on the immediate needs of the plot, just to get the outcome they want.

[Lord Raziere]

Let me make this simple:
how do you make a nonmagical fighter useful? Assuming DnD setting at level 20 and discarding all others.

[Lvl45DM!]

Yeap -- at the end of the day, it's the setting that determines what is and is not a viable concept, what are and are not viable powers, and what is and is not a viable source of those powers. If a setting doesn't have guns, then "gunslinger" will never be a viable concept, and "guns" will never be a viable "power source".

"I want to play X" in a setting where X clearly just does not exist... topped off with "if you won't let me play X, you're the bad guy" and "how dare you ruin my source of enjoyment by keeping it from ruining your source of enjoyment"... I just don't get it.



Indeed... "I can be superhuman without being superhuman" or "I can be extranormal without being extranormal" is... just an odd claim.

Noone is saying that a DM can't make a world where fighters don't go on adventures. Just that, there is friction between the default assumed world which has fighters and mages beside each other at every level, and many peoples assumption of "The Guy at the Gym" which is an issue. You want fighters, one of the base classes, that has been a base class since the very beginning of the game, to not be a viable player class? You have to communicate that with your players openly at the start, not spring it on them at 6th level when they start falling way behind.

I mean let me ask something in general. Lets say 4 characters fall off a cliff
The wizard casts fly or feather fall, no worries. Special ability made for this, totally acceptable.
The quick rogue makes a dexterity save, or acrobatics check and grabs onto the ledge. Pretty obvious within the rules and reality.
The doughty barbarian just falls, splats, but has enough HP to survive the 20d6 damage. 1 in a million chance you say? Well surely the PC's should be 1 in a million characters.
The skilled warrior draws his sword, rams it into the cliff edge and slows himself. No way, not in real life. But within the rules...why not? Its an awesome heroic action, and it feels utterly cruel to say "Thats impossible, your character falls and dies, because you didnt have a 1st level wizard spell avaliable"

Does this not illustrate the guy at the gym issue? The barbarian shrugging it off is superhumanly tough, but in the same way John McClane is superhumanly tough. I mean even in the Hawkeye example, he punches a robot made of super-steel without breaking his hand, stands in the middle of Iron Man blowing up cars without a scratch of shrapnel, gets hit by a speedster breaking the sound barrier and gets up. Is he not super-human? But he doesn't really FEEL superhuman watching him though.

Let the martials do awesome things with their martial skills. If you're worried about a power source, its only as limited as your imagination, but basically its the same powersource that lets a high level fighters ignore Sleep when it knocks out 5 commoners.

[Lvl45DM!]

Let me make this simple:
how do you make a nonmagical fighter useful? Assuming DnD setting at level 20 and discarding all others.

Have problems that can be solved with violence.

[Max_Killjoy]

Let me make this simple:
how do you make a nonmagical fighter useful? Assuming DnD setting and discarding all others.

Are we discussing useful -- or are we discussing balanced in terms of impact at the fiction and mechanical levels both? The Fighter is useful already, just in a limited way, and I thought we were discussing the latter, so proceeding on the latter...

Assuming a D&D setting, and discarding all others?

You can't do it just by changing the Fighter -- you have to dial back the spellcasters in terms of scale and scope, make the "story powers" discussed earlier available to all PCs who invest in them, likewise adjust all the monsters, etc, proportionately, and so on. D&D is not set up to allow the nonmagical Fighter to be balanced -- the "nope, no sir, not magical at all, not extranormal in any way" concept just doesn't justify being balanced with someone who can do all the things a D&D full caster can do at higher levels. "But he can just hit that hard and leap that far and ignore that blast"... OK... how?

OR, you give up on the Fighter being nonmagical.

OR, you give up on the Fighter being balanced in impact.

Noone is saying that a DM can't make a world where fighters don't go on adventures. Just that, there is friction between the default assumed world which has fighters and mages beside each other at every level, and many peoples assumption of "The Guy at the Gym" which is an issue. You want fighters, one of the base classes, that has been a base class since the very beginning of the game, to not be a viable player class? You have to communicate that with your players openly at the start, not spring it on them at 6th level when they start falling way behind.

Who said they wanted to make a world where the Fighter didn't go an adventures? Or that they didn't want Fighters to be a viable class?

I didn't say that, and I don't recall who if anyone did say that.

I mean let me ask something in general. Lets say 4 characters fall off a cliff
The wizard casts fly or feather fall, no worries. Special ability made for this, totally acceptable.
The quick rogue makes a dexterity save, or acrobatics check and grabs onto the ledge. Pretty obvious within the rules and reality.
The doughty barbarian just falls, splats, but has enough HP to survive the 20d6 damage. 1 in a million chance you say? Well surely the PC's should be 1 in a million characters.
The skilled warrior draws his sword, rams it into the cliff edge and slows himself. No way, not in real life. But within the rules...why not? Its an awesome heroic action, and it feels utterly cruel to say "Thats impossible, your character falls and dies, because you didnt have a 1st level wizard spell avaliable"

Does this not illustrate the guy at the gym issue? The barbarian shrugging it off is superhumanly tough, but in the same way John McClane is superhumanly tough. I mean even in the Hawkeye example, he punches a robot made of super-steel without breaking his hand, stands in the middle of Iron Man blowing up cars without a scratch of shrapnel, gets hit by a speedster breaking the sound barrier and gets up. Is he not super-human? But he doesn't really FEEL superhuman watching him though.

Let the martials do awesome things with their martial skills. If you're worried about a power source, its only as limited as your imagination, but basically its the same powersource that lets a high level fighters ignore Sleep when it knocks out 5 commoners.

OK, HOW?

WHAT is the source of that ability? And remember that anything you say has some sort of implications for the broader setting... and that "just that awesome" is not an explanation.

HOW does the Fighter jam his sword into solid rock? They'd have to be superhumanly strong to do so, not to mention maintaining their grip, holding up their weight with one hand, and not damaging their wrist in the process.

Hell, HOW does the Barbarian survive? And no, you don't get to start from mechanics (damage vs hit points) and make up excuses -- at the fiction level, how does the Barbarian survive that fall? If the Barbarian is superhumanly tough... then WHAT underlies that, other than "because we said so"? (John McClaine and Hawkeye are not superhumanly tough, they have plot armor.)

But whatever the "HOW" and "WHAT" here, the fact is that after a certain level, the Fighter and that Barbarian are already doing superhuman things. The Fighter, despite falling behind the Wizard etc, is STILL doing impossible things if the setting's human(oid)s are anything like our world's humans -- things that cannot be explained just by "awesome martial skills".

The Fighter is already superhuman after a certain Level in D&D -- just not as superhuman as the Wizard.

The problem is that some players want the Fighter to be not-at-all-superhuman while doing those blatantly superhuman things.

[Lvl45DM!]

Are we discussing useful -- or are we discussing balanced in terms of impact at the fiction and mechanical levels both? The Fighter is useful already, just in a limited way, and I thought we were discussing the latter, so proceeding on the latter...

Assuming a D&D setting, and discarding all others?

You can't do it just by changing the Fighter -- you have to dial back the spellcasters in terms of scale and scope, make the "story powers" discussed earlier available to all PCs who invest in them, likewise adjust all the monsters, etc, proportionately, and so on. D&D is not set up to allow the nonmagical Fighter to be balanced -- the "nope, no sir, not magical at all, not extranormal in any way" concept just doesn't justify being balanced with someone who can do all the things a D&D full caster can do at higher levels. "But he can just hit that hard and leap that far and ignore that blast"... OK... how?

OR, you give up on the Fighter being nonmagical.

OR, you give up on the Fighter being balanced in impact.

I mean honestly, I've run DnD at level 20 in several campaigns. The Frenzied Berserker was way more of a detriment to my ability to challenge the party than the Ur-Priest/Psion Mindmage.

[Lord Raziere]

Have problems that can be solved with violence.

Already a better answer than most.

Are we discussing useful -- or are we discussing balanced in terms of impact at the fiction and mechanical levels both? The Fighter is useful already, just in a limited way, and I thought we were discussing the latter, so proceeding on the latter...

Assuming a D&D setting, and discarding all others?

You can't do it just by changing the Fighter -- you have to dial back the spellcasters in terms of scale and scope, make the "story powers" discussed earlier available to all PCs who invest in them, likewise adjust all the monsters, etc, proportionately, and so on. D&D is not set up to allow the nonmagical Fighter to be balanced -- the "nope, no sir, not magical at all, not extranormal in any way" concept just doesn't justify being balanced with someone who can do all the things a D&D full caster can do at higher levels. "But he can just hit that hard and leap that far and ignore that blast"... OK... how?

OR, you give up on the Fighter being nonmagical.

OR, you give up on the Fighter being balanced in impact.

That is a lot of questions and possibilities, but none of those are my concern, as they are not answers.

I repeat my question:
how do you make a nonmagical fighter useful? Assuming DnD setting at level 20 and discarding all others.

[Lvl45DM!]

Already a better answer than most.



That is a lot of questions and possibilities, but none of those are my concern, as they are not answers.

I repeat my question:
how do you make a nonmagical fighter useful? Assuming DnD setting at level 20 and discarding all others.

To be less flippant, it depends.
Perhaps there is a door that has a lock too complex to pick without going insane, that resists all magic. But it can still be busted open with a decent Strength check.
Perhaps while Tiamat flys around torching towns and the wizard and cleric deal with that, the Fighter battles her legion of minions. Or hell, he ties a rope to an arrow shoots it into her, climbs up, and hacks her heads off one by one, with just grit and courage and prodigious skill.
Perhaps you wish to bargain with Vecna, the god of secrets to find out the truth behind the illithids time travel and save the multiverse? Well Vecna has this problem with Kas, which can only be solved by a sword duel. Or the rogue has nicked Vecnas phylactery, which is of course resistant to pathetic mortal magics, but not the heros sharp sword.
Is the Artifact of Infinite Agony killing all nearby? Well surely the fighter has the physical endurance to struggle through its malign hex, has the strength to lift it up, and the skill to cast it into the rapidly closing RIFT(TM) that spawned it.

[Max_Killjoy]

That is a lot of questions and possibilities, but none of those are my concern, as they are not answers.

I repeat my question:
how do you make a nonmagical fighter useful? Assuming DnD setting at level 20 and discarding all others.

If you're literally asking about "useful", then they already are, nothing needs to change.

But the thread isn't about "useful", is it? The thread is about "balanced", and if you're not willing to change anything but the Fighter Class itself, if the setting and the other Classes and everything else are all locked in stone...

...then the answer is "you can't".

There's no way to make the nonmagical Fighter balanced at level 20 in the D&D system in a D&D setting.

And no matter how many times you repeat the question, that is still going to be the answer.

[Lord Raziere]

To be less flippant, it depends.
Perhaps there is a door that has a lock too complex to pick without going insane, that resists all magic. But it can still be busted open with a decent Strength check.
Perhaps while Tiamat flys around torching towns and the wizard and cleric deal with that, the Fighter battles her legion of minions. Or hell, he ties a rope to an arrow shoots it into her, climbs up, and hacks her heads off one by one, with just grit and courage and prodigious skill.
Perhaps you wish to bargain with Vecna, the god of secrets to find out the truth behind the illithids time travel and save the multiverse? Well Vecna has this problem with Kas, which can only be solved by a sword duel. Or the rogue has nicked Vecnas phylactery, which is of course resistant to pathetic mortal magics, but not the heros sharp sword.
Is the Artifact of Infinite Agony killing all nearby? Well surely the fighter has the physical endurance to struggle through its malign hex, has the strength to lift it up, and the skill to cast it into the rapidly closing RIFT(TM) that spawned it.

I mean those are good and I like the ideas here, but they seem situational when I'd prefer something more widely applicable than a series of purposefully built situations.

If you're literally asking about "useful", then they already are, nothing needs to change.

But the thread isn't about "useful", is it? The thread is about "balanced", and if you're not willing to change anything but the Fighter Class itself, if the setting and the other Classes and everything else are all locked in stone...

...then the answer is "you can't".

There's no way to make the nonmagical Fighter balanced at level 20 in the D&D system in a D&D setting.

And no matter how many times you repeat the question, that is still going to be the answer.

I disagree.

I repeat my question, you have a third time to answer, make it count, there won't be fourth:
how do you make a nonmagical fighter useful? Assuming DnD setting at level 20 and discarding all others.

[Max_Killjoy]

there won't be fourth:.

Good. Spam is against the rules, and asking the question over and over won't get you a different answer or change the facts, no matter how much you don't like them.

[Koo Rehtorb]

how do you make a nonmagical fighter useful? Assuming DnD setting at level 20 and discarding all others.

Make liberal use of anti-magic fields.

[Quertus]

What I think happened during the course of D&D development that a lot of the time, the playtesters/designers were bored of a certain thing in the campaign in how much paperwork it entails so they made up a spell in order to render a certain aspect of the game a non-factor. What they didn't consider is that the pileup of spells renders massive amounts of content irrelevant to a Wizard that has access to all these spells and is willing/able to use them to full effect (Quertus the academia mage won't, but others might), meaning you have to write a completely different set of challenges and trials than for one who has largely mundane tools to influence the world.

And by no means are you in the wrong for saying that this is a fun way to play or that you can make traditionally high level scenarios suitable for low-level characters this way. Do realize however that Armus and those commoners (regardless of their printed level) can be considered low-level in what they can do. If you think of high-level play, something like plane hopping is just one thing the party can do and there could be several interplanar trips to be made (perhaps not even with a clear-cut order or end point) - in short, because plane hopping is not a challenge for the high level group, it is not treated as a challenge, same with how low-level characters aren't expected to be challenged visiting a different house in the same village (most of the time).

The real problem is expecting a low-level character to contribute with a high-level group and vice-versa - whether or not you want this kind of imbalance, the character with the vast level difference will inevitably stand out for this. Where this and the "why do we need party balance" intersect is that even if you want a power gap, you should have equal chance for any concept to be the powerhouse or the fifth wheel.

So, I think on looking at this from a slightly different PoV. To explain…

Every Concept? No. But I think that any archetype both could conceptually and should mechanically be capable of being implemented as anywhere from powerhouse to 5th wheel. So, me, as an RPG character? One wouldn't expect "me" to be able to go toe to toe with Superman, or cut archmages' spells with my rapier wit. But other instantiations of some of the archetypes that could be used to describe me definitely could bend those characters over their knees. So a concept, a particular instantiation of some combination of archetypes? It (often) has a clear power level. But the underlying archetypes (generally) should not.

I very much agree that there are buttons that say, "I'm done with x" (like Teleport says to overland travel). This is a good thing. Unfortunately, some people are too busy trying to be optimal to realize when they're shooting themselves in the foot, ruining their own fun.

And I wouldn't call it a "problem", so much as an "opportunity", when you have a weak concept attempting to accomplish a strong objective. That's where the gameplay gets fun! I certainly don't see it as "making high-level scenarios suitable for low-level characters", but as making "low-power characters suitable for high-power scenarios". Subtle difference. It's about the GM not being a ****, not blocking valid answers that don't involve pushing published win buttons. It's about the parts of the game that involve actual gameplay, rather than just "push button, get treat".

Unfortunately, many muggle proponents seem, to my understanding, to be very confused about what they want. Do they want a weak concept, and to struggle, and to have gameplay? Or do they have a strong concept, filled with win buttons?

Personally, I find that Plane Shift enables adventures on other planes, and *lack* of plane shift enables adventures getting to other planes. If you ask me, people need to learn to optimize for what they find fun. People say that they would never play a character like Quertus; I wonder at which layer (mechanics, personality, etc) they want to optimize their characters to produce the type of game experience that they enjoy.

To Quertus (): I was reading your post and was going to reply when I realized it had nothing to do with the guy at the gym fallacy, martials or martial/caster disparity. Its more about how abilities should be structured in general. That is to say I think we have gone off topic.

Perhaps. It follows logically (mostly ) from the conversation.

If I am missing something feel free to point it out

Well, like I said, it followed from the conversation. But, more than that, it follows the same logic. That is, it's about allowing engaging gameplay.

That probably didn't make much sense. Let me try again.

GatG is the belief that someone cannot do something "because realism", because the rules do not say that they can (no button), or, worse, despite the rules saying that they can. It is the first half, this underlying belief that "no button = cannot do anything" that I am attacking. I think. (Darn senility).

but it feels like it is meant for a different thread, especially considering the most relevant current thread is not short.

Yes, this sentiment probably belongs there, too.

A few posters have touched on things that sound like the idea Mechalich and I mentioned earlier, of consciously delineating between "tactical" abilities and "story" abilities. (By that, we didn't mean FFG Star Wars style player-level powers to alter the world or past disconnected from the character's actual actions, but rather abilities that bypass and/or access entire sections of the game -- Magic Missile is "tactical", Plane Shift is "story".)

But overall, it seems like there's little appetite for altering even the way "story power" abilities are accessed, let alone changing what "story powers" are available in the game -- and that several posters would rather find ways to give the Fighter, etc, access to "hit stuff" abilities that are more powerful before letting them touch what's been deemed magic in D&D at all.

To me that's a shame... moving the "story" abilities over to Rituals, and opening up Rituals to any character who invests in learning them, would both reduce some of that power imbalance, and make it clear that some magic is bigger than just something to casually fire off from a spell slot, and remove some of the impact of near-instantly-casting of certain spells really mucking with things.

In part, yes, but in part I'm also suggesting moving a lot of that magic out of "spell slots" entirely.

I don't mind adding in rituals and whatnot so that non-wizards can have direct access to certain spell effects, but I don't think that necessarily requires removing the spells from the wizards too. Let them have their fun. Just let the fighters and rogues have fun too.

I'm all for giving everyone access to rituals. Heck, I'd love if item creation were possible through rituals, and muggles could start spending their XP buffing the party, too.

But there's no need to remove story abilities from where they are - if you don't enjoy the Teleport spell, just don't take it. Optimize your build for what gameplay you find fun. And this is facilitated by the greatest range of options at the build level, not by removing options that people are using and enjoying.

[Lord Raziere]

*there is a sound going off in the distance like a quick-drawn ignore revolver going /ploink!*
*the internet cowgirl moves on*

Make liberal use of anti-magic fields.

Okay. An honest answer. I appreciate that. Only problem: how make anti-magic fields without caster involvement? thats what I'd prefer, personally.

[Max_Killjoy]

*there is a sound going off in the distance like a quick-drawn ignore revolver going /ploink!*
*the internet cowgirl moves on*

If I'd known that telling you the simple fact that something is impossible (no matter how much you fantasize that it's possible) would make you stop talking to me, I'd have done it years ago, child.

You're transparent, and putting people on ignore won't change the facts, or what's really at the heart of this tantrum you keep throwing.

Your personal fantasies don't trump the gaming experience of everyone else at the table.

---

I'm all for giving everyone access to rituals. Heck, I'd love if item creation were possible through rituals, and muggles could start spending their XP buffing the party, too.

But there's no need to remove story abilities from where they are - if you don't enjoy the Teleport spell, just don't take it. Optimize your build for what gameplay you find fun. And this is facilitated by the greatest range of options at the build level, not by removing options that people are using and enjoying.

The big "story abilities" being where they are, as spell slot shots, makes the balance issues harder to resolve.

The alternative is to crank up the Fighter's "supernatural" abilities even farther to compensate.

---

Make liberal use of anti-magic fields.

Which are, ironically, another form of magic.

[Quertus]

Particularly since the dominance of wizards (with other full casters as guest stars) is very much part of that core for quite a few players. And, honestly, probably more than one designer, at least for some editions.

It's interesting to see the interaction of "My wizard is superior to all those musclebound fools" and "I want my sinew, wits, steel, and grit hero to best all those corrupt wizards, no magic allowed" resulting in this sort of unresolved tension in the D&D playerbase and system.

The dominance of Fighters (with casters as guest stars), or "I want your Fighter to be (mechanically) superior to my wise Wizard" is very much a core part of my desired D&D experience.

Let me make this simple:
how do you make a nonmagical fighter useful? Assuming DnD setting at level 20 and discarding all others.

You know, despite you saying it 3 times, I'm not really sure what you're asking.

I do it by letting someone who knows how to and enjoys playing a Fighter do so.

I do it by running non-Determinator Wizards, in build and/or tactics. (See also "balance to the table")

I do it by letting people do everything the rules say that they can, and much that they don't say that they cannot.

I do it by building adventures that contain their own buttons to push, beyond those printed on the character sheets.

I do it by including things that take advantage of the Fighter's advantages (many encounters per day, things that can be solved with violence, things that deliver high burst damage, things where fortitude saves matter, etc) and things where nothing on the character sheet matters at all (”do you choose to…", "what do you do with/about…”, etc).

I do it by being bloody lethal at low levels, to where there really aren't many squishy PCs left.

I do it by handing out cool, unique loot… and letting the PCs craft or buy items easily.

But, mostly, I don't. Mostly, I say, "that's your problem". And, as a rule, my players step up to the challenge.

[Max_Killjoy]

To be less flippant, it depends.
Perhaps there is a door that has a lock too complex to pick without going insane, that resists all magic. But it can still be busted open with a decent Strength check.
Perhaps while Tiamat flys around torching towns and the wizard and cleric deal with that, the Fighter battles her legion of minions. Or hell, he ties a rope to an arrow shoots it into her, climbs up, and hacks her heads off one by one, with just grit and courage and prodigious skill.
Perhaps you wish to bargain with Vecna, the god of secrets to find out the truth behind the illithids time travel and save the multiverse? Well Vecna has this problem with Kas, which can only be solved by a sword duel. Or the rogue has nicked Vecnas phylactery, which is of course resistant to pathetic mortal magics, but not the heros sharp sword.
Is the Artifact of Infinite Agony killing all nearby? Well surely the fighter has the physical endurance to struggle through its malign hex, has the strength to lift it up, and the skill to cast it into the rapidly closing RIFT(TM) that spawned it.

You know, despite you saying it 3 times, I'm not really sure what you're asking.

I do it by letting someone who knows how to and enjoys playing a Fighter do so.

I do it by running non-Determinator Wizards, in build and/or tactics. (See also "balance to the table")

I do it by letting people do everything the rules say that they can, and much that they don't say that they cannot.

I do it by building adventures that contain their own buttons to push, beyond those printed on the character sheets.

I do it by including things that take advantage of the Fighter's advantages (many encounters per day, things that can be solved with violence, things that deliver high burst damage, things where fortitude saves matter, etc) and things where nothing on the character sheet matters at all (”do you choose to…", "what do you do with/about…”, etc).

I do it by being bloody lethal at low levels, to where there really aren't many squishy PCs left.

I do it by handing out cool, unique loot… and letting the PCs craft or buy items easily.

But, mostly, I don't. Mostly, I say, "that's your problem". And, as a rule, my players step up to the challenge.

It should perhaps tell us something that quite a few of those scenarios involve not empowering the Fighter, but rather the GM no-selling the Wizard's magic by deliberate and specific situational setups, or deliberating holding back while playing a Wizard.

as for concepts that don't fit settings....allow me to demonstrate why that is a meaningless concept:

take power armor. a normal sci-fi concept, it can do a bunch of technological things and whatnot. doesn't fit a fantasy setting, right?

but now take a GM who doesn't want power armor in their setting considering it not fitting, but still wants enchanted items, so they make it so that each object can only be enchanted once and that enchantment can only do one thing.

but then you can just take a suit of plate armor and disassemble it into its various parts. These various parts are all separate objects. so the enchanter simply enchants one part at a time with different enchantments doing different things. So when they put the armor back together, and wear it, all those enchantments still work because all the parts of armor are technically separate objects and always have been, they are just interlocked in a way they act like one object when they aren't. and thus when used together, all the enchantments replicate the effects of having power armor and can be used as power armor in a fantasy setting.

"Reality" doesn't have loopholes. The problem is, you're thinking of this as trying to find the edge cases and limits in the rules layer, rather than looking at the setting as a world-that-could-be-real where things are either possible or they're not, not matter how hard you try to "exploit" the rules layer. Gaming the mechanics in the way you suggest is abusing the letter of the law to violate the spirit.

Of course, if I'm the GM or game designer, and I see that sort of thing coming from players... then there's limit to how many enchanted items a person can wear or carry at a time, and/or every magic item draws its energy from the person using or wearing it, instead of being self-powered. Your "power armor" that violates the spirit of the setting just blew up and/or left you in a coma the first time you activated it.

[Mechalich]

It should perhaps tell us something that quite a few of those scenarios involve not empowering the Fighter, but rather the GM no-selling the Wizard's magic by deliberate and specific situational setups, or deliberating holding back while playing a Wizard.

Most of them also fail to account for the fact that in high level D&D a full caster can summon/call/otherwise produce a combat-focused minion who will be very close in capability to all but the most optimized of fighter builds for any purpose for which a fighter is required. I mean, any chaotic evil full caster with access to Planar Binding can just be assumed to have a Glabrezu on hand as a bruiser as a matter of course. GMs can certainly produce encounters that are resistance to direct magical solutions, but unless calling, summoning, necromancy and other forms of minionomancy are banned this only mildly inconveniences casters, it doesn't stop them.

Now banning minionomancy is certainly something you can do in a game - but the ability to summon up servants from other dimensions, raise the dead as you unholy thralls, command the beasts of the wild, and all the other ways of doing this sort of thing are some of the most iconic traits associated with caster archetypes (in some stories it is literally the only thing a caster can do), so such a ban tends to obliterate the kitchen sink idea.

[Lvl45DM!]

It should perhaps tell us something that quite a few of those scenarios involve not empowering the Fighter, but rather the GM no-selling the Wizard's magic by deliberate and specific situational setups, or deliberating holding back while playing a Wizard.

You realize that DnD is made up right? Everything is deliberate and specific situational setups. Like the orcs dont stat up themselves and put themselves on the board.

Good DM's design games for the players and their characters. My 13 year old cousin wants to play a tough fighter, should I crap all over him because casters are better? Btw the shooting an arrow and climbing up the rope thing, is a thing he did (not on Tiamat).

I mean how do you make wizards useful? You have situations where their abilities are useful.

Balanced is of course a separate issue. But useful? Honestly I suspect the only reason this conversation needs to be had is that too many players are (to use Matt Colvilles words) wangrods who want to 'win' DnD.

Not that I'm attacking anyone in this threat about that! There are plenty of ways to have fighters NOT be balanced and the game still be fun for everyone, notably, noone playing fighter.

[Cynthaer]

OK, HOW?

WHAT is the source of that ability? And remember that anything you say has some sort of implications for the broader setting... and that "just that awesome" is not an explanation.

HOW does the Fighter jam his sword into solid rock? They'd have to be superhumanly strong to do so, not to mention maintaining their grip, holding up their weight with one hand, and not damaging their wrist in the process.

Hell, HOW does the Barbarian survive? And no, you don't get to start from mechanics (damage vs hit points) and make up excuses -- at the fiction level, how does the Barbarian survive that fall? If the Barbarian is superhumanly tough... then WHAT underlies that, other than "because we said so"? (John McClaine and Hawkeye are not superhumanly tough, they have plot armor.)

I think we've stumbled upon the core issue here.

For you, "they're just that awesome" is a copout. A dodge, to avoid having to grapple with the setting implications of having people around who can do superhuman things that in real life are simply impossible.

For many others, though, "they're just that awesome" isn't an explanation. It's the archetype.

Now, if you don't like that archetype, you're free to make settings where it doesn't exist. Just like you can make settings where all magic comes directly from the gods, or settings where demons are such mindless forces of destruction that Fiend Warlocks can't exist. Not every character archetype has to fit into every game.

But the fact remains, "a mundane who's just that awesome" is a popular archetype. People like it. They expect it. D&D continues to cater to it in their core rulesets for a reason.

And frankly, most stories get by just fine without actually justifying how a supposedly mundane character does something that's technically superhuman if you calculate out the physics. I don't see how you can dismiss characters like John McClane and Hawkeye as merely having "plot armor"; it's not at all obvious to me why they're allowed to handwave their extreme toughness but a D&D fighter is not.

All action heroes constantly suffer injuries that should be fatal or debilitating, and certainly would leave bigger wounds than are shown on-screen. They run farther and faster than any human body ever could during chase scenes. They easily take on dozens of simultaneous foes when even the best-trained fighters in real life are unlikely to win a 1v2 against average adults. They fire guns with robotic accuracy.

Nobody cares because that's just how stories work. Certain ways of bending reality strike us as intuitive; others stand out to us as nonsensical. Some of that distinction is based on how humans perceive the world, but a lot of it is just based on genre.

And core D&D has positioned itself in a genre where fighters breaking rocks and barbarians falling off cliffs don't always have to explain the source of that power, and it doesn't have any implications for the broader setting. Same way a setting can have Create Food and Water without automatically becoming the Tippyverse.

For most people, in the default settings, it's just not a problem that needs solving.

[Psyren]

how do you make a nonmagical fighter useful? Assuming DnD setting at level 20 and discarding all others.

There is no such thing as a nonmagical fighter at level 20 in D&D. Did you think the WBL table was a suggestion? A humorous anecdote maybe?

1. and I'm not. the fighter being a class in DnD, has a power source of being good at fighting with no magic involved.

Nonsense; magic is expected for all high-level characters, fighters included, even if it has to come from items.

3. I cannot think of a single story when inequality didn't lead to terrible storytelling, where a single protagonist soared ahead of everyone else because of a special destiny, unearned while their allies stood on the sidelines unable to do anything. your example is about a villain vs. a hero, not a hero working alongside another, it is irrelevant to this discussion.

...What? Every ensemble cast I can think of has massive power inequities. In the Avengers, the likes of Thor and Ironman fight alongside an archer and a woman who's pretty good with guns. In the Justice League, a living god and a guy who can run at relativistic speeds fight alongside yet another archer. The Teen Titans contain actual magic users and shapeshifters, yet are are led by a kid with a utility belt who knows kung-fu. Fiction has worked this way for a while now, D&D didn't invent it.

[Kraynic]

All action heroes constantly suffer injuries that should be fatal or debilitating, and certainly would leave bigger wounds than are shown on-screen. They run farther and faster than any human body ever could during chase scenes. They easily take on dozens of simultaneous foes when even the best-trained fighters in real life are unlikely to win a 1v2 against average adults. They fire guns with robotic accuracy.

Nobody cares because that's just how stories work. Certain ways of bending reality strike us as intuitive; others stand out to us as nonsensical. Some of that distinction is based on how humans perceive the world, but a lot of it is just based on genre.

And core D&D has positioned itself in a genre where fighters breaking rocks and barbarians falling off cliffs don't always have to explain the source of that power, and it doesn't have any implications for the broader setting. Same way a setting can have Create Food and Water without automatically becoming the Tippyverse.

For most people, in the default settings, it's just not a problem that needs solving.

The thing is, that not all action heroes do. If you grew up (like I did) on Howard Pyle's The Adventures of Robin Hood, Robert Lewis Stevenson's Treasure Island and Kidnapped, C. S. Forester's Hornblower series, Kenneth Roberts books like Lydia Bailey and The Lively Lady, Andre Norton's historical novels like Stand and Deliver, Louis Lamoure's The Walking Drum, and any other similar works, you know that there is no need for heroes to be like you are describing. If all you are working from is Beowulf, Marvel superheroes, and hollywood movies, then I can see how someone might think that way. But stories really don't have to work that way. They can work on a level very based on "realism" even as there is magic, dragons, and whatever strangeness you want to explore in a game. The heroes can be injured, be captured, get sick, etc. Not all heroes are the type you describe above.

It is just that D&D really isn't the game that supports that sort of play, so I don't disagree with you there. However, I don't see how it would be possible to actually do much in the way of playing (at high level) if all classes were brought up to the power level potential of full casters. What would really challenge a party like that? I am one of those people that don't even see how running a game with characters like that would be worth doing. It seems like you would either totally dominate everything you ran into... or be dead. Just doesn't sound like anything interesting. Obviously others have a different opinion though.

[Lord Raziere]

There is no such thing as a nonmagical fighter at level 20 in D&D. Did you think the WBL table was a suggestion? A humorous anecdote maybe?

Nonsense; magic is expected for all high-level characters, fighters included, even if it has to come from items.

...What? Every ensemble cast I can think of has massive power inequities. In the Avengers, the likes of Thor and Ironman fight alongside an archer and a woman who's pretty good with guns. In the Justice League, a living god and a guy who can run at relativistic speeds fight alongside yet another archer. The Teen Titans contain actual magic users and shapeshifters, yet are are led by a kid with a utility belt who knows kung-fu. Fiction has worked this way for a while now, D&D didn't invent it.

Do I have to repeat my question again? Because if your going to be unhelpful and not answer it straight...

No, all those are teams that manage to have their heroes all contribute equally. Try the Z-Fighters: most of the time its Goku that always gets the kill while everyone else is on the sidelines. Somehow despite all those teams differences they all contribute equally, a team like the Z-Fighters despite their power sets being very similar, always has Goku get the win. so it doesn't matter if the power sets are different or the same, we have examples of the supposedly variable teams with unequal powers all managing to contribute and yet other fiction being incredibly bad at doing the same. these superhero teams are in fact a prime example of equality.