Critiquing the "Guy At The Gym" Fallacy

[Willie the Duck]

Slightly off topic, I have the Conan stories by Robert E. Howard, was Conan blatantly superhuman in these stories too? I've heard Comic!Conan is more powerful, but I really don't know too much about the character at the moment.

Conan, in the books, is probably one of the primary reasons why this standard was set for D&D fighters to begin with (along with contemporaries like Fafhrd) -- virtually everything he does in the books is something someone somewhere in the real world could have physically done, he just always succeeds (unless the plot demand he fail). He always succeeds at one-in-a-thousand type shots. He doesn't even do much one-in-a-million type things with routine success (he takes on a half dozen or so men multiple times, but about half the time that's how he ends up in a gaol cell or the like).

Well, we seem to have run into the classic D&D problem: it is an ultra Roll-play power fantasy where there is zero narrative consistency. In a system like that, you kind of expect balance in a way you wouldn’t for a Role-play system.

But it is a festering pile of dung at actually balancing any of it, meaning that in the power fantasy, several classes are fundamentally weaksauce and completely run over.

If it were a system about stories as opposed to “Mighty and Mightier”, that might not matter. But it’s not; it’s a system about how strong you can get while being uber.

If it were a system where certain niches were important because not everything could be solved through punching (not literally), maybe other classes would matter. But everything can be solved through punching, and casters have the strongest arms (again, not literally).

So what do you do with a crap system? Don’t play it. Go find any one of dozens of well regarded systems and play them instead. We live well beyond the days of yore where the hobby was two guys in a dorm with a monster manual. I guarantee that if there is a style you want to play, there probably a mechanically sound and community vetted system that will put the D&D on the back burner. If you’re lucky, you’ll spark interest from the rest of your table as well and never need to D&D again.

Most of us got past canards like 'Roll-play vs. Role-play' back when most D&D discussion was on Usenet subs. However, there is a decent point that D&D's narrative consistency, is, well, inconsistent. It has never really figured out what to do with high levels if you don't retire to kingship (which, to be fair to pre-3e versions of the game, is what the system expected you to do).

That said, the assumption that people even want to go play some other game fails on the first pass. It has a unique place in the gaming culture as a common point of reference that a huge majority of (US in particular) gamers have played and know well enough to game even with strangers can not be overstated in terms of value. If a certain level range plus playstyle plus priorities tends to break apart, that's often a small price to pay. Because the game can be played, readily and easily, depending on what you are willing to do, constrain yourself to, or put up with. That's how things like #6 exist, or games where everyone agrees to a certain tier range of classes (using the 3e concept of tiers, in this example), or have a specific focus of gameplay where what each character can mechanically do is not a major contributor towards party success (such as the name-level king&commander play mentioned before).

[kyoryu]

It has a unique place in the gaming culture as a common point of reference that a huge majority of (US in particular) gamers have played and know well enough to game even with strangers can not be overstated in terms of value.

Additionally, it has in many ways *defined* roleplaying... hit points, armor... many mechanics that we take for granted are lifted directly from D&D. It is the common infrastructure that many other games assume as a foundation, even as they make changes upon it.

[AntiAuthority]

2) The job you want done is to avoid martials being constrained to “realism” while magic gets “it can do whatever it wants”, and by extension avoid the martials-are-close-to-worthless-and-by-the-way-the-world-makes-no-sense thing.

Correct, I do want this. As well as possibly helping anyone who is on the fence with this in the process.

3) What you don’t like is fundamentally built into the rules and mechanics of D&D, and is particularly exacerbated by the fact that D&D is first,foremost, and entirely about ubermensch fighting increasingly absurd enemies.

Where is it fundamentally built into the rules? Could you elaborate?

4) The community at large plays it the way it is written, to the point where I’ve literally seen posts on this board about how dumb some new guy was for not thinking up a soul based warlock healer and instead took “cleric” because he though the party needed a healer. Where you can find “tier” systems in signatures that relegate martials to being a joke class.

Not too sure what this has to do with anything?

Also, you could argue that it's often the most vocal segment doing this sort of thing, as is common on the internet, not necessarily the community at large.

Conclusion: what you want is so fundamentally against the grain of what D&D and its players are that, as a tool, criticism is unlikely to change anything. There are times when it would be the tool to use, but not this time. This isn’t tweaking an understanding about an aspect of the game, it’s an attack on the very basis of the game. Changing your system will have far more effect, and far faster, than hoping one long essay on a fan board will.

How exactly am I attacking the very basis of the game? What is the basis of the game exactly, so I can know we're on the same page?

It's been said multiple times in this thread by other people that D&D is inconsistent, so what basis am I attacking?

Unless of course you take pleasure in arguing this sort of thing - and let’s admit it, if we didn’t, few people would post. In which case fire away. If you do, however, you may find that presenting other people with false dilemmas is somewhat sophomoric.

How exactly am I presenting people with false dilemmas?

[Talakeal]

I am starting to think that this thread, and to a lesser extent the original GATGF thread, are less about balancing casters and martials than they are about playing by RAW and not using house rules.

[Son of A Lich!]

I am starting to think that this thread, and to a lesser extent the original GATGF thread, are less about balancing casters and martials than they are about playing by RAW and not using house rules.

Well, when you are talking about game balance, we need a jumping off point to be on the same page. House Rules, by definition, are not supported in the Rules as they are written. I could say "Wish is not a spell mortal casters can cast in my game and I never had a problem with balancing Martials and Casters" but that doesn't help the discussion on why Casters out class Martials in D&D.

[Kaptin Keen]

Ok, but what you said can apply to a low level character just as much as a high level one. Only thing is a high level Character could also be surrounded by 8 lions and still win within a few seconds.

Nah - there's much more parity at lower levels, and all characters are much closer to RL limits of what's humanly possible.

Ok, but let me try something to see if I can get the same feeling down.

"What a boring story that would be. If a character decided creating incinerating enemies all the time just because he thought he could, I'd let him fail. But if he does it once or twice because that's the ... let's say heroic ... thing to do, then I'll ro"

At that point, why even bother having rules for characters if you would just ignore them because you don't like them?

You could just as easily say, "Yeah, using magic here wouldn't be cool, so your spells don't work." Would a caster player enjoy being told that?

That'd be the same thing as the DM examples I used above ignoring things in the rules because the DM doesn't believe in such things. How is that any different?

That's only even remotely comparable if you've paid zero attention to what I'm actually saying.

I go out of my way to make players - and characters - feel special and powerful.

That can't be done by taking away player agency.

So no.

I addressed this already in the OP with, "Hit Points Are An Abstraction of Damage" and "It Reduces Levels to Completely Arbitrary Numbers."

Do you have anything to support your reasoning beyond you just wanting it to be that way because a normal person probably wouldn't survive throwing themselves off of extremely high places on a daily/hourly basis? If there's a reason, please tell me, otherwise you're subscribing to the "Guy At the Gym" fallacy.

Yes, real world athletes can push the boundaries of what was considered impossible, like the logging challenge.

But being able to deflect what amounts to a speeding car with a shield multiple times doesn't lead to the character having their arm broken? How much sense does that make?

I've addressed this in my OP, you're saying the same thing that I pointed out the flaws with already. What you're saying sounds a lot like those DMs in the hypothetical situations that I used in the OP.

I'm using numbers/feats/mechanics/the rules and you seem to be using the story by itself. Everything you said seems like you trying to fit high level characters into your preexisting ideas of what a low level character would look like, but still wanting to call it high level.

Kratos is a high (or possibly mid) level character (based on the types of monsters he kills), but you don't see people trying to force him to go on low level adventurers and be cautious of low level monsters.

You're putting your head in a vice with the words 'THE RULES' on it. You don't have to. Quite literally, you can just not do that, and it stops.

You wanna know how I justify letting a guy jump off a roof? It's not like it's ever come up, in precisely that way. So I'm going to describe one way it has come up, and one way I'm making up as I go.

First, the suicide stabber: One of my games featured a mage who used a fly spell to fly from a platform out into the open space inside his tower - to rain fire on the PC's. The PC's had no way of flying, and no easy way to reach the mage. The rogue decided to just jump for it, grab onto the mage, and stab him to death. Proceeded to do so too. And when the mage died, his spell failed, and both dropped like a sackful of bricks.

Clearly, I allowed the rogue to push off from the mage, and catch himself on a lower platform. He failed that, but I allowed a second check which he made, to land on a lower platform still, and suffer a pile of damage.

Now, let's say we have a guy leaping off a tall building. It's that or get torn to shreds by the BBEG's goons, who are just seconds behind. Our hero looks out over the sheer drop, and notices a scaffolding - way down, but not lethally so. He could make that jump. Then, from the scaffolding, he might - just might - be able to jump across to some tall trees, and from there down to the street.

In not cheating, I'm not coddling the player or holding his hands - I may be adding a few hitherto unknown details to the terrain, but I'm rewarding my player being inventive and decisive, supporting his agency.

That is not a bad thing. And it neatly moves things inside the realm of reason, so my fighter can feel cool and powerful - despite not being a full caster class.

Why does it matter to you how I play my games? [/QUOTE]

Frankly - I don't. But this is a discussion, and you're one part of it, and .. it seemed to make sense. Is all =)

[Talakeal]

Well, when you are talking about game balance, we need a jumping off point to be on the same page. House Rules, by definition, are not supported in the Rules as they are written. I could say "Wish is not a spell mortal casters can cast in my game and I never had a problem with balancing Martials and Casters" but that doesn't help the discussion on why Casters out class Martials in D&D.

Right, but all of the examples in both this thread and the original are about DM house rules / rulings that limit martials rather than actual published rules, and when I said I tend to make rulings and house rules to limit casters far more often than I do to limit martials, the OPs response boiled down to it always being best to play by RAW.

[AntiAuthority]

Nah - there's much more parity at lower levels, and all characters are much closer to RL limits of what's humanly possible.

Yeah, at lower levels, but you seem to be insisting it's the same at higher levels. Or am I misunderstanding something?

That's only even remotely comparable if you've paid zero attention to what I'm actually saying.

I go out of my way to make players - and characters - feel special and powerful.

That can't be done by taking away player agency.

So no.

But you also typed on the previous page...

If a character decided to jump off things all the time just because he thought he could, I'd let him die.

It sounds like you're taking away the player's agency to decide what falls are and aren't deadly to their character, regardless of hit points or what type of challenges they'd faced and survived before.

You're putting your head in a vice with the words 'THE RULES' on it. You don't have to. Quite literally, you can just not do that, and it stops.

I get that you're ignoring rules. I stand by rules being a guideline, not a straight jacket. Feel free to houserule.

My main issue is people insisting things have to be this way, pointing to select parts of the rules while ignoring other parts of them and trying to enforce their personal opinions on how things work without anything to back it up beyond them saying so. There's no rhyme or reason beyond house rules that other people try to enforce on others.

First, the suicide stabber: One of my games featured a mage who used a fly spell to fly from a platform out into the open space inside his tower - to rain fire on the PC's. The PC's had no way of flying, and no easy way to reach the mage. The rogue decided to just jump for it, grab onto the mage, and stab him to death. Proceeded to do so too. And when the mage died, his spell failed, and both dropped like a sackful of bricks.

Clearly, I allowed the rogue to push off from the mage, and catch himself on a lower platform. He failed that, but I allowed a second check which he made, to land on a lower platform still, and suffer a pile of damage.

While cool, why have you kept insisting that the way you roleplay high level characters as lower level concepts? That's mostly what the entire "Guy At The Gym" fallacy is about.

Now, let's say we have a guy leaping off a tall building. It's that or get torn to shreds by the BBEG's goons, who are just seconds behind. Our hero looks out over the sheer drop, and notices a scaffolding - way down, but not lethally so. He could make that jump. Then, from the scaffolding, he might - just might - be able to jump across to some tall trees, and from there down to the street.

This sounds a lot like a low level character if he's running away from goons and needs luck to survive falling.

That is not a bad thing. And it neatly moves things inside the realm of reason, so my fighter can feel cool and powerful - despite not being a full caster class.

The realm of reason for people that go and kill possibly dozens of giant monsters within a few minutes?

Earlier you said:

That's only even remotely comparable if you've paid zero attention to what I'm actually saying.

But I'm getting the impression you aren't paying much attention to what I've said or why. I've gone over this multiple times already with you, but you keep saying the same things, leading to me saying the same things in response that I covered in the OP.

But let's see if we can come to an understanding.

Is a Level 20 character, to you, within the realms of what is possible for humans today? I figure we can work from there.

---

I am starting to think that this thread, and to a lesser extent the original GATGF thread, are less about balancing casters and martials than they are about playing by RAW and not using house rules.

Right, but all of the examples in both this thread and the original are about DM house rules / rulings that limit martials rather than actual published rules, and when I said I tend to make rulings and house rules to limit casters far more often than I do to limit martials, the OPs response boiled down to it always being best to play by RAW.

Hm, I'm sorry if my intentions seem confusing.

I am in favor of balancing martials with casters. My issue is with some people (not even necessarily in this thread, but in general) that think casters should automatically be superior to martials. Much like how I'd be bothered if people figured weapons should be superior to magic. I feel a character of a certain level should have powers appropriate to that level, as opposed to being limited to what someone at one of our gyms/Olympics could accomplish.

The reason I wrote this topic is to point out the flaws in trying to limit high level characters to the realms of our reality. As well as open discourse on why people can back up why fantastic characters are limited to our real world's limits.

The rules, even as inconsistent as they may be, sort of support this. What with CR, levels and scaling these characters to the types of enemies they'd be expected to fight. Even from a story perspective, I don't see how a mortal man is supposed to be able to contend with things that can warp reality.

If it's still confusing, I can try to elaborate, but the main point I'm making is, "If Casters can be more than normal men, why can't Martials? Let everyone be beyond the realm of real world people if they're a high enough level."

[Talakeal]

"If Casters can be more than normal men, why can't Martials? Let everyone be beyond the realm of real world people if they're a high enough level."

Because then they would be stepping on the monks toes.

[Kaptin Keen]

Is a Level 20 character, to you, within the realms of what is possible for humans today? I figure we can work from there.

Lets.

No. What a level 20 character can do is not within the realm of what is possible for human beings. But if I'm doing things right, neither is what a level 1 character can do. It is, I admit, a lot closer. But no, I do try to make even low level characters fantastic. It is, after all, fantasy.

And .. as an aside, I'm pretty sure I said early on that this whole discussion is kinda cheating on my part ... because I never play with high level characters. I'm mostly E6.

[AntiAuthority]

Because then they would be stepping on the monks toes.

Actually, I was including Monks as Martials because they use ki, not magic. It's in my OP, but...

It’d be more fair if Martials got to be more along the lines of Ryu Hayabusa, Kratos, Dante, Goku, Cu Chulainn or Thor, but as it stands the “Guy At The Gym” Fallacy keeps Martials much lower than Casters of the same level.

Ryu Hayabusa is a ninja, but he does have access to Ki like monks (making me think he'd have levels in Monk or be some kind of archetype...). Goku possesses Ki as well, but it's noted to be different in his universe from magic (Goku is just a full monk). They're the types of characters I was talking about bringing up to the level of casters.

But ignoring that, why is it fair for casters to step on a martial's toes? And why is it ok for one class to be inherently weaker than the other, when they share the same level? Isn't there a problem if one group has to suck for another group to shine? I'm for balance for everyone.

Also, how do you justify characters that are within the realm of humanity being important beyond lower levels?

How do you justify the absurd amounts of carnage they can cause with a piece of sharpened metal?

---

Lets.

No. What a level 20 character can do is not within the realm of what is possible for human beings. But if I'm doing things right, neither is what a level 1 character can do. It is, I admit, a lot closer. But no, I do try to make even low level characters fantastic. It is, after all, fantasy.

And .. as an aside, I'm pretty sure I said early on that this whole discussion is kinda cheating on my part ... because I never play with high level characters. I'm mostly E6.

... I don't understand what we were arguing about then lol. Sounds like we're in agreement to an extent about characters on that scale not being regular humans.

But yeah, everything you described so far makes a lot of sense for an E6 campaign.

[Talakeal]

Actually, I was including Monks as Martials because they use ki, not magic. It's in my OP, but...




Ryu Hayabusa is a ninja, but he does have access to Ki like monks (making me think he'd have levels in Monk or be some kind of archetype...). Goku possesses Ki as well, but it's noted to be different in his universe from magic (Goku is just a full monk). They're the types of characters I was talking about bringing up to the level of casters.

But ignoring that, why is it fair for casters to step on a martial's toes? And why is it ok for one class to be inherently weaker than the other, when they share the same level? Isn't there a problem if one group has to suck for another group to shine? I'm for balance for everyone.

Also, how do you justify characters that are within the realm of humanity being important beyond lower levels?

How do you justify the absurd amounts of carnage they can cause with a piece of sharpened metal?

I am all for balance to, but your way of achieving balance is to simply remove martials from the game, which is the worst way to achieve it.

Note that monks already have plenty of supernatural powers, yet they are still usually considered worse than rogues, barbarians, and fighters.

I justify carnage because all living creatures have weak spots and hig level characters are augmented with tons of spells and fantastical equipment, a fighter with purely mundane gear will get smacked down by a similarly levelled monster.

[AntiAuthority]

I am all for balance to, but your way of achieving balance is to simply remove martials from the game, which is the worst way to achieve it.

How am I removing martials? They're not casting spells, their abilities can work in anti-magic fields, they don't draw their power from an outside source, they don't draw their power from a cursed/bless bloodline, they're just superhumanly skilled and have bodies far beyond what a normal human can do.

Think about what I said with Thor. Thor isn't a caster, he's a martial that uses a magic weapon. Or Beowulf, he's not a caster, he's just a martial with very high stats/a high level.

And why is that the worst way to achieve balance?

Note that monks already have plenty of supernatural powers, yet they are still usually considered worse than rogues, barbarians, and fighters.

I thin Monks, in addition to every other martial, need a buff. Or to stop having people justify keeping them at a lower power level than they currently are.

I justify carnage because all living creatures have weak spots and hig level characters are augmented with tons of spells and fantastical equipment, a fighter with purely mundane gear will get smacked down by a similarly levelled monster.

But this brings me back to my question on how these characters can do this even with mundane equipment? A high level character could easily kill something like a tiger, with or without magic equipment.

And while the characters might have magic equipment, they're still a soft, squishy human and there's nothing stopping a competent enemy from just slitting their throats.

Or getting thrown around by giant monsters should be breaking their bones.

Couldn't a character just set up an anti-magic field and kill the squishy martial inside?

This also means the martials are dependent on their magic gear/dependent on having casters make their magic gear for them as opposed to being self reliant.

Also, that goes back to rendering levels a meaningless concept in games.

[Kaptin Keen]

... I don't understand what we were arguing about then lol. Sounds like we're in agreement to an extent about characters on that scale not being regular humans.

But yeah, everything you described so far makes a lot of sense for an E6 campaign.

I think we're arguing about ... you see it as a problem? And I don't.

Or - and this is entirely feasible - I forgot what the argument was about along the way. Regardless, I think the 'guy at the gym' thing is a pretty good measure of how extreme any given action is. Like the leaping off a building. The guy at the gym could - potentially - do that and live. Like the guy whose parachute didn't open. It can happen, therefore a fantasy hero could reasonably expect to get away with it.

Unlike, say, swimming through lava. That is not possible.

But 'the guy at the gym' shouldn't be ... a limit. Just a measurement - like the meter. There's a guy at my gym who could actually armwrestle an ogre and have a shot at winning. He could potentially survive a fall from a plane, but he couldn't swim lava. On an unrelated sidenote, I'm always baffled why anyone would want to be that huge.

When I was in the ... 6th or 7th grade, I would sometimes fight - for fun (and profit) a whole bunch of 5th graders. Like, 4-5-6 of them. Toss them about, shake them off, grab one by the arm and swing him into the others. That's what a fighter should be, against a bunch of rank and file guard dudes. Just ... superior. I mean, not that I was 'superior' - other than being a year or two older.

And .. you know, I think you agree with me? Except, you feel the rules are stopping you?

[AntiAuthority]

I think we're arguing about ... you see it as a problem? And I don't.

Or - and this is entirely feasible - I forgot what the argument was about along the way. Regardless, I think the 'guy at the gym' thing is a pretty good measure of how extreme any given action is. Like the leaping off a building. The guy at the gym could - potentially - do that and live. Like the guy whose parachute didn't open. It can happen, therefore a fantasy hero could reasonably expect to get away with it.

Pretty much, the entire fallacy hinges on keeping PC characters with enough levels within our scope.

Unlike, say, swimming through lava. That is not possible.

Yep, not a man in the world could do that, but I'd expect such things from a guy who considers getting set on fire by an irritated dragon an average day.

But 'the guy at the gym' shouldn't be ... a limit. Just a measurement - like the meter. There's a guy at my gym who could actually armwrestle an ogre and have a shot at winning. He could potentially survive a fall from a plane, but he couldn't swim lava. On an unrelated sidenote, I'm always baffled why anyone would want to be that huge.

I agree again!

And .. you know, I think you agree with me? Except, you feel the rules are stopping you?

[/QUOTE]

Sort of, it's complicated. I'll break it down into two main parts.

1. The belief that martial characters should be limited to what is possible on our world, that's what bothers me the most so I made this thread to challenge that belief. The issue is that the people who say this tend to not have much reason beyond it not being something characters can do in the real world.

2. Martial characters, as per the rules, ARE superhuman... Sort of. It's like the rule set itself isn't quite sure either. On one hand, you give them the ability to do absurd amounts of damage, take several lethal blows in a row and for the case of 3.5E let them do blatantly superhuman feats of power... But they're also not scaling properly to their level like a caster would. It's like the game itself isn't quite sure on how to handle it, so leaves it more ambiguous than with casters.

I could just go play another game, but I genuinely want to hear what people have to say on this and see if they can bring up solid reasons for why D&D isn't a superhero game at later levels. I started a similar thread on Reddit a while back, and when questioned on it, people just tended to avoid giving solid reasons, leading me to think they were just doing it because they felt it was right.

I'm fine with house ruling it, but not fine with the game itself wants to place such characters, and definitely not ok with other players dictating, "D&D doesn't have such characters, go play another game" and when questioned on their reasons for why D&D isn't or can't be this way, tend to avoid why what they said is true and often just defaults to, "Because it's not that type of game." Which leads me back to the appeal to emotion part in the OP.

... So I suppose you could say my main problem is with trying to enforce the "Guy At The Gym" fallacy on others without any reasons for why martial characters can't be more than a "Guy At the Gym".

Let me know if I need to elaborate more.

[Koo Rehtorb]

1. The belief that martial characters should be limited to what is possible on our world, that's what bothers me the most so I made this thread to challenge that belief. The issue is that the people who say this tend to not have much reason beyond it not being something characters can do in the real world.

I mean, it's an unstated aesthetic preference is why. I don't want fantasy superheroes: the game. I think it's dumb. Now you can say, and I'd agree, that people should just play a different game. But it's not always that simple. You don't know other games exist, all everyone else wants to play is D&D, you can't afford another game, you're irrationally attached to the only system that you know, you like most things it does and it still fits better than any other choice, whatever. There's lots of reasons why people hack a system instead of playing an entirely new one.

[Knaight]

I mean, it's an unstated aesthetic preference is why. I don't want fantasy superheroes: the game. I think it's dumb. Now you can say, and I'd agree, that people should just play a different game. But it's not always that simple. You don't know other games exist, all everyone else wants to play is D&D, you can't afford another game, you're irrationally attached to the only system that you know, you like most things it does and it still fits better than any other choice, whatever. There's lots of reasons why people hack a system instead of playing an entirely new one.

Especially D&D - because if you already have more than one game a lot of these don't apply. You probably know there are good free options, you clearly aren't that attached to any one game, etc. Whatever th market leader is will have some weird use cases because of it.

[Morty]

I mean, it's an unstated aesthetic preference is why. I don't want fantasy superheroes: the game. I think it's dumb. Now you can say, and I'd agree, that people should just play a different game. But it's not always that simple. You don't know other games exist, all everyone else wants to play is D&D, you can't afford another game, you're irrationally attached to the only system that you know, you like most things it does and it still fits better than any other choice, whatever. There's lots of reasons why people hack a system instead of playing an entirely new one.

Especially D&D - because if you already have more than one game a lot of these don't apply. You probably know there are good free options, you clearly aren't that attached to any one game, etc. Whatever th market leader is will have some weird use cases because of it.

Which, of course, turns the whole thing into an unsolvable problem, because someone is going to be unhappy - people who want superhuman non-casters, people who don't, or people who want powerful high-level casters. I guess a potential solution is explicitly and purposefully variable power levels, but I don't see it happening.

(Also I don't think the power level of high-level D&D casters has any place in a good and healthy game, even after 5E dials it back a notch. But that's beside the point)

[Talakeal]

Which, of course, turns the whole thing into an unsolvable problem, because someone is going to be unhappy - people who want superhuman non-casters, people who don't, or people who want powerful high-level casters. I guess a potential solution is explicitly and purposefully variable power levels, but I don't see it happening.

(Also I don't think the power level of high-level D&D casters has any place in a good and healthy game, even after 5E dials it back a notch. But that's beside the point)

Actual super hero games manage it. You just need to worry about your own character and not everyone else's.

I'm fine with house ruling it, but not fine with the game itself wants to place such characters, and definitely not ok with other players dictating, "D&D doesn't have such characters, go play another game" and when questioned on their reasons for why D&D isn't or can't be this way, tend to avoid why what they said is true and often just defaults to, "Because it's not that type of game." Which leads me back to the appeal to emotion part in the OP.

... So I suppose you could say my main problem is with trying to enforce the "Guy At The Gym" fallacy on others without any reasons for why martial characters can't be more than a "Guy At the Gym".

Let me know if I need to elaborate more.

Because D&D was originally created to emulate the high fantasy and sword and sorcery genres, and some people still prefer that to shonen anime or medieval super heroes.

Its the same reason they still make James Bond and Rambo movies in the action genre rather than just suiting up the character in tights and a cape and joining the MCU.

How am I removing martials? They're not casting spells, their abilities can work in anti-magic fields, they don't draw their power from an outside source, they don't draw their power from a cursed/bless bloodline, they're just superhumanly skilled and have bodies far beyond what a normal human can do.

You are removing the "Badass-normal" character concept from the game, which is what a lot of people want when they roll a fighter.

Think about what I said with Thor. Thor isn't a caster, he's a martial that uses a magic weapon. Or Beowulf, he's not a caster, he's just a martial with very high stats/a high level.

Thor is literally a god.

Beowulf, on the other hand, is pretty much exactly like a current D&D fighter. He is just a regular guy with a magic sword who is really good at beating up monsters and feats of physical endurance.

And why is that the worst way to achieve balance?

Because variety is fun. Simply removing things until only things that are the same is left makes for a bland and boring game. See most complaints about 4E.

I think Monks, in addition to every other martial, need a buff. Or to stop having people justify keeping them at a lower power level than they currently are.

Who does that though? I have never actually seen a GM nerf martials for "realism". I have seen a few people ban monks outright for not fitting in with their campaign aesthetic, but I haven't seen anyone actually go out of their way to screw over martials playing within the rules.

But this brings me back to my question on how these characters can do this even with mundane equipment? A high level character could easily kill something like a tiger, with or without magic equipment.

There are people in real life who can kill tigers with mundane equipment. Again, I don't think anyone is actually arguing that a high level person be "realistic" or "mundane" they just prefer an aesthetic that correlates towards what someone could, theoretically, do in real life.

And while the characters might have magic equipment, they're still a soft, squishy human and there's nothing stopping a competent enemy from just slitting their throats.

Couldn't a character just set up an anti-magic field and kill the squishy martial inside?

Yep. Sure can. Coup de grace. massive damage, and instant death rules do exist. And at reasonable levels of optimization they work just as well on casters as martials.

Or getting thrown around by giant monsters should be breaking their bones.

As I said early, HP are an inconsistent mess. They represent toughness, morale, fatigue, luck, plot armor, and skill at dodging, but exactly which they represent at any given moment is ever shifting.

This also means the martials are dependent on their magic gear/dependent on having casters make their magic gear for them as opposed to being self reliant.

Yep. Just like wizards are dependent on their spell books and components and clerics are dependent upon the favor of their god.

If you want to play a truly self reliant character, I suggest you go with a monk or a psion rather than making gear dependant concepts into something they aren't.

Also, that goes back to rendering levels a meaningless concept in games.

How so?

[FaerieGodfather]

Just trying to wrap my head around all of the people accusing the OP of "trying to turn D&D into something that it's not" are all the people who can't accept that the way that hit points have worked in the game for forty-five years are the way that hit points are supposed to work in the game.

[Mechalich]

Which, of course, turns the whole thing into an unsolvable problem, because someone is going to be unhappy - people who want superhuman non-casters, people who don't, or people who want powerful high-level casters. I guess a potential solution is explicitly and purposefully variable power levels, but I don't see it happening.

(Also I don't think the power level of high-level D&D casters has any place in a good and healthy game, even after 5E dials it back a notch. But that's beside the point)

D&D sells to people who want different things, and to some degree there's been deliberate decisions to accommodate those divergent choices and produce a system that is incoherent in order to maximize sales and market share rather than create a system that is robust. This is something that I mentioned several times in the balance thread - making a good game and making a popular one are not only not directly correlated they have an actively inverse relationship in some areas.

D&D has long worked quite well at low levels. 3.X in particular incorporates a lot of detailed tactical, movement, and hazard rules that are extremely useful for the low-level dungeon-crawling experience. Compared to the rest of the marketplace it is a genuinely good system for running that particular type of game, one supported by a truly vast array of options. It's still a high-magic fantasy kitchen sink at that point and has problems attendant to that, but they can be mostly papered over.

(Also I don't think the power level of high-level D&D casters has any place in a good and healthy game, even after 5E dials it back a notch. But that's beside the point)

I agree, and I think that many people involved in game design also agree, but they choose to include that content anyway because there's people who want to see it even if its not actually playable. The Pathfinder Bestiary 6 lists 32 monsters with a CR of 21 or higher (not counting ancient dragons), including various archdevils and archdaemons. These things aren't meant to see play in any sort of serious game - you don't fight Mammon in person - but there's some fragment of the fanbase that wants to see stats on these things and it allows them to fill up book space.

This isn't unique to D&D, lots of games give in to fan pressure and produce options for things that really shouldn't see play. White-Wolf printed a book for exalted that had stats for the Unconquered Sun - the literal sun god - because they could. Star Wars games regularly stat up things like the Executor, something that no party-level group is going to engage in a meaningful space battle with. It's a reccuring temptation.

[AntiAuthority]

Because D&D was originally created to emulate the high fantasy and sword and sorcery genres, and some people still prefer that to shonen anime or medieval super heroes.

In AD&D, an 8th level Fighter was given the title Superhero.

Its the same reason they still make James Bond and Rambo movies in the action genre rather than just suiting up the character in tights and a cape and joining the MCU.

I don't understand what this has to do with anything? James Bond and Rambo would be low level concepts.

You are removing the "Badass-normal" character concept from the game, which is what a lot of people want when they roll a fighter.

How many times have I said such characters would probably be better simulated at lower levels? Playing a badass normal is perfectly ok, but you can't have someone that could break two t-rexes in half in a few seconds then claim they're just low level character concepts.

Anything else would result in a situation where you try to roleplay a Level 20 character as Aragorn, when they're on the same level to face threats like Kratos or Dante.

All three use swords, but two are vastly more powerful than one. Have you read my OP? I've covered this the concept of nobody in the real world breaking into the double digits.

Do you have any reason why a Level 20 Martial is just a guy? I've provided reasons for why I think they aren't, so could you provide reason to counter it? I'm curious as to your reasoning for why.

Thor is literally a god.

And so is Loki, but you aren't against casters being able to replicate god-like feats, but you are against (mortal) martials doing it.

Beowulf, on the other hand, is pretty much exactly like a current D&D fighter. He is just a regular guy with a magic sword who is really good at beating up monsters and feats of physical endurance.

So Beowulf is a regular guy to you and an example of what a Fighter should be? You just compared him to a D&D Fighter, but are against the concept of me making these characters superhuman.

But in the epic, let's see what Beowulf does but is still a regular guy...

• The world record at the moment for swimming without stopping is just under 2 days, Beowulf swam for 7.
• The current record for holding a breath while underwater is a little over 24 minutes, Beowulf held his breath while swimming down for a day. Then he proceeded to fight Grendel's mother while still underwater.
• Beat the (invulnerable to mortal weaponry) monster that would come and kill the warriors inside the building every night... Beowulf didn't even use weapons (mainly because it'd be useless). He then tore the monster's arm off with his bare hands... Looking online, it's very difficult to tear off someone's arm, let alone a giant's.
• Carried Grendel's head, which was too heavy for four men to barely lift.
• Cut a dragon in half.

How's he a regular guy? Admittedly, he killed Grendel's mother with a giant, enchanted sword, but he didn't need it to kill Grendel and the dragon. He was already extremely powerful without enchanted weapons.

He's the type of hero you'd expect to go out and kill monsters like it's his job. Basically a properly scaled character, though I'd say he's not Level 20, he is a higher level concept than the other characters brought up (besides other mythological heroes).

How am I trying to get rid of the badass normal character if you agree that he's what a D&D 5E Fighter is?

He wasn't magic, he was just a martial. So great at fighting that the dragon only managed to stalemate him when he was essentially an old man, far from his prime.

Because variety is fun. Simply removing things until only things that are the same is left makes for a bland and boring game. See most complaints about 4E.

I have no opinion on 4E, as I've never played it for myself, but from what I've heard... It's because Martials were just casters by a different name. I don't want that.

Who does that though? I have never actually seen a GM nerf martials for "realism". I have seen a few people ban monks outright for not fitting in with their campaign aesthetic, but I haven't seen anyone actually go out of their way to screw over martials playing within the rules.

My DM has in the past. But also, you earlier typed...

If something, be it magic or mundane, doesn't make sense, I am going to step in.

I wasn't sure how to interpret that, I figured you were saying you wouldn't let a martial do some BS mythological hero/anime stunts because it didn't make sense (in a sense, nerfing)... But I probably need more context, could you elaborate on what you mean by this?

There are people in real life who can kill tigers with mundane equipment. Again, I don't think anyone is actually arguing that a high level person be "realistic" or "mundane" they just prefer an aesthetic that correlates towards what someone could, theoretically, do in real life.

Alright, but why try to force that version of reality onto others?

Also, slight aside but you typed...

Again, I don't think anyone is actually arguing that a high level person be "realistic" or "mundane"

Going back a little bit...

I am all for balance to, but your way of achieving balance is to simply remove martials from the game, which is the worst way to achieve it.

How am I removing martials? They're not casting spells, their abilities can work in anti-magic fields, they don't draw their power from an outside source, they don't draw their power from a cursed/bless bloodline, they're just superhumanly skilled and have bodies far beyond what a normal human can do.

You are removing the "Badass-normal" character concept from the game, which is what a lot of people want when they roll a fighter.

Along with...

If Casters can be more than normal men, why can't Martials? Let everyone be beyond the realm of real world people if they're a high enough level.

Because then they would be stepping on the monks toes.

With those in mind, it sounds like you're trying to limit martials to realism from earlier context.

As I said early, HP are an inconsistent mess. They represent toughness, morale, fatigue, luck, plot armor, and skill at dodging, but exactly which they represent at any given moment is ever shifting.

I've covered my thoughts on HP in the OP, would be interested in someone telling me their interpretation of how this would work.

Yep. Just like wizards are dependent on their spell books and components and clerics are dependent upon the favor of their god.

Wizards and Clerics get those things as class features. They can make their own magic items. Fighters can't.

If you want to play a truly self reliant character, I suggest you go with a monk or a psion rather than making gear dependant concepts into something they aren't.

Like Beowulf? He didn't need magic equipment (except that time he was fighting underwater after swimming for a day against a giant).

Why can't a Fighter be like Beowulf, who you compared him to earlier, in that they don't need magic weapons to stay relevant except in very specific cases where they may or may not be exhausted/at a severe home field disadvantage?

How so?

A Level 5 character being able to consistently defeat a Level 10 character 1v1. The Level 10 character wasn't a proper Level 10 character, they were much lower character with a bigger number than their actual power level.

A CR 19-20 creature (like a Balor because I'm unimaginative) is a creature capable of taking on a party of Level 20 characters. A Level 20 character is expected to be able to hold their own in a fight against such a beast.

Or say a Level 20 Wizard and a Level 20 Fighter facing off against an Adult Black Dragon with just their own class features/power. The Wizard has a lot of options on what to do and can hold their own against the lower CR enemy. The Fighter is going to stand there and hope the thing gets within real of him, or if he has a bow, use that to try to kill the monster that's likely avoiding him until its breath recharges. The Level 20 Fighter is powerful, but not as powerful as things a Level 20 Character should be expected to fight.

At that point, Fighters aren't really Level 20, they've got an over inflated number but none of the appropriate power to back it up. They have the health of a Level 20 character, but not the other powers.

So, in that light, it renders levels to, "You're this level, but the strength between levels varies wildly depending on what class you are. So, a Level 10 for this character might only be as strong as a Level 5 for another character."

[Max_Killjoy]

Actual super hero games manage it. You just need to worry about your own character and not everyone else's.


Because D&D was originally created to emulate the high fantasy and sword and sorcery genres, and some people still prefer that to shonen anime or medieval super heroes.

Its the same reason they still make James Bond and Rambo movies in the action genre rather than just suiting up the character in tights and a cape and joining the MCU.


You are removing the "Badass-normal" character concept from the game, which is what a lot of people want when they roll a fighter.


Thor is literally a god.

Beowulf, on the other hand, is pretty much exactly like a current D&D fighter. He is just a regular guy with a magic sword who is really good at beating up monsters and feats of physical endurance.

"Regular guy with a sword who is really good at beating up monsters" pretty much also caps out far below level 20.

It's fine, great even, to want to play those characters, and to enjoy playing those characters, but in D&D that leaves you with two issues:

1) Superheroic is as superheroic does. If your character is doing superheroic things, then your character is superheroic, full stop, and it doesn't matter many "just a regular guy" stickers you slap on them.
2) D&D spellcasters become "medieval super heroes" as they go up in level, there's no way around it, and there's a disconnect if "just a regular guy" is doing things that balance with that level of power.


There's a reason that the version of Batman from the Justice League comics who routinely keeps up with the demigods on that team is a bit of a joke character to many readers at this point.

[Cluedrew]

On Superhuman: I looked up anyone with 23 strength or more can walk around with more gear than the world weight-lifting record. Even in 5e that started cutting back on the scores you can go to 30 right? That sounds pretty superhuman.

On D&D's Goal: I think D&D is trying to cover all of them. It cover the gritty low fantasy at low level and progresses to the over the top action fantasy at high level. If its not it has even more work to bring the casters into line.

Also I don't care. No system should present such a double-standard as an equality. You can play at a level were a real world contribute, or you can go above that. But you can't do both. And if that is what D&D wants to do it will always fail or have to operate on contrivance.

That was unusually harsh for me, I must be in a mood.

[Arbane]

Actual super hero games manage it. You just need to worry about your own character and not everyone else's.

I am required by Federal Law to post the Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit clip at this point.

Spoiler: Huh, I didn't know this site could embed videos.

Show

AntiAuthority, a little advice from bitter personal experience: If you're replying to someone else's posts one sentence at a time, the likelihood of actual communication is very low.

[Talakeal]

In AD&D, an 8th level Fighter was given the title Superhero.

So are Batman and The Punisher.

I don't understand what this has to do with anything? James Bond and Rambo would be low level concepts.


How many times have I said such characters would probably be better simulated at lower levels? Playing a badass normal is perfectly ok, but you can't have someone that could break two t-rexes in half in a few seconds then claim they're just low level character concepts.

That's a... really circular argument.

But are you telling me that you couldn't imagine someone like Tarzan defeating two T-rax's in combat in a pulp action story?

Do you have any reason why a Level 20 Martial is just a guy? I've provided reasons for why I think they aren't, so could you provide reason to counter it? I'm curious as to your reasoning for why.

The whole "just a guy" thing is just name calling / straw manning. Nobody actually thinks a level 20 character is "just a guy", but I am saying that you could make a character who would be an appropriate level 20 character (minus the magic items) without doing anything that is impossible in real life (minus the abstractions that are built into the core rules of the game).

And so is Loki, but you aren't against casters being able to replicate god-like feats, but you are against (mortal) martials doing it.

I am ok with a wizard doing some of the stuff Loki does, just like I am ok with a fighter doing some of the stuff Thor does. But, as gods, they are both terrible benchmarks for what classes should be able to do.

So Beowulf is a regular guy to you and an example of what a Fighter should be? You just compared him to a D&D Fighter, but are against the concept of me making these characters superhuman.

But in the epic, let's see what Beowulf does but is still a regular guy...

snip

How's he a regular guy? Admittedly, he killed Grendel's mother with a giant, enchanted sword, but he didn't need it to kill Grendel and the dragon. He was already extremely powerful without enchanted weapons.

He's the type of hero you'd expect to go out and kill monsters like it's his job. Basically a properly scaled character, though I'd say he's not Level 20, he is a higher level concept than the other characters brought up (besides other mythological heroes).

I said Beowulf is just like a high level D&D fighter; a normal guy except for his ability to beat up monsters and superhuman feats of disturbance, and you refute this by listing examples of beating up monsters and performing superhuman feats of endurance?

How am I trying to get rid of the badass normal character if you agree that he's what a D&D 5E Fighter is?

So are you saying you are fine with a 5E fighter then?

My DM has in the past.

Please do tell.

I wasn't sure how to interpret that, I figured you were saying you wouldn't let a martial do some BS mythological hero/anime stunts because it didn't make sense (in a sense, nerfing)... But I probably need more context, could you elaborate on what you mean by this?

I was referring to things like bucket healing and commoner railguns. I might be tempted to treat a player engaged in suicidal behavior to show off as a coup de grace, but that's not something that would actually come up in a game, just forum discussion.

Now, to use your example; there is a huge difference between nerfing someone and trying to maintain a consistent tone.

If you want to describe your attacks as over the top anime stunt, that might not be appropriate for a sword and sorcery game, just like in your ideal anime game it wouldn't be appropriate for me to describe my attack as dropping an anvil on your head, squashing you flat, and make you walk around all crumpled up and emitting accordian noises until you blew yourself up again by sticking your thumb in your mouth and taking a deep breath, even though that might be appropriate in Toon.

Alright, but why try to force that version of reality onto others?

From a mechanical perspective, they need to tone down the power of the stronger classes and buff the weaker classes, because games are most fun when everyone can contribute, and right now the disparity is just too dang high for the game to run as advertised based on the default settings and CR guidelines listed in the DMG.

From a narrative perspective, I see it as the complete opposite. I don't see people saying you can't roll a warblade and play it as chu-chalain, or a monk as Goku, or a barbarian as The Hulk.

What I do see though, is a lot of people telling me I am not allowed to play a high level fighter and RP him as Captain America or Conan, because it makes their god-wizard feel less special.

I've covered my thoughts on HP in the OP, would be interested in someone telling me their interpretation of how this would work.

I can show you a quote from 1E where Gary Gygax explains that HP represents combat skill and not just meat.

Also, one problem with the HP as meat explanation, large animals like elephants, dinosaurs, and whales are just as able to survive a fall from orbit or immersion in lava as a high level fighter is.

Wizards and Clerics get those things as class features. They can make their own magic items. Fighters can't.

Not sure why that matters, but if it does, there are feats and classes that can allow a martial to forge their own magic items. Iron Man is a valid concept for a martial.

Why can't a Fighter be like Beowulf, who you compared him to earlier, in that they don't need magic weapons to stay relevant except in very specific cases where they may or may not be exhausted/at a severe home field disadvantage?

In 3E everyone, casters included, is expected to have a ton of magic items, and the game is built around it.

Fighter is designed as a weapon master in D&D. If you want to be an awesome unarmed character, PF has the brawler class and I am sure 3E has a PRC for it. But you absolutely can and should be able to play Beowulf.

A Level 5 character being able to consistently defeat a Level 10 character 1v1. The Level 10 character wasn't a proper Level 10 character, they were much lower character with a bigger number than their actual power level.

A CR 19-20 creature (like a Balor because I'm unimaginative) is a creature capable of taking on a party of Level 20 characters. A Level 20 character is expected to be able to hold their own in a fight against such a beast.

Or say a Level 20 Wizard and a Level 20 Fighter facing off against an Adult Black Dragon with just their own class features/power. The Wizard has a lot of options on what to do and can hold their own against the lower CR enemy. The Fighter is going to stand there and hope the thing gets within real of him, or if he has a bow, use that to try to kill the monster that's likely avoiding him until its breath recharges. The Level 20 Fighter is powerful, but not as powerful as things a Level 20 Character should be expected to fight.

At that point, Fighters aren't really Level 20, they've got an over inflated number but none of the appropriate power to back it up. They have the health of a Level 20 character, but not the other powers.

So, in that light, it renders levels to, "You're this level, but the strength between levels varies wildly depending on what class you are. So, a Level 10 for this character might only be as strong as a Level 5 for another character."

Are we talking fluff or crunch here?

Crunch-wise, I agree, 3E martials need huge buffs and 3E casters need huge nerfs. (And AD&D / 5E to a much smaller degree).

Fluff wise, there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone who wants to play a character who makes up for their lack of powers with exceptional skills, someone like Batman or The Punisher.

[Arbane]

I am ok with a wizard doing some of the stuff Loki does, just like I am ok with a fighter doing some of the stuff Thor does. But, as gods, they are both terrible benchmarks for what classes should be able to do.

True. High-level wizards in 3.5 are MUCH stronger than Loki.

[Talakeal]

I can show you a quote from 1E where Gary Gygax explains that HP represents combat skill and not just meat.

Actually, I am just going to post it now to save myself the trouble later:

“It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage – as indicated by constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the “sixth sense” which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection.”

[Lord Raziere]

So are Batman and The Punisher.

Fluff wise, there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone who wants to play a character who makes up for their lack of powers with exceptional skills, someone like Batman or The Punisher.

I don't know what your arguing for or against but....

Keep in mind, that superhero universes and the heroes within them are quite possibly the most ridiculously powerful characters to exist, even the "normal" superheroes. Batman is an intellect greater than the entirety of human civilization, can solve any case, is a near mind reader in his deductive reasoning, prepares for the most ridiculous of scenarios and takes on gods and other such entities, and pretty much makes any level 20 human fighter look like a scrub.

while the Punisher has been a super since 1974. thats almost 50 years of marvel continuity, he is probably almost as powerful in other ways simply because of all the built up things that has happened in his stories, just like Batman.

using these people as an example is to use human paragons of excellence that could probably defeat any being outside of their universe with ease through the sheer amount of planning, training and pragmatism they use to take down every single person that has ever decided to mess with them. the greek demigods of old are weak compared to the things these guys have done, and will probably continue to do.

eighth level? pfff.hahahahahahahahahaha.

they left that behind long ago.

[Quertus]

Conversely, if the rules always trump DM judgement, why even bother to have a DM?

Because the GM knows the module, the content, the "secrets" that the players cannot easily roleplay pretending not to know.

Because the GM is the eyes and ears of the characters, responsible for bridging the gap for the players between our world and theirs.

Because someone has to run everyone who isn't a PC.

Honestly, IME, tables run better when rules not just trump GM, but when, in fact, the players adjudicate the rules whenever possible.

True. High-level wizards in 3.5 are MUCH stronger than Loki.

Old modules expect you to kill Loth around, what, level 8? 20th level characters should be so far beyond the gods.