D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Neonchameleon]

Batman
King Arthur
Ulysses from the Odyssey
Green Arrow
Beowulf

Edit. Krillin

Beowulf of course is (a) mundane and (b) can hold his breath for an hour. He's mundane but not bound by the mechanics of the real world. He's exactly what's wanted as a fighter.

Arthur, not sure. If I don't think he ever faces anything more dangerous than a CR5 hill giant that's not a magical human.

Batman, Green Arrow, and Odysseus all behave as rogues when dealing with big things. And this is one of my huge issues here - I see much more role for mundane rogue/gadgeteer slipping round the edges and being a wild card than I do for mundane fighter trying to parry a storm giant's blow without being turned into a tent peg or strawberry jam.

 

[Aldarc]

Beowulf of course is (a) mundane and (b) can hold his breath for an hour. He's mundane but not bound by the mechanics of the real world. He's exactly what's wanted as a fighter.

Arthur, not sure. If I don't think he ever faces anything more dangerous than a CR5 hill giant that's not a magical human.

Batman, Green Arrow, and Odysseus all behave as rogues when dealing with big things. And this is one of my huge issues here - I see much more role for mundane rogue/gadgeteer slipping round the edges and being a wild card than I do for mundane fighter trying to parry a storm giant's blow without being turned into a tent peg or strawberry jam.

Odysseus is one of my top characters I have in mind when I think of Warlords.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Arthurian myths are vague, as there are so many different versions. The original tales they're based on are more wild, whilst the later retellings seem to be more grounded.

In any case Arthur is still a good high example of a high level fighter, whilst Beowulf is another one. I see them as two differnt progression paths from the same roots. One evolves to become a leader, and the another evolves to have superhuman capacities. When gamified, I can see both being viable.

This is also why I don't want warlord to be a separate class, I want it to be something a fighter can become, like in how old school D&D fighters often evolved to be leaders. Same with "superhuman" warrior. One issue with the fighter is that if anything that is more involved than hitting things mundanely with sharp sticks gets spun into separate classes, so there is no much room for the fighter to grow.

 

[TwoSix]

Please tell me where it says they aren't. Until you demonstrate that, you're house ruling.

I’m aware that everything is ultimately a house rule. You seem to be confused in thinking that “just like Earth” is actually the default.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’m aware that everything is ultimately a house rule. You seem to be confused in thinking that “just like Earth” is actually the default.

Can we agree that neither of our preferences is the default?

 

[Campbell]

As an inside I really hate the word 'mundane' being used as a stand-in for not supernatural. It breathes life into the notion that only magic can be incredible, fantastic, special. Looking at all the things that exist in our world and calling the artistry of the great architects, the prowess of great athletes and the genius of greatest scholars mundane is a phenomenon I will never understand. There are plenty of wondrous things and wondrous people I would never consider mundane.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As an inside I really hate the word 'mundane' being used as a stand-in for not supernatural. It breathes life into the notion that only magic can be incredible, fantastic, special. Looking at all the things that exist in our world and calling the artistry of the great architects, the prowess of great athletes and the genius of greatest scholars mundane is a phenomenon I will never understand. There are plenty of wondrous things and wondrous people I would never consider mundane.

That's fair. What term should we use then?

 

[TwoSix]

Can we agree that neither of our preferences is the default?

Didn’t I just say that in the post you quoted?

If everything is a house rule, then by extension nothing is the default.

 

[Remathilis]

As an inside I really hate the word 'mundane' being used as a stand-in for not supernatural. It breathes life into the notion that only magic can be incredible, fantastic, special. Looking at all the things that exist in our world and calling the artistry of the great architects, the prowess of great athletes and the genius of greatest scholars mundane is a phenomenon I will never understand. There are plenty of wondrous things and wondrous people I would never consider mundane.

I think it's too separate what can be accomplished in the real world* vs that which can't.

* And by that, I mean things that are testable, subject to the laws of nature and physics, and widely accepted to be true. We can debate the existence of ghosts and psychics in the real world, but we don't debate that humans cannot shoot fire out of their hands without technology to assist.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Didn’t I just say that in the post you quoted?

If everything is a house rule, then by extension nothing is the default.

Fair enough. Done.