Cool shit the Fighter could do in old school D&D

[Keldar]

TWOT's second biggest flaw is the author married the editor.  It really shows.   
The biggest is it went past the original book 3 ending and turned into a clusterfuck that outlived its author.

[MeanFightingGuy]

1. Yeah, here we are hung up on Gandalf, literately one of the weakest spellcasters in lotrs, and he was still thrown off a cliff so Tolken would write a book that wasn't based on sorcery.
2. You mean Wizards & Sorcerers?
3. It's that "Fighters are comic relief".

1. Can't argue with that (though he still gets a lot of action in LOTR, so his story-breaking wasn't that bad there as it would have been in The Hobbit).
That's also funny about most DnD books (I know of) - I can't recall a single one were the caster of the group does what he theoretically would be able to do; even IF they gather godlike powers in the end (Raistlin in Dragonlance, Sadira in Dark Sun's The Prism Pentad), they are either still strangled by the red string when it comes to putting them to good use, are overshadowed by the even more awesome villains, or the solution to the most important problem is an asspull. Makes you wonder whether the authors really thought the power balance between mundanes and casters would play out that way in a real game or if it's a hint that they're aware that a high-level caster has to be reined in by specific challenges tailor-made to counter their powers.

2. No. I really meant "artifact" as in "super-duper-ultra-powerful unique or at least extremely rare item" and not some replacable book, and "divine blood" as in "really divine status or recent divine ancestry" and not a trace of blood from a magical creature in your geins. Or just being an Eldar who was around since the dawn of time. And even then the ability to do magic doesn't necessarily convert into casting spells, but mostly takes other forms.
The thing is: In a proper Tolkien-style setting (no, not MERP), you wouldn't be able pick up caster levels in the first place in a standard group, and even if you did, you would probably be the group's most powerful member anyway just by virtue of having been around for millenia and therefore having an advantage in character levels. The only exception I can think of on drop of a hat is Beorn the shapeshifter, but he was pretty unique in Tolkien's stories and was created before The Hobbit was integrated into his Middle Earth-mythology. Oh yes, and Aragorn's small-scale healing of Faramir. That came in handy, but hardly defined his role in the series.

3. Here I beg to differ. I can't recall that Gimli was particularly funny in the book - that was the younger hobbits' role, and even they got more serious over the book. Defining Sam as a cohort would go against Tolkien's stance on this - he considered him, not Frodo, the actual hero in LOTR (as in: Bilbo's replacement). And I'd say that he's a rogue-ish character (though one with most of his ranks in cooking, knowledge (herbalism) and knowledge (Bilbo's tales)). The dwarves in "The Hobbit"... well, it's a children's book, so I would argue that the style in there is owed to the nature of the story (it's interesting that the most powerful good guy apart from Gandalf is a shapeshifter, though).
But you have to keep one thing in mind: Most of the character's in Tolkien's work were some kind of fighter or (mundane) ranger, and this includes the Elves (though these oftentimes had some kind of magic along with their fighting prowess, see above). Fingolfin (greatest warrior of the Elves ever) - wounds Morgoth, Turin - kills Glaurung, Ecthelion - killed a Balrog, Glorfindel - ditto,  Earendil - kills Ancalagon, Elendil and Gil-Galad - throw down Sauron. I leave out Bard because he's a particular case with all his archery and bird-talk.
Tolkien was too immersed in the tradition of epic Norse and Anglo-Saxon Mythology to let warriors play second fiddle to wizards (and most likely also too aware what a Wizard with unrestricted reality-altering powers on the loose would mean for a story). And even though these warriors are occasionally wielding some supernatural powers, these powers drove his stories, they didn't break them. 

Not familiar with Conan beyond Schwarzenegger's film, and even that barely. Quick glance at Wikipedia and he does look like a real pure Fighter in a sword & sorcery setting. Off that alone, it appears to be a series where a Fighter didn't get the short stick. So good find there.

While the movie takes some liberties with the background, they capture the essence of the setting pretty well. But yeah, Conan indeed is a purely mundane character, though his build wouldn't work without some levels of rogue, given the stunts he pulls of and the sheer amount of knowledge he has gathered. The gear he works with usually is pretty mundane as well (which he loses most of a time between or during stories anyway). But it also works because of the limits to magic in the setting. Of course, occasionally a well-prepared wizard still takes him out (equally often by use of quasi-supernatural abilities as by some kind of alchemy), but when the tables are turned - and it's very possible to get a Wizard flat-footed - he tends to make short work of them as well.

[SorO_Lost]

The biggest is it went past the original book 3 ending and turned into a clusterfuck that outlived its author.

Yeah, and then the next one was like, "You know what I need? Money. He promised you one book, well you're buying three."

That's also funny about most DnD books (I know of) - I can't recall a single one were the caster of the group does what he theoretically would be able to do; even IF they gather godlike powers in the end (Raistlin in Dragonlance, Sadira in Dark Sun's The Prism Pentad), they are either still strangled by the red string when it comes to putting them to good use, are overshadowed by the even more awesome villains, or the solution to the most important problem is an asspull. Makes you wonder whether the authors really thought the power balance between mundanes and casters would play out that way in a real game or if it's a hint that they're aware that a high-level caster has to be reined in by specific challenges tailor-made to counter their powers.

It's because it's hard to write a story about someone that can solve anything in seconds.

My favorite example is Heroes. They broke the bank with the blue mage and time traveler in season 1, as a result Peter holds the idiot ball, gets his mind wiped, more idiot ball, and then power nerfed. Hiro runs through entire arcs where his self doubt prevents him from using his powers, then as he obtains mastery of them he spends an episode repeating the same moment in time several hundred times trying to save someone's life before he is successful, a means to say while he can alter the timeline 99.9% of the time he'll fail. And then he's hit with the nerf bat too. These two characters start off with damn near it all and as a result the writers couldn't do anything substantial with them without ending the series.

Sylar on the other hand is an example done right, normal man corrupted by his powers seeks nothing more than more power, then questions what to do with his life, flip flops from villain to hero all the while he struggles to maintain his sanity, as starts to lose his identity eventually he comes to to the question of who is beyond a guy with powers. At the start it's Sylar attempting to hide, to stalker, to overcome his superpowered targets, and in the end Sylar is less about every power ever but how every power ever affects a man.

In D&D, you're handed McUber and you're in charge of writing his story. Do you flop or succeed?

2. No. I really meant "artifact" as in "super-duper-ultra-powerful unique or at least extremely rare item" and not some replacable book, and "divine blood" as in "really divine status or recent divine ancestry" and not a trace of blood from a magical creature in your geins.

I know what you meant. But a Wizard's power is fundamentally limited to holding onto his Spellbook, Sorcerers/Bards are born into the ability to cast Spells, Clerics/Druids/Rangers/Paladin are divinely gifted their magic. Learnable Magic is simply how we treat things. We want to build a Bard/Crusader/JPM? Yeah, just pen in his great great great grandfather is a Blue Dragon and let me play my character kthx.

Oh yes, and Aragorn's small-scale healing of Faramir. That came in handy, but hardly defined his role in the series.

Yeah, being the king of the greatest kingdom ever was his defined role. Everything else was filler.

3. Here I beg to differ. I can't recall that Gimli was particularly funny in the book - that was the younger hobbits' role, and even they got more serious over the book.

I might be blending things in with the movie some.

Also that's the point. Tolken's most are Fighter dips are not strong example of Fighters getting nice things, it's an example of magical people having magical powers and they can do everything the Fighter does.

[Unbeliever]

3. Here I beg to differ. I can't recall that Gimli was particularly funny in the book - that was the younger hobbits' role, and even they got more serious over the book.

I might be blending things in with the movie some.

Also that's the point. Tolken's most are Fighter dips are not strong example of Fighters getting nice things, it's an example of magical people having magical powers and they can do everything the Fighter does.

How does that follow?  There are magical characters in Tolkien -- the Wizards, Galadriel, Melian.  These all do clearly magical things, they summon lightning, control weather, cloak entire cities, etc. 

But, the vast majority of "great deeds" are done by swinging of swords.  Which is to say it isn't that they wizard away all of their problems.  And, really, only the Wizards, and then only Gandalf, can both fight and do things that seem magical.  Gil-Galad, Turin, Maedhros don't do anything "magical" to my knowledge.  There are magical people who can fight and do heroics, besides Gandalf there's Feanor -- maker of the silmarils and the palantirs -- and also a great warrior.  Though not a lot of people who have a kind of spellcaster feel, rather than great at lore or crafts, and can also fight spring to mind besides Gandalf.  I could be missing somebody, though. 

But, I don't see how you get to the above general claim.

You could say there's very little niche protection in Tolkien, which is probably right.  Just b/c Gandalf can cast spells or Feanor is the greatest magical craftsman ever to live doesn't mean they can't swing a sword.  Although it's worth noting that they are clearly higher level than everybody else ...

Not that I really know what the Tolkien examples are supposed to prove.  MeanFightingGuy's assessment of Conan is about right.  And REH isn't alone.  There's a lot of sword and sorcery literature where spellcasters feel a lot more limited and vulnerable than they do in D&D, Sword of Truth, Dresden Files, Harry Potter, etc.  What's that taken to prove?


EDIT:  are we using Fighter as code for "mundane," meaning not having access to overt supernatural abilities?  Or, is it being used to refer to something like the D&D class, meaning "I swing a sword, and that's all, sneaking?  What's that?!"  The latter version is obviously a lot more restrictive.

[Mizter0oz]

Don't forget the sheer ability to hit; if you take it at level 20 in advanced 2nd edition here would be there respective base attack bonuses.

bab      lv20
Priest    12
Warrior   20
Wizard   6
Rogue   9

[SorO_Lost]

EDIT:  are we using Fighter as code for "mundane," meaning not having access to overt supernatural abilities?  Or, is it being used to refer to something like the D&D class, meaning "I swing a sword, and that's all, sneaking?  What's that?!"  The latter version is obviously a lot more restrictive.

As far as I know, the overall point we're on is Fighter's can't have nice things. A indirect answer of what cool stuff could old-timer Fighters do (direct answer being nothing).

Since talking about 2nd to some people is synonymous with lotrs, we're neck deep in discussing a completely off topic no one cares about BS strawman. This strawman includes concepts like Gandalf isn't a 20th level Wizard (no duh, everyone was like 4th level and lower) and if a Wizard swings a sword it's proof Fighter is awesome. Heck, it hits an all time low with the Witch-King. Oh sure Pro-Fighters are going to be like that chick beat up the supernatural guy. But what really happened is the Which-King's 1,200 years experience, male-lordly in an age of war background, multiple successful war campaigns, and supernatural powers of simultaneously being a ringbarer and Nazgul is utterly meaningless, he was beaten by a hobbit with no combat training assisting a women that had never seen or been in a real battle before in her life. Because that's how little "fighter" is truly worth in Tolken's world, a meaningless attribute every character in the series has. Almost like "magic" is a free attribute just because you're an elf.

I in turn am sick of hearing about three books written years ago. So I keep bringing up other sword & sorcery series as an attempt to educate people that there are other things to discuss something other than the world's long walk subverted by flying eagles. You know the most terrible thing? There are no such things as Paladins, Bards, D&D-Style Wizards/Clerics/Druids/Rangers or Kit-Expanding options like Monks, Barbarians in lotrs, so the whole fallacy AD&D is based off lotrs is bat-poo crazy to begin with, there shouldn't even be lotr discussions when someone brings up 2nd.

Don't forget the sheer ability to hit

It's not that I forgot, but can't wrap THAC0 around my head

It is someone no one brought up before through, so I don't feel alone. Nice to see someone does through.

[Unbeliever]

I'm glad that I wasn't missing too much then.  To be fair, the Nazgul was in part defeated by a hapless hobbit with a dagger specifically of "fuck up the Witch-King b/c we are his ancient enemy."  But, that only proves SorO's point above since it'd be the dagger (deus ex pokey thing) rather than the hobbit's skill doing all the work. 

I take your point:  if the Witch King is a master swordsman and he gets laid low by people who are, we expect, much less warrior-y than he is, then what good is being a warrior?  At least in that setting where a lucky untrained short person can undo it?  What good is including that in your fantasy CV? 

For the record, I'd happily get off the Middle Earth bandwagon now in this discussion, despite its fantasy lingua franca role.  Though I'm still not sure what the other fantasy settings would tell us, either. 

[Frogman55]

I in turn am sick of hearing about three books written years ago. So I keep bringing up other sword & sorcery series as an attempt to educate people that there are other things to discuss something other than the world's long walk subverted by flying eagles. You know the most terrible thing? There are no such things as Paladins, Bards, D&D-Style Wizards/Clerics/Druids/Rangers or Kit-Expanding options like Monks, Barbarians in lotrs, so the whole fallacy AD&D is based off lotrs is bat-poo crazy to begin with, there shouldn't even be lotr discussions when someone brings up 2nd.

So, to continue this marginally off topic discussion, I can't help but try and think of the other sword and sorcery (can we refer to the genre as 'sworcery'? Please? Lets make that a thing. ) series I've read.

Lackey's Valdemar books come to mind... and yeah. Magic rules there too. Sure, most of the main characters are gishes of one sort or another, but the series makes it clear that an individual who doesn't at least have some sort of psychic talent just isn't going to be able to stand up to any sort of wizardry. There is a non-magical character who manages it, but that requires the aid of an intelligent magic item that is apparently awesome at counterspelling.

Butcher's Dresden Files includes some normals who can go toe to toe with supernatural types, but as much as the series is driven by rule-of-cool, the normals still need a fair amount of preparation and luck to handle vampires (probably the lowest power supernatural enemy in the setting). It's been clearly influenced by DnD too - a wizard who knows whats coming can handle darn near anything, armies and demigods included.

Martin's Game of Thrones might be an exception here, like Conan. Its clearly a low magic setting, but vanilla knightly types still have a decent chance against a lot of the magic. Even an Other can be taken down with the right special material - that just requires a knowledge check, really. Dragons are nasty and mean, but still die in battle with non-magical foes. The only magic I've really seen there that seems unbeatable to a man with a sword are Melisandre's shadow children assassin things.

I'm also trying to remember more details from Alexander's series - the Black Cauldren and etc. It's been quite a while, so although I don't remember much magic, and I recall largely non-magical folk without the aid of artifacts dealing with wizards (and winning), I don't recall enough. It might be another LotR dynamic.

[linklord231]

I can only think of seven examples of magic in A Song of Ice and Fire (not counting supernatural creatures that don't have supernatural abilities, like Wights, Dragons, or Others).

1)  Bringing people back from the dead.  This trumps mundane fighting 100% of the time, because you can't win a fight against something that keeps coming back.  Possibly limited in some way, otherwise why not bring back your entire army? 
2)  Lighting the dragonglass candle in the Maester's ritual.  This is supposed to be impossible, and is kind of useless anyway.
3)  Skin-Changing.  Better than mundane fighting, unless you can kill a bear, a wolf, and a shadowcat back-to-back. 
4)  Divinations.  Powerful, but not 100% accurate.  This includes both fire-gazing and greenseeing.  Firegazing seems to be the easiest magic to learn. 
5)  Face-Changing.  Better than being sneaky. 
6)  Shadow-birthing.  Appears to be 100% effective, but physically draining to the... "parents".  Also limited by proximity to the target, and time (takes a few days' gestation)
7)  Fire manipulation.  Not sure if this can be used offensively, or just for entertainment. 

Of those, 1 and 6 are limited to single individuals, and 2 is rare to the point that most believe it doesn't exist. 

I can think of only 2 examples where mundane strength beat magic:
1)  Jon Snow killing Orell
2)  Denarys killing the Undying Ones (this might not count, because the warlocks don't actually seem to do any magic)

So, even in a setting where magic is supposed to be super rare and costly, you're still better off being magical than mundane. 

[MeanFightingGuy]

But, the vast majority of "great deeds" are done by swinging of swords.  Which is to say it isn't that they wizard away all of their problems.  And, really, only the Wizards, and then only Gandalf, can both fight and do things that seem magical.  Gil-Galad, Turin, Maedhros don't do anything "magical" to my knowledge.  There are magical people who can fight and do heroics, besides Gandalf there's Feanor -- maker of the silmarils and the palantirs -- and also a great warrior.  Though not a lot of people who have a kind of spellcaster feel, rather than great at lore or crafts, and can also fight spring to mind besides Gandalf.  I could be missing somebody, though. 

As mentioned Luthién, Elrond, Galadriel. Furthermore Celebrimbor (Feanor's grandson, another smith), Maglor perhaps (magesinger), Finrod Felagund definitely (his singing duel with Sauron), Glorfindel (prophecy to Earnur), Eol (yet another craftsman). Interestingly also Huor IIRC (his prophecy to Turgon). Odds are that some of the other Elven bigshots also would have been shown having some mojo at their disposal if they had been the focus of a story like f.ex. Luthién, they just didn't get that much screentime. But the thing is - real spellcasters are super-rare, magic in general strikes me more as something that is used to augment a singular talent or a craft than anything else, and the guys who use it are something that would be NPCs in any given RPG.

Fun fact on the side: Even though he was the most powerful being in the world (and the second most powerful being after the setting's God), Morgoth still wasn't able to just fry a puny Elf with some spell. This also says something about the limits of magic here.

Because that's how little "fighter" is truly worth in Tolken's world, a meaningless attribute every character in the series has. Almost like "magic" is a free attribute just because you're an elf.
I in turn am sick of hearing about three books written years ago.

You're right with your assessment about the roles of fighters and magic in Tolkien's world, but, you know, we could have just had avoided that discussion in the first place under these circumstances...

I can only think of seven examples of magic in A Song of Ice and Fire [...] So, even in a setting where magic is supposed to be super rare and costly, you're still better off being magical than mundane.

You forgot Victarion's arm and the glamour spell.
The question is whether magic would be worth it if it wasn't better in some regard. But another question is also how much better it makes someone and what he or she has to sacrifice for it. Melisandre has access to some nifty feats, but the more powerful ones are usually tied to human sacrifice and some are limited in its use. All in all, while her role can't be filled by someone else, she would also be unable to take someone else's part herself. Shadowkilling is nice, being only able to do it as long as you're not out of royal blood sucks.
So, in game terms: When it comes to versatility, what tier would she be on JaronKs list? Would I want to have a Melisandre at the disposal of my character? Sure. Would I let her fill a spot in my group? Nope, she's better used elsewhere - her magic that has so many strings attached may be good to have an impact at certain points, but I'd swap her without hesitation with a warg or a faceless men. Would I want to play one? Certainly not.

Another problem with magic in most RPGs as opposed to novels - magic, albeit usually stated to be rare and only available to those having been born with the gift, is still something a player can choose to have access to. By making a resource that's pretty scarce in-universe readily available, any given system would have to account for it being on par with mundane skills of the same levels. DnD totally failed at that.

[Frogman55]

I can only think of seven examples of magic in A Song of Ice and Fire (not counting supernatural creatures that don't have supernatural abilities, like Wights, Dragons, or Others).

Others have supernatural abilities - they clearly are able to freeze things, and craft swords and the like out of ice. They also are implied to be able to create the wights in the first place.

And dragons, well, maybe they don't cast spells, but they're tied into supernatural stuff, and apparently have powers over magic, if only as a source.

1)  Bringing people back from the dead.  This trumps mundane fighting 100% of the time, because you can't win a fight against something that keeps coming back.  Possibly limited in some way, otherwise why not bring back your entire army? 

But you're still just bringing back the same guy again. Access to resurrection magic is great, but effectively it's still just another sword. I get your point here, resurrections are pretty uber, but you're still limited by the material - the resurrected individual is still the same individual. Sort of. Not really. We don't really know what changes, but yeah...

2)  Lighting the dragonglass candle in the Maester's ritual.  This is supposed to be impossible, and is kind of useless anyway.

Yup. Useless.

3)  Skin-Changing.  Better than mundane fighting, unless you can kill a bear, a wolf, and a shadowcat back-to-back.

Generally true - but GoT Wargs are still a long way off from actual shape-changing. The animals in question get some intelligence bonuses, but they're still just animals.

4)  Divinations.  Powerful, but not 100% accurate.  This includes both fire-gazing and greenseeing.  Firegazing seems to be the easiest magic to learn. 

Divination in the hands of a smart user will probably always be the most dominating form of magic. Preparation always equals wins. I'll give this one to you. Its worth noting though that the casters generally need sword-arms or stone walls handy to protect themselves against attackers.

5)  Face-Changing.  Better than being sneaky. 

Its certainly nice when trying to get away. I'm not sure if it adds much power to someones sword arm though. I don't recall anyone being able to mimic an existing face, which is where face-changing assassination really gets effective.

6) Shadow-birthing.  Appears to be 100% effective, but physically draining to the... "parents".  Also limited by proximity to the target, and time (takes a few days' gestation)

Yeah, this is the big deal in the setting. I'm not even sure if distance is a real defense - they weren't getting close when Davos took them under Storm's End, they were getting past the walls with their ancient defensive magics.

7)  Fire manipulation.  Not sure if this can be used offensively, or just for entertainment. 

We've had flaming swords, but their value seems largely psychological. I suppose the wildfire seems to be magical alchemy which can be used offensively.

I can think of only 2 examples where mundane strength beat magic:
1)  Jon Snow killing Orell
2)  Denarys killing the Undying Ones (this might not count, because the warlocks don't actually seem to do any magic)

So, even in a setting where magic is supposed to be super rare and costly, you're still better off being magical than mundane.

I wouldn't say Dany killed the undying ones - Drogon did it. Dragons > Magic. Or perhaps Dragons = Magic. It's not entirely clear what the relationship is, but it seems that a dragon will pretty much always trump various supernatural things.

Also:
3) Dany (and her army) took down the Maegi lady (twice, technically). All the Maegi really managed was to force a miscarriage.
4) Samwell, despite lacking anything resembling martial ability, took down an Other with a knife. You could argue that his win was based on a magic item, or exploiting a weakness, but still - it was an obsidian knife, thats all.

Keep in mind that the main reason its hard to find examples of mundanes trumping magic is because almost none of the magic has been confrontational. Of the six types of magic you listed, only one involved magic targeting an individual.

It also isn't clear how hard it is to learn magic. Some of it seems divine in nature - the fire magic in particular, but we have no idea how hard it would be to become a priest of the fire god. Wargs seem to be a bloodline thing - it can be learned, but you need ability to start with. Greenseeing is the same. It seems like anyone could learn to change their face - but we're not sure how much effort is involved. In DnD terms magic is probably on a par with taking a prestige class, or maybe even just a feat in some cases.


I'll agree with you, magic is certainly an advantage. However, other than a few assassinations, it doesn't seem to be much of a game changer. No one is teleporting through walls, single-handedly defeating armies (unless you're Aegon the Conquerer with a handful of dragons)(I'd probably argue that the dragons are an army), altering the landscape, or otherwise throwing down 'I win' buttons. In other words, the magic there is largely used for utility (scouting functions, and a few social ones) rather than combat. In combat, the sword seems to still usually win.

[Amechra]

Malazan Book of the Fallen.
Malazan Book of the Fallen.
Malazan Book of the Fallen.
Malazan Book of the Fallen.

No seriously; while the mightiest guy in the world is technically a Gish with a borked magical weapon, there's still the case of a guy straight-up killing someone whose sword made him auto-rez.

By chopping off his arm and then waiting for him to bleed to death.

I mean, technically that guy has a bunch of souls bound up in his weapon, but those seem to be bragging rights more than something that boosts the weapon.

[Unbeliever]

Y'know, I was thinking of bringing up Malazan in the course of this discussion.  But, I find it hard to even figure out what counts as "mundane" in that setting. 

One thing that Malazan has going for it, and GoT has this kind of, too, is that there's nothing approaching invulnerability.  A D&D mage can make himself all but invulnerable to guys with swords.  Even just flight is super handy in that regard.  But, in Malazan, the most mystical gods, the most powerful archmages, the most ancient shapeshifting dragons ... well, a really good swordsman, or a couple of crazy jackasses with grenades and that's all she wrote.

The same is mostly true in GoT.  As Frogman notes, resurrection doesn't make you invincible.  And,  it seems to have other drawbacks as well.  The same is true with Wargs:  even the toughest Warg we've met is probably no match for Jaime, Dunk, Gregor, etc. 

Magic is handy, and in Malazan's case extremely powerful, just not an "I win" button, especially in most cases.  Sure, you'd rather have magic and everything else available to you.  You'd rather be Anomander Rake -- an uber mage and an uber swordsman and a dragon and like everything else you can think of -- than "just" the First Sword of the Empire.  But, an equally skilled/experienced guy with a pokey thing and an equally skilled/experienced mage are equally matched, more or less. 

[Stratovarius]

Y'know, I was thinking of bringing up Malazan in the course of this discussion.  But, I find it hard to even figure out what counts as "mundane" in that setting.

By the end of the series? Honestly, no one. Every single main character is either magical, possessed of the world's deadliest magical weapons, a shapeshifter, or a member of one of the houses. And usually multiples of the above. Hell, an entire army resurrects as Death's Chosen, never mind the power of the named characters in said army.

It's a setting where, by and large, the power of everything just got turned to 11.

[Emanresu]

You know I played fighters from early 80's and yes they were strong..........but hey I aint never, NEVER ever had a fighter cause over 500 hit points in damage on 1 attack.  MULTIPLE times until recent DnD.

Just to let you know nobody was straight class back then I dont think, everybody was multiclassed.

[Keldar]

Why would anyone need to do 500 damage in a single attack when very few creatures had much more than 100 hit points before 3E?  And most were well below that mark.  That change is why blasting suddenly became worthless with 3E, 10d6 damage Fireballs went from ending encounters to tickling.

[Raineh Daze]

Vast amounts of HD and weapons doing the same ol' 2d6 damage isn't really productive.

[phaedrusxy]

Why would anyone need to do 500 damage in a single attack when very few creatures had much more than 100 hit points before 3E?  And most were well below that mark.  That change is why blasting suddenly became worthless with 3E, 10d6 damage Fireballs went from ending encounters to tickling.

Bingo. Even dragons didn't have that many HPs. Fireballs were actually scary.

[Keldar]

Dragons used to be enormous (100 to 200 feet long for wyrms, not counting tails), but kinda squishy.  With 3E they wound up a quarter the size, but with quadruple the hit points.  They finally had stats to go with the bulk, but lost all the bulk.


Monsters didn't get Constitutions, and no one but warriors got higher than +2 hp/ die.  That change alone was enormous.

[Unbeliever]

I'm a little confused by the above line of posts.  Isn't the one thing that fighter-types can do well in 3E is damage? 

You might even be able to argue that there's been a kind of move to spellcasters, et al. being not primary damage dealers, at least not through magic alone, instead moving into control, buffing, save or die, and so on.  Leaving attack rolls, whether done by an ubercharger or a summon or a buffed up gish-type character, as the most attractive sources of damage. 

On that read, the extra hit points of 3E compared to earlier editions is a good thing for guys who swing swords.  It gives them a niche.  If you deal 100 damage and all enemies have 30 hp, then who cares?  If you deal 100 damage and enemies have comparable hp, then the difference between 100 damage and fireball's measly 10d6 starts to show.