The Windstorm Principle

[Bozwevial]

There's a world of difference between "This system doesn't allow you to make a kick-butt archer with no arms" and "Fighters inherently suck in this system."  The original observation has a lot of validity; 3.5, for all its flexibility, simply doesn't facilitate certain character concepts that SHOULD be viable.  The fact that a sword and board fighter sucks eggs is a failing of the system, not a failing of the player who desires to play a competent sword and board fighter.

Granted. My point (which has since been lost in the maelstrom of people actually making an armless archer who is not 'armless) is that certain character concepts are simply not viable under normal circumstances. D&D 3.5 is actually fairly good in that you can seriously make Stubbs the Stumpy Sharpshooter (with a bit of tweaking), but in most systems, the fact that this character is unsupported is not a failing of the system but a failing of the concept itself.

Likewise, I'd argue that the concept of "a sword and board fighter" ceases to be viable at higher levels, merely because of the power scaling. When your best friend is a fire mage who can rip the core out of a world and throw it at Galactus (which he is doing because your opposition is Galactus), you need to be something well beyond what many people would consider the height of martial prowess. At that point, your abilities likely overshadow your tools, and while thematically they may still be in line with your original concept, they're not going to be the first things people mention when they describe you.

[caelic]

Likewise, I'd argue that the concept of "a sword and board fighter" ceases to be viable at higher levels, merely because of the power scaling. When your best friend is a fire mage who can rip the core out of a world and throw it at Galactus (which he is doing because your opposition is Galactus), you need to be something well beyond what many people would consider the height of martial prowess. At that point, your abilities likely overshadow your tools, and while thematically they may still be in line with your original concept, they're not going to be the first things people mention when they describe you.

...which invites the obvious question: why is a system where spellcasters quickly reach a level where they can rip out the core of a world a good thing?  Why is it good design to grant so much power to magic that nothing else can possibly compete unless it's a slightly different flavor of magic?

There are plenty of fantasy systems on the market where a sword and board fighter (or any other kind of fighter) IS a valid and viable concept, and REMAINS a valid and viable concept...this DESPITE the fact that there are spellcasters, who also represent a valid and viable concept while not completely dominating the game.

Again, I maintain that the fact that a sword and board fighter (ANY fighter, really) ceases to be viable very quickly is a failure of the system--not a necessary part of the genre.

[Bozwevial]

...which invites the obvious question: why is a system where spellcasters quickly reach a level where they can rip out the core of a world a good thing?  Why is it good design to grant so much power to magic that nothing else can possibly compete unless it's a slightly different flavor of magic?

3.5 is an entertaining system to tinker with, but let's not pretend that it doesn't have some pretty colossal design flaws.

No one is pretending that. 3.5 most assuredly does not lend itself to games which stay within the bounds of traditional fantasy power struggles, and if that's what you want I'd suggest either playing E6 or using a different system altogether.

What I'm pointing out is that you can only stretch certain concepts so far before they become unfeasible and unsupported by a system. If your system is set up so that you won't ever reach a point where fire mages are lobbing core bombs, then that's not even a problem and Captain America stays relevant. Some people enjoy systems like this because they don't like playing Assault on the Unreality Fortress and think it's more realistic for martial characters to cap out somewhere around Achilles. Others enjoy high-powered games where you can carry planets around in your pocket and no one blinks twice.

Edit in response to your own: This is perfectly true. Plenty of systems, fantasy and otherwise, have martial characters who can stay relevant throughout their careers. The problem is that in 3.5, magic quickly becomes an overwhelming, cosmic-level force, and martial power does not.

[caelic]

What I'm pointing out is that you can only stretch certain concepts so far before they become unfeasible and unsupported by a system. If your system is set up so that you won't ever reach a point where fire mages are lobbing core bombs, then that's not even a problem and Captain America stays relevant. Some people enjoy systems like this because they don't like playing Assault on the Unreality Fortress and think it's more realistic for martial characters to cap out somewhere around Achilles. Others enjoy high-powered games where you can carry planets around in your pocket and no one blinks twice.

Edit in response to your own: This is perfectly true. Plenty of systems, fantasy and otherwise, have martial characters who can stay relevant throughout their careers. The problem is that in 3.5, magic quickly becomes an overwhelming, cosmic-level force, and martial power does not.

The reason I would argue that this is a problem and a design flaw is because it's not the system they advertise.  If the game was, say, Exalted...or Dragonball the RPG...then everything would be groovy.  Characters are supposed to quickly achieve godlike levels of power, and thus, having mechanics that support quickly achieving godlike levels of power is both appropriate and good design.  The engine facilitates the desired type of play.

D&D 3.5 claims to be a heroic fantasy game suitable for knights-in-shining-armor or gritty thieves-guild-fighting-for-turf-in-the-city type play, and it's not.  The mechanics do not, and never have, matched the type of play that they present as appropriate and typical.

Nor is D&D 3.5 easily adaptable to different levels.  It's not as if you can play at a gritty street level if you just exclude supplements X, Y, and Z; the druid will still eat your face, the cleric will still summon a horde of angels to make you look inadequate, and the wizard is still the frigging Batman.  It's entirely possible to achieve godlike levels of power unintentionally, because that's what the system is set up to facilitate, whether the designers realized it or not.

It's not that "Become a god a third of the way through your career" is inherently wrong; it's that "Become a god a third of the way through your career" is a problem in a game that insists you don't become a god until the end of your career.  The dissonance is the difficulty.

[Bozwevial]

The reason I would argue that this is a problem and a design flaw is because it's not the system they advertise.  If the game was, say, Exalted...or Dragonball the RPG...then everything would be groovy.  Characters are supposed to quickly achieve godlike levels of power, and thus, having mechanics that support quickly achieving godlike levels of power is both appropriate and good design.  The engine facilitates the desired type of play.

D&D 3.5 claims to be a heroic fantasy game suitable for knights-in-shining-armor or gritty thieves-guild-fighting-for-turf-in-the-city type play, and it's not.  The mechanics do not, and never have, matched the type of play that they present as appropriate and typical.

Nor is D&D 3.5 easily adaptable to different levels.  It's not as if you can play at a gritty street level if you just exclude supplements X, Y, and Z; the druid will still eat your face, the cleric will still summon a horde of angels to make you look inadequate, and the wizard is still the frigging Batman.  It's entirely possible to achieve godlike levels of power unintentionally, because that's what the system is set up to facilitate, whether the designers realized it or not.

It's not that "Become a god a third of the way through your career" is inherently wrong; it's that "Become a god a third of the way through your career" is a problem in a game that insists you don't become a god until the end of your career.  The dissonance is the difficulty.

Right. This isn't even so much a "have your cake and eat it too" situation as it is spilling the cake down the front of your shirt.

Even if the designers had been going for hard and fast power scaling that quickly reaches godlike levels instead of reaching godhood at the very end of your career, that's still incompatible with keeping certain concepts alive over the course of an entire game. The fact that you hit "extremely powerful" at an early level and just keep going only exacerbates the problem.

[Whisper]

An RPG system where a character concept inhibits optimization is failed system.

Counterargument: I wish to play an archer who has no arms.

Troll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

[Whisper]

Your Stormfront Fallacy addresses a nonissue. I have never heard of someone taking penalties based on race in a game of D&D.

I find it very hard to believe that you have never read the rules for races in 3.5.

I meant penalties applied by the DM which defy RAW, like a penalty to ranged attacks for dwarves, which seems to be what the OP is addressing.
I'll edit that in for clarity, though.

Who said anything about defying RAW? I point out racism codified into the rules, and you say it doesn't count because it's codified into the rules? What kind of sense does that make?

Let me give you more concrete example.

Suppose I give males a massive bonus to strength. This effectively penalizes everyone who wishes to play a female character.

If we look at any sort of male vs. strength data, men are overwhelmingly stronger. But is this a justification for giving all males characters a strength bonus?

Only if you don't understand statistics. Every individual female is precisely as strong as she is. The fact that other females are weaker doesn't personally affect her. Statistics only allows you to say things about populations, not individuals.

Is there anyone here who would be comfortable telling a player that their (female) character is going to be weaker than the male characters because she's female?

Of course not. We realize in this instance that PCs are exceptional individuals. Exceptional individuals, by definition, deviate from population norms.

If a wish to play the strongest halfling ever, why should I have a penalty to strength? Because halflings, on average, are weaker? I'm not playing *all* halflings. I'm playing ONE halfling.

Stormfront fallacy.

[Kajhera]

I'd kind of like to get claws, teeth, fire-breathing, and scales for playing a dragon...

[SneeR]

Your Stormfront Fallacy addresses a nonissue. I have never heard of someone taking penalties based on race in a game of D&D.

I find it very hard to believe that you have never read the rules for races in 3.5.

I meant penalties applied by the DM which defy RAW, like a penalty to ranged attacks for dwarves, which seems to be what the OP is addressing.
I'll edit that in for clarity, though.

[goodness that makes sense concerning populations and statistics]
Stormfront fallacy.

However, certain things are inherent. A human female could conceivably be as strong as a human male; they are not so different that, at the pique of possible human strength that human males will be necessarily always stronger.

However, some generalizations just are. For example, halflings. If a human and a halfling both take the exact same measures to be come as strong as possible (and I mean the exact same), the human male will always have an edge because halflings are 3 feet tall. A human will be weaker than an identical orc and a halfling weaker than both.

PCs are special. You can have a halfling barbarian with a base 18 STR. He will be stronger than every halfling and will be stronger than most humans and orcs, too, though not necessarily PCs of those races. That is where the distinction comes in.

The Stormfront Fallacy is an objection to verisimilitude. Just as the average orc is always stronger than average halflings, birds, and elves, so an orc at top physical condition will also always be stornger than halflings, birds, and elves at top physical condition. The bell curve is merely shifted upwards.

The objection is comparable to saying, "It is fallacious to say that that, since the average higher-level character is better than equivalent lower-level characters, all higher-level characters should be made inherently better than lower-level characters in RPGs."

That isn't a fallacy; it just is.

(click to show/hide)

To come back to the STR and archery analogy, let's use an extreme example.
A full-grown man (you, please don't be offended by my supposition), and a child. We'll say that the child has a -2 STR for this example in game terms, but just consider it in your mind outside of rules, as well.

You and this child both begin this experiment as desk jockey types. (10 STR base.) You both step into a timeless void and practice and train profusely for the same amount of time. Neither of you age, but you both grow in STR to base 18. You becaome as buff as conceivable, and so does the child.

Will that child ever swing a bat as hard as you? Will that child ever surpass you in archery? Well, no, and that makes sense. It's a child. It is physically incapable of being as strong as you, and both of you can never get better than perfect accuracy with a bow. Can a child pull as heavy a bow as a man?

That is the level of difference between races. Elves will always be better shots than dwarves Just as men will aslways be stronger than halflings or children. That difference can never be overcome in comparison to others who are equal, ceterus paribus.

[Bozwevial]

An RPG system where a character concept inhibits optimization is failed system.

Counterargument: I wish to play an archer who has no arms.

Troll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

The example given was extreme, but the point being made is that sometimes the character concept itself inhibits optimization and not the system. Take your finger off the trigger there.

[DonQuixote]

My point (which has since been lost in the maelstrom of people actually making an armless archer who is not 'armless)

I can only stand here, basking in the glory of the pun.

[Zionpopsickle]

There's a world of difference between "This system doesn't allow you to make a kick-butt archer with no arms" and "Fighters inherently suck in this system."  The original observation has a lot of validity; 3.5, for all its flexibility, simply doesn't facilitate certain character concepts that SHOULD be viable.  The fact that a sword and board fighter sucks eggs is a failing of the system, not a failing of the player who desires to play a competent sword and board fighter.

Granted. My point (which has since been lost in the maelstrom of people actually making an armless archer who is not 'armless) is that certain character concepts are simply not viable under normal circumstances. D&D 3.5 is actually fairly good in that you can seriously make Stubbs the Stumpy Sharpshooter (with a bit of tweaking), but in most systems, the fact that this character is unsupported is not a failing of the system but a failing of the concept itself.

Likewise, I'd argue that the concept of "a sword and board fighter" ceases to be viable at higher levels, merely because of the power scaling. When your best friend is a fire mage who can rip the core out of a world and throw it at Galactus (which he is doing because your opposition is Galactus), you need to be something well beyond what many people would consider the height of martial prowess. At that point, your abilities likely overshadow your tools, and while thematically they may still be in line with your original concept, they're not going to be the first things people mention when they describe you.

While not necessarily wrong you are displaying the same cognitive disconnect that the D&D designers often display.  If we take magic as an inherent part of the D&D world and magical phenomena can occur naturally (which they do) then there is no logical foundation for why a sword and board fighter cannot compete on such a level because magic within such a system has to be mundane to everyday existence (otherwise you couldn't be fighting giant flying lizards and owlbears).  It is only the preconceived notions of the designers that preclude a sword and fighter from say blocking that planetary core with his shield or planeshifting by cutting through dimensions with his sword (its sharp you see) or breaking a wall of force with sheer machismo.  Magic is a natural part of the world (see druids) and thus any character should be achieving magical feats of ability over the course of their career.  It is simply that the designers and gamers have become wedded to a paradigm that is not logically supported by the premises of the universe. 

Really, it is bad game design based upon a failed realization of what is required to stay relevant, but most concept can be tweaked to fight within a system as long as the basic premises of the world can support it.  Some concept are of course doomed to failure because they are unsupported by the operation mechanics of the fictional universe but within D&D itself mundanes are hampered by poor design and not by an inherent lack of universal support.

[Bozwevial]

While not necessarily wrong you are displaying the same cognitive disconnect that the D&D designers often display.  If we take magic as an inherent part of the D&D world and magical phenomena can occur naturally (which they do) then there is no logical foundation for why a sword and board fighter cannot compete on such a level because magic within such a system has to be mundane to everyday existence (otherwise you couldn't be fighting giant flying lizards and owlbears).  It is only the preconceived notions of the designers that preclude a sword and fighter from say blocking that planetary core with his shield or planeshifting by cutting through dimensions with his sword (its sharp you see) or breaking a wall of force with sheer machismo.  Magic is a natural part of the world (see druids) and thus any character should be achieving magical feats of ability over the course of their career.  It is simply that the designers and gamers have become wedded to a paradigm that is not logically supported by the premises of the universe. 

Really, it is bad game design based upon a failed realization of what is required to stay relevant, but most concept can be tweaked to fight within a system as long as the basic premises of the world can support it.  Some concept are of course doomed to failure because they are unsupported by the operation mechanics of the fictional universe but within D&D itself mundanes are hampered by poor design and not by an inherent lack of universal support.

At the point where you are able to perform such feats, you're looking at "mundane" in the rear-view mirror, and at that point it doesn't matter if you're using a shield, a mace, a spiked chain, or whatever. People will remember you because you can tear holes in reality and block projectile weapons the size of Jupiter, not because you're super good at using a sword and shield, and so your character concept stops being "Captain America" and starts being "Dawn Caste Exalted."

I'm not arguing that fighters can't be relevant over the course of an entire game (even though they really aren't in 3.5 without some serious tweaking). No one is arguing that, and I'm certainly not saying that fighters should be limited to abilities that are realistic for some given value of realistic. I'm arguing that past a certain point the abilities they have to develop to stay relevant overshadow the other aspects of their character, to the point where "fighter" is no longer satisfactory as a descriptive term. "Fighter" is an inherently low-level concept, and there is a point where it becomes obsolete and is set aside for other character concepts. In some game systems, that point exists far outside the range of character growth. In others, like 3.5, you can pretty much point to it and say, "from here on out you must be this outrageous to ride."

[Zionpopsickle]

While not necessarily wrong you are displaying the same cognitive disconnect that the D&D designers often display.  If we take magic as an inherent part of the D&D world and magical phenomena can occur naturally (which they do) then there is no logical foundation for why a sword and board fighter cannot compete on such a level because magic within such a system has to be mundane to everyday existence (otherwise you couldn't be fighting giant flying lizards and owlbears).  It is only the preconceived notions of the designers that preclude a sword and fighter from say blocking that planetary core with his shield or planeshifting by cutting through dimensions with his sword (its sharp you see) or breaking a wall of force with sheer machismo.  Magic is a natural part of the world (see druids) and thus any character should be achieving magical feats of ability over the course of their career.  It is simply that the designers and gamers have become wedded to a paradigm that is not logically supported by the premises of the universe. 

Really, it is bad game design based upon a failed realization of what is required to stay relevant, but most concept can be tweaked to fight within a system as long as the basic premises of the world can support it.  Some concept are of course doomed to failure because they are unsupported by the operation mechanics of the fictional universe but within D&D itself mundanes are hampered by poor design and not by an inherent lack of universal support.

At the point where you are able to perform such feats, you're looking at "mundane" in the rear-view mirror, and at that point it doesn't matter if you're using a shield, a mace, a spiked chain, or whatever. People will remember you because you can tear holes in reality and block projectile weapons the size of Jupiter, not because you're super good at using a sword and shield, and so your character concept stops being "Captain America" and starts being "Dawn Caste Exalted."

I'm not arguing that fighters can't be relevant over the course of an entire game (even though they really aren't in 3.5 without some serious tweaking). No one is arguing that, and I'm certainly not saying that fighters should be limited to abilities that are realistic for some given value of realistic. I'm arguing that past a certain point the abilities they have to develop to stay relevant overshadow the other aspects of their character, to the point where "fighter" is no longer satisfactory as a descriptive term. "Fighter" is an inherently low-level concept, and there is a point where it becomes obsolete and is set aside for other character concepts. In some game systems, that point exists far outside the range of character growth. In others, like 3.5, you can pretty much point to it and say, "from here on out you must be this outrageous to ride."

I think you are straying dangerously close to the No True Scotsman fallacy there.  Really the essence of a fighter is that you use a weapon to beat on things; it is unimportant if this weapon is a normal longsword or a broadsword the size of a skyscraper.  Same thing with the monk who uses martial arts to do shit; it can be realistic or can be dragonball Z planet destroying hadokens.  Fighter is no more a low-level concept than any other concept that abides by the rules of the universe.  The problem is when there are different sets of rules for different concepts and these different rules sets have differing power levels, such as is the case of D&D.

To put it another way; I don't think you would argue that a warblade is not a "fighter" archetype, yet the warblade is a solid Tier 3 character who can contribute over the course of the entire game.  And nothing it does is unbelievable in a universe where low-level mages make space time their bitch and priests call down divine fire from the heavens.  Basically, the idea that a concept is a failure must come from the concept in the context of the universe.  The two cannot be easily disconnected because there is no platonic form of said concepts beyond such vague descriptions as to be meaningless without some other narrative framework to give them substance.

Really, the failure of mundanes in D&D was the failure of the initial designers imagination and understanding of the rules and universe they were creating.  Tome of Battle could be argued to be a realization of the possibilities that were already present but unseen by the designers in their cognitive disconnect.

[Bozwevial]

I think you are straying dangerously close to the No True Scotsman fallacy there.  Really the essence of a fighter is that you use a weapon to beat on things; it is unimportant if this weapon is a normal longsword or a broadsword the size of a skyscraper.  Same thing with the monk who uses martial arts to do shit; it can be realistic or can be dragonball Z planet destroying hadokens.  Fighter is no more a low-level concept than any other concept that abides by the rules of the universe.  The problem is when there are different sets of rules for different concepts and these different rules sets have differing power levels, such as is the case of D&D.

Again, if you have the ability to beat people up really well alongside reality-warping powers, then the fighting prowess takes a backseat to the reality-warping powers. If all you have is a guy who can beat people up really well, then he doesn't belong in the same league as a powerful wizard even if his sword is the size of your average house.

To put it another way; I don't think you would argue that a warblade is not a "fighter" archetype, yet the warblade is a solid Tier 3 character who can contribute over the course of the entire game.  And nothing it does is unbelievable in a universe where low-level mages make space time their bitch and priests call down divine fire from the heavens.  Basically, the idea that a concept is a failure must come from the concept in the context of the universe.  The two cannot be easily disconnected because there is no platonic form of said concepts beyond such vague descriptions as to be meaningless without some other narrative framework to give them substance.

A warblade can contribute well to combat and vaguely beyond that. It doesn't receive the sort of campaign-changing powers of a wizard or cleric, and that's the balance metric I have in mind. Those two exist, regardless of the intent of the designers, and you can either accept that and the fact that certain concepts will become obsolete or you can change the game's balance to let those concepts stay relevant longer.

In the context of D&D 3.5, you have rapid power scaling that quickly reaches dizzying heights. At those heights, mundanes simply do not work. That has been proven time and again, and the only way for them to start working is for them, at some point, to stop being mundanes.

[Zionpopsickle]

I think you are straying dangerously close to the No True Scotsman fallacy there.  Really the essence of a fighter is that you use a weapon to beat on things; it is unimportant if this weapon is a normal longsword or a broadsword the size of a skyscraper.  Same thing with the monk who uses martial arts to do shit; it can be realistic or can be dragonball Z planet destroying hadokens.  Fighter is no more a low-level concept than any other concept that abides by the rules of the universe.  The problem is when there are different sets of rules for different concepts and these different rules sets have differing power levels, such as is the case of D&D.

Again, if you have the ability to beat people up really well alongside reality-warping powers, then the fighting prowess takes a backseat to the reality-warping powers. If all you have is a guy who can beat people up really well, then he doesn't belong in the same league as a powerful wizard even if his sword is the size of your average house.

To put it another way; I don't think you would argue that a warblade is not a "fighter" archetype, yet the warblade is a solid Tier 3 character who can contribute over the course of the entire game.  And nothing it does is unbelievable in a universe where low-level mages make space time their bitch and priests call down divine fire from the heavens.  Basically, the idea that a concept is a failure must come from the concept in the context of the universe.  The two cannot be easily disconnected because there is no platonic form of said concepts beyond such vague descriptions as to be meaningless without some other narrative framework to give them substance.

A warblade can contribute well to combat and vaguely beyond that. It doesn't receive the sort of campaign-changing powers of a wizard or cleric, and that's the balance metric I have in mind. Those two exist, regardless of the intent of the designers, and you can either accept that and the fact that certain concepts will become obsolete or you can change the game's balance to let those concepts stay relevant longer.

In the context of D&D 3.5, you have rapid power scaling that quickly reaches dizzying heights. At those heights, mundanes simply do not work. That has been proven time and again, and the only way for them to start working is for them, at some point, to stop being mundanes.

No real disagreements to any of that.  The main thrust of my argument is that within D&D magic is commonplace enough that the usage of it would fall under what a reasonable person would consider "mundane".  Now Mundanes like Fighters and Monks lack of access to such is a problem of design not of the concept as a whole.  In a world were fire-breathing dragons build dungeons to count their coins there is an odd disconnect that the best a fighter can do on his lonesome is get a sharp stick and charge but again this is a failure of the design and not of the universe as a whole.

Really, the fact that the magic system for D&D is broken is really the fault.  At some point access to magic or magic-like abilities becomes necessary, as you pointed out.  My contention is simply that magic is mundane enough in the universe of D&D that it is the fault of the design of mundanes, not the vague concepts they represent that mundanes fail at high-levels.  There is no incompatibility between mages have reality warping powers and warriors doing reality defying things within the framework of a world where being a hippy allows you to call lightning from the heavens and transform into a bear.

I will again point out the ToB fixed a number of concepts such as the fighter (warblade), paladin (crusader/RKV) and swashbuckler (swordsage) and for most non-grognards is keeping well within the flavor of D&D as a whole.

But I will agree that the core mundanes conceptually fail at high-levels and would need to be reimagined like ToB did in order to stay relevant.

And thank you for the very pleasant argument on this subject.  It is very nice to have a disagreement with someone that does not involve petulant rhetoric.

[Unbeliever]

I think you are straying dangerously close to the No True Scotsman fallacy there.  Really the essence of a fighter is that you use a weapon to beat on things; it is unimportant if this weapon is a normal longsword or a broadsword the size of a skyscraper.  Same thing with the monk who uses martial arts to do shit; it can be realistic or can be dragonball Z planet destroying hadokens.  Fighter is no more a low-level concept than any other concept that abides by the rules of the universe.  The problem is when there are different sets of rules for different concepts and these different rules sets have differing power levels, such as is the case of D&D.

Again, if you have the ability to beat people up really well alongside reality-warping powers, then the fighting prowess takes a backseat to the reality-warping powers. If all you have is a guy who can beat people up really well, then he doesn't belong in the same league as a powerful wizard even if his sword is the size of your average house.

I actually totally disagree with this. 

I've mentioned this before, though it might have been the old boards.  D&D is a game that in large part revolves around combat.  So, being able to be really really good at combat is, I think, enough to be totally interesting and relevant besides someone who can warp reality.  That is, provided warping reality does not get to mechanically trump whatever the combat abilities are. 

Allow me two examples that may try to illustrate my point.  First, in Diablo II, the fact that the Sorceress has the ability to teleport (something closer to "warp reality" on the spectrum) and the Barbarian can just hit things, doesn't really matter b/c hitting things in large part is why you're there and the Barbarian is really really good at it.  You can substitute Skyrim or whatever your favorite flavor of action RPG is for the same argument.  Likewise, the Incredible Hulk or Superman are both totally viable archetypes in comic books and comic book genre RPGs even though there are reality-benders out there like Doctor Strange, Doctor Fate, Reed Richards, and the new rainbow coalition of Lantern Corps.  It's only when the latter get to invalidate the former that you run into problems. 

Another example might be Shonen anime.  "Bleach" is one of my guilty pleasures, and there's a lot of magic there, but it takes a backseat to the face-punching for various reasons. 

Finally, I'd like to add that there's a long, long tradition in fantasy literature of heroes beating magical casters and entities through either grit or cunning.  In part, this is b/c magic is relatively limited in a lot of these cases -- often more mind-affecting, illusions, or summoning.  Even in a highly magical environment (viz., Elric of Melnibone) this could be the case.  I think it's more a mechanical thing, or perhaps a product at how broad D&D magic is -- namely that it can do anything -- that might be an issue. 

P.S.: 

And thank you for the very pleasant argument on this subject.  It is very nice to have a disagreement with someone that does not involve petulant rhetoric.

+1

[Basket Burner]

Allow me two examples that may try to illustrate my point.  First, in Diablo II, the fact that the Sorceress has the ability to teleport (something closer to "warp reality" on the spectrum) and the Barbarian can just hit things, doesn't really matter b/c hitting things in large part is why you're there and the Barbarian is really really good at it.

Funny thing. There's an armor called Enigma. It's not that noteworthy... except for allowing any character of any class to Teleport, at their normal casting speed (and Barb cast speed = Sorc cast speed). It's standard equipment for almost every non Amazon character (terrible cast speed) for that reason and that reason alone.

You could not have chosen a worse example if you tried.

[Bozwevial]

No real disagreements to any of that.  The main thrust of my argument is that within D&D magic is commonplace enough that the usage of it would fall under what a reasonable person would consider "mundane".  Now Mundanes like Fighters and Monks lack of access to such is a problem of design not of the concept as a whole.  In a world were fire-breathing dragons build dungeons to count their coins there is an odd disconnect that the best a fighter can do on his lonesome is get a sharp stick and charge but again this is a failure of the design and not of the universe as a whole.

Really, the fact that the magic system for D&D is broken is really the fault.  At some point access to magic or magic-like abilities becomes necessary, as you pointed out.  My contention is simply that magic is mundane enough in the universe of D&D that it is the fault of the design of mundanes, not the vague concepts they represent that mundanes fail at high-levels.  There is no incompatibility between mages have reality warping powers and warriors doing reality defying things within the framework of a world where being a hippy allows you to call lightning from the heavens and transform into a bear.

I will again point out the ToB fixed a number of concepts such as the fighter (warblade), paladin (crusader/RKV) and swashbuckler (swordsage) and for most non-grognards is keeping well within the flavor of D&D as a whole.

But I will agree that the core mundanes conceptually fail at high-levels and would need to be reimagined like ToB did in order to stay relevant.

I think our only disagreement is one of terminology. I'm using mundane to indicate something that (on the whole) stays within the limits of human performance, not something that isn't overtly magical. But yes, with that clarified I agree.

And thank you for the very pleasant argument on this subject.  It is very nice to have a disagreement with someone that does not involve petulant rhetoric.

Likewise.

I actually totally disagree with this. 

I've mentioned this before, though it might have been the old boards.  D&D is a game that in large part revolves around combat.  So, being able to be really really good at combat is, I think, enough to be totally interesting and relevant besides someone who can warp reality.  That is, provided warping reality does not get to mechanically trump whatever the combat abilities are. 

Allow me two examples that may try to illustrate my point.  First, in Diablo II, the fact that the Sorceress has the ability to teleport (something closer to "warp reality" on the spectrum) and the Barbarian can just hit things, doesn't really matter b/c hitting things in large part is why you're there and the Barbarian is really really good at it.  You can substitute Skyrim or whatever your favorite flavor of action RPG is for the same argument.  Likewise, the Incredible Hulk or Superman are both totally viable archetypes in comic books and comic book genre RPGs even though there are reality-benders out there like Doctor Strange, Doctor Fate, Reed Richards, and the new rainbow coalition of Lantern Corps.  It's only when the latter get to invalidate the former that you run into problems.

Diablo is a problematic example, I think, because there's not a lot you can do to wreck the story. You can't do a scry-and-die on the final boss, set up an interplanar shiftspice cartel to drive him into bankruptcy, excavate a hole under his castle to cave it in, or any of that sort of thing. All your problem resolution is accomplished through combat, which makes the Barbarian completely viable alongside the Sorceress. I think. I've never actually played it, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Hulk and Superman are characters that I'd argue do have reality-bending powers. Hulk's strength has no real upper limit, he's more immortal than practically every other immortal, and apparently he's done things like punch some villain so hard it created a cosmic rift/handle the core of a black hole/hold a collapsing planet together. Superman has all sorts of crazy powers--flight, space travel, time travel in certain versions, crazy strength, and practically anything the writers wanted him to have. So I'd say they probably belong in the latter crew.

You could cite things like Batman, and that would be harder for me to defend. Batman is explicitly not superhuman, but he can keep up by virtue of his conditioning, gadgetry, intellect, and other assets. He's supposed to perform on the level of those guys and take on cosmic horrors, though, so whether you actually consider him superhuman or not depends on whether you're just looking at his inherent capabilities or the level of power he can bring to bear.

Another example might be Shonen anime.  "Bleach" is one of my guilty pleasures, and there's a lot of magic there, but it takes a backseat to the face-punching for various reasons.

I'm not familiar with it, so I can't really comment on that particular universe.

Finally, I'd like to add that there's a long, long tradition in fantasy literature of heroes beating magical casters and entities through either grit or cunning.  In part, this is b/c magic is relatively limited in a lot of these cases -- often more mind-affecting, illusions, or summoning.  Even in a highly magical environment (viz., Elric of Melnibone) this could be the case.  I think it's more a mechanical thing, or perhaps a product at how broad D&D magic is -- namely that it can do anything -- that might be an issue.

Yeah, actually writing up a wizard who pulled out even a few stops would result in something that sounded like Elminster fanfiction. There's no stopping him unless you have magic of your own and/or powers of a comparable level. It's entirely possible to emulate these fantasy stories where the mighty-thewed Jorin of Yoldorf beats in the face of Xilvar the Enchanter and rescues the princess, and you can even do it in 3.5. You just can't do it for very long.

[Unbeliever]

Dude, I don't even know how to parse your post.  What were you trying to argue? 

I don't think anyone has too much of a problem of your elaborate examples of driving Diablo into bankruptcy (for the record, no, the Lord of Terror does not give a fuck about economics).  That's creatively thinking around corners, and really, there isn't a whole lot of heavy lifting that magic is doing there.  For example, substitute "long distance spice trade" for "interplanar" and the same things happen.  The only exception is scry and die and stuff like that.

I think, however, we agree on the main point, which is that the need for truly superhuman (as opposed to the haruchai or Conan, which is perhaps superhuman but not Dragonball Z superhuman) is a product of D&D's mechanics and perhaps the way it conceives of magic and its availability rather than any conceptual issue with magic existing. 

Although, personally, these issues do not come up in any of the games I regularly play in.