"Martial power", or "hitting people with weapons" (they're the same thing, just different levels of awesome), a concept discovered a few thousand years ago by cavemen, is a latent ability that is present in all sentient beings that are capable of fine manipulation, and it is no more supernatural or inexplicable than magic. Sure, there is still strong skepticism about its existence, and I myself was a skeptic for a while, but that was an attitude that I couldn't uphold when I had discovered a strong vibrating sensation inside my hands while unloading my M-16 assault rifle on a band of Iraqi guerrilla fighters.
That's not to say that martial skill is very similar to magic. The movies where Rambo single handedly takes out an entire enemy army or Conan chops giants apart are extreme exaggerations. Martial skill is practiced for improved combat ability, the application of violence, in combat, and cannot be projected outside the body without the aid of a ranged weapon. Martial skill is simply an alternative source from where a warrior can draw power, as you can see from the soldiers who can demolish an entire bunker with just one rocket.
I don't think Martial should be a power source. Martial training is simply a weapon, and is not the application in itself. Calling a power source "martial" is akin to saying that Mialee the Wizard uses the "sparkly" power source. Weapons don't move by themselves. We have to move them with our bodies. In 3.5e, the armed Rogue was closer to a Martial-user than the fighter, and the development team should look back at that when doing the fighter for 4e.
I understand that D&D is a fantasy game and needs not be an accurate depiction of what RL fighters do, but my fantasy fighter is the skinny guy in robes with a low strength score because he doesn't need muscles to stick a knife in someone's back.
Bottom line, fighters cannot be classified as benefiting from one single power source.
Seen the same thing done with a particularly ludicrous katana argument.
Uh, are this threads made up with a program? Because, seriously, the tell the same things with different words.
That's the joke. Or sarcasm, as the case may be. ;)
...but that was an attitude that I couldn't uphold when I had discovered a strong vibrating sensation inside my hands while unloading my M-16 assault rifle on a band of Iraqi guerrilla fighters.
Win.
Also, the Iraqi guerrilla line rocked.
I had discovered a strong vibrating sensation inside my hands while unloading my M-16 assault rifle on a band of Iraqi guerrilla fighters.
Violence is never the answer.
Violence is never the answer.
I'm afraid you may be on the wrong website.
Occasionally, you have to resort to fraud and deception.
Violence can't solve every problem.
Occasionally, you have to resort to fraud and deception.
Or explosives.
An Awesome subset.
Explosives are a subset of violence.
An Awesome subset.
Nope. It's not violence when you don't look them in the face and they can't hit you back.
Nope. It's not violence when you don't look them in the face and they can't hit you back.
Explosives can meet those requirements. It's just harder, making it all the more awesome when someone does it.
1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4. a violent act or proceeding.
5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.
6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.
-----------------------
Violence has something for everyone!
Famous last words of the hero with a backpack full of Alchemists Fire.
Because sometimes, you just have to prepare the Explosive Runes that morning.
Violence is the question.
The answer is yes.
For the intelligent, it's the second resort, right after asking nicely.
"He was not abrasive or demanding in his post, nor was he derogatory. He merely wished to state his knowledge of a subject, one which has received heated debate on its relation to its real life counterpart."
"Not to mention that the poster of the other thread, while misguided in his intentions, does not deserve to be mocked for his beliefs."
I'm sorry, I know this isn't a popular idea, but sometimes, beliefs deserve to be mocked.
I'm sorry, I know this isn't a popular idea, but sometimes, beliefs deserve to be mocked.
Nonsense. Everything is equally valid. Even science fiction stories loosely converted into a belief system :P
-Joni
the poster of the other thread, while misguided in his intentions, does not deserve to be mocked for his beliefs.
If people don't like it when I laugh at their beliefs, they should stop believing silly things.