After 30 years of gaming in a countless number of varied systems...
I've been to the very edges of space and time itself and every point in between.
My characters have never met a fat elf.
Ever.
neither have i
i've never met a scrawny and underweight orc either
i've never met a scrawny and underweight orc eitherI have.
that is a world first as far as i know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Paizo has some thinking to do about its next set of iconics... Fat Elf paizo! Get on it.
It just doesn't make sense that a 5 CHA is beautiful, or that a 20 CHA is repulsive.
Actually, it does not make sense to you. You don't have to be good in all of those areas just because your charisma is high. From a mechanical point of view charisma does not make you a good leader anyway. It makes you persuasive. You can have a low wisdom and intelligence, and lead people into very bad situations. That is not what I think people think of when they think of good leaders or someone who is good with leadership.
I am sure Kthulu(spelling) is not appealing to the eye, but even without checking his statblock his charisma is high. Pit Fiends and Balors who are humanoid in shape are also not likely to be attractive.
At the same time you can be very attractive and be repulsive to be around.
His words. Exactly quoted.That is what I said. If you have a 5 charisma, you can't tweak one of the 4 aspects of charisma into a positive.
That said, physical appearance is really NOT determined or set in stone by Charisma... but honestly? A potent appearance (be it beauty or ugliness) is ENHANCED by a high Charisma.Sounds like a very wishy-washy answer that avoids directly answering the question. A hideous demon with a high charisma doesn't strike me as a problem; among that type of demon, that particular demon's appearance would be greater than his peers.
Much in the same way that an orc with a high charisma will be more attractive by orc standards, a demon would be the same way. If you only think of it from human standards, then it will fall apart quickly.
James Jacobs can do what he likes at his table, at my table, you can't have a 5 charisma and have a positive appearance.
Orcs are humanoids like just humans are so an attractive orc is attractive to other humanoids. You are giving an opinion. Don't confuse your opinion with a fact.
I think Paizo has some thinking to do about its next set of iconics... Fat Elf paizo! Get on it.
Really this is what every iconic for the Advanced Player's Guide should be. Some of them can be fat drow, for variety.
before we determine whether or not a character looks too attractive for their score at your table, what standards of beauty does your group utilize?A very basic one. If your PC's charisma is average, your PC is of average attractiveness. If your PC's charisma is below average, your PC is of below average attractiveness. If your PC's charisma is above average, your PC is of above average attractiveness.
How exactly you want to make your character fit their attractiveness level is up to you, but you can't ignore it. Your character can't have a 5 charisma (far below average attractiveness) and you describe him/her as beautiful.
Oh really?
So if I am great at getting people to follow. My presence DEMANDS attention, and people never forget who I am, due to my way with words, but I am the ugliest person you have never met are you really doing to say I have a have a low charisma?
On the other hand.
If my demeanor lends me to be the opposite of the above, but I am VERY attractive are you saying I can have a high charisma score?
I'd rather have the characterization than try and enforced charisma = appearance personally. Also has an unfortunate side effect of all your charisma based classes becoming extremely good looking and most of the other classes suddenly becoming horribly ugly.
"Which one do you think is the paladin?"
"I think its the guy in plate and long blonde hair in the middle."
"What makes you say that?"
"He's the only one not covered in crap."Supposedly they can't grow beards either. Never got that. I think there's a secret hatred of beards. I once made a slobbish elf NPC just to for entertainment because my GM at the time thought Elves were all snooty and perfect.After 30 years of gaming in a countless number of varied systems...
My characters have never met a fat elf.
Ever.
I did a potion druggie elf in dark sun
I think Paizo has some thinking to do about its next set of iconics... Fat Elf paizo! Get on it.Really this is what every iconic for the Advanced Player's Guide should be. Some of them can be fat drow, for variety.
Suddenly I'm thinking about a master summoner with adiposians.
i use anime as a base for character descriptions all the time when the group doesn't want me to spend 10-15 minutes explaining details, which can double or triple if interrupted
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2nd edition was not immune from optimization. I can make a optimized character in any version of D&D. From 1E to 4E.
You're right, it wasn't immune... But d20 certainly upped the level one could optimize; and that is part of what I have come to dislike about d20 in general...
I have come to dislike things such as: The level dipping, the insanely huge combat bonuses vs. the equally insane armor class values, I could go on and on...
But if you still enjoy Pathfinder/d20, more power to you! I'll just be over here enjoying 2nd edition AD&D... :-)
2nd edition was not immune from optimization. I can make a optimized character in any version of D&D. From 1E to 4E.You're right, it wasn't immune... But d20 certainly upped the level one could optimize; and that is part of what I have come to dislike about d20 in general...
I have come to dislike things such as: The level dipping, the insanely huge combat bonuses vs. the equally insane armor class values, I could go on and on...
But if you still enjoy Pathfinder/d20, more power to you! I'll just be over here enjoying 2nd edition AD&D... :-)
I think maybe you weren't familiar with the player's options line in 2nd edition?
I think maybe you weren't familiar with the player's options line in 2nd edition?2nd edition was not immune from optimization. I can make a optimized character in any version of D&D. From 1E to 4E.You're right, it wasn't immune... But d20 certainly upped the level one could optimize; and that is part of what I have come to dislike about d20 in general...
I have come to dislike things such as: The level dipping, the insanely huge combat bonuses vs. the equally insane armor class values, I could go on and on...
But if you still enjoy Pathfinder/d20, more power to you! I'll just be over here enjoying 2nd edition AD&D... :-)
you mean the Kits of Brokenness?
or the Complete Book of Elves?
Neither -- the player's option line included:
Combat and tactics, spells and magic, and skills and powers.
Among other things you could specifically build your class with points determining what abilities you received when and take penalties to open up more points for your use. For example with the correct point expenditure your wizard could use the fighter extra hit points from constitution instead of the standard maximum of +2 per level that everyone else had.
I saw fighters come out of those books with some 16 starting HP, an effective thaco of sub 10, and AC -3(ish).
All in all it was a nasty piece of work in... optimization. I dare say it was the first time I really considered using the work munchkin to describe a character.
Now if used... 'responsibly' it lead to all sorts of fun with tweaking your class to fit the type of character you wanted to play, but honestly I think that is a large part of where 3.0 and 3.5 came from. I personally see a LOT of direct correlation between those books (and honestly 2nd edition as a whole) and what has come since.
Neither -- the player's option line included:
Combat and tactics, spells and magic, and skills and powers.
Among other things you could specifically build your class with points determining what abilities you received when and take penalties to open up more points for your use. For example with the correct point expenditure your wizard could use the fighter extra hit points from constitution instead of the standard maximum of +2 per level that everyone else had.
I saw fighters come out of those books with some 16 starting HP, an effective thaco of sub 10, and AC -3(ish).
All in all it was a nasty piece of work in... optimization. I dare say it was the first time I really considered using the work munchkin to describe a character.
Now if used... 'responsibly' it lead to all sorts of fun with tweaking your class to fit the type of character you wanted to play, but honestly I think that is a large part of where 3.0 and 3.5 came from. I personally see a LOT of direct correlation between those books (and honestly 2nd edition as a whole) and what has come since.
is that the one that let you gain more points by taking a slower XP track?
I think there was an option for that -- but I'm not 100%... I've not cracked those books open in about a decade now.
Uh. Creating your own class wasn't an expansion book. It was an optional rule covered on page 32-35 of the 1995 revised 2e DM's Guide, 22 and 23 of the one from the non revised 2nd edition dm guide. Creating your own class was an optional rule in the Core... Of course what they told you during class creation was that if your concept wasn't different enough from the existing classes then a new class wasn't really necessary... so to make a class like 'pirate' wasn't really necessary since your pirate was basically a fighter with a specific direction he took his fighting abilities...
Then they kinda threw that philosophy out the window when they started producing kits.
Then 3.0/3.5 completely threw that out the window by essentially saying every individual character can pretty much have their own exclusive class.
Pathfinder dialed that back a bit...
And there's still a strong contingent of people who want more classes published and love creating classes on their own.
But the 2e DM Guide is the first place I ever saw an official rule for making your own class up.
|
|
I think maybe you weren't familiar with the player's options line in 2nd edition?
I am... In fact, I quoted from Skills and Powers earlier in this thread.
When the Player's Option books came out in the mid 90's, our group did not use them, and now that we are playing 2nd edition once again, we are not using those books for many of the same reasons that we are stepping away from d20.
That being said, like a lot of the rules for 2nd edition, the Player's Option books and everything in them were, well, optional... Now sure, you can pick and choose what rules you will use and what rules you will not use from any game system, but 2nd edition in particular had many rules that were specifically labeled as being purely "optional". It would be rather difficult in fact, to use all of the RAW for 2nd edition, as many of the options given were very different variations of the same rule...
Same applies to 3.x and pathfinder of course.
Uh. Creating your own class wasn't an expansion book. It was an optional rule covered on page 32-35 of the 1995 revised 2e DM's Guide, 22 and 23 of the one from the non revised 2nd edition dm guide. Creating your own class was an optional rule in the Core... Of course what they told you during class creation was that if your concept wasn't different enough from the existing classes then a new class wasn't really necessary... so to make a class like 'pirate' wasn't really necessary since your pirate was basically a fighter with a specific direction he took his fighting abilities...
Then they kinda threw that philosophy out the window when they started producing kits.
Then 3.0/3.5 completely threw that out the window by essentially saying every individual character can pretty much have their own exclusive class.
Pathfinder dialed that back a bit...
And there's still a strong contingent of people who want more classes published and love creating classes on their own.But the 2e DM Guide is the first place I ever saw an official rule for making your own class up.
I think 1st edition had a similar section for the DM. That said this was far and above what kits did, and what you are talking about from the DMG.
|
|
Same applies to 3.x and pathfinder of course.
With 3rd edition and Pathfinder one is clearly free to pick and choose what rules to use or not, but the default assumption of those systems tends towards everything being a core part of the game...
2nd edition is different in that there are many rules, as I said, which are clearly identified within the books as being optional; and in many of those cases, the books provide more than one option of the same rule to choose from.
I can see what you mean. Some people might not realize that published does not mean mandatory -- even though it is written all over the inside.
|
You're right, it wasn't immune... But d20 certainly upped the level one could optimize; and that is part of what I have come to dislike about d20 in general...I have come to dislike things such as: The level dipping, the insanely huge combat bonuses vs. the equally insane armor class values, I could go on and on...
But if you still enjoy Pathfinder/d20, more power to you! I'll just be over here enjoying 2nd edition AD&D... :-)
I too am realizing that while I enjoy Pathfinder/D20 it's not perfect. So if 2E works better for you and your gaming group more power to you. As well 2E has my favorite version of the Fighter class. I may also get the 2E reprints. Though after borrowing a friends I find the advice a little too much onetruewayism that just me. As for the kits some work some did not. Some had soem strange limitationss. Like the Cavalier kit. I'm going to wear armor that protects me less because I want to look good. Really. I did not dislike the book of Elves either. Just found that the 2E devs really screwed you over for playing a Drow.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see what you mean. Some people might not realize that published does not mean mandatory -- even though it is written all over the inside.
Then again a DM just has to say no when he needs too. As well as a player being resonable as well.
Sometimes I see resentment on the part of both players and DMs. More Dms because of Paizo release schedule. Implying that it's Paizo fault for releasing too many books. When in reality it's because they can' stop buying books or a inability to say No to their players. Better to put the blame on Paizo then themselves.
Sometimes I see resentment on the part of both players and DMs. More Dms because of Paizo release schedule. Implying that it's Paizo fault for releasing too many books. When in reality it's because they can' stop buying books or a inability to say No to their players. Better to put the blame on Paizo then themselves.
Definitely agree with this. Players have a tendency to want everything, but that results in some really overpowered characters and odd combinations. My group currently uses core only, but I have been reading some of what's available on the PRD here - some of it is quite odd.
The one that sticks on in my mind is the Monk feat that builds off of Medusa's whatever that allows the monk to petrify an opponent. That simply does not make any sense.
Can't blame Paizo for making more and more books to sustain their company. They know they need to keep offering more carrots in the later books in order to get people to buy them. A good GM will limit what they accept in their games.
One of te strangest things that ever happened to me related to gaming was when I was told my characers were "min/maxed" and I was a munchkin, simply becuase they were effective in combat.
I was very much taken aback, as I have always created my characters based frist on an image, and then created a personality to fit that image, and then created a history and biography that would have resulted in that personality. I have always gone about creating my RPG characters as if they were comic book or other literary characters I would be writing about and/or drawing. Then, only after all of that, would I start working on their actual stats.
As an example, I will use the character who actually precipitated the "munchkin" comment. This was during the first year of 3rd Edition, and we had been playing 1st Edition right up until 3E was released. I was simply enthralled by the idea of multiclass humans. My favorite character type has always been Elven Fighter/Magic-Users, and the chance to make a Human Fighter/Magic-User intrigued me mightily. In addition, this new Sorcerer class seemed fascinating, as it seemed perfect for playing Robert Jordan style Channelers, with the descrption of Sorcerer's powers begiing to manifest during puberty, and this seemed to be the perfect way to handle to multiclassing into Sorcerer; the initial manifestation of my character's abilities had been delayed due to malnutrition and all-around poor environment.
Thus, my character started out as a Fighter, with a focus on the longsword, and also Improved Unarmed Strike and Ambidexterity so he would eventually be able to fight using a sword in one hand and his bare fist as his second weapon, therefore keeping his off-hand always free to cast spells but also a valid weapon on it's own. I understood that I would never do very much damage with that unarmed strike, and it would be paying a lot of feats for not much more than token damage, but I thought the visual was just too interesting to pass up.
The character's backstory was that he had grown upan urchin on the streets of a large city, and had survived by stealing and selling books, with which he taught himself to read. He especially loved to read fechtbuch-style fighting manuals, with which he also taught himself how to fight. Eventually he began copying these books, and gradually trained himself to be a scribe (maxing out my ranks in Profession: Scribe) and was able to get himself legal employment as a scribe for a law clerk, and this is when the campaign began, with an army invading the region and taking over the city, and I started play as a first level Fighter.
However, the character (Ereves Rook, known to most people as simply Rook) had always felt like there was something missing in his life, that there was something he was searching for but he didn't know what it was, and he would have dreams of fire and sometimes weird things would happen around him, like objects moving when they weren't being watched or pebbles being thrown at the windows of rooms he was in with no one being outside who could have done it (classic poltergeist activity, and all things easily accomplished with Prestidigitation.) I had talked with my DM about this beforehand and he loved the idea, and was more than happy to play along with it, and from time to time he would have minor Prestidigitation-level effects happen around Rook with no obvious source.
I got to 2nd level and took another level of Fighter, finally able to take Two-Weapon Fighting and fight with my sword and fist style. I told the DM that I would be taking my first level of Sorcerer at 3rd level, so he really started playing up the mysterious phenomena as I got closer to the next level, culminating in a blast of fire shooting from my hand and killing my opponent at the end of a fight that the DM knew was going to get me to 3rd level. My character then screamed and fainted, and didn't awaken for 4 days, burning up with fever and having random spurts of flame flashing from his fingertips the whole time he as unconscious. (We were both huge Robert Jordan fans and were using Wilders as a basis for his development.) After that, I alternated between Fighter and Sorcerer for 4 more levels until I got to 4th level Fighter so I could Specialize in the longsword, and from then on I went straight Sorcerer, Rook having finally found that mysterious thing he had always been searching for, his latent magical power.
And I continued to take the feats in the Two-Weapon Fighting tree, to give him more secondary attacks with his fist, and taking Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike, knowing full-well that it was hardly the most effective use of those feats. But I loved the visual (we were all very much into DragonBall Z back then and the character had a very strong DBZ vibe to him) and I gradually developed a very effective combat style using his spells and sword and fist.
Fast forward a little more than a year, and we were all around 12th level, with Rook a Fighter 4/Sorcerer 8. And I was seemingly able to do anything. Using a 2nd level version of Haste from Dragon Magazine (which only affected the caster) I was able to fight in the front lines making full attacks and then cast a spell, and as I was a Sorcerer and it was one of the few spells I knew, I cast it constantly. I was able to melee in the front with the Paladin and Fighter, and I was able to fly around and rain Fireballs from the sky when the situation called for it.
That was when one of the other players said I was a munchkin with a min/maxed character. Which was absolutely ridiculous. All of my feats were used for Two-Weapon Fighting, Longsword Specialization and Improved Critical and the like, and, I believe, Spell Focus: Evocation. My skill points were mostly used up in Profession: Scribe, Tumble, and various Knowledges. On paper, my character was hardly "optimized" with the Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus Evocation feats being the only truly optimized things about the character, but I had simply grasped the possibilities of the new system better than anyone else had yet. So, to them, I suppose I must have seemed like some kind of monstrous munchkin with a broken character, when in reality, my character was nothing but a fairly standard, vanilla Fighter/Sorcerer, with the only really unique thing about him being his fighting with a sword in one hand and a martial arts punch with the other.
But that seemed to be one of the biggest complaints,that he could cast all these spells AND get 4 attacks a round! It never seemed to occur to them that all of my attacks were for a whopping 1d8+7 with my sword and 1d3+3 (subdual) with my fist. They just saw me making all those attacks, and didn't pay close enough attention to realize that all of them were for piddly amounts of damage (when they ever hit, which was far from guaranteed with my lackluster attack bonus.) They just sawme making all those attacks and casting all those spells and having so much fun doing it and assumed I was doing massive amounts of damage, when in reality I did the least amount of damage of any of the fighters, and my spells were less effective than the Wizard's, but since I was having so much fun they assumed I must be crazy amounts of damage. Even when I would have to be routinely rescued by the Paladin, most of them didn't realize how marginally effective I really was (the Paladin's player understood, being my brother, and he was a FAR more effective combatant than my character.)
But I had an absolute BLAST playing that character! And every time I hear or read people complain aboutthe dichotomy between making characters "optimized" or making them "for roleplaying" I just roll my eyes. There is no dichotomy, or rather, there is one only if you make one. There is no reason a character can't be both optimized for what he does AND an interesting character to roleplay. I always do both.
Definitely agree with this. Players have a tendency to want everything, but that results in some really overpowered characters and odd combinations. My group currently uses core only, but I have been reading some of what's available on the PRD here - some of it is quite odd.The one that sticks on in my mind is the Monk feat that builds off of Medusa's whatever that allows the monk to petrify an opponent. That simply does not make any sense.
You mean the thing that requires you to be a level 15 Monk, spend two other Feats, use a round and hope you successfully use Stunning Fist on them, and then forgo all of your other attacks for a full round action, that IF, on the off chance it is a critical hit (both threatened and confirmed, while you're using a weapon that only threatens on a 20) at which point the target makes a fairly low DC Fort save or is Petrified?
Yeah if you think that's OP you may need to find a different game because there's stuff that's 1000000x times stronger than that in the CRB (that STILL isn't overpowered).
I mean, seriously, your player almost literally has more of a chance of getting struck by lightning than making Cockatrice Strike work.
Especially when, that same level, you get Quivering Palm...an ability that KILLS your opponent, with none of the set-up BS, and can be used as part of his Flurry.
Definitely agree with this. Players have a tendency to want everything, but that results in some really overpowered characters and odd combinations. My group currently uses core only, but I have been reading some of what's available on the PRD here - some of it is quite odd.
The one that sticks on in my mind is the Monk feat that builds off of Medusa's whatever that allows the monk to petrify an opponent. That simply does not make any sense.
What doesn't make sense about cockatrice strike? It cannot be that it's overpowered. A monk cannot even pick up the feat until 19th level. It's a full-round action to use. You make a single unarmed strike against a target that is already dazed, flat-footed, paralyzed, staggered, stunned, or unconscious. If your attack crits (it's an unarmed strike, so at best your crit range is 19--20), then they have to make a Fort save or be petrified. This feat is absolutely worthless.
Yeah if you think that's OP you may need to find a different game because there's stuff that's 1000000x times stronger than that in the CRB (that STILL isn't overpowered).
What doesn't make sense about cockatrice strike? It cannot be that it's overpowered.
I think I'm starting to see what the communication barrier has been.
My group currently uses core only, but I have been reading some of what's available on the PRD here - some of it is quite odd.
The one that sticks on in my mind is the Monk feat that builds off of Medusa's whatever that allows the monk to petrify an opponent. That simply does not make any sense
How does a Monk hit someone with his fist and then turn them into stone?
|
How does a Monk hit someone with his fist and then turn them into stone?
Answer: It's magic! But seriously, it's no more illogical than a woman with snakes for hair turning you to stone by looking at you. Spell-casters can turn you to stone with their magic as well, so why shouldn't a monk be able to petrify you by channeling his ki into your body?
How does a Monk hit someone with his fist and then turn them into stone?
This is a supernatural polymorph effect.
Magic.
How does a monk fall any distance without harm? Dimension Door? Become ethereal? Make his hands magical/lawful/adamantine?
Once you've bought the premise that they get a grab bag of mystical abilities, it isn't hard to see how they can get another.
At level 20 as long as they're next to a solid surface they can fall any distance.
Pretty much. I kind of imagine them as doing a Mega Man X style wall slide. ... Which is still pretty impossible for humans without lawlmagic. :P
We just need a good sword. You stick it in there and it cuts into the rock while slowing your decent! Warning: May cause collateral damage.
Answer: It's magic! But seriously, it's no more illogical than a woman with snakes for hair turning you to stone by looking at you. Spell-casters can turn you to stone with their magic as well, so why shouldn't a monk be able to petrify you by channeling his ki into your body?
But this ability does not use ki. As a matter of a fact, this feat could be taken by a straight-classed fighter. With 0 magical abilities whatsoever. What does the fighter "channel" in order to turn a target into stone?
Does achieving level 16 suddenly imbue a character with unspecified magical abilities?
Find me a feat in the core rule book that grants a person magical powers that didn't already have magical powers.
As I said, it's just odd.
Find me a feat in the core rule book that grants a person magical powers that didn't already have magical powers.
I found a couple of rogue talents that do it.
Really, the barbarian and fighter are the only two base classes in the core rulebook without some class feature that gives them access to magic.
Edit: Nope, just the fighter. Barbarian gets access to magical abilities in Advanced Races.
Answer: It's magic! But seriously, it's no more illogical than a woman with snakes for hair turning you to stone by looking at you. Spell-casters can turn you to stone with their magic as well, so why shouldn't a monk be able to petrify you by channeling his ki into your body?But this ability does not use ki. As a matter of a fact, this feat could be taken by a straight-classed fighter. With 0 magical abilities whatsoever. What does the fighter "channel" in order to turn a target into stone?
Does achieving level 16 suddenly imbue a character with unspecified magical abilities?
Find me a feat in the core rule book that grants a person magical powers that didn't already have magical powers.
As I said, it's just odd.
Since it's not from the core rule book and is in a book that offers such things I would say that's a disingenuous request.
Since it's not from the core rule book and is in a book that offers such things I would say that's a disingenuous request.
Especially since every book after core includes such feats.
But anyway, in the CRB: master craftsman.
I like to play heroes and character that are larger than life.
I have little interest in playing a level 10 barber or a 4th level grave digger. I want to play Billy Bob Barbarian McBada$$.
Now to play a larger than life character a amount of optimization is required as long as it is within the scope of the character.
Look, I'm sure Ron Harper, Toni Kukoc and Randy Brown all has awesome personalities. Probably dumped a lot of points into charisma and grabbed several feats that rounded them out as people. But they would never have NBA championship rings had Michael Jordan not optimized the hell out of his build.
Hey if you want to be Ron Harper, god bless you. I'll be happy to play as Michael Jordan. Besides, I need someone to pass me the rock.
-MD
NICE! LOL
Does achieving level 16 suddenly imbue a character with unspecified magical abilities?
At level 16 even a character with 10 Con can survive being smashed with a giant steel hammer from someone over 30 feet tall and come out roughly unscathed, survive a fall from orbit and several seconds in lava, bust through a castle wall with their weapon in a matter of minutes, leap 30 feet straight into the air from flat ground with no assistance, and a multitude of other things far beyond the bounds of human ability.
In a word: Yes.
As for your "challenge", there aren't any Feats that grant Su/SLAs in the CRB.
For one thing, I don't see how that's relevant to anything at all.
For another, just because some abilities aren't labeled as Su doesn't mean they're not blatantly super human. Look at stuff like Deflect/Snatch Arrows.
Find me a feat in the core rule book that grants a person magical powers that didn't already have magical powers.I found a couple of rogue talents that do it.
Really, the barbarian and fighter are the only two base classes in the core rulebook without some class feature that gives them access to magic.
Edit: Nope, just the fighter. Barbarian gets access to magical abilities in Advanced Races.
Barbarian got access to (lots of) magical rage powers starting in the Advanced Players Guide in 2010.
Its not really about realism. Clearly in a magical fantasy world, there are going to be non-realistic things. Some of what some of you have mentioned already, we have house rules for (falling damage, instant death rules.) But there has always been a divide between those who have magic, and those who do not.
Classes that can do extraordinary things, even close to being magical, but are not magical, I'm fine with. A really skilled fighter may be able to do things that rival magic. A monk's training and inner discipline clearly do magical things. But, they make sense (at least to me.)
Turning a guy to stone by punching him without using any kind of magical ability does not make sense to me.
I think I'll just stick with the core rulebook for my group. If we get bored with that, we can add limited stuff from other books on a case-by-case basis.
|
It's not a point of what makes sense. It's a point of what's fun.
Also, a 19th level character, or even 16th level i so way way beyond superhuman, that they are pretty much demigods in their own right.
Any level after 5 goes into realm of superhuman and beyond.
Don't believe me? Read this awesomeness