Why Are New Things Always Called Cheese?


Gamer Life General Discussion

201 to 250 of 581 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:


"So wait, you want realism, but only where you want realism, but you don't want it where you don't want it, right? Okay, I think I get it."

or more aptly,

"Fantasy can only exist as I personally see it, and rules of realism can only be broken within my personal comfort zone!!!"

or less satirically -

"Generally real-world physics applies except where magical powers specifically break them." (not weighing in - I just figure that side should be spoken for with less snark)

That way lies madness, my friend. You start finding far more exceptions than rules when you begin trying to enforce real-world physics on anything that's not handwaving it with magic.

You're better off going Gurren Lagann with it; check physics at the door, because you're just going to make it cry if you take it on this adventure with you.

For the most part, I see far more people who aren't at the table for "Game of Thrones gritty realism time", because PF is a terrible system for realism; it's too inherently high-magic. For the most part, people that like this system tend to like high-fantasy adventures, and high-fantasy stuff tends to just kick Realism down the stairs both for the swordsman and his wizard buddy, and the biologically-nonsensical dragons and giants they're fighting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Except it does affect what we have available, because the "realism" restrictions on martials are why martials don't have tools.

I instead chalk it up to: martial's tools are fine... it's the wizard's tools that were badly designed (and they didn't have to be).


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder's in this weird place where people who want gritty, low magic campaigns are constantly having to modify stuff so magic isn't too big and powerful and people who don't necessarily mind magic being extremely powerful and godlike being frustrated that martials aren't. I honestly wouldn't mind the Druid having Zeus-like power levels if the Fighter could get up to Cu Chulainn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Personally, I think the more "absurd" martial powers should be considered Supernatural abilities. It's pretty easy to houserule, too.

That said, dual-wielding greataxes? Not really that much more absurd than a human being able to get a 30 Strength, or survive a fall into laval, or [arrow-related gripe]. Heroes are heroes. Choose your battles. Save your overthinking for the "I can split a mountain with my sword!" or "I can cause earthquakes with my hammer!" abilities.

odd that the mountain-splitting and earthquaking are seen as less possible while the bearded invisible flying guy calls in angels en masse to battle cthulu.

why cant everyone be a heroic demigod at high levels? at the upper levels you are regularly worldhopping and wheeling and dealing with planar overlords, why the hell CANT i play a properly Fantastic martial? Why do I only get to affect the world only within the reach of my weapon, while the wizard can wave a hand and vaporize a city. or summon an elder god. or change the weather. or stop time. or or or or OR OR OR

why is any of that absurd when the party wizard can just up and turn into a dragon when he wants.

Yes I'm mad.

Wizards can do that because they are using magic. Fighters can't do that because they aren't. Can we please try to remember the difference? Reminding people of it gets old and detracts from the real point.

*Climbs up on soapbox*

There is a thematic difference between a wizard being able to cast spells—something explained within the setting and game as a magical effect, established as a sanctioned exception to the laws of physics—and a nonmagical fighter being able to "fart fireballs". Magic is a specific conceit of any magical world. Fighters farting fire is not. This is a conceit specific to certain styles of fantasy, such as the aforementioned mythologies and weeaboo animes. But if you're playing with a tone closer to that of Song of Ice and Fire or Lord of the Rings (not Silmarillion or Children of Hurin), that conceit is meant to be absent.

I do sometimes like my settings a bit closer to the crazy fireball-farting style, and I would allow a fighter to cause earthquakes with his hammer. But these should be acknowledged as fantastical feats, and perhaps even sorted separately for a GM's convenience. Not everyone wants that sort of setting, and it's not wrongbadfun to prefer a stricter reading of the laws of nature.

As for the preexisting sillinesses, like "surviving a fall out of an airplane", yeah. That said, these things are not inconceivable. Sometimes people are just lucky. Maybe they hit a bird on the way down. The point is, these things are way less in the spotlight during a game than "I swing my Huge falchion and cut the house in half from the inside-out to make room!"

I'm not big on the crazy anime weapons, though I do enjoy RWBY. I like oversized weapons because they speak to someone who embraces an impractical style—that's a roleplaying choice I can dig. Like Amiri, it might be a choice connected to their backstory, or they might be a character obsessed with doing as much damage in as short a time as possible. Maybe they're compensating for something. I like oversized weapons because they're, well, oversized—meaning bigger than they should be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Personally, I think the more "absurd" martial powers should be considered Supernatural abilities. It's pretty easy to houserule, too.

That said, dual-wielding greataxes? Not really that much more absurd than a human being able to get a 30 Strength, or survive a fall into laval, or [arrow-related gripe]. Heroes are heroes. Choose your battles. Save your overthinking for the "I can split a mountain with my sword!" or "I can cause earthquakes with my hammer!" abilities.

odd that the mountain-splitting and earthquaking are seen as less possible while the bearded invisible flying guy calls in angels en masse to battle cthulu.

why cant everyone be a heroic demigod at high levels? at the upper levels you are regularly worldhopping and wheeling and dealing with planar overlords, why the hell CANT i play a properly Fantastic martial? Why do I only get to affect the world only within the reach of my weapon, while the wizard can wave a hand and vaporize a city. or summon an elder god. or change the weather. or stop time. or or or or OR OR OR

why is any of that absurd when the party wizard can just up and turn into a dragon when he wants.

Yes I'm mad.

Wizards can do that because they are using magic. Fighters can't do that because they aren't. Can we please try to remember the difference? Reminding people of it gets old and detracts from the real point.

*Climbs up on soapbox*

There is a thematic difference between a wizard being able to cast spells—something explained within the setting and game as a magical effect, established as a sanctioned exception to the laws of physics—and a nonmagical fighter being able to "fart fireballs". Magic is a specific conceit of any magical world. Fighters farting fire is not. This is a conceit specific to certain styles of fantasy, such as the aforementioned mythologies and weeaboo animes. But if...

Except, as it also gets old and distracting to remind people, even without the flashy fireball farts, the martials are all well beyond "non magical" by mid levels anyway. Just in ways that aren't quite so blatant. You know all the examples. I'm fond of "punching out a rhino".

If you really want your martials to stay below the superhero level, you've got to keep them low level. Or rewrite the base system.

Adding a few feats here and there that do flashy things doesn't really change that.
"Wizards have magic and fighters don't" isn't an answer.

That said, as I've said all along, play it how you wish, but don't try to keep things that don't fit your style, but might fit others out of the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

.

Same goes for having 200HP, diving headfirst off a 500ft cliff into an antimagic zone, and getting up and walking away.

Its ok, pathfinder doesn't have facing so he still landed feet first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avadriel wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

.

Same goes for having 200HP, diving headfirst off a 500ft cliff into an antimagic zone, and getting up and walking away.

Its ok, pathfinder doesn't have facing so he still landed feet first.

actually those cat-step slippers or whatever set a rules precedent otherwise, since they specifically land you on your feet while wearing them, instead of automatically falling prone when landing after X distance.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

58 people marked this as a favorite.

Ultimately, having a "fantasy" setting just means there are things in the setting that go beyond reality. In a sense, the setting has two types of things in it: the mundane (that which is comparable to reality) and the fantastic (that which exceeds reality).

Now, different fantasy settings (which, remember, means "settings in which some things go beyond reality") will have different ways of determining how someone (or something) is allowed to exceed reality, to make the jump from being mundane to being fantastic.

In some settings, the necessary element to move from the mundane to the fantastic is simply magic. The Harry Potter universe is a perfect example: the fantasy setting is literally "reality plus magic". If you're a spellcaster (or magical creature), you're part of the fantasy story. If you're nonmagical, you're part of the mundane background; you're what the reader/viewer compares the magic to in order to see how much more fantastic it is than you are.

In other settings, a person could exceed reality and move from the category of "mundane" to the category of "fantastic" by any number of means: magic, training, enlightenment, divine parentage, and so forth. This type of setting is where you see people like Pecos Bill, who could lasso a tornado just by virtue of being a badass. Thus, his badassery was able to elevate him from "mundane" (realistic) to "fantastic" (beyond reality).

Both types of settings are fine. They tell different types of stories, and neither can really fill in for the other.

But there's an extra complication when you're talking about a game.

See, in a book or film or TV show, you can mix fantastic characters with mundane characters as you please, because you can carefully sculpt the action to have the result you want. In Avatar: the Last Airbender, the setting is of the first kind I described (only magic gets to exceed reality and be "fantastic"). However, the core group of protagonists includes both fantastic and mundane characters—there's even an episode about one of the mundane characters dealing with that gap. But since it's non-game fiction, the authors were able to create circumstances where the mundane characters could contribute meaningfully to the story through clever scripted use of circumstantial carefully-placed resources.

But in a fantasy game, that's a LOT harder to pull off. Even if you carefully sculpt situations where the muggle can help save Hogwarts, it will often feel hollow and contrived. Typically, it's no fun to have one player playing a fantasy hero and another player playing a mundane, non-fantastic character in the same game.

The ideal, then, is for every player character to be able to be "fantastic", to exceed reality. It doesn't matter which kind of setting you're using or what the requirement is for moving from mundane to fantastic; it just matters that each player has equal access to it. If exceeding reality requires a gift from the gods, then every player character should receive that gift. If exceeding reality requires being taught by a fantastic mentor, then every player character should have such a mentor. If exceeding reality requires access to magic, then every player character should have access to magic.

So again, it doesn't matter whether or not magic is the only way to go beyond reality and into fantasy. All that matters is that every player character gets to go there. The setting's definition of fantasy must be something within every player's reach.

And that's where the problem comes in: people who want a setting where X is required to exceed reality, but where not every player gets to have X. In the case of discussing Pathfinder, X is usually magic: people say that they want their fantasy to be defined as requiring magic in order to be fantastic (which is fine) but then fail to realize that some game options lack the very thing they defined as necessary for fantasy and are therefore by definition not fantasic!

The end result is this: if you want a setting where only magic can exceed reality, then fighters are not fantasy heroes, and you're just fooling yourself to say they are. If you want nonmagical characters to be capable of fantasy, then you have to allow nonmagical things to "go fantastic," to exceed reality. You've got to pick your direction and commit; trying to claim one setting while enforcing the mechanics of the other is why we keep having these arguments.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Just gonna put this here

Jiggy wrote:

Ultimately, having a "fantasy" setting just means there are things in the setting that go beyond reality. In a sense, the setting has two types of things in it: the mundane (that which is comparable to reality) and the fantastic (that which exceeds reality).

Now, different fantasy settings (which, remember, means "settings in which some things go beyond reality") will have different ways of determining how someone (or something) is allowed to exceed reality, to make the jump from being mundane to being fantastic.

In some settings, the necessary element to move from the mundane to the fantastic is simply magic. The Harry Potter universe is a perfect example: the fantasy setting is literally "reality plus magic". If you're a spellcaster (or magical creature), you're part of the fantasy story. If you're nonmagical, you're part of the mundane background; you're what the reader/viewer compares the magic to in order to see how much more fantastic it is than you are.

In other settings, a person could exceed reality and move from the category of "mundane" to the category of "fantastic" by any number of means: magic, training, enlightenment, divine parentage, and so forth. This type of setting is where you see people like Pecos Bill, who could lasso a tornado just by virtue of being a badass. Thus, his badassery was able to elevate him from "mundane" (realistic) to "fantastic" (beyond reality).

Both types of settings are fine. They tell different types of stories, and neither can really fill in for the other.

But there's an extra complication when you're talking about a game.

See, in a book or film or TV show, you can mix fantastic characters with mundane characters as you please, because you can carefully sculpt the action to have the result you want. In Avatar: the Last Airbender, the setting is of the first kind I described (only magic gets to exceed reality and be "fantastic"). However, the core group of protagonists includes both fantastic and mundane...

* Jiggy drops the mic and walks away*


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Jiggy wins.

If you say anything contrary you didn't actually read what he said.

Now can we move on to something less inflammatory?

I submit that rogues are fine, and if you don't like them, you're a bad roleplayer.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Delayed Blast Threadlock wrote:
I submit that rogues are fine, and if you don't like them, you're a bad roleplayer.

The thing people don't understand is that you can't really play a rogue if your class is named something else. Why would you play an investigator when you want to play a rogue? Makes no sense!

In other news, a Monk is wrecking my core-only game! I houseruled that the ki pool is now based off of the monk's charisma modifier, and doesn't scale with level. I'm also considering removing Flurry of Blows. No one should get that many attacks! Are my current changes sufficient, or should I nerf monks further?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kudaku wrote:
Delayed Blast Threadlock wrote:
I submit that rogues are fine, and if you don't like them, you're a bad roleplayer.

The thing people don't understand is that you can't really play a rogue if your class is named something else. Why would you play an investigator when you want to play a rogue? Makes no sense!

In other news, a Monk is wrecking my core-only game! I houseruled that the ki pool is now based off of the monk's charisma modifier, and doesn't scale with level. I'm also considering removing Flurry of Blows. No one should get that many attacks! Are my current changes sufficient, or should I nerf monks further?

I think you should nerf them more, just to be safe. I heard Unchained got rid of their good will saves and made of their abilities cost ki. Sounds like a good starting point.

Also, I was thinking that we really need to fix how OP martials are compared to casters. Iterative attacks are just nuts, when casters only get one spell per turn. I was thinking of either cutting out all the extra attacks martials get, or else giving casters iterative spells. 9-level casters eventually get four spells a round, 6-levels get three, and 4-levels get two spells.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I banned the geisha bard. OP! Darn thing was disrupting all my plans with that amazing tea ceremony.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starbuck_II wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Seranov wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I blame Tolkien for the constant claims of cheese at martial tools. Imagine if people's impression of what a non-caster should be able to do in a fantasy setting wasn't Boromir and instead was Beowulf.

I don't blame Tolkien, I blame the people who think Tolkien is the only fantasy that matters.

He was a pretty cool guy, though. I bet he'd have played a Paladin in D&D if he'd been able to.

Exactly this. Vanilla ice cream is a perfectly good flavor, and one I'm rather fond of at times. I'd still be very annoyed if somebody said that vanilla was the One True Flavor of ice cream, and liking anything else was just wrong.
Well, of course not, Strawberry is the One True Flavor (TM).

Actually, it's Blurpleberry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The best cheese I have ever had was cantillon house cheese in the Brewer in Brussels. Also I think people hate stuff kind of just to hate it. It seems to be a growing thing in our culture to love something but then hate parts of it becouse it does not fit there view. Or maybe people are more likely to start threads on things they think are dumb then stuff they like.

Any way cheese is great.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

One of the reasons I don't like oversized weapons is because it strains my suspension of disbelief.

1) They're big. They'll get in one another's way. it doesn't matter how strong you are, they just occupy a bunch of space and trying to use them like a pair of short swords isn't going to work. Twin-Wielding Greatswords is going to end up with you knocking the swords together a lot.

If you're in any kind of an enclosed space, they are simply too big, and you can't use them at all! A great number of weapons are used because they are SHORT, and can be used in confined spaces. Large weapons are basically only useful in very large, wide-open spaces.

2) Mass and inertia. yes, yes, hear me out. IT doesn't matter how strong you are, those two things exist. If you are strong enough to treat those two swords like willow wands, yes, you're inhumanly strong.
You still have mass and inertia. You swing the sword, your muscle stops it...and your whole body keeps right on moving to accommodate the inertia.
Ergo, unless you brace yourself, your center of gravity is going to be flinging you all over the place.
You would EXPRESSLY need a magical way of bracing yourself for that to happen.

People know this instinctively. The Hulk, for example, can't just reach out and pick up a tank.

Why? Because the center of gravity is under the tank. What would happen is that he'd reach out, sink his hands into the armor, clench his mighty biceps...and lift himself off the ground, because he's lighter then the tank. He's end up upside down, 'lifting up' himself instead of the tank, because of center of gravity.

Superheroes that fly have an excuse. They can brace off the air, ie. their center of gravity is always whatever they want. They push off nothing instead of the ground, and so they can potentially lift a tank by making the center of gravity SIDEWAYS.

So, unless you have some means of anchoring yourself in place regardless of weight, swinging around heavy objects doesn't work.

A Large Warhammer with a five pound head relative is twice as big, forty pounds of weight at the end of a stick. Stick two of them out at full length, and you can be perfectly rigid and able to handle the weight, and you'll still fall over. Swing those things, stop in mid-swing...and your entire body will whip around instead of just your arms.

3) Realistically, you have no combat flexibility. The weapons are too large to thrust, you can't cut from underneath because you'd hit the ground all the time. You can basically swing right, left and overhead. So unless you're standing several feet off the ground, you can't actually use them like a sword.
========

I note on the two examples above of Gilgamesh and Cu Chulain, they wielded HEAVY weapons. But not HUGE weapons. They were strong men, so they used heavier stuff, but they didn't go overboard on size, because they weren't tall enough to use big weapons effectively.
=========

And those are the reasons why I consider the dual Greatswords or the large/huge weapon arguments kind of cheesy. I will note that most of the times when you see oversized weapons like this, the characters can fly, walk on air, or jump really, really high, with impossible ability to control their momentum and inertia. Their strength is more at the level of touch-telekinesis then brute power.

Example: In his awesome final fight with Uloquiara, Ichigo in his Vasto Lorde form hurls a rock at him. Literally reaches up to a falling rock, grabs it, and chucks it at the other.
That rock was the size of the U.S. Capitol building. With just strength, what he would have done is grabbed it, flexed, and driven himself into its mass, since he's lighter then the rock. The rock would have kept right on going, driven into his unyielding body by its own mass and inertia.
But he's got both magical lightfoot/walk on air, and touchteke level strength, both totally magical. So in midair, he's braced, his center of gravity is whatever direction he wants, and he effectively grabs the entire rock at once, treats it like a baseball, and just tosses it.

That's not just strength. There's a lot more going on.

But Strength in PF isn't noted to work the way of telekinesis. It probably should, but it doesn't. they totally worked the same explanation for Superman's powers, so that, for example, he could lift an ocean liner out of the water, and not have it break in half above him under its own weight. he's effectively grabbing the whole boat at the same time, not just where his hands are.

And so, things which break the pure Strength, ease of wielding, center of mass paradigm without some reason why they would do so in violation of physics tend to seem cheesy to me. It's just not realistic (granted, it took me a while to figure out WHY they seemed this way, and I had to work through the above).
Introduce a mechanic to get around this, and I'm totally fine. but as it stands, it's just doesn't work.

===================

And now, onto our next topic of the evening.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Suspension of disbelief?

Did you even read Jiggy's post?

Also...giant flying firebreathing lizards!

If physics is your problem, all dragons must have their wings rip off like wet paper.

Suspension of disbelief. Ha.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
I banned the geisha bard. OP! Darn thing was disrupting all my plans with that amazing tea ceremony.

Hey! That's slander libel!

The smitter wrote:
Any way cheese is great.

I happen to agree.


Aelryinth wrote:

That's not just strength. There's a lot more going on.

But Strength in PF isn't noted to work the way of telekinesis. It probably should, but it doesn't. they totally worked the same explanation for Superman's powers, so that, for example, he could lift an ocean liner out of the water, and not have it break in half above him under its own weight. he's effectively grabbing the whole boat at the same time, not just where his hands are.

And so, things which break the pure Strength, ease of wielding, center of mass paradigm without some reason why they would do so in violation of physics tend to seem cheesy to me. It's just not realistic (granted, it took me a while to figure out WHY they seemed this way, and I had to work through the above).
Introduce a mechanic to get around this, and I'm totally fine. but as it stands, it's just doesn't work.

The question is: why?

(Obviously the designers think it works more or less pretty well - see Amiri for an example.)

((Yes, I realize you noted "maybe it should" immediately thereafter - this is not a specific challenge toward you, but rather a general question built off of your premise.))


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because some people only want reality stretched where they're already comfortable. They're not willing to expand their perspective. It seems utterly ridiculous to me, though, given that reality is bent with even the non magical at completely arbitrary levels and situations. Why it is somehow okay for "realists" with one instance to defy physics and not another is beyond me.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Suspension of disbelief?

Did you even read Jiggy's post?

Also...giant flying firebreathing lizards!

If physics is your problem, all dragons must have their wings rip off like wet paper.

Suspension of disbelief. Ha.

Of course I read it. This is a counterpoint.

Giant firebreathing monsters are inherently magical, break tons of rules. Great!

Fighter types swinging around swords are not defined as accessing magic. Vir bin haben problem. Either give them magic or you break my suspension of disbelief.

And for all the realism factors I noted. I don't care how much magic you're talking, dual wielding greatswords or using a huge sword in a 10' corridor IS NOT GOING TO WORK. It's dumb. Size is only unrestrictable in big open areas.

Without a magical/exterior explanation, center of gravity remains a thing, as does inertia.

And as soon as you change the rules on how the latter two work, you introduce magic into the core of combat, instead of the accoutrements.

==Aelryinth


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Caedwyr wrote:
Paul Bunyan = Anime.

The lonely lumberjack and his blue-haired girl bodypillow he calls "Babe".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, since dragon flight is explicitly not magical, it infers that other non magical effects could similarly defy our well established physical laws?


Trogdar wrote:
Well, since dragon flight is explicitly not magical, it infers that other non magical effects could similarly defy our well established physical laws?

Well they are extraordinary. So, by definition they are not ordinary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Suspension of disbelief?

Did you even read Jiggy's post?

Also...giant flying firebreathing lizards!

If physics is your problem, all dragons must have their wings rip off like wet paper.

Suspension of disbelief. Ha.

Of course I read it. This is a counterpoint.

Giant firebreathing monsters are inherently magical, break tons of rules. Great!

Fighter types swinging around swords are not defined as accessing magic. Vir bin haben problem. Either give them magic or you break my suspension of disbelief.

And for all the realism factors I noted. I don't care how much magic you're talking, dual wielding greatswords or using a huge sword in a 10' corridor IS NOT GOING TO WORK. It's dumb. Size is only unrestrictable in big open areas.

Without a magical/exterior explanation, center of gravity remains a thing, as does inertia.

And as soon as you change the rules on how the latter two work, you introduce magic into the core of combat, instead of the accoutrements.

==Aelryinth

Dragons are probably a bad, though iconic, example. Precisely because they are magical.

Are Rocs "inherently magical"? Are giant insects "inherently magical"? Are giants "inherently magical", for that matter?

Is there a non-circular reason to conclude that? They must be magical because they wouldn't work otherwise is circular logic.

By that same logic, that fighter with the oversized blade must be magic too. Just like the one who knows he can jump off a 200' cliff into the battle. Or the one who can punch out the rhino.

It's a fantasy world. It runs on fantasy. That includes the fighters.

If the big swords break your sense of disbelief, don't allow them. If the other things don't, run with them. But don't try to keep it out of the rules so that other people who do like that kind of game can't use it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:


People know this instinctively. The Hulk, for example, can't just reach out and pick up a tank.

Why? Because the center of gravity is under the tank. What would happen is that he'd reach out, sink his hands into the armor, clench his mighty biceps...and lift himself off the ground, because he's lighter then the tank. He's end up upside down, 'lifting up' himself instead of the tank, because of center of gravity.

But the Hulk does just reach out and pick up tanks. He's done it for decades.

He also can't make those mile long jumps - the ground isn't sturdy enough to resist the kind of force you'd need. It would be like jumping in mud.
But he does.

Because comic book physics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Well, since dragon flight is explicitly not magical, it infers that other non magical effects could similarly defy our well established physical laws?
Well they are extraordinary. So, by definition they are not ordinary.

The Fighter's Weapon Training is extraordinary. And yet there seems to be quite a disparity in exactly how impressive dragon flight and the Fighter's ability to use a sword is, isn't there?

(rhetorical question, this is Anzyr I'm talking to and I know exactly what his stance is on this subject).

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actively sniffing through new material in search of cheese seems to be a kind of ritual sport for some people.

Some people apparently get their jollies deliberately trying to break the game for some reason...and then complaining that they're able to do it.

It's like the old joke where the guy goes to the doctor and says, "Doc, it hurts when I do THIS," and the doctor replies, "well, stop doing it!"

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

thejeff wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:


People know this instinctively. The Hulk, for example, can't just reach out and pick up a tank.

Why? Because the center of gravity is under the tank. What would happen is that he'd reach out, sink his hands into the armor, clench his mighty biceps...and lift himself off the ground, because he's lighter then the tank. He's end up upside down, 'lifting up' himself instead of the tank, because of center of gravity.

But the Hulk does just reach out and pick up tanks. He's done it for decades.

He also can't make those mile long jumps - the ground isn't sturdy enough to resist the kind of force you'd need. It would be like jumping in mud.
But he does.

Because comic book physics.

The hard ground could propel him, hard matter only compresses so far. You just have to realize that he's going at least Mach 3 to be able to jump three miles.

And he can jump hard enough and fast enough to achieve ESCAPE VELOCITY. yeah, that means he can move his body at miles/second to be able to jump like that...or his strength is more then physical. Since he's never been portrayed with superspeed, I'm inclined to see the latter.

The hulk can pick up a tank if he uses center of gravity. The good artists have always used him like that.

But they've also said his strength now comes from cosmic level sources, and so transcends the physical. When you can stomp your feet and potentially crack a continental plate, you've gone beyond strength.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

thejeff wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Suspension of disbelief?

Did you even read Jiggy's post?

Also...giant flying firebreathing lizards!

If physics is your problem, all dragons must have their wings rip off like wet paper.

Suspension of disbelief. Ha.

Of course I read it. This is a counterpoint.

Giant firebreathing monsters are inherently magical, break tons of rules. Great!

Fighter types swinging around swords are not defined as accessing magic. Vir bin haben problem. Either give them magic or you break my suspension of disbelief.

And for all the realism factors I noted. I don't care how much magic you're talking, dual wielding greatswords or using a huge sword in a 10' corridor IS NOT GOING TO WORK. It's dumb. Size is only unrestrictable in big open areas.

Without a magical/exterior explanation, center of gravity remains a thing, as does inertia.

And as soon as you change the rules on how the latter two work, you introduce magic into the core of combat, instead of the accoutrements.

==Aelryinth

Dragons are probably a bad, though iconic, example. Precisely because they are magical.

Are Rocs "inherently magical"? Are giant insects "inherently magical"? Are giants "inherently magical", for that matter?

Is there a non-circular reason to conclude that? They must be magical because they wouldn't work otherwise is circular logic.

By that same logic, that fighter with the oversized blade must be magic too. Just like the one who knows he can jump off a 200' cliff into the battle. Or the one who can punch out the rhino.

It's a fantasy world. It runs on fantasy. That includes the fighters.

If the big swords break your sense of disbelief, don't allow them. If the other things don't, run with them. But don't try to keep it out of the rules so that other people who do like that kind of game can't use it.

IN the Endzeitgeist AP, elemental Air is a distant plane. Because of it, unnatural and magical flight isn't possible.

When it moved distant, all dragons lost the ability to fly, cloud castles fell to the ground, and flight magic stopped working. Dragons were shortly thereafter killed en masse because they couldn't fly away from pursuers anymore, or attack unharmed from the sky.

So, yeah, if it's defying physics, there's definitely a fantastic element involved. The difference is going to be whether its dispellable, or suppressable...and since its EX, not even an AM shell will have an effect.

That doesn't mean its not magical, it just means that you can't do anything about it without changing the magical laws of that reality.

Oh, and I'm not trying to keep it out of the rules. I just understand completely why some GMs will ban it, as it stretches their disbelief quotient. they don't want to keep making up more stuff to justify being able to do that.

==Aelryinth


Snow_Tiger wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong (and i'm no weapons expert) but things like monkey-grip may be considered cheesy, unrealistic, and/or nearly impossible, because of how these weapons were used, an the context in which they were developments. Sorry if this has already been discussed.

The first reason this idea of swinging around a big sword (in a stereotypically barbaric manner), especially with one hand, is that barbarians didn't really have access to big swords the way we think they did, in part because they were both expensive, not developed yet, and required a lot of skill, even two-handed.

lets start with the classical greek hoplite. You have a spear, shield, and sword (spartan from 300) and may even have a cuirass, helmet and greaves if you're lucky. Basically the idea was being really fast, but also having the option of becoming tank-like by forming a phalanx. Theire small shortswords were good enough because there were plenty of weak points. Note, that other than the spartans an the great nobles of the other city states, there weren't really any professional soldiers.

To be fair, people who play greatsword-wielding barbarians aren't thinking realism, they're thinking Conan the Barbarian. Or maybe Guts nowadays, if they're asking to Monkey Grip


Aelryinth wrote:

One of the reasons I don't like oversized weapons is because it strains my suspension of disbelief.

1) They're big. They'll get in one another's way. it doesn't matter how strong you are, they just occupy a bunch of space and trying to use them like a pair of short swords isn't going to work. Twin-Wielding Greatswords is going to end up with you knocking the swords together a lot.

I went over that already. Monkey Grip does not allow you to dual-wield Greatswords. You can weld one Large Light or One-handed weapon in one hand, or one Large Two-handed weapon in two hands. That's it.

And even if you could, as I also went over, the -6(-8/-12) accumulative penalties for Monkey Grip and dual-wielding two weapons when one of them isn't light are a decent representation of that very problem.

Quote:
If you're in any kind of an enclosed space, they are simply too big, and you can't use them at all! A great number of weapons are used because they are SHORT, and can be used in confined spaces. Large weapons are basically only useful in very large, wide-open spaces.

That goes for Medium Greatswords and many other two-handed weapons.

Quote:
2) Mass and inertia. yes, yes, hear me out. IT doesn't matter how strong you are, those two things exist. If you are strong enough to treat those two swords like willow wands, yes, you're inhumanly strong.

You're dropping a pretty big assumption here, you know, I bring this up because you're kinda basing your entire argument around it.

Quote:

People know this instinctively. The Hulk, for example, can't just reach out and pick up a tank.

Why? Because the center of gravity is under the tank. What would happen is that he'd reach out, sink his hands into the armor, clench his mighty biceps...and lift himself off the ground, because he's lighter then the tank. He's end up upside down, 'lifting up' himself instead of the tank, because of center of gravity.

You... have never actually read an Incredible Hulk comic, watched one of his cartoons or movies, or played Ultimate Destruction at all, have you?

Because picking up tanks is kinda what he does. Especially in the old Hunted-By-General-Ross days.

Quote:

A Large Warhammer with a five pound head relative is twice as big, forty pounds of weight at the end of a stick. Stick two of them out at full length, and you can be perfectly rigid and able to handle the weight, and you'll still fall over. Swing those things, stop in mid-swing...and your entire body will whip around instead of just your arms.

3) Realistically, you have no combat flexibility. The weapons are too large to thrust, you can't cut from underneath because you'd hit the ground all the time. You can basically swing right, left and overhead. So unless you're standing several feet off the ground, you can't actually use them like a sword.

No rule states how a weapon is actually used, you know. We're back on that "assumption" thing.

Indeed, trying to swwing around an oversized weapon is nowhere near as easy as a normal one. That's why our hero had to burn a Feat just to figure out how to hold the damn thing halfway properly, and will spend at least two levels worth of growth and practice just to get as good swinging it as he was with his old weapon(s). I.e.: learning to shift his center of mass to compensate for the added mass of the weapon.

But for some reason, you seem dead set on assuming the feat makes it just as easy to swing a huge-ass sword as it does a dagger. Why?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arnwyn wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Except it does affect what we have available, because the "realism" restrictions on martials are why martials don't have tools.
I instead chalk it up to: martial's tools are fine... it's the wizard's tools that were badly designed (and they didn't have to be).

And it's been understood for a long time that was so, without it stopping the expansion of the toy-box the casters get.

Quote:

Magic-use was thereby to be powerful enough to enable its followers to compete with any other type of player-character, and yet the use of magic would not be so great as to make those using it overshadow all others. This was the conception, but in practice it did not work out as planned. Primarily at fault is the game itself which does not carefully explain the reasoning behind the magic system. Also, the various magic items for employment by magic-users tend to make them too powerful in relation to other classes (although the GREYHAWK supplement took steps to correct this somewhat).

...

The logic behind it all was drawn from game balance as much as from anything else. Fighters have their strength, weapons, and armor to aid them in their competition. Magic-users must rely upon their spells, as they have virtually no weaponry or armor to protect them. Clerics combine some of the advantages of the other two classes. The new class, thieves, have the basic advantage of stealthful actions with some additions in order for them to successfully operate on a plane with other character types. If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D & D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly, or the referee is forced to change the game into a new framework which will accommodate what he has created by way of player-characters. It is the opinion of this writer that the most desirable game is one in which the various character types are able to compete with each other as relative equals.

1976, that dates from. You can argue that the author never managed to square that circle of class balance by restraining magic, but no-one can say it was intended for the game to be about casters and caddies.

Liberty's Edge

I don't mind being told something is cheesy/broke/overpowered. As long as it can factually be proved to be all three. Instead what I see usually happening is some on the hobby disliking say a spell or feat. Then instead of simply just admitting that. They try and push something as broken or cheesy. If I listened to every instance of that. I would never be able to use any of the newer material. I would be a very rich man if I received a dollar every time we had some claim something was broken. I come here check and see what is claimed to be broken. Read up on it. Then see if it's fact or opinion. Usually it ends up as being opinion and nothing more imo. I knew back in 3.5 to take broken claims from the community with a galaxy sized grain of salt. Were talking about the a significant amount that caused weapon focus and greater weapon focus bonuses to be changed from +2,+4 to +1,+2. How is a two point difference that significant. Who knows maybe some people dislike equal numbers.

What bothers me the most is how those claiming stuff being broken come off sometimes as hypocrites. Say high and low how broken Gunslingers or feat XYZ is in a game where they are the DM. Yet as a player take then take the class and feat.

I try to respect and understand the realism argument I see here and out of the forums. To be blunt I simply can't. I have tried over the last two decades. But I can't. I could understand the argument if D&D was grounded in realism and physics. Majority of the game simply breaks the rules of realism. Dragons the size of jumbo jets not only flying easily yet also finding enough food to sustain themselves in areas they claim and terrorize. Wizards and Clerics routinely break the laws of physics. If one does not like some elements of guns just tell me that. Telling me and others it's not realistic. Well expect a few raised eyebrows, a few laughs, and most disagreeing with you imo.

The Hulk can lift a tank easily because he can lift 100 tons. She-Hulk can lift 75 tons. Unless this has changed recently. So some might think and insist it's not realistic. Both have the strength to not only lift a tank. They can do it in their sleep.


thejeff wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Personally, I think the more "absurd" martial powers should be considered Supernatural abilities. It's pretty easy to houserule, too.

That said, dual-wielding greataxes? Not really that much more absurd than a human being able to get a 30 Strength, or survive a fall into laval, or [arrow-related gripe]. Heroes are heroes. Choose your battles. Save your overthinking for the "I can split a mountain with my sword!" or "I can cause earthquakes with my hammer!" abilities.

odd that the mountain-splitting and earthquaking are seen as less possible while the bearded invisible flying guy calls in angels en masse to battle cthulu.

why cant everyone be a heroic demigod at high levels? at the upper levels you are regularly worldhopping and wheeling and dealing with planar overlords, why the hell CANT i play a properly Fantastic martial? Why do I only get to affect the world only within the reach of my weapon, while the wizard can wave a hand and vaporize a city. or summon an elder god. or change the weather. or stop time. or or or or OR OR OR

why is any of that absurd when the party wizard can just up and turn into a dragon when he wants.

Yes I'm mad.

Wizards can do that because they are using magic. Fighters can't do that because they aren't. Can we please try to remember the difference? Reminding people of it gets old and detracts from the real point.

*Climbs up on soapbox*

There is a thematic difference between a wizard being able to cast spells—something explained within the setting and game as a magical effect, established as a sanctioned exception to the laws of physics—and a nonmagical fighter being able to "fart fireballs". Magic is a specific conceit of any magical world. Fighters farting fire is not. This is a conceit specific to certain styles of fantasy, such as the aforementioned

...

I guess we have different values of unrealistic. Knocking out a rhino unarmed isn't likely, but someone with sufficient skill and strength could probably do it. Moreover, it's a hell of a lot less blatant. Fridge logic is very different from "I HEADBUTT A HOLE IN THE MOUNTAIN".


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I guess we have different values of unrealistic. Knocking out a rhino unarmed isn't likely, but someone with sufficient skill and strength could probably do it. Moreover, it's a hell of a lot less blatant. Fridge logic is very different from "I HEADBUTT A HOLE IN THE MOUNTAIN".

I suspect that part of the issue is that some notice the unrealistic parts of the system more than others.

Someone with a decent intuitive knowledge of statistics and familiarity with how die rolls work out could notice immediately upon reading the falling rules that falling from orbit will deal about 70 damage, his level 10 wizard can survive that, the high con party barbarian could survive that 4 levels ago and now the barbarian can survive a max damage fall and walk it off. The system is therefore so unrealistic.

Another person might not notice and just see a boat load of damage (a whole 20 d6s, that's a lot of dice) and think the falling rules are pretty realistic.

Lets say the former person notices the "broken" (from a realism standpoint) parts of the system all over the place, and the second fails to notice most of it. Upon hearing something like dual wielding greatswords, the latter person is going to see it as bizarre compared to the realistic-except-when-magic system. The former person is going to look at the latter person and wonder why someone would take issue with wielding somewhat-heavier-than-usual swords when at the level they are playing at scrawny wizards can reliably survive things that turn real people into boney jelly and fighters can put their fists through tank armor (iirc in d20 modern tanks have 20 hardness).


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Another difference is that some of us embrace broken realism.

A fighter performing an orbital drop-kick isn't a bug, it's a feature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I guess we have different values of unrealistic. Knocking out a rhino unarmed isn't likely, but someone with sufficient skill and strength could probably do it. Moreover, it's a hell of a lot less blatant. Fridge logic is very different from "I HEADBUTT A HOLE IN THE MOUNTAIN".

Less blatant certainly, but far beyond "isn't likely". "Sufficient skill and strength" would be well into superhero level, which is where PF puts you by the middle levels.

By the same argument "someone with sufficient skill and strength" could wield oversize weapons with little penalty.

"Different values of unrealistic" is the point though. Different things break different peoples suspension of disbelief. Which is fine, except that it's used as an argument to keep martials from being effective at high levels in the base system.


Snowblind wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I guess we have different values of unrealistic. Knocking out a rhino unarmed isn't likely, but someone with sufficient skill and strength could probably do it. Moreover, it's a hell of a lot less blatant. Fridge logic is very different from "I HEADBUTT A HOLE IN THE MOUNTAIN".

I suspect that part of the issue is that some notice the unrealistic parts of the system more than others.

Someone with a decent intuitive knowledge of statistics and familiarity with how die rolls work out could notice immediately upon reading the falling rules that falling from orbit will deal about 70 damage, his level 10 wizard can survive that, the high con party barbarian could survive that 4 levels ago and now the barbarian can survive a max damage fall and walk it off. The system is therefore so unrealistic.

Another person might not notice and just see a boat load of damage (a whole 20 d6s, that's a lot of dice) and think the falling rules are pretty realistic.

Lets say the former person notices the "broken" (from a realism standpoint) parts of the system all over the place, and the second fails to notice most of it. Upon hearing something like dual wielding greatswords, the latter person is going to see it as bizarre compared to the realistic-except-when-magic system. The former person is going to look at the latter person and wonder why someone would take issue with wielding somewhat-heavier-than-usual swords when at the level they are playing at scrawny wizards can reliably survive things that turn real people into boney jelly and fighters can put their fists through tank armor (iirc in d20 modern tanks have 20 hardness).

Along this line of thought, behold the fullplate - fifty pounds of metal.

Now, remember, it has a hardness of 10, and 40 hit points.

So, to destroy it all in one blow, you need 50 damage. 100 damage, if it's energy! That's actually really impressive!

Behold, the mighty dragon! This one, specifically, can reliably slag a suit of chainmail!

20d10 ~> 105 damage on average!

On the other hand, 14*5.5+30+10 = 116; this presumes a 14 CON a 15th level fighter can be hit directly, in the face, and still be standing with no reduction in combat ability. That... seems super-heroic to me.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I just can't see how a Wizard blasting stuff with magic is OK in a fantasy setting. Yet somehow a Fighter leaping from building to building in full plate as unrealistic or game breaking. Both tend to break the laws of realism. Both can be seen in certain types of literature. A high level fighter while not splitting a mountain in two. Should be able to break a boulder in two imo. I get certain gamers don't like seeing that. Just admit it. Telling me it's unrealistic but Wizards get a free pass on that because of "magical reasons" is not going to convince me of your side of the argument.


memorax wrote:
I just can't see how a Wizard blasting stuff with magic is OK in a fantasy setting. Yet somehow a Fighter leaping from building to building in full plate as unrealistic or game breaking.

Again, I would feel a lot less conflicted supporting you guys if you'd stop entangling things in this silliness. Mages are mages. They have magic. Fighters are fighters. They have swords. There is a concrete reason wizards can blast stuff. Magic is a sanctioned excuse to break the laws of physics—fighters are not given such an excuse. When they are, it works (RWBY gives everyone "aura", for instance, which seems to allow a certain level of physics-breaking for everyone, while Hercules is the son of a god).

Keep your fantasy consistent. If you want to point out that fighters already have access to physics-breaking with huge falls and stuff, fine. That I have trouble debating. So why do people keep reverting to an argument that is infinitely weaker?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

mm, because you have to justify it.

If fighters can do anime leaps in your world, explain it and give them lightfoot or whatever you want to call it. But make it plain they have it. They are now no longer a no-magic class.

Keep in mind that hit points for people and hit points for inanimate objects mean different things. That has been pointed out multiple times. Although I personally love the idea of hit points being 'fighter magic' above a certain level...I draw a line between Health and Soak that way, Soak being the magical part.

And I never said dual wielding greatswords or large greatswords was mechanically a great idea, btw. But anime does make it look easy.

THe She-Hulk is up to being able to bench 100 tons (she started working out in her human form). The Hulk ...currently has no upper limit on his strength, although his 'at rest' strength is at least 100 tons. But he's been written as being able to crack the eastern seaboard with a foot stomp if he's angry enough, so...

==Aelryinth


5 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
I just can't see how a Wizard blasting stuff with magic is OK in a fantasy setting. Yet somehow a Fighter leaping from building to building in full plate as unrealistic or game breaking. Both tend to break the laws of realism. Both can be seen in certain types of literature. A high level fighter while not splitting a mountain in two. Should be able to break a boulder in two imo. I get certain gamers don't like seeing that. Just admit it. Telling me it's unrealistic but Wizards get a free pass on that because of "magical reasons" is not going to convince me of your side of the argument.

I could kind of see where they are coming from from a verisimilitude point of view. Pathfinder does weakly attempt to present it's internal physics as "Fairly realistic, except when overtly magic". Breaking tanks with your forehead does fly in the face of this.

Unfortunately, PC fighters are supposed to be able to contribute roughly equally as much as PC wizards. This is clearly indicated to the readers of the CRB by the fact that both are in the same classes section of the CRB and are both professed to be appropriate PC choices with no indication of an imbalance in narrative power. Making 1 PC chained to the bounds of reality while another PC is overflowing with Fantastic Cosmic Power screws inter-player game balance into the ground beyond what any reasonable person would expect to be appropriate for a cooperative tactics heavy roll playing game.

Either fighters should be realistic and magic be weak, magic strong and fighters able to cleave houses with their fists, or magic strong and fighters weak but NPC only. Anything else creates a situation where some players feel like gods while others (correctly) feel like dead weight, which isn't fun (thus defeating the purpose of playing Pathfinder, to have fun).

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Keep your fantasy consistent.

I believe that's what people are trying to get you to do.

In one breath you say that magic is the reason mages get to defy reality, and in the next you say that it's fine that there are some nonmagical methods of fighters defying reality.

You're contradicting yourself. Either magic is required in order to exceed reality, or it isn't. If it is, then to keep any kind of credibility you need to let go of the "huge falls and stuff" that nonmagically defy reality. If it's not, then you need to let go of your "it's okay because magic" explanation for mages' ability to regard reality differently than fighters.

Pick one and commit.


I'm not saying that. I'm not sure how I made it seem like I was saying that.

To help illustrate, I'll draw attention to the main point of my post:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Keep your fantasy consistent. If you want to point out that fighters already have access to physics-breaking with huge falls and stuff, fine. That I have trouble debating.

I'm not supporting the contradiction. I'm saying that it is a contradiction that I myself can't really square. I'm taking him (and many others) to task for failing to make use of such a valid point in favor of such shitty ones as, "If a wizard can throw fireballs, anything goes." That is just a terrible argument that can be very easily torn apart.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have decided to let magic items be inert powers in my next game. That Way figthers Will be flying and everybody Will have Big eyes, and i am sure it Will be great. I Think it May change the story quite a bit.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
...for failing to make use of such a valid point in favor of such s+@!ty ones as, "If a wizard can throw fireballs, anything goes." That is just a terrible argument that can be very easily torn apart.

It's also one that people aren't making. The only mention of "if a wizard can throw fireballs, then anything goes" has been from those who wish to tear it down. What has been said is things like "if a wizard can do X, then a fighter can do Y". Taking whatever specific things a person thinks is okay for a fighter to do and changing it to "anything goes" is a dishonest way of pretending their argument is more absurd than it is, precisely because "anything goes" is (as you note) easier to tear down than "fantasy heroes can do X".

Dark Archive

It's not a shitty argument. In a game, if there are options, and those options are inherently slanted way the hell away from one towards the other, but they're both billed as valid and effective options, THAT. IS. WRONG.

"Oh, he's got magic, he's fine."
"Oh, he doesn't have magic, he can't do shit."

This is the flimsiest argument when they're supposed to be contributing equally. This isn't a comic book. If some superhero is useless, it doesn't leave somebody sitting at the table with their arms crossed and pouting because they're literally incapable of meaningfully contributing, which I have seen happen to a new player who thought Fighter would be fun. Even in comic books, they pull out stuff to let the weaker heroes shine sometimes. And even among the absolute strongest, you can find completely mundane ones like Batman who is just damn smart and rich and solves problem without magic or super strength or eyebeams or any of that nonsense.

But in PF, that's not an option. And all it takes is one guy at the table going "Oh, wizard looks fun" and that's pretty much all it takes. You can stumble into some of the worst, most game-breaking spells BY ACCIDENT. If you randomly select spells from the spell list for Wizards, you can seriously end up with a character that can ruin campaigns. Without trying!

So, no. You don't get to say "I DON'T CARE, IT HURTS MY VERISIMILITUDE" when it hurts everyone who actually wants to contribute to the game as a mundane class far more. You can get over your heebie-jeebies from things you don't like. The first-time-Fighter will never get over how much he hated sitting around being a waste of space, assuming he doesn't quit the hobby altogether.

TL;DR: Nobody cares what hurts you verisimilitude, but they do care when you try and kneecap multiple classes in the pursuit of it. Cheesy or not, it's you and your group's business.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
On the other hand, 14*5.5+30+10 = 116; this presumes a 14 CON a 15th level fighter can be hit directly, in the face, and still be standing with no reduction in combat ability. That... seems super-heroic to me.

That's because HP isn't being hit in the face. HP is your general awesomeness letting you have near-misses instead of being stabbed. Being actually stabbed directly is represented by a a coup de grace.

There was a cool FAQ for Star Wars revised d20 where it was asked by a battle-tank, a rancor, and a level 10ish character all had the same HP. For the battle-tank, it's actually being hit each time. For the 10ish character, it's mostly near-misses and close calls. For the rancor it's a bit of both.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
On the other hand, 14*5.5+30+10 = 116; this presumes a 14 CON a 15th level fighter can be hit directly, in the face, and still be standing with no reduction in combat ability. That... seems super-heroic to me.

That's because HP isn't being hit in the face. HP is your general awesomeness letting you have near-misses instead of being stabbed. Being actually stabbed directly is represented by a a coup de grace.

There was a cool FAQ for Star Wars revised d20 where it was asked by a battle-tank, a rancor, and a level 10ish character all had the same HP. For the battle-tank, it's actually being hit each time. For the 10ish character, it's mostly near-misses and close calls. For the rancor it's a bit of both.

This really does not work.

A commoner can get healed from dying to full with a single jab of a CLW wand.

A level 20 barbarian can eat the entire wand and still be wounded.

Same thing for ability damage, ability drain, negative levels etc.

We know that the characters are actually surviving far more damage at higher levels because it takes more effort to heal them of the damage.

201 to 250 of 581 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Why Are New Things Always Called Cheese? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.