Learning Takes a Lifetime

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Quote:

D&D and PF as reality simulators are notoriously a joke.

Firstly, HP alone does not makd this statement true.

I never mentioned Hit Points.

Sorry, grabbed from wrong spot. Shinigami said something to this effect, in the same post as everything else I quoted. It didn't copy down from the quote button so I to manually grab it. I got the wrong one, but as it amounted to nearly the same thing...

Gygax states in the 1st Ed AD&D DMG that D&D is game, not a fantasy simulator. You seem to want it to be something it was not originally designed for, and has never been.

No, but he never did figure out how to explain the difference either. He also noted how there were many players who "played the rules" and completely missed the point of the game.

When I mentioned "game," I am meaning as in the traditional sense of games, like chess and checkers.

Despite the dictionary definition above, no one calls reading a novel a game, nor do they call watching movies a game. Yet both of these are activities are undertaken for entertainment/pleasure.

My view here, is that the original concept of Gygax and Arneson, is an activity closer and more similar to books and movies than chess or checkers. Since books and movies are not called games, whatever the dictionary might say, I am saying playing an rp is no more a game than reading a novel, which means it might be according to technicality, but deserves that distinction afforded to books and movies.

I think the distinction is even more important now that games have ckme out that appear similar but are clearly designed as combat games rather than rp, such as 4e. The distinction here is more about how the rules are used, which otherwise has a subtle affect on rules design, and jndeed, you can use combat game rules for rp, they just won't be all that great at doing everything yoh need, but it'll work, just like it did when the first games used Chainmail.

As I said previously, the simulation aspect is not about simulating physics. Gygax and them did rely quite a bit on simulation, hence all their differing rules, but at the same time, they also understood that it still needed to be easy and fun to use.

I like simulation, but not when it gets fetishized so much that it gets in the way of actual use. Rifts is a good example of it getting too complex.

This is why I like 3.x, it has that balance between the core simulation and the ease of use factor. Hence why it isn't a perfect simulator of physics, because things had to be simplified to make them easy and fun, and simplification adds inaccuracy.

Chest Rockwell wrote:

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Quote:

D&D and PF as reality simulators are notoriously a joke.

Firstly, HP alone does not makd this statement true.

I never mentioned Hit Points.

Sorry, grabbed from wrong spot. Shinigami said something to this effect, in the same post as everything else I quoted. It didn't copy down from the quote button so I to manually grab it. I got the wrong one, but as it amounted to nearly the same thing...

Ha, and would with this "same thing..." be?

[Bashes HP for being horribly inaccurate, repeatedly]

Ladies and gentlemen, "realism".

The implication being that since hp is unrealistic, so too is everything.

[Bashes HP for being horribly inaccurate, repeatedly]

Quote:

Ladies and gentlemen, "realism".

The implication being that since hp is unrealistic, so too is everything.

Oh please. HP isn't the only thing that's completely laughable from the realism standpoint.

/loads and fires a flintlock 3 times in six seconds.

/punches crossbow bolts out of the air

/kills a dozen kobolds and becomes polyglot/a master engineer/an expert lockpick overnight

/beholds the collapse of all society in 90 degree weather due to heat rules

/watches polar bears freeze to death due to cold rules

And so on and so forth

Yeah, HP is far from the only unrealistic thing, it's just the lowest hanging fruit.

Heck, did you know that in Pathfinder a small (maybe inch and a half diameter) stone, possibly even made of clay (a sling bullet) weighs more than 3 arrows, or as much as 5 crossbow bolts?

Or let's look at another example of just average human ability. A level 3 (fairly average) Human Expert, 15 Dexterity (absolutely doable with the Average array), 1 of their class skills into Acrobatics, 3 ranks, and a skill focus. Their modifier: +11. This fairly average professional acrobat now has a 10% chance of beating the world record long-jump (29 feet, 4.375 inches or so). Gain one level to where they're, say, an olympic athlete tier but still not the best-of-the-best, Dexterity is up to 16 because level 4, gain another rank, their modifier is now +13, and their chance of beating the world record (which, note, has been the world record since 1991, a solid 27 years now) is up to a solid 20%. One in 5 jumps on average. And they are casually (take 10) jumping a solid 5 feet in the air, almost 6. If they hit level 5 they will be jumping 6 feet in the air casually.

And of course this can be made even worse if they take more training, and spend their level 3 feat on Acrobatic. At which point at level 3 they're at the 1 in 5 chance of beating the world long jump, level 4 almost 1 in 3, and a casual high jump at level 4 is 6 feet, and have a 20% chance of matching the world-record high jump of 8 feet (okay the world record adds half an inch, Pathfinder doesn't have that level of granularity).

And that's not even touching on things like the Grappling rules which don't have a size limit (a Butterfly with the right stats could grapple or even pin the Tarrasque. Not likely, but absolutely possible within the mechanics.) Or the Perception mechanics which make navigating by the stars impossible, as you cannot see them. The 17-strength Barbarian who can somehow carry a possible 40 more pounds of gear because their backpack has some fancy straps. The exact same fancy backpack on the 8-strength commoner gives them only 10 pounds because... reasons. The aforementioned "load and shoot" a flintlock pistol multiple times in 6 seconds (with the right build you can get up to 7 shots in 6 seconds eventually) or even just loading and shooting once per 6 seconds at level 1. Maybe even twice by level 3 if you immediately go for Rapid Reload, Rapid Shot or TWF (admittedly the TWF builds are always more limited in race selection or via multiclassing and usually non-human), and Paper Cartridges. And let's not forget the Gunslinger archetype that does that same two shots in 6 seconds at level 3 with a musket. And frankly, the list of things goes on and on, these are just the ones off the top of my head.

Humans can beat up tigers in PF.

"Bear fight!:"

But for some reason you can't have monkey knife fights. :(

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Humans can beat up tigers in PF.

"Bear fight!:"

But for some reason you can't have monkey knife fights. :(

Only in international waters my friend

graystone wrote:

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Humans can beat up tigers in PF.

"Bear fight!:"

But for some reason you can't have monkey knife fights. :(

Only in international waters my friend

Not even there. The 'man' has said you can't train animals to use weapons. So even if you have #1 a boat in international waters #2 a pair of drunk monkeys and #3 several knives you still can't have monkey knife fight.

I have long wanted a monkey animal companion wearing a leather jacket and weilding a switchblade. ;)

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

graystone wrote:

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Humans can beat up tigers in PF.

"Bear fight!:"

But for some reason you can't have monkey knife fights. :(

Only in international waters my friend

Not even there. The 'man' has said you can't train animals to use weapons. So even if you have #1 a boat in international waters #2 a pair of drunk monkeys and #3 several knives you still can't have monkey knife fight.

I have long wanted a monkey animal companion wearing a leather jacket and weilding a switchblade. ;)

Oh you mean in Pathfinder. Err, you're totally right. Just disregard what I said back there, nothing to see at all.

I can pretty casually make a 4th level character in Pathfinder who can outwrestle a rhinoceros. By 8th level, it doesn't even require investment, being a max Str Full BAB character is enough.

Realism in terms of human capability in Pathfinder is basically nonexistent.

I have long wanted a monkey animal companion wearing a leather jacket and weilding a switchblade. ;)

If you are an Eldritch Guardian Fighter (from Familiar Folio) you can have a Monkey familiar with a better stat-block than the Animal Companion because it is intelligent, uses your BAB, Saves, and Skill Ranks.

As a philosophical point, I genuinely believe that "Selectively Applied realism" particularly without broader consideration and consistent application of the reasons for said unrealism, is bad for the game.

Like at the point where we're positing that elves and dragons and kaiju exist, we're kind of past the point where insisting that "allowing multiple shots from a crossbow in a given round is unrealistic, and should not be allowed." A Pathfinder character can hold their breath for the same amount of time underwater whether they are meditating or engaging in an aerobic activity like combat- because who wants to have to track "time spent holding breath" in a complicated way?

For the most part things in this game are unrealistic either because 1) it's more fun this way or 2) it's a simplification for ease of use. Both are good reasons.

Like at the point where we're positing that elves and dragons and kaiju exist, we're kind of past the point where insisting that "allowing multiple shots from a crossbow in a given round is unrealistic, and should not be allowed." A Pathfinder character can hold their breath for the same amount of time underwater whether they are meditating or engaging in an aerobic activity like combat- because who wants to have to track "time spent holding breath" in a complicated way?

Just to be pedantic, but they can't. You get twice your Constitution in rounds holding your breath, but every Standard or Full Round action you take reduces this total by 1. In effect, you've half your breath capacity if you're engaging in any kind of strenous activity, be it combat or just using skills that require such actions (like Disable Device).

Of course this just shows how PFs selective realism is incredibly lopsided. I can only hold my breath half as long underwater if I'm doing stuff, no matter my level, but if I'm high level enough I can fall into lava and be basically fine. Or how you have rules for temperature effects but they just make no sense whatsoever when you actually examine them.

At least monkey knife-fights are within the realm of realism.

LOL That was kind of my point, as something possible but not allowed. The dev's have said animals use their natural weapons even if you give them proficiencies. Hence my sadness over no 'biker' monkey.

graystone wrote:

I have long wanted a monkey animal companion wearing a leather jacket and weilding a switchblade. ;)

If you are an Eldritch Guardian Fighter (from Familiar Folio) you can have a Monkey familiar with a better stat-block than the Animal Companion because it is intelligent, uses your BAB, Saves, and Skill Ranks.

In addition you share all your combat feats with it, so all you have to do is 'waste' two feats on Light Armor and Simple/Martial/Exotic Weapon Proficiency and your monkey is almost as good a fighter as you are.
I had a plan for a spear-wielding Koala. Totally off topic though.

From the Dev's: "An intelligent gorilla could hold or wield a sword, but its inclination is to make slam attacks. No amount of training (including weapon proficiency feats) is going to make it fully comfortable attacking in any other way." From their point of view, no matter how smart they are or how much better the weapon is to their own attack, they will always default to the natural attack.

My Koala familiar is a Magical Beast with a base Int of 6, hands, and appropriate proficiencies. Nothing is stopping it from being strapped into +5 Leather Barding, given a +5 Small Spear, and holding the line alongside my Fighter with the benefits if the Combat Feats I share with it.

Unlike an Animal Companion, which is a class-feature granted NPC controlled by making skill-checks and severely limited by its creature type (usually Animal).

My Koala familiar is a Magical Beast with a base Int of 6, hands, and appropriate proficiencies. Nothing is stopping it from being strapped into +5 Leather Barding, given a +5 Small Spear, and holding the line alongside my Fighter with the benefits if the Combat Feats I share with it.

Unlike an Animal Companion, which is a class-feature granted NPC controlled by making skill-checks and severely limited by its creature type (usually Animal).

If it's a normal familiar, and not an improved one, it's "a magical beast for the purpose of effects that depend on its type." I don't think the dev's ruling on behavior falls under 'effects'. Also not sure how a koala gets hands. They fall under QUADRUPED (CLAWS) and those don't list "can grasp objects".

PS: I think we're wandering pretty far from the blog with this. ;)

I think we're wandering pretty far from the blog with this. ;)

Indeed we were!

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

[Bashes HP for being horribly inaccurate, repeatedly]

Quote:

Ladies and gentlemen, "realism".

The implication being that since hp is unrealistic, so too is everything.

Oh please. HP isn't the only thing that's completely laughable from the realism standpoint.

I didn't say it was.

/loads and fires a flintlock 3 times in six seconds.

Not too unrealustic. With right equipment and lots of practice, I coukd see this happening twice in 6 seconds, so three times isn't overly crazy.

/punches crossbow bolts out of the air

Totally possible for the types of folks that get that ability.

Heck, I've grabbed arrows from mid-air with little practice. Granted they were big foam tips making them easier, but they are not that much slower than normal tips, so claiming someone with significant practice can do it to crossbow bolts is very believable.

Considering there is a samurai alive today who can cut a bb fired at him, supposed faster than human reflex time, just another example that such things are indeed within the realm of real world people.

/kills a dozen kobolds and becomes polyglot/a master engineer/an expert lockpick overnight

Side effect of low granularity level based systems.

I said 3.x struck a nice balance. Nice balance means there will be certain costs. That saud, it assumed that your character is learning and practicing this stuff leading up to the actual level increase.

/beholds the collapse of all society in 90 degree weather due to heat rules

/watches polar bears freeze to death due to cold rules

Some of these rules are kntended to be used only when they add something to the game.

For example, if an emtire campaign takes place on boats, then taking a penalty for fighting on an unstable platform should not be bothered with, but if the boat fight is unusual or simply occasional, then taking that penalty helps make the fight feel more unique.

Mix that with simplification and you get imperfect things that feel right when used right.

Of course, keep in mind, heat/cold problems really can and do occur for folks not acclimated to the weather.

Our modern technology also lessens such problems even more.

Take a far up there northerner and drop them in the middle of hot place nowhere, and yes 90 degree weather will mess them up, especially if they don't drink enough water.

Our technology, air conditioning, acclimatization, etc, means that something that woukd normally be a serious problem, becomes easily managable.

Quote:

/loads and fires a flintlock 3 times in six seconds.

Not too unrealustic. With right equipment and lots of practice, I coukd see this happening twice in 6 seconds, so three times isn't overly crazy.

Then you really need to re-evaluate what you know about flintlocks. A well trained person with the right equipment can fire a muzzle loading flintlock musktet 3 times.....in 46 seconds.

See Example 1
And Example 2

The only way you can fire a flintlock firearm fast is if you have multiple barrels (from multiple guns, or on a single gun). Otherwise, forget about getting more than 2-3 shots in a minute.

So yes, 3 shots in six seconds is wildly unrealistic. Much like...everything in Pathfinder. Despite it's claims to simulationism, it's actually horrible at simulation. Which is fine, actually. The only game I ever played that tried to do simulation right was Twilight 2000, and that game was absolute trash.

Pathfinder, let alone d20 in general, has never claimed to be an accurate simulation to my knowledge.

Despite it's claims to simulationism, it's actually horrible at simulation. Which is fine, actually. The only game I ever played that tried to do simulation right was Twilight 2000, and that game was absolute trash.

In fairness, I've actually played some very good games that were fairly simulationist (I mentioned AFMBE earlier). D&D and Pathfinder are not among those games.

I could come up with a variety of increasingly absurd examples if I so desired (I'm pretty sure I can make a 1st level character who can out-wrestle a rhinoceros, for example), but the list is just so long...

Pathfinder definitely has its own internal logic, but it's a logic somewhere between pulp fiction, myth, an action movie, and superhero fiction. It bears only incidental resemblances to reality.

Reality is over rated anyways.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Quote:

/loads and fires a flintlock 3 times in six seconds.

Not too unrealustic. With right equipment and lots of practice, I coukd see this happening twice in 6 seconds, so three times isn't overly crazy.

Then you really need to re-evaluate what you know about flintlocks. A well trained person with the right equipment can fire a muzzle loading flintlock musktet 3 times.....in 46 seconds.

See Example 1
And Example 2

The only way you can fire a flintlock firearm fast is if you have multiple barrels (from multiple guns, or on a single gun). Otherwise, forget about getting more than 2-3 shots in a minute.

So yes, 3 shots in six seconds is wildly unrealistic. Much like...everything in Pathfinder. Despite it's claims to simulationism, it's actually horrible at simulation. Which is fine, actually. The only game I ever played that tried to do simulation right was Twilight 2000, and that game was absolute trash.

LOL! That is your examples and evidence?

Now I'll admit, I was thinking flintlock pistols, not muskets.

But seriously, even I can see a few ways for them to improve their times, not least of which is to stop putting the tamping rod back after each shot (that is probably 20% of their time right there, just getting the rod out of and back into the carry position).

Further, these guys have never had their lives dependent on what they are doing. They are enthusiasts. Enthusiasts miss a lot of stuff.

Heck even when it isn't about that, idiocy creeps in.

For example, the real military today teaches idiocy as actual technique.

My grandfather learned from veterans of ww2, and as an example, they taught you how to not die when throwing a grenade. Things like never peeking out of the same place twice, and never exposing your torso to throw a grenade.

Modern basic teaches you how to be a good target. They tell you to stand upright, stick your arm out like a flag, then throw.

Not exactly good advice in any capacity. Not even for throwing distance.

WW2 vets knew better, and they learned it the hard way, because they had to. Their lives depended on it. Modern soldiers in basic training. It's a joke. It isn't real. They don't care. They don't believe it will ever matter, that it will ever happen to them.

When people re-enact our day, do you think they are going to catch all the little minutiae that allowed ww2 soldiers to survive, or do you think they will take the "book" and stand upright with arms out like flags to throw grenades? After all, how many will care enough to discover the little things that no one notices?

Further, a weekender will never be as good as someone who practices every day. The record for muskets is 6 shots per minute. British soldiers had the requirement of shooting at least 4 shots per minute. Your youtubers can't even meet the british army's basic standard.

Now, the flintlock pistol.

You hold the powder horn in one hand along with the tamping rod. You pour, then tamp. In this way, going from filling to tamping is a smooth motion and as a pistol, the tamping is much faster as the rod is shorter, so no needing to let go and regrab three times to get it all the way down the tube. Then as you level the pistol, you pull the flint back as you drop some powder in the pan, aim and fire. Repeat.

Takes a fair bit of practice to use a horn and get the right amount of powder though. Hence the invention of cartridges so conscripts would not blow up their muskets. Note how the british made up for the slower cartridges (which also have the advantage of being more consistent) by using the three rank formation.

Among other small things, the youtubers fired before retrieving the next cartridge, cartridges are slower but more reliable to get the right amount of powder (advantageous, but not for speed), they kept putting the tamping rod back in the gun after each shot, then had to remove the tamping rod before using it for each reload, etc.

Yeah, I'd say that muskets are much slower than pistols, but modern re-creationists are not good examples in general.

A game that cares about the difference between the incorrect and correct way to operate a flintlock pistol in its mechanics is not a game I'm interested in playing.

A game that cares about the difference between the incorrect and correct way to operate a flintlock pistol in its mechanics is not a game I'm interested in playing.

It is not so much aboug the correct way tk use a flintlock, and more about my knowledge and experience of flintlocks being applicable at least somewhat closely to the game. That meams that if I know that 1st level soldiers can load and fire 4 rounds from a musket every minute, and 2nd-3rd level soldiers can probably fire 5-6 muskets rounds a minute, I should be able to have my expectations about that be somewhat close to what the game does.

Thus, one round to load, one to fire gives 5 shots per minute, and that would be good, for muskets. But firing and loading every round woukd be mid to high level only, since that is above and beyond real world people.

I do not think 3.x is perfect, not even close, but it tries, doesn't do too badly, and does lightyears better then anybody else.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

A game that cares about the difference between the incorrect and correct way to operate a flintlock pistol in its mechanics is not a game I'm interested in playing.

It is not so much aboug the correct way tk use a flintlock, and more about my knowledge and experience of flintlocks being applicable at least somewhat closely to the game. That meams that if I know that 1st level soldiers can load and fire 4 rounds from a musket every minute, and 2nd-3rd level soldiers can probably fire 5-6 muskets rounds a minute, I should be able to have my expectations about that be somewhat close to what the game does.

Thus, one round to load, one to fire gives 5 shots per minute, and that would be good, for muskets. But firing and loading every round woukd be mid to high level only, since that is above and beyond real world people.

I do not think 3.x is perfect, not even close, but it tries, doesn't do too badly, and does lightyears better then anybody else.

How many different game systems have you actually played?

Using your own examples ... d20 is a far cry from "light years better" than any other game system in being a close approximation to what we perceive as reality.

I can think of three that are quite a bit better and DMW has pointed out more that I am not familiar with.

My expectations of simulation-ism from a game has never been remotely close to met by d20. That isn't why I play d20. If I want nitty, gritty, almost-realistic, I have other, better systems available with which to do so.

Thus, one round to load, one to fire gives 5 shots per minute, and that would be good, for muskets. But firing and loading every round woukd be mid to high level only, since that is above and beyond real world people.

I do not think 3.x is perfect, not even close, but it tries, doesn't do too badly, and does lightyears better then anybody else.

I like that rate of fire mechanic. Just by making the loading process require three (or more) actions you can slow rate of fire to within the historical range.

In my pathfinder campaigns I have usually houseruled that the available primative firearms are actually double-action pinlocks (pretty close to being modern firearms, but sans magazine) which fire cartridges (which are the same price and such as normal musket/pistol ammo, just reflavoured. It just makes my brain hurt less to give golarion better technology than it did trying to justify the Musket Master...

On the other hand... I don't think crossbows are being held to realistic loading times for their assumed technological level either. IIRC the kinds of crossbows used in golarion were on earth historically fairly slow weapons. It took forever to crank a windlass (the assumed cocking method for a "heavy crossbow"), and using a claw required a decent strength.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Thus, one round to load, one to fire gives 5 shots per minute, and that would be good, for muskets. But firing and loading every round woukd be mid to high level only, since that is above and beyond real world people.

I do not think 3.x is perfect, not even close, but it tries, doesn't do too badly, and does lightyears better then anybody else.

I like that rate of fire mechanic. Just by making the loading process require three (or more) actions you can slow rate of fire to within the historical range.

In my pathfinder campaigns I have usually houseruled that the available primative firearms are actually double-action pinlocks (pretty close to being modern firearms, but sans magazine) which fire cartridges (which are the same price and such as normal musket/pistol ammo, just reflavoured. It just makes my brain hurt less to give golarion better technology than it did trying to justify the Musket Master...

On the other hand... I don't think crossbows are being held to realistic loading times for their assumed technological level either. IIRC the kinds of crossbows used in golarion were on earth historically fairly slow weapons. It took forever to crank a windlass (the assumed cocking method for a "heavy crossbow"), and using a claw required a decent strength.

I have made the argument that a slow-fired crossbow or firearm is a fine weapon with the appropriate tactics. For example, I said so in October 2017 when Darksol the Painbringer started a thread How can Ranged Combat even be feasible? (warning: 7 page thread). Most other commenters disagreed with me. They hate slow rates of fire. They would rather take several feats and archetypes to get extra attacks and free-action reloads and gripe about the number of mandatory feats to make the weapon work as they want. I had similar disagreements in other threads.

I have made the argument that a slow-fired crossbow or firearm is a fine weapon with the appropriate tactics. For example, I said so in October 2017 when Darksol the Painbringer started a thread How can Ranged Combat even be feasible? (warning: 7 page thread). Most other commenters disagreed with me. They hate slow rates of fire. They would rather take several feats and archetypes to get extra attacks and free-action reloads and gripe about the number of mandatory feats to make the weapon work as they want. I had similar disagreements in other threads.

In a different system maybe, but Pathfinder's paradigms simply do not support spending 3 odd turns reloading your musket or crossbow or whatever. For instance, most combats are over in 3 turns generally. That means if you actually want to stick with using your weapon you have one turn of doing something followed by a load of nothing for the rest of the fight. You could make the argument that it's a weapon meant for opening shots and reloaded on its own time afterward (Plenty of other systems have paradigms like that with weapons that are strong but impractical to reload mid fight) but the way magic weapons and feat investment works, Pathfinder really doesn't reward weapon golf bags outside of low levels where magic weapons aren't a thing.

That's at least my take on that particular matter.

-Flintlock Pistol stuff-

First and foremost I will admit it is decidedly difficult to find loading times for pistols. Probably because most militaries preferred muskets because, well, they're better in war. However there are a few things to note:

1) Keeping the ramming rod out of it's holder is a very dangerous tactic. Those things aren't exactly super sturdy, and if it breaks... you're pretty much SoL until you can get a new one.

2) You actually don't want to try to reload it too fast, especially not several times in a row, for one simple reason: The barrel needs some time to cool, and generally needs to be cleared at least every few shots, a process that takes about as long as it takes to actually load the gunpowder I believe. Flintlock weapons, like any man-made system, are not perfect, and when you fire you might not ignite all the gunpowder in there. Or if you do some of it might not completely burn up, leaving you with embers at the base of the barrel. And even if that doesn't happen, if you fire fast enough the barrel itself will heat up to the point where it can ignite gunpowder. So if you don't clear it properly and fire too fast you might find the gunpowder you just poured down blasting out, probably into your hand and if you're really unlucky right up into your powder horn. In which case if you're lucky enough to survive your powder horn igniting, you're now completely out of ammo.

3) Let's not forget that this is going on in the heat of combat. So however long you're standing there trying to precisely load your firearm, unless you're trying to do so literally on the run, is time that an opponent could be trying to hit you. And loading a flintlock is... not quite "extremely precise" but does need some level of precision. After all, if you underload your powder, your ball might not even reach the target and even if it does might not be strong enough to penetrate, while if you overload it... your gun might well blow up in your hand, possibly killing you and definitely leaving you in a bad spot.

and 4) Even if you're the absolute perfect flintlock loader and do manage to reload and shoot your pistol every 3 seconds... that's giving you what, half a second to aim? That's not exactly very long, your accuracy is probably going to tank hard.

In conclusion... frankly, there's a reason that when people like pirates are shown in media they're usually packing an entire bandolier of pistols, trying to rely on reloading and shooting one quickly, especially in the heat of a combat, is pretty much suicide. The fact you can do it at all in Pathfinder is an allowance for a fun game, rather than any attempt at being realistic. And yes, the same is true of Crossbows, because no one wants to spend 10 rounds mid-combat reloading their weapon.

I never said I thought it was smart, only that I could see someone who is really good at it, doing it twice a round, with the qualification of having the right equipment. ALso, given that one is unlikely to fire more than 3-4 shots in what is most certainly not war, it is a more viable strategy, if still not a good one.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

A game that cares about the difference between the incorrect and correct way to operate a flintlock pistol in its mechanics is not a game I'm interested in playing.

It is not so much aboug the correct way tk use a flintlock, and more about my knowledge and experience of flintlocks being applicable at least somewhat closely to the game. That meams that if I know that 1st level soldiers can load and fire 4 rounds from a musket every minute, and 2nd-3rd level soldiers can probably fire 5-6 muskets rounds a minute, I should be able to have my expectations about that be somewhat close to what the game does.

Thus, one round to load, one to fire gives 5 shots per minute, and that would be good, for muskets. But firing and loading every round woukd be mid to high level only, since that is above and beyond real world people.

I do not think 3.x is perfect, not even close, but it tries, doesn't do too badly, and does lightyears better then anybody else.

How many different game systems have you actually played?

Every one I can. From Kobolds ate my baby to Rifts. Over a dozen at least (counting d20 varieties as only one, I've played who knows how many of those).

Using your own examples ... d20 is a far cry from "light years better" than any other game system in being a close approximation to what we perceive as reality.

I can think of three that are quite a bit better and DMW has pointed out more that I am not familiar with.

My expectations of simulation-ism from a game has never been remotely close to met by d20. That isn't why I play d20. If I want nitty, gritty, almost-realistic, I have other, better systems available with which to do so.

As I said before, it is not about modeling physics. It also is not about being limited to real world people and gritty health systems.

It is about having a ruler with ticks marks that are natively and inherently understood.

As have also said before, it needs to strike that balance of ease of play. Some systems are better at modeling the physics, but are more complex and harder to play and the gain in simulationism is just not worth the cost in playability.

D20 is the best because it comes closer to that right balance than anyone else and then even remains flexible enough to smoothly scale from somewhat gritty realistic to superheroes while maintaining that useful foundation of simulationist guidelines.

Every game I have seen that even tries to do simulation without copying d20, gives up playability for more accurate physics, and then often limits things to purely real world levels of power (or in some cases a narrow and preset range in the case of some superhero games).

Otherwise, the games abandon simulationism completely in favor of fiat or mechanics that do not relate well to the narrative world.

Thus 3.x is lightyears better, because it strikes a good balance, gaining many benefits of a simulationist foundation while maintaining ease of play and flexibility to smoothly scale along a vast range of power levels, all with mostly unified mechanics.

It is about having a ruler with ticks marks that are natively and inherently understood.

I think PF2 will do this better than 3.x

In 3.x that ruler had its tick marks spaced differently depending on what you were trying to measure. Even among skills you had some whose bonuses ranged from -1 to +50 and others that ranged from -1 to +30. You cannot make a ruler that gives standard results for measuring both of those, and thus over its life time the DCs became less and less intuitive. What is a good skill bonus for a level 10 expert? At release it might have been +24/25, now that character couldn't even hope to achieve the results an actually optimized character could.

Even throwing out skills, the check marks were muddied by the fact that BAB yielded a different set of marks than AC and Saves. We think it is all easy to understand because we've been doing it so long go, but ask a new player if +X to something is good and it is dependant on so many things they'll probably get the answer wrong.

I feel like a good simulator in an RPG doesn't have Elves or Magic in it. Once you add, like, Dragons- it's just a matter of what levels of realism make for a better experience, and the bar is already pretty low.

And there goes that utterly irrelevant ‘but dragons!!!!’ Argument.

The brilliance of 3.x was the great simulation of realism,

Wait, what?

You're arguing that 3.x was grounded in realism?

The game where building a 10 foot deep concealed pit trap costs 600 gp in raw materials and takes 45 weeks for one person? The game where Waterdeep has billions of chickens available for sale?

I mean, I don't particularly mind those oddities as I recognize that the game isn't really about building traps and buying chickens, but realism is generally the last thing that comes to mind when discussing D&D's rules.

Don't forget about godbolds!

As I said before, it is not about modeling physics. It also is not about being limited to real world people and gritty health systems.

It is about having a ruler with ticks marks that are natively and inherently understood.

Literally everything we've seen about PF2 seems to argue it falls into this category way more than PF1 does. Which makes me deeply confused what your issue is.

As have also said before, it needs to strike that balance of ease of play. Some systems are better at modeling the physics, but are more complex and harder to play and the gain in simulationism is just not worth the cost in playability.

AFMBE is dead simple. At least compared to d20 variants. Several other 'more realistic' game systems are as well. There are certainly ones that try to get too fine grained and get complicated as a result, but it is in no way inherent in a game simulating reality.

D20 is the best because it comes closer to that right balance than anyone else and then even remains flexible enough to smoothly scale from somewhat gritty realistic to superheroes while maintaining that useful foundation of simulationist guidelines.

Every game I have seen that even tries to do simulation without copying d20, gives up playability for more accurate physics, and then often limits things to purely real world levels of power (or in some cases a narrow and preset range in the case of some superhero games).

Okay, most of the 'simulation of the real world' games I know of are indeed much lower powered than high level d20 games. This is true and fair.

But if you want high powered at high levels, I'm again deeply confused what your problem with PF2 is.

I've long been a fan of simulationism. I've been through these debates before. The echo of the 4e debates alone right here is downright eerie.

One never-ending issue is the unrelenting insistence that "simulation" has anything to do with "real world" or gives a flying flip about the number of chickens in Waterdeep. Comments to that effect are a clear sign that the opposition has no interest in trying to understand, much less provide a thoughtful response to the actual complaint.

I bought the 3.0 PH the day it came out and I've been playing this core system ever since (expect for an 18 month 5E stint, which as one of my players stated based on my house rules was "still just Bryon D20"). I play a VERY effective and engaging "simulationist" game with no hinderance.

I'll insert here that I readily acknowledge all kinds of quirks and challenges in the core D20 system and they persist in PF1E. I'm not aware of a single one that can't be avoided by playing with a group of like-mined people committed to making the game better. The analogy I have used quite a few times is that D20 doesn't come with training wheels. You absolutely CAN crash the system and it won't do a thing to stop you. But if you choose to use it well, it will reward you. I've yet to see a system that prevented the group from crashing it without doing more harm than good when used by a group who were instead willing to simply not crash the system in the first place.

Simulation is about creating a self-consistent fantastic world which aligns with some popular conception of fiction. Gamism is the opposite and involves rules where the cause and effect are based on avoiding "unbalance" or "expediency" or something else along those lines and those concerns trump the narrative self-consistency.

If in Harry Potter you had a scene where Harry says a few words of fake latin, waved his wand, and nothing happened then Harry realizes that he used his magic cloak too many times that morning, then that would seem really stupid and non sequitur.

If in Harry Potter it was simply true that every single teacher was really good at climbing walls and swimming just because they had "gained a lot of levels" in wizardry, then that would seem really stupid and non sequitur.

If in the Lord of the Rings Frodo found a runestone and rubbed it onto Sting to make it do something else, then that would seem really stupid and non sequitur.

These are not narrative things. These are pure gamist and overtly anti-simulationist things. And they are fundamental to the system as has been presented so far.

It is very reasonable to be completely content with all these things.
But it is also very reasonable to be deeply concerned about them.
And if you are excited about 2E and want it to be successful, then being short sighted and only looking at your own taste is a bad idea. Looking at the recent example amongst fans of 4E would be wise.

I'm not saying PF2E is anywhere near 4E. I'm still holding out hope for 2E. Though I must admit it is getting to be a challenge and right now I'm expecting to be playing other games. But I've ordered both the regular and deluxe playtest books. I'll read the rules in total. And I'll test it out with houserules. And then I'll see if they produce a game that works for me in the final. I promise I'm remaining quite open minded.

But, bottom line, insulting and misrepresenting the desire for a simualtionist game from people who do know they get what they want from PF is very much against your own self interest.

One never-ending issue is the unrelenting insistence that "simulation" has anything to do with "real world"...

Well... when there are simulationist people throwing around the word "realism", what else are we supposed to compare to? After all, Realism is literally 'the quality or fact of representing a person, thing, or situation accurately or in a way that is true to life,' so it seems like that side is themselves connecting their simulation to the real world.

If in Harry Potter you had a scene where Harry says a few words of fake latin, waved his wand, and nothing happened then Harry realizes that he used his magic cloak too many times that morning, then that would seem really stupid and non sequitur.

Not much to really argue here, other than that this wouldn't happen in PF2e either. A Potter Wizard's wand isn't the spell-battery most wands are in Pathfinder, it's more akin to the Wizard's Bonded Item. As such, the only way he'd be doing the components and nothing happen would be if he was out of spell slots. Which doesn't happen in Potterverse anyways, but that's a separate note.

If in Harry Potter it was simply true that every single teacher was really good at climbing walls and swimming just because they had "gained a lot of levels" in wizardry, then that would seem really stupid and non sequitur.

If Hercules, capable of single-handedly slaying the Nemean Lion, wrestling the great Erymanthian boar into submission, and re-routing a river into the stable of man-eating horses... was defeated because an enemy managed to climb a tree and he didn't invest specific training into the arts of climbing, I think most people would view that the same way. Or Beowulf, who swam across the ocean, and tore Grendel's arm from it's body, but can't properly wrap a bandage around a bleeding wound, seems kinda stupid to me.

If in the Lord of the Rings Frodo found a runestone and rubbed it onto Sting to make it do something else, then that would seem really stupid and non sequitur.

And this one is especially egregious. Power-Carrying Runestones and transference rituals happen all the time in various forms of media. Sure it's not gonna transfer the powers of Excalibur to a random kitchen knife, Excalibur's an Artifact, but a simple flaming sword or protective garment? That's easily within the realms of a high-magic setting.

BryonD wrote:

If in Harry Potter you had a scene where Harry says a few words of fake latin, waved his wand, and nothing happened then Harry realizes that he used his magic cloak too many times that morning, then that would seem really stupid and non sequitur.

Not much to really argue here, other than that this wouldn't happen in PF2e either. A Potter Wizard's wand isn't the spell-battery most wands are in Pathfinder, it's more akin to the Wizard's Bonded Item. As such, the only way he'd be doing the components and nothing happen would be if he was out of spell slots. Which doesn't happen in Potterverse anyways, but that's a separate note.

I guess in PF2 it's sort of like lugging around a big fuel tank you use to top up your car or a generator.

ByronD wrote:

If in the Lord of the Rings Frodo found a runestone and rubbed it onto Sting to make it do something else, then that would seem really stupid and non sequitur.

And this one is especially egregious. Power-Carrying Runestones and transference rituals happen all the time in various forms of media. Sure it's not gonna transfer the powers of Excalibur to a random kitchen knife, Excalibur's an Artifact, but a simple flaming sword or protective garment? That's easily within the realms of a high-magic setting.

I forget, did the Holy Avenger have fixed effects? Because I think it did but I can't fully recall.

BryonD wrote:

If in the Lord of the Rings Frodo found a runestone and rubbed it onto Sting to make it do something else, then that would seem really stupid and non sequitur.

And this one is especially egregious. Power-Carrying Runestones and transference rituals happen all the time in various forms of media. Sure it's not gonna transfer the powers of Excalibur to a random kitchen knife, Excalibur's an Artifact, but a simple flaming sword or protective garment? That's easily within the realms of a high-magic setting.

Actually, thanks! I think I know how I want to handle runes now, and a non-artefact Excalibur-like would be "a resplendent sword of hallowed Orchalcum, bearer of a four-part name." ^_^

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

The brilliance of 3.x was the great simulation of realism,

Wait, what?

You're arguing that 3.x was grounded in realism?

The game where building a 10 foot deep concealed pit trap costs 600 gp in raw materials and takes 45 weeks for one person? The game where Waterdeep has billions of chickens available for sale?

I mean, I don't particularly mind those oddities as I recognize that the game isn't really about building traps and buying chickens, but realism is generally the last thing that comes to mind when discussing D&D's rules.

I don't mean it as everything is awesomely perfect. No.

What I mean is that rules show two traits, first, the connection between the system and what it represents in the narrative world is more direct, objective, and explicit (I.E. having a jump check for dustance be result -5 = feet jumped. The opposing case being, roll result means you jumped far enough. The latter is built on fiat and has no connection to the narrative world at all.), and the second trait is that any real world experience we have is for the most part applicable (i.e. I have jumped 10 foot gaps, thus, if my character is at least as good as me, my character should be able to jump a 10 foot gap. The opposing case is being told by the system that I should not expect my character to succeed at jumping 10 feet.). Now this matching of expectations is not just about what we can do, or have seen done, but also extending that beyond to what we would expect from someone two or three times as capable

Naturally, you run into occasional issues of people with wildly "unrealistic" expectations, such as thinking that it takes a minimum of 47 seconds to fire three shots from a musket because that was the best they saw on youtube, when in reality, the soldiers that fought for real with them got 4-6 shots per minute, which means 3 shots in as few as 30 seconds.

And yes, there are a lot of secondary, less often used parts of the rules that are less accurate, or in some cases, departs entirely from this for the sake of gameplay. The latter is sometimes a good idea (i.e. hp) and sometimes not (i.e. forced classes), but the former are things that would be awesome to improve and make better.

I have never denied that d20 could use a lot of help and improvement. I just don't like departing from the entire concept of d20's foundation.

I'm still not seeing anything in Pf2 that goes against any of what you've said though. At all.

I'm still not seeing anything in Pf2 that goes against any of what you've said though. At all.

Character level to skills, level having no meaning to narrative world, skill check results being dissociated and generalized, removal of smooth scaling from novice to legend, the numbers are no longer associated with the narrative milieu, etc, etc, etc

To use a poor analogy,
if the association of narrative world milieu to our understanding is 1:3, then a freeform game would be direct 1:3, but a system is an interface, so a system can be designed to be 1:1:3 or 1:3:3.

On the one side, the system tries to relate closely to the objective nature of the narrative world. 3.0 jump check is an example, check result -5 = how many feet you jumped. Notice how the result is not a success nor a failure. It is an objective result that you compare to the objective gap your character is jumping to determine success or failure.

The other side, the system tries to be more subjectively conceptual. A jump check just says pass/fail/crit, and it is left to the players to define what exactly is meant by that. So I passed, did I barely pass, or did I pass by a wide margjn, and how many feet did I jump?

The issue is heavily related to the drama vs details issue. Are we the audience understanding events based on our understanding of the details and foundation of the world (in which case inconsistancies break our immersion and enjoyment), or do we understand events based more our connection to the characters (which is more vague and aloof when it comes to details).

Character level to skills,

I repeat that I'm not sure that this is a big narrative problem if Trained Only Skill Uses are done properly.

level having no meaning to narrative world,

Wait, what? Level totally means something in-world. At least as much as it ever did if not more. What in the world makes you think otherwise?

skill check results being dissociated and generalized,

Uh...there's no evidence of this at all. I'm not even positive what you mean here, but I see no evidence that skill check results will be generalized in any narratively meaningful fashion.

removal of smooth scaling from novice to legend,

I can see how you'd feel this way, but it's only debatably 'not smooth' from a mechanical perspective...and actually I find it decently smooth even then. It really doesn't seem like a narrative problem.

the numbers are no longer associated with the narrative milieu,

Uh...the numbers are absolutely associated with the narrative milieu. They are no longer the sole measure of 'how good this guy is at X' but that doesn't dissociate them from the world at all. A +30 is narratively hugely different from a +10.

The other side, the system tries to be more subjectively conceptual. A jump check just says pass/fail/crit, and it is left to the players to define what exactly is meant by that. So I passed, did I barely pass, or did I pass by a wide margjn, and how many feet did I jump?

We actually don't know how jump checks work in this system. Critical successes and failures are not universal in the system. They're applied consistently when they show up, but not every check has them.

Can't say it any better than DMW does (he is much nicer and well informed) but I will say, in your alias as Alicorn Sage, we've been through all of this already. Had the exact same points and refutations so I'm not sure it is worth going over again.