I spoke at least to some extent three foreign languages when I was 25...some of the rather badly but anyway. And now I have fourth foreign language in my repertoire.
Actually it has been suggested that in past good amount of people spoke several languages, as they constantly rubbed shoulders with people who spoke different languages. When there were no large national languages you had to learn the language your neighbors talk. And this is still true in eg. Africa and India...homogenized cultures like US do give slanted view to one's ability to learn other languages.
Idea of "Common" language on the other hand is pure game mechanic but one I haven't unraveled yet with house rules...as I think that would be more trouble than fun.I think in some settings, like FR and Eberron, "Common" is sort of "Human". I agree that having a common language that everyone speaks by default stretches credulity somewhat (though Swahili is often given as an example of a trade language which no one actually speaks as a "native tongue, as such, though don't know if it is true or not). But them probably all orcs speaking the same version of Orcish, all the different types of giant speaking a common "Giant" tongue, and even all dwarves speaking the same Dwarvish is likewise a tad unlikely, especially in a medieval setting without easy transport. Hundreds of languages (maybe more?) have dwindled or gone extinct in the 20th century due to widespread mass media.
In the British Isles alone, at least six different languages were about until faily recently: Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, Manx, Welsh, Cornish and English (and I'm hardly an expert - there may have been more). And even some of the English dialect can be virtually foreign languages (though they are much rarer than they used to be, if a report I heard on the radio is to be believed).
So there are unlikely to be monolithic "racial" languages of any sort in a vaguely "realistic" setting. But then again, what DM wants to...
Overall agreement, but some comments.
It makes sense for all dwarves to have one unified language. They are a lawful race that resists change. They can go for hundreds or thousands of years without their society noticeably altering. So, even across vast distance and time, dwarves seem likely to have one language.
The same kind of goes for elves, too, who move on so much slower scales than humans that their languages would be unlikely to change very rapidly (or at all, considering that they are often portrayed as viewing their tongue as nearly an artform).
As an aside, I also explain the standard gold piece with dwarves, too. They set the value, and if you then say that the world is an agrarian, pre-mercantile society and thus inflation is kept in check, that's typically enough economics talk to stop any further investigations into internal consistency (whether the jargon you've spewed out is correct or not!). Most players (in my experience) are willing to overlook that in the interest of having fun in a fantasy world.
On orcs: The MM states "the language an orc speaks varies slightly from tribe to tribe, but any orc is understandable by someone who speaks Orc." So, they do have different dialects, but the game just doesn't care enough about a language mechanic to make one for such a case.
It seems to me that most people feel (and the RAW certainly don't do anything to dispel this) that if the language is on your character sheet or in the monster's description, then it is automatically spoken at 100% fluency. I prefer to loosen the definition a bit; a remote tribe of lizardfolk might have one elder who speaks Common, but it's broken and poor.
My training was far more theatrical, though I did buy myself a book on/by Ringeck, so I am working on martial intent. My point was that using any of the slashing swords, while certainly possible, and effective is less accurate and uses less of the beneficial design of the weapon.
Keep practicing with that longsword and I'll bet you change your tune.
Some blades, of course, are clearly not meant to thrust at all, but that's not one of them.
|
Egad. I'll take that a step further. *ALL* the "made-up" weapons are stupid, the spiked chain being first among them. No such weapon ever existed. Now, if one were to create campaign with "bizarre, fantasy weapons," etc., along with a whole bunch crazy weapons and NO normal weapons, like Broadswords, etc., then the spiked chain'd be ok.
Actually, while somewhat different from the bizarre illustration found in the PHB, spiked chains were used by gladiators in ancient Rome.
As a matter of fact, all of the weapons in the PHB existed at one time in the real world. I even came across a punching dagger once in a local antique store.
Now, Dark Sun, on the other hand...
|
|
The thing that I think is the most broken about 3.5 is the whole 'favored classes' system. It just doesn't make sense that if you want to play a dwarven wizard / rogue, you get docked XP. Our group doesn't even use the rule.Yes! Testify, brotha! Hallelujah!
;^)
I like the Conan RPG concept of favored classes . . . if you take 1, 5 or 10 levels of a favored class you are rewarded with a bonus feat, but never penalized for doing something different. The point is, PC's should be *rewarded for playing the genre* (whatever it happens to be), and not *penalized* for trying to do something different.
Hmmm... I should try that...
Barbarians begin the game illiterate.
Upon taking a level in any other class, they learn to read.
All you have to do to learn to read in D&D is kill a dozen or so orcs.
|
|
The two-bladed scimitar in Eberron (yes, I know you don't like it) I can sort of see, if it is very sharp like a katana and whirled about. The two-bladed sword - never really worked out how you would get enough ooomph behind a blow, as you can't really swing it, just sort of wiggle your wrists.
The best way I could figure out how to use it (in theory-- I don't actually have one. duh.) would be to grip it as widely spaced as possible, then to thrust out each blade in turn, using your shoulders to drive the blades home. Basically, it's a kayak paddle of death.
|
Barbarians begin the game illiterate.
Upon taking a level in any other class, they learn to read.
All you have to do to learn to read in D&D is kill a dozen or so orcs.
Skills in 3.5 are not restricted, any class can take any skill, albeit as a cross-class.
Illiterate Barbarians can take ranks in Decipher Script.
I get confused by that grappling too. It's like being a U.S. citizen and watching rugby, and trying to figure out what even the heck is happening. I'm sure it's a good game, but I don't know what they're doing.Or cricket. Geck!
-Skeld
If you have about a week and some industrial strengh stimulant to stay awake I can explain the basics of cricket to you. I actually find it a fascinating game. Its very british, you go off mid afternoon for a cup of tea etc, It has a load of very old traditions and you can go out for a couple of hours knowing it will still be on when you get back.
the short explanation is "Chess on Grass"
Elcian
PS Appologies for the temporary hijacking of this thread, you are now returned to your normal service...
|
|
Hate to bring this up but don't the Klingons in Star Trek have a weapon that is "made-up"? Never seen one in real life, not very functional in practical application, bad-assed looking. Don't here a lot of complaining on that one!
I assume you mean "hear"? 8-) I can't do much about that, being as we're communicating by electron text, but if you have a text reader:
Those weapons are stupid, too. And don't even get me started on that silly thing Spock used when he was in heat (in TOS). Oh, and the weapons in "Gamesters of Triskelion" (also TOS) were ridiculous. Would you like any other weapons rubbished?
In a FANTASY game there should be FANTASY weapons. Weapons that capture the imagination and are more stylistic than substantial.
My imagination doesn't require absurd art that destroys any verisimilitude that might otherwise accrue. (See also: using Macintosh computers to infect alien spacecraft with computer viruses.)
On the subject of the spiked chain, no, the one depicted in the PHB would never be usable, but there is a few other depictions that I could see as usable, and I say this with a modest background in the use of the Kusari-gama, and several other long, chained weapons. I am waiting to discuss with a local blacksmith how much it would cost to have a spiked chain made so as to try to put it through some paces to see how it would respond in combat, but until then....
Lots of strange weapons have been tried, and some (including the kusari-gama and manriki gusari) have utility in specific circumstances. What the lack is the kind of broad utility provided by a sword, axe, spear, or mace. When niche-utility weapons become strictly better than the weapons used in nearly every historical society, there's a failure in the model.
Now a ridiculous weapon is the 2- bladed sword, someone is gonna lose an arm with one of them!
You'll get no argument from me. That one's on the list, too, as are the Dwarven Urgrosh and armor spikes. Stupid weapons are badfun.
(Yes, that was a joke. Play what you want; I will too.)
Since somebody brought up languages, and how they work, I'll have to second that. Plus there is no mechanic for being a beginning speaker, or only a half-assed speaker of a language. You either speak it or you don't.
And as a niggling complaint -- I wish they'd give languages real names, but that would be dependant on geography, so it has to be campaign specific.
Armour making characters hard to hit instead of absorbing damage. Makes no sense.
SOOO0000ooo true, but then if armors gave DR, what would happen to the Dr given by magic or natural armor? Would they stack? WHy not? An that would be the next problem.
I even created a chrat for dr from armor(since I didn't like the ones in the Iron Heroes' book). Here it is :
ARMOR
LIGHT ARMOR / D.R.
Padded /1
Leather /1d2
Studded leather /1d3
Chainshirt / 1d4
MEDIUM ARMOR
Hide /1+1d2
Scale mail /1+1d3
Chainmail /1+1d4
Breastplate /1+1d4
HEAVY ARMOR
Splint mail /2+1d4
Banded mail /2+1d4
Half plate /2+1d5
Full plate /2+1d6
*****************************************************************
I remember I had a chart for magic and masterwork armor, but don't where i put it... I hope this helps, bro.
Nice chart, Hellfinger. But you're missing the DR for scale mail.
Nevermind, you edited.
Also, do you use PHB Standard AC bonuses for those armor types, or do you reduce them somewhat?
Hmm.... I wanted to use it only for DR with no bonus to armor. But then the pcs' defense(or ac) would be very low... Maybe given them a defense bonus based on their class and level? That counterbalances it, I guess....If you get to use this chart, tell me how did it go.
Hmm.... I wanted to use it only for DR with no bonus to armor. But then the pcs' defense(or ac) would be very low... Maybe given them a defense bonus based on their class and level? That counterbalances it, I guess....If you get to use this chart, tell me how did it go.
I keep meaning to add a defense bonus system. I've always disliked the fact that, even aside from armor issues, there's nothing about a character's skill or martial training that has anything to do with how hard they are to hit.
They way the AC RAW work, your character just sort of stands there while an opponent is trying to hit them.
... just as it is meant to be.Armour making characters hard to hit instead of absorbing damage. Makes no sense.As to armor making people harder to hit, I just look at it as they are still hit if the attack roll is close to the armor class number, but the weapon just clangs off the armor or shield instead of causing damage.Sure, explain that when the storm giant's club 'just clangs off the armour.' I don't buy it.
Also, to me it removes and interesting aspect from play; right now, if your DEX is high, it is never worth it to take heavy armour. If armour would count as DR, you would have to weigh whether it was better to get hit less often or take the max dex penalty but take less damage per hit. Cool game effect lost due to unrealistic rule.
Yeah, thats the main problem...maybe develop a set of new rules that makes heroes without armor and with good DEX be capable of dodging hits(and therefore avoiding the whole attack, maybe with a percentage dice). I haven't figured it out yet so....
Well, we could quibble about what weapons are realistic and whether one or another is imbalanced.
An expert in the use of a particular weapon could find all kinds of seemingly unrealistic ways to use a weapon. To wit the "murder strike" (gripping the blade of the sword and striking the adversary with the hilt) someone above mentioned, which is documented in a 15th century German fencing manual. I was quite surprised at all the interesting maneuvers that were illustrated in the copy of Talhoffer (sp.?) I saw yesterday at the book store.
As for the two-bladed sword--I don't think I've ever seen a picture of one in any book on arms and armor. But then again, I don't think I've seen a two-handed axe either--unless you count bardiches, halberds, and such, which are really polearms. Krusk's great axe is so damn unwieldy that it would be really easy to get inside his guard and stab him to death with your dagger, IRL. But hey, it's all fantasy, and ever since Boris Vallejo fantasy art has been all about bodybuilders with oversized weapons. ;)
I have an elf fighter who is based around mastery of the two-bladed sword, and I don't think she outshines the party's greataxe wielding barbarian in any way--so I have no game-balance issues with the weapon. I had to burn an extra feat to be able to use the thing (requires both exotic wpn prof. and two-weapon fighting), anyhow. I don't envision it to be used like a sword at all--the kayak paddle of death is probably closer to the mark. Basically, I'd say, it's used more like a two-ended spear, and the blades should be closer to the length of a short-sword blade than a long-sword blade. Say, 12-16 inches. Most of your cuts are stabbing or thrusting moves, with an occasional slash. You wouldn't hold the thing like an axe and swing it, or you'd slash your own wrists--though I think my character probably supplements her chain shirt with a pair of vambraces to minimize this problem. So you can't generate the same kind of power with your slashing attacks because you can't "turn your wrists" (as they talk about with a baseball swing). Since you're usually making multiple attacks per round, you're not putting all of your strength into one blow. Instead, you are using fancy footwork, shifting your grip, changing your guard stance to set yourself up to parry, counterattack, etc. Not very different from how an expert user of a halberd, naginata, poleaxe etc. user would fight. This is reflected in game rules with the fact that you're getting only str bonus x 1 on your primary hand attacks and str bonus x 1/2 on off-hand attacks, per two-weapon fighting rules. And the more complex fighting style necessary to wield the weapon with minimal effectiveness is reflected in its classification as an exotic weapon. So, while I'm not aware of such a weapon ever being used historically, I'm not sure it's completely far fetched. Just not as easy to use as the four basic melee weapon types mentioned by a poster above.
You want far-fetched? How about the orc two-bladed axe? That thing looks like a good way to end up with no hands to me! ;)
Note that I'm not an SCA type, nor a kendo enthusiast--my experience with melee weapons is pretty much limited to fencing foils and sword-fighting with driftwood sticks on the beach. So I'll defer to those that are. However, having seen a few of the older Chinese martial-arts films (before everyone was flying everywhere and such), I'd say there are a lot of interesting and strange weapons that are possible that your average medieval re-enactor may never have imagined. They might take a lot of work to learn how to use without hurting yourself, but that doesn't mean they're impossible. And this game is, after all, about fantastic possibilities.
Anyhow, I'm not sure complaining about specific weapons and armor is the point of this thread (or spells, or whatever). It's easy enough to eliminate the offending item from the game. Where it gets tricky is when you alter a whole subsystem that interacts with other subsystems.
The problem with having armor absorb damage, is that to maintain realism, you have to track damage to armor. Or do you think it is realistic that armor remains pristine no matter how much damage it absorbs?
I don't think you'd need a rule for armor hit points. You could just tell them that if they get hit by that Zeus' lightning again his armor will get destroyed. Cuz if you wanna make a rule for each little error in D&D,you're DEAD!!
I keep meaning to add a defense bonus system. I've always disliked the fact that, even aside from armor issues, there's nothing about a character's skill or martial training that has anything to do with how hard they are to hit.
They way the AC RAW work, your character just sort of stands there while an opponent is trying to hit them.
Yeah, I know what you're talking about. I guess we have something in common about our dislkes of the ac rule...
I don't think you'd need a rule for armor hit points. You could just tell them that if they get hit by that Zeus' lightning again his armor will get destroyed. Cuz if you wanna make a rule for each little error in D&D,you're DEAD!!The problem with having armor absorb damage, is that to maintain realism, you have to track damage to armor. Or do you think it is realistic that armor remains pristine no matter how much damage it absorbs?
Another possibility is to say only worry yourself about damage to armor if you're critted.
Or, for those who really like mind-numbing deatil, you can use armor hit points and hit location charts, so that you're not just worried about armor hit points, but hit points of the specific parts of the armor....
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't D&D a game?
You're wrong, bub. D&D ain't just a game, it's a state of mind(lol)
On scroll weights, there's an easy fix. Just say that you can only fit five spells on a scroll, and you have to carry each scroll in a case or else it gets burned/wet/etc. every time you encounter a paper-damaging environmental hazard or attack (not to mention being able to retrieve the right scroll when you need it). This way, every five scrolls carried require a one-pound (?) container. (You can modify weights and numbers to suit realism/balance, but you get the idea).
Encumbrance is an accounting pain in the rear--I'm playing a PBP now where the character sheets do the math for you every time you add something to your sheet, which makes the book keeping easier. I don't enforce encumbrance rules rigidly as a DM, but I do spot check and call bull when people start carrying an armory in their backpack, and I make people make the hard choices when evacuating an inert or dead comrade becomes necessary.
As for carrying breasplates in duffel bags, etc.--obviously one can do this. I always thought the smaller dimension on the bag of holding represented the mouth of the bag, but that's DM's call, I guess. If it has a zipper and a 3-4 foot opening, I guess it's a duffel bag of holding. ;) The point is, there is some upper limit on the size/shape of the items that will fit, and the DM should enforce that, unless he doesn't mind his players picking a dungeon clean with no extra trouble at all. I've let my players use the bag of holding for the helmets, gauntlets, vambraces, greaves and whatnot on a suit of armor, and even let them roll up chainmail (not sure this is even realistic, since a hauberk was probably backed with pretty stiff leather) and shove it in. I suppose banded mail can be disassembled into pretty small pieces (from the pictures I've seen, it's made of laced-together metal sheets) and put in the bag, but it would take an hour or two to reassemble on the other end. The breastplate from a suit of plate armor would be a bit tough, though, unless you've got a special model bag of holding with a wide mouth. Maybe the type V can swallow it, but not the type II, or whatever.
Question for Doug Sundseth and other SCA types here--as I understand it, most breastplates are made in two parts--breast and back plate--which buckle or lace together. Are they hinged, or can you completely unbuckle the two halves? Can you flip the backplate so that it nests inside the breastplate for compact stowage? And how easy is it to flatten out a chain hauberk and leggings and roll them up for stowage? What about cuir bouilli leather armor? Or do these items end up being just as bulky as plate armor? I always had the impression that medieval knights typically brought two or three packhorses with them on campaign or to tournaments just to carry all their gear--armor, weapons, pavilion, and the whole business, plus you'd want to be able to carry home any arms and armor you won by defeating your enemies. Don't know where I got this from--I think maybe it was from Ivanhoe--Walter Scott was a hard-core antiquarian and a stickler for these kinds of details, so he's probably a fairly reliable source. Anyhow, just curious about these real-world details. If my players want to act medieval by despoiling their enemies' corpses and leaving them naked by the roadside, I'd like to make sure they have to deal with the medieval logistics involved in transporting the loot! Can't just back up the pickup truck and haul it off!
The only thing we have a problem with is certain skills and what ability modifiers they use. Intimidate, Charisma? How intimidating can you be if you look like the GQ guy, it should be strength, the bigger and uglier, or stronger you are, the easier it would be to scare a person. And use magic device, charisma again, what are you going to do, wink at the wand and give it a cheeky grin to get it to work for you? Int. is house ruled into that skill.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Actually, while somewhat different from the bizarre illustration found in the PHB, spiked chains were used by gladiators in ancient Rome.
As a matter of fact, all of the weapons in the PHB existed at one time in the real world. I even came across a punching dagger once in a local antique store.
Now, Dark Sun, on the other hand...
Punching daggers are pretty well-known. But gnomed hooked hammers? Most of the double weapons just aren't plausible, even if you can dig up polearms that look _slightly_ like them.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
The only thing we have a problem with is certain skills and what ability modifiers they use. Intimidate, Charisma? How intimidating can you be if you look like the GQ guy, it should be strength, the bigger and uglier, or stronger you are, the easier it would be to scare a person. And use magic device, charisma again, what are you going to do, wink at the wand and give it a cheeky grin to get it to work for you? Int. is house ruled into that skill.
I agree with you on the Use Magic Device call, but the Intimidate one is where I will beg to differ.
Charisma is often thought to relate to appearance. This is not necessarily true. A high Charisma person is not necessarily attractive, but they have a captivating presence in the way they act and speak. Al Pacino is not what would be commonly seen as 'attractive' but he certainly has a remarkable force of personality and, if he slammed his hands on the table and leaned 3 inches away from your face while yelling at the top of his lungs, you'd probably be pretty frightened by him. He's not a big muscular guy and he's not attractive (strictly speaking), but he DOES have high Charisma. Just because someone is muscular does not make them more Intimidating unless they are ACTIVELY USING THAT STRENGTH in the intimidation. For example, if the meathead picks you up by the shirt collar with one hand and tells you to shut up before he turns you into hamburger, then he could use Strength instead of Charisma. If the weasely rogue tells you that it would be unwise to cross him because he knows where you live and he's seen where you sleep, then he would be using Charisma.
I keep meaning to add a defense bonus system. I've always disliked the fact that, even aside from armor issues, there's nothing about a character's skill or martial training that has anything to do with how hard they are to hit.
They way the AC RAW work, your character just sort of stands there while an opponent is trying to hit them.
What about dex bonus to AC, dodge, combat expertise, two-weapon defense, and the fighting defensively action? What about the distinction between flat-footed and regular AC? I suppose level-based bonuses for defense might make the most sense (and reduce the need to be forever upgrading your magic armor), but combat expertise and improved combat expertise both do that in a way, since they are tied to BAB. The maneuvering, parrying, and all that is supposed to be happening in the background while you're rolling those three iterative attacks. Hit points, which are also tied to level and martial skill, also figure into the character's defensive skill. Your average 10th level fighter isn't actually capable of taking 10-12 full damage longsword blows, any more than a first level character is. The first nine damage rolls there probably represent the fatigue and stress involved in trying to parry or dodge blows--maybe he takes a little cut here and there, but avoids being seriously injured by his 10th level expertise in martial combat. If you succeed in landing 10-12 near deadly blows, probably the last one is the one where he's so tired that his guard slips and you kill or seriously wound him.
If you want to make defense more active by making every attack roll opposed by a defense roll, that is probably more "realistic," but more dice rolling = slower game. And you would seriously alter game balance. Basically, you'd have to consider doing away with all the above-mentioned feats, actions and AC bonuses, plus radically altering the hit point system, if you were really trying to make the game realistic. It's much easier to use your descriptive DM powers to suggest all the defensive jockeying that's going on in the background. You don't need to do this for every character, every turn--just often enough to give your narrative verisimilitude.
Makes complete sense, your point is well spoken. In our house rules, strength is generally only used for intimidate if the one doing so is the big tuffy shaking the little guy around, perhaps it's because in our games, it usually is only the fighter using just that type of intimidation that we don't see alot of the charisma modifier used.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
If you want to make defense more active by making every attack roll opposed by a defense roll, that is probably more "realistic," but more dice rolling = slower game.
I was actually interested in using this system once and streamlined it as much as possible by purchasing some of those 'double d20s.' The ones with a little d20 inside of a bigger, transparent d20. All we needed to do was figure out how much the attacker's roll needed to beat the defender's by and it was pretty easy. We ended up giving up on it after a few sessions though because we found it wasn't really altering the game in any meaningful way and it was easier to do it the normal way. I still have a 2 of the 'double d20s' if I ever decide to try it again, though...
The only thing we have a problem with is certain skills and what ability modifiers they use. Intimidate, Charisma? How intimidating can you be if you look like the GQ guy, it should be strength, the bigger and uglier, or stronger you are, the easier it would be to scare a person. And use magic device, charisma again, what are you going to do, wink at the wand and give it a cheeky grin to get it to work for you? Int. is house ruled into that skill.
Charisma represents self-confidence and force of personality, which in many cases correlate closely with physical beauty and charm, but not always. Otherwise, there are some pretty ugly lookin' fiends with pretty high charismas. Agreed, making intimidate charisma based makes it harder for the ugly half-orc brute to make you believe he's gonna break your knee-caps, but then that's what circumstance bonuses are for (he looks like he's capable of it and I don't have any means of defending myself if he tries). (Note in this connection that if you're particularly big and thuggish, you do get the size bonus, and the DC is affected by HD of intimidator and intimidatee). But on the whole, someone who is smart, slick, self-confident, and knows how to manipulate people is going to be much more successful at intimidation than someone who's just big and thuggish. That's why Draco Malfoy is always the one making the intimidate checks and Crabbe and Goyle are always using the aid another action. (It's also why we didn't get much useful intelligence out of Abu Ghraib, but that's a discussion for another thread, and not sure I want to start a political argument).
Force of personality is also a factor in being able to "fake it" and sound like you're for real, hence the connection between CHA and UMD. If you actually knew what you were doing, you wouldn't need UMD. It might make sense to use INT bonus for "activate scroll," but not for "emulate alignment." And who is to say that confidence (rather than getting the words and gestures just right) isn't what triggers those magical items. If you actually know what you're doing, you use spellcraft/knowledge arcana/decipher script (with Int bonus). If you're faking it and you know it, you're using UMD with Cha bonus.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Makes complete sense, your point is well spoken. In our house rules, strength is generally only used for intimidate if the one doing so is the big tuffy shaking the little guy around, perhaps it's because in our games, it usually is only the fighter using just that type of intimidation that we don't see alot of the charisma modifier used.
Gotcha. In your scenario, that makes perfect sense. We do 'situational' changes like that as well. If you are physically manhandling someone, you use Strength, if you are screaming, threatening, or playing on someone's weaknesses, you are using Charisma. We also have a rule that allows you to add your BAB to the Intimidate check if the target has recently seen you in combat, but they are able to subtract their own BAB from your check (because the level 15 fighter shouldn't be scared of facing the level 8 rogue in melee).
Hate to bring this up but don't the Klingons in Star Trek have a weapon that is "made-up"? Never seen one in real life, not very functional in practical application, bad-assed looking. Don't here a lot of complaining on that one!
Well if you spent some time on some martial arts message boards you might see the ridicule "batleth" come up as a topic - I've seen it pop up 3 or 4 times in the last year or so.
I don't like solely fantasy weapons that much - for myself there is more than enough opportunity to create cultural weapons by style, ornament, material selection, and magic.
I keep meaning to add a defense bonus system. I've always disliked the fact that, even aside from armor issues, there's nothing about a character's skill or martial training that has anything to do with how hard they are to hit.
They way the AC RAW work, your character just sort of stands there while an opponent is trying to hit them.
What about dex bonus to AC, dodge, combat expertise, two-weapon defense, and the fighting defensively action? What about the distinction between flat-footed and regular AC? I suppose level-based bonuses for defense might make the most sense (and reduce the need to be forever upgrading your magic armor), but combat expertise and improved combat expertise both do that in a way, since they are tied to BAB. The maneuvering, parrying, and all that is supposed to be happening in the background while you're rolling those three iterative attacks. Hit points, which are also tied to level and martial skill, also figure into the character's defensive skill. Your average 10th level fighter isn't actually capable of taking 10-12 full damage longsword blows, any more than a first level character is. The first nine damage rolls there probably represent the fatigue and stress involved in trying to parry or dodge blows--maybe he takes a little cut here and there, but avoids being seriously injured by his 10th level expertise in martial combat. If you succeed in landing 10-12 near deadly blows, probably the last one is the one where he's so tired that his guard slips and you kill or seriously wound him.
If you want to make defense more active by making every attack roll opposed by a defense roll, that is probably more "realistic," but more dice rolling = slower game. And you would seriously alter game balance. Basically, you'd have to consider doing away with all the above-mentioned feats, actions and AC bonuses, plus radically altering the hit point system, if you were really trying to make the game realistic. It's much easier to use your...
Well, your arguments about Combat Expertise are good, though just the DEX bonus addition to AC isn't very convincing to me. That represents more natural ability, rather than martial training.
And while your points about feats like Combat Expertise are valid, I still think that's not quite enough, if for no other reason than "making attack rolls opposed, and adding a Def bonus" is arguably the most common alternate rule suggested in books of alternate rules for the various d20 games. Not just UA, but in lots of other d20 variant games, such as M&M. Still, valid point.
But since you bring up Hit Points -- I have no problems with hit points, even hit points that scale up as you go up in level, but I have a big problem with a hit point system that only allows for two (sort of three) states of being: wounded but still in perfect fighting shape, and *dead* (well, dying...)!
Arguably there are three states in D&D (not counting uninjured), since being at exactly zero hit points puts you in a "severely wounded" state, but in several years of playing 3rd Ed, I've only had one PC wind up at exactly zero once. There should be a system for detrimental effects of wounds as you take hits. And it shouldn't be all that complicated or time consuming either, as plenty of other games have pretty simple systems for exactly that.
Al Pacino is not what would be commonly seen as 'attractive' but he certainly has a remarkable force of personality and, if he slammed his hands on the table and leaned 3 inches away from your face while yelling at the top of his lungs, you'd probably be pretty frightened by him.
"Because she's got a GREAT ASS!"
/Pacino in Heat
Hit Points ARE the mechanism you are looking for - yes you can condition your body to take more damage - but you don't get tougher along anything close to the progression of hit point gain by level even for a wizard. Hit Points represent your ability to dodge, duck, roll with a hit, shake off tough blows etc. AND fighters gain that ability faster than wizards.
A sword run through the cut is fatal no matter how tough you are hit points are a system that allow what would be a fatal stroke to a 1st level character, to be shrugged of by a high level character - due to their defensive skills and instincts.
Hit Points ARE the mechanism you are looking for - yes you can condition your body to take more damage - but you don't get tougher along anything close to the progression of hit point gain by level even for a wizard. Hit Points represent your ability to dodge, duck, roll with a hit, shake off tough blows etc. AND fighters gain that ability faster than wizards.
A sword run through the cut is fatal no matter how tough you are hit points are a system that allow what would be a fatal stroke to a 1st level character, to be shrugged of by a high level character - due to their defensive skills and instincts.
A good point that gets lost every so often. A character might take, say, 90% of his hit points in "damage," but what it really represents is that he is completely exhausted at this point and the next couple of swings at him could be lethal, because he doesn't have the energy to dogde. The combat system is abstract . . . you can always picture that a critical hit, for example, really does hit, but most of your hit points are just you being able to survive combat, whatever means you use.
That's why an exhaustion system for combat in D&D is redundant.
Gotcha. In your scenario, that makes perfect sense. We do 'situational' changes like that as well. If you are physically manhandling someone, you use Strength, if you are screaming, threatening, or playing on someone's weaknesses, you are using Charisma. We also have a rule that allows you to add your BAB to the Intimidate check if the target has recently seen you in combat, but they are able to subtract their own BAB from your check (because the level 15 fighter shouldn't be scared of facing the level 8 rogue in melee).
Hey, adding the BAB after a fight seems perfectly logical, I like that idea, I'll be bringing it up this saturday, actually, our DM lurks on these boards, he'll be expecting me to bring it up. (Dang, gives him time to think up a suitable arguement)
I really like Rich Berlew's alternate system for Diplomacy (which could be adapted for Intimidate as well), as it makes the DC and modifiers situation, rather than set, which makes no sense.
For those interested, the system is found on the Order of the Stick site.
Minister Sean--
I've actually had PCs at 0 on a number of occasions, and many, many NPC adversaries. The odds are higher at low levels, where the numbers of hit points and damages involved are low, so the probability of landing exactly at zero are higher. But that's as it should be. If a hill giant smacks you with his club, he either got a solid blow (in which case you are gravely injured or dead) or he didn't (in which case you are a bit bruised from a glancing blow or more likely tired, stressed, and off-balance from dodging the blow--cf. my discussion of how hp work as a defense system above). If the orc got you with his longsword, it might be a minor cut or a bruising blow that didn't penetrate your helm but rung your bell or it might have forced you to nearly blow out your knee by changing directions suddenly (any of these possibilities is equivalent to hp damage but not being disabled or downed). It might also be a telling, disabling blow--he severed a tendon or a major muscle group in your leg, cracked your ribs, knocked your head so hard you're seeing stars, or whatever. Most likely, though, if he has a sharp weapon and gets inside your guard, he's probably stuck you in the guts somewhere. If he's wielding a club you've probably just suffered a severe blunt trauma to the head. It's hard to fight with a punctured lung or when your gallbladder is gushing blood or your intestines are hanging out. Only those rare folks with the diehard feat are tough enough to keep going that way, and they are still disabled in that situation. Most people collapse to the floor and are hors de combat. I don't take "unconscious" to mean comatose, necessarily--you might be in shock and just not aware of your surroundings enough or able to control your body enough to meaningfully interact with anybody, unable to yell for help over the din of battle, and so forth.
So, I don't think that rule is in quite so much need of revision--it works reasonably well. And let's face it, nobody wants to run around half the battle unable to use some body part or whatever--it's not that fun when you aren't able to use your full capabilities. Same reason that critical fumbles are no fun. Some people alter the "dying" rules to make it harder to die (die at negative Constitution score, or whatever), which I think is fine, but I think the diehard feat and that small chance of being "disabled" provide plenty of scope for Bruce Willis diehard-style heroism. Any more scope and people would be running about missing limbs all the time, and in my book that should be a fairly rare event, at least for the heroes.
|
|
I really like Rich Berlew's alternate system for Diplomacy (which could be adapted for Intimidate as well), as it makes the DC and modifiers situation, rather than set, which makes no sense.
For those interested, the system is found on the Order of the Stick site.
I thoroughly agree with your assertation on Berlew's diplomacy rules.
I will even provide a " LINK FROM HELL!!!" to let others see what you mean by that statement.FH
The most broken rule? The DM is the final arbiter of how the rules work in the game. ;-P
On how to effectively use a two-bladed sword: as a quarterstaff with edges and points on both ends. The reason it's exotic is the extra training required to learn to block with the flat and strike edge-on consistently. At least that's how I see it.
|
|
As for carrying breasplates in duffel bags, etc.--obviously one can do this. I always thought the smaller dimension on the bag of holding represented the mouth of the bag, but that's DM's call, I guess. If it has a zipper and a 3-4 foot opening, I guess it's a duffel bag of holding. ;)
My definition of "duffel bag" is a bag that is taller than it is long and has a single opening on the top (the small end). A breasplate isn't really all that big, since the pauldrons and tassets are not rigidly attached. Putting a breastplate through a two-foot opening isn't hard.
The point is, there is some upper limit on the size/shape of the items that will fit, and the DM should enforce that, unless he doesn't mind his players picking a dungeon clean with no extra trouble at all.
Absolutely. No boats or wagons unless they fold up. 8-) (I actually give out lots of things that couldn't reasonably be put into a bag of holding.)
I've let my players use the bag of holding for the helmets, gauntlets, vambraces, greaves and whatnot on a suit of armor, and even let them roll up chainmail (not sure this is even realistic, since a hauberk was probably backed with pretty stiff leather) and shove it in.
More likely (IME) a separate padded jerkin. Chain is easy to roll up, though the common sorts of reproduction chain are really remarkably heavy. Period chain commonly used much lighter wire and each ring was individually welded or riveted (!).
I suppose banded mail can be disassembled into pretty small pieces (from the pictures I've seen, it's made of laced-together metal sheets) and put in the bag, but it would take an hour or two to reassemble on the other end.
That would be kind of like disassembling a chest of drawers all the way down to flat pieces of wood. Nobody would do that by choice.
The breastplate from a suit of plate armor would be a bit tough, though, unless you've got a special model bag of holding with a wide mouth. Maybe the type V can swallow it, but not the type II, or whatever.
See above.
Question for Doug Sundseth and other SCA types here--as I understand it, most breastplates are made in two parts--breast and back plate--which buckle or lace together.
Some armor has both back and breast, but much armor has just the breastplate. There's quite a bit of historical basis for this, BTW. For instance, in the 18th century, only the Austrian Cuirassiers still had their backplates, and they only used them for fighting against the Ottomans.
Are they hinged, or can you completely unbuckle the two halves? Can you flip the backplate so that it nests inside the breastplate for compact stowage?
Hinged, buckled, or strapped on individually. It depends on the armor. It's often easy enough to pop the hinge pins if desired. Even without that, the back-and-breast only needs to be as large as your chest, not your shoulders, which makes putting it in a bag relatively easy. You can usually nest the two plates somewhat, though they're normally curved differently.
And how easy is it to flatten out a chain hauberk and leggings and roll them up for stowage?
Pretty easy. They're basically just extraordinarily heavy sweaters and knit pants.
What about cuir bouilli leather armor? Or do these items end up being just as bulky as plate armor?
Heavier, bulkier, and harder to move in than steel. But it protects you about as well if you get hit.
I always had the impression that medieval knights typically brought two or three packhorses with them on campaign or to tournaments just to carry all their gear--armor, weapons, pavilion, and the whole business, plus you'd want to be able to carry home any arms and armor you won by defeating your enemies.
That's pretty much right. If you can afford decent armor, you can afford a servant, a couple of palfreys, and a mule or two. Also, you wouldn't normally ride your warhorse except in battle, for much the same reason that NASCAR and F1 drivers don't drive their cars to the track. But then you wouldn't normally wear your armor except when you are about to enter a fight either. (Think fire-fighters and their fire gear -- you don't wear it until you're on your way to the fire.)
If you're going to be taking lots of gear home with you, wagons or a pack train would be a good choice. (Or magic, of course.)
Thanks for sharing your expertise, Doug--that was quite helpful. I'll go measure my old seabag now and have a look at the bag of holding entries . . .
I've already hogged this thread enough today, but I did have a comment on languages and the D&D language rules. When I first started playing 3.0 I came up with a very complex and somewhat realistic set of rules for handling all the complexity of languages. It was probably about 15 pages in a word document, and differentiated between levels of skill in both spoken and written languages and what you could do with each level of skill. It also dealt with how language interacts with other skill checks, like trying to pass yourself off as a native of a place when you have a foreign accent and such. I actually thought about sending it in to Dragon, but then I thought again and realized most people aren't interested in making languages that complicated. Thinking about the problem of languages helped me flesh out a lot of stuff in my homebrew campaign, but I don't even rigorously apply the house rules I came up with there because it's more trouble than it's worth. The little inconsistencies that come up can be handled by the DM by combination of rule #1 and judicious application of circumstance bonuses in situations like disguise, performance, decipher script, knowledge checks, and so forth.
Most people I've played with aren't even interested enough in language issues to pay attention to the local dialects listed in published settings. In the common room or marketplace, everyone always seems to be speaking common, with an American accent. In my homebrew, "common" is actually a different language depending on where you are, and if your travels take you to a faraway land, you either have to learn the language, hire an interpreter, or limit your meaningful interaction to the small community of foreign traders who actually speak your lingo. (This is where the more complex language rules actually came into play once, when my son's PCs took a long journey. They started out only being able to say basic things--greetings and such, but I allow characters to develop working oral proficiency with a language by "immersion" without spending skill points. But for most people, this wouldn't add to flavor or enjoyment--it would just lead to the search for a headband of tongues or some such. So the rules don't spend much time on it, and language is pretty much an all or nothing proposition.
You want accurate simulation of linguistics in the game world? It could be just about as complicated (and un-fun) as truly accurate simulation of combat. If you want that level of detail, you might as well spend the time learning a real-world language (or join the SCA or a kendo club and learn how to do real-world melee combat).
Agreed, but because the way you/ your players are using it is wrong, not because the mechanic is broken :) Takes a full MINUTE to diplomacize, unless you take a -10 on it. Even then, it is a full round action. If init has already been rolled, and the Vamp is indeed charging you, I'd rule you are SOL for trying to influence his attitude through logic and reasoning, or even honeyed words. Hell, I may even let you get away with it, but then the Vampire would ask for "compensation", ie i was gonna kill all of you, pick one. I'm hunfgry."
So suck down the -10. I mean if you make a diplomacy build you should still be dealing with an average of at least +10 to the roll by the time your up around 10th-12th level. With a +10 to the opposed roll you should have no trouble stooping almost every creature who has it in for you in their tracks. I'm sure your bluff skill is also through the roof. These creatures are not made to counter this tactic. That vampire is gonna do whatever you tell it as long as its framed vaguely reasonably. Really very few monsters in the book are at all capable of stopping the 'diplomacy attack'. They are simply not made to counter it. Even this assumes that the vampire always attacks instantly - if its stupid enough to question the intruders or something then it is really in for it.
However even this is not really what drives me crazy the most from a diplomacy build. What really drives me up the walls is that adventures in general simply can't handle this sort of a character. A half descent diplomacy build really can't fail to have someone friendly toward them with a couple of minutes of talking. D&D adventures sort of presume that the characters are the centre of the adventure but diplomacy provides a strong incentive to go and get everyone else involved. I mean once you have a really good diplomacy the obvious next step is to make nice with everyone you can find. The step that immediately follows that is trying to figure out how NPC X could be of use.
When's the last time one saw an adventure that took this sort of thing into account? Essentially they don't - so now one is completely off script trying to figure out how to handle a player who can't help but make everyone he meets want to help him. Especially if one combo's this with unbelievable bluff skills. Between these two you should be able to make it so that the DM is essentially no longer actually making the decisions for the NPCs. At this point the players can pretty much treat the NPCs as puppets - they really like you and they will believe pretty much anything you tell them.
Sure the DM can use some common sense to alleviate this - I've done it its transcript looks something like...
"Uhh - no way he would actually fall for something this stupid ...why can I break RAW? Because I'm the DM"
"Forget it - I'm not allowing that..."
"Don't be stupid, I'm not going to let that fly"
"You have got to be kidding - no way"
Its essentially the hammer of DM falling again and again constantly. Its hard work on the DM as well if your busy simply stepping out of raw to squash one stupid player plan after the other its difficult to maintain a sense of impartiality for that exceedingly rare event when the player makes a reasonable request considering that he is really very good at this sort of thing and being assisted by magic items
Most other skills scale fine - there is no trouble dealing with the fact that a character has insanely good rope use. It might come up but its unlikely to really turn the whole adventure on its head. One just scales up the focus - we assume the rope use works except if something really crazy is going on.
But the diplomacy based ones just don't scale well. Characters are rarely just OK at this sort of thing - either they are pretty bad or are phenomenal and the range of possible values is so high that it is very hard to write an adventure that anticipates this sort of thing.
Alternatively consider a case where this was essentially just the players CHR bonus? Well now we are dealing with a much smaller range of numbers. At this point its possible to literally design adventure and decide what each NPC does based on a diplomacy check beating say DCs of 20, 25 and 30. In fact thats more or less where I am heading with house rules.
Every NPC that is not going to resolve into more or less automatic fighting gets a 'diplomacized' list that deals with what happens without a diplomacy check - we already get that with most adventures. I add a 'diplomicized' check with DCs of 20, 25 and 30. I then record how such checks might effect the NPCs behaviour. The NPCs don't behave in a uniform way for these checks - essentially I'm moving DM fiat to something I do during the preperation phase of the adventure and making each NPCs responses unique.
I feel this is a far more appropriate place for DM fiat then the current situation of trying to deal with a player who has just hijacked your adventure, is now hogging the spotlight and is making outrageous demands that are going to ruin everything. Experience has shown me that I don't make the clearest and most impartial rulings under these circumstances.
Hit Points ARE the mechanism you are looking for - yes you can condition your body to take more damage - but you don't get tougher along anything close to the progression of hit point gain by level even for a wizard. Hit Points represent your ability to dodge, duck, roll with a hit, shake off tough blows etc. AND fighters gain that ability faster than wizards.
A sword run through the cut is fatal no matter how tough you are hit points are a system that allow what would be a fatal stroke to a 1st level character, to be shrugged of by a high level character - due to their defensive skills and instincts.
Hey Kyr, Long time no see bud...how are things with you and yours?
Regarding hit points, I agree with you most of the time, but a player once asked a good question that stumped me regarding a specific situation:Pool of boiling water that did that 3D6 points of damage per round when you are in it. The players needed to cross it (it would take 3 rounds). Generally a first level fighter is dead, but a 10th level fighter would just be burnt a little (even if they have the same ranks in swim). I had a hard time envisaging it as the "rolling with the hits and general defensive survivability" thing.
I'm curious what your take on stuff like that is (another example would be falling damage).
Be safe all.