|
Take the superhero genre, for example. Strongy McStongman could never lift a ship or an airplane. Even if we assume there was some place on the vehicle that he could apply sufficient force to move the required mass, his feet would simply sink into the ground. As magic feet are not generally considered one of McStrongman's powers, we're left with genre conventions to explain why this does not happen.
Tactile telekinesis what?
Tactile telekinesis what?
Take the superhero genre, for example. Strongy McStongman could never lift a ship or an airplane. Even if we assume there was some place on the vehicle that he could apply sufficient force to move the required mass, his feet would simply sink into the ground. As magic feet are not generally considered one of McStrongman's powers, we're left with genre conventions to explain why this does not happen.
...which was a last-minute bolt-on made in an attempt to justify genre conventions. The problem is, the deeper you go, the more such bolt-ons are required, to the point where we either explain how the power actually works in the real world (hint: it doesn't, so we can't), or just throw up our hands and say "it's magic."
Is simply a question of degree, dictated by the scientific literacy of the audience. Calling a particular point on the continuum "realistic", while useful for gaming purposes, is ultimately arbitrary.
Whatever you want to call it (realism, verisimilitude, internal logic, logical consistency, immersion, etc.), what is obvious from this thread is that every single one of us has a different tolerance for how much the world in our games differs from the physics, economics, logic of the real world.
We all understand that we're playing a fantasy game that posits that magic is real, and furthermore that the characters are heroes capable of doing things that most human beings can not. Reality is vastly distorted in the game. We all get that, and most of us wouldn't be playing the game if we couldn't accept it.
Anything involving magic in its variable forms is an instant suspension of logic device that works for me. How does a ten ton dragon fly? Magic. How does it breathe fire? Magic. As I said, that explanation works for me and does not effect my suspension of disbelief because magic doesn't exist in the real world, so a whole different set of logic can apply to it that has nothing to do with real world science and logic.
I think more people have problems when the game posits superhuman feats performed without magical assistance.
For me the vital question is how much of this you can accept before it breaks your suspension of disbelief and becomes a distraction to your enjoyment of the game? This point seems to differ for everyone.
For me personally, one breaking point comes when characters deliberately do things that would result in instant death in real life, like the 200' cliff and lava examples mentioned previously. Aside from the fact that this is deplorable metagaming (your character has no idea how many hit points he has or how much damage he'll take from said action), it simply becomes silly to me and makes it hard to maintain any sense of immersion. Yes, as some people suggested, you can explain it away by adept GM storytelling, but that shouldn't be nedessary. That's why we use things like massive damage rules to prevent such silly character behaviors.
Another area that I have a personal problem with are the jumping rules. As a former track athlete I have a severe problem with any human being able to routinely long jump 35' while wearing/carrying 50 pounds of gear (still a light load for many characters), considering that the greatest athletes the world has ever known, in perfect conditions, at altitude, with no encumbrance at all to speak of, with the benefit of years of obsessive training in just that one thing, with the benefit of (most likely) performance enhancing drugs, haven't managed even 30'. But your typical mid-level fighter in chainmail armor carrying a pack and weapons and a few ranks in Acrobatics can manage it every time, no sweat. That person isn't even remotely human. So we houseruled a cut in the distances for jumping.
Similarly, oversized weapons are problems for many of the people in our group. We have a lot of SCAers in our groups who have (mis)spent large portions of their adult lives trying to whack eack other with approximations of medieval weapons. The anime and Warhammer inspired
massive weapons displayed in the art and for which there are now rules to permit in the game just make them howl with laughter, which doesn't do much for immersion either. So we houseruled away the ludicrously massive weapons.
My point is not that we are doing things any better than anyone else. It is just that everyone wants the game to be immersive and fun. If certain things (and they will likely be different for everyone) interfere with your group's ability to suspend disbelief, then houserule those things away.
You'll never reach "realism", but immersion and suspension of disbelief are important, and do what you have to to achieve them.
The problem with "realism" and "verisilimitude" is that people think of martial classes as "grunts" and not "heroes."
Fighters shouldn't be level 5 guards who are kinda better at hitting things. They should be Roland, Sinbad, El Cid, Beowulf, Hercules, Hiawatha, Sigfried - the list goes on. These people weren't simple grunts who stayed in the realm of realism.
|
The problem with "realism" and "verisilimitude" is that people think of martial classes as "grunts" and not "heroes."
Fighters shouldn't be level 5 guards who are kinda better at hitting things. They should be Roland, Sinbad, El Cid, Beowulf, Hercules, Hiawatha, Sigfried - the list goes on. These people weren't simple grunts who stayed in the realm of realism.
But they were not 5th level.
Unless you create a hero mechanic which separates PCs from NPCs (like hero points) they are the same as any 5th level fighter. Unless you break out things into tiers - with some rare numbers populating those tiers your 8th level "whatever" is no more heroic than your 8th level town wizard, captain of the guard, etc.
So maybe at one point in the game - when PCs start to seriously outpace the upper levels of the NPCs, that's when you can slap on the mechanical heroic label.
Personally I think heroics should be based on actions and not abilities tied to character level - spells, class abilities, hp feats.
Beyond hero points and wealth by level there is no mechanical rule which supports PC exceptionalism in 3.0+, unless of course the PC surpass their peers in raw power, i.e. level - which again has nothing to do with actually being a hero.
So all these posters falling over themselves trying to defend or justify absurd rules due to PC heroism/superhuman abilities are just not looking at the whole picture.
You can't justify the 35 ft jumps in full gear or the survivable 200ft fall due to PC heroics when some NPC chump can do the same things if he has the level/skill ranks/hp to pull it off the same reality bending trick. Some of which can be performed (again due to some poor distinctions and ranges) by relatively low-level NPCs.
Not very heroic and an unsound way to defend a poor rule set.
Fix the rules to make them come in line closer with reality and then we can discuss how the PCs as heroes can bend or break these rules via some PC exceptional mechanic (4e), otherwise you're just making excuses for have poorly written rules (jumping distances, falling damage, etc).
Similarly, oversized weapons are problems for many of the people in our group. We have a lot of SCAers in our groups who have (mis)spent large portions of their adult lives trying to whack eack other with approximations of medieval weapons. The anime and Warhammer inspired massive weapons displayed in the art and for which there are now rules to permit in the game just make them howl with laughter, which doesn't do much for immersion either. So we houseruled away the ludicrously massive weapons.
This objection always irked me. Have you asked your friends how many people they know who are stronger than the strongest man in the world and possessed of upper body strength surpassing that of an ogre?
Ach, I'm not fond of dual-wield. Especially strength-based. Now, Monkey Grip on a platinum fullblade for a hundred-pound sword that's, like, ten feet long? That's fun. (Though admittedly, Monkey Grip sucks.)
Similarly, oversized weapons are problems for many of the people in our group. We have a lot of SCAers in our groups who have (mis)spent large portions of their adult lives trying to whack eack other with approximations of medieval weapons. The anime and Warhammer inspired massive weapons displayed in the art and for which there are now rules to permit in the game just make them howl with laughter, which doesn't do much for immersion either. So we houseruled away the ludicrously massive weapons.This objection always irked me. Have you asked your friends how many people they know who are stronger than the strongest man in the world and possessed of upper body strength surpassing that of an ogre?
I could go into all types of counterarguments about hand size and unwieldiness being just as, if not more important, than weight and sheer strength, or discuss why I find humans stronger than an ogre also stretch my suspension of disbelief (at least when you are talking about natural strength, without magical enhancement), but that's not my point. My point is that, if it bothers you as a group, change it. It obviously doesn't bother you or your group, but there are probably other things that do that I wouldn't blink at (unless you just accept everything RAW with no houseruling at all). That's great for you. Not for us.
The problem with "realism" and "verisilimitude" is that people think of martial classes as "grunts" and not "heroes."
Fighters shouldn't be level 5 guards who are kinda better at hitting things. They should be Roland, Sinbad, El Cid, Beowulf, Hercules, Hiawatha, Sigfried - the list goes on. These people weren't simple grunts who stayed in the realm of realism.
I agree with you, to the extent that that is what characters should become at higher levels. I just prefer them to not be the equivalent of the greatest heroes ever seen or imagined by the time they hit fifth level. I've read the articles about Einstein being only a fifth level expert and Aragorn being a low-level fighter, and while I found them interesting, in the end they left me cold. I guess I prefer my character advancement to go from above average to heroic to legendary and perhaps touch superhuman at the capstone, rather than from heroic to legendary to superhuman to demigod. I don't want them to be the biggest, baddest kids on the block until pretty high levels.
I'm going back to work on my Thrice Cursed Dungeon. It's totally realistic. Damage from falling goes up by cubes. A 20 foot drop does 4D6. All the weapons in the dungeon are rusted and can give your characters tetanus. All the monsters are sick and contagious. Several sections are flooded or caved in. Hopefully, it will make you sick of realism.
I could go into all types of counterarguments about hand size and unwieldiness being just as, if not more important, than weight and sheer strength, or discuss why I find humans stronger than an ogre also stretch my suspension of disbelief (at least when you are talking about natural strength, without magical enhancement), but that's not my point. My point is that, if it bothers you as a group, change it. It obviously doesn't bother you or your group, but there are probably other things that do that I wouldn't blink at (unless you just accept everything RAW with no houseruling at all). That's great for you. Not for us.Similarly, oversized weapons are problems for many of the people in our group. We have a lot of SCAers in our groups who have (mis)spent large portions of their adult lives trying to whack eack other with approximations of medieval weapons. The anime and Warhammer inspired massive weapons displayed in the art and for which there are now rules to permit in the game just make them howl with laughter, which doesn't do much for immersion either. So we houseruled away the ludicrously massive weapons.This objection always irked me. Have you asked your friends how many people they know who are stronger than the strongest man in the world and possessed of upper body strength surpassing that of an ogre?
Like I said, your issue is that you don't want to play a fantasy game.
You don't.
You don't want humans with more then human capabilities. You don't want heroes and champions and larger then life characters. Hey, that's fine.
But D&D is a fantasy roleplaying game. And that's not what you want.
Like I said, your issue is that you don't want to play a fantasy game.
You don't.
You don't want humans with more then human capabilities. You don't want heroes and champions and larger then life characters. Hey, that's fine.
But D&D is a fantasy roleplaying game. And that's not what you want.
I don't really think that is fair. There are many types of fantasy, some are more grounded in realism than others. Some people like playing ordinary people in a world that has some, if rare, magic.
It is true that D&D is geared more toward High Fantasy, but that doesn't mean other types of fantasy aren't fantasy.
I've also used a sword - in several schools and several styles. Most of the weights for weapons in Pathfinder are off by about 50% (too high).
If you want to do 'realistic' sword combat, check out The Riddle of Steel. If you're trying to make Pathfinder gritty and realistic, you're working so much against the design assumptions of the system that you're either houseruling it to the point of it being a new game, or spending more time than it would've taken to teach a different game to another group of people.
Pathfinder is unrepentantly cinematic. Enjoy its cinematic nature.
Fighters in Pathfinder should have no problems leaping 40' in full plate armor, while swinging a 30 lb bastard sword in each hand. Pathfinder fighters have more in common with Xena than they do with any realistic measure of what a man in armor can do.
If they didn't, there'd be nothing for them to do once wizards got Fireball. :)
|
|
Like I said, your issue is that you don't want to play a fantasy game.
You don't.
You don't want humans with more then human capabilities. You don't want heroes and champions and larger then life characters. Hey, that's fine.
But D&D is a fantasy roleplaying game. And that's not what you want.
Uhhhh....No.
Everything described here as special or heroic in abilities can be replicated 100% mechanically with an army of NPCs.
Need an army of "mundane" NPCs who can survive 200ft feet falls? Give them the feats and skills and I will produce 100 NPC faceless schlubs that can pull off the same trick.
Strongest man in the world holding gigantic sized swords? Oh, that's an easy dedicated build we can use for our guilds guards. As a matter of fact NPCs can do it better than the PCs since they were designed from the ground up to pull off that shtick.
The premise of the game is not the PCs are super-heroes, if that was the case they would have exclusive abilities and exceptional stats, and they just don't. That isn't how the game is currently written.
The monsters all follow the same rules and all the npcs in the game follow the same rules as PCs. The only exceptions are expected wealth and the recent hero point system from the APG.
This isn't about player exceptionalism but about how much the "reality" (or lack of) it affects the expectations we want out of the game.
So if a player or DM wants a more realistic falling damage system it doesn't also mean that he wants to eliminate magic swords from his game. It means he wants a more realistic falling damage system as a baseline.
This isn't a zero-sum game, you can have your realistic combat, falling damage, jumping distance and then tack on extra-human or supernatural abilities as they would appropriately fit depending on the type of game you want to run. Wanting a realistic base to the best the rules can offer (and still be viable and playable) is not a bad premise to start from when designing a game.
The default should not be poor rules/silly reality=superhuman explanation. Bad rules are just that, and in the case of 3.0+ they are universally bad, i.e. creates superworld of stupidity by RAW. PCs can't pull off superhuman feats because they are heroes or superhuman, they can pull off super human feats because the base rules say that EVERY LIVING THING IN THE WORLD can pull off those same feats with the right level/skill/hp/magic item. So in effect you can pull off the same tricks with a mid to high level commoner.
|
|
Pathfinder is unrepentantly cinematic. Enjoy its cinematic nature.
Fighters in Pathfinder should have no problems leaping 40' in full plate armor, while swinging a 30 lb bastard sword in each hand. Pathfinder fighters have more in common with Xena than they do with any realistic measure of what a man in armor can do.
Well if you are trying to convey heroism with that example it fails.
It fails because every fighter can pull off the same trick. That includes harem guards, armed street sweepers and the infirm given class levels + feats.
It fails because every fighter can pull off the same trick. That includes harem guards, armed street sweepers and the infirm given class levels + feats.
"Schlubs can pull off heroic feats if statted out as heroes," is about as ridiculous as saying, "Beggars can breathe fire if given draconic stats."
|
|
It fails because every fighter can pull off the same trick. That includes harem guards, armed street sweepers and the infirm given class levels + feats."Schlubs can pull off heroic feats if statted out as heroes," is about as ridiculous as saying, "Beggars can breathe fire if given draconic stats."
Not stated out heroes.
Given the same level and feats they don't even need exceptional stats. They follow all the same rules for damage, skills checks, saves, etc. Even if their stats are average they can still pull off the same tricks because the mechanics of the world support their efforts to do so.Nice try though.
Whatever you want to call it (realism, verisimilitude, internal logic, logical consistency, immersion, etc.), what is obvious from this thread is that every single one of us has a different tolerance for how much the world in our games differs from the physics, economics, logic of the real world.
We all understand that we're playing a fantasy game that posits that magic is real, and furthermore that the characters are heroes capable of doing things that most human beings can not. Reality is vastly distorted in the game. We all get that, and most of us wouldn't be playing the game if we couldn't accept it.
Anything involving magic in its variable forms is an instant suspension of logic device that works for me. How does a ten ton dragon fly? Magic. How does it breathe fire? Magic. As I said, that explanation works for me and does not effect my suspension of disbelief because magic doesn't exist in the real world, so a whole different set of logic can apply to it that has nothing to do with real world science and logic.
I think more people have problems when the game posits superhuman feats performed without magical assistance.
For me the vital question is how much of this you can accept before it breaks your suspension of disbelief and becomes a distraction to your enjoyment of the game? This point seems to differ for everyone.
For me personally, one breaking point comes when characters deliberately do things that would result in instant death in real life, like the 200' cliff and lava examples mentioned previously. Aside from the fact that this is deplorable metagaming (your character has no idea how many hit points he has or how much damage he'll take from said action), it simply becomes silly to me and makes it hard to maintain any sense of immersion. Yes, as some people suggested, you can explain it away by adept GM storytelling, but that shouldn't be nedessary. That's why we use things like massive damage rules to prevent such silly character behaviors.
Another area that I have...
Well said.
Not stated out heroes.
Given the same level and feats they don't even need exceptional stats. They follow all the same rules for damage, skills checks, saves, etc. Even if their stats are average they can still pull off the same tricks because the mechanics of the world support their efforts to do so.
...
Giving someone twelve levels of PC classes is statting them out as heroes. If you make Bob the One-Armed Beggar a 20th-level Barbarian, then of course he's gonna do things that ain't reasonable for a beggar. And if you give Chi Chi a power level of eleventy billion, she's gonna kick Freiza's butt.
It fails because every fighter can pull off the same trick. That includes harem guards, armed street sweepers and the infirm given class levels + feats."Schlubs can pull off heroic feats if statted out as heroes," is about as ridiculous as saying, "Beggars can breathe fire if given draconic stats."Not stated out heroes.
Given the same level and feats they don't even need exceptional stats. They follow all the same rules for damage, skills checks, saves, etc. Even if their stats are average they can still pull off the same tricks because the mechanics of the world support their efforts to do so.Nice try though.
I don't think "statted out" was a reference to their STR, CON, etc. Ultimately, those are far less important than class and level in determining a character's capabilities.
I believe the idea is that most people have a level or two of an NPC class, and that's it -- ever. So PC classes, addtional levels and feats, etc. are exceptional, and the purview of heroes (though I grant that the demographic info in the core and NPC builds in the GMG do not support this assumption. Both defy logic, which is why I won't use either).
It fails because every fighter can pull off the same trick. That includes harem guards, armed street sweepers and the infirm given class levels + feats."Schlubs can pull off heroic feats if statted out as heroes," is about as ridiculous as saying, "Beggars can breathe fire if given draconic stats."Not stated out heroes.
Given the same level and feats they don't even need exceptional stats. They follow all the same rules for damage, skills checks, saves, etc. Even if their stats are average they can still pull off the same tricks because the mechanics of the world support their efforts to do so.Nice try though.
Are you comparing say:
5th level NPC warrior to 5th level PC fighter and 7th level NPC adept to 7th level PC druid?
or
5th level NPC fighter to 5th level PC fighter and 7th level NPC druid to 7th level PC druid?
|
|
Not stated out heroes.
Given the same level and feats they don't even need exceptional stats. They follow all the same rules for damage, skills checks, saves, etc. Even if their stats are average they can still pull off the same tricks because the mechanics of the world support their efforts to do so....
Giving someone twelve levels of PC classes is statting them out as heroes. If you make Bob the One-Armed Beggar a 20th-level Barbarian, then of course he's gonna do things that ain't reasonable for a beggar. And if you give Chi Chi a power level of eleventy billion, she's gonna kick Freiza's butt.
But that's the problem, the issues with the game don't break at 12th level, you can sustain heroic levels of damage at considerably lower levels. You can perform absurd feats at lower levels also.
And no, a highwayman (4th level fighter, 3rd level rogue) is not a damn hero. He is a CR 6 challenge, yet he can easily survive a 80ft fall at max damage due to his 53 hp, further if you count his skills and rogue abilities. And no, the guy is not a damn hero -he's just a higher level brigand.
Guard Officer (4th level fighter) - is he a hero? Well if we are measuring heroics based on mechanical abilities he is a far greater hero than our level 1 and 2 PCs. Oh yeah, this "hero" can survive a 50ft fall Max damage, due to his hp and an even greater fall if you actually roll or average the damage.
These are NPCs as stated up in the AGG. These are (for the troll crowd) "average" faceless NPCs
So because these two clowns can perform super human feats of survival they are heroes? These are considered "average" npcs, nothing special and not very high in level. Yet they can perform amazing feats not from their training or ability, but because the game assigns 1d6 damage (plus reductions!) for every 10ft you fall. They are heroes because the mechanics/rules of the game make them so, in fact any creature with a sum of hit points or skills can perform super human tasks and feats, it isn't just reserved for NPCs.
The players are not heroes due to their classes or abilities, they are not exceptional. Every living being in a 3.0/PF world can do as players do if they have the stats/score to support it, and that isn't a very demanding criteria for "hero".
If there was a
Track A) Players rules
Track B) NPC/Monster rules,
then you would have an argument.
If there were very few NPCs and creatures in the world, and they all couldn't go past level 1 then you can argue that the PCs are exceptions.
That isn't the case for 3.0 or PF or any non-superhero d20 game out there. That isn't the case for PFRPG and the adventures they write for their game.
A brief thought on the "wuxia" terminology upthread:
I have have recently been characterizing the mid-high levels of PF as a "superhero team" game. This describes not only the power level but a great deal of facets of the system and what it is useful for. I hope those of you struggling between the terms upthread will find that helpful.
These are NPCs as stated up in the AGG. These are (for the troll crowd) "average" faceless NPCs...
Yes Aux, because everyone who disagrees with you is a troll <sigh>.
Thanks for the reminder of why you aren't to be taken seriously (as if another one were required...)
I've also used a sword - in several schools and several styles. Most of the weights for weapons in Pathfinder are off by about 50% (too high).
If you want to do 'realistic' sword combat, check out The Riddle of Steel. If you're trying to make Pathfinder gritty and realistic, you're working so much against the design assumptions of the system that you're either houseruling it to the point of it being a new game, or spending more time than it would've taken to teach a different game to another group of people.
Pathfinder is unrepentantly cinematic. Enjoy its cinematic nature.
Fighters in Pathfinder should have no problems leaping 40' in full plate armor, while swinging a 30 lb bastard sword in each hand. Pathfinder fighters have more in common with Xena than they do with any realistic measure of what a man in armor can do.
If they didn't, there'd be nothing for them to do once wizards got Fireball. :)
Also well said.
I find 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder are quite good at emulating the genre I desire simply by twisting the "NPC power" knobs, which I suspect is by design.
This is a cross-post from another (but very similar) thread, that I thought might be relevant for discussion.
The problem with your argument is that the whole point of Spellcasters is to break the laws of reality, while the point of the martial classes is to be awesome within laws of reality.
This is an important issue here, and one I think a lot of people don't think about.
"Euclid taught me that without assumptions there is no proof. Therefore, in any argument, examine the assumptions." -E. T. Bell
I think Squidy here has stated one of those assumptions. To many people not using magic, means using the laws of reality. Therefore if fighters don't use magic, they must to those people be using the laws of reality.
I would suggest that there may be other alternatives then non-magic = laws of reality. There may be non-magical "laws of fantasy" that do not correspond to the "laws of reality". You can have a fantastical non-magic hero who does things that are impossible with the laws of reality.
Probably the best example that most people on these boards would be familiar with is something like the movie Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. The characters in that movie weren't doing "magic", but they were doing "fantastical" things. I don't think that just because a player doesn't want a character that does magic, that means the player is not open to doing "fantastical" things and being solely limited to the mundane abilities of everyday people in the real world.
I guess what I am saying here is that it seems as if people are falling into the false dilemma fallacy.
And no, a highwayman (4th level fighter, 3rd level rogue) is not a damn hero. He is a CR 6 challenge, yet he can easily survive a 80ft fall at max damage due to his 53 hp, further if you count his skills and rogue abilities. And no, the guy is not a damn hero -he's just a higher level brigand.
Guard Officer (4th level fighter) - is he a hero? Well if we are measuring heroics based on mechanical abilities he is a far greater hero than our level 1 and 2 PCs. Oh yeah, this "hero" can survive a 50ft fall Max damage, due to his hp and an even greater fall if you actually roll or average the damage.
These are NPCs as stated up in the AGG. These are (for the troll crowd) "average" faceless NPCs
Not according to the flavor text:
Highwaymen are notorious outlaws or flamboyant criminals who flaunt the law… love deception and trickery and elevate taunting to an art form…
Guard Officers can also be used as highly skilled gladiators or flamboyant bounty hunters. They might even be found as royal guardsmen…
In other words, they're just stat blocks with arbitrary names that can be tailored to be whatever you need them to be. Don't want a arch highwayman? Use the stat block of the Bandit right next to it. Finding the Guard Officer to be too good? Choose the Guard stat block right next to it or even the Squire, Caravan Guard, Foot Soldier, or Vagabond (all of which state that they can be used as guardsmen of a sort) as suited to your taste.
I'd see more of an argument in the choice of name than the stats. And they're faceless NPCs but they aren't necessarily "average" (ex High Priest, King, Sage, General, Cult Leader…).
EDIT
To add: The background information you may or may not provide influences the feel of a stat block as well. The Guard Officer? Perhaps he is a retired adventurer himself. He'll fit where he belongs in relation to the PCs. If they are lower level, he may be a mentor of a sort; if they are higher in level, then he definitely won't outshine the PC heroes.
FWIW, I can see a new GM looking at these at face value and being confused. But it is the Advanced GameMastery Guide.
I think Squidy here has stated one of those assumptions. To many people not using magic, means using the laws of reality. Therefore if fighters don't use magic, they must to those people be using the laws of reality.
To retort?
Those people who are "not using magic" are expected to kill a house with a three-foot metal stick within thirty seconds. I don't care how much that metal stick is glowing, you're talking either superhuman feats in order to win using your stick in the period of time a fight takes up.
And that's not an exaggeration. If you're fighting a colossal spider, that thing's on the order of sixty feet tall and about as large. That's a fairly significant building.
I'm really sorry and from now on I will stear clear of general discussion. Maybe they will put lots of realism in Pathfinder Modern?
I doubt I can find a group of people who want to play PM in my area.
They always say they don't want to learn a whole different set of rules or play by house rules. Again, sorry.
It's a trap.+1
The trap is trying to argue anything in Pathfinder/D&D based off of real world physics or real world weaponry.
You get hit by a lance carried by a knight on horseback at full charge. That's about 1000 kg of momentum delivered to a 5 cm cross sectional spear head at about 18 meters per second.
18*18=324, times 1,000 kg = 324 kilonewtons of force. That's twice the kinetic energy than a .50 caliber sniper round delivers.
In its era, the cavalry charge with lance was the most impressive battlefield weapon on earth in terms of what damage it could do.
In Pathfinder, it's less damage than a 7th level rogue will do with a rapier.
In Pathfinder, the longbow and composite longbow completely own the crossbow.
In the real world, the longbow yielded rapidly to the crossbow because the crossbow was easier to train someone to shoot and more accurate at the same level of skill. Either one could reliably kill a man armored with mail in a single shot, or render him unable to continue fighting.
This isn't to say that Pathfinder should be changed. It's saying that arguing anything in Pathfinder based on 'real world' physics is a trap. There are plenty of games that do a better job of 'real world physics & gritty fantasy' than Pathfinder.
You'll have a much harder time finding players to play them with you, because Pathfinder's play style and design choices are very appealing to a wide range of players.
I get what you're saying, but I'm talking about things on a more basic level than real world pounds per square inch of velocity times the root of an unladen swallow stuff.
I mean things that are just -common sense-, yet there are either no rules to prevent something or there are actually rules in place that directly fly in the face of that common sense (like swimming in a pool of lava for 2 rounds and coming out injured but very much alive... you know, because you had plenty of hit points).
I think that if you find any situation unrealistic you just have to think of the fluff for it. I changed the wizard's "forgetting the spell" to him losing the energy he stored when he prepped the spell. Prepping the spell also burns the spell into the wizard's memory until it is cast. I don't have an answer for the lava, but I am sure someone more creative than me can think of something.
Y'all posting in a Troll thread.
Y'all posting in a Troll thread.
What ho, brother!
I'm posting a reply to a quote from another thread so that thread doesn't get derailed anymore than it already is.
I love how people are fine with their character falling from 200 ft. and simply brushing off and walking away,but they call a difference between sword A and sword B a gross violation of realism.
Or being fine with the fact that you can shoot a longbow 4 times in 6 seconds. This is D&D, this game was never meant to be realistic.
If realism has no place in D&D, why not throw out any semblance of realism at all? PCs can do whatever they want, right? Physics be damned! To claim otherwise wouldn't be realistic, right? Right?
/facetiousness
Realism has it's place in games and you know it. The argument is not "D&D was never meant to be realistic". It's "how much realism should be adhered to in D&D?"... and thus we seem to have several distinct camps; those that believe that basic physics/realism should be adhered to at all times unless a power, feat or class ability says otherwise and those that believe that basic physics/realism should be adhered to unless ignoring it would benefit a PC in a way that enhances their enjoyment of the game.
These are two similar (more similar than either camp realizes, I'd wager) viewpoints, but so different at the same time. Camp A thinks Camp B doesn't care about immersion and Camp B thinks Camp A is overthinking things and should lighten up. Personally, I'm more Camp A. Both sides have valid arguments, but what frustrates me the most is Camp B's tendency to make arguments that "Pathfinder/D&D isn't supposed to be realistic. It has magic and dragons and stuff"... I hate that argument because it seems to imply that because magic and dragons are an element of the game, realism, even at it's most basic levels should be totally ignored. I do not agree with that.
Incidentally, as a DM I wouldn't allow a high level character to just walk away from a 200 foot drop without a broken leg or something. That's going to mess...
Just. A few words.
Different strokes for different folks.
That is all. Okay?
Didn't Prof. Cirno have a kick where he kept pointing out that not everything fantastic is magical? Guess no one listened.
I think the real problem is that people are ok with wizards, clerics, druids, or other casters being fantastic in their fantasy game.
They're not ok with fighters being fantastic in their fantasy game.
That's why fighters are so often put in such a bad place. It' really hypocritical, but no small number of people will nod and say "No, see, fighters should be bad, because they're jocks." They won't use those exact statements, but that's completely the meaning behind them.
And the most ironic twist is, in 99% of stories out there, it's the fighting man who's the protagonist. Beowulf rips off Grendel's arm and defeats the dragon, not his wizard buddy. Merlin and Gandalf were advisors, they didn't charge into battle throwing fireballs left and right. How many greek or roman myths involve old bearded men reading spellbooks before casting Charm Person on their foes to do all the killing for them?
Ancient myth is steeped in legendary heroes of extreme martial wisdom who constantly perform extra-ordinary feats of power, exulting in the hard earned victory, and yet we're told to assume that D&D fighters are just ordinary men who never do anything supernatural?
Y'all posting in a Troll thread.What ho, brother!
Hoes? That's statistically improbable.
Ancient myth is steeped in legendary heroes of extreme martial wisdom who constantly perform extra-ordinary feats of power, exulting in the hard earned victory, and yet we're told to assume that D&D fighters are just ordinary men who never do anything supernatural?
You don't need supernatural to be extraordinary. Nor is being a hero entirely wrapped up in having specific kewl powers. The PCs aren't heroes because they can do fancy stuff, they're heroes because they act like heroes and are the protagonists in the game. The game can still be fantasy and still involve heroes with martial PCs having not a lick of supernatural ability or abilities above and beyond those of the NPCs around them.
You don't need supernatural to be extraordinary.
Except that in Pathfinder/D&D, the carrot for grinding through levels is "Oooh, what cool power do I get next?" Also, the original gripe was about a character deciding that spending 2-3 rounds in a lake of lava doing 3d6 per round was worthwhile...which is definitely extraordinary. :)
Nor is being a hero entirely wrapped up in having specific kewl powers. The PCs aren't heroes because they can do fancy stuff, they're heroes because they act like heroes and are the protagonists in the game.
Except the game doesn't actually reward them for acting in this way. The game master might, but the game rewards them for playing "Loot bodies, hoard gold, buy new magic toys with special abilities."
[QUOTE}The game can still be fantasy and still involve heroes with martial PCs having not a lick of supernatural ability or abilities above and beyond those of the NPCs around them.
All right...
Let's do a gedankenexperiment.
We have Willie the Wizard, 11th level, casting 6th level spells.
We have Freddie the Fighter, 11th level. He gets to make 3 attack rolls per round.
We have Nunzio the NPC, also 11th level. He gets to make 3 attack rolls per round.
No magic equipment at all; Freddie and Nunzio are wearing full field plate.
Which one of these characters feels like he's outshining the NPC? I'll give you a hint - he's the one who starts out flying, casts Wind Wall, and then casts Black Tentacles, on those poor guys who are stuck on the ground and can only shoot arrows against him.
Now, you can have games where 'mortal martial prowess' makes you heroic. However, that game is not 'straight by the book' Pathfinder, which assumes that everyone will have Wealth By Level toys, and you can expect the fighter to have a Ring of Flight and a Belt of Steroidal Machismo.
You can also play games where what your character believes gives him the power up; to me this is a game that reinforces heroism more than item collecting.
However, that game isn't Pathfinder.
I think the best compromise is to make wizards actual Vancian casters.
They can memorize two, maybe three spells if they're high level, and need access to a massive personal library they can't bring with them in order to memorize spells.
Hey, just being fair!
They're not ok with fighters being fantastic in their fantasy game.
And the most ironic twist is, in 99% of stories out there, it's the fighting man who's the protagonist. Beowulf rips off Grendel's arm and defeats the dragon, not his wizard buddy. Merlin and Gandalf were advisors, they didn't charge into battle throwing fireballs left and right. How many greek or roman myths involve old bearded men reading spellbooks before casting Charm Person on their foes to do all the killing for them?
Can you give a few examples?
I at least don't see the phenomenom of "fighters don't do fantastic things in the game" in play. I've seen fighters drive off a kraken almost single handedly, survive a titan's meteor swarm, stand toe-to-toe with a certain undead dracolich, drive a purple worm back into its hole after it tried to bite and swallow him, beat a higher level cleric to death with his bare hands, and arm wrestle a hill giant (and win) in a bar full of hill giants the result of which started a barroom brawl… what fun that session was :)
Those examples sound quite similar to fictional heroes you've cited.
.
..
...
....
.....
<Good Stuff>
Sir, with this common sense you are spoiling us...
They're not ok with fighters being fantastic in their fantasy game.
And the most ironic twist is, in 99% of stories out there, it's the fighting man who's the protagonist. Beowulf rips off Grendel's arm and defeats the dragon, not his wizard buddy. Merlin and Gandalf were advisors, they didn't charge into battle throwing fireballs left and right. How many greek or roman myths involve old bearded men reading spellbooks before casting Charm Person on their foes to do all the killing for them?
Can you give a few examples?
I at least don't see the phenomenom of "fighters don't do fantastic things in the game" in play. I've seen fighters drive off a kraken almost single handedly, survive a titan's meteor swarm, stand toe-to-toe with a certain undead dracolich, drive a purple worm back into its hole after it tried to bite and swallow him, beat a higher level cleric to death with his bare hands, and arm wrestle a hill giant (and win) in a bar full of hill giants the result of which started a barroom brawl… what fun that session was :)
Those examples sound quite similar to fictional heroes you've cited.
Likewise, our most legendary character was/is a fighter - he kept on trucking all day and all night - always ready to rock and/or roll.
..he was a straight fighter, with a two-handed sword, a morning star and a few throwing axes. He has 6 magical items at level 18 - and that was all he needed. He shamed the casters, saved the clerics and was loved by the rogues.
Utter bad ass.
Our lot seriously respect fighters!
To be honest, the casters are typically the least heroic - they cast a few spells and achieve a result.
That's... pretty boring.. Yes we've had casters hold cities ro ransom, build flying castles and create armies of the undead but for some reason, when a fighter does something 'epic', it reall feels epic..
..probably because our lot find it easier to relate to fighters.
a lot of mechanic-focused stuff
Gee, I dunno. I thought one of the carrots RPGs like Pathfinder offered was the ability to make stories of daring adventure. Guess I was playing the game wrong.
Sure, you can focus on just the mechanics as being the only factors driving a game like Pathfinder, but I think you'd be missing a whole lot of the point of playing RPGs rather than boardgames. The game can be, and for a lot of us is, more than just mechanics and that's straight out of the book Pathfinder as well.
a lot of mechanic-focused stuffGee, I dunno. I thought one of the carrots RPGs like Pathfinder offered was the ability to make stories of daring adventure. Guess I was playing the game wrong.
Sure, you can focus on just the mechanics as being the only factors driving a game like Pathfinder, but I think you'd be missing a whole lot of the point of playing RPGs rather than boardgames. The game can be, and for a lot of us is, more than just mechanics and that's straight out of the book Pathfinder as well.
Ha now, no bad mouthing board games. I still remember playing Hero quest and thinking this was the best Role-Play game for young kids i have ever played.
a lot of mechanic-focused stuffBill misses the point and ignores prior context
Bill, you missed a number of my earlier posts.
You will get play that exists in the area of overlap between what your game master rewards and what your rules system rewards.
Some groups, game master rewards trump all; these groups could probably play a nuanced game of figuring out who's going to marry whom at a zombie cotillion using a rulebook that has random pages of RIFTS and TOON jumbled together. With a good GM and player buy in, system becomes secondary.
Not everyone is in such a group; games will ALWAYS reward certain behaviors; choosing the right game engine for a setting is a matter of choosing the right reward mechanisms for the kind of play style you want to see. The chief argument I have here is this: When it comes to realism, Pathfinder's reward mechanisms don't support it, and trying to make Pathfinder support it is more work than picking up another game system.
Pathfinder is lovely at what it is. But what it is isn't appropriate to all play styles or all types of RPG experiences. Nobody here is playing it wrong, even the original poster who finds that it's frustrating because the game mechanics allow someone to violate common sense.
And its reward mechanisms don't always align with common sense.
A game that doesn't want to make 'wading into a pool of lava for 12 seconds a reasonable way to get loot' shouldn't treat hit points as a mixture of health points and 'combat luck'.
A game that wants to encourage a play style that's something other than "I accumulate Magical Toys until I can kick a Balor's gnads into its sinus cavities" should probably not have Character Wealth By Level and assumptions about owning the Big Six magic items baked into its Challenge Rating system.
A game that wants to promote "Only get into fights that are meaningful to you" needs to build its advancement system on something other than combat.
I play Pathfinder and have fun with it. When I play Pathfinder, I kind of imagine Lord of the Rings directed by Ang Lee.
I run games using D6 Dramatics, or Minimus, largely because they have in-game reward mechanisms based on players setting goals, working towards them, and describing things in an interesting way. These rewards tend to be greater than any magical gear a character has, and to me, that's appropriate.
I do not feel that changing Pathfinder to make it more 'realistic' is a worthwhile use of the GM's time. Other people agree and disagree. There are LOTS of good RPGs out there, and most of them are easier to pick up than Pathfinder.