My general philosophy with critical misses is that "funny is better then punishing." I'll mess with the player that gets a critical miss, but I'll do it in a way that doesn't really hurt them or the team
I'm sorry but a fighter wielding a weapon with improved critical is really not the same as the wizard being able to cast keen edge on something. What exactly is the wizard going to do with that keen edged weapon that matches the fantastic stuff the fighter can do with it?Transformation, maybe? Or give it to his planar binding assistant, who likely outpowers the fighter anyway?
And the fighter can't do ANY fantastic stuff with it -- only mundane stuff.
So the wizard may burn 2 actions giving up his spellcasting (an all important advantage according to you) for at least 11 more rounds to fight like a fighter with hardly a combat feat to his name?
As far as a fighter not being able to do anything fantastic... clearly we have different definitions of fantasy. If someone were to tell me that normal actually mundane people can pull off things that fighters can do in D&D combat, that's the day I start looking for flying pigs and find them.
As far as a fighter not being able to do anything fantastic... clearly we have different definitions of fantasy. If someone were to tell me that normal actually mundane people can pull off things that fighters can do in D&D combat, that's the day I start looking for flying pigs and find them.
In a game with gate spells, the bar for "fantastic" is pretty high. Hitting things with a stick isn't.
Also, you're quibbling with rounds of duration instead of addressing the point. You told me that "the fighter gets to do different totally fantastic things than a wizard does with his class features." I'm asking you to name one thing a fighter with the right feat can do that a wizard with the right spell(s) can't. I don't mean nitpicky stuff like "well, over 66 rounds of combat he'll score 16.1 more damage," either. That's not different stuff; it's just a different number. I mean something more general.
I'll start: The wizard can summon angels to fight for him. The wizard can transport you to Hell. The wizard can make you his mental slave... and the wizard can deal damage, or get an AC bonus, or a higher crit, etc., so those don't count as unique to the fighter. So what can the fighter do that's unique to him?
Angel Summonnerrrrrr
AND BMX BAAAAAAAANDIIIIIIT!
Eh... by the time you can survive 20d6 (avg 70 hp damage) on a consistent basis you are likely 8-10th level and has a 24-26 strength. He can lift 1400-1800 lbs off the ground... that's 400-800 lbs over the world record. It only gets better from there. They are clearly super human.
These guys have more in common with the hulk than normal people so why not the resilience of the hulk?
+1
Look I just want my fighters to be somewhat capable of what free runners can do: Climbing, Jumping, and Making it out of a fall without hurting themselves too much. The only difference is that I expect them to be better at it,
Fighters can at higher levels. It's called HP, skills and feats.
Swimming - SwimClimbing - Climb
Jumping - Arobatics.
Making it out of a fall without hurting themselves too much - Acrobatics and a lot of hit points. Falling 200 feet = 20d6 = 70 HP.
"If a character deliberately jumps instead of merely
slipping or falling, the damage is the same but the first
1d6 is nonlethal damage. A DC 15 Acrobatics check allows
the character to avoid any damage from the first 10 feet
fallen and converts any damage from the second 10 feet
to nonlethal damage."
So with acrobatics you can soften the fall some. A normal person would die from 70 HP worth of Damage, a level 11 fighter is not a normal person. If your DM doesn't understand this then first talk to him/her, if that don't work play a new class or change DM.
Heck at higher levels with skill focus, high str, dex, and con stats you could probaly swim up a waterfall or swim in a Tsunami and jump over buildnings or balance on a pianowire.
There's something I'm not tracking here.
The discussion is between Ftr/Wiz realism/falling
The Wiz has reality bending powers so the Ftr should be able to fall well?
Some are comparing the two classes saying "what can a fighter do that a wizard can't". If that's the case then falling as a "benefit" of a Ftr is a moot point, Wizards can fall too.
Now I don't play PF (Played 3.x til 4E) so not totally clear but Wiz now get d6 right?
12 lvl Ftr w/o Con bonus avg 66hp +12/2 Con
12 lvl Wiz w/o Con bonus avg 43hp +12/2 Con
Not a big difference. Now I only weighed the stuff that is not maleable through Stat placement/Feats/Etc pure class mechanic. Since these can be different based on build (I've seen High Con Wiz and low Con Ftrs before). How is it that the Fighter's "Fantastic" powers let him fall well?
Therefore, since it is irrespective of class it's no more a special benefit of a Ftr than it is a Wiz. In that instance, no matter how you change the falling rule, it affects no one class any more than any other.
Personally, for falling (since I've seen it come up on these forums) I am going with a cumulative dice per 10' rule. 1d at 10', 3d at 20'. 6d at 30', 10d at 40', 15d at 50', etc. That's just my take on it, I'm fine with putting lethality on falling, since it is an unbiased damage source. Yet it still allows for those RARE occasions someone survives a great fall, I mean 15d can still result in a total of 15.
I don't really care about 'realism' per se, fighters =/= wizards IMO.
But they do other stuff really well, like fight.
My only gripe is that 'terminal velocity' kicks in at 200ft.
[QUOTE="Bluenose"
Now, let's be fair. That's only true by RAW in 3.x D&D and some of its derivatives. In AD&D a fighter with high charisma could quite easily be the party 'face'. And they weren't far behind in terms of gaining NWPs, as they levelled up they got the best saves in the game, and they were still better in melee than any other class.
...but we are discussing pathfinder/3.x, or so I thought. I don't really care what a class in an older system could do because that is not affecting my games right now.
Look I just want my fighters to be somewhat capable of what free runners can do: Climbing, Jumping, and Making it out of a fall without hurting themselves too much. The only difference is that I expect them to be better at it, I mean wizards get better spells than most wizards get in a majority of movies, in fact in most movies if the wizard isn't a BBEG, they are little more than an adviser.
As for those who say that people don't jump out of buildings to impress people, watch free running or parkour.
Fighters should be physically more impressive than people in real life, if Wizards can be magically more impressive than characters in a movie...
:p just saying
When you sum it up that way I will agree with you.
All of the skills you mentioned are typical fighter skills and as long as he keeps maxing them out there should be no problem with him running from roof top to roof top to ground four stories below.
The role of the fighter is to be PHYSICALLY impressive thats why str and con are his primary's.
If you want to up his skills then do so. I talked to my DM and made a good reason why the prestige class I wanted was unfair to spellcasters so he and I took the basic idea behind Dragonmarked heir and made it spellcaster freindly by dropping the HD and the saves and the BAB and then giving it uninterupted spellcasting and the same skill points. The other players in my group liked it and took the same thing.
If you want the mellee types in your game to be more acrobatic then expand the class skill list and give them 4 skill points per level. I wouldn't go much higher than that cause then your getting into theif or bard territory.
The 3.5 game is by no means perfect but the beauty is it's changable to fit your table.
I'll start: The wizard can summon angels to fight for him. The wizard can transport you to Hell. The wizard can make you his mental slave... and the wizard can deal damage, or get an AC bonus, or a higher crit, etc., so those don't count as unique to the fighter. So what can the fighter do that's unique to him?
Emphasis mine. So there's where the BS starts. Every character does those things, so that somehow makes the way they're done not fantastic, or special to the class that's using those methods? That's pure shenanigans.
Just because a wizard can also get an AC bonus, deal damage, or get a higher crit doesn't mean that the fighter is not pretty fantastic at the way he does them or that players aren't getting a big charge out of doing those things with a fighter. Wading in and physically taking enemies apart is a significant appeal of the D&D game, always has been. And fighters do that very well, better than wizards can.
Fantastic doesn't mean a wizard can't do them. Fantastic means a normal joe can't do them.
As for fighter-man vs mr. wizard, I don't have a problem with the fighter doing fantastical things, but it irks me when we need to find something fantastical for the fighter to do because, poor him, he does not perform magic...
Here is a movie scene with a non-magical guy doing some amazing things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeEizs7ThYo
Watch the scene in Die Hard 4 where Bruce Willis is doing some crazy stuff on the back of a fighter jet.
Watch Charlies Angels for some amazing things that mundane people do.
We see normal people in movies, TV, books, etc all do some crazy things. We see them dive through windows even though in reality that would probably cut them up and could cause some serious harm. Diving through a window can be rather tough, contrary to what the movies show us.
In the real world, we have seen actual people run into raging fires to save people counting on their superior conditioning and training to protect them. We have seen real people run through a firefight to save others counting on their superior skills and ability to ignore pain. We have read actual stories about people who face the same dangers that will kill most of us counting on their abilities, skills, and physical conditioning. You can find many true stories in the media.
We have seen our heroes leap from cliffs, helicopters, airplanes, buildings, etc, all without a lot of protection. That's what we want from our heroes. And it's ok.
If I want to play someone who has to fear every mundane thing out there, I would just play a level 1 commoner who is never going to level. I would much rather play the hero who can do heroic things.
There's something I'm not tracking here.
The discussion is between Ftr/Wiz realism/falling
The Wiz has reality bending powers so the Ftr should be able to fall well?
Some are comparing the two classes saying "what can a fighter do that a wizard can't". If that's the case then falling as a "benefit" of a Ftr is a moot point, Wizards can fall too.
Now I don't play PF (Played 3.x til 4E) so not totally clear but Wiz now get d6 right?
12 lvl Ftr w/o Con bonus avg 66hp +12/2 Con
12 lvl Wiz w/o Con bonus avg 43hp +12/2 ConNot a big difference. Now I only weighed the stuff that is not maleable through Stat placement/Feats/Etc pure class mechanic. Since these can be different based on build (I've seen High Con Wiz and low Con Ftrs before). How is it that the Fighter's "Fantastic" powers let him fall well?
Therefore, since it is irrespective of class it's no more a special benefit of a Ftr than it is a Wiz. In that instance, no matter how you change the falling rule, it affects no one class any more than any other.
Personally, for falling (since I've seen it come up on these forums) I am going with a cumulative dice per 10' rule. 1d at 10', 3d at 20'. 6d at 30', 10d at 40', 15d at 50', etc. That's just my take on it, I'm fine with putting lethality on falling, since it is an unbiased damage source. Yet it still allows for those RARE occasions someone survives a great fall, I mean 15d can still result in a total of 15.
You do have a point, *sets damage to d12 (they don't get enough love anyway) and adds a Fortitude save every 50'* That should help :3
I have problems with critical misses. I've had one magic item, about 1/4 of my wealth, destroyed by one (the dm said I could injure a party member or destory my own cape, my choice). I've see house rules where critical hits and misses weren't to be confirmed (I played a spellcaster that game, let me tell you!). I've seen house rules where if you roll a natural 1 on any attack, you lose all iteratives for the rest of the round.
Confirmed crits are better than unconfirmed, but unless a caster has to make some sort of concentration check for every spell that allows them a critical success or failure, I don't think that every one of a martial character's actions should have a a critical failure chance. So I stick to RAW with critical misses.
We haven't come across any weapon destruction crit misses in the deck yet, but I haven't sat and read them all. Strangely enough, last night the only confirmed critical miss actually resulted in being a hit for minimum damage. Produced an amusing mental image of the paladin tripping forward, throwing up his sword for balance and scoring an accidental hit. I kind of like a bit of slapstick comedy thrown into my adventures now and then.
We've found it amusing so far, and haven't found that it has a huge impact on the game (as opposed to the critical hit deck). I'll let y'all know if that changes.
Confirmed crits are better than unconfirmed, but unless a caster has to make some sort of concentration check for every spell that allows them a critical success or failure, I don't think that every one of a martial character's actions should have a a critical failure chance. So I stick to RAW with critical misses.Amen. Or unless a confirmed "good" crit can give you something that disproportionately benefits warriors -- e.g., an action point.
I think the crit hit deck does do that, with its special effects. Many of them put bad guys down or cripple them immediately, ending fights quickly (and frequently pretty cinematically). It's been a very welcome powerup for the martial classes, in our experience.
I think the crit hit deck does do that, with its special effects. Many of them put bad guys down or cripple them immediately, ending fights quickly (and frequently pretty cinematically). It's been a very welcome powerup for the martial classes, in our experience.
Do those effects apply only to PCs? Because otherwise they're hurting the martial guys as much (if not more) than they're helping.
|
I think the crit hit deck does do that, with its special effects. Many of them put bad guys down or cripple them immediately, ending fights quickly (and frequently pretty cinematically). It's been a very welcome powerup for the martial classes, in our experience.Confirmed crits are better than unconfirmed, but unless a caster has to make some sort of concentration check for every spell that allows them a critical success or failure, I don't think that every one of a martial character's actions should have a a critical failure chance. So I stick to RAW with critical misses.Amen. Or unless a confirmed "good" crit can give you something that disproportionately benefits warriors -- e.g., an action point.
Do only PCs draw from the deck, then?
Personally, i prefer a sense of realism in my games - as much as taking into account that it's a world where magic exists - and as such, i rule that there's no cap on falling damage.
There should be.
A human being reaches terminal velocity (less drag from the air) in an earth like environment in and around 810 meters. After that height is irrelevant. There is no difference between falling 3,000 feet and falling 30,000 feet.
Do only PCs draw from the deck, then?I think the crit hit deck does do that, with its special effects. Many of them put bad guys down or cripple them immediately, ending fights quickly (and frequently pretty cinematically). It's been a very welcome powerup for the martial classes, in our experience.Confirmed crits are better than unconfirmed, but unless a caster has to make some sort of concentration check for every spell that allows them a critical success or failure, I don't think that every one of a martial character's actions should have a a critical failure chance. So I stick to RAW with critical misses.Amen. Or unless a confirmed "good" crit can give you something that disproportionately benefits warriors -- e.g., an action point.
No, but in practice, they have gotten and confirmed crits a hell of a lot more often. I'm running the beginning stages of Kingmaker now, and most of the critters faced have only had baseline crits of 20/x2, and total attack bonuses in the +2 to +10 range (and the upper end of that range is usually encounters with single or small numbers of critters against 7 PCs and an animal companion), as opposed to the fighter 20/x3 total attack bonus of +7, the paladin's 19-20/x2 total attack bonus +5, and the ranger's 20/x3 total attack bonus +7. Might be a different story when they face more powerful/diverse foes. Fighters, in particular, are pretty much always going to have a crit hit advantage on anybody else, given the wide variety of weapons they have to choose from and the feats they can take.
That said I did very nearly confirm a hit by a grizzly bear that would have resulted in the first Kingmaker Obituary for my group. Missed the confirm by just one.
It's probably a good thing that our group doesn't use the crit deck. Our monk got critted 3 times in two sessions. (I can only imagine what would have happened to the monk)
|
|
No, but in practice, they have gotten and confirmed crits a hell of a lot more often. I'm running the beginning stages of Kingmaker now, and most of the critters faced have only had baseline crits of 20/x2, and total attack bonuses in the +2 to +10 range...
I know this is a personal preference thing, and many people (including many of the players in my own Kingmaker game) like them, but I feel they're generally worse for players. I can see some of the appeal, but with 7-9 players and doubling the number of enemies they face, I'm finding they're a lot more likely to be critically hit than vice versa. If I were going to introduce the critical hit deck, I'd probably limit its use by antagonists to bosses only.
I have problems with critical misses. I've had one magic item, about 1/4 of my wealth, destroyed by one (the dm said I could injure a party member or destory my own cape, my choice). I've see house rules where critical hits and misses weren't to be confirmed (I played a spellcaster that game, let me tell you!). I've seen house rules where if you roll a natural 1 on any attack, you lose all iteratives for the rest of the round.
(...)
In my years of transition between 2E AD&D and 3,5 (I stuck to ADA&D during the 3.0 years), I had a chart of "random event" that were triggered on a roll of "1". Most of them had no direct consequences on the person who rolled the "1".
I dropped it because 3E had a lot of attack rolls compared to 2E AD&D, but it did allow me to include some "elements of chaos" without targeting anyone in particular.
'findel
No, but in practice, they have gotten and confirmed crits a hell of a lot more often. I'm running the beginning stages of Kingmaker now, and most of the critters faced have only had baseline crits of 20/x2, and total attack bonuses in the +2 to +10 range...I know this is a personal preference thing, and many people (including many of the players in my own Kingmaker game) like them, but I feel they're generally worse for players. I can see some of the appeal, but with 7-9 players and doubling the number of enemies they face, I'm finding they're a lot more likely to be critically hit than vice versa. If I were going to introduce the critical hit deck, I'd probably limit its use by antagonists to bosses only.
I understand why you would think that, but in our experience it hasn't worked out that way so far. The PCs have gotten many, many more crits than the opposition. I've got 7 players myself and am, like you, frequently doubling the number of adversaries. In those cases in which the party is really outnumbered and the action economy actually favors the opposition, it's generally with smaller critters that have little chance of confirming crits, like kobolds, mites, wolves, or bandits, and even when they do, their damage die is frequently a d4 or d6, as opposed to the d8 or d10 the PCs are getting. They also, with a cleric, a druid and a paladin, have far more healing available to mitigate the crit special effects than anything they have faced so far. This may change as they move up in level and face more serious opposition, but I suspect their own powers will scale proportionally.
I also admit that I love the assistance the crit hit deck gives me in providing a cinematically compelling description and helping the players immerse themselves. You don't just hit the gnoll with your hammer for a double damage critical, you whack him upside the head with your hammer leaving him cross-eyed and stunned for a round. Sure, I can make up the description without the special effects, but they make it easier for me and add some spice.
My players love the crit hit deck, and although some of them hated the idea at first, they are actually enjoying the crit miss deck now. They certainly loved it when the clumsy mite crit missed and involuntarily lurched 10' forward into the middle of the party, provoking AoOs from all and turning him into a little blue pile of goo.
|
|
They also, with a cleric, a druid and a paladin, have far more healing available to mitigate the crit special effects than anything they have faced so far.
Ah, maybe this is the critical (no pun intended) difference - our cleric player had to bow out at the last second due to an employment scheduling change. We have a paladin who at first level cannot heal anyone, and a druid. They are desperate now for a wand of cure light wounds, and all party treasure up to this point not directly used by party members is being sold to pay for one.
Now I understand that some DMs want a fair bit of realism in their game, but it's always so biased. They always complain about the martial classes that survive falls and perform death defying feats, but you never hear about problems with spellcasters. There are DMs who are so willing to gimp the martial classes in favor of spellcasters...
If we had any sort of low level magic in our world that worked under reasonable rules these same people might cry that teleportation and wishes and many of the other high level stuff is just plain ridiculous and just plain impossible. However, since magic doesn't exist it can reach the limits. But a human that has trained his body to resist fire and falling damage and has grown the strength of a giant and thus able to swing a giant sword, that's just impossible! -_-
...
(Note: I have yet to read this thread in its entirety, so I apologize if I step on toes here.)
If you have a GM who's altering, bending, or breaking rules in order to push physical realism onto martial or skill-based characters, I'd recommend you look up and reference the show "Fight Science." That show makes it clear that people really are able to train their body to a point that they really CAN take insane amounts of damage (like Hard Body trainers that can take an impact equal to a 35 mph car crash without being phased,) or have insane reflexes (to the point of Taekwon Do masters appearing to have super-speed,) or ninja skill. A hard Body master probably could survive insane falls, even if the average human couldn't. And, Pathfinder characters are heros...trained far beyond normal human abilities.
In the end, though, a GM really shouldn't be relying on personal experiences or human averages to determine game mechanics, because the characters aren't average. Nor are they meant to be. Monks are designed to move at speeds that exceed real foot speed records. A 20th level raging human barbarian that rolled an 18 for strength and put every point boost into Strength can walk while carrying 800 pounds without any magical enhancement; something no real weight lifter can do. The game is designed to have characters capable of exceeding reality.
|
|
Just thought I'd mention that the critical hit deck itself suggests that GM's should only use it for major villains or NPC's, which makes it work out a bit better for the players. I agree with you that otherwise it's likely to prove far too deadly for players.No, but in practice, they have gotten and confirmed crits a hell of a lot more often. I'm running the beginning stages of Kingmaker now, and most of the critters faced have only had baseline crits of 20/x2, and total attack bonuses in the +2 to +10 range...I know this is a personal preference thing, and many people (including many of the players in my own Kingmaker game) like them, but I feel they're generally worse for players. I can see some of the appeal, but with 7-9 players and doubling the number of enemies they face, I'm finding they're a lot more likely to be critically hit than vice versa. If I were going to introduce the critical hit deck, I'd probably limit its use by antagonists to bosses only.
No it isn't, I've played with the crit deck for everyone (all enemies) for a while.
It gives the game a greater sense of realism, gives the martial characters a significant boost, and doesn't favor the enemies at all.
Granted I've also added limb loss rules etc. So there's a lot going on for melee types.
I don't have a problem with a fighter jumping from great heights and surviving, I have a problem with how very nonlethal falling is in the first place. The problem isn't high level fighters with good fort saves and high HP having the ability to survive a fall from 2000ft, its that a fall from 200 feet doesn't have any risk of broken bones etc. I think if the falling damage rules made a bit more sense you wouldn't see people complaining that a fighters can survive.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Do only PCs draw from the deck, then?I think the crit hit deck does do that, with its special effects. Many of them put bad guys down or cripple them immediately, ending fights quickly (and frequently pretty cinematically). It's been a very welcome powerup for the martial classes, in our experience.Confirmed crits are better than unconfirmed, but unless a caster has to make some sort of concentration check for every spell that allows them a critical success or failure, I don't think that every one of a martial character's actions should have a a critical failure chance. So I stick to RAW with critical misses.Amen. Or unless a confirmed "good" crit can give you something that disproportionately benefits warriors -- e.g., an action point.
In games I've played in where people have used the Paizo crit deck, only PCs and "significant" NPCs get to draw from the crit deck. That way, you don't have to deal with jillions of mooks getting "special effect" crits, but BBEGs and top-level named adversaries can dish them out.
I don't have a problem with a fighter jumping from great heights and surviving, I have a problem with how very nonlethal falling is in the first place. The problem isn't high level fighters with good fort saves and high HP having the ability to survive a fall from 2000ft, its that a fall from 200 feet doesn't have any risk of broken bones etc. I think if the falling damage rules made a bit more sense you wouldn't see people complaining that a fighters can survive.
I think that that falls under the "Everybody is 100% functional, no matter how much damage they take, until they go from 1hp to 0hp. Then, they suddenly have major disabilities followed quickly by mortal wounding." I've seen numerous attempts to fix this (it's the 1 thing I 100% love about 4th ed,) but very few systems satisfactorily handle it. That's why I'll have my players take long-term penalties like broken bones, hamstringing, etc from massive critical hits...to help the suspension of disbelief there.
(I really hate when the Fighter with 120 hp takes several 25+ damage hits from a dragon and pulls through without serious injury, then gets stabbed by a kobold for 2 damage and is suddenly unconscious and bleeding out.)
don't have a problem with a fighter jumping from great heights and surviving, I have a problem with how very nonlethal falling is in the first place.
You could extrapolate that to HP and non-combat sorts of damage in general.
Although, I'm a bit surprised at this thread. People actually roll for damage when someone takes a 200' fall? I'd get laughed off my screen for suggesting it.
Although, I'm a bit surprised at this thread. People actually roll for damage when someone takes a 200' fall? I'd get laughed off my screen for suggesting it.
Ummm...why?
Numerous characters are fully capable of surviving this easily, especially with various abilities to reduce falling damage. And, it's an obvious mechanic that's written into the book. Plus, real non-heroic people do survive worse falls than that (albeit with serious injury.)
|
|
don't have a problem with a fighter jumping from great heights and surviving, I have a problem with how very nonlethal falling is in the first place.You could extrapolate that to HP and non-combat sorts of damage in general.
Although, I'm a bit surprised at this thread. People actually roll for damage when someone takes a 200' fall? I'd get laughed off my screen for suggesting it.
You could except I don't have as much of a problem with HP even if HP is considered pure damage rather than an abstraction. It's a matter of taste
|
|
I think that that falls under the "Everybody is 100% functional, no matter how much damage they take, until they go from 1hp to 0hp. Then, they suddenly have major disabilities followed quickly by mortal wounding."
I see this so often, I need to make a cut and paste response to it. :)
There multiple ways to view the "real world meaning" of hit points.
Hit points are an extremely abstract system. They are used to make in game effects relatively simple to track.
When I think about hit points in PC world terms instead of as an abstraction, I consider them a measure of how much energy / luck / strength / stamina the character has left to continue fighting. A nasty critical that leave you with positive hit points means the attack hit your shield so hard you're not sure if your arm is strong enough to take anoter blow that tough. Or you had to really push yourself to avoid a swing and you're really starting to feel that your next adrenaline-prodded burst of movement won't be enough to avoid another such blow. Or they landed a scratch, and while it doesn't cause you much real life issue, it's a blow to your confidence that you'll win this battle.
I would like to wish that the "disable" range was larger than one hit point, and there is some realism that could be added with some sort of injury chart, but it's generally been judged that such details clog gamie play up too much to be worth the effort.
One alternate solution Kirth came upwith was at 50% of hit points you are fatigued. At 25% you are exhausted. When you start losing a fight badly, it makes much more sense to flee than stay.
I see this so often, I need to make a cut and paste response to it. :)
There multiple ways to view the "real world meaning" of hit points.
Hit points are an extremely abstract system. They are used to make in game effects relatively simple to track.
Hit points are a bad game mechanic that are foundational to D&D, just like Armor Class and BAB inflation are.
My advice is to accept that Pathfinder is what it is - and that it's built around some core concepts that are REALLY awful game design ideas, but can't be replaced without alienating the player base.
Corollary to the above: Pathfinder does "D&D High Fantasy" amazingly well, and Paizo did an excellent job with it. Enjoy the game, have fun and try not to think too much about the 10th level fighter swimming in molten lava to retrieve the magic gewgaw, because he knows he can't be killed by it.
That there's even a discussion about HP being abstract is strange. Gygax wrote down that HP was abstract in his first D&D bits, and they've always been abstract ever since.
|
Gygax wrote down that HP was abstract in his first D&D bits, and they've always been abstract ever since.
He did...
But they (hit points) have certainly NOT remained so "abstract ever since"...
Hit Points (hp)
A measure of a character's health or an object's integrity. Damage decreases current hit points, and lost hit points return with healing or natural recovery. A character's hit point total increases permanently with additional experience and/or permanent increases in Constitution, or temporarily through the use of various special abilities, spells, magic items, or magical effects (see temporary hit points and effective hit point increase).
(Emphasis mine)
I don't see where it says anything about luck or anything else "abstract" as EGG put it so long ago. In fact, that first sentence implies just the opposite; "a measure of the character's health"...
But that's just what the glossary says...
Your hit points tell you how much punishment you can take before dropping...
(Emphasis mine)
Again, seems pretty cut and dry to me...
Hit points (at least in 3.5 D&D) measure a character's raw endurance...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
Your hit points measure how hard you are to kill. No matter how many hit points you lose, your character isn't hindered in any way until your hit points drop to 0 or lower.Loss of Hit Points
The most common way that your character gets hurt is to take lethal damage and lose hit points.What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.
Effects of Hit Point Damage: Damage doesn't slow you down until your current hit points reach 0 or lower. At 0 hit points, you're disabled.
If hp were really 100% abstract (as Vitality points in Star Wars RPG were,) then there would be no difference between non-lethal damage and lethal damage. Dodging a punch isn't much different than dodging a sword, effort-wise. Just sayin'...
If hp were really 100% abstract (as Vitality points in Star Wars RPG were,) then there would be no difference between non-lethal damage and lethal damage. Dodging a punch isn't much different than dodging a sword, effort-wise. Just sayin'...
You seem to be missing the point of "abstract." Lethal versus nonlethal is just another kind of abstraction.
If hp were really 100% abstract (as Vitality points in Star Wars RPG were,) then there would be no difference between non-lethal damage and lethal damage. Dodging a punch isn't much different than dodging a sword, effort-wise. Just sayin'...You seem to be missing the point of "abstract." Lethal versus nonlethal is just another kind of abstraction.
I understand your point. I really do. And, I see that I was very poor in attempting to use non-lethal damage as an example of my point.
My point was that it is contradictory to insist on 'realism' in falling damage (which I say is false realism anyway) and other effects while upholding the abstraction of hit points.
It's like saying monks aren't allowed their fast movement beyond a certain point because it exceeds real-world foot speed records (40 mph while running without the Run feat,) but punching through an iron door is 100% ok for that same monk (or vice-versa.)
If hp were really 100% abstract (as Vitality points in Star Wars RPG were,) then there would be no difference between non-lethal damage and lethal damage. Dodging a punch isn't much different than dodging a sword, effort-wise. Just sayin'...
+1
Yes, Gygax said HPs were an abstract concept. But lately (well, since 3E anyways) rulebooks have given definitions that portrays HPs in a more or less abstract way, depending on their source as Digitalelf and TOZ demonstrated a few post above. But in my experience, the mechanics of the rules seem to support more the fact that damage = injuries and that HPs are a pretty dry and "concrete" concept. Many spells go in that direction at any case, as some even measure the "health level" of the target.
IMO, 4E does a better job of abstracting HPs, and it turns out that I don't like it so much.
Don't get me wrong, I am NOT re-questioning the abstractness of HPs, but unlike Prof Cirno, the debate doesn't surprise me much. Ironically, it seems that the abstractness of HPs is a rather abstract concept in itself...
For the record, I prefer the Vitality/Wounds concept. It has its flaws when used as is directly from the Unearthed Arcana because it attempts to be implemented with minimal changes. Unfortunately, the system would require more substantial changes than those proposed for Vitality/Wounds to work. But I love how it works for Star Wars Saga and for me, it lives as a testimony of how it could work successfully in 3E D&D and Pathfinder RPG.
'findel
My point was that it is contradictory to insist on 'realism' in falling damage (which I say is false realism anyway) and other effects while upholding the abstraction of hit points.
Wait, that's your problem? Simple: it's genre.
No, seriously, there's this whole scale as regards these things. It's almost definition that things that happen occasionally in genre X are anathema to genre Y. Likewise, something that demands utter realism can be totally ignored for the sake of realism, all depending on the genre. That's the whole point of genre, really.
As such, I return to my original point, which is this idea of Quote-Unquote Hit Points, which is an awesome thing for the combat that is the meat and potatoes of your average D&Dish game, is crap for nigh all other versions of suffering, damage, and woe, like cold, falling, or hunger.
A friend's early 80s game gave everyone 100 hit points. Class, Race, Size, Attack, Armor, etc. all adjusted the actual damage done. A Gnome or Dragon getting hit by the same attack took radicaly differing amounts of actual Hit Points. Magic affected Mages differently than Fighters, as did swords. It was a simple +/- scale we learned quite fast.
The 'best' part was that the amount of HP lost greatly affected your proformance. Mages didn't need to sweat spell casting above 80%, but feared backlash when below 20%. Fighters had 'feats' that could make them ignore pain, reducing the effects, but Nobody liked being below 10%.
EG: In an even skilled fight, the Fighter swings a sword (8d6) and hits an Ogre (-2 for size) in Inferior Chain Armor (-2) and wielding a weapon normaly (the threat keeping the fighter from funky attacks, -1). There is a step break at half the weapon's original dice of damage, 4, after which the '-' count halves. Damage is 8-4+4 d6.
The ogre returns for a (6d6) club, (+2 size)(-5 Armor)(-4 Shield) for +2-5-4=-7, -7+3=-4, -4/2=-2, total of -5 d6 for 1d6 damage. D6 id the minimum damage from any attack that hit.
Wait, that's your problem? Simple: it's genre.
No, seriously, there's this whole scale as regards these things. It's almost definition that things that happen occasionally in genre X are anathema to genre Y. Likewise, something that demands utter realism can be totally ignored for the sake of realism, all depending on the genre. That's the whole point of genre, really.
As such, I return to my original point, which is this idea of Quote-Unquote Hit Points, which is an awesome thing for the combat that is the meat and potatoes of your average D&Dish game, is crap for nigh all other versions of suffering, damage, and woe, like cold, falling, or hunger.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your reasoning why GMs should throw our the abstract falling damage rules that D&D developers first came up with but not throw out their abstract hp rules in general is "that's how these games work"?
But, that's really not true, because the "way they work" is set out in the rules. The point up for discussion is GMs not even rolling falling damage for long falls, just saying "you're auto-dead/mortally wounded." Nothing about the genre insists on that, and the rules suggest you do otherwise.