I am a first-time DM and really fairly new to RPG's. In my game, I have a lycanthrope warshaper (3.5) in my party who has recently achieved a Strength score of 30. He did it with a combination of racial, magic item, and level enhancement bonuses. It rubs me wrong that this medium PC has the same strength score as a HUGE ADULT RED DRAGON! (31, technically)
I clearly understand that this is a fantasy game, not an attempt to accurately portray reality, but this seems downright ludicrous to me. The world record for a clean-and-jerk is 580 lbs. This guy's PC could, by game mechanics, lift at least 1,600 lbs over his head. Am I alone in finding this absurd? Do I just need to let this one go?
I am a first-time DM and really fairly new to RPG's. In my game, I have a lycanthrope warshaper (3.5) in my party who has recently achieved a Strength score of 30. He did it with a combination of racial, magic item, and level enhancement bonuses. It rubs me wrong that this medium PC has the same strength score as a HUGE ADULT RED DRAGON! (31, technically)
I clearly understand that this is a fantasy game, not an attempt to accurately portray reality, but this seems downright ludicrous to me. The world record for a clean-and-jerk is 580 lbs. This guy's PC could, by game mechanics, lift at least 1,600 lbs over his head. Am I alone in finding this absurd? Do I just need to let this one go?
Well larger creatures in the game do have multplier to what they can lift...more.
In your example a the huge creature can with the same strength can lift 6,400. A huge dragon that is a quadrupeds can carry x6 that amount.
Does that help? I know it is one page 120 of the Pathfinder Corebook...I know 3.5 had the same exact rules but I am not sure what page it is on.
As for what people can do in rl vs a game...well in RL has a weight lifter have the advantage of magic? Or being a were tiger?
Touche, sir. Excellent points all.
Do not try to reconcile "reality" with fantasy. Do not try to blend in physics, economics, linguistics, or any other "-ics," more than the minimum level necessary for an internally cohesive world.
A 500 lbs. statue gets dropped from 100 feet onto a wooden bridge. How do you find out whether it breaks the bridge or not? Velocity and momentum and gravitation and all that jazz that I obviously know nothing about because I'm not a scientist to any degree? Nope. You have a break DC for wood and a modifier for the statue. Roll and see what happens. Realistic? Who knows. But it works in the game.
Where is the line to be drawn? Should we bring in thermodynamics? Think of what that would do to energy damage. Hell, think of the absurdity that acid is a kind of energy damage at all.
I don't find it odd at all that a character could have such a strength score. You do. That's subjective. Going by subjective rulings gets people angry when they don't see eye to eye. One point of having a robust, internally consistent rules-structure written down is that you have a common reference point by which to make such calls sans opinions. I always go by the rules first, then find a way to justify it later.
D&D serves other motives beside simulation, such as game balance, "cinematic" elements, and a nebulous definition of "fun" used in game design. These other masters of the game destroy any attempt to fully reconcile the possibilities within the "reality" of the game with our "reality."
That way madness lies.
|
Remember that inside the game world, characters do not experience the reality we experience in our every-day world. Instead, the rules exist as their framework for reality.
So, something can be completely realistic within the context of the game, but make very little sense when compared to something that exists in our physical reality.
Like I tell my players, there are no table discussions about what is or isn't realistic when we're pretending to be elves fighting dragons with magic.
-Skeld
If you have enough hit points, you can survive an unexpected orbital re-entry with nothing more than a DC 15 Fortitude save.
You either have to just hand-wave things like this, or come up with a theory that explains them. My theory is that creatures with a lot of Hit Dice are suffused with the same positive energy that powers Channel Energy and healing spells, and that also makes them capable of feats that their physiology alone would never allow.
Explains everything from healing spells to level-based ability score increases.
I am a first-time DM and really fairly new to RPG's. In my game, I have a lycanthrope warshaper (3.5) in my party who has recently achieved a Strength score of 30. He did it with a combination of racial, magic item, and level enhancement bonuses. It rubs me wrong that this medium PC has the same strength score as a HUGE ADULT RED DRAGON! (31, technically)
I clearly understand that this is a fantasy game, not an attempt to accurately portray reality, but this seems downright ludicrous to me. The world record for a clean-and-jerk is 580 lbs. This guy's PC could, by game mechanics, lift at least 1,600 lbs over his head. Am I alone in finding this absurd? Do I just need to let this one go?
do you have a problem with a wizard summoning beings from another plane of reality? no, then your going to have to except the 30 str.
I'm trying to think of a comic book hero who could bench only one ton and seemed impressive. I can't think of any.
Your guy there is twice as strong as Captain America, who can bench 800 lbs and is a physically perfect human. Since he's a supernaturally charged fighting machine with total control over his anatomy, I can't really see it a problem.
If, on the other hand, he did it by level 6 or something, you've got a game problem. remember that lycanthropy has a huge CL modifier, and is especially useful for Melee types. 'Becoming' a lycanthrope is generally +5 to +8 'levels' he'll have to buy back. See Savage SPecies for details.
==Aelryinth
|
|
While we're at it, let's have realistic convection rules, so characters fighting next to molten lava take 20d6 heat damage per round. And make falling damage a save or die effect based on distance. In fact, there are a lot of unrealistic things in the rules we should fix. Why hasn't anyone written a supplement for Realism in D&D?
|
While we're at it, let's have realistic convection rules, so characters fighting next to molten lava take 20d6 heat damage per round. And make falling damage a save or die effect based on distance. In fact, there are a lot of unrealistic things in the rules we should fix. Why hasn't anyone written a supplement for Realism in D&D?
They did, it's called GURPS Fantasy :)
I love the warshaper prestige class and me and my DM came to an agrement that still let me have the fun of the class but stopped me from getting a str of 40+.
If he was a wizard of 13th level and polymorphed into a firbolg then with that and 2 levels of warshaper the str is a 40.
Then add in bulls strength or other such stuff and 40's and 50's are not unatainable. Trust me I've done it. My DM shut down shortly after that and we reconciled the abuse I had unleashed.
Basicly you say that the first level benifits are fine, no extra damage from sneak attack and natural attack damage bump are fine the way they are, Level two the +4 to str and con are where the break really starts.
We ruled that the bumps only apply to the warshapers NORMAL unaltered form. Think of it as reading 2 +4 books. For a wizard charecter the permenant +4 to con is a HUGE bonus, the strength can be fun if it puts you on par with the party fighter but it also means the wizard can mellee just slightly better if really needed.
These changes helped keep the class viable rather than being banned and stopped the strength climb from being as bad as it could be.
I am a first-time DM and really fairly new to RPG's. In my game, I have a lycanthrope warshaper (3.5) in my party who has recently achieved a Strength score of 30. He did it with a combination of racial, magic item, and level enhancement bonuses. It rubs me wrong that this medium PC has the same strength score as a HUGE ADULT RED DRAGON! Lots of comment about letting go of realism.
To a great extent, fantasy is by definition not reality.
Yet what we experience as reality is our main base of reference, and that shouldn't be ignored or simply hand-waved in a catch-all "bah, its fantasy".
Will the statue break the bridge if it falls from 25 ft? I don't know. But I do expect the statue to fall down if its unsupported. I do expect the possibility of the bridge collapsing under too much stress, not to dissolve into soap bubbles. Will it kill someone if I poke a knife in its chest? I don't know, but I don't expect yellow and purple flowers to sprout out.
Summoning extraplanar creatures is in another league of "un-realism" than having a superhuman Strength, and the two shouldn't have to be correlated. There are no "real-life" comparison to be made about summoning an air elemental, but there are references about lifting 1500 lbs without breaking a sweat.
A proper setting is ALWAYS a balancing act between what's supposed to be "real", what is abstracted from reality and what is totally fabricated. Tip that balance too far (on side or the other) and the game stops to be enjoyable. Reality (or the level of realism) is of utter importance in a ruleset, regardless what people say.
If you and the rest of your group (emphasis on the whole group here) think that having humans lift a small car overhead is too unrealistic for you guys to have fun, please by all means do the necessary changes to make the game enjoyable.
'findel
I love the warshaper prestige class and me and my DM came to an agrement that still let me have the fun of the class but stopped me from getting a str of 40+.
If he was a wizard of 13th level and polymorphed into a firbolg then with that and 2 levels of warshaper the str is a 40.
Then add in bulls strength or other such stuff and 40's and 50's are not unatainable. Trust me I've done it. My DM shut down shortly after that and we reconciled the abuse I had unleashed.Basicly you say that the first level benifits are fine, no extra damage from sneak attack and natural attack damage bump are fine the way they are, Level two the +4 to str and con are where the break really starts.
We ruled that the bumps only apply to the warshapers NORMAL unaltered form. Think of it as reading 2 +4 books. For a wizard charecter the permenant +4 to con is a HUGE bonus, the strength can be fun if it puts you on par with the party fighter but it also means the wizard can mellee just slightly better if really needed.
These changes helped keep the class viable rather than being banned and stopped the strength climb from being as bad as it could be.
Abuse of the 3.5 polymorph rules is a huge sore point with that part of the game, and it's one of the things PF clamped down hard on. There is NO size L creature stronger then a Firbolg, and they are stronger then a Cloud Giant! Likewise grabbing War Troll forms.
Polymorph got stronger with every monster supplement, as each had monsters that pushed the limits of what was possible. You just selected the most abusable forms, which is just maximizing the usefulness of the spell/form.
Str abuse is one of the biggest discrepancies against the Fighter, because a high enough Str can easily sub for worse BAB and damage feats. Of course, Fighters can turn around and use the same mechanics via potions, wands, or such, but they didn't have class abilities that could basically replace other classes like spellcasters did.
There's a good reason to have open end stats, and there's a good reason not to. Maximums for non-Melee characters in 1 and 2E were entirely justified, the same way no spells for non-casters is justified. The spells of Melee IS their stats, not just their feats. Take away the stat advantage, and Melee have nothing.
==+Aelryinth
|
|
Before the 3E system came out I played with max available scores -- no matter what you couldn't have a score above, say 22 or so.
With 3E the modifiers are not so great that a Strength 25+7 ain't so much greater than an 18+4.
3 more to your d20 aint' that different.
Anybody with a 2h weapon would kindly disagree with you.
Before the 3E system came out I played with max available scores -- no matter what you couldn't have a score above, say 22 or so.
With 3E the modifiers are not so great that a Strength 25+7 ain't so much greater than an 18+4.
3 more to your d20 aint' that different.
Caps to abilty scores were a crucial control element of 1 and 2E. They were ditched in 3e.
The biggest change relevant to those is that non-Fighters could get massive Str scores. When your Druid is waltzing around as a Str 36 Dire bear with buffs, and your Fighter has a mere 26...well, making up +5 TH and DMG isn't exactly easy, and it means the Fighter is easy to replace.
Also, 3E gives MUCh higher bonuses to hit then 1E. 22 Str was +4/+10, Fire Giant Str. Statistically speaking, +6/+6 from 22 Str in 3E, combined with Power Attack, is actually better, because the bonus to hit applies across multiple attacks.
18/00 used to be the limit of Human Str (real world), and 18 for all stats. Now, that limit is basically thought to be around 23 or so (18 base, +2 Human, +2 Human Paragon class, +1 for class level through EL6). As stat inflation, it's much harder to control. Use to be the only ability score you could 'naturally' get over 18 was Wisdom, and that was due to age. Now, any score is up for grabs.
Making LOW stats also turfed a lot of Melee importance. When you don't get a bonus wihtout a high ability score, guess what? It's hard to dip into multiple classes. Anyone can get a +1 from Str with a 12..almost no cost. That used to take a 17!!! Likewise, small investments in stats used to only be granted by stats of 15+, making it a lot easier to maximize point buy.
It's all a control and balance issue. Even PF hasn't come to the realization that the physical stats of Melees are as important as the spells of a spellcaster. Melees ALWAYS have vastly superior physical stats...its what they are. Casters need ONE superior stat, and then they cast. But the game does not take into account this need on the behalf of the fighting classes.
==Aelryinth
I'd also like to point out that they brought stat control back in for 4E. Basically, the top end limit is now 30/32 for PC's, no more uncontrolled stat abuse.
Just part of a bunch of 1E stuff that is coming back.
==Aelryinth
Suggest you give physical ability scores boosts to all the melee classes. Casters were always about the one stat. Melee, and Monks esp, were always about all of them.
==Aelryinth
|
|
I figure on ability score increases being +1 to two different scores every four levels. Also waffling between making everyone MAD or working to make melees SAD.
I like the Tomes idea of letting Monks use their Wisdom in place of their Dex for things. Might build from there.
Might also divorce ability scores from to-hit rolls and leave only BAB adding to it. Kind of a half-formed thought, need to number crunch it out. This will go along with a 'add only the highest bonus, no bonuses stack' rule.
just want to toss in my two cents here.
Naturally it's your games but from what I have been reading between TriOmega and Aelryinth you guys are suggesting being unfair to spellcasters because they make fighters feel bad about a poor carrer choice.
How is giveing fighters extra stat bumps being fair to the player that picks the mage option? or the much needed cleric unless your playing 4th the fighter can't heal himself.
When my DM actally gets a chance to play he will do some major damage to the other DM's games by playing a dwarven barbarian. We even had one DM ask him to stop playing the barbarian because he causes too much damage and was mowing through the encounters way to easy. Fighters can't compete with the AoE of a mage nor can they do half the stuff the cleric can but they can do what they do all day long where as a spellcaster only has a few rounds to be awesome.
Just something to think about.
What does the mage need to do his job?
A high Int. That's it.
What does the cleric need to do his job?
A high Wis. Cha helpful, Str helpful, neither needed.
What does a Fighter need to do his job?
Str, Con and Dex. His job is to go up there, beat on things, avoid getting beat on, and then live through getting beat on.
What does a Rogue need to do his job?
Dex. Int, Str and Cha helpful, but not needed.
What does a Paladin need?
Str. Cha very helpful.
Sorceror?
Cha.
Druid?
Wis.
Barb?
See Fighter.
Ranger?
Str, Wis, Dex depending on your build, the other two secondary.
Monk?
Wis, Dex, Str, with Con as secondary.
=========
Look at it this way.
Warriors need to be good ALL THE TIME at their job, because that's what they do.
Casters need to be good at whatever job they need to be good at, so they cast a spell to be good at it.
Monks are supposed to be pursuing physical and mental perfection. How is keeping the same stats for 5 of your ability scores over 20 levels pursuing perfection physically?
Find a game out there where true melee don't have better health, Str and AC then casters. Being faster, stronger and tougher is what Melees are, both in base stats and in levels. +2 HP advantage over a wizard/ level is not seriously tougher. +1 hp over a cleric REALLY isn't.
======
I'd just hand out more stat bonuses to Melees.
Monks - Pick 3 ability scores /4 levels, raise them a point.
Fighters - Raise Str, con and Dex/4 levels, +1 point to a mental score.
Barbs - +1 str/con, +1 any other.
Rogues - +1 dex, +1 to any other.
Wizards - +1 any
Sorcs - +1 Any
Clerics + 1 Any
Paladins - +1 Str, +1 Any
Rangers - +1 Str, +1 Any
Thus, Monks pursue perfection as they wish; Fighters are physical paragons who don't ignore brains; barbs are strong and tough naturally and work on something else; rogues are fast and clever, slick, or strong; Mages will be smart, and use spells; clerics will be wise, and use spells, etc etc etc.
If you want to give casters a bonus point, then institute the Crappy Rule; if you have an ability score below 10, your elective score automatically goes to that ability until it reaches base 10 (before magical enhancement).
So, yeah, do a wizard as +1 Int, +1 Any...and if he point buys his useless Cha and Str down to 8, he'll basically never get any benefit out of the extra points.
This would involve turning stat gains to a class-based system instead of a level-based system, but I feel stats should be class-centered, anyways.
==Aelryinth
|
|
just want to toss in my two cents here.
Naturally it's your games but from what I have been reading between TriOmega and Aelryinth you guys are suggesting being unfair to spellcasters because they make fighters feel bad about a poor carrer choice.How is giveing fighters extra stat bumps being fair to the player that picks the mage option? or the much needed cleric unless your playing 4th the fighter can't heal himself.
When my DM actally gets a chance to play he will do some major damage to the other DM's games by playing a dwarven barbarian. We even had one DM ask him to stop playing the barbarian because he causes too much damage and was mowing through the encounters way to easy. Fighters can't compete with the AoE of a mage nor can they do half the stuff the cleric can but they can do what they do all day long where as a spellcaster only has a few rounds to be awesome.
Just something to think about.
How is giving every character +1 to two different stats instead of +1 to one stat every four levels unfair to spellcasters? They'll get to keep pumping their casting stat while increasing Con or Dex or something.
And again with the 'all day long' error? Fighters can only do what they do as long as their HP lasts, and that is not all day.
I figure on ability score increases being +1 to two different scores every four levels. Also waffling between making everyone MAD or working to make melees SAD.
I like the Tomes idea of letting Monks use their Wisdom in place of their Dex for things. Might build from there.
Might also divorce ability scores from to-hit rolls and leave only BAB adding to it. Kind of a half-formed thought, need to number crunch it out. This will go along with a 'add only the highest bonus, no bonuses stack' rule.
I'd go for making them all MAD. I'd consider offensive and defensive stat pairs. Strength for melee offense/Con for bodily defense. Charisma for personality and strength of will offense/Wisdom for mental defense. Those pairs are easy (would also put clerics and druids on Charisma casting).
The tough one is really justifying the exact Dex/Int pair. It only kind of works as it is now. Probably Int offense, Dex reflex defense. But maybe rename Intelligence Acuity or something that's a little more generic between smarts and physical accuracy.
No double-duty for stats - offense or defense, period.
Those pairs are easy (would also put clerics and druids on Charisma casting).
Clerics it wouldn't be a total waste if you put them as cha based casters but doing that to a druid is gutting a very powerful class needlessly.
Druids IMO! should always be wis based because their ability at survival/tracking(if they take the feat and honestly what druid wouldn't?) spot,listen and a variety of others are linked to wisdom.
Your basiclly forceing them to have a super states or makeing the player chose between being a spellcasting druid(charisma) or a believable druid that has skills in the wild(wisdom)
In our current campaign my druid is the party's savior because of his tracking and survival skills as well as his spells. When we have to go to the frozen northland in the middle of winter my druid is the only one keeping the rest of the party alive from exposure.
Cold weather gear and the like helps alot but not agaisnt an avalanche, or a whiteout blizzard.
My druid encountered two polar bears(mated pair) looking for food. The wizard player wanted me to wake him up first so he could fireball and weaken them both. I left the entire party asleep told my DM I was useing a weeks worth of MY rations not the parties and useing animal empathy to befriend them. The wizard was convinced we were all going to die and be eaten. Instead the roles were with me, yea action points in a forgotten realms game, and I lead the happy animals away with no bloodshed.
That took wisdom,IE common sense to be able to realise the threat and how to deal with it, granted the skill used was charisma based but charisma for a druid could be used as a dump stat with no problems.My point is if you want to cast based on charisma then be a sorcerer don't mess up a class that relies on one stat for everything from skills,spells,saves,and other important features.
Your basiclly forceing them to have a super states or makeing the player chose between being a spellcasting druid(charisma) or a believable druid that has skills in the wild(wisdom)
Not really. I'm forcing character to make tradeoffs. SAD characters barely need to make them compared to MAD ones. Since MAD makes sense for a lot of characters, better to increase MAD in other classes to make up for it.
Right now, clerics and druids particularly benefit from the use of Wisdom as their primary offense because it also forms a substantial part of a primary defense, Will saves. Who else benefits as much, maybe rogues? Breaking up the offense and defense removes that synergy.
As far as making a character choose between being a high-powered spellcaster and a believable druid, put your highest stat in one and your second highest in the other. If that's a 16 and a 14, that's pretty credibly competent unless your standards of competence are so affected by charop practices that you look at anything less than a +4 bonus with a jaundiced eye.
Could you please define SAD and MAD? I am not sure I understand what your refering to in a charecter context.
I can only say that I happen to like the way the classes are presented in the 3.0/3.5 rules and I do not see any reason to change the way they operate.
If you and your players like it then best of gameing to you but I personally think your being very unfair to your casters.
Could you please define SAD and MAD? I am not sure I understand what your refering to in a charecter context.
SAD = single attribute dependent
MAD = multiple attribute dependentCharacter classes that tend to be SAD (like the wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid) have a stat far and away more valuable than the others and tend to benefit from point buy systems compared to heavily MAD classes like monks and paladins because they don't need to spread their points around to be highly effective.
Increasing the tendency for classes to be MAD may help alleviate the problem as discussed above by TriOmegaZero and Aelryinth.
Thanks for the explanation Bill Dunn.
Now the previous arguments make a great deal more sense.
Character classes that tend to be SAD (like the wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid) have a stat far and away more valuable than the others and tend to benefit from point buy systems compared to heavily MAD classes like monks and paladins because they don't need to spread their points around to be highly effective.
Increasing the tendency for classes to be MAD may help alleviate the problem as discussed above by TriOmegaZero and Aelryinth
I can't see where jacking up a simple classes stats helps anybody?
If you don't get the stats you think you NEED for a monk or a pally then don't play one. Mind you my table outlaws paladins because we as a group don't like the class or how they are played so the DM has just said no paladins period, if you want to be a LG warrior go cleric and take the war domain that way you'll still be useful to the party as a full spellcaster.
I also think that the point buy system is where alot of the problems between SAD/MAD are comeing from. Just role 4d6 and let the dice decide. Everybody does not need to be nor should they be equal.
Under the point buy system you don't have quirckie charecters like my wizard with a 16 str that beat the half-orc barbarian NPC in a arm wrestling match with no magic. The party fighter only had a 14 str so the wizard was better at strength checks.
If you don't like the system and think it's unbalanced then make it more fair for everybody don't just pick on casters. Think of how silly it would be to tell a fighter "ok Mongo when you swing your sword your going to use your strength to see if you can hit the kobold but then your going to use your charisma to see how HARD you hit the kobold" and to continue the utter silliness "why you ask, well simple the strength is in your muscles but you force of personality is whats scareing the HP out of the kobold because of your menacing look and angry eyes"
If it seems unfair for one class it's probably unfair to most others too.
I certainly agree that rolling stats has its advantages. I think it does a better job of balancing between SAD and MAD classes as well as between optimizer players and non-optimizer players. So I never run games with point buy.
I find the current system is balanced in MAD and SAD classes (thou I do admit there's flaws in the system).
here's a list of points that SAD (casters) and MAD (melee) are balanced
1) MAD have their points distributed, therefore more rounded and have less of a weak point(s) then SAD characters, whom can have some big holes when isolated from their shield (refering to character that covers their weakness)
2) Most SAD characters I've seen are Blasters, and thus run out of juice in a good well laid encounter, while the MAD (well optimized) are still going and going like the freaking energizer bunny, unless they have had really bad luck.
3) the more powerful the character, the greater the liablity, i.e. dominate spells, dominate the SAD wizard or the MAD Warrior with next to no Wisdom mod and he/she becomes a major pain as they deplete your resources and maybe PC lives.
"end of line" -MCP
End Note
Oh and Bill rolling stats is both an advantage and disadvantage, some people roll disgustingly well, (had a friend who rolled 5 18s and a 17) and those who roll horriblely low; one stat over 12, but less than 16 and the rest are below 10, four times in a row. And Note that if the stats are too high in each PC or too low in each PC, then it throws the CR system out of whack and harder to judge correctly, the challenging encounters are suppose to be challenging, not a cake walk or a weak encounter a TPK. Note that the character who does rolls a crap load better generally ends up more often in the spot light as well and doing lots more, leaving those who rolled lower in the shadows and not interacting with the game as much and may grow disinterested or even envious or jealous of the one in the spotlight.
These are the reasons I support the point buy system, everyone has the same pool,the CR system is correct, more equally distributed spotlight on PCs, luck has no influnce on character generations, but I do acknowledge that you would see less of quirky PCs, like a wizard with 14 strength, or a barbarian with 14 int and 15 wisdom.
I am a first-time DM and really fairly new to RPG's. In my game, I have a lycanthrope warshaper (3.5) in my party who has recently achieved a Strength score of 30. He did it with a combination of racial, magic item, and level enhancement bonuses. It rubs me wrong that this medium PC has the same strength score as a HUGE ADULT RED DRAGON! (31, technically)
I clearly understand that this is a fantasy game, not an attempt to accurately portray reality, but this seems downright ludicrous to me. The world record for a clean-and-jerk is 580 lbs. This guy's PC could, by game mechanics, lift at least 1,600 lbs over his head. Am I alone in finding this absurd? Do I just need to let this one go?
He's using magic. In that regard nothing is limited. If he can work out a way to get a str of 30 and still abide by the rules of the game including house rules then more power to him.
Like I tell my players, there are no table discussions about what is or isn't realistic when we're pretending to be elves fighting dragons with magic.-Skeld
+1 good house rule