Wounds/Vitality is an oversimplification of the process. Ashiel is right that HP vary tremendously between real people and classes in the same situation.
The dwarf's rope bindings are going to burn off in the first round. Clearly, his skin should be following.
Likewise, you're in the middle of a parking lot, levitate the party straight up and drop him for 20d6 damage. he should DIE. Instead, he's going to hit the ground, get up, and look pissed. Maybe get a nose bleed or have a sore toe.
To use the HP system you have to understand that HP for characters is magic. To use another term, it's SOAK. Hit Points take the damage. Call it an aura. Call it magical reinforcement of flesh and bone. Call it deflection of damage, avoidance of damage. It's all of these things. It's how high level people survive what no one should survive, and how they can take three bullets and keep on moving.
None of it is real damage until you get past 0, at which point, you have no protection, and down you go.
You CAN break this into 'real' damage to physical body, and 'conceptual' damage, which doesn't show. that's a good use of wound/vitality, with the caveat that it's all actually THE SAME THING, and you can't bypass vitality to get to wounds by an external source.
My rule of thumb was this: Your First level of Hit Points is pure physical damage. It shows how much real punishment you can take, injuries are going to be bleeding flesh wounds.
Racial Hit Die are physical. Big creatures are just incredibly hard to inflict enough damage on to kill. When you carve up an ogre, you are inflicting three foot long cuts, burying two feet of steel inside its chest, breaking bones two inches thick, etc. Draconic flesh and bone is infused with magic and just incredibly hard to truly injure, wounds tend to seal, etc.
Hit die from CLASS LEVELS past first is all Soak. Its completely 'concept'. It takes the hit so you don't have to. Call it 'warrior's magic'. You withstand the magic spell. You shunt the force of a plummet into the stone. The dragonflame passes through you without actual physical harm instead of roasting you to ash. The acid pit is bubbling and hissing around you as it tries to get at your real skin, but your Hit points are keeping it away from actual physical you until they are gone.
Constitution can be played as reinforcing the Health of your physical body, or sustaining more Soak to metanull incoming damage, however you want to describe it. I tend to use the former. Think of it like charging up your body to withstand punishment, so you really can take levels of physical trauma without a problem, that would break lesser people in two.
This also allows you to play games with Healing, if you like. If Healing is physical damage only, and Soak can only be restored by time and meditation or specific feats, then high level healing becomes more precarious. You can make Soak something that only non-magical classes like Fighters and Barbarians and Rogues can recover quickly, either in or out of melee. Most monsters are tremendously physically hardy, so Fast Healing and Regeneration, which don't affect Soak, can have their effects. Powerful monsters might have Soak, especially those with class levels, and would be obvious in how they acted.
The closest magic could come to replicating Soak would be 'temporary hit points'. Healthwise, characters would be much frailer, and actually need less healing magic, because they'd be much more limited in how healing could affect them. Classes with the ability to regain Soak quickly would be able to endure a long time, even if they lack access to healing. A group that burned through all their Soak would be low on staying power, but still able to put up some sort of a fight.
You can also point in a nickel and dime rule. Everytime you Soak a hit, you take a point of Health damage. This means a lot of attacks can cut you down, even if you Soak them all, and you always show SOME damage if you soak something. Your hair might char in the dragon's breath, your nose might be bleeding from a fall in the sky, you might have a cut across your cheek from the scythe just missing your head.
Breaking apart hit points into Health and Soak, and applying magic to each independently, can make for a more believable game if you want to run it that way.
==Aelryinth
To the OP: the easiest way to do a class defense bonus is simply give +1/2 levels, and do away with Nat Armor AMulets and rings of Protection entirely. Neither will be missed, but the effective AC they grant will be replaced.
If you want to replace magical bonuses on armor, you are going to have to go +1 over the first 15 levels for classes that wear armor, and +2/3 for those that don't.
Shields you are either going to have to keep independent of the system, or simply absolutely limit what they can do.
If this sounds like what 4E did, there's a reason for it. They measured out every step of the way what AC you can/should have, adjusting for proficiencies and shields, and making sure each counter-balanced.
Heavy armor is ALWAYS better...there's no Celestial armor to screw up the armor system. At higher levels, not just higher +'s, but better ARMOR is available in each category. But heavy armor always holds an absolute +3 AC advantage over light armor. You can get armor that's base +13 at the highest levels, basically 'subsuming' Nat AC into the armor itself, and then enhanced beyond that.
Shields are a flat +2, which is counter-balanced by martial weapons giving +2 to hit. But shields also grant that bonus to reflex saves.
If you are going to do this, you need to get rid of Nat AC and ARmor treated separately. You're also going to have to invent 'new' armors, or materials that make classic armors, to represent the upgrade in base armors. Barkskin is going to have to be adjusted to be equal to Greater Magic Vestment, instead of clearly superior.
Yes, it means a non-magical suit of adamantine armor might be better then a suit of armor +3. Nothing wrong with that at all.
==Aelryinth
And there is a difference between a person in real life who is likely no more than 3rd level in terms of D&D capabilities. Also, the line about some weapons not being able to deal damage to it is irrelevant, because it is completely undefined within the game, and thus not really relevant to the discussion at all and within the realm of a GM-fiat out.I think the book says exactly what is necessary to make it relevant. The clause about ineffective weapons does not say "ask your DM first." If by DM fiat you mean "not all DMs read the rules closely enough to realize this specific thing" then, sure, you're right, but then you're redefining what is effectively a textbook answer to serve your own argument.
Clubs and fists are ineffective against boulders and stone walls. Sorry.
And yet it's still very poorly defined. Clubs and Hammers are effectively the same, and yet there's not really much difference between your fist and a hammer except in how much damage they deal. Likewise, a pick is a piercing weapon which means that you usually can't even use it on an object, but for sake of argument we'll assume that you can, since another portion of the smashing objects calls out a pick as something you would use to break or destroy an object.
So let's go back to our warrior. His fists are dealing 6 points of damage more than an average guy with an average warhammer could do against the stone wall or area every time he punches it. It's dealing the same kind of damage (bludgeoning), and functioning in the same way as a hammer does (he's striking a single portion of the stone really, really hard). Same with the club.
Likewise, it would be hard to argue that somehow a sword cannot be used to tear up a stone wall, when a sword is likewise noted as being one of the premier weapons for smashing objects (being a slashing weapon, see first paragraph of breaking objects). However, it doesn't explain what makes an object useful against such objects other than GM-fiat.
However, what we do have that was can discuss legitimately is A) it says hammers and picks can break stone, B) hammers deal the same kind of damage as unarmed strikes, C) we're overcoming the damage reduction of the stone with our Unarmed Strikes. The end result is the warrior can punch his way through a stone wall like Vampire Hunter D if he wants to.
Likewise, I'm pretty sure that someone with an adamantine melee weapon could slice right through a stone wall or door, weaken it structurally, and begin breaking it to pieces very fast. Of course, it also says "most melee weapons", but most melee weapons aren't made out of special materials or wielded by people who don't have to rely on the weapon's raw power to overcome the hardness of the object.
It's true that most melee weapons only deal 1-8 damage, which means they are completely ineffective against stone walls and doors. As best as I can tell, that stops the moment they deal 2-9 damage, because with enough strikes they can deal 1 point of damage. By the time they deal 9+ damage per strike, they are absolutely effective vs the object.
Also, I'm not even sure I buy the idea that bludgeoning weapons cannot damage ropes. If the rope was tight, then a bludgeoning weapon could put so much stress on it as to cause it to snap, but now I'm just musing about fiat and situational stuff, which makes this paragraph quite useless to the discussion at hand and what you can and cannot do within the rules, so feel free to ignore it. It's purely for exploring a thought based on this discussion. In the meantime, I will assume that ropes are by default immune to bludgeoning weapons by default, and anything not strong enough to overcome hardness qualifies as an "ineffective weapon" when dealing with stone doors and walls.
To people with ridiculous acid pit examples on how to break the combat system in a non-combat situation: Note that not only skill is a part of hit points, but luck also is. The dwarf - just by luck - happens to land on a particulary shallow place, or some divine intervention protects him, or he bounces of a wall or two before landing, thereby spending less time and so on.
An 11th level fighter is a really powerful character, and if this happens it's not too odd to say that his deity tries to protect him from the non-valorous death, surrounding him with a faint shimmer that gives him just enough time to get out. Sure, it might seem weird if he's thrown into acid pits on a daily basis, but if he does, the whole campaign's pretty weird.
And on falling from heights and surviving, even real life people can do that *link*, so why couldn't our heroic fighter? His skill and luck could surely save him from something like that.
Given that a 1st level commoner has around 6 hit points, I rule that any attack dealing 16 damage or more, is a headshot, and cleaves into the brain. (Or sticks through the brain, if an arrow, or explodes their head, if a fireball, etc.) My PCs and NPCs shake off such wounds as mere inconveniences.
The point still stands. An 11th level fighter can be fully submerged in acid for a round, climb out, and be none the worst for wear.
Pretty much this. EDIT: There's really only just so far that the whole "Well he got lucky" or "well he narrowly dodged it" before you have to openly admit that he's just strait up tougher and more enduring than normal people, or else you shatter verisimilitude and scatter it to the winds. When it sounds like you're making up excuses and having to fall back to unsupported claims like "the gods did it" or "well he's just lucky", not only does it sound less believable in the context of the game's reality but it also cheapens the experience.
Player: "Man my dude is super badass. He climbed out of a pit of acid that vaporized the mooks who fell into it earlier, grabbed his axe and smashed the big bad in the face. The real cool part was the fact he swam through the acid that was killing everyone else."
GM: "You're not special. You just got lucky."
And yet it's still very poorly defined. Clubs and Hammers are effectively the same, and yet there's not really much difference between your fist and a hammer except in how much damage they deal. Likewise, a pick is a piercing weapon which means that you usually can't even use it on an object, but for sake of argument we'll assume that you can, since another portion of the smashing objects calls out a pick as something you would use to break or destroy an object.
Except that clubs are made of wood and hammers have metal heads on them? The same goes for fists and hammers. Your fist is not designed for breaking rocks. (I forsee another TOZ quote here: "Sez you.") Picks ARE designed for breaking rocks; hammers and chisels are designed for breaking rocks. Your whole point is called out in the CRB by the Ineffective Weapons clause. Again, I stress that this clause does not say "ask your DM if this applies" it says "certain weapons." The difference being that unless you house rule it, fists don't deal damage to stone. Your hands are not designed for that. Picks and hammers are. Your statement about piercing weapons doesn't stand because this is obviously an exception called out in text. RAW.
The game rules do not exclude common sense. The developers do not expect to have write sections of the book saying "You must have X, Y, and/or Z tools to break stone of size A or larger if you a medium creature or size B if you are a small creature."
If that's just how you want to do it, that's fine. House rules are perfectly legitimate at your own table.
Needless to say the metal club is more likely to break stone than wood as it's harder than stone.
And surviving 6 seconds in acid while badly harmed and scarred for life is possible IMO, if the person is damn tough, like said fighter.
One point that hasn't been brought up yet in the "hit points are an abstraction" discussion is that if hit points represent luck, dodging etc, then a fighter can take X points of HP damage and sustain no actual wounds so what is it that the cleric sees that lets him know that it's time to heal the fighter? A health bar? There goes my imersion.
and also what is he healing? a number?
- Torger
Simply scale in a bonus to Dodge based on Class, race, Feats, etc.
Class: a combat class, including Rogue, would get a + 0.5 to AC each level in the Class. A thoroughly non-combat class (Wizard) would get a + 0.2.
Race: An Elf, or any other race with an innate bonus to Dex, would get a bonus each level equal to a tenth the modifier.
Feat: Dodge would still grant a +1, but would still pull + 0.1 per level.
Monsters, and other things would still need work.
One point that hasn't been brought up yet in the "hit points are an abstraction" discussion is that if hit points represent luck, dodging etc, then a fighter can take X points of HP damage and sustain no actual wounds so what is it that the cleric sees that lets him know that it's time to heal the fighter? A health bar? There goes my imersion.
and also what is he healing? a number?
- Torger
I don't buy that HP are "soak" or an "aura"--that is what temporary HP are. HP loss represents non-specific wounds that are visible and healable.
|
The point still stands. An 11th level fighter can be fully submerged in acid for a round, climb out, and be none the worst for wear.
This is a prime example of where requiring "Rulez" for everything just fails. In 1e (and 2e I guess) the Dm would just have said - "You're dead" or you live but you're CHA is now 4. Try saying that in a 3e+/PF game without 'Xtreme Nerdrage following'.
S.
I like the fighter who can get out of the vat of acid. Just my two cents.
You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.Yeah, I just remembered that part. Probably unnecessary then, unless your stones can dodge really well. :)
I probably would've caught my mistake quicker if I was well-rested. It's bedtime here. :P
EDIT: Zmar- since it's possible for real people to break real stones with their hands and feet, it would be a little unfair to call them 'ineffective weapons' when our pretend people are trying to break pretend stones.
Are we talking brittle slate that I can indeed break myself in smaller pieces or as Ashiel mentioned a boulder. Can you please show me someone damaging a boulder, say roughly two feet across barehanded or with a random stick? I'd truly appreciate that.
Edit: And yes, breaking several separate slabs is different than breaking one homogenous piece of stone.
I'm talking small stones, say 5-10lbs. I've been able to crack stones like that with hands and feet in the past, and I'm not even trained. It all depends on the type of stone. But we're not talking real people, as I said, we're talking pretend super-humans.
I'll tell ya what, buddy- let's have a little contest: I'll build a Pathfinder fighter who can punch elephants to death, then you find a real-world martial artist who can do the same yet still not be able to damage a boulder with his fists.
And yet it's still very poorly defined. Clubs and Hammers are effectively the same, and yet there's not really much difference between your fist and a hammer except in how much damage they deal. Likewise, a pick is a piercing weapon which means that you usually can't even use it on an object, but for sake of argument we'll assume that you can, since another portion of the smashing objects calls out a pick as something you would use to break or destroy an object.Except that clubs are made of wood and hammers have metal heads on them? The same goes for fists and hammers. Your fist is not designed for breaking rocks. (I forsee another TOZ quote here: "Sez you.") Picks ARE designed for breaking rocks; hammers and chisels are designed for breaking rocks. Your whole point is called out in the CRB by the Ineffective Weapons clause. Again, I stress that this clause does not say "ask your DM if this applies" it says "certain weapons." The difference being that unless you house rule it, fists don't deal damage to stone. Your hands are not designed for that. Picks and hammers are. Your statement about piercing weapons doesn't stand because this is obviously an exception called out in text. RAW.
The game rules do not exclude common sense. The developers do not expect to have write sections of the book saying "You must have X, Y, and/or Z tools to break stone of size A or larger if you a medium creature or size B if you are a small creature."
If that's just how you want to do it, that's fine. House rules are perfectly legitimate at your own table.
Yet without a comprehensive list, you still need to ask your GM. That's what GMs are for...
As it stands per RAW, the only instance called out specifically is bludgeoning vs. rope. The comments on stone walls/doors are still open to interpretation- for example, should a heavy mace damage stone? or an axe? Real world experience tells me they should.
Couple of problems with this thread.
1st, hit points are a simple abstract damage system. End of line. Full stop.
2nd, 11th level fighters break the laws of physics in many manifold ways. Someone with a 22 strength, for example can deadlift more than any human in recorded history.
3rd, expecting either the first or second point to satisfy verisimilitude for realist combat simulationism is doomed to failure. It does make for decent superhero movie-plot survival. You have plot survivability until you run out of luck/hp. Then you have your Boromir moment.
Edit - that is until the party healer uses magic to heal you, which is also not realistic.
Couple of problems with this thread.
1st, hit points are a simple abstract damage system. End of line. Full stop.
2nd, 11th level fighters break the laws of physics in many manifold ways. Someone with a 22 strength, for example can deadlift more than any human in recorded history.
3rd, expecting either the first or second point to satisfy verisimilitude for realist combat simulationism is doomed to failure. It does make for decent superhero movie-plot survival. You have plot survivability until you run out of luck/hp. Then you have your Boromir moment.
Edit - that is until the party healer uses magic to heal you, which is also not realistic.
Agreed. It's just a problem that comes from making an abstract system which measures things in concrete points.
The problem is worst when it's treated as an all-or-nothing. Sometimes it means your tougher, sometimes it means your better at avoiding damage. There's no way you dodge your way out of damage in an acid bath, and even heroes (Greek sense) don't just jam a knife into their head repeatedly without serious consequences. (Edit: Except Achilles, since his head was invulnerable.:P)
Back on topic: I just realized I said what I would do for a defense bonus system, but didn't address the initial question of why one doesn't exist. I think one doesn't exist because of backwards compatibility. D&D didn't have one, so neither does Pathfinder. I also think the designers from Paizo may have simply felt the system works fine without one.
Armor should absorb damage. Characters should become more adept at avoiding blows as they advance in level.
That's all I have to say on it.
|
|
The problem with calling it an abstract involving more than just how wounded the character is, is the fact that there is no mechanical effect until they hit zero.
I'm all for the idea that the hero can take punishment that no ordinary mortal can stand, but in every movie you see this happening, he doesn't come out unscathed. He doesn't wade through a pool of acid, fight the troll/dragon/whatever and come out looking like he's just cleaned and polished his armour. He's usually bleeding, with torn clothing/damaged armour, probably limping and just generally looking like he's been through an epic battle.
This obviously doesn't happen in PF/D&D, and it's what kills the whole "hit points are an abstract" concept for me. If that were true, then surely the lower your hitpoints go, the harder it should be for you to fight on. I understand why this doesn't happen...most players wouldn't want to lose effectiveness as they take damage, but it's still jarring.
The problem with calling it an abstract involving more than just how wounded the character is, is the fact that there is no mechanical effect until they hit zero.
I'm all for the idea that the hero can take punishment that no ordinary mortal can stand, but in every movie you see this happening, he doesn't come out unscathed. He doesn't wade through a pool of acid, fight the troll/dragon/whatever and come out looking like he's just cleaned and polished his armour. He's usually bleeding, with torn clothing/damaged armour, probably limping and just generally looking like he's been through an epic battle.
This obviously doesn't happen in PF/D&D, and it's what kills the whole "hit points are an abstract" concept for me. If that were true, then surely the lower your hitpoints go, the harder it should be for you to fight on. I understand why this doesn't happen...most players wouldn't want to lose effectiveness as they take damage, but it's still jarring.
While this is true, the hero still continues to turn around the battle when he is obviously in worse shape than he was before. Typically getting a few hits before he can actually defeat the villain, it doesn't seem to affect their ability much when it comes down to it.
if we were to add class defense as a house rule, how much would be necessary at first level for different classes?
I'm talking small stones, say 5-10lbs. I've been able to crack stones like that with hands and feet in the past, and I'm not even trained. It all depends on the type of stone. But we're not talking real people, as I said, we're talking pretend super-humans.I'll tell ya what, buddy- let's have a little contest: I'll build a Pathfinder fighter who can punch elephants to death, then you find a real-world martial artist who can do the same yet still not be able to damage a boulder with his fists.
Yeah, I can also crack brittle, flat stones like that, which would be represented by lower hardness in the rules (alhough I wouldn't do that by punching or kicking, which really is a stupid way, but rather by picking them up and throwing against something or smashing them against it - which is a different way than natural attack).
Please show me the build, we'll see about it then...
D&D for a long time couldn't seem to decide if HP is pure physical toughness that can only be healed by magic, or that mix of luck and blah blah blah.
i agree with...
there was a book from 3.5 called unearthed arcana, a bunch of rules for this was in there... im still using it
for example: ftr, pal, and cleric has +6 ac at 1st lvl, monk, sor,wiz has +2
and has its own progression there
but with that rule whats the purpose of armor?
in that book can found a rule that give armor as dr (honestly best against the alternate rule from UC PRPG book)
I meant the Ultimate Combat variant, pro perhaps importing the system from Iron Heroes (uses level dependent class defense AND armour as DR)
This has also been a pet peeve of mine through past editions of D&D, which has continued through Pathfinder. D&D has generally been a very magic-heavy game, which is why I suppose they may have just rolled in all defensive progress into armor enhancement and rings of protection etc.
In Unearthed Arcana (3.5e) there were some rules on class defense bonuses.
I've only glanced through Ultimate Combat, but I believe there's some variant rules in there as well.
4e D&D also remedies this total magic-item dependence slightly by adding +1/2 half your level to defenses. However, you can't be completely independent of magic items unless you use the inherent enhancement bonus rule (used in Dark Sun games).
The wonderful Iron Heroes supplement (originally from Malhavoc Press, but now owened by Fiery Dragon) may be up your alley if you like 3.5e, but want a more heroic, item-independent game. Characters get all their defense and attack bonuses from their class, and magic items are just icing (and sometimes very dangerous to the user).
I'd like to add a slight correction: Iron Heroes are not a supplement, but rather a fully independednt system that is meant (at least it says so, no experience with blending the two) to be easily used with 3.5 or separately. The classes while unable to use any 3.5 equipment should be on par with 3.5 characters (well, core probably) and thus useable in adventures meant for that system. If I encountered Iron Heroes for PFRPG, I'd certainy be interested.
I'm all for the idea that the hero can take punishment that no ordinary mortal can stand, but in every movie you see this happening, he doesn't come out unscathed. He doesn't wade through a pool of acid, fight the troll/dragon/whatever and come out looking like he's just cleaned and polished his armour. He's usually bleeding, with torn clothing/damaged armour, probably limping and just generally looking like he's been through an epic battle.
Personally, this is where roleplaying kicks in. If I'm playing a fighter who's down to, say a third of his total HP but isn't at the point where he's likely to go down on one blow (barring a crital or other massive damage), I usually describe him as being winded, leaning on his sword a little, whatever. No mechanical effects (blame it on adrenaline kicking back in), but I don't ignore it. If he's down into single digits or close enough, that's when you start to look like John McClane at the end of Die Hard, barely able to lift your machine gun... I mean greatsword. You still do it, and even without mechanical penalties, because you're the hero.
Oh, and as for the question about how Clerics know when to heal you or not, they don't. That's part of the reason why the Heal skill is based on Wisdom, so that you can pick up on the cues that maybe Bob could use a bit of a pick-me-up, even though the lunkhead says he's just fine.
I'd like to add a slight correction: Iron Heroes are not a supplement, but rather a fully independednt system that is meant (at least it says so, no experience with blending the two) to be easily used with 3.5 or separately. The classes while unable to use any 3.5 equipment should be on par with 3.5 characters (well, core probably) and thus useable in adventures meant for that system. If I encountered Iron Heroes for PFRPG, I'd certainy be interested.
You're right, I probably shouldn't have used the word supplement. It is an independent system from 3.5e, though it does use a lot of the same core mechanics.
It can be blended with standard 3.5e or Pathfinder with a few tweaks, but it is best used on it's own.
IMHO, it is probably the most fun d20-based system. :)
|
The answer is because magic items are used to show the growth. The difference is the level 20 fighter has adamantine +5 fullplate, while the level 1 has chain mail.yeah, but suppose a 2o level master sparring with his 1st level diciple unarmored. at ac 12 and a disciple with 14 strength will have a 50/50 chance of hitting his 19 levels highter master!
The master should have / use combat expertise.
If the practice is unarmored, there is also a strong chance that your dealing with something like a duelist, who will have be using multiple stats for defense + parry.
+2 from int, +2 from dex, +5 from combat expertise.
This is, of course, assuming a 14 on secondary stats.
I'm talking small stones, say 5-10lbs. I've been able to crack stones like that with hands and feet in the past, and I'm not even trained. It all depends on the type of stone. But we're not talking real people, as I said, we're talking pretend super-humans.I'll tell ya what, buddy- let's have a little contest: I'll build a Pathfinder fighter who can punch elephants to death, then you find a real-world martial artist who can do the same yet still not be able to damage a boulder with his fists.
Yeah, I can also crack brittle, flat stones like that, which would be represented by lower hardness in the rules (alhough I wouldn't do that by punching or kicking, which really is a stupid way, but rather by picking them up and throwing against something or smashing them against it - which is a different way than natural attack).
Please show me the build, we'll see about it then...
LOL- are you seriously giving me the 'show me the build' routine? It's trivial- Take a 10th level fighter, build him as an unarmed strike specialist with TWF. It's easy to get an attack bonus of +20, which means he won't miss the elephant on his primary attacks except with a 1 even while power-attacking for about 1d3+17 dmg. The elephant is dead in 2 rounds tops.
In real life, on the other hand, no human is going to punch an elephant to death, period.
In real life, on the other hand, no human is going to punch an elephant to death, period.
Mmm...Mas "Godhand" Oyama might (maaaaaybe) disagree...but probably not, still.
I'm talking small stones, say 5-10lbs. I've been able to crack stones like that with hands and feet in the past, and I'm not even trained. It all depends on the type of stone. But we're not talking real people, as I said, we're talking pretend super-humans.I'll tell ya what, buddy- let's have a little contest: I'll build a Pathfinder fighter who can punch elephants to death, then you find a real-world martial artist who can do the same yet still not be able to damage a boulder with his fists.
Yeah, I can also crack brittle, flat stones like that, which would be represented by lower hardness in the rules (alhough I wouldn't do that by punching or kicking, which really is a stupid way, but rather by picking them up and throwing against something or smashing them against it - which is a different way than natural attack).
Please show me the build, we'll see about it then...
LOL- are you seriously giving me the 'show me the build' routine? It's trivial- Take a 10th level fighter, build him as an unarmed strike specialist with TWF. It's easy to get an attack bonus of +20, which means he won't miss the elephant on his primary attacks except with a 1 even while power-attacking for about 1d3+17 dmg. The elephant is dead in 2 rounds tops.
In real life, on the other hand, no human is going to punch an elephant to death, period.
Are you taking into account that iteratives wo't be hitting that often and you have one off-hand attack that doesn't do that much damage?
The fact that there are no lvl 10 fighters in reality to punch elephants to submission doesn't mean that they'd be able to cracks stones. Dealing a lot of pain represents fighter's ability to strike where it hurts, not just strike so hard it'd shatters stones, which is why the master of combat can send a punch that can break a rib and send a shockwave or bone spinters that damages the organs underneath, but still doesn't punch through stone blocks. There is no weak spots to easily exploit by placing your attack better. Breaking through stones is high level monk shtick. I don't see any reason why to allow nonepic fighters to break through dungeon walls without bringing some kind of tool.
I'm talking small stones, say 5-10lbs. I've been able to crack stones like that with hands and feet in the past, and I'm not even trained. It all depends on the type of stone. But we're not talking real people, as I said, we're talking pretend super-humans.I'll tell ya what, buddy- let's have a little contest: I'll build a Pathfinder fighter who can punch elephants to death, then you find a real-world martial artist who can do the same yet still not be able to damage a boulder with his fists.
Yeah, I can also crack brittle, flat stones like that, which would be represented by lower hardness in the rules (alhough I wouldn't do that by punching or kicking, which really is a stupid way, but rather by picking them up and throwing against something or smashing them against it - which is a different way than natural attack).
Please show me the build, we'll see about it then...
LOL- are you seriously giving me the 'show me the build' routine? It's trivial- Take a 10th level fighter, build him as an unarmed strike specialist with TWF. It's easy to get an attack bonus of +20, which means he won't miss the elephant on his primary attacks except with a 1 even while power-attacking for about 1d3+17 dmg. The elephant is dead in 2 rounds tops.
In real life, on the other hand, no human is going to punch an elephant to death, period.
Are you taking into account that iteratives wo't be hitting that often and you have one off-hand attack that doesn't do that much damage?
The fact that there are no lvl 10 fighters in reality to punch elephants to submission doesn't mean that they'd be able to cracks stones. Dealing a lot of pain represents fighter's ability to strike where it hurts, not just strike so hard it'd shatters stones, which is why the master of combat can send a punch that can break a rib and send a shockwave or bone spinters that damages the organs underneath, but still doesn't punch...
You're totally missing the point. And yes, a master fighter does indeed hit much harder, both in real life and Pathfinder. No matter how you shake it, a Pathfinder fighter can punch an elephant to death with relative ease- a real life fighter ends up stomped to death. We're not dealing with people on the realm of normal mortals. That being said, the players in my group simply don't try things like punching through walls instead of using the doors, 'cause it's just silly.
(Also, the fighter's iteratives would still have a 75% chance of hitting and he can have ITWF and Dual Slice. So yeah, dead elephant in 2 rounds.)
In real life, on the other hand, no human is going to punch an elephant to death, period.Mmm...Mas "Godhand" Oyama might (maaaaaybe) disagree...but probably not, still.
I've heard of him, but I'd love to see more evidence of his claims. And obviously, bulls and elephants are on completely different levels. About CR 3 or 4 vs CR7 :P.
...
You're totally missing the point. And yes, a master fighter does indeed hit much harder, both in real life and Pathfinder. No matter how you shake it, a Pathfinder fighter can punch an elephant to death with relative ease- a real life fighter ends up stomped to death. We're not dealing with people on the realm of normal mortals. That being said, the players in my group simply don't try things like punching through walls instead of using the doors, 'cause it's just silly.
(Also, the fighter's iteratives would still have a 75% chance of hitting and he can have ITWF and Dual Slice. So yeah, dead elephant in 2 rounds.)
What's that missed point? That the fighter is so inhumanly good that the reality doesn't apply? That's what you're saying and that's what I don't agree with. He hits harder than a regular guy, but rules say that not all shattering hard. The fact that your players normally don't punch through walls becuse of silyness doesn't mean that they wouldn't try once, or someone else wouldn't. In your houserules you can allow it, but RAW it's not allowed.
If it was allowed than a castle could be demolished by cattle stampades (those guys can do more damage than stone's hardness) or disassembled by barehanded ogres. A strong lvl 4 fighter could break through prison wall by punching it long enough (strength +4, impr. unarmed strike, power attack +4 = 1d3 damage to the wall ~ 2 damage per round says that you are through one foot thick masonry in 45 rounds - less than five minutes) Castle tower wall with 540 hp? Less than 30 minutes to punch through... 15 minutes with weapon specialisation. One friggen guy and by far not as superior. All I need to crack a three foot thick stone wall is three strong men and five minutes? I just hope you are fine with such things too. It all gets rather silly when you start using damage to make your way. climbing? I punch my handholds in that smooth wall. Why use walls when I can punch through walls? No traps, no need to look for keys or whatever. What about wooden objects? How long it would take you to sink a middle-sized navy?
I'd rather keep some limits here.
Why on Earth does the fighter have to be constrained by reality at level 10, the same level wizards are flying around and clerics are walking in the air?
Sorry, if you want a game of gritty realism, D&D isn't the game for you.
Because that's how D&D 3rd Edition was designed; remember that Pathfinder grew out of the D&D 3.5 ruleset, with an emphasis on backwards compatibility. The class system could have been completely redesigned, but that's not what the gaming community was looking for at the time.
the class system need not be redesigned. I use half of the BAB to AC; armor works normally. Easy, easy.
Why on Earth does the fighter have to be constrained by reality at level 10, the same level wizards are flying around and clerics are walking in the air?
Sorry, if you want a game of gritty realism, D&D isn't the game for you.
Why on earth do people build dungeons and castles when they don't actually work? Ooooh! They are magically protected! Cool! Now we have the fighter unable to crack stone again and the reason is again maaagic and again it's wizard who's rubbing the salt in his wounds. As a bonus it makes detect magic useless because every wall, ship, strongbox, whatever... worth it's salt now radiates magic as well, just to keep sharks, dogs and other pests that could have stupid ideas about chewing on them off.
As mentioned already, HP increases (or more accurately Hit Die increases) take the place of AC increases. Giving both serves no useful purpose, and actually just drags out combat.
One of the versions of the Game of Thrones RPG (there are several) was a D20 variant, which increased your character's AC in a set progression, but HP advances were only +1 or +2 per level, depending on your class.
Of course, magic worked completely different than 3rd, 3.5, or Pathfinder, otherwise a 10d6 fireball would be un-survivable to most people.