|
No, what fails, in both your and thejeff's assertions, is that we're playing a fantasy game, and who really gives a crap what the number represents? I prefer the "mostly luck" deal, you prefer the whatever you prefer. It's a number. Part of a game based on D&D. Changing too many assumptions leads to 4e, and we can see how well WotC thinks that went.
(Quick aside to thejeff: yeah, we went with different dragon rules - first in Dragon mag, then 2e's dragons - in my homebrew for exactly that reason. 88hp for the baddest Red was silly).
Certainly there are famous cases, including King Louis, where it failed to BEHEAD the victim in one shot. I defy you to find someone who actually SURVIVED a single shot from a functioning guillotine. having your head HALF cutoff is a mortal wound.
Plus, they just reloaded anyway. what's the point of rping how many strokes it took?
You're abstracting away from the game entirely at that point. In a single 6 second combat round, you could very well survive to the next round if you made your fort save. According to the coup de gras mechanic, it doesn't even have to be *that* much damage to make a pretty difficult Fort save. 3d10 would about cover it (15 avg would make a DC 25 fort save, DC40 max). Add heavy bleed damage as someone else mentioned doing 5d6. Even add something that specially increases the fort save on each attempt where the person doesn't die, say +10 to the DC for every successful fort save (2 rounds = DC45 avg, DC60 max, jaysus). You'll die eventually guaranteed. But, it just might not be instantaneous or guaranteed within one round, which mimics the possibilities of real life.
As someone who works with people of all ages, the very implication that Elves should be more capable simply because they are older makes me laugh.
Um, historically speaking guillotines were far from guaranteed kills. There were instances where the blade wouldn't pass through the neck and the person would be alive but flailing and screaming with blood spurting everywhere. The base design of the contraption doesn't allow for consistent operation even if it's "reasonably" maintained. There's a reason why it is considered a cruel punishment and is nowhere to be found in 1st world countries or at least the U.S. So, to represent this in-game, it would most certainly be a critical hit. Even if it didn't outright kill you, you can still fail your fort save and still die.Certainly there are famous cases, including King Louis, where it failed to BEHEAD the victim in one shot. I defy you to find someone who actually SURVIVED a single shot from a functioning guillotine. having your head HALF cutoff is a mortal wound.
Plus, they just reloaded anyway. what's the point of rping how many strokes it took?
I'll be happy to find you that example, as soon as you find me an example of someone who can grow claws when he gets really angry, or someone who can punch through the side of a nuclear submarine without much trouble, or come out of an explosion in a confined space completely unscathed. Or for that matter, gigantic fire-breathing armored flying lizards.
And all that said, the rules for a guillotine make it pretty unlikely for even a 20th level barbarian to survive if the blade falls. According to the rules for the guillotine in Escape from Old Korvosa, it is effectively a move-action coup de grace from a Large Greataxe at strength 26. A coup de grace, let us remember, automatically crits, meaning it deals 9d6+36 damage, a minimum of 45 damage, an average of 67, and a maximum of 90. The victim must then make a Fortitude save against 10+damage dealt--anywhere from DC 55 to 100, 77 on average, or die immediately. Even for a 20th level character with a good Fort progression and a high con, that means that most if not all of the time, a natural 20 is needed to not die instantly--so 95% of the time, the sturdiest badass in the world dies if a guillotine blade falls on him.
|
The gunslinger class as a whole. After I read it, I asked myself "Have the designers ever spent any time on a range and fire a weapon?"
Biggest problem I had was no rule-set on what happens when your ally shoots his gun adjacent to you in close-combat, ever hear a gun go "BOOM" or the muzzle flash, especially on a black powder muzzleloader ?
Lessee.... yes, I've been around black powder weapons being fired on the range, a few times, and around modern fire-arms on weapons ranges, a lot.
Black powder weapons are perhaps loud enough to be annoying, but they aren't as loud and do not produce as much of a concussion effect on those nearby as modern weaponry does. Don't really need hearing protection for old-time muskets and flintlock pistols (or, rather-- don't need it nearly as much, as with modern firearms, though having one fired right next to your ear still would be very unpleasant). Muzzle flash? Likewise, not as bright and blinding as from a lot of modern weapons with insufficiently long barrels... but enough to be annoying, yes. Enough to singe and crisp you if you're not quite in the path of the bullet, but you're in the flame? Yes.
Still, the designers may have underestimated these; and others may overestimate them, if they compare them to how loud modern firearms are, and how bright and spectacular the muzzle flash from some modern weapons can be (two I'm thinking of, right off the top, are firing magnum ammunition from a short-barreled revolver; and the muzzle flash you see off an M4 carbine on the night range).
However, the smoke cloud you get off of black-powder weapons? Now that's the real inconvenience I'd be wondering about, and I would think anyone who's seen black-powder weapons in action would wonder about (along with misfires, which at least are mentioned)... and I don't think the game covers those issues either.
By a strict reading of the rules, only Bards, Sorcerers, and Clerics casting heal spells spontaneously need to take a full round action to use metamagic.
Summoners, Oracles, and other spontaneous casters do not need a full round action to use metamagic.
Yeah, I know it's probably intended that they do, but its not what it says technically.
|
Actually, if you are strong enough and know how to swim, you can swim with 65 pounds of metal on. I've heard of soldiers swimming in full kit, which can weigh up to 100 pounds. It's not easy, and I sure couldn't do it, but it's doable by others.
What gets me is arcane spell failure chance. What could you possibly have to do to cast a spell that armor prevents but the stress of combat won't?
This is something that is simply grandfathered in from the very beginning of D&D. I believe that originally the idea was that iron is inimical to magic based on the myths and legends of Europe. Thus wearing a bunch of iron inhibits your ability to cast arcane spells. Over time I believe this became a balance issue to prevent arcane spellcasters from having everything. Many people assume that is a movement issue as armor is restrictive but that would not take into account spells that require only verbal or somatic.
|
|
Re Arcane Spell Failure chance due to armour...
Many people assume that is a movement issue as armor is restrictive but that would not take into account spells that require only verbal or somatic.
Did you mean to say "spells that require only verbal or material components"?
Per 3.5 and Pathfinder the Arcane Spell Failure chance only applied to spells with Somatic components, so I would suggest the idea that it is a movement issue (armour restricting the ability to perform the correct arcane gestures) is not a bad explanation.
PF p150 even states "Armor interferes with the gestures that a spellcaster must make to cast an arcane spell that has a somatic component."
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Re Arcane Spell Failure chance due to armour...
Many people assume that is a movement issue as armor is restrictive but that would not take into account spells that require only verbal or somatic.Did you mean to say "spells that require only verbal or material components"?
Per 3.5 and Pathfinder the Arcane Spell Failure chance only applied to spells with Somatic components, so I would suggest the idea that it is a movement issue (armour restricting the ability to perform the correct arcane gestures) is not a bad explanation.
PF p150 even states "Armor interferes with the gestures that a spellcaster must make to cast an arcane spell that has a somatic component."
This reminds me: seeing as a simple breastplate will cause one in four of your somatic spells to fail, while a gauntlet or cestus does not interfere in the slightest, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the somatic components of such spells involves not the hands, but the chest.
Casting a spell requires jiggling your nipples juuuuust right.
Casting a spell requires jiggling your nipples juuuuust right.
Don't be ridiculous. Its not all spells, just charm person...
This is something that is simply grandfathered in from the very beginning of D&D. I believe that originally the idea was that iron is inimical to magic based on the myths and legends of Europe. Thus wearing a bunch of iron inhibits your ability to cast arcane spells. Over time I believe this became a balance issue to prevent arcane spellcasters from having everything. Many people assume that is a movement issue as armor is restrictive but that would not take into account spells that require only verbal or somatic.Actually, if you are strong enough and know how to swim, you can swim with 65 pounds of metal on. I've heard of soldiers swimming in full kit, which can weigh up to 100 pounds. It's not easy, and I sure couldn't do it, but it's doable by others.
What gets me is arcane spell failure chance. What could you possibly have to do to cast a spell that armor prevents but the stress of combat won't?
the arcane spell failure ruled says somatic is the only thing affected. Spells with no somatic has no chance for failure.
Re Arcane Spell Failure chance due to armour...
Many people assume that is a movement issue as armor is restrictive but that would not take into account spells that require only verbal or somatic.Did you mean to say "spells that require only verbal or material components"?
Per 3.5 and Pathfinder the Arcane Spell Failure chance only applied to spells with Somatic components, so I would suggest the idea that it is a movement issue (armour restricting the ability to perform the correct arcane gestures) is not a bad explanation.
PF p150 even states "Armor interferes with the gestures that a spellcaster must make to cast an arcane spell that has a somatic component."
This reminds me: seeing as a simple breastplate will cause one in four of your somatic spells to fail, while a gauntlet or cestus does not interfere in the slightest, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the somatic components of such spells involves not the hands, but the chest.
Casting a spell requires jiggling your nipples juuuuust right.
its still restrictive in real life. Put a breastplate on and try to do butterfly curls. It also hinders shoulder rotation to a degree. Its not a form fitting high tech work of art.
I didn't undertake to justify anything fantastic, the discussion was REAL guillotines. Your snark misses.
Um, historically speaking guillotines were far from guaranteed kills. There were instances where the blade wouldn't pass through the neck and the person would be alive but flailing and screaming with blood spurting everywhere. The base design of the contraption doesn't allow for consistent operation even if it's "reasonably" maintained. There's a reason why it is considered a cruel punishment and is nowhere to be found in 1st world countries or at least the U.S. So, to represent this in-game, it would most certainly be a critical hit. Even if it didn't outright kill you, you can still fail your fort save and still die.Certainly there are famous cases, including King Louis, where it failed to BEHEAD the victim in one shot. I defy you to find someone who actually SURVIVED a single shot from a functioning guillotine. having your head HALF cutoff is a mortal wound.
Plus, they just reloaded anyway. what's the point of rping how many strokes it took?
I'll be happy to find you that example, as soon as you find me an example of someone who can grow claws when he gets really angry, or someone who can punch through the side of a nuclear submarine without much trouble, or come out of an explosion in a confined space completely unscathed. Or for that matter, gigantic fire-breathing armored flying lizards.
That's exactly why my snark hits, actually. You are undertaking to apply the logic of the mundane world to people who are not mundane. You say the HP mechanic should not apply to 'certain death' situations. The point of my snark is that D&D characters are superhumans in a fantastic world; there's no inherent reason those situations should have to be certain death.
Oh, yes, I certainly am, if by that you mean "electing not to apply the abstract convention of the game." That was my stated intent. I'm not going to apply the HP mechanic in situations where the underlying assumptions thereof do not apply. If your PC ends up in a certain death (as defined) situation, he dies. That's just what "certain" means. I'm not going to bother creating a mechanic that just makes in 99% likely you die in round one, and the other 1% of the time, you die in round two.
This makes sense at lower levels but not higher ones. So, a rules construct keeps things fair across all levels. A higher level character very well could break free of their bonds and escape after a round or two.
As someone who works with people of all ages, the very implication that Elves should be more capable simply because they are older makes me laugh.
Well, you live in a very safe world where natural selection has largely been removed from the equation. Millenia ago if someone survived to be 60 you knew they were doing something right.
In a D&D world with roaming monsters and rampaging hordes or murderous hobos someone that lives to be 800 should be pretty badass.
That's exactly why my snark hits, actually. You are undertaking to apply the logic of the mundane world to people who are not mundane. You say the HP mechanic should not apply to 'certain death' situations. The point of my snark is that D&D characters are superhumans in a fantastic world; there's no inherent reason those situations should have to be certain death.I didn't undertake to justify anything fantastic, the discussion was REAL guillotines. Your snark misses.
Um, historically speaking guillotines were far from guaranteed kills. There were instances where the blade wouldn't pass through the neck and the person would be alive but flailing and screaming with blood spurting everywhere. The base design of the contraption doesn't allow for consistent operation even if it's "reasonably" maintained. There's a reason why it is considered a cruel punishment and is nowhere to be found in 1st world countries or at least the U.S. So, to represent this in-game, it would most certainly be a critical hit. Even if it didn't outright kill you, you can still fail your fort save and still die.Certainly there are famous cases, including King Louis, where it failed to BEHEAD the victim in one shot. I defy you to find someone who actually SURVIVED a single shot from a functioning guillotine. having your head HALF cutoff is a mortal wound.
Plus, they just reloaded anyway. what's the point of rping how many strokes it took?
I'll be happy to find you that example, as soon as you find me an example of someone who can grow claws when he gets really angry, or someone who can punch through the side of a nuclear submarine without much trouble, or come out of an explosion in a confined space completely unscathed. Or for that matter, gigantic fire-breathing armored flying lizards.
and it's still a coup de grace. I'd rule d12 x3 as a great axe. Fort save and you live assuming you have hp left as per coup de grace.
Another thing is learning skills (which is related to the multiclassing point). My GM and I had this discussion.You can be out in the wild and haven't seen civilization in months, and if you level, you can technically throw point in Linguistics and learn a new language or you can put a point in a Knowledge skill despite not having any source to learn anything new. When this was first brought up, my GM said he would just say you can't do that.
The problem arises when you consider other skills and also particularly skillful classes (i.e. rogue).
The logic here is that a character wouldn't have gotten the chance to attain the "right to increase a skill," since they couldn't apply the skill whatsoever over the...
as a GM I always assume that class skills are generally something your practicing in your off time without requiring an explanation. even if your say a rogue who never gets to use his disable device skill its assumed that you have some kind of lock that your practicing with while traveling or you often look at any kind of device and consider how it may be disarmed. same goes for all class skills. even thoug my ranger is not ever climbing I jst assume that he occasionally climbs trees, excessive his fingers or tests his balance. non-class skills however require an explanation, maybe your learning spell craft from the mage in the group, or knowledge religion and planes from the cleric.
I wont however allow a character to spontaneously learn a random skill, class, feat, spell or anything without a valid explanation if its not a class skill.
LOL the funniest thing I have ever seen was when a level 8 fighter took a level of gunslinger. the GM decided that the next room we walked into had a skeleton of the corpse of the fighters long lost uncle who happened to have been stripped of all loot other than a family heirloom gun and a bag of 30 shots.
the fighter, spontaneously remembered all of the training that the long lost uncle had given him as a kid explaining away the sudden level advancement not to mention suddenly 'remembering' under dark, or dwarf or gnome or some other language that happened to be useful at the time.
Look, the elf vs human thing can very easily be demonstrated to yourself to demonstrate how it works.
Ok, now assuming you, like the rest of the world, are working in a dreary, soulless, life consuming job like the rest of us, you have a million things to do, and absolutely no time to do all of them.
So, take a week off from work.
No watch and be amazed as all those things that you had to get done... still don't get done. Marvel at how an hour of watching TV turns into 5. Be amazed as checking out that 5 minute video on youtube turns into 4 hours of "related videos".
That's what being an elf is like. It's like being on vacation for 600 years.
"Meh.. I'll study that spell tomorrow, I've got plenty of time, and this scrying pool about rare types of figs is so much more interesting..."
Elven society is one of mastery rather than quick study. This can easily describe why it takes a hundred years or so to attain the first level of a class. However, to keep things straight, I think Elves should get bonuses. For example, have certain extra racial traits such as "If you pick a spellcasting class as your first level class you automatically gain spell focus in a school of magic that class can cast as a bonus feat." Or, "if you pick a martial only class as your first level class you gain a +1 racial bonus to your base attack bonus, gain critical focus as a bonus feat without needing to meet the prerequisites, grant a weapon you begin play with the keen condition without modifying the cost for the item. If you choose to grant a starting weapon the keen condition all other restrictions that normally apply to the keen condition still apply." Get my drift? Elves SHOULD have a leg up on others due to the fact Elven society centers around DEPTH of study rather than breadth.
Elven society is one of mastery rather than quick study. This can easily describe why it takes a hundred years or so to attain the first level of a class. However, to keep things straight, I think Elves should get bonuses. For example, have certain extra racial traits such as "If you pick a spellcasting class as your first level class you automatically gain spell focus in a school of magic that class can cast as a bonus feat." Or, "if you pick a martial only class as your first level class you gain a +1 racial bonus to your base attack bonus, gain critical focus as a bonus feat without needing to meet the prerequisites, grant a weapon you begin play with the keen condition without modifying the cost for the item. If you choose to grant a starting weapon the keen condition all other restrictions that normally apply to the keen condition still apply." Get my drift? Elves SHOULD have a leg up on others due to the fact Elven society centers around DEPTH of study rather than breadth.
I hope you are aware, that with the exception of *possibly* the spell focus, that every single other one of those suggestions is so far beyond ridiculous that I can't tell if you're joking or not?
... Elves SHOULD have a leg up on others due to the fact Elven society centers around DEPTH of study rather than breadth.
That depends upon which stories, fables, novels, and legends you grew up on. I read a fair amount. I'd say the ones with intense study might be a little more more coomonn than the ones that study everything or the ones that study nothing, but not a lot.
As far as why they aren't running the world, that's actually fairly easy. Look at humans, 99.999% of the population of normal everyday humans are not emoutionally capable or driven to rule. And the ones that have one trait probably don't have the other. Is it really so difficult to imagine that a made up race isn't 0.001% less likely to want and be able to rule?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
D&D isn't a superhero game.
It's not? 3.5 was, and Pathfinder definitely is. I pity any GM who doesn't realize this before it's too late! If you don't know how to tell a story about a small team of superhumans thwarting powerful evil despite the odds (which are somehow against them despite their incredible array of powers), then you're not going to be much of a Pathfinder GM.
That depends upon which stories, fables, novels, and legends you grew up on. I read a fair amount. I'd say the ones with intense study might be a little more more coomonn than the ones that study everything or the ones that study nothing, but not a lot.
As far as why they aren't running the world, that's actually fairly easy. Look at humans, 99.999% of the population of normal everyday humans are not emoutionally capable or driven to rule. And the ones that have one trait probably don't have the other. Is it really so difficult to imagine that a made up race isn't 0.001% less likely to want and be able to rule?
I don't dispute why they don't run the world. However, I'm basing my statements off Elves of Golarion.
I hope you are aware, that with the exception of *possibly* the spell focus, that every single other one of those suggestions is so far beyond ridiculous that I can't tell if you're joking or not?
I'm being completely serious.
I'm being completely serious.
To highlight this, in Elves of Golarion, the typical Elven warrior is described as being worth 10 of any human fighters. The reason why Elves were pushed back was not due to skill but because of numbers. Elves had very low birthrates compared to humans and human simply overwhelmed them. That really is the long and short of it.
The elves fought back, but it was clearly a losing battle. The humans, with their higher birthrate, could swarm over the valiant elven warriors though each elf was worth 10 of the younger race.
Just got home where my PDF is. :)
Of course, like most things in this thread, the explanation is "game balance". If you make elves that strong, you have to also give them a racial HD or two.
Well, sure. And, I'd be fine with the racial HD. Make it an alternate player race, if necessary. But, make the race match the lore or vice versa. :)
opening a door is a full move action.
really? a person cant open a door in the same amount of time that they can hustle 30 feet?
shouldnt it be, like... 1/3 of a move or something?
Any one can simply extract themselves from melee combat with a 5-foot step.
lets explore that for a moment.
what this means in game terms is that a ranged weapon user or spell caster can just step back and loose all penalties to being in melee.
what this means in my imagination is that A full BAB class, trained in the arts of mortal melee combat, cant seem to instinctively maneuver on the battle field with an opponent that is not actually running away.
On a side not can I ready my action to chase a person who attempts to move away?
How standard action attacks and full round attack actions work.
A standard is a single attack. A full round is all of your attacks. The difference between this can be up to like 6-7, if you're thinking about a flurrying monk or a ranger using all of his feats (heck, think about a zen archer). If a round is 6 seconds, then you might say a standard is 3-4 seconds - it is the greater part of what you can do on your round. So in the difference of 2-3 seconds, you can land 6-7 more attacks than if you had done something else.
You might talk about focusing on attacking versus trying to do multiple things at once, but obviously I am referring to like a 20th level character - they are able to only do the same thing with a standard attack action as they could at level 1. There is never any progress within the action, it only gets better from outside factors (such as heightened stats and better equipment).
Very good one Vendis.
one of the reasons I like playing bow classes so much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then there's your difference. D&D isn't a superhero game.
It's not?
My high-level D&D characters can fly, shoot energy beams from their hands, regenerate damage, bash through stone walls with their fists, teleport, create impenetrable force fields, run at super speed, move objects with their minds, create duplicates of themselves, warp time, and withstand 100x the amount of damage that would kill the average joe schmoe. If that doesn't make it a superhero game, then please, explain to me what DOES?