Just so I can make sure this is clear: in your world the average civilian tracker is twice as well trained as a soldier and wields divine magic, because the NPC gallery says so. Yes or no?
In my world you mean in my version of Pathfinder?
Yes, the average *frontier trapper* (I dunno what you mean by "civilian tracker". Is that a different NPC?) is a 4th level ranger.
But not only in my world, it's so in Golarion too. If you look at Curse of Crimson Throne barbarians, they are 4th level barbarians. I think a Trapper that lives in this land (Shoanti's land count as "frontier") has same power as average shoantis too. How else could they kill lions, crocodiles, bears, and other similar beasts? How could they dare to enter in lands infested with ogres and trolls?
If you look at the barbarian camp in kingmaker's Rivers run red, they are 4th level too.
If you look at the example armies in kingmaker campaing, they go from 3rd level warrior for the "paltry militia", to 8th level fighters for the Port Ice Privateers. The army unit of Renegades of the River Kingdoms is an entire unit of 5th level rangers. The River Kingdoms count as "frontier", for the most part (at the very least, the Stolen lands). Pitax army is composed of wardens who are 6th level fighters and heralds who are 6th level bards.
So it's not that *my* world has a lot of guys with 3-6 level and heroic classes. It's the *default Golarion* which have so. Pathfinder has that assumption. Maybe you are thinking in some other game? Such as AD&D?
|
But PF has a bad habit of escalation. It is built on the DnD 3.0 foundation in which Einstien was a 5th level Physicist the general max of human ability. 3.5 saw a little streamlining which lead to a small power increase, and PF blatently added power to everyone and in so doing had to up everything else as well including fluff. PF classes are over powered and thus fluff characters need to be as well or they look to weak(presumably because people like feeling powerful)
I do admit the classes are better balanced and definatly cooler but PF clearly doesn't care about relating to reality. For that look at 3.0 and it's DCs and how well classes could meet them.
Reality to 3.0 wise, you know 1-3 lvl 2 people and you would be lucky if you know a level 3. Level 4s might have a handful on the planet. Level 5s come by once a generation or so.
Thus if want to equate with realty on some level you need to GM fiat a lot of things. If you don't then you be more open to allowing things as opposed to denying things simply because PF is OP compared to reality and thus reality (or your vision of it) shouldn't be a ruler for PF.
But PF has a bad habit of escalation. It is built on the DnD 3.0 foundation in which Einstien was a 5th level Physicist the general max of human ability. 3.5 saw a little streamlining which lead to a small power increase, and PF blatently added power to everyone and in so doing had to up everything else as well including fluff. PF classes are over powered and thus fluff characters need to be as well or they look to weak(presumably because people like feeling powerful)
I do admit the classes are better balanced and definatly cooler but PF clearly doesn't care about relating to reality. For that look at 3.0 and it's DCs and how well classes could meet them.
Reality to 3.0 wise, you know 1-3 lvl 2 people and you would be lucky if you know a level 3. Level 4s might have a handful on the planet. Level 5s come by once a generation or so.
Thus if want to equate with realty on some level you need to GM fiat a lot of things. If you don't then you be more open to allowing things as opposed to denying things simply because PF is OP compared to reality and thus reality (or your vision of it) shouldn't be a ruler for PF.
I agree somewhat, but with a minor nitpick. It's not that *pathfinder* has made a power escalation. The entire D&D franchise has made such escalation. Back in BECMI, commoners were absolute trash. They got slightly better with each edition. 3.5 gave those commoners, experts and other non-heroic NPC *FEATS*, among other things. The non-heroic Adept even have a familiar. Pathfinder followed that trend.
So yes, maybe in 3.0 "real world" there's no one level 3 and beyond. Actually, in Runequest "real world" nobody has levels. But we are talking about Pathfinder here, not 3.0, or AD&D 2e, or Red Box Basic D&D.
On the other hand: Level is an abstract construct, and we know that. In Real Life, people does not have "level", and when you want to add a few ranks in Knowledge, History, you don't go and kill a few wild animals until you "level up", but you study a degree instead. However, in a world were Lions are CR 3, people who used to kill them solo as a rite of passage using spears must be CR 3 also.
|
|
An abstraction sure, there are many ways to gain exp, more then in the game, but for the most part there is equivilency. And I would certainly beleive that a tribe of dedicated warriors might actually be level 3s.
3.0 compares to modern day civilized people who are for the most part terribly weak compared to warriors of the wild. Only modern day college people reach a decent level before hitting age 40. Most people stick with doing dead end simple jobs that require little training (a fact that is changing, true) and such a job doesn't exactly expand one's abilities. The number of people that actually go out and push themselves to be more then just "content" are few, and often have elders telling them to quit playing around, go get a real job, make and support a family, and stop dreaming about impossibilities. How is anyone suppossed to be something when giving in to that?
And yes there are plenty of good, productive people in society, but being good and productive doesn't make you grow. Today most people float about their lives being content (which is a perfectly good life, just a low level one)or merely wishing for more. Those few who strive to be better in their craft, may or may not find happiness, but they will certainly gain "levels."
Not saying one way is better, only that one way leads to more levels then the other.
|
Way too tired to read all these replies, but for the original question with the "perfectly aimed fireball":
The caster aims it where she thinks it'll do the most harm and sends the spell out. Casters with more experience (higher save DC) will aim it better.
The creatures targetted may or may not try to evade. Stronger, smarter, more experienced creatures (higher saves) will evade more effectively.
Just like the player always gets to pick which enemy to swing his sword at, but then has to roll to see if he hits, the caster also has to hit. But due to an unfortunately clumsy remnant from 3.x, the mechanic is inverted. Instead of the attacker rolling to hit, the defender rolls to not be hit.
Ya know, if i'm going to train someone to let off a 60 foot ball of fiery death that can burn down an entire villiage in 6 seconds flat you can be damned sure I'm going to make spacial awareness part of that training.
An abstraction sure, there are many ways to gain exp, more then in the game, but for the most part there is equivilency. And I would certainly beleive that a tribe of dedicated warriors might actually be level 3s.
Well, I said "CR 3" as the lion. Not level 3 warriors. A level 3 warrior is CR1. A level 3 Fighter is CR 2 (unless they have PC level of magical gear, which Massai don't have). To make real world Massai the equivalent of Lions in CR, they need to be 4th level rangers or fighters, or 5th level warriors or experts. Or some combination of those.
Not saying one way is better, only that one way leads to more levels then the other.
Problem is "level" is an abstract construct built to make characters to be able to level up and go from fighting orcs to killing Red wyrms. Real world does not have "levels", it's better modeled with other game systems than D&D. Mainly level-less and class-less systems, like GURPS or Runequest or Call of Cthulhu or whatever.
But if we *assume* that real world can be modeled under d&d/pathfinder rulesystem, and then we *assume* bears, lions and tigers are in a 3-5 Challenge Rating Bracket, then those people who can kill them solo using a bow or spear, are in a CR 3~5 too. Which means 4~6 level of heroic class.
Back to the "Frontier Trapper", he is a level 4 ranger. If you see in the bestiary, it's said that pegassi eggs are sold by 2000g each *in the open market*, and griffs are sold at 3500g. If there's *A market* for those, it means there are *people who hunt them*. And the people who is willing to enter the frontier lands to trap and hunt CR 3-4 monsters such as pegasi and griffins, should be able to survive in said frontier lands. We are not talking about Massai killing lions as a rite of passage, we are talking about people who hunt hippogriff to train them for the Sable Company of Korvosa at 500g each young and 200g each egg. That's what that Frontier Trapper NPC is.
If the PCs are the only ones who have heroic classes and 4th+ level, who in HELL is building all those 750g Cure Light Wounds wands that PC buy in the market and use at incredibly high ratio? Because Craft Wand is a 5th level feat, and the PC use those consumable magic items at high ratio, yet they find fresh replacement in the market in almost any village 75% of the time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back to the "Frontier Trapper", he is a level 4 ranger. If you see in the bestiary, it's said that pegassi eggs are sold by 2000g each *in the open market*, and griffs are sold at 3500g. If there's *A market* for those, it means there are *people who hunt them*. And the people who is willing to enter the frontier lands to trap and hunt CR 3-4 monsters such as pegasi and griffins, should be able to survive in said frontier lands. We are not talking about Massai killing lions as a rite of passage, we are talking about people who hunt hippogriff to train them for the Sable Company of Korvosa at 500g each young and 200g each egg. That's what that Frontier Trapper NPC is.
Sounds like other adventurers, elite trappers, and so forth. The idea that your common trapper is a 4th level terminator bugs me. The idea that there's a few trappers who do stuff like hunt bears, giant scorpions, and whatever else is fine. Those would be those trappers that would be worth mentioning in a community. Those would be the trappers that other trappers aspire to be like.
If the PCs are the only ones who have heroic classes and 4th+ level, who in HELL is building all those 750g Cure Light Wounds wands that PC buy in the market and use at incredibly high ratio? Because Craft Wand is a 5th level feat, and the PC use those consumable magic items at high ratio, yet they find fresh replacement in the market in almost any village 75% of the time.
Do not strawman me. I never said that the PCs were the only heroic classed characters, and you know it. I never said PCs were the only characters about 1st level, and you know it. What I did say was that those of a higher level are intended to be progressively rarer, and common examples of people are naturally going to be both NPC classed and low levels.
In a city of 15,000 people, the vast majority of them are probably 1st level commoners, then warriors, experts, adepts, and aristocrats. Some of those individuals will be a higher level. Then there will be some heroic classed individuals, and then some of those will be a higher level. If you go by the expectancy of the system, a city the size of Korvosa from Curse of the Crimson Throne has around 15,000 citizens (based on my copy of CotCT) making it a large city. Following the expectations of the original game, we find the average levels of people in the city are as follows.
Adepts: 1 13th, 2 12th, 6 6th, 12 3rd.
Aristrocrats: 1 12th, 2 11th, 2 6th, 4 5th, 4 3rd.
Barbarian: 1 12th, 2 11th, 2 6th, 4 5th, 4 3rd, 16 1st.
Bard: 1 13th, 2 12th, 6 6th, 12 3rd, 24 1st.
Cleric: 1 13th, 2 12th, 6 6th, 12 3rd, 24 1st.
Commoner: 3 19th, 6 9th, 12 4th, 24 2nd.
Druid: 1 13th, 2 12th, 6 6th, 12 3rd, 24 1st.
Expert: 1 17th, 2 16th, 6 8th, 12 4th, 24 2nd.
Fighter: 1 14th, 2 13th, 2 7th, 4 6th, 12 3rd, 24 1st.
Monk: 1 12th, 2 11th, 2 6th, 4 5th, 4 3rd, 16 1st.
Paladin: 3 11th, 6 5th, 12 1st.
Ranger: 3 11th, 6 5th, 12 1st.
Rogue: 1 14th, 2 13th, 2 7th, 4 6th, 12 3rd, 24 1st.
Sorcerer: 1 12th, 2 11th, 2 6th, 4 5th, 4 3rd, 16 1st.
Warrior: 3 14th, 6 7th, 12 3rd.
Wizard: 1 12th, 2 11th, 2 6th, 4 5th, 4 3rd, 16 1st.
That is a total of 592 people in large city that are above 1st level and/or heroic classed. Out of a city of about 15,000 (going by Korvosa in Curse of the Crimson Throne). The 3.x DMG then expects the remaining population to consist of 91% commoners, 5% warriors, 3% experts, a .5% aristocrats and adepts. That results in about 13,111 1st level commoners, 720 1st level warriors, 432 experts, and about 72 adepts, and 72 aristocrats. One could honestly say that your average person in Korvosa is a 1st level commoner, though truly impressive individuals can and do exist in this fantasy world.
These are the numbers by which the game was created and assumed. While some of you might talk about universal inflation, there has been little to non on the part of NPC classes. Heroic classes have become better in some cases and weaker in others (Pathfinder buffed martials, nerfed casters) and the adept and commoner now have a d6 HD (+1 HP over their original 2.5 HP per level), but for the most part things have remained pretty much normal on that front.
So to your declaration that the average trapper is a 4th level ranger hunting hippogriffs and griffons, again I say to you sir, nay. The average trapper is a 1st level NPC classed individual collecting pelts of common small animals (and occasionally a larger one) with his decent ranks in survival and trapmaking skills, so likely a 1st level expert. An extraordinary trapper might be the 4th-5th level ranger, to which quite the rarity among trappers but is capable enough to hunt exceptionally more exotic game.
As to who is making the CLW wands, I would say more than likely it would be a combination of NPC adepts, clerics, and druids of 5th level or higher, while most wondrous items are probably being spat out by 3rd level adepts, and most 1st level divine scrolls are likely being pumped out by adepts, simply because they are more mundane professionals who are also more common, with the most common trades being scroll scribing and mundane alchemy or healing services (1st level casters), then wondrous items or potion making (3rd level casters), then wand or weapon enhancing (5th level and higher casters), and so forth.
However, the sheer idea that you are telling me that in your world your average trapper can swan dive off a mountain onto solid granit from 50 ft. up and be okay, but a large dog with inflated statistics breaking down a stone door or wall upsets you, astounds me.
To Saucer and Ashiel:
If you let players with longswords to beat stone walls, because it'll be unfair for fighters not to do so... do you let the fighter with a hammer to destroy a rubber wall?If the answer is no... isn't that unfair for the hammer fighter?...
If the answer is yes... can he destroy a rubber wheel with a hammer?
If the answer is no... why can he destroy a rubber wall, but not a rubber wheel? And if the answer is yes... why he can't destroy a rope with a hammer (something you have agreed so far) but he can destroy a rubber wheel with a hammer?
Again, I typically base my decisions based on the type of damage the weapon deals. Slashing, Bludgeoning, or Piercing. A bludgeoning weapon may receive extra benefits for crushing things that are vulnerable to bludgeoning (such as glass, or minerals like stone) but useless versus limp or springy things like rope or squishy rubber. A slashing weapon is generally versatile enough to attempt to destroy most things (it can cut limp or springy things) but it's harder to find something that is specifically vulnerable to. Piercing falls behind as the weapon type most likely to encounter immune objects (if you pierce a door with a rapier you might get a peek hole, but the door is probably still in working order :P).
Some exceptions might exist though in extreme circumstances. For example, in reality tires are ground up in giant machines that crush them into tiny little bits. Based on its operation, it would deal truly astounding amounts of crushing damage. As another poster pointed out, if you draw out a rope and continually slam it with a hammer for an extended period of time the fibers are going to fray and become useless. If there is enough force behind it, shell fired from a .50 caliber rifle can dislocate someone's arm without actually hitting them.
So in essence, if anything I am more likely to make an exception to the standard if there is enough oomph behind something than not. It is pretty rare that I look and say "Okay, your weapon can never damage this thing, no matter how much force you can get behind it". However what is much, much more common is me saying "At this rate you will never be able to break this" or "The damage you are doing is minor and almost inconsequential, and will take you a small part of forever to do".
EDIT: An interesting thing I would like to note is that in general bludgeoning weapons COULD be used to break things primarily made of rubber. It is not horribly difficult for a tire to be rendered useless or the metal interior bent from a car accident (even just driving into a ditch). Likewise a rubber tire could be hit with such force that it separated the rubber from the rest of the tire, breaking it. In the case of an actual wall made out of rubber, enough force could cause the rubber to tear or weaken, until you tore a grap in it or broke out chunks of it.
So thinking on it further, nah, I really don't see a reason that a rubber anything couldn't be destroyed by bludgeoning weapons, only that if I was creating statistics for rubber as a material I would probably give it virtual hardness vs certain types of attacks (depending on the type of rubber it might treat its hardness as being higher vs bludgeoning). But outright immunity? Nah, I think not.