TriOmegaZero wrote: Khrysaor wrote: Just like any other specific example you want to think up can be made to fit this. I'm merely arguing class devoid of race, stats, items, or any other variable. Adding more variables only helps to convolute the argument.
A dwarf rogue will have less fort than a dwarf fighter.
And neither will be able to tell you who is tougher based on their class. They'll only be able to tell based on their careers, and it will be "he's a right tough bastard" not "he's a right tough bastard because he's a Fighter". Unless they are using the word in its normal use, not as a class title. And "he's a right tough fighter' could easily be said of the rogue.
Every character is a specific example, making generalizations about class meaningless. The characters cannot see such minute differences in metagame stats.
You say you argue classes, but the class bonus is a small part of the many factors that go into it at any level. Eh I agree and disagree.
For example yes I believe that the characters probably don't know their exact stats/saves. But they do have a sense of their stats/saves for example the rogue would know that his training in how to best evade constables means that he probably has a leg up on something requiring those skills than the guy who spent his years reading books and tinkering with magic.
As for why you could justify dipping into monk for saves it's actually incredibly simple. Everyone knows that monks(the eastern variety represented in PF anyways) are pursuing the perfection of the body and mind, if a fighter feels that his mental fortitude is lacking due to an encounter with magic etc. it wouldn't be outside of the realm of possibility that he would begin training in the monk's meditative styles and even practice their martial arts styles to increase his ability.
Same thing with the Rogue -> Fighter/Rogue multiclass. Our humble pickpocket goes off and gets hired as an adventurer and realizes "Oh bugger this is dangerous business" so in the interest of not getting dead he begins to focus on improving his martial skills.
gnomersy wrote:
As for why you could justify dipping into monk for saves it's actually incredibly simple. Everyone knows that monks(the eastern variety represented in PF anyways) are pursuing the perfection of the body and mind, if a fighter feels that his mental fortitude is lacking due to an encounter with magic etc. it wouldn't be outside of the realm of possibility that he would begin training in the monk's meditative styles and even practice their martial arts styles to increase his ability.
Same thing with the Rogue -> Fighter/Rogue multiclass. Our humble pickpocket goes off and gets hired as an adventurer and realizes "Oh bugger this is dangerous...
Yes, you can role play these situations, and I have certainly role played a rogue dipping into sorcerer because he felt that being able to vanish or move things at a distance was a pretty helpful addition to his abilities... But wait.. sorcerer isn't something you 'learn' it's something that just erupts within you... so how exactly did my rogue "decide" to get those spells again? Hmm.... Maybe I should have gone with wizard... But wizards get fewer spells per day and I really wanted those extra spell slots (this was in 3.5 by the way)...
Keep in mind that if a fighter truly just wants to boost his "resistance" to magical effects, there is a feat that provides that as well, so the full-on monk dip might benefit from a bit more depth of role playing.
The same is true for rogue, there are ways to improve a rogue's melee abilities other than taking a fighter level, so it's not an either/or situation.
And again, I'm not even opposed to level dipping. In most cases it can be justified and role played appropriately. But just as the Supreme Court was not able to define "pornography" but "knew it when they saw it" I reserve the right to say the same about power gaming. I may not be able to precisely define it, but when I roll my eyes, it's probably there.
Adamantine Dragon wrote: Khrysaor wrote: Let's take it further Trikk. Humans don't know they're human and elves don't know they're elves and dwarves don't know they're dwarves and the list goes on. They're all the same sentient race on the planet that has been affected by their various environments.
All the races come with distinct variation that provides benefit that separates them from each other much like all the classes do the same.
Fighters don't rage and go crazy in combat. Wizards don't have bloodlines or gain the use of spells without learning them through study and research.
This certainly takes if "further." To argue that a human doesn't know they are human in response to a discussion about metagaming artifacts like "class" is really not worth a response.
"Fighters don't rage and go crazy in combat." Funny, mine sometimes do. I had a ranger who would go into berserk rages. He didn't gain any mechanical advantage from it, but he THOUGHT he did. He had anger issues.
I would expect wizards to know that some arcane magic users gain spell use through study while others do not. They might call such people "wild mages". But while wizards and sorcerers might understand the distinction between their abilities and associate accordingly, why would a gnome farmer care about that distinction?
Bloodlines would seem to be a deeply personal thing, and there are enough similar mechanics that other classes have that such things probably would just be considered to be strange, unexplainable phenomena. Is a wizard bloodline so different from a witch's patron that everyone would automatically see the distinction? I don't think so.
If you view the game through the lens of the game mechanics, all this stuff seems pretty obvious. But if you view it from the perspective of characters who actually grew up in and live in a world full of magic, unexplainable phenomena, strange monsters and limited literacy, well, then it all just becomes a sort of mishmash of superstition, rumor legend and myth. How is race any more absurd than denying classes? We have people that mimic a wide variety of racial features that are evident in the races of this game on earth yet we are all human. People on earth have evolved to better survive their environments.
So why are you arguing against dips again? It's not a dip. I'm a generic person who has unknown phenomena. The fact that there's specific classes and styles of training mean nothing now and this thread just became pointless under this regard. The character has no idea why he's capable of doing the things that a person who has spent his life studying can, but it doesn't matter when you're a unique phenomenon.
I don't look at things through mechanics when playing a character, but I don't treat my character like he's an illiterate moron while existing in a world where magic has been around a long time, divinities grant miracles, rogues slip through the shadows, and Druids talk to animals.
Please don't change the argument from classes should understand variance among them to random commoners shouldn't have a clue. A commoner is not a player class.
Adamantine Dragon wrote: Khrysaor wrote:
"Hey guy, I keep getting dominated by wizards in combat. I wish there was something I could buy to give me protection against magic."
"Well how about using this cloak of resistance. It'll grant you more resistance to those powers."
The players do not know what a saving throw is but they know there are items, and that some people, through their specific class training, have better resistances to certain things.
This is one of the areas where even the game designers disagree with how the world exactly works.
Yes, there would be some evidence available to highly discerning individuals that certain professions, training or activities might affect how people react to the world. However, just as in our world, there would be a lot of contradictory evidence too.
"Hey, if you train with those bald folks and learn their meditation techniques you'll be able to resist being enchanted better!"
"Yeah, that's what I thought until I saw that robed dude totally dominated by that skinny finger-wiggler last week."
In general a cloak of resistance would probably be viewed as some sort of "good luck charm". How powerful the magic aura was would provide some indication of how much better it might be than another similar cloak. People are superstitious enough in this world to carry four leaf clovers and rabbits' feet just on the hope that they might give them a bit of luck, so something as powerful as a cloak would definitely be sought after by many people, just on the hope that it might help. But there is also no reason that a character wouldn't scoff at the notion because they knew of a friend who had a powerful cloak who was still polymorphed into a frog. "Sure, if you want to waste your gold on that silly superstition, go ahead, I'm buying a flaming sword myself." Except in the course of his career he'd be able to quantify something about how well he resists things and how that good luck charm seems to have benefited. Much like that weird sword on fire seems to do some extra damage and doesn't burn my hand when I'm swinging it. Magic.
Adamantine Dragon wrote: Khrysaor wrote:
"Hey guy, I keep getting dominated by wizards in combat. I wish there was something I could buy to give me protection against magic."
"Well how about using this cloak of resistance. It'll grant you more resistance to those powers."
The players do not know what a saving throw is but they know there are items, and that some people, through their specific class training, have better resistances to certain things.
This is one of the areas where even the game designers disagree with how the world exactly works.
Yes, there would be some evidence available to highly discerning individuals that certain professions, training or activities might affect how people react to the world. However, just as in our world, there would be a lot of contradictory evidence too.
"Hey, if you train with those bald folks and learn their meditation techniques you'll be able to resist being enchanted better!"
"Yeah, that's what I thought until I saw that robed dude totally dominated by that skinny finger-wiggler last week."
In general a cloak of resistance would probably be viewed as some sort of "good luck charm". How powerful the magic aura was would provide some indication of how much better it might be than another similar cloak. People are superstitious enough in this world to carry four leaf clovers and rabbits' feet just on the hope that they might give them a bit of luck, so something as powerful as a cloak would definitely be sought after by many people, just on the hope that it might help. But there is also no reason that a character wouldn't scoff at the notion because they knew of a friend who had a powerful cloak who was still polymorphed into a frog. "Sure, if you want to waste your gold on that silly superstition, go ahead, I'm buying a flaming sword myself." Except that the various casters who study those things and who enchant them can tell by looking at them what they do and how powerful they are. They may not say +1 or +2, but they will tell you which ones protect you more, just like they tell you which magic swords hit better and do more damage or which of those magic belts makes you stronger.
You can't claim it's all superstition, except for those things that have obvious effects, like the flaming sword. There are too many ways to find out what items do and they're far too consistent.
Adamantine Dragon wrote: gnomersy wrote:
As for why you could justify dipping into monk for saves it's actually incredibly simple. Everyone knows that monks(the eastern variety represented in PF anyways) are pursuing the perfection of the body and mind, if a fighter feels that his mental fortitude is lacking due to an encounter with magic etc. it wouldn't be outside of the realm of possibility that he would begin training in the monk's meditative styles and even practice their martial arts styles to increase his ability.
Same thing with the Rogue -> Fighter/Rogue multiclass. Our humble pickpocket goes off and gets hired as an adventurer and realizes "Oh bugger this is dangerous...
Yes, you can role play these situations, and I have certainly role played a rogue dipping into sorcerer because he felt that being able to vanish or move things at a distance was a pretty helpful addition to his abilities... But wait.. sorcerer isn't something you 'learn' it's something that just erupts within you... so how exactly did my rogue "decide" to get those spells again? Hmm.... Maybe I should have gone with wizard... But wizards get fewer spells per day and I really wanted those extra spell slots (this was in 3.5 by the way)...
Keep in mind that if a fighter truly just wants to boost his "resistance" to magical effects, there is a feat that provides that as well, so the full-on monk dip might benefit from a bit more depth of role playing.
The same is true for rogue, there are ways to improve a rogue's melee abilities other than taking a fighter level, so it's not an either/or situation.
And again, I'm not even opposed to level dipping. In most cases it can be justified and role played appropriately. But just as the Supreme Court was not able to define "pornography" but "knew it when they saw it" I reserve the right to say the same about power gaming. I may not be able to precisely define it, but when I roll my eyes, it's probably there. Why do I need to role play it. I'm an illiterate commoner who gained weird powers through some random phenomenon.
thejeff wrote:
Except that the various casters who study those things and who enchant them can tell by looking at them what they do and how powerful they are. They may not say +1 or +2, but...
I would expect a character who has studied magic and has invested in other knowledge (arcana) or skills (spellcraft) to pretty much accept that a cloak of resistance provides a "measurable" edge.
A rogue or fighter who has no interest in either of those things would not necessarily be so willing to accept that they really help.
Let's say it's a +2 cloak of resistance. That's a ten percent improvement in your probability to avoid a magical effect. When you do avoid a magical attack, you might not even know it.
To assert that a typical person would be able to quantitatively "prove" that a cloak of resistance actually helped them is simply an assertion, nothing more. That's like saying you would notice if you had a 10% improvement in your chance to beat a red light in traffic.
I sincerely doubt you would ever even notice.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Khrysaor wrote: Just like any other specific example you want to think up can be made to fit this. I'm merely arguing class devoid of race, stats, items, or any other variable. Adding more variables only helps to convolute the argument.
A dwarf rogue will have less fort than a dwarf fighter.
And neither will be able to tell you who is tougher based on their class. They'll only be able to tell based on their careers, and it will be "he's a right tough bastard" not "he's a right tough bastard because he's a Fighter". Unless they are using the word in its normal use, not as a class title. And "he's a right tough fighter' could easily be said of the rogue.
Every character is a specific example, making generalizations about class meaningless. The characters cannot see such minute differences in metagame stats.
You say you argue classes, but the class bonus is a small part of the many factors that go into it at any level. But the rogue will say, I don't like getting hit. I've been trained in the arts of evasion. Where the fighter will say, come at me bro. Bring the pain and I'll return it in kind.
The point of all of this is that each class receives specific training defined to the class. You didnt become a fighter by reading books. You practiced with a large variety of weaponry and armor to gain all those proficiencies. Your character would know the style with which others have been trained by seeing how they engage. It's not just, "Hey I get a level of class x and a few more of class y".
Maybe you wouldn't know right away for many things, like is that guy who casts spells a wizard or a sorcerer. Then upon watching his routine you see he does not own a spell book and you'd guess at sorcerer.
Levels are meta game. Class is not. I could have trained as a fighter in a castle for 30 years and not be as tough as you training to be a fighter as an adventuring mercenary for 3 years.
Yes you can skin a class to mimic some things of another class, but you aren't that class. You don't gain the specific class abilities that set you apart.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Adamantine Dragon wrote: thejeff wrote:
Except that the various casters who study those things and who enchant them can tell by looking at them what they do and how powerful they are. They may not say +1 or +2, but...
I would expect a character who has studied magic and has invested in other knowledge (arcana) or skills (spellcraft) to pretty much accept that a cloak of resistance provides a "measurable" edge.
A rogue or fighter who has no interest in either of those things would not necessarily be so willing to accept that they really help.
Let's say it's a +2 cloak of resistance. That's a ten percent improvement in your probability to avoid a magical effect. When you do avoid a magical attack, you might not even know it.
To assert that a typical person would be able to quantitatively "prove" that a cloak of resistance actually helped them is simply an assertion, nothing more. That's like saying you would notice if you had a 10% improvement in your chance to beat a red light in traffic.
I sincerely doubt you would ever even notice. Just because they can't prove it doesn't mean they won't know it or accept it AD.
For example I can't prove that in a vacuum a bowling ball and a feather fall at the same rate, but I know that somebody who knew what they were doing tested it and did prove it and that I believe that they told me the truth.
I imagine you'd have some ignorant people in the PF universe as well but there should probably be just as many who would tell you, "Yes the cloak gives you an actual benefit it's not a good luck charm you backwoods Podunk hillbilly dirt farmers!"
Wow I multi-class nonstop I think it makes the character more interesting instead of having the 1 class to focus on, but like I said I wasn't really going to argue I just saw this thread and wanted to put my 2 cents in.
Adamantine Dragon wrote: thejeff wrote:
Except that the various casters who study those things and who enchant them can tell by looking at them what they do and how powerful they are. They may not say +1 or +2, but...
I would expect a character who has studied magic and has invested in other knowledge (arcana) or skills (spellcraft) to pretty much accept that a cloak of resistance provides a "measurable" edge.
A rogue or fighter who has no interest in either of those things would not necessarily be so willing to accept that they really help.
Let's say it's a +2 cloak of resistance. That's a ten percent improvement in your probability to avoid a magical effect. When you do avoid a magical attack, you might not even know it.
To assert that a typical person would be able to quantitatively "prove" that a cloak of resistance actually helped them is simply an assertion, nothing more. That's like saying you would notice if you had a 10% improvement in your chance to beat a red light in traffic.
I sincerely doubt you would ever even notice. When the fighter's caster buddy casts detect magic, studies the new cloak and tells him to put it on because it'll protect him better than the one he's wearing now, the fighter will listen. Not just to humor his superstitious friend, but based on the advice of the resident expert who's been proven right on more obvious forms of this kind of thing more than once. He even looked at that new sword the fighter found and told him how to make it flame.
I didn't say a typical person. Nor did I suggest he'd be using statistical methods.
I'm saying it would be generally accepted, at least in the elite circles that might have access to such items, that they work and roughly how effective they are. They probably even realize that there are, for most such things, only five levels of effectiveness.
There is definitely a lot of "wiggle room" in this area of the game.
Part of the class conversation can be considered a "style" thing and a GM might actually specifically say that classes are completely in-game things and that what class a character is can be directly determined by observation. Another GM might have the vision that distinction between classes is more murky and it might be quite difficult to look at two characters and determine which is a "monk" and which is a "rogue".
I tend towards the latter. But I like murky.
Adamantine Dragon wrote: To assert that a typical person would be able to quantitatively "prove" that a cloak of resistance actually helped them is simply an assertion, nothing more. To assert that a typical person wouldn't be able to quantitatively "prove" that a cloak of resistance actually helped them is simply an assertion, nothing more.
I'm a typical person and I understand how statistics and quantitative experimentation works.
You're also arguing that player characters are now typical people. I don't know many typical level 1 through to 20 of any player class NPCs. Maybe your table is different on NPC classes.
thejeff wrote:
When the fighter's caster buddy casts detect magic, studies the new cloak and tells him to put it on because it'll protect him better than the one he's wearing now, the fighter will listen. Not just to humor his superstitious friend, but based on the advice of the resident expert who's been proven right on more obvious forms of this kind of thing more than once. He even looked at that new sword the fighter found and told him how to make it flame.
Whether my martial character "listens to" the party wizard depends on a whole host of backstory, character attribute, party history and personality issues.
Overall I'd say that in my career of running martial characters I'm probably as likely to have my martial characters be suspicious of magical stuff as they are eagerly waiting for the advice of the party magic dude.
In the real world I know lots and lots of people who absolutely ignore the opinions of experts all the time. I know people who won't give their kids vaccinations. I know people who refuse advice of their doctors. I know people who refuse the advice of their PAID ADVISORS.
So your assertion that any old fighter is just going so say "well, if you say so" just doesn't match my own playstyle nor my observation of real life.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Whether my martial character "listens to" the party wizard depends on a whole host of backstory, character attribute, party history and personality issues.
Overall I'd say that in my career of running martial characters I'm probably as likely to have my martial characters be suspicious of magical stuff as they are eagerly waiting for the advice of the party magic dude.
In the real world I know lots and lots of people who absolutely ignore the opinions of experts all the time. I know people who won't give their kids vaccinations. I know people who refuse advice of their doctors. I know people who refuse the advice of their PAID ADVISORS.
So your assertion that any old fighter is just going so say "well, if you say so" just doesn't match my own playstyle nor my observation of real life. Right except if your resident fighter is that stupid he has no logical reason to be alive in a world with cursed object and pits full of death.
If you're going to play someone who's intentionally ignorant why doesn't he ignore the Rogue when he says that floor panel is trapped? Because he's at least smart enough to know there are thing which he isn't an expert in and that maybe others are.
Khrysaor wrote: But the rogue will say, I don't like getting hit. I've been trained in the arts of evasion. Where the fighter will say, come at me bro. Bring the pain and I'll return it in kind. Or the fighter says he doesn't like getting hit and has been trained in the arts of evasion too. Classes ARE meta constructs, and encompass a wide variety of kinds. You can have a heavy tortoise or a nimble rake using the fighter class. What training you get is only generally defined, and may not be formal training at all.
gnomersy wrote:
Right except if your resident fighter is that stupid he has no logical reason to be alive in a world with cursed object and pits full of death.
If you're going to play someone who's intentionally ignorant why doesn't he ignore the Rogue when he says that floor panel is trapped? Because he's at least smart enough to know there are thing which he isn't an expert in and that maybe others are.
LOL, this is hilarious. Now your argument is "you're role playing wrong."
I play my characters how I like. I base a lot of how my characters act on how I've observed people in real life. If my rogue or fighter is in a party with a wizard or sorcerer who are arrogant or uppity (a fairly common trope of those sorts of characters, and a situation I've encountered quite a bit, frankly) then my rogue or fighter might well deliberately avoid interacting with them.
I know several players who routinely dump intelligence or wisdom on their martial characters. Either or both of those situations could quite easily result in a character who ignorantly, unwisely or both ignores advice of the party wizard. In our party right now we have a barbarian with an intelligence of 7 and a wisdom of 9.
I have a degree in physics. I have spent the bulk of my career in technology. I am quite knowledgeable about many, many real world phenomena and can explain statistics, probability, even quantum physics to people. And yet most of my friends still buy lottery tickets...
Adamantine Dragon wrote: thejeff wrote:
When the fighter's caster buddy casts detect magic, studies the new cloak and tells him to put it on because it'll protect him better than the one he's wearing now, the fighter will listen. Not just to humor his superstitious friend, but based on the advice of the resident expert who's been proven right on more obvious forms of this kind of thing more than once. He even looked at that new sword the fighter found and told him how to make it flame.
Whether my martial character "listens to" the party wizard depends on a whole host of backstory, character attribute, party history and personality issues.
Overall I'd say that in my career of running martial characters I'm probably as likely to have my martial characters be suspicious of magical stuff as they are eagerly waiting for the advice of the party magic dude.
In the real world I know lots and lots of people who absolutely ignore the opinions of experts all the time. I know people who won't give their kids vaccinations. I know people who refuse advice of their doctors. I know people who refuse the advice of their PAID ADVISORS.
So your assertion that any old fighter is just going so say "well, if you say so" just doesn't match my own playstyle nor my observation of real life. Yes. There are stupid and/or deliberately ignorant people around. If you your character to ignore what your caster acquaintances say about magic, except when it has direct visible effect, go right ahead. "When the priest summons a Celestial Eagle, that's real magic, but when he says he's casting a spell to bless us, that's just superstition."
You've got a guy right in front of you doing magic. Some of it very visible and obvious, some of it with no apparent effect. Unless you've got some real personal trust issues with that caster, you're going to take his word about what he's doing.
Especially when, like with a magic item, you could separately ask both the mage and the priest about it and maybe pay some professional ones too and they'll all give you the same answer. Just like they told you about the flaming sword before you even saw it light up. Willful ignorance only goes so far.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Khrysaor wrote: But the rogue will say, I don't like getting hit. I've been trained in the arts of evasion. Where the fighter will say, come at me bro. Bring the pain and I'll return it in kind. Or the fighter says he doesn't like getting hit and has been trained in the arts of evasion too. Classes ARE meta constructs, and encompass a wide variety of kinds. You can have a heavy tortoise or a nimble rake using the fighter class. What training you get is only generally defined, and may not be formal training at all. But the fighter doesn't gain rogue talents that define him as a rogue and the rogue doesn't get the combat prowess that comes with all those extra combat feats.
Again this is the training that comes with the class, and regardless of how you want to skin a class, it will operate as the class it is made from.
Adamantine Dragon wrote: thejeff wrote:
When the fighter's caster buddy casts detect magic, studies the new cloak and tells him to put it on because it'll protect him better than the one he's wearing now, the fighter will listen. Not just to humor his superstitious friend, but based on the advice of the resident expert who's been proven right on more obvious forms of this kind of thing more than once. He even looked at that new sword the fighter found and told him how to make it flame.
Whether my martial character "listens to" the party wizard depends on a whole host of backstory, character attribute, party history and personality issues.
Overall I'd say that in my career of running martial characters I'm probably as likely to have my martial characters be suspicious of magical stuff as they are eagerly waiting for the advice of the party magic dude.
In the real world I know lots and lots of people who absolutely ignore the opinions of experts all the time. I know people who won't give their kids vaccinations. I know people who refuse advice of their doctors. I know people who refuse the advice of their PAID ADVISORS.
So your assertion that any old fighter is just going so say "well, if you say so" just doesn't match my own playstyle nor my observation of real life. Except the people who ignore professional opinion tend to be bigots with no basis for being contrary beyond their own personal opinion and beliefs. This doesn't invalidate the opinion of the professional community that have invested their lives into these things.
As someone who claims to have a general physics degree and can explain quantum mechanics, you seem to associate with few professionals in the industry who aren't so ignorant with professional opinion.
Jeff, I don't know if you and others are deliberately being disingenuous or if you truly can't understand the subtlety of interpersonal interaction being carried into role playing games.
Let's examine this situation.
Party goes to store:
Wizard: "Hey fighter-dude, you totally need this cloak. It will help protect you from spells."
Fighter: "Hmm... really? Doesn't rogue-dude have that same cloak, and yet he got zapped with fear and ran away in the last fight?"
Wizard: "Well, it's not PERFECT, but it will make it LESS LIKELY that you'll get zapped. Trust me."
Fighter: "Well... you are the wizardly-dude. You know that magic stuff. I wanted to buy this sword here that flames up and burns people when I hit them EVERY TIME, but if you say so..."
Next encounter, fighter gets nailed with two spells. The first one he saves by 1, the second he fails by 4. After the encounter they go back to the store:
Wizard: "Hey fighter-dude! What are you doing? You can't sell that cloak back!"
Fighter: "You said it would protect me, but I still got zapped."
Wizard: "You totally did get helped man!"
Fighter: "Right. Sure. Hey store-guy, take this back, I want that sword."
Wizard: "You're making a big mistake."
Fighter: "Maybe so, but this sword works every time."
Adamantine Dragon wrote: Jeff, I don't know if you and others are deliberately being disingenuous or if you truly can't understand the subtlety of interpersonal interaction being carried into role playing games.
Let's examine this situation.
Party goes to store:
Wizard: "Hey fighter-dude, you totally need this cloak. It will help protect you from spells."
Fighter: "Hmm... really? Doesn't rogue-dude have that same cloak, and yet he got zapped with fear and ran away in the last fight?"
Wizard: "Well, it's not PERFECT, but it will make it LESS LIKELY that you'll get zapped. Trust me."
Fighter: "Well... you are the wizardly-dude. You know that magic stuff. I wanted to buy this sword here that flames up and burns people when I hit them EVERY TIME, but if you say so..."
Next encounter, fighter gets nailed with two spells. The first one he saves by 1, the second he fails by 4. After the encounter they go back to the store:
Wizard: "Hey fighter-dude! What are you doing? You can't sell that cloak back!"
Fighter: "You said it would protect me, but I still got zapped."
Wizard: "You totally did get helped man!"
Fighter: "Right. Sure. Hey store-guy, take this back, I want that sword."
Wizard: "You're making a big mistake."
Fighter: "Maybe so, but this sword works every time."
Arbitrary examples are arbitrary.
The fighter can just as easily have the reverse opinions with the bad rolls that equate to missing with that sword. He then picks up a rock and beats in the enemies skull. Now he hates manufactured weapons since his trusty rock is so useful.
Good old rock. Nothing beats rock.
Khrysaor wrote:
Arbitrary examples are arbitrary.
The fighter can just as easily have the reverse opinions with the bad rolls that equate to missing with that sword. Man you guys shift your arguments around whenever it becomes convenient...
Sure, if I were playing a fighter and he bought a sword and the next encounter he rolled really, really badly, it is quite possible that he might blame the sword.
But your response demonstrates exactly how realistic and likely my scenario actually is Khrysaor. That's how people actually act in real life.
"I bought this thing on your recommendation and it didn't work, so next time I'm not listening to you."
That's how people act in the real world. Intelligent, educated people act that way, not just ignorant, bigoted rubes.
Khrysaor wrote: But the fighter doesn't gain rogue talents that define him as a rogue and the rogue doesn't get the combat prowess that comes with all those extra combat feats.
Again this is the training that comes with the class, and regardless of how you want to skin a class, it will operate as the class it is made from.
And no one in the game world can see these 'rogue talents' or 'combat feats'. Only the in-game effects of these things. Which is not enough to make someone say 'that is a rogue' or 'that is a fighter'.
How does someone tell the difference between two characters that both took Weapon Focus? They can't, even if one used a fighter feat and one used Combat Trick.
A character can know the rogue is really silver tongued, but he won't have any idea it comes from the rogue class or a rogue talent. He'll just see the rogue as a slick character.
You keep talking about this training, but it is an undefined quantity. A woodsman with a bow and hunting dog could be a ranger or a fighter, and could be formally trained, learned from his papa, or learned to survive in the wild on his own.
I find it hard to credit that PF and/or Golarion, by accident or intent, is designed to simulate Order of the Stick(tm).
Sir Jolt wrote: I find it hard to credit that PF and/or Golarion, by accident or intent, is designed to simulate Order of the Stick(tm). Heh, I'd say this comment could well be construed to be support or a challenge to either side...
There's been no shifting of arguments. Only pointing out that giving an arbitrary example is arbitrary. It's used to validate your argument but has no validity. Maybe you had an unlucky day. Maybe the caster of those spells was more powerful than the ones previously faced. Maybe you make all of your saves the next day. This doesn't make an educated person shun something until there is enough quantitative data to prove one way or another.
Arguing a case of a dumped stat character when average is defined as 10 doesn't validate the argument either. It's a case of someone who would choose ignorance.
Khrysaor wrote: There's been no shifting of arguments. Only pointing out that giving an arbitrary example is arbitrary. It's used to validate your argument but has no validity. Maybe you had an unlucky day. Maybe the caster of those spells was more powerful than the ones previously faced. Maybe you make all of your saves the next day. This doesn't make an educated person shun something until there is enough quantitative data to prove one way or another.
Arguing a case of a dumped stat character when average is defined as 10 doesn't validate the argument either. It's a case of someone who would choose ignorance.
Wow, you actually think educated people only make choices when "there is enough quantitative data to prove one way or another?"
You live in a totally different world than I do Khrysaor. Perhaps you'd like to explain how Bernie Madoff swindled billions of dollars from some of the most educated people on this planet, simply by telling them that they would make more money than "quantitative data" would suggest could be possible.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The best comparison for this is MOS (military occupational specialty) something in real life, that Palladium stole for their game mechanics. OCC's (occupation character class) do the same thing.
In almost every case IRL you can look at a soldier and say "oh yea that guy is infantry" ; "Pffft look at that engineer" it is pretty easy.
There IS cross training, people DO change careers in the military, but are restricted to based on how far they have advanced, so it usually happens early.
I know a guy who was infantry and went finance.... huh.... when anyone sees him act, behave, whatever "Oh he's former infantry huh" You can still tell.
The deeper cross trained guys give people the "Wha the Fuh's",,, the whole international man of mystery thing. Infantry/psy ops/medical/engineer..... that's a PrC effectively... what the heck is that guy? Special Ops.
So PrC's aside, and straight classes aside (which I think it would be pretty easy to assume who's who) the multi classes (or the multi multi multi classes) might give people a head spin.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Khrysaor wrote: But the fighter doesn't gain rogue talents that define him as a rogue and the rogue doesn't get the combat prowess that comes with all those extra combat feats.
Again this is the training that comes with the class, and regardless of how you want to skin a class, it will operate as the class it is made from.
And no one in the game world can see these 'rogue talents' or 'combat feats'. Only the in-game effects of these things. Which is not enough to make someone say 'that is a rogue' or 'that is a fighter'.
How does someone tell the difference between two characters that both took Weapon Focus? They can't, even if one used a fighter feat and one used Combat Trick.
A character can know the rogue is really silver tongued, but he won't have any idea it comes from the rogue class or a rogue talent. He'll just see the rogue as a slick character.
You keep talking about this training, but it is an undefined quantity. A woodsman with a bow and hunting dog could be a ranger or a fighter, and could be formally trained, learned from his papa, or learned to survive in the wild on his own. But the woodsman is defined by the class he chooses. He may gain spells or just gain more combat prowess. There's very distinct division. He has an affinity to animals or he doesn't. He learns to move quickly in heavier armory or he doesn't.
A level 1 fighter has 2 feats and BAB +1 where the rogue has 1 feat and +0 BAB. Very distinct. The fighter continually outpaces the rogue in combat prowess while the rogue outpaces in roguish exploits.
Right off the start the fighter can wear full plate while the rogue cannot. This is called training. This is where classes get proficiencies from. You gain proficiency in something you train in. You continue training and gain mastery over the things you train in.
Yes, there is some overlap between rogue talents and combat feats. There's also feats a rogue can never take and rogue talents that no other class will get.
Adamantine Dragon wrote: Jeff, I don't know if you and others are deliberately being disingenuous or if you truly can't understand the subtlety of interpersonal interaction being carried into role playing games.
Let's examine this situation.
Party goes to store:
Wizard: "Hey fighter-dude, you totally need this cloak. It will help protect you from spells."
Fighter: "Hmm... really? Doesn't rogue-dude have that same cloak, and yet he got zapped with fear and ran away in the last fight?"
Wizard: "Well, it's not PERFECT, but it will make it LESS LIKELY that you'll get zapped. Trust me."
Fighter: "Well... you are the wizardly-dude. You know that magic stuff. I wanted to buy this sword here that flames up and burns people when I hit them EVERY TIME, but if you say so..."
Next encounter, fighter gets nailed with two spells. The first one he saves by 1, the second he fails by 4. After the encounter they go back to the store:
Wizard: "Hey fighter-dude! What are you doing? You can't sell that cloak back!"
Fighter: "You said it would protect me, but I still got zapped."
Wizard: "You totally did get helped man!"
Fighter: "Right. Sure. Hey store-guy, take this back, I want that sword."
Wizard: "You're making a big mistake."
Fighter: "Maybe so, but this sword works every time."
That's the subtlety of personal interaction? OK.
Nothing says you can't play your character that way. Just bear in mind it could (should?) carry over to all the bonus effects. That +1 flaming sword is much better than the +5 sword. It flames, you see. You can see it. Don't waste money on magic armor, unless it does something cool. Encourage your casters not to use buff or debuff spells, again except for ones that have obvious effects: enlarge person, good, bless, pure superstition. (In some ways, I'd rather play this game. Magic that does stuff is more fun than simple bonuses.)
If you're only argument is that such a character is possible, then I agree with you. I'd thought, from your initial posts that you were claiming that such opinions were actually justifiable in world
Quote: Yes, there would be some evidence available to highly discerning individuals that certain professions, training or activities might affect how people react to the world. However, just as in our world, there would be a lot of contradictory evidence too.
In general a cloak of resistance would probably be viewed as some sort of "good luck charm". How powerful the magic aura was would provide some indication of how much better it might be than another similar cloak.
Highly discerning individuals might be able to tell by statistics. Anyone with detect magic and enough spellcraft will know what the cloak does and how well it does it.
None of which you can actually tell if he never uses it. If the woodsman never puts on heavy armor, then you won't know he is a fighter. And the distinction between a +1 to hit is not very much. A higher ability score will cancel that out.
Adamantine Dragon wrote: Khrysaor wrote: There's been no shifting of arguments. Only pointing out that giving an arbitrary example is arbitrary. It's used to validate your argument but has no validity. Maybe you had an unlucky day. Maybe the caster of those spells was more powerful than the ones previously faced. Maybe you make all of your saves the next day. This doesn't make an educated person shun something until there is enough quantitative data to prove one way or another.
Arguing a case of a dumped stat character when average is defined as 10 doesn't validate the argument either. It's a case of someone who would choose ignorance.
Wow, you actually think educated people only make choices when "there is enough quantitative data to prove one way or another?"
You live in a totally different world than I do Khrysaor. Perhaps you'd like to explain how Bernie Madoff swindled billions of dollars from some of the most educated people on this planet, simply by telling them that they would make more money than "quantitative data" would suggest could be possible. A ponzi scheme has quantitative data to support it until there is a lack of investors. That's how they work.
Khrysaor wrote:
A ponzi scheme has quantitative data to support it until there is a lack of investors. That's how they work.
A fighter wearing a cloak has data to support his conclusions too Khrysaor, that's how it works.
The "data" of the ponzi scheme is by definition arbitrary. The returns are artificially created for the investors to get them to act in a certain way. The investors are acting in response to their experience and making decisions based on THEIR OWN experience.
Just like the fighter in my example.
So, again, you make my point for me.
thejeff wrote: Highly discerning individuals might be able to tell by statistics. Anyone with detect magic and enough spellcraft will know what the cloak does and how well it does it. Neither of which your typical fighter or rogue will have. All they will have is their experience with the cloak itself. And someone TELLING them something that their own experience seems, to them, to contradict.
Getting back to the main discussion and leaving the cloak of resistance diversion behind...
I have mentioned before that I deliberately play my witch to appear to be a wizard. Or, in another case, a cleric.
He pulls this deception off both by direct actions which seem consistent with being a "wizard" and by using has considerable bluffing skills.
This is possible because he has the ability to perform as a wizard or cleric in situations where people expect wizards or clerics to act in a specific way.
There is a lot of overlap between classes which would be very easy for people to confuse class designations.
Adamantine Dragon wrote: thejeff wrote: Highly discerning individuals might be able to tell by statistics. Anyone with detect magic and enough spellcraft will know what the cloak does and how well it does it. Neither of which your typical fighter or rogue will have. All they will have is their experience with the cloak itself. And someone TELLING them something that their own experience seems, to them, to contradict. Except that they can see that other person, right along next to them, being right about all other sorts of things they can't see.
But again, if you want to play a character as that kind of idiot, go right ahead. As you say, there are plenty of them out there.
I assume you agree, which wasn't clear from your initial posts, that it is a foolish position to take and that reasonable people in the game world will not think that such things are mere superstition.
At least reasonable people who move in circles where such things are found: nobles, adventurers, rich merchants etc. Whether the common dirt farmer who's never seen a magic item or a wizard in his life thinks cloaks of resistance are superstition or really magic is pretty much irrelevant to the argument.
TriOmegaZero wrote: None of which you can actually tell if he never uses it. If the woodsman never puts on heavy armor, then you won't know he is a fighter. And the distinction between a +1 to hit is not very much. A higher ability score will cancel that out. So now the argument is, "sure they are different through their various training, but if they never use their training you will never know". You're right. And a wizard who never casts a spell is just a crazy commoner.
That ranger could choose to crush every plant and twig along the way to hide his woodland stride too. He could act winded to hide his endurance. Or fight incompetently with a weapon to hide that he has formal training.
This argument is moot.
The original argument is based on playing PCs in a party where they use class abilities, like casting spells, studying from a spellbook, striking foes with precision to vital areas, becoming so enraged your muscles swell, moving ridiculously fast and flurrying, inspiring people with courage/competence/heroics. Fighters get more combat feats than anyone and this becomes evident in combat versatility and access to feats that they alone can get, much like several feats for other classes.
Every class is capable of doing something that another class cannot. This becomes evident.
It's the players who are interacting with the rules, not the characters, because it is the players who make the decisions and roll the dice. Beyond what defines them as rule constructs, the characters are pieces of fiction: Storythings which might be imagined as knowing about the rules or not. Just think of OotS.
In that sense, it is rather irrelevant whether or not the characters know about saves and classes, because it's not them who are playing the game. It's us, and we know the rules.
thejeff wrote: Adamantine Dragon wrote: thejeff wrote: Highly discerning individuals might be able to tell by statistics. Anyone with detect magic and enough spellcraft will know what the cloak does and how well it does it. Neither of which your typical fighter or rogue will have. All they will have is their experience with the cloak itself. And someone TELLING them something that their own experience seems, to them, to contradict. Except that they can see that other person, right along next to them, being right about all other sorts of things they can't see.
But again, if you want to play a character as that kind of idiot, go right ahead. As you say, there are plenty of them out there.
I assume you agree, which wasn't clear from your initial posts, that it is a foolish position to take and that reasonable people in the game world will not think that such things are mere superstition.
At least reasonable people who move in circles where such things are found: nobles, adventurers, rich merchants etc. Whether the common dirt farmer who's never seen a magic item or a wizard in his life thinks cloaks of resistance are superstition or really magic is pretty much irrelevant to the argument. This is my last comment on the cloak thing. That was merely an example of how murky things can be in the game world.
Jeff, it is my opinion that you are seriously misunderstanding human nature if you think people act the way you are describing above. The idea that people always act rationally and make decisions on carefully evaluated quantitative analysis is 100% contrary to my own experience.
Furthermore you and Khrysaor's continued insistence that only "idots" or (apparantly a favorite word of Khrysaor's) "bigots" make decisions irrationally, emotionally or in contradiction to demonstrable "facts" also is contradicted by my own life experience. I know highly educated, very brilliant people who accept tenets of faith that are in direct contradiction to scientific facts. They aren't "idiots", they have CHOSEN to view the world in a way that satisfies something they are seeking.
The assertion that nobles, adventurers, rich merchants, etc. are somehow immune to human superstition is absolutely, definitively contradicted by the facts of human experience. Most humans, of all social strata and all educational backgrounds, are routinely irrational about common daily decisions. Talk to a therapist about it if you don't believe me.
Anyway, I'm done with this part of the discussion. If you think that my examples are only what "idiots" would do, well, you've got a pretty strange understanding of human nature. That's all.
Khrysaor wrote: So now the argument is, "sure they are different through their various training, but if they never use their training you will never know". No, I was addressing the point you raised about different abilities being different. Stop misrepresenting me or we are done here.
The training given could be fluffed any way you want. Just because two characters have heavy armor proficiency, it does not mean they learned it in the same way. A class represents a wide variety of possible characters. No one in-game can identify a character's class. This is especially true with all the archetypes that swap out the few features that could identify a character as being a part of that class.
This entire page is derailed from classes recognizing what SAVING THROWS other classes are better at. Every class, except the monk, has good saves and bad saves. No matter how you skin things, a class with a bad save will need a substantial investment in a stat or feats and traits to compensate and make them appear similar to another class. This will not last long and each class with a good save will trump the classes with bad saves with no investment.
There is a +6 difference between good and bad saves. Thats a 22 stat compared to a 10. Or an 18 and a feat for +2. Maybe even a 16 and a feat and a trait or a 14 and have a race that gives a +2 to the stat. This is a large investment required to hope that you will mimic another class and the class intended to be mimicked will more than likely beat you with no investment at all.
Statistically, this will be evident and make itself known to characters in a visible nature.
Changing variables to give arbitrary examples does not give validity to this being indeterminable. All variables must be weighed against what they are measured against. A human will know that a dwarf has a predisposition to certain things like poison resistance, much like a dwarf will know elves are immune to sleep effects. This is called lore.
Pendagast wrote: no... how is it meta gaming if the Dm says, no you cant do that. The DM by nature is meta gaming... almost all the time... Hes the...<cut> what if there is no way for a player to create the type of character he has envisioned without muti-class dips.
for example, I once played a bored noble with excessive ADD...
he was trained in house by the family's man at arms and was an avid hunter Fighter 2, Ranger 2 levels) he would also spend nights out in the city womanizing, getting into trouble, and even ran with some shady sorts (Rogue 4 levels), now soon after starting a "proper" adventuring life (after being kicked pout by his father) he became obsessed with magic and started to study a little magic under one of his adventuring companions (Mage: Divination.. you can't surprise me now!).. but quickly lost interest after a few months and fell back into style with new found vigor... remember ADD (Duelist)
Rogue/Fighter/Ranger/Mage/Duelist
Now I have my two-weapon (Rapier/Short Sword) swashbuckler character who can not be surprised and has a nice reflex save evasion and uncanny dodge.. who can not be surprised.
not stupid crackly.. yet in character.. heck I did not even look at Archtypes.. Two-Weapon Warrior, Swashbuckler, or Shadowcaster which would all fit him very well (did I mention.. half-elf (drow)... result of an illicit affair... very long story of why he was even taken into the noble house in the first place)
Adamantine Dragon wrote: This is my last comment on the cloak thing. That was merely an example of how murky things can be in the game world.
Jeff, it is my opinion that you are seriously misunderstanding human nature if you think people act the way you are describing above. The idea that people always act rationally and make decisions on carefully evaluated quantitative analysis is 100% contrary to my own experience.
The assertion that nobles, adventurers, rich merchants, etc. are somehow immune to human superstition is absolutely, definitively contradicted by the facts of human experience. Most humans, of all social strata and all educational backgrounds, are routinely irrational about common daily decisions. Talk to a therapist about it if you don't believe me.
I'll let it go as well then, with just a couple responses where you're clearly misunderstanding me.
1) I'm not saying anyone is making decisions on "carefully evaluated quantitative analysis". I'm saying that the mage can look at the item and tell, or that the mage knows what his own spells do. And that in most cases the fighter will take that advice, since not only is the mage supposedly the expert, but the fighter seems him being right about magic stuff all the time. The fighter isn't analyzing the percentage of the time he's being affected by magic any more than he's analyzing the number of times he hits with his new, supposedly magical sword.
I have never claimed people act the way you think I'm describing.
2) I also never made the assertion that nobles, adventurers, rich merchants, etc. are somehow immune to human superstition. The only reason I made that distinction is that they are the ones likely to come into contact with magic items and spell casting. I wanted to distinguish between general popular opinion and the opinion of those likely to have access to such things. A poor commoner may think his trinket is a magic good luck charm. A noble, adventurer or rich man will know someone or be able to hire someone who can check. It's not about superstition. It's about access to data.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Khrysaor wrote: So now the argument is, "sure they are different through their various training, but if they never use their training you will never know". No, I was addressing the point you raised about different abilities being different. Stop misrepresenting me or we are done here.
The training given could be fluffed any way you want. Just because two characters have heavy armor proficiency, it does not mean they learned it in the same way. A class represents a wide variety of possible characters. No one in-game can identify a character's class. This is especially true with all the archetypes that swap out the few features that could identify a character as being a part of that class. You just said that if the fighter never puts on heavy armor you won't know he's capable of using it. This is the same as saying that if a class doesn't use a class feature you won't know they can use it.
We are done here.
Adamantine Dragon wrote: Furthermore you and Khrysaor's continued insistence that only "idots" or (apparantly a favorite word of Khrysaor's) "bigots" make decisions irrationally, emotionally or in contradiction to demonstrable "facts" also is contradicted by my own life experience. Adamantine Dragon wrote: In the real world I know lots and lots of people who absolutely ignore the opinions of experts all the time. Merriam-Webster wrote: Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices Khrysaor wrote: Nor did I say only idiots make these decisions.
Any more inferences you'd like to make about me?
Tell me again where the insulting/abusive/offensive material is in my statement that warranted my post being removed while the others remained, Ross. It seems to me there's a bias on this board as I've violated no terms of use with this post, especially if it doesn't warrant the removal of any posts I've responded to.
There is nothing accusatory or offensive in anything I've said. Unfortunately this isnt true of something directed at me from another poster and that post remains.
|
