Not very likable, but they remembered him. I'm sure there were plenty of other excellent commanders who did not get remembered.I'm not sure about that. I don't think that there were many axis commanders equal to Rommel, my understanding is that he was something of a military genius who excelled as a soldier in WW1 and revolutionized mechanized combat and modern desert warfare in WW2. Remembered for ability, not personal magnetism.
Rommel's 'revolutionizing' of mechanized warfare (desert warfare under Rommel was effectively mechanized warfare) is sometimes vastly overstated. There were a number of other early German generals who were also heavily involved in the early years of maneuver warfare, particularly Erich von Manstein.
Rommel also had the benefit of fighting a French / British army that had no bloody idea how to fight a war, was handicapped by terrible leadership, and had all the wrong equipment. Their high commands were a mess and full of dinosaurs that (in the case of the French) wouldn't even allow a telephone in their command bunkers before the war. The degree of incompetence was truly staggering.
That said, Rommel was a pretty good general who really 'got' maneuver warfare at a basic level. He understood its application as well as anyone, and showed it many times. It's hard for me to label him a genius because of who he fought against for most of his successful period (40-41) but the guy was definitely not a slouch. He gets some props in my mind for realizing pretty quickly the problems with maneuver warfare later in the war even when others didn't - though he had the advantage of trial and error in Africa.
If you have a 40-50 point character, you can probably handle up to CR of APL+4. Drop in extra gear you might make APL+5 CR creatures as your "Epic" encounters, but they might have abilities or powers that you can't handle at that level.
Having played in a party full of 60-90 point buy equivalent characters for the last five years, I'd say my experiences do not go in this direction.
As Coriat pointed out earlier in the thread, point buy for the vast majority of character concepts has a real sense of diminishing returns with regard to outright power. Five extra points might net you a better primary score (by a +1 modifier). Ten might net you better secondary scores (by a +2 modifier). More than and you start trickling into scores that have no combat bearing on your character and serve to increase their flexibility (especially in social situations) but not their outright combat power.
There are a few rare exceptions (paladins for instance) but they are just that, exceptions. A fighter built with 25 point buy and one built with 60 point buy are likely to be different in many ways, but their attack bonuses, damage, and armor classes are not likely to be more than a point apart. This is even more the case with spellcasters.
Not very likable, but they remembered him. I'm sure there were plenty of other excellent commanders who did not get remembered.I'm not sure about that. I don't think that there were many axis commanders equal to Rommel, my understanding is that he was something of a military genius who excelled as a soldier in WW1 and revolutionized mechanized combat and modern desert warfare in WW2. Remembered for ability, not personal magnetism.Rommel's 'revolutionizing' of mechanized warfare (desert warfare under Rommel was effectively mechanized warfare) is sometimes vastly overstated. There were a number of other early German generals who were also heavily involved in the early years of maneuver warfare, particularly Erich von Manstein.
Rommel also had the benefit of fighting a French / British army that had no bloody idea how to fight a war, was handicapped by terrible leadership, and had all the wrong equipment. Their high commands were a mess and full of dinosaurs that (in the case of the French) wouldn't even allow a telephone in their command bunkers before the war. The degree of incompetence was truly staggering.
That said, Rommel was a pretty good general who really 'got' maneuver warfare at a basic level. He understood its application as well as anyone, and showed it many times. It's hard for me to label him a genius because of who he fought against for most of his successful period (40-41) but the guy was definitely not a slouch. He gets some props in my mind for realizing pretty quickly the problems with maneuver warfare later in the war even when others didn't - though he had the advantage of trial and error in Africa.
Right, well I'm not really a WW2 buff, I'm just using an example off the top of my head to make a point, That is that the low charisma character who does important stuff will be recognized for those things. In this example, Rommel would probably have had a low charisma and a good intelligence score if he was pathfinder-ized IMO.
For example:
My STR is 14 according to the rule book
Er, except for former servicemen (of which there are admittedly many in our hobby), I am pretty sure 14 Strength and 16 Constitution are going to be serious outliers.
Based on the lifting chart, I might be Strength 10 if you go by what you can lift off the ground, but probably closer to 6-8 if you go by over the head. And there's no way I have more than 10 Con.
I'd have an 18 Intelligence by your reckoning, and mid teens in the other mental stats, but average to just barely above average Dex: 10-12.
And this goes pretty much for everyone I play with. I might give one of them Str 12, and everyone else 6-10. Most would have 10 Dex--a couple less. Most, if not all, would have 10 Con. Most would have 10 Charisma--a few less. Many (though far from all) would have mid teens Int/Wis.
That's sadly low point buy. I think the elite array would even be too much for most of the people I've gamed with over the years.
I think either you're quite exceptional, you are underrating what stats do and mean, or you are vastly overrating yourself.
I agree with OP, my group still does 4d6 drop lowest, and we are low fantasy, don't like crazy magic + items, RPers. Not only is the point buy boring, and a perversion of the classic idea of playing a dice game with random elements (you roll well, you get something good, rolled great stats, now you can be the ranger!), it invites a lot more problems than it sets out to fix.
1) A 20 pt buy character is underwhelming,and wouldn't be the guy ppl go to, to get things done. Everything he might set out to do will get done by some one better.
** spoiler omitted **2)It's artificial and tries to force weaknesses that don't exist so you get stereotypical character after cliche character. it's not the way we work so it severely hurts RP. And our weakness is we're mortal; our strengths can help us last longer but they can't beat that. Good genes are good genes.
** spoiler omitted **...
Indiana Jones would look something like this in my opinion:
STR 12
DEX 14
CON 12
INT 14
WIS 10
CHA 11
People in general have outrageous and unfounded ideas about what ability scores mean.
Edit: it is important to remember that these are very impressive stats that are far removed from the average person, and that 6th level is supposed to be the upper limit of human potential in the real world.
Indiana Jones would look something like this in my opinion:
STR 12
DEX 14
CON 12
INT 14
WIS 10
CHA 11People in general have outrageous and unfounded ideas about what ability scores mean.
Yeah, people generally see what someone is capable of in a movie and conflate natural ability with skill. He had a lot of skills--well, that could mean high Int, a class with lots of skills, or just a higher level. He took lots of punishment. Well, it could be a ton of Con, or it could just be big/more Hit Dice.
I would argue with Indy's mental stats and STR. A STR 14 is pretty average for anyone who lifts. That's a 175 lbs press or 350lbs squat or dead lift.
Indy is stronger than average but probably doesn't lift, and his intelligence is in the very gifted category, just short of genius (15-16). his charisma is above average.
Yeah, people generally see what someone is capable of in a movie and conflate natural ability with skill. He had a lot of skills--well, that could mean high Int, a class with lots of skills, or just a higher level. He took lots of punishment. Well, it could be a ton of Con, or it could just be big/more Hit Dice.Indiana Jones would look something like this in my opinion:
STR 12
DEX 14
CON 12
INT 14
WIS 10
CHA 11People in general have outrageous and unfounded ideas about what ability scores mean.
Exactly.
Now the fun part debating Indy's stats! If it was another system I would agree about the skills, but PF/DND isn't really the type of game where skills improve your ability to do encounter based things the way a Fallout or Oblivion would.
Indy
STR 15 - all around physical guy, throws a guy over the dashboard, out a truck, across the hood with one arm and shot in it!, bashes in a marble library floor with a essentially a candlebra, pushes a 10 ton Egyptian statue over, holds onto a submarine navigating through the Ocean for hoursDex 16 - going off my rule before, is he more or less dexterous than strong, jumps horses, swings on whips, finds and bypasses traps, scales cars, great shot, jumps mining carts dodges boulders!
Con 18 - takes some of the best beatings in fiction and keeps going, shot, punched out, ran under a truck, no sleep, no food, no water in the desert, dragged by tank and army truck, survives in hospitable terrain, survived nuclear blast!
Int 17 - Doctor, professor, has all kinds of skills, knows the most about obscure things ppl bring to him, quotes books no one has ever heard off, has pretty much every knowledge skill covered, speaks at least 5 languages from what we see in the movies, outsmarts everyone except for Belloch!
WIS 16 - solves age old mysteries, figures out every puzzle that gets other explorers killed, respects history and knows enough to treat relics properly, resists looking the ark! that Will save has to be incredible!
CHA 17 - He's Harrison Ford! Our grandmother's, mothers, wives, and probably in the future our daughters all want him, he is witty, convincing, ridiculous charm, and has multiple followers on his adventures, he is so charming that even when Sean Connery was in his group he was still the face!
He is either incredible or rolls nothing but 20s!
Or all those things are doable by a character with the stats I came up with and up to 6 class levels and the HP/skill points/feats/BAB that follow therefrom. I would not conflate Harrison Ford's charisma with Indy's charisma. Harrison is a movie star, while Indy doesn't really have any more magnetism than someone as exceptional as him would have anyway based on accomplishments, reputation etc.
My INT 14 definition is the same as your INT 17 definition. He probably has a couple ranks in most knowledge skills and full ranks in one or two knowledge skills, which is sufficient for what he encounters, for example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indiana Jones would look something like this in my opinion:
STR 12
DEX 14
CON 12
INT 14
WIS 10
CHA 11People in general have outrageous and unfounded ideas about what ability scores mean.
Edit: it is important to remember that these are very impressive stats that are far removed from the average person
When I look at those stats, I see a pretty cool dude, but I don't see OMG MORE AWESOME THAN ANYONE I KNOW. I know people with more awesome stats than that. That's just a guy who happens to be somewhat above average in both fitness and intelligence.
More importantly than who I know, though, I read and watch stories about people with more awesome stats than that, and sometimes I want to play through stories about people with more awesome stats than that.
Indiana Jones would look something like this in my opinion:
STR 12
DEX 14
CON 12
INT 14
WIS 10
CHA 11People in general have outrageous and unfounded ideas about what ability scores mean.
Edit: it is important to remember that these are very impressive stats that are far removed from the average person
When I look at those stats, I see a pretty cool dude, but I don't see OMG MORE AWESOME THAN ANYONE I KNOW. I know people with more awesome stats than that. That's just a guy who happens to be somewhat above average in both fitness and intelligence.
More importantly than who I know, though, I read and watch stories about people with more awesome stats than that, and sometimes I want to play through stories about people with more awesome stats than that.
I've tried to explain, but I think I'll have to resort to this:
Or all those things are doable by a character with the stats I came up with and up to 6 class levels and the HP/skill points/feats/BAB that follow therefrom. I would not...I think we are going to end up arguing over semantics about what a score means to us.
ie. if I want to think of my character as strong he needs to have a 16 v you might say an 11 or 12.That being said I think there is evidence in the rule his INT is higher given how many languages he knows. And I do think you're not giving him credit for being a magnetic leader, and charming women, look at how the girls in the movie (not the celebrity) fawn over him.
Do you consider ppl in unskilled/menial labor work average or below average?
Languages can be bought with skill points, If you think his charisma is low than we can just put the 4th level increase in it to bump it to twelve. I'm not sure what you mean about people doing menial labour. But that's just a single point in profession generally, or just ability checks (taking 10) for money in really basic cases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indiana Jones would look something like this in my opinion:
STR 12
DEX 14
CON 12
INT 14
WIS 10
CHA 11People in general have outrageous and unfounded ideas about what ability scores mean.
Edit: it is important to remember that these are very impressive stats that are far removed from the average person
When I look at those stats, I see a pretty cool dude, but I don't see OMG MORE AWESOME THAN ANYONE I KNOW. I know people with more awesome stats than that. That's just a guy who happens to be somewhat above average in both fitness and intelligence.
More importantly than who I know, though, I read and watch stories about people with more awesome stats than that, and sometimes I want to play through stories about people with more awesome stats than that.
I've tried to explain, but I think I'll have to resort to this:
It's fine if 5% of the population has the elite array or better, whatever - that's not a problem for me at all. Probably significantly less than 5% of the population are adventurers, too, if you want to look at it from that kind of statistical-realism approach. Even within that approach, that in no way implies that the best of the best aren't better than the best guy out of a random average sample of 20 guys, or that it is wrong to want to play a character with all around high ability scores.
As an aside, according to the internets (which is never wrong), for example, I'm built with a 28 point buy. Not every gamer has low physical standards with which to calibrate their point buy expectations.
This article, which I have read before, has to do with something I am less interested in, however: calibrating gaming expectations to a modern everyday life inspired standard of realism, and probably is a sign that I have failed to make myself clear about the more important part. I shall try again forthwith:
"More importantly than who I know, though, I read and watch stories about people with more awesome stats than that, and sometimes I want to play through stories about people with more awesome stats than that."
I'm a classicist and medievalist by training, so I tend to steep my brain in sagas, epic poetry, and the ilk. Not that I don't like modern literature, and as I said I can enjoy playing a fighter with all the mental and physical ability of Lennie Small, if that's the type of game we're gonna play. But sometimes (for example, right now) I want to play a fighter just as cool as Odysseus, too, and high ability scores all around are great for that, because Odysseus was exceptional in every ability score.
He is either incredible or rolls nothing but 20s!
He probably did roll a lot of 20s, because that sort of thing makes for exciting drama.
edit: when I mentioned about STR 14 average for lifters, it was in reply to not many in our hobby being around that, since if you work out that's not much weight, even if you exercise a little you should be at an 11 or 12 according to the heavy load chart.
If you think the majority of gamers lift, or even exercise at all, I think you're living in a weird pocket of people. I know only two gamers that do anything approaching exercise, and one of them is in the military so he has no choice.
I was asking b/c I think where you put the average person might have a lot to do w/ how you judge ability stats. I see them as the average so when I see a teacher who's job is to communicate ideas, I don't think oh that's a 10 for a normal person doing a normal thing. I think wow they are a good communicator they must be a 12-14, then if I see a lawyer I think wow that guy must be a great communicator he must be a 16.
And this is why the stats you're giving out are so inflated and you think normal people have such high point buy.
When I see someone trained to do a job doing that job, I don't think, "wow, they must have natural talent," I think, "hey, they have a skill." Whereas you see a teacher as somehow automatically having 12-14 Charisma and a Lawyer as having 16, I see them as having ranks in Profession: Teach and Profession: Lawyer and/or things like Diplomacy and Bluff. Then I judge their Charisma on, you know, their natural Charisma, and not their skills--so most of them will have 10. Some a little more, some a little less. If someone's really good at what they do, I imagine they have a skill focus before I assume they must be across the board better at everything an attribute covers.
But sometimes (for example, right now) I want to play a fighter just as cool as Odysseus, too, and high ability scores all around are great for that, because Odysseus was exceptional in every ability score.
For the record, I also want to play/have my players play characters like that. What I object to is people artificially inflating stats and insisting average people are above average. How can Odysseus be impressive if every lawyer and teacher is as Charismatic as he is, and anyone who lifts at all is almost as strong?
|
In reply to Peter Stewart:
I agree that initially these differences may seem minor, but consider what they can mean in game terms.
2 points can be the difference between Int 8 and Int 10, 1 skill point per level, the equivalent of the Human Racial Trait Skilled.
In a tight spot 2 points may be one hit point per level, the equivalent of the Toughness Feat.
A +1 bonus to hit and damage is better than Weapon Focus, so 2 points in Strength may not only increase your AC as it could mitigate an Encumbrance penalty, thus the limit of Dexterity bonus to AC, it can also give you more than a feat in combat.
+1 to Fortitude, Will or Reflexes is also nice.
These are certainly not game changers, but they do increase your power, especially if you have those feats free then to spend on different choices.
The rules on determining the CR of NPC's can be kind of backwards engineered to show the impact of better gear and abilities. Gear can alter the CR of an NPC by 1 either way. (Core Rules p398-399).
NPC classes have a CR of 1 lower than PC classes. They have worse stats and worse abilities. However, in pure combat terms the difference between a Fighter and a Warrior is not that significant in pure numbers.
Both have full base attack, both have access to the same weapons and armour. Both have the same save bonuses. The difference is primarily Feats, and if you have gained the benefits of these with high stats, you could argue this equates to another CR.
I tend to min-max. I found with more powerful stats, I was free to really maximise my advantages without having to deal with weaknesses. The GM upped the challenges, so it had limited impact on play in a homebrew game. Now we play with 20 point point buy, we still have very strong characters, they just can't do everything and I have learned to adapt. This really didn't suit one of our players however, who preferred a more powerful "Heroic" character
Not very likable, but they remembered him. I'm sure there were plenty of other excellent commanders who did not get remembered.I'm not sure about that. I don't think that there were many axis commanders equal to Rommel, my understanding is that he was something of a military genius who excelled as a soldier in WW1 and revolutionized mechanized combat and modern desert warfare in WW2. Remembered for ability, not personal magnetism.
Rommel... heh. I'm something of a WW2 history buff. Everyone remembers the Afrika Korps, but they forget that Rommel had control of the defense of west Europe shores and was completely overwhelmed and outsmarted by Eisenhower and the allies at Normandy.
The reason Rommel was "defending" Europe from the D-Day invasion was because he had by then pretty much been outsmarted, outfoxed and outfought in North Africa by Montgomery. Almost all of Rommel's reputation was built in WWI when Germans had vastly superior tanks and in the early stages of WWII when the Allies were back on their heels and disorganized. Once the Allies got their act together, Rommel was simply outclassed by the generals he opposed.
Rommel... heh. I'm something of a WW2 history buff. Everyone remembers the Afrika Korps, but they forget that Rommel had control of the defense of west Europe shores and was completely overwhelmed and outsmarted by Eisenhower and the allies at Normandy.
The reason Rommel was "defending" Europe from the D-Day invasion was because he had by then pretty much been outsmarted, outfoxed and outfought in North Africa by Montgomery. Almost all of Rommel's reputation was built in WWI when Germans had vastly superior tanks and in the early stages of WWII when the Allies were back on their heels and disorganized. Once the Allies got their act together, Rommel was simply outclassed by the generals he opposed.
I think you'll find us on very opposite sides of this issue.
By the time Montgomery arrived in Afria Rommel literally had almost no fuel available and hadn't seen mechanized reinforcements in an eternity. Go check the numbers for El Alamein, when the war really turned on him. 250 German tanks (the best of which were Panzer IIIs) and ~300 Italian tanks (almost all of which were Fiat M13s) vs. something on the order of 1,200 Crusaders, M3s, and M4s. On top of that he was dealing with artillery and anti-tank weapons for his Italian troops that was tremendously ineffective and fighting an enemy who had air superiority bordering on air supremacy.
The suggestion that Montgomery was somehow a brilliant leader who outfought Rommel is laughable. Montgomery was a general cut from the exact same mold as every other British General of the period, he was simply lucky enough walk into a situation late in the war when Rommel had nothing left to throw at him and instead had to fight Montgomery's war. Montgomery effectively fought World War I in the desert, facing an enemy who could not maneuver and was bogged down by many divisions of troops that were not mechanized. He lacked initiative and relied as heavily as others on central planning and carefully calculated assaults. In short, he was a bureaucratic leader.
Take a look at the Second Battle of El Alamein vs. the Battle of Gazala for a pretty clear demonstration of talent vs. simple qualitative and quantitative forces.
As for D-Day, my feeling is you've read mostly Ambrose (who is a hack).
Knights Cross make it pretty clear what his (Rommel's) motivation was with regard to the "Atlantic Wall", while The Rommel Papers do well to explain exactly why he took the positions he did (including the wildly unpopular one with regard to the deployment of tanks). Both would well explain that the defense faced during the landings was not the defense he would have had them face - he was hamstrung at every turn in his planning. Similarly, both would make clear that any kind of defense other than the one he put forward (no matter how effective it was against British and American forces in the long term) was in his mind a loss, because Germany absolutely could not win a land war on both fronts (a position that was correct).
It is also once again worth noting the tremendous disparity in resources available for the landings vs. the defense, and the obvious advantages an attacker has.
The impact of the allied naval and air superiority, and the advantages it provided to the allied forces in the landings cannot be overstated. The sheer mass of firepower they were able to direct on fortified positions did a great deal to undermine the work put into fortifying the coasts. Officially more than 1,200 warship were involved in the landings even after discounting landing vessels and craft. Six battleships, twenty-three cruisers, and well over one hundred destroyers in all laid down extensive fire support for the landings and were further able to direct fire miles inland at enemy strong points or armored columns . In addition a number of landing craft were modified to provide fire support with 4.7-inch guns and 5-inch rockets. In all more than 8,000 rockets alone were fired onto coastline defenses. In addition such fire was extremely accurate because allied air supremacy allowed spotter plans to move about with impunity. The final impact of the naval supremacy was that it utterly undermined any attempt to gain intelligence on allied movements or disrupt the landings. Only once during the buildup to Operation Overlord did a German U-boat penetrate allied defenses, and the German navy’s grand contribution to the defense of the coastline during the landings was four torpedo boats that sank only a single vessel.
The allied air superiority was devastating to the defense effort. In general the allies had excellent intelligence information on German positions and movements because of virtually unrestricted access to the airspace in France. They were able to freely observe fortifications as they were constricted, troops as they were moved, and the effects of bombing efforts both before and during the landings. Further, such supremacy denied the Germans any intelligence on landing preparations or efforts leading up to D-day and during D-day. Rommel himself famously said, “I know nothing for certain about the enemy.” The German high command was forced to rely almost entirely on their network of compromised agents in the UK. Paratrooper landings further complicated defense planning, because they were able to land behind the fixed defenses and work to restrict the movement of reinforcements to the coast. Such landings also confused the strategic and tactical understanding of the D-day landings for the German command, creating ambiguity as to where the allied forces had achieved breakthroughs on the coast. Finally, the effect of bombing during the landings and after cannot be under appreciated. For a month leading up to D-day allied bombers worked to systematically cripple German infrastructure in France, attacking railroads, roads, and rail stations. More than 76,000 tons of bombs were dropped simply in this attempt to destroy transportation infrastructure. In all railway traffic fell more than 45% in the lead-up to the invasion . The German high command after the war described these efforts as “ruinous” to their counteroffensive plans .
The final major advantage for the allies in the buildup to the invasion, and perhaps the one with most colored the German preparation and response to the landings themselves, was the presence of the Double-Cross system in the UK. Simply put, every single German agent in the UK was turned or killed well before 1944. Every agent the Germans believed was feeding them accurate intelligence on war planning in the UK was in fact feeding them the exact lies the allies wanted them to believe. Among the most important of these was that the Allied forces in the United Kingdom numbered more than ninety divisions and that the allies had the potential to land over twenty divisions in their initial assaults due to their large number of landing craft. In reality the allies possessed less than fifty divisions and only ever had the capacity to land six at a time. This vast overstatement of forces and capacity coupled with reports of planned landings in numerous locations and deceptive intelligence suggesting the allies main thrust would come at Pas de Calais was designed to deceive the German command into believing the Normandy landings were only a division from the actual landings. The extent of this deception was such that as late as June 12th German high command still felt that the Normandy landings were a diversion, and that the Allied forces had up to thirty-four additional divisions in reserve for a second landing in Pas De Calais .
I don't really believe it's fail to fault a general who had no hard intelligence and buckets of lies fed to him by the intelligence apparatus for making some flawed conclusions (in the same way I don't think it's fair to fault one who never got the tools he needed to succeed).
Rommel wasn't a god, and he might not have even been the best Axis general of the war, but he outclassed every opponent he faced by a wide margin. And again, he really got maneuver warfare - which the Brits never did.
I find high stats are hard to manage in the higher levels and this is usually the biggest reason why high level games fall apart. If you use 15 or 20 point buy the higher levels don't break down as bad. If you play low levels high stats is noticeable but not all the broken. It's get bad at the high levels though.