Check the numbers and you will find that high ability scores are pretty damn rare in real life, how much weight can a typical 'farmboy' push overhead ? strength 13 is not nearly as terrible as you think.
|
I think the typical farmer would have higher Strength and Con, and maybe Wisdom, than other people. And maybe not even Con, instead having the Endurance feat. (Why? Because in some plague outbreaks, city dwellers were more likely to survive, probably due to previous exposure. But something makes me think farmers need to train in endurance anyway.)
Farmers would typically have higher Con than Strength because they're training their "slow twitcher" muscles. The ability to punch like a mule simply isn't relevant for a farmer.
Also note that, due to frequent periods of starvation during childhood, many farmers would be small. They might be strong for their size, but they're going to be smaller than nobles.
Even on a tough frontier, I think a higher proportion of people would become warriors rather than commoners (but would still farm when they're not under heavy threat).
Knights, by contrast, would train in both endurance and strength, but outside of military applications, aren't really boosting their endurance. I think they would tend to have higher Strength than Con.
I think reasonable stats for a 1st-level farmer would be:
Commoner 1. Strength 12 Dex 10 Con 13 Int 9 Wis 11 Cha 10.
(Int 9 due to lower levels of education for commoners compared to nobles.)
I don't see any reason why farmers would need high Dexterity. That's less useful to them than for a knight, who tends to wear heavy armor (so it's not that useful for a knight either).
He's human, right? Where are you putting the +2? You wouldn't not adjust for an elf...right?
Actually, I've often thought he "NPC array" was a mistake. I think the vast majority of NPCs should have a 10 or 11 on each score, especially accounting for the floating +2 humans get in Pathfinder. That hulk of a farmboy down the road? He has a Strength of 13 to 15, and he's the biggest thing on two legs you've ever seen. This has the incidental effect of making orc warriors a little less terrifying.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing is this game is realistic. Things are the way they are because of the mechanical underpinnings of the game itself, not because something is realistic.
After all, this is a game where we pretend to be elves that use magic to fight dragons. Realism shouldn't be part of the conversation.
-Skeld
|
If you want to talk realism, consider this. Farming has to be one of the most physically and mentally difficult professions next to say frontline soldier. And even then, I would still give it to a farmer. Farmers HAVE to be strong to lift what they need to everyday and not kill themselves. They HAVE to be endurant. They get up at 4 am, and stop at 6 or 8 pm... seriously. After a 8 hour work day I feel exhausted, after anything longer and feel like I want to die. They do this EVERYDAY. Not to mention, they need to be smart. Contrary to popular belief, farmers have a great deal of knowledge about animals, plants, weather, machines, you know...farming. They HAVE to know this stuff or there crops die, their animals don't produce, and their machines break down...and then they fail as farmers and we all suffer for it. Out of any profession on the planet, farmers to this day use some the most expensive and advanced equipment we have to offer on a consumer (and non-consumer) level. They must be fully trained in how to use every single piece of that equipment. If you have ever stepped back and REALLY thought about what farmers have to do...its really freaking amazing. That is why there are currently farmer shortages in the real world.
That being said...I also feel it is easy to have a huge miss-interpretation of what a 15 in a single ability score represents. Just to give you and idea, my Army friend (who served two tours) at the peek of his physical condition, he was capable of performing a STR 16 on a regular day to day task. When he got back, he stopped most of his military regiment, and started a kickboxing one...this had the effect of now dropping is STR to a 15 in most areas, while increasing his DEX to a what I would say is a 14 or so. Considering his accuracy with a pistol at certain ranges.
I don't really know where I was going with all that...just felt like sharing. Maybe because I do agree that out of all the NPC's stats, the farmer is the only one I COMPLETELY disagree with.
My sister is a farmer.
If 10 is an across the board average, then a 13 is pretty darn stacked. Basically I agree with you, but micro managing the stats of every NPC in your game world gets tedious. Why not make a "template" for every common occupation and have it written down for use as needed...
Nothing is this game is realistic. Things are the way they are because of the mechanical underpinnings of the game itself, not because something is realistic.
After all, this is a game where we pretend to be elves that use magic to fight dragons. Realism shouldn't be part of the conversation.
-Skeld
At low levels, other than some magic and supernatural abilities, there are a lot of parallels with reality. It's only later in the game that people become really detached from the real world.
I think the point made earlier about humans being possessed of greater endurance than other [creatures] stems from things like the idea that human beings have been capable of many feats in the real world that rival the capabilities of animals we regard as being better than us at particular tasks, like distance running (most animals that are faster than us will collapse long before a human will when running over a long distance), for example.
That said, I think the rules reflect this fairly well.
A person with a 10 Str can lift up to 100 lbs. over their head, but just barely, while one with a 15 Str can lift up to 200 lbs. over their head, which is fairly impressive. The 10 Str guy can lift 200 lbs., but can hardly walk, while the farmboy (15) can stagger around carrying 400 lbs! What are farmboys carrying that weighs more than that? A bail of hay meant to be picked up and moved by a single person doesn't weigh that much. A brief internet search shows that bails tend to weight between 75 and 100 lbs. for a smallish square, going up to 800-1800, but I suspect those figures are taking into account modern farming machinery, but that 800 lbs. bail could be hefted by 2 farmboys if they were just swinging it up onto a cart, which seems fairly accurate to me (well, a little outside of reasonable, but not by too much).
Keep in mind that your average book keeper probably DOESN'T have a 10 Str; they probably have a 9 or an 8, because they don't spend much time at all engaged in rigorous physical activity. I know plenty of people that can't lift 80 lbs. above their heads, and I know a few people that work in physically demanding jobs who would be struggling to lift 200 lbs. above their heads.
As for having greater stamina than other creatures, that's what the human bonus feat, alternate racial abilities, and traits are for. You can take Endurance, Heart of the Fields, a pseudo-Endurance trait (+2 bonus on the same checks), and still have a trait and a feat left to specialize in something. You can run for longer than most other creatures, can stave off fatigue or exhaustion, and just press on in quite an impressive fashion. And that's without even considering Con. What more do you want from a level 1 character?
My biggest problem with the standard NPC array is that you can't build a character who is very good at one thing and above average across the board. There have definitely been Renaissance men who have been strong, agile and hearty, while also being quick-witted, intelligent, and charismatic. Now, some of that can be synthesized with skills and feats: a character with a rank and class skill bonus in Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Bluff is basically charismatic, even with an 8 Cha.
The only other real issue I have is that no one should be getting only 2+Int skill points/level. A commoner-farmer with Heart of the Fields, should be able to, at minimum, invest in Profession (farming), Handle Animal, and Ride, along with probably a Craft, and Survival or Knowledge (nature).
I go through long breaks of not reading this forum because the, "well, elves and s&!&" argument to why we shouldn't try to simulate anything for real life is like nails on a chalk board to me.Nothing is this game is realistic. Things are the way they are because of the mechanical underpinnings of the game itself, not because something is realistic.
After all, this is a game where we pretend to be elves that use magic to fight dragons. Realism shouldn't be part of the conversation.
-Skeld
+10!
Do you keep track of the pretend money you pick up? Do you have a belt pouch to put it in? Do you buy rations for your PC and tick them off when they eat them?
Why?...there are elves and dragons...
|
|
*sigh*
I guess I'm the only one who stats all my NPCs by hand, then?
(yes, all)
I've never really bothered looking at the standard array for NPCs, since I've always done them from scratch like I would a player character.
(My rule of thumb is to use a point buy system one step lower than that which your players used for their characters).
At any rate, I guess the numbers y'all are debating are grounded in realism as compared to the numbers used for PC stats.
Still, I prefer my NPCs to have a good standing relative to the heroes - nothing too weak.
Sometimes I even go in the other direction - It's always a reason to smile when the players realize that the barman whose tavern they have burnt down is actually an Ancient Brass Dragon using alter self. (That or a level 25 Fighter/Ranger build).
Honestly though, I think it should be each to his or her own when it comes to NPC statting.
/tangent.
Back on topic, everyone should use what they feel to be the correct ability score array for their campaign, and what they consider to be fair.
If you feel that the scores as set are too low or too high to be realistic, alter them the other way.
And of course, if you get bored, you can always just try making all of your NPCs either 1hp mooks, or epic-level retired heroes.
I kid, I kid.
Well, sorry to be a pain - this is just my two cents.
Cheers,
Dreamer
|
If an NPC has a background suggesting they might need to be strong, hardy, intelligent, charismatic, etc., then put their high stats in those abilities. They don't need extra ability score bonuses to account for the background.
Not to mention, they need to be smart. Contrary to popular belief...I've spoken to real-life farmers on this topic, and they would agree (one memorably told me that even a "stupid" farmer has to master a long list of skills) but is this relevant to medieval farmers?
I have to wonder if there's "castes" of farmers, with farm workers who are basically laborers and farm "owners"* who have received specialized education.
*Being peasants, they wouldn't actually "own" the farm.
Actually, that's how I've split up "farmers" for my campaign, but it's 4e, so there's no real point of putting their stats here.
That makes sense. I know that there have been in the past big divisons between landowning farmers and hired hands, though I'm not sure in what time periods.
The only other real issue I have is that no one should be getting only 2+Int skill points/level. A commoner-farmer with Heart of the Fields, should be able to, at minimum, invest in Profession (farming), Handle Animal, and Ride, along with probably a Craft, and Survival or Knowledge (nature).
Profession (farmer) is really supposed to cover most or all of the skills a farmer needs to run his farm - no other skills actually affect his earnings. Handle Animal, Ride, or Craft checks to do things a farmer would actually need to do regularly (having an animal perform the "work" trick, make an uncomplicated object such as a spoon or pot, guide a horse using the knees, stay in saddle) are all DC 10 or below, so the farmer can use those skills untrained. Survival is more about getting about in the wilderness than farming and Profession (farmer) can be used to answer questions related to your profession, so it can be used in the same way as Knowledge (Nature) for purposes actually related to farming (as opposed to identifying nonagricultural plants or animals). More skill points are good, but a farmer really doesn't need 3-6 to function.
I've never really bothered looking at the standard array for NPCs, since I've always done them from scratch like I would a player character.
(My rule of thumb is to use a point buy system one step lower than that which your players used for their characters).
I also tend to point buy NPC stats, though the number of points I use varies, usually in the 15-20 range (I don't bother trying to hit 15 or 20 exactly). The PCs use a rolled stats method that normally produces stat arrays worth about 25-30 points.
Educated npcs should have certain minimum int scores, since int is part education, part natural ability, etc...
No, education is not part of Int. From the CRB, "Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons." Not how educated you are, though it may affect your ability to take advantage of an education (because a more intelligent character learns and reasons better). An educated character is not necessarily high Int, instead they have ranks in skills associated with formal education, such as Knowledge, Linguistics, Diplomacy (rhetoric), Perform (instruments) or "higher-class" craft or profession skills such as caligraphy, embroidery, or scribe.
Education does enrich Intelligence, but it's not the same thing. And farmers tend to be very educated -- about farming!
On the skill thing, your average farmer probably maxes out two skills, Profession (farmer) and then one other thing they are known for, probably Handle Animal, Heal, or some Craft skill. An adult farmer with their own land and a couple of kids is probably a Commoner 2. By the time he is dead by malnutrition or attacks by bandits (or bored knights) he might be a Commoner 4. Plenty of skill points, particularly if he takes Endurance and Skill Focus (Profession Farmer). The village blacksmith might be a Warrior 2, and every town probably has a few "wise folk" with Expert levels.
If you want to talk realism, consider this. Farming has to be one of the most physically and mentally difficult professions next to say frontline soldier. And even then, I would still give it to a farmer. Farmers HAVE to be strong to lift what they need to everyday and not kill themselves. They HAVE to be endurant. They get up at 4 am, and stop at 6 or 8 pm... seriously. After a 8 hour work day I feel exhausted, after anything longer and feel like I want to die. They do this EVERYDAY. Not to mention, they need to be smart. Contrary to popular belief, farmers have a great deal of knowledge about animals, plants, weather, machines, you know...farming. They HAVE to know this stuff or there crops die, their animals don't produce, and their machines break down...and then they fail as farmers and we all suffer for it. Out of any profession on the planet, farmers to this day use some the most expensive and advanced equipment we have to offer on a consumer (and non-consumer) level. They must be fully trained in how to use every single piece of that equipment. If you have ever stepped back and REALLY thought about what farmers have to do...its really freaking amazing. That is why there are currently farmer shortages in the real world.I don't really know where I was going with all that...just felt like sharing. Maybe because I do agree that out of all the NPC's stats, the farmer is the only one I COMPLETELY disagree with.
Medieval serf and peasant farmers worked their bu... er, rears off. But complex machinery was not part of their job description. The plow and harness for oxen was high tech. Sickles, hoes, grain flails and bills were primary farm tools. An awful lot of manual labor went into it (not to say modern farmers don't work btw). I'm not saying it was a job for simpletons (smart never hurts) but it was not a job that required a lot of "book learning". Wisdom, maybe more so. Nor was farming in those days efficient as it is today. Then 90%, sometimes more, of the population raised crops to develop the surplus needed to feed the other 10%-. Now one farmer feeds hundreds of people.
One hopes that farming in a fantasy world is more efficient and having gods of agriculture and fertility can't hurt but I don't think they are up to matching a modern combine in action. If you have a yeoman class (landowning commoners who are part of the feudal military system) they are probably more knowledgeable than others.
Having said that, I roll my NPC stats differently. I roll 4d6 drop the lowest for stats that are job related, 3d6 for the rest. That way you get farmers who can farm, smiths who can swing a hammer, etc and still end up with variation in the population.
*sigh*I guess I'm the only one who stats all my NPCs by hand, then?
(yes, all)
No,you're not. I have to admit that I enjoy creating NPCs. Even peasants. It grounds you in the world and is pretty easy if you have some guidelines laid down. Having a bunch of "spares" you can pop into the odd farmstead, village or tavern never hurts when the PCs wonder into places that aren't populated yet.
I've never really bothered looking at the standard array for NPCs, since I've always done them from scratch like I would a player character.
(My rule of thumb is to use a point buy system one step lower than that which your players used for their characters).
I roll dice. 4d6 drop lowest for professionally relevant stats and 3d6 for others. To an extent, I think people put themselves into "shape" for the jobs they do. PCs and elite NPCs get the 4d6 place the numbers method, making them better (better rounded at least) than you're typical NPC. As for stats that just don't seem to fit, plus or minus, the role, they are often a jumping off point for a bit of character building.
At any rate, I guess the numbers y'all are debating are grounded in realism as compared to the numbers used for PC stats.Still, I prefer my NPCs to have a good standing relative to the heroes - nothing too weak.
Sometimes I even go in the other direction - It's always a reason to smile when the players realize that the barman whose tavern they have burnt down is actually an Ancient Brass Dragon using alter self. (That or a level 25 Fighter/Ranger build).Honestly though, I think it should be each to his or her own when it comes to NPC statting.
/tangent.
Back on topic, everyone should use what they feel to be the correct ability score array for their campaign, and what they consider to be fair.
If you feel that the scores as set are too low or too high to be realistic, alter them the other way.
And of course, if you get bored, you can always just try making all of your NPCs either 1hp mooks, or epic-level retired heroes.I kid, I kid.
Well, sorry to be a pain - this is just my two cents.Cheers,
Dreamer
Reality? Verisimilitude, yes. And there is certainly reason for the odd tougher NPC, like the classic retired Fighter / Rogue who owns the tavern. I like the NPC classes myself for most NPCs. It allows the NPCs to be good at their jobs and to not be just "zero level mooks". Without making every NPC a retired adventurer.
The very fact that you can gain skill points in INT from experience necessitates Int being partially education.
Education, beyond just learning new facts, is learning how to learn and reason. Pretty much the definition of INT.
A character probably has a genetic potential INT, and then you add or subtract from that based on education, early childhood training and nutrition, experiences, etc...
I feel that a wizard with an INT score of 17 starting out probably had something like a 13 before his wizardly education. Basically raw natural reasoning ability, prior to learning his letters.
Then as he ages and learns and experiences more, he gains more points. that 17 becomes 18 at his first level he gains an ability point, etc...
You've got it backwards.
There is intelligence, and there is education.
Intelligence is your ability to learn and reason, which can make you easier to educate.
Education is what you have been taught, which can make you SEEM more intelligent.
In D&D/Pathfinder, the order is correct: if you are more intelligent, you gain more skill points (you are better at learning, or being educated than someone that is less intelligent). It doesn't go the other way: you don't gain more Int as you gain skill ranks (claiming education as improving intelligence).
A better example would be taking two pupils, one that is naturally intelligent (A), and one that isn't (B).
Maybe it takes pupil A one year to learn trigonometry, and they have acquired a vocabulary of 20,000 words. In pupil A's second year of schooling, they begin learning calculus.
Maybe pupil B takes two years to learn trig, and their vocabulary is more like 15,000 words. Pupil B doesn't get to calculus until their 3rd year of schooling.
Pupil A's natural intellect means that they can receive and process information more quickly, or better, or can better retain and access that information than pupil B can, so pupil A learns new things faster, can learn more things, and can remember more of the things they have learned.
Now, the difference in intelligence may be irrelevant to some tasks: Profession is a Wis-based skill in this case, and over 3 levels, they could both invest 3 ranks, a class skill bonus, and, say, the same Wis bonus for a 10 Wis, and both will have a +6 in their chosen Profession, but pupil A may also be trained in 3 other skills, while pupil B is trained in only 2 others. Similarly, they both may have attended the same classes about Geography, but pupil A is better at it, because his higher intelligence gives him some sort of edge (either in acquiring the information, retaining it, or remembering it for use later).
In the real world, there is a 3rd factor besides intelligence and education: effort. Pupil A could be smarter, and take the same classes as pupil B, but if A never studies, and B studies all the time, they may end up with even grades or aptitude, and B may even surpass A. In D&D/PF, this is best represented with traits and feats. Pupil B decides that he wants to be really excellent at Geography, so he selects Skill Focus, and ends up being better at it than pupil A, because he invested more in his education.
Finally, increasing Int as you level is less from education and more from exercising the muscle. The brain works like any other muscle in this regard: use it more, and it becomes "stronger," use it less and it "weakens." It's a difference that can be seen between someone who spends 4 hours a day reading novels and someone who spends 1 hour a day reading novels. The first person isn't necessarily better educated, but they are exercising their brain more. Or, as a different example; someone could spend all day playing checkers, and someone else could spend all day playing chess. One is going to require more thought, more planning, more concentration, and even if you aren't being TAUGHT anything, your focus on thinking may result in your being "smarter" in some respects. It's the reason that the elderly are recommended to read more, do crossword puzzles, or Sudoku, and to not take the same route when driving home all the time in order to stave off things like dementia--to keep exercising their brains.
In the psychology classes I've taken, the point has been made that education actually does increase intelligence. It's called enrichment. It's not just "exercise;" more sophisticated mental schema help you process even more complicated ideas.
In the psychology classes I've taken, the point has been made that education actually does increase intelligence. It's called enrichment. It's not just "exercise;" more sophisticated mental schema help you process even more complicated ideas.
That's fair. Still, the way the D&D/PF system is set-up, it seems to support Int-->Education, and experience/exercise--> expanded capabilities (after all, you gain Int, selectively, in the same way you do Str, Dex, Con, Wis and Cha every 4 levels, yet everyone is largely being educated to the same degree).
|
|
In the psychology classes I've taken, the point has been made that education actually does increase intelligence. It's called enrichment. It's not just "exercise;" more sophisticated mental schema help you process even more complicated ideas.
Education is a form of mental exercise. There are also forms of cognitive enrichment other than formal education. Card games, puzzles, reading newspapers, and board games like checkers also qualify.
I think some people here (O.P. included) need to go to a website, The Alexandrian, and look up an article, Calibrating Your Expectations, then reconsider their views on stat arrays. It was written in the days of 3.0/3.5 and/but it still holds pretty true. It might not change your views, but if it doesn't at least make you think then you never had an open mind on the issue.
I think some people here (O.P. included) need to go to a website, The Alexandrian, and look up an article, Calibrating Your Expectations, then reconsider their views on stat arrays. It was written in the days of 3.0/3.5 and/but it still holds pretty true. It might not change your views, but if it doesn't at least make you think then you never had an open mind on the issue.
I totally agree with shoulderpatch.
Here is the link : HERE
I think some people here (O.P. included) need to go to a website, The Alexandrian, and look up an article, Calibrating Your Expectations, then reconsider their views on stat arrays. It was written in the days of 3.0/3.5 and/but it still holds pretty true. It might not change your views, but if it doesn't at least make you think then you never had an open mind on the issue.
Yeah. That's a great article!
|
|
I go through long breaks of not reading this forum because the, "well, elves and s@%%" argument to why we shouldn't try to simulate anything for real life is like nails on a chalk board to me.Nothing is this game is realistic. Things are the way they are because of the mechanical underpinnings of the game itself, not because something is realistic.
After all, this is a game where we pretend to be elves that use magic to fight dragons. Realism shouldn't be part of the conversation.
-Skeld
I get the same nails-on-chalkboard feeling about the never-ending quest for realism in a game that isn't based on reality.
-Skeld
I go through long breaks of not reading this forum because the, "well, elves and s@%%" argument to why we shouldn't try to simulate anything for real life is like nails on a chalk board to me.Nothing is this game is realistic. Things are the way they are because of the mechanical underpinnings of the game itself, not because something is realistic.
After all, this is a game where we pretend to be elves that use magic to fight dragons. Realism shouldn't be part of the conversation.
-Skeld
I get the same nails-on-chalkboard feeling about the never-ending quest for realism in a game that isn't based on reality.
-Skeld
In all fairness Skeld, it IS based on reality. A dragon isn't a real animal, but it has claws as such as we can imagine them on other animals, a scaly-leathery skin as we can see it on other animals, it breath fire which burns, just as the real fire does.
Our ability to invent things does not take away the fundamental concepts from which they were created. So while it is a make-believe world, there are plenty of real-world references such as hatred, hunger, gravity etc. Everything can be altered off course, but we must all be on the same page as to what is altered, what is important, what is changed on purpose etc.
I agree that the never-ending quest for a as-real-as-possible-simulation-of-real-life is going nowhere, but clashing realities can be equally annoying IMO.
I think some people here (O.P. included) need to go to a website, The Alexandrian, and look up an article, Calibrating Your Expectations, then reconsider their views on stat arrays. It was written in the days of 3.0/3.5 and/but it still holds pretty true. It might not change your views, but if it doesn't at least make you think then you never had an open mind on the issue.I totally agree with shoulderpatch.
Here is the link : HERE
See, that's what I'm talking about. Sturdy farmer is Commoner 1 or 2, Str 11, Dex 10, Con 11, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 10. Strong Munroe is Warrior 4, Str 15, and it's said that when his ox went lame, he pushed his own plow. Str 18 is young Conan Strength, it's a high enough bonus to do unskilled any Str-based skill a normal person would need to be trained in. Farmers seem insanely strong to your average modern mouse potato because the farmer has Str 11 and Endurance, and the mouse potato has Str 9 and something like Negotiator or Lightning Reflexes (say, if they live downtown).
1. The ability scores are largely abstract. There are no real benchmarks for what they mean, outside of Strength and carrying/lifting capacity.
2. NPCs have whatever stats the DM needs them to have to fulfill their game role.
To also be fair, gravity caps where you can bombard cities with 7th level fighters from orbit and expect them to get up and start fighting.
The important point is not to have gravity simulated realistically, but to include gravity in the simulation.
The reason as to why gravity isn't perfectly simulated is for ease of play, not because "dragon exist, therefore gravity is linear and limited after such height".
As for farmers, I totally accepted Skeld's point when he said "these are simply base references, you're are reading too much into it" (not actual quote), but he lost me when he said "elves and dragons".
To also be fair, gravity caps where you can bombard cities with 7th level fighters from orbit and expect them to get up and start fighting.The important point is not to have gravity simulated realistically, but to include gravity in the simulation.
The reason as to why gravity isn't perfectly simulated is for ease of play, not because "dragon exist, therefore gravity is linear and limited after such height".
As for farmers, I totally accepted Skeld's point when he said "these are simply base references, you're are reading too much into it" (not actual quote), but he lost me when he said "elves and dragons".
If you're bombarding from orbit, you're doing it with dead bodies. Unless they can breath vacuum. Doesn't matter how many hp they take in the fall. And then, speaking of hp, there's friction / fire for reentry... I think the falling rules are simple minded, but if you're going to apply them in a "realistic" environment, you should have all the other bells and whistles. Cue, various magic items to help them breath and resist fire...
|
|
Supposedly, there was a Norseman that held off an army...the Battle of Stamford Bridge...reports vary on how many he slew with his axe before he was supposedly wounded by a spear through the slats of the bridge, from below...I've seen numbers from 40 to 56. Gotta wonder what level that guys was...and what his stats would have been like!
An eight level fighter ability to kill armed soldiers is simulated in our literature by nothing short of a Demi-god.
Any number of legendary heroes did it. Arturian knights, Charlemagne's paladins, various Greek heroes (many of who were semi-divine I agree) etc. As for real life, one Japanese American U.S. Army sergeant in the Korean War killed over 50 Chinese soldiers, including 10 in hand to hand combat. He got the Medal of Honor for it. Firearms tend to prevent that type of thing normally...
|
|
Supposedly, there was a Norseman that held off an army...the Battle of Stamford Bridge...reports vary on how many he slew with his axe before he was supposedly wounded by a spear through the slats of the bridge, from below...I've seen numbers from 40 to 56. Gotta wonder what level that guys was...and what his stats would have been like!Dian Wei, in ancient Chinese history, did something similar. His exploits were exaggerated (he reportedly wielded two halberds weighing 40 pounds each, and killed enemies with enemy bodies) but in reality he held off a gateway into his army camp by himself wielding a pair of broadswords, finally dying when enemy soldiers broke in through a different gateway and literally stabbed him in the back with long spears. (It was blood loss that killed him.)
Cool.
Ghengis Khan was another...supposedly 17 men went to slay him, and 16 were dead...by his blade...before he died...and the 17th died only shortly after he did, taking a mortal wound in the fight.
Were these guys 6th-8th level, as I keep seeing estimated? With great stats, that could be about right...assuming the men they fought were no more then 2nd to 3rd...but if any of them were better, that calls for the heroes (or villains, YMMV) to be commensurately higher level...
there are both spells and items that don't require you to breathe. Furthermore, that is not in anyway emulated in the system. It happens in real life. There is never any fire damage listed for falling, irregardless of height. So no, no fire damage.I'm running it straight RAW because I'm not arguing for realism in my fantasy game.
Ahem, you brought up "from orbit", not a place that's ever been mentioned in the game I believe. So, you're OK with vacuum, but not friction from reentry? There are magic items that would handle heat as well. And, as I said, cue the magic items... :)
I don't argue for realism myself, just verisimilitude. The game has to allow for the suspension of disbelief (imo) to be well done. My own game doesn't involve "modern science" in any way. It just looks like it until you look under the hood and see how it works. It is internally logical and makes sense of game physics, magic, etc.
I once ran a d20 Star Wars game in which a level 6 Soldier decided to hold off some stormtroopers. Ducking behind cover, wielding paired blasters, he killed thirty-six stormtroopers. The numbers are a little different in Pathfinder, but in general, 5th to 6th level is high enough to kill shockingly large numbers of 1 and 2 HD opponents.