This thread is inspired in part by the "Ignore me" thread that discusses the perils of high AC characters. The problem, of course, is that smart monsters will realize (eventually) that they can't hit Mr. Cockroach and simply move around him, or resort to other tactics that don't involve AC -- touch attacks, areas of effect, save vs. spells, et cetera.
But I'm wondering how long it would take the monsters -- and by extension, player characters -- to realize that "they can't hit Mr. Cockroach." For example, if I roll a 19 and still miss, then, metagaming, I know instantly that I'm in over my head and should change tactics, but if I roll a 4, a 2, a 3, and another 3 on successive rolls, I know (still metagaming) that my dice are simply trying to kill me, not that I'm overmatched.
How much of this knowledge should be available to the characters? Superficially, the answer could be "none," but this violates verisimilitude. In the real world, I know instantly if I miscue on a pool shot, mess up my footwork on a jump shot, or hit the ball with the edge of the racket instead of the strings, and this could be the case even if I (by luck) managed to succeed on the shot anyway. Similarly, I know if I got a good shot in.
I don't think I'm unusual at that; most of the good pool players I know will know they've missed a shot before I do (and you'll see them turn away from the table in disgust). [Yes, I know, most of the really good players don't miss shots at all.... <rimshot> Happy now?]
So does it make sense that I as a swordsman would know <ooc>rolling a 3</ooc> "well, it would probably work better if I could hold onto the damn sword" vs <ooc>rolling an 18</ooc>"ooh, nice one -- wait a minute, he blocked that?" Is there any support for the idea that rolling an 18 is detectably better than rolling a 3?
Like the examples you gave, I don't see why you wouldn't. Any physical activity/sport I've participated in I always know exactly how well I did. I know the jump shot is off before the ball leaves my hands, that kick had perfect form and power before my foot reaches my partner, etc.
I don't see why it wouldn't extend to mental activities either. How many times have you said to yourself "I should know this but I just can't *think* right now!" or plotted the perfect strategy in a game, etc.
I prefer to think of it in more real-life terms. When you do something you don't know your "roll" or the "Target number" but you do have a good idea about what the task you're trying to accomplish is and how well you did towards accomplishing that task.
Take climbing for example. A mountain climber would know this based on his "rolls" (assume DC 15 with +5 bonus)
20-18: "Damn that was so easy. I never knew I had it in me."
17-12: "That wasn't too hard
11-10: "I barely pulled that off"
9-6: "This was harder than it looked"
5-2: "Crap, I screwed up somewhere."
1: "Oh @#$%!!!"
It's trying to paste something concrete into an abstract system. You don't know in RL exactly how well you "rolled" but you have a general idea of the difficulty of the task and your success in your attempts to overcome it to get it in the same ballpark as your "roll".
|
I would want to factor in some kind of 'rank limit'. Like if you have a +1 BAB you might not realize as soon as someone with a +6. Perhaps a check is in order, or maybe a measurement of the gap of your miss. Miss by a mile and there's a chance it's a fluke.
What about this:
If you fail within a margin of your '+', you know the difficulty IC.
@ writer, mcbobbo,
I think you two are addressing a slightly different question. I'm not asking if I know how hard the task is or whether or not I succeeded. I'm asking if I know how well I did relative to my own skill.
To continue the rock climbing example,... if my grip just slips off a normal-sized rock, that doesn't tell me whether or not I would have made the climb or how difficult the climb is. It tells me that I screwed up as the climber. If, on the other hand, I feel I'm doing a good climb and I still can't make it, I know that the issue's with the rocks, not with me.
Knowing that, of course, will help me decide whether or not to try again. If I know I "rolled badly" IRL, that doesn't tell me how difficult the climb is -- it might still not be makeable -- but it's probably at least worth re-trying. If I "rolled well" and still failed, then I should probably find another route.
|
I think what mcbobbo means is, someone with rank 1 would be more confident than he should be, and not realize as quickly how overmatched he is to the task. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, the less you know the more confident you are, etc etc
A more experienced (rank 6,10 etc) person would have a much more accurate idea of whether trying again is worth it.
I think this is somewhat dependent on circumstance.
In some cases (like rolling damage and having it not make it through DR, ie "I gave him my best shot and he didn't even care!") then the character should get some feedback from the GM. This will help the player determine what his character is noticing and what he is not.
In other cases the character may have no idea(like perception in lots of cases, a character would not know he was not paying enough attention before the ninja sneak attacks him, if he knew he wasn't paying enough attention, then he'd be paying more attention, right?).
This allows for alot of versatility and creativity, but could (and should, in my opinion) be tailored for the table. Some groups may feel like any roll under a 5 means the character has no idea he's doing so badly (I rolled a 2 on my stealth check and think I'm totally hidden as I stand in this well lit room), other may feel like the character should get a perception check to see if he hears how loud he's being. I think this allows for more depth to the roleplaying experience, but each group is different.
It depends.
For something with physical aspects, such as trying to hit someone, or break down a door, yes a PC knows how well (relative to their own abilities).
For something which doesn't, such as say a Perception check or Knowledge check, the PC won't know how observant they've been.
Then there's combinations... for instance: now that we don't have a Use Rope skill, I allow Dex checks to tie ropes. Then I allow a Perception to check how well they've done. The PC knows if they've been fumble-fingered during the Dex check but they don't know the DC. They can review their knot to see if there's anything obvious wrong but if they roll badly they just don't know.
As the GM I will frequently tell the player something like "You feel your attack was at or near the limit of your skill, yet you still failed to damage your opponent" to give them a chance to think "oh, maybe I'm not good enough to take this guy down yet."
If a player rolls very low, I will also sometimes give feedback like "While your attack did not do any damage, you know that wasn't nearly your best shot."
In general I treat the situation as if the PC would have some idea of how well they had executed their attack. I do a fair number of physical activities, such as shooting, archery, juggling, etc. In general I know when I've not executed a move properly. If my finger twitches on the trigger, or my elbow flexes when I'm shooting a bow or my juggle toss is off-target, I usually know instantly that I didn't pull the maneuver off properly, and that's how I view the character reacting to a particularly poor or excellent maneuver.
Piggybacking off this, should someone know how well they saved?
Or even recognize the concept of saves?
Would every enchantment/illusion spec spellcaster see a party with a fighter and instantly know who to target?
Piggybacking off this, should someone know how well they saved?
Or even recognize the concept of saves?
Would every enchantment/illusion spec spellcaster see a party with a fighter and instantly know who to target?
Well, breaking this down -- the characters would not have the idea of rolling dice for saves, obviously. But every spellcaster certainly and the general population probably would know that some kinds of magic are unreliable and that some types of magic affect different target populations differently, so the enchanter would definitely know that his spells are more likely to affect the fighter than the cleric.
As to whether someone should know how well they saved,.... I'm torn. Like Perception checks, I don't know what you could "do" differently to be more or less Fortitudinous. (And unlike weapon attacks, where "hold on to the damn handle next time, ya moron" is a sensible comment.)
Piggybacking off this, should someone know how well they saved?
Or even recognize the concept of saves?
Would every enchantment/illusion spec spellcaster see a party with a fighter and instantly know who to target?
Yes and no.
In the old days saving throws were considered pure metagaming. There was no specific indication that a player character knew that anything was going on. In the latest rules there are notes that a PC does get a sense that something just happened, but not very specific.
An example of the difference, one of my best players in an old 2e game used his magic axe to attack something that caused a saving throw or the axe was ruined. He made his save, but kept attacking. I asked him why he would keep attacking after being told he needed to make a save, and he said "I made a save, but my character didn't." And he eventually destroyed his axe in the attack.
Today that wouldn't be quite the same. Today I would say "As you made your attack with your axe, you felt a sense of vague foreboding, as if you narrowly missed some bad luck." Or words to that effect.
One of my major problems with the class system in Pathfinder is the class-specific save progression. It makes no sense to me that fighters should be any less capable of noticing an illusion than, say, a druid. I don't play my NPCs as having that sort of class-specific knowledge. But you could argue that over time a careful study of the reactions of different types of characters would allow a clever individual to realize that such class differences exist and exploit them. I don't do that though.
Piggybacking off this, should someone know how well they saved?
Or even recognize the concept of saves?
If someone launches a fireball, it's pretty apparent if you got out of the way or not.
With more subtle spells (like a compulsion effect) it may be less apparent. I've seen GMs say something like, "You felt a sudden urge to murder your friends, but you shrug off the disturbing thought". I've seen other GMs not even mention it (ie, you make the roll and then just move on if nothing happens).
I think I prefer the first option myself, as it adds more player interaction, but both work fine.
Would every enchantment/illusion spec spellcaster see a party with a fighter and instantly know who to target?
Debatable depending on the setting. I would think in a world where typically dudes in armor aren't as good at spotting illusions as dudes in robes, that wizards would probably pick up on the pattern w/ their high Intelligence. :P
Edit: B/c I use words wrong sometimes.
One of my major problems with the class system in Pathfinder is the class-specific save progression. It makes no sense to me that fighters should be any less capable of noticing an illusion than, say, a druid. I don't play my NPCs as having that sort of class-specific knowledge.
Does it make sense that a 6'2" fighter with a 5% body fat percentage would be better at shrugging off poison than a pudgy 5'6" wizard? Or that a rogue would be better at getting out of the way of a trap than a cleric?
I think that class-specific abilities are just ways to abstract general attributes that tend to go with the group. I don't think I really want to have to track "body fat percentage" as a new stat.
One of my major problems with the class system in Pathfinder is the class-specific save progression. It makes no sense to me that fighters should be any less capable of noticing an illusion than, say, a druid. I don't play my NPCs as having that sort of class-specific knowledge.Does it make sense that a 6'2" fighter with a 5% body fat percentage would be better at shrugging off poison than a pudgy 5'6" wizard? Or that a rogue would be better at getting out of the way of a trap than a cleric?
I think that class-specific abilities are just ways to abstract general attributes that tend to go with the group. I don't think I really want to have to track "body fat percentage" as a new stat.
No and no. And on top of that, no.
First of all, poison resistance in the real world is not tied to body fat or lack thereof. Nor is it tied to overall being "in shape" or out. In general one's resistance to poison is more or less a genetic or body chemistry thing.
Secondly, rogues already have an "advantage" in trap avoidance over a cleric because players playing rogues will tend to invest more heavily in dexterity as an attribute than players playing clerics, so that is already built into the game mechanic.
Finally, if I decide for some reason to put an 18 into my fighter's wisdom, why should another character with an 18 wisdom have a better will based saving throw than my fighter simply because they belong to a different class? What is the basis to say they should be better?
Of course I have bemoaned the arbitrary limitations of the class-based system many times before on these boards. I really dislike the class mechanic pretty much in every detail. I would prefer that my character's abilities be based entirely on their attributes and the skills they chose to invest in.
Just like, you know, in the real world.
I think in general characters know how well they rolled except on rolls made by the GM.
For example, in a fight, you roll a 19 and fail to hit. You know that without significant help (more bonuses, giving the opponent negatives, etc.) that this guy is very hard to land a damaging hit on.
On the don't know rolls; Perception. You are walking along a road, and you look around, you don't know how well you did or didn't look, and only know what you saw. That is why perception is a GM roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No and no. And on top of that, no.First of all, poison resistance in the real world is not tied to body fat or lack thereof. Nor is it tied to overall being "in shape" or out. In general one's resistance to poison is more or less a genetic or body chemistry thing.
Er, wrong. There's a reason that toxicity is typically described in terms of units per kg; with very few exceptions, there is a threshold below which the body can process the toxic substance without ill effect. However, fat cells are not generally involved in the processing.
That's why, for example, two people can drink the same number of (alcoholic) drinks and have vastly different blood alcohol levels. The larger you are, the fewer ml/kg you have actually drunk and the lower your effective dose. If I weigh 100kg and you weigh 50kg, I can superficially drink twice as much as you and suffer similar effects. (That's one reason that women typically have lower alcohol tolerance than men.)
But body fat plays a role as well, or more accurately does not play a role. Body fat doesn't process alcohol, so if 40kg of my 100kg are body fat, I "really" only process alcohol like a 60kg person. If only 2kg of your 50 are fat, you "really" process alcohol like a 48kg person, so in fact, our drinking capacities are probably a lot more similar. (That's another reason that women typically have lower alcohol tolerance than men. Boobs are mostly fat.)
If you're in shape (i.e. have a higher basal metabolism) and I'm not you'll also probably metabolize faster, which means you might well be able to drink my fat arse under the table.
All this is well understood in toxicological circles.
Secondly, rogues already have an "advantage" in trap avoidance over a cleric because players playing rogues will tend to invest more heavily in dexterity as an attribute than players playing clerics, so that is already built into the game mechanic.
But they also have an advantage in being trained in trap avoidance irrespective of dexterity.
Finally, if I decide for some reason to put an 18 into my fighter's wisdom, why should another character with an 18 wisdom have a better will based saving through than my fighter simply because they belong to a different class? What is the basis to say they should be better?
The basis is the fact that their training regime and background has given them additional ways to use their mental strength while your training has focused on physical strength. Meditation, for example, which is a standard religious practice across cultures, is a good way of developing focus, concentration, resistance to distraction, and so forth. Skipping rope is a good way of developing cardiovascular health, basal metabolism, and muscle strength. How many hours per day do you spend skipping rope vs. meditating?
I would prefer that my character's abilities be based entirely on their attributes and the skills they chose to invest in.
Just like, you know, in the real world.
Except in the real world you're the product of years of detailed individual activities, all of which have changed you. There's no way to summarize that into a character sheet. Some of it needs to be abstracted. LIke: clerics have good Will saves.
Some of that could be descriptive. Did the character "swing wildly", or did the opponent "easily avoid"? Did the attack "skip harmlessly off of the opponents armor", or did it "hit fully against his breastplate with no effect"?
While not obvious to the point of metagaming, one could tell you that you flubbed the attack, while the other might tell you that you are overmatched. In both cases, it might take you (or your character) multiple attempts to get a full read on the situation.
I suppose if you define "poison" as "alcohol" your points all make sense. First I DON'T define poison that way, and second, yes, body mass can make a difference, but body mass is not remotely tied to any character class.
Then there's combinations... for instance: now that we don't have a Use Rope skill, I allow Dex checks to tie ropes. Then I allow a Perception to check how well they've done.
Rope/bindings : Binder's CMB +20
So, you want whoever has the highest CMB to do the tying. For example, a Fighter has a CMB of 12. That means if he ties someone up, that person has to make a CMB check of 32 to escape the bonds, or he has to make an Escape Artist check of 32 to wriggle free.
I suppose if you define "poison" as "alcohol" your points all make sense. First I DON'T define poison that way, and second, yes, body mass can make a difference, but body mass is not remotely tied to any character class.
Alcohol is a type of poison/"harmful chemical substance". He used that because it's not as harmful as, say, arsenic, therefore it's easier to use an example (most people have drunk alcohol. Not so many have been poisoned by arsenic). This is why getting drunk is technically called "intoxication". Note the word "toxic" in there.
Then there's also the people that die from alcohol POISONING.
Since I know you're gonna go "Nuh-uh" at me like you usually do, here's the medical definition of poison:
1. (Medicine) any substance that can impair function, cause structural damage, or otherwise injure the body
Alcohol:
Impairs function? Check. Slurred speech, reduced muscle coordination, dehydration, etc..
Causes structural damage? Check. Liver failure.
Alcohol is a poison, albeit one that can be used safely in moderation. It uses the same principles as any other poison when detecting or resisting it.
I think yes they have too/will know...just as though know something is 840 ft for a spell
By that definition Rynjin WATER is a poison.
By that definition Rynjin WATER is a poison.
In extremely large quantities, it is.
Ever heard of water poisoning? People die from it when they drink too much water (usually in water drinking contests). It was on the news a couple of years back, even.
The difference here is that while water must be consumed in ludicrous quantities to poison you, alcohol does not.
And just to give you another hint, how much water is too much water is based on your body mass.
So by qualifying EVERYTHING (including air, since hyperventilating can actually kill you) as a poison, you've successfully defended calling alcohol a poison.
Congratulations. Everything is poisonous. Everything.
So by qualifying EVERYTHING (including air, since hyperventilating can actually kill you) as a poison, you've successfully defended calling alcohol a poison.
Congratulations. Everything is poisonous. Everything.
Yes. If you consume too much of ANYTHING relative to your BODY MASS it will POISON you.
Thank you for finally stating the obvious.
The only difference between what you would define as "poison" (cyanide, arsenic, snake/spider venom, etc.) and other substances is the ratio of substance:body mass required to kill you.
For alcohol, the ratio is fairly large, For water, even larger. For cyanide, much smaller. The fact still remains that the principles for resisting these effects are the same.
I'm stating the obvious because you seem to be missing it.
If everything is poisonous then the word has no actual semantic meaning.
This is absolutely pointless anyway. The only reason it came up is because Orfamay claimed that there was some rationale where different classes would have different resistance to poison, and when pressed he used alcohol (which I still say is not a poison) and claimed that there was a class linkage because of body mass index or something.
His point is well refuted and this whole mess about alcohol, water or air being poison is just semantic penis measuring.
I suppose if you define "poison" as "alcohol" your points all make sense. First I DON'T define poison that way, and second, yes, body mass can make a difference, but body mass is not remotely tied to any character class.Alcohol is a type of poison/"harmful chemical substance". He used that because it's not as harmful as, say, arsenic, therefore it's easier to use an example (most people have drunk alcohol. Not so many have been poisoned by arsenic). This is why getting drunk is technically called "intoxication". Note the word "toxic" in there.
And also because alcohol is one of the few reasonably toxic substances with which people routinely self-medicate and where there's an extensive and publically accessible literature about dose-response curves.
Few people write about "don't drink too much water lest you come down with hydration poisoning", nor do people typically try to take arsenic or snake venom to make a social evening more pleasant and then wonder whether or not they're safe to go home.
With very few exceptions -- I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'll defer to someone whose toxicology class was more recent than mine -- all toxins display a dose-response curve. Also with very few exceptions, this dose-response curve varies substantially with body mass, body composition, and baseline metabolism. The bigger you are and the more muscular you are, the more likely you are to shrug off the effect of a snakebite. [Barring allergies and similar rare pathological conditions.] Or a spider bite. Or an arsenic-and-tonic cocktail.
You -- or anyone else reading -- is welcome to correct any statement up there that is incorrect.
That's true to some extent in the real world as well, depending upon what you mean by "faster metabolism." Exercise or similar exertion above basal metabolism can cause poisons to have a quicker and more significant effect; that's one reason they tell you not to move if you've been bitten by a snake. Walking around, or worse, running, will pump blood faster, which in turn will move the poison from the wound area into all areas of the body, including the ones that are, er, "not improved" by snake venom.
What I was talking about was simply basal metabolism in the sense of being able to more efficiently process stuff. The faster your liver can filter the toxins out of the blood, the less damage will be done. So what you want is a good cardiovascular system (that can move the blood through the liver efficiently) and a good liver (that isn't impaired by fatty tissue deposits), and an otherwise calm and sedate environment (so your system has the luxury of pumping blood through your liver instead of through the muscles, heart, and lungs).
Sorry about the confusion.
Huh.
In the Fallout universe, faster metabolism = less resistant to poison.
That is not unreasonable.
Metabolism plays 2 parts in poisoning.
1. Do you survive? How bad in the initial reaction for the poison?
2. How fast do you recover?
Faster Metabolic speed could very well make the initial reaction worse(IE higher chance of death), while improving recovery time.
I googled 'is alcohol a poison' and the number one answer was 'no, unless you want to be really pedantic and define just about everything as a poison'. So you're all correct!
Although that doesn't explain why a fighter or cleric is more physically resistant to poison than a wizard with the same Str, Con and Dex.
Although that doesn't explain why a fighter or cleric is more physically resistant to poison than a wizard with the same Str, Con and Dex.
Because the fighter probably works out more, and hence is in better general physical condition.
That is not unreasonable.
Metabolism plays 2 parts in poisoning.
1. Do you survive? How bad in the initial reaction for the poison?
2. How fast do you recover?Faster Metabolic speed could very well make the initial reaction worse(IE higher chance of death), while improving recovery time.
+1
in the real world, when fighting someone (my experience is TKD and fencing) you tend to figure out pretty quick if you are overmatched (or overmatch) your opponent, unless they actively try to fool you (which IMO would require a bluff check vs. weapon skill and maybe a minus to your attack). Within 2-3 rounds max you know if you are in trouble or not and adjust your tactics...like all-out-defense
Same with damage - again unless they try to fool you. One senses the slowing down, the limited movements, the hard breathing...and goes for the kill (or rests if you have another tough match coming up and you are assured of winning, and do not need the extra points)...but a skilled opponent can also trick you and suck you in for the kill.
So I let the players use their knowledge of the to-hit dice rolls, and although I do not advertise remaining hit points, I do tell them "your foes is below half" or "your foe is nearing zero". If they miss due to a high deflection bonus, I usually let them know that normally they would have hit this target....and if it is a dodge bonus I describe how the foe "dodged away from your blow that normally would have hit"...if they are all-out-defending I describe how they avoided attacking to bolster their defense...etc (so the players generally know if an opponent is doing something extra)
In my experience, 90% of the time the players still miss metagaming opportunities even when I do this (splitting blows between 2 weak opponents, etc) so I do not think it gives them an unfair advantage, but instead adds color and makes the battles more memorable.
Calling alcohol a "poison" is exactly as accurate as calling carbon dioxide a "pollutant" and has exactly the same rationale and motivation.
Calling alcohol a "poison" is exactly as accurate as calling carbon dioxide a "pollutant" and has exactly the same rationale and motivation.
Well, I'm glad you've announced that you have no intention of ever being taken seriously again by anyone.
There is the medical condition of "alcohol poisoning" so I would say that pretty strongly says alcohol is a poison.
In pathfinder terms however, its a drug. See dwarven fire ale.
There is the medical condition of "alcohol poisoning" so I would say that pretty strongly says alcohol is a poison.
In pathfinder terms however, its a drug. See dwarven fire ale.
There is also a medical condition of "water poisoning". I suggest that if you raise the idea that water is poison at your next dinner party, you will be laughed out of the room.