|
Well, 6th level martial characters can survive a direct blow on the neck with a greataxe largely unscathed, so it's not exactly like they are realistic now past level 5...
Of course by 7th level you are already in the realm of the Greek/Roman "demigod" heroes, so the notion of what "realistic" means at that point is rather vague at best.
False comparison. A 6th level garbage sweeper with average hit points (21) could survive an axe blow to the neck, or a fall of 30 feet with no chance of death.
I could stat up a 7th level warrior with NPC pb that could survive "the stupid" (falls from silly heights, sword thrusts/crits, etc) and that doesn't mean he's heroic - it just means that rules don't manage damage/hit points in a realistic fashion.
Damage rules that do not represent reality for all living creatures =/= 7th level demigods.
The two do not equate. Unless the PCs are the only 7th characters in the game or if they are allowed exceptional rules.
----------------------------------
As to the op - this is done so players can identify with the martials ability. I.e. combat from horseback has some basis in reality, even if the rules make it seem ridiculous or unrealistic in implementation.
While combat when running vertically along walls is not a good baseline or standard to start from. Martials are grounded in reality, even if the rules don't manage that well - nor does it make them superheros.
They need a baseline. Weeaboo is not a good baseline since there is no "standard" to work from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Realism isn't really part of the game. I mean, why have an issue with the gunslinger's reloading speed and claim it as realism, but then tell us that when a level 16 monk slips a pound of metal onto his knuckles his damage drop from 2d8 to 1d3? How is that realistic? Surely that metal should enhance his damage? As much as I'd hate to be hit by any martial artist I'd be much more concerned about being punched by the one with knuckle dusters.
The simple answer, at least for me, is that these choices are balance issues. The system can never be fully balanced, due partially to things from 3.5 and partially due to some mistakes made right at the start. But realism isn't really a good excuse either, not in a game where the wizard can regularly violate the laws of physics for fun and profit. Sure, that's magic...but humans can't use magic in real life, so why is them being able to use super human physical feats such a stretch but magic A-OK?
I don't know many people who consider three to four hundred pounds of gear as a light load, either.
Ah well. It's a minor niggle really.
|
|
They need a baseline. Weeaboo is not a good baseline since there is no "standard" to work from.Why do some classes have to start from a realistic baseline while others do not?
They all start from a "realistic" baseline - all the core races and classes - magic is not the characters nor are they composed of magic. The spells are keyed powers that you reference in another section of the book - they are not the character.
It's not my fault they screwed up casting in 3rd ed plus.
|
|
No, I don't run 3rd ed based games anymore so you should take that complaint back to tgd.
Actually, the one defending that screw up is you. You want casters to keep their idiotic level of power and your fix is just to make martials as idiotic in power as casters by making them casters by another name. So you are protecting the status quo of the caster power level because you are so opposed to changing it/giving up power - not me.
Caster/martial balance isn't an issue in my game. This is a d20/3rd ed problem - not mine. My stance is a complete re-write, smash-down on casting and casters.
But where's the money in that?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
They need a baseline. Weeaboo is not a good baseline since there is no "standard" to work from.
If you're going to use a derogatory term at least use it in the right context.
|
|
I didn't know weeaboo was a derogatory term. Would wuxia be a better descriptor? Or should I say Book of 9 Swords?
Try to unclench yourself - my intent was not to debase - it was to illustrate a difference in people who want their martials remotely based in reality vs. people who want their fighters more fantastic: can cast fireballs by swinging their swords, shatter the ground by jumping, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
http://i.imgur.com/LsvEIAj.png%3F1
just saw this image. If this is real, it means the designers design martial characters to be "realistic" instead of "fun" or "balanced"
why is that?
For some of us, a degree of realism in the parts of the world physics that have an equivalent in reality is important. Human limits are human limits.
I have no issue with "fantastic" classes (or archetypes) that take human beings beyond their limitations - the caster classes already do this, so there's no reason why there can't be "magical martials" too. However, I also believe a baseline for normal beings should exist, as well as some classes that adhere to it.
For situations such as the well-debated gunslinger reload, I'd say reloading should be based on realism because there's a realistic equivalent to base it on. That doesn't mean there can't, however, be archetypes, feats, or entire alternative classes as options that can transcend those limitations.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
just saw this image. If this is real, it means the designers design martial characters to be "realistic" instead of "fun" or "balanced"
why is that?
Am I the only one who gets pissed off on the comment? I mean, he spent several hours trying to get a mouse in his hand when the cord was tied to his arm. Please. People who use this have practiced it for freaking months. Plus he is not really a representative of an average warrior.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only one who gets pissed off on the comment?just saw this image. If this is real, it means the designers design martial characters to be "realistic" instead of "fun" or "balanced"
why is that?
No.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im just curious how the weight of a mouse is anything close to the weight of any sort of weapon. I mean a decade ago i remember having this neat little sling like device that attached my equipment back when i was in the army where i could you know drop my rifle to use my hands for something and yet it was still hanging right there for quick and easy usage. As weird as it sounds i thought the weight of it helped with the control.
What always gets me when these questions are asked is the answer "its all 3rd ed's fault". Having played DnD for nearly 35 years i really dont see how 3rd ed is resposible for the martial/caster disparagy. I really dont see how 3rd ed messed up magic to increase that disparagy.
Since the beginning casters could bend reality and the law of physics to there will.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're going to use a derogatory term at least use it in the right context.
They need a baseline. Weeaboo is not a good baseline since there is no "standard" to work from.
Do I need to dig out the "Too Celtic Myth" comment I read recently?
Y'know what I'm gonna do it anyway
I wasn't being sarcastic. I was being exasperated.
Didja know the the greatest hero of Celtic mythology is a sexy bishounen with a rainbow laser sword that cuts the top off of mountains, transforms into demons, is related to dogs (no, really) and has a sapient spear addicted to opium? That their heroes leap absurd distances, get so angry you have to drown them to 'cool them off', and have absurd named attacks & weapons?
That's Celts, mind you. Celts. Y'know, the people who paint themselves blue and fight naked while they scream out bone-chilling battle cries? Those guys?
So every time I hear someone complaining that ToB was Too Asian or Weeaboo Fightan Majeek, I correct it to 'Too Celtic Mythology'. Because it is.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
http://i.imgur.com/LsvEIAj.png%3F1
just saw this image. If this is real, it means the designers design martial characters to be "realistic" instead of "fun" or "balanced"
If it's real, it's MUCH WORSE than that. It means the designers hold high-level martial characters to the standards of what sedentary game designers can do, not what actual athletes can do.
I agree Orthos to some degree. I believe the reason is always give as its too asian/anime is people have elivated asian myths and martial arts through anime to real world god-like status. It does thinks to certain parts of their bodies. Do I have to point out the Katana threads here and all over the net. I think this is why these abilities in books are give a semi-asian feel to them if not look, fanboys get katanas over them.
Just look at the Ninja V Rogue best to look at it East V West, why because fanboys want that or think it has to be that way. I wont get onto the real world asian version and their origins and why fors and how comes, nobody listens.
Myths are just that and you can find examples of warriors doing god-like things in nearly all of them, But like has been said before if martial types had those abilities in the game caster-fanboys would want it nerfed. Do I think martials/fighters should get cool god-like abilities? Sure, does the way they are now stop me or players playing them HELL NO!
Again on the 3rd messed it up in 1st and 2nd fighters got nothing, no cool abilities just the ability to use weapons abit better than others. With 3rd at least you got feats to get some ability.
Going to stop before I get too ranty.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it's real, it's MUCH WORSE than that. It means the designers hold high-level martial characters to the standards of what sedentary game designers can do, not what actual athletes can do.http://i.imgur.com/LsvEIAj.png%3F1
just saw this image. If this is real, it means the designers design martial characters to be "realistic" instead of "fun" or "balanced"
Hmmm... I can appreciate that the dev's are trying to keep the mechanics grounded in reality, but I have to agree with Kirth.
I was just watching an old video of Bruce Lee. The man was playing ping pong with a nunchuka (sp?). I realize he was far from a 1st level fighter, but still, the man was real... so even real examples we have can do some fairly "unrealistic" things given enough talent and training.
|
|
If it's real, it's MUCH WORSE than that. It means the designers hold high-level martial characters to the standards of what sedentary game designers can do, not what actual athletes can do.http://i.imgur.com/LsvEIAj.png%3F1
just saw this image. If this is real, it means the designers design martial characters to be "realistic" instead of "fun" or "balanced"
Yeah, just what I said, albeit less nicely.
Yeah Real life is just like myths, its full of real real-world people who to most can do some pretty out there thinks, just like Mr Lee. martial artists (and I dont just mean Asian martial arts), atheletes and other people at the top of their game.
I remember seeing a video of a guy who trains the swat teams and other high level american law and military guys to shoot pistols. He has someone shoot a 6mm BB out of a BB gun into the air and he draws and shots it from his hip. English medieval records state that some exceptional archers could lose 23+ arrows a minute.
If your going to come up with what someone in the game can do based off what you can do without training then their never going to be fantastical.
I do European medieval martial arts, do I think fighters are unreal because I cant do it NO! Can I fight as good as they did back then? Gods no! Some of the battles lasted days of constant fighting, I give my all for an hour tops in large scale battle and I'm done.
The real question is as the op stated, should martials really be limited to the real world (even real world as Mr Lee) just because they dont use magic? Is everything awesome got to be magic?
So where is this FAQ he mentions? I think this image needs to be posted there and some of these points brought up in contest.
Good idea :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really dont see how 3rd ed messed up magic to increase that disparagy.
No? Then I refer you to compare, say, the AD&D 2nd ed. spell list to the Pathfinder spell list. You'll notice for a lot of these spells, the text has barely changed. A fireball did 10d6 damage 20 years ago, and it does 10d6 damage today. Except today everybody (especially monsters) have a lot more HP than they did in AD&D.
Then there was other minor inconveniences: Like casting speed. How easy it was to get interrupted. How frequent complete magic immunity became in higher levels. Etc.
In short, 3e pretty much just re-printed the spell chapter from 2nd ed but with scarcely any thought to the systems 2nd ed had in place to make spellcasting really inconvenient. The end result was some spells becoming far more powerful than before, and others far weaker.
Personally, I like the level of "power" that magic has in 2nd and 3rd ed. I don't think the balancing act should be to turn all magic into the equivalent of archery attacks, or make swords deal 10d8 damage. The balancing should be to make magic difficult to pull off and easy to interrupt.
I like my magic special. I want "martial" characters to be inherently weaker than magic. If you can be just as strong as magic, just by doing a lot of pushups, I don't really see the point of having magic at all. (Obviously, that's not true for a game like Exalted where everything you do is magic, just not necessarily spell-magic.)
Ok found something, not sure how new it is.
As originally published, this was a swift action. The design team has changed this to a move action. This will be updated in the next printing of Ultimate Equipment.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 10/17/13
A: Core Rulebook page 181 says,
"Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more fr ee actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM."
Core Rulebook page 188 says,
"Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn."
In other words, the GM can allow more or fewer free actions as appropriate to the circumstances.
Update 10/17/13: Specific examples removed.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 10/03/13
Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free.
Swift Action
A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn.
I like my magic special. I want "martial" characters to be inherently weaker than magic. If you can be just as strong as magic, just by doing a lot of pushups, I don't really see the point of having magic at all.
On this, we will never agree.
|
If it's real, it's MUCH WORSE than that. It means the designers hold high-level martial characters to the standards of what sedentary game designers can do, not what actual athletes can do.http://i.imgur.com/LsvEIAj.png%3F1
just saw this image. If this is real, it means the designers design martial characters to be "realistic" instead of "fun" or "balanced"
I think that the kind of tricks most people can't pull off but high level martials can are represented very well through feats in the game.
So, for example, you could keep the cord weapon retrieval as a move action unless a feat is taken to make it a swift action. That way a 1st level commoner won't be able to pull the trick very well, but a fighter could, if he trained at it. Maybe balance issues will require that the feat does something extra besides making it a swift action (to make the option attractive), but the principal remains the same.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, just what we need, more requiring a feat to do things we didn't need a feat for before.
Or allow Quickdraw to reduce it back down to a swift action.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, make Quick Draw part of the Sleight of Hand skill, and make all other juggle-y things dependent on that skill.
You reduce feat expenditures and give skills other than Perception some reason for existing.
I agree Orthos to some degree. I believe the reason is always give as its too asian/anime is people have elivated asian myths and martial arts through anime to real world god-like status. It does thinks to certain parts of their bodies. Do I have to point out the Katana threads here and all over the net. I think this is why these abilities in books are give a semi-asian feel to them if not look, fanboys get katanas over them.
Just look at the Ninja V Rogue best to look at it East V West, why because fanboys want that or think it has to be that way. I wont get onto the real world asian version and their origins and why fors and how comes, nobody listens.Myths are just that and you can find examples of warriors doing god-like things in nearly all of them, But like has been said before if martial types had those abilities in the game caster-fanboys would want it nerfed. Do I think martials/fighters should get cool god-like abilities? Sure, does the way they are now stop me or players playing them HELL NO!
Again on the 3rd messed it up in 1st and 2nd fighters got nothing, no cool abilities just the ability to use weapons abit better than others. With 3rd at least you got feats to get some ability.
Going to stop before I get too ranty.
3rd Edition didn't mess it up but at least in prior editions I got to move and make all of my attacks, I leveled faster, had a better chance of resisting spells, had a better chance to disrupt the spell caster, didn't have to worry about summon spells making me redundant, and didn't need a half-dozen or so magical items just to keep up with the monsters.
So yeah, 3rd did make it a little worse. Plus stuff I could just do as part of a normal attack (tripping, bullrushing, grappling, etc.), I now have to spend feats to do competently. Martials might get feats in 3rd edition but feats aren't that impressive.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, 6th level martial characters can survive a direct blow on the neck with a greataxe largely unscathed, so it's not exactly like they are realistic now past level 5...
Actually no. If your GM or you as a GM describe it like that it's wrong. Hit points represent a mix of the ability to take physical damage and the ability to reduce physical damage to less physical damage, by dodging and weaving. A greataxe hit that deals 24 damage might chop the head of a CON 12 level 1 commoner clean off, but on a Level 5 fighter with CON 14 and about 40 hit points it means the fighter moved out of the way converting it into a glancing hit that maybe leaves a nasty but by no means deadly chest wound.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or, make Quick Draw part of the Sleight of Hand skill, and make all other juggle-y things dependent on that skill.
You reduce feat expenditures and give skills other than Perception some reason for existing.
Now see THIS I can get behind.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually no. If your GM or you as a GM describe it like that it's wrong.
3S, if you try to describe your character with blond hair, you're wrong. I'm telling you that your character's hair is brown.
P.S. I envision hp the way you do, but that doesn't mean everyone else is also required to.
Actually no. If your GM or you as a GM describe it like that it's wrong.3S, if you try to describe your character with blond hair, you're wrong. I'm telling you that your character's hair is brown.
P.S. I envision hp the way you do, but that doesn't mean everyone else is also required to.
I on the other hand am 100% behind higher-level characters being superhumans who can survive blows that would obliterate lesser men.
Just saying, thats what it actually says it represents. Hit points aren't exclusively physical resistance.
Or, make Quick Draw part of the Sleight of Hand skill, and make all other juggle-y things dependent on that skill.
You reduce feat expenditures and give skills other than Perception some reason for existing.
While i don't know that Sleight of Hand (at least as it's fluffed and written currently) is the right skill, I like the idea of coupling weapon/item drawing/juggling actions into a skill of some kind.
Now, I also don't see this being a change we're likely to see in the current Pathfinder ruleset, where-as I do think it's feasible that having it folded into Quickdraw could actually happen.
Maybe for PF 2.0, though... and definitely as house rule.
Well considering this entire thread is a rant about how a core rule re-ruling is a bad idea, I'd say we're already deep into the world of houseruling to solve problems. (And 3pp, if we want to include "making martials keep up with casters" and "expanding the uses of skills beyond Perception" as problems to be solved here.)
|
If it's real, it's MUCH WORSE than that. It means the designers hold high-level martial characters to the standards of what sedentary game designers can do, not what actual athletes can do.http://i.imgur.com/LsvEIAj.png%3F1
just saw this image. If this is real, it means the designers design martial characters to be "realistic" instead of "fun" or "balanced"
The rules for weapon cords, both pre- and post-FAQ, are the same for whoever uses them: Bruce Lee or Stephen Hawking, 20th level fighter or 1st level commoner.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not a fan of anything being weaker than anything else - i want things to be different from each other more than hierarchical.
Now see THIS I can get behind.Or, make Quick Draw part of the Sleight of Hand skill, and make all other juggle-y things dependent on that skill.
You reduce feat expenditures and give skills other than Perception some reason for existing.
I tried to address this in my houserules for my Campaign setting - feats work differently and fighters get more out of them when compared to other classes. Certain feats stack differently/better, and there is a weapon speed component that makes fighters faster- i hope.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules for weapon cords, both pre- and post-FAQ, are the same for whoever uses them: Bruce Lee or Stephen Hawking, 20th level fighter or 1st level commoner.
And this is logical or desirable in what way?
I can absolutely see how magic would be more powerful than swinging a sword, and more effective than most forms of manual labor and even capable of things that are flat-out impossible without it. But this is a game where multiple players work together and everyone is supposed to be and feel useful to the party in some way, so if you can't do magic, you should be accordingly compensated in other ways. In PF that mostly comes in the form of the "less magic, the more hit points" as well as some other factors that are generally considered to not add up to the same value.
And that shouldn't happen. In this game every party member should be equally valuable/powerful/useful all things considered. Though i appreciate its difficult, because weighing the creation of a demi plane versus sword-swinging power is a bit problematic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like my magic special. I want "martial" characters to be inherently weaker than magic. If you can be just as strong as magic, just by doing a lot of pushups, I don't really see the point of having magic at all.On this, we will never agree.
The correct reply is:
I like my martials special. If you can be just as strong as a martial by just sitting down and reading musty old books and waving your fingers around while actually doing nothing, I don't really see the point of being a martial at all (or doing pushups).
==Aelryinth
I can absolutely see how magic would be more powerful than swinging a sword, and more effective than most forms of manual labor and even capable of things that are flat-out impossible without it. But this is a game where multiple players work together and everyone is supposed to be and feel useful to the party in some way, so if you can't do magic, you should be accordingly compensated in other ways. In PF that mostly comes in the form of the "less magic, the more hit points" as well as some other factors that are generally considered to not add up to the same value.
And that shouldn't happen. In this game every party member should be equally valuable/powerful/useful all things considered. Though i appreciate its difficult, because weighing the creation of a demi plane versus sword-swinging power is a bit problematic.
That's the thing here.
Magic is not supposed to be better at doing what a sword can do when swung by a competent sword swinger. Nor is it supposed to be able to withstand the same. I mean, they finally let us chop down walls of force, that's a good start.
But why can't a swordsman parry spells? Cleave them? Hack through things with unbelievable force? There's no reason for the limitation.
==Aelryinth
|
|
I on the other hand am 100% behind higher-level characters being superhumans who can survive blows that would obliterate lesser men.Actually no. If your GM or you as a GM describe it like that it's wrong.3S, if you try to describe your character with blond hair, you're wrong. I'm telling you that your character's hair is brown.
P.S. I envision hp the way you do, but that doesn't mean everyone else is also required to.
Well, you should probably re-write the hit point rules then.
Because as it stands a mid to high level fighter/wizard/whatever uses the same hit point rules as a mid level commoner, high level npc guard (with no name) or an aged Donkey. What you want and what some describe (super human high level) just isn't so - it's just the hit point system as it's currently written and it applies to all creatures based on their hit die.Maybe a better system for martials hit points would be something like a pad luck (hit) point system, that refreshes every encounter - available only to PCs. These can be used in low healing games (since it refreshes) and to resist spells per encounter (spend X luck points vs incoming spell level to resist).
As it stands the current hp system does not reflect superhuman because the only ticket required is hit die, and everything has that.