I feel as though for many, and at times myself, this stems from a want to preserve a theme, a setting, and/or a feeling associated with that campaign.
If you are in a mid-east setting for a campaign, you probably would feel a bit odd if all the denizens of that area were fair-skinned. I wouldn't expect to see Samurai walking around a western Europe themed area unless there was a good reason in the plot for this to happen.
For myself, I personally really enjoy playing a campaign that is well-themed. Any cross-over needs to be well explained and purposeful for me to enjoy it. I think it comes down to personal preferences.
My problem with HP = meat has always been that characters don't increase their bone and muscle density as they gain hit points, however wacky the physics of the D&D world have to be to account for falling damage. Although, in the time it took me to write the previous sentence, I've decided that I'm perfectly fine with CON = meat, and a house rule allowing critical hits to do the regular weapon damage as Constitution ability damage.Would you mind pointing out where the rules explicitly say that the characters' bone and muscle density isn't going up as the gain hit points?
That's a totally viable explanation for something as abstract as HP.
I guess it's in the vital statistics section where there's no mention of weight increasing with level? :P
Edit: What's funny is, today's Unearthed Arcana at the WotC site has variant rules for Vitality in place of hit points; I'll be right over here re-inventing the wheel lol.
the PC's bodies becoming denser without their weight changing :P
that means they got smaller... else their density didn't change.
the PC's bodies becoming denser without their weight changing :Pthat means they got smaller... else their density didn't change.
So at a certain level you can become a black hole? AWESOME!
the PC's bodies becoming denser without their weight changing :Pthat means they got smaller... else their density didn't change.I'm thinking you're missing my intention to bypass physics in the same manner that other aspects of the ex world in D&D/Pathfinder does?
Whether it's explained through density or something else, all I'm saying is more HP = more able to endure physical damage.
Heck it's even in the Coup De Grace rules. The amount of damage dealt by a Coup De Grace [against a Helpless Target] is no different from a normal critical hit with the weapon. You can totally survive being Coup De Graced if you have enough hit points, because you're just that tough.
I think you're ignoring what density means.
2nd I think HP is best delt with abstracted
3rd, a coup requires a fortitude save...
the PC's bodies becoming denser without their weight changing :Pthat means they got smaller... else their density didn't change.I'm thinking you're missing my intention to bypass physics in the same manner that other aspects of the ex world in D&D/Pathfinder does?
Whether it's explained through density or something else, all I'm saying is more HP = more able to endure physical damage.
Heck it's even in the Coup De Grace rules. The amount of damage dealt by a Coup De Grace [against a Helpless Target] is no different from a normal critical hit with the weapon. You can totally survive being Coup De Graced if you have enough hit points, because you're just that tough.
I don't care how "tough" you are, getting stabbed in the throat or face kills you more often than not. A Coup de Grace is literally a death blow. It is a blow you line up specifically to kill. If that didn't kill someone I would be utterly terrified.
I don't care how "tough" you are, getting stabbed in the throat or face kills you more often than not. A Coup de Grace is literally a death blow. It is a blow you line up specifically to kill. If that didn't kill someone I would be utterly terrified.the PC's bodies becoming denser without their weight changing :Pthat means they got smaller... else their density didn't change.I'm thinking you're missing my intention to bypass physics in the same manner that other aspects of the ex world in D&D/Pathfinder does?
Whether it's explained through density or something else, all I'm saying is more HP = more able to endure physical damage.
Heck it's even in the Coup De Grace rules. The amount of damage dealt by a Coup De Grace [against a Helpless Target] is no different from a normal critical hit with the weapon. You can totally survive being Coup De Graced if you have enough hit points, because you're just that tough.
First campaign I ever played in [as a 12 year old Swashbuckler type], I got Paralyzed and Coup De Graced by a Greatsword. On the neck.
It bit but didn't cleave through, because at level 9 she had too much HP for that crit to kill, and her Fort Save was high enough that the roll resulted in her survival.
EDIT: thinking back I assume it was a greatsword, but all I can remember 100% for certain was that it was a sword wielded in two hands by a Hobgoblin. Total damage after the crit was 20-something
[and no, the GM didn't fudge the damage, it was rolled right infront of me.]
That's the thing, I don't care how "tough" you are realistically, getting stabbed in the throat generally kills people. Getting stabbed in the throat with a sword ends up with you looking like Nearly Headless Nick. And yet you can still get up and walk around (lets assume the CDG you while you were asleep from a spell). That is terrifying. That is damn near magic.
Amusing thing on physics: Attack on Titan manga, one of the funny points about the Titan is that they weigh much, much less then a human of that size actually would.
Heh.
==Aelryinth
#3: Yes, yes it does. I've made that save, as have some of my players when I've GM'd.
well then, it;s not a normal crit.
also, impressive fortitude rolls i guess.
he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die.
yesterday i ran my campaign, someone coup de grace'd for 33 damage on an enemy, no way was he making a DC 43 fort save.
Amusing thing on physics: Attack on Titan manga, one of the funny points about the Titan is that they weigh much, much less then a human of that size actually would.
Heh.
==Aelryinth
THEY'RE PLANT PEOPLE!
I'm aware, the DC was 30-something. Totally doable for Martial PCs.
yeah it definitely wasn't in your favor, your character essentially kept themselves from bleeding out.
Yes, something weird happened and a few people survived the 1 in a million chance. But I have had players that jump off cliffs in full armor with packs because it is faster and easier than climbing down the stairs (plus the GM might have put an ambush in there). They survive every time. They literally can't be killed by the fall because the max damage it can do is less than their hitpoints.
.
So at a certain level you can become a black hole? AWESOME!the PC's bodies becoming denser without their weight changing :Pthat means they got smaller... else their density didn't change.
I think some players are already a hole...
In fairness to realism, chopping someone's head off in a single clean blow was pretty tricky. There'a reason executioners who could do that consistently were valued.
Surviving the for save would probably mean something like the blade not cutting through the spine. Still horrendously injuring, but not immediately fatal.
Or not fatal at all, really. Bleed damage is a thing that only happens when it's specifically called out.
you would also have to resist the shock, which could be your fort save covers, and since the HP is also partly luck the attack into your neck didn't properly hit to cause a fatal blow.
I think you all are also underestimating the whole Juggular thing... and how fast you bleed out from a severed artery..
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you all are also underestimating the whole Juggular thing... and how fast you bleed out from a severed artery..
I think you are overestimating how well Pathfinder expects to simulate reality.
I think you all are also underestimating the whole Juggular thing... and how fast you bleed out from a severed artery..
they missed
I think you all are also underestimating the whole Juggular thing... and how fast you bleed out from a severed artery..they missed
Maybe with a dagger... but Greatsword or Scythe lol.
|
I'm very much not a fan of the current gamer activity of slapping the term "fallacy" to the end of your opinion to give it an air of authority and deeper meaning.
I don't think “historical accuracy” counts as a logical fallacy.
The writer of the blog and the OP are presenting it as such, but the argument is not inherently flawed to the same extent as other logical fallacies, and really only applies to the one argument.
First, the "historical fallacy" overlaps a little with the existing "no true Scotsman" fallacy. And the fallacy of division applied to history.
So there's that.
It's kinda insulting. Like saying "no, you're not just wrong, but fundamentally and logically wrong."
And more than a little hypocritical. The linked blog says:
Why Do We Use This Faulty Logic?
To win arguments, mostly.
But, by posting the blog, that's exactly what the author is trying to do as well: trying to decisively win their argument.
Plus, y'know, just because and argument contains a logical fallacy doesn't make it wrong. Aka the fallacy fallacy.
I would be content if the game outright came out and said "Yeah, it was magic all along!"
But no.
Can't have that.
Can't just come out and say it.
Probably would be harder to justify if everyone gets magical ability to survive damage, why everyone doesn't have at least some at-will magical powers.
Maybe with a dagger... but Greatsword or Scythe lol.I think you all are also underestimating the whole Juggular thing... and how fast you bleed out from a severed artery..they missed
yep, got tangled in the armor, cut into some muscle but thankfully was an inch away from the artery.
This is assuming the character in question was wearing armor, mine wasn't. [2 Monk levels, among other things.]yep, god tangled in the armor, cut into some muscle but thankfully was an inch away from the artery.Maybe with a dagger... but Greatsword or Scythe lol.I think you all are also underestimating the whole Juggular thing... and how fast you bleed out from a severed artery..they missed
it got tangled in his own armor, the poor guy didn't strap his bracer correctly.
this isn't hard, this is how i GM so it comes pretty naturally.
Well, what sometimes annoys us historian-types is when changes are made which are unnecessary. When you dump historically accurate for playability, fine.
But when it adds nothing and thus only detracts- then why?
A perfect example is the names for armor.
Scale mail hadn't been in use for nearly a millennium. But Brigantine was common, and woudl fill the exact same niche. So why call it scale mail?
Studded leather, Half plate and others are also similarly wrong.
As far a a coup de gras failing I give you: (gruesome stuff ahead, but real history)
Lady Margaret de la Pole : a fragile, old sick woman-
http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.com/2011/05/may-27th-1541-execution-o f-margaret-de.html
"The novice executioner brought in to carry out the countess's last minute dispatch panicked and the execution was a hideous affair, with the axe swinging into Margaret's head, neck and shoulders for several minutes. After ten or eleven blows, she was dead..."
Mary Queen of Scots:
http://www.aintnowaytogo.com/beheading.htm
"When Mary, Queen of Scots, was executed at Fotheringay Castle in 1587, a clumsy headsman gave her three strokes without quite managing to sever her head.
The headsman then had to saw though the skin and gristle with his sheath knife before the job could be regarded as complete. "
There are others. So yeah, someone who is totally helpless can survive being hit by a heavy axe.
Heh, I'm sure it is ^_^
I'd do pretty close to the exact same, except not bother with the weird artificial fumble bit.
Sword hit, sword dug into muscle and left a significant but not life-threatening [unless it dealt enough HP damage to bring the victim to dying or carried a Bleed effect] gash.
my player's i guess are just more aware that anything "significant" to the upper torso is going to involve a lot of blood or loss of motor control to a limb.
So there's this weird habit a lot of gamers seem to have, though most of us have been guilty of it at some time. When presented with an idea that jars us, or which we don't like but can't figure out why, we'll point out how in history that didn't happen. You see it regarding why people shouldn't be allowed to play gunslingers, why only certain ethnicities of humans should only be allowed in certain parts of the world, etc.
I've thought a lot about this, and the only conclusion I've reached is that when most of us who use this kind of logic have never really examined it.
The "Historical Accuracy" Fallacy
What are your thoughts on this?
You know, you make a decent argument, but not when you drag in the old "logical fallacy" fallacy. See, most "logical fallacies' are not. They are not fallacies in logic at all. They are informal fallacies. Mostly, using a informal fallacy is perfectly OK outside your high school debating team.
For example, take the ad hominem 'fallacy". Not acceptable in a formal debate, but sometimes/often OK IRL, as wiki sez:"When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]"
Similar things can be said about "Argument from authority" which can not be used in formal debates but is a normal thing to use IRL. Once, for example the Design team makes a ruling on rules, it's pretty much over, and citing them is technically a "Argument from authority" , but that's by no means a 'fallacy".
Generally, when on a message board, in this informal setting, the poster who attempts to rebut another poster by pointing out the "logical fallacy" is just being a jerk.
So, altho you make a good point, you lost me there.
I think this another issue that can also influence these conversations is the "Reality is Unrealistic" trope. Frankly, most people who haven't spent significant time researching history (not just history of course, a great many subjects), are wrong because they're relying on common knowledge and pop culture, which as it turns out, is wrong quite often.
I would like a Japanese Iceland now.
I would like a Japanese Iceland now.
The northern most great island of the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) from Rite Publishing is called Genshu, somewhat like the subarctic Japanese island of Hokkaido, though larger. Genshu features the largest active volcano of Kaidan. In many way this fits a "Japanese Iceland", except for the lack of vikings...
AMF doesn't work on things which are self sustaining, like Golems and Undead.
Just say that high level PCs have their own special inner magicalness that lets them walk off orbital drops. It's on the inside though, so it can't just be turned off.
The problem with historic accuracy is that it changes from time to time when new things about history are discovered.
For a long time historians claimed that people did not wear underwear in the middle ages. Their reasoning was that they have no evidence of the existence of underwear so there has not been any.
But some time ago (2008) medieval underwear was found that survived the ages. And to much surprise there was even some kind of bra which was supposedly invented around 1889.
So until 2008 playing a female pc wearing a bra would have been historically incorrect. But since then it is ok.
I'm very much not a fan of the current gamer activity of slapping the term "fallacy" to the end of your opinion to give it an air of authority and deeper meaning.
I don't think “historical accuracy” counts as a logical fallacy.
The writer of the blog and the OP are presenting it as such, but the argument is not inherently flawed to the same extent as other logical fallacies, and really only applies to the one argument.First, the "historical fallacy" overlaps a little with the existing "no true Scotsman" fallacy. And the fallacy of division applied to history.
So there's that.It's kinda insulting. Like saying "no, you're not just wrong, but fundamentally and logically wrong."
And more than a little hypocritical. The linked blog says:
Why Do We Use This Faulty Logic?
To win arguments, mostly.But, by posting the blog, that's exactly what the author is trying to do as well: trying to decisively win their argument.
Plus, y'know, just because and argument contains a logical fallacy doesn't make it wrong. Aka the fallacy fallacy.
So do you think what is "historically accurate" in England must be what is historically accurate in Varisia? Because that is the argument the article is calling fallacious.
Well, what sometimes annoys us historian-types is when changes are made which are unnecessary. When you dump historically accurate for playability, fine.
But when it adds nothing and thus only detracts- then why?
A perfect example is the names for armor.
Scale mail hadn't been in use for nearly a millennium. But Brigantine was common, and woudl fill the exact same niche. So why call it scale mail?
Studded leather, Half plate and others are also similarly wrong.
As far a a coup de gras failing I give you: (gruesome stuff ahead, but real history)
Lady Margaret de la Pole : a fragile, old sick woman-
http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.com/2011/05/may-27th-1541-execution-o f-margaret-de.html
"The novice executioner brought in to carry out the countess's last minute dispatch panicked and the execution was a hideous affair, with the axe swinging into Margaret's head, neck and shoulders for several minutes. After ten or eleven blows, she was dead..."Mary Queen of Scots:
http://www.aintnowaytogo.com/beheading.htm
"When Mary, Queen of Scots, was executed at Fotheringay Castle in 1587, a clumsy headsman gave her three strokes without quite managing to sever her head.The headsman then had to saw though the skin and gristle with his sheath knife before the job could be regarded as complete. "
There are others. So yeah, someone who is totally helpless can survive being hit by a heavy axe.
I always thought she was still dead/dying just didn't have the neck completely severed to parade the head and show she was killed.
You know, you make a decent argument, but not when you drag in the old "logical fallacy" fallacy. See, most "logical fallacies' are not. They are not fallacies in logic at all. They are informal fallacies. Mostly, using a informal fallacy is perfectly OK outside your high school debating team.
Who cares if informal fallacies aren't technically errors in logic? Using them still makes your argument less persuasive. This is a bad thing, especially if you happen to be correct, since a bad argument might put people off.