PDA

View Full Version : Rules that don't make sense



Pages : [1] 2

Random832
2009-07-07, 10:54 AM
Thread for little rules that don't make sense as written.

From the 'No quickened spell for you!' department:

"A sorcerer still must take a full-round action when using a metamagic rod, just as if using a metamagic feat he possesses."

How does this make sense? I mean, ok, in principle you can say applying metamagic on the spot takes time (also applies to bards, which this doesn't), but then shouldn't it take a full round action for anyone to use a metamagic rod? The reason sorcerers need a full round action is because they use metamagic differently. With a rod, everyone uses it the same way, so it should work the same for everyone.

Coplantor
2009-07-07, 11:05 AM
-Drowning rules.

-negative hp => 1 hp => Back on action! (Known as the "It's just a flesh wound rule")

Throwing damage, silly hulking hurler.

Flickerdart
2009-07-07, 11:05 AM
Nah, this rule makes perfect sense. If you're not a Wizard, WotC hates you. Thus, this.

oxybe
2009-07-07, 11:21 AM
3.0?

naked rogue using evasion... against a fireball... cast in the center of a featureless (IE: empty room, no cracks in floor or anything) 10x10x10 room... and not taking any damage.

falling damage. 20d6, or 120 max damage cap. a 13th level fighter with 18 con and average HP can survive orbital re-entry without fear of dying (128 HP avg).

it should be noted that a lot of D&D rules (any edition) don't make any sense at all when you start thinking about them in any logical sense. why do they work?

because it's D&D.

Talon Sky
2009-07-07, 11:27 AM
it should be noted that a lot of D&D rules (any edition) don't make any sense at all when you start thinking about them in any logical sense. why do they work?

because it's D&D.

Words of truth right there. It's called fantasy for a reason. Don't play Dungeons and Dragons if you're looking for strait-up realism, play Offices and Bosses.

Ah, now that's a fun game. "I take 20 on my Craft: Paperwork check!"
DM: "You can't! You're under pressure."

Player: "But....but I'm a 12th level number-cruncher!"

Ah, good times.

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-07, 11:27 AM
Healing spells.

Hit points represent your ability to roll with the punches, your ability to grit your teeth and endure wounds that would make a lesser man curl up in pain, and pure, blind luck.

So why, then, does it take more to heal a dagger wound on a 10th level Fighter than on a 1st level Commoner?

Talon Sky
2009-07-07, 11:31 AM
Healing spells.

Hit points represent your ability to roll with the punches, your ability to grit your teeth and endure wounds that would make a lesser man curl up in pain, and pure, blind luck.

So why, then, does it take more to heal a dagger wound on a 10th level Fighter than on a 1st level Commoner?

If a 10th level Fighter has to worry about healing from a dagger wound, then he drew the short end of the stick there ;p

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-07, 11:34 AM
If a 10th level Fighter has to worry about healing from a dagger wound, then he drew the short end of the stick there ;p

...You seem to have misunderstood me.

On a 10th level Fighter, a dagger wound to the gut might represent 40 hit points, if it's the result of mortal combat with a single dagger-wielding Rogue. Not every hit is actually a wound.

On a Commoner, that same wound might just be 1 or 2 hit points. And yet... the Commoner is fine after a first-level Cleric casts Cure Light Wounds on him, yet the Fighter needs several applications - or a higher-level spell. To recover from the same wound.

Blackfang108
2009-07-07, 11:34 AM
Healing spells.

Hit points represent your ability to roll with the punches, your ability to grit your teeth and endure wounds that would make a lesser man curl up in pain, and pure, blind luck.

So why, then, does it take more to heal a dagger wound on a 10th level Fighter than on a 1st level Commoner?

How?

Specifically, How does a Commoner survive the Dagger wound?

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-07, 11:36 AM
He made his stabilization roll?

A dagger wound is, on average, 2.5 HP of damage. Maybe a bit more if it's wielded by a strong guy.

Your average Commoner has... 2 HP. So a knife wound will likely Disable him, or even knock him out, but he'll still have a chance of pulling through.

Coidzor
2009-07-07, 11:41 AM
Not my opinion, but, it does seem to fit the spirit of the thread. The artist here is referring to Sense motive to determine relative CR, I believe. (http://www.weregeek.com/2009/07/03/)

Coplantor
2009-07-07, 11:56 AM
Wich reminds me of CR, yeah, that makes no sense, specially if we are talking about PC's, I can hardly believe that the 20th lvl truenamer represents as much of a threat as the 20th lvl wizard.

Ianuagonde
2009-07-07, 11:59 AM
A light crossbow can be used and loaded by almost anyone, since it's a simple weapon. It comes with a special tool you need to reload it.

A hand crossbow is reloaded by pulling the string back by hand. It's a very complicated weapon: even fighters can't use it without special training since it's an exotic weapon.

Random832
2009-07-07, 12:00 PM
-Drowning rules.

I do still have to ask just what is wrong with the drowning rules. If you think you can go from negative to zero by "intentionally failing" (incidentally: no such mechanic) a check, you're reading it wrong.

John Campbell
2009-07-07, 12:02 PM
The basic D&D combat mechanic, where "hits" and "misses" aren't necessarily actual hits or misses, and damage isn't necessarily actual damage, and armor makes you harder to hit while being a skilled fighter makes you able to absorb many times more punishment, rather than the reverse, makes no sense whatsoever. There's an awful lot of collateral damage to suspension of disbelief from that.

shadzar
2009-07-07, 12:07 PM
Most of the Monty Python rules in 4th edition.

Cleric shouts "its only a flesh wound" to heal someone.

Any amount of damage is healed with a good nights rest. I know time heals all wounds, but 6 hours? Really?

All those things.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-07, 12:08 PM
"intentionally failing" (incidentally: no such mechanic)

You don't need any special mechanic to fail; it's a DC 10 Con check, +1 DC per round, so if you just take 10 you are guaranteed to fail in [Con bonus+1] rounds.

Random832
2009-07-07, 12:10 PM
You can't take ten in this situation... but granted that you'll eventually fail whether you're rolling dice or taking ten against a constantly increasing DC. And if you're already unconscious, the other players won't be able to pull you out in time (after falling unconscious, but before dying) rather than let you die without metagaming*. So, DM just rolls the Con checks in secret and doesn't say anything until you die two rounds later.

*as if you weren't already - but requiring them to see your die roll results and HP total removes the lawyery interpretation that "Well, this happens in this universe, so someone will have observed and documented that you can dunk a dying person's head in the water for twelve seconds and they'll be stable and just unconscious, as a basic first aid technique"

Though none of this matters since the text ("falls unconscious") still doesn't support the interpretation ("stabilize and heal up to 0HP").

ericgrau
2009-07-07, 12:19 PM
You don't need any special mechanic to fail; it's a DC 10 Con check, +1 DC per round, so if you just take 10 you are guaranteed to fail in [Con bonus+1] rounds.

And then the DM chucks his DMG at you. Even if you actually believe this rule means you can raise your HP to 0 (I don't think so), no one would ever apply it this way in a real game.

Healing spells are a bit funky though.

As for the sorcerers and quicken thing, ya it doesn't make sense if you think about it. It does help balance though. Sorcerers have way too many spell slots to let you blow 2 of them every round. They don't mind, and then stuff breaks. Then again I think there's something in PHB 2 that says, "Oh, here, have quicken spell anyway." And then you have a dragonborn kobold sorcerer with it, and I think a few steps of excessive pity after that we got Pun-pun.

oxybe
2009-07-07, 12:19 PM
actually you can fail a save voluntarily. i don't have my 3.5 rules compendium here, but i do remember seeing that. i believe you can voluntarily fail a check as well.

Coplantor
2009-07-07, 12:20 PM
I do still have to ask just what is wrong with the drowning rules. If you think you can go from negative to zero by "intentionally failing" (incidentally: no such mechanic) a check, you're reading it wrong.

Indeed, I dont allow the drown yourself to get healed thing, I think this is more of a rules lawyers thing than the actual rule.

Tiki Snakes
2009-07-07, 12:21 PM
Drowning

Any character can hold her breath for a number of rounds equal to twice her Constitution score. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check every round in order to continue holding her breath. Each round, the DC increases by 1. See also: Swim skill description.

When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns.

It is possible to drown in substances other than water, such as sand, quicksand, fine dust, and silos full of grain.

So, you drop down/up to 0hp and are unconcious in the first round. In the second round, you drop to -1hit points and are dying. In the third round, you drown.

Not only does it seem to raise you up to 0hp, but you then begin dying and drown, whether you are removed from the bucket or not, because it doesn't actually state any way to STOP drowning.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-07, 12:21 PM
Though none of this matters since the text ("falls unconscious") still doesn't support the interpretation ("stabilize and heal up to 0HP").

The text says "In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dying." Maybe it was a stupid assumption of the designers that you'd always start drowning while conscious, but by the rules falling unconscious while drowning puts you at 0 HP.

ericgrau
2009-07-07, 12:24 PM
Hmm, 0 HP is a parenthetical remark so I don't think even a stupidly literal interpretation of the rules actual gives you 0 HP. Rather it's reminding you of the effect of falling unconscious. If a specific situation is different, then the reminder does not apply.

oxybe
2009-07-07, 12:30 PM
Most of the Monty Python rules in 4th edition.

Cleric shouts "its only a flesh wound" to heal someone.

Any amount of damage is healed with a good nights rest. I know time heals all wounds, but 6 hours? Really?

All those things.

this existed in previous editions also. the healer burns all his leftover spells or uses up his wand of curing until natural healing is enough to take over.

note that there are no rules for broken/lost limbs, any actually debilitating wound or whatever in either 3rd ed or 4th ed to my knowledge.

i always considered most HP damage superficial at best since HP in D&D is an abstract concept similar to Plot Armor, basically your character's ability to keep soldiering on in the face of adversity. once they actually die, that's when your skull is caved in, that arrow pierces your heart, the orc guts you with his axe or whatever.

Random832
2009-07-07, 12:31 PM
actually you can fail a save voluntarily. i don't have my 3.5 rules compendium here, but i do remember seeing that.

In the SRD, this is for saving throws against spells only.


The text says "In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dying." Maybe it was a stupid assumption of the designers that you'd always start drowning while conscious, but by the rules falling unconscious while drowning puts you at 0 HP.

"falls" does not mean your HP rises. And you can't fall unconscious when you're already unconscious, and if you have 0 or less HP you are unconscious.

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-07, 12:38 PM
As for the sorcerers and quicken thing, ya it doesn't make sense if you think about it. It does help balance though. Sorcerers have way too many spell slots to let you blow 2 of them every round. They don't mind, and then stuff breaks. Then again I think there's something in PHB 2 that says, "Oh, here, have quicken spell anyway." And then you have a dragonborn kobold sorcerer with it, and I think a few steps of excessive pity after that we got Pun-pun.

There's something in Complete Arcane that lets Sorcerers Quicken spells (nothing says you need to be able to use a metamagic feat to take it, so Sorcerers can qualify for Sudden Quicken).

Also, Pun-Pun uses polymorph cheese.

Coplantor
2009-07-07, 12:42 PM
"falls" does not mean your HP rises. And you can't fall unconscious when you're already unconscious, and if you have 0 or less HP you are unconscious.

Wouldn't the diehard feat solve this problem? Wich is also a preq for the frenzied berserker, the PrC that abuses the most of the drowning rule?

Kurald Galain
2009-07-07, 12:48 PM
The basic D&D combat mechanic, where "hits" and "misses" aren't necessarily actual hits or misses,

They aren't necessarily actual hits or misses except when your weapon is poisoned...

shadzar
2009-07-07, 12:48 PM
this existed in previous editions also. the healer burns all his leftover spells or uses up his wand of curing until natural healing is enough to take over.

note that there are no rules for broken/lost limbs, any actually debilitating wound or whatever in either 3rd ed or 4th ed to my knowledge.

i always considered most HP damage superficial at best since HP in D&D is an abstract concept similar to Plot Armor, basically your character's ability to keep soldiering on in the face of adversity. once they actually die, that's when your skull is caved in, that arrow pierces your heart, the orc guts you with his axe or whatever.

I don't know much anymore about 3.x, but I don't think you healed completely over night. previous editions gained you 1 HP per day of rest.

Instant heal didn't exist before 4th, even if magic could heal quicker.

But the healing word is silly and makes no sense as written. If it were a bit more divine then maybe, but mustering healing with just shouting at someone don't fly. Cells don't regenerate because you yell at them.

Magic makes sense because it is magical rather than trying to effect some natural healing by saying something without any other stimuli.

You have an unconscious person and just shout at them to make them jump up from being half dead? :smallconfused:

Berserk Monk
2009-07-07, 12:52 PM
Why elves live for so dang long yet they take a -2 to constitution, the stat that represents your health.

arkol
2009-07-07, 12:58 PM
falling damage. 20d6, or 120 max damage cap. a 13th level fighter with 18 con and average HP can survive orbital re-entry without fear of dying (128 HP avg).

Except for... you know... massive damage thingy.

John Campbell
2009-07-07, 01:03 PM
Except for... you know... massive damage thingy.

Yeah, I suppose it's possible he might roll a 1 and fail the Fort save.

Fhaolan
2009-07-07, 01:04 PM
Hmm, 0 HP is a parenthetical remark so I don't think even a stupidly literal interpretation of the rules actual gives you 0 HP. Rather it's reminding you of the effect of falling unconscious. If a specific situation is different, then the reminder does not apply.

I think you vastly underestimate people and their ability to be stupidily literal. :smallbiggrin:

shadzar
2009-07-07, 01:05 PM
Why elves live for so dang long yet they take a -2 to constitution, the stat that represents your health.

:smallconfused: Good call.

On that how about charisma having anything to do with race where magical beguilement is not in play.

:thog: Thog not like pretty girls.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and plays a part in charisma as such as looks have beauty, so can words and actions depending on the individual rather than just being assumed because one is of a certain race. :smallconfused:

Random832
2009-07-07, 01:10 PM
:smallconfused: Good call.

On that how about charisma having anything to do with race where magical beguilement is not in play.

:thog: Thog not like pretty girls.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and plays a part in charisma as such as looks have beauty, so can words and actions depending on the individual rather than just being assumed because one is of a certain race. :smallconfused:

Maybe the aspect of charisma to which racial bonus/penalties apply is the "force of personality" aspect (which is, you know, part of the dictionary definition of charisma, unlike the beauty aspect.) rather than looks, and certain races have more or less tendencies to produce individuals with such personalities.

Eldariel
2009-07-07, 01:11 PM
:smallconfused: Good call.

On that how about charisma having anything to do with race where magical beguilement is not in play.

Charisma is supposed to present the strength of your presence, your force of will, etc. PHB mentions "physical beauty", which of course is utter bull****; that doesn't have a stat. Really, Charisma works out quite fine when played like that. It's basically your mental Str, your ability to force your opinions upon others, your ability to guide others' train of thought, etc.

Godskook
2009-07-07, 01:13 PM
Healing spells.

Hit points represent your ability to roll with the punches, your ability to grit your teeth and endure wounds that would make a lesser man curl up in pain, and pure, blind luck.

So why, then, does it take more to heal a dagger wound on a 10th level Fighter than on a 1st level Commoner?

This one isn't D&D's fault. The issue here is that 2 different situations are being muddled to produce the confusion.

Situation #1: 10th level fighter and 1st level commoner take dagger wounds from the same opponent. This is what it sounds like you're describing, as far as setup goes, but both characters would need approximately the same amount of healing, barring randomness.

Situation #2: Both the 10th level fighter and 1st level commoner take dagger wounds, but from a level appropriate rogue. Here, the fighter is taking significantly more damage, and would require more healing, true. However, this isn't really comparable. It'd be like trying to compare a commoner's scratches from a common house cat with a 10th level fighter's scratches from a pack of dire lions.

Saph
2009-07-07, 01:13 PM
Charisma is supposed to present the strength of your presence, your force of will, etc. PHB mentions "physical beauty", which of course is utter bull****; that doesn't have a stat. Really, Charisma works out quite fine when played like that. It's basically your mental Str, your ability to force your opinions upon others, your ability to guide others' train of thought, etc.

A summary I read a long time ago on this forum and always liked was:

Wisdom is your download speed.
Intelligence is your processing power.
Charisma is your upload speed.

Not perfect, but pretty funny. :)

- Saph

shadzar
2009-07-07, 01:21 PM
Charisma is supposed to present the strength of your presence, your force of will, etc. PHB mentions "physical beauty", which of course is utter bull****; that doesn't have a stat. Really, Charisma works out quite fine when played like that. It's basically your mental Str, your ability to force your opinions upon others, your ability to guide others' train of thought, etc.

And the one above him.

Yeah that is why for a while they had comeliness, but the point remains.

Even as a force of presence an entire race may not have that much charisma, so shouldn't be tied to race, unless this charisma is coming from fear. That is the only thing that could be universal to a race is that it is feared. Even a race widely loved would be likely disliked by some individuals, but love or hate, anyone could be feared.

It just seems something that shouldn't be tied to race and makes little sense as it is a quality of an individual and his own actions rather than just being born.

prufock
2009-07-07, 01:22 PM
...You seem to have misunderstood me.

On a 10th level Fighter, a dagger wound to the gut might represent 40 hit points, if it's the result of mortal combat with a single dagger-wielding Rogue. Not every hit is actually a wound.

On a Commoner, that same wound might just be 1 or 2 hit points. And yet... the Commoner is fine after a first-level Cleric casts Cure Light Wounds on him, yet the Fighter needs several applications - or a higher-level spell. To recover from the same wound.

I can't wrap my head around your explanation. A dagger wound to the gut that deals a 10th level fighter 40 damage is also going to deal a 1st-level commoner 40 damage. The fighter survives because he is better at rolling with the hit or gritting his teeth and toughing through damage. You're somehow equating a 40 damage wound with a 2 damage wound, which doesn't make any sense.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-07, 01:22 PM
Wisdom is your download speed.
Intelligence is your processing power.
Charisma is your upload speed.

So would that make Strength your case, Dex your cables, and Con your battery?

shadzar
2009-07-07, 01:23 PM
So would that make Strength your case, Dex your cables, and Con your battery?

Dex is your bus speed, Con is your RAM, and STR is your is your signal. :smallbiggrin:

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-07, 01:27 PM
The fact that humans have a Con of 10 and there are animals with higher Con is pretty ludicrous considering humans are kings of stamina in the real animal kingdom (some outpace us, but not many).

Ancient man hunted by chasing gazelles to exhaustion.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-07, 01:27 PM
Dex is your bus speed, Con is your RAM, and STR is your is your signal. :smallbiggrin:

That blurs the hardware/software metaphor a bit, but I guess that works.

On a side note, I think I see why Macs are more expensive that PCs--they put a bunch of resources into Comeliness, so to get the same specs other ability scores you need to jack up the price point-buy. :smallbiggrin:

Curmudgeon
2009-07-07, 01:36 PM
naked rogue using evasion... against a fireball... cast in the center of a featureless (IE: empty room, no cracks in floor or anything) 10x10x10 room... and not taking any damage. It only doesn't make sense if you assume that the Fireball is uniform. Ever watched the Discovery Channel show Time Warp? There are all sorts of voids in an expanding fireball. Evasion just lets you get lucky enough to be where those voids are.

oxybe
2009-07-07, 01:42 PM
@shardzar : 3rd ed allows you to heal your Hit Dice worth each night, not just 1 as in previous editions.

clerics can burn existing spells to gain a Cure X wounds of that level or lower. druids, bards, rangers all have access to the cure spells too. heck, some druids can summon unicorns to heal others if they really feel like it... healing in 3rd ed was ridiculously easy to come by. for 750 GP you could buy a wand that would cure you 550 HP (lesser vigor)...

remember... HP is abstract. it's never really been just physical damage, be it 1st ed or 4th ed. it's a mix of your physical ability to take punishment, luck, determination, divine favor, ect... Plot Armor. full HP after 6 hours rest means you're good to go. you still have the nicks and bruises of the last day, but you're good to go.

using Inspiring Word at someone unconscious to get them to wake up doesn't get rid of their bruises, but it does reignite their resolve and they rise back on their feet. saying that it's silly/unbelievable because it doesn't use the "it's magic" cop-out doesn't do much to sway me. i play D&D because it allows me to simulate a heroic character. one that is able to grit his teeth and get back in the game when his buddies cry for his help is entirely in the realm of what i expect of the game.

it might not make "sense" (or verisimilitude, or whatever), but then again, this is Dungeons and Dragons... it has "Your Mileage May Vary" spray painted all over every page of the books in neon pink.

@arkol
as for massive damage, that 13th level fighter with 18 con will have a fort of 12 and at that level an item that gives least +1 to his fort save isn't really out of the question, he'll generally only fail the save on a natural 1. and that's only if it deals 50 damage.

it's very possible that the orbital reentry deals 20-49 damage, meaning even a 5th level fighter with that 18 con (52 HP avg) can survive without problem.

@Yuki_Akuma
i think i understand what you're getting at...
that level 1 commoner and a level 10 fighter at 50% health will not be healed by the same % if the same spell is used, right? that a cure light wounds will heal the commoner by double his max while the fighter might not notice it... basically healing spells don't scale right for characters of different levels

arkol
2009-07-07, 01:50 PM
I'm just saying he can indeed die.

But yes massive damage DC is way too low. It should be like coups, where the damage gets added to the dc. Maybe with a range method. 50 to 59 damage the dc would be 20, 60 to 69 dc25 and so on, or something like that.

quick_comment
2009-07-07, 01:52 PM
I'm just saying he can indeed die.

But yes massive damage DC is way too low. It should be like coups, where the damage gets added to the dc. Maybe with a range method. 50 to 59 damage the dc would be 20, 60 to 69 dc25 and so on, or something like that.

Massive damage shouldnt even exist. The amount of damage to kill something should be equal to its hp.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-07, 01:54 PM
@Yuki_Akuma
i think i understand what you're getting at...
that level 1 commoner and a level 10 fighter at 50% health will not be healed by the same % if the same spell is used, right? that a cure light wounds will heal the commoner by double his max while the fighter might not notice it... basically healing spells don't scale right for characters of different levels

That's basically it. It mostly works if you keep in mind that HP is avoidance, luck, stamina, etc., in which case using more divine energy to restore more stamina makes sense--a simple CLW will help the commoner, 'cause he just got stabbed and that's it, but the fighter was ducking and weaving and parrying a bunch of other blows before that single dagger hit got through, so only a few points of healing are actually going toward healing the physical dagger wound.

Indon
2009-07-07, 02:03 PM
Wich reminds me of CR, yeah, that makes no sense, specially if we are talking about PC's, I can hardly believe that the 20th lvl truenamer represents as much of a threat as the 20th lvl wizard.

On Truenaming...

Say we have a party with a Truenamer facing an NPC Truenamer. The NPC Truenamer finds it harder to use his powers on anybody, simply because there are more people in your party (numbers increase an encounter's CR).

Fascinatingly, his difficulty in using his abilities would, given a good DM, make his CR lower, then making it easier for your Truenamer to hit him.

Random832
2009-07-07, 02:18 PM
On Truenaming...

Say we have a party with a Truenamer facing an NPC Truenamer. The NPC Truenamer finds it harder to use his powers on anybody, simply because there are more people in your party (numbers increase an encounter's CR).

EL is not CR

Indon
2009-07-07, 02:22 PM
EL is not CR

You sure it's not just CR modified by circumstance and other things?

...I guess I'll go double-check when I get to my books next.

shadzar
2009-07-07, 02:51 PM
@shardzar : 3rd ed allows you to heal your Hit Dice worth each night, not just 1 as in previous editions.

The that is some more Monty Python going on there.


remember... HP is abstract.

No. They are not. They may be written in the rules as such, but is yet another of those "rules that don't make sense".

They should add EP* for non-physical wounds.

*EP = Emo points.

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-07, 03:05 PM
No. They are not.

Yes. They are. Otherwise you're talking about Wizards taking swords to the gut and not caring, which is just...

snoopy13a
2009-07-07, 03:11 PM
I can't wrap my head around your explanation. A dagger wound to the gut that deals a 10th level fighter 40 damage is also going to deal a 1st-level commoner 40 damage. The fighter survives because he is better at rolling with the hit or gritting his teeth and toughing through damage. You're somehow equating a 40 damage wound with a 2 damage wound, which doesn't make any sense.

According to the hit point "theory", a character with 100 hitpoints who is hit 10 times with a dagger doesn't actually get stabbed with the dagger 10 times. Instead, most of the "hits" are near misses or parries that reduces the character's endurance or fighting ability but in theory are not wounds. Theorectically, the character may have only been actually stabbed once or even no times even though they have lost 40 hitpoints. This is to somehow explain why a 10th level character can survive many, many hits while a 1st level character cannot.

The point was that because the character was only stabbed around once (with the other hits being explained as "near-misses" or similar), a light healing spell that fully heals a commoner's stab wound should also fully heal a level 10 fighter's stab wound (that represents 10 hits or so).

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-07, 03:16 PM
It's either healing doesn't make sense, or a 10th level Fighter can somehow take ten times as many stabs as a 1st level Fighter.

Considering "Hit Points represent luck, near-misses and loss of stamina as well as stab wounds" is fully supported by the rulebooks for every single edition of D&D since at least 1e, I'm going to go with "magical healing makes no sense".

quick_comment
2009-07-07, 03:19 PM
It's either healing doesn't make sense, or a 10th level Fighter can somehow take ten times as many stabs as a 1st level Fighter.

Considering "Hit Points represent luck, near-misses and loss of stamina as well as stab wounds" is fully supported by the rulebooks for every single edition of D&D since at least 1e, I'm going to go with "magical healing makes no sense".

Magical healing recharges your aura.

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-07, 03:21 PM
Magical healing recharges your aura.

And as we all know, due to the Positive Energy Plane, once your aura gets filled over double capacity, you explode!

:smallconfused:

Kurald Galain
2009-07-07, 03:24 PM
It's either healing doesn't make sense, or a 10th level Fighter can somehow take ten times as many stabs as a 1st level Fighter.

Yes, it's a contradictory abstraction. Apparently fighters can also dodge and parry (causing near misses and loss of hit points) when completely paralyzed, and can be inflicted by blood poison (or lycanthropy) through such a near miss.

Of course, the abstraction that you're perfectly fine at 1 through 80 HP, and incapacitated at 0, doesn't make much sense either :smalltongue:

quick_comment
2009-07-07, 03:29 PM
And as we all know, due to the Positive Energy Plane, once your aura gets filled over double capacity, you explode!

:smallconfused:

Yup, thats exactly it. Just like attaching a lightbulb meant for 120V into a 240V outlet.

John Campbell
2009-07-07, 03:31 PM
This is all part of that collateral damage to suspension of disbelief I was talking about from the most fundamental core mechanic of D&D combat making no sense whatsoever.

If you fix that - drastically reduce hit point totals, make armor provide DR, make combat skill make you more difficult to actually hit - then a lot of this other nonsense straightens itself right out. Magic healing makes sense again, you no longer need to invoke death from massive damage in order to make it even theoretically possible to kill a mid-level fighter-type with a fall...

Oslecamo
2009-07-07, 03:36 PM
Of course, the abstraction that you're perfectly fine at 1 through 80 HP, and incapacitated at 0, doesn't make much sense either :smalltongue:

Please remind me, what kind of sissy hero would you be if you didn't kept fighting at full power after being stabbed, knived and had half your guts rippen apart?

Heros are made of tougher stuff. Just because they've lost more blood than a normal human would have in the first place won't stop them from beating the bad guy to death, and then patching it all up with bandages magic.

Heck, just look at the WH40K special rule of "eternal warrior", that makes special characters immune to instant death effects, despite technically they also being normal mortals who can be stabbed and shot just fine.

MickJay
2009-07-07, 03:37 PM
Massive damage shouldnt even exist. The amount of damage to kill something should be equal to its hp.

I think massive damage was one of the more insightful rules that were implemented - though flat 50 points of damage aren't very good, I'd rather go with 50-60% of HP total taken in one hit.

Godskook
2009-07-07, 03:38 PM
According to the hit point "theory", a character with 100 hitpoints who is hit 10 times with a dagger doesn't actually get stabbed with the dagger 10 times. Instead, most of the "hits" are near misses or parries that reduces the character's endurance or fighting ability but in theory are not wounds. Theorectically, the character may have only been actually stabbed once or even no times even though they have lost 40 hitpoints. This is to somehow explain why a 10th level character can survive many, many hits while a 1st level character cannot.

The point was that because the character was only stabbed around once (with the other hits being explained as "near-misses" or similar), a light healing spell that fully heals a commoner's stab wound should also fully heal a level 10 fighter's stab wound (that represents 10 hits or so).

Thats.............not how it works in my head. I picture it as more as this: The more HP someone has, the less meaningful an individual wound is.

For instance, Bruce Lee punches me in the gut, does 40+ damage. I die instantly. Bruce Lee punches Chuck Norris in the gut, Chuck is fazed, but still going. Chuck took the same 40+ damage punch, but since his HP is 80+, he's relatively unaffected, compared to my poor crushed self.

Also, where did you learn of this 'hit point theory'? I've never heard of it. Is it more of a D&D specific thing?


It's either healing doesn't make sense, or a 10th level Fighter can somehow take ten times as many stabs as a 1st level Fighter.

Considering "Hit Points represent luck, near-misses and loss of stamina as well as stab wounds" is fully supported by the rulebooks for every single edition of D&D since at least 1e, I'm going to go with "magical healing makes no sense".

Now, you see, I'd go the exact opposite way, and I'm supported by the representation of heroes in most of the modern action movies that I can think of off the top of my head. Action heroes commonly take 2, 3, 5 or 10 times the damage that a 'normal' character in the same movie could take, and are still plugging along. This is also supported in my experience with real people, although without as much extremes.

Random832
2009-07-07, 03:39 PM
Yes, it's a contradictory abstraction. Apparently fighters can also dodge and parry (causing near misses and loss of hit points) when completely paralyzed, and can be inflicted by blood poison (or lycanthropy) through such a near miss.

Of course, the abstraction that you're perfectly fine at 1 through 80 HP, and incapacitated at 0, doesn't make much sense either :smalltongue:


Consider a HP the measure of your character's awesomeness.

Taking hits requires some of your awesomeness. You're still awesome when you're paralyzed. Poison drains your awesomeness. When you are no longer awesome, if you get hit again, you die.

If you are on the positive energy plane you can become too incredibly awesome for your body to contain.

This makes much more sense than an abstraction of dodging, since the dex bonus to AC is the abstraction of dodging. You can't abstract the same thing twice, unless that thing is awesomeness (which is abstracted again in saving throws)

Korivan
2009-07-07, 03:43 PM
And then the DM chucks his DMG at you. Even if you actually believe this rule means you can raise your HP to 0 (I don't think so), no one would ever apply it this way in a real game.

Healing spells are a bit funky though.

As for the sorcerers and quicken thing, ya it doesn't make sense if you think about it. It does help balance though. Sorcerers have way too many spell slots to let you blow 2 of them every round. They don't mind, and then stuff breaks. Then again I think there's something in PHB 2 that says, "Oh, here, have quicken spell anyway." And then you have a dragonborn kobold sorcerer with it, and I think a few steps of excessive pity after that we got Pun-pun.

sorry to get off topic, but sorcerers can quicken and any other metamagic without penaltiys at level 9 (rapid metamagic)

Oslecamo
2009-07-07, 03:43 PM
Thats.............not how it works in my head. I picture it as more as this: The more HP someone has, the less meaningful an individual wound is.

For instance, Bruce Lee punches me in the gut, does 40+ damage. I die instantly. Bruce Lee punches Chuck Norris in the gut, Chuck is fazed, but still going. Chuck took the same 40+ damage punch, but since his HP is 80+, he's relatively unaffected, compared to my poor crushed self.


This is another semi popular view that was shortly discussed here some time ago, and I personally also like it.

Basically, characters literally become tougher as they are exposed to a several mythical forces during their adventure.

The 10th lv fighter has bones as hard as adamantine, normal blades just scratch his flesh at best, even fire has trouble burning his toughned skin.

quick_comment
2009-07-07, 03:53 PM
This is another semi popular view that was shortly discussed here some time ago, and I personally also like it.

Basically, characters literally become tougher as they are exposed to a several mythical forces during their adventure.

The 10th lv fighter has bones as hard as adamantine, normal blades just scratch his flesh at best, even fire has trouble burning his toughned skin.

That would give him DR, not more HP.


I view HP as a combination of parrying, feinting, etc AND heroism. The 10th level fighter can survive a blade in the gut because he is that damn strong, but it also might have just been a glancing blow.

Mystic Muse
2009-07-07, 03:56 PM
humans can't fly without getting into airplanes because they don't have wings. I mean COME ON! how boring is that?

oh wait. you meant game rules? leaving now.:smalltongue:

MickJay
2009-07-07, 04:11 PM
That would give him DR, not more HP.


I view HP as a combination of parrying, feinting, etc AND heroism. The 10th level fighter can survive a blade in the gut because he is that damn strong, but it also might have just been a glancing blow.

...but then we're back to the problem of the fighter recovering (without external help) for a week from parrying a blow. :smallwink:

Seventh Dwarf
2009-07-07, 04:33 PM
So... we accept without question a system that allows a person to create a fireball from an incantation, a gesture, and a small ball of bat guano and sulfur, but complain that hit points make no sense???

It is nonsensical to compare the rules that exist for D&D to those that exist for Real Life - the premise is wrong. That would be like complaining that the queen in chess moves 8 times as fast as a pawn and no one in real life can run 8 times faster than a regular person. Rules in D&D don't reflect reality - they reflect D&D.

Rules that don't make sense in D&D are those that are internally inconsistent - sort of like the infield fly rule in baseball (where else is the batter out BEFORE anyone actually catches the ball?)

One example is the rule regarding sorcerors and metamagic mentioned before. It is inconsistent with how the other rules work. The rules in 3.0 that allowed certain classes to have exclusive use of certain skills never seemed to me to make any sense.

Dixieboy
2009-07-07, 04:36 PM
...but then we're back to the problem of the fighter recovering (without external help) for a week from parrying a blow. :smallwink:That guy hit REALLY hard okay?
My arm was like... totally sore >.>

Faleldir
2009-07-07, 04:51 PM
On a 10th level Fighter, a dagger wound to the gut might represent 40 hit points, if it's the result of mortal combat with a single dagger-wielding Rogue. Not every hit is actually a wound.
Are you saying a level 10 Fighter takes more damage from the same attack than a Commoner? The damage depends on the attacker's level. If it's a level 1 Rogue with 10 STR and a normal dagger, that's 1d4+1d6 no matter who he hits, sometimes less. If it's a frost giant with a hammer the size of a refrigerator who happens to have Rogue levels, then it'll hurt more, but that doesn't mean the Fighter gets weaker as he levels up.

Kurald Galain
2009-07-07, 04:54 PM
Consider a HP the measure of your character's awesomeness.

Then it begs the question why a band-aid restores my awesomeness, and why I can't boost it by wearing Elvis clothing :smalltongue:

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-07, 04:57 PM
Are you saying a level 10 Fighter takes more damage from the same attack than a Commoner? The damage depends on the attacker's level. If it's a level 1 Rogue with 10 STR and a normal dagger, that's 1d4+1d6 no matter who he hits, sometimes less. If it's a frost giant with a hammer the size of a refrigerator who happens to have Rogue levels, then it'll hurt more, but that doesn't mean the Fighter gets weaker as he levels up.

...No.

Please read the numerous other posts relating to my comment.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-07, 05:02 PM
Please remind me, what kind of sissy hero would you be if you didn't kept fighting at full power after being stabbed, knived and had half your guts rippen apart?


This is my position to. A 10-damage stab is the same no matter what level you are. Just at higher levels, you're just more badass. Someone stabbing you in the back so hard they can't pull the knife out kills you at level 1. At level 10, it just makes you angry enough that you pull out the knife and punch it through their skull.

(I'm aware their are no mechanics for stabbing someone so hard the knife gets stuck. I'm just using a dramatic example, is all. Point is what 15 damage represents doesn't change, as you level you just grow more and more super human)

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-07, 05:09 PM
Unfortunately the rulebooks do actually disagree with that interpretation.

John Campbell
2009-07-07, 05:13 PM
...but then we're back to the problem of the fighter recovering (without external help) for a week from parrying a blow. :smallwink:

I recently spent two weeks recovering from a combat injury that happened when there was no one else with a weapon within about fifteen feet of me. Pulled a calf muscle making a sudden sharp turn in a melee. I was using my spear as a walking staff for the rest of the day, because my leg wouldn't take my weight, and limping for a week. It's still not 100%, but I was able to fight with only minor twinges last Sunday, two weeks and a day after the injury.

And I once dislocated another fighter's shoulder with a polearm blow to his shield. Took him the better part of a month to recover from that. On another occasion, I very nearly popped out the same guy's other shoulder with a (one-handed!) greatsword blow that he parried with his sword, too.

Skorj
2009-07-07, 05:14 PM
This is my position to. A 10-damage stab is the same no matter what level you are. Just at higher levels, you're just more badass. Someone stabbing you in the back so hard they can't pull the knife out kills you at level 1. At level 10, it just makes you angry enough that you pull out the knife and punch it through their skull.

(I'm aware their are no mechanics for stabbing someone so hard the knife gets stuck. I'm just using a dramatic example, is all. Point is what 15 damage represents doesn't change, as you level you just grow more and more super human)


That's been my take as well, though I usually play games with more realistic mechanics. Still, if the point of the game is that Rule of Cool should dominate, D&D's HP system makes perfect sense. I happened to watch Scorpion King last night - there's a scene where The Rock pulls an arrow out of his back, as if it were a quiver, to shoot the big bad with. The scene perfectly fit both the movie it was in and the D&D hit point system - sometimes reality can go hang. :smallbiggrin:

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-07, 05:14 PM
...Why would you parry a greatsword?! That's just asking for a dislocated shoulder. Or a broken weapon.

Faleldir
2009-07-07, 05:15 PM
...No.

Please read the numerous other posts relating to my comment.

What makes you assume I didn't? I read them all before posting, I read them all again just a second ago, and I still don't get it.

Actually, you know what? Forget it. I am not having an argument today. Every time I post, I end up getting quoted and being the center of attention. I hate that. So don't quote me. Forget I ever posted at all. I understand that you were defining HP as something other than physical wounds. That's fluff, not rules, but I am not disagreeing with your point. Now go back to discussing whatever you were discussing before, or I swear I will mention Monks and watch this thread burn to the ground!

John Campbell
2009-07-07, 05:20 PM
...Why would you parry a greatsword?! That's just asking for a dislocated shoulder. Or a broken weapon.

He thought attempting it was preferable to taking it in the face, I assume.

Shademan
2009-07-07, 05:35 PM
elven wingship.
WHY... tell me WHY do ELVES... you heard me! ELVES have the fastest ships there is!?
ELVES sit in their forests having intercourse with shrubs all the day and won't harm a tree without crying over it, and they live in INLAND FORESTS and you tell me they have better ships than us seafaring humans!?
VIKING RAAAAGEEEE!!!!
(and the stormwrack ship speeds are silly. my men can row faster than THAT)

Fitz10019
2009-07-07, 05:37 PM
So don't quote me.

Can I sig that? heh.

The rule I hate is the 'you can't draw a weapon during a move action unless you have a BAB of +1 or greater.' Why the frick have a rule that only applies during level 1 play? (or up to level 5 if you have some silly multiclass build)

If you have a BAB of +1, and the guy next to you has a BAB of +0, you're already out-awsoming him.

Dixieboy
2009-07-07, 05:38 PM
@Shademan: Because it's the goddamn ELVES! :smallfurious:

That's just how it IS!
Elves are fast
Dwarves are sturdy
Humans are boring.

Capische?

Aaanyway

Spell failure never really made sense to me.

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-07, 05:41 PM
What makes you assume I didn't? I read them all before posting, I read them all again just a second ago, and I still don't get it.

Actually, you know what? Forget it. I am not having an argument today. Every time I post, I end up getting quoted and being the center of attention. I hate that. So don't quote me. Forget I ever posted at all. I understand that you were defining HP as something other than physical wounds. That's fluff, not rules, but I am not disagreeing with your point. Now go back to discussing whatever you were discussing before, or I swear I will mention Monks and watch this thread burn to the ground!

I was defining HP as not encompassing only physical wounds (as the rulebooks do) in order to explain that magical healing, which are rules, really don't make sense in context.

And I will continue to quote you as much as I like thank you very much. :P

(Speaking of monks, the fact that a monk can attack three times in six seconds with sais but not with his own fists also makes no sense. :P)


Spell failure never really made sense to me.

... Why?

First assumption: Magic spells with somatic components require intricate gestures using at least one hand and arm (or appropriate equivalent).

Second assumption: Restrictive clothing, such as armour, inhibits one's ability to perform intricate gestures using at least one hand and arm (or appropriate equivalent).

Therefore: Spells with somatic components have a chance of not working if cast wearing armour.

This seems perfectly logical to me.

Kurald Galain
2009-07-07, 05:59 PM
... Why?
Probably because that's one of the first rules that was based solely on "game balance" rather than on making sense.



Second assumption: Restrictive clothing, such as armour, inhibits one's ability to perform intricate gestures using at least one hand and arm (or appropriate equivalent).
Any armor that allows you to swing a sword, parry an arrow, and dodge a fireball obviously doesn't restrict one's movement very much.

The original handwave against spellcasting in armor was actually that the metal in armor interfered with the arcane magic. This led to questions why wrapping a chain around a spellcaster wouldn't prevent him from casting.

A related handwave was that wizards can't use swords because they aren't strong enough - regardless of what their actual strength score is.

Shademan
2009-07-07, 05:59 PM
still, a wizard should be able to use padded cloth. it's not really restrictive at all. heavy and very flowy robes on another hand...

Dixieboy
2009-07-07, 06:00 PM
... Why?

First assumption: Magic spells with somatic components require intricate gestures using at least one hand and arm (or appropriate equivalent).

Second assumption: Restrictive clothing, such as armour, inhibits one's ability to perform intricate gestures using at least one hand and arm (or appropriate equivalent).

Therefore: Spells with somatic components have a chance of not working if cast wearing armour.

This seems perfectly logical to me.
Because you can do them with 2 dex.

Don't tell me someone with 2 dex can do intricate gestures with their arms/hands.
There's also no rules prohibiting someone without arms from casting :smallsigh:
Awakened (Insert animal here) can cast as well, no?
and i find that a fox should in fact be incapable of doing any intricate hand motions at all.

I have reasons for it being bull**** for every single excuse for it besides "Balance"

Devils_Advocate
2009-07-07, 06:00 PM
Hit points don't represent anything that anyone has in real life. They represent the ability of a cinematic fantasy hero to survive things that would kill real-life people extremely dead and be just fine.

Hit point loss isn't injury. It works like injury in that if enough of it happens to you, you eventually fall down. It works unlike injury in that it doesn't penalize your ability to do anything. You can lose an arbitrarily high amount of HP depending on your level, and so long as your current HP stays over zero, you function just fine. It takes a special weapon property (Wounding) to get people to actually bleed significantly when you slice them with your sword.

Hit point loss isn't dodging or rolling with punches. A character keeps his hit points when he's paralyzed. They protect a character from not only falling damage, but from being submerged in lava. And, of course, it takes more healing magic to heal a buttload of hit points worth of damage, indicating that a higher-level character's damage isn't more superficial.

It's fine to think of D&D as a simulation, so long as you remember that it's not remotely a simulation of the real world. It's a simulation of a fantastic world where even non-magical things don't work like stuff does in reality. It's a non-reductionistic world where thinks like Evil, Strength, Fire, Flight, etc. aren't just abstractions of lots of little things acting together, and most certainly do not interact with everything like they do in real life. So a character really can just go and improve her Ability to Weather Damage through practice without diminishing returns over time.

This all makes it rather comical when someone complains about hit points working unrealistically in 4th Edition in particular. They were completely realistic already! "Hit points don't work realistically" is a good criticism of D&D in general, but there's something wrong with your thinking if you think it's a way that 4th Ed is worse than 3rd. You can't have less realism than zero.

Kemper Boyd
2009-07-07, 06:09 PM
Hit points do make a very limited for of sense when approached in a certain way. Something like "cumulative wounds imparing fighting ability" is very rarely seen in real life. You can't kill someone by slapping them on the cheek, regardless of much it hurts. An injury needs to be pretty substantial to actually stop someone cold.

If hitpoints represent bruises and nicks and fatigue from combat, they start making sense. Also this helps making magical healing more logical.

Zeful
2009-07-07, 06:19 PM
Probably because that's one of the first rules that was based solely on "game balance" rather than on making sense.
It's magic, it's not supposed to make sense.


A related handwave was that wizards can't use swords because they aren't strong enough - regardless of what their actual strength score is.Back in 2e sure, but 3e, wizards don't use swords because magic is simply better.

Dixieboy
2009-07-07, 06:23 PM
Well they can, they just don't do it very well.

Not much point in training with a sword when you can chuck a fireball just by putting a match to bat poo. :smallredface:

Kurald Galain
2009-07-07, 06:34 PM
It's magic, it's not supposed to make sense.
That's actually false. Whether the magic makes sense is one of the things that distinguishes good fantasy (e.g. Tolkien) from random pulp (e.g. Eragon).

Curmudgeon
2009-07-07, 06:43 PM
Don't tell me someone with 2 dex can do intricate gestures with their arms/hands. Surely they can. It just takes them much longer to learn those gesture patterns.

I've got a friend who's DEX-challenged. It takes her a long time to learn to use new tools. But she's a good typist because she invested the extra time needed for her to develop the skill.

D&D doesn't care about the details of learning skills -- just about the use of those skills when the fur is flying (in combat).

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-07, 06:46 PM
That's actually false. Whether the magic makes sense is one of the things that distinguishes good fantasy (e.g. Tolkien) from random pulp (e.g. Eragon).

...What?

Magic in Tokien's work is about as "a wizard did it" as they come. At least Mr. Paolini tries to come up with some consistent rules.

warmachine
2009-07-07, 06:55 PM
That the Elves' favoured class is Wizard, rather than Rogue. Consider the following racial features:-

+2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution
DEX is the primary attribute of Rogues whereas it's INT for Wizards.

Weapon Proficiency: Elves receive the Martial Weapon Proficiency feats for the longsword, rapier, longbow (including composite longbow), and shortbow (including composite shortbow) as bonus feats.
Better weapons are handy for classes that aren't full spellcasters but little benefit for Wizards, who rely on spells.

+2 racial bonus on Listen, Search, and Spot checks. An elf who merely passes within 5 feet of a secret or concealed door is entitled to a Search check to notice it as if she were actively looking for it.
Essential skills for Rogues but cross-class skills for Wizards. The use of Search to find secret doors plays to a Rogue's strength but Wizards are grateful they can find their own spellbook in the morning.


So Elves have racial abilities that make them good scouts but their natural inclination is to read arcane texts. Right.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-07-07, 06:56 PM
That's actually false. Whether the magic makes sense is one of the things that distinguishes good fantasy (e.g. Tolkien) from random pulp (e.g. Eragon).Yeah, no. Tolkien had no rules to his magic, it was just powerful and unknowable to the average person(and reader). Eragon at least has rules to the magic.

Note: I am not in any way supporting Eragon. Marty Stu, Dues ex Machina*oo, author's soapbox, and fridge logic all conspie to make it the worst assault on literature since Twilight, but at least the magic system made some sense.

warmachine
2009-07-07, 07:02 PM
That Zombies, like Golems, have INT 0, making them mindless and incapable of moral choice, but, unlike Golems, are always Neutral Evil.

Dixieboy
2009-07-07, 07:05 PM
That Zombies, like Golems, have INT 0, making them mindless and incapable of moral choice, but, unlike Golems, are always Neutral Evil.

It could be argued that it's the way they are brought into the world though.

But that's a silly excuse.

AslanCross
2009-07-07, 07:06 PM
That the Elves' favoured class is Wizard, rather than Rogue. Consider the following racial features:-

+2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution
DEX is the primary attribute of Rogues whereas it's INT for Wizards.

Weapon Proficiency: Elves receive the Martial Weapon Proficiency feats for the longsword, rapier, longbow (including composite longbow), and shortbow (including composite shortbow) as bonus feats.
Better weapons are handy for classes that aren't full spellcasters but little benefit for Wizards, who rely on spells.

+2 racial bonus on Listen, Search, and Spot checks. An elf who merely passes within 5 feet of a secret or concealed door is entitled to a Search check to notice it as if she were actively looking for it.
Essential skills for Rogues but cross-class skills for Wizards. The use of Search to find secret doors plays to a Rogue's strength but Wizards are grateful they can find their own spellbook in the morning.


So Elves have racial abilities that make them good scouts but their natural inclination is to read arcane texts. Right.

Elves are the most confused race ever. This is why WOTC tried to separate them into the hippies (Elves) and snooties (Eladrin) in 4E. Not to say that I actually like what they did, but it makes more sense than the really bizarre "elves are better at everything" idea that 3.5 carries.

Hat-Trick
2009-07-07, 07:15 PM
Because you can do them with 2 dex.

Don't tell me someone with 2 dex can do intricate gestures with their arms/hands.
There's also no rules prohibiting someone without arms from casting :smallsigh:
Awakened (Insert animal here) can cast as well, no?
and i find that a fox should in fact be incapable of doing any intricate hand motions at all.

I have reasons for it being bull**** for every single excuse for it besides "Balance"

Try this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNhV-PH5v0) in armor and tell me how you do.

0:30, 1:21, 1:39 are pretty intricate. Something akin to what a wizard might do.

Try this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr8dROugblk) one as well at that speed with that accuracy in any kind of armor and gauntlets.

I know, I know. Naruto? But it's a good simulation of what a caster has to do to cast. In the middle of combat. With no mistakes. Also have to add in the arm waving. Don't for get the arm waving.

Dixieboy
2009-07-07, 07:18 PM
Try this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNhV-PH5v0) in armor and tell me how you do.

0:30, 1:21, 1:39 are pretty intricate. Something akin to what a wizard might do.

Try this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr8dROugblk) one as well at that speed with that accuracy in any kind of armor and gauntlets.

I know, I know. Naruto? But it's a good simulation of what a caster has to do to cast. In the middle of combat. With no mistakes. Also have to add in the arm waving. Don't for get the arm waving.

now do it with paws :smalltongue:

ohh and do it with the flaw "shaky"

with 2-3 dex.

see my point?

Hat-Trick
2009-07-07, 07:19 PM
No argument, just saying that the arcane spell failure makes sense.

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-07, 07:20 PM
now do it with paws :smalltongue:

ohh and do it with the flaw "shaky"

with 2-3 dex.

see my point?

Note: a creature that learns to cast spells learns how to cast spells as whatever creature it is.

An Awakened Tiger who learns wizardry learns somatic components that involve flexing their forelegs, paws and claws.

Dixieboy
2009-07-07, 07:22 PM
No argument, just saying that the arcane spell failure makes sense.
No?

You don't get a "spell failure" chance if you don't have fingers, you don't get one if you have 3 dex.

Only through armor

and you get it for leather armor.

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-07, 07:23 PM
No?

You don't get a "spell failure" chance if you don't have fingers,

You don't need fingers to learn how to make somatic components. A tiger could do it. Or an octopus.

Hat-Trick
2009-07-07, 07:25 PM
The rules do say hands or the caster's equivalent.

Mystic Muse
2009-07-07, 07:25 PM
[QUOTE=Dixieboy;6450833]No?

You don't get a "spell failure" chance if you don't have fingers,/QUOTE]

You don't need fingers to learn how to make somatic components. A tiger could do it. Or an octopus.

I need an octopus wizard for my campaign.

Devils_Advocate
2009-07-07, 07:27 PM
If hitpoints represent bruises and nicks and fatigue from combat, they start making sense. Also this helps making magical healing more logical.
What doesn't make sense there is that characters only ever suffer relatively minor wounds from near-misses instead of more serious injuries. There's a spell for restoring a lost limb, but no rules for losing a limb in the first place. Only half of that makes sense.

A caster can blind someone with a spell, and a Rogue can reduce someone's Strength with Crippling Strike, but a Fighter only chips away at hit points by making normal weapon attacks. This is why direct damage is so often a relatively poor strategy in 3E: It's unrealistically lacking in immediate effects.


That Zombies, like Golems, have INT 0, making them mindless and incapable of moral choice, but, unlike Golems, are always Neutral Evil.
That "mindless" automatons like zombies and golems are either capable of understanding their masters' orders, or capable of following orders without understanding them. Int 0 creatures should not respond more intelligently to language than INt 2 creatures.


It could be argued that it's the way they are brought into the world though.
Alignment is supposed to represent a creature's general moral and personal attitudes, or its behavior, or... something. Actually, it's not clear what it's supposed to represent -- and that lack of clarity is itself something that doesn't make sense, since the alignment system is supposed to be usable. But there's no interpretation of alignment under which golems and zombies ought to have different alignments, if they're both just blindly obedient automatons.

Dixieboy
2009-07-07, 07:33 PM
soooo

what you're saying is that it's harder to do these movements while wearing padded armor, than with 3 dex, being drunk, having got your fingers cut off and shaking?

Ravens_cry
2009-07-07, 07:34 PM
A larger size category weapon doesn't give you reach. I know arms count for something, but your telling me if I am holding an animesque BFS Gargantuan Greatsword, I can still only attack the guy right in front of me?

Godskook
2009-07-07, 07:34 PM
...What?

Magic in Tokien's work is about as "a wizard did it" as they come. At least Mr. Paolini tries to come up with some consistent rules.

I'm in full agreement on this one. Tolkien magic is all "It just works, ok? Don't ask how!"

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-07, 07:37 PM
soooo

what you're saying is that it's harder to do these movements while wearing padded armor, than with 3 dex, being drunk, having got your fingers cut off and shaking?

That is indeed what I'm saying.

MickJay
2009-07-07, 07:38 PM
I recently spent two weeks recovering from a combat injury that happened when there was no one else with a weapon within about fifteen feet of me. Pulled a calf muscle making a sudden sharp turn in a melee. I was using my spear as a walking staff for the rest of the day, because my leg wouldn't take my weight, and limping for a week. It's still not 100%, but I was able to fight with only minor twinges last Sunday, two weeks and a day after the injury.

And I once dislocated another fighter's shoulder with a polearm blow to his shield. Took him the better part of a month to recover from that. On another occasion, I very nearly popped out the same guy's other shoulder with a (one-handed!) greatsword blow that he parried with his sword, too.

Yes, but these were actual injuries. The way HP is often considered means that you would have to rest for a longer period even after some actions that did not leave any physical injuries. This could make sense once in a while, there's stress, or shock, but in D&D adventuring it just happens too often (not to mention, it would eventually turn HP into "emo points"). What you described can be - reasonably - patched up with healing spells, but it wouldn't be much different (again, in D&D terms) from receiving a minor wound. At the end of the day, it might just be best to assume that the positive energy channelled by the healing spells works on what needs to be fixed, whether it's the body, mind or "aura".

Dixieboy
2009-07-07, 07:39 PM
That is indeed what I'm saying.

I'm sorry but you failed to convince me.

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-07, 07:43 PM
I'm sorry but you failed to convince me.

Basically: wizards are trained in making somatic gestures without wearing armour. Even if their Dexterity is 2, they learn how to do the gestures through rigorous training. Wizards have the highest starting age of any class for a reason.

Wearing armour interferes with these rote gestures, so they sometimes get them wrong.

Bards, warmages and duskblades, meanwhile, train to perform these rote gestures while wearing armour, so it doesn't interfere, because they're used to it.

(Divine magic, meanwhile, doesn't require such expansive gesturing.)

Riffington
2009-07-07, 07:43 PM
Alignment is supposed to represent a creature's general moral and personal attitudes, or its behavior, or... something. Actually, it's not clear what it's supposed to represent -- and that lack of clarity is itself something that doesn't make sense, since the alignment system is supposed to be usable. But there's no interpretation of alignment under which golems and zombies ought to have different alignments, if they're both just blindly obedient automatons.

Well, there's multiple things that give a creature/thing an alignment.
A pattern of behavior (or a very strongly aligned single deed) is reflected in an intelligent being's alignment. The favor of the deities can be reflected in one's alignment. Additionally, certain types of energies can inherently suffuse spells, objects, or creatures. A typical golem has no alignment from any of these sources. A zombie typically has an evil alignment from the third source, but not from the other two.

/not the way I'd do it.

Dixieboy
2009-07-07, 07:44 PM
Basically: wizards are trained in making somatic gestures without wearing armour. Even if their Dexterity is 2, they learn how to do the gestures through rigorous training. Wizards have the highest starting age of any class for a reason.

Wearing armour interferes with these rote gestures, so they sometimes get them wrong.

Bards, warmages and duskblades, meanwhile, train to perform these rote gestures while wearing armour, so it doesn't interfere, because they're used to it.

(Divine magic, meanwhile, doesn't require such expansive gesturing.)And being drunk does not, having got your fingers cut off does not?

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-07, 07:45 PM
There aren't rules for being drunk.

Dixieboy
2009-07-07, 07:47 PM
There aren't rules for being drunk.

Exactly. place filler

The Dark Fiddler
2009-07-07, 07:52 PM
Paladins must be Lawful Good. Why Lawful? If they got Detect and Smite Chaos I could understand, but they don't. Furthermore, Blackguards, essentially their opposites, aren't restricted to only Chaotic Evil, and can be any evil.

When I DM, I'm houseruling that Paladins can be any Good, instead of Lawful Good.

Ravens_cry
2009-07-07, 07:57 PM
There aren't rules for being drunk.
There should be. I once played a old grizzled barbarian woman, and I thought a great way to cement my new character in the group after my last character died, I wanted to challenge the Dwarven Fighter, deliciously stereotypical, to a drinking contest. It was perfect. But alas, there was no such rules.

oxybe
2009-07-07, 07:57 PM
why would cure light wounds, a spell that appears on both bard & cleric lists be hard to cast in armor for an arcane caster, yet not affect a divine caster? or better yet, the "adept" NPC class which has a universal spell list that is either divine or arcane (chosen upon creation)? an arcane adept's lightning bolt is hindered by armor while a divine adept's isn't...

there is no mechanical reasoning. none. nada. it's entirely a "the devs wanted wizards to be robed sages while the clerics knight templars". some classes were allowed a "free pass" but really, it's a thematic thing the devs chose.


as a wise man once said on these odd workings...


why do they work?

because it's D&D.

Hat-Trick
2009-07-07, 08:03 PM
Dixie Boy: I think that's where you're going to have to house rule in either a concentration check, spell failure, or outright "No."

Oxybe: Divine Casters don't need to weave magical energies into spells, they just need to release the power their piety granted to them.

Faleldir
2009-07-07, 08:05 PM
There aren't rules for being drunk.
It's in Arms And Equipment Guide page 32.

Dixieboy
2009-07-07, 08:12 PM
Dixie Boy: I think that's where you're going to have to house rule in either a concentration check, spell failure, or outright "No."

If you have to houserule to have stuff make sense, it's broken.

Agrippa
2009-07-07, 08:25 PM
Paladins must be Lawful Good. Why Lawful? If they got Detect and Smite Chaos I could understand, but they don't. Furthermore, Blackguards, essentially their opposites, aren't restricted to only Chaotic Evil, and can be any evil.

When I DM, I'm houseruling that Paladins can be any Good, instead of Lawful Good.

I think this migt explain why.

Lawful Good: While strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of Lawful Good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Only through the group can any individual gain security and meaningful position. Certain freedoms, such as rights to private property, must of course, be sacrificed to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.

That, in part is what older edition paladins were meant to be.

Trizap
2009-07-07, 08:31 PM
grapple rules?

half elves?

spell preparation? I mean how do you only remember a spell X times? surely if memorized a spell enough times you would recall it from memory, and you have been studying this magic for years yet for some reason you forget it in a day? tell me how could that possibly make sense, I mean imagine going "I've been practicing this spell for years and can cast it perfectly!" *cast spell* "I've completely forgotten the spell, need to re-memorize it"

John Campbell
2009-07-07, 08:31 PM
Try this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNhV-PH5v0) in armor and tell me how you do.

0:30, 1:21, 1:39 are pretty intricate. Something akin to what a wizard might do.

Try this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr8dROugblk) one as well at that speed with that accuracy in any kind of armor and gauntlets.

I know, I know. Naruto? But it's a good simulation of what a caster has to do to cast. In the middle of combat. With no mistakes. Also have to add in the arm waving. Don't for get the arm waving.

There's nothing there that would be made at all more difficult by any piece of armor other than gauntlets - and gauntlets would make most of them difficult to impossible. However, gauntlets, worn seperately from the armor, do not have arcane spell failure - they're not armor; they're a weapon.

And if it's just a matter of not being used to making the gestures in armor, what about my Fighter/Wizard (first level in Fighter), who's had Heavy Armor Proficiency longer than he's had spellcasting, picked up his first Wizard level after his adventuring career began, and has no reason other than ASF to not have done all of that training and practice in armor. Should he have ASF only when he's not carrying the familiar weight of his adamantine full plate? (He gets to ignore ASF anyway, because Runesmith, but still.)


A larger size category weapon doesn't give you reach. I know arms count for something, but your telling me if I am holding an animesque BFS Gargantuan Greatsword, I can still only attack the guy right in front of me?
On the flip side... you're telling me I need to take a feat - and not even a core feat - in order to attack someone five feet away from me with my glaive? It's that complicated to just choke up on it? Seriously, people, this is Polearm 101 stuff here.

John Campbell
2009-07-07, 08:44 PM
spell preparation? I mean how do you only remember a spell X times? surely if memorized a spell enough times you would recall it from memory, and you have been studying this magic for years yet for some reason you forget it in a day? tell me how could that possibly make sense, I mean imagine going "I've been practicing this spell for years and can cast it perfectly!" *cast spell* "I've completely forgotten the spell, need to re-memorize it"

This actually makes sense if you look at it the right way. The key is that preparing a spell isn't just memorizing the motions and so on necessary to cast it. In the original source, preparing a spell actually involved pre-casting most of it, leaving just a few gestures and incantations necessary to finish the job and trigger it, releasing all the energy and so on stored up earlier. Those last few gestures - the bit that usually takes only a standard action to do - might be easy enough to memorize and repeat over and over again all day, but doing them doesn't do any good if you didn't spend the ten minutes or whatever making the preparations earlier and so don't have the mostly-complete spell already waiting for you to trigger it - or if you've already set off all the ones you had readied.

oxybe
2009-07-07, 08:47 PM
Oxybe: Divine Casters don't need to weave magical energies into spells, they just need to release the power their piety granted to them.

Somatic component(SRD)
A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.

Arcane spell failure (SRD):
Armor interferes with the gestures that a spellcaster must make to cast an arcane spell that has a somatic component. Arcane spellcasters face the possibility of arcane spell failure if they’re wearing armor. Bards can wear light armor without incurring any arcane spell failure chance for their bard spells.

a divine character's spells are given to them by their god, but this says nothing about the casting, just how their spells are given to them each day. if it was as simple as releasing stored spell, why does it take a full round to cast summon monster, be it arcane or divine? could the divine caster not just release it and out pops the monster? just fire and forget and the monster pops out a round later? why do they have to concentrate that full round to cast? just because.

there is no text that describes the reason why. it says why arcane spell fails (unable to do complex gestures), but nothing about the divine. the issue is that divine spells also have somatic components to their spells yet are not affected by the virtue that they're not arcane.

the more you think about D&D and try to make logical, real world sense of it, the harder your head starts hurting. D&D works because it works in D&D.

@trizap:
spell prep, specifically vancian spellcasting preperation for the wizard, was better explained in 2nd ed and previous.

basically as you prepared the spell you locked it's energies and patterns in your mind until you were ready to say the final words to unleash it from you, essentially freeing your mind from the accumulated stress of those patterns and energies, you still know of the spell, you just need to refocus yourself. in this manner, your spellbook is more then just "a book of spells" it's a training manual for the mind with exercises to help you focus the energies. as to why you could only lock X level Y spells is not really described.

a night's sleep is needed to relax and clear your mind for memorization of new spells.

now the interesting thing is that those spells you had prepared the previous day are still there, you're just not as stressed (since you cast spells the night before). note that the study time to memorize spells (in 2nd ed at least) is 10 minutes PER spell level PER spell you're memorizing. IE: memorizing a level 1, 2 and 3 spell takes up an hour(10, 20 and 30 minutes). memorizing a level 9 spell takes an hour and a half by itself (90 minutes).

it's a bit more consistent and attempts to give some reasoning behind the mechanics at least.

mistformsquirrl
2009-07-07, 08:51 PM
Paladins must be Lawful Good. Why Lawful? If they got Detect and Smite Chaos I could understand, but they don't. Furthermore, Blackguards, essentially their opposites, aren't restricted to only Chaotic Evil, and can be any evil.

When I DM, I'm houseruling that Paladins can be any Good, instead of Lawful Good.

I think I know why this is the case actually, even if I agree with you overall.

Lawful Good is intended to evoke the idea of the knightly Code of Chivalry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry

Of course they couldn't simply take the code of Chivalry itself - it includes things like utter obedience to your lord - which can cause significant problems when trying to roleplay. (It can be an opportunity as well of course; but it's best left to the player and DM to handle that.)

It also creates substantial conflicts at times, between what is Good and what is Lawful in the Paladin. Trying to use the actual code of Chivalry would leave you with:

"If my lord orders me to massacre a village, what do I do? If I do as he says, I've violated my vow to protect the innocent. If I don't, I've violated my Lord's trust. Either way the code is broken."

Which... causes problems. That and the fact that D&D is generally looking at things from a much more modern perspective when it comes to morality.

For example: In most D&D settings, women aren't really looked at much differently from the men unless a (usually Evil) group is involved. Obviously that doesn't really jive with medieval sensibilities where women were in large part... property.

Oh that and the fact that Chivalry often times was interpreted to apply only to the nobility. (Farmer John needs saving from a band of orcs? Pfft, he's out of luck unless his lord happens to feel like an orc hunt.)
So to make a long post short:

Lawful Good as intended for the Paladin is "Chivalry for the Modern Audience"; thus the lawful part which compels you to speak true, respect legitimate authority, refrain from stealing and many acts of subterfuge (but not all).

That's how I see it anyway. Ultimately I think that the Paladin concept really has moved beyond that root - to the point where one can play a paladin of any Good alignment - and the "Knight in Shining Armor" archetype is left for a specific brand of Lawful Good paladin.

But that's me >.>

The Dark Fiddler
2009-07-07, 09:17 PM
I think I know why this is the case actually, even if I agree with you overall.

Lawful Good is intended to evoke the idea of the knightly Code of Chivalry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry
{snipped}


Glad I'm not the only one who thinks that. I can now see why it would be the case, but I don't agree with it.

Still plan on houseruling Paladin to Any Good.

Devils_Advocate
2009-07-07, 09:55 PM
Well, there's multiple things that give a creature/thing an alignment.
A pattern of behavior (or a very strongly aligned single deed) is reflected in an intelligent being's alignment. The favor of the deities can be reflected in one's alignment. Additionally, certain types of energies can inherently suffuse spells, objects, or creatures. A typical golem has no alignment from any of these sources. A zombie typically has an evil alignment from the third source, but not from the other two.

/not the way I'd do it.
The alignment section says, though, that "A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment". That's specifically what a creature's alignment is supposed to be. A spell or non-intelligent item isn't actually Evil in the same sense as an Evil creature is Evil. We may speak of such things being "Evil-aligned", but that's just a convenient shorthand for other things; non-sentients don't literally have actual alignments. A literally Evil-aligned thing tries to harm others; there's no actual Evil alignment without intent.

I would say that the zombie should have the (Evil) subtype instead of Evil alignment... if there were any reason given for zombies being associated with Evil in the first place.


the "adept" NPC class which has a universal spell list that is either divine or arcane (chosen upon creation)?
I think that the Adept is just a Wis-based divine caster in 3.5.

Arcane and divine casters supposedly cast different versions of the same spell, but that in itself strains credulity / lacks reasoning behind it. Why is there a partial overlap between spell lists, instead of no overlap or complete overlap? If arcane and divine spells use different components and are written differently on scrolls, why is there only one Spellcraft skill? And then they bring in Bards being able to cast some of the same arcane spells as Wizards in light armor but not medium or heavy armor, and also using song or poetry instead of normal intonations which means that there are potentially three different sets of components for the exact same spell, which is a different level depending on who casts it, and...

Yikes.


tell me how could that possibly make sense
The memory of the spell is consumed in casting it, like a material component.

Though that still leaves the question of how one spell can be "memorized twice." (Hmm, maybe disallowing prepared casters from having multiple preparations of a single spell at once would be a reasonable restriction?)

warrl
2009-07-07, 09:55 PM
If a medium-size humanoid is enlarged via Enlarge Person, he becomes Large and gains 10' Reach like most other Large humanoids.

If a medium-size humanoid is enlarged via Righteous Might, he becomes Large but does NOT gain 10' Reach. In every other respect, Righteous Might is at least equal to Enlarge Person.

Ninetail
2009-07-07, 09:59 PM
But the healing word is silly and makes no sense as written. If it were a bit more divine then maybe, but mustering healing with just shouting at someone don't fly. Cells don't regenerate because you yell at them.

What makes you think Healing Word is a yell, and not a quick prayer? Especially given that the flavor description of Healing Word provided reads "You whisper a brief prayer as divine light washes over your target, helping to mend its wounds"?

For that matter, what makes it any more reasonable for cells to regenerate in response to a quick prayer than to a yell? The science isn't going to jive either way...

Lamech
2009-07-07, 10:05 PM
The 3.5 falling makes no sense, you go way to slow. Fly rules don't make sense wind doesn't have the effect it should; you should be blown at the wind speed, like a moving walk in airports, or riding in a car.

oxybe
2009-07-07, 10:18 PM
on the adept

yup, i didn't remember properly, it is a divine only caster. but there is still serious overlap though between it and the wizard alone with the spell list, which is what caused my brain to fart.... i mean seriously... divine polymorph... yeesh.

Zeful
2009-07-07, 10:29 PM
spell preparation? I mean how do you only remember a spell X times? surely if memorized a spell enough times you would recall it from memory, and you have been studying this magic for years yet for some reason you forget it in a day? tell me how could that possibly make sense, I mean imagine going "I've been practicing this spell for years and can cast it perfectly!" *cast spell* "I've completely forgotten the spell, need to re-memorize it"

I don't see a problem with this.

Devils_Advocate
2009-07-08, 12:48 AM
oxybe, perhaps you confused the Adept with the Generic Spellcaster (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm#spellcaster) from Unearthed Arcana, which indeed can be made either arcane or divine, and also gets a combination of the Cleric, Druid, and Sorcerer/Wizard spell lists. (Specifically, its spell list is the union of the three.) Not too hard a mistake to make if working from memory, since it's probably been a while since you've looked at either class.

Mystic Muse
2009-07-08, 01:42 AM
an AC feat bonus from armor and an AC Feat bonus from a shield not stacking.

you become better with armor AND a shield. what's so impossible about that?

sofawall
2009-07-08, 02:29 AM
Which two feats don't stack, just out of curiosity?

Kemper Boyd
2009-07-08, 03:40 AM
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks that. I can now see why it would be the case, but I don't agree with it.

Still plan on houseruling Paladin to Any Good.

In my Eberron campaign, Paladins are allowed to be any good alignment. Why? Because being a paladin, in my view, is a higher calling and above the laws of men, and churches and religious organizations fall quite squarely into the realm of men than the realm of the divine.

Kurald Galain
2009-07-08, 03:44 AM
There aren't rules for being drunk.
I'm reasonably sure that there are (in one of the many optional sub-books, but I forget which edition). But yes, being drunk does impose spell failure chance.

On the other hand, the idea that the somatic components are so easy that they can be performed with near-zero strength or dexterity, lack of fingers, while fatigued, and underwater; and simultaneously are so hard that they are hampered by wearing leather armor which hampers nothing else in the game, is pretty ridiculous.

On the third hand, since a cleric spell is only a prayer (and a different power source, even where it technically has the same effect as a wizard spell) there is no reason why it should be hampered in armor. Unless your deity saith, thou shalt not weareth armor. Eth.


grapple rules?

half elves?

spell preparation?
Grapple rules try to strike a balance between realism and playability, and fail big-time.

Half elves make a lot of sense mythologically (if not biologically), since legends are full of half-whatevers.

Spell preparation does make sense, but the D&D books do a pretty bad job of explaining why it does. This falls under Magic A (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicAIsMagicA).


What makes you think Healing Word is a yell, and not a quick prayer?
That explains the clerical version, yes, but not the warlord's.

Oslecamo
2009-07-08, 05:27 AM
lack of fingers, while fatigued, and underwater;

Actually, for casting spells you need human-like hands. I'm pretty sure that a hand whitout fingers doesn't count as a humanoid hand.

As for casting underwater, first water doesn't really hampers the movement of your fingers, second you can't talck underwater to begin with, so you can't normally cast at all.

Plus casters being old geezerds with near zero strenght and dexterity is a staple of fantasy.

Dixieboy
2009-07-08, 05:41 AM
Actually, for casting spells you need human-like hands. I'm pretty sure that a hand whitout fingers doesn't count as a humanoid hand.

As for casting underwater, first water doesn't really hampers the movement of your fingers, second you can't talck underwater to begin with, so you can't normally cast at all.

Plus casters being old geezerds with near zero strenght and dexterity is a staple of fantasy.An awakened cat can cast from what i gather

an awakaned cat has no hands.

there are spells which doesn't require you to talk, there's also the feat "Silent spell"

and i don't think you understand just how weak someone with 2-3 strength is.

Kurald Galain
2009-07-08, 05:46 AM
A
As for casting underwater, first water doesn't really hampers the movement of your fingers.

I'm quite sure that wearing platemail doesn't hamper the movement of your fingers either :smalltongue:

Oslecamo
2009-07-08, 05:51 AM
An awakened cat can cast from what i gather

an awakaned cat has no hands.

No they can't. It's a well known optimization fact that playing an awakened animal caster first demands some way to bypass the lack of hands. Unless it's a monkey.



there are spells which doesn't require you to talk, there's also the feat "Silent spell"

That's why I said "normally". There's also the "still spell" feat. There's your casting whitout moving at all.

Plus, there are real life people who can paint underwater. That's finesse for you. As long as you don't do any big gestures, water doesn't really get in the way.



and i don't think you understand just how weak someone with 2-3 strength is.
As long as it is enough for you to grab the spell component and focus in question whitout trouble, I don't see the problem. How much strenght do you need to move your own fingers again?

Kurald Gain: Fullplate comes with gauntlets. Take them off, lose the AC bonus.

Yuki Akuma
2009-07-08, 06:44 AM
It's a well-known optimization fact, is it? Hm, funny. I've never heard of it. Care to cite your sources?

Oh, hey! Have you ever heard of dragons? You know, large, scaly things, their names are in the bloody title?

Yeah, they don't have hands.

They cast spells as sorcerers.

It boggles the mind how people seem to think somatic components need hands. Where do people get this misconception from?

Oslecamo
2009-07-08, 07:12 AM
It's a well-known optimization fact, is it? Hm, funny. I've never heard of it. Care to cite your sources?

Oh, hey! Have you ever heard of dragons? You know, large, scaly things, their names are in the bloody title?

Yeah, they don't have hands.

They have. Big, clawed hands, but perfectly capable of fine manipulation, just like crafting magic items, writing and manipulating the fine jewelery they love to collect.

Consult dracomicon for further information.



It boggles the mind how people seem to think somatic components need hands. Where do people get this misconception from?
From alter self:

must have limbs capable of fine manipulation to use somatic or material components

If you want to argue that a cat's paw is a limb capable of fine manipulation, go ahead, but I doubt you'll convince many DMs with that.

For further information consult Savage Species book.

Kurald Galain
2009-07-08, 07:56 AM
It boggles the mind how people seem to think somatic components need hands. Where do people get this misconception from?
Because that's how it's commonly portrayed in fiction - an awesome example being Magus from Chrono Trigger.


Kurald Gain:[/B] Fullplate comes with gauntlets. Take them off, lose the AC bonus.
Well, since we're discussing "rules that don't make sense" - it makes no sense that you would lose the armor benefit from "heavy leather boots, a visored helmet, and a thick layer of padding that is worn underneath the armor" if you remove the gauntlets.:smallbiggrin:

Haarkla
2009-07-08, 08:24 AM
Bards alignment restrictions.

Bards go through years of musical training, learning the lore of their society. Not all bards were historically wanderers, there were court bards, playwrights, even historians.

Riffington
2009-07-08, 08:28 AM
Bards alignment restrictions.

Bards go through years of musical training, learning the lore of their society. Not all bards were historically wanderers, there were court bards, playwrights, even historians.

Those were all Experts or Aristocrats.
True bards know secret Druidic lore.

/bards casting arcane spells is what doesn't make sense

13_CBS
2009-07-08, 08:35 AM
/bards casting arcane spells is what doesn't make sense

Actually, I would guess Bards in D&D can cast spells due to old Western myths about bards, well, being able to cast spells (or, more accurately, use magic). IIRC, there was a certain Finnish bardic hero who could use magic and stuff, and Odin, on top of being a potent sorcerer, was also a great poet.

Jayabalard
2009-07-08, 08:39 AM
It's magic, it's not supposed to make sense.Only for certain types of magic. Some people don't like limiting themselves to that specific subgenre of fantasy.


Actually, I would guess Bards in D&D can cast spells due to old Western myths about bards, well, being able to cast spells (or, more accurately, use magic). IIRC, there was a certain Finnish bardic hero who could use magic and stuff, and Odin, on top of being a potent sorcerer, was also a great poet.I think he's more talking about the arcane part of that rather than the spells part of that... specifically that bards should be casting divine (druid related) spells rather than arcane spells.


I'm reasonably sure that there are (in one of the many optional sub-books, but I forget which edition). But yes, being drunk does impose spell failure chance.I remember reading 1e rules for that on BBS's, but I can't recall whether they were official rules or not.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-08, 09:09 AM
I think he's more talking about the arcane part of that rather than the spells part of that... specifically that bards should be casting divine (druid related) spells rather than arcane spells.

1) Bards originally cast wizard spells in addition to druid spells. Since wizard spells went up to level 9 and druid spells only to level 7, arcane spells were more a part of a bard's abilities than druidic spells, so it makes sense that they'd cast arcane spells.

2) Just because bards were associated with druids historically doesn't mean D&D bards use magic in the same way as D&D druids. Druids draw on nature to power their spells, a mystical kind of thing, while bards use music (a mathematical medium requiring much study) to work their magic rather than any mystical power; while I wouldn't be averse to letting bards learn spells from the druid list (which I often do), they should definitely be arcane spellcasters, not divine.

The Rose Dragon
2009-07-08, 09:14 AM
2) Just because bards were associated with druids historically doesn't mean D&D bards use magic in the same way as D&D druids. Druids draw on nature to power their spells, a mystical kind of thing, while bards use music (a mathematical medium requiring much study) to work their magic rather than any mystical power; while I wouldn't be averse to letting bards learn spells from the druid list (which I often do), they should definitely be arcane spellcasters, not divine.

Didn't Bards need levels in Druid or something to even take levels in Bard in 1st Edition?

Curmudgeon
2009-07-08, 09:23 AM
Spot and Listen have penalties that are linear with distance. That's just wrong, because doubling the size of something that you need to Spot changes the DC by only a small constant (-4), rather than halving it. Doubling the distance to something while doubling its dimensions should have no net change in the Spot DC. But the rules make it much harder to notice things at distance.

Because of those funky rules you can't Spot the Moon in plain sight. It's just not possible. Which leads to all sorts of collateral foolishness like not being able to navigate by the stars, because you can tell that there's some light but you can't Spot any individual sources.

Jayabalard
2009-07-08, 09:29 AM
1) Bards originally cast wizard spells in addition to druid spells. Since wizard spells went up to level 9 and druid spells only to level 7, arcane spells were more a part of a bard's abilities than druidic spells, so it makes sense that they'd cast arcane spells.there weren't wizard spells originally... it was magic-user spells.

Beyond that, if I recall correctly, in 1e (where the bard first appears) bards just got Druid spells, and they never got higher than level 5 spells. I seem to recall that only druids that had gone out and defeated one of the limited high level positions in the druidic order wound up being able to cast 7th level druid spells.

In 2e they may have gotten both druid and magic user spells, but I don't really recall (we continued using primarily 1e rules, so we never used the 2e bard).


Didn't Bards need levels in Druid or something to even take levels in Bard in 1st Edition?Yes, they did; you started as a fighter, and between levels 5 and 9* switched to thief, and then between levels 5 and 9* switched to druid. When you switched to a druid you were a bard.

*I think that's the right level range. it's been a long time so I might be misremembering.

lesser_minion
2009-07-08, 09:37 AM
The 1st edition bard was a really weird animal. IIRC, it progressed as a particular character class for a particular number of levels, but had its own spells per day. I think the levels combined as if multiclassing, but they only counted for things like number of attacks, access to theif skills and maybe stats.

I definitely remember the 1e bard using the druid spell list and having the druid restrictions on equipment and alignment, however.

Riffington
2009-07-08, 09:39 AM
1) Bards originally cast wizard spells in addition to druid spells.
They only cast druid spells.



Since wizard spells went up to level 9 and druid spells only to level 7, arcane spells were more a part of a bard's abilities than druidic spells, so it makes sense that they'd cast arcane spells.
Of note, a 7th level druid spell was as powerful as a 9th level wizard spell.



bards use music (a mathematical medium requiring much study) to work their magic rather than any mystical power.

Music is a bipartite form calling upon Apollo (in its math) and Dionysius (in its soul). Apollo teaches musicians how to practice and perfect their form so that they can consistently please, and record history as it was. Dionysius inspires musicians to touch the inner core of men and beast and bring out the future as it can be.

Kurald Galain
2009-07-08, 09:43 AM
there weren't wizard spells originally... it was magic-user spells.
Yeah, but "MU" is just a stupid word for "wizard".

2E bards get wizard spells, btw, up to level 6.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-08, 09:52 AM
Didn't Bards need levels in Druid or something to even take levels in Bard in 1st Edition?


Beyond that, if I recall correctly, in 1e (where the bard first appears) bards just got Druid spells, and they never got higher than level 5 spells. I seem to recall that only druids that had gone out and defeated one of the limited high level positions in the druidic order wound up being able to cast 7th level druid spells.

Dammit, I was misremembering it as magic-user/thief/druid; I was thinking of the Fochlucan Lyrist PrC, since I've been statting one out for a player of mine--they didn't get MU spells until 2e. :smallredface: Never mind the first point, then (or replace "originally" with "at some point") but I believe the second point stands.


Of note, a 7th level druid spell was as powerful as a 9th level wizard spell.

It was, but there were more MU spells numerically, so a level X MU had more spells of a given level than a level X druid.


bards use music (a mathematical medium requiring much study) to work their magic rather than any mystical power.
Music is a bipartite form calling upon Apollo (in its math) and Dionysius (in its soul). Apollo teaches musicians how to practice and perfect their form so that they can consistently please, and record history as it was. Dionysius inspires musicians to touch the inner core of men and beast and bring out the future as it can be.

Very poetic, and I agree with the sentiment, but whereas a druid doesn't need any particular skill to use his magic (he just asks nature nicely and gets an effect) the bard's music depends on his own skill level, particularly in 3e with the reliance on Perform. Now, one could argue that bards are magically granted instant mastery of musical skill, but that goes against most of the lore and cheapens the bard's achievements.

The Dark Fiddler
2009-07-08, 10:17 AM
Spot and Listen have penalties that are linear with distance. That's just wrong, because doubling the size of something that you need to Spot changes the DC by only a small constant (-4), rather than halving it. Doubling the distance to something while doubling its dimensions should have no net change in the Spot DC. But the rules make it much harder to notice things at distance.

Because of those funky rules you can't Spot the Moon in plain sight. It's just not possible. Which leads to all sorts of collateral foolishness like not being able to navigate by the stars, because you can tell that there's some light but you can't Spot any individual sources.

This is both hilarious and sad at the same time.

quick_comment
2009-07-08, 10:30 AM
Its also impossible to notice that its day, because you cant spot the sun.

tyckspoon
2009-07-08, 10:33 AM
They have. Big, clawed hands, but perfectly capable of fine manipulation, just like crafting magic items, writing and manipulating the fine jewelery they love to collect.

Consult dracomicon for further information.


Couatls. 9th level sorcerer casting. Nothing even vaguely resembling a hand.

This may actually be me inserting sanity into the rules, since I can't seem to find it again, but I had thought the rule was this way:

Creatures are always capable of performing somatic components in their natural forms. Just as whatever counts for normal vocalizations qualifies for verbal components, whatever parts of the body the creature can move with reasonable control can perform somatic components. Material components must still be manipulated, however, which is why non-humanoid spellcasters are advised to either take Eschew Materials or find some functional hand-replacement. In order to retain spellcasting while shapeshifted, the spellcaster must turn into something with approximately the same body plan. An Awakened Cat might use fine movements of its ears and tail for somatic components, but if it polymorphs into a humanoid it will have no idea what to do with those weird finger things, and where the hell did it's tail go?

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-08, 10:52 AM
Spot and Listen have penalties that are linear with distance. That's just wrong, because doubling the size of something that you need to Spot changes the DC by only a small constant (-4), rather than halving it. Doubling the distance to something while doubling its dimensions should have no net change in the Spot DC. But the rules make it much harder to notice things at distance.

Because of those funky rules you can't Spot the Moon in plain sight. It's just not possible. Which leads to all sorts of collateral foolishness like not being able to navigate by the stars, because you can tell that there's some light but you can't Spot any individual sources.

Actually, a few mitigating factors:

1) You only need Spot checks for things that are hiding, or "not intentionally hiding but difficult to see"; the sun and stars aren't hiding, so you don't need a check.

2) If a check is required for some reason, those penalties are specifically in the "determining encounter distance" section:


Spot checks may be called for to determine the distance at which an encounter begins. A penalty applies on such checks, depending on the distance between the two individuals or groups, and an additional penalty may apply if the character making the Spot check is distracted (not concentrating on being observant).

Each terrain type has a maximum Spot distance, such as 180 feet in a sparse forest ("In a sparse forest, the maximum distance at which a Spot check for detecting the nearby presence of others can succeed is 3d6×10 feet. In a medium forest, this distance is 2d8×10 feet, and in a dense forest it is 2d6×10 feet").

It's unclear how that and the distance penalty interact, and I've seen it argued that the distance penalty applies past that, so under a possible ruling (keep in mind this isn't guaranteed RAW) because the sky does not have a listed maximum distance, you don't take distance penalties to Spot the stars and sun.

John Campbell
2009-07-08, 10:57 AM
In 2e they may have gotten both druid and magic user spells, but I don't really recall (we continued using primarily 1e rules, so we never used the 2e bard).
Bards got only mage spells in 2E.

Curmudgeon
2009-07-08, 11:03 AM
1) You only need Spot checks for things that are hiding, or "not intentionally hiding but difficult to see"; the sun and stars aren't hiding, so you don't need a check. Sorry, that's wrong; you're missing part of the D&D rules. Right at the beginning of the Skills chapter there's a Difficulty Class Examples (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#difficultyClass) table. It includes this line:

Difficulty (DC) Very easy (0): Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)
Spot is only used primarily to notice things that are hiding. You also use it to determine whether you see something the first time you have line of sight to it.

And then there's this:
Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action. So you missed seeing something the first time. You have no clue that it's there, but you can never see it again unless:
it does something for you to react to (generally attack); or
you use a move action Spot to try to see it (even though you don't know there's anything to see)

Mo_the_Hawked
2009-07-08, 11:16 AM
The biggest beef I have with rules is that Improved crit and Keen don't stack. Now I can understand that the second shouldn't double the first. But Know how to wield a weapon better and then it being Magicaly sharp should provide some benefit.

Riffington
2009-07-08, 11:29 AM
The biggest beef I have with rules is that Improved crit and Keen don't stack. Now I can understand that the second shouldn't double the first. But Know how to wield a weapon better and then it being Magicaly sharp should provide some benefit.

It was a problem in 3e when they stacked and my DM believed that all threats were autohits...

SirKazum
2009-07-08, 11:33 AM
Sorry, that's wrong; you're missing part of the D&D rules. Right at the beginning of the Skills chapter there's a Difficulty Class Examples (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#difficultyClass) table. It includes this line:

Difficulty (DC) Very easy (0): Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)
Spot is only used primarily to notice things that are hiding. You also use it to determine whether you see something the first time you have line of sight to it.

And then there's this: So you missed seeing something the first time. You have no clue that it's there, but you can never see it again unless:
it does something for you to react to (generally attack); or
you use a move action Spot to try to see it (even though you don't know there's anything to see)


And even if you go with "no Spot checks for things that aren't hidden", it would be enough for someone standing on the Moon's surface to throw, say, a 5'x5' blanket on the ground with the intention of hiding the Moon (this intention would be important), and it would suddenly make it invisible to everyone on Earth. Because then a Spot check would be required, and nobody would be able to pass it. "Now you see it... now you don't!"

Curmudgeon
2009-07-08, 11:36 AM
The biggest beef I have with rules is that Improved crit and Keen don't stack. Sean K. Reynolds agrees with you. Rant: If Keen and Improved Critical Don't Stack, The Terrorists Will Have Won (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/keenimprovedcritstacking.html)

oxybe
2009-07-08, 11:38 AM
when you get older your physical stats go down, your mental stats go up.

spot and listen are based off Wisdom, a mental stat.

on average, an elderly gentleman will have keener eyesight and more acute hearing then a young man. they also have an easier time remembering facts (knowledge, which is based of Int).

:smallamused:

quick_comment
2009-07-08, 11:40 AM
when you get older your physical stats go down, your mental stats go up.

spot and listen are based off Wisdom, a mental stat.

on average, an elderly gentleman will have keener eyesight and more acute hearing then a young man. they also have an easier time remembering facts (knowledge, which is based of Int).

:smallamused:

They are also better looking and more intimidating

The Rose Dragon
2009-07-08, 11:42 AM
They are also better looking and more intimidating

Another rule that doesn't make sense is that higher Charisma makes you better looking.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-08, 11:47 AM
Sorry, that's wrong; you're missing part of the D&D rules. Right at the beginning of the Skills chapter

Ah. I don't have a physical PHB (here at work or at home) so I go exclusively off the SRD and didn't think to check outside of the Spot description. Those are only examples, and making a Spot check to see something "in plain sight" is as stupid as requiring a Climb check to go up stairs, but if we're taking that as RAW...

The sun takes massive Hide penalties from being Colossal++++[...]+ (hey, it's just as much an epic threat as a dragon), perfectly canceling out the distance penalty. :smallbiggrin:


And even if you go with "no Spot checks for things that aren't hidden", it would be enough for someone standing on the Moon's surface to throw, say, a 5'x5' blanket on the ground with the intention of hiding the Moon (this intention would be important), and it would suddenly make it invisible to everyone on Earth. Because then a Spot check would be required, and nobody would be able to pass it. "Now you see it... now you don't!"

Now, hiding the moon is fine; that's a suitably mythical act that it would make sense. (And a 5x5 blanket doesn't provide enough cover to Hide; I don't think you can Hide or Sleight of Hand things if you can't hold them/put them behind cover/etc.)

woodenbandman
2009-07-08, 11:49 AM
good fantasy (e.g. Tolkien)

No. Tolkein was a crappy writer with no idea how to craft an interesting description, and he couldn't stick to the plotline without derailing it every 10 minutes just so that he could recite some of his hackneyed poetry. Disagree with me? Then explain, at length, the narrative reason for the existance of Tom Bombadil. There isn't any. He's only there so that Tolkein could rhyme "fellow" with "yellow."

Furthermore, he couldn't tell an interesting battle scene to save his ass (and I say this because despite all the brutal killings that apparently happened in the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, I don't remember reading about any of them), and his characters are flat and uninteresting, with the notable exception of Bilbo Baggins, and are yet again failed attempts at poetry (Dori, Nori, Oin Gloin, Fili, Kili, Dwalin, Balin, Biffur, Boffur, and Bombour, and Thorin), except when he needs them to be small gods, such as when Aragorn is able to track the halflings from the site of the battle based on the impressions that they left in the battlefield (and nobody miraculously trampled upon or fell on or what the heck ever), or when Gandalf defeats the Balrog (and yet he couldn't just defeat the mountain?).
Furtherfurthermore, there is no defined system of magic at all in tolkein's universe. There are items of magical power, but these are extremely few and far between, and he quite often traces their history back to the original owner but not who created them or why or how (who would create a magical frickin' glowy bottle of water? And how did Sting come about, and how does it detect enemies?). Nor is there any reason to explain them, because the characters don't really question how or why, because they're so dumb (Why can Gandalf summon the SUN but not summon clothes that will allow them to cross the snow without feeling cold?).

So, in short, I disagree. Tolkein fantasy is not good fantasy, at all.

Anyway, on topic: The spontaneous casting rules. Why can't I cast fireball 40 times per day? I'm level 20, I should be able to cast whatever I please with my arcane energy! Oh, there's a feat I need to take?

There are so many things that shouldn't be feats, and so many feats that shouldn't exist period (dodge, mobility). Combat expertise should be an action you can take any time, so is power attack. So is Trapfinding, for that matter (though maybe that ought to be a feat, not a class feature). Spring attack? maybe a feat. Maybe also make Whirlwind attack a feat.

quick_comment
2009-07-08, 11:53 AM
The sun takes massive Hide penalties from being Colossal++++[...]+ (hey, it's just as much an epic threat as a dragon), perfectly canceling out the distance penalty. :smallbiggrin:

Ill bet you that if you do the math, it does not.

The Rose Dragon
2009-07-08, 11:57 AM
Ill bet you that if you do the math, it does not.

Even then, it's houseruling to the nth degree. There is no size category larger than Colossal+ and the penalties do not increase going from Colossal to Colossal+.

Blackfang108
2009-07-08, 12:00 PM
So is Trapfinding, for that matter (though maybe that ought to be a feat, not a class feature). Spring attack? maybe a feat. Maybe also make Whirlwind attack a feat.

Um... Spring Attack IS a Feat. So is Whirlwind Attack... (Assuming 3.5)

You're right, Trapfinding SHOULD be a feat.

Curmudgeon
2009-07-08, 12:19 PM
The sun takes massive Hide penalties from being Colossal++++[...]+ (hey, it's just as much an epic threat as a dragon), perfectly canceling out the distance penalty. :smallbiggrin: Don't make me laugh; this is not even close. You're just not comprehending how much discrepancy there is between linear and exponential formulas here.

Sun's diameter = 1.392×10^9 m or 4.567x10^9 feet, or about 2^32 feet.
That's 32 steps up in size from tiny, or 29 steps up from large. Each step drops the Spot DC by -4, so the DC to see the Sun within 10' is -116.

Sun's distance = 1.496×10^11 m or 4.908x10^11 feet.
Each 10' boosts the Spot DC by 1, or about +49,080,000,000. So the resulting DC to Spot the Sun from Earth is about 49,079,999,884.

You see, the penalty for distance is over 400 million times the bonus for the Sun's size. "Perfectly canceling"? :biggrin: It's time for remedial math for you, PairO'Dice Lost!

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-08, 12:20 PM
Even then, it's houseruling to the nth degree. There is no size category larger than Colossal+ and the penalties do not increase going from Colossal to Colossal+.

Of course it is, hence the :smallbiggrin: smiley. I never claimed it was RAW.

Kurald Galain
2009-07-08, 12:26 PM
No.

So, in short, I disagree. Tolkein fantasy is not good fantasy, at all.
I'm sure the rest of the world will be greatly impressed by your negative opinion about one of the most influential writers of the 20th century :smallbiggrin: I hear his works even inspired the creation of a certain role-playing game that most of the people in this forum play...

Hat-Trick
2009-07-08, 12:38 PM
I don't think we're arguing Tolkien's contributions, just his ability to tell a story.

Quietus
2009-07-08, 12:55 PM
I don't think we're arguing Tolkien's contributions, just his ability to tell a story.

Precisely.

I'd have to agree, in fact; I simply couldn't get all the way through the Lord of the Rings, because it alternated between too dry to read and too mind-bogglingly annoying. Was Tolkien one of the most influential writers in the entire Fantasy genre? Certainly, and we owe a huge amount of thanks to him. The key, really, is to keep in mind that his books weren't intended to tell a story in the way we think of it now; As I understand it, his intention was to write basically a series of children's stories, tales he could tell his kids before bed. Also, to display his many new languages. In these, he succeeded. He also presented a view of storytelling not already well known; high fantasy, with magical elves and stoic dwarves, and a supposedly epic tale about having to throw a cursed ring in a volcano. Outside of mythology, such tales weren't common before Tolkien came along, at least to my knowledge. He brought Fantasy to the masses, so to speak. So yes, I appreciate what he brought us, but not because I like his writing.

Jayabalard
2009-07-08, 12:59 PM
Disagree with me?Yes.

who would create a magical frickin' glowy bottle of water?Galadriel, wielder of Nenya, the Ring of Water.

And how did Sting come about, and how does it detect enemies?Forged by elves (not specifically identified), probably in Gondolin during the First Age like Glamdring and Orcrist (which were found in the same place, and have similar properties).

Then explain, at length, the narrative reason for the existance of Tom Bombadil.Why would there need to be a narrative reason for his existence? Personally I prefer my fantasy stories to have plenty of things in them that are not part of the narrative. It makes them seem quite a bit more "real" than a story where everything that happens has some sort of story related significance.

Furthermore, he couldn't tell an interesting battle scene to save his ass/shrug. Battle scenes don't really have anything to do with whether fantasy is good or bad; plenty of good fantasy has no battle scenes at all. I personally find the battle scenes in the books quite interesting.

Furtherfurthermore, there is no defined system of magic at all in tolkein's universe.It's told from the point of view of someone who doesn't know anything about magic; that doesn't mean that it isn't defined. Quite the contrary. In any case, I don't see what having a non-defined magic system has to do with being good or bad fantasy.

Blackfang108
2009-07-08, 01:03 PM
I'm sure the rest of the world will be greatly impressed by your negative opinion about one of the most influential writers of the 20th century :smallbiggrin: I hear his works even inspired the creation of a certain role-playing game that most of the people in this forum play...

Remember: Influential/popular does not mean good.

Look at N*Sync or The Backstreet Boys. No one will argue that they were popular (at one time, amongst a certain demographic). Similarily, no one will argue that they were actually good.

EDIT: Just Catchy. Like SARS.

Fitz10019
2009-07-08, 01:23 PM
As I understand it, his intention was to write basically a series of children's stories, tales he could tell his kids before bed.

Tolkien wrote The Hobbit for his children, as bedtime stories. The rest he wrote more for himself, as sagas imitating historical mythologies, his field of study at Oxford.
[/derail]

HPs are HPs.
[/derail]

Bards are bards.
[/derail]

Rules that don't make sense:
Don't you pretty much always get a reflex save, no matter what your mental or health condition is?

NEO|Phyte
2009-07-08, 01:26 PM
Rules that don't make sense:
Don't you pretty much always get a reflex save, no matter what your mental or health condition is?

Yep, although some conditions deny you Evasion and/or have you treat your Dex as though it was 0 (-5 modifier)

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-08, 01:59 PM
Since I missed this the first time around:


Don't make me laugh; this is not even close. You're just not comprehending how much discrepancy there is between linear and exponential formulas here.

:smallannoyed: It was a joke. That's what the :smallbiggrin: is for. I can do the math just fine. They need to get a new irony smiley around here, or I'm going to wear it out by having to put it in every single post.

However, to continue in that vein, just for kicks and giggles....


You see, the penalty for distance is over 400 million times the bonus for the Sun's size. "Perfectly canceling"? :biggrin: It's time for remedial math for you, PairO'Dice Lost!

You don't know what the sun's Hide modifier is, though. If you take penalties for being in bright light, think of the penalties for being bright light. The sun's penalty to Hide from the light is probably, oh, let's pick a round number...maybe -49,080,000,000? So, if you roll Spot vs. the sun's Hide, you need to adjust your Spot check based on the distance (-49,079,999,884, if my calculations are right). Cancel out the negative modifiers for simplicity and you get...

Why, look at that! They cancel perfectly! :smallwink:

See that thing?----------------------------------------^
That means it's a joke. Now stop demeaning my math skills!
Also a joke.-----------------------------^
I do that a lot.

BACK ON TOPIC:


Yep, although some conditions deny you Evasion and/or have you treat your Dex as though it was 0 (-5 modifier)

I believe those conditions are (A) when you are in a space too small for you to move, (B) when you're bound, grappled, or otherwise immobilized, or (C) when you're helpless. Which doesn't fix the problem of avoiding a 40-foot fireball in a 20-foot room as long as your hands aren't tied and you can walk around, but it's a nod towards realism, at least.

magellan
2009-07-08, 02:14 PM
Quick sidenote:
TSR could have avoided all that confusion concerning vancian casting if they only had written "preparing" instead of "memorizing" and "using up" or "casting" instead of "forgetting" in their rulebooks ;)

Random832
2009-07-08, 02:15 PM
Except the sun isn't just bright light, it's blinding light. Which should actually improve its hide modifier... which is appropriate because it is not actually possible to see the sun - you just see a featureless disk of light (which you are blinded by, in that spot), none of the sunspots or corona or anything that you'd see if you were actually able to make the spot check.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-08, 02:36 PM
Quick sidenote:
TSR could have avoided all that confusion concerning vancian casting if they only had written "preparing" instead of "memorizing" and "using up" or "casting" instead of "forgetting" in their rulebooks ;)

The reason they did that is Vancian magic is based on a set of books where the wizards actually do memorize spells and forget them upon casting. The problem comes in when TSR didn't include the reason why--spells are sentient, and the act of memorizing them actually transfers them from the page to your head, and casting the spells lets them out (so you can only have one copy of a spell memorized at once, spells want you to cast them, and so on). I think it would actually have been better to keep the whole Vancian fluff, but them doing it halfway has made too many players see it as stupid or illogical or too predictible or whatever, when they could be touting it as the coolest, most fantastic system.


Except the sun isn't just bright light, it's blinding light. Which should actually improve its hide modifier... which is appropriate because it is not actually possible to see the sun - you just see a featureless disk of light (which you are blinded by, in that spot), none of the sunspots or corona or anything that you'd see if you were actually able to make the spot check.

JOKE. This entire thread is about taking perfectly logical-seeming rules or ideas and twisting them until they start taking subdual damage. The sun not being able to hide because it's too bright is just as ridiculous as not being able to see the sun because it's too far away.

Ehra
2009-07-08, 03:10 PM
Then explain, at length, the narrative reason for the existance of Tom Bombadil. There isn't any. He's only there so that Tolkein could rhyme "fellow" with "yellow."

Why does there have to be a "good narrative" reason for him to exist? He's a mystery that adds to the lore of Middle Earth. Why does The Ring have no affect on him? No one knows. Bombadil could likely end the threat on Middle Earth all on his own yet he simply doesn't bother himself with such things and continues on his regular activities. He's just an extra character that adds more life and mystery to the world. It's no fun if you fully understand absolutely everything.

Also, Tom Bombadil saves the Hobbits from both Old Man Willow and the wights in the Barrow Downs. Without him being in the forest to intervene there would have been no convincing way to get the Hobbits out of those encounters alive, and thus less chance to flesh out his world and reinforce the gravity of the situation they're in (defenseless Hobbits out to save the world).


Furthermore, he couldn't tell an interesting battle scene to save his ass (and I say this because despite all the brutal killings that apparently happened in the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, I don't remember reading about any of them),

You're telling me you don't remember the Battle of Five(?) Armies, Bard killing the dragon, Weathertop, Helms Deep, Pelennor Fields, or the attack on the gate in Mordor? Even thought there aren't any personal "blow-by-blow" detailings like in a Salvatore book, each of these battles are rather significant, detailed events in the story.


or when Gandalf defeats the Balrog (and yet he couldn't just defeat the mountain?).

This is explained in The Silmarillion. Gandalf and all of the other Wizards (Radagast The Brown, Saruman The White, and the others I can't remember) simply aren't allowed to use their powers except in dire circumstances. Saruman breaks this rule and (this is from memory, I haven't read The Silmarillion in a long time so this may be off) doesn't have access to his full power as a result.


Furtherfurthermore, there is no defined system of magic at all in tolkein's universe.

Yes there is, it just isn't explained very well in the trilogy itself which is understandable considering how much lore is already in there when you throw in all of the appendices. Magic is a gift from the Valor(?) or whoever made Middle Earth. Elves were the first born and were able to make artifacts of magical power that dwarfed anything made in the later ages. Gandalf and the other Wizards are granted their powers by the Valor. Music has such mystic qualities in Middle Earth largely because Middle Earth was created by all of the "creators" getting together and singing a song.


There are items of magical power, but these are extremely few and far between, and he quite often traces their history back to the original owner but not who created them or why or how

Magical artifacts weren't as rare in the First Age as they are when the trilogy takes place. If you think Bombadil wasn't important or meaningful to the story then there's not much point in explaining why some elf from ages ago that is likely dead or left Middle Earth decided to make some random trinket.


(who would create a magical frickin' glowy bottle of water? And how did Sting come about, and how does it detect enemies?).

Why not? A "magical frickin' glowy bottle of water" obviously comes in handy, so why not make one? Sting glows when it's near orcs and possibly evil/giant spiders and such (I can't remember exactly what it detects anymore), all hated enemies of Elves. "How" does it detect them? Same way magic does anything, by being magical.


Nor is there any reason to explain them, because the characters don't really question how or why, because they're so dumb (Why can Gandalf summon the SUN but not summon clothes that will allow them to cross the snow without feeling cold?).


This is another thing I see mentioned a lot, "if they're so magical then why can't they just whisk all of their troubles away?" Because who would want to read a story with no conflict? Why are the Weaslys in Harry Potter poor? Couldn't they just turn random pebbles and bits of dirt around their house into money, food, or other possessions? Because if everyone were so ridiculously awesome and never had any problems then there'd be no significance in Harry being so special.

As for Gandalf himself, I already explained that earlier in my post.


Tolkien was absolutely amazing at crafting a world with a whole history and conflicts of its own. I've yet to read another fantasy work by a single author that has a world as fleshed out as Middle Earth is. Yes, his writing style isn't for everyone but that doesn't change he was magnificent at what he did.



And now back to your regularly scheduled program about arguing over what HP represents. :smalltongue:

magellan
2009-07-08, 03:24 PM
The reason they did that is Vancian magic is based on a set of books where the wizards actually do memorize spells and forget them upon casting. The problem comes in when TSR didn't include the reason why--spells are sentient, and the act of memorizing them actually transfers them from the page to your head, and casting the spells lets them out (so you can only have one copy of a spell memorized at once, spells want you to cast them, and so on). I think it would actually have been better to keep the whole Vancian fluff, but them doing it halfway has made too many players see it as stupid or illogical or too predictible or whatever, when they could be touting it as the coolest, most fantastic system.

Sorry, was an attempt at being funny, I failed.

My point was that they were using the words "preparing" and "using up/casting". Not sure if memorizing is anywhere in any edition, but pretty certain "forgetting" is nowhere :)

d13
2009-07-08, 03:24 PM
Sticking with Core...



Religion: Paladins need not devote themselves to a single deity—devotion to righteousness is enough.

Ok, now... Leaving that "Clerics don't need to follow a particular God. You can be a cleric of a cause" rule, that I don't buy at all...

Where the hell do Non-religious Paladins (and Clerics of causes, for what it takes) get ther DIVINE spells from?

Paladins are champions, aren't they? If they get spells... They, therefore, are champions of the gods... So... Chaotic/Evil gods can't have their own champions?

NEO|Phyte
2009-07-08, 03:28 PM
Where the hell do Non-religious Paladins (and Clerics of causes, for what it takes) get ther DIVINE spells from?
The same place a ranger (urban variant optional) does.

Jayabalard
2009-07-08, 03:30 PM
Paladins are champions, aren't they? If they get spells... They, therefore, are champions of the gods... No, they're not. They're champions of the forces of good and law itself; they may worship a particular deity but that's not really necessary.

Ravens_cry
2009-07-08, 03:39 PM
Another rule that doesn't make sense is that higher Charisma makes you better looking.
There's no rule that says that. You can play it like that, because one way of interpreting charisma is as been at least partially beauty. The Power of Boobs Compels You!
But I there's no rule that says "If you have a high charisma, you must be a paragon of sexiness". It's more of a suggestion.

Doug Lampert
2009-07-08, 03:40 PM
Paladins must be Lawful Good. Why Lawful? If they got Detect and Smite Chaos I could understand, but they don't. Furthermore, Blackguards, essentially their opposites, aren't restricted to only Chaotic Evil, and can be any evil.

When I DM, I'm houseruling that Paladins can be any Good, instead of Lawful Good.
Paladins have to be Lawful because they are EXEMPLARS of their god's values or of good and live by a very strict code.

The very essence of being lawful is to have a code of conduct that you follow come hell or high water, and that's what paladins DO.

It's the non-lawful paladin variants that make no sense. Even a paladin utterly dedicated to freedom for all and to liberty and independence, is, when all is said and done, personally completely dedicated to a single code and to living his life as an exemplar of that code, which is classic lawful behavior.


In my Eberron campaign, Paladins are allowed to be any good alignment. Why? Because being a paladin, in my view, is a higher calling and above the laws of men, and churches and religious organizations fall quite squarely into the realm of men than the realm of the divine.

That would be nice if there were ANYTHING, anything at all, about having the Lawful alignment that required you to obey the laws of men or churches or religious organizations.


Those were all Experts or Aristocrats.
True bards know secret Druidic lore.

/bards casting arcane spells is what doesn't make sense

You mean the druid lore that made them and druids the lawgivers and judges of Celtic society expected to obey a fairly strict code of conduct. Oh, and to use human sacrifice.

That secret lore?

The guy above who confuses the human legal system with Lawful alignment wouldn't think this makes any sense at all. They're judges? How can they not be lawful?

That's wrong, but they're judges so they're not even PERMITTED to be lawful is at least as bad.


Anyway, on topic: The spontaneous casting rules. Why can't I cast fireball 40 times per day? I'm level 20, I should be able to cast whatever I please with my arcane energy! Oh, there's a feat I need to take?

What feat is that? You can downfill your level 9 slots with level 3 spells without any feat to do so. It's stupid, but you can.

TheCountAlucard
2009-07-08, 03:41 PM
Chaotic/Evil gods can't have their own champions?Sure they can. They're clerics.

Ninetail
2009-07-08, 03:43 PM
What makes you think Healing Word is a yell, and not a quick prayer?




That explains the clerical version, yes, but not the warlord's.

The warlord's isn't called Healing Word, so it's not what we're talking about. But if you want an explanation... morale boost. Rally the troops. You've seen this in any number of war movies, and as long as you accept the abstract nature of hp to begin with, it works fine.

(There are other things that cause the abstract nature of hp to break down, poison being the one that springs most readily to mind. But warlord/bard healing works with the assumption.)

Ravens_cry
2009-07-08, 03:51 PM
Sure they can. They're clerics.
And if you use Variant Rules, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny) and/or the Blackguard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/blackguard.htm) they can have champions that are more combat specific.

Why is Disruption a Bludgeoning only enhancement? Please tell me in some splat book or the other there is a version that works on other weapon types.
I so want to put that on a scythe, say it makes the scythe glow blue, and TALK LIKE THIS.

John Campbell
2009-07-08, 03:52 PM
You're telling me you don't remember the Battle of Five(?) Armies, Bard killing the dragon, Weathertop, Helms Deep, Pelennor Fields, or the attack on the gate in Mordor? Even thought there aren't any personal "blow-by-blow" detailings like in a Salvatore book, each of these battles are rather significant, detailed events in the story.

The Charge of the Rohirrim is beautiful; it kicks the crap out of any of Salvatore's ridiculous and implausible fight scenes.

Ninetail
2009-07-08, 03:55 PM
The 1st edition bard was a really weird animal. IIRC, it progressed as a particular character class for a particular number of levels, but had its own spells per day. I think the levels combined as if multiclassing, but they only counted for things like number of attacks, access to theif skills and maybe stats.

The 1e bard used the dualclassing rules.

A prospective bard had to be human, because only humans could dualclass. Then he needed a 15 Str (for his starting fighter levels), a 17 dex (for his intermediate thief levels), and a 17 wis (for his druid levels -- at which point he was actually a bard, and not a druid, somehow).

He had to be a fighter for 5 or so levels, give up those abilities to become a first-level thief, progress as a thief for around 7 levels (gaining his old fighter abilities back once he hit a level one above his old fighter level), give up those abilities to become a first-level druid (bard), and then progress again (gaining his old fighter and thief abilities back when he his a level one above his old thief level). The further you progressed in fighter and/or thief before switching, the more powerful you'd eventually be, but the longer it would take to recover those abilities.

Yes, it was insanely complicated. And the ability requirements meant that only a tiny percentage of characters would ever be eligible, even if you used a more generous character creation method than straight 3d6. If you did use straight 3d6, it might be a once-in-a-lifetime thing.

Second edition revised the bard to a regular base class (a Rogue class, along with the thief), simplified its abilities to give it a thieflike skill progression and limited wizard casting, and pretty much called it good. Third edition kept that. So did fourth in its way. The D&D bard's been divorced from its RL counterpart's druidic ties for decades now.

Kurald Galain
2009-07-08, 03:57 PM
The warlord's isn't called Healing Word, so it's not what we're talking about. But if you want an explanation... morale boost. Rally the troops.
Okay, so please explain why this works on an ally that is unconscious (or, for that matter, deafened)?

BillyJimBoBob
2009-07-08, 03:57 PM
I don't know much anymore about 3.x, but I don't think you healed completely over night. previous editions gained you 1 HP per day of rest.Which was bogus in it's own way. Consider this: Two Fighters, one with 10 HP and another with 100. The first takes 9 damage, the second 90. Both are at 10% health. And yet the tougher of the two requires 90 days to heal up, while the less tough of the two needs only 9 days and he is back at full health and ready to fight again.


But the healing word is silly and makes no sense as written. If it were a bit more divine then maybe, but mustering healing with just shouting at someone don't fly. Cells don't regenerate because you yell at them.

Magic makes sense because it is magical rather than trying to effect some natural healing by saying something without any other stimuli.

You have an unconscious person and just shout at them to make them jump up from being half dead? :smallconfused:

That [Healing Word being a quick prayer] explains the clerical version [of Healing Word], yes, but not the warlord's.The Warlord's version is similar to a Drill Sgt. yelling at a recruit to get up and back to fighting. This works IRL, at least to some degree. I was once in a run where I had fallen out. The rest of the squad ran on, turned around, and picked me up on the way back. I fell back in the rear, and if it were not for the constant encouragement of one of my mates I would have fallen out again and again for the rest of the run. After all, I was already exhausted and had been walking on while the squad ran on. The distance back to barracks was greater than the distance I had already ran that day, and I was already at the end of my endurance. But I didn't fall out again. All he spoke were mere words of encouragement, but they made all the difference.

And of course remember that Hit Points are an abstraction.


Yes, it's a contradictory abstraction. Apparently fighters can also dodge and parry (causing near misses and loss of hit points) when completely paralyzed, and can be inflicted by blood poison (or lycanthropy) through such a near miss.

Of course, the abstraction that you're perfectly fine at 1 through 80 HP, and incapacitated at 0, doesn't make much sense either :smalltongue:In the first case, you're only applying a narrow vision to the abstraction of HP. Don't limit your imagination, and consider that a hit with a poisoned weapons could leave a near insignificant scratch. A scratch which allows the poison to enter the blood stream, unfortunately. Dodging and parrying while paralyzed? Of course not. However, armor still tends to prevent damage. Yes, I know, armor does not prevent damage in D&D, but it is a part of this complete breakf abstraction.

Okay, so please explain why this works on an ally that is unconscious (or, for that matter, deafened)?Unconscious: A slap to the cheek, a shake of the shoulder, and the ally awakes, shakes off the grog, and rejoins the fight.
Deafened: A slap to the cheek, a shake of the shoulder, and the ally shakes off the grog, and rejoins the fight.

If you look to make something sound ridiculous, it's quite easy to succeed. But if you apply that same imagination looking to justify something rather than refute a justification, you can make something sound reasonable. It's a fantasy game, the choice is up to you: Exercise your imagination to help you enjoy the game, or exercise your imagination to make things all emo and sucky.

mistformsquirrl
2009-07-08, 04:03 PM
Sticking with Core...



Ok, now... Leaving that "Clerics don't need to follow a particular God. You can be a cleric of a cause" rule, that I don't buy at all...

Where the hell do Non-religious Paladins (and Clerics of causes, for what it takes) get ther DIVINE spells from?

Paladins are champions, aren't they? If they get spells... They, therefore, are champions of the gods... So... Chaotic/Evil gods can't have their own champions?

Well according to the books, the power comes directly from the planes themselves.

That is - a Cleric of a cause will get their power directly from the planes of whatever their domains are.

So for example, a cleric of Healing and Sun will probably be drawing on the Positive Energy Plane, Plane of Fire, and likely an alignment plane of some variety.

As for paladins - I'd assume a similar explanation, but specific to Celestia or whatever Lawful Good plane you prefer.

Another possibility (though one that borders on psionics) is that it is simple conviction. Literally your force of belief is strong enough to manifest as magic.

A third and final possibility being that the gods of appropriate alignment all sort of help dole out spells to clerics and paladins who don't follow a specific deity.

EX: A Chaotic Good cleric likely gets a little bit of energy from Kord, some from Corellion, a little from Elhonna, etc...

Basically it's a matter of the gods realizing that even if a cleric isn't 100% devoted to them; if they're on the same 'team'; it's wise to lend them aid; especially as they'll likely further your goals even without specific homage.

--

The first explanation is actually in one of the books somewhere; I just don't recall where. (Deities and Demigods maybe?); the other two are personal theories.

Ninetail
2009-07-08, 04:05 PM
Tolkein was a crappy writer with no idea how to craft an interesting description, and he couldn't stick to the plotline without derailing it every 10 minutes just so that he could recite some of his hackneyed poetry. Disagree with me? Then explain, at length, the narrative reason for the existance of Tom Bombadil. There isn't any. He's only there so that Tolkein could rhyme "fellow" with "yellow."

I'm not going to disagree with most of that, but Tom Bombadil actually does serve a purpose. In fact, you could argue that he's the entire point of the series. That purpose is this:

Remember how much people feared the One Ring? How people as powerful as Gandalf and Galadriel wouldn't so much as touch it, because it would corrupt them?

Tom Bombadil touched the One Ring.

He didn't fear it, he didn't desire it, and so it didn't corrupt him.

Jayabalard
2009-07-08, 04:12 PM
The 1e bard used the dualclassing rules.

A prospective bard had to be human, because only humans could dualclass.Hey, this particular derail is actually getting back on the topic.

Actually, half elves could be bards (they're explicitly named in the section about the class); the rules didn't really make a whole lot of sense here though, and were hazy on how it worked for half-elves, since they couldn't normally dualclass. Some people allowed them to dual-class like a human (changing class to thief and then druid), and some people allowed them to start off as a fighter/thief multi-class and then switch to druid.

Ninetail
2009-07-08, 04:15 PM
Okay, so please explain why this works on an ally that is unconscious (or, for that matter, deafened)?

Because fluff is variable. They can't hear you? Use gestures.

Random832
2009-07-08, 04:16 PM
The D&D bard's been divorced from its RL counterpart's druidic ties for decades now.

With the exception that this is the reason why they have access to healing magic when Sor/Wiz don't.

Ehra
2009-07-08, 04:18 PM
The Charge of the Rohirrim is beautiful; it kicks the crap out of any of Salvatore's ridiculous and implausible fight scenes.

Absolutely. Although there are times when I just want to be entertained by the rule of cool and Salvatore is good reading for those moods.

Ninetail
2009-07-08, 04:19 PM
Actually, half elves could be bards (they're explicitly named in the section about the class)

That's true, I'd forgotten about that. Half-elves could supposedly be bards, but couldn't, by the rules as written, ever meet the requirements. Now that's a rule that doesn't make sense.

I think I just assumed that the half-elf entry was a mistake, and ruled it as human-only.

Blackfang108
2009-07-08, 04:22 PM
The Warlord's version is similar to a Drill Sgt. yelling at a recruit to get up and back to fighting. This works IRL, at least to some degree.

I'm not the only one who noticed. I used to play Rugby, and I've taken my fair share of hits. (5'3" 135lb. Yeah, I got knocked around.:smalltongue:)

Never went below 1 hp, though. :smallbiggrin:

Anyone who's played sports, especially the Aerobic (non-stop) ones, has buth been the Target of Inspiring Word, and used their Second Wind power IRL.

Kurald Galain
2009-07-08, 04:30 PM
Because fluff is variable. They can't hear you? Use gestures.

...because gestures work so well on people who are unconscious...

chiasaur11
2009-07-08, 04:33 PM
...because gestures work so well on people who are unconscious...

Slaps to the face sometimes work.

Heck, I know one form of common unconsciousness commonly ended by loud noises.

Kurald Galain
2009-07-08, 04:35 PM
Slaps to the face sometimes work.
Even if you're standing five meters away?


Heck, I know one form of common unconsciousness commonly ended by loud noises.
Then how come other loud noises (such as e.g. a fireball) don't awaken the ally?

Flickerdart
2009-07-08, 04:37 PM
Then how come other loud noises (such as e.g. a fireball) don't awaken the ally?
Why does a fireball make noise, aside from the horrible screams of its victims?

Ravens_cry
2009-07-08, 04:42 PM
Even if you're standing five meters away?


Then how come other loud noises (such as e.g. a fireball) don't awaken the ally?
Having played Fire Soccer,(a rag ball soaked in diesel, then wrapped in chicken wire, or hardware cloth, then lit, then kicked around) I know that while fireballs make a wonderful woosh, it's not all that loud.

Kurald Galain
2009-07-08, 04:44 PM
Why does a fireball make noise, aside from the horrible screams of its victims?

Because its default fluff is an explosion.

Anyway, that's beside the point. Chiasaur posits that a warlord's Inspiring Word (one of those "rules that don't make sense") works on unconscious allies because sometimes, unconscious people can be awaked by loud noises. It follows, then, that anything else that makes a louder noise would have the same effect. Since that doesn't in fact happen, per reductio ad absurdum, it follows that IW doesn't in fact work that way. We are then still lacking an explanation of how it does work on unconscious (or deaf) people.



Having played Fire Soccer,(a rag ball soaked in diesel, then wrapped in chicken wire, or hardware cloth, then lit, then kicked around) I know that while fireballs make a wonderful woosh, it's not all that loud.
Heh.

Fireball, wizard daily 9
Arcane * implement * diesel
You wrap a rag in diesel and chicken wire, then kick it around
Range: 5
Target: one creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. Reflex
Effect: The target takes 1 point of damage and is slowed.

Something like that, no?

Ravens_cry
2009-07-08, 04:49 PM
Fireball, wizard daily 9
Arcane * implement * diesel
You wrap a rag in diesel and chicken wire, then kick it around
Range: 5
Target: one creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. Reflex
Effect: The target takes 1 point of damage and is slowed.

Something like that, no?
I guess, my group doesn't play 4E. I had the worlds best church youth group though, that's where we played the Fire Soccer.

lsfreak
2009-07-08, 04:50 PM
Because its default fluff is an explosion.


I don't know if this still holds in 4e, but in 3.x, Fireball is pressureless and therefore makes essentially no noise (and breaks all physics horribly, what whatever). I agree with you with other spells, but Fireball by itself is practically silent.

Kurald Galain
2009-07-08, 04:58 PM
I don't know if this still holds in 4e, but in 3.x, Fireball is pressureless and therefore makes essentially no noise (and breaks all physics horribly, what whatever). I agree with you with other spells, but Fireball by itself is practically silent.

Sorry, but in 3E the fireball "is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar". I'm having a hard time imagining a silent explosion, or for that matter a noiseless roar.

On the other hand, the part where fireballs are non-concussive in 3E is indeed a rule that doesn't make sense. Of course, that was because the 2E variation was unclear on the subject, and a topic of hot (heh) debate, not to mention that it's rather annoying for the DM to have to think of the concussive effect on e.g. dungeon walls.

Lamech
2009-07-08, 05:32 PM
Wait? People are complaining about the warlords healing word but not: The entire Tomb of Battle (3.5) The 4th's fighter's boundless endurance, come and get it, victorious surge, iron warrior, or 4th's healing surge mechanics?

And the inspiring word really just lets them spend a surge, so its an out growth of problems with healing surges/second wind.

Mike_G
2009-07-08, 06:24 PM
This is my position to. A 10-damage stab is the same no matter what level you are. Just at higher levels, you're just more badass. Someone stabbing you in the back so hard they can't pull the knife out kills you at level 1. At level 10, it just makes you angry enough that you pull out the knife and punch it through their skull.

(I'm aware their are no mechanics for stabbing someone so hard the knife gets stuck. I'm just using a dramatic example, is all. Point is what 15 damage represents doesn't change, as you level you just grow more and more super human)


I disagree. HP do sorta make sense from a cinematic point of view.

Look at the original Die Hard. Bruce Willis never takes a 9mm round to the chest. He dodges painfully, is a bit too close to explosions, gets thrown around, falls down some stairs, and so on. He finishes up the movie beaten and bloody, but still able to crit with his WF/WS/improved Crit 9mm Baretta. The bad guys, particularly the mooks, all die from one or two shots, since they are all low level Warriors with less than 20 HP. Likewise Mel Gibson or Clint Eastwood. The hero evades most of the blow, gets bruised and battered, but carries on, where that same attack would kill a nameless Redshirt. Gibson's William Wallace doesn't yank the lance from between his nipples and stab his enemy with it, he turns the deathblow into a glancing strike and escapes with some bruised ribs. Highlander # 7 would be spitted by that same 15 points of damage.

D&D HP work fine as an abstraction for over the top, cinematic combat. Where they fall down is Healing, where a 10th level fighter and a 1st level commoner are both beaten unconscious, and the commoner can be fixed good as new with a 1st level spell, but the Fighter needs many more castings of that same spell, or a 7th level spell.

SirKazum
2009-07-08, 06:49 PM
Sorry, was an attempt at being funny, I failed.

My point was that they were using the words "preparing" and "using up/casting". Not sure if memorizing is anywhere in any edition, but pretty certain "forgetting" is nowhere :)

"Memorizing" WAS the standard word for it all the way until 3rd edition changed it to "preparing". And I'm not sure about "forgetting", but it certainly doesn't sound out of character with what I remember from 2E.

Tehnar
2009-07-08, 07:42 PM
Maybe the memorizing/preparing issue and the obscurement of fluff comes from Jack Vance himself, yelling at WoTC: "TSR gave me money for ripping off my magic system, I want more!". :smallwink:


For me the hp system is rock solid until you apply rest and healing magic into the mix. Then it starts to break down. 4th ed. solved a bit of the problem with introducing healing surges, but opened a whole new can of worms with their activation. However due to ease of use I am quite happy with its inconsistencies.

As for a fireball you could express it in physics terms as a short burst of contained infrared radiation (such as in a microwave). Would produce no air pressure nor sound or visual effect (though that differs from the fluff perspective) but would produce heat.

Michaelos
2009-07-08, 07:55 PM
Something which hilariously occurred to me while pondering the Sun thing. You in fact, are not seeing the Sun. You are seeing where the sun is 8ish minutes ago. The Sun's true position will in fact appear empty, at that distance, almost as if it was hiding.

Now, does this mean that if you achieved a near infinite spot rank, you would in fact see everything where it was now and would be able to send messages faster than the speed of light by having someone stand on the sun and wave to you, which you would see instantly?

AslanCross
2009-07-08, 07:58 PM
I always thought of the 3.5 fireball as more of an incendiary bomb instead of a high-explosive. It's only when you apply Explosive Spell to it that it becomes an HE warhead.

quick_comment
2009-07-08, 07:59 PM
Something which hilariously occurred to me while pondering the Sun thing. You in fact, are not seeing the Sun. You are seeing where the sun is 8ish minutes ago.

I am very sure that the two overlap significantly.

Over the course of ~12 hours, the sun covers ~180 degrees of arc. In 8 minutes the sun moves 2 degrees.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-08, 08:12 PM
People are complaining about the warlords healing word but not: The entire Tomb of Battle (3.5)

The vast majority of ToB maneuvers are obviously realistic or easily explained as such; the only non-realistic ones are Desert Wind and Shadow Hand, which are meant to be magical.

If you're referring to Devoted Spirit, keep in mind that (A) healing yourself through increased morale like the Healing Word works in this context, because it's you motivating yourself internally and not yelling at an unconscious guy a few feet away, and (B) the crusader is the pseudo-paladin, so any supernatural or unrealistic abilities there are divinely inspired.


I am very sure that the two overlap significantly.

Over the course of ~12 hours, the sun covers ~180 degrees of arc. In 8 minutes the sun moves 2 degrees.

Would the sun not take 2 degrees to move 2 degrees, rather than 8 minutes? :smallwink:

quick_comment
2009-07-08, 08:21 PM
Would the sun not take 2 degrees to move 2 degrees, rather than 8 minutes? :smallwink:

What? Degrees are a measure of angle, not time.

John Campbell
2009-07-08, 08:25 PM
Sol's disc, as seen from Earth, covers approximately half a degree of arc. So there's not, in fact, any overlap at all.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-08, 08:51 PM
What? Degrees are a measure of angle, not time.

They are indeed. However, you said it moves 2 degrees in 8 minutes, which while possibly meaning it moves 2 degrees in 0.13 hours, can also mean it moves 2 degrees in 2.13 degrees, which is a geometric impossibility.

...

It seems no one in this thread shares my sense of humor. I don't know why. :smallfrown:

The New Bruceski
2009-07-08, 09:10 PM
I am very sure that the two overlap significantly.

Over the course of ~12 hours, the sun covers ~180 degrees of arc. In 8 minutes the sun moves 2 degrees.

This is true, but the sun is half a degree wide. It moves its own width every 2 minutes.

sofawall
2009-07-08, 10:21 PM
Wait? People are complaining about the warlords healing word but not: The entire Tomb of Battle (3.5) The 4th's fighter's boundless endurance, come and get it, victorious surge, iron warrior, or 4th's healing surge mechanics?

And the inspiring word really just lets them spend a surge, so its an out growth of problems with healing surges/second wind.

Tomb?

I saw Tomb of something and immediately thought Tomb of Horrors, and thought "Why would you complain about that, it's meant to be ridiculously awesome."

Then someone else replied to you, and I noticed it was actually Tome of Battle.

holywhippet
2009-07-08, 10:35 PM
How about the fact that being resistant or immune to heat makes you immune to damage from lava and magma?

Forget the questionability of inspiring word. Think instead of the warlord powers that let them order an ally to make a melee attack on someone else. Now imagine a party consisting of a single fighter and 5 or more warlords. The fighter makes an attack on their turn, then makes 5 more melee attacks within the 6 seconds of the current round from the warlords commanding him to. Heck, if they spend action points it will be 10 melee attacks.

You can tend to the critical wounds of a fallen ally and have them stable within 6 seconds. Arguably it occurs with 3 seconds since stabilising is only a standard action leaving you with your move action.

Random832
2009-07-08, 10:50 PM
How about the fact that being resistant or immune to heat makes you immune to damage from lava and magma?

Immune means immune. If you get dunked in it, the damage spikes up enough to where resistance isn't going to do anything. (We're talking 3.5, right? Did they change it?)

huttj509
2009-07-08, 10:54 PM
They are indeed. However, you said it moves 2 degrees in 8 minutes, which while possibly meaning it moves 2 degrees in 0.13 hours, can also mean it moves 2 degrees in 2.13 degrees, which is a geometric impossibility.

...

It seems no one in this thread shares my sense of humor. I don't know why. :smallfrown:

8 minutes of arc is .1(3)~ degrees. So it moves 2 degrees in .1(3)~ degrees. Your typo to 2.13 led to me being really confused as to what you were getting at.

But I did get it.

Lamech
2009-07-08, 11:04 PM
The vast majority of ToB maneuvers are obviously realistic or easily explained as such; the only non-realistic ones are Desert Wind and Shadow Hand, which are meant to be magical.

If you're referring to Devoted Spirit, keep in mind that (A) healing yourself through increased morale like the Healing Word works in this context, because it's you motivating yourself internally and not yelling at an unconscious guy a few feet away, and (B) the crusader is the pseudo-paladin, so any supernatural or unrealistic abilities there are divinely inspired.

Entire was an exageration. But manuevers like Iron Heart Surge, Shadow Jaunt. Not magic. Hearing the Air, Hunter's Sense and White Raven Tactics are pretty bad too. To counter your specific points: Devoted Spirit can heal others (Martial Spirit, Revitilizing strike, Crusader's Strike...), so umm... same thing. And Master of the Nine and feats let non-crusaders get devoted spirit so... no.

Entire was a pretty big exageration it appears, but there is still a lot of stuff that is implausible.

lsfreak
2009-07-08, 11:28 PM
Entire was an exageration. But manuevers like Iron Heart Surge, Shadow Jaunt. Not magic. Hearing the Air, Hunter's Sense and White Raven Tactics are pretty bad too. To counter your specific points: Devoted Spirit can heal others (Martial Spirit, Revitilizing strike, Crusader's Strike...), so umm... same thing. And Master of the Nine and feats let non-crusaders get devoted spirit so... no.

Entire was a pretty big exageration it appears, but there is still a lot of stuff that is implausible.
Iron Heart Surge: You've never heard of people forcing themselves through extremely rigorous activities when they're very obviously injured? Ever been so hungry that you can't really do anything, but then you get a sudden burst of energy for some reason? Iron Heart Surge is basically that, just taken to the next level of awesome.

Hearing the Air: Not much more than a level 3-4 character with a few ranks in Spot or Listen can't do, except that it works after they've been Glitterdusted/thunderstoned.

Hunter's Sense: People can have a better sense of smell than we realize. When Westerns travel to more rural areas of the Far East, the locals can smell them due to the sour-milk smell that Westerns carry with them from all the dairy products but are too accustomed to to notice. And in standard D&D terms, medieval settings, many people won't be very... cleanly, and would be easy to smell. Plus scent is, to my knowledge, always an Ex ability; this stance simply gives the extra and abnormal training in knowing what to smell for above the background odors.

Devoted Spirit is explainable as non-magic; the problem lies with the abstract nature of hp not being internally consistent as has been pointed out elsewhere.

WRT is someone giving extra commands, more encouragement, or pointing out a fatal flaw in the pace of combat that allows someone to strike an undefended point, spring to cover while an enemy is occupied, or the like.

Shadow Jaunt is harder to explain. I'd explain it as someone merely being uncannily aware of their surroundings, including to some extent coterminous planes, and having the physical or mental, but nonmagical, skill to drop into those planes for fractions of a second. But that's probably stretching it :p

Lamech
2009-07-08, 11:51 PM
Iron Heart Surge: You've never heard of people forcing themselves through extremely rigorous activities when they're very obviously injured? Ever been so hungry that you can't really do anything, but then you get a sudden burst of energy for some reason? Iron Heart Surge is basically that, just taken to the next level of awesome. Iron Heart Surge is arguably a badly written manuever. But it can end things like anti-magic fields, walls of fire. See how that gets into magic territory? And if the effect is something like a large fire? Big problem there. I can see it ending say geas and explaining it as shrugging off something, but not a fire.


Hearing the Air: Not much more than a level 3-4 character with a few ranks in Spot or Listen can't do, except that it works after they've been Glitterdusted/thunderstoned.

Hunter's Sense: People can have a better sense of smell than we realize. When Westerns travel to more rural areas of the Far East, the locals can smell them due to the sour-milk smell that Westerns carry with them from all the dairy products but are too accustomed to to notice. And in standard D&D terms, medieval settings, many people won't be very... cleanly, and would be easy to smell. Plus scent is, to my knowledge, always an Ex ability; this stance simply gives the extra and abnormal training in knowing what to smell for above the background odors.These are not as bad the others. And on the subject of ex ablities. Troll, regenerate, conservation of mass, entropy.


Devoted Spirit is explainable as non-magic; the problem lies with the abstract nature of hp not being internally consistent as has been pointed out elsewhere.My original question was why not complain about things like Devoted Spirit (and many other things), but complain about the warlord's healing. If your fine with devoted spirit, but not the warlord what makes them differant? If your fine with both (or not fine with both) the question is moot.


WRT is someone giving extra commands, more encouragement, or pointing out a fatal flaw in the pace of combat that allows someone to strike an undefended point, spring to cover while an enemy is occupied, or the like.Yeah that kind of makes sense, but what about things like spells? Again this is one of the less bad ones.


Shadow Jaunt is harder to explain. I'd explain it as someone merely being uncannily aware of their surroundings, including to some extent coterminous planes, and having the physical or mental, but nonmagical, skill to drop into those planes for fractions of a second. But that's probably stretching it :p My explaination would be: The editors forgot the supernatural part at the end of it.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-08, 11:57 PM
8 minutes of arc is .1(3)~ degrees. So it moves 2 degrees in .1(3)~ degrees. Your typo to 2.13 led to me being really confused as to what you were getting at.

But I did get it.

Thank you. It's nice to be appreciated, especially when sleep-deprived and typo-prone.


My explaination would be: The editors forgot the supernatural part at the end of it.

Not necessarily. The whole "guy is surrounded by shadow, you blink, he's dozens of feet away" thing is a fairly common trope, so this just gives you a bit more of a sneaky feel than you would by having to constantly Hide and Move Silently. Since you need both LoS and LoE anyway, there's nothing you can do with it that you can't do with some mix of Hide, Move Silently, Climb, and Jump.

holywhippet
2009-07-08, 11:57 PM
Immune means immune. If you get dunked in it, the damage spikes up enough to where resistance isn't going to do anything. (We're talking 3.5, right? Did they change it?)

From the SRD:


An immunity or resistance to fire serves as an immunity to lava or magma. However, a creature immune to fire might still drown if completely immersed in lava.

IIRC this was the same in 3.0.

Random832
2009-07-09, 12:29 AM
IIRC this was the same in 3.0.

Clearly a mistake - though I have to wonder why they even had to say it - Lava does fire damage, so it should be obvious.

Douglas
2009-07-09, 12:44 AM
The really stupid part of that rule is that Fire Resistance 1 makes you completely immune to lava. It would have made much more sense to just remove that sentence entirely and make it reasonably clear that, hey, this is fire damage, fire resistance/immunity applies each time you take the damage.