Can 3.5 rules Accurate Represent Real Life?

[Dralnu]

Great Modthulhu: Split from another thread due to topic divergence.


I will agree with this, mainly because you either overestimate or underestimate things greatly. Partly because D&D does not represent your average modern human being well.

From what I read here (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html) it seems that it's actually the reverse: D&D (at least 3.X) is good at representing average human begins quite well, but falls apart at the higher levels. That said, it's pretty tiring to see all those threads where everyone places their own intelligence equal to or surpassing Einstein's.

I'm tired of:
- Fighter vs. Wizard
- Why Is Monk Bad?
- All Monks/Rogues should be Swordsages
- 3.X vs. 4.X
- Why Are Spellcasters Overpowered?
- ... But Spellcasters Don't Have Overpowered Spells At Low Level, Right?

Would Like To See More Of:
- Cool Campaign Encounters (to steal)
- Cool Puzzles (to steal)
- Cool NPCs (to steal)
- My DM/Players Do The Craziest Things IRL (for funsies)

[Tyndmyr]

I hate that article so much. It is the dead horse of all dead horses.

A first level fighter with the run feat can run faster, further, and longer than any human being who has ever lived, regardless of stats.

He can complete a marathon in about an hour and a half.

He can do this while wearing medium armor, wielding a sword and shield, and carrying a pack consisting of ten foot poles.

[archon_huskie]

Partly because D&D does not represent your average modern human being well.

This article would disagree with you.
http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html

You just have to think this way
Level 1 average stats (10) average person
Level 1 with PC stats (average above 11) exceptional person
Level 5 highly skilled best of real world expectations
Level 6 and up superhuman abilities
Level 20 demi-gods

[Spiryt]

This article would disagree with you.
http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html

You just have to think this way
Level 1 average stats (10) average person
Level 1 with PC stats (average above 11) exceptional person
Level 5 highly skilled best of real world expectations
Level 6 and up superhuman abilities
Level 20 demi-gods

Is this a joke?

As this article was 'discussed' already few posts before. :smalltongue:

[Callista]

I've read that essay. The problem is that he totally focuses on physical stats rather than skills. Our modern world, on the other hand, focuses on skills rather than physical stats.

So we have people like Einstein, who can make a DC 50 Knowledge(Physics) check to understand something that nobody has ever figured out before, but still fights like a level 1 Commoner. That is impossible to stat out in D&D. Or we have people with such a high Diplomacy skill that they can produce the Fanatic attitude in their fans (a DC 70 check), but who still can't fight better than the level 1 Commoner. We've got tightrope walkers who can balance on wires less than an inch across (a DC 40 Balance check). Expert riders in real life can stand on their horses (DC 40 Ride), and expert martial artists can get to their feet as a free action (DC 35 Tumble).

You can't stat out modern humans as level 1-5 D&D characters. Skills easily go to Epic levels. And the variation between human abilities simply isn't accounted for if you assume everyone but the truly exceptional is using standard array.

[TheCountAlucard]

...So we have people like Einstein, who can make a DC 50 Knowledge(Physics) check to understand something that nobody has ever figured out before, but still fights like a level 1 Commoner. That is impossible to stat out in D&D. Or we have people with such a high Diplomacy skill that they can produce the Fanatic attitude in their fans (a DC 70 check), but who still can't fight better than the level 1 Commoner. We've got tightrope walkers who can balance on wires less than an inch across (a DC 40 Balance check). Expert riders in real life can stand on their horses (DC 40 Ride), and expert martial artists can get to their feet as a free action (DC 35 Tumble)...Not to mention salmon... :smalleek:

[Quietus]

Not to mention salmon... :smalleek:

Those are jump checks, not swim.

[The Tygre]

So we have people like Einstein, who can make a DC 50 Knowledge(Physics) check to understand something that nobody has ever figured out before, but still fights like a level 1 Commoner. That is impossible to stat out in D&D. Or we have people with such a high Diplomacy skill that they can produce the Fanatic attitude in their fans (a DC 70 check), but who still can't fight better than the level 1 Commoner. We've got tightrope walkers who can balance on wires less than an inch across (a DC 40 Balance check). Expert riders in real life can stand on their horses (DC 40 Ride), and expert martial artists can get to their feet as a free action (DC 35 Tumble).

You can't stat out modern humans as level 1-5 D&D characters. Skills easily go to Epic levels. And the variation between human abilities simply isn't accounted for if you assume everyone but the truly exceptional is using standard array.

What I'm getting from this is that humanity is just awesome. :smallsmile:


Not to mention salmon... :smalleek:

Scratch that; the world is just awesome. :smallbiggrin:

[SurlySeraph]

So we have people like Einstein, who can make a DC 50 Knowledge(Physics) check to understand something that nobody has ever figured out before, but still fights like a level 1 Commoner. That is impossible to stat out in D&D. Or we have people with such a high Diplomacy skill that they can produce the Fanatic attitude in their fans (a DC 70 check), but who still can't fight better than the level 1 Commoner.

...he cites almost exactly that example. Einstein as 5th-level character making a DC 40 Knowledge (Physics) check. Higher Circumstance and Aid Another bonuses than he gives would easily bring it back up to DC 40.

The Fanatic attitude is making someone willing to die for you, so excited that they get Strength and Constitution bonuses that last for days. For someone who's already a big fan of yours (Helpful) it's DC 50.
And a 5th-level character can get a 49 on Diplomacy without much trouble. 8 ranks, +4 Charisma, +3 Skill Focus, +2 Negotiator, +2 masterwork tool, +2 circumstance (say, an awesome concert), +2 aid another (your band), +6 from 5 ranks each in Bluff, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), and Sense Motive (synergy bonuses are unnamed bonuses, so they stack), taking 20 (concerts certainly last at least 20 minutes). There are a few ways to get the last point, like being old for another +2 Cha, but you get the point. I can't think of how to bring it down to 1st level, but 3rd-level is doable if you allow a non-magical Inspire Competence.

I'm not saying DnD models these things well, but it's not terrible.

[Morph Bark]

What I'm getting from this is that humanity is just awesome. :smallsmile:

Scratch that; the world is just awesome. :smallbiggrin:

It is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqV3clvlC4Q&feature=related). :smallwink:

[Boci]

...he cites almost exactly that example. Einstein as 5th-level character making a DC 40 Knowledge (Physics) check. Higher Circumstance and Aid Another bonuses than he gives would easily bring it back up to DC 40.

Which means Einstein has a BAB of +2 (if he's a commoner) or +3 (if he's an expert or an aristocrate).

[The Glyphstone]

Which means Einstein has a BAB of +2 (if he's a commoner) or +3 (if he's an expert or an aristocrate).

Well, aside from that one comic with Einstein vs. ninjas, how often did you see him getting into fights? he doesn't need high attack bonuses to derive general relativity.

[Boci]

Well, aside from that one comic with Einstein vs. ninjas, how often did you see him getting into fights? he doesn't need high attack bonuses to derive general relativity.

I am saying it wierd he could have a higher attack bonus than 1st level warrior.

[The Glyphstone]

Higher BAB, sure. He probably didn't have high Strength or Dexterity, though, even before his aging penalties. A 1st-level warrior (say, an Army grunt straight out of boot camp) would have easily beaten him in a fight or any sort of combat-related competition due to having a higher total attack bonus.

[The Dark Fiddler]

I am saying it wierd he could have a higher attack bonus than 1st level warrior.

It's not that weird, really. It depends a lot on how you'd apply levels to people. Is a person who's done martial arts as a hobby, but not progressed very far a warrior? What about a master? What levels would they be? Is there a difference between a hunter and a professional soldier?

So it really depends on who you'd say a 1st level warrior would be.

[Boci]

Higher BAB, sure. He probably didn't have high Strength or Dexterity, though, even before his aging penalties. A 1st-level warrior (say, an Army grunt straight out of boot camp) would have easily beaten him in a fight or any sort of combat-related competition due to having a higher total attack bonus.

If we assume he is an expert (which he most likely is) a first level warrior with a 12 strength (below average but not impossible in the real world, just imagine a teenager with some martial arts experience) and a non-masterwork weapon would only be able to match his attack if he had taken weapon focus.


So it really depends on who you'd say a 1st level warrior would be.

So you're saying the average mid 20 year old male who has had a martial arts hobby for a couple of years should be an even match for einstein?

[The Glyphstone]

If we assume he is an expert (which he most likely is) a first level warrior with a 12 strength (below average but not impossible in the real world, just imagine a teenager with some martial arts experience) and a non-masterwork weapon would only be able to match his attack if he had taken weapon focus.



So you're saying the average mid 20 year old male who has had a martial arts hobby for a couple of years should be an even match for einstein?

Einstein, as a 5th level expert: BAB +3. Assume Str 10 (he doesn't seem to have been a weakling, just unexceptional), but a -3 penalty for age gives him a Str mod of -3, total attack bonus of +0. That 20-year old average male isn't going to be an even match for Einstein, he's going to totally outclass him. If Einstein dumped Strength to 8, Mr. Martial Artist will be exceeding him when Albert hits Middle-age.

[The Dark Fiddler]

So you're saying the average mid 20 year old male who has had a martial arts hobby for a couple of years should be an even match for einstein?

Unfortunately, I don't know how good of a fighter Einstein is, but I'd say that the martial artist would win. By virtue of stats and possibly feats, though.

[Morph Bark]

If we assume he is an expert (which he most likely is) a first level warrior with a 12 strength (below average but not impossible in the real world, just imagine a teenager with some martial arts experience) and a non-masterwork weapon would only be able to match his attack if he had taken weapon focus.

So you're saying the average mid 20 year old male who has had a martial arts hobby for a couple of years should be an even match for einstein?

So you think that even with aging penalties Einstein has 10 Strength and no Flaws that impede combat?

Besides that, I presume Einstein might have been apt at throwing physics books if he ever encountered early 20th century gamers. :smalltongue:

[The Glyphstone]

Interestingly, I just scanned his Wikipedia article. At the time he made that DC40 Knowledge (Physics) check, Einstein was 38 years old...so he actually wasn't even Middle-aged yet.

[Boci]

Einstein, as a 5th level expert: BAB +3. Assume Str 10 (he doesn't seem to have been a weakling, just unexceptional), but a -3 penalty for age gives him a Str mod of -3, total attack bonus of +0. That 20-year old average male isn't going to be an even match for Einstein, he's going to totally outclass him.

Fair enough, but why is einstein out classing commoners? (Equal attack bonus, more hp).


If Einstein dumped Strength to 8, Mr. Martial Artist will be exceeding him when Albert hits Middle-age.

What age was he when Einstein when he first started producing exeptional work? Was it only after middle age?

[The Glyphstone]

See above - he actually made his breakthrough development (general relativity, the aforementioned DC40 Know: Physics check) at age 38.


Fair enough, but why is einstein out classing commoners? (Equal attack bonus, more hp).


Because this is/was the 20th century. The only people who qualify for the Commoner class anymore in non-3rd world countries (the people you'd be comparing einstein to) are cripples or children - everyone else is either an expert, aristocrat, or warrior.

[Boci]

See above - he actually made his breakthrough development (general relativity, the aforementioned DC40 Know: Physics check) at age 38.

So we're agreed you cannot realistically stat Einstein with the D&D 3.5 system?


Because this is/was the 20th century. The only people who qualify for the Commoner class anymore in non-3rd world countries (the people you'd be comparing einstein to) are cripples or children - everyone else is either an expert, aristocrat, or warrior.

Factory workers? Shop keepers? Farmers?

[The Glyphstone]

No, it just means you can't add aging bonuses to his stats.

And between a fit, healthy 30-year old man, and a 20-year old who goofs around like he thinks he knows karate in his spare time? I'm betting on Einstein. Your example opponent character isn't a Warrior, he's an Expert like Einstein who took Improved Unarmed Strike for his feat.


Factory workers? Shop keepers? Farmers?

All of those are at least educated, even if it's just to a high school level. You may not realize just how pathetic the commoner class is, and how few skills it can have...

[Claudius Maximus]

Middle Age starts at 35 in D&D.

[The Glyphstone]

I thought it was 40. Okay, retract that then, he does have the Middle-Aged penalties.

[Boci]

No, it just means you can't add aging bonuses to his stats.

So how do you explain his minimim attack bonus of +1, his hitdie of 5d6-5 (assuming he started with 10 con)?


And between a fit, healthy 30-year old man, and a 20-year old who goofs around like he thinks he knows karate in his spare time?

No, not goof, has had a seriuos hobby of martial art for two years. If you still think einstein will win, you are seriously underestimating what a someone can learn from 2 years of MMA or boxing.


All of those are at least educated, even if it's just to a high school level. You may not realize just how pathetic the commoner class is, and how few skills it can have...

All farmers need are profression (farmer), all shop keepers need is a shop and there are quite a few factory job that do not require skill checks.

If you make all these unskilled workers experts then what are doctors and lawyers? Higher level experts? Three guesses what my problem with that is.

[The Glyphstone]

Because HP makes no sense even in D&D, I don't expect it to make any sense out of it.


A 1st-level warrior is, indeed, someone who goofs off a few times per week playing Karate Kid. Two years of serious MMA or professional boxing isn't a hobby, it's a career. At the rate they're overcoming 'encounters', they're not going to be 1st level warriors - 2nd or 3rd, more likely. They've also got higher Strength than 12 in most cases, and have definitely taken Weapon Focus (Unarmed), possibly even Superior Unarmed Strike for their human bonus feat.


The farmer needs Profession: Farmer, Knowledge: Agriculture or Animals, Handle Animal, possibly a Craft or two, maybe Spot and/or Listen...

Shopkeepers (at least, the successful ones) will have Profession, Knowledge: Local, Spot, maybe Sense Motive or Diplomacy if they haggle...

And both of those still don't take into account that maybe the farmer is also good at Jumping fences to chase stray sheep, or the shopkeeper can Swim pretty good on weekends. Commoner just doesn't have enough skill points for basic physical tasks unless you're a sooooper genius.


Doctors and Lawyers are also 1st or 2nd level experts, but both of those are very intellectual fields compared to your examples. They prioritized Int for extra skill points, and need more skills to do their job - Bluff, Diplomacy, Heal, lots of esoteric Knowledge skills...

[Boci]

A 1st-level warrior is, indeed, someone who goofs off a few times per week playing Karate Kid. Two years of serious MMA or professional boxing isn't a hobby, it's a career.

No it isn't. I just mean 4 hours a week for two years. It will still give you a significant edge in a fight.


The farmer needs Profession: Farmer, Knowledge: Agriculture or Animals, Handle Animal, possibly a Craft or two, maybe Spot and/or Listen...

No he doesn't. The good farmer has those, but not all farmers are good.


Shopkeepers (at least, the successful ones) will have Profession, Knowledge: Local, Spot, maybe Sense Motive or Diplomacy if they haggle...

Again, good shop keeper.


Doctors and Lawyers are also 1st or 2nd level experts, but both of those are very intellectual fields compared to your examples. They prioritized Int for extra skill points, and need more skills to do their job - Bluff, Diplomacy, Heal, lots of esoteric Knowledge skills...

Doesn't work. Lawyers aren't always smarter, they just have to work harder and study for longer.

[The Dark Fiddler]

No he doesn't. The good farmer has those, but not all farmers are good.

Farmers that aren't good generally don't stay farmers for long.

[Boci]

Farmers that aren't good generally don't stay farmers for long.

Are you claiming such people did not exist in the 20th centuary?

[Irbis]

Talking about horse butcheries.

What? :smallconfused:

[The Glyphstone]

No it isn't. I just mean 4 hours a week for two years. It will still give you a significant edge in a fight.



No he doesn't. The good farmer has those, but not all farmers are good.



Again, good shop keeper.



Doesn't work. Lawyers aren't always smarter, they just have to work harder and study for longer.

Bad farmers and shopkeepers lose their farms or shops, because they didn't have the skills they needed to succeed.

As for the lawyer - studying longer means having more skills. A basic attorney who argues in court is going to need Bluff, Concentration, Diplomacy, maybe Intimidate, Knowledge: Law, Listen, and Sense Motive. Guess how many of those are class skills for Commoners?

If you're really concerned, model the untrained peons as 1-HD Humanoids, not commoners. They don't get more skill points, but at least they're not on a debilitating d4 hit die anymore. Plus, they can actually choose their 2+Int skills for things like Knowledge related to their profession, rather than being stuck with the Commoner skill list. Even homeless people have Knowledge: Local.

[Boci]

Bad farmers and shopkeepers lose their farms or shops, because they didn't have the skills they needed to succeed.

See my response to dark fiddler.


As for the lawyer - studying longer means having more skills.

So how is that represented? They study harder, ergo they are level 2 experts, having more hitpoints, and also becoming better at fighting in the process?


A basic attorney who argues in court is going to need Bluff, Concentration, Diplomacy, maybe Intimidate, Knowledge: Law, Listen, and Sense Motive. Guess how many of those are class skills for Commoners?

I'm not arguing that lawyers aren't experts, I'm arguing how can both unskilled and skilled workers (skilled in the RL term, not D&D) both be experts.


If you're really concerned, model the untrained peons as 1-HD Humanoids, not commoners. They don't get more skill points, but at least they're not on a debilitating d4 hit die anymore.

I dunno, that d4 from a dagger can easily be fatal, even if the attack has no real strength and attacks only once. d4 does't strike me as that low for the average person.

[The Glyphstone]

A dagger (pocketknife) to anywhere except a vital organ (crit) will, on average damage, Disable a d4 Hit Dice. I'd think most people would be able to take a stab wound to, say, the arm without immediately keeling over and being unable to act.


Also, this is getting horrifically off topic. I need to sleep now, but first, I'm going to fetch an old friend of mine to divert this off into a separate topic (and placing it in the 3.5 subform, to boot). The original posts listed the 'Dead horses' will remain here.

Great Modthulhu: And moved. Burble.

[Boci]

A dagger (pocketknife) to anywhere except a vital organ (crit) will, on average damage, Disable a d4 Hit Dice. I'd think most people would be able to take a stab wound to, say, the arm without immediately keeling over and being unable to act.

A poacket knife is not a dagger. The latter is larger and designed with the specific intent of killing people. I'd say it would be pretty hard to take a combat dagger to the arm and not have it hit an artery.

[The Glyphstone]

I don't think anyone agrees that D&D gets the weapons and armor right. But that's a different (though related) topic to the current debate at hand.

Time for me to do my best Terminator impression though.

[Boci]

I don't think anyone agrees that D&D gets the weapons and armor right.

On the specifics certainly, but I don't think its fair to equate a dagger with a pocketknife.

[Tyndmyr]

A poacket knife is not a dagger. The latter is larger and designed with the specific intent of killing people. I'd say it would be pretty hard to take a combat dagger to the arm and not have it hit an artery.

While true, even an artery hit typically takes longer than six seconds to kill you. Humans bleed out in a little bit different fashion than the D&D rules.

[Boci]

While true, even an artery hit typically takes longer than six seconds to kill you. Humans bleed out in a little bit different fashion than the D&D rules.

It will take longer in D&D. You need to reach -10hp to die.

[acemcjack]

err... You're all talking about attack bonus and all, but what about the other side of the coin - The Armor Class?

Assuming Einstein isn't wearing any armor, his AC would be 10, while an 18 year old martial artist with a DEX of 12 or 14 would have an AC or 12 or 14 without any armor. A warrior wearing scale mail could have as much as 15 AC which would make it considerably harder for Einstein to hit him even if their attack bonus was the same.

[Eldan]

What? :smallconfused:

It produces hundreds of dead horses. It was a joke.

[JaronK]

I can personally tight rope walk. So can a lot of children I've taught and worked with (I worked at a circus camp). D&D doesn't model that accurately at all, as I'm pretty sure the 7 year olds weren't of a sufficient level to hit DC 40 checks.

D&D models junior super heroes quite well. It's horrible at dealing with the real world.

JaronK

[pinballchico]

Even homeless people have Knowledge: Local.

They probably have epic level knowledge local, and huge survival, listen, spot...etc.

In fact you're average adventurer is homeless and probably closer to a hobo. (except for the wealth by lvl thing)

If homeless was a Prc anyone in a small setting campaign would take it.

If hobo was a Prc I think almost everyone would at least take a dip. (I may whip up a homebrew for this soon.)

As for our physicist vs. Mr. McDojo........while McDojo would destroy Einstien in a fight, such a fight would never happen. A: The fighter would have to be SENT to get Einstien. B: Einstien wouldn't be around when he got there...weather by use of some super-physicist abrupt jaunt, or just a good network and some common sense of knowing when its time to go.(He proved this IRL)

If it were a mugger on the street situation...then yeah, Einstien either gives up his wallet or lays in a pool of blood. What else can you expect from an artificer without action points.

[Boci]

err... You're all talking about attack bonus and all, but what about the other side of the coin - The Armor Class?

Assuming Einstein isn't wearing any armor, his AC would be 10, while an 18 year old martial artist with a DEX of 12 or 14 would have an AC or 12 or 14 without any armor.

Err, why are you doubling the bonus? 12 or 14 dex means 11 or 12 AC.

[Frozen_Feet]

Which means Einstein has a BAB of +2 (if he's a commoner) or +3 (if he's an expert or an aristocrate).

A level 1 Warrior with 12 strenght will have +2 attack bonus. Taking the example of MA trainee, he might have the Imp. Unarmed Strike, which means every time Einstein tries to take a shot, the MA trainee gets Attack of Opportunity against him. In addition, Einstein can at best knock the trainee out, while the trainee can kill him in an extended slugfest.

Things get worse and worse for Einstein when you consider he prolly had flaws like Noncombatant, lowering his AB by 2. So even with no ability penalties, at level 5, he'd have exact same BAB as a fresh warrior, minus dozens of weapon proficiencies and other qualities that'd make the warrior superior in any real combat situation.

Once you look at the whole of the rules, d20 D&D actually has myriad ways to create characters who are pretty high level and have impressive skills, but suck in combat compared to lower level characters. Commoner is the ultimate example - a level 20 Commoner is only barely better than a level 10 Warrior, for example, discounting WBL and any related shenanigans there off.

[Boci]

A level 1 Warrior with 12 strenght will have +2 attack bonus. Taking the example of MA trainee, he might have the Imp. Unarmed Strike,

Okay, fine. Why can Einstein beat up the average farmer and shopkeeper (whether they are expert or commoner)?


Things get worse and worse for Einstein when you consider he prolly had flaws like Noncombatant, lowering his AB by 2.

Why would Einstein have that flaw? Was he particularly weak as a teenager? He certainly wasn't trained for combat, but is there any evidence he was particularly weak?

[Veyr]

Re: Topic — no, no it cannot.


I can personally tight rope walk. So can a lot of children I've taught and worked with (I worked at a circus camp). D&D doesn't model that accurately at all, as I'm pretty sure the 7 year olds weren't of a sufficient level to hit DC 40 checks.

D&D models junior super heroes quite well. It's horrible at dealing with the real world.

JaronK
Pretty sure that D&D is assuming a reasonable amount of gear — not a medium load or medium armor, obviously, as it has rules for those things and those give explicit penalties — but it's also not assuming a leotard and rubber-soled shoes. Could you tightrope-walk in hiking boots, wearing a parka and a moderately-heavy backpack, holding a heavy-duty flashlight in one hand? That seems about where most characters attempting the feat would be.

And if you could, could you maintain a 15 ft. per 6 seconds speed while doing so?

[danzibr]

No.

A cat should not be able to kill a human.

[Daftendirekt]

All the argument about Einstein being able to beat up farmers because he has a higher BAB is kind of ridiculous. Dungeons and Dragons has always been about going to into dungeons and murdering **** so you can take its stuff, first and foremost. Otherwise known as "Combat". So, obviously, the large majority of game statistics have to do with combat, even for classes like Commoner that will most likely never fight. So, there are certain parts of the mechanics that will not line up with real life no matter how you look at it.

Also, if you look at HP as purely how many times you can get stabbed before you stop moving, it's not going to make a lick of sense either. The way my group usually looks at it (and I think how 4e looks at it) is HP is both you getting injured and at the same time just general fatigue from trying not to die.

[Boci]

All the argument about Einstein being able to beat up farmers because he has a higher BAB is kind of ridiculous. Dungeons and Dragons has always been about going to into dungeons and murdering **** so you can take its stuff, first and foremost. Otherwise known as "Combat". So, obviously, the large majority of game statistics have to do with combat, even for classes like Commoner that will most likely never fight. So, there are certain parts of the mechanics that will not line up with real life no matter how you look at it.[/B]

I know, that is exactly my point.


Also, if you look at HP as purely how many times you can get stabbed before you stop moving, it's not going to make a lick of sense either. The way my group usually looks at it (and I think how 4e looks at it) is HP is both you getting injured and at the same time just general fatigue from trying not to die.

Your definition also has problems, mainly if hp damage isn't a physical wounds, why do I need a silver weapon to overcome DR and regeneration.

[Daftendirekt]

To be fair, I said it's not ONLY wounds. Obviously that's part. IRL, the gap between a sword master and your everyday shmuck is pretty slim when it comes down to how many times you have to stab him before he stops twitching. But, that wouldn't be very balanced or fun in an RPG, so naturally, high level people have oodles of HP and lowbies can't ever hope to kill them. Trade realism for game balance and fun.

[Boci]

To be fair, I said it's not ONLY wounds.

But if I'm fighting a creature with a specific material to overcome their DR then it is only wounds, overwise how does its luck run out faster from dodging a silver dagger than an iron one?

[Z3ro]

But if I'm fighting a creature with a specific material to overcome their DR then it is only wounds, overwise how does its luck run out faster from dodging a silver dagger than an iron one?

It's dodging harder after it realizes you can hurt it?

[Psyren]

It definitely cannot. There are too many abstractions (most famously hit and skill points, but feats, classes and even levels fall into this trap as well) and too many holes in RAW, like drowning to heal.

[HalfDragonCube]

The farmer needs Profession: Farmer, Knowledge: Agriculture or Animals, Handle Animal, possibly a Craft or two, maybe Spot and/or Listen...

A friend told me about this one:

The DC for the knowledge (nature) check is based on a creature's HD. A cow should be roughly the same as a bison, and the HD is fairly high for them.

Unless they put in lots of ranks or have a large intelligence mod, then farmer don't actually know what their cows are...

':smallconfused: What's this in my field?'

[Curmudgeon]

The answer to the title question is: no.

In D&D an awesome marksman will literally miss the broad side of a barn, from 5' away, on 1 of every 20 normal attacks, either melee or ranged. (They can guarantee hitting the barn with a melee weapon if they spend a full round per attack, but that pace also doesn't represent real life.) So no, the 3.5 rules can't accurately represent real life.

[lesser_minion]

The answer to the title question is: no.

In D&D an awesome marksman will literally miss the broad side of a barn, from 5' away, on 1 of every 20 normal attacks, either melee or ranged. (They can guarantee hitting the barn with a melee weapon if they spend a full round per attack, but that pace also doesn't represent real life. So no, the 3.5 rules can't accurately represent real life.

Because 'awesome marksmen' never get misfires, stoppages, or duds.

As for "that pace doesn't represent real life"... a melee attack represents a repeated effort, not one swing of a hammer. Ten seconds to break through a door with an axe seems reasonable on a first glance.

Even then, the fact that D&D fails to mimic real life exactly in some places does not mean that it "cannot accurately represent" real life. It just means that it doesn't work so well at one or two aspects of real life.

Some of the models we can use for fluid dynamics in real life predict that aircraft will never get off the ground. That doesn't make them useless.


A first level fighter with the run feat can run faster, further, and longer than any human being who has ever lived, regardless of stats.

Actually, a first level human fighter with the run feat would take 35 rounds to cover one mile. The present-day female world record is 42 rounds (the male record is 36 rounds).

As a theoretical maximum, 35 rounds doesn't seem too bad. And note that no 1st level human fighter in D&D can reasonably manage every single one of the required Con checks (which seems kind of fair when we remember that our fighter could potentially be carrying a small bundle of ten-foot poles on his back).


I can personally tight rope walk. So can a lot of children I've taught and worked with (I worked at a circus camp). D&D doesn't model that accurately at all, as I'm pretty sure the 7 year olds weren't of a sufficient level to hit DC 40 checks.

It's DC 20 from where I'm sitting. Maybe a little harder than it should be, but... how often does tightrope-walking come up in real life, exactly?

[Spiryt]

The answer is NO as mentioned. It doesn't do it even remotely accurately.

Obviously, 3.5 doesn't really try either, so it's not really a flaw or anything.

[Curmudgeon]

Because 'awesome marksmen' never get misfires, stoppages, or duds.
Any melee weapon wielder with even a modicum of training won't miss the broad side of a barn 5% of the time. Clubs rarely have "misfires, stoppages, or duds", for instance. :smallbiggrin:

[lesser_minion]

Any melee weapon wielder with even a modicum of training won't miss the broad side of a barn 5% of the time. Clubs rarely have "misfires, stoppages, or duds", for instance. :smallbiggrin:

Said melee weapon wielder can automatically hit the broad side of a barn using full-round actions, where the damage roll represents the overall result of multiple successful strikes.

"Up to a minute" seems like a decent figure for how long it takes to break down a wooden door with a fire axe to me.

[Spiryt]

Any melee weapon wielder with even a modicum of training won't miss the broad side of a barn 5% of the time. Clubs rarely have "misfires, stoppages, or duds", for instance. :smallbiggrin:

In 3.5 'defense', it's really a bit too abstract problem for any system to handle, no matter how 'real life' it is.

Some fumble mechanics is useful, and what exactly happens is up to DM.

As hitting stuff in 3.5 is generally for the sake of doing damage, 'missing' the barn can just means that landing arrow didn't even had a chance to do any sort of damage to a plank.

However, if someone rolls just to check if arrow literally makes contact with a barn, and assumes 1 means "no", then it indeed gets silly.

But if someone rolls just for that, he's being silly from the beginning. :smallwink:

[Curmudgeon]

Said melee weapon wielder can automatically hit the broad side of a barn using full-round actions
I already mentioned that. In real life, it doesn't take a full 6 seconds to swing a club once at the side of a barn.

[lesser_minion]

I already mentioned that. In real life, it doesn't take a full 6 seconds to swing a club once at the side of a barn.

The rules explicitly state that a melee attack is not a single swing of a weapon -- instead, it represents the net result from several swings.

I didn't bring up the question of how long it takes to break down a door with a fire axe for no reason.

[Curmudgeon]

The rules explicitly state that a melee attack is not a single swing of a weapon -- instead, it represents the net result from several swings.
With *no* possibility of dodging or deflection, that's exactly what it is. How many times do you think you've got to swing a club to hit the side of a barn?

[lesser_minion]

With *no* possibility of dodging or deflection, that's exactly what it is.

No, it's one chance to assess damage against the object as a result of your efforts to damage it using melee weaponry.

What you're doing -- as far as the rules are concerned -- is trying to demolish a barn with a stick. In real life, swinging a stick at the broad side of a barn once every six seconds is not going to net you any progress in demolishing said barn.

So clearly that is not what the action you are taking represents -- it represents repeated effort towards the overall goal of dismantling the barn or part of it.

[Curmudgeon]

You're trying to demolish a barn with a stick. It seems fair to assume that this will entail something a lot more involved than merely swinging your club at it a couple of times.
OK, then replace "side of a barn" with paper shoji dividers. The D&D actions involved haven't changed. Can you honestly say it'll take 6 seconds for each attempt to be able to successfully damage some of that paper?

[lesser_minion]

OK, then replace "side of a barn" with paper shoji dividers. The D&D actions involved haven't changed. Can you honestly say it'll take 6 seconds for each attempt to be able to successfully damage some of that paper?

At which point you get a lot more for your six seconds -- a paper wall only has one hit point, so your efforts net you a 10' x 10' hole in it.

[Siosilvar]

Short answer: D&D can't accurately represent real life. It can approximate it.
The 1st edition DMG has this section on the first page after prefaces and introductions:


A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game for which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinion and absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn't been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement, and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-than-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste.

Though it's not explicitly stated anywhere, D&D has mostly kept this mindset since. Within the parameters of the game, it tries to be realistic, but its primary goal is to be a game. So although it tries to approach realism, it most certainly does not strive for true realism.

Is it nostalgia if you weren't alive for it?


OK, then replace "side of a barn" with paper shoji dividers. The D&D actions involved haven't changed. Can you honestly say it'll take 6 seconds for each attempt to be able to successfully damage some of that paper?

It'll take 6 seconds to deal enough damage to make a hole for you and a few others to walk through, maybe.

[herrhauptmann]

Well, ignoring the hilarity of combat rules, particularly against inanimate objects:

Would it be possible to take E6 rules, and alter those for level 1? This way you have people like Einstein advancing in math+physics knowledge, complete with Skill Focus:Knowledge X. BUT, doesn't make him somehow better in combat (BAB, Saves, HP) than a soldier (war vet or not).

Now you can get that 15 year karate student who can mop the floor with most warrior types, but still can't figure out how to stay out of debt with those credit cards. Reason being, all his XP went to combat bonuses rather than getting skill points via additional class levels.

Or a surgeon who's an artist with a scalpel. The kind that gets the Nobel Prize for medicine.
With standard D&D rules, he'd be a 15HD expert or aristocrat, thus he could also win any bar fight. Even with suboptimal combat stats and aging penalties. Pretty ridiculous right?

[Zonugal]

Or a surgeon who's an artist with a scalpel. The kind that gets the Nobel Prize for medicine.
With standard D&D rules, he'd be a 15HD expert or aristocrat, thus he could also win any bar fight. Even with suboptimal combat stats and aging penalties. Pretty ridiculous right?

Given a sharp edge I'd expect a world class surgeon to know where to swing to open up the most blood.

Just saying.

[herrhauptmann]

Sure, if the other guy sits there and lets it happen. But this is a fight we're talking about.

[Zonugal]

I don't know why we are assuming he'd have to be 15th level. The heal skill is pretty small-scale in what it can accomplish. Level three expert with a 16 in wisdom, skill focus (heal), self sufficient, a healer's kit and taking ten will get us (6 ranks + 3 wisdom + 3 skill focus + 2 self sufficient + 2 healer's kit + 10) 26, which easily beats any disease & poison in the Player's Handbook.

[herrhauptmann]

It was a random number used for the sake of argument.
The players handbook doesn't include rules for surgeries like removing cancerous growths. Organ transplants. Heart bypass. Etcetera. All the things real life surgeons could end up doing depending on their focus. Sure, he could cure filth fever at level 3, but that's really not a real life issue. We're trying to use D&D to model real life. Not see if someone real can do a thing out of D&D. (I'm not even going to touch the subject of D&D poisons)

And your idea of a level 3 expert still gives someone who by the rules, is going to be a superior combatant than a level 1 warrior(higher Bab, saves, HP). How many doctors/nurses have you known that you'd want beside you in a fight? Sure, they could target a random vein or artery, make you bleed out 2 minutes, and name the artery as well, but that doesn't mean they could do it in a fight.
If you take the E1 idea I mentioned, they get that high heal skill by putting their XP into it, into getting the skill focus. Without getting better at everything else.

[jiriku]

Siosilvar is right on. The game approximates reality well enough for the purpose at hand. A group will probably find that when most "normal folk" are assigned a level of 1-5, the world cranks along more or less as we'd expect it to. We don't need it to be perfect.

As for the frailty of commoners, Vaynor has the right of it. If you live in a 1st-world country and have the wealth and free time to sit at a computer debating the finer points of a game system, your social circle and your life experience probably include few (if any) commoners, unless you've gone out of your way to seek a broader experience than most. Commoners are the dudes who don't have internet, or money, or spare time, or computer literacy. Or, for that matter, formal education, access to decent medical care, meaningful amounts of free time, enough food to eat, or clean water to drink. The commoner class is meant to model people who don't have any advantages in life, people who are barely surviving.

Also I think it's a little...generous to suggest that four hundred hours of martial arts training in a non-threatening, hobbyist environment gets anybody a level in a martially oriented class. The ancient proverb regarding martial mastery is "a hundred days of hand, a thousand days of spear, and ten thousand days of sword" to master combat. And those weren't 30-minute lessons once per day.

Now, maybe you were working your butt off in those classes and learned more than most people, but as I see it, someone who really devoted themselves to learning combat full-time would pass your 400-hour commitment in less time than it takes to complete, say, the first four weeks of U.S. Army basic training (which is typically 15-20 weeks long or more).

This means that in those two years of taking classes, you maybe learned one feat. Maybe. You didn't level, and your one class level is still in expert. When a +6 BAB is "Conan when he left Cimmeria", a couple years of taking martial arts classes on the side just isn't even a blip on the radar.

[Zonugal]

It was a random number used for the sake of argument.
The players handbook doesn't include rules for surgeries like removing cancerous growths. Organ transplants. Heart bypass. Etcetera. All the things real life surgeons could end up doing depending on their focus. Sure, he could cure filth fever at level 3, but that's really not a real life issue. We're trying to use D&D to model real life. Not see if someone real can do a thing out of D&D.

Merely substitute a supernatural disease for what you are seeking. Organ transplants and heart bypasses are probably out because of the setting. Those will never come up unless you transplant this expert to modern time setting. So for the sake of the discussion we have to stay within the limits of time/setting. But I like your example of removing a cancerous growth. Now, those are pretty bad, where do you think they sit comparatively to Mummy Rot (the worst disease in the book for mundanes to have to handle). 1d6 Con damage and it can only be removed with magical healing. Or how about the Slimy Doom which turns an individual's insides into goo? Does that sound pretty bad.

My point, somewhere in there, is you are elevating real life diseases without applying a comparative standard for the fictional ones within the rules.


And your idea of a level 3 expert still gives someone who by the rules, is going to be a superior combatant than a level 1 warrior(higher Bab, saves, HP). How many doctors/nurses have you known that you'd want beside you in a fight? Sure, they could target a random vein or artery, make you bleed out 2 minutes, and name the artery as well, but that doesn't mean they could do it in a fight.
If you take the E1 idea I mentioned, they get that high heal skill by putting their XP into it, into getting the skill focus. Without getting better at everything else.

Really we are getting lost in the struggle for DnD to completely & supremely represent real life (which isn't going to happen because well... Yeah!)

But I guess I could perhaps afford to give some type of reasoning (as crazy as it may come across). A first level warrior is skilled in the martial school of hitting you. Let us take a sample 1st-level warrior. 12 in str, dex and con, while his mental stats are something to be desired. He's got two feats to spend so let us go simple and say Weapon Focus and Dodge. Let us have him have some Hide armor, a light wooden shield and a morning star for offensive purposes. The expert in comparison will have a dagger.

1st-Level Warrior: +3 Attack (1 BaB +1 Str +1 Weapon Focus), 16 AC (10 Base +1 dex +3 Armor +1 Shield +1 Dodge).
3rd-Level Warrior: +2 Attack (2 BaB +0 Str), 10 AC (10 Base +0 armor).

I mean sure the Surgeon has an okay attack bonus (lets rack this up to knowing where to hit to inflict the most pain) but his defense is severely lacking. This isn't exactly a situation where the surgeon could go toe to toe against the warrior.

[Frozen_Feet]

Okay, fine. Why can Einstein beat up the average farmer and shopkeeper (whether they are expert or commoner)?

Why could he? Average farmer and shopkeepers are not level 1 commoners or Experts either. A level 1 commoner is an uneducated person barely out of his teens suffering from poverty. Why is it so unbelievable that an older, better fed male could kick his ass?

A more realistic estimate would be that the "average shopkeer" is around level 2 or 3 expert, same for farmers. At which point, Einstein's victory becomes much less certain. Sure, he could win. If we run an extended simulation, he probably would win most matches by RAW. But the difference is not so amazing that it renders the results unbelievable for the premise, which amounts roughly to "two middle-aged persons holding a boxing match".


Why would Einstein have that flaw? Was he particularly weak as a teenager? He certainly wasn't trained for combat, but is there any evidence he was particularly weak?

*smacks with rotten fish*

You just answered your own question. He was not trained for combat. That's what Noncombatant means. Realistically, most people alive today would have that flaw. It represents the fact that they don't need to fight for their lives against monsters every day, and thus have had time to learn something else, represented by the extra feat.

With the application of that single flaw, D&D suddenly models modern people significantly better.