PDA

View Full Version : Power Scaling and Realism in Dungeons and Dragons (all editions)



Drolyt
2011-05-02, 02:20 AM
(I'm using 3.5 for examples here, but so far as I can tell this applies to all editions, and probably other games as well) One thing that has always confused me with regards to Dungeons and Dragons is that the difference between low levels and high levels is huge, yet people seem to want high level Dungeons and Dragons to behave "realistically". For example, I recall in the 3.5 Dungeon Masters Guide a suggestion to the effect of "if someone slits your throat in the middle of the night, it doesn't matter how many hit points you have, you die". Even if you are a 20th level barbarian. This applies real world common sense to the situation. Thing is, this isn't the real world, it's Dungeons and Dragons, and a 20th level barbarian is a demigod walking the earth. I've heard complaints to the effect that 20th level fighters shouldn't be able to survive falling 1000 feet or being completely immersed in lava. But why not? A 20th level wizard can fly, teleport, summon demons, create walls out of thin air, predict the future, see and hear things far away, cause meteors to rain out of the sky, move objects with his mind, control people's minds, read people's thoughts, travel to other dimensions, turn invisible, become intangible, control the weather pretty much anything you can imagine really. If this were a superhero comic or an anime, characters capable of such would be expected to be able to shrug off gigantic falls, to bathe in lava, and to have assassin's knives break on their necks. There was an old thread I found while googling "damaging objects in Dungeons and Dragons", where people thought it was ridiculous you could use an axe to chop your way out of a steel prison so long as you could overcome the hardness of the object and deal enough hit point damage. But is it really? Sure, Drolyt the normal earth human couldn't do that, but why not the 20th level Dwarf Fighter with the +5 Magical Waraxe of Doom?

I guess what I'm getting at here is that I think this is the wrong way to look at "realism" in games like Dungeons and Dragons. For me, verisimilitude is very important in my games, but I expect realism based on the standards of the game verse, not the real world. In my mind, Dungeons and Dragons gives those environmental hazards too much damage. Lava deals 20d6 fire damage every 6 seconds? Far too lethal for my taste. And really, I need epic levels to blow up a mountain? What is with that? Especially in 4th edition, where freaking deities are effectively 30-40th level characters. It makes Dungeons and Dragons gods weaker than than even bit characters from many superhero comics or anime. Ok, maybe you don't want D&D to be a superhero comic or anime, but it still feels weird when you are subjecting deities and the heroes that interact with them to real world standards of realism.

Conners
2011-05-02, 04:12 AM
Forget level 20, you can survive bizarre stuff at level 5. Having your throat slit.... (1d4+STRMod)x3 damage (critical hit with a dagger). Assuming a strength of 12, that's an average of 9 damage... A level 2 Fighter could survive that. A maximum value is 15, which is easily manageable to a tough level 3 fighter or a level 3 barbarian? Level 4s won't have problems with that.
The only possibility of throat slitting being dangerous, is if you use the coup de grace rules and make them save vs. Death. Fort Save with DC10 + Damage Dealt... meaning in the example given, anything from 16 to 25. The chance of success is fairly low, unless the character has particularly high CON or Fort.... so it's then the problem that having your throat slit kills you instantly, which is not the real case.
Thus, we have a mixture of people who won't die given realistic cause, and people dying instantly when they should be alive for a good minute or so (it's terrible with negative HP...).

So, yeah--having your throat slit isn't a problem at epic levels, it's a problem at lower levels too. Players can run through fire if they want to, at mid levels.
Realistically, come to think of it, Falling Damage should cap shouldn't it? There's a certain point where you can't fall any faster.

Drolyt
2011-05-02, 04:34 AM
Forget level 20, you can survive bizarre stuff at level 5. Having your throat slit.... (1d4+STRMod)x3 damage (critical hit with a dagger). Assuming a strength of 12, that's an average of 9 damage... A level 2 Fighter could survive that. A maximum value is 15, which is easily manageable to a tough level 3 fighter or a level 3 barbarian? Level 4s won't have problems with that.
The only possibility of throat slitting being dangerous, is if you use the coup de grace rules and make them save vs. Death. Fort Save with DC10 + Damage Dealt... meaning in the example given, anything from 16 to 25. The chance of success is fairly low, unless the character has particularly high CON or Fort.... so it's then the problem that having your throat slit kills you instantly, which is not the real case.
Thus, we have a mixture of people who won't die given realistic cause, and people dying instantly when they should be alive for a good minute or so (it's terrible with negative HP...).

So, yeah--having your throat slit isn't a problem at epic levels, it's a problem at lower levels too. Players can run through fire if they want to, at mid levels.
Realistically, come to think of it, Falling Damage should cap shouldn't it? There's a certain point where you can't fall any faster.
Good point about lower levels. D&D doesn't seem to do any reality realistically. As for a cap on falling damage, assuming physics works the same in the setting as it does in the real world there is a certain point where acceleration due to gravity is equal to the deceleration caused by air pressure and you maintain a constant velocity at that point. This is called terminal velocity. Mind you, there are recorded cases of people surviving falls at terminal velocity, and realistically any real world person should be stated at 5th level or lower. You actually seem to be in less danger at terminal velocity because your body has time to right itself and relax in preparation for impact; it seems the cause of death isn't the force exerted upon impact but things like breaking bones and snapping necks.

Xiander
2011-05-02, 04:38 AM
D&D does not attempt to copy reality. Instead it attempts to create consistency, reality is up to the people playing the system.

lesser_minion
2011-05-02, 04:48 AM
Thus, we have a mixture of people who won't die given realistic cause, and people dying instantly when they should be alive for a good minute or so (it's terrible with negative HP...).

The D&D game depends on post-hoc rationalisation in order to provide a semblance of realism -- in other words, you determine precisely what happened and why after you've determined the results within the rules.

Ignoring that assumption when constructing a scenario where the rules break down is a cheap way to get an absurdity to throw up on an internet forum, but it doesn't prove anything -- the rules didn't break down because they suck, they broke down because you're hurting them

What you're doing here is taking a concrete scenario -- a character having their throat cut -- and assuming that the rules will always handle that as 2d4+2 damage and a DC 10 + damage dealt fortitude save to not die. As far as the rules are concerned, however, you're not slitting anyone's throat -- you're trying to quickly murder an already-defeated enemy. You only slit their throat if they ended up on negative hit points but passed their saving throw.

This is also the fundamental reason why the rules tell you to ignore the hit point system for events like a dagger in the eye -- the rules do not handle concrete scenarios that were constructed in advance. They allow the players to specify what they want to achieve, not precisely what it is that they do.

icefractal
2011-05-02, 05:13 AM
That's true to an extent, but I think you do have to assume that high-level characters have capabilities beyond what any real-life human does. I mean, even 10th level warrior-types can stand face to face with a 25' long shark, a house-sized animated statue, or a twelve-headed hydra - match it blow for blow - and survive the fight not only alive but ready for more. At that point, maybe a dagger to the throat should fall short of an insta-kill.

I've seen some comments to the effect of "Well, being surrounded by guys with crossbows should always be threatening, even if you did just kill a magma-breathing dragon." And I don't think I agree. Sure, sometimes stories go that way; but in those stories, people fight dragons by trickery or amazing luck, not face to face. Not really the case in D&D - you stand there, sometimes getting hit by the dragon, or having it breath fire on you, and not dying. And then you eventually slay it, by sheer might if necessary, weak spot not required.

So at that point, you have three options:
A) "You didn't actually stand there and fight the dragon, that was a metaphor or something - actually, you were hiding behind boulders and then a stalactite fell and speared it"
B) "Yeah, dragons aren't really that amazing - the guys with crossbows probably could have dealt with it just fine."
C) "Ok, maybe ordinary guys with ordinary crossbows aren't such a threat. Next time the duke will pay for some quality assassins instead of cheaping out."

Lvl45DM!
2011-05-02, 05:34 AM
Its like lesser minion said. A good hit with a dagger can kill any normal human instantly. A 20th level fighter dies from a good dagger hit as well but until he dies the hit point damage inst the dagger plunging into his flesh, its flesh wounds bruises through armour a twisted ankle from dodging a good swing etc etc. If you get hit with a fireball and make your save you dodge out of the way so you take less damage, but the heat and smoke and damage from a buggered dodge maneuver hurts too. If you fail your save you're just tougher that the orcs who die, or your armour is better or your god is looking out for you. You invent the realism after the dice role.

Frozen_Feet
2011-05-02, 05:57 AM
Exactly. In abstract systems like d20, you don't tell what happens and then roll dice - you roll dice and then tell what happens.

Anyways, as has been mentioned in the form of people surviving fall with terminal velocity, reality is often far more amazing or "unrealistic" than people give it credit for. Running through fire? Perfectly possible. Surviving a chunk of iron shooting through your skull? Possible. Sniping 500+ people with an outdated rifle with iron sights during winter and polar night in about hundred days? Possible. Climbing a sheer cliff, getting shot by machinegun rounds, proceeding to kill a bunker full of enemy soldiers and surviving? Eh, happened.

So while even at low levels, D&D allows some amazing feats, people take these to be much more outrageous than they actually are due to unrealistically low expectations of the real world. And then we get to the fact that D&D leaves all pretense of realism behind at level 8 at latest, and majority of classes cross that treshold by level one. (All spellcasters, f. ex.)

A level 10+ Fighter is not your fencing teacher. He's Roronoa Zoro from One Piece, capable of cutting through steel and surviving cannoballs to the chest. A level 20 Barbarian is not an angry barroom brawler, he's the Incredible Hulk. If you accept the fact that characters eventually cross from Joe and Jane Does to mythical figures on par with, or even greater than Heracles and Thor, then there is no problem. The conflict with expectations happens only if you think the game will stay the same through all of its levels, when it most empathetically and explicitly does not.

Eldan
2011-05-02, 06:11 AM
Bah. They aren't Thor.

I mean, they can't drink an Ocean of Beer. :smallwink:

Conners
2011-05-02, 06:20 AM
One problem with the argument, "It just never happens that they cut something vital until you run out of HP". The obvious one, is that this doesn't really happen (skill people aren't going to swing wildly at each other to no effect for an hour)... but an even worse point: What if the person has the dagger to your throat?

Honestly, if a person has a dagger to your throat, and they "Hit"...

Yeah, DnD works fine if you justify the rules with flavour. So does monopoly.


@Frozen Feet: I'm also of opinion that real life has amazing details. However... it's a different kind of amazing. People can run through fire, but it is a very different size and heat from the fires that would kill anyone. People can get shot by machine gun rounds and survive--other people die from a single handgun bullet.

Basically, there are billions of humans, doing billions of things, over their 70 years of life. So you're likely to get some amazing things. This doesn't mean the amazing things are common occurrence (in fact, that'd contradict its namesake). So, the problem with DnD, is that every player and high level NPC constantly live out the 1 in a billion chances, where it is highly uncommon for something normal to happen.

Traab
2011-05-02, 06:25 AM
Bah. They aren't Thor.

I mean, they can't drink an Ocean of Beer. :smallwink:

Well they can come close. But the clean up is a BASTARD! Its why bartenders tend to cut them off at half a good sized lake. :smallbiggrin:

As for the whole unreality thing, I can understand where the op is coming from. Even in comic book land, unless you are immune to damage like superman, getting your throat cut would kill batman, green lantern, wonder woman, hawkgirl, any of the xmen except for wolverine, etc. The problem comes with, "did the attack succeed?" Isnt that the whole point of the roll? To determine if that bandit who snuck into your camp while your group slept and tried to cut your throat actually did it? If it failed to kill you but still hurt, then maybe you shifted position at the last second, so he missed the arteries. Maybe you woke up in time to dodge, getting only a slight wound.

Also, maybe im wrong, but arent the bad guys you tend to encounter also scaled up to meet you in power? I mean, some level 20 adventure party isnt getting attacked by some scruffy ragged bandit with a worn dagger, right? So then the situation is more, "Did mystique manage to sneak up on cyclops and slit his throat?" Its a lot less of a stretch that it could actually happen in that scenario isnt it?

Conners
2011-05-02, 06:34 AM
Well they can come close. But the clean up is a BASTARD! Its why bartenders tend to cut them off at half a good sized lake. :smallbiggrin:

As for the whole unreality thing, I can understand where the op is coming from. Even in comic book land, unless you are immune to damage like superman, getting your throat cut would kill batman, green lantern, wonder woman, hawkgirl, any of the xmen except for wolverine, etc. The problem comes with, "did the attack succeed?" Isnt that the whole point of the roll? To determine if that bandit who snuck into your camp while your group slept and tried to cut your throat actually did it? If it failed to kill you but still hurt, then maybe you shifted position at the last second, so he missed the arteries. Maybe you woke up in time to dodge, getting only a slight wound.

Also, maybe im wrong, but arent the bad guys you tend to encounter also scaled up to meet you in power? I mean, some level 20 adventure party isnt getting attacked by some scruffy ragged bandit with a worn dagger, right? So then the situation is more, "Did mystique manage to sneak up on cyclops and slit his throat?" Its a lot less of a stretch that it could actually happen in that scenario isnt it? Of course, then you get the question of, "Does that mean a dagger Mystique holds suddenly becomes sharper and more deadly...?" Realistically speaking, it shouldn't.
If a random thug gets a knife to Cyclops' throat, it's just as deadly. It isn't really a question of whether the scruffy thug can kill you, it's if he manages to. DnD makes things pretty where a level one commoner can never kill you--but then, King Richard was allegedly killed by a crossbow used by a young child.

Eldan
2011-05-02, 06:40 AM
I'd imagine holding a knife to someone's throat is already a case of the opponent being helpless. At which point it becomes a Coup de Grace anyway.

Conners
2011-05-02, 06:48 AM
Yeah, that's what I figured. Of course, it'd make more sense for it to be a Reflex Save in that case, if you're trying to avoid the knife slitting your throat. Regardless, it breaks down at the fact that you die instantly as if your head has been removed if you fail.

Killer Angel
2011-05-02, 07:08 AM
The fact is that many peoples, know that dragons flying and wizards stopping the time, break the laws of physics, but they accept it cause it's explained by magic, a supernatural mechanic, while a "mundane" human fighter, has no such excuse, and he should live by a more mundane logic.

Now, I would like to cite myself from another thread:



Real World physics can help, but you cannot stay too much on it. Some game systems mantain a good degree of realism (GURPS), others not so much (Exalted), and some noothing at all (Toon).
The chassis of D&D, is built to do extraordinary things... the characters, if wholly developed, will became Hercules.
At epic levels, they can swim climbing a waterfall, and they can balance on clouds, with they mundane abilities. I don't like such extremes, but I cannot negate that the rules of D&D are made to let the characters (and the npcs) to do things beyond the human abilities. If you want, you can logically justify this thing, with magical enhancements of mundane abilities (you effectively jump so high thanks to your boots of springing. Of course you're so good in swimming: no real human got 24 strenght, thanks to the belt).
The key is to mantain the verisimilitude between the system.

We must remember that, at mid-low levels, in D&D you can do something totally crazy (from our "real world" pov) almost on a regular basis.
'specially in 3.x:




9th level Rogue. He has 12 ranks of Balance, started with 16 Dex and boosted it twice to 18 (+4). He gets a +2 synergy bonus from Tumble ranks, for a total modifier of 12+4+2=+18. Taking 10, he will, every time, be able to move at full speed across a one inch wide marble-covered beam. (18+10-5=23 for the check, 20+2(scree) =22 for the DC.)

9th level Barbarian. 12 ranks of Climb, now has 18 (+4) Strength, for a final modifier of 12+4=+16. Taking 10, he gets a 26. He can now climb most mountains while raining, moving 40 feet every 6 seconds. (Check is 26-5=21 for accelerated climbing, DC is 15+5=20 for climbing a rough natural rock surface that's slippery.)

9th level Swashbuckler. 12 ranks of Jump, 12 (+1) Strength, +2 synergy from Tumble. His modifier is 12+1+2=+15. Taking 10 gets him a 25. The female world record for the long jump is (7.52 meters)*(3.28 feet/meter) = 24.7 feet. This character beats that every time he wants to. The men's record is 8.95*3.28= 29.3 feet, which his character could swing pretty easily if he so desired. When the character rolls instead of taking 10, he can hit as much as 35 feet, blowing past the world record by two yards.

9th level Ranger goes tracking. 12 ranks in Survival, 14 (+2) Wisdom, +4 from Search and Know: Nature synergy, and +2 from some manner of tracking kit. Modifier is 12+2+4+2= +20, which means he takes 10 to get a 30. To match this, the DC is going to look like this: 4+5+1+20. That comes from tracking a single Toad (+4 DC for being Diminutive) that is covering his tracks (+5) after an hour of rainfall (+1) over bare rock (20).

Frozen_Feet
2011-05-02, 07:14 AM
So, the problem with DnD, is that every player and high level NPC constantly live out the 1 in a billion chances, where it is highly uncommon for something normal to happen.

How is that a problem? D&D calls out both player characters and high level characters as being something expectional, often mirrored by flat-out giving them supernatural powers or patronage. They are the ones expected to live out those 1 in a billion chances.

You want to play a mundane game? Then everyone are Experts, Aristocrats and Warriors ranging from levels 1 to 4. Within those parameters, the reality of the game matches the "normal" reality of our world.

But once you allow players to advance past level 5 or let them play Wizards and the like, you aren't playing a simulation of the real world anymore. You're playing a heroic saga or Shounen action adventure comedy, and the reality within the game will start to mirror that. At which point, you shouldn't use reality to set your expectations (at least as much), but rely on narrative conventions of the proper genre. And in fiction land, the protagonist do live out the 1 in a billion chances all the time, and that's what makes those stories fun.

Traab
2011-05-02, 07:19 AM
Of course, then you get the question of, "Does that mean a dagger Mystique holds suddenly becomes sharper and more deadly...?" Realistically speaking, it shouldn't.
If a random thug gets a knife to Cyclops' throat, it's just as deadly. It isn't really a question of whether the scruffy thug can kill you, it's if he manages to. DnD makes things pretty where a level one commoner can never kill you--but then, King Richard was allegedly killed by a crossbow used by a young child.

Of course it is. That random bandit is using an old, chipped, rusty dagger made of pot metal, while mystique has her adamantium alloy, scalpel sharp blade! Its like the difference between a greatsword and a +5 greatsword with a fire added damage effect! Also, id imagine that mystique, being such a high end stealthy mistress of disguise and infiltration, would also have a much better chance of GETTING to his throat while he sleeps.

Frozen_Feet
2011-05-02, 07:26 AM
Not to mention that Mystique, having been in this villain business for quite a while, most likely has much better picture of human anatomy and how to deliver an effective, lethal strike than some random shmuck. Not to mention differences in physical strenght, though I forget if Mystique is supposed to have any special edge on that department.

Point is, it does make a difference who is holding the knife.

Conners
2011-05-02, 08:04 AM
@Killer Angel: That is exactly the problem. The Fighter is meant to be mundane. If you said that as players levelled up their flesh got super-tough, so that they could deflect arrows--I could accept that. I could accept players being semi invulnerable, eventually dying when their regeneration is used up. However, I'm instead presented with "ordinary" people--doing things that make no sense.


@Frozen_Feet: The question is, which is DnD trying to model...? In some ways, it seems to be trying to model reality, in a more cinematic light. In other ways, it does enter into the realm of shonen action. But then, it also doesn't do the epicness as well as some games do.
Question is whether it is a hybrid, in-between, or an odd mixture of realism and unrealism. Would say the latter.


@Traab: I guess that's how it tends to be in DnD. Speaking with reality in mind, you don't need the sharpest thing ever to cut someone's throat. The piece of broken pottery or a piece of glass is fully sufficient (glass tends to be even sharper than metal knives--because the metal knives are made to last, glass is just sharp by accident). So, it doesn't matter if you use the +5 Greatsword which is on fire, for the larger part of it--a shiv will do the job fine.
Either way, if it's a matter of getting to the person's thraot, that's rather different... but in a situation where they're already there--there isn't much room for Fort Saves.


@Frozen_Feet: The Riddle of Steel. Which is stronger? The Steel, or the hand which holds it...? Answer: The Wielder. Someone with a nuclear bomb who is unwilling to use it, is infinitely weaker than a murderer with an icepick. So yes, if Mystique is an experienced killer and the thug is just an angry teenager who would sooner cut himself than you swinging his knife--you have an obvious advantage for one of them and not the other of them, either or.

Physical strength has very little to do with cutting someone's throat, since the amount of strength used will be quite little. The point I was making, however, is it doesn't make a difference when it comes to the attack, if the attack hits. Unless "hit" means they slip on a banana peel and nick one of your whiskers as they fall over backwards.
Even a complete idiot can kill someone of great skill, providing the proper level of surprise--because metal things kill people. That's why skilled people take great care never to be surprised, and Sun Tzu takes pride in arranging good situations, rather than fighting well in bad ones--because no matter how good you are, risks are just that... risks to your life.

Incanur
2011-05-02, 08:11 AM
My problem comes with the details of expressing that demigod status. Impenetrable skin, healing factor, senses and skills that prevent being ambushed? Great. A giant pile of hit points? Not so much fun. Hp don't emulate mythical fantasy with any success.

Frozen_Feet
2011-05-02, 08:17 AM
Question is whether it is a hybrid, in-between, or an odd mixture of realism and unrealism. Would say the latter.

And the answer is... all of them.

D&D is not a complete game. It's a game system. It relies on the GM and the players to actually give it a concrete shape, to create an actual scenario to play out.

And D&D gives a huge assortment of tools, which can be used to model huge assortment of situations. It is, however, inherent in the system that the game changes. It gradually transitions from low-key sword & sorcery to epic tales about raiding hell and what not. How smooth this transition is depends on whether the GM and players acknowledge this and accept it.

Most grievances about realisim D&D, as I said earlier, come from people failing to do he first or unwilling to do the second.

Tengu_temp
2011-05-02, 08:20 AM
There is no realism in DND, and almost no verisimilitude without heavy DM re-interpretation. 4e is an almost purely gamist system that sacrifices making sense for providing balance and tactical challenges. 3.5 tries to keep verisimilitude up, but it fails due to many unintended side effects of the ways many rules, classes and feats work. Older edition don't even have mechanical consistency, much less consistency between crunch and fluff.

I don't think if any edition of DND is very good at simulating heroic fantasy, or high fantasy, or sword and sorcery. 4e, as I mentioned before, focuses on being a game at the cost of everything else, and is best for tongue in the cheek video game-inspired settings such as Disgaea. 3.5, with its extreme power growth over the levels and characters that can take a crapload of punishment, is best for shonen fighting anime like Bleach or Dragonball. AD&D is probably the most fantasy-like in this regard, as long as you keep in mind that non-casters will have very limited options and, ultimately, the caster will still become much more powerful than the rest of the party together.

Conners
2011-05-02, 08:36 AM
Incanur has it about right. HP basically works like some kind of limited regeneration magic, where you die as soon as you have "died"/been-wounded enough times.


Tengu also gives the long and short of it. Generally, DnD is fun, but I would not use it for a realistically intended game. Once, I tried--but I didn't understand well enough back then. Editing the system extensively could result in a fairly good simplified simulation of combat--but it would be so extensive that it would be easier to make a new system from scratch.

Killer Angel
2011-05-02, 08:51 AM
@Killer Angel: That is exactly the problem. The Fighter is meant to be mundane. If you said that as players levelled up their flesh got super-tough, so that they could deflect arrows--I could accept that. I could accept players being semi invulnerable, eventually dying when their regeneration is used up. However, I'm instead presented with "ordinary" people--doing things that make no sense.


@Frozen_Feet: The question is, which is DnD trying to model...? In some ways, it seems to be trying to model reality, in a more cinematic light. In other ways, it does enter into the realm of shonen action. But then, it also doesn't do the epicness as well as some games do.
Question is whether it is a hybrid, in-between, or an odd mixture of realism and unrealism. Would say the latter.


As already said, you can simulate various kind of game with D&D, accordingly to the DM and players' style, from high cinematic and unrealistic campaigns(ToB?), to realistic and more mundane settings (E6?).
Only, you must be coherent: imo you shouldn't have druidzilla and incantatrix, while forcing the non-magic user to follow too much the laws of physic: it should have the chance to do extraordinary mundane actions (swimming a couple of round in lava and survive). Especially if the rules let you do it.
The higher the level, the more extraordinary things you can do.
That said, DnD is far from perfect, 's not even close.

Drolyt
2011-05-02, 11:55 AM
I think the following two concerns sum up my problem with D&D and verisimilitude/realism:

That is exactly the problem. The Fighter is meant to be mundane. If you said that as players levelled up their flesh got super-tough, so that they could deflect arrows--I could accept that. I could accept players being semi invulnerable, eventually dying when their regeneration is used up. However, I'm instead presented with "ordinary" people--doing things that make no sense.
See, ever since I first started playing the game I assumed this wasn't the case. I assumed that high level fighters and barbarians were supposed to be like Goku or Rock Lee, where they don't really have superpowers (ignoring Ki for the moment) but build up amazing strength and durability that makes no sense in our world but works in a world full of magic and dragons. But what I've come to realize is that the rules aren't really written that way. High level characters are still treated like normals when it comes to how they interact with the environment, which is just odd. I'm fine with games like GURPS where such realism is the baseline, but in D&D these characters are supposed to compete with 20th level wizards, druids, clerics, and sorcerers. Heck, even GURPS can scale up to those levels, not cleanly, but it can. Which I suppose leads me to my next point...

My problem comes with the details of expressing that demigod status. Impenetrable skin, healing factor, senses and skills that prevent being ambushed? Great. A giant pile of hit points? Not so much fun. Hp don't emulate mythical fantasy with any success.
What exactly does HP represent? I had always assumed it represented how tough you, how much damage you could take before you die. But that doesn't seem to be the case, rather it is an attempt to roll general survival capability into a single number. The same problem occurs with AC, somehow the one number factors in ability to dodge, to block, to parry, protection from armor, protection from magic etc. This despite the fact that we have damage reduction and energy resistance as separate stats (but not generally for PCs).

If I were to do it, hit points would represent "how much actual damage I can take before dying", and would be a lot less than in current D&D. AC would be replaced with reflex saves, not sure how I'd handle shields/blocking and parrying. Armor would provide damage reduction, as would tough skin. Regeneration/fast healing would probably be more common among high level characters. Magical defenses would have to be factored in in a way that doesn't just add to existing numbers in an unintuitive way. This would all be a little more work, but it would greatly improve verisimilitude and allow greater differentiation between characters. A barbarian would have a ton of hit points but less of other defenses, a wizard would rely on magic to protect him, a rogue might be really good at dodging, a druid might have regenerative powers (either through magic or because of his shapeshifting), and a fighter has the best overall defense (good hit points, good damage reduction, good reflexes, a shield, maybe a little fast healing at high levels).

Edit: Dungeons and Dragons was the first tabletop RPG I played and still my favorite. I love the game, don't get me wrong. Still, it has some flaws, and that's all I'm getting at here. I think with some tweaking D&D could do better in the verisimilitude and consistency departments.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-05-02, 03:22 PM
Edit: Dungeons and Dragons was the first tabletop RPG I played and still my favorite. I love the game, don't get me wrong. Still, it has some flaws, and that's all I'm getting at here. I think with some tweaking D&D could do better in the verisimilitude and consistency departments.
Try Hackmaster then. You'll also see why D&D has never tried to be "realistic" :smallamused:

IMHO, D&D does a fine job of modeling a Heroic Fantasy world. While I believe some editions have done a better job of being a good game than others, this much is true across all editions.

If you want "realism" or the dreaded "verisimilitude" then you should turn to a game whose purpose is to model reality as opposed to a fictional world. To date, I know of no system which does this well, although I know of several that make that claim. FATAL, for one :smalltongue:

Talakeal
2011-05-02, 03:48 PM
My take on it is that D&D is modeled after high fantasy and sword and sorcery stories. The protagonists of such stories are generally real people, albeit exceptionally gifted ones with access to magical objects or spells that are not available in the real world. Even a level 20 fighter is just a guy who is in really really good shape and really really practiced at combat.

Other games are modeled after Anime, Fairy Tales, or Comic Books, worlds where the same limits of reality may not apply, and the heroes are generally more than mere humans. They are aliens from the planet krypton, demi gods, imbued with immortal power, mutants, have fortified their bodies with mystical energy, etc.

Although D&D has your power continue to increase beyond mid levels it never gives any in character explanation WHY it does so. You get a fundamental disconnect between the flavor text and the rules. Something as simple as "all living creatures can, with experience, learn to tap into the ambient magical energy of the fantasy world, and in doing so gain supernatural abilities", which I believe 4th ed has, would be enough. But D&D doesn't have it because the stories it was modeled after do not.

Personally I like it that way, and I don't play games beyond ten level. For me the game is about playing a person in a fantastic world, and the less like a real person the character is the less I can relate to it. I am also a firm believer in the Incredibles idea that when everyone is super then no one is.

Drolyt
2011-05-02, 04:10 PM
Although D&D has your power continue to increase beyond mid levels it never gives any in character explanation WHY it does so. You get a fundamental disconnect between the flavor text and the rules. Something as simple as "all living creatures can, with experience, learn to tap into the ambient magical energy of the fantasy world, and in doing so gain supernatural abilities", which I believe 4th ed has, would be enough. But D&D doesn't have it because the stories it was modeled after do not.
While, it is this disconnect that I'm talking about. High level D&D characters' abilities in some areas (spells, skills, etc.) don't mesh with their abilities in others (surviving environmental hazards, destroying objects). It's not that a game where you have both awesome powers and frailty is a bad thing, it is that D&D fails at that just as much as it fails at being animesque fantasy, mostly because of the bizarre way hit points work. If you are looking for that you could try GURPS or maybe Hero with extremely limited defenses, but D&D, despite being a fun game, doesn't seem (to me) to represent either gritty or superheroic/animesque well. As for "when everyone is super no one is", I'm not familiar with the source material. If what you mean is that if everyone has superpowers then it is no longer super because it is normal then I agree, that's why I always disliked the suggestions in the 3.5 DMG (not sure if 4e changed it) that even high level characters are, if not common, pretty easy to find if you head to large enough cities. D&D seems to take the assumption that the PCs aren't unique, which is an assumption I've almost always changed when I DM. At any rate, as far as superheroes go I think the "hero" part is more important than the "super". The normal who risks his life for others is a better superhero than the godlike being that does nothing for others.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-05-02, 04:32 PM
While, it is this disconnect that I'm talking about. High level D&D characters' abilities in some areas (spells, skills, etc.) don't mesh with their abilities in others (surviving environmental hazards, destroying objects).
For what it's worth, 4e does a much better job at scaling these sorts of things.

Not destroying objects, unfortunately, but I came up with homebrew fix awhile ago to address it. Works fine for me.

Incanur
2011-05-02, 04:51 PM
What exactly does HP represent? I had always assumed it represented how tough you, how much damage you could take before you die. But that doesn't seem to be the case, rather it is an attempt to roll general survival capability into a single number.

Yes and no. In 3.5, losing hit points means getting injured. If you have 1000hp and take 1 damage from a poisoned weapon, that means you've been cut. If you take 100 damage, presumably you rolled with the punch. If everyone in the game used blunt weapons, that might be okay. Unfortunately, rolling with punches doesn't translate well to edged weapons. Just look superhero comics. Character like Thor and Wonder Woman can survive nuclear explosions and planet-shattering haymakers but still have to worry about a sharp blade. D&D's death-of-a-thousand-stings approach would look so silly on panel that artists don't even go there. Comics aren't anymore realistic or reasonable, but reject it simply for aesthetic considerations.


IMHO, D&D does a fine job of modeling a Heroic Fantasy world.

In my experience with 3.5 and crew of veteran gamers, D&D combat looks nothing whatsoever like heroic fantasy combat past about level seven. It becomes it's own unique animal. Action economy and the associated funky time manipulation reign supreme.

Gamer Girl
2011-05-02, 05:54 PM
(I'm using 3.5 for examples here, but so far as I can tell this applies to all editions, and probably other games as well) One thing that has always confused me with regards to Dungeons and Dragons is that the difference between low levels and high levels is huge, yet people seem to want high level Dungeons and Dragons to behave "realistically". For example, I recall in the 3.5 Dungeon Masters Guide a suggestion to the effect of "if someone slits your throat in the middle of the night, it doesn't matter how many hit points you have, you die". Even if you are a 20th level barbarian. This applies real world common sense to the situation. Thing is, this isn't the real world, it's Dungeons and Dragons, and a 20th level barbarian is a demigod walking the earth.

A high level character is only a demigod if you want them to be. Now, granted the 'default' D&D world in the core rules makes it that way, but it's not the only way to do it.

First, you should note that even at 1st level, a adventuring D&D character is 2 or 3 times tougher then a normal person. The idea is that only the 'tough' people go on adventures. A normal person can be killed by a single blow from a single weapon, but an adventurer can take at least 2 or 3 such hits.

So, take the 20th level barbarian. Sure, he is immune to tons of stuff that effects normal people. He does not have to worry about getting stabbed in the back with a dagger or someone strangling him. Or any other attack that does less then 10 points of damage. A bad guy sneaking into the barbarian's room and stabbing him with a dagger at night will just wake the barbarian up with 5 points of damage.

Though, this immunity is only in play, and the 20th barbarian is only a demigod, in a low powered(what most call 'low magic') type setting. If you like your setting to be 'almost' like historical Earth or Lord of the Rings or even up to the weak default D&D core world, or settings like Eberron. If your setting is more powerful, then the 20th level barbarian is not a demigod anymore.

Conners
2011-05-02, 07:31 PM
To sum up DnD in relation to this thread: It doesn't model Realism well (HP isn't explained into anything magical), though lower levels have potential for some realistic-ish play...
DnD fails to give proper explanation for the invulnerability of high-level characters (it doesn't say they have iron-like skin or whatever). Some games do better with the high-level/super-powered characters than DnD does.
DnD is essentially its own unique animal, as Incanur aptly put it.


Is TRoS the most realistic medieval Tabletop game out there?

Oracle_Hunter
2011-05-02, 07:41 PM
In my experience with 3.5 and crew of veteran gamers, D&D combat looks nothing whatsoever like heroic fantasy combat past about level seven. It becomes it's own unique animal. Action economy and the associated funky time manipulation reign supreme.
Oh.

Well then I guess every edition aside from 3.5 does a good job of it then :smalltongue:

Incanur
2011-05-02, 07:42 PM
Is TRoS the most realistic medieval Tabletop game out there?

Probably, though I'm enough of historical martial arts geek that even TRoS bothers me. :smalleek: For example, the wounding system exaggerates the effect of certain injuries and armor causes excessive penalties.

Talakeal
2011-05-02, 07:54 PM
In my mind TRoS is a little bit too realistic. It's actually like being stuck in negative stereotype of a medieval world. Buying your social class means the least competent people will always be in power, and the true heroes of the world will always be stuck on the bottom.

Likewise magic is extremely dangerous to both the mage and those who oppose him, and there is no real way to protect against it. If a mage wants you dead, you will die, although the mage will age himself in the process. Magic can easily age or kill people, but it is flat out impossible to restore or even extend life through supernatural means. Likewise damage and destruction are easy, but healing or enhancement is both temporary and extremely painful, at least the way my Seneschal ran it.

Good game I suppose, but the setting it just too damn depressing, even if it is realistic.

Incanur
2011-05-02, 08:02 PM
Buying your social class means the least competent people will always be in power, and the true heroes of the world will always be stuck on the bottom.

Well, that part comes from gamist rather than simulationist considerations. In deed, it makes no sense whatsoever from the latter perspective. Status and wealth correlate positively rather than negatively with mental and physical abilities.


Likewise magic is extremely dangerous to both the mage and those who oppose him, and there is no real way to protect against it.

I've yet to take the time to understand the TRoS magic system, but this matches my general impression of it. Another thing that turned me off to the system.

JonestheSpy
2011-05-02, 08:17 PM
A 20th level wizard can fly, teleport, summon demons, create walls out of thin air, predict the future, see and hear things far away, cause meteors to rain out of the sky, move objects with his mind, control people's minds, read people's thoughts, travel to other dimensions, turn invisible, become intangible, control the weather pretty much anything you can imagine really. If this were a superhero comic or an anime, characters capable of such would be expected to be able to shrug off gigantic falls, to bathe in lava, and to have assassin's knives break on their necks.


There's a fallacy here, it's common enough that it should have a name but if it does I don't know what it would be. It's the assumption that if you deviate some from real-world physics, then everything is fair game, and I don't think anything could be further than the truth. Good fantasy and good science fiction require the creator inventing new rules, and then sticking by them, in order to maintain that precious Willing Suspension of Disbelief. If you reach the point where you can just assume the the hero can be thrown out of a zeppelin and he'll be fine because he's he hero, then something is wrong (unless you're doing a satire, I suppose).

I saw this best illustrated in a comic book discussion I had a few years ago. In some Big DCU Event or other, Batman got punched by a robot thing and knocked through a brick wall, flew a couple hundred more feet and landed in a lake. Many folks, myself included, thought that was utterly ridiculous - Batman would be dead, no question. He doesn't have powers, he's not invulnerable, the character's whole shtick is that he's incredibly skilled, brilliant, and utterly driven, but NOT superhuman. The folks on the other side of the discussion were of the opinion that in a world of power rings, rhyming demons, etc, who cares? But if that's the case, why have different characters at all? Everyone is Superman by virtue of being a protagonist - seems like lousy storytelling to me.

Talakeal
2011-05-02, 08:24 PM
I really wish someone would name that fallacy, because it gets brought up in almost every discussion of any media I have, both in person and on the internet, and it really gets old fast.
I remember back in 99 pointing out the whole premise of the Matrix violated basic thermodynamics and being told that it's just a movie, and a Sci-Fi movie at that, and therefore doesn't need to make sense. It was annoying then, and it is annoying now.

Incanur
2011-05-02, 08:48 PM
Good fantasy and good science fiction require the creator inventing new rules, and then sticking by them, in order to maintain that precious Willing Suspension of Disbelief.

Agreed. :smallcool:


He doesn't have powers, he's not invulnerable, the character's whole shtick is that he's incredibly skilled, brilliant, and utterly driven, but NOT superhuman.

He's the goddamn Batman. :smalltongue: For better or worse, superhero comics excel at this sort of absurdity. Captain American, for example, regularly breaks the bonds of his nominal peak-human attributes and occasionally performs like a top tier. Under the right circumstances and writer, he'll knock around King Thor or kayo the Hulk with punches. This used to bother me; now I'm more amused than annoyed. Comic books have their own strange logic. I'd still prefer reasonableness, but there's a surreal pleasure in seeing Spider-Man beat up the Silver Surfer.

(An experienced gamer with Norrin's Power Cosmic would exist perpetually in an adamantium shell while zipping through time and space at many times the speed of light, destroying or dominating planets in their wake. Enemies would get an extreme version of the scry-buff-teleport treatment that involves absorbing a star and striking at the cradle.)

Talakeal
2011-05-02, 08:50 PM
Most comic books work well enough on their own, but when crossovers happen everything gets a little screwy.

Drolyt
2011-05-02, 09:16 PM
There's a fallacy here, it's common enough that it should have a name but if it does I don't know what it would be. It's the assumption that if you deviate some from real-world physics, then everything is fair game, and I don't think anything could be further than the truth. Good fantasy and good science fiction require the creator inventing new rules, and then sticking by them, in order to maintain that precious Willing Suspension of Disbelief. If you reach the point where you can just assume the the hero can be thrown out of a zeppelin and he'll be fine because he's he hero, then something is wrong (unless you're doing a satire, I suppose).
Actually, this is entirely my problem. Supposedly, these high level "normals" are supposed to compete with the guys with earth shattering magic, but it doesn't really make any sense. The only reason the Barbarian can survive so much punishment is that he has a ton of hit points, with no in game explanation. I'm fine with a setting where humans are, except for their magical powers, normal, and can be taken out with a single arrow. But that doesn't seem to be what D&D is trying to do. But it creates a mix, normals can do perform some superhuman feats that defy logic, but for no apparent reason the rules forbid others that aren't logically distinct, and in some cases forbids things that are actually possible in real life (like a 1st level commoner surviving massive falls).

Incanur
2011-05-02, 09:25 PM
Actually, this is entirely my problem. Supposedly, these high level "normals" are supposed to compete with the guys with earth shattering magic, but it doesn't really make any sense.

That dynamic works to an extent if the mages retain their human frailty and magic requires concentration. Various fictional settings use this to provide balance. In RPGs it has the potential disadvantage of promoting short, all-or-nothing fights. Either the mage gets their spell off or warrior puts an arrow through their skull. D&D 3.x casters aren't terribly squishy and usually win initiative anyways.

Talakeal
2011-05-02, 09:36 PM
I the original dungeons and dragons game capped somewhere before tenth level, so people reaching the level of superhuman demigods wasn't an issue. Likewise mages had few spell slots, needed to prepare spells before hand, were physically weak, and most spells took time and components to cast, so balance wasn't that much of an issue.

Drolyt
2011-05-02, 09:47 PM
That dynamic works to an extent if the mages retain their human frailty and magic requires concentration. Various fictional settings use this to provide balance. In RPGs it has the potential disadvantage of promoting short, all-or-nothing fights. Either the mage gets their spell off or warrior puts an arrow through their skull. D&D 3.x casters aren't terribly squishy and usually win initiative anyways.
Well, in 3.x there are cheap tricks allowing mages to always win initiative, and unless you can get a disjunction off against them they have better defenses then melee types anyways. I think this is a gamist issue though, I don't think they were trying for a game like that.

I the original dungeons and dragons game capped somewhere before tenth level, so people reaching the level of superhuman demigods wasn't an issue. Likewise mages had few spell slots, needed to prepare spells before hand, were physically weak, and most spells took time and components to cast, so balance wasn't that much of an issue.
Right, I think the earlier versions of D&D modeled the Sword and Sorcery genre better and were much more lethal, but that isn't true in 3e or 4e. I don't think I like the grittier combat anyways, but as long as it is consistent I suppose that is a plus.

Conners
2011-05-03, 04:13 AM
@TRoS stuff: I know what you mean with TRoS. Incanur is right about the armour exaggeration, and probably about the wounds exaggeration (haven't played it enough to be sure about that--but generally speaking, you don't have time to feel pain till later).

The magic thing has also bothered me... Wizards being able to kill people so easily, it just seems too much. The Age thing is a penalty, but not one that'll stop you so much.


As for the Batman thing.... that just makes Batman no longer cool. What's cool about Batman, is that he isn't one of the other boring super heroes, he actually has weaknesses with more depth than Cryptonite and magic (they added magic, so that they wouldn't ALWAYS need to use cryptonite), and challenges more interesting than punching someone harder in the face than they can punch him (what super hero fights boil down to).
That sounds almost as bad, in fact, as when they had Batman breath in space...

Either way, that's why I don't read super hero comics (also because there are so stupidly many of them.... Dulls the quality when they need to put out that much content, too).


Also, JonestheSpy is brilliance. Read what he typed, so it isn't wasted.

Killer Angel
2011-05-03, 04:31 AM
I saw this best illustrated in a comic book discussion I had a few years ago. In some Big DCU Event or other, Batman got punched by a robot thing and knocked through a brick wall, flew a couple hundred more feet and landed in a lake. Many folks, myself included, thought that was utterly ridiculous - Batman would be dead, no question. He doesn't have powers, he's not invulnerable, the character's whole shtick is that he's incredibly skilled, brilliant, and utterly driven, but NOT superhuman. The folks on the other side of the discussion were of the opinion that in a world of power rings, rhyming demons, etc, who cares? But if that's the case, why have different characters at all? Everyone is Superman by virtue of being a protagonist - seems like lousy storytelling to me.

Well, I agree with you on batman, but the fact is: in D&D, the PCs and the NPCs, they both have the potential to be superman. They can reach, literally, God status.
At what point, at what level, they stop being merely humans, and they start the superhuman path?

SlyGuyMcFly
2011-05-03, 08:32 AM
There's a fallacy here, it's common enough that it should have a name but if it does I don't know what it would be. It's the assumption that if you deviate some from real-world physics, then everything is fair game, and I don't think anything could be further than the truth. Good fantasy and good science fiction require the creator inventing new rules, and then sticking by them, in order to maintain that precious Willing Suspension of Disbelief. If you reach the point where you can just assume the the hero can be thrown out of a zeppelin and he'll be fine because he's he hero, then something is wrong (unless you're doing a satire, I suppose).

I too dislike the 'it's scifi/fantasy, so anything goes' argument, but there's another issue at work here: Which, exactly, are the real-world rules being deviated from?

You can say: People are normal, except some that can do this thing called 'magic', which lets them do all sorts of funky-ass things. You can find plenty of evidence in the games' rules that this is the case, and go on your merry way.

You just as easily say: All people have the potential to do funky-ass things, and 'magic' is just one way that funky-assitude manifests. You can find plenty of evidence in the games' rules that this is the case and be on your merry way.

Frozen_Feet
2011-05-03, 08:32 AM
In D&D, characters start the path to legends from when they first embark on adventure. There isn't a sharp line between paths of men and gods, rather they form a single continuum in the rules as written. In majority of classes, this is obvious as they have explicit supernatural abilities or patronage. In some of the hazier cases, like NPC classes or Fighter, you can prolly say they are "only human" till level 5 or so, but even then they are extraordinary humans, not random John and Jane does.

Incanur
2011-05-03, 10:14 AM
@TRoS stuff: I know what you mean with TRoS. Incanur is right about the armour exaggeration, and probably about the wounds exaggeration (haven't played it enough to be sure about that--but generally speaking, you don't have time to feel pain till later).

Yes, TRoS combat gives far too heavy penalties in the form of pain and shock, particular for puncture wound. In reality (http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php), folks often continue activity for seconds or minutes even after thrusts to the heart. Thrusts through the lungs and belly don't typically mean anything at all to determined combatants, though they might prove fatal later. As gruesome as it is, I feel an understanding of blood loss incapacitation mechanics can facilitate heroic fantasy as well as gritty combat. What could be cooler than killing the BBEG after being run through the heart? (Healing/resurrection magic optional. :smallwink:)


Well, I agree with you on batman, but the fact is: in D&D, the PCs and the NPCs, they both have the potential to be superman. They can reach, literally, God status.

High-showing Supes, even after the Crisis, surpasses anything in 3.x save Pun-Pun. A veteran gamer with the Superman powerset would cause no end to trouble. Even the most epic of PCs don't match the comics top tier, though the employ their abilities with far greater acumen.


You just as easily say: All people have the potential to do funky-ass things, and 'magic' is just one way that funky-assitude manifests. You can find plenty of evidence in the games' rules that this is the case and be on your merry way.

Aesthetically, the mechanism and dynamics matter. Personally, I find the D&D tank concept bizarre and unappealing.

"Hello folks, I'm a damage battery who can hit things really hard with a sword. The more things I kill and loot, the better at absorbing punishment and swinging my blade I become. I can't defend myself any better than an untrained peasant without these awesome gloves, but that's okay because he'd have to work at it to kill me even if I were helpless. I have only minimal situational awareness: your average house cat could ambush me no problem."

Gavinfoxx
2011-05-03, 01:22 PM
Probably, though I'm enough of historical martial arts geek that even TRoS bothers me. :smalleek: For example, the wounding system exaggerates the effect of certain injuries and armor causes excessive penalties.

I've yet to take the time to understand the TRoS magic system, but this matches my general impression of it. Another thing that turned me off to the system.

In TRoS's benefit, they do flat out SAY that magic is meant to be really powerful and unbalanced, and then explain the narrative reasons WHY they did this. So I'm fine with that, cause it does what it says on the tin. Also, the splat books talk about new rules to remove a lot of the penalties to movement that armor gives, and those are considered 'updates'.

Talakeal
2011-05-03, 01:42 PM
I agree, Riddle of Steel is not a bad game, its just a setting I find horrifying and depresing. Honestly I think that is the intent, a real dark and gritty feel rooted in the superstitions of the middle ages.
However, its not a game I would want to play seriously. I would prefer to have at least some hope.
One of my players loves the game, because he doesn't see the downsides of magic, he just sees how it makes him powerful compared to everyone else.

Lyin' Eyes
2011-05-03, 01:46 PM
You just as easily say: All people have the potential to do funky-ass things, and 'magic' is just one way that funky-assitude manifests. You can find plenty of evidence in the games' rules that this is the case and be on your merry way.
My prefered variation of this is "Everyone is magic!" Hit points are magic. A BAB high enough to pierce dragon scales is magic. Save bonuses high enough to survive lethal venom is magic. High skill bonuses are magic. Anything that I'd otherwise have to bend over backwards to explain is magic.

Incanur
2011-05-03, 02:26 PM
Since we're on the topic D&D and comic books, it's interesting to note that the Wonder Woman/Thor/Spider-Man durability problem against blades and bullets has some basis in reality. These characters can take extreme blunt trauma but still get cut or pierced. Comics writers err most in treating bullets as sharp. In our world, it takes less than a joule to pierce human skin with a sharp point but more than 10 J to do so with a round bullet. Assuming that skin and/or muscle resistance increases linearly with superhuman strength, someone like Spider-Man should be heavily resistant if not immune to handgun rounds (500 J) while still potentially vulnerable to a strong stab from a baseline thug (50 J). In the fantasy, this dynamic would allow human-level warriors to plausibly pose a threat to brawny demons and the like, particularly if equipped with extraordinarily sharp weapons.

Gavinfoxx
2011-05-03, 02:31 PM
I agree, Riddle of Steel is not a bad game, its just a setting I find horrifying and depresing. Honestly I think that is the intent, a real dark and gritty feel rooted in the superstitions of the middle ages.
However, its not a game I would want to play seriously. I would prefer to have at least some hope.
One of my players loves the game, because he doesn't see the downsides of magic, he just sees how it makes him powerful compared to everyone else.

I'm pretty sure the book mentions that it is okay and often expected that the DM forbid access to magic...? It sounds like he doesn't understand what magic MEANS in a Sword and Sorcery setting...

huttj509
2011-05-03, 02:53 PM
I really wish someone would name that fallacy, because it gets brought up in almost every discussion of any media I have, both in person and on the internet, and it really gets old fast.
I remember back in 99 pointing out the whole premise of the Matrix violated basic thermodynamics and being told that it's just a movie, and a Sci-Fi movie at that, and therefore doesn't need to make sense. It was annoying then, and it is annoying now.

The alleged original plan for the Matrix was the machines using humans as a giant parallel processor computer, but the powers that be thought most of the audience would be confused, so it became the "power source."

That said, there are acceptable levels of willing suspension of disbelief, though where those levels are vary from person to person (ok, we can allow aliens invading from outer space, but getting across New York city in 15 minutes? BS).

Frozen_Feet
2011-05-03, 04:20 PM
My prefered variation of this is "Everyone is magic!" Hit points are magic. A BAB high enough to pierce dragon scales is magic. Save bonuses high enough to survive lethal venom is magic. High skill bonuses are magic. Anything that I'd otherwise have to bend over backwards to explain is magic.

Personally, I hate the "Wizard did it!" approach. You could as well go tweeny bit further and say "you know what, the natural laws of the setting actually support these kinds of phenomena. Why and how might be as unknown to us as quantum mechanics was to our ancestors, but this is what natural reality looks inside the game."

It leaves much more doors open for further exploration than just lazily stating "Eh, it be makick" each and every time.

Marxism
2011-05-03, 05:06 PM
I think the "Its magic" answer is perfectly reasonable. I feel that the things anyone more then 5th level can do are almost impossible. Therefore I go with an odd way of looking at magic in general. Everyone has it. Some cast spells, some punch dragons through walls, some sing about it, but It all comes down to everyone has it and it shows itself differently in everyone. Also, We are talking about a game system in which numerical values are assigned to everything. Realism is already on the plane home.

Frozen_Feet
2011-05-03, 05:23 PM
But if everything is magic, nothing is. Magic as descriptor becomes useless, as it does not tell anything about the actual phenomena.

This is already why D&D specifies that not only is there magic, but different kinds of magic. Without those extra qualifiers, you couldn't make sense out of it.

If you go further down that road, you'll eventually come face to face with the idea that supernatural, once it becomes a fact of life, is just extension of the natural. Or, in another way, "magic, once sufficiently analyzed, is indistinquishable from technology".

That a thing is "impossible" within the context of our current understanding is insignificant. Few hundred years ago, people were convinced aeroplanes were impossible. More to the point, the game reality is not our reality, so saying everything that deviates from our reality is "magic" doesn't really add anything, or make the setting more consistent.

Lyin' Eyes
2011-05-03, 05:35 PM
Personally, I hate the "Wizard did it!" approach. You could as well go tweeny bit further and say "you know what, the natural laws of the setting actually support these kinds of phenomena. Why and how might be as unknown to us as quantum mechanics was to our ancestors, but this is what natural reality looks inside the game."
Yeah, this is pretty much exactly how I think of magic. Magic is just the quantum physics of the D&D universe -- it's as much a mystery as gravity is, but it's no less natural.

After all, 'magic' and 'supernatural' are essentially shorthands for 'stuff we don't understand.'

Drolyt
2011-05-03, 06:24 PM
I agree with Frozen_Feet, with the caveat that "it's magic" can be useful if magic means something other than "everything not explained by real world physics". For example, maybe the game world follows normal physics except for the fact that it is suffused by some sort of magical energy, which to be cliche we'll call Mana. Mana is directly tied to willpower, which is why magic relies on mental stats, although different people manipulate it differently. Because it suffuses all things, not just spellcasters, it allows even normal people to do "supernatural" things like win a fight against a dragon or hide so well you might as well as cast invisibility, but only people who undergo intense training and have strong wills can do that; most people are absolutely normal. If high level characters from such a setting were to travel to, say, the real world somehow they would find that their powers would slowly (or perhaps rapidly) fade as they ran out of mana. Conversely, maybe in the heavenly and hellish realms there is such a high mana concentration that even normals have superpowers.

Now, you may think my idea is stupid. That's fine. But the problem with D&D is that it offers no explanation whatsoever, not even a simple "physics works differently", which is all you really need (although it would be nice to spell out, in general terms, how it is different).

stainboy
2011-05-04, 01:25 AM
I the original dungeons and dragons game capped somewhere before tenth level, so people reaching the level of superhuman demigods wasn't an issue. Likewise mages had few spell slots, needed to prepare spells before hand, were physically weak, and most spells took time and components to cast, so balance wasn't that much of an issue.

D&D has gone past level 10 for quite some time, but most people didn't play at those levels. Part of the difference in 3.5 is the faster rate of advancement, part of it was the "retirement" mechanics in older editions (you're level 10, you get a keep and 2d6 bears).

What really does it though is prestige classes. Levels 1-5 are just the prerequisites to get into the class you really want, and your PrC may take a few levels to get rolling. So you have mechanics that work best around level 5 and characters who can't do what they're built to do until level 8.

Frozen_Feet
2011-05-04, 06:48 AM
D&D has gone past level 10 for quite some time, but most people didn't play at those levels. Part of the difference in 3.5 is the faster rate of advancement, part of it was the "retirement" mechanics in older editions (you're level 10, you get a keep and 2d6 bears).


Personally, I feel it might have hurt the game to remove such rules. You see, the stuff about having your own keep, retiring and what not, made it explicit that the game changes. It was quite obvious, really, that you eventually go from crawling in dusty basement to slaying avatars of gods and then becoming great ruler of men. "Name levels", keeps and so on gave a better sense of scale than D&D 3.5 does.

Yukitsu
2011-05-04, 09:37 AM
Personally, I feel it might have hurt the game to remove such rules. You see, the stuff about having your own keep, retiring and what not, made it explicit that the game changes. It was quite obvious, really, that you eventually go from crawling in dusty basement to slaying avatars of gods and then becoming great ruler of men. "Name levels", keeps and so on gave a better sense of scale than D&D 3.5 does.

This is why my level 6 and 9 feats are feat taxes of leadership and landlord respectively.

Conners
2011-05-04, 10:11 AM
Yes, TRoS combat gives far too heavy penalties in the form of pain and shock, particular for puncture wound. In reality (http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php), folks often continue activity for seconds or minutes even after thrusts to the heart. Thrusts through the lungs and belly don't typically mean anything at all to determined combatants, though they might prove fatal later. As gruesome as it is, I feel an understanding of blood loss incapacitation mechanics can facilitate heroic fantasy as well as gritty combat. What could be cooler than killing the BBEG after being run through the heart? (Healing/resurrection magic optional. :smallwink:) That's why swords have an advantage over axes and maces. After you hack/stab the person, you can then pull the sword THROUGH them as you pull it out--whereas with a mace, you can only pull it back for another swing.
Also, I've heard a story about someone who walked to hospital after having their heart punctured (it might've been a mile's distance too). Also heard of people who got scraped by a bullet and instantly collapsed with shock... So, it depends on the person a lot (and it might be a bit random).

Yes, it would be cool to have a hero, who in their last moments fulfils their destiny. DnD doesn't really let you do that... either you win, and will live on unless you stub your toe (throwing you into negative HP), or you immediately go into dying mode and are a sitting duck.


--Note: With the article shown, it sounds like it'll be rapiers specifically... which barely count as weapons. With a wider blades, mixed with the mentioned cutting through the body, that increases the chance of putting your opponent into shock by a heap (not always definite, still). Big weapons (like spears and zweihanders) were popular for this fact, that they increased the chance of killing your enemy instead of leaving them unexpectedly alive so they can kill you (they might die soon after).

Tvtyrant
2011-05-04, 10:16 AM
Slit throat guarantees death in 5 seconds, and breaking the neck guarantees incapacitation at best. Other then that your left with whole head concave stuff for instant kills.

Unlikely to even reach the artery of some animals in D&D; your not going to sword a whale to death no matter what the rules say.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-04, 11:18 AM
If you accept the fact that characters eventually cross from Joe and Jane Does to mythical figures on par with, or even greater than Heracles and Thor, then there is no problem. The conflict with expectations happens only if you think the game will stay the same through all of its levels, when it most explicitly does not.

And here we have it. I have absolutely no problems with even the most fantastically epic of situations in D&D. One I just recently used as an example was falling from orbit without protection(a real danger in spelljammer). That is awesome. Absolutely fantastic. No problems with it.

This is because I don't expect people who can bend reality with their mind(or are equivalents of those who can) to behave in a "realistic" fashion.

It's fantasy. It doesn't have to be realistic.

Talakeal
2011-05-04, 12:05 PM
It's fantasy. It doesn't have to be realistic.

Have to, no, but it shouldn't do it arbitrarily or without explanation as D&D usually does.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-04, 12:10 PM
Have to, no, but it shouldn't do it arbitrarily or without explanation as D&D usually does.

Arbitrarily, and without explanation? Nah.

But 3.5 generally builds a more consistent world than people give it credit for. The rules are somewhat reasonable approximations of realistic physics, and tbh, I wouldn't want to do the calculations on the actual physics in play.

While it's usually fairly consistent, it's not very realistic. And there is a certain level of abstraction at play. A knife to the throat is something below the granularity level of abstraction it's meant for.

Talakeal
2011-05-04, 12:21 PM
Generally I find D&D fine at modeling gifted yet realistic low levels of power. Sure a lot of stuff, specifically HP, are abstractions, but not ones that fly in the face of logic at all times. Just make sure you count suicides or blades held to a hostage's throat as coup de grace.
The problem is when you get a fighter who can survive a fall from orbit or swim in lava at high levels and no explanation is ever given as to how or why high level people become supernaturally tough. However, if he has a protective or con boosting magic items or spells on at the time, which he almost certainly will, sure why not?

Tyndmyr
2011-05-04, 12:27 PM
Generally I find D&D fine at modeling gifted yet realistic low levels of power. Sure a lot of stuff, specifically HP, are abstractions, but not ones that fly in the face of logic at all times. Just make sure you count suicides or blades held to a hostage's throat as coup de grace.
The problem is when you get a fighter who can survive a fall from orbit or swim in lava at high levels and no explanation is ever given as to how or why high level people become supernaturally tough. However, if he has a protective or con boosting magic items or spells on at the time, which he almost certainly will, sure why not?

Well, surviving a fall from orbit requires fire immunity or arbitrarily high hp. At least, provided you utilize the spelljammer rules specifically for that. If you just use regular falling damage, it's not so bad...but it's not really meant to model atmospheric re-entry. Just impact damage, which is already quite significant.

He's tougher because he has more levels. That's the long and short of it. The basic conceit of all level based games is that killing things makes you better at stuff in general. If you swallow this pill, the rest comes easily. This is generally best done by making exp a real thing. Why not? Would the entire world not realize that casters have distinct tiers of spells? Would they not realize that going adventuring means a rapid rate of progress through these obviously apparent power levels?

Obviously, I think they WOULD realize this. And then would promptly attempt to exploit the hell out of it. At least, a few people would.

Drolyt
2011-05-04, 12:44 PM
Have to, no, but it shouldn't do it arbitrarily or without explanation as D&D usually does.
Precisely. I tend to agree with those who say high level characters should be immune to real world physics, but I also agree that the problem is D&D itself, not the people interpreting it in different ways; the game doesn't tell you what to expect. This is fine for a game like GURPS, which is essentially "reality unless noted", or HERO where it's up to the GM or setting to determine how the game world differs from the real world, but D&D sets up a (somewhat) consistent ruleset that applies to all settings and never explains the logic behind it.

Well, surviving a fall from orbit requires fire immunity or arbitrarily high hp. At least, provided you utilize the spelljammer rules specifically for that. If you just use regular falling damage, it's not so bad...but it's not really meant to model atmospheric re-entry. Just impact damage, which is already quite significant.

He's tougher because he has more levels. That's the long and short of it. The basic conceit of all level based games is that killing things makes you better at stuff in general. If you swallow this pill, the rest comes easily. This is generally best done by making exp a real thing. Why not? Would the entire world not realize that casters have distinct tiers of spells? Would they not realize that going adventuring means a rapid rate of progress through these obviously apparent power levels?

Obviously, I think they WOULD realize this. And then would promptly attempt to exploit the hell out of it. At least, a few people would.
No offense, but I think this is a terrible idea. I've always felt that xp was just a really quick shorthand for the fact that your characters advance in level, and they get xp for succeeding in combat because, well, that's what most PCs do. But it is just an abstraction, not representing anything in the game world, which is why most RPGs, D&D included, have optional rules governing advancement (eg you can't increase your skill in lockpicking without practice or training of some sort).

Tyndmyr
2011-05-04, 12:51 PM
No offense, but I think this is a terrible idea. I've always felt that xp was just a really quick shorthand for the fact that your characters advance in level, and they get xp for succeeding in combat because, well, that's what most PCs do. But it is just an abstraction, not representing anything in the game world, which is why most RPGs, D&D included, have optional rules governing advancement (eg you can't increase your skill in lockpicking without practice or training of some sort).

Xp is a shorthand, yes. But if you accept that levels are visible in world...and let's be honest, it's hard to not realize that the wizard what casts 7th level spells is butt-kickingly awesome...you can easily see what causes that sudden climb in power.

And that magic item crafter over there? Well, he's just not getting more awesome at casting nearly as fast as his buddy the adventurer who mostly blows things up.

So, even if they don't know their exact xp totals(which raises hell with the crafter), they certainly understand the concept of getting levels, and the concept of experience is not a hard one to get from that.

Drolyt
2011-05-04, 12:59 PM
Xp is a shorthand, yes. But if you accept that levels are visible in world...and let's be honest, it's hard to not realize that the wizard what casts 7th level spells is butt-kickingly awesome...you can easily see what causes that sudden climb in power.

And that magic item crafter over there? Well, he's just not getting more awesome at casting nearly as fast as his buddy the adventurer who mostly blows things up.

So, even if they don't know their exact xp totals(which raises hell with the crafter), they certainly understand the concept of getting levels, and the concept of experience is not a hard one to get from that.
Well, 3.5's insane handling of item crafting aside, I would assume that in the game world, regardless of abstraction mechanics like XP, crafters in general would level at the same rate as adventurers. PCs level faster because they are the PCs. They are like Goku, or Naruto, or Ichigo (anime is the best example of this phenomenon for some reason). Not everyone levels like that; some Sorcerers or Warlocks might start out at ridiculous levels as soon as their power manifests, some Rogues might adventure for years without power increases, some Wizards might advance just as fast by studying in their library.

Well, at least that is how I would handle it.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-04, 01:18 PM
Well, 3.5's insane handling of item crafting aside, I would assume that in the game world, regardless of abstraction mechanics like XP, crafters in general would level at the same rate as adventurers. PCs level faster because they are the PCs. They are like Goku, or Naruto, or Ichigo (anime is the best example of this phenomenon for some reason). Not everyone levels like that; some Sorcerers or Warlocks might start out at ridiculous levels as soon as their power manifests, some Rogues might adventure for years without power increases, some Wizards might advance just as fast by studying in their library.

Well, at least that is how I would handle it.

Well, the assumption that PCs are exceptional pretty much is the justification for them being of PC classes. They are most certainly not the only PC classed players in existence. Red Wizards of Thay would be quite difficult to explain otherwise, would they not?

Do you have any source that justifies PC leveling significantly faster just because they are PCs? Consider a cohort is an NPC, and they will generally have no trouble leveling up rapidly, but instead, remain capped at the highest level the PC can manage.

And is it not trivial to show that adventuring rapidly leads to high levels? If everyone leveled at this rate, would not people hit level 20 at about...oh, age 20? Is it not trivial to show that this is explicitly not the case in 3.5?

Additionally, if adventuring did NOT have greater rewards than having a nice safe career, why would people do it?

No, there is absolutely no support for your interpretation in RAW, and a great deal of evidence against it.

Lyin' Eyes
2011-05-04, 01:20 PM
Not everyone levels like that; some Sorcerers or Warlocks might start out at ridiculous levels as soon as their power manifests, some Rogues might adventure for years without power increases, some Wizards might advance just as fast by studying in their library.
I actually like to imagine stereotypical tower-bound wizards with PHENOMINAL COSMIC POWER gained from years of study...and 1 hit point because they never even got into a fistfight. Unfortunately, they wouldn't work as NPCs. (Except maybe as 4e minions.)

Like Tyndmyr says, it's hard to imagine that in-world people don't at least postulate the existence of XP. Especially with a ruleset like 3e where a crafter can actually lose the ability to cast spells by crafting. Even assuming that NPCs work differently than PCs, that's a stretch.

Drolyt
2011-05-04, 01:39 PM
Like Tyndmyr says, it's hard to imagine that in-world people don't at least postulate the existence of XP. Especially with a ruleset like 3e where a crafter can actually lose the ability to cast spells by crafting. Even assuming that NPCs work differently than PCs, that's a stretch.
Well, that depends on your assumptions. I'm assuming that only PCs advance by XP, and then only for the convenience of the game system, the players, and the Dungeon Master. Everyone else advances "logically", that is, by doing things that would naturally lead to advancement, such as practice, study, reading magical tomes that give you power increases, and in the case of combat and other adventuring skills, then yes, by adventuring. You can assume everyone advances by XP in your game world and logically people would start to view XP as real thing as suggested by you and Tyndmyr. I just don't think that would make for a fun game for anything except a OotS style parody. XP as an actual part of in game physics seems silly to me. To each their own.

Well, the assumption that PCs are exceptional pretty much is the justification for them being of PC classes. They are most certainly not the only PC classed players in existence. Red Wizards of Thay would be quite difficult to explain otherwise, would they not?

Do you have any source that justifies PC leveling significantly faster just because they are PCs? Consider a cohort is an NPC, and they will generally have no trouble leveling up rapidly, but instead, remain capped at the highest level the PC can manage.

And is it not trivial to show that adventuring rapidly leads to high levels? If everyone leveled at this rate, would not people hit level 20 at about...oh, age 20? Is it not trivial to show that this is explicitly not the case in 3.5?

Additionally, if adventuring did NOT have greater rewards than having a nice safe career, why would people do it?

No, there is absolutely no support for your interpretation in RAW, and a great deal of evidence against it.
I'm assuming a certain level of gameplay and story segregation that a game like D&D cannot work without. Your argument ignores gameplay and story segregation, and logically leads us to a world that works just like the Order of the Stick. That's fine, if that's what you want, but I really don't think that is how most people play their game. I can't really say what other people think, but I've always assumed that people treated the game like I do, with XP being a rule only for the players and NPCs being whatever level the Dungeon Master wants with whatever justification the Dungeon Master wants, with many high level characters that aren't adventurers.

Gamer Girl
2011-05-04, 01:39 PM
Well, the assumption that PCs are exceptional pretty much is the justification for them being of PC classes. They are most certainly not the only PC classed players in existence. Red Wizards of Thay would be quite difficult to explain otherwise, would they not?

Do you have any source that justifies PC leveling significantly faster just because they are PCs? Consider a cohort is an NPC, and they will generally have no trouble leveling up rapidly, but instead, remain capped at the highest level the PC can manage.

And is it not trivial to show that adventuring rapidly leads to high levels? If everyone leveled at this rate, would not people hit level 20 at about...oh, age 20? Is it not trivial to show that this is explicitly not the case in 3.5?

Additionally, if adventuring did NOT have greater rewards than having a nice safe career, why would people do it?

No, there is absolutely no support for your interpretation in RAW, and a great deal of evidence against it.

PC's are always meant to be exceptional heroes, that is the whole basic point of the game. It's kind of pointless to play a game where your 'Jane Nobody'.

Take movie/Tv stars as an example. There are plenty of actors(people with character classes), but there are only a couple stars(PCs).

And of course PC types gain more XP and get it faster, as they go on adventures to get it. The rest of the folks in the world don't, even the NPCs with class levels.


While I'm fine with a high magic world, you can keep your world 'real' by just adding in the effects of magic and not calling it magic to make yourself feel better(I really don't understand that hatred of magic).

For example-a rogue, assassin or such type class can do a ton of damage to Mr. Sleeping barbarian with a garrote. Even more so if she has a magic garrote(but you could just give it non magical abilities too). And don't forget about feats on top of that too.

And this is why poison and other afflictions exist too.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-04, 01:48 PM
Well, that depends on your assumptions. I'm assuming that only PCs advance by XP, and then only for the convenience of the game system, the players, and the Dungeon Master. Everyone else advances "logically", that is, by doing things that would naturally lead to advancement, such as practice, study, reading magical tomes that give you power increases, and in the case of combat and other adventuring skills, then yes, by adventuring.

This is explicitly not the case. NPC crafters work off the same rules. Spells that directly interact with xp exist. Cohorts work off xp.

Yes, xp awards exist for things other than combat, but NPCs do not use some other magical set of rules besides xp.

And, as a side note, magical books you can read that cause you to level up? This doesn't strike you as having repercussions and leading to further huge questions?


You can assume everyone advances by XP in your game world and logically people would start to view XP as real thing as suggested by you and Tyndmyr. I just don't think that would make for a fun game for anything except a OotS style parody. XP as an actual part of in game physics seems silly to me. To each their own.

Why is it silly? The concept of getting better through experience is one taken from the real world. I'll grant that the in-game representation of it is not exactly like the real world, but the basic concept is pretty easy to grasp.


I'm assuming a certain level of gameplay and story segregation that a game like D&D cannot work without. Your argument ignores gameplay and story segregation, and logically leads us to a world that works just like the Order of the Stick.

Not at all. The character sheet is descriptive, not prescriptive. Sure, your character might not KNOW that his alignment is lawful good...but he can be pretty damned sure that upholding the law and acting good is important to him. He can also know that he pings on detect good and detect law. They may not think of alignments as a nine-squared thing...but the basic concepts of law, chaos, good, and evil certainly exist.

As do the concepts of skills, and getting better at them, and knowing spells, and any number of other things. These are elements that characters have no reason not to have a pretty good idea of, even if they don't know the exact mechanical numbers.

Gamer Girl, the "they're adventurers" explanation is standard, and what I'm arguing. I agree with you on that. Adventures lead to more risk, more challenge, and more rapid xp. Plus, of course, loot. These are classic D&D assumptions. Adventuring is the quick but risky way to power. PCs choose to play adventurers because they are the interesting people. PCs are not necessarily the only adventurers in existence.

Drolyt
2011-05-04, 01:57 PM
And, as a side note, magical books you can read that cause you to level up? This doesn't strike you as having repercussions and leading to further huge questions?
The Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness. Both in the DMG. At any rate I was using that as an example of a common method of gaining power in fiction: that is, some unusual event or magical artifact or something besides experience (either the word's normal meaning or D&D XP) allows a character to become stronger.

As for the rest, I don't know what to say. To me, a game where in universe characters can essentially use the scientific method to deduce the existence of XP, is inherently flawed. To me, XP is a game mechanic that should be completely removed from the internal mechanics of the game world. Either we disagree about some very fundamental things, or else are having a communication problem, and further discussion probably won't get us anywhere.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-04, 02:18 PM
The Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness. Both in the DMG. At any rate I was using that as an example of a common method of gaining power in fiction: that is, some unusual event or magical artifact or something besides experience (either the word's normal meaning or D&D XP) allows a character to become stronger.

Yes, but those things are not at all common things for NPCs. At least, not in D&D. Those are extremely rare items.


As for the rest, I don't know what to say. To me, a game where in universe characters can essentially use the scientific method to deduce the existence of XP, is inherently flawed. To me, XP is a game mechanic that should be completely removed from the internal mechanics of the game world. Either we disagree about some very fundamental things, or else are having a communication problem, and further discussion probably won't get us anywhere.

Why is it any different than us using the scientific method to discern the natural laws of our world?

I'm not here to say that your opinion is inherently wrong...but it doesn't match up with Dungeons and Dragons at all. XP is a very fundamental portion of the mechanics, and it ties it with a great many things. It's clear the designers do not share your philosophy in this regard.

Talakeal
2011-05-04, 02:39 PM
Do you only apply that logic to D&D or similar fantasy worlds, or to every RPG? Does a d20 modern campaign which uses d20 mechanics to simulate the real world include classes on advanced XP theory at ever college?

I am pretty sure XP, or indeed any game term ending in "points" is just an abstract game mechanic for simulating something in the real world, in this case improving your skills by use and learning from you experiences.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-04, 02:42 PM
Do you only apply that logic to D&D or similar fantasy worlds, or to every RPG? Does a d20 modern campaign which uses d20 mechanics to simulate the real world include classes on advanced XP theory at ever college?

Not to every RPG, but the title does include "in Dungeons and Dragons".

If you invoke D20M with casting classes, you get to a similar level of transparency. If it's non-casting, then you can mostly avoid it. Note that D20M isn't really supposed to scale as much as D&D to begin with, and the power curve is much, much flatter. A level one character with a sniper rifle has a non-trivial chance of insta-killing any character of essentially any level.

And yes, if magic came to the modern world, it would get studied. This does not strike me as at all unusual.

Drolyt
2011-05-04, 03:21 PM
Not to every RPG, but the title does include "in Dungeons and Dragons".

If you invoke D20M with casting classes, you get to a similar level of transparency. If it's non-casting, then you can mostly avoid it. Note that D20M isn't really supposed to scale as much as D&D to begin with, and the power curve is much, much flatter. A level one character with a sniper rifle has a non-trivial chance of insta-killing any character of essentially any level.

And yes, if magic came to the modern world, it would get studied. This does not strike me as at all unusual.
I'm confused. What does magic have to do with XP.

Incanur
2011-05-04, 03:21 PM
Slit throat guarantees death in 5 seconds

Not really. Folks even survive (http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=3240651) silt throats depending on the details.


And there is a certain level of abstraction at play. A knife to the throat is something below the granularity level of abstraction it's meant for.

3.x D&D has rules for cutting rings off people's fingers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#sunder). The wounding system can't be explained by abstraction.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-04, 04:00 PM
No...that's a broad rule meant for "attacking items". It includes things such as sundering rings off of peoples fingers, but the granularity of the rule is not at all at the same level as you would make it seem.

Frozen_Feet
2011-05-04, 04:03 PM
I'm confused. What does magic have to do with XP.

Several spells (and magical crafting) use defined packages of experience, and due to ways experience affects the rest of the system, it'd be possible for magic users to discover bits and pieces of how XP works.

For example, any of the spells that uses 500 XP to implement an effect - sooner or later, someone would notice that routinely using such spells delays growth as a person, or something like that.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-04, 04:10 PM
Several spells (and magical crafting) use defined packages of experience, and due to ways experience affects the rest of the system, it'd be possible for magic users to discover bits and pieces of how XP works.

For example, any of the spells that uses 500 XP to implement an effect - sooner or later, someone would notice that routinely using such spells delays growth as a person, or something like that.

Yeah, that's the extremely broad, non-specific ways.

In more detail, you have spells that actually cost xp, including variable costs depending on choices. Hell, WOTC has published spells that transfer xp. They even built a class that can determine, in character, things such as feats, ranks in skills, HD, exact saving throws, etc another character has. Urban Savant, from Cityscape.

So, on a general level, it's reasonable to assume that a loose idea of xp, and hp is decently known. Sure, not everyone will know the exact number of hp a guy has, but they recognize that the dude that can stand in a dragon's breath weapon is a pretty tough cookie.

Incanur
2011-05-04, 04:33 PM
No...that's a broad rule meant for "attacking items". It includes things such as sundering rings off of peoples fingers, but the granularity of the rule is not at all at the same level as you would make it seem.

The system on the whole isn't particularly abstract but to the contrary quite detailed and elaborate. High-level characters wrap themselves in dozens of spells, the effects, caster level, and duration of which all require bookkeeping. Same goes for gear. 3.x D&D chooses to track items and spells with greater precision than injuries.

Frozen_Feet
2011-05-04, 04:43 PM
So, on a general level, it's reasonable to assume that a loose idea of xp, and hp is decently known.

Might be called something like Qi, Mana, Vitality, Soul...

Drolyt
2011-05-04, 04:49 PM
So, on a general level, it's reasonable to assume that a loose idea of xp, and hp is decently known. Sure, not everyone will know the exact number of hp a guy has, but they recognize that the dude that can stand in a dragon's breath weapon is a pretty tough cookie.
... Maybe I misunderstood you. I agree that characters have a general idea of hp (how much damage people can take) and xp (how skilled someone is), although I personally think the spells and item creation rules that consume xp is a very thrown together attempt at game balance, rather than anything that actually makes sense in game. Regardless, what I disagree with is people discovering the mechanics behind those concepts (eg fighting a dragon gives me more xp than months of training if you follow the DMG strictly, when this doesn't make a whole lot of sense), this is where I assume a gameplay and story segregation.

Gamer Girl
2011-05-04, 05:01 PM
Regardless, what I disagree with is people discovering the mechanics behind those concepts (eg fighting a dragon gives me more xp than months of training if you follow the DMG strictly, when this doesn't make a whole lot of sense), this is where I assume a gameplay and story segregation.

The 'mechanics' are somewhat obvious. Say you have to pick from two fighters. A fighter who has been in 12 battles and slain a dragon or a fighter who has sat home and trained with wooden dummies. Who might you think is the better fighter?

Say you need a cleric, would you pick the cleric who has healed dozens of people or the cleric who read a scroll about how to heal.

Say you need a ranger guide, would you pick a guide who has been to the land in question, or the ranger that sat home and read a tour book about it.


Experience matters.

Drolyt
2011-05-04, 05:15 PM
The 'mechanics' are somewhat obvious. Say you have to pick from two fighters. A fighter who has been in 12 battles and slain a dragon or a fighter who has sat home and trained with wooden dummies. Who might you think is the better fighter?

Say you need a cleric, would you pick the cleric who has healed dozens of people or the cleric who read a scroll about how to heal.

Say you need a ranger guide, would you pick a guide who has been to the land in question, or the ranger that sat home and read a tour book about it.


Experience matters.
Right, but the experience system in Dungeons and Dragons by default only gives XP for "encounters", which are either fights or anything the DM considers a challenge (traps etc.). Now, assuming that these encounters relate to your skill (a rogue disarming traps, a fighter fighting a dragon) then this is a sensible way to advance your skill. But so is a rogue taking classes at the local thieves guild or the fighter sparring in a dojo or training under a master. As for clerics healing people, I'm pretty sure the cleric that stays in his temple and offers free healing services to the community should be better at that than the cleric who adventures for a living, although the latter would have a bunch of his things he's good at, but that isn't how the XP system in D&D works. And I'm not sure how slaying goblins should make a ranger a better tracker.

Gamer Girl
2011-05-04, 05:27 PM
Now, assuming that these encounters relate to your skill (a rogue disarming traps, a fighter fighting a dragon) then this is a sensible way to advance your skill. But so is a rogue taking classes at the local thieves guild or the fighter sparring in a dojo or training under a master.

D&D Experience is real Experience. You can read or practice all day, but someone who does it has more experience.

Drolyt
2011-05-04, 06:06 PM
You can read or practice all day, but someone who does it has more experience.
Not necessarily. Theory and practice can be just as effective (or maybe more) as experience at increasing your skill, depending on what skill you are trying to improve. The ultimate real world example is probably mathematics, practical application of it (say, accounting, statistics, or actuarial science) doesn't really improve your knowledge of mathematics at all. You'll get quicker and more efficient at using those techniques, but it won't help you learn algebraic geometry. Similarly, I see no reason why a wizard would learn an invisibility spell faster by practical application of the fireball spell. What you are saying makes somewhat more sense for, say, a fighter, but the magic classes especially should benefit more from theory and experimentation than practice or experience.

Gamer Girl
2011-05-04, 06:20 PM
D&D is more of all around life experience, not just experience with a single skill or ability. When you adventure, you learn a lot more about yourself then you do sitting at home. This is also true of travel in general.

Take food, for example. The average person sitting at home, will eat and drink mostly the same foods. Very few people at home vary their food widely. But when you travel, you will encounter tons of different foods.

So take something like food, and add in all the other things you'd experience and that adds up in to Experience points.

Drolyt
2011-05-04, 06:41 PM
D&D is more of all around life experience, not just experience with a single skill or ability. When you adventure, you learn a lot more about yourself then you do sitting at home. This is also true of travel in general.

Take food, for example. The average person sitting at home, will eat and drink mostly the same foods. Very few people at home vary their food widely. But when you travel, you will encounter tons of different foods.

So take something like food, and add in all the other things you'd experience and that adds up in to Experience points.
I'll buy that adventurers have much more general experience than average, I'm just saying there are those with just as much experience with a different explanation, who are rare but no more rare than adventurers. Like your food example. I don't have enough money to travel much, but I make food at home. Lots of variety, including things like Chinese, Mexican, Italian, French, and Indian food. And not "Americanized" ethnic cuisine, stuff you learn how to make by watching PBS or because your brother in law is from India. Through a combination of resources like PBS, books, and the internet I have a large amount of general knowledge and skills, and I have to imagine a D&D wizard with a nice big library would do pretty good also.

Conners
2011-05-04, 09:33 PM
Point of how crazy XP is, is best summed up when Haley first met(?) Vaarsuvius in that order of the stick book. She went out and shot some kobolds, then when she got back she was suddenly better at picking locks. Vaarsuvius pointed out how this made no logical sense, of course (Picking locks is far different from shooting at kobolds).

DnD experience is fine for getting better at combat, generally, or just marking milestones in an adventure. However, you need to assume the characters have been practising X skills the whole time or whatever (like when Elan was going to take a level is wizard, he said it'd be assumed that he had been reading over Vaarsuvius' shoulder... when he hadn't been. He then pointed out how Vaarsuvius could've taken an easy class that only takes a few years of your life upon character generation, then multi-classed to wizard easy as pie).

Ashiel
2011-05-05, 12:58 PM
Its like lesser minion said. A good hit with a dagger can kill any normal human instantly. A 20th level fighter dies from a good dagger hit as well but until he dies the hit point damage inst the dagger plunging into his flesh, its flesh wounds bruises through armour a twisted ankle from dodging a good swing etc etc. If you get hit with a fireball and make your save you dodge out of the way so you take less damage, but the heat and smoke and damage from a buggered dodge maneuver hurts too. If you fail your save you're just tougher that the orcs who die, or your armour is better or your god is looking out for you. You invent the realism after the dice role.

Exactly! That's why when you're completely submerged in volcanic death, and swimming through it at 1/2 your speed in full-plate armor, over 3 rounds (suffering an average of 210 fire damage) to get to the walls of the volcano, and climbing out of the volcano while the still-clinging lava deals another 35 every 6 seconds for 6-18 seconds after you began climbing, you can comfortably say that you narrowly avoided actually having any of that happen to you because you're not dead.

Ok, now who wants to try to justify that with a strait face? :smallsigh:

Nah, the OP is right. If you really want a more "realistic" fantasy, shut stuff down at level 1-3. Play an E1-8 or something. D&D is fantastic because it assumes that you will go from "mortal sword swinger" to the guy that can cross swords with Odin and have more than a Snowball's chance.

D&D 3.x is amazingly calibrated. It actually does stuff very well. In D&D, the average person has like 2 HP. 2! Can you believe that? The average damage of a dagger is enough to put you into the negatives and start you bleeding to death. Think about that.

We can see that being caught on fire deals 1d6/round unless you can douse it. That's pretty lethal to a warrior who has an average of 5 HP (hey, in two rounds you'z a dead man).

The problem is, people seem to think you're supposed to still be this completely mundane guy when you're telling eldritch abominations that are capable of destroying the world to kiss your kiester, and giving them the sword (the middle one). This kind of thinking is inherently flawed because it makes no sense in the context of the situations they are expected to be able to handle.

An ancient red dragon's breath doesn't deal more damage because it's more accurate (and thus harder to dodge). It's HOTTER! How hot is it? Well Lava is 20d6 damage (average 70 damage), while an Ancient Red Dragon's is 20d10 (average 110 damage), so we can see that an Ancient Red Dragon's breath is hotter than molten magma.

If that Dragon were to breath on a mannequin with a suit of full plate (hardness 10, 40 HP), it would reduce it to slag instantly (even reducing the fire damage by 1/2 for it being an object, then reducing the damage by 10 for hardness, it still melts it). We're talking about a suit of forged iron plates that is reduced to unusable slag in 3 seconds (it was only a standard action).

Incanur
2011-05-05, 03:18 PM
Nah, the OP is right. If you really want a more "realistic" fantasy, shut stuff down at level 1-3.

Low-level D&D combat suffers from excessive lethality and randomness. Levels 1-3 offer minimal opportunity to develop martial skill. The master has only a 15% higher chance to hit and no higher chance to avoid an attack save through feats. That's not at all reflective of reality. Even I have done quite well against less experienced folks when sparring. Someone like Musashi would beat me at least 99% of the time.


In D&D, the average person has like 2 HP. 2! Can you believe that? The average damage of a dagger is enough to put you into the negatives and start you bleeding to death. Think about that.

In our reality, normal people regularly take multiple knife before being incapacitated and often survive. It all depends on the location. Having 2hp and dying from cat scratches does not model this well.


We can see that being caught on fire deals 1d6/round unless you can douse it. That's pretty lethal to a warrior who has an average of 5 HP (hey, in two rounds you'z a dead man).

Again, not reflective of this world. Burning to death takes longer than twelve seconds (http://www.regionshospital.com/rh/for-med-professionals/burn-center/articles/self-immolation/index.html).

Talakeal
2011-05-05, 03:25 PM
I remember reading a letter in dragon magazine from the early 80s asking what their rational was that a high level character can take the same level of punishment as a dragon.

The answer was that HP is an abstract system which represents not only bodily health but also skill at avoiding blows and determination to keep on going. That while a warrior wouldn't be able to take nearly as much punishment as the dragon he is far far better at avoiding or minimizing the blows that do come his way.

This explanation, of course, needs a little justification to work with cure spells, but it is the one that I have always used.

A character who survived a fall from an extreme height is described as them having the luck or skill to land in a pile of hay / trees / snow / etc, while a character who is "swimming" in lava is actually carefully leaping from hand hold to hand hold while their magic armor and intense willpower shield them from the worst of the ambient heat.

Likewise in combat only a critical hit is an actual wound, the rest just represents fatigue and over exertion from near misses or the blunt trauma of blows which were deflected by armor.

This explanation worked for me almost all of the time when I ran high level D&D, although admittedly it has been a while since I ran high level D&D, or any D&D at all for that matter.

If a player actually insists that they aren't trying to minimize damage to test their immortality, I treat any damage as a Coup de Grace, and there are very few characters who can survive a 40d6 Coup de Grace, atleast with out major magical protection, but fluff wise and crunch wise.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-05, 03:40 PM
A character who survived a fall from an extreme height is described as them having the luck or skill to land in a pile of hay / trees / snow / etc, while a character who is "swimming" in lava is actually carefully leaping from hand hold to hand hold while their magic armor and intense willpower shield them from the worst of the ambient heat.

Likewise in combat only a critical hit is an actual wound, the rest just represents fatigue and over exertion from near misses or the blunt trauma of blows which were deflected by armor.

Mundane fire usually does 1d6 damage. It's the default amount. I don't care how you describe it, when your party stops to have a cup of tea while ON FIRE, you pretty much have to assume that they're only able to do this because they can take a lot of burning.

And the fatigue, etc thing is obviously wrong. There are conditions called fatigue and exhaustion in D&D. They are not hp damage, or related to hp damage.


If a player actually insists that they aren't trying to minimize damage to test their immortality, I treat any damage as a Coup de Grace, and there are very few characters who can survive a 40d6 Coup de Grace, atleast with out major magical protection, but fluff wise and crunch wise.

Er, that's not RAW at all.

Talakeal
2011-05-05, 03:47 PM
You can be sore from over exerting yourself without being fatigued or exhausted. Yesterday I bought a new gaming table and had to carry it into my house. I was not "tired" after doing it, but my arms and back sure were sore. Likewise, if I am winded from running a long distance it is a different sort of tired than if I stay up all night.
Actually, after donating blood, which I imagine is far more similar to being stabbed with a sword, I feel incredibly tired as if I haven't slept for days and need to take a nap, so saying that exhaustion and damage are unrelated is not correct.
As I said, HP and Damage are abstracts, as are status conditions. All of them represent a narrative element, but none of them model real life perfectly and the DM needs to use a narrative.

Well, no, because the situation of character suicide is never mentioned in RAW. But if you look at the description of Coup De Grace they are very similar, the target is not even trying to defend so you can attack them in whatever way seems the most damaging. If a character specifically tries to not resist harm, I count that as a coup de grace, just like if a character says I am going to attack the enemy, but try my hardest not to hit them, I won't give them their full BaB even though it isn't "RAW".

Tyndmyr: You are obviously a very intelligent person who has put a lot of thought into the game, but you and I have very different ideas about a fundamental aspect of the game. You see the rules as the pysics of the game world, while I see them as a gamist abstraction which simulate but perfectly model reality, and it is one of the DMs roles to describe the events the rules give you in an internally consistent manner. My group just can't take the game world seriously if we don't, and when we try it ends up as a OOTS style parady with tons of laughter and fourth wall breaking, which is not conductive to a serious game.

Tvtyrant
2011-05-05, 03:53 PM
The 'mechanics' are somewhat obvious. Say you have to pick from two fighters. A fighter who has been in 12 battles and slain a dragon or a fighter who has sat home and trained with wooden dummies. Who might you think is the better fighter?

Experience matters.

I don't think this as true as you think it is. The one who sat at home hitting dummies is likely in better shape then the one who went off and fought the dragon as he doesn't go weeks on low food and has all day to practices. More importantly he isn't as likely to have scar tissue/old broken bones/severed tendons as the "experienced" fighter is, things that will slow you down during the fight. And in fact your form can slip if you spend more time doing something the practical way then doing practice constantly, because you accommodate yourself to dealing with styles and tactics that aren't present in a 1v1.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-05, 03:56 PM
Tyndmyr: You are obviously a very intelligent person who has put a lot of thought into the game, but you and I have very different ideas about a fundamental aspect of the game. You see the rules as the pysics of the game world, while I see them as a gamist abstraction which simulate but perfectly model reality, and it is one of the DMs roles to describe the events the rules give you in an internally consistent manner. My group just can't take the game world seriously if we don't, and when we try it ends up as a OOTS style parady with tons of laughter and fourth wall breaking, which is not conductive to a serious game.

And hp damage = actual, physical damage is the easiest way to explain the events in game in a consistent manner.

Yes, it means that high level people can absolutely take more damage and bad things happening to them. That barbarian just keeps going after half a dozen people stab the bejezus out of him, and he's bleeding from pretty much everywhere.

So? How is that not consistent with the rest of D&D?

Talakeal
2011-05-05, 04:12 PM
That doesn't make sense either, and I have seen numerous statements from employees of TSR WoTC that is not the design intention.

Never, in any of the fluff, are human heroes described as (without a specific spell or magic item granting it) having flesh and bone harder than steel, regenerating like a troll, or walking around missing 90% of their flesh, which is what would be required to survive if you took 100 sword wounds from a competent opponent without doing anything to avoid or mitigate the damage.

Further more, how does this happen, other than "everything is magic, therefore nothing makes sense!". Why does killing orcs turn your skin harder than steel, and what is it even made of that it can still bend as normally, feel objects it touches, and metabolise nutrients, while still being almost impervious to cutting, bludgeoning, acid, heat, and a thousand other damage types?

Dilb
2011-05-05, 04:49 PM
Low-level D&D combat suffers from excessive lethality and randomness. Levels 1-3 offer minimal opportunity to develop martial skill. The master has only a 15% higher chance to hit and no higher chance to avoid an attack save through feats. That's not at all reflective of reality. Even I have done quite well against less experienced folks when sparring. Someone like Musashi would beat me at least 99% of the time.

Only 15% higher chance to hit is just wrong. Compare a level 3 fighter to a level 1 commoner:
Fighter has 18 STR, 18 DEX, commoner has 10,10
Fighter has proficiency, weapon focus
Commoner does not have proficiency
Fighter to hit/AC: 7/14
Commoner to hit/AC: -4/10
Fighters have 10 + 2d10 + 3*CON HP, commoner has 1d4

In one round the fighter almost always hits, and if they hit, always incapacitate the commoner. The commoner needs an 18 to even hit, and has a near impossible time actually winning, as even a lucky critical probably can't incapacitate the fighter. By quite estimation, I'd say the commoner has less than 1% chance of winning.

Improving stats, proficiency, and giving PC levels are all ways to model training and skill. Add them all together, and you can have pretty big differences.


In our reality, normal people regularly take multiple knife before being incapacitated and often survive. It all depends on the location. Having 2hp and dying from cat scratches does not model this well.

Well, knifes are 1d4, maybe even only 1d3 if it's a small knife. I'd be impressed if they were able to walk off those multiple stab wounds, though, and recover only by sleeping for 8 hours, possibly over a few nights, while being being able to hike around all day at normal speed.

Plus, it's an obvious weakness that D&D doesn't handle injuries very well. The whole point of hit points is so you don't need to worry about injuries and wounds.


Talakeal: Well, it makes even less sense that an ordinary human can fight a dragon and win in a fair fight. Or even just out wrestle a bison, really. PCs don't follow the normal laws of reality, that's why no one describes it as realistic at high levels.
It's not like there's no precedent for this sort of toughness: Beowulf rips the arm of of a monster that is immune to weapons, kills it's mother with a giant sword (his regular sword didn't work), and almost kills a dragon on his own (but needs 1 other guy to help him). The poem does not feel the need to explain why Beowulf's muscles were able to apply such a clearly non-human force, or explain what material Grendel's skin was made of.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-05, 04:51 PM
Scott Allie, Editor of Conan: "Make sure Conan has dirt and blood splattered all over him, and you'll never go wrong."

That's how it makes sense.

Not because of troll blood, or adamantine bones or the like, but because of muscle, toughness, training and will. The same way in which a normal human gets to conan status is the way in which he continues to improve.

Ashiel
2011-05-05, 04:51 PM
Low-level D&D combat suffers from excessive lethality and randomness. Levels 1-3 offer minimal opportunity to develop martial skill. The master has only a 15% higher chance to hit and no higher chance to avoid an attack save through feats. That's not at all reflective of reality. Even I have done quite well against less experienced folks when sparring. Someone like Musashi would beat me at least 99% of the time.

I'm not saying that hit points don't represent some measure of damage avoidance, but it cannot be purely damage avoidance because we can see that you're not dodging being submerged in boiling water. Get it?

Also, I agree with your math, mostly. However, it is true that yes feats, ability scores, quality of equipment, and other factors come into a fight. D&D lacks a system for parrying, which tends to limit the legitimacy of intricate dueling recreations.

Likewise, I would imagine in most sparring situations - especially if you're wielding weapons that are potentially dangerous - that you would have a tendency to be more cautious (both for you and your opponent) and thus Fight Defensively (-4 hit, +2 AC) to protect yourself, which statistically means that two commoners duking it out aren't going to land many hits on each other. If the two people were also not proficient in their weapons, that would be a -4 to hit.

Meanwhile, someone like Miyamoto Musashi would be proficient in the weapon, have a higher base attack (1-3 probably), a higher strength (probably +2), and potentially expert focus on his style (possibly involving feats like Weapon Focus). If Musashi only had 3 levels of Warrior (the NPC class, 'cause I'm trying to be conservative), he would have an average of 16.5 hit points at 3rd level with a 12 Constitution.

This means Musashi dueling a normal person would have a +5 to hit. He could fight defensively and retain a positive to-hit result, or fight offensively for faster kill but with a 10% higher chance of being struck. A commoner with a sword, with the same Strength modifier would have a -2 to hit, and a -6 fighting defensively. Musashi pretty much has it in the bag.


In our reality, normal people regularly take multiple knife before being incapacitated and often survive. It all depends on the location. Having 2hp and dying from cat scratches does not model this well.

Well people like to bring up the cat thing. Having grown up with cats, if they weren't afraid of humans, I promise they could do incredible damage, including cutting your neck or clawing your eyes out. They are more than capable of killing snakes and venemous reptiles, despite their tough skin. If a cat had the balls to try and hurt a human (lack of fear for itself), a house cat could maim you.

However, getting stabbed and then bleeding to death is not unrealistic in the least. I think it amazes me that people complain that you can't kill someone by stabbing them in the face in D&D, and when you show that stabbing someone in D&D is actually normally quite lethal, people cry fowl. :smallamused:

The damage for a dagger (a pretty big knife actually) is 1-4. We're not talking cutting your hand, a scratch, or a nick. We're talking about a good hit, that actually causes lethal damage. Even still, you could get get stabbed multiple times and not die if you got help, but if someone stabs you in the back with a knife, it's likely a commoner will be killed by it if they don't receive help.

I guess if you have the Diehard feat you could get stabbed multiple times, clobber the guy, and then bandage your own wounds before seeking medical attention.


Again, not reflective of this world. Burning to death takes longer than twelve seconds (http://www.regionshospital.com/rh/for-med-professionals/burn-center/articles/self-immolation/index.html).

Point taken. Either way, D&D can encompass very low & gritty to post-godlike pretty well. People just need to know what they're getting into when they're in a higher level game. Don't complain that the system doesn't work because superman isn't noticeably hurt by a sword.

Serenity
2011-05-05, 05:00 PM
'Hp as luck/morale/etc.' is simply not internally consistent in any way.

* If a monk uses stunning blow, then clearly, he hit the pressure point, so any HP damage was actual physical damage.
* If someone stabs you with a poisoned blade, then they must have really stabbed you, or you wouldn't have to save against the poison coursing through your veins. Same thing if you got bitten by a disease ridden demon with tusks as long as your arm.
* Precision damage certainly makes no sense if a vital spot isn't actually being hit. So yes, that rogue really did just put a knife in your kidney.
* If a Purple Worm swallows you whole, then it's elementary that you really did just get swallowed. You really are sitting in stomach acid, trying to hack your way back out.
* I don't know about you, but I'd certainly look askance at the DM who told me, 'You dodge the swing of his greatsword. Take 24 damage.'

All these and more make perfect sense if losing HP means getting physically damaged. It means your superhumanly tough and strong, but it's completely consistent. Why are you poisoned? Because you got stabbed with a poisoned blade. Why is your character marker moved inside the monster's square, and you started taking acid and crushing damage that will stop when you can roll a certain amount of damage when wielding a piercing weapon? Because you were swallowed whole, and are in something's stomach, being digested, while you try to hack your way out. HP as morale does not have an answer for this.

stainboy
2011-05-05, 05:19 PM
Also: Cure Light Wounds heals probably 100% of a level 1 wizard's hit points, and 6% of a level 20 wizard's hit points. I don't know, it's magic, maybe Cure Light Wounds really restores luck and fighting spirit or something, but I don't buy it.

I prefer to think of actual physical damage as percentage of HP lost rather than absolute number lost whenever I can get away with it, but it's not perfect.

Drolyt
2011-05-05, 05:30 PM
I'm going to fall down on the side of hp makes the most sense as actual physical damage, but despite making sense there is ample evidence that that is not what the game designers intended. I'm just going to go out and say it: the game designers are wrong in this case. Treating hp as some sort of luck/damage avoidance/morale/toughness combo just doesn't make sense, and isn't how a sane rpg would handle it. It's understandable why they take this stance though, it is hard to come up with simple, consistent mechanics to model all of the following:
1) How much damage your body can take before you die.
2) Potentially a separate system telling you when you get knocked out instead.
3) How armor works.
4) How tough skin works.
5) How dodging works.
6) How parrying works.
7) How blocking works.
8) How magical defenses work.
9) How luck works.
10) How morale works.
11)etc.

As for low level lethality, yeah, commoners have too few hit points. The problem is that without the bleeding, wounding, hit location, etc. rules you find in grittier, more realistic rpgs you are never going to handle lethality well. Most attacks don't kill outright (D&D calls the attacks that do "critical hits", other games handle this with a hit location table and "headshots always kill, unless you're superhuman"), you die from things like disease and blood loss, or organ damage that takes a while to finish you off. Instant death usually requires injury either to the brain or the heart. So in general low level characters should die in one hit, but not right away. I suppose the simplest solution would be to remove the rule where you become unconscious at negative hit points (but keep the only half action at 0 hit points rule, since you aren't exactly in top shape at that point) but keep the rule where you lose a hit point a round (that still might be too quick though). Realistically, any group with a cleric should have very low lethality, since most attacks don't kill outright and a cleric can stop bleeding instantly with a 0th level spell.

Talakeal
2011-05-05, 05:51 PM
'Hp as luck/morale/etc.' is simply not internally consistent in any way.


HP as luck / morale is pretty wierd I agree. As I have states, I believe HP is an abstract mechanic representing pain, exhaustion, minor wounds, and real wounds.


If a monk uses stunning blow, then clearly, he hit the pressure point, so any HP damage was actual physical damage.



Agreed. But "being hit on a pressure point" is not something which does a terrific amount of bodily damage, it is primarily short term pain.


*If someone stabs you with a poisoned blade, then they must have really
stabbed you, or you wouldn't have to save against the poison coursing through your veins. Same thing if you got bitten by a disease ridden demon with tusks as long as your arm.


Again, agreed, but it only takes a tiny scratch for poison or disease to enter your body. Most real world animals with poison are very small and their stings / bites would not do any significant damage to a person without the poison.



*Precision damage certainly makes no sense if a vital spot isn't actually being hit. So yes, that rogue really did just put a knife in your kidney.



Agreed. I said critical hits were actual wounds, I would include sneak attacks or similar.


If a Purple Worm swallows you whole, then it's elementary that you really did just get swallowed. You really are sitting in stomach acid, trying to hack your way back out.



No idea about the swallowing whole mechanics, they are wierd. In real life creatures who swallow something who do so in a way that their limbs are pressed useless at their sides so they can't cut their way out, and no acid in the world is so corrosive that it could do more than irritate skin before someone suffocated, such stomach acid would kill the creature producing it if they had so much as an ulser or a bout of indigestion. If it came up in a game I would have to work pretty hard to narrate a RAW interpretation of it.


* I don't know about you, but I'd certainly look askance at the DM who told me, 'You dodge the swing of his greatsword. Take 24 damage.'



Likewise I would look askance at a GM who said "You are hit with enough force to tear a normal man in half, but for some reason your bones are so dense the sword merely bounces off!" or "You are stabbed through the heart, and blood no longer pumps through your veins, but you are fine with that because you are a magical badass!"
But I would consider it perfectly reasonable if he said "The mighty blow bounces off your breastplate, but even so the force is tremendous, bruising your torso and knocking the wind out of you" Or "The cut should decapitate you, but at the last second you skillfully twist aside and are left with a deep oozing cut along your shoulder blade".



I'm not saying that hit points don't represent some measure of damage avoidance, but it cannot be purely damage avoidance because we can see that you're not dodging being submerged in boiling water. Get it?


Short term exposure to boiling water would do some damage, but with passive magical protections, strong will, and good health, it would not be incapacitatating, and a high level character would know how to best minimize his exposure to the boilding water, likely catching himself before he falls in or quickly climbing out.

If the character is actually submerged in boiling water for more than an instant and prevented from escaping somehow, then he either needs some form of magical protection from heat such as a ring of fire resistance or else he is dead. The DMG has rules for inescapable death and I believe this would certainly quality.

Lord Raziere
2011-05-05, 06:26 PM
it is hard to come up with simple, consistent mechanics to model all of the following:
1) How much damage your body can take before you die.
2) Potentially a separate system telling you when you get knocked out instead.
3) How armor works.
4) How tough skin works.
5) How dodging works.
6) How parrying works.
7) How blocking works.
8) How magical defenses work.
9) How luck works.
10) How morale works.
11)etc.



I have. its actually very simple.

simply, instead of hit points and health bars, you have injury bars which measure how many injuries you can sustain before you die, with injury points, and each basic attack only deals one injury.

and instead of one health bar, you multiple injury bars, one for fire, one for slashing, one for mind injuries and so on, and at character creation you choose which injury bars are "strong" which means you have twice as many injures as normal bars and "weak" ones which have half the normal, and the normal injury bars are 4 injuries.

then there are life levels, life level 1 means when one injury bar is depleted, you die, life level 2 means when two injury bars are depleted, you die and so on and so forth. and basically to kill the enemy in the best way possible is to figure out their weak points then hit them once or twice. this injury system can model anything, from personal combat to the state of entire nations

and best of all, every time an injury is dealt, there is a negative effect to go along with it, the effect itself depending on the injury, for example getting a Cold Energy injury would result in you slowing down a little, so as battle goes on, and more injuries are sustained, peoples stats are debuffed to reflect their waning strength and such and giving the battle more of a desperate hectic feel.

Drolyt
2011-05-05, 06:30 PM
I have. its actually very simple.

simply, instead of hit points and health bars, you have injury bars which measure how many injuries you can sustain before you die, with injury points, and each basic attack only deals one injury.

and instead of one health bar, you multiple injury bars, one for fire, one for slashing, one for mind injuries and so on, and at character creation you choose which injury bars are "strong" which means you have twice as many injures as normal bars and "weak" ones which have half the normal, and the normal injury bars are 4 injuries.

then there are life levels, life level 1 means when one injury bar is depleted, you die, life level 2 means when two injury bars are depleted, you die and so on and so forth. and basically to kill the enemy in the best way possible is to figure out their weak points then hit them once or twice. this injury system can model anything, from personal combat to the state of entire nations

and best of all, every time an injury is dealt, there is a negative effect to go along with it, the effect itself depending on the injury, for example getting a Cold Energy injury would result in you slowing down a little, so as battle goes on, and more injuries are sustained, peoples stats are debuffed to reflect their waning strength and such and giving the battle more of a desperate hectic feel.
Not sure how well that would work (needs more analysis than I feel like doing right now), but what I can tell you is that it isn't as simple as "here's some hit points. When you run out, you die." Of course, simplicity is about the only thing D&D's wound system has going for it, but it works well enough, whereas I'm not sure I'd like dealing with your system in a high fantasy game.

Lyin' Eyes
2011-05-05, 06:32 PM
Not sure how well that would work (needs more analysis than I feel like doing right now), but what I can tell you is that it isn't as simple as "here's some hit points. When you run out, you die." Of course, simplicity is about the only thing D&D's wound system has going for it, but it works well enough, whereas I'm not sure I'd like dealing with your system in a high fantasy game.
I think your sarcasm meter is broken.

Lord Raziere
2011-05-05, 06:42 PM
I think your sarcasm meter is broken.

your not-sarcasm meter is broken, I was serious.


Not sure how well that would work (needs more analysis than I feel like doing right now), but what I can tell you is that it isn't as simple as "here's some hit points. When you run out, you die." Of course, simplicity is about the only thing D&D's wound system has going for it, but it works well enough, whereas I'm not sure I'd like dealing with your system in a high fantasy game.

in what way? as a king governing a nation, a commander of an army, or a adventurer or hero? all three are viable. the system simply means that things are more tactical, your options open up and you can better build your character around a strategy, you can still kill them, there are just more options to do so.

Drolyt
2011-05-05, 06:48 PM
in what way? as a king governing a nation, a commander of an army, or a adventurer or hero? all three are viable. the system simply means that things are more tactical, your options open up and you can better build your character around a strategy, you can still kill them, there are just more options to do so.
I just mean that I wouldn't want to keep track of so many things in a D&D style game.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-05, 06:52 PM
Likewise I would look askance at a GM who said "You are hit with enough force to tear a normal man in half, but for some reason your bones are so dense the sword merely bounces off!" or "You are stabbed through the heart, and blood no longer pumps through your veins, but you are fine with that because you are a magical badass!"
But I would consider it perfectly reasonable if he said "The mighty blow bounces off your breastplate, but even so the force is tremendous, bruising your torso and knocking the wind out of you" Or "The cut should decapitate you, but at the last second you skillfully twist aside and are left with a deep oozing cut along your shoulder blade".

I don't know why you demand an in-detail description of which part of the body stops the blow and why it does so...I don't see that as typical. More of a straw man, really. You just describe what happens, ie "The curved blade slices through your flesh until striking bone." That's a real description, not some discussion of magical bones.

That said, yes, people have survived being stabbed through the heart (http://www.realfighting.com/content.php?id=75). Or brain. If it can happen in real life, I don't see why it's unrealistic.

And no, you are not a normal man. You are significantly tougher than a normal man. Sure, muscle isn't as great at stopping a blade as armor, but your typical melee fellow in fantasy does have a lot of it, and he typically isn't a little man. He SHOULD be harder to cut in half than an average dude.

Lord Raziere
2011-05-05, 06:55 PM
I just mean that I wouldn't want to keep track of so many things in a D&D style game.

you wouldn't really. on the character sheet you would just write down what you are weak against and strong against and everything else would be normal, therefore 4 injury points by default.

that and you don't have to command armies or conquer nations, the injury bars can be added in and taken out depending on the game you want to run and a DnD-style game would only have enough for blunt, piercing, slashing ranged and all the elemental magic stuff.

and if you really wanted it to be simple, you could just simplify it down further to Physical, Mental, and Spiritual.

Knaight
2011-05-05, 06:58 PM
Not sure how well that would work (needs more analysis than I feel like doing right now), but what I can tell you is that it isn't as simple as "here's some hit points. When you run out, you die." Of course, simplicity is about the only thing D&D's wound system has going for it, but it works well enough, whereas I'm not sure I'd like dealing with your system in a high fantasy game.

I'm rather fond of a two part "Threshold" system.
1) You have a "Threshold" damage, attacks over this will take you out.
2) Each attack inflicts an abstract and cumulative penalty, based on how good the hit is and said Threshold.

This also allows certain special abilities well. For instance, constructs, undead, oozes, and similar creatures would get fewer penalties due to not bleeding all over the place. Any way to utterly mitigate pain (cough, drugs, cough) could have a similar, but lesser effect. Curses of frailty could lower Threshold. So on and so forth.

That said, it would require a lot of work to replace the hit point system in D&D with this, due to how tied in it is. Other systems are usually easier in that regard.

Talakeal
2011-05-05, 07:22 PM
I don't require an in depth description of every hit unless I am asked, although I will provide one as long as I can keep my energy focuses for an important fight.

The point I was making is that a 24 point great sword hit is enough to kill a commoner twice over, while a high level character will only lose a small % of HP and if you describe both wounds using the same flavor text something is off. You can either narrate that by saying that the character is literally the man of steel, or you can say they are more skilled at turning a serious injury into a minor one.
Yes, you are healthier, tougher, fitter, more determined etc, but still, you can only survive so many wounds which would kill a normal man twice over before something it looking blatantly supernatural.
I have never seen a piece of D&D flavor text which supports a high level character has supernatural toughness. For example in the Dragon lance novels you have a number of high level characters who are killed by a single weapon wielded by a non super human enemy, there is never any hint that they too tough to be wounded by normal weapons or can continue fighting with major damage to internal organs.

If someone took are serious wound to the heart or the brain stem then they will die shortly unless given exceptional medical treatment, there is simply no way for your cells to continue functioning for an extended time without oxygenated blood. I am told the record for staying conscious without a beating heart is somewhere between 15 and 30 seconds, with death following soon after unless the body is somehow preserved.

Drolyt
2011-05-05, 07:41 PM
I'm rather fond of a two part "Threshold" system.
1) You have a "Threshold" damage, attacks over this will take you out.
2) Each attack inflicts an abstract and cumulative penalty, based on how good the hit is and said Threshold.

This also allows certain special abilities well. For instance, constructs, undead, oozes, and similar creatures would get fewer penalties due to not bleeding all over the place. Any way to utterly mitigate pain (cough, drugs, cough) could have a similar, but lesser effect. Curses of frailty could lower Threshold. So on and so forth.

That said, it would require a lot of work to replace the hit point system in D&D with this, due to how tied in it is. Other systems are usually easier in that regard.
I'm not familiar with this "Threshold concept". Is that like Mutants and Masterminds?

Incanur
2011-05-05, 07:57 PM
Only 15% higher chance to hit is just wrong.

I was specifically including only skill and ignoring feats as well because those vary. Being stronger or faster isn't a matter of prowess. (I like how you gave the fighter stats even beyond the elite array.) In this world, perfection in the art won't let you dodge bullets like Batman but it does grant considerable odds in a sword duel or fistfight. I concede your point on non-proficiency, however. That improves the situation a little bit.


The poem does not feel the need to explain why Beowulf's muscles were able to apply such a clearly non-human force, or explain what material Grendel's skin was made of.

Grendel's skin was enchanted against iron and specifically mentioned as such in the text.


Having grown up with cats, if they weren't afraid of humans, I promise they could do incredible damage, including cutting your neck or clawing your eyes out.

I've grown up with cats too, and I know folks who've been seriously attack by them. They can hurt you plenty, but nothing incapacitating save perhaps by a freak occurrence. They're too small.


However, getting stabbed and then bleeding to death is not unrealistic in the least. I think it amazes me that people complain that you can't kill someone by stabbing them in the face in D&D, and when you show that stabbing someone in D&D is actually normally quite lethal, people cry fowl.

Either you don't know or you don't care how wounding actually works. That's fine. It's a morbid subject to be interested in. However, anyone familiar with medical and battlefield accounts of edged-weapon injury immediately realizes the hit point system simply fails to simulate anything like the relevant dynamics.


'Hp as luck/morale/etc.' is simply not internally consistent in any way.

That's for damn sure.


The problem is that without the bleeding, wounding, hit location, etc. rules you find in grittier, more realistic rpgs you are never going to handle lethality well. Most attacks don't kill outright (D&D calls the attacks that do "critical hits", other games handle this with a hit location table and "headshots always kill, unless you're superhuman"), you die from things like disease and blood loss, or organ damage that takes a while to finish you off. Instant death usually requires injury either to the brain or the heart. So in general low level characters should die in one hit, but not right away.

You had me until the last sentence. Historical warriors survived serious wounds all the time, as both textual and archaeological evidence shows. One sixteenth-century pike captain supposed had forty significant injuries on his body after they literally found him amongst the dead on the field.

Dilb
2011-05-05, 08:07 PM
I was specifically including only skill and ignoring feats as well because those vary. Being stronger or faster isn't a matter of prowess. (I like how you gave the fighter stats even beyond the elite array.) In this world, perfection in the art won't let you dodge bullets like Batman but it does grant considerable odds in a sword duel or fistfight. I concede your point on non-proficiency, however. That improves the situation a little bit.

Stats are another obvious unrealistic part. Olympic weightlifters have like 23 strength, and increasing strength and dexterity to a reasonable level (up to 16 at least) is a matter of training, not genetics. Plus I was assuming "greatest swordsman ever" probably rolled a few 18s.

Drolyt
2011-05-05, 08:38 PM
You had me until the last sentence. Historical warriors survived serious wounds all the time, as both textual and archaeological evidence shows. One sixteenth-century pike captain supposed had forty significant injuries on his body after they literally found him amongst the dead on the field.
Yeah, not sure what I was thinking there. I think I meant to say commoner, not low level character, but even that isn't strictly correct. Dying in one hit isn't unheard of though, it just doesn't always happen. Another thing I didn't mention is healing. Even crappy medieval healing is better than nothing. Untreated wounds are significantly more likely to result in death. Another thing is shock. Most wounds in and of themselves won't incapacitate people, but they could very easily go into shock, especially if they aren't trained for battle. Modeling all this in an rpg is difficult.

Incanur
2011-05-05, 09:03 PM
Modeling all this in an rpg is difficult.

Yes, though not impossibly so. D&D simply isn't interested. That's fine as long as it's clear. The kind of historically and medically based system I'm interested has no universal value and isn't necessary in order to portray heroic fantasy. Even Tolkien had perhaps too many instant stops from thrusts and arrows. However, I do think the hp mechanic in all editions pushes D&D away from the literary and film sources it nominally wishes to channel. Popular writers tend to overestimate the effect of edged weapons rather present characters as D&D-style damage batteries.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-05, 09:18 PM
You had me until the last sentence. Historical warriors survived serious wounds all the time, as both textual and archaeological evidence shows. One sixteenth-century pike captain supposed had forty significant injuries on his body after they literally found him amongst the dead on the field.

Yup. If you read the link in my last post, there's stuff like this:



However, consider the duel between Lagarde and Bazanez. After the later received a rapier blow, which bounced off his head, Bazanez is said to have received an unspecified number of thrusts, which, according to the account, "entered" the body. Despite having lost a good deal of blood, he nevertheless managed to wrestle Lagarde to the ground, whereupon he proceeded to inflict some fourteen stab wounds with his dagger to an area extending from his opponent's neck to his navel. Lagarde meanwhile, entertained himself by biting off a portion of Bazanez's chin and, using the pommel of his weapon, ended the affair by fracturing Bazanez's skull. History concludes, saying that neither combatant managed to inflict any "serious" injury, and that both recovered from the ordeal.


Look, if that can happen in real life, and both parties walk away from it, I hereby declare D&D combat realistic. At least, for certain levels of badassery.

For further real life examples I direct you to the following real people:

John Paul Stapp. Experimented with effects of extremely rapid acceleration and deceleration on the human body. Specifically, his human body. He did this by strapping himself to rocket engines. At this time, the belief was that the record deceleration any human body could survive was 18 Gs. Stapp did 35. In '54. he decelerated from 120 mph to 0 in 1.4 seconds. In doing so, he received two black eyes from the speed of his eyeballs smashing into his own face, blinding him for two days. He also broke his back, his wrist, had six fillings ripped from his teeth, and suffered various other minor injuries. He then decided that the proper response was to build a larger rocket. He lived a long and healthy life afterward.

In 1929, Werner Forssmann decided he wanted to study the human heart. From the inside. Upon announcing his idea of stabbing himself in the heart, his nurse figured he was off his rocker and tried to stop him. He strapped her down to the operating table, pumped himself full of anesthesia, shoved a catheter into his own heart, then took a walk down to the xray lab to take pictures. He also lived to a ripe old age.

Or, flip through any medal of honor stories. Most of those guys took ridiculous punishment and kept on going.

Drolyt
2011-05-05, 09:23 PM
Popular writers tend to overestimate the effect of edged weapons rather present characters as D&D-style damage batteries.
Combat is very poorly understood by the general population (I'm no expert either). As far as edged weapons go, a lot of people seem to overestimate how sharp these weapons are, and I imagine fantasy writers would be big on the uber sharp katana stereotype. D&D works better if you are thinking of Wuxia or Anime style combat.

Knaight
2011-05-05, 09:36 PM
I'm not familiar with this "Threshold concept". Is that like Mutants and Masterminds?

Mutants and Masterminds has a multiple types of wound system. Threshold is simpler, you have Threshold and Penalties Accumulated, maybe if you feel like making things complicated you toss in a Toughness or Guts check on top of that for status effects.

Example (If you don't care about the Threshold concept at all, avoid this wall of text.

To properly explain everything in an example, I need a base system. I'll use d20 terminology, though it is highly inappropriate. However, assume that Threshold is mostly based on size and species, for this to make sense, and treat all stats as examples. Moreover, assume that everywhere a d20 is used, a d6 is instead.

Wyrm (15 Foot Flying Serpent)
Threshold: 15
Attack: +4
AC: 8
Damage: 3d6

Human (Burly Warrior Guy)
Threshold: 10
Attack: +7
AC: 10
Damage: 2d6

Wyrm Attacks, Rolls a 10 to hit, Rolls 5 for damage. Human is at a penalty, say -2 in this incarnation.

Human Attacks, Rolls a 12. This is 4 above the Dragon's AC, so he rolls 2d6+4 for damage, getting 10 damage on the dragon. Call it -3.

Rinse and repeat, with all the complexities before combat present throughout. Until, Eventually.

Wyrm Attacks. Rolls a 10 to hit, rolls 12 for damage. That is above the Human's threshold, and he is now Wyrm-food.

Drolyt
2011-05-05, 10:17 PM
Mutants and Masterminds has a multiple types of wound system. Threshold is simpler, you have Threshold and Penalties Accumulated, maybe if you feel like making things complicated you toss in a Toughness or Guts check on top of that for status effects.

Example (If you don't care about the Threshold concept at all, avoid this wall of text.

To properly explain everything in an example, I need a base system. I'll use d20 terminology, though it is highly inappropriate. However, assume that Threshold is mostly based on size and species, for this to make sense, and treat all stats as examples. Moreover, assume that everywhere a d20 is used, a d6 is instead.

Wyrm (15 Foot Flying Serpent)
Threshold: 15
Attack: +4
AC: 8
Damage: 3d6

Human (Burly Warrior Guy)
Threshold: 10
Attack: +7
AC: 10
Damage: 2d6

Wyrm Attacks, Rolls a 10 to hit, Rolls 5 for damage. Human is at a penalty, say -2 in this incarnation.

Human Attacks, Rolls a 12. This is 4 above the Dragon's AC, so he rolls 2d6+4 for damage, getting 10 damage on the dragon. Call it -3.

Rinse and repeat, with all the complexities before combat present throughout. Until, Eventually.

Wyrm Attacks. Rolls a 10 to hit, rolls 12 for damage. That is above the Human's threshold, and he is now Wyrm-food.

Wait, what do the -2 and the -3 from the attacks do? Decrease the threshold?

Knaight
2011-05-05, 10:20 PM
Wait, what do the -2 and the -3 from the attacks do? Decrease the threshold?

They are a penalty to all actions, due to injury. Harsh penalties too, but the idea behind the example is a pretty brutal system.

Drolyt
2011-05-05, 10:27 PM
They are a penalty to all actions, due to injury. Harsh penalties too, but the idea behind the example is a pretty brutal system.
I see, so because your ac (among other things) is lowered by your penalty, and because you add (attack roll - ac) to damage, the more damage you take the more likely you are to die from an attack and the less effective you are in general. Moreover, you can die in one hit with an unlucky roll (which doesn't really happen in hp systems), or survive several if you are lucky. Interesting.

Overall though, too brutal a penalty for most rpg genres. It would work for a realistic modern game, lower powered fantasy, sci-fi, etc., but not for high powered fantasy, supers, or most anime, which I think (not sure on this) are the most popular genres.

Incanur
2011-05-05, 10:39 PM
Unfortunately, the damage-grants-penalties model also fails to portray the full spectrum of wounding dynamics. Injuries to the head and limbs should absolutely make fighting harder. A thrust to the heart or through the eye, however, might give the victim some seconds of unhindered activity before collapse. A thrust through the belly could be a long-term death sentence without magic or advanced medicine but negligible initially. And so on.

Knaight
2011-05-05, 10:44 PM
I see, so because your ac (among other things) is lowered by your penalty, and because you add (attack roll - ac) to damage, the more damage you take the more likely you are to die from an attack and the less effective you are in general. Moreover, you can die in one hit with an unlucky roll (which doesn't really happen in hp systems), or survive several if you are lucky. Interesting.

Overall though, too brutal a penalty for most rpg genres. It would work for a realistic modern game, lower powered fantasy, sci-fi, etc., but not for high powered fantasy, supers, or most anime, which I think (not sure on this) are the most popular genres.

The brutality is largely a factor of how large the penalties are, and how one works the damage mechanics. In a d20 one could get -2, or even -4 penalties for major wounds, which wouldn't be that significant.

Drolyt
2011-05-05, 11:36 PM
A thrust through the belly could be a long-term death sentence without magic or advanced medicine but negligible initially.
Only if you can take the pain. Never experienced it, but I'm told injuries to the abdominal region are extremely painful. The resulting shock (acute stress reaction, not circulatory shock) could leave you dazed or otherwise unable to act for several seconds.

The brutality is largely a factor of how large the penalties are, and how one works the damage mechanics. In a d20 one could get -2, or even -4 penalties for major wounds, which wouldn't be that significant.
Actually, even a -1 penalty should be huge, but it doesn't seem like it because in 3.5 the bonus accumulation leads to a situation where you either "have no chance" or "will always hit", if you even need a roll at all.

Knaight
2011-05-06, 12:53 AM
Actually, even a -1 penalty should be huge, but it doesn't seem like it because in 3.5 the bonus accumulation leads to a situation where you either "have no chance" or "will always hit", if you even need a roll at all.
Its 5%*. In the d6 system I was using as an example, it was 33%** or 50%**. In the system I developed it for, it was a variable change due to the bell curve, but 20%** for -1 (which isn't even all that great a hit) is typical.


*In that there is a 5% change in the probability of striking, which can be anything from striking half as often as striking only 5% less often, depending entirely on what the original need was, ignoring cases where "will always hit" or "need to roll a 20" exist.

**Same statistical complications as above.

Drolyt
2011-05-06, 01:15 AM
Its 5%*. In the d6 system I was using as an example, it was 33%** or 50%**. In the system I developed it for, it was a variable change due to the bell curve, but 20%** for -1 (which isn't even all that great a hit) is typical.


*In that there is a 5% change in the probability of striking, which can be anything from striking half as often as striking only 5% less often, depending entirely on what the original need was, ignoring cases where "will always hit" or "need to roll a 20" exist.

**Same statistical complications as above.
Yeah 5%, but look at it from the situation where you were previously evenly matched. Given a -2 you are knocked down from succeeding on an 11 or better to succeeding on a 13 or better, or a 20% decrease in power. Given a -4 it is a 40% decrease in power, which is huge. Your d6 example is just insane.

Dralnu
2011-05-06, 01:43 AM
My problem comes with the details of expressing that demigod status. Impenetrable skin, healing factor, senses and skills that prevent being ambushed? Great. A giant pile of hit points? Not so much fun. Hp don't emulate mythical fantasy with any success.

According to DND 3.0:

What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. A 10th-level fighter who has taken 50 points of damage is not as badly hurt as a 10th-level wizard who has taken that much damage. Indeed, unless the wizard has a high Constitution score, she's probably dead or dying, while the fighter is battered but otherwise doing fine. Why the difference? Partly because the fighter is better at rolling with the punches, protecting vital areas, and dodging just enough that a blow that would be fatal only wounds him. Partly because he's tough as nails. He can take damage that would drop a horse and still swing his sword with deadly effect.

Nitpicking DnD's realism is silly. DnD isn't supposed to represent realism. It just so happens to do a passable job of it at low levels if you ignore all the magic, which you shouldn't be anyway. Better systems are out there to mimic realism.

Drolyt
2011-05-06, 01:57 AM
Nitpicking DnD's realism is silly. DnD isn't supposed to represent realism. It just so happens to do a passable job of it at low levels if you ignore all the magic, which you shouldn't be anyway. Better systems are out there to mimic realism.
See this brilliant article (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html). The D&D skill system in particular is truly a work of art, being nice and realistic from levels 1-5 and at higher levels allowing truly astonishing feats in good amounts. The ability score system works great too, accurately representing the range of human ability. Really, D&D does what you might call "cinematic realism", "fantastic realism", or "verisimilitude" extraordinarily well in many cases. The fact that hit points, ac, and damage are so out of whack is extremely glaring because of this. Also, the spell system has serious problems, but that's not part of this discussion.

Knaight
2011-05-06, 02:12 AM
Yeah 5%, but look at it from the situation where you were previously evenly matched. Given a -2 you are knocked down from succeeding on an 11 or better to succeeding on a 13 or better, or a 20% decrease in power. Given a -4 it is a 40% decrease in power, which is huge. Your d6 example is just insane.

That would be why I had the first foot note. Moreover, this particular system is designed to be insane. Its built around several core concepts that d20 doesn't share.

Ambushes are incredibly deadly.
Once things start looking bad, they get worse.
Fleeing and surrender are often good ideas in combats that aren't on your terms.
Snipers are scary, horrible entities that can and will ruin your day if they are half decent with a weapon.
If the numbers aren't on your side, you are in all sorts of trouble.


That said, a -2 or -4 isn't all that terrible in d20, considering that luck is such a huge part, and due to the turn structure injuring your opponent is pretty likely. It does favor the underdog significantly, and upset what is there currently, but the better warrior usually comes out on top.

Drolyt
2011-05-06, 02:31 AM
That would be why I had the first foot note. Moreover, this particular system is designed to be insane. Its built around several core concepts that d20 doesn't share.

Ambushes are incredibly deadly.
Once things start looking bad, they get worse.
Fleeing and surrender are often good ideas in combats that aren't on your terms.
Snipers are scary, horrible entities that can and will ruin your day if they are half decent with a weapon.
If the numbers aren't on your side, you are in all sorts of trouble.


That said, a -2 or -4 isn't all that terrible in d20, considering that luck is such a huge part, and due to the turn structure injuring your opponent is pretty likely. It does favor the underdog significantly, and upset what is there currently, but the better warrior usually comes out on top.
To me though, this sounds deadlier even then reality, but I couldn't say that for sure without seeing the rest of the system.

Knaight
2011-05-06, 02:45 AM
To me though, this sounds deadlier even then reality, but I couldn't say that for sure without seeing the rest of the system.

Bell curves make your life much, much easier in this regard. Plus, in regards to ambushes and snipers, there is a major loss of effectiveness if their position is revealed, and still a fair bit if the area isn't conducive to a clean shot.

The Big Dice
2011-05-06, 08:24 AM
There is a very simple reason why people talk about the one person who survives a fall from a great height, or that one person found on the battlefield, alive but with dozens of horrific injuries. Very simply, these are the extreme cases. That guy found with forty injuries, no mention gets made of the hundreds, possibly thousands, that were lying dead all across the field. Most of them with a single wound that killed them one way or another.

So it seems that yes, the human body can possibly survive unbelievable trauma. But most of the time, it doesn't. And while it seems very impressive to focus on the one in a million that survives the circumstance, that's completely ignoring the 999,999 that didn't.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-06, 08:50 AM
See this brilliant article (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html). The D&D skill system in particular is truly a work of art, being nice and realistic from levels 1-5 and at higher levels allowing truly astonishing feats in good amounts. The ability score system works great too, accurately representing the range of human ability.

It is not brilliant, it is flat out wrong.

For instance, a level one human whatever with the run feat can run a marathon significantly faster than any human who has ever lived.

I'm not even going to bother to point out how badly diplomacy works.


And Big Dice, adventurers are explicitly called out as special types. The PCs play these sorts of characters. Larger than life, expected to do great things. The high-level barbarian does not represent the average man because it was never intended to. It was intended to represent a conanesque individual who is regarded as highly exceptional.

Douglas
2011-05-06, 09:03 AM
For instance, a level one human whatever with the run feat can run a marathon significantly faster than any human who has ever lived.
No, he can't. The overland movement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm#overlandMovement) rules prohibit running for anywhere near long enough to complete a marathon. The best you can do over that kind of distance is a hustle. Hustling the 26 mile distance of a marathon would take a bit over 4 hours for a typical human with 30' movement speed, compared to the current world record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_world_record_progression#Marathon_world_r ecord_progression) of slightly over 2 hours.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-06, 09:12 AM
By RAW, no player, no matter how fast, can run a mile. If you accept that he CAN run a mile, because people do that all the time, he runs a mile in about three and a half minutes. Even with a shield, a weapon, a pack and light armor. Or naked. Doesn't matter, really. Either way, he's about a half a minute ahead of the world record.

So, regardless of what you pick, it doesn't model reality particularly well at any level. It's a convenient shorthand for movement rates, and any attempt to take it beyond that tends not to work out too well.

Incanur
2011-05-06, 09:31 AM
Only if you can take the pain. Never experienced it, but I'm told injuries to the abdominal region are extremely painful. The resulting shock (acute stress reaction, not circulatory shock) could leave you dazed or otherwise unable to act for several seconds.

We have numerous recent and historical accounts of folks continuing activity despite thrusts to the belly. In D&D terms, the possible reaction you mention could be handle a Fort or Will save.

The Big Dice
2011-05-06, 09:43 AM
And Big Dice, adventurers are explicitly called out as special types. The PCs play these sorts of characters. Larger than life, expected to do great things. The high-level barbarian does not represent the average man because it was never intended to. It was intended to represent a conanesque individual who is regarded as highly exceptional.
Except the only thing that separates the so-called adventurers of D&D (which is a ridiculous social group deserving of it's own thread) from everyone else is the amount of money they have. And that's explicit in the rules. An NPC of a given level has X money for toys, a PC of the same level has Y money.

And in a given campaign setting, the odds are there are going to be NPCs far beyond the kind of level your character will ever reach. And that's a whole 'nother set of implications for the "exceptional" status given to PCs.

The simple truth is, the only thing D&D models well is D&D.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-06, 09:48 AM
Except the only thing that separates the so-called adventurers of D&D (which is a ridiculous social group deserving of it's own thread) from everyone else is the amount of money they have. And that's explicit in the rules. An NPC of a given level has X money for toys, a PC of the same level has Y money.

Negative. There are also PC classes and NPC classes. The former are generally much better. Now, that doesn't mean that NPCs with PC classes don't exist...but they are also exceptional.

Also, levels. Bog standard people in most settings tend not to have a lot of levels. Adventuring results in a much faster xp gain than the rest of the world has.

Also, stats. The non-elite(will you look at that name?) is called out as appropriate for NPC classed types. Sad times for them.

So yeah, PCs end up being better in pretty much every way.

Drolyt
2011-05-06, 10:12 AM
There is a very simple reason why people talk about the one person who survives a fall from a great height, or that one person found on the battlefield, alive but with dozens of horrific injuries. Very simply, these are the extreme cases. That guy found with forty injuries, no mention gets made of the hundreds, possibly thousands, that were lying dead all across the field. Most of them with a single wound that killed them one way or another.

So it seems that yes, the human body can possibly survive unbelievable trauma. But most of the time, it doesn't. And while it seems very impressive to focus on the one in a million that survives the circumstance, that's completely ignoring the 999,999 that didn't.
Yes and no. Part of it is that only the lucky people survive these things. On the other hand, part of it really is that the human body is tougher than it is normally given credit for. Regardless, most people won't die from a single wound unless they lack access to good health care, in which case they will die from eventual blood loss (minutes to hours) or disease (possibly weeks). The people who manage to die instantly from brain trauma or shock are the exceptions, just as much so as the ones who take bullets to the head and live or take 40 arrows to the chest and live.

It is not brilliant, it is flat out wrong.

For instance, a level one human whatever with the run feat can run a marathon significantly faster than any human who has ever lived.

I'm not even going to bother to point out how badly diplomacy works.

I'll hand you diplomacy, along with hp and ac and damage, and probably some other things I'm not thinking of right now. But I don't see your point about movement rate. That's hard to model. They couldn't exactly make it a skill, that would be annoying (roll to see how far you move this round). At the same time, a couple feet of movement isn't worth a feat. So they come up with an arbitrary number that is close to realistic values but easy to handle (divisible by 5). I'm not sure why you think it is unrealistic. With the run feet, that is a max run of about 17 miles/hour, well below the world record.

Have to cut the post short, have to go.

ken-do-nim
2011-05-06, 10:20 AM
For example, I recall in the 3.5 Dungeon Masters Guide a suggestion to the effect of "if someone slits your throat in the middle of the night, it doesn't matter how many hit points you have, you die". Even if you are a 20th level barbarian.

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread to this point, but since you said this is a thread for all editions and I am a first edition player, I want to share with you how 1E does it. 1E has an official rule for this. All characters may use the assassination table when attempting to kill a (non-magically) sleeping opponent. Basically the level of the would-be killer is compared to the would-be victim. If they are even, the chance of success is roughly 50%, but the killer level maxes out for comparison purposes around 15th level, so even a 20th level character trying to take out another 20th level character like that will probably not succeed. However, normal weapon damage will still be done.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-06, 10:26 AM
So they come up with an arbitrary number that is close to realistic values but easy to handle (divisible by 5). I'm not sure why you think it is unrealistic.

Yes, doing that is a bit unrealistic. I fully understand and agree with WHY they did it, yes, but the movement rules in general are not terribly like real life. Only in flying did they bother to put in any concept of inertia, for instance.

Drolyt
2011-05-06, 01:22 PM
Yes, doing that is a bit unrealistic. I fully understand and agree with WHY they did it, yes, but the movement rules in general are not terribly like real life. Only in flying did they bother to put in any concept of inertia, for instance.
Eh, it would be too complicated to model it that accurately, I don't think even GURPS puts that much into it (I think they have a rule about long it takes to reach your full speed though). Like the post I linked to said, it is a game, so some compromises are made. This is not one I disagree with.

That said, a running skill wouldn't be a horrible idea. Every point adds +1 (or maybe more, I'd have to do some math) to speed and has some other benefits or something.

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread to this point, but since you said this is a thread for all editions and I am a first edition player, I want to share with you how 1E does it. 1E has an official rule for this. All characters may use the assassination table when attempting to kill a (non-magically) sleeping opponent. Basically the level of the would-be killer is compared to the would-be victim. If they are even, the chance of success is roughly 50%, but the killer level maxes out for comparison purposes around 15th level, so even a 20th level character trying to take out another 20th level character like that will probably not succeed. However, normal weapon damage will still be done.
I wasn't aware of how first edition does it. Hmm, that makes sense I guess. They probably figure that after 15th level you are too superhuman for it to work reliably?

Tyndmyr
2011-05-06, 01:49 PM
Yes. A fully realistic system probably wouldn't be much fun to play, tbh.

Some realism compromises are entirely worth it. On the whole, I feel D&D abstracted out a great many things to make the game more playable and fun, and I'm generally ok with that. I'd rather have a playable game than a realistic one.

stainboy
2011-05-06, 06:14 PM
That said, a running skill wouldn't be a horrible idea. Every point adds +1 (or maybe more, I'd have to do some math) to speed and has some other benefits or something.


Probably a die roll when you run and maybe double move. I don't really want to roll a check every time a player takes a move action in combat, but having a check when a creature concentrates wholly on moving would make it possible to run a chase scene. (It's *possible* now, but you have to find ways to introduce random checks, like putting fruit carts in the road to force the pursued to make a Jump check. Stuff like that veers into roll-until-you-fail railroading pretty quickly.)

ken-do-nim
2011-05-06, 07:40 PM
I wasn't aware of how first edition does it. Hmm, that makes sense I guess. They probably figure that after 15th level you are too superhuman for it to work reliably?

It is a by-product of the fact that assassins have a level cap of 15. Assassins also use the table in a similar manner to how later edition assassins have the death attack ability.

Drolyt
2011-05-06, 08:48 PM
Probably a die roll when you run and maybe double move. I don't really want to roll a check every time a player takes a move action in combat, but having a check when a creature concentrates wholly on moving would make it possible to run a chase scene. (It's *possible* now, but you have to find ways to introduce random checks, like putting fruit carts in the road to force the pursued to make a Jump check. Stuff like that veers into roll-until-you-fail railroading pretty quickly.)
I was thinking it would normally just add to your speed. Every point spent (natural points, not points from ability score or skill focus)* gives you a bonus to your normal speed. You would only make a running check for situations like what you describe, where two people are racing or something.

* You could factor in Dex and Skill focus, but then every character would have to pay attention to the run skill, not just people who buy it normally. Maybe it could count as a trained skill?

As far as balance goes, this skill is normally pretty balanced, especially if you don't use grids, but with heavily tactical combat extra speed is really powerful.

stainboy
2011-05-07, 07:02 PM
By RAW, no player, no matter how fast, can run a mile.

Warforged can! :smalltongue:


If you accept that he CAN run a mile, because people do that all the time, he runs a mile in about three and a half minutes. Even with a shield, a weapon, a pack and light armor. Or naked. Doesn't matter, really. Either way, he's about a half a minute ahead of the world record.


The run->rest->run->rest routine is a little faster than double moving, so let's assume that's what a human does when he "runs" a mile. Also math is hard so let's just estimate he fails the Con check to keep running on try (1/probability of failing the first). About try 2 at Con 10, try 4 at Con 18.

A human at Con 10 "runs" a mile in slightly over 7 minutes.
A human at Con 14 does it in about 6m15s.
A human at Con 18 with the Run feat averages about 4m45s.

(E: These are average mile times for a human running an infinite number of miles consecutively. Actual times for a run that stops at 1 mile would be slightly different.)

These numbers look pretty reasonable. It just doesn't make sense that they alternate between dead sprint and stumbling along gasping for breath.

Conners
2011-05-07, 07:37 PM
These numbers look pretty reasonable. It just doesn't make sense that they alternate between dead sprint and stumbling along gasping for breath. That's sort of the problem. If you have a game where hacking in mid-air hurts you opponent (you don't have magic, that's just the weird physics of it), it still doesn't make sense even if the damage done in realistic (to if you were hacking them up in person).

Drolyt
2011-05-07, 08:49 PM
By RAW, no player, no matter how fast, can run a mile. If you accept that he CAN run a mile, because people do that all the time, he runs a mile in about three and a half minutes. Even with a shield, a weapon, a pack and light armor. Or naked. Doesn't matter, really. Either way, he's about a half a minute ahead of the world record.
No one can "run" a mile. I put run in quotes because what the D&D rules call "run" is a full out sprint. What you want is what D&D calls a hustle, or a double move, which you can do for up to an hour before having to make endurance checks. At the standard 30' movement rate this works out to 6.8 miles/hour, slightly faster than what an average person can do, about 6 miles/hour. The record is about 13 miles/hour, which actually takes a haste spell to beat. So yeah, in this case it is a little weird, it models reality pretty well but doesn't allow you to build a fast character for some reason. I think I'm going to write up that run skill idea I had and post it in the homebrew section.

Warforged can! :smalltongue:



The run->rest->run->rest routine is a little faster than double moving, so let's assume that's what a human does when he "runs" a mile. Also math is hard so let's just estimate he fails the Con check to keep running on try (1/probability of failing the first). About try 2 at Con 10, try 4 at Con 18.

A human at Con 10 "runs" a mile in slightly over 7 minutes.
A human at Con 14 does it in about 6m15s.
A human at Con 18 with the Run feat averages about 4m45s.

(E: These are average mile times for a human running an infinite number of miles consecutively. Actual times for a run that stops at 1 mile would be slightly different.)

These numbers look pretty reasonable. It just doesn't make sense that they alternate between dead sprint and stumbling along gasping for breath.

That's sort of the problem. If you have a game where hacking in mid-air hurts you opponent (you don't have magic, that's just the weird physics of it), it still doesn't make sense even if the damage done in realistic (to if you were hacking them up in person).
As above, this sort of calculation is generally unnecessary. It does model the greater endurance of high Con characters though.

Viktyr Gehrig
2011-05-07, 11:15 PM
What you want is what D&D calls a hustle, or a double move, which you can do for up to an hour before having to make endurance checks. At the standard 30' movement rate this works out to 6.8 miles/hour, slightly faster than what an average person can do, about 6 miles/hour. The record is about 13 miles/hour, which actually takes a haste spell to beat.

Pathfinder has the Fleet feat, which increases your base move by 5 feet. A 6th level Monk who takes Fleet as his 3rd and 5th level feats (assuming Endurance and Run at 1st) could hustle at 12 miles per hour or, with sufficient Constitution, sprint a mile in just under two minutes. A Barbarian can do the same in just over two minutes, but he might have to Rage to cover the last thirty seconds. If you assume that Endurance provides its bonus to checks to continue running, a Human with 18 Con can dead sprint for 18 rounds before checking and take 10 for another 9 rounds, covering a mile in 27 rounds, or a little bit more than two and a half minutes.

Characters are pretty fast out of the box, and it's trivially easy to make them superhumanly fast; the problem is building characters that have any meaningful stamina. It would work better if Endurance were a skill and if fatigue imposed Endurance penalties instead of preventing running.

Eric Tolle
2011-05-09, 02:09 AM
If we wanted realism, then I should point out that fatigue should be a major factor in combat and other strenuous activities. Modern athletes have found that they can sustain combat in armor for a minute or so; even with classic levels of training, a warrior should only be able to do a couple minutes at most of fighting before they become fatigued. Of course most rpg combats last less than a minute, but its interesting that I can only recall one game (Traveller) that makes fatigue a big issue in combat.

JonestheSpy
2011-05-09, 02:15 AM
The Champions/Hero System was really good for fatigue issues - actions cost Endurance points, and you could get some of them back each round via your Recovery rate, but hard fighting would always cost more than you could get back. It was also cool that they had two types of damage - Stun damage that knocked you out, and Body damage that killed you.

Lot of bookkeeping though. I wish there had been a Champions CRPG, as a computer doing all the numbers tracking would have been ideal (I know there was the MMO, but I don't do online games).

Drolyt
2011-05-09, 02:56 AM
The Champions/Hero System was really good for fatigue issues - actions cost Endurance points, and you could get some of them back each round via your Recovery rate, but hard fighting would always cost more than you could get back. It was also cool that they had two types of damage - Stun damage that knocked you out, and Body damage that killed you.

Lot of bookkeeping though. I wish there had been a Champions CRPG, as a computer doing all the numbers tracking would have been ideal (I know there was the MMO, but I don't do online games).
Yeah, Hero does it well. Some sort of endurance or fatigue system is probably a pretty good idea. That way you don't have to balance between warriors who can go all day and spellcasters who cannot, both have their limits.

Frozen_Feet
2011-05-09, 06:22 AM
CODA system, which I encountered in the context of Lord of the Rings RPG, has a fatigue system that comes up in combat as well reasonably often. Long story short, certain predetermined activities force a stamina check at certain intervals, and failiure nets you a level of fatigue. Fatigue gives a general penalty to rolls, so if you don't stop to rest you become more fatigued faster. Different levels of fatigue go away at different levels of rest - if you're just a bit winded, you only need to catch your breath for few minutes, but if you're exhausted, you need to sleep. And so on.

Conners
2011-05-09, 06:29 AM
What sport is Eric Tolle speaking of...? I don't know of many that use armour comparable to medieval battle stuff.


With fatigue... one thing to note is adrenaline. Gone crazy on a punching bag before, and I felt nothing till I stopped punching (then I felt kind of sore and tired). Combat to the death will be different in a number of ways, but this is still something worth considering.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-09, 08:01 AM
Characters are pretty fast out of the box, and it's trivially easy to make them superhumanly fast; the problem is building characters that have any meaningful stamina. It would work better if Endurance were a skill and if fatigue imposed Endurance penalties instead of preventing running.

Yeah, that'd be a much more realistic solution. IMO, D&D tends not to handle chases terrifically well.


If we wanted realism, then I should point out that fatigue should be a major factor in combat and other strenuous activities. Modern athletes have found that they can sustain combat in armor for a minute or so; even with classic levels of training, a warrior should only be able to do a couple minutes at most of fighting before they become fatigued. Of course most rpg combats last less than a minute, but its interesting that I can only recall one game (Traveller) that makes fatigue a big issue in combat.

Really? Because my experience with armor is that it is vastly less tiring than most sources would make you believe. Hell, I've even swum with a chain shirt. It's not that bad.

However, I'll admit that it's certainly more tiring than say, sleeping in plate. Sleeping in any well-fitted armor isn't really a big thing. I can't see it as that much less restful than any of the other sleeping in the mud adventurers do.

Another nit-pick...some of the weapon weights are also ridiculously heavy.

Frozen_Feet
2011-05-09, 08:59 AM
A modern combat vest + a helmet with all proper munitions packed in weighs about as much as medium armor, expect it's balanced worse than actual body armor - a soldier is expected to sprint, roll, run and so on and so forth with it, and while you can get winded fairly fast, it isn't too hard to keep on going for 15 minutes or so.

Once you add radio equipment and a flak vest with ballistic plates, it's about as heavy as full plate and much more cumbersome - and the average frontliner is expected to be able to run 2600 metres in twelve minutes still. In actual combat, advancement isn't going to be that fast, most likely, but in a charge, you're supposed to sprint, dive down, roll, aim and fire, then get up and repeat every five to ten seconds or so.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-09, 09:38 AM
Once you add radio equipment and a flak vest with ballistic plates, it's about as heavy as full plate and much more cumbersome - and the average frontliner is expected to be able to run 2600 metres in twelve minutes still. In actual combat, advancement isn't going to be that fast, most likely, but in a charge, you're supposed to sprint, dive down, roll, aim and fire, then get up and repeat every five to ten seconds or so.

Hell, full plate was historically what, 45-50 pounds? Add several more for a sword and a lance, and figure that you're probably riding a horse anyway if you had full plate...

Yeah, modern soldiers are definitely carrying more weight than historical ones did.

Eric Tolle
2011-05-09, 10:44 AM
What sport is Eric Tolle speaking of...? I don't know of many that use armour comparable to medieval battle stuff.

The latest source I got this from was a BBC program recreating one of those English historical battles where they lost one of their pretenders to the throne. The demonstration was full-contact melee in full armor and realistic weapons. The quick onset of fatigue was a major point. Granted these were athletic college students rather than trained-from-childhood warriors, but the thinking ous that fighters went into combat for about five minutes, then retreated to rest, and then the cycle repeated.

And I can't believe I forgot about Champions. I must have been blocking out the trauma. Or maybe I can blame the tequila.

The Big Dice
2011-05-09, 11:00 AM
Hell, full plate was historically what, 45-50 pounds? Add several more for a sword and a lance, and figure that you're probably riding a horse anyway if you had full plate...

Yeah, modern soldiers are definitely carrying more weight than historical ones did.

A modern soldier carries 60-70 pounds of kit when he's on the march. Which is almost exactly the same amount of gear as a Roman soldier carried 2000 years ago. They also base marches off an average of 25 miles per day, same as the Romans did.

The Romans literally wrote the book on what a human body can do and still be able to fight effectively at the end of it. Because yes, it's possible to carry more, travel faster on foot and all that stuff. But the key part is being able to fight and be effective in combat at the end of the day.

Frozen_Feet
2011-05-09, 11:03 AM
Exactly since they're so close to each other, if you want an example of how much armor and encumberance affect movement it's best to look at actual soldiers. It's a rather... obvious point of comparison, I'd think.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-09, 11:19 AM
Exactly since they're so close to each other, if you want an example of how much armor and encumberance affect movement it's best to look at actual soldiers. It's a rather... obvious point of comparison, I'd think.

Indeed.

Another obvious point of comparison is how space works in games. Sure, the 5 by 5 grid is a handy shortcut, but it sometimes leads to silliness. In plenty of historical formations, people occupied spaces smaller than 25 square feet.

I'm occasionally amazed to realize I'm in a peasant's hut that's 30 feet long and twenty feet wide.

Conners
2011-05-09, 11:27 AM
@Eric Tolle: This'll be from lack of practice. Lifting weights is all well and good, but it won't be as good as swinging a practice sword each day, when it comes to using weapons.
Also, if they don't know what they're doing so much, they might waste a lot of energy pointlessly (even full-contact sports won't allow some historical dirty fighting, I imagine).

Drolyt
2011-05-09, 03:22 PM
Really? Because my experience with armor is that it is vastly less tiring than most sources would make you believe. Hell, I've even swum with a chain shirt. It's not that bad.
What sources? All the experts agree that a soldier in full plate armor, with a weapon and a shield and possibly some gear (although I'm pretty sure that in medieval armies knights didn't carry rations and stuff) isn't that restrained at all. D&D skill check and run penalties account for it pretty well; the skill penalties might even be too severe. Heat was more of a problem than endurance from what I've read. And really, Plate is the most extreme case. Most fighters throughout history wouldn't wear Plate, although it is the best armor available in D&D so it gets seen the most.

Conners
2011-05-09, 07:09 PM
I think they would've worn it if they could've. When plate started getting mass-produced, it was very popular with mercenaries.

Incanur
2011-05-09, 08:46 PM
I don't know that anyone without a horse wore complete plate, but the infantry front ranks tended to wear three-quarters harness during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

Drolyt
2011-05-09, 09:00 PM
I think they would've worn it if they could've. When plate started getting mass-produced, it was very popular with mercenaries.
Oh, Plate is by far the best pre-modern armor. It was impervious to most weapons. It was also prohibitively expensive such that you could never have a large professional army with Full Plate as standard issue. It also only existed in Europe and then only during the high middle ages; armor was one technology the West was never surpassed in, not even during the dark ages.

Conners
2011-05-10, 01:32 AM
I've heard that after the Black Death, plate became cheaper/similarly-priced than/to mail. This was because of the lack of manpower available, and new technology allowing for faster manufacturing of plate.

However, that mightn't be the full-harness articulated plate that is usually talked about--that might just be breastplates and helmets (articulated plate, from what I know, needs your measurements for it to be made to fit you--so I don't see how they could've made it in a factory).

Notably, this was in the age where most military matters were handled by mercenaries. Being a mercenary, you want to buy the best armour and weapons you can, to survive.


@Incanur: As an interesting note, tournament armour was much heavier than normal armour, and fairly unusable in war. However, some knights would use pieces of their tournament armour with their normal armour.

Drolyt
2011-05-10, 01:54 AM
I've heard that after the Black Death, plate became cheaper/similarly-priced than/to mail. This was because of the lack of manpower available, and new technology allowing for faster manufacturing of plate.

However, that mightn't be the full-harness articulated plate that is usually talked about--that might just be breastplates and helmets (articulated plate, from what I know, needs your measurements for it to be made to fit you--so I don't see how they could've made it in a factory).

Notably, this was in the age where most military matters were handled by mercenaries. Being a mercenary, you want to buy the best armour and weapons you can, to survive.


@Incanur: As an interesting note, tournament armour was much heavier than normal armour, and fairly unusable in war. However, some knights would use pieces of their tournament armour with their normal armour.
To my knowledge, the plate used by those mercenaries is what D&D calls Breastplate. I could be wrong, I'm no expert. What D&D calls Full Plate had to be individually fitted and was extremely expensive, limited largely to the upper nobility.
Edit: I believe in the era you speak of full plate had largely fallen out of use due to price.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-10, 06:50 AM
What sources? All the experts agree that a soldier in full plate armor, with a weapon and a shield and possibly some gear (although I'm pretty sure that in medieval armies knights didn't carry rations and stuff) isn't that restrained at all. D&D skill check and run penalties account for it pretty well; the skill penalties might even be too severe. Heat was more of a problem than endurance from what I've read. And really, Plate is the most extreme case. Most fighters throughout history wouldn't wear Plate, although it is the best armor available in D&D so it gets seen the most.

Sources = people who talk about armor on the internet. Which I fully agree has nothing to do with experts.

Honestly, I'd peg chain as worse than plate. It's generally loose in spots, so you get a certain element of swinging that adds awkwardness. It's not terribly bad, but well fitted plate doesn't have that.

But yeah, things like leather armor are barely tiring at all. I consider the armor check penalties generally fair, and possibly even too severe in certain cases. If I had to pick one to have a beef with, it'd be balance, but I understand the simplicity of having them all equal(well, save swim).

Eric Tolle
2011-05-11, 03:16 PM
Heat was more of a problem than endurance from what I've read.

Now that I think of it, I think the problem was as much heat exhaustion as anything else. And he was wearing full plate. Since they were supposed to be recreating nobles in 15th century England, this makes a bit more sense.

FWIW, I tracked down the video: Weapons that Made Britain: the Sword (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEMwcSGauY8). MIke Loades recreates a bit of the Battle of Barnet in 1471. Half of the video is about the actual battle, and the other half is about swords and the training of the team of recreators.

One interesting thing is it wasn't supposed to be melee that was the most important element in the battle...but in the thick fog the armies ended up much closer than expected, and guns were rendered nearly useless. That's a trick that sneaky GMs might take into account.