PDA

View Full Version : What traditional literary/mythological character would have the highest level?



Pages : [1] 2

TuggyNE
2013-02-09, 12:48 AM
I'm mostly familiar with D&D, but other systems are OK too, as long as they're level-based.

Anyway, given the various characters of myth, legend, and story that are fairly "traditional", which of them would likely have the highest level, and how high is that?

ArcturusV
2013-02-09, 01:01 AM
Hmm... I'm not counting Gods, as in various traditions Gods can be nigh unlimited. The examples that leap to mind include things like Lancelot (Seems like at least a level 15 Fighter). Cu Chulainn, the Champion of Ireland (I couldn't even imagine, but based on his feats you're talking like a level 18-20 Barbarian). Morgan La Fay (Probably a Wizard level 10 or so. Wizards in literature/mythology don't tend to be anywhere near as powerful as they would be in DnD).

SowZ
2013-02-09, 03:45 AM
Hmm... I'm not counting Gods, as in various traditions Gods can be nigh unlimited. The examples that leap to mind include things like Lancelot (Seems like at least a level 15 Fighter). Cu Chulainn, the Champion of Ireland (I couldn't even imagine, but based on his feats you're talking like a level 18-20 Barbarian). Morgan La Fay (Probably a Wizard level 10 or so. Wizards in literature/mythology don't tend to be anywhere near as powerful as they would be in DnD).

I don't see why Lancelot needs to be more than level 8 or so. Which specific legends are you thinking of where he needs such a high level?

ArcturusV
2013-02-09, 04:03 AM
I can't think of specifics. I seem to recall some of the later legends of him, around the time where Arthur is busy screwing up Camelot, suggest that A) He's the greatest knight in the land, and thus would have to compete against even King Arthur, Percival, etc, who are no real slouches and be able to best them... Considering King Arthur's abilities when he ROSE to the Throne, he at least has Leadership as a feat (Level 6), probably has gained a few levels since then, so it should easily be higher than 8. And B) Vague memories of some bits of battle mentioned around Lancelot where he was doing things like taking on 4 soldiers before they could even strike him, etc. Which sounds like at least a 15 BAB. Based on DnD Logic.

SowZ
2013-02-09, 04:12 AM
I can't think of specifics. I seem to recall some of the later legends of him, around the time where Arthur is busy screwing up Camelot, suggest that A) He's the greatest knight in the land, and thus would have to compete against even King Arthur, Percival, etc, who are no real slouches and be able to best them... Considering King Arthur's abilities when he ROSE to the Throne, he at least has Leadership as a feat (Level 6), probably has gained a few levels since then, so it should easily be higher than 8. And B) Vague memories of some bits of battle mentioned around Lancelot where he was doing things like taking on 4 soldiers before they could even strike him, etc. Which sounds like at least a 15 BAB. Based on DnD Logic.

Hmm, there's the issue with trying to stat up characters and it is why Aragorn often gets statted as something like level 18 when he doesn't need to be any higher than level 6. You can't really look at specific abilities the person has and say, "What level would they have to be to gain that ability?" or "What level would they have to be to attack that fast?" You end up way overestimating people that way, IMO.

It is better to just look at overall power. You have to compare general power levels, not specific abilities, since Lancelot wasn't built on D&D. So, "Person X slew a hundred warriors in one battle." is a good benchmark to compare to. "Person X has Y Crafting feats, so they must be level Z." doesn't work, though. Being level 8 would make someone the greatest Knight in all of Europe, since no RL Knight would have ever been higher than level 4, maybe level 5. Arthur being level 6 is perfectly reasonable based on his accomplishments, IMO.

And Lancelot is a decent throw better than Arthur at level 8.

Few characters in Myth or Fantasy stories ever breach the D&D level 10 mark without being immortal, or without it being Anime. D&D is a pretty high powered game.

Townopolis
2013-02-09, 04:43 AM
It's also wholly possible to take out 4 guys in 1 round at level 8.

Power Attack -> Cleave -> Great Cleave. Done.
Combat Reflexes + Thicket of Blades + any reach weapon. Done.
White Raven Tactics. Done.
Mithral Tornado. Done.

(Normal = feat, italicized = maneuver.)

Morph Bark
2013-02-09, 04:58 AM
Beowulf took on a dragon, so that probably counts for something. Prior to that, he 1v1'd a troll.

Heracles is probably high level, but he was turned into a god later (and iirc he's statted up in Deities and Demigods), so maybe he should be excluded.

Gilgamesh undoubtedly is pretty high up too, but probably not Epic.

Ashtagon
2013-02-09, 05:06 AM
Gilgamesh undoubtedly is pretty high up too, but probably not Epic.

Gilgamesh? He had epic named after him. Literally (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh).

Doorhandle
2013-02-09, 05:13 AM
I think Son Wukong would be a very strong contender, and is probably a high-tier class to boot (his ability to shape-shift+insane array of other mythical powers suggest druid to me, or at least another class with good spellcasting, decent B.A.B, and lots of shapeshifting.) He's mentioned as catching/surviving being squished by mountains several times, and managed to take on the entire celestial army at once.

He may not count as THE greatest though, considering 1 or two demons and are still powerful enough to beat him in direct combat. Also, he became a buddha/bodhavista, so I'm not sure if the entire god-thing doesn't apply.

SowZ
2013-02-09, 05:18 AM
Beowulf took on a dragon, so that probably counts for something. Prior to that, he 1v1'd a troll.

Heracles is probably high level, but he was turned into a god later (and iirc he's statted up in Deities and Demigods), so maybe he should be excluded.

Gilgamesh undoubtedly is pretty high up too, but probably not Epic.

Yeah, Beowulf fought a troll, a witch, and a dragon. Still, I don't think he passes the D&D level 10 benchmark. Sure, D&D dragons are CR 20 but the dragon in Beowulf lacked the hyper intelligence and spellcasting of a dragon, so CR10 or 12 is probably more reasonable.

Gilgamesh is powerful, but I don't recall enough about the story to know if he would surpass level 10.

ArcturusV
2013-02-09, 05:22 AM
Well, he barehanded the Bull of Heaven as I recall. Considering that was the favored beast of the most powerful divine... probably kinda high up there on the CR scale. I wouldn't hazard a guess but I mean... If you had Archangel Michael, the guy who kicked Lucifer in the teeth and told him to GTFO outta heaven? It's like throwing down with that guy. Not exactly a light task.

SowZ
2013-02-09, 05:24 AM
Well, he barehanded the Bull of Heaven as I recall. Considering that was the favored beast of the most powerful divine... probably kinda high up there on the CR scale. I wouldn't hazard a guess but I mean... If you had Archangel Michael, the guy who kicked Lucifer in the teeth and told him to GTFO outta heaven? It's like throwing down with that guy. Not exactly a light task.

Hmm, Gilgamesh sounds like he could be epic, but even if he doesn't, from what you are saying it sounds like he is at least in his upper teens.

ArcturusV
2013-02-09, 05:27 AM
Then again with Fighters it's a bit harder. I mean mages are kinda easy for me to figure because even the "earthshattering magic" most Mages in myths do are.... kinda low level effects.

Fighters it's a bit vaguer. Take Cu Chulainn as I listed. DR, Raging, great Con and Damage, used a spear. Seems obvious a barbarian. Could do things like hold off a river ford against 1,000 men for... I believe a month? By just killin' anyone who dared cross it, never sleeping, never resting. Had some form of the Diehard feat or the like since he was basically split open, guts falling out, and still kicking teeth in, etc.

SowZ
2013-02-09, 05:30 AM
Then again with Fighters it's a bit harder. I mean mages are kinda easy for me to figure because even the "earthshattering magic" most Mages in myths do are.... kinda low level effects.

Fighters it's a bit vaguer. Take Cu Chulainn as I listed. DR, Raging, great Con and Damage, used a spear. Seems obvious a barbarian. Could do things like hold off a river ford against 1,000 men for... I believe a month? By just killin' anyone who dared cross it, never sleeping, never resting. Had some form of the Diehard feat or the like since he was basically split open, guts falling out, and still kicking teeth in, etc.

Not to mention the Tireless feat.

The-Mage-King
2013-02-09, 06:13 AM
Hm...

Sun Wukong, for one, is pretty high leveled. It takes a lot for Son Goku to be nerfed in comparison, after all.



Gilgamesh, too, is fairly high up, probably as a grappling build.



And, of course, Karna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karna) is up there, too, probably higher than Gil. Same with almost anyone else important from Indian legends.

They're kinda crazy hax.

Morph Bark
2013-02-09, 12:14 PM
If we take stuff from the bible, Jacob had a high enough grapple modifier to beat God himself. And those rules are hard to use in any system! :smalleek:

Hindu myth undoubtedly has some folks who go crazy high as well, but Hindu myth is also on an entirely different scale. It's like it's Exalted, and all other myths are DnD.

comicshorse
2013-02-09, 12:52 PM
Fighters it's a bit vaguer. Take Cu Chulainn as I listed. DR, Raging, great Con and Damage, used a spear. Seems obvious a barbarian. Could do things like hold off a river ford against 1,000 men for... I believe a month? By just killin' anyone who dared cross it, never sleeping, never resting. Had some form of the Diehard feat or the like since he was basically split open, guts falling out, and still kicking teeth in, etc.

I believe by honourable agreement each side stopped fighting at night so the dead and wounded could be taken away



Yeah, Beowulf fought a troll, a witch, and a dragon. Still, I don't think he passes the D&D level 10 benchmark. Sure, D&D dragons are CR 20 but the dragon in Beowulf lacked the hyper intelligence and spellcasting of a dragon, so CR10 or 12 is probably more reasonable.
Yeah but he killed the troll with his bare hands because weapons broke on its skin

Talakeal
2013-02-09, 02:15 PM
Overall I would say probably the Monkey King.

Cyrano de Bergerac is pretty impressive as far as purely mundane characters go, he took out a hundred enemy soldiers armed with only a rapier.

Hercules and Achilles are both pretty impressive, but both are demi gods. Likewise Rama is pretty impressive, but he is a god in mortal form.

Characters from American tall tales like Pecos Bill and Paul Bunyan are incredibly powerful, but they operate on a sort of Looney Toons physics, and if we are allowing that sort of thing I would have to go with..... Chuck Norris :smallcool:

Tanuki Tales
2013-02-09, 02:21 PM
If we're not counting Heracles, doesn't that preclude Sun Wukong? Sun Wukong was essentially a demi-god, even before he even attained Buddha-hood.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-02-09, 08:04 PM
Hmm, there's the issue with trying to stat up characters and it is why Aragorn often gets statted as something like level 18 when he doesn't need to be any higher than level 6. You can't really look at specific abilities the person has and say, "What level would they have to be to gain that ability?" or "What level would they have to be to attack that fast?" You end up way overestimating people that way, IMO.

It is better to just look at overall power. You have to compare general power levels, not specific abilities, since Lancelot wasn't built on D&D. So, "Person X slew a hundred warriors in one battle." is a good benchmark to compare to. "Person X has Y Crafting feats, so they must be level Z." doesn't work, though. Being level 8 would make someone the greatest Knight in all of Europe, since no RL Knight would have ever been higher than level 4, maybe level 5. Arthur being level 6 is perfectly reasonable based on his accomplishments, IMO.

And Lancelot is a decent throw better than Arthur at level 8.

Few characters in Myth or Fantasy stories ever breach the D&D level 10 mark without being immortal, or without it being Anime. D&D is a pretty high powered game.
Is that really In Your Opinion, or is it In Jason Alexander's Opinion? The problem with discarding the rules for specific abilities is that you're left with essentially an arbitrary benchmark. Who says the highest level RL knight is level 5? This is an important question, since the reason for pegging Lancelot at a high level is the number of attacks he makes. If no real world warrior is higher than level 5, then what are the extra attacks from high BAB supposed to represent?
It's fair enough to argue that a specific class feature does not prove a character has n levels of the class that grants that feature, but to throw out basic concepts like BAB and feats is to completely miss the point of the exercise. Yes, they weren't built with D&D rules in mind, but the premise of this exercise is that the D&D rules reflect reality (and to some extent some universal themes of fiction) to a sufficient degree to model these characters. If you don't believe that then why even bother?

jindra34
2013-02-09, 08:13 PM
If we're not counting Heracles, doesn't that preclude Sun Wukong? Sun Wukong was essentially a demi-god, even before he even attained Buddha-hood.

He wasn't born one though. He earned it through meditation, training, and how he lived his life. Essentially he is what in DnD a level 20 monk should be.

Hiro Protagonest
2013-02-09, 08:21 PM
<-

...Whaddya mean Asura's not a mythological character?

Fine. Something Hindu.

Morghen
2013-02-09, 10:12 PM
Santa Claus can cast Time Stop something like 10 zillion times without resting.

Or maybe it's Wish.


Either way, that dude's wicked high level.

ArcturusV
2013-02-09, 10:18 PM
Of course just for silliness... you have CastleVania's flavor of Dracula. I mean he's so damned powerful his mere EXISTENCE conquers entire continents (CastleVania 3, just by existing he had pretty much taken over Europe). He can never be killed and comes back to life a few years after some schmuck thinks a whip finally destroyed him every time. Can manifest his entire castle inside a Lunar Eclipse (One of the GBA games... something of Sorrow I think?). DEATH HIMSELF is little more than Dracula's lackey (Ever since game one). And he can pretty much instantly create undead and monsters out of nothing, thousands of them in the span of a single night.

TuggyNE
2013-02-09, 10:24 PM
Santa Claus can cast Time Stop something like 10 zillion times without resting.

Or maybe it's Wish.


Either way, that dude's wicked high level.

I figured he just had body outside body as an SLA. :smalltongue:

Hiro Protagonest
2013-02-09, 10:36 PM
I figured he just had body outside body as an SLA. :smalltongue:

And used more precise time zones than normal, so he actually arrives between 11:30 and 12:30 in your time zone (it's midnight sharp, but your clocks think otherwise).

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-09, 10:36 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87

Vesna Vulovi. As a stewardess, she'd be a commoner, thus a fall from that height (and out of an exploding airplane) guarantees a whole lot of hit dice.

Talakeal
2013-02-09, 10:55 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87

Vesna Vulovi. As a stewardess, she'd be a commoner, thus a fall from that height (and out of an exploding airplane) guarantees a whole lot of hit dice.

Assuming minimum damage a level one or two commoner with high Con could pull through.

Morghen
2013-02-09, 11:02 PM
I figured he just had body outside body as an SLA. :smalltongue:That's worse.

Duration: 1 minute. "Well, I guess he'll have to do it a bunch of times."

1 duplicate/5 levels. "What."


So Santa Claus is something like 1000th level?

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-09, 11:03 PM
Assuming minimum damage a level one or two commoner with high Con could pull through.

Minimal damage in this case being a 2.7351112e-14 percent chance.

The real question is "How many people did that lady murder, in order to reach high level?"

Archmage1
2013-02-09, 11:26 PM
Santa claus: level 14 wiz/3 incantatrix: persisted timestop. Done.

Morghen
2013-02-10, 12:03 AM
But does it work on his mount(s)?

Tanuki Tales
2013-02-10, 12:07 AM
He wasn't born one though. He earned it through meditation, training, and how he lived his life. Essentially he is what in DnD a level 20 monk should be.

A character becoming a god, in the case of Heracles, was one of the things that disallowed them as a choice. And Sun Wukong's immense strength was innate, he did not earn or learn it. The same goes to any level of durability before he gained immortality or speed outside cloud-traveling techniques he had.

TuggyNE
2013-02-10, 12:39 AM
That's worse.

Duration: 1 minute. "Well, I guess he'll have to do it a bunch of times."

1 duplicate/5 levels. "What."


So Santa Claus is something like 1000th level?

No no, he has it as an SLA. His duplicates then also have it as an SLA. And so on and so forth. After that it's just a matter of moving pretty fast.

Synovia
2013-02-10, 12:49 AM
Minimal damage in this case being a 2.7351112e-14 percent chance.

The real question is "How many people did that lady murder, in order to reach high level?"

And yet, it happened. When you have 7 billion people on this planet, a lot of strange things happen. Its those odds if she has 10hp, and thus has to roll all 1s.

If she has 15 hp, the odds go up drastically.

SowZ
2013-02-10, 12:53 AM
Is that really In Your Opinion, or is it In Jason Alexander's Opinion? The problem with discarding the rules for specific abilities is that you're left with essentially an arbitrary benchmark. Who says the highest level RL knight is level 5? This is an important question, since the reason for pegging Lancelot at a high level is the number of attacks he makes. If no real world warrior is higher than level 5, then what are the extra attacks from high BAB supposed to represent?
It's fair enough to argue that a specific class feature does not prove a character has n levels of the class that grants that feature, but to throw out basic concepts like BAB and feats is to completely miss the point of the exercise. Yes, they weren't built with D&D rules in mind, but the premise of this exercise is that the D&D rules reflect reality (and to some extent some universal themes of fiction) to a sufficient degree to model these characters. If you don't believe that then why even bother?

It is the paradigm D&D was built around, that hyper competent normal people can get to level five. Look at level distribution especially in armies. The higher level you get, the fewer and fewer NPCs of a given level you have. But after level five, it really starts trailing off. Armies don't have a very consistent number of people past level 6, but level 5 and below are statted per large unit. Captains and such are usually level 5 and are usually the best in the platoon. Meaning level 6 soldiers aren't expected to be in a platoon. They are big heroes. It is not at all obscure to deduce that level 5 is the last level you are a normal human.

Level six is the level people are expected to start prestiging. It is just a big level, and if you are going to pick a point at which people start being considered super human, level 6 is by far the easiest and most sensible level to pick.

And once you start being able to make skill checks in the thirties on an average roll, you are often exceeding typical human boundaries.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-02-10, 01:25 AM
It is the paradigm D&D was built around, that hyper competent normal people can get to level five. Look at level distribution especially in armies. The higher level you get, the fewer and fewer NPCs of a given level you have. But after level five, it really starts trailing off. Armies don't have a very consistent number of people past level 6, but level 5 and below are statted per large unit. Captains and such are usually level 5 and are usually the best in the platoon. Meaning level 6 soldiers aren't expected to be in a platoon. They are big heroes. It is not at all obscure to deduce that level 5 is the last level you are a normal human.

Level six is the level people are expected to start prestiging. It is just a big level, and if you are going to pick a point at which people start being considered super human, level 6 is by far the easiest and most sensible level to pick.
I didn't say it's obscure, I said it's arbitrary. You're starting from, as I understand it, a position which holds that the rules of the game are inherently incapable of modeling this character which you are trying to model but then continuing on to do it anyway. The process by which you attempt this is to estimate based on NPC demographics and typical prestige classes that level 6 is the start of superhuman, and then somehow estimate that Lancelot is two levels above this. However, I'm sure I've missed something because then you go on to say this:


And once you start being able to make skill checks in the thirties on an average roll, you are often exceeding typical human boundaries.
Which is clearly at odds with your conviction to stay away from what a level N character is actually capable of. What I'm trying to figure out is where is the line? Why can't we take BAB or feats into consideration? The question is not what overall level of power by some dodgy subjective measure a character has, it's what level they are. It's ok to accept the assumptions of the question.

Ashtagon
2013-02-10, 02:27 AM
I didn't say it's obscure, I said it's arbitrary. You're starting from, as I understand it, a position which holds that the rules of the game are inherently incapable of modeling this character which you are trying to model but then continuing on to do it anyway. The process by which you attempt this is to estimate based on NPC demographics and typical prestige classes that level 6 is the start of superhuman, and then somehow estimate that Lancelot is two levels above this. However, I'm sure I've missed something because then you go on to say this:


Which is clearly at odds with your conviction to stay away from what a level N character is actually capable of. What I'm trying to figure out is where is the line? Why can't we take BAB or feats into consideration? The question is not what overall level of power by some dodgy subjective measure a character has, it's what level they are. It's ok to accept the assumptions of the question.

Clearly you have missed something. The Alexandrian article you are attempting to criticise primarily bases its conclusions on the expected results of skill checks compared to real world results, not NPC demographics.

Wardog
2013-02-10, 03:41 AM
During the siege of Da Derga's Hostle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destruction_of_Da_Derga%27s_Hostel), High King Conaire Mσr killed 600 enemies before he reached his weapons, and another 600 after arming himself. That's got to be pretty high level.

Rogue Shadows
2013-02-10, 03:56 AM
That's got to be pretty high level.

Not necessarily. A 10th-level fighter could kill 1st-level warriors all day long without breaking a sweat or taking significant injury.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

At supreme personal risk of Internet HAET, and purely intended as a thought experiment without any desire to speak for or against any religion...

A List of the Miracles of Jesus Christ, according to the Bible, with the lowest-level spell possible to achieve the effect
Control of Nature
1. Calming the storm – Matthew 8:23-27; Mark 4:37-41; Luke 8:22-25
Control weather, 7th level

2. Feeding 5,000 - Matthew 14:14-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-14
No easy D&D equivalent. Fun fact, though, the Bible specifically excludes women and children, so the actual number is almost certainly much higher than 5,000, most likely upwards of 20,000 (accounting for multiple wives, as was normal for the time, and lots of children, again, as was normal for the time)

3. Walking on water - Matthew 14:22-32; Mark 6:47-52; John 6:16-21
Water walk, 3rd level

4. Feeding 4,000 – Matthew 15:32-39; Mark 8:1-9
SEE 2

5. Fish with coin – Matthew 17:24-27
Prestidigitation, cantrip

6. Fig tree withers – Matthew 21:18-22; Mark 11:12-14, 20-25
This could be just about any spell that deals damage. For argument's sake, blight, 4th level

7. Huge catch of fish – Luke 5:4-11; John 21:1-11
No easy translation into D&D. One would think Jesus used sympathy, but it has a 1 hour casting time, but the Bible strongly implies that he did it in a matter of moments.

8. Water into wine – John 2:1-11
Polymorph any object, 8th level

Healing of Individuals
Most of Jesus' healing spells can be accomplished via remove curse or remove disease, both 3rd level spells. He was also able, however, to "heal" some individuals who were born with defects, such as the two blind men of Matthew 9:27-31. This, however, is probably within the limits of limited wish, a 7th level spell, and certainly within the limits of polymorph any object, an 8th level.

Resurrections
Jesus brought three people back from the dead: Jairus' daughter, the widow's son at Nain, and Lazarus of Bethany. Jairus' daughter had been dying the same day that Jairus asked Jesus to intercede and Jesus reaches her no more than a few hours after her death, so her death falls well within the limits of raise dead (5th level). The widow's son at Nain was already in a coffin and on his way to be buried; while we don't know precisely how long he had been dead, it's my understanding that Jewish tradition is to bury a dead family member within a week, so it's no more than 7 days - again, well within the limits of raise dead (which, being a 5th-level spell, can be used on a body up to 10 days after death). Lazarus was specifically mentioned to have been dead for four days by the time Jesus got to him - so, once again, well within the limits of raise dead.

Exorcisms
Jesus performed five exorcisms. This can be accomplished with exorcism, a 1st-level spell from Fiendish Codex I
Conclusion
Most of Jesus' spells suggest him to be a Cleric with the Weather domain, or else a Druid. His general spellcasting ability for Cleric spells puts him at least at 13th level as a Cleric, although his apparent access to prestidigitation and polymorph any object also suggests he's a sorcerer or wizard of at least 15th level. Possibly he's a Cleric 13/Sorcerer 15, though that seems like horrible optimization on Christ's part, even considering that it would put him in Epic, although Epic spells would explain some of his difficult-to-translate miracles. More likely he's a Cleric 15 (at least) that somehow convinced the DM - possibly by being the DM's son? :smalltongue: - to give him access to some wizard spells.

Ever notice how all of Jesus' miracles that don't involve healing, involve water in some way?

ArcturusV
2013-02-10, 04:15 AM
Of course if we want to get Biblical as well I'd feel we have to mention Sampson the Judge as a possible Epic Level fighter. I mean some of his exploits aren't exactly "Epic". But some of them do suggest a fairly decently leveled fighter. Killing hundreds of men with an improvised weapon, Jawbone of a Jackass, and doing this after you were captured so it's not like you have all your Armor and Items to make you anything more than just an Armor Class 12-13 most likely?

And of course, for his final act, ripping down an entire temple with just a single feat of strength. This wasn't blasting away for it with millions of blows over the course of hours and whittling it down. It was just one surge of muscle power that COMPLETELY DESTROYED A MASSIVE STONE BUILDING.

That's Strength in insane numbers... God like levels (90? 100? 120?). And done without actually being Divine. Even having lost his connection to any source of divine magic/power. Sure he died doing it. But he still did it in the story. And you're not pulling off Epic feats like that with just a level 10 fighter.

Xefas
2013-02-10, 04:28 AM
Hindu myth undoubtedly has some folks who go crazy high as well, but Hindu myth is also on an entirely different scale. It's like it's Exalted, and all other myths are DnD.

From what little I know of the Mahabharata, the main characters are high "level" even by Exalted standards. In particular, I've been told that Arjuna was a warrior of such skill that he was capable of destroying geographical locations, turning the tides of wars, and personally defeating what D&D would consider 'Gods' and what Exalted would consider 'Celestial Gods' (Exalted needs four tiers of Gods because why not). That is, through skill of wielding armaments alone.

I could be wrong though, so I hope someone with more knowledge of the subject comes along.

TuggyNE
2013-02-10, 04:30 AM
Even having lost his connection to any source of divine magic/power.

Correction: Samson's last hurrah was after regaining a modicum of power. (He had let his hair grow, hadn't touched unclean things, hadn't drunk wine, etc for several months.)

I'd say something vaguely related to one of BoED's Sacred Vows, which he efficiently and thoroughly broke, then managed to regain for a bit of revenge. High level, maybe; not sure if higher than 15, or even that high, necessarily.

Kornaki
2013-02-10, 05:11 AM
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Pheidippides

A poem about a guy who ran for two days and nights straight.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm

If we assume he hustled for 48 straight hours, that's
1+2+4+8+16+32+...+2^47 = 2^48-1 = 281474976710655 nonlethal damage (that's 281 trillion). This is before the forced march rules kick in (a couple of the saves could have been made with the endurance feat at any level, all of the saves could probably be made if we assume this HP implies Pheidippides is approximately level 40 trillion give or take)

Frozen_Feet
2013-02-10, 08:31 AM
Bodhisatvas, and Budha himself in particular, are described as doing some pretty intense stuff. Notably, these people were specifically enlightened mortals, rather than descendands of gods or the like.

What sort of "intense stuff"? Well, like trapping afore-mentioned Sun Wukong under a mountain for five centuries. Sounds like Imprisonment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/imprisonment.htm) to me.

awa
2013-02-10, 09:47 AM
you cant just take one ability and then say becuase you would need to be level to do this act they must be this level becuase those creators weren't playing d&d you need to look at the combined factors. Otherwise you are going to run into outliers that break the whole system like guys who run for several days and nights having thousands of hp, except if they had thousands of hp they would be effectively immune to physical attack able to ignore repeated stabbings long swims through molten lava ect but that is rarely an accurate statement. like wise if they use an ability that replicates a 9th level spell you should not assume they are level 17+ unless they regularly do other things that match that power.

looking at it another way if you were playing pre-warlock d&d and so a character built around a warlock you would see those at will abilities and assume he must be an insanely high level wizard to be able to have so many spell slots.

edit we also cant include gods/ semi divine characters becuase it breaks forum rules so lets leave out Buddha and Bodhisattva

darni
2013-02-10, 09:58 AM
Moses opening the waters and asking for food to rain, through divine power, puts him probably as a high level cleric. Especially the walk through the red sea, I'm not sure which spell could have been used for that but seems pretty high-level.

The witch in sleeping Beauty casted a powerful curse, how would you replicate that with D&D spells?

There's also a Canadian native legend about a guy (Natsilane) who spoke with animals, and eventually threw some carvings into water that became killer whales that obeyed him. I think that puts him as a mid/high-level druid.

Jay R
2013-02-10, 10:34 AM
Cyrano de Bergerac is pretty impressive as far as purely mundane characters go, he took out a hundred enemy soldiers armed with only a rapier.

Two pistols, a rapier, and a dagger, as I read it. They were in an alley two or three feet wide, and he knew they were there for an ambush. So he put his melee weapons under his arms, and drew his pistols.

He jumped in front of the alley, shot both pistols, dropped them, grabbed his blades and jumped in stabbing, killing the front of the pack until the rest all ran.

Still an impressive achievement. And it's not fiction. The real man actually chose to fight 100 men at once, in defense of a friend.

[He also was the first to suggest rockets as a way to fly to the moon, twenty years before Isaac Newton's three laws of motion showed nothing else would work.]

Rogue Shadows
2013-02-10, 10:47 AM
edit we also cant include gods/ semi divine characters becuase it breaks forum rules so lets leave out Buddha and Bodhisattva

Oh, you're no fun.


Still an impressive achievement. And it's not fiction. The real man actually chose to fight 100 men at once, in defense of a friend.

Gotta love those tight passes that whittle numbers down to nothing.

"THIS! IS! PORTE DE NESLE!"

Eh, doesn't have the same ring to it.

As I understand it, though, he actually only killed seven or eight of them before the rest fled.

...

Gotta love those Intimidation checks. Does this mean that he was a CW Samurai?

NM020110
2013-02-10, 11:17 AM
I'd argue for Gilgamesh, as a 2/3rds:smallconfused: divine entity, to be excluded from this contest.

For highest level...I'd argue for Jφrmungandr to have a rather high effective character level, since it would likely have a lot of racial hit dice.

Using the Huge Constrictor Snake as a base, it appears to advance a size category for every sixteen hit dice. From this we should be able to get a rough estimate on the ECL. With a length of 131477280 feet (probably a little longer, but...), and the size category's range doubling with each category, the world serpent would have a size of colossal ++++++++++++++++++++, and thus 368 hit dice, as a rough estimate.

Frozen_Feet
2013-02-10, 11:52 AM
Not perhaps very high level, but potentially between 5th and 10th levels: guys on this list. (http://www.cracked.com/article_17019_5-real-life-soldiers-who-make-rambo-look-like-*****.html)

Morph Bark
2013-02-10, 12:17 PM
Minimal damage in this case being a 2.7351112e-14 percent chance.

Hey, every small chance has a possibility of happening at some point. :smallwink:


For highest level...I'd argue for Jφrmungandr to have a rather high effective character level, since it would likely have a lot of racial hit dice.

Jormungandr is also a half-god, and actually more of a living catastrophic event than a character.


Samson is probably pretty high up too. He defeated an entire army with only an ass' jawbone. With no other equipment, he had to have naturally high hp and ways to kill a whole bunch of guys fast in entirely mundane ways.

SowZ
2013-02-10, 01:37 PM
I didn't say it's obscure, I said it's arbitrary. You're starting from, as I understand it, a position which holds that the rules of the game are inherently incapable of modeling this character which you are trying to model but then continuing on to do it anyway. The process by which you attempt this is to estimate based on NPC demographics and typical prestige classes that level 6 is the start of superhuman, and then somehow estimate that Lancelot is two levels above this. However, I'm sure I've missed something because then you go on to say this:


Which is clearly at odds with your conviction to stay away from what a level N character is actually capable of. What I'm trying to figure out is where is the line? Why can't we take BAB or feats into consideration? The question is not what overall level of power by some dodgy subjective measure a character has, it's what level they are. It's ok to accept the assumptions of the question.

That isn't my point. My point wasn't that we can't use D&D rules to analyze and estimate the power level of D&D characters, that would be ridiculous. It is that we can't use specific D&D abilities to peg down the level of a non-D&D character, we must go with general power level.

For example, a guy who is so fast that he can swing his sword three times for another persons one, but is really fragile, (goes down in a single punch,) and never takes on more than five or so low level enemies at once without losing is not level 11. It goes both ways, to. A character who can shapeshift into animals and is so strong she can take on entire armies and epic monsters BUT she can only shapeshift once per day is not a fifth level druid.

Of course we analyze specific abilities, NPC demographics, and skill checks and such when trying to understand what levels of power in D&D mean within D&D. We just can't get that specific once we leave D&D. How is that contradictory? What I am saying is looking at BAB, saves, etc. could end us with a level estimate that is wildly inaccurate at pegging the actual power level of the character.

The level six thing being superhuman isn't arbitrary. The article where the skill check stuff is explained has been brought up a couple times, but it doesn't just come from there. Again, population dynamics, level spreads in armies, and how much happens character wise at level 6 makes the "1-5 is more normal people" thing seem a very intentional design choice. Not an arbitrary thing one guy pointed out and everyone believed.

Kornaki
2013-02-10, 02:00 PM
'number of hours in a row you can hustle' was the core mechanic on which all of d&d was built actually

Talakeal
2013-02-10, 02:15 PM
One problem is that there is no consensus about what "level" means, by either the players or the authors of the game. For example, Conan, an impressive but still more or less mundane hero, is listed as an epic barbarian in the ELH, while other people insist that an epic level character must be some sort of mythical demigod and you leave the realm of realism beyond before level 10. I believe Legends and Lore (2E) actually gives levels for a lot of mythical heroes, such as the knights of the round table, and iirc most are in the mid teens.


Back on topic, Joan of Arc is also a pretty impressive figure if all the accounts about her are to believed. She is credited with repeatedly surviving incredible wounds without slowing down, including arrows to the chest, a cannonball to the head, and repeatedly jumping off of tall towers. Also, she had a hell of an intimidation score, routing superior armies with only her words. Pretty good for a petite teenage girl.

SowZ
2013-02-10, 03:07 PM
One problem is that there is no consensus about what "level" means, by either the players or the authors of the game. For example, Conan, an impressive but still more or less mundane hero, is listed as an epic barbarian in the ELH, while other people insist that an epic level character must be some sort of mythical demigod and you leave the realm of realism beyond before level 10. I believe Legends and Lore (2E) actually gives levels for a lot of mythical heroes, such as the knights of the round table, and iirc most are in the mid teens.


Back on topic, Joan of Arc is also a pretty impressive figure if all the accounts about her are to believed. She is credited with repeatedly surviving incredible wounds without slowing down, including arrows to the chest, a cannonball to the head, and repeatedly jumping off of tall towers. Also, she had a hell of an intimidation score, routing superior armies with only her words. Pretty good for a petite teenage girl.

William Wallace allegedly survived an arrow to the throat. Further, he was captured by the British a number of times and escaped before one of the capturings finally stuck.

Kurald Galain
2013-02-10, 03:22 PM
Clearly you have missed something. The Alexandrian article you are attempting to criticise primarily bases its conclusions on the expected results of skill checks compared to real world results, not NPC demographics.

And it is factually wrong. WOTC posted an article of their own which shows that several high-ranking real-world athletes are level 8 or more.

SowZ
2013-02-10, 03:38 PM
And it is factually wrong. WOTC posted an article of their own which shows that several high-ranking real-world athletes are level 8 or more.

I'd like to see that article. WOTC is not the most consistent company in the world, so they might not have proved it.


Not necessarily. A 10th-level fighter could kill 1st-level warriors all day long without breaking a sweat or taking significant injury.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

At supreme personal risk of Internet HAET, and purely intended as a thought experiment without any desire to speak for or against any religion...

A List of the Miracles of Jesus Christ, according to the Bible, with the lowest-level spell possible to achieve the effect
Control of Nature
1. Calming the storm – Matthew 8:23-27; Mark 4:37-41; Luke 8:22-25
Control weather, 7th level

2. Feeding 5,000 - Matthew 14:14-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-14
No easy D&D equivalent. Fun fact, though, the Bible specifically excludes women and children, so the actual number is almost certainly much higher than 5,000, most likely upwards of 20,000 (accounting for multiple wives, as was normal for the time, and lots of children, again, as was normal for the time)

3. Walking on water - Matthew 14:22-32; Mark 6:47-52; John 6:16-21
Water walk, 3rd level

4. Feeding 4,000 – Matthew 15:32-39; Mark 8:1-9
SEE 2

5. Fish with coin – Matthew 17:24-27
Prestidigitation, cantrip

6. Fig tree withers – Matthew 21:18-22; Mark 11:12-14, 20-25
This could be just about any spell that deals damage. For argument's sake, blight, 4th level

7. Huge catch of fish – Luke 5:4-11; John 21:1-11
No easy translation into D&D. One would think Jesus used sympathy, but it has a 1 hour casting time, but the Bible strongly implies that he did it in a matter of moments.

8. Water into wine – John 2:1-11
Polymorph any object, 8th level

Healing of Individuals
Most of Jesus' healing spells can be accomplished via remove curse or remove disease, both 3rd level spells. He was also able, however, to "heal" some individuals who were born with defects, such as the two blind men of Matthew 9:27-31. This, however, is probably within the limits of limited wish, a 7th level spell, and certainly within the limits of polymorph any object, an 8th level.

Resurrections
Jesus brought three people back from the dead: Jairus' daughter, the widow's son at Nain, and Lazarus of Bethany. Jairus' daughter had been dying the same day that Jairus asked Jesus to intercede and Jesus reaches her no more than a few hours after her death, so her death falls well within the limits of raise dead (5th level). The widow's son at Nain was already in a coffin and on his way to be buried; while we don't know precisely how long he had been dead, it's my understanding that Jewish tradition is to bury a dead family member within a week, so it's no more than 7 days - again, well within the limits of raise dead (which, being a 5th-level spell, can be used on a body up to 10 days after death). Lazarus was specifically mentioned to have been dead for four days by the time Jesus got to him - so, once again, well within the limits of raise dead.

Exorcisms
Jesus performed five exorcisms. This can be accomplished with exorcism, a 1st-level spell from Fiendish Codex I
Conclusion
Most of Jesus' spells suggest him to be a Cleric with the Weather domain, or else a Druid. His general spellcasting ability for Cleric spells puts him at least at 13th level as a Cleric, although his apparent access to prestidigitation and polymorph any object also suggests he's a sorcerer or wizard of at least 15th level. Possibly he's a Cleric 13/Sorcerer 15, though that seems like horrible optimization on Christ's part, even considering that it would put him in Epic, although Epic spells would explain some of his difficult-to-translate miracles. More likely he's a Cleric 15 (at least) that somehow convinced the DM - possibly by being the DM's son? :smalltongue: - to give him access to some wizard spells.

Ever notice how all of Jesus' miracles that don't involve healing, involve water in some way?

That's probably not related to his class so much as Jewish traditions and such regarding miracles, but I don't think I can go into them. Regardless, I think it would be preference as opposed to spell list.

Yora
2013-02-10, 08:13 PM
I big problem is that many heroes are demigods or at even gods. The Greek word Heros actually means "demigod". They are by definition off the scale.

The best indicator of character level is the ease with which the character defeats goblins, orcs, trolls, and giants (and their counterparts from cultures all over the world). Those are generally pretty uniform opponents in most mythologies and settings.

In some stories, Conan is described as extremely powerful. One says his entire army was annihilated to the last man and he was the only one standing, and the enemy elite soldiers could not get to him even if they attacked a dozen at a time, until a sorcerer paralyzed him. That would be quite high in D&D.
One problem is that there is no consensus about what "level" means, by either the players or the authors of the game. For example, Conan, an impressive but still more or less mundane hero, is listed as an epic barbarian in the ELH, while other people insist that an epic level character must be some sort of mythical demigod and you leave the realm of realism beyond before level 10. I believe Legends and Lore (2E) actually gives levels for a lot of mythical heroes, such as the knights of the round table, and iirc most are in the mid teens.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-02-10, 09:00 PM
Clearly you have missed something. The Alexandrian article you are attempting to criticise primarily bases its conclusions on the expected results of skill checks compared to real world results, not NPC demographics.
I'm not attempting to criticise the article, I mentioned it because it's oft cited but seldom thought through, although it is now clear that SowZ's point is not based on that article (not exclusively anyway).


Of course we analyze specific abilities, NPC demographics, and skill checks and such when trying to understand what levels of power in D&D mean within D&D. We just can't get that specific once we leave D&D. How is that contradictory? What I am saying is looking at BAB, saves, etc. could end us with a level estimate that is wildly inaccurate at pegging the actual power level of the character.
And what I'm saying is that such inaccuracies are more likely to demonstrate the futility of the exercise (or possibly faulty application of the relevant rules, someone posted earlier several feat combinations that could replicate Lancelot's "multiple attacks") than indicate the existence of an "actual power level" in D&D terms. The reason I'm arguing this point (against my better judgment, it would seem) is that I think the real world meaning of extra attacks from high BAB is a really interesting question, and I'd very much like to see a deeper exploration of it than "No, you can't take that into account, it'll give you wildly inaccurate estimates". Is Lancelot a level 8 character with a BAB of 15+?

awa
2013-02-10, 09:07 PM
with 15 bab and decent str he can reliably pin a charging bull.

Talakeal
2013-02-10, 10:57 PM
Another problem with judging a character based on "number of attacks" is there are so many ways to gain them beyond just a higher BaB. Cleave, Whirlwind attack, Flurry of Blows, Haste effects, the list goes on and on.

Scow2
2013-02-11, 12:06 AM
GAH!

A lot of historical/mythological characters CAN be above level 6, especially fighters, given their demonstrated durability and martial prowess. A fighter's levels aren't as spectacular as a wizard's - At level 15, they're not too far different than they were at level 6, except at a larger scale. And, most historical/mythical characters are undergeared for their 'level'.

As for skills - Probably horrific skill distribution as they 'level up' due to diminishing returns - Once you're able to reliably use your Jump skill, there's no reason to keep sinking points into it, and you can invest in Craft, Profession, Swim, etc. skills instead.

I don't like the blanket disregard for demigod characters, since there are some religions and mythologies that don't distinguish humans from gods.

TuggyNE
2013-02-11, 01:27 AM
For those curious, my hypothesis before starting the thread was that there are few or no unambiguous and well-known examples of "epic" characters (in the sense of being level 21+ in D&D, or whatever the equivalent is in other systems).


A lot of historical/mythological characters CAN be above level 6, especially fighters, given their demonstrated durability and martial prowess. A fighter's levels aren't as spectacular as a wizard's - At level 15, they're not too far different than they were at level 6, except at a larger scale. And, most historical/mythical characters are undergeared for their 'level'.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that; the only question is just how much higher (and whether any particular hero really needs to be statted as e.g. level 76).


I don't like the blanket disregard for demigod characters, since there are some religions and mythologies that don't distinguish humans from gods.

That's true, however it can be difficult to figure out the most sensible way to express such a character's stats in a rules-heavy system like D&D, since (in all probability) they really just need a custom template added, which makes their exact level quite tricky to figure out.

In other words, there's a methodology challenge for that.

Ashtagon
2013-02-11, 03:48 AM
And it is factually wrong. WOTC posted an article of their own which shows that several high-ranking real-world athletes are level 8 or more.

[citation needed]

darklink_shadow
2013-02-11, 04:05 AM
My two cents, for what it's worth:

Beowulf and his son? Nephew? Took down a dragon together. While other people have done some pretty awesome things, Beowulf was very old when he did this (venerable or older) so he had penalties to his strength and what not. So he would have had to have had a pretty beastly BaB to break the dragon's AC. Not only that, he died only just before the last strike to kill the dragon, so either he had some crazy health points, or he did some crazy damage, or both. Either way, high level. The person with him was a much weaker, lowly little bugger, if memory serves me well, so he must have rolled a pair of nat 20's just to have crit it, which he would have needed to do in order to really do any damage to this dragon, let alone finish it off. All in all, I think Beowulf mostly solo'd the beast. Based on it's poison, it was probably a black dragon, despite it's scale color.

BUT Gilgamesh did all sorts of crazy God-Like stunts. I see that has been covered in detail. So I will let it go.

However, the guy that really takes the cake for me? Bard the Bowman from the Lord of the Rings. He one shot a dragon. With one arrow. You tell me what needs to happen for a guy to do that! He's the highest level character ever, I think. Probably way post epic.

HunterOfJello
2013-02-11, 04:20 AM
Sun WuKong the Monkey King would probably be something like an Unarmed Swordsage 20 at the least. He would also need a big LA and some RHD for all his natural abilities.

Beowulf would definitely have a high level since he ripped a troll apart with his bare hands and went around fighting dragons on his own.

Achilles and some of his allies and enemies would probably have decent levels too.



However, the guy that really takes the cake for me? Bard the Bowman from the Lord of the Rings. He one shot a dragon. With one arrow. You tell me what needs to happen for a guy to do that! He's the highest level character ever, I think. Probably way post epic.


Bard the Bowman used his 'special' Black Arrow to shoot down Smaug. The arrow was made by dwarven smiths and most likely a Slaying Arrow designed for killing dragons or somesuch. Smaug probably just rolled a 1 on his saving throw after he had finally been pierced by an arrow capable of harming him at all.


~

*edit*

Orpheus was probably a pretty high level bard for his Perform skill to be so high that he made Hades himself cry and take pity upon him.

darklink_shadow
2013-02-11, 04:38 AM
Bard the Bowman used his 'special' Black Arrow to shoot down Smaug. The arrow was made by dwarven smiths and most likely a Slaying Arrow designed for killing dragons or somesuch. Smaug probably just rolled a 1 on his saving throw after he had finally been pierced by an arrow capable of harming him at all.

I counter with this: Dwarves had no magic at the time. Unless it was made in ages long ago, it could not have been a Slaying Arrow. I believe it was just an adamantite equivalent arrow, or something. Simply made from the best of metals. Or you could just say "**** you" to his heroic deed and say Smaug rolled poorly, but even then Bard hit a dragon high in flight, probably far out of his range increment, but he wasn't targeting a dragon, he was targeting the equivalent to a dragon's scale (in this case the lack there of) at this range.

So for your situation to happen, Bard need to rolled a natural 20, Smaug a natural 1, and the arrow needed to be tens of thousands of years old. The rolls alone are 1/400, and that isn't with the insane odds of having such an old arrow.

My situation just requires a high level. MAYBE, you're right. But even in your situation, I still think the guy is a high level to hit the dragon's missing scale.

Sith_Happens
2013-02-11, 04:54 AM
I counter with this: Dwarves had no magic at the time. Unless it was made in ages long ago, it could not have been a Slaying Arrow. I believe it was just an adamantite equivalent arrow, or something. Simply made from the best of metals. Or you could just say "**** you" to his heroic deed and say Smaug rolled poorly, but even then Bard hit a dragon high in flight, probably far out of his range increment, but he wasn't targeting a dragon, he was targeting the equivalent to a dragon's scale (in this case the lack there of) at this range.

So for your situation to happen, Bard need to rolled a natural 20, Smaug a natural 1, and the arrow needed to be tens of thousands of years old. The rolls alone are 1/400, and that isn't with the insane odds of having such an old arrow.

My situation just requires a high level. MAYBE, you're right. But even in your situation, I still think the guy is a high level to hit the dragon's missing scale.

It was definitely the arrow itself that did the killing (Slaying Arrow-style), given the large amount of text spent specifically describing its uncanny ability/tendency to one-shot things.

Hitting with the arrow was all Bard, though.

darklink_shadow
2013-02-11, 04:58 AM
It was definitely the arrow itself that did the killing (Slaying Arrow-style), given the large amount of text spent specifically describing its uncanny ability/tendency to one-shot things.

Hitting with the arrow was all Bard, though.

I relent. I do remember the bit about the arrow being a nasty little instant killer, I had forgotten that completely. My mistake.

Ashtagon
2013-02-11, 05:16 AM
My two cents, for what it's worth:

Beowulf and his son? Nephew? Took down a dragon together. While other people have done some pretty awesome things, Beowulf was very old when he did this (venerable or older) so he had penalties to his strength and what not. So he would have had to have had a pretty beastly BaB to break the dragon's AC. Not only that, he died only just before the last strike to kill the dragon, so either he had some crazy health points, or he did some crazy damage, or both. Either way, high level. The person with him was a much weaker, lowly little bugger, if memory serves me well, so he must have rolled a pair of nat 20's just to have crit it, which he would have needed to do in order to really do any damage to this dragon, let alone finish it off. All in all, I think Beowulf mostly solo'd the beast. Based on it's poison, it was probably a black dragon, despite it's scale color.

BUT Gilgamesh did all sorts of crazy God-Like stunts. I see that has been covered in detail. So I will let it go.

However, the guy that really takes the cake for me? Bard the Bowman from the Lord of the Rings. He one shot a dragon. With one arrow. You tell me what needs to happen for a guy to do that! He's the highest level character ever, I think. Probably way post epic.

Counterpoint: "venerable" in the era of Beowulf meant a person in their late 40s or older, still inside the "middle age" category for D&D (ie. no modifiers). Even the most notable "venerable" person of all time, Bede, died aged 62 (midpoint of D&D "old").

OverdrivePrime
2013-02-11, 10:42 AM
I'm glad to see the love for Beowulf. Dude swam around in full chain, fighting sea serpents, bare-handed a troll with a DM special template, took out it's DM special templated Hag mother, and did not give one rootin' toot about fighting dragons.


Counterpoint: "venerable" in the era of Beowulf meant a person in their late 40s or older, still inside the "middle age" category for D&D (ie. no modifiers). Even the most notable "venerable" person of all time, Bede, died aged 62 (midpoint of D&D "old").

Not entirely true. For royal males who avoided death by disease or war it wasn't shockingly uncommon to make it into their 60s. [Short, interesting article.] (http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/life-expectancy-in-the-middle-ages/)

Additionally, the fight with the dragon is supposed to be some fifty years after the fight with Grendel's mother, which by my estimate pushes Beowulf up to at least 73, probably older. Wieglaf was just some geek-off-the-street nephew of his with the courage to actually stay and fight. He might have provided some aid-another bonuses to the fight but not much else.

Yora
2013-02-11, 11:34 AM
The biggest obstacle at getting old was making it to 5. Once you got there your life expectancy increased significantly.

Ashtagon
2013-02-11, 12:05 PM
I'm glad to see the love for Beowulf. Dude swam around in full chain, fighting sea serpents, bare-handed a troll with a DM special template, took out it's DM special templated Hag mother, and did not give one rootin' toot about fighting dragons.



Not entirely true. For royal males who avoided death by disease or war it wasn't shockingly uncommon to make it into their 60s. [Short, interesting article.] (http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/life-expectancy-in-the-middle-ages/)


All of that data post-dates Beowulf by several centuries. It'd be like trying to predict modern life expectancies from 18th century data.

Tanuki Tales
2013-02-11, 01:01 PM
Sun WuKong the Monkey King would probably be something like an Unarmed Swordsage 20 at the least. He would also need a big LA and some RHD for all his natural abilities.

And something like the Quasi-Deity template or Saint template or something else for his Buddha-hood.

But how exactly does Swordsage account for his ability to leap 33,554 miles in one somersault?

It'd make more sense if he was an Arcane Unarmed Swordsage 20.

Scow2
2013-02-11, 01:18 PM
That's true, however it can be difficult to figure out the most sensible way to express such a character's stats in a rules-heavy system like D&D, since (in all probability) they really just need a custom template added, which makes their exact level quite tricky to figure out.

In other words, there's a methodology challenge for that.

Actually - Just their level. After level 15 in D&D, you're practically the equivalent of a mythological demigod. D&D has rules for handling deifically-empowered characters that don't require stupid templates. OR, just give them Divine Rank 0.

Or you know you're dealing with someone at least level 20, and more likely 40.

Actually Legendary characters in D&D are at least level 11, as per Legend Lore.

Raimun
2013-02-11, 01:54 PM
Minimal damage in this case being a 2.7351112e-14 percent chance.

The real question is "How many people did that lady murder, in order to reach high level?"

I'm sure at least 50 people in history have fallen from the sky at terminal velocity. This was bound to happen sooner or later.

OverdrivePrime
2013-02-11, 02:28 PM
All of that data post-dates Beowulf by several centuries. It'd be like trying to predict modern life expectancies from 18th century data.

True enough. Reasonable analysis suggests that Beowulf took place around the fifth or sixth century. However, this was not long after the fall of the Roman empire. Health and medical knowledge from the Romans could have spread to the Danes and Geats.

In any case, we're going by the literary character. The poem states that fifty years had passed since Beowulf took the throne. And unless Beowulf had become a leader of his people and accomplished all of his great feats before he was 20, that puts him in his 70s, at least.

Beleriphon
2013-02-11, 02:28 PM
How about any of the Eight Immortals? As individuals they do things like turn invisible at will, become immune to poison, are immune to heat and cold and a whole host of other things. I think they all count, they gained their abilities through awesome meditation and stuff.

SowZ
2013-02-11, 02:45 PM
I'm glad to see the love for Beowulf. Dude swam around in full chain, fighting sea serpents, bare-handed a troll with a DM special template, took out it's DM special templated Hag mother, and did not give one rootin' toot about fighting dragons.



Not entirely true. For royal males who avoided death by disease or war it wasn't shockingly uncommon to make it into their 60s. [Short, interesting article.] (http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/life-expectancy-in-the-middle-ages/)

Additionally, the fight with the dragon is supposed to be some fifty years after the fight with Grendel's mother, which by my estimate pushes Beowulf up to at least 73, probably older. Wieglaf was just some geek-off-the-street nephew of his with the courage to actually stay and fight. He might have provided some aid-another bonuses to the fight but not much else.

Yeah, if the whole 'average life span was late thirties' was true it was because so many people never made it to adulthood. Not because you weren't expected to make it to your fifties/sixties if you did become an adult. Beowulf being in his seventies would have been somewhat impressive, but certainly not supernatural.

hamishspence
2013-02-11, 03:15 PM
And it is factually wrong. WOTC posted an article of their own which shows that several high-ranking real-world athletes are level 8 or more.

I'm having trouble tracking it down. What kind of athletes was it- archer/shotput etc, or something else?

Raimun
2013-02-11, 03:22 PM
Vδinδmφinen. He could cast magic by singing and I'd say many of the effects were at least close to 5th or 6th level spells in power... and the most extreme songs were even more powerful. He once put a whole army to sleep with one spell.

Basically like a very high level Bard/[Something/Etc.]. :smalltongue:

He is pretty much a god but he's also the protagonist of Kalevala. You could say that he doesn't count but there aren't stories about adventures of Zeus or Odin.

hamishspence
2013-02-11, 03:27 PM
Wasn't he the guy who crafted a mill that grinds out silver, gold, and salt non-stop- the first two parts of the mill were smashed in a storm, whereupon they threw the mill overboard- and that's why the sea is salty?

Raimun
2013-02-11, 03:30 PM
Wasn't he the guy who crafted a mill that grinds out silver, gold, and salt non-stop- the first two parts of the mill were smashed in a storm, whereupon they threw the mill overboard- and that's why the sea is salty?

That was his brother, Ilmarinen. He also made an artificial woman made of silver and gold.

hamishspence
2013-02-11, 03:31 PM
The legend and the name stuck in my head from when I was young- just didn't put the two together correctly.

Talakeal
2013-02-11, 03:35 PM
I'm sure at least 50 people in history have fallen from the sky at terminal velocity. This was bound to happen sooner or later.

That's not 2%. That's .0000000000002%.

Still, that is only if she needed to take minimum damage to survive. If she is a level 2 or 3 commoner with a good con, good HD rolls, and who makes her role to stabilize from dying she can survive with simply a very low damage roll, significantly more likely than absolute minimum.


Also, Beowulf was said to have the strength of 30 men. Judging by the carrying capacity tables one would need to have a strength in the mid 30s. Such a strength probably mattered a lot more than his level. Still, how a character would get such a strength is unknown. I would suggest he probably had a custom prestige class that was a cross between raging barbarian and war hulk rather than simply attributing his strength to being level 40.

Raimun
2013-02-11, 03:41 PM
That's not 2%. That's .0000000000002%.

Still, that is only if she needed to take minimum damage to survive. If she is a level 2 or 3 commoner with a good con, good HD rolls, and who makes her role to stabilize from dying she can survive with simply a very low damage roll, significantly more likely than absolute minimum.

Oh, right. I kind of read that in hurry.

Your theory is better anyway.

Talakeal
2013-02-11, 04:51 PM
I counter with this: Dwarves had no magic at the time. Unless it was made in ages long ago, it could not have been a Slaying Arrow. I believe it was just an adamantite equivalent arrow, or something. Simply made from the best of metals. Or you could just say "**** you" to his heroic deed and say Smaug rolled poorly, but even then Bard hit a dragon high in flight, probably far out of his range increment, but he wasn't targeting a dragon, he was targeting the equivalent to a dragon's scale (in this case the lack there of) at this range.



I am pretty sure the dwarves of Erebor were making many magic items, including the black arrow. Remember, in Middle Earth there is no clear distinction between magic and advanced science. One of the lines from the dwarf's song in the Hobbit it "The dwarves of yore made mighty spells while hammers fell like ringing bells" implying that atleast they thought some of their crafts were magical in nature.

A Tad Insane
2013-02-11, 05:13 PM
Wukong. I always thought it was over kill to send the guy who more or less destroyed all of heaven by himself to guard a guy getting some scrolls

123456789blaaa
2013-02-11, 05:54 PM
[citation needed]


I'm having trouble tracking it down. What kind of athletes was it- archer/shotput etc, or something else?

I believe he was talking about this (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2) excellent article.

Tanuki Tales
2013-02-11, 06:33 PM
Wukong. I always thought it was over kill to send the guy who more or less destroyed all of heaven by himself to guard a guy getting some scrolls

Sun Wukong has been mentioned several times and we're still debating whether he counts at all. Both Post and Pre Buddhahood.

Talakeal
2013-02-11, 07:37 PM
I believe he was talking about this (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2) excellent article.

Quite the opposite actually. The op was talking about an official WoTC article which contradicted the Alexandrian by setting the bar for "normal humans" significantly higher.

Beleriphon
2013-02-11, 08:10 PM
Wukong. I always thought it was over kill to send the guy who more or less destroyed all of heaven by himself to guard a guy getting some scrolls

I fairness he did get beset by demons that even the Monkey King had trouble fending off on occasion.

Tanuki Tales
2013-02-11, 08:30 PM
I fairness he did get beset by demons that even the Monkey King had trouble fending off on occasion.

And it was a redemption/penance thing too. As well as to just get Sun Wukong out of Heaven's collective hair.

Ashtagon
2013-02-12, 12:32 AM
I believe he was talking about this (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2) excellent article.

No. He mentioned a WotC article, not the Alexandrian article.

hamishspence
2013-02-12, 07:14 AM
Might be interesting to think of big game hunters like Lord John Roxton (The Lost World) or Allan Quatermain (King Solomon's Mines)- just how high level do you have to be to have a decent chance of one-hit-killing an elephant with an elephant gun? I'm guessing Sneak Attack would play a big part.

If you want to go one step beyond that, there's whalers like Starbuck, Flask and Stubb, from a certain Herman Melville work- what do they need to be, to take out a (exhausted, possibly flanked) sperm whale with one lance strike?

Ashtagon
2013-02-12, 07:25 AM
Might be interesting to think of big game hunters like Lord John Roxton (The Lost World) or Allan Quatermain (King Solomon's Mines)- just how high level do you have to be to have a decent chance of one-hit-killing an elephant with an elephant gun? I'm guessing Sneak Attack would play a big part.

If you want to go one step beyond that, there's whalers like Starbuck, Flask and Stubb, from a certain Herman Melville work- what do they need to be, to take out a (exhausted, possibly flanked) sperm whale with one lance strike?

If they were playing d20 Modern, all that needs to happen is the elephant fails a Fort save.

hamishspence
2013-02-12, 08:20 AM
Against massive damage- yes- but how much damage would it take for the probability of failing that save to be satisfactorily high?

In D&D the massive damage threshold is higher- 50 damage, and as I understand, it's more like 10 damage in D20 Modern?

comicshorse
2013-02-12, 08:53 AM
Might be interesting to think of big game hunters like Lord John Roxton (The Lost World) or Allan Quatermain (King Solomon's Mines)- just how high level do you have to be to have a decent chance of one-hit-killing an elephant with an elephant gun? I'm guessing Sneak Attack would play a big part.

If you want to go one step beyond that, there's whalers like Starbuck, Flask and Stubb, from a certain Herman Melville work- what do they need to be, to take out a (exhausted, possibly flanked) sperm whale with one lance strike?

Or Colonel Sebastian Moran 'the second most dangerous man in London' and his employer Professor James Moriarty or Sherlock Holmes himself

Dienekes
2013-02-12, 09:34 AM
Or Colonel Sebastian Moran 'the second most dangerous man in London' and his employer Professor James Moriarty or Sherlock Holmes himself

Always been a bit disappointed by Sebastian to be honest. Second most dangerous man in London and he... cheats at cards. That's his big thing. When compared to Moriarty the man who ran a criminal empire the likes of which had never been seen before he comes up rather short.

Also if we're going to use skill checks to determine level, I'm curious how Sherlock would fit with his rather insane Search and Notice skills.

razorback
2013-02-12, 09:40 AM
I'm sure at least 50 people in history have fallen from the sky at terminal velocity. This was bound to happen sooner or later.
Like this guy (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2196331/British-skydiver-Liam-Dunne-survives-13-000ft-fall-New-Zealand-parachute-fails-open.html)?
Admittedly he landed in a bog. Plus the tattoo of Feather Fall helps.

comicshorse
2013-02-12, 11:08 AM
Always been a bit disappointed by Sebastian to be honest. Second most dangerous man in London and he... cheats at cards. That's his big thing. When compared to Moriarty the man who ran a criminal empire the likes of which had never been seen before he comes up rather short.

Also if we're going to use skill checks to determine level, I'm curious how Sherlock would fit with his rather insane Search and Notice skills.

To be fair to Moran he also kills people its just cheating at cards is a more regular source of income

Ashtagon
2013-02-12, 11:55 AM
Against massive damage- yes- but how much damage would it take for the probability of failing that save to be satisfactorily high?

In D&D the massive damage threshold is higher- 50 damage, and as I understand, it's more like 10 damage in D20 Modern?

It's a flat DC 15 Fort save if your MDT is triggered. The MDT is equal to your Constitution score, modified by the Improved Damage Threshold feat (+3 for each time you take the feat). Note that being of larger size does not affect your MDT.

Elephants aren't actually stated in d20 Modern, but the D&D SRD has them as Con 21, 104 hp, Fort save +12.

Looking at the weapons list, you're going to need to double-tap (+1 die of damage), so 3d10 with a hunting rifle (Winchester 94), get a lucky roll for 21+ hp damage (22% chance), then the elephant gets a 10% chance of failing the save and dropping instantly.

Frozen_Feet
2013-02-12, 11:56 AM
Sun Wukong has been mentioned several times and we're still debating whether he counts at all. Both Post and Pre Buddhahood.

To be frank, I don't understand why he wouldn't count. Or why we should be excluding divinely empowered characters or gods. D&D has rules for those, you know. There's no such restriction in the OP, it only started with the second poster.

If you want an honest answer to the question posed by the title, Wukong is pretty close. It is impossible to model all his feats without venturing far into epic levels. This is the guy who single-handedly defeated heaven's armies, and escaped several Imprisonment-style punishments, before Buddha nailed him. (And even then, he got away after he Atoned.)

Tanuki Tales
2013-02-12, 12:35 PM
To be frank, I don't understand why he wouldn't count. Or why we should be excluding divinely empowered characters or gods. D&D has rules for those, you know. There's no such restriction in the OP, it only started with the second poster.

It's on page three, but Tug at least gives a nod towards the demi-godal/divine should be precluded from this exercise:


That's true, however it can be difficult to figure out the most sensible way to express such a character's stats in a rules-heavy system like D&D, since (in all probability) they really just need a custom template added, which makes their exact level quite tricky to figure out.

In other words, there's a methodology challenge for that.


If you want an honest answer to the question posed by the title, Wukong is pretty close. It is impossible to model all his feats without venturing far into epic levels. This is the guy who single-handedly defeated heaven's armies, and escaped several Imprisonment-style punishments, before Buddha nailed him. (And even then, he got away after he Atoned.)

Oh, without a doubt, Sun Wukong is one of the crazier non-outright gods in mythology. And even then he can give some of the weaker gods quite the run for their money.

hamishspence
2013-02-13, 03:24 AM
It's a flat DC 15 Fort save if your MDT is triggered. The MDT is equal to your Constitution score, modified by the Improved Damage Threshold feat (+3 for each time you take the feat). Note that being of larger size does not affect your MDT.

Elephants aren't actually stated in d20 Modern, but the D&D SRD has them as Con 21, 104 hp, Fort save +12.

Looking at the weapons list, you're going to need to double-tap (+1 die of damage), so 3d10 with a hunting rifle (Winchester 94), get a lucky roll for 21+ hp damage (22% chance), then the elephant gets a 10% chance of failing the save and dropping instantly.

They're statted in Urban Arcana- same stats as the SRD.

Where's the hunting rifle statted? The closest I could find was the buffalo rifle from D20 Past, which does 2D12 damage- same as the Barrett Light Fifty sniper rifle.

A 10% chance is not good- which was why I figured that the hunters who can consistently drop an elephant in one shot must have a whole lot of Sneak Attack.

Ashtagon
2013-02-13, 05:55 AM
They're statted in Urban Arcana- same stats as the SRD.

Where's the hunting rifle statted? The closest I could find was the buffalo rifle from D20 Past, which does 2D12 damage- same as the Barrett Light Fifty sniper rifle.

A 10% chance is not good- which was why I figured that the hunters who can consistently drop an elephant in one shot must have a whole lot of Sneak Attack.

Hunting rifle is stated in core; base damage is 2d10, double tap (or some equivalent feat) raises that to 3d10.

Assuming they double-tap and roll max damage, they'd need 12d6 of sneak attack (again, rolling max damage) to down an elephant in one shot by damage alone. The odds of getting this damage roll is (1/10)^3 x (1/6)^12.

That much sneak attack would imply a level 23 rogue in D&D; in d20 Modern, it simply isn't possible to my knowledge to get that much sneak attack (Modern lacks epic rules entirely. 9d6 is the most SA you could theoretically gain iirc).

Conclusion: it's easier to down an elephant by massive damage than by sneak attack.

Edit: didn't take critical hits into account.

If we do, the 3d10 becomes 6d10, so 94.85% chance of triggering the massive damage save. But the elephant still saves 90% of the time.

Fun fact: it's easier to take down a tank.

hamishspence
2013-02-13, 06:30 AM
Are there any archer or crossbow builds that can be optimised for high damage, without magic, and the appropriate feats converted to gun feats?

Maybe Death Attack via an assassin-type PRC might work better.

Kurald Galain
2013-02-13, 08:18 AM
I believe he was talking about this (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2) excellent article.

No I wasn't, and neither is there any excellence to that article. Sure, it went memetic on the internet and it sounds compelling, but it is poorly researched and incorrect as a result.

For example, WOTC states (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060120a) that "the best Olympic archers are 7th-level rangers, based on their accuracy against a Fine, stationary target 230 feet away and some reasonable assumptions about feat choices. Weightlifter Shane Hamman? Str 23, based on his snatch weight."

One of our local users has written a sound rebuttal (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73839), pointing out that Justin overlooks the point that making a new contribution addition to science is not something that only Einstein can do, but is in fact the exact requirement for a PhD. Now check how many of those we have in the world.

Ashtagon
2013-02-13, 09:06 AM
No I wasn't, and neither is there any excellence to that article. Sure, it went memetic on the internet and it sounds compelling, but it is poorly researched and incorrect as a result.

For example, WOTC states (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060120a) that "the best Olympic archers are 7th-level rangers, based on their accuracy against a Fine, stationary target 230 feet away and some reasonable assumptions about feat choices. Weightlifter Shane Hamman? Str 23, based on his snatch weight."

One of our local users has written a sound rebuttal (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73839), pointing out that Justin overlooks the point that making a new contribution addition to science is not something that only Einstein can do, but is in fact the exact requirement for a PhD. Now check how many of those we have in the world.

Oh, THAT article.

Well, Dave Noonan starts off by talking out of the wrong orifice, and it goes badly downhill from there.

Bow ranges. He finds 400-foot archery ranges to be tooth-grinding. He says, "Incidentally, I’m not disputing that a bow is capable of launching an arrow that far. But doing so requires a high, arcing ballistic trajectory that owes a lot more to artillery than traditional archery." I would want to note that ARCHery wasn't called that because they expected the arrows to fly in straight lines. When they aimed "high", they knew what they were doing. Even over a 30-yard range (the usable length of an indoor sports hall), there will be a very noticeable arching of the shot.

One kind of tournament archery is called clout archery. For men, the target is set 180 yards (540 feet) away. The "bullseye" is a circle three feet in diameter, which is a reasonable enough approximation of the burlier kind of human; at a range of 400 feet (Dave's cited "tooth-grinding" range), it is proportionately equivalent to a circle just over two feet in diameter, which is definitely a human-size target. So given that this is a target size and range used in actual real-world tournaments, his criticism is ludicrous.

Those Olympic archers?

Touch AC: 21 (Fine size +16, Dexterity zero -5)

230 ft range increment -4 attack
BAB bonus: +6 at level 6
Weapon Focus: +1 attack
Ranger bonus feats: (2nd) Rapid Shot, (6th) Manyshot: no practical benefit
nb. Greater Weapon Focus would require fighter level 8.
Taking 20 on each shot not allowed for under RAW.

At level 6, our hero has a +3 bonus, giving him a 15% chance of a bullseye with each shot, rising to 20% at level 7. Actual statistical data from the mens results suggests 95% of shots hit a bullseye in the quarter finals and later stages. This is plainly much better than a ranger level 7 should be able to achieve.

I'm not aware of any core feats not accounted for that would improve the attack roll. There ought to be a substantial bonus on the attack roll for the aiming they do and the sights on modern archery bows, but that isn't accounted for in D&D at all.

Conclusion: D&D doesn't account for some pretty obvious stuff (sights, taking time to aim) that really should be when considering Olympics results.

So, yeah (http://editthis.info/tv_tropes/So..._Yeah).

Kurald Galain
2013-02-13, 09:09 AM
At level 6, our hero has a +3 bonus, giving him a 15% chance of a bullseye with each shot, rising to 20% at level 7. Actual statistical data from the mens results suggests 95% of shots hit a bullseye in the quarter finals and later stages. This is plainly much better than a ranger level 7 should be able to achieve.
Yes. That underlines my point that well-trained humans are easily capable of things that 5th-level D&D characters are not. This clearly disproves the common misconception that everybody in real life is level 5 or less.

Morph Bark
2013-02-13, 09:12 AM
Since when is a human-sized target Fine-sized and can one take 20 on attack rolls? :smallconfused:

Ashtagon
2013-02-13, 09:15 AM
Yes. That underlines my point that well-trained humans are easily capable of things that 5th-level D&D characters are not. This clearly disproves the common misconception that everybody in real life is level 5 or less.

No, it underlines that D&D doesn't consider the fact that modern archers use adjustable sights, finely balanced bows, precisely measured ranges, practice at pre-measured ranges of the same distance, and take a minute per shot to aim. Between all that, they should easily be able to make the shot.


Since when is a human-sized target Fine-sized and can one take 20 on attack rolls? :smallconfused:

I meant that the bullseye they were aiming at is Fine size. And D&D doesn't allow taking 20 on attack rolls. Certainly, Olympic archers don't shoot 20 times and count the best one.

Seriously, you trust the word of Dave Noonan after he demonstrates that he doesn't know why why archery even got the name?

Kurald Galain
2013-02-13, 09:17 AM
No, it underlines that D&D doesn't consider the fact that modern archers use adjustable sights, finely balanced bows, precisely measured ranges, practice at pre-measured ranges of the same distance, and take a minute per shot to aim.

If the conclusion is that D&D cannot accurately model real life (which I agree with) then that still disproves the common misconception that all people IRL are level 5 or less.

Ashtagon
2013-02-13, 09:26 AM
If the conclusion is that D&D cannot accurately model real life (which I agree with) then that still disproves the common misconception that all people IRL are level 5 or less.

Well, yeah. Within the limits of a bow's physical range, accuracy will halve each time distance is multiplied by 1.41 (root of 2). Instead, accuracy drops 10% each time distance increases by an arbitrary amount. Plainly no correlation with reality.

Morph Bark
2013-02-13, 09:31 AM
While he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about (seriously, the most of the range of a bow is gotten out of not shooting straight ahead), I have to admit I never thought about where the name came from. Then again, English isn't my first language and in my mother tongue we (translating literally) call it bowshooting.

On account of range, here (http://www.worldrecordacademy.com/sports/longest_bow_and_arrow_shot_world_record_set_by_Zak _Crawford_101831.htm) is a world record for distance without a target, coming in at around 500 meters (which is, what, 1666 ft?), and I found this old forum post (http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=177280) that has a link that doesn't work for me that apparently talks about the record shot with a target at 303 ft.

So the range for a bow can be much greater (distance bows), but hitting with them at that range is much, much harder. Though I would love to see someone able to hit something at the max range of a bow, especially if the target and/or the shooter is moving.

hamishspence
2013-02-13, 09:50 AM
At level 6, our hero has a +3 bonus, giving him a 15% chance of a bullseye with each shot, rising to 20% at level 7. Actual statistical data from the mens results suggests 95% of shots hit a bullseye in the quarter finals and later stages. This is plainly much better than a ranger level 7 should be able to achieve.

I'm not aware of any core feats not accounted for that would improve the attack roll. There ought to be a substantial bonus on the attack roll for the aiming they do and the sights on modern archery bows, but that isn't accounted for in D&D at all.

Conclusion: D&D doesn't account for some pretty obvious stuff (sights, taking time to aim) that really should be when considering Olympics results.

Actually, you can spend a full round action to aim- giving you a +5 bonus on your next shot.

"finely balanced bow" - masterwork.

And so forth.

Ashtagon
2013-02-13, 09:53 AM
Actually, you can spend a full round action to aim- giving you a +5 bonus on your next shot.

"finely balanced bow" - masterwork.

And so forth.

I'd want a cite for that +5 aiming bonus. Bear in mind, WotC only, and being generous, not just SRD, but any WotC source that predates the article in question (20/Jan/2006).

Masterwork adds +1, fair enough.

Even with both of those counted, it means the hypothetical level 7 ranger is still only hitting 50% of the time, not 95% as the actual scores would suggest.

Clawhound
2013-02-13, 09:55 AM
I can't believe that no one has mentioned either Elric (crazy powerful warrior-wizard), or any character from the Chronicles of Amber, especially Oberon.

IMHO, any character that does their crazy-powerful stuff before becoming a god counts as a mortal. So Sun Wukong definitely belong in the top 10 list of crazy-powerful heroes. Everything AFTER becoming a god counts as being a god.

Finally, let's not forget Tarkin from Star Wars. He destroyed an entire planet. Who can beat that? He was such a high level that the Death Star was his class feature.

OverdrivePrime
2013-02-13, 10:08 AM
I completely agree that said olympic archers are most definitely higher than 7th level.

However, don't forget to factor in (or at least attempt to) their equipment bonuses. Those are highly specialized bows they're using, the pinnacle of modern bow technology, and are finely tuned to the individual using them. That's gotta be worth at least a 'masterwork' bonus, and probably a few things beyond that. I'd count them as having the "distance" enchantment, doubling their effective range increment.

And don't forget that competitive archers like this probably all have the far shot feat. Combining that with the 'distance' property of their several-thousand-dollar bows, I think we can ignore the range penalty at 230 feet.

So our 7th level archer has a +7 to hit AC 21? I don't think this guy is going to even qualify for the national team. What if he had a dexterity of 16?
That brings it up to a +10. Still not enough to hit the target reliably.

So... maybe these olympians and the others who put similar dedication into their work are truly special, very high level individuals.
Or maybe they're all psychics and dump huge amounts of power points into Offensive Precognition (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/precognitionOffensive.htm). :smallconfused:

Yora
2013-02-13, 10:20 AM
Shoting targets in an event is something completely different from shoting at people enganged in battle. I think most athletic archers would show much less accurate results under such conditions.

IMHO, any character that does their crazy-powerful stuff before becoming a god counts as a mortal. So Sun Wukong definitely belong in the top 10 list of crazy-powerful heroes. Everything AFTER becoming a god counts as being a god.
I am quite certain that he is an adaptation of Hanuman, who in the original sources is a full fledged god who performs stunts that are outrageous even for them.

hamishspence
2013-02-13, 10:23 AM
How about animal hunting? A moving animal isn't something with a known range- you have to estimate the range. And it's not an object so no AC penalty.

Are there real hunters that average a 95% accuracy at 100-odd feet with a bow? Or an airgun?

Ashtagon
2013-02-13, 10:46 AM
I completely agree that said olympic archers are most definitely higher than 7th level.

However, don't forget to factor in (or at least attempt to) their equipment bonuses. Those are highly specialized bows they're using, the pinnacle of modern bow technology, and are finely tuned to the individual using them. That's gotta be worth at least a 'masterwork' bonus, and probably a few things beyond that. I'd count them as having the "distance" enchantment, doubling their effective range increment.

And don't forget that competitive archers like this probably all have the far shot feat. Combining that with the 'distance' property of their several-thousand-dollar bows, I think we can ignore the range penalty at 230 feet.

So our 7th level archer has a +7 to hit AC 21? I don't think this guy is going to even qualify for the national team. What if he had a dexterity of 16?
That brings it up to a +10. Still not enough to hit the target reliably.

So... maybe these olympians and the others who put similar dedication into their work are truly special, very high level individuals.
Or maybe they're all psychics and dump huge amounts of power points into Offensive Precognition (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/precognitionOffensive.htm). :smallconfused:

Okay, pretty sure their bows aren't actually magical, what with magic not actually existing in the real worlds. I suspect magic is probably banned under the Olympic rules anyway.

But I'll give them Far Shot. And a +4 bonus for Dexterity. That gives an additional +6 on their roll. With the masterwork bow, +7. So now our 7th level dude is at a 55% chance of matching Olympic results.

Bump him up to 8th level, and the greater weapon focus feat becomes available, making him hit 70%. By 13th level, he is matching Olympic standards, unless I'm missing something.

hamishspence
2013-02-13, 10:54 AM
There's a minitemplate in DMG2- "Prodigy" granting +2 to a stat, and on top of that a +4 bonus to ability checks, skill checks, etc relating to that stat.

So you could boost the Olympic-class archer's Dexterity by an extra couple of points.

Kornaki
2013-02-13, 10:56 AM
Level 7 archer: +7 BAB, +4 dexterity, +1 masterwork bow

There seems to be some terminology confusion when I tried to decide what exactly is a bullseye, a 10 or just hitting the yellow circle. I'm assuming it's hitting the yellow circle because if you hit a 10 95% of the time you would crush the world record (unless you just missed the target entirely). Plus hitting yellow 95% of the time with a uniform distribution inside of it gives a score which seems pretty accurate compared to what olmympics archers typicaly get.

So if you have to hit the yellow circle (9 or 10 points), which has a diameter of 9.6 inches

A fine creature has a height of 6 inches or less, so I would call this a diminutive target. 0 dexterity, +4 AC. Note a fine creature only gets +8 AC, not +16.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm

So if you're hitting a diminutive target, you have to hit a 9AC, a fine target, 13 AC. If you're getting a +11 to your attack roll (+7 BAB, weapon focus, masterwork weapon, +4 dexterity, -2 for one range increment because these bows are probably better than the bows in the PHB, or because of the far shot feat) then you have a 95% chance of hitting the diminutive target (only missing on a 1) and a 90% chance of scoring a 10

If you assume 90% of the time you hit a 10, 5 % of the time you get a 9 and the extra 5% is an 8 you would break the world record. So this level 7 ranger is the best archer in the history of the world perhaps

Kurald Galain
2013-02-13, 10:59 AM
There seems to be some terminology confusion when I tried to decide what exactly is a bullseye, a 10 or just hitting the yellow circle.
The bullseye is the innermost part, not the circle around it. So your calculations are incorrect.

Squark
2013-02-13, 11:16 AM
To be fair, a modern bow also has advantages in construction the regular D&D bow doesn't.

Kornaki
2013-02-13, 11:36 AM
The bullseye is the innermost part, not the circle around it. So your calculations are incorrect.

OK then they don't hit the bullseye 95% of the time (because if they did the world record olympics score would not be what it is). The fine AC is still +8 not +16 from the SRD so that ranger still has a 90% chance of hitting the actual bullseye.

Except looking back at my post if he rolls a 2 he hits so he has a 95% chance of hitting the bullseye

hamishspence
2013-02-13, 11:42 AM
I'd want a cite for that +5 aiming bonus. Bear in mind, WotC only, and being generous, not just SRD, but any WotC source that predates the article in question (20/Jan/2006).

I've found the Aiming At Objects rules:

Page 165 PHB:
"An object's Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier + its Dexterity Modifier. An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (-5 penalty to AC) but also an additional -2 penalty to AC. Furthermore, if you take a full round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon."

I'm guessing that "inanimate" refers to objects that are stationary, as well as not being under the influence of the Animate Objects spell- since the -2 penalty never seems to be applied to vehicles.

Tanuki Tales
2013-02-13, 12:51 PM
I can't believe that no one has mentioned either Elric (crazy powerful warrior-wizard), or any character from the Chronicles of Amber, especially Oberon.

IMHO, any character that does their crazy-powerful stuff before becoming a god counts as a mortal. So Sun Wukong definitely belong in the top 10 list of crazy-powerful heroes. Everything AFTER becoming a god counts as being a god.

Finally, let's not forget Tarkin from Star Wars. He destroyed an entire planet. Who can beat that? He was such a high level that the Death Star was his class feature.

Most of the characters you mentioned aren't traditional literary or mythological characters.

And I would only consider characters like Palpatine or Nihilus if we were even including modern literary characters for Star Wars. You know, guys who toasted entire planets or regions of space without spaceships or superweapons designed for doing such things.

hamishspence
2013-02-13, 01:55 PM
A fighter who has started at Dex 18, gotten (via DM fiat) the Prodigy of Dexterity trait, levelled up to level 9 (raising Dexterity by 2 pts), and taken all the appropriate feats (note that they will have feats to spare):

(Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Composite Greatbow, Point Blank Shot, Far Shot, Weapon Focus: Composite Greatbow, Weapon Specialization: Composite Greatbow, Greater Weapon Focus: Composite Greatbow, and Ranged Weapon Mastery: Piercing)

(The Ranged Weapon Mastery feat comes from Player's Handbook 2, the Composite Greatbow comes from Complete Warrior)

will have:

BAB +9, +1 for masterwork weapon, +1 for Weapon focus, +1 for Greater Weapon focus, +2 for Weapon Mastery, and a +6 bonus for having Dexterity 22.

This comes to a +20 To Hit bonus total.

A Composite Greatbow has a range increment of 130 ft. A Scope (D20 Modern) can increase that by 1.5x, which, combined with the 1.5x for Far Shot, comes to X2 by D&D multiplication rules.

Flight Arrows (Dragon Magazine 349: November 2006) can increase range increment by 25 ft, and the Ranged Weapon Mastery feat also increases it by 20 ft.

This produces a total range increment of 305 ft.

A Fine object has an AC of 11, if you take into account the -2 penalty objects get to their AC.

Taking the time to aim (so +5 on top of the normal +20) you are going to hit at 7 range increments unless you roll a 1, and hit at 8 range increments unless you roll a 1 or 2.

8 305 ft range increments is 2745 ft.

EDIT:
(For comparison- real life record breaking bow shots are just over 4000 ft.)

RFLS
2013-02-13, 02:07 PM
EDIT: Removed what I posted because I'm doped up on Nyquil and didn't spot that there were 4 pages after the first one.

hamishspence
2013-02-13, 02:23 PM
I completely agree that said olympic archers are most definitely higher than 7th level.

However, don't forget to factor in (or at least attempt to) their equipment bonuses. Those are highly specialized bows they're using, the pinnacle of modern bow technology, and are finely tuned to the individual using them. That's gotta be worth at least a 'masterwork' bonus, and probably a few things beyond that.

Oddly, D20 Modern gives compound bows only a 40 ft range increment.

Using a more conservative 9th level character (no Prodigy trait, so only Dex 20, no scope, only an "ordinary" masterwork composite longbow)- you're still looking at +19 to hit, and a 210 ft range increment (with flight arrows)

Shooting at a 540 ft Fine target (AC11, +4 for range) you're still hitting easily.

Even without the flight arrows (range increment 185 ft in that case) it's still less than 3 full range increments away.

Morph Bark
2013-02-13, 02:29 PM
EDIT:
(For comparison- real life record breaking bow shots are just over 4000 ft.)

That seems unlikely, given what I've found:


On account of range, here (http://www.worldrecordacademy.com/sports/longest_bow_and_arrow_shot_world_record_set_by_Zak _Crawford_101831.htm) is a world record for distance without a target, coming in at around 500 meters (which is, what, 1666 ft?), and I found this old forum post (http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=177280) that has a link that doesn't work for me that apparently talks about the record shot with a target at 303 ft.

Unless you got a solid source for those bow shots you're talking about.

hamishspence
2013-02-13, 02:31 PM
Note that this was a 14 year old firing in the under-35lb class.

This link:
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/flight.html

gives a record distance, for a bow rather than a crossbow, used by hand rather than by foot, of 1336 yards.

Morph Bark
2013-02-13, 02:35 PM
It also says "world record" rather than "world record with a relatively low-power bow". If there are greater records, please provide them.

EDIT: Alright, that's fair. Do note though that flight archery is targetless, so while someone of incredibly skill could potentially hit something that far, they haven't yet existed (and if they have, they never tried it with people recording records nearby).

Synovia
2013-02-13, 02:36 PM
You two, remember AC isn't really "to hit", its "to hit and damage".

Morph Bark
2013-02-13, 02:42 PM
You two, remember AC isn't really "to hit", its "to hit and damage".

In the years I practiced archery, I've often seen arrows rebound off targets. That's what I'd call "hitting, but not damaging", while the ones that'd stick into the target would be "hitting and damaging".

Considering arrows that rebound are never counted in archery competitions (though I suppose rare exceptions may exist), I don't think this is really a problem when it comes to tracking down records and wondering if they dealt damage to their targets. Simple fact is, if they hadn't "dealt damage" (stuck in the target, rather than rebounded or fallen out right away), they wouldn't have been counted. At least for archery with targets. Flight archery is a different thing, as it is targetless.

hamishspence
2013-02-13, 03:29 PM
Wikipedia suggests that for actual medieval longbows, you might get a flight arrow shot of 400 yards- but actual combat use would be more on the order of 200 or so.

Using a non-composite longbow (100 ft range increment), flight arrows (+25 ft to range increment) and no Far Shot feat- 10 range increments would be 1250 ft- just over 416 yards.

Hiro Protagonest
2013-02-13, 03:55 PM
Shoting targets in an event is something completely different from shoting at people enganged in battle. I think most athletic archers would show much less accurate results under such conditions.
That's represented by Olympic archers not having Precise Shot.

Oddly, D20 Modern gives compound bows only a 40 ft range increment.
They use recurves (really fine-tuned fiberglass recurves with sights on them, but recurves). Nonetheless, that range is soooo wrong. Average hunting range is 30-40 yards with one of those hunks of metal and fiberglass.

Wikipedia suggests that for actual medieval longbows, you might get a flight arrow shot of 400 yards- but actual combat use would be more on the order of 200 or so.

That's volley range, not point-and-shoot range. You're not sniping at that range with a longbow, not even a 150 lb one.

PetterTomBos
2013-02-13, 04:42 PM
Touch AC: 21 (Fine size +16, Dexterity zero -5)

230 ft range increment -4 attack
BAB bonus: +6 at level 6
Weapon Focus: +1 attack
Ranger bonus feats: (2nd) Rapid Shot, (6th) Manyshot: no practical benefit
nb. Greater Weapon Focus would require fighter level 8.
Taking 20 on each shot not allowed for under RAW.

Conclusion: D&D doesn't account for some pretty obvious stuff (sights, taking time to aim) that really should be when considering Olympics results.

So, yeah (http://editthis.info/tv_tropes/So..._Yeah).

AC (touch or not) : 11 (Fine size +8, Dexterity zero -5, inanimate object -2)

6th lvl. ranger with D&D eq

19 dex +4
MW bow +1
BAB +6
Weapon focus +1
=+12

Target is 70 metres = 230 feet away. Composite longbow (if there is one thing modern weapons are its composite). He naturally has far shot, so

range -2

= attack bonus of +10, using a standard action to aim makes this +15 as per srd. This means the 95% chance of "Let's hope for not a 1". Thus a 6th lvl. character could do very well at the olympics. He could be even lower lvl, or less focused, and shoot 10 times faster than the other competitors. Even with the AC of the target as 21 he would hit on a 6, thus hitting a 10 75% of the time.

I'd also argue that the modern best bows available are "magic" to the eyes of a D&D-character. I'd at least give them a +1.

hamishspence
2013-02-13, 04:47 PM
You don't need to- masterwork already grants +1 to hit.

Ashtagon
2013-02-13, 04:57 PM
AC (touch or not) : 11 (Fine size +8, Dexterity zero -5, inanimate object -2)

6th lvl. ranger with D&D eq

19 dex +4
MW bow +1
BAB +6
Weapon focus +1
=+12

Target is 70 metres = 230 feet away. Composite longbow (if there is one thing modern weapons are its composite). He naturally has far shot, so

range -2

= attack bonus of +10, using a standard action to aim makes this +15 as per srd. This means the 95% chance of "Let's hope for not a 1". Thus a 6th lvl. character could do very well at the olympics. He could be even lower lvl, or less focused, and shoot 10 times faster than the other competitors. Even with the AC of the target as 21 he would hit on a 6, thus hitting a 10 75% of the time.

I'd also argue that the modern best bows available are "magic" to the eyes of a D&D-character. I'd at least give them a +1.

Good call. I notice now I wrote +16 instead of +8 for the size modifier, which skewed everything.

So once again, level 6 marks the upper end of normal human achievement.

And as a thought experiment...

fighter level 2:

Dexterity 14: +2
MW bow: +1
BAB: +2 (fighter 2)
weapon focus: +1
Total so far: +6

composite long bow with far shot feat means -2 range modifier.

Full-round action aiming at object: +5

Total: +9

So even a level 2 fighter can be of Olympic quality, it would seem.

Kurald Galain
2013-02-13, 05:15 PM
So once again, level 6 marks the upper end of normal human achievement.
You said 5, WOTC said 7, and it turns out to be 6. That's a nice compromise, then. Since you (and Alex) were trying to prove level five a few posts ago, that it turns out to be six does actually prove you wrong. "Once again" indeed :smallamused:

Ashtagon
2013-02-13, 05:17 PM
Since you (and Alex) were trying to prove level five a few posts ago, that it turns out to be six does actually prove you wrong. "Once again" indeed :smallamused:

Still a far cry from the level 15 or so that most people claim should be high level real world humans.

Kurald Galain
2013-02-13, 05:18 PM
Still a far cry from the level 15 or so that most people claim should be high level real world humans.

Where are these "most people" that you speak of?

hamishspence
2013-02-13, 05:26 PM
And back-applying it to literary character archers- like Robin Hood- what should he be able to do?

Robin's bow probably wouldn't be composite. Modern archery ranges might be 230 ft- but what were archery ranges in Robin's day? (Wikipedia suggests that by the age of Henry VIII, 220 yards were considered the minimum):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Longbow

The current size range goes down to Fine- which would appear to be on the order of 3-6 inches (smallest Small creatures are 2 ft long, Tiny creatures are 1 ft, so Diminutive creatures would be expected to be 6 inches and Fine creatures 3 inches. With objects being of comparable size.

But could that be extended further? Might there be Itsy-Bitsy objects 1.5 inches wide with a size modifier of +16, Minuscule objects (0.75 inches) with a size modifier of +32, and so forth?

The Archery Tournament rules in Complete Warrior suggests that, for the purpose of splitting an opponent's arrow lodged in the bullseye, the arrow counts as AC 35 (though it also fails to include the -2 AC modifier for the bullseye itself, giving it an AC of 13 rather than 11).

Assuming that your BAB actually has to be high enough to hit the arrow to split it properly (a natural 20 from a low BAB character won't do) - how high level does Robin need to be to achieve this feat?

Or, comparably, to split a hangman's rope, or a willow wand- all of which are a bit less than an inch thick?

SowZ
2013-02-13, 05:32 PM
You don't need to- masterwork already grants +1 to hit.

Yeah, modern compounds having a larger range increment, masterwork quality, and a d10 damage dice represents them fairly well.

Also, that level 2 or 3 fighter might actually be better than professional archers. In D&D, the archer is making a shot in a few seconds right after sprinting thirty feet trying to hit a person who is also running around and generally trying to be evasive.

At level one, with weapon focus and a MW bow and +1 BAB and 14 Dex you have a 75% chance to hit the average human target at 110 feet, assuming that the human target is trying to stay mobile AND the archer is moving around himself.

hamishspence
2013-02-13, 05:43 PM
Question I'm wondering is- would Robin be best represented as a low-level character- or would tricks like Splitting The Arrow imply a slightly higher level one, able to do this a bit more often than 1 in 20 shots?

zlefin
2013-02-13, 05:46 PM
A fighter who has started at Dex 18, gotten (via DM fiat) the Prodigy of Dexterity trait, levelled up to level 9 (raising Dexterity by 2 pts), and taken all the appropriate feats (note that they will have feats to spare):

(Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Composite Greatbow, Point Blank Shot, Far Shot, Weapon Focus: Composite Greatbow, Weapon Specialization: Composite Greatbow, Greater Weapon Focus: Composite Greatbow, and Ranged Weapon Mastery: Piercing)

(The Ranged Weapon Mastery feat comes from Player's Handbook 2, the Composite Greatbow comes from Complete Warrior)

will have:

BAB +9, +1 for masterwork weapon, +1 for Weapon focus, +1 for Greater Weapon focus, +2 for Weapon Mastery, and a +6 bonus for having Dexterity 22.

This comes to a +20 To Hit bonus total.

A Composite Greatbow has a range increment of 130 ft. A Scope (D20 Modern) can increase that by 1.5x, which, combined with the 1.5x for Far Shot, comes to X2 by D&D multiplication rules.

Flight Arrows (Dragon Magazine 349: November 2006) can increase range increment by 25 ft, and the Ranged Weapon Mastery feat also increases it by 20 ft.

This produces a total range increment of 305 ft.

A Fine object has an AC of 11, if you take into account the -2 penalty objects get to their AC.

Taking the time to aim (so +5 on top of the normal +20) you are going to hit at 7 range increments unless you roll a 1, and hit at 8 range increments unless you roll a 1 or 2.

8 305 ft range increments is 2745 ft.

EDIT:
(For comparison- real life record breaking bow shots are just over 4000 ft.)

math dispute:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#multiplying

for distance use normal multiplication. I don't have the text for the +'s you cite, do they say to apply before or after multipliers? If you apply them before multipliers you get 130+20+25=175 * 1.5 * 1.5 for distance = 393.75 range increment, which is about right.

hamishspence
2013-02-13, 05:52 PM
math dispute:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#multiplying.


Sometimes a rule makes you multiply a number or a die roll. As long as you’re applying a single multiplier, multiply the number normally. When two or more multipliers apply to any abstract value (such as a modifier or a die roll), however, combine them into a single multiple, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. Thus, a double (Χ2) and a double (Χ2) applied to the same number results in a triple (Χ3, because 2 + 1 = 3).

Hence, I figured that it would be

"A 1.5 times (x1.5) and a 1.5 times (x1.5) applied to the same number results in a double (x2) because 1.5 + 0.5 = 2."

Based on conservative assumptions, I figured that "Adds 20 ft to range increment" and "adds 25 ft to range increment" should always be applied after multipliers.

jindra34
2013-02-13, 05:55 PM
Hence, I figured that it would be

"A 1.5 times (x1.5) and a 1.5 times (x1.5) applied to the same number results in a double (x2) because 1.5 + 0.5 = 2."

You missed the next paragraph that says when using real world values (such as weight or LENGTH) normal math applies. So the special multiplication deal does not apply.

hamishspence
2013-02-13, 05:58 PM
"Range increment" may be a bit different though.

Apart from anything else, "1.5 x 1.5" is not 3, it is 2.25.

Dienekes
2013-02-13, 06:33 PM
You said 5, WOTC said 7, and it turns out to be 6. That's a nice compromise, then. Since you (and Alex) were trying to prove level five a few posts ago, that it turns out to be six does actually prove you wrong. "Once again" indeed :smallamused:

Ehh, that's a really hollow victory there Kurald. Level 5, level 6, in any case we humans and most of our heroes are very low level compared to the feats of a mid to high level D&D character.

Kurald Galain
2013-02-13, 06:38 PM
Ehh, that's a really hollow victory there Kurald. Level 5, level 6, in any case we humans and most of our heroes are very low level compared to the feats of a mid to high level D&D character.

Like I said, memetic but false. Last time I drew myself up as a D&D character I needed to be level 8 just to get enough skill points.

hamishspence
2013-02-13, 06:45 PM
Specifics?

Talakeal
2013-02-13, 07:49 PM
Like I said, memetic but false. Last time I drew myself up as a D&D character I needed to be level 8 just to get enough skill points.

This is probably more of a flaw in the class / level system than an indication of human abilities. In D&D all characters have a class, limiting the combinations of skills and abilities they have linking together unrelated aspects (such as combat ability and non combat skill values).

Do you really believe you could, for example, survive a shotgun blast to the chest as an 8th level D&D character could?

awa
2013-02-13, 08:13 PM
no one gets enough skill points that's just a flaw in the system unless you are also a skilled fighter assuming high level is probably not the way to go.

otherwise logically Steven hawking so should be able to take a red neck in a bar fight becuase he has such high ranks in knowledge and must therefore be extremely high level. (that's just a hypothetical example to make a point i have no interest in discussing this particular example).

Ashtagon
2013-02-14, 12:37 AM
Like I said, memetic but false. Last time I drew myself up as a D&D character I needed to be level 8 just to get enough skill points.

Really? Even though the average competent automobile driver has zero ranks in Drive skill, according to d20 Modern? Just what did you rate yourself as?

PetterTomBos
2013-02-14, 02:11 AM
You said 5, WOTC said 7, and it turns out to be 6. That's a nice compromise, then. Since you (and Alex) were trying to prove level five a few posts ago, that it turns out to be six does actually prove you wrong. "Once again" indeed :smallamused:

Nope. I only showed that a lvl. 6 was sufficient, not required. That character with +15 to hit targets AC 11 is probably the worlds best archer. I wanted to wait until I could look into it more deeply, as we're approaching "how big is the target, and how large is their success-rate anyways?" - territory.

+15 is way better than needed, and probably enough to place some of the arrows inside yet another tinier bullseye we do not use. A lvl. 1, devoted and stats-blessed human, with arbitrary full BAB class.

Feats: weapon focus, far shot.

BAB +1
Dex +4
MW +1
Weapon focus +1
Taking std. action to aim +5
Range -2

Attack bonus = +10

Which is enough to hit AC11 on a 1. In this contest D&D finds no difference between this dude and the lvl. 6 dude. This guy could even do it with less than perfect dex of 16. I would still argue that being the best human real-world archer should at least require lvl. 4, perhaps 5, of warrior. Ranger/Fighter isn't relly needed. Perhaps the rules for hitting objects are a bit off?


no one gets enough skill points that's just a flaw in the system unless you are also a skilled fighter assuming high level is probably not the way to go.

otherwise logically Steven hawking so should be able to take a red neck in a bar fight becuase he has such high ranks in knowledge and must therefore be extremely high level. (that's just a hypothetical example to make a point i have no interest in discussing this particular example).

I strongly disagree. There are differences between "too few skillpoints" and "to small bonus to his specialty". The Stephen hawking example is exactly the one used in the original article of the Alexandrian!


+8 skill ranks
+4 ability score bonus
+3 Skill Focus

In the case of our 5th level Einstein, that gives him a +15 bonus to Knowledge (physics) checks. He can casually answer physics-related questions (by taking 10) with a DC of 25. Such questions, according to the PHB description of the Knowledge skill, are among the hardest physics questions known to man. He’ll know the answers to the very hardest questions (DC 30) about 75% of the time.

And when he’s doing research he’ll be able to add the benefits of being able to reference scientific journals (+2 circumstance bonus), gain insight from fellow colleagues (+2 bonus from aid another), use top-of-the-line equipment (+2 circumstance bonus), and similar resources to gain understanding of a problem so intractable that no one has ever understood it before (DC 40+).

And I completely agree. Really hard questions (20 to 30) is the max of the given DC's under knowledge, and should represent "run of the mill" research for a PhD. The 40+ skill-checks are the "Hmm, let's rewrite the way we understand reality" - reasearch.

About HP. Normally I agree that at lvl. 5-6 of expert (that we need for human peak) gives a little too much HPs. I disagree in the case of Hawkings. Let's give him 6 HD and con 3 => 6 Hp. A little high, but not that far off.

About the amount of skillpoints. Let's assume us to be aristocrats (which seems reasonable) with 4 + int skillp. Lets give out a 10 int. Thats 16 points on lvl. 1. Let's assume you give yourself 1 main skill, 2 maxed with ranks and the rest spread around.

Possible bonuses:

Ranks +4
Ability +1-4
MW tools +2
Aid another +2
Feat +2-3 (we humans have 2 feats and little to use them on.)

that is +11 to +15 for our main skill(s). Thats even up to heroic difficulty (30) given the time to do it over and over (which people usually do before doing their greatest works.) One skill distribution could be, assuming a 14 in one score:

+10 (ranks +4, ability +2 MW tools +2, feat +2)
+10 (same, with the same feat)
+7 (ranks +4, ability +2 MW tools +2)
+3 One-rank skills with different abilities.
+3
+2
+1

Which seems really decent. The +10 skills are where you do could truly heroic stuff given time, and can do challenging tasks on a take 10, the 7 is your passionate hobby, and the smaller skills represent day-to-day skills you are especially good at. If anything the spread is a little too wide! Perhaps we are commoners with bigger skill-lists after all...

hamishspence
2013-02-14, 03:14 AM
Opposed skill checks are where higher skill differences start being demanded.

For an example- take chess.

One of the greatest players of all time- Jose Capablanca- took on 103 players, simultaneously- and beat all but one of them (that one managed a draw).

In D&D I'd say this would correspond to a skill gap of 18 or so points (1 in 200 chance of drawing (he rolls a 1, the other person rolls a 19 or, he rolls a 2, the other person rolls a 20), 1 in 400 chance of losing (he rolls a 1, the other person rolls a 20).

Note that a simultaneous exhibition could reasonably be said to be unfavourable conditions (since the grandmaster is only getting a few seconds to decide his move, whereas the others are getting several minutes)-

so possibly a -5 on the grandmaster's skill checks- equal to the difference between aiming and firing normally when making ranged attacks at an object.

My best guess is that a Chess game would be represented by an opposed Profession (chess player) check- with the special exception that it can be made untrained.

With a normal person having a Wis of 0- I would put the grandmaster's skill bonus (with Wis, Skill Focus, etc added in) at +23.

SowZ
2013-02-14, 03:52 AM
Opposed skill checks are where higher skill differences start being demanded.

For an example- take chess.

One of the greatest players of all time- Jose Capablanca- took on 103 players, simultaneously- and beat all but one of them (that one managed a draw).

In D&D I'd say this would correspond to a skill gap of 18 or so points (1 in 200 chance of drawing (he rolls a 1, the other person rolls a 19 or, he rolls a 2, the other person rolls a 20), 1 in 400 chance of losing (he rolls a 1, the other person rolls a 20).

Note that a simultaneous exhibition could reasonably be said to be unfavourable conditions (since the grandmaster is only getting a few seconds to decide his move, whereas the others are getting several minutes)-

so possibly a -5 on the grandmaster's skill checks- equal to the difference between aiming and firing normally when making ranged attacks at an object.

My best guess is that a Chess game would be represented by an opposed Profession (chess player) check- with the special exception that it can be made untrained.

With a normal person having a Wis of 0- I would put the grandmaster's skill bonus (with Wis, Skill Focus, etc added in) at +23.

I would argue it is actually a knowledge check. A starting Int of 17 can be bumped up to 18 with the fourth level stat boost. There is +4. Skill focus is +3. Level 5 means 9 Skill Points. The educated feat means another +2. Since we basically have to homebrew the Knowledge (Chess) skill, it having a synergy makes sense. I vote for a synergy bonus with Sense Motive. Giving us an extra +2.

Unfavorable conditions usually gives a -2, sometimes a -4, but not often -5. I think -2 is more reasonable than -5, it seems more in keeping with skill penalties. -5 is massive. If we make the penalty minus 2 and make it a knowledge skill, level 5 can accomplish this chessmaster just fine.

hamishspence
2013-02-14, 04:45 AM
Possibly. Even ignoring the possibility of a synergy bonus, the Prodigy trait (+2 to a stat, and +4 on all stat-related checks- in this case Int-related skill checks) makes it fairly trivial to accomplish.

Main reason I was doubtful about Knowledge (chess) rather than Profession- I haven't heard that chess grandmasters are also supergenius at other things.

SowZ
2013-02-14, 04:49 AM
Possibly. Even ignoring the possibility of a synergy bonus, the Prodigy trait (+2 to a stat, and +4 on all stat-related checks- in this case Int-related skill checks) makes it fairly trivial to accomplish.

Main reason I was doubtful about Knowledge (chess) rather than Profession- I haven't heard that chess grandmasters are also supergenius at other things.

Hmm, isn't that more the fault of a stat based system, (as opposed to a more specific one,) being inaccurate to real life in general? Being a good liar makes one better at training animals in D&D. That is no more of a stretch than being a good chess player making you better at Appraising things, is it?

Frozen_Feet
2013-02-14, 05:13 AM
I see a lot of hate heaped towards the Alexandrian article from time to time. However, it is an excellent article, and calibrating your expections is precisely what you should do when trying to model real-life persons with D&D.

The article does have its flaws - such as dismissal of 3d6 bell curve as basis for stats, and presenting its conclusion (namely, "real world people max at 5th level") in way that makes it sound like an iron-clad rule, when in truth, it's more of an useful approximation.

The legitimate merits of that article include:


pointing out that some criticisms towards 3.x are actually hold-overs from older editions, and aren't applicable. A great example of this is the wide-spread thought that 18 is the absolute maximum ability a "real-life" human could have.
pointing out that a lot of criticism towards D&D is based on faulty understanding of reality. The encumberance example is pretty good illustration, especially the part where he point out how clueless people are about what real medieval weaponry actually weighed.
encouraging people to contrast and compare and run the numbers, rather than accepting repeated statements as fact.
reminding people that you can be awesome before 20th level
reminding people that the game (D&D) changes as levels go up, and that you're not supposed to run similaradventures on all levels.
reminding people that non-D&D characters usually don't follow D&D class progression, and you're better off trying to find alternate methods of modelling them than shoehorning them to a class that doesn't fit.


So on and so forth. Ironically, a lot of people accepted the conclusions without really internalizing the train of thought that lead to them. If I can, by contrasting and comparing real life and D&D, point out that HP as damage is not such an outrageous assumption, and that real life people have survived injuries that people often claim would be "ridiculous" in a game, then I have a better argument for real-life people sometimes exceeding level 5 (or Con 18, or some other arbitrary bench-mark) than the people claiming otherwise just because Alexandrian said so. :smallwink:

EDIT: Also, people overstate values of high ability scores. An 18 is only +4. You know what else is also +4? Max skill ranks in a skill at 1st level. Ergo, a trained average person is equal to untrained exceptional person. A non-proficiency penalty is, incidentally, -4, also a four-point difference. A level 1 full BAB average guy proficient with unarmed strikes has 1 point lead over level 1 low BAB exceptional guy.

Add in other rules concerning skills and combat, and you realize even an exceptional person will seem pretty pathetic if he doesn't have proper skills and class levels. This is a wider symptom of the fact that you can't stat characters with ability scores alone.

hamishspence
2013-02-14, 06:27 AM
The legitimate merits of that article include:


pointing out that some criticisms towards 3.x are actually hold-overs from older editions, and aren't applicable. A great example of this is the wide-spread thought that 18 is the absolute maximum ability a "real-life" human could have.
pointing out that a lot of criticism towards D&D is based on faulty understanding of reality. The encumberance example is pretty good illustration, especially the part where he point out how clueless people are about what real medieval weaponry actually weighed.
encouraging people to contrast and compare and run the numbers, rather than accepting repeated statements as fact.
reminding people that you can be awesome before 20th level
reminding people that the game (D&D) changes as levels go up, and that you're not supposed to run similaradventures on all levels.
reminding people that non-D&D characters usually don't follow D&D class progression, and you're better off trying to find alternate methods of modelling them than shoehorning them to a class that doesn't fit.


Indeed. One of the things I like about the Prodigy trait, is that it helps disconnect characters from their stats a bit- making their skills (and ability checks) much higher than their stat would suggest- because it only provides a +2 bonus to a stat, but it provides a +4 bonus to skills and checks based on that stat.

An average Str person with the Prodigy of Strength trait, will be awesome at Str-based skills (Jump, Climb, Swim) but not very good at lifting things- since lifting things is not a Str check.

An average Dex person with Prodigy of Dexterity- would be awesome at Dex-based skills- but he wouldn't have a very high AC, or a big bonus to ranged attacks.

And so forth.

Thus- it becomes easier to give low level NPCs great skills, without also making them great at attacking, or dodging attacks.

PetterTomBos
2013-02-14, 09:56 AM
Opposed skill checks are where higher skill differences start being demanded.

For an example- take chess.

One of the greatest players of all time- Jose Capablanca- took on 103 players, simultaneously- and beat all but one of them (that one managed a draw).

In D&D I'd say this would correspond to a skill gap of 18 or so points (1 in 200 chance of drawing (he rolls a 1, the other person rolls a 19 or, he rolls a 2, the other person rolls a 20), 1 in 400 chance of losing (he rolls a 1, the other person rolls a 20).

Note that a simultaneous exhibition could reasonably be said to be unfavourable conditions (since the grandmaster is only getting a few seconds to decide his move, whereas the others are getting several minutes)-

so possibly a -5 on the grandmaster's skill checks- equal to the difference between aiming and firing normally when making ranged attacks at an object.

My best guess is that a Chess game would be represented by an opposed Profession (chess player) check- with the special exception that it can be made untrained.

With a normal person having a Wis of 0- I would put the grandmaster's skill bonus (with Wis, Skill Focus, etc added in) at +23.

The variance of the d20 is big! And it is meant to be so, by design. I'm sure the good folks have reasons I can't think of, but it feels better for the player that has a small chance when he can hope for a 20. Modelling reality better would be hard, as each situation would wind up demanding its own mechanic. So the variance in the d20 shouldn't be an argumant for high-level normal people, it should indicate a gap between reality and D&D. And thats fine :)

Take the chess example again. I can probably win 95%+ of my games against complete chess-newbies. Still, it's years since I played actively, and even then I had a rating of 800, and would loose pretty consistently to anyone with a rating of 1000+ (which would loose most games against a 1400+ or smth, and so on). Would this require there to be a new +20-gap at each junction? With conservatively 5 such gaps Magnus Carlsen must certainly be dishing out 100+ checks on a regular basis! The man is in the deep epics!

hamishspence
2013-02-14, 10:28 AM
Note that a gap of 18 pts produces a chance to win of 1 in 400 for the weaker player, not 1 in 20. Still- the argument is valid.

A gap of 17 pts would produce a chance to win of around 3 in 400.

And I think it scales from there.

Synovia
2013-02-14, 10:30 AM
Take the chess example again. I can probably win 95%+ of my games against complete chess-newbies. Still, it's years since I played actively, and even then I had a rating of 800, and would loose pretty consistently to anyone with a rating of 1000+ (which would loose most games against a 1400+ or smth, and so on). Would this require there to be a new +20-gap at each junction? With conservatively 5 such gaps Magnus Carlsen must certainly be dishing out 100+ checks on a regular basis! The man is in the deep epics!

All we'd need is a gap of 10 at each level, and the other person could just take 10 and win every time. SO having a 5% chance of winning would only be a difference of 9.

hamishspence
2013-02-14, 12:05 PM
One thing I forgot to note- normally, for opposed checks, ties are counted as wins for the character with the higher skill modifier. Counting them as always ties, would be a house rule.

PetterTomBos
2013-02-14, 02:39 PM
All we'd need is a gap of 10 at each level, and the other person could just take 10 and win every time. SO having a 5% chance of winning would only be a difference of 9.

Yes, the take ten rule is a lot more reasonable than the rolling when it comes to real-world-likeness, as it also is with knowledge and profession (altough the best works of mankind, and the typical "this is my masterpiece, I will never make its like again" probably should be done by rolling. Perhaps a feat for the "masterpiece" ? :) )

Still, my argument still threads water.


It then follows that for each 400 rating points of advantage over the opponent, the chance of winning is magnified ten times in comparison to the opponent's chance of winning.

So, 10 times the chance of winning, so out of 22 games the greater one will win 20, let's simplify a bit and say 18 in 20.

Stronger: +8 more in score + take 10
Weaker: Roll of 19-20

Gives 2 out of every twenty to the underdog. It is slightly more than the 2/22, but the model doesn't accurately model ties, which probably should have some role in this.

Magnus Carlsen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Carlsen) currently has an ELO rating of 2872. That is 7 tiers, with +8 over the opposition at each tier, which gives him a modifier of +56 in profession(chess). With 72 rating to spare for the rounding done earlier. Do note that id this needs modification, Even with a 30% this would be pretty impressive. If not strictly epic, at least in the (high) teens. Why didn't Magnus put his other skillpoints into profession(anti-cancer-researcher) or physics, dammit!

In light of this: perhaps the rolling should be somewhat more bell curved in the special case of contested checks, e.g. 3d6, to reflect this?

SowZ
2013-02-14, 03:15 PM
I see a lot of hate heaped towards the Alexandrian article from time to time. However, it is an excellent article, and calibrating your expections is precisely what you should do when trying to model real-life persons with D&D.

The article does have its flaws - such as dismissal of 3d6 bell curve as basis for stats, and presenting its conclusion (namely, "real world people max at 5th level") in way that makes it sound like an iron-clad rule, when in truth, it's more of an useful approximation.

The legitimate merits of that article include:


pointing out that some criticisms towards 3.x are actually hold-overs from older editions, and aren't applicable. A great example of this is the wide-spread thought that 18 is the absolute maximum ability a "real-life" human could have.
pointing out that a lot of criticism towards D&D is based on faulty understanding of reality. The encumberance example is pretty good illustration, especially the part where he point out how clueless people are about what real medieval weaponry actually weighed.
encouraging people to contrast and compare and run the numbers, rather than accepting repeated statements as fact.
reminding people that you can be awesome before 20th level
reminding people that the game (D&D) changes as levels go up, and that you're not supposed to run similaradventures on all levels.
reminding people that non-D&D characters usually don't follow D&D class progression, and you're better off trying to find alternate methods of modelling them than shoehorning them to a class that doesn't fit.


So on and so forth. Ironically, a lot of people accepted the conclusions without really internalizing the train of thought that lead to them. If I can, by contrasting and comparing real life and D&D, point out that HP as damage is not such an outrageous assumption, and that real life people have survived injuries that people often claim would be "ridiculous" in a game, then I have a better argument for real-life people sometimes exceeding level 5 (or Con 18, or some other arbitrary bench-mark) than the people claiming otherwise just because Alexandrian said so. :smallwink:

EDIT: Also, people overstate values of high ability scores. An 18 is only +4. You know what else is also +4? Max skill ranks in a skill at 1st level. Ergo, a trained average person is equal to untrained exceptional person. A non-proficiency penalty is, incidentally, -4, also a four-point difference. A level 1 full BAB average guy proficient with unarmed strikes has 1 point lead over level 1 low BAB exceptional guy.

Add in other rules concerning skills and combat, and you realize even an exceptional person will seem pretty pathetic if he doesn't have proper skills and class levels. This is a wider symptom of the fact that you can't stat characters with ability scores alone.

Using the 3d6 bell curve to average stats isn't the right way to emulate a D&D world, it ends up being very nonsensical. The standard array is the best way to do it.

Part of the reason D&D isn't good at estimating something like a chess player is that D&D is based around combat. There is no reason the best chess player in the world is now better at fighting than the worlds greatest martial artists, or just better than a soldier in the army at hand to hand combat. And yet, advancing him to high levels makes him an unstoppable killing machine. A point based game could emulate the chess player, D&D may not be able to.

The way it could be done is assume each chess player almost always takes ten when the stakes are high, (at say a tournament,) and then the difference between a true master and someone who is just very good can be a spread of a few points. Which allows us to build our chess master with a +25 modifier at level 5, which should be enough.

Wardog
2013-02-14, 04:25 PM
Seriously, you trust the word of Dave Noonan after he demonstrates that he doesn't know why why archery even got the name?

Based on Wiktionary, it looks as though the "arch" in "archery" refers to the shape of the bow, not the trajectory of the arrow.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/archer

(And after all, we don't call slingers archers).

Bogardan_Mage
2013-02-14, 07:09 PM
So on and so forth. Ironically, a lot of people accepted the conclusions without really internalizing the train of thought that lead to them. If I can, by contrasting and comparing real life and D&D, point out that HP as damage is not such an outrageous assumption, and that real life people have survived injuries that people often claim would be "ridiculous" in a game, then I have a better argument for real-life people sometimes exceeding level 5 (or Con 18, or some other arbitrary bench-mark) than the people claiming otherwise just because Alexandrian said so. :smallwink:
Basically this. Jason Alexander wrote an article to encourage people not to assume that awesome characters have to be level 20 and the lesson people took away from it is that awesome characters have to be level 5. I'd also add to your list the reminder that there are a surprising amount of bonuses available to all sorts of stats in this game, and that in the real world someone who is the best at something almost certainly got that way through specialization (which in game terms means grabbing as many of these bonuses as possible). Kurald hasn't explained what skill points he needed to stat himself out yet, but I'll wager his problem will turn out to be something related to this; there are much easier ways to become better at a skill than to spend points.
Interestingly, my biggest complaint about the article is that Mr Alexander doesn't seem to fully understand the implications of this point. He seems to assume that a level 20 character will be four times as good as a level 5 character, but that's not the case because the level 5 character already has all the bonuses available. There might be another +2 or so out there but really the only thing the level 20 character has over the level 5 character is 15 extra skill ranks. That's not even enough to double the modifier of a highly specialized level 5 character. They'll certainly be better, but not extraordinarily so. More like the difference between a highly specialized character and a character with only a few ranks and no extra bonuses.


Using the 3d6 bell curve to average stats isn't the right way to emulate a D&D world, it ends up being very nonsensical. The standard array is the best way to do it.
Why is that? And isn't the standard array derived from the 3d6 bell curve in the first place?

SowZ
2013-02-14, 08:21 PM
Basically this. Jason Alexander wrote an article to encourage people not to assume that awesome characters have to be level 20 and the lesson people took away from it is that awesome characters have to be level 5. I'd also add to your list the reminder that there are a surprising amount of bonuses available to all sorts of stats in this game, and that in the real world someone who is the best at something almost certainly got that way through specialization (which in game terms means grabbing as many of these bonuses as possible). Kurald hasn't explained what skill points he needed to stat himself out yet, but I'll wager his problem will turn out to be something related to this; there are much easier ways to become better at a skill than to spend points.
Interestingly, my biggest complaint about the article is that Mr Alexander doesn't seem to fully understand the implications of this point. He seems to assume that a level 20 character will be four times as good as a level 5 character, but that's not the case because the level 5 character already has all the bonuses available. There might be another +2 or so out there but really the only thing the level 20 character has over the level 5 character is 15 extra skill ranks. That's not even enough to double the modifier of a highly specialized level 5 character. They'll certainly be better, but not extraordinarily so. More like the difference between a highly specialized character and a character with only a few ranks and no extra bonuses.


Why is that? And isn't the standard array derived from the 3d6 bell curve in the first place?

If you use the 3d6 stat distribution about ten percent of the population is fairly noticeably disabled, and a very large number of people represent the pinnacle of typical human ability in one area of their lives. It doesn't make any sense.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-02-14, 08:35 PM
If you use the 3d6 stat distribution about ten percent of the population is fairly noticeably disabled, and a very large number of people represent the pinnacle of typical human ability in one area of their lives. It doesn't make any sense.
Nobody represents the pinnacle of typical human ability on the strength of their ability scores alone. Also, please show your working, I cannot respond to vague generalisations.

TuggyNE
2013-02-14, 09:06 PM
Why is that? And isn't the standard array derived from the 3d6 bell curve in the first place?

It does seem to be (modulo standard WotC dysfunctional rounding).

dps
2013-02-15, 01:17 AM
About HP. Normally I agree that at lvl. 5-6 of expert (that we need for human peak) gives a little too much HPs. I disagree in the case of Hawkings. Let's give him 6 HD and con 3 => 6 Hp. A little high, but not that far off.



The man's survived for half a century with a disease that normally kills you in a couple years or so. I'd say he has superhuman constitution and a ton of HPs.

Ashtagon
2013-02-15, 01:27 AM
The man's survived for half a century with a disease that normally kills you in a couple years or so. I'd say he has superhuman constitution and a ton of HPs.

He would have had, were it not for the disease. He's taken a shedload of Constitution damage from it.

Frozen_Feet
2013-02-15, 02:09 AM
Using the 3d6 bell curve to average stats isn't the right way to emulate a D&D world, it ends up being very nonsensical. The standard array is the best way to do it.

I have yet to see a convincing argument for it to be nonsensical.

If you use the 3d6 stat distribution about ten percent of the population is fairly noticeably disabled, and a very large number of people represent the pinnacle of typical human ability in one area of their lives. It doesn't make any sense.

18 is not, I repeat, it is not pinnacle of humanity in D&D 3.x, no matter whether you approach it from in-game, or out-of-game, perspective.

In real life, there are people who demonstrate abilities that would warrant higher than 18 to model in D&D.

In D&D, even a human who caps at level 5 can get +3 to +6 permanent increase in a stat through nothing but non-magical class levels, level increase and aging. Several Extraordinary abilities (such as Rage) can further push those limits for short periods.

The thought that natural 18 is pinnacle of humanity is an artefact from older versions of D&D.

Likewise, ability scores below 10 are not as crippling as you suggest. A -4 modifier (natural 3) can be compensated for by training at 1st level for most skills, and eclipsed at 3rd. And pray tell me, what makes you say 10% of people being disabled is not a reasonable estimate? 13.1% of world's current population is suffering from malnourishment, 925 million people.

SowZ
2013-02-15, 02:24 AM
I have yet to see a convincing argument for it to be nonsensical.


18 is not, I repeat, it is not pinnacle of humanity in D&D 3.x, no matter whether you approach it from in-game, or out-of-game, perspective.

In real life, there are people who demonstrate abilities that would warrant higher than 18 to model in D&D.

In D&D, even a human who caps at level 5 can get +3 to +6 permanent increase in a stat through nothing but non-magical class levels, level increase and aging. Several Extraordinary abilities (such as Rage) can further push those limits for short periods.

The thought that natural 18 is pinnacle of humanity is an artefact from older versions of D&D.

Likewise, ability scores below 10 are not as crippling as you suggest. A -4 modifier (natural 3) can be compensated for by training at 1st level for most skills, and eclipsed at 3rd. And pray tell me, what makes you say 10% of people being disabled is not a reasonable estimate? 13.1% of world's current population is suffering from malnourishment, 925 million people.

Because malnourishment is irrelevant since it is a status condition. It has nothing to do with rolled stats like you are arguing, so why does it matter? Rolled stats are inherent. So even injuries and disease doesn't account for it, since those are all status conditions. So that means roughly ten percent of people are born with an inherent disability.

It is also bizarre when compared to real life people. In real life, most people who are strong are also more durable. Just like most people that are great debaters and charismatic are at least moderately intelligent to do so well in social situations. By your 3d6 system, just as many people with 18 Str have 16 Constitution as have 6. Just as many people with 17 Cha have 15 Int as have 7. It is just plain silly.

Aging bonus do nothing to counteract my argument since the people who rolled 18s will get the aging bonus anyway. I never said 18 is the pinnacle of human advancement. Where did I say that? But the people with 18s have the same access to the stat boosters as anyone else, so saying 18-23 represents the pinnacle of humanity in a given area is perfectly reasonable.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-02-15, 02:42 AM
Because malnourishment is irrelevant since it is a status condition. It has nothing to do with rolled stats like you are arguing, so why does it matter? Rolled stats are inherent. So even injuries and disease doesn't account for it, since those are all status conditions. So that means roughly ten percent of people are born with an inherent disability.
Not until you give concrete numbers on what scores constitute a disability it doesn't. I've now asked you twice to elaborate on this, this is the third time. Am I not making myself clear?


It is also bizarre when compared to real life people. In real life, most people who are strong are also more durable. Just like most people that are great debaters and charismatic are at least moderately intelligent to do so well in social situations. By your 3d6 system, just as many people with 18 Str have 16 Constitution as have 6. Just as many people with 17 Cha have 15 Int as have 7. It is just plain silly.
How, pray tell, can you tell the difference between someone with 17 Cha and someone with 7 Cha who put more ranks in Charisma-based skills (skill points they got from a high Int, possibly!) I admit Str and Con are more difficult to correlate under the rules (not impossible, again how do you know how much is natural talent?) but Intelligence is pretty easy.

Ashtagon
2013-02-15, 03:02 AM
I have yet to see a convincing argument for it to be nonsensical.


18 is not, I repeat, it is not pinnacle of humanity in D&D 3.x, no matter whether you approach it from in-game, or out-of-game, perspective.

In real life, there are people who demonstrate abilities that would warrant higher than 18 to model in D&D.

In D&D, even a human who caps at level 5 can get +3 to +6 permanent increase in a stat through nothing but non-magical class levels, level increase and aging. Several Extraordinary abilities (such as Rage) can further push those limits for short periods.

Level increase will grant +1 by level 5. Seeing as the most notorious cited example of a higher real-world stat is the 23 Strength from the WotC article, let's not count ageing bonuses. Rage grants a temporary +4 bonus to Str and Con.

So...


Str: +5 max (level, rage)
Con: +5 max (level, rage)
Dex: +1 max (level)
Int: +4 max (level, age)
Wis: +4 max (level, age)
Cha: +4 max (level, age)


What did I miss for the +6?



Likewise, ability scores below 10 are not as crippling as you suggest. A -4 modifier (natural 3) can be compensated for by training at 1st level for most skills, and eclipsed at 3rd.

A rolled 3 in a stat means you need the same training to reach "untrained ordinary" that most people need to reach "university graduate level with some work experience". And anything outside that narrow training focus will still be a tough slog for them. That's a single skill they trained up, not an entire stat.

Even with training, they'll always be behind the "ordinary" guy with the same dedication to training.

SowZ
2013-02-15, 03:08 AM
Not until you give concrete numbers on what scores constitute a disability it doesn't. I've now asked you twice to elaborate on this, this is the third time. Am I not making myself clear?


How, pray tell, can you tell the difference between someone with 17 Cha and someone with 7 Cha who put more ranks in Charisma-based skills (skill points they got from a high Int, possibly!) I admit Str and Con are more difficult to correlate under the rules (not impossible, again how do you know how much is natural talent?) but Intelligence is pretty easy.

Maybe I just read through the post once and there were a number of points so I didn't get to them all because it isn't that important to me? Jeez, man, I'll just leave the thread if its going to be so serious for no reason. I calculated it assuming 4-5 is a disability.

And training isn't an easy way to counterbalance a -4 to a skill. 4 ranks in something is 25% of the average persons entire skill set for their life. It is professional level training. Not a great pro, but a pro. Meaning someone with a -4 to a skill has to go through enough training to make a living off of a certain skill just to be as good as someone of average aptitude and 0 training. That is very debilitating.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-02-15, 03:17 AM
Level increase will grant +1 by level 5. Seeing as the most notorious cited example of a higher real-world stat is the 23 Strength from the WotC article, let's not count ageing bonuses. Rage grants a temporary +4 bonus to Str and Con.

So...


Str: +5 max (level, rage)
Con: +5 max (level, rage)
Dex: +1 max (level)
Int: +4 max (level, age)
Wis: +4 max (level, age)
Cha: +4 max (level, age)


What did I miss for the +6?
Human Paragon?



A rolled 3 in a stat means you need the same training to reach "untrained ordinary" that most people need to reach "university graduate level with some work experience". And anything outside that narrow training focus will still be a tough slog for them. That's a single skill they trained up, not an entire stat.

Even with training, they'll always be behind the "ordinary" guy with the same dedication to training.
I thought we'd established that just because Jason Alexander says a level 2 character is a university graduate with some work experience doesn't make it so. But even if it is, so what? A 3 in an ability score corresponds to the 0.5th percentile. You're not supposed to be any good at things related to that ability. That doesn't mean you can't be average with some effort though.


Maybe I just read through the post once and there were a number of points so I didn't get to them all because it isn't that important to me? Jeez, man, I'll just leave the thread if its going to be so serious for no reason. I calculated it assuming 4-5 is a disability.
Don't take me too seriously, but perhaps I'm just remembering earlier in the thread when your response was "It's not arbitrary, it's just based on this stuff I didn't bother to mention". You can perhaps understand why I want to know what I'm arguing against before commenting.
In this case, for example, I'd point out that 4-5 is only two standard deviations below the mean, so people with those scores may not necessarily be counted as disabled. Especially when you consider how low scores of different types would manifest. A person with 5 Con would be frail and sickly and probably very obvious, but a person with 5 Cha would just be socially awkward which could easily go undiagnosed. So I think the actual statistics for disabilities are reasonably close to what we'd expect from 3d6, considering that many might be overlooked or misdiagnosed.

hamishspence
2013-02-15, 03:27 AM
So...


Str: +5 max (level, rage)
Con: +5 max (level, rage)
Dex: +1 max (level)
Int: +4 max (level, age)
Wis: +4 max (level, age)
Cha: +4 max (level, age)


What did I miss for the +6?


The DMG2 "Prodigy" stat-boosting mini-template adds another +2 to one stat. (It also adds a +4 on skill checks, ability checks, etc related to that stat, which is huge)

I did some calculations and apparently a min-maxed 5th level Expert with that template and as many boosters as you can fit in, could manage DC 50 Knowledge checks.


8 ranks, + 5 bonus (Int 21), +2 competence bonus (Feat: Favoured in Guild: Scholar, from DMG2), +3 untyped bonus (Feat: Skill Focus: Physics) +6 circumstance bonus (Master Book Lot from Stronghold Builder's Guide), +4 bonus for the Prodigy template (if that bonus is untyped), +2 Aid Another bonus = +30.

Normally Knowledge checks cannot be retried, but a member of the Scholar's Guild can Take 20 once at each character level.

So even if your paradigm-shifting discovery requires a DC of 50 rather than 40- it can be done.

Ashtagon
2013-02-15, 03:46 AM
Human Paragon?


Good catch.



I thought we'd established that just because Jason Alexander says a level 2 character is a university graduate with some work experience doesn't make it so.

:smallsigh:

Please take it to mean "...or equivalent depth and intensity of training". Obviously, construction (as opposed to architecture) isn't something learned in university, and neither is sleight of hand; additionally, many skills taught in university can also be studied outside of university. I was using the word university to identify a benchmark for a level of training that we can relate to in real-world terms, not a prescription for the one true way to achieve a certain number of skill ranks.

Adding the above paragraph to every post I make on this site would get tiresome.



In this case, for example, I'd point out that 4-5 is only two standard deviations below the mean, so people with those scores may not necessarily be counted as disabled.

Counterpoint: In older clinical texts, two standard deviations below the mean for IQ was enough to be medically labelled as an "idiot".


The DMG2 "Prodigy" stat-boosting mini-template adds another +2 to one stat. (It also adds a +4 on skill checks, ability checks, etc related to that stat, which is huge)


What is the LA on that template?

Bogardan_Mage
2013-02-15, 03:56 AM
:smallsigh:

Please take it to mean "...or equivalent depth and intensity of training". Obviously, construction (as opposed to architecture) isn't something learned in university, and neither is sleight of hand; additionally, many skills taught in university can also be studied outside of university. I was using the word university to identify a benchmark for a level of training that we can relate to in real-world terms, not a prescription for the one true way to achieve a certain number of skill ranks.

Adding the above paragraph to every post I make on this site would get tiresome.
I think you misunderstand my objection, I don't necessarily think 5 ranks is equivalent depth and intensity of training of a university course regardless of field. Earlier in the thread it was pointed out that Mr Alexander's DC 40 Knowledge check to answer a question nobody's answered before really ought to be attainable by any PhD candidate, so a bachelor's degree + work experience seems like it ought to be higher than level 2. Besides which, we are only talking about skill ranks in this case, not feats or other bonuses that specialized characters will have.



Counterpoint: In older clinical texts, two standard deviations below the mean for IQ was enough to be medically labelled as an "idiot".
Emphasis on "older", this is no longer the case. So if we're using modern statistics it won't count everyone with an IQ of 70 as disabled from birth.

hamishspence
2013-02-15, 04:43 AM
What is the LA on that template?

+1, I think- it's in the "NPC traits" section of DMG2 - it's Extraordinary- but some of the other traits in that section are supernatural.

Ashtagon
2013-02-15, 04:59 AM
Emphasis on "older", this is no longer the case. So if we're using modern statistics it won't count everyone with an IQ of 70 as disabled from birth.

Mostly due to political correctness. These days, IQ 55 (3 standard deviations, or Intelligence 3) is called "moderate disability". IQ 70 (2 standard deviations, or Int 4) is clinically "mild disability". IQ 85 (1 standard deviation, or Int 7) is "dull normal".

Seems reasonable to call a score of 3-4 disabled, based on modern clinical definitions.

Just for fun, calculating standard deviations and dice probabilities from scratch and comparing to modern clinical ratings...


Int 3: IQ -16: Profound Disability
Int 4: IQ 16-38: Profound/Severe Disability
Int 5: IQ 38-57: Moderate/Severe Disability
Int 6: IQ 57-72: Moderate/Mild Disability
Int 7: IQ 72-84: Dull Normal/Mild Disability
Int 8: IQ 84-93: Dull Normal/Normal
Int 9: IQ 93-98: Normal
Int 10: IQ 98-100: Normal
Int 11: IQ 100-102: Normal
Int 12: IQ 102-107: Normal
Int 13: IQ 107-116: Normal/High Average
Int 14: IQ 116-128: Exceptional/High Average
Int 15: IQ 128-143: Exceptional
Int 16: IQ 143-162: Exceptional/Genius
Int 17: IQ 162-184: Genius
Int 18: IQ 184+: Genius

hamishspence
2013-02-15, 05:46 AM
Given that real-world snipers are scoring hits at over 4000 ft, how high level might they be expected to be- assuming D&D-type character rules rather than D20 modern?

A fighter who has started at Dex 18, gotten (via DM fiat) the Prodigy of Dexterity trait, levelled up to level 9 (raising Dexterity by 2 pts), and taken all the appropriate feats (note that they will have feats to spare):

(Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Firearms, Point Blank Shot, Far Shot, Weapon Focus: Firearms, Weapon Specialization: Firearms, Greater Weapon Focus: Firearms, and Ranged Weapon Mastery: Piercing)

(The Ranged Weapon Mastery feat comes from Player's Handbook 2)

will have:

BAB +9, +1 for masterwork weapon, +1 for Weapon focus, +1 for Greater Weapon focus, +2 for Weapon Mastery, and a +6 bonus for having Dexterity 22.

This comes to a +20 To Hit bonus total.

A Diminutive object has an AC of 7, if you take into account the -2 penalty objects get to their AC.

Taking the time to aim (+5) and firing at maximum range increment (-20) a roll of 2 or more will hit the target.

(A person would be AC 10, and you can't use the aim action on people- only objects- so a roll of 10 or more would hit a person at that distance)

A Barrett Light-Fifty (using D20 Call of Cthulhu gun rules rather than D20 modern) will have a range increment of 200 ft- and a X4 crit rather than the X2 in D20 modern.

A Scope multiplies that by 1.5, so does the Far Shot feat- so (using natural maths since it's a distance measurement) that comes to x2.25: 450 ft. Ranged Weapon Mastery adds another +20 ft to the increment- that's 470 ft.

Maximum range, therefore, would be 4700 ft.

Frozen_Feet
2013-02-15, 06:01 AM
Because malnourishment is irrelevant since it is a status condition. It has nothing to do with rolled stats like you are arguing, so why does it matter? Rolled stats are inherent. So even injuries and disease doesn't account for it, since those are all status conditions. So that means roughly ten percent of people are born with an inherent disability.

Rolled stats are what you've attained by young adulthood, as evidenced by them being adjusted by ages higher or lower than that. But there's more: in real life, poor nutrition in parents leads to developmental defects in children. Because famine and poverty have persisted in a lot of places for a long time, it means that yes, for many of those people, problems due to malnutrition are indeed "inherent".

Furthermore, people starving is just one statistics. I've yet to even get to people who are not starving, but have one more developmental, ie. "inherent" disability. Especially since skillpoints and feat monkeying (see below) can compensate for so much, I do not believe "10% of people with some sort of handicap" to be an overestimate in the slightest.


It is also bizarre when compared to real life people. In real life, most people who are strong are also more durable.

Class levels. A person with even a single level in high HP, good Fort save can appear to have 4 points higher Constitution than a character with low HP, bad fort save class. Compare Fighter and Commoner.


Just like most people that are great debaters and charismatic are at least moderately intelligent to do so well in social situations.

Notice how things you're talking of mostly fall under skill use. Intelligence is perhaps the most influential stat here, because skill points, skill ranks and proper class (Compare Aristocrat's skill list with commoner's) eclipse the effect of stats!

We won't remember a real life Int 3, Cha 18 character as a great debater, because he won't have enough skillpoints to be such. On another hand, even a moderately intelligent Int 10, Cha 3 character in a high skill point class like Expert or Rogue can have people skills equivalent to a non-handicapped person from level 1, and with proper feats, can appear to be more charismatic than average from level 1. If you have Cha 3 but 4 ranks in Diplomacy and Bluff and the Skill Focus feats for those skills, you have a +3 modifier - way above that of average untrained person.


Aging bonus do nothing to counteract my argument since the people who rolled 18s will get the aging bonus anyway. I never said 18 is the pinnacle of human advancement. Where did I say that? But the people with 18s have the same access to the stat boosters as anyone else, so saying 18-23 represents the pinnacle of humanity in a given area is perfectly reasonable.

You don't understand the issue here. Someone with natural 18, five skill levels and all the ability boosters is the pinnacle of humanity. But someone with an ability of 15 can use those same things to get to 18 to 21. Saying 18 is pinnacle of humanity discounts people who started lower but ended up higher.



What did I miss for the +6?

As noted, Human Paragon and Prodigy. There might be other means, but those are the only ones that come to top of my head. I discounted Prodigy, since I don't know its LA. With Human Paragon and level up bonuses alone, you can +3 to any physical stat, and adding aging to the mix, +6 to any mental stat.


A rolled 3 in a stat means you need the same training to reach "untrained ordinary" that most people need to reach "university graduate level with some work experience". And anything outside that narrow training focus will still be a tough slog for them. That's a single skill they trained up, not an entire stat.

Even with training, they'll always be behind the "ordinary" guy with the same dedication to training.

Not so in the case of trained-only skills. Even a handicapped person with ranks in some skills, notably Knowledges, can outperform an ordinary, untrained person.

Also, of vital note here again is that proper class and feat choice can eclipse base abilities in importance, especially when it comes to skills.

Yes, things will be harder for the handicapped than for the non-handicapped. My argument is that they won't be as crippling for many scores as you'd think. Intelligence is perhaps the exception, since skill ranks are so influential, but then again, that matches with observations of real life, where severly mentally handicapped have trouble learning most skills.

---

To be plain, the major undercurrent in all my rebuttals is simple: you can't model any character with ability scores alone. You have to take into account at least class, feats and skills, and if we want to get hardcore, templates, traits, flaws, skill tricks and equipment.

For the sake of argument:

Level 1 Human Commoner, 10 Int.

Class skills: Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Jump (Str), Listen (Wis), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Spot (Wis), Swim (Str), and Use Rope (Dex).

Skillpoints per level: 2+1 = 3.
Skillpoints at 1st level: 12

Level 1 Human Expert, 3 Int.

Class skills: any ten
Skillpoints per level: 6-4+1 = 3
Skillpoints at 1st level: 12

Level 1 Human Rogue, 3 Int
Class skills: Appraise (Int), Balance (Dex), Bluff (Cha), Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Decipher Script (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Disable Device (Int), Disguise (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Forgery (Int), Gather Information (Cha), Hide (Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Knowledge (local) (Int), Listen (Wis), Move Silently (Dex), Open Lock (Dex), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis), Search (Int), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Spot (Wis), Swim (Str), Tumble (Dex), Use Magic Device (Cha), and Use Rope (Dex).
Skillpoints per level: 8-4+1=5
Skillpoints at 1st level: 20

Level 1 Human Expert, 3 Int, taking Open Minded feat twice:
Class skills: any ten
Skillpoints per level: 6-4+1 = 3
Extra skillpoints from feats: 10
Skillpoints at 1st level: 22

It is plainly apparent that with proper education, modeled here by class choices and feats, you can overcome many handicaps caused by low intelligence. Sure, if you want to become an university researcher, you're still fighting an uphill battle, but you can get by in society fairly easily. The last character could max out 4 non-int skills at 1st level, and become a fairly succesful athelete, to give an example.

Ashtagon
2013-02-15, 06:08 AM
Maximum range, therefore, would be 4700 ft.

You're picking and choosing the most advantageous bits from D&D, Call of Cthulhu, and d20 Modern. With that much to choose from, you can prove pretty much anything, especially if you posit a character level higher than what is generally accepted as real world potential.

Frozen_Feet
2013-02-15, 06:09 AM
Just for fun, calculating standard deviations and dice probabilities from scratch and comparing to modern clinical ratings...


Int 3: IQ -16: Profound Disability
Int 4: IQ 16-38: Profound/Severe Disability
Int 5: IQ 38-57: Moderate/Severe Disability
Int 6: IQ 57-72: Moderate/Mild Disability
Int 7: IQ 72-84: Dull Normal/Mild Disability
Int 8: IQ 84-93: Dull Normal/Normal
Int 9: IQ 93-98: Normal
Int 10: IQ 98-100: Normal
Int 11: IQ 100-102: Normal
Int 12: IQ 102-107: Normal
Int 13: IQ 107-116: Normal/High Average
Int 14: IQ 116-128: Exceptional/High Average
Int 15: IQ 128-143: Exceptional
Int 16: IQ 143-162: Exceptional/Genius
Int 17: IQ 162-184: Genius
Int 18: IQ 184+: Genius

That seems off to me. Comparing this chart
(http://www.google.fi/imgres?imgurl=http://percentgay.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/bellcurve_2.gif&imgrefurl=http://percentgay.com/category/uncategorized/&h=385&w=450&sz=17&tbnid=dwg8HL98M1fGPM:&tbnh=77&tbnw=90&zoom=1&usg=__tfUD27h6zuShq--qRF3IMvgTRE8=&docid=taeDuXY5zoyPqM&sa=X&ei=IRYeUb7JCajE4gSI64HQBQ&ved=0CDoQ9QEwBA&dur=571) with 3d6 distribution, I ended up with Int 3 being roughly equivalent to IQ 55, and Int 18 roughly equivalent to 145.

hamishspence
2013-02-15, 06:13 AM
You're picking and choosing the most advantageous bits from D&D, Call of Cthulhu, and d20 Modern. With that much to choose from, you can prove pretty much anything, especially if you posit a character level higher than what is generally accepted as real world potential.
Which was kind of the point- that even if you pick and choose everything advantageous you can- it's still hard to have a half-decent chance to hit something at that range.

Ashtagon
2013-02-15, 06:14 AM
That seems off to me. Comparing this chart
(http://www.google.fi/imgres?imgurl=http://percentgay.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/bellcurve_2.gif&imgrefurl=http://percentgay.com/category/uncategorized/&h=385&w=450&sz=17&tbnid=dwg8HL98M1fGPM:&tbnh=77&tbnw=90&zoom=1&usg=__tfUD27h6zuShq--qRF3IMvgTRE8=&docid=taeDuXY5zoyPqM&sa=X&ei=IRYeUb7JCajE4gSI64HQBQ&ved=0CDoQ9QEwBA&dur=571) with 3d6 distribution, I ended up with Int 3 being roughly equivalent to IQ 55, and Int 18 roughly equivalent to 145.

You're right. Let me recalculate.

Edit:


Int 3: IQ —58: Moderate disability
Int 4: IQ 58-69: Moderate disability
Int 5: IQ 69-79: Moderate disability/Mild Disability
Int 6: IQ 79-86: Mild Disability/Dull Normal
Int 7: IQ 86-92: Dull Normal/Normal
Int 8: IQ 92-97: Normal
Int 9: IQ 97-99: Normal
Int 10: IQ 99-100: Normal
Int 11: IQ 100-101: Normal
Int 12: IQ 101-103: Normal
Int 13: IQ 103-108: Normal
Int 14: IQ 108-114: Normal/High Average
Int 15: IQ 114-121: High Average/Exceptional
Int 16: IQ 121-131: Exceptional
Int 17: IQ 131-142: Exceptional
Int 18: IQ 142+: Exceptional/Genius


I forgot to divide by two somewhere in my first version. This should be correct.

Edit:

The US military requires IQ 85 (Int 7) for all recruits.

Some US police departments have set a maximum IQ of 125 (Int 16) for recruits.

IQ 50 (Int 3) is considered the minimum to be able to perform domestic work. IQ 60 (Int 4) is sufficient for agricultural work or furniture repairs. Note that these two are minimums!

Frozen_Feet
2013-02-15, 06:25 AM
And it seems very reasonable to me. :smallsmile: Based on the assumption that other abilities also follow something approximate of normal distribution, it also gives an idea how low scores in other abilities reflect on a character.

hamishspence
2013-02-15, 06:39 AM
8 to 13 all qualifying as Normal coincides very well with the Nonelite Array:

Nonelite Array
The nonelite array is: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8.

Ashtagon
2013-02-15, 08:04 AM
The interesting thing to note is that 5% of the population are considered mentally disabled, when viewed strictly in terms of IQ. Using 3d6 six times no rerolls for chargen, 26.5% of the population would be disabled (one or more stats in 3-5 range).

Sith_Happens
2013-02-15, 08:04 AM
I think that all of these target shooting calculations need to include a houserule that you can take 10 on the roll. As far as I can tell, the d20 System assumes that if you're making an attack roll, it's because you're in combat or a similarly stressful situation, so the lack of a take 10 rule on attacks is simply because the designers didn't think there "needed" to be one.

The suggestion that someone at these sorts of archery/shooting competitons isn't taking 10 is rather ridiculous.

Ashtagon
2013-02-15, 08:14 AM
I think that all of these target shooting calculations need to include a houserule that you can take 10 on the roll. As far as I can tell, the d20 System assumes that if you're making an attack roll, it's because you're in combat or a similarly stressful situation, so the lack of a take 10 rule on attacks is simply because the designers didn't think there "needed" to be one.

The suggestion that someone at these sorts of archery/shooting competitons isn't taking 10 is rather ridiculous.

I think that's covered by the "you get +5 on attack rolls against immobile targets if you spend a full round action aiming".

Also, take 10 is for situations where the "story camera" is not on that die roll. I can't think of any situations involving attack rolls where the story camera isn't on that shot.

hamishspence
2013-02-15, 08:44 AM
Add in the fact that objects get a -5 AC penalty for being Dex 0, and a -2 penalty for being "inanimate" and it's a whole lot easier to hit an object than a creature of the same size.

Grundy
2013-02-15, 09:28 AM
Regarding chess- why rule it as one check per game? I think one check per piece taken is more realistic, in which case a player with a point advantage would win most games. Ie "Jane is better than me at chess. She usually wins"
A 5 point advantage becomes insurmountable, more or less.

Grundy
2013-02-15, 09:41 AM
Regarding stats- There's one stat in the game that is measurable- STR. Debating other stats is conjecture, IME.

If we use 3d6 stat distribution, then 1 in 316 people can lift 300 pounds over their head. The olympic record for women under 150 pounds is 303 pounds.
So that means that 1 in say 157 men can lift 300 pounds over their head, reliably- as a weight training regimen, for example. IME, that would be vanishingly rare, rather than- "Oh yeah, there's 300 people in my high school class. Yeah, those 2 guys usually clean and jerk around 300 pounds."
Or "Yeah the other day Frank and Al were goofing around, and they were picking up a cheerleader in each hand."

Also, the SRD says that you can basically deadlift twice your max carry. The world record, last I checked, was 1015 lbs. That's 22 str, or a pretty optimized level 5 build- not TO, but close. And that guy did it once, not all day like a DnD character could. And he didn't "stagger around with it." He set it down before he hurt himself.

So that is definitive proof- the only proof we have (or don't have)- that DnD designers modelled ~ level 5 as a cap IRL.

PetterTomBos
2013-02-15, 10:51 AM
Earlier in the thread it was pointed out that Mr Alexander's DC 40 Knowledge check to answer a question nobody's answered before really ought to be attainable by any PhD candidate, so a bachelor's degree + work experience seems like it ought to be higher than level 2. Besides which, we are only talking about skill ranks in this case, not feats or other bonuses that specialized characters will have.

I disagree with the idea that a PhD needs to be able to hit DC 40+. I would, however, say that a PhD needs to be able to answer really tough questions, as per the srd:


Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).

which one perfectly well can do at lvl. 3. Gaining new knowledge is not "nearly impossible", or even "heroic" that defines the 40 and 30 DC tiers respectively. That totally depend on the research in question, there are strong PhD-defences and weak ones, mind you.


And when he’s doing research he’ll be able to add the benefits of being able to reference scientific journals (+2 circumstance bonus), gain insight from fellow colleagues (+2 bonus from aid another), use top-of-the-line equipment (+2 circumstance bonus), and similar resources to gain understanding of a problem so intractable that no one has ever understood it before (DC 40+).

I take the Alexandrian to mean that a check of 40+ is a great leap into the understanding of a problem; Not as the idea of "putting forth a piece of accepted original accademic work". Hmm, as for examples of sucessfull 40-45 checks, I'd nominate the theory of general relativity. Perhaps Semmelweiss and the washing of hands? That crazy russian mathematician that solved one of the hardest problems ever, some time ago, would possibly qualify (perhaps trough a weird template trading a know(math) bonus for some drawbacks?).


Which was kind of the point- that even if you pick and choose everything advantageous you can- it's still hard to have a half-decent chance to hit something at that range.

You do, however, push 3.5 to it's limits in one facet, range, that it did not focus extensively on. However, did you account for the range of the rifle itself? Those sniper rifles are pretty damn good, I'd also factor in a +2 synergy from knowledge(air and such) and at least an aid another from the spotter, perhaps even an extra +2 from his equipment.

hamishspence
2013-02-15, 11:01 AM
200 ft basic range increment is the highest I could get out of a Barrett- the D20 Call of Cthulhu version. The D20 Modern version has a much worse range increment- 130 ft. And there aren't any synergy bonuses to boost it, in that.

"Masterwork" was the equipment bonus I was using- the assumption that it's a really well made one rather than a mass produced one.

Though I suppose Aid Another could be used.

hamishspence
2013-02-15, 12:28 PM
Update- I've checked, and while Prodigy is +0 to CR, it's +2 to LA. On the plus side, the skill/ability check/etc bonus is untyped.

D&D can actually do long range very well- but for bows/crossbows etc, via Cragtop Archer, which grants the ability to fire out to 15 range increments instead of 10.
Spotting for a sniper at 6000 ft (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=271528)

D20 Call of Cthulhu BAB bonuses don't scale as fast as fighter bonuses do. And D20 modern advanced classes like Soldier don't get full BAB either. Neither get as many feats. Hence, for a low Hit Dice yet awesome combatant, D&D is probably better.

ArcturusV
2013-02-15, 02:16 PM
Regarding stats- There's one stat in the game that is measurable- STR. Debating other stats is conjecture, IME.

If we use 3d6 stat distribution, then 1 in 316 people can lift 300 pounds over their head. The olympic record for women under 150 pounds is 303 pounds.
So that means that 1 in say 157 men can lift 300 pounds over their head, reliably- as a weight training regimen, for example. IME, that would be vanishingly rare, rather than- "Oh yeah, there's 300 people in my high school class. Yeah, those 2 guys usually clean and jerk around 300 pounds."
Or "Yeah the other day Frank and Al were goofing around, and they were picking up a cheerleader in each hand."

Also, the SRD says that you can basically deadlift twice your max carry. The world record, last I checked, was 1015 lbs. That's 22 str, or a pretty optimized level 5 build- not TO, but close. And that guy did it once, not all day like a DnD character could. And he didn't "stagger around with it." He set it down before he hurt himself.

So that is definitive proof- the only proof we have (or don't have)- that DnD designers modelled ~ level 5 as a cap IRL.

Depends on what you mean by that 300 lbs. It SEEMS that you're thinking of it in terms of a simple deadlift and raising it up over your head in one smooth motion. Which might seem crazy. But compare instead to something like a squat situation where you start standing up with the weight already on your shoulders, well balanced, etc, and you can "lift" it from that position and such. That's a lot more reasonable on the 300 lbs limit. Heck, when I was in high school (Many, many moons ago) I wasn't even an exceptional kid in PE/Weight Lifting and I could still do about 270 lbs that way. Granted I lacked a lot of arm strength oddly enough. I struggled to do things like Bench press 120 lbs (my body weight at the time). But I could cleanly, easily do double my weight in a squat situation.

So it's probably not as exceptional as you think. It's more a vagueness due to them using the term "lift over your head" (Which seems a silly, random metric to use that was written that way more for flavoring reasons than practicality reasons), when the intention seemed to be more like "lift and move around." So the more accurate example would be something like a guy who can carry a large box of books a short distance. With the rule about going over your strength limit is more akin to picking something up and instantly having your body tremble and threaten to give way, might stumble a few yards before having to put it down, etc.

hamishspence
2013-02-15, 02:28 PM
Competitions like the World's Strongest Man competition- where you don't just have to lift a heavy object- but move around, fairly fast, with it- like the Farmer's Walk event- might possibly provide more "accurate" strength values.

Might work like this:

Can you lift 520 lb over your head?
Can you run 60 ft in 6 seconds carrying 520 lb?
Can you run 80 ft in 6 seconds carrying 346 lb?
Can you lift 1040 lb off the ground and move about with it, for a short time, at 5 ft per 6 seconds?
Can you march 24000 ft in 1 hour carrying 520 lb (probably as part of a well-packed rucksack) with no ill effects?
Can you march 36000 ft in 1 hour carrying 173 lb, with no ill effects?
Can you walk for 8 hours at a speed of 12000 ft per hour, carrying 520 lb, with no ill effects?
Can you walk for 8 hours at a speed of 18000 ft per hour, carrying 173 lb, with no ill effects?

Can you climb and jump, carrying 173 lb, with minimal difference from carrying nothing?
Can you fight, carrying 173 lb, with minimal difference from carrying nothing?

Then you are a Str 22 guy.

SowZ
2013-02-15, 03:20 PM
Given that real-world snipers are scoring hits at over 4000 ft, how high level might they be expected to be- assuming D&D-type character rules rather than D20 modern?

A fighter who has started at Dex 18, gotten (via DM fiat) the Prodigy of Dexterity trait, levelled up to level 9 (raising Dexterity by 2 pts), and taken all the appropriate feats (note that they will have feats to spare):

(Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Firearms, Point Blank Shot, Far Shot, Weapon Focus: Firearms, Weapon Specialization: Firearms, Greater Weapon Focus: Firearms, and Ranged Weapon Mastery: Piercing)

(The Ranged Weapon Mastery feat comes from Player's Handbook 2)

will have:

BAB +9, +1 for masterwork weapon, +1 for Weapon focus, +1 for Greater Weapon focus, +2 for Weapon Mastery, and a +6 bonus for having Dexterity 22.

This comes to a +20 To Hit bonus total.

A Diminutive object has an AC of 7, if you take into account the -2 penalty objects get to their AC.

Taking the time to aim (+5) and firing at maximum range increment (-20) a roll of 2 or more will hit the target.

(A person would be AC 10, and you can't use the aim action on people- only objects- so a roll of 10 or more would hit a person at that distance)

A Barrett Light-Fifty (using D20 Call of Cthulhu gun rules rather than D20 modern) will have a range increment of 200 ft- and a X4 crit rather than the X2 in D20 modern.

A Scope multiplies that by 1.5, so does the Far Shot feat- so (using natural maths since it's a distance measurement) that comes to x2.25: 450 ft. Ranged Weapon Mastery adds another +20 ft to the increment- that's 470 ft.

Maximum range, therefore, would be 4700 ft.

The issue is that you are giving him the penalty to hit at max range. That sniper? With bullets that can travel multiple miles in ideal conditions? With a bipod and modern scopes? It will have a much larger range increment because so many soldiers can hit at a long range with it. No, they can't all hit at 4000 feet. But having a decent accuracy grade, you could use that gun and hit far.

So we have to ask, what is more reasonable? That most soldiers are mid-high level? Or that the gun itself should have a big range increment? A scope shouldn't multiply the range by 1.5. Those scopes are so powerful it should triple it or more, but I'll say double at least. Modern Snipers go anywhere from x6 to x12 magnification. Also, what is more reasonable, that Craig Harrison is so BA he could swim in acid and fight a CR14 monster by himself and win because he is such a high level character to get such a crazy range increment, or that D20 modern doesn't represent how frikkin far even our standard infantry troop can hit with a basic red dot sight?

I think a range increment of 300 and a scope that doubles it represents modern tech much better. With Far Shot, is that 900ft.? A scope makes a massive difference in how far a person can hit. If any given sniper, (I realize it is a special role which is why I will stat mine as level 3. This also gives them room to grow a level if they stay career and do well,) can hit that range, then it really shouldn't be max. They just can't reliably hit beyond it because the penalties get too high. The best snipers in the world can shoot well beyond 4000 feet.

9000 feet as a theoretical maximum, (assuming level 5-6 is the highest RL humans get,) is reasonable considering the longest confirmed sniper kill ever was at over 8000 feet. So it works.

Craig Harrison, possibly the best sniper in the world, has made two confirmed kills at 2500+ yards. It took him 11 shots to make those two kills.

So an average sniper needs to hit things with a -6/-8 penalty. Level 3 Warrior MW weapon, PBS, Far Shot, Weapon Focus (Sniper.) 16 Dexterity. That's a plus eight to hit. If he rolls a ten on average, that means he can hit people with 10 AC at the needed range fairly reliably.

The best sniper ever? Level 5 Fighter. If we allow a little tweaking, we can allow the aid another to work on ranged attacks, not just melee, (if we are trying to simulate reality, this is reasonable. In RL, ranged weapons are the way to go. Not so in D&D. To emulate reality, shifting this a bit is good.) And Craig did have a spotter. If the spotter didn't do any good, why have it?

MW Weapon. PBS, Far Shot, Weapon Focus (Sniper,) Precise Shot, Rapid Reload. Dexterity Prodigy. Dex (Starting 17, +1 Level 4, +2 Prodigy,) 20.

So if Craig is getting -20 to his shot and he has a +14 to hit, that is -8 total. Meaning he hits on an 16-20 for the longest two shots he ever made in his life. That works, since he missed 9 times for the 2 successful shots.

Craig doesn't need to be any more than level 5.

Ashtagon
2013-02-15, 03:26 PM
d20 Modern range maximisation:

Mastercraft weapon: +3 on attack and damage rolls.


Laser sight weapon accessory: +1 equipment bonus to attack rolls within 30 feet at night.
Standard Scope weapon accessory: +50% range increment when you spend an attack action aiming.
Electro-Optical Scope weapon accessory: As standard scope, but also grants darkvision.


Far Shot feat: +50% to range increment.

Dead Aim feat: +2 attack roll when you spend a full round action to aim.

Double Tap feat: -2 attack roll, +1 die damage roll; weapon must be a semiautomatic.

Burst Fire feat: -4 attack roll, +2 dice damage roll, use 5 bullets (or fewer if weapon has burst suppressor); weapon must have an autofire setting.

Weapon Focus feat: +1 on attack rolls. There is no improved/greater version of this feat.

Barrett Light 50 sniper rifle: 2d12 damage, 120 ft range increment

d20 Critical Locations, Dark Matter, Past, Weapons Locker: No notable material.

d20 Future:

(nb. only advanced classes and PL5 gear is considered; mutations, cybernetics, general ultra-tech, and alien devices are not considered)

Engineer advanced class level 4: reconfigure weapon can add +10 feet to range increment but imposes a -1 attack penalty. It is unclear if this can be done multiple times to increase the range without limit. Doing this is a DC 20 (plus mastercraft bonus, if any) Repair check; if you can't make this when taking 10, you're doing it wrong.

Tracer advanced class level 2, 5, 8: Up to +3d6 sneak attack damage. This is the only known d20 Modern class that offers sneak attack damage.

Rangefinding laser scope: +1 purchase DC, +50% range increment

TacMil sniper rifle: 2d10 damage, 120 ft range increment.

Putting it Together

Equipment:

+3 mastercraft sniper rifle (barett light fifty); 2d12 damage, 120 ft base range increment, RoF S; 11 box magazine, purchase DC (22+9) 31.

Standard scope weapon accessory: +60 ft range increment when you spend an attack action aiming.

Rangefinding laser scope (from d20 Future): +60 feet range increment.

Feats: Far Shot (+60 ft range increment)

Overall range increment: 240 feet, or 300 feet on standard action aim.

Feat List: Dead Aim, Far Shot, Weapon Focus, Personal Firearms Proficiency

(two feats at 1st level one, one additional feat at 3rd level, Personal Firearms Proficiency from military background occupation)

Level 5 Strong hero:
BAB: +5
mastercraft weapon: +3
Dead Aim feat: +2 on full-round aim.
Weapon Focus feat: +1.
Dexterity 18: +4

Overall attack bonus: +13, or +15 on full-round action aim.

Edit: d20 Weapons Locker has AMRs with 120 ft range increments that are Large instead of Huge. It also has the Hungarian Gepard series, Austrian Steyr IWS 2000, and South African NTW20 of AMRs, which are Huge, 130 ft range increment. This would make the overall range increment with all listed scopes 315 feet.

Edit 2: Wikipedia notes the maximum effective range of the M82 light fifty as 6000 feet, which would normally imply the base range increment should be 400 feet (1/10 max effective range, then χ1.5 to account for Far Shot feat).

hamishspence
2013-02-15, 03:32 PM
I think a range increment of 300 and a scope that doubles it represents modern tech much better. With Far Shot, is that 900ft.?

Whether you apply Far Shot first or second, it will produce the same result:
300 X 1.5 = 450, 450 X 2 = 900
300 x 2 = 600, 600 x 1.5 = 900

So, yes.

D20 Call of Cthulhu has better range increments than D20 Modern- but a case could be made that both underrate scopes & rifles considerably- especially since "ordinary" rifles in D20 CoC have the same 200 ft range increment as the Barrett.

I statted the character that way partly to ensure they could take both Greater Weapon Focus and Ranged Weapon Mastery- which both require around level 8.

Still- could work with a more toned down character.

SowZ
2013-02-15, 03:46 PM
Whether you apply Far Shot first or second, it will produce the same result:
300 X 1.5 = 450, 450 X 2 = 900
300 x 2 = 600, 600 x 1.5 = 900

So, yes.

D20 Call of Cthulhu has better range increments than D20 Modern- but a case could be made that both underrate scopes & rifles considerably- especially since "ordinary" rifles in D20 CoC have the same 200 ft range increment as the Barrett.

I statted the character that way partly to ensure they could take both Greater Weapon Focus and Ranged Weapon Mastery- which both require around level 8.

Still- could work with a more toned down character.

I understand using an established rules system to stat the character. Unfortunately, if we are trying to stat our RL soldiers with the range increments required to display what sort of skills they have at long range using the range increments in the rules, every standard warrior needs to jump up quite a few levels the moment they grab a scoped rifle.

Another thing we should consider is that the guys we stat only need to be able to hit at those ranges on a 15 or 16 or so. Real firefights often have multiple clips emptied trying to take out a single guy.

hamishspence
2013-02-15, 03:50 PM
Edit 2: Wikipedia notes the maximum effective range of the M82 light fifty as 6000 feet, which would normally imply the base range increment should be 400 feet (1/10 max effective range, then χ1.5 to account for Far Shot feat).
What about the scope? Adding that in pushes the base range increment needed down a bit.

Ashtagon
2013-02-15, 03:52 PM
What about the scope? Adding that in pushes the base range increment needed down a bit.

300 feet in that case.

hamishspence
2013-02-15, 03:58 PM
From the real world weapons thread:




Rifles take lots of training to get good. Marine Corps recruits are trained to shoot --without a scope-- at man sized targets out to 500 yards. We don't use anything under 200 yards for qualification. If you miss a static target at less than 200 yards under range conditions, we make fun of you and give you directions to the nearest Army recruiter.

Assuming you're not using a Barrett- but a more ordinary rifle- and are using the Aiming At Objects rules from D&D (I'm guessing the Dead Aim feat shouldn't stack with the +5 you get for aiming at an object)- and you need to reliably hit a Medium object 1500 ft away- what kind of level are we looking at?

Grundy
2013-02-15, 04:01 PM
Depends on what you mean by that 300 lbs. It SEEMS ...So it's probably not as exceptional as you think...

(I edited your post for length)


No, it's pretty obvious they used the same metric the Olympics do, and probably for the same reason. It's the most work you can do with one weight. It's been THE metric for strength since antiquity. Squats are great, but they are a totally different thing altogether. Difficult to judge, or define with any rigor. I don't see much ambiguity to the statement "lift over your head". The only question becomes "did you lock your elbows?" Which for a game isn't important, really.

hamishspence
2013-02-15, 04:04 PM
Personally I think competitions like the World's Strongest Men competition and others- where you're not just lifting something, you're also moving around with it- may provide a more reliable upper limit for Str.

Ashtagon
2013-02-15, 04:16 PM
From the real world weapons thread:

Assuming you're not using a Barrett- but a more ordinary rifle- and are using the Aiming At Objects rules from D&D (I'm guessing the Dead Aim feat shouldn't stack with the +5 you get for aiming at an object)- and you need to reliably hit a Medium object 1500 ft away- what kind of level are we looking at?

The next step down from the light fifty using core would be any of HK G3, HK PSG1, or Winchester 94, all of which have a 90 ft range increment. The M16A2 has an 80 ft range increment. Let's use the M16A2.

With our 5th level Strong hero outlined above, he has a range increment of 160 feet, or 200 feet when he spends a standard action aiming (which he does for rifle range purposes). He also has an attack bonus of +13 (or +15 when he spends a full round action to aim, which he does).

1500 feet means a -14 range penalty on attack rolls, or an overall +1 on his attack roll.

There is an additional +5 attack bonus when you take a full round action aiming at an immobile target. A Medium-size object has a Defence (Armour Class) 5 in d20 Modern. Unlike D&D, there is no additional +2 bonus for attacking an immobile object (that I could find anyway).

+1 attack roll vs. AC 5 means our level 5 strong hero needs to roll a 4 or better to hit that man-size target at 1500 feet. Seems like a pretty reasonable model of that fragment of reality.

He'd need to add another 2 levels to hit it on a roll of 2 or better.

Footnote: Without the laser rangefinder scope from d20 Future, the range penalty becomes -18 instead of -14. Our hero now needs to roll 8+ to hit. Making him level 11 in any combination of full BAB classes brings that down to a 2+ roll.

hamishspence
2013-02-15, 04:23 PM
Are we giving him both the +2 "Dead Aim" bonus and the +5 "aim at an immobile object" bonus, or does the second one not exist in D20 Modern?

If we're going with Cthulhu rifles rather than D20 modern ones, it might work better for lowering the character's necessary level.

Ashtagon
2013-02-15, 04:27 PM
Are we giving him both the +2 "Dead Aim" bonus and the +5 "aim at an immobile object" bonus, or does the second one not exist in D20 Modern?

Both of these exist and both have been calculated into the above numbers. Note that the Dead Aim item is a feat in d20 Modern.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#smashinganObject


Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they usually don’t move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow. An object’s Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier + its Dexterity modifier. An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (-5 penalty to AC), but also an additional -2 penalty to its AC. Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon.

The highlighted item in the above paragraph has no equivalent in d20 Modern.

----

Edit: The "we laugh at you if you miss" range is actually 600 feet, not 1500 feet. Assuming Far Shot feat and no scopes, that's a -10 range penalty. Our level 5 strong hero needs a roll of "0+" to hit. That becomes 3+ if we swap his weapon to a standard copy instead of the mastercraft in the original figures.

hamishspence
2013-02-15, 04:39 PM
Using the "no scope" rules mentioned in the earlier quote (and an ordinary rifle rather than a masterwork one), wouldn't it work something like:

BAB +5, Weapon Focus +1, Dead Aim +2, Dexterity 18 bonus (+4): +10 without taking the extra time to aim, +12 when aiming at people, +17 when aiming at objects?

With a 200 ft increment rifle from D20 Cthulhu, and Far Shot, you get a 300 ft range increment: a target just over 1500 feet away will have a -12 penalty to hit.

17-12 = +5

If it's an AC 5 Medium object, you'll automatically hit (but natural 1s always miss).




Edit: The "we laugh at you if you miss" range is actually 600 feet, not 1500 feet. Assuming Far Shot feat and no scopes, that's a -10 range penalty. Our level 5 strong hero needs a roll of "0+" to hit. That becomes 3+ if we swap his weapon to a standard copy instead of the mastercraft in the original figures.

I figure that the 600 ft range is only for trainees- fully trained snipers should be able to consistantly hit the 1500 ft one.

A trainee might be a Level 1 character with Dex 13 (15 if they're elite).

thethird
2013-02-15, 04:49 PM
8 pages and no vote for Odin? :smallmad:

Seriously guys, Odin is not only high level he is also a Munchkin theurge.

Flaw: One eyed Bonus to INT and WIS over the top (drinking from Mimir's Well).

He know all magic (in a culture predominated by fighters/barbarians he is a 9/9/9/9/9/9/9/9/9 spell caster).

He has some awesome familiars, and animal companions.

A collection of all the lootz...

Yeah, seriously, Odin.

Ashtagon
2013-02-15, 04:49 PM
A trainee might be a Level 1 character with Dex 13 (15 if they're elite).

The way most of d20 Modern is written, it seems fairly clear to me that you aren't generally regarded as a qualified anything until you are 4th level.

Ashtagon
2013-02-15, 04:53 PM
8 pages and no vote for Odin? :smallmad:

Seriously guys, Odin is not only high level he is also a Munchkin theurge.

Flaw: One eyed Bonus to INT and WIS over the top (drinking from Mimir's Well).

He know all magic (in a culture predominated by fighters/barbarians he is a 9/9/9/9/9/9/9/9/9 spell caster).

He has some awesome familiars, and animal companions.

A collection of all the lootz...

Yeah, seriously, Odin.

If we are counting gods now, I'd just like to note that some of them are canonically omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent. That trumps pretty much anything that can be stated out.

hamishspence
2013-02-15, 04:54 PM
The way most of d20 Modern is written, it seems fairly clear to me that you aren't generally regarded as a qualified anything until you are 4th level.

True- so is D&D, going by Arms & Equipment Guide- but that's what the Alexandrian argument is- that characters are overleveled in that sort of game (with level 10 Ordinary being the typical sample high level NPC).

If Einstein, and the world's greatest soldiers, are 5th level- then wouldn't the basic recruit, be 1st level?

Can one stat out a 1st level character, with the right (unscoped) weapon- that only misses an AC 5 object at 600 ft, on a roll of 1?

Grundy
2013-02-15, 04:54 PM
Personally I think competitions like the World's Strongest Men competition and others- where you're not just lifting something, you're also moving around with it- may provide a more reliable upper limit for Str.

I'll agree that they give a more complete picture, but they are difficult to use as a metric on a table, for quick reference in a game.
And my points based on that lift and Str in general are:
1). We can measure it IRL, and its unique in dnd for that
2). It shows that level 4-5 is about the max IRL.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-02-15, 04:54 PM
Mostly due to political correctness. These days, IQ 55 (3 standard deviations, or Intelligence 3) is called "moderate disability". IQ 70 (2 standard deviations, or Int 4) is clinically "mild disability". IQ 85 (1 standard deviation, or Int 7) is "dull normal".
No, actually that's not the only factor these days. It used to be the case that anyone under IQ 70 had an intellectual disability but now they take other factors into account. According to this page (http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Intellectual_disability) to be intellectually disabled you also need "Significant difficulty with daily living skills including looking after themselves, communicating and taking part in activities with others."


The interesting thing to note is that 5% of the population are considered mentally disabled, when viewed strictly in terms of IQ. Using 3d6 six times no rerolls for chargen, 26.5% of the population would be disabled (one or more stats in 3-5 range).
Are you saying you're surprised that P(X) is not equal to 1-(1-P(X))^6? Because by definition the incidence of mental disability must be less than the incidence of disability in general, right? Plus as I pointed out, not all of those 26.5% will be recognized as having a disability and will thus not appear in real world statistics. Low Cha or Wis would be particularly hard to diagnose.


I disagree with the idea that a PhD needs to be able to hit DC 40+. I would, however, say that a PhD needs to be able to answer really tough questions, as per the srd:



which one perfectly well can do at lvl. 3. Gaining new knowledge is not "nearly impossible", or even "heroic" that defines the 40 and 30 DC tiers respectively. That totally depend on the research in question, there are strong PhD-defences and weak ones, mind you.



I take the Alexandrian to mean that a check of 40+ is a great leap into the understanding of a problem; Not as the idea of "putting forth a piece of accepted original accademic work". Hmm, as for examples of sucessfull 40-45 checks, I'd nominate the theory of general relativity. Perhaps Semmelweiss and the washing of hands? That crazy russian mathematician that solved one of the hardest problems ever, some time ago, would possibly qualify (perhaps trough a weird template trading a know(math) bonus for some drawbacks?).
Well then we get down to the heart of the problem which is that the DC 40 knowledge check is completely Mr Alexander's own invention, it's not attested in the rules anywhere. Which makes sense, because the game is not supposed to be about scientists discovering new theories (and can you imagine the catgirl massacre if such a DC was included in RAW?). The fact is that the highest knowledge DC we have is a DC 30 "really tough question", which nevertheless has already been answered at least once. We can guess at harder questions but they're still just that, guesses.

hamishspence
2013-02-15, 04:59 PM
Well then we get down to the heart of the problem which is that the DC 40 knowledge check is completely Mr Alexander's own invention, it's not attested in the rules anywhere. Which makes sense, because the game is not supposed to be about scientists discovering new theories (and can you imagine the catgirl massacre if such a DC was included in RAW?). The fact is that the highest knowledge DC we have is a DC 30 "really tough question", which nevertheless has already been answered at least once. We can guess at harder questions but they're still just that, guesses.

In D20 Modern Menace Manual, quite a lot examples are given for what you know if you pass a DC40 Knowledge check, about the various secret and not-secret organizations.



And my points based on that lift and Str in general are:
1). We can measure it IRL, and its unique in dnd for that
2). It shows that level 4-5 is about the max IRL.

Which? The snatch lift, or the clean-and-jerk lift?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_%26_jerk
581 lb current record
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snatch_(weightlifting)
472 lb current record

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm#weight

Depending on which you choose, the record could correspond to Str 22, or Str 23.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-02-15, 05:08 PM
In D20 Modern Menace Manual, quite a lot examples are given for what you know if you pass a DC40 Knowledge check, about the various secret and not-secret organizations.
D20 Modern also specifically has ordinary people at level 10 (which refutes, if nothing else, the claim that level 5 as the real world max was an intentional move). Also, I'd argue that knowing about secret societies is easier than making a world changing scientific breakthrough, so my point stands.

Ashtagon
2013-02-15, 05:10 PM
True- so is D&D, going by Arms & Equipment Guide- but that's what the Alexandrian argument is- that characters are overleveled in that sort of game (with level 10 Ordinary being the typical sample high level NPC).

If Einstein, and the world's greatest soldiers, are 5th level- then wouldn't the basic recruit, be 1st level?

Can one stat out a 1st level character, with the right (unscoped) weapon- that only misses an AC 5 object at 600 ft, on a roll of 1?

Let's see...

Strong hero 1 with military background occupation:
Feats: Personal Firearms Proficiency (background occupation), Far Shot, Dead Aim
BAB: +1
Dexterity 18: +4
Dead Aim feat: +2 on full-round aim
Overall: +5, +7 on full-round aim, +12 on full-round aim vs. object

(picks up Weapon Focus as a bonus feat at level 2, giving a total additional +2 at 2nd level).

Range increment:
M16A2: 80 feet
Far Shot feat: +40 feet
No scopes allowed
Overall: 120 feet range increment

Man-size object: AC 5.

Man-size target at 120 ft: +12 vs 5
Man-size target at 240 ft: +10 vs 5
Man-size target at 360 ft: +8 vs 5
Man-size target at 480 ft: +6 vs 5
Man-size target at 600 ft: +4 vs 5
Man-size target at 720 ft: +2 vs 5 (roll 3+)
Man-size target at 840 ft: +0 vs 5 (roll 5+)
Man-size target at 960 ft: -2 vs 5 (roll 7+)
Man-size target at 1080 ft: -4 vs 5 (roll 9+)
Man-size target at 1200 ft: -6 vs 5 (roll 11+)

Hitting a target at 1500 ft is impossible without sights using an M16A2 rifle under d20 Modern rules, as it exceeds ten range increments.

----

@Bogardan_Mage: I was citing clinical definitions of mental disability. Legal definitions (such as the one you linked to) of mental disability quite often differ from clinical definitions. This results in some controversies that are sufficiently politically-charged to be off-topic on this site.

hamishspence
2013-02-15, 05:11 PM
If you really, really minmax it (even without magic) you can have a 5 HD human who can make DC 50 Knowledge checks- as I mentioned earlier.




Hitting a target at 1500 ft is impossible without sights using an M16A2 rifle under d20 Modern rules, as it exceeds ten range increments.


Which, perhaps, tells us D20 modern guns are under-ranged.

SowZ
2013-02-15, 05:16 PM
D20 Modern also specifically has ordinary people at level 10 (which refutes, if nothing else, the claim that level 5 as the real world max was an intentional move). Also, I'd argue that knowing about secret societies is easier than making a world changing scientific breakthrough, so my point stands.

Not really. D&D 3.5 is not the same as D20 modern.

MukkTB
2013-02-15, 05:18 PM
What stat generation method that could be used universally for a species would accurately describe a normal population? The standard array doesn't adequately cover the variation you would encounter. Just throwing 3d6 6 times seems like it would generate a society with more gimps and supermen than there should be for a given population size. Then there is genetics and inheritance to consider.

If you're a simulationist these arguments seem enough to discredit the idea of using one of the above mentioned methods to generate characters.

hamishspence
2013-02-15, 05:22 PM
Not really. D&D 3.5 is not the same as D20 modern.

The D&D book Cityscape also uses similar principles though, with 1st level, 5th level, and 10th level sample NPCs.

DMG2 had Apprentices complete their apprenticeships at 5th level, and Arms & Equipment Guide worked similarly.


What stat generation method that could be used universally for a species would accurately describe a normal population? The standard array doesn't adequately cover the variation you would encounter. Just throwing 3d6 6 times seems like it would generate a society with more gimps and supermen than there should be for a given population size. Then there is genetics and inheritance to consider.

If you're a simulationist these arguments seem enough to discredit the idea of using one of the above mentioned methods to generate characters.

Use multiple ones- most people have nonelite array, some have elite array, a few get to roll.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-02-15, 05:24 PM
@Bogardan_Mage: I was citing clinical definitions of mental disability. Legal definitions (such as the one you linked to) of mental disability quite often differ from clinical definitions. This results in some controversies that are sufficiently politically-charged to be off-topic on this site.
Well ok then, but I still don't see an issue. IQ is normally distributed by definition, 3d6 is approximately normally distributed (there are issues of granularity as well as maxima and minima, but that's just an artifact of the game really). The incidence of a person two standard deviations below the mean should be equal, by definition. SowZ's claim that the 3d6 bell curve is totally unsuitable to the IQ bell curve is mathematically absurd.

On the other topic, D20 Modern has a huge feat tax for soldiers (with certain assumptions about what "proficiency" really means) described here (http://community.d20moderndb.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=210). Feats have the potential to seriously push up the minimum level, especially if you assume soldiers will have feats like Far Shot and Burst Fire.


Not really. D&D 3.5 is not the same as D20 modern.
Most of the mechanics Jason Alexander examined are the same, and d20 Modern does not have the excuse of taking place in a world of mythic fantasy (it takes place in an action movie, but the people we're talking about are the extras, not the main heroes). Also what I meant is that if you take d20 Modern rules as valid for 3.5 then you must also accept the other baggage. So thanks for agreeing with me there.

SowZ
2013-02-15, 05:42 PM
Well ok then, but I still don't see an issue. IQ is normally distributed by definition, 3d6 is approximately normally distributed (there are issues of granularity as well as maxima and minima, but that's just an artifact of the game really). The incidence of a person two standard deviations below the mean should be equal, by definition. SowZ's claim that the 3d6 bell curve is totally unsuitable to the IQ bell curve is mathematically absurd.

On the other topic, D20 Modern has a huge feat tax for soldiers (with certain assumptions about what "proficiency" really means) described here (http://community.d20moderndb.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=210). Feats have the potential to seriously push up the minimum level, especially if you assume soldiers will have feats like Far Shot and Burst Fire.


Most of the mechanics Jason Alexander examined are the same, and d20 Modern does not have the excuse of taking place in a world of mythic fantasy (it takes place in an action movie, but the people we're talking about are the extras, not the main heroes). Also what I meant is that if you take d20 Modern rules as valid for 3.5 then you must also accept the other baggage. So thanks for agreeing with me there.

My claim isn't just about the IQ bell curve. It's about the complete and utter randomness of stat distribution with 3d6. 1 in 10 people I know are not disabled. Someone with a 5 in pretty much any physical stat couldn't do physical labor. 1 in 18 people is incredibly far from the number of people that are not qualified for physical labor, once you discount people who developed diseases and suffered injuries/old age.

And the argument that a lot of people are malnourished and such so that accounts for the large percentage of people with such low stats does not fly at all. Because the 3d6 stat distribution would have the exact same variance in Sweden as in America as in the Congo. The disabled numbers would be as high anywhere, no matter the nourishment or medical advances.

And when did I agree that d20 modern rules are applicable to 3.5? Please stop being sarcastic just for its own sake. The level distribution in d20 is different than for 3.5. 3.5 specifically states in its rules that the large majority of soldiers are first level with a decent number of 2nd levels. It is plastered through the system. That does not ring true for d20 modern. So what?

Ashtagon
2013-02-15, 05:46 PM
On the other topic, D20 Modern has a huge feat tax for soldiers (with certain assumptions about what "proficiency" really means) described here (http://community.d20moderndb.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=210). Feats have the potential to seriously push up the minimum level, especially if you assume soldiers will have feats like Far Shot and Burst Fire.

Penchant on that other forum got his basic stats wrong.


Military background bonus feat: Personal Firearms proficiency
human: Advanced Firearms Proficiency.
1st level: Armour Proficiency (light).
3rd level: Armour Proficiency (medium).
6th level: Armour Proficiency (heavy).

ok, but why the assumption the basic training includes proficiency in forced entry suit armour? Scratch that. Fast hero can get Personal Firearms Proficiency at 2nd level as a bonus feat. So it looks more like:

Military background bonus feat: Armour Proficiency (light).
human: Armour Proficiency (medium).
1st level: Personal Firearms Proficiency.
2nd level fast hero: choice from bonus feats (Point Blank Shot?).
3rd level: Advanced Firearms Proficiency (maybe Far Shot?).
4th level fast hero: choice from bonus feats (Double Tap?).

Yeah, taking fast hero means he won't have the BAB to qualify for soldier as his level 4.

Choice of feat at 3rd level would depend on whether he's specialising for sniper duty or assault team.

Also, Advanced Firearms Proficiency is actually quite useless as a feat. It changes the target number from 10 to 14 when using autofire; it doesn't make the task impossible.

Our level 4 Fast hero who trained as a sniper has BAB +3, presumably a Dexterity of 18 (+4 bonus). He needs to roll a 7+ to succeed on the autofire attack roll. Seems legit. Give him a couple more levels, and he won't even miss the feat except as a prerequisite.

hamishspence
2013-02-15, 05:48 PM
Not all soldiers would have the Soldier advanced class- some would just be multiclass Ordinaries (Strong/Fast, I suspect).

Bogardan_Mage
2013-02-15, 06:04 PM
My claim isn't just about the IQ bell curve. It's about the complete and utter randomness of stat distribution with 3d6. 1 in 10 people I know are not disabled. Someone with a 5 in pretty much any physical stat couldn't do physical labor. 1 in 18 people is incredibly far from the number of people that are not qualified for physical labor, once you discount people who developed diseases and suffered injuries/old age.
Again with the broad claims and again without numbers to back it up. Unless you can demonstrate that the rules of the game do not allow a person with a 5 in Str, Dex, or Con to perform physical labor (at all? Or just not for extended periods/as a career?) then the only possible basis for this claim is by analogy to real world distributions, in which case you are tautologically wrong. We talk about IQ because it's relatively easy to measure, but by all means develop arguments for the other ability scores.


And the argument that a lot of people are malnourished and such so that accounts for the large percentage of people with such low stats does not fly at all. Because the 3d6 stat distribution would have the exact same variance in Sweden as in America as in the Congo. The disabled numbers would be as high anywhere, no matter the nourishment or medical advances.
Just as well I didn't make that argument, then.


And when did I agree that d20 modern rules are applicable to 3.5? Please stop being sarcastic just for its own sake. The level distribution in d20 is different than for 3.5. 3.5 specifically states in its rules that the large majority of soldiers are first level with a decent number of 2nd levels. It is plastered through the system. That does not ring true for d20 modern. So what?
You didn't agree that they are applicable, you agreed that they are probably not (at least given certain assumptions that you accept but I don't). You decided to quote me, for some reason, even though you were actually arguing with Hamishspence. Just to clarify: IF we accept d20 modern's DCs THEN we must also accept their assumptions about what counts as a normal person (because these two are necessarily linked, the DCs are based on what the normal person can do). Showing that the latter is not applicable to 3.5 therefore throws the former out.


Penchant on that other forum got his basic stats wrong.

Military background bonus feat: Personal Firearms proficiency
human: Advanced Firearms Proficiency.
1st level: Armour Proficiency (light).
3rd level: Armour Proficiency (medium).
6th level: Armour Proficiency (heavy).

ok, but why the assumption the basic training includes proficiency in forced entry suit armour? Scratch that. Fast hero can get Personal Firearms Proficiency at 2nd level as a bonus feat. So it looks more like:

Military background bonus feat: Armour Proficiency (light).
human: Armour Proficiency (medium).
1st level: Personal Firearms Proficiency.
2nd level fast hero: choice from bonus feats (Point Blank Shot?).
3rd level: Advanced Firearms Proficiency (maybe Far Shot?).
4th level fast hero: choice from bonus feats (Double Tap?).

Yeah, taking fast hero means he won't have the BAB to qualify for soldier as his level 4.

Choice of feat at 3rd level would depend on whether he's specialising for sniper duty or assault team.

Also, Advanced Firearms Proficiency is actually quite useless as a feat. It changes the target number from 10 to 14 when using autofire; it doesn't make the task impossible.

Our level 4 Fast hero who trained as a sniper has BAB +3, presumably a Dexterity of 18 (+4 bonus). He needs to roll a 7+ to succeed on the autofire attack roll. Seems legit. Give him a couple more levels, and he won't even miss the feat except as a prerequisite.
The fact that heavy armor proficiency is not necessary is addressed further in the thread (prompting Penchant to amend the minimum level to 3).
Advanced Firearms Proficiency isn't necessary on its own, but it is a prerequisite for Burst Fire. The reason I think that feat is important is that Charles Ryan wrote a number of articles explaining what this feat represents, and drawing on his own military training so it seems like this should be something most if not all soldiers have.
Also you're assuming heroic levels, rather than ordinary. Only about 5% of the population has heroic levels, according to d20 Modern, so while it's possible that every member of the armed forces falls into this category, I'm not sure it's likely. Also as we're talking about what ordinary folk are capable of it seems counter-intuitive to use classes that are explicitly extraordinary.

Ashtagon
2013-02-15, 06:07 PM
Also you're assuming heroic levels, rather than ordinary. Only about 5% of the population has heroic levels, according to d20 Modern, so while it's possible that every member of the armed forces falls into this category, I'm not sure it's likely. Also as we're talking about what ordinary folk are capable of it seems counter-intuitive to use classes that are explicitly extraordinary.

Fine. You tell the men in the armed forces they aren't heroes. Me, I'll sell tickets to watch the resulting spectacle.

SowZ
2013-02-15, 06:19 PM
Again with the broad claims and again without numbers to back it up. Unless you can demonstrate that the rules of the game do not allow a person with a 5 in Str, Dex, or Con to perform physical labor (at all? Or just not for extended periods/as a career?) then the only possible basis for this claim is by analogy to real world distributions, in which case you are tautologically wrong. We talk about IQ because it's relatively easy to measure, but by all means develop arguments for the other ability scores.


Just as well I didn't make that argument, then.


You didn't agree that they are applicable, you agreed that they are probably not (at least given certain assumptions that you accept but I don't). You decided to quote me, for some reason, even though you were actually arguing with Hamishspence. Just to clarify: IF we accept d20 modern's DCs THEN we must also accept their assumptions about what counts as a normal person (because these two are necessarily linked, the DCs are based on what the normal person can do). Showing that the latter is not applicable to 3.5 therefore throws the former out.


The fact that heavy armor proficiency is not necessary is addressed further in the thread (prompting Penchant to amend the minimum level to 3).
Advanced Firearms Proficiency isn't necessary on its own, but it is a prerequisite for Burst Fire. The reason I think that feat is important is that Charles Ryan wrote a number of articles explaining what this feat represents, and drawing on his own military training so it seems like this should be something most if not all soldiers have.
Also you're assuming heroic levels, rather than ordinary. Only about 5% of the population has heroic levels, according to d20 Modern, so while it's possible that every member of the armed forces falls into this category, I'm not sure it's likely. Also as we're talking about what ordinary folk are capable of it seems counter-intuitive to use classes that are explicitly extraordinary.

Well, you can explain what you meant when you said, "X percent of the world is malnourished," to explain the low ability scores. Or was it someone else who said that? I think it was you who was arguing global averages/living conditions growing up for ability scores to defend 3d6.

When did I accept d20 moderns DCs in relation to 3.5?

Let's look at Strength. With a Str of 5, you can only lift 50 pounds without staggering and moving at a rate slower than one foot per second. This would immediately disqualify you from any job requiring physical labour. Assuming 5 Con is just as bad for ones constitution as 5 Str is for ones Str, (and why wouldn't it be?) 5 Con would make one tire too quickly to work a physical job.

Talakeal
2013-02-15, 06:27 PM
D20 Modern also specifically has ordinary people at level 10 (which refutes, if nothing else, the claim that level 5 as the real world max was an intentional move). Also, I'd argue that knowing about secret societies is easier than making a world changing scientific breakthrough, so my point stands.

Is d20 modern supposed to model "real life" or "action movies" that only happen to be set in the modern era?

Acanous
2013-02-15, 06:51 PM
Not necessarily. A 10th-level fighter could kill 1st-level warriors all day long without breaking a sweat or taking significant injury.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

At supreme personal risk of Internet HAET, and purely intended as a thought experiment without any desire to speak for or against any religion...

A List of the Miracles of Jesus Christ, according to the Bible, with the lowest-level spell possible to achieve the effect
Control of Nature
1. Calming the storm – Matthew 8:23-27; Mark 4:37-41; Luke 8:22-25
Control weather, 7th level

2. Feeding 5,000 - Matthew 14:14-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-14
No easy D&D equivalent. Fun fact, though, the Bible specifically excludes women and children, so the actual number is almost certainly much higher than 5,000, most likely upwards of 20,000 (accounting for multiple wives, as was normal for the time, and lots of children, again, as was normal for the time)

3. Walking on water - Matthew 14:22-32; Mark 6:47-52; John 6:16-21
Water walk, 3rd level

4. Feeding 4,000 – Matthew 15:32-39; Mark 8:1-9
SEE 2

5. Fish with coin – Matthew 17:24-27
Prestidigitation, cantrip

6. Fig tree withers – Matthew 21:18-22; Mark 11:12-14, 20-25
This could be just about any spell that deals damage. For argument's sake, blight, 4th level

7. Huge catch of fish – Luke 5:4-11; John 21:1-11
No easy translation into D&D. One would think Jesus used sympathy, but it has a 1 hour casting time, but the Bible strongly implies that he did it in a matter of moments.

8. Water into wine – John 2:1-11
Polymorph any object, 8th level

Healing of Individuals
Most of Jesus' healing spells can be accomplished via remove curse or remove disease, both 3rd level spells. He was also able, however, to "heal" some individuals who were born with defects, such as the two blind men of Matthew 9:27-31. This, however, is probably within the limits of limited wish, a 7th level spell, and certainly within the limits of polymorph any object, an 8th level.

Resurrections
Jesus brought three people back from the dead: Jairus' daughter, the widow's son at Nain, and Lazarus of Bethany. Jairus' daughter had been dying the same day that Jairus asked Jesus to intercede and Jesus reaches her no more than a few hours after her death, so her death falls well within the limits of raise dead (5th level). The widow's son at Nain was already in a coffin and on his way to be buried; while we don't know precisely how long he had been dead, it's my understanding that Jewish tradition is to bury a dead family member within a week, so it's no more than 7 days - again, well within the limits of raise dead (which, being a 5th-level spell, can be used on a body up to 10 days after death). Lazarus was specifically mentioned to have been dead for four days by the time Jesus got to him - so, once again, well within the limits of raise dead.

Exorcisms
Jesus performed five exorcisms. This can be accomplished with exorcism, a 1st-level spell from Fiendish Codex I
Conclusion
Most of Jesus' spells suggest him to be a Cleric with the Weather domain, or else a Druid. His general spellcasting ability for Cleric spells puts him at least at 13th level as a Cleric, although his apparent access to prestidigitation and polymorph any object also suggests he's a sorcerer or wizard of at least 15th level. Possibly he's a Cleric 13/Sorcerer 15, though that seems like horrible optimization on Christ's part, even considering that it would put him in Epic, although Epic spells would explain some of his difficult-to-translate miracles. More likely he's a Cleric 15 (at least) that somehow convinced the DM - possibly by being the DM's son? :smalltongue: - to give him access to some wizard spells.

Ever notice how all of Jesus' miracles that don't involve healing, involve water in some way?

If you give him access to Miracle it explains the Sor/Wiz spells as well as the feeding of thousands. He doesn't need to be lv 28 (15/13) in order to pull all that off, he could do it at 17th level Cleric.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-02-15, 07:02 PM
Well, you can explain what you meant when you said, "X percent of the world is malnourished," to explain the low ability scores. Or was it someone else who said that? I think it was you who was arguing global averages/living conditions growing up for ability scores to defend 3d6.
No, it was Frozen Feet http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14714420&postcount=180


When did I accept d20 moderns DCs in relation to 3.5?
I will try to explain this one more time. I responded to Hamish about d20 Modern DCs. You took my post out of context to make a point I was kind of tangentially already making. That point is, broadly, that d20 Modern DCs are not valid evidence of the intended or actual structure of 3.5. We agree on this. What is the problem?


Let's look at Strength. With a Str of 5, you can only lift 50 pounds without staggering and moving at a rate slower than one foot per second. This would immediately disqualify you from any job requiring physical labour. Assuming 5 Con is just as bad for ones constitution as 5 Str is for ones Str, (and why wouldn't it be?) 5 Con would make one tire too quickly to work a physical job.
I'm having trouble finding statistics on this, do you have any idea what the actual distribution should be? If I converted the units right, one thing I found gave a lowest score of about 30 pounds, which fits with Str 3, but I don't trust my interpretation of the data there. I'm also not sure that's how Constitution works.

Is d20 modern supposed to model "real life" or "action movies" that only happen to be set in the modern era?

...d20 Modern does not have the excuse of taking place in a world of mythic fantasy (it takes place in an action movie, but the people we're talking about are the extras, not the main heroes).
:smallwink:

Grundy
2013-02-15, 07:06 PM
Let's look at Strength. With a Str of 5, you can only lift 50 pounds without staggering and moving at a rate slower than one foot per second. This would immediately disqualify you from any job requiring physical labour. Assuming 5 Con is just as bad for ones constitution as 5 Str is for ones Str, (and why wouldn't it be?) 5 Con would make one tire too quickly to work a physical job.

Well, I totally disagree on the strength. My wife finds carrying our 30 lb child a burden, stopped lifting him over her head 10 lbs ago, and can only carry our 50 lb child short distances. She could qualify for Str 5. Otherwise she is fit, and she's certainly capable of manual labor. Not framing or concrete, but housework, cooking, painting, or otherwise 90% of what qualifies as manual labor.
If you look at job requirements, frequently they will list " must be able to repeatedly lift 40 lbs" or 75 lbs. That is the exception, not the rule, for manual labor.

There's no way to prove requirements for Con or Dex, at least for manual labor.

SowZ
2013-02-15, 07:18 PM
No, it was Frozen Feet http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14714420&postcount=180


I will try to explain this one more time. I responded to Hamish about d20 Modern DCs. You took my post out of context to make a point I was kind of tangentially already making. That point is, broadly, that d20 Modern DCs are not valid evidence of the intended or actual structure of 3.5. We agree on this. What is the problem?


I'm having trouble finding statistics on this, do you have any idea what the actual distribution should be? If I converted the units right, one thing I found gave a lowest score of about 30 pounds, which fits with Str 3, but I don't trust my interpretation of the data there. I'm also not sure that's how Constitution works.


:smallwink:

Oh, sorry, that argument is irrelevant to you then. I think I have caused a decent amount of confusion with both of the above points by combining different peoples arguments in my head and assuming people are saying things they aren't.

As for Strength, here is the table from the SRD-

Table: Carrying Capacity
Str. Light Medium Heavy
1 3 lb. or less 4–6 lb. 7–10 lb.
2 6 lb. or less 7–13 lb. 14–20 lb.
3 10 lb. or less 11–20 lb. 21–30 lb.
4 13 lb. or less 14–26 lb. 27–40 lb.
5 16 lb. or less 17–33 lb. 34–50 lb.
6 20 lb. or less 21–40 lb. 41–60 lb.
7 23 lb. or less 24–46 lb. 47–70 lb.
8 26 lb. or less 27–53 lb. 54–80 lb.
9 30 lb. or less 31–60 lb. 61–90 lb.
10 33 lb. or less 34–66 lb. 67–100 lb.
11 38 lb. or less 39–76 lb. 77–115 lb.
12 43 lb. or less 44–86 lb. 87–130 lb.
13 50 lb. or less 51–100 lb. 101–150 lb.
14 58 lb. or less 59–116 lb. 117–175 lb.
15 66 lb. or less 67–133 lb. 134–200 lb.
16 76 lb. or less 77–153 lb. 154–230 lb.
17 86 lb. or less 87–173 lb. 174–260 lb.
18 100 lb. or less 101–200 lb. 201–300 lb.
19 116 lb. or less 117–233 lb. 234–350 lb.
20 133 lb. or less 134–266 lb. 267–400 lb.


Well, I totally disagree on the strength. My wife finds carrying our 30 lb child a burden, stopped lifting him over her head 10 lbs ago, and can only carry our 50 lb child short distances. She could qualify for Str 5. Otherwise she is fit, and she's certainly capable of manual labor. Not framing or concrete, but housework, cooking, painting, or otherwise 90% of what qualifies as manual labor.
If you look at job requirements, frequently they will list " must be able to repeatedly lift 40 lbs" or 75 lbs. That is the exception, not the rule, for manual labor.

There's no way to prove requirements for Con or Dex, at least for manual labor.

Well, as a women, she has about sixty percent of the upper body strength of a man. D&D doesn't account for this. Few men without injuries, old age, disease/malnutrition/etc., would count as 5 Str.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-02-15, 07:43 PM
Oh, sorry, that argument is irrelevant to you then. I think I have caused a decent amount of confusion with both of the above points by combining different peoples arguments in my head and assuming people are saying things they aren't.

As for Strength, here is the table from the SRD-

Table: Carrying Capacity
Str. Light Medium Heavy
1 3 lb. or less 4–6 lb. 7–10 lb.
2 6 lb. or less 7–13 lb. 14–20 lb.
3 10 lb. or less 11–20 lb. 21–30 lb.
4 13 lb. or less 14–26 lb. 27–40 lb.
5 16 lb. or less 17–33 lb. 34–50 lb.
6 20 lb. or less 21–40 lb. 41–60 lb.
7 23 lb. or less 24–46 lb. 47–70 lb.
8 26 lb. or less 27–53 lb. 54–80 lb.
9 30 lb. or less 31–60 lb. 61–90 lb.
10 33 lb. or less 34–66 lb. 67–100 lb.
11 38 lb. or less 39–76 lb. 77–115 lb.
12 43 lb. or less 44–86 lb. 87–130 lb.
13 50 lb. or less 51–100 lb. 101–150 lb.
14 58 lb. or less 59–116 lb. 117–175 lb.
15 66 lb. or less 67–133 lb. 134–200 lb.
16 76 lb. or less 77–153 lb. 154–230 lb.
17 86 lb. or less 87–173 lb. 174–260 lb.
18 100 lb. or less 101–200 lb. 201–300 lb.
19 116 lb. or less 117–233 lb. 234–350 lb.
20 133 lb. or less 134–266 lb. 267–400 lb.
I meant real-world statistics. Saying 2% of people can't lift more than 50 pounds over their heads doesn't demonstrate anything wrong if that's actually the case in reality.

SowZ
2013-02-15, 08:18 PM
I meant real-world statistics. Saying 2% of people can't lift more than 50 pounds over their heads doesn't demonstrate anything wrong if that's actually the case in reality.

Alright, so with 3d6, you will get nearly 5% of people with a Str score of 3-5. That actually corresponds with this chart- http://simantics.blogspot.com/2011/07/mens-maximum-deadlifting-distribution_07.html

Except that in this chart, those five percent include people who are sickly or injured or anything, whereas the rolled stats are mostly inherent. Regardless, even if the 3d6 gives too many weak people, it does not seem to be nearly as much of a departure from reality as I expected.

I'll look for more data. If, however, the rest of the data and the numbers of incompetence in other stats, (best as we can figure them,) corresponds with this one, I will have to recant my statement of 3d6 being 'ridiculous' and instead say it is just exaggerated.

I think the best way to measure Constitution would be long distance running.

ArcturusV
2013-02-15, 08:26 PM
I ponder where this idea that sickness, disease, disability, etc, doesn't count for stats? I mean typically when you'd look at the examples of "how to make stats work for a background" thing (More popular in say, 2nd edition rather than 3rd), it would usually include examples like "Dex is 5? Maybe you have a clubfoot." or "Strength is 4? You had a severe fever as a kid that left your muscles weak and atrophied for the rest of your life."

Though sometimes it was also something like "Con is 7? You were just a nerd who never got out and exercised".