PDA

View Full Version : Reality is Unrealistic: Things Real People Can Do



Arbane
2013-06-09, 04:19 PM
Speaking of weird animal abilities. Maybe we could also make a thread about weird skills humans have mastered. It's generally considered that in d20 games, 6th level characters are reaching the limits of what the human body can do and everything beyond that is superhero magic. But then from time to time, there are people who pull of what common sense would say is impossible.

A few real people who do things common sense says should be impossible:

Charles Blondin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Blondin), tightrope-walker.


He especially owed his celebrity and fortune to his idea of crossing the Niagara Gorge (located on the American-Canadian border) on a tightrope, 1,100 ft (340 m) long, 3.25 in (8.3 cm) in diameter and 160 ft (49 m) above the water, near the location of the current Rainbow Bridge. This he did on 30 June 1859, and a number of times thereafter, always with different theatrical variations: blindfolded, in a sack, trundling a wheelbarrow, on stilts, carrying a man (his manager, Harry Colcord) on his back, sitting down midway while he cooked and ate an omelet and standing on a chair with only one chair leg on the rope.

Good luck doing ANY of that in Your Favorite System without getting to try out the falling rules!

Apollo Robins, world's greatest pickpocket. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/01/07/130107fa_fact_green)

Arnold Schwarzenegger, period. "Let me get this straight. You want your character to have maxed out strength, high wealth, be famous as a movie star, AND hold political office?" "He's got Disadvantage: Accent to balance it out!" "ARRRGH..."

Everyone on this list. (http://www.cracked.com/article_17019_5-real-life-soldiers-who-make-rambo-look-like-*****.html) Reality's damage rules are clearly broken.

So are the falling rules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87).

This guy's Driving check (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYjCN6tr4H4).

tensai_oni
2013-06-09, 05:06 PM
Sounds like Fate is much better at emulating reality than DnD is. Which is funny because it's supposed to be a dramatic, cinema-like system that wants to make things interesting first and realistic second... if ever.

Seharvepernfan
2013-06-09, 05:13 PM
I don't know if these two were on your list at any point, but this (http://9gag.com/gag/5950619) guy shows why bows are actually so deadly, and this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym3PiN29VB0) guy makes movie cowboys look slow.

prufock
2013-06-09, 05:18 PM
These (http://www.ladventurers.com/top10-people-of-the-world-with-real-life-superpowers/) guys (http://www.cracked.com/article_19661_6-real-people-with-mind-blowing-mutant-superpowers_p2.html?wa_user1=3&wa_user2=Science&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=recommended) deserve mention.

Grinner
2013-06-09, 05:22 PM
Darn. Prufock beat me to the Tibetan monks. But yeah, they can do some insane things with the application of a little biofeedback.

Frozen_Feet
2013-06-09, 05:50 PM
I was about to post the Cracked article with badass soldiers, but you already beat me to it.

Meanwhile, that archer and marksman make me giddy inside. :smallbiggrin:

BWR
2013-06-09, 06:12 PM
Most of these folks are amazing. Some of them seem a bit exaggerated or even faked.

Rhynn
2013-06-09, 06:13 PM
I don't know if these two were on your list at any point, but this (http://9gag.com/gag/5950619) guy shows why bows are actually so deadly

No he doesn't. How far are they penetrating at any decent range? He's short-drawing. Firing that fast is not going to put a lot of power into the arrow. The length of the draw is critical there. Pretty sure this specifically was gone over in the Real-World Weapons and Armor thread.

Frozen_Feet
2013-06-09, 06:37 PM
Based on what's shown on the video and a paper on arrow penetration I read, at 30 to 60 meters range his arrows are still scoring lethal hits on a human clad in single-layered chainmail.

How deadly is that in your book?

Rhynn
2013-06-09, 06:56 PM
Based on what's shown on the video and a paper on arrow penetration I read, at 30 to 60 meters range his arrows are still scoring lethal hits on a human clad in single-layered chainmail.

Can you link those sources? That sounds very powerful for an obvious short-draw. How is that kind of power achieved with such a short draw length? Or is it just for the later bits, he's not speed-shooting, which show a huge difference in the draw length? (The mail shooting bit is worthless, though; butted mail without textile backing, at close range, and even so the penetration doesn't look that deep - although obviously it's hard to assess.)

It's awesome trick shooting, but I'm not buying the speed-shooting is that deadly.

Doorhandle
2013-06-09, 07:02 PM
Pretty, deadly, but plate would still stop it.
C'mon guys, you haven't even gotten into mutnats yet!
Also, in my experience cracked is a pretty good guide for this sort of thing.

Cliffnotes of these (http://www.cracked.com/article_19661_6-real-people-with-mind-blowing-mutant-superpowers.html) articles: (http://www.cracked.com/article_16449_7-people-from-around-world-with-real-mutant-superpowers.html)
Ma Xiangang = electricity immune and conductive to the point he could jam his thumb in a socket while holding a lightbulb in his mouth to get it to light up without harm. He's not the only one either.

Dean Karnazes = body has unusual amount of endurance and can basically run forever.

Stephen Wiltshire/Kim Peek Freakish memory recall, including visual. Worth noting that Peek wasn't austics but just had a different brain structure.

Wim Hof: endure elements. Enough said. possible some relation to the monks talked about earlier.

Isao Machii: excellent predictive ability, to the point he can pinpoint-hit an airsoft pellet with his sword that he cannot even see.

Michel Lotito: Can eat basically anything.

That baby that ended up double-muscled, much like a bully whippet.

Ben Underwood: mastered human echolocation. Yes, that is a thing.

Tim Cridland: pain tolerance. ridiculous amounts of it.

Masutatsu Oyama: The Godhand. More specifically, capable of beating a bear or a bull in a fight bare-handed with sheer karate skill.

Yves Rossi: Doesn't count, he has a jetpack. Worth mentioning though because hey, jetpack!

Also, looking up how magicians do certain magic tricks wouldn't be a bad idea as it shows how there misdirection is achieved. Except maybe for David Copperfield as part of his skill is how fast he can perform his tricks.

Mr Beer
2013-06-09, 07:24 PM
Arnold Schwarzenegger, period. "Let me get this straight. You want your character to have maxed out strength, high wealth, be famous as a movie star, AND hold political office?" "He's got Disadvantage: Accent to balance it out!" "ARRRGH..."

In GURPS terms I'd say he'd have the following when bulked and governating:

ST: 15 [50] / Lifting ST: 17 [6]
Wealth: Multimillionaire [75]
Status 6: Governor [15] (3 levels from Wealth)
Reputation +2 [10] (famous movie star)

That's only 156 points. He'd have decent IQ, probably Charisma and various skills but you can be Arnie for 250 points easily.

Grinner
2013-06-09, 07:29 PM
Ben Underwood: mastered human echolocation. Yes, that is a thing.

Stevie Wonder has something similar, if that biography I read in middle school is true.

valadil
2013-06-09, 07:30 PM
http://youtu.be/3_FLTcjGbG8 Arrow catching. I'm still having trouble accepting it.

Arbane
2013-06-09, 07:34 PM
In GURPS terms I'd say he'd have the following when bulked and governating:

ST: 15 [50] / Lifting ST: 17 [6]
Wealth: Multimillionaire [75]
Status 6: Governor [15] (3 levels from Wealth)
Reputation +2 [10] (famous movie star)

That's only 156 points. He'd have decent IQ, probably Charisma and various skills but you can be Arnie for 250 points easily.

Sounds about right.

Thing is, a depressingly large number of games think it would be 'unrealistic' to have a PC as competent as Arnie, or Sir Richard Burton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Richard_Burton) (the explorer, not the actor).

Hiro Protagonest
2013-06-09, 07:35 PM
http://youtu.be/3_FLTcjGbG8 Arrow catching. I'm still having trouble accepting it.

It was his ninth attempt. Assuming it's the same archer, with the same bow, he likely anticipated the timing based on the previous attempts.

Frozen_Feet
2013-06-09, 07:35 PM
Can you link those sources?

I don't have a link at hand, but the article was brough up in the "real weapons & armor" thread some months ago. It was about a man testing various arrows against various armors.

Grinner
2013-06-09, 07:37 PM
http://youtu.be/3_FLTcjGbG8 Arrow catching. I'm still having trouble accepting it.

Criss Angel did something like that once. Not spectacularly, mind you, but it can be done.

And speaking of Criss Angel, he once did a show on Hellstromism, also known as muscle reading. The concept of Hellstromism is that you can get a general idea of what someone's thinking by feeling up their muscles.

valadil
2013-06-09, 07:40 PM
It was his ninth attempt. Assuming it's the same archer, with the same bow, he likely anticipated the timing based on the previous attempts.

I've seen better videos. Picked that one because it was short and to the point.

I agree that they're all based on the archer putting the arrow in the right place though. I'm not sure you could use that defensively, especially since all the catches are near the fletching and the tip would have already hit if aimed at the body. But if you're running a game that is exaggerated past the point of realism, it becomes a plausible technique.

Rhynn
2013-06-09, 07:46 PM
That's only 156 points. He'd have decent IQ, probably Charisma and various skills but you can be Arnie for 250 points easily.

Normal people are 50 points... normal heroes are 100 points. :smalleek: 250 is mild superhero level.

Flickerdart
2013-06-09, 07:50 PM
Normal people are 50 points... normal heroes are 100 points. :smalleek: 250 is mild superhero level.
What value did you expect for the Terminator and Mr. Freeze? :smalltongue:

TheCountAlucard
2013-06-09, 08:39 PM
Arnold is also a master manipulator, and was so even in his youth. It's not unlikely he was a student of psychology.

Mr Beer
2013-06-09, 08:51 PM
Normal people are 50 points... normal heroes are 100 points. :smalleek: 250 is mild superhero level.

Yeah, allegedly. Personally I think about 150 points is a good starting point for fantasy characters, unless we go really gritty. 250 points is about right for realistic human limits, so by that measure Arnie is about as good as you can get.

Bill Gates is probably another such character, I guess. I'm not 100% sure about Multimillionaire but I assume he's MM3 [125] and IQ: 16 [120]. So that's 245 points right there.

EDIT

Ooh, probably Bruce Lee too. DX: 16 [120], Very Fit [15], Wealthy [20], Reputation +3 [15] and at least [20] points in martial arts skills of various kinds. That's 190 points.

Seharvepernfan
2013-06-09, 08:59 PM
No he doesn't. How far are they penetrating at any decent range?

Probably through the eyeball and into the back of skull?

Mr. Mask
2013-06-09, 08:59 PM
A few real people who do things common sense says should be impossible:

Charles Blondin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Blondin), tightrope-walker.

Good luck doing ANY of that in Your Favorite System without getting to try out the falling rules!

Apollo Robins, world's greatest pickpocket. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/01/07/130107fa_fact_green)

This guy's Driving check (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYjCN6tr4H4).[/QUOTE] Yeah, DnD's skill system doesn't work out. Fusing non-combat skills with combat level makes this hard to accomplish.


Arnold Schwarzenegger, period. "Let me get this straight. You want your character to have maxed out strength, high wealth, be famous as a movie star, AND hold political office?" "He's got Disadvantage: Accent to balance it out!" "ARRRGH..." Arnold isn't the best example (specially considering he's been forced out of politics recently). For better examples, look at Musashi who won over sixty duels--then, after that, he claimed that he had been a foolish youth who didn't understand strategy, and wrote his book of Five Rings.

Look at Einstein, Tesla, Da Vinci, Genghis Khan, Alexander, and many other famous people.

The only equivalent in DnD, would be the DMPC (and the occasional Gandalf).


Everyone on this list. (http://www.cracked.com/article_17019_5-real-life-soldiers-who-make-rambo-look-like-*****.html) Reality's damage rules are clearly broken.

So are the falling rules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87). I think you linked to the wrong article. That one is about the heroic achievements of various soldiers. I suggest looking instead to this one: http://www.cracked.com/article_18429_6-soldiers-who-survived-****-that-would-kill-terminator.html

HP is based on the premise of pain tolerance and bleeding. The problem being that the similarity is poorly modelled (like the -10 HP death system of DnD), and that pain tolerance is incredibly random. Many people will be dropped by a single bullet--and at the same time, the police encounter people who need countless rounds of shotgun blasts before they finally drop. The only ways to certainly drop a person is by absurd force, proper destruction of the brain, or proper destruction of the spine/nervous system.


With falls, did you know cats can be thrown out of planes?--and survive? Providing they don't land on something hazardous, cats are actually safer dropping from absurd heights way above, than they are at shorter distances like a few stories high (the reason is that the cats need time to prepare for the fall). Chickens, on the other hand, will die if thrown out of planes (poor chicken), because they have trouble controlling themselves in the air when tossed out of a plane.

Humans are more dependant on trees and snow, but I think the body prepares itself for the fall in a way reminiscent of cats.



Thing is, a depressingly large number of games think it would be 'unrealistic' to have a PC as competent as Arnie, or Sir Richard Burton (the explorer, not the actor). Are you certain they didn't just think it was unfair/overpowered? Partially, it depends on what point the character is starting their career, also. Arnold still looks young, but he's actually 65 years old. In most games, the starting age is generally in your twenties.



Seharve: I actually got to see that archery video recently, and looked into it. It was pointed out that the bow he is using is a very light one, which makes things a good deal easier (which means more accurate). Managing to do that with bladed arrow heads, I was also told, would be quite challenging without cutting your bow string.
In the Real Weapons and Armour thread, its ability to be used to any effect in fighting was disregarded, as it would have little penetrative power. I did hear one reasonable argument from another source that it could be useful for short range and was likely used.

Have also seen the quick-draw shooter you mentioned, in an episode of Stan Lee's Super Humans (I don't feel like recommending the series, however). When he gave a two-shot demonstration... I was left waiting for the second shot. Quickly, I realized the two shots were so close together, the bangs intertwined into one sound.

Rhynn
2013-06-09, 09:10 PM
Probably through the eyeball and into the back of skull?

Are you serious? :smallbiggrin:

Ninjadeadbeard
2013-06-09, 09:28 PM
Louis Cyr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Cyr). Arnold ain't got nothin' on this guy!


While several of Cyr's feats of strength may have been exaggerated over the years, some were documented and remain impressive. These included lifting a platform on his back holding 18 men, lifting a 534 pound (242.72 kg) weight with one finger and pushing a freight car up an incline. He also beat Eugen Sandow's bent press record (and therefore the heaviest weight lifted with one hand) by 2 pounds to a total of 273 pounds (124 kg).

Perhaps his greatest feat occurred in 1895, when he was reported to have lifted 4,337 pounds (1,967 kg) on his back in Boston by putting 18 men on a platform and lifting them. One of his most memorable displays of strength occurred in Montreal on October 12, 1891. Louis resisted the pull of four draught horses (two in each hand) as grooms stood cracking their whips to get the horses to pull harder. A feat he again demonstrated in Bytown (now Ottawa) with Queen Victoria's team of draught horses during her 'Royal' visit. While in Bytown(Ottawa) he volunteered with the police when they took deputees to round up a local gang of miscreants, they turned him away claiming he would be too slow due to his bulk. He challenged the regular officers to a foot race, beating the majority and they took him on.

Minmaxing Munchkin, amirite? :smalltongue:

Doorhandle
2013-06-09, 10:34 PM
lifting a 534 pound (242.72 kg) weight with one finger


Heavy load, 23 strength: 401–600 lbs.
...Okay, that's pretty impressive.

John Campbell
2013-06-10, 12:10 AM
http://youtu.be/3_FLTcjGbG8 Arrow catching. I'm still having trouble accepting it.

I've used a greatsword to parry bird blunts shot at me while I was in the middle of a fight with someone else. It's easier in some ways than parrying melee weapon attacks, because, while the arrow's moving faster, it's generally coming from farther away and moving in a predictable trajectory. You know it's not going to weave around your block at the last moment, so all you need is good hand-eye coordination and reflexes. Catching them shouldn't be notably more difficult, except that you've got to be more careful about keeping your hand out from in front of the point.

icefractal
2013-06-10, 01:05 AM
...Okay, that's pretty impressive.Even more than that, actually. To lift 4000 lbs off the ground would require a Strength of 32. :smalleek:

Ninjadeadbeard
2013-06-10, 01:09 AM
Even more than that, actually. To lift 4000 lbs off the ground would require a Strength of 32. :smalleek:

He'd need ~40 according to the Pathfinder (http://rimzy.net/pathfinder/calculators/carrying-capacity.html) calculator. At least for a heavy load.

icefractal
2013-06-10, 01:35 AM
I was assuming "Lift off ground", which is double a heavy load, since I doubt he was moving faster than a few feet a round while carrying that.

Actually, if I was trying to stat him, I'd assume he had the Powerful Build quality, with the associated carrying increase (not sure if it normally gives that), meaning he "only" needs a Strength of 28 or so.

Which is still above what you can get permanently, but maybe with Barbarian levels ... let's see:
1) Give him Goliath stats (Powerful Build and +2 Strength), and an 18 to start, so that's 20.
2) Eight levels, for another +2.
3) Rage, and the Reckless Rage feat, for another +6.

With standard human stats, he'd need to be a 20th level Barbarian with the Reckless Rage feat.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-06-10, 03:50 AM
Yeah, DnD's skill system doesn't work out. Fusing non-combat skills with combat level makes this hard to accomplish.
Not really. There are so many possible bonuses that it's quite possible to hit DC 40 ("almost impossible") as a hyper-specialised low-level character. And the people who are really good at things in real life tend to be quite specialised.

hamishspence
2013-06-10, 06:14 AM
The "prodigy" minitemplate (LA +2) in DMG2 grants a +2 bonus to a stat, and a +4 bonus on top of that, to all checks regarding that stat. However, lifting capacity is not a Check.

The Paragon Human 3 level PRC from Unearthed Arcana grants a +2 bonus to a stat.

DeafnotDumb
2013-06-10, 07:09 AM
Julie D'Aubigny (http://www.badassoftheweek.com/lamaupin.html) had a deliciously swashbuckling life, even if you only take note of the bits that were a piece of public record.

Mr. Mask
2013-06-10, 09:03 AM
Not really. There are so many possible bonuses that it's quite possible to hit DC 40 ("almost impossible") as a hyper-specialised low-level character. And the people who are really good at things in real life tend to be quite specialised. At level 1? Wouldn't that require many flaws?

valadil
2013-06-10, 09:17 AM
I've used a greatsword to parry bird blunts shot at me while I was in the middle of a fight with someone else.

At what speed? The bird blunt is going slower than a regular arrow and I imagine they weren't using a particularly heavy bow to begin with.

Mr. Mask
2013-06-10, 10:49 AM
I have seen some impressive displays of arrow catching/evasion/deflecting with a weapon... not sure if any of them used a good bow, however. One guy tried for the world record, with people firing arrows so weakly they didn't even reach the target.

Here's one of the more impressive-looking examples I have seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_0MfxQ9hqE&feature=youtu.be

Vent Reynolt
2013-06-10, 11:12 AM
A few real people who do things common sense says should be impossible:

Charles Blondin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Blondin), tightrope-walker.



Good luck doing ANY of that in Your Favorite System without getting to try out the falling rules!

Well, in D&D 3.5, he could probably be statted as a lvl 2 character. Assuming a 15 starting Dex and 14 Charisma (Elite array), and being a Human Paragon 1/Marshal 1

With Marshal, he takes the Motivate Dexterity aura, letting him add his Cha mod to his Dex checks, and he takes Skill Focus (Balance), and the Agile feat, maxing out ranks in both Balance and tumble. Also, possibly taking the illiterate trait, bought off immediately.

This brings his total bonus to Balance to 5 (Ranks) + 2 (Dex) + 2(Cha) + 2(Synergy with tumble) + 3 (Skill Focus) + 2 (Agile) + 1 (Trait) + 2 (Circumstance, from a balancing pole) = +19

The Balance skill puts balancing on an object 2-6 inches wide at DC 15. Even adding on the modifiers for a severely obstructed surface (+5), Severely slippery (+5), and Sloped surface (+2), the total DC reaches 27, which Charles can make every time, assuming he's taking 10. Basically, so long as he's focused on balancing and not distracted by things like someone trying to kill him, he'd make that every time. In fact, he'd still make it even without the balancing pole.

Mr. Mask
2013-06-10, 11:30 AM
Well, in D&D 3.5, he could probably be statted as a lvl 2 character. Assuming a 15 starting Dex and 14 Charisma (Elite array), and being a Human Paragon 1/Marshal 1

With Marshal, he takes the Motivate Dexterity aura, letting him add his Cha mod to his Dex checks, and he takes Skill Focus (Balance), and the Agile feat, maxing out ranks in both Balance and tumble. Also, possibly taking the illiterate trait, bought off immediately.

This brings his total bonus to Balance to 5 (Ranks) + 2 (Dex) + 2(Cha) + 2(Synergy with tumble) + 3 (Skill Focus) + 2 (Agile) + 1 (Trait) + 2 (Circumstance, from a balancing pole) = +19

The Balance skill puts balancing on an object 2-6 inches wide at DC 15. Even adding on the modifiers for a severely obstructed surface (+5), Severely slippery (+5), and Sloped surface (+2), the total DC reaches 27, which Charles can make every time, assuming he's taking 10. Basically, so long as he's focused on balancing and not distracted by things like someone trying to kill him, he'd make that every time. In fact, he'd still make it even without the balancing pole. Does that Aura only effect himself?

Bogardan_Mage
2013-06-11, 03:20 AM
At level 1? Wouldn't that require many flaws?
Make it level 2, so you can get synergy. A human with two flaws has four feats which I think actually is enough. Piling on bonuses from masterwork tools, Aid Another and so forth really add up. Of course the specifics depend on which skill you're using and how.

Mr. Mask
2013-06-11, 07:47 AM
I figured there wouldn't be a way to do it without adding combat levels. I think I once saw Einstein statted as a level 5 character.

Come to think of it, giving a tightrope walker too high of a Dexterity score doesn't necessarily work out. Their skill is in balancing--not in dodging swords, shooting bows, or all the other dexterity-based skills.

Kazemi
2013-06-11, 10:37 AM
Julie D'Aubigny (http://www.badassoftheweek.com/lamaupin.html) had a deliciously swashbuckling life, even if you only take note of the bits that were a piece of public record.

A good majority of the people detailed on BotW qualify for this thread.

Big Fau
2013-06-11, 11:37 AM
Something real people can do that D&D characters can't: Wear socks.

There are no rules for actual pants. We have shirts, shoes, pants (on a technicality), gloves, bandannas, and other accessories, but no socks.

mistformsquirrl
2013-06-11, 11:50 AM
Julie D'Aubigny (http://www.badassoftheweek.com/lamaupin.html) had a deliciously swashbuckling life, even if you only take note of the bits that were a piece of public record.

<o.@> Holy crap that's awesome.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-06-11, 08:02 PM
I figured there wouldn't be a way to do it without adding combat levels. I think I once saw Einstein statted as a level 5 character.

Come to think of it, giving a tightrope walker too high of a Dexterity score doesn't necessarily work out. Their skill is in balancing--not in dodging swords, shooting bows, or all the other dexterity-based skills.
What, so a skilled person isn't allowed to have any combat ability whatsoever? You think a circus acrobat would be completely baffled by the notion that maybe their skills might have combat applications? Don't forget that a non proficient penalty is -4, an untrained person with 18 Dex is no better at firing a bow than a trained person with 10 Dex (all else being equal). A highly skilled person is a little better at fighting that a completely unskilled person, but much worse that someone with even a little bit of skill in combat. This is too unrealistic for you to tolerate?

Mr. Mask
2013-06-11, 08:41 PM
an untrained person with 18 Dex is no better at firing a bow than a trained person with 10 Dex (all else being equal). By, "no better than a trained archer (all else being equal)," you also mean, "just as good as a trained archer (all else being equal)". It also means that he is more likely (+4 bonus) to hit, over any other 10 Dex person without archery training.

What kind of combat application are you thinking of, out of question? Balance is a good thing to have for combat, so there is some potential for a profession-related bonus.


This is too unrealistic for you to tolerate? This thread is for discussing things people can do in reality, and how it is portrayed in games. So I commented on the oddity I noticed in how DnD portrays a skilled tightrope walker. My answer to your question would have to be no.

Sorry if my post seemed antagonistic.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-06-11, 09:08 PM
By, "no better than a trained archer (all else being equal)," you also mean, "just as good as a trained archer (all else being equal)".
That is what "no better" means, yes. However, note that a trained archer is likely to also have a high Dex score.


It also means that he is more likely (+4 bonus) to hit, over any other 10 Dex person without archery training.
Yes. A person with natural aptitude is generally better than a person without, when neither of them are trained.


What kind of combat application are you thinking of, out of question? Balance is a good thing to have for combat, so there is some potential for a profession-related bonus.
An acrobat's job is all about being limber and agile. The notion that they should not receive a Dex bonus to armor class in light of this is a bit hard to follow. An acrobat is not going to suddenly forget how to move in combat just because he hasn't been formally trained for it. He won't have feats like Dodge, but his Dex bonus is not related to combat training.


This thread is for discussing things people can do in reality, and how it is portrayed in games. So I commented on the oddity I noticed in how DnD portrays a skilled tightrope walker. My answer to your question would have to be no.

Sorry if my post seemed antagonistic.
Well I too apologise if I came off as antagonistic. The point I'm trying to make is that while the underlying mechanic does cause all aspects of a character to advance in concert, the effect is not as great as you imply. A skilled tightrope walker is not a master warrior. Using a similar level of specialisation, a combat focused character can easily outshine skill focused characters in much the same fashion.

Mr. Mask
2013-06-11, 10:32 PM
That is what "no better" means, yes. However, note that a trained archer is likely to also have a high Dex score. That would mean that an archer is naturally more likely to be able to perform acrobatics, tightrope walking, dodging all forms of things, and get initiative in combat. In DnD rules, that is the case.


Yes. A person with natural aptitude is generally better than a person without, when neither of them are trained. What you say is true. Tightrope walking, unfortunately, has nothing in common with archery.


An acrobat's job is all about being limber and agile. The notion that they should not receive a Dex bonus to armor class in light of this is a bit hard to follow. An acrobat is not going to suddenly forget how to move in combat just because he hasn't been formally trained for it. He won't have feats like Dodge, but his Dex bonus is not related to combat training. There is something called the "fight-or-flight-or-freeze response".

If you like, I can pose the question of whether acrobats would have significant benefits to defence in combat, to the Real Weapons and Armour thread. There are quite a few experienced persons in that thread, who could sum up a better answer than I.


Well I too apologise if I came off as antagonistic. The point I'm trying to make is that while the underlying mechanic does cause all aspects of a character to advance in concert, the effect is not as great as you imply. A skilled tightrope walker is not a master warrior. Using a similar level of specialisation, a combat focused character can easily outshine skill focused characters in much the same fashion. I'm not sure how to answer this. You point out that all aspects of a character advance in concert: That is exactly the problem.

There was a good joke on this point in On the Origin of PCs, about raising one's lockpicking skill by shooting kobolds with arrows. In DnD, everything points towards combat, because that's what it's built for. It does what's it's intended for quite well. It wasn't intended to deal with the problem that Einstein can't be a level one character or that tightrope characters are skilled archers.

TuggyNE
2013-06-12, 12:29 AM
It wasn't intended to deal with the problem that Einstein can't be a level one character or that tightrope characters are skilled archers.

As long as you don't mind Einstein being a level 4-6 character, possibly with Frail and a low Con, things should be fine. (No need to stat him up as a level 20 combat fiend.)

Mr. Mask
2013-06-12, 12:32 AM
Was Einstein frail and sickly? Or is that just to offset the five levels of HP?

Flickerdart
2013-06-12, 02:39 AM
Einstein was frail and sickly by the standards of men whose job is taking axes to the chest. He's definitely not level 1 - if we accept that "experience points" are derived from actual experience and not murder, anyone who contributed that much to science would have gained quite a bit of it. An Expert 5 Einstein is utterly plausible - at 10 Constitution, he would have an average of 20 hit points but may have as few as 10 simply from rolling poorly on his HD. If we consider him to be the equivalent of a Wizard instead (after all, Expert is the class for a tradesman, not really a desk-sitter), with a d4 hit die that range drops to average 14, minimum 8. Given that he would have reached this high a level at an advanced age (the Einstein we know and love was a gray-haired man after all), we can justify Einstein's physical stats dropping from increasing age categories - an average of 15 (min 9) HP with a d6 hit die or an average of 9 (min 7) HP with a d4. In Old age, these values further drop to average 10 (min 8) and average and minimum 6, and Venerable gives us 6 average and minimum HP for a d6 and 5 average and minimum HP for a d4.

Assuming that Einstein reached his peak (level 5) when he received his Nobel in '21, that would put him at 42 years old, hitting Middle Age, where his hit point value would be around 9. Those are not the hit points of a superhuman by any measure.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-06-12, 02:47 AM
That would mean that an archer is naturally more likely to be able to perform acrobatics, tightrope walking, dodging all forms of things, and get initiative in combat. In DnD rules, that is the case.

What you say is true. Tightrope walking, unfortunately, has nothing in common with archery.
You started off by saying the problem was that D&D links combat levels with skill levels, and that's what I was arguing against. What you're talking about here is the wide range of abilities that are covered under the "Dexterity" umbrella, which is a completely different matter. I honestly don't know how realistic or otherwise this is, although I have heard the opposite argued (that it's unrealistic for abilities like Str and Con to be completely independent as in reality they're highly correlated)


There is something called the "fight-or-flight-or-freeze response".

If you like, I can pose the question of whether acrobats would have significant benefits to defence in combat, to the Real Weapons and Armour thread. There are quite a few experienced persons in that thread, who could sum up a better answer than I.
And this is another, unrelated, rule. It is unambiguous that a character's Dexterity score represents natural ability and not training. Yet all characters get to add their Dex modifier to Armor Class. This has nothing to do with character level.


I'm not sure how to answer this. You point out that all aspects of a character advance in concert: That is exactly the problem.
But my point is it's not a problem. +1 to BAB is practically nothing. That you consider even a level 2 tightrope walker to be a "problem" with the system baffles me. What abilities do 5 or so levels in non-combat classes give to a character to make it so unrealistic?

Grinner
2013-06-12, 03:01 AM
*snip*

Why are you assuming that D&D is even remotely realistic?

Dexterity actually covers a wide variety of skills that do not necessarily correlate to one another, including hand-eye coordination, reflexes, and balance. Wisdom and Charisma do so as well.

Meanwhile, like you said, Constitution and Strength cover areas that correlate greatly.

If you want realistic, GURPS is probably the best you're going to get. D&D? Laughably, no.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-06-12, 03:12 AM
Why are you assuming that D&D is even remotely realistic?
I'm not, I'm just not assuming the inverse. Also, isn't the point of this thread examples of real people doing things that, were it to happen in a game, would be derided as "laughably unrealistic"?

Grinner
2013-06-12, 03:19 AM
I'm not, I'm just not assuming the inverse.

So what is your contention?


Also, isn't the point of this thread examples of real people doing things that, were it to happen in a game, would be derided as "laughably unrealistic"?

Bah. Staying on topic.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-06-12, 04:08 AM
So what is your contention?
That it is not necessary for a highly skilled character to also be a high level character, which has since moved on to explaining that level 2 does not qualify as "high level".

Mr. Mask
2013-06-12, 05:01 AM
Flickerdart: That still means Einstein has +3 BAB and a lot of HP relative to commoners. You can raise the level of commoners to even things out, but then you get imbalance with the damage levels of weapons relative to HP, the number of skill points, etc..

Bogardan_Mage
2013-06-12, 05:08 AM
Flickerdart: That still means Einstein has +3 BAB and a lot of HP relative to commoners. You can raise the level of commoners to even things out, but then you get imbalance with the damage levels of weapons relative to HP, the number of skill points, etc..
If we're assuming a hypothetical "Scientist" class that is structurally similar to the Wizard, then he only has a BAB +2. Considering that an attack roll is a d20, I don't think that's very much. Hit points are really hard to pin down to any single real world interpretation but Flickerdart clearly demonstrated that it's not only plausible but likely that Einstein would have fewer hit points than a 1st level soldier.

You keep pointing to single stats like BAB as though a bigger number proves an unrealistic level of combat ability. The fact is that level 5 Einstein isn't very good at fighting, even if he's slightly better than characters who also aren't very good at fighting.

OctoberRaven
2013-06-12, 05:27 AM
Can "grow really really tall" count?

From Guinness World Records website:

The tallest male under the age of 18 years is Brenden Adams (USA, b. 20 September, 1995), whose height is 225.1 cm (7 ft 4.6 in).

Mr. Mask
2013-06-12, 06:05 AM
Mage: That certainly does put Einstein low on the scale of DnD creatures. Realistically, however, he should be weaker than the average commoner. He is also a bit close to the soldier, having only 1 less HP on average.

Either way, I don't think we're making any progress with this discussion. Our ideas of realism seem to be incompatible. I respect your opinion that DnD is suitably realistic, and that you have reasoning for it.

It was very interesting to hear your thoughts on my perceptions of the matter.

TuggyNE
2013-06-12, 06:53 AM
I'm curious, Mr. Mask, how you'd stat up a regular soldier, or a veteran.

Mr. Mask
2013-06-12, 01:31 PM
With DnD rules? I'm curious about that myself. It would require charts and tables before I could give a good answer. Using normal DnD rules, I don't think my answer would be particularly good. I wonder if anyone has made a variant where AC increases with BAB, and there's little HP progression.

The Rose Dragon
2013-06-12, 02:43 PM
I wonder if anyone has made a variant where AC increases with BAB, and there's little HP progression.

So, True20? :smalltongue:

Doorhandle
2013-06-12, 10:05 PM
Legend is half that, but you basically get full HP every level as well as B.A.B to A.C.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-06-13, 06:04 PM
Mage: That certainly does put Einstein low on the scale of DnD creatures. Realistically, however, he should be weaker than the average commoner. He is also a bit close to the soldier, having only 1 less HP on average.

Either way, I don't think we're making any progress with this discussion. Our ideas of realism seem to be incompatible. I respect your opinion that DnD is suitably realistic, and that you have reasoning for it.

It was very interesting to hear your thoughts on my perceptions of the matter.
I think our difference is that you've made certain assumptions about what the "average" commoner or soldier is in terms of class and level which is wholly incompatible with D&D. You've taken a starting position that assumes, even if not explicitly, that D&D in inherently unrealistic. It's not possible for a human character to be weaker than a level 1 commoner, so why on earth would you use that as a requirement for Einstein? Clearly level 1 commoner is not supposed to represent what you think it is, because you think there exist people weaker than it.

Elderand
2013-06-13, 07:52 PM
Can "grow really really tall" count?

Tallest man ever reached 2.72 m (8'11'')

Mr. Mask
2013-06-13, 11:04 PM
Mage: I suggest you start a thread about the subject. That way, you won't be talking to just one person and getting only one other opinion.

If you find it hard to have characters weaker than the average commoner in DnD, I don't blame you. I can think of ways of doing it, but it's not satisfactory.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-06-14, 12:57 AM
Mage: I suggest you start a thread about the subject. That way, you won't be talking to just one person and getting only one other opinion.
I think you've greatly misunderstood my objective here. You made a claim that I disputed. Your opinion is what I'm discussing. You don't have to continue to participate if you don't want to but that doesn't mean I'm going anywhere.


If you find it hard to have characters weaker than the average commoner in DnD, I don't blame you. I can think of ways of doing it, but it's not satisfactory.
It is very easy to make a character weaker than the average commoner. Simply don't insist that the "average" commoner must be level 1. For some reason you've taken it as given that nobody has more than 1 level, and then you act surprised that a level based system produces counter-intuitive results given that assumption. Perhaps this will make it clear why I am not going to start a new thread to ask "Why does Mr Mask not understand what levels are for?"

Mr. Mask
2013-06-14, 01:44 AM
Yeah, that's one of the ways of doing it, raising the average level. It can become unsatisfactory, however, since it can mess with the weapon damage numbers. Also, it doesn't make sense to have combat levels when you're a non-combatant.

I'd prefer that you respect my opinion and my disinterest in discussing this matter further. I did not mean for you to leave the thread, nor myself. Merely, it's clear we won't see eye to eye on this matter, and discussion doesn't serve purpose.

Also:
Perhaps this will make it clear why I am not going to start a new thread to ask "Why does Mr Mask not understand what levels are for?" Why are you acting so uncivilly to me? I haven't been so rude to you in this thread, or in another, have I? I expect this on many forums (in fact, this would be profoundly mild, elsewhere), but not on this one.

TuggyNE
2013-06-14, 02:20 AM
Yeah, that's one of the ways of doing it, raising the average level. It can become unsatisfactory, however, since it can mess with the weapon damage numbers. Also, it doesn't make sense to have combat levels when you're a non-combatant.

What's wrong with weapon damage if you have (say) 2d4+0 HP, and you're facing 1d8+4, 2d6+6, or even more damage per individual hit? You still have a real chance of dying. Bumping that up to 5d4+0 (for a very experienced scholar, merchant, or similar) still leaves a decent chance of dying in one or two hits, especially if it's actually 5d4-5 or even 5d4-10.

And how are levels in non-combat classes (such as Expert, Commoner, or even Adept) "combat levels"?

Bogardan_Mage
2013-06-14, 02:32 AM
Also: Why are you acting so uncivilly to me? I haven't been so rude to you in this thread, or in another, have I? I expect this on many forums (in fact, this would be profoundly mild, elsewhere), but not on this one.
My apologies, I do not intend to be uncivil. I was just surprised by your suggestion I start a new thread to discuss "the subject" because I couldn't figure out what you thought "the subject" was such that it would make sense to start a new thread. The point I was trying to make was that it would be a thread directed at you, specifically, because as far as I'm concerned I am responding to you, specifically. I did not intend any slight against you by this.


I'd prefer that you respect my opinion and my disinterest in discussing this matter further. I did not mean for you to leave the thread, nor myself. Merely, it's clear we won't see eye to eye on this matter, and discussion doesn't serve purpose.
If you don't want to keep talking to me, please don't. Just bear in mind that it is you who believes this discussion doesn't serve a purpose, not me. I will respect your disinterest in discussing it when you demonstrate it, but so long as you continue to respond to me then I will continue to respond to you, because I'm not the one who wants to end the conversation.


Yeah, that's one of the ways of doing it, raising the average level. It can become unsatisfactory, however, since it can mess with the weapon damage numbers. Also, it doesn't make sense to have combat levels when you're a non-combatant.
Well don't think of them as combat levels then. They're just levels. They conflate all aspects of a character's advancement. It makes just as much sense for combatants to gain non-combat abilities as they advance, yet they do and you don't assume that all soldiers are level 1 lest they have too many skill points. The point I'm trying to make is not, as you assume, that D&D is realistic. It's that this particular issue you have with it is not as great an impediment as you believe it to be. A level 2 noncombatant does not have an unrealistic level of combat ability. A level 5 noncombatant does not have an unrealistic level of combat ability. Because even a 1st level soldier (can't have too many skill points, can we :smallwink:) will have better combat-relevant stats due to higher physical ability scores. Einstein may have 5 hit dice and +2 BAB, but he also has Str and Con penalties. These game stats are abstractions, in the real world we only see the final result. A nonproficient person with 18 Dex appears to be equal in archery ability to a proficient person with 10 Dex. There are so many things that matter more than level, allowing noncombatants to go as high as level 5 (where they can, with sufficient specialisation, achieve DCs of ~40) is not going to produce any actual effects that will appear incongruous.

Mr. Mask
2013-06-14, 03:29 AM
Mage: I'm glad you meant nothing by it.


tuggyne: Well, to give an example, the toughest human possible could only have something like 6 to 10 HP. That way, someone could disembowel and incapacitate them with one hit from a dagger, reasonably (1d4+2), with the less generous estimate.

If you need two hits with a weapon, they aren't really hits. More scratches. You can take this to the Real Weapons and Armour thread if you want to find out about this in more detail.

There are still problems of course. DnD puts a lot of emphasis on strength bonuses. But, even a small child can take someone's head off with a sword, if they get a hit. Similarly, the strength bonus to the dagger might be too much, since a percentage of extra damage would likely make more sense.

If there were ways to increase your level without increasing BAB or HP, then it wouldn't be combat levels. That would be pretty interesting, actually, if DnD had combat levels and skill levels, where you get Combat XP and Skill XP to advance.

TuggyNE
2013-06-14, 04:17 AM
tuggyne: Well, to give an example, the toughest human possible could only have something like 6 to 10 HP. That way, someone could disembowel and incapacitate them with one hit from a dagger, reasonably (1d4+2), with the less generous estimate.

If you need two hits with a weapon, they aren't really hits. More scratches. You can take this to the Real Weapons and Armour thread if you want to find out about this in more detail.

The fact that people have survived dozens of solid gunshots (well, survived long enough to keep shooting) suggests this ties back into the subject of the thread: reality is unrealistic, and real people might actually have far more HP than you'd expect.

Also, critical hits.


If there were ways to increase your level without increasing BAB or HP, then it wouldn't be combat levels.

If you have the Frail flaw or Quick trait, and roll low or have a low Con score, you can gain 0 HP on some, most, or all of your levels. Combine that with the tendency of Commoners to gain BAB only every other level, and it works out half decently.


That would be pretty interesting, actually, if DnD had combat levels and skill levels, where you get Combat XP and Skill XP to advance.

That sounds complicated, honestly, although maybe that's just my flawed first impression.

However, the protosystem I'm developing at irregular intervals relies on HP explicitly scaling very slowly if at all, and instead combining greater skill in defense with greater endurance in fighting; blows are generally parried or blocked, sometimes endured, but rarely simply taken to the face. I feel this separation is a bit more believable and is also crucial for making mundanes more interesting to play.

Rhynn
2013-06-14, 04:25 AM
The fact that people have survived dozens of solid gunshots (well, survived long enough to keep shooting) suggests this ties back into the subject of the thread: reality is unrealistic, and real people might actually have far more HP than you'd expect.

Well, it's a couple of things: first, hit points may be a horrible way to model physical trauma; second, a scale of 1-10 or so as a start is much too small; and third, most RPGs have people dropping dead immediately upon receiving a mortal injury, which makes no sense at all.

Also, speaking of things real people can do: Michael Platt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout) was shot twelve times, including a bullet in his right lung inches from his heart - a fatal injury, and the first one he received during the minutes-long shootout. He went on to shoot several FBI agents, until a bullet bruised his spine and incapacitated him. That first injury was what actually killed him. William Matix was "only" shot six times, and those last three (in the face and spine) were what killed him.

Mr. Mask
2013-06-14, 04:59 AM
tuggyne: Well sure, those are guns. Unless you get lucky and shatter the pelvis, destroy the brain, wreck the spine, or cripple a leg, a commited man can keep fighting (it's hard to fight if you can't stand, hence the pelvis and crippled leg examples).

Other ways to stop a person, include cutting them (literally or just practically) in half, beheading them, and disembowelling. Does anyone know an account of a disembowelled person continuing to fight? I've always wondered about that.

Either way, you do show a good point--DnD's weapons have problems. I mean, like I said before, the +2 damage bonus a warrior gets with the dagger kind of slants things the wrong way. I'm not sure how to reasonably stat guns, because they can reliably drop someone who isn't committed, but will feel like pop guns against a drugged up lunatic (policemen can attest to this).

If by critical hit you mean, "does critical, hospitalizing damage", yeah, that's the idea. But, having to roll an 19 or 20, then beat the target's AC a second time to multiply the damage... that would make sense if the person using the dagger had no idea what they were doing.

I agree that if you get rid of the HP bonus and level up only when you don't get a BAB bonus, that works fine. It is as you say, only a half-way decent work around. The Frail trait also becomes meaningless, as the characters aren't frail--it's just a way of fighting the system.

The idea of Skill EXP and Levels could be complicated. The main problem is DnD isn't really set up to tell you how much EXP to reward for skill challenges, like with their CR system (last I checked).

Will check out the thread you linked to. Your concept sounds interesting. For some reason, rolling to parry or dodge seems really fun. Reminds me of the original White Knight Story trailer, where everyone got excited because of how those kinds of details in the (unfortunately faked) combat system.


Rhynn: It would be nice if people did just drop dead when they received fatal injuries. That way, no one would've had to have invented the miséricorde dagger.

I can see your point about HP. Those wounds were doing damage, but it was the kind that was having practically no immediate effect. If you shot him enough times ineffectually, I guess he still would've gone down.... but still.

Rhynn
2013-06-14, 05:23 AM
I can see your point about HP. Those wounds were doing damage, but it was the kind that was having practically no immediate effect. If you shot him enough times ineffectually, I guess he still would've gone down.... but still.

Basically what it comes down to is that if the minimum damage is 1 HP, then there's a minimum number of attacks of any kind that will disable or kill someone. (Another stupid RPG thing: usually, death is preceded by being disabled, and disablement is followed by death, when IRL, the two aren't that tightly linked.) But 10 or even 20 stab-wounds or bullets aren't necessarily going to kill a person, especially right away.

Something like swords or axes or maces is a bit simpler: your body simply cannot handle the tissue damage and bleeding from being cleaved or crushed over and over, but handgun bullets (and knives) are so freaking tiny, and need to go in the right place, and then the hypovolemic shock actually needs to disable you, which is all about luck. (Larger-caliber bullets can pretty much blow off pieces of you, even hitting center-mass, so that's a different deal, which is why "stopping power" is such a hot topic. Incidentally that 1986 "Miami shootout" was one of the starting points for that notion.)

Most RPGs handle death very abstractly and thus badly. You can die from gross physical trauma (being blown to bits), central nervous system damage (cleave the brain apart, sever the spine high enough), or hypovolemia (bleeding out, brain dies from lack for blood and oxygen). That last is most common, and it is not slow. Meanwhile, you can be incapacitated by all sorts of things, from hypovolemic shock to fear to pain to plain passing out from terror at being injured (more typical with gunshots than with hand-to-hand, I think).

Handling different kinds of damage is more complex: from physical integrity (tissues, muscles, and bones being damaged, severed, and crushed, usually resulting in reduced function) to bleeding and shock to pain. Some games do this well: for instance, in The Riddle of Steel, getting hit in the hand with a sword can break a bone (making the hand useless) and cause a bleeding injury (that can lead to death through shock) and cause pain that degrades your performance indefinitely (possibly mitigated by willpower) and cause immediate "shock" (loose use of the term) that degrades your performance very temporarily.

Edit: Of course, you could interpret some "misses" in D&D as being injuries of no consequence, but that just muddies things up that much more, and it's not very intuitive, which is probably the main reason most people don't. Ultimately, D&D combat is completely abstract.

Mr. Mask
2013-06-14, 05:48 AM
I've come to have some respect for knife damage. If you just stab straight in then pull out, you don't do much--but if you cut your way out after stabbing in, you can get awful results (even with a pocket knife). Depends how sharp your blade is, of course. Machine-sharpened blades are pretty lousy.

But yeah, it's as you say (especially since many people don't use knives properly). It gets easier with maces and swords, since they just do ridiculous levels of damage. Same for some of the rifles out there. An anti-material rifle can turn a bear's insides into mincemeat.

Don't forget infection, that was possibly the biggest killer (also a major cause for limb-loss).

TRoS is pretty good in a lot of ways. They actually started work on a new RPG a while ago (Throne of Blades or something? Or was it Iron Throne? Can't remember). Will be interesting to see how things change.
One problem I can see, is that pain ends up rather static. From what I know, pain in combat is pretty random and unexpected. The only constant seems to be that you can often get a really determined (or drugged up) person who ignores devastating injury. Still, that is really hard to model--and they did a great job with the limitations of a tabletop game (having pain and shock was a brilliant idea).

Leolo
2013-06-14, 07:55 AM
It is not just what people can do. The whole world is unrealistic. The largest river of the world? Goes straight through the biggest desert.

Every RPG Player knows you would just need a magic item that produces endless water to make every desert green land again. And there is more water than you could imagine. Since thousands of years.

Why is it still a desert? It's because of story reasons, the pyramids wouldn't fit into a woodland landscape. So every night egyptian police officers dry the sand. ;)

Mr. Mask
2013-06-14, 01:52 PM
Heheh, that sounds about right. Don't forget the battle of the Somme, where British shinobi insured that their artillery division had no one who knew anything about artillery, so that the death toll would supplement the British Afterlife's population for the afterlife wars.