Level demographics: A rebuttal [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Chronos

2008-02-29, 07:58 PM

Many folks here are familiar with the article by Justin Alexander which claims that D&D is calibrated such that a fifth-level D&D character represents the upper limits of human ability (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html). It's commonly bandied about as if it were gospel. Unfortunately, it's severely flawed.

Going in order through the article, then, let's see where it's wrong.

First of all:

What does all this mean? It means that the vast majority of people you meet will be lucky to have a single +1 bonus in any of their ability scores. Most of them will, in fact, have straight 10’s and 11’s across the board.The model in D&D is that, on average, humans have ability scores drawn from a distribution of 3d6 in each score. There are 216 possible rolls of 3d6, of which 81 give a result of 12 or higher. This means that given any random individual, and any given random ability score, that individual has a 3/8 chance of having a 12 or higher in that score. When we consider that everyone has six ability scores, we find that 94% of the population has at least one score good enough to have a +1 bonus. The six percent who are mediocre at best at everything are hardly the "vast majority" claimed. And one person in 216, nearly a half of a percent of the population, will have an 18 in any given score.

Note that these figures are symmetric, so we also have that 94% of the population has some ability score bad enough to give a penalty, and a half of a percent of the population has a three in any given score. The example given of breaking down a door works only if you assume that almost everyone is average, but significantly non-average scores aren't nearly as rare as Alexander suggests.

I won't dispute the section on encumbrance, so this takes us into the debate about levels:
There’s a common fallacy when it comes to D&D, and it goes something like: Einstein was a 20th level physicist. So, in D&D, Einstein – that little old man – has something like a bajillion hit points and you’d need to stab him dozens of times if you wanted to kill him. That’s ridiculous!

The problem with this argument is that Einstein wasn’t a 20th level physicist. A 20th level physicist is one step removed from being the God of Physicists. Einstein was probably something more like a 4th or 5th level expert.

This can be a little bit difficult for some people to accept, so let’s run the math. At 5th level an exceptional specialist like Einstein will have:

*

+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+).So, we see here that a fifth-level expert, with skills, feats, and circumstances geared towards physics, can understand a physics problem that nobody has ever understood before. I won't dispute this. The problem comes when we then say that Einstein was therefore fifth level. Interestingly, there's actually a well-accepted term in use for a person who has understood a problem which has never been understood before: Such a person is called "Doctor". Everyone who has ever earned a Ph.D. has reached that level of knowledge. That fellow who taught your Intro to Physics course in college? Fifth level, at least, by these standards. But I'll bet that guy was nowhere near Einstein.

Incidentally, if we assume that gaining a Ph.D. marks the point at which a knowledge-focused expert reaches fifth level, where does that lead us? Well, there are marks of advancement beyond getting the degree. The next step for an academic, after getting a doctorate, would be to secure a tenure-track position. This is the stage at which an academic can take on a graduate student. If we assume that this step corresponds to an increase of one level, then this is also the level at which the D&D rules state that a character can take on a cohort. The game rules and real life are actually matching up here, just not in the way Alexander claims.

I won't go into the master blacksmith example, since I'm not as familiar with smithing as I am with academics. But I suspect that a similar relationship will hold, here.

Next we have an analysis of the Jump skill. Alexander correctly points out that a fifth-level character can make long jumps comparable to Olympic records (though he makes the peculiar assumption that an Olympic athlete has a strength of only 16: Again, 18s aren't all that rare). This, however, simply serves to point out a flaw in the rules for the Jump skill specifically. In 3.0, there was a hard cap put on how far a character could jump, based on the character's height. And lo and behold, this cap was such that no character could do much better than the Olympic records, no matter how high level. Well, monks could, but that's not really illustrative: We're already accepting that there are no D&D-style wizards in our world, so we might as well say that there are no D&D-style monks in our world, either. To anyone else, those record-breaking jumps were simply out of reach, as they are for the vast majority of real-world humans. The problem with Jump checks in 3.5 isn't that the game assumes high-level characters; it's just that they removed the maximum distance cap.

Next, we move on to analysis of characters from fantasy, such as Conan or Aragorn. What level is Aragorn? Alexander correctly states that he's not 20th level: There are heros from Middle-Earth's history who far overshadow Aragorn, such as Hurin, who slew seventy trolls (plus countless orcs) in a single battle. But just because Aragorn isn't 20th level, does not mean that he must therefore have been only 5th. In an account of Aragorn's deeds:
In Moria (fighting orcs): “Legolas shot two through the throat. Gimli hewed the legs from under another that had sprung up on Balin's tomb. Boromir and Aragorn slew many. When thirteen had fallen the rest fled shrieking, leaving the defenders unharmed, except for Sam who had a scratch along the scalp. A quick duck had saved him; and he had felled his orc: a sturdy thrust with his Barrow-blade. A fire was smouldering in his brown eyes that would have made Ted Sandyman step backwards, if he had seen it. (Aragorn slays no more than six or seven CR 1/2 orcs in this encounter. A trivial accomplishment for a 5th level character.)But this is hardly the greatest he accomplished. At the battle of Helm's Deep, we don't have a kill count for Aragorn, but we do have one for Legolas and Gimli (who are presumably lower level than Aragorn, whatever that level is), who each slew fifty. Even assuming that none of those fifty orcs had class levels, 50 orc kills are quite an accomplishment for fourth-level characters. An encounter of 50 CR 1/2 creatures should have an EL of somewhere around 10, which means that they'd be a reasonable encounter for a full party of 10th-level characters, or a very tough (50-50 chance of losing) encounter for a single 10th-level character. And Legolas and Gimli each pulled this off, on their own. Heck, the experience gained from that many kills would have been enough to propel both of them from first level to fourth, if it weren't for the cap of one level gained at a time. Now think of how many orcs (and worse) Aragorn must have defeated, in over sixty years of actively hunting them, and how much experience he would have gotten from them.

Oh, and those 70 trolls Hurin slew at the Battle of Unnumbered Tears? That's an equivalent encounter level of 17, even assuming that none of them were advanced in any way, and completely neglecting the orcs.

Also from the article:
If you know someone who’s 5th level, then you have the honor of knowing someone that will probably be written about in history books. Walter Payton. Michael Jordan. Albert Einstein. Isaac Newton. Miyamoto Musashi. William Shakespeare.Well, let's see what the D&D rules state about that. From the text of Legend Lore:
As a rule of thumb, characters who are 11th level and higher are “legendary,” as are the sorts of creatures they contend with, the major magic items they wield, and the places where they perform their key deeds.So, in the setting of D&D, "legendary" means "about 11th level, or higher". Does this mean that Shakespeare and Einstein are further from legendary than the average person is from Shakespeare or Einstein? Of course not: Shakespeare and Einstein are well past legendary. So if legendary level is 11, then the likes of Shakespeare and Einstein must be well past 11th level.

Incidentally, the standard of 11th level being legendary also meshes well with the correspondence we've already seen between D&D and the real world. I'll use the physicist example again, since that's what I'm most familiar with. As before, a newly-graduated Ph.D. is fifth level. The next major milestones for a person pursuing a career in academia are becomming an associate professor, an assistant professor, and a full professor. If we assume that each of these is another level, then a full professor would be around 8th level, and the head of a department might be about 9th.

The threshold for "legendary" in academia is probably when someone makes an academic development (equations, models, physical constants, etc.) so significant that it's generally referred to by the discoverer's name (the Eddington luminosity, the Chandrasekhar limit, the Minkowski metric, and so on). Looking at the head of my department, he does have an equation named after him, but it's not commonly known, so that would mean that he's somewhat below "legendary" status (but not all that much below). This fits in well with assuming that the head of a department is about 9th level (below 11th, but not by all that much). So the matchup is still consistent, but with levels much higher than 5th.

Mewtarthio

2008-02-29, 08:40 PM

I'd disagree with your assessment about "legendary" individuals. The DnD world is always going to be more high-powered than our world. "Legendary" is merely a relative term: Albert Einstein may be considered a genius by our standards, but nobody would care about him in most DnD campaign settings.

FlyMolo

2008-02-29, 08:56 PM

You simply have to define stuff arbitrarily in most settings. Simply because DnD isn't that comparable to real life. Most people have average scores in every stat. Because 3d6 is not only simplistic, but also suffers from insufficient bell-curving. A real person with 16-18 in a stat is easily olympic material, simply because they

And the reason higher level characters have more hit points is because everyone receives combat training and accumulates battle experience, because the DnD world is on combat footing all the time. Einstein was never very good at dodging things because he never had to. Villages and hamlets get invaded all the time. That's why people get more hit points. They're better at reducing the impact of blows by rolling away from them.

Defining the transition from PhD to a higher level position as a level is also arbitrary, and not really accurate. If I finish out a semester in school, do I gain a level? Nonsense, elsways I'd be epic-level by college. (I wish.) Do I gain a level every 3 grades? 4 grades? 10 years?

You simply have to define these things arbitrarily, there's no way around it.

Vikazc

2008-02-29, 09:07 PM

You seem to be falling into a bit of a fallacy with the assumption that 10 is not an average just because there are 19 other possible die rolls you could get. Just because an average of rolls for stats would not frequently give straight tens, does not change that 10-12 is the average roll. Dice are meant to be a representation of chance. By your logic, most people you meet would also have a severe deficit in at least one stat to the point of being handicapped in that area. If we take die roll averages to be exact, exactly 43.75 percent of a given stats rolls will be under 10, which is a handicap. So in a given persons 6 stats, 43.75% will be negative, 12.5% will be average, and 43.75% will be positive. This accounts for the possibility of rolling 3-9, 10-11, and 12-18 on the die.

That means of your 6 stats, 2 will likely be negative, 2 will be positive, 1 will be average, and 1 could go either way. Your negative stats have 14.3% chance of being any given value from 3-9, same for your positive stats chances of being 12-18. 6 is related as the number for intelligence below which you can no longer speak properly, so we will use that as a carrying point. You have a 4/7 chance that your negative stats will put you at or below that range. Thats a better then fifty percent chance, So your average person using die rolls as precise averages, will be handicapped to the point of mental retardation in at least one stat, with a fair likelihood of two.

So an average person by die rolls, even giving them the benifit of the doubt on luck might look like..
Int: 10
Str: 5
Con: 16
Dex: 6
Wis: 17
Char: 9

That would be about the average range of possible stats if you used dice probabilities as exact standards. SO you have a person of average intelligence, who is unable to walk with assistance, and with such a complete lack of coordination that they cant use crutches or control a wheel chair, but he is healthy as a horse and wise beyond his years, and more then a little annoying to talk to.

This is exactly why average is assumed to be 10-11. It does not mean that 10-11 is the most common roll, it means that the average person will fall at or near this range, which is why it is the BASE STAT listed for mankind.

Ulrichomega

2008-02-29, 09:14 PM

I disagree with most of your ideas, but do not have the time right now to rebut them.

Ramos

2008-02-29, 09:42 PM

Einstein was a level 10 academic with a constitution penalty (old age) and a grand total of 10 hp. :smallamused:
Some wrestling champions were level 10 too-with a constitution bonus, 60ish HP and DR 3/lethal.

AKA_Bait

2008-02-29, 09:47 PM

Before I start, I just want to say Thank You Chronos. I have thought about starting a thread or writing an article on this for a while but just haven't found the time.

By your logic, most people you meet would also have a severe deficit in at least one stat to the point of being handicapped in that area.... That means of your 6 stats, 2 will likely be negative, 2 will be positive, 1 will be average, and 1 could go either way. Your negative stats have 14.3% chance of being any given value from 3-9, same for your positive stats chances of being 12-18."

Two points:

1: I probably could do the math, that's really not my thing, but that the average person having 2 stats below average and 2 stats above makes total sense with both my personal experience as well as national statistics. Bear in mind that an average score on any national test (or city or local test) is the middle of the pack.

2. Part of Chronos' point as I understand it is rebutting the Alexandrian's argument that 3.x mechanics do a good job of representing human abilty (from which several of his other arguments flow). Your argumen that 3d6 is not a good model there of, perhaps something more on a bell curve with a standard deviation would do a better job, only helps prove the point that 3.x mechanics do not well emulate the range and percentage of actual human capacity. Pointing out the downside of Chronos' math doesn't disprove his argument, it helps it.

This is exactly why average is assumed to be 10-11. It does not mean that 10-11 is the most common roll, it means that the average person will fall at or near this range, which is why it is the BASE STAT listed for mankind.

Which does not correspond at all, in concept, with the 3d6 concept. It's more of an adhoc fix for a mechanic that wasn't accurate.

Chronos

2008-02-29, 10:38 PM

Ganurath

2008-02-29, 11:05 PM

Looking at my own genius IQ and physical frame built so that I can balance on one knee but a punch to the chest can literally kill me, I agree wholeheartedly with your ability score analysis. As for the whole matter of levels and hp... What the heck was Rasputin?

Indon

2008-02-29, 11:12 PM

-The average human probably corresponds somewhere between flat 10's and the NPC array (8,9,10,11,12,13), statistically. The system handles it pretty well for such a high degree of abstraction.

-Helm's Deep was fought with the assistance of an allied army - the kill counts seem more likely a circumstance of clever players utilizing strategy in order to get one low-risk kill every round for a long period of time (Please ignore the movie's interpretation of this battle for D&D purposes). It's not particularly indicative of level.

-Many of the Men of Old (and other great heroes from other races) were probably Divine Rank 0 in the D&D system - disassociated largely with the level system. Plus, arguably humans had racial HD back in the day.

-A thesis is a special case of use of the Knowledge skill which is similar to taking 20 - the only doctor which is reasonably high-level is one that can create a thesis in six seconds (comprehending a problem so intractible that noone has understood it before as a standard action). If anything, Einstein's level is too high.

bugsysservant

2008-02-29, 11:16 PM

Alright, don't have time to reply to all of your points, but I can manage a few.

1. The distribution of 3d6 DOES NOT model reality. People's capabilities vary much less than the average deviation of 3d6. By your logic one in 216 people will be able to lift and carry (albeit slowly) 600 pounds. That's absurd. I simply don't believe that. The stat generation of 3d6 is a simplification that stems from people enjoying playing with heterogeneous scores. Would you want to play with a character with stats of 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11? No, it really wouldn't be fun. Therefore the relatively broad bell curve of 3d6 was introduced.

2. There is a difference between uncovering new knowledge and uncovering a vast and difficult solution to a problem that plagues an entire system of thought. Einstein did the latter. Most PhDs do the former. I'm not going to get into the value of obtaining a PhD, but as I recall, Leon Lederman (Nobel Laureate) did a very nice summary of exactly what a PhD could mean in the back of the God Particle: that it frequently is nothing more than a testament to the tenacity of persistent fools.

3. You say that intellectuals such as Einstein and Shakespeare are well past level 11. For the sake of argument, I'll say 16. Now, if there are such mental high level people, shouldn't there be an equivalent physical classed figure? By level 16 you can have 22 strength. Someone with 22 strength can lift and stagger around with over a thousand pounds. Does this fit reality? No. The current record for clean and jerk is under 600, which is roughly modeled by an 18 strength. So, the best humanity can produce still doesn't have enough XP to have gained even four levels.

4. You assume that a troll in dungeons and dragons is equal to a troll in Tolkien-verse, and that an orc in dungeons and dragons is equal to an orc in the Tolkien-verse. THAT IS WRONG. D&D trolls have numerous abilities that I don't recall Tolkien trolls as having, such as regeneration. And as for the orcs, there is very little evidence to support the theory that they are the same. Suffice to say that applying the D&D XP system to non-D&D monsters is pretty much just sophistry.

Chronos

2008-03-01, 12:10 AM

-A thesis is a special case of use of the Knowledge skill which is similar to taking 20 - the only doctor which is reasonably high-level is one that can create a thesis in six seconds (comprehending a problem so intractible that noone has understood it before as a standard action). If anything, Einstein's level is too high.Alexander's analysis of Einstein assumed that he was taking advantage of a well-stocked library, help from colleagues, and masterwork experimental equipment, none of which can be done in six seconds. And he was also assuming a roll of 20 on the die. So this is already taken into account: Even with taking all the time one needs, and even with favorable circumstances, and even with a generous helping of luck, it still takes a fifth-level expert to earn a Ph.D.

By your logic one in 216 people will be able to lift and carry (albeit slowly) 600 pounds. That's absurd.There were a couple of guys I went to high school with who could do that, and that's a pool of perhaps 500 people. What's so absurd about it?

4. You assume that a troll in dungeons and dragons is equal to a troll in Tolkien-verse, and that an orc in dungeons and dragons is equal to an orc in the Tolkien-verse. THAT IS WRONG. D&D trolls have numerous abilities that I don't recall Tolkien trolls as having, such as regeneration. And as for the orcs, there is very little evidence to support the theory that they are the same. Suffice to say that applying the D&D XP system to non-D&D monsters is pretty much just sophistry.OK, I'll grant you the trolls. D&D trolls are trying to represent things like Tolkien portrayed, but maybe they just failed horribly. But are you seriously arguing that Tolkien's orcs are all less than CR 1/2? There's not much lower than that you can get.

Tengu

2008-03-01, 03:10 AM

Thank you, Chronos. I have nothing more to say.

VanBuren

2008-03-01, 03:36 AM

OK, I'll grant you the trolls. D&D trolls are trying to represent things like Tolkien portrayed, but maybe they just failed horribly.

Yeah. It's not like they could be trying for a different interpretation or anything.

BlackandGold

2008-03-01, 04:36 AM

I really don't think, that a Doctor had to use a DC 40. Normal Dissertations don't open a complete new field, they are Works, which go in the depth in an already known field. And you can't compare academic grade to important work, the 2007 Nobel Prize in Physics has gone to Peter Grünberg, who never became a normal professor in Germany (I know, because it's my faculty!).

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-01, 04:36 AM

I posted my own rebuttal to this article a while back, which took a slightly different tack to yours.

By basic issue with it was that "The Alexandrian" is actually just sneaking in DM fiat and pretending that it's the D&D rules. He's starting backwards, with the assumption that Einstein was fifth level, and then working out how he could, conceivably have achieved success on a Knowledge: Physics skill check with an arbitrary DC.

There's several problems with this: Firstly, as Morbo would have it, Knowledge (Physics) Does Not Work That Way. The Knowledge skill is used for remembering the answers to things you already know. It isn't used for working out completely new information (this is also why the Omniscifiscer doesn't work, incidentally).

Secondly, we actually have no basis for deciding the DC of Knowledge: Physics checks. Level-Five Einstein's +15 Knowledge Physics check is enough to let him work out DC25 physics problems 100% of the time, by taking 10. The problem is that "DC25 Physics problem" could mean "extremely obscure element of theoretical physics" or it could mean "tough A-Level question"

Thirdly, and most damningly, the Alexandrian makes no allowance for the other implications of his arbitrary "theoretical physicist" houserule. Einstein was a great scientist, but so was Galileo. Galieleo presumably also had to make that DC40 Knowledge (Science) check to put together his ideas about gravitation, relative motion (indeed Galileo proposed "relativity" long before Einstein) and the like. Problem is, if "discover that all objects accelerate at the same rate under gravity" and "discover the general theory of relativity" and "Discover string theory" are all DC 40 Knowledge: Physics checks, then the first physicist to be able to reliably get a +30 on their skill roll (which is relatively easy, particularly if you're handing out circumstance bonuses like candy) should discover all of them.

Then of course there's the issue of the levels of ability below Einstein. I happen to be a physicist myself, so I can also recall a great many obscure and very obscure facts about physics with pretty much 100% certainty. Assuming for the sake of modesty that I might have to look a few things up in a book (+2 Circumstance Bonus) this means that I need to be able to reliably get a +13 on my Knowledge: Physics check (to take 10 and solve DC 25 problems with a +2 Circumstance modifier). Since Einstein is smarter than me I'll put myself at Int 14, chiefly because if I went any lower the levels would start getting really stupid and of course I don't have Skill Focus: Physics (I have Skill Focus: Knowledge (RPGs) and the odd martial weapon proficiency).

This means that I need approximately 9 ranks in Knowledge: Physics, putting me one level ahead of Einstein, and only slightly less well off in terms of physics knowledge. And that's the problem with the Alexandrian's method.

The Alexandrian's argument is that the D&D system is well calibrated to model a realistic world. It isn't. The random element in the D20 system is massively, massively higher than the deterministic element, and that means that a character who can reliably succeed at trivial tasks must have a good chance of succeeding at seemingly impossible ones. Taking 10 is an unreliable fudge factor, which causes more problems than it solves. A single skill point suddenly makes the difference between "I fail to do this more than half the time" and "I can do this all day every day with no problems".

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-01, 05:30 AM

This, Sir Chronos, is an excellent analysis.
I did enjoy very much Justin Alexander's article, but you impoved from there, and entirely correctly, I dare say.

I stand awed.

- Giacomo

Anon-a-mouse

2008-03-01, 06:40 AM

"Almost everyone you have ever met is a 1st level character. The few exceptional people you’ve met are probably 2nd or 3rd level – they’re canny and experienced and can accomplish things that others find difficult or impossible."

"It wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect an average infantryman’s highest ability score (13) to be in Strength."

Right, so a G.I. is a level one fighter with 13 strength.

"Einstein was probably something more like a 4th or 5th level expert."

A 4th or 5th level expert has a AB of +3. A 1st level fighter with a strength of 13 has an AB of +2. What this person seems to be saying is that Einstein could kick bells out of an average infantry man if both were using weapons which they were not trained in.

As for hit points...

"(This 5th level Einstein can also be modeled with as few as 5 hit points – 1 per hit die. Even if he rolled an average number of hit points on each hit die (3 each), as an old man his average Constitution of 10 will have dropped two points. With the resulting Constitution penalty, he still only has 10 hit points. This is the other reason why the hit point argument holds no water.)"

This depends on the assumption that Einstein was born an old man. In fact, he was relatively young when he made his first great discoveries (and as the author of the article acknowledges, Einstein must have been at least level 4 or 5 to have passed the knowledge check).

But even with the fudged stats Einstein still outclasses the G.I. in terms of hit points.

edit:

I just noticed that the guy makes a mathematical error in order to create his supposedly realistic Einstein. The average roll on a d6 is 3.5 - (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 - not 3.

Kurald Galain

2008-03-01, 06:47 AM

A real person with 16-18 in a stat is easily olympic material, simply because they
An 18, perhaps. A 16, certainly not. I know several "16s" around here.

You seem to be falling into a bit of a fallacy with the assumption that 10 is not an average just because there are 19 other possible die rolls you could get.
The mistake you're making is assuming the "average" occurs 99 times out of 100. Bell curves don't work that way; just because 10 dex would be the average doesn't mean there aren't plenty of 8's and 12's around, or even 6's and 14's. These are the kind of people all around you that are slightly better, or slightly worse, at things than average. That's what "average" means.

-The average human probably corresponds somewhere between flat 10's and the NPC array (8,9,10,11,12,13), statistically. The system handles it pretty well for such a high degree of abstraction.
Well, except for the fact that most other RPGs for the past decade, at least, handle it better...

-Many of the Men of Old (and other great heroes from other races) were probably Divine Rank 0 in the D&D system - disassociated largely with the level system. Plus, arguably humans had racial HD back in the day.
That's just saying "well, the system doesn't work for these folks so we're ignoring that part".

-A thesis is a special case of use of the Knowledge skill which is similar to taking 20
That didn't make any sense. Of course, D&D doesn't deal with "extended skill checks" particularly well.

No. The current record for clean and jerk is under 600, which is roughly modeled by an 18 strength.
Actually it's not, because this 18-strength guy in D&D will lose a disproportionate amount of time from a 12-strength high schooler, for instance in arm wrestling (which would be modelled by an opposed strength check).

The Alexandrian's argument is that the D&D system is well calibrated to model a realistic world. It isn't. The random element in the D20 system is massively, massively higher than the deterministic element, and that means that a character who can reliably succeed at trivial tasks must have a good chance of succeeding at seemingly impossible ones. Taking 10 is an unreliable fudge factor, which causes more problems than it solves. A single skill point suddenly makes the difference between "I fail to do this more than half the time" and "I can do this all day every day with no problems".
Precisely.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-01, 07:00 AM

But even with the fudged stats Einstein still outclasses the G.I. in terms of hit points.

And in BAB as well, I believe. Particularly since the GI is only going to have a Strength of 11.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-01, 07:02 AM

The mistake you're making is assuming the "average" occurs 99 times out of 100. Bell curves don't work that way; just because 10 dex would be the average doesn't mean there aren't plenty of 8's and 12's around, or even 6's and 14's. These are the kind of people all around you that are slightly better, or slightly worse, at things than average. That's what "average" means.

This is what I like to call the "Sherlock Holmes fallacy": the most probable outcome is the only possible outcome.

All of Holmes' great deductions worked this way. Any man with a tattoo is a sailor, any man with a large hat is an intellectual.

KIDS

2008-03-01, 07:20 AM

Nebo_

2008-03-01, 07:30 AM

I don't like the points brought forward here, but only because D&D is an abstraction and can't be accurately used to model real world of fiction. Any serious discussions about that are just going to waste their time. Otherwise, good luck with it...

I have to agree. You might be right, you might be wrong. It doesn't matter because when I play D&D, I don't focus on what level the various inhabitants of the world are. It's a waste of time and it ruins the suspension of disbelief.

Demented

2008-03-01, 07:33 AM

Well, I couldn't find anything I could agree with in the OP, except with the broad statement that the Alexander article had its flaws and inaccuracies.

Likewise, despite its flaws, the Alexander article's sentiment is still correct. You don't need to be high-level in order to do such remarkable things as fictional characters are often shown doing. (Except in the case of certain feats and similar limitations.)

As the other posts illustrate, the problem is that, while you can reach the heights of human achievement at a minimum of level 5, there's a tendency to reach several of them at once. Specifically hardiness, combat skill, and saves. So while you can say that a particular accomplishment can be made at as low as (or lower than) 5th level, you can't say that the person that made that accomplishment was definitely 5th level. Levels just aren't accurate to reality.

Lastly, thanks to Dan_Hemmens, I think that Einstein's discovery was a Craft check. =P

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-01, 07:52 AM

Likewise, despite its flaws, the Alexander article's sentiment is still correct. You don't need to be high-level in order to do such remarkable things as fictional characters are often shown doing. (Except in the case of certain feats and similar limitations.)

I think the *sentiment* of the article is excellent, but the article itself completely misses the point.

"Low level characters can do remarkable things" does not translate to "5th level is the pinnacle of human achievement". Rather, it simply means that you can achieve remarkable things without being at the pinnacle of human achievement, and that in fact "achieving remarkable things" isn't a factor of rules or systems or levels or skill checks, it's a factor of events. Of course the problem is that in practice, your ability to influence events in D&D is a factor of your level and your skill checks.

Demented

2008-03-01, 08:52 AM

Ulrichomega

2008-03-01, 10:37 AM

Rutee

2008-03-01, 10:39 AM

I would say what I was going to say, but it has already been said.

As for everything else, the big problem I am seeing here is that people assume that since he had to have had a +X to achieve this, he must be lvl Y. Since he has level Y, he has to have a BAB of Z. If he had that BAB, he could take on the entire USA army with one hand tied behind his back.

I think using a non-level system (i.e. Serenity), would work much better here.

Oh it would, definitely. Honestly, whenever representing ANYTHING that isn't a combat-wombat, you're much better using a non-level system then DnD. That doesn't change that people /try/ to use DnD though.

AKA_Bait

2008-03-01, 10:58 AM

Oh it would, definitely. Honestly, whenever representing ANYTHING that isn't a combat-wombat, you're much better using a non-level system then DnD. That doesn't change that people /try/ to use DnD though.

Yep. Some even write articles which even more people read and then quote as if it were gospel...

Zincorium

2008-03-01, 11:14 AM

Yep. Some even write articles which even more people read and then quote as if it were gospel...

Hey, don't look at me. I'm on Justin's official list of idiots. I don't know if I'm even allowed to quote him as gospel (presuming I wanted to).

AKA_Bait

2008-03-01, 11:26 AM

Kurald Galain

2008-03-01, 11:46 AM

There's an official list? I have a suspicion that it overlaps signifigantly with my unofficial list of reliably solid posters...

That wouldn't surprise me. Last time his article was discussed on this forum, he got really angry about it, made some nasty posts towards the people who dared criticizing it, and then left forever in a huff. So yeah.

Closet_Skeleton

2008-03-01, 12:22 PM

The model in D&D is that, on average, humans have ability scores drawn from a distribution of 3d6 in each score. There are 216 possible rolls of 3d6, of which 81 give a result of 12 or higher. This means that given any random individual, and any given random ability score, that individual has a 3/8 chance of having a 12 or higher in that score. When we consider that everyone has six ability scores, we find that 94% of the population has at least one score good enough to have a +1 bonus. The six percent who are mediocre at best at everything are hardly the "vast majority" claimed. And one person in 216, nearly a half of a percent of the population, will have an 18 in any given score.

Note that these figures are symmetric, so we also have that 94% of the population has some ability score bad enough to give a penalty, and a half of a percent of the population has a three in any given score. The example given of breaking down a door works only if you assume that almost everyone is average, but significantly non-average scores aren't nearly as rare as Alexander suggests.

The problem with this is that only PCs have ability scores based of 3d6 (or 4d6 discard lowest). The population has an average stat of 10 or 11 because the game says so. No mathematics are involved in an arbitary system.

By having ability scores based off 3d6, PCs are already exceptional.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-01, 12:45 PM

'Remarkable things' were meant to be those actions requiring levels of skill that are near or beyond the current pinnacle of human achievement. Low levels was meant to be levels 4-8.

In that context, I don't understand your comment.
Maybe my own comment seems just as confusing to you. :smallconfused:

The thing is that there's a difference between what can be *achieved* at a particular level, and what can be achieved reliably.

Since most skill DCs cap out at 40, and this tends to represent truly legendary feats (a DC 40 listen check allows you to hear an owl swooping in for the kill, fifty feet away, when you're not even paying attention) it is indeed true that the "pinnacles of human achievement" can be reached at low levels 4 starting ranks in a skill, Skill Focus and a decent Attribute modifier gets you to the +10 you need to reach DC 30 on a good day.

The problem is that "human achievement" isn't represented by single discrete skill rolls, and the point at which you get to "the pinnacle of human achievement" is roughly the same point at which you get "basic professional competence". Anybody with a degree, for example, should be able to answer "really tough questions" in their area of expertise at least 50% of the time. This means they're going to need at least a +15 on their skill check. This, as you might have noticed, is the same level which the Alexandrian suggests Einstein had his Knowledge: Physics skill.

chormin

2008-03-01, 12:59 PM

A problem with taking D&D stats of any kind and applying them to real life i also that things change in the real world. Someone who is out of shape but adult lets say starts being able to carry 30 pounds unencumbered. I they work hard at it, they can get to 40 50 60 etc. All this without magic items and without gaining 4+ levels. That same person can go from wheezing walking up a staircase to running 5Ks. I dont thik that that change can be much aside from constitution gain. Now suppose they get lazy. Not sick or injured, but lazy. They can go back to wheezy and and weak without curses or level drain or poisons* or anything like that.

Basically, we don't live in a D20 system. Neither did Einstein or Conan or Aragorn or any of them.

*unless fast food and the like counts.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-01, 01:21 PM

Basically, we don't live in a D20 system. Neither did Einstein or Conan or Aragorn or any of them.

That was more or less my argument back last time the Alexandrian was around here. He insisted that while obviously Einstein, Conan and Aragorn couldn't really be modeled under D&D, high levels somehow failed to model them more than low levels.

KIDS

2008-03-01, 01:22 PM

Well d20 (or any other system) can only roughly roughly roughly (multiply this) describe reality in any sense. Models which get closer to that get Nobel Prizes, and even they are not perfect. Though it would be funny to one day see D&D at such a degree of "realism" that it does get its own... ah, ranting...

Chronos

2008-03-01, 01:36 PM

Illiterate Scribe

2008-03-01, 02:03 PM

Cuddly

2008-03-01, 02:10 PM

Zincorium

2008-03-01, 02:14 PM

Also, may I point out that, if you roll for stats at conception (the existence of the unholy scion template, which applies to babies, reinforces this), then people with exceptionally low statistics - those with, say, 3-6 in a statistic will probably die in the womb, miscarry, or be still born, because they simply aren't tough enough, or maybe humans have developed an evolutionary mechanism that removes this lower layer. Freaky and eugenics-based, but hey, that's the DnD system.

Only constitution would actually result in death. The rest would just leave you unable to move on your own, talk, manipulate stuff... Which is only very slightly worse than any newborn infant.

I'm not sure what penalties are applied that early on, but presumably anything higher than -3 would result in deaths. It would also raise the lower boundary and therefore the average.

Note that I am talking about the deaths of infant children in a purely theoretical manner and do not intend to offend anyone whatsoever.

Matthew

2008-03-01, 02:53 PM

First off, I want to make clear that I don't think that D&D does a perfect job of modeling reality. I just think that it does a better job of modeling reality if one assumes that the range of human ability is levels 1-20 than it does if one assumes that the range is 1-5.

I think that's just as silly as saying 1-5 does a better job. Neither actually does a better job than the other, unless you set your expectations of what is normal and representative of the 'real world' to begin with.

"Ability scores based off of 3d6" is "average stat of 10 or 11". That's what the population at large has. PCs have scores based off of 4d6 drop lowest (or an array, or point buy, or whatever), which is significantly better than 3d6. The only reason the DMG recommends using 10s and 11s for NPCs is that there are a lot of people in the world, and it would take way too long to roll dice for all of them.

This may or may not be true, it's hard to say for sure what was intended with that distribution in D20. I know for sure that this distribution was not intended for AD&D. If you choose to roll up the Attributes he says...

Non-Player Characters: You should, of course, set the ability scores of
those NPCs you will use as parts of the milieu, particularly those of high level and power. Scores for high level NPC's must be high - how else could these figures have risen so high? Determine the ability scores of other non-player characters as follows:

General Characters: Roll 3d6 for each ability as usual, but use average
scoring by considering any 1 as a 3 and any 6 as a 4.

Special Characters, Including Henchmen: Roll 3d6 as for general characters, but allow the full range (3-18) except in the ability or abilities which are germane to his or her profession, i.e. strength for fighters, etc. For all such abilities either use one of the determination methods used for player
characters or add + 1 to each die of the 3 rolled which scores under 6.

Relevant, not relevant? You decide.

WhiteHarness

2008-03-01, 03:55 PM

Indon

2008-03-01, 04:01 PM

Alexander's analysis of Einstein assumed that he was taking advantage of a well-stocked library, help from colleagues, and masterwork experimental equipment, none of which can be done in six seconds. And he was also assuming a roll of 20 on the die. So this is already taken into account: Even with taking all the time one needs, and even with favorable circumstances, and even with a generous helping of luck, it still takes a fifth-level expert to earn a Ph.D.

Ah, you're right. He was assuming help from a single colleague. As such, I'd like to note that while there may be a limit on the number of people who can aid a skill check, that limit is probably not one (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#aidAnother), and Einstein (and many other scientists) are in correspondence with many of their peers. Taking this into account makes it much easier to hit high DC's, at least nowadays. Isolated individuals who may not have so much _had_ peers (such as Archimedes) might have been slightly more legendary, however.

Rutee

2008-03-01, 04:03 PM

Indon

2008-03-01, 04:06 PM

The Alexandrian article hinges on the world working on standards that are amenable to Dungeons And Dragons. If you can accept /that/ argument, is "1/216 people have an 18" that hard to accept?

More, taking into account age bonuses in three different stats.

Edit: Well, more for the mental stats, that is. Much less for the physical stats, as an 18 becomes a 17 at middle age (and then a 15 when old, and a 12 when you're about to kick the bucket).

VanBuren

2008-03-01, 04:09 PM

If we're going to insist on seeing reality through the distorted prism of D&D 3.5 game mechanics, then in all likelihood, you, and everyone else you know is either a 1st level commoner or maybe an expert with no ability scores above 13.

I can say with absolute certainty that I have never had to fear the wrath of a housecat. Well actually I have, but not for the same reasons.

Blanks

2008-03-01, 04:33 PM

I think people are being unfair to the Alexandrian. The way i read his article wasn't that people couldn't rise above 5th level, just that it wasn't necessary to assume that everyone who did something awesome was 20th level.

His argument that DnD did "okay" depends entirely upon how you define okay. I wont touch that.

But his argument that it isn't necessary to claim that everyone is 20th level is rock solid, as a guideline.

What level is Aragorn? Perhaps the Alexandrian was wrong when he said 5, but 10 is more than adequate. Yes he does some things a low level couldn't do, but then again some of the things a low level could do, he doesn't. The coolest magic item in Middleearth is a ring of invisibility and a potion of light, which indicates that at least the artificiers are level 5 or much much lower :smallsmile:
(Yeah i know that the one ring is more than that but you get the point - where are all the fireballs, cloudkills and haste spells?).

When the players enters a village where they know there is a famous smith, do they need to fear him because he "must be 20th level"? No, he is a 5th level dude that the players could easily kill. The fact that he has specialized just makes him very good at one thing, compared to the players who are much higher level and are good at many things.

Anyways, i think the Alexandrian article should be seen as a warning against assuming that everyone must be highlevel, more than a strict rule that nobody is.

horseboy

2008-03-01, 04:49 PM

(Yeah i know that the one ring is more than that but you get the point - where are all the fireballs, cloudkills and haste spells?).
The Hobbit

Draz74

2008-03-01, 05:01 PM

Interpreting a lot of fantasy literature (including Tolkien) according to D&D rules works best if you use E6 or E8 D&D.

Still far from perfect, of course.

Indon

2008-03-01, 05:02 PM

I can say with absolute certainty that I have never had to fear the wrath of a housecat. Well actually I have, but not for the same reasons.

Well, a housecat in D&D would really be very unlikely to kill a human commoner. Rather than try to fight something larger than it, it would attempt to flee, provoking attacks of opportunity which would allow a commoner to grapple the cat, which it recieves a -12 within. The cat would not make any grapple checks to try to deal damage, but instead exclusively try to escape using its' untrained +2 Escape Artist check.

Dervag

2008-03-01, 05:21 PM

Yeah, I agree. You lose granularity with 3d6, and for good reason- rolling d100 or d1000 for stats would be lame, even if it would better model the NPCs.Here's the thing. You can do some math and prove that the Gaussian "bell curve" shape is produced whenever you have a bunch of independent random results (like the results of dice rolls) and add them all up. The more independent random results you use, the more that bell curve starts to look like a spike.

If you rolled 3000d6, then divided the result by 1000, you'd get ability scores averaging 10.5. In fact, you'd almost always get something between 10 and 11, with 9 and 12 being bizarre, perhaps even freaks of nature that make you wonder if your dice are loaded.

But when you roll 3d6, the intrinsic randomness of the situation makes for a very grainy bell curve, as you say.

By the way, if you really want to fix the bell curve of human ability in D&D terms, find a good statistician and get them to figure out how many d6's it will take to produce a bell curve with the right width and spikiness. It's certainly possible; if I were assigned it as a homework problem I wouldn't freak.

6 is related as the number for intelligence below which you can no longer speak properly, so we will use that as a carrying point. You have a 4/7 chance that your negative stats will put you at or below that range. Thats a better then fifty percent chance, So your average person using die rolls as precise averages, will be handicapped to the point of mental retardation in at least one stat, with a fair likelihood of two.You'd be surprised how many people there are who don't speak "properly." That can easily be the result of poor education (which would also weaken you in terms of your Int score), for instance.

If we use 3d6 to generate intelligence scores, and assume that the scores are distributed evenly, then we conclude that something like 10% of the population is stupid enough that they have difficulty using their native language correctly.

Which doesn't strike me as being all that surprising. I mean, look around on the Internet.

So an average person by die rolls, even giving them the benifit of the doubt on luck might look like..
Int: 10
Str: 5
Con: 16
Dex: 6
Wis: 17
Char: 9

That would be about the average range of possible stats if you used dice probabilities as exact standards. SO you have a person of average intelligence, who is unable to walk with assistance, and with such a complete lack of coordination that they cant use crutches or control a wheel chair, but he is healthy as a horse and wise beyond his years, and more then a little annoying to talk to.Actually, a character with a strength of five can walk without assistance. They just can't carry more than, say, 35 pounds of stuff without being heavily burdened.

And there really are people like that. Based on the statistics, roughly 4 to 5% of people would have strength less than or equal to 5. Which more or less squares with the percentage of the population that needs little wheeled suitcases or help to carry anything that weighs much more than 35-50 pounds (the "heavy load" encumbrance range for a person with Str 5).

Even people with very bad physical stats aren't incapacitated, unless their stats are below 3.

Likewise, their low dexterity does not make them so uncoordinated they can't use crutches, not that they need them.

The problem here is that you're working on the assumption that everyone with an ability score below, say, 7 must be a total cripple with respect to that ability. There is no compelling reason to assume this. For purposes of adventuring, which combines the most challenging aspects of hiking, close combat, and puzzle solving, they might be a cripple. But for the purposes of living a normal life, they need not be.

Einstein was a level 10 academic with a constitution penalty (old age) and a grand total of 10 hp. :smallamused:
Some wrestling champions were level 10 too-with a constitution bonus, 60ish HP and DR 3/lethal.Einstein did most of his best work between 1905 and 1920, when he was still in early to middle age (between the ages of 25 and 40). What was he like then?

Looking at my own genius IQ and physical frame built so that I can balance on one knee but a punch to the chest can literally kill me, I agree wholeheartedly with your ability score analysis.Out of curiosity, how do you know that a punch to the chest can kill you? I assume you have not already been killed by a punch to the chest. I do not doubt you in the slightest, but I would like to know how you know.
As for the whole matter of levels and hp... What the heck was Rasputin?Modest-level Beguiler?

-A thesis is a special case of use of the Knowledge skill which is similar to taking 20 - the only doctor which is reasonably high-level is one that can create a thesis in six seconds (comprehending a problem so intractible that noone has understood it before as a standard action). If anything, Einstein's level is too high.Why that bit about the standard action?

There are a number of skills that cannot automatically be used in a standard action- just because you can make masterwork armor doesn't mean you can make it in six seconds. By the same reasoning, the task of finding the answer to a question no one already has an answer to might be the Knowledge-skill equivalent of making a masterwork item. It might very well take considerable time and resources and have a high check DC.

The Knowledge skill mechanic is designed around remembering things that other people already know and taught to you, not around discovering things by thinking about them hard.

1. The distribution of 3d6 DOES NOT model reality. People's capabilities vary much less than the average deviation of 3d6. By your logic one in 216 people will be able to lift and carry (albeit slowly) 600 pounds. That's absurd. I simply don't believe that.Do you believe that less than 1 in 20 people is unable to carry more than 50 pounds without staggering?* If so, you haven't met very many scrawny people or little old ladies lately. Do you believe that less than 1 in 20 people could carry a load of up to 230 pounds without staggering?** I can't blame you, but consider that firefighters train to carry adult males out of burning buildings, sometimes while climbing ladders and such. And an adult male will typically weigh something in the general vicinity of 170-200 pounds.

Firefighters aren't the very strongest people in the world, and lots of people could potentially do that job with a rigorous program of exercise. The fact that you don't have to be physically "one in a thousand" to even make into a firefighter training program suggests that there are quite a lot of real-life people with strength scores in the mid-to-high teens.

*Corresponding to Strength 5; 5% of the population should have strength 3-5.
**Corresponding to Strength 16; 5% of the population should have strength 16-18.

The Str 18 guy carrying 600 pounds is pretty out there, I freely admit. But that's at the extreme tail of the distribution. Over most of the distribution, 3d6 strength scores aren't as bad a model as you think. Because there really are a lot of people who wouldn't be able to march twelve miles a day with a 100-pound backpack, as a Strength 10 person in D&D really ought to be able to do in principle.

The stat generation of 3d6 is a simplification that stems from people enjoying playing with heterogeneous scores. Would you want to play with a character with stats of 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11? No, it really wouldn't be fun. Therefore the relatively broad bell curve of 3d6 was introduced.And yet, almost no one would have such heterogenous stats in real life. Think about it. Think exclusively about the people you know. Unless you know a very unusual group of people, you probably know at least one person who could carry twice as much as at least one other person you know. You probably know some people who have much better coordination than some of your other friends. You probably know some people who are very bright, and some who are frighteningly foolish at times.

All this suggests that the variance of stats among normal people is pretty significant- a range of, say, 6-8 points even when we discount people who are exceptional in a given area. Who are precisely the people we find at the tail ends of the distribution- the ones with stats of 4 and 17.

3. You say that intellectuals such as Einstein and Shakespeare are well past level 11. For the sake of argument, I'll say 16. Now, if there are such mental high level people, shouldn't there be an equivalent physical classed figure? By level 16 you can have 22 strength. Someone with 22 strength can lift and stagger around with over a thousand pounds. Does this fit reality? No. The current record for clean and jerk is under 600, which is roughly modeled by an 18 strength.It is not. In the clean and jerk, you have to lift the load over your head. Now, if we look at this (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/carryingAndExploration.html)page from the SRD, we see that "a character can lift as much as his maximum load over his head." Therefore, you should be able to clean and jerk your maximum load, and not much more. The world record for the clean and jerk is 578-588 pounds. A person who can lift that much weight over their head should indeed have a strength of 22 or even 23 in D&D terms. It's possible that people with that much strength may have used steroids or some other technique that would confer an 'enhancement' bonus to strength in addition to natural stat increases from training, of course. But the fact remains that if we believe the standard D&D rules for lifting and carrying, anyone who can clean and jerk more than 300 pounds must have a strength above 18.

4. You assume that a troll in dungeons and dragons is equal to a troll in Tolkien-verse, and that an orc in dungeons and dragons is equal to an orc in the Tolkien-verse. THAT IS WRONG. D&D trolls have numerous abilities that I don't recall Tolkien trolls as having, such as regeneration.On the other hand, Tolkein trolls are also practically impervious to normal weapons. They were created by the forces of evil as an equivalent of Ents. And Ents can tear apart a fortress with their bare hands.

Tolkein trolls have high enough DR or Armor Class that even when a strong warrior smites them in the arm with a sword (Boromir) he will likely inflict no damage whatsoever. They also have greatly superhuman strength (more so than the aforesaid weightlifters). So while they may not have the exact same stats as D&D trolls, they're pretty darn tough in their own right. Tough enough that you've no call to go saying "THAT IS WRONG" to people who estimate that killing a Tolkein troll is about as impressive a feat of arms as killing a D&D troll.

I think the *sentiment* of the article is excellent, but the article itself completely misses the point.

"Low level characters can do remarkable things" does not translate to "5th level is the pinnacle of human achievement". Rather, it simply means that you can achieve remarkable things without being at the pinnacle of human achievement, and that in fact "achieving remarkable things" isn't a factor of rules or systems or levels or skill checks, it's a factor of events. Of course the problem is that in practice, your ability to influence events in D&D is a factor of your level and your skill checks.I agree with your reasoning, though I'm not sure I'd take it to quite as absolute an extreme as you do.

That wouldn't surprise me. Last time his article was discussed on this forum, he got really angry about it, made some nasty posts towards the people who dared criticizing it, and then left forever in a huff. So yeah.I don't remember it being that bad...

The problem with this is that only PCs have ability scores based of 3d6 (or 4d6 discard lowest). The population has an average stat of 10 or 11 because the game says so. No mathematics are involved in an arbitary system.Actually, an average stat of 10-11 is exactly what you get if you use 3d6 to generate everyone's stats.

And for most things, if you use 3d6 to generate everyone's stats, you get a place that looks a lot like the real world, at least in terms of the things that people can do consistently. As Dan Hemmens points out, the randomness of the D&D system swamps a lot of the deterministic effects (allowing a housecat to kick down a door and so forth). But the ability score distributions work pretty well.

Wait. So your argument against the Alexandrian article hinges on the probability of rolling certain numbers on 3d6? This presupposes that the "real world" uses 3d6 for stat generation. I'd be more comfortable with just saying that 99% of the world just uses the "non-elite array." Seriously, I refuse to believe that 1 in 216 people has a score of 18 in any stat.Says a lot about the guys you know.

I can easily think of one person I knew in the past year (a pool of less than 200 people) who has strength 18. I'm not kidding; the guy was like a freakin' mountain with legs. And I could think of a two others who might very well be (oddly, both of whom have the same name).

I probably know lots of people with 18 Intelligence, but that's no surprise- I work in a physics department at a major university.

Do I know anyone with 18 Charisma? Hard to say. But I knew at least one girl a year ago who knew lots of people, had swarms of friends. Great girl. You could probably play "the six degrees of (this girl)" at my university and find that most people in the university had no more than six degrees of separation from each other through her. And there were over ten thousand people at my university. If that's not an exceptional charisma score, I don't know what is.

If you made a list of the 200 people in my life I knew best, I strongly suspect you'd find at least one person with 18 charisma, several people with 18 intelligence, and probably one or two with 18 in a physical score. Likewise, you'd find one with a strength of around 3 (a cerebral palsy case confined to a wheelchair). And two or three who have a charisma of around 3 or 4. Those were extremely offputting people; the sort who seldom bathe and can't carry on a conversation for more than a few minutes without starting to creep you out. And so on.

If we're going to insist on seeing reality through the distorted prism of D&D 3.5 game mechanics, then in all likelihood, you, and everyone else you know is either a 1st level commoner or maybe an expert with no ability scores above 13.I disagree, for the reasons I list above. I know people who simply could not do what they do without having extreme ability scores.

Accept your mundanity and move on. D&D ability scores are meant to represent the exploits of heroic adventurers from fiction and legend. You do not stack up to them; stop flattering yourselves that you do.Oh, I freely concede that I don't stack up to them in terms of skill, or in terms of divine favor, or in terms of whatever "je nais sans quois" that makes for successful heroes.

But I know very well that my distribution of raw ''stats" is good enough to make a viable D&D character- in my case, a somewhat slow and puffy wizard. And I've known people who had the right stats (and even temperament) to make a great barbarian. If that quasi-natural rage ability existed, he'd so totally have it.

Kurald Galain

2008-03-01, 05:24 PM

I think people are being unfair to the Alexandrian. The way i read his article wasn't that people couldn't rise above 5th level, just that it wasn't necessary to assume that everyone who did something awesome was 20th level.
That's not the way he argues it, though. In essence, his point is that D&D is so cool because after you're done modelling everybody in the real world and pretty much every book of fiction, you've only used the first five levels yet. Ours Goes To Eleven.

Furthermore, any argument that the D&D skill system is somehow realistic or similar to how things work in real life will be shot down by the facts.

The irony is that WOTC could have prevented all of this mess by simply making a rule that "most NPCs are level one but can have skill ranks as high as the DM deems necessary". By not making that simple assumption they've ended up with all sorts of klunky rules and consequences.

Azerian Kelimon

2008-03-01, 05:28 PM

I'd like to add something to the debate too: The Alexandrian's article actually FAILS at representing how Einstein discovered the theory of relativity, not because of the different reasons mentioned here, but rather because it was not a single check. In fact, I'd be willing to bet a TON of money that, if we would have to represent descovering the theory of relativity with dice rolls, it would be a Complex Skill check like those outlined in UA, and one in which you CANNOT take 20, at that. What this would mean is that Einstein WAS extremely gifted, yes. But he also had to "roll" something like 6 natural 20's, which would be an insanely rare occurrence (Something like what happened to Rasputin, on the other hand, could be represented by him being something like a Warblade or Barbarian who rolled 12's at every level, which is rather similar to my Einstein scenario, though with a smaller range of values), thus explaining why Galileo or Newton didn't discover the Theory of relativity.

ForzaFiori

2008-03-01, 05:31 PM

If we're going to insist on seeing reality through the distorted prism of D&D 3.5 game mechanics, then in all likelihood, you, and everyone else you know is either a 1st level commoner or maybe an expert with no ability scores above 13.

considering i have a friend who can clean over 500 pounds, a person who can run (and i dont mean like a hustle, i mean pretty much flat out run) for 3.1 miles, a friend who has made a high A in ever class and has an unwieghted GPA over 4.0, i would have to disagree that everyone i know has ability scores below 13.

horseboy

2008-03-01, 05:48 PM

Do you believe that less than 1 in 20 people is unable to carry more than 50 pounds without staggering?* If so, you haven't met very many scrawny people or little old ladies lately. Do you believe that less than 1 in 20 people could carry a load of up to 230 pounds without staggering?** I can't blame you, but consider that firefighters train to carry adult males out of burning buildings, sometimes while climbing ladders and such. And an adult male will typically weigh something in the general vicinity of 170-200 pounds.

Firefighters aren't the very strongest people in the world, and lots of people could potentially do that job with a rigorous program of exercise. The fact that you don't have to be physically "one in a thousand" to even make into a firefighter training program suggests that there are quite a lot of real-life people with strength scores in the mid-to-high teens.

*Corresponding to Strength 5; 5% of the population should have strength 3-5.
**Corresponding to Strength 16; 5% of the population should have strength 16-18.

The Str 18 guy carrying 600 pounds is pretty out there, I freely admit. But that's at the extreme tail of the distribution. Over most of the distribution, 3d6 strength scores aren't as bad a model as you think. Because there really are a lot of people who wouldn't be able to march twelve miles a day with a 100-pound backpack, as a Strength 10 person in D&D really ought to be able to do in principle.
And then there's people like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRX_rnUt9NM) guy.

Blanks

2008-03-01, 06:09 PM

That's not the way he argues it, though. In essence, his point is that D&D is so cool because after you're done modelling everybody in the real world and pretty much every book of fiction, you've only used the first five levels yet. Ours Goes To Eleven.

I think it depends upon how people define legendary and extraordinary:

(skipping the calculations)

What does all this mean?

It means that the most extraordinary blacksmiths in the real world top out at 5th level. Amakuni, the legendary Japanese swordsmith who created the folded-steel technique? 5th level.

Arachne, the legendary weaver who challenged Athena herself to a duel (and lost)? She might be 10th level.

Does this mean you should never throw a 10th level blacksmith into your campaign? Nope. D&D is all about mythic fantasy, after all. But when you do decide to throw a 10th level blacksmith into the mix, consider the fact that this guy will be amazing. He will be producing things that no blacksmith in the real world has ever dreamed of making. And a 20th level blacksmith is one step removed from Hephaestus himself.
So legendary means (to Alexandrian), more or less impossible to achieve in the real world.
Im not sure i would use the same definition, but at least it means that when my character gets to level 10 he will be amazing. And thats a word i would like to enter into the equation when i am roleplaying - the chance to be amazing ;)

Furthermore, any argument that the D&D skill system is somehow realistic or similar to how things work in real life will be shot down by the facts.
I think some of the rules are actually okay. I tried to calculate holding ones breath, and it seems a 18 con character can hold it for about 2 minutes. Which seems plausible for an untrained person. I know that trained freedivers can hold it much longer, but the rules were meant for someone just falling into water, not trained professionals trying to break records.

And the Alexandrian starts off saying:

D&D is a game. Its systems are abstracted and streamlined in order to keep things simple and, more importantly, fun. So, yes, there are compromises. (You’ll see a graphic example of the types of compromises which are made when we talk about the Jump skill.) The game is not a physics text. Nor is it without flaw.

Yes, the Alexandrian might have phrased it harshly, but he had a very valid point, and i feel i learned a lot from his article. The kings jester isnt a 20 level bard in my campaign, just a specialized lowlevel dude :)

Chronos

2008-03-01, 06:24 PM

Wait. So your argument against the Alexandrian article hinges on the probability of rolling certain numbers on 3d6? This presupposes that the "real world" uses 3d6 for stat generation. I'd be more comfortable with just saying that 99% of the world just uses the "non-elite array." Seriously, I refuse to believe that 1 in 216 people has a score of 18 in any stat.Of course the real world doesn't use 3d6 for ability score generation, because the real world doesn't have ability scores in the first place. Assigning integer numbers based on rolling three dice is just an approximation to the much more complicated reality. But if we're going to calibrate that system to reality, then the best option we have is to assume that the statistics really do match up, and see where that takes us. In that case, yes, one person in 216 in the real world would be represented in D&D as having an 18 in (say) Charisma, because that's the definition of an 18 ability score. The exception to this is Strength, since that's the one score for which direct comparisons are possible (via maximum loads and the like), and even there, a range of 3-18 fits humanity a lot better than a range of 8-13 or 10-11.

And then there's people like this guy.The only ability score he's showing off there is Charisma, to convince people to pay attention to a silly publicity stunt. A person of any strength can pull a bus of any weight, provided that it's on a level surface, the bearings are good, and the tires are well-inflated. From what we see in that video, I could pull that exact same bus in those circumstances, and I'm a weakling.

Kurald Galain

2008-03-01, 06:24 PM

And thats a word i would like to enter into the equation when i am roleplaying - the chance to be amazing ;)
Well, yes, but that overlooks the fact that some rare people from real-world history are also legendary, and did amazing things.

I think some of the rules are actually okay.
Nobody's disputing that some of the rules are actually okay. That's a far weaker claim than the article makes.

I tried to calculate holding ones breath, and it seems a 18 con character can hold it for about 2 minutes. Which seems plausible for an untrained person.
Actually, those numbers are way off.

That's really the point - many numbers in D&D seem plausible. TA claims that they therefore are realistic, but casual analysis proves that wrong again and again.

Matthew

2008-03-01, 06:37 PM

Hey, don't look at me. I'm on Justin's official list of idiots. I don't know if I'm even allowed to quote him as gospel (presuming I wanted to).

There's an official list? I have a suspicion that it overlaps signifigantly with my unofficial list of reliably solid posters...

That wouldn't surprise me. Last time his article was discussed on this forum, he got really angry about it, made some nasty posts towards the people who dared criticizing it, and then left forever in a huff. So yeah.

Huh, here (http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2007-10.html#20071028) it is. That's pretty poor form.

Demented

2008-03-01, 06:52 PM

That bus is on wheels! It doesn't count!
And freedivers are clearly aquatic humanoids. j/k

Has anyone considered the possibility of a Craft (Theory of Relativity) check, DC 25, valued at 10,000gp? With a +15 to his check, and take 10, it would take Einstein a little more than 3 years. Of course, he could always do it again in another 3 years... Which might be helpful if he was jotting it down on his computer and OOPS! Hard drive crash! All data lost!
Fortunately, they used paper back then... OOPS! Candle starts a fire! All data lost!

On that note...

What do you think the value of a messageboard post is? If it takes 5 minutes to make, and you make a daily check (8 hours of work?), then your daily check result is 96 times the value of an individual post. An untrained take 10 result would be 10cp, multiplied by DC. If the DC is 5, then an individual post is worth about 0.5cp.
Considering most people posting are 'adding their two cents', what does this tell about the copper exchange rate in D&D?

The thing is...
Given the comment to which you're replying, and the way in which you reply to it, I doubt we're communicating in the same language. Or perhaps this is an exotic form of the Turing test. I'm not really sure which it is.

mainiac

2008-03-01, 09:45 PM

I think people arguing that ultra-high levels are needed fail to appreciate the extent to which exceptional people specialize. Einstein was amazing at astrophysics, no? But he was pretty mediocre at quantum and it shows by the way he never contributed to a field he was present at the inception of. Likewise, amazing fighters (who should be much more relavent to this discussion then Einstein honestly) have area's where they are strong and area's where they are weak.

For example, Chuck Liddell is an amazing fighter in mixed martial arts. Top .01% for sure, in a no holds barred unarmed match there is a very small segment of the population he couldn't knock out or submit without breaking a sweat. But when he fought a boxing match against Regina Halmich, a german woman half his weight, he lost embarasingly hard. Why? He was working against his speciality, a lot of his experience and training was inapplicable.

So, when you look at teh epic accomplishments you'll see people playing to their strengths. Einstein's theories of relativity were the result of someone who specialized in astrophysics more then anyone ever had before. Did this mean he was all around a brillient guy? Not to any extent beyond his native intelligence. Being uber at astrophysics didn't mean he was amazing at applied physics, Einstein never could have duplicated the epic performances of Oppenheimer or Kalashnikov, who specialized in their own ways.

When you have some amazing warrior in the level 6 range, he's going to be specializing at something within his chosen class. A fighter with a powerful combination of feats and gear, a wizard with a carefully selected combination of magic and metamagic feats, a ranger who's deadly from a range and stealthy. When they fight intelligently according to their personal strenghts, they can achieve amazing things like turning the tide of the battle or maning the walls at helms deep or more mundane things like using sweet talk to open doors that shouldn't be opened. Not surprising, they're motivated people who've devoted themselves to getting good at something, result, they are very good. You will have those who step above this but they are freaks. Einstein, honestly, a freak among the freaks and definately above 6. But by level 6, it's possible to have someone who's honed a particular skill to a razor edge and learned how and when to apply it. And such a person can change the world and I say represents most world changers.

Just look at some of the most influential world changes: Thomas Paine, created modern political discourse with nothing more then rabble rousing pamphlets. Confucious, brilliant philosopher and ethicist but third rate politician and administrator. Fredrick the Great, created military idea's that were used to the first world war but had the diplomatic skill of a duck. If Thomas Paine were a high level character he would not have died a lonely drunk bum without a penny to his name. Were Confucious high level, people would have noticed him in his lifetime. Were Fredrick high level he could have gotten more then marginal gains from his spectacular military successes and he would have stormed Maria Theresa's fortress single handedly and slain her with his sword of austrian slaying. And so forth for most famous characters, they changed world events but they didn't do it with the ease that high level dnd characters would.

Lupy

2008-03-01, 10:43 PM

-Helm's Deep was fought with the assistance of an allied army - the kill counts seem more likely a circumstance of clever players utilizing strategy in order to get one low-risk kill every round for a long period of time (Please ignore the movie's interpretation of this battle for D&D purposes). It's not particularly indicative of level.

-Many of the Men of Old (and other great heroes from other races) were probably Divine Rank 0 in the D&D system - disassociated largely with the level system. Plus, arguably humans had racial HD back in the day.

Yes, at Helm's Deep there was an allied army, and I bet everyone of those Elves under Haldier got in a few kills. But I bet most of the Rohirrim got in 2 kills tops. They were ineffective archers, and the Uruks easily bested them in melee, except for the few Guards and Eored who were there. So, we can assume that Legolas and Gimli were basically fighting and killing Uruks primarily on their own...

And if oh say, Hurin is a 0 level Diety, then what is Feanor? He isn;t a demi-god, he is close (a 0 level), otherwise how could he have made the most powerful artifacts ever (sorry Tanis and co., it's true)?
Feanor- 0th diety
Fingolfin- 28-29, or maybe 0th level diety (injured MORGOTH in a 1on1 fight)
Hurin- 21 or 22, very much epic
Turin*-19-21
Tuor*-19 21
Huor-17-19
Beren-21-22 (cut a Silmaril for MORGOTH'S crown, and he is like a
4th level deity.

*Personally I would put Turin above Tuor, but we could debate that all night long...

EDIT: Sorry, Middle Earth is important to me... Anyway, I didn't wanna sound like a jerk for getting off subject and being a know-it-all, so, this is all just kind me obessing, sorry...

And this Justinian Alexander (??? is that his name) sounds like he needs to talk to EE... I'd pay to see that (please, put the BoED down*sob*)

And how long ago was the whole fight? Cuz if it was recently, we need to send our people over there to argue with this guy... Cuz we have some cool people here (go us!)

EDIT: Wow I sound like an idiot tonight, don't hold it against me please, I'm gunna go sleep... might help things.

Chronos

2008-03-01, 11:28 PM

Has anyone considered the possibility of a Craft (Theory of Relativity) check, DC 25, valued at 10,000gp?Well, Knowledge (Physics) isn't really a good description for what one uses to do work in physics, but it's probably the best approximation the current skill system gives us. Really, there ought to be a separate skill (call it Physcraft, or something), which would bear approximately the same relationship to Knowledge (Physics) that Spellcraft bears to Knowledge (Arcana). The two would probably give synergy bonuses to each other, but knowing physics and using the techniques are two different things.

Einstein was amazing at astrophysics, no? But he was pretty mediocre at quantum and it shows by the way he never contributed to a field he was present at the inception of.You do realize, do you not, that Einstein won the Nobel Prize for his work in quantum mechanics, not for either of the Theories of Relativity? Sure, Heisenberg and Schrödinger did a lot more in quantum mechanics than Einstein did, but Einstein was no slouch. And while we're at it, the same year that he published the Special Theory of Relativity and his explanation of the photoelectric effect (the quantum work which won the Nobel), he also explained Brownian motion, a significant development in thermodynamics.

Oh, and while the General Theory of Relativity is relevant for some aspects of astrophysics, Einstein himself didn't do much significant work in that application.

NoDot

2008-03-01, 11:35 PM

I think anyone who says 1-20 is a better representation of human ability needs to look at the list of feats level nine characters in D&D can preform.

Yahzi

2008-03-01, 11:51 PM

I think anyone who says 1-20 is a better representation of human ability needs to look at the list of feats level nine characters in D&D can preform.
Ya... I mean, Jesus was only 9th level. Heck, he didn't even have a bonus 5th level spell - He could only raise one dead guy a day. :smallbiggrin:

Blanks

2008-03-02, 02:35 AM

Actually, those numbers are way off.

That's really the point - many numbers in D&D seem plausible. TA claims that they therefore are realistic, but casual analysis proves that wrong again and again.
Care to elaborate?
I took a divers certificate (CMAS II) so im not just "guessing wildly". 2 minutes should be what an extremely fit person could last.

Indon

2008-03-02, 02:58 AM

Why that bit about the standard action?

Ah, a good point. Knowledge checks generally don't involve taking an action at all - any non-instantaneous use of the skill is a special case.

There is no system in place for using the Knowledge skill to establish new information in a field.

It is not. In the clean and jerk, you have to lift the load over your head. Now, if we look at this (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/carryingAndExploration.html)page from the SRD, we see that "a character can lift as much as his maximum load over his head." Therefore, you should be able to clean and jerk your maximum load, and not much more.

Not quite, I don't think. When at your maximum load, you can still move at a significant speed. Unless these people can hold these weights above their heads while walking, does it qualify as maximum load, or does it instead qualify as 2x max load, which a character can "pick up, but only stagger around while carrying"? (Of course, now the inaccuracy is going the other way - real life people aren't picking up as much and then moving around as D&D characters can)

I think people overestimate their stats, though not necessarily by that much. Someone which you think is an 18 may really be an 18 - or he may just be a 16 or 17. Someone with a lot of friends doesn't need a good charisma score at all: a commoner diplomancer can work in non-combat situations pretty easily at level 1, and he'd have tons of friends with a charisma of 8. Someone at a leading lab isn't necessarily int 18 - he or she might just be benefiting from all the Aid Another bonuses peerage offers. And so on.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-02, 06:32 AM

Care to elaborate?
I took a divers certificate (CMAS II) so im not just "guessing wildly". 2 minutes should be what an extremely fit person could last.

I think that the point is that the D&D rules seem plausible if you focus on the narrow range within which the results are plausible.

For example: Ordinary guy has a roughly 30% chance of breaking down a light interior door? Seems plausible.

On the other hand: Domestic cat has a roughly 15% chance of breaking down a light interior door? Patently ludicrous.

It's the same rule.

Furthermore, sticking with the "doors" example, The Alexandrian displays a shocking lack of understanding of statistics. He suggests that the "30% chance" statistic is appropriate because he feels that it should take "about three good shoves" to get a door open. The thing is that's not how it works in D&D. In D&D each individual shove has a 30% chance to open the door, completely independent of what's happened before.

The article relies on drawing a straight line between two points, then extrapolating wildly. It depends on saying that because the DC for breaking down a door with Strength 10 seems reasonable, the DCs for breaking down doors in general are reasonable, and the DCs for skill checks in general being reasonable.

The basic problem with D&D is that DCs go by steps of 5, whereas modifiers to dice rolls tend to go in steps of 1-2, and on top of all this the linear, randomizing factor in the whole system goes from 1-20, and you can set said random factor to 10 under some circumstances.

This makes the statistics of the whole thing completely screwy. Take, for example, the sample DC5 skill check "climb a knotted rope". Now if the DM allows everbody to take 10 on the skill check, everybody can do it, even people who are so physically frail they shouldn't be able to support their own bodyweight (Strength 1 = -5 penalty to Climb checks, take 10 = 5). If the DM does *not* allow people to take 10 on the roll, then Mr Immobility still shins up the rope like a good 'un 50% of the time, while Climby Mc Climber, the Strength 10 Rogue with max ranks in the Climb skill and Beefy Mc Athlete, the guy with Strength 18 both fail 5% of the time.

Open Lock is, of course, an excellent example of the problem. The standard Open Lock DC is twenty-five, meaning that the only way to reliably get the damned thing open is to have a +10 to your lockpicking skill. Assuming that you don't take Skill Focus: Open Lock (because it will be completely useless at high levels) and your Dex is a reasonable 14, you need to be about fifth level (Einstein level, notice) in order to open a damned lock.

Now admittedly Open Lock seems to assume that you're Taking 20, but a lot of DMs are rather hostile to the idea. Not only that, but Taking 20 is a completely ludicrous concept in its own right. It does not represent "taking your time and doing it properly" (which is what a thief taking the time to pick a lock generally does) in fact it represents "trying over and over again until you get it right by pure random chance". This is why you're not allowed to Take 20 on any check that has a failure penalty.

The problem is that in real life, professional people do things routinely which ordinary people would have no chance at whatsoever. Circumstance bonuses do not make the difference here, because circumstance bonuses apply to everybody.

For example, a surgeon performs open heart surgery. No lay person could do this ever, so we set it at DC 30. To get DC 30 reliably, you need at least a +20 Heal check (and weirdly, you need a much higher check if you want a chance for the operation to fail). Now you could say that every person in that OR is giving the guy a +2 Aid Another bonus, and that his operating theatre provides a circumstance bonus. This, however, comes out at +12. +12 is enough for anybody to walk in off the street and do exactly the same procedure, about 15% of the time, 20-30% if that person is smart, and up to 100% if you bring in an arbitrarily high number of nurses.

Point being, professional people with real training can do things that other people can't. The level at which you become able to do your job more than 50% of the time is the level at which you become able to perform legendary feats 5% of the time.

Is this a problem? Of course not. Is it a good model of the real world? No.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-02, 06:39 AM

I think anyone who says 1-20 is a better representation of human ability needs to look at the list of feats level nine characters in D&D can preform.

And anybody who thinks that 1-5 is a better representation of human ability needs to look at the list of feats level nine characters can fail to perform.

No level in D&D ever represents any level of human ability. That's the problem.

The level at which you become able to drink cups of molten lava and not die falls well below the level you can fail to hit an unarmoured, flat-footed opponent with your sword during a surprise round.

Thane of Fife

2008-03-02, 07:59 AM

This, however, comes out at +12. +12 is enough for anybody to walk in off the street and do exactly the same procedure, about 15% of the time, 20-30% if that person is smart, and up to 100% if you bring in an arbitrarily high number of nurses.

To be fair, this isn't completely unrealistic. Look at this (http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/resource_pages/chars/demara.html). It's about a guy who essentially performed open-heart surgery by reading about it. Sure, he had a high Intelligence score, but the point is that a good circumstance modifier can let someone with no skill ranks pull of something they shouldn't be able to, even more than 30% of the time, realistically.

Kurald Galain

2008-03-02, 08:10 AM

To be fair, this isn't completely unrealistic.

That guy was a high-level factotum. Or one of those master of mask guys.

Seriously though, it's absurd to point at a singular, unique instance among billions of humans who pulled this off, and then argue that means things normally work like that, for an average person, 30% of the time.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-02, 08:19 AM

To be fair, this isn't completely unrealistic. Look at this (http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/resource_pages/chars/demara.html). It's about a guy who essentially performed open-heart surgery by reading about it. Sure, he had a high Intelligence score, but the point is that a good circumstance modifier can let someone with no skill ranks pull of something they shouldn't be able to, even more than 30% of the time, realistically.

Removing bullet from a man's chest != open heart surgery. And surely the point is that by the time he had been posing as a doctor for a while, he would have picked up some of the actual skill. We're looking at the barber-surgeon tooth-pulling level here. Also, since he relied extensively on his Sick Berth attendant, it's possible that he was rolling off the *other* guy's skill.

Also: He didn't have a circumstance bonus.

Thane of Fife

2008-03-02, 08:36 AM

Seriously though, it's absurd to point at a singular, unique instance among billions of humans who pulled this off, and then argue that means things normally work like that, for an average person, 30% of the time.

I know; I suppose my point was more that, in the right circumstances, someone who isn't trained can, conceivably, approximate someone who is, and for a moderately degree of consistency. Not that it happens 30% of the time - it certainly doesn't.

Also: He didn't have a circumstance bonus.

How is studying the subject beforehand and relying on an assisstant not a circumstance bonus?

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-02, 08:49 AM

How is studying the subject beforehand and relying on an assisstant not a circumstance bonus?

Studying the subject beforehand is "putting points in the skill" - it's an unconventional way of doing it, but even if you took the books away, he'd still have the knowledge he got from them. Relying on an assistant is an Aid Another check (or, depending on how much you rely on him, you might use their skill, while you give an Aid Another check).

Point being, it's not the same as the enormous Circumstance Bonuses that The Alexandrian (and most other people trying to prove that 1st level NPCs are competent) hands out like candy to anybody doing their job.

Look at it this way, if Einstein had a +15 Knowledge: Physics check, that means that if you sat him down in front of an A-Level physics paper (call it DC20) in exam conditions (so no Circumstance Bonuses, no taking 10 because of the time pressure) he'd get about 75%, which is a B. A good B mind you, but a B.

Thane of Fife

2008-03-02, 09:13 AM

One last question:

Look at it this way, if Einstein had a +15 Knowledge: Physics check, that means that if you sat him down in front of an A-Level physics paper (call it DC20) in exam conditions (so no Circumstance Bonuses, no taking 10 because of the time pressure) he'd get about 75%, which is a B. A good B mind you, but a B.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but shouldn't it be 15+1d20? While this still gives him an unrealistically high chance of getting a B (10%), he's most likely going to beat the DC.

Just curious as to whether I'm missing something.

Kurald Galain

2008-03-02, 09:14 AM

Maybe I'm missing something here, but shouldn't it be 15+1d20?

Assumedly, that's one check per question.

Otherwise, a complete rookie (0 ranks, +0 intelligence modifier) would have a 5% chance of acing the test.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-02, 09:16 AM

Assumedly, that's one check per question.

Otherwise, a complete rookie (0 ranks, +0 intelligence modifier) would have a 5% chance of acing the test.

*nods* Basically right. The alternative is that you give him one roll for the entire exam, in which case he either gets an A or an F, either knows all the answers or none of them.

horseboy

2008-03-02, 02:24 PM

Assumedly, that's one check per question.

Otherwise, a complete rookie (0 ranks, +0 intelligence modifier) would have a 5% chance of acing the test.

That's because the answer is always "B" on abc and c on abcd. :smalltongue:

Blanks

2008-03-02, 03:10 PM

I think that the point is that the D&D rules seem plausible if you focus on the narrow range within which the results are plausible.

For example: Ordinary guy has a roughly 30% chance of breaking down a light interior door? Seems plausible.

On the other hand: Domestic cat has a roughly 15% chance of breaking down a light interior door? Patently ludicrous.
*giggles*
A very good point. I agree that that is very wrong. But then again remember this is no ordinary kitty - he can drag you around the house! (max press 30lbs*5=150 lbs=you or your girlfriend perhaps) :D
The kitty should have str. 1, which would still leave him with a 5% chance of opening the door, which is way too much. The problem is that DnD is not meant to accurately portray cats opening doors, but str. 3 wizards trying.
Ability checks are baaad.

Open Lock is, of course, an excellent example of the problem. The standard Open Lock DC is twenty-five, meaning that the only way to reliably get the damned thing open is to have a +10 to your lockpicking skill. Assuming that you don't take Skill Focus: Open Lock (because it will be completely useless at high levels) and your Dex is a reasonable 14, you need to be about fifth level (Einstein level, notice) in order to open a damned lock.

Now admittedly Open Lock seems to assume that you're Taking 20, but a lot of DMs are rather hostile to the idea. Not only that, but Taking 20 is a completely ludicrous concept in its own right. It does not represent "taking your time and doing it properly" (which is what a thief taking the time to pick a lock generally does) in fact it represents "trying over and over again until you get it right by pure random chance". This is why you're not allowed to Take 20 on any check that has a failure penalty.
Also problematic. Some skills are clearly wrong, others are acceptable. The decipher script also means that a really clever dude (int 18), who has a lot of training (skill focus+2, rank 6) could go into the pyramids and start reading right of the walls 15% of the time. This assuming he had never heard of hiroglyphs before, otherwise his chances would be greater. Clearly wrong.

Is this a problem? Of course not. Is it a good model of the real world? No.
But as you point out, we don't need a good model of the real world. We need one which is precise enough that we can focus on the game and let the rules slide in the background. Acceptable realism if you will.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-02, 03:17 PM

But as you point out, we don't need a good model of the real world. We need one which is precise enough that we can focus on the game and let the rules slide in the background. Acceptable realism if you will.

Oh absolutely. But the point is that the Alexandrian's premise was that the D20 Core rules (a) accurately model the real world and (b) accurately represent the pinnacle of human achievement at around 5th level. Not that they have a passable level of verisimilitude, or that you can fudge things to fit, but that the rules are actually, consistently realistic.

It wouldn't be so annoying if he wasn't so smug about it.

Demented

2008-03-02, 05:24 PM

*giggles*
A very good point. I agree that that is very wrong. But then again remember this is no ordinary kitty - he can drag you around the house! (max press 30lbs*5=150 lbs=you or your girlfriend perhaps) :D
The kitty should have str. 1, which would still leave him with a 5% chance of opening the door, which is way too much. The problem is that DnD is not meant to accurately portray cats opening doors, but str. 3 wizards trying.
Ability checks are baaad.

Don't forget size penalties.
Kitty can only drag 30lbs*3/4*5, or 112.5 lbs. Your girlfriend, perhaps. :D
It does say that this can be done "generally", so there are exceptions, but kitty probably isn't one of them.

Meanwhile, a bat can drag around a sack of potatoes, complete with a bottle of ketchup for your eating pleasure.

Blanks

2008-03-02, 05:30 PM

Oh absolutely. But the point is that the Alexandrian's premise was that the D20 Core rules (a) accurately model the real world and (b) accurately represent the pinnacle of human achievement at around 5th level. Not that they have a passable level of verisimilitude, or that you can fudge things to fit, but that the rules are actually, consistently realistic.

It wouldn't be so annoying if he wasn't so smug about it.
Perhaps, but im willing to forgive him a lot of things due to the very fresh perspective he brougt (fresh to me at least). And i can live with the smugness, i just ignore it. Its the interweb, smugness and the like is expected :smalltongue:

Cat killing commoners is boring:

Don't forget size penalties.
Kitty can only drag 30lbs*3/4*5, or 112.5 lbs. Your girlfriend, perhaps. :D
It does say that this can be done "generally", so there are exceptions, but kitty probably isn't one of them.

Meanwhile, a bat can drag around a sack of potatoes, complete with a bottle of ketchup for your eating pleasure.
This is funny!

Citizen Joe

2008-03-02, 05:44 PM

Don't forget size penalties.
Kitty can only drag 30lbs*3/4*5, or 112.5 lbs. Your girlfriend, perhaps. :D
It does say that this can be done "generally", so there are exceptions, but kitty probably isn't one of them.

Did you factor in increased carrying capacity for quadrupeds instead of 2 legs?

horseboy

2008-03-02, 05:46 PM

Don't forget size penalties.
Kitty can only drag 30lbs*3/4*5, or 112.5 lbs. Your girlfriend, perhaps. :D
It does say that this can be done "generally", so there are exceptions, but kitty probably isn't one of them.
That's still a big kitty (http://www.verismocat.com/images/lrgimg/LeoAtVet_t.jpg).

Demented

2008-03-02, 06:59 PM

Did you factor in increased carrying capacity for quadrupeds instead of 2 legs?

Of course. The size modifier for a tiny quadruped is 3/4 to a tiny biped's 1/2.

TheElfLord

2008-03-02, 07:17 PM

Thanks Chronos!

I've considered postinga rebuttle to problems I had with the article myself, (interestingly enough, with the blacksmithing example) but hadn't gotten around to it. I hated that it was quoted as Gospel truth when there were clear errors and assumptions.

Good work.

Chronos

2008-03-02, 08:40 PM

I've considered postinga rebuttle to problems I had with the article myself, (interestingly enough, with the blacksmithing example) but hadn't gotten around to it.Hm, I don't know nearly as much about blacksmithing as I do about physics, so I probably didn't notice the same problems you did. Care to share anyway?

TheElfLord

2008-03-02, 09:55 PM

Hm, I don't know nearly as much about blacksmithing as I do about physics, so I probably didn't notice the same problems you did. Care to share anyway?

My issue didn't require much knowledge of blacksmithing (which I've only done once). The craft skill effects two things: what you can craft, and how much time it takes you. The article only focused on the first aspect. Alexander showed how its possible to build a completly focused blacksmith with nice circumstance bonuses to make anything at level 5. No argument there, but to me it makes sense that an expert smith could make some items faster than a lesser trained individual. So unless the greatest sword smiths in history (those capable of making masterwork weapons) all took the same exact amount of time, they had to have been different levels. Which means, since you have to have all the pieces just right to make it by level five, if someone could do it faster, they have to be over level 5.

BRC

2008-03-02, 10:00 PM

I don't think that level 5 is supposed to be the pinnacle of humanoid achievement, I think level 5 is supposed to be the highest you can go while still being fairly standard. After level 5 you are exceptional. For example, a grizzled vetern may be a level 5 warrior, but that just means he's the best of the rank-and-file. It dosn't mean that you must be superpowered to get any better.

horseboy

2008-03-02, 10:08 PM

BRC

2008-03-02, 10:13 PM

But that's exactly what the people who quote it as gospel do claim. "No one from Earth could be over 5th level". Check some of those "stat yourself" threads and seriously claim even to be 6 or 7th level and you'll be asked "what super powers do you have?"
Well that's their opinion. In my opinion it's

Level five: "The blacksmith in the next town is supposed to be preety good"

Level seven or so: "Bob Blacksmither is the best guy around for this type of thing."

Level 10+: "Bob Blacksmither is the only person around here who could possilby make X"

Level 20: "Bob is a god amongst Blacksmiths, he can make the metal sit up and dance for him"

TheElfLord

2008-03-02, 10:33 PM

In this thread you are mostly preaching to the choir then, because most of the people posting here, at least in the last page or so, disagree with the statements in the Alexandrian article

Chronos

2008-03-02, 10:52 PM

Well that's their opinion. In my opinion it's

Level five: "The blacksmith in the next town is supposed to be preety good"

Level seven or so: "Bob Blacksmither is the best guy around for this type of thing."

Level 10+: "Bob Blacksmither is the only person around here who could possilby make X"

Level 20: "Bob is a god amongst Blacksmiths, he can make the metal sit up and dance for him"OK, yeah, that sounds pretty close to how I'd evaluate it. But that's not at all what Alexander is claiming. From his article, the level five guy isn't the guy in the next town who's supposed to be pretty good; he's the guy who will be remembered centuries later as the best of all time.

Indon

2008-03-02, 10:52 PM

And if oh say, Hurin is a 0 level Diety, then what is Feanor? He isn;t a demi-god, he is close (a 0 level), otherwise how could he have made the most powerful artifacts ever (sorry Tanis and co., it's true)?

As I noted, racial HD are another option - it would represent well the weakening of the line of Men over the years. A combination of application of Divine Rank 0-5 (semi-divine to demigod, a measure of general mythological awesomeness), racial hit dice (to represent the potency of Old Lineages) and class levels (to represent actual training, which is not often mentioned in the context of Tolkien's works, if I recall) would be a good way to model things, I would say. Feanor is probably one of the higher class-level entities in Middle-earth, to include outright divine beings.

If the DM does *not* allow people to take 10 on the roll, then Mr Immobility still shins up the rope like a good 'un 50% of the time, while Climby Mc Climber, the Strength 10 Rogue with max ranks in the Climb skill and Beefy Mc Athlete, the guy with Strength 18 both fail 5% of the time.
Just to nitpick, you don't autofail skill checks on a 1. If you have a +4 to a skill, you can never fail a DC 5 check without a circumstance penalty affecting you - you succeed by 'taking one', as it were.

Now you could say that every person in that OR is giving the guy a +2 Aid Another bonus, and that his operating theatre provides a circumstance bonus.

Mythbusters recently reviewed the myth of a control tower telling an untrained civilian how to land a jet plane and the individual being successful. They determined the myth to be plausible. Don't underestimate the potency of the circumstance bonus.

Is this a problem? Of course not. Is it a good model of the real world? No.

I don't think that the article is really about how D&D is a particularly good model of the real world in and of itself - just compared to, well, AD&D (and it implies other gaming systems to a degree).

I'd say the point of the article itself is more, "if you're going to use this system to try and model the real world, this way is better," and it has an awfully good argument behind that.

TheElfLord

2008-03-02, 10:56 PM

I don't think that the article is really about how D&D is a particularly good model of the real world in and of itself - just compared to, well, AD&D (and it implies other gaming systems to a degree).

Umm, I would beg to differ

One of the most impressive things about 3rd Edition is the casual realism of the system. You can plug real world values into it, process them through the system, and get back a result with remarkable fidelity to what would happen in the real world.

Indon

2008-03-02, 11:07 PM

Umm, I would beg to differ

I had been an outspoken critic of AD&D for several years at that point and, more recently, been involved in a number of heated debates with Ryan over the OGL and D20 Trademark License...

...They stayed true to the roots of the game and captured the best parts of it, while shedding decades of detritus and poor design. There were still a few quibbles here and there, but they had taken advantage of the largest and most expensive design cycle for an RPG ever conceived and used it to deliver an incredibly robust, flexible, and powerful system.

He's definitely talking about 3'rd edition in the context of its' redesign from AD&D.

TheElfLord

2008-03-03, 12:07 AM

He's definitely talking about 3'rd edition in the context of its' redesign from AD&D.

But my quote comes from a new paragraph, which indicates switching to a new idea, and indeed he does. He moves from talking about the mechanics of the system in context of AD&D to discussing how accuratly it models the real world. In fact, just a little farther on...

So what I want to do, rather than just making my claim, is to take a look at a few rules, actually run the numbers, and demonstrate how effective D&D really is at modeling the real world.

To me this is a claim that 3.5 effectivly models the real world.

Demented

2008-03-03, 12:11 AM

Level five: "The blacksmith in the next town is supposed to be preety good"

The difference between level 1 and level 5 is pretty scarce, as far as blacksmiths are concerned:
A. You get 4 extra skill ranks.
B. You can afford masterwork tools for circumstance bonuses. (Which amounts to what, +2? +4?)

At level 20, it's even more underwhelming.
A. You get up to 15 more skill ranks. Great for meeting DCs. Not so great for making even very simple locks in less than a day.
B. The only thing left to buy are magic items to boost your ability score. You've definitely left the providence of earth... But you're still no match for a modern automated assembly line.

I wonder if that means assembly lines are Epic.

Indon

2008-03-03, 12:27 AM

But my quote comes from a new paragraph, which indicates switching to a new idea, and indeed he does. He moves from talking about the mechanics of the system in context of AD&D to discussing how accuratly it models the real world. In fact, just a little farther on...

Both paragraphs of which come from the introductory text, which collectively outline the context and topic matter for the entire article.

Rutee

2008-03-03, 08:11 AM

Both paragraphs of which come from the introductory text, which collectively outline the context and topic matter for the entire article.

You recognize that the paragraph you quoted doesn't contradict the one Elflord did, right?

Matthew

2008-03-03, 09:20 AM

Even if his contention is merely that D20 is more realistic than AD&D, he would still be wrong. :smallwink:

Indon

2008-03-03, 10:08 AM

You recognize that the paragraph you quoted doesn't contradict the one Elflord did, right?

It doesn't have to, since we're discussing the context in which his paragraph was made.

Thus, demonstrating text that would provide such a context is sufficient. Contradicting his text would have been very strange.

Even if his contention is merely that D20 is more realistic than AD&D, he would still be wrong. :smallwink:

Now that might be a defensible position. Had I not by now purged most of the working details of the system from my mind over the years, I might even be able to comment on it.

Dervag

2008-03-03, 11:16 AM

I think Dan Hemmens is right that the key problem with D&D as a simulation is that the randomness of the system messes things up. You'd get a more accurate model if you lowered the DC of just about every skill check under the sun by, say, 6, and made the die rolls be d8+(modifier). Some DCs would have to be lowered by more than 6 because they're based on the assumption that you can take 20.

But then there would be several completely different levels for a craftsman to be on- stuff that a normal person could do if they roll d8 a few times, stuff that a person of low (1-3) level with a decently optimized build could do fairly consistently, stuff that you have to be of modest level or low level in very favorable circumstances to do, and so on.

As it is, the randomness swamps differences in ability conferred by differing skill levels, as he says.

However, you really could model most people in real life between levels, say, 1 and 5. With only a relatively small percentage of people between 5 and 10, and almost no one above 10.

To really make the simulation work, we'd have to get rid of a lot of feats and special abilities, and institute a wound system for damage, but we'd at least have basic noncombat capabilities down.

The only ability score he's showing off there is Charisma, to convince people to pay attention to a silly publicity stunt. A person of any strength can pull a bus of any weight, provided that it's on a level surface, the bearings are good, and the tires are well-inflated. From what we see in that video, I could pull that exact same bus in those circumstances, and I'm a weakling.Well, I'm not sure; I mean, no surface is perfectly level and no bearings or tires are totally frictionless. There will still be a minimum force required to start the bus moving. That said, you're right that it isn't a tremendous feat of strength to get it rolling or keep it rolling provided that the friction is low and the surface is in fact level.

Not quite, I don't think. When at your maximum load, you can still move at a significant speed. Unless these people can hold these weights above their heads while walking, does it qualify as maximum load, or does it instead qualify as 2x max load, which a character can "pick up, but only stagger around while carrying"? (Of course, now the inaccuracy is going the other way - real life people aren't picking up as much and then moving around as D&D characters can)Here's how I interpret the weight rules.

Your max load is the amount you can move at significant speed while carrying or the amount you can lift over your head. It is not the biggest load such that you can move at significant speed while carrying it over your head.

If it's more than your maximum load, you cannot lift it over your head according to the rules. On the other hand, if it's less than your maximum load you should be able to carry it around at considerable speed according to the rules. Presumably, you do not carry the load around held over your head like a recently found item in a Zelda game.

It is entirely conceivable that these big hulking monster-guys who can clean and jerk loads of 400-500 pounds could walk around at a decent speed with loads of 400 or 500 pounds if that load was well distributed. Now, they'd corner like a pregnant hippo, and I for one wouldn't want to be standing less than a hundred feet or so in front of them because I don't know how much stopping distance they'd need. But there are people who actually weigh 800 or 900 pounds and who can still move (sort of). Obviously they're moving at a sort of waddle, but that's in large part because the fat obstructs their ability to move.

Could they carry it in their arms? Probably not for long. But when we're talking about loads that big, we're talking about the limit of what human physiology is supposed to be able to handle. We're getting into the details ("can Bob the Fighter carry this big a load without getting a hernia?")

There are no rules in D&D for what happens if you try to pick up a load too heavy for you to lift- you don't take damage, you just can't lift it. There are no rules for load distribution, except for the counterintuitive rule that a strong warrior may actually move faster with his armor in his arms than on his body. This stuff is below the detail level of the simulation. And so is a 100-pound discrepancy between what you can carry and still move at decent speed and what you can "clean and jerk."

But if we've got real people who can clean and jerk 400, 500, or (almost 600) pounds, it's a fair bet that their strength is in the 18-19 range.

I think people overestimate their stats, though not necessarily by that much. Someone which you think is an 18 may really be an 18 - or he may just be a 16 or 17. Someone with a lot of friends doesn't need a good charisma score at all: a commoner diplomancer can work in non-combat situations pretty easily at level 1, and he'd have tons of friends with a charisma of 8. Someone at a leading lab isn't necessarily int 18 - he or she might just be benefiting from all the Aid Another bonuses peerage offers. And so on.Yes, but you seem to be arguing that scores of 18 are rare because real life people don't have them because they might not have an 18 here.

What I'm saying is that unless you go into the situation determined to prove that nobody in the real world has an 18 except for maybe a few freakish people, then you will find people who probably do have an 18- people who are radically more capable than the people who are radically more capable than average people. And it's entirely reasonable to work by fitting the "bell curve" shape of 3d6 to human ability rather than setting out in advance to prove that "nobody" really has a 3 or an 18.

AKA_Bait

2008-03-03, 11:26 AM

To really make the simulation work, we'd have to get rid of a lot of feats and special abilities, and institute a wound system for damage, but we'd at least have basic noncombat capabilities down.

Although this might be better, it still really wouldn't solve many simulationist problems. The fact that D&D is a class based system where HP, BaB, and ability scores advance according to level is really a huge part of what dooms the system in terms of simulationism.

NoDot

2008-03-03, 03:58 PM

And anybody who thinks that 1-5 is a better representation of human ability needs to look at the list of feats level nine characters can fail to perform.Irrelevant. Level nine characters can, with no circumstance bonuses, preform superhuman feats. Therefore, level nine and above does not represent a level of human achievement.

AKA_Bait

2008-03-03, 04:02 PM

Irrelevant. Level nine characters can, with no circumstance bonuses, preform superhuman feats. Therefore, level nine and above does not represent a level of human achievement.

Can you give me an example of some that strictly martial characters can perform?

Matthew

2008-03-03, 04:20 PM

AKA_Bait

2008-03-03, 04:51 PM

Hmmn. How about using Many Shot to shoot two Arrows in opposite directions with one shot? (I notice the 4e Power Split the Tree has fixed this)

Seriously, I think the point Dan was making was that even low level Characters can perform superhuman feats, just less regularly.

That's less superhuman and more logically impossible. Probably a product of the lack of facing rules in 3.x

More to the point, I don't really disagree that there are some examples of things that characters can do even at levels 1-5 that are superhuman. This just helps the case that 3.x is not a good model for human capacity at any level. Without that premise Justin has no ground upon which to say that the pinnacle of human capacity is 5th level. He has no ground to deduce anything about the level of real people at all.

Edit: Edited so as to be referring to the correct person.

Demented

2008-03-03, 05:44 PM

(Personally, I suspect they intended Earth-level humans to be level 1, not even level 5.)

At level 7, you can throw a Barbarian into a pile of feral cats without fearing for his safety. Unless you rule they do 2 damage in a critical hit. Then you'll have to wait until level 10. Alternately, if you don't have a strength bonus, 90% of the time you could stab him with a dagger (another of Dan's pet peeves) and the Barbarian will only look at you funny. Or he'll pound your puny person into paste, just to prove that he has the Rage ability.

A 9th level Rogue can sneak attack for 5d6 damage. With Improved Unarmed Strike, you could sneak up behind a level 1 character and do so much damage that he could be on a gurney in the ER and not survive, on average. What is THAT?

The armor check penalty for half-plate is -7 (worse than full plate). At level 9, with full ranks and the Skill Focus feat, you can get a +15 for a jump check. A 9th level character can, in summary, make a 20 ft. long jump in half-plate with a strength of 10, by taking 10. In comparison, a 1st level character needs strength 16 to that 20 ft. long jump, with no armor heavier than leather.

My math may be screwy. (And the jump skill is pretty messed up.)

Worira

2008-03-03, 07:09 PM

Chronos

2008-03-03, 07:35 PM

A 9th level Rogue can sneak attack for 5d6 damage. With Improved Unarmed Strike, you could sneak up behind a level 1 character and do so much damage that he could be on a gurney in the ER and not survive, on average. What is THAT?Is this meant ironically, or do you really not see any way it's possible to kill a person with an unarmed strike? Boxers have been known to die in the ring from a single punch, and they probably have more HP than average. Or you could break someone's neck, or do major damage to one of the blood vessels in the neck.

Well, I'm not sure; I mean, no surface is perfectly level and no bearings or tires are totally frictionless. There will still be a minimum force required to start the bus moving. That said, you're right that it isn't a tremendous feat of strength to get it rolling or keep it rolling provided that the friction is low and the surface is in fact level.You can estimate the force he's exerting from the angle his body is making from the horizontal. Unless his jacket is packed with lead, almost anyone could match that angle, and thus that amount of force. Therefore we must conclude that the bus's bearings are good enough that the friction is less than that much.

NoDot

2008-03-03, 08:06 PM

Can you give me an example of some that strictly martial characters can perform?I can't find the post, but the one I remember best was "tracking a toad over bare rock after a rainstorm while it's covering its tracks." Yes.

Matthew

2008-03-03, 08:24 PM

Now that might be a defensible position. Had I not by now purged most of the working details of the system from my mind over the years, I might even be able to comment on it.

Heh, heh. I have a great argument lined up or this one. I'm looking forward to deploying it. :smallwink:

All the arrows from Manyshot have to be at the same target.

Yeah, sorry; I meant Greater Many Shot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#greaterManyshot) [BAB 6].

That's less superhuman and more logically impossible. Probably a product of the lack of facing rules in 3.x

Nah, just a poorly thought out Feat. :smallwink:

More to the point, I don't really disagree that there are some examples of things that characters can do even at levels 1-5 that are superhuman. This just helps the case that 3.x is not a good model for human capacity at any level. Without that premise Dan has no ground upon which to say that the pinnacle of human capacity is 5th level. He has no ground to deduce anything about the level of real people at all.

I think you're confusing 'Dan' [an opponent of the article] with the author of the article.

Rutee

2008-03-03, 08:47 PM

It doesn't have to, since we're discussing the context in which his paragraph was made.

He /outright claimed it was a realistic system/ though.

Infinity_Biscuit

2008-03-03, 09:13 PM

Matthew

2008-03-03, 09:20 PM

Do people actually bring up The Alexandrian's article to support the idea that D&D3.5 is an accurate simulation of reality (this is an honest question, as I haven't been active in the online D&D community for long)? I've only seen it used as justification for allowing levels to stay low by trying to show that high DCs can in fact be achieved at low level.

A lot of the discussion in here seems to be based on The Alexandrian's claims of realism, but as far as I know, that's not what is being quoted as gospel.
Not really; this is more of a 'crack the egg' expedition. :smallwink: The problem raised here (and in a previous thread that resulted in some hard feelings on the part of the author, or so I'm told) is that the The Alexandrian's argument hinges on the idea that Levels 1-5 are more realistic than levels 6-20 when what they are is less powerful.

Opponents have basically undermined The Alexandrian's conclusions by calling into question the 'calibration of his expectations'.

Indon

2008-03-03, 09:54 PM

He /outright claimed it was a realistic system/ though.

Amongst discussing the previous versions of D&D, and how unrealistic he felt AD&D was, and how many points about D&D's unrealism were true in earlier versions.

Dervag

2008-03-03, 09:55 PM

A 9th level Rogue can sneak attack for 5d6 damage. With Improved Unarmed Strike, you could sneak up behind a level 1 character and do so much damage that he could be on a gurney in the ER and not survive, on average. What is THAT?There are a number of ways to strike the human body with one's bare hands that are lethal in a matter of seconds.

Now, gurneys in the ER may create some flexibility because some of the ways in which people can die in D&D would be reversible in a modern emergency room. For instance, a first level commoner who has been underwater without magical breathing apparatus for five minutes in D&D is dead. Stone cold dead. Cannot be salvaged except by magical means.

Using modern technology, it is quite possible to restart that fellow's heart and get him back on his feet in due time.

Indon

2008-03-03, 09:58 PM

Heh, heh. I have a great argument lined up or this one. I'm looking forward to deploying it. :smallwink:

I would be most interested to see it.

Matthew

2008-03-03, 10:11 PM

I would be most interested to see it.

I deployed part of it in one of those lengthy EE threads. It'll probably come up sooner or later in the AD&D Thread, but somebody has to take the stance "D20 is more realistic than AD&D" and that would have to be one brave (or misguided) soul.

GoC

2008-03-03, 10:31 PM

My 2 cents:
The problem comes from the correlation between skillpoints, hitpoints, and attacks. It also stems from the fact we use a d20.
Change the d20 to a 2d10 and uncorrelate the above factors and things start to look a tad more realistic. In fact: include some mechanics for blocking, fix the AC system and change the rounds to 1 second each and you can stat out Aragorn as a 5th level ranger!

horseboy

2008-03-04, 12:02 AM

Zincorium

2008-03-04, 12:06 AM

Amongst discussing the previous versions of D&D, and how unrealistic he felt AD&D was, and how many points about D&D's unrealism were true in earlier versions.

This doesn't actually negate his claims, though.

When he attempts to stat out Einstein, that's a real world comparison. Same with olympic athletes. It ceases to actually be about 2nd edition and is purely a 3.5 vs reality discussion.

You seem incredibly keen on proving an offhand comment you made about the context in which the essay was written.

But here's my deal: it doesn't matter if 2nd edition is being considered- the claims made are still made. If you state that 3rd edition accurately models reality, period, then it's still that claim even if the rest of the paragraph is talking about parkour and diseased chickens.

Demented

2008-03-04, 01:19 AM

Is this meant ironically, or do you really not see any way it's possible to kill a person with an unarmed strike? Boxers have been known to die in the ring from a single punch, and they probably have more HP than average. Or you could break someone's neck, or do major damage to one of the blood vessels in the neck.
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of ripping out both blood vessels while you have a strength score of 3. (I'm not sure if razor sharp nails still count as an unarmed strike.) Technique is an amazing thing. Of course, Evasion is even more amazing, what with roguespace. But, since it's available at level 2, it kinda busts the level 1-5 theory out of the water... Ah well, I'm just here to say that level 9ers are superhuman.

Actually, maybe I should've just settled for the average 9th-level expert being able to survive an elephant trampling him on a failed save with maximum damage. It'll land him precisely in disabled, of course, but he can still walk away, broken ribs and all. If that's not impressive enough, use a 1500lb. weight instead. (The pain!)

Dervag, hush. :P
Actually, in a few (dozen) decades we'll probably be able to mimic the revivify spell for just about anything that doesn't leave you a crumpled mess. I wonder what that will do to the legal definition of dead.

tbarrie

2008-03-04, 03:47 AM

OK, I'll grant you the trolls. D&D trolls are trying to represent things like Tolkien portrayed, but maybe they just failed horribly. But are you seriously arguing that Tolkien's orcs are all less than CR 1/2? There's not much lower than that you can get.

I haven't read the book myself, but I thought D&D trolls were taken from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions. Orcs are taken directly from Tolkien, of course.

Indon

2008-03-04, 08:31 AM

You seem incredibly keen on proving an offhand comment you made about the context in which the essay was written.

Well, people get everything else that I'm saying, but everyone seems to think that the article is about a guy claiming that 3'rd edition is an awesome reality simulator or something. That's not remotely true.

It's about someone essentially comparing how well 3'rd edition deals with certain normal-human range values while getting to pointing out that high-level people don't use the normal-human range values, so it's generally more realistic to go lower level to simulate many possible characters.

And having looked at the article's comments just now, I saw largely the same argument, only it was the author pointing out the issues of context and such rather than myself.

AKA_Bait

2008-03-04, 09:19 AM

I think you're confusing 'Dan' [an opponent of the article] with the author of the article.

Right you are! I meant to say Justin. Sorry Dan.

It's about someone essentially comparing how well 3'rd edition deals with certain normal-human range values while getting to pointing out that high-level people don't use the normal-human range values, so it's generally more realistic to go lower level to simulate many possible characters.

Look, unless he wants to go back an edit the article to clear up his context, I'm doubtful. As the article stands, he is overtly doing more than claiming that 2ed is worse than 3.x in terms of modeling the real world.

One of the most impressive things about 3rd Edition is the casual realism of the system. You can plug real world values into it, process them through the system, and get back a result with remarkable fidelity to what would happen in the real world... (snip)

This essay should also be understood as something more than a defense of the game from illegitimate critique[emphasis mine]. That defense is, in fact, almost an unintentional consequence of what this essay is actually about: Providing a useful resource for those who want a deeper understanding of what the numbers really mean. If a character has a skill bonus of +15, how talented are they? If they have a Strength of 14 how strong are they? And so forth.

He is making a claim about the system. Does he claim the system is perfect? No. However he does use his 'running the numbers' to go on to make claims about the level particular people would be represented at in D&D and he consequentially that they can be represented in D&D. From there, he goes on to tell say "Almost everyone you have ever met is a 1st level character."

Even when he recognizes an incongruity in the system he suggests homebrew soloutions to the problem rather than showing how the incongruity is actually solved by the system.

Take, for example, a character who can assume an ethereal state without casting a spell. The only way to do that in D&D, using only the core classes, is to be a 19th level monk. But if that’s the only special ability the character in question has, it would be completely nonsensical to model them as a 19th level monk – they don’t have any of the plethora of other abilities such a monk possesses. What you’re looking at is a character with a unique class progression or possibly a prestige class. Or maybe a racial ability[emphasis mine].

Simply said, he can backpedal away from his claims in the article all he wants. Be the article says what it says. If he wants it to be clear, or even accurate, that the article is only in the context of earlier editions vs. 3rd edition then he should take it down and edit it until it actually says that. Otherwise, defenses of it in that manner are simply ad hoc charity.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-04, 11:06 AM

It really does amaze me that nobody complains about the amount of optimization in said blacksmith, but if it were a PC we'd be having to throw around Stormwind fallacy accusations left and right.

I miss Thormskull.

Actually, that was one of my other problems with the normal "you can be competent at first level" arguments. It assumes that every single person who trains in a profession takes Skill Focus in it (which conveniently makes them three levels lower than they would otherwise have to be) as well as having a positive Int or Wis modifier.

AKA_Bait

2008-03-04, 12:26 PM

Actually, that was one of my other problems with the normal "you can be competent at first level" arguments. It assumes that every single person who trains in a profession takes Skill Focus in it (which conveniently makes them three levels lower than they would otherwise have to be) as well as having a positive Int or Wis modifier.

Yeah. They also tend to assume that they took the skills that synergize with whatever check they have to make.

I can't find the post, but the one I remember best was "tracking a toad over bare rock after a rainstorm while it's covering its tracks." Yes.

Another one of my friends linked me to it over on the Wizards boards.

9th level Bard. He has 12 ranks of Perform, started with 16 Cha and increased it twice to 18 (+4). He also has a masterwork instrument (+2) and a Circlet of Persuasion (+3). His Perform modifier is now 12+4+2+3=+21. This means that, by taking ten, he nails a 31 every time. According to the PHB, this means that by playing on street corners, he will eventually attract the attention of extraplanar beings. Gimble will be sitting around drinking and playing his lute when a genie bamfs in and asks the gnome to perform at his kid's Bar Mitzvah.

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

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

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

9th level Beguiler. 12 ranks in Disguise, 14 (+2) Charisma, with a disguise kit (+2). Total modifier is +16, taking 10 gets him a 26. He can disguise himself as a woman's human husband (+10 for intimate familiarity) as long as she has a Spot modifier of 6 or less.

Spoiler:
Because it's fun to pick on Fighters, let's say this woman is Fighter. We'll generously give her a Wisdom of 14 (+2), which means she needs 4.5 ranks to beat the spread and win the check with a 26.5 (again assuming taking 10). Since spot is cross-class, the soonest she could get that many is at 6th level.

May the gods help you if this guy uses Disguise Self to boost his check by another 10. Or if he's a Bard, kicking his Charisma up another couple notches.
9th level Monk. 12 ranks in sense motive, 16 (+3) Wisdom. Final modifier is 12+3=+15. Taking 10, he can instantly tell whether a person is under the effects of Charm Person or not, every time. (DC 25) And that isn't "I've a sneaking suspicion that something is wrong here" so much as it's "Hi, my name is Benedict Thelonious. Also, you're charmed."

9th level Bard again. 12 "ranks" in Speak Language nets him 12 languages, because Bards are awesome like that. There are only 20 of the things listed in the PHB, one of them is Druidic, and he starts with a few because of race and intelligence. He learns this from hanging out in bars, and in addition to everything else he can do. I don't think there are many people in the world that can boast that kind of repertoire, and finding one in his mid-20s that's also a competent in battle, magic (which we can approximate to some degree with science or technology), and whatever this guy is burning his other 5+Int skill points on is fairly definitely impossible.

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

I have problems with a few of these. Although most are really fantastic they are not beyond the pinnacle of human ability or they use magical modifiers to get the capacity to perfom that ability at 9th level.

The bard examples are particularly flawed. The first requires a circlet of pursuasion and the second, knowing 18 languages or so, is not even a third of the record for langugaes known among people living now. That fellow is not legendary by any means and knows more than thirty fewer than other known people in history.

For some of these, I have no way to gague it. However, it does not undermine the point that D&D is a crappy simulator at any level. Consider:

A level three human expert with 6 ranks in diplomacy, skill focus: diplomacy, the negotiator feat, +6 bonus from knowledge: knobility & royalty, Bluff and Sense motive and a 16 Cha taking ten can get a guy who was about to slit his throat to engage in socially acceptable discorse every time. He can get a guy who hates his guts and insults him regularly to buy him a beer and be his friend every time.

That's as close to superhuman as pretty much all of Merlin's examples, six levels lower, with an NPC class. D&D skills frankly do not model reality in any consistant and useful way. They work decently for haing fun playing the game, but saying that they model reality and thus that we can figure out what level corresponds with maximum human potential is just silly.

Kurald Galain

2008-03-04, 12:45 PM

Thinker

2008-03-04, 01:05 PM

For instance, Spot has a -1 penalty per 10 feet (3 meters!) which means that even with a spyglass (+2 circumstance bonus, presumably) it is extremely difficult to see the other side of a soccer field...

It would be difficult to see something on the other side of a soccer field that has places where something could be hidden. The spot check is only used for noticing hidden things or read lips, not seeing things in general.

off topic: I am curious, what is your preferred gaming system? Most of your posts suggest you dislike 3/3.5e and are dreading the arrival of 4e.

Rutee

2008-03-04, 01:23 PM

It would be difficult to see something on the other side of a soccer field that has places where something could be hidden. The spot check is only used for noticing hidden things or read lips, not seeing things in general.
Seeing someone right in front of you is considerred DC 5, or some crap like that.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-04, 02:28 PM

Seeing someone right in front of you is considerred DC 5, or some crap like that.

"Notice Something Large In Plain Sight" is listed as DC 0 in the sample difficulty table. This means that a person with a negative Wisdom modifier will fail to notice a large object in plain sight, at a distance of 100 feet, 55% of the time. A person with zero wisdom modifier will notice it 100% of the time, but if it moves out to 110 feet, their chance to notice it drops to 45% again.

Indon

2008-03-04, 02:35 PM

"Notice Something Large In Plain Sight" is listed as DC 0 in the sample difficulty table. This means that a person with a negative Wisdom modifier will fail to notice a large object in plain sight, at a distance of 100 feet, 55% of the time. A person with zero wisdom modifier will notice it 100% of the time, but if it moves out to 110 feet, their chance to notice it drops to 45% again.

Objects roughly the size of a human. Say, a golf ball would be much more difficult to notice (being somewhere between Tiny and Fine), which would explain why people don't notice golf balls falling on top of their heads more often.

Blanks

2008-03-04, 02:47 PM

"Notice Something Large In Plain Sight" is listed as DC 0 in the sample difficulty table. This means that a person with a negative Wisdom modifier will fail to notice a large object in plain sight, at a distance of 100 feet, 55% of the time.

Failing to spot the kings castle or an approaching dragon is offcourse very strange.

But perhaps this is due to the interpretation of the skill. Spot is perhaps intended to be how you check your rear view mirror - quick peek and eyes back on the road. In that case, not spotting something large across a football field could make sense. But im just guessing here...

GoC

2008-03-04, 04:02 PM

The bard examples are particularly flawed. The first requires a circlet of pursuasion and the second, knowing 18 languages or so, is not even a third of the record for langugaes known among people living now. That fellow is not legendary by any means and knows more than thirty fewer than other known people in history.

After six languages they start to blur and noone can speak 18 languages with the vocabulary of a two year-old or better.

Frosty

2008-03-04, 04:51 PM

That was a fun list.

We could probably also make up a list of things that normal people can do, but low-to-moderate level D&D characters cannot.d

For instance, Spot has a -1 penalty per 10 feet (3 meters!) which means that even with a spyglass (+2 circumstance bonus, presumably) it is extremely difficult to see the other side of a soccer field...

I rule that a spyglass doubles the distance you can see before ranged penalties start to apply. And then after that, the penalty occurs at -1 per 20ft.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-04, 05:00 PM

Failing to spot the kings castle or an approaching dragon is offcourse very strange.

But perhaps this is due to the interpretation of the skill. Spot is perhaps intended to be how you check your rear view mirror - quick peek and eyes back on the road. In that case, not spotting something large across a football field could make sense. But im just guessing here...

The problem is further compounded by the fact that there's that -5 "distracted" penalty, since if you're *not* distracted, that assumes you're actually paying attention.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-04, 05:06 PM

I rule that a spyglass doubles the distance you can see before ranged penalties start to apply. And then after that, the penalty occurs at -1 per 20ft.

A reasonable ruling (although it doesn't highlight the problems of the "Circumstance Bonus" as neatly) but it still causes problems. For example if you wanted to spot a ship on the horizon, even with a spyglass, the horizon is about 3 miles away, which is about 15000 feet, which is about -1500 on your Spot check without a spyglass, -750 with.

Demented

2008-03-04, 05:14 PM

As far as the spot checks go, the quote just above the modifiers seems to make it pretty specific that those penalties only apply to checks to determine the distance an encounter begins.

That might mean you can see the tarrasque from a mile away, but you can't actually engage it until you 'spot' it, or it 'spots' you. Also, the terrain types list the maximum distance you can 'spot' something to begin an encounter. So, in the best case scenario, in the plains, you won't be spotting anything past 1440 ft. (6d6x40), even if you could deal with the -144 penalty.

Actually, that was one of my other problems with the normal "you can be competent at first level" arguments. It assumes that every single person who trains in a profession takes Skill Focus in it (which conveniently makes them three levels lower than they would otherwise have to be) as well as having a positive Int or Wis modifier.
Actually, that's for the argument of level 1s reaching human limits. In which case, optimization is assumed. Skill Focus isn't exactly superhuman, either... It's simply majoring in the subject.

With full ranks (+4), skill focus (+3), and some other ambiguous +3 (usually an ability score just because it's easy), you've got a +10. Taking 20 will solve you a DC 30 check.

If you're just a hobbyist tennis player, you'd probably have 2-3 ranks and be fairly unremarkable at the game. However, you'd know all the rules and taking 10 would win you a match regularly against a newbie.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-04, 05:26 PM

If you're just a hobbyist tennis player, you'd probably have 2-3 ranks and be fairly unremarkable at the game. However, you'd know all the rules and taking 10 would win you a match regularly against a newbie.

Taking 10 shouldn't be an option in a competition, any more than it's an option in combat. Even if it is, though, your two skill ranks only increase your chances of beating the rank newbie by 10%.

Contested skill checks in particular make a mockery of the "calibration" in D&D. Even if we allow for people to "take ten" in competitions (which is dubious in the extreme) you still need a full ten skill points more than somebody else in order to reliably beat them.

It is totally possible, in real life, to have a situation where person A always beats person B, person B always beats person C, and person C always beats person D (Kasparov beats the captain of your high school chess club. The captain of your high school chess club beats the newbies in the school chess club. The newbies beat people who don't play chess at all). For that to be *possible* in D&D A has to have a +30 skill check.

Chronos

2008-03-04, 05:31 PM

First off, saying that a spyglass halves the range penalty isn't a houserule; it's exactly what the PHB says a spyglass does.

And to the claim that Alexander is only trying to claim that 3rd edition is better than 2nd, if that's the case, why didn't he crunch any numbers under the 2nd edition rules, so we could actually compare them?

AKA_Bait

2008-03-04, 05:39 PM

After six languages they start to blur and noone can speak 18 languages with the vocabulary of a two year-old or better.

Evidence please? I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziad_Fazah) have (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=273399)seen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Krebs)indications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uku_Masing)to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Francis_Burton)the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_L._Hale)contrary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Caspar_Mezzofanti). An incomplete list of 17 people knowing 20 or more is here. (http://www.eddiedonovan.com/notablepolyglots.htm)

Frosty

2008-03-04, 05:57 PM

A reasonable ruling (although it doesn't highlight the problems of the "Circumstance Bonus" as neatly) but it still causes problems. For example if you wanted to spot a ship on the horizon, even with a spyglass, the horizon is about 3 miles away, which is about 15000 feet, which is about -1500 on your Spot check without a spyglass, -750 with.

Well that's just a *basic* spyglass. higher-powered ones may triple or quadruple or more the range before penalties occur, and will incur a -1 for every 30 or 40 ft. Maybe there are even magical spyglasses with 10x, 100x magnification.

Indon

2008-03-04, 06:00 PM

Evidence please? I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziad_Fazah) have (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=273399)seen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Krebs)indications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uku_Masing)to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Francis_Burton)the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_L._Hale)contrary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Caspar_Mezzofanti). An incomplete list of 17 people knowing 20 or more is here. (http://www.eddiedonovan.com/notablepolyglots.htm)

Which is, amusingly enough, possible for a level 1 Expert with 16 int (10x4 starting skill points, since human). By the time you reach that supposed level 5 end-of-humanity threshold, you can know 43 or so languages, both spoken and written.

Rutee

2008-03-04, 06:01 PM

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-04, 06:11 PM

That's an Expert who knows how to do literally nothing else.

Much like all the other competent first level characters that people talk about.

AKA_Bait

2008-03-04, 06:12 PM

Which is, amusingly enough, possible for a level 1 Expert with 16 int (10x4 starting skill points, since human). By the time you reach that supposed level 5 end-of-humanity threshold, you can know 43 or so languages, both spoken and written.

Um... Your maximum rank in a class skill is your character level + 3. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/skillsSummary.htm) For a human expert with at 16 int to speak 43 languages he would need to be approximatley level 35 I think.

Rutee

2008-03-04, 06:13 PM

Speak Languages is subject to Skill Caps? How amusing.

AKA_Bait

2008-03-04, 06:14 PM

Speak Languages is subject to Skill Caps? How amusing.

As far as I can tell. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/speakLanguage.htm) Nothing indicates that it is exempt that I can find.

NEO|Phyte

2008-03-04, 06:17 PM

#
# You can purchase Speak Language just like any other skill, but instead of buying a rank in it, you choose a new language that you can speak.

One could argue that no ranks = no level cap on ranks.

Zincorium

2008-03-04, 06:17 PM

Rutee

2008-03-04, 06:19 PM

I thought that was how it went. Another question.

Much like all the other competent first level characters that people talk about.
What competent first level characters? Assuming an ability mod of +3, a first level who maxes out their skill is is capable of accomplishing moderately difficult tasks (DC 20) 35% of the time.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-04, 06:21 PM

What competent first level characters? Assuming an ability mod of +3, a first level who maxes out their skill is is capable of accomplishing moderately difficult tasks (DC 20) 35% of the time.

They all take Skill Focus. All of them. And the DM allows them to take 10. Always.

Matthew

2008-03-04, 06:23 PM

I don't really see why the Skill Rank limit wouldn't apply to languages, but even if it doesn't, it wouldn't be any sillier than limiting Black Smithing by the same means, which D20 does.

AKA_Bait

2008-03-04, 06:25 PM

How about the fact that you 'don't buy ranks'?

If you aren't buying ranks, a cap on the number of ranks you can by is no longer a limiting factor. You have 0 ranks in speak language regardless of how many you know.

Humm... you may be right. It's kinda murky put that way. I would have expected a line saying that the cap doesn't apply because of you are no longer buying ranks (exception rules freqnently do that) but the just saying you are not buying ranks interpretation is certianly plausable too. I think I'll take it over to the Q&A thread.

Kurald Galain

2008-03-04, 06:30 PM

off topic: I am curious, what is your preferred gaming system? Most of your posts suggest you dislike 3/3.5e and are dreading the arrival of 4e.

I dislike neither, actually. What I dislike is rules-heavy gameplay, the kind where one would replace a dialogue to an NPC with a skill check, or interrupt a combat or action scene to look up whether a modifier was +1 or +2.

D&D is, of course, one of the more rules-heavy systems on the market, although certainly not the worst. I don't mind at all playing it if the setting and/or DM are cool, but in my opinion it is best used for dungeon crawls. That means I'll probably play 4E at some point, but it doesn't add anything new or does anything better than a dozen or so other RPGS I might play (and already own), except in the area of dungeon crawl.

This is a matter of taste, mind you, but for most people if the question is "why use D&D for this game instead of <system X>", the answer is usually "because we all know/own D&D", not "because D&D is objectively so much better than every other system". The more you focus on the world rather than the rules, the less it matters which ruleset you're actually using (assuming a DM competent in said ruleset) and the less inclined you are to shell out money for new rulebooks. As opposed to setting books, which I'm far more inclined to buy regardless of ruleset.

Aside from that, message boards tend to lend themselves to discussions one would not really bother with around a gaming table, such as meta-rules, and finding weird consequences of poorly-thought-out rules. And, well, anybody who claims that "rule X is realistic" despite being clearly wrong, then starts insulting people who disagree with him and leaves in a huff, just deserves to be logic-bombed. This is the internet, after all :smallbiggrin:

But I note I haven't answered your question so far. My preferred game system is anything along the lines of FUDGE, Simplex, or Off the Edge, all of which are so light that they don't interfere with the actual playing. The system I actually play most is Whitewolf, because the setting(s) is/are just awesome. And I have a soft spot for TORG, because it's one of the most elegant rulesets I know, and for Paranoia, because to know the rules thereof is treason. And I do grok D&D, or I wouldn't have been able to come up with the Omnicaster in my sig.

And I suggest that if anybody wants to respond to the above or discuss it or whatnot, we fork off a new thread :smallwink:

What were we talking about again? Oh yeah <g> If you assume that any real-world character that is good at something must have taken the appropriate Skill Focus feat, you are essentially claiming that people can only be good at two things, because they don't get any more feats than that. Does the term Homo Universalis mean anything these days?

AKA_Bait

2008-03-04, 06:34 PM

I think I'll take it over to the Q&A thread.

Silvanos agrees with you all. Humm... so I suppose that a 5th level expert could speak enough languages, if they didn't put skill ranks into anything else and, you know, starved fluently.

Rutee

2008-03-04, 06:37 PM

They could work as an interpreter. Of course, you have to have gone through school to /actually be hired/, I'm pretty sure, and you can't just take the language courses. Hell, you wouldn't even get to college without some basic understanding of other concepts.

...That's an interesting question. What skills do you need to reliably not-fail High School, and what skills do you need to be able to do well enough to get into college?

And what ****ty GM is it that only awards exp through combat when like, 99% of the game is non-combat?

Kurald Galain

2008-03-04, 06:49 PM

And what ****ty GM is it that only awards exp through combat when like, 99% of the game is non-combat?

This one... (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1111)

Indon

2008-03-04, 07:36 PM

...That's an interesting question. What skills do you need to reliably not-fail High School, and what skills do you need to be able to do well enough to get into college?

High school just teaches common knowledge - nothing more than DC 10, no ranks required. Advanced courses may require a rank or two.

College probably requires a few knowledge ranks... or good physical stats. All the warrior NPC's get by on football scholarships.

Rutee

2008-03-04, 07:39 PM

High school just teaches common knowledge - nothing more than DC 10, no ranks required. Advanced courses may require a rank or two.

So acing Psych in high school makes me *5% more likely to get a psych question right then Joe Six Pack*?

I'm pretty sure doing well denotes skill ranks. Not that capping it at first level is what could be termed "Much better".

Matthew

2008-03-04, 07:41 PM

So acing Psych in high school makes me *5% more likely to get a psych question right then Joe Six Pack*?

I'm pretty sure doing well denotes skill ranks. Not that capping it at first level is what could be termed "Much better".

Nah, we've had this one before. Joe Six Pack cannot get more than DC 10, even if he rolls. Anyone with 1 Rank, though, can get more than DC 10. It's one of those trained/untrained things.

GoC

2008-03-04, 09:33 PM

Evidence please? I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziad_Fazah) have (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=273399)seen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Krebs)indications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uku_Masing)to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Francis_Burton)the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_L._Hale)contrary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Caspar_Mezzofanti). An incomplete list of 17 people knowing 20 or more is here. (http://www.eddiedonovan.com/notablepolyglots.htm)
I saw it in a newscientist article. Guess I must have misread. Note that the people on your list aren't mentioned as having a large vocabulary or being particularily fluent (just understandable).

EDIT: In skill checks I think we should just agree that you can't use a d20 to model real life skills and leave it at that.

Rutee

2008-03-04, 11:30 PM

Nah, we've had this one before. Joe Six Pack cannot get more than DC 10, even if he rolls. Anyone with 1 Rank, though, can get more than DC 10. It's one of those trained/untrained things.

We still come back to "I can reliably pass this test in Real Life, but if I were to follow the suggestions here, I would have perhaps a 35% chance of screwing it massively", and because it's a tense situation, I can't take 10. And someone else pointed out that Taking 20 isn't "Taking your time" but "Doing it 20 times".

Demented

2008-03-05, 02:49 AM

It is totally possible, in real life, to have a situation where person A always beats person B, person B always beats person C, and person C always beats person D (Kasparov beats the captain of your high school chess club. The captain of your high school chess club beats the newbies in the school chess club. The newbies beat people who don't play chess at all). For that to be *possible* in D&D A has to have a +30 skill check.

It's true. That d20 plays with opposed skill checks pretty poorly. You'd need to be 9th level with max ranks, skill focus, and 20 in the right ability score to really shut out that level 1 when he's making an untrained check.

Moving up to level 20 with the same strategy, now with 23 in the right ability score, your heart's terror is a level 8 with max ranks and skill focus. Once every 400 tries (statistically), the level 8 will win. And the level 8, in turn, is still at risk of being beat by the untrained level 1.

...Does that mean that Chess players can't be modeled in the d20 system?

Kurald Galain

2008-03-05, 03:38 AM

...Does that mean that Chess players can't be modeled in the d20 system?

Precisely.

And the same counts for every other game that has obvious "tiers" of people who are better or worse at it (go, bridge, checkers, any sport you could mention, etc - Wimbledon champ beats local champ, local champ beats high school enthousiast, high school enthousiast beats rookie).

nagora

2008-03-05, 04:14 AM

It's true. That d20 plays with opposed skill checks pretty poorly. You'd need to be 9th level with max ranks, skill focus, and 20 in the right ability score to really shut out that level 1 when he's making an untrained check.

Moving up to level 20 with the same strategy, now with 23 in the right ability score, your heart's terror is a level 8 with max ranks and skill focus. Once every 400 tries (statistically), the level 8 will win. And the level 8, in turn, is still at risk of being beat by the untrained level 1.

...Does that mean that Chess players can't be modeled in the d20 system?

Yes it does. The problem gets worse when you look at combat where there are multiple rolls and hit points, so flukes get ironed out. A 5th level fighter will destroy a 1st level fighter even if you allow the 1st level fighter the same equipment. The same can not be said of a 4 level difference in an opposed skill check, where the lower level would have a 35% chance of winning. There is a mismatch between the core Class system and the skill system; the numbers are quite simply on two different scales making it impossible to compare them sensibly.

The introduction of skill checks on a flat d20 was to my mind a key break point in the development of (A)D&D - that one error has propagated down from 1e Oriental Adventures and everything that followed, getting worse with each iteration. I suspect that its origin is in a lack of playtesting of OA due to the financial pressures TSR were under back then.

hamishspence

2008-03-05, 07:07 AM

It is probably reasonable to say that D&D is an abstaction, and cannot perfectly represent reality, whether its skill checks, ability checks, etc.

On the other hand, it is possible to do comparisons, to get rough ideas of what fits what.

Base attack bonuses: biggest difference. a brilliant expert should not be anywhere near the combat ability of a guy who has just passed basic training.

Attack bonuses: Do comparisons, then test realism. Simplest to test is archery ranged attack bonuses. AC of a bullseye in Complete Warrior. Work out what BAB a guy with reasonable Dex specialising in archary needs to hit a bull 50% of the time at a given distance. Compare it to tournament level archers. Then you might have a rough idea of how it relates. Try a person with no training but a rep for keeness of eye (one aspect of Dexterity, or maybe level) How accurate is he or she with a wide range of weapons? Do they have high Dex or high level or both?

Ability checks: should be looked at across the board. Since Dex represents a variety of talents, to say you have high Dex, you must show you are good at all the suggested things. For Str, look it the maximum unencumbered weight, do ALL the various endurance things (running, walking a long distance, hustling, etc) Check the maximum the game expects you to do without taking nonlethal damage. THEN use results to determine your Str. One clean and jerk does not represent the full role of Str in D&D.

Some things tend to be poorly repesented: swimming underwater times and water pressure seem nastier than in real world. some people easily manage 3 min underwater, much harder in D&D. Or dive 40M, whereas in D&D, pressure would kill you.

IMO it takes a LOT or work to fully analyse D&D for realism. So one should not comment too much until one has tested a lot of the game system mechanics.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-05, 07:14 AM

IMO it takes a LOT or work to fully analyse D&D for realism. So one should not comment too much until one has tested a lot of the game system mechanics.

It really doesn't take that much work at all. It would take a lot of work to check every conceivable circumstance, D&D vs real life, but you don't need to do that.

A stopped clock, as they say, is right twice a day, but you don't need to look at a clock for 24 hours to see that it's stopped.

Kurald Galain

2008-03-05, 07:15 AM

Try a person with no training but a rep for keeness of eye (one aspect of Dexterity, or maybe level) How accurate is he or she with a wide range of weapons?

Keenness of eye is arguably an aspect of wisdom, since perception checks are all grouped under wisdom (even though that was only done to give non-clerics a reason not to use that as their dump stat).

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-05, 07:18 AM

Keenness of eye is arguably an aspect of wisdom, since perception checks are all grouped under wisdom (even though that was only done to give non-clerics a reason not to use that as their dump stat).

"Everybody knows your eyesight and hearing improve as you get older!"

Matthew

2008-03-05, 07:41 AM

We still come back to "I can reliably pass this test in Real Life, but if I were to follow the suggestions here, I would have perhaps a 35% chance of screwing it massively", and because it's a tense situation, I can't take 10. And someone else pointed out that Taking 20 isn't "Taking your time" but "Doing it 20 times".

Well, actually, if somebody said that then they're wrong. There are only two situations in which you cannot 'take 10'.

When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10.

If the character was being distracted or threatened then they would have to roll, but otherwise they can take 10 in any stressful situation. However, the point was that a Jock with 0 Ranks has a 0% chance of achieving DC 11 in a Knowledge Check, whilst a Character with 1 Rank has a 55% chance.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-05, 07:56 AM

Well, actually, if somebody said that then they're wrong. There are only two situations in which you cannot 'take 10'.

If the character was being distracted or threatened then they would have to roll, but otherwise they can take 10 in any stressful situation. However, the point was that a Jock with 0 Ranks has a 0% chance of achieving DC 11 in a Knowledge Check, whilst a Character with 1 Rank has a 55% chance.

The problem is that "threatened or distracted" could mean anything. Exams are designed to test your ability, so exam conditions can be argued to count as both "threatening" (your entire future depends on your success or failure here) and "distracting" (it's a high stress situation).

If you stick to "threatened" meaning "you are in immediate physical danger" then you absolutely *should* be able to take 10 in - say - combat if you're using a ranged weapon, or flanking (or for that matter if you have enough HP that your opponents weapon doesn't constitute a threat).

Point being in practice whether you can take ten or not is purely the whim of the GM, and very few DMs will actually allow you to "take ten" on something where the risk of failure is important.

Matthew

2008-03-05, 08:10 AM

The problem is that "threatened or distracted" could mean anything. Exams are designed to test your ability, so exam conditions can be argued to count as both "threatening" (your entire future depends on your success or failure here) and "distracting" (it's a high stress situation).

They could, and having watched exam stress, I'm sure some people do feel that they are threatened. However, threatening is not the same thing as stressful, which is to say that whilst the former could be said to create the latter condition, stress is not threat. Indeed, the skill section says 'threat (such as combat)' and I do not think it is reasonable to equate an exam with life threatening combat.

Kurald Galain

2008-03-05, 08:25 AM

Indeed, the skill section says 'threat (such as combat)' and I do not think it is reasonable to equate an exam with life threatening combat.

Most combat, however, isn't life-threatening. Certainly not for a high-level adventurer, and also not in a practice bout, or fighting anything that doesn't really intend to kill you (like a frightened animal, a common street thug, or the city guard).

Regardless of whether exams can be a threat (and it can surely be argued that they are), there are most definitely distractions. The teacher pacing around, that dripping faucet in the next room, the pretty girl sitting next to you...

And what about practical exams? A high-ranking chemistry exam, perhaps, where a spilled drop of acid could scar you for life, and/or generate a cloud of toxic gas that might wipe out half the building? What about a driver's test, where you could conceivably kill a pedestrian and/or yourself by not being careful? By D&D rules, a top-notch formula one driver would fail a simple driver's exam one time out of five, and a slack-jawed yokel who's never sat in a car as much as once could pass it one time out of ten.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-05, 08:33 AM

They could, and having watched exam stress, I'm sure some people do feel that they are threatened. However, threatening is not the same thing as stressful, which is to say that whilst the former could be said to create the latter condition, stress is not threat. Indeed, the skill section says 'threat (such as combat)' and I do not think it is reasonable to equate an exam with life threatening combat.

Okay then, lets look at it another way:

In an exam, you do not want to take ten. Taking ten is basically doing a half-assed job. It is about "accepting an average result" to quote the SRD. If you are actually trying to do your best, you aren't taking ten by definition.

This, rather ironically, leads to a situation where if you're in a competition against an inferior opponent you actually want to be complacent about the whole thing, thereby significantly reducing your chances of losing.

Matthew

2008-03-05, 08:38 AM

Most combat, however, isn't life-threatening. Certainly not for a high-level adventurer, and also not in a practice bout, or fighting anything that doesn't really intend to kill you (like a frightened animal, a common street thug, or the city guard).

I would say that any combat within the context of the game world (rather than the game rules) carries the threat of death. Regardless, I think the intent of the rule is pretty clear . If the DM decides that a particular combat does not constitute a threat, then I see no problem with him allowing the 'taking of 10'.

Okay then, lets look at it another way:

In an exam, you do not [I]want to take ten. Taking ten is basically doing a half-assed job. It is about "accepting an average result" to quote the SRD. If you are actually trying to do your best, you aren't taking ten by definition.

This, rather ironically, leads to a situation where if you're in a competition against an inferior opponent you actually want to be complacent about the whole thing, thereby significantly reducing your chances of losing.
Heh, I'm not saying the rules are clever or accurate simulations of the real world. I am saying, however, that you can 'take 10' in stressful situations.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-05, 08:40 AM

Heh, I'm not saying the rules are clever or accurate simulations of the real world. I am saying, however, that you can 'take 10' in stressful situations.

Fair enough, while that might be true by RAW, I think most DMs would tend to rule otherwise, otherwise you'd hardly ever roll a skill check (since if you're failing more than 50% of the time, you're probably not going to bother trying).

nagora

2008-03-05, 08:46 AM

Most combat, however, isn't life-threatening. Certainly not for a high-level adventurer,

Well, if a player wants to say that their character is so confident that they'll take 10, the DM would be within his/her rights to take most of their hit points off them until the end of the fight. After all, you don't think those hit points are literal physical damage absorption, do you?

In the same way, a 14th level fighter who stands in front of a 1st level street thug and does the old "Go on, stab me; I'll just stand here and take it" routine would be dead on the first strike if I were DMing. Metagaming is not a defensive option!

All this is besides the point; I don't think anyone is actually arguing that the post-1e skill rules are realistic regardless of taking 10s and whatnot.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-05, 08:51 AM

Well, if a player wants to say that their character is so confident that they'll take 10, the DM would be within his/her rights to take most of their hit points off them until the end of the fight. After all, you don't think those hit points are literal physical damage absorption, do you?

That's sort of the problem though. Taking ten should represent the kind of overconfident complacency that makes you screw up, but actually it's just a sensible precaution.

In the same way, a 14th level fighter who stands in front of a 1st level street thug and does the old "Go on, stab me; I'll just stand here and take it" routine would be dead on the first strike if I were DMing. Metagaming is not a defensive option!

All this is besides the point; I don't think anyone is actually arguing that the post-1e skill rules are realistic regardless of taking 10s and whatnot.

Yes, yes they are. That's the entire thrust of the article. That the D&D rules have a high level of realism that you can take examples from the rules, look at them closely, and find the same results you will get in real life.

That's exactly what Justin Alexander is suggesting.

On top of that, he's also suggesting that Einstein can be adequately represented with a +15 Skill modifier, to which the only logical rebuttal is "Okay, tell your GM that your fifth level Expert is going to invent a technology that revolutionizes his gameworld, and see if he lets you".

nagora

2008-03-05, 08:54 AM

Yes, yes they are. That's the entire thrust of the article. That the D&D rules have a high level of realism that you can take examples from the rules, look at them closely, and find the same results you will get in real life.

That's exactly what Justin Alexander is suggesting.

Sorry, I meant no one here was arguing that. Are they? I may have missed a page.

On top of that, he's also suggesting that Einstein can be adequately represented with a +15 Skill modifier, to which the only logical rebuttal is "Okay, tell your GM that your fifth level Expert is going to invent a technology that revolutionizes his gameworld, and see if he lets you".

I had exactly that situation in an SF game recently and it resulted in a stand up shouting match between me and the player :smalleek: But we all settled down again and got on with it. Alcohol and silly rules do not mix.

Blanks

2008-03-05, 09:55 AM

That's sort of the problem though. Taking ten should represent the kind of overconfident complacency that makes you screw up, but actually it's just a sensible precaution.
Try balancing on the curb for ten meters. Easy to do right?
Wanna try walking the same width across the niagara?
Some things are just easier when you are calm and nothing is on the line.

Its not EXACTLY the same situation, but i think this is the idea that the take 10 rule is meant to convey.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-05, 10:30 AM

Try balancing on the curb for ten meters. Easy to do right?
Wanna try walking the same width across the niagara?
Some things are just easier when you are calm and nothing is on the line.

Its not EXACTLY the same situation, but i think this is the idea that the take 10 rule is meant to convey.

Balancing on the curb for ten meters is relatively easy, but it's not something I'd say I could do absolutely 100% of the time. Doing the same thing for a distance of several hundred meters I'm pretty sure I couldn't do, pressure or no pressure. Plus niagra falls is windy.

[Edited to add]

Also: it's not quite the same thing. If I know I can do something with ninety-nine percent certainty, I'm not going to stake my life on that extra 1%. With the Take 10 rules, though, your chance of success goes from 100% to 50% when it actually matters, rather than staying at 95% but having the 5% become that much more important.

Blanks

2008-03-06, 03:19 AM

With the Take 10 rules, though, your chance of success goes from 100% to 50% when it actually matters, rather than staying at 95% but having the 5% become that much more important.
I don't quite see this? Perhaps im missing something, could you please elaborate?
If i have combined bonuses of 5 and need DC 10, my chance of succes went from 75% to 100% ? If i have combined bonuses of 5 and need DC 16, my chance of succes went from 45% to 0%?

Wether or not it is a good idea depends entirely upon the players perception of the difficulty.

Justin_Bacon

2008-03-22, 04:36 AM

Interestingly, there's actually a well-accepted term in use for a person who has understood a problem which has never been understood before: Such a person is called "Doctor". Everyone who has ever earned a Ph.D. has reached that level of knowledge.

First off: Mea culpa on that one paragraph regarding stat distributions in the population assuming. That was an overly broad generalization. But it should be noted that this was just an off-the-cuff remark which is part of a much wider discussion including the implications of the Elite and Average stat arrays.

The essay is not without flaw and it's not encyclopedic. But it does depress me to see people just regurgitating the same fallacies over and over again.

Here, however, you're misquoting. The word "intractable" was not just thrown into that statement for kicks. Discovering the theory of relativity is on a slightly different scale than your average doctoral thesis.

But I suspect you knew that. ;)

The problem with Jump checks in 3.5 isn't that the game assumes high-level characters; it's just that they removed the maximum distance cap.

It should be noted that the problems I cite in the article with the 3.5-revision to the Jump rules are exactly the opposite of what you claim: It's not that they allow high-level characters to achieve Olympic jumps, it's that they allow 1st level characters to achieve Olympic jumps.

Next, we move on to analysis of characters from fantasy, such as Conan or Aragorn. What level is Aragorn? Alexander correctly states that he's not 20th level: There are heros from Middle-Earth's history who far overshadow Aragorn, such as Hurin, who slew seventy trolls (plus countless orcs) in a single battle.

This argument is invalid. You're stating two premises:

1. Aragorn is a lower level than Hurin was.
2. Hurin was a 20th level character.

For the sake of argument, I won't dispute the first premise. But, given those premises, you could just as easily conclude that Aragorn is 1st level and Hurin is 10th level. Or that Aragorn is 20th level and Hurin is 40th level.

At the battle of Helm's Deep, we don't have a kill count for Aragorn, but we do have one for Legolas and Gimli (who are presumably lower level than Aragorn, whatever that level is), who each slew fifty. Even assuming that none of those fifty orcs had class levels, 50 orc kills are quite an accomplishment for fourth-level characters. An encounter of 50 CR 1/2 creatures should have an EL of somewhere around 10, which means that they'd be a reasonable encounter for a full party of 10th-level characters, or a very tough (50-50 chance of losing) encounter for a single 10th-level character.

This isn't a bad argument, but the problem is that you aren't factoring in context.

The battle in Moria can be directly correlated to a single D&D encounter because the time scale and the nature of the encounter is well-defined in the text.

The context of the Helm's Deep kill-counts is more difficult. For one thing, they're racked up over the course of a battle that lasts from shortly after midnight until the first light of dawn. That's at least 5 hours, maybe more. I've personally run lots of adventures for characters in the 5th-level range in which they've averaged 10 orc kills per character per hour. (Mopping up stock goblin hordes is actually one of my favorite tricks for helping players to realize just how bad-ass their characters are getting.)

Finally, it's not clear that Aragorn actually is a higher level than Legolas or Gimli. (Although I suspect you're right in believing Aragorn to have the higher level.)

Now think of how many orcs (and worse) Aragorn must have defeated, in over sixty years of actively hunting them, and how much experience he would have gotten from them.

The XP argument isn't a bad one, but misses the point: Yes, if you were actually playing Aragorn or Legolas or Gimli as a PC in a D&D campaign with standard XP awards, they would level up very quickly.

Maybe I should have discussed this fallacy more in the essay, but it isn't really the point of what the essay was about: The point was to talk about what it means to be a 5th level character (or a 20th level character). The example of Aragorn was an attempt to contextualize the meaning of your PC's stats.

The fact that Aragorn doesn't advance as quickly as a typical PC isn't really relevant to that discussion.

The average D&D PC goes from 1st level to 20th in under a year. Legolas has been alive for hundreds of years. What does that tell you about trying to apply D&D XP accumulation to LOTR?

Oh, and those 70 trolls Hurin slew at the Battle of Unnumbered Tears? That's an equivalent encounter level of 17,

Trolls in Middle Earth are, very obviously, not the same trolls statted up in the Monster Manual. (I thought I'd expressly discussed this fallacy in the essay, but it must have been somewhere else.)

Also from the article:Well, let's see what the D&D rules state about that. From the text of Legend Lore:So, in the setting of D&D, "legendary" means "about 11th level, or higher". Does this mean that Shakespeare and Einstein are further from legendary than the average person is from Shakespeare or Einstein? Of course not: Shakespeare and Einstein are well past legendary. So if legendary level is 11, then the likes of Shakespeare and Einstein must be well past 11th level.

The article explicitly talks about the differences between the real world, Middle Earth, and the standard D&D. In a D&D world, Miyamoto Musashi's accomplishments aren't legendary. In the real world, they are. Similarly, if someone could cast a fireball spell in the real world he'd make headline news. Not so much in D&D-land.

My issue didn't require much knowledge of blacksmithing (which I've only done once). The craft skill effects two things: what you can craft, and how much time it takes you. The article only focused on the first aspect. Alexander showed how its possible to build a completly focused blacksmith with nice circumstance bonuses to make anything at level 5. No argument there, but to me it makes sense that an expert smith could make some items faster than a lesser trained individual. So unless the greatest sword smiths in history (those capable of making masterwork weapons) all took the same exact amount of time, they had to have been different levels. Which means, since you have to have all the pieces just right to make it by level five, if someone could do it faster, they have to be over level 5.

This is an interesting point to make. However, you might want to check the essay again: It actually discusses how a 1st level blacksmith can create masterwork items with the help of an assistant and a 3rd level blacksmith doesn't need the assistant any longer.

Regarding a 5th level blacksmith, I specifically write: "When taking 10 he can essentially triple the speed with which he can make common items like iron pots and horseshoes."

I didn't specifically address decreasing the time required to craft masterwork items in particular, but I think I did a fairly decent job preemptively covering your concerns. :smallwink:

That wouldn't surprise me. Last time his article was discussed on this forum, he got really angry about it, made some nasty posts towards the people who dared criticizing it, and then left forever in a huff. So yeah.

Your definition of "left forever" apparently needs some work. :smalltongue:

I mean, I've been gone for a couple weeks because I've been busy in rehearsals. I suppose if you want to ascribe that to some "triumph" on your part from months ago, more power to your ego. I won't stand in your way. :smallbiggrin:

(Who are you, again?)

I'm going to check out again at this point. I mean, I can see Dan Hemmens making all kinds of completely erroneous statements, but it doesn't seem particularly productive to go through nitpicking his errors or to argue with his contention that, since I didn't fact-check every single rule in every single rulebook, the essay is completely without merit. (Particularly since I never claimed that every single rule in every single rulebook was without flaw. In point of fact, I stated exactly the opposite.)

I did feel that Chronos' thoughtful work deserved a reply, though. It's good to see the discussion continuing.

But let me quote myself for a moment, in the hopes of making this discussion a little less vituperative and a little more productive:

Before we do that, though, I want to make one disclaimer perfectly clear: D&D is a game. Its systems are abstracted and streamlined in order to keep things simple and, more importantly, fun. So, yes, there are compromises. (You’ll see a graphic example of the types of compromises which are made when we talk about the Jump skill.) The game is not a physics text. Nor is it without flaw.

There's a reason that disclaimer was stuck right at the front of the essay. The essay was calibrating your expectations when it came to thinking about what a D&D character was capable of. It wasn't about claiming that you should use you D&D rulebooks to study for your physics or biology exam.

Actually one of the big ironies of the essay, for me, was that I wrote it to encourage people to think of their level 20 characters as indisputable bad asses with the capabilities of legendary demi-gods. In the back of my mind I was thinking that it would make DMs more open to the idea of running their high level characters through some truly epic adventures -- stuff that would make Beowulf look like a piker.

Instead, the biggest adopters of the essay have been the type of people targeted by E6. And I can certainly understand that. I even wrote about it a little in my conclusion.

But, for me, it was all about the Epic Awesome. And getting people to think in a context where they could understand just how Epically Awesome they were. :smallcool:

Of course, I'm the type of guy who thinks Nobilis is pretty awesome. I can understand why YMMV for others.