[3.5] The purpose of Fighters

[hamlet]

I currently have a Wizard meatshield and a Warblade controller/defender. I could make a Rogue debuffer if I really wanted to. If you can't make your class do what you want(assuming the class has options at all), then it's your fault.

And how do you make an effective fighter in 3.x? Other than the trip monkey that is?

How do you create a fighter that does something other than absorb abuse on behalf of his companions (and often not even that) effectively?

The 3.x class is bunk. It's garbage. And it's due to really crappy design philosophy.

[Starsinger]

D&D 4.0 have seriously dropped the ball in this respect by nearly compelling you to play your character a certain way, else he's seriously less than usefull within the party.

I have to disagree. I rather think 4ighters are efficient at Damage and Defense, not shoe horned into one or the other.

[hamlet]

I have to disagree. I rather think 4ighters are efficient at Damage and Defense, not shoe horned into one or the other.

I'll admit that I haven't taken that close a look at the 4e books (I ain't paying $40 bucks a book for a game I'll never play), but the entire concept of the "roles" that is being so celebrated just . . . gets under my skin. Gags me really.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I'll admit that I haven't taken that close a look at the 4e books (I ain't paying $40 bucks a book for a game I'll never play), but the entire concept of the "roles" that is being so celebrated just . . . gets under my skin. Gags me really.

You wouldn't like pre-3e D&D then :smalltongue:

Honestly, the "roles" aren't that oppressive. Pretty much any character type you want is available; they're just not always under the name you'd expect.

TWF = Ranger (TWF)
Light Armor Fighter = Rogue (Brutal) (and by far the best class for "Swashbucklers" I've seen!)
Archer = Ranger (Ranged)
Damage Fighter = Fighter (2H)
Defense Fighter = Fighter (1H)
Big Damn Hero = Warlord (CHA)
Tricky Fighter = Warlord (INT)

If there's any flavor of Fighter I missed, you can probably make it in 4e, provided it's not a one trick pony like a Trip Fighter or a Disarm Fighter. These guys like to hit folks with swords :smallbiggrin:

[hamlet]

You wouldn't like pre-3e D&D then :smalltongue:

Honestly, the "roles" aren't that oppressive. Pretty much any character type you want is available; they're just not always under the name you'd expect.

TWF = Ranger (TWF)
Light Armor Fighter = Rogue (Brutal) (and by far the best class for "Swashbucklers" I've seen!)
Archer = Ranger (Ranged)
Damage Fighter = Fighter (2H)
Defense Fighter = Fighter (1H)
Big Damn Hero = Warlord (CHA)
Tricky Fighter = Warlord (INT)

If there's any flavor of Fighter I missed, you can probably make it in 4e, provided it's not a one trick pony like a Trip Fighter or a Disarm Fighter. These guys like to hit folks with swords :smallbiggrin:

Oh, that's humor yes?

Seriously, where the hell did you find "warlord" in AD&D?

And, you know, all those roles can be filled simply by use of the fighter class.

[Matthew]

Seriously, where the hell did you find "warlord" in AD&D?

And, you know, all those roles can be filled simply by use of the fighter class.
Oracle Hunter's talking about 4e now, I think. I actually don't mind the class setup in 4e, and I think their approach to multiclassing is a great improvement.

[Starsinger]

Oh, that's humor yes?

Seriously, where the hell did you find "warlord" in AD&D?

And, you know, all those roles can be filled simply by use of the fighter class.

Oracle was talking about 4e and the fact that roles are not the straight jacket they're sometimes made out to be.

[Frosty]

Let's just agree to disagree, Diamondeye. I will never feel that monsters of a certain toughness and humanoids past a certain experience level will fear a sword swing. And if they see that wizard casting, the smart ones would, while keeping himself safe (I can do it in real life. Therefore I can see it done in DnD), move over to try to stop that wizard, also secure in the knowledge that moving AWAY from the man with the sword is a better deal than staying in his face where HE CAN HIT YOU MORE TIMES.

Face it. Staying next to the Fighter is much more dangerous than moving away, and it doesn't require extensive experience to know that. Smart monsters would rather take one possible hit than 4 or 5 or more possible hits. There is no meta-game knowledge required. It's IC and Real Life knowledge.

[Starbuck_II]

I think you might be missing Nagora's point.

His opinion is, I think, that the Fighter's archetype shoudn't be "the defender" or "the tank" at all. That's a function of how the character is played and is, when applied directly to rules mechanics to force a certain type of play, a serious detriment to the game.

Instead, the fighter's archetype is "the guy who's good with weapons and armor." The martial combatant. His "role" in any violent situation is dependent upon need. He defends when defending is needed. Attacks when attacking is needed. He'll tank when required to, or strip off his armor when mobility is important.

The archetypes and roles should not be defined according to such narrow views as striker, commander, or defender or whatever they are any more. They should be defined in much looser terms.

A mage is the guy who uses arcane magic. A cleric serves the gods and in return receives their power. A thief goes via stealth and subterfeuge rather than blunt force. A fighter moves via martial combat mastery.

D&D 3.x and D&D 4.0 have seriously dropped the ball in this respect by nearly compelling you to play your character a certain way, else he's seriously less than usefull within the party. Heck, 3.x essentially made the Fighter a non-entity and an NPC class! That's just bad design.

The problem is you are mixing role with archetype.

I don't think any edition of D&D does that (despite what DMs and players will force on certain classes).

A role is what a class is best at: not what it is limired to doing or how tro describe the class.
The player determines his archetype/description of the class.

Look at CW Samurai (ignore how bad it sucks): What is its role?
This will be different from its archetype.


Role should be narrow, but not archetypes.
A Fighter in previous edition was striker with a tiny bit of defender (Tank/Meatshield idea came from).
His archertype was much much more than that. He was a Mercenary, the Retired Soldier, etc etc.

[Frosty]

Look at CW Samurai (ignore how bad it sucks): What is its role?
This will be different from its archetype.

Good question. Lemme know when you figure it out :smalltongue:

[Oracle_Hunter]

Good question. Lemme know when you figure it out :smalltongue:

I thought it's role was to make the monk feel better :smallbiggrin:

Oh, and yeah, everyone is right about my previous post: it was 4e, and how 4e's "roles" aren't as restrictive as they may sound.

[Matthew]

The problem is you are mixing role with archetype.

I dunno, I don't think role and archetype are very unrelated. Mind, I am inclined to think that "role" is something of a constructed fiction itself. The roles of characters in AD&D are fairly clear; fighters fight, thieves employ stealth, magicians deal in magic, and clerics both fight and use magic (generally with less potency than either the fighter or magician).

This is pretty nebulous stuff, though; if we're talking strictly combat roles, then those roles change somewhat, depending on the circumstances.

[Eorran]

The problem is you are mixing role with archetype.

I don't think any edition of D&D does that (despite what DMs and players will force on certain classes).

A role is what a class is best at: not what it is limired to doing or how tro describe the class.
The player determines his archetype/description of the class.

Look at CW Samurai (ignore how bad it sucks): What is its role?
This will be different from its archetype.


Role should be narrow, but not archetypes.
A Fighter in previous edition was striker with a tiny bit of defender (Tank/Meatshield idea came from).
His archertype was much much more than that. He was a Mercenary, the Retired Soldier, etc etc.

I think you've made a very good point here Starbuck, but I'd like to add my own perspective.
2e and earlier editions used classes more by archetype than by role, which meant that some classes were of limited use in some situations (thief in a straight-up fight). 4e defines characters by combat role, to give everyone equal opportunity in combat, and let the player decide the archetype out of combat. (Some people like this approach, some hate it.)3e... tried to split the difference, I think, with results that weren't what they hoped for.

The other disadvantage is the Fighter in 3e was supposed to be the melee generalist, but with all the 3.5 books, there was a different class that fit every subset of Fighter you could think of, usually with better mechanics. Swashbuckler, Barbarian, Paladin, Knight, Ranger, Scout, Warblade, Crusader, Swordsage, Monk, Duelist, Weapon Master, Master Thrower...
Essentially by accident, the Fighter's role became a "dip" class, useful for generally enhancing the abilities of whatever other melee-er you really wanted.

[Frosty]

There's no rule the saying the Fighter has to be the Tank or even the Striker. There's also nothing saying that the Mage has to be a blaster or a battlefield controller. But the fact of the matter is, there are certain roles that need to be filled by SOMEONE in the party, so if the wizard isn't the battlefield controller, then maybe the Fighter needs to step up to the plate. The party needs roled filled. Who in the party does it is up to you.

[Matthew]

There's no rule the saying the Fighter has to be the Tank or even the Striker. There's also nothing saying that the Mage has to be a blaster or a battlefield controller. But the fact of the matter is, there are certain roles that need to be filled by SOMEONE in the party, so if the wizard isn't the battlefield controller, then maybe the Fighter needs to step up to the plate. The party needs roled filled. Who in the party does it is up to you.

Uh, why? What's the problem with a party of "strikers"? This "battlefield controller" stuff is something I had never heard of before I wandered onto the internet, and I don't mean the term. The entire concept that one character concentrates on controlling the environment is entirely foreign to me.

[hamlet]

I dunno, I don't think role and archetype are very unrelated. Mind, I am inclined to think that "role" is something of a constructed fiction itself. The roles of characters in AD&D are fairly clear; fighters fight, thieves employ stealth, magicians deal in magic, and clerics both fight and use magic (generally with less potency than either the fighter or magician).

This is pretty nebulous stuff, though; if we're talking strictly combat roles, then those roles change somewhat, depending on the circumstances.

Yes, thank you.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Uh, why? What's the problem with a party of "strikers"?

Healing, primarily. Tanking too - a few bad rolls and an all-striker party can shatter like so many glass cannons.

Sure, they can kill very, very well, but if they have a string of bad luck, they're dead. Having a Leader can keep someone who just got crit bad from keeling over, and a Tank is reliable enough to take a few hits (and armored enough to be confident drawing attacks).

[hamlet]

Healing, primarily. Tanking too - a few bad rolls and an all-striker party can shatter like so many glass cannons.

Sure, they can kill very, very well, but if they have a string of bad luck, they're dead. Having a Leader can keep someone who just got crit bad from keeling over, and a Tank is reliable enough to take a few hits (and armored enough to be confident drawing attacks).

Is there a problem with that? Seriously?

The party makeup should be determined by player group choice, not by some pre-determined balance decided by the designer to be ideal.

If everyone in the party wants to be thieves (the class), then let them. They'll either all die for lack of other abilities, or they'll learn to work around their shortcomings and use their strengths to advantage.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Is there a problem with that? Seriously?

The party makeup should be determined by player group choice, not by some pre-determined balance decided by the designer to be ideal.

If everyone in the party wants to be thieves (the class), then let them. They'll either all die for lack of other abilities, or they'll learn to work around their shortcomings and use their strengths to advantage.

Nobody said you can't play an all-striker party, just that is has weakness. Just like an all-Leader party, or an all-Tank party. 4e just highlights the roles that an optimally functioning combat group needs, and makes suggestions. WotC isn't going to drop a load of dragon-dung on you if you play an all-thief party :smalltongue:

The same has been true in pre-3e for sure (playing without a cleric at low levels is suicide), and the only difference in 3e is that so many "classes" could do everything on their own.

[Matthew]

Nobody said you can't play an all-striker party, just that is has weakness. Just like an all-Leader party, or an all-Tank party.

The same has been true in pre-3e for sure (playing without a cleric at low levels is suicide), and the only difference in 3e is that so many "classes" could do everything on their own.

I dunno, we successfully played without clerics a fair old bit. Two heavily armoured fighters kill twice as quickly and need half the healing. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, though, there is a difference between an optimal party set up and a necessary party set up [i.e. [I]sine qua non].

The character "build" is probably the key difference across editions, with one character specialising in a particular role within his archetype. The role of a fighter in AD&D depends mainly on the weapons and armour he happens to be using, whilst the role of the spell casters is determined by which spells they memorised. The thief is a bit less flexible in that regard, and the 2e skill point allocation system tended to turn him into a specialist. Weapon proficiencies and specialisation also tended to knock the fighter's generalist combat skills around (but those are optional rules).

[Oracle_Hunter]

The character "build" is probably the key difference across editions, with one character specialising in a particular role within his archetype. The role of a fighter in AD&D depends mainly on the weapons and armour he happens to be using, whilst the role of the spell casters is determined by which spells they memorised. The thief is a bit less flexible in that regard, and the 2e skill point allocation system tended to turn him into a specialist.

Fair enough.

I would like to reiterate that in 4e you can make a workable party with just about any composition. Things will be easiest with at least one Leader and one Defender, but thanks to self-healing, clerics are no longer (almost always) required.

A party of Warlords, for instance, would be an interesting sight :smallbiggrin:

[Lappy9000]

I have to ask, what is the purpose of Fighters? Is it really just to stand there and pray the DM takes pity on the Fighter and decides not to ignore her?

Not the way I'd phrase it, but last time I checked, isn't the primary job of the DM to make sure everyone is having a good time?

[hamlet]

Fair enough.

I would like to reiterate that in 4e you can make a workable party with just about any composition. Things will be easiest with at least one Leader and one Defender, but thanks to self-healing, clerics are no longer (almost always) required.

A party of Warlords, for instance, would be an interesting sight :smallbiggrin:

But the rub is that, even though you can design a character of a class outside his pre-approved WOTC role, he will not be as good as it as another class that WOTC decided.

They've built their kind of "balanced party" into the rules and hardcoded it.

[Starsinger]

Not the way I'd phrase it, but last time I checked, isn't the primary job of the DM to make sure everyone is having a good time?

But that would entail being inconsistent which is apparently the greatest sin you could ever commit in D&D :smalltongue:

[Matthew]

But the rub is that, even though you can design a character of a class outside his pre-approved WOTC role, he will not be as good as it as another class that WOTC decided.

They've built their kind of "balanced party" into the rules and hardcoded it.
Sure, but that's not really too different from AD&D. The thief is never going to be as good at fighting as the fighter, the fighter is never going to be as good at stealth as the thief, etcetera...

The specificity of the roles is what's annoying, I think, which is just the specialisation mechanic rearing its head: Bowman, Spearman, Swordsman... a familiar problem.

[Arbitrarity]

Seriously, complaining that you need to pick a certain class to make a certain role effective is silly.

Oh noes, I can't make a fighter who fights with two weapons!

Of course, by fighter, you mean the class. And the archetype. Mechanically, make a ranger, and call it a fighter. Nope, we're used to the flexibility of the 3E fighter, so a fighter class must be able to fill any role.

Well guess what? Most 3E classes punish you for going too far outside their role. Wizards in melee? Well, you need to PrC, or buff heavily. How about spellcasting monks? Wildlife loving Fighters? Sniper Barbarian?

Oh, wow. Disassociate mechanics and flavor, please. Particularly when you've associated a name with flavor that has changed.

[AmberVael]

Jeez. Has this really gone on for 10 pages?
It's a freakin' fighter. It's really simple.
This is what fighters do:

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h107/sjunderw/Other/FighterPurpose.png

[Frosty]

Vael, the picture doesn't show up for me. Can you describe it? :smallsmile:

[Matthew]

Seriously, complaining that you need to pick a certain class to make a certain role effective is silly.

Oh noes, I can't make a fighter who fights with two weapons!

Of course, by fighter, you mean the class. And the archetype. Mechanically, make a ranger, and call it a fighter. Nope, we're used to the flexibility of the 3E fighter, so a fighter class must be able to fill any role.

Well guess what? Most 3E classes punish you for going too far outside their role. Wizards in melee? Well, you need to PrC, or buff heavily. How about spellcasting monks? Wildlife loving Fighters? Sniper Barbarian?

Oh, wow. Disassociate mechanics and flavor, please. Particularly when you've associated a name with flavor that has changed.

Actually, I think this tirade is a little silly, because it rather misses the point of this discussion, which is what is the purpose of the 3.5 fighter? By comparing the class to its previous and future incarnations, and discussing how it relates to the wider D20 rule system, we have made some progress in perceiving what purpose it was intended to serve, and for what reasons it failed to live up to them. Whether it is a good or bad class relative to others (including across editions) is somewhat besides the point (except insofar as it explains their purpose in D20/3e).

[AmberVael]

Vael, the picture doesn't show up for me. Can you describe it? :smallsmile:

For you:
It's a comic.

Panel 1
"This is Bob. Bob is a fighter"
*picture of an emoticon with a buster sword*
"Bob has a sword."

Panel 2
"Bob uses his sword to stab people."
*picture of Bob the emoticon killing a monk emoticon*
"It makes them die."

Panel 3
"Killing people makes Bob gain XP, levels, and loot."
*picture of Bob gaining XP, levels, and loot with a satisfied look on his face*
"This makes Bob very happy. And rich and powerful. Which is why he's happy."

Panel 4
"And now you know what fighters do."
*picture of Bob with his sword*
"And knowing is half the battle! (The other half is letting the fighter kill people)."

[AKA_Bait]

Jeez. Has this really gone on for 10 pages?
It's a freakin' fighter. It's really simple.
This is what fighters do:

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h107/sjunderw/Other/FighterPurpose.png

Most awesome.

[Arbitrarity]

Excellent point, I am derailing a good deal here. Bleah. Didn't you respond to the same post though? :smallconfused:
I was responding to a complaint about the inability to create an effective character outside their specified role.

So, what is the 3.5 fighter for?
I'd say specialist combatants. The most effective fighters specialize in a specific technique, or a few techniques, and make use of any abilities they acquire from being a fighter.
Battlefield control, high damage, archery: Those are fighter builds. Those are roles. They may, however, be constructs based off the number of feats in 3.5, and not design intent.
Otherwise, the fighter seems to be consistent damage. Weapon specialization, for example, provides a flat damage bonus to some attacks, and the "all day" nature of fighter attacks (well, as long as hit points last) compared to the daily powers of other classes, all seem to indicate that the fighter was designed as a class which consistently output damage on monsters. It also seems to have been intended that creatures attack the fighter, who can take such hits. It seems the designers did not notice that the fighter was not designed with a method for encouraging creatures to attack him. This is reflected in later classes of similar nature to the fighter, such as the knight, who explicitly prevents creatures from attacking other players.

[hamlet]

Sure, but that's not really too different from AD&D. The thief is never going to be as good at fighting as the fighter, the fighter is never going to be as good at stealth as the thief, etcetera...

The specificity of the roles is what's annoying, I think, which is just the specialisation mechanic rearing its head: Bowman, Spearman, Swordsman... a familiar problem.

That is precisely what I'm trying to say, though I'm having trouble communicating due to stroke inducing stress today.

I am an advocate of the broad archetype over the specialized role.

I'll leave it at that and go down a fifth of gin.

[Matthew]

Excellent point, I am derailing a good deal here. Bleah. Didn't you respond to the same post though? :smallconfused:
I was responding to a complaint about the inability to create an effective character outside their specified role.

I dunno, I couldn't tell what the post was aimed at, as there was no quotation (darn internet limitations). :smallbiggrin:

[Frosty]

Vael, you are awesome! Thanks

[nagora]

Seriously, complaining that you need to pick a certain class to make a certain role effective is silly.

Oh noes, I can't make a fighter who fights with two weapons!

Of course, by fighter, you mean the class. And the archetype. Mechanically, make a ranger, and call it a fighter.
Arrrggh! Rangers are not two-weapon fighters. This is an interesting example of over-specifying the classes. Logically, Rangers are less likely to use two weapons than normal fighters, and probably thieves are most likely to - and in each case it is partly because of the sorts of weapons they use. The TWF Ranger is a carry over from some idiot's munchkin ranger character which was rightly derided at the time (Drzzit or something) as an abuse of the system. Instead of fixing the problem, suddenly it became the norm!

Using two weapons is not a class-specific ability, although I might wonder where a mage is learning it!

Anyway, I think what we're mostly doing here is arguing about what a class is/should be rather than addressing fighters specifically; although that might be because of the huge number of fighting classes that have been introduced.

[Blackfang108]

Jeez. Has this really gone on for 10 pages?
It's a freakin' fighter. It's really simple.
This is what fighters do:

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h107/sjunderw/Other/FighterPurpose.png

I LOVE that comic! It's Perfect.

You can even expand it to duskblades, just add another panel about using Magic to kill things as well.

[hamlet]

Arrrggh! Rangers are not two-weapon fighters. This is an interesting example of over-specifying the classes. Logically, Rangers are less likely to use two weapons than normal fighters, and probably thieves are most likely to - and in each case it is partly because of the sorts of weapons they use. The TWF Ranger is a carry over from some idiot's munchkin ranger character which was rightly derided at the time (Drzzit or something) as an abuse of the system. Instead of fixing the problem, suddenly it became the norm!

Using two weapons is not a class-specific ability, although I might wonder where a mage is learning it!

Anyway, I think what we're mostly doing here is arguing about what a class is/should be rather than addressing fighters specifically; although that might be because of the huge number of fighting classes that have been introduced.

Actually, to 2e's everlasting shame, it enshrined the drooling drizzle as canon and turned the Ranger into a nature loving, tree hugging, sissy hippy shadow of his former self.

I blame Salvatore and fan boys.

[Woot Spitum]

I agree with the comic. The purpose of the fighter is to hit things with a sword (or spear, axe, flail, club, etc.) until said things stop moving. When said things are capable of fighting back, the fighter defeats them by being bigger and stronger than they are. Unfortunately, in D&D, most things are bigger and stronger than the fighter. A balanced party can stave this off to a certain extent by making the fighter bigger and stronger, making the things the fighter is hitting smaller and weaker, and helping the fighter hit said things. Even then, a smart party would still be better served to come up with a more creative solution to the problem, something the fightere does not excel at. Alone, the fighter doesn't stand that much of a chance, which makes sense, considering that he regularly comes up against things that have a reach advantage on him that can be measured in yards, a weight advantage that can be measured in tons, and an experience advantage that can be measured in millennia.

[Frosty]

Fighters can do decently if the campaign pits you mostly against medium and large sized humanoids that aren't immune to too many things and can be disarmed, tripped, bull-rushed, etc. But then, more humanoids also mean more wizards fighting against you.

[Wolfpack]

Well guess what? Most 3E classes punish you for going too far outside their role. Wizards in melee? Well, you need to PrC, or buff heavily. How about spellcasting monks? Wildlife loving Fighters? Sniper Barbarian?

That's a joke right? I mean other then the Fighter, those are all examples of classes that are better at the new role then the class that is supposed to be in that role.

[Frosty]

Since when are Barbarians Snipers? Huge Strength + Composite Bow for long range increment?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Jeez. Has this really gone on for 10 pages?
It's a freakin' fighter. It's really simple.
This is what fighters do:

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h107/sjunderw/Other/FighterPurpose.png

I'm nominating you for the "One Picture is Worth a 1000 Posts" award :smallbiggrin:


Since when are Barbarians Snipers? Huge Strength + Composite Bow for long range increment?

"Rawr, Gork angry at That Damn Crab! Gork shoot weak point for massive damage!"

Heh, it actually works pretty well, now that I think of it.

[Wolfpack]

Indeed: Compared to a Fighter Archer they have the following things:

1) Higher Str.
2) Faster.
3) More HP. DR/Blah.
4) Some theme abilities like Uncanny Dodge and more skill points.
5) Fewer Feats.

The one thing everyone says about Archers is how few feats they take to be good. So use Rage to get a higher base Str for your composite bow, and then go to town with slightly more damage.

Not much better certainly, but better then standard fighter, certainly in core, and probably without dipping into campaign specific books (I have no idea what's in those things.)

[horseboy]

That's quite an unusual combination! Did he emigrate between the wars or is there some even more bizarre tale behind it?
I didn't ask, he didn't say. Mr. Frank could tell some great stories and you'd forget to ask questions once he got started. Whenever he wore his Medal for dress or what not, he'd also wear his Cross under his shirt.
Um, yes, he CAN actually hurt you. This is rapidly approaching circular argument. "The fighter can't hurt you because fighter attacks are ineffective. We know they are ineffective because they can't actually hurt you!"No he can't. That's the core problem of 3.x fighters. Weapons combat isn't lethal.

Aside from the fact that power attack and criticals most certainly CAN do very significant damage, especially with iterative attacks, the fighter can take martial study feats and get access to up to 3 martial maneuvers.Iterative attacks? You're predicating your argument on fighters getting iterative attacks?
Furthermore, assuming that the fighter is a fighter is giving metagame knowledge to the attacker in and of itself, unless the attacker is familiar with the person or has conducted a very thourough reconaissance through magic or something. A Warblade or Crusader doesn't look any different from a fighter.Knowing that there may or may not be classes from a highly polarizing, non-core book is in and of itself metagaming. You're using metagaming knowledge to try and prove that we're "metagaming."
This isn't Shadowrun. There's these things called clerics and druids; less easily "geeked" you know. Shadowrun has druids, and yes, clerics and druids are more important that they go away than fighters, you are correct. Moreover, it just goes to show how, even in a world with big ass guns, killing the guy that doesn't need a weapon is still a the best idea.
Is he? What if no one is doing that until you're fully engaged, then the elf in the mithril breastplate turns out to be the one wiggling his fingers?Then he gets a face full of mud to shut him up until I start slowing whittling down his HP.
Suppose that guy with the staff and the robes, speaking a funny language turns out to be a druid. Oops.. "geek the mage first" just became "fight a bear/dire lion/fire elemental in hand-to-hand combat".Then I've at least stopped him from summoning badgers to help out number us. Unless every druid in your campaign world takes natural spell.

Not all opponents have tha bility to "notie this and react accordingly" especially since you are underestimating seriously the danger the melee character poses. If they can kill the attacker in 2-3 rounds, that's 12-18 seconds of potential life from an in-game perspective. Even if it takes them 6, that's still well under a minute of potential lifespan. They should definitely be trepidations about ignoring someone who can do that.Who's more dangerous to me, the guy who will eventually kill me in just under a minute, or the guy that will kill me in 3 seconds, yeah, he'll be dealt with, but he's not the most threatening target, cause weapons just aren't lethal in D&D worlds.
Uh, why? What's the problem with a party of "strikers"? This "battlefield controller" stuff is something I had never heard of before I wandered onto the internet, and I don't mean the term. The entire concept that one character concentrates on controlling the environment is entirely foreign to me.It grew out of the "I'll keep XXX busy while you guys kill YYY," players. The ways and means of keeping XXX busy changes, but it's a concept I've always seen.

[Eldariel]

A party of 4 level 3 Barbarian Archers all burning their Rages (probably packing Extra Rage though) could actually defeat That Damn Crab without much losses (given a relatively generous stat array and probably Wood Elfness for high Str and Dex). Add to that Whirling Frenzy and speed to match That Damn Crab and you may actually beat it level 1 given some solid rolls! I mean, they have 20 Dex so they hit on 13 or better, they Frenzy and hit on 15 or better, but have 2 shots per turn giving them a 51% chance of landing a hit each per turn (except the one guy who is forced to run from it). With 1d8+7 damage (yea, yea, they can't afford that bow, shut up!), you actually deal like 35 points of damage in one turn (although half of that will probably be to one of the hapless Barbarians in the thing's teeth). Hmm, skirmishing probably works even better - +5 Dex, a Studded Leather and the +2 = AC 20 so it actually has a 45% chance of missing. Pick up one of the ACFs that gives you Tumble in class and enjoy the +9. Then just, if it misses, Tumble TFO while others bombard it. So the plan is all fine except for the "can't afford +7 Str Composite Longbows level 1"-part!

[Arbitrarity]

Darn, the babarian sniper is effective...

Hm. Let's go with something that can actually be ineffective... And not fit fluff-wise.
Wait, spellcasting monks. I meant UMD monks. I.e. trying to replace spellcasters.
Nature loving fighter? He takes wild cohort/handle animal, and is... more effective than the ranger?
Fine.

Warblade Sniper. With a bow.

[Eldariel]

Actually, thanks to Dancing Mongoose, Raging Mongoose, Time Stands Still, qualification for Fighter-feats (Ranged Weapon Mastery), few handy bonus slots (not as handy as Fighter's but usable) and extremely handy defensive and leader-abilities usable with a bow, a Warblade Archer is fairly kickass. In fact, it's one of the very few reasonable ways to make an Archer who doesn't suck at melee.

[Arbitrarity]

Actually, thanks to Dancing Mongoose, Raging Mongoose, Time Stands Still, qualification for Fighter-feats (Ranged Weapon Mastery), few handy bonus slots (not as handy as Fighter's but usable) and extremely handy defensive and leader-abilities usable with a bow, a Warblade Archer is fairly kickass. In fact, it's one of the very few reasonable ways to make an Archer who doesn't suck at melee.

This apparently will take some work. And I don't want to use Samurai, or useless stuff like heavy crossbow, because that's cheating.

Hey, wait a second. If it's better to take classes other than those intended in 3.5, does that mean WoTC is punishing you for making characters that take supposedly superior options? :smallconfused:
Fighter specializing in unarmed strike?

[Eldariel]

This apparently will take some work. And I don't want to use Samurai, or useless stuff like heavy crossbow, because that's cheating.

Hey, wait a second. If it's better to take classes other than those intended in 3.5, does that mean WoTC is punishing you for making characters that take supposedly superior options? :smallconfused:
Fighter specializing in unarmed strike?

Well, Warblade was a misstep, but Swordsage Archer, while having maneuver access, is still pretty bad (medium BAB, no feats, no feat access, no leader access [White Raven], none of the class abilities mesh with archery [Warblade's Int to Crits and such works at range], etc.). Vanilla Crusader Archer is gonna suck too due to no feats and no maneuver access.

Unarmed Fighter probably beats the crap out of a Monk, especially if Superior Unarmed Strike is allowed, but that's about it (at least it hits better than a Monk thanks to full BAB and probable Melee Weapon Mastery - while it has less attacks, its secondary attack is equal to one of Monk's flurried attacks and its primary attack on average connects more than Monk's two other primaries combined). It's still gonna suck, but probably not as much as a Monk. Oh yeah, and thanks to Weapon Spec > Melee Weapon Mastery, the 2d6 Fighter is dealing the same base damage as the 2d10 Monk (3.5*2+4 vs. 5.5*2), and has the feats to burn. But yea, being better than a Monk isn't saying much, so that's a score for you (provided that we don't count Dungeon Crashers...).

[Matthew]

It grew out of the "I'll keep XXX busy while you guys kill YYY," players. The ways and means of keeping XXX busy changes, but it's a concept I've always seen.

I can guess where it came from, it is the concentration on it as a speciality to the exclusion of other potential roles for an individual combatant that leaves me cold as a procedural norm. Mind, I might have just chalked such behaviour up to munchkinism and left it at that. :smallbiggrin:

[Frosty]

Your fighter has a lot of feats. You can bash heads in AND do battlefield control if you optimize.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Well, Warblade was a misstep, but Swordsage Archer, while having maneuver access, is still pretty bad (medium BAB, no feats, no feat access, no leader access [White Raven], none of the class abilities mesh with archery [Warblade's Int to Crits and such works at range], etc.). Vanilla Crusader Archer is gonna suck too due to no feats and no maneuver access.Actually, Crusader is the only ToB class that is proficient in Longbows. Stupid and easily fixed, but it bears mentioning.
Unarmed Fighter probably beats the crap out of a Monk, especially if Superior Unarmed Strike is allowed, but that's about it (at least it hits better than a Monk thanks to full BAB and probable Melee Weapon Mastery - while it has less attacks, its secondary attack is equal to one of Monk's flurried attacks and its primary attack on average connects more than Monk's two other primaries combined). It's still gonna suck, but probably not as much as a Monk. Oh yeah, and thanks to Weapon Spec > Melee Weapon Mastery, the 2d6 Fighter is dealing the same base damage as the 2d10 Monk (3.5*2+4 vs. 5.5*2), and has the feats to burn. But yea, being better than a Monk isn't saying much, so that's a score for you (provided that we don't count Dungeon Crashers...).Actually, a Paladin that took the Imp. Unarmed Strike feat can take Ascetic Knight and get Monk damage progression for the cost of 2 Feats. Somewhat better than a Monk, but again, not saying much.

[Diamondeye]

That's the core problem of 3.x fighters. Weapons combat isn't lethal.

Yes, as a matter of fact it is. What you mean is it's not invariably lethal on the first hit. It can be, however. So far I've seen not one iota of evidence that combat with weapons is not lethal; only that it doesn't one-shot people at higher levels. Given the amount of railing against save-or-dies, I don't see how it's a problem that it's not generally deadly in one hit.


Iterative attacks? You're predicating your argument on fighters getting iterative attacks?

I'm not "predicating my argument" on them, I'm pointing out that iterative attacks + power attack + criticals mean there is a lot more potential melee damage than you're asserting.

You've given no evidence to indicate melee damage is inconsequential.


Knowing that there may or may not be classes from a highly polarizing, non-core book is in and of itself metagaming.

Knowing that there are classes at all is metagaming. You're poisoning the well with your subjective comments on whatever splatbook you're talking about. The attacker may not know that someone is a "Crusader" but he sure as heck will have heard that there are warriors capable of near-magical feats with their blades that smite the deadliest opponents down in one or two blows.


You're using metagaming knowledge to try and prove that we're "metagaming.

Of course I am. We're not having an in-character debate.


"Shadowrun has druids, and yes, clerics and druids are more important that they go away than fighters, you are correct.

I didn't say they were more important. I said that they exist, and that going ater them is at least as important as killing wizards, and less likely to succeed by getting up in their face (never mind that close range against the wizard isn't as easy as people are pretending)


Moreover, it just goes to show how, even in a world with big ass guns, killing the guy that doesn't need a weapon is still a the best idea.

No, it just goes to show that's conentional wisom in Shadowrun, which uses a completely different magic system anyhow.


Then he gets a face full of mud to shut him up until I start slowing whittling down his HP.

No, he doesn't. Where are you getting this facefull of mud from, and how exactly does it automatically succeed? How are you going to stop him from shapeshifting?


Then I've at least stopped him from summoning badgers to help out number us.

He turns into a bear (dire or regular as level dictates), shreds you, then summons <insert critter here>. Your ideas fall apart if this druid is level 5 or higher, and even if he's lower, you're vastly underestimating his melee capability which is at least as good as... well, whatever class you think you are, apparently a rogue.


Unless every druid in your campaign world takes natural spell.

In my campaing natural spell is banned; in campaigns where it exists, not taking it falls into "purposefully nerfing yourself".

In any case, so what of he doesn't have it? He doesn't need to do everything in the first round of combat.


Who's more dangerous to me, the guy who will eventually kill me in just under a minute,or the guy that will kill me in 3 seconds, yeah, he'll be dealt with, but he's not the most threatening target, cause weapons just aren't lethal in D&D worlds.

First of all, he'll probably kill you in under half a minute. If you're a rogue and he's a fighter, you're going to die probably 5 rounds or less (30 seconds)

Second, the other guy MIGHT kill you in 3 seconds IF he has a save-or-die, and IF you fail your save; people do, you know MAKE THEM occasionally.

Third, you may very well want to attack the wizard first, but if you're an NPC and that means by passing a fighter to get near the wizard (now causing the fighter to flank you), and you're saying "well, weapons aren't that lethal!" YOU ARE METAGAMING, unless coup de grace doesn't work in your world. HP past level 1 or 2 represents ability to avoid devastating blows, not that weapons aren't lethal. When you run out of hitpoints it means you quite literally ran out of luck, and even if that 18-HP sword blow you took was a minor cut, cuts hurt!.

Is every one of your NPCs a fanatic who cares nothing for pain?


It grew out of the "I'll keep XXX busy while you guys kill YYY," players. The ways and means of keeping XXX busy changes, but it's a concept I've always seen.

If you have enough compatriots to engage the fighter AND the wizard at the same time, the issue is moot. The issue is when we have 1 or 2 powerful opponents and they casually ignore a fighter hitting them while flanking in order to attack the wizard because the DM knows its smarter.

[Eldariel]

Actually, Crusader is the only ToB class that is proficient in Longbows. Stupid and easily fixed, but it bears mentioning.

Yea, I know. Mostly it just means playing an Elf or taking two levels of Ranger (the smart choice). It's funny how Crusader's recovery is the one you want for an Archer, but the only relevant school it has is White Raven - none of the offensive ranged schools are available. Not only that, but without Fighter Feat qualification, he'll be behind in damage (for non-precision archers, Ranged Weapon Mastery is really gold).


Actually, a Paladin that took the Imp. Unarmed Strike feat can take Ascetic Knight and get Monk damage progression for the cost of 2 Feats. Somewhat better than a Monk, but again, not saying much.

Also, Superior Unarmed Strike is just 4 points of damage behind.

[Frosty]

If the monster is smart he's not going to let the Wizard and the Fighter flank him. He'll move around so the flanking doesn't happen, and the supposedly dangerous fighter can't full-attack him.

The NPC is afraid of the sword yes? Then MOVE AWAY FROM IT! Now that's roleplaying his fears.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Yes, as a matter of fact it is. What you mean is it's not invariably lethal on the first hit. It can be, however. So far I've seen not one iota of evidence that combat with weapons is not lethal; only that it doesn't one-shot people at higher levels. Given the amount of railing against save-or-dies, I don't see how it's a problem that it's not generally deadly in one hit.It's a problem when you deliberately ignore it, despite the fact that any person who lived in the world would know that fact. It's bad roleplaying.
I'm not "predicating my argument" on them, I'm pointing out that iterative attacks + power attack + criticals mean there is a lot more potential melee damage than you're asserting.But not enough to kill someone in one round, which is all that matters past level 10.
You've given no evidence to indicate melee damage is inconsequential.Do you really want to turn this into a numbers game? There are 6 Evil monsters at CR 10. Fire Giant, 142 HP. Bebilith, 150 HP. Juvenile Red Dragon, 168. Noble Salamander, 112. Adult White Dragon, 189. Rakshasa is the lowest at 52 HP, but not a combat encounter really. Most of the CR is in just finding the thing, at which point anything could kill it. All the others except the Salamander can survive quite a few blows before going down. So why not focus on the Enervation-spamming, SoD-throwing Caster instead of the Fighter?
Knowing that there are classes at all is metagaming. You're poisoning the well with your subjective comments on whatever splatbook you're talking about. The attacker may not know that someone is a "Crusader" but he sure as heck will have heard that there are warriors capable of near-magical feats with their blades that smite the deadliest opponents down in one or two blows.More like 3 or 4, depending on build. I don't claim that Martial Adepts are much more powerful than Fighters, only that they're more fun. Almost everything I've said about 'Fighters' in here applies equally well to any melee class. That's just how 3.5 is built.
I didn't say they were more important. I said that they exist, and that going ater them is at least as important as killing wizards, and less likely to succeed by getting up in their face (never mind that close range against the wizard isn't as easy as people are pretending)
He turns into a bear (dire or regular as level dictates), shreds you, then summons <insert critter here>. Your ideas fall apart if this druid is level 5 or higher, and even if he's lower, you're vastly underestimating his melee capability which is at least as good as... well, whatever class you think you are, apparently a rogue.but he would do that whether or not you focused on him. Let me break down classes for you. Batman:Major threat, hard to kill, weak in melee. Meatshield:Minor threat, Hard to kill, good in melee. Glass Cannon:Major threat, easy to kill, average in melee. CoDzilla:Major threat, hard to kill, good in melee. Who do you want to fight, and who do you want to ignore? Fighting a CoDzilla is still more effective than fighting a Meatshield, because they both will take similar amounts of time to disable, and will both pump out damage until disabled, but once one is dead, only the other is damaging you, and I'd rather face a minor threat than a major one.
IFirst of all, he'll probably kill you in under half a minute. If you're a rogue and he's a fighter, you're going to die probably 5 rounds or less (30 seconds)And the Wizard will kill you in 6, maybe 12 seconds depending on how lucky you are. Which threat needs to be removed first? The one that will take a while to kill you and a while to put down, or the one that could kill you NOW unless you deal with him?
Second, the other guy MIGHT kill you in 3 seconds IF he has a save-or-die, and IF you fail your save; people do, you know MAKE THEM occasionally.You have a 30% chance of making it at level one given massively favorable conditions(no spell focus, and a Wis of at least 12), and most people have several prepared of their highest level after that, when the odds of you making are worse.
Third, you may very well want to attack the wizard first, but if you're an NPC and that means by passing a fighter to get near the wizard (now causing the fighter to flank you), and you're saying "well, weapons aren't that lethal!" YOU ARE METAGAMING, unless coup de grace doesn't work in your world. HP past level 1 or 2 represents ability to avoid devastating blows, not that weapons aren't lethal. When you run out of hitpoints it means you quite literally ran out of luck, and even if that 18-HP sword blow you took was a minor cut, cuts hurt!.But if you have high HP, you know that you can avoid most blows, even flanked. The sword may be lethal, but you're good enough that it's really not as much threat as the guy crushing your mind over there. What part of that do you not understand?
Is every one of your NPCs a fanatic who cares nothing for pain?They care more about living than pain. That's because D&D is rough, and if they were weak they died back at level 3 to a Kobold ambush because they were more worried about the pain than surviving.
If you have enough compatriots to engage the fighter AND the wizard at the same time, the issue is moot. The issue is when we have 1 or 2 powerful opponents and they casually ignore a fighter hitting them while flanking in order to attack the wizard because the DM knows its smarter.No, they do it because they know it is smarter. Honestly, if the DM knows it's a good idea, how could the NPCs, who have lived through 130 fights similar to this one(level 10) to get where they are now, not?

[Frosty]

I feel he is just deliberately ignoring our arguments. We should not waste too much more time with him.


you know that you can avoid most blows, even flanked
He conveniently always ignores this. HP means ignoring blows or getting lucky. Monsters know they can dodge quite a bit before getting tired.

[Matthew]

Monsters know they can dodge quite a bit before getting tired.

This seems like quite an over generalisation. The vast majority of humanoids will go down with one blow, being Warrior 1s with less than 8 hit points. Higher hit die monsters, not so much (though a critical hit can go a long way), but death by steel is a reality for many inhabitants of the game world, even if you consider the game rules to be the physics of the imagined reality (and failure to agree about this last point is really at the heart of this disagreement).

[The New Bruceski]

(3.5) PHB II, pages 150-155, are devoted to explaining the four combat roles and how various classes fit in. They talk about ways to avoid stepping on each other's toes if you double up on a role, and how to cover if you're lacking one. It labels the roles by iconic classes that "fit it best".

Fighter (Warriors) -- "Stall the opponents with melee or ranged attacks long enough for other party members to being special abilities to bear." "...last line of defense before the monsters reach the Wizard and Cleric."

Cleric (Divine Spellcasters) -- Support, combat prowess.

Wizard (Arcane Spellcasters) -- Develop powerful magic in lieu of combat. Circumvent the gravest threats to the party.

Rogue (Experts) -- Broad skill selection and useful combat abilities. Fill a variety of roles.

So there is the purpose of fighters.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Fighter (Warriors) -- "Stall the opponents with melee or ranged attacks long enough for other party members to being special abilities to bear." "...last line of defense before the monsters reach the Wizard and Cleric."Did you ignore the thread? The problem is that these classes don't fill those roles well at all. The Fighter has no way of forcing opponents to attack him rather than just doing the smart thing and Tumbling out of his reach or just taking the AoO and then killing the casters.
Cleric (Divine Spellcasters) -- Support, combat prowess.Being a giant, lumbering, fire-spitting monster that leaves nothing but destruction in your wake. And tossing out heals with your unused slots at the end of the day.
Wizard (Arcane Spellcasters) -- Develop powerful magic in lieu of combat. Circumvent the gravest threats to the party.One-shot the gravest threats to the party, use divinations to gank stuff far beyond what they should be able to handle.
Rogue (Experts) -- Broad skill selection and useful combat abilities. Fill a variety of roles.Glass Cannon.

[Justin_Bacon]

I have to ask, what is the purpose of Fighters? Is it really just to stand there and pray the DM takes pity on the Fighter and decides not to ignore her?

The purpose of a fighter is to be able to consistently deal damage every single round. This can be contrasted to, say, a wizard who can deal larger damage on a less consistent basis.

That's pretty much the long and the short of it. The idea that fighters were supposed to be controlling the battlefield through aggro-like or reverse-aggro mechanics is pretty much a post-MMORPG meme. No one talked about fighters like that pre-Everquest.

With that being, give me a 10-foot hallway and two fighters and I'll show you some fighters who can act as meat shield. Also, a reality check: Measure out a 5'-by-5' square. Stand in the middle of it. D&D actually allows a character to automatically control a rather large area.


This, I think, highlights the Fail of 3e quite well. While I am generally loathe to say what is "right" for a given class, does it seem right to anyone that a wizard should be the front line of a battle? Sure, the wizard can throw up wards and such to protect him from mundane harm, but aren't they supposed to be less reliable than the steel of the fighter?

Because mirror image, displacement, and stoneskin didn't exist prior to 3rd Edition, right? :smalltongue:

Here's another thing: I think a lot of people want to blame the mechanics of the game for their own poor tactics. In my 2nd Edition games you were either in a narrow corridor (where the meat shields could effectively block chokepoints and protect those in the rear) or you were in the open. If you were in the open, the vulnerable wizards and rogues didn't go wandering into melee because, when they did that, they tended to end up dead. They'd stand a couple hundred feet away and pull out their bows and their spells. If the monsters tried to run away from the front-line fighters, they had to spend at least three or four rounds getting blasted by spells, peppered with arrows, and hammered by the fighters who were chasing after them.

In 3rd Edition? Pretty much the exact same dynamic.

Similarly, in the world of theory-craft the rogue and fighter can theoretically flank-off against an opponent and the mid- or high-level rogue can deliver more damage as a result of their backstab ability. In reality, the NPC is either going to find a position where they can't be flanked; beat the **** out of the rogue; or both. After the low-AC, low-HP rogue ends up a bloody smear a couple of times, they'll learn their lesson and stop thinking of themselves as some sort of uber-melee class.

[Frosty]

This seems like quite an over generalisation. The vast majority of humanoids will go down with one blow, being Warrior 1s with less than 8 hit points. Higher hit die monsters, not so much (though a critical hit can go a long way), but death by steel is a reality for many inhabitants of the game world, even if you consider the game rules to be the physics of the imagined reality (and failure to agree about this last point is really at the heart of this disagreement).

Havr you not read the 500 times I reiterated that Low level/Low HD monsters are perfectly afraid of steel and probably will try to avoid AoOs :smallwink:? I have always maintained that only tougher/higher HD opponents will be willing to take one.

[Frosty]

Did you ignore the thread? The problem is that these classes don't fill those roles well at all. The Fighter has no way of forcing opponents to attack him rather than just doing the smart thing and Tumbling out of his reach or just taking the AoO and then killing the casters.

Well actually he does with just one splat book (Tome of Battle). Stand Still and Improved Trip are both Core and from the SRD. Using two feats to get Thicket of Blades, and you can do it. But Core only, you're right.

[Matthew]

Havr you not read the 500 times I reiterated that Low level/Low HD monsters are perfectly afraid of steel and probably will try to avoid AoOs :smallwink:? I have always maintained that only tougher/higher HD opponents will be willing to take one.

Sure, I did. Point is that you didn't say so above. It is an important collary and needs to be included whenever you otherwise generalise on this subject. That is to say:

"Monsters who know they currently have significantly more hit points than their opponent can reliably dish out in six seconds (and when they are reasonably sure this is the case) are not afraid to ignore them in melee."

Say it, or don't say it, but don't generalise it. Absolute transparacy and clarity are necessities in discussions like this.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

The purpose of a fighter is to be able to consistently deal damage every single round. This can be contrasted to, say, a wizard who can deal larger damage on a less consistent basis.Define "less consistent". There are generally 4 or fewer encounters each day. Each lasts ~3 rounds. A Sorcerer at 10th level has 10 spells above 4th level(the best level for damage). He won't run out of spells till long after the Fighter is out of HP.
That's pretty much the long and the short of it. The idea that fighters were supposed to be controlling the battlefield through aggro-like or reverse-aggro mechanics is pretty much a post-MMORPG meme. No one talked about fighters like that pre-Everquest.The problem is, the Fighter is really bad at that in 3.5. That's why people search for so many other ways to make the class decent.
With that being, give me a 10-foot hallway and two fighters and I'll show you some fighters who can act as meat shield. Also, a reality check: Measure out a 5'-by-5' square. Stand in the middle of it. D&D actually allows a character to automatically control a rather large area.A 10x10 hallway with 2 fighters, who are useless at protecting the ones behind them against anything but other Fighters. A Rogue will Tumble, a Caster will cast, and either way they're damaging the guys the Fighters are 'protecting'. And that's a highly favorable situation that doesn't come up much.
Here's another thing: I think a lot of people want to blame the mechanics of the game for their own poor tactics. In my 2nd Edition games you were either in a narrow corridor (where the meat shields could effectively block chokepoints and protect those in the rear) or you were in the open. If you were in the open, the vulnerable wizards and rogues didn't go wandering into melee because, when they did that, they tended to end up dead. They'd stand a couple hundred feet away and pull out their bows and their spells. If the monsters tried to run away from the front-line fighters, they had to spend at least three or four rounds getting blasted by spells, peppered with arrows, and hammered by the fighters who were chasing after them.

In 3rd Edition? Pretty much the exact same dynamic.Except when was the last time the party was travelling with the squishies 300-400 feet behind the Meatshields? I've never done it, because then the casters would be ambushed with 300-4000 feet between them and their backup.
Similarly, in the world of theory-craft the rogue and fighter can theoretically flank-off against an opponent and the mid- or high-level rogue can deliver more damage as a result of their backstab ability. In reality, the NPC is either going to find a position where they can't be flanked; beat the **** out of the rogue; or both. After the low-AC, low-HP rogue ends up a bloody smear a couple of times, they'll learn their lesson and stop thinking of themselves as some sort of uber-melee class.Which is what the Greater Invisibility, Bow, Improved Initiative, or paralytic poison are for. And what is with people thinking the Rogue has low AC? It's one below the Fighter most of the time.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Sure, I did. Point is that you didn't say so above. It is an important collary and needs to be included whenever you otherwise generalise on this subject. That is to say:

"Monsters who know they currently have significantly more hit points than their opponent can reliably dish out in six seconds (and when they are reasonably sure this is the case) are not afraid to ignore them in melee."

Say it, or don't say it, but don't generalise it.Did you see the list I posted? All monsters except for one should know that, and that one is a non-combat opponent. Not really a huge generalization.

[Frosty]

Plus, I've said it so many times I tire of it.

[Matthew]

Did you see the list I posted? All monsters except for one should know that, and that one is a non-combat opponent. Not really a huge generalization.

No you'll have to direct me to it, since this thread is an endless series of walls of text. I doubt I will agree with it, though, since I don't agree with what I understand to be your interpretation of how hit points are perceived by the imagined creatures that populate our fictional universes.



Plus, I've said it so many times I tire of it.

Mate, I know how you feel, but this is the internet. Context is fleeting.

[horseboy]

Yes, as a matter of fact it is. What you mean is it's not invariably lethal on the first hit. It can be, however. So far I've seen not one iota of evidence that combat with weapons is not lethal; only that it doesn't one-shot people at higher levels. Given the amount of railing against save-or-dies, I don't see how it's a problem that it's not generally deadly in one hit. Which only makes sense if all weapons are made out of Nerf.

I'm not "predicating my argument" on them, I'm pointing out that iterative attacks + power attack + criticals mean there is a lot more potential melee damage than you're asserting.He gets no iterative attacks because he has to move to keep up with me. And crits? Really, I'm supposed to rely on a less than 5% chance of crits to actually do significant damage?

You've given no evidence to indicate melee damage is inconsequential.w00t! A ten! I do 20 points of damage, only 100+hp left to go!

Knowing that there are classes at all is metagaming. You're poisoning the well with your subjective comments on whatever splatbook you're talking about. The attacker may not know that someone is a "Crusader" but he sure as heck will have heard that there are warriors capable of near-magical feats with their blades that smite the deadliest opponents down in one or two blows.IFF ToB is in play. Otherwise, no, no they don't know.

No, it just goes to show that's conventional wisdom in Shadowrun, which uses a completely different magic system anyhow.Yeah, they actually get to wear armour and dress like everyone else, don't shout in funny languages, don't carry around balls of poo, or make ninja style hand gestures. They can't stop time, or turn you into stone, or send you to another dimension, yet somehow they find it conventional wisdom to know how to pick him out and target him first.




No, he doesn't. Where are you getting this facefull of mud from, and how exactly does it automatically succeed? How are you going to stop him from shapeshifting?Hey, you're the one claiming that mechanics don't have to follow what's going on, tell me how I'm not.

He turns into a bear (dire or regular as level dictates), shreds you, then summons <insert critter here>. Your ideas fall apart if this druid is level 5 or higher, and even if he's lower, you're vastly underestimating his melee capability which is at least as good as... well, whatever class you think you are, apparently a rogue.Except I have more than 2d8+2d6+20 hit points, so no it doesn't shred me. Because his weapons aren't dangerous.


Second, the other guy MIGHT kill you in 3 seconds IF he has a save-or-die, and IF you fail your save; people do, you know MAKE THEM occasionally.So I'm supposed to pay attention to the fighter because he has a less than 5% chance of doing significant damage to me, but ignore the guy that I have a less than 30% chance of surviving his attack?

Is every one of your NPCs a fanatic who cares nothing for pain?No, I run systems where weapons are actually dangerous.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

No you'll have to direct me to it, since this thread is an endless series of walls of text. I doubt I will agree with it, though, since I don't agree with what I understand to be your interpretation of how hit points are perceived by the imagined creatures that populate our fictional universes.Reposted:
Do you really want to turn this into a numbers game? There are 6 Evil monsters at CR 10. Fire Giant, 142 HP. Bebilith, 150 HP. Juvenile Red Dragon, 168. Noble Salamander, 112. Adult White Dragon, 189. Rakshasa is the lowest at 52 HP, but not a combat encounter really. Most of the CR is in just finding the thing, at which point anything could kill it. All the others except the Salamander can survive quite a few blows before going down. So why not focus on the Enervation-spamming, SoD-throwing Caster instead of the Fighter?

[Matthew]

Reposted:
Do you really want to turn this into a numbers game? There are 6 Evil monsters at CR 10. Fire Giant, 142 HP. Bebilith, 150 HP. Juvenile Red Dragon, 168. Noble Salamander, 112. Adult White Dragon, 189. Rakshasa is the lowest at 52 HP, but not a combat encounter really. Most of the CR is in just finding the thing, at which point anything could kill it. All the others except the Salamander can survive quite a few blows before going down. So why not focus on the Enervation-spamming, SoD-throwing Caster instead of the Fighter?

That is not a list, it is a wall of text. Apart from the fact this is tangential to my point, you are assuming each and every one of these creatures is at full hit points and knows it; or to put it another way, you are assuming that they know what their current hit point total is at all times and how it relates to the potential damage that their enemies can deal.

[Oracle_Hunter]

That is not a list, it is a wall of text. Apart from the fact this is tangential to my point, you are assuming each and every one of these creatures is at full hit points and knows it.

Oh come now. How about this then:
- Fire Giant (142 HP)
- Bebilith (150 HP)
- Juvenile Red Dragon (168 HP)
- Noble Salamander (112 HP)
- Adult White Dragon (189 HP)
- Rakshasa (52 HP)

Each of these is individually facing down a party consisting of a man in heavy armor (Fighter) and a man in no armor (Wizard). No one has any visible wounds, and all feel at perfect health (let's say they met after waking up from a restful night's sleep and having a full breakfast).

At what point would each monster decide to attack the Wizard, and what can the Fighter do to stop it?

For bonus points: assume the man in no armor is a Monk or Unarmed Swordsage. At what point will the monster decide to turn on the unarmored man, and what can the Fighter do to stop it?

[Matthew]

Oh come now. How about this then:

- Fire Giant (142 HP)
- Bebilith (150 HP)
- Juvenile Red Dragon (168 HP)
- Noble Salamander (112 HP)
- Adult White Dragon (189 HP)
- Rakshasa (52 HP)

Each of these is facing down a party consisting of a man in heavy armor (Fighter) and a man in no armor (Wizard). At what point would each monster decide to attack the Wizard, and what can the Fighter do to stop it?
I'm not arguing that Fire Giants wouldn't kill obvious spell casters first (I would). I'm saying that there is no reason to suppose they know their current hit point totals or how they relate to the potential damage from the feat charged power attacking fighter.

[Frosty]

They know their own health status in general. They know how much inner reserve they have to keep fighting and avoiding blows and all that.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

That is not a list, it is a wall of text. Apart from the fact this is tangential to my point, you are assuming each and every one of these creatures is at full hit points and knows it.If they haven't fought hard that day, they're probably full. And they know that they're fresh, uninjured, and had a good cup of coffee that morning. Why wouldn't they know that they can survive a few moments of getting attacked while they deal with the larger threat? They've lived for a long time and experienced numerous battles, their combat style should by necessity be optimal, just because they do know a lot about what type of person is dangerous and what they can do. Anything else is treating them like idiots.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I'm not arguing that Fire Giants wouldn't kill obvios spell casters first (I would). I'm saying that there is no reason to suppose they know their current hit point totals.

Then nobody does. But they all feel well rested and have just had a nice breakfast... and have no obvious ailments.

What now?

[Matthew]

Then nobody does. But they all feel well rested and have just had a nice breakfast... and have no obvious ailments.

What now?

Could have 10% of your hit points, could have 100%. Who knows? A character with 1 hit point can run a marathon, bake some bread, and write a novel. The total doesn't affect his capabilities one jot.

Say the Noble Salamander lost 90% of his hit points last round, does he know it? Will it affect his decision as to whether to bypass the fighter?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Could have 10% of your hit points, could have 100%. Who knows? A character with 1 hit point can run a marathon, bake some bread, and write a novel. The total doesn't affect his capabilities one jot.

So... you're saying nobody knows how tough they are. Ever. Not even the greatest warrior in the world? They all go through life afraid that someone will chuck a rock at them?

Are they surprised when they can face down an army of pikemen, and get stabbed dozens of times, without falling over?

Really? Do you let your PCs see their HP total? If so, why?

EDIT: Yes, in my games everyone can tell roughly how well they are doing. Someone who has just taken an enormous amount of damage feels it and can probably gauge that they couldn't take another one of those hits again.

That seems like a reasonable amount of knowledge to give someone, particularly since, IRL, people are usually pretty good at knowing when they are injured or not, and roughly how much that injury affects them.

[Matthew]

So... you're saying nobody knows how tough they are. Ever. Not even the greatest warrior in the world? They all go through life afraid that someone will chuck a rock at them?

Why would they? If they never know what their theoretical total is, nor their current total then there's nothing to go by except "I'm not dead yet."



Are they surprised when they can face down an army of pikemen, and get stabbed dozens of times, without falling over?

They don't get stabbed dozens of times. Nobody ever gets wounded in D20/3e unless by some special effect (well, unless they hit 0 HP).



Really? Do you let your PCs see their HP total? If so, why?

Sure, the players know, because it's a game, not a reality simulation. It shouldn't make any difference to the character whether the player knows or not. If I tell them "Your character is wounded and exhausted", that's different.

[Frosty]

Could have 10% of your hit points, could have 100%. Who knows? A character with 1 hit point can run a marathon, bake some bread, and write a novel. The total doesn't affect his capabilities one jot.

Say the Noble Salamander lost 90% of his hit points last round, does he know it? Will it affect his decision as to whether to bypass the fighter?

In my games, every character knows exactly how much inner reserve they have left. Gutsy characters will take the risk. Conservative characters won't.

[Oracle_Hunter]

They don't get stabbed dozens of times. Nobody ever gets wounded in D20/3e unless by some special effect.

Could you find me the page in any 3e book that says that? Because I doubt it exists. :smallannoyed:

EDIT:

Sure, the players know, because it's a game, not a reality simulation. It shouldn't make any difference to the character whether the player knows or not. If I tell them "Your character is wounded and exhausted", that's different.

Wait... so monsters don't know their HP total, so they're afraid of every attack but PCs do know their HP total, but that knowledge doesn't influence their decision-making process? :smallconfused:

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Could have 10% of your hit points, could have 100%. Who knows? A character with 1 hit point can run a marathon, bake some bread, and write a novel. The total doesn't affect his capabilities one jot.

Say the Noble Salamander lost 90% of his hit points last round, does he know it? Will it affect his decision as to whether to bypass the fighter?Yeah, he knows it. He knows that he managed to avoid most of the force of that impact only by contorting and he probably sprained his back. And in that case, he'd probably put a Wall of Fire between everyone else and himself and run, because unless the Fighter seems to be badly hurt, anyone could kill him next round, and he can't take out one, let alone both. That's common sense, of which the Salamander has far more than the average person(16 Int, 15 Wis).

[Matthew]

In my games, every character knows exactly how much inner reserve they have left. Gutsy characters will take the risk. Conservative characters won't.

Yeah, I know, and that's specific to your game.



Could you find me the page in any 3e book that says that? Because I doubt it exists. :smallannoyed:

Let me put it another way, show me where it says my character is wounded at specific hit point percentages in the rulebooks.



What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. For some characters, hit points may represent divine favor or inner power. When a paladin survives a fireball, you will be hard pressed to convince bystanders that she doesn’t have the favor of some higher power.


Hit point loss just means hit point loss. When you reach 0 you're disabled or dying. Everything else is narrative.



Yeah, he knows it. He knows that he managed to avoid most of the force of that impact only by contorting and he probably sprained his back. And in that case, he'd probably put a Wall of Fire between everyone else and himself and run, because unless the Fighter seems to be badly hurt, anyone could kill him next round, and he can't take out one, let alone both. That's common sense, of which the Salamander has far more than the average person(16 Int, 15 Wis).

Those may be the ways you choose to narrate hit point loss, but you are under no obligation to do so.

[huttj509]

Oh come now. How about this then:
- Fire Giant (142 HP)
- Bebilith (150 HP)
- Juvenile Red Dragon (168 HP)
- Noble Salamander (112 HP)
- Adult White Dragon (189 HP)
- Rakshasa (52 HP)

Each of these is individually facing down a party consisting of a man in heavy armor (Fighter) and a man in no armor (Wizard). No one has any visible wounds, and all feel at perfect health (let's say they met after waking up from a restful night's sleep and having a full breakfast).

At what point would each monster decide to attack the Wizard, and what can the Fighter do to stop it?

For bonus points: assume the man in no armor is a Monk or Unarmed Swordsage. At what point will the monster decide to turn on the unarmored man, and what can the Fighter do to stop it?

Let's further state that this is in a 20 ft wide cavernous hallway thing, height 20 feet? The width gives room for the large creatures to maneuver, but they cannot utterly go around the fighter necessarily.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Let me put it another way, show me where it says my character is wounded at specific hit point percentages in the rulebooks.

Very well.


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

A 10th-level fighter who has taken 50 points of damage may be about a physically hurt as a 10th-level wizard who has taken 30 points of damage, the 1st-level fighter who has taken 5 points of damage, or the 1st-level wizard who has taken 3.

But did you need me to quote that to prove that when a fighter cuts you with a sword, you bleed? That fire damage from a fireball burns? I am perplexed by your stance here. :smallconfused:

EDIT: Apparently you read phrases like "physically hurt" differently than I do?

[Matthew]

Very well.

But did you need me to quote that to prove that when a fighter cuts you with a sword, you bleed? That fire damage from a fireball burns? I am perplexed by your stance here. :smallconfused:

Yes, they can represent those things, but there is no rule that forces you to narrate that; alternatives are available and equally endorsed.



What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. For some characters, hit points may represent divine favor or inner power. When a paladin survives a fireball, you will be hard pressed to convince bystanders that she doesn’t have the favor of some higher power.




EDIT: Apparently you read phrases like "physically hurt" differently than I do?

No, I don't. The point is how physically hurt? Is a character near death at 1 hit point? Of course not. He runs, he jumps, he fights, he loves and does everything as though he has 100% hit points, except take hit point damage. He's certainly not stabbed or wounded in any normal sense of the word.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I... guess you could.

There's no rule forcing you to narrate anything as anything if you really want to. I do not think, however, that your interpretation of HP is a reasonable interpretation of the text I quoted from the PHB. The text I cited not only had the implicit assumption that being damaged causes pain, but it also had explicit reference to "physically hurt." As a corollary, a lack of physical pain would imply you have not taken any damage.

I cannot see how you can interpret such text to not imply that HP damage causes physical harm.

Well, at least I now see the entirety of your view.

EDIT: If your argument is merely a question of degree (that a character cannot tell the difference between being at 90% HP and 10% HP) then I ask again - what does the fighter who has just faced down an army of pikemen, taking many spear thrusts and not falling down, think of those spears? Is he really as concerned by them as he would be of, say, a wizard that can disintegrate him, or a sneaky guy who caused him to go from "feeling fine" to "unconscious" in a single blow?

[Matthew]

I... guess you could. There's no rule forcing you to narrate anything as anything if you really want to. I do not think, however, that your interpretation of HP is a reasonable interpretation of the text I quoted from the PHB. The text I cited not only had the implicit assumption that being damaged causes pain, but it also had explicit reference to "physically hurt." I cannot see how you can interpret such text to not imply that HP damage causes physical harm.

Well, at least I now see the entirety of your view.

It's the degree of physical harm that is open to question. It's always been this way in D&D. Hit points are an abstraction, people often gloss over just what that means. If they measured your health, they wouldn't be such a useful abstraction. Unless some special effect results in an actual debiliation (in AD&D a flying creature that loses half it's hit points can no longer fly). That's why the hit point abstraction of 4e is a continuation, and not an innovation.



EDIT: If your argument is merely a question of degree (that a character cannot tell the difference between being at 90% HP and 10% HP) then I ask again - what does the fighter who has just faced down an army of pikemen, taking many spear thrusts and not falling down, think of those spears? Is he really as concerned by them as he would be of, say, a wizard that can disintegrate him, or a sneaky guy who caused him to go from "feeling fine" to "unconscious" in a single blow?

Well, I'll answer again. He didn't get stabbed by any of them; he may have been grazed or bruised, or suffered a very superficial laceration (unless the game master narrated otherwise). He probably thinks he's a bad ass. When he reaches 0 hit points he'll think he pushed his luck too far.

[Frosty]

Yeah, I know, and that's specific to your game.

And it makes sense for *any* game. You asked me whether creatures know trheir inner reserves...the "fight" left in them. I answered.

[Matthew]

And it makes sense for *any* game. You asked me whether creatures know trheir inner reserves...the "fight" left in them. I answered.

As do the alternatives. The point is you choose which interpretation you prefer.

[Frosty]

The alternative makes no sense to me what-so-ever. How can you not know how much stamina and ability to fight you've got left? Maybe it's just me having had some training with actual weapons fighting, but I can certainly tell the difference between when I'm fresh and after after a long day of practice or tournament when I'm tired, and I've got 3 new bruises at uncomfortable places. I know which of of those two situations I'd fight better in.

Untrained peasants don't know. That makes sense. Gladiator who has fought for decades. DEFINITELY knows. It is completely non-sensical for someone who has had even a modicum of combat training to not know their reserves.

[Diamondeye]

Which only makes sense if all weapons are made out of Nerf.

It only makes sense that fighters don't kill things in one hit if weapons are made out of nerf?

You do realize how silly that assertion is, right? There's a lot of ways you can suffer a severe, but not fatal blow. If someone breaks your arm with a baseball bat, the bat is hardly made of nerf, and the blow inconsequential, because it wasn't fatal.


He gets no iterative attacks because he has to move to keep up with me.

Sure, as long as you move. You move every round? That means you don't get your iterative attacks to hit the wizard, either.


And crits? Really, I'm supposed to rely on a less than 5% chance of crits to actually do significant damage?

You do realize, I presume, that with any weapon with a crit range better than 20 the chance of a crit is significantly better than 5%, especially as levels increase and AC becomes less effective as protection?



w00t! A ten! I do 20 points of damage, only 100+hp left to go!

At that


IF ToB is in play. Otherwise, no, no they don't know.

So what? It's been pointed out in numerous threads that


Yeah, they actually get to wear armour and dress like everyone else, don't shout in funny languages, don't carry around balls of poo, or make ninja style hand gestures. They can't stop time, or turn you into stone, or send you to another dimension, yet somehow they find it conventional wisdom to know how to pick him out and target him first.

How you think a flippant comparison of Shadowrun magic is relevant is beyond me.


Hey, you're the one claiming that mechanics don't have to follow what's going on, tell me how I'm not.

I've claimed that only for fights that the PCs aren't involved in. The only purpose such fights serve is as narrative tools for the DM.


Except I have more than 2d8+2d6+20 hit points, so no it doesn't shred me. Because his weapons aren't dangerous.

He doesn't kill you in one hit, but you can't kill him in one hit either. "Shred you" does not mean insta-kill you, it means defeat you, which the druid generally can in hand-to-hand. Hence all the threads about CoDzilla and how the druid makes an excellent tank.

Furthermore, you have not established that his weapons aren't dangerous. Inability to oneshot =/= not dangerous, and at this point you are squarely in the territory of circular argument.


So I'm supposed to pay attention to the fighter because he has a less than 5% chance of doing significant damage to me, but ignore the guy that I have a less than 30% chance of surviving his attack?

You have not established either of these as fact, ESPECIALLY the first one.


No, I run systems where weapons are actually dangerous.

I'm really thrilled you're enjoying yourself.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Well, I'll answer again. He didn't get stabbed by any of them; he may have been grazed or bruised, or suffered a very superficial laceration (unless the game amster narrated otherwise). He probably thinks he's a bad ass. When he reaches 0 hit points he'll think he pushed his luck too far.

And what of his perception of the wizard or the thief? Would he not fear them more than mere steel? Can he not learn from experience?

EDIT: And why do you let your PCs know their HP, but the monsters do not? Clearly knowledge of HP either does or does not affect your choice of combat tactics - which do you believe, and why do you have one rule for NPCs and another for PCs?

[Matthew]

The alternative makes no sense to me what-so-ever. How can you not know how much stamina and ability to fight you've got left?

Because that's not what hit points represent.



Maybe it's just me having had some training with actual weapons fighting, but I can certainly tell the difference between when I'm fresh and after after a long day of practice of tournament when I'm tired, and I've got 3 new bruises at uncomfortable places. I know which of of those two situations I'd fight better in.

Yeah, you're wounded. You might have 100% hit points, but that's beside the point.



Untrained peasants don't know. That makes sense. Gladiator who has fought for decades. DEFINITELY knows. It is completely non-sensical for someone who has had even a modicum of combat training to not know their reserves.

Again, that's not what hit points represent.



And what of his perception of the wizard or the thief? Would he not fear them more than mere steel? Can he not learn from experience?

Sure, why not? If he gets knocked to 0 hit points by a thief or a wizard, he'd learn to fear them, but since he's likely dead it hardly matters.



EDIT: And why do you let your PCs know their HP, but the monsters do not? Clearly knowledge of HP either does or does not affect your choice of combat tactics - which do you believe, and why do you have one rule for NPCs and another for PCs?

Again, I already answered this. It's a game, not a simulation. The players can know their character's hit points, it doesn't therefore mean that the character knows his hit points any more than he knows anything else the player knows.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Because that's not what hit points represent.

Yeah, you're wounded. You might have 100% hit points, but that's beside the point. Then what do they represent? Since you have a different view from the PHB and 90% of the board, what's it mean to you?

[Matthew]

Then what do they represent? Since you have a different view from the PHB and 90% of the board, what's it mean to you?

Ran a poll recently, have you? :smallwink:

They measure when you get knocked unconcious, killed or disabled. Same as it says in the PHB.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Sure, why not? If he gets knocked to 0 hit points by a thief or a wizard, he'd learn to fear them, but since he's likely dead it hardly matters.

Ah, you do not play with Death's Door then? Or resurrections? And wouldn't someone mention that wizards can kill even the mightiest hero in a single blow? Maybe in folklore?


Again, I already answered this. It's a game, not a simulation. The players can know their character's hit points, it doesn't therefore mean that the character knows his hit points any more than he knows anything else the player knows.

No, no, I'm curious of why you, the DM, let them know their HP total when you could just track it yourself? If your players don't know their HP total, then they will be removed of the temptation to "metagame" by asking for CLW when they have lost HP but are not wounded, or when they rest for the night because they are low on HP.

Considering your firm stance on how the world works, I'm confused as to why you wouldn't implement such a simple house rule?

[Frosty]

Sure, as long as you move. You move every round? That means you don't get your iterative attacks to hit the wizard, either.

You don't need iterative attacks to hamper the wizard. Just by denying him casting you're doing good for your team (Mage Slayer + Reach + Thick of Blades + Pierce Magical Concealment = mage unable to cast except for quickened spells). If you yourself is a Crusader/Warblade/Swordsage, you can do PLENTY with a standard action. Yes the enemy can be a Crusader/Warblade/Swordsage as well. At which point I might take them more seriously, but the Wizard is still the bigger threat, and I don't *know* they're a ToB class until after they've whacked me with a maneuver.

You can stand next to the wizard and the enemy fighter. Trade blows with the enemy fighter, and use AoOs to **** the wizard up. I would.

[Matthew]

Ah, you do not play with Death's Door then? Or resurrections? And wouldn't someone mention that wizards can kill even the mightiest hero in a single blow? Maybe in folklore?

Sure we play with Death's Door (not so much ressurections, but that's higher level play than I prefer). Point is that if you are down, it's pretty unlikely your coming back (or rather that's the case for 99% of NPC combat encounters with PCs).



No, no, I'm curious of why you, the DM, let them know their HP total when you could just track it yourself? If your players don't know their HP total, then they will be removed of the temptation to "metagame" by asking for CLW when they have lost HP but are not wounded, or when they rest for the night because they are low on HP.

Considering your firm stance on how the world works, I'm confused as to why you wouldn't implement such a simple house rule?

Again, because it's a game. It's up to them to roleplay their character, not me. I know all the hit point totals of the NPCs, I still roleplay them in accordance with the narrative.

[Frosty]

Because that's not what hit points represent.

In *your* interpretation maybe. Being able to turn a serious wound into a minor bruise certainly is HP.

[Matthew]

In *your* interpretation maybe.

Yeah, in my interpretation. The PHB/DMG doesn't come down either way.

[Frosty]

Yeah, in my interpretation. The PHB/DMG doesn't come down either way.

Then this is where our views diverge. We have fundamentally different views about HP. If you use my view on HP, you can't say that my treatment of monsters is wrong ebcause I am merely following my premise to its logical conclusion.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Again, because it's a game. It's up to them to roleplay their character, not me.

Do they ask for CLW? Isn't that bad RP? :smallconfused:

[Matthew]

Do they ask for CLW? Isn't that bad RP? :smallconfused:

If they aren't wounded, yes. Since it's a game, though, I don't really worry about it anymore than any other meta game thing that happens.



Then this is where our views diverge. We have fundamentally different views about HP. If you use my view on HP, you can't say that my treatment of monsters is wrong ebcause I am merely following my premise to its logical conclusion.

Yeah, I know our views diverge. That's what I said at the top of this thread.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Yeah, in my interpretation. The PHB/DMG doesn't come down either way.I disagree, based on the quoted text. it definitely seems to indicate that HP is at least partially based on things that any sentient creature would be able to know about itself, and would have visual cues for others. It may also be partially insubstantial and unnoticeable, but when a significant portion of HP is mundane, it is a visible factor.

[Matthew]

I disagree, based on the quoted text. it definitely seems to indicate that HP is at least partially based on things that any sentient creature would be able to know about itself, and would have visual cues for others. It may also be partially insubstantial and unnoticeable, but when a significant portion of HP is mundane, it is a visible factor.

Well, you are entitled to disagree, but since hit points can represent divine favour as much as anything else, there's not much room for maneouvre. If you choose to narrate hit point loss as wounds or stamina decreasing, that's up to you. No rule says that if you lose hit points you lose stamina or are wounded. The latter is usually implied in ancillary text, however.

[Oracle_Hunter]

If they aren't wounded, yes. Since it's a game, though, I don't really worry about it anymore than any other meta game thing that happens.

Well, you and Nagora continue to be in a league all of your own, in my books. Congratulations :smallbiggrin:

[Matthew]

Well, you and Nagora continue to be in a league all of your own, in my books. Congratulations :smallbiggrin:

Heh, heh. We're hardly alone, but it's certainly true that ours is not the most pervasive view of hit points for D&D. It's funny really, because even when the books explcitly stated it was the case I suspect the view was still the minority one.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Well, you are entitled to disagree, but since hit points can represent divine favour as much as anything else, there's not much room for maneouvre. If you choose to narrate hit point loss as wounds or stamina decreasing, that's up to you. No rule says that if you lose hit points you lsoe stamina or are wounded. The latter is usually implied in ancillary text, however.In other words, it is implied throughout all D&D books, and you ignore it.

[Matthew]

In other words, it is implied throughout all D&D books, and you ignore it.

No, in other words rule by implication is not a rule. Indeed, many other aspects of D&D imply the exact opposite.

[Diamondeye]

It's a problem when you deliberately ignore it, despite the fact that any person who lived in the world would know that fact. It's bad roleplaying.

Every person in the world would not know it beause the rues only adjudicate PC fights. You're setting a totally arbitrary standard.


But not enough to kill someone in one round, which is all that matters past level 10.

Completely arbitrary and unsupported assertion.


Do you really want to turn this into a numbers game? There are 6 Evil monsters at CR 10. Fire Giant, 142 HP. Bebilith, 150 HP. Juvenile Red Dragon, 168. Noble Salamander, 112. Adult White Dragon, 189. Rakshasa is the lowest at 52 HP, but not a combat encounter really. Most of the CR is in just finding the thing, at which point anything could kill it. All the others except the Salamander can survive quite a few blows before going down. So why not focus on the Enervation-spamming, SoD-throwing Caster instead of the Fighter?

Because the fighter can seriously hurt or kill them in that time, and its easier if he's now flanking them. Not to mention that for larger monsters going around the fighter is.. more complex, shall we say.


More like 3 or 4, depending on build. I don't claim that Martial Adepts are much more powerful than Fighters, only that they're more fun. Almost everything I've said about 'Fighters' in here applies equally well to any melee class. That's just how 3.5 is built.

The fact that you can assert there is no significant difference in threat between a TOB class and a fighter is astounding.


but he would do that whether or not you focused on him. Let me break down classes for you. Batman:Major threat, hard to kill, weak in melee. Meatshield:Minor threat, Hard to kill, good in melee. Glass Cannon:Major threat, easy to kill, average in melee. CoDzilla:Major threat, hard to kill, good in melee. Who do you want to fight, and who do you want to ignore? Fighting a CoDzilla is still more effective than fighting a Meatshield, because they both will take similar amounts of time to disable, and will both pump out damage until disabled, but once one is dead, only the other is damaging you, and I'd rather face a minor threat than a major one.

You have to face all those threats at the same time regardless. It's not a matter of which you want to kill, its a matter of how are you going to kill all of them (PCs are a team, you know) without exposing yourself to excessive risk.

The monster should not be making this decision in a metagame fashion of "How do I do it mechanically" but in an in character "These humans are powerful.. I must proceed with caution" or something, depending on what sort of attacker it is.


And the Wizard will kill you in 6, maybe 12 seconds depending on how lucky you are.

Or, he won't if those aren't the spells he has. Schrodinger's Wizard is not a valid argument; we may not be at that level of play, or he may have a save-or-die that you have a strong save against, or he ay have prepared AOE save-or-sucks or etc etc.


Which threat needs to be removed first? The one that will take a while to kill you and a while to put down, or the one that could kill you NOW unless you deal with him? You have a 30% chance of making it at level one given massively favorable conditions(no spell focus, and a Wis of at least 12), and most people have several prepared of their highest level after that, when the odds of you making are worse. But if you have high HP, you know that you can avoid most blows, even flanked.

No, you don't know that. Relying on that knowledge is metagaming, and having the monster think only about which is the greater threat is worse metagaming especially if the monster has any sort of emotions.


The sword may be lethal, but you're good enough that it's really not as much threat as the guy crushing your mind over there.

But it's a more easily addressed threat, and taking it out first makes you know more vulnerable than you would be anyhow to the spellcaster.. and you know the caster has only so many spells... and if you have allies, he may not spend them on you if you don't go for him until after he casts them. If you're BBEG, then what are you so damn worried about anyhow?


What part of that do you not understand?

I understand all of it, and it still fails to make any sense without metagaming by the DM.


They care more about living than pain. So do real people, but they will still go to great length to avoid pain


That's because D&D is rough, and if they were weak they died back at level 3 to a Kobold ambush because they were more worried about the pain than surviving.

Wild assumption


No, they do it because they know it is smarter. Honestly, if the DM knows it's a good idea, how could the NPCs, who have lived through 130 fights similar to this one(level 10) to get where they are now, not?

No, they don't. You can't generalize how you play monstersw to how everyone does.

The NPCs haven't "lived through 130 fights". You're assuming high level, assuming it took that many fights to get there (most monsters have their powers as a matter of course), and assuming game resolution rules dictate how things are throughout the world.

The only purpose game rules serve is gameplay. Outside that, you can't assume that things get resolved by them. That's true in YOUR WORLD, not everyones, and you can't use it to justify a problem with the design of the fighter class.

[Frosty]

Of course we assume high level. In low levels, there is no divergence of viewpoints here.

And you can't say that your viewpoint is absolutely correct either. We could always just poll and see whose position receives wider support.

[Diamondeye]

You don't need iterative attacks to hamper the wizard. Just by denying him casting you're doing good for your team (Mage Slayer + Reach + Thick of Blades + Pierce Magical Concealment = mage unable to cast except for quickened spells). If you yourself is a Crusader/Warblade/Swordsage, you can do PLENTY with a standard action. Yes the enemy can be a Crusader/Warblade/Swordsage as well. At which point I might take them more seriously, but the Wizard is still the bigger threat, and I don't *know* they're a ToB class until after they've whacked me with a maneuver.

We're talking about NPCs here, and how they behave and why they would attack the fighter sometimes as opposed to always going straight for the wizard. I as the DM don't play anything.

Sure, you can take certain classes and "do a lot" and come up with specific mageslayer builds, but those aren't the normal attacker of the party. If a character specializes in killing mages, he has a good roleplay reason to attack the PC wizard first. I've never said the wizrd should never get hit of the fighter is there, just that NPCs ought not to automatically regard it as an optimum tactic based on DM knowledge.


You can stand next to the wizard and the enemy fighter. Trade blows with the enemy fighter, and use AoOs to **** the wizard up. I would.
Defensive. Yes, I'm sure there's ways to get around it; those are not the norm for monsters and NPCs fighting the party.

[Diamondeye]

Of course we assume high level. In low levels, there is no divergence of viewpoints here.

"High levels" and "low levels" are very subjective terms.


And you can't say that your viewpoint is absolutely correct either. We could always just poll and see whose position receives wider support.
That would be appeal to popularity.

The bottom line is that my way of doing things demonstrates there is a way to play the game and eliminate this "problem" with the fighter without mechanical change. If you're not playing that way, it means there is a problem for you. There is a way to solve it without mechanical changes. If you prefer not to use that method it does not change the fact that it exists.

[Frosty]

I solve the problem by optimizing the hell out of the NPC enemies my party faces, especially the melee characters. As the levels get higher, the smarter the enemies become. I guess it's just the style my group prefers. They've faced plenty of Battle-field control/mageslaying types. You're right. Not every enemy goes for the mage first, but in my world, those who don't at least recognize the threat of a wizard will die quickly. Attacking the Wziard first isn't even the optimal tactic against the particular party I am DM-ing, but it's still a good rule of thumb. For example, one of my PCs who has ranks in profession (teaching) has the equivalent of a Cohort (who actually doesn't know much about the theories of magic. She has been rather sheltered) following him around adventuring. Here is the gist of the conversation.

PC: "Go for the guys in robes first. Heavy armor is less important. Robes are more dangerous and can kill you instantly."
Soreress Cohort: "So the guy swinging the big axe at me isn't as dangerous?"
PC "That's right. Your force armor will protect you and it won't hurt as much, but your force armor won't do anything against being Disintegrated. You must learn to overcome your instinctive fear of the big-axe."

Your way of doing things is unnatural in my view and not good roleplay because I do not find it good fun to makefluff work much differently from mechanics. You do not agree. We would not find the same game fun.

As a side note, in the near future I plan to have the enemy use a few robed commoners as decoys just to screw with them a bit for fun.

[Diamondeye]

Your way of doing things is unnatural in my view and not good roleplay because I do not find it good fun to makefluff work much differently from mechanics. You do not agree. We would not find the same game fun.

Obviously we don't. However, I take exception to your ideas that it's "unnatural" or "not good roleplay".

"Unnatural" is a rather odd thing to say, and evokes images of.. well, a lot of unpleasent things. I don't think there is any "natural" way of roleplaying.

I also don't see that "it's not good roleplaying" is really applicable. "Good roleplaying" means primarily having characters (PC or NPC) make decisions within the game world, not on external knowledge.

We disagree on what is external knowledge, but it's really pretty insulting to imply that it's not good roleplaying for my characters to make decisions based on what is character knowledge in the games I run.

[Matthew]

I think he just means he doesn't like it, or is not comfortable with it; good and bad are almost always subjective concepts that rely on agreed criteria. I wouldn't read too much into it.

[Frosty]

Obviously we don't. However, I take exception to your ideas that it's "unnatural" or "not good roleplay".

"Unnatural" is a rather odd thing to say, and evokes images of.. well, a lot of unpleasent things. I don't think there is any "natural" way of roleplaying.

I also don't see that "it's not good roleplaying" is really applicable. "Good roleplaying" means primarily having characters (PC or NPC) make decisions within the game world, not on external knowledge.

We disagree on what is external knowledge, but it's really pretty insulting to imply that it's not good roleplaying for my characters to make decisions based on what is character knowledge in the games I run.

It's not up to me what he finds to be insulting. I do not believe it's good rp based on my own standard of what is character knowledge. And also, what Matthew said. Don't read too much into it.

[horseboy]

No, I don't. The point is how physically hurt? Is a character near death at 1 hit point? Of course not. He runs, he jumps, he fights, he loves and does everything as though he has 100% hit points, except take hit point damage. He's certainly not stabbed or wounded in any normal sense of the word.You know, it's this kind of fuzzy logic you Have to employ to make sense of HP's was one of the reasons I left 2nd. I love Spelljammer but when even TSR said "Yeah, we know a fighter can survive reentry, but just go with it." That was the point when I realized it wasn't just me. I was really getting tired of having to have EVERY magic weapon have the "extra damage" special ability just to keep combat from dragging on forever and build some element of danger. Well, that and NWP's. As soon as you start trying to define a character with something that scare a resource, well, that's a whole other thread....

It only makes sense that fighters don't kill things in one hit if weapons are made out of nerf?Yup.

You do realize how silly that assertion is, right? There's a lot of ways you can suffer a severe, but not fatal blow. If someone breaks your arm with a baseball bat, the bat is hardly made of nerf, and the blow inconsequential, because it wasn't fatal.No, because while you can be hit and not killed, you can be hit and killed. That there's no way you can kill in one. It may be a Whiffle ball bat instead of Nerf, but this being an international forum I'm not sure how many people know what a "Whiffle" ball is. Either way they're a less than lethal weapon.

Sure, as long as you move. You move every round? That means you don't get your iterative attacks to hit the wizard, either.Why would I need iterative attacks? Isn't my target moving too?

You do realize, I presume, that with any weapon with a crit range better than 20 the chance of a crit is significantly better than 5%, especially as levels increase and AC becomes less effective as protection?You do realize that you have to roll to confirm a crit, bringing the chance to or below 5%.
So what? It's been pointed out in numerous threads that waiting for the rest of the statement.

How you think a flippant comparison of Shadowrun magic is relevant is beyond me. That they're harder to pick out, harder to take down and not as dangerous as their D&D counterpart, yet they're still considered the prime target.
I've claimed that only for fights that the PCs aren't involved in. The only purpose such fights serve is as narrative tools for the DM.That these fights are supposed to be what sets what's supposed to be a "standard" for not only the world, but for the players themselves. At some point you HAVE to one shot a PC to remind them "Yeah, it still works that way." Otherwise after the second or so dragon the PC's kill with NARRY A NEGATIVE LASTING CONSEQUENCE, since, as Matt has pointed out, there's no difference between 100% HP, 50% HP, 25% HP or just 1 HP. It just winded them a little. If they were actually hurt, then they'd be slowed down, not able to move as well, or not even able to swing a sword because required limb(s) are broken or missing. Unless said PC's have some form of LD, they will eventually learn that normal weapons just aren't a threat to them.

Furthermore, you have not established that his weapons aren't dangerous. Inability to one shot =/= not dangerous, and at this point you are squarely in the territory of circular argument. It's not circular logic. Can weapon kill someone? Y/N If No, then weapons aren't dangerous, If Y, then weapons are dangerous. Weapons in D&D are more like belt sanders. Slowly pealing off layers of HP than functioning as actual weapons.

[Matthew]

You know, it's this kind of fuzzy logic you Have to employ to make sense of HP's was one of the reasons I left 2nd. I love Spelljammer but when even TSR said "Yeah, we know a fighter can survive reentry, but just go with it." That was the point when I realized it wasn't just me. I was really getting tired of having to have EVERY magic weapon have the "extra damage" special ability just to keep combat from dragging on forever and build some element of danger. Well, that and NWP's. As soon as you start trying to define a character with something that scare a resource, well, that's a whole other thread....

Yep, I remember dropping AD&D from our regular rotation for the same reasons, and going looking for more sensible systems. After a particularly long combat using Role Master we abandoned commercial RPGs altogether in favour of our own homebrewed skill based and gritty RPG, which we played for years; combat was brutal and wounds meant wounds. Eventually, though, I learned to love B/AD&D for what it is (though I have little love now for proficiencies). :smallbiggrin:

[Frosty]

Mostly what my players have done is do a combination between being able to turn blows aside and just being plain tougher as you level. The high level Paladin may indeed just shrug off being run through at high levels.

[Diamondeye]

You know, it's this kind of fuzzy logic you Have to employ to make sense of HP's was one of the reasons I left 2nd. I love Spelljammer but when even TSR said "Yeah, we know a fighter can survive reentry, but just go with it." That was the point when I realized it wasn't just me. I was really getting tired of having to have EVERY magic weapon have the "extra damage" special ability just to keep combat from dragging on forever and build some element of danger. Well, that and NWP's. As soon as you start trying to define a character with something that scare a resource, well, that's a whole other thread....

Sorry to hear that, but really not my concern


[QUOTE=Diamondeye;4933846]It only makes sense that fighters don't kill things in one hit if weapons are made out of nerf?[/qutoe]Yup.

When you can establish that weapons are made of nerf, that might be relevant.


No, because while you can be hit and not killed, you can be hit and killed.

Huh?


That there's no way you can kill in one.

False


It may be a Whiffle ball bat instead of Nerf, but this being an international forum I'm not sure how many people know what a "Whiffle" ball is.

Irrelevant. Inability to kill something in one hit does not make it "whiffle" (ineffective)


Either way they're a less than lethal weapon.

By this logic modern handguns are less than lethal weapons because they do not reliably kill in one shot.


Why would I need iterative attacks? Isn't my target moving too?

In case the first one doesn't kill this wizard, since you apparently think anything that isn't a one-shot kill is "whiffle".


You do realize that you have to roll to confirm a crit, bringing the chance to or below 5%

Not necessarily true, especially against lower-AC opponents, and with weapons that have considerable crit ranges.


That they're harder to pick out, harder to take down and not as dangerous as their D&D counterpart, yet they're still considered the prime target.

I've played Shadowrun. They aren't necessarily, except for a fluff comment in one sourcebook.


That these fights are supposed to be what sets what's supposed to be a "standard" for not only the world, but for the players themselves.

According to exactly who are they supposed to "set a standard"


At some point you HAVE to one shot a PC to remind them "Yeah, it still works that way."

No I don't.


Otherwise after the second or so dragon the PC's kill with NARRY A NEGATIVE LASTING CONSEQUENCE, since, as Matt has pointed out, there's no difference between 100% HP, 50% HP, 25% HP or just 1 HP.

Otherwise.. what? This sentance has no comprehensible meaning, and if I want to one-shot a PC I can do it just fine.


It just winded them a little.

Maybe, maybe not.


If they were actually hurt, then they'd be slowed down, not able to move as well, or not even able to swing a sword because required limb(s) are broken or missing.

Explain what mechanic in D&D simulates this.


Unless said PC's have some form of LD, they will eventually learn that normal weapons just aren't a threat to them.

False.


It's not circular logic. Can weapon kill someone? Y/N If No, then weapons aren't dangerous, If Y, then weapons are dangerous.

Weapons can kill people. Therefore they are dangerous. They don't have to be able to do it in one shot every time.


Weapons in D&D are more like belt sanders. Slowly pealing off layers of HP than functioning as actual weapons.

You have not read anything ever written by WotC or TSR on the nature of HP, have you? Or even what Matthew and others have had to say in this thread.

[Diamondeye]

It's not up to me what he finds to be insulting. I do not believe it's good rp based on my own standard of what is character knowledge. And also, what Matthew said. Don't read too much into it.

Fair Enough.

[Justin_Bacon]

Did you ignore the thread? The problem is that these classes don't fill those roles well at all. The Fighter has no way of forcing opponents to attack him rather than just doing the smart thing and Tumbling out of his reach or just taking the AoO and then killing the casters

I could understand this being a minor problem if the campaign pits the group against the orcish acrobatic group known as the Amazing Fangs... but how likely is that, exactly?

The vast majority of monsters are not trained in Tumble. Which means they're not Tumbling out of his reach. And if they're big enough and tough enough to ignore the AoOs, then the group's tactics should be reflecting that.


Define "less consistent". There are generally 4 or fewer encounters each day. Each lasts ~3 rounds.

There's your first problem. That's not the way encounters generally worked in 2nd Edition, and there's no reason why they should generally work that way in 3rd Edition. In fact, it requires a rather dramatic misreading of the core rulebooks (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/encounter-design.html) in order to conclude that you should be playing 3rd Edition that way.


Except when was the last time the party was travelling with the squishies 300-400 feet behind the Meatshields? I've never done it, because then the casters would be ambushed with 300-4000 feet between them and their backup.

In my campaigns, the PCs are rarely ambushed. YMMV.


w00t! A ten! I do 20 points of damage, only 100+hp left to go!

Again, your experience is radically different from mine. The non-optimized 4th level fighter in my group is doing an average of 17 points of damage per hit. (2d6+1d6+7 = 3.5 + 3.5 + 3.5 + 7 = 17.5) So I'm guessing that's vaguely the range you're talking about. But CR 4 creatures don't typically have 100 hit points. 17 points of damage constitutes a really serious blow to a typical CR 4 creature.

In addition, the problem becomes even more irrelevant if you don't design every encounter around the "1 big opponent meme". If you embrace the encounter design that's described in the DMG and was used consistently in classic adventure modules, the group will usually be fighting several creatures with a CR lower than themselves.


Reposted:
Do you really want to turn this into a numbers game? There are 6 Evil monsters at CR 10. Fire Giant, 142 HP. Bebilith, 150 HP. Juvenile Red Dragon, 168. Noble Salamander, 112. Adult White Dragon, 189. Rakshasa is the lowest at 52 HP, but not a combat encounter really.

For example, let's take the Fire Giant and put him up against a 12th level fighter with: Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Greater Weapon Specialization. He's also got a +3 frost greatsword and gauntlets of ogre power (for Str 20).

This is a fairly modest build, but it gives the fighter a full attack of +17/+12/+7 and an average damage of (2d6+1d6+14 = 3.5 + 3.5 + 3.5 + 14) 24.5 on a hit.

But the more important figure here is the expected damage per round, which against the fire giant's AC 23 works out to:

1st Attack = 75% * 24.5 = 18.735
2nd Attack = 50% * 24.5 = 12.25
3rd Attack = 25% * 24.5 = 6.125

For a total expected damage per round of 36.75.

The wizard could cast one of many spells for 1d6 per level or half damage on a Reflex save. 12d6 has an average damage of 42, or half damage for 21. For a wizard with Intelligence 20, that makes it a DC 20 Reflex save for a 5th level spell.

Against the fire giant's Reflex +4, that gives an expected damage output of:

42 * 75% = 31.5
21 * 25% = 5.25

For a total expected damage per round of 36.75.

Huh. You know, I didn't actually plan it out for both numbers to be exactly identical. But I'm just not buying the argument that the wizard is inherently the bigger threat to any individual fire giant.

Now, on the flip-side, the wizard does have the advantage that many of his spells can hit multiple opponents at once. But, on the other hand, the wizard is also burning up a small pool of resources to deal that damage -- whereas the fighter is going to be able to keep hitting every single round.

You say the fire giants will say, "Hey! Take out the guy in the robes first! He can hurt a lot of us all at once!" And they might. But I think it's just as likely they'll say, "Take out the guy with the huge freakin' sword of cold-doom first! The other guy's gotta run out of spells eventually!"

These classes are just not as imbalanced as some people would like to believe.

Yes, if you have a minimal number of encounters per day; and there are no non-combat activities for the wizards to be using their spells on; and you allow an out-of-control nova cycle; and your group chooses not to use any combat mechanics unless they come in the form of class abilities; and about a half dozen other things are true... Yes, the wizard rapidly out-powers the fighter.

OTOH, if you have a large number of encounters per day; and many non-combat activities for the wizards to use their spells on; and there's always the risk that the PCs can't control the pace of their combat encounters; and the group uses intelligent combat tactics... Well, now the fighter is suddenly out-powering the wizard.


Let me put it another way, show me where it says my character is wounded at specific hit point percentages in the rulebooks.

What do you mean by "wounded"? Because whenever a character takes hit point damage in 3rd Edition, they've suffered physical injury (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/explaining-hit-points.html).

I think there's a more general point getting lost in this, though: Putting the numbers and percentages aside, the reality is that D&D hit points a mechanic which basically say, "Hey, John McClane can survive several firefights without getting killed." In practical terms, that means that John McClane could even do something really insanely crazy... like, say, grabbing the bad guy's gun, pulling the trigger, and firing through his own chest to kill the guy.

But that doesn't mean John McClane is going to do that lightly. Even if we postulate that John McClane knows his exact hit point total and knows for a FACT that he won't get killed by that bullet... it's still going to hurt like hell.

Similarly, if we postulate a fire giant turning his back on a fighter in order to run across the battlefield and whack on the wizard for awhile. Even if he knows for a FACT that he's got enough hit points left that the fighter cannot kill him, he's still not going to necessarily want to get a huge gaping hole cut in his back.

If you walk into an ER and shoot yourself in the foot, you are virtually guaranteed not to die from that injury. (Because with trained specialists right there, the risk of you dying from blood loss is almost nonexistent.) But does that really sound like a good idea to you just because you're not going to die from it?

There are certainly people who will make that choice. (John McClane being one of them.) But there's virtually no one who will make that choice lightly. And lots of people who won't make it at all.

[Stupendous_Man]

ignore fighter = pain

ignore wizard = death

[Knaight]

Except for the fire giant doesn't have to turn his back to the fighter, and can retreat without it. Plus that annoying guy in the robes keeps throwing cold stuff, and better a little cut on the back than another one of those things.

[Sholos]

Yes, in pure 3.5 mechanics where you don't have facing (which I think is kind of stupid) the giant doesn't turn his back on the fighter, can walk backwards with no chance of tripping on anything and at full speed, and make an attack without looking (because presumably his focus is on the fighter) with no penalty.

Now, how much of that sounds silly from an even half-way-to-real-world view? Certainly the ability to walk backwards at full speed and not worry about tripping. I challenge you to find someone to attack you with a stick and for you to walk backwards away from them at full speed and not fall down. Unless it's something you've spent a lot of time doing, and you know the ground, it's going to be very difficult. Certainly not something you could depend on being able to do every time.

In the real world, to be effective you're going to have to turn your back on that fighter. Who is promptly going to hamstring you if that's what's right in front of him (as it would be for a giant). And a hamstring isn't going to give you a -2 to your strength. It's going to prevent you from going much of anywhere.

[Knaight]

You would walk backwards at near full speed, turn once out of reach, then rush the wizard, and cut him down, turning back to the fighter to block whatever they want to try next. And I routinely fence, and typically practice on rocky grounds with irregular swords, you can back up at a reasonable speed, while parrying and such(although if you keep backing up too much your opponent might get a bit aggressive, so the occasional stop and partial lunge is a good idea.), then once you get to someone waving their hands around, you can swat them with the sword without too much trouble. If they were going to blow you up its reasonable. And not having facing makes sense, if they did have it people could run around behind someone and hit them in the back really easily, which is just stupid since someone would have turned around. Which gets into the really unrealistic mechanics, flanking. In real life, even just having 2 people from more or less the same direction makes it incredibly difficult to get an attack off, both of them have a far better chance of hitting you, and your basically screwed unless your way better than them. Yet flanking gives a +2, total, which isn't even cumulative. Try +4 to AC and attack per combatant, with another +2 for flanking, then we're looking at something somewhat realistic.

Plus your a giant. You should be able to force the fighter to retreat fairly easily, then swat the mage. Lets see how accurately they can pull off that hamstring if you run past them with a club swipe. Probably going to be easy enough to avoid, and even get a hit in, but its not significant compared to what the wizard is throwing.

[Frosty]

The closest equivalent irl on what I do atually is I take a 5-ft step to step away from the guy I am facing and then turn my standard action into a move action to turn around and run towards a better target. Yes, I know better than to turn turn around when I'm close enough to be hit. I step backwards while facing the enemy, then I turn around once out of reach and start running. The enemy doesn't automatically step forward with me irl because he doesn't know exactly what I'm doing.

[Sholos]

If his goal at the moment is to kill you, I think he'd be moving towards you. Especially if you're moving towards his buddy whom he knows needs protection.

[Justin_Bacon]

Yes, in pure 3.5 mechanics where you don't have facing (which I think is kind of stupid) the giant doesn't turn his back on the fighter, can walk backwards with no chance of tripping on anything and at full speed, and make an attack without looking (because presumably his focus is on the fighter) with no penalty.

Read the rules. Then get back to us.


Except for the fire giant doesn't have to turn his back to the fighter, and can retreat without it. Plus that annoying guy in the robes keeps throwing cold stuff, and better a little cut on the back than another one of those things.

Were you trying to post a complete non sequitur? Or did you just not bother reading my post before trying to reply to it?

[Oracle_Hunter]

The closest equivalent irl on what I do atually is I take a 5-ft step to step away from the guy I am facing and then turn my standard action into a move action to turn around and run towards a better target. Yes, I know better than to turn turn around when I'm close enough to be hit. I step backwards while facing the enemy, then I turn around once out of reach and start running. The enemy doesn't automatically step forward with me irl because he doesn't know exactly what I'm doing.

This works really well if you feint before moving. You'd be surprised how easy it is to throw someone off-guard with the right body language :smallbiggrin:

And I'm talking as a fencer! I can only imagine it's easier to fake people out when there's more than one guy to pay attention to.

[Frosty]

You'd be surprised at how important Bluff checks are in the middle of battle. Granted, my battles aren't life and death but we're simulating trying to kill the other person. If you're good enough you can lure the other person to a position where you will almost certainly be able to get a few kills before he catches up to you.

I can make a few threatening movements to force my opponent back, and then make a run for it as well irl.

EDIT: Oracle, this is the second time you've ninja'ed me today :smallamused: And I'm glad to see a fellow fencer here. I don't do foil fencing or even the rapier, but I might try the rapier in the future.

[horseboy]

When you can establish that weapons are made of nerf, that might be relevant.Nerf, whiffle, rubber, name whatever low threatening material you want.

Huh?In the really real world, you can be hit and be killed with a baseball bat. The odds are significantly high that you will live, mainly because it's not designed to be a weapon. Yeah, in a lot of way being hit with a baseball bat is a lot like being hit with 4' of sharp steel in D&D. It's annoying, but you're not likely to be killed by it, unless they just sit there and wail on you for a few minutes.
FalseWell, there is no way past level 6 or so, lower levels, yes you could.

Irrelevant. Inability to kill something in one hit does not make it "whiffle" (ineffective)No, that's the definition of ineffective. It can not do what it's supposedly designed to do (Kill effectively).

By this logic modern handguns are less than lethal weapons because they do not reliably kill in one shot.Pretty much. If I can't legally kill a white tail with it, I don't consider it to be a lethal weapon. Some, depending on caliber/MM of the round will fall under "dangerous", but modern pistols aren't designed to kill humans, as there's too much paperwork involved. As such they fall under the concept of "dangerous implements" along with things like chain saws.
In case the first one doesn't kill this wizard, since you apparently think anything that isn't a one-shot kill is "whiffle". Why is the wizard allowing me to get iterative attacks? Why isn't he moving away to protect himself? If he's pulling off a full round spell he defiantly needs to die.
Not necessarily true, especially against lower-AC opponents, and with weapons that have considerable crit ranges.???So everyone in your games has keen falchions to make use of "considerable crit ranges"?

I've played Shadowrun. They aren't necessarily, except for a fluff comment in one sourcebook.More than one, it's established in the system.

According to exactly who are they supposed to "set a standard"By their prior actions.

No I don't.Otherwise they realize their super human status.

Otherwise.. what? This sentence has no comprehensible meaning, and if I want to one-shot a PC I can do it just fine.That's the problem with coma splices, :smallredface: otherwise they're going to realize that a sword isn't a viable threat.
Maybe, maybe not.No, no maybe. They suffered no ill effects, heck using your definition of HP they were never even actually bled.

Explain what mechanic in D&D simulates this.There isn't one. Part of why combat isn't dangerous.

False.True.

Weapons can kill people. Therefore they are dangerous. They don't have to be able to do it in one shot every time.Weapons in OUR world kill people, therefore they're dangerous. The more likely they're to kill, the less likely you are to survive the attack. The higher the percent for "one shot kills" becomes. The exact opposite happens in D&D. The less likely you are to die in one hit, the less dangerous the weapon becomes.

You have not read anything ever written by WotC or TSR on the nature of HP, have you? Or even what Matthew and others have had to say in this thread.Oh yeah, I've read years of things TSR has written on the subject. They all boil down to "Yeah, at high level characters become super human, just make something up." 3.x just made it worse by giving out stupid amounts of them, without adjusting the weapons, making things that rely on direct damage (weapons users and blasters) ineffective. Hence, the problem fighters have in 3.x.

[Sholos]

You'd be surprised at how important Bluff checks are in the middle of battle. Granted, my battles aren't life and death but we're simulating trying to kill the other person. If you're good enough you can lure the other person to a position where you will almost certainly be able to get a few kills before he catches up to you.

I can make a few threatening movements to force my opponent back, and then make a run for it as well irl.

Yes, but the giant didn't make a Bluff check to disengage, and doesn't need one. All he has to do is walk off. And, yes, I realize that a giant could probably get away with it, but your average person? Not likely.


Read the rules. Then get back to us.

Umm, why? Everything I said is how the rules work. That doesn't make the rules not stupid.

[Oracle_Hunter]

EDIT: Oracle, this is the second time you've ninja'ed me today :smallamused: And I'm glad to see a fellow fencer here. I don't do foil fencing or even the rapier, but I might try the rapier in the future.

I think I'm jacked into the forum today, so of course my Reaction is through the roof :smalltongue:

Yeah, I fence Epee (Rapier); it's fun because everything is target so you get to do all kinds of ridiculous feints. Did you know that a feint to the face will almost always make someone do a wild high parry? Fun! :smallbiggrin:

So while I know fencing is a sport and not real combat, I figure if someone like me can fool even really good fencers, then a giant can probably fake a swing at someone to give him the distance he needs to disengage safely.

[horseboy]

Again, your experience is radically different from mine. The non-optimized 4th level fighter in my group is doing an average of 17 points of damage per hit. (2d6+1d6+7 = 3.5 + 3.5 + 3.5 + 7 = 17.5) So I'm guessing that's vaguely the range you're talking about. But CR 4 creatures don't typically have 100 hit points. 17 points of damage constitutes a really serious blow to a typical CR 4 creature.

In addition, the problem becomes even more irrelevant if you don't design every encounter around the "1 big opponent meme". If you embrace the encounter design that's described in the DMG and was used consistently in classic adventure modules, the group will usually be fighting several creatures with a CR lower than themselves.

My experience? I took one read through the rule book when "Crap! Didn't they playtest this?" And built a trip monkey. It wasn't my fighter's job to do damage. But to set up enemies for the barbarian (later barbarian/scout/dred commando). He does 2d4+10 per hit at fighter 8/cleric 1, provided I don't have the enlarge self going. If only 3.x's character development system was flexible enough to actually have created a fighter who's a soldier, he would have worked well. But that's another rant. As far as the "1 big opponent meme" well, I found that more of a level dependent thing. The higher the level, the fewer mobs of mobs you come across.

[Frosty]

I think I'm jacked into the forum today, so of course my Reaction is through the roof :smalltongue:

Yeah, I fence Epee (Rapier); it's fun because everything is target so you get to do all kinds of ridiculous feints. Did you know that a feint to the face will almost always make someone do a wild high parry? Fun! :smallbiggrin:

So while I know fencing is a sport and not real combat, I figure if someone like me can fool even really good fencers, then a giant can probably fake a swing at someone to give him the distance he needs to disengage safely.

I hate foil targeting. Torso only? what a bunch of crock.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I hate foil targeting. Torso only? what a bunch of crock.

The targeting and Right-of-Way exist because the foil was the training weapon for duelists... particularly duelists who needed to get real good, real fast. For those people, it's best to learn to attack in time, to always parry an attack, and to aim at nice, large targets with lots of important organs :smallbiggrin:

Saber though... that's just whack. :smalltongue:

[Frosty]

Yep. I like just whacking. Works for me. I don't thinnk I can ever get used to the whole Right of Way thing.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Yep. I like just whacking. Works for me. I don't thinnk I can ever get used to the whole Right of Way thing.

To each their own. If you really like Saber, you probably won't care much for Epee. Long-blade fighting is generally requires a lot of patience because you can attack from far away, but if you get too close you are suddenly much less effective. In sporting foil it's all about moving first, but in epee it's about moving best :smallbiggrin:

[Sholos]

Why is saber whack?

[Frosty]

Well I've only really used the longsword so fa.r To be honest I like range, but I don' want to showhorn myself into it so I'llpractice with all kinds eventually.

Sabers aren't really "whack" relaly as much as "chop."

[Oracle_Hunter]

Why is saber whack?

Because that's what you do! *rimshot* :smallbiggrin:

In all seriousness, it's because sporting saber is now at the point that the majority of the bout is spent watching the fencers fly off the en garde line and flailing at each other, being halted by the director, neither side getting right of way, and then repeating.

I know Saber is very hard to fence and requires very quick reflexes and great physical strength, but I have a hard time seeing the artistry in it. Same with foil - less so now that flicking is harder to do - because in each situation the art of swordplay has been abstracted to a useless (i.e. non-combat effective) form.

Epee may not be perfect, but really get a chance to match an opponent mind-to-mind when you have him out there on the strip. The bladework can get extremely complex and any mistake can be punished immediately. My old coach always said that it wasn't that some weapons fit some people, it was that the people fit the weapons - a Foil fencer and an Epee fencer just think differently.

EDIT:
On sporting foils & sabers
Both the sporting foil and the sporting saber have thin, flexible blades. The saber is by far the most flexible, and a good saber fencer can wield it like a whip. Since the force of impact doesn't actually matter for scoring, it is a valid technique in Saber to try and "whip over" your opponent's parry to tap their target, thus getting a touch. As such, parries are used less frequently than in other weapons, and the stophit (or counter-attack) is the most common response to a threat.

Foils have a somewhat less flexible blade, but they still can be whipped pretty well. For awhile, the primary attack in foil was to whip your blade at your opponent, much like a saber, to render any parry useless - a malparry, which does not steal R.O.W.

Needless to say, neither of these techniques would have been used with actual weapons that one would want to cut or stab with.

[Sholos]

"Right of way"?

Bah, I hate it when fighting becomes a sport. Like Tae-Kwan-Do. Half the stuff that's taught would be utterly useless in a real fight, if not downright detrimental.

[Frosty]

That's why the way we do it in the Twilight Knights is how the 16th century Europeans actually fought. We go for authenticity, with the exception of groin shots not allowed, and no stabbing (because we use hard weapons)

[Oracle_Hunter]

"Right of way"?

Bah, I hate it when fighting becomes a sport. Like Tae-Kwan-Do. Half the stuff that's taught would be utterly useless in a real fight, if not downright detrimental.

Well... right of way isn't actually bad were you to actually go out into combat. It is a way to make sure novice students learn to keep a strong defense, and not to swing wildly in a counter when they are attacked. If you both were using sharp swords, then while the counter might get your opponent sometimes, sometimes your opponent would get you too.

If you want to live a long time as a duelist, you don't stophit unless you are certain you can knock him cold. And yes, it is hard to train away the "OMG, I hit back!" reflex.

In Epee, we cultivate that reflex to strike at the wrist or arm while your opponent is going for your body - if you must stophit, you must neutralize your opponent immediately, and skewering their arm is a good way to do it. But it is far riskier than a proper parry-riposte would be.

EDIT:
Oh, and we're talking about duelist weapons, not battlefield weapons of course. Only an idiot would try to take out some dude wielding a claymore with a rapier - particularly if he is in armor!

Still, knowing how to fight with an epee is very helpful if you're going to carry around a sword-cane; longswords are rather gauche to wear in polite society :smallbiggrin:

[nagora]

Reposted:
Do you really want to turn this into a numbers game? There are 6 Evil monsters at CR 10. Fire Giant, 142 HP. Bebilith, 150 HP. Juvenile Red Dragon, 168. Noble Salamander, 112. Adult White Dragon, 189. Rakshasa is the lowest at 52 HP, but not a combat encounter really. Most of the CR is in just finding the thing, at which point anything could kill it. All the others except the Salamander can survive quite a few blows before going down. So why not focus on the Enervation-spamming, SoD-throwing Caster instead of the Fighter?
Of all the posts I've read on this thread, this one seems the one that cuts to the heart of the problem most. Hit point inflation is what has killed the Fighter, really. In 1e the list would be:

Fire Giant 53
Bebilith - not appearing in 1e
Young-adult Red Dragon 40
Salamander 39
Adult White Dragon 36

Those are big differences! Now, since weapons don't do any (or much) more damage, by and large, in 3e, it is clear that the plain fighter is going to have to find a lot of bonuses from somewhere to keep up with his 1e counterpart. Yet at the same time, the 3e fighter has had his/her multiple attacks nerfed (in 3e terms, a 1e fighter's multiple attacks are all at full BAB).

This need for extra multipliers and crap like that is probably the real reason Fighters have fallen by the wayside in 3e, because let's face it, most of the "specialised fighter" classes are just excuses to throw in "cool" damage bonuses of one kind or another to make the character more 'lite than the baseline fighter.

A fire giant has gone from being ten times as tough as a normal man-at-arms to being 25 times, with no increase in weapon damage. In the immortal words of Richard Feynman, this may have some significance for our problem.

It also shows just how bad the problem for newbies is in 3e - if you don't understand how to bilk the most out of the crappy over-complex unplay-tested build system then you're screwed. Generating a character who wields a broadsword in a fantasy RPG should not be an intellectual exercise in linear programming.

[Charity]

I dunno about no increase in damage, I'm pretty sure in 1e my fighter couldn't reliably do 75 HP damage a round against an easy to hit opponant at 8th level... he'd have liked to mind you...
I don't believe it's the HP nagora, I was running a game for 5 lvl 8 melee characters until I killed them all recently and unless a monster had an AC well into the thirties or >200 HP it was unlikely to last more than a round or two.

[Sholos]

And how well optimized does a fighter have to be to do 75 damage in one round? How optimized were your melee characters?

[nagora]

I dunno about no increase in damage, I'm pretty sure in 1e my fighter couldn't reliably do 75 HP damage a round against an easy to hit opponant at 8th level... he'd have liked to mind you...
I don't believe it's the HP nagora, I was running a game for 5 lvl 8 melee characters until I killed them all recently and unless a monster had an AC well into the thirties or >200 HP it was unlikely to last more than a round or two.
I'm not saying that 3e characters can't dish out the damage, I'm saying that since normal weapons don't do any more than they ever did there is a reliance on boosts (from whatever source, including Magi-Mart) to do it. Given that the reason d'etre for many combat classes seems to be to grant such boosts quickly it is not surprising that they overshadow the fighter.

On top of that, the newbie needs to understand that they HAVE to treat their fighter as a chinese puzzle of optimised feats and bonuses in order to make it work at all. I wonder if that puts them off from the start (or from an early experience of being totally overshadowed either by monsters or some muchkin class from a splatbook).

[Charity]

Don't get me wrong I think the 3e fighter is a poorly designed class, just that I disagree that it's because it can't dish out enough damage, or that monsters have too many HPs.
My least second least experianced player was playing a straight fighter, and it was difficult to keep him viable even in an only melee party...

still it's all over now and in a few short weeks my paladin will be having his arse handed to him every week with no leader support... everyone wants to be the striker*... oh well when I get dead I may come back as a warlord... we'll see how it goes.

*(2 warlocks, 1 rogue, 1 ranger, 1 wizard and me... as leader and defender... that'll go well)

[Lycar]

The closest equivalent irl on what I do atually is I take a 5-ft step to step away from the guy I am facing and then turn my standard action into a move action to turn around and run towards a better target. Yes, I know better than to turn turn around when I'm close enough to be hit. I step backwards while facing the enemy, then I turn around once out of reach and start running. The enemy doesn't automatically step forward with me irl because he doesn't know exactly what I'm doing.

Except that in D&D, you do not get to make a free AoO-free 5' adjustment step if you make ANY OTHER movement action on your turn.

If you want to disengage from one foe to attack another you either have to take a move action (and eat the AoO) or take the withdraw action. But since withdraw is a full-round action, that leaves you unable to attack anything.

And unless you did put enough distance between yourself and the enemy, nothing stops him from charging you on his turn.

And apparently it is assumed in the rules that, even though the enemy did not step along with you because he can't read minds, you turning around gives him a chance to lunge at you. Hence AoO.


Lycar

[Matthew]

I What do you mean by "wounded"? Because whenever a character takes hit point damage in 3rd Edition, they've suffered physical injury (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/explaining-hit-points.html).

As I have explained, wounded as in the character is no longer functioning at his full capacity [i.e. noticably injured and hindered in some way]. Yes, I have read your article before, no I don't particularly agree with it (if I recall its content correctly).

[Zen Master]

After reading most of this thread, I'm surprised how many people look at the rules, and try to determine the intent of the fighter class from how it is actually designed.

To my mind, there is no question what so ever that the fighter is designed as a solid (but not necessarily primary) melee damage dealer, and tank. And that in that regard, either the fighter or everything else is fundamentally, monumentally flawed.

To my mind, naturally, the fighter is fine. It's pretty much everything else in the entirety of 3.x that doesn't work. And the reason is simple. The basic fighter is a concept the human mind can grasp - and the consequences of changes are also fairly straightforward.

The mage is something else entirely. For some reason, game designers have gotten it into their heads that there must be a spell for everything, that spells make wizards as good at stuff as classes that do only that stuff, and that all mages must have full access to all spells.

The concept and full range of options of the wizard is not something the human mind can grasp - basically, I'm saying that humans cannot grasp infinity. Wizards (and wizards are only an example, it could be pretty much any caster class) should not be able to do anything except spellcasting better than any other class. And spells should not grant abilities in which another class specialise.

Meh.

[Starbuck_II]

Here is the gist of the conversation.

PC: "Go for the guys in robes first. Heavy armor is less important. Robes are more dangerous and can kill you instantly."
Soreress Cohort: "So the guy swinging the big axe at me isn't as dangerous?"
PC "That's right. Your force armor will protect you and it won't hurt as much, but your force armor won't do anything against being Disintegrated. You must learn to overcome your instinctive fear of the big-axe."

Your way of doing things is unnatural in my view and not good roleplay because I do not find it good fun to makefluff work much differently from mechanics. You do not agree. We would not find the same game fun.

As a side note, in the near future I plan to have the enemy use a few robed commoners as decoys just to screw with them a bit for fun.

That is great RP value. After all, fear of big-axes leads to anger at warriors. Anger at warriors leads to Hate. and Hate leads to well, you know...

[Thurbane]

Maybe I'm just blissfully ignorant, maybe just lucky, maybe don't play high-level enough games, maybe don't play with optimizers, but (bearing all of that in mind) - I've never once found the fighter to be significantly lacking compared to the other core melee classes. :smalleek:

[Knaight]

That would actually be more likely in an optimized game. An optimized fighter is incredibly deadly, and can beat the crap out of an optimized warblade, an unoptimized fighter isn't going to be able to pull that one off. An unoptimized anything can beat an unoptimized fighter, with the exception of a few NPC classes, the soulknife, the samurai, and something else I'm forgetting. Since most monsters have abilities that bring them above fighters (ie, being bigger and getting way more damage), this also applies against monsters. More likely your players just picked up on how to optimize a fighter first, its way more obvious than casters.

[Eldariel]

Optimized Fighter doesn't "beat the crap out of" an optimized Warblade, but they're very much on the same level. An optimized Fighter deals more damage, but an optimized Warblade has tools other than just straight damage, more mobility and stronger defenses.

[Knaight]

An optimized fighter does way more damage, probably has either tripping or grapple perfected, and is going to be fully capable of keeping the fight ranged for a few rounds, in which the fighter will acrue a huge advantage. There are simply more ways to optimize.

[Eldariel]

Oh, I know, but Warblade has a ton of tools Fighter simply cannot access. They're very much on the same level. Grapple is inefficient and Tripping is something a Warblade can well optimize too. Also, thanks to Int synergies, Warblade's AoOs are more efficient and thanks to stances, he's got way more defensive options (for example, Roots of the Mountain, +10 vs. trip, bull rush, grapple, etc.). Also, Warblade needs not devote as much effort on the offense as a Fighter since maneuvers do most of that job for him.

[Blackfang108]

"Right of way"?

Bah, I hate it when fighting becomes a sport. Like Tae-Kwan-Do. Half the stuff that's taught would be utterly useless in a real fight, if not downright detrimental.

When I took Shu-Re(sp?), my sensei mentioned a specific reason most TKD kicks will not help you even in a sparring match.

You stand on the balls of your feet. You lose power and stability that way.

So, Sweep, and they're down. (got me 1st place in a sparring competition. Grab the kicking leg, slide in, and sweep. down he goes. Follow up with either a heel stomp or a gut punch.)

[hamlet]

When I took Shu-Re(sp?), my sensei mentioned a specific reason most TKD kicks will not help you even in a sparring match.

You stand on the balls of your feet. You lose power and stability that way.

So, Sweep, and they're down. (got me 1st place in a sparring competition. Grab the kicking leg, slide in, and sweep. down he goes. Follow up with either a heel stomp or a gut punch.)

Yeah, that's those formal fighting styles for you. Always ignoring the beautiful elegance of a brick to the side of the head.

Krav Maga for the win ladies and gentlemen.

[Frosty]

That is great RP value. After all, fear of big-axes leads to anger at warriors. Anger at warriors leads to Hate. and Hate leads to well, you know...

racism? Class-ism? Marxism? :smalltongue:

[Sholos]

When I took Shu-Re(sp?), my sensei mentioned a specific reason most TKD kicks will not help you even in a sparring match.

You stand on the balls of your feet. You lose power and stability that way.

So, Sweep, and they're down. (got me 1st place in a sparring competition. Grab the kicking leg, slide in, and sweep. down he goes. Follow up with either a heel stomp or a gut punch.)

Nice. Of course, in a TKD sparring match it helps because you can get better speed, and that's all that matters. You just need a semi-solid connection; you don't need follow-up because they stop the fight after each point.


As I have explained, wounded as in the character is no longer functioning at his full capacity [i.e. noticably injured and hindered in some way]. Yes, I have read your article before, no I don't particularly agree with it (if I recall its content correctly).
Why don't you agree that if someone takes even 1 hp of damage they have been phsyically hurt? How else do poisoned weapons make sense?

[Diamondeye]

Nerf, whiffle, rubber, name whatever low threatening material you want.

I'm still waiting for actual evidence.


In the really real world, you can be hit and be killed with a baseball bat. The odds are significantly high that you will live, mainly because it's not designed to be a weapon. Yeah, in a lot of way being hit with a baseball bat is a lot like being hit with 4' of sharp steel in D&D.

Except it's not. It would be rare in real life for someone to be killed by a single sword thrust or slash when they're trying to fight back or avoid it. People get taken to the hospital all the time with knife woulds and they aren't all fatal. That doesn't mean a knife isn't a deadly weapon.

In any case, hitpoints don't exclusively represent physical damage.


It's annoying, but you're not likely to be killed by it, unless they just sit there and wail on you for a few minutes.Well, there is no way past level 6 or so, lower levels, yes you could.

I already showed that in the best case, under a minute, and worst case, under 20 seconds.

You are simply making a circular argument at this point, asserting that weapons are ineffective because they're ineffective.


No, that's the definition of ineffective. It can not do what it's supposedly designed to do (Kill effectively).

The problem with this statement is that you've not shown it to be ineffective except by the unreasonable "kill in one hit"standard.


Pretty much. If I can't legally kill a white tail with it, I don't consider it to be a lethal weapon. Some, depending on caliber/MM of the round will fall under "dangerous", but modern pistols aren't designed to kill humans, as there's too much paperwork involved. As such they fall under the concept of "dangerous implements" along with things like chain saws.

Go shoot someone with a pistol and try to avoid an attempted murder charge on this argument.

In my civilian job, I happen to be a police officer. Firearms of any kind are lethal weapons, under the law. The fact that you think otherwise is... astounding.


Why is the wizard allowing me to get iterative attacks? Why isn't he moving away to protect himself? If he's pulling off a full round spell he defiantly needs to die.???

"You" are the DM. First of all, why are your attackers' weapons' more effective than the fighters? Melee works for NPCs but not for PCs?

What if the wizard has stoneskin up? Maybe he's standing there so he can, you know, cast spells. You think he's such a big threat; why do you think that if he's just going to run away if you charge at him, and if you can kill him in one round why do you keep pretending melee is ineffective?


So everyone in your games has keen falchions to make use of "considerable crit ranges"?

Any crit range that extends below 19 is "considerable" if the multiplier is x2, anything below 20 is if the multiplier is x3 or more. Falchions aren't the only weapons that have a crit range of 18; you've heard of scmitars? Kukhris?


More than one, it's established in the system.
False.


By their prior actions.

WHOSE prior actions, and how do they set a standard anywhere but in YOUR campaign?


Otherwise they realize their super human status.

If you really have a problem with PCs thinking they are superhuman if you don't one-shot-kill one every so often, the problem is not with the ruleset. It's with the social dynamic of your game group.


Otherwise they're going to realize that a sword isn't a viable threat.

Which you haven't demonstrated.


No, no maybe. They suffered no ill effects, heck using your definition of HP they were never even actually bled.

My "definition of hitpoints" is that they represent a lot of things. They may have bled a little or suffered cuts or bruises that were painful but not actually debilitating.


There isn't one. Part of why combat isn't dangerous.

If combat isn't dangerous, how does it benefit you to charge the wizard at all?

You're trying to argue that melee isn't dangerous when PCs do it in order to demonstrate that it's smarter to attack a spellcaster... in melee. Melee apparently is dangerous when you want to show it's a good tactic to attack wizards, but ineffective when I want to show that isn't always true.

Don't bother pointing out wiards's lower AC/HP either; there's innumerable threads here describing the capabilities of wizards. He can turn invisible, create mirror images, use stoneskin, even plain old mage armor, or any combination, to make it very hard to kill him in melee, and that's without me citing any metamagic, non-core, or multiclass stuff, and without any spells over 4th level. Even if he knows only 1 or 2 of those spells, your challenge in killing him isn't that easy.


True.

You have not demonstrated it.


Weapons in OUR world kill people, therefore they're dangerous. The more likely they're to kill, the less likely you are to survive the attack. The higher the percent for "one shot kills" becomes. The exact opposite happens in D&D. The less likely you are to die in one hit, the less dangerous the weapon becomes.

Umm.. the less likely you are to die from one hit the less dangerous an object is in OUR world too.

Furthermore, weapons DO kill people in D&D. You're saying they don't usually ONE-SHOT kill, which is irrelevant. Very few weapons reliably kill people in one shot in real life, and most of those are crew-served weapons of some sort. Customary pistol tactics teach double-tap or two-torso-one-head-shot patterns against each target. The pistol is still, despite your attempt above to invent your own version of criminal law based on white-tailed deer, considered a deadly weapon.


Oh yeah, I've read years of things TSR has written on the subject. They all boil down to "Yeah, at high level characters become super human, just make something up."

No, they don't boil down to that. What they say is "It's unbelievable that a human, of any level, could sustain the same physical punishment as four large warhorses, therefore hit points do not represent exclusivly physical resilience".

The "four large warhorses" comment is, in fact from either the 1E PHB or DMG; I remember it clearly. Unfortunately I don't have them anymore.


3.x just made it worse by giving out stupid amounts of them, without adjusting the weapons, making things that rely on direct damage (weapons users and blasters) ineffective. Hence, the problem fighters have in 3.x.

These problems largely do not exist. Someone already demonstrated that a reasonable 12th level fighter can do over 35 HP of damage per round pretty reliably, and even a level 4 fighter can do around half that. You just pulled some "10 HP" number out of thin air, and so far have not provided one shred of evidence beyond your own say-so to show anything.

Really, going to the lengths to claim that actual pistols aren't considered deadly weapons is.. wow. You may be a tad overly-invested in this discussion.

[Matthew]

Why don't you agree that if someone takes even 1 hp of damage they have been phsyically hurt? How else do poisoned weapons make sense?

Hmmn. I could have sworn we went through this last night. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, though...

There's a difference between "potential damage" and "actual damage". A poisoned weapon is no different from any other sort of weapon that does additional special damage, it has the potential to do more than a normal sword, therefore your hit points are reduced at a greater rate when mitigating their effect.

In cases where poison has a special effect, such as attribute damage or creating a condition that a saving throw fails against, then there must have been contact between the poison and the character. That does not need to equate to a wound, it can be as minor an effect as a graze, so long as contact is made. Regardless, the fact that a poisoned weapon (or similar) requires contact between the victim and its posion for its special effect to logically occur within the framework of the combat narrative doesn't mean that therefore all weapons must follow that pattern.

Hit points are an abstraction that measure nothing concrete beyond when you get knocked down to 0. A poisoned weapon could (theoretically) cause 0 hit points damage to the target and still have the poison take effect [i.e. physical damage is caused but hit points are unaffected].

[Oracle_Hunter]

In short: HP loss only "wounds" a character if it causes the character actual disability - whether through poison, death, or other effects.

Right?

[Matthew]

In short: HP loss only "wounds" a character if it causes the character actual disability - whether through poison, death, or other effects.

Right?

Yes, unless it makes sense or you desire to narrate otherwise (and that's not ruled out, it's just not a given).

[Charity]

HP wave/particle duality rears its ugly heads once more.

[Oracle_Hunter]

HP wave/particle duality rears its ugly heads once more.

I just say that if you lose HP you take a physical wound of some sort. But Matthew, man, he plays a serious game of Quantum D&D :smallbiggrin:

[Matthew]

It's just a bit of fun. :smallbiggrin:

[nagora]

Damage scored to characters or certain monsters is actually not substantially physical - a mere nick or scratch until the last handful of hit points are considered - it is of matter of wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections. With respect to most monsters such damage is, in fact, more physically substantial although as with adjustments in armor class rating for speed and agility, there are also similar additions in hit points.
I don't think there's anything very hard to grasp there: until you get down to about 7hp the "damage" done is mostly insignificent wounds or simply loss of endurance or what have you; eventually, though, you will slow down and take substantial wounds which lead to death.

Apart from perhaps cockiness, there's no way to tell a Str 18 Fighter with 7hp from one with 70hp (or 700). They both look like strong guys that can do you substantial harm with a sharp piece of metal.

Edit:
Here's the "four warhorses" quote from the 1e PH:

A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being Killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This is the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic flghter can take that much punishment. The some holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit paints are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.

[Matthew]

Here's the other bits and pieces...

AD&D 1e Player's Handbook, p. 34.



Character Hit Points

Each character has a varying number of hit points,' just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being Killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This IS the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic flghter can take that much punishment. The some holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit paints aresymbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.


AD&D 1e Dungeon Master's Guide, pp. 61, 82, and 111-12.


Combat

As has been detailed, hit points are not actually a measure of physical damage, by and large, as far as characters (and some other creatures as well) are concerned. Therefore, the location of hits and the type of damage caused are not germane to them. While this is not true with respect to most monsters, it is neither necessary nor particularly useful.

Hit Points

It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).

*Obligatory Rasputin Example*

Consider a character who is a 10th level fighter with an 18 constitution. This character would have an average of 5½ hit points per die, plus a constitution bonus of 4 hit points, per level, or 95 hit points! Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm - the sword thrust that would have run a 1st level fighter through the heart merely grazes the character due to the fighter's exceptional skill, luck, and sixth sense ability which caused movement to avoid the attack at just the right moment. However, having sustained 40 or 50 hit points of damage, our lordly fighter will be covered with a number of nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises. It will require a long period of rest and recuperation to regain the physical and metaphysical peak of 95 hit points.

Intervention By Deities

Otherwise, the accumulation of hit points and the ever-greater abilities and better saving throws of characters represents the aid supplied by supernatural forces.


D20/3e Player's Handbook, p. .



Hit Points

Your hit points tell you how much punishment you can take before dropping. Your hit points are based on your class and level, and your Constitution modifier. applies Most monsters’ hit points are based on their type, though some monsters have classes and levels, too. (Watch out for medusa sorcerers!) When your hit point total reaches 0, you’re disabled. When it reaches –1, you’re dying. When it gets to –10, your problems are over—you’re dead (see Injury and Death, page 145).

Injury and Death

Your hit points measure how hard you are to kill. No matter how many hit points you lose, your character isn’t hindered in any way until your hit points drop to 0 or lower.

Loss of Hit Points

The most common way that your character gets hurt is to take lethal damage and lose hit points, whether from an orc’s falchion, a wizard’s lightning bolt spell, or a fall into molten lava. You record your character’s hit point total on your character sheet. As your character takes damage, you subtract that damage from your hit points, leaving you with your current hit points. Current hit points go down when you take damage and go back up when you recover.

What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. For some characters, hit points may represent divine favor or inner power. When a paladin survives a fireball, you will be hard pressed to convince bystanders that she doesn’t have the favor of some higher power.

Damaging Helpless Defenders: Even if you have lots of hit points, a dagger through the eye is a dagger through the eye. When a character is helpless, meaning that he can’t avoid damage or deflect blows somehow, he’s in trouble (see Helpless Defenders, page 153).


D20/4e Player's Handbook, p. 293.



Healing

Over the course of a battle, you take damage from attacks. Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a
combat situation.

When you create your character, you determine your maximum hit points. From this number, you derive your bloodied and healing surge values.

When you take damage, subtract that number from your current hit points. As long as your current hit point total is higher than 0, you can keep on fighting. When your current total drops to 0 or lower, however, you are dying.

Powers, abilities, and actions that restore hit points are known as healing. You might regain hit points through rest, heroic resolve, or magic. When you heal, add the number to your current hit points. You can heal up to your maximum hit point total, but you can’t exceed it.

[Thane of Fife]

Best I can find from the 2e Player's Handbook, page 103:



Injury and Death

Sometimes, no degree of luck, skill, ability, or resistance to various attacks can prevent harm from coming to a character. The adventuring life carries with it unavoidable risks. Sooner or later a character is going to be hurt.

To allow characters to be heroic (and for ease of play), damage is handled abstractly in the AD&D game. All characters and monsters have a number of hit points. The more hit points a creature has, the harder it is to defeat.

Damage is subtracted from a character's (or creature's) hit points. Should one of the player characters hit an ogre in the side of the head for 8 points of damage, those 8 points are subtracted from the ogre's total hit points.The damage isn't applied to the head, or divided among different areas of the body.

Hit Point loss is cumulative until a character dies or has a chance to heal his wounds.

Sorry, Matthew, but that one seems to disagree with you (I could be missing a better example, though).

[snoopy13a]

I don't think there's anything very hard to grasp there: until you get down to about 7hp the "damage" done is mostly insignificent wounds or simply loss of endurance or what have you; eventually, though, you will slow down and take substantial wounds which lead to death.

Apart from perhaps cockiness, there's no way to tell a Str 18 Fighter with 7hp from one with 70hp (or 700). They both look like strong guys that can do you substantial harm with a sharp piece of metal.

Edit:
Here's the "four warhorses" quote from the 1e PH:

That's a very plausable way of looking at hitpoints and I think it works for melee. One potential problem comes with magic.

Suppose a level 5 fighter and his two level 1 fighter minions (squires) are attacked by a level 5 wizard who casts a fireball on them. All three fail their reflex save.

The 5d6 damage fireball will likely leave the two level 1 fighters dead or dying but only injure the level 5 fighter. It is a bit hard to explain how one fighter can emerge with slight wounds while the other two are dead or near death. The only possible explanation I can think of is that the level 5 fighter somehow managed to "dodge" a giant fireball that hit two companions standing next to him?

I suppose that this is a problem with all games that have leveling systems in place though.

[Matthew]

Sorry, Matthew, but that one seems to disagree with you (I could be missing a better example, though).

Heh, heh. Nah, the 2e DMG distinguishes between "wounds" and "specific injuries". This is one of those jargon moments. Wounds are defined as "hit point loss" or "damage". Injuries are a bit different:



Wounds

When a character hits a monster, or vice versa, damage is suffered by the victim. The amount of damage depends on the weapon or method of attack. In Table 44 of the Player's Handbook, all weapons are rated for the amount of damage they inflict to Small, Medium, and Large targets. This is given as a die range (1d8, 2d6, etc.).

Each time a hit is scored, the appropriate dice are rolled and the result--damage--is subtracted from the current hit points of the target. An orc that attacks with a sword, for example, causes damage according to the information given for the type of sword it uses. A troll that bites once and rends with one of its clawed hands causes 2d6 points of damage with its bite and 1d4 + 4 points with its claw. The DM gets this information from the Monstrous Manual.

Sometimes damage is listed as a die range along with a bonus of +1 or more. The troll's claw attack, above, is a good example. This bonus may be due to high Strength, magical weapons, or the sheer ferocity of the creature's attack. The bonus is added to whatever number comes up on the die roll, assuring that some minimum amount of damage is inflicted. Likewise, penalties also can be applied, but no successful attack can result in less than 1 point of damage.

Sometimes an attack has both a die roll and a damage multiplier. The number rolled on the dice is boosted by the multiplier to determine how much damage is inflicted. This occurs mainly in backstabbing attempts. In cases where damage is multiplied, only the base damage caused by the weapon is multiplied. Bonuses due to Strength or magic are not multiplied. Bonuses due to Strength or magic are not multiplied; they are added after the rolled damage is multiplied.

Specific Injuries (Optional Rule)

The AD&D combat system does not call for specific wounds--scars, broken bones, missing limbs, and the like. And in most cases they shouldn't be applied. Remember that this is a game of heroic fantasy. If characters were to suffer real-life effects from all their battles and combats, they would quickly be some of the sorriest and most depressing characters in the campaign world. It's hard to get excited when your character is recovering from a broken leg and a dislocated shoulder suffered in a fall off a 15-foot wall. It is not recommended that characters suffer specific injuries. In general, stick with the basic pool of hit points.

[nagora]

The 5d6 damage fireball will likely leave the two level 1 fighters dead or dying but only injure the level 5 fighter. It is a bit hard to explain how one fighter can emerge with slight wounds while the other two are dead or near death. The only possible explanation I can think of is that the level 5 fighter somehow managed to "dodge" a giant fireball that hit two companions standing next to him?
We see this in movies all the time; the hero jumps aside or whatever while the red-shirt minions go flying into the air in a spectacular fashion. If a character is tied down, the DM might allow a roll on the "instant death" table in 1e if the save is failed (if the save is made, then the character rips the bindings off/out of the wall in a last minute surge of adrenaline or something). It would be quite a harsh/gritty DM that did that, but it's not really against the rules.

[huttj509]

You flubbed your reflex save, but due to your general experience you still managed to shift your body so that you took the brunt of the blast on your back armor or something, rather than full in the face, like the level 1s who were caught off guard. A successful reflex save could be considered managing this enough that you reduce the damage you take much more, or ducking behind a rock, etc.

I think it doesn't work to say "none of it is physical until the last 7 hp", as, for example, in explaining away the less damaging fireball, you still got scorched a bit, just not as much as you would have if not for your experience.

So I think that some of your hit points are physical, others could just be morale/luck/magical woo woo stuff, but you can't really say which are which. I figure that even a level 18 fighter who's down to half hit points shows some physical wear and tear, some relatively minor cuts, what have you, but he managed to mitigate a heck of a lot of punishment to only take the physical damage he did.


Edit: Actually, 4E's bloodied terminology really struck a good chord for me. Not that mechanics need to be based on it, but giving the idea that when the guy's at half life, he's suffered a more significant wound. Not just some scrapes or minor cuts he mostly deflected or moved to absorb the blow. Doesn't mean that every hit after that is another significant wound, but at half health, you really know he's feeling it. Maybe he now has blood trickling down his face from a head cut under his helmet, or his armor has a significant gash with blood trickling from it, or something.

(note, I personally don't rule about armor repairs unless it's something major, but it's kinda interesting to think, does magic healing heal armor too?)

[Sstoopidtallkid]

(note, I personally don't rule about armor repairs unless it's something major, but it's kinda interesting to think, does magic healing heal armor too?)Yep. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0008.html) wordiness

[Matthew]

I think it doesn't work to say "none of it is physical until the last 7 hp", as, for example, in explaining away the less damaging fireball, you still got scorched a bit, just not as much as you would have if not for your experience.

If you get hit by a fireball in any meaningful way it certainly wouldn't make sense.



So I think that some of your hit points are physical, others could just be morale/luck/magical woo woo stuff, but you can't really say which are which. I figure that even a level 18 fighter who's down to half hit points shows some physical wear and tear, some relatively minor cuts, what have you, but he managed to mitigate a heck of a lot of punishment to only take the physical damage he did.

This is the crux of the issue, though. It all comes down to what makes narrative sense to you. If it makes sense to you that a character who took 75 hit points damage and passed his massive damage saving throw was wounded, then you narrate the wound. if it makes sense to you that he wasn't, then you don't. That's one of the good things about hit points, they give you plenty of leeway to imagine whatever you like. There's no absolutely right or wrong answer to this question (within reasonable limits).



(note, I personally don't rule about armor repairs unless it's something major, but it's kinda interesting to think, does magic healing heal armor too?)
Not in my games. :smallwink:

[horseboy]

I'm still waiting for actual evidence.Still waiting for evidence that they're actually dangerous.


Except it's not. It would be rare in real life for someone to be killed by a single sword thrust or slash when they're trying to fight back or avoid it. People get taken to the hospital all the time with knife woulds and they aren't all fatal. That doesn't mean a knife isn't a deadly weapon.Knives aren't weapons, they're tools. They also fall under "dangerous implements".

I already showed that in the best case, under a minute, and worst case, under 20 seconds.And we've already shown, in best case, 6 seconds, worse case 3 seconds for a mage.


You are simply making a circular argument at this point, asserting that weapons are ineffective because they're ineffective.No, I'm asserting that weapons are ineffective because they fail to preform their job.

The problem with this statement is that you've not shown it to be ineffective except by the unreasonable "kill in one hit"standard.How is it unreasonable to expect a weapon to fulfill it's purpose?

Go shoot someone with a pistol and try to avoid an attempted murder charge on this argument.Your Honour, if I wanted him dead, I'd have taken the SKS, 30-30, 30-.06, or the 8mm Mauser out and shot him when he set foot on my property; or I'd knocked on the door with my 10, 12, or 16 gauge shotgun. Or blown up his house using ______ and *Blur*. My varmint load was the least dangerous thing I had." That and I would have shot him below the waist.

In my civilian job, I happen to be a police officer. Firearms of any kind are lethal weapons, under the law. The fact that you think otherwise is... astounding.Nah, I just grew up around them, therefore not prone to believing the hype.

"You" are the DM. First of all, why are your attackers' weapons' more effective than the fighters? Melee works for NPCs but not for PCs?Nope, I'm not the DM, I'd never DM 3.x. Hell, I can only stand it through the haze of copious amounts of alcohol. Secondly their weapons aren't more effective, their class helps suck the suck out of melee.


What if the wizard has stoneskin up? Maybe he's standing there so he can, you know, cast spells. You think he's such a big threat; why do you think that if he's just going to run away if you charge at him, and if you can kill him in one round why do you keep pretending melee is ineffective?Because most spells don't require full round action, so he can move and cast, to keep for getting iteratived.

Any crit range that extends below 19 is "considerable" if the multiplier is x2, anything below 20 is if the multiplier is x3 or more. Falchions aren't the only weapons that have a crit range of 18; you've heard of scmitars? Kukhris?Yeah, they're 1 handed, so you don't get the full power attack bonus. So they don't show up in "Fighters can do damage" arguments.

False.It's in the main rule book, The Grimoire, The Manual of Practical Thaumaturgy, One of the madules, I don't think it was Harlequin but it was one kinda like that, and that little booklet that came with the GM screen, not to mention pretty much all the novels that involved magicians.

WHOSE prior actions, and how do they set a standard anywhere but in YOUR campaign?The character's prior actions.

If you really have a problem with PCs thinking they are superhuman if you don't one-shot-kill one every so often, the problem is not with the ruleset. It's with the social dynamic of your game group.No, the ruleset doesn't put them in danger, why should they be afraid?

Which you haven't demonstrated.When he shoved 3' of steel into my body did I die? Y/N If Y darn, I shouldn't have done that. Now I've got to roll a new character. If N will it kill me next time? Y/N/M If Y then I'm in trouble and will need to behave in more a "real world" way, If M(aybe) then I don't know when my ticket is getting punch, so need to be cautious and behave in more a "real world" way. If N then in this world weapons don't
work the same way they do in our world (along with magic, flight, biology, chemistry, sociology and pretty much anything else).

My "definition of hitpoints" is that they represent a lot of things. They may have bled a little or suffered cuts or bruises that were painful but not actually debilitating.Ah, see I consider "cuts and bruises that are painful" to be more painful than the cuts and bruises I got in Kindergarten. When I'd go "Oh, it hurts it hurts, I'm bleeding!" get a band-aid and then go right back to playing like it never happened.

If combat isn't dangerous, how does it benefit you to charge the wizard at all?Because non-fighters have class abilities to be dangerous.

You're trying to argue that melee isn't dangerous when PCs do it in order to demonstrate that it's smarter to attack a spellcaster... in melee. Melee apparently is dangerous when you want to show it's a good tactic to attack wizards, but ineffective when I want to show that isn't always true.It's a good idea to take out spellcasters, yes. However you can. The most common way of "taking things out" is with weapons. Weapons themselves stop being dangerous around level 5 or so. Other classes have ways of moving this bar up higher, but the fighter is pretty much SOL.

You have not demonstrated it.You have failed to observe.

Umm.. the less likely you are to die from one hit the less dangerous an object is in OUR world too.Correct, and do we consider them weapons? No. Bricks are not weapons, yet if you wail on someone long enough, you can eventually kill them. All too quickly D&D weapons fall into this category.

Furthermore, weapons DO kill people in D&D. You're saying they don't usually ONE-SHOT kill, which is irrelevant. Very few weapons reliably kill people in one shot in real life, and most of those are crew-served weapons of some sort. Customary pistol tactics teach double-tap or two-torso-one-head-shot patterns against each target. The pistol is still, despite your attempt above to invent your own version of criminal law based on white-tailed deer, considered a deadly weapon.Pistols are considered weapons because people want you to be afraid of them because it's easier to keep you in line, not because they're dangerous. That, and because the ruling classes always want the bar set low on what qualifies as a weapon so they can maintain a tactical edge on the masses. 3
If something can one shot reliably does make a weapon relevant. How many shots do you think I get at a deer? Why do you think they don't allow hunting them with anything smaller than a .357 magnum? It's because it can't reliably take down in one shot. To use something that requires more than one shot is considered to be in violation of the "cruelty to animals" laws.
Can it reliably take down in one hit becomes VERY important in systems that only have a binary alive/dead combat system.

No, they don't boil down to that. What they say is "It's unbelievable that a human, of any level, could sustain the same physical punishment as four large warhorses, therefore hit points do not represent exclusivly physical resilience".

The "four large warhorses" comment is, in fact from either the 1E PHB or DMG; I remember it clearly. Unfortunately I don't have them anymore.
Yup, "We know they're superhuman, if you don't want a super human campaign, make up a reason."

These problems largely do not exist. Someone already demonstrated that a reasonable 12th level fighter can do over 35 HP of damage per round pretty reliably, and even a level 4 fighter can do around half that. You just pulled some "10 HP" number out of thin air, and so far have not provided one shred of evidence beyond your own say-so to show anything.+1 weapon enchant, +5 str, +4 Weapon Specialization, plus your weapon damage. Unless you take the mandatory option of Power Attack. (Don't even get me started on how incredibly stupid and poorly designed something is that you HAVE to take a certain "option" in order to be viable, WTF is the point if it's manditory)
Really, going to the lengths to claim that actual pistols aren't considered deadly weapons is.. wow. You may be a tad overly-invested in this discussion.This is the intraweb, you can't see my "Support Your Local Militia" T-shirt. :smallamused:

[nagora]

I think it doesn't work to say "none of it is physical until the last 7 hp"
I'm not saying that; I'm saying that until you get down to that sort of range (where a normal weapon has a chance of actually killing you), the physical part of the damage is not best thought of as being the sort of life-endangering wounds that, say, a stab wound is in RL. There may well be some physical element, but most of it is luck and other things.

[Justin_Bacon]

As I have explained, wounded as in the character is no longer functioning at his full capacity [i.e. noticably injured and hindered in some way].

By that definition the only time anyone is ever wounded in D&D is when they're at 0 hit points or lower. That seems like a definition of "wound" and "physical injury" specifically chosen in order to score points in the debate, while not having any relevance to how those terms are used in common vocabulary.


Yes, I have read your article before, no I don't particularly agree with it (if I recall its content correctly).

What's it like to be objectively wrong? The rulebooks are perfectly cogent and it takes a willful act to misinterpret them, IMO. The 3rd Edition PHB is perfectly clear on this point: When you take lethal hit point damage, you have been physically injured in some way.

You might as well be claiming that the sun rises in the west.


That would actually be more likely in an optimized game. An optimized fighter is incredibly deadly, and can beat the crap out of an optimized warblade, an unoptimized fighter isn't going to be able to pull that one off. An unoptimized anything can beat an unoptimized fighter, with the exception of a few NPC classes, the soulknife, the samurai, and something else I'm forgetting.

This would only be relevant if D&D were primarily played as a solo game. It isn't. You simply cannot attempt to determine the balance of a PC class by matching it up 1-on-1 against another PC class. Or even matching both of those classes up 1-on-1 against some arbitrary monster.

The game is designed to be played with a group.


Umm, why? Everything I said is how the rules work. That doesn't make the rules not stupid.

Anyone who had actually read the rules would know how attacks of opportunity work. So, like I said: Read the rules and then get back to us.


My experience? I took one read through the rule book when "Crap! Didn't they playtest this?"

IOW, you have no idea what you're talking about and you openly admit this in a public forum.

Nice.

[Starbuck_II]

What's it like to be objectively wrong? The rulebooks are perfectly cogent and it takes a willful act to misinterpret them, IMO. The 3rd Edition PHB is perfectly clear on this point: When you take lethal hit point damage, you have been physically injured in some way.

You might as well be claiming that the sun rises in the west.




Nope. They go on about how it might be divine grace, luck, etc that makes the Paladin take more to kill than the Wizard. Sure, some of that hit point damage might be physical injuries, but really how much is not said.

Really, all D&D has taken liberties with hp damage. Most say combination of luck, etc (Gygax even said it).

[horseboy]

IOW, you have no idea what you're talking about and you openly admit this in a public forum.

Nice.With apologies to Swordguy's uncle (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49378), there was clearly someone asleep at the switch during pretty much the entire run of 3.x.
Of course, then again, I do play with the people directly responsible for there needing to be a 3.5. :smallamused:

[Diamondeye]

Still waiting for evidence that they're actually dangerous.

Several people have shown exactly how they are, including amking a mockery of your "10HP" claims.


Knives aren't weapons, they're tools. They also fall under "dangerous implements".

Knives are legally considered weapons if you use them on someone. So are baseball bats.


And we've already shown, in best case, 6 seconds, worse case 3 seconds for a mage.

A) you didn't; the wizard may or may not have save-or-die at all, much less 2 of them, and he won't necessarily kill the attacker with even two of them. Suppose the attacker is immune to one or more of them.

B) So what? No one is arguing wizards aren't dangerous


No, I'm asserting that weapons are ineffective because they fail to preform their job.

You've failed to show this. You claimed a sword in a mid-high level melee would cause around 10HP damage; someone else showed you underestimated this by almost a factor of 4.


How is it unreasonable to expect a weapon to fulfill it's purpose?

It's not, and they do.


Your Honour, if I wanted him dead, I'd have taken the SKS, 30-30, 30-.06, or the 8mm Mauser out and shot him when he set foot on my property; or I'd knocked on the door with my 10, 12, or 16 gauge shotgun. Or blown up his house using ______ and *Blur*. My varmint load was the least dangerous thing I had." That and I would have shot him below the waist.

You seriously think this would fly in court? Wow.


Nah, I just grew up around them, therefore not prone to believing the hype.

There is no "hype". A handgun is a deadly weapon. "Growing up around" something doesn't make you an expert. My father is a lawyer; I grew up around lawyers. That doesn't make me qualified to try a case.


Nope, I'm not the DM, I'd never DM 3.x.

You are the DM for purposes of this discussion, since its about the tactics NPCs and monsters use.

In any case, this comment is quite telling....


Hell, I can only stand it through the haze of copious amounts of alcohol.

So in other words you know almost nothing about the system you're cricticizing.


Secondly their weapons aren't more effective, their class helps suck the suck out of melee.

Really? Just by being a certain class?


Because most spells don't require full round action, so he can move and cast, to keep for getting iteratived.

So you admit iterative attacks are sufficiently dangerous someone would avoid them.


Yeah, they're 1 handed, so you don't get the full power attack bonus. So they don't show up in "Fighters can do damage" arguments.

Which doesn't change the fact that they can. They just don't do as much damage, but a critical from a high-level fighter with power attack and other forms of bonus damage (you know, enchanted weapons? Fighters can get them!) can't be ignored just because the weapon is 1-handed.


It's in the main rule book, The Grimoire, The Manual of Practical Thaumaturgy, One of the madules, I don't think it was Harlequin but it was one kinda like that, and that little booklet that came with the GM screen, not to mention pretty much all the novels that involved magicians.
The character's prior actions.

In other words, fluff quotes, unless you're going to tell me there was a RULE in shadowrun that you had to do that.


No, the ruleset doesn't put them in danger, why should they be afraid?

It does.


When he shoved 3' of steel into my body did I die? Y/N

Complex question fallacy. He didn't shove 3' of steel into you; you got more winded from having to desperately dodge, or got barely cut. If you didn't do that (say, you were held or sleeping) you'd get coup de graced.

Hate to break it to you, but coup de grace utterly destroys this argument.


If Y darn, I shouldn't have done that. Now I've got to roll a new character. If N will it kill me next time? Y/N/M If Y then I'm in trouble and will need to behave in more a "real world" way, If M(aybe) then I don't know when my ticket is getting punch, so need to be cautious and behave in more a "real world" way. If N then in this world weapons don't
work the same way they do in our world (along with magic, flight, biology, chemistry, sociology and pretty much anything else).

All predicated on your false assumptions about hitpoints. Go read the nice quotes Matthew has provided on what they are. You keep pretending a sword hit means someone got stabbed in a vital area. It doesn't, unless that hit dropped them to 0.


Ah, see I consider "cuts and bruises that are painful" to be more painful than the cuts and bruises I got in Kindergarten. When I'd go "Oh, it hurts it hurts, I'm bleeding!" get a band-aid and then go right back to playing like it never happened.

They are more than "kindergarten" and in any case, they can include slow blood loss, exhaustion, and lots of other things. Hitpoints don't represent any one thing, but rather many factors.


Because non-fighters have class abilities to be dangerous.

So do fighters. Maybe you shouldn't make wild assertions about systems you've apparently only played while drunk.


It's a good idea to take out spellcasters, yes. However you can. The most common way of "taking things out" is with weapons. Weapons themselves stop being dangerous around level 5 or so. Other classes have ways of moving this bar up higher, but the fighter is pretty much SOL.

Ahh, so now you're trying to take out casters with weapons, but the weapons aren't dangerous!

What game is this you're describing?


You have failed to observe.

On the contrary, I've refuted your positions in detail.


Bricks are not weapons, yet if you wail on someone long enough, you can eventually kill tCorrect, and do we consider them weapons? No. hem. All too quickly D&D weapons fall into this category.

If you hit someone with a brick, you will be charged with felonious assault, because you used a weapon.

D&D weapons are considerably more dangerous than this. Your "10 HP! assertions is demonstrably false.


Pistols are considered weapons because people want you to be afraid of them because it's easier to keep you in line, not because they're dangerous.

You don't actually know anything about firearms do you?


That, and because the ruling classes always want the bar set low on what qualifies as a weapon so they can maintain a tactical edge on the masses.

Let's try not to make assertions about firearms based on our political lens, shall we? Especially when you're addressing someone who uses one for a living.


If something can one shot reliably does make a weapon relevant. How many shots do you think I get at a deer?

Deer don't fight back. We're talking about combat here, not hunting an animal that flees at the first shot.


Why do you think they don't allow hunting them with anything smaller than a .357 magnum? It's because it can't reliably take down in one shot. To use something that requires more than one shot is considered to be in violation of the "cruelty to animals" laws.

Irrelevant. Do dear attack you when you don't kill them in one shot?


Can it reliably take down in one hit becomes VERY important in systems that only have a binary alive/dead combat system.

No, not really. It just means those things that can are quite powerful, not that you have to have them.


Yup, "We know they're superhuman, if you don't want a super human campaign, make up a reason."

We don't know that. Your say-so is not evidence, especially in view of numerous quotes in the last page or so demonstrating that hitpoints don't represent superhuman capacity to soak damage.


+1 weapon enchant, +5 str, +4 Weapon Specialization, plus your weapon damage. Unless you take the mandatory option of Power Attack. (Don't even get me started on how incredibly stupid and poorly designed something is that you HAVE to take a certain "option" in order to be viable, WTF is the point if it's manditory)This is the intraweb, you can't see my "Support Your Local Militia" T-shirt. :smallamused:

To get +4 for weapon specialization you would need to be level 12, minimum. You should definitely have a weapon with at least +3 total bonuses, so how about we make that a +1 Sonic Shocking Greatsword.

Hmm.. 2d6 + 7 (you get 1.5 STR with a 2hander) +4 +1 +1d6 +1d6.

Average 26 damage per hit with no power attack, and you might get as many as 3 hits per round.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

@Diamondeye:Fighters aren't dangerous. I'll actually run the numbers. Level 10, 18 Str, +4 item, +2 level. Holy Greatsword+1. 11 Feats. Wep Focus, Wep Spec, GWF, GWS, PA, Imp. Bullrush, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, and 3 that don't affect offense(Imp. Toughness, Skill Focus:Jump, Mage Slayer, or similar). Charge, Power Attacking for full, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper. Weapon deals 4d6, +1(enhancement)+7(Str)+4(GWS). Toss in an extra 30 points because he Power Attacked for full. 56 points of damage. That's a third of the total HP of one of the monsters I posted. And still not enough to make the Fighter more of a threat than the Wizard, who can toss out a Save-or-Die with a better than 70% chance of the monster failing. Yes, every Wizard spends almost all their high-level slots on Save-or-Dies. That's logic. And because of that, they have a Save-or-Die prepared that will crush whatever the weakness is. The monster needs to face the Wizard first, because the Fighter will take 3 rounds to kill it. The Wizard will take one.

[Frosty]

Well to be fair, the fighter can't charge every turn due to the requirements of charging. But on the other hand, he could have t aken one level of barbarian and gotten Pounce, making a one-turn kill very possible.

[Diamondeye]

@Diamondeye:Fighters aren't dangerous. I'll actually run the numbers. Level 10, 18 Str, +4 item, +2 level. Holy Greatsword+1. 11 Feats. Wep Focus, Wep Spec, GWF, GWS, PA, Imp. Bullrush, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, and 3 that don't affect offense(Imp. Toughness, Skill Focus:Jump, Mage Slayer, or similar). Charge, Power Attacking for full, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper. Weapon deals 4d6, +1(enhancement)+7(Str)+4(GWS). Toss in an extra 30 points because he Power Attacked for full. 56 points of damage. That's a third of the total HP of one of the monsters I posted. And still not enough to make the Fighter more of a threat than the Wizard, who can toss out a Save-or-Die with a better than 70% chance of the monster failing. Yes, every Wizard spends almost all their high-level slots on Save-or-Dies. That's logic. And because of that, they have a Save-or-Die prepared that will crush whatever the weakness is. The monster needs to face the Wizard first, because the Fighter will take 3 rounds to kill it. The Wizard will take one.

The statement "The fighter is not dangerous" does not follow from "is not as dangerous as the wizard."

It is not logic that the wizard fills every, or even almost every, slt with save-or-die spells. That's only logic on this forum, where every wizard worships LN's guide to Wizards as Holy Writ, which isn't as accurate as certain people like to think anyhow. It certainly doesn't apply to most wizards in the game world, since most of them are NPCs, not designed around a metagame need to "optimize"

Finally, you can NEVER say that a save or die WILL crush whatever save weakness something has. There is ALWAYS a chance to save, and it's really pretty rare that it takes a 20. That statement is objectively false, and it's amazing that it gets thrown around that much, since you can never say a spell WILL defeat a save.

[horseboy]

Several people have shown exactly how they are, including making a mockery of your "10HP" claims.No they haven't.
Knives are legally considered weapons if you use them on someone. So are baseball bats.Let's start at square one on this, what country are you in? I'm in the US, state of Missouri. No, knives, under a certain length, baseball bats and axe handles are not considered weapons. And I know they're not considered weapons in California, at least not unless it's been changed in the last 10 years or so.

A) you didn't; the wizard may or may not have save-or-die at all, much less 2 of them, and he won't necessarily kill the attacker with even two of them. Suppose the attacker is immune to one or more of them.

B) So what? No one is arguing wizards aren't dangerous A) So a wizard doesn't have a dangerous spell, but the fighter always has the most dangerous weapon? That explains B.
B) You are, however, arguing that Fighters are more dangerous than wizards. And therefore are to be targeted before the less dangerous thing.


You've failed to show this. You claimed a sword in a mid-high level melee would cause around 10HP damage; someone else showed you underestimated this by almost a factor of 4. Which 10? The first 10 was a roll on the damage, with another 10 in modifiers.

You seriously think this would fly in court? Wow.Yes it has. Course, local courts have accepted "Your Honour he needed killin'!" Especially since the bastard really did need killing. :smallamused:

You are the DM for purposes of this discussion, since its about the tactics NPCs and monsters use.

In any case, this comment is quite telling....



So in other words you know almost nothing about the system you're criticizing.Oh no, I know the system, weighed it and found it quite wanting. When I play, it's me "taking one for the team". The alcohol just helps dull the pain.

Really? Just by being a certain class?Yup.

So you admit iterative attacks are sufficiently dangerous someone would avoid them.They're dangerous enough that people don't let you have them, so you've either got to build to get them, through tripping/pouncing. For the DM to just give them to you is him being merciful because he knows you're playing a gimped class.

In other words, fluff quotes, unless you're going to tell me there was a RULE in shadowrun that you had to do that.Well, given that "fluff quotes" are there to explain to players how the character's world works, and your complaint is that people are using out of character knowledge to attack the mage first. Said fluff quotes would be the ideal place to know what a character should consider "common knowledge". Hence, "fluff quotes" would be where we'd be looking.

It does.Nope, D&D rules set completely fails to instill any sense of danger.

Complex question fallacy. He didn't shove 3' of steel into you; you got more winded from having to desperately dodge, or got barely cut. If you didn't do that (say, you were held or sleeping) you'd get coup de graced.

Hate to break it to you, but coup de grace utterly destroys this argument.Or it just points out incredibly stupid the whole thing is, that even when someone is completely asleep while tied down naked you can't guarantee a kill. You've got to hope he fails his save.

All predicated on your false assumptions about hitpoints. Go read the nice quotes Matthew has provided on what they are. You keep pretending a sword hit means someone got stabbed in a vital area. It doesn't, unless that hit dropped them to 0.I read them for years, they were great masses of handwaivum, hoping to invoke the MST3K mantra, then and still are today.

They are more than "kindergarten" and in any case, they can include slow blood loss, exhaustion, and lots of other things. Hitpoints don't represent any one thing, but rather many factors.Oh really? Where's the rules for blood loss from bleeding before you're down to 0 hp? Where's the rules for consequences of combat that last longer than it takes to put a band-aid over it? Oh, wait, there aren't.


Ahh, so now you're trying to take out casters with weapons, but the weapons aren't dangerous!

What game is this you're describing?They're not. Classes are.




On the contrary, I've refuted your positions in detail.No, you've basically said "My way is the only way the rules makes sense." And we've said "Your way doesn't make any sense either."


If you hit someone with a brick, you will be charged with felonious assault, because you used a weapon.1) You can be charged with whatever, you didn't actually do it until after the trial, and in the US bricks are not considered lethal weapons.

You don't actually know anything about firearms do you?Quite a bit, especially usage.

Let's try not to make assertions about firearms based on our political lens, shall we? Especially when you're addressing someone who uses one for a living.[Obligatory Doomed to repeat history quote]




Deer don't fight back. We're talking about combat here, not hunting an animal that flees at the first shot.
Irrelevant. Do dear attack you when you don't kill them in one shot?They have been known to, especially the larger ones. Someone should watch more Animal Planet.

No, not really. It just means those things that can are quite powerful, not that you have to have them.Not if you don't want characters to have any fears of such things.

To get +4 for weapon specialization you would need to be level 12, minimum. You should definitely have a weapon with at least +3 total bonuses, so how about we make that a +1 Sonic Shocking Greatsword.

Hmm.. 2d6 + 7 (you get 1.5 STR with a 2hander) +4 +1 +1d6 +1d6.

Average 26 damage per hit with no power attack, and you might get as many as 3 hits per round.Oh yeah, that's where the other two points came from (http://rpghq.org/profiler/view.php?id=106).

[Matthew]

By that definition the only time anyone is ever wounded in D&D is when they're at 0 hit points or lower. That seems like a definition of "wound" and "physical injury" specifically chosen in order to score points in the debate, while not having any relevance to how those terms are used in common vocabulary.

No, by that definition nobody is wounded unless it makes narrative sense for them to be wounded.



What's it like to be objectively wrong? The rulebooks are perfectly cogent and it takes a willful act to misinterpret them, IMO. The 3rd Edition PHB is perfectly clear on this point: When you take lethal hit point damage, you have been physically injured in some way.

You might as well be claiming that the sun rises in the west.

As Starbuck II says, you are actually ignoring a section of the text, and also misunderstanding what I am saying.

__________________________

Quick addendum:

How do people feel about temporary hit points?

Say a character gets +10 temporary hit points, and loses 7 of them. Can we describe their loss as representing physical harm to the character, and if so, is the character simply "healed" when those hit points go away and he is restored to 100% hit points (assuming he hasn't been reduced to below his normal hit point total)? Or when treating hit points as always representing physical damage, do we differentiate between what "hit points" represent and what "temporary hit points" represent?

[only1doug]

Quick addendum.

How do people feel about temporary hit points?

Say a character gets +10 temporary hit points, and loses 7 of them. Can we describe their loss as representing physical harm to the character, and if so, is the character simply "healed" when those hit points go away and he is restored to 100% hit points (assuming he hasn't been reduced to below his normal hit point total)? Or when treating hit points as always representing physical damage, do we differentiate between what "hit points" represent and what "temporary hit points" represent?

Hitpoints are sometimes described as luck, minor scrapes and bruises so temporary hitpoints represent additional luck or a thin magical shield around the character, as the temporary hitpoints are removed the shield is scraped away.

[Matthew]

Hitpoints are sometimes described as luck, minor scrapes and bruises so temporary hitpoints represent additional luck or a thin magical shield around the character, as the temporary hitpoints are removed the shield is scraped away.

That would be my interpretation as well, but some of the discussion here centres around a reading of the D20/3e PHB that takes the view that all hits are interpreted as inflicting physical damage of one degree or another. So I was wondering how this fitted in with that view.

I think it is perfectly fine for a character to be wounded and have 100% hit points or be entirely unwounded and have 10% hit points, so long as it makes narrative sense.

[Charity]

Edit- As Matt's here I'd best make it clear the first example is a 3e example...

We are well down this road again I see.
1. If HP are all wounds then if a 1st lvl str 8 wizard does a coup-de grace on an uninjured but naked and helpless barbarian he does a massive 6 points of damage, the most he can possibly do against a helpless opponant with a foot long piece of sharpened steel... then he does it again... and on the third attempt manages to push the barbarian into unconciousness.

From this perfectly likely scenario it seems obvious that HP cannot be a true representation of physical injury.

2. Any attack that connects with any poison involved must cause an injury to force the saving throw.

3. Characters perform exactly as well on 1HP as they did on full HP, never flagging until they suddenly fall unconcious.

HP's are a fudge and have always been so. Stop worrying and learn to love the bomb.

[Matthew]

Edit- As Matt's here I'd best make it clear the first example is a 3e example...

Heh, heh. Yeah, in AD&D helpless enemies are subject to automatic death. Interestingly, even the D20/3e PHB says "Even if you have lots of hit points, a dagger through the eye is a dagger through the eye", but doesn't seem willing to follow through on the threat.



2. Any attack that connects with any poison involved must cause an injury to force the saving throw.

Only if the saving throw is failed, I would contest [i.e. events are explained after the fact].



3. Characters perform exactly as well on 1HP as they did on full HP, never flagging until they suddenly fall unconcious.

HP's are a fudge and have always been so. Stop worrying and learn to love the bomb.

Indeed, though I prefer the term "abstraction". :smallbiggrin:

[The Rose Dragon]

I prefer to think that every hit is a massive injury and that everyone is like Raiden from MGS 4. The guy gets five coup de graces and is still standing after the fact.

[Matthew]

I prefer to think that every hit is a massive injury and that everyone is like Raiden from MGS 4. The guy gets five coup de graces and is still standing after the fact.

Also a perfectly valid way to think about it. What do you do about temporary hit points, though?

[The Rose Dragon]

They represent extra awesomeness. For a short time, you can take even more massive injuries and not blink an eye.

[Matthew]

They represent extra awesomeness. For a short time, you can take even more massive injuries and not blink an eye.

Right, so in the case where a character acquires and loses these extra temporary hit points, he may be narrated as wounded and yet have 100% hit points? i.e.

Regdar gains +10 temporary hit points
Regdar takes an awesome 10 hit point wound
Regdar still has maximum hit points

[The Rose Dragon]

No, they heal. Temporary hit points are magic, after all.

[Matthew]

No, they heal. Temporary hit points are magic, after all.

So in this case...

Redgar has 10 hit points
Regdar gains +20 temporary hit points
Regdar takes an awesome 10 hit point wound
Regdar loses 10 temporary hit points with the expiration of the spell
Regdar still has maximum hit points

Losing ten temporary hit points results in a healing of physical wounds?

[The Rose Dragon]

Well, it works like this. You get wounded (like sword through chest), and when the sword is pulled (of course, you don't even mumble), the wound (magically) heals.

I never really got what temporary hit points actually do, though. Say, you have 8 hit points out of a maximum 10, and you get some spell (Aid?) that gives you temporary hit points. You get over 10 hit points, then you are knocked back to 10 hit points. After the spell ends, do you have 8 or 10 hit points? If the former, than I'm doing it right. If the latter, then I'm doing it wrong and really did a good job by banning most magic.

EDIT: Also, I like how you say "awesome 10 hit point wound".

[Knaight]

It could just be a matter of reserve healing. Redgar takes a massive 10 HP wound, they pull the sword out, and it closes up, at which point Redgar grabs the guy, slams him against the nearest jagged wall, and they take actual injury.

[Matthew]

Well, it works like this. You get wounded (like sword through chest), and when the sword is pulled (of course, you don't even mumble), the wound (magically) heals.

Ah right, so...

Regdar has 10 hit points
Regdar takes an awesome 5 hit point wound
Regdar's wound magically heals up
Regdar has 5 hit points

I was thinking...

Regdar has 10 hit points
Regdar takes an awesome 5 hit point wound
Regdar continues fighting on despite his wounds like a bad ass.



I never really got what temporary hit points actually do, though. Say, you have 8 hit points out of a maximum 10, and you get some spell (Aid?) that gives you temporary hit points. You get over 10 hit points, then you are knocked back to 10 hit points. After the spell ends, do you have 8 or 10 hit points? If the former, than I'm doing it right. If the latter, then I'm doing it wrong and really did a good job by banning most magic.

The former.



EDIT: Also, I like how you say "awesome 10 hit point wound".

No problem. I thought it might be fun to get into the spirit of the thing. :smallbiggrin:

[The Rose Dragon]

Ah right, so...

Regdar has 10 hit points
Regdar takes an awesome 5 hit point wound
Regdar magically heals
Regdar has 5 hit points

I was thinking...

Regdar has 10 hit points
Regdar takes an awesome 5 hit point wound
Regdar continues fighting on despite his wounds like a bad ass.

No, the former only when given magical hit points (like temporary hit points). When you get hit points in a non-magical way, you fight like a bad ass.

Say, you have 10 hit points (no temporary hit points). You get slashed across the stomach, with your intestines nearly hanging out (for a mere total of 2 hit points). You still fight like a bad ass.

[only1doug]

Well, it works like this. You get wounded (like sword through chest), and when the sword is pulled (of course, you don't even mumble), the wound (magically) heals.

I never really got what temporary hit points actually do, though. Say, you have 8 hit points out of a maximum 10, and you get some spell (Aid?) that gives you temporary hit points. You get over 10 hit points, then you are knocked back to 10 hit points. After the spell ends, do you have 8 or 10 hit points? If the former, than I'm doing it right. If the latter, then I'm doing it wrong and really did a good job by banning most magic.

in your example the character would have 8 hps left after the temporary hitpoints expired.

the question i would like answered is what happens when someone with temporary hitpoints is healed?

Redgar has 78 hps maximum, he's been injured recently and is going into the next battle with only 66 hps (cleric is saving his last few healing spells for emergencies).
Redgar receives 10 temporary hitpoints (from an arbitrary source) and now is at 66(76) hps what happens to his hitpoints when the cleric throws his mass cure light (lets call it as 16 points of healing)
does Redgar now have 78(88) or is he just at 78?

[The Rose Dragon]

78. Once temporary hit points are lost, they stay lost.

[Matthew]

No, the former only when given magical hit points (like temporary hit points). When you get hit points in a non-magical way, you fight like a bad ass.

So, you draw a distinction between "temporary hit points" and "ordinary hit points", one being mudane bad assery and the other being magical protection. I dunno if you read a little bit up the thread, but that was one of the options laid out. :smallwink:



The question i would like answered is what happens when someone with temporary hitpoints is healed?

Redgar has 78 hps maximum, he's been injured recently and is going into the next battle with only 66 hps (cleric is saving his last few healing spells for emergencies).
Redgar receives 10 temporary hitpoints (from an arbitrary source) and now is at 66(76) hps what happens to his hitpoints when the cleric throws his mass cure light (lets call it as 16 points of healing)
does Redgar now have 78(88) or is he just at 78?

Lord Silvanos would know better than me, but I suppose the answer to that to be 78(88). Temporary hit points cannot be restored, but neither are they a form of healing. Any damage Regdar takes after acquiring them are deducted from his temporary hit points first.

[Townopolis]

Lord Silvanos would know better than me, but I suppose the answer to that to be 78(88). Temporary hit points cannot be restored, but neither are they a form of healing. Any damage Regdar takes after acquiring them are deducted from his temporary hit points first.
Yes. Regdar would have 78(88) HP

Here's a summary of how temp. HP work:
Regdar has 10 HP
Regdar gets hit for 5 awesome damage
Regdar keeps fighting like a badass
Regdar gains 10 temporary HP
Regdar has 5(15) HP
Regdar is still fighting like a badass, because he's still wounded
Regdar gets healed for 4 HP
Regdar has 9(19) HP
Regdar takes 5 awesome damage
Regdar has 9(14) HP
The temporary HP wear off
Regdar has 9 HP

[Diamondeye]

No they haven't.Let's start at square one on this, what country are you in? I'm in the US, state of Missouri. No, knives, under a certain length, baseball bats and axe handles are not considered weapons. And I know they're not considered weapons in California, at least not unless it's been changed in the last 10 years or so.

I said they were considered weapons if you used them on someone Stop strawmanning. In any case, knives over a certain length, swords, bows, crossbos, and pistols are considered weapons regardless.


A) So a wizard doesn't have a dangerous spell, but the fighter always has the most dangerous weapon? That explains B.

Strawman. I said he doesn't always have a save-or-die, not that he has no dangerous spells. Slow is exceedingly dangerous, for example.


B) You are, however, arguing that Fighters are more dangerous than wizards.

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that the fighter will become more dangerous than he already is if you bypass him to attack the wizard.


And therefore are to be targeted before the less dangerous thing.

No, they aren't necessarily to be targeted first. They may r may not be, depending on the in-game perception of the NPC.


Which 10? The first 10 was a roll on the damage, with another 10 in modifiers.

No, you said "I did 10 HP damage; 120 to go!" in some flippant "analysis"


Yes it has. Course, local courts have accepted "Your Honour he needed killin'!" Especially since the bastard really did need killing. :smallamused:

Stop moving the goalposts. We're not discussing whether there can be justifiable homicide. Regardless of whether a shooting is justified, the fact that you used a pistol instead of a rifle does not make an unjustifiable shooting into a justifiable one.


Oh no, I know the system, weighed it and found it quite wanting. When I play, it's me "taking one for the team". The alcohol just helps dull the pain.

No, you don't. You think high-level fighters do 10 HP on a hit, you admit to forming your conclusion after one cursory reading, and you admit to only playing it drunk.

You do not know D&D 3.5. Period. By your own admission.


They're dangerous enough that people don't let you have them, so you've either got to build to get them, through tripping/pouncing. For the DM to just give them to you is him being merciful because he knows you're playing a gimped class.

Ahh, so melee attacks are, in fact, actually dangerous.

If iterative attacks are actually dangerous that your opponent tries to avoid them (it's not a matter of the DM "giving them to you", the DM isn't trying to defeat the players. He's trying to play the NPCs as if they were), then you cannot argue that classes that have them are gimped. Clearly they present a real threat or the enemy would not try to avoid them.


Well, given that "fluff quotes" are there to explain to players how the character's world works, and your complaint is that people are using out of character knowledge to attack the mage first. Said fluff quotes would be the ideal place to know what a character should consider "common knowledge". Hence, "fluff quotes" would be where we'd be looking.

No, they don't. They represent the viewpoints of certain characters. Sometimes they argue with each other! They represent in-world viewpoints, in a world where magic has only been around a few decades, and is poorly understood by non-magic-using characters, who therefore fear it to a disproporionate degree.


Nope, D&D rules set completely fails to instill any sense of danger.

In you, the player. It doesn't fail to do that in the characters; the HP system doesn't work at all as a mechanic without them having a sense of fear. Hitpoints in part represent their attempts to avoid harm.


Or it just points out incredibly stupid the whole thing is, that even when someone is completely asleep while tied down naked you can't guarantee a kill. You've got to hope he fails his save.

You do understand that rule assumes combat is going on around you, and you're therefore distracted by the need to protect yourself while you butcher your helplessopponent?

It doesn't always work in real life, either. Mary, Queen of Scots, took three axe swings to be beheaded because the execution screwed up.


I read them for years, they were great masses of handwaivum, hoping to invoke the MST3K mantra, then and still are today.

In other words, your assumptions carry more weight than the RAW in describing hitpoints


Oh really? Where's the rules for blood loss from bleeding before you're down to 0 hp? Where's the rules for consequences of combat that last longer than it takes to put a band-aid over it? Oh, wait, there aren't.

Of course not. There's no need for them. Loss of hitpoints on succeeding rounds might be from strain and blood loss. After combat, minor injuries are easily treated; no mechanic needed.


They're not. Classes are.

Nope.


No, you've basically said "My way is the only way the rules makes sense." And we've said "Your way doesn't make any sense either."

My way does make sense. Do things my way (i.e. DON'T METAGAME AS THE DM) and the problem of the fighter not holding aggro disappears.

The only reason anyone has said it doesn't is because you want hitpoints to behave a way they specifically don't. Trying to dismiss the descriptions as "handwavium" is you saying "I don't like the HP system, but I don't want to admit its not my taste, so I'll pretend it doesn't make sense."


You can be charged with whatever, you didn't actually do it until after the trial,

How exactly do you not do something until after the trial for it?


and in the US bricks are not considered lethal weapons.

They are if you hit someone with one.


Quite a bit, especially usage.

No, you apparently don't. Anyone who thinks a gun isn't dangerous to humans because you can't reliabily kill a dear with one in one shot, and thinks that pistols aren't considered deadly weapons, is ignorant of firearms.

Don't tell me about your experience; shooting dear isn't experience with firearms; it's experience with hunting weapons, a limited subset.


[Obligatory Doomed to repeat history quote]

That quote is nothing but a platitude with no probative value


They have been known to, especially the larger ones. Someone should watch more Animal Planet.

Have been known to? In other words, it's a very, very, rare event.


Not if you don't want characters to have any fears of such things.

Every encounter does not need to include one-shot kills to make the players "fear things".

[horseboy]

I said they were considered weapons if you used them on someone Stop strawmanning. In any case, knives over a certain length, swords, bows, crossbows, and pistols are considered weapons regardless.

They are if you hit someone with one.No. During the Rodney King riot. Those guys that ripped that truck driver from his rig and repeatedly beat him with bricks were found Not Guilty because, the court ruled, bricks were not lethal weapons.

Strawman. I said he doesn't always have a save-or-die, not that he has no dangerous spells. Slow is exceedingly dangerous, for example.And far more dangerous than a fighter with a weapon.

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that the fighter will become more dangerous than he already is if you bypass him to attack the wizard. Though, even with that extra bonus he's still not as dangerous as the wizard.

No, they aren't necessarily to be targeted first. They may r may not be, depending on the in-game perception of the NPC.And those that don't target the mage don't make it past level 5.

No, you said "I did 10 HP damage; 120 to go!" in some flippant "analysis"
w00t! A ten! I do 20 points of damage, only 100+hp left to go!Since apparently English isn't your first language, "people don't say "I did a ten," they say "I rolled a ten." I then added another 10 points of damage since my 9th level fighter has a +10 modifier to damage. Then I announced the damage I did in the hit was a 20.

Stop moving the goalposts. We're not discussing whether there can be justifiable homicide. Regardless of whether a shooting is justified, the fact that you used a pistol instead of a rifle does not make an unjustifiable shooting into a justifiable one.Who's moving the goal post? We weren't discussing justifiable/unjustifiable we're discussing did I make a legally lethal attack. If you aim below the waist you won't get in near as much trouble as you will shooting someone above the waist. Because you took the less lethal option.


No, you don't. You think high-level fighters do 10 HP on a hit, you admit to forming your conclusion after one cursory reading, and you admit to only playing it drunk.

You do not know D&D 3.5. Period. By your own admission.
When you have the level of reading comprehension like Tippy and I do, it only takes a cursory glace through the book. Unlike Tippy I don't find it amusing.



Ahh, so melee iterative attacks are, in fact, actually dangerous.Well, yeah, that's why people build things like lion totem barbarian/scout/dred commandos. For a normal fighter, not nearly as much.


If iterative attacks are actually dangerous that your opponent tries to avoid them (it's not a matter of the DM "giving them to you", the DM isn't trying to defeat the players. He's trying to play the NPCs as if they were), then you cannot argue that classes that have them are gimped. Clearly they present a real threat or the enemy would not try to avoid them.I would be able to argue it if they weren't so easily rendered moot.

No, they don't. They represent the viewpoints of certain characters. Sometimes they argue with each other! They represent in-world viewpoints, in a world where magic has only been around a few decades, and is poorly understood by non-magic-using characters, who therefore fear it to a disproportionate degree.1) How well in your world do non-casters understand magic.
2) Even in a world with Panther Assault Cannons mages are still scarier.

You do understand that rule assumes combat is going on around you, and you're therefore distracted by the need to protect yourself while you butcher your helpless opponent?No, you have to roll even if you creep into a room of sleeping people by RAW. RAI, maybe not, depending on DM.

In other words, your assumptionssummations carry more weight than theexplain what the RAW inis describing hitpoints as.Yup




Of course not. There's no need for them. Loss of hitpoints on succeeding rounds might be from strain and blood loss. After combat, minor injuries are easily treated; no mechanic needed.Clearly you've never had a real injury.


My way does make sense. Do things my way (i.e. DON'T METAGAME AS THE DM) and the problem of the fighter not holding aggro disappears.Except it doesn't make any sense that the fighter should be scarier than the mage. You have to metagame to make the fighter hold aggro.

The only reason anyone has said it doesn't is because you want hitpoints to behave a way they specifically don't. Trying to dismiss the descriptions as "handwavium" is you saying "I don't like the HP system, but I don't want to admit its not my taste, so I'll pretend it doesn't make sense."Or maybe *shock and surprise* I don't like D&D's HP system because it doesn't make sense.

How exactly do you not do something until after the trial for it?The American judicial system has the concept of Innocent until proven guilty built into it. I may or may not have done what is being charged against me, or I may not have met the qualifications for what I'm being charged for.


No, you apparently don't. Anyone who thinks a gun isn't dangerous to humans because you can't reliabily kill a dear with one in one shot, and thinks that pistols aren't considered deadly weapons, is ignorant of firearms.

Don't tell me about your experience; shooting dear isn't experience with firearms; it's experience with hunting weapons, a limited subset.Oh yes, because the experiences of someone who actually kills human sized animals regularly should have no idea what is and isn't dangerous to a human.
Seriously dude, what country are you in that hunting weapons are considered a limited subset? We use anything that's not a pistol smaller than .357 or requires a vehicle mount and even then....



That quote is nothing but a platitude with no probative value



Have been known to? In other words, it's a very, very, rare event.



Every encounter does not need to include one-shot kills to make the players "fear things".[/QUOTE]

[Matthew]

Or maybe *shock and surprise* I don't like D&D's HP system because it doesn't make sense.

I dunno about that. It doesn't make sense if you try to pin it down as having a meaning beyond an abstract (and somewhat arbitrary) measurement of when a character gets "killed" (or whatever). It is certainly not a sensible way of simulating realistic combat, but I would argue that it makes sense in its own context.

[Diamondeye]

No. During the Rodney King riot. Those guys that ripped that truck driver from his rig and repeatedly beat him with bricks were found Not Guilty because, the court ruled, bricks were not lethal weapons.

The court made no such ruling, and in any case, the trials were decided by Jury. Most of the charges actually resulted in a hung jury. Both Williams and Watson were convicted on assault charges, and Williams on mayhem as well.

It really does not help your case to base it on falsified accounts of real events.


And far more dangerous than a fighter with a weapon.

argumentum ad nauseum


Though, even with that extra bonus he's still not as dangerous as the wizard.

Irrelevant to my point


And those that don't target the mage don't make it past level 5.

False. These are NPCs. They make it to whatever level the DM determines.


Since apparently English isn't your first language, "people don't say "I did a ten," they say "I rolled a ten." I then added another 10 points of damage since my 9th level fighter has a +10 modifier to damage. Then I announced the damage I did in the hit was a 20.

20 is still a woefull underestimate of both damage on one hit and damage per round at high levels. 27 is average for a gretword at level 12; a longsword would still be 25.5. Your "20" requires all 1s, 2s, or 3s on 4d6 with the example I gave, and he can't even have more than 2 3s, and THAT only if he doesn't power attack!


Who's moving the goal post?

You


We weren't discussing justifiable/unjustifiable we're discussing did I make a legally lethal attack. If you aim below the waist you won't get in near as much trouble as you will shooting someone above the waist. Because you took the less lethal option.

Yes, we were discussing justifiability, because any use of a firearm is always lethal force under the law. People can be killed by leg hits; the femoral artery can be severed.

You will not get in less trouble for aiming below the waist; it will simply be assumed that you aimed center mass and missed. At best you might get "attempted murder" reduced to "felonious assault", which is hardly "not nearly as much trouble" and that if the prosecutor or jury is sympathetic, something you can't count on.


When you have the level of reading comprehension like Tippy and I do, it only takes a cursory glace through the book. Unlike Tippy I don't find it amusing.

I'm not convinced by your clsim of superhuman reading comprehension, since you've failed to comprehend my position this entire thread.


Well, yeah, that's why people build things like lion totem barbarian/scout/dred commandos. For a normal fighter, not nearly as much.

You do not need to build such a combination for iterative attacks to be dangerous. Crossing out where I put in "melee" was rather silly of you, since iterative attacks are a major component of melee.


I would be able to argue it if they weren't so easily rendered moot.
1) How well in your world do non-casters understand magic.

Depends on the non-caster. Why would everyone in the world have the same understanding? Magic has been around for 10,000 years or more in many fantasy settings and is understood to varying degrees.

In Shadowrun it's been around for a few decades and is still not really a normal part of life.


2) Even in a world with Panther Assault Cannons mages are still scarier.

You stating it does not make it fact.


No, you have to roll even if you creep into a room of sleeping people by RAW. RAI, maybe not, depending on DM.Yup

Gee.. maybe that's because you're trying to sneak? Excercising extreme caution so you don't wake these people up?

Your assumptions do not explain what the RAW is over and above what the book and the originator of the game say, no matter how many times you strike mt words out. Period.


Clearly you've never had a real injury.

Depends what you mean. I did, however pass the Army Combat Lifesaver course, and have taken quite a few very severe accident reports, and provided first aid to people at the scene.

Maybe you ought not to make so many assumptions. My experience with injured people is considerable


Except it doesn't make any sense that the fighter should be scarier than the mage.

He doesn't need to be. He just needs to be in a position where bypassing him will allow him to attack you.


You have to metagame to make the fighter hold aggro.

No you don't. It simply requires that the monster not want to get whacked with a greatsword while splitting his attention between the fighter and the mage.

You know, think like someone actually would about being caught between 2 opponents.


Or maybe *shock and surprise* I don't like D&D's HP system because it doesn't make sense.

To you. It makes perfect sense to most everyone who plays it.


The American judicial system has the concept of Innocent until proven guilty built into it. I may or may not have done what is being charged against me, or I may not have met the qualifications for what I'm being charged for.

So what? You'll be charged with attemted murder if you shoot someone, period. Proving you shot someone isn't that hard, especially if they're still alive.

The best you can do in that case is basically plead for mercy becuase you didn't intend to kill them.. the believability of that will depend on a lot of factors.


Oh yes, because the experiences of someone who actually kills human sized animals regularly should have no idea what is and isn't dangerous to a human.

No, you really shouldn't. Deer are much more difficult to kill than humans. I've shot a great many, and had to do it with non-hunting weapons while they were thrashing around on the side of the road. (you know, moving targets... like combat? Not like hunting where you shoot an unsuspecting target. Not that I object to hunting, but the fact remains it's not combat)

A deer is a remarkably resilient animal for its size, and wildly inappropriate for comparison to humans. Try killing an injured deer with a .40 pistol sometime. It takes a lot more shots than a helpless person would, especially if you want to keep your uniform clean.


Seriously dude, what country are you in that hunting weapons are considered a limited subset? We use anything that's not a pistol smaller than .357 or requires a vehicle mount and even then....

Hunting weapons ARE a limited subset. Just because you CAN use a weapon for hunting doesn't make it a hunting weapon. What kind of weapon something is depends on its designed primary function, not on other secondary functions it might also be useful for. That's like saying a pair of pliers is a hammer because I could whack nails with the flat side of it. I could hunt deer with an RPG if I wanted to, that wouldn't make it a hunting weapon.

By the way, I'm still waiting for an explaination of why a monster would want to get close to a wizard to attack him if melee is really ineffective.

[Frosty]

I could hunt deer with an RPG if I wanted to, that wouldn't make it a hunting weapon.

By the way, I'm still waiting for an explaination of why a monster would want to get close to a wizard to attack him if melee is really ineffective.

I would like to see deers hunted with RPGs. The image amuses me. As for melee attacks, it's fairly useful against a mage, what with their limited HP and what not, but not very effective against a fellow fighter-type.

[Starbuck_II]

You stating it does not make it fact.


I disagree. If I was between a Assualt Cannon Guy or a Mage? I'd fear the Mage.
Did you reread the spell lists of a mage?
Gate, Death spells, Force Cage, etc.

The guy with cannon can hit me or nick me if I duck around a corner (since bullets are fast).

Would you really fear a Cannon more?

[Frosty]

Shadowrun Mages get Gate, Death spells, Force Cage, etc? :smallannoyed:

He was comparing a cannon to SR mages, not DnD mages I think.

[Matthew]

Shadowrun Mages get Gate, Death spells, Force Cage, etc? :smallannoyed:

He was comparing a cannon to SR mages, not DnD mages I think.

I think we were still in the D&D verse for that one, but this brings up a good point...

Powerful magicians are certainly scarier than panther assault cannons, but that depends on what the average expectations are of magicians in a particular campaign milieu. If every other wizard is capable of significant reality bending magic and demonstrations of such power run far and wide, then you're going to freak out whenever you see some poser in robes (and probably run off, rather than fight, I reckon). On the other hand, if the overwhelming majority of spell casters are capable of nothing much more significant than a magic missile or two, you're probably a lot less concerned. Obviously, there is some middle ground between these two extremes, but quite what that is may differ from campaign to campaign.

So, let's bring it back to Greyhawk (the default D20/3e setting) where we know the average power level of magicians via the random population tables and some yabbering in the DMG about the prevalence of magic.



The number of Adventurer Classed to Non Adventurer Classed Characters fluctuates with the population distribution and settlement sizes. In Thorpes, you get an average of about 12%, but in really huge cities (like 100,000) the number drops to about 1%. Non core Classes aren't taken into account, as adding a new Class shouldn't change the demographic [i.e. War Blades should be thought to replace a proportion of Fighters, not supplement them].

For instance:

In 24 villages with an average population 240 (80-400) you'll find the following:

{table=head] Village | Fighter | Rogue | Cleric | Bard | Barbarian | Druid | Wizard | Sorcerer | Monk | Paladin | Ranger | Total
1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0
2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11
3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 33
4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 27
5 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 30
6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 39
7 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 32
8 | 15 | 15 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 49
9 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 12
10 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 13
11 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 37
12 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 43
13 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14
14 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 23
15 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 41
16 | 15 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 51
17 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 16
18 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 27
19 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 21
20 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 25
21 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 26
22 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 25
23 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 45
24 | 15 | 15 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 65
[/table]

Total: 705/5760 = about 12%

Of course, that assumes that 240 is indeed the average population of a village, which is by no means certain. It could be as low as 80 (37%) or as high as 400 (7%).

In 24 Small Towns with average populations of 1,450 (900-2,000) you'll find:

{table=head] Small Town | Fighter | Rogue | Cleric | Bard | Barbarian | Druid | Wizard | Sorcerer | Monk | Paladin | Ranger | Total
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11
2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 33
3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 33
4 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 65
5 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 39
6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 49
7 | 15 | 15 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 49
8 | 15 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 77
9 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 19
10 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 37
11 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 41
12 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 69
13 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 23
14 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 41
15 | 15 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 57
16 | 15 | 15 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 81
17 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 28
18 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 41
19 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 25
20 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 61
21 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 31
22 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 45
23 | 15 | 15 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 65
24 | 15 | 15 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 85
[/table]

Total 1105/34,800 = 3.17%

Assuming my math is correct, of course.

[Frosty]

I tend to have my PCs fight enemy groups that involve at least one or two spellcasters, so the enemy NPCs definitely have knowledge of what casters can do, because some are int heir midst!

[Matthew]

I tend to have my PCs fight enemy groups that involve at least one or two spellcasters, so the enemy NPCs definitely have knowledge of what casters can do, because some are int heir midst!

That seems reasonable to me. If one side has a spell caster and they identify a spell caster on the other side, they are likely to assume a rough equivalency in terms of power.

[Diamondeye]

I disagree. If I was between a Assualt Cannon Guy or a Mage? I'd fear the Mage.
Did you reread the spell lists of a mage?
Gate, Death spells, Force Cage, etc.

The guy with cannon can hit me or nick me if I duck around a corner (since bullets are fast).

Would you really fear a Cannon more?

It's true for you. You can't state it and make it true for everyone.

Shadowrun Mages can't cast all those spells, and while I don't know what the muzzle velocity of a Panther is, its definitely faster than most of those spells.

Gate.. okaym he gates in some horrible monster.. which, in shadowrun, is now facing weapons vastly more powerful than anything it would in D&D. Look at RIFTS; magic hardly dominates just by being magic there.

Death Spell.. Death Spell doesn't exist in 3.X to my knowledge, but if we use Finger of Death, I'm not anymore dead than I would be from the Panther, and I can easily stay out of range in a world with modern firearms. It has a range of 75 feet with a 20th level caster, and at level 13 when you can first cast it, only 55 feet.

Forcecage.. well, it's nonlethal. Sure, he may cast cloudkill or something, but in Shadowrun I may have a gas mask, or a number of bioware/cyberware defenses against this. Without a hit die system, it's really hard to determine how lethal it is anyhow.

The problem with this whole thing is that magic in any system is only as deadly as its designed to be. In RIFTS, magic does a lot but it's on an even footing with technology. In most MMORPGs its really not more powerful than melee overall (it has relative strengths and weaknesses) but it can't be significantly better in general because then the player base complains about balance and how certain classes are useless on raids/groups/etc. You can't establish anything about magic in any system by showing its a certain way in other systems.

[Charity]

I would like to see deers hunted with RPGs. The image amuses me.

In Cambodia they will let you fire RPG's at cows ... for the right price.
I promise you, you'll wish you didn't.


Are we still rowing about HP's ... I'm not up to speed.

[Matthew]

Are we still rowing about HP's ... I'm not up to speed.

Nah, that's got its own thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91409) now. We have moved onto prevalence of magic and expectations of magician types in the default D20/3e campaign milieu Greyhawk]. Not sure exactly how it is going to relate to the purpose of fighters, but we shall see. :smallbiggrin:

[Charity]

Does the level of those npc's get factored in on that table Matt, I'm away from my books so I can't see for myself (it's not just the usual lazyness).

In a Tippyverse which there is a valid argument to say is core magicusers are ten a penny... or soon wuld be in a free magic economy... but look where that gets you.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Does the level of those npc's get factored in on that table Matt, I'm away from my books so I can't see for myself (it's not just the usual lazyness).

In a Tippyverse which there is a valid argument to say is core magicusers are ten a penny... or soon wuld be in a free magic economy... but look where that gets you.There are 3 major D&D settings in 3.5. Eberron, Faerun, and Greyhawk. Faerun has Elminster, we all know how common magic is in Eberron, so Greyhawk is the only one where people might not expect the person in robes to rip their soul out of their body and spit on it.

[Matthew]

Does the level of those npc's get factored in on that table Matt, I'm away from my books so I can't see for myself (it's not just the usual lazyness).

The way you work out the numbers relies on generating the highest level character in the settlement, so...

Wizard in a Village = 1d4−1
Wizard in a Small Town = 1d4

Then you assume there are twice as many at half that level and twice as many at another half, and so on...

So, if you generate a Level 3 Wizard, then (with a generous interpretation) you also have two second level wizards and four first level wizards. It's been a while since I put those tables together, though, so I don't recall the exact procedure. Looking at them, I think I opted for at least one level break, so...

{table=head]1d4−1 | 1d4+0 | First[br]Level | Second[br]Level | Third[br]Level | Fourth[br]Level

– |
4 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
1 |

3 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |

2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |

1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |

0 |
– |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
[/table]



In a Tippyverse which there is a valid argument to say is core magicusers are ten a penny... or soon wuld be in a free magic economy... but look where that gets you.

The Tippyverse is a perfect example of rules informing the game reality rather than the reverse; we all have a preferences, and so on...

[Charity]

Well they are going to be pretty common then, by all accounts.
I don't think even Tippy would allow the Tippyverse to be his gameworld... It would be like taking the world and replacing all the air with oxygen and all the seas with nitroglycerin.

[Frosty]

It'd be explosive?

[sonofzeal]

There are 3 major D&D settings in 3.5. Eberron, Faerun, and Greyhawk. Faerun has Elminster, we all know how common magic is in Eberron, so Greyhawk is the only one where people might not expect the person in robes to rip their soul out of their body and spit on it.
Actually... my understanding is that Eberron, despite initial appearances, is actually somewhat of a LOW magic setting. Magic items are everywhere, sure, but they're mostly minor things created by low-level magewrights and artificers, and vast world-shaping magic is practically unheard of (except for Cyre, but we all regret that one...). There's very few characters of lvl 15 or above, let alone the rampant epicness of Faerun.

I'd say in Eberron, your average citizen views a Wizard as someone who performs minor tricks and might have something up his sleeve so you shouldn't take him too lightly.... y'know, kinda like how they'd view Rogues. A decent level Wizard could probably mess you up pretty good, but you really don't want to piss off a decent level Rogue either, and both are very much on the rare side.

[Matthew]

Well they are going to be pretty common then, by all accounts.

It depends somewhat on your population distribution. The more rural areas you have the more the tendency towards the population being 10% player character classed, which translates to wizards and sorcerers making up about 1-2% of the population. That's pretty magic rich, even if fairly low level (1-4). In larger urban settlements the percentage becomes smaller, but the spell casters become higher level. In a Metropolis of 25,000+, however, there are likely to be one each of 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th level wizards and sorcerers, which equates to about 250 wizards and sorcerers (half of whom are level 1). This reversal of the trend back to 1% is because you roll four times on the table.



I don't think even Tippy would allow the Tippyverse to be his gameworld... It would be like taking the world and replacing all the air with oxygen and all the seas with nitroglycerin.

I think Tippy's general contention is that the world should reflect the game rules, I don't recall how prevalent the Tippyverse is in his own campaigns.

[Frosty]

Somehow his game worls just might not be as fun, because wizards would rule everything and to even THINK about killing one means insta-death.