warrior/rogue/mage

What?

File: 1469823135914.jpg (18KB, 307x352px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 307x352px

>>48739107

File: 1437439941565.gif (999KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 250x251px

>>48739107
Cool bleg.

>>48739107
Even if you let Fighter inherent traits get up to Hercules levels, this summation doesn't address the fact that magic is fictional and has no inherent expected limits, and it doesn't address the inbalances that the five minute adventuring day brings when only one character option is tied to in-game time as a method for rationing out out-of-game spotlight time.

always felt it's a bit bullshit that fighters are considered to use raw brawn to conquer foes without an ounce of skill, while cutpurses are presented as consummate professionals with years of precision training.

>>48739107
Just make magic skills instead of slots .
EZPZ

>>48739458
Depends on the edition.
In TSR era D&D rounds represented a minute, and most of that minute was spent on fluff parries, posturing, and glancing blows.
Your "number of attacks per round" represented your number of opportunities to get a solid blow in during a minute of combat.
So fighters gaining additional attacks literally represented becoming better at controlling a fight.

>>48739107
What about clerics?

>>48741727
one of Gygax's friends made the class to essentially list tailor against his other friends vampire.

I think the problem with this theory is that sometimes the DM won't want players to simply smash through doors or puzzles. That's why you have rogues and wizards to do the puzzle solving and the magical manipulation and stuff.

In a perfect world, fighters would handle most of the combat stuff while rogues and wizards would only be able to assist, but because combat is such a large part of RPGs in general, wizards can do a shit ton in combat, and rogues can do a lot of damage under the right circumstances. So it's less an equal balance of skills and roles as it is leaving you asking why anyone would want to be just the muscle when they could play a class that lets them have a little of that magic or stealth or intelligence too.

I have no idea what the point of this thread is. Are you debating the balance among these three character archetypes? If so, why haven't you included a cleric to round the group out?

>>48741807
>That's why you have rogues [...] to do the puzzle solving
This is the opposite of why thieves got added to D&D.

Whitebox classes are just Fighting-Men, Magic-Users, and Clerics. Thieves were from a later supplement (Greyhawk?), and were essentially weak Fighting-Men.
Non-thieves could do all the normal thief things (sans backstabbing and *undetectably* pick-pocketing), thief abilities were essentially insurance. If you failed your ability check or otherwise screwed up (missed the DMs cue for a trap, your description of disarming it was shitty, you tried to hide in plain sight, etc), thief abilities had a (low) chance of supernaturally succeeding anyways (even in outright impossible situations that otherwise wouldn't call for a roll).

>>48742151
>(even in outright impossible situations that otherwise wouldn't call for a roll).
I'm so sick of this narrative storygame bullshit!

I avoid this problem in games by making everyone a wizard.

Melee classes are stupid when magic exists.

>I'm going to go attack that man with a sword

vs

>I just summoned a meteor and wiped out that kingdom

>>48742276 Pickpocketing people who are watching you closely, hiding from people immediately next to you in a dimly lit (not dark) room with no obstructions between you, scaling a oil-slicked perfectly smooth wall without tools, noticing tripwires while blindfolded...

File: j75vIc8.png (89KB, 524x499px)

89KB, 524x499px

>>48742346
Melee classes are only stupid when BULLSHIT HAX magic exists, and more to the point, when similar melee DOESN'T.

>I'm going to spend half an hour channeling enough mana for a firebolt

vs

>I'm going to cleave apart the king, his throne, his palace, his city, and the mountain it's built on in one stroke

>>48742541
This. Magic suddenly becomes a lot harder simply by forcing the wizard to actually get ingredients for his spells.

>>48739430
>magic is fictional and has no inherent expected limits
That doesn't mean game designers can't put limits in their system.

>>48742607
That's hardly a "this"; ingredients are a petty hassle in my experience. I'm talking about not letting the wizard have a Do The Work Of Hundred Fighters spell *at all*, ingredients be damned, unless of course you also give the fighter the Sword Of Casting Like A Hundred Wizards. (Naturally, this sword cannot be wielded by a nonfighter any more than the spell can be cast by a nonwizard.)

>>48742346
By the time the wizard can actually do that, the fighter is literally superhuman and covered in several hundred pounds of magic weapons and armor, or he could just strip naked and defeat an army of armed men with his bare hands, then swim a river of lava, shake bits of cooling rock off his dick, then chokehold a dragon, steal it's shit, and skin it with his teeth and give it's skin and bones to his craftbitch wizard to make him even better shit.

And if you can't do that, your game is doing it wrong.

>>48742693
I'm just saying that making things harder than just pointing your staff at the enemy and saying pew pew really does make magic less bullshit hax. Melee classes normally can't get to that sort of level without magical assistance at all, so they never have to charge up their strike or anything like that.

>>>48742541 [katanagatari flashbacks]

>>48742693
>I'm talking about not letting the wizard have a Do The Work Of Hundred Fighters spell
Fireball and Magic Missile aren't why Wizards outclass fighters. "Combat" magic isn't the issue. It's the fact that the wizard leaves everyone blind, deaf, dumb, and stupid.

>>48742885
Dear captain obvious, the point goes for Blindness, Deafness, and the other spells too. I was responding in kind to the original point raised in which the given example of magic being OP involved sheer simple destructive power.

But sure, if I need to spell it out, don't give the wizard a Spell Of Bypassing Fighter Entirely either, except to the extent the fighter gets a Shield Of Bypassing Wizard Entirely.

Happy?

File: image.jpg (61KB, 680x577px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 680x577px

>>48742346

>>48743023
It got multiple replies, that's at least a 2/10.

>>48742541
You could just make fighters and rogues practice magic after a certain level. There is no reason for them to not get some magic, because after a certain point they will need it. Magic that requires several fucking years to complete, would render wizards completely useless in a fight. Relegating them to being a purely noncombat class, making a rogue a shitty hybrid between a noncombat class and a combat class in functionality. Instead of the rogue being a primarily noncombat class with some combat abilities that would help tide the battle in a critical moment thanks to their sneak attacking skills. In your scenario, nobody would want to play a wizard. Imagine having no knowledge of the cleric's other spells outside of their healing abilities, and then playing them with everyone else who gets more interesting powers and abilities. That is how playing a wizard would be like. In my opinion, every class needs to have at least some unique combat advantage that isn't boring to play. The best way around this problem is to just give fighters and rogues magical abilities that help cement their role in the party.

>>48741852
Clerics are hybrid fighters/magic-users

>>48739107
>Warriors
Also need to know how to properly wield their weapons, block/parry/dodge attacks, etc, so they need skill as well.
>Rogue
In a combat-based game, they're also going to be fighting, which runs into the same issues as warriors. Out of combat, sure, though warriors need to have something to do outside of combat unless you resolve fights like traps (Warrior, roll a Fight check to see if you beat the enemies without taking damage)
>Mage
Depending on system/setting and the specific variety of spellcaster they are, they're most likely to need both skill and natural talent. They need to remember the exact right stuff for their spells, they need to actually cast the spells properly (which takes practice), etc.

So this theory, which you didn't bother describing, is incorrect. All characters benefit from having high stats and high levels of skill (whether that skill is represented by higher skill ranks or stuff that comes for free with leveling up).

>>48742966
"Dear captain obvious"
>Damage Control: The Movie: The Game: The Musical: The Post

>>48745124
>Featuring Dante from the Devil May Cry series!

>>48745377
who?

>>48741579

>Your "number of attacks per round" represented your number of opportunities to get a solid blow in during a minute of combat.

I never liked that shit.

If I'm a Fighter who is throwing out shitloads of attacks, why can't I just play out those shitloads of attacks?

I mean, is it so hard to come up with a way to show my badass fighter throwing out ten attacks rather than just fluffing it out?

>>48746906
>muh 10 killing blows every 6 seconds
back, foul beast of the waters.

>>48742827

It really doesn't, as has been stated numerous times in other threads.

In a nutshell, it just adds more bullshit to keep track of and in the end, most ingredients that the wizard will be using will either be so cheap that it's hardly worth the effort or will be powering spells that are so powerful that they'll only really need to use it once anyways.

Making a wizard keep track of their spell ingredients is like making a Ranger keep track of their arrows or making the Fighter keep track of his carrying capacity, it's annoying and will only matter until they gain a means of ignoring it all together.

>>48742966

It's not the fact that wizards get "spell of bypassing fighter entirely," it's the fact that wizard gets spells that can do practically everything, in addition to bypassing the fighter entirely.

It also doesn't help that martials are weaker, dumber, and overall less capable than the nerds who designed them, nor the fact that each level just pushes them further and further into irrelevancy due to everything that's worth fighting generally being capable of slinging spells, ignoring mundane damage, or both.

>>48746932

Missing the point entirely.

If the game states that a combat round is one minute, and during that minute my fighter is throwing out feints, dodges, parries, etc. why can't I play that shit out?

If I'm supposedly throwing out ten attack but only getting one shot at dealing damage, why can't I play out those ten attacks rather than only getting one attack that I can still miss?

If it's a matter of speed, you could easily do something like "each additional attack after X swings gives you a +1 bonus and/or damage" or "you can sacrifice X swings to land one attack automatically."

It's just pointless abstraction that doesn't explain what's actually happening well, and D&D is plagued by shit like this, regardless of which edition you're talking about.

>>48747111
>Missing the point entirely.
>It's just pointless abstraction
>pointless
Missing the point entirely.

>>48742817

But at the end of the day, the fighter can still get dropped in a couple hits by something as mundane as an artillery piece, while the wizard can level kingdoms.

>>48747160

If your abstraction raises more questions than answers, it's a pretty shitty abstraction.

And if your abstraction is so shit that it doesn't even represent the concept that it's simplifying effectively, then it's all around pointless.

>>48747111
It does have a point, though, and that point is to speed up gameplay. For the most part (iirc you can change this pretty thoroughly with splats, but I haven't messed with them much myself) older editions wanted to be fairly streamlined and quick. Having to decide on and then roll for literally 10x as many actions is going to slow the game to a drag, and not everyone wants that.

Obviously some people do, but those editions of D&D were not designed for those people.

I want to see different paradigms in game. Let's get philosophical. What would a game with the classes based on the various forms of monism look like? Physicalist fighters, idealist rogues, spiritualist mages. Dualist rangers, fighter-mages, and clerics. Triplist bards. Let's go nuts

>>48746999
>not tracking arrows and encumbrance

Plebian.

Also.

>not playing games where you'll never readily get the chance to bypass such things

Pure plebian.

>>48747173
Both of those depend on the system in question. 3.X has it more or less that way (warrior-types are a little too durable to get killed by a mere couple hits from an artillery piece) but that's a flaw in the system.

The fact that magic isn't real doesn't automatically make a magic user better than a non magic user of the same level (or number of experience points, or number of character points, or whatever), unless your system is shit.

>>48747288
>raises more questions than answers
That's a matter of opinion. Obviously the anon you're talking to doesn't feel that way.
>abstracts something away
The fact that combat is abstracted to the point where you only roll for 1/10 of your attacks because the other 9 are assumed to be blocked/dodged/whatever doesn't mean that it's ignoring the entire concept of those other 9 attacks.

It simplifies and streamlines your collection of 10 attacks into one single roll, but that doesn't mean that your character only makes one attack.

>>48747383

Even if there aren't ways to bypass such things, nobody really keeps track of it.

Players don't because they already have to keep track of their health/spells/equipment/consumables/etc. in addition class/race specific options.

GMs don't because keeping track of 3-6 chucklefuck's inventory, in addition to managing campaign bullshit and enemy abilities, will burn you out.

In truth, unless you're doing something outrageous like carrying out a statue made of gold or some shit, nobody is really going to bother with that shit.

>>48746999
It's less that, and more that, even if you make the wizard go get his ingredients and keep track of them, that just means the adventure is even more about the wizard and his band of assistants. Other than that,

>>48747383
>Plebian.

>>48747330

>Having to decide on and then roll for literally 10x as many actions is going to slow the game to a drag, and not everyone wants that.

Which I already addressed when I suggested ways that would allow it to work without bogging the game down.

It's not a difficult concept mate.

>>48747288
>If your abstraction raises more questions than answers
OK. Completely disregarding *why* you're wrong, this was too stupid to pass up.
Abstractions don't exist to answer questions.
Abstractions exist to throw blankets over questions.

>it doesn't even represent the concept that it's simplifying effectively
Along with the (grossly abstract) hitpoint system, it represents all of the parts of combat that bring you closer to winning or losing.
And along with the (slightly less gross) AC abstraction, it represents all of the parts of combat that

If you insist that you take several minutes to discuss every few seconds of your motion, then you're welcome to talk your DM into letting you.
While you're at it, start an obnoxious hissy fit with >>48742276. Just to shit the thread up a bit more.

>>48747446
I do it, though I do recognize that most people don't like to. That said, when I DM I don't typically micromanage my players' inventories or consumables because I trust them to handle that stuff themselves.

It doesn't really come into play very often, just update it after battles or other times you get loot (and in the case of finding something like a single potion, you should be able to get away with putting off doing the math until later, since adding something tiny like that shouldn't mess with your character unless you're already borderline on weight), and just keep a tally of your ammo as you use it next to the weapon's statline.

Honestly it's less hassle than abilities with uses or rounds per day, and those are fucking everywhere in some games.

>>48747427

>It simplifies and streamlines your collection of 10 attacks into one single roll, but that doesn't mean that your character only makes one attack.

Which is the problem.

You can say "oh, well you're actually making 10 attacks but 9/10 of your shit gets blocked/parried/dodged/etc." but in practice, it just raises too many questions without actually addressing the concept of "dude who knows how to fight well."

For instance,

>Why am I only making one attack roll when my Fighter is technically throwing out ten attacks per minute?
>If it represents my blows being dodged and shit, then shouldn't AC already cover the concept of dodging blows?
>Also, how does this factor with creatures that are either untrained humanoids (goblins, kobolds, lizardfolk, etc.), creatures with no intellect (giant bee, giant spider, etc.), or creatures that aren't wielding weapons/armor or utilizing specialized forms of offense/defense (dragons, undead, aberrations, etc.)

I mean, the more you think about it, the more flaws you start to notice in the abstraction that's being used, which is a problem because once you notice it, it sucks you out of the game because the only way it could work is if you look at it from a mechanical standpoint that's being used to abstract swordplay in a game.

>>48747490
If you mean
>If it's a matter of speed, you could easily do something like "each additional attack after X swings gives you a +1 bonus and/or damage" or "you can sacrifice X swings to land one attack automatically."
That's not going to speed things up unless people are regularly trading X swings for an autohit. Getting bonuses on later attacks is still rolling literally 10x as many attacks (or making combat happen ~10x faster, which would require significant rebalancing).

>It's not a difficult concept mate.
No it's not, it's just not something that's going to work in older editions of D&D without so much work that you might as well just make a new game entirely.

>>48747173
A fighter can level more kingdoms, he's just slightly slower than the Wizard.

I could bring up the mechanics, but as a Wizardfag, you wouldn't enjoy the metagaming.

>>48747631
It's travel times versus spell perpetration times. Unless you have really small kingdoms, wiz wins.
Or unless the fighter has magic items, I guess. But that's basically wizards winning from the past.

>>48747696
Well, The DM I had worked very fairly for fighters and shit.

Considering by the end of the campaign I had close to 30 strength, I was a literal god of war and I literally smashed a mountain to rubble to plug up a hellgate.

Then again it's like the guy who said Puzzles cannot be done by fighters.

It's like people never use Athletics as a skill for puzzles anymore.

What happened to the big ol' rock blocking people's paths?

>>48747622
>Why am I only making one attack roll when my Fighter is technically throwing out ten attacks per minute?
Because the other guy, who is presumably also combat trained, is trying not to get murdered.
>If it represents my blows being dodged and shit, then shouldn't AC already cover the concept of dodging blows?
Because you don't autohit every X attacks, you get a chance to hit. Alternatively, skilled opponents have a 90% chance to block any given attack, and the game simplified that into only rolling 1/10 of attacks rather than rolling all 10 and having only an average of 10% of them potentially matter (depending on attack vs AC)
>how does this factor with creatures that are either untrained humanoids
This is the one good point I've heard in this discussion so far, though Fighters specifically kinda sorta deal with this by getting fucktons of attacks against notably lower-level opponents.
>goblins, kobolds, lizardfolk, etc
Typically assumed to have at least some training or experience
>creatures with no intellect (giant bee, giant spider, etc.)
You don't need to be sentient to know how to fight
>utilizing specialized forms of offense/defense (dragons, undead, aberrations, etc.)
I don't see why those would be different enough to warrant a different mechanic. In the fluff you're going to be dodging the Dragon's feet (or whatever) rather than parrying, but it's close enough for that level of abstraction.

>utilizing specialized forms of offense/defense (dragons, undead, aberrations, etc.)
I think it's fine. It's more simplified than what I normally go for, but I don't find that it kicks me out of my immersion or anything like that.

>>48747499

>Abstractions exist to throw blankets over questions.

Which doesn't work when the abstraction that you're using just creates more questions the more you sit down and really think about it.

Think about it, in Final Fantasy, or at least the later games/spinoffs, when your character made an attack, it only showed one attack animation but also showed that your character hit X times in one action.

And of course, the more hits you made, the more damage you dealt with your attacks as well.

It's not a mutually exclusive concept to say "oh, you made X attacks, these many hit, so you dealt Y damage" if you stop and think about it logically.

>>48747766
Whoops, that last line of greentext should be
>the more you think about it, the more flaws you start to notice in the abstraction that's being used

>>48747766
Just going to interject here.

But you think 10 attack swings a Min is fast?

This is for someone who would be like a master swordsman or warrior right?

I mean I never played is as an abstraction of my character at all and neither has my DM.

Let's say I am at a level to have 3 attacks

>I swing my sword, cutting at the beasts hide
>I sweep my blade back around cutting on the backhand
>Finally, I thrust my sword forward

>DM would say something like my flurry of attacks forces my opponent back/ wounds them gravely etc.

DM's replies are as follows

>>48747766

>Because you don't autohit every X attacks, you get a chance to hit.

Why is it always 1/10 of your hits though?

I mean, even if you were evenly matched with someone, you're likely going to be able to force more than one opening per minute.

>In the fluff you're going to be dodging the Dragon's feet (or whatever) rather than parrying, but it's close enough for that level of abstraction.

Okay, but how do you explain a dude only hitting 10% of his swings against zombies, ghouls, and skeletons?

>>48747625

>Getting bonuses on later attacks is still rolling literally 10x as many attacks (or making combat happen ~10x faster, which would require significant rebalancing).

Admittedly, I should've just kept the auto-hit thing and called it a day.

I reread what I wrote and realized how dumb it was to say "+1 bonus and/or damage for each additional attack" when the whole point was to speed things up.

>>48747741

The wizard will just shrink the rock, blast it to bits, throw it away telekinetically, or just do some other bullshit to magic it away.

That and most Fighters won't be able to lift that big ol' rock due to their inability to carry anything that's over a few hundred pounds at best.

>>48747917
>inability to carry anything that's over a few hundred pounds at best

How does that work exactly?

How does someone have 20 strength as say, an Orc, and not match a giant's strength?

I think you need to stop playing with autists son.

File: that was bait.png (93KB, 1198x1200px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1198x1200px

>>48747766

>>48747782
Yes, those various attacks were abstracted into one attack animation. Having multiple chances to hit, though, requires multiple rolls, so early D&D did away with that. It's not particularly realistic, but it's close enough for me and helps the gameplay.

>>48747831
>But you think 10 attack swings a Min is fast?
No, and I never said I did.

>>48747842
>Why is it always 1/10 of your hits though?
It's 1 per round (or potentially more, depending on your character's stats) because it has to be something, and that's what the designers picked.

>I mean, even if you were evenly matched with someone, you're likely going to be able to force more than one opening per minute.
Maybe, but realism explicitly took a backseat to game design.


>Okay, but how do you explain a dude only hitting 10% of his swings against zombies, ghouls, and skeletons?
That one depends on the skeletons and zombies. The skeleton could be as capable as a Human of the same level of skill, and the zombie could be of the relatively fast variety (as opposed to a shambling pile of meat) in which case it would fall into the same category for this as a wild animal.

Also, D&D considers an attack hitting but bouncing off (or whatever) to be a miss same as if the attack were dodged entirely, so something durable (or that didn't care about losing some of it's meat) would soak a few of your swings that get abstracted away.

As I said above, it's not a 100% realistic game, but it's close enough for me and I don't get why you (or whoever, if you're a different guy) keeps going on about how it supposedly "raises more questions than it answers" like that were some objective fact and not a subjective opinion.

>>48747947

If we go by 5e rules, a character with 20 STR would only be able to carry 300 lbs.

If we go by 3.X rules, a character with 20 STR would only be able to carry up to 400 lbs. max.

Even if you doubled these numbers, it wouldn't come close to being able to lift a big ol' boulder.

>>48748060
Ah I see.

You're just an autist then.

Let's say I am a big guy who can bench press 400lb with ease.

I cannot carry 400lb with ease though.

>>48748060
Keep in mind that's how much they can CARRY.

IDK about 5e, but in 3e that means you can lift 400lbs over your head, pick up 800lbs and stagger around with it, or push 2000lbs.

That still doesn't leave room for super huge boulders, but it leaves way more than 400lbs of room.

>>48748091
Here, for proof of your stupidity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xpuub2DBB8

>>48748107
Who funded this??

>>48748103
The rules always say Reasonably carry.

This to me always means something you can lug around constantly and have no issues at all with. Like a backpack or a suitcase.

Now, the difference between Reasonably carry and "STRAINING TO LIFT SOMETHING AND THROW IT OUT THE WAY" is dramatically different.

Imagine a guy casually carrying 400lb around. That guy is fucking strong as fuck.

I think people are just not understanding how weight works here.

>>48748131
Strong men competitions show just how amazing the Human body is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyQA4Z7SOU0

That guy is lifting 1000lbs of weight. That's as much as two americans!

>>48748049

>It's 1 per round (or potentially more, depending on your character's stats) because it has to be something, and that's what the designers picked.
>Maybe, but realism explicitly took a backseat to game design.

That's still no excuse, especially now when there are dozens of games available that worked around this basic issue already.

>The skeleton could be as capable as a Human of the same level of skill,

Why and how?

>the zombie could be of the relatively fast variety (as opposed to a shambling pile of meat) in which case it would fall into the same category for this as a wild animal.

It still doesn't explain why I'm only hitting 10% of my attacks though. You can say "oh, they're the fast zombies" but even then, zombies aren't going to be dodging, parrying, or blocking attacks made against them due to the fact that they're dead, feel no pain, and are only interested in eating you.

>Also, D&D considers an attack hitting but bouncing off (or whatever) to be a miss same as if the attack were dodged entirely, so something durable (or that didn't care about losing some of it's meat) would soak a few of your swings that get abstracted away.

Which raises more questions.

Why is blocking a blow the same as dodging an attack?

How am I cutting away the meat yet not doing any damage to the creature I'm attacking?

If I'm actually carving this thing like a christmas ham, why isn't it showing up as damage?

>As I said above, it's not a 100% realistic game

It doesn't have to be realistic, it just has to make sense.

Take SR for example,

If you attack multiple enemies, you split your dice pool between those enemies.

If you're defending, you get a roll to dodge and then a roll to soak up the damage using armor.

If you take damage, you take a penalty towards your next action(s) based on how badly you got hit.

It makes sense and it abstracts combat relatively well, it's not perfect but then again, what is?

>>48748252
>especially now when there are dozens of games available that worked around this basic issue already.
Dude what? D&D predates those games.

>Why and how?
Some settings have skeletons as "people who happen to be dead" rather than walking corpses. As such, those skeletons are as fast as Humans.

>zombies aren't going to be dodging, parrying, or blocking attacks made against them
There could be some residual instinctive blocking involved.

>Why is blocking a blow the same as dodging an attack?
Because they deal no damage and D&D doesn't have armor give DR.

>How am I cutting away the meat yet not doing any damage to the creature I'm attacking?
Most creatures, your attack is bouncing or sliding off the hide, rather than cutting off flesh. Zombies, depending on setting and so on, you may be cutting off useless flesh (skin, fat, etc).

>It makes sense
I'm of the opinion that it makes as much sense as this.

>>48747842
>Okay, but how do you explain a dude only hitting 10% of his swings against zombies, ghouls, and skeletons?
You aren't necessarily missing. You just aren't doing significant damage (reducing hitpoints).

Your abstraction nitpicking is really silly, because there are several deeply interrelated abstractions from TSR D&D that you seem to be unaware of.
A successful attack represents anything that (reduces hitpoints) brings your opponent closer to losing a fight.
Armor Class is how likely you are to *not* (lose hitpoints) be brought closer to losing a fight.
Hitpoints are how close you are to losing a fight.

That last in particular represents an absolutely disgusting number of things, from your deep wounds to your exhaustion to your morale to your luck.
Anything and everything you could potentially lose from running out of. If you tried you could fill a whole page with all the things hitpoints collectively represented and still have more to write.

>>48742817
>or he could just strip naked and defeat an army of armed men with his bare hands
fighters are extremely reliant on gear. If they don't have that several hundred pounds of gear the best they are are damage sponges. Sometimes they can't even do anything just without their regular weapon

>>48746652
Dante from the Devil May Cry series

>>48748714

>Dude what? D&D predates those games.

TSR D&D predates most games.

WotC D&D does not.

>Some settings have skeletons as "people who happen to be dead" rather than walking corpses. As such, those skeletons are as fast as Humans.

Such as?

>There could be some residual instinctive blocking involved.

Why would a creature whose only instinct is "destroy everything that's living" be worried about blocking?

>Because they deal no damage and D&D doesn't have armor give DR.

Which is retarded.

>Most creatures, your attack is bouncing or sliding off the hide, rather than cutting off flesh. Zombies, depending on setting and so on, you may be cutting off useless flesh (skin, fat, etc).

If I'm cutting off flesh though, shouldn't that still be causing damage? I mean, it's not like zombies in D&D follow the "headshot only" rule in most settings/media, so I don't really see why, if I'm slicing off chunks of flesh, it doesn't translate to actually causing some damage to the thing, even if it's only non-lethal or something.

>I'm of the opinion that it makes as much sense as this.

Well then your opinion is wrong.

And the reason you're wrong is because none of the mechanics make sense if you look at them as concept that take place within an actual world.

For instance,

>wearing heavier armor makes you more adept at dodging than a monk who is naked
>you can only make one attack per turn because you're basically dodging/parrying/blocking blows, even against creatures that wouldn't do that.
>A person with high enough HP could tank a fall from terminal velocity without suffering any adverse effects, while classes like the wizard can die from someone throwing a rock at them.

I mean, they make perfect sense if you only look at them from a mechanical standpoint but once you try to explain why that works out within the game's universe, that's when you run into a snag in the game's logic.

>>48750274

>That last in particular represents an absolutely disgusting number of things, from your deep wounds to your exhaustion to your morale to your luck.

Which doesn't make any sense when you consider that a Barbarian with higher than average health could survive a fall off a cliff without any major issues.

If it represents deep wounds then the Barbarian should at least have a broken limb for tanking terminal velocity.

If it represents exhaustion then losing HP would cause an effect that lowers your attack bonus, like how SR causes you to take a penalty to your dice pool if you take too much damage.

If it represented morale then, again, losing HP would cause an effect that lowers your attack bonus, if not causing a fear effect that forces you to run if you run out of morale.

But it doesn't, because the mechanics don't emulate anything within the game's world and only make sense if you look at it from the standpoint of a game, rather than from the standpoint of the game's world.

>>48739107
Discard classes. Everything operates off skills. "Fighters" have martial arts skills. "Rogues" use sneaky skills. "Wizards" use magic skills. You can mix and match skills however you like (within reason and setting restrictions). Want a sneaky fighter? Done. Want a magic rogue? Simple. Want a buff wizard? Easy.

Stats affect the success rate and magnitude of skill checks, and some skills can't even be developed if your character lacks the stats for it (you'll struggle to learn how to fight if you're too physically weak, and certain magic skills might demand a lot of intelligence, like golem-crafting, while more intuitive fare like commanding animals may not).

>>48752340
Death from massive damage (optional) rules, or DM fiat.
Or just roll with it, it's kinda funny and you can play it up to be dramatic.

>for tanking terminal velocity.
High level fights could sometimes survive falling from orbit in Spelljammer.
But how exactly are you reaching terminal velocity from a cliff? You need to fall >1.5k feet.

>>48756162

>Death from massive damage (optional) rules, or DM fiat.

Which creates two problems depending on what you choose.

If you use massive damage rules, then it just gives the mages more power since their spells are more likely to deal that type of damage than the martial's attacks could.

On the other hand, if you use DM fiat to say "well, you fell off a cliff, you died," then the players will get pissed off because a) they'll argue that they have enough health to shrug off the damage, b) they'll cite the damage that they would take from falling off a cliff that's X feet tall and show that they could survive it with their current HP total, c) they'll cite all of their class abilities that would allow them to soak up extra damage, especially the Barbarian which grants bonuses to CON and light DR at higher levels, and d) anytime they take damage and/or die, they'll feel as though it's because you decided "y'know what, fuck that guy in particular" rather than it being a consequence of the dice.

Overall, neither option is all that great in the grand scheme of things.

>Or just roll with it, it's kinda funny and you can play it up to be dramatic.

Only the first few times, then it'll become grating as fuck when the resident martial decides, "y'know what, falling out of this window is faster than the stairs, so I do that lol."

There's no reason for him not to, especially since you don't actually take an injury when you take enough damage.

>>48756557
>Only the first few times
Why are you even in situations where it *could* happen more than a few times?

>>48747917
okay, but the wizard just wasted bunch of spell slots to remove that rock. meanwhile the fighter can just continue to be awesome while the wizard is taking his beauty sleep somewhere and being useless

>>48756604

Unless you have every building in the entirety of your setting only have one floor, it's going to happen multiple times since players are smartasses who will push for every advantage they can come up with.

>>48739107
>or roll Intelligence to find a key
Do people seriously play this way?

>>48756665

Actually, the wizard only wasted *one* of his spell slots.

>>48756726
point being?
at low levels that slot could be everything and at higher levels you are that much closer to the beauty sleep

>>48756751

What's your point here?

At low levels, neither side are going to be taking out boulders anytime soon and at higher levels, you can easily piss away one spell slot and still be pulling everyone's weight until you have to take a rest.

I mean, after level 5, the average mage will likely have 10 spells minimum, not including cantrips, especially if they gain bonus spells thanks to having a higher than average score in their casting stat.

And even if it were possible for the martial to lift a boulder at level 1...okay?

The martial's only claim to fame to chucking rocks? Which isn't even something that's unique to the martial once the mage reaches level 5+ and gains multiple ways of chucking rocks due to how large their spell list is.

I'm not reading the whole thread. Did it turn into Quadratic VS Linear yet?

>>48756699
>every building in the entirety of your setting only have one floor
>one floor
If your griping about realism you should know that a second story fall is fairly trivial.
Even third story falls can be, it's fourth and above that are always really nasty.

>>48757190 No, but there's one persistent poster who's been trying to lean it that way.

>>48757190
Right from the start, actually. Someone is just spamming these threads because they're upset about lewd character thread.

I like 5e, I think fighters should just get more options with the attacks they have. It's nice they can attack X times a round and move freely between them, and always get all their attacks. it would be cool if you could save your attacks and use them out of turn for parries, deflections, and interrupts. Like attacks of opportunity except you get to choose when they go off. Also, ranged attacks of opportunity should be a thing. If a fighter sees a wizard casting meteor storm, he should be allowed to chuck his sword at them to try and break the cast.

>>48757225

Even a second story fall could lead to an injury if you don't land correctly.

I mean, I've seen people break their arms from falling roughly five feet yet a Barbarian can fall hundreds of feet and not only survive, but suffer no major injuries?

The fuck is that nonsense?

>>48757225
Not that guy, but one time I was playing a warforged monk and we had to get somewhere. We are on some slow airship and the pilot said it was the fastest means of travel anywhere.

I jumped off the airship and ran the rest of the way. took 20d6 damage, gave no fucks, and nothing could catch me if it wanted to.

>>48741579
Hmmm.

Now I want to revert round times to 1 minute.

>>48757718 It also adds a nice aesthetic contrast to magic when even the most powerful wizards need a full uninterrupted minute to get a spell off.

>>48757758
It does mess with spell durations though. You get a lot less bang for your buck with rounds being a minute long.

How would you make combat spells have casting times longer than 1 action?

>>48757807
Scale up the durations of combat relevant spells.

>>48757874
How about: Spells with durations in minutes increase by 1 step. 1 Minute spells become 10, 10 become an hour, etc.

>>48752298
>TSR D&D predates most games.
And guess which one you were complaining about.

>Such as?
Off the top of my head, iirc the Diablo setting has them that way (though not sentient anymore), and I got the impression the default assumption in D&D is that as well.

>a creature whose only instinct is "destroy everything that's living"
They aren't like that in every setting.

>Which is retarded.
That's a matter of personal opinion.

>If I'm cutting off flesh though, shouldn't that still be causing damage?
Not necessarily. It could be cosmetic damage. Such as skin and fat, rather than muscle. Or the setting could have zombies work essentially as skeletons but with flesh still on them, in which case you'd need to be breaking their bones.

>Well then your opinion is wrong.
Factual facts stated factually.

>wearing heavier armor makes you less likely to get hurt when someone tries to hit you, whether from dodging or it bouncing off your armor
>the typical assumption is that all creatures will be both attacking and blocking/whatever. If you want to homebrew a custom monster that doesn't, go right ahead.
>People with high HP can survive taking more damage than people with low HP. Shocking.

Seriously, just think about it for a minute. Not every action your character performs needs to have game time spent on it.

>>48752340
It represents a fuckload of things, from physical wounds to exhaustion to morale to divine favor. A big strong guy wearing a lot of armor who gets hit (according to the game) may have it hit his armor and leave a bruise, while a squishy mage or something may see it coming just in time to dodge, but now he's a little more tired.

iirc the books state somewhere that only the last few HP actually represent notable wounds and everything else is some mixture of various nonphysical factors.

Also, the original falling damage rules were 1d6 damage per 10ft per 10ft, but an editor mistakenly got rid of the extra "per 10ft" because he thought it was a typo. So the first 10ft you fall deals 1d6 damage, the second deals 3d6, the third deals 6d6 and so on.

>>48757454
D&D abstracts away the negative performance aspects of injuries. If you don't like it, houserule them in or find a game that does.

>>48750274
>That last in particular represents an absolutely disgusting number of things, from your deep wounds to your exhaustion to your morale to your luck.

This always seemed unnecessarily wishy-washy and nebulous to me. Getting hit should just mean getting hit.

>>48758822

>They aren't like that in every setting.

In most settings, zombies are not concerned with blocking blows because all they want is to eat living flesh and create more zombies.

>That's a matter of personal opinion.

It's a matter of basic logic.

Only in D&D does wearing more armor make you more adept at dodging blows, when any other system will give you bonuses to blocking damage while you're wearing armor.

To make it doubly stupid, you have shit like DR that basically works like that yet it's only available if you have a spell like stone skin.

>It could be cosmetic damage.

Which would still be damage.

If you got cut along your arm, it's still going to hurt a bit. Maybe it'll only deal 1 damage or maybe it'll only deal 1 point on nonlethal but it's still fucking damage.

>wearing heavier armor makes you less likely to get hurt when someone tries to hit you, whether from dodging or it bouncing off your armor

Even if you're wearing armor though, that blow is still going to send you on your ass if it's powerful enough.

It's why shields are designed to deflect blows away from the body, rather than actually stopping the blow entirely.

>the typical assumption is that all creatures will be both attacking and blocking/whatever. If you want to homebrew a custom monster that doesn't, go right ahead.

A wild animal is not going to bother protecting itself like a human(oid) would. A zombie is not going to bother when it's only concern is to feed on you. A dragon is not going to bother when it's not only larger but also capable of soaking damage through its hide, etc.

>People with high HP can survive taking more damage than people with low HP. Shocking.

People with high HP can basically survive a ballista bolt to the chest, multiple times, and still fight like nothing happened.

Where's the tension? Oh wait, when the mage casts a spell and the Fighter fails his Will save, my mistake.

>>48758904

>It represents a fuckload of things

It CLAIMS to represent a fuckload of things, until you stop and think and realize that the only explanation that makes sense is meat points.

Why can the Fighter fall off a cliff and suffer no injury? He had enough meat points.

Why can the Wizard die to a stiff breeze but can tank a ballista after a few levels? He had meat points.

You can come up with every other justification in the book but in practice, it comes down to whether or not you had more meat points than the damage that's flying at you.

>>48759111
>In most settings
I don't know if it's "most" or "some" or whatever. I know it's not all and not none.

>It's a matter of basic logic.
Not really. An attack "missing" in D&D could mean that the attack misses or it could mean that the attack fails to deal any damage.

DR was added in later editions, though you're right that it doesn't really work with the D&D AC system.

>Even if you're wearing armor though, that blow is still going to send you on your ass if it's powerful enough.
>if it's powerful enough.
This is the key point here. The attack may be too weak, or it may have enough power to get through on a solid hit but it hits an angled section of armor, or whatever.

>A wild animal is not going to bother protecting itself like a human(oid) would
Not like a humanoid would, but it's going to try to not get injured.
>capable of soaking damage through its hide
Not really, since swords and so on are able to damage them on a hard, well-aimed hit. It works just like armor, and the dragons in D&D aren't so large that their hides are likely to be completely impenetrable except for the biggest, oldest ones (which you're going to be tossing magic weapons at, by the time you're a high enough level to fight them).

>People with high HP can basically survive a ballista bolt to the chest, multiple times, and still fight like nothing happened.
Except remember that HP and getting hit don't necessarily correspond to physical injuries.

>the Fighter fails his Will save
Forget we're not talking about modern D&D?

>>48759248
You were literally arguing that meat points don't make sense for HP.

HP isn't only meat points because, you know, it doesn't make sense as only meat points.

File: smug.jpg (16KB, 480x378px)

16KB, 480x378px

>>48759352
>HP isn't only meat points because, you know, it doesn't make sense as only meat points.
Name one situation where it doesn't.

>>48759380

You attack a skeleton.

Also, proning the skeleton knock him into little bits so he has to skeleton warrior himself back

Also, play 4e or any game that has noticed that it's kinda bullshit to have classes have such different resource systems and expect them to work.

>>48759380
How about taking a ballista bolt to the chest. Unless you're using anime physics and/or biology, people aren't going to be able to reliably survive a gaping chest wound of that size, no matter how tough they are or how many people they've killed.

>>48759380
You're assuming that damage represents "how bad something fucks up meat points." It doesn't. It's indicative of the quality of the strike, not the quality of the blow. The fighter's attack does 1d8+4 damage whether a helpless peasant or a grandmaster warrior is standing on the receiving end of the attack. It's not really a stretch to suggest that the grandmaster takes a smaller portion of his hp in damage because he defends himself better against the potential harm done by the attack.

Hit points just represent how good you are at getting hit, but don't explicitly say why -- you come up with a reason that makes sense depending on the creature. It's a good system for a game that models humans alongside zombies, giants, and so forth.

>Name one situation where it doesn't.
Ghosts with hp. They literally lack meat. So what does hp represent in that case?

File: smug carl.jpg (12KB, 320x220px)

12KB, 320x220px

>>48759435
>You attack a skeleton.
Bonepoints.
>Also, play 4e
No, my taste is too good for that.

>>48759464
>How about taking a ballista bolt to the chest.
You have more meatpoints than any real human could ever have. In fact, you have so many meatpoints that the ballista doesn't even impale you, it leaves a large gouge on your chest. Done.

>>48759486
>Ghosts with hp.
Ectoplasm points.

>>48759329

>I don't know if it's "most" or "some" or whatever. I know it's not all and not none.

In 90% of all settings, zombies are creatures that kill living creatures either to devour their flesh or they're powered by destructive magic.

Even if there are exceptions, they are minor instances that don't change the concept of undead as a whole.

>This is the key point here. The attack may be too weak, or it may have enough power to get through on a solid hit but it hits an angled section of armor, or whatever.

Even if the blow doesn't send you on your ass, you're still going to feel it.

>Not like a humanoid would, but it's going to try to not get injured.

A wild animal will either attack you or it's going to run away, that's how it tries to not get injured.

>Not really, since swords and so on are able to damage them on a hard, well-aimed hit.

IIRC, dragons have a resistance to physical damage, so unless you're using a magical weapon, it's not going to poke through it's hide as effectively as it would against weaker creatures.

>Except remember that HP and getting hit don't necessarily correspond to physical injuries.

Then what's the point of rolling for damage?

If I fucking hit, then let me fucking hit. Don't tell me that I beat its AC yet somehow didn't actually cause any injuries because it had more meat points than my attack's damage.

>>48759464
Giants take the ballista bolt to the chest and laugh it off because they have lots of meat points.

Peasants take it to the chest and die.

Fighters who aren't total fucking amateurs don't take it to the chest, thereby maintaining their high hit point to meat point ratio.

>>48759435

>You attack a skeleton.

Bones have marrow in them, which is technically meat. The more meat points they lose, the less stable their bones become.

>>48759464

>How about taking a ballista bolt to the chest.

Your character has more meat points than the ballista bolt has damage.

>>48759486

>Ghosts with hp. They literally lack meat. So what does hp represent in that case?

Their constitution to maintain their ectoplasmic form. The more damage they take, they less "solid" they appear.

>>48759508
>>48759620
>hurr durr fuck realism it's meatpoints
Are there two trolls in here or did you forget you already responded?

>>48759542
>In 90% of all settings, zombies are creatures that kill living creatures either to devour their flesh or they're powered by destructive magic.
And this means they have absolutely no residual instincts or drive to not get injured in all these settings?

>Even if the blow doesn't send you on your ass, you're still going to feel it.
Not necessarily. Armor is typically pretty good at protecting people.

>A wild animal will either attack you or it's going to run away, that's how it tries to not get injured.
Have you seen animals fight? I say this because you're wrong.

>IIRC, dragons have a resistance to physical damage, so unless you're using a magical weapon, it's not going to poke through it's hide as effectively as it would against weaker creatures.
Yes.
Thing is, unless you're fighting a baby dragon or something you're probably going to be using magic weapons to bypass it or fuckhuge weapons to power through.

>Then what's the point of rolling for damage?
Moving your opponent closer to losing the fight, as has been said before.

In any event, you've clearly run out of even halfway decent arguments so I'm out.

>>48759688
>if anyone disagrees with me, they're a troll!
But yeah, there's 2 of us.

>>48747173
Only if your game lacks gear that lets the fighter survive/out run the artillery, and if it's magic system allows effects on that scale. Believe it or not, AN RPG DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE MAGIC THAT OPERATES ON THAT SCALE.

>>48747917
And how much energy does it take thew wizard to do that? How often can he do it before he becomes useless? There is no per day use for muscle.

>>48747917
>inability to carry anything that's over a few hundred pounds at best
What kind of shit fighters have you been gaming with?

>>48756945
>At low levels, neither side are going to be taking out boulders
This nigga has clearly never heard of adamantine hammers.

>>48759688

>And this means they have absolutely no residual instincts or drive to not get injured in all these settings?

Yes, because zombies are already fucking dead (enough) and have no reason to worry about injury when they already feel no pain.

When was the last time you saw a zombie give a shit about someone shooting it anywhere that wasn't the head?

>Not necessarily. Armor is typically pretty good at protecting people.

Armor is designed to keep you alive, it's not designed to protect you from injury.

Case in point: Kevlar will stop a bullet from killing you, but you're still going to feel as though someone took a sledgehammer and smashed it into your chest.

>Have you seen animals fight?

Have you?

Because I've yet to see a creature that willingly attacks something that it knows is stronger than itself.

Even then, it's not going to dance around and shit, it's going to strike the closest vital or it's going to strike in a way that limits their prey's mobility.

>Moving your opponent closer to losing the fight, as has been said before.

If you're not actually dealing damage then why are you rolling for damage?

You can say "to move your opponent closer to death" but it still doesn't work because apparently, you deal damage without actually dealing damage.

>>48759761

He only needs to land one spell to do any one of those abilities.

And even though there's no per day use for muscle, it's also the most inefficient means of bypassing an obstacle due to it having a much lower cap than any one of the wizard's spells do.

>>48759807

Who is giving low level scrubs adamantine weapons?

>>48759894
A functionally infinite power source is inefficient? Yeah okay.

>>48759909
Shop owners. Capitalism has no level requirements.

>>48759912

It is when it's weaker and less effective than another means of power.

Especially when all you need is one successful spell to overcome an obstacle that stands in your way.

>>48759930

No low level scrub is going to be able to afford adamantine weapons either.

Unless the shop keep is just giving that shit away for free or giving them bootleg adamantine or something.

>>48759933
It's only weaker if the GM hates nonmagical classes.

>>48759963
Why not? They're not that expensive. Level 2, 3 tops, and the party can get one.

>>48760010

By design, martial classes cap out early due to mages getting more and more spells that can perform more and more unique effects.

Low level, you might be able to pull off some clutch victories for your party but once you reach level 5, the mage will have more than enough spells to contribute to combat without needing to rest after one encounter.

Think about it, should you spend 3-5 turns (minimum) to take out the enemy or should you just let the mage spend one turn throwing a SoL/SoD at it?

>>48760105
Yeah, by the design of systems that are supposed to act that way. BUT THEY DON'T ALL DO THAT. Nor do they have to.

>>48760024

The issue is, adamantine is not common, it's a special material that's supposed to only be found in specific areas of the world. If you have a material that's rare, it's implied that it's supposed to be something that's designed to be awarded after a quest or something.

Then again, this is a game where magic items are not only expected but required for character progression so...whatever.

>>48760152

This discussion is based off of D&D though.

Bringing up how other games handles mundane vs. magic is pointless when D&D is the only system where this kind of shit is still a major issue (except for 4e though, 4e handled it well).

>>48757964 That's dumb and that does dumb things for spells with hour or day durations.
Leave all round based durations as is (same rounds, more time) and leave all time duartions as is (less rounds, same time).

>>48759912

Magic Spells are just as infinitely renewable as muscle in D&D.

They just might have a different cap system.

It's like arguing that a knife is better than a rifle with 10 bullets against a bear.

>>48759912
>A functionally infinite power source is inefficient?
Sure is, the Mass Effect games proved this!

>>48759912 Efficiency is throughput, not span.