TheRPGSite

Do you know what humans did when they wanted to hunt megafauna (rhinos, lions, tigers, elephants, etc)?

Did they:

1. Fight it upfront in a head-on battle
2. Lay traps, bleed it out, generally avoid direct conflict where possible

No 2. is how humans have hunted elephants, mammoths, and other megafauna during our time on Earth. No 1. is suicide and anyone who did it would soon perish. An elephant would kill medieval knights, let alone Paleolithic hunter-gatherers.

And yet DND and other games in its vein have you fight dragons and other creatures who could easily kill any real-world megafauna (even blue-whale sized Sauropods) in No 1. style. Confusingly, they also say that martials- the people expected to walk up to and kill these monsters by essentially whacking them and withstanding getting whacked until one dies- are normal humans who couldn't lift a ton without magical gear.

This is implausible. Either you are a normal human, and so have to resort to indirect means to kill a dragon (for instance, poisoning their food, making pit traps that collapse into a bed of spikes when they land, using magic to weaken them, staying far away and so on) or you can kill a dragon in an upfront battle, in which case you are superhuman. Generally, the bigger and nastier relative to real-world animals the monsters are, the more unbelievable that normal humans can do anything to them. It would make for a boring RPG if done poorly.

'You encounter a dragon.'

'I attack!' *rolls die*

'Your sword bounces off its steel-hard scales and is bent to uselessness. It squashes you and the rest of your party with one stomp.'

Even if the fighter had a supernatural sword- unless it has some sort of ability that ignores physical size and strength (poison that always works, sending people to other dimensions, being able to cut through anything) they'll be limited by their normal human strength.

This could work in a game where you're expected to either run away or talk things out most of the time or other underhanded methods...this is not the game DND and its derivatives are. The solution (in my eyes) is to basically recognize the consequences of superhuman strength (or durability, or speed), and build your challenges around those constraints. Dungeons should be built for people who can withstand being smacked around by an Ankylosaurus, who can punch through stone walls (as a result of having the strength to cut up megafauna).

This gets worse if the giant monsters can make a modern military exert effort to take them down, btw. If Orcus can force a country like say, France, to use missiles, tanks, and planes- or even NUKES, either the party has to trick Orcus somehow or make his strengths not apply in some other way, or they are ridiculously superhuman and can fight him on even terms.

You mentioned dragons when describing megafauna. You do know that dragons are fantastical beasts right? Also, high level adventurers are far from normal humans. We are dealing with a fantasy game. In case you forgot what fantasy means go look it up and get back to us.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 29, 2023, 07:54:59 PM
You mentioned dragons when describing megafauna. You do know that dragons are fantastical beasts right? Also, high level adventurers are far from normal humans. We are dealing with a fantasy game. In case you forgot what fantasy means go look it up and get back to us.

mega = large

fauna = animals

dragons = large animals

I don't see why they're not megafauna. Fantastical megafauna, but still megafauna.

And I know that martials aren't normal humans. The problem is that they are superhuman in one field only - killing huge monsters. They cannot, say, use the same strength that their main sthick needs in order to pick up a rock and send it flying through a row of 300 soldiers. Or leap 200 meters in the air to knock down an airship. Or break down the gates of a castle. Pretty standard mythology stuff. Lancelot, for instance, could easily pick up a boulder that 10 men struggled to even move off the ground.

I have two different responses. Feel free to skip to the second one as being more useful.  ;D

The first one is: if you're writing fairy tales, don't quibble about talking teddy bears. (That's a [mis]quote.)

The second one is: in our homebrew, one option you can take for your character is "act on large scale". Most characters are "small scale". Acting on Large Scale lets you do kaiju-sized movement and kaiju-strength attacks.

Quote from: Tod13 on September 29, 2023, 08:16:30 PM
I have two different responses. Feel free to skip to the second one as being more useful.  ;D

The first one is: if you're writing fairy tales, don't quibble about talking teddy bears. (That's a [mis]quote.)

The second one is: in our homebrew, one option you can take for your character is "act on large scale". Most characters are "small scale". Acting on Large Scale lets you do kaiju-sized movement and kaiju-strength attacks.

my first response is that this is totally fair. i wouldn't bring this up in a casual conversation. but for people that care about the consistency of their worlds like I do (not implying that this is either good or bad), it might be useful for them.

the second response is that I want to see your homebrew, I'm curious. DM me please.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on September 29, 2023, 07:23:07 PMAn elephant would kill medieval knights, let alone Paleolithic hunter-gatherers.

Medieval knights didn't get an extra 1d10 hit points each level. They also didn't have rings of invisibility of potions of healing.

Have you ever played D&D? Read Beowulf, or heard of Sigurd?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on September 29, 2023, 09:27:17 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on September 29, 2023, 07:23:07 PMAn elephant would kill medieval knights, let alone Paleolithic hunter-gatherers.

Medieval knights didn't get an extra 1d10 hit points each level. They also didn't have rings of invisibility of potions of healing.

Have you ever played D&D? Read Beowulf, or heard of Sigurd?

So, in other words, you agree with me that DND mid-to-high level martials are superhuman. The problem I have is that this superhuman ability applies to one narrow field- taking and receiving damage- and no others. A monk with the leg strength to do anything to an elephant with a kick could also kick right through walls, wooden or even stone, or leap over 50 foot walls in one go. Using a specific build in a specific edition (5th edition), one Polearm Master fighter who could cleave through an elephant in one hit with 120 damage could also entirely derail historic battles like the Battle of Hastings or the battle of Alesia.

Essentially, what I'm saying boils down to 'Apply this superhuman strength elsewhere, then make challenges around that' if you care about consistency. DND fails this because it pretends its characters are 'human+' who would worry about things like nonmagical stone walls in their way.

Maybe I haven't been playing AD&D2e the last 3+ years then, we encountered a Dragon, talked with it and didn't fight.

Right now we struck a deal with Storm Giants to help them get a McGuffin in exchange for their help with dealing with a Lich.

Yes, we're 10/11th level characters (I'm the wizard), but humans (and humanoids) greatest weapòn has always been their mind.

Unless I plan on leveling the whole city not destroying the walls that protect it seems like a good idea to me.

So we infiltrate without destruction saving our strenght for when it is needed and will help on accomplishing our goals.

Now, granted I have never played 5e (and don't plan to), but I think your problem is more with noob GMs/Players than the game itself.

As for a Monk that could hurt and elephant with one kick... Maybe it's just me but I would totally let him hit a wall and see what the dice say. Thing is a smart player won't do that unless it's a desperate thing, because there's always the chance of breaking your leg, at least in good games with good GMs, no idea about 5e.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 29, 2023, 10:25:09 PM
Maybe I haven't been playing AD&D2e the last 3+ years then, we encountered a Dragon, talked with it and didn't fight.

Right now we struck a deal with Storm Giants to help them get a McGuffin in exchange for their help with dealing with a Lich.

Yes, we're 10/11th level characters (I'm the wizard), but humans (and humanoids) greatest weapòn has always been their mind.

Unless I plan on leveling the whole city not destroying the walls that protect it seems like a good idea to me.

So we infiltrate without destruction saving our strenght for when it is needed and will help on accomplishing our goals.

Now, granted I have never played 5e (and don't plan to), but I think your problem is more with noob GMs/Players than the game itself.

As for a Monk that could hurt and elephant with one kick... Maybe it's just me but I would totally let him hit a wall and see what the dice say. Thing is a smart player won't do that unless it's a desperate thing, because there's always the chance of breaking your leg, at least in good games with good GMs, no idea about 5e.

Considering the nature of a TTRPG, it is perfectly acceptable to have differing opinions on how grounded the world is. You tend to side on the more fantastical side, that's fine. Breaking your leg doesn't make sense from a physics perspective, but from a game and world perspective, it can work. All that matters is that the superhuman strength is at least accounted for in fields where it should apply. If you want to play a DND campaign where people talk or run their way through scenarios that would be lethal to 99% of humanity because they're at a normal human level at level 20, sure, you do you, but you should try to alter the rules in accordance with that.

I brought this up because the people here tend to talk about how 'wokeness' makes a game world not make sense. I thought- what about other things not as politically heated?

Quote from: MeganovaStella on September 29, 2023, 10:30:04 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 29, 2023, 10:25:09 PM
Maybe I haven't been playing AD&D2e the last 3+ years then, we encountered a Dragon, talked with it and didn't fight.

Right now we struck a deal with Storm Giants to help them get a McGuffin in exchange for their help with dealing with a Lich.

Yes, we're 10/11th level characters (I'm the wizard), but humans (and humanoids) greatest weapòn has always been their mind.

Unless I plan on leveling the whole city not destroying the walls that protect it seems like a good idea to me.

So we infiltrate without destruction saving our strenght for when it is needed and will help on accomplishing our goals.

Now, granted I have never played 5e (and don't plan to), but I think your problem is more with noob GMs/Players than the game itself.

As for a Monk that could hurt and elephant with one kick... Maybe it's just me but I would totally let him hit a wall and see what the dice say. Thing is a smart player won't do that unless it's a desperate thing, because there's always the chance of breaking your leg, at least in good games with good GMs, no idea about 5e.

Considering the nature of a TTRPG, it is perfectly acceptable to have differing opinions on how grounded the world is. You tend to side on the more fantastical side, that's fine. Breaking your leg doesn't make sense from a physics perspective, but from a game and world perspective, it can work. All that matters is that the superhuman strength is at least accounted for in fields where it should apply. If you want to play a DND campaign where people talk or run their way through scenarios that would be lethal to 99% of humanity because they're at a normal human level at level 20, sure, you do you, but you should try to alter the rules in accordance with that.

I brought this up because the people here tend to talk about how 'wokeness' makes a game world not make sense. I thought- what about other things not as politically heated?

But is it strenght in the case of the Monk? I always thought it was Ki, something the PC needs to expend wisely.

Now, if there's a class where IT IS strength then yes, the PC should be able to use that strenght in ways not related to figthing. If I were the GM it would be a nobrainer to have Clark Kent be able to open the pickle jar because his strenght is the same regardles.

I've heard much about how 5e is ridiculously OP and you end up playing supers, which is actually true on all RPGs (almost, there's exceptions) on high levels. Which is why WBFMAG ten level cap is something I like, except when I WANT to play supers, but then D&D isn't my system of choice for that.

There's also the tried method of sending your PCs to other planes so they aren't so OP.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 29, 2023, 10:53:34 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on September 29, 2023, 10:30:04 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 29, 2023, 10:25:09 PM
Maybe I haven't been playing AD&D2e the last 3+ years then, we encountered a Dragon, talked with it and didn't fight.

Right now we struck a deal with Storm Giants to help them get a McGuffin in exchange for their help with dealing with a Lich.

Yes, we're 10/11th level characters (I'm the wizard), but humans (and humanoids) greatest weapòn has always been their mind.

Unless I plan on leveling the whole city not destroying the walls that protect it seems like a good idea to me.

So we infiltrate without destruction saving our strenght for when it is needed and will help on accomplishing our goals.

Now, granted I have never played 5e (and don't plan to), but I think your problem is more with noob GMs/Players than the game itself.

As for a Monk that could hurt and elephant with one kick... Maybe it's just me but I would totally let him hit a wall and see what the dice say. Thing is a smart player won't do that unless it's a desperate thing, because there's always the chance of breaking your leg, at least in good games with good GMs, no idea about 5e.

Considering the nature of a TTRPG, it is perfectly acceptable to have differing opinions on how grounded the world is. You tend to side on the more fantastical side, that's fine. Breaking your leg doesn't make sense from a physics perspective, but from a game and world perspective, it can work. All that matters is that the superhuman strength is at least accounted for in fields where it should apply. If you want to play a DND campaign where people talk or run their way through scenarios that would be lethal to 99% of humanity because they're at a normal human level at level 20, sure, you do you, but you should try to alter the rules in accordance with that.

I brought this up because the people here tend to talk about how 'wokeness' makes a game world not make sense. I thought- what about other things not as politically heated?

But is it strenght in the case of the Monk? I always thought it was Ki, something the PC needs to expend wisely.

Now, if there's a class where IT IS strength then yes, the PC should be able to use that strenght in ways not related to figthing. If I were the GM it would be a nobrainer to have Clark Kent be able to open the pickle jar because his strenght is the same regardles.

I've heard much about how 5e is ridiculously OP and you end up playing supers, which is actually true on all RPGs (almost, there's exceptions) on high levels. Which is why WBFMAG ten level cap is something I like, except when I WANT to play supers, but then D&D isn't my system of choice for that.

There's also the tried method of sending your PCs to other planes so they aren't so OP.

Yeah, that's something we agree on. I would say that Monk strength being raw strength or Ki depends on the GM, but then again I haven't looked too deeply into Monk lore to say anything with confidence.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on September 29, 2023, 07:23:07 PM
Do you know what humans did when they wanted to hunt megafauna (rhinos, lions, tigers, elephants, etc)?

Did they:

1. Fight it upfront in a head-on battle
2. Lay traps, bleed it out, generally avoid direct conflict where possible

No 2. is how humans have hunted elephants, mammoths, and other megafauna during our time on Earth. No 1. is suicide and anyone who did it would soon perish. An elephant would kill medieval knights, let alone Paleolithic hunter-gatherers.

And yet DND and other games in its vein have you fight dragons and other creatures who could easily kill any real-world megafauna (even blue-whale sized Sauropods) in No 1. style.

Eh. The wording seems crafted to force your point.

From what I understand, the fossil evidence does indicate that hunters did inflict severe wounds to megafauna with weapons. I mean, technically that fits within #2 since you've worded it as a catch-all with "generally" and "where possible." But if I eliminate your framing, the bottom line is hunting megafauna still involved striking with and hurling weapons in an attempt to hit and cause damage. And so as a plain matter of fact, it meshes perfectly well with how most RPGs work.

QuoteConfusingly, they also say that martials- the people expected to walk up to and kill these monsters by essentially whacking them and withstanding getting whacked until one dies- are normal humans who couldn't lift a ton without magical gear.

This is implausible. Either you are a normal human, and so have to resort to indirect means to kill a dragon (for instance, poisoning their food, making pit traps that collapse into a bed of spikes when they land, using magic to weaken them, staying far away and so on) or you can kill a dragon in an upfront battle, in which case you are superhuman. Generally, the bigger and nastier relative to real-world animals the monsters are, the more unbelievable that normal humans can do anything to them. It would make for a boring RPG if done poorly.

I look at the mammoth stats in the original monster manual, which gets 5 attacks per round, each very likely to one-hit-kill a normal human, and I can't see clear where anyone would expect normal humans to withstand getting whacked. I mean I'm sure someone somewhere does. Weirdos gonna weirdo. But that's not an expectation the RPG sets.

An 8th level fighter, which the game literally considers a "superhero," with the magical accouterments one might expect for such a character, might be able to pull it off.

As for dragons, I'm inclined to think the situation is reversed. Dragons really do need to be played tactically to fully appreciate how powerful they really are. It's the dragon that doesn't want a straight-on fight.

Quote from: Lunamancer on September 30, 2023, 01:17:39 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on September 29, 2023, 07:23:07 PM
Do you know what humans did when they wanted to hunt megafauna (rhinos, lions, tigers, elephants, etc)?

Did they:

1. Fight it upfront in a head-on battle
2. Lay traps, bleed it out, generally avoid direct conflict where possible

No 2. is how humans have hunted elephants, mammoths, and other megafauna during our time on Earth. No 1. is suicide and anyone who did it would soon perish. An elephant would kill medieval knights, let alone Paleolithic hunter-gatherers.

And yet DND and other games in its vein have you fight dragons and other creatures who could easily kill any real-world megafauna (even blue-whale sized Sauropods) in No 1. style.

Eh. The wording seems crafted to force your point.

From what I understand, the fossil evidence does indicate that hunters did inflict severe wounds to megafauna with weapons. I mean, technically that fits within #2 since you've worded it as a catch-all with "generally" and "where possible." But if I eliminate your framing, the bottom line is hunting megafauna still involved striking with and hurling weapons in an attempt to hit and cause damage. And so as a plain matter of fact, it meshes perfectly well with how most RPGs work.

QuoteConfusingly, they also say that martials- the people expected to walk up to and kill these monsters by essentially whacking them and withstanding getting whacked until one dies- are normal humans who couldn't lift a ton without magical gear.

This is implausible. Either you are a normal human, and so have to resort to indirect means to kill a dragon (for instance, poisoning their food, making pit traps that collapse into a bed of spikes when they land, using magic to weaken them, staying far away and so on) or you can kill a dragon in an upfront battle, in which case you are superhuman. Generally, the bigger and nastier relative to real-world animals the monsters are, the more unbelievable that normal humans can do anything to them. It would make for a boring RPG if done poorly.

I look at the mammoth stats in the original monster manual, which gets 5 attacks per round, each very likely to one-hit-kill a normal human, and I can't see clear where anyone would expect normal humans to withstand getting whacked. I mean I'm sure someone somewhere does. Weirdos gonna weirdo. But that's not an expectation the RPG sets.

An 8th-level fighter, which the game literally considers a "superhero," with the magical accouterments one might expect for such a character, might be able to pull it off.

As for dragons, I'm inclined to think the situation is reversed. Dragons really do need to be played tactically to fully appreciate how powerful they really are. It's the dragon that doesn't want a straight-on fight.

Fair enough. You are far more experienced in older editions of DND than I am, so I defer to you in that respect. I will mention that the bigger the animal is, the farther normal humans stay away from it and the more they use traps, according to https://www.earthdate.org/episodes/mammoth-traps

There's also a video on Youtube of Africans spearing young elephants. I don't think it's safe to share here.

MeganovaStella, you should look into a system like Chaosium's Rune Quest/Basic Role Playing, where characters have the same amount of hit points throughout their life.  What got better was their ability to block and dodge attacks. 

With bravery and ingenuity humans can still overcome large creatures.  Just like Roman Legions overcame Cartheginian elephant cavalry by forming channels for the elephants to run through while the legionaries attacked the sides and flanks of the elephants.

A single hero would have to lure a creature like a dragon into a trap, sort of like how Luke Skywalker dropped a portcullis onto the Rancor's head in Return of the Jedi, or how Sigurd of the Volsungs hid himself in a pit and waited for the dragon Fafnir to slither overhead then thrust his sword in between its scales from below. 

Beowulf was a superhero who could rip the arm off of a troll and wrestle with whales, so maybe he did actually step up to face a dragon to-to-toe.  He still died though.

Then there's magic and technology.  A sword or spear might not do much to a fifty foot long dragon, but a bolt of lightning, or a ballista might take it down.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on September 30, 2023, 02:42:37 AM
MeganovaStella, you should look into a system like Chaosium's Rune Quest/Basic Role Playing, where characters have the same amount of hit points throughout their life.  What got better was their ability to block and dodge attacks. 

With bravery and ingenuity humans can still overcome large creatures.  Just like Roman Legions overcame Cartheginian elephant cavalry by forming channels for the elephants to run through while the legionaries attacked the sides and flanks of the elephants.

A single hero would have to lure a creature like a dragon into a trap, sort of like how Luke Skywalker dropped a portcullis onto the Rancor's head in Return of the Jedi, or how Sigurd of the Volsungs hid himself in a pit and waited for the dragon Fafnir to slither overhead then thrust his sword in between its scales from below. 

Beowulf was a superhero who could rip the arm off of a troll and wrestle with whales, so maybe he did actually step up to face a dragon to-to-toe.  He still died though.

Then there's magic and technology.  A sword or spear might not do much to a fifty foot long dragon, but a bolt of lightning, or a ballista might take it down.

I actually looked into it a while ago for use in playing out a world that I liked (it was a very grounded work made by someone who knows real life Japanese swordsmanship). I know that Mythras is based on it, and I love Mythras.

Yeah, bolts of lightning and ballistae make perfect sense for killing dragons and other large nasties.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on September 29, 2023, 07:23:07 PM
Do you know what humans did when they wanted to hunt megafauna (rhinos, lions, tigers, elephants, etc)?

Did they:

1. Fight it upfront in a head-on battle
2. Lay traps, bleed it out, generally avoid direct conflict where possible

No 2. is how humans have hunted elephants, mammoths, and other megafauna during our time on Earth. No 1. is suicide and anyone who did it would soon perish. An elephant would kill medieval knights, let alone Paleolithic hunter-gatherers.

And yet DND and other games in its vein have you fight dragons and other creatures who could easily kill any real-world megafauna (even blue-whale sized Sauropods) in No 1. style.

Right, because they are HERO'S.  You didn't know that about "D&D" type games?   ::)

Quote from: Lunamancer on September 30, 2023, 01:17:39 AM
It's the dragon that doesn't want a straight-on fight.

Especially against Lord Arrago the Axe right?  :P

I always felt that most of the early RPGs started off with too weak characters. A lot of people don't have time to start lengthy campaigns to build up their strength (and stash of items). Of course, there's a certain satisfaction when you do just that, but since many campaigns go nowhere in the long run, people spend a lot of time playing weaklings when they want to play Beowulf.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on September 29, 2023, 07:23:07 PM
Do you know what humans did when they wanted to hunt megafauna (rhinos, lions, tigers, elephants, etc)?

Did they:

1. Fight it upfront in a head-on battle
2. Lay traps, bleed it out, generally avoid direct conflict where possible

No 2. is how humans have hunted elephants, mammoths, and other megafauna during our time on Earth. No 1. is suicide and anyone who did it would soon perish. An elephant would kill medieval knights, let alone Paleolithic hunter-gatherers.

And yet DND and other games in its vein have you fight dragons and other creatures who could easily kill any real-world megafauna (even blue-whale sized Sauropods) in No 1. style. Confusingly, they also say that martials- the people expected to walk up to and kill these monsters by essentially whacking them and withstanding getting whacked until one dies- are normal humans who couldn't lift a ton without magical gear.

This is implausible. Either you are a normal human, and so have to resort to indirect means to kill a dragon (for instance, poisoning their food, making pit traps that collapse into a bed of spikes when they land, using magic to weaken them, staying far away and so on) or you can kill a dragon in an upfront battle, in which case you are superhuman. Generally, the bigger and nastier relative to real-world animals the monsters are, the more unbelievable that normal humans can do anything to them. It would make for a boring RPG if done poorly.

'You encounter a dragon.'

'I attack!' *rolls die*

'Your sword bounces off its steel-hard scales and is bent to uselessness. It squashes you and the rest of your party with one stomp.'

Even if the fighter had a supernatural sword- unless it has some sort of ability that ignores physical size and strength (poison that always works, sending people to other dimensions, being able to cut through anything) they'll be limited by their normal human strength.

This could work in a game where you're expected to either run away or talk things out most of the time or other underhanded methods...this is not the game DND and its derivatives are. The solution (in my eyes) is to basically recognize the consequences of superhuman strength (or durability, or speed), and build your challenges around those constraints. Dungeons should be built for people who can withstand being smacked around by an Ankylosaurus, who can punch through stone walls (as a result of having the strength to cut up megafauna).

  Regarding elephants...the Greeks and romans had to fight against them in head on battles.  Fire was used to panic them and in later encounters specialized infantryment with heavy axes were deployed who flanked the elephants and chopped into their hind legs crippling them.   An elephant is as hard a land animal to beat/kill as humans have ever faced and it was done on a consistent basis.   I agree with the ideas of your post when we scale up the creatures...but every rpg I have ever played in fantasy games the characters are all capable of superhuman feats...just having a party member who can buff everyone kicks that right into gear.   

   I used the elephant example though because people learn and adapt to what they have to overcome.   The anti-elephant units developed to respond to the elephants.  I think fantasy parties would respond as well to things like dragons...to that end I think a creature having weak points (joints in the leg, wings, eyes, etc) makes overcoming such a monster more realistic...but I can also say things like AC and HP can represent the person finding that weak point in their attack. 

  If you are looking for systems to emphasize the sorts of things it takes to beat the big baddies as mentioned Mythras is very good, I think GURPS is as well.   Fights against large dangerous creatures play out a good deal differently in those systems often coming down to scenes similar to Smaug going down versus any back and forth between the party and the monster.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on September 29, 2023, 08:20:39 PM

Quote from: Tod13 on September 29, 2023, 08:16:30 PM
I have two different responses. Feel free to skip to the second one as being more useful.  ;D

The first one is: if you're writing fairy tales, don't quibble about talking teddy bears. (That's a [mis]quote.)

The second one is: in our homebrew, one option you can take for your character is "act on large scale". Most characters are "small scale". Acting on Large Scale lets you do kaiju-sized movement and kaiju-strength attacks.

my first response is that this is totally fair. i wouldn't bring this up in a casual conversation. but for people that care about the consistency of their worlds like I do (not implying that this is either good or bad), it might be useful for them.

the second response is that I want to see your homebrew, I'm curious. DM me please.

I will do so. We're in the middle of editing our novel and some more short stories for submittal, so work on the RPG has slowed sadly.

I'm reminded of the anecdote where a player in a Palladium system game would have his character shoot himself with a revolver point blank in the head to demonstrate how tough they were.
Which is totally possible and downright easy to do in the Palladium system. Until Siembedia got his panties in a bunch and made a custom, specific, rule to address this quirk of the system.

Likewise in D&D, damage and hit points do not work like real life wounds and real life tactics tend to fall apart. A 9th level fighter can literally stand there in street clothes and have another warrior stab him in the chest with a sword and not die. Ever. It's not possible to kill a 9th level fighter with a single sword blow.

So yea, this is a stick in the ass issue where you have to make some concessions for it being a game with rules that only approximate real world features and also tries to emulate heroic fiction.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on September 29, 2023, 10:30:04 PM
I brought this up because the people here tend to talk about how 'wokeness' makes a game world not make sense. I thought- what about other things not as politically heated?

The issue with the wokesters is that they tend to browbeat you with their ideology until all the fun is sucked out of the room and you're left with a flat game while they eat each other over who is the biggest victim of oppression. The world not making sense is just one side effect.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 30, 2023, 11:03:09 AM
Likewise in D&D, damage and hit points do not work like real life wounds and real life tactics tend to fall apart. A 9th level fighter can literally stand there in street clothes and have another warrior stab him in the chest with a sword and not die. Ever. It's not possible to kill a 9th level fighter with a single sword blow.

Perhaps that is true in pseudo D&D (those games published by WotC). But in AD&D magically sleeping or just bound opponents of any level  may be automatically slain.  No hacking necessary.  Thus anyone who wanted to allow attacks without any hint of defending can also be slain by a "stab him in the chest with a sword ."

Quote from: Scooter on September 30, 2023, 12:06:15 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 30, 2023, 11:03:09 AM
Likewise in D&D, damage and hit points do not work like real life wounds and real life tactics tend to fall apart. A 9th level fighter can literally stand there in street clothes and have another warrior stab him in the chest with a sword and not die. Ever. It's not possible to kill a 9th level fighter with a single sword blow.

Perhaps that is true in pseudo D&D (those games published by WotC). But in AD&D magically sleeping or just bound opponents of any level  may be automatically slain.  No hacking necessary.  Thus anyone who wanted to allow attacks without any hint of defending can also be slain by a "stab him in the chest with a sword ."

The most used rule in our games of AD&D: "Incapacitated creatures may be killed at the rate of one per round"

Quote from: MeganovaStella on September 29, 2023, 07:23:07 PM
This could work in a game where you're expected to either run away or talk things out most of the time or other underhanded methods...this is not the game DND and its derivatives are. The solution (in my eyes) is to basically recognize the consequences of superhuman strength (or durability, or speed), and build your challenges around those constraints. Dungeons should be built for people who can withstand being smacked around by an Ankylosaurus, who can punch through stone walls (as a result of having the strength to cut up megafauna).

I disagree with the idea that humans need to be superheroes with superabilities to deal with megafauna.  I addition to the historical examples provided by others, there's a standout example in fiction, Batman.  Just a guy, with a few wonderful toys, but he takes on bad guys and things that would destroy any normal human.  He does so by fighting smart, but more than that, he's just really good at fighting.

I think of D&D martial as being along the same lines.  Yes the dragon claw would squash them, but when it comes down, they aren't there.  You don't need supernatural strength or quickness to avoid that, you just need to see it coming far enough a head of time and make the right move.  And for "steel hard scales," no real animal has those.  And it they're actually present in D&D it's no reach to say that the fighter is hitting vulnerable spots.

I see no reason to remake the world and martials to fit this vision when it's a lot less work to just use the current version and it's a better match for the fiction we like to emulate, to boot.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on September 29, 2023, 07:23:07 PM

This could work in a game where you're expected to either run away or talk things out most of the time or other underhanded methods...this is not the game DND and its derivatives are.

You are ignorant of the game D&D.  Much player advice from the creators has centered around non-combat solutions to encounters.  Are you new to the game?

Quote from: MeganovaStella on September 29, 2023, 07:23:07 PM
Do you know what humans did when they wanted to hunt megafauna (rhinos, lions, tigers, elephants, etc)?

Did they:

1. Fight it upfront in a head-on battle
2. Lay traps, bleed it out, generally avoid direct conflict where possible

No 2. is how humans have hunted elephants, mammoths, and other megafauna during our time on Earth. No 1. is suicide and anyone who did it would soon perish. An elephant would kill medieval knights, let alone Paleolithic hunter-gatherers.

And yet DND and other games in its vein have you fight dragons and other creatures who could easily kill any real-world megafauna (even blue-whale sized Sauropods) in No 1. style. Confusingly, they also say that martials- the people expected to walk up to and kill these monsters by essentially whacking them and withstanding getting whacked until one dies- are normal humans who couldn't lift a ton without magical gear.

This is implausible. Either you are a normal human, and so have to resort to indirect means to kill a dragon (for instance, poisoning their food, making pit traps that collapse into a bed of spikes when they land, using magic to weaken them, staying far away and so on) or you can kill a dragon in an upfront battle, in which case you are superhuman. Generally, the bigger and nastier relative to real-world animals the monsters are, the more unbelievable that normal humans can do anything to them. It would make for a boring RPG if done poorly.

'You encounter a dragon.'

'I attack!' *rolls die*

'Your sword bounces off its steel-hard scales and is bent to uselessness. It squashes you and the rest of your party with one stomp.'

Even if the fighter had a supernatural sword- unless it has some sort of ability that ignores physical size and strength (poison that always works, sending people to other dimensions, being able to cut through anything) they'll be limited by their normal human strength.

This could work in a game where you're expected to either run away or talk things out most of the time or other underhanded methods...this is not the game DND and its derivatives are. The solution (in my eyes) is to basically recognize the consequences of superhuman strength (or durability, or speed), and build your challenges around those constraints. Dungeons should be built for people who can withstand being smacked around by an Ankylosaurus, who can punch through stone walls (as a result of having the strength to cut up megafauna).

Well, yes. In old school D&D, half a dozen cavemen have no chance against an elephant, let alone mammoth.

Believe me, I tried:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-hd-game.html

What you call "normal humans" are 0-level characters. But as they level up, they become "heroes" and "superheroes".

(There are attempts at more "realistic" campaigns stopping at level 6, usually called "E6")

They don't just "stand there", they are supposedly dodging and moving around. And as they hit, they are not just whacking, but putting the animal in a bad position until they can give them a big cinematic stab to the eye.

D&D PCs cannot kill elephants with a single blow, even at higher levels.

It is the HP discussion all over again.

Think of Conan, the death of Smaug, or even Legolas in the movies, etc. These are not supposed to be realistic.

(https://i0.wp.com/darkworldsquarterly.gwthomas.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/nine-3.jpg?w=460&ssl=1)

With that said, I prefer giving such creatures hioher die sizes for their HD (e.g., d12s for elephants).

Most 2e dragons already have lots of HD, however. You are unlikely to kill them without magic weapons anyway.

"Red Nails" is the classic example.

I have a hard time reproducing the Smaug scene even with critical hits TBH.

Another example from comics (kazar):

(https://echostation57.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/kazar-vs-dinosaur.jpg)

Quote from: Mishihari on September 30, 2023, 03:04:48 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on September 29, 2023, 07:23:07 PM
This could work in a game where you're expected to either run away or talk things out most of the time or other underhanded methods...this is not the game DND and its derivatives are. The solution (in my eyes) is to basically recognize the consequences of superhuman strength (or durability, or speed), and build your challenges around those constraints. Dungeons should be built for people who can withstand being smacked around by an Ankylosaurus, who can punch through stone walls (as a result of having the strength to cut up megafauna).

I disagree with the idea that humans need to be superheroes with superabilities to deal with megafauna.  I addition to the historical examples provided by others, there's a standout example in fiction, Batman.  Just a guy, with a few wonderful toys, but he takes on bad guys and things that would destroy any normal human.  He does so by fighting smart, but more than that, he's just really good at fighting.

I think of D&D martial as being along the same lines.  Yes the dragon claw would squash them, but when it comes down, they aren't there.  You don't need supernatural strength or quickness to avoid that, you just need to see it coming far enough a head of time and make the right move.  And for "steel hard scales," no real animal has those.  And it they're actually present in D&D it's no reach to say that the fighter is hitting vulnerable spots.

I see no reason to remake the world and martials to fit this vision when it's a lot less work to just use the current version and it's a better match for the fiction we like to emulate, to boot.

Batman is not in fact, 'just a guy'. He's narratively meant to be at the peak of human ability- but the peak of human ability in the real world is wayy, wayyy, WAYYYY below whatever Batman does. Numerically, I mean.

I think your point, along with Eric's- that DND martials don't fight with monsters head on, but fight them in a way that is maybe slightly above what the strongest and fastest human can do in our world, is a valid way of looking at things. In this case, I concede.

Quote from: Scooter on September 30, 2023, 12:06:15 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 30, 2023, 11:03:09 AM
Likewise in D&D, damage and hit points do not work like real life wounds and real life tactics tend to fall apart. A 9th level fighter can literally stand there in street clothes and have another warrior stab him in the chest with a sword and not die. Ever. It's not possible to kill a 9th level fighter with a single sword blow.

Perhaps that is true in pseudo D&D (those games published by WotC). But in AD&D magically sleeping or just bound opponents of any level  may be automatically slain.  No hacking necessary.  Thus anyone who wanted to allow attacks without any hint of defending can also be slain by a "stab him in the chest with a sword ."

That's a fine hair to split. The 9th level fighter in my example isn't sleeping or bound. The point is, the D&D combat system of any edition is very game-ey and creates certain situations that are counter-intuitive. Like a 9th level fighter can count on not dying before taking X "hit points" of damage, and may make plans and tactics accordingly.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 03:07:55 AM

Quote from: Scooter on September 30, 2023, 12:06:15 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 30, 2023, 11:03:09 AM
Likewise in D&D, damage and hit points do not work like real life wounds and real life tactics tend to fall apart. A 9th level fighter can literally stand there in street clothes and have another warrior stab him in the chest with a sword and not die. Ever. It's not possible to kill a 9th level fighter with a single sword blow.

Perhaps that is true in pseudo D&D (those games published by WotC). But in AD&D magically sleeping or just bound opponents of any level  may be automatically slain.  No hacking necessary.  Thus anyone who wanted to allow attacks without any hint of defending can also be slain by a "stab him in the chest with a sword ."

That's a fine hair to split.

Nope, it is a RULE. No fine hair at all if one reads and understands it.

Quote from: Scooter on October 01, 2023, 08:36:00 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 03:07:55 AM

Quote from: Scooter on September 30, 2023, 12:06:15 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 30, 2023, 11:03:09 AM
Likewise in D&D, damage and hit points do not work like real life wounds and real life tactics tend to fall apart. A 9th level fighter can literally stand there in street clothes and have another warrior stab him in the chest with a sword and not die. Ever. It's not possible to kill a 9th level fighter with a single sword blow.

Perhaps that is true in pseudo D&D (those games published by WotC). But in AD&D magically sleeping or just bound opponents of any level  may be automatically slain.  No hacking necessary.  Thus anyone who wanted to allow attacks without any hint of defending can also be slain by a "stab him in the chest with a sword ."

That's a fine hair to split.

Nope, it is a RULE. No fine hair at all if one reads and understands it.

My fighter in the example was not sleeping or bound. Magically or non-magically. He's just standing there.
Reviewing the RULE you bring up, it specifies magical sleep and hold.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 08:49:02 AM
My fighter in the example was not sleeping or bound. Magically or non-magically. He's just standing there.
Reviewing the RULE you bring up, it specifies magical sleep and hold.

If your fighter continues to stand there without defending then ANYONE can walk up and cut his throat and he is DEAD.  Same as not being able to defend from being bound.  Insta kill.

My response to the original post:

I'm DMimg an AD&D Greyhawk game right now (the current players now have PCs ranging from 1st to 3rd level) for reference.

1) Some warriors: monks, fighters, rangers, whatever (I have one of each in my game) will be more like "Batman" or "Captain America".  Not superstrong, but cunning and agile.  They will "find the weak point" in the monster's armor and have been training and fighting for years, learning esoteric techniques to fight and kill monsters (yes, I enforce the training rules).

2) Others likely WILL have superstrength due to items or boosts.  Strength spell has already become a thing in my game, and by the time they are fighting dragons I'm sure at least one or two of the warriors will be rocking a Girdle of Giant Strength or Gauntlets of Ogre Power, or a Strength spell at the very least.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on September 29, 2023, 07:23:07 PM
Do you know what humans did when they wanted to hunt megafauna (rhinos, lions, tigers, elephants, etc)?

Did they:

1. Fight it upfront in a head-on battle
2. Lay traps, bleed it out, generally avoid direct conflict where possible

No 2. is how humans have hunted elephants, mammoths, and other megafauna during our time on Earth. No 1. is suicide and anyone who did it would soon perish. An elephant would kill medieval knights, let alone Paleolithic hunter-gatherers.

You COMPLETELY lack an education in this area:

Quote from: Scooter on October 01, 2023, 04:04:02 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 08:49:02 AM
My fighter in the example was not sleeping or bound. Magically or non-magically. He's just standing there.
Reviewing the RULE you bring up, it specifies magical sleep and hold.

If your fighter continues to stand there without defending then ANYONE can walk up and cut his throat and he is DEAD.  Same as not being able to defend from being bound.  Insta kill.

I agree with your house ruling. I'm afraid it's not part of the system. And anyway this is all sidestepping the fact that hit points and damage in D&D is far too abstract to pin it down for arguments about "realism".

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 05:40:14 PM


I agree with your house ruling. I'm afraid it's not part of the system. And anyway this is all sidestepping the fact that hit points and damage in D&D is far too abstract to pin it down for arguments about "realism".

It isn't a house rule. You see, Gary believed that a GM would be there to explain the obvious to some players.  He didn't put in rules for suicide for high level PCs either because none are needed beyond what I showed here.   If you won't or can't defend you die.  It's in the rules as WRITTEN.

Hit points as described in RAW for D&D are not explainable by "realism" as they are based on unreal laws and forces.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 05:40:14 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 01, 2023, 04:04:02 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 08:49:02 AM
My fighter in the example was not sleeping or bound. Magically or non-magically. He's just standing there.
Reviewing the RULE you bring up, it specifies magical sleep and hold.

If your fighter continues to stand there without defending then ANYONE can walk up and cut his throat and he is DEAD.  Same as not being able to defend from being bound.  Insta kill.

I agree with your house ruling.

I was about to commend you for impling Scooter would actually accept that this was just his house rule when I came back to this thread to find the gem that followed. Guy won't even accept these are just his highly opinionated takes on what the rules actually mean. In his mind this is just how Saint Gary intended it as he walked down from Mt. Greyhawk with the stone tablets in his hands.

Armor Class is based on the assumption of attempted survival defensive evasion (plus physical barriers, both worn & stationary cover, etc.). If for some reason you are not attempting to survive... bound by some non-physical conception... Martyrdom is a thing, as is phrases 'bound by honor', let alone terms about mental health states like crippling depression and suicidal ideation.

Now the question becomes how much of an autonomic ("not thinking") response is defensive evasion. And then the game can have Saves come in at this point, if the GM & player so agree. That'd be a judgment call, if you want to take it so far. But plenty of people died in reality without uncontrollable flinching due to the above non-physical concepts that I don't see the above bolded that hard of a sell.  ;)

However this isn't really the most fruitful of discussion tracks about humans versus megafauna. So I leave you all to continue the fight in the Thunderdome.  8) Best of luck!

Quote from: Scooter on October 01, 2023, 04:30:33 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on September 29, 2023, 07:23:07 PM
Do you know what humans did when they wanted to hunt megafauna (rhinos, lions, tigers, elephants, etc)?

Did they:

1. Fight it upfront in a head-on battle
2. Lay traps, bleed it out, generally avoid direct conflict where possible

No 2. is how humans have hunted elephants, mammoths, and other megafauna during our time on Earth. No 1. is suicide and anyone who did it would soon perish. An elephant would kill medieval knights, let alone Paleolithic hunter-gatherers.

You COMPLETELY lack an education in this area:

Geez!  8) Those are quite successful upfront battles. Distance is an Armor Class all its own, and Numbers is another form of Action Economy.

Anyway last I read Pleistoscene megafauna had a 98% collapse since 100,000 years ago, roughly around the time a certain homo sapien sapien appeared on the scene... But correlation is not causation, so we still don't truly know what happened to all those tasty, tasty animals. ;D Maybe they died of broken hearts, or caltrops?

Quote from: MeganovaStella on September 29, 2023, 09:54:47 PM
So, in other words, you agree with me that DND mid-to-high level martials are superhuman.

No, they're D&D characters.

QuoteThe problem I have is that this superhuman ability applies to one narrow field- taking and receiving damage- and no others. A monk with the leg strength to do anything to an elephant with a kick could also kick right through walls, wooden or even stone, or leap over 50 foot walls in one go.

"But dad, why can't the queen move in an L-shape like the knight, does?"
"Because these are the rules of chess, son."
My son came to understand this principle at 5 years old. You're still struggling with it at... what are you? 15?

QuoteUsing a specific build in a specific edition (5th edition) -

"Build". God help us. Stop right there. We've heard enough.

Quote from: Trond on September 30, 2023, 09:31:58 AM
I always felt that most of the early RPGs started off with too weak characters.

There's an old survival saying, "there's no bad weather, only bad clothing." In other words, so long as you've prepared and planned right, you should be good. Similarly, there are no weak characters, only weak players.

Quote from: Scooter on October 01, 2023, 06:05:03 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 05:40:14 PM


I agree with your house ruling. I'm afraid it's not part of the system. And anyway this is all sidestepping the fact that hit points and damage in D&D is far too abstract to pin it down for arguments about "realism".

It isn't a house rule. You see, Gary believed that a GM would be there to explain the obvious to some players.  He didn't put in rules for suicide for high level PCs either because none are needed beyond what I showed here.   If you won't or can't defend you die.  It's in the rules as WRITTEN.

Hit points as described in RAW for D&D are not explainable by "realism" as they are based on unreal laws and forces.

So the unwritten rules are the rules as written? Do I need to point out how silly that is?

Anywho, even by your unwritten, written rule, during a surpirse round, any target hit should instantly die, since they are unable to defend, and yet that's not how the system works.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 08:54:05 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 01, 2023, 06:05:03 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 05:40:14 PM


I agree with your house ruling. I'm afraid it's not part of the system. And anyway this is all sidestepping the fact that hit points and damage in D&D is far too abstract to pin it down for arguments about "realism".

It isn't a house rule. You see, Gary believed that a GM would be there to explain the obvious to some players.  He didn't put in rules for suicide for high level PCs either because none are needed beyond what I showed here.   If you won't or can't defend you die.  It's in the rules as WRITTEN.

Hit points as described in RAW for D&D are not explainable by "realism" as they are based on unreal laws and forces.

So the unwritten rules are the rules as written?

Rent an IQ.  The rule is if no defense is made you die.  WTF is hard to understand about that?  Are you retarded?

Quote from: Scooter on October 01, 2023, 09:12:12 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 08:54:05 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 01, 2023, 06:05:03 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 05:40:14 PM


I agree with your house ruling. I'm afraid it's not part of the system. And anyway this is all sidestepping the fact that hit points and damage in D&D is far too abstract to pin it down for arguments about "realism".

It isn't a house rule. You see, Gary believed that a GM would be there to explain the obvious to some players.  He didn't put in rules for suicide for high level PCs either because none are needed beyond what I showed here.   If you won't or can't defend you die.  It's in the rules as WRITTEN.

Hit points as described in RAW for D&D are not explainable by "realism" as they are based on unreal laws and forces.

So the unwritten rules are the rules as written?

Rent an IQ.  The rule is if no defense is made you die.  WTF is hard to understand about that?  Are you retarded?

So you agree that anyone who gets hit during the surprise round should be ganked? That's an interesting take.

Quote from: Scooter on October 01, 2023, 09:12:12 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 08:54:05 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 01, 2023, 06:05:03 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 05:40:14 PM


I agree with your house ruling. I'm afraid it's not part of the system. And anyway this is all sidestepping the fact that hit points and damage in D&D is far too abstract to pin it down for arguments about "realism".

It isn't a house rule. You see, Gary believed that a GM would be there to explain the obvious to some players.  He didn't put in rules for suicide for high level PCs either because none are needed beyond what I showed here.   If you won't or can't defend you die.  It's in the rules as WRITTEN.

Hit points as described in RAW for D&D are not explainable by "realism" as they are based on unreal laws and forces.

So the unwritten rules are the rules as written?

Rent an IQ.  The rule is if no defense is made you die.  WTF is hard to understand about that?  Are you retarded?

You have yet to point out this rule. I showed how your bound/sleep rule in the book specified magical hold and sleep.
I countered with an example in the rules where someone unable to defend against an attack is not instantly killed without an attack and damage roll.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 02, 2023, 07:16:15 AM

Quote from: Scooter on October 01, 2023, 09:12:12 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 08:54:05 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 01, 2023, 06:05:03 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 05:40:14 PM


I agree with your house ruling. I'm afraid it's not part of the system. And anyway this is all sidestepping the fact that hit points and damage in D&D is far too abstract to pin it down for arguments about "realism".

It isn't a house rule. You see, Gary believed that a GM would be there to explain the obvious to some players.  He didn't put in rules for suicide for high level PCs either because none are needed beyond what I showed here.   If you won't or can't defend you die.  It's in the rules as WRITTEN.

Hit points as described in RAW for D&D are not explainable by "realism" as they are based on unreal laws and forces.

So the unwritten rules are the rules as written?

Rent an IQ.  The rule is if no defense is made you die.  WTF is hard to understand about that?  Are you retarded?

You have yet to point out this rule.

Right, because you don't know the game rules.

Quote from: Scooter on October 02, 2023, 08:26:56 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 02, 2023, 07:16:15 AM

Quote from: Scooter on October 01, 2023, 09:12:12 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 08:54:05 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 01, 2023, 06:05:03 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 05:40:14 PM


I agree with your house ruling. I'm afraid it's not part of the system. And anyway this is all sidestepping the fact that hit points and damage in D&D is far too abstract to pin it down for arguments about "realism".

It isn't a house rule. You see, Gary believed that a GM would be there to explain the obvious to some players.  He didn't put in rules for suicide for high level PCs either because none are needed beyond what I showed here.   If you won't or can't defend you die.  It's in the rules as WRITTEN.

Hit points as described in RAW for D&D are not explainable by "realism" as they are based on unreal laws and forces.

So the unwritten rules are the rules as written?

Rent an IQ.  The rule is if no defense is made you die.  WTF is hard to understand about that?  Are you retarded?

You have yet to point out this rule.

Right, because you don't know the game rules.

Why do you want surprised characters to get insta killed so badly?  ???

Quote from: Scooter on October 02, 2023, 08:26:56 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 02, 2023, 07:16:15 AM

Quote from: Scooter on October 01, 2023, 09:12:12 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 08:54:05 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 01, 2023, 06:05:03 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 01, 2023, 05:40:14 PM


I agree with your house ruling. I'm afraid it's not part of the system. And anyway this is all sidestepping the fact that hit points and damage in D&D is far too abstract to pin it down for arguments about "realism".

It isn't a house rule. You see, Gary believed that a GM would be there to explain the obvious to some players.  He didn't put in rules for suicide for high level PCs either because none are needed beyond what I showed here.   If you won't or can't defend you die.  It's in the rules as WRITTEN.

Hit points as described in RAW for D&D are not explainable by "realism" as they are based on unreal laws and forces.

So the unwritten rules are the rules as written?

Rent an IQ.  The rule is if no defense is made you die.  WTF is hard to understand about that?  Are you retarded?

You have yet to point out this rule.

Right, because you don't know the game rules.

I'm very familar with the AD&D rules, and have had the books handy for reference while we've had this discussion.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on October 01, 2023, 08:39:16 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on September 29, 2023, 09:54:47 PM
So, in other words, you agree with me that DND mid-to-high level martials are superhuman.

No, they're D&D characters.

QuoteThe problem I have is that this superhuman ability applies to one narrow field- taking and receiving damage- and no others. A monk with the leg strength to do anything to an elephant with a kick could also kick right through walls, wooden or even stone, or leap over 50 foot walls in one go.

"But dad, why can't the queen move in an L-shape like the knight, does?"
"Because these are the rules of chess, son."
My son came to understand this principle at 5 years old. You're still struggling with it at... what are you? 15?

QuoteUsing a specific build in a specific edition (5th edition) -

"Build". God help us. Stop right there. We've heard enough.

Quote from: Trond on September 30, 2023, 09:31:58 AM
I always felt that most of the early RPGs started off with too weak characters.

There's an old survival saying, "there's no bad weather, only bad clothing." In other words, so long as you've prepared and planned right, you should be good. Similarly, there are no weak characters, only weak players.

Oh yeah, we dealt with it. We generally preferred other systems or starting at a higher level though (not only talking D&D here).

Besides, answering questions like "why is D&D wonky?" with "because it's D&D!" or "them's the rules!" is circular. A better dismissive answer IMO is "works for us, we had fun with it".

Quote from: Trond on October 03, 2023, 09:26:02 AM
Besides, answering questions like "why is D&D wonky?" with "because it's D&D!" or "them's the rules!" is circular. A better dismissive answer IMO is "works for us, we had fun with it".

Or, it isn't wonky, you are.  The best, most accurate answer.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on September 29, 2023, 08:01:52 PMAnd I know that martials aren't normal humans. The problem is that they are superhuman in one field only - killing huge monsters. They cannot, say, use the same strength that their main sthick needs in order to pick up a rock and send it flying through a row of 300 soldiers. Or leap 200 meters in the air to knock down an airship. Or break down the gates of a castle. Pretty standard mythology stuff. Lancelot, for instance, could easily pick up a boulder that 10 men struggled to even move off the ground.

This sort of thing gets my craw exactly, but most people don't care is the basic answer. And this is 95% a D&D problem, and specifically because of HP bloat.

D&D Combat and D&D characters don't emulate any sort of specific archetype or character outside of itself. They are weird superhumans.

Quote from: Opaopajr on October 01, 2023, 07:24:45 PM
Armor Class is based on the assumption of attempted survival defensive evasion (plus physical barriers, both worn & stationary cover, etc.). If for some reason you are not attempting to survive... bound by some non-physical conception... Martyrdom is a thing, as is phrases 'bound by honor', let alone terms about mental health states like crippling depression and suicidal ideation.

You're making a point just about defense, but I don't think this holds up for armor class and hit points in general. For example, a high-level fighter is dropped by a creature from 100 feet in the air. Or the fighter holds his ground against a charging elephant to protect the wizard behind him.

By their nature, D&D hit points make skillful dodging the same as being ridiculously tough, which often has counterintuitive results.

I think the simple answer is that the D&D rules go past being cinematic and into something more like epic poetry. If one wants a game to be more grounded and realistic, then one should change the rules.

For example, I had a giant shark (a polymorphed PC) thrashing about in a cave biting a vampire in my D&D game on Sunday, and it was great fun. I kept a thin veneer of there being a reality - describing how the shark was trying to thrash up from the salt pool it was in. But I don't think the results were at all realistic.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 03, 2023, 12:20:50 PM


D&D Combat and D&D characters don't emulate any sort of specific archetype or character outside of itself. They are weird superhumans.

And it is the most popular RPG in history

Quote from: jhkim on October 03, 2023, 01:16:22 PM

Quote from: Opaopajr on October 01, 2023, 07:24:45 PM
Armor Class is based on the assumption of attempted survival defensive evasion (plus physical barriers, both worn & stationary cover, etc.). If for some reason you are not attempting to survive... bound by some non-physical conception... Martyrdom is a thing, as is phrases 'bound by honor', let alone terms about mental health states like crippling depression and suicidal ideation.

You're making a point just about defense, but I don't think this holds up for armor class and hit points in general. For example, a high-level fighter is dropped by a creature from 100 feet in the air. Or the fighter holds his ground against a charging elephant to protect the wizard behind him.

By their nature, D&D hit points make skillful dodging the same as being ridiculously tough, which often has counterintuitive results.

I think the simple answer is that the D&D rules go past being cinematic and into something more like epic poetry. If one wants a game to be more grounded and realistic, then one should change the rules.

For example, I had a giant shark (a polymorphed PC) thrashing about in a cave biting a vampire in my D&D game on Sunday, and it was great fun. I kept a thin veneer of there being a reality - describing how the shark was trying to thrash up from the salt pool it was in. But I don't think the results were at all realistic.

Greetings!

Hey, Jhkim!

GIANT SHARKS ARE AWESOME! ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Scooter on October 03, 2023, 01:29:24 PMAnd it is the most popular RPG in history

Popularity is not indicative of good, and it isn't really evidence of anything outside of itself. It also has a giant toy conglomerate behind it for marketing purposes that's also linked to a gambling racket.

Call it meat points, or dodge points, or luck points or hit points. The D&D style of combat emulation exists largely for itself without emulating anything.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 03, 2023, 01:46:00 PM

Popularity is not indicative of good,

And bitching about the most popular RPG in history doesn't means it is NOT awesome.

Quote from: jhkim on October 03, 2023, 01:16:22 PM

Quote from: Opaopajr on October 01, 2023, 07:24:45 PM
Armor Class is based on the assumption of attempted survival defensive evasion (plus physical barriers, both worn & stationary cover, etc.). If for some reason you are not attempting to survive... bound by some non-physical conception... Martyrdom is a thing, as is phrases 'bound by honor', let alone terms about mental health states like crippling depression and suicidal ideation.

You're making a point just about defense, but I don't think this holds up for armor class and hit points in general. For example, a high-level fighter is dropped by a creature from 100 feet in the air. Or the fighter holds his ground against a charging elephant to protect the wizard behind him.

By their nature, D&D hit points make skillful dodging the same as being ridiculously tough, which often has counterintuitive results.

I think the simple answer is that the D&D rules go past being cinematic and into something more like epic poetry. If one wants a game to be more grounded and realistic, then one should change the rules.

For example, I had a giant shark (a polymorphed PC) thrashing about in a cave biting a vampire in my D&D game on Sunday, and it was great fun. I kept a thin veneer of there being a reality - describing how the shark was trying to thrash up from the salt pool it was in. But I don't think the results were at all realistic.

Realism understood as sticking to the real world reality is vastly overrated in Sci-Fi/Fantasy games.

Realism understood as sticking to the game world reality on the other hand is something to strive for.

When I play/run D&D I'm not trying to simmulate the real world, I'm trying to "live"/create a "living world" in the game world.

Yes, high level PCs ARE superhuman, which is why at certain levels you're out there cavorting on other planes or even becoming immortals/gods.

Quote from: Scooter on October 03, 2023, 02:42:05 PMAnd bitching about the most popular RPG in history doesn't means it is NOT awesome.

4e is pretty good yeh.

Anyway I see your not secure enough to like something without constant validation.

Quote from: Scooter on October 03, 2023, 02:42:05 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 03, 2023, 01:46:00 PM

Popularity is not indicative of good,

And bitching about the most popular RPG in history doesn't means it is NOT awesome.

This post brought to you by the guy bitching about the most popular edition of D&D (5e) a couple of posts ago, and multiple times across this thread or elsewhere in their recent posting history IIRC.

Why won't you accept that D&D 5e is the most awesome RPG in history?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 03, 2023, 12:20:50 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on September 29, 2023, 08:01:52 PMAnd I know that martials aren't normal humans. The problem is that they are superhuman in one field only - killing huge monsters. They cannot, say, use the same strength that their main sthick needs in order to pick up a rock and send it flying through a row of 300 soldiers. Or leap 200 meters in the air to knock down an airship. Or break down the gates of a castle. Pretty standard mythology stuff. Lancelot, for instance, could easily pick up a boulder that 10 men struggled to even move off the ground.

This sort of thing gets my craw exactly, but most people don't care is the basic answer. And this is 95% a D&D problem, and specifically because of HP bloat.

D&D Combat and D&D characters don't emulate any sort of specific archetype or character outside of itself. They are weird superhumans.

No matter how much the OStaRd defends D&D, the fact of the matter is that when pressed on the issue almost everyone admits that 1) D&D has HP bloat at higher levels (even in earlier editions), and 2) HP at starting levels are too limited, to the point where a RAT can kill a normal peasant with a single bite--leading many to start their campaigns at level 3. Which pretty much proves that there's at least some consensus that D&D HP are out of whack.

The current setup is just kept out of inertia because HD are a sacred cow that can't be killed despite the fact that everyone knows they don't work. And neither does getting a HP bonus from CON every level. Characters should just get something like CON +(Average HD x3) at level 1. Then maybe 1 or 2 HP per level after that.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 03, 2023, 03:23:46 PM
4e is pretty good yeh.

Anyway I see your not secure enough to like something without constant validation.

4e was a good table top fantasy war game.  Since you don't know me at all the 2nd comment is just psychotic.  Get help

Quote from: VisionStorm on October 03, 2023, 03:53:28 PM
No matter how much the OStaRd defends D&D, the fact of the matter is that when pressed on the issue almost everyone admits that 1) D&D has HP bloat at higher levels (even in earlier editions), and 2) HP at starting levels are too limited, to the point where a RAT can kill a normal peasant with a single bite--leading many to start their campaigns at level 3. Which pretty much proves that there's at least some consensus that D&D HP are out of whack.

To be fair to them, it represents lower levels well enough. It's a system more inherent to shleppy low level play upscaled to heroic fantasy, which is where it really fails.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 03, 2023, 03:04:29 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 03, 2023, 01:16:22 PM
By their nature, D&D hit points make skillful dodging the same as being ridiculously tough, which often has counterintuitive results.

I think the simple answer is that the D&D rules go past being cinematic and into something more like epic poetry. If one wants a game to be more grounded and realistic, then one should change the rules.

For example, I had a giant shark (a polymorphed PC) thrashing about in a cave biting a vampire in my D&D game on Sunday, and it was great fun. I kept a thin veneer of there being a reality - describing how the shark was trying to thrash up from the salt pool it was in. But I don't think the results were at all realistic.

Realism understood as sticking to the real world reality is vastly overrated in Sci-Fi/Fantasy games.

Realism understood as sticking to the game world reality on the other hand is something to strive for.

When I play/run D&D I'm not trying to simmulate the real world, I'm trying to "live"/create a "living world" in the game world.

Yes, high level PCs ARE superhuman, which is why at certain levels you're out there cavorting on other planes or even becoming immortals/gods.

Like with many things, I don't think it has to be either one or the other (realistic or not). I can play in a closer-to-reality vikings game where there are no fireballs or dragons, but at most a prophetess who relays messages from the spirit world, and characters are swinging simple axes in small-scale raids and wars. I also can have fun with more over-the-top stuff, like the 8th-level ranger being polymorphed into a giant shark to fight the vampire.

As I read it, that was the OP's point. It's fine to have megafauna, but when doing so, acknowledge that even the supposedly non-magical warriors are superhuman.

Quote from: jhkim on October 03, 2023, 06:50:58 PM
As I read it, that was the OP's point. It's fine to have megafauna, but when doing so, acknowledge that even the supposedly non-magical warriors are superhuman.

Superhuman is a broad term. It could mean Batman* or Superman or Spiderman or Iron Man*.

Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark are nearer to "normal" than someone like Superman, but have some features that make them exceptional and arguably superhuman.

Is a charater in D&D more like Batman or Superman? That's been in flux since the hobby started.

I tend to leave the line between human and superhuman blurry because as soon as you start explicitly giving fighters "magic" some people I know start throwing hissy fits about how they can't play a mundane person as a PC.

It's absolutely weird to me, but it's real. Other classes can have magic to bend reality, but give a high-level fighter innate superhuman strength (vs. coming from a magic item) and some people start losing their shit. Others get bent out of shape when the system actually includes mechanics for how their superhuman ability works, demanding it be up to the DM what they're allowed to do that is superhuman.

There's a reason why "the fighter can't have nice things" is a meme.

In my own head, everyone in a magic-saturated world develops some degrees of innate magic related to the tasks they most perform. For fighters that would be superhuman physicality (strength, stamina, reflexes, etc.). For a thief it would be superhuman hand-eye coordination and stealth, and so forth.

However because everyone who applies themselves heavily has this happen to them, it's regarded as "mundane."

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 04, 2023, 08:01:34 AM
I tend to leave the line between human and superhuman blurry because as soon as you start explicitly giving fighters "magic" some people I know start throwing hissy fits about how they can't play a mundane person as a PC.

I can understand the argument. Sometimes a person wants to play a normal human who is simply above average, or even the tip top of human ability. Conan springs to mind. Once you give them explicit supernatural abilities, it changes the nature of the character from really good to supernaturally good.
I can go either way myself. Depends on the game and what I want to play.

Another way to put OP's point is that martials have zero versatility outside of combat, whereas magic-users can cast a spell tailor-made for a ridiculous variety of problems. HP bloat defeats the point of having levels to begin with. Martials' combat itself is incredibly boring compared to a console game like Shadow of the Colossus, God of War or Mortal Kombat. You just whack monsters over and over until they die, with no tactics or any kind of interesting description.

Your only limit is the human imagination. But the human imagination seems to be inferior compared to an effing video game. You can't run up the dragon's back and stab it in a weak spot? Really?

These are longstanding problems of the ttrpg medium that nobody has been interested in solving. Which is probably why the genre is dying and the oldest publishers are desperately moving to predatory and unethical microtransaction hellscape VTT schemes or whoring their IPs in video game licenses to survive. (None of those schemes are actually working, mind you.)

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 04, 2023, 09:46:12 AM
Martials' combat itself is incredibly boring compared to a console game like Shadow of the Colossus, God of War or Mortal Kombat. You just whack monsters over and over until they die, with no tactics or any kind of interesting description.

Must suck to play with a GM that is that bad and players with IQs of a green slime.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 04, 2023, 08:25:37 AMI can understand the argument. Sometimes a person wants to play a normal human who is simply above average, or even the tip top of human ability. Conan springs to mind.

Absolutely reasonable when it's not a class choice put alongside "Mega-Wizard".
It's like playing a superhero game and picking buddy the friendly barber and play him alongside Superman and the Hulk and go against mega galactus.

As for batman, his superpower is being favored by the writers. It would be like playing buddy the friendly barber and slipping the GM 1,000 bucks on the slide per session. So Superman and the Hulk always end up in implausible problems, while all the villians are allergic to barbers sheers (and only weilded by a barber of at least 20 years so superman can't edge in)

Quote from: jhkim on October 03, 2023, 06:50:58 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 03, 2023, 03:04:29 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 03, 2023, 01:16:22 PM
By their nature, D&D hit points make skillful dodging the same as being ridiculously tough, which often has counterintuitive results.

I think the simple answer is that the D&D rules go past being cinematic and into something more like epic poetry. If one wants a game to be more grounded and realistic, then one should change the rules.

For example, I had a giant shark (a polymorphed PC) thrashing about in a cave biting a vampire in my D&D game on Sunday, and it was great fun. I kept a thin veneer of there being a reality - describing how the shark was trying to thrash up from the salt pool it was in. But I don't think the results were at all realistic.

Realism understood as sticking to the real world reality is vastly overrated in Sci-Fi/Fantasy games.

Realism understood as sticking to the game world reality on the other hand is something to strive for.

When I play/run D&D I'm not trying to simmulate the real world, I'm trying to "live"/create a "living world" in the game world.

Yes, high level PCs ARE superhuman, which is why at certain levels you're out there cavorting on other planes or even becoming immortals/gods.

Like with many things, I don't think it has to be either one or the other (realistic or not). I can play in a closer-to-reality vikings game where there are no fireballs or dragons, but at most a prophetess who relays messages from the spirit world, and characters are swinging simple axes in small-scale raids and wars. I also can have fun with more over-the-top stuff, like the 8th-level ranger being polymorphed into a giant shark to fight the vampire.

As I read it, that was the OP's point. It's fine to have megafauna, but when doing so, acknowledge that even the supposedly non-magical warriors are superhuman.

You could also play a game of spies with ZERO magic or superscience, you seem to think you're arguing against my point while proving me right:

"I don't think it has to be either one or the other (realistic or not). I can play in a closer-to-reality vikings game where there are no fireballs or dragons, but at most a prophetess who relays messages from the spirit world,"

So you NEED to tinker with the game world and make it VERY LOW fantasy? Whodathunk it!?

And that game world is very different from one where the PCs wield magic, intelligent Dragons exist? I would have never thought that LOW fantasy isn't the same as Fantasy as High Fantasy, as Realistic, as Pulp...

Yes, you should be able to leap six hundred feet and suplex Godzilla. Martials should do cool shit and games should be fun.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 04, 2023, 02:04:07 PM
You could also play a game of spies with ZERO magic or superscience, you seem to think you're arguing against my point while proving me right:

I didn't claim I was disagreeing. I think we may be on the same page. Certainly one can play a game with no magic or superscience.

That reminds me, I do have a technical counter-example to the OP's point. I had a campaign based on Naomi Novik's Temeraire novels of domesticated dragons in the Napoleonic Age. There was no magic, and humans were relatively human. A human couldn't possibly go toe-to-toe with a dragon. However, half of the PCs were mega-fauna dragons, so that's how it balanced out.

https://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/korea/

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 04, 2023, 02:04:07 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 03, 2023, 06:50:58 PM
Like with many things, I don't think it has to be either one or the other (realistic or not). I can play in a closer-to-reality vikings game where there are no fireballs or dragons, but at most a prophetess who relays messages from the spirit world,

So you NEED to tinker with the game world and make it VERY LOW fantasy? Whodathunk it!?

And that game world is very different from one where the PCs wield magic, intelligent Dragons exist? I would have never thought that LOW fantasy isn't the same as Fantasy as High Fantasy, as Realistic, as Pulp...

When you say "tinker with the game world" -- that implies that my game world started out high fantasy and I tinkered to make it low fantasy. But the baseline for my game world was historical vikings, and my tinkering was developing an alternate history and adding in a bit of magic.

But I think we're on the same page that different games have different settings and principles. If one wants mega-fauna like dragons in the world, there are some choices:

1) Have supposedly non-magical characters like fighters actually be superhuman

2) Possibly equivalently, only have magical character types
2a) This could include a magical fighter-like option, like "empowered hero" with strength-based magic

3) Don't have magic or superhuman abilities, but have dragons/megafauna as PCs or PC resources

Quote from: jhkim on October 04, 2023, 04:33:26 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 04, 2023, 02:04:07 PM
You could also play a game of spies with ZERO magic or superscience, you seem to think you're arguing against my point while proving me right:

I didn't claim I was disagreeing. I think we may be on the same page. Certainly one can play a game with no magic or superscience.

That reminds me, I do have a technical counter-example to the OP's point. I had a campaign based on Naomi Novik's Temeraire novels of domesticated dragons in the Napoleonic Age. There was no magic, and humans were relatively human. A human couldn't possibly go toe-to-toe with a dragon. However, half of the PCs were mega-fauna dragons, so that's how it balanced out.

https://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/korea/

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 04, 2023, 02:04:07 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 03, 2023, 06:50:58 PM
Like with many things, I don't think it has to be either one or the other (realistic or not). I can play in a closer-to-reality vikings game where there are no fireballs or dragons, but at most a prophetess who relays messages from the spirit world,

So you NEED to tinker with the game world and make it VERY LOW fantasy? Whodathunk it!?

And that game world is very different from one where the PCs wield magic, intelligent Dragons exist? I would have never thought that LOW fantasy isn't the same as Fantasy as High Fantasy, as Realistic, as Pulp...

When you say "tinker with the game world" -- that implies that my game world started out high fantasy and I tinkered to make it low fantasy. But the baseline for my game world was historical vikings, and my tinkering was developing an alternate history and adding in a bit of magic.

But I think we're on the same page that different games have different settings and principles. If one wants mega-fauna like dragons in the world, there are some choices:

1) Have supposedly non-magical characters like fighters actually be superhuman

2) Possibly equivalently, only have magical character types
2a) This could include a magical fighter-like option, like "empowered hero" with strength-based magic

3) Don't have magic or superhuman abilities, but have dragons/megafauna as PCs or PC resources

4) Have non magical Dragons (meaning they breath fire but can't cast spells), magic is rare and dangerous, the PCs are like characters in Conan. I mean the original REH writtings, where the main characters don't use magic unless they are the villain.

No, I didn't want to imply your game world started as X and you had to tinker to make it Y, I meant tinker during world building to have a world that complies to whatever restraints you impossed on it.

For instance I start with Earth circa 1950, then assume it's the future 1950s enviosioned in the Pulps, then add Pulp like characters (both PC, NPC and enemies [which doesn't mean NPCs or mooks are at the same level as the PCs]), then add whatever monsters I deem fit the world.

You could start with a different world, one you created from scratch, then add whatever fits YOUR vision of how things should be.

Quote from: Domina on October 04, 2023, 03:24:24 PM
Yes, you should be able to leap six hundred feet and suplex Godzilla. Martials should do cool shit and games should be fun.

Fun and cool are subjective ideas, and tastes vary even with the same person depending on their mood.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 04, 2023, 05:28:27 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 04, 2023, 04:33:26 PM
But I think we're on the same page that different games have different settings and principles. If one wants mega-fauna like dragons in the world, there are some choices:

1) Have supposedly non-magical characters like fighters actually be superhuman

2) Possibly equivalently, only have magical character types
2a) This could include a magical fighter-like option, like "empowered hero" with strength-based magic

3) Don't have magic or superhuman abilities, but have dragons/megafauna as PCs or PC resources

4) Have non magical Dragons (meaning they breath fire but can't cast spells), magic is rare and dangerous, the PCs are like characters in Conan. I mean the original REH writtings, where the main characters don't use magic unless they are the villain.

Cool. I'd agree with that as a fun option. Martials can deal with mega-fauna by collapsing rocks on them, driving them over cliffs, etc.

 ???

I think this topic peaked after that Scooter video of an African hunt showing thrown reach weapons and sheer numbers obliterating megafauna like driver ants harvesting the jungle's creepy crawlies.  ;) At this point it's not even academic, the topic's premise doesn't stand. And yet here we are debating wanting even easier pretend battles.

I'm... bemused.  ??? ;D Like bowling with bumpers filling the gutters. :D But please, carry on!

Quote from: Opaopajr on October 04, 2023, 07:47:40 PM
???

I think this topic peaked after that Scooter video of an African hunt showing thrown reach weapons and sheer numbers obliterating megafauna like driver ants harvesting the jungle's creepy crawlies.  ;)

The thread started would seem to agree with you.  Never having responded to the post that falsified the raison d'être of the hypothesis.

Quote from: Opaopajr on October 04, 2023, 07:47:40 PMI'm... bemused.

Me too. Conflating strategic massed thrown spear hunting against herbivorous animals, the same as the disorganized dispersed melee sword fights against larger supernaturally armored carnivores with the capacity to breathe fire and fucking fly is a new stretch I had not seen before.

Quote from: Opaopajr on October 04, 2023, 07:47:40 PM
I think this topic peaked after that Scooter video of an African hunt showing thrown reach weapons and sheer numbers obliterating megafauna like driver ants harvesting the jungle's creepy crawlies.  ;) At this point it's not even academic, the topic's premise doesn't stand.

Well, in AD&D1e, dragons have a fear effect, no saving throw, on <1HD creatures. And levels 1-2 will require a save vs magic to avoid flee/panic. Even levels 3-5 fight at -1 due to shitting themselves. So with dragons in particular, you can't just hire 100x 0-level men-at-arms and have them throw 3 darts a round each until they kill the thing.

But other later communist versions of D&D aren't as wise and proper as 1st edition, thus the confusion. The OP is still a numpty who has never played proper D&D if any version at all, though.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on October 05, 2023, 01:53:48 AM

Quote from: Opaopajr on October 04, 2023, 07:47:40 PM
I think this topic peaked after that Scooter video of an African hunt showing thrown reach weapons and sheer numbers obliterating megafauna like driver ants harvesting the jungle's creepy crawlies.  ;) At this point it's not even academic, the topic's premise doesn't stand.

Well, in AD&D1e, dragons have a fear effect, no saving throw, on <1HD creatures. And levels 1-2 will require a save vs magic to avoid flee/panic. Even levels 3-5 fight at -1 due to shitting themselves. So with dragons in particular, you can't just hire 100x 0-level men-at-arms and have them throw 3 darts a round each until they kill the thing.

But other later communist versions of D&D aren't as wise and proper as 1st edition, thus the confusion. The OP is still a numpty who has never played proper D&D if any version at all, though.

That doesn't even take into account how dragons are smart and aren't going to stand there and let 100 men at arms throw darts at them.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 04, 2023, 09:47:19 PM

Quote from: Opaopajr on October 04, 2023, 07:47:40 PMI'm... bemused.

Me too. Conflating strategic massed thrown spear hunting against herbivorous animals, the same as the disorganized dispersed melee sword fights against larger supernaturally armored carnivores with the capacity to breathe fire and fucking fly is a new stretch I had not seen before.

Again, check the Original Topic's premise. Further, if you watched the video, you can see the hunt also caught an "herbiverous" leopard.  ;) I know small potatoes, right?

Now dragons should be a challenge. But are you suggesting a make believe creature versus human-like intelligent swarms -- also armed with much make believe -- are still somehow unassailable? Why, that's a challenge for the make believe Thunderdome arena, isn't it!  ;D I'm sure no table has made believe that they simulated beating one.  ;D

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 04, 2023, 09:47:19 PM

Me too. Conflating strategic massed thrown spear hunting against herbivorous animals, the same as the disorganized dispersed melee sword fights against larger supernaturally armored carnivores with the capacity to breathe fire and fucking fly is a new stretch I had not seen before.

Well, if you could READ English you wouldn't be. 

OP: "Do you know what humans did when they wanted to hunt megafauna (rhinos, lions, tigers, elephants, etc)?"

Quote from: Opaopajr on October 05, 2023, 09:37:48 AMFurther, if you watched the video, you can see the hunt also caught an "herbiverous" leopard.  ;) I know small potatoes, right?

Alright it's clear to me you're not here to have a conversation in any sort of good faith either (and if this is your idea of good faith, id like to see what bad faith discussion is). It's clear to me this place had become even more self satisfied since last I viewed the topics.

Quote from: Opaopajr on October 05, 2023, 09:37:48 AM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 04, 2023, 09:47:19 PM

Quote from: Opaopajr on October 04, 2023, 07:47:40 PMI'm... bemused.

Me too. Conflating strategic massed thrown spear hunting against herbivorous animals, the same as the disorganized dispersed melee sword fights against larger supernaturally armored carnivores with the capacity to breathe fire and fucking fly is a new stretch I had not seen before.

Again, check the Original Topic's premise. Further, if you watched the video, you can see the hunt also caught an "herbiverous" leopard.  ;) I know small potatoes, right?

Now dragons should be a challenge. But are you suggesting a make believe creature versus human-like intelligent swarms -- also armed with much make believe -- are still somehow unassailable? Why, that's a challenge for the make believe Thunderdome arena, isn't it!  ;D I'm sure no table has made believe that they simulated beating one.  ;D

Yes, so thank you for agreeing with me. Humans with normal human strength can't fight massive fantasy creatures unless they stay far back and throw or shoot projectiles at it. In other words, not what DND characters are doing. DND characters are either superhuman or get shit on by any creature elephant sized or more. Hell I think some DND monsters can survive being hit by anti tank weaponry (which in d20 modern does up to 60 damage while dragons have more than a 100 HP), which means the hunters in the video would get absolutely trashed. If you can survive being hit by modern weaponry that would send shockwaves across your entire body, there's no weak spots for any human to hit. You're indestructible to them, in and out.

other posts:

> DND characters can't destroy rock walls with their superhuman strength because....THAT'S HOW THE GAME WORKS

So your game world is incoherent. Cool. Don't complain about SJW worlds not making any sense because your worlds don't either.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 05, 2023, 05:42:48 PM
DND characters are either superhuman or get shit on by any creature elephant sized or more.

Wrong.  You are either blind or stupid as all fuck.  Watch the video

Quote from: Scooter on October 05, 2023, 05:46:47 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 05, 2023, 05:42:48 PM
DND characters are either superhuman or get shit on by any creature elephant sized or more.

Wrong.  You are either blind or stupid as all fuck.  Watch the video

Watched the video. It's exactly as I said. Hunters stay back and attack from range. In other words, the strongest weapon humans have.

DND martials WALK UP to giant monsters and ATTACK THEM with MELEE WEAPONS which would be suicide.

You also didn't address my claim that any DND monster that could survive modern anti tank weaponry would be invincible to normal humans (which is supported by the damage of rocket launchers in d20 as well as the HP total of many high CR monsters)

https://adnd2e.fandom.com/wiki/Red_Dragon

200 foot long monsters. There's a point where you have to say 'no real human could fight these, not even if they were experienced medieval hunters' and that point has been reached far ago.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 05, 2023, 05:52:20 PM
https://adnd2e.fandom.com/wiki/Red_Dragon

200 foot long monsters. There's a point where you have to say 'no real human could fight these, not even if they were experienced medieval hunters' and that point has been reached far ago.

Wrong.  Just get more humans.  You aren't smart enough to figure out basic tactics.  Something 5 times the size of an elephant will still be killed without too much difficulty especially when using medieval era weapons rather than stone age spears.

Quote from: Scooter on October 05, 2023, 05:59:54 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 05, 2023, 05:52:20 PM
https://adnd2e.fandom.com/wiki/Red_Dragon

200 foot long monsters. There's a point where you have to say 'no real human could fight these, not even if they were experienced medieval hunters' and that point has been reached far ago.

Wrong.  Just get more humans.  You aren't smart enough to figure out basic tactics.  Something 5 times the size of an elephant will still be killed without too much difficulty especially when using medieval era weapons rather than stone age spears.

It can fly and breathe fire. It has an INT score higher than most humans. It is hundreds of feet in length. Any creature with bones strong enough to not only support its weight at that size but strong enough to survive it FALLING is tougher than any real world creature to ever exist. You are not hunting it. You are being hunted.

Also what basic tactics are present in walking up to a 200 foot creature and whacking it to death?

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 05, 2023, 06:01:35 PM

It can fly and breathe fire.
[/i][/b]
Also what basic tactics are present in walking up to a 200 foot creature and whacking it to death?

Wrong moron.  Real animals cannot breathe fire nor fly if they are beyond certain size/weight ratios.  Did you parents beat you with a stupid stick everyday of your life?

Quote from: Scooter on October 05, 2023, 06:09:21 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 05, 2023, 06:01:35 PM

It can fly and breathe fire.
[/i][/b]
Also what basic tactics are present in walking up to a 200 foot creature and whacking it to death?

Wrong moron.  Real animals cannot breathe fire nor fly if they are beyond certain size/weight ratios.  Did you parents beat you with a stupid stick everyday of your life?

I am talking about a OS DND red dragon. My argument is that no real life human could do jack fucking shit to the dragon as portrayed in ADND. Not even if there were 15 of them armed with steel spears and crossbows using the same tactics as those African hunters. Much less 5 dudes with swords.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 05, 2023, 05:48:11 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 05, 2023, 05:46:47 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 05, 2023, 05:42:48 PM
DND characters are either superhuman or get shit on by any creature elephant sized or more.

Wrong.  You are either blind or stupid as all fuck.  Watch the video

Watched the video. It's exactly as I said. Hunters stay back and attack from range. In other words, the strongest weapon humans have.

DND martials WALK UP to giant monsters and ATTACK THEM with MELEE WEAPONS which would be suicide.

You also didn't address my claim that any DND monster that could survive modern anti tank weaponry would be invincible to normal humans (which is supported by the damage of rocket launchers in d20 as well as the HP total of many high CR monsters)

To be fair, your original post ignored ranged weapons. Ranged weapons could fall into either or both of options 1 and 2.

We really don't know how primitive man hunted mega-fauna. Iron weapons were non-existent. Long spears with fire-hardened tips were probably useful.

Which D&D fighter is going to walk up to a dragon and start wailing on it with a broadsword? One with a pushover GM, that's who. Because a fair GM will have that fighter knocked prone on the first hit or flung across the map landing with Xd6 fall damage.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 05, 2023, 07:37:29 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 05, 2023, 05:48:11 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 05, 2023, 05:46:47 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 05, 2023, 05:42:48 PM
DND characters are either superhuman or get shit on by any creature elephant sized or more.

Wrong.  You are either blind or stupid as all fuck.  Watch the video

Watched the video. It's exactly as I said. Hunters stay back and attack from range. In other words, the strongest weapon humans have.

DND martials WALK UP to giant monsters and ATTACK THEM with MELEE WEAPONS which would be suicide.

You also didn't address my claim that any DND monster that could survive modern anti tank weaponry would be invincible to normal humans (which is supported by the damage of rocket launchers in d20 as well as the HP total of many high CR monsters)

To be fair, your original post ignored ranged weapons. Ranged weapons could fall into either or both of options 1 and 2.

We really don't know how primitive man hunted mega-fauna. Iron weapons were non-existent. Long spears with fire-hardened tips were probably useful.

Which D&D fighter is going to walk up to a dragon and start wailing on it with a broadsword? One with a pushover GM, that's who. Because a fair GM will have that fighter knocked prone on the first hit or flung across the map landing with Xd6 fall damage.

that's fair.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 05, 2023, 05:42:48 PM
So your game world is incoherent. Cool. Don't complain about SJW worlds not making any sense because your worlds don't either.

Just because the model doesn't precisely behave as you wish it would, doesn't mean it's incoherent.

SJW worlds deserve an extra helping of mockery because their ideology is stupid in the real world, and fantastically stupid in fantasy worlds.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 05, 2023, 07:37:29 PM
Which D&D fighter is going to walk up to a dragon and start wailing on it with a broadsword? One with a pushover GM, that's who. Because a fair GM will have that fighter knocked prone on the first hit or flung across the map landing with Xd6 fall damage.

It's actually worse than that.  In most circumstances a dragon that's not really dumb will fly, circle around, then breath weapon the melee guys repeatedly while staying out of reach of weapons.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 06, 2023, 12:13:29 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 05, 2023, 05:42:48 PM
So your game world is incoherent. Cool. Don't complain about SJW worlds not making any sense because your worlds don't either.

Just because the model doesn't precisely behave as you wish it would, doesn't mean it's incoherent.

SJW worlds deserve an extra helping of mockery because their ideology is stupid in the real world, and fantastically stupid in fantasy worlds.

Premise 1: There are fantasy monsters that are too strong for any group of realistic human hunters to kill (due to their insane durability and special features compared to real life animals) unless the group numbers in the hundreds or thousands
Premise 2: Anyone in a 6 man group (adventurers) who can kill those fantasy monsters with physical non enhanced force has to be superhuman
Premise 3: Buildings in this world are not somewhat more durable than real world buildings unless noted otherwise
Conclusion: Adventurers can smash through your house like it's made out of wet tissue paper because they can apply the physical force needed to do so.

If you tone down the monsters to where they can be killed by some sort of fantasy peak human, then yeah, but DND dragons are at a point where it's hard to believe Batman can do anything to them. Giants too because the tissue strength required to remain a humanoid shape at those heights is absurd.

Quote from: Mishihari on October 06, 2023, 01:21:20 AM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 05, 2023, 07:37:29 PM
Which D&D fighter is going to walk up to a dragon and start wailing on it with a broadsword? One with a pushover GM, that's who. Because a fair GM will have that fighter knocked prone on the first hit or flung across the map landing with Xd6 fall damage.

It's actually worse than that.  In most circumstances a dragon that's not really dumb will fly, circle around, then breath weapon the melee guys repeatedly while staying out of reach of weapons.

or just walk on them considering they're hundreds of feet long.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 05, 2023, 07:37:29 PM
Which D&D fighter is going to walk up to a dragon and start wailing on it with a broadsword? One with a pushover GM, that's who. Because a fair GM will have that fighter knocked prone on the first hit or flung across the map landing with Xd6 fall damage.

I don't see the logic in those tactics. Against a dumb and/or slow beast, using ranged weapons means one is relatively safe. With a dragon, it is smart and fast and can get in and still do its attacks, and the fighter is responding with lower-damage ranged weapons. i.e. It'll still fly up to the fighter, knock him prone and/or fling him -- but he won't get in a good hit as it does so.

Besides, D&D is pretty clearly designed with that style of fighting dragons:

(https://i0.wp.com/shaneplays.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/dungeons_and_dragons_dd_basic_set_3rd_edition_red_box_Mentzer_edition_1983.jpg?w=439&ssl=1)

Greetings!

Well, I can certainly appreciate the rules-savy, the "Rules Lawyering", and the whole Meta-Tactics awareness of Player Characters, but especially with the ruthless DM wearing the Viking Hat, and seeking to run monsters effectively.

However, I like to think that historical mythology, the heroic tradition, and a dragon's immeasurable *pride* trump all of those previously mentioned considerations. In Medieval Spanish myth, dragons would use their cunning, their words, magic, and spells to gain the upper hand in a fight, besides breathing fire or poisonous fumes, and ripping into enemies with it's teeth and claws. Likewise, in European mythology, dragons traditionally rely on their teeth and claws to shred some upstart, would-be hero that is foolish enough to challenge them. Similar attributes are found also in Eastern European mythology, Slavic mythology, and Norse mythology. Furthermore, such traditional attitudes and fearsome tactics are also prevalent in Arthurian mythology.

Dragons are immensely proud, and righteously arrogant. They *relish* ripping their enemies apart by biting them and shredding them with their sword-like claws. Besides scourging them with blasts of searing fire. Upstart heroes daring to challenge their ancient might *need* to be chomped on and slaughtered in physical combat. The mighty dragons love the taste of fresh meat and bones being crushed in their jaws, and their enemy's blood spurting in a gory, terrifying spectacle. In addition, dragons deeply enjoy the scent and tasting the raw fear and terror of their enemies as their terrible doom falls upon them like a furious storm.

Mighty dragons are not going to scroll through some textbook of tactics to use all of these weird spells, or fly and caper about, being careful to stay out of range, and prancing about.

Mighty dragons are blasting searing fire and charging forth to slaughter their enemies with teeth and claws.

I say all that to aim at the "meta tactics manual" as doing so really tramples immersion and makes a dragon encounter feel more like a video-game boss fight than an epic encounter in a fantasy world.

Myself, well, yes, I prefer a more mythological and heroic approach when running dragon encounters. To me, it simply feels more immersive and faithful to the epic, heroic mythology.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 06, 2023, 02:16:24 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 06, 2023, 12:13:29 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 05, 2023, 05:42:48 PM
So your game world is incoherent. Cool. Don't complain about SJW worlds not making any sense because your worlds don't either.

Just because the model doesn't precisely behave as you wish it would, doesn't mean it's incoherent.

SJW worlds deserve an extra helping of mockery because their ideology is stupid in the real world, and fantastically stupid in fantasy worlds.

Premise 1: There are fantasy monsters that are too strong for any group of realistic human hunters to kill (due to their insane durability and special features compared to real life animals) unless the group numbers in the hundreds or thousands
Premise 2: Anyone in a 6 man group (adventurers) who can kill those fantasy monsters with physical non enhanced force has to be superhuman
Premise 3: Buildings in this world are not somewhat more durable than real world buildings unless noted otherwise
Conclusion: Adventurers can smash through your house like it's made out of wet tissue paper because they can apply the physical force needed to do so.

If you tone down the monsters to where they can be killed by some sort of fantasy peak human, then yeah, but DND dragons are at a point where it's hard to believe Batman can do anything to them. Giants too because the tissue strength required to remain a humanoid shape at those heights is absurd.

All this boils down to D&D combat being abstracted and therefore unrealistic. I don't think anyone can coherently argue against that.

The mistake I think you make is that somehow pointing this out with elaborate examples and analogies is going to be some argument against criticism of SJW inspired fantasy world building being unrealistic. If so, then it's all a bunch of silly nonsense and we should all grow up and stop pretending to be elves.
But we will continue to pretend to be elves, and argue about realism versus abstracted rules, and SJW fantasy worlds will continue to be dreary, preachy messes.

Quote from: SHARK on October 06, 2023, 03:51:37 AM
Mighty dragons are not going to scroll through some textbook of tactics to use all of these weird spells, or fly and caper about, being careful to stay out of range, and prancing about.

Mighty dragons are blasting searing fire and charging forth to slaughter their enemies with teeth and claws.

I say all that to aim at the "meta tactics manual" as doing so really tramples immersion and makes a dragon encounter feel more like a video-game boss fight than an epic encounter in a fantasy world.

Myself, well, yes, I prefer a more mythological and heroic approach when running dragon encounters. To me, it simply feels more immersive and faithful to the epic, heroic mythology.

It's not meta for an intelligent dragon to use fundamental tactics, any more than it would be meta for a German panzer division to use tactics.

This is partly a clash in source material. Medieval epic poetry describes battles in florid, emotional terms. Partly because of this, I think there's a tendency to think that medieval people weren't tactically-minded, and tactics are a modern invention. In historical battles, though, medieval commanders were well aware of many tactics and would often deploy their forces carefully to maximize their chance of success. Only a few people (like Sun Tzu) would write about tactics in surviving works, but many would think about it.

If the PCs have a good chance of killing the dragon, and the dragon ignores this and charges in foolishly to be cut down, then it comes across as stupid rather than intelligent. A dragon can still be fearsome and terrifying when using tactics. The important thing is when in game, don't talk about it analytically like one does in a forum post, but rather concentrate on the vividly describing the sensory results and feel of the battle.

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2023, 01:21:56 PM
In historical battles, though, medieval commanders were well aware of many tactics and would often deploy their forces carefully to maximize their chance of success.

And there are numerous well-documented battles where honor-bound, ransom-hungry knights, led by commanders appointed by title, charged in and slaughtered enemy and ally alike, or were themselves slaughtered.

Intelligent dragons might act like intelligent people who sometimes use sub-optimal tactics for other reasons such as honor, glory, and treasure.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 06, 2023, 01:33:21 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2023, 01:21:56 PM
In historical battles, though, medieval commanders were well aware of many tactics and would often deploy their forces carefully to maximize their chance of success.

And there are numerous well-documented battles where honor-bound, ransom-hungry knights, led by commanders appointed by title, charged in and slaughtered enemy and ally alike, or were themselves slaughtered.

Intelligent dragons might act like intelligent people who sometimes use sub-optimal tactics for other reasons such as honor, glory, and treasure.

Sure. NPCs should make mistakes just like PCs make mistakes. I've seen plenty of PC groups use sub-optimal tactics, and that's a good thing.

My point is just that the concept of an intelligent opponent acting tactically shouldn't be seen as "meta" or video-gamey.

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2023, 02:29:25 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 06, 2023, 01:33:21 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2023, 01:21:56 PM
In historical battles, though, medieval commanders were well aware of many tactics and would often deploy their forces carefully to maximize their chance of success.

And there are numerous well-documented battles where honor-bound, ransom-hungry knights, led by commanders appointed by title, charged in and slaughtered enemy and ally alike, or were themselves slaughtered.

Intelligent dragons might act like intelligent people who sometimes use sub-optimal tactics for other reasons such as honor, glory, and treasure.

Sure. NPCs should make mistakes just like PCs make mistakes. I've seen plenty of PC groups use sub-optimal tactics, and that's a good thing.

My point is just that the concept of an intelligent opponent acting tactically shouldn't be seen as "meta" or video-gamey.

These are not "mistakes." These are examples of people and being people. The reason Fabius is famous is because he bucked the trend. His own people deemed him a coward. Eventually he earned respect for his defensive tactics. But he was an outlier. Most if not all other Roman leaders would have stormed in and got slaughtered by Hannibal again. We can view that strategy in retrospect as a mistake. But for them, it was a matter of honor.

For a dragon, a barbarian, or an honor-bound knight, charging in headlong and getting struck down by a worthy foe might be a perfectly reasonable outcome. Mistake? Nah, man, broaden your perspective a little.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 06, 2023, 04:01:25 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2023, 02:29:25 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 06, 2023, 01:33:21 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2023, 01:21:56 PM
In historical battles, though, medieval commanders were well aware of many tactics and would often deploy their forces carefully to maximize their chance of success.

And there are numerous well-documented battles where honor-bound, ransom-hungry knights, led by commanders appointed by title, charged in and slaughtered enemy and ally alike, or were themselves slaughtered.

Intelligent dragons might act like intelligent people who sometimes use sub-optimal tactics for other reasons such as honor, glory, and treasure.

Sure. NPCs should make mistakes just like PCs make mistakes. I've seen plenty of PC groups use sub-optimal tactics, and that's a good thing.

My point is just that the concept of an intelligent opponent acting tactically shouldn't be seen as "meta" or video-gamey.

These are not "mistakes." These are examples of people and being people. The reason Fabius is famous is because he bucked the trend. His own people deemed him a coward. Eventually he earned respect for his defensive tactics. But he was an outlier. Most if not all other Roman leaders would have stormed in and got slaughtered by Hannibal again. We can view that strategy in retrospect as a mistake. But for them, it was a matter of honor.

For a dragon, a barbarian, or an honor-bound knight, charging in headlong and getting struck down by a worthy foe might be a perfectly reasonable outcome. Mistake? Nah, man, broaden your perspective a little.

Meaning that just as the player should RP his PC in ways consistent with it's alignment, class, race, etc the GM should RP the monsters in a way consistent to how he built them.

Jhkim Dragons might be different from vanilla D&D Dragons in "personality", and that's okay as long as they remain consistent with his game world.

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2023, 02:29:25 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 06, 2023, 01:33:21 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2023, 01:21:56 PM
In historical battles, though, medieval commanders were well aware of many tactics and would often deploy their forces carefully to maximize their chance of success.

And there are numerous well-documented battles where honor-bound, ransom-hungry knights, led by commanders appointed by title, charged in and slaughtered enemy and ally alike, or were themselves slaughtered.

Intelligent dragons might act like intelligent people who sometimes use sub-optimal tactics for other reasons such as honor, glory, and treasure.

Sure. NPCs should make mistakes just like PCs make mistakes. I've seen plenty of PC groups use sub-optimal tactics, and that's a good thing.

My point is just that the concept of an intelligent opponent acting tactically shouldn't be seen as "meta" or video-gamey.

Greetings!

Slaughtering cattle does not require tactics. ;D

By the way, I have not suggested that "Intelligent Opponents acting tactically" is a Meta Video-Game thing. I have suggested that a traditional, heroic, super-powerful and majestically arrogant creature like a DRAGON, would be more likely to simply breathe fire and chomp their opponents in a terrifying slaughter and rage. Flying away, staying at a distance, using crazy spells--as a tactical suite--is more akin to a boss-fight encounter in a video game, and not an epic encounter with a dragon from myth. Embracing fancy tactics, weird spells, staying out of range--all that gets precisely to the other-worldly and mythic psychology of the Dragon.

Embracing such a tactical suite suggests FEAR. FEAR OF BEING DEFEATED AND KILLED BY FUCKING HUMANS.

I am suggesting that--yes, looking to the different sources in literature and myth, as opposed to the game-book mentality of the game--an epic Dragon wouldn't have FEAR OF HUMANS. Human opponents would be like cattle, or maybe seen as a potentially poisonous spider that can sting hard when it bites you--but the outcome is still certain in the Dragon's mind.

The spider, the cattle--the human warriors--are all going to die horribly.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on October 06, 2023, 04:38:25 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2023, 02:29:25 PM
Sure. NPCs should make mistakes just like PCs make mistakes. I've seen plenty of PC groups use sub-optimal tactics, and that's a good thing.

My point is just that the concept of an intelligent opponent acting tactically shouldn't be seen as "meta" or video-gamey.

By the way, I have not suggested that "Intelligent Opponents acting tactically" is a Meta Video-Game thing. I have suggested that a traditional, heroic, super-powerful and majestically arrogant creature like a DRAGON, would be more likely to simply breathe fire and chomp their opponents in a terrifying slaughter and rage. Flying away, staying at a distance, using crazy spells--as a tactical suite--is more akin to a boss-fight encounter in a video game, and not an epic encounter with a dragon from myth. Embracing fancy tactics, weird spells, staying out of range--all that gets precisely to the other-worldly and mythic psychology of the Dragon.

Embracing such a tactical suite suggests FEAR. FEAR OF BEING DEFEATED AND KILLED BY FUCKING HUMANS.

Use of tactics doesn't require fear. Use of skill and tactics can be a show of superiority, particularly for a creature that prides itself on its intelligence. By parallel, an arrogant master swordsman may show off his technique rather than just relying on brute force, even if he thinks he could win just by brute force.

A cruelly evil dragon that prides itself on its intelligence might carefully pick off its attackers one by one, giving them no chance to fight back, just to demonstrate how it is smarter than them as well as stronger.

Quote from: jhkim on October 07, 2023, 03:00:29 AM

Quote from: SHARK on October 06, 2023, 04:38:25 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2023, 02:29:25 PM
Sure. NPCs should make mistakes just like PCs make mistakes. I've seen plenty of PC groups use sub-optimal tactics, and that's a good thing.

My point is just that the concept of an intelligent opponent acting tactically shouldn't be seen as "meta" or video-gamey.

By the way, I have not suggested that "Intelligent Opponents acting tactically" is a Meta Video-Game thing. I have suggested that a traditional, heroic, super-powerful and majestically arrogant creature like a DRAGON, would be more likely to simply breathe fire and chomp their opponents in a terrifying slaughter and rage. Flying away, staying at a distance, using crazy spells--as a tactical suite--is more akin to a boss-fight encounter in a video game, and not an epic encounter with a dragon from myth. Embracing fancy tactics, weird spells, staying out of range--all that gets precisely to the other-worldly and mythic psychology of the Dragon.

Embracing such a tactical suite suggests FEAR. FEAR OF BEING DEFEATED AND KILLED BY FUCKING HUMANS.

Use of tactics doesn't require fear. Use of skill and tactics can be a show of superiority, particularly for a creature that prides itself on its intelligence. By parallel, an arrogant master swordsman may show off his technique rather than just relying on brute force, even if he thinks he could win just by brute force.

A cruelly evil dragon that prides itself on its intelligence might carefully pick off its attackers one by one, giving them no chance to fight back, just to demonstrate how it is smarter than them as well as stronger.

Okay so you agree with us then: Role play over optimal tactics.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 08, 2023, 10:20:29 AM

Quote from: jhkim on October 07, 2023, 03:00:29 AM
A cruelly evil dragon that prides itself on its intelligence might carefully pick off its attackers one by one, giving them no chance to fight back, just to demonstrate how it is smarter than them as well as stronger.

Okay so you agree with us then: Role play over optimal tactics.

Mmm, picking off opponents one by one with no chance to fight back IS optimum tactics.  Role play and tactics are not mutually exclusive. 

Quote from: Mishihari on October 06, 2023, 01:21:20 AM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 05, 2023, 07:37:29 PM
Which D&D fighter is going to walk up to a dragon and start wailing on it with a broadsword? One with a pushover GM, that's who. Because a fair GM will have that fighter knocked prone on the first hit or flung across the map landing with Xd6 fall damage.

It's actually worse than that.  In most circumstances a dragon that's not really dumb will fly, circle around, then breath weapon the melee guys repeatedly while staying out of reach of weapons.

Resist Energy and Protection From Energy say hi :)

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 09, 2023, 09:23:53 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on October 06, 2023, 01:21:20 AM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 05, 2023, 07:37:29 PM
Which D&D fighter is going to walk up to a dragon and start wailing on it with a broadsword? One with a pushover GM, that's who. Because a fair GM will have that fighter knocked prone on the first hit or flung across the map landing with Xd6 fall damage.

It's actually worse than that.  In most circumstances a dragon that's not really dumb will fly, circle around, then breath weapon the melee guys repeatedly while staying out of reach of weapons.

Resist Energy and Protection From Energy say hi :)

Which of the fighter's class features allow him to cast these spells?

Quote from: Domina on October 14, 2023, 10:55:28 AM

Quote
Resist Energy and Protection From Energy say hi :)

Which of the fighter's class features allow him to cast these spells?

Why wouldn't a high level fighter have magic items like armour of fire resistance?

Quote from: Domina on October 14, 2023, 10:55:28 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 09, 2023, 09:23:53 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on October 06, 2023, 01:21:20 AM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 05, 2023, 07:37:29 PM
Which D&D fighter is going to walk up to a dragon and start wailing on it with a broadsword? One with a pushover GM, that's who. Because a fair GM will have that fighter knocked prone on the first hit or flung across the map landing with Xd6 fall damage.

It's actually worse than that.  In most circumstances a dragon that's not really dumb will fly, circle around, then breath weapon the melee guys repeatedly while staying out of reach of weapons.

Resist Energy and Protection From Energy say hi :)

Which of the fighter's class features allow him to cast these spells?

Multiclass, potions, wands (if his UMD is high enough or again, multiclass)... and we're assuming it's JUST the fighter taking him on.

There is a reason the dragon's refrain should be 'fight smarter, not harder'.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 16, 2023, 10:29:04 AM
Multiclass, potions, wands (if his UMD is high enough or again, multiclass)... and we're assuming it's JUST the fighter taking him on.

There is a reason the dragon's refrain should be 'fight smarter, not harder'.

I always remember that comment from Gandalf when answering why use a burglar.  He said because there were no heroes around area to be employed. So, in Middle Earth fighters of high enough skill were known to be able to take on the likes of Smaug.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 16, 2023, 10:29:04 AM

Quote from: Domina on October 14, 2023, 10:55:28 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 09, 2023, 09:23:53 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on October 06, 2023, 01:21:20 AM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 05, 2023, 07:37:29 PM
Which D&D fighter is going to walk up to a dragon and start wailing on it with a broadsword? One with a pushover GM, that's who. Because a fair GM will have that fighter knocked prone on the first hit or flung across the map landing with Xd6 fall damage.

It's actually worse than that.  In most circumstances a dragon that's not really dumb will fly, circle around, then breath weapon the melee guys repeatedly while staying out of reach of weapons.

Resist Energy and Protection From Energy say hi :)

Which of the fighter's class features allow him to cast these spells?

Multiclass, potions, wands (if his UMD is high enough or again, multiclass)... and we're assuming it's JUST the fighter taking him on.

There is a reason the dragon's refrain should be 'fight smarter, not harder'.

So the fighter's best options come from things not related to being a fighter? Lmao. The absolute state of D&D

Quote from: Domina on October 17, 2023, 05:36:41 PM

So the fighter's best options come from things not related to being a fighter? Lmao. The absolute state of D&D
[/quote]

Wrong moron.  Magic Weapons and armor are 100% part of a fighters equipment at higher level.  Not get that brainectomy reversed

Quote from: Scooter on October 17, 2023, 05:48:29 PM

Quote from: Domina on October 17, 2023, 05:36:41 PM

So the fighter's best options come from things not related to being a fighter? Lmao. The absolute state of D&D

Wrong moron.  Magic Weapons and armor are 100% part of a fighters equipment at higher level.  Not get that brainectomy reversed
[/quote]

ah yes, a glowing magical sword can make the fighter strike with a thousand times more joules than he could, and resist a thousand times more joules of force than he could normally, hmm yes, ignore how this is not in any way replicated in any mythology

I realized what I recently said sounds stupid. However my point still stands that DND characters are Schrodinger superhumans.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 17, 2023, 10:14:50 PM
I realized what I recently said sounds stupid. However my point still stands that DND characters are Schrodinger superhumans.

Not really.

Here's the crux of the problem. D&D has a tradition of play however you want.

- Some DM's might be going for "realism"--others might be going for a more "mythical" vibe.
- Of those going for realism, some might believe human weapons can harm megafauna. Others might not.
- Some DMs don't care about any of these goofy technicalities. Others do.
- And finally, some DMs interpret the combat system as being blow for blow. Others interpret it as abstract goo where there's dancing and prancing assumed to be going on, and so even if you've got minis on the table with the PC literally standing toe-to-toe fighting the Megafauna, that might not be what's actually happening in the imaginary space.

In order for the problem you're talking about to even exist AT ALL, you have to side with realism, have to hold your particular view of what is "realistic", care enough about any of this shit, and interpret combat in the way that is least compatible with your style and approach. Out of 4 binary switches that yield 16 broad combinatoric categories of gamers, only 1 out of the 16 has the problem you cite, and for some reason you've carefully chosen your assumptions to adhere to that 1.

Whatever melts your butter, I do believe the adage that if you're not having fun, you're playing wrong. And so if you insist on the one approach that's presenting you problems, I have no problem stating as an objectively true statement that you are just plain playing wrong. And you can't lay that blame on the game system. Not when there are 15 ways to play right. It's up for you to decide which of those four switches you need to flip. But you either need to flip one, or just admit you're more interesting in complaining than you are in playing any game.

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 17, 2023, 11:18:04 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 17, 2023, 10:14:50 PM
I realized what I recently said sounds stupid. However my point still stands that DND characters are Schrodinger superhumans.

Not really.

Here's the crux of the problem. D&D has a tradition of play however you want.

- Some DM's might be going for "realism"--others might be going for a more "mythical" vibe.
- Of those going for realism, some might believe human weapons can harm megafauna. Others might not.
- Some DMs don't care about any of these goofy technicalities. Others do.
- And finally, some DMs interpret the combat system as being blow for blow. Others interpret it as abstract goo where there's dancing and prancing assumed to be going on, and so even if you've got minis on the table with the PC literally standing toe-to-toe fighting the Megafauna, that might not be what's actually happening in the imaginary space.

In order for the problem you're talking about to even exist AT ALL, you have to side with realism, have to hold your particular view of what is "realistic", care enough about any of this shit, and interpret combat in the way that is least compatible with your style and approach. Out of 4 binary switches that yield 16 broad combinatoric categories of gamers, only 1 out of the 16 has the problem you cite, and for some reason you've carefully chosen your assumptions to adhere to that 1.

Whatever melts your butter, I do believe the adage that if you're not having fun, you're playing wrong. And so if you insist on the one approach that's presenting you problems, I have no problem stating as an objectively true statement that you are just plain playing wrong. And you can't lay that blame on the game system. Not when there are 15 ways to play right. It's up for you to decide which of those four switches you need to flip. But you either need to flip one, or just admit you're more interesting in complaining than you are in playing any game.

you know what, maybe I am working myself over nothing. thanks.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 17, 2023, 09:52:15 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 17, 2023, 05:48:29 PM

Quote from: Domina on October 17, 2023, 05:36:41 PM


So the fighter's best options come from things not related to being a fighter? Lmao. The absolute state of D&D

Wrong moron.  Magic Weapons and armor are 100% part of a fighters equipment at higher level.  Not get that brainectomy reversed

ah yes, a glowing magical sword can make the fighter strike with a thousand times more joules than he could, and resist a thousand times more joules of force than he could normally, hmm yes, ignore how this is not in any way replicated in any mythology

Yes, I'm sure Durandal was a perfectly normal sword. And the skin of the Nemean Lion was just a pelt.

Wouldn't a fighter use a magical bow, or a magical arrow, to slay megafauna instead of a sword? That's kind of the trope isnt it? Bard firing his last arrow, made of the black steel of the dwarves, through the hollow in Smaug's left breast to slay the dragon, after all other arrows had bounced off harmlessly from his scales and gems, or been burned and blown away by his breath and wings?

I mean, I guess it depends on if you want to be more emphatic of the Fantasy part of a fantasy rpg.

I'm not saying other mechanics couldn't be at play, but like.. re-creating nomadic hunting styles  used against elephants into an RPG is more like a survivalist/ sciencey kind of rpg than fantasy? There are places for that kind of game play, heist type games remind of of this, where careful planning and back-up plans might be needed for setting up the ambush, scare and trapping of the megafauna. So, its different, but not impossible or lack of the possibility of interest. 

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 17, 2023, 11:18:04 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 17, 2023, 10:14:50 PM
I realized what I recently said sounds stupid. However my point still stands that DND characters are Schrodinger superhumans.

Not really.

Here's the crux of the problem. D&D has a tradition of play however you want.

- Some DM's might be going for "realism"--others might be going for a more "mythical" vibe.
- Of those going for realism, some might believe human weapons can harm megafauna. Others might not.
- Some DMs don't care about any of these goofy technicalities. Others do.
- And finally, some DMs interpret the combat system as being blow for blow. Others interpret it as abstract goo where there's dancing and prancing assumed to be going on, and so even if you've got minis on the table with the PC literally standing toe-to-toe fighting the Megafauna, that might not be what's actually happening in the imaginary space.

In order for the problem you're talking about to even exist AT ALL, you have to side with realism, have to hold your particular view of what is "realistic", care enough about any of this shit, and interpret combat in the way that is least compatible with your style and approach. Out of 4 binary switches that yield 16 broad combinatoric categories of gamers, only 1 out of the 16 has the problem you cite, and for some reason you've carefully chosen your assumptions to adhere to that 1.

Whatever melts your butter, I do believe the adage that if you're not having fun, you're playing wrong. And so if you insist on the one approach that's presenting you problems, I have no problem stating as an objectively true statement that you are just plain playing wrong. And you can't lay that blame on the game system. Not when there are 15 ways to play right. It's up for you to decide which of those four switches you need to flip. But you either need to flip one, or just admit you're more interesting in complaining than you are in playing any game.

Apparently; a group of hunters with Clovis points on their spears, was able to take down Megafauna.  Direct evidence exists.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 17, 2023, 10:14:50 PM
I realized what I recently said sounds stupid. However my point still stands that DND characters are Schrodinger superhumans.

Once you start talking Joules, your answer is GURPS, or maybe Phoenix Command or Traveller 5e.  BTW if you do go that route, remember Joules is a measure of energy or work, Newtons is a measure of force.

D&D has always been an imperfect abstraction.  Armor Class, Hit Points, Levels, they've always caused arguments, but they also just work - as long as you squint and don't expect the assumptions for any single case to logically extend to all other cases, which is what you're doing now.

That's why people go to GURPS, HERO, Harnmaster, Rolemaster, Runequest, etc. - they're in search of a more perfect abstraction, ie. one that makes more sense "to them" or seems more like "given the nature of the setting, this is closer to what would happen".

5e is most definitely Fantasy Superheroes, but only in the specific case of their Exception-based Individual Rules.  Don't expect those rules to be associated to the nature of the setting, they won't be.  They are there to provide tactical challenge to the combat mini-game.  In that sense, it's very similar to 4e, only with more of a veneer of older D&D to cover it.

But there many different versions of "D&D", and not all handle the Elephant-fight in exactly the same way.  Arguably the most capable fighter in Gary's campaign, Sir Robilar, wouldn't tank and spank a dragon, he'd make a orc tribe more fearful of him than the dragon and have them charge into it, maybe with some ogres or a hill giant, promising them treasure, then once it was all over, he'd kill what was left, probably with magic items, then take all the treasure.

Modern D&D is every character using their solo superpowers to shine in the spotlight doing damage when it's their turn, older D&D is about working smarter not harder and having a plan, because going toe to toe with everything is going to get you killed.

Quote from: Jam The MF on October 20, 2023, 05:33:40 PM

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 17, 2023, 11:18:04 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 17, 2023, 10:14:50 PM
I realized what I recently said sounds stupid. However my point still stands that DND characters are Schrodinger superhumans.

Not really.

Here's the crux of the problem. D&D has a tradition of play however you want.

- Some DM's might be going for "realism"--others might be going for a more "mythical" vibe.
- Of those going for realism, some might believe human weapons can harm megafauna. Others might not.
- Some DMs don't care about any of these goofy technicalities. Others do.
- And finally, some DMs interpret the combat system as being blow for blow. Others interpret it as abstract goo where there's dancing and prancing assumed to be going on, and so even if you've got minis on the table with the PC literally standing toe-to-toe fighting the Megafauna, that might not be what's actually happening in the imaginary space.

In order for the problem you're talking about to even exist AT ALL, you have to side with realism, have to hold your particular view of what is "realistic", care enough about any of this shit, and interpret combat in the way that is least compatible with your style and approach. Out of 4 binary switches that yield 16 broad combinatoric categories of gamers, only 1 out of the 16 has the problem you cite, and for some reason you've carefully chosen your assumptions to adhere to that 1.

Whatever melts your butter, I do believe the adage that if you're not having fun, you're playing wrong. And so if you insist on the one approach that's presenting you problems, I have no problem stating as an objectively true statement that you are just plain playing wrong. And you can't lay that blame on the game system. Not when there are 15 ways to play right. It's up for you to decide which of those four switches you need to flip. But you either need to flip one, or just admit you're more interesting in complaining than you are in playing any game.

Apparently; a group of hunters with Clovis points on their spears, was able to take down Megafauna.  Direct evidence exists.

Well, yeah, Wolfpack tactics.  Anyone the mammoth isn't facing drives spears into their guts, back legs, between ribs, etc.  They also got hurt.  OG got his spear arm crippled this time, so from now on he's the bait, etc.