Perform skills = Languages?

[Kerrick]

I was reading the Pathfinder thread in GD, and the forked thread about Perform skills, and I had an idea: maybe we could make Perform skills like language skills. With some modifications, of course, but the basic idea is that you don't really need any measure of proficiency in a perform skill beyond "novice/proficient/talented/maestro/virtuoso".

This is basically what I did for languages and Decipher Script - instead of spending one rank to become fluent in the language you're speaking/reading, you have multiple levels of proficiency, and can make Int checks vs. a scaling DC to understand something that's above your level (for instance, I'm not fluent in Spanish, but I understand enough that I can usually puzzle out something written in Spanish).

This is just a half-formed idea ATM, but the concept is that you can gain levels of proficiency in different Perform skills (you can only spend 1 rank/skill/level, or maybe 1/3 or 4 levels, to prevent someone from becoming a maestro by L5). Bardic music works as normal, but the higher-level abilities require greater proficiency instead of more ranks. You could also add rules for greater proficiency levels when playing an instrument (adapting the rules from Song and Silence, where each instrument grants a different bonus; you could have the bonus scale by proficiency level. Same with bardic music.)

[Eldritch_Lord]

Originally Posted by Kerrick

This is just a half-formed idea ATM, but the concept is that you can gain levels of proficiency in different Perform skills (you can only spend 1 rank/skill/level, or maybe 1/3 or 4 levels, to prevent someone from becoming a maestro by L5).

The only thing I'd change in your system is removing any limits on taking Perform ranks; 5th level is where D&D starts diverging from the real world, so having a maestro at level 5 actually makes perfect sense.

[Hawken]

So, if you can do that for one or two skills, why not for all of them?

[Kerrick]

Originally Posted by Eldritch_Lord

The only thing I'd change in your system is removing any limits on taking Perform ranks; 5th level is where D&D starts diverging from the real world, so having a maestro at level 5 actually makes perfect sense.

Sure, if you play E6. If you're a maestro at L5, where do you go from there?

Originally Posted by Hawken

So, if you can do that for one or two skills, why not for all of them?

You could... I think the other skills lend themselves better to scalability, though. Speak Language is a fairly binary skill, and Perform is largely so - there's little benefit for having a huge score, unless you make new rules for it (as I have). Add to that, that bards are the only ones who really use it, and they MUST take ranks in it (which ties up some of their skill total), and it only makes sense to adapt the system.

I certainly wouldn't - it's far too much work.

[Eldritch_Lord]

Originally Posted by Kerrick

Sure, if you play E6. If you're a maestro at L5, where do you go from there?

C'mon, think fantastically. Yo Yo Ma is a 5th-level cello maestro. Joshua Bell is a 5th-level violin maestro. James Galway is a 5th-level flute maestro. (Yes, I'm a classical fan.) A 20th level bard? He's a maestro at the cello, violin, pan flute, harpsichord, harmonica, and kazoo--a veritable one-being orchestra.

[Hawken]

C'mon, think fantastically. Yo Yo Ma is a 5th-level cello maestro. Joshua Bell is a 5th-level violin maestro. James Galway is a 5th-level flute maestro. (Yes, I'm a classical fan.) A 20th level bard? He's a maestro at the cello, violin, pan flute, harpsichord, harmonica, and kazoo--a veritable one-being orchestra.

The only name there I recognize is Yo Yo Ma. And I'd have to say he's further along than just being a 5th level Bard (or even Expert). If these guys are at the top of their field, best in the world, they would be pushing 20th level, if not already epic!

Also, considering that it takes years for even prodigies to master a single instrument, I don't see a 20th level bard being a master of more than maybe two or three instruments. It just isn't feasible. Going out and killing monsters, stealing treasure, plane hopping, all that stuff doesn't make one a better singer or story-teller.

Kerrick, I kind of like your ideas for proficiency levels, but at the same time, why bother? On your Decipher Script thing, proficiency level doesn't mean anything special--or at least, that's how it read to me. If you're the lowest rank, you can still translate something multiple ranks above you, it just takes longer to do so. What's the incentive beyond just getting better die rolls (or just getting magic items that give better modifiers), just to speed up the time it takes?

If you're going to have levels, there has to be things levels can do, things they can't. You listed what levels can do, but not what they can't. If someone has only proficient level in a language, how exactly are they going to be able to translate, muchless understand, something written at a more erudite level? Meaning, if someone has a Jeff Foxworthy-level of understanding of a language, how is just taking a little more time (a few extra minutes per page) going to allow them to understand Sartre or Confucious level writings? Some codes take years, decades or even centuries to break, and that's after being worked on by experts. Someone with rudimentary language skills would be lucky to get a single word right, and without having the correct context, that word could have any number of meanings.

If you want to do proficiency levels, how about like this:
Each skill has a proficiency level: Novice, Proficient, Talented, Expert, Master.
Each level has 5 ranks; Novice 1-5, Proficient 1-5, etc.
The first rank put in a skill becomes Novice 1, etc., up to 5 ranks being Novice 5. The sixth rank changes the level to Proficient 1, and so on, up to Master 5.

Each skill has 6 difficulty ratings; Easy, Simple, Average, Difficult, Hard and Impossible. Each rank has different DCs based on the proficiency level.

Skill check difficulty levels
Easy: DC 7
Simple: DC 10
Average: DC 15
Difficult: DC 17
Hard: DC 20
Impossible: DC 25
The skill check made is as normal: skill ranks + modifiers + d20 roll.

If your proficiency level is higher, reduce the DC by 1 step for each proficiency level higher. So what would be Difficult (DC 17) for a Novice, would be Simple (DC 10) for a Talented person. The Talented person would add his ranks of Talented (1-5), plus modifiers + d20 roll when making that check.

On the other end, increase DCs by 1 step if the task is set for higher proficient level characters. So, something Average (DC 15) for a Master, would be Impossible (DC 25) for someone Proficient.

I just came up with the DC numbers off the top of my head--feel free to tweak to your heart's content!

[Ashtagon]

Originally Posted by Hawken

The only name there I recognize is Yo Yo Ma. And I'd have to say he's further along than just being a 5th level Bard (or even Expert). If these guys are at the top of their field, best in the world, they would be pushing 20th level, if not already epic!

You appear to be suffering from level inflation, a common disease

There is an oft-quoted article by a game designer which shows that Einstein (unarguably one of the greatest, if not the greatest, physicists ever) can believably be written as a 5th level character. Analysis of the various athletics skills shows that Olympic-grade athletes are no higher than 6th-7th level. Even the heroes of Tolkein's LotR can be believably written as between 5th-8th level.

Just because 20th level is the highest level possible in the rules, it doesn't mean that the greatest hero in a particular world must therefore actually be 20th level.

[Kerrick]

Originally Posted by Hawken

The only name there I recognize is Yo Yo Ma. And I'd have to say he's further along than just being a 5th level Bard (or even Expert). If these guys are at the top of their field, best in the world, they would be pushing 20th level, if not already epic!

Also, considering that it takes years for even prodigies to master a single instrument, I don't see a 20th level bard being a master of more than maybe two or three instruments. It just isn't feasible. Going out and killing monsters, stealing treasure, plane hopping, all that stuff doesn't make one a better singer or story-teller.

Yeah. It's like gaining classes in general - you can either be really good at one or two, or have fewer levels in several classes, but you can't gain lots of levels in lots of classes.

Kerrick, I kind of like your ideas for proficiency levels, but at the same time, why bother? On your Decipher Script thing, proficiency level doesn't mean anything special--or at least, that's how it read to me. If you're the lowest rank, you can still translate something multiple ranks above you, it just takes longer to do so. What's the incentive beyond just getting better die rolls (or just getting magic items that give better modifiers), just to speed up the time it takes?

Ohhh... I forgot to put in a penalty for attempting to read something that's above your proficiency level. That would help a lot, I think. It IS possible to translate something above your level, given time; like I said, I can read some Spanish, and can sometimes get the gist of something I read (or even understand it entirely), and sometimes I just say "Duh... what?"

If you're going to have levels, there has to be things levels can do, things they can't. You listed what levels can do, but not what they can't. If someone has only proficient level in a language, how exactly are they going to be able to translate, muchless understand, something written at a more erudite level? Meaning, if someone has a Jeff Foxworthy-level of understanding of a language, how is just taking a little more time (a few extra minutes per page) going to allow them to understand Sartre or Confucious level writings?

Some codes take years, decades or even centuries to break, and that's after being worked on by experts.

I just read an article about a friend of Thomas Jefferson's who wrote a code into a letter he sent to Tom; an expert recently cracked it, 200 years later, with the aid of a computer. I should split off the code rules into a separate section, or at least rule that you can't attempt to crack a code unless you're fluent in the language (that's why it takes them so long - no one speaks the language anymore).

If you want to do proficiency levels, how about like this:

It's a workable system. I'm pretty burned out on design right now, but I might look at it more seriously later.

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

You appear to be suffering from level inflation, a common disease

There is an oft-quoted article by a game designer which shows that Einstein (unarguably one of the greatest, if not the greatest, physicists ever) can believably be written as a 5th level character. Analysis of the various athletics skills shows that Olympic-grade athletes are no higher than 6th-7th level. Even the heroes of Tolkein's LotR can be believably written as between 5th-8th level.

More like over-quoted. That article inevitably gets trotted out during discussions like this. Here's my rebuttal (one that's been used on me a few times): You can't compare the real world to D&D. By the RAW, a person can't run a marathon at all, let alone in 4 hours (which is the average time for a marathon runner). It might be reasonable to assume that Olympic athletes are 6th-7th level, since they focus solely on one or two things (Michael Phelps, for example, has max ranks in Swim, Skill Focus (swim), Endurance, and maybe Rapid Swimmer, which gives him greater swim speed), but this would make any D&D PC over 10th level a near-demigod. I consider that concept absurd, but then, I've been searching for a way to scale back power so that a PC can't achieve superhuman feats before 20th level.

[Ashtagon]

Personally, when someone says that it would make a 10th level D&D character a demigod I smile, nod, and agree wholeheartedly.

Level 1-5: Realistic
Level 6-10: Heroic
Level 7-15: Wu-Xia (matrix-like stuff)
Level 16-20: Stepping on the toes of the gods

And it's not just comparing real life to D&D levels. Even the Lord of the Rings heroes don't rate much higher than 7th level (Gandalf excepted, but he is a DMPC anyway).

[Hawken]

You appear to be suffering from level inflation, a common disease

And you appear to be suffering from underestimatius excessivus!

The best in the world ARE the highest level. That's why they're the Best. No one else can match them. Using Star Wars (comes easiest to mind), Yoda and Palpatine are portrayed as 20th level characters because each is the best, the pinnacle of Jedi/Sith. Back to D&D, Raistlin was around 20th or so before going back in time and he was the Best. After going back in time, he sucked out Fistandantilus' soul and gained even more levels from that and became even better (way Epic!). Zaknafein (Driz'zt's daddy) was the best swordsman in Menzoberranzan and was a 25th level fighter (back in the fun days of 1e/2e). Elminster is/was the best in the Realms, and he's been consistently portrayed as well over 20th level. Same with that Mordenkainen guy. Vecna, the lichiest lich of all liches has always been over 20th or so.

Its not level inflation, its accuracy. The levels in D&D translate into raw power and ability to deal damage because its a game about killing bigger and badder monsters. In our world, levels would translate into skill and talent (since no one can call down flaming rocks out of the sky by waggling their fingers!). And those musicians are the best in their respective fields. They didn't do it overnight, they've been at it all their lives, so, yeah, they're Epic or right on the cusp. Ghandi may not have had 200hp, but he was epic--he liberated the second most populated country in the world! Elvis too! The Beatles! Hitler and Stalin were epic figures also--one single person responsible for the deaths they each caused, you cannot do those things and NOT be epic! Gen. McArthur (sp?) was the Supreme Commander of Allied forces in the Pacific during WWII--one man in charge of the armies and navies of multiple countries!--tell me that's not epic!

If you want to compare levels to real life you have to drop game mechanics and consider skill and ability in relation to others. By RAW, no one can swim miles, hold their breath for 5 minutes (or even 3), run for miles without stopping (while heavily encumbered), make death attacks on multiple targets without studying for 18 seconds, yet those are things that SEALS, Rangers and Special Forces are able to do by second nature. No one in real life can swing a greatsword four or five times in the span of 6 seconds, or make up to 9 attacks on nine different targets (whirlwind attack) in 6 seconds. A midget (halfling) cannot win a grapple check against Triple H (an ogre) by random chance (d20 roll) or even skill.

There are things done all the time in real life that aren't allowed by RAW, just as the rules allow characters to do things that are impossible in real life. So, forget all the D&D mechanics that cannot apply to real life and look at levels as a measure of ability, skill, talent, proficiency, whatever.

It's a workable system. I'm pretty burned out on design right now, but I might look at it more seriously later.

So, what? You're looking at it comically right now? Gimme a break! You started this thread, so give it a serious look and see if it does what you're wanting with the proficiency level stuff.

[Eldritch_Lord]

Originally Posted by Hawken

The best in the world ARE the highest level. That's why they're the Best. No one else can match them.

The best in that world. The best people in this world rate around 5th-8th level in that world.

Using Star Wars (comes easiest to mind), Yoda and Palpatine are portrayed as 20th level characters because each is the best, the pinnacle of Jedi/Sith.

Again, they don't come from the real world, so that makes sense. Leaping hundreds of feet in the air in an instant, falling a few stories and being fine, frying someone to death with lightning, out-fighting dozens of mooks...that's a high-level D&D person, all right.

Back to D&D, Raistlin was around 20th or so before going back in time and he was the Best. After going back in time, he sucked out Fistandantilus' soul and gained even more levels from that and became even better (way Epic!). Zaknafein (Driz'zt's daddy) was the best swordsman in Menzoberranzan and was a 25th level fighter (back in the fun days of 1e/2e). Elminster is/was the best in the Realms, and he's been consistently portrayed as well over 20th level. Same with that Mordenkainen guy. Vecna, the lichiest lich of all liches has always been over 20th or so.

They're epic level; by definition they're over 20th level. You'll also notice that every single one of them is better than any given bunch of people in the real world.

Sure, if the level scale were based on the real world, Yo Yo Ma would be 20th level and a baby would be 1st. But it's not--you can't possible compare playing a cello really well and warping the universe to your will or charming the gods themselves with a tune.

Its not level inflation, its accuracy. The levels in D&D translate into raw power and ability to deal damage because its a game about killing bigger and badder monsters. In our world, levels would translate into skill and talent (since no one can call down flaming rocks out of the sky by waggling their fingers!). And those musicians are the best in their respective fields. They didn't do it overnight, they've been at it all their lives, so, yeah, they're Epic or right on the cusp. Ghandi may not have had 200hp, but he was epic--he liberated the second most populated country in the world! Elvis too! The Beatles! Hitler and Stalin were epic figures also--one single person responsible for the deaths they each caused, you cannot do those things and NOT be epic! Gen. McArthur (sp?) was the Supreme Commander of Allied forces in the Pacific during WWII--one man in charge of the armies and navies of multiple countries!--tell me that's not epic!

Okay--that's not epic. Epic in the sense of famous and awesome and epic in the sense of power are different entirely. The Beatles had talent with music, Ghandi was a very persuasive guy, and MacArthur was tactically adept, but none of them are on the scale of Gilgamesh, Beowulf, or Orpheus, who could move rivers by hitting them hard, manipulate the gods with music and perform literally superhuman feats. If it's within the normal human range of ability, it's not epic, or even high level.

If you want to compare levels to real life you have to drop game mechanics and consider skill and ability in relation to others. By RAW, no one can swim miles,

A swim check in calm water is DC 10, and avoiding fatigue is DC 20. A 5th level character with Str 18 and the Athletic and Endurance feats (which a trained swimmer would obviously have) a can literally swim forever without sinking by taking 10 and if he has max ranks in Swim has only a 5% chance to get tired after an hour of swimming (8 ranks + 4 Str + 2 Athletic + 4 endurance = +18 vs. DC 20, only failing on a 1), meaning that statistically speaking he can swim non-stop, without rest, for 19 hours straight. That's superhuman.

hold their breath for 5 minutes (or even 3),

A character with 20 Con (18 + human paragon) can hold his breath for 40 rounds, or 4 minutes. Then he needs to make a DC 10 (+1/round) Con check to keep doing so, meaning he can take 10 and hold his breath for an absolute minimum of 4.6 minutes. With Endurance (which, again, such a character would have) that's a minimum of 5 minutes.

run for miles without stopping (while heavily encumbered),

A character can run 6 miles in 1 hour (without stopping at all) under his maximum load before taking even a single point of subdual damage.

make death attacks on multiple targets without studying for 18 seconds,

The assassin class has a "death attack" inferior in almost every way to simply hitting someone. A regular 5th-level fighter can, with a crit and if focused on archery, make a single shot with a longbow to kill a Deinonychus dinosaur from 1200 feet away (1d8 + 4 Str + 4 Weapon Spec, x3 crit, max damage 48). That's superhuman.

No one in real life can swing a greatsword four or five times in the span of 6 seconds,

Putting aside the fact that each attack roll doesn't represent a single attack, yes they can. Not if you're swinging it wildly, of course, but if you're making short strikes or holding the blade you can do so. Search for some medieval reenactment videos or similar.

or make up to 9 attacks on nine different targets (whirlwind attack) in 6 seconds.

Swing it in a huge circle, hence Whirlwind Attack.

A midget (halfling) cannot win a grapple check against Triple H (an ogre) by random chance (d20 roll) or even skill.

You assume that one short and one tall creature of entirely mythological origin are nothing more than short and tall humans, and that the midget has no training while the ogre does.

There are things done all the time in real life that aren't allowed by RAW, just as the rules allow characters to do things that are impossible in real life. So, forget all the D&D mechanics that cannot apply to real life and look at levels as a measure of ability, skill, talent, proficiency, whatever.

However, levels measure your maximum skill ranks, ability scores, etc. You can look at the rules and very plainly see that a character of level X can jump Y feet, swim Z miles, earn W money performing, and so forth, and that at 5th level most of these abilities already outstrip world records.

[Hawken]

The best people in this world rate around 5th-8th level in that world.

Only because there is no magic, no gods, no monsters and such in this world--because there are physical limits to things in this world. This world is limited by 'reality'. Take away the limits that are in this world, and the names I listed would be as epic in D&D as they are in this world.

You'll also notice that every single one of them is better than any given bunch of people in the real world.

Again, that is due to the reality of the world in question. Put them in this world (no magic, no monsters, etc) and they are normal people too--at best. Raistlin would be an Asthmatic with TB and severe retinal problems and would suffer and die from heavy metal poisoning (gold skin). Elminster would have succumbed to any number of STDs before hitting his first century of life, etc., etc.,.

But it's not--you can't possible compare playing a cello really well and warping the universe to your will or charming the gods themselves with a tune.

Sure you can. Levels are about skill as much as power. Someone could play the cello with the same degree of skill that someone else wields magic to make the impossible happen. Is magic more powerful than music--sure, unless you;'re a bard!

Okay--that's not epic. Epic in the sense of famous and awesome and epic in the sense of power are different entirely.

I knew you'd go there, or Ashtagon. You're confusing fame with skill--I'm not, and I'm fully aware of the distinction. They did MORE than Gilgamesh, Beowulf, etc., and they did it with less!

none of them are on the scale of Gilgamesh, Beowulf, or Orpheus, who could move rivers by hitting them hard, manipulate the gods with music and perform literally superhuman feats.

You're talking like these guys actually existed and did these things. Ghandi freed an entire country. That trumps hitting a river. The Beatles affected the entire world with their music! That trumps manipulating a god any day! And they did it without 'superhuman' or magical powers which makes them even more epic! If they could do those things WITHOUT powers, then the things they could do if they had access to powers would put them on such a scale that they would be to Epic characters what Epic characters are to commoners!

A swim check in calm water is DC 10, and avoiding fatigue is DC 20. A 5th level character with Str 18 and the Athletic and Endurance feats (which a trained swimmer would obviously have) a can literally swim forever without sinking by taking 10 and if he has max ranks in Swim has only a 5% chance to get tired after an hour of swimming (8 ranks + 4 Str + 2 Athletic + 4 endurance = +18 vs. DC 20, only failing on a 1), meaning that statistically speaking he can swim non-stop, without rest, for 19 hours straight. That's superhuman.

No, that's super-stupid! Plus its the result of poorly written game mechanics that weren't even intended for skills to be used that way. There are plenty of arguments proving how broken movement mechanics are, the least of which is the most obvious--that a person can move 30' AND do something else in 6 seconds. Or move 60' in 6 seconds (move-move action). Most people can only take a single step in 1 second, muchless clear 1/5th of a football field in 6 seconds.

A character with 20 Con (18 + human paragon) can hold his breath for 40 rounds, or 4 minutes. Then he needs to make a DC 10 (+1/round) Con check to keep doing so, meaning he can take 10 and hold his breath for an absolute minimum of 4.6 minutes. With Endurance (which, again, such a character would have) that's a minimum of 5 minutes.

This is assuming the DM allows that character the option to Take 10--not normally allowed when under pressure, distraction or being threatened. Being underwater about to drown is a pretty big distraction and is definitely pressuring the character. Distractions, threats, pressure, etc., don't have to come from a living source. Continue holding your breath or you drown IS a threat, so Taking 10 isn't too likely unless your DM is feeling rather generous or merciful. And even still, its a fixed situation and another example of poor mechanics. In the real world anyone who is healthy and takes the proper training can learn to hold their breath after a few months or weeks and don't need an 18 or 20 Con to do it.

The assassin class has a "death attack" inferior in almost every way to simply hitting someone. A regular 5th-level fighter can, with a crit and if focused on archery, make a single shot with a longbow to kill a Deinonychus dinosaur from 1200 feet away (1d8 + 4 Str + 4 Weapon Spec, x3 crit, max damage 48). That's superhuman.

And in the real world, anyone with a pistol can shoot someone in the head, heart or neck and kill them instantly, no levels in Assassin or Fighter required, and a sharpshooter can kill at even greater ranges than that. As well, the D&D longbow (like so much) ignores physics and lets players shoot at ranges that the weapon cannot really reach. Not only that, but another 'fantasy' aspect is taking a feat to increase the range. Improving yourself doesn't let you do something with a weapon that the weapon is not capable of doing. --And just to be snippy, specialization is only a +2 bonus for a 5th fighter, longbows have a max range of 1000' and that max damage crit is only going to happen on 1 in 160 shots (1 in 20 critical hit, less if rolling to confirm; and 1 in 8 for max damage)--all this being far more unlikely to ever happen no matter how easy you make it sound.

A character can run 6 miles in 1 hour (without stopping at all) under his maximum load before taking even a single point of subdual damage.

Where did you come up with that? RAW rules for running means your guy with a 20 Con can run for 2 minutes without stopping (1 round/pt of Con). Then he has to make a DC 10 check 1 round later or stop running, with the DC increasing by +1 per round. So, even if your DM let you Take 10 on that check, after 6 rounds (36 seconds), he would have to start rolling and after 20 more rounds (2 more minutes of running)--DC check of 36, impossible to make even rolling a 20, he would fail and have to stop. So, he could run for all of 4.6 minutes--at best! At 20' base X 3 per round, that works out to just over half a mile before having to stop and catch his breath, not 6 miles.

Putting aside the fact that each attack roll doesn't represent a single attack, yes they can. Not if you're swinging it wildly, of course, but if you're making short strikes or holding the blade you can do so. Search for some medieval reenactment videos or similar.

Each attack roll DOES represent a single attack, so, no, they can't. And it has nothing to do with swinging it wildly.

Swing it in a huge circle, hence Whirlwind Attack.

Which would be one attack against 9 people. But that's not a Whirlwind Attack. A Whirlwind Attack is making an attack against everyone within reach. A separate attack. Again, not possible IRL.

You assume that one short and one tall creature of entirely mythological origin are nothing more than short and tall humans, and that the midget has no training while the ogre does.

No, you assume I assumed. It just isn't physically possible for someone the size of a 6 year old to wrestle someone more than double their height and more than 10 times their weight. Sure, they could grab and hang on (until the big guy threw them away), but they couldn't pin them, throw them or do any damage without resorting to biting and gouging. The tall one wouldn't have a -20 penalty to hold the short one with a single hand and then launch them like a long bomb!

However, levels measure your maximum skill ranks, ability scores, etc. You can look at the rules and very plainly see that a character of level X can jump Y feet, swim Z miles, earn W money performing, and so forth, and that at 5th level most of these abilities already outstrip world records.

In some ways, sure, because the rules were built around combat on a gridmap, not on actual physics and physical capabilities. Logic and reasoning were thrown out the window on physical stuff to a large degree. But as far as the money goes, no way. Even Epic characters with skills maxxed out in Craft, Perform and Profession can't come close to generating the kind of cash that people can make in this world. They might generate hundreds, maybe a thousand or two gp in a year, but in this day and age even the fattest, laziest, least educated, welfare-having, baby-making illegal alien, non-English speakers can rake in around $20,000 in cash and benefits--without doing more than going to their mailbox and then to a bank or casino to cash their checks!

[Horazonfarwalker]

I like the idea of levels in language use instead of a single point and you know it inside out. However, maybe you could stretch it across more than 5 lvls if you put a sort of prerequisite to it, I.E. Stomp the half-orc barbarian with an INT of 8 can't learn the finer points of elvish language. A INT minimum or something of the sort could help make it a bit more realistic.

[Ashtagon]

Thread is moving a bit fast, so I'll pick one item that I am personally familiar with. The longbow.

D&D longbow can reach 100 feet per range increment, or 1500 feet maximum (10 increments, x1.5 for that feat which gives extra range).

Archery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

in 1795 Mahmoud Effendi, a secretary at the Turkish Embassy in London, made a shot of 482 yards on Finsbury Fields, and reportedly apologised for an indifferent performance by Turkish standards.

That's comparable to D&D longbow limits. Of course, he also claimed it was a sub-par performance.

Flight Archery Introduction
(pdf linked from this page)

World record is 1222 metres (4009 feet). This knocks the D&D longbow out of the water.

If I have time and inclination, I may debunk some other stuff later.

[Ashtagon]

(this post was so good, the server made me post it twice)

[Kerrick]

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

Level 1-5: Realistic
Level 6-10: Heroic
Level 7-15: Wu-Xia (matrix-like stuff)
Level 16-20: Stepping on the toes of the gods

You do know that 6-10 and 7-15 overlap, right? And, this is assuming that 20th level is the highest any mortal can achieve, the absolute pinnacle of perfection. If it's not (as it isn't in a lot of campaigns) that scale goes out the window. I want to design a level layout something like this:

1-8: Realistic (Us)
9-15: Heroic (Hercules in his early days)
16-25: Wuxia (The Matrix)
26+: Godly (Elminster, Mordy, the Simbul)

Originally Posted by Hawken

So, what? You're looking at it comically right now? Gimme a break! You started this thread, so give it a serious look and see if it does what you're wanting with the proficiency level stuff.

:P I was just tossing the idea out before I forgot about it. I was looking over my Decipher Script rules yesterday and thinking about changes, and it gave me a headache - definite burnout. I will keep your skill rule in mind, though, when I have the wherewithal to get back into design.

Originally Posted by Hawken

No, that's super-stupid! Plus its the result of poorly written game mechanics that weren't even intended for skills to be used that way. There are plenty of arguments proving how broken movement mechanics are, the least of which is the most obvious--that a person can move 30' AND do something else in 6 seconds. Or move 60' in 6 seconds (move-move action). Most people can only take a single step in 1 second, muchless clear 1/5th of a football field in 6 seconds.

This is getting a bit OT, but since I started it, I guess I'll just grin and bear it. A comment someone else made not long ago about being able to swing a sword umpteen times in 6 seconds made me think that rounds are WAY too short. I know why they did it - so you can cram 10 rounds into a minute - but it's utterly absurd. I want to measure exactly how quickly I (an unencumbered human of average size) can move 30 feet, and use that as the base. It'll probably be around 10 seconds.

And just to be snippy, specialization is only a +2 bonus for a 5th fighter, longbows have a max range of 1000' and that max damage crit is only going to happen on 1 in 160 shots (1 in 20 critical hit, less if rolling to confirm; and 1 in 8 for max damage)--all this being far more unlikely to ever happen no matter how easy you make it sound.

Ash beat me to the punch on the longbow stats - I checked it out myself a couple months ago, though I missed the world record shot. 4000 feet... damn.

Where did you come up with that? RAW rules for running means your guy with a 20 Con can run for 2 minutes without stopping (1 round/pt of Con). Then he has to make a DC 10 check 1 round later or stop running, with the DC increasing by +1 per round. So, even if your DM let you Take 10 on that check, after 6 rounds (36 seconds), he would have to start rolling and after 20 more rounds (2 more minutes of running)--DC check of 36, impossible to make even rolling a 20, he would fail and have to stop. So, he could run for all of 4.6 minutes--at best! At 20' base X 3 per round, that works out to just over half a mile before having to stop and catch his breath, not 6 miles.

And this is why no one in D&D can run a marathon. Isn't it great?

No, you assume I assumed. It just isn't physically possible for someone the size of a 6 year old to wrestle someone more than double their height and more than 10 times their weight. Sure, they could grab and hang on (until the big guy threw them away), but they couldn't pin them, throw them or do any damage without resorting to biting and gouging. The tall one wouldn't have a -20 penalty to hold the short one with a single hand and then launch them like a long bomb!

Again, that's a fault of the rules. In some cases, rules should model reality to some degree.

[Eldritch_Lord]

Originally Posted by Hawken

Only because there is no magic, no gods, no monsters and such in this world--because there are physical limits to things in this world. This world is limited by 'reality'. Take away the limits that are in this world, and the names I listed would be as epic in D&D as they are in this world.

Again, that is due to the reality of the world in question. Put them in this world (no magic, no monsters, etc) and they are normal people too--at best. Raistlin would be an Asthmatic with TB and severe retinal problems and would suffer and die from heavy metal poisoning (gold skin). Elminster would have succumbed to any number of STDs before hitting his first century of life, etc., etc.,.

That is exactly my point! You are trying to compare what someone can do in this world to things people can do in that world. If you plopped Yo Yo Ma down in FR, he would be a 5th-level nobody if he could do in FR exactly what he could do in the real world. So being a master of the cello is only amazing around 4th-6th level, because a real cello master can work magic with it and do other incredible things.

I knew you'd go there, or Ashtagon. You're confusing fame with skill--I'm not, and I'm fully aware of the distinction. They did MORE than Gilgamesh, Beowulf, etc., and they did it with less!

You're talking like these guys actually existed and did these things.

Given that we're speaking of a world where people can...

Ghandi freed an entire country. That trumps hitting a river.

No. Gandhi inspired a huge mass of people to work peacefully towards their freedom, eventually gaining independence after years of work. If Gandhi had personally freed an entire country, punching out every British soldier in India and then guarding every border against further encroachment all by himself, that would be epic.

The Beatles affected the entire world with their music! That trumps manipulating a god any day!

No. They played music which happened to be very good, and was thus transcribed onto media which allowed people anywhere to listen to it. If they had personally affected the entire world with their music, playing so well that anyone in the world could hear them as they played, the entire world at once, that would be epic.

And they did it without 'superhuman' or magical powers which makes them even more epic! If they could do those things WITHOUT powers, then the things they could do if they had access to powers would put them on such a scale that they would be to Epic characters what Epic characters are to commoners!

If. If, if, if. We're comparing what someone can do at 5th level (play the cello really well, talk people into seeking independence) with what someone might be able to do at 20th level. Anything someone in the real world can do can be represented by existing mechanics around 5th level.

No, that's super-stupid! Plus its the result of poorly written game mechanics that weren't even intended for skills to be used that way. There are plenty of arguments proving how broken movement mechanics are, the least of which is the most obvious--that a person can move 30' AND do something else in 6 seconds. Or move 60' in 6 seconds (move-move action). Most people can only take a single step in 1 second, muchless clear 1/5th of a football field in 6 seconds.

It's not poorly written, it's heroic--heroes should be able to swim across oceans, dog-paddle up waterfalls, and do other suitably heroic things. And, in fact, someone can move 30 feet and act in 6 seconds; 30 feet in 3 seconds is only 6-7 miles per hour, which is a brisk jog. You can easily jog up to someone and hit them with something; being able to jog up to someone and hit them where it hurts despite defenses is what makes them fighters and not commoners.

This is assuming the DM allows that character the option to Take 10--not normally allowed when under pressure, distraction or being threatened. Being underwater about to drown is a pretty big distraction and is definitely pressuring the character. Distractions, threats, pressure, etc., don't have to come from a living source. Continue holding your breath or you drown IS a threat, so Taking 10 isn't too likely unless your DM is feeling rather generous or merciful.

Unless, you know, you're trained to hold your breath (like a competent swimmer) and it's no big deal for you. Yeah, you wouldn't let a 1st-level wizard take 10, but a 5th-level fighter with max ranks in swim? I would let him. And even if he isn't taking 10, 10 is the average result (which is why taking 10 works), so the minimum goes down only by a little bit, just like the max is a little bit higher.

And even still, its a fixed situation and another example of poor mechanics. In the real world anyone who is healthy and takes the proper training can learn to hold their breath after a few months or weeks and don't need an 18 or 20 Con to do it.

1) It's not poor mechanics! You're complaining that something that accurately models the real world is wrong!

2) If you are healthy, have the proper training, and spend time working out over a couple of months, that's practically the definition of 18 or 20 Con.

And in the real world, anyone with a pistol can shoot someone in the head, heart or neck and kill them instantly, no levels in Assassin or Fighter required, and a sharpshooter can kill at even greater ranges than that.

You know why? Because real-world people are less than 5th level! If the highest possible HP in the real world is around 70 (super-soldiers being Fighters, 5d10+5*4 maxed) and the average is around 24 or so (as most modern people would be Experts with 14 Con or so, 3d6+3*2 maxed), then a gun could be one of two things: the equivalent of a 2d8/x4 crit weapon to kill most folks instantly--with an average of 36 damage, it kills instantly over 50% of the time, which makes sense because not all gun wounds are fatal; as a much more lethal weapon at close ranges than a bow or crossbow due to modern ammunition, it would most likely have a high threat range, around 10-20 or so--or the equivalent of a mid-level spell, dealing 7d8-9d8 damage, with the same results.

As well, the D&D longbow (like so much) ignores physics and lets players shoot at ranges that the weapon cannot really reach. Not only that, but another 'fantasy' aspect is taking a feat to increase the range. Improving yourself doesn't let you do something with a weapon that the weapon is not capable of doing.

The range issue has been covered. A feat can easily represent learning to take advantage of arc and wind speed to hit things from higher away, or simply learning to use it for long-range volleys and combat archery rather than the short-range hunting most would learn first.

--And just to be snippy, specialization is only a +2 bonus for a 5th fighter, longbows have a max range of 1000' and that max damage crit is only going to happen on 1 in 160 shots (1 in 20 critical hit, less if rolling to confirm; and 1 in 8 for max damage)--all this being far more unlikely to ever happen no matter how easy you make it sound.

I was using the composite longbow, which has a 120 foot increment (EDIT: Looks like it's only 110 in 3.5; I've been using it wrong).

And yes, it's not likely, but it's possible--and as I was pointing out, many things D&D characters can do are not possible, not even having an infinitesimal probability of happening.

Where did you come up with that? RAW rules for running means your guy with a 20 Con can run for 2 minutes without stopping (1 round/pt of Con). Then he has to make a DC 10 check 1 round later or stop running, with the DC increasing by +1 per round. So, even if your DM let you Take 10 on that check, after 6 rounds (36 seconds), he would have to start rolling and after 20 more rounds (2 more minutes of running)--DC check of 36, impossible to make even rolling a 20, he would fail and have to stop. So, he could run for all of 4.6 minutes--at best! At 20' base X 3 per round, that works out to just over half a mile before having to stop and catch his breath, not 6 miles.

Check the SRD, under Overland Movement.

Originally Posted by SRD

Overland Movement
Characters covering long distances cross-country use overland movement. Overland movement is measured in miles per hour or miles per day. A day represents 8 hours of actual travel time. For rowed watercraft, a day represents 10 hours of rowing. For a sailing ship, it represents 24 hours.

[...]

Hustle
A character can hustle for 1 hour without a problem. Hustling for a second hour in between sleep cycles deals 1 point of nonlethal damage, and each additional hour deals twice the damage taken during the previous hour of hustling. A character who takes any nonlethal damage from hustling becomes fatigued.

A fatigued character can’t run or charge and takes a penalty of -2 to Strength and Dexterity. Eliminating the nonlethal damage also eliminates the fatigue.

The table shows 1 hour of overland hustle with a 30-foot base speed is 6 miles.

Each attack roll DOES represent a single attack, so, no, they can't.

The SRD doesn't have the flavor text, but the PHB notes that in combat, you're actually attacking many times per round and attack rolls are simply the ones that have a chance to hit, you don't actually take up 5 feet on the battlefield but are actually moving around inside that space, etc. Combat isn't people standing 5-8 feet apart taking turns swinging swords at each other.

And it has nothing to do with swinging it wildly.

Yes it does. If you pick up a greatsword and lug it around like a baseball bat made of lead, you're going to get fewer attacks than if you grab the blade, use stabbing motions, etc.

Which would be one attack against 9 people. But that's not a Whirlwind Attack. A Whirlwind Attack is making an attack against everyone within reach. A separate attack. Again, not possible IRL.

You make a separate attack roll; again, each attack is simply a chance to hit. The flavor and the name both indicate that you're swinging around in a circle, which is why you hit everything in reach.

No, you assume I assumed. It just isn't physically possible for someone the size of a 6 year old to wrestle someone more than double their height and more than 10 times their weight.

More assumptions. You don't know that (A) the halfling doesn't have a higher Str score, because any halfling willing to get anywhere near a grapple is most likely a high-level fighter with high Str, and halflings are not just "short humans," or that (B) the halfling isn't using technique rather than power (because grappling is pinning and immobilizing, not wrestling as the sport, which can be done through finesse or power), and doing something like the kung-fu-movie Old Guy Holds People With One Finger technique--which makes perfect sense in a fantasy world.

If we were talking about a human midget versus a human wrestler, they would both be Medium size with the same possible Strength range (with the midget having lower Str, most likely), but the midget probably wouldn't be trained for combat (because short humans aren't as good at it) and the wrestler would be, so it would indeed come down to a matter of level, skill, and Str, and the midget would indeed have a negligible chance of winning.

In some ways, sure, because the rules were built around combat on a gridmap, not on actual physics and physical capabilities. Logic and reasoning were thrown out the window on physical stuff to a large degree. But as far as the money goes, no way. Even Epic characters with skills maxxed out in Craft, Perform and Profession can't come close to generating the kind of cash that people can make in this world. They might generate hundreds, maybe a thousand or two gp in a year, but in this day and age even the fattest, laziest, least educated, welfare-having, baby-making illegal alien, non-English speakers can rake in around $20,000 in cash and benefits--without doing more than going to their mailbox and then to a bank or casino to cash their checks!

1) Because the fattest, laziest, least educated, welfare-having, baby-making illegal alien isn't spending weeks working lovingly and carefully on a single item instead of mass-producing things in a factory, or serving tables in a culture with no concept of fairness, rights, tips, union laws, or minimum wage instead of serving tables in our culture.

2) Relative value of currency makes a difference. It used to be that 5 cents would get you a soda; now, it's $1.25 or so. A thousand or so GP is just fine and dandy when you consider that a loaf of bread that costs 2 cp in D&D costs upwards of $1-$4 depending on location--they're on the copper and silver standard unless they're adventurers or nobles, so that few thousand gold would be a few hundred thousand USD.

[the_orc_within]

(This is so hopelessly OT at this point, maybe should've been forked , but anyway...)

Originally Posted by Hawken

Where did you come up with that? RAW rules for running means your guy with a 20 Con can run for 2 minutes without stopping (1 round/pt of Con). Then he has to make a DC 10 check 1 round later or stop running, with the DC increasing by +1 per round. So, even if your DM let you Take 10 on that check, after 6 rounds (36 seconds), he would have to start rolling and after 20 more rounds (2 more minutes of running)--DC check of 36, impossible to make even rolling a 20, he would fail and have to stop. So, he could run for all of 4.6 minutes--at best! At 20' base X 3 per round, that works out to just over half a mile before having to stop and catch his breath, not 6 miles.

Originally Posted by Kerrick

And this is why no one in D&D can run a marathon. Isn't it great?

A marathon is possible by RAW. The run x4 rule is meant to model sprinting, not long-distance running. In reality, a marathon (26 miles in ~4 hours) is run closer to "hustle" speed (~6 miles per hour), which only accumulates 7 hp non-lethal damage over 4 hours (0+1+2+4 for each hour), and maybe tack on a couple more hp for the last miles. Trained runners do quite a bit better, presumably equating to a feat or something.

Any fighter-type character could probably pull this off at 1st level. Most any other character can do the same by 3rd level or so. Even a sickly wizard can at 7th level (though he'd pass out at the finish line )

[bellman]

how did this get so off topic? if you people want to discuss this well then i have one thing to say to you. IT'S A GAME! you are comparing a world of science to a world with wizards, dragons, and talking beavers. it's ridiculous, so discuss this in a different thread

[Eldritch_Lord]

Originally Posted by bellman

how did this get so off topic? if you people want to discuss this well then i have one thing to say to you. IT'S A GAME! you are comparing a world of science to a world with wizards, dragons, and talking beavers. it's ridiculous, so discuss this in a different thread

It's not really off topic because I pointed out that his proposed system advanced too slowly to model real-world ability, and he disputed it; he can't really finish fleshing out the rules until either he's persuaded that he's working on the wrong scale or he decides to go with his original idea regardless. If the OP wants, we can take it to another thread, but we might not need to.