A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

pemerton · Feb 9, 2019

Sepulchrave II said:
Why are you so fixated on what is power level x as compared to power level y? I don't understand.

Because if I introduced 75th level characters into a game then I would also be introducing 75th level (or thereabouts) dragons, which - as I pointed out - would have natural armour bonuses that exceed the most powerful armour that can be forged by mages and godlings in the setting.

Which is to say, the issue that I dislike - the simulationist veneer of "natural armour" - would still be there.

If you're still confused by my concern, I recommend [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION]'s posts above. Imaculata doesn't get irritated in the way I do because he (? I apologise if that's an erroneous gender attribution) is able to treat the natural armour bonuses as purely mechanical devices to ensure the game maths works properly. I can't muster the same sanguinity, but Imaculata's response shows a clear understanding of the issue I'm raising and addresses it completely sensibly (and without any frustration on my part at least).

Sepulchrave II · Feb 9, 2019

pemerton said:
Because if I introduced 75th level characters into a game then I would also be introducing 75th level (or thereabouts) dragons.

Ah. I see we play different games. All is clear.

Best to you.

Shasarak · Feb 9, 2019

pemerton said:
If the dragon is 1st level, its AC is 23.

What's your point? Mine is clear, and was a reply to a post from (I think) [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION]: that 3E is what I regard as an unhappy mix of gritty and gonzo, and deploys what I find an irritating degree of simulation by applying what appear to be ingame explanatory labels like "natural armour" to phenomena which clearly have a purely mecanical function and rationale.

My point is that your example was incorrect. My apologies if I was not clear.

Lanefan · Feb 9, 2019

pemerton said:
What part of Cthulhu Dark doesn't match reality? (I've linked to the system, which you can read before answering: it's free and very short.)

At first glance that's not a bad little system for thems as likes their Cthulhu.

I guess most of the "outside human capabilities" stuff (the spells, dream work, etc.) wouldn't always match reality. Then again, Lovecraft - of whom I'm not a huge fan - lived in his own rather unique version of reality anyway, I think.

Lanefan · Feb 9, 2019

pemerton said:
Alterantively, I don't consider the epic rules to be relevant to my point. As I posted in reply to you already, with some explanation.

Was it you or someone else who used the Platinum Dragon - a rather epic creature - as the comparison point? I honestly forget.

But either way, taking an epic-level creature and comparing it to a non-epic-level character in a system that scales as steeply as 3e or 4e is kind of unfair to the character, hm?. Particularly when level is a direct factor, as it is in 4e.

And in 3e doesn't the dragon lose some AC before anything else just because it's so damn big?

Imaculata · Feb 9, 2019

pemerton said:
If you're still confused by my concern, I recommend [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION]'s posts above. Imaculata doesn't get irritated in the way I do because he (? I apologise if that's an erroneous gender attribution) is able to treat the natural armour bonuses as purely mechanical devices to ensure the game maths works properly. I can't muster the same sanguinity, but Imaculata's response shows a clear understanding of the issue I'm raising and addresses it completely sensibly (and without any frustration on my part at least).

"He" is the correct gender attribution, and you are entirely correct in your description of my position on this issue. For me the mechanics are just that, mechanics. I don't need an explanation for how it works within the fiction of the game. Though I can understand why someone may prefer a system that also makes sense within the game's fiction. Sometimes I think about how it might be fun to play a horror-campaign with more realistic mechanics in regards to how armor and injuries work, but since me and my group are pretty much all-in when it comes to 3rd edition's rules, I don't see how I could deal with all the bookkeeping involved to make that work within 3rd edition rules without needlessly overcomplicating it. I would have to switch to a completely different system to do so. But I prefer to handwave the way it currently works, because it doesn't bother me personally.

Maxperson · Feb 9, 2019

pemerton said:
Does the level bonus and the base 10 need calling out? The dragon's AC has those in there as well. My point is that in 4e the high level paladin, whose only non-system-mandated AC components are plate armour and a shield, has an AC on a par with the dragon's. There is no "natural armour" that outstrips what is feasible from magic armour.

Yes it does need to be called out. If you are trying to compare PC armor to dragon armor, anything other than armor is right out. No base 10. No level bonus. No shield bonus. Yes, a PC can get an AC on par with a dragon's. No a PC cannot get armor that is a as good as a dragon's, which is the criteria you set.

I know why it's frustrating to me. You're pointing to an optional rulest which allows a 75th level character to emulate the armour of a dragon of an insignificant level relative to that character. According to 3E DDG, Hephaestus can forge items up to 200,000 gp in value. The +25 armour you mentioned is a lot pricier than that. And the d20SRD tells me that "a dragon’s natural armor bonus increases by +1 for every Hit Die it gains beyond the great wyrm stage" which is an exact illustration of the phenomenon I dislike; while the epic dragons with CRs in the 50s and 60s have natural armour bonuses in the 60s and 70s. Which again is an illustration of the very point I'm making.

So pointing to a optional rule set that allows armor that is strong enough to match a dragon, even an epic dragon's natural armor is frustrating, but pointing to an optional rule set that says Hephaestus has a 200k gp cap is okay?

If the dragon is 1st level, its AC is 23.

So I just went and looked at 3e and the weakest dragon I could find(white) at the lowest level(hatchling) is CR 2, so it's not 1st level. And it has an AC of 14, 2 of that is from natural armor, so for a PC to equal that at 2nd level he would have to be wearing non-magical leather.

Aldarc · Feb 9, 2019

Outsider Perspective: Is this line of debate going anywhere productive? It seems like instead of debating the placement of goalposts or the number of angels that can dance on the AC of dragons, that the participants should reset and refocus their lines.

Maxperson · Feb 9, 2019

pemerton said:
Because if I introduced 75th level characters into a game then I would also be introducing 75th level (or thereabouts) dragons, which - as I pointed out - would have natural armour bonuses that exceed the most powerful armour that can be forged by mages and godlings in the setting.

You are making an error here. It doesn't require a 75th level PC to make that armor. It takes a 75th level being to create that armor. Just like PCs cannot create all of the items that they are finding up to and including 20th level, at 75th level they will be finding armor that they cannot create. For example, you can find a robe of useful items at 1st level as a minor item, but it cannot be created until 9th level.

If you want your 75th level PCs to have armor as strong as epic dragons, give it to them.

pemerton · Feb 10, 2019

Aldarc said:
Outsider Perspective: Is this line of debate going anywhere productive? It seems like instead of debating the placement of goalposts or the number of angels that can dance on the AC of dragons, that the participants should reset and refocus their lines.

From my point of view I've made my points and think they're clear. My exchange with [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION] was brief but sensible, and I think we understand one another and our different ways into, and hence responses to, the issue.

If you'd like me to elaborate or explain again, though, I'm happy to.