D&D 5E (2014) The Magical Martial

[W'rkncacnter]

3. Well, we don't have stats for the silverback gorilla so we'll never know.

the closest approximation we have is the ape (not the giant ape - those are way too big), which is a medium creature with a 16 strength.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Then those abilities have some other explanation, if they happen in a game. In a story maybe not, but again stories and games are different.

Yeah, and sometimes that explanation is "They were that skilled of a warrior"

You can say "but I don't accept that!" until you consume all the oxygen on the planet, but the dead ancient people who made those stories don't that you don't accept their stories. And while the game is different... the logic can still be the same. I should know, I've played games where that is the only logic. "Why can this character do this? Because that is the ability that character has."

 

[Chaosmancer]

Do those things lead to being able to punch through a steel plate in the real world? If not, then as the real world player of a fantasy RPG I need a better reason than that.

Why are you playing a fantasy game set in the real-world?

Intoning in latin while waving a stick in the air doesn't create fire either, but that's how a mage casts spells. Why do the actions in the real world need to have exactly the same result in the fantasy world?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, and sometimes that explanation is "They were that skilled of a warrior"

You can say "but I don't accept that!" until you consume all the oxygen on the planet, but the dead ancient people who made those stories don't that you don't accept their stories. And while the game is different... the logic can still be the same. I should know, I've played games where that is the only logic. "Why can this character do this? Because that is the ability that character has."

You're welcome to believe that for your game, but I never will. To me, it is incoherent.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why are you playing a fantasy game set in the real-world?

Intoning in latin while waving a stick in the air doesn't create fire either, but that's how a mage casts spells. Why do the actions in the real world need to have exactly the same result in the fantasy world?

They don't, but if they don't I want a reason why.

 

[dave2008]

To prove mine, we can just play "find the difference" and see how often a difference appears. If I'm at less than 100%, it would be a shocking result.

You think 100% of things in all fantasy settings are different from the real world? I can guarantee you that is not the case.

And I don't need to prove anything anymore than you do. Neither statement is easily verifiable fact. That is why a qualified mine.

 

[dave2008]

But, again, because we are getting hyper-focused on trying to define abilities as either "totally magic" or "actually extraordinary"... We haven't actually made any progress discussing abilities. While I certain you could totally drive them into submission with your logic after another ten years of insisting on your definition... the more we argue about exactly what to define these uncreated abilities as, the longer people are going to be "Well, I think it is stupid that you want to have the fighter do anything at all just because they want to. After all, you need a reason to cause someone to spontaneously combust three days after you hit them with an arrow."

Because we don't define the abilities A) They all end up being combat abilities and B) They can keep arguing with the most extreme example they can come up with, because obviously throwing your spear and setting off a thermonuclear explosion is magical^TM, while you are trying to do something else entirely.

Maybe you did read the 2nd or 3rd line in what you quoted:

"I simply stated my preference, I am not asking anyone to share it. I realize what seems simple and logical to me, doesn't apply to everyone else."

I am not try to do things for a product for other people. I am just discussion what makes sense to me.

 

[Chaosmancer]

1. A man has an average STR 10, well below the STR 15 requirement, so his speed is 20, making his swim speed 10 feet. The Mississippi river averages about a mile wide (let's round to a nice 5000 ft). The Mississippi river also has the strongest average current of any river in the U.S. at almost 600,000 cubic feet per second. This would most certainly require a Strength (Athletics) check to make progress. Oh, and given these parameters the water would also be difficult terrain, further reducing speed to effectively 5 feet.

Now, your claim is with "no discernible practice, training..." so we can keep the DC at 20 (hard) given the conditions, but at least his can make a check dispite having a +0 modifier to the check (no proficiency since no practice, training; and no STR modifier).

Given 5000 feet at 5 ft/ round means 1000 checks to "gain any distance". 1000 checks for DC 20 Strength (Athletics) at +0 would average of 20,000 checks to swim the distance. At 6 seconds per round, that is 33 hours and 20 minutes of swimming. Which of course brings exhaustion into play, which with a CON 10 and no saving throw proficiency for the average man, we can expect the first level of exhaustion around hour 10, which imposes disadvantage on further Strength (Atheletics) checks. At this point, the man would be less than one-third of the way across. With disadvantage, the remaining 14000 checks for DC 20 become 280,000 checks. At this point, it would take over 19 DAYS to make all the checks required to finish the swim. Exhaustion would kill the man long before that point could ever be reached.

Now, I will admit, I didn't know the Mississipi had a powerful current, I just remembered it was a wide river. So maybe that one does take a check, except... who says it would be DC 20? An average of 600,000 cubic feet is the highest in the USA... but the highest in the WORLD is 7,380,765.34 cubic feet per second, with another river having 1,454,964 cubic feet per second.

So, these would clearly be higher DCs, right? And the system caps at 30, for tasks that are nearly impossible for god-like beings. So, since the Mississipi is half of what the second strongest river current is, that would make far more sense as a DC 12 or 15. After all... DCs are universal.

Additionally, you declare the water as difficult terrain... but is it? That is based solely on the current, which is why there is a DC. You are double dipping. Difficult terrain would be for things in the water, flotsam, lots of fish, heavy vegetation, not the current of the water. So, we are back up to 10 ft per round.

Except... weirdly... you don't account for the action? A player can action dash on their turn, not just move. So it would actually be 20 ft per round.

So, 20 ft per round makes that 250 checks, sure we can say at +0, I'll even give you the DC 15. DMG says that would be about 4 attempts per hit, so that would mean 1,000 turns, which translates to... about an hour and half swim. Which won't kill anyone from exhaustion. Even if I double that because you refuse to allow dash, that is only three hours. Double again because you insist it must be difficult terrain, and I'm looking at six hours.

So yeah, if you adjudicate more fairly, even if you insist on rolling because I mentioned the Missisipi... it still is possible.

2. Sure. A scholar would probably be Intelligent enough to distribute the weight evenly, use a walking stick, rest often, etc. For many days he would likely be sore, but he could do it.

Okay, go find a college professor, give them an 80 lbs bag, and tell them to march 24 miles a day for a month. I mean, it isn't like we can look at a famous hiking location like the Appalachian trail, where experienced hikers consistently go, and find that they carry way less and average 12 to 16 miles per day on the high end, right?

3. Well, we don't have stats for the silverback gorilla so we'll never know. Besides, such claims are irrelevant and contradictory. One site claims the 20 average men or whatever as you do, and on the same site says 4 to 9.

Ape statblock is meant to represent a gorilla. Silverback is just the term for the biggest alpha in the group. And whether they are 20 men or 4 men strong... most people are 1 average man strong, not four times that.

4. I guess you must mean the subclass "thief" so you have a full climbing speed (assumed 30 feet). Which is 3rd level, and certainly not a rogue with "no training". Otherwise, much depends on the building. Few handholds would demain ability checks as well. Failure might be no progress, or might be actual failure.

Since when does gaining levels in 5e require training how to climb? Sure, they have combat expeirence, but just because you took a martial arts class doesn't mean you know how to climb a building.

Also, you seemed to miss something. 6 seconds. That's how long it would take them. Look on people asking advice on climbing, and many people say things like "some routes are 40 ft and can be climbed in under five [minutes]"

Double the distance (with handholds) in one-fiftieth the time.

But yeah, totally not beyond human limitations to climb fifty times faster than most humans.

5. Is that how it works in real life? (j/k)

6. Incredible coincidence, huh? Must be magic! (j/k)

It could be magic. That's how I've done it. But the larger point was... no, a DnD world does not mostly resemble 1451 Europe, or what modern humans are capable of. It is a place steeped in the impossible.

That was fun. Anyway, we all know D&D (as presented) is not a simulation, but a game. That game can be based as much on "medieval Europe" or whatever as you choose, or could be completely foreign. But we shy from that in general because for most groups to embrace the "fantasy" it must be grounded in "reality".

Yeah. they embrace it so much they refuse to acknowledge any rule that breaks with what they believe reality should be. Hence, the endless barrage of threads like this.

There is some (very well described!) narrative license going on here...

AC 17 (without DEX +2) is not stronger than enchanted steel, since non-enchanted steel can give you AC 18.

It says Natural Armor, it doesn't specify that that armor is 17+2 for Dex. It could very easily be a natural armor of 19.

Even if you demand it is 17, that is still the equivalent of Steel Half-plate, and you can argue the difference is because of weaker scales at the joints and the wings.

Pit Fiend STR 26, rhino STR 21. Both are large creatures and who is "stronger" at any moment would depend on the contested Strength checks. With a +3 net advantage, the Pit Fiend would "win" about 60% of the time. "Stronger"...? In an absolute sense, sure.

So... stronger than a rhino, like I said. Now, do you know how bonkers strong a rhino even is? I'll give you a hint, they can flip cars for fun. And a Pit fiend is as much stronger than that rhino, as a Gorilla is to a human man.

Yeah, it can make you frieghtened, has truesight, and telepahy. But he isn't faster than a horse (fly speed 60 vs. speed 60 for the horse...).

Meant to say "as fast as"

At any rate, there is nothing really "standard" about a Pit Fiend. I mean, honestly, come on. Maybe something a bit more common than a CR 20 fiend, arguably the most powerful non-named fiend in the game.

Did you read the initial request?

Original: So no matter what you have to imagine a knight getting powerful enough to 1v1 the Devil in a fight.
FrogReaver: or just a human fighter. What’s the devil doing that requires anything more?
My response to Frogreaver you quoted.

The original statement was for The Devil, caps, as in Lucifer. So I responded with a non-named, standard Pitfiend of which there are hundreds, since there isn't a canonical 5e statblock for Asmodeus.

So, look at my post, and think, does this sound like a foe that some dude with a sword, from 1400's France, could kill? Normal human dude with normal human strength, and a normal steel sword and shield. Against a being that, according to the abstractions, could casually flip cars with one hand, is skin is as good as the best armor, and can match a charging knight on horseback by FLYING.

And then, could that knight face this thing's boss that can slap it around like a naughty child.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Funny. I'm sure your logic has convinced everyone here how hopeless a mundane character concept is. I'm sure WotC 5e's deep abstraction in the numbers arena you continually try to use to prove your point doesn't suggest those numbers aren't proof of superhuman powers for everyone.

Besides, I was talking about a class fantasy. race/species/ancestry/heritage is a separate metric.

And I'm talking about character fantasy, which combines those things. We don't just play a class, we play a character who combines elements from all over the game into their own story.

I'm well aware you dismiss the rules when they don't suite your taste, but that doesn't make you insistence that somehow DnD is GoT any more believable. You can pretend it is, for a while, but the cracks are there right at level 1.

 

[FrogReaver]

Did you read the initial request?

Original: So no matter what you have to imagine a knight getting powerful enough to 1v1 the Devil in a fight.
FrogReaver: or just a human fighter. What’s the devil doing that requires anything more?
My response to Frogreaver you quoted.

The original statement was for The Devil, caps, as in Lucifer. So I responded with a non-named, standard Pitfiend of which there are hundreds, since there isn't a canonical 5e statblock for Asmodeus.

I read all that and the use of the devil there was never a reference to Lucifer. At least in my end of the poster that I was discussing with before you.