Pathfinder 1E What's broken or needs vast system knowledge?

[Dandu]

But don't we have our understanding of physics now because we have lots of people dedicated to studying them and hundreds of years of mathematical infrastructure to bring to bear?

If we look at the historical periods most commonly associated with D&D (ancient greece to late medieval europe to pre-industrial japan) how well had things been figured out and how widely disseminated was that knowledge? How much of it was just wrong (how many people in the US still have areas of science and medicine they discard for various reasons, even when confronted with the evidence)? It seems like those from 500-2000 years ago trying to optimize would be trying lots of very faulty but "reasonable sounding" objective functions.

That is entirely correct, however, the real world never had magic. D&D, however, does. I feel this is a significant difference.

In the case of combat and saves, who would be doing the studying and who would they study? Are the mages and sages studying the underlying probability distributions of combat and trying to do challenging things, or are they developing new spells and still trying to figure out magic and the multiverse?

It is entirely possible someone's studying probability distributions. The Name of the Wind features an order of wizards who systematically study magic, energy, and chemistry, among other topics, in a medieval setting.

Several D&D settings have had civilization last for a long while. In Faerun, for instance, Human seafarers settle Ruathym in the year -3100. The Time of Troubles was in the year 1358. Through the power of mathematics, one can conclude that humans civilization has existed in Faerun for 4458 years. And humanity is far from the oldest civilization in Faerun; Moon elves from Shantel Othreier founded Ardeep in the year -23,600.

Other settings have younger civilizations. In Greyhawk, the humans of Flanaess spread across the region in the year -2004. The Temple of Elemental Evil takes place in the year 566. This is only 2570 years worth of human civilization, though as Greyhaws it the default D&D setting, it has all the spells in the PHB. This is important to keep in mind for reasons I am about to explain in a moment.

I assume that, in most settings, there will be people who have already figured out basic spells. In which case, you'd think someone would notice that the duration of, say, Obscuring Mist increases in 1 minute increments. A novice who just mastered cantrips casts the spell and gets a 1 minute duration, a wizard of slightly more experience getting 2 minutes out of it, but never a duration of 1.5 minutes.

And anyone capable of casting spells such as Analyze Dweomer gets metagame information as a direct result of the spell.

In the case of an object or creature with active spells cast upon it, you learn each spell, its effect, and its caster level.

So if Bob the Wizard casts this spell in game on Steve the Sorcerer, Bob automatically learns Steve's caster level. I imagine the in-game world reflects this somehow.

How many fighters of vastly different level are their out there to study if most of the world is 0-1st level? What tools do they have to do the stuyding?

Well, I imagine they would have Fighter bonus feats, so somebody could snag Combat Awareness from the PHB2 if that book is allowed.

While maintaining your combat focus, you learn the current hit point total of each adjacent opponent and ally. If you have three or more combat form feats, you gain blindsight out to 5 feet.

There are feats and spells like this scattered through 3.5e that basically tell you metagame information. For another example, look at the psionic power Feat Leech.

You make a melee touch attack against a target. If successful, you immediately are familiar with the target’s psionic and metapsionic feats, if any, and you can choose a number of these feats to “leech” equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum one).

Psychic Reformation allows you to switch out skill points and feats for other ones. This means that the people using it would, again, have to have some idea of what they're manipulating, as the power adjusts discreet variables.

The ELO system didn't get applied to chess until the last century, and it takes lots of repeated attempts between players to get the ratings down. Fielding metrics in baseball just seem to have gotten there, and they take video records of all the games to do well. Judging teacher quality is still not ready for prime time according to many of the best psychometricians. And none of those tell us how to get better at chess, fielding, or teaching in a measurable way.

And that's a valid point, but the real world never had Int 30 supergeniuses running around who can determine these sorts of things via spells and ask questions of the gods on how things work. Or gods, for that matter.

Having a copy of the PHB with options analyzed through simulation and poring through notes on the inter-webs seems like a lot more than "a general idea of how their world works..."

Then let me ask you a question: How do players in your games choose their feats and builds? Do you let them pick whatever they want as long as they qualify in game terms, or do you force someone who wants to multiclass from Barbarian to Fighter to have spent time in a fighting academy, and if he wants to go back to Barbarian to avoid the dead third level of fighter, call him a powergaming munchkin and forbid him from doing so because you do not think he has an in-game knowledge of the upcoming dead level?

What about skill points? That's a very mechanistic approach to skills which does not at all resemble how skills are gained in the real world. And probably a dozen other game elements in Dungeons and Dragons.

You are applying real world logic to a game whose reality is governed by completely different rules, yet expect people in the game world to behave as if they were in our world.

 

[Dandu]

Character personality need not include such a focus. In fact, that sounds very Lawful in nature. There is nothing wrong with a player choosing a character who is simply out in the wild world, experiencing what life has to offer, and following his whims. One such character who stood out in a game many years ago, when granted a Wish, thought for a second or two, then wished for "A life filled with adventure". The scratch note as he phrased his wish crossed out "long" before "life" as the player reasoned it simply wasn't an addendum the character would consider to add.

In my opinion, wandering through life and experiencing it works a lot better if you are determined. I've met some people who did exactly that, taking time off of college or high school to travel the world and meet people. I've also met people who dropped out to smoke pot using the same excuse.

But I think we're digressing here.

I find often good players will forego full optimization to build a more rounded character. Sure, I could put the extra skill points in a skill that would augment his detection abilities, but his professional cooking skills are also an element of the character that makes him different from all those other Detective characters.

You have every right to that opinion, but I think we can both agree that the real world, of course, allows you to be both a great detective and a great cook; not so much in D&D which runs off the skillpoint system. So while it makes the Detective more unique, it also means that he is less capable as a detective.

And I think we can agree that if a player wanted to put detecting first, he has every right to do so without being called a bad roleplayer.

So should we tell the Bard's player to take Fighter levels instead, as this game won't support a Bard?

Oh, heavens no. Bards are perfectly suited for combat if they are built for it. Key words: if they are built for it. If you give your Bard Skill Focus: Craft Poetry while in the midst of a war focused campaign, that'd probably be a bad idea.

"Mere puppets we control" are playing pieces. I prefer to create characters that are more fleshed out, have a personality and have some verisimillitude. They don't, for example, pull levers on the artifact because there's a 10% chance of gaining a significant reward and hey, if he gets killed or cursed, I can always make a new character to replace him. Their flaws and foibles don't disappear because they become inconvenient (just because we need to travel overseas, the character's fear of water does not fade away).

As long as you accept that my character has flaws and foibles, and I decide what those are, and if I want my character to take two levels in a class for the benefits that they offer, that is within his character to do so.

"Well, I took an Oracle level to get the Lame curse so I would not be fatigued after raging" sounds very OoTS, actually. And, if they understand the way the game world works, then they should know that "training under Master Lin at the White Lotus Monastery" for 20 years does nothing - you will only be able "to punch people better" when you gain enough xp to level up.

I'd imagine training includes a process by which XP is gained. Like, you know, practice combat, or being sent out on missions by Master Lin that are a little more hazardous than waxing his car.

I don't see them governed by BAB, saves, etc., however. Those are mechanics we add to simulate the characters' advancement, not mechanics that they can perceive.

They do have a direct effect on the characters' world, though. So to understand that even the mightiest wizard fails to affect a lowly kobold with his Sleep spell at least 5% of the time is not unreasonable.

This is a PrC that combines Oracle and Barbarian, not which says "Hey, dip in for one level of Oracle - and always be Lame!" In fact, it could just as easily be an Oracle with 1 Barbarian level.

Dipping! Blantant munchkinry! An oracle cannot dip into Barbarian! Need I remind, you what a Barbarian is?

For some, there is only rage. In the ways of their people, in the fury of their passion, in the howl of battle, conflict is all these brutal souls know. Savages, hired muscle, masters of vicious martial techniques, they are not soldiers or professional warriors—they are the battle possessed, creatures of slaughter and spirits of war. Known as barbarians, these warmongers know little of training, preparation, or the rules of warfare; for them, only the moment exists, with the foes that stand before them and the knowledge that the next moment might hold their death. They possess a sixth sense in regard to danger and the endurance to weather all that might entail. These brutal warriors might rise from all walks of life, both civilized and savage, though whole societies embracing such philosophies roam the wild places of the world. Within barbarians storms the primal spirit of battle, and woe to those who face their rage.

Now, tell me, how to you multiclass into that? Seems like you'd have to be raised as a savage in order to have a level in Barbarian.

A one level Oracle dip will eventually gain 9th level casting, insufficient for many of the additional spells he can learn. In fact, only one of those spells could be attained at 2nd PrC level with a 1 level oracle dip. At least he can pick from the many 2nd level spells (five of those) when reaching L4 in the PrC.

That second level ability isn't overly useful as an 8th level character* when the only Cure spell you can cast (with 2 levels of spellcasting) is Cure Light Wounds. Concentration bonus at 3rd PrC level is only useful for spells as well. Most of the early abilities augment spellcasting rather than combat skills.

Overall, I'd say the PrC is aimed at more balanced multiclassing, not just a dip. A Barbarian dip could be more practical, but you need at least 2 Barbarian levels to get Moment of Clarity.

* BAB +5 requires 5 barbarian levels and you need at least one Oracle level as well, so that's 6th + 2 levels of Rage Prophet

I'm not terribly interested in whether Rage Prophet is a good idea, or whether it supports Barbarian 8/Oracle 1 specifically. I include it to point out that multicalssing between the two is an accepted path.

Again, this is where we come to Meta Player vs In World Character. I don't think the Oracle picks his curse. I think the player picks the curse his character is afflicted with. The fact that Lame is the only curse that afflicts Barbarians seems significantly off. You could certainly write it into the game world - and you may as well, since none of those Oracle/Barbarians (rage prophet or 1 level dip) seem likely to select a different curse anyway.

... you know, the point I responded to was how a Barbarian gets to become an Oracle, not about the Oracle's curse.

It's funny how RAW is all-important until some of the RAW doesn't support the desired conclusion. That portion of RAW is then dismissed as "fluff". The "fluff" is what makes a character class more than a bundle of random mechanics.

RAW stands for Rules As Written. The fluff is not rules. That would be like saying since the text descriptor of Power Attack reads: "You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength", then everyone who uses Power Attack must be making wild swings. Why can't I say that my fighter is targeting vulnerable spots in his enemy, sacrificing accuracy for precision when it comes to damage? As long as it has the same effect, what does it imilmatter how I roleplay it?

Similarly, if I was to play a Samurai, would I have to play him as someone who is dedicated to honor, considering that the class alignment can be any, which would allow for dishonorable Chaotic Evil samurai. (Which did exist in the real world.)

And if you're going to be wedded to the default fluff,

The Barbarian Rage is his berserking. Sure, you can do it differently, but not having Rage defeats the purpose of Barbarian levels. The official description says nothing about vikings, or any other culture. That fluff does not in any way restrict your "son of a smithy" example.

Well, aside from the fact that Barbarians are described as "In the ways of their people, in the fury of their passion, in the howl of battle, conflict is all these brutal souls know. Savages, hired muscle, masters of vicious martial techniques, they are not soldiers or professional warriors—they are the battle possessed, creatures of slaughter and spirits of war."

This would seem to restrict my "son of a smithy" example as the fluff dictates he must be some sort of homicidal maniac.

Once again, it depends. Role playing my character, he should go after the wizard, even if that is not the tactically correct choice. Similarly, if the character has been established as having a hatred of Goblins, he should logically go after the summoned Goblins before attacking the Wizard - his hatred overriding tactical judgement.

And you have every right to do so since he is your character. Now, if someone else's character was fighting and did go after the wizard despite a hatred of goblins, would you call that bad roleplaying?

But either way, watch the rest of the players berate this player for letting his character personality override the best possible tactics. "I know it's bad tactics, but that's what the character would do" is good role playing, in my books. "Well, he doesn't hate Goblins THAT much" returns the PC to a pawn on the chessboard.

I have a counterexample: the rogue who steals from the party and stabs people to death in their sleep and frames an innocent. "But it's what my character would do," says the rogue player. "No, that's just you being a dick," says everyone else.

There's a line to these sorts of things.

None of your explanations for the characters not carrying a gun provide an in-game reason.

In-game reason: Guns deal much less damage than a Monk's unarmed strike. And Batman probably does have Monk levels considering his training. There you go. Not so sure about Spider-Man, but he might just have a huge Strength score. Doc Savage? He's already shooting people with guns, which has already addressed your question of why he doesn't. He does.

There can certainly be middle ground. "Every Barbarian is a Lame Oracle" falls outside that middle ground, at least to me. Are there no other interesting Barbarian character possibilities?

First of all, I'm not aware of anyone who actually says that every Barbarian should be a Lame Oracle. Though I don't go to Paizo, so I might be missing out on something.

Anyways, for 3.5 at least, there are many ways of building (mechanically) an interesting Barbarian character, some of which I have shown in my Being Bane: A Guide to Cracking Small Men. It is interesting to note that eliminating fatigue was commonly done in 3.5e for Barbarians via the Horizon Walker prestige class (commonly entered into via a Ranger/Barbarian). Of course, it was far from the only type of Barbarian character.

I don't know if it is that way in Pathfinder, though. There might not be as many options for Barbarians.

So one of these characters trains extensively as a Magus expert in the use of a single weapon, training in spells and swordplay, while living like an animal in the forest.

I think you left out "while the other" somewhere in there. Otherwise, I'd say you conflated the two characters.

By the way, don't Deepwardens need the Endurance feat?

Endurance is a Ranger Bonus feat.

As to the pirate, I note the entire description is focused on mechanics. I assume he has a personality in-game, but it doesn't come through from the post.

If the various songs didn't give you an idea of how this character was going to play out...

Imagine a very camp pirate who enjoys musicals and makes people better at fighting and more dexterous through song and dance. Whose main goal is to sail the ocean blue in search of adventure, treasure, and fun.

I also note that, between both characters, there is only one dip, the Marshall. All the other classes are taken for at least a few levels.

Actually, taking two to three levels of a class counts as dipping from what I've been told.

 

[B.T.]

The entirety of Pathfinder requires vast system knowledge. If you're a spellcaster, you can gimp yourself, but even if you do fireball all day erryday, you're going to be okay. If you're not a caster, you need a fair amount of system mastery so you aren't awful. There are a lot of trap options that will ensnare new players, especially options that seem good but really aren't. (See: Death or Glory.)

As with all of 3e, you need a veteran player to guide you through character creation.

 

[N'raac]

In my opinion, wandering through life and experiencing it works a lot better if you are determined. I've met some people who did exactly that, taking time off of college or high school to travel the world and meet people. I've also met people who dropped out to smoke pot using the same excuse.

And either could be a valid character.

You have every right to that opinion, but I think we can both agree that the real world, of course, allows you to be both a great detective and a great cook; not so much in D&D which runs off the skillpoint system. So while it makes the Detective more unique, it also means that he is less capable as a detective.

Therein lies the crux of the issue. Will the character be unplayable because he is not 100% optimized, or will redirecting one skill point per level to a non-optimized (for a detective) option leave resources enough for the character to be valuable and useful? I would suggest a good GM would make that unusual skill come into play from time to time, so the player would be rewarded, rather than penalized, for building a unique character.

Oh, heavens no. Bards are perfectly suited for combat if they are built for it. Key words: if they are built for it. If you give your Bard Skill Focus: Craft Poetry while in the midst of a war focused campaign, that'd probably be a bad idea.

Again, one feat of all those character resources? Maybe he should be allowed to enhance his Bardic Recitations given he is so skilled with creating poetry.

I'd imagine training includes a process by which XP is gained. Like, you know, practice combat, or being sent out on missions by Master Lin that are a little more hazardous than waxing his car.

Given the former, why don't PC's choose to spend some of that accumulated loot on risk-free practice combat to gain experience, and levels, to be better able to face future challenges? Perhaps the PC's should establish a regimen of sparring against one another to gain this risk-free xp.

They do have a direct effect on the characters' world, though. So to understand that even the mightiest wizard fails to affect a lowly kobold with his Sleep spell at least 5% of the time is not unreasonable.

Understand that magic is not infallible? Sure. Understand to a degree of precision that they understand the difference between a +4 and +5 save? Seems less than likely.

Now, tell me, how to you multiclass into that? Seems like you'd have to be raised as a savage in order to have a level in Barbarian.

That's one reason I like (and miss) the "L1 Multiclass" 3rd Ed rules. If the character is a Barbarian and Oracle from L1, that seems a lot more fitting. On the other hand, an Oracle designed as a shaman, who perhaps is played with temper issues, seems more likely to learn to channel that rage than one who is played as calm, cool and collected until he decides a Barbarian Dip would be mechanically beneficial.

I'm not terribly interested in whether Rage Prophet is a good idea, or whether it supports Barbarian 8/Oracle 1 specifically. I include it to point out that multicalssing between the two is an accepted path.

And, again, it's not general multiclassing, but mechanical maximization to the exclusion of logic and character development which I find less than appealing.

RAW stands for Rules As Written. The fluff is not rules.

It's part of the rulebook.

That would be like saying since the text descriptor of Power Attack reads: "You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength", then everyone who uses Power Attack must be making wild swings.

No, it's like saying that everyone who uses Power Attack is sacrificing accuracy for strength (or, in mechanical terms, BAB for damage). That's what Power Attack does.

Why can't I say that my fighter is targeting vulnerable spots in his enemy, sacrificing accuracy for precision when it comes to damage? As long as it has the same effect, what does it imilmatter how I roleplay it?

Again, sacrificing accuracy for strength. That is what Power Attack does. Seems reasonable to me.

Similarly, if I was to play a Samurai, would I have to play him as someone who is dedicated to honor, considering that the class alignment can be any, which would allow for dishonorable Chaotic Evil samurai. (Which did exist in the real world.)

Let's assume he throws all honor to the wind. Let's see...that means not warning enemies of his tactics, so no Challenges. He is not pledged to anj order, I suppose, or routinely violates its edicts, in either case losing his challenge ability for such violations. The Ronin option exists, but has its own edicts, defined by the character and subject to GM approval. He must remain true to those.

Absent honor, how does one make an Honorable Stand?

And if you're going to be wedded to the default fluff,

Well, aside from the fact that Barbarians are described as "In the ways of their people, in the fury of their passion, in the howl of battle, conflict is all these brutal souls know. Savages, hired muscle, masters of vicious martial techniques, they are not soldiers or professional warriors—they are the battle possessed, creatures of slaughter and spirits of war."

Sounds a lot like the Smith's son who has limited formal training, but flies into a rage in battle. He is battle-possessed, not a trained soldier or professional warrior. Like everyone else using Rage, he cannot use any ability requiring patience or concentration while enraged.

And you have every right to do so since he is your character. Now, if someone else's character was fighting and did go after the wizard despite a hatred of goblins, would you call that bad roleplaying?

If the hatred of goblins is simply discarded when it becomes inconvenient, then yes, I would call it bad role playing. Telling us how much you hate goblins, but never having that influence your decisions, is not playing that hatred of goblins.

I have a counterexample: the rogue who steals from the party and stabs people to death in their sleep and frames an innocent. "But it's what my character would do," says the rogue player. "No, that's just you being a dick," says everyone else.

I would suggest creation of a character whose natural inclination is to steal from the party, stab people to death in their sleep and frame an innocent is being a dick.

I think you left out "while the other" somewhere in there. Otherwise, I'd say you conflated the two characters.

My reference was to requirements of the Fist of the Forest and the training of the Kensai, so I was addressing only one of the two at the time.

Actually, taking two to three levels of a class counts as dipping from what I've been told.

Depends on one's interpretation, I suppose. I've been referring to "take one level and move on" dipping, though, as with the Lame Oracle.

 

[Dandu]

And either could be a valid character.

Now, which one would be better to roleplay in a D&D game?

Therein lies the crux of the issue. Will the character be unplayable because he is not 100% optimized, or will redirecting one skill point per level to a non-optimized (for a detective) option leave resources enough for the character to be valuable and useful? I would suggest a good GM would make that unusual skill come into play from time to time, so the player would be rewarded, rather than penalized, for building a unique character.

It's going to take more contrivance to make a skill like Profession: Cook as useful as Sense Motive for a detective.

Again, one feat of all those character resources?

Feats are rather significant investments for people who are not fighters.

Maybe he should be allowed to enhance his Bardic Recitations given he is so skilled with creating poetry.

Ah, so you'd give Skill Focus: Craft: Poetry additional uses. That's great... but not RAW. So it seems like you're discarding RAW when it is unfavorable as well? I applaud such a decision. The rules are meant to be guidelines. That is exactly why I do not have trouble ignoring the (non-mechanical) fluff.

Given the former, why don't PC's choose to spend some of that accumulated loot on risk-free practice combat to gain experience, and levels, to be better able to face future challenges? Perhaps the PC's should establish a regimen of sparring against one another to gain this risk-free xp.

Hold on. Are you suggesting that practice combat plays no part in how a character gains experience? Then what are fighting academies and martial arts classes teaching in the in-game world?

And you ignored completely the part where I suggested that they'd be sent out on missions. Which is another way of saying they get into combat.

Understand that magic is not infallible? Sure. Understand to a degree of precision that they understand the difference between a +4 and +5 save? Seems less than likely.

The mechanics of saves are quantized; you can fail 10% of the time, you can fail 15% of the time, but you never get someone who fails 13.5% of the time. If someone does a long study of these probabilities, they might notice it. Historically, this sort of thing has happened; during World War II, South African mathematician John Kerrich carried out 10,000 coin tosses while interned in a German prison camp. (He must have been really bored.)

And Max Planck noticed this sort of thing when he tried to explain the emission characteristics of blackbody radiation, which lead to quantum mechanics.

That's one reason I like (and miss) the "L1 Multiclass" 3rd Ed rules. If the character is a Barbarian and Oracle from L1, that seems a lot more fitting. On the other hand, an Oracle designed as a shaman, who perhaps is played with temper issues, seems more likely to learn to channel that rage than one who is played as calm, cool and collected until he decides a Barbarian Dip would be mechanically beneficial.

So your entire objection to taking an Oracle level later is based on the description of the Oracle class, which requires predestination to take levels in. I understand your position, but will have to disagree.

And, again, it's not general multiclassing, but mechanical maximization to the exclusion of logic and character development which I find less than appealing.

How does it enhance the character more to take more levels of Oracle? Is it conceivable that one level of Oracle might be enough for a character concept?

It's part of the rulebook.

Do you remember the parts of 3.5e rulebooks where it discusses how you can adapt classes and prestige classes? For example, Champion of Corellon has an adaptation section where it talks about changing the deity to another.

Adaptation
You can easily adapt the champion of Corellon to the service of almost any other deity, or even another race altogether. The basic premise of the class (a Dexterity-based fighter with some divine powers) lends itself to association with any number of deities. A human order of champions in the service of Pelor, for instance, could use the champion of Corellon class with
very little alteration.

Do people not do that in Pathfinder? Are the class descriptions straight jackets now?

Let's assume he throws all honor to the wind. Let's see...that means not warning enemies of his tactics, so no Challenges. He is not pledged to anj order, I suppose, or routinely violates its edicts, in either case losing his challenge ability for such violations.

Hold on. Nothing in the Challenge description requires you to warn enemies of your tactics. You simply single him out for more damage and make yourself easier to hit by other enemies. You do not have to be honorable to do this. You could be a some sort of psychopath and still focus your wrath on a single foe in combat.

The Ronin option exists, but has its own edicts, defined by the character and subject to GM approval. He must remain true to those.

The Ronin option does not require someone to act honorably - to be kind, just, fair, truthful, or ethical. The description of Ronin reads: "Known as ronin, these samurai wander the lands, serving their own code of ideals." He could behave like a Chaotic Evil scumbag - and indeed, the lack of alignment restrictions allows for just that kind of character.

Absent honor, how does one make an Honorable Stand?

""Nothing is more honorable than victory."
-Worf, son of Mogh.

Seriously, that's your argument? That because Honorable Stand has honor in the title, it requires the character to act honorably, as if there is some sort of truth in advertising policy? Nothing in the actual ability requires you to be an honorable, it just requires you to stand your ground to the bitter end.

Sounds a lot like the Smith's son who has limited formal training, but flies into a rage in battle. He is battle-possessed, not a trained soldier or professional warrior. Like everyone else using Rage, he cannot use any ability requiring patience or concentration while enraged.

"conflict is all these brutal souls know"
"they are the battle possessed, creatures of slaughter and spirits of war"
"these warmongers know little of training, preparation, or the rules of warfare; for them, only the moment exists, with the foes that stand before them and the knowledge that the next moment might hold their death."

If the hatred of goblins is simply discarded when it becomes inconvenient, then yes, I would call it bad role playing. Telling us how much you hate goblins, but never having that influence your decisions, is not playing that hatred of goblins.

You know, like many things, it is possible to be racist along a spectrum. You can hate goblins without focusing solely on them in battle to the exclusion of other tactical considerations. That would make as much sense as, say, a Mississippi regiment in the Civil War facing off against the Union and choosing to focus entirely on black regiments even when it would be inadvisable.

(If you believe that racism and slavery were not the motivation for the civil war, and that state's rights were, replace "black regiments" with "damn Yankees".)

Depends on one's interpretation, I suppose. I've been referring to "take one level and move on" dipping, though, as with the Lame Oracle.

And indeed, Black Jack does exactly that. Tell me what's wrong with it.

 

[Cadence]

I assume that, in most settings, there will be people who have already figured out basic spells. In which case, you'd think someone would notice that the duration of, say, Obscuring Mist increases in 1 minute increments. A novice who just mastered cantrips casts the spell and gets a 1 minute duration, a wizard of slightly more experience getting 2 minutes out of it, but never a duration of 1.5 minutes.

Good point. That seems rough grained enough that they should notice it... and I'd expect mages to be the kind to keep track of such things.

Presumably they've also taken notes on monsters for a good chunk of those few 1,000 years and at least discovered block printing. Why don't all the party members have copies of the Monster Manual (or a rough facimie)?

And that's a valid point, but the real world never had Int 30 supergeniuses running around who can determine these sorts of things via spells and ask questions of the gods on how things work. Or gods, for that matter.

Or, demons and devils and evil gods actively planting falsehoods to capitalize on innate human stupidity, sloth, greed, and hate...

Do you let them pick whatever they want as long as they qualify in game terms, or do you force someone who wants to multiclass from Barbarian to Fighter to have spent time in a fighting academy, and if he wants to go back to Barbarian to avoid the dead third level of fighter, call him a powergaming munchkin and forbid him from doing so because you do not think he has an in-game knowledge of the upcoming dead level?

I expect the Barbarian to at least have hung around with fighters and mentioned he was training with the one in the party or trying to emulate him. If a fighter wanted a level of magic user or cleric I'd need a lot more groundwork to be laid, either in character creation to explain the where the knowledge coming from, or having made it clear what he's doing in or between sessions (like going off to some academy) to get it. If they lay the groundwork I don't particularly care if its to avoid a dead level, and I think going back to a previous class is using the previousness as the ground work.
Similarly for skills.

You are applying real world logic to a game whose reality is governed by completely different rules, yet expect people in the game world to behave as if they were in our world.

I think I'd phrase it that I'm expecting them to be playing a character that reasonably fits into the world the game is set in. If the world is chock full of people with (essentially) rough sketches of the PHB then I guess I'd have to expect that the PCs... and all the NPCs and monsters... would act like they had that knowledge. (Interesting to think about FR vs. GH in that light.)

I tend to take the rules as a necessarily granular approximation of the fictional world. And so I don't think the characters would (or even could) ever notice...

The mechanics of saves are quantized; you can fail 10% of the time, you can fail 15% of the time, but you never get someone who fails 13.5% of the time.

If this isn't the case then a reasonably granular sci-fi or super-hero game could never approximate a comic book or movie unless the world of the comic or movie was granular in those ways and the characters new it.

 

[Dandu]

Good point. That seems rough grained enough that they should notice it... and I'd expect mages to be the kind to keep track of such things.

Presumably they've also taken notes on monsters for a good chunk of those few 1,000 years and at least discovered block printing. Why don't all the party members have copies of the Monster Manual (or a rough facimie)?

Actually you bring up an interesting point; would people catalog creatures? Historically yes! Aristotle, for example, wrote History of the Animals. Granted, it is filled with errors, but it was a good effort.

I expect the Barbarian to at least have hung around with fighters and mentioned he was training with the one in the party or trying to emulate him. If a fighter wanted a level of magic user or cleric I'd need a lot more groundwork to be laid, either in character creation to explain the where the knowledge coming from, or having made it clear what he's doing in or between sessions (like going off to some academy) to get it. If they lay the groundwork I don't particularly care if its to avoid a dead level, and I think going back to a previous class is using the previousness as the ground work.
Similarly for skills.

Fair enough.

I think I'd phrase it that I'm expecting them to be playing a character that reasonably fits into the world the game is set in. If the world is chock full of people with (essentially) rough sketches of the PHB then I guess I'd have to expect that the PCs... and all the NPCs and monsters... would act like they had that knowledge. (Interesting to think about FR vs. GH in that light.)

I tend to take the rules as a necessarily granular approximation of the fictional world. And so I don't think the characters would (or even could) ever notice...

Then how does your in-game world treat spells, abilities, powers, and feats that directly tell a character metagame knowledge?

If this isn't the case then a reasonably granular sci-fi or super-hero game could never approximate a comic book or movie unless the world of the comic or movie was granular in those ways and the characters new it.

This is a complaint that has been raised several times for pretty much every game system. In D&D, for instance, you automatically miss on an attack roll if you roll a 1. Even a level 20 fighter has the same chance to auto-miss as a novice when attacking a training dummy. There are some inherent difficulties in simulating comic books and movies.

 

[S'mon]

IMO it's always a bad idea to attempt to treat the game rules as the physics of the game world, unless you want an Order of the Stick comedy setting. The rules roughly define the typical experience of the PCs, but not what happens offstage. Eg in-world people in combat get limbs chopped off, that this never happens to PCs is irrelevant. Obscuring mist lasts 1 minute or 2 minutes etc for PCs, but the same sort of spell cast offstage may last 0.4 or 3.8 minutes. Some parts of the rules may have rough analogies in the world physics, eg combat rules map roughly to combat in-world, and pre-4e Spell Levels might have in-world significance to some sorts of in-world spellcaster, though not necessarily.

 

[pemerton]

IMO it's always a bad idea to attempt to treat the game rules as the physics of the game world, unless you want an Order of the Stick comedy setting. The rules roughly define the typical experience of the PCs, but not what happens offstage. Eg in-world people in combat get limbs chopped off, that this never happens to PCs is irrelevant.

100x this!

 

[Dandu]

IMO it's always a bad idea to attempt to treat the game rules as the physics of the game world, unless you want an Order of the Stick comedy setting.

I find nothing inherently humorous in a bunch of old men sitting around a table discussing the Laws of Magic.

Unless they do so whilst naked.

The rules roughly define the typical experience of the PCs, but not what happens offstage. Eg in-world people in combat get limbs chopped off, that this never happens to PCs is irrelevant./quote]
Good argument here. Rules are often generalized abstractions for what happens in the in-game world. This is how hit points (among other things) explicitly work.

Obscuring mist lasts 1 minute or 2 minutes etc for PCs, but the same sort of spell cast offstage may last 0.4 or 3.8 minutes.[

Going to have to disagree on this interpretation. Of all things, you'd think magic would get the most leeway in having strange rules.