PDA

View Full Version : D&D 3.x Other Rule changes in Aelsif



Avianmosquito
2017-05-17, 11:54 AM
Below are all of the rules Aelsif changes.

The great NPC buff:
Humanoid characters have been heavily boosted by the rules changes, and NPCs got the best of it.

Unarmed strikes function as weapons:
When unarmed, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity, can make attacks of opportunity and deal lethal damage primarily with the standard -4 for nonlethal. Obviously, though, NPCs fighting will usually take the -4 to avoid killing eachother. Improved unarmed strike removes the penalty for nonlethal strikes, making them far better in a fist fight when they DON'T want to rupture internal organs.

There is no commoner class:
Commoner and aristocrat have been scrapped. That nobody NPC in front of you is probably an expert.

NPCs are higher level:
Almost all NPCs are 3rd level or higher. Even small children tend to be 2nd level, and again often higher. Everybody has at least a few hit dice.

Profession pays much better:
This skill was so ludicrously underpowered it served absolutely zero purpose in-game, so it was overhauled. I somehow doubt players are going to be using profession for long-term employment, unless they're filling the gap between campaigns. Mostly, this is a way to drum up quick cash through temp work and single shifts. And since I never, EVER use Wealth By Level under ANY circumstances, that's not as far fetched as you might think.

You have the option to look for a single shift, temp work or long-term work. Looking for a single shift takes one day, looking for temp work takes one week, looking for long-term work takes one month with the option to look for part-time only, full-time only or both (roll separately). It has a chance of success based on the economy, your skill and your wisdom. A roll within your profession/wisdom bonus is always in your chosen profession, a roll outside of it never is. When you find an employer, roll 1d20 and add a bonus based on the local economy and your profession to determine your wages at that job (in pence/hour), and roll percentile dice to see how many hours your shift is. At this point, you can either take the job or try again. Additionally, you must make a constitution check after each shift to avoid exhaustion, on a success another save must be made to avoid fatigue, and if you are working long-term you make a wisdom-modified profession check every month to avoid termination. Single shifts pay at the end of the shift, temp work pays at the end of each work week, and long-term jobs also pay on a weekly basis.

Roaring economy: 20+Proffession+Wis% job search success. Termination DC 0.
Booming economy: 15+Profession+Wis% job search success. Termination DC 5.
Average economy: 10+Profession+Wis% job search success. Termination DC 10.
Recession: 5+Profession+Wis% job search success. Termination DC 15.
Depression: Profession+Wis% job search success. Termination DC 20.

Excellent wages: +25p, +5p per rank of profession
Great wages: +20p, +4p per rank of profession
Good wages: +15p, +3p per rank of profession
Average wages: +10p, +2p per rank of profession
Poor wages: +5p, +1p per rank of profession
Terrible wages: +0p, +0p per rank of profession

Single shift hours:
76-00: 8 hours
51-75: 6 hours
26-50: 4 hours
01-25: 2 hours

Temp work hours:
81-00: 12 hours, 1d6 days/week, 1d6 weeks
61-80: 10 hours, 1d6 days/week, 1d6 weeks
41-60: 8 hours, 1d6 days/week, 1d6 weeks
21-40: 6 hours, 1d6 days/week, 1d6 weeks
01-20: 4 hours, 1d6 days/week, 1d6 weeks

Long-term (full time) work hours:
61-00: 12 hours, 1d4+2 days/week
31-60: 10 hours 1d4+2 days/week
11-20: 8 hours, 1d3+3 days/week
1-10: 6 hours, 1d2+4 days/week

Long-term (part time) work hours:
61-00: 10 hours, 1d2 days/week
31-60: 8 hours 1d3 days/week
11-20: 6 hours, 1d4 days/week
1-10: 4 hours, 1d6 days/week

Fatigue check DC:
Hard manual labour: 10+ shift hours
Average: 10+1/2 shift hours
Desk work: 10+1/4 shift hours

Weapons are stronger due to material types:
The standard material that functions as in SRD is iron. There are many other materials now, all of which inflict more damage by increasing the size of the weapon's damage dice. The best you can get is four sizes larger, which makes a 1d4 dagger inflict 1d12, a 1d8 sword inflict 2d10, and a 2d6 greatsword inflict 4d8. While the material required for that leap (celestial steel) is exceptionally uncommon, most weapons will have dice 1-2 sizes larger than normal. A dagger will deal 1d6 or 1d8, a sword 1d10 or 1d12, a greatsword 2d8 or 2d10. Better materials also have more hit points and hardness, and enhancement also exists to add up to +5 to each of those.


Rusty: Damage dice decreased one size, hardness 5, 1/2 hp, /10
Iron: Standard, hardness 10, 1x hp,
Steel: Damage dice increased one size, hardness 15, 2x hp, x10
Tempered steel: Damage dice increased two sizes, hardness 20, 3x hp, x100
Royal steel: Damage dice increased three sizes, hardness 25, 4x hp, x1,000
Celestial weapon steel: Damage dice increased four sizes, hardness 30, 5x hp, x10,000

Copper: Damage dice decreased two sizes, hardness 5, 1x hp, immune to rust and half acid damage,
Bronze: Standard, decreased one size, hardness 10, 2x hp, immune to rust and half acid damage, x10
Jungle bronze: Hardness 15, 3x hp, immune to rust and half acid damage, x100
Royal bronze: Damage dice increased one size, hardness 20, 4x hp, immune to rust and half acid damage, x1,000
Celestial bronze: Damage dice increased two sizes, hardness 25, 5x hp, immune to rust and half acid damage,x10,000

Wood: Damage dice decreased two sizes, hardness 5, 1x hp, immune to rust, cannot be repaired except by magic, /100
Stone: Standard, hardness 5, 1x hp, immune to rust, cannot be repaired except by magic,
Obsidian: Damage dice increased two sizes, hardness 5, 1x hp, immune to rust, cannot be repaired except by magic, x100



Fixed damage
d2
d3
d4
d6
d8
d10
d12
2d8
2d10
2d12
4d8
Etcetera


Firearms exist and are useful:
Firearms in Aelsif come in a variety of designs, ranging from simple muzzle-loaders to early semi-automatic weaponry, though semi-automatic weapons are exceedingly rare, expensive and require an exotic proficiency. The muzzle-loaders are extremely powerful shot for shot and are fairly cheap, but they get a single shot with a lengthy reload, and their alternate versions have better range but deal less damage. The manually-operated weapons deal much less damage but they hold more shots and have a similar reload time. The semi-automatic weapons deal even less damage, but they hold more shots and have a shorter reload. These do not benefit from material types, however, so they must rely on special ammunition later in the game.


Musket:
Proficiency: Simple
Critical: 19-20, x2
Damage: 2d12, pierce
Range increment: 60ft
Reload: Two rounds, one round with a paper cartridge
Hardness: 5
HP: 25
Weight: 10lbs
Cost: 50*
Ammunition type: Musket ball
Requires two hands to reload, but can be fired one-handed at a -4 penalty to hit.

*The elven pound replaces the gold piece entirely in Aelsif, with the pence replacing the copper piece and no other coinage being present.

While considered obsolete by the developed nations, muskets are very common civilian and militia weapons throughout the world, and poorer nations continue to use them as their primary weapon. This weapon's .94 ball deals impressive damage, but its lack of range and accuracy make it an inferior weapon in most cases.

(This weapon is based off the Long Land Pattern Musket, or "Brown Bess". It fires a substantially larger ball than Bess did, a cheap attempt by the manufacturers of this obsolete weapon to make up for its inadequacies.)

Musket rifle:
Proficiency: Simple
Critical: 19-20, x2
Damage: 2d10, pierce
Range increment: 120ft
Reload: Two rounds, one round with paper cartridges
Hardness: 5
HP: 25
Weight: 10lbs
Cost: 100
Ammunition type: Mini ball
Requires two hands to reload, but can be fired one-handed at a -4 penalty to hit.

The standard military weapon of most nations in Aelsif is the musket rifle, usually loaded with paper cartridges. While its .79 Mini ball doesn't as much punch as the musket's .94 ball, musket rifles have much better range.

(This weapon classification includes both musket-rifles and muzzle-loading rifles. The difference being musket-rifles are converted muskets and muzzle-loading rifles were built that way. It is most closely based off the P1851 Mini Rifle, a muzzle-loading rifle in .71 calibre.)

Repeating rifle:
Proficiency: Martial
Critical: 19-20, x2
Damage: 1d12, pierce
Range increment: 120ft
Reload: Full reload in two rounds, reloads two cartridges in one round
Special: Can fire six rounds before needing to reload.
Hardness: 5
HP: 25
Weight: 8lbs
Cost: 500
Ammunition type: Repeater cartridge
Requires two hands to reload, but can be fired one-handed at a -4 penalty to hit.

The lever-action repeating rifle is considered a state of the art weapon in most parts of the world, able to rapidly fire .47 calibre cartridges. While only the Gnomelands give these out as standard-issue weapons, several developed nations issue these to elite units and wealthy private citizens often purchase repeating rifles for personal use.

(This weapon is based off the Winchester Model 1873. Its .47 has case dimensions of 12x36mm compared to the .44-40's case dimensions of 11x33mm, and is a slightly harder hitting weapon.)

Automatic* rifle:
Proficiency: Exotic
Critical: 19-20, x2
Damage: 1d10, pierce
Range increment: 120ft
Reload: Full reload in one round
Special: Can fire ten rounds before needing to reload.
Hardness: 5
HP: 25
Weight: 8lbs
Cost: 2500
Ammunition type: Automatic cartridge
Requires two hands to reload, but can be fired one-handed at a -4 penalty to hit.

*This is using "automatic" in the historical sense. In modern terminology, this is a semi-automatic weapon.

While too new to have been adopted by any military, even in the Gnomelands, the .31 Automatic Rifle is produced by a private Gnomish manufacturer, loading with a detachable 10-round box magazine. While it is considered treason to willfully allow automatics to leave the country, there is a thriving black market charging exorbitant prices for these impressive weapons.

(This weapon is based off the Winchester Model 1905. Its .31 calibre round has case dimensions of 8x32mm, compared to the .32 Winchester's 8x31, and it is a very similar weapon in use.)

Pistol:
Proficiency: Simple
Critical: 18-20, x2
Damage: 2d8, pierce
Range increment: 30ft
Reload: Full round action, move action with paper cartridges
Hardness: 5
HP: 25
Weight: 2lbs
Cost: 25
Ammunition type: Pistol ball
Requires two hands to reload, but can be fired one-handed without penalty.

A common civilian weapon, the obsolete smoothbore pistol has a large .63 bore but very little range.

(Based most directly off of Queen Anne style Duelling Pistols, old 18th century English pistols most prominently manufactured in .58 calibre.)

Dueling pistol:
Proficiency: Simple
Critical: 19-20, x2
Damage: 2d6, pierce
Range increment: 60ft
Reload: Full round action
Hardness: 5
HP: 25
Weight: 2lbs
Cost: 50
Ammunition type: Pistol Mini
Requires two hands to reload, but can be fired one-handed without penalty.

The dueling pistol features a rifled barrel at the cost of a smaller .47 bore, which made it the go-to choice of duelists until it was supplanted by the revolver.

(This is based off of later, 19th century percussion cap Duelling Pistols. The rifling here is much heavier than the scratch rifling of the era, but that's because in real life using a rifled pistol was considered "unsporting" and the cheaters had to hide it. Pistols of this type were most commonly .45, so this is a very normal pistol.)

Revolver:
Proficiency: Martial
Critical: 19-20, x2
Damage: 1d10, pierce
Range increment: 60ft
Reload: Two rounds, one round with speedloader.
Special: Can fire six rounds before needing to reload.
Hardness: 5
HP: 25
Weight: 2lbs
Cost: 200
Ammunition type: Revolver cartridge
Requires two hands to reload, but can be fired one-handed with no penalty.

Much more common than the repeating rifle, the revolver is widely issued as an officer's sidearm and is a favourite weapon of wealthy private citizens. Accurate and able to sustain a good rate of fire, the revolver's only real drawback is poor stopping power.

(This weapon is based off of the Colt M1892, a very early double-action revolver. Its .39 has case dimensions of 10x30, compared to the .38 Long Colt's 9x26mm, giving it better stopping power, something the M1892 legendarily lacked.)

Automatic* pistol:
Proficiency: Exotic
Critical: 19-20, x2
Damage: 1d8, pierce
Range increment: 60ft
Reload: Full-round action.
Special: Can fire ten rounds before needing to reload.
Hardness: 5
HP: 25
Weight: 2lbs
Cost: 1000
Ammunition type: Automatic cartridge
Requires two hands to reload, but can be fired one-handed with no penalty.

*Again, this is using the historical sense.

Often just referred to as "The Automatic", the Gnomish pistol is the most expensive handgun in the world, and widely considered to be the best. While manufactured in a variety of sizes and calibres, such as the .31 listed above, the most common is the Gnomish .24, awkwardly small in the hands of men but perfect for Gnomish officers.

(This weapon is based off the Mauser C96, its case dimensions of 8x24 being slightly larger than the 7.63x25mm Mauser and packing a little more punch, though that's not saying much.)

Blunderbuss:
Proficiency: Simple
Critical: 20, x2
Damage: 1d8, pierce
Range increment: 30ft
Reload: Two rounds
Special: Fires 10 pellets. If an attack successfully hits, it hits 1d10 times.
Hardness: 5
HP: 25
Weight: 10lbs
Cost: 50
Ammunition type: Shot
Requires two hands to reload, but can be fired one-handed at a -4 penalty to hit.

The blunderbuss is a dangerous muzzle-loading firearm commonly used to hunt game and for civilian self-defence. Unfortunately, its short range and poor performance against even the lightest armour prevents it from seeing military use, even in poor nations.

(Based off the Harper's Ferry blunderbuss, as used by the Lewis & Clark expedition.)

Repeating shotgun:
Proficiency: Martial
Critical: 20, x2
Damage: 1d6, pierce
Range increment: 30ft
Reload: Two rounds reloads fully, one round reloads two shells.
Special: This weapon can be fired six times before needing to reload. Fires 10 pellets. If an attack successfully hits, it hits 1d10 times.
Hardness: 5
HP: 25
Weight: 8lbs
Cost: 500
Ammunition type: Shotshell
Requires two hands to reload, but can be fired one-handed at a -4 penalty to hit.

Rarely produced, even more rarely issued, the lever-action repeating shotgun is mostly a weapon for sport hunting amongst wealthy private citizens and royalty in particular. Its low capacity, short range and poor stopping power make it unsuited to combat, however, and the price doesn't help.

(Based off of the Winchester 1887, a 12-guage lever-action shotgun.)

Dragon:
Proficiency: Simple
Critical: 20, x2
Damage: 1d6, pierce
Range increment: 30ft
Reload: One round
Special: Fires 10 pellets. If an attack successfully hits, it hits 1d10 times.
Hardness: 5
HP: 25
Weight: 2lbs
Cost: 50
Ammunition type: Dragon shot
Requires two hands to reload, but can be fired one-handed with no penalty.

The dragon is a pistol blunderbuss, known for its great kick and questionable stopping power. While against unarmoured opponents it is very effective, the dragon is ineffectual against even the lightest armour and has no military applications as a result.

(Based off the Royal Mail Blunderbuss, a short-barrelled late 18th century flintlock.)

Repeating shotpistol:
Proficiency: Martial
Critical: 20, x2
Damage: 1d4, pierce
Range increment: 30ft
Reload: Two rounds reloads fully, one round reloads two shells.
Special: This weapon can be fired six times before needing to reload. Fires 10 pellets. If an attack successfully hits, it hits 1d10 times.
Hardness: 5
HP: 25
Weight: 2lbs
Cost: 500
Ammunition type: Shotshell
Requires two hands to reload, but can be fired one-handed with no penalty.

For good reason, this is the least popular firearm in the world. It has great potential damage at close range due to its rate of fire and the combined damage of its shot, but it is often defeated by heavy clothing in a way no firearm should be. Still sees niche use for small game hunting and as a personal self defence weapon against animal attacks, though most people who need something for that purpose can't afford to spend 500.

(Not directly based off of any particular weapon, but revolvers made for small-bore shotshells do exist, and are usually called "backpacker" shotguns. And yes, they're designed for small game hunting and emergency defence against animal attacks, which is a thing they are actually pretty good at.)


Pistol balls: 5/20 (4lbs)
Pistol minie: 8/20 (4lbs)
Revolver cartridge: 20/30 (3lbs)
Automatic cartridge: 20/30 (3lbs)

Musket balls: 10/20 (8lbs)
Minie balls: 15/20 (8lbs)
Repeater cartridge: 40/30 (6lbs)
Automatic rifle cartridge: 40/40 (6lbs)

Grapeshot: 30/20 (16lbs)
Repeater shotshell: 40/30 (12lbs)
Dragon shot: 30/20 (8lbs)
Revolver shotshell: 40/30 (6lbs)

Heavy weapons can destroy an entire party:
There exist crew-served weapons in Aelsif, primarily cannons and mortars but also including hand-cranked gatling guns. These weapons, poorly approached, can easily result in a TPK. Cannons deal extremely high damage to a single target, mortars deal half that much damage in an area and gatling guns hit multiple times per attack for very ordinary damage and can attack repeatedly before reloading. All heavy weapons use touch attacks or AoE.

Grenades are a thing:
Want a grenade? You can have a grenade. These are old-school fuse-lit grenades, resembling a metal sphere the size of a fist. They deal decent damage in an area, though casters can easily exceed their damage. Firebombs are much the same, only a smaller area and they deal their damage over time to everything in that area, largely acting as an obstacle rather than a functional weapon unless the target can't move and has really low fire resistance.


Molotov:
Range: 30ft + 5ft/STR
Spread: 10ft
Damage: 1d6/round
Duration: 10 rounds
Save: Reflex, 20
Craft DC: 10
Cost: 5
Weight: 2lbs

A molotov cocktail is a glass bottle filled with flammable material, typically petroleum. You must have a means of lighting a molotov to make use of it. You may throw it a distance of up to 30ft plus 5ft for each point of strength bonus. Throwing it at a particular space sets everything currently within that area on fire for 1d6 fire damage per round for 10 rounds. Anything within the area affected by the molotov cocktail takes an additional 1d6 fire damage, as does anything that grapples or is grappled by a creature set on fire by the molotov. If desired, the target can use a full-round action to attempt to extinguish the flames before taking additional damage. Extinguishing the flames requires a DC 20 Reflex save. Rolling on the ground provides the target a +4 bonus on the save. Leaping into a lake or magically extinguishing the flames automatically smothers the fire.

(Yes, this renders alchemist's fire completely obsolete. It's supposed to.)

Grenade:
Range: 30ft + 5ft/STR
Spread: 20ft
Damage: 5d6 Piercing
Delay: 1-2 rounds
Save: Reflex, 15
Craft DC: 15
Cost: 25
Weight: 2lbs

A grenade is an iron sphere loaded with gunpowder and shot, detonated by a fuse. You must have a means of lighting a grenade to make use of it. You may throw it a distance of up to 30ft plus 5ft for each point of strength bonus. At the start of the next combat round, the grenade will detonate and pelt everything within 20ft with shrapnel for 5d6 points of piercing damage.

Dynamite:
Range: 30ft + 5ft/STR
Spread: 10ft
Damage: 10d6 bludgeon
Delay: 1-5 Rounds
Save: Reflex, 20
Craft DC: 20
Cost: 50
Weight: 2lbs

Dynamite is an explosive consisting of nitroglycerin soaked into diatomaceous earth and encased in a paper tubing. Fairly new to Aelsif, dynamite has revolutionized the mining industry and almost immediately seen use an an improvised explosive weapon. You must have a means of lighting a grenade to make use of it. You may throw it a distance of up to 30ft plus 5ft for each point of strength bonus. At the start of the next combat round, the grenade will detonate and blast within 10ft with a powerful shockwave for 10d6 points of bludgeon damage.



There are now five classifications of armour:
These are clothing, light, medium, heavy and assault. There's two standard armours in each class, three for clothing. These are light, medium and heavy clothing, gambeson (padded armour), byrnie (chainshirt), cuirass (breastplate), hauberk (chainmail), brigandine and plate. Above that are o-yoroi armor, cataphract armor and tournament armor, stupidly heavy gear designed strictly for shock cavalry and unfit for use on foot. The AC progression is still the same. The importance of adding clothing to the list is that you can get 0-2 points of AC without having to have any armour proficiencies, as all classes are proficient with clothing. It also does not cause arcane spell failure.

Armour also adds damage reduction:
Armour is still primarily about AC, but DR is a useful secondary effect determined by material. The heavier the armour, the more DR it adds. Clothing adds 0-5 (usually 1), light armour adds 0-10 (usually 2), medium armour adds 0-15 (usually 3) and heavy armour adds 0-20 (usually 4). Super heavy gear also exists, which provides 0-25 DR (usually 5). This may not be enough DR to stop incoming attacks from equal-level enemies and there is always one damage type to bypass it, but it does definitely make a difference. Armour also provides energy resistance, equal to its DR. The full table is below.

Note: Super heavy armor is still a heavy load, but prevents a character from running, limiting them to a 2x hustle and no faster. It is, of course, meant ONLY for cavalry.


Light cloth
Proficiency: Clothing
Armor bonus: +0
Dex cap: +10
DR 1/Slashing
Armor check penalty: 0
Arcane spell failure: 0%
HP: 50
Weight: 1lbs
Cost: 1

Light leather
Proficiency: Clothing
Armor bonus: +0
Dex cap: +10
DR 1/Piercing
Armor check penalty: 0
Arcane spell failure: 0%
HP: 50
Weight: 1lbs
Cost: 1

Cloth:
Proficiency: Clothing
Armor bonus: +1
Dex cap: +9
DR 1/Slashing
Armor check penalty: -1
Arcane spell failure: 0%
HP: 60
Weight: 2lbs
Cost: 5

Leather:
Proficiency: Clothing
Armor bonus: +1
Dex cap: +9
DR 1/Piercing
Armor check penalty: -1
Arcane spell failure: 0%
HP: 60
Weight: 2lbs
Cost: 5

Heavy cloth:
Proficiency: Clothing
Armor bonus: +2
Dex cap: +8
DR 1/Slashing
Armor check penalty: -2
Arcane spell failure: 0%
HP: 70
Weight: 5lbs
Cost: 10

Heavy leather:
Proficiency: Clothing
Armor bonus: +2
Dex cap: +8
DR 1/Piercing
Armor check penalty: -2
Arcane spell failure: 0%
HP: 70
Weight: 5lbs
Cost: 10

Gambeson:
Proficiency: Light armor
Armor bonus: +3
Dex cap: +7
DR 2/Slashing
Armor check penalty: -3
Arcane spell failure: 15%
Weight: 10lbs
HP: 80
Cost: 20

Scale:
Proficiency: Light armor
Armor bonus: +3
Dex cap: +7
DR 2/Bludgeon
Armor check penalty: -3
Arcane spell failure: 15%
Weight: 10lbs
HP: 80
Cost: 20

Byrnie:
Proficiency: Light armor
Armor bonus: +4
Dex cap: +6
DR 2/Piercing
Armor check penalty: -4
Arcane spell failure: 20%
Weight: 20lbs
HP: 90
Cost: 40

Lamellar:
Proficiency: Light armor
Armor bonus: +4
Dex cap: +6
DR 2/Bludgeon
Armor check penalty: -4
Arcane spell failure: 20%
Weight: 20lbs
HP: 90
Cost: 40

Breastplate:
Proficiency: Medium armor
Armor bonus: +5
Dex cap: +5
DR 3/Slashing
Armor check penalty: -5
Arcane spell failure: 25%
Weight: 30lbs
HP: 100
Cost: 100

Hauberk:
Proficiency: Medium armor
Armor bonus: +6
Dex cap: +4
DR 3/Piercing
Armor check penalty: -6
Arcane spell failure: 30%
Weight: 40lbs
HP: 110
Cost: 200

Brigandine:
Proficiency: Heavy armor
Armor bonus: +7
Dex cap: +3
DR 4/Bludgeon
Armor check penalty: -7
Arcane spell failure: 35%
Weight: 50lbs
HP: 120
Cost: 500

Plate:
Proficiency: Heavy armor
Armor bonus: +8
Dex cap: +2
DR 4/Bludgeon
Armor check penalty: -8
Arcane spell failure: 40%
Weight: 60lbs
HP: 130
Cost: 1000

O-yoroi:
Proficiency: Assault armor
Armor bonus: +9
Dex cap: +1
DR 5/Slashing
Armor check penalty: -9
Arcane spell failure: 45%
Weight: 70lbs
HP: 140
Cost: 2500

Cataphract armor:
Proficiency: Assault armor
Armor bonus: +9
Dex cap: +1
DR 5/Piercing
Armor check penalty: -9
Arcane spell failure: 45%
Weight: 70lbs
HP: 140
Cost: 2500

Tournament armor:
Proficiency: Assault armor
Armor bonus: +10
Dex cap: +0
DR 5/Bludgeon
Armor check penalty: -10
Arcane spell failure: 50%
Weight: 80lbs
HP: 150
Cost: 5000



Light cloth, cloth, heavy cloth:
Rags: DR 0, 1/2 hit points, /10
Cotton: DR 1,
Hemp: DR 2, 2x hit points, x10
Linen: DR 3, 3x hit points, x100
Silk: DR 4, 4x hit points, x1,000
Celestial fabric: DR 5, 5x hit points, x10,000

Light leather, leather, heavy leather:
Hides: DR 0, 1/2 hit points, /10
Plain leather: DR 1,
Treated leather: DR 2, 2x hit points, x10
Reptile skin: DR 3, 3x hit points, x100
Chitin: DR 4, 4x hit points, x1,000
Celestial synthetic: DR 5, 5x hit points, 10,000

Gambeson:
Ragged: DR 0, 1/2 hit points, /10
Unstuffed: DR 2, 1x hit points,
Hair stuffed: DR 4, 2x hit points, x10
Flax stuffed: DR 6, 3x hit points, x100
Silk stuffed: DR 8, 4x hit points, x1,000
Celestial armor fiber: DR 10, 5x hit points, 10,000

Byrnie/Scale/lamellar:
Rusty: DR 0, 1/2 hit points, /10
Iron: DR 2, 1x hit points,
Steel: DR 4, 2x hit points, x10
Hardened steel: DR 6, 3x hit points, x100
Royal steel: DR 8, 4x hit points, x1,000
Celestial armor steel: DR 10, 5x hit points, x10,000

Copper: DR 0, 1x hit points, immune to rust,
Bronze: DR 2, 2x hit points, immune to rust, x10
Hardened bronze: DR 4, 3x hit points, immune to rust, x100
Jungle bronze: DR 6, 4x hit points, immune to rust, x1,000
Celestial bronze: DR 8, 5x hit points, immune to rust, x10,000

Breastplate & Hauberk:
Rusty: DR 0, 1/2 hit points, /10
Iron: DR 3, 1x hit points,
Steel: DR 6, 2x hit points, x10
Hardened steel: DR 9, 3x hit points, x100
Royal steel: DR 12, 4x hit points, x1,000
Celestial armor steel: DR 15, 5x hit points, x10,000

Copper: DR 0, 1x hit points, immune to rust,
Bronze: DR 3, 2x hit points, immune to rust, x10
Hardened bronze: DR 6, 3x hit points, immune to rust, x100
Jungle bronze: DR 9, 4x hit points, immune to rust, x1,000
Celestial bronze: DR 12, 5x hit points, immune to rust, x10,000

Brigandine & Plate:
Rusty: DR 0, 1/2 hit points, /10
Iron: DR 4, 1x hit points,
Steel: DR 8, 2x hit points, x10
Hardened steel: DR 12, 3x hit points, x100
Royal steel: DR 16, 4x hit points, x1,000
Celestial armor steel: DR 20, 5x hit points, x10,000

Copper: DR 0, 1x hit points, immune to rust,
Bronze: DR 4, 2x hit points, immune to rust, x10
Hardened bronze: DR 8, 3x hit points, immune to rust, x100
Jungle bronze: DR 12, 4x hit points, immune to rust, x1,000
Celestial bronze: DR 16, 5x hit points, immune to rust, x10,000

O-yoroi, cataphract & tournament armor:
Rusty: DR 0, 1/2 hit points, /10
Iron: DR 5, 1x hit points,
Steel: DR 10, 2x hit points, x10
Hardened steel: DR 15, 3x hit points, x100
Royal steel: DR 20, 4x hit points, x1,000
Celestial armor steel: DR 25, 5x hit points, x10,000

Copper: DR 0, 1x hit points, immune to rust,
Bronze: DR 5, 2x hit points, immune to rust, x10
Hardened bronze: DR 10, 3x hit points, immune to rust, x100
Jungle bronze: DR 15, 4x hit points, immune to rust, x1,000
Celestial bronze: DR 20, 5x hit points, immune to rust, x10,000


Shields also add their bonus to your reflex save:
What it says. Also, bucklers need a hand because bucklers are ALWAYS centre-grip shields. Shields use the same materials as weapons, with the same effects.

Improvised weapons don't suck:
They no longer get a -4. They don't receive enhancement bonuses, but as long as they are reasonably sized they make decent weapons. That NPC thief with the crowbar? They will smash your skull straight open.

New feats:
Just to enhance this, there are a number of new feats. These include, but are not limited to, "Brutality" (killing an enemy causes remaining enemies to become shaken, especially good at dispersing pack animals), "Edge Alignment" (slash weapons can use dex for damage), "Wounding Strike" (criticals deal constitution damage), and "Armour focus" (+2 AC with armour of a particular type).

The great creature nerf:
Creatures, animals in particular, have been nerfed. There's only three parts to this.

The AC nerf:
Most animals cannot block or dodge. As such, they have lost their base 10 AC. This means most animals will have 10 less AC than they used to. That is, a wolf's AC drops from 14 to 4, a brown bear's AC drops from 15 to 5. That AC isn't completely irrelevant, but most attacks aimed at animals will hit, since they can't block or dodge. Any animal that can dodge but couldn't block (that is, any biped without arms, and any animal flying that is rated average or better) gets base 5 AC. Any animal that could block but couldn't dodge (any non-biped with arms) also gets base 5 AC. Only characters who can both block and dodge (bipeds with arms) get base 10 AC.

The special attack nerf:
Grapple attempts and similar special attacks (trip, sunder) made by creatures without hands get a -4. That includes those made with bites. That -4 also applies to rolls to resist these effects. Whether you're taking the bull by the horns, you're pulling away from a wolf bite or the monkey on a bear's back, you've got a 4 point advantage.

Bites now provoke attacks of opportunity:
Any bite attack provokes and cannot make attacks of opportunity. This means any animal that has no other offensive option eats a shot to the skull each time it tries to attack. This nerf is partly for realism and party because the pierce/slash/bludgeon trifecta would be super OP against armour in ways a real bite simply isn't and needed balancing.

The result of the NPC buff and animal nerf:
Your average NPC will no longer lose a fight with a ****ING HOUSE CAT. In fact, they should win a fight with any animal that they wouldn't lose a fight to in real life. Some larger animals are still a lethal threat to the typical NPC, but weapons and armour overturn that pretty easily, and even without them NPCs can easily kill larger creatures by ganging up on them.

Animal armor:
To prevent rangers from being hit too hard, animals can now wear armour. It is identical to human armor, you use tricks to make them proficient.

Miscellaneous:
There are some other changes, as well.

Wisdom is now faith:
Faith is the new, more appropriately named replacement for wisdom. It represents the strength of a character's convictions, and is closely related to belief and willpower. While high-faith characters suffer in terms of behaviour, largely due to their inherent closed-mindedness, their stats definitely benefit. Faith steals the concentration skill from constitution, but otherwise affects no skills. All of wisdom's skills have been moved to intelligence or charisma. Faith's new benefit is spell resistance, characters now gain spell resistance equal to their character level (NOT hit dice) plus their faith modifier. It isn't much spell resistance, but it's not a bad amount.

Crit immunity is not a thing:
Anything can be critically hit and sneak attacked, end of story.

You now die at -100%:
This is straight forward. See your max HP? You now die at negative that. If you have 13hp, you die at -13. If you have 150hp, you die at -150. However, you cannot regain consciousness without first recovering all of your negative hit points, you don't have a 10% chance of just miraculously getting back up after stabilising. Instead, all it means is you won't actually die. Any damage while under 0 HP will start you dying again.

Magic doesn't stabilize:
Being healed by a spell does not automatically stabilize you, ot even if you are healed to 0 or into a positive hit point total. You are still disabled at 0 while dying, and still fully functional above 0 while dying. Only a heal check, natural stabilization, restoration (including lesser) or returning to full HP will stop you from dying. The heal DC is now 10 plus how far below 0 the target is, and stabilisation chance is 1%.

Alternative massive damage:
The new massive damage threshold is equal to twice your hit dice. There is no save. Failure causes you to start dying, but you don't immediately lose consciousness. See above. Creatures immune to wounding, bleeding or critical hits are immune to massive damage as well.

SR is voluntary:
It only applies when you want it to, as it is fluffed as stemming from mental focus against magic. A "Reject your reality" kind of thing. It will not prevent buffs or healing.

Cantrips and orisons are infinite use:
See Pathfinder for details. In exchange, cure and inflict minor wounds have been removed entirely. And virtue never stacked, by the way, don't try and pull that.

There are NO alignments:
Alignments do not exist. If you want to make a LG character, you can, but it has no bearing on the game. You can't detect it, you can't target it, enemies aren't going to hit you with word of chaos or blasphemy, there is no alignment listing anywhere in the game so it's just your opinion and your ideal of your character's behaviour. That's it.

There are no outer planes:
Summoning and calling work radically differently, at least in lore, and plane shift is replaced with greater teleport, which is a seemingly infinite range teleport, its stated range is so far above and beyond (10,000 miles per level) you can effectively teleport anywhere. Well, anywhere on THIS planet, that is. Word of Recall also has a range limit applied of 10,000 miles per level. There's a damn good lore reason for that, I assure you.

There's no resurrection, either:
Technically you can resurrect things in a very limited and restricted manner in-game, but we're talking a good-length quest to bring back one reasonably fresh dead guy. You are not just casting a spell and making death utterly meaningless.

New age categories:
Aelsif revamps the age category system. Age category primarily affects stats, but at the high and low end it affects movement speed and at the low end it also affects size.


Infant: (Unplayable)
Stats: -6 Str, -6 Fth, +6 Cha
Special: Size decreased by 2.
Speed: 10ft
This is an actual infant, anywhere from birth to two years. The stats above are based off an infant of around one year old, a fast crawler but unlikely to be walking or talking much just yet. This age category is not meant to be playable. They're weak, they're slow, and while they're certainly cute it doesn't make up for the burden they place on the party. Give mom some maternity leave, you don't want baby in the party.

Toddler: (DM discretion)
Stats: -4 Str, -4 Fth, +6 Cha
Special: Size decreased by 1.
Speed: 15ft
This is a toddler, anywhere from two years to four years. The stats are based off a toddler of about two years. A toddler may be a severely underpowered party member, but they make an adorable mascot. Unfortunately, that's about all they're good for early on. They aren't as much of a burden as an infant because they can walk at a decent-ish speed and have better stats, but they are a burden. That charisma bonus does have some uses, though, especially with a few particular classes like sorcerer and favored soul.

Child:
Stats: -2 Str, -2 Fth, +2 Dex, +4 Cha
Special: Size decreased by 1.
Speed: 20ft
Children are about what you'd expect, ranging from four years to ten years. The stats are based off a child of about six years. These characters are competent enough, but you may consider giving them adult supervision. Their movement speed is reasonable, in the sense that a halfling's movement speed is reasonable, their stats are overall decent and unlike other small, slow-moving party members they're unlikely to be offended if you have to carry them.

Adolescent:
Stats: -2 Fth, +2 Cha
Speed: 30ft
Adolescents are in the awkward years between ten and sixteen. The stats are based off a 12-year old preteen. These characters may be considered children or adults depending on jurisdiction. The fact that age of consent and age of majority are frequently 12 or below says some really unpleasant things about Aelsif, but it's important to keep in mind when you go travelling. They are also definitely competent enough not to need you to hold their hand. Their stat adjustments are all fairly negligible and they have no speed penalty.

Young adult:
Stats: Default.
Speed: 30ft
Young adult is also exactly what it sounds like, ranging from sixteen to twenty-six. The stats are based off somebody around age 20. This is the default age for a reason, it's the most common age for new soldiers, mercenaries, couriers, missionaries, explorers and just about everything else. Very few of the adventurer professions hire older than this, if you're just starting out you're probably a kid.

Adult:
Stats: -1 Str, -1 Dex, -1 Con, +2 Fth
Speed: 30ft
Adult is one of the largest age groups, ranging from twenty-six to thirty-six. Its effects are fairly simple, a -1 on all physical attributes, but +2 faith. While this is simple, a lot of variables will determine if that's worth it. Like whether you care about all three of those stats, and how long the campaign is. In the short-term it's definitely a strong starting point, but in the long run those stat penalties may be more significant.

Middle Age:
Stats: -2 Str, -2 Dex, -2 Con, +4 Fth
Speed: 30ft
Middle age is the dreaded years from 36 to 50, where you're not as strong, as spry or as tough as you used to be, men lose almost all of their testosterone, women go into menopause, your hair starts falling out, you're sick half the year and you're ALWAYS tired. At the very least, it's better than what happens next. Sure, you're still good to do your job, but that won't last.

Elder: (DM discretion)
Stats: -2 Str, -2 Dex, -4 Con, +6 Fth
Speed: 20ft
As an elder between fifty and sixty-five, you know being old really, REALLY sucks. Take all the issues of middle age and add on "performance" issues and incontinence, a rapidly degrading mental state and even worse physicality than you already had. This is the point where your body is out of warrantee, and predictably you're falling apart. Age is definitely a net negative by this point, but in a faith-based class you may still be useful, so if you think you still have it in you grab your cane and start walking.

Senior: (DM discretion)
Stats: -2 Str, -2 Dex, -4 Con, -2 Int, -2 Cha, +8 Fth
Speed: 15ft
This is the senior citizen zone, from sixty-five to eighty. The stats above reflect pretty well the collapse of one's mind and body, as there's very little worthwhile left within you. But you do have one thing, you're stubborn and your faith is stronger now than it's ever been. Granted, that's because the smart part of your brain is failing and the dumb part is trying to compensate, but the people around you will mistake your animalistic ritualism for wisdom and it does genuinely make you a better caster in a few classes.

Ancient: (Unplayable)
Stats: -2 Str, -2 Dex, -4 Con, -4 Int, -4 Cha, +10 Fth
Speed: 10ft
This is the age class for people who really should be dead by now. Year-wise, it ranges from eighty on up. There's no true maximum age in this game, but suffice to say as an adventurer your life is over. You've degraded too far now, senility is in full swing and you can barely walk. It's about time to quit. This age category is not meant to be playable. Stop pushing the wheelchair and put grandad in a home.

Adjusting age for the 16 player races is easy, though they adjust much less than in other settings.

Lizardfolk, Sahuagin, Orcs & Kobolds: -25%
Humans, Hobgoblins, Goblins & Halflings: Listed ages
Dwarves, Gnomes, Korobokuru & Nezumi: +25%
Elves & Spirit Folk (bamboo, sea and river): +50%

This does not affect starting level.

If your race has a listed speed of 20ft, than:
Fast ages move at 20ft
Medium ages move at 15ft
Slow ages move at 10ft
Very slow ages move at 5ft

If you are a barbarian and at a load that makes you subject to fast movement:
If your speed was 30ft, it is now 40ft.
If your speed was 20ft, it is now 30ft.
If your speed was 15ft, it is now 20ft.
If your speed was 10ft, it is now 15ft.
If your speed was 5ft, it is now 10ft.

Armor:
Encumbrance:
If you take an armor penalty (medium or heavy armor) to base move speed, than:
If your speed was 40ft, it is now 30ft.
If your speed was 30ft, it is now 20ft.
If your speed was 20ft, it is now 15ft.
If your speed was 15ft, it is now 10ft.
If your speed was 10ft, it is now 5ft.
If your speed was 5ft, it is still 5ft.
The heavy armor penalty to run speed still applies, characters in heavy armor can only run 3x speed, 4x with the run feat.

Encumbrance:
If you take an encumbrance penalty (medium or heavy load) to base move speed, than:
If your speed was 40ft, it is now 30ft.
If your speed was 30ft, it is now 20ft.
If your speed was 20ft, it is now 15ft.
If your speed was 15ft, it is now 10ft.
If your speed was 10ft, it is now 5ft.
If your speed was 5ft, it is still 5ft.

noob
2017-05-17, 01:02 PM
Wisdom is now faith:
Faith is the new, more appropriately named replacement for wisdom. It represents the strength of a character's convictions, and is closely related to belief and willpower. While high-faith characters suffer in terms of behaviour, largely due to their inherent closed-mindedness, their stats definitely benefit. Faith steals the concentration skill from constitution, but otherwise affects no skills. All of wisdom's skills have been moved to intelligence or charisma. Faith's new benefit is spell resistance, characters now gain spell resistance equal to their character level (NOT hit dice) plus their faith modifier. It isn't much spell resistance, but it's not a bad amount.


So you nerf massively clerics and any wisdom based character by replacing the awesome stat named wisdom with the super negative stat named faith that gives you magic resistance which is awful(you need a simple action to drop spell resistance for one round so basically if you want to be healed or to be buffed you will now need to spend a lot of simple actions if you have high faith)
Basically a cleric is immune to boosts and healing unless he spends actions dropping his magic resistance.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-17, 01:14 PM
So you nerf massively clerics and any wisdom based character by replacing the awesome stat named wisdom with the super negative stat named faith that gives you magic resistance which is awful(you need a simple action to drop spell resistance for one round so basically if you want to be healed or to be buffed you will now need to spend a lot of simple actions if you have high faith)
Basically a cleric is immune to boosts and healing unless he spends actions dropping his magic resistance.

And you think that I can't just write in the standard-issue house rule 90% of DMs use that beneficial spells aren't affected by spell resistance unless you want them to? That house rule is so stupidly common I didn't even think to write it down, but I'll just write it now.

Shark Uppercut
2017-05-18, 02:12 PM
Armour also provides energy resistance, equal to its damage reduction.
What type of energy?



New feats:
"Edge Alignment" (slash weapons can use dex for damage)
"Wounding Strike" (criticals deal constitution damage)
What was wrong with Deadly Agility from Pathfinder?
What are the requirements for Wounding Strike?


The AC nerf:
Most animals cannot block or dodge. As such, they have lost their base 10 AC. This means most animals will have 10 less AC than they used to. That is, a wolf's AC drops from 14 to 4, a brown bear's AC drops from 15 to 5. That AC isn't completely irrelevant, but most attacks aimed at animals will hit, since they can't block or dodge. Any animal that can dodge but couldn't block (that is, any biped without arms) gets base 5 AC. Any animal that could block but couldn't dodge (any non-biped with arms) also gets base 5 AC. Only characters who can both block and dodge (bipeds with arms) get base 10 AC.

The special attack nerf:
Grapple attempts and similar special attacks (trip, sunder) made by creatures without hands get a -4. That includes those made with bites. That -4 also applies to rolls to resist these effects. Whether you're taking the bull by the horns, you're pulling away from a wolf bite or the monkey on a bear's back, you've got a 4 point advantage.

Bites now provoke attacks of opportunity:
Any bite attack provokes and cannot make attacks of opportunity. This means any animal that has no other offensive option eats a shot to the skull each time it tries to attack.

Who are you targeting with these nerfs? CR1 Wolves? CR5 Tigers? Dragons? Why is this so human-centric?

Can centaurs dodge? Dragons? Giant centipedes? Does having multiples arms give more AC to block with? Do flying or levitating creatures get dodging AC? Do telekinetic creatures get block AC even if they don't have arms?
Are you allowed to block anything with your arms? Even a sword on fire? Or a boulder?
Do you actually need to have arms free to have 10 AC? Would encumbrance stop you from dodging or blocking?

Why are monsters with tentacles worse at grappling? The lack of a skeleton would make them more flexible than a vertebrate with hands and bones.

The bite thing in particular makes no sense. Biting is not an awkward attack that leaves you vulnerable. From an evolutionary perspective, it is the single most efficient way for 90% of predators to finish off prey. Shark bites, crocodile bites, even dog bites, these are not creatures making themselves vulnerable.

In your world, how to creatures hunt? You've made all bite-based predators a lot worse.
Are druids compensated at all for a much worse companion, and a much worse wild shape?

Avianmosquito
2017-05-18, 02:34 PM
What type of energy?

All? Fire, cold, acid, sonic, force, negative, positive, every form of energy. I may have to write down that this can be bypassed with a touch attack on a willing target to prevent it from nerfing healing, though I think most players can figure that out.


What was wrong with Deadly Agility from Pathfinder?

I forgot about it, and it didn't exist in 3.5e anyway? It's the same feat, it even has the same requirements, it's just a different name.


What are the requirements for Wounding Strike?

Weapon focus, BAB +6.


Who are you targeting with these nerfs? CR1 Wolves? CR5 Tigers? Dragons? Why? Can centaurs dodge? Dragons? Giant centipedes? Does having multiples arms give more AC to block with?

Anything that's not bipedal. See, bipedal locomotion is a requirement to dodge because it allows quick motion in all directions and no other means of locomotion does that. At least, not on land. In the water nothing can dodge, and in the air everything can. The reason is the mounting of a creature's joints. A quadruped, as an example, can only move backwards very slowly because they can't generate much force in that direction. This is because their legs are mounted forward of their hips, which means they have terrible leverage when pushing forward. They also have no ability to move sideways because their joints only move very slightly to each side and with no force, and they are very slow to turn because of how much of their mass is horizontally distant from their centre of gravity, which also makes their acceleration a little slower, though that depends on species. Being a slow turner only really able to move forward with any speed and a somewhat reduced acceleration is NOT good for dodging.

So no, wolves, tigers, centaurs and giant centipedes can't dodge. Dragons could in the air, but not on the ground. As for more arms being helpful in blocking, it's really not. You can only block an attack once, and you can only track one thing visually at a time, it doesn't work for the same reason two pistols doesn't work. It would allow more attacks, but that's about it.

Now, "biped" covers a lot more than you might think. I want to make that clear. It doesn't just include humanoids. Apes and monkeys are also bipeds, as are all forms of bird. Apes and monkeys have base 10 AC, birds have base 5. That centaur and dragon you mentioned? They can block (assuming a variety of dragons that has arms), so they have base 5 AC. That dragon can also dodge in the air, everything that flies can dodge while flying, for base 10 AC when not grounded. Even so, most creatures are taking an AC hit.


Why are monsters with tentacles worse at grappling? The lack of a skeleton would make them more flexible than a vertebrate with hands and bones.

This is actually a good point, except that the scientific term for what most people call "tentacles" is still "arms", and I didn't clarify. Yes, tentacles count. They can grapple just fine, and they can block, so even though nothing can dodge in the water they have base 5 AC.


The bite thing in particular makes no sense. Biting is not an awkward attack that leaves you vulnerable. From an evolutionary perspective, it is the single most efficient way for 90% of predators to finish off prey.

It is an extremely awkward attack that leaves the user extremely vulnerable. It's slow, it requires producing your head for the opponent to strike, it has almost no reach at all so you have to get really close, and if most animals had fists it wouldn't be so common. Even where it is used, it's mostly as a finishing move against a target that can't strike back, and occasionally out of desperation by an animal with no other attack that gets caught out. Dogs don't kill just by biting, for instance, they're persistance predators, they run animals until they're too exhausted to fight back and THEN bite because it's the only way not to get kicked in the head. Lions and tigers initiate with their claws, and ONLY bite when in a good grapple where they won't be struck in the head each time they try. Sure, a tiger can take a kick in the head, but that doesn't mean they want to.

EDIT:

Why is this so human-centric?

Because humans and creatures with similar body plans are legitimately better at blocking and dodging than other land animals. It isn't just humans though, all apes and simians are good at blocking, dodging and grappling. This is part of why humans have few natural predators, and indeed most large great apes don't either, and those they do have primarily target infants and avoid adults like the plague.


Do flying or levitating creatures get dodging AC?

Yes.


Do telekinetic creatures get block AC even if they don't have arms?

That depends on how you interpret that telepathy. Are they able to manipulate objects at will, or with a limited resource (power points, uses per day, that kind of thing). If they can manipulate at will, probably. If they need to use a limited resource, probably not.


Are you allowed to block anything with your arms? Even a sword on fire? Or a boulder?

If it needs to hit your AC, you can block it.


In your world, how to creatures hunt? You've made all bite-based predators a lot worse.

The same way they do in real life, where bites really don't work in a fight. I detailed it above, but they usually use their claws and their bite is only a finishing move or made during a grapple (where attacks of opportunity are not a thing). If they don't have claws, they have some other tactic, like how dogs and wolves chase prey for miles until the prey is too exhausted to fight effectively.


Are druids compensated at all for a much worse companion, and a much worse wild shape?

Druids were already massively overpowered, they don't need to be compensated.

Shark Uppercut
2017-05-18, 03:18 PM
I forgot about it, and it didn't exist in 3.5e anyway? It's the same feat, it even has the same requirements, it's just a different name.
Wrong. You apply it to slashing weapons, my source was for light and finesse weapons. Very different.
Oh and how much Constitution damage?


I reject your assumption that all quadrupeds are uniformly terrible at dodging.



Bites are slow Snakes. Crocodiles. Possibly dragons too.


it requires producing your head for the opponent to strike Rules change for headbutts and ramming?


it has almost no reach at all so you have to get really close Yeah kinda like a dagger. OR AN UNARMED STRIKE.


Lions and tigers initiate with their claws, and ONLY bite when in a good grapple where they won't be struck in the head each time they try.
The grapples that they get -4 to, right? How are they supposed to hunt when their grapple rolls fail 20% more often in your world?


This is part of why humans have few natural predators
Wut.
Humans are not physical powerhouses. They are tool-users. All of our natural predators where killed by us, with tools. We didn't survive the ice age with blocking and dodging, man.



If it needs to hit your AC, you can block it.
Can you block touch attacks? If so, does it really count as blocking the attack?


Druids were already massively overpowered, they don't need to be compensated.
Cool... but Clerics and Wizards weren't nerfed.
It's also a Ranger nerf, which sucks. And Paladins, possibly.

Edit:


In the water nothing can dodge, and in the air everything can.

Being a slow turner only really able to move forward with any speed and a somewhat reduced acceleration is NOT good for dodging.

Do you see the contradiction? Birds can't hover, they can only go forward. Why can they dodge?

Also, this means fishmen with legs can't dodge sharks, but men can dodge wolves. Even though they evolved underwater, they just are worse at existing than people not underwater. That doesn't make sense.

Another edit:


If they don't have claws, they have some other tactic, like how dogs and wolves chase prey for miles until the prey is too exhausted to fight effectively.
Why not make that a mechanic then? You nerfed them, they deserve it.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-18, 03:42 PM
Wrong. You apply it to slashing weapons, my source was for light and finesse weapons. Very different.

Okay, almost the same feat.


Oh and how much Constitution damage?

2 if you have a 2x critical, 4 with a 3x critical, 6 with a 4x critical.


I reject your assumption that all quadrupeds are uniformly terrible at dodging.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qcccZy03s

And the quadrupeds aren't uniformly terrible at dodging, they're all just worse at dodging than bipeds. The ones that are better at dodging have higher dex scores in-game, which means they have better AC.


Snakes. Crocodiles. Possibly dragons too.

They're still making an attack that requires them to move their head out for enemies to strike.


Rules change for headbutts and ramming?

Is there even a headbutt attack? I thought that got lumped under "slam".


Yeah kinda like a dagger. OR AN UNARMED STRIKE.

Oh yes, because four feet of reach with a dagger or three feet with an unarmed strike is totally comparable to six inches of reach with a bite. Especially when that bite also happens to take twice as long and requires exposing your head.


The grapples that they get -4 to, right? How are they supposed to hunt when their grapple rolls fail 20% more often in your world?

Their prey also gets a -4, because their prey also has no arms.


Wut.
Humans are not physical powerhouses. They are tool-users. All of our natural predators where killed by us, with tools. We didn't survive the ice age with blocking and dodging, man.

Humans have the densest muscles of any land animal except the chimpanzee, and even then the difference is slight. Only the chimpanzee has better strength for their weight than humans do. Humans ARE physical powerhouses, they are by far stronger than animals their size have any business being, and they combine that with hands that can grapple and strike without exposing themselves.

Hominids, humans included, are APES. Stop pretending we're anything different, because we're NOT. This fantastical idea that everything in nature is so much greater and stronger than us but we somehow overcame it with our brains is STUPID. We didn't always have the intelligence we have now, and our brains take so much energy to run they could NEVER have developed had we not already been extremely successful with our physical abilities alone. Hominids survived long enough to develop their brains because they're really good fighters who are hard to prey upon, and have the strength and endurance to hunt through persistence and that allows them to prey on herd animals and have a very large food supply.


Can you block touch attacks? If so, does it really count as blocking the attack?

I tell you what. You try to touch me with your hand when I'm trying not to be touched, and when you get out of the hospital we can talk about this again.

The threat of a rapid response makes attacks much less accurate, even if you're not actually blocking the attack. Especially since having a fast attack available extends the range of the engagement.


Cool... but Clerics and Wizards weren't nerfed.

Druids needed it more, because they were by far the worst. The lack of summoning and resurrection does effectively nerf clerics as well, and there's a bit of setting info (the gods aren't real) that further nerfs them. Wizards and other casters were also indirectly nerfed by the increased power of weaponry and armour.


It's also a Ranger nerf, which sucks. And Paladins, possibly.

But their combat ability is greater, since weapons and armour are better.

Shark Uppercut
2017-05-18, 04:09 PM
It seems like you want to redo how combat works, considering whether combatants are airborne, terrestrial or underwater; as well as the configuration and number of each combatant's limbs, and the approximate way combatants use their bodies to attack if they don't use manufactured weapons.

That's cool. That's ambitious. It's far more realistic than 3.5 currently is. It's so realistic that 4e would have a heart attack.

I'm just worried that you'll have to change so many rules, it'll stop being D&D 3.5.
I can't argue anymore, because you're given reasons for everything you do (that I disagree with).
Good luck

Grod_The_Giant
2017-05-18, 04:33 PM
I find it mildly odd that you've decided to make animals largely useless in the name of realism, but decided to keep friggen muskets-- smoothbore, muzzle-loading muskets-- in a world where semi-automatic weapons exist. (And are, apparently, harder to use somehow?)

EDIT: I think I'd exclude more magical creatures from the animal-nerfs. At the very least things like Outsiders and Elementals probably shouldn't suffer; Dragons also seem like they should be okay. Magical beasts could go either way, I guess, but anything so affected is going to become a glass cannon-- their defenses drop quite a few steps, but their damage remains the same, making their CR kind of awkward.

EDIT EDIT: From a glance, it looks like damage is going to be a lot higher than normal, without a significant boost in DR to compensate? You'll have enough negative health that you're probably not going to kill more people with it, but you'll drop them more often.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-18, 04:47 PM
I find it mildly odd that you've decided to make animals largely useless in the name of realism, but decided to keep friggen muskets-- smoothbore, muzzle-loading muskets-- in a world where semi-automatic weapons exist. (And are, apparently, harder to use somehow?)

Semi-automatic weapons were only recently invented, we're talking within the last decade, are only produced in one country, and the method of their manufacture is a state secret. Most people don't know how to use them, but almost everybody is familiar with the workings of a muzzle-loader. That is to say, one part of the world is using 1890s tech. Look at the actual 1890s, semi-automatics existed but nobody used them, and most of the world did indeed still use muzzle-loading firearms despite the more developed nations moving on to lever and bolt-action firearms. In this setting, it's even worse because the one nation that has semi-autos isn't selling them and they only get out through smuggling. The rest of the world's developed nations are a solid thirty years behind them, to most militaries lever and bolt-action weapons are the best they have and most soldiers wield musket-rifles, so that's about what you saw in developed nations in the 1860s, which the world best resembles outside of the Gnomelands. And if you looked anywhere outside the developed nations in the 1860s, what firearms were the people using? Muskets, right?


EDIT: I think I'd exclude more magical creatures from the animal-nerfs. At the very least things like Outsiders and Elementals probably shouldn't suffer; Dragons also seem like they should be okay. Magical beasts could go either way, I guess, but anything so affected is going to become a glass cannon-- their defenses drop quite a few steps, but their damage remains the same, making their CR kind of awkward.

I can see the argument for some, elementals in particular, but elementals are usually represented as humanoid. Outsiders aren't a thing, so that doesn't matter. Dragons have arms and can fly, they're largely fine. For the most part though, yes, everything's CR is going to drop a little. That's part of why I've created an assortment of new high-level creatures that all fall under the "goddamned terrifying" category to make up for the small reduction in the CR of most high-level creatures in the game.


EDIT EDIT: From a glance, it looks like damage is going to be a lot higher than normal, without a significant boost in DR to compensate? You'll have enough negative health that you're probably not going to kill more people with it, but you'll drop them more often.

Well, the DR from armour does rise as well, due to materials. But creature DR doesn't get an increase, if that's what you mean. And yes, hit points go a fair bit faster in this game, especially at higher levels. But given how stupidly long it often took to kill high-level characters in 3.5, I don't think that's a bad thing.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-05-18, 05:08 PM
Semi-automatic weapons were only recently invented, we're talking within the last decade, are only produced in one country, and the method of their manufacture is a state secret. Most people don't know how to use them, but almost everybody is familiar with the workings of a muzzle-loader. That is to say, one part of the world is using 1890s tech. Look at the actual 1890s, semi-automatics existed but nobody used them, and most of the world did indeed still use muzzle-loading firearms despite the more developed nations moving on to lever and bolt-action firearms. In this setting, it's even worse because the one nation that has semi-autos isn't selling them and they only get out through smuggling. The rest of the world's developed nations are a solid thirty years behind them, to most militaries lever and bolt-action weapons are the best they have and most soldiers wield musket-rifles, so that's about what you saw in developed nations in the 1860s, which the world best resembles outside of the Gnomelands. And if you looked anywhere outside the developed nations in the 1860s, what firearms were the people using? Muskets, right?
Gotcha-- it's meant to be a setting-based limit, rather than a mechanical trade-off type deal, then?


I can see the argument for some, elementals in particular, but elementals are usually represented as humanoid. Outsiders aren't a thing, so that doesn't matter. Dragons have arms and can fly, they're largely fine. For the most part though, yes, everything's CR is going to drop a little. That's part of why I've created an assortment of new high-level creatures that all fall under the "goddamned terrifying" category to make up for the small reduction in the CR of most high-level creatures in the game.
As long as you're aware.


Well, the DR from armour does rise as well, due to materials. But creature DR doesn't get an increase, if that's what you mean. And yes, hit points go a fair bit faster in this game, especially at higher levels. But given how stupidly long it often took to kill high-level characters in 3.5, I don't think that's a bad thing.
Ah-- I must have missed that. As long as it rises at about the same rate, you should be good (I'm guessing it's mostly going to be humanoid foes?). I... don't know where you're getting "high level characters take forever to die," though. My experience has been that even without heavy optimization, damage shoots up a lot faster than health and AC do...

Avianmosquito
2017-05-18, 05:24 PM
Gotcha-- it's meant to be a setting-based limit, rather than a mechanical trade-off type deal, then?

To an extent, yes.

If you take the exotic proficiency (that is, if you have a clue how to handle such a weapon), a semi-automatic is a better weapon overall due to its better rate of fire and reload. Sure, a semi-automatic rifle only deals 1d10 (.39 calibre) and a musket-rifle deals 2d10 (.79 calibre), but the semi-automatic can fire at your full attack rate and carries 10 shots before a one-round reload, the musket-rifle fires a single shot then has a two-round reload. The musket-rifle has its charms, but the semi-auto is far better. Even the lever-action and bolt-action are better, they deal 2d6 (.47 calibre) and have 6 shots (5 for the bolt-action), with a two-round reload and martial proficiency, so they can be extremely effective in the right hands.

As for the actual musket, the musket-rifle is overall better as while the musket deals 2d12 (.94 calibre) it has literally half the range (60ft, everything else listed is 120ft). This pattern repeats itself with pistols and scatterguns, though there is some argument that the more advanced scatterguns might not actually be better against humanoid enemies due to DR.


As long as you're aware.

Aware and compensating.


Ah-- I must have missed that. As long as it rises at about the same rate, you should be good (I'm guessing it's mostly going to be humanoid foes?).

Not really. There's going to be animals earlier on. Later on I'm keeping under wraps, but the late-game enemies are definitely going to be a massive threat to the party, despite the party's armour and weapons. Fighting some of the late-game enemies would be suicidal.


I... don't know where you're getting "high level characters take forever to die," though. My experience has been that even without heavy optimization, damage shoots up a lot faster than health and AC do...

With casters, sure. But not with warriors. Take a pair of 20th-level fighters and have them try to kill eachother in base 3.5. Sure, they can attack a lot each round and most of that will hit as armour is worthless at that level in base 3.5, but they have so much health (110, plus twenty times their constitution bonus) that they will take a minute or more in-game (and half an hour in real life) to kill eachother.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-05-18, 05:35 PM
With casters, sure. But not with warriors. Take a pair of 20th-level fighters and have them try to kill eachother in base 3.5. Sure, they can attack a lot each round and most of that will hit as armour is worthless at that level in base 3.5, but they have so much health (110, plus twenty times their constitution bonus) that they will take a minute or more in-game (and half an hour in real life) to kill eachother.
Okay. At very low optimization... Let's say I have a Con of 30, for ~315 health. Attack with a matching 30 Strength, a +5 greatsword, Power Attack for 5, and I hit with three out of my 4 attacks-- seems pretty reasonable. That's 3*(2d6+30)=105 damage. Three rounds and I'm down. I dunno where you're getting a 10+ rounds.

And it certainly gets much worse if you try. I ran games ~10th level without a terrible amount of optimization, and I routinely saw characters hitting in the 50-100 range.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-18, 05:37 PM
Okay. At very low optimization... Let's say I have a Con of 30, for ~315 health. Attack with a matching 30 Strength, a +5 greatsword, Power Attack for 5, and I hit with three out of my 4 attacks-- seems pretty reasonable. That's 3*(2d6+30)=105 damage. Three rounds and I'm down. I dunno where you're getting a 10+ rounds.

Where are you getting 30 strength and con?

Grod_The_Giant
2017-05-18, 05:39 PM
Where are you getting 30 strength and con?
Rough memory of where the numbers get to? 16 base, +4 from leveling up, +6 from a belt/amulet, +4 from a tome makes 30... the other might not be as high, but I'd bet on Str being higher than Con. So it should maybe be more like 30 Str/24 Con.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-18, 05:42 PM
Rough memory of where the numbers get to? 16 base, +4 from leveling up, +6 from a belt/amulet, +4 from a tome makes 30... the other might not be as high, but I'd bet on Str being higher than Con. So it should maybe be more like 30 Str/24 Con.

Yeah, I've never had a player get to 30 in more than one stat. I suspect you're getting too much loot if you can expect a +6 enchanted item and +4 tome on multiple stats by level 20.

nikkoli
2017-05-18, 05:46 PM
Okay. At very low optimization... Let's say I have a Con of 30, for ~315 health. Attack with a matching 30 Strength, a +5 greatsword, Power Attack for 5, and I hit with three out of my 4 attacks-- seems pretty reasonable. That's 3*(2d6+30)=105 damage. Three rounds and I'm down. I dunno where you're getting a 10+ rounds.

And it certainly gets much worse if you try. I ran games ~10th level without a terrible amount of optimization, and I routinely saw characters hitting in the 50-100 range.

These are the numbers I'm used to seeing. I've only seen encounters last longer than 8 rounds at lvl 2 when fighting swarms of 1/2 HD things. High levels are where damage is obscene compared to hp, I've seen a party of 6 (1 homebrew advanced paladin, 1 paladin/bloodrager, 3 fighter replacements and a cleric) melt a 175-200HD Dragon in 4 rounds. The members of the party where all lvl 17. (Edit 3: yes this is an extreme example, but it did happen. We had an air ship and the paladin bloodrager followed Smaid from PF, who's tenants are destroy evil dragons with extreme prejudice. )

Edit: orc barbarian str: 16 base +4 race +4 level + 6 item+8 rage=38 at 20, and that's not unreasonable, you could see them getting 2 more base 1 more from level and 5 book without having to get to extremes putting them at a nice shiny 46 str.
Edit edit: for that barbarians con you could see 15 base 1 level 4-6 item and 8 rage putting them up at 28-30con and 38 str without using tomes.

MesiDoomstalker
2017-05-18, 10:30 PM
Yeah, I've never had a player get to 30 in more than one stat. I suspect you're getting too much loot if you can expect a +6 enchanted item and +4 tome on multiple stats by level 20.

You misunderstand Grod. The defender has 30 Con and the attacker has 30 Strength. In the hypothetical, the one who invested more in defense still falls to an opponent who invested equally in offense in about 3 rounds. This is pretty much true across the board. The only way one's offense is lacking is if they choose a seriously poor damage method (2WF-without bonus die/damge for example). 3.5 is the premier example of rocket-tag starting at mid-levels and getting worse from there.

Arcran
2017-05-18, 10:55 PM
Really? A bite is a slow attack? Why didn't that guy just punch the dog away when it jumped at him if it's so easy? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBc99kxEOss) :smallconfused:

Avianmosquito
2017-05-18, 11:00 PM
Really? A bite is a slow attack? Why didn't that guy just punch the dog away when it jumped at him if it's so easy? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBc99kxEOss) :smallconfused:

"Why didn't he just start beating a dog while its owners are right behind it and pointing guns at him?"

Arcran
2017-05-18, 11:03 PM
"Why didn't he just start beating a dog while its owners are right behind it and pointing guns at him?"

Except if it was so easy to fend off a bite he could have and just dodged using his bipedal mobility and kept running?

Avianmosquito
2017-05-18, 11:13 PM
Except if it was so easy to fend off a bite he could have and just dodged using his bipedal mobility and kept running?

To what end? He had a dog chasing him, he's not going to outrun it, and he's certainly not going to outrun the cars, or the bullets they'd be sending after him if he struck their dog. If he avoided the dog he'd have to keep avoiding it over and over again, and there's no way he'd keep outrunning the cops while he keeps stopping to dodge a dog, assumimg he even managed to dodge it over and over again. The man had no hope of escape, so he gave up in hopes of not being shot, tased, beaten or otherwise mangled by the burly bastards hot on his heels. Even without the dog, he would have given up anyway when that cop appeared in front of him with a gun.

There's a big difference between being unwilling and unable. The only reason those men hadn't used more force than a fluffy animal was because they understood that fact. They were sure in that moment he wasn't stupid enough to resort to violence, and he wasn't. Because of COURSE he wasn't, the overwhelming majority of people are smart enough to realize when outnumbered by big burly bastards with guns that resorting to violence is the dumbest thing they could possibly do.

The_Admiral
2017-05-18, 11:15 PM
Hominids, humans included, are APES. Stop pretending we're anything different, because we're NOT. This fantastical idea that everything in nature is so much greater and stronger than us but we somehow overcame it with our brains is STUPID. We didn't always have the intelligence we have now, and our brains take so much energy to run they could NEVER have developed had we not already been extremely successful with our physical abilities alone. Hominids survived long enough to develop their brains because they're really good fighters who are hard to prey upon, and have the strength and endurance to hunt through persistence and that allows them to prey on herd animals and have a very large food supply.

Our brain is allowed to take so much energy to run because it was such a survival advantage. The ability to plan and build tools is the reason we've overcome everything else in nature. The counter to giant predator wasn't to fight it hand to hand but to build weapons.



I tell you what. You try to touch me with your hand when I'm trying not to be touched, and when you get out of the hospital we can talk about this again.

I'll fite you IRL.

Arcran
2017-05-18, 11:19 PM
To what end? He had a dog chasing him, he's not going to outrun it, and he's certainly not going to outrun the cars, or the bullets they'd be sending after him if he struck their dog. If he avoided the dog he'd have to keep avoiding it over and over again, and there's no way he'd keep outrunning the cops while he keeps stopping to dodge a dog, assumimg he even managed to dodge it over and over again. The man had no hope of escape, so he gave up in hopes of not being shot, tased, beaten or otherwise mangled by the burly bastards hot on his heels. Even without the dog, he would have given up anyway when that cop appeared in front of him with a gun.

Oh, right, I forgot that he was just about to outrun all those cars and the helicopter before the dog showed up.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-18, 11:30 PM
Our brain is allowed to take so much energy to run because it was such a survival advantage. The ability to plan and build tools is the reason we've overcome everything else in nature. The counter to giant predator wasn't to fight it hand to hand but to build weapons.

Except the brain took a long time to develop to a state where weapons were even an option, much less a reliable one. And even once weapons were there, having physical strength, agility and endurance was still required to make that viable. Our ancestors relied on physical force for a while before they started making tools, and the hominid brain then developed in us and in nothing else because only we were able to provide enough energy and got enough benefit from it for a larger, more advanced brain to be able to develop.


I'll fite you IRL.

Yeah, forgive me if I decline that offer. I was just making a point about touch attacks, not inviting anybody to engage in fisticuffs.


Oh, right, I forgot that he was just about to outrun all those cars and the helicopter before the dog showed up.

Oh no he wasn't. Nobody is that fast, much less the guy who fell down twice in the video before the dog even arrived, and if he kept being evasive long enough they would have tased him, bean bagged him, or shot him. He was already screwed before they broke out Fluffy, the dog was just what prompted him to give up right then. Listen to the guy in the helicopter, he called it, trying to outrun those cars in a big open field was really stupid and he had no chance.

Arcran
2017-05-18, 11:36 PM
Oh no he wasn't. Nobody is that fast, and if he kept being evasive long enough they would have tased him, bean bagged him, or shot him. He was already screwed before they broke out Fluffy, the dog was just what prompted him to give up right then.

I'm just struggling to see how you don't think a bite is effective. Do you honestly think in a fight with your bare hands you could take down a German Shepard?

The_Admiral
2017-05-18, 11:41 PM
Except the brain took a long time to develop to a state where weapons were even an option, much less a reliable one. And even once weapons were there, having physical strength, agility and endurance was still required to make that viable. Our ancestors relied on physical force for a while before they started making tools, and the hominid brain then developed in us and in nothing else because only we were able to provide enough energy and got enough benefit from it for a larger, more advanced brain to be able to develop

Shot Pong. We're so good at throwing rocks accurately, we make a game out of doing it drunk. A rock thrown with lethal force is a tool, and our arboreal origins mean't we were very good at flinging ****,

Manyasone
2017-05-18, 11:41 PM
I'm just struggling to see how you don't think a bite is effective. Do you honestly think in a fight with your bare hands you could take down a German Shepard?

Damn but i'd like to see that...

Avianmosquito
2017-05-18, 11:45 PM
I'm just struggling to see how you don't think a bite is effective. Do you honestly think in a fight with your bare hands you could take down a German Shepard?

It's a DOG. The answer is YES, and that's NOT impressive. Dogs CAN'T fight, that's why they hunt by chasing prey until it can't run anymore, then all attacking it as a group. Dogs are so ingrained to do this that if you have a dog that ISN'T a trained attack dog chasing you, if you stop and turn to face it, it'll STOP and stand there barking at you instead of attacking. It's trying to get you to run more, because it's relying on you being thoroughly exhausted before it puts itself at risk. And if you walk up to the dog and kick it, it won't even fight back, it'll just run away. Dogs are not fighters, they're pack-based persistence predators over-specialized for hunting ungulates. We chose dogs for a reason, and it's because they're naturally submissive pack animals and they aren't a serious threat to us.


Shot Pong. We're so good at throwing rocks accurately, we make a game out of doing it drunk. A rock thrown with lethal force is a tool, and our arboreal origins mean't we were very good at flinging ****,

We didn't just miraculously gain the ability to throw rocks accurately over night, nor did we start off with it. Even then, we need our great physical strength to throw a rock hard enough to be a useful weapon, both in terms of range and damage.


Also. The reason cro-magnon prevailed over neanderthals (who were more physically imposing and also hominids) is because of the higher mental faculties.

Cro-magnon did not "prevail" over the neanderthals. They weren't enemies. They actually interbred. Even then, cro-magnon's greater mental faculties were more valuable than the greater physical strength of the neanderthals, yes, but they still had a great deal of physical strength because it was a necessity of survival, and if they hadn't had that physical strength they would never have survived long enough to gain their greater mental faculties.


Humans aren't special snowflakes, OP, or even the end of evolution. We are just hairless monkeys.

That's rather my whole point. Humans are apes, and they function like apes, except for their greater intelligence. The idea that humans are super extra special ultra weak and totally helpless naturally but managed to get by with intelligence as their only asset is the narrative used to pretend humans are truly something special rather than just hairless apes. The truth, that humans didn't rely solely on their brains to solve all their problems because they CAN'T rely solely on their brains to solve all their problems, doesn't fit that narrative. It doesn't make people feel good knowing that we are still just apes.

Manyasone
2017-05-18, 11:46 PM
Also. The reason cro-magnon prevailed over neanderthals (who were more physically imposing and also hominids) is because of the higher mental faculties.
Humans aren't special snowflakes, OP, or even the end of evolution. We are just hairless monkeys.

Arcran
2017-05-19, 12:03 AM
It's a DOG. The answer is YES, and that's NOT impressive. Dogs CAN'T fight, that's why they hunt by chasing prey until it can't run anymore, then all attacking it as a group. Dogs are so ingrained to do this that if you have a dog that ISN'T a trained attack dog chasing you, if you stop and turn to face it, it'll STOP and stand there barking at you instead of attacking. It's trying to get you to run more, because it's relying on you being thoroughly exhausted before it puts itself at risk. And if you walk up to the dog and kick it, it won't even fight back if it doesn't have backup, it'll just run away. Dogs are not fighters, they're pack-based persistence predators over-specialized for hunting ungulates. We chose dogs for a reason, and it's because they're naturally submissive pack animals and they aren't a serious threat to us.

So your answer for why a human would beat a dog in a fight is because the dog wouldn't fight back? With that logic I could beat damn near anything in the animal kingdom! :smallconfused:

Avianmosquito
2017-05-19, 12:13 AM
So your answer for why a human would beat a dog in a fight is because the dog wouldn't fight back? With that logic I could beat damn near anything in the animal kingdom! :smallconfused:

No, my reasoning is that the dog can't fight. An animal unable to block or dodge, that can't turn quickly, is overspecialized to run fast for a long time to the exclusion of everything else, relies on an attack with no reach, and has no offensive or defensive options against an enemy anywhere but dead ahead of it simply isn't going to win a fight with something twice its size that doesn't have any of those disadvantages. A human will beat a dog in a fight because humans are built to fight and dogs are built to chase.

I only pointed out that a dog won't even try to impress upon you that dogs are NOT fighters, it is not a thing they do, because you seem to have bought into the media-propagated myth that dogs are superpowered, unbeatable god-beasts with mega agility and inescapable instant-death superbites that can't be attacked, much less injured or killed, without a magical plot-weapon. Real life isn't a work of fiction written by a moron with an irrational fear of dogs. Dogs don't fight, can't fight and a good hard kick in the ribs will inflict life-threatening internal injuries.

Now, that's not to say a dog couldn't kill a man, just that the dog is at a massive disadvantage. In maybe 5% of cases a dog might win. But the large majority of the time the human will win. It's impossible to get good numbers on it, though, and animal attacks rarely result in a fatality for the human OR the animal.

Even so, I think the way the game does it is close enough to reality, or the best we're going to get in Dungeons and Dragons anyway. Why don't you take a 3rd level expert and a wolf and run a few tests? I've run a few, three of them actually. I've never had the wolf win, but only once did the human not sustain some injury in the fight.

Esprit15
2017-05-19, 12:36 AM
Weird that modern dogs are less aggressive. It's like they've been bred for thousands of years for desireable traits, like not killing their masters, but we can very easily train them to be able to take down a "nimble" biped that's twice their size, lethally or non-lethally.

Also, we have entire sports about beating each other to inches of unconsciousness. If someone wants to hit you, they'll be more than able to hit you. Your touch AC isn't as high as you think it is.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-19, 12:50 AM
Weird that modern dogs are less aggressive. It's like they've been bred for thousands of years for desireable traits, like not killing their masters, but we can very easily train them to be able to take down a "nimble" biped that's twice their size, lethally or non-lethally.

1. Many breeds of domestic dogs are MORE aggressive than wolves, not less. They will still run off if you kick them in the ribs, and a wolf will too.

2. We started with wolves. They were easy to work with because they are already predisposed to submit to stronger creatures, and we were stronger than them so they submitted.

3. Attack dogs rely on the presence of humans. They also are not EVER trained to kill, for humane reasons, and attempts to train dogs to kill people invariably end in disaster as dogs are neither smart enough to pick targets nor a serious threat to anybody you'd reasonably want to use lethal force on. The spanish even bred giant war dogs, mastiffs, and immediately discontinued their use when they found the dogs were completely innefectual in battle.

4. The best way to kill somebody with a dog is the Russian method. Strap a bomb to it, the dog is stupid enough for that to work. I'm sure you understand why we don't do that anymore.


Also, we have entire sports about beating each other to inches of unconsciousness. If someone wants to hit you, they'll be more than able to hit you. Your touch AC isn't as high as you think it is.

You want to do the in-game math real quick and see how it pans out before you strawman my position?

Esprit15
2017-05-19, 01:00 AM
They submitted because we had food, and working with us got them more food. We didn't wrestle, box, or otherwise fight wolves unarmed.

What, when animal control has to bring in equipment to bring them down? Again, you're trying to make animals harmless to untrained people, but they're not. Even a bite to the arm will ruin a person's day in a fight, quite quickly.

I don't see how that's at all relevant.

What strawman? You said that if you didn't want to be touched, you doubted a person could do it. I pointed out that we have entire sports that are about not just touching each other aggressively but beating the crap out of each other. We are decently evasive, but it takes training to actually be able to reliably defend from a blow with intention behind it.

Moreover, I'm not seeing why trip attempts get a penalty for having four legs.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-19, 01:31 AM
They submitted because we had food, and working with us got them more food. We didn't wrestle, box, or otherwise fight wolves unarmed.

No, they submitted because we had food and they couldn't just steal it.


What, when animal control has to bring in equipment to bring them down?

Not the case. Animal control uses special equipment to capture animals UNHARMED. That's quite different from what it takes to just kill the damn thing. Killing the damn thing takes one good hit and a couple stomps.

Also, you are seriously overvaluing training. Real life is not a movie, training does not make you a magical demigod. The amount of training given to animal control in particular is really limited. It's basically "Don't go near it, don't be an idiot, we're not liable for your medical bills, you're liable if it dies, this end towards animal, here's where you fit the restraints.". It could be done in one very boring afternoon with a powerpoint presentation, and it's only done in the first place to avoid liability when the stupid monkey inevitably does something stupid in a country where twelve stiches and some penicillin costs $9001, and a dead dog is a $2,000,000 lawsuit.


Again, you're trying to make animals harmless to untrained people, but they're not.

There's a strawman. They're not harmless, and I never said they were. I said that most animals were inferior fighters to humans, and I was defending how they perform with the changes to the system. Get out your dice, run the tests and stop making up crap about my position.


Even a bite to the arm will ruin a person's day in a fight, quite quickly.

That's not true. You'd be surprised how much damage needs to be done to make a body part stop working, and a dog that's biting your arm is a dog that's about to have its brainstem severed when your punches naturally hit the base of its skull. "Oh, but the pain would stop you!", you'll say, but no it won't because pain does not exist in life or death circumstances, shutting off nociception is the very first thing adrenaline does. It also won't cause heavy bleeding, it's a fairly shallow set of wounds on an extremity, and it won't break the bone or tear the muscles so the arm really does just have a series of small holes in it that won't keep it from working. The dog would need to bite and then spend a fair amount of time yanking and shaking to actually disable the arm, and it'll take less time than that to fatally paralyze it.


I don't see how that's at all relevant.

What, that people tried the whole lethal attack dog thing and it doesn't work because it's a stupid idea? How is that not relevant?


What strawman? You said that if you didn't want to be touched, you doubted a person could do it.

No, I said it was harder than they thought, and wouldn't go well for them. Seriously, can we take a minute to cover what our positions actually ARE before we argue about them?


I pointed out that we have entire sports that are about not just touching each other aggressively but beating the crap out of each other. We are decently evasive, but it takes training to actually be able to reliably defend from a blow with intention behind it.

Punches are actually harder to avoid than touches, because they're faster. And as somebody who did do lightweight boxing in highschool, back when boxing still existed in schools, I can tell you that landing hits solid enough to hurt is not as easy as you might think. It's because people really don't want to hurt eachother, believe it or not. The same thing that keeps people from just killing a dog that bites them if they don't think it's trying to kill them is the same thing that makes it harder to land punches on somebody when you aren't trying to murder their face off.

You're not using your full strength, you're aiming for non-vital areas and you're stopping the hit at the surface, because you're trying to land hits hard enough to hurt but not hard enough to cause serious injuries. That makes it easier for your opponent to block and dodge. A lot of boxing training is just teaching you to suppress that. I was never very good at it, honestly I don't know why I ever signed up for it.


Moreover, I'm not seeing why trip attempts get a penalty for having four legs.

It's for not having hands, actually. And it's the difficulty of making an effective bite, and their weak yanking force compared to the pulling force of a creature with arms. Arms are much larger than snouts are, and they're located higher on the body to further extend their length. It's like the difference between pulling something straight-up and tying a rope to it and running to the end, there's more time to build momentum with the longer tool. A dog trying to yank somebody off their feet has a foot to move and build momentum, a human doing the same has about five feet.

Shark Uppercut
2017-05-19, 02:25 AM
Ok, I'm back for 1 more try.
The quadrupeds, the bite attacks, the grappling... they don't matter. They might be realistic, they might not be. Unless there's comprehensive statistics of the success rate of wolves attacking trained navy SEALS, I won't judge how well wolves attack trained lvl3-6 Fighters.

But...


If it needs to hit your AC, you can block it.

The threat of a rapid response makes attacks much less accurate, even if you're not actually blocking the attack. Especially since having a fast attack available extends the range of the engagement.

Blocking melee attacks that have elemental damage or poison effects? Maybe.

But blocking ranged attacks with your arms?
Blocking ranged spells through the "threat of rapid response" that you'll do ... what?
Blocking giants' boulders because you have arms and a snake doesn't?
You even mention blocking bullets. How is this realistic at all? Nothing you can do with your arms will stop Disintegrate or bullets.
That's some whack humanocentrism.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-19, 02:31 AM
Blocking melee attacks that have elemental damage or poison effects? Maybe.

But blocking ranged attacks with your arms?
Blocking ranged spells through the "threat of rapid response" that you'll do ... what?
Blocking giants' boulders because you have arms and a snake doesn't?
You even mention blocking bullets. How is this realistic at all? Nothing you can do with your arms will stop Disintegrate or bullets.
That's some whack humanocentrism.

At this point, we're reaching a limitation of the system. I could certainly create twenty pages of conditions on various kinds of AC, but do you really want that, or would you rather just take the base 10?

Shark Uppercut
2017-05-19, 02:35 AM
This is where you say, "there are too many rules, let's not worry about things" ?

No. Just remove the 5 block AC for ranged attacks.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-19, 02:50 AM
This is where you say, "there are too many rules, let's not worry about things" ?

No. Just remove the 5 block AC for ranged attacks.

It isn't just ranged attacks if you really wanted it to be realistic. My hyperbole aside, we'd get a page of conditions for everything from 0 to 5 points of AC if you followed this rabbit hole to the end. If we're going to just settle for a simpler solution, why pick the more complex one instead of the simpler one? Do you think it makes for better gameplay? Does it serve to balance anything? I'm worried it may be the opposite. You're giving a 5-point advantage against AC to ranged weapons, that might be unbalanced. I haven't taken an in-depth look at it yet and I won't tonight, but that is my concern. I'll look at it in more detail in the morning. For now I need to close up.

Shark Uppercut
2017-05-19, 03:15 AM
I understood none of that.
This isn't a rabbit hole.
This is making people unable to block bullets the way they can block swords with their arms. That's it.
There are no other conditions we're talking about. Just having +5 Block AC, or not having it. I definitely do not want you to try to make this even more realistic. I don't think you do either.
Dodge applies to melee and range. Block applies to melee.
This is the simpler solution. There is nothing that this is more complex than.
I don't care about better gameplay or balance, because your justifications for non-bipeds were all primarily for the sake of realism, better gameplay or balance were secondary.


You're giving a 5-point advantage against AC to ranged weapons, that might be unbalanced.
It only applies to biped defenders, because they were the only ones to ever have block AC bonuses.
It only applies to biped attackers, who have almost all the ranged attacks. Therefore,
If two bipeds have a ranged duel, the -5 AC cancels each other out.
If a biped shoots a biped who can't shoot back... well, the gunman will probably kill the swordsman. Just like real life. You said you wanted both realism and deadlier combat than normal in 3.5... this is part of it!

Or, invent kevlar. Maybe it's armor that has half AC but doubled DR versus guns.

Edit because I don't want to keep making new posts:

In reality ranged weapons are less accurate than melee weapons and the vast majority of projectiles fired miss.

Not because people block them with their arms.
If you pursue more changes, you'll either have to make ranged weapons worse, or keep the system simple. Good luck.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-19, 03:26 AM
I understood none of that.
This isn't a rabbit hole.
This is making people unable to block bullets the way they can block swords with their arms. That's it.
There are no other conditions we're talking about. Just having +5 Block AC, or not having it.
Dodge applies to melee and range. Block applies to melee.

Except having a thrown spear or rock be as unblockable as a bullet doesn't make sense, and in reality ranged weapons are less accurate than melee weapons.


This is the simpler solution. There is nothing that this is more complex than.

Aside from not bothering?


I don't care about better gameplay or balance, because your justifications for non-bipeds were all primarily for the sake of realism, better gameplay or balance were secondary.

"Secondary" does not mean "unconsidered". If I didn't care about the game being playable, I'd make this in GURPS.


It only applies to biped defenders, because they were the only ones to ever have block AC bonuses.
It only applies to biped attackers, who have almost all the ranged attacks. Therefore,
If two bipeds have a ranged duel, the -5 AC cancels each other out.
If a biped shoots a biped who can't shoot back... well, the gunman will probably kill the swordsman. Just like real life.

Except in real life the vast majority of projectiles fired miss, but go on.


You said you wanted both realism and deadlier combat than normal in 3.5... this is part of it!

Or, invent kevlar. Maybe it's armor that has half AC but doubled DR versus guns.

Actually, I guess DR as it is works really well against guns, so this isn't that big of a deal. I still need to do my in-depth analysis before I change anything, though.

Esprit15
2017-05-19, 03:36 AM
Except you're saying that animals are inferior fighters to humans with some armchair analysis and using examples of domesticated animals. Find us examples of normal people who fought a wolf unarmed and won. Back up your claims with evidence. I've mentioned this thread to some of my friends who own dogs and they laughed at several of your assertions because of their own experiences with the animals.

For example: Mastiffs were not Spanish, they were English, descended from an Asian breed. (http://dogtime.com/dog-breeds/mastiff#/slide/1) Also, attack dogs were fairly effective since the times of the Romans and Greeks all the way up through Napoleon's time. We still use attack dogs that are trained to non-lethally take someone down, and they are quite good at it, regardless of whether people are pointing guns at the person being attacked or not. You could easily train them to kill instead of restrain. It's also a good argument against them being bad at tripping, funny enough.

I've only been talking about realism. You're the one who is trying to tie what most of us are arguing as non-reality back to the dice.

As for getting bitten, have you ever had your hand bitten by an animal that wants to hurt you? Whether you are on adrenaline or not, it is not going to function as you want it to. Similar, though less so, with an arm, and that's before noting that a creature at least half your weight is violently pulling at one of your limbs which may or may not be strong enough to lift it, but certainly isn't going to be strong enough to resist being shaken around.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-19, 03:44 AM
For example: Mastiffs were not Spanish, they were English, descended from an Asian breed. (http://dogtime.com/dog-breeds/mastiff#/slide/1)

That's the last straw.

https://www.dogbreedinfo.com/spanishmastiff.htm

I'm done with you.

Esprit15
2017-05-19, 04:01 AM
Wow, it's like words mean things. Spanish Mastiff means something different than Mastiff.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-19, 04:06 AM
Wow, it's like words mean things. Spanish Mastiff means something different than Mastiff.

Wow, it's like you're intentionally ignoring tjat they're called Spanish Mastiffs because they're a variety of Mastiff.

Esprit15
2017-05-19, 04:09 AM
Wow, it's like you're intentionally ignoring tjat they're called Spanish Mastiffs because they're a variety of Mastiff.

Because if someone googles Mastiff, they'll find the English descended variant. If one specifies Spanish, they'll find the Spanish variant. Blame language and the assumption that in English, the English variant is the default in most cases.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-19, 04:18 AM
Because if someone googles Mastiff, they'll find the English descended variant. If one specifies Spanish, they'll find the Spanish variant. Blame language and the assumption that in English, the English variant is the default in most cases.

And if you read most pages on the English breed, it'll tell you they're part of the Mastiff breed group, which originates on the Iberian peninsula.

I mentioned Spanish Mastiffs because they are the most extreme failure of war dogs on record. The spanish conquistadores went so far as to armour these giant dogs and used them against natives with no armour and weapons of wood and stone, and still their giant armoured dogs were ineffectual in battle and they gave up on them.

Then you countered that by saying Mastiffs weren't Spanish, which is playing semantics at best and a red herring at worst. So I'm not going to argue with you anymore.

Esprit15
2017-05-19, 09:30 AM
The natives also didn't kill them with their bare hands.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-19, 11:38 AM
The natives also didn't kill them with their bare hands.

Which I just said. Keep lying about my position, by all means.

@Shark Uppercut
I've run some tests. It works. Arm AC no longer works on projectiles.

Esprit15
2017-05-19, 01:24 PM
Your argument: That an unarmed human overwhelms a dog. Yep, best argument there is when a bunch of well armed humans with terrain advantage killed a bunch of dogs.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-19, 01:42 PM
Your argument: That an unarmed human overwhelms a dog. Yep, best argument there is when a bunch of well armed humans with terrain advantage killed a bunch of dogs.

They were a counter specifically to your claim of lethal attack dogs, the humans were poorly armed with stone weapons, you made the terrain advantage up, the dogs were gigantic, wearing metal armour and backed up by guntoting conquistadores, but even then they were worthless. That's a pretty effective counter to the claim that lethal attack dogs were ever useful.

Shark Uppercut
2017-05-19, 01:47 PM
@Shark Uppercut
I've run some tests. It works. Arm AC no longer works on projectiles.

Yes! I did something, mom!
I'm curious how blocking interacts with size, arm shape or intelligence. Can squirrels, raccoons, bears, velociraptors, mindless zombies or golems block?
If this is too GURPS-y, just say so and I swear I'll stop. I'm just trying to help playtest.



Mastiffs

I gave up arguing about dogs a long time ago. It's why most of my posts talk about wolves, because they haven't had thousands of years of selective breeding to be nice to humans.

Also, we gotta care about things that are important. Even with the default 3.5 rules, combat dogs are CR1. Unless this is gonna be a gritty E6 campaign, dogs won't even be worth experience once the party levels up a few times. Their combat potency is unimportant.
Unless you want the party to use combat dogs at lvl1-3.
And unless there are very dangerous CR5-15 quadrupeds, which I believe you said there were. The rules for them are important.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-19, 02:36 PM
Yes! I did something, mom!
I'm curious how blocking interacts with size, arm shape or intelligence. Can squirrels, raccoons, bears, velociraptors, mindless zombies or golems block?
If this is too GURPS-y, just say so and I swear I'll stop. I'm just trying to help playtest.

Presumably, a squirrel or a raccoon would not be able to block because it isn't upright, so it would have to stop moving to use its arms. A bear... Well, it's the same issue, but we've trained bears to do it for sport. In an actual fight, I'm not sure that would work at all, but they certainly don't do it untrained.

Raptor intelligence is incredibly hotly debated. I'm on the "fairly intelligent" side, but as their arms were actually very early wings that doesn't matter too much. (Note: I'm not saying velociraptors could fly, there's no evidence of that. Chickens can't fly either, doesn't mean their arms aren't wings.) As for zombies and golems, that depends on how intelligent they are in the setting, and as I routinely have zombies using weapons, safe to say they can block. I haven't included golems thusfar because I don't like them, but since I haven't ruled them out I guess I'll need a verdict. For the moment, though, assume any limbs an animal uses primarily as a leg or a wing can't be used to block, and if the arm isn't primarily a leg or a wing, assume it can block. But then, we get into the territory of great apes, who we know DO block, and kangaroos, who don't unless trained to... INT 3 requirement? I'm going to have to think about it.


Also, we gotta care about things that are important. Even with the default 3.5 rules, combat dogs are CR1. Unless this is gonna be a gritty E6 campaign, dogs won't even be worth experience once the party levels up a few times. Their combat potency is unimportant.

Unless you want the party to use combat dogs at lvl1-3.

Party's starting at level 3. The only canine enemies in game would be wolves and dire wolves that are on my random encounter table for the mountains at the beginning of the campaign, and the dogs used by humanoid enemies.

These dogs include guard dogs, which follow this entry (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dogRiding.htm), and hounds, which have an adjusted version of this entry (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dog.htm) specialized for tracking. These dogs aren't used for combat and would be instantly killed if they tried to fight, but they do serve their purpose of leading their masters to the PCs fairly well and are not insignificant as a result.


And unless there are very dangerous CR5-15 quadrupeds, which I believe you said there were. The rules for them are important.

There's a species (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/leopard.htm) of large (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lion.htm) cat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/tiger.htm) on each of the random encounter tables, wolves (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/wolf.htm) in the mountains at the start and a species of bear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/bearPolar.htm) in a later area of the campaign, but none of them are in the 5-15 range according to the SRD. We DO have some dire animals that are CR 5 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/direLion.htm), CR 7 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/direBear.htm) and CR 8 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/direTiger.htm) by SRD, and probably CR 4, CR 6 and CR 7 with these changes. However, all of these are just on my special-made random encounter tables, they aren't important enemies.

Esprit15
2017-05-19, 02:43 PM
I only bothered to argue about dogs because they were pulled up as an example of animals that can't fight well.

My concern mechanically is that it is going to significantly nerf animal companions and druids. I also think that it's a big headache mechanically that ultimately doesn't really affect immersion.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-19, 02:55 PM
I only bothered to argue about dogs because they were pulled up as an example of animals that can't fight well.

And I said they are great trackers and chasers, the things even attack dogs are solely used for, so what's your point? They don't need to be good at fighting, at all, to do their jobs.


My concern mechanically is that it is going to significantly nerf animal companions and druids. I also think that it's a big headache mechanically that ultimately doesn't really affect immersion.

I think druids need the nerf. I get the concern with rangers, though. I see in what I've run that rangers still work well, and are simply pushed more towards their regular combat abilities (which are stronger, because of the weapon and armour buff). If they do prove to be underpowered, which so far they haven't, I can fix that.

nikkoli
2017-05-19, 03:51 PM
But what is the base 10 ac? Is it really dodging and blocking? Or would dodging attacks be your dex bonuses and dodge bonuses? Isn't blocking a shield bonus to ac? My understanding of the base 10 ac for creatures is the capacity to not be hit, not of the target doing something, but of the attacker doing something off for a split second.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-19, 03:56 PM
But what is the base 10 ac? Is it really dodging and blocking? Or would dodging attacks be your dex bonuses and dodge bonuses? Isn't blocking a shield bonus to ac? My understanding of the base 10 ac for creatures is the capacity to not be hit, not of the target doing something, but of the attacker doing something off for a split second.

It really can't be, or low dexterity would not incur a penalty and being prone or unconscious wouldn't either. Also, NOBODY misses a completely stationary man-sized target right in front of them unless they have a seizure mid-swing. Base 10 AC is a character's average evasive ability, when actively avoiding being hit.

nikkoli
2017-05-19, 04:02 PM
But you don't lose your base 10 ac while grappled or prone or unconscious do you?

Avianmosquito
2017-05-19, 04:07 PM
But you don't lose your base 10 ac while grappled or prone or unconscious do you?

You take a large penalty. You also take a large penalty for blindness, or cowering, and other things that don't make sense if you think base 10 AC represents a chance for the attacker to have a stroke mid-attack.

See for yourself: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm

nikkoli
2017-05-19, 04:32 PM
But a penalty to it for xyz is different from it not existing because you are a different shaped creature than bipedal things.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-19, 05:57 PM
But a penalty to it for xyz is different from it not existing because you are a different shaped creature than bipedal things.

It's the principle. If base AC was a chance to miss because your brain magically stopped working mid swing and caused you to somehow be 80 degrees off the mark, your target being blind, cowering, prone or unconscious would not diminish it. Further, there IS a mechanic for actually being off-target, and it isn't AC, it's miss chance.

nikkoli
2017-05-19, 07:16 PM
A touch off that topic, is one full round of every thing taking an action still 6 seconds? Because you talked about how much longer it takes to make some types of movements than others, while looking at seeing what a 5 a.c. bear does to a couple of 3hd experts the timing thing came to me.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-19, 07:22 PM
A touch off that topic, is one full round of every thing taking an action still 6 seconds? Because you talked about how much longer it takes to make some types of movements than others, while looking at seeing what a 5 a.c. bear does to a couple of 3hd experts the timing thing came to me.

Yeah, that always seemed weird to me too. How does this thing get three attacks in one six seconds when it has to lift its considerable mass off the ground to swipe and takes even longer to go for a bite? But I can't fix everything that doesn't make sense, I'd be at this forever.

nikkoli
2017-05-19, 07:48 PM
Yeah, that always seemed weird to me too. How does this thing get three attacks in one six seconds when it has to lift its considerable mass off the ground to swipe and takes even longer to go for a bite? But I can't fix everything that doesn't make sense, I'd be at this forever.

Yeah that's something me and my friend think about. 10 creatures all doing something and moving in a weird order. Then depending on how you interpret combat move speed it could be seen as normal walking speed, so everyone is agressivly power walking towards each other.

Esprit15
2017-05-20, 06:50 AM
Yeah that's something me and my friend think about. 10 creatures all doing something and moving in a weird order. Then depending on how you interpret combat move speed it could be seen as normal walking speed, so everyone is agressivly power walking towards each other.

The idea is that you're trying to move quickly but still carefully so as to not leave yourself open. That's why charging is faster but lowers your AC.

nikkoli
2017-05-20, 10:30 AM
The idea is that you're trying to move quickly but still carefully so as to not leave yourself open. That's why charging is faster but lowers your AC.

Which makes sense, but taking a double move every round, or charging, for a normal human is 60 ft a round, which is just shy of 7 miles an hour, and generic people could run at about 14 mph, which is about 1.5 mph faster than the average Olympic marathon runner. Then by RAW I believe you could keep that up for 8 hours before penalties start to show up. (I seldom use forced march stuff, I could be missing something). Point is normal John and Jane Doe is faster than the average Olympic distance runner.

Edit: I think my math is based vs the world record holder for the Olympic marathon, Samuel Kamau Wanjiru, who's average speed was 12.4 mph. So the average 3.5 human is faster than world record holding Olympic distance runners. Ok, Samuel isn't holding the record now, but the current holder is Dennis Kipruto Kimetto.

Esprit15
2017-05-20, 12:45 PM
Where are you getting that? The average DnD human can only manage a 6mph hustle over the course of an hour. Source (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm)

nikkoli
2017-05-20, 01:17 PM
Where are you getting that? The average DnD human can only manage a 6mph hustle over the course of an hour. Source (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm)

I put the note on not using that table much, but I did my math at 30 ft speed, then abouble move(hustle) for 60 then 10 rounds a minute for 600 feet and then 60 minutes an hour for a total of 36000 ft an hour which is 6.8 miles, I rounded that up to 7, and then used the run action (putting total at 13.6~14 mph) , but that table says you can't run for more than ~1 min at a time, so no one can run a marathon.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-20, 02:15 PM
I put the note on not using that table much, but I did my math at 30 ft speed, then abouble move(hustle) for 60 then 10 rounds a minute for 600 feet and then 60 minutes an hour for a total of 36000 ft an hour which is 6.8 miles, I rounded that up to 7, and then used the run action (putting total at 13.6~14 mph) , but that table says you can't run for more than ~1 min at a time, so no one can run a marathon.

Dude, hustle is a jog, run is a sprint. If anything, they are far too slow, as is walk speed, as especially with adrenaline pumping most people can jog faster than 7mph and sprint faster than 14mph.

The fastest possible in the system (fast movement plus run feat) only gets you just short of 23mph, olympic sprinters outdo that by quite a bit and the record is almost 28mph. In SPORT. This makes no sense. High-level D&D characters are superhuman in almost every other way, but for some reason they move really slow and there's no way to improve your speed to reach that of athletes. But as I've said, I can't fix everything. Though I guess I could add fast movement as a feat and have it stack with the barbarian version... Eh, maybe, maybe not. I'll consider it.

Esprit15
2017-05-20, 06:33 PM
No way to increase movement. Except for Barbarians. And Monks. Or Scouts. Epic feats if you really want to. You already mentioned Run, but that also increases run speed.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-20, 06:50 PM
No way to increase movement. Except for Barbarians. And Monks. Or Scouts. Epic feats if you really want to. You already mentioned Run, but that also increases run speed.

Ah, good to see you're still so dishonest that you'll cut off the end of the sentence to pretend I said something wildly different than I actually did, AND ignore that I already mentioned fast movement.

Shark Uppercut
2017-05-20, 08:00 PM
Though I guess I could add fast movement as a feat and have it stack with the barbarian version.
Get Fleet from Pathfinder. +5 movement, stacks with itself. Run is not helpful for combat, usually.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-20, 08:16 PM
Get Fleet from Pathfinder. +5 movement, stacks with itself. Run is not helpful for combat, usually.

That works. I need to get a PF sourcebook.

Esprit15
2017-05-20, 11:31 PM
Ah, good to see you're still so dishonest that you'll cut off the end of the sentence to pretend I said something wildly different than I actually did, AND ignore that I already mentioned fast movement.

Monks triple a human's movement over the course of its levels. I'm pretty sure that reaches the levels of athletes, seeing as 90ft overland and Run gives a mile time of around 70 seconds. (5280ft, divide by 90ftx5 for running gives just over 11 rounds). You could probably get faster with multi-classing and leaving core, but point made.

Shark Uppercut
2017-05-21, 12:08 AM
I need to get a PF sourcebook.
At a physical game you sit down at, yes.
In a PbP game, not necessarily. If you're ok with using the 3.5 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm), then you should be fine using the PF one (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/).
Or pirate the books.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-21, 12:15 AM
At a physical game you sit down at, yes.
In a PbP game, not necessarily. If you're ok with using the 3.5 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm), then you should be fine using the PF one (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/).
Or pirate the books.

Well, I use actual books here at home, so if I incorporate more from Pathfinder I need to get a physical sourcebook to read through. I only use SRD online and for books I don't have.

Razade
2017-05-21, 12:50 AM
1. Many breeds of domestic dogs are MORE aggressive than wolves, not less. They will still run off if you kick them in the ribs, and a wolf will too.

I know this argument is mostly over but...you should probably look up the feral dog problem in Russia. Dogs don't just give up if you kick them in the rib if they're starving. They're going to keep after you. They're a serious concern in a lot of Russian cities and towns. Serious enough that they go on massive culling operations.


2. We started with wolves. They were easy to work with because they are already predisposed to submit to stronger creatures, and we were stronger than them so they submitted.

Actually we didn't. Wolves and modern dogs have the same ancestor. Dogs aren't descended from wolves. That was the prevailing theory for a long time granted but it's not widely considered accurate now. The genetic overlap has been proven to be through intermixing after the event.


4. The best way to kill somebody with a dog is the Russian method. Strap a bomb to it, the dog is stupid enough for that to work. I'm sure you understand why we don't do that anymore.

You vastly underestimate the intelligence of one of our oldest companions. Shame on you.

Don't have a whole lot to add on the house rules other than I'm sure glad I don't game at your table. All of this seems really fiddly for no reason and...really lacking any logical sense for reasons tons of other posters have pointed out.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-21, 01:09 AM
I know this argument is mostly over but...you should probably look up the feral dog problem in Russia. Dogs don't just give up if you kick them in the rib if they're starving. They're going to keep after you. They're a serious concern in a lot of Russian cities and towns. Serious enough that they go on massive culling operations.

They don't need to be a lethal threat to be a problem and worth culling, or nobody would be worried about rats or cockroaches.


Actually we didn't. Wolves and modern dogs have the same ancestor. Dogs aren't descended from wolves. That was the prevailing theory for a long time granted but it's not widely considered accurate now. The genetic overlap has been proven to be through intermixing after the event.

Riiiiiiight, that's why canis lupus familiaris is a subspecies of canis lupus.

I didn't say we started with modern grey wolves, I just said wolves. That is, members of the species canis lupus, which dogs still are. That is not disproven by interbreeding dogs and grey wolves, that just proves they have not speciated, which is why they are considered a subspecies. If you want to claim dogs never descended from wolves at all, rather than just not modern grey wolves, you'll need a citation 'cause I'm not buying it. If you are saying I claimed they descended from a specific modern variety of wolf, I didn't say that and I would love it if people would STOP putting words in my mouth.


You vastly underestimate the intelligence of one of our oldest companions. Shame on you.

You do realize dog bombs were a thing the Russians really used, right? That was a Russian anti-tank method early in the second world war, and it worked until better methods were introduced. Because dogs ARE stupid enough to charge at tanks while loaded down with twenty pounds of blam. Sure, the dog can't possibly know what a bomb is or what a tank is, but a smart animal doesn't charge at something that much bigger than it, much less do it while carrying a quarter of its mass. This is us training dogs, not breeding, but it still shows us instilling dogs with suicidal levels of aggression to make them charge at the big noisy thing a wolf would be miles away from before it stopped running.


Don't have a whole lot to add on the house rules other than I'm sure glad I don't game at your table. All of this seems really fiddly for no reason and...really lacking any logical sense for reasons tons of other posters have pointed out.

No, see, just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. And a lot of people believing something doesn't make them right, either. The fact that these people believe humans have zero physical capability and animals have superpowers doesn't make it any more so than if they all believed the Earth was hollow, or flat, or popped into existence last tuesday.

Arcran
2017-05-21, 01:31 AM
We're hardly saying that dogs have superpowers, or that humans have zero physical capability. We're just saying that any decent sized dog is a lethal threat for a human, which is a concept you don't seem to be able to grasp. I don't think saying that if you were to put a human in a naked cage match against pretty much any other apex predator it's going to end badly for the human is a controversial statement at all.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-21, 02:02 AM
We're hardly saying that dogs have superpowers, or that humans have zero physical capability. We're just saying that any decent sized dog is a lethal threat for a human, which is a concept you don't seem to be able to grasp. I don't think saying that if you were to put a human in a naked cage match against pretty much any other apex predator it's going to end badly for the human is a controversial statement at all.

1. The idea that humans would lose a fight with an animal with a huge number of exploitable weaknesses specialized for chasing rather than fighting that is also less than half their size, while not saying humans have absolutely zero physical ability, IS saying humans have so laughably little physical ability that "zero" is a reasonable hyperbole.

2. Saying dogs, creatures specialized ONLY to chase things with a stupid amount of easily exploited weaknesses, would win a fight with a creature twice their sized that is actually specialized for fighting IS saying they have superpowers.

3. Dogs are not apex predators. I never held the position that humans were the likely victor against another apex predator without their tools. A human without tools has all the fighting ability of an equal-sized chimpanzee. Do you think Fido is going to beat a 200 pound chimpanzee?

Humans didn't get to be apex predators by being weak, but smart. Evolution doesn't work like that. Creatures do not develop large and energy intensive brains without already being able to reliably get large amounts if food to support their large brains, which also requires being able to avoid predation. Especially as herd-chasers like humans, which means competing with and surviving around other predators that target herds. Lions, for example. Humans, tje early hominid species specifically which were smaller than modern humans, evolved chasing herds in lion country BEFORE advanced tool use was a thing.

Further, humans are great apes second only to chimpanzees in muscle density. That alone should tell you at LEAST that humans have raw physical strength on their side, even if you ignore everything else. I can cite a source, but I didn't think the statement that humans are still apes needed to be PROVEN. Is that not a thing we agree on?

Razade
2017-05-21, 02:19 AM
They don't need to be a lethal threat to be a problem and worth culling, or nobody would be worried about rats or cockroaches.

But...both of those are a lethal thread >.>. Dogs can be a lethal threat to humans. A pack or an individual.


Riiiiiiight, that's why canis lupus familiaris is a subspecies of canis lupus.

Taxonomy is not a precise or even fully accurate science. You might also find it interesting that Dogs were only recently (recent in these things) termed as Canis Lupus Familiaris. It was originally only Canis Familiaris. The taxonomy was changed in 2005. So just a little over a decade ago. The argument is still raging, for reasons we'll get to below.

Here's an article from Live Science. (http://www.livescience.com/50928-wolf-genome-dog-ancient-ancestor.html)

Here's one from The Atlantic. (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/06/the-origin-of-dogs/484976/)

Here's one from the International Business Times. (http://www.ibtimes.com/dogs-wolves-evolved-common-ancestor-dog-domestication-more-complex-previously-thought-1543518)

Wolves and Dogs (the wolves that were thought to have been the progenitor of dogs...which they aren't..) interbred with each other too often and their genepool is a big soupy mess. Even Wikipedia has it listed as an issue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog).


I didn't say we started with modern grey wolves, I just said wolves. That is, members of the species canis lupus, which dogs still are.

Taxonomy is only a label, as pointed out. It can change, it has changed (as pointed out), it will continue to change as we continue to fill in the gaps of our understanding. Wolves and Dogs are both canines, they share a common ancestor. That common ancestor just wasn't the gray wolf as has been argued. It was other creature. Possibly a wolf. We don't know. We haven't found its bones.


That is not disproven by interbreeding dogs and grey wolves, that just proves they have not speciated, which is why they are considered a subspecies. If you want to claim dogs never descended from wolves at all, rather than just not modern grey wolves, you'll need a citation 'cause I'm not buying it. If you are saying I claimed they descended from a specific modern variety of wolf, I didn't say that and I would love it if people would STOP putting words in my mouth.

Not all dogs can breed with wolves and produce viable offspring.


You do realize dog bombs were a thing the Russians really used, right? That was a Russian anti-tank method early in the second world war, and it worked until better methods were introduced.

Yeah? Not sure why you think you need to condescend to me but...I'm well aware that people used dogs as anti-tank weapons. Wasn't just the Russians by the by.


Because dogs ARE stupid enough to charge at tanks while loaded down with twenty pounds of blam. Sure, the dog can't possibly know what a bomb is or what a tank is, but a smart animal doesn't charge at something that much bigger than it, much less do it while carrying a quarter of its mass. This is us training dogs, not breeding, but it still shows us instilling dogs with suicidal levels of aggression to make them charge at the big noisy thing a wolf would be miles away from before it stopped running.

You really don't have a clue what you're talking about. The dogs don't do it naturally. They were trained to do it. As in, they were smart enough to follow instructions to a point they could be turned into guided missles. That's an argument for their intellect, not against it. Plenty of other animals have been tried for similar things and they fail. They fail because they're not smart enough to go against basic instinct. Dogs aren't stupid animals.


No, see, just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. And a lot of people believing something doesn't make them right, either.

You're right. Argumentum ad Populum is a possible logical fallacy. Except I didn't say I felt that way and it was true because a lot of other people thought it was the case. I said other people made the points I'd have made already and I had no reason to retred them.

For the record, I just think your houserules are bad because they're bad. Not because other people think they're bad. They're bad independent of anyone's opinion on the matter. Especially yours. :smalltongue:


The fact that these people believe humans have zero physical capability and animals have superpowers doesn't make it any more so than if they all believed the Earth was hollow, or flat, or popped into existence last tuesday.

Remember how you were complaining about people putting words into your mouth? You should probably practice what you preach in this case. I'd also like your argument that the Earth didn't pop into existence last Tuesday. Because I don't know anyone who can really. Other than the basic understanding that while you can't prove it (unless maybe you can. I don't hold out a lot of hope for you considering the things I've seen you post here and in other threads but hey, maybe you can!) it's reasonable to presume that it didn't due to the preponderance of evidence. But you can't really (again maybe you can) prove that the evidence of the past is real and that I wasn't created with knowledge of it when the universe was created last Tuesday.


1. The idea that humans would lose a fight with an animal with a huge number of exploitable weaknesses specialized for chasing rather than fighting that is also less than half their size, while not saying humans have absolutely zero physical ability, IS saying humans have so laughably little physical ability that "zero" is a reasonable hyperbole.


You live in another world my man.

Here's a dude mauled by dogs. He almost died. No humans there to help the dog in any way. On the contrary, there's two people trying to fend off the dogs. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4SNlbvsCss)

Here's a dude killed by his own dog. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKd-IzQBgEY)

Here's one in which over 20 people were injured. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnh2SYGDQ-0)

I want to move to your planet though. Apparently dogs are push overs.

Have one more. This guy was just versus one dog. Dude's not among us anymore. Boy shouldn't he feel stupid. Killed by a dog. You know. Dogs. Those things that can't hurt humans because we can...dodge...

NOT SAFE FOR...ANYTHING. YOU'VE BEEN WARNED. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PxyxrKLQLU) totally kidding by the way.


3. Dogs are not apex predators. I never held the position that humans were the likely victor against another apex predator without their tools. A human without tools has all the fighting ability of an equal-sized chimpanzee. Do you think Fido is going to beat a 200 pound chimpanzee?

Yes...they are...dogs and wolves and dingos are apex predators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apex_predators)...and yes. I've proven more than enough evidence that not only do I think a dog could take down a human. They have. On video. With witnesses.


All of this is wildly off topic and I apologize for bringing it back up. I'm going to get an ice cream and forget about this thread since I don't have anything else constructive to add to the actual topic.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-21, 03:06 AM
But...both of those are a lethal thread >.>.

Not as physical aggressors, though. I'd apologize for not specifying if I believed for a second you actually didn't know what I meant.


Dogs can be a lethal threat to humans. A pack or an individual.

And a toddler can be a lethal threat to an adult. I still know who my money is on.


Taxonomy is not a precise or even fully accurate science. You might also find it interesting that Dogs were only recently (recent in these things) termed as Canis Lupus Familiaris. It was originally only Canis Familiaris. The taxonomy was changed in 2005. So just a little over a decade ago. The argument is still raging, for reasons we'll get to below.

Here's an article from Live Science. (http://www.livescience.com/50928-wolf-genome-dog-ancient-ancestor.html)

Here's one from The Atlantic. (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/06/the-origin-of-dogs/484976/)

Here's one from the International Business Times. (http://www.ibtimes.com/dogs-wolves-evolved-common-ancestor-dog-domestication-more-complex-previously-thought-1543518)

Wolves and Dogs (the wolves that were thought to have been the progenitor of dogs...which they aren't..) interbred with each other too often and their genepool is a big soupy mess. Even Wikipedia has it listed as an issue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog).

Taxonomy is only a label, as pointed out. It can change, it has changed (as pointed out), it will continue to change as we continue to fill in the gaps of our understanding.

So your argument is "They changed their classification recently and people are arguing, therefore the current classification is invalid."? Is that right? No, seriously, I'm asking. Because if so, do you hold the same standard with the classification of Pluto? If so, agree to disagree. If not, I think your reasoning is flawed.


Wolves and Dogs are both canines, they share a common ancestor. That common ancestor just wasn't the gray wolf as has been argued. It was other creature. Possibly a wolf. We don't know. We haven't found its bones.

And the currently best theory, that is the thing best supported by the evidence, was that it was a wolf. So I am going with that.


Not all dogs can breed with wolves and produce viable offspring.

And not all dogs can breed with all other dogs and produce viable offspring. What's your point?


Yeah? Not sure why you think you need to condescend to me but...I'm well aware that people used dogs as anti-tank weapons.

Oh, good. Now, are you going to argue this doesn't require the animal be stupid?


Wasn't just the Russians by the by.

I know, but they are most famous for it.


You really don't have a clue what you're talking about. The dogs don't do it naturally. They were trained to do it.

This is such a strawman that your argument against it is something I already said.


As in, they were smart enough to follow instructions to a point they could be turned into guided missles. That's an argument for their intellect, not against it. Plenty of other animals have been tried for similar things and they fail. They fail because they're not smart enough to go against basic instinct.

So, blindly following commands that are blatantly idiotic and detrimental to your safety and wellbeing just because you've been trained to is an argument for intellect? I think we may be using different definitions of that word within this context. See, I am using "stupid" as in "given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner". That's 1b in Marriam-Webster.


Dogs aren't stupid animals.

Maybe not by your definition. Can you define that? What kind of stupid are you saying dogs aren't, and compared to what?


You're right. Argumentum ad Populum is a possible logical fallacy. Except I didn't say I felt that way and it was true because a lot of other people thought it was the case. I said other people made the points I'd have made already and I had no reason to retred them.

And that is indistinguishable in practice. If somebody says "Well, the Earth is flat and a lot of people made great arguments for it.", that may as well be an argumentum ad populum.


For the record, I just think your houserules are bad because they're bad. Not because other people think they're bad. They're bad independent of anyone's opinion on the matter. Especially yours. :smalltongue:

"Bad" is an opinion, so no they're not.


Remember how you were complaining about people putting words into your mouth? You should probably practice what you preach in this case.

Did I say anybody made one of those claims? No? Then I'm not putting words in anybody's mouth, now am I? Crap on a crutch, don't you know what an analogy is?


I'd also like your argument that the Earth didn't pop into existence last Tuesday. Because I don't know anyone who can really. Other than the basic understanding that while you can't prove it (unless maybe you can. I don't hold out a lot of hope for you considering the things I've seen you post here and in other threads but hey, maybe you can!) it's reasonable to presume that it didn't due to the preponderance of evidence. But you can't really (again maybe you can) prove that the evidence of the past is real and that I wasn't created with knowledge of it when the universe was created last Tuesday.

Not how burden of proof works. If anybody actually claims the universe popped into existence last tuesday, they'll have to prove it. I'm not claiming it didn't. I'm saying I don't believe it did, which is not the same. If you want to play that way, here. Have a claim to disprove. "There's an invisible, intangible pink elephant in my living room. It taught me how to make and fly a rocket ship, which is hidden under my back yard so well nobody can possibly find it. I'm only $100 short of fueling it, and I need your money. If you don't forward this to three other people, my elephant will trample you in your sleep.".

Now, do you understand why you DON'T need to disprove that?


You live in another world my man.

Here's a dude mauled by dogs. He almost died. No humans there to help the dog in any way. On the contrary, there's two people trying to fend off the dogs. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4SNlbvsCss)

Here's a dude killed by his own dog. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKd-IzQBgEY)

Here's one in which over 20 people were injured. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnh2SYGDQ-0)

I want to move to your planet though. Apparently dogs are push overs.

Oh, for the love of...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/01/us/new-mexico-toddler-shoots-parents/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/30/idaho-toddler-shoots-kills-mother-walmart

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/01/toddlers-have-shot-at-least-23-people-this-year/

So are toddlers a lethal threat now, Razzy? Or do you actually understand the difference between something that "is" and something that "can be under select circumstances"? So now, if I say toddlers are not a lethal threat, are you going to point out that occasionally they kill people and say you wish you lived in my world? If so, you are at least applying your standards evenly, but please excuse me if I say your standards are a bit silly.


All of this is wildly off topic and I apologize for bringing it back up. I'm going to get an ice cream and forget about this thread since I don't have anything else constructive to add to the actual topic.

Aw, come on, just the one question. Do you consider toddlers a lethal threat? Answer that, it's easy. It's a yes or no question, either answer is good enough for me. I just want to know if you're slightly silly, or should change your name to and run for political office. (https://youtu.be/4x_CH3M4OJ0)

Razade
2017-05-21, 03:45 AM
Ok so I lied. One last time because boy is this fun.


Not as physical aggressors, though. I'd apologize for not specifying if I believed for a second you actually didn't know what I meant.

Well if you want to keep moving the goal posts!!


And a toddler can be a lethal threat to an adult. I still know who my money is on.

False equivalence is a really fun fallacy, since you're in the business of them.


So your argument is "They changed their classification recently and people are arguing, therefore the current classification is invalid."? Is that right? No, seriously, I'm asking. Because if so, do you hold the same standard with the classification of Pluto? If so, agree to disagree. If not, I think your reasoning is flawed.

No my argument is that pointing to Taxa and saying that it's the end all argument is a bad one because it's not really a thing. It's a way we order things. It's not a thing in and of itself. It's a tool, and the tool isn't always correct.


And the currently best theory, that is the thing best supported by the evidence, was that it was a wolf. So I am going with that.

Except the current theory is that the old model is wrong and it's got plenty of evidence. You not being aware of that evidence isn't my fault or my problem.


And not all dogs can breed with all other dogs and produce viable offspring. What's your point?

Well in this case (even though you're wrong) that would prove that speciation occurred. Even though you're wrong. No extant species of dog can't breed with another extant breed of dog. Unless you've got examples. You're fond of demanding people back up their assertions with evidence (even though you ignore it) but don't seem all that interested in backing yours up.


Oh, good. Now, are you going to argue this doesn't require the animal be stupid?

Not only am I, I am doing and did so.


This is such a strawman that your argument against it is something I already said.

It's not a strawman. You should probably look up what that is. You're argument is that dogs are stupid because they can be trained to run under tanks with bombs. My counter-argument is that that requires a lot of intellegence. We've tried it with other animals and it failed. The animal needs to be smart enough to understand and utilize the training. Dogs have that intelligence. Bats don't. You're not batting 1000 tonight it seems.


So, blindly following commands that are blatantly idiotic and detrimental to your safety and wellbeing just because you've been trained to is an argument for intellect?

Yes. Acting against fight or flight instincts and preservation philosophy is an argument for intelligent. Unless you think humans aren't intelligent. Humans are trained to do blatently idiotic stuff (and even not trained! Look at things like Viva la Bam) against their wellbeing.


I think we may be using different definitions of that word within this context. See, I am using "stupid" as in "given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner". That's 1b in Marriam-Webster.

Then by that definition humans are stupid.


Maybe not by your definition. Can you define that? What kind of stupid are you saying dogs aren't, and compared to what?


stupid
ˈst(y)o͞opəd/Submit
adjective
1.
having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.
"I was stupid enough to think she was perfect"

There you go. That's my definition. And against what? Dogs are smarter than lobsters. And Elephants. And honestly most of the mammalian kingdom. We've actually measured dog intelligence. Dogs are sapient enough to have emotions like us apes. Not the same emotions, but close. We've evolved them to be smart. Dogs are smart.


And that is indistinguishable in practice. If somebody says "Well, the Earth is flat and a lot of people made great arguments for it.", that may as well be an argumentum ad populum.

It may as well be because it is exactly what it is. No one made an appeal to popularity though so who cares?



Did I say anybody made one of those claims? No? Then I'm not putting words in anybody's mouth, now am I? Crap on a crutch, don't you know what an analogy is?

Sorry, I assumed by "these people" meant the other posters. Not someone who isn't actually making the argument here. Because why would I try to argue against people who aren't arguing for something? That's not an analogy. That's just pointless.


Not how burden of proof works.

Well you're not wrong but I'm not really keen on taking logic advice from you since you haven't demonstrated a very firm grasp of it.


If anybody actually claims the universe popped into existence last tuesday, they'll have to prove it. I'm not claiming it didn't. I'm saying I don't believe it did, which is not the same.

I'm well aware of the default position thanks. I don't think think the world was made last Tuesday. Which ya know, I said. I very plainly said that there was no reason to believe it was.


If you want to play that way, here. Have a claim to disprove. "There's an invisible, intangible pink elephant in my living room. It taught me how to make and fly a rocket ship, which is hidden under my back yard so well nobody can possibly find it. I'm only $100 short of fueling it, and I need your money. If you don't forward this to three other people, my elephant will trample you in your sleep.".

Now, do you understand why you DON'T need to disprove that?

I understood it before, once again you acting like you're the smartest person here isn't a very good look for you when you demonstrate you're not. I openly said that the claim is unable to be proven. If you didn't understand that meant there didn't need to be a disproof for an un-provable claim...well just go back to "you don't need to condescend to me when I've already established I know what I'm talking about".



Oh, for the love of...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/01/us/new-mexico-toddler-shoots-parents/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/30/idaho-toddler-shoots-kills-mother-walmart

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/01/toddlers-have-shot-at-least-23-people-this-year/

So are toddlers a lethal threat now, Razzy? Or do you actually understand the difference between something that "is" and something that "can be under select circumstances"? So now, if I say toddlers are not a lethal threat, are you going to point out that occasionally they kill people and say you wish you lived in my world? If so, you are at least applying your standards evenly, but please excuse me if I say your standards are a bit silly.

Again, false equivalence. Your argument was that a human without tools isn't at threat against a dog. Providing examples of toddlers using guns isn't the same thing. Which is why I'm not going to be taking your advice on logic any time soon. Once again, trying to be condescending isn't a good look. Especially when you're wrong and your argument is bad.Toddler with gun =/= Dog. A toddler with a gun is probably more dangerous than a dog. A toddler without a tool (a gun) isn't. You know how I know? Because dogs maul toddlers without guns pretty easily. Plenty of news stories about it.

You fail, no surprise there.

Shark Uppercut
2017-05-21, 04:02 AM
We gotta care about things that are important. Even with the default 3.5 rules, combat dogs are CR1. Unless this is gonna be a gritty E6 campaign, dogs won't even be worth experience once the party levels up a few times. Their combat potency is unimportant.

I care about 'playtesting' these rules, not scoring points against Avianmosquito.
If people could go for an entire damn post without insulting each other's intelligence or looking for Strawman, that'd be nice.
And if someone is clearly not going to change their mind, let them be, please.

Just to curtain the smart vs stupid thing... Obviously, dogs that are given suicidal orders will be suicidal. But their capacity to obey orders that are demanding enough to be 'suicidal' means they are some of the smartest domesticated animals.

By the way, can you edit the 1st page to reflect the 'no +5 block vs ranged' ruling?

Razade
2017-05-21, 04:07 AM
I care about 'playtesting' these rules, not scoring points against Avianmosquito.
If people could go for an entire damn post without insulting each other's intelligence or looking for Strawman, that'd be nice.
And if someone is clearly not going to change their mind, let them be, please.

Just to curtain the smart vs stupid thing... Obviously, dogs that are given suicidal orders will be suicidal. But their capacity to obey orders that are demanding enough to be 'suicidal' means they are some of the smartest domesticated animals.

By the way, can you edit the 1st page to reflect the 'no +5 block vs ranged' ruling?

Why not just suck the fun out of everything!

Avianmosquito
2017-05-21, 04:32 AM
And if someone is clearly not going to change their mind, let them be, please.

Yeah, I've hit that point twice now. I'd rather move on to something more pleasant. ANYTHING more pleasant. There's a raccoon that's been staring at me for 20 minutes. The company's new soap smells like ass. I get to go home in three hours. My daughters have been trying to steal my bed on almost a nightly basis.

Oh! I've narrowed my DMPC choices down to two. Three if you count not having one.


Just to curtain the smart vs stupid thing... Obviously, dogs that are given suicidal orders will be suicidal. But their capacity to obey orders that are demanding enough to be 'suicidal' means they are some of the smartest domesticated animals.

If I say they're smart in learning ability, stupid in critical thinking, will that finally sink this pointless argument? (And yes, Razade, I DO think most people are stupid. In fact, I think they are incredibly, shockingly stupid. The **** they not only believe but never question for a second beggars belief.)


By the way, can you edit the 1st page to reflect the 'no +5 block vs ranged' ruling?

I thought I did. I guess I'll go fix that, then.

EDIT:
Indeed I did not. Huh. I must have accidentally backed out of the page, or something. Well, it's fixed now.

khadgar567
2017-05-21, 05:10 AM
lets drop int as stat anmd use common sense shall we?

Avianmosquito
2017-05-21, 05:12 AM
lets drop int as stat anmd use common sense shall we?

Would common sense help arcane casting or skills? You'd end up with a world of wizards and people who are actually good at ****.

khadgar567
2017-05-21, 05:16 AM
Would common sense help arcane casting or skills? You'd end up with a world of wizards and people who are actually good at ****.
It helps you to understand you are out of your depth which wizards lot of time dont understand and wisdom more suited for the whole wise man aspect they force to cultivate more then inteligence and is 3rd party books on table for your setting mosquito chan?

Avianmosquito
2017-05-21, 05:25 AM
It helps you to understand you are out of your depth which wizards lot of time dont understand

That depends on the setting, really.


and wisdom more suited for the whole wise man aspect they force to cultivate more then inteligence

Can... can you try that part again?

As for the idea as a whole, the problem is most of what people call "common sense" is actually intuition, and life is really counter-intuitive.


and is 3rd party books on table for your setting mosquito chan?

For the most part, no. It's really hard to regulate. But if you run something past me from a 3rd party book, I may approve it.

khadgar567
2017-05-21, 05:38 AM
Can... can you try that part again?

As for the idea as a whole, the problem is most of what people call "common sense" is actually intuition, and life is really counter-intuitive.

wisdom like the clerics casting stat and for the wise man is in past wizards called wise mans which why i suggest wisdom as casting stat for wizards also broke to much skill focus for arcane idiots called wizard

nikkoli
2017-05-21, 04:26 PM
Off to something else: why do "normies" pick up HD faster than normal? Like why do children had 2+ HD?
Also, do you have a more specific write up for the weapons material idea? It's interesting and something me and LanthSor have used, but it can get a bit wonky when you've got daggers that swing like huge greatswords. Do you plan to use the standard weapon size progression or change it up so the jumps don't get as large at the higher end materials? It seems like you're not using the standard chart since you say the great sword would go up to 4d8 after a few jumps from 2d6.
Do you have stats for the firearms? Are you using pathfinder ones? Would the materials offer their benefits if you made the ammunition out of adamantine would that be better than iron or lead shot? (I'm assuming adamantine would be one of the improved materials since it's the go to super metal in most dnd weapons)
Do you have stats for the heavy weaponry?
For the grenades I would go check pathfinders alchemist class and look over it's bomb ability and some of its discoveries, if you don't already have it all set.
What decides how much DR armor gives? And what kind of DR is given by armor?
Why the change for improvised weapons, how I've always looked at that -4 is part "this is awkward to use as a weapon," and "this really isn't built to do much damage." I.e. a table leg vs a mace.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-21, 05:32 PM
Off to something else: why do "normies" pick up HD faster than normal? Like why do children had 2+ HD?

Because 1HD creatures get killed by a stiff breeze and it's absurd. I am sick to death of supposedly human characters who would be taken down by two scratches from a house cat.


Also, do you have a more specific write up for the weapons material idea? It's interesting and something me and LanthSor have used, but it can get a bit wonky when you've got daggers that swing like huge greatswords. Do you plan to use the standard weapon size progression or change it up so the jumps don't get as large at the higher end materials? It seems like you're not using the standard chart since you say the great sword would go up to 4d8 after a few jumps from 2d6.

I'll write it into the first post when I get the chance.


Do you have stats for the firearms?

Yes.


Are you using pathfinder ones?

Hell no.


Would the materials offer their benefits if you made the ammunition out of adamantine would that be better than iron or lead shot? (I'm assuming adamantine would be one of the improved materials since it's the go to super metal in most dnd weapons)

No, it wouldn't. Bullets rely on density, which lead has in spades, and deformation on impact to inflict maximum damage. A stronger material would not necessarily outperform it. However, you can still get enhanced ammunition, just not different materials. Sure, only being able to use +5 ammuniton where a bow could have +5 ammunition made of celestial steel seems unfair, but it's the only thing that keeps non-firearm projectile weapons even remotely competitive.


Do you have stats for the heavy weaponry?

I do. I will also add that to the write-up.


For the grenades I would go check pathfinders alchemist class and look over it's bomb ability and some of its discoveries, if you don't already have it all set.

Actually, I already have them done. I'll add that to the write-up as well.


What decides how much DR armor gives?

Weight class (clothing, light armour, medium armour, heavy armour) and material. That's it. The pattern is also pretty well set. I'll add it to the write-up.


And what kind of DR is given by armor?

/--, for the sake of simplicity.


Why the change for improvised weapons, how I've always looked at that -4 is part "this is awkward to use as a weapon," and "this really isn't built to do much damage." I.e. a table leg vs a mace.

Except many of the improvised weapons listed would actually do MORE damage than the dedicated weapon. Like a crowbar, which is inexplicably treated as a club instead of the mace it should be, which would deal MUCH more damage than a club would. (Also, a table leg would be a club, and it's a completely ordinary wooden club.)

EDIT:
I just got called in. I got the firearms and some of the weapon materials up, the rest will need to be done tomorrow.

Edit:
Huh. The other bartender, the guy I'm replacing tonight, crashed on his way to work. I... Might be working quite a few more hours. Expect delays on... Everything.

Edit:
Okay. I picked up two extra days this week, one after that. Not that big of a delay.

Esprit15
2017-05-23, 03:24 AM
I think the question was about the -4 to attack, not about the damage. Nobody is questiong how much it hurts to be hit by a chair, just whether it could be wielded as effectively as a basic club. A 10 strength dude is not exactly going to have an easy time of it compared to swinging a baseball bat, for example, yet under these rules, they would.

Avianmosquito
2017-05-23, 03:55 AM
I think the question was about the -4 to attack, not about the damage. Nobody is questiong how much it hurts to be hit by a chair, just whether it could be wielded as effectively as a basic club. A 10 strength dude is not exactly going to have an easy time of it compared to swinging a baseball bat, for example, yet under these rules, they would.

It's not an entire chair, it's just the leg that you're using as a club.

Edit:
Hey guys, I'm sorry. I really am. I'm far too tired to finish the edits I'm supposed to do. I may or may not get to it today. I was not expecting two extra work days to get dumped in my lap and I didn't adjust well. I will get to those additions as soon as I can but I can't price things today.

Esprit15
2017-05-23, 09:09 PM
Yes, but that still leaves the problem of a chair being as easy to wield as a bat. I agree that most improvised weapon penalties for things like a chair leg vs a club are stilly, but I also think the original intention for them was things like "Can I hit him with a bar stool?"

Avianmosquito
2017-05-23, 09:26 PM
Yes, but that still leaves the problem of a chair being as easy to wield as a bat. I agree that most improvised weapon penalties for things like a chair leg vs a club are stilly, but I also think the original intention for them was things like "Can I hit him with a bar stool?"

A chair isn't hard to wield just because it's improvised, it's hard to wield because it's oversized and if you were a hill giant you'd have zero issue whatsoever swinging it as a club. If you want to swing an entire chair, you GM should be looking at the pre-existing penalty for wielding a huge-sized weapon, which is -4. If you want to swing a bar stool, maybe a -2. If you're hitting somebody with just a chair leg, it's a wooden club. If you hit somebody with a crowbar, it would function as a heavy mace. Writing it so they just don't get enhancement works fine, you don't need to throw a -4 onto reasonable improvised weapons because somebody might use a super oversized improvised weapon that should already get a size penalty.

Edit:
Okay, so I got about half of it done, just not the write-ups on celestials or the new child templates. I'll get to those later, though I realize the celestial information is essential.

WindStruck
2017-08-03, 11:46 AM
I think there could be certain exceptions to armor and energy resistances. Namely, someone wearing any with iron, steel, or copper probably isn't going to be very resistant to electric energy.

And I think maybe animals could be trained for combat to get a bit of bonus to their AC. 1 on 1 facing off against a dog or a wolf, maybe all the arguments regarding their limbs hold, however, as I own a dog and have tried and failed many times to chase her down while playing, I think the quadrupeds have it pretty good if they are already running and avoiding attacks while being chased...

Avianmosquito
2017-08-03, 11:56 AM
I think there could be certain exceptions to armor and energy resistances. Namely, someone wearing any with iron, steel, or copper probably isn't going to be very resistant to electric energy.

Look up the words "Faraday cage".


And I think maybe animals could be trained for combat to get a bit of bonus to their AC. 1 on 1 facing off against a dog or a wolf, maybe all the arguments regarding their limbs hold, however, as I own a dog and have tried and failed many times to chase her down while playing, I think the quadrupeds have it pretty good if they are already running and avoiding attacks while being chased...

Please do not restart the hours and hours of unproductive, pointless bickering.

WindStruck
2017-08-03, 12:04 PM
I'm noticing that the subjects inside the faraday cage are distinctly not touching any of it....

Well, I only was commenting here to be helpful, not argue, so whatever.

Avianmosquito
2017-08-03, 12:13 PM
I'm noticing that the subjects inside the faraday cage are distinctly not touching any of it....

A: You can touch the inside of a faraday cage.

B: Metal armor does not lie directly against your skin.