Most Ridiculous Rules in RPGS

[Max_Killjoy]

If the "master cook" is a level 10 Expert and the mighty barbarian is level 1, I am not going to be upset that the master cook is better in a fight. He's Seen Some Things. He's the kind of expert chef who travelled with Sir Passelthwaite the elven knight and had to participate in securing his kitchen area from carrion crawlers. Sure, he wasn't an adventurer and Sir Passelthwaite and his companions did the real fighting, but this chef had to defend himself more than once. And he probably knows more about how to butcher anything with an anatomy than the barbarian wants to learn. Including some things which are still moving.

Or he's just a good cook and the concept of "levels" tends to distort things.

[Segev]

Or he's just a good cook and the concept of "levels" tends to distort things.

A level 1 expert can have +4 from stat, +4 from skill ranks/prof. bonus, and +3 from skill focus. Add +2 from masterwork tools, and a +2 to +6 circumstance bonus for his kitchen, ingredients, familiarity with the recipe, etc., and you've got +13 to +19 to any given cooking roll.

If all you're looking for is "a good cook," even "an extremely good cook," you don't NEED to go above level 1.

A level 10 character, even in an NPC class, is pretty near legendary. He's done things that are worthy of grand storytelling, and has had adventures of some sort or another. But if he's using that +33 to his cooking skill(s), it's probably because he's doing it to counteract pretty severe penalties. He's cooking with wet wood in a camp fire, or preparing a feast with naught but the contents of a ship's galley, in a thunderstorm, or using ingredients that the wizard has barely heard of.

Such feats are indeed the stuff of legend, and are the kind of thing one learns to do through adventuresome careers, or at least being on the periphery of such careers enough to pick things up.

Mac, owner of the renowned tavern in the Dresden Files series, is probably a level 7 or so Expert. He likely earned those levels through much more than simply going in to work and cooking food and brewing beer every day, considering his clientele and what he must have gone through to establish such a business.

[Friv]

A level 10 character, even in an NPC class, is pretty near legendary. He's done things that are worthy of grand storytelling, and has had adventures of some sort or another. But if he's using that +33 to his cooking skill(s), it's probably because he's doing it to counteract pretty severe penalties. He's cooking with wet wood in a camp fire, or preparing a feast with naught but the contents of a ship's galley, in a thunderstorm, or using ingredients that the wizard has barely heard of.

People like to say this, but the rules don't support it. Two out of three towns with at least 2,000 people in them have a level 10-15 expert in them. One in five has a level 10-11 warrior, and one in four has a level 10+ fighter or rogue. Overall, 85% of large towns have one of these near-legendary people in them.

If you have cities of 5,000 or more people, you're basically guaranteed to have a lot of Level 10+ people running around. You've got two Level 9-18 Experts, two Level 8-14 Warriors, two 7-13 Adepts and a lot of Level 7-16 PC class characters. And all those high-level characters are exceptional soldiers who can fight entire squads of trained soldiers because of their amazing cooking or priesting skills.

[Jormengand]

I think that "Entire squads of trained soldiers" is a little much. Take a level 15 expert. By this level, we're talking about someone who can easily be capable of answering "The toughest questions" offhand, who can craft you any weapon in existence, who can sing so well that angels come to listen without even trying to roll. This kind of person is, no matter how common, absolutely legendary in a lot of ways.

On the other hand, he has a base attack bonus of eleven; he's just mastered the art of making one sword swing in two seconds. Or, one morningstar swing, because a spiky ball on a stick is the most dangerous weapon he's able to wield. He has about fifty-two hit points. Each attack, if it hits, deals about four and a half points of damage. This ignoring the fact that he probably has low strength and constitution and higher intelligence and wisdom with moderate dexterity and charisma, so actually his attack, with a +10 to hit, deals 3.5 damage, and he has about thirty-seven hit points. He's kitted out with a chain shirt, giving him a respectable AC of 14, decent for a noncombatant.

Enter a small squad of five level three warriors. Decked out in the finest plate armour NPC WBL 3 can buy, with longswords and heavy shields, weapon specialisation and focus, and the ubiquitously powerful bonus feat toughness (assuming they're humans), they're rolling with high strength and constitution and medium dexterity, meaning that they deal 7.5 damage per swing, have a +5 to hit, and have nineteen hitpoints apiece. They're rolling with an AC of 21, meaning it's slightly harder for the expert to hit them than for them to hit the expert. They need to land an average of a little under five hits, meaning it will take them two rounds to decapitate the poor expert. If he does land a few hits in that time - which is actually unlikely - he needs an average of a little over five hits to kill one of the warriors.

Two out of three towns have someone who it takes two rounds for a squad of bog-standard soldiers to kill, instead of one.

Let's kick it up a notch. Let's suppose we have a level one hundred expert, one who you won't find in most towns. This still doesn't necessarily make him hard to kill. If he's venerable, for example, he could easily have a strength penalty so big that it took me a while to calculate what the average damage he deals is (it's one a and a quarter points of damage). True, he has a +51 to hit and three attacks, but he's not doing anything to you when he hits. Two of those third-level warriors will eventually cut through all 100 of his hit points before he has a chance to kill either warrior. Sure, he can turn the warriors into fanatic members of his cause as a standard action without having to roll or speak aloud their name in a language so freakish that there's an entire class dedicated to speaking it, also without having to roll, but fighting them is out of the question.

[Friv]

That is some good summaries, thanks!

In my defense, the "squad of soldiers" I was thinking of was the basic Level 1 Warrior with +1 Str, Dex, Con and basic weapons and armor (15 AC, 9 HP each.) Such a warrior only has +2 to hit, and gets hit on a 5/10/15 and killed in two hits. I assumed the scholar could take one out each round, while taking hits from half his opponents at 6 damage each, with a result of:
Round 1: Four warriors left, scholar 46/52 HP
Round 2: Three warriors left, scholar 34/52 HP
Round 3: Two warriors left, scholar 28/52 HP
Round 4: One warrior left, scholar 22/52 HP
Round 5: Scholar wins with 20ish HP.

But yeah, it doesn't take many levels or gold for the warriors to catch up.

[Segev]

That is some good summaries, thanks!

In my defense, the "squad of soldiers" I was thinking of was the basic Level 1 Warrior with +1 Str, Dex, Con and basic weapons and armor (15 AC, 9 HP each.) Such a warrior only has +2 to hit, and gets hit on a 5/10/15 and killed in two hits. I assumed the scholar could take one out each round, while taking hits from half his opponents at 6 damage each, with a result of:
Round 1: Four warriors left, scholar 46/52 HP
Round 2: Three warriors left, scholar 34/52 HP
Round 3: Two warriors left, scholar 28/52 HP
Round 4: One warrior left, scholar 22/52 HP
Round 5: Scholar wins with 20ish HP.

But yeah, it doesn't take many levels or gold for the warriors to catch up.

By the math presented in the prior post, and the figures here, your assumption that I've bolded is inaccurate. The scholar's average damage of 7 per round would take him 2 rounds to defeat any one warrior. (Assuming I have understood correctly that the 3.5 damage average per swing was based on chance-to-hit, and not merely average damage per hit. In the latter case, it takes 3+ rounds to kill a given 1st level warrior.)

[Jormengand]

(Assuming I have understood correctly that the 3.5 damage average per swing was based on chance-to-hit, and not merely average damage per hit. In the latter case, it takes 3+ rounds to kill a given 1st level warrior.)

To clarify, it is actually damage per hit. 4.5 from the 1d8 from the morningstar, and -1 from the strength bonus.

Also, Friv, by your own admission, there are going to be people of pretty high levels just randomly running around. I assumed a "Trained soldier" rather than just a new recruit or cadet was going to be an easy third level.

[Friv]

To clarify, it is actually damage per hit. 4.5 from the 1d8 from the morningstar, and -1 from the strength bonus.

Yep. Should have specified that my original numbers assumed +0 Str, which is not a guarantee.

Also, Friv, by your own admission, there are going to be people of pretty high levels just randomly running around. I assumed a "Trained soldier" rather than just a new recruit or cadet was going to be an easy third level.

So, the rules for higher-level NPCs in D&D 3.x are weird. In fact, I should probably stop discussing the weirdness of what it means to be a higher-level NPC in favour of the weirdness of those rules.

In a typical "large town" of 2,000 - 5,000 people, which is where my theoretical scholar lived, you have the following:
* Your highest-level expert is Level 6-15. Then you have two experts at level 3-7. Then, if your highest level expert was at least level 8, you have four experts at level 2-3. Then you have about 60-150 Level 1 experts.
* Your higest-level warrior is Level 5-11. Then you have two warriors at Level 2-5. Then, if your highest level warrior was at least level 8, you have four warriors at level 2. Then you have about 50-250 Level 1 warriors.
* Your highest-level PC class member is Level 3-11; if they're at least level 4, you get the same two people at level 2-5. Most of your PC class members will be Level 6-7, with a couple of Level 3 people.

So, a typical town powerful enough to have a Level 10 expert has, at best, three warriors higher than level 2, which aren't enough to form a trained squad. Instead, they're going to be captains and militia leaders, or possibly local mercenaries or private bodyguards and guard captains. In the event of an invasion, rounding up your three high-level experts doubles your capability to produce skilled combatants.

Of course, a totally average town (which is kind of unlikely, but perfectly spherical towns, you know) will have roughly thirty adventurers in the Level 2-8 range, and about fifteen NPCs in the Level 2-15 range, so really you just want to throw all of them at any problems.

[Frozen_Feet]

What about that is so ridiculous? You have about 45 out of 3500 especially skilled individuals in a town. The occurrence rate of that is lower than that of people who have natural 18 in some ability score.

[Jormengand]

Also, if you have hundreds of level 1 warriors running around, that means that, assuming the nation isn't going to war, that means that you have hundreds of town guards. You probably have five longswordsmen and five longbowmen in each of five to twenty-five squads. Each one of those squads is well able to take down the expert.

[Milo v3]

Also, if you have hundreds of level 1 warriors running around, that means that, assuming the nation isn't going to war, that means that you have hundreds of town guards. You probably have five longswordsmen and five longbowmen in each of five to twenty-five squads. Each one of those squads is well able to take down the expert.

Warriors don't have to be part of the military or guards, they could just be a thug or someone who is tough.

[Friv]

What about that is so ridiculous? You have about 45 out of 3500 especially skilled individuals in a town. The occurrence rate of that is lower than that of people who have natural 18 in some ability score.

Take a look at all the points in this thread discussing how, by the rules, Level 10+ people are wildly exceptional and legendary due to what it means to be able to routinely hit DC 25 or DC 30 checks. Then consider how few points there are between those legends and the masses.

The rules allow for almost no one who is Level 2-3; you get twice as many of them as everyone who is Level 4-7, of whom you get about twice as many as everyone who is Level 8-15. You just have massive hordes of Level 1 peons, and then a number of immensely skilled people who are quite rare in each community, but incredibly common in society as a whole, any one of whom is not only absurdly capable in their field of expertise, but can slot in as a mid-level person in any combat. If a war breaks out, you need to round up your scholars and blacksmiths fast, because they're more skilled in combat than all but seven or eight of your NPCs. Except really you need to round up the forty adventurers that live in every town of 2,000 because they're going to be far more effective. And on that note - there are forty Level 2-15 adventurers in every town, because every single class gets rolled for individually and provides 3-7 people of Levels 2-11. Even a tiny village has twenty or thirty low-level adventurers hanging around. The market is kind of clogged.

Also, if you have hundreds of level 1 warriors running around, that means that, assuming the nation isn't going to war, that means that you have hundreds of town guards. You probably have five longswordsmen and five longbowmen in each of five to twenty-five squads. Each one of those squads is well able to take down the expert.

The argument against level rules was never that the scholar is unstoppable. It was that a life of studious contemplation, which creates a character who exists in every town, also gives that character fighting skill comparable to the top 2% of the town's inhabitants, because studying makes you a skilled soldier.

[Sith_Happens]

I guess knowledge really is power.

[Spore]

I love the ramification this has ingame.

The Mage's guild's librarian walks down a dark alleyway. His way suddenly gets blocked by three thugs.
Player 1: "Give us the key and you won't get hurt"
Player 2: "Yeah, get lost, wimp."
Librarian: "I have graduated summa *** laude in three subjects! You better back off."
Player 3: "Oh ****, guys, run. He has found a stick and thus does not receive penalties for improvised weapons. We are no match for him."

[Jormengand]

Well, yeah, but at the same time it seems odd that you could offhand answer the toughest questions about humans and not be able to slice them up more effectively than joe schmoe.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, yeah, but at the same time it seems odd that you could offhand answer the toughest questions about humans and not be able to slice them up more effectively than joe schmoe.

So being a surgeon should make someone an expert fencer?

[Segev]

So being a surgeon should make someone an expert fencer?

No, but arguably they should be more competent at cutting somebody apart in a fight than would a schmuck who just was a street tough whose training was simply "pointy end in other guy."

[digiman619]

A level 1 expert can have +4 from stat, +4 from skill ranks/prof. bonus, and +3 from skill focus. Add +2 from masterwork tools, and a +2 to +6 circumstance bonus for his kitchen, ingredients, familiarity with the recipe, etc., and you've got +13 to +19 to any given cooking roll.

If all you're looking for is "a good cook," even "an extremely good cook," you don't NEED to go above level 1.

A level 10 character, even in an NPC class, is pretty near legendary. He's done things that are worthy of grand storytelling, and has had adventures of some sort or another. But if he's using that +33 to his cooking skill(s), it's probably because he's doing it to counteract pretty severe penalties. He's cooking with wet wood in a camp fire, or preparing a feast with naught but the contents of a ship's galley, in a thunderstorm, or using ingredients that the wizard has barely heard of.

Such feats are indeed the stuff of legend, and are the kind of thing one learns to do through adventuresome careers, or at least being on the periphery of such careers enough to pick things up.

Mac, owner of the renowned tavern in the Dresden Files series, is probably a level 7 or so Expert. He likely earned those levels through much more than simply going in to work and cooking food and brewing beer every day, considering his clientele and what he must have gone through to establish such a business.

Mac might have 7 levels of Expert, but he is clearly someone (or possibly thing) of great power that retired and opened a bar.

[Knaight]

No, but arguably they should be more competent at cutting somebody apart in a fight than would a schmuck who just was a street tough whose training was simply "pointy end in other guy."

You can argue that, but it's tenuous at best. Specific anatomy knowledge is way, way down the list of things that are helpful in a fight.

[Segev]

Mac might have 7 levels of Expert, but he is clearly someone (or possibly thing) of great power that retired and opened a bar.

That is something one could assume, but I haven't seen evidence of it. He's never once intimidated anything out of his bar; all the enforcement of good behavior could easily be "don't start trouble in the middle of the mercenary pit" variety. Disrupt the dragon, wizard, and lawyer for the demon god's drinking time, and Mac won't HAVE to punish you; the other patrons will handle it.

If you've seen Deadpool, note that the bar owner there isn't particularly powerful, but messing around with him in his establishment is a SUPREMELY bad idea (unless you're a person of mass destruction all on your lonesome).


Doesn't mean he CAN'T be, but there's no REAL indication that he is. Most of the Things of that nature have been less subtly hinted at, if not outright revealed. Mac could be a particularly skilled and experienced human with no special supernatural powers beyond his loyal customers. He could also be secretly Bors, who just wishes his son would come visit after distributing presents that one night every year.

[Friv]

Well, yeah, but at the same time it seems odd that you could offhand answer the toughest questions about humans and not be able to slice them up more effectively than joe schmoe.

I have to admit, that doesn't seem remotely odd to me. There is no direct connection in the skillset. Think of it this way: if you saw twenty highly skilled surgeons in a parking lot, holding knives and bats, and across from them were twenty street punks, also holding knives and bats, would you think, "Man, those punks are about to get medical schooled", or would you think, "Those doctors are about to need their own medicine"?

[Jormengand]

I have to admit, that doesn't seem remotely odd to me. There is no direct connection in the skillset. Think of it this way: if you saw twenty highly skilled surgeons in a parking lot, holding knives and bats, and across from them were twenty street punks, also holding knives and bats, would you think, "Man, those punks are about to get medical schooled", or would you think, "Those doctors are about to need their own medicine"?

Yes, warriors will always be able to take on experts of the same level. But we're talking about experts of a higher level versus warriors of about level 1, because any higher than that and the warrior can beat the hell out of the expert unless he's the gods' own doctor. And just from a basic knowledge of human bodies (I'm not a doctor, I'm a first-aider) I know some interesting locations that I can hit you to do a hell of a lot of damage that you wouldn't automatically think of them, and could probably find a way of using this to my advantage.

Alternatively, you could accept that in a D&D world, people who have more experience in general are better in general, because with the number of random monsters willing to mess with you, you're going to have to learn some fighting. People who learn better (that is, ones who reach higher levels) learn everything better. I mean, sure, D&D isn't quite at Warhammer 40,000 levels of "Librarians are actually all genetically-engineered super soldiers with psychic powers because they have to be to defend the big important library with all the world's knowledge", but in D&D, everyone learns how to fight.

[Max_Killjoy]

If you've seen Deadpool, note that the bar owner there isn't particularly powerful, but messing around with him in his establishment is a SUPREMELY bad idea (unless you're a person of mass destruction all on your lonesome).

I do like how that scene...

Spoiler: you've been warned

Show

...completely averted the trope of "nemesis villain gets to show off and increase the tension by killing all the people in hero's favorite hangout".

[Friv]

Yes, warriors will always be able to take on experts of the same level. But we're talking about experts of a higher level versus warriors of about level 1, because any higher than that and the warrior can beat the hell out of the expert unless he's the gods' own doctor.

Uh... that is what I said. Highly trained surgeons, i.e. high level experts, versus street punks, i.e. first level warriors.

And just from a basic knowledge of human bodies (I'm not a doctor, I'm a first-aider) I know some interesting locations that I can hit you to do a hell of a lot of damage that you wouldn't automatically think of them, and could probably find a way of using this to my advantage.

Do you have combat training? Because if not, I find that assertion dubious. You need to have the strength to leverage a hit, the speed and accuracy to succeed at the hit, the skill and training not to freeze up when a guy comes at you with a knife, etc.

Alternatively, you could accept that in a D&D world, people who have more experience in general are better in general, because with the number of random monsters willing to mess with you, you're going to have to learn some fighting. People who learn better (that is, ones who reach higher levels) learn everything better. I mean, sure, D&D isn't quite at Warhammer 40,000 levels of "Librarians are actually all genetically-engineered super soldiers with psychic powers because they have to be to defend the big important library with all the world's knowledge", but in D&D, everyone learns how to fight.

The idea that every D&D setting is such a vicious hellhole that it's impossible to become skilled at anything without also being a skilled killer is far more ridiculous than the idea that applying PC advancement rules to every NPC in your setting creates wonky results.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes, warriors will always be able to take on experts of the same level. But we're talking about experts of a higher level versus warriors of about level 1, because any higher than that and the warrior can beat the hell out of the expert unless he's the gods' own doctor. And just from a basic knowledge of human bodies (I'm not a doctor, I'm a first-aider) I know some interesting locations that I can hit you to do a hell of a lot of damage that you wouldn't automatically think of them, and could probably find a way of using this to my advantage.

Great, someone "knows where to hit someone".

Do they have any training or experience in fights? No? Then good luck to them actually hitting an experienced/trained fighter in any of those spots before they get their teeth kicked in.

[Friv]

Also, while we're discussing ridiculous rules in D&D worldbuilding, it's worth noting that your typical 100-person village in a setting built using the town demographics rules contains 17-20 adventurers and ten magic-users. So maybe that "violent hellhole" theory isn't so far off after all.

[Bohandas]

The rules as written for skill advancement in Toon are kind of wonky. the value of additional ranks is highly variable and you can'y really get better than pretty good due to the cap on ranks

[Segev]

Remember that sufficient level to really out-shine the warriors based on BAB alone probably means more than "highly-trained surgeons." Our surgeons are, presumably, not spending any resources they have a choice in on their combat capabilities, for your example to make the point you want it to. The street toughs probably are, from having Weapon Focus to a masterwork weapon-of-choice or two to having more investment in Strength (while our surgeons are invested in Int).

So let's assume the street toughs have at least a +1 from Str and a +1 to hit from weapon focus and maybe even a +1 to hit from a masterwork weapon. The surgeons have to thus have a +2 or +3 BAB. That pushes them to third or fourth level.

That's not "high" level, obviously, but a third or fourth level Expert is probably more than JUST a highly-trained surgeon. He's a surgeon who's had a pretty impressive set of experiences in his life. He's as experienced as adventurers who've gone out and cleared goblin lairs and possibly won a first arc of a campaign. Like Daniel Jackson, he's picked up some things that are not directly related to his surgical studies, and it's made him better at surgery than many of his compatriots while also giving him more...practical skills when it comes to cutting in to unwilling, hostile "patients." He's combatted plagues and illnesses and injuries most of his colleagues have never SEEN, and he did so in conditions that, even if they didn't put his life in serious danger, at least put him where he had to fight to protect it. At least as much as that rogue who specializes in infiltrating ancient tombs does.

And that's to make the surgeon an "equal" to the warrior in a fight. Ignoring his likely lack of armor compared to the warrior, and his lesser damage and smaller hit dice (admittedly made up for by greater numbers thereof).

The scenario of a bunch of street toughs attacking these surgeons who are high enough level to compare to them in combat stats is one of a gang threatening the badass personal medical staff of an adventuring party who have had to deal with unruly prisoner-monsters and treated heroes who have the weirdest of ailments from the most mysterious of dungeons. No, they're not almighty warriors, but they're a lot tougher and have seen a lot more than these thugs expected.

[Comet]

In other words: D&D is a game about combat and adventure and appyling its rules to people who don't fight or adventure is not going to work.

[OracleofWuffing]

If you simply have to be adjacent to the cannon to operate it, I think the maximum ROF we can get out of one cannon require it to be mounted on a 5ft. tall pedestal, with a 10ft. tall wooden platform on built on its sides and rear. Reserving all squares in front of the cannon open, This permits six people to be "below" it at ground level reaching up, 5 adjacent to it 5ft. above ground, and 6 more above it at 10ft. above ground. 17 total gunners, for 5 shots every six seconds with 2 surplus crew in case of casualties.

As a point of comparison, a skilled gunnery crew on an 18th century warship could manage 3 shots every five minutes. So even the 3 crew/six seconds is absurdly fast.

I'm not familiar with D&D 5e, so maybe I misunderstand certain terminologies or the size/shape of the cannon, so this is a genuine question: Would it be possible to get more gunners adjacent to the cannon- and thus a higher rate of fire- by pointing the cannon directly up?