Wouldn't a fighter use a magical bow, or a magical arrow, to slay megafauna instead of a sword? That's kind of the trope isnt it? Bard firing his last arrow, made of the black steel of the dwarves, through the hollow in Smaug's left breast to slay the dragon, after all other arrows had bounced off harmlessly from his scales and gems, or been burned and blown away by his breath and wings?

I mean, I guess it depends on if you want to be more emphatic of the Fantasy part of a fantasy rpg.

I'm not saying other mechanics couldn't be at play, but like.. re-creating nomadic hunting styles  used against elephants into an RPG is more like a survivalist/ sciencey kind of rpg than fantasy? There are places for that kind of game play, heist type games remind of of this, where careful planning and back-up plans might be needed for setting up the ambush, scare and trapping of the megafauna. So, its different, but not impossible or lack of the possibility of interest. 

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 17, 2023, 11:18:04 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 17, 2023, 10:14:50 PM
I realized what I recently said sounds stupid. However my point still stands that DND characters are Schrodinger superhumans.

Not really.

Here's the crux of the problem. D&D has a tradition of play however you want.

- Some DM's might be going for "realism"--others might be going for a more "mythical" vibe.
- Of those going for realism, some might believe human weapons can harm megafauna. Others might not.
- Some DMs don't care about any of these goofy technicalities. Others do.
- And finally, some DMs interpret the combat system as being blow for blow. Others interpret it as abstract goo where there's dancing and prancing assumed to be going on, and so even if you've got minis on the table with the PC literally standing toe-to-toe fighting the Megafauna, that might not be what's actually happening in the imaginary space.

In order for the problem you're talking about to even exist AT ALL, you have to side with realism, have to hold your particular view of what is "realistic", care enough about any of this shit, and interpret combat in the way that is least compatible with your style and approach. Out of 4 binary switches that yield 16 broad combinatoric categories of gamers, only 1 out of the 16 has the problem you cite, and for some reason you've carefully chosen your assumptions to adhere to that 1.

Whatever melts your butter, I do believe the adage that if you're not having fun, you're playing wrong. And so if you insist on the one approach that's presenting you problems, I have no problem stating as an objectively true statement that you are just plain playing wrong. And you can't lay that blame on the game system. Not when there are 15 ways to play right. It's up for you to decide which of those four switches you need to flip. But you either need to flip one, or just admit you're more interesting in complaining than you are in playing any game.

Apparently; a group of hunters with Clovis points on their spears, was able to take down Megafauna.  Direct evidence exists.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 17, 2023, 10:14:50 PM
I realized what I recently said sounds stupid. However my point still stands that DND characters are Schrodinger superhumans.

Once you start talking Joules, your answer is GURPS, or maybe Phoenix Command or Traveller 5e.  BTW if you do go that route, remember Joules is a measure of energy or work, Newtons is a measure of force.

D&D has always been an imperfect abstraction.  Armor Class, Hit Points, Levels, they've always caused arguments, but they also just work - as long as you squint and don't expect the assumptions for any single case to logically extend to all other cases, which is what you're doing now.

That's why people go to GURPS, HERO, Harnmaster, Rolemaster, Runequest, etc. - they're in search of a more perfect abstraction, ie. one that makes more sense "to them" or seems more like "given the nature of the setting, this is closer to what would happen".

5e is most definitely Fantasy Superheroes, but only in the specific case of their Exception-based Individual Rules.  Don't expect those rules to be associated to the nature of the setting, they won't be.  They are there to provide tactical challenge to the combat mini-game.  In that sense, it's very similar to 4e, only with more of a veneer of older D&D to cover it.

But there many different versions of "D&D", and not all handle the Elephant-fight in exactly the same way.  Arguably the most capable fighter in Gary's campaign, Sir Robilar, wouldn't tank and spank a dragon, he'd make a orc tribe more fearful of him than the dragon and have them charge into it, maybe with some ogres or a hill giant, promising them treasure, then once it was all over, he'd kill what was left, probably with magic items, then take all the treasure.

Modern D&D is every character using their solo superpowers to shine in the spotlight doing damage when it's their turn, older D&D is about working smarter not harder and having a plan, because going toe to toe with everything is going to get you killed.

Quote from: Jam The MF on October 20, 2023, 05:33:40 PM

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 17, 2023, 11:18:04 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 17, 2023, 10:14:50 PM
I realized what I recently said sounds stupid. However my point still stands that DND characters are Schrodinger superhumans.

Not really.

Here's the crux of the problem. D&D has a tradition of play however you want.

- Some DM's might be going for "realism"--others might be going for a more "mythical" vibe.
- Of those going for realism, some might believe human weapons can harm megafauna. Others might not.
- Some DMs don't care about any of these goofy technicalities. Others do.
- And finally, some DMs interpret the combat system as being blow for blow. Others interpret it as abstract goo where there's dancing and prancing assumed to be going on, and so even if you've got minis on the table with the PC literally standing toe-to-toe fighting the Megafauna, that might not be what's actually happening in the imaginary space.

In order for the problem you're talking about to even exist AT ALL, you have to side with realism, have to hold your particular view of what is "realistic", care enough about any of this shit, and interpret combat in the way that is least compatible with your style and approach. Out of 4 binary switches that yield 16 broad combinatoric categories of gamers, only 1 out of the 16 has the problem you cite, and for some reason you've carefully chosen your assumptions to adhere to that 1.

Whatever melts your butter, I do believe the adage that if you're not having fun, you're playing wrong. And so if you insist on the one approach that's presenting you problems, I have no problem stating as an objectively true statement that you are just plain playing wrong. And you can't lay that blame on the game system. Not when there are 15 ways to play right. It's up for you to decide which of those four switches you need to flip. But you either need to flip one, or just admit you're more interesting in complaining than you are in playing any game.

Apparently; a group of hunters with Clovis points on their spears, was able to take down Megafauna.  Direct evidence exists.

Well, yeah, Wolfpack tactics.  Anyone the mammoth isn't facing drives spears into their guts, back legs, between ribs, etc.  They also got hurt.  OG got his spear arm crippled this time, so from now on he's the bait, etc.