A retroactive introduction: After an actual-play hiatus where I was mostly writing and playtesting for GURPS. I was invited to play in a Pathfinder game, and after a few sessions, it was time to buy the book and learn the rules! I decided to try and read the Pathfinder Core Rulebook cover-to-cover and see what inspiration strikes, for good or ill!

This is a compilation of the links to read-throughs of Pathfinder-related material

Pathfinder Core Rulebook

0.  Prelude
1.  Introduction
2.  Races


3a. Classes (Barbarian – Monk)
3b. Classes (Paladin – Wizard)

Please make any comments you have at the individual entries!

With that in mind, let’s get it on!

The chapter starts with some brief and very, very important information. That the rate of advancement is up to the GM, and that you get one Feat at 1st level, and another every other level, regardless of class. You also get +1 to the ability score of your choice every four levels. Note that your ability score bonus is the difference between your score and 10, divided by two, and rounded towards zero. So that first +1 is most useful taking any odd score (which you should avoid if you can; as far as I can tell – they may be pointless) that you got stuck with and moving it to an even one. What that means is that if you spent time optimizing your character for start-of-play bonuses, you’ll get your first increase in ability-score bonuses every eight levels, which may drive you in search of mystical quests to raise them magically long before you hit that point!

One important point that has come up more than once as I read: When studying a rule, class, race, or power, it is very important to read the entire section that you’re in, and to do so with deliberation and care. While sometimes, such as in the description of the Monk’s AC bonus, the info is effectively repeated twice, in other cases, crucial info is dropped on you and you had better have caught it the first time. That’s a warning, not a complaint. A 500+ page rulebook has to be spare with words to not grow into a 750+ page rulebook. Still: read closely.

It also gives a brief rundown of multiclassing, where you can follow more than one class progression sequentially. I don’t see any game-rule reason other than efficiency that you can’t jack-of-all-trades it and do all eleven classes. Well, that and it’s almost certainly dumb. Some of the classes have rules like what armor and weapons can be used that will preclude another class from being effective. If you’re a Monk and get slammed if you put on armor, and also try and be a Fighter where you want full plate and a tower shield, well, if the cognitive dissonance doesn’t kill you, a party of goblinoids probably will, and your GM probably should.

Finally, it introduces the concept of the favored class, which does put the brakes on how good you really can get while multiclassing, You get a game-mechanical bonus every time you gain a level in a favored class (half-elves can start with two): either +1 HP or +1 skill rank.

I’m not going to do a blow-by-blow on each class. Well, I am, but I’m going to try and get to some high-level themes instead of “well, in my expert opinion, having Played Pathfinder for all of five to ten sessions and only having read the rules this one time, you should . . . ” 

’cause that wouldn’t make any sense. The entire point of this read-through is I’m new at this, with only the Core Rulebook in front of me. 

(Now in shiny hardback, too. There’s something visceral and nice about having actual books. I love me my eBooks and PDFs . . . don’t get me wrong . . . but given a choice, I’ll often get both)

Instead, I’m going to pick at some things I noticed on reading the classes a few times, and with that, I’ll start with some definitions:


Hit Die (HP at 10th Level):
You get the full HP at 1st level, and then I assume the average roll on your particular die for nine more levels. This can go up if you have a CON bonus, since that bonus applies to every hit die roll. Since Pathfinder HP are basically an ablative form of life, more is definitely better. 


Skill Ranks (Number of Class Skills):
How many ranks you get per level, and the number of class skills associated with that character.


Skill-Ability Breakdown:
How many of those class skills receive their bonus from each ability. Will help you think of where to put your ability bonuses at character start.


BAB Total (10/20):
The maximum BAB you will add on achieving 10th and 20th level. As this number is added to both melee and ranged combat, it’s a good proxy for how good you are in conventional combat. Lower bonuses mean if you’re looking to deal smackdown, it’s not going to be swinging swords or shooting bows in a stand-up fight.


Save Total:
The sum of your eventual bonuses at 10th and 20th level to your Willpower, Fortitude, and Reflex saving throws. Basically, the higher this is, the more consequences of certain stuff you can avoid, like traps and spells.

Feats, spells, and talents I’ll leave to the descriptors, though they can be a major focus (or the major focus) of a character.

Barbarian

Hit Die (HP at 10th): d12 (71 HP)
Skill Ranks (Number of Class Skills): 4 (10 skills)
Skill-Ability Breakdown: STR (2); DEX (2); CON(0); INT (2); WIS (2); CHA(2).
BAB Total (10/20): +10/+20 (extra attack every 5 levels past first)
Save Total: ( 13/24 )

Barbarians are the Pathfinder equivalent of Mister Furious, who ‘gets his power from his boundless rage.’ But more like him at the end of the movie, where his stuff actually works. They have a long list of “rage powers,” from adding a bite attack to night vision to getting a boost to lost HP through Renewed Vigor. The downside here is that they can’t use skills that require finesse: no DEX, INT, or CHA skills while raging. Pretty sure, though, that attacking is not a skill, so feathering people with arrows, should one choose to do so, is not precluded. Though it’s hard to really imagine what an incredibly angry archer would look like. Not as terrifying as the slavering NFL shoo-in swinging a big axe at your head.

The upshot here is that, by and large, you’re going to be up close and personal, dealing out the hurt with simple and martial weapons, protected by up to medium armor and using shields. Front-line melee types.

You have a fairly limited skill set available, but given the Barbarian’s proclivities for getting in people’s faces and staving them in with a maul, STR and CON seem obvious choices, since the HP bonus for a high CON hits every level, but the DEX bonus to AC occurs but once. 

Bard

Hit Die (HP at 10th): d8 (49 HP)
Skill Ranks (Number of Class Skills): 6 (19 skills)
Skill-Ability Breakdown: STR (1); DEX (4); CON(0); INT (5); WIS (3); CHA(6).
BAB Total (+7/+15): +7/+15(extra attack every 5 levels past first)
Save Total: ( 17/30)

Bards overlap a bit with Rogues in some ways, though they lack Disable Device. They have some pretty cool abilities with the bardic performance schtick – even at low level, the Inspire Courage bardsong (+1 to hit and damage) is a major help, since the +1 damage can be a significant boost to low-level attack results. They can also cast some spells. A quick scan shows that most of the spells and songs are driven by the Bard’s CHA modifier, so between the skill list and the powers, CHA is your go-to ability for a bard. No surprise there, really. We’ve got a bard and a bard-alchemist in our party, and both are really nice to have around. Some of the spells look cool, like what must be the medieval equivalent of the power chord with a magical amplifier (Sonic Blast).

Cleric

Hit Die (HP at 10th): d8 (49 HP)
Skill Ranks (Number of Class Skills): 2 (13 skills)
Skill-Ability Breakdown: STR (0); DEX (0); CON(0); INT (9); WIS (3); CHA(1).
BAB Total (+7/+15): +7/+15(extra attack every 5 levels past first)
Save Total: ( 17/30)

Wow. You’ve got 13 skills, but you’ll suck at all of them. On the flip side, with nearly all of them concentrated in INT, you can focus a pretty major bonus here to good effect. Let’s see . . . the channel energy thing is either a smackdown or healing buff, this one driven by CHA. The maximum level of your spellcasting, however, is driven by WIS, and so is the Difficulty Class of resisting those spells. Cleric spells go to 9th level, and you need WIS 19 to cast a 9th level spell. You’ll have +4 to some attributes by the time you can cast even one 9th level spell, and if you focus that on WIS, you’ll still want to start (or end) with WIS 15. Or higher. So three key stats: WIS, CHA, and INT, if you like those skills.

I’ve not played in a game with a Cleric yet. I do remember the old days of D&D where 1st level Clerics had the “Hit him with my mace” option . . . and that was it. Not so now, with 0 and 1st level spells and channel energy at 1st level. Fairly credible combatants if their deity allows it, too, though not feat-centric like fighers. The Domain powers, of which you get to pick two, are pretty interesting, and the domain spells bear a close look. The domains are tied to the Gods, which are tied to Golarian – another nice advantage of having a vibrant and detailed world.

This is, in a way, where things kind of make my head swim. Each spell or power or feat is a very technical special case. The good news is, they come on slowly, level by level. Still, one could easily see a set of index cards or something to keep track of each bit, one per ability.

Druid

Hit Die (HP at 10th): d8 (49 HP)
Skill Ranks (Number of Class Skills): 4 (13 skills)
Skill-Ability Breakdown: STR (2); DEX (2); CON(0); INT (4); WIS (4); CHA(1).
BAB Total (10/20): +7/+15(extra attack every 5 levels past first)
Save Total: ( 17/30)

Velociraptor animal companion. I’d say “’nuff said” but that’s the wrong genre,and I do have more to say.

Alas.

Because really, once you get to “velociraptor” (and the One Velociraptor per Child program. No shit. Really.) everything else is bound to be anticlimactic. Kudos, also, for identifying the Deinonychus, the  V-raptor’s bigger, badder, Hollywood-star cousin.

These guys can probably do the hand-to-hand with weapons thing, but their mission in life seems to be to turn into an animal (fear the DIRE KIWI). Jokes aside, this is any animal of the appropriate size type, and the possibilities for infiltration here are legion even without turning into something fierce. 

They also get spells, up to four per level per day, with nine spell levels available.

But really: Velociraptor. With a single attack that grows more badass as the Druid gains levels, more Feats than some PCs, good saving throws and AC that, if I read it right, can hit 26, this is really why you want a druid along. As long as the wee beasty doesn’t get hungry and eat your party Halfling. I mean, Velociraptors ate Sam “BMF” Jackson; they’d have no issue with Merry or Pippin.

Fighter

Hit Die (HP at 10th): d10 (60HP)
Skill Ranks (Number of Class Skills): 2 (10 skills)
Skill-Ability Breakdown: STR (2); DEX (1); CON(0); INT (3); WIS (2); CHA(2).
BAB Total (10/20): +10/+20(extra attack every 5 levels past first)
Save Total: ( 13/24)

Heavy armor, tower shields, and abilities that make them less hindering than for most. Focused weapon training. But basically, this guy is Feat Man, and by 20th level, he’ll have 20 of them. Presumably, though I won’t get there ’till Chapter 5, these are badass. 

This guy is going to be decked out in the best armor you can get, and will take his weapon – or weapons – of choice and render unto you like a Cuisinart. The low number of skill levels  means that you’ll largely be fishing for the +3 you get when you put your first rank in something, but really, noncombat stuff just Isn’t Your Thing. Why aren’t you boosting your STR and CON and skewering something right now? 

“Why read words when you can just kill the stuff the words tell you stuff about?” 

                                                                     – Snotlout, How to Train Your Dragon

Yeah, that’s exactly right. Where’d I put my longsword?

Monk

Hit Die (HP at 10th): d8 (49 HP)
Skill Ranks (Number of Class Skills): 4 (14 skills)
Skill-Ability Breakdown: STR (2); DEX (4); CON(0); INT (3); WIS (3); CHA(2).
BAB Total (10/20): +7/+15(extra attack every 5 levels past first; nearly-indecipherable flurry of blows if unarmed)
Save Total: (21/36)

First, a drive-by: WIS is super-important. It drives your AC bonus and later accumulation of ki points, which put Monk abilities into overdrive when spending them. The AC bonus is driven by your WIS level, and with proper point investment you can start off with an unarmored AC bonus similar to that of a chain shirt, and at high levels, it can hit levels only matched by full plate and a shield. So this is pretty cool stuff.

The flurry of blows comment above? It took me three days to understand how it worked. Largely due to lack of attention to detail, and a bit of Do It Yourself requirements and interpretation. Let me break it down. Your flurry of blows BAB is equal to your Monk’s level, less penalties for Two-Weapon Fighting. Now, those penalties are normally -6 for the good hand, and -10 for the bad one. But Monks don’t have an off hand fighting unarmed. So you really only have to worry about the -6. Two-Weapon Fighting drops the -6 by 2 for big weapons, by 4 for light weapons, and unarmed strikes count as light. Therefore, each attack is at -2. When you get to 8th level, you get two more at -5 beyond that, and at 15th level two more still at -10. 

I think, though, what happens is that you get these paired attacks (one pair at 1st level, two pair at 8th level, three pair at 15th level) . . . and if your BAB is still high enough when you’re done with that, you get one last attack at -5 past that. This explains, I think, why at 7th level, with only the pair of attacks you get from Two-Weapon Fighting (two attacks at -2, with a BAB of +7, equal to your level), that leaves you with +5/+5 . . . whereupon you then apply the usual Pathfinder rule that if you can subtract 5 from your BAB and get zero or more, swing away.  

That is a funky-weird way of interpreting the rule, to my mind. I would have thought that the natural two-fer you get with Two-Weapon, Improved Two-Weapon, and Greater Two-Weapon fighting was more than enough, and that this rule preempted the other. Oh well, at least I figured it out eventually, though I broke some brain cells doing it.

The Monk also does some nice Unarmed Damage here, equal to a shortsword or composite shortbow at 1d6 even at first level, and by 12th level, you’re into as much maximum damage unarmed as a greataxe. Not shabby.

There are a bunch of other powers and abilities the Monk throws down. You can stun targets, do nonlethal damage, reduced damage against special attacks if you make a saving throw – and note that saving throws are a Monk’s forte. 

(Thats FORT. Not For-TAY. One strong like bull, other loud like metal. Think “the forte of a blade,” pronounced ‘fort.’ And yes, it’s listed both ways in the dictionary, since incorrect things get assimilated all the time. Hrmph, I say. Pet peeve over.)

Along the way, the Monk gets more and more resistant to special attacks, from poison to spells to aging. Eventually he transcends into the magical spirit realm or something.

I still want a Velociraptor, though.

This is already a monster post. For my own sanity, I’m breaking it up into two parts. Paladins through Wizards will be covered in the next installment.

The Pathfinder game I play in with +Jeromy French+kung fu hillbilly , +Matt Sutton , +Joshua Taylor , and +James Stanton is working through Skull and Shackles. We had started playing using the Organized Play rules, but did not find them to our collective liking. So we made the campaign switch, and now are playing characters of the not-nice variety.

This is thus my second Pathfinder game, and I still consider myself a novice. Jeromy has been very kind to help me by suggesting the right character advancement pathways, since his knowledge and experience with Feats and the various class enhancements is better than mine.

My current character is a 4th level half-elf Rogue regrettably named Pelagiyel by cruel parents. He goes by Pel. I conceived him as a pirate from the start, where his role would be to sneak into towns, see what plunder is available or being loaded on to ships, possibly get on board said ships, and help take them down from the inside. Chaotic Neutral, baby. Thus, his key skills are Appraise, Stealth, Sailor, maybe some Climb and Swim, and the ever-popular Perception. When I got into this, I had no idea how skill-heavy Rogues are . . . something I’ll revisit in my Pathfinder read-through on Chapter 3: Classes. (Prelude, Chapter 1, and Chapter 2 already published)

Previously, we’d been through what looks like the first subset of the adventure, having been press-ganged aboard a pirate ship with a notably nasty set of officers. The Captain was high-level but disinterested in the likes of us, leaving his stooges to deal with his crew. Harshly.

We’d previously done some faction-building, weathered a storm, fought off some monsters, and captured another ship. We were sent aboard that one, got lost in a storm, and had to stop at an island to replenish water supplies. Whereupon we returned, carried off a pretty slick mutiny with the aid of our resident alchemist and some sleeping potions, killed those opposed to our faction and preserved the rest. That glosses over a lot, but gets us caught up.

We were then severely understrength and undercrewed – even more than usual – but we managed to locate and dock at a local pirate haven, and set out to refit the ship into something a bit less obviously stolen. I think that’s about where we started off last night.

The adventure opened with what seemed to be a shopping trip, where we were spending some of our communal loot to get some cool/magical items appraised and purchased. Pel didn’t score anything worthwhile – he’s got masterwork chain shirt, rapier, composite shortbow, plus a few non-masterwork daggers for chucking, so he’s pretty well kitted up for now. He did make good use of 10 ranks in Appraise to get the value of some gems we’d found. Nothing much – a few hundred gold worth – but a spinel and some traded items were enough to secure +Matt Sutton ‘s PC (Malgrim, our notional captain: we voted and he was the most intmidating as a Hobgoblin Corsair/Summoner; with 10 ranks in Sailor, I became the bosun) some quality purchased loot – a magical weapon, if I recall.

After that, we were naturally attacked by a swarm of giant wasps that flew in from the wilderness. Wandering Monster indeed. We made short work of them, and Pel did his usual two-arrows-per-turn thing thanks to Rapid Shot. The dice were fairly evenhanded this game, and I managed to vacillate between being quite useless and quite effective this time, as opposed to a ludicously-unlikely string of the die-roller program having me roll a 2 on 1d20. So, managed to get and confirm a critical, and otherwise nail the wasps pretty hard. I needs to get me a magical bow. I was able to accomplish something pretty much every round, and the uniform d20 distribution was more uniform that day.

After that, we parlay’d (parlaid? parlayed?) with a newly arriving pirate guy, who recognized our ship and with a wink welcomed us, seemingly, into the world of dashing villainous scum. Woo hoo! We then decided to go plunder a town, to get into practice.

Pel used some alchemical awesomeness to swim to shore, checked out the place, and found out that there was a large amount of alcohol to be had, and maybe some grain. There were maybe five elders who might pose any sort of threat, and the rest were noncombatants.

We started to lay an elaborate plan to rush in and wipe them out. Given the nature of the opposition, I had flashbacks to Mystery Men, seeing us as the Red Eyes, pillaging an old-folks home for dentures and artificial limbs.

Malgrim suggested that rather than go that route, we get close to shore, go up and Intimidate the hell out of them, getting what we want by threat of force rather than something much like boxing with a six-year-old. 

We liked that plan better, and so we executed it, and then Malgrim crit-failed his Intimidate roll (see! the dice hates us!) and the elderly spear carriers mocked us. Two catapult shots later (one on target, the other landing perilously close to Malgrim; our crew needs more practice) we had the booze, the grain, and limped out to sea with the tattered remains of our dignity.

We thought the next-best plan would be to find another village, do some basic capitalism and try the buy-and-sell route, while also recruiting, we hope, the local Dwarven smith to join our crew. Meanwhile Pel would use our “trading” excursions to scope out likely plunder, both on land and at sea.

That was basically the session.
***********

So, game stuff and random observations.

I continue to be frustrated with the flat distribution of the 1d20, which especially for combat can make for a very aggravating day. The Armor Class of your foe, the roll you must beat to hit, seems to range from about 10-20, with 15 being a fairly common number. This means that you’re going to be looking at needing some serious skill ranks before you have a decent chance to hit. Pel has a Ranged attack modifier of +6, which is usually at -2 for Rapid Shot, but +1 since one of our bards is usually inspiring us to be more badass than usual. So at 1d20+5, twice, I can expect to hit with at least one shot 75% of the time, and both 25% of the time . . . but given a low number of rolls, the streakiness of the dice can be either awesome or render you ineffective.

I have grown used to the tactical flexibility of GURPS. I like the ability to aim for the head, or limbs, or whatnot. But that’s not how Pathfinder works, so that’s fine. WEG d6 Star Wars was “I shoot at the stormtrooper, I hit” as well, and it was still fun.

My solution to this issue works better for my class (Rogue) in non-combat areas, which is to build up so many ranks in the skills I care about that the dice can be my enemy and I still succeed. Thus, 14 ranks in Stealth and Perception, 11 in Disable Device, and 10 in Appraise and Sailor. The Stealth/Perception combo had a few rolls of 30+. Rogues are brutal with this. My INT isn’t that high at 14, but the +2 modifier I get means I get 10 skill ranks per level, plus another if I’m getting a rank within my Favored Class. I think I traded my other favored class (as a half-elf) for Rope Master or something like that. Still, as long as I play nicely within Rogue, I pick up 11 ranks per level. Yowzers.

Pathfinder has a pretty condensed skill list, maybe two dozen or so (a few more, since there are lots of Professional and Knowledge skills that do not overlap). This means with the right stats and a good selection of “class-skills,” it’s pretty easy to be good at things, and to cover the required adventuring specialties. I have to wonder if these can be turned into GURPS Wildcard skills pretty easily, for those who really don’t want to muck with the extensive skill list in GURPS. Hrm. Pyramid article or blog post?

Technically, the Skulls and Shackles Adventure Path is the second PF-style game I’m playing in. The other is Jade Regent, but using GURPS Dungeon Fantasy. My impression of the Adventure Path thus far is that they tend to be a bit railroady. That being said, one of the reasons that GURPS pre-written adventures tend not to sell well is that in order to have an actual volume of material that can be used all at once, they have to be railroady. Still, my take-away (and this has been echoed by others) is that you get into a situation or a plot nexus, and find “there are eight things you can do. Five are useless or counterproductive, two circle around back to this same place, but if you pick that one, please turn to p. 134 and the plot can continue.”

Along this line, but in a nice way, though, I must say that Golarion seems to rock on toast. Lots of places to visit, a variety of cultures and races and adventuring prospects. It would make for a great sandbox in any game system. I see enough people converting Golarion to GURPS Dungeon Fantasy that there’s a fair amount of agreement here. A Dungeon Fantasy cross-licence with Paizo is unlikely for what I presume are a whole host of reasons, but it would make a great cross-platform item to bring a fragmented hobby closer together.

What else? Oh . . . whatever you may like or dislike about Class-Level systems, I will say that at least in my limited experience with the skill-heavy Rogue, leveling up simply rocks. There is a Tyrranosaur-sized difference between a Level N and a Level N+1 rogue. I’m not sure if the spell-based or feat-based classes feel the same way – perhaps the more experienced PF grognards can tell me.

Next weekend, the same GM will be playing his newly started and Firefly-inspired GURPS Space campaign, hopefully joined by both me and my wife. Tomorrow is GURPS Jade Regent. We’ll see in two weeks if our plan to rule the seas in Pathfinder Skulls and Shackles is successful or not . . .

This is the first real “meat” chapter in the Pathfinder RPG book, and it’s a short one. Still, it gives a flavor for what is to come from a game design point of view.

The chapter opens with seven individuals who can probably divide up 7% body fat between them. I’m not sure if that’s a good way to start, but it certainly gets one’s attention. Halflings never looked so buff (and half-elves never looked so, well, cold).

The first few paragraphs note that you mostly get to pick your race but once, while classes come and go. It also points out quite explicitly that some choices are more complimentary with certain classes than others, and makes no apology other than caveat emptor. 


Your choice of race will give you extra ability scores, and some special powers/abilities/talents that come along with it. It claims that each race is roughly equal and balanced with the rest. We’ll see.

Each race starts with a physical description, a discussion of the society the adventurer will have come from, discusses which other races or monsters that race tends to hate or like, mentions typical alignments and what Gods and religions are favored, and dedicates a paragraph to why a member of that race would go adventuring. It end with sample names for men and women of that race. After all that, comes the goodies: the list of bonuses, penalties, and abilities that you get by choosing that race.

Dwarves


Low sense of humor, high hatred of giants and goblins. Craftsmen and warriors, and “little hairy women.” ( – Gimli). Lawful good fighters and barbarians are set up as a natural match. Noted. Let’s check out the goody bag: It’s a long list.

Abilities: The attribute bonuses seem to all net out to +2, and in this case Dwarves get bonuses to CON and WIS (which is a stand-in for perception), but penalized for being gruff with a slap to CHA. Checking the skill list, the only thing they might care about there is maybe Intimidate. We’ll see what happens later; I’ve heard reference to “dump stats” where you can purposefully sink an ability score with little damage to your character’s abilities or survival – but we shall see.

Positives: they can see in the dark, bonuses to AC vs giants, boost to ability to value gemstones and craftsmanship, boost when fighting orcs and goblins, boost to some saving throws, boost to certain types of combat maneuvers, bonus to notice stone traps and such. And axes. Lots of axes.

Negatives: 2/3 normal movement (but even that has a benefit: armor and encumbrance doesn’t weigh you down).

Huh. Elves may be Just Better than You, but Dwarves seem pretty badass.

Elves


Long-lived (until eaten by orcs), standoffish, Just Better than You (see above). Fashion models who are also back-to-nature types. Would do well in Hollywood, apparently. Do not make good baby-daddies. Love of magic. OK, we get it. Now, let’s see if the Trope holds:

Abilities: Dexterous and smart, but frail.

Positives: Can see farther in dim light, immune to magic sleep and resistant to enchantments. Bonus to resisting spells in general and to identify magic items. Perceptive.

Negatives: None. (See? Just Damn Better than You.)

As an aside, am I the only one who looks at “immunity to sleep spells” and says “Oh, I gotta have that.” Seriously – I dislike it intensely when the bad guy waves his hand and you just decide to catch a few Z’s right there in the middle of the octagon.

OK, so elves wind up looking good as rangers and wizards, as the book plainly states. Bet they’d make decent rogues too.

Gnomes


Punk-rock midgets? Kender with ADHD? But they make good druids. OK. Rock on. After all that, you’d think druid or rogue/thief, but no . . . sorcerers and bards.

Abilities: Hardy and clever, but weak.

Positives: Small size gives AC and attack bonuses and a major boost to stealth. Good low-light vision.  Even more AC bonuses (presumably doesn’t stack) vs. giants, and they get a bunch of spell-like abilities if you have CHA of 11+, so you’d best do that. Bonus to hated foes, bonus to resist illusions, bonus to perception, bonus to craft or profession skills. This is a pretty big list of small-scale goodies.


Negatives: penalty to Combat Maneuvers, 2/3 normal movement. They don’t get any racial weapon stuff like Dwarves do with axes or elves do with bows.

Half-Elves


The elves have to amuse themselves somehow, and apparently making really hot offspring is it. Hot sulky and bitter emo offspring. Open to new relationships, lonely, less likely to turn to religion – and prone to playing RPGs, apparently.

Abilities: +2 to any one score, player’s choice. I might allow +1 to any two scores for fun, but no problem there. This makes them the same as humans and half-orcs – just pick a stat and be good at it.

Positives: Low light vision, an extra skill focus, immunity to magic sleep, and the elven resistance to enchantment. Boost to perception, and two favored classes with extra HP and skill points. Start speaking two languages.

Negatives: Maybe you can count that anything that impacts humans or elves hits them, but that’s pretty blah.

So they’re Just Half-Better Than You.

Half-elves don’t seem to be tailor made for any particular class . . . but since I actually play a half-elf rogue in the Pathfinder game I play with +Jeromy French , I’ll note that with the right allocation, the massive amount of skill levels you get adds with the bonus skill points to make for a metric crap-ton of skill points.

Half-orcs


Because what could be more fun than playing the child of overly-exuberant culture sharing between sapients? These guys are Darth Vader big, and channeled into jobs where that size is useful – mercenaries and enforcers.

Abilities: Odd. +2 to one ability score – any ability score. I’d have pegged it perhaps as +1 to STR, CON, and maybe WIS (for perception), with a -1 to CHA.

Positives: Dark vision, Intimidation bonus, some racial weapon familiarity, and some sort of oddball ferocity thing where you get to fight for one more round, but if you don’t get healing, you KO and start to die. Woo hoo. You do get to speak orc, though. Bonus.

Negatives: Not many. Orc blood, like elf-blood, makes you susceptible to things that hurt both orcs and humans.

This race seems lame to me. I’d maybe play up the orcish nature more; I’d like to know what orcs look like, but looks like unless I buy the Bestiary, I can’t find out. Huh, I’d have thought that some of the common monsters were included in the book, but when they say the Bestiary is required, they really mean it. Maybe even up the ante, with +3 STR, +1 CON, and -2 CHA (or even -1 CHA and -1 INT).

Halflings. Not Hobbits. We mean it.


The entire writeup screams “thief.” It’s hard to escape that, from the loyalty to friends, not nations, scrap and scrounge, etc.

Abilities: Dexterous, charming, but weak.

Positives: Size bonus to AC and attacks, +4 to Stealth due to size. Yow. Bonus to saving throws versus fear, and another generic bonus to all saving throws. Perceptive, nimble.

Negatives: penalty to CMB and CMD, plus 2/3 speed due to small size.

This is a nice set of packages, but doesn’t really sing to me.

Humans


Hey, that’s us. This is the jack-of-all races. Endlessly varied, can be and do anything.

Abilities: +2 to any score. This makes a bit more sense, though it would also be interesting to be able to (say) adjust any score by +1 or -1 so long as it nets to +2, or even any score by up to +/-2 so long as it nets to +2 as well.

Positives: An extra Feat when they start, and an extra skill rank every level.

Negatives: None.

Ballistic’s Parting Shot


The chapter on races contains the barest minimum of information to play the character and understand the overall society from which each non-human race derives. It then presents some variables by which to tweak your stats, but those don’t always appear to be balanced, and they definitely steer choices for later class selection. That may not be a bad thing, but it does suggest that while the book says “pick race, then class,” you’re more likely to do well by choosing a class you want to play, picking a compatible race, and then (if allocating ability scores by points) tuning your stats accordingly.

What about GURPS? GURPS is unapologetic point-buy only. You can do pretty much anything. GURPS Dungeon Fantasy makes heavy use of Templates, which aren’t exactly race and class, but can come darn close.

The whole point is to provide a limited set of interesting choices that provide variability without bewilderment. Racial packages in GURPS Dungeon Fantasy have an assigned point value to them. You may not like the point costs, but if you take a racial package (for example) that’s Just Damn Better than You, you’ll have fewer points to spend on skills and advantages and attributes.

The Pathfinder rules claim the races are balanced. With no decent accounting method to hand, I can neither dispute or affirm that claim. But given the lists of abilities, I think I will be playing a Dwarf next time. And given the art, I think I want to date that half-elf, but (a) my wife, a red-headed Human Sorcerer/Monk in real life, would pull out my pancreas through my nose, and (b) she’d be really hard to dance with, being all of 6’2″ or something.

*****

This is a compilation of the links to read-throughs of Pathfinder-related material

Pathfinder Core Rulebook

0.  Prelude
1.  Introduction
2.  Races


3a. Classes (Barbarian – Monk)
3b. Classes (Paladin – Wizard)

Please make any comments you have at the individual entries!

+Peter V. Dell’Orto noted here that sometimes there’s a bit of a mental squaaawwwk! when it comes to comparing piercing vs. impaling damage types.

He makes some good points, and partly, this ties into penetration and injury GURPS-physics.

Impaling damage, by and large, is assumed to result from a deep, often narrow, penetrating injury that gets into your gooey center and punctures important bits.

Piercing damage, by and large, is assumed to result from, er, a deep, often narrow, penetrating injury that gets into your gooey center and punctures important bits.

OK. WTFP? (What are The Factors at Play?)

The difference seems to be that impaling damage assumes a relatively low ratio of energy to momentum; piercing damage seems to be mostly relegated to bullets and stuff that have very little momentum, but penetrate very well.

There are special cases. Bodkin arrows (as defined by GURPS, not hoplologists) change to a (2) armor divisor and pi damage . . . but their energy-to-momentum ratio is no different than the impaling arrows (presumably broadheads . . . and yes I know there’s controversy that the “armor piercing” Type 16 arrows are decidedly not bodkin-points, which seem to be harassment-style flight arrows. Deal with it.).

That being said, here’s a link to an image of some arrow typology. You can see, there’s a lot of them. Some of them (like the Type 9a) are pretty boldly squarish in cross-section, and supposedly make better plate-piercers. Though you still need a wickedly strong bow and a hardened lozenge-shaped arrowhead to even think about it, and accomplishing it requires a few things to go your way, including thinner armor, a properly orthogonal strike, and maybe even poorly heat-treated plate. People will assert that types 7 and 8 are designed to slip through mail, but properly riveted mail is pretty darn strong, and while you may get a narrow puncture, it may also be quite shallow. Ironically, the arrows that have been reportedly confirmed to be hardened through-and-through are the Type 16 compact broadheads (my term). Still, period writings contain censure against smiths who produce improperly soft arrows, so who the hell knows?

Bleargh. Not meant to be a treatise on arrows – but it’s hard to say why GURPS would classify any of the arrows pictured as piercing rather than impaling, though a few are some bastard child of cutting and impaling, it would seem.

But let’s take a “realistic” war arrow: 1400 grains (0.2 lbs., or twice the weight of a standard arrow in GURPS!) fired from a 150-lb bow. GURPS pegs this at about ST 18, or about 1d+4 (or about 2d). Using my rules from The Deadly Spring, it clocks in at 1d+1. In either case, the arrow will have about 160J of energy and about 5.4 kg m/s of momentum. Both arrows are impaling, so they wound like 2d+2 and 2d+8.

Let’s take a .22 LR and a .45ACP, which do 1d+1 and 2d penetration, respectively. With bullet size modifiers, they will wound like about 1d-1 and 3d. The .22LR has only 130J of energy (less than the arrow), the .45ACP has 450J (slightly less than 3x more). The bullets have 0.82 and 3.66 kg m/s of momentum (with the .45 having more), both are less than the arrow.

Wounding? The .22LR is a worse wounder than all others considered here by quite a bit; the .45ACP is either slightly better (by about a point) than the arrow using my “realistic” scale, or quite a bit worse using the GURPS thr-based, more cinematic scale (nearly 4d+1 injury equivalent for a 1d+4 imp arrow). A war arrow can be about the same diameter as the .45ACP, so 3d or more injury isn’t far wrong.

So:

Arrow: 160J  and   5.4 kg m/s momentum. KE/MV = 29.6 m/s
.22 LR 130J  and   0.82 kg m/s                 . KE/MV = 158.5 m/s
.45 ACP  450J and 3.66 kg m/s                .  KE/MV = 123.0 m/s

As it turns out, the .45 ACP has the lowest KE/MV ratio of all the modern bullets I have. Maybe there are some heavy black powder loads with lower KE and higher MV. The upper end seems to be about 500 for the ratio, until you get into saboted projectiles (the M829 tank projectile is nearly 1000!).

But you can see that if “impaling” is for lower velocity ratio stuff, maybe less than 50(?) then there’s really no good reason to distinguish between a GURPS bodkin (armor piercing) point and a regular one. A better division is probably that the AP point is heavier in point and shaft and more expensive with shorter range, the regular point is, well, regular, and you can buy flight arrows with an armor divisor of (0.5) with very lightweight shafts with poor penetration but longer range.

All would do impaling damage. Assuming you have such a thing.

This is a bit of a design gripe, though I don’t know if any of my potential solution brainstorms are worth the hassle of doing anything about it. Still, we’re all entitled to a few disgruntled moments over not much, right?

I’m not a big fan of the impaling damage type. There are two benefits to it, as far as I can tell: it’s a precision strike, so along with piercing  and tight-beam burning damage, you can target chinks in armor, the eye, and the vitals. While Martial Arts changes this a bit, expanding it to crushing damage as well. Also, impaling has a x2 damage multiplier to certain areas like the torso (but lower damage to extremities).

The reason I don’t like it is the assumption that you automatically hit something nasty with your small, pointy blade. And it is usually a blade.

I’ve toyed with forcing a certain minimum damage, maybe “more than HP/4” or something, before a larger modifier kicks in. That would make stabbing dinosaurs in the vitals a lot harder, which is a good thing. I’d change the damage type to cutting, mostly, since by and large if you’re being impaled, it’s by an arrowhead, a spear, a sword point, or a pickaxe/warhammer head. But that makes me want to find a way to have, much like piercing, small cutting, cutting, large cutting, and huge cutting, with the same multipliers, perhaps, from piercing types: 0.5 on the low end to x2 on the high.

Dunno; maybe if you do more than HP/4, any size blade is treated as x2; if you also reach the vitals, it’s all treated as x3. Another way to go might be to leave the HP alone, but treat this sort of wound that exceeds HP/4 as bleeding much worse than usual; apply the x2 or x3 multipliers only to bleed rate and frequency.

I get what impaling is trying to do. I don’t even necessarily think it’s a bad goal. I’m not sure my thoughts would make a better game. But there’s something I find inelegant about it.

Over the next few days/weeks, I’ll be reading through the Pathfinder rules cover-to-cover and making comments. This serves two purposes – a very long series of blog entries, which since I like to post something fresh every day or so, is nice to have a go-to source for something to write. Also, I’ll be comparing it to GURPS a lot, since that is, and given my experience with Pathfinder thus far, will remain my system of choice.

Still, it will also help me learn Pathfinder, and since I play in +Jeromy French ‘s game, that can’t hurt.

******

Forward-looking links:

Pathfinder Core Rulebook

0.  Prelude
1.  Introduction
2.  Races

3a. Classes (Barbarian – Monk)
3b. Classes (Paladin – Wizard)

I was going to post this one today. But after 36 hours traveling and very little sleep, I realized that I had it wrong. At length.

I’ll be revisiting this, most definitely. But I will say this:

I was going to set up “believable” as an overall goal that people who clamor for “realism” actually want.

After thinking about this a lot, I don’t think it’s true

I think believablility is a bit like “rule zero,” which can vary in expression, but is basically what I’m getting at here. Playing RPGs is supposed to be fun. (What I refer to as the Wendler-Dell’Orto Rule of Awesome is a corollary to Rule Zero: To enhance fun, be Awesome.

So, “realistic” isn’t really properly substituted by “believable,” as I originally was going to write. You can have perfectly believable games that are, nonetheless, over-the-top if the consequences of what happens are self-consistent and well explained by in-game or metagame logic.

I think what I realized in contemplating believability is this: If the game and situation is not believable, you probably aren’t going to be playing for very long, if at all. Rules arguments, boredom – all can be consequences of unbelievable games.

As an example: I played in a DnD 3ed game in grad school. My archer (1st level) was shooting at a bad guy. I hit, but didn’t do enough damage to kill him. Bad guy was able to cross what seemed to me to be a ludicrous amount of terrain on his turn, hit me, and kill me. Boom, dead.

I had a real problem with that. My character just stood there for probably six seconds while this guy, arrow sticking out of him and all, closed the distance and put an end to me.

Now, there are probably many things I did wrong. At the time, I was still a GURPS and WEG Star Wars guy (now I’m like 90% GURPS, 10% Pathfinder, but only as a player). So there are probably things I could have done to make that not happen. Maybe shoot and then move backwards.

But it just seemed unbelievable, and thus not fun, and really not Awesome. I didn’t play DnD again for years.

I suspect many game-digressions where rules and outcomes are in dispute can be put down to believability-clash – also known as expectations mismatch. This isn’t always willing in-game immersion. It can be “you’re disrupting my solo-narrative with shared-narrative” too.

But I digress. For now, I’ll leave realistic and cinematic and what axes they’re on to another time.

But for the moment: a game that wants to be successful, and sufficiently immersive to be definitely fun and potentially awesome had better be believable.

I am not a fan of ST rolls as skill tests in GURPS. Quick Contests or Regular Contests . . . meh, at best.

ST is not like IQ, DX, and HT, which are all fairly well described in game mechanical terms as to what they do, though in a way they do it a bit too well. ST is extrinsic to the game, not intrinsic. It is tied to real-world parameters through Basic Lift. It’s totally easy to imagine what ST 45 looks like. You may have even seen an animal that strong (if not presently, maybe a T-Rex or something). You have certainly seen or heard of machines that are many times stronger than a human, and so could be rated with ludicrously high ST skills and be both realistic and believable.

So I would propose the following (in less-specific terms) were I looking at revising.

All rolls should be based on DX or HT.

DX is when you’re using ST for fine control over something. HT is when you’re exerting yourself against another or against your own physical limits. There are a few ways to do this.

But in either case, your ST really should be used to calculate Basic Lift, and from there figure out what you’re doing in terms of a Object Weight-to-Basic Lift ratio. That’ll give you a bonus or penalty.

As examples:

Throwing a shot-put as far as you can, not caring where it hits. It’s a 16-lb cannonball, so the Basic Lift to weight ratio for even “Joe Average” is more than 1 (1.25). The world record is something like 75 feet! That would probably be a DX roll to perform the motions, and a HT roll to prevent injury. Yes, two rolls. The HT roll would be optional if your adjusted roll is (say) 19 or more; you’re just not exerting yourself hard enough to injure yourself. The DX roll might be required to earn any bonuses to skill or ST from skill (such as the “training bonus” that appeared in The Last Gasp . . . and you’ll see it again in Technical Grappling!).

Weight Lifting: This is very nearly a purely HT-based roll, where you are basically moving the weight up and down until your ST falls low enough (due to local depletion of FP – or AP, really) that you really are pushing high multiples of your effective Basic Lift.

When you think of it already, this is more or less what happens – with both thrown non-weapons (DX-based roll to hit, p. B355) and weapons (DX-based skill roll to hit). Range is a multiple of your ST (seems linear, right?) but the distance modifier based on ST-to-Weight ratio is best described by a power law (about 0.44 x Ratio^-0.8, if you must know. R^2 = 0.987).

A force-to-weight ratio is an acceleration. That is, in most circumstances, ALL you need to know to establish maximum range. If you apply your skill correctly (DX or skill roll), you can achieve both range and accuracy. If you push yourself too hard, you can injure yourself.

But by and large, I would, almost always, rather look at even Contests of ST as opposed DX or HT rolls, with ST-to-Weight or ST-to-ST ratio as a modifier.

Ah, yes. Cabaret Chicks on Ice.

The joke-title for GURPS Low-Tech for quite a while on the SJG Forums.

Recently, since it seems like forever (but only seems that way) since my manuscript went into the queue in production and saw the rough PDF go around, I’ve been going crazy waiting for the Big Damn Ogre to get out of the way. -)

It’s my own fault. I pledged too.

But to pass the time, I’ve been leaking content here and there. Mostly nothing too revealing. I don’t want to overstep my bounds, nor give away too much from the book. It’s a book covering a lot of rules, and if you give away the rules, you give away the game.

Still, I did reveal one or two more concrete hints, such as a discussion on whether the damage from throws and locks was too high relative to the ease of obtaining a grapple.

I also posted something that was in an original draft, and then cut, because, well, it doesn’t have much to do with grappling.

The Secret Diaries of Technical Grappling• The generic penalty for kicking (-2) assumes a torso level kick – presumably the lower torso. Instead, you may kick anything at SM-4 and lower at no penalty, and each SM higher at an additional -1. Kicking to the head is thus -4, while stomping a grounded foe is not penalized!

One of the OTHER reasons this didn’t work is that SM does not equal height, which was how I was treating it. Still, what this does is say for human-sized critters, you can do whatever you want at knee level and down at no penalty to DX, from hips to knees at -1, abdomen and groin at -2, chest at -3, and head at -4.

This was even there in the first place to give a counter and reason to not grapple: avoiding being curb-stomped.

There is also some commentary about stability, but that is in terms of “if you are in an unstable posture, and someone’s exerting control over you, you’re easier to take down.”

And another rule, fun for people who really want to get to the point:

Impaling
Weapons capable of impaling damage can also be used to
control an opponent. If an impaling object is left inside a foe
(either voluntarily or by getting stuck, see Picks, p. B405), it is
considered to have inflicted CP equal to basic damage. These CP
may not be spent, but impart active and referred control, and
definitely allow actions such as Shoving People Around (p. 00)
and Force Posture Change (p. 00)! You may also use Inflicting
More Pain with Locks (p. 00): Roll a Quick Contest of Trained ST
vs. HT, adding half the original injury as a bonus to your Trained
ST. Apply pain using the full margin of victory!

Edit: Since people are visiting this page again, I thought I’d expand the hint to include the entire thing, just to show a bit more about what’s under the hood. 


But for those not familiar, here was the playtest announcement for the book:

GURPS Martial Arts: Technical Grappling puts the current grappling rules in an arm bar until they bang on your desk in submission! The supplement introduces a few new rules that allow grappling to be treated as a continuum of control rather than being “grappled” and “not grappled,” and seeks to find pressure points in the rules for posture and position.

It explains how to model increasing control over an opponent, a different approach to grappling with different parts of the body, and a completely new top-to-bottom take on grappling with weapons. It adds new perks and techniques where appropriate, and revisits existing rules to ensure compatibility with the new ones!

Why pimp the book when there’s really no telling when it will come out (again: Big. Damn. Ogre)? It’s come up a few times on the forums recently, so I was in a TG frame of mind.

What’s going to be in it?

  • A bunch of stuff on strength and how it impacts grappling ability/skill
  • New variable-effect rules so you can achieve a sucky grapple, or a great one. 
  • Lots of detail on posture and position; it’s important in real-world grappling, and it’s important in the new rules
  • An entire chapter on grappling with weapons
  • it revisits, where appropriate, virtually everything in the Basic Set and GURPS Martial Arts to make sure it’s compatible
  • Includes some lenses and styles. Including styles for snakes, cats, dogs, and bears.
I’m looking forward to it seeing publication. But the title of this post? Recently, because there’s lots of discussion on fighting and combat on the SJG Forums, and most fighting and combat involves grappling at some point, my book has come up a lot, usually with me saying “Oh, yes . . . that’ll be covered in Technical Grappling!” 
So one poster referred to it as Cabaret Chicks on Ice Strikes Back. Which I thought was awesome.

Added: I posted another leak  for some rules on disarming. They’re not much of a rules extension from the current ones, but take the same principles and make them cover more stuff.

All GURPS damage has three parts to it, even if much of the time they’re implicit.

In order of how it’s applied, which is our first point of potential controversy!
1) Armor divisor. Yes, on a hit and a failed defense if one is allowed, the first thing you probably do as ask “how much armor, if any, is facing me.” If the answer is zero, you don’t do any math, and proceed directly to step 2. But the first thing you do is check to see if whatever DR (Damage Resistance) you’re facing, and reduce or increase it based on the type of attack you’re making. This can be a property of the damage type (some armors get altered stats vs. crushing, piercing, cutting weapons) or a property of the weapon itself (magic or high tech armor divisors, blunt tips or soft construction)
2) Basic Damage. This is the raw oomph of the attack. As discussed in a few places, this can be looked at as a raw ability to penetrate armor. I will assert that it is not yet a measure of wounding and injury. Yet. Basic damage is calculated as a function of the square root of Kinetic Energy for guns, the cube root of KE for most beam weapons, is optionally sqrt(KE) for bows (The Deadly Spring) or uses the strength plus adds model (thrust and swing) of melee weapons and muscle-powered ranged weapons.

3) Wound type, depth, and size. Finally, we get to put the hurt on. The damage here is given its true type, and some sort of multiplier is applied. Tiny bullets that are also slow get pi-, and injury is half penetration. Cutting weapons increase damage by 50%, while my least-favorite damage type, impaling, gets its penetration doubled for injury.

These three things are very, very useful, and have pretty good definitions, for firearms especially. But before we do that, why three? Why not just combine either the first and second two numbers? So instead of a gun (again, best maps to these three) that does 4d (2) pi-, which penetrates like 8d but wounds like 2d, why the frack don’t you just have something like 8d {4} – and note the curly brackets.

That’s Dougish? Hamptonian? I like Hamptonian. That’s Hamptonian for “what is in these brackets refers to wounding.”

Anyway, that might mean “roll 8d for penetration, but divide penetration by 4 for injury.”

You could also just write 2d (4), with the conventional sense used in GURPS, for “this will do 2d injury, but divides any armor by 4.”

Both have a nice symmetry and sensibility to them. So why make things more complicated? As +Peter V. Dell’Orto likes to say, “Where’s the Awesome?”

Back to guns, because they map well. Each of these things represents a very distinct set of properties.

Let’s start with #2. The raw damage (penetration) rating of a gun – or more exactly, it’s projectile – is determined as a function of only two things: the kinetic energy of the bullet and its caliber. If you fire a 10mm diameter chunk of anything with 720 Joules of energy, you’re going to get about 3d+1 damage (the official formula used by +Hans-Christian Vortisch and +David Pulver might come in at 3d; regardless, given those two things, that’s what you get).

But what if that projectile is made of tungsten carbide? Or generic copper-jacketed lead? Or hell, maybe it’s a frozen 10mm marshmallow.  What if, instead of a blunt pistol bullet, it’s shaped more like a spike than an ogive? If the projectile is strong enough to survive delivering it’s own energy content (this may be, after some analysis, why the real-world data for the 55gr 5.56x45mm only penetrates 5d instead of the 5d+1 or 5d+2 my calculations suggest . . . the energy it carries is enough to overwhelm the cohesion of its component materials, so it can’t effectively deliver all them joules. Certainly it can’t be because my Excel spreadsheet model is wrong. Nah.)

That’s where #1 comes in. It can separate out the effects of hardness and geometry from raw energy. Because you might want to do that, since energy is a useful thing to know, especially when it comes to breaking up homogeneous objects.

OK, you’re through the crunchy shell. Now you’re in the chewy center. If that projectile fragments, or just pokes a thin hole, it might pass through a body without doing much permanent damage . . . or the wound could be terrible and grotesque (and if you’re read DiMaio you’ve seen some gross stuff) because the energy is all used to destroy, rather than stretch, heat, or harmlessly displace tissue.

So some sort of efficiency factor that gives the size of the wound channel relative to energy content is useful. This is especially true when you relax our caliber restriction. If you have a high-energy, high caliber weapon that penetrates like 4d, and a finned, hardened, skinny dart, that also penetrates like 4d, but really is 2d(2), the first might be something like 4d pi++, where it wounds like 8d. The second might even be 2d (2) pi-, where it destroys objects like 2d (due to energy dump if it doesn’t blow through), but in humans, really only delivers a 1d wound.

For hand weapons, you could easily see the use. If you’re trying to overwhelm the armor of something, having it hard, perhaps magically hard, will amplify the basic energy you can put into swinging a weapon. If you are ST 14 (about twice as powerful as an average schmo in GURPS), and swing a 2-lb. stick where most of the weight is in the head, you can write down something like “swing 2d” on your character sheet. If that weapon head is concentrating force into a tiny area, like a pick or war hammer, you could perhaps note that by giving it an armor divisor. So the war hammer might do 2d (2), which is kinda a lot, but you could also impart fractional armor divisors if you love math and hate your fellow players. Or if you use a computer. But when that pick sticks into you, if it’s really long, you can see that might be awful. If it’s maybe short and pyramidal, it might punch the armor fine, but not reach deeply enough inside you to really rock your world, internal-organ-wise. (This is unlikely to be true, since your ribcage will deform under impact, allowing the beak to reach the center . . . unless you are deforming more armor to do that, in which case the wound could be very shallow.)

If you put an axe-head on it, you can see that spreading out the force into a long line will be bad for penetration, increasing the effect of armor. That might be an armor divisor of (0.75) or something. Perhaps even more, like (0.5). But you can also see that the wide wound will be truly awful on an unarmored person.

I personally think that having both armor divisors and wound severity modifiers makes a lot of sense, and that both are useful. Certainly, if one were to ever come up with a meta-system that integrated hand weapons, blunt trauma, bullets, bows, sharp sticks, and harsh language into one black box that output GURPS weapon stats, I could see a real utility to allow more moving parts rather than fewer, both for nuance as well as resolution.