TheRPGSite

Sorry for the rant, but I've been seeing this a lot lately and it's really starting to get irritating.

If your party runs into an encounter (whether a monster, a ticked off guard or merchant, a puzzle, etc), you aren't the "winning" character by being able to cast a spell to get past it.  You don't "win" by being able to pick the lock.  It's not a competition between you and the other players.

I mostly see this from the wizard crowd, although it applies to everyone.  If you have the attitude that you're hot shit because you "win" at an encounter, then everyone loses because the other players won't put up with your smug ass for very long.  Especially if you're the smug wizard who thinks the party better bow to your whim (rest when you need it, etc) whether or not it's convenient for the rest of the group.

D&D is not a game to keep score between the players.  This attitude among some people that they must have the most powerful character of the group, and that they must "win" every encounter is a blight upon our hobby.

I'm very sad that it's even considered necessary to post that.

They used to put that right up front in the basic books....

I wonder if this is a natural result of the way the game has changed, over the years.  The emphasis on the encounter as a set piece with a definite battle-map, PCs and monsters with very defined actions/abilities/moves that can be taken in that context, an emphasis on pre-defined tactics and sometimes even gamey "solutions" to the encounter, et cetera.

None of those things are necessarily bad, but go too far in that direction at you stop thinking like an imaginary character in an imaginary situation, and more like a person playing and re-playing a level of Angry Birds trying to get an optimal solution (three stars and beat the previous a high score).

I remember one bad night at the local game club way back in 1982. We had some new people show up and two of the D&D tables erupted into rules lawyer bitch fest.

I was in 8th grade. I climbed on a table and read the preamble to the PHB 1e in my new, post-puberty voice as loud as I could to drown out the idiots. And then my best friend to be hurled a pizza slice at my head.

People who need to "win at D&D" aren't new. We just lost most of them to video games over the decades.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;585180I wonder if this is a natural result of the way the game has changed, over the years.  The emphasis on the encounter as a set piece with a definite battle-map, PCs and monsters with very defined actions/abilities/moves that can be taken in that context, an emphasis on pre-defined tactics and sometimes even gamey "solutions" to the encounter, et cetera.

None of those things are necessarily bad, but go too far in that direction at you stop thinking like an imaginary character in an imaginary situation, and more like a person playing and re-playing a level of Angry Birds trying to get an optimal solution (three stars and beat the previous a high score).

I think it's also a consequence of the rise of optimization forums/communities on Wizard's site and elsewhere. If they're not tuning up to beat encounters, then what are they tuning those characters up for?

(Off topic: Philotomy, is your site down or is it just me?)

Quote from: Spinachcat;585186People who need to "win at D&D" aren't new. We just lost most of them to video games over the decades.

And good riddance, I say.

Now how do we flush them out of WoW? I really hope someday I'll find a group that's not in a maddening hurry to clear every dungeon. I want to enjoy the scenery and poke around. :D

Because D&D is a game about a bunch of losers failing to accomplish any of their goals, being constantly killed by the enemies they encounter, and being made jokes of by their entire world...

Oh wait, it's not.

It's a game about a bunch of badassess succeeding... winning, if you'd prefer. Because when you kill the Orcs, as opposed to the Orcs killing you that is exactly what is happening.

If some idiot is competing with his own team he is exactly that - an idiot. However a team is also exactly that - a team. Not Mighty McWizard and The Three Stooges. If one guy - any one guy, is doing all the fucking work then it's not a team. If some guy is dragging down the group, you're better off without him. And usually yes, that guy is the Fighter, as his net contribution to the party is that the Cleric gets to see less of the future and summon fewer angels. But this isn't class specific either - a Wizard in 3.x that thinks Fireball is the best thing ever is at least as bad, if not worse, and a pre 3rd Wizard that doesn't use Fireball is about the same.

Regardless, "winning" is a very real thing you do by accomplishing your goals, killing your enemies, and not dying in the process. It's team based and not individual based but it's still winning.

Likewise, losing is a real thing that happens when you get a party that thinks otherwise and is just so bad they get blown away in round 1.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585191Because D&D is a game about a bunch of losers failing to accomplish any of their goals, being constantly killed by the enemies they encounter, and being made jokes of by their entire world...

Oh wait, it's not.

It's a game about a bunch of badassess succeeding... winning, if you'd prefer. Because when you kill the Orcs, as opposed to the Orcs killing you that is exactly what is happening.

If some idiot is competing with his own team he is exactly that - an idiot. However a team is also exactly that - a team. Not Mighty McWizard and The Three Stooges. If one guy - any one guy, is doing all the fucking work then it's not a team. If some guy is dragging down the group, you're better off without him. And usually yes, that guy is the Fighter, as his net contribution to the party is that the Cleric gets to see less of the future and summon fewer angels. But this isn't class specific either - a Wizard in 3.x that thinks Fireball is the best thing ever is at least as bad, if not worse, and a pre 3rd Wizard that doesn't use Fireball is about the same.

Regardless, "winning" is a very real thing you do by accomplishing your goals, killing your enemies, and not dying in the process. It's team based and not individual based but it's still winning.

Likewise, losing is a real thing that happens when you get a party that thinks otherwise and is just so bad they get blown away in round 1.

I'm pretty sure that was the point of the OP.

I WON D&D, and it was ADVANCED! Hehe. ;)

Somebody had that as their sig. I think it was Trent Foster. Made me laugh.

Chevy Chase won D&D.

(http://www.fanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/community-400x266.jpg)

You are incorrect.  Annie clearly wins at D&D:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRjNl64zYxI

Quote from: Benoist;585195I WON D&D, and it was ADVANCED! Hehe. ;)

Somebody had that as their sig. I think it was Trent Foster. Made me laugh.

Yeah that's the quote from the D&D episode of Community.  Which you really should watch.  It was awesome.

http://www.vureel.com/video/24162/Community-S02E14

Quote from: Mistwell;585197You are incorrect.  Annie clearly wins at D&D:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRjNl64zYxI

lol, yes. But Chevy declared it.

Much like life there are loosers and then there is everybody else.

Quote from: Mistwell;585197You are incorrect.  Annie clearly wins at D&D:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRjNl64zYxI

I hate these kind of players more than anyone else.  More than rules lawyers trying to get away with infinite power loopholes, more than cheaters, more than killer DMs.

Back to the subject, I agree and disagree.  I disagree that there's no conditions for wins and losses.  There are definite goals to a "successful" dungeon crawl and adventure.  If you clear out a dungeon, get the loot, and kill the dragon, all without anybody dying, I'd consider that a clear "win" for the PCs.

The OP's point is more addressed towards sportsmanship, and not rubbing your system mastery/powerful character in everybody's face.  That, and cooperation between players is vital instead of a one-man show.  This I agree with.

How to win at D&D:

Step 1: Play D&D.

Step 2: Do not allow this to affect your hygeine, fashion sense, or social skills. Date lots of girls, have lots of sex, and get a job you enjoy and pays well enough for you to live comfortably.

Step 3: Win!

Quote from: jibbajibba;585199Much like life there are loosers and then there is everybody else.

Tighters?

Quote from: LeSquide;585187(Off topic: Philotomy, is your site down or is it just me?)

Not just you; it's down.  I was going to update it and switch to a new hosting provider, and just haven't gotten around to it.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;585208Tighters?

Lol.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585177D&D is not a game to keep score between the players.  This attitude among some people that they must have the most powerful character of the group, and that they must "win" every encounter is a blight upon our hobby.

Sorry to break it to you but they been around since.. well forever. I remember a handful of players who were notorious for ganking PCs and take their stuff in the early 80s. What made it worse was the fact that players with their characters campaign hopped a lot in those days.

Flash forward to the 90s and I started playing boffer LARPs and they are still there.

So it doesn't surprise me this is still around in one form or another.

The best way I found to deal with this is to run my setting "realistically" and require everybody to speak in first person as their character when interacting with NPCs or the setting.

By realistically I mean present the setting as a living breathing place with a life of its own. The whole reason I got onto sandboxes and realism back in the day so I had a fair way of dealing with the gankers that plagued our games back then.

... unless you're Charlie Sheen.

This isn't a new thing.  Outside of Estar's examples the classic 'Spotlight Hog' is another guy that has to "Win at D&D" in a roleplaying context even.  This is even tolerable sometimes if the player's character is the party leader or face, but more often than not this isn't the case.

I don't agree that it's a team 'win' if one guy is carrying everyone else though.  Sometimes that is tolerable in-character, but a lot of the time you wind up with in-character situations where this "team" only exists because everyone is friends irl, which is not an ideal situation for me as a player.  My characters usually don't have any reason to accept liabilities in the form of subpar team members.

Its perfectly natural to be honest. People want to be the ninja. The trick is to work with it by creating situations where the other characters' strengths can shine. Or alternately play something where wizards aren't one man tank battalions.

Quote from: TristramEvans;585207How to win at D&D:

Step 1: Play D&D.

Step 2: Do not allow this to affect your hygeine, fashion sense, or social skills. Date lots of girls, have lots of sex, and get a job you enjoy and pays well enough for you to live comfortably.

Step 3: Win!

This person has it right!

Quote from: TristramEvans;585207How to win at D&D:

Step 1: Play D&D.

Step 2: Do not allow this to affect your hygeine, fashion sense, or social skills. Date lots of girls, have lots of sex, and get a job you enjoy and pays well enough for you to live comfortably.

Step 3: Win!

Don't end up being the sad sack whose niece sells your books on ebay (ie you die young with no progeny).  I have seen that happen too much on my adventures on ebay.

Get in shape, get married, have kids and be quick about it!

Jesus, why would you do that. Nothing is more depressing than seeing coworkers married at 22.

Quote from: vytzka;585290Jesus, why would you do that. Nothing is more depressing than seeing coworkers married at 22.

...and divorced at 25. Listen to the wisdom of vytxka!

(One does not "win" at marriage any more than at D&D.)

1. Play
2. See what happens
3. Repeat

On the other hand, it's very possible to lose at an RPG. Sit there and don't try to play, and you'll obviously lose; you're wasting your time and a seat that could go to someone else. But if your character can't bring anything useful to the team (Be it through poor play or poor character building, and I've done both), and they're unable to contribute meaningfully, you'll lose too.

Quote from: KenHR;585194I'm pretty sure that was the point of the OP.

No, that's the opposite of the OP. He claimed there was no winning and then went off on some tangent about dumbass parties trying to compete with themselves instead of their opponents. He also threw in a random rant about Wizards which is only really relevant because in a weak party it likely IS the Wizard carrying the entire party as they are the only ones that can, and in the better groups there is more than 1 PC and 1 class capable of doing something and is only noteworthy because the conditions required for a non weak party to exist are extremely unlikely to occur in many of the this board's posters' games.

Regardless it is just that, a tangent.

I like to win at D&D.

Now, 'winning' is a party thing, but I usually like to contribute to the party's successes.  I like to recognize an opponent's weakness and play upon that.  I like to 'win' by a landslide.  I like to destroy my enemies without letting them even land a blow.  It's exciting - maybe death isn't on the line with each fight, but trying to defeat a powerful opponent with a 'flawless victory' is difficult in it's own right.  For that reason, I like to try to use effective tactics.  I like the opponents to be played intelligently and to use their abilities effectively - but I don't want to just 'grind' out victories by simply charging in and trading blows until one side is out of hit points - that gets boring for me.  No, outsmarting your opponents is how I 'win'.  

I love it when a plan comes together.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585321No, that's the opposite of the OP. He claimed there was no winning and then went off on some tangent about dumbass parties trying to compete with themselves instead of their opponents. He also threw in a random rant about Wizards which is only really relevant because in a weak party it likely IS the Wizard carrying the entire party as they are the only ones that can, and in the better groups there is more than 1 PC and 1 class capable of doing something and is only noteworthy because the conditions required for a non weak party to exist are extremely unlikely to occur in many of the this board's posters' games.

Regardless it is just that, a tangent.

Shut up, you're wrong, and go back to TGD MGuy.

It wasn't some random rant against wizards because more often than not, when the player is going around saying, "I win in this encounter!" and "I'm the most special character, so you all need to do whatever I want or need."  it's the wizard player.

I can tell you right now that if you came to my table and expected the rest of the group to rest whenever you felt like it regardless of whatever else was going on, or if you started claiming how you specifically are winning, they tell your entitled ass to go find another group.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585321No, that's the opposite of the OP. He claimed there was no winning and then went off on some tangent about dumbass parties trying to compete with themselves instead of their opponents. He also threw in a random rant about Wizards which is only really relevant because in a weak party it likely IS the Wizard carrying the entire party as they are the only ones that can, and in the better groups there is more than 1 PC and 1 class capable of doing something and is only noteworthy because the conditions required for a non weak party to exist are extremely unlikely to occur in many of the this board's posters' games.

Regardless it is just that, a tangent.

Talk about willful, RPGNet-levels of misreading just to crap all over a thread.

How can you not see that was the point?

Quote from: SacrosanctD&D is not a game to keep score between the players. This attitude among some people that they must have the most powerful character of the group, and that they must "win" every encounter is a blight upon our hobby.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585336Shut up, you're wrong, and go back to TGD MGuy.

A useless bitching thread like this with Wizards and Win in it, WTF did you think was gonna happen?  Randomly feel the need to start the Culture War threads again?

Quote from: CRKrueger;585346A useless bitching thread like this with Wizards and Win in it, WTF did you think was gonna happen?  Randomly feel the need to start the Culture War threads again?

Sorry.  But it's not only the wizards.  In 2e, it was psionics and the CPH splatbook.  But more to my point (that I admit even I may have started to drift from), it's the attitude.  The attitude of "I can win any encounter because I'm so good, screw the rest of you."  

or

"I'm the best party member, so you all should do whatever I say."

Oftentimes these phrases completely ignore whatever is actually happening in game play, and only occur outside of actual play.  For example, the wizard player saying he'd just cast spell X, Y, and Z to win, when in actual game play, that wizard never had those spells available.


To me, a gaming group is there for everyone to have fun.  Not to cater to one special-needs person who has to be the center of attention because they don't get enough in real life.  To me, that was the intent behind D&D (and all rpgs).  Get together with friends in a social interaction on a common appealing hobby and have fun.  Min/maxing to be better than your fellow players as some sort of competition is a direct violation of the spirit of the game.

In my opinion anyway.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585336Shut up, you're wrong, and go back to TGD MGuy.

It wasn't some random rant against wizards because more often than not, when the player is going around saying, "I win in this encounter!" and "I'm the most special character, so you all need to do whatever I want or need."  it's the wizard player.

I can tell you right now that if you came to my table and expected the rest of the group to rest whenever you felt like it regardless of whatever else was going on, or if you started claiming how you specifically are winning, they tell your entitled ass to go find another group.

I'm still not MGuy, but your idiocy is duly noted and disregarded.

Now, in your games that probably is what is happening. This is because you are a terrible DM, with no idea of balance or power and therefore the only character in your groups who can do anything is the wizard as the others are either taking the wrong actions or playing the wrong classes to be relevant. And in such groups, if the wizard ever left for any reason the rest of the party would soon fall. In good groups however this is not the case as there is more than one competent PC.

Me? I play with good groups, and with not terrible DMs. That means that in a party of 4-6, all are relevant, all are useful.

Quote from: KenHR;585342Seems pretty clear to me.

Nope.

He starts off by giving examples of various types of encounters then saying you're not winning by overcoming those encounters. And yet that is the very definition of being successful. He then turns it into some dumbass party competing with itself rant.

Because he is such a moron, I'm going to mess with him a little by taunting him with Invincible* Wizards.

At the end of the day though, what matters is that the good groups are winning D&D as groups, and groups like his, where only the Wizard can carry the party but everyone bitches at the Wizard for saving their sorry asses die over and over and over again.

* - Not actually invincible, but he lacks the requisite skill and know how to threaten one, so invincible to him.

So do you normally read what someone says, and then take the opposite interpretation?

Because that's what you keep doing here.


But hey, I give you 2/10 for trolling.  I'm pretty convinced that's why you started an account here.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585364So do you normally read what someone says, and then take the opposite interpretation?

Because that's what you keep doing here.

Nope. But I do assume that the opposite of what you say is what is actually true.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585365Nope. But I do assume that the opposite of what you say is what is actually true.

Well then I must be right then, because the opposite of what you think I'm saying is what I actually said.

Me: People like that will not last long at my table.
You: Now, in your games that probably is what is happening. This is because you are a terrible DM, with no idea of balance or power and therefore the only character in your groups who can do anything is the wizard as the others are either taking the wrong actions or playing the wrong classes to be relevant.

Literally the opposite of what I had just said.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585336Shut up, you're wrong, and go back to TGD MGuy.

Mr. GC and MGuy are unlikely to be the same person. If you have any evidence to the contrary, you should PM one of the moderators or admins about it, since sockpuppeting is against the few rules of this site; if you have not, it's better to just hold on and steer clear of those kinds of accusations.

Geez if you people don't want me here you really shouldn't be posting this kind of thread.

So first things allow me to personally confirm that GC is not MGuy, so Sarc should really ease up on the paranoia.

Still if it get's to the point where the wizard is carrying the party then everyone at the table is in the wrong. The DM has failed to properly sandbag encounters, non-wizards have failed to build funtional characters, and the Wizard player really shouldn't be enabling the basketweavers. Keeping them alive won't make them hate you less.

Quote from: Benoist;585390Mr. GC and MGuy are unlikely to be the same person. If you have any evidence to the contrary, you should PM one of the moderators or admins about it, since sockpuppeting is against the few rules of this site; if you have not, it's better to just hold on and steer clear of those kinds of accusations.

He's just being a dumbass. In the first contentious thread I was involved in I was accused of being just about every other Denner that has posted here. In reality I have an account on the Den but don't really identify with them. Eventually he settled on my being MGuy for some reason.

http://tgdmb.com/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=724 - MGuy.

http://tgdmb.com/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1657 - Me.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585336It wasn't some random rant against wizards because more often than not, when the player is going around saying, "I win in this encounter!" and "I'm the most special character, so you all need to do whatever I want or need."  it's the wizard player.

Is this maybe a feature of magic? It alters reality, and is a 'grab bag' of solutions to problems.

Quote from: mcbobbo;585405Is this maybe a feature of magic? It alters reality, and is a 'grab bag' of solutions to problems.

I don't think it's a feature of magic to make someone feel like they have to "beat" other characters during challenges and that everyone else should center their lives around him.

I think that's a person feature.

The class (ranger or paladin in 1e, psionist in 2e, and wizard in 3e) is just a tool that the players uses as an excuse to be a dick.  

"I'm not being a dick, I'm just playing my class the way it was designed.  Not my fault you all chose to play worthless classes."

Quote from: Mistwell;585197Yeah that's the quote from the D&D episode of Community.  Which you really should watch.  It was awesome.

http://www.vureel.com/video/24162/Community-S02E14

Never actually seen it. Thanks for the link!

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585408I think that's a person feature.

The class (ranger or paladin in 1e, psionist in 2e, and wizard in 3e) is just a tool that the players uses as an excuse to be a dick.  

"I'm not being a dick, I'm just playing my class the way it was designed.  Not my fault you all chose to play worthless classes."

In fairness the the person playing the old Ranger or Paladin class is just stating the obvious. The only difference is that someone playing the old Fighter probably isn't at fault for not having a better class due to lol random character generation.

Does any mention of the word 'class' bring the Denner Douche Pack like a fucking dinner bell or something?

I'm not starting threads here right now. However this sort of basketweaver support thread isn't the sort of thing that I can just overlook.

If Sarc didn't want this thread he shouldn't have started this thread he should know better. I'd recomend you guys try really hard not to make this particular thread also a class balance thread because it's not going to go well for you.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;585428I'm not starting threads here right now. However this sort of basketweaver support thread isn't the sort of thing that I can just overlook.

Why? There are basketweaver support threads all over the gaming internet dude, RPGnet, SA, ENworld... you name it. Why do you feel particularly involved when this comes up here, a place you "quit forever" a few weeks ago?

Quote from: Benoist;585429Why? There are basketweaver support threads all over the gaming internet dude, RPGnet, SA, ENworld... you name it. Why do you feel particularly involved when this comes up here, a place you "quit forever" a few weeks ago?

Someone is wrong on the internet.

On a serious note, I'm surprised and slightly impressed you recognized that term.

That said...

Good groups vs bad groups is a far more interesting discussion than dumbass parties that compete with themselves instead of their opposition so I'm tempted to just go with that.

So what is a good group? A good group is a group where everyone knows what to do and does it well. Perhaps more importantly, they know what not to do. This involves many different things. In D&D (all editions) the starting point is to never bring a thief/rogue in the party and avoid the Fighter class (other melee classes can potentially be good), manage your resources well and don't waste them, and have what you need to succeed (as a group where no one has a stat over 13, or very few magic items simply is not going to get very far).

For earlier editions you also want large numbers of disposable minions to deal with the various fuck yous the game will throw at you in your place, and for the later editions you will want a set of immunities to block a different set of fuck yous.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;585428I'd recomend you guys try really hard not to make this particular thread also a class balance thread because it's not going to go well for you.

Oh, shit...this is gonna get serious.

Quote from: KenHR;585438Oh, shit...this is gonna get serious.

If you don't want Lord Mistborn in your forum don't make Lord Mistborn threads. I had assumed that if I left this place would go back to mostly harmless grognard circlejerking, I should have know better. GC is my superior at this sort of thing so I'm mostly here to watch the fireworks.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;585449If you don't want Lord Mistborn in your forum don't make Lord Mistborn threads. I had assumed that if I left this place would go back to mostly harmless grognard circlejerking, I should have know better. GC is my superior at this sort of thing so I'm mostly here to watch the fireworks.

LM, you were the one who "quit" the forum in a dramatic "I am out of here" post. You have been more than welcome to continue posting. Some of the posters may have a negative opinion of you, but no one is terribly concerned about a "lord mistborn thread", whatever that is.

(http://www.mememaker.net/static/images/memes/109997.jpg)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585452LM, you were the one who "quit" the forum in a dramatic "I am out of here" post. You have been more than welcome to continue posting. Some of the posters may have a negative opinion of you, but no one is terribly concerned about a "lord mistborn thread", whatever that is.

After all the threads I had been posting in were locked I assumed that people didn't want my threads, and the mature thing to do would be to stop starting new threads.

Sarc. must have really wanted me back though, as I highly enjoy these threads especially now that GC has joined the conversation.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;585460Sarc. must have really wanted me back though, as I highly enjoy these threads especially now that GC has joined the conversation.

Despite your best efforts to make it so or to pretend it is so, this thread is not about class balance.

This thread is about players being dicks who care more about themselves "winning" and less about being part of your circle of friends having fun, and using loopholes or exploits as an excuse to be a dick.

:rolleyes:

Personally, I feel it's pretty funny that when I said this:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585408I don't think it's a feature of magic to make someone feel like they have to "beat" other characters during challenges and that everyone else should center their lives around him.

I think that's a person feature.

The class (ranger or paladin in 1e, psionist in 2e, and wizard in 3e) is just a tool that the players uses as an excuse to be a dick.  

"I'm not being a dick, I'm just playing my class the way it was designed.  Not my fault you all chose to play worthless classes."

We have people in this thread who pretty much just said the last sentence.

the good news is at least we identified who are the dicks.

Personally I think it's pretty funny that calling worthless classes worthless makes you a dick. If someone plays a worthless class, and they know it's bad, you've told them it's bad, and they do it anyways there is a dick involved but it's not you.

There's also an entire barrel of them your character will be busy sucking on for the rest of their very short life.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;585460After all the threads I had been posting in were locked I assumed that people that people didn't want my threads, and the mature thing to do would be to stop starting new threads.

No, the "mature" thing to do is stop acting like a clueless douchebag.  I suspect it isn't and act, however, so the next best thing is just to shut the fuck up.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585475Personally I think it's pretty funny that calling worthless classes worthless makes you a dick. If someone plays a worthless class, and they know it's bad, you've told them it's bad, and they do it anyways there is a dick involved but it's not you.

There's also an entire barrel of them your character will be busy sucking on for the rest of their very short life.

There are no worthless classes, just worthless players.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;585449If you don't want Lord Mistborn in your forum don't make Lord Mistborn threads. I had assumed that if I left this place would go back to mostly harmless grognard circlejerking, I should have know better. GC is my superior at this sort of thing so I'm mostly here to watch the fireworks.

You TALK that talk, muthafucka!

WWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

You so bad-ass wit yo anime avatar.

Quote from: StormBringer;585499There are no worthless classes, just worthless players.

There are both, such as when an otherwise useful class is played poorly. This also happens in bad groups. Healbot Clerics, anyone? Generally though the problem is that the character is literally incapable of contributing anything other than Kenny jokes without a trip back to the drawing board.

As such, either you can send them back or the enemies can. I find being told nicely by a friend to think it through far more pleasant than getting flattened by my opponent in a single round, but perhaps you're into the pain thing?

Quote from: Mr. GC;585507There are both, such as when an otherwise useful class is played poorly. This also happens in bad groups. Healbot Clerics, anyone? Generally though the problem is that the character is literally incapable of contributing anything other than Kenny jokes without a trip back to the drawing board.

Like I said, worthless players.

QuoteAs such, either you can send them back or the enemies can. I find being told nicely by a friend to think it through far more pleasant than getting flattened by my opponent in a single round, but perhaps you're into the pain thing?

I am into the "not gaming with useless douchebags" thing.  You may discover it someday.

Quote from: KenHR;585438Oh, shit...this is gonna get serious.

Shit.  Just.  Got.  REAL.

Quote from: StormBringer;585511Like I said, worthless players.


I am into the "not gaming with useless douchebags" thing.  You may discover it someday.

And yet you in every way fit the profile of one. So does that mean you don't play with yourself?

This thread already warped itself out of shape to then reform as page 464 of the Wizard v. Fighter thread. Amazing.

Quote from: Benoist;585524This thread already warped itself out of shape to then reform as page 464 of the Wizard v. Fighter thread. Amazing.

Lol. Not really.

So we all know you don't win at D&D, but someone needs to explain to people that you don't win at D&D class debates online either....

Quote from: Benoist;585524This thread already warped itself out of shape to then reform as page 464 of the Wizard v. Fighter thread. Amazing.

Any thread with denners in it is bound to do so. Its like a gestault shape-shifting horror out of Dr. who or Red Dwarf.

Click on Mr. GC's name. Click on find all posts. Note that there is zero content applicable to actual gaming. Put GC on IL. Move the fuck on.

Things were still interesting when it was just Kaelic, DeadDM, MGuy, and maybe I'm forgetting someone. LM and GC are not interested in actual conversation and anyone who's been paying attention already knows it.

You want to have the thread you started and not the thread you got? Good. Go do that.

_________________________

I've never encountered people looking to "win" IRL in any RPG, at least not in the manner described in the OP. I have, however, known the occasional sore loser. Usually the only thing bad enough to trigger this is actual character death though.

Most of the Den doesn't actually give a fuck. They've written off all editions of Fighter as worthless and moved on with their lives, as have I. Unfortunately, due in part to the mentality displayed here I end up encountering some moron who thinks that making sure the party collectively gets to see less of the future and summon fewer angels is a remarkable campaign contribution.

Ultimately he shall contribute that in death which he could not in life.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585534Most of the Den doesn't actually give a fuck. They've written off all editions of Fighter as worthless and moved on with their lives, as have I. Unfortunately, due in part to the mentality displayed here I end up encountering some moron who thinks that making sure the party collectively gets to see less of the future and summon fewer angels is a remarkable campaign contribution.

Ultimately he shall contribute that in death which he could not in life.

The point some are making is we have already had that discussion many times, and had an enormous thread called wizard v fighter where both sides (incuding the denners) made all the possible arguments about class parity issues over the major editions of D&D. We dont need to turn every thread into wizard v fighter.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585538The point some are making is we have already had that discussion many times, and had an enormous thread called wizard v fighter where both sides (incuding the denners) made all the possible arguments about class parity issues over the major editions of D&D. We dont need to turn every thread into wizard v fighter.

It isn't all about Wizards though. Or Fighters. Yes, in bad groups it's likely a Wizard will have to carry the party through everything, and yes Fighters are notoriously bad but they're hardly alone in either group, nor is it strictly a class based divide.

Sure it's more common a given character can't do something useful than it is that they won't, but both are very possible.

A good group starts with avoiding the bad classes but the vast majority of it comes down to what you do during actual play as there is a massive difference between... just to give one example:

Party systematically presses the attack, sweeps room to room and clears out everything quickly and efficiently, often before it is ready for them.
Party, for whatever reason is not able to effectively coordinate, and so the enemy forces get about five buff rounds then swarm the group.

These two scenarios are the difference between winning and losing horribly in the vast majority of cases.

Also, LMFAO at the moron that said none of my posts pertain to actual play. Bitch, please. I've played every edition. Even 4th for as long as I could tolerate it (15 minutes).

Quote from: Mr. GC;585549It isn't all about Wizards though. Or Fighters.  ).

I wasn't inviting you to debate the subject with me. I was noting that this thread is just becoming a continuation of the Fighter v Wizard thread (which also went beyond just fighters and wizards).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585555I was inviting you to debate the subject with me. I was noting that this thread is just becoming a continuation of the Fighter v Wizard thread (which also went beyond just fighters and wizards).

Should that be wasn't?

Quote from: Mr. GC;585558Should that be wasn't?

Yup. I will edit my post.

As an OD&D and 4e player, I'm glad I don't have to deal with class balance issues. In my OD&D games, we max out at 10th level so there isn't a big deal between Magic-Users and Fighting Men.

That's one of the reasons I left AD&D decades ago.

Quote from: estar;585211I remember a handful of players who were notorious for ganking PCs and take their stuff in the early 80s. What made it worse was the fact that players with their characters campaign hopped a lot in those days.

Absolutely. I remember those guys. They would gank PCs near the end of adventures, take their magic items and head back to their own campaigns.

As of 1984, I only allowed pre-gens at all my convention games because of players flipping out when their PCs were killed and looted. That solved a plethora of problems for me.

Also by that time, our game club had written rules that any DM could disallow a character from another campaign if they chose. I still remember the crazy club debates where people freaked out about DM's disallowing PCs.

Quote from: StormBringer;585499There are no worthless classes, just worthless players.

True.

In Palladium games, there is a deliberate non-balance between classes and races. The challenge for the DM is to craft adventures where the barely trained militia guy and the uber alien in the mega-robot suit are both able to shine.

It's a challenge, but surprisingly fun.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585549Also, LMFAO at the moron that said none of my posts pertain to actual play. Bitch, please. I've played every edition. Even 4th for as long as I could tolerate it (15 minutes).

I'll assume you're addressing me. It's only fair that I respond, but it will likely be the last response here. Fair warning and all.

I didn't say you didn't play, so which editions you've tried are irrelevant (your goofy non-sequiturs  make you much less interesting than your fellow denners... even Mistborn... you may want to work on that). Your posts are useless though.

MGuy is at least posting his system. Benoist is posting dungeon design stuff. This is new or newish material that may find it's way into actual play. The kind of thing actually useful people post. You're... dragging threads off topic.

And since this thread isn't about you either, so am I. Sorry to the rest of you guys for that. I'm out unless something more on topic interests me.

EDIT: I'll edit this in to avoid double posting, but it just occurred to me: These "portable characters" are new to me. I hear about them, but I've never seen it in play. Is there any particular reason why this went out of style as it were? Was it hopelessly associated with such ganking as was described above? I can see the "incentives" for it, in that there might be few consequences if the second table had no ganked individuals (thereby earning the character loot without dragging the player through the usual social repercussions of this sort of thing).

Quote from: StormBringer;585511I am into the "not gaming with useless douchebags" thing.

How fortunate for you that the rest of your group feels differently.

Quote from: Benoist;585524This thread already warped itself out of shape to then reform as page 464 of the Wizard v. Fighter thread. Amazing.

Yeah, we're on countdown to Danlock, thank god.

Unfortunately, this thread was pretty much inevitably going to turn into fighter v. wizard when half of opening post was:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585177I mostly see this from the wizard crowd, although it applies to everyone.  If you have the attitude that you're hot shit because you "win" at an encounter, then everyone loses because the other players won't put up with your smug ass for very long.  Especially if you're the smug wizard who thinks the party better bow to your whim (rest when you need it, etc) whether or not it's convenient for the rest of the group.

Quote from: The Butcher;585190And good riddance, I say.

Now how do we flush them out of WoW? I really hope someday I'll find a group that's not in a maddening hurry to clear every dungeon. I want to enjoy the scenery and poke around. :D

I think some of them went to TOR and others to GW2.  Although I have to admit that I've found that if you avoid the heroic 5-mans, things aren't so bad.

Quote from: beejazz;585568EDIT: I'll edit this in to avoid double posting, but it just occurred to me: These "portable characters" are new to me. I hear about them, but I've never seen it in play. Is there any particular reason why this went out of style as it were? Was it hopelessly associated with such ganking as was described above? I can see the "incentives" for it, in that there might be few consequences if the second table had no ganked individuals (thereby earning the character loot without dragging the player through the usual social repercussions of this sort of thing).

I doubt it died out due to ganking.  I've never played or went to conventions but I played at multiple tables in the mid to late 90s and carried characters between them, and the prevalence of splatbooks, houseruling, DM fiat, et cetera really made the whole process complicated.

I think at some point telling someone "Our group plays D&D" meant very little in terms of what they were actually playing in terms of 'legal' options/products.

There is still the RPGA and spinoff leagues that explicitly define what is a 'legal' character, but those games play more like strategy/wargames to me than what I would call an RPG.  Although I get the distinct vibe that a lot of Old School games were similarly board gamish, and when the hobby went in another direction the idea of just carrying your character sheet between games went out the window with it.

In the end you would need to maintain several separate character sheets for one character anyway unless you were only playing him in one campaign at a time.  Otherwise you wind up with conditions, items, et cetera randomly appearing for no reason.

DM:"Okay, you all meet in the common room of the Inn you stayed at last night."
Dwarf Fighter:"My character is missing his left arm".
Party:"Wow, how did this happen!"
Dwarf Fighter:
Party:"This all happened last night while we were asleep?"
Dwarf Fighter:"Yep."

The whole idea is kind of ridiculous outside of the D&D is a boardgame mode of play, but we did it anyway.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585515And yet you in every way fit the profile of one. So does that mean you don't play with yourself?

"Nuh uh, you are!"

You must have taken the same formal logic classes as DDM.  You have certainly earned the high regard Lord Mistborn has for you.

Quote from: fectin;585577How fortunate for you that the rest of your group feels differently.

Awwww...  Hims so cuuute!  Twying to pway with the adults...

Quote from: beejazz;585568MGuy is at least posting his system. Benoist is  posting dungeon design stuff. This is new or newish material that may  find it's way into actual play. The kind of thing actually useful people  post. You're... dragging threads off topic.

In all honesty, it looks like MGuy might just turn into someone who  contributes around here.  So, considering what we started with, I guess  one out of six or seven isn't bad.

Quote from: fectin;585577How fortunate for you that the rest of your group feels differently.

Awwww...  Hims so cuuute!  Twying to pway with the adults...

Quote from: beejazz;585568MGuy is at least posting his system. Benoist is posting dungeon design stuff. This is new or newish material that may find it's way into actual play. The kind of thing actually useful people post. You're... dragging threads off topic.

In all honesty, it looks like MGuy might just turn into someone who contributes around here.  So, considering what we started with, I guess one out of six or seven isn't bad.

Denial is the most predictable of basketweaver responses. This will be the unpteenth time we Optimizers have had this thread, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;585602Denial is the most predictable of basketweaver responses. This will be the unpteenth time we Optimizers have had this thread, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.

Uh huh.  Like they say at tBP, shine on you crazy zebra.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;585591-snipped-

This might actually warrant it's own thread later... I have really no experience at all with this sort of play and have too much to ask about it.

I didn't even consider the conditions and such. Figured on sessions with neater endings and beginnings for this sort of thing I guess.

Quote from: StormBringer;585594In all honesty, it looks like MGuy might just turn into someone who  contributes around here.  So, considering what we started with, I guess  one out of six or seven isn't bad.

DeadDM's okay in discussions. Can't recall for Kaelic or Fectin. LM and this new guy are the only head-scratchers for me.

Quote from: beejazz;585605DeadDM's okay in discussions. Can't recall for Kaelic or Fectin. LM and this new guy are the only head-scratchers for me.

They are all roughly the same.  Unless you agree 100% with their premise free conclusions, they are in full-on butthurt rage.  Which is pretty much the culture over at the Den anyway, so it isn't surprising.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585452LM, you were the one who "quit" the forum in a dramatic "I am out of here" post. You have been more than welcome to continue posting. Some of the posters may have a negative opinion of you, but no one is terribly concerned about a "lord mistborn thread", whatever that is.

Nobody believed anything Lord Mistborn said to begin with - why would they believe that?  

Winning doesn't have to be about making the rest of the party feel small.  But every player should try to make an effective character.  Let me tell you about a  real experience I had in a long-running 2nd edition game.  

I played an Elven Fighter.  I had some good things going for me.  One of my friends played a Thief.  He wasn't the best in combat, but he tried.  One of the players was a fire-Evoker, and she actually came to dominate most of the combats (but she also drew a card from the Deck of Many Things that gave her tons of extra XP).  One of the players played a Bard named Perrin.  Perrin was Chaotic Neutral, and he was played in the Random Chaotic Stupid fashion.  He would do stupid shit like ride another player (usually the Thief) in combat instead of contributing, or use a cigar (given by Old Man Ketan in a Dungeon Adventure featuring a Kampestri Band) to cauterize wounds (dealing damage).  

Not only did he fail to contribute, he actually made the chance of failure higher.  He enjoyed playing his character, but nobody else liked the character at all.  We liked the player, and we agreed to tolerate the stupid character for the player's sake.  But if we had really been 'characters in the game world', we would have told Perrin to pack up his shit and find someone else to hang with.  

The fact is, the character was a problem - he was deadweight and didn't contribute.  We carried him anyway (see, we're nice), but I know I would have enjoyed the game more if he could be a contributor.  The Thief's player had much more of a problem with it - he'd actually get pissed off because the  bard was so annoying.  

As to whether there are crappy classes or not - generally, there are.  In 3.5, for example, some classes are specifically labeled as 'not suitable for PCs'.  They call them NPC classes - the Warrior, Adept and Aristocrat are among them.  While they could be played, the system recognizes that they don't contribute to the level of a real class.  So, whatever - if you have a great player that chooses one of those classes, he's choosing not to be able to contribute as effectively.  So maybe he's actually a crappy player, but I'm inclined to think that it's just the class that's crappy.  Unfortunately, some 'real' classes fall closer to the NPC classes in power than to the rest of the PC classes.  That may be for a different thread, but I don't think there's anything wrong with expecting each player to be able to contribute.  If they're just a drain on resources, they can ruin the fun.  And that's true even if they're capable of contributing, but choose not to.  For example, if instead of talking nicely to the Duke, the player always makes lewd comments about the guy's daughter (forcing an unnecessary confrontation) I'd understand the players wanting a character that 'helps win' instead of making things harder.  

That's what I want from other players, and that's what I want to contribute myself.

Quote from: TristramEvans;585207How to win at D&D:

Step 1: Play D&D.

Step 2: Do not allow this to affect your hygeine, fashion sense, or social skills. Date lots of girls, have lots of sex, and get a job you enjoy and pays well enough for you to live comfortably.

Step 3: Win!

Huh. Looks like I won.

RPGPundit

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585609Nobody believed anything Lord Mistborn said to begin with - why would they believe that?  

Winning doesn't have to be about making the rest of the party feel small.  But every player should try to make an effective character. .

I don't think anyone is against people making effective characters.  And as much as LM would like to turn this thread into his favorite troll thread, I'm not going to let that happen.

The point of my original rant is the people who insist that their characters are better than all the other players.  This isn't limited to wizard classes.  I gave a few other examples.

A person who happens to have memorized all the splat books and min/maxes their character with that knowledge to "win" as much as possible, and then say that people who made inferior classes (maybe they didn't memorize all the splat book loopholes, maybe they didn't want to play a wizard or psionist or paladin, whatever) is met with "Not my fault you're playing with a worthless character."

That player is a dick, and a blight to our hobby.  That was my point.  You don't win at D&D by being able to min/max your character better than the other players.

No.  You win at D&D by having fun and contributing to the fun of your friends at the table.  

Here's the thing - what makes the game fun varies from table to table.  For myself, I like the DM to play the opponents intelligently (but using only knowledge that they should have) - ie, intelligently and reasonably.  If this is done, the game can be hard.  In order to win, players must be smart, utilize their resources well, and coordinate effectively.  That's fun for me.  

If someone can't do any of those things, it's possible that the group can still succeed.  And I won't make fun of a player for being ineffective.  But if it's too much of a problem from a character perspective, we'll look to replace him with someone more capable.  If he's actually worse for the team, we'll just dump him.  That also goes for characters that steal from party members.  It isn't fun, and my character wouldn't put up with it, so I won't either.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585622That player is a dick, and a blight to our hobby.  That was my point.  You don't win at D&D by being able to min/max your character better than the other players.

Yeah we've also had this thread before, and we're fairly efficient at this one as well.

Anyway you went to the mat to claim the fighter was fine as is. Why is it that now your panties are in a twist about Uberwizards. You might want to get that straight. I promised I wouldn't make this as class balance thread, but if GC want's to field this one he can.

So you where whining about optimizers pissing in your cheerios the longer, I've been on the internet the less credence I've given this sort of thing. First is that in some peoples eyes you're a dirty minmaxer even if your character isn't overpowered, since peoples munchkin alarms can apparently be set off over something as trivial as a non-core class. At the end of the day your party is going to have to meet a certain threshold of power and knowledge to meet the challenges the DM sets out and if you can't do that you die or worse. Whining because some player's greater knowledge of the game gave them a bigger slice of the awesome cake seems pretty kindergarten.

Mistborn, Sacrosanct's arguing more against bad sportsmanship than making powerful characters from my reading.

However: Sacrosanct, being able to min-max better than the other players does not immediately mean that the player's trying to be a dick.

Intentionally min-maxing to the extent that you take out the element of risk in D&D, gaming the system for infinite power loops and other forms of disruptive min-maxing?  Yes.

Being the sole optimizer in the group, but making a min-maxed build who can fill in for party weaknesses, increase overall survivability, or synergize with the team?  Not being a dick.

Quote from: Libertad;585628Mistborn, Sacrosanct's arguing more against bad sportsmanship than making powerful characters from my reading.

However: Sacrosanct, being able to min-max better than the other players does not immediately mean that the player's trying to be a dick.

Intentionally min-maxing to the extent that you take out the element of risk in D&D, gaming the system for infinite power loops and other forms of disruptive min-maxing?  Yes.

Being the sole optimizer in the group, but making a min-maxed build who can fill in for party weaknesses, increase overall survivability, or synergize with the team?  Not being a dick.

I agree with this, but to add:

Min maxing, acting smug and superior, and expecting the rest of the group to adhere to your whim*?  Otherwise known as making the game all about me.  Total dick


*A phrase I recently heard that comes to mind in response to "you ran out of spell, what now?" was "We rest.  Whenever I need to, we rest, regardless of what the party is doing or wants.  If I'm winning all encounters for them, then they should rest whenever I need it."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585632*A phrase I recently heard that comes to mind in response to "you ran out of spell, what now?" was "We rest.  Whenever I need to, we rest, regardless of what the party is doing or wants.  If I'm winning all encounters for them, then they should rest whenever I need it."

I assume you don't want to walk into a battle without spells since that's the sort of thing that has a tendency to case TPKs in every edition. It's not like people are that fond of the 5 minute workday it's just a natural outgrowth of having per day resources. Now the more casters the party has the more encounters the party can face before they have to rest. even more so if this is an older edition and almost all of your healing is coming from a Cleric.

We've already been around that topic. And let's just say many of us, with our actual play experience, completely disagree. I know the temptation to rehash arguments is there, but really there can be only one true 4000+ epic topic.

Quote from: Opaopajr;585700We've already been around that topic. And let's just say many of us, with our actual play experience, completely disagree. I know the temptation to rehash arguments is there, but really there can be only one true 4000+ epic topic.

Have you actually played in caster heavy games because I'm not sure you have. I have plenty of experience with caster parties and non-caster parties. My experience is that the more non-casters you have the faster spells run out.

Putting aside weather or not the fighter and rogue are actually contributing their presence is going to but a greater strain on the party casters spell load-out than another caster. Hopefully the Fighter is doing something pretty awesome because otherwise his contribution is that the Cleric gets to summon fewer angels and see less of the future.

To quote:

Now the more casters the party has the more encounters the party can face before they have to rest. even more so if this is an older edition and almost all of your healing is coming from a Cleric.

I disagree with this on its face. You presume too much about encounters and the necessity of spells. And I resent the healbot assertion about Priests.

Have you actually played in caster heavy games because I'm not sure you have. I have plenty of experience with caster parties and non-caster parties. My experience is that the more non-casters you have the faster spells run out.

Putting aside weather or not the fighter and rogue are actually contributing their presence is going to but a greater strain on the party casters spell load-out than another caster. Hopefully the Fighter is doing something pretty awesome because otherwise his contribution is that the Cleric gets to summon fewer angles and see less of the future.

Yes, I have. In games beyond 3e no less.

And no -- outside of the completely obvious "the more spell slots you have, the more spell slots you have!" non-assertion -- I don't agree with your argument as it relates to the first quote above. My scope of play extends beyond the boundaries of 3e. Spamming spells at each encounter is not how every single game of D&D I've played works.

Now, can we roll this dead-horse tangent away and get back to the topic?

Quote from: Opaopajr;585727And I resent the healbot assertion about Priests.

I resent it too but if this ain't 3e then unless the DM is making it rain potions then those CLWs have to come from somewhere.

So lets recap. When people rest it's usually because spells ran out. The more spellcasters you have the more spells the party has access to. Having a party composition heavy on non-casters will cause the casters you do have to run out of spells faster. Thus a party of say Priest/Priest/Mage/Mage can deal with more encounters before they need to rest then a party of Fighter/Thief/Priest/Mage not the other way around.

Are you saying this is true of 3E or all editions of D&D lordmistborn? If all editions, are you saying it is true at every level of play? (even level one) If not all editions, which editions specifically do you have in mind? At the majority of tables?

You really can tell 3.x players just by how they post. I wasn't expecting that, but there it is. Of course, the 1st ed players here likely look at my recently refound love for 2nd ed with similar amounts of scorn and amusement that I'm looking at 3rd ed players with.

There's lots of ways to be dicks.  

Here's one:

The Fighter type is pretty good on hit points, but everyone else is low on spells and other resources.  The party fights one more encounter, which they survive, but at the end, they're all low on hit points.  

They rest, but with a single night of rest, they haven't healed up the damage from the last fight.  The cleric/priest then uses his entire allotment of healing before the adventuring day even starts to get everyone to full.  

It's hard to contribute to the success of the party directly when you're using your resources to 'fix' other PCs mistakes.  

Resting when the wizard demands it might not make sense, but insisting on taking on fights that you don't need to is also pointless.  

For example, once I was playing a game in Forgotten Realms.  I stopped playing this particular game because they decided to play 3x/week, which was more than I could devote to it, but I kept playing with these same people in another game that I restricted to 1/week.  In any case, I was playing a wizard (rare for me) when we encountered an Otyugh in a dead-end.  We were curious about what it might be doing there, but it wasn't important to our mission.  Without engaging it, we discovered that there was a piece of magical treasure it was guarding.  Using mage hand we recovered the magical item from a safe distance, and we could have continued on.  However, some of the players just couldn't leave a fat sack of XP on the hoof, so they attacked it anyway.  While they eventually defeated it, they had their asses handed to them for the most part.  Suddenly, they needed to rest and call it a day, while my Wizard was still nearly full.  Since I didn't agree with the fight, I didn't participate.  

It wasn't the Wizard requiring a 5-minute workday on that occassion.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585742Are you saying this is true of 3E or all editions of D&D lordmistborn? If all editions, are you saying it is true at every level of play? (even level one) If not all editions, which editions specifically do you have in mind? At the majority of tables?

Actually I was specifically arguing 2e here. Limited healing is not an issue in 3e.

Level 1-4 is a luck based mission anyway if you have combat at those levels people drop like flies and there isn't much you can do about it.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;585747Actually I was specifically arguing 2e here. Limited healing is not an issue in 3e.

Level 1-4 is a luck based mission anyway if you have combat at those levels people drop like flies and there isn't much you can do about it.

How much second edition have you played?

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;585747Level 1-4 is a luck based mission anyway if you have combat at those levels people drop like flies and there isn't much you can do about it.

I feel like an idiot for engaging you on this again, but:

so you evaluation of class balance ignores the first four levels of an edition where balance over the course of a campaign (and level progression) is important?

The first four levels wizards drop like flies. Fighters and clerics tend to do okay. If you play a wizard its pretty clear at first level everyone else can handle more combat than you. You have a single spell (unless you are a specialist) and d4 HP. You get do to your thing once and then you have to fall back on crappy attacks and HP. A fighter on the other hand can continue to do his thing until he runs out of HP. If there is a cleric with cure light wounds in the party, that can keep the fighter going even longer. It is one of the reasons I tend to play fighters in 2E, because they are reliable and consistent at early levels. They have a pretty good chance of making it through those first four levels. Wizards have a much lower chance of making it through alive . And during that time they can cast a handful of spells. I have never been in a group that rested because the first level wizard cast his magic missile for the day. Usually rests, if they are determined by resources and not the situation we are in, are governed more by HP totals than spells totals.

Quote from: StormBringer;585594"Nuh uh, you are!"

You must have taken the same formal logic classes as DDM.  You have certainly earned the high regard Lord Mistborn has for you.

Hey look, it can make empty and useless posts...

Oh wait, I'm not surprised. It's just more of the same dodging from the bad players.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585622A person who happens to have memorized all the splat books and min/maxes their character with that knowledge to "win" as much as possible, and then say that people who made inferior classes (maybe they didn't memorize all the splat book loopholes, maybe they didn't want to play a wizard or psionist or paladin, whatever) is met with "Not my fault you're playing with a worthless character."

That player is a dick, and a blight to our hobby.  That was my point.  You don't win at D&D by being able to min/max your character better than the other players.

Someone that refuses to make an adventurer that can adventure, then tries to adventure anyways while knowing they cannot keep up is a dick. If you didn't tell them, then it might be on you, but otherwise play will go like this:

Worthless character dies in under a round.

Player gets mad.

"Hey, we tried to warn you. Not my fault you insisted on a worthless character."

Usually though, because I game with people that are not idiots they either realize right away that they should make adventurers that can adventure, or they realize it after it is pointed out to them once...

Because even the basket weavers want to succeed, they just don't want to work for it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585632*A phrase I recently heard that comes to mind in response to "you ran out of spell, what now?" was "We rest.  Whenever I need to, we rest, regardless of what the party is doing or wants.  If I'm winning all encounters for them, then they should rest whenever I need it."

Out of spells = out of resources. You fight one fight without resources, everyone dies.

On a side note, if you don't have any casters you are constantly in this state.

If you have many you have a ton of resources and can go do 6... 8... 10... fights, no problem.

In the scenario you assume, where Wizard carries bad party? Yeah, they'll shut up and rest, or they'll all die... and perhaps next time they won't rage about dirty optimizers and make characters that can actually help.

Because people still aren't getting it here are actual examples of both good and bad play:

Good party starts off with divinations. They learn that they are up against:

A dragon.
A druid.
A psychic.
A shadow demon.
A pair of melee machines.
Various mooks.

From this they can deduce that:
They should have at least one person with See Invis and lots of Dispels for dealing with the big guys.
They should have Magic Circle so they are not mind fucked by the psychic.
They should all be flying so they are not one rounded by the melee machines.
They should be able to quickly put Wraithstrike on the melee so as to take out the dragon before it can move, otherwise people will likely die.
The druid is impossible to counter without knowing more about him, same for the shadow demon.
The mooks are dealt with by generic buffs and standard anti ranged defenses.

So they close in on the bell tower, cast Silence on it then take out the mooks quickly, spend a few rounds chasing the shadow demon around while it annoys the hell out of them, then they kill it before it can escape and warn the others. The group could leave now and do part two tomorrow, but let's say they don't.

Instead they keep advancing, take out the mooks outside as quickly as possible, then start systematically sweeping the main building. First they shake off the death blast, then kill its source... then they pick a door and kill either the psychic or the druid before he's really ready... and if they're fast they can get the other.

Then they come out, see they've gotten the dragon's attention already... it lasts long enough to get off one action, but with Greater Mirror Image and Wings of Cover the target survives at 3 HP. The melee machines come out last, see the all flying party, and either die or swim away in shame.

A few healing charges later and the party is fine.

Bad party vs same scenario:

At most they can learn about the dragon in advance. They're not even aware the other enemies exist, and as they'd get spotted 500 feet out from the bell tower they likely never will as the guards there can just rain down arrows and boulders... they won't do much at this range, but neither will the parties' attacks, and since it'd take 12-13 rounds to close the distance and get in there and longer to get out of engagement range the party will likely die even before considering they rang the bell, alerting everything in the area and giving the party about 5 minutes to GTFO or die to an overwhelming encounter. None of the major opponents need even reveal themselves as the group would die to the lowest mooks.

If by some miracle they actually survived that long they get brutally beaten down by the shadow demon... and not even the gods can help them deal with all the OTHER stuff all at once.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585752I feel like an idiot for engaging you on this again, but:

so you evaluation of class balance ignores the first four levels of an edition where balance over the course of a campaign (and level progression) is important?

The first two levels all characters of all classes drop like flies.

If this is 1st or 2nd edition, all characters of all levels die quickly and easily.

Fixed.

Also spell totals = HP totals, and any Wizard casting Magic Missile is playing the game wrong.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;585726Hopefully the Fighter is doing something pretty awesome because otherwise his contribution is that the Cleric gets to summon fewer angles and see less of the future.

I don't know what game you are playing, but I have never seen a cleric summon a single angle in any edition.

Out of curiosity what types do you see summoned more often, the traditional right, or are obtuse, straight, and acute more common in actual play, and what exactly does the cleric do with them once summoned?

Quote from: Mr. GC;585759Fixed.

Also spell totals = HP totals, and any Wizard casting Magic Missile is playing the game wrong.

Have you even played or read either edition of AD&D?

Quote from: Mr. GC;585759.
 Wizard casting Magic Missile is playing the game wrong.

Whether it is magic missile, sleep, unseen servant or detect magic, the point is he gets one spell a day. What spells he has access to isn't entirely under his control. My last 1E wizard for example failed to know the spells i really wanted (despite a 17 intelligence) and magic missile ended up being one of his two best spells early on.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585761Have you even played or read either edition of AD&D?

Yup. I only stuck with it because I was too young to realize that suicide shuffling was bad design.

Counter question:

You are playing 1st or 2nd edition. Is casting Haste:

A: A good idea.
B: A great idea.
C: An amazing idea.
D: A pants on head retarded idea.

Edit: Not the point. The point is stuff like Sleep was even better then, whereas Magic Missile was actually a bit worse (sure enemies had less HP, but also came in much larger groups, making single target damage worthless).

Quote from: Mr. GC;585763Counter question:

You are playing 1st or 2nd edition. Is casting Haste:

A: A good idea.
B: A great idea.
C: An amazing idea.
D: A pants on head retarded idea.
).

it depends on the situation, what you are dealing with and what spells you happen to have. If you are in combat and the double movement/attacks from non casters (or casters engaged in melee or ranged combat) it can be a big boost. The more multi-attack well equiped fighters you have around you the better the spell functions. The downside is you age the people (so it is better if they are demihumans).

Quote from: Mr. GC;585763Edit: Not the point. The point is stuff like Sleep was even better then, whereas Magic Missile was actually a bit worse (sure enemies had less HP, but also came in much larger groups, making single target damage worthless).

That isnt relevant to my point, which was we don't stop to rest when the first level wizard casts his one spell (whatever spell that may be).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585752I feel like an idiot for engaging you on this again, but:

so you evaluation of class balance ignores the first four levels of an edition where balance over the course of a campaign (and level progression) is important?

Actually, yes. I think you're conflating 'across' a campaign (ie, considered as a whole) and 'throughout'. Consider the adventures of Charles the Chef and Bert the Plumber: it is clearly undesireable to have them face all culinary challenges, all the time. Bert will get bored and frustrated, and rightly so. Likewise, you wouldn't run a campaign about pipes, for the same reasons: Bert is good at everything, and Charles contributes best by standing back, out of the way. Finally though, if you ran a dozen pipe-based sessions, then moved to all culinary, all the time, that would still suck. You would still have only one character contributing; it's just that the misery would be spread around.

Similarly, when you say wizard and fighter are balanced, because their relative effectivnesses are about even when averaged over an entire campaign, that isn't helpful. Whether or not it's strictly true is a matter of semantics, but it doesn't say anything about how often one player (figuratively) goes and stands in the corner.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585767That isnt relevant to my point, which was we don't stop to rest when the first level wizard casts his one spell (whatever spell that may be).

If you are at first level, you're resting after every fight, spell or not because if you somehow luck out and handle one without anyone dying instantly you won't be able to take a second.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585752I feel like an idiot for engaging you on this again, but:

so you evaluation of class balance ignores the first four levels of an edition where balance over the course of a campaign (and level progression) is important?

The first four levels wizards drop like flies. Fighters and clerics tend to do okay. If you play a wizard its pretty clear at first level everyone else can handle more combat than you. You have a single spell (unless you are a specialist) and d4 HP. You get do to your thing once and then you have to fall back on crappy attacks and HP. A fighter on the other hand can continue to do his thing until he runs out of HP. If there is a cleric with cure light wounds in the party, that can keep the fighter going even longer. It is one of the reasons I tend to play fighters in 2E, because they are reliable and consistent at early levels. They have a pretty good chance of making it through those first four levels. Wizards have a much lower chance of making it through alive . And during that time they can cast a handful of spells. I have never been in a group that rested because the first level wizard cast his magic missile for the day. Usually rests, if they are determined by resources and not the situation we are in, are governed more by HP totals than spells totals.

but at low levels it doesn't take much 2 hits will finish a 1st level fighter most of the time.
So when you say the fighter can carry on doing his thing until he runs out of hit points that might only be another 3 rounds .... Not sure that extends all the way up to 4th level but a 4L fighter with a couple of crappy HD rolls, which is entirely possible, is far from the duracel bunny of combat monsters. And rather like a student grant once you spend those hit points they take an awful long time to come back on their own.

I think the point being made, albeit a little hamfistedly, is that at low levels its a all a bit of a turkey shoot. Your plan to ambush the 4 orcs might work really well but if that one of them gets off a shot and rolls a 20 then meh .. even the fighter is going to have a bad day.

But surely we are not having That Debate again are we ???? :)

Quote from: fectin;585768Actually, yes. I think your conflating 'across' a campaign (ie, considered as a whole) and 'throughout'. Consider the adventures of Charles the Chef and Bert the Plumber: it is clearly undesireable to have them face all culinary challenges, all the time. Bert will get bored and frustrated, and rightly so. Likewise, you wouldn't run a campaign about pipes, for the same reasons: Bert is good at everything, and Charles contributes best by standing back, out of the way. Finally though, if you ran a dozen pipe-based sessions, then moved to all culinary, all the time, that would still suck. You would still have only one character contributing; it's just that the misery would be spread around.

Similarly, when you say wizard and fighter are balanced, because their relative effectivnesses are about even when averaged over an entire campaign, that isn't helpful. Whether or not it's strictly true is a matter of semantics, but it doesn't say anything about how often one player (figuratively) goes and stands in the corner.

I think it is fine if you think this sucks, but not everybody does. I have acknowledged there is a power disparity between wizards and fighters in AD&D (though it is overblown) with wizards being much weaker at earlier levels and more poweful at higher levels. Whether i am playing a wizard or a fighter I find this not only acceptable but highly enjoyable. I like that trade off in play. So for me it is fun to balance it over the campaign in this way. It also achieves the flavor I am after in D&D.

This one approach to game balance. We have had this discussion many, many times here. If yo uwant to see my opinions (such as the one i expressed here to you, or my balance solutions for people who dont accept balance over a campaign but want to retain the spellcaster and fighter flavor of AD&D, check out the wizard versus fighter thread---you will also see counterpoints to my arguments there as well).

But i am not going to waste my time restating my position on an issue we have debated to death in recent months.

Quote from: jibbajibba;585772but at low levels it doesn't take much 2 hits will finish a 1st level fighter most of the time.
So when you say the fighter can carry on doing his thing until he runs out of hit points that might only be another 3 rounds .... Not sure that extends all the way up to 4th level but a 4L fighter with a couple of crappy HD rolls, which is entirely possible, is far from the duracel bunny of combat monsters. And rather like a student grant once you spend those hit points they take an awful long time to come back on their own.
 ???? :)

It could be three rounds, it could be ten rounds, depending on his armor, dex and luck. But the first level wizard basically has one round is the point. In fact i just played a 1st level wizard in a new 1E campaign. First session i cast my one spell on first round of an encounter, while my party continued to be effective for two or three more encounters.

Let's just ignore the part about assuming that in a game session, the DM just stops the world for you to rest after every encounter or whenever else you want (a sign of a shitty DM), which alone invalidates 90% of the Denner's supporting points.

Let's go back to the original topic.  A session of D&D is meant to be fun for everyone.  Some people like playing rogues.  Or fighters.  Or clerics.  Or Wizards.  Or halfling assassins.  Or whatever.  That's the archetype that they want to play.  Everyone, when making their characters, is going to try to make them as competent as possible.  With many editions, that comes down to luck of the rolls since classes are prepackaged with little customization.

If you've got a player who happened to get higher rolls and was able to play a paladin or ranger, or a player who knows all the 3e splat books by heart and loopholes and exploits to min/max their character, and that character looks at all the other players and tells them they're losers for being too dumb to build the same?

You're a dick.  There's no roundabout to it.  If you think the party should cater to your whim, you're a dick.  If you expect everyone else to sacrifice their fun and play to you, but you refuse to do the same, you're a dick.  If you view yourself as the winner because you could get past an encounter more often than other players and view it as some sort of competition, you're a dick.

It's the DMs job to help ensure that players are able to play the archetype they want and to keep everyone engaged.  Not to bow to the whim of a min/max selfish player.  It's a social game, where the expectation is for everyone to have fun.  If you care less about people having fun and only care about you having the most powerful character?  Not only are you a dick, but you're a blight to the community because you're spitting on the spirit of the game.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585777It could be three rounds, it could be ten rounds, depending on his armor, dex and luck. But the first level wizard basically has one round is the point. In fact i just played a 1st level wizard in a new 1E campaign. First session i cast my one spell on first round of an encounter, while my party continued to be effective for two or three more encounters.

You should have rested after 1 round.   :rolleyes:

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585777It could be three rounds, it could be ten rounds, depending on his armor, dex and luck. But the first level wizard basically has one round is the point. In fact i just played a 1st level wizard in a new 1E campaign. First session i cast my one spell on first round of an encounter, while my party continued to be effective for two or three more encounters.

I think the point was that the LUCK bit is a huge factor in low level D&D.

Quote from: jibbajibba;585783I think the point was that the LUCK bit is a huge factor in low level D&D.

Luck is a factor. But even accounting for luck, the fighter has an edge on survivability and usefulness over the wizard in those early levels. I think this is pretty obvious to anyone who has played first through fourth level wizards and fighters in AD&D.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585779Let's just ignore the part about assuming that in a game session, the DM just stops the world for you to rest after every encounter or whenever else you want (a sign of a shitty DM), which alone invalidates 90% of the Denner's supporting points.

Let's go back to the original topic.  A session of D&D is meant to be fun for everyone.  Some people like playing rogues.  Or fighters.  Or clerics.  Or Wizards.  Or halfling assassins.  Or whatever.  That's the archetype that they want to play.  Everyone, when making their characters, is going to try to make them as competent as possible.  With many editions, that comes down to luck of the rolls since classes are prepackaged with little customization.

If you've got a player who happened to get higher rolls and was able to play a paladin or ranger, or a player who knows all the 3e splat books by heart and loopholes and exploits to min/max their character, and that character looks at all the other players and tells them they're losers for being too dumb to build the same?

You're a dick.  There's no roundabout to it.  If you think the party should cater to your whim, you're a dick.  If you expect everyone else to sacrifice their fun and play to you, but you refuse to do the same, you're a dick.  If you view yourself as the winner because you could get past an encounter more often than other players and view it as some sort of competition, you're a dick.

It's the DMs job to help ensure that players are able to play the archetype they want and to keep everyone engaged.  Not to bow to the whim of a min/max selfish player.  It's a social game, where the expectation is for everyone to have fun.  If you care less about people having fun and only care about you having the most powerful character?  Not only are you a dick, but you're a blight to the community because you're spitting on the spirit of the game.

All that is true.

The question that is bound to come up again :) is does the design of the game do anything to try and remove that poor play style or does it actually encourage it?
I think 3e encourages it. I think 1e could do more to counter it. Good rolls leading to tougher classes for example is a feedback loop that doesn't really help all the players feel equally valued. A good DM can take care of it but the game doesn't come with a good DM out of the box.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585785Luck is a factor. But even accounting for luck, the fighter has an edge on survivability and usefulness over the wizard in those early levels. I think this is pretty obvious to anyone who has played first through fourth level wizards and fighters in AD&D.

Of course. But I was just saying that the arguement you presentsounded a bit like the Wizard has one shot to play then they need to back off whilst the fighter can keep going all day. Well the figther can't do that if he engages in actual fighting any more than the wizard can do that if he engages in actually casting spells. Both of them have a resource pool that they use up. Eeking out that resource pool is part of play.
The party are much more likely to continue if the wizard has used his only spell than if the Fighter is down to 1 HP.

And we're derailed again... Next I'll be expected to accept that waiting for opposing N/PCs to die of acute myocardial infarctions, or badgering the table into quitting wholesale, is the correct way to win D&D. Oh wait, my bad, we already saw that too.
:banghead:

Where's One Horse Town's eye roll when you need it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585779Let's go back to the original topic.  A session of D&D is meant to be fun for everyone.  Some people like playing rogues.  Or fighters.  Or clerics.  Or Wizards.  Or halfling assassins.  Or whatever.  That's the archetype that they want to play.  Everyone, when making their characters, is going to try to make them as competent as possible.  With many editions, that comes down to luck of the rolls since classes are prepackaged with little customization.

If you've got a player who happened to get higher rolls and was able to play a paladin or ranger, or a player who knows all the 3e splat books by heart and loopholes and exploits to min/max their character, and that character looks at all the other players and tells them they're losers for being too dumb to build the same?

You're a dick.  There's no roundabout to it.  If you think the party should cater to your whim, you're a dick.  If you expect everyone else to sacrifice their fun and play to you, but you refuse to do the same, you're a dick.  If you view yourself as the winner because you could get past an encounter more often than other players and view it as some sort of competition, you're a dick.

Yeah, sure.

And if you've deliberately made an ineffective character and tell the other players that they're 'roll-players and not role-players', you're a dick.  If you think the party should cater to your whim, but you refuse to do the same, you're a dick.  

Look, I understand your OP was a bit of a rant - presumably about something that actually happened with some smug 'winner' pointing out how he or she didn't need the party to defeat a particular encounter.  I wasn't there, so I won't judge.  To be fair, it's nice to give someone some accolades when they 'win'.  If the charging fighter crits with a lance and takes out a difficult opponent in a single hit, let him brag a little.  Give him some congratulations.  Or if the wizard uses a spell in a smart way and turns a difficult encounter into a cake walk, they deserve some recognition.  That's part of having fun.  But if someone is shitting on someone else's fun, some accomodation needs to be made.  But it's not a one-way street.  The ineffective character should try to be a more effective character if that's more fun for the group.  

Pinning the 'problem-player' based on your rant is impossible, but both players - the one who was shown up and the one that did the showing up - should look hard at what happened and ask themselves if they can change their behavior to help make the game fun for everyone.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585755Hey look, it can make empty and useless posts...

Oh wait, I'm not surprised. It's just more of the same dodging from the bad players.

"I'm not a bad player, you are!  You... you... you 'it'!"
Man, I thought the board had some kind of age verification to keep the junior high kids from reading all our naughty words.

QuoteSomeone that refuses to make an adventurer that can adventure, then tries to adventure anyways while knowing they cannot keep up is a dick. If you didn't tell them, then it might be on you, but otherwise play will go like this:

In other words, they don't make a character that can 'win' D&D.  Yeah, Sacrosanct started this thread about people like you.  Go step in front of a bus, I doubt you're any less of a douchebag when you are away from the internet.

QuoteWorthless character dies in under a round.

Worthless player bitches on internet because no one invites them to game any more in under a round.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585795The ineffective character should try to be a more effective character if that's more fun for the group.  

And they shitty douchebag player should stop interrupting the games of people with social skills.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585795The ineffective character should try to be a more effective character if that's more fun for the group.  

And they shitty douchebag player should stop interrupting the games of people with social skills.

Quote from: jibbajibba;585783I think the point was that the LUCK bit is a huge factor in low level D&D.

Luck is the result of proper planning.

Quote from: ArtemisAlpha;585744You really can tell 3.x players just by how they post. I wasn't expecting that, but there it is. Of course, the 1st ed players here likely look at my recently refound love for 2nd ed with similar amounts of scorn and amusement that I'm looking at 3rd ed players with.

Nah, not everyone. I primarily play AD&D 1e because of the atmosphere (best art in any edition IMO), but I won't ever view a 2e player with scorn.  That's mostly 1989 and TDD who do that.  2e is still AD&D, even it it's the PG rated version ;)

But it is a more cleaned up version, so I can see why people would prefer that.  Hell, I use 2e thief skill progression and cleric sphere rules in my 1e games.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585763The point is stuff like Sleep was even better then, whereas Magic Missile was actually a bit worse (sure enemies had less HP, but also came in much larger groups, making single target damage worthless).

Magic missle is for use on opposing spellcasters, an unerring attack which disrupts their spells in the round it's cast in 1e. Single targets are exactly what it's designed for.

There's a reason I considered titling this, "A Denner discovers chess." (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=24165)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585177D&D is not a game to keep score between the players.  This attitude among some people that they must have the most powerful character of the group, and that they must "win" every encounter is a blight upon our hobby.

You're just mad because you don't know how to play.

Quote from: danbuter;585807You're just mad because you don't know how to play.

I'm usually the DM :D

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585766it depends on the situation, what you are dealing with and what spells you happen to have. If you are in combat and the double movement/attacks from non casters (or casters engaged in melee or ranged combat) it can be a big boost. The more multi-attack well equiped fighters you have around you the better the spell functions. The downside is you age the people (so it is better if they are demihumans).

As I suspected.

You are correct that Haste magically ages the subjects.

What you completely missed is that magical aging forces a system shock check. Failure means you die instantly.

Casting a buff that has a non zero chance of directly killing the people it is meant to help is pants on head retarded.

I haven't played those in over a decade and I remember this, so the fact people actively playing it right now don't is telling.

Now that we've established I've forgotten more about D&D than those here ever knew, care to stop dodging and address my points? This is a general question, not just at Brendan.

Oh and speaking of pants on head retarded posts...

Quote from: StormBringer;585800Luck is the result of proper planning.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585777It could be three rounds, it could be ten rounds, depending on his armor, dex and luck. But the first level wizard basically has one round is the point. In fact i just played a 1st level wizard in a new 1E campaign. First session i cast my one spell on first round of an encounter, while my party continued to be effective for two or three more encounters.

Both the Fighter and the Wizard die in 1-2 hits at levels 1-2.

Both the Fighter and the Wizard should refrain from even having a name until level 3.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;585806Magic missle is for use on opposing spellcasters, an unerring attack which disrupts their spells in the round it's cast in 1e. Single targets are exactly what it's designed for.

There's a reason I considered titling this, "A Denner discovers chess." (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=24165)

Old edition Sleep is no save, you just lose. It also works against many other things. You were saying?

Quote from: StormBringer;585798Man, I thought the board had some kind of age verification to keep the junior high kids from reading all our naughty words.

I don't know why you thought that, given that you are here and all.

Yes, I will continue reflecting your own pathetic attacks back at you until you actually start trying.

QuoteIn other words, they don't make a character that can 'win' D&D.  Yeah, Sacrosanct started this thread about people like you.  Go step in front of a bus, I doubt you're any less of a douchebag when you are away from the internet.

Aw, the poor little basket weaver is butthurt someone said mean things about his character on the internet. Let me guess: Your Fighter got flattened, so your character sheet died in a fire and now you hate optimizers forever? How's about you go join your failed character, hm?

QuoteWorthless player bitches on internet because no one invites them to game any more in under a round.

So that's why you're here.

QuoteAnd they shitty douchebag player should stop interrupting the games of people with social skills.

Should they also stop speaking to their betters? If yes, kindly shut the fuck up now. If no, you are wrong. Kindly shut the fuck up now.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585755Because people still aren't getting it here are actual examples of both good and bad play:

Good party starts off with divinations. They learn that they are up against:

A dragon.
A druid.
A psychic.
A shadow demon.
A pair of melee machines.
Various mooks.

From this they can deduce that:
They should have at least one person with See Invis and lots of Dispels for dealing with the big guys.
They should have Magic Circle so they are not mind fucked by the psychic.
They should all be flying so they are not one rounded by the melee machines.
They should be able to quickly put Wraithstrike on the melee so as to take out the dragon before it can move, otherwise people will likely die.
The druid is impossible to counter without knowing more about him, same for the shadow demon.
The mooks are dealt with by generic buffs and standard anti ranged defenses.

So they close in on the bell tower, cast Silence on it then take out the mooks quickly, spend a few rounds chasing the shadow demon around while it annoys the hell out of them, then they kill it before it can escape and warn the others. The group could leave now and do part two tomorrow, but let's say they don't.

Instead they keep advancing, take out the mooks outside as quickly as possible, then start systematically sweeping the main building. First they shake off the death blast, then kill its source... then they pick a door and kill either the psychic or the druid before he's really ready... and if they're fast they can get the other.

Then they come out, see they've gotten the dragon's attention already... it lasts long enough to get off one action, but with Greater Mirror Image and Wings of Cover the target survives at 3 HP. The melee machines come out last, see the all flying party, and either die or swim away in shame.

A few healing charges later and the party is fine.

Bad party vs same scenario:

At most they can learn about the dragon in advance. They're not even aware the other enemies exist, and as they'd get spotted 500 feet out from the bell tower they likely never will as the guards there can just rain down arrows and boulders... they won't do much at this range, but neither will the parties' attacks, and since it'd take 12-13 rounds to close the distance and get in there and longer to get out of engagement range the party will likely die even before considering they rang the bell, alerting everything in the area and giving the party about 5 minutes to GTFO or die to an overwhelming encounter. None of the major opponents need even reveal themselves as the group would die to the lowest mooks.

If by some miracle they actually survived that long they get brutally beaten down by the shadow demon... and not even the gods can help them deal with all the OTHER stuff all at once.

We know who's a member of the second party...

Quote from: Mr. GC;585810Both the Fighter and the Wizard die in 1-2 hits at levels 1-2..

Bzzt!  Wrong again.

An average MU with AC 10 (or 9 depending on your edition) and 3 hp will get hit 50% of the time and the average damage from an average weapon (1d8) will kill him.

an average fighter with AC 5 or 4 (or 15-17 depending on edition) will only be hit 20% of the time and will have about 7 hp, taking twice as many successful hits to bring him down.

so when you factor in % to get hit along with hp, it takes 2 attacks to kill the MU (2 attacks * 4.5 damage * 50%)

compare that to the fighter where it takes 8 attacks to bring him down (8 attacks * 4.5 * 20%).  And that's with level 1 characters.  At level 2, the disparity gets even greater as the fighter is in better armor and the hp disparity goes from 4 (7-3) to 8 (14-6).

But hey, never let the facts get in your way.  Hasn't stopped you yet.  But like many other dicks who insist on "winning", you like to ignore the rules that mitigate you from doing a lot of these exploits you like to do.

Quote from: Opaopajr;585792Where's One Horse Town's eye roll when you need it.

There you go. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Mr. GC;585810What you completely missed is that magical aging forces a system shock check. Failure means you die instantly.

Casting a buff that has a non zero chance of directly killing the people it is meant to help is pants on head retarded.

I haven't played those in over a decade and I remember this, so the fact people actively playing it right now don't is telling.

Do you also remember the page number in the 1st Edition DMG where you read that?

QuoteYes, I will continue reflecting your own pathetic attacks back at you until you actually start trying.

"No!  I am the cool one here!"
It is just too adorable how you have this smug attitude on the internet, because you have had your dick knocked in the dirt IRL probably a half dozen times.

QuoteShould they also stop speaking to their betters? If yes, kindly shut the fuck up now. If no, you are wrong. Kindly shut the fuck up now.

Maybe you should go back to cutting until you calm down.

QuoteWe know who's a member of the second party...

And we know who isn't a member of any party because no one games with douchebags like you.

I'm pretty sure we will have to rename "The Denner Invasion" to "The Denner Reject Invasion".

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585811Bzzt!  Wrong again.

An average MU with AC 10 (or 9 depending on your edition) and 3 hp will get hit 50% of the time and the average damage from an average weapon (1d8) will kill him.

an average fighter with AC 5 or 4 (or 15-17 depending on edition) will only be hit 20% of the time and will have about 7 hp, taking twice as many successful hits to bring him down.

so when you factor in % to get hit along with hp, it takes 2 attacks to kill the MU (2 attacks * 4.5 damage * 50%)

compare that to the fighter where it takes 8 attacks to bring him down (8 attacks * 4.5 * 20%).  And that's with level 1 characters.  At level 2, the disparity gets even greater as the fighter is in better armor and the hp disparity goes from 4 (7-3) to 8 (14-6).

But hey, never let the facts get in your way.  Hasn't stopped you yet.  But like many other dicks who insist on "winning", you like to ignore the rules that mitigate you from doing a lot of these exploits you like to do.

You're bad at this. Here, let me explain what words mean to you.

A hit is a hit. So when you say the wizard dies in 1 hit, and the fighter dies in 2 hits, and I'm saying both the wizard and the fighter die in 1-2 hits you are agreeing and conceding the point.

You do not go prattling on on some tangent about the inherently intellectually dishonest and most definitely not hits weighted averages, get the numbers wrong (rofl at 20% chance to be hit... try 40-50%), and then claim you win.

But thanks for playing!

But let's say you got AC 21 at level 1. It is possible, just not immediately upon character creation as you'd need to spend most of your wealth on the way to level 2 on better armor.

First you have to make it past the randomly die in 1-2 hits phase... then you still randomly die in 1-2 hits... the only difference, and the only thing that might save you is that to have AC 21 at level 1 you'd have to have no offense to speak of, and therefore everything would just ignore you and go kill someone else.

You're a Fighter, the last thing you need is more reasons for people to ignore you and continue on as if you don't exist.

Don't like newer editions? In older editions it takes more fights to level, meaning more chances for someone to get hit 1-2 times and die instantly. You also die at 0, not -10, so the somewhat lower enemy damage doesn't matter.

But do keep attempting to cherry pick and dodge, I can slap you around all day!

Quote from: StormBringer;585815Do you also remember the page number in the 1st Edition DMG where you read that?

Do you? You know, since you're such a big old edition player, surely you know the basics like system shock?

If nothing else you should know it because the old editions were all about killing the characters in just about every way imaginable, so anyone that's played it a while should be intimately familiar with all the bizarre ways of dying.

Quote"No!  I am the cool one here!"
It is just too adorable how you have this smug attitude on the internet, because you have had your dick knocked in the dirt IRL probably a half dozen times.

You seem fascinated by my cock. No, I will not insert it into the barrel you are busy sucking on.

QuoteAnd we know who isn't a member of any party because no one games with douchebags like you.

I DM a game, play another, and am indirectly responsible for around a dozen more games.

Just because I will tell gimps like you to get the fuck out doesn't mean non gimps have a problem with me.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585816You're bad at this. Here, let me explain what words mean to you.

A hit is a hit. So when you say the wizard dies in 1 hit, and the fighter dies in 2 hits, and I'm saying both the wizard and the fighter die in 1-2 hits you are agreeing and conceding the point.

You do not go prattling on on some tangent about the inherently intellectually dishonest and most definitely not hits weighted averages, get the numbers wrong (rofl at 20% chance to be hit... try 40-50%), and then claim you win.

But thanks for playing!

But let's say you got AC 21 at level 1. It is possible, just not immediately upon character creation as you'd need to spend most of your wealth on the way to level 2 on better armor.

First you have to make it past the randomly die in 1-2 hits phase... then you still randomly die in 1-2 hits... the only difference, and the only thing that might save you is that to have AC 21 at level 1 you'd have to have no offense to speak of, and therefore everything would just ignore you and go kill someone else.

You're a Fighter, the last thing you need is more reasons for people to ignore you and continue on as if you don't exist.

Don't like newer editions? In older editions it takes more fights to level, meaning more chances for someone to get hit 1-2 times and die instantly. You also die at 0, not -10, so the somewhat lower enemy damage doesn't matter.

But do keep attempting to cherry pick and dodge, I can slap you around all day!

wow.  So not only do you not have a clue as to how D&D is played, you also don't understand how math works.  Big shocker there.

If a PC has AC 16, and an opponent doesn't have any bonuses to hit him, then there is only a 20% chance to hit.  In AD&D, if a PC has an AC of 4 and the creature has a THAC0 of 20, it's a 20% chance to hit.

Do I really need to explain 1st grade math to you?

Quote from: Mr. GC;585816You do not go prattling on on some tangent about the inherently intellectually dishonest and most definitely not hits weighted averages, get the numbers wrong (rofl at 20% chance to be hit... try 40-50%), and then claim you win.

"Stop using math!  Math is hard!"

d20 = 5% per number.  So, if you need to roll 15 or better, that is 6 numbers x 5% = 30%.  Rolling 17 or better is 20%.  19 or better is 10%.

So, a 1HD monster needs to roll 15 or better to hit AC4.  6 numbers x 5% = 30%.

If an attack does 1-8 points of damage, the average is 4.5 ((1+8)/2=4.5)

If that attack only lands 30% of the time, that would be the same as doing 1.35 points of damage every single round.  (4.5 x .3 = 1.35)

A fighter has an average of ((1+10)/2) 5.5 hit points.  That works out to 4.07 hits before the Fighter drops.

When you go to correct someone for having the 'wrong' numbers, you really should double check that you have the right ones instead of pulling them out of your ass.  You might also want to brush up on this game that you have forgotten more about than anyone here knows, because I am predicting some very, very rookie mistakes about how things actually work in your near future.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585810As I suspected.

You are correct that Haste magically ages the subjects.

What you completely missed is that magical aging forces a system shock check. Failure means you die instantly.

Casting a buff that has a non zero chance of directly killing the people it is meant to help is pants on head retarded.

I haven't played those in over a decade and I remember this, so the fact people actively playing it right now don't is telling.

Your conclusion assumes an awful about people who play AD&D and yourself lot for one small data point. You know the rules for haste and system shock. Congrats.

I will freely admit system shock wasn't in my mind when I answered the question. It is one of those things peope point out about haste after you have been playing for some time and most just assume it was a design oversight and ignore it. For stuff like teleport, chances of death make sense because it is so useful. But for haste it doesn't really seem justified to me.

Pointing to a commonly overlooked rule, doesn't really prove much to me.just shows that you have probably spent a lot of time debating this stuff in forums (a google of haste and system shock shows it is commonly brought up on message boards).

Quote from: StormBringer;585822So, a 1HD monster needs to roll 15 or better to hit AC4.  6 numbers x 5% = 30%.

A monster with a THAC0 of 20 would need a 16 to hit AC 4. (20 AC 0, 19 AC1, 18 AC 2, 17 AC 3, etc).  So that's 5 numbers, or 25%.  

QuoteIf an attack does 1-8 points of damage, the average is 4.5 ((1+8)/2=4.5)

If that attack only lands 30% of the time, that would be the same as doing 1.35 points of damage every single round.  (4.5 x .3 = 1.35)

A fighter has an average of ((1+10)/2) 5.5 hit points.  That works out to 4.07 hits before the Fighter drops.

I gave the fighter a +1 con bonus in my example, and rounded up for both MU and fighter.  But yeah, this is pretty much it, and a fundamental flaw in his reasoning that the fighter and MU would be hit an equal amount of times.  Which we both know is functionally retarded.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585819Do you? You know, since you're such a big old edition player, surely you know the basics like system shock?

If nothing else you should know it because the old editions were all about killing the characters in just about every way imaginable, so anyone that's played it a while should be intimately familiar with all the bizarre ways of dying.

AD&D isn't the only edition. There is no system shock roll in B/X and the haste spell provides the same benefits.

I'm in an uncharacteristicly bad mood and you jock-straps are pissing me off with your crap.

Anyone would think the thread title was 'Go on - win at an internet forum thread that might once have had a passing resemblance to a discussion point, but even that is pushing credulity.'

I think we should fold the discussion about firearms into it and how the accuracy/non-accuracy of fucking muskets ('cos Wikepedia!) might factor into the win/non-win equation of d&d, sorry, i mean forum threads.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585811Bzzt!  Wrong again.

An average MU with AC 10 (or 9 depending on your edition) and 3 hp will get hit 50% of the time and the average damage from an average weapon (1d8) will kill him.

Mr. GC already addressed this, but I figured it couldn't hurt to clarify.  First, he did say 1-2 hits kills for both, so the percentage of attacks that hit are irrelevant.  But assuming a magic user with 3 hit points, being hit by a weapon dealing 1d8 points of damage, the Wizard will survive the first hit 25% of the time.  He'll survive two hits 1.5% of the time.  So, it's pretty fair to say he'll die in 1-2 hits (98.5% of the time).  

Assuming a Fighter has 7 hit points, he'll survive the first two hits 23% of the time.

It's probably fair to say the Fighter will surive 1-3 hits, compared to the 1-2 hits that the Wizard can survive.  But the point stands - combat is pretty swingy, and a single blow can kill a magic user or a fighter in a single hit, with luck.  

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585811an average fighter with AC 5 or 4 (or 15-17 depending on edition) will only be hit 20% of the time and will have about 7 hp, taking twice as many successful hits to bring him down.

Now this is where things get screwy.  Let's say AC 5 and the opponent has a THACO of 20.  He is hit about 25% of the time, but 1-3 hits is not necessarily twice as many as 1-2 hits.  You can talk about average damage, but that's not the only possiblity.  The Average Fighter might survive twice as many blows as the average Magic User, but to the player, that hardly matters.  The question is how many blows did my Fighter survive?  And the more often you come into combat, the more often you're putting yourself to the test.  And if you happen to believe that the Fighter's job is to take blows, well, your chance of getting hit and dying at 1st level go up exponentially.  

I absolutely believe in the benefits of an analysis of 'expected outcomes', but you have to at least acknowledge that a 'non-average outcome' is possible - and the swingier those numbers, the more often that happens.  If the Fighter might go down to a single blow, might survive 8 attacks, or might survive 16 attacks, you're talking about the definition of 'swingy' - which is why survivability is so questionable.  You appear to be making Mr. GC's point for him.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585810Now that we've established I've forgotten more about D&D than those here ever knew, care to stop dodging and address my points? This is a general question, not just at Brendan.

Not sure whoch points i failed to address.

QuoteBoth the Fighter and the Wizard die in 1-2 hits at levels 1-2.

Both the Fighter and the Wizard should refrain from even having a name until level 3.

I haven't bothered to check the math on this, but this seems a very questionable conclusion to me just going by experience and the fact that a wizard has d4 hp and fighter has d10 with more con bonus potential. it will depend on what you are fighting of course.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585829Mr. GC already addressed this, but I figured it couldn't hurt to clarify.  First, he did say 1-2 hits kills for both, so the percentage of attacks that hit are irrelevant.  

:jaw-dropping:


It's completely relevant.  If you have a character that is only hit 10% of the time and has 10 hp, he will last in combat 5x LONGER than the character with 10 hp but gets hit half the time.

That's basic math dude.

Quote from: StormBringer;585822"Stop using math!  Math is hard!"

I'm just pointing this out before I make you feel stupid.  

Quote from: StormBringer;585822So, a 1HD monster needs to roll 15 or better to hit AC4.  6 numbers x 5% = 30%.

If an attack does 1-8 points of damage, the average is 4.5 ((1+8)/2=4.5)

If that attack only lands 30% of the time, that would be the same as doing 1.35 points of damage every single round.  (4.5 x .3 = 1.35)

A fighter has an average of ((1+10)/2) 5.5 hit points.  That works out to 4.07 hits before the Fighter drops.

This is about the stupidest thing I've ever seen from someone trying to prove their math superiority.  

If you say that the average damage is 1.35 per round, then the Fighter will last 4.07 rounds.  You've already factored in the percent hit chance when calculating the average damage.  

If you say the average damage is 4.5 per hit then a Fighter with 5.5 hit points can survive only 2 hits (technically 1.22, but you'd need a second hit).  

So, you're saying the Fighter can surive 4 rounds or 2 hits, but not 4.07 hits, dumbass.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585832:jaw-dropping:


It's completely relevant.  If you have a character that is only hit 10% of the time and has 10 hp, he will last in combat 5x LONGER than the character with 10 hp but gets hit half the time.

That's basic math dude.

Yes.  And Mr. GC acknowledged that - as do I in two additional posts prior to this.  But that doesn't mean he lasts for more hits.  It means he can potentially survive more rounds of combat, and in fact, on average he does, but it doesn't guarantee that he won't get dropped in the first attack in the first round of combat.  

A Fighter with a good AC will surive more attacks, but not appreciably more hits.  Well, depending on what you consider 'appreciably'.  The difference between 1-2 hits and 1-3 hits could be argued to be an 'appreciable difference', but I think his point largely stands - surviving to second level has a lot to do with luck at 1st level.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585810Old edition Sleep is no save, you just lose. It also works against many other things.

And it's ineffective against spellcasters of 5th or higher level, while that magic missle still autohits and disrupts spells absent shield or other magical defenses.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585810You were saying?

That you're as ignorant as the rest of the Den-symps.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585834Yes.  And Mr. GC acknowledged that - as do I in two additional posts prior to this.  But that doesn't mean he lasts for more hits.  It means he can potentially survive more rounds of combat, and in fact, on average he does, but it doesn't guarantee that he won't get dropped in the first attack in the first round of combat.  

A Fighter with a good AC will surive more attacks, but not appreciably more hits.  Well, depending on what you consider 'appreciably'.  The difference between 1-2 hits and 1-3 hits could be argued to be an 'appreciable difference', but I think his point largely stands - surviving to second level has a lot to do with luck at 1st level.

1. a "hit" is an attack that hits the character, not necessary one that does damage.  I.e., your plate mail isn't helping you dodge the attack; you're still getting hit.  It just helps you avoid taking damage.

But let's assume by "hits" he actually meant "successful attack", which is a common interpretation.  That would make his statement (and your validation of it), even more retarded.  Every character could die in 1-2 hits at first level if the right attack is successful.  The relevancy is how long each survives in combat.  That's what is important because that's how the game is actually played.  No one plays the game just bypassing the phase of combat that determines whether or not you succeeded in landing an attack, going right to damage allocation.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585826A monster with a THAC0 of 20 would need a 16 to hit AC 4. (20 AC 0, 19 AC1, 18 AC 2, 17 AC 3, etc).  So that's 5 numbers, or 25%.  

Sounds like you are using 2e.  ;)

I was going off the charts in the 1st Edition DMG, but your numbers are correct for 2nd edition, of course.

QuoteI gave the fighter a +1 con bonus in my example, and rounded up for both MU and fighter.  But yeah, this is pretty much it, and a fundamental flaw in his reasoning that the fighter and MU would be hit an equal amount of times.  Which we both know is functionally retarded.

I think we both knew that before he started typing.  :)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;5858401. a "hit" is an attack that hits the character, not necessary one that does damage.  I.e., your plate mail isn't helping you dodge the attack; you're still getting hit.  It just helps you avoid taking damage.

But let's assume by "hits" he actually meant "successful attack", which is a common interpretation.  That would make his statement (and your validation of it), even more retarded.  Every character could die in 1-2 hits at first level if the right attack is successful.  The relevancy is how long each survives in combat.  That's what is important because that's how the game is actually played.  No one plays the game just bypassing the phase of combat that determines whether or not you succeeded in landing an attack, going right to damage allocation.

Only when you don't actually play D&D and are desperately trying to win the internets.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585820wow.  So not only do you not have a clue as to how D&D is played, you also don't understand how math works.  Big shocker there.

If a PC has AC 16, and an opponent doesn't have any bonuses to hit him, then there is only a 20% chance to hit.  In AD&D, if a PC has an AC of 4 and the creature has a THAC0 of 20, it's a 20% chance to hit.

Do I really need to explain 1st grade math to you?

Except for the part where first level creatures have +4 or +5 to hit and not +0.

Also, even if you were right it's 25%, so you're still a retard.

Now go back to walking in predescribed patterns and uttering single lines. The PCs are speaking.

Quote from: StormBringer;585822I am a retard that cannot read.

And this is why weighted averages are inherently intellectually dishonest. I am unsurprised you favor them, being as you are also inherently intellectually dishonest, but for the benefit of everyone else...

Creature A has a 100% chance to hit and does 10 damage, and has 20 HP.
Creature B has a 50% chance to hit and does 20 damage, and has 10 HP. B also goes first.

Who wins?

Pants on head retards, like Storm says A always wins because A takes two rounds to die and B takes one round to die. B will act, never kill A, then A will always kill B.

People that do not fail at life, the universe, and everything realize that if B hits, A dies in one hit and this is 50% likely to occur. If A gets an action, B dies. Therefore it's 50% A wins, 50% B wins.

And this is why weighted averages are intellectually dishonest.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585823Your conclusion assumes an awful about people who play AD&D and yourself lot for one small data point. You know the rules for haste and system shock. Congrats.

I will freely admit system shock wasn't in my mind when I answered the question. It is one of those things peope point out about haste after you have been playing for some time and most just assume it was a design oversight and ignore it. For stuff like teleport, chances of death make sense because it is so useful. But for haste it doesn't really seem justified to me.

Pointing to a commonly overlooked rule, doesn't really prove much to me.just shows that you have probably spent a lot of time debating this stuff in forums (a google of haste and system shock shows it is commonly brought up on message boards).

It is a stupid rule, but regardless it is a rule. It's the sort of thing people that have played a game a while would notice... therefore you can easily determine who has not with that simple question. I've also never discussed older editions on forums much because I was on to third edition by the time I got a home internet connection and didn't talk about D&D online until 3.5.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;585827AD&D isn't the only edition. There is no system shock roll in B/X and the haste spell provides the same benefits.

The original question started with "You are playing 1st or 2nd edition..."

Your response is duly noted yet irrelevant.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585831Not sure whoch points i failed to address.

This was more a general thing. I was trying to get people to comment on the differences between the good party and the bad party and how they manifested in actual play.

QuoteI haven't bothered to check the math on this, but this seems a very questionable conclusion to me just going by experience and the fact that a wizard has d4 hp and fighter has d10 with more con bonus potential. it will depend on what you are fighting of course.

It's not questionable at all.

At level 1 you're looking at a range of HP that is at most a 100% differential, and damage high enough to definitely two shot and possibly OHKO the high end. If you mean older editions, there's a non zero chance the Fighter has LESS HP than the Wizard, as there is no max HP at first level.

If you mean 3.x, the range is 6-12 and enemies hit up to double digits. Not only are both the Fighter and the Wizard dying in 1-2 hits, so is the dwarven raging Barbarian.

In all editions you need at least level 3 to have the HP base and ability range to make play not purely luck based... and in older editions it will remain so for all characters of all classes for all levels simply because the odds are so heavily stacked against you the only possible skill that could help you survive is the type you demonstrate under the gaming table instead of at it.

Now I can understand how that style of play would appeal to Storm and Sacro, and since I know a female DM I might revisit older editions one day for the hell of it but for the most part pure luck is entirely unappealing.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;585836And it's ineffective against spellcasters of 5th or higher level, while that magic missle still autohits and disrupts spells absent shield or other magical defenses.

By the time you are fighting spellcasters of 5th or higher level you have 3rd, or at least 2nd level spells and therefore need not rely upon Sleep any longer.

Damage also only disrupts if it hits in the narrow window while you are actually casting the spell... which is what? 1-3 segments?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585833I'm just pointing this out before I make you feel stupid.  

Every time you do this, I show you the simple mistake you have made in your mad dash to be right on the internets.

QuoteThis is about the stupidest thing I've ever seen from someone trying to prove their math superiority.  

We've replaced dDM's normal stupidity with someone who knows what they are talking about.  Let's watch...

QuoteIf you say that the average damage is 1.35 per round, then the Fighter will last 4.07 rounds.  You've already factored in the percent hit chance when calculating the average damage.  

Except, here's what I actually wrote:

Quote from: StormBringer;585822If that attack only lands 30% of the time, that would be the same as  doing 1.35 points of damage every single round.  (4.5 x .3 = 1.35)

A fighter has an average of ((1+10)/2) 5.5 hit points.  That works out to 4.07 hits before the Fighter drops.

See how that works now?  Instead of taking the time to roll a d20 25 times (or whatever), we are going to use the average.   You know, like the rest of the averages we have been using already. So you will roll 15 or better on average 30% of the time, indicating a successful attack 30% of the time.   I assume you are familiar with averages by now.  So if we assume a 30% hit rate, that means the Fighter is hit 3 rounds out of every ten. We are also going to avoid rolling a d8 three times to see what the results are, much like we didn't actually roll hit points for the Fighter.

Still keeping up?

So, if an attack that averages 4.5 points hits 30% of the time, that is the same as doing 1.35 points per round without determining hits.  The math is exactly the same in both cases.  Go ahead, get some dice and test it.  We can wait.

Back now?  Good.

QuoteIf you say the average damage is 4.5 per hit then a Fighter with 5.5 hit points can survive only 2 hits (technically 1.22, but you'd need a second hit).  

But no one is saying that because that is a retarded thing to say.  Unless the Fighter has an AD&D armour class of 20.  I believe that would be a 3.x armour class of 1.

QuoteSo, you're saying the Fighter can surive 4 rounds or 2 hits, but not 4.07 hits, dumbass.

No, I am saying that if we forgo rolling hits as a matter of expediency, the Fighter can survive 4.07 hits or rounds, because we are assuming 1.35 points of damage per round.  Effectively, rounds and hits are the same thing when we aren't rolling to hit.  In face, using Sacro's assumption of a +1 from Con, we can bump that up to 6.5 for the average Fighter hit points, which brings us up to 4.81 hits or rounds before the Fighter is out.

Is there someone near you that can not only read, but understands 3rd grade math better than you?  I should probably be addressing them.

Wow GC, you have truly impressed me with your internet badassery.  And by badassery, I mean mental incompetence.

You failed at math that my 10 year old was able to pass in 2nd grade, and instead of actually showing how you were right (because you can't), you can only answer with "you're retarded".

Your intellect is truly dizzying.  

Oh, and what 1 HD orc or goblin or kobold has +4 or +5 to hit?


But I have to hand it to you, you did manage to shift the topic into something of your level of idiocy, and are hoping to beat people with experience at this point.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585846It is a stupid rule, but regardless it is a rule. It's the sort of thing people that have played a game a while would notice... therefore you can easily determine who has not with that simple question.
?

All it shows is the person doesn't factor system shock for aging into their decision about haste.

Gauging a person's knowledge of an entire edition based on one obscure and counter-intuitive application of system shock rules (it gets a passing mention in the system shock descriptor on page fifteen with no real clarification) is just illogical. Like I said, it is one of those things you eventually encounter, but most people ignore when they notice it.

I am happy to have a legitimate discussion with you on this topic. I am sure even LM an deadDM will verify that I am also happy to admit when I think I am wrong or forgot an important rule (in this case, I fully admit that rule was not something I considered when giving my response, but I think there is good reason why). But I am not going to play juvenile games with someone who is arguing in bad faith or here to proclaim himself the winner of the internet.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585819Do you? You know, since you're such a big old edition player, surely you know the basics like system shock?

In other words, no, you don't have a page number because you are completely pulling that out of your ass. Quelle surprise.  The burden of proof is on you, dipshit, you made the assertion.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585854All it shows is the person doesn't factor system shock for aging into their decision about haste. .

All it actually shows is that GC never has actually played AD&D and is trying to come off as some expert because he google'd an obscure rule.  Otherwise, if he had played AD&D, he'd know that there are dozens and dozen of rules that nearly everyone ignored when they played the game and wouldn't insist on going down this path of idiocy.

"If people don't remember that SS was used for haste, that clearly means they didn't play AD&D."

Seriously?  Anyone who has played AD&D would look at that statement and shake their head.  That's like saying that anyone who didn't play with the weapon type vs. armor chart never actually played the game.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585846Except for the part where first level creatures have +4 or +5 to hit and not +0.

Creature A has a 100% chance to hit and does 10 damage, and has 20 HP.
Creature B has a 50% chance to hit and does 20 damage, and has 10 HP. B also goes first.

I don't think I can continue after reading this.  These are the dumbest two things I have read all year, and there aren't many months left to top them.  I am declaring a winner, I think.

1st level monsters with +5 to hit, and 100% chance to hit.  Man, that is just awesome.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585846And this is why weighted averages are intellectually dishonest.

:rotfl:

I lied, we have a new winner in the same post.

I am going to run down to the President of my college and tell them weighted averages are intellectually dishonest, and my GPA should be five or six or something.

"I'm not wrong, maths are wrong!"
Man, that is just stellar.  Out-fucking-standing.

Quote from: StormBringer;5858601st level monsters with +5 to hit, and 100% chance to hit.  Man, that is just awesome.

Hit dice, not levels.

I don't believe you've ever played d&d!

Quote from: StormBringer;585850Effectively, rounds and hits are the same thing when we aren't rolling to hit.  In face, using Sacro's assumption of a +1 from Con, we can bump that up to 6.5 for the average Fighter hit points, which brings us up to 4.81 hits or rounds before the Fighter is out.

So you're saying that because you don't care to distinguish between rounds (which equates to actions) and hits (which equate to successful hits), two words with totally different meanings, that I'm the retard.  

Hits and Rounds are not the same.  The hit does not do 1.35 damage per hit, it does 4.5 (as you said).  That averages to 1.35 damage per round.  

You have to use the right term.  4.5 damge per hit or 1.35 average damager per round.  If you say 1.35 damage per hit you're reversing your terms and you look like a dumbass.  I mean, more than usual.  

But fine, if you can't admit you're wrong (despite accusing me earlier of being incapable of admitting the same), I'll just note that before I call you out on your dumbassery.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585857All it actually shows is that GC never has actually played AD&D and is trying to come off as some expert because he google'd an obscure rule.  Otherwise, if he had played AD&D, he'd know that there are dozens and dozen of rules that nearly everyone ignored when they played the game and wouldn't insist on going down this path of idiocy.

"If people don't remember that SS was used for haste, that clearly means they didn't play AD&D."

Seriously?  Anyone who has played AD&D would look at that statement and shake their head.

To me it is even questionable whether the rule by raw applies onone year of ageing from haste. The spell itself just says it ages you, whereas a spell like polymorph other is explicit that it requires a system shock roll to survive. Page fifteen simply states that system shock is used providing a percentage chance for survival of things like magical aging. It doesn't say all magical ageing effects require a system shock roll. Even on page 24 where it goes into magical ageing, there is no explicit statement that all magical ageing causes a system shock roll. Page 24 even uses haste as an example to show the effects of magical ageing but doesn't mention system shock rolls to stay alive. I will admit I could be missing something, but the more I look into this matter again, the more I am inclined to think that the conclusion that haste requires a system shock by raw is a quesitonable conclusion.

Quote from: StormBringer;585850So, if an attack that averages 4.5 points hits 30% of the time, that is the same as doing 1.35 points per round without determining hits.  The math is exactly the same in both cases.  Go ahead, get some dice and test it.  We can wait.

Back now?  Good.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585846And this is why weighted averages are inherently intellectually dishonest. I am unsurprised you favor them, being as you are also inherently intellectually dishonest, but for the benefit of everyone else...

Creature A has a 100% chance to hit and does 10 damage, and has 20 HP.
Creature B has a 50% chance to hit and does 20 damage, and has 10 HP. B also goes first.

Who wins?

Pants on head retards, like Storm says A always wins because A takes two rounds to die and B takes one round to die. B will act, never kill A, then A will always kill B.

People that do not fail at life, the universe, and everything realize that if B hits, A dies in one hit and this is 50% likely to occur. If A gets an action, B dies. Therefore it's 50% A wins, 50% B wins.

And this is why weighted averages are intellectually dishonest.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585851Wow GC, you have truly impressed me with your internet badassery.  And by badassery, I mean mental incompetence.

You failed at math that my 10 year old was able to pass in 2nd grade, and instead of actually showing how you were right (because you can't), you can only answer with "you're retarded".

Your intellect is truly dizzying.  

More lalala, I can't hear you. Consider the above directed at you as well.

QuoteOh, and what 1 HD orc or goblin or kobold has +4 or +5 to hit?

Without trying, the orc hits +4 melee. The goblin and kobold would need another easy +1, but all are well above 0.

There also is the "in older editions, you have many more fights and therefore many more chances to be hit 1-2 times and die" factor which you are also completely ignoring just as you do everything else that is convenient for you.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585854All it shows is the person doesn't factor system shock for aging into their decision about haste.

Gauging a person's knowledge of an entire edition based on one obscure and counter-intuitive application of system shock rules (it gets a passing mention in the system shock descriptor on page fifteen with no real clarification) is just illogical. Like I said, it is one of those things you eventually encounter, but most people ignore when they notice it.

I am happy to have a legitimate discussion with you on this topic. I am sure even LM an deadDM will verify that I am also happy to admit when I think I am wrong or forgot an important rule (in this case, I fully admit that rule was not something I considered when giving my response, but I think there is good reason why). But I am not going to play juvenile games with someone who is arguing in bad faith or here to proclaim himself the winner of the internet.

Sacro and Storm have gone full retard. You, when faced with questions immediately attempted to change the subject to asking if I have played older editions, with the obvious corollary that if I had not you'd then use that to dodge.

When it was revealed that I did, in fact understand the older editions you tried to downplay it by calling it an obscure rule, and a stupid one... and to be fair it is but that's beside the point.

The point is when someone tries to dodge, and I call them on it and make it clear that won't work I am not the one trying to play games here.

I will give you credit though. Despite your dubious start you might be interested in an actual discussion, whereas the stupid twins over there are only interested in ignoring what does not suit them and only focusing on a single, very small part of the argument they perceive as the weakest part then declare themselves to be Charlie Sheen. Stormbringer is indeed bringing the Stormwind, and the Oberoni, and every other fallacy he can find...

So I suppose my question at this point is are there people here, other than Brendan that might possibly be interested in an actual discussion and is there anyone here in this place of "Only actual play matters" willing to discuss the example of actual play at all?

Quote from: One Horse Town;585861Hit dice, not levels.

I don't believe you've ever played d&d!

I beg to differ.  :)

Quote from: Mr. GC;585846Except for the part where first level creatures have +4 or +5 to hit and not +0.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585862So you're saying that because you don't care to distinguish between rounds (which equates to actions) and hits (which equate to successful hits), two words with totally different meanings, that I'm the retard.  

Hits and Rounds are not the same.  The hit does not do 1.35 damage per hit, it does 4.5 (as you said).  That averages to 1.35 damage per round.  

You have to use the right term.  4.5 damge per hit or 1.35 average damager per round.  If you say 1.35 damage per hit you're reversing your terms and you look like a dumbass.  I mean, more than usual.  

But fine, if you can't admit you're wrong (despite accusing me earlier of being incapable of admitting the same), I'll just note that before I call you out on your dumbassery.

You can't be this stupid.  It's just not possible.  You cannot be this stupid and not have a guardian or handler or something.

Quote from: StormBringer;585865I beg to differ.  :)

Oh, i know.

It's retarded that people put this much effort into shoving their internet cocks down each others throat.

I can only assume it's an attempt to get the thread locked. If that's the case it can easily be seen as site disruption if that's the route we want to go.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585864Sacro and Storm have gone full retard

Quote from: Mr. GC;585846And this is why weighted averages are inherently intellectually dishonest.

Drop this gem over at the Wolfram forums and see what they have to say.

QuoteIt is a stupid rule, but regardless it is a rule.

I presume this means you are going to continue making this assertion without providing any evidence?  In other words, lying?

Quote from: StormBringer;585860I don't think I can continue after reading this.  These are the dumbest two things I have read all year, and there aren't many months left to top them.  I am declaring a winner, I think.

1st level monsters with +5 to hit, and 100% chance to hit.  Man, that is just awesome.

Hey look, more pants in head retardation from the stupid twins!

Notice how no level was stated for creature A and B? The example was level agnostic. In fact it was system agnostic, as even a moron such as yourself can deduce max accuracy is 95%.

But I understand. I didn't let you say the obvious stupidity by claiming A would always win because I made it very clear anyone who said that was a fucking moron. So instead you had to go derp about something else.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585863To me it is even questionable whether the rule by raw applies onone year of ageing from haste. The spell itself just says it ages you, whereas a spell like polymorph other is explicit that it requires a system shock roll to survive. Page fifteen simply states that system shock is used providing a percentage chance for survival of things like magical aging. It doesn't say all magical ageing effects require a system shock roll. Even on page 24 where it goes into magical ageing, there is no explicit statement that all magical ageing causes a system shock roll. Page 24 even uses haste as an example to show the effects of magical ageing but doesn't mention system shock rolls to stay alive. I will admit I could be missing something, but the more I look into this matter again, the more I am inclined to think that the conclusion that haste requires a system shock by raw is a quesitonable conclusion.

Isn't "it doesn't say I can't" the exact line people here use to bitch about optimizers trying to find rules loopholes?

Polymorph is explicitly a PKing tool, Haste is a bit more subtle about it.

It's right along the lines of the 1st edition PHB suggesting that Blade Barrier might move with the caster and then the real version in the DMG revealing oops, no it doesn't, get killed by your own spell!

Oh and +4 or +5 to hit at level 1 is just the normal values. You could get 10, or even 15 if you really tried. I'm not surprised some think otherwise, as they're busy fighting things with -1 to hit that still make physical attacks for some reason to attempt to justify the Fighter, but that doesn't make it true when discussing the actual game.

Quote from: One Horse Town;585868Oh, i know.

It's retarded that people put this much effort into shoving their internet cocks down each others throat.

I can only assume it's an attempt to get the thread locked. If that's the case it can easily be seen as site disruption if that's the route we want to go.

I don't want to necessarily see it locked, but people spouting off complete nonsense about a topic they clearly have no experience or knowledge of?  I mean, obviously the Denner Reject Crew is only here for the lulz and general site disruption.  Other than MGuy, there have been zero contributions by any of them unless FvW comes up.

Still, I don't like my forums shitted up by people spouting ridiculously uninformed nonsense.

Quote from: StormBringer;585873I don't want to necessarily see it locked, but people spouting off complete nonsense about a topic they clearly have no experience or knowledge of?  I mean, obviously the Denner Reject Crew is only here for the lulz and general site disruption.  Other than MGuy, there have been zero contributions by any of them unless FvW comes up.

Wait, so I'm not MGuy anymore? Make up your mind!

Quote from: Mr. GC;585871Isn't "it doesn't say I can't" the exact line people here use to bitch about optimizers trying to find rules loopholes?

Polymorph is explicitly a PKing tool, Haste is a bit more subtle about it.

It's right along the lines of the 1st edition PHB suggesting that Blade Barrier might move with the caster and then the real version in the DMG revealing oops, no it doesn't, get killed by your own spell!

Oh and +4 or +5 to hit at level 1 is just the normal values. You could get 10, or even 15 if you really tried. I'm not surprised some think otherwise, as they're busy fighting things with -1 to hit that still make physical attacks for some reason to attempt to justify the Fighter, but that doesn't make it true when discussing the actual game.

I have beem reviewing all th phb and dmg mentions I can this morning (something I almost never do for internet debates because it is a waste of valuable time) based on our discussion, and I frankly see no good reason to conclude that all magical ageing requires a system shock roll. Page fifteen simply makes it clear that magical ageing can cause a system shock roll and to me it looks like the rules are supposed to be explicit in specific instances. I was actually inclined to agree with you about it before I started checking out the text. The fact that haste is used as an example on page twenty four to demonstrate the effects of magical ageing and it doesn't mention system shock at all is, I think, pretty conclusive evidence it doesn't require a system shock roll.

I acknowledge I could be missing something. It might say somewhere in the phb or dmg that all magical ageing causes a system shock roll. But right now I am not seeing any real basis for that conclusion.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585871Hey look, more pants in head retardation from the stupid twins!

No, sweetcheeks, I was making fun of your two separate instances of being utterly clueless:

1. 1st level (not 1HD, mind you) creatures routinely have +4 or +5 to hit, and
2. 100% chance to hit.

"Well, if one monstar has 65million% chance to hit, and does 13hojillion damage, weighted averages are dumb and math is wrong.  lol!"

Quote from: Mr. GC;585864More lalala, I can't hear you. Consider the above directed at you as well.

so that's a "no" then, you can't prove your backasswards math then?

Thought so.

QuoteWithout trying, the orc hits +4 melee. The goblin and kobold would need another easy +1, but all are well above 0.

Y U always try to talk about older editions, but always use 3e stats?

And you accuse others of being intellectually dishonest.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Mr. GC;585875Wait, so I'm not MGuy anymore? Make up your mind!

That was me, not him.  Yet one more example of you not being able to keep things straight.

Color me surprised.

OHT,

Obviously we've now seen clear examples of the people I was talking about in my OP.  They've also managed to turn this into yet another FvW thread.  Since we've now clearly identified the type of dicks I was talking about, if you want to close the thread, I don't care.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585864Without trying, the orc hits +4 melee. The goblin and kobold would need another easy +1, but all are well above 0.

There also is the "in older editions, you have many more fights and therefore many more chances to be hit 1-2 times and die" factor which you are also completely ignoring just as you do everything else that is convenient for you.

In which edition is the orc attacking at +4? An orc attacks as a 1 HD monster.

The number of fights participated in at low levels during older edition games varies greatly from group to group. It isn't something that is quantified in the rules.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585875Wait, so I'm not MGuy anymore? Make up your mind!

It's already been mentioned, but is there someone there that is capable of reading, and can explain things to you?

I just thought it was funny when Sacro started calling you MGuy.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585876I have beem reviewing all th phb and dmg mentions I can this morning (something I almost never do for internet debates because it is a waste of valuable time) based on our discussion, and I frankly see no good reason to conclude that all magical ageing requires a system shock roll. Page fifteen simply makes it clear that magical ageing can cause a system shock roll and to me it looks like the rules are supposed to be explicit in specific instances. I was actually inclined to agree with you about it before I started checking out the text. The fact that haste is used as an example on page fifty four to demonstrate the effects of magical ageing amd it doesn't mention system shock at all is, I think, pretty conclusive evidence it doesn't require a system shock roll.

I acknowledge I could be missing something. It might say somewhere in the phb or dmg that all magical ageing causes a system shock roll. But right now I am not seeing any real basis for that conclusion.

Many things are implied without being expressly stated. This is particularly true when discussing older edition rulebooks which are written in an almost conversational tone and pointedly avoid spelling things out. It's even more true when you get into emergent gameplay, where you do things like leave the thief/rogue at home and either play outsmart your DM to deal with traps (older editions) or just ignore the traps (newer editions).

So when the game says this magically ages you, magical aging can force a system shock check, can means will.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585881OHT,

Obviously we've now seen clear examples of the people I was talking about in my OP.  They've also managed to turn this into yet another FvW thread.  Since we've now clearly identified the type of dicks I was talking about, if you want to close the thread, I don't care.

I'm good with it.  Keep their full retard on display and unalterable for posterity.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585885So when the game says this magically ages you, magical aging can force a system shock check, can means will.

The hits keep rolling in.  "Can" means "can".

Maybe you should confer with dDM about using words correctly.

Quote from: One Horse Town;585868I can only assume it's an attempt to get the thread locked. If that's the case it can easily be seen as site disruption if that's the route we want to go.

Meaning no disrepect, when you post in this very thread and reference another discussion about firearms and level a back-handed insult at me, you're not helping.  I would have enjoyed responding to your attack, but that would have been disrupting this thread.  If you have concerns about that thread, it would be most appropriate to voice them there.  As a moderator, I'd expect you to be willing to hold yourself to a bit of a higher standard.  Rather, it seems that an established poster insults (or is perceived to insult) some segment of the poster population, said population defends themselves and/or points out hypocrisy and that's when the thread gets locked.  If you're going to lock the thread, it'd be most sensible to do it before people have a chance to respond.  Once things get to this point, locking the thread just looks like you're picking sides - it's okay for one side to snipe as long as the other side doesn't respond.  

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585177I mostly see this from the wizard crowd, although it applies to everyone.  If you have the attitude that you're hot shit because you "win" at an encounter, then everyone loses because the other players won't put up with your smug ass for very long.  Especially if you're the smug wizard who thinks the party better bow to your whim (rest when you need it, etc) whether or not it's convenient for the rest of the group.

D&D is not a game to keep score between the players.  This attitude among some people that they must have the most powerful character of the group, and that they must "win" every encounter is a blight upon our hobby.

Going back to the original post - if you're not keeping score, does it matter if someone claims to 'win'?  If they 'beat' 40 encounters without your participation, but you 'beat' 1 without their contribution, isn't it enough that the party wins?  So what if they feel smug?  If you're not keeping score, I don't know how it matters.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585879That was me, not him.  Yet one more example of you not being able to keep things straight.

Color me surprised.

You idiots all look alike.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;585882In which edition is the orc attacking at +4? An orc attacks as a 1 HD monster.

The number of fights participated in at low levels during older edition games varies greatly from group to group. It isn't something that is quantified in the rules.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585864There also is the "in older editions, you have many more fights and therefore many more chances to be hit 1-2 times and die" factor which you are also completely ignoring just as you do everything else that is convenient for you.

At least one person did not ignore this. But while it might vary, it's going to be higher than 13 and a third as each enemy is worth around... 40ish, split 4 ways and you need 2kish. So that's 200ish enemies to level and unless you are regularly fighting over a dozen at once it will take more fights... if you ARE fighting over a dozen at once, you just die in the first fight and render the entire point moot.

Also loving the dodging any and all objective points thing by the stupid twins.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585890At least one person did not ignore this. But while it might vary, it's going to be higher than 13 and a third as each enemy is worth around... 40ish, split 4 ways and you need 2kish. So that's 200ish enemies to level and unless you are regularly fighting over a dozen at once it will take more fights... if you ARE fighting over a dozen at once, you just die in the first fight and render the entire point moot.
QUOTE]
 
Wow you know AD&D so fucking well its astounding. You ARE aware that combat XP is trivial compared to XP gained from treasure right?

A first level party may be able to reach level 2 with 0 combats if they are clever and lucky enough to trick or steal enough treasure.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585881OHT,

Obviously we've now seen clear examples of the people I was talking about in my OP.  They've also managed to turn this into yet another FvW thread.  Since we've now clearly identified the type of dicks I was talking about, if you want to close the thread, I don't care.

I support this suggestion.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;585892

Quote from: Mr. GC;585890At least one person did not ignore this. But while it might vary, it's going to be higher than 13 and a third as each enemy is worth around... 40ish, split 4 ways and you need 2kish. So that's 200ish enemies to level and unless you are regularly fighting over a dozen at once it will take more fights... if you ARE fighting over a dozen at once, you just die in the first fight and render the entire point moot.

Wow you know AD&D so fucking well its astounding. You ARE aware that combat XP is trivial compared to XP gained from treasure right?

A first level party may be able to reach level 2 with 0 combats if they are clever and lucky enough to trick or steal enough treasure.

You are aware that treasure belongs to things, and those things tend to resent you taking their stuff and that further, taking their stuff and not killing them is going to be significantly more difficult than killing them and taking their stuff (or not).

It will also still translate to a greater number of fights. Unless you do something like farm centaurs and jackpot a million gold (and XP) gem. But that seems like another rule you'd selectively ignore while bitching about those that selectively ignore rules.

Still zero interest in the actual play example from the board supposedly all about actual play.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585889Meaning no disrepect, when you post in this very thread and reference another discussion about firearms and level a back-handed insult at me, you're not helping.  I would have enjoyed responding to your attack, but that would have been disrupting this thread.  If you have concerns about that thread, it would be most appropriate to voice them there.  As a moderator, I'd expect you to be willing to hold yourself to a bit of a higher standard.  Rather, it seems that an established poster insults (or is perceived to insult) some segment of the poster population, said population defends themselves and/or points out hypocrisy and that's when the thread gets locked.  If you're going to lock the thread, it'd be most sensible to do it before people have a chance to respond.  Once things get to this point, locking the thread just looks like you're picking sides - it's okay for one side to snipe as long as the other side doesn't respond.  

Never say "Meaning no disrespect." What inevitably follows is indeed just that.

You are welcome to your opinion and you may even have a toe or two to stand on, but when thread after thread that you jokers post to becomes a cock-measuring competition - and yes, it includes posting in what i personally think is not on-the-level kinds of honesty, then the common denominator is you.

I'm not going to close the thread and neither am i going to threaten anybody with bannings or anything of the like, but you guys really need to start learning how to discuss rather than trying to chalk up gotchas.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585846By the time you are fighting spellcasters of 5th or higher level you have 3rd, or at least 2nd level spells and therefore need not rely upon Sleep any longer.

T1, The Village of Hommlet is an adventure for "introductory to novice level" adventurers and features as its 'boss' encounter a 5th level cleric.

The idea that the only time you'd face a 5th level spellcaster is when you're 5th level yourself reflects the narrow thinking that hamstrings Den-symps.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585846Damage also only disrupts if it hits in the narrow window while you are actually casting the spell... which is what? 1-3 segments?

It depends on the spell - many spells take as a number of segments equal to the level of the spell.

Magic missle requires only a single segment, which means it's cast before any spell requiring two or more segments to cast; in the case of spells requiring just one segment, magic missile goes first if the magic-user has initiative.

In other words, the 5th level magic-user's lightning bolt, fireball, web, ray of enfeeblement, or levitate can all be spoiled by a magic missile.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585895You are aware that treasure belongs to things, and those things tend to resent you taking their stuff and that further, taking their stuff and not killing them is going to be significantly more difficult than killing them and taking their stuff (or not).

It will also still translate to a greater number of fights. Unless you do something like farm centaurs and jackpot a million gold (and XP) gem. But that seems like another rule you'd selectively ignore while bitching about those that selectively ignore rules.

Still zero interest in the actual play example from the board supposedly all about actual play.

Keep backpedaling. There is no coming back from your ridiculous 200 enemies to level bullshit with regard to AD&D.

Monsters can be duped, tricked, led away on wild goose chases while their lair gets looted, etc. and thus "defeated". No where in the rules does it state that X number of monsters must be engaged in a hit point attrition exchange of math until one side is dead to earn XP.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585895You are aware that treasure belongs to things, and those things tend to resent you taking their stuff and that further, taking their stuff and not killing them is going to be significantly more difficult than killing them and taking their stuff (or not)..

Evidence #23 that you have no clue how AD&D was played.  You only fought when you had to.  Finding a way to get past the creature and steal it's treasure and leave was the optimal choice.


Seriously, go pay a few sessions, because you're only digging the hole deeper.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585885Many things are implied without being expressly stated. This is particularly true when discussing older edition rulebooks which are written in an almost conversational tone and pointedly avoid spelling things out. It's even more true when you get into emergent gameplay, where you do things like leave the thief/rogue at home and either play outsmart your DM to deal with traps (older editions) or just ignore the traps (newer editions).

So when the game says this magically ages you, magical aging can force a system shock check, can means will.

I am sorry, but this just doesn't persuade me at all. If the point is you want to argue about raw fine, but the 2E rulebooks are fairly clear on most things. If it doesn't say magical ageing always causes a system shock roll, there is no reason to assume it is implied. Particularly when the spell we are arguing about is used as example in the magical agegin portion of page 24 and it doesn't say anything about making a system shock roll.

You are really reaching here in my opinion. I think a lot of people jabe simply come to accept that system shock. For magical ageing is raw because others have informed them it is. But an inspection of page fifteen and 24 shows this isnt the case. It should state explicitly on those pages if it is. And the fact that the spell entries themselves either explicitly call for an SS roll or they make no mention of it, suggests that is where you determine if it applies or not. I think there is very solid reason to conclude that haste doesn't require a system shock roll.

Quote from: One Horse Town;585898Never say "Meaning no disrespect." What inevitably follows is indeed just that.

You are welcome to your opinion and you may even have a toe or two to stand on, but when thread after thread that you jokers post to becomes a cock-measuring competition - and yes, it includes posting in what i personally think is not on-the-level kinds of honesty, then the common denominator is you.

I'm not going to close the thread and neither am i going to threaten anybody with bannings or anything of the like, but you guys really need to start learning how to discuss rather than trying to chalk up gotchas.

It's less that we are arguing in bad faith it's more that we are incredulous. We come in to these debates having argued and won them again and again on other boards. So when we come here and find people spouting decade old talking points we are a bit nonplussed.

There are basically three ways this can play out. People start seeing sense and start admitting to basic facts (which a lot of people have already done with regard to 3e). The mods get fed up with the grognards constant whining and tapping the fuck out when they know they are beat and crack down on opposing points of view, purge the “Denners”, and then this site will become a giant grognard circlejerk (let's not kid ourselves that's what's going to happen in the end). Elsewise we are just going to keep having this thread. Forever.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;585904Elsewise we are just going to keep having this thread. Forever.

So what, you guys are 3e missionaries or something?

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;585904It's less that we are arguing in bad faith it's more that we are incredulous. We come in to these debates having argued and won them again and again on other boards. So when we come here and find people spouting decade old talking points we are a bit nonplussed.

There are basically three ways this can play out. People start seeing sense and start admitting to basic facts (which a lot of people have already done with regard to 3e). The mods get fed up with the grognards constant whining and tapping the fuck out when they know they are beat and crack down on opposing points of view, purge the "Denners", and then this site will become a giant grognard circlejerk (let's not kid ourselves that's what's going to happen in the end). Elsewise we are just going to keep having this thread. Forever.

And this has fuckall to do with actual practical knowledge of how things worked in older editions.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;585904Any time there is a thread on the internet that has the word "wizard" in it, we come in and turn it into a FvW thread while systematically ignoring anything that proves us wrong.  We've done this before and will continue doing it.  Forever.

Fixed it for you.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;585899T1, The Village of Hommlet is an adventure for "introductory to novice level" adventurers and features as its 'boss' encounter a 5th level cleric.

The idea that the only time you'd face a 5th level spellcaster is when you're 5th level yourself reflects the narrow thinking that hamstrings Den-symps.

Or when you are a retard incapable of reading comprehension. Here, allow me to spell it out for you again.

When someone says "By the time you are fighting spellcasters of 5th or higher level you have 3rd, or at least 2nd level spells and therefore need not rely upon Sleep any longer." they are explicitly stating that you will be at least level 3 (not 5, 3) and they are also strongly implying that if you aren't, you're basically fucked. Which is exactly what happens when you fight a spellcaster at least three levels higher (4, in this case) than yourself when you are low level, and playing an old edition.

Now I'm not really surprised the likely outcome is everyone dies horribly, since that was the name of the game back then but it doesn't help make your point.

QuoteIt depends on the spell - many spells take as a number of segments equal to the level of the spell.

Magic missle requires only a single segment, which means it's cast before any spell requiring two or more segments to cast; in the case of spells requiring just one segment, magic missile goes first if the magic-user has initiative.

In other words, the 5th level magic-user's lightning bolt, fireball, web, ray of enfeeblement, or levitate can all be spoiled by a magic missile.

Which would be 1-3 at the levels being discussed.

Now how it actually works is if you go on 8 and cast a 2 segment spell it is cast at 6, and if you are hit in that time frame you lose it.

If the MM caster goes on 8 or 7, then that might work but if he goes on any other number he doesn't.

Regardless, you're not going to use up a spell slot on some extreme niche use unless you have plenty of them... and you don't.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;585904It's less that we are arguing in bad faith it's more that we are incredulous. We come in to these debates having argued and won them again and again on other boards. So when we come here and find people spouting decade old talking points we are a bit nonplussed.

There are basically three ways this can play out. People start seeing sense and start admitting to basic facts (which a lot of people have already done with regard to 3e). The mods get fed up with the grognards constant whining and tapping the fuck out when they know they are beat and crack down on opposing points of view, purge the "Denners", and then this site will become a giant grognard circlejerk (let's not kid ourselves that's what's going to happen in the end). Elsewise we are just going to keep having this thread. Forever.

While i do think we are just as subject to echo chamber issues as many other forums, I think you fail to see what these debates look like to a third party observer. You can announce your victory as loudly as you want (and you can post another parthian shot thread where you pack your stuff and go as well) but that doesn't mean you walk away the victor. I see both sides making reasonable points, and in most cases each side has a pretty good rebuttal. Tis is typical of most internet debates where things can go back and forth. What I see you doing specifically is latching on to the weakest statements or outbursts form our side (which is a fair tactic) and ignoring ones that actually challenge your underlying assumptions, so you can declare yourself the "winner". Trust me when I say you are just as deafened by the echo-chamber effect from your forums as the worst of us.....you don't come out of this looking as good as you think you do.

So far this has been a condensed retread of the Gaming Culture War Thread aka Wizards v. Fighter.  We've only been missing a couple things...

Quote from: Mr. GC;585846the odds are so heavily stacked against you the only possible skill that could help you survive is the type you demonstrate under the gaming table instead of at it.

Yay! Sexual fixation with power relationships at the gaming table expressed by a powergamer.  

Now all we need is Jibba to mention Cap vs. Iron Man, and we can declare this thread an exact duplicate and exit. :D

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585903I am sorry, but this just doesn't persuade me at all. If the point is you want to argue about raw fine, but the 2E rulebooks are fairly clear on most things. If it doesn't say magical ageing always causes a system shock roll, there is no reason to assume it is implied. Particularly when the spell we are arguing about is used as example in the magical agegin portion of page 24 and it doesn't say anything about making a system shock roll.

Both 1st and 2nd have system shock and both 1st and 2nd have haste magically aging you. When it says magical aging forces system shock, an example is haste, how can you not conclude haste = system shock? This is classic A = B, B = C, therefore A = C.

It's like saying being stabbed by a sword can hurt, then acting as if it won't because it didn't say it definitely will hurt.

Then some moron will try this:

(http://pressxordie.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/youretard.png)

Even though everything from evidence to precedent says that haste = system shock.

All that said, I only brought this subject up to see if people here actually knew and understood the game that they were playing. We've moved past that now, and I am still waiting for people on the "actual play only" forum to comment on actual play. I suspect they never will, as actual play means only the types that support them.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585912Or when you are a retard incapable of reading comprehension. Here, allow me to spell it out for you again.

When someone says "By the time you are fighting spellcasters of 5th or higher level you have 3rd, or at least 2nd level spells and therefore need not rely upon Sleep any longer." they are explicitly stating that you will be at least level 3 (not 5, 3) and they are also strongly implying that if you aren't, you're basically fucked. Which is exactly what happens when you fight a spellcaster at least three levels higher (4, in this case) than yourself when you are low level, and playing an old edition.

Now I'm not really surprised the likely outcome is everyone dies horribly, since that was the name of the game back then but it doesn't help make your point.

Keep digging dude.  I just ran a group through ToEE about 2 years ago.  They were 2nd level (the thief was 3) when they met up with Lareth.  The Moathouse isn't that large, and Lareth is met pretty quickly.  And they beat him.  The MU cast light (a 1st level spell) to blind him, and the rest took him down.  It was rough, as the paladin failed his save and was held.  But the rest of the party was able to take him down without anyone dying.

How?  Planning.

Seriously dude, stop talking about AD&D.  You don't have the first clue.  You just keep making it worse for yourself.

Quote from: CRKrueger;585916So far this has been a condensed retread of the Gaming Culture War Thread aka Wizards v. Fighter.  We've only been missing a couple things...

Yay! Sexual fixation with power relationships at the gaming table expressed by a powergamer.  

Now all we need is Jibba to mention Cap vs. Iron Man, and we can declare this thread an exact duplicate and exit. :D

Someone is reading way too much into an oral sex joke.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585912When someone says "By the time you are fighting spellcasters of 5th or higher level you have 3rd, or at least 2nd level spells and therefore need not rely upon Sleep any longer." they are explicitly stating that you will be at least level 3 (not 5, 3) and they are also strongly implying that if you aren't, you're basically fucked. Which is exactly what happens when you fight a spellcaster at least three levels higher (4, in this case) than yourself when you are low level, and playing an old edition.

Now I'm not really surprised the likely outcome is everyone dies horribly, since that was the name of the game back then but it doesn't help make your point.

Wow. :rolleyes: All this time module T1 has been out and no one has brought up the "fact" that a 1st or 2nd level party has NO CHANCE against Lareth. You would think if that were the case it would be fairly common knowledge after 33 years or so. Go figure.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;585923Wow. :rolleyes: All this time module T1 has been out and no one has brought up the "fact" that a 1st or 2nd level party has NO CHANCE against Lareth. You would think if that were the case it would be fairly common knowledge after 33 years or so. Go figure.

A lot of people really enjoy blowing their DM. It's pretty much the only way of surviving the game... getting the DM to ignore any rules that are inconvenient for you. This is also why many here have a similar argument style.

That and because constant death was the norm, no one was really alarmed by constant death.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585917Both 1st and 2nd have system shock and both 1st and 2nd have haste magically aging you. When it says magical aging forces system shock, an example is haste, how can you not conclude haste = system shock? This is classic A = B, B = C, therefore A = C.
.

I am only addressing 2E because that is the text I have been reviewing today. But it doesn't say tis anywhere I am looking. It says system shock shows you the percentage chance of dying from magical ageing, polymorhph, etc. The example provided is polymorph, not haste. Unless I am missing something from the PHB or DMG, which I have said again and again is entirely possible, your premises are wrong and your conclusion therefore invalid. If you want to introduce new evidence (fro 1e or 2e) then at least provide page numbers because you are just asserting the books says magical ageing forces a system shock without providing evidence (unless I missed a post where you provided a specific page number). But understand something being stated in 1E, doesn't make it so in 2E. In fact if 1E says that explicitly and 2E doesn't, i would be inclined to think it is a dleiberate revision because making a system shock check for a spell like haste seems like a bad decision.

I am just not finding your argument persuasive. It really seems like I have looked at the rule and found an issue with one of your premises. I wasn't expecting that, because my recollection was that the rules by raw do mean haste causes a system shock check. But it is very clear to me on review that doesn't seem to be the case.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585928A lot of people really enjoy blowing their DM. It's pretty much the only way of surviving the game... getting the DM to ignore any rules that are inconvenient for you.

Those kinds of fantasies you can keep to yourself. Really, please don't feel the need to share.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585928That and because constant death was the norm, no one was really alarmed by constant death.

As if you you have any fucking clue what the norm was.  For you my best guess would be getting your diaper changed.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585917All that said, I only brought this subject up to see if people here actually knew and understood the game that they were playing. We've moved past that now, and I am still waiting for people on the "actual play only" forum to comment on actual play. I suspect they never will, as actual play means only the types that support them.

I realize it is a side point. Pretty insignificant. In fact if you were  right about haste itwould have just given more weight to the arument that in AD&D wizards are balanced out by consequences of casting spells. But I keep hitting on this point because I think it demonstrates an unwillingness on your part to engage in real discussion.i was open to being wrong about stuff and even ceded you the point about haste initially. But when I bothered to look it up it was obvious there is no reason to assume haste=system shock. In fact there is very good reason to think it doesn't require a system shock roll based on the text. As I have said, I am happy to admit I was wrong about this if you can show me where it says that all magical ageing effects or haste specifically require a system shock roll....but the raw text simply doesn't state or imply that at all. So it looks like rather than be honest about it and admit there is a flaw in your earlier claim about haste you are doubing down when the text clearly doesn't support that conclusion.

Now there are a lot of words in the 2E core books...I could be wrong. But you are not providing any evidence that I am.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;585904Elsewise we are just going to keep having this thread. Forever.

So what the fuck do you want? Someone to say "Yes Mistborn, we agree with everything you say"?

Do you really enjoy fighting the same tedious forum battles for years on end, over and over again with the only difference being the URL, instead of gaming or studying or shagging or whatever?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585913While i do think we are just as subject to echo chamber issues as many other forums, I think you fail to see what these debates look like to a third party observer. You can announce your victory as loudly as you want (and you can post another parthian shot thread where you pack your stuff and go as well) but that doesn't mean you walk away the victor. I see both sides making reasonable points, and in most cases each side has a pretty good rebuttal. Tis is typical of most internet debates where things can go back and forth. What I see you doing specifically is latching on to the weakest statements or outbursts form our side (which is a fair tactic) and ignoring ones that actually challenge your underlying assumptions, so you can declare yourself the "winner". Trust me when I say you are just as deafened by the echo-chamber effect from your forums as the worst of us.....you don't come out of this looking as good as you think you do.

I'll leave up to the reader to judge which camp I belong in, but this statement resonates with me. I personally view each insult as a disguise for a weak argument. And, let's be honest, the insults themselves are getting pretty tired at this point. Several of us have had access to words like cock and dumbass long enough to get tired of the novelty, but clearly some of us have not. Or rather they likely aren't used to being allowed to use them in a moderated forum.

Anyway when making our next post, we might try making at least two points for each insult. Or something. But what's going on in here scarcely counts as conversation, from an outside point of view. Masturbation, maybe, but a 'win' of this nature isn't one to brag to your friends about.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;585904It's less that we are arguing in bad faith it's more that we are incredulous. We come in to these debates having argued and won them again and again on other boards. So when we come here and find people spouting decade old talking points we are a bit nonplussed.

There are basically three ways this can play out. People start seeing sense and start admitting to basic facts (which a lot of people have already done with regard to 3e). The mods get fed up with the grognards constant whining and tapping the fuck out when they know they are beat and crack down on opposing points of view, purge the "Denners", and then this site will become a giant grognard circlejerk (let's not kid ourselves that's what's going to happen in the end). Elsewise we are just going to keep having this thread. Forever.

I'm brand new on this forum - pretty much the opposite of a grognard. And I've got to say, it's not Sacrosanct and Stormbringer coming off as assholes here.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585913While I do think we are just as subject to echo chamber issues as many other forums.

Nice to see you're starting to wise up. In the end you guys have only one argument "play the game not the rules" I can see why grognards are like that if you're playing pre-3e the rules are designed to fuck you and the only way to succeed is to convince the DM to rewrite them in your favor. Grognards will never admit that though they want to believe that when they succeed it's because they were clever.

They know the truth deep down though and you can see it when they rage at Optimizers and 3e. Notice when every we give an example of PCs failing they scream asshole DM. The idea that you can succeed without DM pity terrifies and offends them. I don't know why it so but people are really invested in their preferred way of pretending to be an elf. Perhaps they are unwilling to admit the cognitive dissonance that underlies their position.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;585953Nice to see you're starting to wise up. In the end you guys have only one argument “play the game not the rules” I can see why grognards are like that if you're playing pre-3e the rules are designed to fuck you and the only way to succeed is to convince the DM to rewrite them in your favor. Grognards will never admit that though they want to believe that when they succeed it's because they were clever.

They know the truth deep down though and you can see it when they rage at Optimizers and 3e. Notice when every we give an example of PCs failing they scream asshole DM. The idea that you can succeed without DM pity terrifies and offends them. I don't know why it so but people are really invested in their preferred way of pretending to be an elf. Perhaps they are unwilling to admit the cognitive dissonance that underlies their position.

You're making the mistake that dissenting voices secretly agree with you.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585917Both 1st and 2nd have system shock and both 1st and 2nd have haste magically aging you. When it says magical aging forces system shock, an example is haste, how can you not conclude haste = system shock? This is classic A = B, B = C, therefore A = C.

:rotfl:

You and dDM definitely read from the same book.

Both 1st and 2nd have dragons and both 1st and 2nd have arrow damage.  How can you not conclude that dragons are bows that do arrow damage?

The depths of your stupid know no limit.

Quote from: Ladybird;585942So what the fuck do you want? Someone to say "Yes Mistborn, we agree with everything you say"?

Do you really enjoy fighting the same tedious forum battles for years on end, over and over again with the only difference being the URL, instead of gaming or studying or shagging or whatever?

He's just warning us that he and his group will be engaging in spamming or site disruption in the near future.  ;)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585932I am only addressing 2E because that is the text I have been reviewing today. But it doesn't say tis anywhere I am looking. It says system shock shows you the percentage chance of dying from magical ageing, polymorhph, etc. The example provided is polymorph, not haste. Unless I am missing something from the PHB or DMG, which I have said again and again is entirely possible, your premises are wrong and your conclusion therefore invalid. If you want to introduce new evidence (fro 1e or 2e) then at least provide page numbers because you are just asserting the books says magical ageing forces a system shock without providing evidence (unless I missed a post where you provided a specific page number). But understand something being stated in 1E, doesn't make it so in 2E. In fact if 1E says that explicitly and 2E doesn't, i would be inclined to think it is a dleiberate revision because making a system shock check for a spell like haste seems like a bad decision.

I am just not finding your argument persuasive. It really seems like I have looked at the rule and found an issue with one of your premises. I wasn't expecting that, because my recollection was that the rules by raw do mean haste causes a system shock check. But it is very clear to me on review that doesn't seem to be the case.

...What.

Just.

What.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585940I realize it is a side point. Pretty insignificant. In fact if you were  right about haste itwould have just given more weight to the arument that in AD&D wizards are balanced out by consequences of casting spells. But I keep hitting on this point because I think it demonstrates an unwillingness on your part to engage in real discussion.i was open to being wrong about stuff and even ceded you the point about haste initially. But when I bothered to look it up it was obvious there is no reason to assume haste=system shock. In fact there is very good reason to think it doesn't require a system shock roll based on the text. As I have said, I am happy to admit I was wrong about this if you can show me where it says that all magical ageing effects or haste specifically require a system shock roll....but the raw text simply doesn't state or imply that at all. So it looks like rather than be honest about it and admit there is a flaw in your earlier claim about haste you are doubing down when the text clearly doesn't support that conclusion.

Actually no. It'd prove that some spells are useless, which was never in contention since what matters is that there are plenty that are not useless, and those are what you will actually cast.

If you did choose to read into it, you'd realize that Haste and Polymorph - the sorts of spells you'd cast on the Fighter and not yourself if you were drinking the kool aid being useless simply means the Wizard is encouraged to not play nice.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;585953They know the truth deep down though and you can see it when they rage at Optimizers and 3e. Notice when every we give an example of PCs failing they scream asshole DM. The idea that you can succeed without DM pity terrifies and offends them. I don't know why it so but people are really invested in their preferred way of pretending to be an elf. Perhaps they are unwilling to admit the cognitive dissonance that underlies their position.

This had me in stitches LM. And proved to me that you are not someone anyone ought to take seriously.

Quote from: ArtemisAlpha;585947I'm brand new on this forum - pretty much the opposite of a grognard. And I've got to say, it's not Sacrosanct and Stormbringer coming off as assholes here.

:hatsoff:

But a good point has been made.  I will refrain from the vulgarity and insults, simply pointing out the wild mistakes and misconceptions and leave it at that.

I've never seen people adhere so strongly to the perception that they are right and everyone else is wrong despite the repeated occurrence of people showing them objective data points to the contrary.

And on the internet, that's truly an accomplishment.


Including factors like how often a character gets hit in combat in the context of survivability is intellectually dishonest?

1st level monsters routinely get +4 or +5 bonuses to hit, or hit 100% of the time?

A 2nd level party will get waxed by a 5th level character?

If you don't use SS rolls then you never really played the game?

You couldn't make this up if you tried.

My apologies folks.  It wasn't my intent when I started this thread, but I think that it's had the effect of making everyone a bit dumber for reading it because the Denners have successfully, yet again, brought the discussion down to their level.

Quote from: StormBringer;585956:rotfl:

You and dDM definitely read from the same book.

Both 1st and 2nd have dragons and both 1st and 2nd have arrow damage.  How can you not conclude that dragons are bows that do arrow damage?

The depths of your stupid know no limit.

Yes, because A leads to B and B leads to C, therefore A leads to C is the same as herp derp, dragons are bows that do arrow damage... seriously, what the fuck are you smoking, and do not share.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585960This had me in stitches LM. And proved to me that you are not someone anyone ought to take seriously.

LM still has a lot to learn. He is willing to learn it, which elevates him over 95% of all D&D players automatically. On this though he's absolutely right. If the Fighter is getting flattened, it's because the DM is a dick. If the Rogue is getting run over, it must be the DM's fault. If only one person can carry the group, and that person is... blame someone other than yourself!

The optimizer message is succeed on your own merits, not by sucking a barrel of cocks. And it's the verbal component for Enrage Grognard, Mass.

At the same time they expect to do things that are harder than killing enemies such as stealing all their stuff without killing them and get enraged and offended when the thing they have no actual ability to do they are not able to do.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585959...What.

Just.

What.

Actually, it doesn't matter because you have not provided any evidence for your assertion.  Brendon mentioned some similar rules in the 2nd edition DMG and included a page to find them, but reasonably interpreted them to exclude haste.  You have provided no page numbers from the 1st or 2nd Edition DMG, PHB, MM, or any other book to back up your assertions; hence it is unsupported and you are wrong.  When you have a page number and section from a 1st or 2nd Edition AD&D book that clearly states (or can be reasonably interpreted to state) that in all instances of magical aging, a system shock roll is needed, we can go somewhere.  Bonus points if it mentions haste specifically.

Yeah, I might not have any proof that you're MGuy (despite similar names and posting), but it is pretty odd that a guy would have quotes in his sig that were made before he joined the forums.

Quote from: StormBringer;585968Actually, it doesn't matter because you have not provided any evidence for your assertion.  Brendon mentioned some similar rules in the 2nd edition DMG and included a page to find them, but reasonably interpreted them to exclude haste.  You have provided no page numbers from the 1st or 2nd Edition DMG, PHB, MM, or any other book to back up your assertions; hence it is unsupported and you are wrong.  

It's becoming pretty apparent that if you ask them to back up any claim with data points, they default reaction is, "lalala, you're a retard!"

This is a tactic that usually doesn't work on adults to be convinced of your theory.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585966Yes, because A leads to B and B leads to C, therefore A leads to C is the same as herp derp, dragons are bows that do arrow damage... seriously, what the fuck are you smoking, and do not share.

In your example, A=1st edition haste spell exists, and B= 2nd edition haste spell exists, and C=2nd Edition haste requires system shock rolls.  So, it's quite plain that B!=C in the first place, therefore A cannot equal C.  Additionally, as Brendon pointed out, C isn't actually true anyway.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585971It's becoming pretty apparent that if you ask them to back up any claim with data points, they default reaction is, "lalala, you're a retard!"

This is a tactic that usually doesn't work on adults to be convinced of your theory.

Of course.  :)

But I think the other folks had a good point.  Addressing their wildly incorrect statements with simple rebuttals makes for better reading.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585969Yeah, I might not have any proof that you're MGuy (despite similar names and posting), but it is pretty odd that a guy would have quotes in his sig that were made before he joined the forums.

Because you've never heard of lurking.

Because it isn't possible that I read this, then joined after finishing reading.

Oh wait, we're talking about Mr. Ignore Facts and Logic.

Which is why you and your little friend are being so persistently obtuse.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585959...What.

Just.

What.
.

What exactly do you find confusing about what I said?

to me it seems clear that pages 15 and 24 of the player's handbook are not saying all magical ageing requires a system shock roll.

Here is what the PHB says exactly:

QuoteSystem Shock states the percentage chance a character has to survive magical effects that reshape or age his body: petrification (and reversing petrification), polymorph, magical ageing, etc.

I don't believe this means all magical aging requires a system shock roll. It is just noting that system shock provides a percentage chance for those that do. If you look at the individual spells, that is where you are told explicitly whether one is required. And like I said, an examination of page 24, suggests there is no such check for Haste:

QuoteThere may be times when a magical device or spell adds years to or subtracts years from a player character's life. This magical aging can have two different effects. Some magical aging physically affects the character. For example, a haste spell ages those it affects by one year. This aging is added directly to the player character's current age. He physically acquires the appearance of himself one year older (a few more wrinkles, etc). Characters who increase in age do not gain the benefits of increased Wisdom and Intelligence....but the character does suffer physical losses to Strength, Dex, and Constitution associated with aging. These are breakdowns of the body's systems. Physical age can also be removed in the same manner.....

You would think if Haste spells forced a system shock roll it would be mentioned here where they discuss the effects of magical aging from haste. But they don't.

Then the spell entry itself says nothing at all about magical aging. Spells like polymorph other explicitly states a system shock roll is required. Page fifteen is so open ended, with the "etc" that your interpretation pretty much would require system shock checks for Strength for example.

Why is the concept of death after a few hits at issue anyway?

How many strikes from a broadsword should a novice be able to withstand? As I understand it, combat of this type was often rather quickly resolved.

I'd concede that beyond the starting levels we're dealing with abnormal people, but isn't that A LOT easier to say thank all the statistical analysis crap?

Quote from: Mr. GC;585755Because people still aren't getting it here are actual examples of both good and bad play:

Good party starts off with divinations. They learn that they are up against:

A dragon.
A druid.
A psychic.
A shadow demon.
A pair of melee machines.
Various mooks.

From this they can deduce that:
They should have at least one person with See Invis and lots of Dispels for dealing with the big guys.
They should have Magic Circle so they are not mind fucked by the psychic.
They should all be flying so they are not one rounded by the melee machines.
They should be able to quickly put Wraithstrike on the melee so as to take out the dragon before it can move, otherwise people will likely die.
The druid is impossible to counter without knowing more about him, same for the shadow demon.
The mooks are dealt with by generic buffs and standard anti ranged defenses.

So they close in on the bell tower, cast Silence on it then take out the mooks quickly, spend a few rounds chasing the shadow demon around while it annoys the hell out of them, then they kill it before it can escape and warn the others. The group could leave now and do part two tomorrow, but let's say they don't.

Instead they keep advancing, take out the mooks outside as quickly as possible, then start systematically sweeping the main building. First they shake off the death blast, then kill its source... then they pick a door and kill either the psychic or the druid before he's really ready... and if they're fast they can get the other.

Then they come out, see they've gotten the dragon's attention already... it lasts long enough to get off one action, but with Greater Mirror Image and Wings of Cover the target survives at 3 HP. The melee machines come out last, see the all flying party, and either die or swim away in shame.

A few healing charges later and the party is fine.

Bad party vs same scenario:

At most they can learn about the dragon in advance. They're not even aware the other enemies exist, and as they'd get spotted 500 feet out from the bell tower they likely never will as the guards there can just rain down arrows and boulders... they won't do much at this range, but neither will the parties' attacks, and since it'd take 12-13 rounds to close the distance and get in there and longer to get out of engagement range the party will likely die even before considering they rang the bell, alerting everything in the area and giving the party about 5 minutes to GTFO or die to an overwhelming encounter. None of the major opponents need even reveal themselves as the group would die to the lowest mooks.

If by some miracle they actually survived that long they get brutally beaten down by the shadow demon... and not even the gods can help them deal with all the OTHER stuff all at once.

Still waiting.

Quote from: TristramEvans;585196Chevy Chase won D&D.

(http://www.fanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/community-400x266.jpg)

That was EPIC.

Chevy Chase is the God of DND!

Quote from: Mr. GC;585976Because you've never heard of lurking.

Because it isn't possible that I read this, then joined after finishing reading.

Oh wait, we're talking about Mr. Ignore Facts and Logic.

Which is why you and your little friend are being so persistently obtuse.

You just so happened to lurk for a month, and then join and start posting prolifically?  

Not probable, IMO.  Not based on the integrity of your posting style, as reinforced right in the 2nd half of this very post.  I.e., you're accusing me of ignoring facts, when you yourself have ignored much of the objective data points I have posted that have shown you to be directly mistaken in your assumptions of AD&D.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585977What exactly do you find confusing about what I said?

to me it seems clear that pages 15 and 24 of the player's handbook are not saying all magical ageing requires a system shock roll.

Here is what the PHB says exactly:

You contradicted yourself. Multiple times. Then drew the exact opposite conclusion.

"System Shock states the percentage chance a character has to survive magical effects that reshape or age his body: petrification (and reversing petrification), polymorph, magical ageing, etc. "

Is Haste a magical effect? Yes, it's a fucking spell.
Does Haste age the body of the recipient? Yes, this is explicitly stated.
Therefore, Haste is a magical aging effect.

QED.

QuoteI don't believe this means all magical aging requires a system shock roll.

(http://i650.photobucket.com/albums/uu221/theonering139/retailchic%20pics/headdesk-500x400.jpg)


You would think if Haste spells forced a system shock roll it would be mentioned here where they discuss the effects of magical aging from haste. But they don't.

QuoteThen the spell entry itself says nothing at all about magical aging. Spells like polymorph other explicitly states a system shock roll is required. Page fifteen is so open ended, with the "etc" that your interpretation pretty much would require system shock checks for Strength for example.

The etc which comes specifically after the mention of magical aging.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585981You just so happened to lurk for a month, and then join and start posting prolifically?  

Not probable, IMO.  Not based on the integrity of your posting style, as reinforced right in the 2nd half of this very post.  I.e., you're accusing me of ignoring facts, when you yourself have ignored much of the objective data points I have posted that have shown you to be directly mistaken in your assumptions of AD&D.

I'm a speed reader, but close to a thousand pages of utter stupidity takes a while to process.

Sacrosanct. Speaks of integrity.

I might need to make a system shock check to see if I can successfully rez myself after dying laughing.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585755Because people still aren't getting it here are actual examples of both good and bad play:

Good party starts off with divinations. They learn that they are up against:

A dragon.
A druid.
A psychic.
A shadow demon.
A pair of melee machines.
Various mooks.

From this they can deduce that:
They should have at least one person with See Invis and lots of Dispels for dealing with the big guys.
They should have Magic Circle so they are not mind fucked by the psychic.
They should all be flying so they are not one rounded by the melee machines.
They should be able to quickly put Wraithstrike on the melee so as to take out the dragon before it can move, otherwise people will likely die.
The druid is impossible to counter without knowing more about him, same for the shadow demon.
The mooks are dealt with by generic buffs and standard anti ranged defenses.

So they close in on the bell tower, cast Silence on it then take out the mooks quickly, spend a few rounds chasing the shadow demon around while it annoys the hell out of them, then they kill it before it can escape and warn the others. The group could leave now and do part two tomorrow, but let's say they don't.

Instead they keep advancing, take out the mooks outside as quickly as possible, then start systematically sweeping the main building. First they shake off the death blast, then kill its source... then they pick a door and kill either the psychic or the druid before he's really ready... and if they're fast they can get the other.

Then they come out, see they've gotten the dragon's attention already... it lasts long enough to get off one action, but with Greater Mirror Image and Wings of Cover the target survives at 3 HP. The melee machines come out last, see the all flying party, and either die or swim away in shame.

A few healing charges later and the party is fine.

Bad party vs same scenario:

At most they can learn about the dragon in advance. They're not even aware the other enemies exist, and as they'd get spotted 500 feet out from the bell tower they likely never will as the guards there can just rain down arrows and boulders... they won't do much at this range, but neither will the parties' attacks, and since it'd take 12-13 rounds to close the distance and get in there and longer to get out of engagement range the party will likely die even before considering they rang the bell, alerting everything in the area and giving the party about 5 minutes to GTFO or die to an overwhelming encounter. None of the major opponents need even reveal themselves as the group would die to the lowest mooks.

If by some miracle they actually survived that long they get brutally beaten down by the shadow demon... and not even the gods can help them deal with all the OTHER stuff all at once.

I will repost this on every page until people stop dodging it.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585985I'm a speed reader, but close to a thousand pages of utter stupidity takes a while to process.

:rolleyes:

Sorry kid, I don't buy it.  You expect us to believe that you lurked for over a month reading a thread that was explicitly about 3e and how it attracts asshole players and didn't feel the need to respond once.  But a few weeks later then decided to start posting prolifically?

Sure.  As soon as anyone mentions 3e you can't help but start shitting in the thread.  I don't believe you just sat there as a lurker for a month while this was going on and didn't chime in.  I also find it less believable that you decided to join this site and read a couple-weeks old thread that consisted of thousands of posts.

QuoteSacrosanct. Speaks of integrity.

I might need to make a system shock check to see if I can successfully rez myself after dying laughing.

Ah, yet another example of taking a personal shot rather than dispute what I've presented.


You're very predictable you know.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585982You contradicted yourself. Multiple times. Then drew the exact opposite conclusion.

"System Shock states the percentage chance a character has to survive magical effects that reshape or age his body: petrification (and reversing petrification), polymorph, magical ageing, etc. "

Is Haste a magical effect? Yes, it's a fucking spell.
Does Haste age the body of the recipient? Yes, this is explicitly stated.
Therefore, Haste is a magical aging effect.

QED.
.

No I am not contradicting myself at all. We have a fundamental disagreemento over what the text from page 15 means. You read it as a general rule that magical aging must cause a system shock check. I read it as magical aging can cause system shock checks. It is a brief statement with no real clarification. So some disagreement is expected but I think your interepretation of it is a stretch. And I think an examination of spells and additional material in the PHB supports my conlclusion.  

"System Shock states the percentage chance a character has to survive the magical effects that reshape or age his body: petrification, polymorph, magical aging, etc." This is not the establishment of a rule about magical aging it is simply a statement about System Shocks function in the game and when it MIGHT come up.

So yes, haste produces a magical aging effect. But your whole arguments rests on the notion that ALL magical aging must result in a system shock check. That is not at all clear from the phrasing on page 15. Nor is it supported by the remainder of the text in the PHB. Including a major example in the section on Aging that uses Haste to explore the effects of magical aging on characters. For your conclusion to be true, all magical aging must require a system shock roll. I don't believe it does going by the text.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585988:rolleyes:

Sorry kid, I don't buy it.  You expect us to believe that you lurked for over a month reading a thread that was explicitly about 3e and how it attracts asshole players and didn't feel the need to respond once.  But a few weeks later then decided to start posting prolifically?

Sure.  As soon as anyone mentions 3e you can't help but start shitting in the thread.  I don't believe you just sat there as a lurker for a month while this was going on and didn't chime in.  I also find it less believable that you decided to join this site and read a couple-weeks old thread that consisted of thousands of posts.

Ah, yet another example of taking a personal shot rather than dispute what I've presented.


You're very predictable you know.

QuoteSorry kid, I don't buy it.

Because you are the epitome of class and character... oh wait, you only pick the bad ones that get flattened in one round or less. :D

By the time I started reading those threads were locked. So do tell, how am I to post in locked threads?

Do I have moderator powers I don't know about?

/me attempts to change Sacro's user title to Incompetent.

Nope, I guess not.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585989No I am not contradicting myself at all. We have a fundamental disagreemento over what the text from page 15 means. You read it as a general rule that magical aging must cause a system shock check. I read it as magical aging can cause system shock checks. It is a brief statement with no real clarification. So some disagreement is expected but I think your interepretation of it is a stretch. And I think an examination of spells and additional material in the PHB supports my conlclusion.  

"Getting stabbed with a sword can hurt."

Anyone with basic cognitive skills can deduce can means will.

I'm not posting the image macro again.

Quote"System Shock states the percentage chance a character has to survive the magical effects that reshape or age his body: petrification, polymorph, magical aging, etc." This is not the establishment of a rule about magical aging it is simply a statement about System Shocks function in the game and when it MIGHT come up.

Magical aging is listed twice. Yet, somehow it isn't a rule. Fuck the what.

QuoteSo yes, haste produces a magical aging effect. But your whole arguments rests on the notion that ALL magical aging must result in a system shock check. That is not at all clear from the phrasing on page 15. Nor is it supported by the remainder of the text in the PHB. Including a major example in the section on Aging that uses Haste to explore the effects of magical aging on characters. For your conclusion to be true, all magical aging must require a system shock roll. I don't believe it does going by the text.

At best you could argue that whoever made Haste magically age the subject forgot that means you have a chance to die because they were only thinking of things like a Ghost's aging attack. But then this would hardly be the first time the left hand did not know what the right was doing and it does not change what is.

Cast Haste = non zero chance to kill own party.

As killing your own party is a bad thing - even people like Sacro and Storm, notorious for being wrong about everything else can agree that some dumbass ganking his own team is in fact a dumbass, you just don't cast Haste.

And the fact people completely missed a rule near the beginning of the book is telling.

I will say, doing a quick google search on the haste issue, it looks like this is something people have been debating for some time, with no clear answer one way or the other.

Reflecting on it, my honest assessement is this is one of those areas that is a bit of a GM judgement call. But personally, while earlier today I would have agree with you that Haste by the raw prompts System Shock check...now I am much less convinced that it does.

Either way, I personally haven't played that way, so at my table Haste is a viable and potent spell.

But even if we concede that yes, haste must require a system shock by RAW, I don't think your conclusion that casting haste is idiotic holds. There will be times in the game where having Haste might still come in handy. For example if you have a martial class heavy party facing a powerful foe and a TPK looks likely, then the SS roll (particularly if they have high CONs) would probably be worth the risk, since you are facing death anyways. So I think my initial answer of "It depends" still holds.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585992"Getting stabbed with a sword can hurt."

Anyone with basic cognitive skills can deduce can means will.
.

No it doesn't.  Maybe there are factors that prevent pain, like willpower, building tolerance, under the effects of a drug, etc.

There's a reason why A = B, C= B, so A = C is one of the most common fallacies ever.

I'd suggest you read up on them sometime.  Don't forget to look under "ad hominem" while your at it.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585992"Getting stabbed with a sword can hurt."

Anyone with basic cognitive skills can deduce can means will.

I'm not posting the image macro again.



Magical aging is listed twice. Yet, somehow it isn't a rule. Fuck the what.



At best you could argue that whoever made Haste magically age the subject forgot that means you have a chance to die because they were only thinking of things like a Ghost's aging attack. But then this would hardly be the first time the left hand did not know what the right was doing and it does not change what is.

Cast Haste = non zero chance to kill own party.

As killing your own party is a bad thing - even people like Sacro and Storm, notorious for being wrong about everything else can agree that some dumbass ganking his own team is in fact a dumbass, you just don't cast Haste.

And the fact people completely missed a rule near the beginning of the book is telling.

We are just going back and forth at this point. I don't think the text establishes a clear rule at all. My reasons have already been given. Its entirely possible I am wrong. Others can judge that. But I think your posturing as a logic 101 professor here to prove a point about D&D Raw based on a brief line without any real elaboration from 1989 is telling.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585993I will say, doing a quick google search on the haste issue, it looks like this is something people have been debating for some time, with no clear answer one way or the other.

Reflecting on it, my honest assessement is this is one of those areas that is a bit of a GM judgement call. But personally, while earlier today I would have agree with you that Haste by the raw prompts System Shock check...now I am much less convinced that it does.

Either way, I personally haven't played that way, so at my table Haste is a viable and potent spell.

But even if we concede that yes, haste must require a system shock by RAW, I don't think your conclusion that casting haste is idiotic holds. There will be times in the game where having Haste might still come in handy. For example if you have a martial class heavy party facing a powerful foe and a TPK looks likely, then the SS roll (particularly if they have high CONs) would probably be worth the risk, since you are facing death anyways. So I think my initial answer of "It depends" still holds.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_FAQ.asp

QuoteSome spells that cause aging in the caster now age by different amounts (for example, the aging caused by casting wish has changed from 3 years to 5 years). A system shock roll is required for all magical aging, whether it is part of the casting or a result of the spell. (For example, if you are hasted, age 1 year and roll a system shock survival roll to see if death ensues.)

I was actually looking for the exact odds of a system shock check as I suspected around 20% any given person dies at least but wanted to confirm. Instead I found something much better. Vampire. Staked. Burn.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585992"Getting stabbed with a sword can hurt."

Anyone with basic cognitive skills can deduce can means will.

I'm not posting the image macro again.
.

Okay, and this proves nothing. "Getting stabbed can kill". Clearly can doesn't mean will in this example.

I think in the text from page 15, it is unclear if there is a Will or Must implied in the phrasing.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585996http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_FAQ.asp



I was actually looking for the exact odds of a system shock check as I suspected around 20% any given person dies at least but wanted to confirm. Instead I found something much better. Vampire. Staked. Burn.

So if that was a change from 1e to 2e, then it stands to reason that a SS role wasn't always required for haste in 1e.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585987Good party starts off with divinations. They learn that they are up against:

Good god, do games exist where divinations give such precision? At most I'd give a few impromptu riddles, shadowy hints. Maybe they could do a spirit walk through the area assuming no doors were closed but that brings its own hazards, like rousing slumbering dark spirits and warning the inhabitants, not to mention the risk that the caster gets their brains eaten.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585996http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_FAQ.asp



I was actually looking for the exact odds of a system shock check as I suspected around 20% any given person dies at least but wanted to confirm. Instead I found something much better. Vampire. Staked. Burn.

Fair enough. I am little cautious accepting this clarification as it comes from WOTC rather than from TSR, but this seems fair. I will cede the point that haste by raw as clarified by this FAQ page requires a system shock check. I don't think the original text was at all that clear, but this is pretty firm.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586000Fair enough. I am little cautious accepting this clarification as it comes from WOTC rather than from TSR, but this seems fair. I will cede the point that haste by raw as clarified by this FAQ page requires a system shock check. I don't think the original text was at all that clear, but this is pretty firm.

 
Only in 2e.  Since the title of that section is "changes from 1e to 2e", it seems to imply that AD&D 1e did not require such a check.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585998So if that was a change from 1e to 2e, then it stands to reason that a SS role wasn't always required for haste in 1e.

"Some spells that cause aging in the caster now age by different amounts (for example, the aging caused by casting wish has changed from 3 years to 5 years). A system shock roll is required for all magical aging, whether it is part of the casting or a result of the spell. (For example, if you are hasted, age 1 year and roll a system shock survival roll to see if death ensues.) "

The first part is a change. The second might or might not be a change. It could just be a reminder, which I think it is. Since he was talking about 2nd specifically...

Quote from: The Traveller;585999Good god, do games exist where divinations give such precision? At most I'd give a few impromptu riddles, shadowy hints. Maybe they could do a spirit walk through the area assuming no doors were closed but that brings its own hazards, like rousing slumbering dark spirits and warning the inhabitants, not to mention the risk that the caster gets their brains eaten.

It's called deductive reasoning. When the enemy is described as "turns nature against you" any experienced player automatically deduces "Druid" (the alternative, Ranger, is completely ignorable in 3.x and when the question that prompts this answer is something along the lines of what threats exist there, listing a Ranger as one is outright dishonest).

Likewise, just knowing "a dragon" is there tells you much of what dragons do, and how to deal with that. Anything that even vaguely suggests psychic and out comes the anti mind affecting. Something they've fought before and they know has insane melee attacks but no ranged ability = melee machine. Really, the divinations told them very little. It's just once you have that, you can easily extrapolate. You can easily predict and counter common tactics... and while they might do something uncommon, it might not work, etc you will still get further than you would otherwise by far.

The bad party could at most determine there was a dragon there but they couldn't actually do anything about it as even if they attacked while the dragon was gone they still lose horribly to the everything else. The only reason the first clue there's a psychic there is when the party starts murdering each other/the first clue there's melee machines about is when people start dying in one round in close combat/the first clue there's a shadow demon about is when he starts trolling the party to death is not a problem is because the party will likely die to the mooks before accomplishing any of their objectives and before encountering any of these.

Woooooooooooooowwwwwwww!!!!!!!!ONE!

Epic ignorance on this thread!

The denners really grok AD&D. Like. They totally giddit. Or somethin'.

These guys are masters. I am impressed.

Quote from: The Traveller;585999Good god, do games exist where divinations give such precision? At most I'd give a few impromptu riddles, shadowy hints. Maybe they could do a spirit walk through the area assuming no doors were closed but that brings its own hazards, like rousing slumbering dark spirits and warning the inhabitants, not to mention the risk that the caster gets their brains eaten.

Arcane Eye works pretty well in that situation. Or really any time you need to scout a location you can see.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586002Only in 2e.  Since the title of that section is "changes from 1e to 2e", it seems to imply that AD&D 1e did not require such a check.

Give credit where credit is due. I was arguing 2E, and he was correct as far as I can tell about the system shock RAW in 2E. The text in the PBH is definitely not clear, and the fact that people have been debating it for ages online reinforces that idea, but the FAQ is pretty blunt about it. So whether it is to be treated as a clarification or errata, I think it stands that RAW 2E Haste requires system shock.

Now I will say, I do find the remainder of his attitude mystifying. And as I even pointed out later, my original response to his question ("it depends") still stands with haste, even if I hadn't considered the implications of the aging fully. There will be times when it is a useful spell. And some players are more than willing to take a gamble with it once in a while if the recipient's CONs are high enough. He would argue that makes them idiots. I don't think it does. I think it means they are having a good time and willing to take a big risk to defeat certain foes.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586006Now I will say, I do find the remainder of his attitude mystifying. And as I even pointed out later, my original response to his question ("it depends") still stands with haste, even if I hadn't considered the implications of the aging fully. There will be times when it is a useful spell. And some players are more than willing to take a gamble with it once in a while if the recipient's CONs are high enough. He would argue that makes them idiots. I don't think it does. I think it means they are having a good time and willing to take a big risk to defeat certain foes.

5-20% to die instantly, otherwise get a minor buff. This fails a simple cost/benefit analysis.

Hell, 3.5 Haste which provides a minor benefit with no drawback beyond the action cost fails a cost/benefit analysis. There is not a single edition other than third in which Haste is good (and in that edition it's too good, so whatever).

The whole original point of this thread was rage about parties working against each other. Yet you are advocating exactly this?

Quote from: Mr. GC;5860075-20% to die instantly, otherwise get a minor buff. This fails a simple cost/benefit analysis.
?

It depends on the party's CON scores and what they are facing. In a given situation you will have specific characters and specific foes. Everyone will have specific CON scores. If you are dealing with a warrior who using a weapon he is specialized in (and therefore a higher number of attacks) in 2E, and facing a possible TPK, doubling his attacks may well be the edge you need. Not something I would label a minor buff. There are going to be times when I would definitely make that gamble.

If I estimate a 50% chance of a total party kill and know the fighters of the party each have a 5% of dying when I cast Haste, and believe that giving them extra attacks has a good chance of taking out the thing about to wipe out the party, you bet I will cast Haste.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586007The whole original point of this thread was rage about parties working against each other.

No, that wasn't the original point of this thread.  The original point to rant against players who feel like they need to compete and win even against the other players, and to act like they are super special and everyone should bow to their whim.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586007The whole original point of this thread was rage about parties working against each other. Yet you are advocating exactly this?

Personally I have no problem with character versus character violence if it is embraced by everyone at the table. But that isn't what I am advocating here. I am talking about casting a spell on a willing target who knows the risks. Not forcing it on party members who don't want it.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586009It depends on the party's CON scores and what they are facing. In a given situation you will have specific characters and specific foes. Everyone will have specific CON scores. If you are dealing with a warrior who using a weapon he is specialized in (and therefore a higher number of attacks) in 2E, and facing a possible TPK, doubling his attacks may well be the edge you need. Not something I would label a minor buff. There are going to be times when I would definitely make that gamble.

If I estimate a 50% chance of a total party kill and know the fighters of the party each have a 5% of dying when I cast Haste, and believe that giving them extra attacks has a good chance of taking out the thing about to wipe out the party, you bet I will cast Haste.

And when you're preparing spells at the beginning of the day, do you say "Hey, I think there's a 50% chance we all die today!" and your answer to that is not "Well fuck, I better kill whatever it is quickly." or "Screw this I'm staying at home." but is "Preparing Haste, which has at least a 5% chance of killing anyone it is cast on immediately sounds like the perfect way of preventing people from dying!"

I mean you were already kind of screwed when you signed up as the only Wizard in a Fighter heavy party. Let's not rub it in here.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586013And when you're preparing spells at the beginning of the day, do you say "Hey, I think there's a 50% chance we all die today!" and your answer to that is not "Well fuck, I better kill whatever it is quickly." or "Screw this I'm staying at home." but is "Preparing Haste, which has at least a 5% chance of killing anyone it is cast on immediately sounds like the perfect way of preventing people from dying!"

I mean you were already kind of screwed when you signed up as the only Wizard in a Fighter heavy party. Let's not rub it in here.

It depends on what spells I have access to and what I think we will be facing. I may wake up knowing we will face a deadly foe with a good chance of killing us. Depending on what spells I have to choose from, haste may be something I would memorize in such a situation. Generally I am not a big Haste spell person. But I wouldn't rule it out, or say you have to be an idiot to memorize it. Obviously I am going to memorize what I can to harm the opponent but having something that doubles attack, move and improves initiative for multiple characters is something I might want to have in my arsenal along with more damage oriented spells.

However, the what really determines what spells I memorize is my character. I will weigh my character's point of view, personality and character flaws when making spell selections. I am not just going to go down my check list of what every adventuring wizard of X level must memorize.

Oh dear. It's now jumping by ten pages of posts a day. I've seen this pattern before...
:duh:

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586018It depends on what spells I have access to and what I think we will be facing. I may wake up knowing we will face a deadly foe with a good chance of killing us. Depending on what spells I have to choose from, haste may be something I would memorize in such a situation. Generally I am not a big Haste spell person. But I wouldn't rule it out, or say you have to be an idiot to memorize it. Obviously I am going to memorize what I can to harm the opponent but having something that doubles attack, move and improves initiative for multiple characters is something I might want to have in my arsenal along with more damage oriented spells.

However, the what really determines what spells I memorize is my character. I will weigh my character's point of view, personality and character flaws when making spell selections. I am not just going to go down my check list of what every adventuring wizard of X level must memorize.

You still have to consciously decide in the morning killing your own party to prevent death is a good idea. And that makes certain other posters look coherent.

That said, once again. Discussing the actual play example I mentioned is far more interesting than establishing I know more about the old editions than those that favor them. That point has already been made, and rather than harp on it I keep trying to move on yet people insist on dwelling on this point anyways... mostly because it's easier to answer.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586025You still have to consciously decide in the morning killing your own party to prevent death is a good idea. And that makes certain other posters look coherent.

Spell casting comes with risks. If we are playi by the rule that haste requires system shock, and I have that spell, there will be times when I make the calculation that it is worth risking the lives of party members if I believe it improves their chances of surviving a really dangerous encounter.

QuoteThat said, once again. Discussing the actual play example I mentioned is far more interesting than establishing I know more about the old editions than those that favor them. That point has already been made, and rather than harp on it I keep trying to move on yet people insist on dwelling on this point anyways... mostly because it's easier to answer.

I am not really sure what you are trying to demonstrate to people with these kinds of claims. You may well know a lot about AD&D. i dont know the extent of your knowledge sonit is certainly possible you know as much or more than many who play that edition. However won't assume its encyclopedic just because you know the haste/aging rules.

 Personally I could care less where I measure up to other players in terms of rules knowledge about various games. I played 2E all through the 90s. Went back to 2E last year after a long stint with 3E and am well versed enough in the rules to play and run the game regularly. Since coming back to 2E, I have managed to find time to read the PHB and DMG completely through once each, and spent a good bit of time studying individual rules and sections as needed (and recenlty started plugging my way through the PhB again in the last couple of weeks). I would say I getting back to where I was in the 90s in terms of mastery of the system. But am not worried about being seen as "the master of the rules" or anything. All your question has shown me is there is a rule about haste I overlooked or forgot about and won't be using at my table anyways.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586000Fair enough. I am little cautious accepting this clarification as it comes from WOTC rather than from TSR, but this seems fair. I will cede the point that haste by raw as clarified by this FAQ page requires a system shock check. I don't think the original text was at all that clear, but this is pretty firm.

Except it was probably culled from the Sage Advice articles at some point, which were notoriously ill-considered much of the time (http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/showthread.php?t=72249).

Additionally, appeals to authority are especially untenable in regards to RPGs.  RAW means 'Rules As Written', not 'Rules As Explained By Someone Else Later Who Was Known To Mess With People Who Wrote In To Sage Advice'.  The Rules As Written are quite vague and allow for System Shock rolls for haste or not.  That's why we have DMs, to decide those kinds of things from one table to the next.  Blind adherence to RAW is just a walking Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Quote from: StormBringer;586053Except it was probably culled from the Sage Advice articles at some point, which were notoriously ill-considered much of the time (http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/showthread.php?t=72249).

Additionally, appeals to authority are especially untenable in regards to RPGs.  RAW means 'Rules As Written', not 'Rules As Explained By Someone Else Later Who Was Known To Mess With People Who Wrote In To Sage Advice'.  The Rules As Written are quite vague and allow for System Shock rolls for haste or not.  That's why we have DMs, to decide those kinds of things from one table to the next.  Blind adherence to RAW is just a walking Appeal to Authority fallacy.

I certainly agree this is an excellent example of why pure RAW is a bad idea and why the GM needs to be there to be the final judge on these things. It is also why I stated I would continue to play with haste not causing a system shock check at my table.

Some people have way too much time on their hands.

Quote from: One Horse Town;586073Some people have way too much time on their hands.

I honestly can't believe how much time I wasted on this thread today.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586059I certainly agree this is an excellent example of why pure RAW is a bad idea and why the GM needs to be there to be the final judge on these things. It is also why I stated I would continue to play with haste not causing a system shock check at my table.

For the reasons you listed earlier, I think this is a good call.  Haste isn't quite so powerful as to need additional penalties to its use, and it's just barely a mid-level spell.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586078I honestly can't believe how much time I wasted on this thread today.

Any  time we can show future generations that the Denners really don't know  what they are talking about can't be considered 'wasted time'.  ;)

Quote from: StormBringer;586080For the reasons you listed earlier, I think this is a good call.  Haste isn't quite so powerful as to need additional penalties to its use, and it's just barely a mid-level spell.

Exactly. I have heard people complain about haste, but personally I have never seen it present any problems in play. Rolling a system shock so you dont die from it seems pretty excessive to me given the spell's benefits. I can see why you need it for stuff like polymorph though.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586059I certainly agree this is an excellent example of why pure RAW is a bad idea and why the GM needs to be there to be the final judge on these things. It is also why I stated I would continue to play with haste not causing a system shock check at my table.

Lets just keep in mind that for these fucksticks, DM judgement is just having a magical tea party. If a book or some whack job designer doesn't say something is so then it isn't. Period.

Quote from: StormBringer;586053Additionally, appeals to authority are especially untenable in regards to RPGs.  RAW means 'Rules As Written', not 'Rules As Explained By Someone Else Later Who Was Known To Mess With People Who Wrote In To Sage Advice'.  The Rules As Written are quite vague and allow for System Shock rolls for haste or not.  That's why we have DMs, to decide those kinds of things from one table to the next.  Blind adherence to RAW is just a walking Appeal to Authority fallacy.

This is especially true for AD&D which clearly stated that the DM was the final authority: not the RAW, not the Sage Advice column, not some rules lawyer player, not some FAQ from the publisher, not some Fidonet Echo/ Usenet newsgroup/internet message area. How the somewhat vague Haste/System Shock rules in the rules were interpreted were a DM decision. Players who did not like a specific DM's final decision on this or any other rules or campaign issue were welcome to play elsewhere.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585988You expect us to believe that you lurked for over a month reading a thread that was explicitly about 3e and how it attracts asshole players and didn't feel the need to respond once.  But a few weeks later then decided to start posting prolifically?

That's pretty much how I approach new forums.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;586005Arcane Eye works pretty well in that situation. Or really any time you need to scout a location you can see.

Dude... Arcane Eye really doesn't work well in any level-appropriate situation.
It's completely countered by darkness or invisibility, only flies preprogrammed routes, and has to return to you to dump any info it does gather. In the meantime, basically anything that sees one is going to be able to bust it, and it's not great at hiding (because preprogrammed routes and good lighting).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586078I honestly can't believe how much time I wasted on this thread today.

These threads DO serve a valuable purpose...

Spoiler

...they allow me to easily update my ignore list.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586078I honestly can't believe how much time I wasted on this thread today.

I feel like I'm partially responsible, and I apologize for that.

Quote from: StormBringer;586080For the reasons you listed earlier, I think this is a good call.  Haste isn't quite so powerful as to need additional penalties to its use, and it's just barely a mid-level spell.

In the goldbox games, haste was THE 3rd level spell to learn ;)


And I don't recall any system shock rolls made in that game...

Well, in those gold box games, there was no reason to not repeatedly hire the 4th level fighter NPC with the +2 two-handed sword, throw him at monsters to die by his lonesome, and thereby stock up on +2 two-handed swords and the money you get for them.

So they're probably not the best model for AD&D in practice.

Any clarifications of 2e stuff in Ask the Sage was probably answered by Skip Williams, not Andy Collins, not that Skip William's answers were any better.

FWIW though I'm pretty sure the intent of the rule was that Haste causes System Shock rolls, to force the spell to be caste on the highest Con party member instead of the Elf Fighter/Mage casting it on himself constantly.

Quote from: RandallS;586088This is especially true for AD&D which clearly stated that the DM was the final authority: not the RAW, not the Sage Advice column, not some rules lawyer player, not some FAQ from the publisher, not some Fidonet Echo/ Usenet newsgroup/internet message area. How the somewhat vague Haste/System Shock rules in the rules were interpreted were a DM decision. Players who did not like a specific DM's final decision on this or any other rules or campaign issue were welcome to play elsewhere.

Or run their own campaigns. Yes.

...or to Leave The Hall.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586084Exactly. I have heard people complain about haste, but personally I have never seen it present any problems in play. Rolling a system shock so you dont die from it seems pretty excessive to me given the spell's benefits. I can see why you need it for stuff like polymorph though.

Definitely.  Otherwise you have Druids changing into all kinds of crazy stuff any time they want.  ;)

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;586110Any clarifications of 2e stuff in Ask the  Sage was probably answered by Skip Williams, not Andy Collins, not that  Skip William's answers were any better.

FWIW though I'm pretty sure the intent of the rule was that Haste causes  System Shock rolls, to force the spell to be caste on the highest Con  party member instead of the Elf Fighter/Mage casting it on himself  constantly.

That's what I mean, they usually just fucked with people who wrote in.

Quote from: RandallS;586088This is especially true for AD&D which  clearly stated that the DM was the final authority: not the RAW, not the  Sage Advice column, not some rules lawyer player, not some FAQ from the  publisher, not some Fidonet Echo/ Usenet newsgroup/internet message  area. How the somewhat vague Haste/System Shock rules in the rules were  interpreted were a DM decision. Players who did not like a specific DM's  final decision on this or any other rules or campaign issue were  welcome to play elsewhere.

This is too big for a t-shirt, but it needs to be seen by everyone who  wants to play any version of D&D, especially the early versions.  Or  any RPG, now that I think about it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586105In the goldbox games, haste was THE 3rd level spell to learn ;)

And I don't recall any system shock rolls made in that game...

Clearly, those games were broken MTPs lol!  Programmers didn't even know that Fighters were totally useless!  :)

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;586110Any clarifications of 2e stuff in Ask the Sage was probably answered by Skip Williams, not Andy Collins, not that Skip William's answers were any better.

FWIW though I'm pretty sure the intent of the rule was that Haste causes System Shock rolls, to force the spell to be caste on the highest Con party member instead of the Elf Fighter/Mage casting it on himself constantly.

That's what I mean, they usually just fucked with people who wrote in.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586030Spell casting comes with risks. If we are playi by the rule that haste requires system shock, and I have that spell, there will be times when I make the calculation that it is worth risking the lives of party members if I believe it improves their chances of surviving a really dangerous encounter.

Surely the wizard would discuss it with the rest of their party first before he memorizes it, though, rather than casting a spell on them that will age them and could even kill them?

Because PC's end up encountering a lot of evil spellcasters, and first time that the Wizard casts a spell and a team member dies, the Wizard is going to be facing some very awkward questions from his companions.

Quote from: Ladybird;586163Surely the wizard would discuss it with the rest of their party first before he memorizes it, though, rather than casting a spell on them that will age them and could even kill them?

Because PC's end up encountering a lot of evil spellcasters, and first time that the Wizard casts a spell and a team member dies, the Wizard is going to be facing some very awkward questions from his companions.

You call it 'awkward', I call it 'delightful'.  :)

I do remember how stunned I was by how much errata and rulings were involved in D&D 4e when I started playing last year. It was only out for 3 years and already had so much! So much so that when I asked whether I should buy the PHB (and buy all 3) I got the mind blowing answer a majority of the time that it was so out of date with current errata and rulings that I should use DDI instead.
:jaw-dropping:

Needless to say any flirtation I had with 4e died right there. Our perspectives on rpgs were diametrically opposed. And any utility I'd have with it as a tactics mini game was nulled by the competitive demands of the 4e community for the latest rulings. It was too much baggage and chaff for me to bother sifting through this late in my life. I already have my competitive games, thank you very much.

Looking through Purple Worm's compilation of 2e errata recently only cemented the 'through the looking glass' effect of that experience. It's surprisingly small considering the volume of published materials. (And it does leave me curious how much errata is out there for 1e.) And this recent talk brought all those (terrible, scarring :p) memories back. I just don't relate to playing that way.

Quote from: fectin;586094Dude... Arcane Eye really doesn't work well in any level-appropriate situation.
It's completely countered by darkness or invisibility, only flies preprogrammed routes, and has to return to you to dump any info it does gather. In the meantime, basically anything that sees one is going to be able to bust it, and it's not great at hiding (because preprogrammed routes and good lighting).

What edition are you talking about again. The 3.5 version creates a magical sensor like Scrying. Those sensors can only be found via Intelgence check and they can only be destroyed via Dispel Magic. What are you supposed to send to scout a rogue.

Quote from: d20 SRDArcane Eye
Divination (Scrying)
Level:Sor/Wiz 4
Components:V, S, M
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Range:Unlimited
Effect: Magical sensor
Duration:1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance:No
You create an invisible magical sensor that sends you visual information. You can create the arcane eye at any point you can see, but it can then travel outside your line of sight without hindrance. An arcane eye travels at 30 feet per round (300 feet per minute) if viewing an area ahead as a human would (primarily looking at the floor) or 10 feet per round (100 feet per minute) if examining the ceiling and walls as well as the floor ahead. It sees exactly as you would see if you were there.
 
The eye can travel in any direction as long as the spell lasts. Solid barriers block its passage, but it can pass through a hole or space as small as 1 inch in diameter. The eye can’t enter another plane of existence, even through a gate or similar magical portal.
 
You must concentrate to use an arcane eye. If you do not concentrate, the eye is inert until you again concentrate.
 
Material Component: A bit of bat fur.

Quote from: Ladybird;586163Surely the wizard would discuss it with the rest of their party first before he memorizes it, though, rather than casting a spell on them that will age them and could even kill them?

Because PC's end up encountering a lot of evil spellcasters, and first time that the Wizard casts a spell and a team member dies, the Wizard is going to be facing some very awkward questions from his companions.

Sure. I said earlier that i was talking about casting on a willing target.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586197Sure. I said earlier that i was talking about casting on a willing target.

Regardless of your bizarre willingness to cast spells that kill your party. Surely you can understand how casting spells that don't kill your party might be a better use of your limited resources. Or are you just going to commit a slot everyday to Haste on the off chance that casting a spell that kills your party is going to reduce your risk of TPK.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;586198Regardless of your bizarre willingness to cast spells that kill your party. Surely you can understand how casting spells that don't kill your party might be a better use of your limited resources. Or are you just going to commit a slot everyday to Haste on the off chance that casting a spell that kills your party is going to reduce your risk of TPK.

First let's be clear about one thing, i do not play using the rule that haste warrants a system shock check, nor have I ever played using that rule. So this is purely theoretical andhas never come up for me in play with haste.

That said, there is nothing bizarre about taking spells  that come with some risk to you or the party. Polymorph and teleport both have risks but their benefits make them a good choice in the right circumstances.

Whether or not I would ever memorize haste using the rule that it requires a system shock roll, would depend (as i have stated countless times) on what spells i have available, what foes and threats we are facing, the make up of the part and (most importantly of all) my character's personality and knowledge. I never suggested I would devote a spell slot every day to it. But I could envision a scenario where I wake up knowing we are about to face a very deadly threat and possibly a tpk, where my other options for that slot are not ideal for the situation (or I have enough slots for the level that taking haste as a last minute buffer isn't a big deal), where the characters acting fast and first is critical to survival. If that is the case, i might just memorize haste even with the system shock roll.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586200First let's be clear about one thing, i do not play using the rule that haste warrants a system shock check, nor have I ever played using that rule. So this is purely theoretical andhas never come up for me in play with haste.

You're not very good at "theoretical andhas" are you.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586200That said, there is nothing bizarre about taking spells  that come with some risk to you or the party. Polymorph and teleport both have risks but their benefits make them a good choice in the right circumstances.

2e polymorph also kills your party so you don't use that either. As for teleport in 2e it can randomly kill you because lol 2e. So you don't cast either of those spells. You're supposed to be helping the party not adding more lol random arbitrary death to a game already full of lol random arbitrary death.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;586201You're not very good at "theoretical andhas" are you.



2e polymorph also kills your party so you don't use that either. As for teleport in 2e it can randomly kill you because lol 2e. So you don't cast either of those spells. You're supposed to be helping the party not adding more lol random arbitrary death to a game already full of lol random arbitrary death.

You can use 2e polymorph and teleport offensively though...... I think the question you need to ask Brendan woudl be closer to if you had this list of spell and you were fighting / adventuring in each of these situations woudl you learn haste knowig it carries a system shock.

I suspect that in an standard adventure the answer would be no, but if the party know that today is the day that the Fighter is going to face the Archdemon Kerac in single combat to win security for the kingdom then a haste spell may be something that is useful. Likewise if haste is your only 4th (??) level spell then maybe its the one you learn even if you rarely actually cast it.
...and if you had to rescue the princess in 2 days and you knew she had been taken to a distant land you might well have to risk a teleport...

I understand your point. Some spells as written have downsides that are more than the value of the spell itself. This is largely because the game was not redesigned from the base up until 3e and it organically grew from oD&D through to 2e. Some rules are just quirks that were added due to a local issue at a local table and became enshrined or sounded like a good idea at 3rd level and just got rolled in as standards. A few spells in this category is nothing because it includes key elements like the Cleric class.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586197Sure. I said earlier that i was talking about casting on a willing target.

How do you rule "willing target"? Is the target willing to have any spell cast on them (Which is very dangerous for the castee...), or do you let targets pick and choose spell effects to accept (Which says something very interesting about magic in your world, and how much non-wizards understand about it)?

And if Brendan the Wizard offers to cast Haste on Ladybird the Fighter, and Ladybird says "Okay then", Brendan casts, and Ladybird fails an SS save and falls down dead... how does that look to the rest of the party?

(I'm not being pedantic, I'm genuinely interested. I like risk / reward elements and Seeing What Happens, so "here's a buff, but it might kill you" is a good trade - in the right circumstances. And Stormbringer's right, a "What The Fuck Brendan, why the fuck did Ladybird die, what the fuck did you cast? Are you posessed or something?" scene would be fun to play out.)

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;586201You're not very good at "theoretical andhas" are you.

I type on this forum soley from my ipdad, this should have read "and has".

Quote2e polymorph also kills your party so you don't use that either. As for teleport in 2e it can randomly kill you because lol 2e. So you don't cast either of those spells. You're supposed to be helping the party not adding more lol random arbitrary death to a game already full of lol random arbitrary death.

context is important. Specific scenarios matter. I am not arguing that teleport or haste are always the best choice, but that they can be the best choice for certain situations. When you memorize spells you often have an idea of what you will be facing that day. If you know you might need an exit strategy to avoid a tpk teleport even with the risk of death can be handy. There is also the fact that these are adventurers and they may be willing to take an occassional risk when it comes to spells that have consequences.  Get that you are opposed to random death on principle. Omeofus have no problem with stuff like this and think it adds flavor and excitement to the game. Teleport and polymorph are powerful spells, the risk of death is an important balancer in AD&D and one many people are willing to take on occassion. Your absolutism on this issue doesn't make much sense to me.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586030Spell casting comes with risks. If we are playi by the rule that haste requires system shock, and I have that spell, there will be times when I make the calculation that it is worth risking the lives of party members if I believe it improves their chances of surviving a really dangerous encounter.

And if you're casting a spell with any drawback, it had better be amazing or it doesn't get used. Haste does not qualify, so either you use Haste with no drawback or you do not use Haste.

QuoteI am not really sure what you are trying to demonstrate to people with these kinds of claims. You may well know a lot about AD&D. i dont know the extent of your knowledge sonit is certainly possible you know as much or more than many who play that edition. However won't assume its encyclopedic just because you know the haste/aging rules.

The default stance of these boards is:

If you don't know about older editions we don't give a fuck about you and will dismiss you out of hand even if not actually discussing those games at this time.
Only actual play matters, anything else is an OCD autist circle jerk.

So when I come in, show I know the older games better than those here, then try to talk about actual play and everyone ignores that over and over and over again in favor of some ignorance circle jerk about willfully misunderstanding the words coming out of my keyboard or sperging on about the Haste tangent it makes the entire fucking board look hypocritical.

So what I am trying to demonstrate is one of:

Almost the entire board is a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
The board can do what they say they will do and actually address the point.

Which of those is actually demonstrated is not my call.

Quote from: fectin;586094Dude... Arcane Eye really doesn't work well in any level-appropriate situation.
It's completely countered by darkness or invisibility, only flies preprogrammed routes, and has to return to you to dump any info it does gather. In the meantime, basically anything that sees one is going to be able to bust it, and it's not great at hiding (because preprogrammed routes and good lighting).

This is true. Arcane Eye, if cast would just give the enemy early warning as most of them have some means of detecting it. Still though, the party can get enough information simply because if you cast a divination that isn't of the alert enemy type, even vague information tells you what you need to know.

Saying "turns nature against you" and "Druid" is the same to any experienced player. And so on down the line.

===========================

Hello ladies. Look at your party. Now back to me. Now back at your party. Now back to me. Sadly, they aren't me. But if they stopped buffing each other to death and started playing smartly they could win D&D like me. Look down. Up. Where are you? You're on a boat! With the group your group could win like! What's in your hand? Back at me. I have it. It's the rulebooks filled with all the good spells. Look again. The rulebooks are now diamonds! Anything is possible when your party kills the enemies and not each other. I'm on a Cauchemar.

Quote from: Ladybird;586207How do you rule "willing target"? Is the target willing to have any spell cast on them (Which is very dangerous for the castee...), or do you let targets pick and choose spell effects to accept (Which says something very interesting about magic in your world, and how much non-wizards understand about it)?

And if Brendan the Wizard offers to cast Haste on Ladybird the Fighter, and Ladybird says "Okay then", Brendan casts, and Ladybird fails an SS save and falls down dead... how does that look to the rest of the party?

(I'm not being pedantic, I'm genuinely interested. I like risk / reward elements and Seeing What Happens, so "here's a buff, but it might kill you" is a good trade - in the right circumstances. And Stormbringer's right, a "What The Fuck Brendan, why the fuck did Ladybird die, what the fuck did you cast? Are you posessed or something?" scene would be fun to play out.)

This depends on the level of metgaming going on in one's group.

In my groups this sort of stuff we be dscussed by the party well before combat. "look i have a spell that might give us an edge by increasing everyone's speed, but it carries the risk of death. If everyone assents I can prepare it and cast it at on an agreed upon signal should it look like the battle isn't going our way"

That is if i am playing a character with a solid moral compass. A selfish bastard of a character might just cast haste or teleport to save his hide and not ask permission. In which case, you get the "what the fuck" scenario. But keep in mind, my group is role pay heavy. They expect me to play my character even if i puts me in skme conflict with them. The response wouldn't be "what the fuck brendan" but "what the fuck Pendrogast"

Quote from: Mr. GC;586210And if you're casting a spell with any drawback, it had better be amazing or it doesn't get used. Haste does not qualify, so either you use Haste with no drawback or you do not use Haste.

Nope, i think i will use haste if the circumstances or my character's personality warrant casting it. It is all very situation dependant. It might not be wise to memorize all the time but like I said if my spell choices for the slot are not idea, i know a tpk is likely given our mission or odds, speed is crucial to success, and more attacks could make a big difference, i might take the risk.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586211This depends on the level of metgaming going on in one's group.

In my groups this sort of stuff we be dscussed by the party well before combat. "look i have a spell that might give us an edge by increasing everyone's speed, but it carries the risk of death. If everyone assents I can prepare it and cast it at on an agreed upon signal should it look like the battle isn't going our way"

That is if i am playing a character with a solid moral compass. A selfish bastard of a character might just cast haste or teleport to save his hide and not ask permission. In which case, you get the "what the fuck" scenario. But keep in mind, my group is role pay heavy. They expect me to play my character even if i puts me in skme conflict with them. The response wouldn't be "what the fuck brendan" but "what the fuck Pendrogast"

Good post.

Most of my charaters probably wouldn't warn them first though. The lower classes have so little understandng of magic that its rarely worth trying to explain it  to them :)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586213Nope, i think i will use haste if the circumstances or my character's personality warrant casting it. It is all very situation dependant. It might not be wise to memorize all the time but like I said if my spell choices for the slot are not idea, i know a tpk is likely given our mission or odds, speed is crucial to success, and more attacks could make a big difference, i might take the risk.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586210Hello ladies. Look at your party. Now back to me. Now back at your party. Now back to me. Sadly, they aren't me. But if they stopped buffing each other to death and started playing smartly they could win D&D like me. Look down. Up. Where are you? You're on a boat! With the group your group could win like! What's in your hand? Back at me. I have it. It's the rulebooks filled with all the good spells. Look again. The rulebooks are now diamonds! Anything is possible when your party kills the enemies and not each other. I'm on a Cauchemar.

Because it needs repeating.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586210And if you're casting a spell with any drawback, it had better be amazing or it doesn't get used. Haste does not qualify, so either you use Haste with no drawback or you do not use Haste.



The default stance of these boards is:

If you don't know about older editions we don't give a fuck about you and will dismiss you out of hand even if not actually discussing those games at this time.
Only actual play matters, anything else is an OCD autist circle jerk.

So when I come in, show I know the older games better than those here, then try to talk about actual play and everyone ignores that over and over and over again in favor of some ignorance circle jerk about willfully misunderstanding the words coming out of my keyboard or sperging on about the Haste tangent it makes the entire fucking board look hypocritical.

So what I am trying to demonstrate is one of:

Almost the entire board is a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
The board can do what they say they will do and actually address the point.

Which of those is actually demonstrated is not my call.



This is true. Arcane Eye, if cast would just give the enemy early warning as most of them have some means of detecting it. Still though, the party can get enough information simply because if you cast a divination that isn't of the alert enemy type, even vague information tells you what you need to know.

Saying "turns nature against you" and "Druid" is the same to any experienced player. And so on down the line.

===========================

Hello ladies. Look at your party. Now back to me. Now back at your party. Now back to me. Sadly, they aren't me. But if they stopped buffing each other to death and started playing smartly they could win D&D like me. Look down. Up. Where are you? You're on a boat! With the group your group could win like! What's in your hand? Back at me. I have it. It's the rulebooks filled with all the good spells. Look again. The rulebooks are now diamonds! Anything is possible when your party kills the enemies and not each other. I'm on a Cauchemar.

See my earlier post.

There are 3 obvious cases when you might use Haste

i) You only have haste at that level so its learnt and a situation of die or use it turns up - this is affected by older school aproaches to spell acquisition
ii) There is a specific challenge known about in advance where the benefit of haste out weighs potential negatives in that specific case - like a trial by combat for example - this is affected by the style and approach to games
iii) Where the caster is a bit of a wanker and regards the loss of fighter or yet another shouty dwarf as a reasonable risk to take for the rewards on offer - this is affected by the level of role play, in "RPG as sports" to use Estar's terminology no its probably  not the most optimal choice but if you are playing Black Frank the evil wizard and the rest of the party are just blokes you met in a tavern a few weeks back , and you have a suitable exit strategy if things go tits up then yeah fucking give it a go

Quote from: Mr. GC;586216Because it needs repeating.

Okay. I didn't say anything about casting endless buffs. I said there can be times when having a spell like haste (even with a system shock check) will be a good choice and worth the risk. This is entirely dependant on circumstances of course.

Again when:

-tpk looks likely anyways
-other spells for the slot are not a good fit or you have plenty of room to work with
-speed is crucial to successs of the mission
-getting more attacks could turn the tide

Haste is a reasonable choice.

Haste is a powerful combat spell, but it ages you a year.

Most people would not want to lose a year of their life.


In my opinion, haste does not need a system shock roll.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586210So what I am trying to demonstrate is one of:

Almost the entire board is a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
The board can do what they say they will do and actually address the point.

Which of those is actually demonstrated is not my call.

You need to shut up. Maybe 10? posters have engaged with you in this thread. By all means throw your toys out of the pram, but keep these kinds of ridiculous claims to yourself.

Quote from: Bill;586219Haste is a powerful combat spell, but it ages you a year.

Most people would not want to lose a year of their life.


In my opinion, haste does not need a system shock roll.

If that was all it was you'd just spam Haste on demi humans and never use Haste on humans and call it a day. But it isn't. It's just one more way the game tries to horribly kill you. The only reason people aren't bothered by it is because they're already dying non stop anyways so what's one more death source, and many are just pretending they won't die at all.

But really though Haste is worthless in every edition but third. Prior to third, it kills you so you don't use it. After third, it barely does anything so you don't use it.

On third you Haste yourself because casters weren't strong enough already... :rolleyes: No edition has a balanced and reasonable Haste.

Now shut up about Haste already.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585996http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_FAQ.asp



I was actually looking for the exact odds of a system shock check as I suspected around 20% any given person dies at least but wanted to confirm. Instead I found something much better. Vampire. Staked. Burn.

I still call BS on that.  What, exactly, does WIZARDS, know about AD&D?  Buying it doesn't make you Gygax.

Quote from: Bill;586219Haste is a powerful combat spell, but it ages you a year.

Most people would not want to lose a year of their life.


In my opinion, haste does not need a system shock roll.

Definitely true but in a game where you don't really care about your character aging a year is no big deal... yeah so I am now 25 not 17 have I lost any stats no well then carry on....

In early games Haste was very powerful and 'roleplay' was less critical so they looked to nerf it and the system shock was a suitable nerf.

There is no in game logic to it. some powerful effects get nerfed with a system shock roll other effects that 'logically' might be more of a shock to the system do not require a roll.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586221If that was all it was you'd just spam Haste on demi humans and never use Haste on humans and call it a day. But it isn't. It's just one more way the game tries to horribly kill you. The only reason people aren't bothered by it is because they're already dying non stop anyways so what's one more death source, and many are just pretending they won't die at all.

But really though Haste is worthless in every edition but third. Prior to third, it kills you so you don't use it. After third, it barely does anything so you don't use it.

On third you Haste yourself because casters weren't strong enough already... :rolleyes: No edition has a balanced and reasonable Haste.

Now shut up about Haste already.

I would never use a systemshock roll for Haste, so its not a problem.
And...demihumans like their long lifespans.

Every group I have played dnd with in 1e/2e/3e/pathfinder uses haste.

Quote from: jibbajibba;586223Definitely true but in a game where you don't really care about your character aging a year is no big deal... yeah so I am now 25 not 17 have I lost any stats no well then carry on....

In early games Haste was very powerful and 'roleplay' was less critical so they looked to nerf it and the system shock was a suitable nerf.

There is no in game logic to it. some powerful effects get nerfed with a system shock roll other effects that 'logically' might be more of a shock to the system do not require a roll.

Well, players that do not roleplay in my games tend to die.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586009If I estimate a 50% chance of a total party kill and know the fighters of the party each have a 5% of dying when I cast Haste, and believe that giving them extra attacks has a good chance of taking out the thing about to wipe out the party, you bet I will cast Haste.

Particularly if the aging happens at the end of the spell, rather than the beginning. (And I honestly don't know, but that's how I would play it.)  Especially if resurrection is available.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;586191What edition are you talking about again. The 3.5 version creates a magical sensor like Scrying. Those sensors can only be found via Intelgence check and they can only be destroyed via Dispel Magic. What are you supposed to send to scout a rogue.

It only lasts 1 min/level.  How do you get all that scouting done in so short at time?  It specially says you can only view 100 feet per level.

Per the example, it would cost five of those levels just to get to the tower, unless you weren't looking at what was in between here and there.

It doesn't seem plausible that you'd learn this much information from this spell alone.

Plus, it's fourth level.  That's a pretty large investment.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586221It's just one more way the game tries to horribly kill you. The only reason people aren't bothered by it is because they're already dying non stop anyways so what's one more death source, and many are just pretending they won't die at all.

Right, because those monsters aren't also trying to kill you.

Quote from: The Butcher;585190And good riddance, I say.

Now how do we flush them out of WoW? I really hope someday I'll find a group that's not in a maddening hurry to clear every dungeon. I want to enjoy the scenery and poke around. :D

That's one of the things I hate about MMOs. Even Secret World, which FUCKING REWARDS YOU for poking around and discovering things always ends up with a group that wants to run it as if they're in a race, and always there's one or two people who are setting the pace by running ahead as fast as they can and aggroing everything in sight as quickly as possible.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586211This depends on the level of metgaming going on in one's group.

In my groups this sort of stuff we be dscussed by the party well before combat. "look i have a spell that might give us an edge by increasing everyone's speed, but it carries the risk of death. If everyone assents I can prepare it and cast it at on an agreed upon signal should it look like the battle isn't going our way"

That is if i am playing a character with a solid moral compass. A selfish bastard of a character might just cast haste or teleport to save his hide and not ask permission. In which case, you get the "what the fuck" scenario. But keep in mind, my group is role pay heavy. They expect me to play my character even if i puts me in skme conflict with them. The response wouldn't be "what the fuck brendan" but "what the fuck Pendrogast"

Yes, this exactly. We play the same way here.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586003It's called deductive reasoning.

...by some.  Carried too far, others call it 'metagaming'.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586003When the enemy is described as "turns nature against you" any experienced player automatically deduces "Druid" (the alternative, Ranger, is completely ignorable in 3.x and when the question that prompts this answer is something along the lines of what threats exist there, listing a Ranger as one is outright dishonest).

Why did you assume it was a humanoid?  What about a dryad, treant, etc?  Could be a swarm.  Or even a custom monster.

Assume too much at my table, and I'll change it on you, under your feet.

Dick move?  Yeah, maybe, but let's assume like-for-like and move on with the game.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586003Likewise, just knowing "a dragon" is there tells you much of what dragons do, and how to deal with that.

Your games assume every PC has a bestiary in his backpack.  Why is this?

Besides, 'dragon' means a lot of things.  From 'drake' to 'dinosaur', depending on the source.  And were it an actual dragon it could range from black to gold to Imperial.  You might not (gasp) even be expected to kill it.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586003Anything that even vaguely suggests psychic and out comes the anti mind affecting.

Many D&D games don't even include psychic features.  It was a bolt-on/add-on to each edition I've owned.  Not sure about 1st or 4th...

Quote from: Mr. GC;586003Something they've fought before and they know has insane melee attacks but no ranged ability = melee machine.

FFS, if you've fought it before then why are you scrying it?  "Yes, Jim, that's still Bill the Barbarian over there, he's still in your party, waiting for you to get done scrying.  Would you like to scry the tavern wench next, or can we get on with the adventure?"

Quote from: Mr. GC;586003Really, the divinations told them very little. It's just once you have that, you can easily extrapolate. You can easily predict and counter common tactics... and while they might do something uncommon, it might not work, etc you will still get further than you would otherwise by far.

If the party can predict and counter, why can't the GM?  Or rather, may you some day play under a GM that can...

You seem to be making an argument for the argument's sake alone.  It doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny very well.  Maybe this is why people seem to be 'dodging' it from your point of view.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586003The bad party could at most determine there was a dragon there but they couldn't actually do anything about it as even if they attacked while the dragon was gone they still lose horribly to the everything else. The only reason the first clue there's a psychic there is when the party starts murdering each other/the first clue there's melee machines about is when people start dying in one round in close combat/the first clue there's a shadow demon about is when he starts trolling the party to death is not a problem is because the party will likely die to the mooks before accomplishing any of their objectives and before encountering any of these.

Honestly, your bad party example sounds like a lot more fun to play than to spend thirty minutes of my real life time waiting for the cleric to get done stealing the limelight.

"LOL!  You got killed by a KOBOLD!  I told you Wizards shouldn't melee, dude.  Next time buy that crossbow.  This res is coming out of your share of the treasure..."

Quote from: Bill;586225Well, players that do not roleplay in my games tend to die.

Not uncommon to discourage players who's game style you don't like through GM fiat.

I tend to try and create an environment where roleplay is the norm and encourage them to participate but horses for courses.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586210The default stance of these boards is:

If you don't know about older editions we don't give a fuck about you and will dismiss you out of hand even if not actually discussing those games at this time.
Only actual play matters, anything else is an OCD autist circle jerk.

Some posters feel this way. I dont personally care if peope know about older editions or not. I questioned whether you had played because we have had a number of people posting criticisms of 1E and 2E but who have stated they are not familiar with the rules and haven't played. I jumped the gun on asking that in this case, and I admit as much.

Regarding autism or aspergers insults I have consistently said I dislike them. I dont think most peopple who throw the words around are trying to be malicious but I believe for people living with autism or who have autistic family members that kind of name calling is hurtful.

OCD as an insult doesn't bother me quite as much, because I have it myself and was diagnosed at an early age. To me it isn't a big deal and I can see the humor in stuff like monk.

You don't tug on Superman's cape.

You don't spit into the wind.

You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger
and you don't win at D&D....


Thats right

Yeah Mr. GC got his hat, find out where it's at and it's not hustlin' people strange to you. Even if you do got a big leatherbound book of RAW.

Quote from: jibbajibba;586233Not uncommon to discourage players who's game style you don't like through GM fiat.

I tend to try and create an environment where roleplay is the norm and encourage them to participate but horses for courses.

I encourage roleplay. It's when a player does not roleplay, and metagames excessively that I kill them off. Not immediately; I am quite forgiving.

Quote from: Bill;586237I encourage roleplay. It's when a player does not roleplay, and metagames excessively that I kill them off. Not immediately; I am quite forgiving.

Damn. You kill PLAYERS! Thats fucking hardcore man. :rotfl:

Quote from: Exploderwizard;586242Damn. You kill PLAYERS! Thats fucking hardcore man. :rotfl:

Like an OSR version of Dexter :)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586234Regarding autism or aspergers insults I have consistently said I dislike them. I dont think most peopple who throw the words around are trying to be malicious but I believe for people living with autism or who have autistic family members that kind of name calling is hurtful.

Speaking for myself, having a child with the condition, I'm used to it.  The normal person has no idea - read: no fucking clue - how deep the rabbit hole goes with this disorder.  And they genuinely never will.  And thank God for that, for their sakes.  So when people throw it around like an insult it just reads to me as self-labeling as an ignorant, ungrateful 'normal'.

Anyway, Brendan, don't fall for the trap of 'defending the board'.  If the complaint is genuinely an issue, let them challenge the comments as they are made, in context.  Or they can post elsewhere.  It's a big internet, there's lots of elsewhere.

To me it screams "I feel like an outsider" every time I see this complaint made, and when someone like you chimes in with a defense, it just spins off more whining and denial.

If you really feel like an outsider, I'd encourage you to try the normally accepted social methods of changing it.  Like, you know, conversation.

Quote from: jibbajibba;586243Like an OSR version of Dexter :)

Exaclty like Dexter. You don't know the woe and pain of having Bill as a GM. He even has a houserule that if you fail a system shock roll from polymorph or other magical effects, you must actually die (as a courtesy we are allowed to choose how). That is why I was so adamant in the debate with Mr. CG about Haste. It is literally a matter of life and death for me.

Quote from: Bill;586237I encourage roleplay. It's when a player does not roleplay, and metagames excessively that I kill them off. Not immediately; I am quite forgiving.

Wow and they call me an asshole DM.

So if you don't let players MTP their way to victory and make the mosters act like MOBs you're an asshole DM, but it's fine to kill off characters who make the people who are gimps feel small in the pants. That's some serious basketweaver entitlement you're spouting off there. I thought this forum was against player entitlement.

"I have repeatedly shown I know more about older editions than any of you."

"Really?  Here's something where you were objectively wrong.  And here's another.  And yet another.  Oh, and here's another.  Really, it seems like you just google'd 'haste' off of WoTCs board, because everything else you've said is objectively incorrect about older editions. "


1 hour later

"I have repeatedly shown I know more about older editions than any of you."




:idunno:

Look folks, at this point it's futile.  No wonder why they like to go into threads and say, "I win all of these discussions."  I imagine it's easy to think you're winning when you completely ignore all the actual factual data points that have proven you wrong.  It's sort of like arguing with the person who thinks the world is flat or that evolution is a myth.  Eventually you just have to shake your head and ignore them.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;586247Wow and they call me an asshole DM.

So if you don't let players MTP their way to victory and make the mosters act like MOBs you're an asshole DM, but it's fine to kill off characters who make the people who are gimps feel small in the pants. That's some serious basketweaver entitlement you're spouting off there. I thought this forum was against player entitlement.

:rolleyes:

What does the "RP" in "RPG" stand for?   If someone doesn't want to role-play at all, in an RPG, then they can go play a different game that's more fitting to their tastes.  If someone wants to play monopoly but refuses to buy any properties, I'm gonna tell them to leave and stop playing monopoly.

Quote from: mcbobbo;586244Speaking for myself, having a child with the condition, I'm used to it.  The normal person has no idea - read: no fucking clue - how deep the rabbit hole goes with this disorder.  And they genuinely never will.  And thank God for that, for their sakes.  So when people throw it around like an insult it just reads to me as self-labeling as an ignorant, ungrateful 'normal'.

Anyway, Brendan, don't fall for the trap of 'defending the board'.  If the complaint is genuinely an issue, let them challenge the comments as they are made, in context.  Or they can post elsewhere.  It's a big internet, there's lots of elsewhere.

To me it screams "I feel like an outsider" every time I see this complaint made, and when someone like you chimes in with a defense, it just spins off more whining and denial.

If you really feel like an outsider, I'd encourage you to try the normally accepted social methods of changing it.  Like, you know, conversation.

It's a separate topic but the board has become really closed off recently.
Most of the posts with a lot of hits are basically defences of Old School D&D. And despite Pundit's efforts to shill his own stuff it is begining to look like just another OSR forum.

Some of the "Denners" have quite logical arguments that deserve to be engaged with in conversation but name calling and various other immature ways of shutting everything down have become the norm. And the constant warring as noted in this very thread is just a bit pointless as there is no desire to find common ground.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586248Eventually you just have to shake your head and ignore them.

That's what the rest of us had been doing before you started this useless shitfest.

Quote from: jibbajibba;586250Some of the "Denners" have quite logical arguments that deserve to be engaged with in conversation but name calling and various other immature ways of shutting everything down have become the norm. And the constant warring as noted in this very thread is just a bit pointless as there is no desire to find common ground.

they have every right to post here if they want. And some of us have made efforts to engage in rational conversations. But there is vitriol on both sides and a lot of my own efforts to be reasonable have been met with mindless insults. This is a two way street. If denners want to be taken seriously, they would do well nt to strut around expecting to be recieved as super geniuses as they insult play styles and posters. We on the other hand would be better off if we read what they had to say and responded intelligently when appropriate (walls of text thiugh will get us nowhere), rather than name call or dismiss. My issue with the denners so far isn't their playstyle (as i said before i ran an optimized 3E campaign for years and had great fun because i adapt to my players), but their dissmisive attitude toward people who play older editions, have different balance / play expectations, or are less concerned about RAW. It is somewhat self defeating to be dismisive of the dener playstyle as well.

I think if the denners can become productive posters here it will be beneficial to the forum. My concern is too many of these threads are obsessing with the same basic topic (essentially they become clashes between the "dener" gaming philosophy and "therpgsite" gaming philosophy). These sorts of threads become so negative they are impossible to enjoy. I would much rather see respectful discussions where people exchange ideas rather than pummel one another with rhetoric (passion and wit are fine, but if people are just screaming at each other that isn't a discussion).

In terms of the forum being too OSR. I think its good that there a home here for that, but would personally love to see more diverse topics as well. The solution is to start interesting threads on non-osr games. Those are of interest to me, so i know i will post on them.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586252they have every right to post here if they want. And some of us have made efforts to engage in rational conversations. But there is vitriol on both sides and a lot of my own efforts to be reasonable have been met with mindless insults. This is a two way street. If denners want to be taken seriously, they would do well nt to strut around expecting to be recieved as super geniuses as they insult play styles and posters. We on the other hand would be better off if we read what they had to say and responded intelligently when appropriate (walls of text thiugh will get us nowhere), rather than name call or dismiss. My issue with the denners so far isn't their playstyle (as i said before i ran an optimized 3E campaign for years and had great fun because i adapt to my players), but their dissmisive attitude toward people who play older editions, have different balance / play expectations, or are less concerned about RAW. It is somewhat self defeating to be dismisive of the dener playstyle as well.

I think if the denners can become productive posters here it will be beneficial to the forum. My concern is too many of these threads are obsessing with the same basic topic (essentially they become clashes between the "dener" gaming philosophy and "therpgsite" gaming philosophy). These sorts of threads become so negative they are impossible to enjoy. I would much rather see respectful discussions where people exchange ideas rather than pummel one another with rhetoric (passion and wit are fine, but if people are just screaming at each other that isn't a discussion).

In terms of the forum being too OSR. I think its good that there a home here for that, but would personally love to see more diverse topics as well. The solution is to start interesting threads on non-osr games. Those are of interest to me, so i know i will post on them.

don't get me wrong Brendan I thimk you come out of the discussions very well.
I took like discussion backed up with thought.

ON the topic of playstyles I think that the emergence of a 'therpgsite' playstyle is probably a shame. the strength of the site, outside wild hyperbole on story games, was that all playstyles were welcome.

On the topic of other threads they do emerge and in terms of number of threads the Denner vs OSR probably only get 30% but in terms of posts they get 80%. So a thread about Super hero play might get 30 posts but a post on Why are wizards rubbish in D&D will get 300. But its the general threads that often become focus of the debate. So a thread on balance rarely touches Warfare versus Strength in Amber or the benefits of certain edges in SW and quickly settles down to why 1e D&D is the best game ever or why 3e fighters need more shit.

Quote from: CRKrueger;586251That's what the rest of us had been doing before you started this useless shitfest.

I started a rant about individual players feeling like they need to compete and win against other players.  That had nothing to do with edition or class v class, but a personality defect of an individual.   You can't blame me for them coming in and turning into yet another fvw thread.  Hell, LM even admitted that's what he does, over and over.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586252This is a two way street. If denners want to be taken seriously, they would do well nt to strut around expecting to be recieved as super geniuses as they insult play styles and posters. We on the other hand would be better off if we read what they had to say and responded intelligently when appropriate (walls of text thiugh will get us nowhere), rather than name call or dismiss.

This.

In fact, I'd wager that in any situation where you're entering a new peer group, strutting isn't the way to make friends.  They seem to only rise to fight, and in that way I do feel the 'invasion' label sticks.

Now, that might possibly be in response to bad treatment, but there have certainly been follow-up actions that validate that treatment.

Reflect away, for sure.  It's good.

But 'defend the board' is a trap.  It isn't meant to be conversation as it isn't possible.  Strawman by projection, if you will.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;586247Wow and they call me an asshole DM.

So if you don't let players MTP their way to victory and make the mosters act like MOBs you're an asshole DM, but it's fine to kill off characters who make the people who are gimps feel small in the pants. That's some serious basketweaver entitlement you're spouting off there. I thought this forum was against player entitlement.

Your example does not apply to my games at all.

I have players that are powergamers and roleplay.

Also, my players love my games, and that, is all that matters. Player enjoyment

Fortunately the people actually playing in my games get to decide if I am an asshole gm or not.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586257I started a rant about individual players feeling like they need to compete and win against other players.  That had nothing to do with edition or class v class, but a personality defect of an individual.   You can't blame me for them coming in and turning into yet another fvw thread.  Hell, LM even admitted that's what he does, over and over.

I think that you would have to agree that the implication in the original rant was that this was a feature of the 'New entitled player' as represented by the denner invasion not something that happened in the old days when we carved our own dice out of rocks.

In fact its always been there a spotlight hogging player is a spotlight hogging player. Competition between players is as old as the game.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;586242Damn. You kill PLAYERS! Thats fucking hardcore man. :rotfl:

Off topic, but,

You know, Dexter is a great example of an 'Evil' character that is playable.

He channels his urge to kill toward other evil people.

That can work in a player character group.

Quote from: jibbajibba;586261I think that you would have to agree that the implication in the original rant was that this was a feature of the 'New entitled player' as represented by the denner invasion not something that happened in the old days when we carved our own dice out of rocks.

In fact its always been there a spotlight hogging player is a spotlight hogging player. Competition between players is as old as the game.

I could see that, except for the posts when I said, "Paladin/Ranger in AD&D, Psionists in 2e,  ..."  I would hope that those statements would imply that it wasn't related to any Denner invasion, or any class in particular.

The problem that caused this thread to spiral was that as soon as I mentioned the word "wizard" in that group, they ignored all the rest and focused on a FvW topic all over again.

That, and GC making some really blatantly wrong things about older editions and how it was played while calling everyone else a retard.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586248"I have repeatedly shown I know more about older editions than any of you."

"Really?  Here's something where you were objectively wrong.  And here's another.  And yet another.  Oh, and here's another.  Really, it seems like you just google'd 'haste' off of WoTCs board, because everything else you've said is objectively incorrect about older editions. "


1 hour later

"I have repeatedly shown I know more about older editions than any of you."




:idunno:

Look folks, at this point it's futile.  No wonder why they like to go into threads and say, "I win all of these discussions."  I imagine it's easy to think you're winning when you completely ignore all the actual factual data points that have proven you wrong.  It's sort of like arguing with the person who thinks the world is flat or that evolution is a myth.  Eventually you just have to shake your head and ignore them.

What the hell GC made one claim about 2e and that was Haste fucking kills you and guess what Haste fucking kills you. You're the one claiming victory here and with far less reason. So yeah you guys are the creationists here.

Quote from: jibbajibba;586256don't get me wrong Brendan I thimk you come out of the discussions very well.
I took like discussion backed up with thought.

ON the topic of playstyles I think that the emergence of a 'therpgsite' playstyle is probably a shame. the strength of the site, outside wild hyperbole on story games, was that all playstyles were welcome.

On the topic of other threads they do emerge and in terms of number of threads the Denner vs OSR probably only get 30% but in terms of posts they get 80%. So a thread about Super hero play might get 30 posts but a post on Why are wizards rubbish in D&D will get 300. But its the general threads that often become focus of the debate. So a thread on balance rarely touches Warfare versus Strength in Amber or the benefits of certain edges in SW and quickly settles down to why 1e D&D is the best game ever or why 3e fighters need more shit.

Part of that is people like a good internet fight. Look at the 5E threads on Enworld, all the high view/post threads have flamewar tags next to them. It is probably no different here. You beat it by volume. Start more threads about other topics and post on them more often. I just started a zombie apocalypse thread for that purpose.

As someone who usually plays other games that are not D&D, i welcome such discussions. I will try to contibute threads myself as well. We have a monthly one shot in my group for new or unusual rpgs so I may start posting about it regularly in the actual play forum.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586257I started a rant about individual players feeling like they need to compete and win against other players.  That had nothing to do with edition or class v class, but a personality defect of an individual.   You can't blame me for them coming in and turning into yet another fvw thread.  Hell, LM even admitted that's what he does, over and over.

Dude, do you even read these threads?  Fighter v. Wizard?
1. 3e RAW is unbalanced concerning FvW. Period.
2. Most of the Denners admit to never even reading 1e, let alone 2e.

So what do these threads come down to?
1. Whether or not you play RAW or assume the GM is going to make adjustments as need be.
2. There are (sometimes significant) differences between D&D editions.

Pure Edition/Culture War on the CharOp Front, Entitled Special Snowflake Spotlight Front, and the Mother May I Front, all fought from the two soapboxes of Rebel Without A Clue vs. Get Off My Lawn.

Again, WTF did you think was going to happen?  There are some cool, sane people on this site.  Going to batshit fucking crazy sites, seeing shit that pisses you off, coming here to bitch about it which summons those batshit crazy fuckers here isn't a way to reward the sane posters.  Really, it isn't.

Quote from: mcbobbo;586259This.

In fact, I'd wager that in any situation where you're entering a new peer group, strutting isn't the way to make friends.  They seem to only rise to fight, and in that way I do feel the 'invasion' label sticks.

Now, that might possibly be in response to bad treatment, but there have certainly been follow-up actions that validate that treatment.

Reflect away, for sure.  It's good.

But 'defend the board' is a trap.  It isn't meant to be conversation as it isn't possible.  Strawman by projection, if you will.

I think Sett has the measure of it when he pointed out that the Denners come armed with logical analysis and a refusal to consider play style or wider game context but they are met with dismissive romanticism and a constant rebutal of 'not at my game table' or 'if a rule is broke just fix it'.

Take this debate on haste. The reality is running haste as written with a system shock roll is probably unnecessary and probably nerfs the spell too much. But even the eloquent and reasonable Brendan has been dragged into refending it from a OSR perspective.
Bill's reply that haste doesn't need a SS is more than adequate. Admitting that there is a spell that carries baggage for historical reasons that should be cleared up is all that really needs be said. But instead the denners attack 2e (and previous) for being full of such anomolies and everyone else says 'not at my game table' or 'if a rule is broke just fix it'.

The only way to fix it is to kill everyone and start again

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;586266What the hell GC made one claim about 2e and that was Haste fucking kills you and guess what Haste fucking kills you. You're the one claiming victory here and with far less reason. So yeah you guys are the creationists here.

You're arguing this on too strong a pedestal, as has been pointed out to you already.

Haste might kill you, if:

1) You fail the check
2) The check rule is enforced in the first place
3) The GM doesn't hand-waive away the failure by fiat

You might remember, the concept of RAW is a new one.  Prior to internet message boards, a lot of people used custom rules in games and didn't think anything of it.  Like 'Free Parking' money in Monopoly, customizing your game was usually either a neutral or even a good thing to do.

In short, you're viewing 2e rules through a 3.5e lens and are upset that no one else is doing likewise.  But back in that day, this opinion would have been in the minority.  Even today, the 'RAW rules all' concept is only maybe a 50/50 split, from what I've seen.  It varies by game and forum, to be sure, but that 'debate' is very, very, very easy to find.  And there's a reason for that.

Quote from: Bill;586224I would never use a systemshock roll for Haste, so its not a problem.
And...demihumans like their long lifespans.

Every group I have played dnd with in 1e/2e/3e/pathfinder uses haste.

That just proves the groups are stupid.

1st/2nd: Would actually be worth casting if not for the aging/randomly dying thing. Since that is there you don't use it because if you wanted to kill your party you'd cast Fireball, centered on yourself. It'd be about as productive, and far more amusing.

3.5: The only meaningful benefit is extra attack on a full attack. The only things you get to full attack in a 3.5 game is the things that let you full attack them... and they are letting you full attack them because first, they will full attack you, and then you will not survive to full attack back.

If you have Pounce, you also don't need the extra attack to kill anything and if you did you already have it from Whirling Frenzy anyways.

PF: Exactly like 3.5, except that non casters are significantly worse and therefore something that only provides a meaningful benefit to them is also significantly worse.

3rd: Casters spam Haste on themselves so they can double cast because we needed them even stronger right? Haste is not cast on non casters at all.

Quote from: mcbobbo;586227It only lasts 1 min/level.  How do you get all that scouting done in so short at time?  It specially says you can only view 100 feet per level.

Per the example, it would cost five of those levels just to get to the tower, unless you weren't looking at what was in between here and there.

It doesn't seem plausible that you'd learn this much information from this spell alone.

Plus, it's fourth level.  That's a pretty large investment.

As I said, Arcane Eye is actually a bad spell in this example and kind of is in general. There are good spells available though and that is what counts.

Quote from: mcbobbo;586228Right, because those monsters aren't also trying to kill you.

Yes, exactly. You already have to worry about your enemies, why add your allies to the list of things trying to kill you? It already contains the door, the floor, the walls, the ceiling, everything in the room, the room itself...

Seriously, why the hell do you think enemies like cloakers/mimics/gelatinous cubes even exist, if not to make every single thing you encounter a potential source of death?

Quote from: mcbobbo;586231...by some.  Carried too far, others call it 'metagaming'.

Because a spellcaster would not know how spells work and determine what other types of spellcasters are capable of doing?

QuoteWhy did you assume it was a humanoid?  What about a dryad, treant, etc?  Could be a swarm.  Or even a custom monster.

Assume too much at my table, and I'll change it on you, under your feet.

Dick move?  Yeah, maybe, but let's assume like-for-like and move on with the game.

A dryad is basically a non human Druid. There'd also have to be a tree around, which since the place was described as a swamp isn't fucking likely. A treant actually is a tree, so that's even less likely.

Just because you are an asshole that shuts down deductive reasoning and intelligent decision making doesn't mean it isn't a good idea, or that you shouldn't just blindly blunder into whatever scenario is up next.

QuoteYour games assume every PC has a bestiary in his backpack.  Why is this?

Besides, 'dragon' means a lot of things.  From 'drake' to 'dinosaur', depending on the source.  And were it an actual dragon it could range from black to gold to Imperial.  You might not (gasp) even be expected to kill it.

Gee, let me think...

Party fights dragon.

Dragon one rounds anyone it targets with an attack.

Party is informed they will fight a dragon.

Party expects more of the same.

Also, Knowledge checks, or just making a common sense check that anything large can probably beat the fuck out of you in close combat and since it's a dragon, everywhere is close combat.

The actual color of the dragon does not really matter as that only changes breath weapon type and the minor other abilities... in 3.x the breath weapons are useless, and the other abilities don't become significant until much higher levels.

QuoteMany D&D games don't even include psychic features.  It was a bolt-on/add-on to each edition I've owned.  Not sure about 1st or 4th...

Illithids do not exist in D&D? Really?

QuoteFFS, if you've fought it before then why are you scrying it?  "Yes, Jim, that's still Bill the Barbarian over there, he's still in your party, waiting for you to get done scrying.  Would you like to scry the tavern wench next, or can we get on with the adventure?"

I realize like most here, reading comprehension is not your strong subject. As you are at least attempting to address my points I shall give you the benefit of the doubt.

You fight a creature. It beats the hell out of you in close range but has no ranged ability.
You learn some more of those guys are here.
You expect more of the same.

QuoteIf the party can predict and counter, why can't the GM?  Or rather, may you some day play under a GM that can...

You seem to be making an argument for the argument's sake alone.  It doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny very well.  Maybe this is why people seem to be 'dodging' it from your point of view.

Sure, once the enemies are aware of the party they can start predicting and countering their tactics. This is why good parties don't let them and kill them in the manner I described, whereas bad parties end up dying to the mooks before even learning there are greater threats that they must face.

Of course your idea of predict and counter is "Oh, I'll show you by retroactively changing the encounter!" and not by having the enemies there do stuff within the world to alter circumstances in their favor.

My idea of predict and counter is "Oh, you're using that powerful healing item to spam Heal in front of the dragon?" *disarm* You are now fighting a self healing dragon. Enjoy.

QuoteHonestly, your bad party example sounds like a lot more fun to play than to spend thirty minutes of my real life time waiting for the cleric to get done stealing the limelight.

So your idea of a good time is sailing into an unknown situation, getting caught in a death trap, then slowly being killed off without doing much of anything or even knowing what all you were supposed to do or could have done here?

That's nice and all, but the rest of us like being successful and not monster food.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586234Some posters feel this way. I dont personally care if peope know about older editions or not. I questioned whether you had played because we have had a number of people posting criticisms of 1E and 2E but who have stated they are not familiar with the rules and haven't played. I jumped the gun on asking that in this case, and I admit as much.

Regarding autism or aspergers insults I have consistently said I dislike them. I dont think most peopple who throw the words around are trying to be malicious but I believe for people living with autism or who have autistic family members that kind of name calling is hurtful.

OCD as an insult doesn't bother me quite as much, because I have it myself and was diagnosed at an early age. To me it isn't a big deal and I can see the humor in stuff like monk.

I've long since stopped caring about people saying mean things on the internet regardless of if it's [long chain of mental disorders], fuck you and suck a barrel of cocks, go run in front of a bus...

At the same time, if that's all someone has to say it's safe to just ignore them entirely. In any case you're at least attempting to be reasonable, so that's good.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586252they have every right to post here if they want. And some of us have made efforts to engage in rational conversations. But there is vitriol on both sides and a lot of my own efforts to be reasonable have been met with mindless insults. This is a two way street. If denners want to be taken seriously, they would do well nt to strut around expecting to be recieved as super geniuses as they insult play styles and posters. We on the other hand would be better off if we read what they had to say and responded intelligently when appropriate (walls of text thiugh will get us nowhere), rather than name call or dismiss. My issue with the denners so far isn't their playstyle (as i said before i ran an optimized 3E campaign for years and had great fun because i adapt to my players), but their dissmisive attitude toward people who play older editions, have different balance / play expectations, or are less concerned about RAW. It is somewhat self defeating to be dismisive of the dener playstyle as well.

The funny thing is that I'm being labeled in the Denner category. And that's another thing. Anyone new to these boards that doesn't agree with the general mentality is a Denner. Even if they don't actually post on the Den or if, like me they do post there but don't really identify with them either.

As for me, I stopped playing older editions because I eventually realized suicide shuffling was bad design and that actual roleplaying was impossible when 90% of the characters you made would be dead in 1-2 encounters anyways so you pretty much had to treat it like a board game or an arcade game where people are just constantly joining and leaving.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;586266What the hell GC made one claim about 2e and that was Haste fucking kills you and guess what Haste fucking kills you. You're the one claiming victory here and with far less reason. So yeah you guys are the creationists here.

ahem.

Quote from: meI imagine it's easy to think you're winning when you completely ignore all the actual factual data points that have proven you wrong.

Folks, this is what I was referring to.  If you look to your left you will see the Denner completely ignore things like when GC said:

* 1 HD monsters have +4 or +5 to hit
* you have to kill hundreds of monsters to level up in AD&D
* If you didn't play with the SS rule for haste, that proves you never actually played AD&D
* including in how often a character gets hit in the context of combat survivability was irrelevant and dishonest.

and several others.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272The funny thing is that I'm being labeled in the Denner category. And that's another thing. Anyone new to these boards that doesn't agree with the general mentality is a Denner. Even if they don't actually post on the Den or if, like me they do post there but don't really identify with them either.

As for me, I stopped playing older editions because I eventually realized suicide shuffling was bad design and that actual roleplaying was impossible when 90% of the characters you made would be dead in 1-2 encounters anyways so you pretty much had to treat it like a board game or an arcade game where people are just constantly joining and leaving.

Okay only a certain sort of hyper rationalised pro 3e new poster gets labelled a denner. Frank trollman himself has had an accoutn here for years and oddly most people wouldn't actually think of him as a denner. I am usually a discenting voice on a number of topics but no one woudl call me a denner either.  So yes it is an in exactly applied title but it only applies to a subset of those who do not agree with the prevailing group think.

Whilst I agree with some of your analysis I can not agree with your conclusion. Old versions of D&D do rely on luck to a degree but there are ways of adding to your odds and roleplaying in a world where things are more dangerous and possibly 'real' is more of a challenge rather than less. You can play low level D&D and avoid all combat and still progress for example.

Anyone who has 90% of their characters dying in 1-2 encounters in ANY edition should really evaluate what the hell they are doing, or what the hell the DM is doing.  Seeing as how hundreds of thousands of players managed just fine for decades tells me that it isn't a game design issue.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586257I started a rant about individual players feeling like they need to compete and win against other players.  That had nothing to do with edition or class v class, but a personality defect of an individual.   You can't blame me for them coming in and turning into yet another fvw thread.  Hell, LM even admitted that's what he does, over and over.

Bitch, please.

You made a baiting thread.
People took the bait.
You then tried to act innocent as if baiting wasn't your intention.

Let me guess, you go into biker bars, start shit then get mad and play the victim when you get knocked the fuck out?

I only post in threads relevant to my interests. I don't really care about random systems with 10 players total when you need several in the same group just to play them at all.

Who the fuck do you think you're fooling?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586273ahem.



Folks, this is what I was referring to.  If you look to your left you will see the Denner completely ignore things like when GC said:

* 1 HD monsters have +4 or +5 to hit
* you have to kill hundreds of monsters to level up in AD&D
* If you didn't play with the SS rule for haste, that proves you never actually played AD&D
* including in how often a character gets hit in the context of combat survivability was irrelevant and dishonest.

and several others.

I reiterate: Who the fuck do you think you're fooling?

What I actually said was that enemies you fight at level 1 have +4 or +5 to hit, and then I later pointed out those are the typical numbers and you actually can hit +10 or even +15. I didn't say anything about HD, but every example I was thinking of also had 1 HD.
Level 1 enemies give about 40 XP each, you need 2,000ish to level and XP is split 4 ways. Oh Mighty Master of Math, explain to us how 10 * 200 does not equal 2,000 and how two hundred is not hundreds, plural, and when you're done with that why don't you call hundreds of thousands a greater number than millions!
System shock rules are near the beginning of the book. It's a good metric to telling if anyone even knows and understands the rules. Whether they use those rules, or ignore them because it's not convenient while bitching about dirty rotten powergamers ignoring rules that are also not convenient is irrelevant.
There is no such thing as half a hit, or a quarter hit, or any other such nonsense. It either hits you or it does not hit you.

So in a situation in which creature A has 100% accuracy, 10 damage, and 20 HP, and creature B has 50% accuracy, 20 damage, and 10 HP and B goes first here is the correct sequence of events:

B takes an action. 50% chance A dies, 50% chance he misses and A lives.
A takes an action. 100% chance B dies, but as there is only a 50% chance A survived long enough to get a turn the result is:

50% A wins.
50% B wins.

If you are a pants on head retard like Sacro, you think it goes like this:

B takes an action. He always does 10 damage, A never dies.
A takes an action. B dies.

100% A wins.
0% B wins.

If you are a pants on head retard like Sacro, you deliberately misinterpret the deliberately very simplified example to mean something it doesn't, or make claims about it that aren't true such as it being "1st level" when this example was deliberately made level and system agnostic specifically to counter sperglords like him. And yes I am deliberately using that word as an insult. He has no grasp of subtlety or context. That's a classic tell.

If you aren't, you realize the point is that weighted averages are intellectually dishonest and that this example does an excellent job of demonstrating how.

Not only is he wrong, but he continues to post the same wrong things after being shown my multiple people how and why it was wrong to begin with.


Like I said, like arguing with someone who thinks evolution is a myth, or at this point, like those people who think dinosaurs were a government plant by liberals and never existed.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272*snip*

As for me, I stopped playing older editions because I eventually realized suicide shuffling was bad design and that actual roleplaying was impossible when 90% of the characters you made would be dead in 1-2 encounters anyways so you pretty much had to treat it like a board game or an arcade game where people are just constantly joining and leaving.

Seriously? You never played with a competent dm?

I have gmd and played in more 1e/2e games than I can remember, and NEVER did 90 percent of the characters die in 1-2 sessions. 1 death in 10-20 sessions...maybe.

You were a victim of a gm that was either a novice, a sadist, or an idiot.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272The funny thing is that I'm being labeled in the Denner category. And that's another thing. Anyone new to these boards that doesn't agree with the general mentality is a Denner. Even if they don't actually post on the Den or if, like me they do post there but don't really identify with them either.

Jibba answered this pretty well so I wont go into any detail.

QuoteAs for me, I stopped playing older editions because I eventually realized suicide shuffling was bad design and that actual roleplaying was impossible when 90% of the characters you made would be dead in 1-2 encounters anyways so you pretty much had to treat it like a board game or an arcade game where people are just constantly joining and leaving.

That is fair. You should play what you like. It is when you insist anyone who likes older editions is an idiot or wrong that I take issue. If you don't like AD&D for any reason, then that is fine by me.

Also it isn't as black and white here as it seems. Many of us play AD&D but also play new games or even new editions of D&D. In my case I played 3E for years and only went back to 2E about a year and half or two years ago. I had played 2E from its release to the late 90s but picked up 3e when it came out. When 3.5 came out I bought all the books as well. During that period I ran Ravenloft d20 and my own homebrew setting. When 4E was released, i wasnt impressed and left in search of other things. i had always played other games aside from D&D fairly regularly but really started to shift to stuff like Savage Worlds and my own system. Then I decided to run Ravenloft 2E because I am a fan of the setting and had some of my old 2E ravenloft material. Immediately I noticed it offered a style of play that had been missing in all of my 3E ravenloft games (whenever i ran ravenloft 3e it never felt quite right to me). So i shifted back to 2E for my D&D fix but continued to play other modern games. Most of the time I do not play D&D anymore. At the moement i am in an every other week 1E campaign run by bill, and am prepping a 2E game for my cousin and her friends, but usually I am running Servants of Gaius (or one of our other network games) playing savage worlds or participating in our sunday one shots of new systems.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272That just proves the groups are stupid.

If, and only if, there is any reasonable expectation of death.  You are aware of this position, but you keep behaving like you aren't.

Quote from: Mr. GC;5862721st/2nd: Would actually be worth casting if not for the aging/randomly dying thing. Since that is there you don't use it because if you wanted to kill your party you'd cast Fireball, centered on yourself. It'd be about as productive, and far more amusing.

This might be true in 2nd, if you played it like 3rd.  But almost certainly isn't in 1st due to the only RAW support being a FAQ entry about the changes from 1st to 2nd.

You're arguing just to argue, as evidenced by your unwillingness to adapt to even the slightest point of view change.  Try it some time.  It won't kill you, and might earn you some friends.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272Seriously, why the hell do you think enemies like cloakers/mimics/gelatinous cubes even exist, if not to make every single thing you encounter a potential source of death?

You get that I'm okay with this, right?  It is a game of danger, and death is a part of that.  It's the entire point of combat, for example.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272Because a spellcaster would not know how spells work and determine what other types of spellcasters are capable of doing?

You clearly know enough about gaming to understand the context, and I'm not going to justify this intellectual dishonesty with a response.  Sorry.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272A dryad is basically a non human Druid. There'd also have to be a tree around, which since the place was described as a swamp isn't fucking likely. A treant actually is a tree, so that's even less likely.

Likely is a factor that should be viewed from your character's eyes.  Not your own.

You've been making a lot of arguments based on intellectual superiority.  Let's put that to the test.  Click this link and tell me how long it takes you to determine whether or not a swamp actually has trees in it:

https://www.google.com/search?q=swamp&tbm=isch

When you're done, I think you owe some folks an apology.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272Just because you are an asshole that shuts down deductive reasoning and intelligent decision making doesn't mean it isn't a good idea, or that you shouldn't just blindly blunder into whatever scenario is up next.

You just argued that swamps do not contain trees, and I'm the asshole?  I think you're getting carried away.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272The actual color of the dragon does not really matter as that only changes breath weapon type and the minor other abilities... in 3.x the breath weapons are useless, and the other abilities don't become significant until much higher levels.

Breathe.  Your brain needs more oxygen.  You honestly can't think of a single other factor under the chromatic dragon system that would dictate how the scenario would play out?  I'm going to keep you in suspense on this one, I think.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272I realize like most here, reading comprehension is not your strong subject. As you are at least attempting to address my points I shall give you the benefit of the doubt.

Ehem.

Trees in swamps.

Insult denied.  Please try again.  Or don't, actually.  You're not very good at it, and I'm sure are capable of better post content.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272Sure, once the enemies are aware of the party they can start predicting and countering their tactics. This is why good parties don't let them and kill them in the manner I described, whereas bad parties end up dying to the mooks before even learning there are greater threats that they must face.

You're still setting up a double standard where the players use metagame knowledge but the GM does not.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272Of course your idea of predict and counter is "Oh, I'll show you by retroactively changing the encounter!" and not by having the enemies there do stuff within the world to alter circumstances in their favor.

Nope. That's actually what I'd usually do.  I only use the big guns when they're necessary.  Metagame on me, and I metagame on you, because you'll stop as soon as it dawns on you that I'm in the driver's seat.  IME, anyway.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272So your idea of a good time is sailing into an unknown situation, getting caught in a death trap, then slowly being killed off without doing much of anything or even knowing what all you were supposed to do or could have done here?

That's nice and all, but the rest of us like being successful and not monster food.

Yeah, in fact it is.  It's called adventure, and there's risk involved.  Your style of play limits the risks to the point where success is almost assured, and I find that amaturish.  Rather like fishing with dynamite.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272I've long since stopped caring about people saying mean things on the internet regardless of if it's [long chain of mental disorders], fuck you and suck a barrel of cocks, go run in front of a bus...

At the same time, if that's all someone has to say it's safe to just ignore them entirely. In any case you're at least attempting to be reasonable, so that's good.

Again, you just told the guy being nice to you to go fuck off.  And then you'll cry that you're an outsider.

That's anti-social, dude.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272The funny thing is that I'm being labeled in the Denner category. And that's another thing. Anyone new to these boards that doesn't agree with the general mentality is a Denner. Even if they don't actually post on the Den or if, like me they do post there but don't really identify with them either.

I've caught that label myself from time to time, so I can empathize.  But then again you just told Brendan to fuck off and argued that swamps do not contain trees.  So...

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272As for me, I stopped playing older editions because I eventually realized suicide shuffling was bad design and that actual roleplaying was impossible when 90% of the characters you made would be dead in 1-2 encounters anyways so you pretty much had to treat it like a board game or an arcade game where people are just constantly joining and leaving.

Without fiat, you'd be right.  But once again, in older editions, fiat was in the rulebook.

Quote from: jibbajibba;586277Okay only a certain sort of hyper rationalised pro 3e new poster gets labelled a denner. Frank trollman himself has had an accoutn here for years and oddly most people wouldn't actually think of him as a denner. I am usually a discenting voice on a number of topics but no one woudl call me a denner either.  So yes it is an in exactly applied title but it only applies to a subset of those who do not agree with the prevailing group think.

Whilst I agree with some of your analysis I can not agree with your conclusion. Old versions of D&D do rely on luck to a degree but there are ways of adding to your odds and roleplaying in a world where things are more dangerous and possibly 'real' is more of a challenge rather than less. You can play low level D&D and avoid all combat and still progress for example.

You are also not a new poster. One of the criteria is being a new poster. Frank himself is not a new poster, and I'd imagine at the time he was the only person from the Den posting here. Denner is a label for a group. Why have a group of one person?

In order for play to not be luck based the player must have the means and ability to make intelligent, informed choices and have those choices influence the outcome. At least one person here has admitted already they'd go out of their way to shut that down.

Go take a look at your older edition books and I mean really look. There's entire enemies, and entire enemy types that only exist for fucking with you and turning something that was normally harmless into yet another thing trying to kill you. They invented monsters such as the Cloaker, the Mimic, and the Gelatinous Cube which literally amount to everything in the room trying to kill you including the room itself.

Then you look at the items and for every 1-2 designed to help you in some way there is 1 that looks just like the others and passes off as them until it actually counts... and then it kills you.

The game itself goes out of its way to shut down deductive reasoning, logic, and intelligent play.

Contrast to say... 3.5.

You can deduce very quickly that dragons will beat the hell out of you. Perhaps not every dragon will fight, but those you are fighting you'd better kill quickly or they will kill you quickly. There's not any enemies that look just like them but are actually easy kills, and while some dragons can assume a less harmful seeming form there are also means of countering that and realizing that you are, in fact dealing with a dragon.

At low levels play is pure luck based because everyone, from the Wizard to the Fighter to the Dwarf Barbarian who is raging die in 1-2 hits and can't really do anything about it but beyond that you get enough HP and abilities so that choices matter, decisions matter, play matters.

And so there is a remarkable difference between the party that gets even a general idea of what they are facing, extrapolates the rest then has the means and methods of dealing with all the common expected threats that means and some general purpose stuff to round it out and the party that thinks Leeroy Jenkins is a good rolemodel only to find to their dismay they don't just respawn as a ghost somewhere with damaged equipment.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586281Bitch, please.


What I actually said was that enemies you fight at level 1 have +4 or +5 to hit, and then I later pointed out those are the typical numbers and you actually can hit +10 or even +15. I didn't say anything about HD, but every example I was thinking of also had 1 HD.
Level 1 enemies give about 40 XP each, you need 2,000ish to level and XP is split 4 ways. Oh Mighty Master of Math, explain to us how 10 * 200 does not equal 2,000 and how two hundred is not hundreds, plural, and when you're done with that why don't you call hundreds of thousands a greater number than millions!.

Your language is wrong and so is confusing .
In 2e and prior a 1HD monster does not get a + to hit.
It has a target number based on the oponents AC aganst a to hit AC 0 of 20. So if your point is that a typical 1st level 1e figther has an AC of 4 so the monster needs a 16 to hit so effectively has +4 then its 'correct' although expressed very badly so as to be effectively wrong.
In ealy D&D you get most of your xp for treasure. If a party of 5 1st level Pcs kill 8 goblins to find treasure worth 2000gp sure they get 25 x 8 or 200 xp for the goblins but they get 2000 xp for the gold and they get that even if they don't kill the goblins just put them to sleep or make then run away or whatever.
So in early D&D you can advance in levels by killing hundreds of monsters but statistically its very unlikely.

So these are things that highlight that even if you are familiar with the rules you are not familair with play so will get ripped to bits here if you try to make any claims to teh contrary.

Its fine to point out breaks in the rules,  ofttimes I applaud it, but you need to know what you are talking about or you look like a dick and its a battle you can't easily win.

Fuck this thread is a trainwreck. Do you guys remember the actual topic of discussion?
Like... "people don't 'win' at D&D" or something? Hello? Bueller?

Quote from: Mr. GC;586289Contrast to say... 3.5.

You can deduce very quickly that dragons will beat the hell out of you. Perhaps not every dragon will fight, but those you are fighting you'd better kill quickly or they will kill you quickly. There's not any enemies that look just like them but are actually easy kills, and while some dragons can assume a less harmful seeming form there are also means of countering that and realizing that you are, in fact dealing with a dragon.

From what I remember of my 2e days, dragons were NOT for fighting.  You'd better show some respect, or find an escape route in that situation.

However, with 3e came a sharp rise of the concept that 'if you put it in front of me, I should be able to beat it'.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586289Go take a look at your older edition books and I mean really look.

Yes, you should do that.  And then tell us just how many 1 HD monsters in those books had +4 or +5 bonuses to hit (let alone +10).  And tell us how many of those 1 HD monsters had XP values of 40 (not that you got most of your xp from monster values anyway, but you were already told that and you continue to ignore it).

I must have super powers of awesomeness.

I am able to play any version of dnd from basic to 4e without issues.

Sure, I prefer some versions over others, but I just don't get why people single out one version as 'unplayable'

They are all playable.

I know because I have done it.

You don't win at internet arguments either...

Quote from: jibbajibba;586290So these are things that highlight that even if you are familiar with the rules you are not familair with play so will get ripped to bits here if you try to make any claims to teh contrary.

Thing is, both of your points were made pages ago, and were ignored.

I'm interested to see if your try at it fares any better.

(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/think_logically.png)

Quote from: Planet Algol;586296You don't win at internet arguments either...

LM has been winning for years.  Why should I take your word over his?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586293Yes, you should do that.  And then tell us just how many 1 HD monsters in those books had +4 or +5 bonuses to hit (let alone +10).  And tell us how many of those 1 HD monsters had XP values of 40 (not that you got most of your xp from monster values anyway, but you were already told that and you continue to ignore it).

1E  one HD monsters all have a +1 to hit if I recall correctly.

Stirges might have had a bonus.


The +4/+5  is either an 18/STR fighter with specialization/magic weapon, or.......3X

Quote from: Mr. GC;586281If you aren't, you realize the point is that weighted averages are intellectually dishonest and that this example does an excellent job of demonstrating how.

I googled this claim, and I can't find anyone else that holds your view.  In fact, if you put quotes around it, this thread is the only source that google can find.

Do you find it significant that a concept such as weighted averages hasn't been challenged for intellectual dishonesty in any place that google can find it?

Because I do.

I suck at Math.  More of a verbal guy, always have been.  So I won't try and approach your claims, but reiterating them might go better if you appeal to some kind of authority.  Got one?

Quote from: Bill;5863011E  one HD monsters all have a +1 to hit if I recall correctly.

It depends on edition.  In AD&D I believe to hit AC 0 is 19 on the matrix, but then a lot of AD&D monsters were also less than 1 HD (goblins, kobolds, etc).  In 2e, THAC0 was 20.  In basic, up to 1+1 HD was a 20 for AC 0.

Either way, nothing comes close to a +4 or +5 to hit as routine, let alone +10.  I would hope that someone who keeps telling other people that he's an expert at older editions and that they should open a book sometime would know this.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586289You are also not a new poster. One of the criteria is being a new poster. Frank himself is not a new poster, and I'd imagine at the time he was the only person from the Den posting here. Denner is a label for a group. Why have a group of one person?

In order for play to not be luck based the player must have the means and ability to make intelligent, informed choices and have those choices influence the outcome. At least one person here has admitted already they'd go out of their way to shut that down.

Go take a look at your older edition books and I mean really look. There's entire enemies, and entire enemy types that only exist for fucking with you and turning something that was normally harmless into yet another thing trying to kill you. They invented monsters such as the Cloaker, the Mimic, and the Gelatinous Cube which literally amount to everything in the room trying to kill you including the room itself.

Then you look at the items and for every 1-2 designed to help you in some way there is 1 that looks just like the others and passes off as them until it actually counts... and then it kills you.

The game itself goes out of its way to shut down deductive reasoning, logic, and intelligent play.

Contrast to say... 3.5.

You can deduce very quickly that dragons will beat the hell out of you. Perhaps not every dragon will fight, but those you are fighting you'd better kill quickly or they will kill you quickly. There's not any enemies that look just like them but are actually easy kills, and while some dragons can assume a less harmful seeming form there are also means of countering that and realizing that you are, in fact dealing with a dragon.

At low levels play is pure luck based because everyone, from the Wizard to the Fighter to the Dwarf Barbarian who is raging die in 1-2 hits and can't really do anything about it but beyond that you get enough HP and abilities so that choices matter, decisions matter, play matters.

And so there is a remarkable difference between the party that gets even a general idea of what they are facing, extrapolates the rest then has the means and methods of dealing with all the common expected threats that means and some general purpose stuff to round it out and the party that thinks Leeroy Jenkins is a good rolemodel only to find to their dismay they don't just respawn as a ghost somewhere with damaged equipment.

You are not approaching the game as I would approach it.
You are working top down I am working bottom up. By this I mean you are looking at it as a game where as I am looking at it as a character in a role. So you say Gelantinous cubes are put there ot fuck up players I would say that there are things called gelantinous cubes somewhere but I have no need to encounter them because I have no intention of going into a smelly dangerous dungeon to risk my life over the vague notion of some treasure that might be there.
I solve all in game problems from the perspective of my character without looking at the meta game. its why i find old school 10 foot pole play a bit daft because every PC knows the same set of professional adventurer tactics.

Now I do not dispute that early D&D was a game. Lets put things in to challenge players lets do that becuase the players have actually started using tactics that the old stuff couldn't cope with.
The Mimic is a good example of that as are rust monsters. So yes there are monsters there just to  fuck with the players.

As a DM I wouldn't use these monsters because they are silly. I can see them being fun in a gonzo kind of 1970s 'game' kind of way but as a hey nonny roleplayer of no interest to me or my players.  

I don't think those things make the game though. You can play D&D easily without those things and you have no need to change anything. You can play a rational logical heavy roleplay low level game with D&D and it works well.
I agree that a rebalancing of the classes would help give wizards more options at low levels and limit them later, nerf clerics etc but the core game is still playable .

Quote from: mcbobbo;586302I googled this claim, and I can't find anyone else that holds your view.  In fact, if you put quotes around it, this thread is the only source that google can find.

Do you find it significant that a concept such as weighted averages hasn't been challenged for intellectual dishonesty in any place that google can find it?

Because I do.

I suck at Math.  More of a verbal guy, always have been.  So I won't try and approach your claims, but reiterating them might go better if you appeal to some kind of authority.  Got one?

Weighted Averages are not inherently intellectually dishonest. At best I can surmise that he is claiming that he is using the averages dishonestly. As for why characters don't die so often in games I would believe that is because people don't want characters to die that often so they adjust the game to keep that from happening either consciously or subconsciously. Considering that I'd suspect most of the people speaking here on the subject are the type that side step the rules for fun then it is a no brainer as to why it doesn't come up. From my experience playing low levels "straight" can very often lead to unintended, unpreventable character death seeing as though about every character is one decent ambush or lucky crit away from death no save.

As for whether or not you can "win" at DnD, yea, you do. Depending on how you define "winning" you can win in different ways at the same time. With some truly flexible definitions of winning you can win and lose at the same time.

Quote from: MGuy;586306Weighted Averages are not inherently intellectually dishonest. At best I can surmise that he is claiming tat he is using the averages dishonestly. As for why characters don't die so often in games I would believe that is because people don't want characters to die that often so they adjust the game to keep that from happening either consciously or subconsciously. Considering that I'd suspect most of the people speaking here on the subject are the type that side step the rules for fun then it is a no brainer as to why it doesn't come up. From my experience playing low levels "straight" can very often lead to unintended, unpreventable character death seeing as though about every character is one decent ambush or lucky crit away from death no save.

There is no side stepping.  No ignoring rules.  No fudging of the dice.  We literally broke it down for you, using basic math and the rules as they are written to explain why weighted averages are important and relevant.  If a creature only has a certain % chance of hitting a character, then factoring that percentage into the equation of analysis is not only honest, it's required.

Quote from: jibbajibba;586305So you say Gelantinous cubes are put there ot fuck up players I would say that there are things called gelantinous cubes somewhere but I have no need to encounter them because I have no intention of going into a smelly dangerous dungeon to risk my life over the vague notion of some treasure that might be there.

And I would say the cube is there to keep the dungeon from turning into a macabre version of Hoarders.  I.e, serving an important and believable purpose.

Quote from: MGuy;586306Weighted Averages are not inherently intellectually dishonest. At best I can surmise that he is claiming tat he is using the averages dishonestly. As for why characters don't die so often in games I would believe that is because people don't want characters to die that often so they adjust the game to keep that from happening either consciously or subconsciously. Considering that I'd suspect most of the people speaking here on the subject are the type that side step the rules for fun then it is a no brainer as to why it doesn't come up. From my experience playing low levels "straight" can very often lead to unintended, unpreventable character death seeing as though about every character is one decent ambush or lucky crit away from death no save.

As for whether or not you can "win" at DnD, yea, you do. Depending on how you define "winning" you can win in different ways at the same time. With some truly flexible definitions of winning you can win and lose at the same time.

I agree with the comments round the game being adjusted to play.

I ran a game for some 6-7 year olds last year. They had a ball I havd their characterts fighint goblins and wolves. I introduced a parry mechanic to keep them alive. We played for 4 hours no one died. I never cheated a roll or fudged and there were times when the danger was very real but ...

Some of the kids played with their dad afterwards. He used to be in our play grou when we were kids but game up after an overly long daliance with star fleet battles about 28 years ago. in his game the kids met a random encounter with a 3 wolves and they all died in the first combat.

The Wolves win initiative, it rolls a 20 you take 14 damage you are dead... etc

Now I had exactly the same situation and i turned it into a race where the kids on their cart had to outrun the wolves they had randomly encountered. The chase was exciting in itself but it acted as a buffer between the risk and the players actions

Quote from: Benoist;586291Fuck this thread is a trainwreck. Do you guys remember the actual topic of discussion?
Like... "people don't 'win' at D&D" or something? Hello? Bueller?

You "win" roleplaying games by accomplishing goals you're characters have set for themselves. Conversely you lose by being unable to accomplish your goals, and you can't do anything while you are dead.
 
GC is right about 2e. The books are so full of fuck yous to the players that it's clear they are supposed to fail. System shock, monsters who's entire purpose to look like something innocent then kill you, cursed items that randomly kill you, monster abilities that randomly kill you and other asociated Death no Save effects. Every step of the way the 2e rules hate you and want you to die in increasingly bullshit ways. Heck the chapter on horses goes into a long digression about how the horse merchants can cheats the PCs. Why? Fuck you that's why.

If your playing 2e you're only getting somewhere via varying amounts of debasing yourself for the DM. Thus the only winning move is not to play.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586211In my groups this sort of stuff we be dscussed by the party well before combat. "look i have a spell that might give us an edge by increasing everyone's speed, but it carries the risk of death. If everyone assents I can prepare it and cast it at on an agreed upon signal should it look like the battle isn't going our way"

Of course it's in-character discussion... that's not really an issue, which is why I used Brendan the Wizard, not Brendan the Player (Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you aren't a wizard in real life; I'm certainly no Fighter). The character names aren't directly relevant.

I play to see what happens, and if someone dies... that's what happens. And then we see what happens next.

I'm interested in how you see "willingness" working in the game world, from the character's point of view. For you, is "resisting magic" an innate property that characters can turn on and off? Or can characters tell the difference between different spells, and selectively choose to resist?

I've always viewed magic resistance as being on or off, because being selective implies that, in the setting, non-wizard characters can tell the difference between "good" and "bad" magic.

To get back to Pendrogast and Medwen, the rest of the party has a completely different conversation if they know Pendrogast cast a non-hostile spell and Medwen died, than if they just knew that Pendrogast cast a spell on Medwen and had to take Pendrogast's word for it.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;586311You "win" roleplaying games by accomplishing goals you're characters have set for themselves. Conversely you lose by being unable to accomplish your goals, and you can't do anything while you are dead.
 
GC is right about 2e. The books are so full of fuck yous to the players that it's clear they are supposed to fail. System shock, monsters who's entire purpose to look like something innocent then kill you, cursed items that randomly kill you, monster abilities that randomly kill you and other asociated Death no Save effects. Every step of the way the 2e rules hate you and want you to die in increasingly bullshit ways. Heck the chapter on horses goes into a long digression about how the horse merchants can cheats the PCs. Why? Fuck you that's why.

If your playing 2e you're only getting somewhere via varying amounts of debasing yourself for the DM. Thus the only winning move is not to play.

How would you know.  Didn't you say you never had any significant experience playing 2e?

Quote from: Mr. GC;586210And if you're casting a spell with any drawback, it had better be amazing or it doesn't get used. Haste does not qualify, so either you use Haste with no drawback or you do not use Haste.

Any drawback whatsoever?  Maybe something like Gardens and Greengrocers would be a better game for you.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586289Go take a look at your older edition books and I mean really look. There's entire enemies, and entire enemy types that only exist for fucking with you and turning something that was normally harmless into yet another thing trying to kill you. They invented monsters such as the Cloaker, the Mimic, and the Gelatinous Cube which literally amount to everything in the room trying to kill you including the room itself.

...

The game itself goes out of its way to shut down deductive reasoning, logic, and intelligent play.

I'd like to take this comment and apply it more directly to the 'winning' in D&D.  

Take an enemy like a Gas Spore and a Beholder.  The first is designed to look exactly like a Beholder, so that you can't tell them apart.  One is very deadly, and is likely to kill at least one party member, so misidentifying one is bad.  You could shoot it from a distance (if possible) and then run if it doesn't explode, but that's not always a possibility.  

Winning in D&D means overcoming the challenges that the characters face.  In some editions of D&D, success was arbitrary, and didn't always rely on player choices.  While not everyone actually played that way, the rules themselves tended to encourage it.  The fact that most people appear not to use System Shock for haste is an example of groups changing the rule to make the game 'more enjoyable'.  This 'arbitrary death' stuff is a big problem if you want player choices and character abilities to matter.  

If you make good choices and you overcome challenges through intelligent play, that's fun for me.  Some people prefer the illusion that their choices matter, and trust the DM to 'fix any problems' like an undesireable result.  I don't like that playstyle for myself - but it relies in part on not knowing that it's happening.  If the DM tells you 'you don't die in a teleport accident', unless the roll was on the table, you can't know if he fudged the result or not.  Believing that you exposed yourself to danger (even if it was all an illusion) can be stimulating, which seems to be where some of the attraction for that kind of game comes from.  

Some people refer to it as 'DM Pity' or 'Magical Tea Party', but from INSIDE the game, you probably can't see it.  It looks like things are responding to choices and abilities, and unless you know the DM notes and/or rolls, you can't be sure that you aren't lucky or smart.  It's hard to be proud of your 'contribution' when success was assured (even if it didn't look like it).  

Now, if success isn't assured, and smart play is required - enemies are played intelligently and rolls are in the open - winning an encounter can be something to be proud of.  It doesn't have to be - nor should it be - about making other people feel bad, but there's nothing wrong with trying to do well at the game.  

If someone is a 'bad player' and they don't contribute, it's okay for them to feel a little bad - maybe they'll learn something.  You think everyone knows how to use a 10-foot pole the first time they walk into a dungeon?  But they can learn from a master.  Once they learn, they can apply that same tactic, often with great success.  

An effective character shouldn't behave less effectively to make other people feel better.  That's my point and has been for this entire conversation.  If one player is consistently 'showing up' another player, rather than just assume the effective one 'is a dick', we need to look at the player that isn't contributing, too, and see why.  Is he making stupid choices?  Does he not understand his options?  Is his character fundamentally flawed (such as the rules prevent him from being effective).  Those things aren't the effective player's fault, so he shouldn't bear the blame for them.  

It's just that in Sacro's rant, not enough information was given to determine if the player he was complaining about is really a dick or if Sacro (or whoever inspired the rant) is just a bad player incapable of making an effective character capable of contributing to the group.  If he is incapable, it might not even be his fault - could be the rules, could be the DM, could be other players being a dick...  But making that determination requires more information.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586314How would you know.  Didn't you say you never had any significant experience playing 2e?

I read the books. That was enough to tell me that anyone who willingly plays such a game must either enjoy lol random deaths. Either that or they have a bad case of Stockholm syndrome for their DM.

Quote from: MGuy;586306As for why characters don't die so often in games I would believe that is because people don't want characters to die that often so they adjust the game to keep that from happening either consciously or subconsciously. Considering that I'd suspect most of the people speaking here on the subject are the type that side step the rules for fun then it is a no brainer as to why it doesn't come up. From my experience playing low levels "straight" can very often lead to unintended, unpreventable character death seeing as though about every character is one decent ambush or lucky crit away from death no save.

Yep, we agree.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586280Anyone who has 90% of their characters dying in 1-2 encounters in ANY edition should really evaluate what the hell they are doing, or what the hell the DM is doing.  Seeing as how hundreds of thousands of players managed just fine for decades tells me that it isn't a game design issue.

3d6 in order = most characters are worthless, especially with class selection based on stats. Add in non maxed HP at level 1 and death at 0 HP and OHKOs even on Fighters were incredibly common.

Either you can kill them yourself or the game will quickly do it for you.

Quote from: Bill;586285Seriously? You never played with a competent dm?

I have gmd and played in more 1e/2e games than I can remember, and NEVER did 90 percent of the characters die in 1-2 sessions. 1 death in 10-20 sessions...maybe.

You were a victim of a gm that was either a novice, a sadist, or an idiot.

Given the propensity for those here to ignore rules that are not convenient for them that's probably due to ignoring the rule that says "People die when they are killed".

1st level Fighter falls into a 10 foot pit. 35% chance he dies in one hit. That's about the weakest trap imaginable, on the highest HP guy... you know, since that's so meaningful.

Quote from: jibbajibba;586290Your language is wrong and so is confusing .
In 2e and prior a 1HD monster does not get a + to hit.
It has a target number based on the oponents AC aganst a to hit AC 0 of 20. So if your point is that a typical 1st level 1e figther has an AC of 4 so the monster needs a 16 to hit so effectively has +4 then its 'correct' although expressed very badly so as to be effectively wrong.

Yes, and when talking about + to hit, and not THAC0 it's obvious what system is being discussed.

When this is followed by "in older editions, you have more fights per level and so more chances someone is hit 1-2 times and dies" this addresses older editions. This should also go without saying, but to hit/AC scaled slower in older editions. The total range was about two dozen numbers. In 3.5 it's closer to a hundred.

QuoteIn ealy D&D you get most of your xp for treasure. If a party of 5 1st level Pcs kill 8 goblins to find treasure worth 2000gp sure they get 25 x 8 or 200 xp for the goblins but they get 2000 xp for the gold and they get that even if they don't kill the goblins just put them to sleep or make then run away or whatever.
So in early D&D you can advance in levels by killing hundreds of monsters but statistically its very unlikely.

Yes, but barring things like centaurs with 1,000,000 gold gems you're not going to get very much treasure from killing most monsters. It's also 1: Likely that rule on million gold gems will be ignored as not convenient. 2: Will be ignored on everything else because it's listed as optional in 2nd.

There's also the small problem of affording those training costs to actually take your new level.

Quote from: mcbobbo;586287If, and only if, there is any reasonable expectation of death.  You are aware of this position, but you keep behaving like you aren't.

Yes, I assume we are talking about the actual rules when discussing the actual rules. Otherwise you can just as easily say the Orc the group is fighting (because you know a group like this would die to something stupid) cannot kill the party either.

QuoteThis might be true in 2nd, if you played it like 3rd.  But almost certainly isn't in 1st due to the only RAW support being a FAQ entry about the changes from 1st to 2nd.

1st also had system shock and similar text for it and Haste. I just haven't been fucked to look because people need to shut the fuck up about that tangent already.

QuoteYou're arguing just to argue, as evidenced by your unwillingness to adapt to even the slightest point of view change.  Try it some time.  It won't kill you, and might earn you some friends.

Nope. I'm not changing my stance because I haven't been given any reason to change it. An example reason would be being presented with a better alternative.

QuoteYou get that I'm okay with this, right?  It is a game of danger, and death is a part of that.  It's the entire point of combat, for example.

Yes, yes, playing older editions is an exercise of DM vs Player paranoia. This is not in contention.

QuoteYou clearly know enough about gaming to understand the context, and I'm not going to justify this intellectual dishonesty with a response.  Sorry.

Standard dodge. Duly noted.

QuoteLikely is a factor that should be viewed from your character's eyes.  Not your own.

You've been making a lot of arguments based on intellectual superiority.  Let's put that to the test.  Click this link and tell me how long it takes you to determine whether or not a swamp actually has trees in it:

https://www.google.com/search?q=swamp&tbm=isch

When you're done, I think you owe some folks an apology.

Right. And the characters are looking out at this swamp, that used to be a city before it got flooded and they aren't seeing any fucking trees for at least a half mile in all directions. So if we base it on what the characters can see, "not fucking likely" changes to "most definitely not".

QuoteBreathe.  Your brain needs more oxygen.  You honestly can't think of a single other factor under the chromatic dragon system that would dictate how the scenario would play out?  I'm going to keep you in suspense on this one, I think.

An empty useless post and a dodge then? You should complete the trifecta by discussing potential new avatars for yourself.

QuoteYou're still setting up a double standard where the players use metagame knowledge but the GM does not.

Because it's metagame to work out what enemies they've just found out about can do or will likely do? Oh wait, it's not. It is metagame for them to find out about a group they aren't aware exists yet. Up until the party attacked, they were accomplishing their own objectives which are in no particular order:

1: Guarding the item required to keep the services of an otherwise unwilling ally safe.
2: Breeding more melee death machines.
3: Generic knowledge/power/money motivations of various sorts.

QuoteNope. That's actually what I'd usually do.  I only use the big guns when they're necessary.  Metagame on me, and I metagame on you, because you'll stop as soon as it dawns on you that I'm in the driver's seat.  IME, anyway.

Ah yes because knowing anything at all about the world you live in is metagaming.

So playing with you is like...

Me: I drop a coin to let the party know it's safe.
You: OMG METAGAMING HOW DARE YOU UNDERSTAND GRAVITY!

QuoteYeah, in fact it is.  It's called adventure, and there's risk involved.  Your style of play limits the risks to the point where success is almost assured, and I find that amaturish.  Rather like fishing with dynamite.

Right. Well you have your "risk", where you get bombed with arrows and boulders for a dozen consecutive rounds while being unable to fight back with anything but your terrible ranged attacks before you can even attempt to join the fight. Me? I'm going to call certain, suicidal death to the stupidest of things not a "risk", as risk implies that the negative outcome is uncertain.

And which is it anyways? Should the party be Leeroy Jenkins in every dungeon, or is the party supposed to be playing cautious and careful? Make up your fucking mind.

QuoteAgain, you just told the guy being nice to you to go fuck off.  And then you'll cry that you're an outsider.

That's anti-social, dude.

Lolwut. Only in your deluded mind.

QuoteWithout fiat, you'd be right.  But once again, in older editions, fiat was in the rulebook.

Right. And we've been over why success = ability to perform oral sex on the DM is bad design already, so let's move on shall we?

Quote from: mcbobbo;586292From what I remember of my 2e days, dragons were NOT for fighting.  You'd better show some respect, or find an escape route in that situation.

However, with 3e came a sharp rise of the concept that 'if you put it in front of me, I should be able to beat it'.

In older editions dragon breath was a OHKO. Still, it played the same. You either got very prepared and then fought them or you did not fight them. Escape routes do not exist when dealing with something that moves several times your speed, often via movement modes you cannot access.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586293Yes, you should do that.  And then tell us just how many 1 HD monsters in those books had +4 or +5 bonuses to hit (let alone +10).  And tell us how many of those 1 HD monsters had XP values of 40 (not that you got most of your xp from monster values anyway, but you were already told that and you continue to ignore it).

Only if you stop willfully misinterpreting my posts. Since that will never happen I need not do anything about your false claim save laugh at it.

Quote from: mcbobbo;586302I googled this claim, and I can't find anyone else that holds your view.  In fact, if you put quotes around it, this thread is the only source that google can find.

Do you find it significant that a concept such as weighted averages hasn't been challenged for intellectual dishonesty in any place that google can find it?

Because I do.

I suck at Math.  More of a verbal guy, always have been.  So I won't try and approach your claims, but reiterating them might go better if you appeal to some kind of authority.  Got one?

Most tabletop gamers are stupid. This is why I am very selective about who I game with as I loathe stupid people on principle.

You don't see it contested much in general because in a long chain of iterations things will average out. In an MMO you just calculate misses and crits into your DPS calcs because you're going to be beating on things a while, etc. In a less luck based game, such as almost anything that isn't tabletop the degree of variation isn't high enough for weighted averages to throw things off much even in small sample sizes. In a small sample size, such as the 1-2 round duration of D&D combats where luck is the primary or sole factor? Yeah, claiming the guy with a 50% chance of doing 20 damage never kills the guy with 20 HP in one hit is a fucking lie. A very obvious and marked lie.

Quote from: jibbajibba;586305You are not approaching the game as I would approach it.
You are working top down I am working bottom up. By this I mean you are looking at it as a game where as I am looking at it as a character in a role. So you say Gelantinous cubes are put there ot fuck up players I would say that there are things called gelantinous cubes somewhere but I have no need to encounter them because I have no intention of going into a smelly dangerous dungeon to risk my life over the vague notion of some treasure that might be there.

I'm looking at the game as it was actually designed. Older edition rulebooks specifically tell you your character knows what you do. Which means when something seems safe isn't, that's meant to fuck with you, the player.

And sure, you can say you'll never go in a dungeon and that might even let you avoid cubes... but then what are you doing? Older editions were very dungeon centric, so you are practically choosing not to play the game at that point. And while that's probably a good idea...

QuoteI solve all in game problems from the perspective of my character without looking at the meta game. its why i find old school 10 foot pole play a bit daft because every PC knows the same set of professional adventurer tactics.

Basic emergent gameplay in action. Also, they were doing it wrong. Everyone knows you use 11 foot poles so when the DM tries to fuck with 10 foot pole users you get to say "Nuh uh, no you didn't shoot me!"

QuoteI don't think those things make the game though. You can play D&D easily without those things and you have no need to change anything. You can play a rational logical heavy roleplay low level game with D&D and it works well.
I agree that a rebalancing of the classes would help give wizards more options at low levels and limit them later, nerf clerics etc but the core game is still playable .

You'd have to remove around, oh...

25%-35% or more of the monsters that exist just to fuck with you.
Another 25%ish that exist just to kill people quickly or instantly in some non counterable way.
Around 40% of the items.
100% of the traps.
Around 80% of the mentality...

Once you remove that aspect, there's not much left.

Quote from: MGuy;586306Weighted Averages are not inherently intellectually dishonest. At best I can surmise that he is claiming that he is using the averages dishonestly. As for why characters don't die so often in games I would believe that is because people don't want characters to die that often so they adjust the game to keep that from happening either consciously or subconsciously. Considering that I'd suspect most of the people speaking here on the subject are the type that side step the rules for fun then it is a no brainer as to why it doesn't come up. From my experience playing low levels "straight" can very often lead to unintended, unpreventable character death seeing as though about every character is one decent ambush or lucky crit away from death no save.

As for whether or not you can "win" at DnD, yea, you do. Depending on how you define "winning" you can win in different ways at the same time. With some truly flexible definitions of winning you can win and lose at the same time.

OMG, stop disagreeing with me me, you're supposed to stay in my head and shut up! :rotfl:

Yes MGuy, they still think I'm you.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;586311You "win" roleplaying games by accomplishing goals you're characters have set for themselves. Conversely you lose by being unable to accomplish your goals, and you can't do anything while you are dead.
 
GC is right about 2e. The books are so full of fuck yous to the players that it's clear they are supposed to fail. System shock, monsters who's entire purpose to look like something innocent then kill you, cursed items that randomly kill you, monster abilities that randomly kill you and other asociated Death no Save effects. Every step of the way the 2e rules hate you and want you to die in increasingly bullshit ways. Heck the chapter on horses goes into a long digression about how the horse merchants can cheats the PCs. Why? Fuck you that's why.

If your playing 2e you're only getting somewhere via varying amounts of debasing yourself for the DM. Thus the only winning move is not to play.

So you have actually played 2e? And the players died all the time?

It's not the system, its the dm.

I suggest finding a good dm; it makes all the difference.

In all fairness, the dm may have simply been inexperienced.

Quote from: jibbajibba;586310I agree with the comments round the game being adjusted to play.

I ran a game for some 6-7 year olds last year. They had a ball I havd their characterts fighint goblins and wolves. I introduced a parry mechanic to keep them alive. We played for 4 hours no one died. I never cheated a roll or fudged and there were times when the danger was very real but ...

Some of the kids played with their dad afterwards. He used to be in our play grou when we were kids but game up after an overly long daliance with star fleet battles about 28 years ago. in his game the kids met a random encounter with a 3 wolves and they all died in the first combat.

The Wolves win initiative, it rolls a 20 you take 14 damage you are dead... etc

Now I had exactly the same situation and i turned it into a race where the kids on their cart had to outrun the wolves they had randomly encountered. The chase was exciting in itself but it acted as a buffer between the risk and the players actions

Personally I don't like heroes dying in un-heroic ways. I've had games where that has happened before and it is unsatisfying for the whole table. I've had PCs die to random encounters, the wilderness, poisons/diseases, along with the regular times when they just die from a regular encounter. I can count the number of TPKs I've actually had in a game on a single hand but the number of player deaths are too many for me to count.

I've developed a pseudo rule for my 3rd ed games at this point. I always give characters auto stabilization, I don't let them get straight up killed from any attack, and as long as they are playing competently I won't let their character's ignorance get them killed.This rule only applies from levels 1 - 3 where players don't have many abilities, are seriously one orc charge attack from death at all times, and have only shaky control of the plot. After that I let the dice fall where they may.

When I play I find many GMs to be far more forgiving then I am in all but games that are meant to be high risk, easy fatality games. However even in more "realistic" games I find that GMs will generally try to hand PCs an out. Now while I'm not sure if Mr. GC's numbers are correct or not (as I haven't played 1e and don't own/have access to the books) I do believe that he is arguing with a crowd that very actively sidesteps the rules for profit. So while older edition rules may or may not be meant to kill you (I'd always been told that the rules promote total GM control and player punishments as was intended by the writers) I'm sure that the players here most likely ignored that kind of stuff, or sidestepped it, to make their game work.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586289In order for play to not be luck based the player must have the means and ability to make intelligent, informed choices and have those choices influence the outcome.

I'm totally with you here. The GM needs to provide enough information for players to base decisions on. When I ran a group through Isle of Dread back in 81, I made sure to describe things in manner that made such choice possible. The territory of the T-Rex was littered with  its tracks, remains of its kills, and poop. Players knew that there was something big, carnivorous, and scary in that area.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586289Go take a look at your older edition books and I mean really look. There's entire enemies, and entire enemy types that only exist for fucking with you and turning something that was normally harmless into yet another thing trying to kill you. They invented monsters such as the Cloaker, the Mimic, and the Gelatinous Cube which literally amount to everything in the room trying to kill you including the room itself.

Then you look at the items and for every 1-2 designed to help you in some way there is 1 that looks just like the others and passes off as them until it actually counts... and then it kills you.

The game itself goes out of its way to shut down deductive reasoning, logic, and intelligent play.

The world is not a predictable place. In any edition you can encounter something that fucks with logic and answer will be " because magic".
If you want a logically based, scientifically oriented world without weird shit then why the hell are you playing D&D at all?  

The problem with a great many newer players is that they just take the game far too seriously. So my fighting man found what looked like a cool spear and when he fought the yeti, the thing stabbed him in the back, and he died. Oops lol. So I roll up another guy and play some more. Big fucking deal. Its a game, you win some you lose some.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586289Contrast to say... 3.5.

You can deduce very quickly that dragons will beat the hell out of you. Perhaps not every dragon will fight, but those you are fighting you'd better kill quickly or they will kill you quickly. There's not any enemies that look just like them but are actually easy kills, and while some dragons can assume a less harmful seeming form there are also means of countering that and realizing that you are, in fact dealing with a dragon.

At low levels play is pure luck based because everyone, from the Wizard to the Fighter to the Dwarf Barbarian who is raging die in 1-2 hits and can't really do anything about it but beyond that you get enough HP and abilities so that choices matter, decisions matter, play matters.

And so there is a remarkable difference between the party that gets even a general idea of what they are facing, extrapolates the rest then has the means and methods of dealing with all the common expected threats that means and some general purpose stuff to round it out and the party that thinks Leeroy Jenkins is a good rolemodel only to find to their dismay they don't just respawn as a ghost somewhere with damaged equipment.

Oh certainly because rust monsters, oozes, slimes, and cursed items don't exist in 3.5. :rolleyes:

The most powerful offensive item in 3.5 is a cursed item dseigned to "fuck with the players".  Dust of Sneezing & Choking.  Oh yeah, it looks just like dust of dissapearance then hah hah you are screwed. Arm yourself with a necklace of adaptation and its pure monster killing goodness.

Anyway, rules edition doesn't have much to do with intelligent play. In old school games sometimes we played smart, and sometimes stupid when we didn't want to be burdened with thinking. One can do the same thing in 3.5 or any other system.

Quote from: Mr. GC;5863203d6 in order = most characters are worthless, especially with class selection based on stats. Add in non maxed HP at level 1 and death at 0 HP and OHKOs even on Fighters were incredibly common.

Either you can kill them yourself or the game will quickly do it for you.

SMH

3d6 in order for 6 stats was not a method anyone really used.  An "expert" on older editions would know this.  Almost everyone played with 4d6 drop the lowest, or 3d6 12 times and assigned the best six.

Keep digging

QuoteOnly if you stop willfully misinterpreting my posts. Since that will never happen I need not do anything about your false claim save laugh at it.

Heh, for a guy who has several times in this post alone accused others of dodging, I can't help not you're doing the same thing.  You said in older editions a +4 or +5 to his was the norm.  You also said 40xp value for a 1 HD monster is the value.  Show me.  How is that misinterpreting you?

Look dude, either put up, or shut up.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;586316I'd like to take this comment and apply it more directly to the 'winning' in D&D.  

Take an enemy like a Gas Spore and a Beholder.  The first is designed to look exactly like a Beholder, so that you can't tell them apart.  One is very deadly, and is likely to kill at least one party member, so misidentifying one is bad.  You could shoot it from a distance (if possible) and then run if it doesn't explode, but that's not always a possibility.  

This is a perfect example.

With a Beholder, if you're going to fight it at all you get in close, then beat it down as quickly as possible while giving it as few actions as possible.

With a Gas Spore, you do the exact opposite. They look the same.

So you see this thing and then you flip a coin to see what you do and if you guess wrong, or the DM doesn't like you you die.

QuoteIf someone is a 'bad player' and they don't contribute, it's okay for them to feel a little bad - maybe they'll learn something.  You think everyone knows how to use a 10-foot pole the first time they walk into a dungeon?  But they can learn from a master.  Once they learn, they can apply that same tactic, often with great success.  

Exactly. Even then though the game tries to fuck with you. 11 foot pole, anyone? It could be successful if it were like Dark Souls where the game is viciously trying to kill you but is being fair about it... instead it's just playing DM vs Player.

Quote from: MGuy;586322When I play I find many GMs to be far more forgiving then I am in all but games that are meant to be high risk, easy fatality games. However even in more "realistic" games I find that GMs will generally try to hand PCs an out. Now while I'm not sure if Mr. GC's numbers are correct or not (as I haven't played 1e and don't own/have access to the books) I do believe that he is arguing with a crowd that very actively sidesteps the rules for profit. So while older edition rules may or may not be meant to kill you (I'd always been told that the rules promote total GM control and player punishments as was intended by the writers) I'm sure that the players here most likely ignored that kind of stuff, or sidestepped it, to make their game work.

It's a standard probability distribution.

Fighter has 1-10 HP, equal chances of each.
10 foot fall does 1-6 damage, equal chances of each.

60 combinations, ranging from 1 HP/1damage to 10 HP/6 damage.

21/60 result in instant death. 35%.

The chances of having any sort of Con bonus on 3d6 in order are about statistically insignificant and if you did have such a bonus, that'd be an example of suicide shuffling giving you a character that can survive more than five minutes.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;586247Wow and they call me an asshole DM.

I'm pretty sure no one here has ever called you a DM.

Quote from: Bill;586321So you have actually played 2e? And the players died all the time?

It's not the system, its the dm.

I suggest finding a good dm; it makes all the difference.

In all fairness, the dm may have simply been inexperienced.

Oh it's all about the system the only reason people wouldn't drop like flies is if the DM is ignoring rules. This is the difference between 2e and 3e. I 2e you fail and die if the DM isn't bending rules in your favor. In 3e you can beat the encounters even if they are tough encounters played intelligently. Of course the basketweavers on this form die like gimps even to stock monsters if the DM plays them with half a brain.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586320OMG, stop disagreeing with me me, you're supposed to stay in my head and shut up! :rotfl:

Yes MGuy, they still think I'm you.

Meh.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586327This is a perfect example.

Of how to cull the shitty players, because they fail the test every time.

QuoteThe chances of having any sort of Con bonus on 3d6 in order are about statistically insignificant and if you did have such a bonus, that'd be an example of suicide shuffling giving you a character that can survive more than five minutes.

Essentially, even the slightest chance of 'not winning' is a deal breaker for you.  The result of 'everyone gets a ribbon' upbringing, I guarantee.

Quote from: StormBringer;586335Essentially, even the slightest chance of 'not winning' is a deal breaker for you.  The result of 'everyone gets a ribbon' upbringing, I guarantee.

You guy are to ones who cried foul when Kaelik and MGuy used tactics in thunderdome rather than handing you victory. In the game of 3e gimps get stomped but it's possible to make non-gimps. In 2e everyone is a gimp.

Quote from: StormBringer;586335Essentially, even the slightest chance of 'not winning' is a deal breaker for you.  The result of 'everyone gets a ribbon' upbringing, I guarantee.

Yeah, I think the "everyone is a special snowflake" generational thing has more to do with these attitudes than game rules.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;586311You "win" roleplaying games by accomplishing goals you're characters have set for themselves. Conversely you lose by being unable to accomplish your goals, and you can't do anything while you are dead.

I guess I can get that approach. Accomplishing in-game goals and objectives is a way of "winning" at the game. You can "win" by having a great time too, or role playing your character in such a fashion that it felt really satisfying and entertaining to you. When we had these sessions at Vampire when things just flowed without rolling the dice and everyone was just "in the zone", we were raving afterwards - we had "won" the game, in a sense.
 

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;586311GC is right about 2e. The books are so full of fuck yous to the players that it's clear they are supposed to fail.

That, however, is such lolwut fuckwitery that I just need to stop and appreciate the taste of your ignorance.

Mmm. Thanks. Tastes like internet bullshit you like to read to remind you how fucking idiotic people can really be. It actually reminds me of the great internet fuckwad theory.

(http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/215499488_8pSZr-L-2.jpg)

Quote from: Exploderwizard;586325The world is not a predictable place. In any edition you can encounter something that fucks with logic and answer will be " because magic".
If you want a logically based, scientifically oriented world without weird shit then why the hell are you playing D&D at all?  

Magic works in predictable patterns, but nice try.

QuoteThe problem with a great many newer players is that they just take the game far too seriously. So my fighting man found what looked like a cool spear and when he fought the yeti, the thing stabbed him in the back, and he died. Oops lol. So I roll up another guy and play some more. Big fucking deal. Its a game, you win some you lose some.

Right, so you suicide shuffle and do not care about the game. Progress!

QuoteOh certainly because rust monsters, oozes, slimes, and cursed items don't exist in 3.5. :rolleyes:

Sure, those things exist. But they are far less common, and since the mentality has changed from "Troll your players via any and all means imaginable" they are also less emphasized.

QuoteThe most powerful offensive item in 3.5 is a cursed item dseigned to "fuck with the players".  Dust of Sneezing & Choking.  Oh yeah, it looks just like dust of dissapearance then hah hah you are screwed. Arm yourself with a necklace of adaptation and its pure monster killing goodness.

Along the same lines, if we're talking 3.x core here anything that wasn't a stat booster or some sort of extradimensional storage item was worthless. This severely limits the number of cursed items that can fuck with you as that Dust of Disappearance is going straight to the vendor.

QuoteAnyway, rules edition doesn't have much to do with intelligent play. In old school games sometimes we played smart, and sometimes stupid when we didn't want to be burdened with thinking. One can do the same thing in 3.5 or any other system.

Sure it does. You need the actual abilities to do different things. When it's just flip a coin, there is no choice.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586326SMH

3d6 in order for 6 stats was not a method anyone really used.  An "expert" on older editions would know this.  Almost everyone played with 4d6 drop the lowest, or 3d6 12 times and assigned the best six.

It is the default stat generation. Oh look, more rules that are conveniently being ignored!

QuoteHeh, for a guy who has several times in this post alone accused others of dodging, I can't help not you're doing the same thing.  You said in older editions a +4 or +5 to his was the norm.  You also said 40xp value for a 1 HD monster is the value.  Show me.  How is that misinterpreting you?

Look dude, either put up, or shut up.

Nope, you're still doing it, but thanks for playing!

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;586332Oh it's all about the system the only reason people wouldn't drop like flies is if the DM is ignoring rules. This is the difference between 2e and 3e. I 2e you fail and die if the DM isn't bending rules in your favor. In 3e you can beat the encounters even if they are tough encounters played intelligently. Of course the basketweavers on this form die like gimps even to stock monsters if the DM plays them with half a brain.

No, don't you see? You're supposed to play it as "I reject your rules and substitute my own!" That's the way the game is supposed to be played and if you actually play by the rules you're a dick.

Quote from: StormBringer;586335Of how to cull the shitty players, because they fail the test every time.

What, pray tell are they being tested upon?

Cock sucking skills?

Covertly reading the DM's notes to learn if this is a blob they should melee burn down or a blob they should avoid close combat with at all costs?

No other abilities matter here. You can only hope your DM likes you or that you can read his mind.

QuoteEssentially, even the slightest chance of 'not winning' is a deal breaker for you.  The result of 'everyone gets a ribbon' upbringing, I guarantee.

Essentially, 35% chance the highest HP guy instantly dies to the weakest trap out there is a deal breaker. Essentially, you'll encounter many situations at least as deadly as this, and so the bodies will be hitting that floor all night long.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586320Most tabletop gamers are stupid. This is why I am very selective about who I game with as I loathe stupid people on principle.

I promise, this person is missing teeth because of trying to pull this shit IRL.  And Lord Mistborn said you were the best of the bunch over there.  The best at parroting un-researched and unfounded talking points, it appears.

Quote from: StormBringer;586343I promise, this person is missing teeth because of trying to pull this shit IRL.  And Lord Mistborn said you were the best of the bunch over there.  The best at parroting un-researched and unfounded talking points, it appears.

Ironybringer, the Internet Tough Guy of Classy Posting +3!

Let's give him a round of applause!

*golfclap*

Quote from: Mr. GC;586342Magic works in predictable patterns, but nice try.

No, that's 'science'.

QuoteWhat, pray tell are they being tested upon?

Their ability to not be a shitty player.  I see you have repeatedly failed.

QuoteNo other abilities matter here. You can only hope your DM likes you or that you can read his mind.

Or that you aren't a whiny asshole that has to win every time or they ragequit the game.  I'm seeing a pattern here.

QuoteEssentially, 35% chance the highest HP guy instantly dies to the weakest trap out there is a deal breaker. Essentially, you'll encounter many situations at least as deadly as this, and so the bodies will be hitting that floor all night long.

If only there were a class that could...  I don't know...  detect these kinds of traps?  Or players that aren't shitty and rush into every encounter because they have an over-entitled sense that they must be awesome at every moment because their life away from the table is complete shit due to severe social adjustment problems.

Wait, let me guess:  "Nuh uh, you are!"

Got the page numbers for your assertion that haste forces a system shock roll?  Because until then, you are now wilfully lying about it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;5863263d6 in order for 6 stats was not a method anyone really used.

Indeed. AD&D Method I default is NOT 3d6 in order, but 4d6 drop lowest, assign to taste. There's a significant shift in that sense between OD&D and AD&D.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586342It is the default stat generation. Oh look, more rules that are conveniently being ignored!

It is factually not in AD&D. You sound like an ignorant, fucking idiot full of yourself right now. Wake up.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586346Ironybringer, the Internet Tough Guy of Classy Posting +3!

Let's give him a round of applause!

*golfclap*

No, 'Internet Tough Guy' is where I would threated to knock your teeth out.  I'm merely speculating that with near 100% certainty it has already happened.

I mean, if you can't even get basic internet jargon right, why did you expect to do well at something even more complicated like RPGs?

Quote from: Benoist;586348It is factually not in AD&D. You sound like an ignorant, fucking idiot full of yourself right now. Wake up.

At least he provided page numbers...

Ah.  No, I guess that continues to not happen.

Hey, Ben, you know what it says in the 3.x PHB about gamers that like playing Wizards?  They are goatfucking shit-eaters.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586346Ironybringer, the Internet Tough Guy of Classy Posting +3!

Let's give him a round of applause!

*golfclap*

Doesn't sound like internet tough guy 'cause he didn't threaten to do it himself. I'm more raising an eyebrow at him speculating that you're the "best of the bunch". Assuming he means you're a denner this would confusing because I'm pretty sure you're still low on the number of posts you have at the Den and that you only joined recently.

Quote from: StormBringer;586351Hey, Ben, you know what it says in the 3.x PHB about gamers that like playing Wizards?  They are goatfucking shit-eaters.

Wizards and Fighters are my favorite classes, whatever the edition, closely followed by the Cleric of 1st ed specifically.
The 3.X PH can suck my dick. ;)

Quote from: MGuy;586352Doesn't sound like internet tough guy 'cause he didn't threaten to do it himself. I'm more raising an eyebrow at him speculating that you're the "best of the bunch". Assuming he means you're a denner this would confusing because I'm pretty sure you're still low on the number of posts you have at the Den and that you only joined recently.

That actually wasn't my speculation.  That was Lord Mistborn wetting himself over the idea of GC showing up and 'taking us to school' or something.

Quote from: Benoist;586353Wizards and Fighters are my favorite classes, whatever the edition, closely followed by the Cleric of 1st ed specifically.
The 3.X PH can suck my dick.

But it says that specifically.  Also, if you have any ability score less than 20, your character is a hopeless failure.

Everyone join in!  What do the 3rd or 4th edition rulebooks say?

Quote from: StormBringer;586347No, that's 'science'.

It's both.

QuoteTheir ability to not be a shitty player.  I see you have repeatedly failed.

Yes, yes, if you cannot get into your DM's head or get on his other head you are a shitty old edition player. I'm not disputing this. And you're right, I've repeatedly failed because I have no interest in neckbeard cock.

QuoteOr that you aren't a whiny asshole that has to win every time or they ragequit the game.  I'm seeing a pattern here.

Right, so you say whatever and make Bob the 34th, and perhaps you don't even bother to write down that name. Again, not disputing that.

QuoteIf only there were a class that could...  I don't know...  detect these kinds of traps?  Or players that aren't shitty and rush into every encounter because they have an over-entitled sense that they must be awesome at every moment because their life away from the table is complete shit due to severe social adjustment problems.

If only there were. But since the only class that supposedly can is actually another fuck you due to it maxing out at around a 20% success rate you instead played the pole dancer game.

QuoteWait, let me guess:  "Nuh uh, you are!"

Got the page numbers for your assertion that haste forces a system shock roll?  Because until then, you are now wilfully lying about it.

You are a sad and pathetic little fuck. Even your fellows have conceded the Haste point was correct.

Kindly go find some traffic to play in, and leave us. Forever.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;586332Oh it's all about the system the only reason people wouldn't drop like flies is if the DM is ignoring rules. This is the difference between 2e and 3e. I 2e you fail and die if the DM isn't bending rules in your favor. In 3e you can beat the encounters even if they are tough encounters played intelligently. Of course the basketweavers on this form die like gimps even to stock monsters if the DM plays them with half a brain.

Everything in the game is not pure combat, and every enemy does not have save or die abilities.

Really. Play with a good dm.

Quote from: StormBringer;586355What do the 3rd or 4th edition rulebooks say?

It says that once your MU reaches 3rd level the game is over, you won, because you don't need to rely on Sleep anymore.

Quote from: MGuy;586352Doesn't sound like internet tough guy 'cause he didn't threaten to do it himself. I'm more raising an eyebrow at him speculating that you're the "best of the bunch". Assuming he means you're a denner this would confusing because I'm pretty sure you're still low on the number of posts you have at the Den and that you only joined recently.

Anyone that starts talking about real world violence beyond suggesting the poster should go die in a vague manner is Internet Tough Guy. The fact he didn't say he'd do it himself just further speaks to his character. Can't even threaten someone from behind the safety of a monitor.

I'm not sure where Lord Mistborn said that. It sounds like yet another thing Ironybringer made up. I don't see it.

Quote from: Bill;586357Everything in the game is not pure combat, and every enemy does not have save or die abilities.

Really. Play with a good dm.

The ones that don't have explicit save or dies just kill you with normal attacks, especially since encounter sizes were significantly larger in the older editions... if you would fight 1-3 Frost Giants at once in 3.5 you'd fight several times this number as an old edition party of the same level. You either kill them all in one round before they can take an action or they start killing character after character at a very rapid rate.

...You did get high Initiative on that Fireball... right?

Right?

...OHYEGODSITHURTS!

Quote from: Mr. GC;586356It's both.

Wow, it's really not.

QuoteYes, yes, if you cannot get into your DM's head or get on his other head you are a shitty old edition player. I'm not disputing this. And you're right, I've repeatedly failed because I have no interest in neckbeard cock.

You clearly have some kind of interest in cock, it's just a matter of finding what kind.

QuoteRight, so you say whatever and make Bob the 34th, and perhaps you don't even bother to write down that name. Again, not disputing that.

"  My imaginary person died!  How can I go on with even one meaningless failure on my record!  I AM RUINED!"
Jesus, what are you, Blackleaf or something?

QuoteIf only there were. But since the only class that supposedly can is actually another fuck you due to it maxing out at around a 20% success rate you instead played the pole dancer game.

You should take a tranquilizer or something.  This doesn't even make sense.

QuoteYou are a sad and pathetic little fuck. Even your fellows have conceded the Haste point was correct.

Until I pointed out that it wasn't, in fact, correct.  Also that your obsessive worship of RAW couldn't support your assertion, and you had to go way outside of it to even find the slightest support for your incorrect assertion.

QuoteKindly go find some traffic to play in, and leave us. Forever.

Awwww...  it's so sweet that you can't keep your shit together in the face of mounting evidence that you are wrong about nearly everything.  Maybe mommy has a cookie and a ribbon for you because you got out of bed all by yourself this morning.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586360Anyone that starts talking about real world violence beyond suggesting the poster should go die in a vague manner is Internet Tough Guy. The fact he didn't say he'd do it himself just further speaks to his character. Can't even threaten someone from behind the safety of a monitor.

Apparently, they don't have Google in your solipsistic world:
Internet Tough Guy (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/internet-tough-guy)

That you think this is a worthy behaviour is really, really sad.  I'm guessing... 15yrs old, tops.

Quote from: Mr. GC;5863201st level Fighter falls into a 10 foot pit. 35% chance he dies in one hit. That's about the weakest trap imaginable, on the highest HP guy... you know, since that's so meaningful.

It's not 35% unless the dm is bad, and you automatically fall in the pit.
I would generally have a dex roll or a save involved.

Besides, I use the rule in the dm's guide for death at -10  (or houserule it to -CON)

If that poor fighter did get reduced to 0 or lower, there is a fair chance a cleric could heal him.

In most games I have dm'd and played, characters get to level 2 fairly quickly.

Its about the dm being an idiot or not.

Quote from: StormBringer;586355Everyone join in!  What do the 3rd or 4th edition rulebooks say?

I haven't really played 3e, but I have read the books and it has incredibly shitty artwork.  Seriously, what is that elf mage trying to do, walk up steps or something?  So obviously anyone who plays 3e must enjoy shitty artwork and a shitty game that doesn't even attempt to pay attention to details.

I can do it too.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586342Magic works in predictable patterns, but nice try.

Oh right I forgot. The owlbear doesn't exist and magical rituals that fuck with the universe are never heard of.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586342Right, so you suicide shuffle and do not care about the game. Progress!

Why do you make this assumption? Quite a fallacy you have there. Someone can accept loss and continue playing and having a good time THEREFORE it is impossible to care about the game. I don't think that I would have spent as much of my free time on gaming for the past 32 years if I didn't care about it.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586342Sure, those things exist. But they are far less common, and since the mentality has changed from "Troll your players via any and all means imaginable" they are also less emphasized.

Wrong. Thanks for playing though.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586342Along the same lines, if we're talking 3.x core here anything that wasn't a stat booster or some sort of extradimensional storage item was worthless. This severely limits the number of cursed items that can fuck with you as that Dust of Disappearance is going straight to the vendor.

:rotfl:

Quote from: Mr. GC;586342Sure it does. You need the actual abilities to do different things. When it's just flip a coin, there is no choice.

Who is flipping a coin? Yeah you do need abilities. The ability to listen to information given, process that information, and make decisions accordingly.
You can do this in any rpg system. Unless you are saying that only certain systems give you a fucking brain to use.

StormBringer makes me laugh.  He continues to be the most entertaining attraction to this website.  

Quote from: StormBringer;586361Until I pointed out that it wasn't, in fact, correct.  Also that your obsessive worship of RAW couldn't support your assertion, and you had to go way outside of it to even find the slightest support for your incorrect assertion.

It's funny, because I don't think you did.  And BedrockBrendan clearly acknowledge that by RAW, that appears to be correct (though in the books it was vague).  He also has explained that while it may be RAW, it's a stupid rule and he doesn't use it.  

But anyway, let's say you 'pointed it out that it wasn't, in fact, correct'.  What page number does it say it on?  I mean, if the book is the only place that you can refer to as 'an authority', I'm sure it says it somewhere.  Something like 'unlike other forms of magical aging, Haste does not require a system shock roll'.  

Can't find it?  You must be claiming a victory you haven't earned.  Or, you know, asserting a position and claiming it is right despite all evidence to the contrary.  

Like I said, amusing!

Quote from: StormBringer;586361Until I pointed out that it wasn't, in fact, correct.

Hm. I just checked Haste in the 1st ed PH. It doesn't mention the System Shock roll but does mention the use of the spell "ages the recipient due to speeded metabolic processes." When you look at the System Shock Survival (under the Constitution description), it clearly states that "[SSS] states the percentage chance the character has of surviving the following forms of magical attacks (or simple application of the magic): aging, petrification (including flesh to stone spell), ..."

I'd say that, strictly by RAW, you are supposed to make people roll System Shock when they are targeted by Haste, since not only forms of attack, but the mere applications of magical effects that create these conditions, trigger it.

Now I must also precise that it would make sense to Haste individuals that would have the highest Constitution score in the party... which likely will be the fighter. (cough, cough). Let's also note that past 14 in Constitution you have 90+% chance of Survival, as well, and that a 10 Constitution lands you a 70% chance of Survival, comparatively.

Quote from: Mr. GC
The ones that don't have explicit save or dies just kill you with normal attacks, especially since encounter sizes were significantly larger in the older editions... if you would fight 1-3 Frost Giants at once in 3.5 you'd fight several times this number as an old edition party of the same level. You either kill them all in one round before they can take an action or they start killing character after character at a very rapid rate.

...You did get high Initiative on that Fireball... right?

Right?

...OHYEGODSITHURTS![/QUOTEI have dm'd Against the Giants at least five times, usually with the decend into the depths/shrine, and vault of the drow/demonweb pits as well.

Epic campaigns of awesome!

The clever players were able to win with good strategy. The players that were idiots did sometimes get themselves killed.

Also, I don't use challenge ratings, or useless rules like that.

The number of frost giants you fight will be set by me, based on setting integrity and what will make a challenge for the characters.

Works for me.

Quote from: Bill;586364It's not 35% unless the dm is bad, and you automatically fall in the pit.
I would generally have a dex roll or a save involved.

Besides, I use the rule in the dm's guide for death at -10  (or houserule it to -CON)

If that poor fighter did get reduced to 0 or lower, there is a fair chance a cleric could heal him.

In most games I have dm'd and played, characters get to level 2 fairly quickly.

Its about the dm being an idiot or not.

It's also explicitly called out in the AD&D DMG, as RAW that if players are trying to be careful, you can adjust things to keep them from dying easily.  Only the players who aren't being careful should not have intervention.  That's not a DM ignoring rules to make the game easier.  That's in the rules.

But of course, just to get that far you have to ignore the bad math he's using again.  In the rules, pit traps are typically only triggered on a 1 or 2 on a d6 if the players aren't searching for it (and honestly, what player worth his d20 doesn't look for traps?).  So that's only a 33% chance of triggering the trap to begin with.

Assuming no Con bonus (again, a rarity for a fighter):

10% chance of having 1 hp, pit trap has 100% chance of killing
10% chance of 2 hp, pit trap has 83% chance of killing (1 or 2 on a d6)
10% chance of 3 hp, pit trap has 67% chance of killing
10% chance of 4 hp, pit trap has 50% chance of killing
10% chance of 5 hp, pit trap has 33% chance of killing
10% chance of 6 hp, pit trap has 17% chance of killing
10% chance of 7 hp, pit trap has 0% chance of killing
10% chance of 8 hp, pit trap has 0% chance of killing
10% chance of 9 hp, pit trap has 0% chance of killing
10% chance of 10 hp, pit trap has 0% chance of killing

So that's a 35% chance of killing a level 1 fighter with no Con bonus.  Factor in the 33% chance of triggering the trap in the first place, and it comes down to 11.5% that a first level fighter without a con bonus will die stumbling over a pit trap.

When you factor in most fighters will have a Con bonus, and most players will be looking for traps, that % gets even smaller.

Math.  The Kryptonite of GC

Quote from: Bill;586364It's not 35% unless the dm is bad, and you automatically fall in the pit.
I would generally have a dex roll or a save involved.

Besides, I use the rule in the dm's guide for death at -10  (or houserule it to -CON)

If that poor fighter did get reduced to 0 or lower, there is a fair chance a cleric could heal him.

In most games I have dm'd and played, characters get to level 2 fairly quickly.

Its about the dm being an idiot or not.

I think this is a lot of his point.  The game as written tends to be unplayable for a lot of groups.  

In my experience most groups make changes to the 'printed rules' to make the game more fun.  

Death a -CON, maximum hit points at 1st level, certain guaranteed 'minimum' stats for a playable character - these are all things that make the game less swingy and/or random.  If the game is too random, it can be hard for a lot of people to be attached to their character and/or stick with the game.  

But let's recognize this for what it is - changing the rules to make the game easier on the PC is changing the rules to make things easier.  If you don't change the rules, you probably need to 'go soft' at least at first because fights that would be 'consistent with the world logic' are simply unwinnable.  Why did you find a group of 4 goblins and not 15?  Wouldn't either be just as plausible?  In the second case, though, you're almost assured of a TPK at 1st level (without fudging), so a good DM wouldn't do it...  

Now, as far as play preferences go, I prefer the game to be built around the idea of a 'fair challenge' if the players play smart.  I don't like 'random death' - and if a PC has to bite it, I want it to be heroic and memorable.  Sometimes that won't happen - luck can't be taken out of the picture completely, but some of the worst parts of it can be removed or minimized and the game improves.  

Removing System Shock for Haste is a good example as well.  It makes the game less 'fuck you' and increases survivability.  Even among old-school gamers, Gygaxian tends to mean very arbitrary death...  That's not usually a good thing.

Quote from: Benoist;586370Hm. I just checked Haste in the 1st ed PH. It doesn't mention the System Shock roll but does mention the use of the spell "ages the recipient due to speeded metabolic processes." When you look at the System Shock Survival (under the Constitution description), it clearly states that "[SSS] states the percentage chance the character has of surviving the following forms of magical attacks (or simple application of the magic): aging, petrification (including flesh to stone spell), ..."

I'd say that, strictly by RAW, you are supposed to make people roll System Shock when they are targeted by Haste, since not only forms of attack, but the mere application of magical effects that create these conditions, triggers it.

That sounds right, but I would hope that people adjust the RAW to what will make the game fun.

To me, RAW is a starting point that is by definition imperfect.

If the players enjoy systemshock from haste spells, I would use it.

If the players find that lame, I would either ignore it, or make it 0 HP instead of death.

I'm going to say that I also don't agree with the assessment of 3.5. There are a lot of ways you can die in 3.5 as you go higher in level if you're not really careful and at lower level (as I mentioned before) you are seriously one or two hits away from death all the time. Intelligent class and ability selection along with a  decent amount of team work is integral to surviving 3rd and I wouldn't expect (as proven in experience) most casual players to understand how the game works. This is important for 3rd because being a mundane guy,for most people, is a cool thing and the rules do tell you that the mundane people should be just as good as the magic people.

While I like 3rd bestest we shouldn't ignore the many many problems it has as one of my biggest issues with it is Rocket Launcher Tag. I understand that it may be more fun to downplay the issues with 3rd so there can be an edition war or because you might feel that since they are ignoring their favored game's failures then we might as well do it ourselves. I say, let's not do that.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586373It's also explicitly called out in the AD&D DMG, as RAW that if players are trying to be careful, you can adjust things to keep them from dying easily.  Only the players who aren't being careful should not have intervention.  That's not a DM ignoring rules to make the game easier.  That's in the rules.

But of course, just to get that far you have to ignore the bad math he's using again.  In the rules, pit traps are typically only triggered on a 1 or 2 on a d6 if the players aren't searching for it (and honestly, what player worth his d20 doesn't look for traps?).  So that's only a 33% chance of triggering the trap to begin with.

Assuming no Con bonus (again, a rarity for a fighter):

10% chance of having 1 hp, pit trap has 100% chance of killing
10% chance of 2 hp, pit trap has 83% chance of killing (1 or 2 on a d6)
10% chance of 3 hp, pit trap has 67% chance of killing
10% chance of 4 hp, pit trap has 50% chance of killing
10% chance of 5 hp, pit trap has 33% chance of killing
10% chance of 6 hp, pit trap has 17% chance of killing
10% chance of 7 hp, pit trap has 0% chance of killing
10% chance of 8 hp, pit trap has 0% chance of killing
10% chance of 9 hp, pit trap has 0% chance of killing
10% chance of 10 hp, pit trap has 0% chance of killing

So that's a 25% chance of killing a level 1 fighter with no Con bonus, not 35%.  Factor in the 33% chance of triggering the trap in the first place, and it comes down to 11.5% that a first level fighter without a con bonus will die stumbling over a pit trap.

When you factor in most fighters will have a Con bonus, and most players will be looking for traps, that % gets even smaller.

Math.  The Kryptonite of GC

His math must be perfect, because he hates stupid people.

Quote from: Bill;586378His math must be perfect, because he hates stupid people.

To be fair, see my edit as soon as you typed this. I had a typo.  I typed 25% instead of 35%, but quickly fixed it.  The important thing though is that my 11.5% was there from the beginning, which clearly shows I was using 35% and not 25% in my calculation.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;586369It's funny, because I don't think you did.  And BedrockBrendan clearly acknowledge that by RAW, that appears to be correct (though in the books it was vague).  He also has explained that while it may be RAW, it's a stupid rule and he doesn't use it.  

Actually not everyone considers Sage Advice to be RAW. Frankly its just TSR/WOTC employees taking the piss and laughing at idiots like you who can't make their own decisions about how to play an elf.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;586382Actually not everyone considers Sage Advice to be RAW. Frankly its just TSR/WOTC employees taking the piss and laughing at idiots like you who can't make their own decisions about how to play an elf.

All Sage Advice is, is "How does your particular group play?"

Quote from: Bill;586376That sounds right, but I would hope that people adjust the RAW to what will make the game fun.

To me, RAW is a starting point that is by definition imperfect.

Well you basically have the right frame of mind, the mind of a wargames' referee. That's how you're supposed to treat the rules, and modify them if you see something fundamentally wrong for the campaign at hand, all the while considering that there is an integrity and cross-influences of various moving parts in the system that makes it "AD&D", and that past a certain point your campaign could cease to be such.

Quote from: Bill;586376If the players enjoy systemshock from haste spells, I would use it.

If the players find that lame, I would either ignore it, or make it 0 HP instead of death.

Personally, I think the SSS check on Haste makes sense, and I don't think it's automatically 'unfun' and 'wrong'. If you look at the bigger picture of the game in play, instead of just fixating on each particular point of rules isolated from each other, you can easily see that it's not that much of a big deal, for one thing, that the spell (assuming the SSS check is implied) is intended for high constitution characters, second (i.e. fighters and fighting types who might easily have 90+% chance of survival with a Constitution of 14 or better on Method I of stat gen - oh-ho! ;) ), and that third the possibility of dying from the spell actually makes it not an autowin button where you'd haste characters in every single fight "because", but actually would reserve this spell for situations where it would make a difference between life or TPK.

All is well in my book. It's just that the morons on the other side are not seeing the game straight, so much of the charop rules twinkery bullshit is obscuring their visions. It's cool. Let them keep at it.

Quote from: Benoist;586370Hm. I just checked Haste in the 1st ed PH. It doesn't mention the System Shock roll but does mention the use of the spell "ages the recipient due to speeded metabolic processes." When you look at the System Shock Survival (under the Constitution description), it clearly states that "[SSS] states the percentage chance the character has of surviving the following forms of magical attacks (or simple application of the magic): aging, petrification (including flesh to stone spell), ..."

I see it, but I think the accelerated lifespan is due to the target living quicker, rather than magically having their age increased as such. On the other hand, Haste isn't a year's worth of life, so something funny is going on.

I could see it either way, but I think the spell is more interesting if it could kill you, and you have to think before use.

Hmm. A spell that just aged the target would be very powerful.

I am generically against random death from buffs. I'm also against random death from using your class abilities in general. I know that there are people who get off on it but I can't understand the appeal. I feel pretty much the same for rolled stats but at least those don't force you to write up a new character just for using your own abilities.

Right.  And if you think your interpretation is right, and someone else thinks their interpretation is right, both sides are fine to use their interpretation at their table.  Even if one is wrong and one is right, they can both use them.

But in a discussion that includes the rules, understanding the 'baseline' can be important.  Sometimes if you ignore a particular rule, the consequences can be pretty extreme.  

For example, if a group doesn't use 'spell casting disruption', it's pretty clear that they're 'not playing by the rules'.  That's their right, but if they find out that casters are totally dominating, you'd be right to point out that removing an important limitation on wizards is the root cause.  

As far as discussion goes, if one side provides a preponderence of evidence to support their position (even if it includes appeals to authority that others don't recognize, like Ask the Sage or Wikipedia) it isn't fair to dismiss their claim because you don't trust the authority.  Their claim may be right, even if the authority is unreliable.  Finding a counter-claim or a more reliable authority would be the appropriate response.  Or to acknowledge the point and move the conversation on.  

There's a certain intractability here that I find irritating from most posters.  Of course, the same accusation has been leveled at me.  But usually it happens after someone claims to have made a bunch of 'objective data points' available to support their argument, but they don't even seem to apply.  

If you state that 'something exists' and the other side claims 'it doesn't', you only have to show that it exists once to prove the other side wrong.  A 1st level Orc Warrior (3.5) has an attack bonus of +4.  Interestingly, that is only a CR 1/2 creature.  A Wolf represents a good CR 1 creature.  They can make a Touch Attack (ignoring armor) to pull an opponent down (trip).  If they succeed, they are at +4 to attack.  So, if the wolf is successful at tripping an opponent, their attack bonus (including the +4 for the opponent being prone) is +7.  

Combat can be swingy and deadly at 1st level.  Surviving to higher levels can rely on a fair amount of luck if the game is played 'as written' - ie, without 'DM Pity'.  I prefer a game that isn't quite so lethal but the DM doesn't have to pull punches.

Quote from: Ladybird;586386I see it, but I think the accelerated lifespan is due to the target living quicker, rather than magically having their age increased as such. On the other hand, Haste isn't a year's worth of life, so something funny is going on.

I could see it either way, but I think the spell is more interesting if it could kill you, and you have to think before use.

Hmm. A spell that just aged the target would be very powerful.

Flavor-wise, I like the explanation that the Haste spell drains lifeforce to power itself.

Quote from: Ladybird;586386I see it, but I think the accelerated lifespan is due to the target living quicker, rather than magically having their age increased as such. On the other hand, Haste isn't a year's worth of life, so something funny is going on.

I could see it either way, but I think the spell is more interesting if it could kill you, and you have to think before use.

Hmm. A spell that just aged the target would be very powerful.

Yeah I can see how you could interpret it that way. And yes. A spell that would age the target would in fact be extremely powerful, maybe TOO powerful (since for instance aging effects could allow you to relearn spells you failed to understand by changing your age category to Middle Aged or Venerable and therefore modifying your Intelligence score - so aging yourself artificially to allow yourself to relearn and reroll spells not understood before having made it through the whole spell level list could definitely be a "thing", there). I wouldn't create that if I were you, assuming you use those rules of course.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586320Nope. I'm not changing my stance because I haven't been given any reason to change it. An example reason would be being presented with a better alternative.

Hold this in mind for a second.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586320Right. And the characters are looking out at this swamp, that used to be a city before it got flooded and they aren't seeing any fucking trees for at least a half mile in all directions. So if we base it on what the characters can see, "not fucking likely" changes to "most definitely not".

What city has zero trees in it?

This is what I mean.  If you weren't some pretentious asshole, you'd simply say, "okay, you're right, there could be a tree."  But you don't.  Instead you invent details out of whole cloth, and even then those details don't make logical sense.

What would be the point of continuing under conditions like that?

You're just trolling, are you not?

Quote from: Benoist;586384and that third the possibility of dying from the spell actually makes it not an autowin button where you'd haste characters in every single fight "because", but actually would reserve this spell for situations where it would make a difference between life or TPK.

This seems to ignore the opportunity cost of preparing haste in place of a different spell.  There are other spells that are useful and may help prevent a TPK if they're prepared that don't risk killing your companion.  

Unless haste is clearly better than every third level spell available to the caster, or every second level spell, assuming you allow a  caster to prepare a lower-level spell in a higher-level spell slot, preparing it without knowing it is an I WIN button is a mistake.  It's better to prepare the spell that could help that doesn't also risk killing a party member.  

Haste, if used extensively (even if rarely) is likely to result in a companion dying eventually.  

Unless you use different rules, which is fine.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;586398This seems to ignore the opportunity cost of preparing haste in place of a different spell.  There are other spells that are useful and may help prevent a TPK if they're prepared that don't risk killing your companion.  

You guys are thinking both so one-dimensionally and selectively. So on one hand you will tell me that "MUs are all powerful by virtue of not only of having spellslots, but charged items and scrolls also," and on the other hand you will actually completely ignore these considerations to tell me the spell is worthless in-the-whole-game-forever-whatever-the-circumstances because a MU in his right mind wouldn't memorize it?

Make up your fucking mind, will you? ;)

You can have so many scenarios in the game where this would be useful, including finding scrolls with it, magical items, or dungeon features that involve haste effects, not to mention you might face an opponent that is really tough and you just need that extra push to get rid of it, want to take the risk, retreat and camp outside for the night to then memorize Haste, come back, set up an ambush, and cast the spell to make that difference.

I mean really. I really don't understand how you guys can be so braindead as far as your imagination and the consideration of possible actual play scenarios are concerned. That just flabberghasts me. Every single time.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;586393Combat can be swingy and deadly at 1st level.  Surviving to higher levels can rely on a fair amount of luck if the game is played 'as written' - ie, without 'DM Pity'.  I prefer a game that isn't quite so lethal but the DM doesn't have to pull punches.

Play 3.5, Start at 3rd level or more, and don't make gimp characters. Problem solved. Like I said gimps in 3e still die but the option of not being a gimp exists. pre-3e doesn't give you that option

Quote from: deadDMwalking;586393But in a discussion that includes the rules, understanding the 'baseline' can be important.  Sometimes if you ignore a particular rule, the consequences can be pretty extreme.  

This is the original quote:

Quote from: Mr. GC;585763Yup. I only stuck with it because I was too young to realize that suicide shuffling was bad design.

Counter question:

You are playing 1st or 2nd edition. Is casting Haste:

A: A good idea.
B: A great idea.
C: An amazing idea.
D: A pants on head retarded idea.

Edit: Not the point. The point is stuff like Sleep was even better then, whereas Magic Missile was actually a bit worse (sure enemies had less HP, but also came in much larger groups, making single target damage worthless).

In what way is this an honest discussion of the rules where multiple interpretations are allowed?

Quote from: Benoist;586370Hm. I just checked Haste in the 1st ed PH. It doesn't mention the System Shock roll but does mention the use of the spell "ages the recipient due to speeded metabolic processes." When you look at the System Shock Survival (under the Constitution description), it clearly states that "[SSS] states the percentage chance the character has of surviving the following forms of magical attacks (or simple application of the magic): aging, petrification (including flesh to stone spell), ..."

I'd say that, strictly by RAW, you are supposed to make people roll System Shock when they are targeted by Haste, since not only forms of attack, but the mere applications of magical effects that create these conditions, trigger it.

Now I must also precise that it would make sense to Haste individuals that would have the highest Constitution score in the party... which likely will be the fighter. (cough, cough). Let's also not that past 14 in Constitution you have 90+% chance of Survival, as well.

Odds of 15+ Con on the standard stat generation: About 9%.

9% chance you only have a 9% chance of dying... when your ally tries to help you...

Um yeah.

Quote from: StormBringer;586361"  My imaginary person died!  How can I go on with even one meaningless failure on my record!  I AM RUINED!"
Jesus, what are you, Blackleaf or something?

Are you? You're claiming you should just suicide shuffle since characters don't matter then argue with the same.

QuoteYou should take a tranquilizer or something.  This doesn't even make sense.

I know, rules break your small mind. Here, let me help you.

See, there was this rule called Find/Remove Traps. And it determines the chances you will Find and then Remove Traps. This is two separate steps, so naturally you must succeed at both. Otherwise you either do not find the trap (the easy way) or set it off on yourself.

And what'd happen is you'd have this low success rate, like 40%. And because you had to pass twice it was actually 16%. And you'd slowly raise that, but then more and more traps and all of the ones that matter would be magical, and magical traps half your success rate which knocks you right back down to 20ish% chance odds.

Let me guess: You ignore this rule as well?

Quote from: Bill;586364It's not 35% unless the dm is bad, and you automatically fall in the pit.
I would generally have a dex roll or a save involved.

Irrelevant.

"1st level Fighter falls into a 10 foot pit."

The very statement means that he is indeed falling into a pit. Not that he has a chance of falling in or any other such nonsense, any other random fiat houserules because oh shit, having a 35% chance a weak trap just kills the toughest character instantly means Mr. GC is right.

Perhaps you have even extrapolated and realized that that means if you don't treat everyone, including non thinking entities such as a trap as if they should always target the Fighter someone else can fall in and the results are even more lethal.

QuoteBesides, I use the rule in the dm's guide for death at -10  (or houserule it to -CON)

An optional rule in 2nd edition that was made a standard game feature in 3rd.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;586368Why do you make this assumption? Quite a fallacy you have there. Someone can accept loss and continue playing and having a good time THEREFORE it is impossible to care about the game. I don't think that I would have spent as much of my free time on gaming for the past 32 years if I didn't care about it.

Changing characters every five minutes = not taking game seriously. If you don't see why you are brain dead.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;586369StormBringer makes me laugh.  He continues to be the most entertaining attraction to this website.  

I know right? I only don't have him on ignore because of his amusing dance antics.

Quote from: Bill;586371I have dm'd Against the Giants at least five times, usually with the decend into the depths/shrine, and vault of the drow/demonweb pits as well.

Epic campaigns of awesome!

The clever players were able to win with good strategy. The players that were idiots did sometimes get themselves killed.

Also, I don't use challenge ratings, or useless rules like that.

The number of frost giants you fight will be set by me, based on setting integrity and what will make a challenge for the characters.

Works for me.

Does it, or does it not involve ignoring rules that prove inconvenient such as "People die when they are killed" when combined with a system in which everything is trying to kill them?

If the answer is that yes, you ignored rules constantly your post is duly noted and disregarded.

If they actually played by the rules and didn't die why the fuck are these people not winning the lottery instead of playing elf games?

Oh and hey, Sacro can actually work out math correctly after it is already spelled out for him! Progress! We might make a worthy person of him yet!

Quote from: deadDMwalking;586374I think this is a lot of his point.  The game as written tends to be unplayable for a lot of groups.  

My point is more that:

Low levels are unplayable in all editions.
In older editions, the low level problem persists over all levels.

And yes that renders the game unplayable, as to have a playable game you need more meaningful decision making methods than coin flipping.

QuoteIn my experience most groups make changes to the 'printed rules' to make the game more fun.  

Death a -CON, maximum hit points at 1st level, certain guaranteed 'minimum' stats for a playable character - these are all things that make the game less swingy and/or random.  If the game is too random, it can be hard for a lot of people to be attached to their character and/or stick with the game.  

The game has done more and more of these by default. Max HP at 1st is standard in 3.x, stat generation has gotten better...

I use max HP at all levels and you die at -10 + 25% of your max HP, rounded down. The second part of this was a new addition because several people noticed that people would just go straight from fine positives to -10 dead and completely skip the unconscious phase. I still occasionally see a random death but it's an order of magnitude or two rarer. Max HP prevents most of the one round deaths.

None of this matters in a discussion that isn't specifically about my games though.

Quote from: MGuy;586377I'm going to say that I also don't agree with the assessment of 3.5. There are a lot of ways you can die in 3.5 as you go higher in level if you're not really careful and at lower level (as I mentioned before) you are seriously one or two hits away from death all the time. Intelligent class and ability selection along with a  decent amount of team work is integral to surviving 3rd and I wouldn't expect (as proven in experience) most casual players to understand how the game works. This is important for 3rd because being a mundane guy,for most people, is a cool thing and the rules do tell you that the mundane people should be just as good as the magic people.

While I like 3rd bestest we shouldn't ignore the many many problems it has as one of my biggest issues with it is Rocket Launcher Tag. I understand that it may be more fun to downplay the issues with 3rd so there can be an edition war or because you might feel that since they are ignoring their favored game's failures then we might as well do it ourselves. I say, let's not do that.

I'm not downplaying 3.x's flaws. It has plenty, and while I've fixed many that doesn't mean they don't exist.

What I am saying is that once you get past the low levels you will have means of preventing the quick deaths that'd otherwise occur, and because you can do something about it a high lethality environment is not inherently bad.

Quote from: MGuy;586388I am generically against random death from buffs. I'm also against random death from using your class abilities in general. I know that there are people who get off on it but I can't understand the appeal. I feel pretty much the same for rolled stats but at least those don't force you to write up a new character just for using your own abilities.

Older editions = random death editions. They're just getting what they signed up for.

What they are also missing is due to the extremely high lethality of old edition D&D you don't know the entire party is about to die until most of it already has. Because you're either fighting something and it's no big deal, you easily kill it or you're fighting something and its first action is to make 2-3 of your guys hit the ground.

By the time you realize there's a problem, if you're using Haste as a get out of hard encounter card it's too late.

Quote from: mcbobbo;586397Hold this in mind for a second.


What city has zero trees in it?

This is what I mean.  If you weren't some pretentious asshole, you'd simply say, "okay, you're right, there could be a tree."  But you don't.  Instead you invent details out of whole cloth, and even then those details don't make logical sense.

What would be the point of continuing under conditions like that?

You're just trolling, are you not?

One that has been flooded for thousands of years. Obviously, they died and rotted away and there are currently no trees.

See, if I weren't looking at the actual situation, where it's a fucking swamp and a fucking lake that is a flooded former city and it's described as open, with very few things over the water level it might be referring to buildings but a tree is also a thing that'd poke over the water level you might have a point. But because you're talking about some generic swamp and I'm talking about the actual place in which all of this is going down, I am right and you are wrong.

But even if we assume the impossible best case scenario, what then?

The Druid is actually a Dryad: You go from fighting a Druid to fighting a Druid that cannot move very far, is easier to kill, and has a very obvious weak point. If you're assuming "a Druid" and get "a handicapped Druid", the fight is easier than you predict, weak point or no.
The Druid is actually a Treant: And is shut down by the anti melee measures the group was going to take anyways to deal with an actual threat. Assuming a Druid, and getting a free kill works out to another win for Team PC.

The only way this could backfire is if you were expecting a Druid and get something worse than a Druid that requires different measures than any of the things you were doing anyways. Which means you'd have to first find something that kicks more ass than CoDzilla, then make sure that thing is not stopped by generic buffs, flight, damage novas, reactive defenses, isn't mind affecting based...

While such a thing might very well exist I highly doubt you have the requisite system mastery to construct it.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;586398This seems to ignore the opportunity cost of preparing haste in place of a different spell.

This cost is obviated by sleep.  So it is understandable to overlook it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;586382Frankly its just TSR/WOTC employees taking the piss and laughing at idiots like you who can't make their own decisions about how to play an elf.

I don't think is the case.  Ask the Sage under Skip Williams was an absurdly Rules As Written column to the point where Skip was defending typos as being binding rules because that's what was printed in the books, and other semantically correct but obviously unintended rules instead of actually telling anyone why a rule was the way it was, what the intention of the rule was and so forth.

Andy Collins ruled heavily in favor of what he thought would be cool or just didn't answer questions and instead used the column as a blog by going on non sequiturs.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586404One that has been flooded for thousands of years. Obviously, they died and rotted away and there are currently no trees.

See, if I weren't looking at the actual situation, where it's a fucking swamp and a fucking lake that is a flooded former city and it's described as open, with very few things over the water level it might be referring to buildings but a tree is also a thing that'd poke over the water level you might have a point. But because you're talking about some generic swamp and I'm talking about the actual place in which all of this is going down, I am right and you are wrong.

Where is this place defined?  Link, please.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586404Odds of 15+ Con on the standard stat generation: About 9%.

9% chance you only have a 9% chance of dying... when your ally tries to help you...

Um yeah.

Um yeah indeed. Please don't tell me that showcases your grand mastery of mathematics and probabilities because ... that doesn't quite cut it. You are generating 6 ability scores rolling 4d6 drop lowest per DMG Method I of stat generation. You know. The actual default of the rules which you still haven't acknowledged is the actual, factual default stat gen of the game?

Then you assign scores wherever and however you want.

Now assume the spell's targeted at the fighting-types in the group, which also screws with the probability of getting a moderately high CON score. I'm sorry, but I don't think the fighter's dump stat will CON. ;)

Then you actually have to know that 10 Constitution score means a 70% of Survival, and a 15+ means 90+% chance of survival.

So when you're saying stuff like this... honestly. Wake up. You're being really dumb here.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;586406I don't think is the case.  Ask the Sage under Skip Williams was an absurdly Rules As Written column to the point where Skip was defending typos as being binding rules because that's what was printed in the books, and other semantically correct but obviously unintended rules instead of actually telling anyone why a rule was the way it was, what the intention of the rule was and so forth.

Andy Collins ruled heavily in favor of what he thought would be cool or just didn't answer questions and instead used the column as a blog by going on non sequiturs.

That link is just an archive, a compendium. They're just stating the facts, not making judgment calls.

Quote from: mcbobbo;586408Where is this place defined?  Link, please.

Well if you click my username you can see my posts...

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;586406I don't think is the case.  Ask the Sage under Skip Williams was an absurdly Rules As Written column to the point where Skip was defending typos as being binding rules because that's what was printed in the books, and other semantically correct but obviously unintended rules instead of actually telling anyone why a rule was the way it was, what the intention of the rule was and so forth.

Andy Collins ruled heavily in favor of what he thought would be cool or just didn't answer questions and instead used the column as a blog by going on non sequiturs.

And that I believe, verifies rather than invalidates my point. ;)

(http://spikedskull.com/film/zelda-wind-waker/TGSS-falling.jpg)
35% to die instantly

Quote from: Benoist;586395Yeah I can see how you could interpret it that way. And yes. A spell that would age the target would in fact be extremely powerful, maybe TOO powerful (since for instance aging effects could allow you to relearn spells you failed to understand by changing your age category to Middle Aged or Venerable and therefore modifying your Intelligence score - so aging yourself artificially to allow yourself to relearn and reroll spells not understood before having made it through the whole spell level list could definitely be a "thing", there). I wouldn't create that if I were you, assuming you use those rules of course.

Hmm... maybe if it kicked the target up a random number of age bands (And enough years to make that work), rather than just years. Abusable, but solidly on the risk / reward scale. Would need work.

SWN doesn't have aging rules, but trading years of your life for instant system shock recovery sounds reasonable. Would be very high-level biopsionics, though.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585534Most of the Den doesn't actually give a fuck.

Interesting side note, but if you're foreign to the Den, how do you know?

Quote from: Mr. GC;586410Well if you click my username you can see my posts...

Show me.  I'm looking here - http://www.therpgsite.com/search.php?searchid=327049

This, from what I can find, is where you start:

Quote from: Mr. GC;585755Because people still aren't getting it here are actual examples of both good and bad play:

Good party starts off with divinations. They learn that they are up against:

A dragon.
A druid.
A psychic.
A shadow demon.
A pair of melee machines.
Various mooks.

From this they can deduce that:
They should have at least one person with See Invis and lots of Dispels for dealing with the big guys.
They should have Magic Circle so they are not mind fucked by the psychic.
They should all be flying so they are not one rounded by the melee machines.
They should be able to quickly put Wraithstrike on the melee so as to take out the dragon before it can move, otherwise people will likely die.
The druid is impossible to counter without knowing more about him, same for the shadow demon.
The mooks are dealt with by generic buffs and standard anti ranged defenses.

So they close in on the bell tower, cast Silence on it then take out the mooks quickly, spend a few rounds chasing the shadow demon around while it annoys the hell out of them, then they kill it before it can escape and warn the others. The group could leave now and do part two tomorrow, but let's say they don't.

Instead they keep advancing, take out the mooks outside as quickly as possible, then start systematically sweeping the main building. First they shake off the death blast, then kill its source... then they pick a door and kill either the psychic or the druid before he's really ready... and if they're fast they can get the other.

Then they come out, see they've gotten the dragon's attention already... it lasts long enough to get off one action, but with Greater Mirror Image and Wings of Cover the target survives at 3 HP. The melee machines come out last, see the all flying party, and either die or swim away in shame.

A few healing charges later and the party is fine.

Bad party vs same scenario:

At most they can learn about the dragon in advance. They're not even aware the other enemies exist, and as they'd get spotted 500 feet out from the bell tower they likely never will as the guards there can just rain down arrows and boulders... they won't do much at this range, but neither will the parties' attacks, and since it'd take 12-13 rounds to close the distance and get in there and longer to get out of engagement range the party will likely die even before considering they rang the bell, alerting everything in the area and giving the party about 5 minutes to GTFO or die to an overwhelming encounter. None of the major opponents need even reveal themselves as the group would die to the lowest mooks.

If by some miracle they actually survived that long they get brutally beaten down by the shadow demon... and not even the gods can help them deal with all the OTHER stuff all at once.

Again, show me where the scenario was defined to the detail you claim that it was.

Mr GC;

The death at -10 was optional in 1E. Its in the 1E dms guide.

I prefer negative Con myself.

Works great in practice.

Quote from: mcbobbo;586422Interesting side note, but if you're foreign to the Den, how do you know?

Because I can read where they are saying they do not give a fuck, and I can read where they are not coming here for the most part and can conclude from this that they do not care.

Quote from: mcbobbo;586423Show me.  I'm looking here - http://www.therpgsite.com/search.php?searchid=327049

This, from what I can find, is where you start:



Again, show me where the scenario was defined to the detail you claim that it was.

Several other posts also detailed it, but even just in that post...

Spotted 500 feet out - gee, I wonder if this could be a wide open area, as clearly if there were lots of stuff around they could get closer without being noticed?

12-13 rounds to cover 500 feet = translates to 40 feet per round. No one has a land speed that slow.

So we have a swamp, we have the party moving slower than usual, we have them in a wide open area... all of this is easy to work out. Now perhaps I'm spoiled, being as I am used to dealing with good players where all you have to do is give a vague hint in the right direction and they figure out 90% of the scenario by themselves but it isn't exactly hard to work out this is a wide open, wet area even before I specifically described it as a lake. And just to cut off more stupid posts - they were on a boat.

Just so everyone knows the exact probability if you're curious (and yet another example of GC being horrible at math) of the default method 1 stat generation in AD&D, here you go:

(http://www.superdan.net/images/4d6curve.gif)

Source (http://www.superdan.net/dndmisc/4d6curve.html)

That's a 23% chance of having a stat 15 or higher for one stat.  When you have 6 stats, and assign in order, the chance of a fighter having a 15 or higher Con (his second most important stat) is significantly higher than 9%.

And just so you realize, any chance greater than 0% that your buff... your attempt to help the party kills them instead is unacceptably high. So it can be 30%, 20%, 10%, 5%, 1%... If you are going to kill your own party, then cast Fireball, centered on yourself and just get it over with.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586434And just so you realize, any chance greater than 0% that your buff... your attempt to help the party kills them instead is unacceptably high. So it can be 30%, 20%, 10%, 5%, 1%... If you are going to kill your own party, then cast Fireball, centered on yourself and just get it over with.

Any PC has accepted a life of risk and danger, at some level, else they wouldn't be PC's. They'd stay home.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586434And just so you realize, any chance greater than 0% that your buff... your attempt to help the party kills them instead is unacceptably high. So it can be 30%, 20%, 10%, 5%, 1%... If you are going to kill your own party, then cast Fireball, centered on yourself and just get it over with.

Question.  When people point out to you that choosing a 5% chance of the fighter dying instead of a 25% of a TPK doesn't mean that it's a bad choice, do you purposefully ignore it just be an asshole, or are you legitimately that poor at reading comprehension?

Quote from: Mr. GC;586434And just so you realize, any chance greater than 0% that your buff... your attempt to help the party kills them instead is unacceptably high. So it can be 30%, 20%, 10%, 5%, 1%... If you are going to kill your own party, then cast Fireball, centered on yourself and just get it over with.

Speaking of which this is how 2nd edition plays. (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=1)

Quote from: Mr. GC;586434And just so you realize, any chance greater than 0% that your buff... your attempt to help the party kills them instead is unacceptably high. So it can be 30%, 20%, 10%, 5%, 1%... If you are going to kill your own party, then cast Fireball, centered on yourself and just get it over with.

Nice shifting of goalposts, dickweed.

Not to mention, what you are saying right now is also laughably stupid.

Well done, I guess.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586436Question.  When people point out to you that choosing a 5% chance of the fighter dying instead of a 25% of a TPK doesn't mean that it's a bad choice, do you purposefully ignore it just be an asshole, or are you legitimately that poor at reading comprehension?

Oh, it isn't that the Fighter dying instead of the characters that matter is bad. It's that you're relying upon:

1: The Fighter to save you.
2: Randomness to not screw you over.
3: The impossibility of a scenario in which you realize you are doomed before you actually are occurring.

And that means you've lost a dozen times over before considering the fight itself.

Quote from: Ladybird;586435Any PC has accepted a life of risk and danger, at some level, else they wouldn't be PC's. They'd stay home.

Any time a PC has to add "their allies" to the long list of things trying to kill them there's going to be some proactive ganking.

Quote from: Benoist;586439Nice shifting of goalposts, dickweed.

Not to mention, what you are saying right now is also laughably stupid.

Well done, I guess.

At no point in time did I move the goalposts. My stance always has and always will be that killing your own allies, including something that merely has a chance of killing them because you are trying to help them is pants on head retarded. The exact odds that you will kill your own allies is irrelevant beyond being a number greater than 0.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586210Hello ladies. Look at your party. Now back to me. Now back at your party. Now back to me. Sadly, they aren't me. But if they stopped buffing each other to death and started playing smartly they could win D&D like me. Look down. Up. Where are you? You're on a boat! With the group your group could win like! What's in your hand? Back at me. I have it. It's the rulebooks filled with all the good spells. Look again. The rulebooks are now diamonds! Anything is possible when your party kills the enemies and not each other. I'm on a Cauchemar.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586441Oh, it isn't that the Fighter dying instead of the characters that matter is bad. It's that you're relying upon:

1: The Fighter to save you.
2: Randomness to not screw you over.
3: The impossibility of a scenario in which you realize you are doomed before you actually are occurring.

And that means you've lost a dozen times over before considering the fight itself..

Wow.  That goalpost shifting just about gave me whiplash.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586430Because I can read where they are saying they do not give a fuck, and I can read where they are not coming here for the most part and can conclude from this that they do not care.

As opposed to someone like myself, who enjoys the 3e era of D&D but hadn't ever even heard of the Den prior to June or so of this year.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586430Several other posts also detailed it, but even just in that post...

I'm actually ready to call you on this.  Find me one, please.  Just one.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586430Spotted 500 feet out - gee, I wonder if this could be a wide open area, as clearly if there were lots of stuff around they could get closer without being noticed?

Obviously a tower would be built to 'tower' over the surrounding landscape.  A tower that doesn't tower is just a building.  So it doesn't really say anything except that people in the tower have a site line over the treetops.

Also it bears noting that D&D worlds are almost always Earth-analogue.  So unless it has been explicitly stated elsewhere, what holds true on Earth holds true in, e.g., Mystara.  That being said, very, very few places on Earth have zero trees.

But you're just moving the goalposts again, aren't you?

Quote from: Mr. GC;58643012-13 rounds to cover 500 feet = translates to 40 feet per round. No one has a land speed that slow.

Which edition?  E.g. in 3rd, almost every party does, even on a double-move option:

Quote from: http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Movement_SpeedSpeed

Your speed tells you how far you can move in a round and still do something, such as attack or cast a spell. Your speed depends mostly on your race and what armor you’re wearing.
Dwarves, gnomes, and halflings have a speed of 20 feet (4 squares), or 15 feet (3 squares) when wearing medium or heavy armor (except for dwarves, who move 20 feet in any armor).
Humans, elves, half-elves, and half-orcs have a speed of 30 feet (6 squares), or 20 feet (4 squares) in medium or heavy armor.
If you use two move actions in a round (sometimes called a “double move” action), you can move up to double your speed. If you spend the entire round to run all out, you can move up to quadruple your speed (or triple if you are in heavy armor).

Likewise, that same site says, "It costs 2 squares of movement to move into a square with a shallow bog", so you're well under 40/round if it were a swamp at all, by your own example.

Let's check the math - because again, I suck at math - 500/12 = 41.7 and 500/13 = 38.5 - I'm okay with 40.

Factor in the swamp, and we're looking at rates of 80 on double moves, or 40 without.  So you're talking about, what, hasted, unarmored players?  I thought haste was retarded?  Why is your default position?

Oh, that's right, because you're trolling.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586430So we have a swamp, we have the party moving slower than usual, we have them in a wide open area... all of this is easy to work out.

You have established exactly none of this.  I cannot find the swamp you're referring to in the scenario, and you have not provided it.  They're moving at a normal speed for typical (non-swamp) terrain, so long as medium or heavier armor is likely.

Now, I'm not claiming I checked first.  It just so happens that your position of 'actual reality' is being invented as you go, and you're arguing yourself into a corner.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586430...but it isn't exactly hard to work out this is a wide open, wet area even before I specifically described it as a lake. And just to cut off more stupid posts - they were on a boat.

I might have been willing to concede that I missed it before, but I've looked at the 20 or so posts prior to the one I linked you, and I find nothing to substantiate your position.

Also, again going back to the SRD, rowboats move at 1.5 miles an hour, or 13.2 feet per round.  Nowhere close to 40.

Was it a speedboat?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;586369StormBringer makes me laugh.  He continues to be the most entertaining attraction to this website.  

Only because the delusion that you know what you are talking about.  Let's take a look.

QuoteIt's funny, because I don't think you did.  And BedrockBrendan clearly acknowledge that by RAW, that appears to be correct (though in the books it was vague).  He also has explained that while it may be RAW, it's a stupid rule and he doesn't use it.  

"Vague" does not equal "correct".  In other words, if the book says 'the sky is a kind of blue-ish colour', you cannot later say 'the book definitively says the sky is azure'.  I can't believe that is a difficult concept, even for you.

QuoteCan't find it?  You must be claiming a victory you haven't earned.  Or, you know, asserting a position and claiming it is right despite all evidence to the contrary.  

This is why people keep laughing at you, Mr Spock.  I didn't assert anything, I only pointed out that the other assertion wasn't actually solidly valid or accurate.  In other words, the very basics of any discussion revolve around who has the burden of proof.  In this case, it isn't me.  Your claims of vigorous adherence to coherent discussion fall pretty flat when you start asking people to prove negatives.

There is no 'all evidence to the contrary'.  There is one off-hand mention in an archive from almost 20 years ago.  And if you want to base arguments around the idea that RAW is paramount, then going outside of RAW simply because it agrees with you is just about the exact definition of hypocrisy.

You can continue to claim superiority in all matters, but when you make basic mistakes and then double down on them (ie, 'weighted averages are intellectually dishonest') while absolutely refusing to provide even the slightest evidence for your own assertions...  Well, let's just say you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with reality.  Which is why you and your cohort keep falling flat on your faces.

Mr. GC,

When driving with passengers, do you by chance always maintain the exact speed limit.  At all times?

Please answer with a yes or no, and feel free to give a reason why not if that's the case, thank you.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;586374I think this is a lot of his point.  The game as written tends to be unplayable for a lot of groups.

Yes, three decades of playing a game that was unplayable for a lot of groups.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586441At no point in time did I move the goalposts. My stance always has and always will be that killing your own allies, including something that merely has a chance of killing them because you are trying to help them is pants on head retarded. The exact odds that you will kill your own allies is irrelevant beyond being a number greater than 0.

LOL right! That's not like you were just talking about 9% chance of dying or something just a moment ago. Wait... wut? AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

As for your "point" here, that just told me you've probably never actually played AD&D. Anybody who's played the game can tell you casting spells with various side-effects, negative or positive, as well as using them outside the box, and/or casting negative spells for beneficial effects and vice versa, is part and parcel of the game. Having potentially disastrous consequences to the use of a spell that is, in fact, pretty powerful, and thereby having to know the risks and make actual choices as to when to use this or that spell in which particular circumstance, is common place in AD&D.

But of course...

(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/think_logically.png)

Now go ahead. Take away these negative effects and tell me how much you think the MU is overpowered again. :rolleyes:

Quote from: StormBringer;586450Yes, three decades of playing a game that was unplayable for a lot of groups.

Haven't you been paying attention.  All those gamers suffer from Stockholm syndrome.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586410That link is just an archive, a compendium. They're just stating the facts, not making judgment calls.

Wait, so that link isn't RAW?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586452Haven't you been paying attention.  All those gamers suffer from Stockholm syndrome.

Yeah, it's like they have...  brain damage?  :)

Quote from: mcbobbo;586446Obviously a tower would be build to 'tower' over the surrounding landscape.  A tower that doesn't tower is just a building.  So it doesn't really say anything except that people in the tower have a site line over the treetops.

A tower would be tall, but how tall varies. Given that this is a sunken city, and very few things extend above the surface of the water it's safe to conclude this does not extend very far... Regardless, the main tell was a 500 foot detection range since even if there were trees about, if people were hiding behind them you still could not see so well. In fact towering over the treetops would be a liability when it comes to seeing below the treetops. If this was a forest, which it is not.

QuoteAlso it bears noting that D&D worlds are almost always Earth-analogue.  So unless it has been explicitly stated elsewhere, what holds true on Earth holds true in, e.g., Mystara.  That being said, very, very few places on Earth have zero trees.

But you're just moving the goalposts again, aren't you?

The goalposts have not been moved by my side. There aren't trees in the lake because it's a fucking lake. There are trees around the lake, but that doesn't matter because the guys in the bell tower watching the lake get a clear view of everything around for a very large distance and according to several here just derping it on over and getting spotted at 500 feet sounds like a great way to play.

Of course the actual solution is to not march across a killing zone and make the entire party invisible, or breathe water and then walk along the lakebed, or something other than "Please see and shoot me now!" The bad party, in that example obviously had no ability to be invisible or breathe water even if they thought of it.

QuoteWhich edition?  E.g. in 3rd, almost every party does, even on a double-move option:


Likewise, that same site says, "It costs 2 squares of movement to move into a square with a shallow bog", so you're well under 40/round if it were a swamp at all, by your own example.

And at this point the party has left you behind because you're moving at 40 and the rest of the party is going 100-200... Shall I find the mount rules, and explain why those are relevant to a slow PC or can you handle that?

As is, the 40 foot speed here is because that's as fast as the boat goes.

QuoteI might have been willing to concede that I missed it before, but I've looked at the 20 or so posts prior to the one I linked you, and I find nothing to substantiate your position.

Also, again going back to the SRD, rowboats move at 1.5 miles an hour, or 13.2 feet per round.  Nowhere close to 40.

Was it a speedboat?

For the hell of it, we will blindly assume you're right, even though you're not. Well, what does this change?

Now, the party has to weather near 40 rounds of ranged attack spam just to close in instead of 12-13.

Now, the party needs around 50 rounds to disengage instead of about 15.

In what way does this help them not die horribly before accomplishing anything?

Sure, it only changes the scenario from "Party is violently murdered before they can even attempt the adventure" to "Party is violently murdered before they can even attempt the adventure" which is not a change at all. But weren't you trying to I dunno, prove me wrong or something?

It gets worse when you consider even if they somehow make it to just outside the bell tower's engagement range without dying horribly to a withering 50 rounds of combat... The bell has rung. It takes about 5 minutes for every single enemy in and around that lake area to get to wherever it is the problem is occurring. I realize math is hard, so I will spell it out for you. A round is 6 seconds. 1 minute is 10 rounds. After 50 rounds have past it has been 5 minutes.

Which means you are now faced with the following scenario:

Blackscale Lizardfolk - 6, Blackscale Lizardfolk - 6, Blackscale Lizardfolk - 6, Blackscale Lizardfolk - 6, Blackscale Lizardfolk - 6, Blackscale Lizardfolk - 6, Blackscale Lizardfolk - 6, Blackscale Lizardfolk - 6, Blackscale Lizardfolk - 6, Blackscale Lizardfolk - 6, Blackscale Lizardfolk - 6, Blackscale Lizardfolk - 6, Shadow Demon - 1, Archer Mook - 4, Melee Mook - 4, Melee Machine - 2, Commander - 1, Melee Leader - 1, Druid - 1, Psychic - 1, Charmed [strike]Frost Giant[/strike] Psychic Pet - 1, Very Angry Dragon - 1 appear! Command?

And even retards such as yourselves who have never played D&D in any edition and therefore would not know even in general terms what these enemies can do even with labels befitting of your intellects attached to them and who want to both die constantly and never die at the same time and who want REAL ROLEPLAYING yet want suicide shuffling at the same time and so on down the stupid line can work out if there's that many mother fuckers trying to kill you you might as well just save them the trouble and do it yourself.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586441Any time a PC has to add "their allies" to the long list of things trying to kill them there's going to be some proactive ganking.

Not "trying to kill", but "may accidentally kill under stressful circumstances"... because you're not going cast that spell unless the rewards outweigh the risks.

If the risk of system shock is lower than the risk of dying at the hands of your enemy if you're not hasted, it makes a lot of sense.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;586374I think this is a lot of his point.  The game as written tends to be unplayable for a lot of groups.  

The most popular and successful game system of all time is unplayable? Funny.

Quote from: Ladybird;586458Not "trying to kill", but "may accidentally kill under stressful circumstances"... because you're not going cast that spell unless the rewards outweigh the risks.

If the risk of system shock is lower than the risk of dying at the hands of your enemy if you're not hasted, it makes a lot of sense.

Uh huh. And that brings us back to:

Any enemy with a significant chance of killing you will just go ahead and do that before you're aware it can.
Incoherent dichotomous rants about how characters should both always and never die as if in some quantum state of uncertainty.
Incoherent dichotomous rants about how dirty rotten powergamers ignore rules that don't suit them and play the rules, not the game then do the same goddamn thing themselves in a much more blatant fashion than even their worst caricatures of others.

In case you missed it

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586448Mr. GC,

When driving with passengers, do you by chance always maintain the exact speed limit.  At all times?

Please answer with a yes or no, and feel free to give a reason why not if that's the case, thank you.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586465Uh huh. And that brings us back to:

Any enemy with a significant chance of killing you will just go ahead and do that before you're aware it can.
Incoherent dichotomous rants about how characters should both always and never die as if in some quantum state of uncertainty.
Incoherent dichotomous rants about how dirty rotten powergamers ignore rules that don't suit them and play the rules, not the game then do the same goddamn thing themselves in a much more blatant fashion than even their worst caricatures of others.

LOL Right.

Quote from: Benoist;586451As for your "point" here, that just told me you've probably never actually played AD&D. Anybody who's played the game can tell you casting spells with various side-effects, negative or positive, as well as using them outside the box, and/or casting negative spells for beneficial effects and vice versa, is part and parcel of the game. Having potentially disastrous consequences to the use of a spell that is, in fact, pretty powerful, and thereby having to know the risks and make actual choices as to when to use this or that spell in which particular circumstance, is common place in AD&D.

But of course...

(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/think_logically.png)

Now go ahead. Take away these negative effects and tell me how much you think the MU is overpowered again. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Mr. GC;586455Regardless, the main tell was a 500 foot detection range since even if there were trees about, if people were hiding behind them you still could not see so well.

/yawn

Nobody said it was a forest, skillet.  Just that there could be 'a tree'.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586455The goalposts have not been moved by my side.

Oh no?

Quote from: Mr. GC;586455There aren't trees in the lake because it's a fucking lake.

Swamp?  Or lake?  An hour ago it was a swamp.  You used that word.  You didn't bring 'lake' into it until quite recently.

Really if you're right it would be trivial to save yourself.  Show me where you described this lake earlier.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586455There are trees around the lake, but that doesn't matter because the guys in the bell tower watching the lake get a clear view of everything around for a very large distance and according to several here just derping it on over and getting spotted at 500 feet sounds like a great way to play.

So now there are trees nearby?  Because an hour ago you said zero trees.

Because I wasn't talking about sitelines at all.  I was talking about treants and dryads.

Am I supposed to be confused by your topic change?  I could play along, I guess, if it benefits the conversation.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586455Of course the actual solution is to not march across a killing zone and make the entire party invisible, or breathe water and then walk along the lakebed, or something other than "Please see and shoot me now!" The bad party, in that example obviously had no ability to be invisible or breathe water even if they thought of it.

So it'll be the Chewbacca Defense, then.  You change the topic to visibility and movement, when the topic was, originally, swamps have zero trees.  If the glove does not fit you must make me a sandwich. No, no, I get it.  I'm actually enjoying it.

See, fellas, you actually can win an argument with this guy.  Just keep him talking long enough...

Quote from: Mr. GC;586455And at this point the party has left you behind because you're moving at 40 and the rest of the party is going 100-200... Shall I find the mount rules, and explain why those are relevant to a slow PC or can you handle that?

Skillz, how well do mounts fare in a lake, exactly?  Are they giant fish?  If they are, yeah, I'd be a bit curious to see the stats you used.  Did you require custom skills to ride them?

It is a lake, now, right?  Er, um, wasn't it always?  Maybe it was a keyboard error making you type 'swamp' all along, rather than 'lake' and you simply didn't notice that

Quote from: Mr. GC;586455As is, the 40 foot speed here is because that's as fast as the boat goes.

Was. It. A. Speedboat?

Quote from: Mr. GC;586455For the hell of it, we will blindly assume you're right, even though you're not. Well, what does this change?

Another topic shift?  Did you previously describe this swamp-lake from the beginning, as a situation that existed in actual reality, or not?  You impugned my reading comprehension, did you not?

Prove it.

Is this the third or fourth time I've asked you?  I forget.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586455{OMG SNIP}

Mr GC, these are goalposts:

Did you previously describe this swamp-lake from the beginning, as a situation that existed in actual reality, or not?

What you just did, was move them.  With lizardmen, no less.  Just FYI.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586455And even retards such as yourselves who have never played D&D in any edition...

From where I sit you're sooooo deeply into the ropes at this point, even I'm expecting the ref to step in and do an eight count.  Your opinion of my RPG experience is very much not helping my assessment of this conversation.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586455...and therefore would not know even in general terms what these enemies can do

This is quite the run-on sentence you're constructing, by the way.  But please, go on...

Quote from: Mr. GC;586455even with labels befitting of your intellects attached to them

Labels like 'swamp', 'lake', or 'tower'?

Quote from: Mr. GC;586455and who want to both die constantly and never die at the same time

You're flailing at this point...

Quote from: Mr. GC;586455and who want REAL ROLEPLAYING yet want suicide shuffling at the same time and so on down the stupid line

All I'm asking for at this point is a link to the description of the swamp-lake with lizardmen riding fish-mounts.  I can't believe I missed it, it sounds pretty imaginative...

Quote from: Mr. GC;586455can work out if there's that many mother fuckers trying to kill you you might as well just save them the trouble and do it yourself.

I tell you what, let me ask my nearest fish riding lizard man directions to the deepest swamp-lake nearby and I'll drown myself in it.  Deal?

Hey mods, if I'm out of line with my posts, feel free to let me know.

I do feel a little bit evil at this point...

Quote from: Mr. GC;586455Blackscale Lizardfolk

What the fuck is a "blackscale lizardfolk"?  Was that in the colouring book from the 80s?

Quote from: mcbobbo;586478Hey mods, if I'm out of line with my posts, feel free to let me know.

I do feel a little bit evil at this point...

I just wish he would answer my question, because it could put all of this to rest

Quote from: StormBringer;586447I didn't assert anything, I only pointed out that the other assertion wasn't actually solidly valid or accurate.

This sounds a lot like 'nuh-uh!!!!'.  

That's why you make me laugh.  

Quote from: StormBringer;586450Yes, three decades of playing a game that was unplayable for a lot of groups.

Funny - you left out an important part of that quote, but I'll remind everyone what I said.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;586374I think this is a lot of his point.  The game as written tends to be unplayable for a lot of groups.  

In my experience most groups make changes to the 'printed rules' to make the game more fun.  

Since I've been on these boards, I've seen a number of people insist that modifying the rules is required to enjoy the game.  In this very thread someone has indicated that changing the rules is such an inherent expectation that failure to change the rules is 'not playing as intended'.  

And how many times have I heard the refrain, 'play the game, not the rules'?  

How many people have said that they change the rules if they stand in the way of a fun game?

Are you now taking the position that the rules are sacrosanct and should be followed slavishly?  

Color me amazed!!!  

Or are you instead agreeing that people change the rules to keep it/make it fun after 40 years?

Quote from: mcbobbo;586475Swamp?  Or lake?  An hour ago it was a swamp.  You used that word.  You didn't bring 'lake' into it until quite recently.

If someone tries to argue that trees don't grow in lakes either is clearly someone who has rarely left the basement, and has never left the confines of the city.

Quote from: mcbobbo;586478Hey mods, if I'm out of line with my posts, feel free to let me know.

I do feel a little bit evil at this point...

No you're cool. As long as you're not stalking people from thread to thread and forum to forum obsessively, that you're not revealing private information like their names and address or threatening them physically... you know, basic rules of how not to be a totally creepy scumbag on the internet, you can call them out on their shit and call them cunts all you want.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586434And just so you realize, any chance greater than 0% that your buff... your attempt to help the party kills them instead is unacceptably high. So it can be 30%, 20%, 10%, 5%, 1%... If you are going to kill your own party, then cast Fireball, centered on yourself and just get it over with.

I once saved a 1E party with a fireball. My wizard realized that a swarm of ghasts was about to surround, paralyze, and devour everyone.

So I cast fireball on everyone; friend and foe.

Every ghast died, and one ally was badly wounded.


Fireball friends for the win!

Quote from: StormBringer;586479What the fuck is a "blackscale lizardfolk"?  Was that in the colouring book from the 80s?

No.  It's a monster.  In a Monster Manual.  For an edition of D&D that you don't care for.  

Let me introduce you to Google.  It's a wonderful website.  If you type the words you put in quotes (blackscale lizardfolk), you can get links to websites and images that describe what you're asking about.  It's really pretty amazing.  

They even warrant a mention it that terribly unreliable source Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizardfolk

Quote from: StormBringer;586483If someone tries to argue that trees don't grow in lakes either is clearly someone who has rarely left the basement, and has never left the confines of the city.

Maybe we're odd because we have.  I dunno.

All I (originally) tried to say, was that it didn't HAVE to be a druid or a ranger.

But then goalposts were moved.

Quote from: Bill;586489I once saved a 1E party with a fireball. My wizard realized that a swarm of ghasts was about to surround, paralyze, and devour everyone.

So I cast fireball on everyone; friend and foe.

Every ghast died, and one ally was badly wounded.


Fireball friends for the win!

That was sort of the whole point behind breaking a staff of power, no?  I think some people have a very, very hard time thinking outside the box.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;586490Let me introduce you to Google.  It's a wonderful website.  If you type the words you put in quotes (blackscale lizardfolk), you can get links to websites and images that describe what you're asking about.  It's really pretty amazing.  

Let me introduce you to http://lmgtfy.com/

If you create a link using that site you get to demonstrate the googling AND be a smartass in one go.  It is a wonderful way to save time and still be an ass.  It's really pretty amazing.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;586482Funny - you left out an important part of that quote, but I'll remind everyone what I said.

I left that out as a courtesy so you wouldn't have to be embarassed, but since you brought it up...

You have experience with most groups?  Or do most of the groups in your experience make up a few dozen people out of the millions that have played?  In other words, are you claiming that your experience approaches universal?

And how many times have I heard the refrain, 'play the game, not the rules'?  

How many people have said that they change the rules if they stand in the way of a fun game?

QuoteAre you now taking the position that the rules are sacrosanct and should be followed slavishly?  

No, I am taking the position that you should slavishly work on reading comprehension.  Your cohort extolls RAW as though it was the third tablet Moses brought down from Mt Sinai.  In order to support the very weak argument about a spell, the best that could be managed is a 20yr old archive article that made a passing remark about it.

So, do you or do you not adhere to RAW?  Or is it only a convenient tactic so you can win on the internets?  Because your whole posting history here is a body of rhetoric that only aims to score points instead of presenting a position and either defending or supporting it.

Because no one even has the joking expectation any of you will actually present solid facts or a shred of evidence to support your wild assertions.

QuoteOr are you instead agreeing that people change the rules to keep it/make it fun after 40 years?

I will agree that people play the game how they play the game, and neither their style nor RAW are the ultimate 'correct' method.  A statement I am sure you would never even consider in your desperate scramble to show everyone how cool, smart, or knowledgeable you are.