This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1

I have. It is possible to interpret the rule that way, since I interpreted it that way, so I remain correct. Posturing as a bizarrely aggressive sperg because you believe your position is popular is not an argument.


I'm not making a populous argument. What you are talking about about would almost instantly break the game.

You were making an argument from popularity, since you told me to "get friends", even though it doesn't matter if zero people agree with me or a hundred trillion.

Whether it's game breaking depends entirely on the opposition selected by the GM.


I have. It is possible to interpret the rule that way, since I interpreted it that way, so I remain correct. Posturing as a bizarrely aggressive sperg because you believe your position is popular is not an argument.


I'm not making a populous argument. What you are talking about about would almost instantly break the game.

What level did your campaign play into? Level 5, 10, higher?

What version of D&D were you using?

hook, line, and sinker

Disagreement is not trolling. If you don't have anything to contribute, don't post.


I have. It is possible to interpret the rule that way, since I interpreted it that way, so I remain correct. Posturing as a bizarrely aggressive sperg because you believe your position is popular is not an argument.


You have not interpreted it that way.  You have instead made up something that is directly contradicted by the text.  You do this in a lot of rules threads just to start drama with people who are correct.  I'm not sure if you're trolling or earnestly incorrect.

I interpreted it that way. Don't tell me what I did or didn't do. Disagreeing with people is not starting drama, and you're not the arbiter of which positions are correct.

I said what I said, which was go play the game with your friends and you'll see how ridiculous it is to add the HD each level. Simple as that.

No, you were very obviously trying to imply that I don't have friends and don't actually play the game (never mind that I would still be right regardless). I have friends, we have played the game, and we haven't seen that it is ridiculous, and you will not win the argument by attempting to dictate which experiences are reasonable to have.
2
It seems like you're picturing an adventuring party like a SEAL team -- where everyone are highly-trained experts who can do anything and are all self-reliant. But I think AD&D pictured groups more as historical expeditions. They were likely to have a bunch of lesser combatants (henchmen) as well non-combatants like porters, torch-bearers, squires, hirelings, etc. I think of the Lewis and Clark expedition that had a bunch of unmarried soldiers but also boat crew, an trapper/interpreter and his pregnant wife, and an enslaved body servant.

John,

What is an "enslaved body servant?"

In 1784, an enslaved boy was assigned to be 14-year-old William Clark’s personal “body servant.” Like many slaves, the boy didn’t have a legal right to a last name, so he was known just as York.

All that is known about York’s parents are their first names, which were listed in John Clark’s will of 1799. York’s father was called Old York, and his mother was named Rose. It’s possible that Old York was John’s personal servant, and Rose may have been a house servant.

According to Rhonda Blumberg’s “York’s Adventures with Lewis and Clark,” black household servants like York were “upper-class slaves.” He would have slept in the Clark’s home, within earshot of William. He wore nicer clothing than those of field slaves, probably hand-me-downs from William and his brothers. He would have eaten better foods from the family’s kitchen and would have acquired refined manners and speech patterns. But slaves of all classes were typically forbidden from learning reading and writing.


I have no idea if any of this is actually true, it's just what I found in a random internet article.
3
The magic users hire the other adventurers to protect them, of course. As for why they're going into a dungeon in the first place, well, that's never really explained. Because dungeons in fantasy land are full of wealth for no reason, presumably.
4
It seems like you're picturing an adventuring party like a SEAL team -- where everyone are highly-trained experts who can do anything and are all self-reliant. But I think AD&D pictured groups more as historical expeditions. They were likely to have a bunch of lesser combatants (henchmen) as well non-combatants like porters, torch-bearers, squires, hirelings, etc. I think of the Lewis and Clark expedition that had a bunch of unmarried soldiers but also boat crew, an trapper/interpreter and his pregnant wife, and an enslaved body servant.

John,

What is an "enslaved body servant?"
5
I don't want to defend anyone at WOTC, but I actually agree with Perkins on this. If I were designing the game, I'd take it down to 4 base classes (Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Rogue) and make everything else a variant on one of those. Either through subclasses or by feat selection. Then again, I bailed out of the 5E ship years ago.
Even the Cleric is just a D&D-ism that is barely retained anyway as Bards now have Arcane healing.

All you really need are three classes; Fighter (fighty guy), Mage (casty guy) and Expert (skill guy); and free multi-classing between them.

Cleric is a Figher/Mage with a focus on healing spells. Paladin is also a Fighter/Mage with twice the levels in Fighter as Mage. Ranger is a Fighter/Expert with a focus on Nature, Barbarian is the same, but has way more levels in fighter than expert. Druid is a Mage with Nature/Shapeshifting focus. Etc.

Beyond that, you just need some subclass specifics like “Str vs. Dex based” Fighter options… with Rage, Unarmored Defense, and Unarmed strikes in the list somewhere for Fighter, Skill Tricks for the Expert (ex. Nature abilities, Mechanics/Locks/Traps, Social, Stealth), and spell school and/or power source focus for the Mage and you could more than cover all the D&D classes and have much broader options in general.

Chris,

Excellent ideas. And it totally works, it's True 20!  Except for the awful damage save. X Without Number does soemthing like this as well.
6
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Biden's Cascade of Failure!
« Last post by SHARK on Today at 09:55:54 PM »
Greetings!

Here is the Benny Johnson program. Discusses the HUGE contrast between Biden and Trump. Check it out!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

7
In the opinion of those of you who actually run games, can a wheelchair bound character have an 18 dexterity or equivalent, and does removing the chair alter this in anyway? If say a beholder thanos-sizes the wheelchair out from under your arse are we adjusting your ac or dodge or whatever?

That's getting into what the D&D attributes actually represent, which is a whole other can of worms. I see no reason why a wheelchair-bound character could not be an expert marksman, at least with a crossbow or firearm. But I'm also not giving them a dodge bonus to AC. Where that gets complicated is that the Dex bonus to AC theoretically incorporates both parrying and dodging. While being in a wheelchair would badly hinder your ability to fence, it doesn't make parrying impossible, so maybe limit on the max AC bonus they can get from Dexterity would be in order. I'd penalize the shit out of their reflexes-based saving throws, too.

If the wheelchair got suddenly vaporized they would be prone, and that would do whatever it otherwise does in the game rules.
8
I think it's a matter of taste, but I think there are some differences in viewpoints.

It seems like you're picturing an adventuring party like a SEAL team -- where everyone are highly-trained experts who can do anything and are all self-reliant. But I think AD&D pictured groups more as historical expeditions. They were likely to have a bunch of lesser combatants (henchmen) as well non-combatants like porters, torch-bearers, squires, hirelings, etc. I think of the Lewis and Clark expedition that had a bunch of unmarried soldiers but also boat crew, an trapper/interpreter and his pregnant wife, and an enslaved body servant.

The problem I have with the Lewis and Clark analogy is that D&D adventures in general, and dungeons in particular, are phenomenally dangerous. Much more dangerous than even the American frontier was, and more dangerous than most historical wars. A D&D party goes into a dungeon fully expecting to face deadly traps and be in multiple life-or-death conflicts with supernatural creatures before they return, not to mention the likelihood they'll have to scale sheer surfaces or swim underwater for significant distances. I can't imagine anyone willingly taking a pregnant woman into that.

I don't know about the Navy Seal comparison. Frankly, I don't know that much about Navy Seals, but my understanding is that their job is to be elite combatants first, and everything else is in service to that. Maybe SHARK's "every Marine a rifleman" is a better analogy. I don't think every adventurer needs to be an elite fighter or necessarily an elite anything. As I said in the other thread, it strikes me as a profession which would reward generalism more than specialization. I accept class roles in D&D, because it's D&D and that's just how the game works, but I do think skill-based systems can sometimes produce more plausible, well-rounded adventurers out of character creation.

If we're open to literary examples, I'd point to adventure-fiction characters of the Indiana Jones/Alan Quartermain/Nathan Drake type. They're not usually the absolute best at anything, but they have a broad skill and knowledge base, and above-average competence in the things most important to what they do. Indiana Jones gets his ass whipped all the time, but he can still scrap. In the fantasy realm, characters like Conan or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are elite fighters, but they're also generalists who have plenty of skills beyond fighting.

I also question your comment about can't withstand physical hardship. In my experience, most magic users have low Strength but do have high Constitution, and I think of them as being quite tough and able to endure hardship. They're just not very skilled at fighting.

That has not been my experience, but obviously it depends on the luck of the die for attribute scores. I think it's fair to say that every other measure of physical resilience D&D tracks, wizards traditionally score very poorly. They always have the lowest hit die and usually have the worst poison or constitution saves. They usually don't have athletics as a class skill, and they don't get any class features related to travel or survival.

They're always bad at fighting, but the relevant question is how bad? Because they shouldn't be as good as a fighter or thief. What gets my goat is when people say that wizards (and thieves) aren't supposed to be able to fight, and shouldn't be fighting. Anyone who walks into an RPG dungeon should expect to be in a fight. If they're likely to be slaughtered as soon as a 1 hit-die goblin gets into melee with them, they have no business being there. 

There are exceptions, I'm sure. I never read any Dragonlance fiction, but I understand that Raistlin was portrayed as sickly - and that may have become a stereotype of D&D, but I'm not sure it was part of the original vision. Gandalf was the earlier stereotype for the wizard, and he was technically an extremely tough demigod who wielded a sword on his horse in battle. AD&D magic users weren't Gandalf, for sure, but they weren't necessarily delicate flowers who couldn't endure hardship.

I don't know if Raistlin is to blame or just the general stereotype that wizards are all egghead nerds. Gandalf is better, but it's a bit unfair because he's a superhuman. There aren't many great literary models for a wizard adventurer, because in most classic fantasy, wizards aren't adventurers. They're villains or advisor-types. Turjan from Dying Earth is probably the most apt example, but Turjan can handle a sword. In fact,  he and Cugel are both good examples of why a magic-user in a Vancian system better be able to defend themselves without magic.
9
For my medieval-based D&D games, I prefer to be inspired by harsh, brutal reality.

Ain't no one in any pseudo-medieval world gonna let their crippled relative, who is confined to a wheelchair, go adventuring. Even if they were the most gifted Wizard pupil around, the harsh reality of life would smack them in the face long before they went into their first ruin. And, as I said, it presumes that not a single Cleric does anything for charity. That their friendly Druid neighbor doesn't take pity on them and see to it their life is not confined to some wheelchair.

Greetings!

Yep, my friend! The whole argument is arguing from a position of absolute absurdity. Morons push for this kind of BS. Imagine what anyone rational in the game-world itself would likely think about such morons. They would laugh at them ruthlessly, out-of-hand. These pathetic, weak, helpless types of characters make zero sense in the harsh, real world environment--and they don't somehow make more sense in a harsh, brutal world that also has vampires, bands of savage orcs, and dragons running about seeking to slaughter everything that comes across their path.

The promotion of this nonsense is for the most part promoted by woke, jello-filled morons that are absolutely delusional.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

In Hackmaster 4th Ed, you has quirks and flaws (both mental and physical) for your PC by either cherry pick or roll (3 max by cherry pick). The more quirks and flaws you have, the more building points you get to purchase talents and skills at character creation.

BUT there is a threshold. A saturation point if you will, where the character would be considered unplayable. Through a sheer number of unlucky rolls, your character could become unplayable.  You could end up with a character who is a quadriplegic with chronic nose bleeds, migraines, stutters, and thinks he's a king (delusional).

My point? Sure you can have a game where PC do have quirks and flaws. HM 4E pulls this off. A PC who is a chronic liar, has unusual body odor, and in near-sighted is not exactly unplayable for example. As a DM, I would on occasion use these quirks and flaws against the PC. Honestly, that's part of my job.

But the guy who is character who is a quadriplegic with chronic nose bleeds, migraines, stutters, and thinks he's a king (delusional)?

No, he's unplayable. Period.

There comes a point where the shit piles up so much, you just have to say to yourself "there is no fucking way this character is playable."

The problem is the Skittle colored hair crowd thinks quirks and flaws are not as they are. They don't understand there are limits.

I don't care how fucking intelligent Steven Hawking was but he isn't climbing a fucking tree.

Intelligent? Yes. Genius? For sure. Run a 500m dash? Fuck NO!

Which is why...



Greetings!

Absolutely, my friend! Hackmaster was absolute *genius* too! Definitely a system that makes Woke people REEE and cry!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
10
Greetings!

Yes, ForgottenF and I agree very much. In the "Wheelchair" thread, I made precisely the same argument. Yes, I am biased towards harsh, brutal reality, because I have actually done all of what amounts to as "Adventuring" in real life, professionally. While the Army and Navy are not as strict and demanding as the Marine Corps, historically, both of them have embraced and demanded a fairly rigorous uniform standard of physical abilities. Army Infantry demand everyone in the squad are able to perform basic physical challenges, running, climbing, swimming, digging, crawling, combat, running, and so on. The Navy--of course, not now with the fucking Woke Navy--but in the past, they too required regular physical challenges, carrying men and equipment up and down tight flights of stairwells, working with heavy tools, weapons and ammunition, and of course, being skilled in swimming. They also required a standard of athletics, likewise from every member of the crew, regardless of their particular "job".

That gets into my experience with the Marine Corps policy of "Every man a Rifleman." The Marines of course, likewise demand extremely vigorous physical abilities from everyone--again, regardless of their job or specialty. The standards within the Marine Infantry and Force Recon are much higher, and even more demanding. The Navy Seals, as you mentioned, yes, they too demand some of the highest and most brutal standards, again, for every member of the team.

This experience is all very relevant, because for many members of the military, at least much of the time, we do most everything that professional Adventurers in our games do.

The stupid, the fat, the weak, the slow--and certainly the fucking crippled--are not welcome, not acceptable, and not tolerated.

WHY?

Because people will unnecessarily DIE trying to protect the weak fucks, or get killed while coddling them.

Next, the MISSION. The success of the MISSION requires everyone is pulling their weight, and bringing their "A" game in every way. Minimum standards are simply a baseline--out in the field, in the real world, the Mission will always demand FAR MORE.

Your team simply must be able to all perform very well, and be ready and able to exceed expectations, or the Mission fails.

So, yeah, even in 1E D&D, Wizards are always very welcome, and an excellent asset--but they still must be able to do all the basic physical challenges and wilderness survival and movement required of everyone on the team.

There is no room for the weak, the fat, the slow, the stupid, or the crippled.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Shark, do you allow players to re-roll characters if they get lousy stats?  Or are you in the “3d6, straight-down-the-line-and-you’ll-take-what-you-get-and-like-it” camp?

Greetings!

Good question, my friend! The truth is, it depends on the "Campaign Mode" I am running that particular group with. Normal Mode--which is 4D6 for each stat; or Hard Mode, which is 3D6 down the line. Of course, sometimes I will run the campaign one mode or the other, or allow the Players to select what they like. Some, after all, *prefer* the Hard Mode.

In recent campaigns, however, like my more recent group, I have been playing the Shadowdark rules, so, HARD MODE it is!

I can be lenient though. If they roll up a totally lame Character, yeah, reroll and get something decent. I don't let them reroll endlessly, seeking super stats--but simply to get that rough, decent range of stats. The driving point, being, yeah, Adventurers are unusual and somewhat elite. You have to be to even have a chance at surviving the challenges ahead. Being normal is ok, but let's face it--a large chunk of humanity are in fact, just walking corpses in a firefight. They are often mentally and physically entirely unsuited to fighting at the front. So, I am careful to supervise Players to make sure that they have rugged, functional characters. The weak, fat, crippled, and so on, well, again, let's be real. Those people stay back on the farm, or stay in the urban ghetto where they come from, or even a more well-off house. Those people stay near the temples, the schools, and markets, away from danger and real work.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Thanks for the response.  It is always good to know your take on things. 


I myself am kind of a softy when it comes to stats.  I would like a character to have two good stats and to be able to place them so they can pick a class that they want to play.  In the AD&D Player’s Handbook Gary Gygax recommends that a player character have at least a 15 in two stats since they represent heroic adventurers.  Since I use the  B/X rules and the plusses start at 13, I would be okay with two stats of at least 13 or better.  My reasoning is that I can always bump up the challenge if the players are really “heroic” and cutting their way through hordes of enemies Conan style. 

Regarding Magic-Users, I have no problem with a mage swinging a sword in a fight.  They are still going to have crappy to-hit rolls in most systems.  Not sure how I feel about them wearing heavy armor, or any armor for that matter.  The whole “magic doesn’t work ‘cause metal armor” falls apart when the mage dons a suit of dragon scale armor or magical leather.  I am forced to say “no” for the sake of game balance.  I would rule if the mage wants to wear armor and fight well then they should branch off into fighter.

Greetings!

*Laughing* Yeah, Svenhelgrim, I am much the same way. After all, allowing Players to actually play the Class that they want, and be fairly decent at it, I tend to think is a good thing, you know? Having said that, yes, there is also great fun--and hilarity--in letting Players roll up totally random characters, letting the dice fall where they may, and see what you get. Personally, I LOVE that. It provides lots of hidden dynamics that are good for the game as a whole, if you see what I'm saying.

But, it does have its limitations and lessened appeal when you have a Player that is really jazzed and excited about playing "X" class. Telling them, "Well, better luck next time!" does not appeal to me very much, and certainly not likely for many Players. So, yeah, as the GM, I think being flexible, and somewhat generous at character creation is probably best, and the most fun.

I know some people like being harsh and uber-dicks say for example, to strangers you just met at a Con or at the game store, and may be more generous to a group of friends. Myself, though, yeah. You know. *Laughing* I'm nicer, and cool, and like everyone to have a good time. I wear the DM's Viking Hat, that is certain, but I'm not trying to compete with somehow showing how mean of a bastard DM I can be. I usually play with friends, so these people know me. Even at the game store, having a couple young girls, an older vet come up, maybe a young guy in high school or college, eager to get into an awesome campaign of D&D, yeah, I want them to have a good time, too.

That is just how I roll, my friend!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10