PDA

View Full Version : Ridiculous D&D contrivances



Pages : [1] 2

Faulty
2009-04-22, 02:47 PM
I know fantasy requires a level of suspension of disbelief, but sometimes D&D just goes too damn far. I was just reading Dungeonscape... sharks bred to swim in acid? Really? It's one of the most preposterous and ostentatious things you could possibly put in a dungeon! As if the lack of flesh searing chemicals wasn't enough! Sharks, really? I mean... unless you plan on doing this. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/hNILbziAvZCxcssLiGa.gif)

So, what's your favorite absolutely totally ridiculous thing D&D has ever tried to convince you is a reasonable thing to put in a game?

SurlySeraph
2009-04-22, 02:55 PM
The avatar of Erythnul, God of Slaughter, was a puppy.
A flying puppy.

Zaq
2009-04-22, 03:04 PM
The material component for Bless Water (or the other [ALIGNMENT] water spells) is five pounds of powdered silver. A flask of holy water is one pint. There is simply not enough room to mix the two! You can't do that! I'm okay with most magic. I'll accept conjuring fearsome beasts out of thin air, lighting things on fire with your mind, bringing the dead back to life, turning yourself into a strange new form, sending your friend across the globe in the blink of an eye, any of it. But this isn't magic, this is before the magic happens. Ugh. That just bothers me for some reason.

Oh, and the fact that all languages are equally easy to learn and that a mere two skill points (or one, for some classes) is enough to instantly, perfectly, fluently master a new language. I know that PCs are legendary heroes and thus Better Than You, but I cringe a little when I think about how my studies of Japanese (I'm a Japanese Major for crying out loud! I'm graduating next month! I've spent years on this and I'm still nowhere near fluent!) counts for less than two skill points (less because I don't have the perfect fluent understanding that Speak Language gives). Grrr.

MCerberus
2009-04-22, 03:13 PM
Half-Dragon Celestial Bees. I've actually had one of my characters fight them. The sad part is that Half-Dragon Celestial Bees is a rather tame example of template sillyness.

Faulty
2009-04-22, 03:58 PM
Half-Dragon Celestial Bees

I know dragons have a totally different mindset than us, but talk about a weird fetish.

Thajocoth
2009-04-22, 04:13 PM
I don't have any more trouble suspending disbelief for any of that stuff than I do for Magic Missile. As a matter of fact, there are things released as April Fool's jokes that I look at and think "You know... The stats actually look balanced to me... I wonder if my players would yell at me if I tossed in a few Flumph Headstabbers..."

So nothing official has looked too crazy to me.

Faulty
2009-04-22, 04:18 PM
I don't have any more trouble suspending disbelief for any of that stuff than I do for Magic Missile. As a matter of fact, there are things released as April Fool's jokes that I look at and think "You know... The stats actually look balanced to me... I wonder if my players would yell at me if I tossed in a few Flumph Headstabbers..."

So nothing official has looked too crazy to me.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mm2_gallery/88268_620_65.jpg?

chiasaur11
2009-04-22, 04:23 PM
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mm2_gallery/88268_620_65.jpg?

Ah.

So THAT'S why adventurers are so stab-happy.

KazilDarkeye
2009-04-22, 04:23 PM
Yeah, but Grells are abberations. They are, by definition, supposed to be a bit weird (to us).



Bless Water thing

Yeah, but the spell doesn't say you MIX the silver and water. Maybe the silver blackens and turns to dust as holy (or whatever) energy is transferred from it to the water?

monty
2009-04-22, 04:29 PM
Yeah, but the spell doesn't say you MIX the silver and water. Maybe the silver blackens and turns to dust as holy (or whatever) energy is transferred from it to the water?

Animate dead, on the other hand...that's a lot of onyx.

Mando Knight
2009-04-22, 04:40 PM
I was just reading Dungeonscape... sharks bred to swim in acid? Really? It's one of the most preposterous and ostentatious things you could possibly put in a dungeon! As if the lack of flesh searing chemicals wasn't enough! Sharks, really?

...Our Administrator and Giant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Burlew) wrote that supplement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeonscape)...

Who_Da_Halfling
2009-04-22, 04:43 PM
Animate dead, on the other hand...that's a lot of onyx.

I believe by RAW it reaches a point where animating certain creatures requires more onyx gems than will fit inside their head. Also gives you a really easy way to research hit dice (just put in one gem at a time until the spell works, repeating as necessary and taking as many days as required to get all the necessary spells).

The movement speed always kind of bothered me. I know PCs are above average people, but 30 feet is a lot to move in 6 seconds and still have enough time to cast a spell, attack someone, or do any number of things that are standard actions, or even move actions. And running at 4x speed?

-JM

KazilDarkeye
2009-04-22, 04:44 PM
The Giant

Technically he only co-wrote it. That might mean he had no part of the Acidborn Shark, and is making fun of his co-author for slipping that in there.



The movement speed always kind of bothered me. I know PCs are above average people, but 30 feet is a lot to move in 6 seconds and still have enough time to cast a spell, attack someone, or do any number of things that are standard actions, or even move actions. And running at 4x speed?

30f.t/6 seconds = 5 feet/sec, which is 1.5 m/s (I think). The usual top running speed is roughly 10 m/sec, so they are actually going pretty slow.
Even at 4x speed, that's only 6m/s

mostlyharmful
2009-04-22, 04:48 PM
Animate dead, on the other hand...that's a lot of onyx.

Not in a world where Onyx creates perpetual motion machines.


Epic level bakers regularly occuring in big cities are one of the things that get me.

Dervag
2009-04-22, 04:48 PM
The material component for Bless Water (or the other [ALIGNMENT] water spells) is five pounds of powdered silver. A flask of holy water is one pint. There is simply not enough room to mix the two! You can't do that!On the contrary. Silver is approximately ten times denser than water, so five pounds of silver occupy roughly one half pint of volume.

You'll need a flask that holds more than a pint, yes, but not vastly more.

monty
2009-04-22, 04:50 PM
The movement speed always kind of bothered me. I know PCs are above average people, but 30 feet is a lot to move in 6 seconds and still have enough time to cast a spell, attack someone, or do any number of things that are standard actions, or even move actions. And running at 4x speed?

I think you are overestimating how far 30 feet is, or underestimating how long 6 seconds is. 30 feet per 6 seconds comes out to about 3.4 miles per hour, which is not all that fast.

KazilDarkeye
2009-04-22, 04:53 PM
Water silver thing

And, as I said earlier, you're not necessarily mixing the water and silver.



Movement speed thing again

As a corrolary, in order to run faster than 10m/s, you'd need to move over 150f.t. per round, and if you're doing that (it is possible), you're probably flying.

Waspinator
2009-04-22, 04:58 PM
Stupid monsters? Here you go:
http://www.headinjurytheater.com/article73.htm
http://www.headinjurytheater.com/article95.htm

TheCountAlucard
2009-04-22, 05:01 PM
As a corrolary, in order to run faster than 10m/s, you'd need to move over 150f.t. per round, and if you're doing that (it is possible), you're probably flying.

Actually, that wouldn't be too hard. When you run, you move four times your base land speed in one round. A first-level human barbarian could do it.

KazilDarkeye
2009-04-22, 05:04 PM
I never said it had to be difficult. The 150 feet thing is an underestimate, caused by laziness and/or not using a very accurate conversion value.
Even with a barbarian running, it's still only about 11m/s, which is still somewhat reasonable.
Plus, Barbarians are used to all that stuff. Reading, writing and basic maths, on the other hand...

JMobius
2009-04-22, 05:08 PM
Contrived things in D&D?

What about the very existence of the ubiquitous 'dungeon'?

Or how about even the adventuring profession?

:smalltongue:

Olo Demonsbane
2009-04-22, 05:14 PM
Lets see...
Human Barbarian 1
Feats:
Run
Dash x3
Flaws:
Murky-eyed
Innatentive

Speed: 30ft + 10ft + 15ft = 55ft
Using a Run Action: 55 x 5 = 275ft/6 seconds


On topic, the templates are kind of messed up...I mean, How the heck are there so many half celestials? And Half Dragons? And Half Fiends? Half-Trolls?

FoE
2009-04-22, 05:29 PM
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mm2_gallery/88268_620_65.jpg

Hey, I like grells! They're one of the few things in the original Fiend Folio that didn't totally suck.

Case in point, the carbuncle.

http://home.gwi.net/%7Erdorman/frilond/img/carbuncle.gif

It's an armadillo with a gem in its forehead and a hard-on for necrophilia. That's right: the carbuncle is so fascinated by death it makes you fight suicidally. And if you attack the carbuncle itself, it dies and the gem rots. Ha ha, no treasure for you, stupid PCs!

There's a reason WotC included this loser in their Fool's Grove adventure. Along with the little bunny with the giant unicorn horn.

Oslecamo
2009-04-22, 05:31 PM
On topic, the templates are kind of messed up...I mean, How the heck are there so many half celestials? And Half Dragons? And Half Fiends? Half-Trolls?

I don't understand this one. I don't remember any place saying that there's lots of those half-breeds. There's just as many as the DM wills.

Faulty
2009-04-22, 05:31 PM
Technically he only co-wrote it. That might mean he had no part of the Acidborn Shark, and is making fun of his co-author for slipping that in there.

That was my assumption. I don't mean Rich any offense, the quality of his Gaming articles is pretty fantastic, and they should have gotten him to work on more books.


Stupid monsters? Here you go:
http://www.headinjurytheater.com/article73.htm
http://www.headinjurytheater.com/article95.htm

Very nice articles. I think Sea Cats are cool though. >_>

Eldan
2009-04-22, 05:49 PM
Some people here just have no concept of how weird nature itself can actually be...

Case in point: This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsO0j1Qoyns&feature=related). Just ignore the stupid music.

Faleldir
2009-04-22, 05:56 PM
The fact that monks can't dual-wield their bare hands.

The Blackbird
2009-04-22, 06:02 PM
Two words: Pun Pun

Tengu_temp
2009-04-22, 06:33 PM
Two words: Pun Pun

I'm sure no official book states that Pun-Pun is a reasonable thing to put in a game.


Technically he only co-wrote it. That might mean he had no part of the Acidborn Shark, and is making fun of his co-author for slipping that in there.


And even if he actually wrote it down - then what? There's nothing bad in making light-hearted, not serious fun of Giant's creations.

TheCountAlucard
2009-04-22, 06:40 PM
How about the fact that with one wish, you can get twenty-five thousand tons of firewood, but could only get fifty pounds of platinum? All for the simple reason that one is perceived as being more valuable than the other?

Starscream
2009-04-22, 07:17 PM
I have lots to say, but unfortunately it has all been said better than I could here (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/wtf-monster-manual.php), here (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/monster-manual-wtf.php) and here (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/wtf-tomb-horrors.php). (Links contain NSFW language)

Edit:
'nother one. (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/wtf-deities-demigods.php)

Izmir Stinger
2009-04-22, 07:27 PM
In D&D, the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the length of the other two sides. The geometry of this world, and by extension the physics, isn't just physically impossible. That I can deal with. You have to for willing suspension of disbelief in fantasy. Magic and monsters and stuff, that's all physically impossible.

But no, the really weird stuff is casually accepted by most of the gamers. When the adventurers get down to the violence they move around in a world where one guy running due north and another guy running the exact same speed northwest retain the same relative position on a north south axis. That square room they are in? Every point on the wall is the same distance from the center as every other point on the wall. Yup, that square room is a circle.

The logical impossibilities will really warp your brain.

DragoonWraith
2009-04-22, 07:31 PM
Some people here just have no concept of how weird nature itself can actually be...

Case in point: This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsO0j1Qoyns&feature=related). Just ignore the stupid music.
Hey I like that song!

And there are weirder things in nature than those, I think. More importantly, though, those make a lot more sense than sharks bred to be immune to corrosion.

ken-do-nim
2009-04-22, 07:41 PM
In D&D, the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the length of the other two sides. The geometry of this world, and by extension the physics, isn't just physically impossible. That I can deal with. You have to for willing suspension of disbelief in fantasy. Magic and monsters and stuff, that's all physically impossible.

But no, the really weird stuff is casually accepted by most of the gamers. When the adventurers get down to the violence they move around in a world where one guy running due north and another guy running the exact same speed northwest retain the same relative position on a north south axis. That square room they are in? Every point on the wall is the same distance from the center as every other point on the wall. Yup, that square room is a circle.

The logical impossibilities will really warp your brain.

Is that a 4th edition change? In 3.5 diagonals count for 1.5 squares.

I've been playing 1st edition recently, and I have to say I enjoy the freedom of removing the grid under the miniatures entirely and using a ruler in play to determine distances (which are all listed in inches).

Graymayre
2009-04-22, 07:47 PM
How about the fact that some people can fall faster than others?

"Don't even try to beat Bob in a sky-diving race"

"Why?"

"Because he's a monk."

Then there's drowning people to keep them from bleeding out. Who knew that filling a person's lungs full of water would bring them back from the brink of death?

monty
2009-04-22, 07:55 PM
How about the fact that some people can fall faster than others?

"Don't even try to beat Bob in a sky-diving race"

"Why?"

"Because he's a monk."
I thought everything fell at the same rate - 150 feet in the first round, and 300 feet every subsequent round. Granted, this ignores air resistance, but do you really want to deal with all of those formulas?

Then there's drowning people to keep them from bleeding out. Who knew that filling a person's lungs full of water would bring them back from the brink of death?
I'm pretty sure that was an oversight, and not intended to actually be part of the game.

lesser_minion
2009-04-22, 08:30 PM
Is that a 4th edition change? In 3.5 diagonals count for 1.5 squares.

I've been playing 1st edition recently, and I have to say I enjoy the freedom of removing the grid under the miniatures entirely and using a ruler in play to determine distances (which are all listed in inches).

4e has now changed things so that diagonal movement is at the same rate as normal movement - they seem to think that counting every other square as two squares is too much work.

My own contribution is 4e's round system - things move from one round to the next with what might as well be a 'CLUNK!' audible in the game world.

Either adventurers have a very draconian schedule or the laws of physics don't even need to be told to shut up and sit down any more.

JeminiZero
2009-04-22, 08:44 PM
One of my favorites is that you can buy a 10 foot ladder, break it up into 2x 10 ft pools and a bunch of spare firewood, and then sell it back at a profit.

Of course, this might be explained by the proliferation of the Ladder Tree, which yields a massive crop of 10 foot ladders as fruit, thereby causing the market value of ladders to plummet.

Zhalath
2009-04-22, 08:53 PM
I'm sorry, but nothing weirds me out more than Eberron's Lightning Train. It's a train. A freaking train. In a fantasy setting. The train runs faster and is more reliable than ours! Using "elemental stones". It just boggles the mind.

Reverent-One
2009-04-22, 08:54 PM
My own contribution is 4e's round system - things move from one round to the next with what might as well be a 'CLUNK!' audible in the game world.

Either adventurers have a very draconian schedule or the laws of physics don't even need to be told to shut up and sit down any more.

What exactly do you mean by that? How is it worse than 3.5 edition?

MeklorIlavator
2009-04-22, 09:08 PM
I'm sorry, but nothing weirds me out more than Eberron's Lightning Train. It's a train. A freaking train. In a fantasy setting. The train runs faster and is more reliable than ours! Using "elemental stones". It just boggles the mind.

Well, there's the fact that it's not a fantasy setting. It's a Magiktech setting(an offshoot of Steampunk).

monty
2009-04-22, 09:08 PM
I'm sorry, but nothing weirds me out more than Eberron's Lightning Train. It's a train. A freaking train. In a fantasy setting. The train runs faster and is more reliable than ours! Using "elemental stones". It just boggles the mind.

Eberron is dungeon punk, and therefore follows Niven's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."

AgentPaper
2009-04-22, 09:16 PM
I think it would be a good idea to not include contrivances about rules in this. Every single word of the rules is, in essence, a contrivance, and if you try and say which ones are more so than others, nobody is going to agree and the only result is a flame war. (or at the least, this thread will be nothing but people telling how they things feats and ability scores and turns and the spellcasting system and rolling dice and on and on and on are so horribly contrived)

Kaiyanwang
2009-04-23, 02:27 AM
The fact that monks can't dual-wield their bare hands.

At the risk of unleash Stoopidtallkid's fury :smallwink:, in the FAQs the sage suggest as accettable use flurry and TWF together.

FoE
2009-04-23, 03:26 AM
I'm sorry, but nothing weirds me out more than Eberron's Lightning Train. It's a train. A freaking train. In a fantasy setting. The train runs faster and is more reliable than ours! Using "elemental stones". It just boggles the mind.

That ignores the fact that the lightning train is totally awesome.

Curmudgeon
2009-04-23, 03:30 AM
Lets see...
Feats:
Dash x3

Speed: 30ft + 10ft + 15ft 5ft = 55ft 45ft
I adjusted your post to follow the RAW.
If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once. Dash 3x still gives only +5' to your speed.

lesser_minion
2009-04-23, 04:18 AM
What exactly do you mean by that? How is it worse than 3.5 edition?

Things like characters suddenly falling out of the sky if they end their move in midair after jumping. The lack of full-round actions that might need to be split across rounds is also pretty noticeable

I don't remember ever comparing it to 3e though - I know why they changed it. It's just slightly odd.

It's up to you whether or not it's worse than the alternative (http://www.GiantITP.com/comics/oots0176.html).

SolkaTruesilver
2009-04-23, 04:46 AM
You can only do a swift action per round.

No matter if you don't take a move action at all.
No matter if the only think you want to do during the round is swift actions. You can do ONLY ONE swift action per round.

(But a 5-foot step is no problem)

InaVegt
2009-04-23, 04:49 AM
I adjusted your post to follow the RAW. Dash 3x still gives only +5' to your speed.

45'/round speed combined with run feat is still faster than olympian athletes, though.

Dervag
2009-04-23, 05:05 AM
Then there's drowning people to keep them from bleeding out. Who knew that filling a person's lungs full of water would bring them back from the brink of death?I'm pretty sure that only works if you deliberately and creatively misinterpret the rules.

Oslecamo
2009-04-23, 05:33 AM
You can only do a swift action per round.

No matter if you don't take a move action at all.
No matter if the only think you want to do during the round is swift actions. You can do ONLY ONE swift action per round.

(But a 5-foot step is no problem)

Clearly swift actions don't interfere with other actions, but are complex enough that you can only do it once per round anyway. Like changing a combat stance. Or casting a spell really quickly. You can do it while doing other stuff, but you can't do it twice in a row.

Anyway in 3e swift actions are much more valuable than move actions. Go play 4e if you want multiple swift actions per round.

lord_khaine
2009-04-23, 05:42 AM
One of my favorites is that you can buy a 10 foot ladder, break it up into 2x 10 ft pools and a bunch of spare firewood, and then sell it back at a profit.

Of course, this might be explained by the proliferation of the Ladder Tree, which yields a massive crop of 10 foot ladders as fruit, thereby causing the market value of ladders to plummet

there really isnt anything in the rules that says this is possible.

Graymayre
2009-04-23, 05:48 AM
there really isnt anything in the rules that says this is possible.

I cannot imagine a rule book ever explicitely telling someone that they couldn't dissasemble a ladder for parts, no matter what. :smalltongue:

pjackson
2009-04-23, 05:53 AM
The fact that monks can't dual-wield their bare hands.

They can in 3.5

Faleldir
2009-04-23, 05:55 AM
They can in 3.5
Can you tell me where it says that?

Dogmantra
2009-04-23, 06:03 AM
Can you tell me where it says that?

Well, Flurry of Blows is basically Two-weapon fighting. You get a bonus attack, and a -2 penalty on all attacks.

Perhaps he was thinking of that.

averagejoe
2009-04-23, 06:32 AM
Stupid monsters? Here you go:
http://www.headinjurytheater.com/article73.htm
http://www.headinjurytheater.com/article95.htm

You know, I think it has to be said that those monkey bees are pretty cool. Does anyone know what supplement they're from?

SolkaTruesilver
2009-04-23, 07:11 AM
Clearly swift actions don't interfere with other actions, but are complex enough that you can only do it once per round anyway. Like changing a combat stance. Or casting a spell really quickly. You can do it while doing other stuff, but you can't do it twice in a row.

Anyway in 3e swift actions are much more valuable than move actions. Go play 4e if you want multiple swift actions per round.

1) No need to get snippy
2) No need to make excuses for a game system that has a ridiculous contrivance
3) The game makes it possible for me to cast 1 Quickened Magic Missile and 1 Regular Magic Missile, but not 2 Quickened Magic Missile. How stupid is THAT?

Paramour Pink
2009-04-23, 07:17 AM
Wizards. Warmages. Any magic type is especially ridiculous. But I figure anyone willing to accept them just fine, and yet close the doorways to other high-magic oddities, is being pretty ridiculous themself.

Morty
2009-04-23, 07:33 AM
I'm sorry, but nothing weirds me out more than Eberron's Lightning Train. It's a train. A freaking train. In a fantasy setting. The train runs faster and is more reliable than ours! Using "elemental stones". It just boggles the mind.

Dinosaur-riding halflings beat the lightning train every day. For that matter, any dinosaurs, and that includes dinosaur-like humanoids, in any fantasy game are ridiculous. The ones that serve as mounts to halflings are just an extreme exaple.


That ignores the fact that the lightning train is totally awesome.

Stuff that isn't true tends to get ignored.


Wizards. Warmages. Any magic type is especially ridiculous. But I figure anyone willing to accept them just fine, and yet close the doorways to other high-magic oddities, is being pretty ridiculous themself.

What, people still use that argument? I thought it became a dead horse long ago. In either case, there's a world of difference between something that breaks the laws of physics because it's supposed to and something that's just plain ridiculous. Like aforementioned acid-breathing shark or half-dragon celestial bees(I want to use them in an adventure now).

Dragonsdoom
2009-04-23, 07:35 AM
Can you tell me where it says that?

It does not so much say it as not say it, in that you can dual wield light weapons and it never says fists are a exception.

The better question might be as to why a monk can't two hand his fists and get any form of benefit from it.

Paramour Pink
2009-04-23, 07:50 AM
What, people still use that argument? I thought it became a dead horse long ago. In either case, there's a world of difference between something that breaks the laws of physics because it's supposed to and something that's just plain ridiculous. Like aforementioned acid-breathing shark or half-dragon celestial bees(I want to use them in an adventure now).

I couldn't care less what other people argue; I'm not repeating what I've heard. I'm saying what I think. Magic doesn't make any sense, and I'm sure some spells break the laws of physics. If you let high-magic in, the floodgates have already been opened. It's all equally ridiculous if you refuse to let suspension of disbelief in as well. But seeing as I play the 3.5 for that (I'm sure we all have enough real life problems to deal with) it's hardly a bad aspect to me.

Morty
2009-04-23, 07:56 AM
I couldn't care less what other people argue; I'm not repeating what I've heard. I'm saying what I think. Magic doesn't make any sense, and I'm sure some spells break the laws of physics. If you let high-magic in, the floodgates have already been opened. It's all equally ridiculous if you refuse to let suspension of disbelief in as well. But seeing as I play the 3.5 for that (I'm sure we all have enough real life problems to deal with) it's hardly a bad aspect to me.

Cool, except for two things. First, because while an acid-breathing shark or a train running on magic can be explained by saying "a wizard did it" just fine, it doesn't make them any less ridiculous and ruinous to the game's ambience. "It's magic" isn't a universal cure to everything. Second, "a wizard did it" isn't even applicable to things that are supposed to work like in real life but don't.

TheFallenOne
2009-04-23, 08:20 AM
The avatar of Erythnul, God of Slaughter, was a puppy.
A flying puppy.

Maybe Ery thought "Put the laughter in the Slaughter"?

Paramour Pink
2009-04-23, 08:26 AM
Cool, except for two things. First, because while an acid-breathing shark or a train running on magic can be explained by saying "a wizard did it" just fine, it doesn't make them any less ridiculous and ruinous to the game's ambience. "It's magic" isn't a universal cure to everything. Second, "a wizard did it" isn't even applicable to things that are supposed to work like in real life but don't.

It depends on suspension of disbelieve, as I've already said. I'm fine with accepting the truely ridiculous for this game, because I think wizards are pretty ridiculous themselves. But they're one of the first things you have to accept the existance of. We clearly have different levels of tolerance (probably due to looking for & enjoying slightly different things in our respective games), but magic really is a universal cure. Once you have high-fantasy...yes, "a wizard did it" does explain it all. Which goes right back to my first point that they're one of the most ridiculous things around. :smalltongue:

Oslecamo
2009-04-23, 10:09 AM
Cool, except for two things. First, because while an acid-breathing shark or a train running on magic can be explained by saying "a wizard did it" just fine, it doesn't make them any less ridiculous and ruinous to the game's ambience. "It's magic" isn't a universal cure to everything. Second, "a wizard did it" isn't even applicable to things that are supposed to work like in real life but don't.

Just follow this line of logic:

1-Wizards are all powerfull.
2-Yet wizards aren't perfect.
3-Wizards get drunck/have stupid ideas(wis as dump stat).
4-Wizards create stupid things.
5-Some of these wizards ascend to godhood, becoming even stronger.
6-Said wizards rewrite the laws of reality themselves for fun and profit.
7-Don't try to question their intentions, they're way above us petty mortals.
8-The strongest of them all is know as...the DM. He makes sure no other wizard ever ascends to his place or manages to tople his favoriete minions. But he's still not perfect.

KazilDarkeye
2009-04-23, 10:30 AM
Yeah, come on. 8-Bit Theater actually has Sarda - The Wizard Who Did It as a semi-main character. You try living for that long and not get even a little bored. You'd want to experiment, go nuts, have a little fun.

Besides which, if the acid-breathing shark isn't stupid enough, check out the sidebar on the same page that allows sharks that can somehow see through and BREATHE LAVA. I think that would beat acid any time.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-23, 11:04 AM
It does not so much say it as not say it, in that you can dual wield light weapons and it never says fists are a exception.

The better question might be as to why a monk can't two hand his fists and get any form of benefit from it.Because none of them have levels in the William Shatner PrC.

As to why they can't TWF...it's because they're already using both fists(and their head, elbows, feet, knees, and maybe tail) for the US. They don't have a second body to dual-wield. They can still TWF with a Kama or something, but they don't have 2 US to wield at the same time.

Bayar
2009-04-23, 11:08 AM
Yeah, come on. 8-Bit Theater actually has Sarda - The Wizard Who Did It as a semi-main character. You try living for that long and not get even a little bored. You'd want to experiment, go nuts, have a little fun.

Besides which, if the acid-breathing shark isn't stupid enough, check out the sidebar on the same page that allows sharks that can somehow see through and BREATHE LAVA. I think that would beat acid any time.

So that is the reason the spell "Transmute rock to lava" exists.

Thajocoth
2009-04-23, 11:17 AM
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mm2_gallery/88268_620_65.jpg?

Grell - Medium aberrant magical beast (blind)

It's aberrant, aka native to the Far Realm where the laws of physics twist and bend in maddening ways. I would expect it to be incredibly different from that which is native to the Natural World. It's honestly MORE normal looking than I'd expect.

Actually... That's it. That is exactly what strains my suspension of disbelief. The aberrant creatures are not weird enough. They don't seem to me like anything that would cause people to go insane just by hanging around them too often. I hope they release some weirder stuff in MM2 because I plan to have a portal open to the Far Realm with the PCs getting the job to close it.

Harperfan7
2009-04-23, 11:19 AM
80lb female elves with a natural 18 str. I love elves, and I know it's possible to be really strong despite your weight, but come on!

-Swimming in full plate
-a character with no ranks in jump with 10 str jumping 20 feet while wearing/carrying up to 33lbs.
-having 200hp, but currently 1hp, and still being 100% effective.
-having 200hp period
-jumping out of an airplane (which apparently exists in this hypothetical statement) with an antimagic field-belt and surviving the fall because 20d6 is only so much, even with massive damage rule.
-surviving immersion into lava
-a rogue killing a tiger with a rock because he went first
-3ft. 30lb halflings having only -2 str and carrying gear 3/4 normal weight
-Manyshot
-a human commoner having 4hp, but a dragon the size of a gymnasium only having 600.
-Dire Maces
-Slings as simple weapons, but guns being exotic


I think I've made my point. Needless to say, my campaigns are extensively homebrewed.

Also, I kinda like the idea of acid sharks. I mean, if you can have a pit of acid to begin with, why not put in fish with teeth that you made magically immune to acid? If there are bird-bears, bird-horses, bird-lions, there can be sharks who live in acid. Now lava sharks, "Aw damn it, a lake of lava! How are we going to...was that a ****ing shark fin? Holy ****ing ass crackers! Don't try to swim in the...I need an aspirin."

averagejoe
2009-04-23, 11:28 AM
Also, I kinda like the idea of acid sharks. I mean, if you can have a pit of acid to begin with, why not put in fish with teeth that you made magically immune to acid? If there are bird-bears, bird-horses, bird-lions, there can be sharks who live in acid. Now lava sharks, "Aw damn it, a lake of lava! How are we going to...was that a ****ing shark fin? Holy ****ing ass crackers! Don't try to swim in the...I need an aspirin."

I tend to agree. I was never sure why an acid shark was lame in the first place, and no one's offered any reason besides, "Because it's an acid breathing shark." I mean, what with all the weird environmental/spacial/temporal shenanigans most DnD creatures get up to on a regular basis, this seems fairly tame.

Oslecamo
2009-04-23, 11:29 AM
So that is the reason the spell "Transmute rock to lava" exists.

Indeed. When you've lived some centuries, you start to develop excentric new ways of messing with the petty mortals back on the material plane. After all fireball starts geting old after the 1284th time.

Thajocoth Hey it's 4e's philosophy. Everything must be pretty to atract new players.

Lizard woman have boobs for ***** sake! Now that's something I won't excuse them! What are they gonna do next? Dragons with boobs? Owlbears with boobs? Grells with boobs? I swear it seems Wotc wanted to atract all the furry fans to 4e.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-23, 11:41 AM
-Swimming in full plateThat, at least, I think is modled realistically. It's got a -10(or 12) penalty to the check, which means that if you are an incredibly good, professionally trained swimmer, you're just as effective as someone 7-10 levels lower.
-a character with no ranks in jump with 10 str jumping 20 feet while wearing/carrying up to 33lbs.Yeah, that's one of the few cases where 3.0 rules worked better.
-having 200hp, but currently 1hp, and still being 100% effective.
-having 200hp periodHP is an abstraction of how much 'heroic awesome' you have. When you're down to 10 or less, you've got as much potential for avoiding something that should kill you as a civillian.
-jumping out of an airplane (which apparently exists in this hypothetical statement) with an antimagic field-belt and surviving the fall because 20d6 is only so much, even with massive damage rule.
-surviving immersion into lavaYeah, those are stupid.
-a rogue killing a tiger with a rock because he went firstIt's possible to toss a rock hard enough to break bone. The spine(specifically the neck) is a bone. My real problem with that is a human reacting faster than a tiger.
-Dire MacesWhat's the issue?
-Slings as simple weapons, but guns being exoticYes, slings shouldn't be simple, but considering what goes into weilding even a civil-war era gun, let alone one from the 15th century, there's no way they should be martial.

pirateshow
2009-04-23, 11:55 AM
-Swimming in full plate
A well-fitted suit of plate armour, at least the really good 16th century stuff, allows this. Henry VIII had a suit of tilting armour in which he could swim, climb a rope, and run quickly.


My real problem with that is a human reacting faster than a tiger.
That is (I assume without having the MM on hand to look it up) why a tiger gets a substantial initiative bonus. It would be an act of legendary heroic proportions to beat one in a contest of reflex and reaction time.


-Dire Maces
Aren't these just staves with weighted/flanged ends? I'd use that.

tyckspoon
2009-04-23, 11:56 AM
Grell - Medium aberrant magical beast (blind)

It's aberrant, aka native to the Far Realm where the laws of physics twist and bend in maddening ways. I would expect it to be incredibly different from that which is native to the Natural World. It's honestly MORE normal looking than I'd expect.

Actually... That's it. That is exactly what strains my suspension of disbelief. The aberrant creatures are not weird enough. They don't seem to me like anything that would cause people to go insane just by hanging around them too often. I hope they release some weirder stuff in MM2 because I plan to have a portal open to the Far Realm with the PCs getting the job to close it.

I think your expectations for what an aberration should be may be too high to achieve. You have a fundamental problem in that anything "too weird to be thought about by humans" is.. well, too weird to think about. Which means you can't very well get somebody to draw a picture of it and write up a description to put in your Monster Manual, can you? What's it look like? How does it attack? What sort of things does it hang around with? The answer to all of these is "don't know, trying to find out drives you insane." Decent horror concept, but not a good D&D monster.

Sure, you can try anyway, but anything you end up committing to paper is going to fall far short of the ideal. Just look at what happened to Cthulu after some bugger decided to draw him- now we have cute plush 'thulus and the Munchkin art version. He's been reduced from Alien Horror to pop-culture icon.

Personally, I would say that anything truly alien that comes out of the Far Realm can only live in the Far Realms; if they tried to cross a hypothetical portal, they'd find the Material plane is as harmful to them as the Far Realms would be to the minds of normal people. So any Aberrants you encounter on the Material have to be like the Grell; weird, but close enough to normal to function outside of Far Realms conditions.

monty
2009-04-23, 11:59 AM
That is (I assume without having the MM on hand to look it up) why a tiger gets a substantial initiative bonus. It would be an act of legendary heroic proportions to beat one in a contest of reflex and reaction time.


Tiger
...
Initiative: +2

Not even Improved Initiative?

Doug Lampert
2009-04-23, 12:05 PM
-Swimming in full plate
-jumping out of an airplane (which apparently exists in this hypothetical statement) with an antimagic field-belt and surviving the fall because 20d6 is only so much, even with massive damage rule.

I believe people HAVE gone swiming in full plate, and I KNOW people have done gymnastics like handstands and cartwheels. If nothing else trapped air in the padding on realistic plate will keep you floating for quite a few seconds before it soaks through.

At least 4 people have survived falling out of airplanes at 20,000+ ft without a parachute in the real world. Given that most people try to avoid falling that far without a shute that's not really a bad survival rate. Why it should be possible for ordinary humans to survive something in the real world but is "obviously" totally impossible for superheroic fantasy characters in a fantasy world is the mind boggling part.

If you want an unrealistic falling rule in D&D land consider that a cat is more easily killed by a fall than an elephant. Yeah right.

Callos_DeTerran
2009-04-23, 12:51 PM
I was just reading Dungeonscape... sharks bred to swim in acid? Really? It's one of the most preposterous and ostentatious things you could possibly put in a dungeon! As if the lack of flesh searing chemicals wasn't enough! Sharks, really?

Acid-breathing sharks are not only non-preposterous, but likely essential for any TRUE Dark Overlord or Black Dragon! Given enough time, and with a natural immunity to acid, why not make giant pits of acid for enemies to fall into? It's a great death trap.

But wait...

Oh yeah, there's spells called Energy Resistance Acid and Energy Immunity Acid. Well pooh, how WILL you keep the giant acid pits a credible threat? Well obviously the answer is to fill it with hostile and hungry creatures and whats more hostile and hungry then an acid-breathing shark? :smalltongue: So there.

I for one embrace the acid breathing shark and it's lava breathing cousin as true additions to an evil overlord's arsenal of villainy.

KazilDarkeye
2009-04-23, 01:02 PM
Yeah, but that still doesn't explain how the shark (or whatever, because it doesn't have to be a shark*) manages to SEE through the lava.
I can easily imagine see-through acid, but see-through lava?

* Any other good options here for creatures/liquids? Creatures are easy enough:
Piranha Swarm
Jellyfish Swarm
Barracuda
Electric Eel
Giant Crab
Stingray
Squid
<sigh...> Squark
Kraken (is that allowed?)

But are there any notable substances?
Sand maybe?
Powdered Glass?
Blood?
Crude Oil?
-Edit: Actually scratch that last one unless the creature gains fire resistance/immunity

Lamech
2009-04-23, 01:07 PM
If you want an unrealistic falling rule in D&D land consider that a cat is more easily killed by a fall than an elephant. Yeah right.
Umm... in DnD the terminal velocity is... 50ft/s. Thats 34 mph! Oh and that applies to EVERYTHING. Thats my key complaint with falling. Manual of the Planes: What the?

I also have countless rants about campaign worlds, but thats a totally differant story.

FoE
2009-04-23, 01:09 PM
Dinosaur-riding halflings beat the lightning train every day. For that matter, any dinosaurs, and that includes dinosaur-like humanoids, in any fantasy game are ridiculous. The ones that serve as mounts to halflings are just an extreme example.

Dinosaurs=awesome
Therefore, dinosaur-riding halflings=totally awesome

It's a really simple formula.

chiasaur11
2009-04-23, 01:17 PM
Acid-breathing sharks are not only non-preposterous, but likely essential for any TRUE Dark Overlord or Black Dragon! Given enough time, and with a natural immunity to acid, why not make giant pits of acid for enemies to fall into? It's a great death trap.

But wait...

Oh yeah, there's spells called Energy Resistance Acid and Energy Immunity Acid. Well pooh, how WILL you keep the giant acid pits a credible threat? Well obviously the answer is to fill it with hostile and hungry creatures and whats more hostile and hungry then an acid-breathing shark? :smalltongue: So there.

I for one embrace the acid breathing shark and it's lava breathing cousin as true additions to an evil overlord's arsenal of villainy.

The only real risk is their inevitable rebellion.

Which is also thwarted by you, the overlord, not flooding your own living quarters with acid. If your foe isn't O-Chul, it's the perfect death trap.

Callos_DeTerran
2009-04-23, 01:47 PM
Yeah, but that still doesn't explain how the shark (or whatever, because it doesn't have to be a shark*) manages to SEE through the lava.
I can easily imagine see-through acid, but see-through lava?


Sharks have bad eye-sight in the first place, they'd react more so to the motion of the lava around them and a heightened sense of smell then to what they actually see. 'sides. I once crossed blue lava then clear lava. No, I don't know how they exist, but the only thing that would have made them scarier is if I knew Jaws was waiting down there for me in case I didn't burn to death.

Roderick_BR
2009-04-23, 01:51 PM
...Our Administrator and Giant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Burlew) wrote that supplement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeonscape)...
And he made fun of it himself in the OotS comic.

Bayar
2009-04-23, 02:01 PM
Yeah, but that still doesn't explain how the shark (or whatever, because it doesn't have to be a shark*) manages to SEE through the lava.
I can easily imagine see-through acid, but see-through lava?

* Any other good options here for creatures/liquids? Creatures are easy enough:
Piranha Swarm
Jellyfish Swarm
Barracuda
Electric Eel
Giant Crab
Stingray
Squid
<sigh...> Squark
Kraken (is that allowed?)

But are there any notable substances?
Sand maybe?
Powdered Glass?
Blood?
Crude Oil?
-Edit: Actually scratch that last one unless the creature gains fire resistance/immunity

http://www.headinjurytheater.com/dnd%20ground%20squid.jpg
It says that a wizard did it.

Godskook
2009-04-23, 02:10 PM
That the rules do nothing about a creature's height/weight.

I was trying to get into a game with a 14 strength female human paladin who supposedly was 5'6" and only weighed 120lbs. WTF? I've known women who probably needed to gain weight who were 140lbs, and would be no where near what 14 strength is supposed to be(Specifically, my wife).

FoE
2009-04-23, 02:20 PM
That is exactly what strains my suspension of disbelief. The aberrant creatures are not weird enough. They don't seem to me like anything that would cause people to go insane just by hanging around them too often. I hope they release some weirder stuff in MM2 because I plan to have a portal open to the Far Realm with the PCs getting the job to close it.

Well, to be fair, the grell isn't really meant to drive you insane so much as it's meant to paralyze you and slash you to pieces.

But come on, that thing shouldn't be! It hovers in the air despite no apparent means to do so! It's a giant lump of flesh and tentacles with no eyes, ears or nose! And yet, it hunts you even it shouldn't be able to even find you ! HOW DOES IT FIND YOU?!

Callos_DeTerran
2009-04-23, 02:25 PM
Well, to be fair, the grell isn't really meant to drive you insane so much as it's meant to paralyze you and slash you to pieces.

But come on, that thing shouldn't be! It hovers in the air despite no apparent means to do so! It's a giant lump of flesh and tentacles with no eyes, ears or nose! And yet, it hunts you even it shouldn't be able to even find you ! HOW DOES IT FIND YOU?!

Lords of Madness has the answer!

KazilDarkeye
2009-04-23, 02:26 PM
HOW DOES IT FIND YOU?!

Quite a good morsel, but not filling enough. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously though - according to Lords of Madness:
1) It can hear you, it just doesn't have recognisable ears (similar to how insects hear without having ears. According to the book the whole membrane (the surface of the "brain") functions as a giant ear.
2) They also possess a sense of electroreception similar to that used by sharks and rays.

3) The flight effect is a magical effect similar to a Ravid's or Beholder's.

Thus, they have blindsense that's actually pretty annoying to disable, because you have to use two countermeasures instead of just one.

Thajocoth
2009-04-23, 02:34 PM
I think your expectations for what an aberration should be may be too high to achieve. You have a fundamental problem in that anything "too weird to be thought about by humans" is.. well, too weird to think about. Which means you can't very well get somebody to draw a picture of it and write up a description to put in your Monster Manual, can you? What's it look like? How does it attack? What sort of things does it hang around with? The answer to all of these is "don't know, trying to find out drives you insane." Decent horror concept, but not a good D&D monster.

Sure, you can try anyway, but anything you end up committing to paper is going to fall far short of the ideal. Just look at what happened to Cthulu after some bugger decided to draw him- now we have cute plush 'thulus and the Munchkin art version. He's been reduced from Alien Horror to pop-culture icon.

Personally, I would say that anything truly alien that comes out of the Far Realm can only live in the Far Realms; if they tried to cross a hypothetical portal, they'd find the Material plane is as harmful to them as the Far Realms would be to the minds of normal people. So any Aberrants you encounter on the Material have to be like the Grell; weird, but close enough to normal to function outside of Far Realms conditions.

Response 1: Giygas?
Response 2: You make excellent points. No sane human can draw or create stats for a being incapable of being understood by the sane. Hmm... Maybe I should ask that guy that's constantly making bird noises down the block to write up some stats... Or do you think the guy who yells at road cones might be better suited? (Note: I'm not serious about asking the local crazies to write monster stats for me.)

I also agree about our physics and forms having the same effect on them. Any who transfer in either direction would have to become some sort of hybrid that'd be an abomination on either end to realistically exist anywhere. Even the Feywild & Shadowfell CAN corrupt a person, and they're Natural World's next door neighbors. They're pretty much the same physics-wise.


Well, to be fair, the grell isn't really meant to drive you insane so much as it's meant to paralyze you and slash you to pieces.

But come on, that thing shouldn't be! It hovers in the air despite no apparent means to do so! It's a giant lump of flesh and tentacles with no eyes, ears or nose! And yet, it hunts you even it shouldn't be able to even find you ! HOW DOES IT FIND YOU?!

Blindsight. In the Far Realm, I think there's more psychic physics and less physical physics... So "seeing" when a mind comes within 50 feet of them makes perfect sense to me... As does flying, as a sort of leftover latent anti-physicsness from the Far Realm. And it does so have a nose. Beaks are a kind of nose.

Graymayre
2009-04-23, 02:37 PM
I've always been curious as to how humans can make babies with every humanoid race. Not only that, but the off-spring can reproduce as well!

My only explanation for it would be that Orcs, Elves, Halflings, Dwarves, etc, etc. are simply off shooting branches of the human tree (much like different species of dog) and that humans are obviously the oldest, and the most superior, race!

Godskook
2009-04-23, 02:52 PM
On my earlier point, it also tweaks me that there is no rules difference between male and female, anywhere. A female level 1 commoner has just as much strength as a male one does. While I can accept this among the non-real species(elf, orc, dragon), I know that males are better at some things than females, and females are better at other than males. At the very least, give males +2 to str or con and -2 to dex and give females +2 to dex and -2 to str or con.


humans are obviously the oldest, and the most superior, race!

Going back to your dog analogy, mutts are typically just plain better than either pure-breed line it came from. This makes me wonder why things like half-elf and half-orc are rated below par like they are.....

Faleldir
2009-04-23, 02:54 PM
As to why they can't TWF...it's because they're already using both fists(and their head, elbows, feet, knees, and maybe tail) for the US. They don't have a second body to dual-wield. They can still TWF with a Kama or something, but they don't have 2 US to wield at the same time.

I know why they can't do that by RAW; I've seen that exact same explanation in at last two different FAQs. That's not what this thread is about. I'm saying they should be able to from a realism standpoint and the mental image of someone attacking with every part of their body simultaneously is ridiculous. I really don't want to derail a thread to have a long argument about rules. I understand the rules. DO NOT QUOTE THIS.

Fostire
2009-04-23, 02:57 PM
It does not so much say it as not say it, in that you can dual wield light weapons and it never says fists are a exception.

The better question might be as to why a monk can't two hand his fists and get any form of benefit from it.

I always thought the monks flurry of blows ability was TWF with unarmed strikes. If I recall correctly flurry of blows gives you the same bonuses and penalties as TWF.

Morty
2009-04-23, 03:07 PM
My only explanation for it would be that Orcs, Elves, Halflings, Dwarves, etc, etc. are simply off shooting branches of the human tree (much like different species of dog) and that humans are obviously the oldest, and the most superior, race!

That's actually how it looks in Arcanum, where all human-sized races are descended from humans, either naturally or magically. Similiarily, gnomes and halflings are descended from dwarves.

Thajocoth
2009-04-23, 03:24 PM
If they're going to allow Half-races... They should allow combos that aren't half Human. What if an Elf and an Eladrin have a kid who grows up to be an adventurer? What race do I use to represent that? What about an Orc and a Dragonborn? What about a Dragon and a Gelatinous Cube?

(I'm serious about that last one... I'm incorporating Half-Gelatinous creatures, including Dragons, into my campaign. I made a template, but Dragons are Solos, and you can't apply templates to Solos, so I wound up just using Black Dragons and adding +2 stealth... Not the greatest fix.)

SolkaTruesilver
2009-04-23, 03:30 PM
Going back to your dog analogy, mutts are typically just plain better than either pure-breed line it came from. This makes me wonder why things like half-elf and half-orc are rated below par like they are.....

Well... We could extend the analogy. Mutts are looked down by dog breeders, and those breeders have their favourites.

Now, if you happen to have Gods instead of Dog Breeders, and they have favourites... :smallcool:

The smutts will be quite inferior to the pedigrees.

KazilDarkeye
2009-04-23, 03:30 PM
Well, Dragon Magic has Frostblood Orcs (Orcs with minute traces of white dragon blood), which you could potentially modify for other kinds of dragon.
Celestial or Half-Celestial Elf might work for the first in a pinch.
As for the Half-Gelatinous Dragon, perhaps you could try using a dragon with a Permanent Amorphous Form spell (SpC) applied to it).

The main reason these half-breeds aren't written, is simply because there are two many for anyone to really bother.
If n is the number of races (including subraces. Half-Grey Elf, anyone?) you're considering, then the total number of combinations is something along the lines of n(n-1). In "reality" it's probably lower (to avoid things that just aren't really feasible without great effort/a-wizard-did-it solutions, e.g. elf-orc).

monty
2009-04-23, 03:46 PM
On my earlier point, it also tweaks me that there is no rules difference between male and female, anywhere. A female level 1 commoner has just as much strength as a male one does. While I can accept this among the non-real species(elf, orc, dragon), I know that males are better at some things than females, and females are better at other than males. At the very least, give males +2 to str or con and -2 to dex and give females +2 to dex and -2 to str or con.

Someone made a thread about that a while back. They got yelled at a lot. I can't help thinking this would be a bad idea, no matter how it's implemented.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-23, 03:59 PM
Well, Dragon Magic has Frostblood Orcs (Orcs with minute traces of white dragon blood), which you could potentially modify for other kinds of dragon.
Celestial or Half-Celestial Elf might work for the first in a pinch.
As for the Half-Gelatinous Dragon, perhaps you could try using a dragon with a Permanent Amorphous Form spell (SpC) applied to it).

The main reason these half-breeds aren't written, is simply because there are two many for anyone to really bother.
If n is the number of races (including subraces. Half-Grey Elf, anyone?) you're considering, then the total number of combinations is something along the lines of n(n-1). In "reality" it's probably lower (to avoid things that just aren't really feasible without great effort/a-wizard-did-it solutions, e.g. elf-orc).My thought on how to fix this(which is too much work for homebrew, which is why I haven't statted it out) is that whenever you create a race, you create a base creature and a template. The base creature is determined by the mother, the template applied is determined by the father. Base creature includes type and size, template includes racial abilities. Stat mods are determined on a case by case basis. In cases where the parents are 2 or more size categories apart, the resulting offspring gains either Powerful or Slight Build, and the combination has to be okay'd by the DM(due to both balance issues and the 'Wizard did it' of the backstory). The problem is that this would need to have been implimented by WotC back when writing the races for the resulting combinations to be close to balanced. As-is, it quickly becomes a tangled mess that makes polymorph look good and I haven't even considered LA or HD.

Fhaolan
2009-04-23, 04:03 PM
I've always been curious as to how humans can make babies with every humanoid race. Not only that, but the off-spring can reproduce as well!

My only explanation for it would be that Orcs, Elves, Halflings, Dwarves, etc, etc. are simply off shooting branches of the human tree (much like different species of dog) and that humans are obviously the oldest, and the most superior, race!

One word, Dragons. Dragons get it on with anything, apparantly. Including Oozes, normal-sized bees, houseplants...

So I would say Dragons beat humans on that front... no pun intended.

MickJay
2009-04-23, 04:08 PM
In Arcanum males were stronger, while females had a bonus to constitution, representing the general higher endurance, and I vaguely remember that in some MMOG women had higher mental stats while being physically weaker. Generally, I find it irritating that regardless of the dimorphism, both sexes are almost universally identically statted in games.


Yes, slings shouldn't be simple, but considering what goes into weilding even a civil-war era gun, let alone one from the 15th century, there's no way they should be martial.

Firearms became favourite weapons of many one-time mercenaries during the XV and XVI centuries, because it was so easy to master the basics; after a couple of days of training, they could go and effectively fight on the battlefield. If that doesn't qualify as simple, then what? It takes more effort to learn to fight, at least with a small degree of efficiency, with a sword, or even a small bow. Sure, none of these people would actually be good with their weapons, but given the general inaccuracy of early firearms, good aim wouldn't change anything; majority of the supposedly "exotic" firearms are actually easier to use than most "martial" weapons, and even easier than some of the "simple" ones.

Dogmantra
2009-04-23, 04:09 PM
Someone made a thread about that a while back. They got yelled at a lot. I can't help thinking this would be a bad idea, no matter how it's implemented.

I remember that thread. I think the main argument was that doing something like making males stronger and less dextrous, while making females less strong but more dextrous would be making HUGE generalisations.

I'm weaker than everyone I know, and I'm a guy. A +2 vs. -2 is going to mean that to accurately represent that (i.e. everyone else has at least +1 strength bonus more than me), I'd need to roll about a 6 for Strength, and females would have to roll 12!
That's silly.

Thajocoth
2009-04-23, 04:51 PM
As for the Half-Gelatinous Dragon, perhaps you could try using a dragon with a Permanent Amorphous Form spell (SpC) applied to it).

I'm going to assume that you're using a different edition as I've no idea what (SpC) means. I'm in 4th Ed.

I should really just add that fact to my sig at this point... It come up WAY too often.

Kroy
2009-04-23, 05:08 PM
Someone made a thread about that a while back. They got yelled at a lot. I can't help thinking this would be a bad idea, no matter how it's implemented.

That was a fun thread to read. I followed it all morning, to bad it got scrubbed.

monty
2009-04-23, 05:15 PM
I'm going to assume that you're using a different edition as I've no idea what (SpC) means. I'm in 4th Ed.

Spell Compendium (3.5). Oddly enough, it's a book with a bunch of spells in it.

lesser_minion
2009-04-23, 05:25 PM
On my earlier point, it also tweaks me that there is no rules difference between male and female, anywhere. A female level 1 commoner has just as much strength as a male one does. While I can accept this among the non-real species(elf, orc, dragon), I know that males are better at some things than females, and females are better at other than males. At the very least, give males +2 to str or con and -2 to dex and give females +2 to dex and -2 to str or con.

I think the closest you would be able to get to introducing that kind of thing without causing offense to anyone would be to extend the list of character traits to include things that are commonly perceived as specific to one gender or another. Even then, it would only allow the potential differences between genders to be modelled - you probably wouldn't get away with limiting the traits to either gender.

Dervag
2009-04-23, 06:09 PM
-Swimming in full plateThis is at least slightly possible for well-designed full plate, over short distances. I believe there was a discussion on the "Real Life Weapons and Armor Thread" recently.


-a rogue killing a tiger with a rock because he went firstIf you were good at throwing rocks, this could probably be done. A tiger is no more immune to the effects of a crushed skull than anything else. But you'd have to be damn good at rock-throwing.


What's the issue? Yes, slings shouldn't be simple, but considering what goes into weilding even a civil-war era gun, let alone one from the 15th century, there's no way they should be martial.But you can teach someone to use those things in a few weeks! Contrast with swords, where a few weeks' training doesn't put you anywhere near effectiveness.

Also, I gather that the difficulty of using slings is greatly overestimated by people who are doing it wrong. The sling is supposed to be swung vertically up and down, not round and round in circles over your head.


On my earlier point, it also tweaks me that there is no rules difference between male and female, anywhere. A female level 1 commoner has just as much strength as a male one does. While I can accept this among the non-real species(elf, orc, dragon), I know that males are better at some things than females, and females are better at other than males. At the very least, give males +2 to str or con and -2 to dex and give females +2 to dex and -2 to str or con.There are powerful Rule of Fun reasons not to do this, and you'd open up a gigantic can of worms trying to figure out what the bonuses and penalties should be.
_____


One word, Dragons. Dragons get it on with anything, apparantly. Including Oozes, normal-sized bees, houseplants...

So I would say Dragons beat humans on that front... no pun intended.Of course, this only works because dragons can shapeshift into whatever they jolly well please, and apparently can do so down to the genetic level. Weird, huh?

Thane of Fife
2009-04-23, 06:27 PM
Of course, this only works because dragons can shapeshift into whatever they jolly well please, and apparently can do so down to the genetic level. Weird, huh?

I once worked out a big long system of how this could work, with the base idea being that shapechanging spells create a sort of "cover" DNA that is used while you're polymorphed, but that your own normal DNA is hidden behind it and can still be reached when breeding.

The end result being that a Female Dragon (Xd Xd) could polymorph into a Male Human (Xh Yh Xd Xd) and breed with a Female Elf (Xe Xe). Possible children would then include:
Xh Xe (Female Half-Elf)
Yh Xe (Male Half-Elf)
Xd Xe (Female Half-Dragon Elf)

The most interesting part being that you could have two creatures polymorph into humans, breed, and have a child with no human parts whatsoever, even though they both thought they were having a child with a human.

Harperfan7
2009-04-23, 06:32 PM
I'm not about to bother with quote bars.

-Swimming in full plate - I always imagine full plate as being massive and rigid, the kind of stuff that would make stairs look like obstacles. Not too serious on that one, just kinda hard to imagine.

-I meant Dire Flail, not Dire Mace.

-Those people who survived the 20,000+ ft. falls always landed in heavy snow through pine trees or in sewage plants. Not dirt, rock, etc.

-The rogue is using a rock with which he is not proficient as a weapon (-4) and kills the tiger because of sneak attack. What if I had said a bear? My point is, if it can be killed with 1d2+10d6, a rogue can kill it with a rock.

I was going to mention females always being as strong as males, but I thought nah, I'll leave that alone...

MeklorIlavator
2009-04-23, 07:04 PM
-I meant Dire Flail, not Dire Mace.
Yeah, that one is pretty silly.

-The rogue is using a rock with which he is not proficient as a weapon (-4) and kills the tiger because of sneak attack. What if I had said a bear? My point is, if it can be killed with 1d2+10d6, a rogue can kill it with a rock.
This should work. It is possible to kill most animals with a rock, it's just hard, and so the reverse tends to happen more.

I was going to mention females always being as strong as males, but I thought nah, I'll leave that alone...
As you should. That's a tremendous generalization, plus it brings up whole other problems, as evidenced by the threads that pop up regarding the subject.

Myrmex
2009-04-23, 08:48 PM
Animate dead, on the other hand...that's a lot of onyx.

Not really. You can change the GP value of an item by the quality of its cut.

Dragonsdoom
2009-04-23, 09:01 PM
I always thought the monks flurry of blows ability was TWF with unarmed strikes. If I recall correctly flurry of blows gives you the same bonuses and penalties as TWF.

It is never considered TWF, and the first penalties are negated later on.

There is absolutely nothing stopping a monk from dual wielding unarmed attacks, unless a very cruel DM wants to throttle the player with the flavor text.

Fcannon
2009-04-23, 09:12 PM
The train runs faster and is more reliable than ours!

:smallconfused: The Lightning Rail goes around 30 mph, a modern subway train can hit 80. Whether it's silly or not is of course a personal matter.

Dixieboy
2009-04-23, 09:27 PM
As you should. That's a tremendous generalization, plus it brings up whole other problems, as evidenced by the threads that pop up regarding the subject.
You know, that always struck me as odd.

What about species where there is a significant difference between the male and the female?
Not a lot of those due to Wotc's PCnes but still.

Hell i think it should affect more "human" races too.
Take for example the drow
Different favored classes for the genders, since it's a matriarchal society and men are not allowed to be priests of their god and females leave the meddling with the Arcane arts to the men, they have no interest in it either way.

But that's only one race, and you can't convince me that equality has gotten into every nook and cranny of the planes except for the underdark.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-23, 10:47 PM
It is never considered TWF, and the first penalties are negated later on.

There is absolutely nothing stopping a monk from dual wielding unarmed attacks, unless a very cruel DM wants to throttle the player with the flavor text.Well, there is the RaW. The monk's wielding his Unarmed Strike main-hand. What's his off-hand weapon? He only has one Unarmed Strike. Yes, it is possible to TWF with US main and a Sai or something secondary, but you only have one US for your weapon.

erikun
2009-04-23, 10:56 PM
Funny, I never had a problem convincing a DM to allow my TWF Fighter to fight with two unarmed attacks. After all, if my off hand isn't unarmed, then what is it armed with? Can I sell it to the NPC for gold? :smallamused:

Faulty
2009-04-23, 11:03 PM
I tend to agree. I was never sure why an acid shark was lame in the first place, and no one's offered any reason besides, "Because it's an acid breathing shark." I mean, what with all the weird environmental/spacial/temporal shenanigans most DnD creatures get up to on a regular basis, this seems fairly tame.

Why a shark, of all things? And if you have a lake of acid, what more defense do you need? Are you afraid of skinny dipping it for for Christ's sake!? How the Hell did you get a body of acid that big in the first place?


Acid-breathing sharks are not only non-preposterous, but likely essential for any TRUE Dark Overlord or Black Dragon! Given enough time, and with a natural immunity to acid, why not make giant pits of acid for enemies to fall into? It's a great death trap.

But wait...

Oh yeah, there's spells called Energy Resistance Acid and Energy Immunity Acid. Well pooh, how WILL you keep the giant acid pits a credible threat? Well obviously the answer is to fill it with hostile and hungry creatures and whats more hostile and hungry then an acid-breathing shark? :smalltongue: So there.

I for one embrace the acid breathing shark and it's lava breathing cousin as true additions to an evil overlord's arsenal of villainy.

They're bred. How the Hell do you breed sharks to breath acid!? It seems like something from a bad spy movie!



I don't see the hate on half-races. Personally, I have no problem with the idea of mating with some saucy Elf babe. :smallamused:

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-23, 11:07 PM
Funny, I never had a problem convincing a DM to allow my TWF Fighter to fight with two unarmed attacks. After all, if my off hand isn't unarmed, then what is it armed with? Can I sell it to the NPC for gold? :smallamused:Well, first off a non-Monk's unarmed attack is his fist, so you can dual-wield it. The monk justifies his boosted damage because he already is punching with 2 fists, kicking, kneeing, and biting his opponents. What's left for him to fight with(and don't say the obvious)?

Second, I'm talking RaW and flavor here, not actual DM rulings.

Chronos
2009-04-23, 11:20 PM
The male-female symmetry never bothered me, because even though there are differences between the typical male and the typical female, adventurers aren't typical. Even if women above X strength are extremely rare, maybe my female barbarian is just one of those extreme rare cases.


You want something really crazy, though? You're a ranger. You find some tracks in the mud, and you want to follow them. No problem: Even the rankest of novices in the ways of woodcraft can pull that off (DC 5). But what if you want to know what kind of creature made those tracks? Sorry, you're out of luck: That's a DC 60 skill check (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#survival). Obviously, no mere mortal can tell the difference between hoofprints, footprints, and pawprints.

Harperfan7
2009-04-23, 11:22 PM
Why a shark, of all things? And if you have a lake of acid, what more defense do you need? Are you afraid of skinny dipping it for for Christ's sake!? How the Hell did you get a body of acid that big in the first place?



They're bred. How the Hell do you breed sharks to breath acid!? It seems like something from a bad spy movie!



I don't see the hate on half-races. Personally, I have no problem with the idea of mating with some saucy Elf babe. :smallamused:

1. It's for people who cast acid immunity spells on themselves. We're saying that if you DO have a lake of acid, why stop there? You have a freaking lake of acid, if you are that bamf, why can't you stock it with magically augmented sharks?

2. You could just as easily say they are created/augmented for that purpose.

3. Hear hear!

Faulty
2009-04-23, 11:27 PM
Stop making them sound plausible! :smallmad:

MeklorIlavator
2009-04-23, 11:45 PM
Stop making them sound plausible! :smallmad:

Really, would you be this upset if instead of sharks it was just some sort of carnivorous aquatic creature that had an immunity to acid? Cause that's essentially what it is, and there are similar things all over the place if you look hard enough.

Myrmex
2009-04-23, 11:46 PM
Obviously, no mere mortal can tell the difference between hoofprints, footprints, and pawprints.

Wolf, Dire Wolf, Worg, Winter Wolf, Shadow Mastiff, Yeth Hound, Blink Dog, Werewolf, Hound Archon, Hellhound Werewolf of a non-medium race, advanced wolves, winter wolves, dire wolves, and worgs, are all canines in the monster manual.

Alright genius, try and tell them apart.

Though, DC60 is a bit high. I think it's more for telling if you're tracking a tiefling or just a really emo half elf.

averagejoe
2009-04-24, 12:11 AM
Why a shark, of all things? And if you have a lake of acid, what more defense do you need? Are you afraid of skinny dipping it for for Christ's sake!? How the Hell did you get a body of acid that big in the first place?

Sharks because they are the perfect aquatic predator. I'm not sure why you think any amount of defense is "enough," plus nothing says evil overlord like exotic and ridiculous predators.

Plus it is terrifically decadent. I mean, no evil overlord really needs an elaborate fountain depicting people in pain and weeping real blood, but your foyer just wouldn't be the same without it.

chiasaur11
2009-04-24, 12:20 AM
Sharks because they are the perfect aquatic predator. I'm not sure why you think any amount of defense is "enough," plus nothing says evil overlord like exotic and ridiculous predators.

Plus it is terrifically decadent. I mean, no evil overlord really needs an elaborate fountain depicting people in pain and weeping real blood, but your foyer just wouldn't be the same without it.

"Depicting"?

You, my friend, have a very low quality of evil overlords.

Waspinator
2009-04-24, 12:21 AM
About racial crosses, this is a way of handling that I like:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51535

About things like unarmed strike dual-wielding, it's amusing how much the Air Bud clause is being invoked:
http://www.nuklearpower.com/2004/01/20/episode-374-so-many-valid-points/

And finally, I have to agree that trying to model the differences between male and female humans (and near-human races) is a bad idea for three reasons. 1: It's going to offend someone no matter what. 2: I don't think the differences are probably even big enough to show up. A strength of 10 and a strength of 12 are actually pretty different in terms of what it's supposed to imply about physical power and any real-world difference might not even be that much. And 3: I really don't want to see the day where people are min-maxing their characters gender.

averagejoe
2009-04-24, 01:18 AM
"Depicting"?

You, my friend, have a very low quality of evil overlords.

Eh, live ones start to stink up the place, and they lack aesthetic. Just because one is evil doesn't mean one has to be tasteless.

Dilb
2009-04-24, 01:23 AM
Wolf, Dire Wolf, Worg, Winter Wolf, Shadow Mastiff, Yeth Hound, Blink Dog, Werewolf, Hound Archon, Hellhound Werewolf of a non-medium race, advanced wolves, winter wolves, dire wolves, and worgs, are all canines in the monster manual.

Alright genius, try and tell them apart.

Though, DC60 is a bit high. I think it's more for telling if you're tracking a tiefling or just a really emo half elf.

Wolf - about 5 feet long, 60 to 80 pounds (assuming it's a real world grey wolf)
Dire wolf - 9 feet long, 800 lbs
Worg - 5 feet long, 300 lbs
Winter wolf - 8 feet long, 450 lbs
Shadow Mastiff - "a large dog", maybe 6 feet long, 200 lbs, only 2 feet high at the shoulder (shorter than a wolf)
Yeth Hound - 5 feet tall, but a medium creature, 400 lbs
Blink Dog - no physical stats given, but any sign of teleportation (an abrupt end to tracks, only for them to pick up a little bit later) is a big hint
Werewolf - the whole point is that they turn into wolves, so no luck here
Hound Archon - again, they turn into wolves. The typical environment might be a hint.
Hell hound - 4.5 ft, 120 lbs, but again, the typical environment may be a clue. If they are hunting anything, there should be scorch marks from fire breathing.
Werewolf of a non-medium race - Again, the point is they actually change into wolves. They can shift by 1 size category up or down, so small or large creatures can look like regular wolves. Huge creatures could presumably change into ordinary looking dire wolves.
Advanced wolf - They're bigger than most wolves

These would actually be really easy to tell apart aside from the shape shifters. There's a huge range of lengths and weights, which affects the depth and distance between tracks. There would probably be differences in the shape and size of the paws as well. Heck, they probably have different gaits too, so the relative position of tracks could help distinguish them.

If you had a good set of tracks in fresh snow, I'd expect even a novice tracker would have no problem telling them apart.

Myrmex
2009-04-24, 01:32 AM
Wolf - about 5 feet long, 60 to 80 pounds (assuming it's a real world grey wolf)
Dire wolf - 9 feet long, 800 lbs
Worg - 5 feet long, 300 lbs
Winter wolf - 8 feet long, 450 lbs
Shadow Mastiff - "a large dog", maybe 6 feet long, 200 lbs, only 2 feet high at the shoulder (shorter than a wolf)
Yeth Hound - 5 feet tall, but a medium creature, 400 lbs
Blink Dog - no physical stats given, but any sign of teleportation (an abrupt end to tracks, only for them to pick up a little bit later) is a big hint
Werewolf - the whole point is that they turn into wolves, so no luck here
Hound Archon - again, they turn into wolves. The typical environment might be a hint.
Hell hound - 4.5 ft, 120 lbs, but again, the typical environment may be a clue. If they are hunting anything, there should be scorch marks from fire breathing.
Werewolf of a non-medium race - Again, the point is they actually change into wolves. They can shift by 1 size category up or down, so small or large creatures can look like regular wolves. Huge creatures could presumably change into ordinary looking dire wolves.
Advanced wolf - They're bigger than most wolves

These would actually be really easy to tell apart aside from the shape shifters. There's a huge range of lengths and weights, which affects the depth and distance between tracks. There would probably be differences in the shape and size of the paws as well. Heck, they probably have different gaits too, so the relative position of tracks could help distinguish them.

If you had a good set of tracks in fresh snow, I'd expect even a novice tracker would have no problem telling them apart.

You are assuming static sizes. Variation would throw you off, assuming Gaussian distribution, I would expect most of those things to be within a standard deviation of each other. Your error bars are going to overlap.

Props on looking all that up, though.

Bayar
2009-04-24, 02:00 AM
Wolf, Dire Wolf, Worg, Winter Wolf, Shadow Mastiff, Yeth Hound, Blink Dog, Werewolf, Hound Archon, Hellhound Werewolf of a non-medium race, advanced wolves, winter wolves, dire wolves, and worgs, are all canines in the monster manual.

Alright genius, try and tell them apart.

Though, DC60 is a bit high. I think it's more for telling if you're tracking a tiefling or just a really emo half elf.

That picture with the werewolf in the Monster Manual...think the artist might have some...inclinations or has been forced to draw that (not that I am misoginistic or anything).

Ravens_cry
2009-04-24, 02:45 AM
Breasts on things that have no reason to have breasts.
And it's not like it is impossible to make such a creature attractive to human eyes, as Nip & Tuck (http://www.rhjunior.com/NT/00744.html) proved to at least my satisfaction.

Godskook
2009-04-24, 02:45 AM
The male-female symmetry never bothered me, because even though there are differences between the typical male and the typical female, adventurers aren't typical. Even if women above X strength are extremely rare, maybe my female barbarian is just one of those extreme rare cases.

Actually the extreme cases are the worst examples. The men's world record for the bench press is ~1000lbs, where with women, its ~500lbs.


And finally, I have to agree that trying to model the differences between male and female humans (and near-human races) is a bad idea for three reasons. 1: It's going to offend someone no matter what. 2: I don't think the differences are probably even big enough to show up. A strength of 10 and a strength of 12 are actually pretty different in terms of what it's supposed to imply about physical power and any real-world difference might not even be that much. And 3: I really don't want to see the day where people are min-maxing their characters gender.

1.FF Tactics had males being better fighters and females being better casters. I don't think it offended anyone, since the choice didn't promote either gender as being 'better'. The D&D flavor is different, so it'd be harder to do balanced, but if it was, I doubt people would be offended by something realistic like that, except for the same people who're offended by WotC's racist treatment of some elves as being dumber than others or something like that. Of course, that probably is a big if.

2.I building a local Dagorhir chapter in my neighborhood, and some girls actually complain that the larger weapons are 'too heavy'. The guys, not so much. It comes up. On the other side, those girls were also universally more natural at learning how to fight with two weapons, while most of the guys actually did better with one weapon first time out.

3.Honestly, that's the best argument against realism I've ever heard.

averagejoe
2009-04-24, 02:50 AM
Yes, but what if, for example, I want to play a bad ass female warrior, but this possibility is gimped just because of some arbitrary str/con penalty? I want to play Constance the bloody Conqueror, not Kathryn-who-is-perfectly-believable.

lesser_minion
2009-04-24, 03:14 AM
Well, in theory Constance the Bloody Conqueror could do just fine with a reduced strength score - you could build a version of the same concept running on a less strength-dependent play style.

I think the best solution to portraying a gender difference that exists in your campaigns would be to portray the genders that way - either through single-gender organisations or simply through the NPCs you portray.

averagejoe
2009-04-24, 04:00 AM
Well, in theory Constance the Bloody Conqueror could do just fine with a reduced strength score - you could build a version of the same concept running on a less strength-dependent play style.

I think the best solution to portraying a gender difference that exists in your campaigns would be to portray the genders that way - either through single-gender organisations or simply through the NPCs you portray.

Because this:

http://wizards.com/dnd/images/cw_ag/75409.jpg

is bad ass. When I have my guy who can jump fifty feet in the air and one-shot a monster several times their size, I'm not too worried about them fitting into the constraints of humans as we know them. Maybe DnD humans have less sexual dimorphism than real humans. I don't care, I like my lady berserkers, and I have yet to see an actual reason to adjust stats for gender anyways.

Curmudgeon
2009-04-24, 05:25 AM
-jumping out of an airplane (which apparently exists in this hypothetical statement) with an antimagic field-belt and surviving the fall because 20d6 is only so much, even with massive damage rule.
Doesn't happen, because there's no such thing as "an antimagic field-belt". Really, think about it: a magic device that stops nearby magic from working? It's immediately self-defeating.

Paramour Pink
2009-04-24, 05:36 AM
If I could get a Bluff check high enough...that would be a great item to sell. :smallamused:

Dogmantra
2009-04-24, 05:40 AM
If I could get a Bluff check high enough...that would be a great item to sell. :smallamused:

A: "I would like to return this item. It doesn't work."
B: "Why, what's wrong with it?"
A: "Well, it's supposed to stop all magic from working nearby, but it doesn't."
B: "Sir, that's because it itself is a magical item, it will stop itself working."
B's player: "Awesome! Natural 20!"
A: "Oh, okay then, what do you suggest to make it work?"
B: "Put it outside the field generated by it."
A: "Thanks"

lesser_minion
2009-04-24, 06:53 AM
Because this:

http://wizards.com/dnd/images/cw_ag/75409.jpg

is bad ass. When I have my guy who can jump fifty feet in the air and one-shot a monster several times their size, I'm not too worried about them fitting into the constraints of humans as we know them. Maybe DnD humans have less sexual dimorphism than real humans. I don't care, I like my lady berserkers, and I have yet to see an actual reason to adjust stats for gender anyways.

I'm not arguing in favour of having the rulebook impose mandatory gender differences, because they aren't major enough to be worth a +1 or a -1 to the numbers. My point was that Constance the Bloody Conqueror has no more reason on face value to need a strength score worthy of Sulik - there is always subtlety.

RebelRogue
2009-04-24, 07:40 AM
In D&D, the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the length of the other two sides. The geometry of this world, and by extension the physics, isn't just physically impossible. That I can deal with. You have to for willing suspension of disbelief in fantasy. Magic and monsters and stuff, that's all physically impossible.
There's actually a mathematical metric that mirrors this exactly, so it's not impossible or self-contradictory at all. It's different from what you and I experience everyday, but not impossible!

However, I don't think it's wise to interpret it that hard and fast. It's merely convenience.

averagejoe
2009-04-24, 07:49 AM
I'm not arguing in favour of having the rulebook impose mandatory gender differences, because they aren't major enough to be worth a +1 or a -1 to the numbers. My point was that Constance the Bloody Conqueror has no more reason on face value to need a strength score worthy of Sulik - there is always subtlety.

Ah, I misunderstood. Frankly, if it isn't for the bashing and the smashing, I don't see the point. Slicing people in half and charging through walls=good times.

Callos_DeTerran
2009-04-24, 08:14 AM
Why a shark, of all things? And if you have a lake of acid, what more defense do you need? Are you afraid of skinny dipping it for for Christ's sake!? How the Hell did you get a body of acid that big in the first place?



They're bred. How the Hell do you breed sharks to breath acid!? It seems like something from a bad spy movie!



I don't see the hate on half-races. Personally, I have no problem with the idea of mating with some saucy Elf babe. :smallamused:

So...wait...You are perfectly fine with mating with some saucy Elf babe and producing a half-each offspring, but your mind rebels against the idea of black dragons(or any acid immune creature) being bred with sharks until they are simply acid immune sharks with each generation having a modified water-breathing spell cast on them each day until it's an inherent ability that eventually becomes natural? :smallconfused:

That would also make an awesome low-level adventure, Deep Blue Sea style. PCs are guards for an Evil Overlord funding an Acid-breathing Shark program in a small lake of acid when the super-intelligent half-dragon breeds begin busting out and boring holes in the complex while the lesser mere...acid-breathing version begin flooding in. Not only do the PC's need to worry about escaping the facility without becoming shark chow...they have to worry about the acid slowly filling the place up! (Hrm..maybe not full strength acid. 10 damage a round if fully immersed?)

EDIT: @AverageJoe: Of course one needs taste...that's why you use the tortured souls of your enemy's family and loved ones to make your bleeding fountain while a nice soothing orchestra played by said family and loved one's re-animated and programed bodies. Sends a message, and soothes you after a long days work. :smallamused: Of course all this is surrounded by a pit of acid full of acid-breathing sharks so nobody meddles with your masterpiece.

averagejoe
2009-04-24, 08:59 AM
EDIT: @AverageJoe: Of course one needs taste...that's why you use the tortured souls of your enemy's family and loved ones to make your bleeding fountain while a nice soothing orchestra played by said family and loved one's re-animated and programed bodies. Sends a message, and soothes you after a long days work. :smallamused: Of course all this is surrounded by a pit of acid full of acid-breathing sharks so nobody meddles with your masterpiece.

I find that any undead that are purely for decor (and, preferably, those who aren't, but one can't always be picky about minions) must be skeletal. I'm sorry, but rotting flesh just doesn't go with anything, and it's almost impossible to escape from that, "Oh, look, I just got into my father's necromancy set and built my first evil lair, and it is so badass you guys seriously," impression it gives. Yes, yes, I know, people have a strong visceral reaction to their loved ones being reanimated and paraded about, but there's just no class to it.

Now, acid sharks, those are classy. One can, for example, set up a glass tank surrounded by tables in order to entertain guests and provide a pleasant dining experience. This is superior to standard sharks because the acid nicely dissolves the bones and blood, requiring minimal cleaning, and allowing your guests to enjoy subsequent pieces of entertainment without having to constantly be subjected to the previous ones, cleansing the visual palette, if you will. In addition, acid sharks go splendidly with cunningly placed trapdoors, and one can never go wrong with trapdoors.

chiasaur11
2009-04-24, 10:24 AM
Eh, live ones start to stink up the place, and they lack aesthetic. Just because one is evil doesn't mean one has to be tasteless.

Gentle repose.

Also helps with using undead to trick heroes into thinking their friends are still alive.

Which, by the way, is both hilarious and pathetic.

Agreed on the skeleton count, though, when a truly lifelike undead is out of the question or unneeded. They ooze class.

Rather than pus, like most undead, which wrecks evil carpeting.

KazilDarkeye
2009-04-24, 10:34 AM
Rather than pus, like most undead, which wrecks evil carpeting.


As does ahem, "red wine" that one keeps in the cellar, yesss...

averagejoe
2009-04-24, 11:09 AM
I find that, aside from the occasional throw rug made from sentient beings, it's best to stay away from carpeting. Even if it does escape the blood of your enemies/servants/victims, one of your minions with less than desirable foot construction will inevitably scuff it up.

chiasaur11
2009-04-24, 11:12 AM
As does ahem, "red wine" that one keeps in the cellar, yesss...

Now, that's wasteful.

I mean, you can sell that stuff to vampire lords or pit fiends for a much better value than drinking it.

Myrmex
2009-04-24, 11:19 AM
Yes, but what if, for example, I want to play a bad ass female warrior, but this possibility is gimped just because of some arbitrary str/con penalty? I want to play Constance the bloody Conqueror, not Kathryn-who-is-perfectly-believable.

And what if I want to play Crazim'dul, Orc Battlemage, but don't want to be gimped by some arbitrary int/cha penalty?

KazilDarkeye
2009-04-24, 11:20 AM
Now, that's wasteful.

I mean, you can sell that stuff to vampire lords or pit fiends for a much better value than drinking it.


Unless you ARE a vampire or whatever. Then it's a stockpile.

chiasaur11
2009-04-24, 11:23 AM
Unless you ARE a vampire or whatever. Then it's a stockpile.

Vampires?

I thought the union had standards.

Vampires have their own union, and it does not have a clause to cover the purchase of acid breathing sharks!

Faulty
2009-04-24, 11:24 AM
Sharks because they are the perfect aquatic predator. I'm not sure why you think any amount of defense is "enough," plus nothing says evil overlord like exotic and ridiculous predators.

Plus it is terrifically decadent. I mean, no evil overlord really needs an elaborate fountain depicting people in pain and weeping real blood, but your foyer just wouldn't be the same without it.

It just seems one step away from sharks with lasers on their heads. :smallbiggrin:

KazilDarkeye
2009-04-24, 11:34 AM
Vampires?

I thought the union had standards.

Vampires have their own union, and it does not have a clause to cover the purchase of acid breathing sharks!

Oh come on, I know vampires aren't exactly near the top of the list for cool undead, but they're not THAT bad.


For the record, my top 5 core undead are something along the lines of:

1. Lich
2. Wraith
3. Wight
4. Nightshade
5. Ghoul (/Ghast)

Dogmantra
2009-04-24, 11:38 AM
And what if I want to play Crazim'dul, Orc Battlemage, but don't want to be gimped by some arbitrary int/cha penalty?

Then you play a generic divine (so you cast off wisdom) spellcaster multiclassed with a fighter, who only learns spells from the arcane list.

Duh!

monty
2009-04-24, 11:39 AM
Then you play a generic divine (so you cast off wisdom) spellcaster multiclassed with a fighter, who only learns spells from the arcane list.

Duh!

Orcs get a Wis penalty too.

Oslecamo
2009-04-24, 11:40 AM
And what if I want to play Crazim'dul, Orc Battlemage, but don't want to be gimped by some arbitrary int/cha penalty?

Use point buy. Get a 17 in int or charisma, it drops to 15 with racial modifiers wich is still perfectly playable as you'll still be geting 9th level spells by 17th level. You're a mother****** wizard/sorceror after all, a simple -2 penalty to your main score will actually hardly slow you down if you know what you're doing.

averagejoe
2009-04-24, 11:41 AM
And what if I want to play Crazim'dul, Orc Battlemage, but don't want to be gimped by some arbitrary int/cha penalty?

Then that's between you and your DM. However, an orc is an extra option beyond what is assumed (a.k.a. humans.) I come into the game with few to no assumptions about orcs, and so whatever an orc lets me do beyond human is icing, as it were. I might say, "High/epic fantasy, cool, I think I'll play a lady bruiser," then, upon reading the rules see the orc entry and go, "Wow, an orc would make an even better lady bruiser," and be pleased. I would not say, "High/epic fantasy, cool, I want to play an orc bruiser." Or battlemage, whatever.

Races are fundamentally human archetypes anyways. (At least, the core ones. Monstrous levels and level adjustments are another sack of potatoes.) They're called elves or orcs or whatever, and given a few cultural traits, but, other than mechanics, there's little difference between playing an orc and playing a large hairy human with a prominent jaw that doesn't bathe. The only reason not to play a human is mechanical specialization.

Or, going at it from a more "meta" point of view, having a "vanilla" racial option (that is, one without any particular specialization, that can generally hold their own whatever your other choices are) is nice, and having sexual adjustments destroys this. In fact, this whole idea does nothing but destroy choice, which I dislike as a rule of thumb. It destroys a bunch of previously viable builds without really adding anything.

Dogmantra
2009-04-24, 11:43 AM
Orcs get a Wis penalty too.
Crap. I read it as "half orc"

chiasaur11
2009-04-24, 11:44 AM
Oh come on, I know vampires aren't exactly near the top of the list for cool undead, but they're not THAT bad.


For the record, my top 5 core undead are something along the lines of:

1. Lich
2. Wraith
3. Wight
4. Nightshade
5. Ghoul (/Ghast)


You forget skeletons.

They make awesome minions when you need a ton of guys to attack the heroes (Yes, many evil overlords love Harryhousen.)

It isn't the ISS and the IDLA hate bloodsuckers
It's just that...

Twilight. And William the bloody. I mean, if you can't trust a guy who killed multiple slayers to remain evil, it kinda throws the reliability of the whole species into question.

It's getting to the point you can't trust Vampires to be evil these days.

I mean, my last base was trashed when I was away by Solomon Stone (http://www.actionagecomics.com/comics/SolomonStone01/pages/SS0100.htm), half Vampire Private detective. (and skateboard champ.) and that wasn't an isolated incident. Vampires are just too unreliably evil at present.

averagejoe
2009-04-24, 11:48 AM
]It's getting to the point you can't trust Vampires to be evil these days.

It's true, but vampires are also long-unlived, and you know that the older ones will not only be properly evil, but also brimming with class.

Faulty
2009-04-24, 11:51 AM
If I was DMing and a PC wanted to play a good vampire, I would not allow it.

KazilDarkeye
2009-04-24, 11:52 AM
Even one who is affected by a Helm of Opposite Alignment?

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-24, 11:56 AM
If I was DMing and a PC wanted to play a good vampire, I would not allow it.For me it depends on the source material. Stephenie Meyer, no. Ann Rice/Joss Whedon, maybe. Terry Pratchett, HELL YEAH.

chiasaur11
2009-04-24, 11:57 AM
It's true, but vampires are also long-unlived, and you know that the older ones will not only be properly evil, but also brimming with class.

Once again I bring up William the Bloody (and, for that matter his old chum Angelus).

Over a hundred years of solid, old school evil, with good memory of the sheer FUN that is central to any good overlording, and then: Bam. Falls for a girl, cursed by a gypsy, whatever. We got ourselves another irritating do gooder PI.

Even Dracula's fallen for it. You know that utterly irritating little whelp Soma Cruz?

I have it on good authority (Tortured some contractors a Belmont hired. Okay, boozed up. Talkative drunks, the Tanakas.) he's Dracula. If you can't trust DRACULA...

Whole group's gone to pot.

Tempest Fennac
2009-04-24, 12:04 PM
I see listed alignments as falling into this catagory due to them making races sem more 1-dimentional, and I fail to see any actual point in them beyond giving the DM permission to use some races as antagonists.

averagejoe
2009-04-24, 12:06 PM
Once again I bring up William the Bloody (and, for that matter his old chum Angelus).

Over a hundred years of solid, old school evil, with good memory of the sheer FUN that is central to any good overlording, and then: Bam. Falls for a girl, cursed by a gypsy, whatever. We got ourselves another irritating do gooder PI.

Even Dracula's fallen for it. You know that utterly irritating little whelp Soma Cruz?

I have it on good authority (Tortured some contractors a Belmont hired. Okay, boozed up. Talkative drunks, the Tanakas.) he's Dracula. If you can't trust DRACULA...

Whole group's gone to pot.

Oh, right, that William the Bloody. I mean, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't just let an uncredentialed vampire just walk in and get a job, but a proper vampire is good times.

Tiki Snakes
2009-04-24, 12:13 PM
Given that 'Acid' is just a liquid with a suitably extreme ph, I'd say it's entirely reasonable in a fantasy universe to have creatures bred, or even evolve naturally, to be able to tolerate such extreme ph ranges.

If lakes of Acid are prevelant enough, it becomes almost inevitable, really. Add in any level of background magic at all, and really, there is no problem with Acid-Sharks.

chiasaur11
2009-04-24, 12:14 PM
Oh, right, that William the Bloody. I mean, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't just let an uncredentialed vampire just walk in and get a job, but a proper vampire is good times.

That's the thing, these are Vampires who, prior to the whole turning good thing, I would have hired without a single moment of hesitation. Murder, torture, summoning of (and then murder for the fun of it) dark eldrich entities... I mean, Spike killed two slayers, supernatural forces for good.

And we all know Dracula, if only for his excellent moon castle.

But now? Wussing out, the lot of them. I mean, I even managed to meet up with Caine, allegedly the first Vampire. You know where we met? His CAB. He's retired into taxi driving.

Factor in the Black Ribboners, and you can't trust anybody with fangs and no pulse.

averagejoe
2009-04-24, 12:19 PM
That's the thing, these are Vampires who, prior to the whole turning good thing, I would have hired without a single moment of hesitation. Murder, torture, summoning of (and then murder for the fun of it) dark eldrich entities... I mean, Spike killed two slayers, supernatural forces for good.

And we all know Dracula, if only for his excellent moon castle.

But now? Wussing out, the lot of them. I mean, I even managed to meet up with Caine, allegedly the first Vampire. You know where we met? His CAB. He's retired into taxi driving.

Factor in the Black Ribboners, and you can't trust anybody with fangs and no pulse.

Fair enough. Free will, amiright? Got to get rid of that. It's a real shame though. Some vampires are still pretty classy guys. I mean, I've always preferred a mechanical aesthetic over the undead, but I just can't seem to get the lightning to strike properly or the wolves to howl on cue. Those vampires were masters of that, I'm telling you.

Faulty
2009-04-24, 12:22 PM
Given that 'Acid' is just a liquid with a suitably extreme ph, I'd say it's entirely reasonable in a fantasy universe to have creatures bred, or even evolve naturally, to be able to tolerate such extreme ph ranges.

If lakes of Acid are prevelant enough, it becomes almost inevitable, really. Add in any level of background magic at all, and really, there is no problem with Acid-Sharks.

It's no so much improbability as it is horribly camp. If I upon my enemies fortress and it was surrounded by lava with Noble Salamanders and fire elementals bound to it, I would be like, "OK, this is reasonable if ostentatious." If I came upon some dude's lair and there was a huge lake of acid with shark fins circling in it, I'd be like, "Is this guy serious?"

I can understand, maybe, pools of acid that naturally collect in the Underdark with some sort of Aberration or Magical Beast that has adapted to it, but acid-bred sharks? So camp.

averagejoe
2009-04-24, 12:50 PM
It's no so much improbability as it is horribly camp. If I upon my enemies fortress and it was surrounded by lava with Noble Salamanders and fire elementals bound to it, I would be like, "OK, this is reasonable if ostentatious." If I came upon some dude's lair and there was a huge lake of acid with shark fins circling in it, I'd be like, "Is this guy serious?"

I can understand, maybe, pools of acid that naturally collect in the Underdark with some sort of Aberration or Magical Beast that has adapted to it, but acid-bred sharks? So camp.

*stands around doing impressive looking but martially useless tricks with a double sword*

*stops and removes ninja mask to reveal face painted like Darth Maul*

*Jumps 100 feet in the air to 1 shot several flying creatures and then, at the peak of the jump, high fives another party member doing the same thing*

Horribly what?

Edit: Oh, yeah, and the theme song from the Mortal Kombat movie was playing the whole time.

Faulty
2009-04-24, 12:52 PM
at the peak of the jump, high fives another party member doing the same thing*

That's foregiveable.

DoctorJest
2009-04-24, 12:59 PM
It just seems one step away from sharks with lasers on their heads. :smallbiggrin:

You obviously mean wands of lightning on their heads.

Acid breathing sharks with head mounted wands of lightning bolt. Now we're talking.

Faulty
2009-04-24, 01:06 PM
Pft, wonderous items capable of shooting disintegrate spells.

Zhalath
2009-04-24, 04:46 PM
I actually have nothing against the acid shark. I could see, through evolution, sharks gaining resistance to higher acidity in water, to the point where you get sharks in sulfuric acid. However, the manner in which they feed themselves comes up. Acidborn seals?

I always thought that all those magic staffs that you can bend and they
EXPLODE
were kind of odd, considering a player would never do that, nor would any self-respecting villain. Just sounds like an excuse to give an enemy a powerful item and not have the players get it.

It's also always bugged me that some monsters are "always evil". Really, D&D? "Always evil"? So, when a demon sees a puppy, he has an overwhelming urge to crush it or kick it? What if a demon was tricked into doing a good act? Would that hurt it? Do these creatures always do evil, all the time? That doesn't sound realistic, nor verisimilitudistic (children, this is what we call "making up words"). It just sounds like an excuse to not allow players to play it and be good, or to have monsters it's "ok" to kill.

Faulty
2009-04-24, 04:52 PM
Demons are physical embodiments of the metaphysical concepts of Evil and Chaos combined. They're literally Chaotic Evil incarnate, so it makes sense that they're always evil. Stuff like Orcs being mostly evil is silly though, I guess it's a cultural thing... but still...

Fostire
2009-04-24, 04:59 PM
I always thought that all those magic staffs that you can bend and they
EXPLODE
were kind of odd, considering a player would never do that, nor would any self-respecting villain. Just sounds like an excuse to give an enemy a powerful item and not have the players get it.

I recall that already existing in 2e and it sounds like the kind of thing that would come from prior editions. If that's the case then it most likely originates from some real life myth or story and, thus, was probably never given much thought as to how that would affect the game mechanically.

KazilDarkeye
2009-04-24, 05:00 PM
Stuff like Orcs being mostly evil is silly though, I guess it's a cultural thing... but still...

Well, their patron deity is evil, and orcs respect the power of their patron deity, so they would try to be as much like him as possible (maybe).
After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. That's why there are templates and/or Prestige Classes that make the orc poke out one of their eyes.

chiasaur11
2009-04-24, 05:52 PM
Fair enough. Free will, amiright? Got to get rid of that. It's a real shame though. Some vampires are still pretty classy guys. I mean, I've always preferred a mechanical aesthetic over the undead, but I just can't seem to get the lightning to strike properly or the wolves to howl on cue. Those vampires were masters of that, I'm telling you.

Granted.

I mean, I'm a died in the wool deathbot fan, but if they were reliable, I'd totally agree they'd be great to have in the union. They know how to nail the ominous statement, the laugh, the wolf howl timing... Heck, Dracula has a moon base. What a shame.

Maybe in a couple of years.

Also, I talked to Vic (I call him Vic because he made some obscure agreement to not kill me and I need to get every bit of mileage out of it I can) about the whole free will thing, and he said you can do it, but then world domination is incredibly dull. Then he tossed me into the castle crocodile pit so the peasants could throw rocks at me. Pure class, that Victor.

Faulty
2009-04-24, 06:15 PM
Well, their patron deity is evil, and orcs respect the power of their patron deity, so they would try to be as much like him as possible (maybe).
After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. That's why there are templates and/or Prestige Classes that make the orc poke out one of their eyes.

I mean, there must be a few Orc tribes who aren't as barbaric, or at least neutral. It could be like the Kuo-Toa, who tend to bend towards Neutral or Good, but are controlled by the Evil whips. Maybe the Orcs just need a deity like the Drow's Eilistraee.

Zhalath
2009-04-24, 06:19 PM
The demon thing brings up a question though: will a demon commit an act of evil if it means assured destruction and permanent death? Would a demon commit an act of good to save itself from permanent death?

The "always evil" thing just doesn't work, especially for creatures that aren't "the incarnation of pure evil". Are all red dragons jerks? Are all white dragons wild beasts that attack anything that can't obviously kill it? There have to be variations in behavior.

Also, if Eberron is steampunk/dungeonpunk, where's my mecha? Final Fantasy VI has mecha, and it has both less advanced airships and no trains.

Also, any race that gets two penalties to one bonus, like half-orcs or kobolds. They really restrict what you can play, as well as how you play them. All half-orcs are inherently stupid, it seems. Even a smart one is outclassed by a human or better.

Faulty
2009-04-24, 06:26 PM
Well, they are biologically differnet. Anyway, D&D's morality isn't consequentialist. If a demon does a good act out of selfishness to survive so that they can go on to hurt mroe people, they're not good.

Fostire
2009-04-24, 06:32 PM
The demon thing brings up a question though: will a demon commit an act of evil if it means assured destruction and permanent death? Would a demon commit an act of good to save itself from permanent death?
A demon won't commit an evil act if it will destroy it (maybe a devil will, if it furthers the goals of other devils), and it is possible that it will risk destruction rather than commit an act of good.


The "always evil" thing just doesn't work, especially for creatures that aren't "the incarnation of pure evil". Are all red dragons jerks? According to MM, yes.
That doesn't mean that all red dragons have to be evil in your campaign. The monster manual gives you a list of monsters ready to add to your campaign so that you don't have to make them yourself. If evil red dragons don't fit your setting then make them good or neutral, it's your setting after all.


Are all white dragons wild beasts that attack anything that can't obviously kill it? There have to be variations in behavior.
You have to remember that dragons are also highly intelligent beings, they won't just go out on a rampage cause they know such acts will attract the attention of powerful beings that could destroy them.

Godskook
2009-04-24, 06:38 PM
The demon thing brings up a question though: will a demon commit an act of evil if it means assured destruction and permanent death? Would a demon commit an act of good to save itself from permanent death?

Evil is also selfish. If someone does something for purely self-serving reasons, it quite literally can't be an objectively 'good' act.

Actually, can you even name an objectively 'good' act, outside deity worship? Offhand, I can't.

KazilDarkeye
2009-04-24, 06:39 PM
A demon won't commit an evil act if it will destroy it (maybe a devil will, if it furthers the goals of other devils), and it is possible that it will risk destruction rather than commit an act of good.


It does, of course, depend on whether the fiend has high enough intelligence to realise that the evil act will do it harm. A Lemure would most certainly perish in these circumstances.

Faulty
2009-04-24, 06:48 PM
Evil is also selfish. If someone does something for purely self-serving reasons, it quite literally can't be an objectively 'good' act.

Actually, can you even name an objectively 'good' act, outside deity worship? Offhand, I can't.

Well it's a deontological moral system. If they do a good act out of a sense of duty and with virtuous intentions, then it's good.

TheCountAlucard
2009-04-24, 07:01 PM
Actually, can you even name an objectively 'good' act, outside deity worship? Offhand, I can't.
Casting a Good spell is a good act.

Ravens_cry
2009-04-24, 07:31 PM
Evil is also selfish. If someone does something for purely self-serving reasons, it quite literally can't be an objectively 'good' act.

I pulled that in a chat RP, where I was a Sith, protecting Jedi, as it 'served my masters goals'.
Evil may be selfish, but it's not stupid. If Petting the Dog serves that Evil, then that Dog is going to be Petted, appearances be damned. Or even if one feels like it.

monty
2009-04-24, 07:36 PM
If Petting the Dog serves that Evil, then that Dog is going to be Petted, appearances be damned. Or even if one feels like it.

Wrong animal.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/righthandcat.jpg

Godskook
2009-04-24, 09:25 PM
Casting a Good spell is a good act.

That comes with the prerequisite of being good, I thought. Either way, how would a Demon have a 'good' spell on his spell list?

@Amesoeurs

Um, bringing virtue into this just muddies the water. Either its a synonym for 'good' or its a list of things that evil-doers can do.(Demons can be patient, for instance. A clean demon rarely leaves clues behind. A courageous demon isn't unimaginable)

Let me rephrase the challenge. Name one 'good' act that a demon can be compelled to do on threat of death.

Deity worship wouldn't work, since no 'good' deity would accept compelled worship, and any contrivance brought up to make that happen would be less believable than the demon's nature to begin with.

(And summoning doesn't work either. See Constantine(the movie) for an explanation)

afroakuma
2009-04-24, 09:32 PM
Casting a Good spell is a good act.

Casting a Good spell for a Good reason is a Good act. If I go around wasting scrolls of holy smite by firing them into empty 5' squares in order to deny an order of good-aligned clerics access to them, then I'm being a jerk.

JonestheSpy
2009-04-24, 09:58 PM
I mean, there must be a few Orc tribes who aren't as barbaric, or at least neutral.

No, I don't think there's a 'must' there. Could be, depending on the campaign, but no compuslion.



The "always evil" thing just doesn't work, especially for creatures that aren't "the incarnation of pure evil".

Sure it does.


Are all red dragons jerks?

Could be.


Are all white dragons wild beasts that attack anything that can't obviously kill it?

Unless they're unusually intelligent.


There have to be variations in behavior.

No, actually there don't.

As I mentioned in the dwarf/elf alignment thread, the above posters are thinking in terms of science fiction, not fantasy. Fantasy is about dream, archetype, overarching meta-reality. You don't need to think about personality deviation among orcs and dragons, they are what they are. Pure evil and pure good don't exist in real life, and they don't either in fiction that emulates real life - even in non-existent settings - but they do in fantasy. That's kind of the point.

Now that can easily lend itself to BAD fantasy and boring, cookie-cutter creatures and settings - you need to have reasons behind things, definitely. Tolkien's monsters were evil because they were created by the Satanic deity Morgoth - either corrupted from other creatures like the orcs, or lesser evil spirits given form like the first dragon. They are motivated by his will, and naturally act out of hate, spite, malice, and greed.

Now you can have a world where all the races are just different species trying to get by in their various ways, and the endless copying of Tolkien and the boredom thereby generated certainly can encourage folks in that direction, but there's no must about it.

Chronos
2009-04-24, 10:08 PM
The "break a staff for a retributive strike" thing is straight from Tolkien. Remember the scene in The Hobbit, where they're stuck in the trees with the goblins surrounding them, and Gandalf is planning on jumping down on them to destroy them (and himself)? He was planning on breaking his staff. Until, of course, they got rescued by aquillae ex machina.

Faulty
2009-04-24, 10:09 PM
@Amesoeurs

Um, bringing virtue into this just muddies the water. Either its a synonym for 'good' or its a list of things that evil-doers can do.(Demons can be patient, for instance. A clean demon rarely leaves clues behind. A courageous demon isn't unimaginable)

I was speaking from a Kantian point of view, but in a very poor manner apparently. Kant actually said that, talking about how seemingly admirable traits can be put to bad use in bad people. Being good to him had a lot to do with intention and duty, so it's a real mix of things. I haven't read Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals in a few months and I find his stuff hard to remember, so I can't really elaborate.

Anyway, D&D morals are really deontological, so the idea is there's a set of rules ("do not kill", "do not steal", etc.) that are good and you have to follow those rules in a selfless and honest manner (i.e., you have to tell the truth because telling the truth is good, not because it will get you something, etc.) to constitute being a good person and performing a good act.

You're thinking in a very consequentialist way here, with the idea of the outcome mattering. That's not the way the alignments work, so it's a bad comparison. Saving a puppy is only good if you're doing it without self-interest in mind; saving a puppy out of self-interest is neutral or evil, really.

Fostire
2009-04-24, 10:14 PM
The "break a staff for a retributive strike" thing is straight from Tolkien. Remember the scene in The Hobbit, where they're stuck in the trees with the goblins surrounding them, and Gandalf is planning on jumping down on them to destroy them (and himself)? He was planning on breaking his staff. Until, of course, they got rescued by aquillae ex machina.

I KNEW IT! :smallbiggrin:

Wow, original D&D must have been about 90% tolkien, 10% original stuff.

Faulty
2009-04-24, 10:18 PM
Yeah, what with all the Ents... er... Treants.

vrellum
2009-04-24, 10:19 PM
It does not so much say it as not say it, in that you can dual wield light weapons and it never says fists are a exception.

The better question might be as to why a monk can't two hand his fists and get any form of benefit from it.

Because two fisted blows aren't effective. So it's not a contrivance, it makes sense.

chiasaur11
2009-04-24, 10:23 PM
Because two fisted blows aren't effective. So it's not a contrivance, it makes sense.

Tell that to James T Kirk!

vrellum
2009-04-24, 10:25 PM
Yes, slings shouldn't be simple, but considering what goes into weilding even a civil-war era gun, let alone one from the 15th century, there's no way they should be martial.


Guns should be simple. That's the only reason people used 15th century guns. They're weren't particulary accurate so they should have an attack penalty I suppose, but they were easy to use. Much easier than a long bow or a sling.

Faulty
2009-04-24, 10:26 PM
The Shat is an alumni from my school. We have a building unofficially named after him.

Fostire
2009-04-24, 10:28 PM
Because two fisted blows aren't effective. So it's not a contrivance, it makes sense.

When you dual wield weapons you don't make two attacks at the same time either, but instead you make an attack with your main hand weapon and add a quick second attack with your off hand weapon. So I would say that dual wielding fists makes some sense (although calling it dual wielding sounds weird), you just make a right followed by a quick left*

*I have no fistfighting knowledge whatsoever so I have no idea if this would be an effective way to fight in the first place (not that dual wielding weapons is very effective either)

Faleldir
2009-04-24, 10:32 PM
It does not so much say it as not say it, in that you can dual wield light weapons and it never says fists are a exception.

The better question might be as to why a monk can't two hand his fists and get any form of benefit from it.

There's a feat that does that, but it sucks.


Hammer Fist [Fighter, General]
You are trained in an unarmed fighting style that emphasizes a
two-handed strike.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Improved Unarmed Strike, dwarf.
Benefit: You add one and a half times your Strength bonus on
your damage when you hit with an unarmed strike. This extra
damage does not apply if you make a flurry of blows attack or if
you are holding anything in either hand. You must use both
hands to make the unarmed attack.

chiasaur11
2009-04-24, 10:37 PM
There's a feat that does that, but it sucks.

Dwarf as a requirement?

Why, for heaven's sake?

Chronos
2009-04-24, 10:43 PM
Wow, original D&D must have been about 90% tolkien, 10% original stuff.Actually, it's about 90% from the works of Robert Howard, Jack Vance, Fritz Leiber, and other such pulp fantasy writers, and 10% from Tolkien, but many more people have read Tolkien than those other writers, so we tend to recognize the things that were stolen from him more.

vrellum
2009-04-24, 10:47 PM
When you dual wield weapons you don't make two attacks at the same time either, but instead you make an attack with your main hand weapon and add a quick second attack with your off hand weapon. So I would say that dual wielding fists makes some sense (although calling it dual wielding sounds weird), you just make a right followed by a quick left*

*I have no fistfighting knowledge whatsoever so I have no idea if this would be an effective way to fight in the first place (not that dual wielding weapons is very effective either)

We're not talking about the same thing.
Me: wielding a weapon in with two hands
You: weilding two weapons.

Satyr
2009-04-25, 03:12 AM
As I mentioned in the dwarf/elf alignment thread, the above posters are thinking in terms of science fiction, not fantasy. Fantasy is about dream, archetype, overarching meta-reality. You don't need to think about personality deviation among orcs and dragons, they are what they are. Pure evil and pure good don't exist in real life, and they don't either in fiction that emulates real life - even in non-existent settings - but they do in fantasy. That's kind of the point.

No.

Just because it is fantasy doesn't mean that a stupiud, overtly simplified system of morals is obligatory, or even desirable. Fantasy entails no licence to insult other people's - or your own- intelligence, fantasy is no excuse to insult anybody's intelligence, and certainly fantasy doesn't need to insult anybody's intelligence. Contrived, overtly simple black and white morals are a problem as soon as the involved party refuse to stop thinking about these mind-numbing stupid concepts. The fact that most D&D modules are not targeted on such an averagely intelligent audience throws a bad light on the expectations of the authors towards the players.

It is bad enough that enough people accept that crap but that is no justification to call it a virtue.

Good fantasy is potentially more complex, diiferentiated and unpredicatable as the real world, as there is no reason why anything happened in history could not happen in a fantasy world, in addition to the supernatural events and influences typical for the setting.

Roderick_BR
2009-04-25, 03:47 AM
The demon thing brings up a question though: will a demon commit an act of evil if it means assured destruction and permanent death? Would a demon commit an act of good to save itself from permanent death?

The "always evil" thing just doesn't work, especially for creatures that aren't "the incarnation of pure evil". Are all red dragons jerks? Are all white dragons wild beasts that attack anything that can't obviously kill it? There have to be variations in behavior.

You can say they are the incarnation of these concepts. A demon naturally "borns" tainted by evil, because of it's own nature, and the place it was created.
And a smart demon would commit a good act to save himself (would still be a selfish reason), like when Lobo and Etrigan (DC Comics) had to destroy some huge demon to save themselves (and that's because they killed the creature meant to destroy the demon, for fun). In the same way, a demon won't do something that may destroy him (unless he really, REALLY want to commit the evil act).

Finally, "always evil" means that the majority of societies of said creatures is evil, but that doesn't exclude a single character from being different sometimes. There's even an official D&D computer game with a puritan succubus (Torment, I think).

Waspinator
2009-04-25, 05:17 AM
Also, if Eberron is steampunk/dungeonpunk, where's my mecha? Final Fantasy VI has mecha, and it has both less advanced airships and no trains.

Here you go:
http://dragonwing.net/Doom_Striders.htm
and while we're at it:
http://dragonwing.net/Airships.htm

Stephen_E
2009-04-25, 05:30 AM
Casting a Good spell is a good act.

Can you show the RAW for that?

I've heard it said before but I've never seen anything RAW to back it yp. The most I've seen is that Evil can't cast "Good" spells and visa versa, but that's different from "casting good spells is good".

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-04-25, 05:40 AM
The "break a staff for a retributive strike" thing is straight from Tolkien. Remember the scene in The Hobbit, where they're stuck in the trees with the goblins surrounding them, and Gandalf is planning on jumping down on them to destroy them (and himself)? He was planning on breaking his staff. Until, of course, they got rescued by aquillae ex machina.

Breaking a magic staff=boom isn't Tolkein original.
The concept is ancient fantasy. An awful lot of stuff that people call "Tolkein" is simply stuff Tolkein took from elsewhere. Other people have used the same sources. Off-hand the only stuff that leaps to mind as original from Tolkein is Hobbits and "Nice" elves. The rest of Tolkeins stuff is sourced from elsewhere (this is not a critism of Tolkein. Originality is generally overrated).

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-04-25, 05:47 AM
What's the debate over Monks and 2WF and 2HW.

Monks can use TWFing with unarmed attacks, it gives them additional attacks, just as with any other weapon. There was even something in the FAQ (3.5) about it.

I guess you could abitrate 2H unarmed strikes, but given that unrmed strikes are a light weapon, and using 2H on a light weapon doesn't do amthing IIRC, then it seems rather pointless.

Stephen E

Tetsubo 57
2009-04-25, 07:14 AM
80lb female elves with a natural 18 str. I love elves, and I know it's possible to be really strong despite your weight, but come on!

-Swimming in full plate
-a character with no ranks in jump with 10 str jumping 20 feet while wearing/carrying up to 33lbs.
-having 200hp, but currently 1hp, and still being 100% effective.
-having 200hp period
-jumping out of an airplane (which apparently exists in this hypothetical statement) with an antimagic field-belt and surviving the fall because 20d6 is only so much, even with massive damage rule.
-surviving immersion into lava
-a rogue killing a tiger with a rock because he went first
-3ft. 30lb halflings having only -2 str and carrying gear 3/4 normal weight
-Manyshot
-a human commoner having 4hp, but a dragon the size of a gymnasium only having 600.
-Dire Maces
-Slings as simple weapons, but guns being exotic


I think I've made my point. Needless to say, my campaigns are extensively homebrewed.

Also, I kinda like the idea of acid sharks. I mean, if you can have a pit of acid to begin with, why not put in fish with teeth that you made magically immune to acid? If there are bird-bears, bird-horses, bird-lions, there can be sharks who live in acid. Now lava sharks, "Aw damn it, a lake of lava! How are we going to...was that a ****ing shark fin? Holy ****ing ass crackers! Don't try to swim in the...I need an aspirin."

The problem with Exotic weapons is that the game uses two different definitions of the word 'exotic' simultaneously. The first is the idea that some weapons are odd and from another culture. This produces such silliness as a sickle and a kama being treated differently. When both are used identically within their respected cultures. The second definition is that a weapon does something 'more' than a regular weapon: multiple attacks, extra damage, an extended range, a special attack option, etc.

If we drop the first definition and stick with the second, things make a lot more sense. Look at the mechanics of the weapon in question and judge if it provides a mechanical advantage. If it doesn't, it shouldn't really be exotic. To reflect that some weapons (such as pistols) might be foreign to a particular campaign, apply an attack penalty until the user becomes familiar with the item in question.

I did that once when a PC lost his right hand. He had a penalty to attack with his 'off' hand fpr a level or so. Then he 'adjusted' and he could use his normal BAB.

Tetsubo 57
2009-04-25, 07:18 AM
I've always been curious as to how humans can make babies with every humanoid race. Not only that, but the off-spring can reproduce as well!

My only explanation for it would be that Orcs, Elves, Halflings, Dwarves, etc, etc. are simply off shooting branches of the human tree (much like different species of dog) and that humans are obviously the oldest, and the most superior, race!

I've had a problem with that as well. My solution is to just ban half-breeds. I don't miss the half-elf at all. And the half-orc becomes the Harak, a race of barbaric nomads that eat their fallen enemies. Simple and quick.

Tetsubo 57
2009-04-25, 07:22 AM
I'm not about to bother with quote bars.

-Swimming in full plate - I always imagine full plate as being massive and rigid, the kind of stuff that would make stairs look like obstacles. Not too serious on that one, just kinda hard to imagine.

-I meant Dire Flail, not Dire Mace.

-Those people who survived the 20,000+ ft. falls always landed in heavy snow through pine trees or in sewage plants. Not dirt, rock, etc.

-The rogue is using a rock with which he is not proficient as a weapon (-4) and kills the tiger because of sneak attack. What if I had said a bear? My point is, if it can be killed with 1d2+10d6, a rogue can kill it with a rock.

I was going to mention females always being as strong as males, but I thought nah, I'll leave that alone...

The Dire Flail was the best method of committing suicide ever introduced into the game.

Tetsubo 57
2009-04-25, 07:29 AM
Short people solution:

Halflings: -4 Str, +2 Dex, +2 Cha, half lifting capacity.
Gnomes: -4 Str, +2 Con, +2 Int, half lifting capacity.

Harperfan7
2009-04-25, 07:32 AM
Short people solution:

Halflings: -4 Str, +2 Dex, +2 Cha, half lifting capacity.
Gnomes: -4 Str, +2 Con, +2 Int, half lifting capacity.

Nah, I just made them bigger.:smallsmile:

Stephen_E
2009-04-25, 09:19 AM
I'm not about to bother with quote bars.

-Swimming in full plate - I always imagine full plate as being massive and rigid, the kind of stuff that would make stairs look like obstacles. Not too serious on that one, just kinda hard to imagine.

Your ignorance of what full plate really is isn't DnDs fault. People can do somersaults in full plate. Seriously, no joke.


-Those people who survived the 20,000+ ft. falls always landed in heavy snow through pine trees or in sewage plants. Not dirt, rock, etc..

Wrong. The majority do, but some just survive, albeit often badly damaged. Remember, terminal velocity for a human is somewher between 200 and 300km/h, depemd on various circumstances. The simple fact is that this is surviable. Not proable survival, but possible. Again, don't bitch at DnD for your lack of RL knowledge. Their representation of this is far from perfect, but within the limits of the game they don't do to badly on this issue. PCs are supposed to be lucky b*****ds.


-The rogue is using a rock with which he is not proficient as a weapon (-4) and kills the tiger because of sneak attack. What if I had said a bear? My point is, if it can be killed with 1d2+10d6, a rogue can kill it with a rock..

Technically it is actually possible to kill a Tiger with a rock if you hit it in the right spot with enough force (enough been within human limits). I would suggest you make sure you do get the right spot. If that rogue misses, or fails to get the kill, he's then in big trouble if the tiger hits back. You'd be hard put to find an animal that doesn't have weak spots that make it relatively easy to kill despite an inpressive looking extearior. Extreeme size differences are the most likely to cause difficulties, and DnD rules do have a note that to use sneak attack the PC must be able to reach a vunerable spot.

Personally given that I accept the spellcasting system there really is nothing that does more than make me blink or smile.

Stephen E

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-25, 11:05 AM
What's the debate over Monks and 2WF and 2HW.

Monks can use TWFing with unarmed attacks, it gives them additional attacks, just as with any other weapon. There was even something in the FAQ (3.5) about it.The debate is that they don't have 2 US to dual-wield. There's no issues with them TWF a US and a Kama or something, the issue is that they're already using their entire body to attack with, and they don't have a second one.

Fostire
2009-04-25, 11:16 AM
The debate is that they don't have 2 US to dual-wield. There's no issues with them TWF a US and a Kama or something, the issue is that they're already using their entire body to attack with, and they don't have a second one.

What if they're conjoined twin monks? :smalltongue:

averagejoe
2009-04-25, 11:22 AM
The debate is that they don't have 2 US to dual-wield. There's no issues with them TWF a US and a Kama or something, the issue is that they're already using their entire body to attack with, and they don't have a second one.

Now that is a potentially cool special ability.

Vexxation
2009-04-25, 11:30 AM
The debate is that they don't have 2 US to dual-wield. There's no issues with them TWF a US and a Kama or something, the issue is that they're already using their entire body to attack with, and they don't have a second one.

So, could a Dvati Monk dual-wield unarmed strike? She'd actually have two bodies to use.

TheCountAlucard
2009-04-25, 11:36 AM
Can you show the RAW for that?

I've heard it said before but I've never seen anything RAW to back it yp. The most I've seen is that Evil can't cast "Good" spells and visa versa, but that's different from "casting good spells is good".

Stephen E

There is nothing RAW for that, sadly; if you're going by the Core rules, then the only thing special about Good and Evil spells is that divine casters of the opposing alignment cannot prepare the spell. However, Fiendish Codex II says that casting an Evil spell (even for Good purposes) is an Evil act; using logic, then, casting a Good spell (probably not for Evil purposes, though) would be a Good act.

...but what the hell am I doing, using logic when we're talking about D&D? :smallbiggrin:

Vexxation
2009-04-25, 11:41 AM
...using logic, then, casting a Good spell (probably not for Evil purposes, though) would be a Good act.

That's one of the things I hate: the double standard.

Casting a Good Spell for Good purposes: Good
Casting an Evil Spell for Evil purposes: Evil
Casting a Good Spell for Evil purposes: Evil
Casting an Evil Spell for Good purposes: Evil

It seems unfair. But hey, that's how the cookie crumbles...

Tempest Fennac
2009-04-25, 11:48 AM
Regarding heavy armour, medieval knights were often athletic enough to do gymnastics while wearing full armour, so it's not that inflexible (if it was, it wouldn't be useful in combat due to turning falling over into a death sentance). I banned all half races due to classing humans being able to cross-breed with everything as disturbing, and I class half-races as boring, so banning them gives more time for what I consider to be more interresting races.

Faulty
2009-04-25, 12:11 PM
That's one of the things I hate: the double standard.

Casting a Good Spell for Good purposes: Good
Casting an Evil Spell for Evil purposes: Evil
Casting a Good Spell for Evil purposes: Evil
Casting an Evil Spell for Good purposes: Evil

It seems unfair. But hey, that's how the cookie crumbles...

It's unfair that evil has such badass spells. Like that one from BoVD where you fill people lungs with water. I have no idea how that Psionic power that removes part of a person's brainsteam doesn't count as evil though, that's pretty screwed up.

Vexxation
2009-04-25, 12:13 PM
It's unfair that evil has such badass spells. Like that one from BoVD where you fill people lungs with water. I have no idea how that Psionic power that removes part of a person's brainsteam doesn't count as evil though, that's pretty screwed up.

That's a good point.
But if you want to exemplify the badassery of evil spells, look no further than everyone's favorite, Mindrape.

WhiteHarness
2009-04-25, 12:25 PM
-Swimming in full plate - I always imagine full plate as being massive and rigid, the kind of stuff that would make stairs look like obstacles. Not too serious on that one, just kinda hard to imagine.
If full plate that's easy to move in is "hard to imagine" for you, then I submit that your personal mental image of full plate is based more on bad cartoons, popular misconception resulting from leftover Victorian-era poor scholarship, and low-quality fantasy art than on any actual education on or experience with the subject.

Faulty
2009-04-25, 01:01 PM
That's a good point.
But if you want to exemplify the badassery of evil spells, look no further than everyone's favorite, Mindrape.

What does that do, implant an intimate knowledge of furry culture in the subject's brain? :smallconfused:

TheCountAlucard
2009-04-25, 01:17 PM
What does that do, implant an intimate knowledge of furry culture in the subject's brain?That's one thing you could do with it...

Pretty much, Mindrape causes the caster to know everything the target of the spell knows, and then the caster can write over it, replacing the subject's knowledge and memories with whatever the caster wishes. Joe the fighter becomes Nancy the beer wench. Did you remember the BBEG killing your father? Not anymore; now you recall seeing your fellow party members strangle him in his sleep.

Faulty
2009-04-25, 01:24 PM
That's one thing you could do with it...

Pretty much, Mindrape causes the caster to know everything the target of the spell knows, and then the caster can write over it, replacing the subject's knowledge and memories with whatever the caster wishes. Joe the fighter becomes Nancy the beer wench. Did you remember the BBEG killing your father? Not anymore; now you recall seeing your fellow party members strangle him in his sleep.

That is pretty sick. :smalleek:

Chronos
2009-04-25, 03:05 PM
That's one of the things I hate: the double standard.Of course there's a double standard, and it'd be pretty silly if there wasn't. As some other poster once said, choosing between Good and Evil isn't like just choosing which football team you're going to root for; they're inherently different sorts of things, and should be treated differently.

chiasaur11
2009-04-25, 03:14 PM
That is pretty sick. :smalleek:

Yeah.

Really, kinda explains the name.

Wouldn't so much call it badass as pure evil, but it is definitely one of the evil spells just justifies the descriptor.

monty
2009-04-25, 03:20 PM
Wouldn't so much call it badass as pure evil, but it is definitely one of the evil spells just justifies the descriptor.

On the other hand, you have programmed amnesia, which as far as I can tell does the same thing but more slowly, and isn't evil.

KazilDarkeye
2009-04-25, 03:20 PM
Yeah, Evil has access to all sorts of "techniques"* that Good can only use in extreme circumstances (and after trying EVERY possible alternative).

Torture
Taking Hostages (with intent to kill/hurt)
Tyranny

And other things that may or may not start with "T"

* Probably not the correct word, but "methods that can be used to achieve certain goals" is a bit wordy.

Edit:Such as
Painful, Mind-Controlling Parasites
Killing Random Civilians to draw the heroes out
Ecological Devastation (maybe)

Olo Demonsbane
2009-04-25, 03:24 PM
If you are hit by a spell that tottally rewrites your memories and can change your alignment, what alignment descriptor does it have?

Trick Question!
[Good] Sanctify the Wicked
[Evil] Mindrape
[None] Programed Amnesia

Claudius Maximus
2009-04-25, 03:28 PM
Concerning the whole evil spell thing, I've always thought that which spells were evil made no sense. I mean, why is Deathwatch, which can be crucial to battlefield healing, evil? Why not Dominate Person, or even Charm person? There's a spell in BoVD, I forget what it's called, but it answers one question that could begin with "who", and it's evil for no apparent reason. It even has a drug component and can only be cast within an Unhallow effect. Why is that evil?

hamishspence
2009-04-25, 03:29 PM
Sanctify doesn't actually affect memories- it changes target's alignment, and adds the Sanctified Creature template, but thats all. By strict interpretation of the spell, creature remembers everything that's previously happened to it.

Deathwatch I think is an error and should have been errataed- why? Because subsequent books have put it on the caster list of Always Good class (healer) and Exalted PRC (Slayer of Domiel).

Faulty
2009-04-25, 03:37 PM
Yeah.

Really, kinda explains the name.

Wouldn't so much call it badass as pure evil, but it is definitely one of the evil spells just justifies the descriptor.

Yeah, God damn. I will never, ever put that in a spellbook.


On the other hand, you have programmed amnesia, which as far as I can tell does the same thing but more slowly, and isn't evil.

God damn psionics~

MeklorIlavator
2009-04-25, 03:40 PM
God damn psionics~

Huh? That's an arcane spell. Don't bring psionics into this.

Faulty
2009-04-25, 03:40 PM
I thought it was psionics for some reason. Pbt, forget I said anything. @_@

Dervag
2009-04-25, 03:40 PM
Wrong. The majority do, but some just survive, albeit often badly damaged. Remember, terminal velocity for a human is somewher between 200 and 300km/h, depemd on various circumstances. The simple fact is that this is surviable. Not proable survival, but possible. Again, don't bitch at DnD for your lack of RL knowledge. Their representation of this is far from perfect, but within the limits of the game they don't do to badly on this issue. PCs are supposed to be lucky b*****ds.As I'm sure you realize, the problem comes when a PC is so tough that they are (in-game) guaranteed to survive a fall from extreme height. A high level fighter could climb a mile-high cliff, jump off the top, then climb back up again, jump off again, and almost certainly live to tell the tale.

There comes a point at which the falling rules do trigger suspension of disbelief. They have advantages (easy to calculate, fairly effective at low levels), but also disadvantages (cats die from a fall more easily than elephants, the aforesaid mountain-climbing incident).


It's unfair that evil has such badass spells. Like that one from BoVD where you fill people lungs with water. I have no idea how that Psionic power that removes part of a person's brainsteam doesn't count as evil though, that's pretty screwed up.I dunno. If stabbing someone in the brainstem doesn't count as evil, I'm not sure why teleporting their brainstem one foot to the left would.

For magic to be inherently evil, either the method or the result has to be inherently evil. In some cases (causing massive torture to everyone in the vicinity) the result is evil no matter how you did it, and so the spell is evil because that's the only thing it can do. In other cases, the method by which the spell operates is so... wrong in some sense that it's impossible (or nearly so) to justify using that method from an ethical standpoint.

In D&D, using telekinesis or teleportation to cause brain damage isn't an inherently evil result, because it isn't always evil to cause brain damage in D&D. And I'm not sure why it would be an inherently evil method, either.


On the other hand [compared to the "Mind Rape" spell, you have programmed amnesia, which as far as I can tell does the same thing but more slowly, and isn't evil.The difference may be in terms of the amount of trauma inflicted. "Mind Rape" may do by brute force (causing massive mental trauma to the target during the spell) what "Programmed Amnesia" does more subtly (without the trauma).

Faulty
2009-04-25, 03:43 PM
I dunno. If stabbing someone in the brainstem doesn't count as evil, I'm not sure why teleporting their brainstem one foot to the left would.

Well, stabbing them in the brainstem instantly kills them. The latter method turns them into a vegetable and prolongs their death. It's sadistic.

averagejoe
2009-04-25, 04:02 PM
Yeah, Evil has access to all sorts of "techniques"* that Good can only use in extreme circumstances (and after trying EVERY possible alternative).

Torture
Taking Hostages (with intent to kill/hurt)
Tyranny

And other things that may or may not start with "T"

* Probably not the correct word, but "methods that can be used to achieve certain goals" is a bit wordy.

Edit:Such as
Tpainful, Mind-Controlling Parasites
Tilling Random Civilians to draw the heroes out
Tecological Devastation (maybe)

That fits the trend better.


As I'm sure you realize, the problem comes when a PC is so tough that they are (in-game) guaranteed to survive a fall from extreme height. A high level fighter could climb a mile-high cliff, jump off the top, then climb back up again, jump off again, and almost certainly live to tell the tale.

There comes a point at which the falling rules do trigger suspension of disbelief. They have advantages (easy to calculate, fairly effective at low levels), but also disadvantages (cats die from a fall more easily than elephants, the aforesaid mountain-climbing incident).

That's more a problem with the HP system than the falling rules, though. The things that a mid to high level fighter can survive far exceed the silliness of a paltry mile drop.

Come to think of it, though, jumping vs. falling is pretty silly. As far as I can tell, you don't take damage from a high jump. Additionally, jumping counts against movement for the round, so it would take several rounds to complete a 150 foot high jump, but only one round to fall that far. Unless I'm missing something.

KazilDarkeye
2009-04-25, 04:14 PM
Come to think of it, though, jumping vs. falling is pretty silly. As far as I can tell, you don't take damage from a high jump. Additionally, jumping counts against movement for the round, so it would take several rounds to complete a 150 foot high jump, but only one round to fall that far. Unless I'm missing something.

Well jumping makes you go up and falling makes you go down...
I get you probably didn't mean that, but still :smallbiggrin:

Stephen_E
2009-04-25, 07:39 PM
The debate is that they don't have 2 US to dual-wield. There's no issues with them TWF a US and a Kama or something, the issue is that they're already using their entire body to attack with, and they don't have a second one.

Don't let fluff cross crunch.

TWFing lets you use your offhand. Monk attacks are still main hand/side dominated. In RL there are 2 steps (well 2 steps relevant to this discussion) involved in unarmed combat. Learning how to hit effectively with your body, and learning to use your off-hand/side to fight with. In DnD the 1st is represented with the feat Improved Unarmed Strike, and the 2nd with 2WFing.

What's the problem?

Stephen

Stephen_E
2009-04-25, 07:45 PM
There is nothing RAW for that, sadly; if you're going by the Core rules, then the only thing special about Good and Evil spells is that divine casters of the opposing alignment cannot prepare the spell. However, Fiendish Codex II says that casting an Evil spell (even for Good purposes) is an Evil act; using logic, then, casting a Good spell (probably not for Evil purposes, though) would be a Good act.

...but what the hell am I doing, using logic when we're talking about D&D? :smallbiggrin:

Don't know the Fiendish Codex but if it's anything like the Exalted Deeds and Vile whatever then I would lcatergorise iin with UA. Alternate rules for alignment.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-04-25, 08:05 PM
As I'm sure you realize, the problem comes when a PC is so tough that they are (in-game) guaranteed to survive a fall from extreme height. A high level fighter could climb a mile-high cliff, jump off the top, then climb back up again, jump off again, and almost certainly live to tell the tale.

There comes a point at which the falling rules do trigger suspension of disbelief. They have advantages (easy to calculate, fairly effective at low levels), but also disadvantages (cats die from a fall more easily than elephants, the aforesaid mountain-climbing incident).

I dunno. If stabbing someone in the brainstem doesn't count as evil, I'm not sure why teleporting their brainstem one foot to the left would.



Yes, eventually the falling rules run into the "superhuman" wall. That is somewhere around 10th level characters stop been "human" (substitute race of choice) and become "superhuman" and thus certain RL factors stop applying. It's inherently designed in the system, and if you play DnD you do need to accept that if you're going to play at those levels. If you hate the "superhuman" concept then you need to add extra damage based on class levels. i.e. an additioonal 2pts of damage for each PC class level. 1pt fpr each NPC class level.

Re: Cats and elephants. The falling rule are designed for humanoids pf human size. When applying them to creatures of different sizes you really need to apply a size mod to the max dice limit. I'd suggest +/- 5d6 for every size category as a crude/simple but workable mod. A more realistic but complex might be 2x("size difference from M" squared).
Thus -
S = 18d6
L = 22d6
T = 12d6
H = 28d6
F = 2d6
C = 38d6

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-04-25, 08:20 PM
Regarding Crossbreeding.

Keep in mind that different species can and do successfully crossbreed. The offspring can even be fertile. This can even occur when the parents have differnt numbers of chromosones. The species do need to be vaguely related, but that can be said to apply to humanoid creatures.

A decade or so a NZ Zoo had a female and male primate of different species that they housed together because they only had one of each species and primates on their own don't do well. Not unsurprisingly they became a mated pair. What did suprise the keepers was when she got pregnant despite them been different species and having different chromosone counts. Even more when tests indicated that the offsprings sperm was fertile.

I suspect the difficulty people have with this is a certain degree of icjyness factor rather than a reality check. The truth is that if human made a habit of having sex with other primate species we would start seeing half-human offspring. The legal and religous fallout would be interesting.:smallwink:

Species crossbreeding is a convoluted subject but it isn't actually unreasonable that one species (humans in DnD) are more capable of crossbreeding with the various other humanoid species than those species are with each other. Such quirks are an actual real part of species crossbreeding.

Stephen E

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-26, 11:40 AM
Don't let fluff cross crunch.

TWFing lets you use your offhand. Monk attacks are still main hand/side dominated. In RL there are 2 steps (well 2 steps relevant to this discussion) involved in unarmed combat. Learning how to hit effectively with your body, and learning to use your off-hand/side to fight with. In DnD the 1st is represented with the feat Improved Unarmed Strike, and the 2nd with 2WFing.

What's the problem?Crunch-wise, it's that the Monk only has one US. Heck, the entry reads "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." You wield one US. You can TWF with another item, but you only get the one US.

Fluff-wise, they're striking with their entire body. That's why FoB adds 2 bonus attacks. You're using "either fist interchangeably or even...elbows, knees, and feet". What's left for them to TWF with?