PDA

View Full Version : Defining D&D



ken-do-nim
2009-06-10, 10:08 PM
The question of "what is D&D?" keeps coming up in these debates about whether 4th edition is really a true descendant of the game system or a cousin marketed as the real thing. I thought I'd start a thread on the topic.

Well, to start things off, let's go back to the game's OD&D roots.
- Ability stats of STR, INT, WIS, DEX, CON, CHA
- Saving throws to avoid and resist things using a d20
- Hit Points
- Class-based game that offers at a minimum magic-users (aka wizards), fighters, and clerics, and as a corollary divine magic is separated from arcane
- Races offered and the setting default to, essentially, Lord of the Rings. Humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings in an otherwise medieval world.
- Level-based
- A hit die limit for each class after name level, beyond which only a small fixed number of hit points are gained
- Vancian spell memorization
- A focus on exploration, be it dungeon or wilderness
- Experience gained mostly for treasure, not negotiating fights or traps

(And yes, in my view 3.5 veered away from this definition on 2 counts: no hit die cap and most of the xp from combat, but maybe adhering to 90% is still good enough)

Artanis
2009-06-10, 10:16 PM
Hrm...

If 3e deviates on two points, then 4e deviates on two or two and a half (depending on how "Vancian" you consider the 4e Wizard's spellbook to be)

NecroRebel
2009-06-10, 10:25 PM
- Races offered and the setting default to, essentially, Lord of the Rings. Humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings in an otherwise medieval world.
- A hit die limit for each class after name level, beyond which only a small fixed number of hit points are gained
- Experience gained mostly for treasure, not negotiating fights or traps

Why are these three in there at all? The stats may have drawn heavily from Tolkein for races and such, but the original settings weren't nearly as much so from what I gather. The "hit die limit" seems rather arbitrary, and "experience for treasure" doesn't seem to make any sense at all. Why should Bill Gates, who presumably has accumulated the most treasure, be a level 20 dude, with all the combat ability and other skills that come with it, while a SEAL or Ranger or other elite soldier with months of rigorous training but not a lot of money isn't?

Ridureyu
2009-06-10, 10:26 PM
D&D is everything published under the D&D name, including the arcade beat 'em up games, the cartoon, and the movies, EXCEPT 4th Edition.


...wait a second. That doesn't sound right:smallbiggrin:

Artanis
2009-06-10, 10:59 PM
This might help add to the discussion: I found the intro from the original DnD Basic Set.


Each player creates a character or characters who may be dwarves, elves, halflings or human fighting men, magic-users, pious clerics or wily thieves. The characters are then plunged into an adventure in a series of dungeons, tunnels, secret rooms and caverns run by another player: the referee, often called the Dungeon Master. The dungeons are filled with fearsome monsters, fabulous treasure, and frightful perils. As the players engage in game after game their characters grow in power and ability: the magic users learn more magic spells, the thieves increase in cunning and ability, the fighting men, halflings, elves and dwarves, fight with more deadly accuracy and are harder to kill. Soon the adventurers are daring to go deeper and deeper into the dungeons on each game, battling more terrible monsters, and, of course, recovering bigger and more fabulous treasure! The game is limited only by the inventiveness and imagination of the players, and, if a group is playing together, the characters can move from dungeon to dungeon within the same magical universe if game referees are approximately the same in their handling of play. (Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (rulebook) 1977, 5)
That sounds like it applies to 2e, 3e, and 4e quite nicely.

shadzar
2009-06-10, 11:19 PM
That sounds like it applies to 2e, 3e, and 4e quite nicely.

Does this one fit as well?


These rules are strictly fantasy. Those wargamers who lack imagination, those who don't care for Burroughs' Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find DUNGEONS and DRAGONS to their taste. But those whose imaginations know no bounds will find that these rules are the answer to their prayers. With this last bit of advice we invite you to read on and enjoy a "world" where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!

Or how about this bit from the red book set in regards to 4th edition, I think it fits quite well....


When you bought some other game or book, did you ever think, “Gee, that’s nice, but it’s not quite what I thought it would be”?

This is why some say 4th just doesn't work, and thee is way to much to list that could define D&D for those that want to look at it narrowly for me to give my definition. You would have to play a game with me to understand.

I have never seen a definition of D&D that works for me that isn't too general.

D&D isn't just another fantasy RPG. (A)D&D is the reason I don't play other RPGs.

Nightson
2009-06-10, 11:30 PM
Does this one fit as well?


Yes, and it's pretty insulting to try and insinuate otherwise.

NecroRebel
2009-06-10, 11:37 PM
Does this one fit as well?

Yep. Indeed, all editions of Dungeons and Dragons are games which are much more enjoyable if you have an imagination.


Or how about this bit from the red book set in regards to 4th edition, I think it fits quite well....

You mean people finding things that they didn't expect is something that fits 4e? Yes, indeed it is, as is 3.5, 3e, 2e, 1e, OD&D, Chainmail...


This is why some say 4th just doesn't work...

What is? You haven't given any reasons at all for why 4E doesn't work. In fact, most people would consider those things you listed positives that 4E happens to share with other editions. So what is your problem?


...and thee is way to much to list that could define D&D for those that want to look at it narrowly for me to give my definition. You would have to play a game with me to understand.

What about those of us who want to look at it broadly? As in, those people who realize that there is not any single thing that can make any game "not D&D," and even with changes the game remains worthy of the title?


I have never seen a definition of D&D that works for me that isn't too general.

D&D isn't just another fantasy RPG. (A)D&D is the reason I don't play other RPGs.

If you've never seen such a definition, write one yourself. Or if you can't, realize that the definition of D&D is general. General enough to include each edition as surely as any other.

Myself, I doubt that you have played any other RPGs. You yourself have previously admitted that you have not played 3.5E or 4E. So I simply have to say, "Don't knock it until you've tried it."

Artanis
2009-06-10, 11:48 PM
I have never seen a definition of D&D that works for me that isn't too general.
Then tell us one that is more precise. Saying that the list is too long sounds suspiciously like a cop-out. You could at least do us the favor of enlightening us by giving us part of the list of what you feel define "true" DnD.

Mystic Muse
2009-06-11, 12:10 AM
most of what the person put into the first post and healing potions actually HEALING you. then I'll be happy and shut up about 4th.

actually maybe not.:smallbiggrin:

nightwyrm
2009-06-11, 12:10 AM
D&D is a bunch of guys pretending to be characters living in a magical-pseudo-pre-modern setting where, for various reason, they go around killing things and taking their stuff.

shadzar
2009-06-11, 12:17 AM
{Scrubbed}

Foryn Gilnith
2009-06-11, 12:23 AM
D&D is whatever the majority of roleplayers that use products from the company currently holding the D&D trade name dictate it to be. Currently, by that standard, 4e is D&D; by popular rule. Democracy is nice and easy.

Artanis
2009-06-11, 12:24 AM
{Scrubbed}
So I lack imagination because I can't read your mind? Because I can't figure out the specifics behind a position of which you are the only proponent on the entire forum? :smallconfused:

RTGoodman
2009-06-11, 12:28 AM
So I lack imagination because I can't read your mind? Because I can't figure out the specifics behind a position of which you are the only proponent on the entire forum? :smallconfused:

It's okay, man. There's an Ignore feature for a reason.


Anyway, to me, D&D is the line of games that has continued for decades, in various editions, that focuses on roleplaying a character, fighting monsters, and earning gold and experience. The basic ideas are present in all those games, and though other games have had it, the actual D&D brand is a pretty clear one. (Well, except all that old 1st/2nd Edition stuff with Classic and Original and BECMI and all that, which I still don't understand. :smallredface:)

Artanis
2009-06-11, 12:29 AM
You're right. I took him off ignore for the sake of trying to contribute to this thread. Looks like it's time to put him back on :smallfrown:

shadzar
2009-06-11, 12:33 AM
D&D is whatever the majority of roleplayers that use products from the company currently holding the D&D trade name dictate it to be. Currently, by that standard, 4e is D&D; by popular rule. Democracy is nice and easy.

So nothing before 4th is D&D since the company doesn't make anything for those roleplayers should more play 4th than any other edition? :smallconfused:

This arguement was tried when 3.0 came out and it didn't work then either, just saying.

Also please offer proof, if the above is not correct, that 4th is the most popular?

I challenge anyone trying to make a definition of D&D to define love. Both are intangibles and therefore an objective definition can never be reached.

But good luck though, because it hasn't worked on the other 100+ forums/newsgroups people tried it either.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-06-11, 12:40 AM
So nothing before 4th is D&D since the company doesn't make anything for those roleplayers should more play 4th than any other edition? :smallconfused:
.

Is anyone denying that Basic Set is D&D?
Is anyone denying that 1e is D&D?
Is anyone denying that 2e is D&D? If so, are they a majority?
Is anyone denying that 3.0 is D&D? If so, are they a majority?
Is anyone denying that 3.5 is D&D? If so, are they a majority?
Is anyone denying that 4e is D&D? If so, are they a majority?

Given the answers to these questions, 1e-4e are all D&D. By definition should probably include all who currently use products under the "D&D" name - but even my initial definition includes 3e players, because WotC made 3e.



This arguement was tried when 3.0 came out and it didn't was then either, just saying.
Also please offer proof, if the above is not correct, that 4th is the most popular?

What? Please speak in more coherent sentences. Or go to sleep, I know I have to. I wasn't around when 3.0 came out, I wouldn't know. And I'm not saying 4e is the most popular, I'm just saying that a majority of D&D players consider it D&D. They probably don't play it (e.g. I play 3e exclusively and consider 4e D&D), but a majority of them think it's D&D. So it is.

Majority consensus doesn't actually create what D&D is, IMO, but it's a practically flawless indicator.

NecroRebel
2009-06-11, 12:41 AM
I think this thread is proof of my point of some people lacking imagination if they need everything defined for them, and cannot think for themselves.

The point of giving definitions is to build a common ground upon which to base discussions. If everyone is discussing based on different definitions that cannot be related at all, there's nothing to be talked about. Is "Orange" a color, or a fruit? Someone speaking of orange in the one sense will completely confuse someone speaking in the other sense, so we must define what we are speaking of to have any meaning at all.


To simplify the original quote....



Since they didn't find it to their taste, the company decided to scrap it in lieu of something that was to their taste, and just stick the name on it.

That's not what the quote says at all, and is intentionally misleading. It speaks of playing the game, not not finding any flaws with the game whatsoever. The company, in fact, decided to keep the vast majority of the mechanics, except for those that didn't work or were needlessly confusing, and at least attempted to build new rules in those places that do work or aren't confusing.

It takes more imagination to build something new than to use something that someone else has built for you, after all.


I have explained myself...

No you haven't, else people wouldn't be asking you to explain yourself all the time.


...and tired of it. I don't like repeating myself, but since many won't or don't know how to read an entire post.....

Yet you do it so often, despite people obviously having read your entire posts...



Also, as long as we're giving misleading quotes... :smalltongue:

I... lack... imagination... and cannot think for... myself.

What? You said all those words, in that order, even! :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:

Please don't take it the wrong way. It's just that misquoting things out of context can give really, really wrong senses of what was actually meant by something.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-06-11, 12:44 AM
No you haven't, else people wouldn't be asking you to explain yourself all the time.

Yet you do it so often, despite people obviously having read your entire posts...

QFT.

Even if we're all idiots that don't read any of your posts, you can't expect to make any progress unless the audience clearly understands you. This may at times include inordinate about of patience and (from your perspective) overshowing things.

RebelRogue
2009-06-11, 12:56 AM
I challenge anyone trying to make a definition of D&D to define love. Both are intangibles and therefore an objective definition can never be reached.
The problem arises when you start to claim that other people don't know what love is, and that you alone know the nature of what true love is and is not!

shadzar
2009-06-11, 01:02 AM
The problem arises when you start to claim that other people don't know what love is, and that you alone know the nature of what true love is and is not!

That is the exact problem I have with people trying to claim anything with the name D&D on it because the copyright holder put it there says it is, is D&D.

The designers have tried to state 4th edition is D&D by making it. I disagree with them on what D&D is. Ergo, not even the company can define what it is by just slapping the name on it.

Gary disagreed with 2nd edition as released being (A)D&D, as well as 3rd, but acknowledge WotC/HASBRO's right to use the name.

Likewise I don't acknowledge 2.5+ editions as being D&D, but acknowledge TSR/WotC/HASBRO's legal right to abuse the name.

Totally Guy
2009-06-11, 01:13 AM
You're right. I took him off ignore for the sake of trying to contribute to this thread. Looks like it's time to put him back on :smallfrown:

You're not alone buddy. You lose too much context by having people on ignore. But if you log off the ignored list goes away so there is a way around it.

Halaster
2009-06-11, 01:16 AM
Well, to me, and to many people I know, D&D is first and foremost a portal to a world of imagination. It wasn't the first roleplaying game I played, but the first sword-and-sorcery game, and the first without a preset setting, and it felt enormously huge at the time and lead my imagination in all sorts of directions. And, through all editions, that has been kept up, D&D offers the players ways to make their imagination go to overdrive. Once they've hit that point, where their heads are full of ideas, they may find that not all of those work in D&D and expand their range, but for many, D&D is that initial spark.

Actually, that's what makes me quite positive about 4e. I'm not really into playing it, but it may be that portal to the imaginary for the jaded WoW generation and may bring the failing numbers of roleplayers, especially newcomers, back up again. If any game can do that, it's D&D.

As for the OP, I feel that trying to define D&D by specific rules mechanisms is difficult. The list seems to be lifted mostly from pre AD&D, things like XP for treasure have not been seen since (except for rogues). In fact, 3e turned many mechanisms completely on their heads, making the then eponymous d20 about the only constant between the editions.

NecroRebel
2009-06-11, 01:19 AM
You're not alone buddy. You lose too much context by having people on ignore. But if you log off the ignored list goes away so there is a way around it.

The biggest problem with ignore lists is the whole "silence implies assent" thing that is assumed in most debates and arguments. If everyone who knew what they were talking about had him on their ignore lists, and someone who didn't know that he wasn't a person whose words should usually be accepted was given an answer by him, they might be needlessly misinformed.

It's sort of a catch-22. Read his words and get sucked into countering all his points, or ignore him and potentially harm others.

SilverSheriff
2009-06-11, 01:31 AM
I find fourth Edition not to be D'n'D because it puts a lot of limits on me; Unlike 1st,2nd and 3.X editions where the game is only limited to my imagination. 4th edition is already set out and stated up until it leaks out of the container holding it leaving me to think: where do I put my individual little touches?

RebelRogue
2009-06-11, 01:49 AM
I find fourth Edition not to be D'n'D because it puts a lot of limits on me; Unlike 1st,2nd and 3.X editions where the game is only limited to my imagination.
Sorry, but I fail to see where this explicitly happens. Please point it out to me (seriously!)

shadzar: Ok, so for you it basically boils down to a question of you not liking the 'feel' of the game. That's something one cannot argue against, of course. But I do not understand your need to constantly remind the forums of it in thread after thread. It's akin to someone not liking broccoli because of personal preference in taste, but still feeling the need to point out that every dish containing broccoli not being real food even though some people might find them tasty (analogies like this suck, I know...) In short, it's pointless!

shadzar
2009-06-11, 01:58 AM
Sorry, but I fail to see where this explicitly happens. Please point it out to me (seriously!)

shadzar: Ok, so for you it basically boils down to a question of you not liking the 'feel' of the game. That's something one cannot argue against, of course. But I do not understand your need to constantly remind the forums of it in thread after thread.

Probably because of the people that insist anything the copyright holder puts the name on becomes D&D. I have to disagree with that at every turn in hopes of educating them that that isn't right. A company doesn't have the right to tell you what something is, as 4th tries to define "fun" over and over throughout the books. :smallyuk:

Not really people on the forums fault, but an altercation with Gamer_Zer0 and a non-American Wizo not liking my exclamation that Magic cards were not released the same order in Spain as America, prevents me from expressing my disgust directly at those (remaining at WotC) responsible for that mentality.

So I cannot sit by and let anyone fall prey to just thinking the company can decide what something is just because they can use the name of it and put it on anything.

It just chaps my hide when people make that claim, and as I said, I don't deny them the right to use the name, but to try to make everyone believe it as the only truth is...:yuk:

Just WotC treatment of the game, and even their "loyal" customers sickens me, even the things about DDi where they have cheated people out of money on it all because of 4th edition. I get flashbacks of the LW era. :smallfurious:

I am sure no one wants to see THAT again! I would prefer if D&D is to die, for it to be able to do so with dignity, as did its creators. :smallfrown:

>>EOL.

Halaster
2009-06-11, 02:12 AM
@shadzar:
TVTropes got your number, man.... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks) :smallbiggrin:

Now, get a life, will you?

shadzar
2009-06-11, 02:26 AM
@shadzar:
TVTropes got your number, man.... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks) :smallbiggrin:

Now, get a life, will you?

They also have WotC's number (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JumpingTheShark), so you get a life, because I prefer being undead! :smalltongue:

Ravens_cry
2009-06-11, 02:33 AM
@shadzar:
TVTropes got your number, man.... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks) :smallbiggrin:

Now, get a life, will you?
On the other hand, "it's new, so it must be better." is also a logical fallacy.
People, all the editions are Dungeons and Dragons. Play what you want to play, and don't gripe about those who play different. What is fun for you may not be fun for others. Simply accept that, and move on.

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-11, 02:34 AM
Love is concern for someone's well-being or enjoyment of someone's companionship. (Two different things, really.)

Hey, look at that, something intangible but clearly defined!

Quietus
2009-06-11, 04:45 AM
They also have WotC's number (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JumpingTheShark), so you get a life, because I prefer being undead! :smalltongue:

It's strongly implied, if not outright declared, that something can't be declared a "shark jumping moment" until LONG after it's actually happened. Also, I think that in this usage, the product has to fail before you can properly announce that it's jumped the shark, and figure out exactly when.

As for "4th edition isn't D&D"; Yes, it is. It's D&D, because the current owners of the D&D brand put that label on it. You may not like that, but that's exactly how you define whether something is or isn't part of a brand. If it wasn't D&D, then WotC wouldn't have called it "Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition".

True, this means that WotC could release an entirely NEW game where all you have is characters running around in parachute pants slapping each other with large soft objects and giggling, and call it D&D. And technically, it would be. But the product would rightly fail, WotC would lose money, and THEN we'd have a definitive "Jump the shark" moment.

Just because you don't LIKE something, doesn't mean the brand name put on it is wrong. You're free not to like fourth edition; You're not alone in that boat. But your personal like or dislike of a particular game system does not invalidate the brand name that its owners have put on it.

shadzar
2009-06-11, 05:11 AM
It's strongly implied, if not outright declared, that something can't be declared a "shark jumping moment" until LONG after it's actually happened. Also, I think that in this usage, the product has to fail before you can properly announce that it's jumped the shark, and figure out exactly when.

D&D 3.0, 2000~2003

:smallconfused:

The jumped the shark with their first attempt. Although many may still like it, it doesn't mean they and many others considered it a big enough failure to necessitate 3.5. (The same some would claim to be true of 3.5 failing so 4th edition was needed.)

WotC is constantly jumping the shark.

Quietus
2009-06-11, 05:15 AM
D&D 3.0, 2000~2003

:smallconfused:

The jumped the shark with their first attempt. Although many may still like it, it doesn't mean they and many others considered it a big enough failure to necessitate 3.5. (The same some would claim to be true of 3.5 failing so 4th edition was needed.)

WotC is constantly jumping the shark.

3.0 was successful (in terms of making WotC money), as was 3.5 - neither, therefore, jumped the shark. I personally (and I know I'm not alone in this) think that 3.5 had as much to do with the desire to make money as it had to do with fixing the system. WotC is a company, D&D is a product; They need to make new product to make more money. That's capitalism.

Now then, time for bed!

Halaster
2009-06-11, 05:37 AM
Well spoken, the shark is definitely out there, and the 3.5 reboot and now 4e show quite clearly that WotC has lost direction with the franchise. But it remains to be seen whether they can regain a solid footing. We that don't dig 4e might just have to live with the fact that a new demographic is taking over. Otherwise, we may have to watch D&D going down. We'll see.

But that is a risk you have with just about every game, TV show, movie franchise and whatnot. So, the question what D&D is might be answered as follows:

D&D is just another popular culture phenomenon that moves along its course from a niche product, to a mainstream issue and back into obscurity. It has enjoyed a surprisingly long life cycle so far, but can't last forever. Like with many such phenomena, it may turn out that the actual end came long before the last product with the label actually hit the shelves.

Tengu_temp
2009-06-11, 05:50 AM
Dungeons and Dragons - any roleplaying game that is labeled "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover. That was quick.

Matthew
2009-06-11, 05:59 AM
The reason this question comes up is typically because in the period 1974-2000 all the various editions and printings of Dungeons & Dragons were basically compatible with one another, but the two editions that have since appeared are neither compatible with one another nor those previous editions. Does that make these post 2000 games "not D&D?" Clearly they are a break with the past, but it is too confusing to simply claim they are no longer D&D when they claim to be descendants of that game and the company continues to own the brand, as well as all the associated intellectual property and rights to the former products.

Ken-do-nim's definitions are good for TSR D&D (1974-2000) and they apply to the various "true successors", such as Swords & Wizardry, OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Castles & Crusades, Basic Fantasy, and Hack Master, but one could easily exclude one or more of these by tightening up the definition to exclude games with an ascending armour class mechanic or in various other ways. At what point do such definitions cease to be useful? We are talking pure labels here for subdividing a brand:

TSR D&D (1974-2000)
D20 D&D (2000-)

SilverSheriff
2009-06-11, 06:05 AM
TSR D&D (1974-2000)
D20 D&D (2000-2007)

filler text.

Kris Strife
2009-06-11, 06:22 AM
True, this means that WotC could release an entirely NEW game where all you have is characters running around in parachute pants slapping each other with large soft objects and giggling, and call it D&D. And technically, it would be. But the product would rightly fail, WotC would lose money, and THEN we'd have a definitive "Jump the shark" moment.

Isn't thing fairly close to what larping is? Change the parachute pants to plastic, cardboard and/or tinfoil armor, maybe get rid of the giggling...

Otherwise, this just sounds like an excuse to inflict legally exempt violence on people, which sounds like fun to me.

Thanatos 51-50
2009-06-11, 06:32 AM
I challenge anyone trying to make a definition of D&D to define love. Both are intangibles and therefore an objective definition can never be reached.

This line in particular conuses me. Not only is D&D not intangible, but air is intangible and quite easy to define as "A mix of terestrial gasses occuring naturally in the atmosphere".

But, let us rise to your challange, shall we?

Dungeons and Dragons: (Abbreviations: D&D, DnD)
A tabletop fantasy role-playing game created by E. Gary Gygax and David Arneson, adopting rules from tabletop war games. Taking place in what is usually a fantasy-mideval setting, each player controllers a character (Called a PC, or player character), through numerous adventures concieved by, or referred by another player, who is referred to, in-game, as the Dungeon Master (DM). The DM controls all aspects of the gameworld except the Player Characters, themselves.
The game, itself has gone through numerous editions and rules updates, with the most recent being Fourth Edition (Abbr. 4e). The following are common traits between the different editions:
Combat Rules
A diliniation between Arcane and Divine magic
Fighters, Clerics, and Wizards
Hit Points
Saving Throws
Weapon Proficencies.

This writer is pretty sure he is missing a few, having played none of the editions with the exception of:
AD&D
3.0
3.5
4e
~~~
Love: An emotion claimed to be felt by a large number of sentient creatures, (Currently, this list restricts itself to humans, as those are the only known real-life sentients to the writer). This emotion has been reported as being the result o deep care and affection for another being, often to the point of willing self-sacrifice to the other's continued well-being (circumventing a living being's 'self-preservation circut'). It is also used to indicate a great like or preferance towards one particular thing (Ex: "I love quesedillas!"), and is used as slang for sexual intercourse (I.E.: "Making Love").

Heliomance
2009-06-11, 06:45 AM
Definition of love: Avoid if at all possible.

Cookie for the reference :D

Thanatos 51-50
2009-06-11, 06:54 AM
Definition of love: Avoid if at all possible.

Cookie for the reference :D

Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
I'm a hoopy Frood. That was an easy one.

Dagren
2009-06-11, 06:58 AM
<list of common attributes to D&D>Don't forget the D20. IIRC it's been common to all the versions, even the pre-D20 system ones. Which is kind of funny when you think about it.

Matthew
2009-06-11, 07:04 AM
D20 D&D 2000-2007

Heh. I would have thought that would be "2000-2008", though.



Don't forget the D20. IIRC it's been common to all the versions, even the pre-D20 system ones. Which is kind of funny when you think about it.

Actually, the Original Dungeons & Dragons combat rules Chainmail Man to Man Combat rules] used D6s only, but the alternative combat rules (included in the game) made use of a D20.

KIDS
2009-06-11, 07:16 AM
Dungeons and Dragons - any roleplaying game that is labeled "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover. That was quick.

I agree with this as the simplest and most encompassing definition. Of course, that doesn't mean that I have to like all of them, but (to me) some Batman's horrible/childish animated episodes are still a necessary part of the Batman franchise, just as Dark Knight is. Same with D&D, only there I don't like 1E.

Otherwise, I'd say that all of the criteria the OP listed apply well to almost everything published under the D&D brand so far. It's hard to say whether the game defines them or they define the game, though.

Dagren
2009-06-11, 07:17 AM
Actually, the Original Dungeons & Dragons combat rules Chainmail Man to Man Combat rules] used D6s only, but the alternative combat rules (included in the game) made use of a D20.Eh, close enough. But I guess that means that the D&D Basic I had years ago wasn't the original then. Huh, I always thought it was. Oh well, you learn something every day.

Thanatos 51-50
2009-06-11, 07:41 AM
Don't forget the D20. IIRC it's been common to all the versions, even the pre-D20 system ones. Which is kind of funny when you think about it.

I did, indeed, intetionally exclude "Dice with more or less than six sides", as I'm not aware what the rules for Basic, or indeed, any D&D other than those I listed, were/are.
This is also why I did not list STR/CON/DEX/INT/WIS/CHA.

Grady
2009-06-11, 07:50 AM
That is the exact problem I have with people trying to claim anything with the name D&D on it because the copyright holder put it there says it is, is D&D.

The designers have tried to state 4th edition is D&D by making it. I disagree with them on what D&D is. Ergo, not even the company can define what it is by just slapping the name on it.

Gary disagreed with 2nd edition as released being (A)D&D, as well as 3rd, but acknowledge WotC/HASBRO's right to use the name.

Likewise I don't acknowledge 2.5+ editions as being D&D, but acknowledge TSR/WotC/HASBRO's legal right to abuse the name.

..You've said yourself that you've never played past 2nd edition, how would you even know?

As a person who has played and DM'd both 2nd and 3rd edition I can tell you that 3rd is very enjoyable and very much stands up to the D&D name.

Although how would you know? You haven't even tried it.

DamnedIrishman
2009-06-11, 07:56 AM
WotC decreed that the Blood War was over, and the denizens of the lower planes have started fighting the Edition Wars instead.

Fun fact: devils prefer 4e and demons prefer 3.5e.

Dagren
2009-06-11, 08:13 AM
I did, indeed, intetionally exclude "Dice with more or less than six sides", as I'm not aware what the rules for Basic, or indeed, any D&D other than those I listed, were/are.
This is also why I did not list STR/CON/DEX/INT/WIS/CHA.Ah, OK. By the way, if you're looking for a blanket term, I just call them "Polyhedral dice".

Of course, someone will probably be along in a minute to tell me how wrong I am, but whatever.

Morty
2009-06-11, 08:15 AM
Dungeons and Dragons - any roleplaying game that is labeled "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover. That was quick.

Dammit, I was going to say that.

Matthew
2009-06-11, 08:20 AM
Eh, close enough. But I guess that means that the D&D Basic I had years ago wasn't the original then. Huh, I always thought it was. Oh well, you learn something every day.

Probably not. You either had the Holmes edition (1977ish), the B/X version (1981), or the BECMI version (1983). The original game was published in 1974, "basic" was the first instalment in the "classic" line.



I did, indeed, intentionally exclude "Dice with more or less than six sides", as I'm not aware what the rules for Basic, or indeed, any D&D other than those I listed, were/are.
This is also why I did not list STR/CON/DEX/INT/WIS/CHA.

The six attributes are common to all editions, the d20 appears in all versions of the game, even if not used for the Chainmail combat system (I think chits were initially provided for things like saving throws before TSR got their hands on sufficient d20s to distribute; Dave Arneson wrote an interesting article on the subject for KotDT #150 before he passed on).

Dagren
2009-06-11, 08:42 AM
Probably not. You either had the Holmes edition (1977ish), the B/X version (1981), or the BECMI version (1983). The original game was published in 1974, "basic" was the first instalment in the "classic" line.Hmm, interesting. I'll have to see if I can dig it up and check to see what exactly it was. I seem to remember it telling you to buy the expert version to advance above level 3 though, that might be a clue. All I can remember for sure is that it was definitely published by TSR, and wasn't AD&D. I wonder if I can find it?

Totally Guy
2009-06-11, 08:44 AM
Fun fact: devils prefer 4e and demons prefer 3.5e.

You have that backwards. The Devils like the internal consistency of 3.5 "How many commoners can kill a balor?" and the Demons like what the combat system has on offer in 4th.

The D section of the monster manual is too long...

Matthew
2009-06-11, 08:53 AM
Hmm, interesting. I'll have to see if I can dig it up and check to see what exactly it was. I seem to remember it telling you to buy the expert version to advance above level 3 though, that might be a clue. All I can remember for sure is that it was definitely published by TSR, and wasn't AD&D. I wonder if I can find it?

Was it one of these?

Original Dungeons & Dragons (1974)


http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd/dd-obox.jpg


Holmes Edited Dungeons & Dragon (1977)


http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd/dd-1box.jpg


Classic Dungeons & Dragons (1981)


http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd/dd-box.jpg


Classic Dungeons & Dragons (1983)


http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd/dd-bbox.jpg


In order, these are the 1974, 1977, 1981, and 1983 releases.

Kaiyanwang
2009-06-11, 09:13 AM
Classic Dungeons & Dragons (1983)


http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd/dd-bbox.jpg


In order, these are the 1974, 1977, 1981, and 1983 releases.

Sigh. I started with this. *tear*

Totally Guy
2009-06-11, 09:17 AM
Sigh. I started with this. *tear*

"Tear" as in: Cried a single tear...
Or
"Tear" as in: Tear it to shreds!

:smalltongue:

Ebonsword
2009-06-11, 09:27 AM
The question of "what is D&D?" keeps coming up in these debates about whether 4th edition is really a true descendant of the game system or a cousin marketed as the real thing. I thought I'd start a thread on the topic.

Well, to start things off, let's go back to the game's OD&D roots.
- Ability stats of STR, INT, WIS, DEX, CON, CHA

What, no comeliness? :smallbiggrin:



- Saving throws to avoid and resist things using a d20
- Hit Points
- Class-based game that offers at a minimum magic-users (aka wizards), fighters, and clerics, and as a corollary divine magic is separated from arcane


I think that you really need thieves, too. Hell, the main character in Gygax's D&D novels was a thief.


- Races offered and the setting default to, essentially, Lord of the Rings. Humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings in an otherwise medieval world.

I'd say that the sword 'n' sorcery of Howard, Leiber, Vance etc are at least as important as Tolkein.




- Level-based
- A hit die limit for each class after name level, beyond which only a small fixed number of hit points are gained

The hit die limit doesn't seem necessary. Didn't assassins, druids, and monks not even have it?




- Vancian spell memorization
- A focus on exploration, be it dungeon or wilderness
- Experience gained mostly for treasure, not negotiating fights or traps



I don't know that the way experience is gained is that important--a lot of people house-ruled that stuff, anyway.

I would add a couple of points, too:

- Life is likely to be nasty, brutish, and short. Poison is usually save or die (not save or take minor ability damage like in 3E), Level Drain is permanent and not easily countered, magical aging (including haste spells) means making a system shock check or dying, etc.

- Game material should be a written with style and in a manner reminiscent of great fantasy authors like Vance, Leiber, Lovecraft, Smith, etc.

- Roleplaying takes a backseat to the tactical wargaming aspects.

- Weaponry and armor is almost entirely based on real historical equipment (i.e. no orcish double axes and the like).



(And yes, in my view 3.5 veered away from this definition on 2 counts: no hit die cap and most of the xp from combat, but maybe adhering to 90% is still good enough)

I'd say that 3E and 4E both deviate from 1E on all of the additional points I added. Especially point #2. Even most of the post-1985 1E stuff is written pretty poorly compared to the original material.

Which is why the pre-1985 material is the only stuff that will ever truly be "D&D" to me.

Kaiyanwang
2009-06-11, 09:41 AM
"Tear" as in: Cried a single tear...
Or
"Tear" as in: Tear it to shreds!

:smalltongue:

The former :smallwink:

Dagren
2009-06-11, 10:18 AM
Classic Dungeons & Dragons (1981)


http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd/dd-box.jpg


Classic Dungeons & Dragons (1983)


http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd/dd-bbox.jpg


Those two both look very familiar. Maybe I had a copy of each? It's been more than a few years since I've looked at them, I don't think I actually read them since I got my 3e books. Now I really want to find them. Anyway, back to the topic, as much as I like my 3e and 3.5 books, those will always have a special meaning for me when it comes to D&D.

The Glyphstone
2009-06-11, 10:25 AM
You have that backwards. The Devils like the internal consistency of 3.5 "How many commoners can kill a balor?" and the Demons like what the combat system has on offer in 4th.

The D section of the monster manual is too long...

But what about the Yugoloths? Are they again, perpetually trapped in nothingness between planes editions?

Tiki Snakes
2009-06-11, 10:25 AM
It seems very much like the reason shadzar won't define DnD for us is that he doesn't want to admit that his definition is; "If it doesn't have TSR on it, it isn't DnD!"

Which is what I shall be assuming till he actually condescends to illuminate us otherwise. *shrug*

I don't think you really need to specify 'Theif' as being included. Mostly becomes 75% of all PC's, reguardless of Race and Class (But especially any halflings) pretty solidly cover this trope. ;)

Totally Guy
2009-06-11, 10:29 AM
But what about the Yugoloths? Are they again, perpetually trapped in nothingness between planes editions?

Those guy pretend to be into one or the other editions but only to perpetuate flame wars. They think it's funny but the real joke is that one Yugoloth cannot tell whether he's taunting another Yugoloth also in disguise.

Riffington
2009-06-11, 10:54 AM
Dungeons and Dragons - any roleplaying game that is labeled "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover. That was quick.

Closest so far.
But, I would claim, D&D isn't the physical object, it's the intangible game itself. As such, people can play D&D without owning an actual book. I know people did/do this in middle school. And no book is actually D&D, just a rulebook or sourcebook or hintbook about D&D. So now, distinguishing between simplified D&D and simplified Palladium could be tricky. I mean, does the presence of a Wolfen make it non-D&D?

Thus: any game where at least one of the players believes the game to be D&D. Even if none of the rules are identical to a rule in a TSR rulebook.

ken-do-nim
2009-06-11, 11:07 AM
I think that you really need thieves, too. Hell, the main character in Gygax's D&D novels was a thief.


I was tempted to put that in there too, but original D&D didn't have one until its first supplement, and I couldn't bring myself to make a definition of D&D that said the first release of the game didn't fit.



I'd say that the sword 'n' sorcery of Howard, Leiber, Vance etc are at least as important as Tolkein.


I was talking about the races that make up the game, and the level of technology.



The hit die limit doesn't seem necessary. Didn't assassins, druids, and monks not even have it?


The hit die limit is critical. It says that mortals can't keep growing more powerful ad infinitum, and has a huge effect on high level play that keeps D&D from becoming a super-heroes game. :smallbiggrin: Assassins, druids, and monks had a level cap, so they most definitely had a hit die cap too. I noticed that there has been a big ground swell of support for the E6 variant. In TSR D&D, that was unnecessary because of the hit die cap and general ending of most class abilities after 13th.



I don't know that the way experience is gained is that important--a lot of people house-ruled that stuff, anyway.


2E changed it from strictly treasure to achieving goals, but the resulting effect on game play is the same. Monsters are fearsome and when possible, should be avoided. One of the big reasons that 3.5 became more combat oriented is because you have to win fights to get xp. To me, the changes that stemmed from that with the emphasis on challenge-rating appropriate encounters was a biggie. When you take 3.5 players and put them in a game of Classic D&D, one of the first tactics that must be relearned is to retreat occasionally. I know, it happened to me, I lost 2 really great characters that way. Still, I think 3.5 is mostly D&D. It's not too hard for the DM to give out more xp for goals and less for winning fights.



I would add a couple of points, too:

- Life is likely to be nasty, brutish, and short. Poison is usually save or die (not save or take minor ability damage like in 3E), Level Drain is permanent and not easily countered, magical aging (including haste spells) means making a system shock check or dying, etc.

- Game material should be a written with style and in a manner reminiscent of great fantasy authors like Vance, Leiber, Lovecraft, Smith, etc.

- Roleplaying takes a backseat to the tactical wargaming aspects.

- Weaponry and armor is almost entirely based on real historical equipment (i.e. no orcish double axes and the like).



I'd say that 3E and 4E both deviate from 1E on all of the additional points I added. Especially point #2. Even most of the post-1985 1E stuff is written pretty poorly compared to the original material.

Which is why the pre-1985 material is the only stuff that will ever truly be "D&D" to me.

Yeah, your point #2 is a good one. Playing D&D, to me, is a celebration of literature, particularly by the authors you mentioned.

ken-do-nim
2009-06-11, 11:10 AM
Closest so far.
But, I would claim, D&D isn't the physical object, it's the intangible game itself. As such, people can play D&D without owning an actual book. I know people did/do this in middle school. And no book is actually D&D, just a rulebook or sourcebook or hintbook about D&D. So now, distinguishing between simplified D&D and simplified Palladium could be tricky. I mean, does the presence of a Wolfen make it non-D&D?

Thus: any game where at least one of the players believes the game to be D&D. Even if none of the rules are identical to a rule in a TSR rulebook.

Furthermore, I'm going to insist that Castles & Crusades is 100% D&D, and it doesn't have the name.

Kaiyanwang
2009-06-11, 11:22 AM
When you take 3.5 players and put them in a game of Classic D&D, one of the first tactics that must be relearned is to retreat occasionally.

I find what you said very interesting, but this thing makes me ask: in 3.5 players don't retreat? :smallconfused:

ken-do-nim
2009-06-11, 11:34 AM
I find what you said very interesting, but this thing makes me ask: in 3.5 players don't retreat? :smallconfused:

You're right, they eat cheetos. Characters need to retreat. :tongue:

Kaiyanwang
2009-06-11, 11:51 AM
You're right, they eat cheetos. Characters need to retreat. :tongue:

Beat them MORE!*

* Or stronger**

**Or stronger and more.

Artanis
2009-06-11, 11:51 AM
Ooh, I thought of another good one:

shadzar, do you consider Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Ray Lewis to be football players?

Kris Strife
2009-06-11, 12:16 PM
Beat them MORE!*

* Or stronger**

**Or stronger and more.

Adventurer problem solving:
Step 1: Apply Fire.
Step 2: If fire fails to solve the problem, apply more Fire.

Matthew
2009-06-11, 12:21 PM
Sigh. I started with this. *tear*

Yeah, that is the one I started with too. I never owned a copy, though...



Those two both look very familiar. Maybe I had a copy of each? It's been more than a few years since I've looked at them, I don't think I actually read them since I got my 3e books. Now I really want to find them.

The 1981 and 1983 versions are pretty much identical in terms of rules, but differ significantly from the 1974 and 1977 versions.

ken-do-nim
2009-06-11, 01:29 PM
Adventurer problem solving:
Step 1: Apply Fire.
Step 2: If fire fails to solve the problem, apply more Fire.

By jove you've got it! D&D is the game that teaches that fire can solve every problem. Done. I haven't played 4E yet, but if you come away learning that simple rule, heck yeah you are playing D&D. :biggrin:

shadzar
2009-06-11, 03:47 PM
It seems very much like the reason shadzar won't define DnD for us is that he doesn't want to admit that his definition is; "If it doesn't have TSR on it, it isn't DnD!"

:smallconfused: Because that isn't a definition of anything beyond further brand buying which I don't tolerate with 4th edition either. Also not one of my criterion even considering I acknowledge 3.x can be seen as D&D (:smalleek:), just not a game for me.

I guess some people fail just to read posts.

Strike 2 and the bases are loaded in the 9th inning and your down by one run, care to ruin it for the whole team with strike-out?

And to whomever, I have no idea who Petton Manning or those others are, and could care less who they are. :smallconfused:

Tiki Snakes
2009-06-11, 07:24 PM
:smallconfused: Because that isn't a definition of anything beyond further brand buying which I don't tolerate with 4th edition either. Also not one of my criterion even considering I acknowledge 3.x can be seen as D&D (:smalleek:), just not a game for me.

I guess some people fail just to read posts.

Strike 2 and the bases are loaded in the 9th inning and your down by one run, care to ruin it for the whole team with strike-out?

And to whomever, I have no idea who Petton Manning or those others are, and could care less who they are. :smallconfused:

Untill you state otherwise, you have no criterion. :)

oxybe
2009-06-11, 08:13 PM
D&D is your favorite pie.

what some people consider "D&D" others won't bat an eyelid and proclaim their belief which might.

me? D&D is whatever that allows swashbuckling high-action fast-paced fantasy and other ridiculous bulldoody that we can't do in real life. like having elven maidens fight poop monsters while riding unicorns.

or having my magical robot fight a midget riding a raptor while trying not to fall off the runaway train that's being powered by lighting bolts and dodging the flying boat shooting us with it's portside cannons.

if GURPS did D&D better then D&D, then i'd call GURPS D&D.

as it stands, it doesn't. it does, however, allow me to run more "human" games where people are closer to normal people standards then any version of D&D ever could (IMO). thus i use GURPS for those kinds of game.

D&D does the style of game i want it to best. if i find something that does that better it'll become my "D&D".

Flickerdart
2009-06-11, 08:15 PM
By jove you've got it! D&D is the game that teaches that fire can solve every problem. Done. I haven't played 4E yet, but if you come away learning that simple rule, heck yeah you are playing D&D. :biggrin:
Fire Resistance is the most common kind. Sonic and Force solve more problems.

Artanis
2009-06-11, 09:24 PM
Fire Resistance is the most common kind. Sonic and Force solve more problems.

Fire Resistance is what step 2 is for :smalltongue:

Kris Strife
2009-06-12, 06:57 AM
Fire Resistance is what step 2 is for :smalltongue:

Exactly. Fire is like violence. Enough of it, correctly applied, can solve all the world's problems.

Oslecamo
2009-06-12, 07:17 AM
Exactly. Fire is like violence. Enough of it, correctly applied, can solve all the world's problems.


http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg138/oslecamo/mot2.gif

A lot of archons, warlords, cloth golems and varied mook infantry were harmed in the production of this meme.:smallbiggrin:

Tiki Snakes
2009-06-12, 08:33 AM
Exactly. Fire is like violence. Enough of it, correctly applied, can solve all the world's problems.

Also, there are basically several feats and powers that basically ARE the rule, stripping even fire immunity down to resistance, and resistance down to nothing.

MORE FIRE PLZ.

SilverSheriff
2009-06-12, 09:34 AM
Heh. I would have thought that would be "2000-2008", though.

I guess: since 2008 was the Death of 3.X edition...as a DM I have to say the only use for 4th edition was to improve my DMing skills; the DM's Guide was a pretty useful tool but the Players Handbook and the Monster Manual I regret buying to the point where I wonder how the 4th Edition design team haven't been locked up in a Mental Asylum...


A lot of archons, warlords, cloth golems and varied mook infantry were harmed in the production of this meme.:smallbiggrin:

SPOILER YOUR IMAGE DAMMIT!

LibraryOgre
2009-06-12, 11:53 AM
- Class-based game that offers at a minimum magic-users (aka wizards), fighters, and clerics, and as a corollary divine magic is separated from arcane

No thieves?


- Races offered and the setting default to, essentially, Lord of the Rings. Humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings in an otherwise medieval world.

That excludes some classics, like Dark Sun or Birthright from contention. Heck, Greyhawk isn't terribly Lord of the Rings... a lot more shades of grey.



- Experience gained mostly for treasure, not negotiating fights or traps


That eliminates 2nd edition, which is otherwise compatible with 1st edition and OD&D.


My rule of thumb: Can a common housecat kill a 1st level wizard? In 1st and 2nd edition, certainly; the wizard has 1 spell and a lousy array of weapons; even if he starts out with shield (the best, short-term, defensive spell for a 1st level wizard), the kitty will trash him. He wins if he has initiative, but the cat's natural attacks may or may not have spellcasting times. If his one spell fizzles, kitty has him in 2 or 3 rounds... and if the kitty damages him, even a point, then he can't cast spells.

3rd edition, it becomes harder. A wizard has an explicit choice of his beginning spells, meaning you can build a kitty-killer with relatively little work, from the main 3 books. The wizard, if he wants it HAS Sleep, and he doesn't suffer an initiative penalty from spellcasting. He can have back-ups, like Ray of Frost or Acid Splash. He likely has more HP, because Con bonuses are lower, and if he gets damaged, he can still keep casting (with a concentration check).

4th edition, the cat is toast. It's a 1hp mook with about a 15 defense, at best, meaning the wizard needs to roll an 11 to hit it in most cases.

By that definition, 1st and 2nd are D&D. 3rd is close, but not really. 4th is D&DINO.

Tiki Snakes
2009-06-12, 11:57 AM
No thieves?



That excludes some classics, like Dark Sun or Birthright from contention. Heck, Greyhawk isn't terribly Lord of the Rings... a lot more shades of grey.



That eliminates 2nd edition, which is otherwise compatible with 1st edition and OD&D.


My rule of thumb: Can a common housecat kill a 1st level wizard? In 1st and 2nd edition, certainly; the wizard has 1 spell and a lousy array of weapons; even if he starts out with shield (the best, short-term, defensive spell for a 1st level wizard), the kitty will trash him. He wins if he has initiative, but the cat's natural attacks may or may not have spellcasting times. If his one spell fizzles, kitty has him in 2 or 3 rounds... and if the kitty damages him, even a point, then he can't cast spells.

3rd edition, it becomes harder. A wizard has an explicit choice of his beginning spells, meaning you can build a kitty-killer with relatively little work, from the main 3 books. The wizard, if he wants it HAS Sleep, and he doesn't suffer an initiative penalty from spellcasting. He can have back-ups, like Ray of Frost or Acid Splash. He likely has more HP, because Con bonuses are lower, and if he gets damaged, he can still keep casting (with a concentration check).

4th edition, the cat is toast. It's a 1hp mook with about a 15 defense, at best, meaning the wizard needs to roll an 11 to hit it in most cases.

By that definition, 1st and 2nd are D&D. 3rd is close, but not really. 4th is D&DINO.

There are infact no stat entries for a housecat.

So, a housecat has whatever stats a DM deems appropriate. If DnD means that a housecat should be able to kill a lvl1 wizard, then he just makes it a level1 brute or elite lurker, perhaps. :)

So...

House Cat

Kitty is adorable, evil, and deadly.

House Cat Level 1 Lurker
Tiny Natural Beast XP 100
Initiative +7 Senses Perception +6; Low Light
Kitty Dander
HP 22; Bloodied 11
AC 15; Fortitude 13, Reflex 15, Will 14
Speed 6

Claw (standard; at-will)
+4 vs Reflex; 1d10 + 3 damage

Pounce (standard; at-will)
+4 vs Reflex; 1d10 + 3 damage
House Cat shifts up to his speed before attacking

Kitty is Angry (standard; recharge 456)
+6 vs AC; 2d10 + 3 damage
The Housecat may make either a pounce or claw attack before rolling for 'Kitty is angry'

Lurk (Minor Action, At will)
The Housecat may immediately shift half it's speed if makes a successful stealth check.

Mewling Cuteness of Doom (standard; encounter) * psychic, charm
Ranged sight; +4 vs Will; 2d10 + 3 damage
Mewing softly, the Kitty is so cute it hurts. Target is all gooey and weakened (save ends)

Alignment: Evil
Skills: +8 stealth +8 acrobatics
Str 13 (+1) Dex 16 (+3) Wis 13 (+1)
Con 10 (0) Int 10 (0) Cha 14 (+2)


House Cat Tactics
Kitty is likely to attempt to tackle a target from hiding, sneaking up and frenzying all over the target using it's recharging 'Kitty is angry' attack.

House Cat Lore
Nature (DC:10) Despite being adorable, the average Housecat is both deadly and quite evil.

Oslecamo
2009-06-12, 04:26 PM
4th edition, the cat is toast. It's a 1hp mook with about a 15 defense, at best, meaning the wizard needs to roll an 11 to hit it in most cases.


Foolish, foolish 4e wizard. I only need MAGIC MISSILE to stop the kitty madness! 100% guaranteed to kill the cat of doom.

What can you do in comparison? Oh, yes, you can miss with the unmissable spell! Shame on you, 4e wizard, shame on you...

Dagren
2009-06-12, 05:16 PM
Tiki Snakes: I take issue with your cat's alignment. :smallmad: (It should be CE :smallbiggrin:)

Mando Knight
2009-06-12, 05:51 PM
By jove you've got it! D&D is the game that teaches that fire can solve every problem. Done. I haven't played 4E yet, but if you come away learning that simple rule, heck yeah you are playing D&D. :biggrin:

4E's mostly the same, but you replace Kill it with Fire! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KillItWithFire) with Frickin' Laser Beams (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FrickinLaserBeams). :smalltongue:

Totally Guy
2009-06-12, 05:56 PM
So, a housecat has whatever stats a DM deems appropriate. If DnD means that a housecat should be able to kill a lvl1 wizard, then he just makes it a level1 brute or elite lurker, perhaps. :)


I was just thinking of doing that joke and the very next post you'd already done it way better than I could.:smallbiggrin: Amazing.

Panda-s1
2009-06-12, 06:04 PM
Kitty is Angry (standard; recharge 456)
+6 vs AC; 2d10 + 3 damage
The Housecat may make either a pounce or claw attack before rolling for 'Kitty is angry'


I lol'd hard.

Then had flashbacks :smallfrown:

Tiki Snakes
2009-06-12, 07:26 PM
Tiki Snakes: I take issue with your cat's alignment. :smallmad: (It should be CE :smallbiggrin:)

My mistake. I've mentally cut the Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil bits altogether, and just consider 95% of all characters unaligned now, and don't worry about it. :)