PDA

View Full Version : logical conclusions



Shinizak
2010-07-13, 12:55 AM
Just post logical conclusions you've made from fantasy ideas.

For instance, I believe that undead would be largely interested in keeping a large stock of humans and animals alive on farms or some such, perhaps believing that life is nothing but an extended infancy and is only good for making more potential undead. Having no way to reproduce on their own they would be largely concerned with living creatures producing large number of children before killing the mothers and fathers.

awa
2010-07-13, 10:13 AM
most undead arnt very bright

Erts
2010-07-13, 10:22 AM
Yeah, most undead aren't that bright, and the ones that do view humans more as prey then as potential companions.

I think you should look at the Tippyverse. Food and Drink Traps, etc.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-13, 10:26 AM
most undead arnt very bright
Yeah, most undead, skeletons and zombies being best for this, are better kept as prime movers by humans to pump water and run tread-wheel to power machinery. Most undead have no use for humans. Ghouls, ghasts and vampires are the only undead I can think of at the top of my head who actually need anything from humans, and vampires are the only ones typically with the intelligence to actually do so.

Yora
2010-07-13, 10:29 AM
The deathless of Aernal in Eberron believe that everyone who distinguishes himself in life should be allowed to continue serving his nation in undeath.
I think they also believe in an ancestor spirit, which would mean that the dead are reborn into the tribe and get enother life to distinguish themselves.

Tyger
2010-07-13, 10:32 AM
Have to agree with the posters above on the undead issue. Except to say that those undead with a) intelligence and b) feeding needs would very likely start human farms. :smalleek:

The only "logical conclusion" I have arrived at is a fairly common one - mages will rule the planet, barring some serious handwavium deposits on said planet.

Optimystik
2010-07-13, 10:58 AM
Monasteries are dedicated to training people how to run really fast and suck at fighting.

Wizards breakdance, rap and throw poo, - Psions look on in amusement.

Caphi
2010-07-13, 11:22 AM
Monasteries are dedicated to training people how to run really fast and suck at fighting.

Wizards breakdance, rap and throw poo, - Psions look on in amusement.

What about monasteries that actually train unarmed Tiger/Desert swordsages, and then sweep the annual Monk-Off?

Psyx
2010-07-13, 11:54 AM
Adventurers are FAT.

They are incapable of using a spear effectively over another's shoulder, and cannot fight side by side in any kind of shield wall; needing at least 5' between them. If you put two people in the same 5x5' area they are horrendously hampered by each others obviously massive rolls of flab.

Kobolds should be the dominant race, as they seem to be best at most things. I have no idea how dwarves got their reputation for mining, given how good kobolds are at it.

There is a highly secret order of mages somewhere who do nothing but fritter their XP away making magical junk for other people; perhaps casting it randomly through gates on completion.

Far more money is got out of the ground by adventurers than by all the world's miners put together. there probably are no gold mines, in fact.

There is mysteriously few petty thieves. Despite a high level fighter being an obvious mark, rich beyond imagining, and an easy tap for a 1st level pick-pocket, an adventuring party will run into -at most- one pick-pocket per city. This makes no sense at all.

Despite tons of magical healing being available, child and maternal mortality is still at a frightening rate, because nobody has ever bothered researching a 'safe childbirth' skill.

Few people bother becoming a profession that they are not racially suited to. The Elvish standing army consists of about three fighters. Perhaps rascism is the workplace is a massive problem: 'You're a half-orc, you can't learn to be a wizard!'.

Psyx
2010-07-13, 12:10 PM
And my favourite: The vast majority of adventurers are criminally insane.


They kill things for a living. In stinking, unpleasant holes in the ground, filled with amazing terror. They think nothing of it, loose no sleep, never suffer PTSD or nightmares. they laugh about murder on a regular basis and seriously consider murdering most creatures that cross their path.

They have no friends asides from their comrades in arms. They are sociopathic: They never talk of friends or visit them. They never write home, visit their parents, and seldom mention them unless there is a quest involved or something to be gained from visiting them.

Violence and is normally their first resort.

Psychopathic and masochistically aberrant behaviour is the norm: Suggesting others put their arms in acid up to the elbow to get to clues or doing it themselves and it not even occurring to them until two minutes later that they could have used something in their comrade's backpack. This is normally laughed off or treated as an 'oh well' incident.

They are paranoid in the extreme, always thinking that a romantic interest might be a succubus or similar. They avoid intimate relationships because of this paranoia, or because they think that the partner will be used as leverage against them. They seldom sleep without setting watches, and tend to trust nobody.

They will happily hole up for three days and nights together in a 20x20 room with half a dozen corpses in a dungeon in order to heal. Odds are that none of them bought so much as a deck of cards in order to pass the time. thye sit there, polishing weapons, doing nothing but eagerly waiting until it's killing time again.

They seldom sleep more than they need to, take a day off, let their guard down or relax. 95% of their income is spent on 'better tools' for killing things with, with little thought for luxury items. They seldom settle down or buy property, preferring to stay in rough inns, tiny rooms in other planes, or fields. they never consider retiring, no matter how rich they get. They never save for retirement or their children. Adventurers seldom have hobbies or interests other than being better at their job. They are utterly obsessive.

Often one of them is completely psychotic and will kill an innocent bystander for no real reason. This never causes more than a 5 minute argument and will be forgotten about inside 2 weeks, in all likelihood. Despite this deranged behaviour, the others will cheerfully go to sleep, trusting the killer to guard them.

Tyger
2010-07-13, 12:13 PM
And my favourite: The vast majority of adventurers are criminally insane.


They kill things for a living. In stinking, unpleasant holes in the ground, filled with amazing terror. They think nothing of it, loose no sleep, never suffer PTSD or nightmares. they laugh about murder on a regular basis and seriously consider murdering most creatures that cross their path.

They have no friends asides from their comrades in arms. They are sociopathic: They never talk of friends or visit them. They never write home, visit their parents, and seldom mention them unless there is a quest involved or something to be gained from visiting them.

Violence and is normally their first resort.

Psychopathic and masochistically aberrant behaviour is the norm: Suggesting others put their arms in acid up to the elbow to get to clues or doing it themselves and it not even occurring to them until two minutes later that they could have used something in their comrade's backpack. This is normally laughed off or treated as an 'oh well' incident.

They are paranoid in the extreme, always thinking that a romantic interest might be a succubus or similar. They avoid intimate relationships because of this paranoia, or because they think that the partner will be used as leverage against them. They seldom sleep without setting watches, and tend to trust nobody.

They will happily hole up for three days and nights together in a 20x20 room with half a dozen corpses in a dungeon in order to heal. Odds are that none of them bought so much as a deck of cards in order to pass the time. thye sit there, polishing weapons, doing nothing but eagerly waiting until it's killing time again.

They seldom sleep more than they need to, take a day off, let their guard down or relax. 95% of their income is spent on 'better tools' for killing things with, with little thought for luxury items. They seldom settle down or buy property, preferring to stay in rough inns, tiny rooms in other planes, or fields. they never consider retiring, no matter how rich they get. They never save for retirement or their children. Adventurers seldom have hobbies or interests other than being better at their job. They are utterly obsessive.

Often one of them is completely psychotic and will kill an innocent bystander for no real reason. This never causes more than a 5 minute argument and will be forgotten about inside 2 weeks, in all likelihood. Despite this deranged behaviour, the others will cheerfully go to sleep, trusting the killer to guard them.

Dude, remind me never to play in any of your games.

Caphi
2010-07-13, 12:13 PM
Psyx, with all due respect and all the credence I can muster up for you...

what are you talking about?

JonestheSpy
2010-07-13, 12:15 PM
Just post logical conclusions you've made from fantasy ideas.

For instance, I believe that undead would be largely interested in keeping a large stock of humans and animals alive on farms or some such, perhaps believing that life is nothing but an extended infancy and is only good for making more potential undead. Having no way to reproduce on their own they would be largely concerned with living creatures producing large number of children before killing the mothers and fathers.

It's interesting that you bring up "fantasy ideas", but view them in a completely science fiction style. Your thesis seems to view undead as simply an alien species, as opposed to unholy abominations, desecration of the natural order, enslaved and tortured souls, and that sort of thing.

JonestheSpy
2010-07-13, 12:16 PM
Psyx, with all due respect and all the credence I can muster up for you...

what are you talking about?

I think he's talking about a Knights of the Dinner Table campaign.

btw, it seems that folks are confusing "fantasy ideas" with "game rules and conventions". Not the same thing at all.

Caphi
2010-07-13, 12:21 PM
I think he's talking about a Knights of the Dinner Table campaign.

Yeah, I was going to do a point by point response, but before I'd even started I realized that every single point would be the same:

"Who in [REDACTED] do you play with?"

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 12:25 PM
The Eric Mona commentary to the Zogonia: Slice of Death comic book mentioned something similar- describing it as:


Zogonia depicts RPG adventurers not as their players imagine them to be- valorous, virtuous heroes saving the world one dungeon at a time, but as they actually are: brutal, greedy tomb robbers as suspicious of each other as they are of the monsters they murder with impunity.

When you strip away the table chatter, the thin veneer of characterization, and the unspoken agreement that in order to keep having fun the guy playing the paladin can't just attack his companions every round for numerous crimes against humanity, you're left with a pretty depressing image: unstable mass murderers covered from head to toe in blood and guts, their rucksacks straining with the load of treasure and coin.

There is a very thin line between a criminal and an adventurer, and it takes a genius like Tony Moseley to not only recognize it and find it funny, but to make it funny to us too.

Kythorian
2010-07-13, 12:25 PM
Oh come on people...ok, sure, its not really THAT bad, but unless the groups you play with are wholely different than the ones I do, there is at least a little of that...A PC died in my last game, and on the way back to the base, the other PCs were discussing how to split his stuff. less than five minutes later in game.

So....yeah, i get where he is coming from.

Optimystik
2010-07-13, 12:26 PM
The Eric Mona commentary to the Zogonia: Slice of Death comic book mentioned something similar- describing it as:

Is that a webcomic? It seems like it would be an interesting read.

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 12:31 PM
It was in Dragon Magazine (with the strips later published as a book). The author had a site with them online for a while- but I think it was later taken down.

There's another strip in the same book (from Dungeon Magazine)- Mount Zogon- featuring a psychopathic druid called Galena with an affinity for fungi, oozes, and slimes.

http://annex.wikia.com/wiki/Zogonia

Lord Vampyre
2010-07-13, 12:32 PM
Psyx, that is so true.

On the undead, you are forgetting that after a few years greater undead no longer think like normal humans. Lesser undead stop thinking like humans right at death. People seem to apply normal human behavior to the undead in order to understand them.

The only logical conclusion that I have been able to make in a fantasy setting is that the laws of physics do not exist as we know them. They only come into play when the DM wants to mess with the players, or the players are looking for some sort of advantage.

Psyx
2010-07-13, 12:32 PM
I was taking adventuring traits to the extreme and hope never to play in the midst of a bunch of players acting in accordance to the extremes described.

But we've all seen at least mild tendencies towards those traits in the past, no doubt. Often a character will have at least mild leanings towards at least one of those behavioural patterns. And they are all indicative of insanity.

If you think of the manner in which adventurers operate, and then consider their surroundings and environment: They are seldom well balanced normal individuals.

PId6
2010-07-13, 12:39 PM
There is mysteriously few petty thieves. Despite a high level fighter being an obvious mark, rich beyond imagining, and an easy tap for a 1st level pick-pocket, an adventuring party will run into -at most- one pick-pocket per city. This makes no sense at all.
That's likely because A) high level fighters have parties whose combined observation skills will very likely detect the thief, and B) the high level fighter will very likely mangle the thief's body into a thousand pieces as a standard action if the thief gets caught.

Tyger
2010-07-13, 12:46 PM
The Eric Mona commentary to the Zogonia: Slice of Death comic book mentioned something similar- describing it as:


Oh come on people...ok, sure, its not really THAT bad, but unless the groups you play with are wholely different than the ones I do, there is at least a little of that...A PC died in my last game, and on the way back to the base, the other PCs were discussing how to split his stuff. less than five minutes later in game.

So....yeah, i get where he is coming from.


Psyx, that is so true.


I was taking adventuring traits to the extreme and hope never to play in the midst of a bunch of players acting in accordance to the extremes described.

But we've all seen at least mild tendencies towards those traits in the past, no doubt. Often a character will have at least mild leanings towards at least one of those behavioural patterns. And they are all indicative of insanity.

If you think of the manner in which adventurers operate, and then consider their surroundings and environment: They are seldom well balanced normal individuals.

It is becoming painfully obvious that the folks I game with are not "normal" gamers... my bard is taking heat from party members, a year later (real time, not game time) about actions involving the execution of criminals. We have in character discussions about a lot of the moral/ethical/political consequences of actions and rarely attack anything without provocation... hell, I don't think we've swung first at anything without a darned good reason.

Granted, our sacks are full of the loot they left behind, but hey, they swung first! :)

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 12:49 PM
My group's a bit like that- happy to talk with practically anything, including ettins and flameskulls- as long as it's not attacking them.

"Its been imprisoned by bad guys" seems to override any "it's a monster for killing" perspectives.

Which I think is a good thing.

Caphi
2010-07-13, 12:57 PM
It is becoming painfully obvious that the folks I game with are not "normal" gamers... my bard is taking heat from party members, a year later (real time, not game time) about actions involving the execution of criminals. We have in character discussions about a lot of the moral/ethical/political consequences of actions and rarely attack anything without provocation... hell, I don't think we've swung first at anything without a darned good reason.

Granted, our sacks are full of the loot they left behind, but hey, they swung first! :)

Sounds like fun.

I was taking issue mostly with the accusation of violence being everyone's first instinct. I've never had a campaign go by without someone trying to talk his way through every encounter, including (in a current game) someone who seriously tries to talk his way through every encounter, including enemies who were blatantly evil/crazy/already trying to kill us. I ran a game a few months ago where the PCs, presented with a choice of two roads to take, argued for forty minutes - never breaking character - about which one was less likely to get them attacked by bandits. In the same game, one of the casters arranged with me before the game to own a plot of land and a small house, taken out of his starting WBL at a small but not negligible sum.

Almost all your (Psyx') accusations are based on the assumption that the character sheet is exhaustive: that a level 10 fighter cannot like crafting if he doesn't have five ranks in it, that characters don't play games on their break if "set of dice" is not written on their item line, and that no one can have a background with NPCs in it without WhiteWolf's three dots in Acquaintance.

My groups do a threefer, on the subject. Evening campfire time is prime time for the characters to reflect on what happened that day and tie it to the adventure, and to talk a bit about themselves.

You've given me some ideas on what to do with one of my characters in a little while, though. I think we might pop by her hometown.

okpokalypse
2010-07-13, 01:03 PM
D&D Mechanics:

A L20 Fighter PC wielding a Halberd and possessing all the proper feats (in chain) has 6 Attacks per round before magical enhancements with a single weapon. To strike an opponent 5' away that many times in 6 seconds, accounting for accelleration / deceleration of strikes and the arc of the wielded weapon would assume the blade of the halberd is travelling in excess of 60 MpH. If you factor in an 18 Dex, Combat Reflexes and all AOOs being used, then then you're looking at an excess of 100 MpH :smallsmile:.

Some PC Class Combinations can generate a Base Land Speed in excess of 100'. We'll use 100' as the baseline. Adding in the 30' for Boots of Expeditious Retreat and you've got 130' Land Move. If the Character has the Run feat, and is not armored, that equivalates to a running speed of 73.86 MpH. This can be theoretically acheived with a Strength of 3 - in which case the force of parting the air at that speed is actually greater than the character's lift capacity :smallsmile:.

If, in theory, said runner was the last AOO in the round vs. said L20 Fighter, the strike would have in excess of 175 MpH of force focused on the edge of a blade. He should be simply cleft in twain. However, he just takes 2d6 Damage :smalleek:.

The moral to the story: D&D Physics is busticated!

JonestheSpy
2010-07-13, 01:09 PM
Going back to the original topic, I was thinking a bit and really, most good fantasy novels ARE quite logical. That's the whole point really - the author creates a fantastic situation, but if done well it will have its own internal constistancy and logic, which is why we're able to suspend our disbelief and get involved in the story.

DnD suffers from the fact that it tries to mash up the concepts from a whole lot of different fantasies all together, while catering for gamers' desires for more ways to make their character powerful, own nifty items, and have endless varieties of monsters to fight. Very hard to make into a consistent, believable world unless one completely builds from the ground up, picking and choosing carefully from all the options the rulebooks present.

(Which is one of the reasons I loved the old Runequest game so much - Greg Staford's Glorantha is such an amazing, detailed, thought-out, creation on all levels.)

NowhereMan583
2010-07-13, 01:31 PM
Kobolds should be the dominant race, as they seem to be best at most things. I have no idea how dwarves got their reputation for mining, given how good kobolds are at it.

I completely agree - I've always wondered why kobolds don't have more power in the world. They're canny trapmakers who are constantly amassing wealth through mining, have a greater-than-average number of natural magic-users, and are allied with DRAGONS. I eventually came to the conclusion that they're just waiting for the right moment to overthrow the humanoids and take over the world for their dragon masters.

And then I started designing a campaign that takes place AFTER that happened, where the PCs are part of the underground resistance against the tyrannical kobold majority. I'm looking forward to seeing how that goes.:smallbiggrin:

Oh, and I'm with you on the "criminally insane" bit. My group doesn't behave like that, but I've seen players who do. It's actually a pretty accurate summary of the "kick in the door" or "hack and slash" model of campaign, from what I can see.

Psyx
2010-07-13, 01:32 PM
That's likely because A) high level fighters have parties whose combined observation skills will very likely detect the thief, and B) the high level fighter will very likely mangle the thief's body into a thousand pieces as a standard action if the thief gets caught.

But when you consider that their choice is a life in the streets, possibly ending in brutal death and poverty, or a 30/70 throw of the dice between a good kicking from the fighter and riches beyond their wildest dreams, you wonder why it doesn't happen more. I suggest picking on the fighter because he HAS no perception skills of his own, and is easy to hide behind...



D&D Mechanics:

No matter how good a warrior you are you are as hard to hit with a blade as a commoner. The concept of parrying does not exist in D&Dworld.

Likewise, combatants take it in turns to hit each other. It is impossible for two protagonists to both take an opening and hit each other at the same time.

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 01:59 PM
There are a few feats and variant rules to represent parrying- but they don't take into account the character's level.

To do this, it would have to be something like Power Attack only it raised your AC instead of your damage (at the cost of your To Hit- a bit like an alternate version of Total Defense).

This would represent "going on the defensive" better.

JonestheSpy
2010-07-13, 02:09 PM
There are a few feats and variant rules to represent parrying- but they don't take into account the character's level.

To do this, it would have to be something like Power Attack only it raised your AC instead of your damage (at the cost of your To Hit- a bit like an alternate version of Total Defense).

This would represent "going on the defensive" better.

You seem to be completely forgetting Combat Expertise, which allows you to trade To Hit bonus for AC, and it does take level into account to an extent at lower levels, in that you have to have a minimum BAB as the amount you want to adjust your AC. That's pretty clearly parrying.

Also, there's the whole hit point = combat skill thing, including parrying. i think it works pretty well, and certainly makes combat move faster than roll to hit/roll to parry.

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 02:14 PM
Good point- I forgot about that. I was thinking more of Two-Weapon Defense.

If Combat Expertise had been built directly into the system, instead of requiring feats, it might have solved the problem of "a 20th level fighter is by default as easy to hit as a 1st level commoner" though.

So the concept of parrying exists in D&D- but it requires feats to be any better at it at high level than at low level.

Zombimode
2010-07-13, 02:30 PM
Hmm, I wonder a bit about the point of this thread.

Exchanging conclusions is a worthwhile endavour in RL, because we all live by a in many aspects very similar set of premises.
Now for Fantasy the set of premises varies between DMs, groups, settings.
I varies so much to the point that a correct conclusion of one person completely contradicts the (correct under his own premises) conclusion of another person.
The one in the OP about undead is a very good example.

So the only thing is this thread that can happen is the following exchange:

A: "So, in my setting, things are so-and-so."
B: "Ok. Well, in my setting, things are a bit different: they are so-and-so."
A: "Ah, fine."
B: "Yeah."

Btw, you dont need to put a "logical" in front of "conclusion". Every conclusion is logical (because thats what "concluding" means: using logic). They may be correct or incorrect, but they are always logical.

Sydonai
2010-07-13, 02:44 PM
Good point- I forgot about that. I was thinking more of Two-Weapon Defense.

If Combat Expertise had been built directly into the system, instead of requiring feats, it might have solved the problem of "a 20th level fighter is by default as easy to hit as a 1st level commoner" though.

So the concept of parrying exists in D&D- but it requires feats to be any better at it at high level than at low level.

You need training to use a sword properly, and you need training to parry correctly(that is, without cuttong youre hand off), this training is represented as a feat.

NowhereMan583
2010-07-13, 02:47 PM
Exchanging conclusions is a worthwhile endavour in RL, because we all live by a in many aspects very similar set of premises.
Now for Fantasy the set of premises varies between DMs, groups, settings.
I varies so much to the point that a correct conclusion of one person completely contradicts the (correct under his own premises) conclusion of another person.

Well, yes, but the fact that we're all using the same system (well, ignoring houserules) means there's enough common ground to have this sort of discussion.


Btw, you dont need to put a "logical" in front of "conclusion". Every conclusion is logical (because thats what "concluding" means: using logic). They may be correct or incorrect, but they are always logical.

Technically, you could have an illogical conclusion. If it doesn't follow from its premises in a valid manner, that's a failure of logic, but it's still a conclusion. But that's neither here nor there, so I'm going to stop being pedantic about definitions before I derail the discussion.

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 02:48 PM
But there are lots more weapons than swords- maces, spears, and so on. Shouldn't a guy who has "Weapon Proficiency: Weapon X" be naturally able to parry with Weapon X?

(especially if you take advantage of his adamantium skeleton for blocking attacks :smallbiggrin:)

Zombimode
2010-07-13, 02:53 PM
Well, yes, but the fact that we're all using the same system (well, ignoring houserules) means there's enough common ground to have this sort of discussion.

Yeah? Well, read the first post again.

The rules provide a basic system for task resolution. Its HOW you apply those rules that makes all the difference.



Technically, you could have an illogical conclusion. If it doesn't follow from its premises in a valid manner, that's a failure of logic, but it's still a conclusion. But that's neither here nor there, so I'm going to stop being pedantic about definitions before I derail the discussion.

Thats not an illogical conclusion, it would be a logical incorrect conclusion. Thats a difference.

AvatarZero
2010-07-13, 03:11 PM
There are a few feats and variant rules to represent parrying- but they don't take into account the character's level.

To do this, it would have to be something like Power Attack only it raised your AC instead of your damage (at the cost of your To Hit- a bit like an alternate version of Total Defense).

This would represent "going on the defensive" better.

You mean like Combat Expertise? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatExpertise)

hamishspence
2010-07-13, 03:18 PM
I forgot about that for a moment- at the time I posted the comment. I still think it might have been better if that ability, and Power Attack, had been built straight into the combat system rather than only accessible via feats.

This comment:


No matter how good a warrior you are you are as hard to hit with a blade as a commoner. The concept of parrying does not exist in D&Dworld.

is only really valid if you don't take feats into account.

LibraryOgre
2010-07-13, 03:50 PM
The most common types of undead are corporeal; incorporeal undead tend to have a reason for their generation (suicides of crazy people, etc.).

To reduce the impact of undead, most cultures will burn corpses.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-13, 04:07 PM
The most common types of undead are corporeal; incorporeal undead tend to have a reason for their generation (suicides of crazy people, etc.).

To reduce the impact of undead, most cultures will burn corpses.
Unless they want a cheap source of power and simply reanimate them as skeletons.
Donating your remains to the City could be seen as a civic duty.

LibraryOgre
2010-07-13, 04:11 PM
Unless they want a cheap source of power and simply reanimate them as skeletons.
Donating your remains to the City could be seen as a civic duty.

True, but that assumes an acceptance of necromancy, and goes back to the question of "What is an animated corpse? How does one animate it, and what is the fate of the spirit of the corpse?"

Ravens_cry
2010-07-13, 04:19 PM
True, but that assumes an acceptance of necromancy, and goes back to the question of "What is an animated corpse? How does one animate it, and what is the fate of the spirit of the corpse?"


And a Lawful Neutral city says, "So. . .?"

Ormagoden
2010-07-13, 04:23 PM
Just post logical conclusions you've made from fantasy ideas.

For instance, I believe that undead would be largely interested in keeping a large stock of humans and animals alive on farms or some such, perhaps believing that life is nothing but an extended infancy and is only good for making more potential undead. Having no way to reproduce on their own they would be largely concerned with living creatures producing large number of children before killing the mothers and fathers.

Sounds like dead reign to me...

LibraryOgre
2010-07-13, 05:43 PM
And a Lawful Neutral city says, "So. . .?"

Possibly. In FR, both Kelemvor and Jergal are LN death gods who largely oppose the undead. If the spirit of the corpse is enslaved, I could see a LN argument against doing it, as it upsets the natural order of things (i.e. that spirits continue to their eternal reward after death), and enslaves someone for no fault of their own.

awa
2010-07-13, 08:23 PM
I agree with the crazy pc idea when my character died and the half orc called dibs on my boots my only thought was good call i have really nice boots.

We regularly hack up monster corpses on the off chance it swallowed any good items.

Ive always disagreed that wizards would be guaranteed to rule the world their are a lot of other creatures who start with powers capable of taking over the world with out needing to study for a few decades to get to level 1.

Logical pun pun wouldn't rule the world a saukhura would i imagine it would require far fewer hoops to remove or bypass the does not work on other saukhara clause then it would be for the kobold. (i have no idea how to spell saukhura)

Logical in my opinion regular armies of level 1 fighters would not exist they would be completely irrelevant all major conflicts would be decided by a couple high level characters and/or creature allies and the regular people would just have to accept it.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-13, 08:57 PM
Possibly. In FR, both Kelemvor and Jergal are LN death gods who largely oppose the undead. If the spirit of the corpse is enslaved, I could see a LN argument against doing it, as it upsets the natural order of things (i.e. that spirits continue to their eternal reward after death), and enslaves someone for no fault of their own.
That isn't for sure. For example, nothing about the Clone spell says you can't use the original body after for animate dead. What is left is a mere husk, left over bits that can be used improve everyone's lot.
Imagine, an unintelligent undead Industrial Revolution!
As for those gods, that's campaign specific.

Yahzi
2010-07-14, 12:10 AM
Despite tons of magical healing being available, child and maternal mortality is still at a frightening rate, because nobody has ever bothered researching a 'safe childbirth' skill.
Er, that's "Cure Minor Wounds."

Even 1 pt of healing stabilizes a character, and bleeding out is the single most common cause of death in childbirth. Infection is a distant second (and Remove Disease takes care of that).

To be fair, they need a zero infant mortality rate, to produce all those mooks that die in every adventure. :smallbiggrin:

Yahzi
2010-07-14, 12:12 AM
Just post logical conclusions you've made from fantasy ideas.
Actually I wrote a whole novel and a game world on that. Click on my sig if it sounds interesting.

Talon Sky
2010-07-14, 12:40 AM
Ive always disagreed that wizards would be guaranteed to rule the world their are a lot of other creatures who start with powers capable of taking over the world with out needing to study for a few decades to get to level 1.


And this is why in my games, after level 1 you cannot take levels in wizard. I dunno if some of my players are trying to pull an Elan, but it simply doesn't make sense.

nyjastul69
2010-07-14, 02:04 AM
D&D Mechanics:

A L20 Fighter PC wielding a Halberd and possessing all the proper feats (in chain) has 6 Attacks per round before magical enhancements with a single weapon. To strike an opponent 5' away that many times in 6 seconds, accounting for accelleration / deceleration of strikes and the arc of the wielded weapon would assume the blade of the halberd is travelling in excess of 60 MpH. If you factor in an 18 Dex, Combat Reflexes and all AOOs being used, then then you're looking at an excess of 100 MpH :smallsmile:.

Some PC Class Combinations can generate a Base Land Speed in excess of 100'. We'll use 100' as the baseline. Adding in the 30' for Boots of Expeditious Retreat and you've got 130' Land Move. If the Character has the Run feat, and is not armored, that equivalates to a running speed of 73.86 MpH. This can be theoretically acheived with a Strength of 3 - in which case the force of parting the air at that speed is actually greater than the character's lift capacity :smallsmile:.

If, in theory, said runner was the last AOO in the round vs. said L20 Fighter, the strike would have in excess of 175 MpH of force focused on the edge of a blade. He should be simply cleft in twain. However, he just takes 2d6 Damage :smalleek:.

The moral to the story: D&D Physics is busticated!

Is this a bad thing? I'll trust you on the 100' base movement. Sounds like a sketcky build to me though. Regardless, D&D is about killing things and taking their stuff. :smallbiggrin:

Endarire
2010-07-14, 02:32 AM
The most logical way a D&D 3.5 world could exist is if some massively powerful being (a god, demigod, or similar) controlled everything. Otherwise, someone gets ahold of a bit of power and ruins the "fantasy."

Logically, many optimized builds don't fit what characters want, like being a wild shape Druid to do unarmed melee instead of a Monk. No amount of merit can make up for personal preference.

Psyx
2010-07-14, 03:44 AM
You need training to use a sword properly, and you need training to parry correctly(that is, without cuttong youre hand off), this training is represented as a feat.

I can see how it takes a feat to learn how to move your hand sideways to block off a blow without cutting off a hand... if we were talking about a lightsabre. I don't think that I ever want to be around you when you're holding a sword...

So when learning weapon proficiencies, characters spend ages learning how to just hit things with a weapon, but never learn a single parry? To learn to parry they have to take a feat [Combat Expertise]?

"Right....day 14 of training. Now we're going to learn to stab people in the left nipple"
"Sarge: When are we gonna learn not to get our head cut off?"
"Parrying is for WIMPS you MAGGOT! Real men take it on the HP!"


[The solution to this would be to make armour, deflection bonuses and natural armour count as DR. This leaves dodge bonus and luck as a bonus to AC; and then allow players to add their BAB to represent their skill at arms in avoiding attack]



Er, that's "Cure Minor Wounds."

Doesn't help get a baby out... some kind of short range teleport would be ideal...

Oslecamo
2010-07-14, 03:59 AM
The most logical way a D&D 3.5 world could exist is if some massively powerful being (a god, demigod, or similar) controlled everything. Otherwise, someone gets ahold of a bit of power and ruins the "fantasy."

Just one? Last time I checked there were multiple gods in your average D&D seting, and then even stronger entities behind them, and then there's inevitable hordes whose job is precisely to go after someone who tries to mess up with reality or the gods.

It's something I see most people ignore in this kind of discussions. The PCs aren't the strongest thing around. And perhaps they're slaughtering hordes of humanoids and tomb robbing because the voices in the sky tell them so. And you don't want to ignore the voices in the skies.:smalltongue:

okpokalypse
2010-07-14, 08:48 AM
Is this a bad thing? I'll trust you on the 100' base movement. Sounds like a sketcky build to me though. Regardless, D&D is about killing things and taking their stuff. :smallbiggrin:

I had a Scout (6) / Ranger (Variant) (11) / Barbarian (Variant) (1) / Cleric (1) / Ardent (1) which had a base land speed of 100' due to Fast Movement, Domain, Mantle and Feats. Some Monk Combos (or Magic Items that yield the Monk Movement) can go as high as 150' if tweaked right. The aforementioned PC had a 7d6 Skirmish that applied to 6 Attacks via 2WF. Travel Devotion being powered by Cleric's Turns allowed him to take a Move Action as a Swift Action for 1 Minute per Turn burned.

Add in Oversized 2WF (Bastard Swords) and Shocking Burst on the Weapons along with Improved Crit and it was pretty nasty. Oh, and Telling Blow so he could factor in Skirmish Damage to Crits as well.

If tweaked a little, one could just go Scout / Ranger to 9 (Taking Improved Skirmish along the way), dip Cleric for Turns - then go Dervish 10 (Taking Greater 2WF along the way). That's still a 75' Move before other Enhancements / Feats and could take a disturbing 14 Attacks a Round with a 5d6 Skirmish Damage applied to all of them when using the Dance of Death... Plus, the PC can, after doing the Dervish Dance, take that swift move and just leave the combat making everything come back to him again.

One on One, that PC build beats pretty much any non-caster Melee PC simply because it won't ever be in a position to be full-attacked. It could fall to one-shot wonders, and of course, Psychic Warriors have their way with them...

LibraryOgre
2010-07-14, 01:50 PM
Doesn't help get a baby out... some kind of short range teleport would be ideal...

It doesn't, but Cure Light Wounds covers a multitude of sins. A simple Caesarian, with a clean knife, some poppy extract, and a near-zero chance of bleeding out is very possible. Not going to be unpainful by any means, and I'd probably require a decent Heal check to avoid accidental sterilization in such a situation... but you're still looking at a massively better survival chance for women in childbirth. And it doesn't require anything more than a teenaged* Adept.


*Rule of thumb: Non-adventuring humans have a level equal to their "tens" digit; level 1 in their teens, level 2 in their 20s, level 3 in their 30s. An adept, at 1st level, with an 11 wisdom, has 3 cantrips and 1 1st level spell... three Cure Minor Wounds and a single Cure Light Wounds.