HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:07:33 CST
Distribution: na
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <texdude.714935825@camelot>, texdude@camelot.bradley.edu (Philip Allen) writes:
> In <66993@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
> 
>>In article <1992Aug26.220054.695@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
> 
>>But the problem is that you can't have penalties that make sense.  There
>>would be no game balance at all.
> 
>>Why can't wizards wear armor?  They don't know how to put it on.
>>But if wizards could wear plate mail and use
>>real weapons, everyone would be a wizard (well, maybe not everyone,
>>but you get the idea).
>>Why can only thieves pick locks?  I'm not a thief by profession, but I could
>>learn to pick a lock if I really took the time.  Why aren't there lock
>>picking/trap finding/trap removing non-weapon proficiencies?  Because
>>they don't want everyone able to do those things.  That's what a thief
>>does, and if everyone else could do them, no one would choose to be
>>a thief.
>>Why can only fighters specialize in weapons?  Because since the poor
>>bastards can't do anything else spectacular, they have to have
>>*something*, or no one would want to be a fighter.
>>Why can clerics not use edged weapons?  Because their deities don't want
>>them to shed blood?  Hey, have you ever been hit in the face with a mace?
>>Besides, the deities don't have any problems with their paladins shedding
>>blood.
>>Notice that all my examples are class-based instead of race-based.  That's
>>because the class restrictions (IMHO) are the most ridiculous of all.
>>But hey, we live with them, in the name of game balance....

	Jorge said this, not me. Be more careful who you quote.

Brandon Cope

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: rnmg1200@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (A Lady and her Walrus)
Subject: Re: Two Weapons
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 11:01:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.195923.16309@bnr.ca> dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
>In article <BtJur3.A5x@acsu.buffalo.edu>, acsoedf@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric Frohnapple) writes:
>|> 
>|> 	One thing I can not understand is the reason why Rangers and
>|> Warriors can only use a smaller weapon in their off hand when fighting
>|> with two weapons.  Having some experience with full contact weapon martial
>|> arts, I can assure you that it is not by any difficulty to use two 
>|> long swords at the same time.  (In fact it is FAR more effective than
>|> fighting with a long sword and a dagger.....)
>|> 	Is this just perhaps a "balancing rule" to keep warriors from
>|> getting an 18/51+ str, specialization, dex of 16+, two weapons proficiency,
>|> and at first level having something like 5/2 attacks at +3 to hit and +5 to
>|> damage?  Or, perhaps, something else?
>
>Probably just to make the game playable.  I had one fighter who had 2 scimitars
>and a 18/89 strength.  He just walked around and slaugtered everything in sight.

I have a term my old gaming group used to use for this type of fighter:
"The combine harvester who walks like a man." :)

The Walrus

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: What is with these Katana's?
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 05:26:54 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

rnmg1200@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (A Lady and her Walrus) writes:

:I tend to agree with the poster who said it had to do with the mysticism
:surrounding the katana; there are so many legends that it's almost impossible
:to distinguish truth from fiction.  Someone (sorry, I forget who) emailed me
:mentioning that, during the Russo-Japanese war, the Russian soldiers supposedly
:were told to block swords with their gun barrels.  When they tried it,
:the swords just cut through their rifles.  Neither one of us is willing to
:say whether this is true or not. :)  (Personally, I haven't the foggiest,
:but anybody who's willing to say one way or the other, please, speak up.)

Well, you know that Russian-produced stuff is far from being reliable.
If a fancy sword can cut through a rifle, I'd be willing to bet that
the blame should be placed on the poor workmanship of the rifle.

PS: Sprinkle this article liberally with :) 's

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher)            "A converted cannibal is one who,
StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (NeXT & internet)      on Friday, eats only fishermen."
wi.5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (anonymous)             -- Emily Lotney
FREE1217@UIUCVMD.bitnet (bitnet)                                               
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: texdude@camelot.bradley.edu (Philip Allen)
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: na
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:28:56 GMT

In <BtnzCx.25o@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:

>z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:

>Well, if you start altering the basic tenets of ADD, why bother playing it?

Because we like D&D (with its flaws) better than other systems we've tried.

>If you want mages who wear armor and people able to learn all kinds of
>skills, try GURPS or Palladium or any of the other number of very good
>systems out there.
>It seems like a huge amount of work to alter the ADD system way away from
>what it starts out as - a simplistic fantasy game. ADD's strength has never
>been its' realism, it has always been that it is very simple to play. 

Trust me.  It's easier to make a few changes in a game that everyone knows
than to teach them all a new game.  (especially if the players don't want
to learn a new game)


Phil
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:00:16 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.frp.dnd
Distribution: na
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <warren-270892132327@minerva.taligent.com>, warren@apple.com (Chris Warren) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.115554.701@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>,
> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu wrote:
>> 
>> 	That might be why I play mainly GURPS now :-)
> 
> I was wondering how long it would be until the question of point
> based systems vs class based systems would come up.
> 
> The main purpose of classes, IMHO, is to foster interdependance of
> the memembers of the party and to force players to take on different
> roles in the party. This forced differentiation has the drawbacks
> described earlier in this thread.  But it can also make it easier
> to define the different roles in the party.  In a point based
> system such as the Hero system, it is easier to wind up
> with a party of characters that are basically similar to one,
> two, or if you are lucky, three different basic types.  On the
> other hand with a good GM and experienced players, this is
> less of a problem.

	While there will be a bit of overlap, you can end up with a fair
distribution of character types. In my current GURPS Fantasy campaign, the
characters are:
	a stereotypical barbarian (tough and drinks a lot) with some tactical
combat knowlegde
	a bard with a few weak spells who is a were-tiger (and who also drinks
a lot)
	a elvish fire mage who thinks he's really human
 
	
> 
> As people have mentioned before, there are a number of ways of 
> eliminating the racial restrictions.  If someone wanted to
> be real clever they could in a point based system such as
> champions, build the equivalent packages to the demihumans,
> and give them disadvantages such that the cost of the package
> is brougt down to zero.  Maybe I'll go off and try this exercise.

	Well, in GURPS, for example, it costs 40 points to be an elf. However,
since you only have 100 points to spend, it *does* balance out.

> 
> The most egregous of the class restrictions can be fixed
> but be careful that you don't increase the powerlevel of
> a particular class.  If you let mages wear plate mail do something
> like at (10-AC) or (10-AC)*2 to their casting time to keep
> mages from getting too powerful.  Another good idea, that
> someone suggested is to give low level mages bonus spells ala cleric.
> You could also let them use light crossbows if they want to spend the
> proficiency slots.

	One thing you could do if a player wants non-standard class abilities
is to charge XPs (or a percentage of XPs) for that ability. Dragon #107, or a
modification of the class construction system from DMG2 might help.

> 
> If you really have a problem with the D&D classes try something
> else like z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu did.

	You can call me Brandon :-)

Brandon Cope
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Question on Armor Class
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:45:08 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <BtJqJJ.J0J@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, morpheus@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Morpheus Nosferatu) writes:
> Something I have always been curious about is why AC in (A)D&D is set up so
> that if you have absolutely no protection, your AC is 10, and the better
> the protection you have, the smaller the AC number will be.
>  
> This would completely eliminate the need for negative numbers, and seems
> to make much more sense than the way AC is actually handled in the game.
> 

	I did this quite a while back, before 2nd Edition came out. I dropped
the to-hit charts, and used a to-hit progression much like that in the current
edition. It worked well, and made more sense than the T$R way.

	I think the AC10 thing is a hangover from the Chainmail wargame rules,
though I'm not sure...

Brandon

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: warren@apple.com (Chris Warren)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Chromosonally-Challenged Characters
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:55:38 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.frp.dnd
Organization: Taligent.com

In article <2266@cix.cict.fr>, mosson@reseau.Berkeley.EDU (Groupe ELEVES)
wrote:
> 
>   Of course, with the 2nd edition, the level limitations have been 
> raised, but they still exist - and so exists the limitation that only

The 2nd edition does have optional rules that allow Multiclass
characters to exceed the level limit by making it cost even more
XP to go up.

--Chris
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Paladins
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 24 Aug 92 03:20:58 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@pmax1.cis.pitt.edu

In article <66687@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.010230.622@ctr.columbia.edu> GreyOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>>I think it would depend on the deity the Paladin serves.  IMO, the paladin
>>should emulate hir deity.  A paladin serving a "my way or no way" deity
>>should behave in a harsh manner, with a strict code of ethics.  If it
>>were a kindler, gentler god(dess), the paladin should behave as you describe.

>Yeah, but how many "my way or no way" deities are LG?  As another poster
>mentioned, LG usually involoves, amoung other things, mercy.

	Depends on how one defines LG, eh?

	For example, while your classic Paladin (or Superman, or Captain
America) is generally accepted to be Lawful Good, I also class as 
Lawful Good people like Dirty Harry Callahan. Why?

	Because I define LG this way:

	Lawful: Follows a set of rules for his/her behavior which they will
not break, except POSSIBLY under SEVERE strain. If you know these rules
they can be as predictable as clockwork. These rules are something far
more complex than "whatever strikes my fancy" or "anything to get me out
of this" but are a code of behavior that they adhere to.

	Good: Tries to do whatever will benefit, not just themselves, but
the society they live in and the others under their protection; they will
do this even at some expense to themselves.

	Dirty Harry and Captain America both have a set of rules that they
follow. Harry believes in enforcing JUSTICE -- and adheres to his concept
of justice quite fanatically. He is just as predictable as a falling 
rock, and just as hard to stop. Cap believes in enforcing the laws of the
land (disreguarding certain ones, heh heh, like vigilantism), and
adheres to this just as fanatically.

	Both also believe (and in general, they're right in believing) that
they are doing the best they can in their position for the society they
are serving.


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
From: seah@fraser.sfu.ca (Simon Seah)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Weapon Masteries
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:55:16 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

Hm...
Your Weapon Mastery rules look suspiciously like those in D&D Masters Set
(vanilla D&D, boxed set).
The damage under that system has always seemed excessive to me, and so
have the hit roll bonuses (+2/+4/+6/+8, I believe, for Sk, Ex, Ms, GM).
Your hit roll bonuses seem more restrained.

If you haven't seen the D&D Masters set, you might want to have a look at how
they did the damage progressions and such.

They also gave special abilities for mastery, like being able to throw swords
and maces and even battle axes! (with range penalties, of course).

The restrictions on mastery don't seem all that reasonable to me.  Initial
mastery level is ok, but maximum level, in my opinion, shouldn't be limited.
Characters other than fighters are already losing out in 'training time' by
having reduced Weapon Proficiency advancement rates.  And if they're going
to specialize in one weapon, they'll lose even more by not having variety.
At the least, fighter subclasses shouldn't be restricted in their mastery level.If you really want restrictions, maybe the following might be more lenient :
  Rangers :  MS maxima for non-'hunting' weapons; ie. they can GM in
             spear, net, and bows, but not swords and such; for a rough
             classification, try D&D Masters set, and treat hunting weapons
             as those specified as being more effective against unarmed
             opponents.
  Paladins :  MS maxima for all non-'upper class' weapons or non-cavalry
              weapons.  Longbows?  Nope.  Try crossbows; too bad it slower,
              eh?  The GM maxima might extend to those magical weapons
              that (s)he keeps (I believe they're restricted to 4 magical
              weapons).

Simon
:)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: maxson@cerl.uiuc.edu (K R Maxson)
Subject: Re: What is with these Katana's?
Organization: UIUC Computer-based Education Research Lab
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:58:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.152747.1@economics.adelaide.edu.au> ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au writes:
>
   [Proper attribution please -- I said this originally.]
>> The masame and nogi-hada styles of Japanese blademaking resulted in
>> 32,768 folds in the steel -- taking a kataha bar, doubling it on itself
>> and welding, repeating 15 times.  Masamune and other famous makers took
>> four kataha and made blades with 4,194,304 layers.
>
>Are you serious?  How thick are these things?  4,000,000 layers of say .1mm
>material = 400,000 mm = 40,000 cm = 400metres!  Can you give me a source for
>this, as I would be very interested to read about it.

The source that is probably the easiest to find at your local university
library is _A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms amd
Armor_ by Stone.
From: royalyn@trigger.ksu.ksu.edu (Royalyn S Nelson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Date: 27 Aug 1992 10:00:20 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: trigger.ksu.ksu.edu


In article 3121 27 Aug 92 <66993@hydra.gatech.EDU> writes :

>Why can't wizards wear armor?
Because a wizard spends too much time indoors studying to have the time to learn
how to use the armour.  That and the fact that the armour also restricts movement
and thereby interferes with casting spells.

>Why can only thieves pick locks?
Because only thieves have the time to dedicate to learning the 'craft'.  Besides
if someone of another class decided to learn something like lock-picking he would
then become a multi-classed/dual-classed character and take more time to advance
levels because of the split up of experience points between levels.
  
>Why can only fighters specialize in weapons?
What else would a person whose primary reason for being do?  They use a weapon
for long enough and they have to become specialized in it....it just happens. 
The other classes spend enough time on their own abilities that they don`t have
the time to actually specialize in a particular weapon...They learn how to use it
good enough so that they don't kill themselves with it and then move on to more
important things.  Like picking locks.

>Why can clerics not use edged weapons?
Some clerics can use edged weapons....check out the 2nd edition rules.  Some gods
allow edged weapons, particularly the war type gods.




Shadowhawke
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: ins450m@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (T.F. Eccles)
Subject: Wrath of the immortals
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 08:17:41 GMT


Ok....

This came out about a month ago now, so I am assuming that 
some people who have some money will have bought it... :)

What I'd like is an opinion (pref by email, but posting if
nec.) of the quality of the thing..... Aaron Allston seems
to usually write really good stuff, but occasionally one or
two of them are a bit dodgy....

Opinions then?

Eccles

******************************************************************
* "FOR WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, * ins450m@aurora.cc.monash *
* IF NOT FOR THE CARE OF THE REAPER   * .edu.au   		 *
* MAN?" - Bill Door. 		      *  T.F.Eccles		 *
*  Reaper Man, Terry Pratchett	      * "Let there be Fyre" 	 &
******************************************************************
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Date: 30 Aug 92 04:37:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug29.141545.12396@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> gajensen@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:

>No, you are wrong wrong wrong. Proficient mens being able to use your weapon
>without embarassing or hurting yourself. Specialized means that you have
>basically learned every nuance of the weapon and the weapon is basically an
>extension of your body, you are able to anything with it that you want. Big
>difference between the two.

I am aware of that.  HOWEVER, the point is, that in the time it takes
you to learn how to use 6 different weapons, you could learn to become
very very good with one.  It's not that unreasonable.

[Picking locks - why can't a priest do it]

>Because this is not a preistly thing to do. I'll give you a better reason when
>you think of a better case example.

You're kidding, right?  "It's not a priestly thing to do"?  Two answers to
that.

1)  Evil priests might want to know how to do that.  You never know when
    you're going to have to actually *steal* something.

2)  Who the F**K cares if it's not a priestly thing to do???  If a priest
    (in real life) wanted to learn to do it, there would be nothing
    to stop him from doing it.  Even if "it's not a priestly thing to do."
    There's nothing wrong with my example, you just don't like it.

Fine, here's a better one for you:

I find it hard to believe that a mage that can learn to speak 5 different
languages and can read and write in three of them can't find the time
to learn to pick a lock.

>> Priests do not spend all their time praying.
>> Wizards do not spend all their time studying.
>> Warriors do not spend all their time fighting.
>> Thieves do not spend all their time robbing.

>Yep, you are completely correct, they spend the rest of their time being human
>or whatever race they are, and doing the things that people must do every day
>of their lives, eat, sleep, talk to others and be something other than a
>machine who can slaughter trolls in their sleep.

Yes, and learning other things.  Things that are "OK".  Such as tracking,
building fires, cooking, learning history, gem cutting, riding, etc.
But not lock-picking, trap removal, weapon specialization, etc.  Why?
Because one is set aside for only specific classes to be able to do, and
the others are non-weapon proficiencies, that anyone can learn.

But other than that, can you come up with _one_valid_reason_?  I don't
think so.


-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | Sign in a restaurant:
Georgia Institute of Technology  | 
Office of Information Technology |   "We reserve the right to serve refuse to
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |        anyone."
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: A new version of Familiars
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:52:05 GMT
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Aug27.035538.13203@oz.plymouth.edu>, pyr530@oz.plymouth.edu (Rob Holden) writes:
> 	I liked the idea on the "new" familiars that Morpheus suggested, but
> obviously it cannot be a first level spell.  I would make it a 5th or 6th level
> spell, and rename it to Summon Familiar.
> 
> 	I also think that there will be alot of griping by the mage-haters out
> there, who will insist that mages are too powerful already and don't need any
> more.  However, if the spell is made to be 5th level, then it cannot be gotten
> except by a 9th level mage (or higher), and if 6th, then by a 12th level mage
> minimum.  Also, it's not like this spell is going to be just laying around in 
> scroll form in every other dungeon the party enters.  I would try to introduce
> it by having the party find the diary of a mage (perhaps long dead) that had 
> such a familiar, and if the mage is interested and can convince the rest of
> the party to assist him, I would then try to build a quest around it.  It would
> be a long, involved quest, at least equal to, and probably a good deal more
> involved than a paladin's quest for his mount.  But then, that's just my $.02.
> 

	I disagree. Mages are pathetically weak at low levels, and the familiar
system that Morpheus put forward fixes that. The way it works out is that the
higher level the mage, the less help the familiar is to the mage. In the old
system, a mages is nothing more that a very low-charged wand -- once out of
spells (which he has less than a half dozen) he has very little to do (unless
he has taken some useful non-weapon proficiencies). I don't have any problem
with the spell to get a Familiar being 1st level (yeah, okay, every mage will
have one...).
	One change though: Use the table for determining the type of familiar
from the 1st Edition. If a 'normal' animal is rolled, use Morpheus' system. If
a special familiar is rolled, that's what the character gets. I would strongly
suggest expanding the list of special familiars. For example, one elvish mage
in one of my games got an atomie (MM2). If the roll on the original table is 'no
familiar available', then, well, none is.