HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kdelgado@loligo.cc.fsu.edu (Kevin Delgado)
Subject: Re: Walking Bandages
Organization: Florida State University Computing Center
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 02:51:25 GMT

In article <1ib3lbINNba9@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> pkralik@ecst.csuchico.edu (Wintermute) writes:
>Greetings!
>
>	I am in the process of creating a campaign, and as I was thinking of
>what I did and didn't like about AD&D, I reached this dilemma...
>
>I often play Clerics, and it seems that every time I do, I wind up in the 
>position of being viewed as the party's walking first aid kit.  I find that
>I am unable to be very creative with my PC's spell selection.  Anytime I take
>a non-healing spell, i.e. one i would like to experiment with, and we come 
>across a combat situation, I feel a little guilty about not having that extra
>CLW for the front line fighters, etc.  I was wondering how, as a dm, I could
>help to prevent this from happening to PC Clerics.  I really hate to limit
>the combat encounters because of a lack of clerics, but if I don't, and there 
>aren't enough clerics, the players get upset about having to trek back and 
>forth to find a church, healer, etc.  I really enjoy playing clerics, but I 
>just feel that it would be more enjoyable if there were more, i dunno, maybe
>freedom in the spells I could take.  There has to be more to being a cleric
>than cleansing wounds and curing diseases.  I have been toying with the idea
>of using a system whereby the Cleric would get "faith points" for various 
>activities of a "true clerical" nature.  I think that this might help to 
>emphasize the other aspects of being a cleric. 
>
>Sooooo...I was hoping that someone might have suggestions as to how this could
>be avoided.  Any input would be greatly appreciated.  


Play a specialty preist with limited, or no access to the healing sphere...
that will show 'em. Also, one little tactic I like to use on fighters who
try to bully my clerics into carrying around mostly healing spells is to show
them the pile of loot that the party just got. Explain to them that there is
probably enough money in thier share of the loot for them to hire thier own
personal private healing machine (henchman cleric in other words). Or, if you
are a non-good aligned character, you can simply charge a moderate fee for
any healing you do on a fighter...if they refuse to pay...don't carry the heal
spells, or keep them for yourself and those who will pay. Remember, it is very
difficult for you to be forced to cast a spell, and even more difficult for 
you to be forced to pray for a certain spell. I think the henchman idea is 
best if you have only one cleric in the party to begin with, but often I 
prefer to have at least two different cleric types in the party (cleric/
specialty preist and a druid for instance). This way, the healing can be split
up between the two clerics and they both can still carry a variety of other
spells to play with.

Kevin

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: jasonr@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Jason F Ralph)
Subject: Re: D&D and Christianity
Organization: University of Sussex
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 11:40:19 GMT

Tim Klein (timk@meaddata.com) wrote:
: 
: |> Here are a few occult connections in Dungeons and Dragons :
: |> 
: |> (b) descriptions of spells which are REAL
:                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: 
: |> (c) descriptions, spells from and worship of REAL pagan gods - which are
:                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: 
: |> (d) accurate drawings and descriptions of "magic circles" which are
: |>     used in REAL LIFE by practicing witches and warlocks to summon up
:        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^
: |>     demons and do sorcery, which is condemned in the Bible (Rev.22:15)
:        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: 
: 
: The presence of these phrases is enough to convince me that the person
: who wrote this is already confusing fantasy with reality -- he doesn't
: need any help from D&D.  He's probably doing himself a favor by no longer
: playing D&D, albeit for mistaken reasons.

Are you saying that demons DON'T exist? You'll be saying that the tooth
fairy doesn't exist next... Just as well me and Santa Claus know what is
really going on!

Gibber, gibber ... I'm a tea-pot!

Splottie (the Earl Grey).

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: No Healers
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Date: 10 Jan 93 20:59:56 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd3.cis.pitt.edu

In article <1iq277INN4hi@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> by670@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Marc-Eivind Cruz Evensen) writes:
>
>On the question of advantages of not having a healer, there is really only one.
>This comes in the form of a role-playing aspect instead of a group-power
>aspect. The absence of a healer forces the party to think and work together
>instead of just blundering through adventures. I've always believed that
>priestly "miracles" have come to easily and that healing priests (or the
>players which control them) trivialize the fact that a god is empowering
>him to heal a companion. (Ah, but I digress)

	I agree that there is that roleplaying advantage, IF one has a 
problem with people treating clerics and other types capable of healing
as no more than hit point batteries.

	That was, in fact, one of the reasons that I made the very powerful
magics -- regeneration, resurrection, raise dead -- very rare. I saw some
campaigns where some characters had died six times. I don't believe in
making death that trivial ("ho hum, off to die again. Here's a 5,000 GP
advance payment, Father Murphy...").

	In general, in my games the players appreciate healing, even 
though it's pretty common to have BASIC healing readily available. They
know how critical those clerics/mystics/psionics are...


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: kurgan@spock.uucp (Andrew Twyman)
Subject: Re: 'New' way to do attack rolls.
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 18:56:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.113703.19098@husc3.harvard.edu> alvalent@husc10.harvard.edu (Alvin Valentine) writes:
>I can say that Champions is more intuitive, but I can't say that using armor
>to reduce your chances to hit rather than bouncing damage is bad either.
>Why?  Well, statistically speaking you probably shouldn't look just at the
>chance to hit or the chance to do damage.  The process as a whole determines
>damage every round.  You can thus figure out the probability of actually
>hitting and doing a certain amount of damage.  So, no, it's not really
>intuitive necessarily like Champs, but if you take the combined probability
>into account, then it works out OK anyway.
>
>Example: you have a 20 THACO against an AC of 9 -- you hit 50% of the time
>	 you have a dagger in hand which does 1d4 damage.  You have 
>	 a 12.5% chance each to do 1, 2, 3, or 4 points of damage along the
>	 lines of straight probability.  It would thus be possible to turn
>	 AD&D into a Rolemaster style system all on charts using a % based
>	 roll.
>
>In general, they all can tend to have similar effects, but one is much more
>intuitive than the other. 

	I don't know exactly how it's done from a game mechanics point of view,
but I like the loopk of the AC system in the "Wizardry 7" computer RPG.  It
uses the same AC scale (+10 to -10) as AD&D, but has several seperata AC's.  A
character has his natural AC, modified only for high Dex, small size, a shield,
or magical protection.  This AC determines wheter or not an attack hits the
character.  Then each body part has a seperate AC, based on type of armor worn
on that body part.  This AC determines whether or not a hit penetrates the
armor or not.  It would probably also be possible to do this without having
to determine the body part hit.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  -"I have something to say.  It's better to burn out, than to fade away!"-  |
|                          -* THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE *-                        |
kurgan@choate.edu--------------------------------------------------------------
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Cursed Items - Why?
Keywords: magic items, cursed items, wizards
Date: 8 Jan 93 12:49:40 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd1.cis.pitt.edu

In article <1993Jan8.005616.9419@lclark.edu> ross@lclark.edu (Anthony Ross) writes:
>	Here's my question, and I'm pretty damn sure the FAQ doesn't
>answer it:
>	OK, given the amount of time, effort, money, etc... needed
>to contruct a magical item, why would a mage be making a cursed one?

	Simple.  The curse only operates on other people. That is, the
curse is designed so that it affects people other than those you want
to use the item, so that YOU and your friends can use it but some
stranger can't. Sort of a security system.


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: lrabe@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lee A Rabe)
Subject: Re: Funny spells
Keywords: Weird Stupid Funny Insane Spells
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:06:55 GMT


Heard of Power Word Death?


Well, my mage had Power Word Moron.
Reduces INT and WIS of the victim to 3.
Normal saves.
Diety intervention in necessary to reverse (ie is basically irreversible)

LAR
From: nilss@lgserv0.uit.no (Nils Sudmann)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Unlucky mage
Date: 7 Jan 93 11:02:20 GMT
Organization: University of Tromsoe

In article <1993Jan4.161832.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, tfpayn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
] In article <1993Jan4.185147.12148@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, kdelgado@loligo.cc.fsu.edu (Kevin Delgado) writes:
] > Why bother trying to go along with this obvious bullshit. Your DM realized
] > that he made a mistake when he allowed you to use the alternative magic system
] > and he just doesn't have the balls to suck it up and admit to that fact. Any
] > _GOOD_ DM would say, "hey guy, it seems that this magic system is way out of
] > game balance, let's go back to the normal rules and proceed along our merry
] > little way." Instead, your DM tried the old screw-the-player-over-till-he's-
] > dead-so-I-can-get-rid-of-this-problem trick. You, as a player have a choice:
] > you can either try kissing your DM's ass by going along with this stupid
] > game, or you can tell your DM he was right in the first place, and that you
] > should go back to the real magic system. Personally, I can't stand DM's like
] > this, and I would just stop playing in his games. Any DM who doesn't have the
] > sense to realize imbalance in the game, and then make a _reasonable_ effort
] > to rectify the situation, doesn't deserve to have any players.
] > 
] > Kevin
] > 
] -- 
] 
] 	Well, on this point I'm inclined to agree, Kev, if this IS the DM's
] true intention.  He might actually (god FORBID!) have a sincere purpose with
] this adventure....I personally think the creativity employed is excellent.  The
] DM seems to be wanting this type of interaction/progress-egress...
] 
] 	Well, that's my .02.  I LOVE detailed campaigns...brings 'm to life...
] 
] 	Hey, there's always MAGIC Jar!?!?!?!? ;)
] 

Ahh, at least someone who dosn't jump to stupid conclusions. 
Everybody!
- read my reply to that moron Kevin, I just HATE when people like him who
  think they understand shit about what the motives of DM's are, after seeing
  one letter.

(That aside;  after cooling down, never never attack my campaign again, 
it hurtsss).
  

-- 
*******************************************************************************
* Truth:A random variable possible |__  /~/~/ Do it now  | Nils Peter Sudmann *
*       containing complex numbers.|\ \/ / / 2000->4000, |nilss@stud.cs.uit.no*
* Line 634582 from life.h          | \/\/ / and join the |--------------------*
*  #DEFINE WORK   sleep(10000);    |  ~~~~ winning team. | type >NIL: FLAMES  *
*******************************************************************************
From: cheesmna@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: D&D and Christianity
Date: 5 Jan 1993 19:19:21 GMT
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Reply-To: cheesmna@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: hydra.rose-hulman.edu


   I'm Christian (non-denominational) and I play D&D, not very frequently 
(each Friday night here at Rose) and I was never very deeply involved beyond
understanding the concepts and fantasy of the game.  I agree with many of the
arguments from the Christian side as to this issue.  But, I'm afraid I interpret
the arguments as taking from granted that I am going to get sucked into the dark
and evil side of the game.  I feel my parents have raised me in a manner such
that I can determine when I am becoming too enamoured with the game and begin
trying to make it a real force in my life.

   The one problem I may have is with the specific role I play.  I usually tend
toward thieves, magic-users, and monks (1st edition AD&D).  I usually go for the
chaotic neutral alignment because I see it as giving me all the freedom to be
benignly mischevious (sp?), although I think I would prefer to play chaotic
good.  I feel comfortable playing thieves because I don't go around murdering
and plundering at random or maliciously.  The only reason I play magic-users is
because I enjoy imagining ONLY the cool things that would be possible.  I never
have been interested in trying to study or understand how or why magical forces
could be employed by myself.  Also, the one time I thought about playing a
cleric, the issue of what god I would worship bothered me so much (since I by
the rules there wasn't a God The Father to worship) that I just ditched the
whole idea).  I feel there is an opportunity to practice my worship of God
while I am playing.  Perhaps if I role-play ministering to people in the game
that will make me less anxious to witness in person in the real world.

   I started playing D&D regularly because I have always wanted to see if
I could role-play well.  I was never really cut out for the theatrical performer
life, and I figure this is a pretty close substitute (smaller audience :)  
(* The preceeding paragraph added at the last minute for some unknown reason *)

Allen Cheesman
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
May joy and innocence prevail.  -- Kenneth L. Zebo  "Toys"
                      cheesmna@hydra.rose-hulman.edu
Remember, no matter where you go, there you are.  --  Buckaroo Banzai
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From: mehawk@agora.rain.com (Michael Sandy)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Walking Bandages
Date: 7 Jan 93 01:48:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: agora.C0Gno5.IDq
Organization: Open Communications Forum

I was recently playing a 1st level cleric with sufficient Wisdom
to have 3 1st level spells. 

He took Command, Sanctuary, and CLW.  In the system we were using,
a _combat_ round was 6 seconds, whereas most "Round" spell durations
were 1 minute.

Sanctuary would last 30 combat rounds at first level.

The idea was that at higher levels, in major combats, he'd cast
Sanctuary, Bless, Prayer and then Chant.  Opponents would require
Save vs Magic at -2 to attack him with any but area effect stuff,
and at low levels, that is quite a big aid.

When players' AC is such that opponents _would_ hit on a 17+ and
that is reduced to requiring 20's..., or players require
16 to hit that AC 2 Ogre and suddenly they hit on a 13...

The first use of magic by the Cleric is to keep said cleric
alive...

If you _really_ want the cleric to use other spells than 
Band-Aid, give them the same Armor restrictions as Mages
and increase the number of spells they can cast per day.

If on a holy mission they'd have dispensation to wear
armor but...

For high level spells, 4th and 5th and higher, let the
character not need to have prayed for specific spells.
At that point, the character is important enough that
some higher power takes an interest in what spells he can
do for the day.

Of course, such option may be a bit risky, having a chance
for failure based on the character's level, Wisdom, and recent
piousness.

If the cleric's god is of the sort who believes it is better
to avoid injuries than to have to heal them, stock up on
detection spells.

Perhaps the character will get "hunches", the GM tells the
character "You feel a strange disturbance, like some constrained
Power is nearby", and the character would direct Detect Evil,
Invisible, Undead, Magic or whatever at various things and people.

Another idea is to limit the all-purposeness of healing spells.
CLW can cure a maximum of 8 hit points per day per person.
5 CLW will only heal 8 hit points, maybe modified by the Cleric's
level.

Introduce a new spell, a first level spell that guarantees that
a person will heal without infection or scar if they get
no other healing magic, but it takes days or even weeks to
work.

Similarly, a "Dispel Exhaustion", type spell, that temporarily
doubles or triples the effect of the same level healing spell,
but the original wound isn't healing and the character may
suffer additional damage.

The last is for the major knockdown drag out battles where it
is more important to be conscious now than bleeding later.

Give the Cleric a more _interesting_ set of healing options.
"I can _Heal_ you completely, ready to fight now, and use up
all my magic, or temporarily stop your bleeding and borrow
strength from vital resources and still have the power to
Dispel the Vampire."

Hope that helps...


-- 
Michael Sandy
mehawk@agora.rain.com
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"The above does not reflect the views of any organization."
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: jnielsen@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John F Nielsen)
Subject: Re: D&D and Christianity
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:57:48 GMT

What I can't beliee that this is  an honest to god FAQ
for that newsgroup -- that is has some validity beyond
the ravings of a single person.


john


-- 
John Nielsen   MAGNUS Consultant            ______   ______   __  __	
jnielsen@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu         /\  __ \ /\  ___\ /\ \/\ \
                                           \ \ \/\ \\ \___  \\ \ \_\ \
  Back off man, I'm a Scientist!            \ \_____\\/\_____\\ \_____\
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher)
Subject: Cursed Items... TSR's answer
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:12:33 GMT

On page 107 of the Player's Handbook, third column, second paragraph, it
states "Not all magic items are benificial, however. Some are cursed, the
result of faulty magical construction or, very rarely, the deliberate
handiwork or some truly mad or evil wizard."

Cursed items result 'usually' from failed attempts to make a useful item,
they can also result from the deliberate attempt to make a cursed item..

P.S. I wonder what happens if an attempts to make a cursed item goes wrong?
Would it work well? Maybe a low level character should try making a -5
vorpral sword of ally slaying, their percentage to make such a powerful item
would be so low that maybe it would fail and make a +5 vorpral sword of enemy
destruction.. :)

--

Clayten_Hamacher@Mindlink.bc.ca                 Land of the rising snow.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: kinsler@physics.uq.oz.au (Paul Kinsler)
Subject: Re: D&D, religion, politics, etc (was Re: D&D and Christianity)
Organization: Evil Physics Tyrants Ltd, The University of Queensland
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:44:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.205531.4833@spcvxb.spc.edu>, 6anthony_m@spcvxb.spc.edu quoted 
someone:
>>    > 	Scientists, however, don't control such things, nor do they
>>    > use them as terror, except in a sort of bizarre, self-destructive way --
>>    > i.e., "look at the horrors that science has visited upon us, join us
>>    > scientists in a fight against Evil Science"... ?
And replied:
>>    No, but in their ignorance they create these tools, for the politipigs 
>>    to use and manipulate us with.

Who says we are ignorant? Many scientists know what they are doing when
they work on weapons. Other scientists know what they are doing when they 
choose not to. Some don't care.

Stop viewing "scientists" as some amorphous mass of essentially similar 
people. There is as much diversity in the political opinions of scientists
as in any other group. There are "Hawks", "Doves", and all shades in
between.

And we sure as hell can't throw FIREBALLS around by waving our hands,
adding a few material components, and saying the magic word. Nor GATE, 
WISH, etc. Lightning Bolts, maybe, if the target is carring a large 
conductor, and conveniently close to a VanDeGraff machine...
-- 
+soluble fish+
"It's hollow, it goes on forever, and ... my God, it's full of shit!"
(apologies to ACC)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: D&D and Christianity
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Date: 5 Jan 1993 23:18:11 GMT
Organization: Gustavus Adolphus College
NNTP-Posting-Host: ancho.gac.edu

In article <1993Jan4.210724.10898@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  writes:
>
>Sorry if this has already been hashed over, but here's an FAQ I found
>for soc.religion.christian discussing why one should not play AD&D.
>I am curious if there are any christians out there who play AD&D
>and disagree with this FAQ.
>
>-----------------------------------
>Path: christian
>Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
>From: david@maths.su.oz.au (David Fisher)
>Subject: Re: Role Playing Games
>Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
>Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu
>
>[This issue comes up periodically.  I invited a public response when
>normally I would send one privately, because I had neglected to save a
>sampling of postings on the subject for use in such a summary.  I will
>this time.  --clh]
>
>
>In <Jan.21.23.28.07.1992.24630@klinzhai.rutgers.edu> mpk9716@zeus.tamu.edu (KELLY, MICHAEL  
PATRICK) writes:
>
>>	I am part of a group that plays a popular Role Playing Game, Advanced
>>Dungeons and Dragons.  I have played off and on for eight years.  Last week
>>one of aour group told me he was stopping play because he felt that he could
>>not "give the game over to God".  I do not understand this, but was supportive
>>of his move if the game was dulling his spiritual life.  
>
>>	I know some Christian groups think (or feel) Role Playing is evil, or
>>God does not want us to take part in such games.  Please explain your position
>>on this topic, I await your reply with an open mind.
>
>I became a christian about four years ago, and played AD & D from when I was
>12 until I was 18. For a little while after God rescued me I still played it,
>but he showed me very directly that it was (for me, personally) very
>dangerous to my relationship with him to continue - so I stopped. There
>have been certain other times when I explained to someone why I believe it
>is wrong to play it, and I think I unintentionally came across quite
>forcefully. Therefore, before I say why I believe what I do, understand
>that I am neither condemning anyone nor commanding anyone to  do anything -
>any decision to stop playing AD & D should be from a personal conviction
>that it is wrong in God's eyes, not from someone else's (my) words.
>
[rest omitted]

I don't know why this became such a large thread- the conversation ends right
here. He states, more or less, that people should do what is right in their
own eyes. There needn't be any argument..
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd