HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mrmarcel@eos.ncsu.edu (MICHAEL RONN MARCELAIS)
Subject: Re: A modest proposal concerning HEALING
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:20:15 GMT

In article <7064@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
|> In article <0eowcnm00YV7Q9_l4q@andrew.cmu.edu> jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jordan M. Wolbrum) writes:
|> >Changing the healing spells unbalances the cleric, and changes the
|> >meaning of a light wound, serious wound, etc.
|> 
|> 	Yep, sure does. It makes the definition CONSISTENT. If you
|> define light, serious, critical, etc, in the right way.
|> 
|> 	The change we made was simple:
|> 
|> 	I believe this was from the Arduin Grimoires: 
|> 	Cure Light: up to 25% of the recipients maximum HP
|> 	Cure Medium: up to 50%
|> 	Cure Serious: up to 75%
|> 	Cure Critical: up to 100%
|> 
|> 	This makes each spell proportionately as useful to adventurers
|> and characters of ALL levels -- that is, no matter who you are, a 
|> Cure Critical will restore you back to full health.

How about:

        Cure Light:   20%
        Cure Meduim:  40%
        Cure Serious: 60%
        Cure Critical:80%
        HEAL:         All but 1d4 (As in 1st Ed) or All (As in 2nd Ed)
|> 
|>                                  Sea Wasp
|>                                    /^\
|>                                    ;;;

-- 

+-------------------------------------+------------------------------+
|  Mike Marcelais                     | mrmarcel@eos.ncsu.edu        |
|  356 Tucker, Box 04783, NCSU        | Fourth Bryan Productions     |
|  Raleigh, NC  27607                 | #include <disclaim.h>        |
+-------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| if the above address bounces, then try the address below:          |
| mrmarcel%eos.ncsu.edu@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu                              |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: presley@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Matthew Presley)
Subject: Re: Hit Points and massive damage
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 22:00:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.195838.629@Princeton.EDU> tao@ginger.princeton.edu (Terry Tao) writes:
>The massive damage multiplier is not a bad idea; a few problems though:
>
>if the starting hit point is only 1, then the MDM is really huge, in fact it is
>as big as the total number of hit points! i.e. one hp of MDM is ALWAYS going to
>kill.

This is why I suggest the alternative of 

MDM = 3/4 + 3/4(current hps/CON).

Note minimum MDM is one.


This avoid the problem of huge MDM's at lower levels.  Most mages
will have an MDM of 1 during their lifetime.  I usually round favorably
to the character to take into consideration the fact that "some" of
the hps are probably due to toughness.  



-- 
Matthew Presley (UCLA CS Grad. Student) & (JPL CS dude)
Internet (presley@cs.ucla.edu) or (matt@sapphire.jpl.nasa.gov)
"Twisted yellow puppies play loudly broken flutes..."
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: s9877751@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9877751)
Subject: Re: Many-to-one combats
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:47:00 GMT

In article <08OCT92.15402995.0090@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA>, LRPR000 <LRPR@UNB.CA> writes...
> 
>I've often thought that when many opponents gang up on you, your AC
>should be lowered by the fact that one of them feints and makes an
>opening for the others - at least when dealing with intelligent,
>weapon wielding opponents, or animals which hunt in packs, such as
>wolves. This gives the horde of goblins *some* chance to hit that
>guy in +3 plate mail. I also use the 1st edition weapon modifiers
>(e.g. Two handed sword vs. plate mail gets a +2 to hit). I'm
>thinking of a rule that each opponent beyond the first lowers your
>AC by 1.  Any comments?
> 

The armour class could be adjusted, but 1 for every opponent beyond the first
is a bit steep.  Remember, if there are alot of enemies, they won't all be
able to stand in front of you, and there will be bonuses for them to hit
you from behind and whatnot.
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Detect Evil
Originator: kjenks@gothamcity
Keywords: paladin evil detect spell
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:25:02 GMT

In article <rupe.718642962@navy32> rupe@rtsg.mot.com (Bernard Rupe) writes:
>My players and I have had some problems with the new interpretation of
>detect evil (both the spell and the paladin ability).  An otherwise evil
>creature will not show up as evil unless there is evil intent (does this
>mean towards the character?).  Inherently evil creatures, such as evil
>undead, will always show up as evil.  

Bernard, this isn't a "new intepretation."  DMG1, p. 60, "Detection of
Evil and/or Good," says basically the same thing as the PHB2 Priest
spell description.  The "new interpretation" is that AD&D2 has taken
the scatter spell descriptions from the PHB and DMG and put all of
the information in the PHB, where it belongs.  The only "new" thing
from AD&D1 to AD&D2 "Detect Evil" is that it's easier to find the 
rules.  (There's also a minor difference in the character level at
which characters MIGHT radiate evil: 8th in AD&D1 vs. 9th in AD&D2.)

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368

      "There is no doubt; you have come to a place of ineffable Evil.
       Still, it is most certainly a place for high adventure and 
       untold treasures.  It is time to ready spells, draw weapons,
       check equipment, and set forth into the maze of peril that
       awaits you."
         -- AD&D Module T1-4, Temple of Elemental Evil, p.36
From: brunborg@alkymi.unit.no (]dne Brunborg)
Subject: Re: Intelligent Opponents (A summary of some email)
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 09:18:23 GMT

In article <1bi2u3INNacc@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>, parkerma@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Mark A. Parker) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.073234.3023@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU>  
> barnett@agsm.unsw.oz.au (Glen Barnett) writes:
> > From: Knut Torstein Skomedal <skomedal@solan.unit.no>
> > By the Way: If your players use that nasty Stoneskin spell, try this on
> >  for size:
> > Stoneskin protects from magical weapon attacks, but isn't powerful  
> enough to 
> > stop +5, +6 and Vorpal weapons(House Rule picked up at a convention  
> duel)
> >  Thus your Stoneskinned PC's are equal to monsters that you need +5 or  
> better
> > weapons to hit for the spell duration. 
> 	If you take it the spell name as literal (i.e. the caster now has  
> skin as hard as rock), wouldn't regular vorpal and sharpness weapons still  
> cut them? These weapons still decapitate/dismember stone beings on high  
> rolls, so would they still work on the mage?
> 	Just an honest question.
> 					Mark Parker


Well, the spell description clearly states that "not even a sword of sharpness
can harm a character protected by stoneskin". 
Just my 0.02 NOK. (2 cents, if you like)


So long!

		Aadne Brunborg
		Norwegian Institute of Thechnology
		University of Trondheim
		NORWAY

	"If ye can't see it, it's right behind ye..."
From: dutech@reseau.Berkeley.EDU (Groupe ELEVES)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Dancig Sword and THAC0
Date: 8 Oct 92 08:30:42 GMT
Reply-To: dutech@reseau.Berkeley.EDU (Groupe ELEVES)

In article <1992Sep29.121513.10988@ugle.unit.no>, brunborg@solan.unit.no
(]dne Brunborg) writes:
> 
> My character, a fighter at 8th level, has just recently found a Sword
of Dancing.
> The fighter has a strenght score of 18,76 (+2/+4) and double specialisation
> (+3/+3, per Unearthed Arcana), wich gives him a THAC0 of 8-x, x=1..4.
> 
>  BUT when I release the sword, my DM will just give it THAC0 13-x, not
counting 
> neither strenght nor specialisation. The DMG says: "The sword will
fight for itself as
> it's wielder..."(or someting like that, shoot me if I'm wrong).
> What do you think?

  Don't have the DMG on hand, so I'll assume your quote is right.
I think your DM could include the double spe bonus (it's a matter of
technics), but not the strength bonus ( it's a matter of physics ). So
you'll get a 10-x THACO.

  BTW, just a question  (it's NOT a flame) : how did your PC learned
double spe? In all the worlds we played in here, single spe was hard
enough to learn, and double spe was nearly unknown. Only one of my
numerous fighter PCs ever learned it (she's 9th level), and it was due
to a magical/mystical experience akin to death/rebirth, and the loss of
all other weapon proficiencies (those concerning other weapons). She
essentially became a weapon specialist.
> 
> 
> PS: I'm a DM myself, so don't shoot me for reading my own book!

  No shooting then, if you reply.

							Redwing.
From: s892341@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Matt=Goodall)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Input wanted on a combat scenario
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:19:36 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
NNTP-Posting-Host: minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au

Geoffrey@yvax.byu.edu writes:

>For the "Giant"...good luck, the rules just aren't exact on what he's trying
>to do.  I once had a paladin who had a girdle of storm giant strength, boots of
>striding and springing and a very nice pair of spiked gauntlets.  He liked to
>have others distract evil dragons.  While their backs were turned, he'd fling
>himself on to the tops of their backs.  With his legs wrapped around their
>necks, he'd begin to hit them in the back of the head.  The gloves, because
>they were metal and spiked, did actual damage rather than pummeling damage...it
>was small but the strength bonus is what actually did the trick.  I'm not sure
>how many punches you'd allow in a melee round, we used 6.  That was a total of
>70+ pts. of damage in one round.  The dragon couldn't escape because my legs
>were 24 strength and tightly wrapped around his neck, not to mention the fact
>that it's questionable whether his arms could reach me.  I really couldn't miss
>because his head was right in front of me and didn't bob around at all. 

This is so blatantly stupid I just had to respond:
1: You get 1 attack per round (or more if a fighter) just because you are
punching it doesn't mean you get extra attacks.

2: Dragons are very strong as well so it could get you off if it was big enough
and strong enough.

3: Couldn't miss!!! oh right, you only have to get through it's hide and it's
10" of skull to hurt it. You still have to hit it!!!

and now for the less silly: 

4: The dragon let you get behind it, chuckle!

5: You climbed a dragon while it was moving and stomping, not very easy!

6: The dragon turns it's head and breathes on you! :-(

7: The dragon rolls over, take 10d10 damage, :-)

So spiked gauntlet (d4) plus str damage at +2 to hit (behind etc) every round,
big deal!

>Nonetheless, the referee was confused and didn't really know what to do about
>it.  It just wasn't in the rules.
>Good Luck!
>Geoffrey Eastbrook. 

I would recommend you 1: reread the rules and 2: get a DM who knows what
they're doing!

Matt
-- 
Matt Goodall
s892341@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au
Famous last words: "Who's the bitch with the spiders?"
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: brunborg@solan.unit.no (]dne Brunborg)
Subject: Re: Dancig Sword and THAC0
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 11:34:47 GMT

In article <2325@cix.cict.fr>, dutech@reseau.Berkeley.EDU (Groupe ELEVES) writes:
 > In article <1992Sep29.121513.10988@ugle.unit.no>, brunborg@solan.unit.no
 > (]dne Brunborg) writes:
 > > 
 > > My character, a fighter at 8th level, has just recently found a Sword
 > of Dancing.
 > > The fighter has a strenght score of 18,76 (+2/+4) and double specialisation
 > > (+3/+3, per Unearthed Arcana), wich gives him a THAC0 of 8-x, x=1..4.
 > > 
 > >  BUT when I release the sword, my DM will just give it THAC0 13-x, not
 > counting 
 > > neither strenght nor specialisation. The DMG says: "The sword will
 > fight for itself as
 > > it's wielder..."(or someting like that, shoot me if I'm wrong).
 > > What do you think?
 > 
 >   Don't have the DMG on hand, so I'll assume your quote is right.
 > I think your DM could include the double spe bonus (it's a matter of
 > technics), but not the strength bonus ( it's a matter of physics ). So
 > you'll get a 10-x THACO.
 > 
 >   BTW, just a question  (it's NOT a flame) : how did your PC learned
 > double spe? In all the worlds we played in here, single spe was hard
 > enough to learn, and double spe was nearly unknown. Only one of my
 > numerous fighter PCs ever learned it (she's 9th level), and it was due
 > to a magical/mystical experience akin to death/rebirth, and the loss of
 > all other weapon proficiencies (those concerning other weapons). She
 > essentially became a weapon specialist.
 > > 
 > > 
 > > PS: I'm a DM myself, so don't shoot me for reading my own book!
 > 
 >   No shooting then, if you reply.
 > 
 > 							Redwing.

My DM rules that a fighter may double-specialize at 3rd level, after
self-studying. (He may automaticly get spec. at 1st level). After the 3rd slot,
he may study to be Grand Master (3 more slots). He must study with a person wich
is already Grand Master at high cost. And Grand Masters are very rare! 

It's up to the DM how to rule specialization, but I like you idea...



So long!

		Aadne Brunborg
		Norwegian Institute of Thechnology
		University of Trondheim
		NORWAY

	"If ye can't see it, it's right behind ye..."
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Trolls' regeneration
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:42:24 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Oct9.144123.3398@Princeton.EDU> tao@potato.princeton.edu (Terry Tao) writes:
>and also, about the potion of troll essence: you will be regenerating with
>troll cells (assuming you eat enough of them or inject them into your skin,
>etc) and you will become a troll.  Mindless (remember, its in the DNA),
>unable to use any munchkin items (wrong size, for one thing), I'm sure any
>munchkin that's able to dispatch trolls so easily would not want to become
>a pure troll himself.  (what they want of course is a troll option:
>something with the benefits only.  NEVER give these things to them!)

OK, I was, of course, just *kidding* when I said that about tracking the
lifeforce of the troll, but as long as we're going to follow it up:

Why would you have the troll's lifeforce inside a human regenerate TROLL
cells?  Since we know that the regeneration has nothing to do with the
troll's physical substance, why couldn't it just as easily regenerate
human (or dwarven, or elven, or gnomish, or whatever) cells?

-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | "I want you to remember, Clark... in all
Georgia Institute of Technology  |  the years to come, in your most private
Office of Information Technology |  moments...my hand at your throat.  I want
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |  you to remember the one man who beat you."
From: boelter3945@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Trolls' regeneration
Date: 10 Oct 92 17:40:13 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <70634@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
   writes:
> 
> Why would you have the troll's lifeforce inside a human regenerate TROLL
> cells?  Since we know that the regeneration has nothing to do with the
> troll's physical substance, why couldn't it just as easily regenerate
> human (or dwarven, or elven, or gnomish, or whatever) cells?

   Ugh.  A Troll's lifeforce inside your own body?  Isn't that called
possession?  Two lifeforces fighting each other for control of the one body? 
This could produce interesting results (or nasty ones, depending on the GM).

   Besides, isn't it the body of the troll that regenerates (the cells
themselves)?  The lifeforce just lives in the body, so once the body is
destroyed (by those ever vigilent adventurers), then the lifeforce ceases to
exist and the troll dies.

                                        John "Nightwind" Boelter

--
*******************************************************************************
* John Boelter        a.k.a. Nightwind            boelter3945@iscsvax.uni.edu *
* Organizational Manager and contact person for everything and then some.     *
*******************************************************************************
* The individual who said we only use 10%  * The first 90% of a task takes    *
* of our brain's mental capacity, was      * 90% of the time, and the last    *
* probably 90% incorrect.                  * 10% takes the other 90%.         *
*            -Unknown comic on A&E-        *   -99 rule of Project Schedules- *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: LRPR000 <LRPR@UNB.CA>
Subject: Many-to-one combats
Organization: The University of New Brunswick
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:15:43 GMT


I've often thought that when many opponents gang up on you, your AC
should be lowered by the fact that one of them feints and makes an
opening for the others - at least when dealing with intelligent,
weapon wielding opponents, or animals which hunt in packs, such as
wolves. This gives the horde of goblins *some* chance to hit that
guy in +3 plate mail. I also use the 1st edition weapon modifiers
(e.g. Two handed sword vs. plate mail gets a +2 to hit). I'm
thinking of a rule that each opponent beyond the first lowers your
AC by 1.  Any comments?
From: dshaffer@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Donald A Shaffer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: A question about dual class characters
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:03:19 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


>> 
>> 	Why is two long swords out of the question?  I understand that this
>> is the nastiest combination of weapons you can have in the game, but there
>> is no physical reason that you can not use two long swords at the same time.
>> They are not too heavy or bulky (trust me, if you have ever held a long swor

  Well, if you have the Complete Fighters handbook, you can use two long swords
if you use the optional rules for style specialization-really nice

>	Actually your arms are just as strong but nowhere as dextrous. My question
>is how many attacks a round does a character who has specialized in a long
>sword get if he is using a long sword in both hands?

   He should get one extra attack per round ie. a first level character has
one 5 attacks every two rounds.  Buy the way, if you do take two weapon style
specialization, it's a pretty good idea to get ambidextrouty? as well-Using
these rules I had a Swashbuckler fighter specialized in rapier, two 
weapon style, ambidextrous,and some others (I LOVE rapiers-do almost as much
damage as long swords, cheaper, and faster :) )
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: brunborg@solan.unit.no (]dne Brunborg)
Subject: Str., Dex. and Con. weight adjustmenst
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 12:44:13 GMT

Some time ago I promiosed to post this weight adjusments table. The numbers are
weight added (subtracted for dex) in pounds. The numbers are cumulative.
And before you ask, PC's in my campaign do _not_ have scores of 25!

The reason for this table is that a character with a _narural_ strenght score of
19 (or more) have a lot more muscles than a 12 strenght character.

Any comments welcome.


	Score			Strenght    Constitution     Dexterity
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	15			 +10		+5		-5
	16			 +10		+5		-10
	17			 +10		+5		-15
	18			 +10		+5		-20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	18(01-50)		 +10
	18(51-75)		 +10
	18(76-90)		 +10
	18(91-99)		 +10
	18(00)			 +10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	19			 +15		+10		-25
	20			 +20		+15		-30
	21			 +40		+20		-35
	22			 +80		+25		-40
	23			+160		+30		-45
	24			+320		+35		-50
	25			+640		+40		-55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So long!

		Aadne Brunborg
		Norwegian Institute of Thechnology
		University of Trondheim
		NORWAY

	"If ye can't see it, it's right behind ye..."
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Kobolds
Date: 13 Oct 92 09:23:11 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

In article <1992Oct13.073246.6935@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>You would no doubt think of some reason why not only would it not work most of
>the time, but it'd be too hazardous for any sane player to do.  Now, remember
>most of those reasons apply to the kobolds too....

  Sure but the numbers are working for the kobolds. Even if the GS attack has
an as low chance of killing the intruder as 10%, and there is a 20% chance 
the kobold will go too, they will get far lower causualities than if they
stupidly had choosen a stand-up fight.

  No sane PC would accept odds like that.

>Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."
		"Revive the Swedish-Madagascan Brigand Pact!"
From: moursund@hpcvnb.CV.HP.COM (David_Moursund)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 13:02:16 PDT
Subject: Input wanted on a combat scenario
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, Oregon
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd


A situation, which I would like opinions on:

High level elven fighter/mage/priest is beset by his enemies.
Enemies know that he is powerful fighter/mage/priest.
One enemy in particular, a brawny fellow with some brains, knows
  that this elf is a *serious* threat in the magic department, and
  also probably better with a sword than Mr. Brawny.
Mr. Brawny convinces one of his allies to _Enlarge_ him.  Now he is
  a 12' tall Mr. Brawny.
Mr. Brawny also has himself _Hasted_.
When Mr. Brawny and the elf meet, Mr. Brawny manages to get his big,
  meaty hands on the elf, suffering some damage from the elf's weapon
  in the process.
Mr. Brawny picks up the elf, and starts shaking him like a rag doll, and
  smashing him against the floor and walls. 
The elf, in some trouble, whispers the command word of a magic item he
  carries, and flame strikes himself and Mr. Brawny.  (Both, however,
  currently have some degree of fire resistance, so this tactic is of 
  limited effect.)
Mr. Brawny gets one big hand around the elf's throat, and starts throttling
  him, meanwhile continuing to slam him around in a most unpleasant manner.

Questions:  Put yourself in the elf's place; what can you do to escape
  this situation?  While being strangled, will spells with a vocal 
  componant work?  Will being strangled and flung about, is it possible
  to concentrate enough to cast spells?  Do you just curse yourself
  for not casting _Stoneskin_ and _Vocalize_ on yourself before you
  went to engage your enemies?  How many rounds can you live while being
  subjected to this abuse?  Can command words be spoken while you are
  being strangled?  Should you pull a dagger, and try to stab the 
  gigantic musclebound oaf who is beating the stuffing out of you?
  Your weapons are poisoned, but you have already seen this brute 
  withstand this poison when he first attacked you.

  Now put yourself in Mr. Brawny's place; you actually managed to get
  the drop on your enemy, and so far have kept him from casting any
  of his devastingly powerful spells at you.  His armor seems almost
  impervious to attacks, so you decide to just manhandle him.  How
  can you keep him from attacking you?  Should you try to pull his
  head off?  You know that your ass is grass if he gets a chance to
  unload on you?  You also are fairly certain that his weapons are
  poisoned, and you are not sure that the protective measures you
  have taken will stand up to this poison.

dm