HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Subject: Re: Fact or Fiction
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:12:05 GMT

joeg@meaddata.com (Joe Gayda) writes:

>1) You don't get dex modifiers with plate.

The chap who posted this appears to be in error.  

>2) You are +4 to hit and damage against an unarmed opponent.

p. 60 ADDv2 DMG:

"Weapons in Defense: A character attempting to punch, wrestle, or
overbear an armed opponent can do so only by placing himself at
great risk. Making matters worse, an armed defender is automatically
allowed to strike with his weapon before the unarmed attack is made,
regardless of the initiative dice roll. Furthermore, since his opponent
must get very close, the defender gains a +4 bonus to his attack and
damage rolls. If the attacker survives, he can then attempt his attack."

What this means is that if someone tries to punch or kick you while
you have a weapon, you gain the bonuses. If the person isn't trying to
attack you but is trying to avoid getting hit, you don't get the bonuses.

Axly
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:18:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug27.133909.18679@ncsu.edu> mrmarcel@eos.ncsu.edu (MICHAEL RONN MARCELAIS) writes:

>If I just gave you a suit of plate mail, can you make all the intricate
>movements required for certain spells.

I never mentioned casting spells.  I just said wearing the armor.

>"given time"  Mages don't have the time.  They spend almost all of their 
>training learning magic, not learning weapons or armour.  The only weapons
>that are usable are weapons that don't take a lot of skill like darts.

Our party spends a lot of time on the road, between one town and another.
Since a lot of that time is spent walking, a mage could get to learn
how to move around in armor just by walking to wherever he was going
to walk to anyway.  There's no extra time required, and I don't think they
spend all the time on the road learning that one first level spell.

>If you have gauntlets of dexterity, they give you the ability to pick
>locks and pockets based on your modified dexterity.  I hvae a 45% chance
>even though I only have a modified 12 DEX.

You're missing the point.  If *I* wanted to, I could learn to pick
locks.  I wouldn't need any gauntlets of dexterity to do it, I could
learn how to do it.  Why can't my cleric/mage?  Why can't a fighter?


>|> 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.

>Because fighters don't have to learn anything except weapon and armor
>training.
>The have time to figure out just the right way to hit a person so that he
>dies quickly.

Other people could learn to specialize.  A thief gets three weapon
proficiencies at first level, and more later on.  Instead of learning
to use three different weapons, why not use all three slots to become
an expert in *one* weapon?

Because he's not a fighter.  Right, but other than that, what valid
reason is there, except in order to maintain game balance?

>Some Gods do allow bladed weapons, and some DM's don't allow just any bladed
>weapon for Paladins.

Most goods do not allow bladed weapons.  Why?  No reason.  My goddess is
the goddess of magic.  What reasonable explanation is there for why the
goddess of magic would allow her clerics to use a mace to crush someone's
skull, but not a dagger to cut him?

Maybe DMs don't, but the rules (guidelines) allow any weapons for paladins.

>They're not totally rediculous.  Just a little.
 
I still think they're totally ridiculous. :-)


-- 
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: JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Deities
Date: 28 Aug 92 08:14:24 GMT
 <1992Aug25.155525.28415@walter.cray.com>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Aug25.155525.28415@walter.cray.com>, lrg@crud.cray.com (Lee
Gordon) says:
>
>johnf@apollo.hp.com writes:
>|>
>|> >Please, everyone:  It's "deity", not "diety".  Say it out loud:
>|> >
>|> >"Day-It-Ee  --  deity"    not   "Dye-Et-Ee  --  diety"
>|> >
>|> >Thank you.
>
>Agreed (although I was a big offender in a recent post).  Our group (for no
>good reason) pronounces deity and piety the same way.  DEE-It-Ee, PEE-It-Ee.
>Evil gods are also known as Dietys (as in to die... :-) ).  This tends to
>mess me up in real life though.  The strange part is that my spell checker
>recognizes diety as a word.  Is it an adjective form of diet?
>
>        -Lee


 To Johnf:  the word maybe writen as "deity" but it is pronounced as:

                      "DEE-IT-EE"

 And to Lee:  "piety" is pronounced as "PI-e-tee"

 "PEE-It-Ee" is something some folks do behind the woodshed !!  :-)

-- J.L.M. --
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: cjudd@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au (Craig Thomas Judd)
Subject: Re: How do you fight huge creatures? (was Tarrasque stories...)
Organization: University of Tasmania at Launceston
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 22:25:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.095001.24439@leland.Stanford.EDU>, tremblay@leland.Stanford.EDU (Marc Tremblay) writes:
>
>I've been reading all these stories about groups of adventurers
>fighting the Tarrasque. Now I can't remember how tall the beast is,
>but let's assume it's 60ft tall. How can one roleplay a 6ft ranger
>(for example) fighting this beast? I mean, all you'll be doing is
>nicking it on the ankle. If the beast has 300 hp, you can't do 300 hp
>of dammage to its ankle and kill it. For example, do you assume that
>it's starts limping (loss of mobility) after it gets say 30 hp dammage
>there, and then falls over at 60? But then this changes all the combat
>dynamics if one tries to make these fights realistic (because,
>obviously, fighting 60ft monsters is realistic...).This isn't just a
>question about the tarrasque, but other large creature. Also, if it
>swings its tail, how can it miss if the fighter is close enough? Say
>it does miss, that means the fighter lept back quite a few feet. Does
>he then lose his attacks for that round?
>
>Just curious...

This is probably all included in the monster's AC. Not only does AC mean you
have less chance of damaging due to armour, you also have less chance to hit
something vital. Still, don't ask me how a 6ft ranger is going to hit much
vital on a 60ft creature...

Yours hypothetically;

-- 
   \/\ "Turn out the lights! Or do you want everyone for miles around to /\/
====\/\      know about our secret base?!" - Colonel, AKIRA Book 2      /\/====
=====\/\  WANT ANY MANGA ARTWORK DONE? Email me! (NO Anthropomorphs!)  /\/=====
      \/\   cjudd@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au      a.k.a. KUROTO Shiro   /\/
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: ba446@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Todd M. Hanson)
Subject: Re: Paladins
Reply-To: ba446@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Todd M. Hanson)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 92 00:22:28 GMT


In a previous article, seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) says:

>In article ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:

Guys.. wanna take this to email?  I dont think anyone beyond the two of you
cares about your self proclaimed 'flame war'.

Thanks..

Todd

-- 
* Todd Hanson                              ba446@cleveland.freenet.edu  *
*                                                                       *
*     "No woman's worth a bullet between the eyes.. "                   *
*          "Depends on who's eyes.. and which woman."    'Bugsy'        *
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: The Worm Ouroboros
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:05:18
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<matt.714425950@unidata.ucar.edu>
	<1992Aug21.202525.1309@gvl.unisys.com>
	<1992Aug24.144832.10175@pica.army.mil>
	<1992Aug25.172504.1115@gvl.unisys.com>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics16.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: schrey@oak.NoSubdomain.NoDomain's message of Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:25:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.172504.1115@gvl.unisys.com> schrey@oak.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Timothy M. Schreyer) writes:

>    "The Worm Ouroboros" has a definitely dated feel to it that would strike
>    boredom into most modern fantasy readers, but it does a whole lot with
>    with its imagery and the huge Romantic feeling it constructs.  I loved
>    reading this book for the whole feel and texture of it.  You need an
>    open mind going in to get much out or this feel is easily lost.

In one sense, of course, it is true that there is a "dated" feel to
this book---the language is very archaic.  This is surely deliberate,
though: Eddison was using language that was evocative of the 17th or
18th century, not of the early 20th century, which was when this book
was written.  In fact, I think that this very archaic language is the
best aspect of this book.

I agree that you need an open mind to read this book, and you need
something else as well: a willingness to overlook flaws.  There are
several glaring inadequacies in this book; I could list a few, but why
bother?  Anyone who has read it could do so just as easily as I, and
the list would probably be much the same as mine.  It would have been
nice if Eddison had had a good editor, but he didn't, so we have to
live with what he wrote.  I believe that the virtues of this book are
sufficiently great that it is worth making the effort.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Subject: Re: Paladins
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:30:07 GMT

z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:

>In article <1992Aug25.224312.9380@pony.Ingres.COM>, dwilson@Ingres.COM (It's up to me.) writes:
>> individuals that make up the society.  I.e., Society makes the laws, so 
>> society must enforce them.

>	Actually, its lawyers and politicians, not the Society...

Politicians are appointed by the members of society to run the government,
and lawyers are people trained in knowing how the legal system operates.
The idea that lawyers and politicians are running the country with no
input from society is mistaken. They are of society and not a separate
entity. However, they do tend to accept most of their input from the rich
and powerful members of society. Look not for the tool but rather who
wields it.


>	Except that you can have crimes against the State, the Individual, and
>(in a fantasy game) the Religion. The situation with the ranger, was, I
>believe, a situation of a Crime against the Individual. If the ranger chose not
>to 'file charges', there really wouldn't be much that the paladin could (or
>should) do. It may just be TV, but ever notice how often police get aggrivated
>when someone refuses to press charges (or drops them), and they have to let
>someone who they *know* is guilty go, because they can no longer leagally hold
>him (assuming he broke no law against the State)? 

However, the thief, in the paladin's eyes, has broken God's law. Since the
paladin is a duly appointed representative of a supernatural entity, he 
is merely enforcing the dieties law. Again, there can be a conflict between
the law of the religion and the law of the state. However, most paladins
are empowered by both divine and mundane forces to act as their representative.
The case where the police have to let someone go works in a legal system
where you have different degrees of crime. In a medieval era setting, the
justice system didn't make that distinction. Crime was crime no matter
who it was against. 

Axly
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Paladins
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:31:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BtJvD7.CMt
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au writes:

> On another tack what exacty is lawful good?  The way you guys seem to think of
>it they are strict and unbending and will readily sacrifice themselves for its
>ideals.  Given that they are Lawful GOOD wouldn't they temper their righteous
>anger with the good side of their temperament?  If someone applies the laws
>exactly, with no deviations, isn't that closer to Lawful Neutral?  and if you
>twist the law to suit your own ends isn't that Lawful Evil?

In most cases, the padalin is going to be very rigid. Yes, he is concerned
with good, but the good of the community. "The needs of the many outweigh 
the needs of the few. " Mercy and compassion are figured in, but to be
used sparingly. Mercy isn't something that comes in everytime or the 
justice will be watered down to such an extent that it is not existant.

I think the paladin in the original statement would have been committing
a chaotic act (requiring a confession) by killing him on the spot. THe
more lawful thing to do would have been to take him to the lord who
rules that area and had him pronounce judgement. If the paladin was
the local ruler, then he is within his rights in pronouncing sentence on
the spot.

I do disagree with saying he would have lost his paladinhood and become
a Lawful Neutral fighter. I think that the judgement call for the 
paladinhood loss is a sticky one, and could go either way depending on
how you feel on the topic. I think that changing his alignment is 
Overkill with a real big O. A Lawful Good fighter could very well
kill one of his companions for stealing and be perfectly within his
alignment. Good people aren't stupid,nice, or perfect by any means.

Axly
From: ddj+@CMU.EDU (Douglas F. DeJulio)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Rangers and studded leather armor
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:44:38 GMT
	<BtJvo4.CqD@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:
>>Yup, you can, Axly, but remember that non-rangers track at a -10 penalty and
>>don't get by level bonuses to the roll.  One might allow for kits which
>>ignore this penalty though.
> 
> That's using the 1st edition. In 2nd edition, you are making a stat roll
> on your wisdom stat if you have this proficiency. Taking it more than
> once gives you a bonus of +1 on the roll for every proficiency you take
> above and beyond the initial slot put into tracking.

The rule that tracking is heavily penalized for non-rangers is a 2nd
edition rule.  Nobody tracks as well as a ranger until they've spent
about six to ten slots on it.  Go read the description of the
proficiency.
-- 
Doug DeJulio
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: djdaneh@pbhyc.PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Subject: Save vs Turn? (Re: Kind of a compilation of level-draining ideas)
Reply-To: djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:17:03 GMT

In article <jstevens.715361678@cunews> jstevens@linda.carleton.ca (Jonathan Stevenson) writes:
>I (personally) would not
>allow a saving throw; the UNDEAD afterall don't get a SAVING THROW
>versus the PRIEST turning ability.

Confession time:  I haven't kept up with all the changing versions (hint; I
still use the original three pamphlets when I need D&D reference materials),
BUT. . .

I believe that this is still the case:

When a Cleric attempts to "turn" undead, he makes a roll to determine the 
outcome of the "turn."  Speaking from a purely GMish standpoint, I always
regarded this as equivalent to a "save" for the undead, only the player makes
the roll (saving the GM a little bit of effort).


		The Pavlov dog and the Schroedinger cat
		Side by side in my forebrain sat
		With Shakespeare's monkeys crowding in behind. . .
		. . . it's all in your mind.
			-- Visual Purple

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, Net.Roach
My opinions do NOT represent Pacific Bell,
Professional Development, or anyone else.
But I'm willing to share.
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology-Office of Information Technology
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:00:17 EDT
From: Paul Goodwin <CC100PG@GITVM1.GATECH.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Class/level restrictions

Near as I can tell, the whole debate here is whether or not it is reasonable
to have class and level restrictions on abilities (or for races).

In the real world, the system breaks down.  However, this isn't the real
world...this is a fantasy world.  I submit that any system which takes all
the things into account that people have mentioned would be either:
1) Bland, dull, boring games about real people in more-or-less real life.
   I live in real life.  I play DnD because it's different.
2) Prohibitively complex (unless, perhaps, computerized).
   After all, you're trying to take into account what someone could learn in
   his free time AND what he learns about his particular craft by doing
   it.

Perhaps if you want a completely skill-based system, you should try GURPS.
I didn't like it, but a lot of my friends do.

Other than that, I just go pretty much with the system TSR ships.  It ain't
perfect, but then again, this isn't my LIFE, it's a GAME.  If I get that
worked up over the game, I need to seriously examine my life!


Paul


(insert :-)  , season to taste)
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Chromosonally-Challenged Characters
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:36:29 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

caa@Unify.Com (Chris A. Anderson) writes:


>Even the racial bonuses that the elves have don't make any difference
>past third or fourth level.  They really just don't come into play 
>that often.  The +1 to bow/sword is completely overshadowed by weapon
>specialization, etc.  Resistance to charm and sleep becomes much less
>important as everyone gains levels.

The +1 is overshadowed by weapon specialization. However, no rule states
that one may not have both. Thus, specialized elves may have a +2 +3 vice
+1 +3. Resistance to charm and sleep is still very much a factor. The
resistance roll is very high, and even if it weren't, it gives the elf
two rolls to resist. It isn't just sleep and charm, either. The rules
says sleep and charm-based spells. That's a lot of spells folks. 


>>                             
>> 	This is min-maxing/powergaming! You have just said that elves are more
>> desireable to play than humans -- if they were really balanced, you would be
>> deciding with roleplaying in mind, not which race gives you the better bonus,
>> as YOU HAVE JUST DONE!

>Oh, bullshit.  He may just like multi-class characters better than 
>single classes.  Some people do.

Yes, but he's not playing elves for the roleplaying experience, he's playing it
because he can multiclass. If his GM allows humans to multiclass, then his
desire to play elves wouldn't be as large.
  
  Axly
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: edb892rsft@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: AD&D FTP Sites?
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 06:24:43 GMT


After viewing the news group Comp.sys.ibm.games there was a few articles
posted about FTP sites where a avid hack'n'slashers could pick up
programs to help DM's.... i'm not talking about games but general
programs to make maps, new creatures, traps, tricks etc....

       Since this seems like the appropriate place to ask

       does anyone know any good FTP sites for this?

      I've looked at one site   potemkin.cs.pdx.edu and that had some
good stuff....


           Any one see or heard of better.......

               Any help would be appreciated.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: What is with these Katana's?
Date: 29 Aug 92 03:40:45 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@pmax1.cis.pitt.edu

In article <1992Aug28.200413.21792@burrhus.harvard.edu> canders@isr.harvard.edu (Carl E. Anderson) writes:
>	Here's something I've been wondering about for quite some time:
>Why does a katana do d10 damage in AD&D?  Why is it so much better than a
>scimitar or even a long sword.  Don't make sense to me.

	The katana was/is arguably the finest sword ever created. Properly
made and then wielded by a trained swordsman, it quite possibly WOULD do
considerably more damage than comparable Western weapons (particularly
of the pseudo-damage that AD&D hit point represent).


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
From: kevin@sherman.pas.rochester.edu (kevin mcfadden)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:16:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <1992Aug26.181636.12337@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> gajensen@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.150404.675@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
> 
>> 	IF the races are balanced, the adventurers will generally all live
>> about as long, regardless of race, unless they retire. IF the races are
>> balanced, an elvish mage is no more likely to reach 20th level than a human
>> mage is. Now, if they retire *after* reaching 20th level, the elf will of
>> course still be around in a couple of centuries. But he still isn't of a level
>> that a human can't get to with 10-15 years of hard work.
>> 
>> 	But, the races are NOT balanced.
>
>Sure they are, demi-humans get certain bonuses that go alng with their
>repective race, they also get certain penalties, (Level limits and restricted
>class choices). Humans have no real penalties, unless you consider not haveing
>some of the demi-human abilities a penalty, but have the bonus of being able to
>advance as far as they want, in any class they want during their much shorter
>life spans. But then, we have now done a full turn in the argument.
>
	But why would you be restricted for levels? What stops you from learning more?
A race inherent quality that makes you stop being able to improve yourself? I do not
think so!  I can understand physical limitations for the other races, but not limitations
on level/skill.  Maybe humans should be able to increase their natural scores (3-18)
up to something higher by natural means.  Something like this would take a lot
more thought than I have right now, but as I think about it all races should be
able to improve their natural scores to their maximums, it should not be easy and
the DM should definitely make it difficult.  There is no skimming-the-surface reason
that should prohibit this.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McFadden				 	
University of Rochester			
Department of Physics & Astronomy
Rochester, NY  14627				

	"Stimpy, go answer the flap!"	-- Ren
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd