HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dant@cs.utexas.edu (Dan Alexander Thompson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bastard DM from Hell &a matter of Honour
Date: 16 Dec 1992 10:56:37 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: latexo.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Dec15.184131.1@economics.adelaide.edu.au> ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au writes:
>A few questions regarding honour and the inevitable Paladin 
>
>What part does honour play in the world of ADND?  Is it a code which affects
>only those who subscribe to it (certain knights of the church, honourable
>warriors etc.)  or does it apply to the whole world?  Is it similar to the
>honour system of medieval Europe? Feudal Japan? or what.
>

The closest thing I relate to an "Honor Code" in AD&D, and specifically what I
expect from paladins, is thought and action in the style of Worf from Star
Trek. (Seriously!)  Worf is the epitome of honor, never attacking the weak,
never taking an unfair advantage, etc.

>
> [ stuff about a paladin having to put up with weenies deleted ]
>

>In a situation like this I felt that having exhausted every other avenue of
>interrogation we should start threatening him with all manner of diabolical
>things.  However my DM ruled that my paladinly training prevented me  from
>applying the rack (even though our opponent was below honour) and I couldn't
>challenge him to a duel to decide the issue.

I agree.  I never let my players challenge me to a duel. :)
Seriously, I think your DM was justified in not letting you torture the wretch,
but challenging him to a duel is *exactly* the sort of thing paladins do!
Just don't be surprised if he runs away instead of fighting. . . .


>Secondly, who deserves to be treated with honour.

This one's easy.  EVERYBODY.  Even your slimiest foe deserves at least to die
with dignity.  If honor is to have any meaning, it must be applied universally.
If not, and you just treat aristocrats, etc., with honor, you are not being
honorable at all--you are sucking up to the big guys.  Again, think what Worf
would do.

>And what about creatures such as orcs etc?  Do I treat them as humans or equal

They are slimy and a blight upon all that is good and right.  They must be
destroyed, but no Klingon--er, paladin--would demean himself by killing them
without honor.  There are *rules*, even in war.

$:={> (closest I can come to a Klingon smiley)


-- 
dant@cs.utexas.edu  |  The opinions expressed are yours so get used to them.
     Big Dan        |  "Do you ever get the feeling that the story's too
  The Stingy DM     |  damn real and in the present tense?"  --Jethro Tull
From: young@spinifex.dg.oz (Philip Young)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: invisibility
Date: 16 Dec 92 06:26:57 GMT
Organization: Data General Australia

T$R's legendary lack of consistency (Invisibility, PHB vs PHB2) ... *sigh*
I just stick to the original unless PHB2 adds (note: I didn't say
contradicts) something.

IMAO, whether or not invisibility is an illusion doesn't matter.  Since
there is a specific Detect Invisibility, it has to be a special case
(note the absence of Detect Massmorph, Detect Phantasmal Killer, etc).
Presumably the standard smartarse vs illusion techniques such as disbelief
are insufficient here, else there'd be no need for this particular counter.

 
-- 
Philip R. Young                   | Sir Lloyne ... the best
Data General Australia Pty. Ltd.  | swordsman in the joint.
 
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: praxis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Laura L Perkinson)
Subject: Re: Class' power (was Re: how to imprison a psionicist)
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:51:21 GMT

	Granted, psionicists are deuced tough (arguments over which class
is toughest are, IMNSHO, never going to be empirical.) And i happen to
think they're the COOLEST class. :>
	But as for some strengths folks have quoted (couldn't quote that
whole article, sorry):
	1)As for turn to Shadow Form, then use Dominate or Disintegrate
til the other guy fails a save.... first, that takes several actions, 2-3
even if you don't fail a power check. There's lotsa stuff that can roast you
in shadow form (hell, Phantasmal Killer is only a 4th level spell!) And
most of all - this is REAL EXPENSIVE! Disintegrate is 40 PSP's per. No
one can repeat that too often. Dominate is likewise expensive, and successful
saves make you start from scratch. PSP's will burn!
	2)Invinceable Foes is indeed perhaps the best psi power. But it
doesn't mean that the victim necessarily surrenders. He might just split.
Or cast heavy duty protective spells (like otiluke's sphere, which totally
goops psionics.) Or make a desperate, all out attack. (Again, Phantasmal
Killer is a good desperation spell.)
	3)Hey folks, psionicists can't teleport at first level. Unless you
take Telepathy or Psychometabolism as your first discipline (or >maybe<
psychometabolism) you're handcuffed for other powers, and spend lotsa
slots on useless stuff. (Why get Dimension Walk if you can already Teleport.
There are only so many good psychoportive devotions, and you need 2 for each
science.)

		Praxis

	"Cool! I'm almost 12th level! I'll get Death Spell! I'll be able
to kill people with a thought!"
	"I can already do that."
	"Oh, shut up."
		-Luthien, a necromancer, and Praxis, a psionicist, discuss
the pros and cons of their classes
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:11:39 -0500 
From: "Joseph E. Beck" <jb8n+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: PC vs. Player INT
	<1992Dec18.040333.21399@ugle.unit.no>


brunborg@alkymi.unit.no (]dne Brunborg) writes:
> The point I tink some of you is missing (IMHO, anyway) is that the INT-score is
> the character's POTENTIAL, and if he fails to live up to that, too bad. 
> 

So you play the "high int character, low int player is just hosed"
variant.  Great.  So people who aren't too bright are screwed playing
in your game.  Do you also play that DEX is someone's physical
potential, and if the player can't actually shoot a bow while tied
upsidedown then that's too bad?  If not, why not?

	joe
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: water@david.wheaton.edu (Paul Waterman)
Subject: Re: Backstabbing with a longsword
Organization: Wheaton College, IL
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 23:25:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec7.213857.73201@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> swh0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STEPHEN WILLIAM HUMINSKI) writes:
> I cant lift and wield a 15-20 lb sword effectively and
> ive tried (just for kicks).  let alone keep it hidden and try to STAB , as in
> backSTAB, with it.  (go to a renaissance festival they're great fun)  After
> all it does kind of define itself as a stab.  O well open to flame and all.

Well, this isn't a flame, but...  For starters, 15-20 lbs?  What's it made of,
stone?  I have a sword hanging on my wall, standard CK55 steel, with a 39"
blade, overall length is something like 47" - about right for a bastard sword.
You can wield it one handed over short time periods, but you need two hands
for maximum usefulness and stamina.  This sword weighs under four pounds.

Only the VERY largest two handed swords (the type where you basically just
used them for momentum to chop of pike heads of the front lines, etc.) 
would weigh more than even five pounds.  A standard long sword would 
probably only weigh about two and a half pounds and have an overall length
of probably under 42".

Now then, you could quite easily stab somebody in the back with a sword
of that type.  Keep it hidden?  Probably not.  Sneak up behind them with
the sword out and in plain view?  Certainly!  Try this:  Take a meter
stick sometime, walk into a room where somebody's preoccupied with 
somebody else, sneak up behind them, and just guess how much damage you
could do with the meterstick if you shoved it into their spine as hard
as you could.  Now imagine this with a slightly heavier, slightly
longer piece of sharp metal.  OUCH!

	  - Paul
-- 
------------------------------. 
| Paul Waterman (708) 682-5085 |  WCST Spoilers        ------------------
| water@wheaton.wheaton.edu    |  817 College Ave, #1  --------------------
`------------------------------'  Wheaton, IL 60187    ----------------------
From: franklir@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Ryan J Franklin )
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Priests and Spellcasting
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:50:38 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <1992Dec17.225320.14935@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> cdb@CS.Stanford.EDU (Craig Davis Becker) writes:
>
>So, what we decided to do was to let the priest cast spells without
>pre-determining them. So, unlike a mage, who must still memorize
>selected spells beforehand, the priest is now able to cast any spell
>as the situation dictates.
>
>This may seem like a major advantage, but we have been using it for a
>while and it doesn't seem to unbalance things. And it certainly makes
>priests more versatile and fun to play!
.....
>Comments? Criticisms?

This is what well over half of the groups I play in decided to do, after
mandating that there would be no Generic Clerics [tm] with access to most
of the spheres, armor, etc., etc. and that all priests had to state what
diety they followed, thus limiting their spheres and combat ability.  I
agree, it makes most priests far more playable and entertaining, because
now they don't have to become a Cure Light Wounds warehouse and twiddle
their thumbs the rest of the time.  At the levels where we generally
play (1st to 9th), it is NOT unbalancing in the least. 

(Of course, we also overhauled the magic user spell system and came up 
with a slightly more flexible spell point system where you can't cast
as many spells per day, but have a greater variety of spells available
for the casting.  At the beginning, this was unbalancing, until we got
a good set of house rules going to limit it more severely.) 

--
                                             _        _
       Ryan Franklin          |             Ro shite ko nashi.
 is a registered trademark of |  ("Working hard and accomplishing nothing.")
 franklir@gas.uug.arizona.edu |                       -- Ancient Zen Koan
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: wilsonm@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Subject: Psionic Defense modes (Choice?!?!?")
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:59:36 GMT

I have a question about defense modes in the handbook.  Do you need the 
pre-requisites to get the defense mode that is listed as a "choice" 
on page 14.  It says players choice but the modes say prerequisites... What
is the correct way?  If it is not then a first leveler would have to take
telepathy so he could have the mindlink required on almost all the defense
modes.

Email is fine and best if avalible.

wilsonm@vaxb.asc.unt.edu
From: mccall@Oswego.EDU (D. Todd Mccall)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: A question on aging.
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:26:51 GMT
Reply-To: mccall@oswego.Oswego.EDU (D. Todd Mccall)
Organization: Instructional Computing Center, SUNY at Oswego, Oswego, NY

In article <78210@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.041254.6924@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>
>>Elves have level limits severe enough to keep them from being able to cast
>>wishes.
>
>Rings, scrolls, swords....
>
>Even if you discount these, an elf with an 18 Intelligence could achieve
>level 18 if you use the option rule that allows non-humans 1-4 more levels
>if their prime requisite is high enough.
>
>At level 18, an elf could cast a wish every day.  Let's see, 5 years per day,
>times 365 days per year....  1,825 years of aging in a single real year.
>
>I'd say that, unless there's some sort of age limit, highly intelligent
>elves could have a field day with the wish spell....
>
 Only if (1) the DM/GM ignores the other effects of Wish on the Caster, which
 I recall include extreme fatigue...I doubt anyone could cast 1 wish/day,
 especially considering ADND sleep to rememorize spell rules. and (2) the elf
 is a real munchkin.  In which case abusing Wish is probably just one of many
 problems.
 There are better (campaign) ways to control Wish... my personal favorite is 
 making it an extremely rare spell, and one that Mages who do know it, are 
 _extremely_ reluctant to part with, if they will at all. IMHO, it is far 
 better to have campaign world/society restrictions than arbitrary rule 
 restrictions(level limits being one of my least favorite of T$Rs game 
 balance kludges.)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|D.Todd McCall                  \  The best laid plans of mice and men       |
|---mccall@oswego.oswego.edu    \                                            |
|                               \                                            |
|State University of New York   \  are worth about the same                  |
|                               \                                            |
|College at Oswego		\  in the final analysis       		     |
|____________________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: scythe@stein.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper)
Subject: Re: Class' power (was Re: how to imprison a psionicist)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:37:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.150828.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> tfpayn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.015133.7985@sfu.ca>, akostur@fraser.sfu.ca (Andre John Kostur) writes:
>> In article <1gr21hINNgqd@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> operbwt@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu writes:
>>>I prefer Dark Sun Gladiators with about 10 psionic powers anyway (with about  
>>>500 PSP's to boot)!  (I don't prefer them to play, I just think that they are  
>>>all powerful.)
>> 
>>  Where did you get a gladiator with 10 powers and 500 psi points?
>>  I am assuming a wild-talent here....
>> 
>>  Getting 10 powers by random roll really isn't all that likely.
>> 
>>  About the 500 points, the way I calculate a wild psi's power level is to
>>  calculate it based upon the power he rolled, and _not_ any of the prereq's.
>>  I figured this out after 1st level wild psi's were coming out with 200 PSPs.
>> 
>	And that's if he's DAMNED lucky!
>
>	Folks! One point we all FORGOT (especially me! Shame!)
>
>	Psi-heds start out with a MAX POSSIBLE of 25 PSPs.  Then they can gain
>a MAX POSSIBLE of 14 PSPs per level!  It never gets any bigger than that!
>
>	My 8th level Multi-class has 89/89!  That means I can teleport to my
>home 100 MILES away ONCE.  I DOUBLE cost if I take along baggage (i.e., another
>person/creature).  Yes, Psi-heds'r diverse, but we can't utilize ALL our
>powers, UNLESS....
>
>
>	You get a Wish spell, and wish for a Jem of 100 PSPs, that can only
>regenerate PSPs at 1/rnd.  Regeneration can't go any faster, and I can't make
>it go faster, or store any.  It's like a psychic battery (hmmm, have to think
>about that one!)!
>
>	Oh yeah, my 5th level Psionicist (Thri-Kreen, though I really wanted to
>play a Tohr-kreen, tho' no reliable stats on it.) has this.  It's great when
>you kill a Medusa for someone!  But OH did I pay for it.
>
>	My $1.99.  Rally's anybody?  Got 12 cents to pay for the government?
>
>-- 
Aaah.  But don't forget, that you can use receptacle (or whatever).
You can store 1 psp per 100 gp value in a gem, or your max psp total
in an empowered item.  Real useful =)
Organization: Junior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:09:34 -0500 
From: "Joseph E. Beck" <jb8n+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Class' power (was Re: how to imprison a psionicist)
	<908@blue.cis.pitt.edu>


seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
> In article <1gr21hINNgqd@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> operbwt@nextwork.rose-hulm\
> an.edu writes:
> >Yeah, but the Psionicist can do the following:
> >       1.  Turn shadow form
> >       2.  Disintegrate oponent until opponent dies
> 
>         Can he do both at once?
Yes.  

>         Can he target opponent accurately?
Yes.

>         Are all opponents unable to attack psionically or in other wise reach
> him in this shadow form?
Just psionics.  Sorry, I don't by X isn't too powerful because more of
X beats it...

>         Do all psionicists have Shadow Form and Disintegrate? Odd, mine
> doesn't...
Well, last time we talked they didn't have teleportation abilities
either.  What DO your psionicists have?  Are they the "mind master"
type?  PK?  

> 
> >Or, the following:
> >       1.  Turn shadow form
> >       2.  Contact opponent
> >       3.  Dominate opponent until success
> 
>         Can he do both at once?
Yes.

>         Are all opponents unable to defend and unable to attack?
Unless they're psionicists.  

Oh, and if the psionicist is of high level, tag "psychic surgery so
dominance is permanent" onto this one.  Just knock them out (if you
have contact and dominate, you probably have so method of doing
this...)  and make dominate permanent on them.

>         Do all psionicist HAVE Shadow Form and Dominate? Odd, mine doesn't...
No, but *his* psionicist has these abilities and finds them
unbalancing.  It's ludicrous to argue that X isn't too powerful
because I don't have X.  

> >       1.  Turn shadow form
> >       2.  Contact opponent
> >       3.  Use invinsible foes until opponent surrenders
> 
>         See Above. 
See above.

> 
>         You leave out an important word. CAN. Psis CAN gain such powers.
> they are not GUARANTEED to get them, any more than a mage is GUARANTEED to
> get Power Word Kill at 9th level.
I thought psis could pick their powers.  Is this incorrect?  If it is
right that a psi is guaranteed to get whatever powers he wants.  

	joe
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: hermann@kirk.fmi.uni-passau.de (Michael Hermann)
Subject: Re: More Wishes!
Organization: University of Passau, Germany
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:01:08 GMT


Since you (the poster) wanted the replies to be posted (rather than emailed),
here is mine...

No,

he shouldn't have screwed you THAT bad, you already were in a pretty
hopeless situation (and every DM worth his money :) should know that
beforehand... read : I would not let you go against that type of monster(s)
at that level, but then again I don't give 75000 XP for killing a beholder).

I would have given you the weapons without messing around at all (I tend to
aid my players a little, especially if they are in serious trouble.. this
doesn't mean that they don't have to rely mostly on themselves though..),
they would probably have been slightely magical (since I do rarely (almost
never) use vampires, I'm not sure whether you need magical weapons to hit 
them, if so, at least one of them would have a strong enough enchantment 
(the one for the character being closest to a warrior (in case there is no
warrior..)) after all you _wished_ for strong weapons and I do not consider
'normal' weapons 'strong' here.. and yes I do know that magical items are 
somewhat rare in Ravenloft)

O.k., this said, I have to say that even though I might handle things differently,
it was perfectly all right for your DM to screw you that bad (especially in
Ravenloft..), it's just that I would not have done it... (I at least give the
party a chance to survive (you probably would have had it if you had used the 
wishes differently..))

Now some questions :

Why did you wish for weapons in the first place, didn't you have any ????
(or were they useless agains the vampire ?)

Did you use a wish for each weapon, if not what did you do with the 
other two wishes ?

  -Mike

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: pascal@nextasy.physics.mcmaster.ca (Pascal Gaudette)
Subject: Re: how to imprison a psionicist ?
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:16:09 GMT


Ability reducing potions/rings/whatever might also be
a pretty good idea: it's pretty hard to make that Con-5
power check when your constitution is down to 3... :-)

--
Pascal "The Rascal" Gaudette       pascal@nextasy.physics.mcmaster.ca
MacNUG president                      | *NeXTmail encouraged* 
graduate student, McMaster university | Je ne suis pas infaillible.
Physics and astronomy dep.            | Vive le Quebec LIBRE!
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: how to imprison a psionicist ?
Keywords: ectoplasmic form
Date: 13 Dec 92 04:46:06 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Dec12.065229.9381@newton.ccs.tuns.ca> baltzebw@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Bruce W. Baltzer) writes:

>i won't include your article, but you made some really good suggestions!
>that'll add some variety to my habit of having the captors who know of the
>psionicists abilities drug the poor guy into a stupor...

Drugs?  Why not just kill the guy?  Of course, then the player roles up
a new psionicists, which gets killed rather quickly.

"You're purposely killing my characters!"

"Yep.  Most intelligent creatures target the mages in the part whenever
 possible, because they are usually the biggest threat (in anything but
 the lowest-level campaigns).  Well, when you're trying to keep a party
 captive, all the characters are very easy to hold, except the psionicist.
 Your captors, realizing they can't hold you, kill you.  That's something
 that intelligent captors will do."

The point is that the mage is no longer the most powerful party member,
the psionicist is.  Therefore, he will be the first one hunted down.  And
since he can't be easily restrained, like a mage can, you have to take
more drastic measures.  Psionicists should have a very short lifespan.
That's why no one wants to be one.  Let's face it, if psionicists weren't
killed frequently, everyone would want to be one.  We wouldn't have any
mages, or clerics, or fighters, or anything else.

-- 
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: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: how to imprison a psionicist ?
Date: 19 Dec 92 04:12:30 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd3.cis.pitt.edu

In article <BzHDFt.19w.2@cs.cmu.edu> ddj+@cs.cmu.edu (Doug DeJulio) writes:
>In article <886@blue.cis.pitt.edu> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>>	I agree completely.  Or, and this is my pet peeve, a GM who makes a
>>ruling, and then refuses to recognize the ramifications of the ruling.
>>For example, ruling that mages can't wear metal armor because metal 
>>interferes with magic, and then refusing to acknowledge the defensive
>>advantage that my armored fighter must enjoy against mystic attack...

>I agree.  The correct solution is to not explain *why* mages cannot
>wear armor, otherwise folks will try to find loopholes in your
>rulings.

	Uh, nope, not at all. If you WON'T explain why something won't
work, it's very, very annoying indeed. A rule that's there "just because"
without even an attempt to justify it is, almost certainly, a very bad rule.

	If you refuse to explain the rationale behind the rules, your
world becomes a cardboard cutout without depth. The thing that makes
a world really work is depth and consistency of EVERYTHING -- characters,
civilizations, and mechanics and the rationale behind them.


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;