HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: raistlin@wixer.cactus.org (Eli Boaz)
Subject: Re: Use stat limits not level limits (was:Re: Demi-humans vs. Humans
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 04:15:40 GMT

In article <h5mn_q+@lynx.unm.edu> cary@carina.unm.edu (Ithlial the Archer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.195102.7592@bnr.ca> sorflet@bnr.ca writes:
>>In article <1992Aug31.221419.13384@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, whayden@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu (Bill Hayden;;;;) writes:
>>>This "racial limitation" thread has gone on for a few days, weeks, whatever...
>>>If some of the DM's use modified racial limitation systems.... then let's
>>>see some of them so some of us can see some of our errors and change our ways
>>>
>>As a partial solution, I suggest limiting stats on demi-humans, for example
>>max STR 17 for an elf.  That way we don't have elves built like Conan (kinda
>>dumb looking in any event) but they can be just as skilled as a human...
>>although humans with 18/xx STR would be more likely to advance to the higher
>>levels.
>Stats limits create a problem in the case of fighters in a campaign where
>18's are not uncommon.  If you limit elves to 17 or lower strengths then
>they will not have the considerable advantage of exceptional strength.
>Eliminating exceptional strength deprives the PC of something like 5 strength
>categories. This translates into very few players wanting to play elfin
>fighters since dwarfs or humans have better THAC0 and much better damage.
>The 1st ed had stat limits but fighters of all races save hobbits were able
>to have exceptional strength at some level.  This was ok, but IMO setting the
>stat limit as low as 17 (except for hobbits) is too much.  Obviously setting
>a limit on the other stats is not as bad since they don't have exceptional
>ratings.
>
>In any case I rather like elves and think that there should be more of
>them than dwarfs anyhow. :)
>
>               The only good Troll is a dead Troll
>Collary:
>          Trolls regenerate - There are no dead Trolls

(Nice saying, BTW)

Actually, what I do is let demi-humans advance to any level that they
can manage to get to.  But, in order to make humans more desirable I
permit Humans to be multi-classes, AND give a +2 bonus to stats (can
assign the points to stats however they want, even to the same score.
)

Guess what?  I have had about 60% of all the players that I DM'ed for
chose human characters, 20% elves/half-elves, 10% for halflings, 8%
for dwarves, and 2% for gnomes... this is a pretty fair distribution
as far as I'm concerned and the system works, although it makes
extreme min/max'ing easer... (I want my fighter to have a 20 strenth!,
etc.)

(PS. the figures before hand was with 40% humans, 40% elves, and the rest
about the same...)

Just my 0.02 worth,

-- 
Eli Boaz                      | Line noise provide by S.W. Bell Telephone!
raistlin@wixer.cactus.org     | "Anyone not wearing 2 million sunblock is
...!cactus.org!wixer!raistlin |  going to have a REAL BAD DAY, get it?" -T2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: dwest@cwis.unomaha.edu (David West)
Subject: Re: Scrolls and spells
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 18:08:14 GMT

boelter3945@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

>In article <1992Aug31.152240.5225@news.cs.indiana.edu>,
>   switzki@hammerhead.cs.indiana.edu (Shawn M. Witzki) writes:
>> [...reply to message about scribing scrolls into spellbooks...]
>> 
>> Don't forget that the mage must also have access to a magical laboratory, if
>> you're a stickler for rules and other picky details.  ;-)

>   Really?  I never used this rule, didn't even know it was a rule, at least
>for scribing spells into spellbooks.  I, of course, required access to these
>things for doing spell research (need some lab 'toys' to experiment with and
>mix together, after all... :-) but not for simple scribing.  Maybe the ink,
>paper, and pen had to be more than just common stuff, but that's about it.

>   Hmmm, I just can't see the reason for needing a lab for scribing scrolls
>into spellbooks.  Any other thoughts on this?

>                                        John "Nightwind" Boelter

I, for one, do not require labs or such to scribe spells. But then, who
would want to spend 7 hours sitting around while the party's mage tries
to scribe Delayed Blast Fireball into his spellbook? I say that the
wizard needs a relatively quiet place to scribe at, but that can be as
normal as his room at an inn, a temple, or a laboratory.

Now, to CREATE a spell, a wizard needs a testing lab, as to experiment.
I would also make sure that it was rather secure, as having someone walk
in while you are testing Fireball Mk III would be bad...

B
B

>--
>*******************************************************************************
>* 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- *
>*******************************************************************************


David West

aka Sevnara


Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: staats@athena.mit.edu (Dick)
Subject: Re: Munchikinism/Min-Maxing (Require Def'n)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:09:31 GMT

That is an example of Min/Max'ing, but it is not a great offense.  The PC's
should be happy with their characters when they begin play.  If the player rolls
all his/her attributes as tens or under then many players would think twice
before playing such a creation.

True "Munchikinism" is the erosion of roleplaying and fun for fellow characters
in exchange for abilities or items which are not in the spirit of the
world/campaign the PC is in (i.e. what is completely "reasonable" in one persons
campaign may be totally "out of line" in another's).

Just my $.02

In service,

Rich
From: jgreene@dorm.rutgers.edu (Jeffrey Greene)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: PSIONICS QUESTION
Keywords: Psionics, 2nd edition, AD&D
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:30:01 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

dart@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dartanyan the Witchling) writes:


>	Okay, you all, I have a question:
>	
>	In the psionics handbook, it says all psionicist characters gain a defense
>mode a level 1, 3, 5, 7, & 9.  
>	
>	In the descriptions of the devotions, it lists mindlink as being a pre-
>requisite of each end every defense mode...
>Should I chuck this and throw the prerequisites for defense modes out the
>window, like i plan on, or is there some reason I am not aware that this is
>necessary for balance in some way?

There is an errata sheet (available in the Dark Sun boxed set and in a few
other places, like an old DRAGON magazine and from TSR itself, I think) that
fixes some things, like the fact that defense modes should have no prerequisits

>	Also, it says the defense mode earned is playrs choice, but, aside from
>being using more PSPs, Tower of Iron Will seems to be vastly superior then
>the rest, so what is the advantage of using the others?  If you can have a
>Science to start off with fre (as your defense mode) why not take it
>a screw the rest?

Once you start playing, you'll see that the amount of PSP's is vital.  Think
about how long a battle is.  You'll probably want your defense up for the
entire time.  Multiply this times the cost, and you come up with a large amount
of PSP's for defense, not to mention the fact that you'll probably want to
attack as well as not run completely out of PSP's in case you have to fight
again soon.  As to why take a Discipline v. a Science: why use a sword when a 
dagger will do?

>	I think there may be an error in the numbers, but have no way of
>finding this out for sure.  Ar intellect fortress and Tower of Will supposed
>to have one or two of the attack modes' adjustments having bonuses, and they
>accidentally just left out the pluses in favor of hyphens, or is it possible
>that the simple words (players choice) wre not supposed to be there, and you
>must earn them in order of weakest to strongest (mind blank to Tower)?

No, everything on the attack table is right (I think).  But think about it.
You're in the middle of a battle.  Do you really want to run out of PSP's? Or
at least down to where you can no longer defend yourself?

>	I am going to play a psionicist, and do not want the confusion that
>goeswith a bad feeling that the ru;les are Wrong.

Yes, the rules are wrong.  Get a copy of the errata sheet.

>							dodger
>							Sean Cannon

jak
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: David.Empson@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: Scrolls and spells
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 11:19:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.024933.24057@u.washington.edu> scythe@byron.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper) writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.214743.15260@aa.cad.slb.com> jackson@ess43.Berkeley.EDU (Jeff Jackson) writes:
> >
> IMNSHO, specialists are unable to use scrolls from opposing schools.
> This is because they cannot understand the basic principle behind
> opposing schools, and how the magic of opposing schools is created.
> Thus they are unable to "execute" the scroll properly.

If that is the case, then how can non-magic-user classes even hope to
use scrolls at all?  I'm not familiar with the 2nd ed. rules here, but
in 1st ed., thieves can use scrolls.  Does the same apply in 2nd ed.?

The scroll's creator had to understand the spell to be able to make
the scroll.  The scroll is effectively a "frozen" spell - already
cast, but waiting to be read out by someone to release the final
effect.  (The language or symbols used can only be understood by an
MU, or thief using read languages; I suppose opposing schools might
use significantly different "languages".)

Clerical scrolls are a different matter.
-- 
David Empson

Internet: David.Empson@bbs.actrix.gen.nz    EMPSON_D@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Snail mail: P.O. Box 27-103, Wellington, New Zealand
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: brian_vickers@isd.jpl.nasa.gov (Brian Vickers)
Subject: Re: Clerics: Deities Granting Spells
Followup-To: rec.games.frp.dnd
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:50:14 GMT

In article <unixwiz.716091473@mcl>, unixwiz@mcl.ucsb.edu (Silk) wrote:
> 
> In <1992Sep9.194008.21780@zip.eecs.umich.edu> boyd@colonial.eecs.umich.edu (Eric Boyd) writes:
> 
> >One problem is that some of the spells are either in the wrong sphere or
> >should be in several spheres. Druids no longer get "Commune with Nature",
> >which was the v1. equivelent (for them) of the "Commune" spell.
> 
> This particular bug has been fixed. The players handbook errata sheet
> someone compiled from TSR is floating around in my directories and
> on the net elsewhere.
> 

Actually, this wasn't fixed in the errata sheet. It was a question posed to
Skip Williams in "Sage Advice" of Dragon magazine. _He's_ the one who said
that you could add Commune w/ Nature to the druid spel list.

-- Brian
brian_vickers@isd.jpl.nasa.gov
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: AD&D2 prof.  Natural Lang.
Keywords: language proficiency
Date: 15 Sep 92 04:52:23 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <BuLMqE.KL3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tdl59123@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Taetlichkeiten der Lachen) writes:

>This is a polite post because I don't want my new DM to think I'm 
>a rules lawyer.
>Under AD&D2, a character does NOT have to buy their native language.
Refer to page 16 of PHB.   Last sentence of blue box:
>"The character never needs to any proficiency slots to speak his
>native language." 

OK, but, no offense, but, what's your point?

You weren't following-up to anyone, so you weren't answering a question (at
least, not that I could tell).  It didn't seem like you were *asking* a
question.  Are we now just posting random rules to the net? :-)

Seriously, though, I don't see the point of this post, but since you brought
it up, I do have a question:

Under the rules you mentioned:

Humans automatically learn Common.
Dwarves automatically learn Dwarvish.
Gnomes automatically learn Gnomish.
Elves automatically learn Elvish.

What do half-elves learn?  An inquiring half-elf wants to know!

BTW, it doesn't matter at this point, I spent one slot to learn Elvish
and one to learn Common, but at this point I'm just kinda curious.


-- 
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."
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: AD&D2 prof.  Natural Lang.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 05:51:05 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

ads3@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew D. Shults) writes:

:      I know that the rules say that.  Honestly, I think that just doesn't
: make any sense at all.  If you look at the intelligence chart (also p. 16)
: it has a 1 in the # of Languages column all the way down to an Int of 2.
: When using the "languages = extra nonweapon proficiencies" optional rule,
: this means that even a character with an Int of 2 gets a bonus nonweapon
: proficiency.  I can't see giving a character with a score of 2 a bonus
: _anything_.
:      In my own mind, I figure the chart and the rule you mentioned were
: one of those things prepared independently without thinking about how the
: two worked together.  To fix this, I ruled that the native tongue requires
: a proficiency slot.  Thus, a character of Int 2 would spend that "bonus"
: slot on speaking common.  An alternate solution would be to keep the rule,
: but reduce every number in the # of Lang. column by one.  Either way the
: result is the same.

Well, as DM you are entitled to set the law in your campaign.  However,
I think T$R already considered your idea.

	# v1	# v2
Int	Langs	Langs
---	-----	-----
 3	  1	  1		This chart compares the number of 
 4	  1	  1		language slots made availible in first
 5	  1	  1		and second edition AD&D rules.  The
 6  	  1	  1		intelligence table in first edition
 7	  1	  1		lists "number of additional languages,"
 8	  2	  1		so the numbers here are one greater than
 9	  2	  2		the ones in PHBv1.  It looks like T$R
10	  3	  2		did adjust the language/bonus NWP slots
11	  3	  2		at INT > 9 to consider the point you
12	  4	  3		are making.  It looks like the T$R folks
13	  4	  3		just decided to make it possible to
14	  5	  4		"spend" extra language slots on NWP.
15	  5	  4		However, IMHO, it wouldn't be unreasonable
16	  6	  5		to knock the number of bonus NWP's to
17	  7	  6		0 for characters with INT <= 5 or 6.
18	  8	  7

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com		-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92
From: gusar@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Sean A Reith)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Missiles into Melee Combat
Date: 8 Sep 1992 18:44:15 +0800
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: uniwa.uwa.edu.au

gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Paul Wagland) writes:

>An Answer regarding fire into melee combat:
[...]
>OK here's an example to help demonstrate:
>You have four people in battle, a halfling, and two humans (all on one
>side) and an ogre on the other, so you have
>Person	size	weight
>Halfing	S	1
>Human	M	2
>Human 2	M	2
>Ogre	L	-4
>------------------
>Total		1

>Now lets assume the elven archer standing on the side needs a 15 to hit
>the ogre. If the elven archer rolls less than a 16 then he could of hit
>any person in melee, except the ogre. you then roll to see who it
>hit. Then you roll a d20 again to see if you actually 'hit' them.

>So what do you think?

(I think you should not use tabs)

Perhaps you should work IQ into the equation?  Any archer with an IQ
above three is going to realise that if he aims well above his comrades
heads, then unless he fumbles badly, there is no way in hell he is going
to hit them.  Of course, if you fire into melee where your companions
outnumber the foe, and the foe is of the same size (or smaller) as your
companions, your companions should learn to choose their friends more
carefully.

Apart from tall foes, sounds reasonable.

>Paul

Enjoy, be free,
Sean.
-- 
Sean A Reith aka Lynscar             | gusar@uniwa.uwa.edu.au
C programmer and net.addict at large | sean@gu.uwa.edu.au
Obquote:                             | reith_s@kultarr.cs.uwa.edu.au
 "I have a cunning Plan" - Baldrick  | sean@his.own.really.fast.machine (RSN)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: news@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE
Subject: Re: RULES ON SPELL RESEARCH?
Organization: University of Oldenburg, Germany
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:29:34 GMT
Keywords: SPELLS MAGES RESEARCH

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Buying and Selling magical items
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:35:07 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

rworkman@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Ryan Workman) writes:

: Well, Barry, I also allow PCs to buy magic items.   I charge a zillion gps
: and gold (as well as other precious metals) is *HARD* to come by in my
: campaign.  Otherwise... it's MUCHKIN LAND!
: 
: Also, They can't walk into any major city and say I want to buy magic item
: X.  I randomly determine which *FEW* are avaliable for sale, or if I have 
: previouly wrote up the city- I'll know which ones are there.

Well, in a previous campaign I was in, the DM would allow PC's
to make "donations" to the local mages' guild in return for
a useful, mostly harmless, relatively weak, magic item.  However,
the "suggested donation" would relieve us of most of our free
cash.

Some of the "gifts" we received this way were several +1 or +2 rings
of protection, an ioun stone of regeneration, a few dulled ioun stones
(1st edition campaign; we had 3 naturally rolled psi-guys in a novice party
of 11), and some magical "thermal underwear" (my personal favorite item :).

Of course, this was the same DM that made a point of frequently relieving
us of excess magic.  Like my poor 3rd level half-elven fighter who found
a +4 two-handed sword...only to have it stolen by a band of brigands a
few days later.  Well...we weren't in the best of shape at that point....
Only two of us were in fighting condition due to an earlier "accidental"
encounter.

*sigh* I miss that character... 18/80 strength, 5 intelligence...  D*mn
that was a fun one to roleplay!  :)
--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher
From: rworkman@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Ryan Workman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Buying and Selling magical items
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:29:00 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Sep10.193422.16909@cs.rose-hulman.edu> trottibw@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Barry W Trottier) writes:
>
>	I bought the Magical Items Index this summer and it created a  
>tremendous lust to turn gold into magic for my PCs.  I let them buy only  
>low power non-permanent items at first (like potions), but eventually, I  
>found myself agreeing to sell powerful things.
>	The reason that I allowed myself to do this was because I thought  
>that since any fairly powerful mage could make an item, then that mage  
>could be contracted to produce the item as well.
>	So, I would make them roleplay out the purchases and in time, they  
>would have their magic item.
>
>	I was just wondering if anyone has some thoughts on the subject.
>(I am sure that this has been said before, but if it was, I missed it.)
>

Well, Barry, I also allow PCs to buy magic items.   I charge a zillion gps
and gold (as well as other precious metals) is *HARD* to come by in my
campaign.  Otherwise... it's MUCHKIN LAND!

Also, They can't walk into any major city and say I want to buy magic item
X.  I randomly determine which *FEW* are avaliable for sale, or if I have 
previouly wrote up the city- I'll know which ones are there.






>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Runfirst  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
From: barry@mgr.hjf.org (Barry Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Adventure Modules
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:46:26 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <92248.154903MATTWOOD@ESTEC.BITNET> MATTWOOD@ESTEC.BITNET writes:
>
> I've been running the Temple Of Elemental Evil as DM for some time now, and
>the group are nearing their goal, so I'd like to know if there is a follow-on
>to this module.  If not, then the players are happy to start a new (level 1)
>game, maybe with a little less 'hack-and-slash' and more intrigue - any
>suggestions would be appreciated, except physical impossibilities :-)

The module or group of modules following the Temple of Elemental Evil
is called the Scourge of the Slave lords.  It picks up in Hommlett
about a month or two after the party finishes the Temple.  
This module is not just hack-and-slash.  I have a party about ready to
begin this module and I just can't wait to see them squirm.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
|  Player:  But I have a -4 AC.  Are you sure it hit me?        |
|  DM:      Yes, and would look at that.  Maximium damage.      |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  My parties favorite DM (Death Master):       |
|                        Toxy                                   |
-----------------------------------------------------------------   
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Cube of Force usage question
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:22:14 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

jackson@ess43.Berkeley.EDU (Jeff Jackson) writes:

:     Our DM of the day ruled that:
: 
:         1) air wasn't affected by the cube and so they could keep breathing;
: 
:         2) You couldn't poke people inside the cube with a polearm, but you
:            could enter the cube area, draw your sword, and then hack.
: 
:     I disagree.  I think that:
: 
:         1) If air could pass through, then so could a cloudkill, which
:            sort of defeats the purpose of that function of the cube:
: 
:         2) You'd have to be naked to get into the cube.
: 
:     What do y'all think?

Well, I think that the DM's word is law.  :)  But, besides that, if I were
DM'ing, and if I were feeling particularly cruel, I would have ruled that
air could not pass into the cube, and that you would have to be naked
to get into the cube.  :)

--

Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Scares the hell out of you,
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 doesn't it?"
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				--Richard Nixon, about
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us			  	Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher                                     


Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd