HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dmatiske@elgreco.helios.nd.edu (david matiskella)
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Reply-To: dmatiske@elgreco.helios.nd.edu (david matiskella)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:01:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.222617.714@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
|> In article <1992Aug27.161529.16709@news.nd.edu>, dmatiske@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (david matiskella) writes:
|> > 	Maybe thieving shouldn't be a class.  After all can't you have a magic 
|> > user who steals or a fighter who steals? They got rid of the assassin with 
|> > this logic so maybe they will can the Thief.
|> 
|> 	Unfortunately, this can also be said of fighting. One possibility is
|> to simply have each character create his own class from the beginning, based
|> on what he wants to play. The classes in the books can be considered the
|> standard archetypes, and the subclasses are examples. Just a thought.
|> 
|> > 	One thing about levels that is totally unrealistic is how thier is 
|> > constant, steady improvement as you  gain levels. ( the figethers thac goes 
|> > down by 1 every level.) In reality it just wouldn't happen that way. Thier 
|> > should be a large gain at the start of his career and very little gain at 
|> > the end.
|> 
|> 	While improvement is steady, the amount of experience needed for each
|> level (except very high levels) roughly doubles over the previous one. Thus, it
|> keeps taking longer and longer to get to higher levels. Face it, its faster to
|> go from level 1-5 than from 15-20. This does what you want -- big gain at the
|> start of her career, and very little gain later, in a (disguised) way.
|> 
|>
|> 
|> 	As I said before, the lifespan of adventurers are, theoretically, equal
|> (if we ever balance the races, that is :-)). Take a elvish mage at 20th level.
|> Several people have pointed out that he'll be 100th level in a few decades.
|> Okay, assume he gets 10,000 xp a year (a semi-reasonable sum). Well, it takes
|> something like 250,000 xp per level for him to advance. At that rate, it'll
|> take 25 years per level. That's 2000 years. At 100,000 xp a year, it would take
|> but 200 years.  But, the chance of him getting knocked off in 200 years is very
|> likely (adventurers tend to have shorter life-spans than normal adventurers as
|> well). 
|> 
|> Brandon Cope
	Actually it doesnn't work that way since while an orc only gives 100 experience points for the first level character the tenth level character kills a dragon and gets 5000 exp. I guess eventually after all the demons and devils are exterminated he might have trouble  finding high experience monsters to kill. :)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: seah@fraser.sfu.ca (Simon Seah)
Subject: Re: Stuck for Ideas?????
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 04:45:14 GMT

edb892rsft@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au writes:



>Tough question to ask you veteran AD&D and D&D players /DMS

>       What do you do when your players have done everything?

>I've been playing D&D and AD&D for about 9 years and in this time i have
>run and participated in many campaigns.. But it would appear that i've
>run out of ideas for traps, encounters, story lines, and puzzles!

>It seems that every thing has been done before!

If you have a well-defined, well-mapped world, you might try making THEM
initiate the adventurer.
"It's Saturday night, 8.00pm.  What're you guys doing?"
Once they start telling you what they're doing, you might be inspired.  Also,
this is a good time to enforce non-paranoiaism.  It's just a normal Saturday
night (apparently).  Why must they bring ALL their equipment for a night on the town?
And don't their characters have friends?  Are they so abnormal that they don't
make social calls on buddies?

Simon
:)
From: JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Deities
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:41:31 GMT
 <1992Aug25.155525.28415@walter.cray.com>
 <92241.001424JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> <BtpGAM.40y@apollo.hp.com>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <BtpGAM.40y@apollo.hp.com>, johnf@apollo.hp.com (John Francis) says:
>
>In article <92241.001424JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
>JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>>>
>>>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"
>>>|> >                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>|> >
>> To Johnf:  the word maybe writen as "deity" but it is pronounced as:
>>
>>                      "DEE-IT-EE"
>
>I suggest you check your facts before presuming to correct my pronunciation.


 Dear John, get a grip on yourself !  I wasn't trying to correct your
pronunciation. To be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less how you
decide to pronounce any particular word.

 I was just trying to point out to others that when you wrote "NOT"
you were not making a fully true statement.

 Besides, my post was writen in a light-hearted way (as you should have
been able to tell from the second half); so there was no need for you
to burst a blood vessel !


>"Day-It-Ee" is a perfectly acceptable pronunciation of the word "deity".  I
>agree that "Dee-It-Ee" is also an allowed pronunciation, but "Dee-It-Ee" does
>not make it obvious which way the word should be spelled.  If you bear in
>mind the fact that the word can also be pronounced "Day-It-Ee", then it should
>be fairly easy to choose between the two competing spellings.


 Since when is the English language written the same way as it is pronounced ??

 Did you know that there are over 20 different sounds given to the 5 vowels
in the English alphabet ?!?!  (NOTE: this includes foreign sounds which
have been incorporated into our language).

 As far as your suggestion of there being "two competing spellings", well,
that's not true !

 "deity" is the one and only correct spelling of the word. Any other variant
is just grammatically incorrect and not to be considered a "competing" or
alternate way of spelling the word. Just because some people write "diety"
doesn't make it right. Pronunciation is irrelevant, *IRREGARDLESS* of what
you may think.

 By the way, there is quite a bit of humor and sarcasm in this post, in
case you may have missed it as you did in the other one.

 Sincerely,

-- Jose L. Martinez --
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Weapon Specialization
From: crchakford@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:26:09 -0500
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

In article <67301@hydra.gatech.EDU>,
 ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge A. Diaz) writes:
> No, not another "why can't a thief specialize?" post. :-)
> 
> 
> I was reading over weapon specialization, and I noticed somehint that
> seemed kind of strange.  The way weapon specialization is described in
> the PH, I got the impression that a fighter can only specialize in
> ONE weapon.  He may become proficient in others, but he can only
> specialize in one.
> 
> Am I reading too much into this, or is this a correct assumption?
> 
        Well, that depends.  In first edition, no, your not.  That was
stated specifically somewhere in unearthed arcana(only one weapon
allowed).  However, I get the distinct impression that you are talking
about Second edition.  This is one of things that TSR left a little 
nebulous.  I'd have to say it was Gamemaster's discretion, but a
strict interpretation of the rules allows a fighter to specialize in
as many weapons as he wants.  The complete fighters handbook makes it
seem more obvious (at least to me :) )  that a fighter can specialize
in more than one weapon, but your D.M. might have a problem with that.


                        Rules???
                          -- The quizical gamer.

                                Craig.
From: mosson@reseau.Berkeley.EDU (Groupe ELEVES)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Chromosonally-Challenged Characters
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:41:51 GMT
Reply-To: mosson@reseau.Berkeley.EDU (Groupe ELEVES)


  What I've always thought fascinating in AD&D is this tendancy to 
maintain "game balance". I mean, the rationale behind upper progression
limit for demi-humans is that they can be multi-classed (and humans
cannot). Who can explain the physical law behind this facts?

  Of course, with the 2nd edition, the level limitations have been 
raised, but they still exist - and so exists the limitation that only
humans may be dual-classed and only demi-humans may be multi-classed.
This is a rule I strongly dislike, especially given the rationale that
advancement come only through conflict.

  I'd rather allow both dual-classes and multi-classes fore every race,
but keep the restriction on stats for class-switching (in dual-class)
and asking the multi-class PC to choose a primary class. The primary
would then advance at the normal XP rate. The secondary would advance at
double XP cost. If there is a tertiary, it would then advance at x3 or
x4 XP cost...

  Comments? Suggestions and other ideas are welcome.

							Redwing
From: lrg@crud.cray.com (Lee Gordon)
Subject: Re: Paladins
Originator: lrg@crud
Reply-To: lrg@crud.cray.com (Lee Gordon)
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:00:50 CDT


In article <BtJx7r.DCu@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:
|> nsecomb@metz.une.edu.au ( Nige.) writes:
|> 
|> >P.S. Please, no flames about emphasising roleplaying and developing a 
|> >  chracter's character, if you like charging your warhorse at a panic-
|> >  stricken orc who is defenseless and not being agressive, and spearing
|> >  her eye out with your heavy lance that does 2d8 damage, killing her,
|> >  then go ahead, make your day because you'd make any decent paladin sick.
|> 
|> You are being just as narrow minded as the people whose gaming style you
|> don't like. You are making value judgements on their character simply
|> because they don't fit your guidelines.

I generally agree with the sentiment, although not the tone.  This situation
entirely depends on the settings around the paladin (which would define his
views).

|> It is more likely that a paladin
|> is going to be a representative of a violent god. Nonviolent gods aren't
|> going to have paladins. Paladins, no matter how you slice it, are killers.
|> The goddess of peace having a cadre of highly trained killers in her 
|> service is very unlikely. If you want to play the representative of
|> a peaceful god, you are more likely going to wind up in the priest 
|> or cleric profession, or the ranger class, emphasizing the woodlands
|> skills.

I don't agree with this in principle, but it practice, it is probably
true.  Most campaigns I've seen are set in rather bloody settings.
This isn't out of necessity, but of a "narrow minded" view of how
paladins (and gods) should behave.  For example, if paladins are used
as the equivalent of policemen, they should not be thought of as
killers.  Sure, the police may kill, and they are trained to do so,
but they only do so in the line of duty.  Also, a peaceful god
certainly could have a strong military presense.  "Peace through
strength" (Eisenhower's motto) might be appropriate.  Another god
could take the approach of the Pox Romana, peace through unification.
Notice that peace is a different issue than pacifism.  I personally
prefer to have paladins serve a god of justice.  The role of the
paladin here isn't to serve as judge, jury, and executioner, but
instead to apprehend wrong-doers, and bring them to someone qualified
to deal with them.

	-Lee
From: einari@rhi.hi.is (Einar Indridason)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: What is with these Katana's?
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:05:37 GMT

In <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.

One theori is that the katana is made with a better craftsman than the
longsword or the scimitar.  And the blacksmith that makes a katana spends
much longer time refining and whatever to the katana, than is done to the
longsword or scimitar.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Origin of the 2nd ed. Ranger
From: alvalent@husc9.harvard.edu (Alvin Valentine)
Date: 29 Aug 92 10:22:23 EDT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

If you wonder why Rangers get to wield 2 weapons at butt kicking levels,
but only in light armor, watch Robin Hood and the sorcerer (or any other
Michael Praed/Jason Connery Robin Hood episode).  In this episode, Nasir,
our prototypical ranger is shown acting like a ginsu on Robin Hood who is
barely ducking and dodging until.....

Still.  I'M SURE someone watched this show, or used the same references the
British producers did , so there must be some heroic tradition for 
Rangers wielding 2 weapons and wearing leather armor, or the 2nd edition guys
just got off on the show.  Also, they were probably trying to allow Rangers
a lesser version of weapon specialization in order to balance out the losses
to there uniqueness, etc. in 2nd ed.  For this reason we also have the -6
penalty to tracking for non-Rangers, not just non-Woodsy folk.	
 

 
Later,
 
Lee Valentine
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Class specific abilities
Date: 30 Aug 92 23:44:27 CST
Distribution: na
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Aug29.135003.12393@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>, gajensen@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:
> In article <67012@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
>>>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?
> 
> Because they specialize in a different area. It seems to me that you want
> everyone to be able to do everything they want. Why not just eliminate the
> classes entirely and have everyone be the same, able to do any skill at all.
> BORING!!!!! This way the players have to work out strategies to ensure that
> their one person who has a chance at picking to lock on the chest containing
> the fabled gem of Yendor stays alive to do so.

	Nope, it would not be boring. In fact, it would keep things more
interesting. That fighter you're after might have a special ability or two from
some other class that could cause problems. Remember the 'jack-of-all-trades,
master of none' line? A specialist character would still have the advantage in
their speciality, but the character that can do a little of everything (not
neccessarily a bard, btw) is very useful for those situations where a
specialist is not available.

> 
>> 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?
> 
> No, because he spends a great deal of time learning how to do other things,
> LIKE PICKING LOCKS!!!
> 
	But he still has 3 slots to spend on weapons. There is no valid reason
why he can't specialize in a weapon. If you're saying that the time it takes to
master one weapon (double specialize) is longer than that required to learn
three weapons, then why isn't this true for the fighter? (I think there is, or
was, a rule about no double specialization at level 1, but I'm not sure).

Brandon Cope

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: vernon@iadpsa.safe.ia.gov ( Mark Vernon - DSB )
Subject: Re: A word on Mages
Organization: Iowa Department of Public Safety
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:16:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.162630.1@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au> edb892rsft@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>
>And now a few words on mages........
>
>In previous campaigns of mine I have been extremely reluctant to let
>players have magic-users for characters. Especially at low levels they
>tend to cast one spell for the entire adventure, then cringe behind the
>fighters and clerics and siphon off xp. With the advent of specialists
>this has changed slightly with the offending mages getting two spells.
>Even with good role playing and various dirty tricks (ie throwing dust
>into monsters faces, throwing flaming oil etc) the contribution of the
>mage a low levels still tends to be very little. Has any one found ways
>of getting low level mages to have a greater role in low level
>adventures?
>
One way my group has found is to use the mages Int score on the Wis spell
bounus table - giving him (or her :-) ) a few more low level spells. I
don't think it is too much of an unbalancer (is that a real word). Seems
to have worked for us. 

>And now a few more complaints about mages..........
>
>Currently i am running an adventure in a ruined city, but this next
>comment is also relevant to out door adventures as well. I have found
>that the PC mage in my party has a habit of casting his spell then
>telling the party to wait while he gets another. This problem is easliy
>counter acted in the dungeon with random monsters every turn or so but
>in the wilderness or ruins adventure random monsters tend to be
>sparse... The time to memorize a spell in the first edition was 1 hour
>per spell level but in the 2nd ed I was told it was 10 mins per spell
>level! This means that a low level party in a ruins can effectively cast
>many spells in a day. 
>
>           Any thoughts on the matter.....
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Hugh Jenkinson
>Monash University
>Australia
>warlock@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
>edb892rsft@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au
>
>       "Me suffer from indecision.............probably"
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>


From: moursund@hpcvnb.CV.HP.COM (David_Moursund)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 11:51:46 PDT
Subject: Re: Dwarf Women with bears, Not!
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, Oregon
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd

>/ hpcvnb:rec.games.frp.dnd / ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) /  9:36 am  Aug 26, 1992 /
>In article <l9nbv7INNsp@phad.hsc.usc.edu> esharpe@phad.hsc.usc.edu (Ed Sharpe) writes:
>>In article <BtL20p.3sH@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> dart@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dartanyan the Witchling) writes:
>>>	As far a racial stereotypes go, heres a question: do female dwarves
>>>have beards?
>>>I know that if you foloow the typical Gygaxian philosophy the answr is yes,
>>>but I don't. 
>>In an early dragon magazine (35?) the final word was given on dwarvish female 
>>breads:  Unless you have dwarvish bread catcher traps in your games it does
>>not matter if female dwarves have breads.
>
>OK, the subject is about female dwarves with bears.
>
>Now, you're posting about female dwarves with breads, and "bread catcher
>traps".  What are you babbling about?

Sheesh!  It is _obvious_ that female dwarves have beers.  *All* dwarves
have beers.

dm
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Paladins
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:34:49 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug24.002228.6533@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> ba446@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Todd M. Hanson) writes:

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

Well, considering that at least two other people have commented on this, I
don't think you are correct.

Besides, this isn't a flamewar.  We haven't resorted to name-calling or
anything.
:-)


-- 
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: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:56:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <67022@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
> In article <67013@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
>>In article <17iqm4INN25n@trigger.ksu.ksu.edu> royalyn@trigger.ksu.ksu.edu (Royalyn S Nelson) writes:
> 
>>So, how do you explain that a cleric can cast spells in armor?
> 
> Because cleric spells are different than wizard spells.  
> 
	Except it doesn't say this anywhere. My ruling is that magic is magic,
regardless of the source. The only difference is that mages access magic
directly, while clerics access it through their diety (mages use Assembly,
clerics use Basic). However, if magic is interfered with by armor, then it
applies to ALL spellcasters, even dieties. In my games, armor does not
interfere with the casting of magic in any way.
	Its not that the spells are different, its that the character's
training is different. A priest trains in armor, and is use to it. A mage does
not train in armor, and is not used to it. To say that if a mage wears armor
he cannot cast any spells is ludicrous. I allow mages to buy (with proficiency
slots) familiarity with armor. Not having familiarity hurts just about anything
they try to do in armor. But they can still try it.

>>Why can't a fighter learn to pick a lock without having to go through a 
>>class change?  As for taking the time to learn the craft:  [...]
> 
> Because if you are learning lock-picking, you are *not* learning fighting.
> My view of adventurers in AD&D is that they are so exceptional as compared
> to the common citizen because they spend *all* their time learning their 
> craft.  If you start spending time learning skills that don't pertain to 
> your choses profession, you start falling behind.

	Okay, so you fall behind. You still didn't answer why the fighter
couldn't learn it.

> 
> Another way of looking at this whole thread is that you are trying to apply
> real-world perspectives to a fantasy role-playing game, and *every time* 
> you are going to come to the conclusion that rules don't make sense.  Indeed, 
> they *don't* make sense; that's why it's called _fantasy_.

	*chuckle*

	This is an extremely silly statement. Does this mean that if a bardiche
did less damage that a dagger, it would be okay, since its _fantasy_ ? A game
being _fantasy_ has nothing to do with it making sense. In fact, games that
*don't* make sense tend to not be very good. A fantasy game can make sense and
be very good. If it doesn't make sense it just seems stupid.

Brandon Cope