HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dmatiske@chopin.helios.nd.edu (david matiskella)
Subject: Re: A word on Mages
Reply-To: dmatiske@chopin.helios.nd.edu (david matiskella)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:53:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.050059.4947@u.washington.edu>, scythe@byron.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep4.095952.15362@husc3.harvard.edu> alvalent@husc9.harvard.edu (Alvin Valentine) writes:
|> >
|> >How to make low level character's survivable:  Never had a problem.  
|> >Start all mages and psionicists out at 2nd level.  Gives them many more
|> >psi things or 1 more (2 for spec. wiz.) spells.  Also and extra HD.  So
|> >the mage averages 5 HP without CON bonus.  That's more than the thief
|> >and the cleric average.  IF that person is a specialist or other type with 
|> >high CON or DEX pre-requisite, then the survivability is higher.
|> >
|> >Think about it.  An Invoker under this system will have 3 spells (as many as
|> >the average cleric) and about 10 HP which is what your fighter will have
|> >if he has no CON bonus (according to Fighter's Handbook optional rule on 1st
|> >level single-calss HP for Fighters).
|> >
|> Great idea!  Why not let them use all weapons and armor too, and
|> have a thaco improvement rate of 1 per level!  Toss in weapon specialization
|> and exceptional strength, and we can just get rid of those pesky fighters!
|> Who needs a fighter when mages have the same hp and ac?
|> >I see no problem.  Our mage and our psi-guy in Ravenloft have more HP than
|> >just about anyone else.
|> >
|> Gee, that's funny.  I coulda sworn that's what fighters were supposed to
|> be for.... to be big and tuff and take the hits.  Not hide behind the mages.
|> >Multi-classing has it's advantages for playability at low levels.  Lastly,
|> >no one but no one kicks butt for # of spells like a priest / mage.  IF you
|> >worship Mystra goddess of magic or somesuch, then you basically have a
|> >mage style spell selection for 4 spells at level 1/1, with the option of
|> >taking healing if you want.  HPs suck though if you use CPH rules for 
|> >Priests of Magic. 
|> > 
|> >
|> > 
|> >Later,
|> > 
|> >Lee Valentine
|>                                                   
	Come on. His system isn't that unfair and by level 3 everything has evened out. With four hit points max a mage has a very tough time surviving to level 2. One hit by a sword has a 50/50 chance of killing him.
	The other thing is why does having a high stats not help the mage as much as other character classes? A priest with a 18 wisdom gains more spells. A thief with 18 dex gets adjustments to his abilities chances. And a fighter with 18/00 strenght is has a thaco of a 4 level fighter and can cause a lot of damage. Why doesn't high intelligence allow a mage to operate as a higher level spell caster?
From: avatar@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Shayne Macfarlane)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Need to find Were-Dragons
Date: 9 Sep 1992 03:09:01 GMT
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au

rnmg1200@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (A Lady and her Walrus) writes:

>In article <1992Sep7.232814.14096@techbook.com> tsouth@techbook.com (Todd South) writes:
>>I'm in desperate need of locating the Monstrous Compendium sheet
>>for Were-Dragons.  I know I've seen the thing somewhere, whether
>>in a module or something.  But, I've just looked through all of the
>>Monstrous Compendiums and the Complete Plaer and Forgotten Realms
>>handbooks to no avail.  Please! If you've seen this enter pass
>>along the whereabouts ASAP!  Thanks...!
>>
>>Todd South

>I assume you're talking about the Ed Greenwood/Forgotten Realms weredragons.
>There were actually two sets of stats for them.  One appeared in Hall of Heroes
>and the other in Dragon magazine c. the 110-120's. It was in one of their
>annual "all-dragon" issues that they used to do (and perhaps still do; I've
>not been keeping up with it lately).  The two versions differed in that
>the Hall of Heroes weredragon was an actual lycanthrope, created during the
>Time of Troubles, and the Dragon mag. weredragon was a dragon that had two 
>forms:  Dragon and human.  The Dragon magazine version was the only one to 
>print it in MC form, though.  Hall of Heroes gave only a brief description and
>general stats (HD, #AT, and Dmg, I think).

>The Walrus

This is off the top of my head, but I dont remember seeing stats for a
were-dragon in Hall of Heroes. There were stats for a dracolich though,
which was redone for the Forgotten Realms Monstrous Compendium.(first
one)
I think there was a module published recently set in the Moonshae Isles
- I cant remember what it was called - and this included a MC version of
the were-dragon. Off the top of my head though, I dont think it was a
lycanthrope.

Shayne
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: spzkny@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY)
Subject: Re: Missiles into Melee Combat
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  8 Sep 1992 09:35 EST  

In article <18i05vINNlvl@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>,
 gusar@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Sean A Reith) writes...

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

>>An Answer regarding fire into melee combat:
>[...]
>>OK here's an example to help demonstrate:
>>[complicated system]
>>So what do you think?
>Perhaps you should work IQ into the equation?

I use a much simpler system.  If the attacker misses, compare his attack 
roll against his unintended target (you may determine this by any means you 
wish...a random roll is good).  If the failed roll is less than the 
unintended target's ac, then said bystander is hit.

Yes, that means that anyone with a negative ac is immune to friendly fire. 
Still, it's been a simple, workable system for me.
                                                  James S. Zakany
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: AD&D2 prof.  Natural Lang.
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:17:14 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <68179@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
> 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." 
> 
> 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.

	Your DM (IMHO) overcharged you one slot. You should not have had to pay
for both. Your 'native' language would have been one or the other. 

	I have to agree with the PHB; no character should ever have to spend a
proficiency slot to speak his own native language. A characer with an Int of 5
or less will just speak *very* poor Common (or whatever) -- "Me like drink".
Also, you are talking about Int levels where, in real life, the character could
not possibly care for himself. If you don't allow PCs with Int under 7, the
above rule isn't much of a problem. 

Brandon Cope
From: bohm@acsu.buffalo.edu (Eric J. Bohm)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Learning without profficiencies
Summary: I agree, here is our solution
Keywords: double points proficiencies
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:08:08 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: UB

In article <1992Sep9.173056.11510@m.cs.uiuc.edu> silber@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ami A. Silberman) writes:
>
>	I think that there should be an intermediate step between incompetence
>and profficiencies. 
[long justification deleted for brevity]

I agree. 

At the advent of version two we saw a fairly reasonable skill system
implemented with the classic TSR lack of gradual increase. To compensate,
simply double everything.

Double the number of non-weapon proficiency points (hereafter NWPPs) and
the number required per skill. Thus, a former 1 NWPP proficiency, like
swimming, becomes a 2 NWPP skill. Someone with only 1 NWP in such a skill
will only have the most basic swimming ability. Someone with 2 NWPP in such
a skill will have the skill as described in the PHB. 

For checks, someone with half as many NWPPs as needed makes their  check at
an additional -3 penalty. (half the penalty of total incompetence). 

Most skills are pretty straightforward to adjudicate in this manner, some
require the occaisional DM ruling.

For chuckles, we scrapped their bizarre class based NWPP per level chart,
and just have everyone get 1 point per level (remember thats only worth 1/2
a point in the standard system). Because even in an extreme case where say
a 15th level fighter has 14 more NWPs than a 1st level (or 7 in the
standard system) thats not much more than they would have gotten in the old
system, plus they are accumulated in a more natural gradual fashion.
 
Scrapped the rule about having to allocate all NWPPs. Its just worthless,
don't even bother trying to justify it to me ; I consider it as worthy of
argument as the number of angels you can pack into a pinbox dance hall. Let
them leave points free, then they can spend time later to be taught the
skill. Or even more time to learn it on their own.

Considered scrapping the grouping of NWPs by class, but have left it in for
now. 

Skills outside one's class simply cost one extra NWPP to learn.


PS  If I seem too casual about changing the rules, its because I make
liberal use of the right to mess with the system all I want. My players
seem all the happier for it.










-- 
Gothmog AKA Eric Bohm
[ It can be shown that a neat .sig file can be created and that there exists  ]
[ a valid address for this user. (the proof is left as an exercise for the    ]
[ student)							              ]
From: ba446@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Todd M. Hanson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Missiles into Melee Combat
Date: 9 Sep 1992 06:41:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ba446@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Todd M. Hanson)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jddavenport@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu () says:

>A question regarding missile fire into melee combat:

>Doesn't it make sense, tho, that someone with a THAC0 of 5 should be able to
>differentiate betwen friend and foe when he is firing once in a time frame of
>a minute?

>Any ideas, pro or con, would be appreciated.

In our gaming group, we had the same problem with the 'official' rule on
this, and came up with the following:

When firing into melee, count the total number of possible targets in the
area, in addition to the original target.  This is the minus to hit. (ie,
in your example of a cleric fighting 2 bugbears, you would be at a -2 to
hit the bugbear you were aiming at).

If you miss your target, roll randomly among the remaining possible targets
in the area, and make a normal to hit roll against their ac (giving bonuses
for surprise, back attacks, etc, depending on how nasty you wanna be). If
the 2nd to-hit roll succeeds, roll damage normally.

After quite a bit of play testing, this seems to work rather well.  It
gives increasing minuses, depending upon how many bodies there are to get
in the way, or step in the say, etc.  It also allows a character with a
higher thaco to have a better chance of hitting the target they aimed at.

However, the 2nd to hit roll only applies if there are actually people in
MELEE in the target group. (this ruling was added later - to prevent
shooting at a group of enemies, and then getting a 2nd to hit roll to see
if you 'accidently' hit someone else)

Comments, complaints or ideas freely accepted.

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: jackson@ess43.Berkeley.EDU (Jeff Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Scrolls and spells
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:47:43 GMT
Reply-To: jackson@ess43.Berkeley.EDU (Jeff Jackson)
Organization: Schlumberger CAD/CAM

|> 
|> 	I have to agree with this. Scroll spells are specifically made for 
|> casting, not learning. The scroll spell is basically a 'compiled' version of 
|> the spell, ready to run and with a fixed effect. 
|> 
|> Brandon Cope


   That's a very interesting concept.  I think I'll use it.  If someone
   wants to copy spells, he'll have to find them in a spellbook, not on
   a scroll.

   Now then, assuming that scrolls are "load-and-go" spells, here's a
   question:  Can a MU use it if it's a spell from an opposition school?
   For example, can an Illusionist cast a Fireball from a scroll?

   The "pro" I see in the docs is that scrolls can be used even with
   spells the MU cannot learn.  The "con" is that a MU is prevented from
   using magical items that duplicate spells from an oppostion school
   (meaning, for example, that an Illusionist cannot use a Wand of Fire).


                       ----------------------------------------
                       |  PC:  "He opens the door quickly."   |
  - JWJ                |  DM:  "You see a brass dragon."      |
                       |  PC:  "He shuts the door quickly!!"  |
                       ----------------------------------------
From: idf@cs.bham.ac.uk (Ian Fitchet)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Cube of Force usage question
Date: 10 Sep 92 10:35:22 GMT
	<1992Sep9.112026.12705@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>
	<BuC97C.KGw@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham


 On 10 Sep 92, Deus Imperator wrote

> NONONONONO...you silly person.  More like this...
> DM:  The great Wyrm Red Dragon attacks!"
> PC:  I turn on my cube of force, face 6, stops EVERYTHING!
> *Evil grin*
> DM:  Well, the red dragon breathes on the ceiling, burying 
> you and the cube under 100 tons of rocks.
> PC:  Fine!  We teleport out...
> DM:  Now what kind of cube would allow people to teleport
> through it?  I mean, if you could teleport _through_ it,
> the dragon woulda teleported one of those 10 ton boulders
> in there too.  Nope.  No teleport for you.
> PC: "...."

 I thought the cube of force was worded such that it prevents action x
ENTERING the cube.  It says nothing about things leaving.

--
Cheers,

	Ian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Fitchet     				      I.D.Fitchet@cs.bham.ac.uk
School of Computer Science
Univ. of Birmingham, UK, B15 2TT
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: ddj+@cs.cmu.edu (Doug DeJulio)
Subject: Alchemy proficiency?
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:21:53 GMT


I need a good set of statistics for an alchemy proficiency.  Did
someone mention that it was done up in Dragon magazine once?  What
issue?
-- 
Doug DeJulio
ddj+@cmu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Cube of Force usage question
From: gajensen@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:14:33 -0500
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

In article <1992Sep8.215417.15358@aa.cad.slb.com>, jackson@ess43.Berkeley.EDU (Jeff Jackson) writes:
>     In our adventure last weekend, our priest took out his Cube of Force
>     and invoked it to keep out "all non-living matter".  We then had a
>     discussion about whether or not people inside the cube:
> 
>         1) would eventually run out of air and suffocate;
> 
>         2) could be touched by anyone outside the cube.
> 
> 
>     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 agree with your Dm's first ruling, but his second ruling is simply wrong. The
cube is set up to keep out all non-living matter, which to my knowledge
includes a sword, and armor, bracers and anything else that the character could
use against your priest short of his teeth and nails. 

>     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:

Probably simply molecules could pass through, but not complex ones like those
involved in gas attacks. I suppose it depends on how lenient your DM is. I
would rule that simple molecules, like Oxygen and Nitrogen could pass through,
but other more complex ones could not.

>         2) You'd have to be naked to get into the cube.

Yep, exactly right.

>     What do y'all think?

I think your DM made a bad call about being able to walk through the cube's
defenses and able to attack you, but what can you expect from a moron who
allows the party to have a cube of force in the first place.

Greg Jensen aka:
	Silk, thief extraordinaire!!
From: schrey@oak.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Timothy M. Schreyer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: A word on Mages
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:35:04 GMT
Reply-To: schrey@prc.unisys.com
Organization: Paramax Systems

In article <92248.114031IO11330@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, IO11330@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (the DM) writes:
|>
|> hand) as the fighter, any intelligent beast will realize that the fighert
|> is the more dangerous of the two, thus the mage (at first level) could

   The intelligent `creatures' (not `beasts,' I guess) I run into immediately
   think, "The guy in the robe is either a mage or stupid.  Magic is nasty
   stuff.  Concentrate on keeping the mage from casting spells, preferably
   by killing him."  The worst thing you can do as a mage in the games I've
   played is stand on top of a hill and start shooting magic missiles, putting
   people to sleep, cast burning hands, etc. since you're asking to be
   an arrow pin-cushion.  `Beasts' that don't know or understand magic, don't
   react this way, but `creatures' that know what magic is usually fear it
   more than hand-to-hand combat, which is something they know how to deal with.

       TIM
-- 
 Timothy M. Schreyer                         schrey@prc.unisys.com
 Center for Advanced Information Technology  (215) 648-2475 
 Paramax Systems Corporation                 FAX: (215) 648-2288
 PO Box 517, Paoli, PA 19301
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: sean@mullet.gu.uwa.edu.au (Sean A Reith)
Subject: Mage spell ... comments?
Organization: University Computer Club --- Perth, Western Australia
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 18:53:34 GMT

The subject says it all, I would like comments on this mage spell
(suggested level, limitations, any suggestions...).  It's rather
powerful...  (Lestat is in a fairly high-power, combat intensive
campaign, but don't let that effect your comments)...

-----

Lestat's Legion (Conjuration ??)

Level: 6th (??)
Range: Special
Components: V, S, M
Duration: 1 turn per level
Casting time: 1 round
Area of Effect: Special
Saving Throw: Not applicable

Creates one clone, plus one for every five levels of the caster, of the
caster.  Each clone has HPs equal to the casters level, and all physical
(non-spell) abilities of the caster.  The clones are completely loyal to
the caster (as their minds overlap in a way, with his own) and can carry
out reasonably complex tasks (GM discretion).  The clones are created wreathed
in simple illusions which mimic the casters possessions, though they serve
no other purpose, and can be discarded at the clone's will (as the clone
may have real clothes etc available).  Due to the mental overlap of the
clones with the caster, while any are within 100 meters of the caster, the
following is possible:
o  The caster can communicate 'telepathically' with the clone.
o  The caster will sence where the clone is, regardless of sight etc.
o  The caster can cast memorised spells through the clone, the spell is cast
   normally, with the caster performing all components necessary (the clone
   can mimic these if desired), the only difference being the spells
   origin, which is the clone (ie: all effects use the clone as the
   caster).
o  The caster can map the clones sences onto his own, though while doing
   so, the casters own sence which is being mapped over, is not
   available (eg: if the caster maps the clone's sight over his own for
   five minutes, then he cannot see from his own eyes for those five
   minutes).
The material components are a number of pearls (each worth at least
500gp) equal to the number of clones to be created (the number of clones
created is equal to the number of pearls used, with an upper limit of
one plus one for every five levels of the caster), and a drop of the
casters blood upon each pearl.  At the completion of the spell, the
bloodied pearls are flung from the caster, and where each lands, a clone
forms out of it.

-----

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