HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:07:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <67022@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>Actually, I'm considering not permitting wizards to multi-class in future 
>campaigns I run, partially because of the armor issue...if you want to be a 
>wizard, you're going to be a *real* wizard and run around in your bathrobe!

Blah, let them wear armor, but they can't cast spells while they're wearing
it.  I don't see the problem.

>>So, how do you explain that a cleric can cast spells in armor?

>Because cleric spells are different than wizard spells.  

Very convienent.

>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_.

Exactly!!!  I started this entire thread to point out that the reason
these limitations exist is to maintain game balance.  After making up the
limitations, they made up the rationalizations.  But the limitations came
FIRST, and they came first because the writers were trying to maintain
game balance.

>No, because specialization comes from an intensive study of the art of using
>a weapon.  If a cleric gets into intensive study of weapons, he's *not* 
>devoting sufficient time to his priestly duties, and is therefore a bad cleric.

I notice you conviniently deleted the previous poster's words.  He had
said that after a fighter uses the same weapon for 10 years, he becomes
specialized with it.  I was just pointing out the flaw in that logic.

>>Game balance.  That's all it comes down to.

>Considering that one of the most important aspects of a game is that it has 
>to be playable, game balance is an infinitely good reason to make a rule.

Thank you, Matthew, you've just proven my point.
;-)


-- 
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: 25 Aug 92 17:20:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: ccsvax.1992Aug25.112045.668
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Aug24.190353.21162@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, cb317@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stephanie J. Kessler) writes:
> 
> As for class combinations,  some of them do make sense.  For
> example, dwarves and halflings are unmagical by nature, so they
> cannot be mages.  Or few races have the  dedication to be a
> paladin.  Most  rangers are woodland in nature, hence no dwarves.
> However, if a DM was willing to have a Dwarven ranger, that's
> his decision to make.  Our DM  also throws out some of these,
> like no Cleric/Thieves... could be interesting...

	It isn't hard to understand why many races are not allowed in certian
classes. However, as I mentioned in a previous post, each god/dess could have
their own Champion (specialist paladin), so you *could* have one for each race.

	I don't see anything really incompatable with a C/T. They both steal
money from innocent people, just in different ways :-)

Brandon Cope

	
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: dragon@nmt.edu (Dave Michaels)
Subject: Re: A new version of Familiars
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:49:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.210039.18949@oz.plymouth.edu> pyr530@oz.plymouth.edu
(Rob Holden) writes:

>	Now when I DM the spell, I take into consideration the type of terrain
>and make a list of "likely" familiars in the area.  Since then, I've seen
>a badger, a monkey, a hyena, a mink, and a flying squirrel for "normal"
>familiars, and the only "unusual" familiar was a korred. (what a riot THAT
>one turned out to be.:)

You should try playing one!  *sheesh* The group I game with went through
the "Grandfather Tree" module.  In the trunk, my character (in character)
decided to go and scout around by himself.  He encountered a couple of
blink ants, which he did amazingly well against.  So much so, his
confidence was boosted and he moved onward.  Apparently he ticked-off one
of the other blink ants, as it appeared above his head, and promptly
chopped it off with a critical critical.  He was reincarnated as a Khorred
(different spellings depending on what book you look in), and has been
having a BALL ever since. :)


                / \  //\
  |\___/|      /   \//  .\
  /O  O  \__  /    //  | \ \
 /     /  \/_/    //   |  \  \
 @___@'    \/_   //    |   \   \
    |       \/_ //     |    \    \
    |        \///      |     \     \
   _|_ /   )  //       |      \     _\
  '/,_ _ _/  ( ; -.    |    _ _\.-~        .-~~~^-.
  ,-{        _      `-.|.-~-.           .~         `.
   '/\      /                 ~-. _ .-~      .-~^-.  \
      `.   {            }                   /      \  \
    .----~-.\        \-'                 .~         \  `. \^-.
   ///.----..>        \             _ -~             `.  ^-`  ~^-_
     ///-._ _ _ _ _ _ _}^ - - - - ~                     ~--,   .-~
                                                           |_/~
                                                            '
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:25:54 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <17iqm4INN25n@trigger.ksu.ksu.edu> royalyn@trigger.ksu.ksu.edu (Royalyn S Nelson) writes:

>In article 3121 27 Aug 92 <66993@hydra.gatech.EDU> writes :

>>Why can't wizards wear armor?
>Because a wizard spends too much time indoors studying to have the time to
>learn how to use the armour.

See my previous message.

>That and the fact that the armour also restricts movement
>and thereby interferes with casting spells.

I never said anything about casting spells in armor.  Why is everyone putting
words in my mouth?

So, how do you explain that a cleric can cast spells in armor?

>>Why can only thieves pick locks?
>Because only thieves have the time to dedicate to learning the 'craft'.
>Besides if someone of another class decided to learn something like
>lock-picking he would then become a multi-classed/dual-classed character
>and take more time to advance levels because of the split up of experience
>points between levels.

Yes, but this is my point.  *I* am not a thief.  However, I could learn
to pick a lock if I took the time.  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:  If a mage can take the time to learn 6 languages
in addition to all his spells, I'm sure he could instead learn 4 languages
and lock-picking.

Please remember to hit RETURN after each line.  I've tidied up your post
to make it more legible.

>>Why can only fighters specialize in weapons?
>What else would a person whose primary reason for being do?  They use a weapon
>for long enough and they have to become specialized in it....it just happens. 

After a cleric uses a mace for 10 years, I figure he'd become specialized
in it, too:  It would just happen.

>>Why can clerics not use edged weapons?
>Some clerics can use edged weapons....check out the 2nd edition rules.
>Some gods allow edged weapons, particularly the war type gods.

And what about the other gods?  What's their reasoning behind it?  More
realisitically, what's the reasoning behind it for the people who made
up that silly rule?

Game balance.  That's all it comes down to.


-- 
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: 9999cs02@uhdvx3 
Subject: Re: Kender
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41A   
Organization: University of Houston-Downtown
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 04:24:00 GMT

In article <mxr.714253287@neptune>, mxr@neptune.dsc.com (Max "Clinical Whip Cotillion" Rible) writes...
>Has anyone seen a kender played in such a way that it wasn't an
>inconvenience and serious annoyance to a party?
>/-------------v-----------------------v---------------------------------------\
>| Max Rible   | mxr@dsc.com           | "Powerful big rats, gentlemen."       |
>|             | rible@vorpal.ucsb.edu |                         - Neil Gaiman |
>\-------------^-----------------------^---------------------------------------/
>-- 
Actually....yes...I was in a campaign a year or two ago in which I was....
a kender cleric/thief.  Yes, I took a lot of beef from the party about being
'half a cleric, half a thief, and all of nothing', but I remember saving 
the party's collective asses about 3 times, and a ranger's once....I'll send
the stories by email if someone wants it.

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Scrolls and spells
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 18:01:32 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

Rannou@info.polymtl.ca (Patrick Rannou) writes:

: So a scroll CAN'T be copied, but it can be used to gain INSIGHTS on a
: spell, and thus helps spell reasearch. The rules say using "up" a spell
: specifically to gain insight on it halves the time and cost used for spell
: reasearch.

In your opinion.  I'd say that this is a decision best left to individual
DM's.  IMO, spells can be copied from scrolls (normally) once, but the
mage has to make all the rolls for learning/understanding a new spell,
and probably ought to make some sort of roll for correctly transcribing
the spell, much like a wizard would do when inscribing a scroll.  Of
course, if the spell is miscopied, the DM would have the opportunity 
to devise some mighty, um, creative "side effects."

: The rules say a spell can be COPIED from another mage's spellbook but
: provide NO information oin the time that takes, so you have to assume it
: for yourself.

Which is one of the reasons DM's exist -- to enlighten the grey areas.
IMO, under the best of circumstances (well lit lab, proper quill, ink,
paper/parchment availible, no disruptions) it ought to take 1-2 hours
per spell level to copy a spell.  This would not count the time needed
to actually learn/understand the spell, prepare the supplies, etc.
Of course, your mileage may vary.  :)

: Anybody has the magic user's handbook and know if that rulebook say
: ANYTHING about copying spellbooks?

Only thing I can find in there is that "Fundamentals of Spell Transcription"
is a recommended class to be taught at any acadamy of magic.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher)            "A converted cannibal is one who,
StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (NeXT & internet)      on Friday, eats only fishermen."
wi.5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (anonymous)             -- Emily Lotney
FREE1217@UIUCVMD.bitnet (bitnet)
From: boelter3945@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Scrolls and spells
Date: 31 Aug 92 12:41:41 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Aug28.014141.17465@latcs1.lat.oz.au>, barton@latcs1.lat.OZ.AU
   (Douglas P Barton) writes:
> Can an MU copy a spell from a scroll to his spell-book?

   I should hope so, this is how the mage gets new spells after all!

> [...] otherwise an MU of any level
> should be able to cast the spell on the scroll with near automatic
> success...

   Not quite, there are chances of spell failure/backfire if the spell is of
higher level than normally castable by the caster.

   Yes, scrolls are just meant to be read (i.e. No S,M components needed),
because inscribing a scroll binds those two components up into the scroll
spell.  A scroll can be inscribed into a spell book as well, but not by just
sitting down and copying.  After using Read Magic, I believe it takes 1 hour
per level of spell to inscribe into spellbook (may be wrong, but I have always
used this number).

                                        John "Nightwind" Boelter

--
*******************************************************************************
* 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%  * "I hit it with my Sword+10 of    *
* of our brain's mental capacity, was      *  Super Slaying" - "It laughs" -  *
* probably 90% incorrect.                  * "I give the DM the rest of my    *
*            -Unknown comic on A&E-        *  pizza" - *munch* "It dies"      *
*******************************************************************************
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Poisons
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:03:57 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@pmax1.cis.pitt.edu

In article <185fasINN5j9@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cb317@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stephanie J. Kessler) writes:
>The Herbalism skill can be used for poison knowledge, I believe.
>At least, that is the way my DM has used it in the past...

	Herbalism will certainly allow you knowledge of SOME poisons, but
hardly all of them. Unless they're playing REALLY fast and loose with the
definition of herbalism, you're only going to know PLANT toxins. A far
cry from the person who wants to know about ALL the poisons -- arsenic
and antimony from minerals, bufotoxin from toads, curare from plants, 
fugutoxin from the puffer fish, the venoms of the various snakes, the
blood of the dragon, the Sea Wasp's venom, and so on, not to mention
creating completely new poisons (chlorine or sarin, anyone?).

	Nope, I think that a specialized field of alchemical knowledge
called Poison Lore is certainly a full-sized proficiency -- maybe
even a two or three slotter!


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
From: kermits@ikaros.cc.uch.gr (Aggelos Keromyths)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Assassin
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:31:59 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Crete HELLAS
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

Could anyone mail me the assassin and the monk classes ?
Thanks,
	Aggelos
From: ads3@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew D. Shults)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: re: PBEM AD&D Game
Date: 4 Sep 1992 04:55:55 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ads3@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew D. Shults)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


     This is an update to the message I posted a couple of days ago about
the PBEM I am starting (the one which begins in Rookroost in the World
of Greyhawk).  I have received 10 responses so far, and have decided to
stop accepting character descriptions on Wednesday, Sept. 9th at
11:00 P.M. EDT.  For those of you outside the USA, I think EDT is 6 hours
behind GMT, but I could be an hour or two off.

   ---Andrew
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: rnmg1200@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (A Lady and her Walrus)
Subject: Re: Origin of the 2nd ed. Ranger
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 19:31:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.140549.15208@husc3.harvard.edu> alvalent@husc9.harvard.edu (Alvin Valentine) writes:
>lavonius@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
>No, no, no... Nasir is an assassin: he's a foreigner, wears black clothing
>all the time and never pets animals :-)
>
>I write:
>Sorry you lost me.  Indeed, Nasir is a Saracen (like Azeem was in the 
>Costner version--many of the Robin Hood tales include Saracens).  Two what he
>wears is black studded leather (just like our Rangers).  He tracks (in fact
>only one of the "Merry Men" I've seen track, although admittedly there may
>be others).  And no one pets animals on that show on any regular basis.  
>Two weapons, tracking, studded leather, a woodsman.  Call him an assassin
>(even Little John worked for the Sorceror Simon d'Beleme) or what you will,
>but he looks to fit the mould pretty darn well to me.

I'm not overly familiar with the character and story you're talking about,
but if I remember correctly, the original purpose of Nasir was as an assassin
who was hired to eliminate Robin Hood.  He was a member of the Hashishim, the
original "Brotherhood of Assassins" which supposedly had close ties to the
Knights Templar (if you believe conspiracy theorists, that is).  The
name Hashishim, by the way, comes from the drug their original leader addicted
them to in order to keep them in line:  Hashish.  

If memory serves (read this in GURPS Robin Hood, of all places!), Nasir
was sent by some local nastie to assassinate Robin, but wound up becoming
one of the Merry Men by some fluke (He was bested by Robin?).  Thus,
the post about Nasir being an assassin.  Of course, there was a fighter
version of the assassin printed about a year ago in Dragon, so this does
not entirely rule out the possibility of his being a ranger as well.
C'est la vie...

>Admittedly, though, the Ranger design was taken from many locations, not
>just one, but Nasir seems to be the closest bloody thing I've ever seen.
>
>BTW, just a question.  Struck me funny:  He's A FOREIGNER!  When did that
>ever stop anyone from being a Ranger?!  :)
>

Indeed.

The Walrus
From: lavonius@kruuna.Helsinki.FI (Ville Lavonius)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Munchikinism/Min-Maxing (Require Def'n)
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:09:25 GMT
Organization: Vidal Sassoon's Mosh&Go

In article <u855271.714898448@franklin> u855271@franklin.cc.utas.edu.au (Peter Didlick) writes:

   Well I have been reading this group for about a year now and I am still
   confused as to the exact definition of the terms 'Munchkin' and to a 
   lesser extent 'Min-Max'.

   It would appear to me that in some cases the two may be used inter-
   changeably but not in others.

   I would appreciate a post on this subject that defined clearly, concisely,
   objectively and without using the very generic term "Monty-Haul".

   So....Can ya do it??

I'll give it a shot.

Min-maxers try to create a strongest possible character from a given amount
of dice/points/whatever. They try to find loopholes in the system, and 
all in all create "totally intense" characters. Usually combat monsters
in fantasy games. In play min-maxers can play very well (in fact, the best
player I know is a self-confessed MM'er), they just use the best available
tactics in every situation, and take all combats seriously.

On the other hand, munchkins begin character creation by whining that they
don't have enough bingies to create a feasible character. In play munchkins
usually talk of non-character things like AC or use ability numbers. They
won't always choose best tactics, if someone annoys a munchkin PLAYER, that
character is dead meat. During breaks in the game munchkins don't talk about
anything else than the game.

Blasphemy or seeds of truth ?

   Pete.
--
Ville Lavonius	        University of Helsinki, Dept. of Computer Science
lavonius@cc.helsinki.fi : I'm the son of a gun and the gun of a son
From: boelter3945@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: An Interesting Question
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:25:32 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Aug28.161834.9470@ncsu.edu>, knight@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu
   (Lindsey Lambert) writes:
> While gaming the other night we ran into a perplexing problem...
> [...story deleted...]
> 		The question is this...
> 	
> 	Would a speak with dead work on the hawk since the
> 	sword managed to retain its personality when polymorphed?	

   Well, I would think that it wouldn't be a hawk anymore, as I thought I
remember somewhere that if a something that is polymorphed is killed, it
reverts to its natural state/form.  This obviously may be different with a
Polymorph any Object, but just was wondering.

> 	What happens if the Paladin has someone (high level
> 	church member) cast dispel magic cast upon the dead hawk?
> 		(Does the Paladin then have a +3 unintelligent sword?)
> 	What happens if the Paladin has a resurrection cast upon
> 	the dead hawk, followed by a dispel magic?

   I think most of these answers depend on how you view a sword with an Ego
rating, whether it just happens to have Int and Ego ratings without a real soul
or spirit, or whether it has a soul/spirit invading the object.

   Myself, I rule that objects with Ego's have a lost spirit possess the
object, and so the powers of the sword (if any) are a result of the spirit
being partially back onto the current plane, rather than 'trapped' elsewhere. 
So a Resurrection would work on the sword (unless the spell says only works on
people, don't know).  The hawk would already be back to the sword, as I stated
above.

   Very interesting question though. :-)

                                        John "Nightwind" Boelter

--
*******************************************************************************
* 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%  * "I hit it with my Sword+10 of    *
* of our brain's mental capacity, was      *  Super Slaying" - "It laughs" -  *
* probably 90% incorrect.                  * "I give the DM the rest of my    *
*            -Unknown comic on A&E-        *  pizza" - *munch* "It dies"      *
*******************************************************************************
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Paladins
Date: 26 Aug 92 02:27:44 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Aug25.224312.9380@pony.Ingres.COM>, dwilson@Ingres.COM (It's up to me.) writes:
> 
> If I remember my Poli Sci class teachings right (as if a Math Sci major
> would):
> 
> It is society, not the victim, that determines a crime, in many cases
> (but maybe not all...the memory is fuzzy here).  This is why criminal
> cases here in the US are always United States vs. John Q. Defendent, rather 
> than Poor S. Victim vs. John Q. Defendent.  
> 
> I believe the reason was that all crimes are, in fact, crimes against
> society, in that they disrupt the fabric of accepted societal behavior.
> It is therefore the *duty* of society as a unit to protect the 
> individuals that make up the society.  I.e., Society makes the laws, so 
> society must enforce them.

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

> 
> Given this, and assuming that the religion in question is a major 
> part of society (for we, after all, cannot ignore the possibility 
> of societal prejudice against minority religions), then the paladin
> certainly had the right to decide that the thief was an alledged 
> criminal, and should be taken to the proper authorities (although, 
> unless in that society the paladin *was* the proper authority,
> the immediate dispensation of justice was uncalled for).

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

Brandon Cope 


Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd