HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dart@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dartanyan the Witchling)
Subject: PSIONICS QUESTION
Summary: this can't be right...
Keywords: Psionics, 2nd edition, AD&D
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 10:32:58 GMT

	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.  In the explanation of the terms, it says
that the prerequisite is he other devotions or sciences that must be known in 
order to use the science or devotion.
	
	If these rules are followed strictly, it indicated that a character 
must have Telepathy as his starting discipline and must have mindlink as his
starting science, or he will not be capable of using his 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 neces-
sary for balance in some way?

	
	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?

	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)?

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

							dodger
							Sean Cannon

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: cary@carina.unm.edu (Ithlial the Archer)
Subject: Re: Use stat limits not level limits (was:Re: Demi-humans vs. Humans 
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 22:36:43 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

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. :)

Ithlial

My opinions, mine, mine, mine!


               The only good Troll is a dead Troll

Collary:

          Trolls regenerate - There are no dead Trolls
From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Spell casting, was Re: A word on Mages
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 15:00:25 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

A few reactions to the postings thusfar:


Memorization:  why use it?  I prefer 'learning' the spell and then having
it drain sufficient magical energy that a mage MUST rest.  Either the
GM can state that the synapses (nerve-network) necessary for such spells
need to rest or let them cast multiples of one spell.  I think it
may be necessary to tone down the higher level mages if you take this
route, however.


Rest: The graduated level/hours always worked for us too.

Variations in spells/power:  GREAT IDEAS!

Apprentice wands etc.:  More great ideas.  We had stuff like this in our
campaigns.

Spell books:  Best left at home!  Nasty fireball (or oils/torch) and it'll
waste your entire set of spells!  Use scrolls?  They burn too, ya know.
Make 'em one use, I say.  :>


Role-playing:  This is the best idea, I think.  It is the responsibility
of the GM to make the game interesting.  The cantrips/linguistics abils
are great, as is the idea about fiddling with the magick system to
make it 'occult' - very realistic!  


Thyagi
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alt.magick may have some ideas about spells for CoC. ;>
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: brian_vickers@isd.jpl.nasa.gov (Brian Vickers)
Subject: Re: Adventure Modules
Followup-To: rec.games.frp.dnd
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:28:49 GMT

In article <Bu707x.3u0@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, rnmg1200@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (A
Lady and her Walrus) wrote:
I believe "Queen of the Demonweb Pits" was the sequel to 
> "Scourge of the Slavelords" but I don't remember how they tied in with "Temple
> of Elemental Evil" offhand.
> 
> The Walrus

You probably can't remember because they don't tie together at all (plot
wise that is). T1-4 has plot ties to Q1 which has plot ties to G1-3 & D1-3.
The only reasons to run A1-4 immediately after T1-4 are: 1) the characters
should be of appropriate level, and 2) the geographic locations are not too
distant.

-- Brian
brian_vickers@isd.jpl.nasa.gov
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Clerics:  Deities Granting Spells
Date: 10 Sep 92 01:08:55 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <Bu7299.Cyq@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, rworkman@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Ryan Workman) writes:
> In article <1992Sep6.231117.15425@husc3.harvard.edu> alvalent@husc9.harvard.edu (Alvin Valentine) writes:
>>CPH's "this should never be allowed" rules in tons of places.  I like the
>>Complete Priest's Handbook method for a few reasons:
>>
>>	1)  Given a quick glance, 9 people out of 10 will choose a PHB
>>		Cleric in 2nd ed. to any specialty priest with limited 
>>		spheres unless the special powers of the latter were excedingly
>>		attractive.  This is bogus.  Again water people should
>>		breathe water, not cast Fire Storm.
> 
> I have to agree with you here.  I have always limited the type of spells a PC
> Cleric could pick from.

	Ever since the 2nd edition came out, I did away with generic priests.
ALL priests must follow a specific diety, and each diety gives different
abilities and spells.

> 
>>	2)  Certain of the books are clearly laid out such that more powerful
>>		gods grant SCADS more power than lesser gods.  Zeus may
>>		give his priests Lightning Bolt 1/day plus major access
>>		to everything.  Mediocre Demigod may give 1 major and 2 minors.
>>		Makes good sense, but doesn't balance well with the XP side.
>>		Imagine telling someone he had to earn 500K XPs for next
>>		level to get one more 3rd level spell, while the Zeus 
>>		worshipper over there gets +1 7th level spell, +1 6th, +3 5th..
>>		Not quite fair, is it?

	Well, I handle this by giving priests of less powerful gods more
special abilities. The restriction of 6th and 7th level spells is not new -- it
was in 1st Edition as well. Typical Sphere numbers:

	greater god: 3-4 major spheres, 4 minor spheres
	lesser god: 2-3 major spheres, 3-4 minor spheres
	demi-gods: 0-1 major spheres, 2-3 minor spheres

	This doesn't include the ALL sphere. Unlike the CPH, weapon and armor
choice has *nothing* to do with the number of spheres available.

>>
>     [stuff deleted about different XPs for each priesthood]
>>
>>What do you suggest?  I don't have a problem with Zeus granting more power
>>than Loser-Demi-God, but I don't think Loser-Demi-God's priests should be
>>paying XPs out the nose for a token spell or two either.
>>
> 
	Well, maybe something like no modifier for a demi-god, +5-10% for a
lesser god, and +10-15% for a greater god. The other option is to do what I
have done, and give priests of weaker gods better special abilities. Or what
if (gasp) the player was willing to roleplay, and didn't mind the fact that his
priest of Maylar is weaker than the one of Tempus?

Brandon Cope

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: "Shawn M. Witzki" <switzki@blueberry.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Need to find Were-Dragons
Reply-To: switzki@cs.indiana.edu
Organization: Working on it. . .
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 10:40:19 -0500

>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.

I e-mailed a response to the author a few days ago, but since the thread is
still going, I shall post it as well.

The weredragon being discussed is indeed misnamed.  It really should be a
dragonwere, since it shares characteristics with the similarly
non-lycanthropic jackalwere and wolfwere.  It was created by Ed Greenwood and
was originally published (to my knowledge) in a DRAGON issue (the number
escapes me).  It was subsequently revised to 2nd Edition format in the
module/sourcebook FA1 Hall of Heroes, which, as was pointed out, is set in
the Moonshae Isles of the Forgotten Realms.

-- 
============================================================================
A penny saved is a Congressional oversight.      \\          Shawn M. Witzki 
                                    -- Unknown    \\  switzki@cs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Subject: Re: A word on Mages
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 17:39:07 GMT

brian@zooid.guild.org (Brian Misiaszek) writes:

>  Perhaps an alternative to bestowing extra goodies to the so-called "wimpy
>first level mage" is to take your advice above--give the magic user a greater
>role than just a bestower of death at a distance.  Allow only mages the
>ability to read runes, secret writing and maps.  Increase the opportunity for
>role-playing for the mage--have them repositories of mysterious trivia and
>hermetic knowledge (the DM can do this by passing the mage a note on something
>that confounds the party that the mage *might* know).  The magic abilities
>that a mage can weild should be mysterious and arcane to those ignorant of the
>magical arts--bestow a token cantrip, a mysterious reputation, strangely hued
>eyes that are unsettling to look upon, and so forth to set apart the mage from
>the other classes.

Even using the basic rules as are, Wizards are likely to be the only members
of the party that can read. That's right, folks, most of your characters
couldn't read this post. I'd say that one ability alone makes the 1st level
wizard very valuable to any group.  The ancient history nwp is also one that
comes in very handy. The mage tends to be like a small time sage in our
groups, and is often more valuable for what they know than what they throw.

Axly


Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: Rannou@info.polymtl.ca (Patrick Rannou)
Subject: Re: An Interesting Question (polymorph)
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada
	<Btt3BF.2Ln@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:02:17 GMT

In article <Btt3BF.2Ln@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> rworkman@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Ryan Workman) writes:


About polymorphing...

   Although your idea of death = original form has it's merits, polymorph any
   object is a higher level magic and perhaps should be given some more 
   permanent affects.

IMHO, Polymorph Any Object isn't all that powerful. Sure, it's more
"potent" in the way it can affect ANY object, but IMHO the more SPECIFIC a
spell the more DENSE the magic is in that particular effect.

Think about it this way. If the spell level is represented by a certain
fixed amount of jelly, and the number of ways ro use the spell is
represented by a certain fixed 'toast' size, then you can see that the
bigger your toast, the thinner the jelly will be spread.

In other words: A 7th level "Polymorph Lead to Gold" spell should be much
better at polymorphing lead to gold than a 7th level "Polymorph Any object"
spell is at doing the same task.

So, IMHO, unless the spell was specifically designed with these things in
mind, when a living being dies (or when the time of polymorph is up), it's
old form is restored. Polymorph Any object is more potent, true. I'll have
to look it up, and judge for myself.

Thanks anyway.

Pat.
--
/---------------------------\
| Patrick "Paradak" Rannou. |
| Rannou@info.polymtl.ca    |
\---------------------------/

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: dmatiske@bernstein.helios.nd.edu (david matiskella)
Subject: Re: Cube of Force usage question
Reply-To: dmatiske@bernstein.helios.nd.edu (david matiskella)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:21:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.151434.12718@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>, gajensen@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:
|> 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:
|> > 
|> 
|> 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!!
	ACtually cubes of Force are not as powerful as every one makes them out to be. For one thing it is very difficult to attacka the monster outside the cube. Second they have charges which run out rather raipidly. I am not 100% sure but I don't think the the cubes are that big. Sure you could put eight people in one but magic is out of the question with the limited room to move. Finallt they have charges that will fun out.
	When the players put of the keep out all non-living matter simply have a half dozen rats move into the cube and watch the players hack them selves to death when they tray to swing thier  two handed swords.
From: chuahl@ocf.berkeley.edu (Chua HakLien)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Wanted: One player for AD&D PBeM campaign
Date: 11 Sep 1992 16:57:21 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu



One player needed for AD&D PBeM. Low level, 1st or 2nd. Any class
except Cleric, Ranger or Thief type. Email here for info. Must be able
to read mail on daily basis, except on weekends.

Chua
From: gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Paul Wagland)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Missiles into Melee Combat
Date: 9 Sep 1992 09:54:38 +0800
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: 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:
>[...]
>>So what do you think?
>(I think you should not use tabs)

I think I agree, will have to work out the initialization files for vi I
spose :)

>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.

As with all systems, it does have it's flaws, maybe with tall creatures
you shhould add a bit more, or maybe make it a set number, such that
unless you miss by 'x' you will hit ogre/giant/etc in the upper torso.

>>Paul

>Enjoy, be free,
>Sean.
-- 
Paul Wagland            | These opinions are mine and no-one elses
gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au   | Bingy Bingy Bingy Frogs Go round and round
------------------------+     -- Another silly quote from me  :-)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: staats@athena.mit.edu (Dick)
Subject: Re: Poisons
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:42:12 GMT

Make one up!  How about it takes two proficiency slots.  It is only available to
rogues, and it is rated as INT -2?
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: akostur@fraser.sfu.ca (Andre John Kostur)
Subject: Re: DARK SUN
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 10:54:00 GMT

In article <BuFn1C.M46@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> janderso@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Justin Anderson) writes:
>
>	I haven't played D&D in a long time (mostly I play GURPS nowadays) but
>I picked up the Dark Sun set a few weeks ago and I was hooked.  Although it's
>still D&D (love that justification for the 1 minute combat round in the 2nd
>edition...) I heartily approve of the world.  A very nice change of pace from 
>the standard fantasy world (elves hugging trees in the forest, dwarves being
>gruff in the mountains, etc....)  I like the dark overtones to the world in
>particular.  From a practical standpoint, starting at 3rd level is *such* a
>boon to mages....  To bad they didn't spend a little more time editing the 
>thing....  According to one place in the rule book, druids get major access to
>the Sphere of Cosmos (clerics get minor), but at another it says that druids
>get minor as well....  Clerical magic seems pretty limited under these terms.
>Clerics don't get a whole lot of spells above 3rd level.  I'm considering 
>giving clerics (but not druids) major access to Cosmos.  
>
>	All in all, I'm a fan.  Must admit I'd rather have GURPS:  Dark Sun,
>but it'll do.
>

I'm personally quite impressed with Dark Sun.  I'm a heavy psionics fan,
so that's a BIG reason that I really enjoy this world


      ^ 
     ' ` 
  **'   `**         Andre Kostur
 ***  _  ***
  *''***``*         akostur@sfu.ca 
   `     '
From: rworkman@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Ryan Workman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Scrolls and spells
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:12:59 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Sep11.021830.900@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.065525.20586@latcs1.lat.oz.au>, barton@latcs1.lat.OZ.AU (Douglas P Barton) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep8.214743.15260@aa.cad.slb.com>, jackson@ess43.Berkeley.EDU (Jeff Jackson) writes:
>> |> |> 
>> |> |> 	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
>> |> 
>> 
>> Then surely *ANYBODY* should be able to use/ignite/operate/run/execute them...
>> And how then is it possible to compile a priest spell?
>> 
>
>	Nope. IBM WP5.1 won't run on a Mac, and Mac MS-Word 5.0 won't do
>anything on an IBM (well, not without some special hardware :-)). The spells
>are 'compiled' to be 'run' (ie, cast) on different 'machines'.
>
>	The whole concept of priest scrolls has been a bit fuzzy to me for most
>of the 9+ years I've been DMing, and I'm considering only allowing mage
>scrolls.
>
>Brandon Cope
>a generous and sadistic DM


Yep, Brandon, I have never figured out why Priest spells exist.  So I have
discontinued their existence in my campaigns.  IMO, mage spells are like
a science (albeit a fantasy science), and priest spells CANNOT be researched 
as they come "from above".

    
 




>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Runfirst  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
                                          
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: stv@unislc.uucp (Steve Spencer)
Subject: Re: Munchikinism/Min-Maxing (Require Def'n)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:56:05 GMT

Coyt D Watters (cwatters@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: In article <BuDFy5.4Ew@news.udel.edu> mkelly@chopin.udel.edu (Michael Joseph Kelly) writes:
: 
: This is not what is normally considered Munchkin or Min/Max.  3b(4d6) 
: "3 best of 4d6" is a fairly common method of generation.  Many DMs view 
: that the players are somewhat different than "normal" (i.e. 3d6) folk, and
: should have slightly higher stats.  
: 
: 3b(4d6) does not make getting an 18 "a lot" easier.  True there are now
: 4 combinations which create an 18, but the total number of combinations goes
: from 6^3 to 6^4.  Getting a 3 is very tough, since there is only 1 combination
: which will yield a 3 (1-1-1-1).
: 
: -Coyt

For all of you interested, the odds do get "a lot" better of rolling an
18. Try double. The odds go from 216 to 1, to 108 to one. Oh, and by the
way, the odds of rolling a 3 with the above method is 1296 to 1.


Steve Spencer		This is a subliminal message. Pay no attention.
Salt Lake City, Utah   
stv			(Short .sig to keep all the PRUDES off my back!)
From: JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: What are Cantrips...?
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:16:54 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center


 I'll just add to what have been said by others, that
cantrips were introduced in DRAGON as zero-level spells
learned by spell caster while they were apprentices.

 The magazine has two lists of cantrips: one for magic-users
and one for clerics.

-- Jose L. Martinez --
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd