HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wwallace@ucrengr.ucr.edu (wayne wallace)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Weapon Specialization
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:35:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: galaxy.22073
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <67301@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge A. Diaz) writes:
>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?

This is correct by the second printing of 2nd Edition, and by Dragon
Magazine. The Fighter's handbook went by first printing, and repeated the
error that allowed fighters to specialize in several weapons and powergamed
allowing ranger and paladins to have ONE specialization. Just ignore that
paragraph in the fighter's handbook and the first printing PHB and you're
set. Also ignore allowing magic missiles to be used for called shots.
According to skip in Dragon issue #183's Sage Advice, Magic Missile is a
spell that does damage, no save; not actual missiles for purposes of aiming
and piercing body parts. (That ENTIRE column was a response
to my gaming group's rules queries and those of people on GEnie in the
Sage advice section, btw. However, I claim full responsibilty for the last
question dealing with skip's past errors. His response is typical of those at
TSR: they don't like playing with rules too much and prefer to let the DM
decide most everything. Sounds nice, but it doesn't work when your DM has
no clue on DMing properly or carries personal grudges into his games. TSR
must be full of trustworthy DMs if they can game that way most of the time.
Anyone else out there lucky enough to have a DM like that, who can keep his
head without rules/guidelines to help out?)

Wayne

-- 
*    // Only /\      |Lord Zar,Commander Of All He Surveys|Stay Alert! Trust  *
*\\ //      /--\MIGA |(and hater of spaces near commas.)  |No One! Keep--AHHHH*
* \X/ Internet: atra@ucru1.ucr.edu wwallace@ucrengr.ucr.edu GEnie:W.WALLACE9  *
* I'm a Purple Hearts & Yellow Moons kinda guy; I'm vay-teeng for you, dahlink*
From: klein@frith.egr.msu.edu (Jeffrey Klein)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Dwarf Women with bears, Not!
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:14:36 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University College of Stunt Piloting

In article <68760008@hpcvnb.CV.HP.COM> moursund@hpcvnb.CV.HP.COM (David_Moursund) writes:
>>/ 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.

Not around here they don't.  It's illegal to serve beer to miners.

-- 
Jeff Klein             | "Happily, Ral doffs his outer clothing for a
Browsing Boy of the LNH|  refreshing dip in one of the dangerous 
klein@kira.egr.msu.edu |  chemical vats." - Ty Templeton 
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Why are there level limits?
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Actuarial Science Program
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:48:35 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

(I wanted to stay out of this thread, but the spelling error in the
Subject: line finally annoyed me enough so that I had to post SOMETHING
to start it being changed.... ;)

ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:

: Hmmm....  Don't tell that to Gandalf. :-)  [No, he didn't wear armor, but
: he did use one big sword!!!]

Actually, since the Bard's Handbook came out, I've been wondering if 
Gandalf wouldn't fit the Bard-Loremaster category better.  Spells,
tells stories of bygone days, wields a sword....

*shrug* Just a thought.....

Michael Adams / StarWatcher

sig undergoing renovation
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Chromosonally-Challenged Characters
Date: 28 Aug 92 11:38:38 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <2268@cix.cict.fr>, mosson@reseau.Berkeley.EDU (Groupe ELEVES) writes:
> In article <1992Aug24.121219.659@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>,
> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
> 
>   {stuff about elves deleted...]
>>                             
>> 	This is min-maxing/powergaming! You have just said that elves are more
>> desireable to play than humans -- if they were really balanced, you would be
>> deciding with roleplaying in mind, not which race gives you the better bonus,
>> as YOU HAVE JUST DONE!
>> 
>> Brandon Cope
> 
>   I don't agree! Choosing a PC race has nothing to do with balance. 
> Making races equitable in game terms when they are not in your mind is
> just poor role-play. Hey, if elves DO have more advantages than humans,
> let's face it and accept it. You don't always want to play an elf each
> and every time, so where's the problem?
> 

	The problem comes from players who *do* want to play an elf each and
every time, either because they are Tolkien or Elf-Quest fanatics.  It gets
boring for me and the other players, and the problem-player gets a character
who is inherently more powerful than the other characters.

	It is not poor roleplaying to want the races to be balanced. It keeps
everyone from playing elves, or doesn't penalize those who want to play a
non-elf.

	I don't want to face elves being more powerful than humans (btw, I
never said anything about cutting advantages -- I wanted to put on
disadvantages that are reasonable, and logical). I don't want an elf-centric
game. I'm about to have the Elf Slayer Wars start up in my campaign world
(everybody against the elves) I'm getting so irritated.

Brandon Cope
From: tmiller@prism.gatech.EDU (Thomas Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Tales from the Floating Walrus
Keywords: Greyhawk, Trashed
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:32:49 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology




  I have run the _same_ Greyhawk campaign since 1985 or so, using three
different parties, whose exploits spanned a range of about 11 game
years.  Even thinking about Greyhawk Wars tears apart everything I've
worked on for all this time.
  It might be a neat change of pace, though, having your established
world destroyed.
  Right.

  Can anyone who actually _has_ this set provide some insight?  Thanks,


tm


-- 
Thomas Miller     Georgia Tech Network Services     GT EE 1992 (?!) 
WORK: (404) 853-0254 / Rich Bldg Rm 127, 258 4th St Atlanta, Ga. 30332
HOME: (404) 876-7929 / 345 Peachtree Pl NW, Atlanta, Ga. 30318 
Internet: tmiller@prism.gatech.edu OR Thomas.Miller@oit.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: praxis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Laura L Perkinson)
Subject: Re: Son of the Munchkin Guide
Followup-To: rec.games.frp.misc 
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:51:13 GMT

	A few more additions (sorry some of them aren't AD&D; I'm
trying to cross post...)

		Favorite AD&D Psionic Power
	Men like Disintegrate
	Roleplayers like Midlink
	Loonies like Chemical Simulation
	Munchkins like Empower

		Favorite Kit from the Bard's Handbook
	Men play skalds
	Roleplayers play Riddlemasters
	Loonies player Jesters (big surprise)
	Munchkins don't play bards

		Favorite Character from Twin Peaks
	Men like Windham Earle
	Roleplayers like Coop
	Loonies like Jerry Horne or Dr. Jacobi
	Munchkins don't watch Twin Peaks

		Favorite Character from Batman Returns
	Men like Catwoman
	Roleplayers like Catwoman
	Loonies really like Catwoman
	Munchkins like Batman

		Favorite pre-game activity
	Men whip themselves into a homicidal frenzy by listening to
Milli Vanilli records
	Roleplayers conduct one-on-one sessions so their characters can
get to know each other better
	Loonies stick whoopee cushions under all the seats
	Munchkins stack die rolls (ex: keep rolling a d20 til it comes up
20, then leave it there and the first time you have to roll a d20 point
and say "I rolled that naturally.")

		Favorite Music Group
	Men listen to Guns N Roses
	Roleplayers listen to Nine Inch Nails
	Loonies listen to They Might Be Giants
	Munchkins listen to whatever the real men tell them to

		Favorite Comic Book
	Men read Lobo
	Roleplayers read Sandman
	Loonies read The Heckler
	Munchkins read X-Force

			Shadowrun:
		Favorite Archetype
	Men play street samurai
	Rolplayers play fixers
	Loonies play deckers
	Munchkins play mages

		Favorite firearm
	Men use Colt M22 assault rifles
	Roleplayers use Ingram Smartgun SMG's
	Loonies use narcojects with hallucinogens, then randomly snipe
	Munchkins use Panther Assault Cannons

		Favorite Melee weapon
	Men use combat axes
	Roleplayers use monowhips
	Loonies use their pocket secretaries
	Munchkins use Mageswords

		Favorite Cyberware
	Men like muscle replacement
	Roleplayers like Skillwiring
	Loonies like Cortex Bombs (in themselves)
	Munchkins like Wired Reflexes (3) Beta

		Favorite Spirit to summon
	Men summon Storm Spirits
	Roleplayers summon Hearth Spirits
	Loonies Summon Watchers (and send them into combat)
	Munchkins summon their Totem

		Favorite type of Run
	Men like extractions
	Roleplayers like info-searches
	Loonies like anything involving Rockers
	Munchkins like taking over the Aztech pyramid

		Favorite part of Queen Euphoria
	Men like the big slugfest
	Roleplayers liked planning the break-in to the penthouse
	Loonies liked eating amber gel
	Munchkins liked getting all the free weapons


		Praxis, who kinda likes Audrey Horne
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: boelter3945@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Aging
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:54:07 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

> slip@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Doolie) writes:
>> Now, about aging, what would be the effect of:
>> 	A)   excessive use of healing potions
>> 	B)  a ring of regeneration  (repairing the effects of the 
>> 		years?)

   Aging effects?  There are no aging effects for these items.  Though I wonder
at the definition of 'excessive use' for potions (you mass-producing them at
the local mage's guild? :-)

   Also, a Ring of Regeneration doesn't repair the effects of the years, just
restores damage that has been caused.  Character still ages normally, and that
can't be fixed by the ring (though you find that Potion of Longevity..)

                                        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: A word on Mages
Date: 4 Sep 92 11:38:02 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@pmax1.cis.pitt.edu

In article <1992Sep4.162630.1@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au> edb892rsft@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au writes:

	[low level mages are candyass milquetoast girly-men]

>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?

	I have just two simple words for you:

	Spell points. Spell Points.

	If you like, you can give them bonus spells for their intelligence
like the clerics get for their wisdom.

	Or use The Arcanum system, wherein you get 1 spell per level, plus
two to begin with (I also give them the above bonus spells), but those
spells are of any level that you can cast.

	Or give him some cantrips. Tell him to be creative, at least then\
he has 4 mystic effects he can produce.

	Personally, though, I still say "Spell Points". It's the only way
to fly.

                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
From: gajensen@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Date: 29 Aug 92 09:15:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: miavx1.1992Aug29.141545.12396
Distribution: na
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

In article <67051@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
> Hmmm....  Don't tell that to Gandalf. :-)  [No, he didn't wear armor, but
> he did use one big sword!!!]

That's because Gandalf wasn't a wizard, nor was he human. He was able to do
things that were totally unavailible to humans and wizards. 

> This is wrong wrong wrong!!!  A 10th level thief will have about six 
> weapon and as many non-weapon proficiencies (plus any that he gained
> for intelligence).  I find it difficult to believe that a thief could find
> the time to become proficient with 6 different weapons, but he couldn't find
> the time to specialize in one. :-/

No, you are wrong wrong wrong. Proficient mens being able to use your weapon
without embarassing or hurting yourself. Specialized means that you have
basically learned every nuance of the weapon and the weapon is basically an
extension of your body, you are able to anything with it that you want. Big
difference between the two.

> Likewise, I find it difficult to believe that a priest who knows how to
> speak 5 different languages and can read and write in 3 of them would
> not be able to find the time to learn how to pick a lock.  If you think
> about it, it doesn't make sense.

Because this is not a preistly thing to do. I'll give you a better reason when
you think of a better case example.

> Priests do not spend all their time praying.
> Wizards do not spend all their time studying.
> Warriors do not spend all their time fighting.
> Thieves do not spend all their time robbing.

Yep, you are completely correct, they spend the rest of their time being human
or whatever race they are, and doing the things that people must do every day
of their lives, eat, sleep, talk to others and be something other than a
machine who can slaughter trolls in their sleep.

> -- 
> 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."

Silk
   Cause I'm tired of my other .sig
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: rsm58307@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Ron)
Subject: Re: Weapon Specialization
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:14:33 GMT

wwallace@ucrengr.ucr.edu (wayne wallace) writes:

>TSR: they don't like playing with rules too much and prefer to let the DM
>decide most everything. Sounds nice, but it doesn't work when your DM has
>no clue on DMing properly or carries personal grudges into his games. TSR
>must be full of trustworthy DMs if they can game that way most of the time.
>Anyone else out there lucky enough to have a DM like that, who can keep his
>head without rules/guidelines to help out?)
>Wayne

I've had a couple. Helps when all the player characters are capable of
DM'ing because then if one DM starts going overboard against a PC he
can play instead (which they're about ready to do by then anyway).

It sort of becomes a competition: who can DM the best and thus get other
people to want to go on their adventure idea first.

	- Ron
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Paladins
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:20:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BtJuuu.CBq
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:

>>The thief isn't even of the paladin's religion. Sorry to burst your
>>bubble, but most religions are exclusionary, and nonbelievers aren't
>>exactly given a lot of rights. 

>Really?  How do you know that the thief isn't of the paladin's religion
>(OK, it isn't likely, but you can't be sure unless you're in the campaign).
>Exclusionary?  Then I guess I'd better stop healing all the members of my
>party when they take damage.  None of them worship my goddess.  Thanks for
>pointing that out.

Exactly. Paladins aren't wandering nice guys. They are servants of their
diety. If the person doesn't worship your goddess, and doesn't intend to
convert, you should seriously consider whether healing them is permitted
by your god. Acccepting healing from a priest of another god is also a
bad thing for paladin types. 

This is one major problem with the "pick-up game" formation of most
parties. The characters are from different backgrounds with different
religious and philisophical beliefs with no real reason to stick together.
If properly roleplayed, most pickup game campaigns spin apart as far
as party unity.   

A unifying theme, such as all members worshipping the same diety, working
for some powerful noble or for the town where they live, or being servants
of a wizard, can be one of the unifying threads that hold a party together.
Really good article in a past Dragon on this very topic.

Axly
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Kind of a compilation of level-draining ideas
Date: 2 Sep 92 00:26:25 CST
Distribution: na
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <67372@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
> 
> OK, the ideas proposed and why *I* don't like them:
> 
> 
> Drain hit point and/or abilities temporarily.
> 	This doesn't do much damage to the characters: "Oh, a vampire?
> 	One week of bedrest.  Not a problem."  It takes the terror out
> 	of undead.  Then there's no point.
>
> I immediately threw out the second and third ideas - one is way to severe,
> and the other is so mild that it makes undead laughable.

	As an advocate of the third idea, I greatly disagree. The PCs in my
games *still* don't want to deal with undead, but they do know that they have a
chance. The terror of the undead isn't removed -- just an unbalanced rule.
Its the intelligent use of a creature, not the rough use of its powers, that 
makes players loathe to deal with them. 

[system for draining XPs rather than levels deleted]

	This is exactly what I hate about the T$R system -- I don't see
justification for people 'forgetting' things when struck by an undead, but
(except for hit points) to be completely unharmed physically.

Brandon Cope
 
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: alongley@cape.UWaterloo.ca (Allan Longley)
Subject: Re: How do you fight huge creatures? (was Tarrasque stories.
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:22:36 GMT

In article <14599@mindlink.bc.ca> Edward_Swatschek@mindlink.bc.ca (Edward Swatschek) writes:
>> Craig Thomas Judd writes:
>> 
>> Still, don't ask me how a 6ft ranger is going to hit much vital on a 60ft
>> creature...
>
>   There is always the achilles tendon (hopefully the creature has one), the
>cutting of which should result in the creatures other vitals becoming
>available. (But the picture of the two in battle is still awfully silly.<g>)

Remember that the huge creature is also fighting the 6ft ranger, ie., it is
bending over to bite and claw.  If this huge monster is to bite the 6ft guy,
than it is putting vital parts in strike range.  Now if the monster is
ignoring the 6ft guy and therefore not putting its vital parts in strike
range (assumming melee combat), than the AC and/or damage should be
modified.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Longley, University of Waterloo, Department of Chemical Engineering
e-mail: alongley@cape.uwaterloo.ca
voice: (519) 885-1211 x3816		Wow, its warm today -- cool!(?)
home: (519) 746-5747
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lrg@crud.cray.com (Lee Gordon)
Subject: Re: Deities
Originator: lrg@crud
Reply-To: lrg@crud.cray.com (Lee Gordon)
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:55:25 CDT



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"
|> >
|> >Thank you.

Agreed (although I was a big offender in a recent post).  Our group (for no
good reason) pronounces deity and piety the same way.  DEE-It-Ee, PEE-It-Ee.
Evil gods are also known as Dietys (as in to die... :-) ).  This tends to
mess me up in real life though.  The strange part is that my spell checker
recognizes diety as a word.  Is it an adjective form of diet?

	-Lee
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:15:48 -0400 
From: "Douglas F. DeJulio" <ddj+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Tales from the Floating Walrus
	<Btv4IA.H3L@news.cso.uiuc.edu>

rnmg1200@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (A Lady and her Walrus) writes:
>         Anyway, just thought I'd see if anyone else thought this was a 
> cheesy waste of time.  Are there any other Greyhawkers out there?  
> Hellooooo.....:)

Yah, I'm a Greyhawk enthusiast.  I just started running a traditional
Greyhawk campaign.  I thought the Wars stuff looked so uninteresting
that I had absolutely no urge to find out more about it.
-- 
Doug DeJulio
ddj+@cmu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd