4E Drow in chainmail bikinis should get a +5 damage bonus.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:48 am

Boolean wrote:Elennsar

Wow, that last post is full of win. Congratulations.

You're still a racist, but you're finally getting game mechanics.

Let's see what we're missing: a) a system where wizards are equally benefitted by investing in Str instead of Int, and b) I'm willing to bet he still favors tiny little restrictive bonuses that mandate characters of some race never use weapons outside some restrictive setup unless forced. So, fail. Also, congratulating people for merely failing momentarily to be terminally stupid's a questionable activity at best.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:49 am

Because it is so racist in any sense that word has any recognizable meaning for orcs to be inferior at ANYTHING.

Is it racist to say that apes are inferior? How about wolves? Bears?

Seriously.

Personally, since "Orcs are bad at wizardry" is reflected by "orcs (all things being even) have lower Intelligence.", that working out without "orcs are weaker in terms of stat points" is perfectly desirable (in fact more desirable...being able to be balanced -and- represent what you want is always superior to balance that sacrifices flavor or vice-versa.)

So. The question of whether or not we -want- orcs to have a -2 aside, the question arises...

Why do rules-as-written have 15 cost more from 14 than 14 did from 13?

I mean, is there any logic at all, or just "they're idiots."?

Let's see what we're missing: a) a system where wizards are equally benefitted by investing in Str instead of Int, and b) I'm willing to bet he still favors tiny little restrictive bonuses that mandate characters of some race never use weapons outside some restrictive setup unless forced.

a) can be met by having Strength be effective -enough- to not keep them level inappropriate (it might be more beneficial to have 14/16 than 16/14, but 14 is useful)

b) Oh noes, restrictions. And bonuses that you won't have unless you use what you have a bonus for. Oh noes.

If people can survive with other weapons than the one they have WF for, people can survive with other weapons than the one they get a racial bonus with, just as dwarves survive against encounters that aren't orcs or goblinoids or giants.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:53 am

Just "you're an idiot". The fact is, all D&D characters do best to have lopsided ability scores to some extent. Distributing doesn't work out and wasn't meant to be in the first place (the fact that monks require the most attributes pretty simply makes them objectively worse). So people at least came up with a scheme to make not lopsiding at keast look worth taking into consideration.

Elennsar wrote:a) can be met by having Strength be effective -enough- to not keep them level inappropriate (it might be more beneficial to have 14/16 than 16/14, but 14 is useful)

b) Oh noes, restrictions. And bonuses that you won't have unless you use what you have a bonus for. Oh noes.

If people can survive with other weapons than the one they have WF for, people can survive with other weapons than the one they get a racial bonus with, just as dwarves survive against encounters that aren't orcs or goblinoids or giants.

A) either it's as good or isn't. And don't act like I haven't proposed multiple solutions.
B) people choose what to take WF for. People who choose a race might be interested in using any other weapon.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:55 am

Bad set up, that.

If its not meant to work, it should never be necessary. If it is ever necessary, it should work.

And similarly, if lopsiding is necessary, punishing it is absurd.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:58 am

Elennsar wrote:Bad set up, that.

If its not meant to work, it should never be necessary. If it is ever necessary, it should work.

And similarly, if lopsiding is necessary, punishing it is absurd.

Look at past post. Also, what you see as "punishing lopsiding" might be seen as "trying to make not lopsiding a balanced choice". I guess it failed, but it could be seen as an attempt.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:03 am

Point is, if they want people to value a balanced set up, not making certain characters (coughcasterscough) value one stat to the point others don't even matter because their spells overcome anything it would influence is bad design.

As for the comments.

A) either it's as good or isn't. And don't act like I haven't proposed multiple solutions.
B) people choose what to take WF for. People who choose a race might be interested in using any other weapon.

A) Either its good enough for an adventurer, who will presumably do something other than "I cast a spell." as a caster, or its not, yes, but it may not be equally good at "I engage in a CHALLENGE OF WIZARDRY."

B) Which they are perfectly able to do. "I lack a bonus." does not equal "I have a penalty."

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:07 am

Elennsar wrote:A) Either its good enough for an adventurer, who will presumably do something other than "I cast a spell." as a caster, or its not, yes, but it may not be equally good at "I engage in a CHALLENGE OF WIZARDRY."

Not a given.

Elennsar wrote:B) Which they are perfectly able to do. "I lack a bonus." does not equal "I have a penalty."

It's the exact same thing. The only thing that matters in balance's how well you fare if compared to something else you could've been (i.e. you're punished by not using arbitrarily dictated weapons for the entire race you happen to choose).

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:13 am

A) If its not a given, we have a problem with casters using spells for everything, which means they can do everything with spells. Charming situation, that.

B) If you're "punished" for not being as good as you could be, then you can NEVER have situational advantages that actually lead to better results than if you didn't have them.

Sounds like a vote for "optimize or die".

Is an elf who has Talisman's suggestion of "ignore half of an opponents' cover bonus to AC when fighting in the forest" "punished" when outside the forest?

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:17 am

You're racist because you seem unable to accept that norsemen are people.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:24 am

I'm perfectly able to accept that Norsemen are people. I'm also going to be very skeptical of "Hey, I'm playing a guy from a culture that is all martial and stuff, and into sailing and hunting and exploring and all sorts of things, but I don't want him to be like that at all."

"I want to do a guy who's an exile from his culture because he's nothing like other members when the only meaningful difference between the different groups is cultural norms so basically he's a Norseman because he was born in the North."

At that point, I'm really not sure you're roleplaying a Viking because you wanted to be a Viking.

So assuming all humans have the same bonuses and traits (save individual or cultural ones)...oooookaaaay.

Confusion is not racism.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:25 am

Elennsar wrote:A) If its not a given, we have a problem with casters using spells for everything, which means they can do everything with spells. Charming situation, that.

We have a problem with characters that "use spells for eveything" when it's in the sense of "they can do all things possible, thus not needing non-spellcasters". We don't have a problem when it means "every problem they actually solve's solved with spells, but they don't particularly solve more problems than anyone else".

Elennsar wrote:B) If you're "punished" for not being as good as you could be, then you can NEVER have situational advantages that actually lead to better results than if you didn't have them.

Is an elf who has Talisman's suggestion of "ignore half of an opponents' cover bonus to AC when fighting in the forest" "punished" when outside the forest?

"What terrain you're on now" isn't a character concept choice. "What weapons you use unless forced otherwise" is - the weapons of choice might stay the same through a career, and the racial bonuses (and lacks thereof) most certainly are permanent, much unlike "being on a forest" (or not). And setting up a race such that their concepts are narrowly limited in that aspect's crap.

For the record, abilities that work "on forests" also are crap, because a single terrain type's a small sample regardless of what it is. Ironically "underground" kinda does work in D&D, because D&D makes it basically its own alternate Earth - much larger and more varied than any single surface terrain type.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:25 am

Elennsar: could you accept a black character who had neither a glock nor an afro?

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:27 am

Also, my suggested feature involved the alleviation of a penalty, not a bonus. Not the same thing.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:32 am

We have a problem with characters that "use spells for eveything" when it's in the sense of "they can do all things possible, thus not needing non-spellcasters". We don't have a problem when it means "every problem they actually solve's solved with spells, but they don't particularly solve more problems than anyone else".

Presumably, however, we have adventurers doing things that are "every adventurer does this to some extent", where Strength would be handy even for the wizard and Intelligence even for the Barbarian.

Boolean: Yes.

What does that have to do with an entirely different situation?

Dark Ages Europe doesn't have a melting pot/salad bowl area where all ethnicities mix and blend and things wind up with a culture that they all share (to use a very bad metaphor, American culture would be a Caesar salad, and chicken in a Caesar salad is not quite the same as from KFC.)

So your Viking is from Viking culture (if not, the fact that his parents were Danish has no impact on him anyway, its that he was raised in Denmark that does.).

Talisman: Right, I'm just using it as "an ability you only benefit from some of the time."

Personally, as stated, if negating penalties (game design wise) > gaining bonuses, my preference for "better with bows' is "range penalties? We don't worry about no stinkin' range penalties."

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:36 am

I should leave this forum. Because half the members are right-wing racist Christians. There's also a generous sprinkling of hooligans too bad to fit in England, and some retarded pacifistic pussies who can't even figure if they're speaking English or French*. There's also a certain famous poster who surely thinks all non-Jews even near Israel should be neutron-bombed.

Wait, I should actually off myself. Because I'm a lazy retard who listens to extremely crap scatological supposedly clever music, spend all my time overheating in a beach without doing anything of use, and so on.

Or are perhaps most of us characters that should've been vetoed for incoherence?

* - hilarious fact: seems 2 of the 3 Canadians known as such to me are more linked to Italy than France.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:41 am

Since the GM has also let our players build us with different point values and bonus feats for some people with no apparent reason and otherwise demonstrated favortism and sheer asshattery along with complete ignorance (or active mockery of, I can't tell) of game balance...

Answer: N/A.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:44 am

Elennsar wrote:Since the GM has also let our players build us with different point values and bonus feats for some people with no apparent reason and otherwise demonstrated favortism and sheer asshattery along with complete ignorance (or active mockery of, I can't tell) of game balance...

Answer: N/A.

The fact that they look a lot like you (except not wholly useless if they actually do exist) lends even more credibility to my argument.

Damnit, I lack the courage to just cut my neck. Will I have to turn into a stain on public ground?

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:49 am

I have a better idea. Deal with that pointing out that wildly incoherent things exist in real life does not mean that the game should focus on wild incoherent possibilities.

Just because it is possible for something to exist doesn't mean its good or necessary to have them as PCs.

I for one would ban PCs with Asperger's syndrome unless the player really and truly understood the condition, because its that bizzare.

And I say this as an Aspie.

However, that's not even vaguely related to the topic.

If something is permited, it needs to be able to face level appropriate challenges with a reasonably high level of success and deal competently with most of (because balanced characters in a game based on the group should not get "all of") the things adventurers face regardless of class.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:54 am

Making unconventional allowed choices not suck isn't focusing on them. Also, if you wouldn't allow people to play with [something], I don't necessarily have a disagreement with you - stop mixing "allowing" with "allowing to suck". And, you're balanced of your chance of winning averages to the same.

And I should start a thread titled "Are you NOT an Aspie?".

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:55 am

What the fuck is wrong with you, Elennsar -- a person from "viking" lands could be a warrior, an escaped slave, a priest or priestess of "healer" as you pointed out. Depedning on the exact time period, a noncombatant nobleman also flies. I assume they probably also had a handful of nonco,batant artisans...

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:02 am

Bigode wrote:I should leave this forum. Because half the members are right-wing racist Christians. There's also a generous sprinkling of hooligans too bad to fit in England, and some retarded pacifistic pussies who can't even figure if they're speaking English or French*. There's also a certain famous poster who surely thinks all non-Jews even near Israel should be neutron-bombed.

Which one am I?

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:05 am

Bigode: I'm against "prohibited because it might not be optimal". So long as someone can face level apppropriate challenges within the range of level appropriate results (I think I'll survive if I use up 25% instead of 20% of my resources vs. a standard encounter.).

Boolean:

Warrior: Obviously combat trained.

Slave: Depends on the slave, but "taken for hard labor" slaves are unlikely to be practical adventurers.

Priest or priestess: Not familiar enough with Viking religion to know how much any priests had anything to do with things or what they did specifically.

Noncombatant nobleman: During the Dark Ages (which the only period is when I'd use the term "Viking" for the peoples refered to)? Not really, as in if you can think of any examples I'd love to hear them, because I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work.

Artisans: Are not adventurer material as a rule.

So. Of the Vikings who would make adventurer material, how many are failing to be at least proficient in weapons and usually more so?

Talisman: The "Nazi ducks are hillarious." one.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:15 am

Retard. Of fvcking course the entirety of adventuring material in Earth's familiar with weapon use.

Talisman: you should know which country you're from, not me, in case it wasn't obvious.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:18 am

Not necessarily and not at all times. (It doesn't matter quite as much when searching for the source of the Nile, to the point it may not matter at all, depending on where your "life is sacred" line is.)

The point was, doing a pacifist in that era and place would be acutely destructive as an adventurer.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:25 am

... Unless you were some kinda of magic-user, diplomancer, or even thief...