Page 1 of 2

Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 4:59 pm
by Crissa
Hey, where's the thread where you guys talk about what each of your is known for?

I remember the Oberoni Fallacy, but what were the other ones?

What are the ones you remember from your table? 'Cause I always forget, and sorta need it written down. Honestly, I should take notes or something...

And what would you call a player who always rolls the worst possible outcome, only when it matters? 'Cause that's my spouse...

-Crissa

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:23 pm
by Neeek
Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1151773167[/unixtime]]

And what would you call a player who always rolls the worst possible outcome, only when it matters? 'Cause that's my spouse...


Murphy

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 6:59 am
by dbb
Did you mean
[counturl=40]this thread[/counturl], Crissa?

For what it's worth, I was thinking of:

The Josh Kablack Maneuver: having Small spellcasters cast Reduce Person in order to ride around on their own familiars and hence obtain combat flight at level 1.

The Lago Syllogism: Characters should be capable of fulfilling the roles you envision them in. Not everything with flavor text that says it will help you fulfill a particular role will in fact do so. Therefore, ignoring flavor text will help your character fulfill the role you envision him or her in. (derived from Lago's remarks about how his attitude toward character creation has changed)

The Ed Stark Injunction: "Druids need to own you. In the face." (from Frank's Complete Adventurer rant)

Not to suggest that either of the first two ideas are unique to those people, or even that they were the first to come up with them -- they just happened to be people who I associate with those ideas.

--d.

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:05 pm
by Username17
Last I checked, I was known for TFC, which stands apparently for "The Frank Cheat" which is the thing where you take advantage of the fact that time doesn't give a shit about arbitrary deliniations, but spell preparation does. And thus, you can benefit from spells that last longer than 8 hours and still prepare new spells in those slots and thus use more than your limit of spells per day so long as some of them were technically cast yesterday.

-Username17

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:01 pm
by Boulie_98
How is that a cheat?

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 6:12 pm
by Count Arioch the 28th
D&D players tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to things which are effective, because if you don't put all your points in Craft: Basketweaving and Perform: Fellatio, you're an evil min-maxer and must die.

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:49 pm
by Crissa
Yeah, and I don't know why people harsh on Frank for it, 'cause we were doing that back in... Well, when I first got my books and realized that Arcane spell preperation was based on sleep cycles and spell durations were not.

-Crissa

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:56 pm
by dbb
Since before third edition, in fact. Using Stoneskin that way was a common (and effective) tactic in some of the BioWare computer games.

--d.

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 9:07 pm
by MrWaeseL
Someone use an idea from an old thread of mine for a frontpage article on the wizards site, and AFAIK I was the first one the champion the idea of undead getting their cha bonus to HD as a sort of faux con.

Does that count? I want to be an Internet Superstar as well :(

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:57 pm
by PzAz04Maus
O_o;... Kinda stringy in here...

Since I've only got 1 real character that I use, I guess I'm known for the 'characters' (read, 1) that seem to be less than so-so in most situations, (mostly combat), and sometimes downright unhelpful in the worst. However, for some reason, almost every time where we were in a situation that was of dire consequences (read: HOLY SH*T WE'RE GONNA DIE!), I seemingly always roll a perfect 20 (I've only played D&D 3.5e, though I'm hoping to do V:tM) in a noncombat situation that directly would save our skins (Hrms, rolling a 20 with a +2 at most on Diplomacy against people who had +15s to their Diplomacy rolls to 'erase us?'). Also, I'm probably the one with the most Convoluted character psychology ever (at one Point I RPed Shellshock after an entire town was turned into a Graveyard Golem, along with dancing on the rooftops of an underground city with weird Vampires at another point :3)...

With my own convoluted and unorganized thoughts, I guess that I woul have a Schrodinger-Freudian Paradigm... Whatever that is...

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:56 am
by Prak
MrWaeseL at [unixtime wrote:1152133659[/unixtime]]Someone use an idea from an old thread of mine for a frontpage article on the wizards site, and AFAIK I was the first one the champion the idea of undead getting their cha bonus to HD as a sort of faux con.

Does that count? I want to be an Internet Superstar as well :(


you might be the first online champion of it, but I've kinda always done that... when'd you start chanpioning it? I've been playing maybe seven years...(I'm a bit new, eh?)

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:12 am
by Endovior
I'm best known for screwing around with Plane Shift. Every time one of my characters gets a hold of it, the campaign tilts shortly thereafter.

Here's a tactic I used once which explains why:

The Ring of Doom:
Requirements:
1: A number (up to 8) of competent spellcasters (this works just as well with manifesters, but I'll refer to spellcasters to keep terminology down), two of which who can cast Plane Shift, and one of which can cast Teleport.
2: Knowledge, (and possibly a pair of appropriate foci) for a more or less safe plane where time passes at a rate of at least a planar day per prime round.

The implications of this should be immediately obvious to most, but for those who miss the point, allow me to elaborate.

Upon entering combat, the first thing everyone does is get together in a circle and Plane Shift out of there. They then spend a day healing up. They then prepare new spells relevant to the current encounter, buff up, synchronize Initiative count, and Plane Shift back.

The mage who can Teleport does so, taking the group within range of the encounter (as Plane Shift's inherent inaccuracy prevents it from being useful alone). Everyone else casts their highest level smiting spell, and possibly a Quickened spell as well. The other mage who can cast Plane Shift does so, retreating the whole group back to their planar sanctum.

Lather, rinse, repeat. The group simply isn't there long enough to take damage (if it's working properly, the enemy practically doesn't get turns at all), and while they are there, they're fortified with all the 1 round/level spells they can get. Everyone but the mages who are moving the group around gets their best spells off, and even they might be able to get in a few Quickened spells. It's like Scry and Die, only you get the full day's rest / preparation between rounds instead of just before combat. Admittedly, when you first get a hold of it, there's a good chance that the only free spellcasters are cohorts or UMD rogues, or some such... but you'll level up quickly enough, leaving your cohorts to the task of casting the move spells.

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:34 am
by CalibronXXX
There's a plane that equates six seconds in the Prime Material to a whole day? And I thought the Planar Shepard getting 10 rounds worth of actions per round was ridiculous, 14400 just makes my head hurt.

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:28 am
by Endovior
Feh, that's not even optimal. There are planes where a round on the material plane equals a year. They're good places for immortal characters to max out their age bonuses or do other incredibly time-consuming things.

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:30 am
by CalibronXXX
There are? Must be some planescape thing I'm not familiar with...

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:03 pm
by Cielingcat
The Far Realm has any amount of time spent there equal zero time on the material.

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:45 am
by Endovior
DMG wrote:Flowing Time: On some planes, time can flow faster or slower. One may travel to another plane, spend a year there, then return to the material plane to find that only six seconds have elapsed. Everything on the plane returned to is only a few seconds older. But for that traveler, and the items, spells, and effects working on him, that year away was entirely real.
When designating how time works on planes with flowing time, put the Material Plane's flow of time first, followed by the same flow in the other plane. For the example above, it would be 1 round = 1 year. For every year on the other plane, one 6-second round has elapsed on the Material Plane.
The clever and the unscrupulous can abuse planes that have flowing time. The ability to step into a slower time flow for the purpose of healing and regaining spells is an effective weapon against others. You'll be back, completely refreshed, before your foes even know you're gone. Throwing opponents into a plane with a slower time flow may keep them out of action for several years, and make their return a problem for future generations.


To summarize; not only are planes where time flows in such a way both core and canonical, but the players are encouraged to abuse them in this very way.

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:42 pm
by Judging__Eagle
Endovior at [unixtime wrote:1173435138[/unixtime]]I'm best known for screwing around with Plane Shift. Every time one of my characters gets a hold of it, the campaign tilts shortly thereafter.

Here's a tactic I used once which explains why:

The Ring of Doom:
Requirements:
1: A number (up to 8) of competent spellcasters (this works just as well with manifesters, but I'll refer to spellcasters to keep terminology down), two of which who can cast Plane Shift, and one of which can cast Teleport.
2: Knowledge, (and possibly a pair of appropriate foci) for a more or less safe plane where time passes at a rate of at least a planar day per prime round.

The implications of this should be immediately obvious to most, but for those who miss the point, allow me to elaborate.

Upon entering combat, the first thing everyone does is get together in a circle and Plane Shift out of there. They then spend a day healing up. They then prepare new spells relevant to the current encounter, buff up, synchronize Initiative count, and Plane Shift back.

The mage who can Teleport does so, taking the group within range of the encounter (as Plane Shift's inherent inaccuracy prevents it from being useful alone). Everyone else casts their highest level smiting spell, and possibly a Quickened spell as well. The other mage who can cast Plane Shift does so, retreating the whole group back to their planar sanctum.

Lather, rinse, repeat. The group simply isn't there long enough to take damage (if it's working properly, the enemy practically doesn't get turns at all), and while they are there, they're fortified with all the 1 round/level spells they can get. Everyone but the mages who are moving the group around gets their best spells off, and even they might be able to get in a few Quickened spells. It's like Scry and Die, only you get the full day's rest / preparation between rounds instead of just before combat. Admittedly, when you first get a hold of it, there's a good chance that the only free spellcasters are cohorts or UMD rogues, or some such... but you'll level up quickly enough, leaving your cohorts to the task of casting the move spells.


I was going to use this to help me get te 'time' that I need to craft magical items between adventures.

20 or even 50 days is not enough to craft enough level appropriate gear for 8 PCs.

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:55 am
by Rob_Knotts
Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1151773167[/unixtime]]Hey, where's the thread where you guys talk about what each of your is known for?
Usually the only thing people remember me for is
this.

Edit: I also used to be a big advocate on the WotC boards for homebrew settings (not to be confused with homebrew rules). Even then serious worldbuilding seemed to be a dying trend, and in the years since I left WotC I haven't read or heard anything encouraging about RPG worldbuilding in general.

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:11 pm
by bitnine
Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1151773167[/unixtime]]Hey, where's the thread where you guys talk about what each of your is known for?
Sarcasm, probably? Mostly from quotes like:
bitnine wrote:You are not only wrong in your call, but possibly are the worst DM ever, akin to some sort of biblical plague. I'm surprised that your players don't start bleeding from their eyes or spontaneously combusting from being in the same room with you, let alone survive subjecting themselves to what you've termed a game.

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:39 pm
by JonSetanta
the Prak Fallacy: WOTC should not edit your sig, as it is a constitutional right to express freedom of religion. Including Satanism.

*Mods edit sig stealthily, wiping it clean*


Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:50 am
by Cielingcat
That's not a fallacy.

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:21 am
by Manxome
It's a fallacy insofar as your constitutional right of free speech does not obligate anyone running a private forum to subsidize the costs of you saying anything you want on their forum.

If you want to pay to create and run your own forum, you can express any views you want there and you are constitutionally protected from having anyone else, and most especially the government, stop you or censor you.

But if you're a guest on someone else's forum, there's no constitutional obstacle at all to them kicking you out for any reason, or placing any conditions they want on your staying there, including limiting what sorts of things you're allowed to say while you're there. If that distinction didn't exist, then pretty much all moderation and even language filters would probably be unconstitutional.

That doesn't mean that it's reasonable or moral in all cases, but to the best of my knowledge, it's not unconstitutional.

And while I have no idea of the details of the incident in question here, it doesn't strike me as inherently unreasonable for a gaming forum to have a policy forbidding, say, anything the moderators judge to be likely to incite a religious debate. Especially if it's paid for by a company with a legitimate concern of misunderstanding between itself and certain religious groups.

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:38 am
by cthulhu
I'm okay with a forum mod doing it. Heck, I'd send you a PM saying I'd edited it out, leave it out in future k thx as well. For pretty much the reasons in Maxomes last paragraph :P

Re: Fallacy, Conundrum, Option; things remembered

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:30 pm
by tzor
sigma999 at [unixtime wrote:1186429144[/unixtime]]the Prak Fallacy: WOTC should not edit your sig, as it is a constitutional right to express freedom of religion. Including Satanism.


The more I look at that the more bizzare it becomes. Never mind the public privatething, he just mixed chocolate and peanut butter. There is a constitutional right to "free speech." There is a clause that prohibits congress to establish an official religion. (The so called separation of Church and State, which actually has nothing to do with religion but with "religious institutions.") But there is no such thing as a "constitutional right to express freedom of religion."

Besides if you want to express that you are free of religion shouldn't that include being free of satanism as well?