The reason why fighters will never have nice things.

[Prak]

Krakatoa,

Welcome to the Den.

You don't earn one until you can identify a Shadzar, Elennsar, or other such hyprocricy on sight.

You may elect to put them on Ignore, but, that's a cop out imo. I personally don't put anyone on Ignore, unless they're posting like.... really severe guro BS here. Don't feel wrong about the Ignore button though, lots of people use it. I'm just not really one of them.

I think it's actually a better tactic to get other people to ignore you.

[Kaelik]

really? you would let stoneshape work on loose dirt? interesting...where do the rules allow that? but then again...where do the rules define "stone"?

No I would let stone work on stone, and since the cave you are standing in is connected with every other cave in the fucking universe by the crust, which is fucking stone. So if I allowed contact to change the rules that actually exist, I would at least know what is and isn't connected.

[tzor]

2. the ceiling was in range since STONE shape doesnt say you have to touch the exact spot you are trying to shape and the room was carved out of the stone cavern so ANY part of the room was within range as long as i could touch it.

I don't have access to the 3E SRD (from work) but I'm pretty sure (off of the top of my head) that you had to touch some part of the volume of stone you wish to shape. Not the exact spot you are shaping, but the volume of stone shape was so relatively small that I don't think that was technically possible.

I'll look it up when I get home with my hardcoppy.

the entire thing was stone, and i was able to touch part...so the DM said no reason it couldnt be done from a distance.

i CAN see where you are coming from being say grab a statue and turn it into a stone hammer...

10 cu foot + 1 cu ft per level

You must touch "the stone" ... "the stone" is limited to 10 cu foot + 1 cu ft per level. Now if you could define the stone so that it included a path from the point you touched to the part adjusted, this could work. You can't say that because there is 0->infinity feet of stone between the "stone" and the stone you touched that you touched the stone, because the stone you touch has to be a part of that 10 cu foot + 1 cu ft per level.

I mean I really want to give you an "E" for effort, but it's a major violation of what a "touch" spell is supposed to mean.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Well, Tzor, that raises the question of what the minimum dimension of an affected area can be. If you're touching bedrock, you can probably trace an arbitrarily narrow volume to any region you'd care to affect.

[fectin]

But the description is against fine details (arbitrary thinness sounds like a fine detail), and the material component could also easily be read to disallow that. My rough estimate says even if you could do that your range probably tops out around 200 feet because of material component limitations.

[Maxus]

Shadzar does contribute in one way to the human race: He makes a great stress reliever.
Agrinja (he's posted on here a couple of times) asks to be linked to threads where Shadzar posted prominently when he's feeling down. He thinks Shadzar and Elennsar are hilarious, and considers the THAC0 thread to be comedy gold.

To quote him directly:

Agrinja: THACO was glaringly stupid.
Agrinja: I'm not even sure how it came to be
Agrinja: Largely because it works so...backward.
Agrinja: It's like going. "I have nails. I need....to put nails..into wood. How....how how how....oh I know! I'll invent a specialized drill bit with a grabber on the end like pliers. And you can drill through the back of the wood, insert the tip of the nail into the end of the bit, and then pull the nail into the wood!"
Agrinja: I'm convinced an engineer came up with THAC0. I know my own.

[Username17]

The history of THAC0 is actually pretty easy to explain.

D&D started as a wargame. The "armor classes" were just like the DBA classes of morale and armor and stuff. And they were ranked by letters. A was the best, B was the next best, and so on. So you might have a unit with "Class C armor". And when someone tried to hit you, they looked up their attack class and your armor class on a chart. Again, just like De Bellus Antiquatus or other wargames from the period.

Dungeons and Dragons then "advanced" things by shifting to numeric armor classes. So A was 1, B was 2, and so on. And then they expanded the chart so that there were things worse than F and better than A. And they called those "7" and "0" for obvious reasons.

And when 2nd edition came around, they said "why do we need the chart at all?" And they gave people a formula for calculating the attack class vs. armor class results.

THAC0 didn't happen because someone designed a system to be senselessly obtuse. THAC0 happened because each time the attack system was modified it was given a very small change - and it started with a letters and charts system that "naturally" reads backwards from the way you'd expect a numeric system to read. The best one is on the left hand side of the chart, because A is the best and A is on the left and F is on the right. It's that simple.

-Username17

[Zinegata]

... *facepalm*

Did they ever realize that most wargames eventually moved to using simple odds tables where bigger numbers are better before 3.0 came along?

[shadzar]

... *facepalm*

Did they ever realize that most wargames eventually moved to using simple odds tables where bigger numbers are better before 3.0 came along?

2nd edition was built off of 1st edition, not wargames...so they were taking what was there and using it not looking at things outside of RPGs anymore.


@tzor:


basically as i was touching the stone i could change any part of that solid piece of stone, but could only shape the volume described...but could shape it out of any of that which i was touching.

idk... imagine some of the goofballs here would be on some giant statue of Umberlee, and use it to make the statue grow a penis; even though they were at the head of the statue.

but it isnt like this was being done 500 feet away....

[RobbyPants]

The history of THAC0 is actually pretty easy to explain.

Huh. And I just assumed it was because they wanted the d20 roll to be high = good, so they figured subtraction was more simple for that. So, when you'd roll an ability check (low = good), you'd simply try to roll under a high number, so for attacks and saves, it made sense to roll above a low number. This is why I was so thrilled when I saw the d20 mechanic unify it all. I think that was one of the best features of 3E. Back in 2E (over half of my players had trouble with elementary school math), it was easier for me as Mister Cavern to do the math for them.

I also didn't realize the tables were as recent as AD&D. I'd assumed they were from OD&D.

[shadzar]

The history of THAC0 is actually pretty easy to explain.

Huh. And I just assumed it was because they wanted the d20 roll to be high = good, so they figured subtraction was more simple for that. So, when you'd roll an ability check (low = good), you'd simply try to roll under a high number, so for attacks and saves, it made sense to roll above a low number. This is why I was so thrilled when I saw the d20 mechanic unify it all. I think that was one of the best features of 3E. Back in 2E (over half of my players had trouble with elementary school math), it was easier for me as Mister Cavern to do the math for them.

I also didn't realize the tables were as recent as AD&D. I'd assumed they were from OD&D.

Attack Matrices start on page 74 of the 1st edition DMG...THAC0 was 2nd edition only to remove those excess number of tables and reign in the 4 class groups with simpler tables and a formula.

warriors 1:1
rogue 1:2
priest 2:3
wizard 1:3

then just plug in the to-hit number and tell the DM and they can tell you if you hit.

but the problems people have with THAC0 and other problems it caused is for another thread....but yeah tables for all editions, then 2nd comes THAC0, then 3rd its BAB or whatever...

[tzor]

The history of THAC0 is actually pretty easy to explain.

Oh Frank, I sort had expected a little better from you. So close, and yet so far. You realize that THAC0 was invented in the years prior to 2E, right?

First of all, the table theory is spot on. Because of the War Gaming angle, AD&D was a table driven system. Everything is a table. Everything is a non linear table. This is true for combat tables, although the non linearity is not obvious in the table. Each class had not only a different "spread" between roll numbers and AC they hit, but they also had a different spread for how effective the natural 20 roll was. (Beyond which you needed a magical weapon plus to hit the armor class for that given level.)

Each class had its own table, including monsters.

Monsters? Yes, they had their own table. Their own very simple table. It was such an easy table you didn't really need it. You could just base it off what you needed to hit AC 0 and ... THAC0 was born.

Somewhere in one of the Dragon issues and used in one supplement before 2E. There are true diehards who insist that THAC0 was a 1E invention. I, apparently, missed my spot check at the time. (Of course I was also not actively checking during this brief period after I left college for such rule changes. I was too engaged in getting my hands on the latest Lankhmar supplement at the time.)

One of the greatest changes of the major editions was table unification to formulatic conversion. 2E unified all the combat tables. 3E would unify all the experience point tables.

[tzor]

2nd edition was built off of 1st edition, not wargames...so they were taking what was there and using it not looking at things outside of RPGs anymore.

It was a lot more ... complex ... than that. 2E was a part of the process of the removal of Gygax and a number of his influences from the game. It was also the attempt to put into the hardcover the good things (in the minds of the writers) that had been developed in Dragon.

@tzor:


basically as i was touching the stone i could change any part of that solid piece of stone, but could only shape the volume described...but could shape it out of any of that which i was touching.

As I said, it doesn't look that way from reading the spell. The volume of the stone is described not the volume of the volume of the changes to that stone. From the reading of the spell you need to be able to touch a part of that volume. You also need to be able to model the entire volume along with the changes in the clay figure that touches the volume of stone. It looks pretty clear and straight forward to me.

[tzor]

Huh. And I just assumed it was because they wanted the d20 roll to be high = good, so they figured subtraction was more simple for that.

It's hard to say what the original motivations were, but one interesting point is that the ideal armor - not counting magic - was 0 (full plate and shield) and the complete lack of armor was 10. (The lack of armor made it easier to hit someone?) The problem is once you collpase everything into the Dice roll needed to hit AC X at level Y table, all of the inputs and the rationale for those inputs gets lost.

It is even stranger in AD&D when the set of AC armors is finite and limited. You can't get worse than no armor and you can't get better than Adamantine Full plate + Adamantine Shield (-10).

[shadzar]

2nd edition was built off of 1st edition, not wargames...so they were taking what was there and using it not looking at things outside of RPGs anymore.

It was a lot more ... complex ... than that. 2E was a part of the process of the removal of Gygax and a number of his influences from the game. It was also the attempt to put into the hardcover the good things (in the minds of the writers) that had been developed in Dragon.

i dont want to get into the ousting of Gary anymore...i know that was part of it, but many others wouldnt really understand. but taking into account they werent looking at wargames anymore to make D&D was a big factor...even if the reason was they were only looking at making THE Dragon edition of D&D...

@tzor:


basically as i was touching the stone i could change any part of that solid piece of stone, but could only shape the volume described...but could shape it out of any of that which i was touching.

As I said, it doesn't look that way from reading the spell. The volume of the stone is described not the volume of the volume of the changes to that stone. From the reading of the spell you need to be able to touch a part of that volume. You also need to be able to model the entire volume along with the changes in the clay figure that touches the volume of stone. It looks pretty clear and straight forward to me.

the group never used material components so that was skipped for everything...cause it was too much hassle (remember these are 3rd edition players and started with 3rd edition).

it isnt really that important to me because it is 3rd edition crap...but it all boils down to interpretation of the rules and whether you want something to be constrictive and confining, or want it to be more open and thought provoking. i was playing to fill a seat because with 9 other players, the characters wasnt needed, and to show them to do something rather than having to be led by the nose while playing by the DM.

it pissed off rules lawyers/shitty players, and others learned to think outside the box. where they went with exact/future rulings after that i could care less as it was there game not mine.

[Maxus]

Genuinely interesting history of THAC0

That's true.

But the end result is basically twice as complicated as it actually needs to be, and 3e was thankfully another step further.

And it doesn't really change the fact that Shadzar's attitude to tabletop gaming is this:

(Much thanks to the person who provided that picture a while back. I'd credit you by name if I could remember/find the exact spot again. I just saved it because it might be handy later).

Anyways. More and more I'm thinking D&D could be three games at different power levels. The Lord of the Rings low fantasy stuff, the medium fantasy like it basically is, and the high-powered fantasy stuff where your character go all God of War and not be terribly surprised if your character takes out a few gods and Titans on the way.

[shadzar]

And it doesn't really change the fact that Shadzar's attitude to tabletop gaming is this:

No its more to the point of stop fucking with shit i like just because you dont like it...

i dont like arsenic, but you are all welcome to have a healthy dose in your morning beverage of choice...for most of you that is probably a beer.

[RobbyPants]

(Much thanks to the person who provided that picture a while back. I'd credit you by name if I could remember/find the exact spot again. I just saved it because it might be handy later).

CatharzGodfoot posted it the first time I saw it.

[PoliteNewb]

Anyways. More and more I'm thinking D&D could be three games at different power levels. The Lord of the Rings low fantasy stuff, the medium fantasy like it basically is, and the high-powered fantasy stuff where your character go all God of War and not be terribly surprised if your character takes out a few gods and Titans on the way.

I agree...but we're back full-circle to defining what those 3 power levels are. And I'm about ready to give up, because after reading back through the thread, I can't find anyone willing to define "high-level" as anything other than "able to advance the plot under their own power". And as far as I'm concerned, that's not a "level" or even "power" issue...that's a strictly playstyle issue, as to whether you enjoy player-driven games and whether the game is set up to handle that, at any level of play.

I've tried to pin down the difference between high-level and low-level adventures, and ultimately can't (in fact, Lago mentions that earlier in the thread on p. 8, and I apologize for overlooking it). The only differences I'm seeing are:

1.) Some people (Lago, Archmage, etc.) define high-level as requiring the ability of a character to be self-contained...there is no reliance on third-party assistance or plot devices to progress, further the plot, overcome obstacles, or achieve goals. This most often is reflected in transport, oddly enough...if you want to have adventures under the sea, or on a floating sky island, or in space, or on the 544th level of the Abyss, it is considered important that a high-level person be able to get there BY THEMSELVES.

So it doesn't matter if the adventure involves journeying to Llolth's Abyssal home and slaying her...if the game involves the PCs getting there on their own hook, that's fine. If they need help to get there, it's low-level.

2.) Some people (Lago, most notably) seem to want to define high-level as "stuff you can't do without magic". So again...it doesn't matter if you slay monsters as big as buildings, or kill gods, or destroy the evil artifact that would veil the earth in darkness...if you do these things by sticking your sword in people, that's low-level.

To a point, I can see where he's coming from...but he's proceeding from a base premise that high-level people are immune to swords (because they have flight, incorporeality, bladeproof skin, instant telportation, whatever), so anything sword-based isn't high-level. But that premise is not a given; you have to want it to be there. Because "level" is an abstraction, and there's nothing saying that high-level has to mean "melee = obsolete" other than designing the game so that it is that way.

So maybe this "high-level" definition I'm seeing comes down to:

--High level people never travel on the ground...they fly, or teleport, or astrally project, or have a spaceship. So you can (almost) never come to grips with them.

--High level people use ranged attacks almost exclusively, usually highly devastating ones. They shoot lasers, or explosions, or use ki-fist-dim-mak waves or something.

--High level people don't worry much about the mundane planet...they're busy with other planets, or dimensions, or whatever.

--High level people ignore mundane dangers. Things like fire, ice, hunger/thirst, sleep, terrain, poisons, whatever...none of these things matter, unless they are magical (and usually high level magic).

--High level people consider death an inconvenience at worst; to fully deal with them, you need to trap their soul or something.

Is that more what you are talking about, Lago?

Regardless...I don't want most of that crap in my D&D. As possibilities, yes. As defaults, no. Not even at high levels. If that makes me a grognard, well, grog grog grog.

[CatharzGodfoot]

(Much thanks to the person who provided that picture a while back. I'd credit you by name if I could remember/find the exact spot again. I just saved it because it might be handy later).

CatharzGodfoot posted it the first time I saw it.

I'd like to point out that I didn't make that image, and have no claim to ownership. I just found a situation where an image macro seemed appropriate, and the Dissonance provided.

[fbmf]

And it doesn't really change the fact that Shadzar's attitude to tabletop gaming is this:

No its more to the point of stop fucking with shit i like just because you dont like it...

Who is doing this?! Who here has told you that you can't play 1E or 2E?!

Honestly, it is you that seems to keep asking us why we like 3E/4E better than 1E/2E and then you proceed to tell us we are either wrong for having that opinion or that we are idiots not on your intellectual plane because we prefer a more simple and straightforward way of doing things.

I played 2E for ten years. I had a lot of fun, played two characters 10th to 20th and one character 1st-11th. I DMed a campaign that went from 1st - 20th+. Also a lot of fun.

But when 3rd Edition came along, I switched. I like the d20 system better. I like knowing exactly what my characters powers and abilities are, and I like my players to know theirs.

You don't.

And that's okay. We can each respect that the other one plays the edition they like the most and/or are more comfortable with AND that the other person IS NOT GOING TO BURN IN HELL because they don't play our respective preferred editions.

I did not make the switch to 4E. I do not intend to. I know more than a dozen people that do play 4E. They're all nice enough folks, and I would not be adverse to buying the first round if we went drinking together.

Game On,
fbmf

[sabs]

Don't lump 3E in with 4E, 4E is some horrid "lets take wow and turn it into a pen and paper game.."

3E brought me back to D&D after I ran away screaming during the 2E days.

My favorite go to 2E character was a Wizard/Cleric 9/9 of the God of Magic. Using the optional Magic Point system, and some other silly stuff.
That character was so broken... it was painful.

Everyone else in that campaign was single class 10th.

[shadzar]

And it doesn't really change the fact that Shadzar's attitude to tabletop gaming is this:

No its more to the point of stop fucking with shit i like just because you dont like it...

Who is doing this?! Who here has told you that you can't play 1E or 2E?!

Honestly, it is you that seems to keep asking us why we like 3E/4E better than 1E/2E and then you proceed to tell us we are either wrong for having that opinion or that we are idiots not on your intellectual plane because we prefer a more simple and straightforward way of doing things.

I played 2E for ten years. I had a lot of fun, played two characters 10th to 20th and one character 1st-11th. I DMed a campaign that went from 1st - 20th+. Also a lot of fun.

But when 3rd Edition came along, I switched. I like the d20 system better. I like knowing exactly what my characters powers and abilities are, and I like my players to know theirs.

You don't.

And that's okay. We can each respect that the other one plays the edition they like the most and/or are more comfortable with AND that the other person IS NOT GOING TO BURN IN HELL because they don't play our respective preferred editions.

I did not make the switch to 4E. I do not intend to. I know more than a dozen people that do play 4E. They're all nice enough folks, and I would not be adverse to buying the first round if we went drinking together.

Game On,
fbmf

it was directed specifically at the picture and quote, and how often people think i care about 3rd....

i dont like it...i dont agree it made things "better'...it jsut gets annoying to hear people think that i give a shit about it as if i wanted to destroy it, i jsut hate it being pushed to me in any way as if it was better than 3rd for you means i should adopt the same attitude...cause i wont.

the "stop liking things i dont like" image was totally having nothing to do with how i fel.

i think MANY games such and people can play them, and i RARELY enter a thread about Shadowrun....it was cute for the card game i played, and the genesis game wa also cute, but not something i would play for an RPG...so i dont bother with those thread...but the ignorance of the past eiditions by some, and by their own admission gets old when they claim an older edition did this, when they dont know..it is why i stres ANY time that i played or the info i have about 3rd or 4th...it limited cause i think they are crap, and dont mind someone else telling me my knowledge of it is wrong, cause i could care les about learning it when i dont like what it exemplifies.

and you cannot deny that WotC did exactly that with 3rd, then with 4th...changed things because someone who didnt play would be more interested in playing....long before coming here and maybe before here even existed those people loving 3rd and agreeing with WotC thought it would never happen to them, but it did with 4th when they told everyone "you're doing it wrong if you like and play 3rd"..so basically it is Maxus, who you can tel i dont like from my sig...jsut ocming in trying to start shit...which i dont mind i can throw his/her shit back in his/her face....

i could really care less why someone would like 3rd or 4th better...in the context of this thread, i just use what i know of them an other edition to explain why the way 3rd and 4th have stressed to play has caused a problem with things in the way the game is viewed...that playing it isnt meant to work as they were preached to by the marketing department...but something different as written in the game...

you and all others can like what you want...i really dont care...but it feels contrary that i am passive aggresivley being told not to like what i like.

i dont mind if someone comes out and tells me not to like 2nd i will openly laugh back at them...just get tired of the word twisting shit such as Maxus likes to do.

speaking of this thread and your 2nd edition characters....what do you consider high level?

[fectin]

Don't lump 3E in with 4E, 4E is some horrid "lets take wow and turn it into a pen and paper game.."

3E brought me back to D&D after I ran away screaming during the 2E days.

My favorite go to 2E character was a Wizard/Cleric 9/9 of the God of Magic. Using the optional Magic Point system, and some other silly stuff.
That character was so broken... it was painful.

Everyone else in that campaign was single class 10th.

It doesn't matter if they get lumped together or not. The point is that me liking cornflakes is not the same as me pissing in your cheerios.

My favorite has probably been Exalted, because I liked building Manses that much. It is kooky and rude for me to swear at you for liking a system without a proper magical building point buy system.

[sabs]

Well to be fair, I don't play any D&D anymore.

I went back to Shadowrun and Earthdawn. Even though Earthdawn got buggered by the people who got the license from FASA.