Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergius]

I just realized that, according to the Crit=uncontrolled and always Lethal houserule, if I was a Rogue and rolled a critical to Open Locks, it means that my character fucked up so badly that his hands started to vibrate so fast that I made the door explode or something (so he opens the door Xtremely to the Max!?). In any case, the lock would at least be damaged and unable to lock again unless repaired (or beyond repair!). Doesn't sound like a good roll to me.

I hope I never roll a critical when trying to use Diplomacy...

[Culise]

I've seen enough DMs like Tack or the one you yourself seem to decry so loudly, though, not to mention enough players that use "chaotic" as a shield for all sorts of inappropriate acts, that it should not be surprising that I took such a statement by you exactly as written - that any barbarian who exercises restraint, with absolutely no qualifying statements whatsoever, automatically loses their powers, and that it's also completely justified per RAW. 

But if you want to get technical "you did use these exact words", I said "learns restraint", not "exercises restraint" - the implication was that the Barbarian trades his, whatever the barbarian has that makes him Smashy or whatever. The barbarian goes thru a permanent change of behaviour (therefore, "learns"). This is in direct response to the DM saying "restraint = good, not restraint = bad", saying, basically, that the "Proper Barbarian" is badwrong. Not that "restraint would have made sense in this specific case". Restraint that, you know, the Barbarian actually did exercise, and was completely in character when being annoyed about having to, but was chided for not being his default all the time and liking it.

Except that the gist of my entire argument is that self-restraint, even consistent self-restraint, is in itself not automatically Lawful behavior, not unless it also pertains to some greater loyalty to societal order or rule of law.  There was a classic warning about Chaotic Neutral characters that basically went, "A chaotic neutral character is not as likely to jump off a bridge as walk across it."  Having a "Chaotic" hanging off the front of their alignment does not mean that the character has no brakes or checks on their behavior. 

[Sergius]

I've seen enough DMs like Tack or the one you yourself seem to decry so loudly, though, not to mention enough players that use "chaotic" as a shield for all sorts of inappropriate acts, that it should not be surprising that I took such a statement by you exactly as written - that any barbarian who exercises restraint, with absolutely no qualifying statements whatsoever, automatically loses their powers, and that it's also completely justified per RAW. 

But if you want to get technical "you did use these exact words", I said "learns restraint", not "exercises restraint" - the implication was that the Barbarian trades his, whatever the barbarian has that makes him Smashy or whatever. The barbarian goes thru a permanent change of behaviour (therefore, "learns"). This is in direct response to the DM saying "restraint = good, not restraint = bad", saying, basically, that the "Proper Barbarian" is badwrong. Not that "restraint would have made sense in this specific case". Restraint that, you know, the Barbarian actually did exercise, and was completely in character when being annoyed about having to, but was chided for not being his default all the time and liking it.

Except that the gist of my entire argument is that self-restraint, even consistent self-restraint, is in itself not automatically Lawful behavior, not unless it also pertains to some greater loyalty to societal order or rule of law.  There was a classic warning about Chaotic Neutral characters that basically went, "A chaotic neutral character is not as likely to jump off a bridge as walk across it."  Having a "Chaotic" hanging off the front of their alignment does not mean that the character has no brakes or checks on their behavior.

Then you're taking the word "self-restraint" out of the context in which it was used.

[Sergarr]

I just realized that, according to the Crit=uncontrolled and always Lethal houserule, if I was a Rogue and rolled a critical to Open Locks, it means that my character fucked up so badly that his hands started to vibrate so fast that I made the door explode or something (so he opens the door Xtremely to the Max!?). In any case, the lock would at least be damaged and unable to lock again unless repaired (or beyond repair!). Doesn't sound like a good roll to me.

I hope I never roll a critical when trying to use Diplomacy...

Wait, I thought Crit was equal to hit to the vitals? That's why you can't crit against undead and constructs. This houserule makes no sense.

[Sergius]

I just realized that, according to the Crit=uncontrolled and always Lethal houserule, if I was a Rogue and rolled a critical to Open Locks, it means that my character fucked up so badly that his hands started to vibrate so fast that I made the door explode or something (so he opens the door Xtremely to the Max!?). In any case, the lock would at least be damaged and unable to lock again unless repaired (or beyond repair!). Doesn't sound like a good roll to me.

I hope I never roll a critical when trying to use Diplomacy...

Wait, I thought Crit was equal to hit to the vitals? That's why you can't crit against undead and constructs. This houserule makes no sense.

Hadn't considered that. I suppose critical "success" doesn't make sense in any context other than To-Hit (so I don't know about skill rolls) otherwise it would work, undead or not. Critical as "you hit good" would damage undead, critical as "you hit vitals" wouldn't. So apparently D&D works for vitals only.

Then... I don't know. It would mean that critical means only that you hit a deadly spot entirely by accident. This is supported by only working on the unmodified dice roll falling in the crit. range (even tho it's a "always hits" only on natural 20). I suppose if that's the rule, that's the rule. But it's still not stated anywhere that criticals can't be non-lethal, so yeah definitely hitting to kill even if you meant to disable is a houserule, although a valid one?

[Kadzar]

I just realized that, according to the Crit=uncontrolled and always Lethal houserule, if I was a Rogue and rolled a critical to Open Locks, it means that my character fucked up so badly that his hands started to vibrate so fast that I made the door explode or something (so he opens the door Xtremely to the Max!?). In any case, the lock would at least be damaged and unable to lock again unless repaired (or beyond repair!). Doesn't sound like a good roll to me.

I hope I never roll a critical when trying to use Diplomacy...

Wait, I thought Crit was equal to hit to the vitals? That's why you can't crit against undead and constructs. This houserule makes no sense.

Hadn't considered that. I suppose critical "success" doesn't make sense in any context other than To-Hit (so I don't know about skill rolls) otherwise it would work, undead or not. Critical as "you hit good" would damage undead, critical as "you hit vitals" wouldn't. So apparently D&D works for vitals only.

Then... I don't know. It would mean that critical means only that you hit a deadly spot entirely by accident. This is supported by only working on the unmodified dice roll falling in the crit. range (even tho it's a "always hits" only on natural 20). I suppose if that's the rule, that's the rule. But it's still not stated anywhere that criticals can't be non-lethal, so yeah definitely hitting to kill even if you meant to disable is a houserule, although a valid one?

Well, as it pertains to skill rolls, crits don't exist.

Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure.

Though it's a very common house rule, one so common that most people don't seem to realize it is one.

[Sergius]

It's specially bad when we're using some... frankenstein hybrid AD&D 2e with the Feats and other stuff from 3.5. But not skills, actually... I think we're still using non-combat proficiencies for that (combat proficiencies are from Feats like in 3.5)
So for example, there are no "ranks in Diplomacy". I think most of NCPs are stuff like basket weaving and one or two that are actually useful in an adventuring situation.

Basically, PCs were almost doomed to fail and become murderhobos unless they rolled high Charisma. Which was pregen anyway.

Just in case I haven't mentioned this, our party of Level 6 adventurers consisted of:
-One dwarf barbarian
-One dwarf ranger (in the setting, dwarves aren't really familiar with human society, or something)
-One rogue
-One fighter-rogue (multi-classed human, as per multiclass demihuman rules). About two levels behind the others due to this.
All chaotic good.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Guys, what's the most popular tabletop war-game set in any from 1600-1890? Preferably around the napoleonic time period, but generally any era with heavy use of line formations and muskets. Anyone have experience with and/or play any??? Are they very popular at all?

[Bohandas]

I just realized that, according to the Crit=uncontrolled and always Lethal houserule, if I was a Rogue and rolled a critical to Open Locks, it means that my character fucked up so badly that his hands started to vibrate so fast that I made the door explode or something (so he opens the door Xtremely to the Max!?). In any case, the lock would at least be damaged and unable to lock again unless repaired (or beyond repair!). Doesn't sound like a good roll to me.

I hope I never roll a critical when trying to use Diplomacy...

Wait, I thought Crit was equal to hit to the vitals? That's why you can't crit against undead and constructs. This houserule makes no sense.

Hadn't considered that. I suppose critical "success" doesn't make sense in any context other than To-Hit (so I don't know about skill rolls) otherwise it would work, undead or not. Critical as "you hit good" would damage undead, critical as "you hit vitals" wouldn't. So apparently D&D works for vitals only.

Criticals in relation to undead don't make sense either way; vampires - for example - have vital areas

[NobodyPro]

I like the alignment system. It is a convienent way to quickly describe a character's likely actions. I would, however, be interested in a more Myers-Brigg type thing. On that thought:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Introvert/Extrovert
Honorable/Rougish
Loyal/Untrue
Careful/Reckless
Obedient(to laws)/Criminal
Can anyone think of any?

Traits and Passions

[Bauglir]

My homebrew system, which I swear I'll write more of one of these days, has you pick an ideal or two and another thing or two that you despise. Acting in accordance with the former even when it's a bad idea gives you more heroism points. Among other things, those can be spent to tolerate the latter when necessary (although giving into your impulse to take a stand against whatever also gives you a chance to earn more points). I cribbed a lot of notes from FATE >___________>

[Arx]

Guys, what's the most popular tabletop war-game set in any from 1600-1890? Preferably around the napoleonic time period, but generally any era with heavy use of line formations and muskets. Anyone have experience with and/or play any??? Are they very popular at all?

A friend I've lost contact used to be int this on a large scale. I'll see if my brother remembers what he played.

[scrdest]

My homebrew system, which I swear I'll write more of one of these days, has you pick an ideal or two and another thing or two that you despise. Acting in accordance with the former even when it's a bad idea gives you more heroism points. Among other things, those can be spent to tolerate the latter when necessary (although giving into your impulse to take a stand against whatever also gives you a chance to earn more points). I cribbed a lot of notes from FATE >___________>

I've been scrolling past and I misread that as FATAL. I've been mildly terrified until I re-read that.

[Bohandas]

In regards to critical hits, does anyone else think it would make a lot more sense if a creature's size modifier were subtracted - rather than added - from ac and attack bonus during critical threat confirmation rolls?

A larger creature is a lot easier to hit, but those hits aren't going to do very much if you can only reach the creature's toes

Edit:
Conversely, a smaller creature may be harder to hit, but that hit is more likely to hit something vital when the sword you've run them through with is as wide as their entore torso

[Jimmy]

Throwing my hat in the ring as pro-alignment system for 3.5e (la la la 4e I can't hear you!)

You need to respect that it's an integral part of the core mechanics of the fantasy setting. Alignment forms one of the basic building blocks for the universe. Every creature in the game has an alignment, and it's an intrinsic part of their character.

Some creatures are simply always a certain alignment, such as extraplanar monsters. Devils are always lawful evil. Demons are always chaotic evil. Angels are always good.

Player characters and other mortal creatures also possess an alignment. Mortal alignments derive from their culture, species, personal viewpoints and actions. For these creatures, their alignment is mutable but still just as binding as anyone else's. Through actions, they can have their alignment changed too, sometimes radically. For example, casting spells with an alignment description is specifically called out as constituting an act of that type of alignment. Planning to summon a bunch of devils and demons into the world? That's pretty evil, man. Smiting your foes with a few Holy Words? That's gonna earn you brownie points with the good guys.

Alignment changes are part of the game, and the rules support them happening, if failing to give a concrete system of keeping score of your alignment and when it would change. It's a DM discretion area, and I maintain that only a poor DM handwaves away the entire thing as too hard. The biggest point most of the mediocre DMs get stuck on is focusing too much on the evil and chaotic side of things. Is your Chaotic Neutral barbarian helping a bunch of villagers clear the bandit problem from the local area? Seems to me he's helping establish law and order, and his chaotic side would take a hit. Is your Lawful Neutral cleric out slaying evil monsters and protecting the innocent? Seems to me they're due to head towards a good alignment. Turning evil isn't a one-way street. It's easier, but performing good acts moves you in the opposite direction too. The trick is to strike a balance between unduly altering a player's character and recognizing the world they exist in has a system of morality that is fundamentally different to our own reality.

If you have too much of a hard time accepting that alignment in a D&D world is an objective, measurable thing instead of a subjective, indefinable quality, remember that some things in these worlds just simply work different to real life. This is a world of levels, hit points, skill points and attack bonuses. These things don't necessarily have a discrete representation in the game, but they exist and are just as valid as alignment. For better or worse, this fantasy world has a line in the sand where morality exists in nine defined flavors, and your character as well as everyone else will be in one of those nine boxes.