Meaningless dice rolls

WoTC seems to have ignored its own advice in terms of irrelivent dice rolls which slow down gameplay.
Why does it take 1d4+1 minutes to don heavy armour.
Why does it take 2d6 hours to recover from stabilized.

These are the sorts of things you solve with a simple sentence: "You recover from stabilized after a long rest", "Putting on heavy armour takes several minutes"
standardized dice rolls work better for this reason.

"you hear a loud noise, and scream int he night, the town is under attack"
-" i don my armour, i rolled a 3 + 1, so 4 min" <- as a DM i had set aside 5 min before their inn gets attacked, in this situation the dice dictate the results, as the DM i sit back and watch the players play experience unfold, i am not involved because it is not my game, it's theirs

as opposed to

"you hear a loud noise, and scream int he night, the town is under attack"
 - "can i don my armour in time?" <- thats a direct question, there is no rle, no way to figure it out, as a dm i have to make a decision to either deny the player their armour, or let them have it. sometimes judgement can be used, but in the last case the difference was 1 min, how am i supposed to judge that as a DM without getting involved in someone elses play experience and making it seem personal?
I would suggest doing both of the above depending on the situation.


Use the roll if it seems useful at the time.

Don't use a roll if it will not really matter.


Anyway,
 
Rolls of that type should be rare enough that they do not slow the game.      



Excess die rolls every round of combat, now that's to be avoided big time! 
These are the sorts of things you solve with a simple sentence: "You recover from stabilized after a long rest", "Putting on heavy armour takes several minutes"

Because sometimes it matters exactly how long and having a sensible rule ready when it comes up is nice. When the party is resting in a camp for the night and is alerted about an attack before it happens, the question of exactly how much they can get ready before the fight starts is very important.

If there is no rule for these things, everything goes on the DMs whim and tends to vary too much. Providng sensible base lines for these things is exactly one of the reasons I buy rule books to begin with.

I would suggest doing both of the above depending on the situation.


Use the roll if it seems useful at the time.

Don't use a roll if it will not really matter.


Anyway,
 
Rolls of that type should be rare enough that they do not slow the game.      



Excess die rolls every round of combat, now that's to be avoided big time! 

yes, this is only int he context where it is time sensitive, but the rule HAS to be there for that reason. if the rule wasn't there then you have to personally interfere with the players game in an important way. the rdice are there to take that away. if the rule wasn't there then putting it there as a DM is almost as bad, now you are making up rules when before there were none, you are still interfering.
I've run campaigns in both 4th Edition and Pathfinder over the last three years, plus many years of running and playing 3rd Edition. Know how many times it mattered how fast a player could get into their armor? Once.

But it was a very awesome once that had the fighter in my group deciding "Screw it" halfway through putting on his full plate and so wore just the coif, the right thigh piece, the gauntlets, the helm, and nothing else as he charged into battle because he couldn't wait any longer. The fighter ended up with several new nicknames, but I think all of them would violate the ToS of the board to post...
I've run campaigns in both 4th Edition and Pathfinder over the last three years, plus many years of running and playing 3rd Edition. Know how many times it mattered how fast a player could get into their armor? Once.

But it was a very awesome once that had the fighter in my group deciding "Screw it" halfway through putting on his full plate and so wore just the coif, the right thigh piece, the gauntlets, the helm, and nothing else as he charged into battle because he couldn't wait any longer. The fighter ended up with several new nicknames, but I think all of them would violate the ToS of the board to post...



it's happened to me twice in recent times. it depends how much your DM likes to spring suprise attacks on you. eventually we just started preparing for it though to cut time. honestly i think it's these things that seperate D&D from video games and make it fun. i have to think like a boyscout, and always be prepared.
friendly_kobold,

I do not really understand what the problem is here. The dice rolls are there as basic rules. Nowhere does it say that the DM must follow the rules 100%. That has never, in fact, been the point of D&D (remember Gygax's famous comments about ignoring any rules which we do not like?).

So, if you dislike such dice rolls, then do the following:

Ignore them. Don't use them. Problem solved.

 
"The DM only rolls dice for the sound they make." - Gary Gygax
friendly_kobold,

I do not really understand what the problem is here. The dice rolls are there as basic rules. Nowhere does it say that the DM must follow the rules 100%. That has never, in fact, been the point of D&D (remember Gygax's famous comments about ignoring any rules which we do not like?).

So, if you dislike such dice rolls, then do the following:

Ignore them. Don't use them. Problem solved.

 

i have been finding that D&D has the unfortunate side effect of drawing the most letigious people in the universe to your table. on the flip side many players with flip all the **** if they feel you have slighted them through a ruling, bad people to play with to be sure, but it happens.

i just like to be able to shrug my sholders and say "thats what it says in the rulebook" when a player is being difficult.
i have been finding that D&D has the unfortunate side effect of drawing the most letigious people in the universe to your table. on the flip side many players with flip all the **** if they feel you have slighted them through a ruling, bad people to play with to be sure, but it happens. i just like to be able to shrug my sholders and say "thats what it says in the rulebook" when a player is being difficult.



I have met a few such players at conventions. As I am usually the DM, if I am running a convention group for strangers and encounter a crazed, problematic player, the issue is always easily solved with a straightforward comment: "This is how it is in this circumstance. If this isn't the game you want to play, find another table."

Frankly, though, I've only encountered this rarely at conventions, and never in my main groups. This is simply because my players are friends, family, and acquantainces who I specifically want to be in the game.

If a game is not running well with a certain combination of players, then that group of players either needs to work out a standard decision as a group, or---if the issue cannot be thus solved---the group needs to split up, and certain people need to find different games.
i have been finding that D&D has the unfortunate side effect of drawing the most letigious people in the universe to your table. on the flip side many players with flip all the **** if they feel you have slighted them through a ruling, bad people to play with to be sure, but it happens. i just like to be able to shrug my sholders and say "thats what it says in the rulebook" when a player is being difficult.


I've got a group of munchkiny rules lawyers in my current Pathfinder game, and I have to say I've had to pull out the Rule 0 argument many times. When one player whined just a bit too much, I flat out said, "Listen, do you understand that I'm in charge of this world? I'm here to be fair and help you tell a story that's fun and entertaining. If I wanted to screw you over, I could very easily do that. Want to see me screw you over? Keep complaining about my rulings."

Well, long story short, I sent them all to Ravenloft. Yeah, I double dare you to try to Rules Lawyer me in a campaign setting that has rules for DM Fiat!

More seriously, munchkins and rules lawyers are always going to be a problem as long as there are rules to the game. That's why Rule 0 exists. It's actually a lot of trust in that rule. It's proof that you, as DM, have the final say in everything. The PCs succeed or fail, even live or die solely at your whim. In order to earn and maintain that trust, you have to be fair. In return, the players have to respect that your say is final. Without either of those in place, there is no game. There's just a bunch of people yelling at each other over how a bunch of 30cm tall miniatures can move on a grid.
When I played as a teenager, I often got called a 'rules lawyer'.

Ironically, I think I've mellowed out a little in that regard since I became an actual lawyer. 
     
i have been finding that D&D has the unfortunate side effect of drawing the most letigious people in the universe to your table. on the flip side many players with flip all the **** if they feel you have slighted them through a ruling, bad people to play with to be sure, but it happens. i just like to be able to shrug my sholders and say "thats what it says in the rulebook" when a player is being difficult.



I have met a few such players at conventions. As I am usually the DM, if I am running a convention group for strangers and encounter a crazed, problematic player, the issue is always easily solved with a straightforward comment: "This is how it is in this circumstance. If this isn't the game you want to play, find another table."

Frankly, though, I've only encountered this rarely at conventions, and never in my main groups. This is simply because my players are friends, family, and acquantainces who I specifically want to be in the game.

If a game is not running well with a certain combination of players, then that group of players either needs to work out a standard decision as a group, or---if the issue cannot be thus solved---the group needs to split up, and certain people need to find different games.

come this july i will be DMing my first convention game, any pointers?
WoTC seems to have ignored its own advice in terms of irrelivent dice rolls which slow down gameplay.



Actually, I agree with the other posters. Something like this does not slow down gameplay, but gives a helpful rule of thumb. Excessive rolls in combat can slow down gameplay, but these kinds of minor mechanics are often useful and really have a very limited impact on pacing.

___________________________________________________________________

Check out the Owlbear blog! http://ragingowlbear.blogspot.com/

I think Friendly_kobold has this right.  Consider both where D&D came from, back in the 80s, and where it needs to go in order to recover market domination: 10 year olds.
I want you to picture any ten year old on earth picking up the core rulebooks, and being thrilled to find out that there's a random number he or she is going to have to access in order to find out if someone puts their armor on fast enough.  No.  I recognize the packet we see now may not be even close to the form of the introductory product that eventually hits the market, but it absolutely must not sacrifice speed and ease of play for "realism" (whatever that means in a fantasy universe).  D&D is a way to provide structure to cooperative imaginative play.  The moment that is sacrificed in the name of "realism," the game will fail.  Kids - the consumers who *MUST* form the core base for the next edition - will recognize that in a heartbeat.

 
Some players just don't get it that the dm has to adjust the rules on occassion to make the game flow better.


This is not to say the dm should not strive to use the rules in the name of fairness and consistancy, however. 
WoTC seems to have ignored its own advice in terms of irrelivent dice rolls which slow down gameplay.
Why does it take 1d4+1 minutes to don heavy armour.
Why does it take 2d6 hours to recover from stabilized.

These are the sorts of things you solve with a simple sentence: "You recover from stabilized after a long rest", "Putting on heavy armour takes several minutes"



I think they wanted to remove extra dice rolls in combat, not so much as remove dice from the game that isn't combat.

The implied suggestion is and always is, if you have infinite time then you don your armor instantly. The dice roll for the time there is because there can be dramatic scenes where not knowing you have time to put on a full set of field plate mail or not matters, and it's better for many GMs and more fair to the players seemingly to have a dice roll, rather than just "Here's a combat, and you're denied your armor because lol". If a GM doesn't want to deny their armor or risk it, they can almost make combat happen in 6 minutes from waking, or 13 hours from being knocked out, and I'm sure if that's the case, the GM isn't going to make you roll.

"Roll 2d6 to see if you wake up before the 3 day ride to the next town is completed" doesn't seem likely and common sense to avoid.
WoTC seems to have ignored its own advice in terms of irrelivent dice rolls which slow down gameplay.
Why does it take 1d4+1 minutes to don heavy armour.
Why does it take 2d6 hours to recover from stabilized.

These are the sorts of things you solve with a simple sentence: "You recover from stabilized after a long rest", "Putting on heavy armour takes several minutes"


+1



Putting on armor takes a “short rest”.

Recovering from stabilized takes an “long rest”.



Reuse the same general time frames, that gamers are already familiar with.
I think Friendly_kobold has this right.  Consider both where D&D came from, back in the 80s, and where it needs to go in order to recover market domination: 10 year olds.
I want you to picture any ten year old on earth picking up the core rulebooks, and being thrilled to find out that there's a random number he or she is going to have to access in order to find out if someone puts their armor on fast enough.  No.  I recognize the packet we see now may not be even close to the form of the introductory product that eventually hits the market, but it absolutely must not sacrifice speed and ease of play for "realism" (whatever that means in a fantasy universe).  D&D is a way to provide structure to cooperative imaginative play.  The moment that is sacrificed in the name of "realism," the game will fail.  Kids - the consumers who *MUST* form the core base for the next edition - will recognize that in a heartbeat.

 





The ten year old looks at the number and, being ten, goes 'pfft, boring' and ignores it.


When the goblins attack the camp at night, he asks the DM "Do I have time to get my armor on?" and the DM looks at his book where it says 1d4+1. He rolls. 3 minutes. "Yes." says the DM.



Oh Content, where art thou?

The ten year old looks at the number and, being ten, goes 'pfft, boring' and ignores it.


When the goblins attack the camp at night, he asks the DM "Do I have time to get my armor on?" and the DM looks at his book where it says 1d4+1. He rolls. 3 minutes. "Yes." says the DM.



I think you underestimate ten-year olds.  My schoolfriends and I were perfectly happy rolling dice for whatever was demanded for D&D at that age (and AD&D 2nd when we were 11).  Secondly, I think you should consider that, if the player is ten, it's quite likely the DM is ten as well - your post kinda seems to insinuate that he's not which is a bit creepy unless he's his dad.
I think it's there mainly because some players just like rolling numbers.

Player 1: "I want to don my armor and get ready for a day of adventuring!"

DM: "Okay, it takes a few minutes to check everything, do a bit of maintenance, put it on, and make sure everything's secure.  Looks A-OK."

Player 1: "I wanna see how long it actually took." *rolls some dice*  "Yay, four minutes!"

Player 2: "Does it matter?  The wizard will still be over there in his Mordenkainen's Magnificent Pajamas studying his spellbook for an hour anyway."
time to equip armor as a variable is good for time pressured situations.

If there is a orc sneak attack on the town, guards from reserve must choose to attack orcs unarmored or hope that the standing guard can hold them for a few minutes. also with the 1d4+1 min roll it means that the reinforcements will come in waves not all at once. another plus for the orcs. or they take the compromise and all done reserve chain shirts and be ready in 1 min.


ofcourse if you have 5 minutes or more you're not going to bother with the rolls.
 

The ten year old looks at the number and, being ten, goes 'pfft, boring' and ignores it.


Sure, because 10-year olds never play Pokémon. Or World of Warcraft. Or Halo


10-year olds are probably the ones that most make use of numbers in the games they like. Because they are the ones with the most free time around to test things to the ground. I remember when I was 10-12 years old and I wrote down tons of new materials for my 2e games (kits, house rules, maps, adventures, new monsters... all with numbers and "balance"). 


Show the kids something they like, and they will hug it and never let it go. If things aren't interesting, they call it boring and go play pokémon. 

[<()>]Proud Brazilian. Typos are free bonuses. 


The ten year old looks at the number and, being ten, goes 'pfft, boring' and ignores it.


Sure, because 10-year olds never play Pokémon. Or World of Warcraft. Or Halo


10-year olds are probably the ones that most make use of numbers in the games they like. Because they are the ones with the most free time around to test things to the ground. I remember when I was 10-12 years old and I wrote down tons of new materials for my 2e games (kits, house rules, maps, adventures, new monsters... all with numbers and "balance"). 


Show the kids something they like, and they will hug it and never let it go. If things aren't interesting, they call it boring and go play pokémon. 





I'm kind of confused now. We shouldn't have armor donning times because ten year olds will find them... interesting?


We shouldn't have armor donning times because DM's... will find them useful?


wtf?

Oh Content, where art thou?
i have been finding that D&D has the unfortunate side effect of drawing the most letigious people in the universe to your table. on the flip side many players with flip all the **** if they feel you have slighted them through a ruling, bad people to play with to be sure, but it happens. i just like to be able to shrug my sholders and say "thats what it says in the rulebook" when a player is being difficult.


I've got a group of munchkiny rules lawyers in my current Pathfinder game, and I have to say I've had to pull out the Rule 0 argument many times. When one player whined just a bit too much, I flat out said, "Listen, do you understand that I'm in charge of this world? I'm here to be fair and help you tell a story that's fun and entertaining. If I wanted to screw you over, I could very easily do that. Want to see me screw you over? Keep complaining about my rulings."

Well, long story short, I sent them all to Ravenloft. Yeah, I double dare you to try to Rules Lawyer me in a campaign setting that has rules for DM Fiat!

More seriously, munchkins and rules lawyers are always going to be a problem as long as there are rules to the game. That's why Rule 0 exists. It's actually a lot of trust in that rule. It's proof that you, as DM, have the final say in everything. The PCs succeed or fail, even live or die solely at your whim. In order to earn and maintain that trust, you have to be fair. In return, the players have to respect that your say is final. Without either of those in place, there is no game. There's just a bunch of people yelling at each other over how a bunch of 30cm tall miniatures can move on a grid.



You are the kind of DM that players complain about in "what's a player to do?" section
WoTC seems to have ignored its own advice in terms of irrelivent dice rolls which slow down gameplay.
Why does it take 1d4+1 minutes to don heavy armour.
Why does it take 2d6 hours to recover from stabilized.

These are the sorts of things you solve with a simple sentence: "You recover from stabilized after a long rest", "Putting on heavy armour takes several minutes"



Totally agree. Besides, why would it take you 2 minutes one time and 5 minutes another time?
Totally agree. Besides, why would it take you 2 minutes one time and 5 minutes another time?

The same reason finding your car keys is instantaneous one day, but may take two hours the next.

Totally agree. Besides, why would it take you 2 minutes one time and 5 minutes another time?

The same reason finding your car keys is instantaneous one day, but may take two hours the next.

:D You know how sometimes you don't match up the buttons on your shirt, or you twist a strap accidentally when you fasten it, and you have to do it over? I wonder if you can do that with arming coats and buckles?

Anyway, i like such rolls as a way to produce an answer quickly, thoughtlessly, if one so desires.
"You hear a loud noise and a scream: the town is under attack!"

"Do I have time to don my full plate?"

"I don't know...where does your character stand on unarmed untrained townspeople being slaughtered?"

"Meh. People die every day."

"Then yes, you have time to put on your armor."  
standardized dice rolls work better for this reason.

"you hear a loud noise, and scream int he night, the town is under attack"
-" i don my armour, i rolled a 3 + 1, so 4 min" <- as="" a="" dm="" i="" had="" set="" aside="" 5="" min="" before="" their="" inn="" gets="" attacked="" in="" this="" situation="" the="" dice="" dictate="" results="" sit="" back="" and="" players="" play="" experience="" unfold="" am="" not="" involved="" because="" it="" is="" my="" game="" s="" theirs="" br="">
as opposed to

"you hear a loud noise, and scream int he night, the town is under attack"
 - "can i don my armour in time?" <- thats="" a="" direct="" question="" there="" is="" no="" rle="" way="" to="" figure="" it="" out="" as="" dm="" i="" have="" make="" decision="" either="" deny="" the="" player="" their="" armour="" or="" let="" them="" sometimes="" judgement="" can="" be="" used="" but="" in="" last="" case="" difference="" was="" 1="" min="" how="" am="" supposed="" judge="" that="" without="" getting="" involved="" someone="" elses="" play="" experience="" and="" making="" seem="" personal="" quote="" br="" class="mbQuoteSpacer">

Things like that being variable require a DM who is much better at improvising. If it is a fixed time frame, then the DM can plan, design, and balance the encounter appropriately for whether he expects the players to not be properly prepared and equipped (therefore either scaling down the difficulty or granting additional XP for the increased challenge) or if they will be fully prepared then providing an adequate challenge for that.

All the random armor donning time does is add one more possible failure mechanic. On the upside, the playtest rules also lack anything preventing players from sleeping in armor, which if left out of the final product would make the armor donning time meaningless since characters would simply never remove their armor.
Totally agree. Besides, why would it take you 2 minutes one time and 5 minutes another time?

The same reason finding your car keys is instantaneous one day, but may take two hours the next.




Poor analogy. That's because you don't know where they are. It's more like saying it takes 2 minutes to get your car started one time, and 5 minutes the next, which is absurd.
My biggest problem with these is that they are essntially wink-wink rules that the GM is supposed to ignore. A bigger example is the rule for how long it takes to prepare your spells - 1 minute per spell level of all your spells (so to prepare 2 level1 spells and a level2 spell, it takes 4 minutes).  This complexity is not worth it, and good GMs know that they are essentially supposed to ignore this rule and make it take a brief, indeterminate amount of time, but new GMs will be slowed down by rules like this.  It's clear that these are supposed to be cute throwbacks to older editions, but it's easy to forget that rules like this made those games *worse* when looking back through nostalgia-tinted glasses.
standardized dice rolls work better for this reason.

"you hear a loud noise, and scream int he night, the town is under attack"
-" i don my armour, i rolled a 3 + 1, so 4 min" <- as="" a="" dm="" i="" had="" set="" aside="" 5="" min="" before="" their="" inn="" gets="" attacked="" in="" this="" situation="" the="" dice="" dictate="" results="" sit="" back="" and="" players="" play="" experience="" unfold="" am="" not="" involved="" because="" it="" is="" my="" game="" s="" theirs="" br="">
as opposed to

"you hear a loud noise, and scream int he night, the town is under attack"
 - "can i don my armour in time?" <- thats="" a="" direct="" question="" there="" is="" no="" rle="" way="" to="" figure="" it="" out="" as="" dm="" i="" have="" make="" decision="" either="" deny="" the="" player="" their="" armour="" or="" let="" them="" sometimes="" judgement="" can="" be="" used="" but="" in="" last="" case="" difference="" was="" 1="" min="" how="" am="" supposed="" judge="" that="" without="" getting="" involved="" someone="" elses="" play="" experience="" and="" making="" seem="" personal="" quote="" br="" class="mbQuoteSpacer">

Things like that being variable require a DM who is much better at improvising. If it is a fixed time frame, then the DM can plan, design, and balance the encounter appropriately for whether he expects the players to not be properly prepared and equipped (therefore either scaling down the difficulty or granting additional XP for the increased challenge) or if they will be fully prepared then providing an adequate challenge for that.

All the random armor donning time does is add one more possible failure mechanic. On the upside, the playtest rules also lack anything preventing players from sleeping in armor, which if left out of the final product would make the armor donning time meaningless since characters would simply never remove their armor.



Do people really need an explicit rule telling them that sleeping in armor is uncomfortable as **** and no person woud ever do that?  It would be ridiculously hard to sleep.  Your character is a real person in a real imaginary world, he or she most likely would rather not sleep in their armor.
standardized dice rolls work better for this reason.

"you hear a loud noise, and scream int he night, the town is under attack"
-" i don my armour, i rolled a 3 + 1, so 4 min" <- as="" a="" dm="" i="" had="" set="" aside="" 5="" min="" before="" their="" inn="" gets="" attacked="" in="" this="" situation="" the="" dice="" dictate="" results="" sit="" back="" and="" players="" play="" experience="" unfold="" am="" not="" involved="" because="" it="" is="" my="" game="" s="" theirs="" br="">
as opposed to

"you hear a loud noise, and scream int he night, the town is under attack"
 - "can i don my armour in time?" <- thats="" a="" direct="" question="" there="" is="" no="" rle="" way="" to="" figure="" it="" out="" as="" dm="" i="" have="" make="" decision="" either="" deny="" the="" player="" their="" armour="" or="" let="" them="" sometimes="" judgement="" can="" be="" used="" but="" in="" last="" case="" difference="" was="" 1="" min="" how="" am="" supposed="" judge="" that="" without="" getting="" involved="" someone="" elses="" play="" experience="" and="" making="" seem="" personal="" quote="" br="" class="mbQuoteSpacer">

Things like that being variable require a DM who is much better at improvising. If it is a fixed time frame, then the DM can plan, design, and balance the encounter appropriately for whether he expects the players to not be properly prepared and equipped (therefore either scaling down the difficulty or granting additional XP for the increased challenge) or if they will be fully prepared then providing an adequate challenge for that.

All the random armor donning time does is add one more possible failure mechanic. On the upside, the playtest rules also lack anything preventing players from sleeping in armor, which if left out of the final product would make the armor donning time meaningless since characters would simply never remove their armor.



Do people really need an explicit rule telling them that sleeping in armor is uncomfortable as **** and no person woud ever do that?  It would be ridiculously hard to sleep.  Your character is a real person in a real imaginary world, he or she most likely would rather not sleep in their armor.



If there is to be a penalty for certain actions, it needs to be written in the rules so players know what to expect. And it is an IMAGINARY character who is by default superior to commonfolk to begin with. So being able to effectively rest while wearing armor is not crazy. I don't have a problem with there being rules against sleeping in armor if they plan on balancing rules around that. But being a fantasy world nothing can be assumed to work as one would expect in reality, so for anything to be true, it needs to be explicitly defined in the rules.

I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.


You can review the Code here: company.wizards.com/conduct


Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.


Do people really need an explicit rule telling them that sleeping in armor is uncomfortable as **** and no person woud ever do that?  It would be ridiculously hard to sleep.  Your character is a real person in a real imaginary world, he or she most likely would rather not sleep in their armor.


Man, my typical character is a tank who's really dedicated to her job and a little off her rocker, I doubt she'd particularly care about how comfortable sleeping in armor is. Plus if we can make armor that can literally rejuvenate you after an enemy hits you really hard, adding a magic comfy pajamas enchantment to one's armor doesn't seem especially difficult.

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
The problem with having donning times is that you then need rules for partially donning armor. What happens when the die roll says 4 minutes and the orcs show up 25 rounds into it?
My biggest problem with these is that they are essntially wink-wink rules that the GM is supposed to ignore. A bigger example is the rule for how long it takes to prepare your spells - 1 minute per spell level of all your spells (so to prepare 2 level1 spells and a level2 spell, it takes 4 minutes).  This complexity is not worth it, and good GMs know that they are essentially supposed to ignore this rule and make it take a brief, indeterminate amount of time, but new GMs will be slowed down by rules like this.  It's clear that these are supposed to be cute throwbacks to older editions, but it's easy to forget that rules like this made those games *worse* when looking back through nostalgia-tinted glasses.



I don't think your implication that a DM sticking to your character taking exactly the time listed to prepare spells makes him a bad DM is warranted...

In older (pre 3rd edition) versions of the game, spell preparation time was what made the higher level spell users not actually all that much powerful in the course of a day than the non-spell users - because it took long enough to prepare spells that they didn't just sit around and prepare every spell every day so they didn't cast every spell every day.

Sticking to the rule could very well go back to the old ways of preventing a wizard from truly being quadratic next to his linear buddies since he just can't realistically expect to bring all of his power to bear every single day.

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

The problem with having donning times is that you then need rules for partially donning armor. What happens when the die roll says 4 minutes and the orcs show up 25 rounds into it?



I agree that a set of rules governing partially donned armor would be a great optional addition - something that could be used by those that aren't comfortable saying "you get no bonus because you aren't done yet."

Perhaps a simple percentage of time = percentage of AC (meaining 50% through donning AC 14 armor is AC 12, not AC 7).

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

In 1st-2nd we just said each round gets you 1 ac dressed...if a buddy helps then it goes twice as fast. We're talking about the standard ac drop of 9 down to 1. So it wasn't that big of a deal. For the guys wearing field plate and full plate they'd be slower, then the faster geared characters or even the mage might help that guy out. It was all rather simply....shields didn't take extra time.

It doesn't pop up that often, but having the time frame there is just an easy go to number for the DM, instead of having guess work done.  When the players say "will i have enough time" ...the DM should never decide for them....if the player can't make that judgement call....then have the character roll an INT check.
Sign In to post comments