|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 9:11AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Feb 25, 2012
|
Rings of immortality are always "must haves" for a lot of players I know. They are things players know they must pick up at some point. I was excited when reading 4e and saw at level 30 something about immortality. I was under the impression that upon attaining level 30 you can be immortal. I thought this was awesome, since it's like you've become so powerful that you've moved beyond the mortal coil. But I sadly didn't read enough, as I now realize that was immortality in some metaphorical way. I think pretty much every player who gets a character to crazy epic levels assumes the character will live forever at that point. I go so far as to make available through questing the ability to become immortal, or obtain an item of immortality. I wouldn't even make the ring of immortality take up a ring slot. All it does it make them immortal after all. If no method was available, I'd probably have everybody turning into liches, which is truly no better.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 9:46AM
#22
|
|
|
@Master Drow: Unfortunately, I like you, enjoy the sense of (I don't want to call it realism, because that might derail the thread) fleshed out characters. Characters in which the numbers (and fluff) represent something. I have found, quite to my disbelief, that the majority of gamers do not want this. I still can't understand why, but that's the way it is.
But personally, a character's age should represent a great deal more than just understanding rituals. It should be a bonus to attributes. No one can say they were wiser at 18 than they were at 50. And like wise, no one can say they're more agile at 50 than 18. It's the way the world works, but I guess people don't want to be reminded of it - even if it is logical.
My only question is when does it end: Can I create a 12 year old girl with a 20 strength? How about a 98 year old non-magical human who has a 20 dexterity? Both of these could work and be interesting, but for a few of us, they would ruin the immersion.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 4:09PM
#23
|
|
|
@Master Drow: Unfortunately, I like you, enjoy the sense of
Can I safely assume you meant to say "Unfortunately I, like you, enjoy the sense of" that comma's placement makes all the difference. 
I was actually thinking of just making age categories and then suggesting in the fluff text about what age each race reaches those catagories. So the catagories could be Baby, Child, Juvenile, Adult, Middle age, Old, Ancient, Dead, Undead. And then in the elves descriptive text it might say, "Most elves are considered to be Children until the age of 25, and most are considered Juvenile's until well into their 70's." This way you can give some basic guidelines without resitricting the DM/Players to a specific age. So no more, "Hey you turned 36 today, now your strength dropped a point!"
I happen to like the idea of gaining flaws as you get older. Or something like what Wrecan made. So getting older is not just a stat or skill modifier it actually effects your character in some meaningful and fun/interesting way. Like say you reach the Ancient age category, you roll, or pick, or are given by the DM (Dm's choice on which) a flaw. You might get "Senile" where you have a 10% chance to forget something that happened more than 1 minute ago. I could see a lot of fun roleplaying with that. (Imagine a scout with senile, he would just forget what he was doing and instead just wander off into the forest looking for something entirely different.)
Im sorry but ADEU is a French word for goodbye, not a combat system. You say, "Encounter Power" and I stop listening to you. Have Played/Run
Show
D&D 1st ed
D&D 3.5 ed
D&D 4th ed
Shadowrun
Star Wars SAGA
Cyberpunk
Interlock Unlimited
Run.Net
I know my games, don't try to argue about them. Alignment Explained
Show
This is a very simple problem and I will outline it below.
Their are two types of people
Type 1: a lot of people (not all, but a lot) who play see alignment as "I am lawful good thus I must play lawful good"
Type 2: a lot of people (not all, but a lot) who play see alignment as "My previous actions have made people and the gods view me as lawful good.
The difference is subtle but it is the source of the misunderstanding. Alignment does not dictate how you play your character. All it does is tell you, the player, how the rest of the world views you, and your previous actions. Any future actions will be judged by their own merits.
Say you're a baby eating pyromaniac. You are most likely chaotic evil. But one day you decide, "Hey all I really need is love." So you get a wife, have a kid, and get a kitten named Mr. Snook'ems. You become a member of the PTA and help build houses for the homeless. You are no longer chaotic evil. And just because you were once chaotic evil it does not mean that you have to stay chaotic evil.
Alignment never dictates what you can do, it only says what you have done.
Now that is cleared up here is a simple test.
What is the alignment of...
A Police officer:
The average Citizen:
A Vigilante:
The answer is simple.
The Police officer is lawful good. He uses the laws of the country and city to arrest people and make them pay their debt to society.
The Citizen is Neutral good. He wants to live is a place that is Good and follows moral and ethical principle, but he sometimes finds the laws impedes him, and he wonders why we spend so much on poor people.
The Vigilante is Chaotic Good. He wants to uphold the morals and ethics of society but finds that the bad guys often slip through the cracks in the law. He takes it upon himself to protect the people from these criminals.
That is the basic breakdown of the good alignment axis. What needs to be remembered is that any one of these people can change alignments, easily.
The Police officer could be bought off by a local gang, and suddenly he drops to lawful neutral.
The average citizen might find that his neighbors dog is annoying, barking at night and keeping him up. So he poisons its food, now he is no longer good, he is stepping towards true neutral. Maybe the citizen really goes crazy also kills the neighbor, hello neutral evil.
It is possible that the Vigilante realizes that the cops are actually doing a pretty good job and decides to become an officer himself, leaving his masked crime fighting days behind him. Now he is Lawful good.
Your alignment is not carved in stone, it is malleable and will change to reflect your actions.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 4:11PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
I'm really having to think hard on how to respond to this topic without getting banned.
I think the trend in D&D of nothing bad evar is really sad. I hate that attitude with a passion hotter than the sun.
I'd much rather have a game with rules that reflect some semblence of reality even if it is a fantasy world reality. Getting old and getting weaker is reality. To be honest, the only advantage to aging is that you have experience. So to me getting bonus intelligence points is silly. You are better because you are twentieth level. If you got a 20 year old 3rd level wizard and a 70 year old 3rd level wizard the 20 year old is better objectively. It's just normal for the 70 year old to be a higher level because he has lived all that time.
Bending and twisting the rules without regard for reality is cheesy to me. Why even bother?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 5:15PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Nov 13, 2011
|
i guess if we're bringing realism into the discussion, the wizard should be an elderly, mad vagabond in a dirty bathrobe trailing behind armed guards yelling "MAJIK MISHILE!" while throwing old knucklebones?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 5:35PM
#26
|
|
|
i guess if we're bringing realism into the discussion, the wizard should be an elderly, mad vagabond in a dirty bathrobe trailing behind armed guards yelling "MAJIK MISHILE!" while throwing old knucklebones?
If you want.
I agree Emerikol, I see the same trend of "Players must never get a negative number". It is really disheartening, if I wanted to play a game where all of my characters were larger than life/heroic all the time then I would play Exhalted with its 20 foot long swords. But in D&D I like simulation and reality mixed in. I find it more fun.
Im sorry but ADEU is a French word for goodbye, not a combat system. You say, "Encounter Power" and I stop listening to you. Have Played/Run
Show
D&D 1st ed
D&D 3.5 ed
D&D 4th ed
Shadowrun
Star Wars SAGA
Cyberpunk
Interlock Unlimited
Run.Net
I know my games, don't try to argue about them. Alignment Explained
Show
This is a very simple problem and I will outline it below.
Their are two types of people
Type 1: a lot of people (not all, but a lot) who play see alignment as "I am lawful good thus I must play lawful good"
Type 2: a lot of people (not all, but a lot) who play see alignment as "My previous actions have made people and the gods view me as lawful good.
The difference is subtle but it is the source of the misunderstanding. Alignment does not dictate how you play your character. All it does is tell you, the player, how the rest of the world views you, and your previous actions. Any future actions will be judged by their own merits.
Say you're a baby eating pyromaniac. You are most likely chaotic evil. But one day you decide, "Hey all I really need is love." So you get a wife, have a kid, and get a kitten named Mr. Snook'ems. You become a member of the PTA and help build houses for the homeless. You are no longer chaotic evil. And just because you were once chaotic evil it does not mean that you have to stay chaotic evil.
Alignment never dictates what you can do, it only says what you have done.
Now that is cleared up here is a simple test.
What is the alignment of...
A Police officer:
The average Citizen:
A Vigilante:
The answer is simple.
The Police officer is lawful good. He uses the laws of the country and city to arrest people and make them pay their debt to society.
The Citizen is Neutral good. He wants to live is a place that is Good and follows moral and ethical principle, but he sometimes finds the laws impedes him, and he wonders why we spend so much on poor people.
The Vigilante is Chaotic Good. He wants to uphold the morals and ethics of society but finds that the bad guys often slip through the cracks in the law. He takes it upon himself to protect the people from these criminals.
That is the basic breakdown of the good alignment axis. What needs to be remembered is that any one of these people can change alignments, easily.
The Police officer could be bought off by a local gang, and suddenly he drops to lawful neutral.
The average citizen might find that his neighbors dog is annoying, barking at night and keeping him up. So he poisons its food, now he is no longer good, he is stepping towards true neutral. Maybe the citizen really goes crazy also kills the neighbor, hello neutral evil.
It is possible that the Vigilante realizes that the cops are actually doing a pretty good job and decides to become an officer himself, leaving his masked crime fighting days behind him. Now he is Lawful good.
Your alignment is not carved in stone, it is malleable and will change to reflect your actions.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 6:18PM
#27
|
|
|
My personal preference is to roll hitpoints at first level. So the fighter can start out with 1 hitpoint. I realize that this is not for everyone. I like lethal poisons. Level drains. Magical aging, and system shock rolls for that and resurrection.
I don't think my way is better or worse than anyone else's way. My style provides me with a game whose tone I enjoy.
Here's how I categorize lethality in D&D.
1. No death. Characters fail in other ways.
2. Dramatically appropriate. Characters are not allowed to die except when the DM and/or Players decide.
3. When a mistake is made. Characters are only allowed to die if the dice say so, and if the death can be traced to a bad decision.
4. A string of recklessness or bad luck. Characters die when the dice say, generally after several attempts to save oneself, avoid the attack, mitigate the effect, and/or ignoring hints as to the danger or opportunities to investigate that would have provided hints.
5. One bad roll. Character death often left to pure chance with no player input.
I can at least tolerate option 3. I prefer option 4. I don't enjoy option 1 or 2. I don't believe a D&D game or module not intended for tournament use has ever been designed where the DM was intended to use option 5. Yet every argument against lethality holds it up as the norm.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 6:56PM
#28
|
|
|
Rings of immortality are always "must haves" for a lot of players I know. They are things players know they must pick up at some point. I was excited when reading 4e and saw at level 30 something about immortality. I was under the impression that upon attaining level 30 you can be immortal. I thought this was awesome, since it's like you've become so powerful that you've moved beyond the mortal coil. But I sadly didn't read enough, as I now realize that was immortality in some metaphorical way.
A large proportion of EDs actually end with you becoming immortality. Sometimes as a Lich, sometimes as a deity (or similar).
Some of them are metaphorical immortalities (your name will live for ever) but many are actual "You won't die" immortality.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 6:59PM
#29
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I think the trend in D&D of nothing bad evar is really sad. I hate that attitude with a passion hotter than the sun.
And you know what I hate? People who paint their opposition with a condescending brush. Nobody is saying D&D should have "nothing bad evar". Nobody. Stop trying to make your points by belittling other people's positions. It's tiresome and transparent.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 7:24PM
#30
|
|
|
Nobody is saying D&D should have "nothing bad evar". Nobody.
Should I point out this quote from page 2?
Yes, if age modifiers are in the game, make them minor AND zero-sum for all characters -- something like this.
It seemed to me that Emerikol was well within his right to comment on this idea. The idea that anything that might be a negative to a player should be zero sum, aka no penealty.
So now instead of the character getting a penalty, when it is perfectly reasonable for him to get one, he is also getting a benifit to equalize that penalty. This is exactly what 3.5 did with the gain in mental stats and loss in physical stats and all we got were a bunch of people who gained in mental and never lost in physical which was something that I pointed out in my OP.
The idea of topic was 'Should ageing actually be a negative? And if so could we use it as a balancing factor?' So sure that wizard is still young now but he is only 3 years away from an age penalty, meanwhile that fighter has at least 10 years before he has to worry about growing old. So when that wizard has reach level 15 and has a lot of spells he also has some age penelties that help balance him out.
Im sorry but ADEU is a French word for goodbye, not a combat system. You say, "Encounter Power" and I stop listening to you. Have Played/Run
Show
D&D 1st ed
D&D 3.5 ed
D&D 4th ed
Shadowrun
Star Wars SAGA
Cyberpunk
Interlock Unlimited
Run.Net
I know my games, don't try to argue about them. Alignment Explained
Show
This is a very simple problem and I will outline it below.
Their are two types of people
Type 1: a lot of people (not all, but a lot) who play see alignment as "I am lawful good thus I must play lawful good"
Type 2: a lot of people (not all, but a lot) who play see alignment as "My previous actions have made people and the gods view me as lawful good.
The difference is subtle but it is the source of the misunderstanding. Alignment does not dictate how you play your character. All it does is tell you, the player, how the rest of the world views you, and your previous actions. Any future actions will be judged by their own merits.
Say you're a baby eating pyromaniac. You are most likely chaotic evil. But one day you decide, "Hey all I really need is love." So you get a wife, have a kid, and get a kitten named Mr. Snook'ems. You become a member of the PTA and help build houses for the homeless. You are no longer chaotic evil. And just because you were once chaotic evil it does not mean that you have to stay chaotic evil.
Alignment never dictates what you can do, it only says what you have done.
Now that is cleared up here is a simple test.
What is the alignment of...
A Police officer:
The average Citizen:
A Vigilante:
The answer is simple.
The Police officer is lawful good. He uses the laws of the country and city to arrest people and make them pay their debt to society.
The Citizen is Neutral good. He wants to live is a place that is Good and follows moral and ethical principle, but he sometimes finds the laws impedes him, and he wonders why we spend so much on poor people.
The Vigilante is Chaotic Good. He wants to uphold the morals and ethics of society but finds that the bad guys often slip through the cracks in the law. He takes it upon himself to protect the people from these criminals.
That is the basic breakdown of the good alignment axis. What needs to be remembered is that any one of these people can change alignments, easily.
The Police officer could be bought off by a local gang, and suddenly he drops to lawful neutral.
The average citizen might find that his neighbors dog is annoying, barking at night and keeping him up. So he poisons its food, now he is no longer good, he is stepping towards true neutral. Maybe the citizen really goes crazy also kills the neighbor, hello neutral evil.
It is possible that the Vigilante realizes that the cops are actually doing a pretty good job and decides to become an officer himself, leaving his masked crime fighting days behind him. Now he is Lawful good.
Your alignment is not carved in stone, it is malleable and will change to reflect your actions.
|
|
|
