Ridiculous D&D contrivances

[Faulty]

I thought it was psionics for some reason. Pbt, forget I said anything. @_@

[Dervag]

Wrong. The majority do, but some just survive, albeit often badly damaged. Remember, terminal velocity for a human is somewher between 200 and 300km/h, depemd on various circumstances. The simple fact is that this is surviable. Not proable survival, but possible. Again, don't bitch at DnD for your lack of RL knowledge. Their representation of this is far from perfect, but within the limits of the game they don't do to badly on this issue. PCs are supposed to be lucky b*****ds.

As I'm sure you realize, the problem comes when a PC is so tough that they are (in-game) guaranteed to survive a fall from extreme height. A high level fighter could climb a mile-high cliff, jump off the top, then climb back up again, jump off again, and almost certainly live to tell the tale.

There comes a point at which the falling rules do trigger suspension of disbelief. They have advantages (easy to calculate, fairly effective at low levels), but also disadvantages (cats die from a fall more easily than elephants, the aforesaid mountain-climbing incident).

It's unfair that evil has such badass spells. Like that one from BoVD where you fill people lungs with water. I have no idea how that Psionic power that removes part of a person's brainsteam doesn't count as evil though, that's pretty screwed up.

I dunno. If stabbing someone in the brainstem doesn't count as evil, I'm not sure why teleporting their brainstem one foot to the left would.

For magic to be inherently evil, either the method or the result has to be inherently evil. In some cases (causing massive torture to everyone in the vicinity) the result is evil no matter how you did it, and so the spell is evil because that's the only thing it can do. In other cases, the method by which the spell operates is so... wrong in some sense that it's impossible (or nearly so) to justify using that method from an ethical standpoint.

In D&D, using telekinesis or teleportation to cause brain damage isn't an inherently evil result, because it isn't always evil to cause brain damage in D&D. And I'm not sure why it would be an inherently evil method, either.

On the other hand [compared to the "Mind Rape" spell, you have programmed amnesia, which as far as I can tell does the same thing but more slowly, and isn't evil.

The difference may be in terms of the amount of trauma inflicted. "Mind Rape" may do by brute force (causing massive mental trauma to the target during the spell) what "Programmed Amnesia" does more subtly (without the trauma).

[Faulty]

I dunno. If stabbing someone in the brainstem doesn't count as evil, I'm not sure why teleporting their brainstem one foot to the left would.

Well, stabbing them in the brainstem instantly kills them. The latter method turns them into a vegetable and prolongs their death. It's sadistic.

[averagejoe]

Yeah, Evil has access to all sorts of "techniques"* that Good can only use in extreme circumstances (and after trying EVERY possible alternative).

Torture
Taking Hostages (with intent to kill/hurt)
Tyranny

And other things that may or may not start with "T"

* Probably not the correct word, but "methods that can be used to achieve certain goals" is a bit wordy.

Edit:Such as
Tpainful, Mind-Controlling Parasites
Tilling Random Civilians to draw the heroes out
Tecological Devastation (maybe)

That fits the trend better.

As I'm sure you realize, the problem comes when a PC is so tough that they are (in-game) guaranteed to survive a fall from extreme height. A high level fighter could climb a mile-high cliff, jump off the top, then climb back up again, jump off again, and almost certainly live to tell the tale.

There comes a point at which the falling rules do trigger suspension of disbelief. They have advantages (easy to calculate, fairly effective at low levels), but also disadvantages (cats die from a fall more easily than elephants, the aforesaid mountain-climbing incident).

That's more a problem with the HP system than the falling rules, though. The things that a mid to high level fighter can survive far exceed the silliness of a paltry mile drop.

Come to think of it, though, jumping vs. falling is pretty silly. As far as I can tell, you don't take damage from a high jump. Additionally, jumping counts against movement for the round, so it would take several rounds to complete a 150 foot high jump, but only one round to fall that far. Unless I'm missing something.

[KazilDarkeye]

Come to think of it, though, jumping vs. falling is pretty silly. As far as I can tell, you don't take damage from a high jump. Additionally, jumping counts against movement for the round, so it would take several rounds to complete a 150 foot high jump, but only one round to fall that far. Unless I'm missing something.

Well jumping makes you go up and falling makes you go down...
I get you probably didn't mean that, but still

[Stephen_E]

The debate is that they don't have 2 US to dual-wield. There's no issues with them TWF a US and a Kama or something, the issue is that they're already using their entire body to attack with, and they don't have a second one.

Don't let fluff cross crunch.

TWFing lets you use your offhand. Monk attacks are still main hand/side dominated. In RL there are 2 steps (well 2 steps relevant to this discussion) involved in unarmed combat. Learning how to hit effectively with your body, and learning to use your off-hand/side to fight with. In DnD the 1st is represented with the feat Improved Unarmed Strike, and the 2nd with 2WFing.

What's the problem?

Stephen

[Stephen_E]

There is nothing RAW for that, sadly; if you're going by the Core rules, then the only thing special about Good and Evil spells is that divine casters of the opposing alignment cannot prepare the spell. However, Fiendish Codex II says that casting an Evil spell (even for Good purposes) is an Evil act; using logic, then, casting a Good spell (probably not for Evil purposes, though) would be a Good act.

...but what the hell am I doing, using logic when we're talking about D&D?

Don't know the Fiendish Codex but if it's anything like the Exalted Deeds and Vile whatever then I would lcatergorise iin with UA. Alternate rules for alignment.

Stephen E

[Stephen_E]

As I'm sure you realize, the problem comes when a PC is so tough that they are (in-game) guaranteed to survive a fall from extreme height. A high level fighter could climb a mile-high cliff, jump off the top, then climb back up again, jump off again, and almost certainly live to tell the tale.

There comes a point at which the falling rules do trigger suspension of disbelief. They have advantages (easy to calculate, fairly effective at low levels), but also disadvantages (cats die from a fall more easily than elephants, the aforesaid mountain-climbing incident).

I dunno. If stabbing someone in the brainstem doesn't count as evil, I'm not sure why teleporting their brainstem one foot to the left would.

Yes, eventually the falling rules run into the "superhuman" wall. That is somewhere around 10th level characters stop been "human" (substitute race of choice) and become "superhuman" and thus certain RL factors stop applying. It's inherently designed in the system, and if you play DnD you do need to accept that if you're going to play at those levels. If you hate the "superhuman" concept then you need to add extra damage based on class levels. i.e. an additioonal 2pts of damage for each PC class level. 1pt fpr each NPC class level.

Re: Cats and elephants. The falling rule are designed for humanoids pf human size. When applying them to creatures of different sizes you really need to apply a size mod to the max dice limit. I'd suggest +/- 5d6 for every size category as a crude/simple but workable mod. A more realistic but complex might be 2x("size difference from M" squared).
Thus -
S = 18d6
L = 22d6
T = 12d6
H = 28d6
F = 2d6
C = 38d6

Stephen E

[Stephen_E]

Regarding Crossbreeding.

Keep in mind that different species can and do successfully crossbreed. The offspring can even be fertile. This can even occur when the parents have differnt numbers of chromosones. The species do need to be vaguely related, but that can be said to apply to humanoid creatures.

A decade or so a NZ Zoo had a female and male primate of different species that they housed together because they only had one of each species and primates on their own don't do well. Not unsurprisingly they became a mated pair. What did suprise the keepers was when she got pregnant despite them been different species and having different chromosone counts. Even more when tests indicated that the offsprings sperm was fertile.

I suspect the difficulty people have with this is a certain degree of icjyness factor rather than a reality check. The truth is that if human made a habit of having sex with other primate species we would start seeing half-human offspring. The legal and religous fallout would be interesting.

Species crossbreeding is a convoluted subject but it isn't actually unreasonable that one species (humans in DnD) are more capable of crossbreeding with the various other humanoid species than those species are with each other. Such quirks are an actual real part of species crossbreeding.

Stephen E

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Don't let fluff cross crunch.

TWFing lets you use your offhand. Monk attacks are still main hand/side dominated. In RL there are 2 steps (well 2 steps relevant to this discussion) involved in unarmed combat. Learning how to hit effectively with your body, and learning to use your off-hand/side to fight with. In DnD the 1st is represented with the feat Improved Unarmed Strike, and the 2nd with 2WFing.

What's the problem?

Crunch-wise, it's that the Monk only has one US. Heck, the entry reads "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." You wield one US. You can TWF with another item, but you only get the one US.

Fluff-wise, they're striking with their entire body. That's why FoB adds 2 bonus attacks. You're using "either fist interchangeably or even...elbows, knees, and feet". What's left for them to TWF with?

[lord_khaine]

there is the option left thats called all of the above at the same time, resulting in more attacks at lower accuracy.

[Evil the Cat]

That's one of the things I hate: the double standard.

Casting a Good Spell for Good purposes: Good
Casting an Evil Spell for Evil purposes: Evil
Casting a Good Spell for Evil purposes: Evil
Casting an Evil Spell for Good purposes: Evil

It seems unfair. But hey, that's how the cookie crumbles...

Just look at 8-bit theater's mechanics on hadoken and it totally works. If the casting of an evil spell actually does some damage to the world or the universe (taint for example) then whether or not your purpose is good, it is going to be evil.

Wheras even if good spells inherently help the world, using it to kill or torture would still be net evil.

[Stephen_E]

Crunch-wise, it's that the Monk only has one US. Heck, the entry reads "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." You wield one US. You can TWF with another item, but you only get the one US.

Fluff-wise, they're striking with their entire body. That's why FoB adds 2 bonus attacks. You're using "either fist interchangeably or even...elbows, knees, and feet". What's left for them to TWF with?

Read TWF feat. It specifically includes Unarmed Strikes. The Feat is the primary source and trumps the Monks non-specific general spiel on unarmed fighting.

Stephen E

[tyckspoon]

Well, stabbing them in the brainstem instantly kills them. The latter method turns them into a vegetable and prolongs their death. It's sadistic.

I would argue that it's actually less evil than the typical means of killing a person (in particular, as compared to other save-or-die spell effects.) Decerebrate doesn't actually kill the target and is pretty easy to reverse. You can do it with Greater Restoration or Regenerate, which should be pretty easy to come by at the level where things would have to deal with Decerebrate (especially Regenerate, with no expensive material component or xp cost to cast.) If those options are used, recovery doesn't even do the victim any harm, unlike the level/Con loss from being Raised. And if no suitable spell should be available in time, you can still just Raise the guy. Most Save-or-Die effects are far more difficult to recover from, because they are often either [Death] effects or they wreck the body beyond the capacity of Raise Dead.

Really, I wouldn't consider Decerebrate to be much different from any other disabling effect that leads into death by coup-de-grace.

[Darth Stabber]

Because none of them have levels in the William Shatner PrC.

As to why they can't TWF...it's because they're already using both fists(and their head, elbows, feet, knees, and maybe tail) for the US. They don't have a second body to dual-wield. They can still TWF with a Kama or something, but they don't have 2 US to wield at the same time.

That means that Dvati Monks can duel wield their bodies.

[Darth Stabber]

Because none of them have levels in the William Shatner PrC.

As to why they can't TWF...it's because they're already using both fists(and their head, elbows, feet, knees, and maybe tail) for the US. They don't have a second body to dual-wield. They can still TWF with a Kama or something, but they don't have 2 US to wield at the same time.

That means that Dvati Monks can duel wield their bodies.

[Faulty]

I would argue that it's actually less evil than the typical means of killing a person (in particular, as compared to other save-or-die spell effects.) Decerebrate doesn't actually kill the target and is pretty easy to reverse. You can do it with Greater Restoration or Regenerate, which should be pretty easy to come by at the level where things would have to deal with Decerebrate (especially Regenerate, with no expensive material component or xp cost to cast.) If those options are used, recovery doesn't even do the victim any harm, unlike the level/Con loss from being Raised. And if no suitable spell should be available in time, you can still just Raise the guy. Most Save-or-Die effects are far more difficult to recover from, because they are often either [Death] effects or they wreck the body beyond the capacity of Raise Dead.

Really, I wouldn't consider Decerebrate to be much different from any other disabling effect that leads into death by coup-de-grace.

I guess I can see that, but Evil spells (and powers, Incarnum, etc.) are ones that draw on evil power or cause undue suffering. If you're trying to kill someone, you could just do it quickly, rather than removing part of their brain. The game mechanic effect (how easy it is to fix) doesn't affect the suffering it would do in the fantasy world.

[Foryn Gilnith]

That is somewhere around 10th level characters stop been "human" (substitute race of choice) and become "superhuman" and thus certain RL factors stop applying. It's inherently designed in the system, and if you play DnD you do need to accept that if you're going to play at those levels. If you hate the "superhuman" concept then you need to add extra damage based on class levels. i.e. an additioonal 2pts of damage for each PC class level. 1pt fpr each NPC class level.

IMHO, after 5th level is beyond human abilities. Superhuman the way superheroes are comes after 10 or so.

[Chronos]

IMHO, after 5th level is beyond human abilities. Superhuman the way superheroes are comes after 10 or so.

You need 5th level to accurately represent the abilities of someone with a PhD, and there's still plenty of room for advancement beyond that. Meanwhile, a 1st-level member of any spelllcasting class is already doing things that are "superhuman".

[Draco Dracul]

Evil is also selfish. If someone does something for purely self-serving reasons, it quite literally can't be an objectively 'good' act.

Actually, can you even name an objectively 'good' act, outside deity worship? Offhand, I can't.

Saving the universe from eldritch abominations that will condemn every being in the universe to an inescapable nightmare realm for all eternity?

[streakster]

Saving the universe from eldritch abominations that will condemn every being in the universe to an inescapable nightmare realm for all eternity?

"Hey! Cthulu's steppin' on my turf! Why, I'll murderize him! "

[Draco Dracul]

"Hey! Cthulu's steppin' on my turf! Why, I'll murderize him! "

What you do after words maybe vile, cruel, and repugnant, but stopping Cthulu is always a good thing.

Of course I have always subscribed to the idea that, while evil deserves punishment and good deserves reward, neither is inherently more difficult to archive than the other.

[SolkaTruesilver]

What you do after words maybe vile, cruel, and repugnant, but stopping Cthulu is always a good thing.

Of course I have always subscribed to the idea that, while evil deserves punishment and good deserves reward, neither is inherently more difficult to archive than the other.

I don't buy it. If I am an evil overlord, I will try to stop Cthulu so that I still have a world to rule (and I don't want to die). My reasons are selfish. Cthulu is merely a "greater evil".

[Dervag]

Well, stabbing them in the brainstem instantly kills them. The latter method turns them into a vegetable and prolongs their death. It's sadistic.

A normal head injury can turn you into a vegetable without killing you at all, let alone quickly. And it's kind of random what amount of brain damage will be caused by denting someone's helmet with a mace. If a fighter can go around causing brain damage all day using ordinary weapons without being intrinsically evil, I see no reason why a psion can't do the same using tactical teleportation.

[Draco Dracul]

I don't buy it. If I am an evil overlord, I will try to stop Cthulu so that I still have a world to rule (and I don't want to die). My reasons are selfish. Cthulu is merely a "greater evil".

I don't think stopping Cthulu would make you a good person if you live a wicked life before and continued to after words, but the singular act of saving the world/universe is still a good one. Really if saving the world with selfish intentions is an evil act then is defending yourself from an attacker also an evil act as you are doing it for the selfish reason of "I don't want to die"?

[Chronos]

Saving yourself is not inherently good nor evil. Saving yourself at the expense of others is evil, and saving others is inherently good.

[Draco Dracul]

Saving yourself is not inherently good nor evil. Saving yourself at the expense of others is evil, and saving others is inherently good.

So just for clarification what is saving an entire world of other people when you are mostly fighting for self-preservation?

[Stephen_E]

Saving yourself is not inherently good nor evil. Saving yourself at the expense of others is evil, and saving others is inherently good.

So the Evil Overlords bodyguards are good guys?
Indeed all bodyguards are good guys by that logic.

I'm a follower of the "no absolutes" school when it comes to alignment/acts. Some acts tend towards "x" alignment, but they aren't inherently "x" alignment. Casting "evil" spells isn't automatically evil, although it'll probably detect as evil, but that because "Detect Evil" doesn't actuially detect evil. Likewise casting "good" spell.s

Stephen

[Stephen_E]

So just for clarification what is saving an entire world of other people when you are mostly fighting for self-preservation?

Obviously I have different views from Chronos, but I'd say mildly good, unless he had a "run away and survive" option which he choose not to use or put off as a last resort. In that case it would increase to strongly good, or even heroically good. Even as a heroically good act it wouldn't automatically cause an alignment shift, although it would be the basis for an alignment shift if the character so choose.

Stephen E

[Chronos]

So the Evil Overlords bodyguards are good guys?

Probably not, because their method of saving one person probably involves killing a bunch of other people.