Results 91 to 119 of 119
-
2018-04-06, 02:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
YES! That's it! You put it in parentheses but you got it. The only way to earn experience (outside story awards, ad hock, homebrew) was by over coming encounters. However
Encounters =/= adventuring
It's a common mistake among players. The Wizards forgot many things in their books but definitions was 99% correct.
A young boy is tired of seeing his friend get picked on and fights the bully himself? He gets XP.
A noblewoman goes through high society avoiding social traps? XP is earned.
How does adventuring factor into those?
-
2018-04-06, 05:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2017
- Location
- France
- Gender
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
Forum Wisdom
Mage avatar by smutmulch & linklele.
-
2018-04-06, 09:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
Attention LotR fans
Spoiler: LotRThe scouring of the Shire never happened. That's right. After reading books I, II, and III, I stopped reading when the One Ring was thrown into Mount Doom. The story ends there. Nothing worthwhile happened afterwards. Middle-Earth was saved.
-
2018-04-06, 11:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Location
- Washington D.C.
- Gender
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.
Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2
-
2018-04-06, 11:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Oregon, USA
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
FeytouchedBanana eldritch disciple avatar by...me!
The Index of the Giant's Comments VI―Making Dogma from Zapped Bananas
-
2018-04-07, 12:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
It would make a certain degree of sense, at least as much as anything ever does in D&D, if it required a few Spellcraft ranks. Y'know, since you need to be able to identify the point where the spell's energy peaks. And there's a bit in On the Origin of PCs that could be reasonably interpreted as showing Roy has said ranks.
-
2018-04-07, 06:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Gender
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
Would make sense. As long as you can see the verbal and somatic components, a DC 15+(Spell Level) spellcraft check lets you identify a spell being cast, and with enough training I could see someone being able to use that knowledge to smack someone while the magic was at its height.
-
2018-04-07, 07:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Location
- Washington D.C.
- Gender
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.
Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2
-
2018-04-08, 11:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
Because only stabbing or sneaking was ever covered by the books, IIRC. Overcoming mean defeat, not roleplaying. Through I guess that means that the child would get experience for beating up other children, but the system was VERY lackluster (if not outright non-existent) for most other methods which were often house rules. OoTS DOES have several house rules, so maybe Grandpa got experience that way. But the characters often talk bout killing monsters for experience, implying it's probably the best method to parody the system.
Also, children probably shouldn't be encounters typically, but I don't think that's a rule anywhere.For all of your completely and utterly honest needs. Zaydos made, Tiefling approved.
-
2018-04-08, 12:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
The 3.x books made it clear that "overcoming a challenge" could mean disarming a trap or convincing a group of orcs to let you pass without a fight. There's nothing about "defeat" or "kill" or "overcome a creature," as distinct from "a challenge," in the books.
Something I find puzzling is when people get attached to the notion that there's something bad and mock-worthy in a particular ruleset, such that if someone points out it doesn't actually say that they reach for ways to interpret what is there the way they initially read it. Surely if the rules are more functional than you thought that's a reason to be happy, not unhappy.Orth Plays: Currently Baldur's Gate II
-
2018-04-08, 12:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Location
- Lake Wobegon
- Gender
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
That is your interpretation. It's not an illegitimate interpretation, inasmuch it conforms with the observation that most of the D&D 3E rulebooks are about combat and the observation that many people play D&D 3E as if it were all about combat. But it ignores the text of the rulebooks which state that overcoming challenges does not necessarily mean beating people up; the designers' intent which was to expand the scope of actions for which a DM would be expected to give XP from those spelled out in earlier editions; and the purpose of 3E which was to cater to as many playstyles as possible (if to no one in particular very well). That being the case, I don't think it's a very good interpretation. Certainly it is an interpretation that is very ungenerous to the designers.
Last edited by zimmerwald1915; 2018-04-08 at 12:14 PM.
-
2018-04-08, 12:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Location
- Lake Wobegon
- Gender
-
2018-04-08, 02:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2004
- Location
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
Certainly idea of XP for "story goals" and "adventure milestone rewards" has been commonly used since the ancient days of late 1e. I really have no idea whether that was an official or unofficial thing.
3e specifically talks about challenges broadly. The detailed rules are around combat, because D&D is build around a wargame chassis, and that serves the more common playstyles well enough, most of the time. The idea of non-combat challenges is definitely there.
4e does expand the concept of challenges into things that can be resolved by skill checks via explicit rules, where the skills available are up to the imagination of the players to make a good argument why such could apply if employed appropriately.Last edited by Snails; 2018-04-08 at 02:28 PM.
I owe Peelee 5 Quatloos. But I am going double or nothing that Durkon will be casting 8th level spells at the big finale.
I bet Goblin_Priest 5 quatloos that Xykon does not know RC has the phylactery at this point in the tale (#1139).
Using my Bardic skills I see the fate of Belkar...so close!
Using my Bardic skills I see the fate of goblinkind!
-
2018-04-08, 02:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
-
2018-04-09, 12:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2016
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
Well, it's at least figuratively true that a wizard was responsible for the eradication of the technique.
Eugene killed off the chance that it would be passed down from father to son when he chose to become a wizard instead of following the "Greenhilt family sword" tradition.
-
2018-04-09, 01:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Worksa. Malifice (paraphrased):
Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
b. greenstone (paraphrased):
Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society
-
2018-04-09, 01:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
Probably gained about as much as he does for killing dramatic moments.
-
2018-04-09, 02:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- The sticks
- Gender
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
I will say that if the wizards of the world got together to wipe out everyone who knew the Spellsplinter Manuver, they did a bad job of it because one of the bodyguards seems to recognize it when its used, and Wreckan had certainly at least heard of it.
So, no one might know it, but the knowledge of its existence was certainly still around and possibly even somewhat widespread."You are what you do. Choose again and change." - Miles Vorkosigan
-
2018-04-09, 02:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2017
- Location
- France
- Gender
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
You know a conspiracy starts at two people.
Frankly this theory doesn't even require a conspiracy, to eliminate everyone who knew the technique you'd only need one high level determined wizard serial killer.Forum Wisdom
Mage avatar by smutmulch & linklele.
-
2018-04-09, 02:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
This hypothesis does, however, require some smidge of evidence before it will become accurate to call it a theory.
Orth Plays: Currently Baldur's Gate II
-
2018-04-09, 04:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2017
- Location
- France
- Gender
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
Forum Wisdom
Mage avatar by smutmulch & linklele.
-
2018-04-09, 04:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Location
- Washington D.C.
- Gender
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.
Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2
-
2018-04-09, 04:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2017
- Location
- France
- Gender
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
No. Gravity is a fact. The Law of Gravity F = G*M*m/Rē is a theory, or a well-backed guess.
Fossils are a fact. Evolution through natural selection is a theory, or a well-backed guess.
And so on and so forth.
EDIT : But more importantly, this is science jargon not necessarily applicable outside of scinetific discussion. Which this is not.Last edited by Fyraltari; 2018-04-09 at 04:33 PM.
Forum Wisdom
Mage avatar by smutmulch & linklele.
-
2018-04-09, 04:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
You can use "wild-ass guess" instead of "hypothesis," if "hypothesis" sounds too scientific to you.
The idea that someone has been killing off users of the Spellsplinter Maneuver is still overdignified by being called a theory.Orth Plays: Currently Baldur's Gate II
-
2018-04-09, 04:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Location
- Washington D.C.
- Gender
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
...No, you have it backwards. The Law of Gravitation is a law, which is not a theory. Laws are facts. Laws are not well-backed guesses. Gravity is a scientific theory, which is not a well-backed guess. A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.
Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.
Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2
-
2018-04-09, 05:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Gender
-
2018-04-10, 07:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2017
- Location
- Eaten by the Snarl
- Gender
Re: Slightly disturbing implication in #1003.
Laws aren't facts. Laws change if we get data that contradict them. Facts don't change as time goes by, even if our interpretation of them does. Newton's law of universal gravitation has been proven more inaccurate than general relativity. The data, the experiments and the observations, are facts. Laws and scientific theories are models that are used to make predictions that are then confirmed by experiments. These models have certain scopes, sometimes known, others unknown. Newton's theory, for example, assumes that the flow of time is the same for everyone. This is wrong and when that was discovered, new limits for Newton's theory were discovered. Another example, of people being aware of the limits of their model this time, is the ideal gas law. It assumes ideal gases that don't exist in reality but it can give us a sufficiently accurate approximation to reach some conclusions and it can be adjusted for further accuracy when faced with a real world situation.
Scientific laws can be called facts only within the scope (but as I said, you might not know that scope even if you think you do!) they have been tested by experiments or observations, or, even better, you can say that it's a fact these laws have made only accurate predictions in every way they've been tested.
I know this might look like an unimportant distinction and to you this might look "fact enough for everyday life" but inaccurate language like this is very useful to disingenuous people who can abuse phrases like what you said ("laws are facts") then counter with sensational and more inaccurate statements than yours, like "Newton's theories have been debunked" or "Newton was wrong, how do you know you're right this time?", to discredit science. If you then try to clarify or be more accurate, it's already too late. You can be made to look like you were made to retract your statement or that you got caught being wrong and you're trying to cover it up and generally be made to look bad.
Sorry if I seem to be a bit overzealous about all this, it's just that yesterday I heard that one neighbour claimed that he "doesn't believe we evolved from monkeys" but I wasn't present when he said this so I could rip off his head, I mean, I wouldn't talk to him, I wouldn't know where to start... Mind you, my endeavour would fail miserably and painfully because he's a boxer and I'm not, but as long as you try your best, that is all that matters, right? Right.
-
2018-04-10, 09:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Location
- Washington D.C.
- Gender
-
2018-04-11, 10:58 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2017
- Location
- France
- Gender
Forum Wisdom
Mage avatar by smutmulch & linklele.