D&D 3e/3.5e/d20The forum for conversations specifically related to the rules and procedures of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, 3.5 Edition, or any fantasy game using the d20 system or a variant thereof (commercially published or not).
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jjeinn-tae
A soaring example that any amount of wit shown on these boards will cause an avalanche of puns. At least the next page will have large amounts of punny responses.
Don't jump to conclusions - it could very well be that the puns will skip a page or two.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaronK
Frankly, a Wizard can suck even more than a Fighter could ever dream of sucking. A Fighter can stab himself to death, but only a Wizard could Plane Shift to some horrible far realm to be tortured for an eternity of insanity.
Wizards: By the way, who bears responsibility for the idea of a battletitan dinosaur? As if 500 hit points of angry dinosaur wasn't bad enough, now they're trainable?
Gentlefolk, learn from Zaq's example, and his suffering. Remember, seven out of eleven players who use truenamer lose their ability to taste ice cream.
When you ask a question, and I respond with something about the Truenamer, it might be because I think it's the best answer. More likely, though, is that I'm saying it because no one else will.
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qwertystop
OK, those aren't even puns anymore.
Back on-topic, please?
Right. Serious time.
I've noticed that D&D tends to assume an earth-like planet, especially when it comes to time. What bothers me is when an effect lasts for one year. As we all know, one year is not an exact time.
Wizards: By the way, who bears responsibility for the idea of a battletitan dinosaur? As if 500 hit points of angry dinosaur wasn't bad enough, now they're trainable?
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ursus the Grim
Right. Serious time.
I've noticed that D&D tends to assume an earth-like planet, especially when it comes to time. What bothers me is when an effect lasts for one year. As we all know, one year is not an exact time.
What happens to these effects during a leap year?
A year is a year, no matter whether or not there are humans (or humanoids) to measure it or what calendars they're using. A leap year is just a nice recordkeeping convention that doesn't bother or concern the Earth's orbit one little bit. The Earth's orbit, in fact, couldn't care less. A year is a year.
Gentlefolk, learn from Zaq's example, and his suffering. Remember, seven out of eleven players who use truenamer lose their ability to taste ice cream.
When you ask a question, and I respond with something about the Truenamer, it might be because I think it's the best answer. More likely, though, is that I'm saying it because no one else will.
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ursus the Grim
Right. Serious time.
I've noticed that D&D tends to assume an earth-like planet, especially when it comes to time. What bothers me is when an effect lasts for one year. As we all know, one year is not an exact time.
What happens to these effects during a leap year?
What if the year cycle was based on some totally arbitrary thing? What if a new year started every time a particular long-lived/mystical flower bloomed? If this was so, some years could last thousands upon thousands of days while other years could be less than a week long. I bet that would really screw up some majicks with duration of [x] year(s).
EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaq
A year is a year, no matter whether or not there are humans (or humanoids) to measure it or what calendars they're using. A leap year is just a nice recordkeeping convention that doesn't bother or concern the Earth's orbit one little bit. The Earth's orbit, in fact, couldn't care less. A year is a year.
This is of course assuming that the planet circled a sun. What if it was instead caught in a Lagrangian point between two stars, not orbiting either, simply rotating in place (for sake of argument, lets say one star is a brown dwarf or equally dim star, so there is still a "night").
__________________
Proud owner of: 0.36 0.43 Internet(s) and 2 Win(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welknair
*Proceeds to google "Bride of the Portable Hole", jokingly wondering if it might exist*
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ksheep
This is of course assuming that the planet circled a sun. What if it was instead caught in a Lagrangian point between two stars, not orbiting either, simply rotating in place (for sake of argument, lets say one star is a brown dwarf or equally dim star, so there is still a "night").
That won't make your calendar suddenly affect the way the planet's cycle, whatever that is, ends up acting. (In fact, if that were the case, then you wouldn't have leap years at all, since leap years account for the fact that Earth's revolution around the sun isn't neatly divided into exactly 365 days . . . but that wouldn't happen if there's no revolution at all.)
If, as you say, the gods/forces of magic/whatever consider a year to be something other than what we think it is, well, that'd clearly affect spells, but then you're just at the mercy of whatever these forces of definition are, which isn't exactly the fault of the rules.
Really, while I agree that there's plenty of places to pick apart the rules, I don't see this as being one of them.
Gentlefolk, learn from Zaq's example, and his suffering. Remember, seven out of eleven players who use truenamer lose their ability to taste ice cream.
When you ask a question, and I respond with something about the Truenamer, it might be because I think it's the best answer. More likely, though, is that I'm saying it because no one else will.
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hirax
How powerful monk abilities were thought of by the designers is nicely demonstrated by the fact that they're the only class that gets an epic feat every 5 levels, all other classes get them at least every 4 levels. Totally brainless. Especially because clerics and wizards, among others, get them every 3 levels.
I do kind of wonder what kind of games the developers were playing that they viewed the monk as being so powerful. I can only imagine poisons, diseases and pit falls around every corner. Heck, the monk doesn't even get advancements to their unarmed damage for epic levels.
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by holywhippet
I do kind of wonder what kind of games the developers were playing that they viewed the monk as being so powerful. I can only imagine poisons, diseases and pit falls around every corner. Heck, the monk doesn't even get advancements to their unarmed damage for epic levels.
P1: My kungfu is better than yours. Eeeyai!
P2: Use the force, Ruke (Fly on P1).
P1: Cyclone kicky-thing.
DM: You do 100 damage to the hill giant, he tries to grapple.
P1: AoO Stunning Fist!
DM: The Giant is stunned, but the knight on the Pegasus bullrushes you over the cliff and the wizard casts anti-magic field.
P1: Slowfall near cliff.
DM: WHO DESIGNED THIS CLASS AND WHY DOES IT HAVE AN ANSWER TO EVERYTHING?
...I honestly have no idea what could of granted them that opinion... But my account is definitely incorrect because the wizard casted fly; Wizards were solely for blasting...
...Maybe its the high base-damage weapon with extra attacks per round? They assumed damage would be the be-all-end-all.
Game systems I play: DnD 3.5, Pathfinder, Star Wars Saga, Vampire: The Masquerade, Dungeons: The Dragoning, AFBME, MAID and... EQRPG... Does anyone actually play that?
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
I think I've read somewhere that the idea that the monk was overpowered basically came from the idea that they had the largest list of class abilities listed on their table.
And yes, in a trap-studded dungeon with a DM who isn't well-versed in the rules, the monk can appear powerful at first. I mean, he get's 2d10 damage! The fighter's longsword only has 1d8! Even if it's a +5 longsword, that's still only 9.5 average damage, compared to the monk's 11! And yes, I must admit that I actually thought 2d10 damage was a huge lot when I first saw the monk.
Not a promise, not an oath, or a malediction or a curse, I said, sounding calm, probably inaudible in the midst of the screaming. Inevitable. Wasnt that how she put it? I told them. Warned them.
-Taylor Hebert. Yes, I'm a proud Skittle.
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
I actually wonder how a monk would look in the tomb of horrors. Still not ideal, of course, but there are a lot of opportunities to use most of his abilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ksheep
This is of course assuming that the planet circled a sun. What if it was instead caught in a Lagrangian point between two stars, not orbiting either, simply rotating in place (for sake of argument, lets say one star is a brown dwarf or equally dim star, so there is still a "night").
Even assuming a planet may be too much. For the generic "prime material plane," I always kinda assumed it was actually a plane, roughly flat and infinite in all directions, unless specified otherwise by the specific setting.
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaq
That won't make your calendar suddenly affect the way the planet's cycle, whatever that is, ends up acting. (In fact, if that were the case, then you wouldn't have leap years at all, since leap years account for the fact that Earth's revolution around the sun isn't neatly divided into exactly 365 days . . . but that wouldn't happen if there's no revolution at all.)
If, as you say, the gods/forces of magic/whatever consider a year to be something other than what we think it is, well, that'd clearly affect spells, but then you're just at the mercy of whatever these forces of definition are, which isn't exactly the fault of the rules.
Really, while I agree that there's plenty of places to pick apart the rules, I don't see this as being one of them.
I think that for simplicity in the game it's reasonable to call a year 365 days, a day 24 hours, a week 7 days, and a month 30 days (in case anything is measured in months).
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by noparlpf
I think that for simplicity in the game it's reasonable to call a year 365 days, a day 24 hours, a week 7 days, and a month 30 days (in case anything is measured in months).
If every month is 30 days long, how do you fit 365 days into a year?
__________________
Star Metallurgist of the Roy Fanclub
Who made my awesome Dwarf Hexblade avatar, you ask? BRC did!
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ksheep
13 months of 28 days long, with one spare day?
But that one spare day is also a month. And a week.
I think it would be easier to just round the year down to 364 days (because it's a fantasy world anyway, things can work however you want them to), make 13 months of 28 days, and be done with it. How often do things come up that are on the scale of months or years, anyway? The longest campaign I played in lasted for an entire semester in real life and lasted a few weeks in the game world.
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by noparlpf
I think that for simplicity in the game it's reasonable to call a year 365 days, a day 24 hours, a week 7 days, and a month 30 days (in case anything is measured in months).
Faerūn, mysteriously, has years exactly the same length as Earth's - 365.25 days, give or take a bit - but their standard Dale Reckoning calendar divides them up into 12 months of 30 days, plus 5 or 6 (in leap Shieldmeet years) extracalendric holidays. And each month is exactly 3 weeks of 10 days. This means that crafting, which is figured per-week, takes longer in Faerūn than it would in Greyhawk, which uses, IIRC, 7-day weeks, and fully twice as long as it would on Dragaera, which has 5-day weeks.
__________________
Play your character, not your alignment.
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Campbell
Faerūn, mysteriously, has years exactly the same length as Earth's - 365.25 days, give or take a bit - but their standard Dale Reckoning calendar divides them up into 12 months of 30 days, plus 5 or 6 (in leap Shieldmeet years) extracalendric holidays. And each month is exactly 3 weeks of 10 days. This means that crafting, which is figured per-week, takes longer in Faerūn than it would in Greyhawk, which uses, IIRC, 7-day weeks, and fully twice as long as it would on Dragaera, which has 5-day weeks.
Well that's incredibly strange. Though I doubt the developers stopped to think how the calendar would affect durations of effects or the like.
Wizards: By the way, who bears responsibility for the idea of a battletitan dinosaur? As if 500 hit points of angry dinosaur wasn't bad enough, now they're trainable?
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Campbell
Faerūn, mysteriously, has years exactly the same length as Earth's - 365.25 days, give or take a bit - but their standard Dale Reckoning calendar divides them up into 12 months of 30 days, plus 5 or 6 (in leap Shieldmeet years) extracalendric holidays. And each month is exactly 3 weeks of 10 days. This means that crafting, which is figured per-week, takes longer in Faerūn than it would in Greyhawk, which uses, IIRC, 7-day weeks, and fully twice as long as it would on Dragaera, which has 5-day weeks.
It actually make some sense for crafting, since the rules for crafting per-week say progress is measured in sp, while progress per day is measured in cp. Since 1 sp = 10 cp, making weeks of 10 days makes more sense (instead of being almost 50% more productive when working on a longer term (week) over working over a shorter term (day)).
__________________
Proud owner of: 0.36 0.43 Internet(s) and 2 Win(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welknair
*Proceeds to google "Bride of the Portable Hole", jokingly wondering if it might exist*
Wizards: By the way, who bears responsibility for the idea of a battletitan dinosaur? As if 500 hit points of angry dinosaur wasn't bad enough, now they're trainable?
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ksheep
It actually make some sense for crafting, since the rules for crafting per-week say progress is measured in sp, while progress per day is measured in cp. Since 1 sp = 10 cp, making weeks of 10 days makes more sense (instead of being almost 50% more productive when working on a longer term (week) over working over a shorter term (day)).
Oh, yeah, for added bizarreness, when figuring crafting per day, everyone else drops to Forgotten Realms rates of progress, while Forgotten Realms residents are unaffected.
And for bonus WTF, Pathfinder fixed this issue - crafting progress per day is figured by dividing progress per week by the number of days in a week - but didn't fix the original problem with base crafting time being variable depending on how many days you define a "week" to be.
__________________
Play your character, not your alignment.
RSS Feeds: 
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
