Can you cheat at D&D?

[Somensjev]

If Orcus was a nesting doll, that would certainly make the whole thing work smoother. When you cast a level 1 summoning spell, you summon the little Orcus from the middle, but when you cast Gate, you get the really big Orcus that holds all the small Orcuses.

can i sig this? it makes too much sense for it to not be true

[Flickerdart]

can i sig this? it makes too much sense for it to not be true

You can, but there's a 50% chance it will turn into Orcus.

[A_Moon]

If Orcus was a nesting doll, that would certainly make the whole thing work smoother. When you cast a level 1 summoning spell, you summon the little Orcus from the middle, but when you cast Gate, you get the really big Orcus that holds all the small Orcuses.

But would the large Orcus then explode into a burst of... Orcuses? Orci? Orca?

[Somensjev]

You can, but there's a 50% chance it will turn into Orcus.

i'll flip a coin, heads i get your quote, tails i'll get orcus

i was unsuccessful in quoting you, but, i have a cool orcus in my sig

[A_Moon]

Just remember that the punishment for avoiding Orcus is Orcus. You can have any signature you like, as long as it's Orcus.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

This is my first time posting in this thread. I just want to say that I think this thread may have taken its funniest turn yet and I am so glad you guys decided to continue this argument if only because of the hilarious things that have been said.

*is eaten by Orcus*

[thethird]

As Orcus write this I roll Orcus die Orcus Orcus each Orcus Orcus replaced Orcus the name of Tenebrous when he Orcus alive.

Spoiler

Show

tn. As I writhes I roll a die with even each word is replaced with the name of Tenebrous when he was alive.

Orcus adding Orcus to the Orcus Orcus.

[Grod_The_Giant]

But would the large Orcus then explode into a burst of... Orcuses? Orci? Orca?

Orca?

Spoiler

Show

[Vhaidara]

Anyone here remember Porcus? I haven't seen him in a while.

[Nilehus]

Remembering things has a 75% chance of remembering Orcus.

[atomicwaffle]

imagine using craft skills.

Craft alchemy: Sweet, with my +8 bonus and a 17 i got a 25! How many antitoxins did i brew?

You brewed an Orcus wielding an Orcus. That will teach you to optimize your skills. Also, take 3 con damage from poison. Roll for initiative.

[137beth]

If Orcus was a nesting doll, that would certainly make the whole thing work smoother. When you cast a level 1 summoning spell, you summon the little Orcus from the middle, but when you cast Gate, you get the really big Orcus that holds all the small Orcuses.

You can, but there's a 50% chance it will turn into Orcus.

Okay I successfully sigged it without it turning into Orcus...
...BUT I used Mathematica's built-in PRNG instead of actual dice. I'm worried that might be a 'cheating' offense punishable by Orcus.

[A_Moon]

We're approaching the end of the thread. I'm worried if we try to make a new one we'll just end up with Orcus instead.

Okay I successfully sigged it without it turning into Orcus...
...BUT I used Mathematica's built-in PRNG instead of actual dice. I'm worried that might be a 'cheating' offense punishable by Orcus.

Take 3d10 + Orcus damage.

[Nilehus]

Last one out of the thread, be sure to turn off the Orcus.

[FidgetySquirrel]

So... Can you cheat at D&D II: Orcus Appears!

Also, if this keeps up for much longer, half of the playground will have Orcus-themed sigs, which is probably how Orcus can appear in so many places to begin with. NOOOO! STOP SIGGING ORCU- *killed by Orcus*

[Flickerdart]

Okay I successfully sigged it without it turning into Orcus...
...BUT I used Mathematica's built-in PRNG instead of actual dice. I'm worried that might be a 'cheating' offense punishable by Orcus.

Only cheating optimizers use dice. Real roleplayers kneel before the altar of Orcus and beg for merciful judgment.

[Vhaidara]

No.
Can You Cheat at D&D II: The Orcus Clone Wars

[137beth]

Can you cheat at D&D II: Jedipotter and the Thread of Secret Orcus Clone Wars?
Nah, too long.

[Haluesen]

I'm gone for a day and all this comes up... Wow what a thread. What a forum. Go mightily Playground people, go mightily unto Orcus.

[Alent]

I say we go back to the earlier Sithscape joke, but replace "dragons" with Orcus.

[Flickerdart]

Can You Cheat at D&D II: Orcus is a Cheating Optimizer

[FidgetySquirrel]

Only cheating optimizers use dice. Real roleplayers kneel before the altar of Orcus and beg for merciful judgment.

I don't know why, but I'd really like to sig this.

[Wardog]

Well, D&D has a huge entitlement mentality with ''if you cast a spell it works as per the rules''. It's boring. It can be much more fun if anything can happen. Some people like ''the character casts spell A and effect B happens'', but I like, every so often ''when the character casts spell A, then effect ZXT happens. Now, don't jump to the dumb extreme of pure chaos, we are talking like maybe once an hour.

To be fair to Jedipotter, I am quite fond of the idea that "magic is a strange and unpredictable force, and spells may malfunction - possibly with serious consequences". It's also generally accepted that primary casters are a lot more powerful than other classes, often to the point of making them irrelevant, so I don't think there's anything wrong with altering how magic works to make it less universally useful.

The problems with Jedi's fixes, IMO, are:
a) they are applied inconsistently (some non-OP spells are nerfed, while some OP ones are not), and
b) the changes and randomness are unpredictable at a meta-level (i.e. its not just that you don't know what will happen when you cast the spell, but that the player doesn't know what could happen).


IMO, a simpler, more consistent, and fairer way to add randomness to all spells would be something like:
"Magic is unpredictable and dangerous - and powerful magic more so. All spells have a 1% chance per spell level of malfunctioning [perhaps reducible but not eliminatable by appropriate feats]. When a spell malfunctions, roll on a spell-malfunction table to see what happens. Different types of spells use different tables".

Ideas for spell-malfunction tables (all use 1d6):
Offensive spells:
1-2: spell fizzles out harmlessly.
2-4: spell targets the caster.
5-6: spell targets a random target within range and within 30' of the intended victim.

Beneficial spells:
1-2: spell fizzles out harmlessly.
3-4: spell effect is reversed (healing spells harm, +AC spells lower AC, haste slows, etc).
5-6: spell targets a random target within range of the intended target.

Summons:
1-2: spell fizzles out harmlessly.
3-4: spell summons a random creature. (If the spell can summon more than one type of creature, the random creature is chosen from that list. If the spell can normally only summon one type of creature, the DM choses something of similar power and nature).
5: spell summons the intended creature - but it is hostile to the caster.
6: spell summons a random creature (as for 3-4), and it is hostile.

That should add some nice unpredictability and danger, but without being devastatingly overpowered (a L1 mage accidently summoning a hostile badger is unfortunate, but not much worse than what you would expect to face at the hands of a level-appropriate enemy), and doesn't unfairly penalize certain builds or character concepts. And also meet's Jedipotter's goal of preventing reducing showboating, because the mage won't always get to dominate the encounter.


***

To address another issue, Jedipotter:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with making your own house rules, even to the point of effectively creating a new game. Nor is there anything wrong with saying that people who don't like those rules should probably find a different game or DM. (And I'm sure everyone else here agrees).

The reason you are encountering a lot of hostility is because you keep implying (or at least, wording things in a way that leads people to infer) that people who don't like your rule ideas are bad (or "problem") players per se. A lot of the rule changes (seem to be) chosen simply on the grounds that "people who don't like my rules are problem players, therefore I can eliminate problem players by adding a new rule and excluding anyone who doesn't like it".

[FidgetySquirrel]

I think everything Wardog just said is 100% accurate.

[Vhaidara]

Ideas for spell-malfunction tables (all use 1d6):
Offensive spells:
1-2: spell fizzles out harmlessly.
2-4: spell targets the caster.
5-6: spell targets a random target within range and within 30' of the intended victim.

Beneficial spells:
1-2: spell fizzles out harmlessly.
3-4: spell effect is reversed (healing spells harm, +AC spells lower AC, haste slows, etc).
5-6: spell targets a random target within range of the intended target.

So any time you try to blast, you run the risk of gibbing yourself (a lot of spells do more damage than a wizard has health), and any time you try to heal a dying ally you have a chance of straight up killing them. No thank you at all. I can accept fizzles, but reversals of effect are as bad as including a crit fail "You cut off your own ankle".

[FidgetySquirrel]

So any time you try to blast, you run the risk of gibbing yourself (a lot of spells do more damage than a wizard has health), and any time you try to heal a dying ally you have a chance of straight up killing them. No thank you at all. I can accept fizzles, but reversals of effect are as bad as including a crit fail "You cut off your own ankle".

At least it's only a .33% chance, and it's not arbitrary. By this thread's standards, that's just incredible. I'll admit I did kind of gloss over the part about the wizard blowing himself up, though, heh.

[Vhaidara]

Honestly, I'm more concerned with the chance that the Healer class, when attempting to heal someone who is negative but stable, has a chance, any chance, of KILLING THEM. I know that in my group, this would be met with cries of "YOU HAD ONE JOB! ONE! JOB!"

[torrasque666]

So any time you try to blast, you run the risk of gibbing yourself (a lot of spells do more damage than a wizard has health), and any time you try to heal a dying ally you have a chance of straight up killing them. No thank you at all. I can accept fizzles, but reversals of effect are as bad as including a crit fail "You cut off your own ankle".

Maybe if those were dropped to rolling a 1, with spell fizziling changed to 2-3 and success 4-6. Or switch that to 1/2-4/5-6.
Actually, if that were the houserule change, I wouldn't mind it.

[Wardog]

So any time you try to blast, you run the risk of gibbing yourself (a lot of spells do more damage than a wizard has health), and any time you try to heal a dying ally you have a chance of straight up killing them. No thank you at all. I can accept fizzles, but reversals of effect are as bad as including a crit fail "You cut off your own ankle".

Well, it was just a very-quickly-thought-out and completely-unplayetested suggestion to illustrate an idea. It is at least something you can plan against (by using fire resists if you like using fire spells) - and is still better than accidently summoning Orcus at level 1).

A properly playable version could alter the effect to make them less lethal.

[Vhaidara]

Honestly, I'm more concerned with the chance that the Healer class, when attempting to heal someone who is negative but stable, has a chance, any chance, of KILLING THEM. I know that in my group, this would be met with cries of "YOU HAD ONE JOB! ONE! JOB!"

Yeah, this post was a better explanation of my objection. If you build to do a job with magic, especially healing, you should be able to do your one job.

Maybe make it a trade off: You can reduce the chance of failure with a certain school/subschool/descriptor to 0, in exchange for which you become more likely to mess up with a larger category (so school for 2 schools, subschool for rest of the school, 4 descriptors for a descriptor)