Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Propaganda Depository => RPG Ghetto => Topic started by: Cramulus on November 14, 2008, 04:09:03 pm

Title: WARNING: D&D TALK
Post by: Cramulus on November 14, 2008, 04:09:03 pm
I didn't want to jack an otherwise totally focused thread. Non-D&D-spags may feel free to chime in with asinine comments.

here's the post

Cram, a Demi-Lich would fucking DOLLYWHOMP the Tarrasque.  That is, as long as we're talking 3rd ed. or 3.5.  I never played 2nd, other than Baldurs Gate, which I understand is a bit different.

no fucking way

A) 3.5 Tarrasque is immune to most evocation
B) Spell Resistance
C) The tarrasque would just make a chart describing everything the demilich is about to do.

So the Demi-Lich kills him with Necromancy?  They can eat souls like 8 times per round, they've got all manner of spell like abilities that they could probably kill it with, without even resorting to casting spells, let alone epic-magic.

here are the stats:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/tarrasque.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/demilich.htm

I'm pretty sure the tarrasque would win



reasoning:

A) the demi-lich's one-shot kill ability (Trap the Soul) allows the tarrasque a fortitude save at DC 36. The tarrasque's fortitude save is 38, so it literally can't fail. The tarrasque is also immune to the level drain, which is otherwise the reliable way to kill just about any big bad guy in 3.5

B) a tarrasque's full attack does about 100 damage a round. Demilich only has 129 hp.

C) To stand a chance, the lich would have get pretty creative with its wizard spells; even so, it'd have to roll above an 11 on spell resistance to affect the tarrasque.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Manta Obscura on November 14, 2008, 04:14:47 pm
I have no idea what any of this means, but I'm voting for the Tarrasque, because

1) Its name is more aesthetically pleasing, and
2) My friend who plays WoW is always prattling on about some retarded Lich King, and a Demi-Lich, by lexical similarity, must be equally retarded.

But neither would really win, because I tap 10 Swamp mana to play the BFM, and both get horribly raped.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Vene on November 14, 2008, 04:32:29 pm
You're all wrong, the DM's girlfriend wins.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Suu on November 14, 2008, 04:32:42 pm
*rolls D20 to blow up thread*
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cramulus on November 14, 2008, 04:33:58 pm
alright I've been thinking about this
(obviously)

(http://d21-gaming.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/elite_tarrasque.jpg)

The tarrasque is actually 9 challenge ratings lower than the lich, which in most fights would be a landslide. But the tarrasque doesn't have a lot of the vulnerabilities that adventurers have - vulnerabilities that the demi-lich is built to capitalize on. (energy drain, SR, nasty AC, immune to crits, etc)

and the major ability that the Demi Lich has on its side is actually its speed - it can fly 180 feet/round (36 squares) with perfect manuverability. The tarrasque, at its top run speed, only moves 80 feet/round (16 squares).

So theoretically it could hang out above the tarrasque's head and pelt it with 8th and 9th level spells. But keep in mind only half of them are going to work (spell resistance), an the demilich has to do 800+ points of damage while the tarrasque is regenerating 40/round. Then wish it dead.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Elder Iptuous on November 14, 2008, 04:41:31 pm
I'm inclined to say that the DM decides.
However, there's, ultimately, only one way to find out:
(http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u337/mtdozier/pit.jpg)
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on November 14, 2008, 04:48:09 pm
Yeah, Tarrasque wins, IMO

Now, a demi-lich at full spell capacity with minions is quite possibly a different story.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Dr Goofy on November 14, 2008, 04:52:52 pm
Tarrasque Wins. He is known and feared in the DnD world, when a DM says his name you know your fucked!
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 05:26:44 pm
My party has beaten many lichs and demi-liches...

The ONLY way we ever beat a Tarrasque was that he swallowed one of our people whole, and the weapon they happened to have, was useful from the inside.

Tarrasque  vs Demi-Lich = Tarrasque Wins.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Golden Applesauce on November 14, 2008, 05:57:24 pm
(This post deals entirely with 3.5/3.0 ruleset.  Don't talk to me about 4th edition.)

Demilich, obviously.

Why: It has magic, items, and class levels, and superhuman intelligence.  Tarrasque has none of those, and the intelligence of a 6 month infant with multiple mental disorders.

Can the Tarrasque deal with a flying character?  No.
Can the Tarrasque deal with an invisible character? No.
Can the Tarrasque deal with an incorporeal character? No.
Can the Tarrasque deal with a Wall of Force? No.
Can the Tarrasque deal with Solid Fog? No.

The Tarrasque only has a +20 Will save. A Demilich casts a 9th level spell (with all kinds of crazy metamagic on top of that, of course, but for save purposes it's lv. 9) with a base DC of 19.  At level 24 it would have at minimum an Int of 18 (base) + 6 (level increases) + 2 (being a lich) + 10 (being a demilich) + 5 (tome of quick thinking) + 6 (headband of intellect) = 47, which is a +18 modifier right there.  This is without spells and without epic magic items, both of which the demilich has access to.  (same for Charisma in the case of a cleric demilich.)  Right there, that's a save DC of 37, which the Tarrasque can only beat 15% of the time.  Throw in a Spell Focus or two, or heighten the spell above 9th level, and the Tarrasque literally can't beat the spell.  Spell resistance?  Hah.  Illusions don't allow spell resistance, and with only SR of 35, a demilich with epic spell penetration and some Archmage levels (using the Spell Power ability) can beat that every time.

So: Can the Tarrasque beat a heightened permanent suggestion or major image? No.

This is not counting the other things a demilich can do, like, say, hiring/mind controlling adventurers, creating high level undead, summoning higher demons, being the king of a huge nation, etc.

Also remember the demilich can shapechange into the Tarrasque anyway, and probably still cast its spells.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cain on November 14, 2008, 06:08:05 pm
Giant rock hits the planet, everyone DIES.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cramulus on November 14, 2008, 06:36:01 pm
Can the Tarrasque deal with a flying character?  No.
Can the Tarrasque deal with an invisible character? No.
Can the Tarrasque deal with an incorporeal character? No.
Can the Tarrasque deal with a Wall of Force? No.
Can the Tarrasque deal with Solid Fog? No.

you make some good points here
but let's not worry about items and feats and class levels and minions --- this is a stat card vs stat card battle

shapechange is no good, the lich would only become a 25HD tarrasque... and besides, you can't turn into unique creatures with shapechange, which rules out big T right off the bat.

nor would suggestion work, as the Tarrasque doesn't know any languages.

the lich has an easy, easy time staying out of the Tarrasque's range. Walls of force, teleportation, flying 100 feet off the ground... Tarrasque can do nothing about that.

Or the lich could just go invisible and stand still and continue to stillcast / silent cast spells, and the Tarrasque would never find him (spot & listen 17) -- but what spells? The lich has to do 868 points of damage on top of the Tarrasque regenerating 40/round.

I think if it came down to it, it might be a stalemate. Unless the tarrasque can actually close the distance and get in a full attack.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 06:58:40 pm
Giant rock hits the planet, everyone DIES.

Who is driving DM?

HIMEOBS is driving DM
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cramulus on November 14, 2008, 07:44:34 pm
and I think you're right about illusions being the way to slay the thing. The Tarrasque's will save is only +20. But remember, you've gotta neg ten it AND wish it dead in the same round, or it's gonna get back up in six seconds.

If I were the demilich, here's how I would do it:

*Go invisible. Fly above big T's head.
*If fighting in close quarters, allow yourself to be swallowed whole - being in the tarrasque's stomach is safer than facing its full attack, and the lich can stillcast while grappled anyway.
*Use a quickened phantasmal-killer spell - you have to be quick, because you need the standard action to cast wish and finish the thing.

The Tarrasque gets three rolls to resist the PK: spell resist, will save, fortitude save. If he fails all three, he will die of fear (but still be regenerating) and the lich will wish him dead.

If the lich can't get off the wish spell, he'll have to find a way to do 40 damage AND cast a wish in the same round. Which I think might be impossible given the tarrasque's immunities to rays, cones, fire, poison, disease, energy drain, etc etc etc
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Sister_Gothique on November 14, 2008, 07:52:47 pm
You're all wrong, the DM's girlfriend wins.
Heh, depends on the DM; sometimes she's free game.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on November 14, 2008, 07:56:10 pm
and I think you're right about illusions being the way to slay the thing. The Tarrasque's will save is only +20. But remember, you've gotta neg ten it AND wish it dead in the same round, or it's gonna get back up in six seconds.

If I were the demilich, here's how I would do it:

*Go invisible. Fly above big T's head.
*If fighting in close quarters, allow yourself to be swallowed whole - being in the tarrasque's stomach is safer than facing its full attack, and the lich can stillcast while grappled anyway.
*Use a quickened phantasmal-killer spell - you have to be quick, because you need the standard action to cast wish and finish the thing.

The Tarrasque gets three rolls to resist the PK: spell resist, will save, fortitude save. If he fails all three, he will die of fear (but still be regenerating) and the lich will wish him dead.

If the lich can't get off the wish spell, he'll have to find a way to do 40 damage AND cast a wish in the same round. Which I think might be impossible given the tarrasque's immunities to rays, cones, fire, poison, disease, energy drain, etc etc etc

Its immunity is supposedly granted by its carapace, though. Would that apply from inside the Tarrasque?
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Dr Goofy on November 14, 2008, 08:02:18 pm
You're all wrong, the DM's girlfriend wins.
Heh, depends on the DM; sometimes she's free game.

I am a fair DM so if there was a she she would be fair game.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Sister_Gothique on November 14, 2008, 08:06:28 pm
You're all wrong, the DM's girlfriend wins.
Heh, depends on the DM; sometimes she's free game.

I am a fair DM so if there was a she she would be fair game.
Yay *hugs* ....I had to MAKE my ex treat me fair....I was happily willing to start the campaign with my sword and no armour (dice game me SHIT for gold)
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 08:18:33 pm
"Toolbox" is not adequate, this thread requires a whole new order of nomenclature :argh!:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cramulus on November 14, 2008, 08:24:13 pm
Its immunity is supposedly granted by its carapace, though. Would that apply from inside the Tarrasque?

oooh good call

the lich is pretty much immune to the acid (acid resist 20)
and the crushing will only do about 16 damage per round

so the lich is better positioned in tarrasque's stomach than he is invisible and flying.  :lulz:



"Toolbox" is not adequate, this thread requires a whole new order of nomenclature :argh!:

"Dire Toolbox"
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on November 14, 2008, 08:26:37 pm
Its immunity is supposedly granted by its carapace, though. Would that apply from inside the Tarrasque?

oooh good call

the lich is pretty much immune to the acid (acid resist 20)
and the crushing will only do about 16 damage per round

so the lich is better positioned in tarrasque's stomach than he is invisible and flying.  :lulz:


Now I remember why I loved the game so much. :lol:

Quote
"Toolbox" is not adequate, this thread requires a whole new order of nomenclature :argh!:

"Dire Toolbox"

+5
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 08:42:57 pm
and I think you're right about illusions being the way to slay the thing. The Tarrasque's will save is only +20. But remember, you've gotta neg ten it AND wish it dead in the same round, or it's gonna get back up in six seconds.

If I were the demilich, here's how I would do it:

*Go invisible. Fly above big T's head.
*If fighting in close quarters, allow yourself to be swallowed whole - being in the tarrasque's stomach is safer than facing its full attack, and the lich can stillcast while grappled anyway.
*Use a quickened phantasmal-killer spell - you have to be quick, because you need the standard action to cast wish and finish the thing.

The Tarrasque gets three rolls to resist the PK: spell resist, will save, fortitude save. If he fails all three, he will die of fear (but still be regenerating) and the lich will wish him dead.

If the lich can't get off the wish spell, he'll have to find a way to do 40 damage AND cast a wish in the same round. Which I think might be impossible given the tarrasque's immunities to rays, cones, fire, poison, disease, energy drain, etc etc etc

Its immunity is supposedly granted by its carapace, though. Would that apply from inside the Tarrasque?

Killing a Tarrasque from inside is the correct motorcycle.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on November 14, 2008, 08:45:49 pm
This thread will be saved and archived for the Anti-Tarrasque Policy Agency to examine once I move into office.

Be proud, PD.com: you've helped make America safer.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cramulus on November 14, 2008, 08:58:39 pm
what the FUCK would we do if the tarrasque attacked the USA?




ETA: or a demilich for that matter.
I think a demilich would be WAY more dangerous in the long run.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on November 14, 2008, 09:00:18 pm
what the FUCK would we do if the tarrasque attacked the USA?

Leave it to me.

We'll diplomatize the shit out of that leathery bastard.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 09:02:02 pm
I'll make sure it's not allowed to appear before 9 pm watershed and is only displayed above the waist
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on November 14, 2008, 09:03:18 pm
I'll make sure it's not allowed to appear before 9 pm watershed and is only displayed above the waist

You're right; the Tarrasque doesn't wear pants, does it?

Boy, am I glad I appointed you to office!
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Vene on November 14, 2008, 09:22:56 pm
what the FUCK would we do if the tarrasque attacked the USA?




ETA: or a demilich for that matter.
I think a demilich would be WAY more dangerous in the long run.
How much damage does a nuclear warhead do?
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 09:25:35 pm
Put it this way - if you pulled the pin on one, you wouldn't have to worry about the lich anymore  :lulz:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Triple Zero on November 14, 2008, 09:42:13 pm
what the FUCK would we do if the tarrasque attacked the USA?




ETA: or a demilich for that matter.
I think a demilich would be WAY more dangerous in the long run.
How much damage does a nuclear warhead do?

only if you can get the Make A Wish Foundation file the bureaucracy for some terminal kids in the same round.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 09:43:25 pm
Put it this way - if you pulled the pin on one, you wouldn't have to worry about the lich anymore  :lulz:

Either that, or we'd have a whole continent of zombies... probably controlled by a lich ;-)

Though in a recent Solomon Kane game, we fought a evil Irish mummy, living in China, that controlled a bunch of zombies....

 :lulz:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Golden Applesauce on November 14, 2008, 09:52:34 pm
Can the Tarrasque deal with a flying character?  No.
Can the Tarrasque deal with an invisible character? No.
Can the Tarrasque deal with an incorporeal character? No.
Can the Tarrasque deal with a Wall of Force? No.
Can the Tarrasque deal with Solid Fog? No.

you make some good points here
but let's not worry about items and feats and class levels and minions --- this is a stat card vs stat card battle

shapechange is no good, the lich would only become a 25HD tarrasque... and besides, you can't turn into unique creatures with shapechange, which rules out big T right off the bat.

nor would suggestion work, as the Tarrasque doesn't know any languages.

the lich has an easy, easy time staying out of the Tarrasque's range. Walls of force, teleportation, flying 100 feet off the ground... Tarrasque can do nothing about that.

Or the lich could just go invisible and stand still and continue to stillcast / silent cast spells, and the Tarrasque would never find him (spot & listen 17) -- but what spells? The lich has to do 868 points of damage on top of the Tarrasque regenerating 40/round.

I think if it came down to it, it might be a stalemate. Unless the tarrasque can actually close the distance and get in a full attack.

It's been forever since I've played D&D, so I've forgotten a lot of the minutiae of individual spells.  As far as suggestion goes one could just cast tongues on the Tarrasque, but dominate monster works better anyway.  Correct on the shapechange, forgot that there was a max HD limit.  It's still one of the most potent buffs in the game.

As far as damaging the Tarrasque goes, you really don't need to.  Withstanding physical punishment is about the only thing the Tarrasque is good at - don't play to its strengths.  That said, the demilich has the option of just beating through the damage anyway, so let's explore that.

The Tarrasque has regeneration 40 and needs to take ~870 damage to be killed with a wish.  So all you needs is a spell that continuously deals more than 40 damage a turn.  Incendiary cloud deals 4d6 fire a turn; using energy substitution (to avoid immunity to fire) and Intensify Spell, it does 48 a turn, reflex half.  That's not particularly useful, since it would require more optimization to get the save DC high enough, and the net damage is only 8 a turn, but you get the drift.

With sufficient buffs, I'm confident that the demilich could actually go HTH with the Tarrasque, using things like displacement, greater blink, improved invisibility, shapechange (into a Pit Fiend works well - Dex 27 pre Manual of Quickness and Gloves of Dexterity and natural armor +23) and haste - remembering that the demilich also gets an insight bonus to AC equal to its HD, the demilich's HP is going to be stupidly high.  10 base + 21 insight (for a level 21 demilich) + 23 natural + 14 dex + 5 deflection (rings of deflection +5) + 5 armor (bracers of armor +5) + 1 dodge (from haste) +1 luck (from any of a dozen different magical items) gives an AC of 80, and that's without really trying.  The Tarrasque... can't hit that with just a +57 on attacks (except for nat 20s, and even those miss if the Tarrasque can't guess where the silent, invisible demilich is, or if it misses do to displacement.)  The demilich has harm at will as a spell like ability, which does 150 damage/hit (will half, DC 10+HD+Cha, which is only 36 if the original wizard had charisma 8.  Figure base charisma of 14, +2 for being a lich, +10 for being a demilich, +6 for a cloak of charisma, and we're looking at a DC 40+ save that the Tarrasque can't make.)  The demilich also gets free quickening on all spells level 3 or lower, and can probably quicken up to level 6 spells if he prepares them - so he's using a potent spell every turn, on top of dealing 150 - 40 = 110 damage a turn from doing the harm touch.  Even if the Tarrasque gets a hit in - and he only does this on a natural 20, when he doesn't attack a mirror image, knows where the invisible demilich is, and wins the coin flip on displacement and again on greater blink - each hit tops out at 4d8+17, or ~30, (the demilich is immune to x3 critical hits by virtue of being an undead,) which the demilich can recover just by using harm on itself.

If you allow books like Complete Arcane or the Spell Compendium, the odds just get even more stacked.  The maw of chaos spell does caster level d6/round over an area; trap the Tarrasque in with walls of force and that's good game.

This is all assuming a very uncreative demilich.  The demilich could just as easily gate in a few 40+ HD Terrible Monsters.  The Brain Collector from ELHb in particular has a 50/50 chance every d4 rounds of outright killing the Tarrasque, and creatures like a Sirrush could at least hold their own.  The Vermiurge deals damage equal to the Tarrasque's HP on a failed save, and 10d10 otherwise... every turn.  Or the demilich could just get the Tarrasque to step on a teleportation circle set to the middle of the open ocean and watch it drown.  (or open up a gate to the Elemental Plane of Water.)  Submerge it in mud and then transmute mud to rock.  Mind control wins.  A good illusion spell can convince the Tarrasque that there's nothing to fight.  Plane shift him to the Abyss, and let somebody else deal with it.  Drop really big rocks on it's head from high up.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Golden Applesauce on November 14, 2008, 09:56:19 pm
what the FUCK would we do if the tarrasque attacked the USA?




ETA: or a demilich for that matter.
I think a demilich would be WAY more dangerous in the long run.

Which one can control every head of state with mind lasers?
Which one can use magic surveillance that would make Big Brother feel flatly uninformed?
Which one can use major creation to get a critical mass of his fissionable of choice?
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 09:57:28 pm
Can the Tarrasque deal with a flying character?  No.
Can the Tarrasque deal with an invisible character? No.
Can the Tarrasque deal with an incorporeal character? No.
Can the Tarrasque deal with a Wall of Force? No.
Can the Tarrasque deal with Solid Fog? No.

you make some good points here
but let's not worry about items and feats and class levels and minions --- this is a stat card vs stat card battle

shapechange is no good, the lich would only become a 25HD tarrasque... and besides, you can't turn into unique creatures with shapechange, which rules out big T right off the bat.

nor would suggestion work, as the Tarrasque doesn't know any languages.

the lich has an easy, easy time staying out of the Tarrasque's range. Walls of force, teleportation, flying 100 feet off the ground... Tarrasque can do nothing about that.

Or the lich could just go invisible and stand still and continue to stillcast / silent cast spells, and the Tarrasque would never find him (spot & listen 17) -- but what spells? The lich has to do 868 points of damage on top of the Tarrasque regenerating 40/round.

I think if it came down to it, it might be a stalemate. Unless the tarrasque can actually close the distance and get in a full attack.

It's been forever since I've played D&D, so I've forgotten a lot of the minutiae of individual spells.  As far as suggestion goes one could just cast tongues on the Tarrasque, but dominate monster works better anyway.  Correct on the shapechange, forgot that there was a max HD limit.  It's still one of the most potent buffs in the game.

As far as damaging the Tarrasque goes, you really don't need to.  Withstanding physical punishment is about the only thing the Tarrasque is good at - don't play to its strengths.  That said, the demilich has the option of just beating through the damage anyway, so let's explore that.

The Tarrasque has regeneration 40 and needs to take ~870 damage to be killed with a wish.  So all you needs is a spell that continuously deals more than 40 damage a turn.  Incendiary cloud deals 4d6 fire a turn; using energy substitution (to avoid immunity to fire) and Intensify Spell, it does 48 a turn, reflex half.  That's not particularly useful, since it would require more optimization to get the save DC high enough, and the net damage is only 8 a turn, but you get the drift.

With sufficient buffs, I'm confident that the demilich could actually go HTH with the Tarrasque, using things like displacement, greater blink, improved invisibility, shapechange (into a Pit Fiend works well - Dex 27 pre Manual of Quickness and Gloves of Dexterity and natural armor +23) and haste - remembering that the demilich also gets an insight bonus to AC equal to its HD, the demilich's HP is going to be stupidly high.  10 base + 21 insight (for a level 21 demilich) + 23 natural + 14 dex + 5 deflection (rings of deflection +5) + 5 armor (bracers of armor +5) + 1 dodge (from haste) +1 luck (from any of a dozen different magical items) gives an AC of 80, and that's without really trying.  The Tarrasque... can't hit that with just a +57 on attacks (except for nat 20s, and even those miss if the Tarrasque can't guess where the silent, invisible demilich is, or if it misses do to displacement.)  The demilich has harm at will as a spell like ability, which does 150 damage/hit (will half, DC 10+HD+Cha, which is only 36 if the original wizard had charisma 8.  Figure base charisma of 14, +2 for being a lich, +10 for being a demilich, +6 for a cloak of charisma, and we're looking at a DC 40+ save that the Tarrasque can't make.)  The demilich also gets free quickening on all spells level 3 or lower, and can probably quicken up to level 6 spells if he prepares them - so he's using a potent spell every turn, on top of dealing 150 - 40 = 110 damage a turn from doing the harm touch.  Even if the Tarrasque gets a hit in - and he only does this on a natural 20, when he doesn't attack a mirror image, knows where the invisible demilich is, and wins the coin flip on displacement and again on greater blink - each hit tops out at 4d8+17, or ~30, (the demilich is immune to x3 critical hits by virtue of being an undead,) which the demilich can recover just by using harm on itself.

If you allow books like Complete Arcane or the Spell Compendium, the odds just get even more stacked.  The maw of chaos spell does caster level d6/round over an area; trap the Tarrasque in with walls of force and that's good game.

This is all assuming a very uncreative demilich.  The demilich could just as easily gate in a few 40+ HD Terrible Monsters.  The Brain Collector from ELHb in particular has a 50/50 chance every d4 rounds of outright killing the Tarrasque, and creatures like a Sirrush could at least hold their own.  The Vermiurge deals damage equal to the Tarrasque's HP on a failed save, and 10d10 otherwise... every turn.  Or the demilich could just get the Tarrasque to step on a teleportation circle set to the middle of the open ocean and watch it drown.  (or open up a gate to the Elemental Plane of Water.)  Submerge it in mud and then transmute mud to rock.  Mind control wins.  A good illusion spell can convince the Tarrasque that there's nothing to fight.  Plane shift him to the Abyss, and let somebody else deal with it.  Drop really big rocks on it's head from high up.

Cram, I think we just got pwnd on RPG geeking  :lulz:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Golden Applesauce on November 14, 2008, 09:57:55 pm
and I think you're right about illusions being the way to slay the thing. The Tarrasque's will save is only +20. But remember, you've gotta neg ten it AND wish it dead in the same round, or it's gonna get back up in six seconds.

If I were the demilich, here's how I would do it:

*Go invisible. Fly above big T's head.
*If fighting in close quarters, allow yourself to be swallowed whole - being in the tarrasque's stomach is safer than facing its full attack, and the lich can stillcast while grappled anyway.
*Use a quickened phantasmal-killer spell - you have to be quick, because you need the standard action to cast wish and finish the thing.

The Tarrasque gets three rolls to resist the PK: spell resist, will save, fortitude save. If he fails all three, he will die of fear (but still be regenerating) and the lich will wish him dead.

If the lich can't get off the wish spell, he'll have to find a way to do 40 damage AND cast a wish in the same round. Which I think might be impossible given the tarrasque's immunities to rays, cones, fire, poison, disease, energy drain, etc etc etc

Quickened Wish, or a Delayed damage spell.  That's what epic levels are for.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Vene on November 14, 2008, 09:59:34 pm
DnD Geekery
You're obviously put some thought into this.  Come up with your gaming group at some point?
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Golden Applesauce on November 14, 2008, 10:04:20 pm
Cram, I think we just got pwnd on RPG geeking  :lulz:

If you think this is bad, check out Wizard's of the Coasts forums.  The optimization board in particular is disturbing.

Pun-Pun the Kobold ascends to diefic powers starting at... I believe they got him down to beginning at level 5?
The Hulking Hurler prestige class, optimized, can pick up and throw the planet/moon of your choice.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Golden Applesauce on November 14, 2008, 10:04:47 pm
DnD Geekery
You're obviously put some thought into this.  Come up with your gaming group at some point?

Those are just standard ways to win as an epic level wizard.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Kai on November 14, 2008, 10:49:18 pm
I think the problem with people in this thread thinking the Tarrasque would win, is that they determine a win to be the petrified almost death of the Tarrasque, which really wouldn't KILL it, just keep it in an almost dead state for all eternity, or until someone else unwishes it from that state.

GL had the right idea: the only way to really win against the Tarrasque is to make it someone else's problem. Send it to the abyss or the plane of fire, or to one of the planes of energy (thats a good one actually).
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 10:58:26 pm
You could always just have sex with it.






... okay, now I'm trolling  :lulz:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Triple Zero on November 14, 2008, 11:17:49 pm
i heard that there's sexually deviant Demi-Liches that teleport into a pair of mating Tarrasques' stomachs, wearing them as fur-suits.

i'm okay with that, as long as nobody gets hurt.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Nast on November 14, 2008, 11:19:16 pm
i heard that there's sexually deviant Demi-Liches that teleport into a pair of mating Tarrasques' stomachs, wearing them as fur-suits.

i'm okay with that, as long as nobody gets hurt.

 :lulz:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Kai on November 14, 2008, 11:23:31 pm
i heard that there's sexually deviant Demi-Liches that teleport into a pair of mating Tarrasques' stomachs, wearing them as fur-suits.

i'm okay with that, as long as nobody gets hurt.

 :lulz: :lulz:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 11:51:22 pm
i heard that there's sexually deviant Demi-Liches that teleport into a pair of mating Tarrasques' stomachs, wearing them as fur-suits.

i'm okay with that, as long as nobody gets hurt.


 :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Triple Zero on November 15, 2008, 12:07:41 am
 :thanks:

(c'mon guys, it's three posts into a D&D geeking thread and nobody has yet pointed out this is impossible because the Tarrasque is unique)
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Kai on November 15, 2008, 12:17:44 am
:thanks:

(c'mon guys, it's three posts into a D&D geeking thread and nobody has yet pointed out this is impossible because the Tarrasque is unique)

I thought of it but the concept was so funny I forgot to point it out.  :lulz:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on November 15, 2008, 12:22:44 am
:thanks:

(c'mon guys, it's three posts into a D&D geeking thread and nobody has yet pointed out this is impossible because the Tarrasque is unique)

I thought it would be dickish to ruin such a great joke.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Triple Zero on November 15, 2008, 12:31:58 am
no, it just goes to show how fucked up sexually deviant Fur-Demi-Liches can be, they're totally living in a fantasy world, can't you see????
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cain on November 15, 2008, 11:19:20 am
Technically, it could be done.

You just have to get one Tarrasque from Faerun to Eberron.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Dark Monk on November 15, 2008, 11:35:26 am
I THOUGHT TARRASQUE WAS AN ULTRALISK IN STARCRAFT!
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Sister_Gothique on November 15, 2008, 06:36:26 pm
I THOUGHT TARRASQUE WAS AN ULTRALISK IN STARCRAFT!
Hit DnD first, as a T-Rex on steroids.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Golden Applesauce on November 15, 2008, 07:16:20 pm
Hit France first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasque
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Shibboleet The Annihilator on November 15, 2008, 11:31:57 pm
*walks into the thread*

...


*leaves*
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Shibboleet The Annihilator on November 15, 2008, 11:44:09 pm
*COMES BACK IN WITH +20 CAPSLOCK! HE PWNRAEPS BOTH DRAGONS WITH HIS LEVEL 70 MAGICIAN AND FIRES DAVID COPPERFIELD OUT OF HIS ASS DIRECTLY INTO THE DEMILICH'S SWOLLEN COLON (OMG, RHYMES!) WHILE DORA THE EXPORA BACKSTABS THE TERRASQUE WITH HER +9001 POWER SCOUTER.*

FUCK YOUR SHIT! MY POWER IS MAXIMUM!

Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Sister_Gothique on November 16, 2008, 03:38:36 am
Hit France first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasque
Indeed, I'm aware. I was just referring to the gaming world.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Sister_Gothique on November 16, 2008, 03:39:30 am
*COMES BACK IN WITH +20 CAPSLOCK! HE PWNRAEPS BOTH DRAGONS WITH HIS LEVEL 70 MAGICIAN AND FIRES DAVID COPPERFIELD OUT OF HIS ASS DIRECTLY INTO THE DEMILICH'S SWOLLEN COLON (OMG, RHYMES!) WHILE DORA THE EXPORA BACKSTABS THE TERRASQUE WITH HER +9001 POWER SCOUTER.*

FUCK YOUR SHIT! MY POWER IS MAXIMUM!


My unicorn sparkles at your wizard, NlGEL....and gives it a really meaningful look!
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on November 16, 2008, 01:50:04 pm
Need to add TTM option to poll
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cramulus on November 19, 2008, 02:58:08 am
Jack Chick on Dungeons and Dragons
updated 2001

http://www.chick.com/articles/frpg.asp

Quote
They even tell me that these clerics are supposed to have noble virtues and standards of conduct. I am also informed by irate DMs that in their games virtues such as self-sacrifice, heroism and persistence are rewarded and extolled. That is all well and good. But it will also take you to hell faster than a greased demon on roller skates.

Quote
I covet your prayers that the Lord would give me the time and funds to thoroughly research the contemporary FRPG scene, which if anything appears to be more appalling than it was 20 years ago. A walk through any gaming store can prove that. For example, there is now a whole line of materials based on the hellish H.P. Lovecraft Cthulhu mythos, a form of magic that we practiced in the darkest days of our satanic career - a system of magic prominently featured in THE SATANIC RITUALS by Anton LaVey!


Quote
Defenders of D&D often complain that it is only a game. Playing chicken with cars is "only a game" until someone gets killed. So is Russian roulette! I am frequently told to "get a life" or write about something more important than D&D, like social justice or world hunger. The devil would sure like that.

It needs to be emphasized that a spiritual deception which draws people away from Jesus Christ is much more dangerous than automotive chicken or people dying of starvation. People who write such things are - in all Christian charity - deceived. Down through the ages, no institution has done more to help the poor, the orphans and the starving than has the church of Jesus Christ. I would just ask them where are the rescue missions and orphanages started by D&D gamers?

Concerning the metaphor about Russian roulette or "chicken," some D&D defenders have said that it is a ridiculous or extreme comparison. But remember what the Lord Jesus said:
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both body and soul in hell."-Matt. 10:28.

Yes, the life threatening consequences of chicken or Russian roulette are deadly serious and not to be minimized. But any game which draws people away from a true understanding of Jesus, God, salvation and the cosmos IS soul-destroying in the truest possible sense of the word. That is incalculably worse. We only have our bodies a few scant years before they turn to dust. Our souls we will have forever, and what if they have been destroyed by playing D&D? They may well end up in the fiery blackness of hell.

Additionally, unlike Russian roulette or chicken, D&D is an extremely challenging game intellectually and emotionally. It truly involves its players in ways few games do, because it does demand a high level of imagination and creative engagement. Playing "chicken" demands neither. It is very like the devil to engineer a pastime which draws on the best of young people and then grind their minds and souls under the millstone of his hate.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on November 19, 2008, 03:28:25 am
This thread contains more geekery than every DnD group I have taken part of in the last 11 years *combined*.

Demi Lich wins.  Because its smart enough to not get into the fight.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cain on November 19, 2008, 10:02:38 am
So the Devil is against social injustice and world hunger?

And has all the world's best musicians?

Jack Chick is trolling. I know its obvious, but he's making Satanism sound way better than Christianity right now.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: BADGE OF HONOR on November 19, 2008, 10:31:33 am
"I HAVE TAKEN A STAND AGAINST SOMETHING AND I AM GOING TO VIGOROUSLY ARGUE AGAINST IT EVERY CHANCE I GET, NO MATTER HOW GOOD IT MAKES THAT THING LOOK!"
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cain on November 19, 2008, 10:34:54 am
Kind of like Daruko, writ large.

I would have taken up suicide as a hobby if he had argued against it and its elitist, clique like nature.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on November 19, 2008, 11:32:40 am
Jack Chick is trolling. I know its obvious, but he's making Satanism sound way better than Christianity right now.

That's a blatant exaggeration. Satanism is, at best, slightly better than Christianity  :lulz:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cramulus on November 19, 2008, 07:43:50 pm
I love it in Jack Chick comics when the dude goes to hell and is like, "What? Hell is terrible! I thought it was going to be a party like I've heard about in rock songs!"
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cramulus on May 31, 2009, 04:12:09 pm
BUMP

EVERYBODY EAT SHIT
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Golden Applesauce on May 31, 2009, 10:10:52 pm
This reminds me, I should run a D&D game on here.  Anybody interested?

ETA: 2^10th post! w00t!
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Telarus on May 31, 2009, 10:28:06 pm
I want to run old D&D modules with the OneRollEngine (Reign/etc)....

 :lulz:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 13, 2009, 08:35:49 pm
This reminds me, I should run a D&D game on here.  Anybody interested?

ETA: 2^10th post! w00t!

I'm interested, but it must be version 3.5 or earlier!

I consider the new 4th edition to be an unabashed attempt to rip off all of the loyal players who had just shelled out Hundreds of dollars for version 3.5...

...Also, 4e is a blasphemous tool of Grayface! You can no longer be Chaotic Good or Lawful Evil in 4e!

but anyway, yaeh, if its 3.5e or eariler I'd be very interested in a D&D game.

I'm actually working on something I call "The D&D 3.5 Netbook of the SubGenius", here's an excerpt:

Quote
Sacred 9-Iron of Janor Hypercleats [Relic]:

By the uninitiated, this cold-iron golf club can be used much like a +1 Cold-Iron Light-Mace (although proficiency with the light mace does not make a character proficient with it, it is balanced much differently). To a worshipper of The Bleeding Head of Arnold Palmer*, it takes on far more incredible powers
Relic Powers: When the proper divine connection has been established, the sacred 9-iron acts as a +1 Anarchic Vorpal (Cold Iorn) Light Mace, and automatically grants it wielder proficiency with its use.
The 9-iron also grants its user a number of additional powers (provided that the relic powers have been activated:
Launch Item: The Sacred 9-Iron can be used to "launch" throun splash weapons with a range increment of 60 feet (rather than the item's usual range increment). This takes a full round action. Despite the force with which the container of the splash weapon is struck by the club, there is no chance that its container will shatter.
Acubeating: The sacred 9-Iron can be used for the healing art of "acubeating", in which an attack roll may be substituted for a heal check.

To activate the Sacred 9-Iron's relic powers, a character must worship either J.R."BOB" Dobbs or the Bleeding Head of Arnold Palmer and sacrifice a 9th level divine spell slot on every day on which the item's relic powers are used. Alternately, a user of the relic may activate its powers by sacrificing only a 6th level spell slot if they participate in a special hour-long ritual in which an idol of the Bleeding Head is launched at the conclusion of a musical worship ceremony (during which they expend five daily uses of Bardic Music); Participating in this ritual allows the user to activate the relic's powers with a 6th level spell slot each day instead of a 9th level spell slot each day, for a period of one year.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on June 13, 2009, 08:39:52 pm
They're working under the assumption that Good is inherently Chaotic and Evil is inherently Lawful.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Arafelis on June 13, 2009, 08:46:50 pm
I think the intent is a bit more nuanced than that, but it sounds perfectly reasonable to me!
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2009, 08:47:34 pm
They're working under the assumption that Good is inherently Chaotic and Evil is inherently Lawful.

That's fucking ridiculous.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cain on June 13, 2009, 08:55:24 pm
I work under the assumption good is automatically stupid, and evil is automatically stylish.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on June 13, 2009, 09:02:40 pm
They're working under the assumption that Good is inherently Chaotic and Evil is inherently Lawful.

That's fucking ridiculous.

Wizards went brain dead after Hasbro bought them.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2009, 09:03:12 pm
I work under the assumption good is automatically stupid, and evil is automatically stylish.

That's closer.

I work under the assumption that good is definitely out of fashion, and evil has way better PR.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2009, 09:03:39 pm
They're working under the assumption that Good is inherently Chaotic and Evil is inherently Lawful.

That's fucking ridiculous.

Wizards went brain dead after Hasbro bought them.

TSR wend brain dead after WOTC bought them.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on June 14, 2009, 07:34:46 am
This reminds me, I should run a D&D game on here.  Anybody interested?

ETA: 2^10th post! w00t!

I'm interested, but it must be version 3.5 or earlier!

I consider the new 4th edition to be an unabashed attempt to rip off all of the loyal players who had just shelled out Hundreds of dollars for version 3.5...

Any updated version of anything can be seen as an attempt to rip off those who bought the previous version, however...

<---- $500+ in 3.0 and 3.5 sourcebooks

so yeah, I'm getting my goddamn money's worth out of that shit.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cain on June 14, 2009, 12:25:48 pm
You could have just, you know, stolen them from online.

Maybe not the core books, but certainly most of the supplementary ones (I mean, why would you need two books for psionics, unless your aim was to fuck over your fanbase?)
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on June 14, 2009, 05:03:23 pm
Yeah, I could do that now. Already have, actually.

Back then, I was a naive, internet-clueless little twit.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cain on June 14, 2009, 05:06:06 pm
Ah.

I downloaded pretty much all of them for a friend.  Now, whenever I go around his place, I am pretty much guaranteed an ice cold beer or three.  For life.

 8)

Also, that means if GA does want to plan a game, I am more than happy to provide possibly missing source material.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 14, 2009, 05:13:53 pm
GA, you can be my Dungeon Master any day!!!
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cain on June 14, 2009, 05:14:29 pm
GA, you can be my Dungeon Master any day!!!

:lmnuendo:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Demolition_Squid on June 14, 2009, 05:14:51 pm
Hrrrrrm...

Well, I'm working on a thieves guild campaign using a different system (Anima) for my home group over the summer. I can't help but wonder if you guys might also get a kick out of it.

Of course, I'd have to finish building the damn city first.

If I taught myself DnD 3.5 well enough to give it a shot, would anyone be interested in a play by post? Though... I have no idea how you handle rolls in that sort of thing. Honor system I guess?
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on June 14, 2009, 05:47:05 pm
You could have just, you know, stolen them from online.

Maybe not the core books, but certainly most of the supplementary ones (I mean, why would you need two books for psionics, unless your aim was to fuck over your fanbase?)


Physical copies of books help a lot for in person gaming, since their easier to pass around and flip through.

For online gaming I pirate everything though, even the stuff I own (I have a copy of Mutants and Masterminds 2E I never even opened because the bookmarks in the PDF are so nice).
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cain on June 14, 2009, 05:47:55 pm
True.  This is why work printers and knowing other peoples access codes is highly encourged.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Triple Zero on June 14, 2009, 06:26:18 pm
I own one 3.0 PHB and have been doing with that since ages :) Having a DMG (be it 3.0 or 3.5) might have been handy later on when I went to make some adventures or putting together higher level characters, but that's it.

Usually when we play with a group we play some sort of mish mash between 3.0 and 3.5 allowing people to kind of pick stuff depending on what books they own or what version character they prepared. Yeah it's not entirely strict and you often get an advantage from it as a player, but it works and it's fun. We specifically do it this way so that people that do not want to don't have to buy new rulebooks, and whoever wants to join in can use the new ones. It's a kind of loose group that comes together every once in a while and plays a single-weekend campaign, so that works best.

As for the supplementaries, people just throw them all in a large stack and see what we got. If you need to prepare a character you can use a PDF, and if you cannot do without the supplementary rulebook you should have picked a different prestige class or make better notes on your character sheet (which is IMO always preferable to using a rulebook, having a few things specific to your char ready on a few pieces of paper is much easier than browsing a book every turn)
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 16, 2009, 01:50:58 am
That sounds like a good idea...


....anyway, going back to my rant about 4e, the only upside that I can see about Fourth Edition is that we could potentially use it to generate clean energy by setting up an electric turbine powered by Gary Gygax spinning in his grave!
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on June 16, 2009, 11:15:02 am
That sounds like a good idea...


....anyway, going back to my rant about 4e, the only upside that I can see about Fourth Edition is that we could potentially use it to generate clean energy by setting up an electric turbine powered by Gary Gygax spinning in his grave!

You've been ranting about 4th edition?

I hadn't noticed, let lose with the nerd rage already.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Golden Applesauce on June 16, 2009, 04:38:42 pm
I'm almost ashamed to admit that I own the 4ed PHB, but only because one of my relatives got it for me as a birthday present a while back.

Pros: It's pretty damn balanced.  Fighters finally got on par with the other classes.  Oh, and spell levels finally make sense.  If I played 4th ed, I'd never have to tell a young wizard who just made 2nd level that he doesn't actually get 2nd level spells until 3rd level.

Con: They accomplished this by making every class the same.  Every single class has the essentially the same sorts of abilities - the difference is that "combat oriented" classes are more likely to roll against Armor than Reflex or Will.  I say "combat oriented" in quotes because now 95% of every classes abilities are variations on attacks.  Even the so-called "Utility" abilities are more likely to be things like tactical movement or buffs.  And in doing this they took out a LOT of the customization available, which was one of my favorite things in 3/3.5 .  4ed might have more streamlined combat, but you can't lay awake for hours on end reading through the books and coming up with clever spell and ability combos in the same way any more.  Since I tend to spend more time alone in my room than actually playing, I like systems where the preparation is in itself fun.

You could have just, you know, stolen them from online.

Maybe not the core books, but certainly most of the supplementary ones (I mean, why would you need two books for psionics, unless your aim was to fuck over your fanbase?)

Surprisingly, WotC released most of the 3.5 core stuff, plus the Expanded Psionics Handbook, Epic Level Handbook, Unearthed Arcana, and a few others into some kind of weird pseudo-public domain thing ("Open Gaming License") so other companies could make 3rd party expansions more legally.  (It's hard to design monsters without referencing copyrighted mechanics.)  http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/home.html is the version I use, since it has hyperlinks.  It's so awesome to be able to click on a spell and get the full description in a new tab, or check out the exact stats of the monster it summons, or figure out what "fatigued" does, and which book it was in, rather than paging through stacks of rapidly deteriorating "hardcover" sourcebooks.

Also the 3.0 psionics sucked hairy goat balls.  3.5 finally made the various psionic classes make sense.  (I am told that in 1st and 2nd ed, psions were like unto tiny gods if they rolled the right special abilities or something.)
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cramulus on June 16, 2009, 04:44:54 pm
In 2nd edition, our party psionicist was trying to prove to us that he was more powerful than our entire party combined. We disagreed.

In the next room, there was an adult gold dragon, the hook for the adventure we were returning from. The psionicist bet us he could kill the dragon singlehandedly. No way, we said, our whole party couldn't take that dragon.


The psionicist gave himself immunity to acid, teleported into the dragon's stomach, drove a +2 spear out of his belly, then teleported back to us. Then he teleported the spear back into his hands. He repeated this until the dragon was dead.


At this point, my paladin changed careers. For several reasons.  :p
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Golden Applesauce on June 16, 2009, 04:48:57 pm
In 2nd edition, our party psionicist was trying to prove to us that he was more powerful than our entire party combined. We disagreed.

In the next room, there was an adult gold dragon, the hook for the adventure we were returning from. The psionicist bet us he could kill the dragon singlehandedly. No way, we said, our whole party couldn't take that dragon.


The psionicist gave himself immunity to acid, teleported into the dragon's stomach, drove a +2 spear out of his belly, then teleported back to us. Then he teleported the spear back into his hands. He repeated this until the dragon was dead.


At this point, my paladin changed careers. For several reasons.  :p

There's a reason modern teleportation spells don't let you teleport inside of living creatures.   :lulz:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cain on June 16, 2009, 05:08:21 pm
To encourage you to get +92 ranks in Escape Artist so you can crawl in via their anus instead.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on June 16, 2009, 06:49:14 pm
To encourage you to get +92 ranks in Escape Artist so you can crawl in via their anus instead.

:mittens:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on June 17, 2009, 12:38:18 am
Con: They accomplished this by making every class the same.  Every single class has the essentially the same sorts of abilities - the difference is that "combat oriented" classes are more likely to roll against Armor than Reflex or Will.  

Since I tend to spend more time alone in my room than actually playing, I like systems where the preparation is in itself fun.

I have to ask if you have played the system?

The classes look the same because the powers are based on the same mechanic.  Put into application the classes play differently because once combat starts each has a different job (with a little over lap) to do.  To use another Wizards property as an analogy, All M:TG cards use the same mechanics but a Red deck plays very differently from a Blue deck.

I have yet to play a PC in 4th Edition but I did get a chance to briefly DM a game.  Personally I thing 4th Edition is the best thing to happen to D&D from a DM's perspective ever.  Encounter set up is no longer a chore and it allowed me to focus more on the story that was being told.
 
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 18, 2009, 03:39:56 pm
Also the 3.0 psionics sucked hairy goat balls.  3.5 finally made the various psionic classes make sense.  (I am told that in 1st and 2nd ed, psions were like unto tiny gods if they rolled the right special abilities or something.)

In 2nd edition, our party psionicist was trying to prove to us that he was more powerful than our entire party combined. We disagreed.

In the next room, there was an adult gold dragon, the hook for the adventure we were returning from. The psionicist bet us he could kill the dragon singlehandedly. No way, we said, our whole party couldn't take that dragon.


The psionicist gave himself immunity to acid, teleported into the dragon's stomach, drove a +2 spear out of his belly, then teleported back to us. Then he teleported the spear back into his hands. He repeated this until the dragon was dead.


At this point, my paladin changed careers. For several reasons.  :p

Well, for any version of the psion you could use this (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=17879157#post17879157)

214.) Armor of the Invincible Psion (Non-Magical)

This is is a very interesting constituency, this... In addition to the official "Silly" candidate, there is an unofficial "Very Silly" Candidate...In the slab of concrete...
-Monty Python's Flying Circus, The Final Ripoff (Disc 1, Track 22)

This 3 foot by 3 foot by 7 foot block of Steel has a hollow region inside of it in the shape of the person for whom it was made. (This region is lined with a non-metallic ceramic coating, which is, in turn padded; The wearer's skin does not touch the metal of the armor in any place). Its only openings are a viewing port packed with storm-window glass to allow its wearer to see, and a smaller, curved tube to allow for air exchange. The outside end of the air exchange tube has an adamantime grating on it to prevent objects from being inserted into it, and it opens downward, so that no liquids can be poured in. This armor gives its wearer a +10 Armor Bonus to AC, and effectively provides total cover.
Armor Bonus: +10
Max Dexterity Bonus: -5
Arcane Spell Failure Chance: 100%
Armor Check Penalty: 75
Time to Don/Remove: Not Applicable; This Armor cannot be "put on", the would-be wearer must move themself into it using magic and/or psionics.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 18, 2009, 03:46:41 pm
or this (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=17879157#post17879157)


217.) Armor of the Paranoid Psionic Juggernaut

This +1 Restful, Ghost Touch, Adamantine-Plated, Insta-Don Mithril Armor of the Invincible Psion (See Above) is enhanced to sustain its user without air, food, or water (and has its breathing tube permanently sealed shut with magical force (which, of course, will unseal if an antimagic effect hits the armor, and negates the sustenance effect) ). Additionally, it constantly floats two feet above the ground, and can move up to thirty feet per round at its wearer's mental command. If pushed off a cliff, it falls slowly, as per a Feather Fall spell. the Armor is also enhanced in such a way as to give it an extra +5 resistence bonus to its saving throws against Heat Metal, Chill Metal and Disintegrate.

Prerequisites: Craft Magic (or Psionic) Arms and Armor, Craft Wondrous (or Universal) Item, Levitate, Feather Fall, Resist Energy, Resistence, (Sustenance and/or Create Food and Water) plus the prerequisites for the other, more standard, portions of the armor's magical enhancements (the ghost touch, restful, and insta-don etc. portions)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insta-Don

This psionic armor enhancement was designed for use with the Armor of the invincible psion (see above). It allows a psionic character to instantly don the armor (as a standard action) by touching it and expending their psionic focus. it can also be removed in a similar manner.
Price: +750 GP??? Prerequisites: Craft Psionic Arms and Armor, Dimension Door
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 19, 2009, 12:14:31 am
Come to think of it, you might all be interested in the following threads on the D&D message boards:

1001 Silly Magic Items (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=391003)
1001 Silly Monsters (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=389193)
1001 Silly Spells (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=314700)
Layers of the Far Realm of Insanity (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=224880)
Wacky Magic Items (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=814901)



(edit: added "Wacky magic Items" link)
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 24, 2009, 01:02:14 pm
Oh, and who could forget this:

Eris/Discordia in D&D (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-116669.html)
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cain on June 24, 2009, 01:17:45 pm
That thread is basically a microcosm of the PD forums.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: LMNO on June 24, 2009, 01:31:02 pm
Really?

:emo:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Kai on June 24, 2009, 01:34:31 pm
Neither.

Atropos wins.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cain on June 24, 2009, 01:40:04 pm
Really?

:emo:

Oh yeah.

Greek mythology.
Pinealism.
Role playing.
Subgeniuses.
Chaotic Good/Neutral/Evil arguments.
Cries of "your doing it wrong!"
And general geekery.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on June 24, 2009, 03:27:53 pm
Quote from: that thread Cain linked to
Maybe Discordia is different in Roman mythology, but knowing the love of order that the Romans as a society had, I somehow doubt it. I suspect that the modern day er... religion has a lot of influence on how people see Eris. (I was never clear on that group... sorry if I've offended anyone who takes it a bit more seriously, but I've never met anyone who did.)

 :lulz: Bummer it's archived. We could all troupe over there and pretend to be grievously offended.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 06, 2009, 09:26:05 pm
Potion Equivilents for High Level Spells! Of Questionable Taste!


Craft Spell Powder [Item Creation]
Prerequisites: Brew Potion, Caster level 9th, Craft(Alchemy) 5 ranks
Benefits: You can craft "Spellpowders", spellpowders work much like potions (and use the same formula to determine price, (but see below)) but they can hold any spell of up to 6th level that otherwise meets the requirements for brew potion. Additionally, spellpowders must be inhaled via the nose in order to take effect, and a character using one must make a fortitude save at DC 12 to avoid sneezing uncontrollably, (which causes them to be dazed for one round).
Special: Spellpowders for spells of levels 0-3 cost 15% less to make (in terms of both GP and XP) than the price formula would otherwise indicate.

Craft Arcanme Suppositary [Item Creation]
Prerequisites Brew Potion, Craft Spellpowder, Caster Level 15, Craft(Alchemy) 7 Ranks
Benefits:Benefits: You can craft "Arcane Suppositories", which work much like potions (and use the same formula to determine price, (but see below)) but they can hold any spell of up to 9th level that otherwise meets the requirements for brew potion. Additionally, instead of being drank like a potion or inhaled like spellpowders (see above) Arcane Suppositories are applied by shoving them up your arse (look up "Suppository"), which takes a full round action, can't be done by anybody wearing armor, and forces anybody using one to succeed at a DC 12 fortitude save or be sickened for one round.
Special: Arcane Suppositories for spells of levels 0-3 cost 30% less to make (in terms of GP and XP, and Time) than the price formula would otherwise indicate, and Arcane Suppositories for spells of levels 4-6 cost 15% less to make (in terms of both GP and XP) than the price formula would otherwise indicate.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Eater of Clowns on July 30, 2009, 10:19:34 pm
Bump, since I figured this was a good venue for my post.

I've been really wanting to get into D&D recently, for the first time.  I've read through and mostly digested the 4e rulebook with hopefully a solid enough grasp on the material that I could create a decent character and make it through a play session without being too much the annoying newb.  Anyway, I don't know very many people who play and the local hobby shops don't seem to run consistent games.  I was wondering if anyone had tips for how to find more players (like a forum someone know of for that purpose), or if anyone here is starting up a game looking for some players.  I'm in the *REDACTED* of *REDACTED*, seemingly close to many here.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on July 30, 2009, 10:30:17 pm
The very fact you learned 4e instead of 3.5 will brand you as an annoying newb pretty much forever.   :argh!:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on July 30, 2009, 10:31:46 pm
And by "forever" he means maybe a year or two, save for a hardcore base that HATE HAET HATS 4e forever.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Eater of Clowns on July 30, 2009, 10:56:54 pm
The very fact you learned 4e instead of 3.5 will brand you as an annoying newb pretty much forever.   :argh!:

B-b-but when I asked someone about getting into it he gave me the 4e rulebook to look at.   :cry:

I used to own a 3e rulebook and dm guide but I never ended up picking either up.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Golden Applesauce on July 30, 2009, 11:05:52 pm
There's a lot of active games on this site - I used to play there a while ago, but got too busy.  Everything from 2e up to 4e, with occasional other RPGs as well.
http://www.dndonlinegames.com/cmps_index.php

If you want to learn 3.5 (which I strongly recommend) the SRD has just about all of what you need:
http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/soveliorsage/basics.html

Notably, it doesn't include a lot of material from the DMG [dungeon master's guide].  But not much has changed in the DMG since 3.0... except the magic items, which are all in the SRD.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cramulus on July 31, 2009, 12:12:00 am
Bump, since I figured this was a good venue for my post.

I've been really wanting to get into D&D recently, for the first time.  I've read through and mostly digested the 4e rulebook with hopefully a solid enough grasp on the material that I could create a decent character and make it through a play session without being too much the annoying newb.  Anyway, I don't know very many people who play and the local hobby shops don't seem to run consistent games.  I was wondering if anyone had tips for how to find more players (like a forum someone know of for that purpose), or if anyone here is starting up a game looking for some players.  I'm in the south coast of MA, seemingly close to many here.

oh man, south coast of Mass? You don't know it, but your area is stupid thick with LARPs which are actually really good.

Seriously, I play two LARPs right on the CT/MA border. MA & NH are the hotspots for LARPs in the USA.



YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?


Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Eater of Clowns on July 31, 2009, 01:11:51 am
But I don't WANNA LARP.   :x
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on July 31, 2009, 01:16:33 am
Finding a game as a player can be tough.  On the other hand starting a game as a DM is only slightly less tough, mostly depending on the age of your peer group.

Wizards of the Coast have a forum (http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=347) for aid in looking for players.  You might also check to see if your local gaming shop has a posting board for people looking for games.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on July 31, 2009, 01:17:56 am
The very fact you learned 4e instead of 3.5 will brand you as an annoying newb pretty much forever.   :argh!:

as long as you and your friends are having fun playing there is no wrong RPG system.  Anything else is misdirected nerd rage.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on July 31, 2009, 01:19:56 am
But I don't WANNA LARP.   :x

Many LARPers also table top.  For them it is like methadone is to a heroine user.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Dark Monk on July 31, 2009, 01:20:47 am
The very fact you learned 4e instead of 3.5 will brand you as an annoying newb pretty much forever.   :argh!:

as long as you are in control and are having fun playing there is no wrong RPG system.  Everyone else is immersed in misdirected nerd rage.

Fixed for totalitarian inevitability.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on July 31, 2009, 01:45:53 am
The very fact you learned 4e instead of 3.5 will brand you as an annoying newb pretty much forever.   :argh!:

as long as you and your friends are having fun playing there is no wrong RPG system.  Anything else is misdirected nerd rage.

I never said it was a bad system.  Its just not D&D.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on July 31, 2009, 01:53:57 am
The very fact you learned 4e instead of 3.5 will brand you as an annoying newb pretty much forever.   :argh!:

as long as you and your friends are having fun playing there is no wrong RPG system.  Anything else is misdirected nerd rage.

I never said it was a bad system.  Its just not D&D.

It says D&D on the cover and is printed by the trademark owners.

What is your definition of D&D?
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Eater of Clowns on July 31, 2009, 03:42:24 pm
There's a lot of active games on this site - I used to play there a while ago, but got too busy.  Everything from 2e up to 4e, with occasional other RPGs as well.
http://www.dndonlinegames.com/cmps_index.php

If you want to learn 3.5 (which I strongly recommend) the SRD has just about all of what you need:
http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/soveliorsage/basics.html

Notably, it doesn't include a lot of material from the DMG [dungeon master's guide].  But not much has changed in the DMG since 3.0... except the magic items, which are all in the SRD.

Alright, now hopefully I won't find those sites blocked at work so I can read it a bit today.

Bump, since I figured this was a good venue for my post.

I've been really wanting to get into D&D recently, for the first time.  I've read through and mostly digested the 4e rulebook with hopefully a solid enough grasp on the material that I could create a decent character and make it through a play session without being too much the annoying newb.  Anyway, I don't know very many people who play and the local hobby shops don't seem to run consistent games.  I was wondering if anyone had tips for how to find more players (like a forum someone know of for that purpose), or if anyone here is starting up a game looking for some players.  I'm in the south coast of MA, seemingly close to many here.

oh man, south coast of Mass? You don't know it, but your area is stupid thick with LARPs which are actually really good.

Seriously, I play two LARPs right on the CT/MA border. MA & NH are the hotspots for LARPs in the USA.



YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?




No, I don't.   :?

But I don't WANNA LARP.   :x

Many LARPers also table top.  For them it is like methadone is to a heroine user.

Now I do.

I appreciate the info everyone.  I'm actually pretty excited to get started, so I hope I can find a game.  I dug through some old stuff and found an almost complete set of dice from about 10 years ago that I used for...purposes I care not to admit here.  It's missing the d12, unfortunately, but there is an extra d20 in there that's really cool.  I have a good feeling about that d20.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on July 31, 2009, 04:21:56 pm
Nobody but barbarians use d12s anyway.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Triple Zero on August 01, 2009, 10:51:09 pm
yeah and you can always just add 2 d6es.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on August 01, 2009, 10:59:36 pm
yeah and you can always just add 2 d6es.

Won't swapping out linear probability for bell cure probability make things kind of wonky?
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Eater of Clowns on August 01, 2009, 11:12:10 pm
I think he was joking?

You can't roll a 1 on 2 d6es unless I'm missing something.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Triple Zero on August 01, 2009, 11:24:20 pm
it's a simple transitive statistical relationship.

you can roll a d24 and divide it by 2 to get a d12 right?

from there it is trivial to prove you can also roll 2d6 to get a d12.

qed!
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on August 01, 2009, 11:48:59 pm
roll a d6, then roll a second d6, if the second d6 is 4-6 add 6 to the first roll.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Eater of Clowns on August 02, 2009, 03:27:22 am
Well then I would have to get a 2nd d6 then, in which case why wouldn't I just get a d12?
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on August 02, 2009, 03:37:45 am
roll the same d6 twice.   :argh!:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Golden Applesauce on August 02, 2009, 03:55:58 am
You're going to need at least a dozen six sided dice, 3-4 eight sided die, a d20 for every player, two d10s (or a d10 and a d100) [unless you think you might play Exalted, in which case you need 50+ d10s] and probably a d4 or two, unless you have an inordinate amount of daggers, small short swords, and Magic Missiles flying around.

Twelve sided dice are pretty much because dodecahedrons are the coolest polyhedron.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Kurt Christ on August 02, 2009, 04:39:38 am
If you'll be playing Exalted, find a dice rolling program you like. Rolling dice by hand is kind of fun, but not worth it when the charceters are each rolling 30 dice to take a dump.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 31, 2009, 04:20:01 am
If you have an overpriced high-end scientific calculator you could use its random number generator to stand in for any kind of dice that you want it to
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on August 31, 2009, 04:24:49 am
If you have an overpriced high-end scientific calculator you could use its random number generator to stand in for any kind of dice that you want it to

I did this, it made my DM paranoid as hell.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: derpsichord on August 31, 2009, 04:29:51 am
http://www.cracked.com/article_17455_15-retarded-dungeons-dragons-monsters.html (http://www.cracked.com/article_17455_15-retarded-dungeons-dragons-monsters.html)
What is it?

The Demi-lich is a soul-eating floating skull that bides its time on a galleon full of treasure waiting for the Goonies to show up.

Where it Went Wrong:

Besides looking like a Pirates of the Caribbean alarm clock, the Demi-lich seems to possess no tactical advantages of any kind. It just kind of floats around, waiting for a party of heroes to smack it out of the air like a pinata.

We suppose it could try to bite you, but the illustration above kind of makes it look like the jaw is fused in place. Man, now we just feel sorry for it. :lol:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 04:32:39 am
If you have an overpriced high-end scientific calculator you could use its random number generator to stand in for any kind of dice that you want it to

I did this, it made my DM paranoid as hell.

NOT D&D. 
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 31, 2009, 04:32:43 am
Twelve sided dice are pretty much because dodecahedrons are the coolest polyhedron.

Yeah, didn't Pythagoras or somebody claim that the Dodecahedron was the key to understanding the fifth classical element* or the Music of the Spheres or something like that?





* The fifth classical element, by the way, was Void or Aether. It WAS NOT the life force, and it sure as fuck wasn't love!**

** Nor was it Leloo Dallas
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 04:35:34 am
Yeah, didn't Pythagoras or somebody claim that the Dodecahedron was the key to understanding the fifth classical element* or the Music of the Spheres or something like that?

Quote from: Wikipedia's entry on PYTHAGORAS
Towards the end of his life he fled to Metapontum because of a plot against him and his followers by a noble of Croton named Cylon.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bXptj86IdTA/SL9Q2dj3zrI/AAAAAAAADNQ/EZL4z03xHzw/s400/cylon.jpg) or  :?
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 31, 2009, 04:45:13 am
Oh, check out this cartoon. It has a Gelatinous Cube in it:

Everybody Loves Jello (http://www.angryflower.com/everyb.gif)
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 04:46:45 am
Oh, check out this cartoon. It has a Gelatinous Cube in it:

Everybody Loves Jello (http://www.angryflower.com/everyb.gif)

 :lulz:

CUBE!
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 31, 2009, 05:55:52 am
http://www.cracked.com/article_17455_15-retarded-dungeons-dragons-monsters.html (http://www.cracked.com/article_17455_15-retarded-dungeons-dragons-monsters.html)
What is it?

The Demi-lich is a soul-eating floating skull that bides its time on a galleon full of treasure waiting for the Goonies to show up.

Where it Went Wrong:

Besides looking like a Pirates of the Caribbean alarm clock, the Demi-lich seems to possess no tactical advantages of any kind. It just kind of floats around, waiting for a party of heroes to smack it out of the air like a pinata.

We suppose it could try to bite you, but the illustration above kind of makes it look like the jaw is fused in place. Man, now we just feel sorry for it. :lol:


Sure, but you've got to weigh that against the mythological tale of futility and uncanny misfortune from which the Tarrasque originally is originally derived...

Apparently, the mythological Tarrasque was a dragon or some such creature which was terrorizing the French counterside. It tore apart every army that was sent to stop it. However, Saint Martha convinced the beast to convert to Christianity and become a pacifist. Unfortunately for the tarrasque, however, it chose exactly the wrong time to decide to forswear all violence, for at exactly that moment an angry mob of villagers was marching out to tear it limb from limb; Normally, the villagers wouldn't have stood a chance, but due to the tarrasque's newfound pacifism, the villagers were able to slaughter it without suffering so much as a scraped ankle on their part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasque)
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on August 31, 2009, 06:12:48 am
If you have an overpriced high-end scientific calculator you could use its random number generator to stand in for any kind of dice that you want it to

I did this, it made my DM paranoid as hell.

NOT D&D.  

you could at least *try* to make that make sense.  Like wait until I'm talking about playing online instead of face to face, or talking about some specific edition.  Or even just 'if there's no dice its not D&D'

Really, you're starting to slip.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: rong on August 31, 2009, 07:33:28 am
'if there's no dice its not D&D'

has a nice ring to it.

also - holyshitican'tbelievepeopleplaythisshitbutwhat'sblowingmymindevenmoreisthatireadthisstupidthread goplayoutside!
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 03:27:59 pm
you could at least *try* to make that make sense.

Yeah, I could.  But I won't.  We Holy Men™ are supposed to be all vague and shit.

Or even just 'if there's no dice its not D&D'

See?  You DID understand it.

Really, you're starting to slip.

Was that really necessary?  Oh, well, I suppose it was.  My response is, of course, for you to go fuck yourself with various garden impliments, and then to never, ever take you seriously again, as you have zero sense of proportion.

Good day.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cain on August 31, 2009, 03:31:57 pm
http://www.cracked.com/article_17455_15-retarded-dungeons-dragons-monsters.html (http://www.cracked.com/article_17455_15-retarded-dungeons-dragons-monsters.html)
What is it?

The Demi-lich is a soul-eating floating skull that bides its time on a galleon full of treasure waiting for the Goonies to show up.

Where it Went Wrong:

Besides looking like a Pirates of the Caribbean alarm clock, the Demi-lich seems to possess no tactical advantages of any kind. It just kind of floats around, waiting for a party of heroes to smack it out of the air like a pinata.

We suppose it could try to bite you, but the illustration above kind of makes it look like the jaw is fused in place. Man, now we just feel sorry for it. :lol:


Sure, but you've got to weigh that against the mythological tale of futility and uncanny misfortune from which the Tarrasque originally is originally derived...

Apparently, the mythological Tarrasque was a dragon or some such creature which was terrorizing the French counterside. It tore apart every army that was sent to stop it. However, Saint Martha convinced the beast to convert to Christianity and become a pacifist. Unfortunately for the tarrasque, however, it chose exactly the wrong time to decide to forswear all violence, for at exactly that moment an angry mob of villagers was marching out to tear it limb from limb; Normally, the villagers wouldn't have stood a chance, but due to the tarrasque's newfound pacifism, the villagers were able to slaughter it without suffering so much as a scraped ankle on their part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasque)

What is it about monsters and the French countryside?  La Belle, which was some sort of giant, mutant wolf thing rampaged around the place for years too.  At least it didn't pussy out and become a pacifist though, they sent wolf-hunters to kill it.  Several times.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on September 01, 2009, 12:11:34 am
'if there's no dice its not D&D'

has a nice ring to it.

also - holyshitican'tbelievepeopleplaythisshitbutwhat'sblowingmymindevenmoreisthatireadthisstupidthread goplayoutside!

Outside is for people who want skin cancer.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Golden Applesauce on September 01, 2009, 04:34:07 am
Oh, check out this cartoon. It has a Gelatinous Cube in it:

Everybody Loves Jello (http://www.angryflower.com/everyb.gif)

 :lulz:

CUBE!

NOT D&D.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 04:34:59 am
Oh, check out this cartoon. It has a Gelatinous Cube in it:

Everybody Loves Jello (http://www.angryflower.com/everyb.gif)

 :lulz:

CUBE!

NOT D&D.

I know.

But...

CUBE!
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on September 12, 2009, 02:45:29 am


Something Happens (http://www.somethinghappens.net/d/20090722.html)


Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on October 01, 2009, 02:20:49 am
Have you seen the new version of the official D&D message board? Its the latest in a long line of betrayals by Wizards of the Coast
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Shibboleet The Annihilator on October 01, 2009, 03:45:58 am
Heh, this thread makes me want to try playing D&D.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: on October 01, 2009, 07:25:44 pm
The very fact you learned 4e instead of 3.5 will brand you as an annoying newb pretty much forever.   :argh!:

as long as you and your friends are having fun playing there is no wrong RPG system.  Anything else is misdirected nerd rage.

I never said it was a bad system.  Its just not D&D.

They turned D&D into a tactics based mini game.
I'd rather just play burning wheel.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cramulus on October 02, 2009, 02:02:28 pm
Heh, this thread makes me want to try playing D&D.

what I think you'd dig about D&D is the ongoing lineage of betrayed fanboys

don't get me wrong, I'm a D&D fanboy


but when second edition came out, all the existing D&D players threw their d20s in the air and went waaaaaaaaah

and then when the third edition came out like 15 years later, all the D&D 2e players went WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS, NOW YOU MEASURE THINGS IN SQUARES? omgWTF THIS ISN'T D&D

But some people loved it

and then a few years later, 3.5 came out, a slightly different / more streamlined version of 3rd edition.  And everyone that just sunk $200 on D&D 3.0 books went bawwwwwwwwwwww

but 3.5 was the most solid form of D&D yet.


and then 4.0 came out and all the 3.5 players went WHAT IS THIS SHIT, IT'S NOT EVEN D&D

and meanwhile, there are still first edition players out there who are like, "THERE USED TO BE ROLEPLAYING IN D&D BUT NOW EVERYBODY'S FORCED TO PLAY A MUNCHKIN IN A HACK AND SLASH CAMPAIGN"


I have friends that are still playing a second edition campaign because "it had the best roleplaying". ((And by this I think they mean nonweapon proficiencies?)) But I have to wonder, when they tried 3rd edition, did they stop roleplaying? Did they stop running puzzle encounters? Did they not use character backgrounds? If so, whose fault is that? It's a comment I genuinely don't understand. If the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle RPG was played by a group who wanted a RP-heavy game, it would be a RP-heavy game regardless of the system.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Fredfredly ⊂(◉‿◉)つ on October 02, 2009, 02:54:32 pm
Heh, this thread makes me want to try playing D&D.


NO. NOOOOOOOOOO. DONT DO IT.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Golden Applesauce on October 02, 2009, 06:50:12 pm
Heh, this thread makes me want to try playing D&D.

what I think you'd dig about D&D is the ongoing lineage of betrayed fanboys

don't get me wrong, I'm a D&D fanboy


but when second edition came out, all the existing D&D players threw their d20s in the air and went waaaaaaaaah

and then when the third edition came out like 15 years later, all the D&D 2e players went WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS, NOW YOU MEASURE THINGS IN SQUARES? omgWTF THIS ISN'T D&D

But some people loved it

and then a few years later, 3.5 came out, a slightly different / more streamlined version of 3rd edition.  And everyone that just sunk $200 on D&D 3.0 books went bawwwwwwwwwwww

but 3.5 was the most solid form of D&D yet.


and then 4.0 came out and all the 3.5 players went WHAT IS THIS SHIT, IT'S NOT EVEN D&D

and meanwhile, there are still first edition players out there who are like, "THERE USED TO BE ROLEPLAYING IN D&D BUT NOW EVERYBODY'S FORCED TO PLAY A MUNCHKIN IN A HACK AND SLASH CAMPAIGN"


I have friends that are still playing a second edition campaign because "it had the best roleplaying". ((And by this I think they mean nonweapon proficiencies?)) But I have to wonder, when they tried 3rd edition, did they stop roleplaying? Did they stop running puzzle encounters? Did they not use character backgrounds? If so, whose fault is that? It's a comment I genuinely don't understand. If the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle RPG was played by a group who wanted a RP-heavy game, it would be a RP-heavy game regardless of the system.

My main beef with 4.0 is that they added lots of cool tactical elements (which I'll give them credit for,) but removed a lot of the non-tactical abilities of the various characters (mostly magic-users here,) and that the whole thing is a lot less customizable.  By non-tactical, I mean things like spells that last for more than 5 minutes, or have a range of longer than the average battle size but are still useful in a fight.  And a lot of abilities are only useful if you can use them twice in the same encounter - only the most basic attacks can be used more than once in a fight.  Sure, you can teleport at tactical speeds - but only 250' away - and you can't teleport back.  You have to walk.  So no grabbing a friend, teleporting him a safe place, and then returning to the fight.  And no trapping a creature in a tunnel with a pair of instant walls - you only get one wall per day.  No Charming every citizen of a town one by one, etc, etc.

More than that though, is the customability factor.  Two member of the same class in 4.0 mostly vary only by abilities chosen, and since almost all the abilities are combat focused, it's less a matter of what your character does than how he does it.

It's still a roleplaying game, and not a terrible system in and of itself, it's just as different from 3.5 as 3.5 is from GURPS or HeroSystem.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 06, 2009, 01:04:30 am
More than that though, is the customability factor.  Two member of the same class in 4.0 mostly vary only by abilities chosen, and since almost all the abilities are combat focused, it's less a matter of what your character does than how he does it.

As opposed to 1st or 2nd edition where two characters of the same class only varied by their race selection and ability scores.

Or 3 & 3.5 where two characters of the same class varied only by race selection, feat selection, and ability scores.

Though by far the biggest improvement D&D 4th edition has brought is the ease which it lends itself to being a DM.  With the addition of the on-line Monster Builder setting up the fighting portion of adventures has never be quicker.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on October 06, 2009, 02:33:49 am
As it happens, one of my beefs with 4e is the token use of the internet in a crude attempt to appear hip. Get thee behind me hipness!
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cramulus on October 06, 2009, 02:42:42 am
part of the thinking was that they needed a monthly income drip. They did some market research and found a massive difference between the number of books they sold and the number of D&D players out there. This is because of (a) Piracy and (b) you can share 1 player's handbook between 5 players. 

Meanwhile, gaming stores all over the country are going under, because they lose in price contests with online warehouses. So they needed somewhere else to sell people games. In comes the second platform.

Long before 4th edition, the plan was to create a new "platform" for gaming somehow, some new way that people will game together. They hoped it'd be like how Magic and Pokemon created entire generations of gamers overnight.



The "play D&D live online with friends" thing they advertised in the back of the PH is vaporware. Never gonna happen. But I hear the other online content for D&D is very good.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 06, 2009, 02:43:47 am
part of the thinking was that they needed a monthly income drip. They did some market research and found a massive difference between the number of books they sold and the number of D&D players out there. This is because of (a) Piracy and (b) you can share 1 player's handbook between 5 players. 

Meanwhile, gaming stores all over the country are going under, because they lose in price contests with online warehouses. So they needed somewhere else to sell people games. In comes the second platform.

Long before 4th edition, the plan was to create a new "platform" for gaming somehow, some new way that people will game together. They hoped it'd be like how Magic and Pokemon created entire generations of gamers overnight.



The "play D&D live online with friends" thing they advertised in the back of the PH is vaporware. Never gonna happen. But I hear the other online content for D&D is very good.

Sticking with Paizo's "Pathfinder", aka "3.75".

4th ed is NOT D&D, it's WoW on tabletop.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cramulus on October 06, 2009, 02:50:38 am
 :deadhorse:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 06, 2009, 02:51:29 am
:deadhorse:

You have to be sure.  Those hosries can be tricky.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 06, 2009, 07:05:05 am
As it happens, one of my beefs with 4e is the token use of the internet in a crude attempt to appear hip. Get thee behind me hipness!

As a DM I find the on-line tolls and content to be of value. 

The Character Builder and Monster Builder are both wonderful.  And still only one person in the gaming group needs to get the subscription (usually the DM I would imagine). So if the price is too much to bear for one person then the cost could be spread out among the whole gaming group.  Also as a DM I find that the adventures in Dungeon are great for what any seasoned DM would do with an adventure he/she did write.  Ripping out the cool bits (in my case traps as part of an encounter rather than just wandering damage) and putting them into their otherwise original adventures.

If I ever get the chance to be a player in 4th Ed. I think I'd also enjoy the Dragon on-line content more as it presents new powers and feats for the currently published classes.

Also the preview content is cool.  I wasn't going to buy the PHB3 until I saw the article on Skill Powers which looks like a really cool idea.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 06, 2009, 07:20:53 am
4th ed is NOT D&D, it's WoW on tabletop.

I still don't see this as, unlike Wow or any other MMO, the content of a D&D game is tailored to the group playing it.  I have yet to hear of a story of a D&D group camping a spawn point to grind to high level so that they can finally go raid the epic MOBs for the good loot.

What D&D 4th Ed. has done is taken the spell choice of the caster classes from previous editions and given that functionality to everyone in the form of powers.  If there were an already existing game I'd compare D&D 4th Ed. to it would be Magic: The Gathering.

All classes are built off a unifying mechanic but the mechanic is implemented in such a way that the major roles all play differently.  Much like in M:TG all cards are built off the same mechanic but a Blue deck plays nothing like a Red deck.  Each role is then tweaked along class lines so as to have different ways to fulfill its function.  Rogue, Avenger, and Warlock are all Strikers but they each play differently to get a similar result (lots of damage on a single target).  Then style is refined a bit further within the classes themselves with different class build options.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on October 06, 2009, 09:09:08 pm
What D&D 4th Ed. has done is taken the spell choice of the caster classes from previous editions and given that functionality to everyone in the form of powers.  If there were an already existing game I'd compare D&D 4th Ed. to it would be Magic: The Gathering.

That sounds like a reasonable assessment...It certainly doesn't resemble D&D...
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Golden Applesauce on October 06, 2009, 10:47:17 pm
What D&D 4th Ed. has done is taken the spell choice of the caster classes from previous editions and given that functionality to everyone in the form of powers.  If there were an already existing game I'd compare D&D 4th Ed. to it would be Magic: The Gathering.

All classes are built off a unifying mechanic but the mechanic is implemented in such a way that the major roles all play differently.  Much like in M:TG all cards are built off the same mechanic but a Blue deck plays nothing like a Red deck.  Each role is then tweaked along class lines so as to have different ways to fulfill its function.  Rogue, Avenger, and Warlock are all Strikers but they each play differently to get a similar result (lots of damage on a single target).  Then style is refined a bit further within the classes themselves with different class build options.

The major difference between 4e and M:TG there is that M:TG has over 10k cards, which can be played in any combination, and so many of them outright break the rules of the game - everything from altering the win condition to changing the way blocking damage is assigned.  So to extend the analogy, 4e is like magic where you can only have one copy of each card in your deck (except for lands and one-drops), every deck must consist entirely of cards from one color and block, and no more than 3 of your cards can do things other than "be a creature" and "affect a creature."  In other words, I wouldn't have liked MTG until after it was a mature game.

If every class had options comparable to what the casters in 3.x had, and I expect as the number of supplements approaches A Lot this will eventually happen, I probably would eventually switch.  (Well, actually, I'm trying to find a group to play HeroSystem with, since the level of customization and modularity in that game is far, far beyond anything I've encountered so far while still having a GM instead of a "Storyteller.")

In case this isn't blatantly obvious, I'm a Johnny (well Johnny/Spike, but I try to hold Spike back in the interest of group fun) and I spend more time planning for playing then actually playing, and when I do play, it's mostly for the social aspect /  :aaa: effect on everyone else's face when one of my plans comes together.  I like my systems convoluted and arcane; it's magic, it's supposed to be wonky.  It doesn't bother me at all that warlocks, psions, and sorcerers all operate on completely different magic systems; that just lets me pick whichever one I'm in the mood for.  The players generally only need to know the rules for their characters, since not many characters would actually know how a dozen different magic systems worked, and the GM doesn't have to learn anything he doesn't want in his game.

4e is D&D, it's just a version of D&D sans a number of elements I found especially enjoyable.  As the edition matures, if it isn't replaced by 4.2931 in the next six weeks, it will probably eventually have enough complexity and modularity for me to take another look at it.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 06, 2009, 11:17:30 pm
4e never happened.

End of story.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 06, 2009, 11:22:48 pm
4e never happened.

End of story.

I believe you are thinking of Highlander II: The Quickening.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 06, 2009, 11:24:25 pm
4e never happened.

End of story.

I believe you are thinking of Highlander II: The Quickening.

What is this of which you speak?  There was no Highlander II, either.

Likewise, the Phoenix Cardinals are a myth.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 06, 2009, 11:32:44 pm
What D&D 4th Ed. has done is taken the spell choice of the caster classes from previous editions and given that functionality to everyone in the form of powers.  If there were an already existing game I'd compare D&D 4th Ed. to it would be Magic: The Gathering.

That sounds like a reasonable assessment...It certainly doesn't resemble D&D...

The games I have run using 4th Edition rules certainly have had both Dungeons as well as Dragons as elements of the stories being told.

What else does it take to be D&D?
Do we need to bring back THAC0? 
Do the Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling need to be relegated to classes in and of themselves again?
Perhaps just the really crappy art work needs to come back?

D&D is a RPG rules set for playing out stories in a high fantasy genre.  4th Ed. does that just as well as previous editions but also makes the job of the DM an order of magnitude easier.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 06, 2009, 11:34:29 pm
What D&D 4th Ed. has done is taken the spell choice of the caster classes from previous editions and given that functionality to everyone in the form of powers.  If there were an already existing game I'd compare D&D 4th Ed. to it would be Magic: The Gathering.

That sounds like a reasonable assessment...It certainly doesn't resemble D&D...

The games I have run using 4th Edition rules certainly have had both Dungeons as well as Dragons as elements of the stories being told.

What else does it take to be D&D?
Do we need to bring back THAC0? 
Do the Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling need to be relegated to classes in and of themselves again?
Perhaps just the really crappy art work needs to come back?

D&D is a RPG rules set for playing out stories in a high fantasy genre.  4th Ed. does that just as well as previous editions but also makes the job of the DM an order of magnitude easier.

Is CRAP.  "Thievery" is ONE SKILL.  So, gathering info, cooking the books, moving silently, and disarming a trap are all the exact same thing.

Fighters heal themselves.

Isn't D&D.  Is Marvel Superheroes.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 06, 2009, 11:56:34 pm
The major difference between 4e and M:TG there is that M:TG has over 10k cards, which can be played in any combination, and so many of them outright break the rules of the game - everything from altering the win condition to changing the way blocking damage is assigned.  So to extend the analogy, 4e is like magic where you can only have one copy of each card in your deck (except for lands and one-drops), every deck must consist entirely of cards from one color and block, and no more than 3 of your cards can do things other than "be a creature" and "affect a creature." 

Or to extend the analogy in another way 4e is like MT:G where 5 players use their cards to work towards a common goal rather than beat each other over the head until one of them is 'dead'.  To do this the rules are changed so that while players have less cards available to them in their decks they can cast any card they want at anytime (no random deck draws) without mana cost.  Some cards can be cast over and over again, others can only be used once per challange on the way to accheiving the goal, and yet others can only be used once before achieving the goal.  The common goal they work towards is crafted by an additional player who has his/her own deck of special cards that don't quite follow the same rules as the player's cards do.

The existing multi-class options allow a character to play with more that 'a single color deck'.  PH3 will introduce hybrid characters that will allow a player to mix and match two class from level one onwards.  PH3 will also introduce Skill Powers that any character trained in a skill can take in place of a class utility power.

In other words, I wouldn't have liked MTG until after it was a mature game.

MT:G started off very broken.  While they had the basic elements (lands, summoning creatures, tapping, etc) there what each color did wasn't well defined, if defined at all.  The game has aged well though I think and learning lessons from it is not a bad thing.


If every class had options comparable to what the casters in 3.x had, and I expect as the number of supplements approaches A Lot this will eventually happen, I probably would eventually switch.  (Well, actually, I'm trying to find a group to play HeroSystem with, since the level of customization and modularity in that game is far, far beyond anything I've encountered so far while still having a GM instead of a "Storyteller.")

It was a trade off. To bring some classes up others needed to brought down. In this regards I think they found a good middle ground.

I also think the spell caster classes were more broken up than totally depowered.  Rather than having a swiss-army wizard or cleric a player now has to decide which aspect of those classes they would like to play and picks a class accordingly.

  I like my systems convoluted and arcane; it's magic, it's supposed to be wonky.

Wonky in regards to the world the characters live in is fine.  wonky in regards to the rules system the players are using to access that world I'm not a fan of.

Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 07, 2009, 12:07:04 am

Is CRAP.  "Thievery" is ONE SKILL. 

So, gathering info,

This would be a Streetwise, Diplomacy, or Intimidate skill check in most cases.  I can imagine sometimes Bluff may be used as well.

cooking the books,

This is the Bluff skill

moving silently,

Stealth

and disarming a trap

This is actually Thievery, but you'll probably need to pass a Perception check at some point too.

Though in 4th Ed. the DM is encouraged to make traps part of an encounter with monsters rather than wandering damage to soak up, heal up, and move on from.  So rather than a single skill check the character with Thievery would engage in a Skill Challenge to disarm the trap while the rest of the party either directly helps or indirectly help (by holding off the monsters).

are all the exact same thing.

Have you read 4th Ed. rules at all?

Fighters heal themselves.

Explain what Hit Points are to me, I imagine you have it wrong.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on October 07, 2009, 01:54:14 am
4e never happened.

End of story.

I believe you are thinking of Highlander II: The Quickening.

No, he's thinking of Paranoia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia_(role-playing_game)#Third_and_fourth_editions.3F) :lulz:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 07, 2009, 02:56:03 am


Explain what Hit Points are to me, I imagine you have it wrong.



Hit points are a combination of physical toughness, skill, luck, the ability to roll with a hit, etc.

Now fuck off you little turd.  I have minis that are older than you are.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 07, 2009, 06:20:19 am


Explain what Hit Points are to me, I imagine you have it wrong.

Hit points are a combination of physical toughness, skill, luck, the ability to roll with a hit, etc.


Correct, color me surprised as people who complain about 'Fighters healing themselves' usually have no idea to what level HP actually abstract damage.

Now explain why Fighters getting some of their hit points back using a power called 'Second Wind' is bad?

If all HP are not a representation of physical damage then it stands to reason that a Fighter should have a limited ability to get some back solely through a surge of adrenalin and/or findING the will within themselves to fight on.  They still do not have nearly the healing options of a class that falls under the Leader role and therefore would be wise to bring one along with them on their adventure.

Now fuck off you little turd.  I have minis that are older than you are.

Big woop, none of those minis had anything to do with D&D
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on October 07, 2009, 06:47:16 am
Because fighters don't heal.  Fighters hit things.  Sometimes they break or throw things instead.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Golden Applesauce on October 07, 2009, 07:06:33 am
Because fighters don't heal.  Fighters hit things.  Sometimes they break or throw things instead.

Unless, y'know, they happened to be carrying a potion.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 07, 2009, 01:22:05 pm
Because fighters don't heal.  Fighters hit things.  Sometimes they break or throw things instead.

If HP represent more than just physical damage then there are more ways to get them back than magically healing physical damage.

If there are more ways to get them back than through magic healing then those ways can be spread out among all the classes.  Though if you want the most efficient/effective healing you still need a Leader (Cleric, Bard, Warlord, or Shaman).

In the PHB the Fighter has a total of 7 healing powers, the Cleric however has 23.  The Fighter's powers are based on finding extra reserves to fight on despite wounds, weariness, and/or loss of moral.  The Fighter's healing powers also only affect the fighter.  The Cleric's powers on the other hand not only heal for all the same reasons that the fighter's do but also add in healing due to divine magic, ie. a character's wounds closing or the exhaustion of battle washing away completely allowing an ally to fight on.  The Cleric's powers affect  anyone on the Cleric's side in a fight.  I've underlined the major difference between the two, the Fighter's best option to help the Wizard is still to get between the Wizard and the bad guys.

The Cleric, or any other Leader class, has not been replaced because the Fighter can restore some of his/her own Hit Points.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Richter on October 07, 2009, 01:47:59 pm
Because fighters don't heal.  Fighters hit things.  Sometimes they break or throw things instead.

For muliperson tabletop / computer, I definitely agree.  Keeps more group reliance, and more distinct characterization. 
If people want to play different, their business then.     
   
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cramulus on October 07, 2009, 02:30:59 pm
I liked the 4e shift to "everybody can heal themselves a little bit, but with the cleric's help, they can heal themselves better"

the cleric / warlord / shaman / bard is still very necessary, but they don't have to spend all their time playing a support role. In other editions, playing a healer was kind of like taking the bullet for your party. While they're doing the glorious monster slaying, trap disarming, etc, you're ... buffing them? hey, when do you get the spotlight?

"ahhh I just took 100 points of damage, cleric, come save me so I can keep fighting!"
"ah shit, I was just about to cast Flame Strike, but I guess I can heal you instead. Get a better AC you meat sack!"   :argh!:

On the other hand, the new conception of healer as "leader", is a lot of fun to play. As a warlord, you're constantly shifting your party members around the battle field, giving party members healing or buffs when you hit. You definitely don't feel like you're riding in the back seat.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 07, 2009, 02:37:22 pm
I liked the 4e shift to "everybody can heal themselves a little bit, but with the cleric's help, they can heal themselves better"

I like that 4th has pretty much eliminated the party lugging around a Bag of Holding full of Wands of Cure Light Wounds to top everyone off during/after combat.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 07, 2009, 03:11:16 pm

Correct, color me surprised as people who complain about 'Fighters healing themselves' usually have no idea to what level HP actually abstract damage.

Yeah, that was explained to me during my first game in 1977, when I pointed out that a 3rd level fighter would be physically tougher than an elephant.

Now, again, fuck off.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: on October 08, 2009, 01:42:36 am
I dislike systems that provide to much abstraction of damage. In my opinion, in a system, damage should literally represent physical damage. If you want said system to represent psychological status as well, this should be done seperately. It isnt that difficult to imagine that aspects of psychology could provide certain advantages, and disadvantages in combat.

Basically, I do not dislike the concept of psychological damage, but I dont like the concept of HP representing anything further than physical status. In fact, HP alone has been my major gripe with D&D (and similar games) for many years. My current barbarian, for example, can be hit in the head with an axe a very good of times... and within a week he's completely forgotten these brutal axe wounds. I'd rather a wounding system, where damage dealt is actually significant.

Burning Wheel, for me, has everything required for a decent sword and sorcery campaign. A better combat system, more immersive character creation, much better sense of realism, better concept of damage (not to mention wounding, and age), skills that improve through use (as opposed to an arbitrary assignment of points), and accomplishes everything that 4rth ed tries to do.

4th edition is a complete retooling of the franchise to attempt to appeal to a changing market. IMO, IT DOES THE SAME THING THAT THE NEW STAR TREK MOVIE DID. Not to mention that I was pretty pissed at the race selection. I still play 3.5, and I still enjoy the game. Its also not hard to adapt the D20 Call of Cthulhu stuff to 3.5, but youd be hard pressed to do it with D&D. All that D20 system era stuff is pretty mix and match, although much of it is crap.

Also, I'd still like to get a chance to play Midnight, if I can ever find a copy of the book.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: on October 08, 2009, 01:44:52 am

Correct, color me surprised as people who complain about 'Fighters healing themselves' usually have no idea to what level HP actually abstract damage.

Yeah, that was explained to me during my first game in 1977, when I pointed out that a 3rd level fighter would be physically tougher than an elephant.


These abstractions can be pretty hilarious sometimes. For example, its fun to pit first level characters against mundane creatures. (like housecats).
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on October 08, 2009, 01:53:52 am
Personally, ever since 4th Edition came out I have made a point of not buying any Wizards of The Coast products. I will never buy another one of their products again (unless it is a previously used product that they therefore would not profit from (the sale of) anyway. (...Hey, why should I suffer just because I'm boycotting a company?...) I have actually bought a more expensive copy of some WoTC products on Amazon.com because all of the cheaper copies were new!).   :argh!:

I seriously hope that they go out of business  :crankey: :nuke:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on October 08, 2009, 02:00:43 am
Also, even if the new system was better, (and I don't think that it is) it wouldn't change the fact that the release of 4e so soon after 3.5e was a huge betrayal of their (in many cases formerly) loyal customers, an act of undisguised greed, and effectively an admission that they have abandoned all pretense of caring about or respecting the consumer.

I had expected better from them; I really did....
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 08, 2009, 04:40:39 am
some things.

Baseless nerd rage noted.

Why didn't this nerd rage start when 3.5 was release only 3 years after 3.0 was released?
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 08, 2009, 04:41:20 am
Also, even if the new system was better, (and I don't think that it is) it wouldn't change the fact that the release of 4e so soon after 3.5e was a huge betrayal of their (in many cases formerly) loyal customers, an act of undisguised greed, and effectively an admission that they have abandoned all pretense of caring about or respecting the consumer.

I had expected better from them; I really did....

One word:  Hasbro.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 08, 2009, 04:42:10 am
some things.

Baseless nerd rage noted.

Why didn't this nerd rage start when 3.5 was release only 3 years after 3.0 was released?

3.5 was more of a correction.  It wasn't a fundamental change, and all my 3.0 stuff basically worked with 3.5 without the need for major re-writes.

Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 08, 2009, 04:43:40 am
Personally, ever since 4th Edition came out I have made a point of not buying any Wizards of The Coast products. I will never buy another one of their products again (unless it is a previously used product that they therefore would not profit from (the sale of) anyway. (...Hey, why should I suffer just because I'm boycotting a company?...) I have actually bought a more expensive copy of some WoTC products on Amazon.com because all of the cheaper copies were new!).   :argh!:

I seriously hope that they go out of business  :crankey: :nuke:

Check out Paizo's pathfinder "3.75".  Totally back compatible with 3.5, and cleaned up a BUNCH.  They even made grapple work easily.

http://paizo.com/paizo
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 08, 2009, 04:46:53 am
My current barbarian, for example, can be hit in the head with an axe a very good of times... and within a week he's completely forgotten these brutal axe wounds. I'd rather a wounding system, where damage dealt is actually significant.

That's the point of the abstraction though.  A hit with an attack roll does not directly translate to a physical hit on your character.  Sometimes it's your luck running out, sometimes it's barely getting out of the way but you are now in a less tenable position, or sometimes it's just your character being overwhelmed by the dire situation he/she is in.  It is not that hard to work into the narration of combat to the point where over the span of a fight there are only one or two solid hits that do physical damage to the character.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on October 08, 2009, 04:54:10 am
Personally, ever since 4th Edition came out I have made a point of not buying any Wizards of The Coast products. I will never buy another one of their products again (unless it is a previously used product that they therefore would not profit from (the sale of) anyway. (...Hey, why should I suffer just because I'm boycotting a company?...) I have actually bought a more expensive copy of some WoTC products on Amazon.com because all of the cheaper copies were new!).   :argh!:

I seriously hope that they go out of business  :crankey: :nuke:

Check out Paizo's pathfinder "3.75".  Totally back compatible with 3.5, and cleaned up a BUNCH.  They even made grapple work easily.

http://paizo.com/paizo

Pathfinder is awesome.  Only played the beta version though.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 08, 2009, 04:55:38 am
Personally, ever since 4th Edition came out I have made a point of not buying any Wizards of The Coast products. I will never buy another one of their products again (unless it is a previously used product that they therefore would not profit from (the sale of) anyway. (...Hey, why should I suffer just because I'm boycotting a company?...) I have actually bought a more expensive copy of some WoTC products on Amazon.com because all of the cheaper copies were new!).   :argh!:

I seriously hope that they go out of business  :crankey: :nuke:

Check out Paizo's pathfinder "3.75".  Totally back compatible with 3.5, and cleaned up a BUNCH.  They even made grapple work easily.

http://paizo.com/paizo

Pathfinder is awesome.  Only played the beta version though.

The full release is WAY better.  CMB got totally redone, and it works, now.  Spellcraft IDs items instead of appraise.  Cleave got fixed.  Races got fixed...but half-orcs got SHAFTED.

Also, you pick your preferred class, it's not race driven.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 08, 2009, 04:57:42 am
some things.

Baseless nerd rage noted.

Why didn't this nerd rage start when 3.5 was release only 3 years after 3.0 was released?

3.5 was more of a correction.  It wasn't a fundamental change, and all my 3.0 stuff basically worked with 3.5 without the need for major re-writes.



What things do you feel need a major rewrite for 4th?  A lot of the basics have already been rewritten for 4th by Wizards of the Coast.
Most of what's left over isn't too difficult to convert by tweaking already existing rules/powers.

Keep in mind that part of the goal of 4th was to remove 'save or die' situations and 'I win buttons'.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 08, 2009, 05:00:46 am
some things.

Baseless nerd rage noted.

Why didn't this nerd rage start when 3.5 was release only 3 years after 3.0 was released?

3.5 was more of a correction.  It wasn't a fundamental change, and all my 3.0 stuff basically worked with 3.5 without the need for major re-writes.



What things do you feel need a major rewrite for 4th?  A lot of the basics have already been rewritten for 4th by Wizards of the Coast.
Most of what's left over isn't too difficult to convert by tweaking already existing rules/powers.

Keep in mind that part of the goal of 4th was to remove 'save or die' situations and 'I win buttons'.

Compared to 2nd ed, 3.5 already fixed that shit.  The goal of 4th was to sell core rulebooks yet again, and to design the game to require (or almost require) add-ons like power cards, etc.

The ultimate insult was the "D&D insider", where they proudly announced that you now had the privilege of paying $10/month for FAQs, etc, that were up to that point free.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Golden Applesauce on October 08, 2009, 05:07:20 am
The ultimate insult was the "D&D insider", where they proudly announced that you now had the privilege of paying $10/month for FAQs, etc, that were up to that point free.

Now I remember what actually pissed me off about the transition.  I used to read (or at least check) the articles on their website as part of my daily routine before that.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 08, 2009, 05:49:33 am

Compared to 2nd ed, 3.5 already fixed that shit. 

Save or die starts off pretty much at 1st level.

Color Spray
Entangle (depending on how difficult a DC 20 Strength or Escape Artist check would be)
Hypnotism
Sleep

I Win Buttons are usually a higher level caster though the various Detect <Alignment> spells can be a bit of a lesser I Win Button depending on the kind of campaign/adventure.  A Human spiked chain trip Fighter(1st level) or Monk(2nd level) can be an I Win Button early on.

The goal of 4th was to sell core rulebooks yet again, and to design the game to require (or almost require) add-ons like power cards, etc.

You can run a decent D&D game with the three core books, you need no other books, special cards, or subscription to DDI.

The ultimate insult was the "D&D insider", where they proudly announced that you now had the privilege of paying $10/month for FAQs, etc, that were up to that point free.

Dungeon offers DM advice and adventures, Dragon offers Player advice, additional feats and powers for published classes, and fully playable previews of upcoming content.

A DDI subscription gives you access to the Character Builder which not only does all the math for your character but prints out all your powers on 'cards' so you don't need to go buy anything extra.  It also gives you access to the Adventure Tools which right now is only the Monster builder.  From a DMs perspective though the Monster Builder is the best thing ever.  Not only does it easily allow a DM to adjust the level of any monster presented in any official D&D content it also allows you to cut and paste monster powers so you can easily build custom creatures.  You can then copy the adjusted/custom monster stat block and paste it into a Word document for easy reference at the game table.

And here's the neat thing, you really only need to have one DDI subscriber in your group for everyone to benefit.  Though I would imagine in most cases this would be the DM. If $10 per month it too much for one person to bear than a gaming group of 5 (4 players 1 DM) could chip in $2 per month per person.  If I was playing in a 4th Ed. group I'd gladly give my DM $2 a month to access just the tools alone and make the game experience a lot easier for everyone playing.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by FAQs in this case but rules updates (http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/updates) still seem to be free for all.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on October 08, 2009, 06:01:59 am
some things.

Baseless nerd rage noted.

Why didn't this nerd rage start when 3.5 was release only 3 years after 3.0 was released?

3.5 was more of a correction.  It wasn't a fundamental change, and all my 3.0 stuff basically worked with 3.5 without the need for major re-writes.



What things do you feel need a major rewrite for 4th?  A lot of the basics have already been rewritten for 4th by Wizards of the Coast.
Most of what's left over isn't too difficult to convert by tweaking already existing rules/powers.

Keep in mind that part of the goal of 4th was to remove 'save or die' situations and 'I win buttons'.

Compared to 2nd ed, 3.5 already fixed that shit.  The goal of 4th was to sell core rulebooks yet again, and to design the game to require (or almost require) add-ons like power cards, etc.

The ultimate insult was the "D&D insider", where they proudly announced that you now had the privilege of paying $10/month for FAQs, etc, that were up to that point free.

EXACTLY!

And if I ever have the urge to deal with that kind of Macchiavellian bullshit I can play Paranoia XP :fnord: instead. That way I only have to pretend to bow down to faceless and evil manipulators...
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on October 08, 2009, 06:03:23 am
Personally, ever since 4th Edition came out I have made a point of not buying any Wizards of The Coast products. I will never buy another one of their products again (unless it is a previously used product that they therefore would not profit from (the sale of) anyway. (...Hey, why should I suffer just because I'm boycotting a company?...) I have actually bought a more expensive copy of some WoTC products on Amazon.com because all of the cheaper copies were new!).   :argh!:

I seriously hope that they go out of business  :crankey: :nuke:

Check out Paizo's pathfinder "3.75".  Totally back compatible with 3.5, and cleaned up a BUNCH.  They even made grapple work easily.

http://paizo.com/paizo

Pathfinder is awesome.  Only played the beta version though.

The full release is WAY better.  CMB got totally redone, and it works, now.  Spellcraft IDs items instead of appraise.  Cleave got fixed.  Races got fixed...but half-orcs got SHAFTED.

Also, you pick your preferred class, it's not race driven.
Half orcs have always been shafted.  Its pretty much a requirement.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Golden Applesauce on October 08, 2009, 06:33:10 am
And here's the neat thing, you really only need to have one DDI subscriber in your group for everyone to benefit.  Though I would imagine in most cases this would be the DM. If $10 per month it too much for one person to bear than a gaming group of 5 (4 players 1 DM) could chip in $2 per month per person.  If I was playing in a 4th Ed. group I'd gladly give my DM $2 a month to access just the tools alone and make the game experience a lot easier for everyone playing.

I'd argue that Dragon is/was (don't know how it looks now) much more useful.  I don't remember how much a subscription was, but it was a lot less that $120 a year.  At most 1/3 that.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on October 08, 2009, 06:34:15 am
Hmm, Pathfinder Book + PDF is 50 bucks, exactly what I have in birthday money from my aunts :D

Book + PDF is 60 :| But I can get just the PDF for ten, and save my money for the other books that are coming out.  :D
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 08, 2009, 07:07:08 am
And here's the neat thing, you really only need to have one DDI subscriber in your group for everyone to benefit.  Though I would imagine in most cases this would be the DM. If $10 per month it too much for one person to bear than a gaming group of 5 (4 players 1 DM) could chip in $2 per month per person.  If I was playing in a 4th Ed. group I'd gladly give my DM $2 a month to access just the tools alone and make the game experience a lot easier for everyone playing.

I'd argue that Dragon is/was (don't know how it looks now) much more useful.  I don't remember how much a subscription was, but it was a lot less that $120 a year.  At most 1/3 that.

DDI subscription options:

1 months $9.95
3 months $23.85 (7.95/mo.)
1 year $71.40 ($5.95/mo.)

The cover price on the last issue of Dragon magazine published by Pazio is $10.99, I imagine that the cost is similar for Pazio's published edition of Dungeon.  I'm also assuming that they did not raise or lower the cover price just because it was the last issue. 

Which means it's cheaper to pay month to month for a DDI subscription than it was to go buy either Dungeon or Dragon each month at your local store.  It's about half the cost per month if you bought both magazines at your local store.

I had ordered subscriptions to both Dungeon and Dragon from Pazio through Amazon.com in August of 2006, so I can still access the price I paid for a yearly subscription.

One magazine cost $39.95 per year.  So subscribing to both cost $79.90 per year.
So a full years subscription to DDI is ~$8 cheaper than to the Pazio publications plus you get access to the on-line tools.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on October 08, 2009, 07:21:52 am
Do you get to keep all the months you payed for with DDI if you stop paying?
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 08, 2009, 07:31:39 am
Do you get to keep all the months you payed for with DDI if you stop paying?

You can download either individual articles or entire issues as .pdf files.

I am uncertain of the functionality of the tools if you let your subscription lapse.

On start up they check for updates, I imagine during that phase they also check to see if you have a current subscription.

Though last I was aware the Monster Builder was still in beta and may be usable by anyone who wants to try it.  The Character Builder allowed you to level up to a 3rd level character as a demo of its ability.

Also the Character Builder is updated with all the data from Dragon magazine as well as from the campaign settings books.  There are two classes, the Swordmage (Forgotten Realms) and the Artificer (Eberon) that I can build using the Character Builder and not have to buy the campaign setting books for either of those campaigns.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: on October 08, 2009, 11:09:12 am
My current barbarian, for example, can be hit in the head with an axe a very good of times... and within a week he's completely forgotten these brutal axe wounds. I'd rather a wounding system, where damage dealt is actually significant.

That's the point of the abstraction though.  A hit with an attack roll does not directly translate to a physical hit on your character.  Sometimes it's your luck running out, sometimes it's barely getting out of the way but you are now in a less tenable position, or sometimes it's just your character being overwhelmed by the dire situation he/she is in.  It is not that hard to work into the narration of combat to the point where over the span of a fight there are only one or two solid hits that do physical damage to the character.

My point is specifically that I would prefer no abstraction, and that a hit with an attack roll should literally mean a physical hit. The additional narration thats required is merely an attempt to bridge the gap between the system itself, and believability, and it shouldnt be necessary.

A characters footing, his luck, his mental state, are all things that could be adequately represented by actual game mechanics.. if you like, instead of being abstractions of HIT POINTS. So my point isnt that you're not allowed to pretend that hit points mean anything at all, you are.  Its just that the system itself suffers a flaw for this being necessary.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: on October 08, 2009, 11:13:28 am
I seriously hope that they go out of business  :crankey: :nuke:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 08, 2009, 12:51:54 pm
My current barbarian, for example, can be hit in the head with an axe a very good of times... and within a week he's completely forgotten these brutal axe wounds. I'd rather a wounding system, where damage dealt is actually significant.

That's the point of the abstraction though.  A hit with an attack roll does not directly translate to a physical hit on your character.  Sometimes it's your luck running out, sometimes it's barely getting out of the way but you are now in a less tenable position, or sometimes it's just your character being overwhelmed by the dire situation he/she is in.  It is not that hard to work into the narration of combat to the point where over the span of a fight there are only one or two solid hits that do physical damage to the character.

My point is specifically that I would prefer no abstraction, and that a hit with an attack roll should literally mean a physical hit. The additional narration thats required is merely an attempt to bridge the gap between the system itself, and believability, and it shouldnt be necessary.

A characters footing, his luck, his mental state, are all things that could be adequately represented by actual game mechanics.. if you like, instead of being abstractions of HIT POINTS. So my point isnt that you're not allowed to pretend that hit points mean anything at all, you are.  Its just that the system itself suffers a flaw for this being necessary.

It just becomes more things you need to keep track of though.  And I imagine in many games it would just degrade into <thing that can get hurt> points.

I'm trying to think of a game I've played that didn't use hit points (or a similar variation) and am drawing a blank.  I don't think the d20 version of Mutants & Masterminds used hit point, but they did have optional rules to add them back in.  I can't remember what World of Darkness systems use, all I can remember is my character sheet looking like an SAT answer sheet.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cramulus on October 08, 2009, 01:18:16 pm
My current barbarian, for example, can be hit in the head with an axe a very good of times... and within a week he's completely forgotten these brutal axe wounds. I'd rather a wounding system, where damage dealt is actually significant.

I assume your barbarian gets healing spells after combat?  :? that's why you're not roleplaying the headwound for multiple gaming sessions. It's maaaaaagic.

also: if your DM is describing your barbarian taking multiple axe wounds to the head in one fight, he's doing it wrong



My point is specifically that I would prefer no abstraction, and that a hit with an attack roll should literally mean a physical hit. The additional narration thats required is merely an attempt to bridge the gap between the system itself, and believability, and it shouldnt be necessary.

It's not additional narration, it's different narration. It'd only be "additional" if you were married to HP purely as a measure of physical stamina, which is a little bit missing the point. Personally I think it's functional fixedness on your part.


Quote
A characters footing, his luck, his mental state, are all things that could be adequately represented by actual game mechanics..

How is Hit Points not an actual game mechanic?

HPs do precisely what they're supposed to do. They're a measure of "how long you can keep fighting."  Which, in a fight, is what really matters. It's basically what your opponent is decreasing with his attacks. It's a little bit abstract, but so is rolling a die.

You might prefer Pallidium, where you have to roll to hit, then roll for hit location, then roll to see if you penetrate the dude's armor, then roll for damage, then possibly roll for a crit. It's very "realistic"? I don't even know what that means when we're talking about fantasy RPGs. But it tries to simulate combat to an unfun amount of detail (IMO). If your group really like wasting 5 minutes per action trying to figure out specifically which limb is damaged and how, and for how long, there are systems that do that. But I've always felt that it's kind of like being the nitpicky kid who watches batman and goes, "WTF, no human can jump that high. This is so unrealistic."

Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: on October 08, 2009, 01:48:57 pm
My current barbarian, for example, can be hit in the head with an axe a very good of times... and within a week he's completely forgotten these brutal axe wounds. I'd rather a wounding system, where damage dealt is actually significant.

I assume your barbarian gets healing spells after combat?  :? that's why you're not roleplaying the headwound for multiple gaming sessions. It's maaaaaagic.

also: if your DM is describing your barbarian taking multiple axe wounds to the head in one fight, he's doing it wrong

You miss my point here. My intention is to demonstrate just how abstract HP actually is in D&D, depending on your character build there is a decent chance that you can survive several hits with an axe without difficulty, and that even without healing spells, your character will be back to full health relatively quickly. The barbarian getting hit in the head with an axe was merely an example to point out the degree to which the system can challenge suspension of disbelief, so yes... I guess we can say that he didnt literally get hit in the head, but he could still be reduced to a single hit point, and be back to full health in a week or so without healing spells. Broken limbs and debilitating wounds dont really exist, all thats really happening when you take damage is an abstract variable that could be anywhere in between having your eyes gouged out and having your feelings hurt.


Quote from: cramulus
My point is specifically that I would prefer no abstraction, and that a hit with an attack roll should literally mean a physical hit. The additional narration thats required is merely an attempt to bridge the gap between the system itself, and believability, and it shouldnt be necessary.

It's not additional narration, it's different narration. It'd only be "additional" if you were married to HP purely as a measure of physical stamina, which is a little bit missing the point. Personally I think it's functional fixedness on your part.
I am married to HP purely as a measure of physical condition, actually. I dont feel its missing the point at all.

Quote from: cramulus
Quote
A characters footing, his luck, his mental state, are all things that could be adequately represented by actual game mechanics..

How is Hit Points not an actual game mechanic?

HPs do precisely what they're supposed to do. They're a measure of "how long you can keep fighting."  Which, in a fight, is what really matters. It's basically what your opponent is decreasing with his attacks. It's a little bit abstract, but so is rolling a die.
I didnt say HP wasnt a game mechanic, I just feel that its in inadequate one. Also, I dont think rolling a die is abstract; its a polyhedron and it gives you a random numerical value when roll it on a flat surface.

Quote from: cramulus
You might prefer Pallidium, where you have to roll to hit, then roll for hit location, then roll to see if you penetrate the dude's armor, then roll for damage, then possibly roll for a crit. It's very "realistic"? I don't even know what that means when we're talking about fantasy RPGs. But it tries to simulate combat to an unfun amount of detail (IMO). If your group really like wasting 5 minutes per action trying to figure out specifically which limb is damaged and how, and for how long, there are systems that do that. But I've always felt that it's kind of like being the nitpicky kid who watches batman and goes, "WTF, no human can jump that high. This is so unrealistic."

I see what you're driving at here, and happen to agree with you. There is a point when things get too complicated, and outright simulationism isnt something I look for in a system at all. In my opinion, there should be a healthy balance between simulationism and narrativism. I feel that there are some areas in which D&D can be lacking. Regarding HP, Its not that I dislike narrative freedom on the part of the game master... narrative legerdemain is the only think that makes HP even slightly believable, its completely necessary.

Note that all of my statements thus far are statements of personal preference. I dont think any sort of absolute realism is possible in a game, but some systems are better than others in this regard. Anyway, I tend to favor a wounding system over a hit point system, with negatives applied to statistics based on severity of wounds. Also Burning Wheel employs an interesting double-blind system regarding combat footing and attitude.

I'm not a big fan of palladium, as a company, to tell you the truth. Its been a number of years since I looked at the fantasy system, I doubt that I'd want to do so again.

Regardless of any of the arguments that have been stated, my personal preference has not changed. Nor is it likely to, my reasons for this are stated.

Anyway, this is a relatively minor gripe on my part, I'm kind of surprised it turned into a giant shitstorm.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cramulus on October 08, 2009, 03:25:18 pm
Anyway, this is a relatively minor gripe on my part, I'm kind of surprised it turned into a giant shitstorm.

is this a shitstorm?

Sorry if I came off harsh,
I like arguing about RPGs.  :p

Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 08, 2009, 05:49:36 pm
Anyway, I tend to favor a wounding system over a hit point system, with negatives applied to statistics based on severity of wounds. Also Burning Wheel employs an interesting double-blind system regarding combat footing and attitude.

The problem with applying penalties for wounds over the course of a combat is it tends to form a downward spiral.  A situation where once one side gets hurt it has basically become the losing side. It is rare that that kind of situation is ever fun for players.

Anyway, this is a relatively minor gripe on my part, I'm kind of surprised it turned into a giant shitstorm.

Not shitstorm, discussion.  If this were a shitstorm at least one side would be non-rational.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cain on October 08, 2009, 06:03:53 pm
FUCK YOU, 1ST EDITION ADVANCED D&D IS THE ONLY TRUE SYSTEM EVAR!  I'M SORRY U LUSERS AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO HANDLE THE ADVANCED VERSION OF THE GAME!
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 08, 2009, 06:19:12 pm
FUCK YOU, 1ST EDITION ADVANCED D&D IS THE ONLY TRUE SYSTEM EVAR!  I'M SORRY U LUSERS AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO HANDLE THE ADVANCED VERSION OF THE GAME!

no fuck you, real gamers only play using nothing but copies of Dave Arneson's original crib-note modifications to Chainmail and Gary Gygax's desire to slaughter PCs!

Anyone else it just a corporate sell out shill!

And while I'm on the subject, fuck you Disney for buying Marvel Comics.  I loved reading Marvel comics when I was a kid not my childhood memories are all going to get reaped by Mickey Mouse!!!

:mad:!!!!!
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 08, 2009, 07:00:25 pm
All change is good.  The Fonz should have gotten an Oscar for the scene where he jumps the shark.  Adding commercials to cable TV in 1984 was brilliant.

And Coke II was the best thing to happen, ever.  Ever.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 08, 2009, 07:35:33 pm
All change is good.  The Fonz should have gotten an Oscar for the scene where he jumps the shark.  Adding commercials to cable TV in 1984 was brilliant.

And Coke II was the best thing to happen, ever.  Ever.

Some change is good, some is bad, most is meh.

Though as far as 4th Ed is concerned I'm not sure how you can judge what kind of change it is as a previous post (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18505.msg761498#msg761498) suggests that you have neither played or even read the new rules.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 08, 2009, 07:38:32 pm
All change is good.  The Fonz should have gotten an Oscar for the scene where he jumps the shark.  Adding commercials to cable TV in 1984 was brilliant.

And Coke II was the best thing to happen, ever.  Ever.

Some change is good, some is bad, most is meh.

Though as far as 4th Ed is concerned I'm not sure how you can judge what kind of change it is as a previous post (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18505.msg761498#msg761498) suggests that you have neither played or even read the new rules.

Yes, and you also suggested that I hadn't a grasp of the concept of hit points.  Then you acted surprised when I did, in the same fashion that I would act if I witnessed a retarded person repair a Cray Supercomputer.

Look, Tom, I'll be more than happy to respond to your arguments when you ease up a little on the strawmen and ad hominems.

Until then, you have a nice day now, y'hear?
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: on October 08, 2009, 08:01:35 pm
Anyway, I tend to favor a wounding system over a hit point system, with negatives applied to statistics based on severity of wounds. Also Burning Wheel employs an interesting double-blind system regarding combat footing and attitude.

The problem with applying penalties for wounds over the course of a combat is it tends to form a downward spiral.  A situation where once one side gets hurt it has basically become the losing side. It is rare that that kind of situation is ever fun for players.

There are many fun games that do this.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 08, 2009, 08:28:55 pm
All change is good.  The Fonz should have gotten an Oscar for the scene where he jumps the shark.  Adding commercials to cable TV in 1984 was brilliant.

And Coke II was the best thing to happen, ever.  Ever.

Some change is good, some is bad, most is meh.

Though as far as 4th Ed is concerned I'm not sure how you can judge what kind of change it is as a previous post (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18505.msg761498#msg761498) suggests that you have neither played or even read the new rules.

Yes, and you also suggested that I hadn't a grasp of the concept of hit points.  Then you acted surprised when I did, in the same fashion that I would act if I witnessed a retarded person repair a Cray Supercomputer.

Look, Tom, I'll be more than happy to respond to your arguments when you ease up a little on the strawmen and ad hominems.

Until then, you have a nice day now, y'hear?

And the post I was responding to wasn't setting up a some kind of fallacy that I do not know the name of off the top of my head?

I had assumed that you did not grasp the concept of hit points because up until your post every single person who thinks D&D is 'ruint 4 eva' because Fighters have some ability to heal themselves also thinks that every hit point lost equates to axe wounds and blood split.

And an ad hominim would be me saying that your argument is wrong because you're a mean jerk-face.  I think your argument is wrong because, so far, you don't seem to have demonstrated any experience with the thing you are arguing against.  I don't, however, doubt that you may have experience with versions of D&D 3.5 and earlier, or with other RPG systems.

So I will ask:

Have you read the 4th Edition Rules?

Have you played a game using the 4th edition rules?

a 'yes' to both questions would be great as I'd love to discuss where someone who has read and played 4th Ed. still finds it lacking.

Yes to the 1st question and no to the second question while not ideal would still allow for discussion on where you feel 4th Edition falls short of previous editions.

A no to both questions makes me wonder how you can criticize 4th Edition compared to earlier editions and/or other RPGs since you seem to lack the knowledge of the content of that which you criticize. 
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 08, 2009, 08:30:05 pm
I wish you hadn't wasted all that time typing.  I already told you I'm not going to put up with your shit, nor am I willing to derail this thread further.

Good day.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 08, 2009, 08:45:39 pm
I wish you hadn't wasted all that time typing.  I already told you I'm not going to put up with your shit, nor am I willing to derail this thread further.

Good day.

Great don't derail the thread then.

Answer these questions:

Have you read the 4th Edition Rules?

Have you played a game using the 4th edition rules?

I believe they are on topic for where the thread has wandered from its original intent.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on October 08, 2009, 10:15:47 pm
I'm trying to think of a game I've played that didn't use hit points (or a similar variation) and am drawing a blank.  I don't think the d20 version of Mutants & Masterminds used hit point, but they did have optional rules to add them back in.  I can't remember what World of Darkness systems use, all I can remember is my character sheet looking like an SAT answer sheet.

Mutants and masterminds does not use hit points, and second edition doesn't have any optional rules for adding them in (first might, I have no idea where my first edition book is though).

WoD uses a combination hit point/wounding system.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on October 08, 2009, 10:58:35 pm
On Pathfinder, the new way of doing experience annoys me greatly for being hard to memorize (of course, half the DMs I've played with lately ignore experience points, and just award levels every now and then), and the pointbuy system is possibly even more screwy than the 3.5 pointbuy (what is it with designers always underestimating the number of points needed to mimic an average roll of the dice?), it pretty much forces fighters to wear full plate instead of giving them a fast but lightly armored option, and one of the 'abilities' for spellcasters is a huge liability (though I almost want to make that liability mandatory, just so I have a slightly better way to cripple spellcasters than tying them up and gagging them).

Some things just didn't get fixed, you still have to be really high level to do certain cool but not hugely powerful things (this is better at least, being a cat no longer takes level 11), its still impossible to run a marathon as fast as my 50 year old mother does.  Level one characters still die in a stiff breeze.  There are still monks.

A lot of other things are awesome though. cantrips have gone from something used for light spells to incredibly useful noncombat tools (pretty much the opposite direction of 4th), Sorcerers are still technically weaker than wizards, but now look like a lot of fun to play.  There are core options for making a high level fighter semi usable (doesn't solve the high level problem but its better).  You can never take an animal companion or familiar again unless you want to.  Skills work 10000 better.  Multiclassing is slightly less painful, favored class actually does something, and for once in the history of D&D, making magic items is practical without resorting to bizarre classes or house rules.

Everything the player needs is actually in the core book too, no more borrowing the DMG every time a campaign starts above level 1.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 08, 2009, 11:02:47 pm
I'm trying to think of a game I've played that didn't use hit points (or a similar variation) and am drawing a blank.  I don't think the d20 version of Mutants & Masterminds used hit point, but they did have optional rules to add them back in.  I can't remember what World of Darkness systems use, all I can remember is my character sheet looking like an SAT answer sheet.

Mutants and masterminds does not use hit points, and second edition doesn't have any optional rules for adding them in (first might, I have no idea where my first edition book is though).

WoD uses a combination hit point/wounding system.

While I personally enjoyed the M&M d20 conversion (the original is a d10 system isn't it?) the combination of it being a bit too far removed for standard d20 made it difficult for my players to wrap their heads around.  I had considered buying the original version, but I only have super hero stories in me, not super hero campaigns. :)
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 08, 2009, 11:06:34 pm
cantrips have gone from something used for light spells to incredibly useful noncombat tools (pretty much the opposite direction of 4th)

I am curious about this statement and would request that you go into further detail.  Especally as it pertains to the bolded part.

Thank you.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on October 08, 2009, 11:08:55 pm
The original is d20 as well, or True20 rather, which is Green Ronin's departure from the WotC stuff.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 08, 2009, 11:16:45 pm
The original is d20 as well, or True20 rather, which is Green Ronin's departure from the WotC stuff.

Hrmm, maybe I'm thinking of Silverage Sentinels that was a d20 conversion.  There was a point a gaming group I was involved with were desperatly looking for anything not set in space or in a dungeon.  We went through 3 different supers rule sets as well as an attempt to adapt 7th Sea to the super hero genre.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: on October 08, 2009, 11:47:19 pm
I'm trying to think of a game I've played that didn't use hit points (or a similar variation) and am drawing a blank.  I don't think the d20 version of Mutants & Masterminds used hit point, but they did have optional rules to add them back in.  I can't remember what World of Darkness systems use, all I can remember is my character sheet looking like an SAT answer sheet.

Mutants and masterminds does not use hit points, and second edition doesn't have any optional rules for adding them in (first might, I have no idea where my first edition book is though).

WoD uses a combination hit point/wounding system.

Burning Wheel, Shadowrun, WoD, and Nobilis all off the top of my head. WoD definately does not use an HP system, its wounding.
There are a lot of indie games that stray from an HP system, some of the more esoteric once I neglect to mention.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on October 09, 2009, 12:01:30 am
cantrips have gone from something used for light spells to incredibly useful noncombat tools (pretty much the opposite direction of 4th)

I am curious about this statement and would request that you go into further detail.  Especially as it pertains to the bolded part.

Thank you.

One of my big complaints about 4th is that there aren't a lot of noncombat spells.  I mean yes, throwing fireballs is part of what a wizard does, but they also dig ditches and build fortifications when they need to.  Some of its problem solving, but a lot of its roleplaying tools, and its those that 4th is especially weak on.  One of my favorite builds ever was a bard designed around the idea of using illusion spells as a form of performance.

In pathfinder you can spam the level 0 spells endlessly, which means you have a host of flavor spells (which once in a blue moon solve puzzles, or if you're very lucky would be useful for killing rats) that you can use to do things at an RP level.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: on October 09, 2009, 01:32:16 am
cantrips have gone from something used for light spells to incredibly useful noncombat tools (pretty much the opposite direction of 4th)

I am curious about this statement and would request that you go into further detail.  Especially as it pertains to the bolded part.

Thank you.

One of my big complaints about 4th is that there aren't a lot of noncombat spells.  I mean yes, throwing fireballs is part of what a wizard does, but they also dig ditches and build fortifications when they need to.  Some of its problem solving, but a lot of its roleplaying tools, and its those that 4th is especially weak on.  One of my favorite builds ever was a bard designed around the idea of using illusion spells as a form of performance.

In pathfinder you can spam the level 0 spells endlessly, which means you have a host of flavor spells (which once in a blue moon solve puzzles, or if you're very lucky would be useful for killing rats) that you can use to do things at an RP level.

Its fun to play utility wizards and item creators in 3.5, I dont think I'd try to do it in 4th. By far, my biggest problem with fourth was actually the absence of gnomes in favor of some furry other-kin bullshit.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on October 09, 2009, 01:36:19 am
Gnomes are still playable, you just need the MM for the stats.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on October 09, 2009, 01:42:50 am
All change is good.  The Fonz should have gotten an Oscar for the scene where he jumps the shark.  Adding commercials to cable TV in 1984 was brilliant.

And Coke II was the best thing to happen, ever.  Ever.

Some change is good, some is bad, most is meh.

Though as far as 4th Ed is concerned I'm not sure how you can judge what kind of change it is as a previous post (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18505.msg761498#msg761498) suggests that you have neither played or even read the new rules.

well,  don't knowa bout TGRR, but [iI've[/i] read parts of the new rules andI didnt like what I saw...
...The parts that I read before I got to th point whre I simply coudn't stand to read any more of it ranged frrom trite (eg. all of the fluff text, most of the rules), to offensive (eg. the revised alignment system)
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 09, 2009, 02:35:42 am
One of my big complaints about 4th is that there aren't a lot of noncombat spells.

All classes have access to Utility Powers.  A quick glance at the Utility options the Wizard has compared to what the Fighter has show that the wizard has several Utility Powers that could find use outside of combat (be it a Skill Challenge encounter, or general role-play encounter).  The Fighter, however does not.  The introduction of Skill Powers that will be published with the Player's Handbook 3 should increase a player's options in this regard.

I mean yes, throwing fireballs is part of what a wizard does, but they also dig ditches and build fortifications when they need to.

Are you thinking of cantrips that allow a Wizard to dig ditches and build fortifications?  Because off the top of my head I can only think of spells that do so (Stone Shape, Move Earth, Wall of <Substance>).  Wall spells still exist but have been toned down to be more useful in a combat situation than used to build long term fortifications.  Personally I think that's a good move.  If you do not then it would have to be a point we just disagree on.

The rituals, Earthen Ramparts, Excavation, Iron Wood, Bolster Object, and Mordenkainen's Joining look like they could fulfill your goals of digging ditches and building fortifications.  But do so in a way that would require the caster have some help from the rest of the party. Another design goal for 4th Edition was to avoid one character being able to do it all.

 Some of its problem solving, but a lot of its roleplaying tools, and its those that 4th is especially weak on.  One of my favorite builds ever was a bard designed around the idea of using illusion spells as a form of performance.

I believe your Bard could be built under 4th Edition rules.  Depending on if you were relying on only cantrips or not to create your story telling illusions.  The 4th Ed. cantrip Prestidigitation can replace the functionality of the Bard cantrips (3.5) Dancing Lights, Flare, Open/Close, Prestidigitation, and Summon Instrument.

In pathfinder you can spam the level 0 spells endlessly, which means you have a host of flavor spells (which once in a blue moon solve puzzles, or if you're very lucky would be useful for killing rats) that you can use to do things at an RP level.

So far the most common use the Wizard in the game I am running has for for a cantrip (Prestidigitation) to to put himself out.  He seems to have a bad habit of setting himself on fire.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 09, 2009, 02:39:02 am
Gnomes are still playable, you just need the MM for the stats.

Or the Player's Handbook 2 if you want the stats and fluff.

Or a DDI subscription if you don't want either the MM or PH3.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on October 09, 2009, 02:42:11 am
Casting a spell while on fire would be an interesting concentration check (does 4th still have those?).

And how many utility spells can the wizard actually get?  3 or 4?  Thats even worse than sorcerers do in 3.x.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 09, 2009, 02:47:19 am
well,  don't knowa bout TGRR, but [iI've[/i] read parts of the new rules andI didnt like what I saw...
...The parts that I read before I got to th point whre I simply coudn't stand to read any more of it ranged frrom trite (eg. all of the fluff text, most of the rules), to offensive (eg. the revised alignment system)

Well that's a start, at least you have something to base your dislike of the system on.

Though I am surprised you complain about fluff text.  There were quite a few people on the Wizard.com boards upset that 4th Edition didn't have as much fluff as 3.5, or other previous editions, did.

I don't think the concept of alignment has long to last as part of D&D (or any other RPG for that matter).  Unlike previous editions there are no powers/effects that key off alignment.  It is purely something for a player to base character role playing decisions on.

In my gaming experience at least alignment really had little to no effect on game play unless there was a Paladin in the party.

Might I ask where you stopped reading?
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 09, 2009, 02:50:36 am
Casting a spell while on fire would be an interesting concentration check (does 4th still have those?).

And how many utility spells can the wizard actually get?  3 or 4?  Thats even worse than sorcerers do in 3.x.

There are no Concentration checks or Concentration skill in 4th Edition.  But there are still Attacks of Opportunity in 4th so the Wizard isn't going to want to be standing next to an enemy while casting spells if possible.  Though there are spells that can be cast w/o provoking.

EDIT: should have answered your 2nd question too.

The maximum number of Utility Powers any class can have is 7, this number is reached by the time characters achieve 26th level.

Rituals you can cast as many times as you like as long as you can afford the components.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cain on October 09, 2009, 04:01:45 pm
I liked the 4e shift to "everybody can heal themselves a little bit, but with the cleric's help, they can heal themselves better"

the cleric / warlord / shaman / bard is still very necessary, but they don't have to spend all their time playing a support role. In other editions, playing a healer was kind of like taking the bullet for your party. While they're doing the glorious monster slaying, trap disarming, etc, you're ... buffing them? hey, when do you get the spotlight?

"ahhh I just took 100 points of damage, cleric, come save me so I can keep fighting!"
"ah shit, I was just about to cast Flame Strike, but I guess I can heal you instead. Get a better AC you meat sack!"   :argh!:

On the other hand, the new conception of healer as "leader", is a lot of fun to play. As a warlord, you're constantly shifting your party members around the battle field, giving party members healing or buffs when you hit. You definitely don't feel like you're riding in the back seat.

Caveat: Everything I say, I learnt from the different game mechanics between Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights.

Wouldn't plentiful Healing Kits kind of do the same thing in version 3.0/3.5?  I don't know if Healing Kits are part of the table top version of the game, but on the PC version, a healing kit was something you used, in conjunction with your Healing skill, to heal yourself of a certain level of damage.

Example: your character has just finished a tough fight, and has taken thirty seven points of damage.  He has however, a healing kit +1, which he bought before, and a Heal rank of 7.  Taking twenty, he can use the Healing Kit to restore 27 hit points of damage.

In combat, naturally, you cannot take twenty, so it becomes a little more chance-based.  But in the game, they come in +1, +3, +6 and +10 versions, and depending on your skill at using them and the DC of the effect, can also overcome poison and disease.  They're not so useful at higher levels, but at that point any cleric is packing some serious buffs in addition to any healing spells, so it doesn't really matter.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 09, 2009, 05:14:00 pm
Caveat: Everything I say, I learnt from the different game mechanics between Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights.

Wouldn't plentiful Healing Kits kind of do the same thing in version 3.0/3.5? 

Healing kits were part of the mechanics of NWN.  I would guess because your party in that game could only consist of the PC and two NPCs.  Therefore it was quite possible to find yourself in a dungeon without sufficient healing.

In 3.5 the Heal skill was used for:

First Aid:  Stabilize a dying character.
Long-term Care: Allow a character to heal twice his/her HP from rest (proper no activities at all rest, not camping in the dungeon rest)
Remove the condition inflicted by caltrops and similar devices/spells
Treat Poison or disease.

While there were Healer's Kits in 3.5 they were there to provide a bonus(+2) to Heal checks to perform the above.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Fuquad on October 09, 2009, 06:51:08 pm
I'm trying to think of a game I've played that didn't use hit points (or a similar variation) and am drawing a blank.  I don't think the d20 version of Mutants & Masterminds used hit point, but they did have optional rules to add them back in.  I can't remember what World of Darkness systems use, all I can remember is my character sheet looking like an SAT answer sheet.

Mutants and masterminds does not use hit points, and second edition doesn't have any optional rules for adding them in (first might, I have no idea where my first edition book is though).

WoD uses a combination hit point/wounding system.
First edition M&M has the optional rules for hit points. One of the sourcebooks for second edition does as well.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 09, 2009, 07:55:15 pm
I'm not sure if this was mentioned earlier in the thread or not but, regardless of if you are a fan of 4th Edition or not, I would recommend any D&D fan to download and listen to the PVP/Penny Arcade D&D Podcasts.

http://wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=resources&subcategory=podcasts

There are three series and I think they embody the reason why a lot of people game.  Because you spend time with your friends and have fun.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on October 14, 2009, 10:09:31 pm
some things.

Baseless nerd rage noted.

Why didn't this nerd rage start when 3.5 was release only 3 years after 3.0 was released?

Well, it did, a bit. In fact, you've hit on a very important point in regard to this whole matter. The reason why the early release of 4e is PARTICULARLY offensive is because they just pulled this same crap a couple of years ago, and just when I finally gave in and updated to 3.5 (well, a little bit afterward...but I digress...) they announced this new edition....Damnit!!
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cramulus on October 14, 2009, 10:12:36 pm
yeah it's really sad how you're not allowed to play old editions anymore

I tried to start a 3.5 game, but Mike Mearls kicked open my door and ripped up our character sheets




I kid, I kid
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on October 15, 2009, 12:47:28 am
My current barbarian, for example, can be hit in the head with an axe a very good of times... and within a week he's completely forgotten these brutal axe wounds. I'd rather a wounding system, where damage dealt is actually significant.

That's the point of the abstraction though.  A hit with an attack roll does not directly translate to a physical hit on your character.  Sometimes it's your luck running out, sometimes it's barely getting out of the way but you are now in a less tenable position, or sometimes it's just your character being overwhelmed by the dire situation he/she is in.  It is not that hard to work into the narration of combat to the point where over the span of a fight there are only one or two solid hits that do physical damage to the character.

My point is specifically that I would prefer no abstraction, and that a hit with an attack roll should literally mean a physical hit. The additional narration thats required is merely an attempt to bridge the gap between the system itself, and believability, and it shouldnt be necessary.

A characters footing, his luck, his mental state, are all things that could be adequately represented by actual game mechanics.. if you like, instead of being abstractions of HIT POINTS. So my point isnt that you're not allowed to pretend that hit points mean anything at all, you are.  Its just that the system itself suffers a flaw for this being necessary.

It just becomes more things you need to keep track of though.  And I imagine in many games it would just degrade into <thing that can get hurt> points.

I'm trying to think of a game I've played that didn't use hit points (or a similar variation) and am drawing a blank.  I don't think the d20 version of Mutants & Masterminds used hit point, but they did have optional rules to add them back in.  I can't remember what World of Darkness systems use, all I can remember is my character sheet looking like an SAT answer sheet.


Unearthed Arcana (the D&D 3.5  supplement) offered at least one optional system that didn't use hit points, as well as at least two optional fixes to the hit point system (including one that fixes the previously mentioned overreliance on clerics)
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on October 15, 2009, 01:59:39 am
Wait, you mean that vitality point system?

I'll admit that was kinda neat, but its still a hit point based system, just with the flavor better reflected by the mechanic.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on October 15, 2009, 02:19:04 am
No,not the vitality point system. As I said, IN ADDITION to modified hit point systems such as the vitality point system, there was ALSO, if I recall correctly, also a system that linked fortitude saves to varying degrees of disability.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on October 15, 2009, 02:36:16 am
*looks it up*

Huh, they stole that from M&M
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: on October 15, 2009, 07:40:24 am
My current barbarian, for example, can be hit in the head with an axe a very good of times... and within a week he's completely forgotten these brutal axe wounds. I'd rather a wounding system, where damage dealt is actually significant.

That's the point of the abstraction though.  A hit with an attack roll does not directly translate to a physical hit on your character.  Sometimes it's your luck running out, sometimes it's barely getting out of the way but you are now in a less tenable position, or sometimes it's just your character being overwhelmed by the dire situation he/she is in.  It is not that hard to work into the narration of combat to the point where over the span of a fight there are only one or two solid hits that do physical damage to the character.

My point is specifically that I would prefer no abstraction, and that a hit with an attack roll should literally mean a physical hit. The additional narration thats required is merely an attempt to bridge the gap between the system itself, and believability, and it shouldnt be necessary.

A characters footing, his luck, his mental state, are all things that could be adequately represented by actual game mechanics.. if you like, instead of being abstractions of HIT POINTS. So my point isnt that you're not allowed to pretend that hit points mean anything at all, you are.  Its just that the system itself suffers a flaw for this being necessary.

It just becomes more things you need to keep track of though.  And I imagine in many games it would just degrade into <thing that can get hurt> points.

I'm trying to think of a game I've played that didn't use hit points (or a similar variation) and am drawing a blank.  I don't think the d20 version of Mutants & Masterminds used hit point, but they did have optional rules to add them back in.  I can't remember what World of Darkness systems use, all I can remember is my character sheet looking like an SAT answer sheet.


Unearthed Arcana (the D&D 3.5  supplement) offered at least one optional system that didn't use hit points, as well as at least two optional fixes to the hit point system (including one that fixes the previously mentioned overreliance on clerics)

Hit Points are essentially a numerical value that determine, numerically, how many units of 'damage' you can sustain.

There are other systems (wod, shadowrun, burning wheel, etc) that have a limited number of boxes that get filled in as you take damage, in this variation rather than damage having an intrinsic value, its more like a dice roll contest. Using shadowrun as an example, a weapon fills in a set number of boxes and has a value that is the difficulty of your soak roll, you roll to see how well you resist that damage, and you either fill in less numbers or more. Also, in dealing the damage the number of successes you yield can stage up the damage, meaning that if you have a skilled shot, its harder to negate by the way of soak. White Wolf is very much the same way. There are fundemental differences that make this possible, and interpretation between systems is different. In D20, a success is a success, and you only ever roll one dice. In systems that use this alternate method, they tend to have degrees of success depending on how many successes you achieve, and you tend to roll alternate dice.

As far as damage is concerned, I think its better, because it communicates the severity of the damage much more effectively. You take negatives as these boxes are filled in, and the way you narrate that as a gamemaster is pretty much spelled out for you because the severity of the wound is determined (without actually rolling a percentile chart to decide where a random blow lands, I think thats retarded). In other words, If somebody takes a serious wound, I can call it as a chest shot or whatever, but if the wound is minor... it might just be the shoulder or wrist, or an in-and-out gunshot to the intestine... or whatever, but that damage has a mechanical effect on gameplay. After being wounded, things are more difficult.

As a matter of fact, in a system with guns (shadowrun), this encourages avoiding being wounded by utilizing cover, baiting your enemy, and not blindly charging into a firefight. In a system without guns (burning wheel), this encourages studying your enemy, positioning yourself so as not to be flanked, judging his attitude (if he has a superior position, reach, etc), and not just blindly charging in. In effect, combat becomes more tactical, but you're still not playing warhammer.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: LMNO on October 15, 2009, 01:13:03 pm
In my opinion it's much easier, and more productive, to simply masturbate to internet porn.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Telarus on October 16, 2009, 06:59:00 am
lol
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Triple Zero on October 16, 2009, 07:51:13 am
In my opinion it's much easier, and more productive, to simply masturbate to internet porn.

NOT D&D.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: LMNO on October 16, 2009, 12:39:58 pm
In my opinion it's much easier, and more productive, to simply masturbate to internet porn.

NOT D&D.

:cn:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Kai on October 16, 2009, 05:15:33 pm
I think ya'all should play whatever game works for you. The real challenge is imagination and creativity. You could have basic rule books with errors galore and myriad mechanics, you could even run a game without any rulebooks (srsly). How much fun the game is depends on the camaraderie, focus and ingenuity of the players and the game master (if there even is one).

If the players don't get along, are distracted and with out focus and lacking in imagination and creativity, the game is going to suck no matter what system you use.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Richter on October 16, 2009, 05:28:50 pm
In my opinion it's much easier, and more productive, to simply masturbate to internet porn.

NOT D&D.

It's odd for a roleplayer to accuse someone of lack of imagination.  Just saying.  :)
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on October 16, 2009, 07:54:00 pm
In my opinion it's much easier, and more productive, to simply masturbate to internet porn.

NOT D&D.

YOU haven't read the Netbook of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge (http://gnba.netdemons.com/books/olik/Files/Carnal_PDF.zip)
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: PopeTom on October 16, 2009, 08:10:06 pm
In my opinion it's much easier, and more productive, to simply masturbate to internet porn.

Which is why 4th Edition is so awesome.  It makes creating an adventure so easy that the DM can now spend as much time masturbating to internet porn as the players in the group.

Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Richter on October 16, 2009, 10:39:21 pm
4th ed. 1 shot is the game for tonight.  The dude who usually GM;s is cranky.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 16, 2009, 10:59:15 pm
4th ed. 1 shot is the game for tonight.  The dude who usually GM;s is cranky.

All 4E is a one shot.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Richter on October 16, 2009, 11:41:43 pm
WAIT!

Host is fishing for other ideas. 
I'm brining a crapload of d6, energy shots and espresso beans.  Caffeine pirate gambling may be a game you play to loose...
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D
Post by: Cramulus on May 24, 2010, 03:16:54 pm
bump for lail

also, for the "D&D is just a video game crowd", here's one of the 3 designers of 4e talking about the similarities between 4e and WoW

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75850/18830874/D38;D_4e_=_WoW?pg=1
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2010, 03:23:54 pm
bump for lail

also, for the "D&D is just a video game crowd", here's one of the 3 designers of 4e talking about the similarities between 4e and WoW

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75850/18830874/D38;D_4e_=_WoW?pg=1

This makes me want to go to Louisana, find a chicken and a hoodoo woman so I can summon Gary Gygax to slaughter the all.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cramulus on May 24, 2010, 03:28:32 pm
 :p you realize the post was satire, yes?

James Wyatt clarifies his points in the following pages
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on May 24, 2010, 04:45:17 pm
 :lulz: That was pretty funny.

I'm firmly of the belief that a game, especially a roleplaying game, is as good as the people playing it. You can discuss mechanics and ephemera until your +1 Neckbeard of Nerd Rage turns gray, but you can't point to a group of people playing a game and say, "You guys aren't actually having fun!"

That said, I told 4E to go fuck itself 'cause Wizards of the Coast already has enough of my money and I didn't want to learn a new system, at least not until I'd played 3.5 into the dirt and gotten sick of it. I wouldn't be against playing it sometime, though.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Jasper on May 24, 2010, 07:12:27 pm
What I find interesting is how, whenever I hear DnD players talk about playing DnD, they seem to have this unspoken assumption that once 4th ed came out, they weren't allowed (somehow) to play 3.5,

Is that normal?
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Vene on May 24, 2010, 07:27:05 pm
What I find interesting is how, whenever I hear DnD players talk about playing DnD, they seem to have this unspoken assumption that once 4th ed came out, they weren't allowed (somehow) to play 3.5,

Is that normal?
Well, with a different tabletop game, Warhammer 40k, that's kind of how it is when there's a new edition or army codex released. Because, you know, newer is always better.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Jasper on May 24, 2010, 07:30:07 pm
Well with 40k I can see it, because it seems to be perpetually unbalanced by the latest new thing.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cramulus on May 24, 2010, 07:42:26 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_creep

That's just the state of the art in nearly any commercial game with regular releases.

I stopped playing MageKnight because I'd spend like a hundred bucks on a sweet army

and then in a month, they'd release a new type of power which effortlessly nuked everything I'd worked hard to collect

I stopped playing Magic for the same reason too.


in 4e, the classes in the PH2 are way more powerful than the classes in the PH1. (this is a source of lots of drama at my gaming table. As a level 7 barbarian, I can drop 100 damage in 1 round, while our warlock struggles to land 30s.) Oddly enough, the Ph3 classes are actually on par with the Ph1 classes.


What I find interesting is how, whenever I hear DnD players talk about playing DnD, they seem to have this unspoken assumption that once 4th ed came out, they weren't allowed (somehow) to play 3.5,

Is that normal?

it's been normal for every D&D release.

I wish I could find an archive of some of the D&D mailing lists from when D&D 3.0 was released. It was basically the same arguments about why 4th edition sucks. (waaah they took out all the role playing and made it too easy to understand!!) And also the gnashing about "I own $1000 worth of 2nd edition books, now I have to throw them all in a dumpster and set it on fire."
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2010, 07:55:12 pm
At this point I've played extensively in 3rd, 3.5 and 4th.

Our group has decided to go back to 3.5 for several reasons. First and foremost is that no matter which of us has tried running 4th ed, it feels more like a battle system with role playing included (not that is IS, just that's how it feels).  Also, it reminds me of the worst parts of Savage Worlds.

We have one friend that is just nuts for SW and 4th ed... his argument is that "Comabt is so much faster!!!" Yet, even when he DM's that simply doesn't scan... combat still takes a decent chunk of time... at best 4th ed and SW provide 1 shot kills for the grunts, but a good DM can manage that sort of thing in 3.5 without sacrificing anything.

Personally, I've found that 3.5 seems to provide a better environment for long campaigns and 4th ed is great for a weekend "We're going on a 23 hours dungeon crawl, bring Mt. Dew and Snacks".
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Telarus on May 24, 2010, 07:56:31 pm
Earthdawn Forever, baby!
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Freeky on May 24, 2010, 08:39:26 pm
I firmly support Paizo's Pathfinder system as the next update to WotC D&D 3.5. Even if 4th ed doesn't suck o some people, it's very nearly a totally different game now. Also I don't know anyone personally who wants to play 4th ed.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2010, 08:58:35 pm
Also, the pro-Savage Worlds geeks remind me of the Apple geeks... except I think Apple actually produces some awesome products.  :lulz:
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Cramulus on May 24, 2010, 09:21:29 pm
Our group has decided to go back to 3.5 for several reasons. First and foremost is that no matter which of us has tried running 4th ed, it feels more like a battle system with role playing included (not that is IS, just that's how it feels). 

see this really sounds like an issue with the DM -- I've played 2, 3, 3.5 and 4, and they're all more or less the same thing. I didn't find that the 3.5 campaigns I ran/played were any more "story" oriented than the 4.0 campaigns I've played.

I will admit that the published adventures have been somewhat"Fight, rest, fight, rest, fight, rest, boss fight, rest" Though there are some seriously cool moments in a few of them (the dragon fight in Thunderspire Labyrinth is fricking amazing - combining dragons, traps, and puzzles, and a countdown in the same action packed encounter)

Quote
We have one friend that is just nuts for SW and 4th ed... his argument is that "Comabt is so much faster!!!" Yet, even when he DM's that simply doesn't scan... combat still takes a decent chunk of time... at best 4th ed and SW provide 1 shot kills for the grunts, but a good DM can manage that sort of thing in 3.5 without sacrificing anything.

that's weird - at my table, combat goes WAY faster in 4e than 3. There's a lot less back and forth in each round, and the rules are much better streamlined.

3.XE

DM: I cast Word of Chaos. Make a will save, difficulty 28

Player: *rolls dice*, I fail

DM: What level are you?

Player: nine

DM: *thumbing through book* Okay, you are stunned* for *rolls dice* 3 rounds, deafened** for 1 round, and confused*** for *rolls dice* 6 minutes. That is a mind effecting enchantment.


*A stunned creature drops everything held, can’t take actions, takes a -2 penalty to AC, and loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).
**deafened = She takes a -4 penalty on initiative checks, automatically fails Listen checks, and has a 20% chance of spell failure when casting spells with verbal components.
***A confused character’s actions are determined by rolling d% at the beginning of his turn: 01-10, attack caster with melee or ranged weapons (or close with caster if attacking is not possible); 11-20, act normally; 21-50, do nothing but babble incoherently; 51-70, flee away from caster at top possible speed; 71-100, attack nearest creature (for this purpose, a familiar counts as part of the subject’s self). A confused character who can’t carry out the indicated action does nothing but babble incoherently. Attackers are not at any special advantage when attacking a confused character. Any confused character who is attacked automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn, as long as it is still confused when its turn comes. A confused character does not make attacks of opportunity against any creature that it is not already devoted to attacking (either because of its most recent action or because it has just been attacked).



4E

DM: I cast Word of Chaos. *rolls dice* I hit will 28

Player: you got me.

DM: You take *rolls dice* 20 damage and are slowed* and dazed**. Save ends both.

* slowed = movement speed becomes 2
** dazed = you can only take one action per turn. you grant combat advantage.




Quote
Personally, I've found that 3.5 seems to provide a better environment for long campaigns and 4th ed is great for a weekend "We're going on a 23 hours dungeon crawl, bring Mt. Dew and Snacks".

I know we've talked about this on the forum somewhere before and I'm beating a dead horse, but what in 4e exactly do you think makes it difficult to run a long campaign? I'm PCing in a 4e campaign that's approaching its first birthday, so I have definitely not had that experience.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D TALK
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2010, 09:57:53 pm
I'm sure that it can be done... don't get me wrong. I've been through a campaign in Savage Worlds so I mean, ANY SYSTEM can be used for campaigning...  ;-)

To be honest, I dunno why it ends up the way it does. We've all done DM'ing in 3.5, we've now all done DMing in 4.0... We've all made the argument that 'I can tell in any system'... but at the end of the day the subjective feeling of the group is 'err'. Now, for us, 3.5 doesn't generally fall into the "OMGZ Gotta look that up again" category, cause we're nerds and have been playing for ages and know most of the crazy stuff (also, the house rule... KNOW YOUR SHIT AND WHAT PAGE TO FIND IT ON IF THERE IS A QUESTION!!! seems to help a lot).

Problems I have with 4th Ed.

1. The Pigeonhole: Our group rarely plays a class straight. We work at coming up with why THIS (ranger, fighter, sorcerer, wizard, cleric etc etc etc) is worth being in whatever epic story is taking place. So we often pick a class and figure out which skills or feats or items or spells would give that character a unique view, unique abilities etc. I once played a human monk that never killed, he just grabbed people and put them to sleep. We had a half-giant sorcerer that was entirely melee and all of his spells were about defense or physical buffing. Etc etc... 4th Ed (at least in the games I've played) seems to have mechanics that strongly encourage (not necessarily force though) the player to play the same general role for that class.

2. Skill Challenges - Again, we have often done stuff entirely opposite of the expected standards... "Here's a challenge, you can use Skill X, Y or Z" vs "Here's a challenge... what do you do?

So in short, with tweaks and ignoring some of the rules, we've been able to play the way we like... but 3.5 doesn't require nearly as much hacking to make the world we want to play in.

I think....
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D TALK
Post by: Requia ☣ on May 26, 2010, 09:05:41 pm
I firmly support Paizo's Pathfinder system as the next update to WotC D&D 3.5. Even if 4th ed doesn't suck o some people, it's very nearly a totally different game now. Also I don't know anyone personally who wants to play 4th ed.

Pretty much this, beginning to end.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Requia ☣ on May 26, 2010, 09:26:13 pm
What I find interesting is how, whenever I hear DnD players talk about playing DnD, they seem to have this unspoken assumption that once 4th ed came out, they weren't allowed (somehow) to play 3.5,

Is that normal?

When 3.0 came out, and again with 3.5, it very quickly became impossible to find a game run in the older style.  Everyone wanted to move to the new thing.

I haven't seen that happen with fourth though, I know more 3.5 and pathfinder games that are going on than 4th games.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Freeky on May 27, 2010, 03:50:11 am
What I find interesting is how, whenever I hear DnD players talk about playing DnD, they seem to have this unspoken assumption that once 4th ed came out, they weren't allowed (somehow) to play 3.5,

Is that normal?

They discontinue old books, and get rid of the free downloads they have for the old system, which makes it near impossible to get new stuff to play, as Requia says.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D 3.5 TALK: Demi-Lich vs Tarrasque
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on December 23, 2010, 02:25:19 pm
What I find interesting is how, whenever I hear DnD players talk about playing DnD, they seem to have this unspoken assumption that once 4th ed came out, they weren't allowed (somehow) to play 3.5,

Is that normal?

They discontinue old books, and get rid of the free downloads they have for the old system, which makes it near impossible to get new stuff to play, as Requia says.

They didn't just get rid of free downloads, they got rid of a lot of the merely low-cost/discounted downloads as well. it really pisses me off. That's why I now absolutely refuse to buy any new* Wizards Of The Coast products.


*(used and/or fenced WoTC products I'll still buy if the price is right, since WoTC doesn't profit from such sales)
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D TALK
Post by: Cramulus on December 23, 2010, 02:43:28 pm
I think a lot of that stuff is still available via torrent. Might have to do some digging, but I'm sure people have archived that old content.

Such is the way of things though - It's like, Nintendo no longer sells the SNES, which is a shame, because I loved that system better than any other.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D TALK
Post by: Telarus on December 23, 2010, 09:36:13 pm
There's still some decent stuff here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/downloads

Especially the od&d adventure pdfs.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20030530b
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D TALK
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on December 25, 2010, 02:42:39 am
I think a lot of that stuff is still available via torrent. Might have to do some digging, but I'm sure people have archived that old content.

Such is the way of things though - It's like, Nintendo no longer sells the SNES, which is a shame, because I loved that system better than any other.

Indeed. The controller even actually worked as advertised, unlike their more recent products.
Title: Re: WARNING: D&D TALK
Post by: Scytale Anasűrimbor on January 21, 2011, 03:11:29 am
D&D pseudo-noob reporting for duty! (i did start on AD&D second edition, though i have not played nearly as much nor as hardcorely as you guys).

FWIW, i'll pitch in with the "don't like 4e" camp, as the only campaign i have ever played on it  (and ended up leaving halfway through because of the group itself, although that is not the games fault) i did not enjoy as much as the games i've played of 3/3.5/p.finder, let alone the ones with the original party i started with on 2nd edition.

sooooo.... there we have it. i think i'm the first on the thread to say i did not like 4e because i simply enjoyed the other editions more :) (and i still miss non-weapon proficiencies :p).

*cowers in fear from the mighty DnD powerhouses he just wandered between while awaiting judgement*

oh yeah, and demi-lich > tarrasque, but the tarrasque is a lot cooler.