PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Peter Meilinger <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote:
> [Exploiting a PC's family members] can also be used to railroad the
> player(s). "I know you'd prefer to explore the Dark Forest, but
> according to the courier your mother is really sick and needs your
> help. You're not going to just let her die, are you?"

Yeah, that's no good, but it can work well if you present it
differently. Drop the value judgment, and simply explain that the mother
is ill. He can attend to her, explore the forest, or try to do both (in
either order). It's potentially a good way to explore the character's
motives, personality, and priorities. Some characters would rush to the
sick relative, some would go exploring and hope she's still alive when
they get back, some might feel remorse if they don't visit, some won't
care.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <KqidnRow0v4NW9HfRVn-iQ@comcast.com>,
Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>Much as I abhor definitions, I wouldn't mind one right now, since I still
>miss the point. You obviously disagree with both my previously understood
>definition, and the definition I found online "combat without risk". So
>what is munchkinism?

You probably won't get complete agreement on "munchkinism". My take on it is
that munchkinism is the rolegaming of children (ie little people, as in Oz
movie munchkins), who seek power for their characters as a way of avoiding the
dangers of significant challenges. Powergaming seeks power to take on
significant challenges.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in
news:114q0db1c9lra10@corp.supernews.com:

> Quentin Stephens wrote:

>> And give the fighter something useful and fun to compensate -
>> say an intelligent Sword +1, Bane vs Humanoids, Divine Power 3x
>> day, but the fighter has to follow the sword's dictates to get
>> the bennies.
>
> I'd rather not add magic items to compensate, if possible.

Notice the catch?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 01:32:26 -0600, David Serhienko
<david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> I just got a gander at his equipment list again tonight. He's toting
> standard full plate, and a Master Work Longsword. Those are the major
> bits. He's got around 3500 gp in coin stashed, though, since he's been
> taking larger cash payouts during loot division.

I suggest 2000gp on +1 full plate and a +1 large shield. Then save a
bit more and get a +1 sword. And yes, it should be in that order -
raising your damage output is all very nice, but that's where the
barbarian will always outshine him, so better to boost AC and become
the solid point around which everyone else works.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnd4nm29.tqj.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> > The exact total depends on the level of the scrolls and the AC of
the
> > bracers. If they're 4th-level spells and AC 8 bracers, that's worth
> > 8,265 gp. If the bracers are AC 6, the total jumps to at least
20,265 gp.
> > In D&D3, a 6th-level character should have about 13,000 gp worth of
> > gear. Unless those bracers are AC 8, your wizard actually has more
> > magical gear than a typical D&D3 character.
>
> Hrm. So explain to me then, how is it that there ALWAYS seems to be
an
> abundance of magic when people talk about 3E campaigns? Everyone has
+
> weapons and + armor, various potions and scrolls, misc magic, even at
low
> levels. At least that's the appearance of things.

.. . . it's not an abundance, Jeff-o. Compared to standard 3e rules,
it's as much as characters are supposed to have.

Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque; play another edition, or another
magic setting, and maybe then it *is* an abundance, in comparison. But
only then.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SrWdnfGDccdy9dHfRVn-ow@comcast.com...
> Hrm. So explain to me then, how is it that there ALWAYS seems to be an
> abundance of magic when people talk about 3E campaigns?

Explain to us then, how it is that there is ALWAYS an abundance of magic
in 2E and 1E adventure modules?

There is an abundance of magic in D&D, Goslin. 3E is structured to
ration that abundance in an enlightened fashion (when using default power
settings) so that low level characters have an abundance of *weak* magic.

Here on this newsgroup, we assume default 3E rules in our discussions -
not our particular house rules on the matter (irrelevant to anyone else). I
certainly don't lecture anyone about how they "should" use *my* ideal method
of making characters make their own magical items.

Please, stop being so ignorant in public.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:JMY3e.4611$x4.197@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Here on this newsgroup, we assume default 3E rules in our
discussions -

Yes, I know that, which is why I tend to preface every comment I make with a
disclaimer, "We play 2E".

> Please, stop being so ignorant in public.

You first.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tuidndTRVZ3t8M3fRVn-pg@comcast.com...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:JMY3e.4611$x4.197@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Here on this newsgroup, we assume default 3E rules in our
> discussions -
>
> Yes, I know that, which is why I tend to preface every comment I make with
a
> disclaimer, "We play 2E".

Hey, look! Another non sequitur.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
>
> Yes, I know that, which is why I tend to preface every comment
> I make with a disclaimer, "We play 2E".

He knows perfectly well you "play" 2e. We all know perfectly well you
"play" 2e. He answered your question by pointing out that *YOUR*
chosen game system HAS THE SAME PROBLEM. It has *nothing* to do with
3e, and everything to do with DEFAULT D&D. Which is exactly what he
said, and you tried to sidestep with your usual dishonest behavior.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Nikolas Landauer" <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote in message
news:1112592883.bf5dfe6334f1d4348711cf9c3685cc73@teranews...
> 3e, and everything to do with DEFAULT D&D. Which is exactly what he
> said, and you tried to sidestep with your usual dishonest behavior.

Why is it that every time someone says something that is disagreed with, the
default thing to say is that the person is being "dishonest", that they are
"lying", and other ways to indicate that they are being intentionally
deceptive. This is, of course, not the case, but that's hardly the point.
It would appear that being called a liar when you clearly are NOT one(merely
a person with a different opinion), is to be taken as some great offense in
these parts.

Maybe it's just me, but calling someone a liar when they are not is the
exact same thing as telling them that YOU are a liar. You might want to
stop slinging that word around if being a liar is supposed to be offensive
in some way.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> >
> > you tried to sidestep with your usual dishonest behavior.
>
> Why is it that every time someone says something that is
> disagreed with, the default thing to say is that the person
> is being "dishonest", that they are "lying", and other ways
> to indicate that they are being intentionally deceptive.

You *are* clearly being intentionally deceptive, when you snip the
WORDS THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, and address an unrelated, tangential
point as if it was the only attempted response to you.

That *is* deception.

> It would appear that being called a liar when you clearly
> are NOT one (merely a person with a different opinion),

Google disagrees with your fantasy world where you're always right.
Repeatedly.

> Maybe it's just me, but calling someone a liar when they are
> not is the exact same thing as telling them that YOU are a
> liar. You might want to stop slinging that word around if
> being a liar is supposed to be offensive in some way.

If you don't think it is, you're ethically bankrupt, which would
surprise no one.

Google proves me right, and you wrong. You're the liar here, boy.

And besides, Bacon does this better than you.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7cOdnZsP0qy0Rc3fRVn-qg@comcast.com...
> "Nikolas Landauer" <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote in message
> > 3e, and everything to do with DEFAULT D&D. Which is exactly what he
> > said, and you tried to sidestep with your usual dishonest behavior.
>
> Why is it that every time someone says something that is disagreed with,
the
> default thing to say is that the person is being "dishonest", that they
are
> "lying",

Lying again, we see.

How ironic.

Here's an idea, you fat, slobbering bitch. Stop misrepresenting others'
arguments.


-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Nikolas Landauer just
said...
> You *are* clearly being intentionally deceptive, when you snip the
> WORDS THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, and address an unrelated, tangential
> point as if it was the only attempted response to you.
>
> That *is* deception.

It's also 90% of what I will call - with some irony - Goslin's debating
style (really it's more a style of trying to *avoid* debate). Right
here, you've neatly summarized why I concluded it wasn't worth the
bother and killfiled him.

 

[drow]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Alien mind control rays made Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> write:
> Maybe it's just me, but calling someone a liar when they are not is the
> exact same thing as telling them that YOU are a liar. You might want to
> stop slinging that word around if being a liar is supposed to be offensive
> in some way.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it
means."

--
\^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ Pants on fire!
// \_\

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Gary Johnson <zzjohnsg@uqconnect.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Peter Meilinger wrote:
>
>> Well, I'll let out a bit myself - instead of deliberately
>> fudging/cheating to get rid of the berries, what about saying to the
>> player, "Hey, I think those berries turned out to be way more powerful
>> than I was expecting. I'm going to say they've rotted, but I wanted you
>> to know why I made that decision?"
>
> Testify!
>
> Personally, I think that if it's a metagame problem, it needs a metagame
> solution. Depending on the personalities involved, I'd even go as far as
> to tell the player, "I think the berries are more powerful than I was
> expecting, and I want to remove them from the game. You're the only player
> whose character is currently using them: do you have any suggestions on
> how to remove them from the game, or shall I take care of that?" Of
> course, in a group more adversarial game contract, this approach may not
> work: YMMV.

For that matter, he's *not* using them. He's just the one carrying them
around.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
> Gary Johnson <zzjohnsg@uqconnect.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Peter Meilinger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well, I'll let out a bit myself - instead of deliberately
>>>fudging/cheating to get rid of the berries, what about saying to the
>>>player, "Hey, I think those berries turned out to be way more powerful
>>>than I was expecting. I'm going to say they've rotted, but I wanted you
>>>to know why I made that decision?"
>>
>>Testify!
>>
>>Personally, I think that if it's a metagame problem, it needs a metagame
>>solution. Depending on the personalities involved, I'd even go as far as
>>to tell the player, "I think the berries are more powerful than I was
>>expecting, and I want to remove them from the game. You're the only player
>>whose character is currently using them: do you have any suggestions on
>>how to remove them from the game, or shall I take care of that?" Of
>>course, in a group more adversarial game contract, this approach may not
>>work: YMMV.
>
>
> For that matter, he's *not* using them. He's just the one carrying them
> around.

I was going to say: "Keith, you are exactly right, he isn't using them
(often). So they really aren't a problem."

But then, that's isn't entirely true.

Having those berries in his pouch allows him to indiscrimatelyly make
use of his replenishable daily supply of Rages, knowing that he always
has a way of getting more, if he has to do so.

Thus, while he never uses the berries, directly, the barbarian in
question does use them as an insurance policy, which severly reduces the
opportunity cost for raging.

Thus, in a sense, I've unintentionally disabled the X/day restriction on
Raging, which the designers presumably felt was a necessary limitation
on the barbarian.

<selfmocking>
Why use one sentence when you can write four paragraphs!
</selfmocking>

DWS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
> Keith Davies wrote:
>>
>> For that matter, he's *not* using [the rage berries]. He's just the
>> one carrying them around.
>
> I was going to say: "Keith, you are exactly right, he isn't using
> them (often). So they really aren't a problem."
>
> But then, that's isn't entirely true.

[three paragraphs snipped]

There is that -- while he's not actively using them, they do provide a
buffer. They don't have as much power directly, but indirectly relax
the need to conserve rage uses.

><selfmocking>
> Why use one sentence when you can write four paragraphs!
></selfmocking>

I do the same thing. As Blaise Pascal put it (more or less), 'this
missive is so long because I lacked time to write a shorter one'.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 2 Apr 2005 10:58:56 GMT, Quentin Stephens <stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in
> news:114q0db1c9lra10@corp.supernews.com:
>
> > Quentin Stephens wrote:
>
> >> And give the fighter something useful and fun to compensate -
> >> say an intelligent Sword +1, Bane vs Humanoids, Divine Power 3x
> >> day, but the fighter has to follow the sword's dictates to get
> >> the bennies.
> >
> > I'd rather not add magic items to compensate, if possible.
>
> Notice the catch?

I think that brings in a problem - the fighter has been, in order to
counterbalance the barbarian, given a cool item. However that item
forces the player to limit his characters choices in order to benefit.
"IOW, it's effectively a punishment for having a character that needed
boosting - the fighter's player is being punished for the barbarian's
player's good fortune/power gamer skillz/better character.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Serhienko wrote:
> Having those berries in his pouch allows him to indiscrimatelyly make

> use of his replenishable daily supply of Rages, knowing that he
always
> has a way of getting more, if he has to do so.

Well, if you haven't gotten rid of them already, I have a suggestion.
Instead of having them be stolen or rot or vanish or whatever, have
them *hatch*. Those "berries" of rage were actually the eggs of
something interesting or valuable or nasty, or all three. Instead of
leaving the player with the feeling that his goodies were stolen by the
man, give him a roleplaying thrill.

It's all in the handling.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

emmitsvenson@hotmail.com wrote:
> David Serhienko wrote:
>
>>Having those berries in his pouch allows him to indiscrimatelyly make
>
>
>>use of his replenishable daily supply of Rages, knowing that he
>
> always
>
>>has a way of getting more, if he has to do so.
>
>
> Well, if you haven't gotten rid of them already, I have a suggestion.
> Instead of having them be stolen or rot or vanish or whatever, have
> them *hatch*. Those "berries" of rage were actually the eggs of
> something interesting or valuable or nasty, or all three. Instead of
> leaving the player with the feeling that his goodies were stolen by the
> man, give him a roleplaying thrill.
>
> It's all in the handling.

So. Damn. Cool.

That is *SO* happening. Even if the berries weren't a game balance
issue, that is too tasty an event.

You rule!

DWS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Alex Johnson <compuwiz@psualum.com> typed:

>Matt Frisch wrote:
>> Axes don't work well when used on the forge. Hammers do. Why learn two
>> weapons when you already have a really good one for your main job?
>
>Axes are also prone to do much less damage against a skeletal foe. And
>in our game we face so much skeletal undead that my dwarven barbarian
>switched from axe to war hammer around 2nd or 3rd level and never looked
>back.

In 3.5, the warhammer does the same damage as the axe. It's otherwise
identical except for cost (2gp more) and weight (1 lb less).

1lb LESS? For a HAMMER? Those pesky sharp bits must weigh quite a
bit. Cut them off and all is well. I assume they're just flash from
the casting...though maybe it's a representation not of raw mass but
of how awkward the thing is to carry.

This leads one to suggest a Dwarven Warhammer: 1d8/1d10, 20/x3, 35gp,
7 lb, 1/2H semiexotic as a bastard sword

And a Greathammer: 2H, 1d10/1d12, 20/x3, 25gp, 11lb

--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jim Davies" <jim@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote in message
news:0c2651hijoi3ieheo3n3rnh5e7rnu04o7b@4ax.com...
> Alex Johnson <compuwiz@psualum.com> typed:
> In 3.5, the warhammer does the same damage as the axe. It's otherwise
> identical except for cost (2gp more) and weight (1 lb less).
>
> 1lb LESS? For a HAMMER? Those pesky sharp bits must weigh quite a
> bit.

3.5 is schitzophrenic about what warhammers look like, but *real*
warhammers should weigh less than batlte axes; the weapons are shorter and
the business ends are rather a lot more compact.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "Jim Davies" <jim@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote in message
> news:0c2651hijoi3ieheo3n3rnh5e7rnu04o7b@4ax.com...
>
>>Alex Johnson <compuwiz@psualum.com> typed:
>>In 3.5, the warhammer does the same damage as the axe. It's otherwise
>>identical except for cost (2gp more) and weight (1 lb less).
>>
>>1lb LESS? For a HAMMER? Those pesky sharp bits must weigh quite a
>>bit.
>
>
> 3.5 is schitzophrenic about what warhammers look like, but *real*
> warhammers should weigh less than batlte axes; the weapons are shorter and
> the business ends are rather a lot more compact.
>
> -Michael

MSB you turd, quit attributing other people's quotes to me. This isn't
even from this part of the thread, much less me.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Alex Johnson" <compuwiz@psualum.com> wrote in message
news:d30nvh$umd$2@news01.intel.com...
> MSB you turd, quit attributing other people's quotes to me. This isn't
> even from this part of the thread, much less me.

News at 11! An accidental overzealous header snip causes irritable Alex
to fly into a CRUEL KILLING RAGE!

I apologize for the confusion.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

emmitsvenson@hotmail.com wrote in
news:1112751622.421957.310440@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>
> David Serhienko wrote:
>> Having those berries in his pouch allows him to
>> indiscrimatelyly make
>
>> use of his replenishable daily supply of Rages, knowing that he
> always
>> has a way of getting more, if he has to do so.
>
> Well, if you haven't gotten rid of them already, I have a
> suggestion. Instead of having them be stolen or rot or vanish or
> whatever, have them *hatch*. Those "berries" of rage were
> actually the eggs of something interesting or valuable or nasty,
> or all three. Instead of leaving the player with the feeling
> that his goodies were stolen by the man, give him a roleplaying
> thrill.

This is so much better than my suggestion.