Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Any D&D/D20

Shadowrun

World of Darkness

Palladium

Other (feel free to post about it)

[Naryar]

>"Sorry, nothing I can do. It's what the book says."
[SNIP]
>Player points out that only negative constitution kills, not strength.
>"Sorry, my game, my rules. In my games any negative stat kills."
>Player gets mad, leaves.

Good move by the player.  Even without the first part.  Trying to stick to the RAW is already a losing battle, but sticking so hard to a houserule is just crass.

Well, technically, 0 or less STR should also kill. Without muscles, you can't breathe anymore. See: giant cave spiders.

If you manage to keep a STR 0 guy breathing, however, he should survive.

However I agree that 0 DX, 0 INT, 0 WIS or 0 CHA shouldn't kill. At least not directly.

[Bohandas]

>"Sorry, nothing I can do. It's what the book says."
[SNIP]
>Player points out that only negative constitution kills, not strength.
>"Sorry, my game, my rules. In my games any negative stat kills."
>Player gets mad, leaves.

Good move by the player.  Even without the first part.  Trying to stick to the RAW is already a losing battle, but sticking so hard to a houserule is just crass.

Well, technically, 0 or less STR should also kill. Without muscles, you can't breathe anymore.

Even then you'd use he rules for suffocation

[Naryar]

>"Sorry, nothing I can do. It's what the book says."
[SNIP]
>Player points out that only negative constitution kills, not strength.
>"Sorry, my game, my rules. In my games any negative stat kills."
>Player gets mad, leaves.

Good move by the player.  Even without the first part.  Trying to stick to the RAW is already a losing battle, but sticking so hard to a houserule is just crass.

Well, technically, 0 or less STR should also kill. Without muscles, you can't breathe anymore.

Even then you'd use he rules for suffocation

Yeah, I agree.

I remember them rules when i was playing/GMing Pathfinder, one of my players entered into a river and was swept away. He kept failing his swim checks, it was hilarious. (And everyone thought so). And it wasn't a scrawny guy, oh no. He just had a flaw who gave him a malus to Swim and no points in Swim.

He ended up safe but a few thousand meters downstream. And he had no air for one minute or so, while struggling to keep for breath, and he ended up with no damage.

I don't like the D&D suffocation rules. Far too much arbitrary rules in Pathfinder/D&D. Though I have read some AD&D2 books and I've liked what I saw.

edit: Oh wow. I have read the thread, and seriously, "you're fine with slavery because you are lawful" is the worst argument ever.

Retard doesn't know how alignments work, nor how LG can mean two different things in two different countries.

[BlackFlyme]

Yeah, being lawful doesn't mean that you have to respect every law in the world. He said he planned to anticipate every possible option we could make in his campaign, but didn't expect for our almost all good party, three characters of which worship gods whose domains include freedom, to say slavery is bad.

There is the thought that it may have been partly to railroad us, but he is bad with alignments. I believe that I have mentioned the time he tried to force pvp in a different campaign that he was not even DM of. I gave our shaman permission to use an aoe spell that I was in the way of. He then jumped up and exclaimed that as a lawful character, I would be intolerant to friendly fire, and tried to force a fight.

[Neonivek]

(person) doesn't know how alignments work, nor how LG can mean two different things in two different countries.

Edited for PC

Anyhow... Lawful Good can mean different things within the same country.

Yeah it is more then possible a Lawful Good person could be fully 100% in support of Slavery... It is also possible you wouldn't like it.

I personally think that Good can fight other Good on issues. The difference is that Good usually tries to avoid it.

[Naryar]

Yeah, being lawful doesn't mean that you have to respect every law in the world. He said he planned to anticipate every possible option we could make in his campaign, but didn't expect for our almost all good party, three characters of which worship gods whose domains include freedom, to say slavery is bad.

There is the thought that it may have been partly to railroad us, but he is bad with alignments. I believe that I have mentioned the time he tried to force pvp in a different campaign that he was not even DM of. I gave our shaman permission to use an aoe spell that I was in the way of. He then jumped up and exclaimed that as a lawful character, I would be intolerant to friendly fire, and tried to force a fight.

Control freak DM. The worst kind.

I know because I'm quite sure I have been control-freaky on occasion, if I felt I was not controlling the story anymore. Especially when I was new.

Someone needs to explain to him that stories are made by DM's AND players. Sometimes, the story doesn't go the way it was planned, and it's not a bad thing.

Also he really needs to stop being a control freak. This isn't a videogame where you are mostly railroaded, this is a trip in another world. Let them explore.

Some limits are necessary (examples: PvP, relative power of characters and munchkinism) but arbitrary limits are very bad.

Or you can drop alignments. Alignments are a way to get all kind of personalities into nine descriptions, and it fails.

Really instead of alignment, D&D characters should have personality traits, flaws, and advantages, and they should be rewarded if they roleplay them well. Extra XP isn't a bad way if it gives an incentive for players to roleplay better and have a better story.

(person) doesn't know how alignments work, nor how LG can mean two different things in two different countries.

Edited for PC

Anyhow... Lawful Good can mean different things within the same country.

Yeah it is more then possible a Lawful Good person could be fully 100% in support of Slavery... It is also possible you wouldn't like it.

I personally think that Good can fight other Good on issues. The difference is that Good usually tries to avoid it.

True. Although a LG, if supportive of slavery, should at least give them a chance to go free, or at the very least treat them well.

[Neonivek]

Ok so I have to make a decision between allowing or disallowing a character

I make it no mystery that in Pathfinder I flat out don't like Cavaliers... they feel like a NPC class mostly because their reliance on their Mount sets them up for a lot of disappointing moments that a lot of players wouldn't be able to handle.

But in this case this Cavalier is tossing around 60 damage... when a fireball at this level is only dealing 17

[SOLDIER First]

psay
allow it but with AB/Feat nerfs

[Neonivek]

psay
allow it but with AB/Feat nerfs

Yeah I just basically disallowed Spirited Charge and the Lance.

I understand the concept behind it mind you. But right now it is potent ESPECIALLY in combination with other feats (namely the Charge and run)

Heck the Cavalier gets the equivalent of that feat at level 20...

But I don't know if I am overly nerfing the character or not.

[Naryar]

It's heavy cavalry with lances. It's supposed to be the best military unit at this age. Well, that or horse archers.

Besides martial classes aren't the problem in D&D. Clerics, Wizards and Druids are.

Also, you gotta factor in DPR. It's 60 damage per two rounds, or three. They need to charge, and then retreat and do nothing. And they're limited to terrain, and a wall rekts them.

Of course cavaliers are awesome when they charge. It's literally their only good point. Cavaliers are low-tier, really.

Maybe keep spirited charge at a certain level. Let them keep lances... as I said, heavy cavalry with lances dominated the medieval battlefield.

Let them have their manly charging and jousting opponents. It is so easy to counter a cavalier : in a dungeon, or with flying enemies, or with obstacles, or with phalanxes of reach-weapon mooks who are bracing... really.

[BlackFlyme]

Depending on the mount, they may have some issues with actually getting to ride. Unless they are small or have the undersized mount feat, in which case they won't have to worry about squeezing.

But early on, yeah, cavaliers can be one of the heavier hitters because of lance bonuses to damage on mounted charges. I will recommend this: disallow the feat 'evolved companion', as they can use it to get pounce for their mount. Though some companions get it by default.

[andrea]

Actually naryar, the ride-by attack feat may allow to charge every round in open space, by simply going far enough behind the target and running again next round.

[Naryar]

Actually naryar, the ride-by attack feat may allow to charge every round in open space, by simply going far enough behind the target and running again next round.

Oh, right. You were the cavalier... you know that better than me

Though even then using ride-by attack, maybe I would remove 2x damage. Maybe 1,5x damage.

Double damage with a lance due to charging should really be brought to spears as well (no reason you can't couch a spear) and damage should be relative to speed.

Also breaking lances due to excessive damage and stuff. And you needing armor to hold the lance and so it doesn't enter into your flesh and do damage.

[Neonivek]

There are RARELY ways to get a person to leave behind their mount... such as when they need to climb (but ALL cavaliers get their horse boots of spiderclimb)

The Lances and Spirited Charge honestly felt to me as a way to make Mounts worth it because they never improve and thus can be killed off quite easily.

[Naryar]

There are RARELY ways to get a person to leave behind their mount... such as when they need to climb (but ALL cavaliers get their horse boots of spiderclimb)

Try making use of cavalry in a standard dungeon. I double dog dare you.

And no, Reduce Person (AND Reduce Creature, is that even a druid spell) is hax. Mostly because reduce person = 1/4x mass = less kinetic energy AND less STR for both mount and rider = far less energy = far less damage.

Not to mention counting the cavalier's Str instead of his mount's for damage... really.

No, I don't care about the D&D rules. I'm trying to make sense of all of this on a realistic point of view.