Path: relief.cts.com!newshub.cts.com!atmnet.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter1!news.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.monmouth.com!uunet!in5.uu.net!news.anet-chi.com!usenet From: [a--r--y] at [anet-chi.NOJUNK.com] (Aardy R. DeVarque) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd Subject: FAQ: RGFD 8/9 -- Gamespeak 1: Players Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 01:00:36 GMT Organization: Aardy's Aardvark Emporium Lines: 470 Message-ID: <[346 cd 06 d 383180806] at [news.anet-chi.com]> Reply-To: [a--r--y] at [anet-chi.com] NNTP-Posting-Host: chi-pru.max1-96.anet-chi.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Xref: relief.cts.com rec.games.frp.dnd:243586 X-Cache: nntpcache 1.0.6.5 (see ftp://suburbia.net/pub/nntpcache) REC.GAMES.FRP.DND FAQ Part 8 Gamespeak 1: For Player's Eyes =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= For Player's Eyes J1: What books do I need in order to play? J2: Does the weapon proficiency "Ambidexterity" give me extra attacks? J3: Is the use of poison automatically an evil act? J4: What about slitting throats? Anything else? J5: Are all orcs inherently evil? What about orc babies? J6: Can mages wear armor? J7: I don't like the spell memorization system for clerics & wizards... J8: What does "Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic Good/Neutral/Evil" really indicate? J9: Is alignment really necessary? J10: What is a morning star? J11: But medieval combat wasn't anything like the way it is in *D&D! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= For Player's Eyes J1: What books do I need in order to play? A: Technically, as a player, you need absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch. A pencil, paper, and dice certainly are useful, but can easily be borrowed; rules can be explained by the DM or more experienced players. However, it is usually move convenient to have a personal copy of the rules for easy perusal in and outside of the gaming sessions. To this end, it is advisable to get the Players Handbook (preferably the same edition which the group is playing). The Complete Handbook for your character's class and/or race may be a welcome addition, as may the Player's Option books, but they are not absolutely necessary. Beyond that, it is just personal preferences. Nothing else is truly needed, despite what the promotional material TSR puts out may say; however, most people like having a little more than just the PH by their side when they play. J2: Does the weapon proficiency "Ambidexterity" give me extra attacks? A: No, it certainly does not. By itself, Ambidexterity merely eliminates the "off-hand" penalty for using a weapon in your left hand if you are right-handed or vice-versa. By the same token, it allows characters to do tasks equally well with either hand, so that if one hand is lost, the other can easily take up the slack. It is when this is combined with other abilities that things get confusing. Here is a handy-dandy little chart to aid in fathoming the mysteries of the interaction of ambidexterity with other abilities: to-hit penalty normal ambid. main/off-hand main/off-hand Fighting w/ one weapon 0 -2 0 0 Fighting w/ two weapons* -2 -4 -2 -2 Fighting w/ Two-weapon Style spec. 0 -2 0 0 * The penalty for using two weapons is modified by the character's Reaction Adjustment, based on DEX; however, the penalty can never be lowered beyond 0 by either this modifier or ambidexterity (i.e., the DEX Reaction Adjustment may only lessen the effects of the penalty, not grant any plusses to hit). Any other modifiers work as usual. Ambidexterity does not grant extra attacks per round, but fighting with one weapon in each hand, whether or not a character is specialized in that style, does. The limit is that the one wielded in the off-hand (if a character is ambidextrous, he chooses an "off" hand, but has no penalties for using that hand, and can switch in which hand he uses which weapon) must be smaller in size/weight than the one wielded in the main hand, except when both hands wield daggers. This does not necessarily mean if must be a smaller size class, but that it must be smaller in length and/or weight, which makes for good use of the length/weight charts in the Equipment section of the various PH's. The length requirement is eliminated when a fighter specializes in the Two-Weapon Style, thus allowing a fighter to wield a long sword in each hand. Here's a chart to explain the attacks per round of someone fighting with two weapons: 1 weapon 2 weapons | 2 weapons Att/rnd Character level Att/rnd Att/rnd | main off-hand Fighter 1-6/all other classes 1/1 2/1 | 1/1 1/1 Fighter 7-12, 1-6 specialized* 3/2 5/2 | 3/2 1/1 Fighter 13+, 7-12 specialized 2/1 3/1 | 2/1 1/1 Fighter 13+ specialized 5/2 7/2 | 5/2 1/1 * "Specialized" refers to whether or not a fighter has specialized in the weapon being used in his main hand, not to "Two-Weapon Style specialization" Neither the Ambidexterity proficiency nor Two Weapon Style specialization have any effect on the number of attacks per round. As the table shows, the number of attacks per round for the main weapon does not change when a second weapon is picked up; the second weapon only gets one attack per round, regardless of character level. For example, a character who normally has 3/2 att/rnd gets one attack during the first round and two attacks during the second round, alternating each round (the lower number of attacks always occurs during odd-numbered rounds). This character then picks up a second weapon. Technically, the character now gets 5/2 att/rnd, but it breaks down to one attack with the main weapon and one with the off-hand weapon in the first round, and two attacks with the main weapon and one with the off-hand weapon in the second round, alternating each round. For those of you crying "munchkin!" to all of this, there is a simple limiting factor: a fighter, for example, only has four starting weapon proficiencies (modified by intelligence via # of languages). The weapon of choice is one, specialization in that weapon is one, ambidexterity is one, and two-weapon style is one, taking up all four of the initial slots. This pretty much turns the character into a Johnny One-Note. If he wishes to use any other weapons, he'll have to use those extra language slots, which takes away slots from potential non-weapon proficiencies. Without those extra NWP's, the character will be extremely limited in what he can do besides just fight. If he is put in a situation where he cannot use his weapon of choice, he will be unable to be very helpful to a group unless the player does some good roleplaying. The Player's Option rules also allow a character to pick up this ability and all the bonuses that entails, but they also introduce some DM-enforceable drawbacks of their own. J3: Is the use of poison automatically an evil act? A: If depends on how the DM rules. Some DM's feel that use of poison is an inherently evil act, and its use by a character causes an alignment switch. Others feel that, while it is not a particularly good act, it is not particularly evil, either, and can be used with caution. Still others feel that poison is just a weapon, as is any other, and thus may be used by any and all characters with impunity. There are equally persuasive arguments for any of these positions, and it is really best left to individual DM's. Here to help with the decision are three of the various points of view. Poison is a cowardly way out of a situation. It is best left to those who wish to skulk in the shadows and strike from afar. It is also good for those people who like to make sure their enemies suffer horrible agonies before dying. Since poison is essentially a tool for cowardly bullies and torturers, it is a proper tool of those of evil alignment. Everyone else should stay as far from it as possible. The use of poison is not inherently evil, but, by the same token, is not inherently good either. Thus people who wish to stay pure should avoid its use, but any others don't have to worry much about how they accomplish an end. Poison is a weapon, just like any other. Thus it can be used like any other weapon, whether to strike down otherwise-unreachable fiends, or to put an end to the overwhelming righteousness of a paladin, or to have a political superior suddenly leave his position vacant for the taking. Poison may be used in much the same way as a sword, but has less of a chance of maiming and is thus possibly more humane! In any case, poison is just the tool--it is the heart behind the action which determines one's good or evil nature. J4: What about slitting throats? Anything else? A: Once again, this is really a decision for individual DM's. However, there are hardly any situations where slitting a throat could be considered a good act. In most cases, it requires having an otherwise helpless victim, one which good characters should be trying to reform or turn over to the proper authorities for suitable punishment. Killing someone in cold blood, regardless of their past actions, is an action which any character should seriously think twice about. Killing in the heat of battle is one thing, but in cold blood (and especially if premeditated) is something else altogether. A character who consistently does this sort of thing should do some serious introspection on his outlook on life and consider an alignment change to something more suitable. Nevertheless, there are a few situations where slitting a throat might be a necessity. Mercy killing is one, as the onset of death is quick. Dealing with guards who would otherwise raise an alarm is another, but more questionable one. In either case, if the action does not haunt the character for a long while, then it is quite possible that the character is a closet sociopath, and therefore is not actually of his stated alignment. J5: Are all orcs inherently evil? What about orc babies? A: The "inherently evil" question, this is best left to individual DM's. Some campaigns work best with definitive divisions between black and white, much like many old westerns. The good guys are always heroically good, and the bad guys are always detestably and thoroughly evil and corrupt. In these games, all orcs are evil, regardless of age, period. However, some campaigns thrive on shades of grey, where the line between good and evil isn't always obvious. In these games, orcs might be misunderstood, might have some good tribes falsly accused of wrongdoing by nearby townspeople, or might have a wide range of alignments, but with a higher percentage of evil alignments just as a high percentage of elves are usually seen to be of good alignments but not all elves are good. The question of orc babies is a tough ethical question, and is a curve which many DM's like to throw at their players. After a party sacks an orcish camp and completely annihilates the entire adult male population, they are left with the women and children. If they kill them, they are denying that orcs have any chance at all at redemption, regardless of whether or not the orc in question is a newborn. If they do not kill the orcs, then the party is leaving behind a future horde of orcs who may want revenge for the slaughter of their fathers--and almost definitely will thirst for revenge if the DM has ruled that all orcs are naturally and automatically evil beings. This is a perennial problem which each character must sort out on their own. However, it is much easier for evil characters to make a decision than neutral, and somewhat easier for neutral than good; but knowing this does not make the decision simpler. One question which good characters should weigh in their minds: is it better for me to not kill in cold blood, or for the potential for future difficulties be taken care of while the solution is easily accomplished? J6: Can mages wear armor? A: This question has been endlessly debated. First of all, if he is not casting spells, any mage can wear any armor he wants to, unless the armor in question is magic and only wearable by warriors, but that's a different story. Whether or not he gets an AC bonus from that armor is also another matter altogether. The question arises when a mage attempts to cast spells while wearing armor. For a more in-depth survey of the rules, potential reasoning behind the rules, some house rules, and some possible ramifications of those house rules, see the Mages and Armor treatise at . In brief, while the core rulebooks state that wizards may not wear armor while casting spells, many players do not like this rule, both because lack of armor gets many a mage killed and because they can't think of a logical in-game reason behind the no armor while casting rule that doesn't also have some major negative or illogical ramifications (e.g. if it is because it is too constrictive, so is heavy winter clothing and that has no penalties; if metal disrupts the magical energies, then wrapping all captured mages with chains becomes standard and mages could have problems casting while standing on a metal grate, etc.; if it's because wizards aren't trained in wearing armor, then fighter/wizards belie the rule, since they have been trained in wearing armor). Here are several possible quick solutions to this situation: 1) Create an elven fighter/mage who wears elven chainmail, as that is a method by which a mage can wear armor and cast spells at the same time under the core rules. 2) Any and all bulky clothing hinders casting. A mage wearing anything heavier than what one would wear on an average autumn day cannot cast spells. Mages who, for some reason, are smothering beneath something along the lines of a large pile of cloth, several bodies, a trapper/lurker, etc. also cannot cast spells. 3) If non-magical iron or steel encircles a mage and is in very close proximity to the mage, the mage is incapable of casting spells. Anything from handcuffs up to full plate armor has this effect, as would a chain wrapped once around the mage. However, being placed in a metal coffin or standing on/below a one ton block of iron would not have any problem casting spells. 4) All mages may wear any armor, with no penalties, whatsoever. 5) No mage may wear chain mail or better armor, due to the interference of the metal with magical energies. 6) All mages may wear any armor, but doing so incurs a possible chance of failure. The wizard must roll percentile dice to see if the spell successfully goes off. The roll must be equal to or under 50% plus twice the armor's armor class. For example, a mage in chain mail must roll (50+(2x5))=60% or lower each time he casts a spell to see if the spell was successful. If the roll is not successful, the spell fizzles. For armors with negative AC, either the AC is doubled and subtracted from 50 to find the target number, or, since anything better than 0 is enhanced armor anyway, just use 50% as the target number. 7) All mages may wear any armor, but wearing any mass of metal causes the mage to check to see if a wild surge occurs every time he casts a spell, due to the interference of the metal with the magical energies. 8) Fighter-mage dual- or multi-classed characters may cast spells in armor, as they have learned to move in armor and their training has taught them how to make the necessary gestures to cast spells. 9) Elvish chain can be worn by any wizard without penalizing spell- casting at all. This may be due to either the mail's comfortability allowing easy movement or its inherent magical nature not disrupting magical energies. 10) Mages may wear any armor, but certain rules apply. A mage in armor may only defend himself or flee, period. No spellcasting, no attacking, etc.; doing so results in a loss of xp for that playing period. Also, if the armor is magical, the armor's magic does not work if it is specifically intended for some other class. 11) Create a mage character using the system outlined in the Skills & Powers or Spells & Magic books. The price is to not have access to some spell schools, but a mage willing to go through the trouble of accustoming himself to regularly wearing armor should be willing to put up with the sacrifice. J7: I don't like the spell memorization system for clerics & wizards... A: Take a number and get in line. There are a seemingly endless list of solutions to this "problem." The ideas differ for clerics and wizards, though. For priests, the solution is simple. Have the character pray for miracles, and let the DM decide which spells the cleric gets that day. Level doesn't matter, and the deity is seen to be more omniscient if it can provide in advance the spells which are most likely to be needed. For mages, there have been several good solutions posited. One is to do away with the memorization time. Another is to use some sort of mana point system. A third is to let the mage cast any spell in his grimoire, without memorizing it first, but with a chance of spell failure. There are an infinite number of variations on these and other themes. Rewriting the entire spell system is a task not fit for an FAQ, but it is not too difficult to construct your own based on the rough ideas above, or to just take a system from some other game and transplant it into your campaign. J8: What does "Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic Good/Neutral/Evil" really indicate? A: Good/Neutral/Evil should be fairly obvious, but Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic is often trickier to pin down. The easiest way to remember it is that Law is more concerned with the letter of the law than with the people. Chaos can be anti-law, but it can also merely not require set rules of conduct. The PH contains a good description of each of the nine alignment's typical mindsets, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. There are so many variations on each alignment that it is very difficult for any two people to agree on even the vaguest definitions. However, if in need of a standard, use the PH stereotypes. J9: Is alignment really necessary? A: For many people, no. For just as many others, yes. Alignment itself is not meant as a straitjacket, but as a tool for playing the character. There are as many different ways of playing a LG character as there are LG characters, so the argument that the alignment system stifles creativity doesn't hold water. However, there are just as many characters who don't fit any alignment whatsoever, and should not have an arbitrary label forced on them. Whether or not to use alignments is a question for the entire group to decide, and not one that should be handed down from above. J10: What is a morning star? A: This is a perennial question both here and on rec.games.frp.misc. There are essentially three schools of thought on the matter: 1) A morning star is an elongated mace 2) A morning star is a spiked ball, no matter what it's attached to 3) A morning star is a special type of flail, or "chain-mace" According to TSR's Arms & Equipment Guide, p. 82, the AD&D morning star is #1 above. This is borne out by the arrangement of the Tight Groups on p. 59 of the CFH and the description of the weapon on p. 140 of C&T. (Note that this is true for 1st edition AD&D as well, as evidenced by the description of bugbears on p. 12 of the MM and the illustration of Hruggek on p. 105 of DDG.) Sources that support this description: _Encyclopedia Britannica_, 11th-14th eds. _Oxford English Dictionary_, 2nd ed. (20 v.) Ashdown, C.H. _European Arms and Armour_ Bull, Stephen. _An Historical Guide to Arms & Armor_ Stone, G.C. _A Glossary of the Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor_ Tarassuk, L. & Claude Blair. _The Complete Encyclopedia of Arms & Weapons_, Description #3 appears to have come into use in the early to mid-19th century. Many sources that use this interpretation can be apparently traced back to a German treatise on medieval weaponry written around 1850. The section on morning stars was based on an English work written around 1830, and seems to suffer from a number of mistranslations, as that page has a number of incongruities and contradictions. Description #2 is a recent effort, constructed in an attempt to reconcile the first and third interpretations. If you wish to use descriptions #2 or #3 in your games, that is your decision, and is something that many people have done over the years. It may not follow the rulebooks, nor necessarily history itself, but on your own campaign world, you can declare that the grass is purple and the sky is chartreuse, if it works for your world. Just be sure to label this as the way things are done IYC when discussing the weapon on the newsgroup in order to avoid flames. For handy reference, here are brief descriptions of the various weapons of the affected types (flail and club): Flail-like: Flail, Threshing: An agricultural device, from which the rest of these weapons are derived, consisting of a wooden handle, or "helve", attached via a rope, leather thong, or chain to a short, thick wooden club, called a "swingle" or a "swiple/swipple". They were used for threshing corn or grain, and were found on almost every farm. Flail, Horseman's: A variation of the threshing flail; it is usually iron shod or solid iron, almost always uses a chain rather than rope or leather, and the swingle is often spike-studded or replaced with a spiked iron ball. Historically, these were lumped together with the footman's flail under the general name "military flail". Occasionally, these are referred to by historians as "chain-maces", (especially when the swingle was flanged rather than spiked), which only serves to heighten the confusion. Flail, Footman's: This type of flail is much larger than either the threshing or horseman's flails. It is a two-handed weapon, and replaces the chain with a single hinge (or two half-links, serving the same purpose but not requiring that the weapon be held exactly right for the swingle to swing properly). Historically, these were lumped together with the horseman's flail under the generic term "military flail". Nunchaku: An oriental descendant of the threshing flail; the helve and swingle were of equal length, consisted of wood, iron shod wood, or iron, and were linked by a short length of chain. Three-piece rod: Possibly a variant type of nunchaku, consisting of three short wooden pieces linked by chain or rope, whereas the nunchaku had only two pieces. Club-like: Club: It's, well, a club. Anything from a tree branch to a large bone to an iron rod to a finely crafted work of art. It is found in nearly infinite variations in nearly every, if not every, culture. Mace, Horseman's: A short weapon consisting of a haft with a large head. The head was usually flanged, but many featured spikes, solid balls, or anything else that did the job. Historically speaking, this was simply called a mace. Mace, Footman's: Larger than a horseman's mace, yet smaller than a morning star, this was otherwise identical to a horseman's mace. Morning star: A large mace, usually 4-5 feet long. The head was not usually flanged; rather it consisted of a ball, oval, or cylinder which was almost always studded with spikes. It also usually had a larger spike pointing straight up. Historically, the German term for this weapon, "Morgenstern" (also "Morgen Sterne" or "Morgenstierne"), was used most often. Holy Water Sprinkler: This is a type of morning star, invariably with a cylindrical spiked head. The name is an ironic reference to a small device used in the Roman Church, which was dipped in holy water, and then flicked at a crowd, sprinkling droplets of water over them; the weapon is used in a similar manner, but with a larger arc (and with more deadly intentions). A particularly interesting later version of this weapon, also called "Henry VII's Walking Stick", had four pistol barrels in the head, though it was apparently prone to misfire. It is also often called a "holy water sprinkle". Godentag: This is another source of confusion, apparently based on varying local usage. The French godentag was identical to the German morgenstern (and with similar ironic meanings: "good day" vs. "morning star"). This is the sense in which the weapon is used in AD&D, as mentioned on p. 140 of C&T, under "morning star". However, the Flemish godentag was a type of halberd, in the classic axe-pike-pick form. Both types of godentags are also referred to as "godendag". J11: But medieval combat wasn't anything like the way it is in *D&D! A: You're right! Congratulations, kid; you win the kewpie doll. The combat system in *D&D is a gross simplification of real combat, designed to streamline the process of determining the outcome of such a situation. Many arguments about the reality of such-and-such a weapon's speed, damage, use, size, etc. are often seen on rec.games.frp.dnd, usually based on personal observations and/or on SCA tournaments. One thing to keep in mind is that this is just a game; it is not real life. It is not meant to be extremely realistic. There are other, more detailed combat systems out there in other games, several of which take hours to determine one simple combat. The best thing to do, in any case, is find a system which the group prefers to use and stick with that. If the group doesn't feel like taking the time to learn a new system, then the current one still works just fine for thousands of players, especially with a few house rules to customize it to the specific campaign. ***End Part 8*** Aardy R. DeVarque Feudalism: Serf & Turf rgfd FAQ: http://sac.uky.edu/~mlmorr0/faq/rgfdfaq.html Judges Guild Ratings: http://www.anet-chi.com/~aardy/rpg/