Ratoslov posted:Someone care to explain the Asssplodeomancer? This? quote:Arseplomancer I mean, it's just an extension of the jumplomancer! 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
The Druid rules are pretty interesting, because they're clearly non-generic, like the 1e Bard rules or the Monk rules. I wonder if this is a relic of their development, since I think I remember reading that virtually every basic class from AD&D besides Fighter, Cleric, and Magic-User was developed from various fanzine classes (I know for a fact that the Thief was heavily inspired by a version mailed directly to Gygax). My copy of Playing at the World is inaccessible right now, so I'm afraid I can't confirm it. Of course, in 2e, Druids were "Priests of a Specific Mythos", and were provided as an example of a specialized Cleric, ostensibly. Similarly, specialist wizards and the Illusionist had the same relationship, though this wasn't in place for Bards, Paladins, and Rangers. So let's talk about this on a somewhat more rarefied plain: the high-level rules. Basically, before 3e, characters in D&D were assumed to "settle down" at high levels. Clerics would found churches or monasteries, Fighters would build a castle and attract followers, Magic-Users would build some sort of tower or something and maybe seek out apprentices, Thieves would build fortified lairs or crazy aboveground dungeons filled with trophies and attract apprentices, etc. Druids have a similar thing going on- they get a couple of followers at high levels, eventually move on to political leadership, and then go on to asceticism. But the rules for doing anything with your private army or gang of thieves were sparse. This is, I think, a relic of the earlier days when they assumed as a matter of course you had Chainmail or another fantasy wargaming system you could use for fighting large-scale battles, and the overall mortality rate meant that a lot of people never got to the high levels and those that did probably retired their characters and went on to play new ones. Various books suggested god-killing exploits and the like, and 2e settings had some more stuff like the sorcerer-king and avangion rituals in Dark Sun, but overall D&D didn't have much for dealing with high levels, or even outlining what you did. And this has continued, from 3e's ill-conceived Epic rules, to 4e's lack of a DMG for the Epic tier, and probably won't be solved by Next. So Hierophant Druids probably contributed to brainwashing people with skateboarding or cloudsurfing or stuffing yourself inside a winebottle or not being able to tell footprints apart without a feat or most of the really hilarious 3e stuff.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 21:46
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Would it be wrong to say that that actually sounds like an interesting concept? I can imagine some flagellant or penitent using it as a way to absolve his own sins and defend others simultaneously. There are a couple of nifty/semi-mythical concepts in there (another one is the ranger lich that becomes unkillable by devouring his animal companion, though that's born through purer pedantry), but a lot of these are presented in such a way that they allow for infinite damage spirals. Here's another one that's pretty funny to imagine in action: quote:Knights of the Roxbury
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
Star Wars D6 uses a simple approach to damage. Characters have a stun box, two wounded boxes, an incapacitated box, and a mortally wounded box. Each additional bit of damage fills in upward. So let's say you take a character with 4D strength, the normal human maximum. He gets shot at with a regular blaster pistol, which does 4D damage. Let's assume that the character rolls the most likely value of 14, for simplicity's sake. He has only a 16% chance of getting wounded at all from the shot, which means that it would take roughly 6 shots for the character to get hurt (as opposed to being stunned). At worst, he could be incapacitated. A heavy blaster pistol or a rifle would take this up to a 50% chance, so two shots. Of course, when you're wounded, you take -1D to all rolls, and a second wound brings that down to -2D. So the first wound bumps your chances up to 44%, and the second to 85%, meaning that things snowball. Incapacitation doesn't alter the chances any further, so basically, six shots, then two, then one, and we're knockin' on heaven's door. But once you're mortally wounded, you a) have at most 12 turns to live without medical care, and b) need to be incapacitated or mortally wounded again to die before this. So now your chances of dying from further shots go back down to 34%, meaning that we need another three shots, on average, to die. So how many shots does it take to kill a tough starting character? Twelve, on average, or nine and then waiting for them to bleed out. Of course, stormtroopers, with low stats appropriate for mooks, only need two shots on average to be taken out, and three to basically be killed. This is actually pretty in line with the movies, only they dodge rather than tanking, but still, twelve shots on average.
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2013 04:35
|
|
Bendigeidfran posted:But "cold iron" as magic-creature repellant usually meant a horseshoe or a common knife, which are totally heated and forged. "Cold iron", in folklore, is just a poetic term for iron in general (same with "cold steel"). The main reason that it tends to get redefined as requiring all sorts of restrictions is because having an antagonist or protagonist that you can gently caress up by throwing nails at them is not really useful for more than parody in urban fantasy.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 06:03
|
|
Nemesis Of Moles posted:The point being, that's only a broken system if you lack any imagination what so ever. *rolls 32 different uninhabitable planets with microgravity in a row* Yeah!! I'm so glad I have the ~imagination~ to use this system!! *players express desire to visit somewhere they can actually run guns to* Haha, oh you guys!! *rolls one more time, getting an earth-sized planet with six inhabitants, no water, and a gigantic shipyard facility* gently caress yes. It's imagination time.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2015 06:15
|
|
Eponymous posted:Okay, but theoretically you'd then have to intentionally use the gold in a selfish manner to trigger the system. Would the selfless system managers have to hire really greedy employees/signalers? Or the other way around? At what level is the morality of the gold's usage judged? What you do is you put a helm of opposite alignment on a guy you've determined to be good, then you give him a piece of the gold, thereby putting it in the service of evil, and all the gold disappears. Then you take off the helm.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 03:03
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Again: A skeleton is not just a bit. Skeletons are not a base 2 system! A single skeleton can hold a vast quantity of data based on whether it is sitting or standing, how many arms it is holding up and which ones, how many fingers and which ones... You still have to work out the programming and logic for a Godel-logic computer with just the 777 values you've outlined here. This isn't a trivial case.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
More importantly (since there's no need for operating memory beyond the physical state of the logic gate) for 10 bits we need 20 inputs. If each bit is handled separately, that's 20 skeletons of input for every skeleton of output. This quickly becomes absurd even by looping multiple circuits per skeleton, because there are simple limits on how many skeletons can exist in one field of view, and focusing on each input pair in turn will slow computation down massively. Simple Boolean binaries, 1 bit per skeleton, are most useful for this kind of computing.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 21:03 |
|
Nessus posted:One simple and direct use of these concepts, even if the SKELETON COMPUTER is a purely textbook exercise and/or a well attested madness of King Japrexus, Lord of Bone, is using skeletons as infallible watchmen. If you can tell a skeleton "If you see anyone other than X here, attack that person" you can also tell a skeleton "If you see anyone other than X here, pull that lever over there." On the other hand, you're massively restricting the size of your computer.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 02:37
|
|