|
1.5 km would take me 10 min 40 seconds, then. But only doable if I am carrying nothing on me.
Oh no! Nekkid kitty!
*shivers from the cold*
Aw yes sierra water is nice.
|
|
Meh. Nothing like a quiet afternoon for some philosophy.
Now many people have asked me why I am that RAW, or that lawful. Or stiff and rigid, depending on how you interpret it.
Here are my reasons:
Chances are, if you started playing D&D – someone would have passed you a CRB, or maybe some online version of a CRB, telling you to get familiar with the rules. So you would have read the book.
Imagine going to another table, where the rules are not applied as you read them. Wouldn’t you feel like you just wasted your time reading all that stuff? By reading the rules, you would have an implicit expectation that they would be put into use…just to be proven wrong. Would it be unfair to you? Yes.
I understand as I GM, that many things are not covered in the rules. The GM has to make a decision on the fly.When that happens, well it happens, and it’s to the whim and fancy of the GM whether he/she decides in your favour or not. I hate having to do that, because I know I have not had much experience with D&D compared to the rest of the world. I try to make things as fair and equitable as possible, but alas, I am not infallible. (Much as I’d like to be) And I know it as well.
And I am afraid that my inexperience will cause me to make an unfair judgement. That is why on my table, I prefer to stick to rules as written – so if anyone asks – we’ll all start from common ground – the CRB that we were all told to read when we first started playing.
As a GM should you make a houserule – it is for you to remember that houserule in play and make sure you apply it all the time, or it would be not equitable. And also – as a GM – how sure are you that by making the house rule, you’re not causing another problem by unbalancing power levels between players? Or screwing some player over?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, spending $350 on one pair of upper shelf Italian hiking boots was not a smart financial decision at the time I made it, but when you're climbing a hill paved with Medieval-era stonework that's degraded and uneven, mossy in places, muddy in others, and slick from the days of rain that are still pouring down, those boots become prized above all else. They may have been ludicrously expensive, but they perform exactly as the store clerk promised and then some. I stood in an inch and a half of water to get a good photograph, and my feet remain warm and dry.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
wouldn't even modest armor turn away such a blade?I don't think so - rapiers were, by and large, civilian weapons, whereas sabres were military weapons, and didn't come into wide use in Western Europe until rapiers had fallen out of fashion. When rapiers did get taken on campaign, they were generally given a heavier, cut and thrust blade, as it's much easier to defend yourself in a melee by making big cuts that encourage all the people around you who might want to give you bother a to stay away. Rapiers are the tops for one-on-one combat, though, IMO.wasn't the former conceived to defeat the latter?They should come over here. There's a lovely (very) raw and organic canal they can lap at, and muddy puddles all over the place.
In other news, my rapier works superbly, especially against oafish sabreurs.
Given what a pain in the bum armour is, people didn't wear it walking around the street, and it was less common on the battlefield once gunpowder weapons starting being used en masse, which was certainly the case when rapiers were most common - however, some naughty cheaters used to wear mail shirts during duels, which is why (in addition to avoiding potential infection from fragments of cloth in the wound), the participants occasionally fought topless. There are pics online of a fight between two Russian noblewomen in the early 1900s online which you might enjoy.
Regarding rapiers themselves, they're pretty stiff, and very nimble (hyuk hyuk hyuk), so unless your opponent's completely encased in steel, it's relatively easy to find a vulnerable spot in which to pierce them, or, if you're good enough, you can grip it halfway down the blade to make it even more rigid (half-swording, and you don't cut yourself if you do it right, apparently), then get in close, find a gap in the armour, and stab away. That was a common technique in Medieval times, using different swords, but it's obviously safer if you're wearing protection too...
Gah both of those sound so familiar.
LFG?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know how the wine Champagne comes from a place called Champagne? Well, I'm in Champagne now, and you know what's here?
Mud.
Endless, deep, thick mud. Mud that clumps onto your boots and adds 50% to their weight. Mud that wants to suck your feet down. Mud that climbs up onto your jeans.
Also, Medieval buildings. Exquisite Medieval buildings belonging to UNESCO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slow going then. Try not to fall. At least if the mud is soft and wet you won't hurt yourself even if you slip on the mud and fall.
Hopefully there aren't any leeches.
You can't easily slip in mud so deep it grabs and pulls on your boots. I'm more worried about tripping.
Luckily, I at least chose the best footwear for this task short of knee length rubber boots. My boots may be filthy now, but my feet remain dry.
got to bring up the Leeches eh? *shudder*
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How the hell did anybody fight at Agincourt? I don't think I could muster the footwork to do anything resembling fighting in this mud.
|
|
It wasn't winter then? Autumn and maybe it was dry?
Well the last time we had mud, it wasn't thick enough to sink in though it was slippery enough to slip on. And yes, leeches.
Feel something slimy around your shin or ankle? Yeah you've been leeched.
*gives Taliesan a high paw for Earth Battle Tower*
The reason why I asked for a discussion thread was because I'm rather chatty. Else it clutters all over gameplay.
Noisy cat, you know.
wouldn't even modest armor turn away such a blade?I don't think so - rapiers were, by and large, civilian weapons, whereas sabres were military weapons, and didn't come into wide use in Western Europe until rapiers had fallen out of fashion. When rapiers did get taken on campaign, they were generally given a heavier, cut and thrust blade, as it's much easier to defend yourself in a melee by making big cuts that encourage all the people around you who might want to give you bother a to stay away. Rapiers are the tops for one-on-one combat, though, IMO.wasn't the former conceived to defeat the latter?They should come over here. There's a lovely (very) raw and organic canal they can lap at, and muddy puddles all over the place.
In other news, my rapier works superbly, especially against oafish sabreurs.
Given what a pain in the bum armour is, people didn't wear it walking around the street, and it was less common on the battlefield once gunpowder weapons starting being used en masse, which was certainly the case when rapiers were most common - however, some naughty cheaters used to wear mail shirts during duels, which is why (in addition to avoiding potential infection from fragments of cloth in the wound), the participants occasionally fought topless. There are pics online of a fight between two Russian noblewomen in the early 1900s online which you might enjoy.
Regarding rapiers themselves, they're pretty stiff, and very nimble (hyuk hyuk hyuk), so unless your opponent's completely encased in steel, it's relatively easy to find a vulnerable spot in which to pierce them, or, if you're good enough, you can grip it halfway down the blade to make it even more rigid (half-swording, and you don't cut yourself if you do it right,...
Gunpowder weapons, such as cannons, were standard military equipment in Europe by the mid-1300s. Plate armor was developed in the mid-1400s.
Gunpowder isn't the reason most people stopped using armor. They stopped because firearms were simply cheaper and took far less training.
But metal armor remained in minor use in combat up through the Second World War.
wouldn't even modest armor turn away such a blade?I don't think so - rapiers were, by and large, civilian weapons, whereas sabres were military weapons, and didn't come into wide use in Western Europe until rapiers had fallen out of fashion. When rapiers did get taken on campaign, they were generally given a heavier, cut and thrust blade, as it's much easier to defend yourself in a melee by making big cuts that encourage all the people around you who might want to give you bother a to stay away. Rapiers are the tops for one-on-one combat, though, IMO.wasn't the former conceived to defeat the latter?They should come over here. There's a lovely (very) raw and organic canal they can lap at, and muddy puddles all over the place.
In other news, my rapier works superbly, especially against oafish sabreurs.
Given what a pain in the bum armour is, people didn't wear it walking around the street, and it was less common on the battlefield once gunpowder weapons starting being used en masse, which was certainly the case when rapiers were most common - however, some naughty cheaters used to wear mail shirts during duels, which is why (in addition to avoiding potential infection from fragments of cloth in the wound), the participants occasionally fought topless. There are pics online of a fight between two Russian noblewomen in the early 1900s online which you might enjoy.
Regarding rapiers themselves, they're pretty stiff, and very nimble (hyuk hyuk hyuk), so unless your opponent's completely encased in steel, it's relatively easy to find a vulnerable spot in which to pierce them, or, if you're good enough, you can grip it halfway down the blade to make it even more rigid (half-swording, and you don't cut yourself if you do it right,...
ffascinating...
|
|
I know crossbows were easier to learn to use as opposed to a longbow. More penetrating power for dealing with armored knights too. And I always thought crossbows were why armor went out of fashion..why bother when this guy with little training can shoot through it anyway?
Guns... I don't know anything about guns but they would probably be easier to use then long bows, no?
I know crossbows were easier to learn to use as opposed to a longbow. More penetrating power for dealing with armored knights too. And I always thought crossbows were why armor went out of fashion..why bother when this guy with little training can shoot through it anyway?
Guns... I don't know anything about guns but they would probably be easier to use then long bows, no?
Crossbows did not cause armor to go out of fashion for the same reason that armor-piercing ammunition doesn't cause modern armor to go out of fashion.
And firearms were easier, but had a slight (read: massive) penetration problem. There are a number of museum pieces with dings in them where a smith shot it with a firearm to demonstrate the quality of his work.
In general, it was the increasingly-impractical training times and resource costs that did away with armor.
Note that metal armor still remains a relatively-effective means of countering bullets, just with a bit more thickness to it. That's why steel plates became a common insert in bullet-resistant armor.
It's really more accurate to say metal armor was hampering the development and adoption of firearms than to say firearms forced metal armor into retirement.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Earthquaaaaaaaake!
It's pretty sad when you get an earthquake strong enough to wake almost everyone in the house (only Impus Minor slept through it), and not even the cats are particularly perturbed. "Ah, well. Business as usual."
But I'm getting better. We felt like it was a strong one, so I was thinking 4.2 centered near us. The official report is 4.4 centered in Berkeley.
NobodysHome, earthquake whisperer...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's currently -8 degrees (-20 with the windchill) with full sunlight.
You don't hear us b~~$*ing it's colder than on Mars (although I'm totally looking for planets we're colder than later).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
SNOOOOOOOOOOOW DAAAAAAAAAAAY
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. Nothing like a quiet afternoon for some philosophy.
Now many people have asked me why I am that RAW, or that lawful. Or stiff and rigid, depending on how you interpret it.Here are my reasons:
Chances are, if you started playing D&D – someone would have passed you a CRB, or maybe some online version of a CRB, telling you to get familiar with the rules. So you would have read the book.
Imagine going to another table, where the rules are not applied as you read them. Wouldn’t you feel like you just wasted your time reading all that stuff? By reading the rules, you would have an implicit expectation that they would be put into use…just to be proven wrong. Would it be unfair to you? Yes.I understand as I GM, that many things are not covered in the rules. The GM has to make a decision on the fly.When that happens, well it happens, and it’s to the whim and fancy of the GM whether he/she decides in your favour or not. I hate having to do that, because I know I have not had much experience with D&D compared to the rest of the world. I try to make things as fair and equitable as possible, but alas, I am not infallible. (Much as I’d like to be) And I know it as well.
And I am afraid that my inexperience will cause me to make an unfair judgement. That is why on my table, I prefer to stick to rules as written – so if anyone asks – we’ll all start from common ground – the CRB that we were all told to read when we first started playing.
As a GM should you make a houserule – it is for you to remember that houserule in play and make sure you apply it all the time, or it would be not equitable. And also – as a GM – how sure are you that by making the house rule, you’re not causing another problem by unbalancing power levels between players? Or screwing some player over?
So, while those reasons are all well and good, they assume a certain level of trust and cooperation between the GM and the players. As soon as you get a "RAWyer" player, the comfort level with "RAW" goes out the window as they come up with ludicrous arguments such as "a gesture is not a command", or, "You can take actions when you're dead because the rules don't specifically forbid it."
The rules aren't written as a lawbook, hence many of them are open to multiple interpretations. There are many, many, MANY players who want to exploit this to decide every possible ambiguity in favor of the player.And when you as a GM invoke RAI instead of RAW, those selfsame players act hurt and betrayed that you're no longer playing "by the rules".
Just one such player at your table can make you decide that GMing is no longer worth the trouble. The "fun" of kicking the player, or of dealing with the player's poor attitude is exhausting.
I strongly prefer a table where we just play the game, and if a rule is unclear, we decide what seems most reasonable at the time and look it up later.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, spending $350 on one pair of upper shelf Italian hiking boots was not a smart financial decision at the time I made it, but when you're climbing a hill paved with Medieval-era stonework that's degraded and uneven, mossy in places, muddy in others, and slick from the days of rain that are still pouring down, those boots become prized above all else. They may have been ludicrously expensive, but they perform exactly as the store clerk promised and then some. I stood in an inch and a half of water to get a good photograph, and my feet remain warm and dry.
Yeah, when I was a grad student I bought a pair of $450 Asolos.
When people ask why I'm still wearing them, I point out the massive scar in the side of one that quite literally shows where I would have lost a toe had I been wearing lesser boots.
Never skimp on boots.
So, while those reasons are all well and good, they assume a certain level of trust and cooperation between the GM and the players. As soon as you get a "RAWyer" player, the comfort level with "RAW"...Meh. Nothing like a quiet afternoon for some philosophy.
Now many people have asked me why I am that RAW, or that lawful. Or stiff and rigid, depending on how you interpret it.Here are my reasons:
Chances are, if you started playing D&D – someone would have passed you a CRB, or maybe some online version of a CRB, telling you to get familiar with the rules. So you would have read the book.
Imagine going to another table, where the rules are not applied as you read them. Wouldn’t you feel like you just wasted your time reading all that stuff? By reading the rules, you would have an implicit expectation that they would be put into use…just to be proven wrong. Would it be unfair to you? Yes.I understand as I GM, that many things are not covered in the rules. The GM has to make a decision on the fly.When that happens, well it happens, and it’s to the whim and fancy of the GM whether he/she decides in your favour or not. I hate having to do that, because I know I have not had much experience with D&D compared to the rest of the world. I try to make things as fair and equitable as possible, but alas, I am not infallible. (Much as I’d like to be) And I know it as well.
And I am afraid that my inexperience will cause me to make an unfair judgement. That is why on my table, I prefer to stick to rules as written – so if anyone asks – we’ll all start from common ground – the CRB that we were all told to read when we first started playing.
As a GM should you make a houserule – it is for you to remember that houserule in play and make sure you apply it all the time, or it would be not equitable. And also – as a GM – how sure are you that by making the house rule, you’re not causing another problem by unbalancing power levels between players? Or screwing some player over?
indeed, the recent (i.e. 3.x) philosphy of "players rule, dm is just the ref" has resulted in a lot of issues over the years. Not that the prior "DM is a god, players better get on their knees" was any better. I know I am trying to change the role of the DM to be more of a cooperative one for my campaign, but the work I have put in is sporadic at best.
It's pretty sad when you get an earthquake strong enough to wake almost everyone in the house (only Impus Minor slept through it), and not even the cats are particularly perturbed. "Ah, well. Business as usual."But I'm getting better. We felt like it was a strong one, so I was thinking 4.2 centered near us. The official report is 4.4 centered in Berkeley.
NobodysHome, earthquake whisperer...
Huh. In our house, I'm the only one who woke up. Dogs never barked.
The Venetian blinds, though, were buzzing at an X-Files level of creepy.Edited for an official pat on the back and "attaboy" for your mad skillz.
I could use some more of those getting on their knees players...
|
|
NH - to each their own.
I personally would feel uncomfortable with houserules since I've been burnt too many times on that regard.
Like I've ever had dazing fireball not work on undead...because they're undead and I was not told before hand that it wouldn't work, so I essentially friendly fired my party for nothing.
Then I was told that I couldn't craft while adventuring after I had bought a ring of sustenance specially for it, when the GM said you can't get material components.
Look - if you say no going to town, sure. So I built my character to craft whatever he needed, and then you tell me I can't craft while adventuring after I have paid the necessary stuff for it so it doesn't interfere with adventuring?
I even suggested artificers bench route...
I really, as a GM try to go as much with RAW as possible. When there are ambiguities then yes, I have to put on my GM hat and interpret that stuff, but it makes me not a happy cat doing so.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OMG Earthquake! *climbs up a tree*
Returns the high paw. Your dice rolling seems to have been far luckier than mine. I'm half and half on whether I'm even gonna win my test match.
With luck...you can't hit what you can't reach..did I tell you about the story where I fought a hydra once?
----Warning ---PFS Spoilers (Race for Runecarved key) Ahead
Mission: Duel a hydra for 10 rounds to provide a show.
Me: I use flight hex, then cast enlarge person while wielding a reach weapon.
Whole story here - A Mort's tail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NH - to each their own.
I personally would feel uncomfortable with houserules since I've been burnt too many times on that regard.
You misinterpret me -- I'm not saying, "You have to have houserules," I'm saying, "RAW isn't as simple as you say it is."
Like I've ever had dazing fireball not work on undead...because they're undead and I was not told before hand that it wouldn't work, so I essentially friendly fired my party for nothing.
So there your GM was changing the rules, not interpreting a vague rule. So bad on the GM.
Then I was told that I couldn't craft while adventuring after I had bought a ring of sustenance specially for it, when the GM said you can't get material components.
Look - if you say no going to town, sure. So I built my character to craft whatever he needed, and then you tell me I can't craft while adventuring after I have paid the necessary stuff for it so it doesn't interfere with adventuring?
Again, I wouldn't let you convert raw gold into materials, but if you were in town, said, "I buy materials to be able to craft x, y, and z while on the road," then bad on the GM.
I really, as a GM try to go as much with RAW as possible. When there are ambiguities then yes, I have to put on my GM hat and interpret that stuff, but it makes me not a happy cat doing so.
And this right there is my original point.
|
|
For me I actually don't mind letting players change raw GP into materials. You paid your price in the feat - please feel free to reap the benefits.
Oh I was also denied for using a hound archon with greater teleport to do shopping. Lesser Planar Ally Planar binding, I understand - they can be a little finicky. But Planar ally where the said creature is helpful after you paid the exorbitant costs?
|
|
NH - why does the portable artificers lab state the following:
The portable artificer's lab contains everything needed to create magic items, though many of the tools and implements are of only the most basic type.
It even imposes a hefty penalty on crafting checks:
However, because the tools are all designed to fulfill multiple functions and the portable lab lacks the space and quiet that provide ideal circumstances for creating magic items, the skill check to complete a magic item that had any of its work done using a portable lab takes a –5 penalty.
So if it basically did nothing, why does the item even exist?
|
|
John - I don't have any way in doing that in our game. As a ranger I have given up on almost all magics ^^
*Snickers*
I know I have been told by others that I am somewhat...unconventional. Yes Freehold DM...you heard that.
Apparently I have a lawyer like way of wriggling around existing restrictions ;)
|
|
Anyway the better way to approach me would be the following.
At game start, tell me the following:
I do not want any of you to take any crafting feats because there won't be time to craft during this campaign/I feel it breaks immersion, etc.
Once you get that right on the onset - by agreeing to join your game, I agree to abide by your rules, so I will not even bother looking at crafting feats. You told me not to do it, I won't do it, plain and simple.
If you say XX, YY feat is banned at game start, sure, I won't take it. Tell me not to planar bind Efreetis to milk them for wishes, I'll do it too. Won't ask why. Ain't my business.
Not that I'd planar bind efreetis for wishes to begin with, anyway - I always wish Planar binding could be something less like a master and slave relationship, like you scratch my back, I scratch yours kind of thing.
NH - why does the portable artificers lab state the following:
The portable artificer's lab contains everything needed to create magic items, though many of the tools and implements are of only the most basic type.
It even imposes a hefty penalty on crafting checks:
However, because the tools are all designed to fulfill multiple functions and the portable lab lacks the space and quiet that provide ideal circumstances for creating magic items, the skill check to complete a magic item that had any of its work done using a portable lab takes a –5 penalty.
So if it basically did nothing, why does the item even exist?
So you have set of versatile tools but you still need to provide materials.
Soooo a GM has to be able to list every single feat and combination of feats he doesn't want before the campaign starts? What happens if something he didn't list turns out awful during play? Is it okay to tell you so and let you retrain? Or is the point that literally everything the GM doesn't list is available always?
|
|
Don't worry about it. I don't really care about losing magics. It might broaden my perspective of life =)
Since I play primarily casters ;) It's like looking at the hill from another angle.
It said EVERYTHING needed to create magic items. So that would include the materials. If you do want to do that on crafting - as I said, inform me at the start of game so that I can make an informed choice.
As it is there's nothing saying that the portable artificers lab would not provide you with necessary materials.
NH - why does the portable artificers lab state the following:
The portable artificer's lab contains everything needed to create magic items, though many of the tools and implements are of only the most basic type.
It even imposes a hefty penalty on crafting checks:
However, because the tools are all designed to fulfill multiple functions and the portable lab lacks the space and quiet that provide ideal circumstances for creating magic items, the skill check to complete a magic item that had any of its work done using a portable lab takes a –5 penalty.
So if it basically did nothing, why does the item even exist?
Er, you didn't say you had one. I said, "I won't allow people to directly convert gold to magic items."
A portable artificer's lab directly and clearly solves that issue, doesn't it?
|
|
Depending on which feat is taken and how centred my character is on it - I may need to retweak the entire character. Since sometimes I do build characters upon a specific feat. But yes usually retraining the said feat would be sufficient.
I will assume that everything that the GM doesn't list is available. The easier way is to say stuff like character creation - CRB, APG only. Then I'll just shrug and choose only feats on that. Anything other then that I will ask permission. And I will also refrain from drawing things that are not from those books in question.
|
|
I offered to get one but it was not allowed anyway(still told I had to get the materials).
Not to mention that it wasn't in the list of sources that were automatically allowed.
I think the main issue is that the GM felt it breaks verisimilitude to craft while adventuring, and wanted us to do the use what we find style. Which is fine, if you're a melee beatstick, but casters you want some more specific stuff.
Yet no issues scribing scrolls/making potions on the run.
If at game start yeah I can live with it. But in the middle of the game is where I get twitchy.
When making a GM ruling I always side with the player.
Unless it's obviously wrong.
|
|
Taliesan - I didn't have much choice in doing what I had to do. The heaviest armored guy in the party only had 10 con...and wasn't feeling too happy about the hydra business due to the sheer number of attacks.
I wasn't too keen on having the hydra pounce on me, but I figured if I could get out of its reach I should...be all right. Worse case, I had vanish memorized so I could do a disappearing act.
BTW when I was doing that, I had 16 ac.