AD&D 2nd edition Backstab
Lei Wang
"The weapon's standard damage damage is multipled by the value given
on Table 30, THEN strength and magical weapon bonuses are added."
This is reasonable, perhaps, but far too restrictive. Backstabbing
is supposed to be a thief's most feared attack, yet it comes down to
almost no advantage over a fighter's frontal attack.
Consider: at low level, a 3rd level thief with a dagger: barely
makes his move silent roll, and stabs his victim in the back. An average
damage of 2.5 * 2 of 5 points of damage.
A 3rd level warrior, with 17 strength and a long sword, does 4.5 +1,
of 5.5 points of damage.
The only advantage of the thief is his +3 to hit over the fighter, and
he can only backstab once.
Consider: Altob the Assassin, a fearsome 19th level thief, with a +4
defender dagger and 16 strength, using all of the +4 for attack, sneaks
up behind his victim, silent as the night, and stabs him in the back:
The average damage is 2.5 * 5 + 1(str) + 4(dagger) = 17.5.
Meanwhile, our Bog the bully fighter, 17th level warrior, specialized
with his +4 broadsword, 18/93 strength as befits a high level warrior(or maybe
gauntlets or items of strength), does 5 + 4(sword) + 5(str) + 2(specialize) =
16 points of damage.
Even with Altob's specialization, he is only a bit ahead in damage, and
the to-hit worse. Bog will completely erase that advantage, as the fight
goes on, since he does 16 average every strike, and multiple strikes in
a round.
This forces thieves to use fighter weapons to have a chance, but where's
the traditional stab-in-the-back scenario with a keen knife? Daggers,
knives, and other thieving weapons are out of the picture. Some DMs further
impose the restriction that backstabbing can be only done with a one-handed
piercing weapon. Certainly one can't backstab with a two-handed sword,
of course.
To be fair, magical bonuses or strength bonuses should be added before
the multiplier, or the thief, the weakest of the four classes, gets even weaker.
--
l2w...@napier.waterloo.edu
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ME: Univ. of Waterloo YOU: Huh? o=> ME: in Canada, YOU: Huh?
ME: in Ontario, YOU: Huh? /o/ ME: up north! YOU: Aaaaaahhh...
ME: near Toronto, YOU: Huh? ==o Huh??
Thomas Miller
<much discussion of 2nd edition backstab disadvantages deleted>
I agree. In my most recent campaign, one thief used a shortsword
and the other a longsword, which helped to do more damage once they
were about name level.
Counting the bonuses _before_ the backstab multiplier seems fair
too, based on the points made previously.
Maybe light, wieldy weapons could get them added in before, while
big, bulky weapons got them added in after the multiplier.
Just my 2 cents.
--
Thomas Miller / Georgia Tech Network Services / tmi...@prism.gatech.edu
WORK: (404) 853-0254 / Rich Bldg Rm 127, 258 4th St Atlanta, Ga. 30332
HOME: (404) 876-7929 / 345 Peachtree Pl NW, Atlanta, Ga. 30318
"It's not a he, it's an IT! We're going to need bigger guns!" -Split Second
Axly
> As stated in the PHB, page 40, under backstab:
> "The weapon's standard damage damage is multipled by the value given
>on Table 30, THEN strength and magical weapon bonuses are added."
Ah contraire..
"The weapon's standard damage is added to the wielder's Strength bonus
and then multiplied by the value given in Table 30. Then magical weapon
bonuses are added."
PH ADD2 p.40
> This is reasonable, perhaps, but far too restrictive. Backstabbing
>is supposed to be a thief's most feared attack, yet it comes down to
>almost no advantage over a fighter's frontal attack.
Yes, it is supposed to be a thief's most feared attack. This does not
mean you fear it more than a plate mailed warrior charging at you with
a yard of enchanted steel.
> Consider: Altob the Assassin, a fearsome 19th level thief, with a +4
>defender dagger and 16 strength, using all of the +4 for attack, sneaks
>up behind his victim, silent as the night, and stabs him in the back:
> The average damage is 2.5 * 5 + 1(str) + 4(dagger) = 17.5.
3.5 * 5 + 4 = 21.5
> Meanwhile, our Bog the bully fighter, 17th level warrior, specialized
>with his +4 broadsword, 18/93 strength as befits a high level warrior(or maybe
>gauntlets or items of strength), does 5 + 4(sword) + 5(str) + 2(specialize) =
>16 points of damage.
> Even with Altob's specialization, he is only a bit ahead in damage, and
>the to-hit worse. Bog will completely erase that advantage, as the fight
>goes on, since he does 16 average every strike, and multiple strikes in
>a round.
[stuff about having knives and backstabbing my editor couldnt' read]
Thieves are not restricted to using a dagger to backstab. Backstab is a
name of an ability, not a technique description. Thieves can use up to
a longsword for weapons, so they can attack someone in the back with one.
If you use a smaller "traditional" weapon, you will get less damage.
> To be fair, magical bonuses or strength bonuses should be added before
>the multiplier, or the thief, the weakest of the four classes, gets even weaker.
The strength bonuses are added first.
Axly
Brent G Davis
In article <Bqpq0...@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>, l2w...@napier.waterloo.edu ( Lei Wang ) writes:
> As stated in the PHB, page 40, under backstab:
>
> "The weapon's standard damage damage is multipled by the value given
> on Table 30, THEN strength and magical weapon bonuses are added."
>
> This is reasonable, perhaps, but far too restrictive. Backstabbing
> is supposed to be a thief's most feared attack, yet it comes down to
> almost no advantage over a fighter's frontal attack.
> This forces thieves to use fighter weapons to have a chance, but where's
> the traditional stab-in-the-back scenario with a keen knife? Daggers,
> knives, and other thieving weapons are out of the picture. Some DMs further
> impose the restriction that backstabbing can be only done with a one-handed
> piercing weapon. Certainly one can't backstab with a two-handed sword,
> of course.
The damage multiplier is just fine as it is. If you ask people
who play in my campaigns, they would probably say it's too high
if anything.
First of all, a thief who intends to kill with a backstab will
use his/her best weapon. In the campaigns I've played in or
DM'ed this will usually be a short, long or broad sword. If
you calculate the average damage inflicted by one of those on
a backstab, you'll come up with a pretty hefty hit.
Recently, a PC in my campaign was backstabbed by a Thieves'
GuildMaster (Level 12) using a +1 long sword. The thief
rolled an 8 for damage and caused over 30 points of damage.
The PC had just over 20 hit points at the time, and as a result was
slain. I rarely use the thief's backstab against PC's
because such results are not only common, but somehow the
norm for my dice rolls. The additional damage inflicted
by the magic or strength bonus is marginal, unless you're
getting munchkinish.
IMHO, allowing the magical and strength bonuses to be
multiplied into the damage turns thief combat into "Bang-
You're Dead" type attacking.
Example: If the enemy thief has a +4 Broad sword
and backstabs for average damage (5 for the
sword, +4 for bonus) you're character suffers 9 x the
multiplier. Say it's a 9th level enemy thief (mult = 4).
The average 9th level characters w/o con bonus will have
(roughly from the top of my head):
Fighter: 50 hp Cleric: 41 hp Thief: 32 hp Mage 23 hp
This enemy thief will kill the average thief or mage
with but a single hit, and has a good chance of knocking
of the cleric or fighter with a better than average
damage roll. Bang - you're character's dead. Too bad,
guess you'll have to go get raised.
I'm sorry, but that kind of combat is just not fun for
the PC's or the DM (unless you've got some kind of a
vendetta).
Leave the damage as it is. Combat is lethal enough without
adding this rulebending.
Brent
--
| Brent G. Davis | I'm designing the MIDI ports for |
| Systems Test Engineer | our Supercomputers! ;-) *NOT* |
| CRI, Chippewa Falls, WI +----------------------------------+
| bda...@romulus.cray.com | #include<std.disclaimer> |
Cary Collett
>l2w...@napier.waterloo.edu ( Lei Wang ) writes:
>
>> As stated in the PHB, page 40, under backstab:
>> "The weapon's standard damage damage is multipled by the value given
>>on Table 30, THEN strength and magical weapon bonuses are added."
>
>Ah contraire..
>"The weapon's standard damage is added to the wielder's Strength bonus
>and then multiplied by the value given in Table 30. Then magical weapon
>bonuses are added."
>PH ADD2 p.40
Ohhh! Ahhhh! Since theives cannot have exceptional strength their
strength bonus is +1 or if he's lucky +2. This doesn't add up to much.
In the campaign I play in we add in everything and then multiply.
This makes the attack on a basically unaware character much more
deadly. IMHO this follows somewhat from the rules concerning
attacks against held et cetera opponents.
<stuff deleted>
>
>Axly
>
>
Cary
kje...@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
> As stated in the PHB[2], page 40, under backstab:
>
> "The weapon's standard damage damage is multipled by the value given
>on Table 30, THEN strength and magical weapon bonuses are added."
> To be fair, magical bonuses or strength bonuses should be added before
>the multiplier, or the thief, the weakest of the four classes, gets even
>weaker.
I agree. Even if a 13th level thief with a +5 longsword & Girdle/Storm
gets (8+5+12)*5 = 125 HP -- worse if he reads a scroll of Shocking
Grasp first. And that's just with his PRIMARY weapon! (I know, I
know. AD&D2 doesn't allow a 19 DEX Elf to use a main/gauche unless
he's part Warrior. What would the Grey Mouser say?)
-- Ken "Lawful Good and Proud of It" Jenks
kje...@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (713) 483-4368
"All thieves are neutral or evil, although they can be
neutral good (rarely) and of lawful or chaotic nature."
-- PHB1, p.27
Christopher Lee Cavender
Lets get some opinions out here people!
Chris
Ryk E Spoor
>I have decided to start up a thread I haven't seen in a while. Namely are
>evil pc's more fun than good ones? Incedently I got this Idea from Pandarak.
No. Evil tends to be pretty boring. Good characters, or ones with
confused ethics, are much more fun to play. A REALLY evil character has
so much freedom of motion that they're just kinda boring.
Now, a character GOING evil -- and fighting it -- can be interesting.
Or an EVIL character going GOOD. But an unrepentantly EVIL type... not usually.
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Louis Norton
I disagree. I think that a well-played evil group of PCs can be at
least as fun as the good party, if one has a tolerant DM. If you are a DM who
*hates* seeing his adventure not completed, or go in a different direction
from what he intended, then youd better have a good party. However, if you are
willing to run a game where most of the fun comes from the PC interactions,
then an evil campaign can be amusing, as long as you have mature players who
are not going to carry the game into real life. I mean in saying this that
many times in an evil campaign, Pcs will hurt each other, and if the players
are the type who take this personally, evil characters are NOT a good idea.
I have been running a campaign for a year now which was intended to
be played by good characters, but was attempted by a basically evil party
instead. There have been many hilarious moments, many of which I have posted
to this board. With a good party - or even a lawful one - the characters would
have stayed much more focused on the adventure and, admittedly, much more
would have been accomplished. However, I do not view the time which the PCs
spent chasing each other around, selling each other into slavery, or sacking
innocent towns as wasted time - because they provided many hours of excellent
roleplying and a lot of fun.
In short, if you as a DM or player only have fun when something is
being accomplished on a "mission", then evil PCs are not for you. However,
if you see the primary purpose of the game as fun, then the infighting among
the party wont bother you and you can enjoy an evil campaign.
Babbling DM
PS - All my players agree this is the best ADD campaign theyve ever played in.
PPS- On a side note, I dont allow the evil characters to do ANYTHING they want.
I dont tolerate sick stuff (there is always something to disturb them), and PCs
are worth 0xp, no matter what. This deters other PCs from killing a PC for his
item, or just for fun, or whatever. Also, whenever the party is about to break
into combat, they are usually attacked by nasty monsters, forcing them to unite
again. This isnt a necessary thing, but I do it just to keep some minimal
amount of order.
Doug DeJulio
>I agree. Even if a 13th level thief with a +5 longsword & Girdle/Storm
>gets (8+5+12)*5 = 125 HP -- worse if he reads a scroll of Shocking
>Grasp first. And that's just with his PRIMARY weapon! (I know, I
>know. AD&D2 doesn't allow a 19 DEX Elf to use a main/gauche unless
>he's part Warrior. What would the Grey Mouser say?)
WHAT? This is wrong. Check out the Complete Fighter's handbook. Not
only can a thief with a 19 dex use a main gauche (if there's a longer
weapon in the other hand), any character of any class can *specialize*
in a single style of combat (single-classed fighters can specialize in
all the styles).
So, an ordinary 1st level thief with a 19 dex can use a longsword in
one hand at no penalty (-2+3=+1, so no penalty), and a dagger in the
other hand at -1 (-4+3=-1). Spending a combat proficiency on
ambidexterity at character creation will negate the -1, and spending a
combat proficiency on two-weapon style will also permit the character
to use, for example, two short swords or two long swords.
The other thing to mention is that no matter how many attacks a thief
gets in a round, the backstab bonuses only apply to *one* of them.
After this one the surprise is lost.
--
Doug DeJulio
d...@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu (NeXT, AMS/ATK and MIME mail welcome)
A. Luke Hankins
>In article <Bqpq0...@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>, l2w...@napier.waterloo.edu ( Lei Wang ) writes:
>> As stated in the PHB, page 40, under backstab:
>>
>> "The weapon's standard damage damage is multipled by the value given
>> on Table 30, THEN strength and magical weapon bonuses are added."
>>
>> This is reasonable, perhaps, but far too restrictive. Backstabbing
>> is supposed to be a thief's most feared attack, yet it comes down to
>> almost no advantage over a fighter's frontal attack.
>> (stuff deleted)
agreed
>The damage multiplier is just fine as it is. If you ask people
>who play in my campaigns, they would probably say it's too high
>if anything.
>First of all, a thief who intends to kill with a backstab will
>use his/her best weapon. In the campaigns I've played in or
>DM'ed this will usually be a short, long or broad sword. If
>you calculate the average damage inflicted by one of those on
>a backstab, you'll come up with a pretty hefty hit.
>[stuff deleted]
>Example: If the enemy thief has a +4 Broad sword
>and backstabs for average damage (5 for the
>sword, +4 for bonus) you're character suffers 9 x the
>multiplier. Say it's a 9th level enemy thief (mult = 4).
>The average 9th level characters w/o con bonus will have
>(roughly from the top of my head):
>Fighter: 50 hp Cleric: 41 hp Thief: 32 hp Mage 23 hp
but you've got to assume at least a con bonus of +1, +2 for fighters,
giving a ninth-level fighter avg 69 hit points (emphasis on average).
if you're afraid of using it against PC's because it's too powerful then
_don't use it_.as the gm you control what damage the npc's do: if you don't
like the fact that it gives no surprise roll to the pc's then offer them one
-- find an oppurtunity.
>I'm sorry, but that kind of combat is just not fun for
>the PC's or the DM (unless you've got some kind of a
>vendetta).
the rule was put into the players handbook because the player's are supposed
to use it. say the pc thief at 5th level tried to use it on a 9th level
fighter (NPC). using that same short sword, the thief rolls damage of 4
(average roll: yes i know that there is equal distribution for a single die)
4 * 3(level) + 5 (sword) = 17 even max damage is 29. Oooooo....
>Leave the damage as it is. Combat is lethal enough without
>adding this rulebending.
this isn't a "combat" tactic however. this is for the thief that needs
someone dead for whatever reason.
>Brent
>| bda...@romulus.cray.com | #include<std.disclaimer> |
--
______________________________________________________________________
===Starman-* | ahan...@cc.swarthmore.edu
| tnx luke
________________________|______________________________________________
Cary Collett
Well certinly you have more latitude in your actions, especially if you
chaotic. Of course execising this latitude will almost certainly get
you in trouble! If you party/character is powerful enough you can get
away with this kinda stuff. I know sometimes when I'm playing I really
want to trash some town or group of bozos and alignment gets in the way.
I guess if nothing else evil alignment have more ways to vent their
frustrations. Since this venting of frustrations is usually exhilarating
it's MO that evil alignments can have more fun! Although it may be short
lived, i.e like the life of the evil doer.
Cary
ca...@mplode.lampf.lanl.gov (VMS)
ca...@dsirae.lampf.lanl.gov (unix)
|
|
|
*
* *
* *
* *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * * *
* * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
^ ^ ^ ^
/ \ / \ / \ / \
=== === === ===
XXXXX XX XX XXXXX XX XX XX XX XXXXX
X X X X XXX XX XX XX X
X XXX X XX XXX XX XX XX XXXXX
X X X X XX XXX XX XX X
XXXXX X XXXXX XX XX XXXXXX XXXXX
An Extensive Air Shower Array at the Meson Physics Facility
Los Alamos National Labs
____________________________________________________________________________
My opinions are my own, don't you dare give someone else credit for them!
Patrick Rannou
As stated in the PHB, page 40, under backstab:
"The weapon's standard damage damage is multipled by the value given
on Table 30, THEN strength and magical weapon bonuses are added."
This is reasonable, perhaps, but far too restrictive. Backstabbing
is supposed to be a thief's most feared attack, yet it comes down to
almost no advantage over a fighter's frontal attack.
[...stuff deleted...]
This forces thieves to use fighter weapons to have a chance, but where's
the traditional stab-in-the-back scenario with a keen knife? Daggers,
knives, and other thieving weapons are out of the picture. Some DMs further
impose the restriction that backstabbing can be only done with a one-handed
piercing weapon. Certainly one can't backstab with a two-handed sword,
of course.
I agree with using only one-handed weapon. No bastard sword for a
backstab, please.
To be fair, magical bonuses or strength bonuses should be added before
the multiplier, or the thief, the weakest of the four classes, gets even weaker.
That I don't agree. Even when I was playing AD&D1, back in the "ole days"
;-), I didn`t use str and magic bonuses when multiplitying ANY kind of damage.
Why? Because a character with high stat and magic is ALREADY advantged
enough compared to a normal character, and to be frank I fail to see why:
It's the skill in choosing the right spot that mutliplies the damage, not
the strength or the magic of the weapon.
Think about it this way:
A 5th level thief with 15 STR and a normal sword does a backstab with a
long sword.
Damage: 2nd ed. rules: D8*3 + 0 STR bonus + 0 m,agic bonus
your rules: ( D8 + 0 + 0 ) * 3
Mean damage: stays the same: 13.5
Now, take a 5th level thief with 18 STR and a +4 weapon.
2nd ed. rules: D8*3 + 2 + 4 = mean 19.5
your rules: ( D8 + 2 + 4 ) * 3 = mean 31.5
So, you say that backstab should be a thief's most feared attack, but in
effect you use a rule that make backstab a HIGH POWERED thief's most feared
attack. The normal thief should just be as much feared, not because of his
strength and magic bonus, but because of his skill in choosing the "right
spot" to hit.
So if you really have a problem with backstab, just do like me: change the
MULTIPLIER bonus on the BASE damage.
Instead of having +2 at level 1-4, +3 at levels 5-9, etc... just change it
according to how dangerous you think a thief should be at a given level.
You are the GM, you scan change any rule, and players won't whine if it
advantages their group...
I use a +1 bonus to the mutiplier at each 3 levels, up to a maximum of +5.
level 2nd ed. rules level my rules
1-4 x2 1-3 x2
5-9 x3 4-6 x3
10-13 x4 7-9 x4
14+ x5 10+ x5
It may not be seem to be such a big difference (i.e. our 5th level thief
still as x3 and does mean damage 19.5 instead of 31.5), but think about it
again: a backstab is NOT an assassination attempt, and most victims from a
backstab are not high level characters. Thoe guards we see killed from
behond in movies are just normal D8+1 hit points zero level guards... sure
they fall like leaves!
If you find it still too low, you can use another table I used:
level other rules for super killer thieves
1-2 x2
3-4 x3
5-6 x4
7-8 x5
9-10 x6
11+ x7
But I found it a little too powerful. I mean, OK sure thieves don't have
that much hit points, but they have enough advantages already without them
having to be so much better than fighters on their first "from behind"
attack. Heck, just put a little poison (thieves do this all the time) on
your sword and the damage you make will easily jump from a mean value of
19.5 to well over 31.5... no need to include STR and magic in the damage
multiplier... it just makes normal thieves that much wimpier compared to
super-powered thieves.
Paradak.
Patrick Rannou
<stuff deleted>
>
>Axly
>
>
Cary
OK, try this a few times:
A NPC evil thief with a longsword and a good strength and a magical weapon
silently follows the party in the dungeon. Then, when they attack an enemy
encounter, the thief sneak up on the PC who is the most in the back and
BACKSTAB him, adding all bonuses THEN mutiplying. Be sure that the thief is
of a level approximately of the party's avergae level. I.E if the party
average level is 6, then the thief is also 6th.
Hmmm.. since those in the back of the party are mostly mages, a 6th level
mage with 16 CON (I assume you have a munchkinist attitude, but even if you
don't, my example just show how bad this thing can get) will have at most
6 * (D4+2) = 36 hit points, mean value 27. So your mage has 30 hit
points... very good for a 6th level mage!!! Even thieves sometimes envy
such a value...
So the backstabber hits, for: STR 17, magic +1 long sword, x3, total
(D8+1+1)*3 = mean value 19.5 damage. Ouch! Lucky that your PC mage had such
a high CON, no? Of course. And why not making the evil thief 18 STR with a
+3 sword??? Hmmm? mean damage then is 28.5... a good chance for an
automatic kill!!! Of course, as soon as he his discovered, the thief
flees... He's not stupid.
After a few times of this bad treatment, i.e. a few kills on the PC party,
let's see how they like auto-kills. If the party does it, the monsters
should do it also.
Then you'll come back and tell me if it's right.
Personnally, I think just having the strength bonus is tolerable, but the
magic bonus is just going overboard. You say a thief should be feared. OK,
but why fear him only when he's holding a magic sword? That's not very
logic...
Anbd after all, automatic kills aren't a very fun way to deal with combat.
The only monsters that should fall on one hit are those of level 2 and under.
(except of course in special circumstances...)
Paradak.
Health Man
Evil is not MORE fun to play. Evil is hard to play, even more so than
Lawful Good I think. The players I have seen play and "evil" PC are really
doing nothing more than playing Chatoic Neutral with an attitude problem,
they are not truly evil. True evil PC's do things that would soon find
them in real trouble with both other PCs and NPCs. They steal and kill not
simply for money or to save someone. Rather just for the fun of it. If evil
PCs rescue a fair women-they rape then kill her!! Evil is not a easy alignment
to play.
Michael Kelly
Lutz Hofmann
>
> Chris
Currently I play a lawful evil assassin/illusionist gnome in a
AD&D 1st Ed. game. All other characters are at least neutral. One is
lawful good. Also currently I play Flint Fireforge in the
Dragonlance campaign.
I is fun to hide my assassin class from all others.
And i had me share of evil acts. (drug smuggling, fraud)
It is also fun to impersonate a "father" to all the other
Dragonlance characters.
So my opinion, based on this small personal experience, is:
Neither are evil PC's more fun to play than good PC's, nor are good PC's
more fun to play than evil PC's.
All matters considered. Yours Sincerely Lutz Hofmann
l...@cs.tu-berlin.de
Axly
>In article <Bqq9M...@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:
>>Ah contraire..
>>"The weapon's standard damage is added to the wielder's Strength bonus
>>and then multiplied by the value given in Table 30. Then magical weapon
>>bonuses are added."
>>PH ADD2 p.40
>Ohhh! Ahhhh! Since theives cannot have exceptional strength their
>strength bonus is +1 or if he's lucky +2. This doesn't add up to much.
>In the campaign I play in we add in everything and then multiply.
>This makes the attack on a basically unaware character much more
>deadly. IMHO this follows somewhat from the rules concerning
>attacks against held et cetera opponents.
>Cary
You fail to consider the deadly combination of fighter/thief/whatever.
A fighter / mage / thief of level 4 / 4 / 5 (Brantyr Silverblade)
has an 18/00 strength (Yes, he really rolled it.) His backstab
damage with a drusus is 31.5. OUCH!
Consider also the character with two classes. If he used to be a
fighter with exceptional strength and became a thief, his backstab
damage could be really high.
Attempting to apply logic to backstab just doesn't work IMHO. Why
is a thief (little spindly guy) likely to do you more damage stabbing
you in the back than an experienced warrior who is used to stabbing
into peoples vital areas? It's a game balance thing only.
Axly
JAMES ZAKANY
The poster (lost in obscurity) simply thought that all damage modifiers
should be multiplied when a rogue backstabs. Most disagree, as do I.
Remember, however, that a backstab - by definition - is a SURPRISE! That
usually translates into a free attack. I BELIEVE that it would be possible
for a cowardly cutpurse to ruthlessly stab someone in the back and start
running away immediately. If this type of attack goes as planned, the
thief could avoid getting swiped at by a sword. 'course, if the victim was
handling, say, a dagger, then such could be tossed at the retreating
villian.
(PS. doesn't it irk you when someone misspells T H I E F ???)
James S. Zakany
Axly
>I agree. Even if a 13th level thief with a +5 longsword & Girdle/Storm
>gets (8+5+12)*5 = 125 HP -- worse if he reads a scroll of Shocking
>Grasp first. And that's just with his PRIMARY weapon! (I know, I
>know. AD&D2 doesn't allow a 19 DEX Elf to use a main/gauche unless
>he's part Warrior. What would the Grey Mouser say?)
Using the rules, the thief would get (4.5+12) * 5 + 5 on the average.
This is quite sufficient to kill just about anything. The rule works
quite well if strength is added in first, but I like having magic
outside the loop.
Axly
Lance R. Marrou
>WHAT? This is wrong. Check out the Complete Fighter's handbook. Not
>only can a thief with a 19 dex use a main gauche (if there's a longer
>weapon in the other hand), any character of any class can *specialize*
>in a single style of combat (single-classed fighters can specialize in
>all the styles).
>So, an ordinary 1st level thief with a 19 dex can use a longsword in
Thieves can use long swords? I don't let them backstab with it.
>one hand at no penalty (-2+3=+1, so no penalty), and a dagger in the
>other hand at -1 (-4+3=-1). Spending a combat proficiency on
>ambidexterity at character creation will negate the -1, and spending a
>combat proficiency on two-weapon style will also permit the character
>to use, for example, two short swords or two long swords.
TWO longswords??? How does one manage this? I would liken it to
firing two rifles (with accuracy) at the same time. Impossible.
>The other thing to mention is that no matter how many attacks a thief
>gets in a round, the backstab bonuses only apply to *one* of them.
>After this one the surprise is lost.
My personal opinion on this is that a thief can only attack once when
backstabbing. However, a successful backstab is normally followed up
(since the thief has initiative). This is regardless of what the thief
has, including a haste spell.
>--
>Doug DeJulio
>d...@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu (NeXT, AMS/ATK and MIME mail welcome)
Lance R. Marrou
mar...@ist.ucf.edu
Ryk E Spoor
> I disagree. I think that a well-played evil group of PCs can be at
>least as fun as the good party, if one has a tolerant DM. If you are a DM who
>*hates* seeing his adventure not completed, or go in a different direction
>from what he intended, then youd better have a good party. However, if you are
>willing to run a game where most of the fun comes from the PC interactions,
>then an evil campaign can be amusing, as long as you have mature players who
>are not going to carry the game into real life. I mean in saying this that
>many times in an evil campaign, Pcs will hurt each other, and if the players
>are the type who take this personally, evil characters are NOT a good idea.
I guess it also depends on what the players put into their characters.
I personally spend between 4 and 10 hours just CREATING each character I
play, and having him or her or it axed by another player in the first two
or three sessions should be grounds for immediate termination of the player.
But from my POV, whenever I've played an evil character things have
been just so bloody EASY. I had one character who wormed his way into the
graces of the good parties of the campaign, while undermining them all,
got all the evils on his side, then betrayed the evils to the (weaker)
good side (setting up a rather even contest between the physically better
equipped Bad Guys and the informationally and mentally superior Good Guys)
so as to weaken both sides and keep everyone distracted while I went about
my own private projects. Even the other evil PCs either trusted me or never
suspected I was even EVIL.
When it finally became clear that I WAS involved, the PCs from
both sides realized I was the most dangerous person around and assembled
a crack strike team to get me, and set it up so that we'd meet in neutral
ground.
Average level of the opposing team: 15-16, ten members, all PCs,
played by GOOD players.
My level: three classes, average of 9.
All the strike team died. They came to loathe the nasty little
chuckle they'd hear just before another of them disappeared (I patterned
the character after the Doctor Who villan The Master).
At that point the GM came to me and literally begged me to agree
to retire the character and NEVER to play an evil in his world again. he
had not believed I'd be either that devious or that utterly ruthless.
That was the first of three worlds in which I was FORBIDDEN to
play evil characters. Not that GREAT a loss, to me, since I prefer operating
with the greater strictures of having a strong moral code.
This is my general impression of evils. Either they are stupid (because
the player is dumb or shortsighted) or they are too dangerous to allow any
kind of long-term play. Since my players (and I, when I'm a player) spend
a huge amount of effort on the characters, we WANT the game and the characters
to last a good long time.
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
I'm not evil...I'm just good looking
>I have decided to start up a thread I haven't seen in a while. Namely are evil pc's more fun than good ones? Incedently I got this Idea from Pandarak.
> Lets get some opinions out here people!
> Chris
In nearly every campaign I play, the PC's, myself included, are all
evil. It can be fun at times, but the constant bickering and assassination
attempts are time consuming and lose much of their luster. In my experiences
good players are hard to find, and a good party would be much better to run,
since most adventures are based on the notion that the party is generally
good. By the way I am a member of the "Boxed Beholder" party.
Wildfire
(Sir Lance the Arrogant)
Harri Haanp{{
>OK, try this a few times:
<a 6th level thief attacks a 6th level party from behind>
>Hmmm.. since those in the back of the party are mostly mages, a 6th level
>mage with 16 CON (I assume you have a munchkinist attitude, but even if you
>don't, my example just show how bad this thing can get) will have at most
>6 * (D4+2) = 36 hit points, mean value 27. So your mage has 30 hit
>points... very good for a 6th level mage!!! Even thieves sometimes envy
>such a value...
We always have some kind of a fighter protecting the rear - if there are
not many enough fighters, we use a cleric. That's slightly beside the point,
however..
What about thieves? A sixth level thief has but 6 * 3.5 = 21 hit points
on the average.
>So the backstabber hits, for: STR 17, magic +1 long sword, x3, total
>(D8+1+1)*3 = mean value 19.5 damage. Ouch! Lucky that your PC mage had such
>a high CON, no? Of course. And why not making the evil thief 18 STR with a
>+3 sword??? Hmmm? mean damage then is 28.5... a good chance for an
>automatic kill!!! Of course, as soon as he his discovered, the thief
>flees... He's not stupid.
Consider this: Fred and his friends are following a narrow path through
the woods. (In his interactions with other characters you can call him
Fred the Filcher instead of saying Fred the 6th-level thief.)
Suddenly a fireball bursts in the middle of the group. It will probably
catch at the very least three of the thieves. A 6th level fireball does
6d6 damage. Lezzee.. that makes, hm, 21 hit points. Sprinkle with bad luck
and presto, you have at least two corpses. Oh, and 6th level mages have
two fireballs, unless the second edition changed that too.
>After a few times of this bad treatment, i.e. a few kills on the PC party,
>let's see how they like auto-kills. If the party does it, the monsters
>should do it also.
After a few times of this bad treatment, i.e. a few kills _of_ the PC party..
Harri H.
--
Harri Haanp{{ : "Alas, a lass is what I lack.
Lutherinkatu 12 A 14 : Alack, I lack a lass."
00100 Helsinki : - Once Upon a Mattress.
ha...@vipunen.hut.fi :
Cary Collett
>
>OK, try this a few times:
>
>A NPC evil thief with a longsword and a good strength and a magical weapon
>silently follows the party in the dungeon. Then, when they attack an enemy
>encounter, the thief sneak up on the PC who is the most in the back and
>BACKSTAB him, adding all bonuses THEN mutiplying. Be sure that the thief is
>of a level approximately of the party's avergae level. I.E if the party
>average level is 6, then the thief is also 6th.
>
>Hmmm.. since those in the back of the party are mostly mages, a 6th level
>mage with 16 CON (I assume you have a munchkinist attitude, but even if you
>don't, my example just show how bad this thing can get) will have at most
>6 * (D4+2) = 36 hit points, mean value 27. So your mage has 30 hit
>points... very good for a 6th level mage!!! Even thieves sometimes envy
>such a value...
Why would you have all the mages in the back of the party? That would
seem to be rather dangerous for just the reason you outlined above.
In any campaign I've played in the mages and weaker party members are
in the middle of the party!
>
>So the backstabber hits, for: STR 17, magic +1 long sword, x3, total
>(D8+1+1)*3 = mean value 19.5 damage. Ouch! Lucky that your PC mage had such
>a high CON, no? Of course. And why not making the evil thief 18 STR with a
>+3 sword??? Hmmm? mean damage then is 28.5... a good chance for an
>automatic kill!!! Of course, as soon as he his discovered, the thief
>flees... He's not stupid.
>
Actually most people I know who play mages try very hard to get a con
bonus so that they can't get wiped out so easily. Indeed in some of the
school's have very high con minimums. You put forth a worst case scenario.
Thieves with an 18 str are, in my experience, rare. Also, in the campaign
I am in, we don't have very powerful magic, so magical plusses of more
than 2 are very rare. This is a ~8th level party too.
>After a few times of this bad treatment, i.e. a few kills on the PC party,
>let's see how they like auto-kills. If the party does it, the monsters
>should do it also.
>
Of course. It's a dog eat dog fantasy world. I never meant to suggest
otherwise.
>Then you'll come back and tell me if it's right.
>
>Personnally, I think just having the strength bonus is tolerable, but the
>magic bonus is just going overboard. You say a thief should be feared. OK,
>but why fear him only when he's holding a magic sword? That's not very
>logic...
>
>Anbd after all, automatic kills aren't a very fun way to deal with combat.
>The only monsters that should fall on one hit are those of level 2 and under.
>(except of course in special circumstances...)
>
>Paradak.
>
>
Backstabbing (IMHO) is very hard to next to impossible to do in a melee.
Thieves should not get to use this very powerful attack easily. There are
checks against successfully backstabbing. First the move silently roll must
succeed. Second the thief must hit, granted he has a +4 to hit but then
thieves have a lousy hit progression table. If you use good tatics in
your marching formation then only figher-types should be vulnerable to
a backstab. These folks usually have hit points out the wazoo and a low
AC so they will not going to be killed straight off. Then off course the
thief is going to be in trouble since he's going to have to face a very
angry, possibly powerful opponent and his friends. See ya Mr. Thief!
David Seal
l2w...@napier.waterloo.edu ( Lei Wang ) writes:
> As stated in the PHB, page 40, under backstab:
>
> "The weapon's standard damage damage is multipled by the value given
>on Table 30, THEN strength and magical weapon bonuses are added."
>
> This is reasonable, perhaps, but far too restrictive. Backstabbing
>is supposed to be a thief's most feared attack, yet it comes down to
>almost no advantage over a fighter's frontal attack.
>
>...
>
> To be fair, magical bonuses or strength bonuses should be added before
>the multiplier, or the thief, the weakest of the four classes, gets even weaker.
Others have observed that a thief is allowed to use bigger weapons than
daggers for backstabbing. I would add that, at least in edition 1, the
sensible thief uses two weapons: he will take some "to hit" penalties, but
these won't be large if he has a decent dexterity. He will almost double his
chances of scoring at least one hit - and when both land, he can be
deadly...
I don't know edition 2 well enough to know whether this works there as well
- does anyone know?
David Seal
ds...@armltd.co.uk
All opinions are mine only...
Todd Sterling Anderson
find huge differences between Lawful Evil characters and Chaotic Evil characters.
Someone said in a posting that in Evil campaigns more gratuitous violence
occurs. I would disagree with that statement. If the characters are CE, then
that statement is valid. However, if the campaign is LE, then I would
disagree.
I think the distinction can be made using a modern day analogy. The
Mafia and the Japanesse Yakuza are examples of Lawful Evil organizations. It
would seem to me that very little of the violence they do is gratuitous.
Everytime they commit a murder it is for a definite reason. They choose
to restrain themselves for greater overall final gain or for longer range
objectives.
In contrast, I would see alot of the smaller time drug dealers
as chaotic evil. They are restricted to smaller time operations because
they will commit acts of senseless violence without thought of long-term
profit.
I don't think people out there would disagree much with the
statement that a LG character behaves very differently from a CG character,
so why do evil characters get grouped like this??
kje...@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
>>I agree. Even if a 13th level thief with a +5 longsword & Girdle/Storm
>>gets (8+5+12)*5 = 125 HP -- worse if he reads a scroll of Shocking
>>Grasp first. And that's just with his PRIMARY weapon! (I know, I
>>know. AD&D2 doesn't allow a 19 DEX Elf to use a main/gauche unless
>>he's part Warrior. What would the Grey Mouser say?)
In article <1992Jul2.1...@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu> d...@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu (Doug DeJulio) writes:
>WHAT? This is wrong. Check out the Complete Fighter's handbook. [...]
Oops. I really ought to check the AD&D2 manuals before I post about
it. (RTFM!) PHB2, p. 96, sez Warriors and Rogues can both use two
weapons.
-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
kje...@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (713) 483-4368
"Is there not an abode in Hell for the arrogant?"
-- Koran, SURA XXIX -- The Troops, v. 63
kje...@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
[...]
>You fail to consider the deadly combination of fighter/thief/whatever.
>A fighter / mage / thief of level 4 / 4 / 5 (Brantyr Silverblade)
>has an 18/00 strength (Yes, he really rolled it.) His backstab
>damage with a drusus is 31.5. OUCH!
(What's a "drusus," anyway?)
The only races who can be an F/M/T are elven and half-elven. And
they USED to be limited to 18/75 and 18/90 respectively. These
race/sex maximums seem to have disappeared in AD&D2. Nu?
-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
kje...@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (713) 483-4368
"Orcs are fecund and create many cross-breeds..."
-- PHB1, p. 17
Lei Wang
> "The weapon's standard damage is added to the wielder's Strength bonus
> bonuses are added."
> PH ADD2 p.40
No.
Check again. Second Edition player's handbook, page 40, column three,
lines 5-10. Maybe there's a contradiction of rules, if some typo is
written down somewhere else.
Anyways, replying to the followups to my original post:
The thief that 'puts a knife in your back' is dead or useless. It's
now the thief that hacks down your spine with his longsword.
Role playing favors the former, while written rules favor the later.
Well, since backstabbing is best done with a Fast weapon, not a weapon
that whistles through the air toward your opponent(they'd hear it), I'm
tempted to add in the rule that a backstabber does the damage of
(weapon base dam) * bk multiplier * ( 4 / weapon base speed ) + bonuses.
The minimum weapon base speed would be two, so if you backstab with a
dagger, you'd still do significant damage.
Nothing important changed, of course, but I just like to add a bit
of realism into my campaigns.
--
l2w...@napier.waterloo.edu
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ME: Univ. of Waterloo YOU: Huh? o=> ME: in Canada, YOU: Huh?
ME: in Ontario, YOU: Huh? /o/ ME: up north! YOU: Aaaaaahhh...
ME: near Toronto, YOU: Huh? ==o Huh??
Patrick Buchert
In article <25...@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> seaw...@pitt.edu (Ryk E Spoor) writes:
>In article <BqrLr...@acsu.buffalo.edu> lno...@acsu.buffalo.edu (Louis Norton) writes:
>> I disagree. I think that a well-played evil group of PCs can be at
>>least as fun as the good party, if one has a tolerant DM. If you are a DM who
>>*hates* seeing his adventure not completed, or go in a different direction
>>from what he intended, then youd better have a good party. However, if you are
>>willing to run a game where most of the fun comes from the PC interactions,
>>then an evil campaign can be amusing, as long as you have mature players who
>>are not going to carry the game into real life. I mean in saying this that
>>many times in an evil campaign, Pcs will hurt each other, and if the players
>>are the type who take this personally, evil characters are NOT a good idea.
I agree,sometimes playing evil character can be so fun,because they
have more freedom (Like: Hey you can't do that,you are good)
And I NEVER mix fantasy with real life (Although I wish sometimes I
could)
I believe that evil characters can be combined into any (well almost..)
party,if they are not totally self-centered.
> I guess it also depends on what the players put into their characters.
>I personally spend between 4 and 10 hours just CREATING each character I
>play, and having him or her or it axed by another player in the first two
>or three sessions should be grounds for immediate termination of the player.
I always put atleast that much time in every character I make,sometimes
getting just right feel can take days.
Besides why play with 'friends' who only want to make characters
whose aim is only to kill other characters (evil characters aren't
obligated to do that,you know)
> But from my POV, whenever I've played an evil character things have
>been just so bloody EASY. I had one character who wormed his way into the
>graces of the good parties of the campaign, while undermining them all,
>got all the evils on his side, then betrayed the evils to the (weaker)
>good side (setting up a rather even contest between the physically better
>equipped Bad Guys and the informationally and mentally superior Good Guys)
>so as to weaken both sides and keep everyone distracted while I went about
>my own private projects. Even the other evil PCs either trusted me or never
>suspected I was even EVIL.
.
.
> At that point the GM came to me and literally begged me to agree
>to retire the character and NEVER to play an evil in his world again. he
>had not believed I'd be either that devious or that utterly ruthless.
>
> That was the first of three worlds in which I was FORBIDDEN to
>play evil characters. Not that GREAT a loss, to me, since I prefer operating
>with the greater strictures of having a strong moral code.
>
> This is my general impression of evils. Either they are stupid (because
>the player is dumb or shortsighted) or they are too dangerous to allow any
>kind of long-term play. Since my players (and I, when I'm a player) spend
Yes,but your general impression appears quite black & white.
You seem to think that only the extreme of evil exists.When you are
playing a evil character you seem to think he should be so evil that
he tries to kill or doublecross everybody.
But IMO there exists also shades of grey ie. evil character
doesn't have to think everybody as an enemy,he might just have
a little taint of cruelness/sadistic streak in him (which good
aligment does not allow)
For example Dalamar(in dragonlance) If he would not have had
the black robes,who would have known that he was evil.
>a huge amount of effort on the characters, we WANT the game and the characters
>to last a good long time.
I don't see why it shouldn't last with evil characters.
Even evil characters have friends (and they may not even be
willing to sacrifice them for powers sake :)
I think that evil characters can have a bit of good in them,they
just have a little less obligations than good characters have
(They don't HAVE TO care,but they can)
GOOD NEUTRAL EVIL - it just isn't that simple.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: pbuc...@otax.hut.fi * Live and learn, die and forget :
: Patrick Buchert * ... Unless you are an expert system :
: * :
David Braun
wrote:
C> I have decided to start up a thread I haven't seen in a while. Namely
C> are evil pc's more fun than good ones? Incedently I got this Idea
C> from Pandarak.
C> Lets get some opinions out here people!
I don't know if it I would class playing evil players as _more_ fun
than good players, but they can be as much fun to play in their own right.
Some of my fonder memories of gaming come from playing evil characters.
Generally when we played an evil group we did so on a short term basis (as
a break between the more 'epic' games).
/db
-- Via DLG Pro v0.992
Lei Wang
the most favored opinion seems to be:
Add in the strength bonus, then apply the multiplier, then add in all
of the other bonuses, including magical.
This seems to work the best, excluding those somewhat rare cases where
a thief is a multi-classed fighter with exceptional strength, or where
a thief has access to girdles or gauntlets of strength.
Other ideas were suggested, like change the multiplier for weapon
base damage according to thief level, or include the speed factor
into consideration as multiplier(my own).
Note that this is all pursuing the mythical beast Game Balance, such
that a thief has access to such an attack form as seen in fantasy and
fiction.
True, in real life, a charging, very skilled warrior with a sharp blade might
be just as deadly as a knife in the back, but that would make the thief
weak in general, as in AD&D 2nd edition.
David Seal
>You fail to consider the deadly combination of fighter/thief/whatever.
>A fighter / mage / thief of level 4 / 4 / 5 (Brantyr Silverblade)
>has an 18/00 strength (Yes, he really rolled it.) His backstab
>damage with a drusus is 31.5. OUCH!
>
>Consider also the character with two classes. If he used to be a
>fighter with exceptional strength and became a thief, his backstab
>damage could be really high.
Hmm... how about the following idea: you get the backstab multiplier because
of your skill at directing the attack accurately. Doing this and using full
exceptional strength aren't really compatible with each other: one requires
you to aim very accurately, the other requires you to start your blow from
far enough back to get your full strength behind it.
This would mean that a fighter/thief or fighter-turned-thief with
exceptional strength would be limited to maximum thief strength (i.e.
straight 18) when backstabbing. Having done this, I think it becomes
reasonable to allow the strength bonus to be added before the backstab
multiplier. Magical bonuses should still be added after the multiplier,
especially if you're giving the characters some high bonus weapons: allowing
a bonus of 2*multiplier to the blow is one thing, 4*multiplier or
5*multiplier is rather worse! If you need a justification for this, just
remember that magic is not an exact science...
Another way of looking at the "no exceptional strength in a backstab" idea:
as a fighter/thief or fighter-turned-thief, you're able to act as a fighter
*or* as a thief. But there's nothing that says you can act as both
simultaneously!
>Attempting to apply logic to backstab just doesn't work IMHO. Why
>is a thief (little spindly guy) likely to do you more damage stabbing
>you in the back than an experienced warrior who is used to stabbing
>into peoples vital areas? It's a game balance thing only.
I thought the idea was that you pick the spot and backstab there *and that's
the first the victim knows about it*. Yes, the warrior is used to stabbing
into vital areas, but the mere fact that the victim knows the attack is
coming allows them to dodge enough to avoid the worst results of the attack.
(Note that if the victim can't dodge at all, anybody can get an automatic
kill.) It may not be terribly realistic, but it's some justification besides
"game balance".
By the way, thieves needn't be little, spindly or even guys :-)
Axly
>> Ah contraire..
>> "The weapon's standard damage is added to the wielder's Strength bonus
>> and then multiplied by the value given in Table 30. Then magical weapon
>> bonuses are added."
>> PH ADD2 p.40
> Check again. Second Edition player's handbook, page 40, column three,
>lines 5-10. Maybe there's a contradiction of rules, if some typo is
>written down somewhere else.
I took that quote right out of my book. Perhaps they have changed that rule.
Anyone out there have the latest edition of the PH?
> Well, since backstabbing is best done with a Fast weapon, not a weapon
>that whistles through the air toward your opponent(they'd hear it), I'm
>tempted to add in the rule that a backstabber does the damage of
>(weapon base dam) * bk multiplier * ( 4 / weapon base speed ) + bonuses.
The time it takes to swing a longsword would not be that long, and you
can stab with a longsword also. Unless you tie a whistle on the end of
your sword, no one is going to hear it coming. Besides, no one in
reality tries to stab an opponent in the back if they are suprising them.
They reach around and cut their throat, or use a big enough knife to
cut their head off their shoulders like the Gurkhas.
> The minimum weapon base speed would be two, so if you backstab with a
>dagger, you'd still do significant damage.
>
> Nothing important changed, of course, but I just like to add a bit
>of realism into my campaigns.
Realism? Thieves being more dangerous than trained warriors is not realistic.
The backstab rules are an exercise in game balance, not realism.
Axly
Axly
>In article <Bqru6...@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:
>[...]
>>You fail to consider the deadly combination of fighter/thief/whatever.
>>A fighter / mage / thief of level 4 / 4 / 5 (Brantyr Silverblade)
>>has an 18/00 strength (Yes, he really rolled it.) His backstab
>>damage with a drusus is 31.5. OUCH!
>(What's a "drusus," anyway?)
A drusus is a highquality steel shortsword that does +1 damage, and has
+1 to hit. Nice weapon for elves.
>The only races who can be an F/M/T are elven and half-elven. And
>they USED to be limited to 18/75 and 18/90 respectively. These
>race/sex maximums seem to have disappeared in AD&D2. Nu?
Yes, those rules have been eliminated.
> "Orcs are fecund and create many cross-breeds..."
> -- PHB1, p. 17
"Elves kill these cross-breeds as quickly as they can."
-- Brantyr Silverblade, Foreteller of his own Doom
Axly
Axly
>In article <Bqru6...@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
>writes:
>>You fail to consider the deadly combination of fighter/thief/whatever.
>>A fighter / mage / thief of level 4 / 4 / 5 (Brantyr Silverblade)
>>has an 18/00 strength (Yes, he really rolled it.) His backstab
>>damage with a drusus is 31.5. OUCH!
>>
>>Consider also the character with two classes. If he used to be a
>>fighter with exceptional strength and became a thief, his backstab
>>damage could be really high.
>Hmm... how about the following idea: you get the backstab multiplier because
>of your skill at directing the attack accurately. Doing this and using full
>exceptional strength aren't really compatible with each other: one requires
>you to aim very accurately, the other requires you to start your blow from
>far enough back to get your full strength behind it.
The strong person can actually direct his blow more accurately than the
weaker person. Think about it: Can Arnold wield a sword more dextrously
than PeeWee Herman? Of course, because the blade feels lighter to him
because he is stronger. Also, actually sight of impact may not be as
important as what you do with the weapon once you stick it in. A very
strong thief twisting his shortsword up to get the heart is more likely
to pull this off.
>>Attempting to apply logic to backstab just doesn't work IMHO. Why
>>is a thief (little spindly guy) likely to do you more damage stabbing
>>you in the back than an experienced warrior who is used to stabbing
>>into peoples vital areas? It's a game balance thing only.
>I thought the idea was that you pick the spot and backstab there *and that's
>the first the victim knows about it*. Yes, the warrior is used to stabbing
>into vital areas, but the mere fact that the victim knows the attack is
>coming allows them to dodge enough to avoid the worst results of the attack.
>(Note that if the victim can't dodge at all, anybody can get an automatic
>kill.) It may not be terribly realistic, but it's some justification besides
>"game balance".
What is the realism behind restricting stealth skills to thieves?
Warriors are the characters who would actually be far more likely
to learn these skills as far as in the wilderness. Following ADD logic,
Navy SEALS would have to be thieves as they can sneak up and steal
your underwear while you are still wearing it. Anyone want to go a few
rounds with a SEAL?
Axly
TheFoxx AJ
|> In article <g#1l...@lynx.unm.edu> ca...@carina.unm.edu (Cary Collett) writes:
|>
|> Ohhh! Ahhhh! Since theives cannot have exceptional strength their
|> strength bonus is +1 or if he's lucky +2. This doesn't add up to much.
|>
|> In the campaign I play in we add in everything and then multiply.
|>
|> OK, try this a few times:
|>
|> A NPC evil thief with a longsword and a good strength and a magical weapon
|> silently follows the party in the dungeon. Then, when they attack an enemy
|> encounter, the thief sneak up on the PC who is the most in the back and
|> BACKSTAB him, adding all bonuses THEN mutiplying. Be sure that the thief is
|> of a level approximately of the party's avergae level. I.E if the party
|> average level is 6, then the thief is also 6th.
|>
|> Hmmm.. since those in the back of the party are mostly mages, a 6th level
|> mage with 16 CON (I assume you have a munchkinist attitude, but even if you
|> don't, my example just show how bad this thing can get) will have at most
|> 6 * (D4+2) = 36 hit points, mean value 27. So your mage has 30 hit
|> points... very good for a 6th level mage!!! Even thieves sometimes envy
|> such a value...
|>
|> value 19.5 damage. ...18 STR with a +3 sword???
|> a good chance for an automatic kill!!! Of course, as soon as
|> he his discovered, the thief flees... He's not stupid.
|>
|> After a few times of this bad treatment, i.e. a few kills on the PC party,
|> let's see how they like auto-kills. If the party does it, the monsters
|> should do it also.
|>
|> Then you'll come back and tell me if it's right.
Well, you weren't speaking to me but, OK, it's all right.
That's the way it's run in games I've played in and run. No
complaints from any side. It does make the thief feared for his
backstab ability. Doubling all bonuses doesn't allow the
thief's backstab to outstrip any other class's capabilities.
The only problem I see with the above scenario is that the party
will become upset if the DM does it for no other reason than to
treat the party badly.
Following your example, I might as well have an evil cleric
follow and cast Hold Person on the party fighter up front, or a
fighter make a rear attack with two weapons on the party mage;
maybe a surprise stinking cloud from the lurking wizard,
followed up by a nice lighting bolt. A thief's best kill is
quick and easy but has only one target. Why is this worse than
surprise attacks by spellcasters with multiple target spells, or
surprise attacks by fighters with good THAC0s, lots of bonuses,
and lots of attacks?
TheFoxx AJ
|> Anyways, replying to the followups to my original post:
|>
|> The thief that 'puts a knife in your back' is dead or useless. It's
|> now the thief that hacks down your spine with his longsword.
|> Role playing favors the former, while written rules favor the later.
|>
|> Well, since backstabbing is best done with a Fast weapon, not a weapon
|> that whistles through the air toward your opponent(they'd hear it), I'm
|> tempted to add in the rule that a backstabber does the damage of
|> (weapon base dam) * bk multiplier * ( 4 / weapon base speed ) + bonuses.
|>
|> The minimum weapon base speed would be two, so if you backstab with a
|> dagger, you'd still do significant damage.
|>
|> Nothing important changed, of course, but I just like to add a bit
|> of realism into my campaigns.
I went ahead and altered the backstab multiplier. I assume the
listed one is for a Medium size weapon. Using a Small weapon
increases the multiplier by one, using a Large weapon decreases
it by one. So daggers can once again return to vogue, and those
fighter/thief PCs find their bastard swords less suitable for
stealthy rear attacks.
I also have thieves roll multiple sets of dice and add rather
than add then multiply. Max damage and those 2 point backstabs
become rarer and a more average range of damage more common.
Bret Indrelee
With all the discussion about backstabbing going on, I thought I
would ask a question of my own.
What happens when a thief backstabs a giant with a sword that normally
does x2 damage vs. giants.
Example: Fif the 5th level thief manages to sneak up on the fearsome
hill-giant with his shortsword of hill-giant slaying.
Damage is normally d8 x2 + 2 because of magical 'slaying' ability.
The weapon is +2 for magic, multiply base damage by two because of
special ability.
Backstab would be a x3 multiplier.
Assume no strength bonus for Fif.
Is the damage:
((d8 x 2) x3) +2,
( d8 x (2+3)) +2,
((d8 x 4) + 2 Normally x3, move up an additional 'rank'
[ This last option is the weakest, and probably the one I would use. ]
Just something to think about before giving out any weapon that can
multiply damage...I always wanted to get one of these weapons when I
was playing first edition just to see how the GM would rule.
-Bret
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bret Indrelee | Howe's Law:
email: br...@technix.mn.org | Everyone has a scheme that will not work.
I am not an employee of Technix, nor do I represent them in any way.
cs106b16
played Paladins. You HAVE to play an evil character at leave once if you
ever want to understand the other side. It will also make you a better
roleplayer. I don't think any class, race, or alignment is more fun than
any other. It is what is most fun to the individual player that is important.
Or rather what you MAKE become fun for yourself. Personally I will allow a
race here and a class here from Best of Dragon's and that seems to spice
up campaigns and give players a new perspective.
JASON BELL
YES!!!!
Mephisto.
Bwah ha ha hah!!!!
Lei Wang
> >> "The weapon's standard damage is added to the wielder's Strength bonus
> >> and then multiplied by the value given in Table 30. Then magical weapon
> >> bonuses are added."
> >> PH ADD2 p.40
>
> > Check again. Second Edition player's handbook, page 40, column three,
> >lines 5-10. Maybe there's a contradiction of rules, if some typo is
> >written down somewhere else.
>
> I took that quote right out of my book. Perhaps they have changed that rule.
> Anyone out there have the latest edition of the PH?
My version of the PH, the one that says 'multiply, than add strength, etc',
looks like any other Players Handbook from 2nd edition.
There might be a bit of difference, though: On the binding, toward the
very bottom, there's a TSR sigil, red letters set in gold. This is also
on the back of the book, toward lower-left-center. I vaguely remember
that some players handbooks didn't have this feature.
Christopher Lee Cavender
Chris
Patrick Rannou
I have decided to start up a thread I haven't seen in a while. Namely are evil pc's more fun than good ones? Incedently I got this Idea from Pandarak.
Lets get some opinions out here people!
Chris
It's Paradak. And I strongl,y believes that playing evil PC's is good to
release tension, for a good laugh, but like many things become unhealthy if
used too much, like "Danger vfor your helath increase with inhaling", yeah
sure try to smoke without inhaling... Same way I think playing evil PCs in
an ongoing campaign isn't very mature.
Don`t ask me to give "proof" of that. I base this on personnal experiences,
and since I've played and seen players play in other groups also, I've
always noticed a constant: players who liked to play evil characters
weren't the kind of peoploe I liked to live with in real life.
While I think it is very hard to demonstrate anything regarding how much
the game affects them into that comportement (transl?), myself thinking
that it's the reverse that we see: their personnality gets reflected back
in the game, thus the following comes true:
"We can tell who somebody is by examining how he plays".
And vice-versa. Or something. Well, any way, and nowadays, when I see a
player who just looooove to play an evil PC, there is always a red light
popping in my head, saying "warning! warning! danger! danger! this guy's
may be bad news! maybe not a friend! warning!". Then I get a nice cool and
long discussion with the guy OUTSIDE of the game, and either the guy
understands my PoV, or he says that "if he can't play how he likes then
it's no fun" and then go, never to bother me again.
Well, I like to surround myself with the best possible roleplayers I can
find, and IM not so HO, a guy who can't accept to ROLEplay anything else
than his own personnality is just NOT a good roleplayer. A good roleplayer
takes these things as challenges to his roleplaying skill, and really tries
to play "something that is different", personnality-wise.
It's true what they say: A beginning player (and even an experienced one)
usually put MUCH of his own personnality in the personnality of his
character, whatever the original character concept is, you end up with
characters that act, react, look, and talk alike...
I guess that means that a guy who can only play evil PC's (as in: can't
accept to play anything else) then has a big part of his personnality
centered on a fascination over evil.
So I don't GM for evil PC's because I don't like to have evil friends.
Paradak.
Patrick Rannou
[...]
Following your example, I might as well have an evil cleric
follow and cast Hold Person on the party fighter up front, or a
fighter make a rear attack with two weapons on the party mage;
maybe a surprise stinking cloud from the lurking wizard,
followed up by a nice lighting bolt. A thief's best kill is
quick and easy but has only one target. Why is this worse than
surprise attacks by spellcasters with multiple target spells, or
surprise attacks by fighters with good THAC0s, lots of bonuses,
and lots of attacks?
You're right. I hadn't thought of that.
Paradak.
Patrick Rannou
Why would you have all the mages in the back of the party? That would
seem to be rather dangerous for just the reason you outlined above.
In any campaign I've played in the mages and weaker party members are
in the middle of the party!
Maybe your party has more members than mine, kapitch?
You can be in the middle when there is only one fighter, one mage, one
thief and one priest, but that's not a BIG protection... not like when you
have another fighter, a ranger and a paladin to add to the previous 4...
now that's what I call being able to be "in the middle".
>
Actually most people I know who play mages try very hard to get a con
bonus so that they can't get wiped out so easily.
Yeah, you've noticed that, too? Nearly every PC mage we seem to see has a
CON bonus. But... where are all the other mages? Surely when comes the time
to decide wethere you are a fighter or a mage, having a high CON should NOT
have an effect, or if there IS an effect, you'd be inclined to become a
good fighter, and thus nearly all mages have no con bonus. So, why all
these PC mages with all these CON bonuses? Beats me, but I think this has
something to do with the fact that we let the player roll THEN choose what
his stats's rolls will be assigned to.
Indeed in some of the
school's have very high con minimums.
Never understod why. 15 CON *IS* a VERY high CON. While I understand than
an evoquer should be more resistant than normal, he doesn't need to be a
superman!!! 12 CON should be enough. Remember that the stats of a character
shouldn't be made using the Unhearted Arcana...
The way stats are handled in AD&D is BAD, IMHO, so I'm starting to change
the tables so that we REALLY need only roll 3D6, and can be assured to have
a well spread distributiion of power. i.e. 8 CON should be VERY different
than 14 CON, but it isn't: system shock and resurection rolls don't come
about quite as much as hit point bonus... Well, that's another story
anyway.
You put forth a worst case scenario.
Maybe. Maybe not. When my party encounter thieves, most are THUGS (i.e.
fighters), only a few are thieves, and you can be sure that some backstabs
will fly. When my party encounter say 30 orcs, you just know that some if
not all of them are fighters (depends on available training), thus
accounting for powerful orcs without boosting their HD, and MAYBE a few
(1-2) are THIEVES. And they'll try to attack at the best moments.
By the way, every humanoid in my campaign can be an NPC, with stats and
everything... I like standardizing humands and monsters... It also makes
monsters far more dangerous...
"What do you mean, that giant got a CON bonus???"
Thieves with an 18 str are, in my experience, rare. Also, in the campaign
What is the STR of the thief in your party???
I am in, we don't have very powerful magic, so magical plusses of more
than 2 are very rare. This is a ~8th level party too.
You mean that only one party member has a +3 weapon and nearly all the
others have +2 weapons? That isn't low power magic, just plain balanced
magic.
>After a few times of this bad treatment, i.e. a few kills on the PC party,
>let's see how they like auto-kills. If the party does it, the monsters
>should do it also.
>
Of course. It's a dog eat dog fantasy world. I never meant to suggest
otherwise.
>Then you'll come back and tell me if it's right.
>
>Personnally, I think just having the strength bonus is tolerable, but the
>magic bonus is just going overboard. You say a thief should be feared. OK,
>but why fear him only when he's holding a magic sword? That's not very
>logic...
>
>Anbd after all, automatic kills aren't a very fun way to deal with combat.
>The only monsters that should fall on one hit are those of level 2 and under.
>(except of course in special circumstances...)
>
>Paradak.
>
>
Backstabbing (IMHO) is very hard to next to impossible to do in a melee.
Of course: only the first attack, the one with the surprise effect, can
count.
Thieves should not get to use this very powerful attack easily. There are
checks against successfully backstabbing. First the move silently roll must
succeed. Second the thief must hit, granted he has a +4 to hit but then
thieves have a lousy hit progression table. If you use good tatics in
your marching formation then only figher-types should be vulnerable to
a backstab. These folks usually have hit points out the wazoo and a low
AC so they will not going to be killed straight off. Then off course the
thief is going to be in trouble since he's going to have to face a very
angry, possibly powerful opponent and his friends. See ya Mr. Thief!
Hmmmm... welll, OK.
Cary
About your .sig: What a waste of space!
Try something like me instead:
========= My .sig is very short. =========
Paradak.
Patrick Rannou
I disagree. I think that a well-played evil group of PCs can be at
least as fun as the good party, if one has a tolerant DM. If you are a DM who
*hates* seeing his adventure not completed, or go in a different direction
from what he intended, then youd better have a good party. However, if you are
willing to run a game where most of the fun comes from the PC interactions,
then an evil campaign can be amusing, as long as you have mature players who
are not going to carry the game into real life. I mean in saying this that
many times in an evil campaign, Pcs will hurt each other, and if the players
are the type who take this personally, evil characters are NOT a good idea.
Yeah, sure. I don't take attacks on my character personnally, after all
it's just a sheet of paper. But I can't accept to be thrown out of the
game, and when a player has his PC kill my PC (like it happened to me) for
NO GOOD REASON other than "well, don't take it personnal, but you saw my PC
do the deed, so my character had to take you out, too. Too bad we use
RoleMaster rules, that I'm an assassin with +-14% on his roll, thus making
every hit I do over 50% a sure kill, and that I was invisible, giving me
+50% to my to hit roll... but it's just the way my PC character concept is
made... I had to follow it".
Well, that pissed me off to no end. I don't care about the events and the
"damage" my character had. But I care about being a player with a group of
players, and when after you take 2 hours to make a character, then start to
like it and put real-time effort in it's development, and then after HALF
an hour you get killed for no good reason, while you did your roleplay
PERFECTLY, and you did NOTHING to get such a treatment apart from just
having your PC "at the wrong place at the wrong time", and then the GM says
"well, see you next week! ... of course, you can stay, but just as an
observer, you don't talk to the players, and don't disturb me while I GM",
then that was the final straw.
I can accept anything in ther game, but when it starts affecting the fun of
those in REAL life, then it's a big problem. It's not as if I provoques his
PC or anything: then I know what was going to me... So I stayed (what
should I have done? Quit, that's it. But I didn't know at the time that
they were such a bunch of jerks). And the assassin managed to kill nearly
everyone in the party (although he had no real reason to), kiiling himself
VOLUNTARILY in the process. I.E. he found a trap in a room, identified it
as one that would make the roof collapse, then waited until eveyone was in
the center of the room and activated the trap. THAT was dumb. But the rest
of the group which were the "regular" players of this group found it very
funny, and the assassin player was bragging about his "exploit", as if what
he had done was such a great thing. Of course I didn't came back, and those
other like me who played in that group for the first time didn't come back
either. Seems every once in a while that EVIL group of players just
announces it makes a game to get "new players", then proceed to have great
fun at the expenses of the new arrivals, and actually only one or maybe two
new players are stupid enough to stay with such a bunch (as their character
survived the deathtrap).
Well, this and other less dramatic events in other campaigns got me
thinking and I decided that letting an evil pc in a group can only
ultimately end up in total chaos. Well, be chaotic if you like, but I
prefer for GOOD friends to play together in a FRIENDLY way.
Having a group of evil PCs is too much like when I was very young and I was
in this gang of 14 years old (just before I started playing AD&D), and all
the gamg was doing was harrassing each other, borthering each other,
calling each other names, and having such a great kick out of this. Of
course after being myself tormented enough (and since I didn't fight back,
me being such a peaceful guy, they quickly started to all pick up on me), I
just stopped going with that gang, final. The similarities between that bad
moment of my life and everything I've seen about evil parties or PC's is
sometimes astonishing, nonetheless it's great enough that when a new player
makes a PC, I tell them: "You playing an evil PC? Don't even THINK about
it".
And evil is just too much free of restraints. It's like playing a let's
pretend game just to be able to do every nasty thing that you can;t do in
real life. Well, that's pretty immature IMHO, as if there was no other
typwe of PC interaction that could take place AND be of BETTER quality than
having evil PCs. Playing evil parties is just too unserious, see? You MUST
not take it seriously to be able to have fun. That's why I like playing
evil partyies for "one-sjot" games. Even there the party mainly has the
same objectives, they AREN'T out to kill each other.
I have been running a campaign for a year now which was intended to
be played by good characters, but was attempted by a basically evil party
instead. There have been many hilarious moments, many of which I have posted
to this board. With a good party - or even a lawful one - the characters would
have stayed much more focused on the adventure and, admittedly, much more
would have been accomplished. However, I do not view the time which the PCs
spent chasing each other around, selling each other into slavery, or sacking
innocent towns as wasted time - because they provided many hours of excellent
roleplying and a lot of fun.
Oh, you're the one with the spelljammer group, huh? Well, so you play for
laughs. Exactly like I said. But try to get them to have a real quest,
spanding 10 connected scenarios, instead of just chaotic "do what you want"
wandering, and see just how well they do. I.E. your games work nicely
because you ADAPT the scenario to what they choose to do. But if they HAD
to do something, you'd start to get problems... Personnally, I don't do the
"theis is the campaign world. I'ts pretty much stable, but events are
happening everywhere. Now, where do you want to go/what do you what to do?
Here's a lead on a cavern with a lost artifact in it? you want to go for
it? yes, ok... no? fuck, I won't be able to use that scenario but i'll
mmanage to make you do it anyway without you even noticing it. Even then,
that isn't a problem since there just PLENTY of other adventures going on,
and plenty of space to do them later if you don't want to do them now".
What I do is a Monty-Haul campaign. Many people confuse it with a munchkin
campaign, where characters wield their +25 magic sword, quadruple damage
verus evil, and about 50 other magic items just as much as powerful.
Monty-Haul, in my book, is a camapaign, as opposed to "free-style", where
ALL the events are somewhat linked. Ultimately, the player's
responsibilities becomes greater and greater, and they have to (dare I say
it?) SAVE THE WORLD!... Think about the Dragonlance Saga, or other Quests
where when you learn about the next scenario, you just CAN'T come and say
"oh, that doesn't interest me, let us go elsewhere". In these kinds of
campaign, player cooperation is vital, and if the players where evil,
they'd just as soon ally themselves with the superior side, namely the evil
invader, and bring chaos to the land. That's NOT what I call HEROIC.
In short, if you as a DM or player only have fun when something is
being accomplished on a "mission", then evil PCs are not for you. However,
if you see the primary purpose of the game as fun, then the infighting among
the party wont bother you and you can enjoy an evil campaign.
Like you said. There are grey areas, however... but personnally, I'd add
that when I create a character, I *really* put a lot of effort in it, I
even write a story on him! I can understand my PC dying from an enemy, but
not from the direct actions of a party memeber. Evil of not. It would be
exactly like if I built a BIG castle with playing cards and suddenly this
player comes about and slam! he smashes my castle down. I don't care at all
about the cards themselves, or the castle. They're just cards, it was just
an assemblage of cards. But I careabout the EFFORT I put in the BUILDING of
this castle, so much that I can't stand it if somebody else just comes and
destroys this "for fun". It may be fun to him, but it's not something he
would have done to increase MY fun also. And when you have fun at the
expense of another, it's evil.
Of course, where I to know from the start that things like that could
happen any moment, I'd not put effort in my character, view it just as a
pack of stats, and embark in the wild fun. Sure. But it seems it would get
boring pretty soon. It's wild fun, that I can like... but each week? What's
the point of just always trying to doublecross each other? It's so EASY.
It's not quality roleplaying. Like Paranoia isn't quality roleplaying: it
is just crazy pure fun, but even that has limits. That's why I play
Paranoia only about once a year. But the purpose of an RPG like AD&D, IMHO,
isn't the same.
Playing like that may work for you, then have fun. I'tll never work for me.
Not in a regular campaign anyway.
Babbling DM
PS - All my players agree this is the best ADD campaign theyve ever played in.
Good for them.
PPS- On a side note, I dont allow the evil characters to do ANYTHING they want.
I dont tolerate sick stuff (there is always something to disturb them), and PCs
are worth 0xp, no matter what. This deters other PCs from killing a PC for his
item, or just for fun, or whatever. Also, whenever the party is about to break
into combat, they are usually attacked by nasty monsters, forcing them to unite
again. This isnt a necessary thing, but I do it just to keep some minimal
amount of order.
Ha. Now, that's different. But just after the combat is finished, they
still don't re-start the fight? And you can't do that trick indefinitely
before it becomes stale. And also one day (or has it happended already)
you'll see one of the attacking PC _continue_ his attack on the other party
memeber, no matter what happens anyway! Even to the point of siding with
the monsters. I mean, the players already act like monsters anyway, so
who's to say it can't be done?
Myself, when an interparty fight breaks out (happened twice the first year
I GMed, and never after that), I have a secret rule: the *_best_* PLAYER
(not PC) will win. In other words, the one the most justified to have his
PC survive. I just don't tolerate in-party fighting. So when someone gets
bored and suddenly tries to screw the game, guess what happens... TIME
STOP! 1st warning: your character doesn't have a good reason to do that:
that's MURDER. Maybe kick him, but KILL HIM??? Then I herar what he says
(usually not a good reason apart from "well, he offensed me in some way, I
don't like his face, so I attack him!". Then I just make his own attack
come back right at him, if he behaves, or simply have his character
vanishes, say "TWILIGHT ZONE", meaning "what happended previously never
happened", then tell the extent of "that which never happened", event to
the point of "just before you entered this dungoen, character X decided not
to continue with your group", (since at that time the guy had gone all by
himself), and we continue play. It's drastic, yes. But I don't GM for
players I can't live with, players who think the others in the game are
there to have fun over or be abused with, and the ultimate derision would
be to have a good player's character die just because of the actions of a
bad player. NOT!
Of course we had also great fun with pcs acting sometimes in evil way, like
the time when the female fighter was hanging on a cliff, scraping with her
nails to get a grip and slowly slipping toward her death. She had be quite
verbal before (her character hates macho men, which one player happened to
be particularly), and thus the group then said "should we throw her a rope?
maybe not... but again..." as she shouted for help. Eventually they threw
her a rope, but she was so frustrated that she refused to grab it and
managed to get a good enough grip to climb back by herself... things were
pretty tense after that...
I'm not saying a little "evil" in your party is Baaaaaad. But an evil party
is bad from the start, unless you don't care at all about your character,
or suspension of disbelief. I mean, if I was an adventurer and discovered
that I've been duped (as I'd have myself duped) the rest of the party, why
on earth should I stay with these guys for any long length of time?
Well, ciao.
Paradak.
Patrick Rannou
Well certinly you have more latitude in your actions, especially if you
chaotic. Of course execising this latitude will almost certainly get
you in trouble! If you party/character is powerful enough you can get
away with this kinda stuff. I know sometimes when I'm playing I really
want to trash some town or group of bozos and alignment gets in the way.
Ooooh! Such a great idea! What good quality roleplaying! See what I mean?
If you are frustrated, just go outside and do some jogging. And who said
alignment are THAT much fixed in stone?
I guess if nothing else evil alignment have more ways to vent their
frustrations. Since this venting of frustrations is usually exhilarating
it's MO that evil alignments can have more fun! Although it may be short
lived, i.e like the life of the evil doer.
Cary
NOT! It's the LIFE OF THE GAMER. Because when your evil PC is done in, you
create another one. And anpther one. And another one, and so on. It never
ends until the player is kicked out. I let my players have all the fun they
want. But MASS MURDER is not one of them. It's too easy and immature, and
when it happen (happened ONCE in my games) you know what I do?
I simply say: OK, you killed the ENTIRE village's population. I don't roll
fights, or anything. Straight as that. Then of course the player is not too
happy with that and is still frustrated, if not more than before. So
WHAT??? I don't have time to lose with such a LOSER. YES, a loser!
Obviously, what he would have liked would have been the incredible amounts
of CHAOS, UNJUSTIFIED BATTLE and SENSELESS VIOLENCE that his attack on the
village would have caused. He doesn't know that I can always resurrect
these peoples (well, the most important of them anyway) and replace the
others by immigration. And the second time he attempts the same stunt, he
destroys the village just as easily (usually, it's when one becomes 4th
level or higher that he becomes too confident and start doing suicidal
stunts like attacking a village). OK< now that's TWO villages. Then he gets
his violence, the one he wanted: *ONE* NPC appears in shining silvery
armor, obviously a paladin. You wanted a fight? Here's your fight. Your
last one. Or better yet: use an Aleax. The worse thing to do is give that
player the attention he's begging for, because his frustration is just
that: his immature self can't stand not being at the center of the action
or the plot, so he throws a tantrum and starts trying to breaks everybody's
toys. Sory, i don't work that way. You want to do stupid completely
unrealistic things like that? Then go find yourself a group of players
UNDER 18 years old, you know, those who still just love to do some
hack-n-slash, and then you'll be able to do everything you want. You say
what? The other GMs aren't as good? Sure! That's why they tolerate things
like that! And if you want to be in my campaign, then you've got to play at
our level, and act like an adult. If you can't, then go down to the
hack-n-slash pits again.
Worked with 3 new players I'm sure would eventually completely screwed the
game up. We play for quality of roleplaying as much as fun (well, fun's
more important, but it's not senseless fun).
=========
THERE. I've proven to everybody just how drastic I can APPEAR to be. In
thruth, I'm a much nicer guy...
Paradak.
Patrick Rannou
Currently I play a lawful evil assassin/illusionist gnome in a
AD&D 1st Ed. game. All other characters are at least neutral. One is
lawful good. Also currently I play Flint Fireforge in the
Dragonlance campaign.
I is fun to hide my assassin class from all others.
And i had me share of evil acts. (drug smuggling, fraud)
It is also fun to impersonate a "father" to all the other
Dragonlance characters.
So my opinion, based on this small personal experience, is:
Neither are evil PC's more fun to play than good PC's, nor are good PC's
more fun to play than evil PC's.
You are doomed. One day the rest of the group WILL find out. The rest of
the story can only end up in death (unlikely), or separation (likely) for
you or the rest of the party, or at least some of them.
You call that something interesting to hope for a future game? I don't.
It's much like if your GM said "When your character reaches level X, he's
out of the campaign.", unless of course if you consider your assassin class
as your second one, and don't let aspects of it interfere with your
adventuring life... then even though the rest of the party "disapproves",
they will still tolerate you. But if that's the case, then you're just
proving I'm right: LONG TERM, evil characters can only screw the game,
except if the game is based on total chaos.
Paradak.
Patrick Rannou
> Chris
Evil is not MORE fun to play. Evil is hard to play, even more so than
Lawful Good I think. The players I have seen play and "evil" PC are really
doing nothing more than playing Chatoic Neutral with an attitude problem,
they are not truly evil. True evil PC's do things that would soon find
them in real trouble with both other PCs and NPCs. They steal and kill not
simply for money or to save someone. Rather just for the fun of it. If evil
PCs rescue a fair women-they rape then kill her!! Evil is not a easy alignment
to play.
Michael Kelly
The original poster talked about not true evil as a good roleplayer should
play it, but the "we will do just what we want to do" (immature IMHO) kind
of evil players, who of course don`t act stupid. I.E. they don't do things
that would get them killed just like a lone 3rd level paladin won't charge
into a huge ancient red-dragon.
Evil is VERY easy to play, because it's not true evil, it's more like a new
kind of alignment: CHAOTIC UNRESTRICTED: the player can choose to play any
alignement he chooses in order for his character to just come up on top of
everybody else. Very fun to play once in a while, IMHO, but screws up all
hope for a COHERENT long-term campaign.
Paradak.
Patrick Rannou
In nearly every campaign I play, the PC's, myself included, are all
evil. It can be fun at times, but the constant bickering and assassination
attempts are time consuming and lose much of their luster. In my experiences
good players are hard to find, and a good party would be much better to run,
since most adventures are based on the notion that the party is generally
good. By the way I am a member of the "Boxed Beholder" party.
Wildfire
(Sir Lance the Arrogant)
Awright! Finally a word from one whove gone through it and learned
something. Everybody, I'll tell you again: evil is not was it's cracked up
to be, and has never been.
======== My god how many postings have I done tonight???
Answer: too many, which is less than what you will have posted today.
Paradak.
Lei Wang
> A thief isn't supposed to feared for his backstab. Thiefs aren't supposed to
>get into combat. ASSASINS are supposed to feared for thier backstab. Thats why
>they use an assination chart so as to get the effect of an instant kill, stab
>and useing them.
Well, true. You are right.
In reality thieves are only sneaks who loot bodies and reside in dark
alleys alone.
But that's not good for team work. AD&D is based on team work. A solo
quest for a thief who just sneaks around is not fun.
They must have some combat value, since the whole AD&D system is based
on combat. If thieves didn't have backstab, they wouldn't be of much use
in a fight, yet the whole experience system is based on the defeats of
monsters, so they'd be severely disadvantaged. TSR wants classes to be
balanced.
Bret Indrelee
>> >> Ah contraire..
>> >> "The weapon's standard damage is added to the wielder's Strength bonus
>> >> and then multiplied by the value given in Table 30. Then magical weapon
>> >> bonuses are added."
>> >> PH ADD2 p.40
>>
>> > Check again. Second Edition player's handbook, page 40, column three,
>> >lines 5-10. Maybe there's a contradiction of rules, if some typo is
>> >written down somewhere else.
>>
>> I took that quote right out of my book. Perhaps they have changed that rule.
>> Anyone out there have the latest edition of the PH?
There are at least two different printings of the PH2. I have the
original printing with lots of errors.
On page 99 of my manual, in the text about rate of fire, center column top
of page, it says "...so up to three daggers can be thrown in a single
round." On the new manual they changed it (think they changed daggers to
darts) and that is how I can tell original from 'fixed' PH2 manuals.
I didn't think it was worth another $20 just to get all the errors out
of my PH2, so I don't have a copy of the fixed manual.
BTW: My manual does indicate that strength is added before multiplying.
Anyone care to confirm if the fixed manual changed this?
Anyone know if there is some published errata for the PH2 I could get?
David Braun
wrote:
RR> Ooooh! Such a great idea! What good quality roleplaying! See what I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
RR> mean? If you are frustrated, just go outside and do some jogging. And
who
RR> said alignment are THAT much fixed in stone?
Is flawless roleplaying the end all of gaming? Excuse me, but doesn't
_fun_ come into it somewhere too?
[talk of mass murder and chaos deleted]
Why does everything have to be taken to the extreme? Not every evil
character is a mass murderer. Not every evil character is out to kill and
betray his friends. Sheesh!
...
This isn't my account, so send your flames to me at:
morp...@cco.caltech.edu...
On backstabbing with a magic weapon...wouldn't the glow from
the enchanted blade give you away?
--Ken, morp...@cco.caltech.edu
--
Kristin Lee Mead emei...@gmuvax2.gmu.edu
=========------- Insert amazingly witty remark here and laugh -------=========
Ed Saffle
>This isn't my account, so send your flames to me at:
>morp...@cco.caltech.edu...
Hmmm, I wonder what the sysadmin's will say at that???
>On backstabbing with a magic weapon...wouldn't the glow from
>the enchanted blade give you away?
Well, in my campaigns, magic doesn not necessarily radiate light. Unless
it is the kind that can upon command, in which case the theif in question
has made a serious error!!
ed
Patrick Rannou
In a message dated Sat 4 Jul 92 10:39, Ran...@info.polymtl.ca (patrick Ran
wrote:
RR> Ooooh! Such a great idea! What good quality roleplaying! See what I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
RR> mean? If you are frustrated, just go outside and do some jogging. And
who
RR> said alignment are THAT much fixed in stone?
Hmmm.. yes, my posting WAS a flame. Sorry. I'm feeling much better now.
Is flawless roleplaying the end all of gaming?
No.
Excuse me, but doesn't
_fun_ come into it somewhere too?
Yes.
[talk of mass murder and chaos deleted]
Why does everything have to be taken to the extreme?
Because we have the tendency to exagerate and generalize.
Not every evil
character is a mass murderer. Not every evil character is out to kill and
betray his friends. Sheesh!
Right. I was only talking about a particular set of "evil" characters.
Nonetheless, I kind of become jumpy when a player come and say "My
alignment is chaotic evil!" Then I say "Well, unless you've got a good
reason you can't, IMO, the PCs are the heroes of the campaign, and thus one
shouldn't be evil... "What? I WANT to play an evil PC! OK, I'll take
Chaotic Neutral instead (with some very eeeevil tendencies)". Then I tell
them: "I don't care about the alignement. Now define your PERSONNALITY.
That's what you usually do BEFORE we decide just what alignment "best" fit
onto that particular personnality.
And then the player doesn't know or isn't able to produce a good character
concept: is personality goes like this:
"My PC thinks he's the best and don't like anybody who doesn't agree with
him" or something as little bit different or even very different, but it
always fit on ONE line. Tha'ts when I just know that that guy could mean
trouble. He isn't a ROLEplayer, he is a one-dimensionnal PC who just LOOOVE
to hack-n-slash and screw everybody else unless it means he won't be coming
out of it on top. I'm sure you now understand just WHAT kind of evil
player/PC makes me shiver, and wy I usually don't take any chance.
Of course, if the guy FIRST play another character concept, then having
PROVEN to me he;s a good roleplayer, I would surely consider having him
play an evil character... After all, it COULD be interesting to have an
evil guy "fighting on the good guys's side".
/db
-- Via DLG Pro v0.992
Paradak.
just james
>PS - All my players agree this is the best ADD campaign theyve ever played in.
That's funny, every time I DM my players say that, especially right
before big encounters with dragons and powerful undead. Hmm, wonder
why that is? ;-)
--
James Kittock -- Duke class of 1992 -- Computer Science/Mathematics
j...@cs.duke.edu | mcnc!duke!jek | PO Box 5750, Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706
just james
DISCLAIMER: I am like the thief class a lot. Draw your own conclusions.
>Attempting to apply logic to backstab just doesn't work IMHO. Why
>is a thief (little spindly guy) likely to do you more damage stabbing
>you in the back than an experienced warrior who is used to stabbing
>into peoples vital areas? It's a game balance thing only.
This is silly. Of *course* the thief is likely to do more damage.
The whole idea is: she surprises you, so you don't have time to react
(move that vital organ aside, flinch, etc.); she has the time to
actually place the blow carefully; she knows WHERE to strike for the
best effect. This is very VERY much different than Lunkhead the
fighter who is busy parrying your blows, watching for other enemies,
etc. etc. (and who is probably an idiot having but all his good stats
in STR DEX and CON like all good fighters do! :)
I have always thought it would be interesting to have a backstab chart
like a critical effects chart, where a thief could try for a kidney, a
lung, the heart, the neck, whatever, with modified damages/effects and
varying modifiers (i.e. maybe -4 to hit the neck, but it does
something really bad to you if she hits). Never have gotten around to
it though. It would be fairly difficult, game-balance wise.
just james
><much discussion of 2nd edition backstab disadvantages deleted>
>
> I agree. In my most recent campaign, one thief used a shortsword
>and the other a longsword, which helped to do more damage once they
>were about name level.
I basically disallow the long sword for a backstab. It is a real
stretch of the imagination for a thief to plunge a longsword's
blade into someone's back! The only real backstabbing weapons
(when I'm DMing) are short sword, dagger, and knife.
There are a couple of ways to make the backstab more powerful without
unbalancing thing. For one thing, I have never understood why the
magical bonus shouldn't count before the multiplier. Since the whole
idea with a backstab is being able to place the weapon precisely
(hence the need for surprise, etc), shouldn't a magical weapon that is
easier to wield help with this (I realise that this is partially
covered by the better to-hit number)? So I would allow (weapon damage
+ magic bonus) * multiplier + strength.
Allowing the strength before the multiplier becomes unbalancing, I
find. For example, when Joe Thief finagles gauntlets of Ogre Power
from the fighters (who all have 18/xx) strengths anyhow, he suddenly
does at LEAST 7 x multiplier damage on a backstab that is made at at
LEAST +7 to hit!!! (+4 from behind, +3 for strength).
Another thing that helps a little is to rule that 1's rolled for
weapon damage on backstabs count as 2's or are rerolled, which saves
players from one of the most disappointing things: "I sneak up behind
and backstab... ok, I hit AC -3, damage... sh*t, a ONE!"
John J Cassidy
>
>>In article <Bqq9M...@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:
>>>Ah contraire..
>>>"The weapon's standard damage is added to the wielder's Strength bonus
>>>and then multiplied by the value given in Table 30. Then magical weapon
>>>bonuses are added."
>>>PH ADD2 p.40
>
>A fighter / mage / thief of level 4 / 4 / 5 (Brantyr Silverblade)
>has an 18/00 strength (Yes, he really rolled it.) His backstab
>damage with a drusus is 31.5. OUCH!
>
>Consider also the character with two classes. If he used to be a
>fighter with exceptional strength and became a thief, his backstab
>damage could be really high.
>
>is a thief (little spindly guy) likely to do you more damage stabbing
>you in the back than an experienced warrior who is used to stabbing
>into peoples vital areas? It's a game balance thing only.
>
>
The spindly little thief takes you unaware, and has the time to
take his little poinard and jab it through the crease of your armor into your
jugular. Since Gygax reasoned that Hp's count as the fighters ability
to roll with the blow and take less damage, > BY THIS RECKONNING <, the
poor victim doesn't have much of a chance for Hp's to offset the
backstab. Thus the multiplier effect. And I think that is a little ol'
spindly thief can create damage then a hugely proportioned 18/00 Str
thief ought to be able to gut you from behind. Add to the effect of not
being aware, the maximum human strength behind the blow. And the skill
of a broadsword ( or the D&D-fudge, the longsword ) as opposed to sword
sword or dagger might just field-dress you right there. If you multiply
all damage then all contributors to damage are increased with the
surprise. This is as I think it should be.
Yes it may get abusive. But I think that the surprise effect
would augment all the damage done. Since the victim is less aided by a
high hitpoint total. The multiplier is the simulation of how much more
damage one can do with the same force when one gets one's victims from
behind.
John J Cassidy
(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)
(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)
* __ ____
* )( /( ) (( /pleiades\
* )( )( )) Cassidy@ -indian--- .cps.msu.edu
* _ )( OHN )( ASSIDY (( \atlantic/
* (___)/ \(___)
*
( )
(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
ecrj...@economics.adelaide.edu.au
>>I have decided to start up a thread I haven't seen in a while.
> Namely are evil pc's more fun than good ones? Incedently I got this
> Idea from Pandarak.
>> Lets get some opinions out here people!
>> Chris
Currently I'm LE amongst a party of good/neutral characters. Man are they
getting paranoid. I'm not allowed to guard prisners, I'm not allowed to cook
in case of poison, I'm not allowed to go anywhere by meself. In short I always
have protection and never have to do any dirty work that would prevent me
getting enough sleep to learn my spells!! The other guys take great pains to
define what they are doing so I can't take advatage of any loophole in a law
(as a true LE will) so they play very thoughtfully. This has benefits in that
we think of things we normally wouldn't simply because the whole party must be
very thorough (them to prevent me doing tha dastardly and me to find loopholes
to allow me to do it legally!!).
I find that NE is a bit less fun as self centred types with little respect for
the law soon wind up out of control and muck up play sessions, whereas CE just
ruins everything - IF PLAYED CORRECTLY.
regs
Rob
Maarten Bodlaender
you're all missing out on one important point:
IT'S A GAME !
So, say we all want to have fun, but we're bored(can you be?) with playing the
"Save the Multiverse" scenario. Let's play EVIL PC's. This may mean you're
playing a character with tendencies towards violence, maybe inability
to make friends, complete absence of any party feeling. That doesn't
mean that YOU, the player, have lost all those things. So your character
committed a murder, and the other PC saw it. Were he an NPC, You'd
kill him of in no time, leave no witnesses. However, it's a PC, it
belongs to a player who'd be very upset if you'd killed of his
character. Maybe YOU, the roleplayer should guide the actions of your
PC, so : Accidentally never notice the PC nearby, or threaten the PC into
silence, or selling the PC of into slavery, where he'll probably escape,
or watch his every move, stopping him the moment he decides to queel on you.
In any role playing game there are legio methods to deal with conflicts
within the party. As long as your actions are somewhat logical from your
characters point of view, your roleplaying is ok. as long as you leave
the other PC's in their worth (more or less), they're ok. In an all
evil party, harsh conflicts will occur, and often PC's will end up
drawing weapons none the less. An alert DM can step in here, allthough
he should not allways interrupt. A greater outside threat almost allways
unites bickering PC's.
And for giving evil PC's large "Multiverse" quests:
what about conquering the world? Add a few personal vendetta's verses
various kings/paladins. Why did the character become evil? Was it because
of some grave unjustice done to him (and ofcourse his parents) in his
youth? Maybe that PC isn't interested in a group falling apart, maybe
he'll grovel and obey as long as his goals are getting nearer? Probably
the conquer the world scenario will fail in the end, for good is allways
stronger, but who knows?
Roleplaying- Fascinating stuff
Maarten Bodlaender
Lei Wang
>
> I basically disallow the long sword for a backstab. It is a real
> stretch of the imagination for a thief to plunge a longsword's
> blade into someone's back! The only real backstabbing weapons
> (when I'm DMing) are short sword, dagger, and knife.
So do you mean that you allow all one-handed weapons of SMALL size?
What about a mace? I can well imagine a thief clubbing the consciousness
out of a guard from behind...
But is that a backStab?
e._lloyd_olson
If it helps any, here is my evil character experience:
I decided that I wanted to run a con man, so my DM suggested neutral evil
for an alignment (This is my first campaign, so I took his word for it), but it
now appears that his (My character's) alignment is closer to neutral. The
thing is, how to make him willing to rip off just about anyone, but not willing
to kill defenseless women and children. This is my solution: although he is
almost entirely neutral (not evil), he is still interested in self-preservation
and comfort. He considers many acts evil and will not do them, but he is not
exactly good, as he won't go out of his way to help anyone either (except, of
course, close friends). This is the good part -- he doesn't consider lying and
fraud to be evil acts. His logic is thus: Anyone who is taken in by one of my
schemes is a victim of his own greed and/or stupidity and doesn't deserve what
he has in the first place.
Whaddaya think?
-Yrs. in Fear & Loathing,
E. Lloyd Olson, Esq.
Louis Norton
>[discussion of evil PCs vs. non-evil PCs]
>
>>PS - All my players agree this is the best ADD campaign theyve ever played in.
>
>That's funny, every time I DM my players say that, especially right
>before big encounters with dragons and powerful undead. Hmm, wonder
>why that is? ;-)
Yeah, but at the same time they'll say something like "adventure X
(with me) really sucked." Not exactly the best way to score brownie points, hm?
And they never say it before the big encounters, they're usually too busy
worrying about it. Of course I have some veteran brown-nosers in the party,
but I dont pay attention.
>--
>James Kittock -- Duke class of 1992 -- Computer Science/Mathematics
>j...@cs.duke.edu | mcnc!duke!jek | PO Box 5750, Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706
Babbling DM
David Braun
wrote:
RR> reason you can't, IMO, the PCs are the heroes of the campaign, and
RR> thus one shouldn't be evil... "What? I WANT to play an evil PC! OK,
I'll
RR> take Chaotic Neutral instead (with some very eeeevil tendencies)".
Then I
Anti-heros can also make good PCs.
RR> trouble. He isn't a ROLEplayer, he is a one-dimensionnal PC who just
RR> LOOOVE to hack-n-slash and screw everybody else unless it means he
won't
RR> be coming out of it on top. I'm sure you now understand just WHAT kind
of RR> evil player/PC makes me shiver, and wy I usually don't take any
chance.
That's just an example of a lousy roleplayer - I have seen equally bad
roleplayers play good characters. You can give some people a character
with _any_ alignment and they couldn't play it.
Craig Macbride
>On backstabbing with a magic weapon...wouldn't the glow from
>the enchanted blade give you away?
Yes, that's just one of the things that makes the whole concept of magical
blades glowing a completely stupid one.
--
_--_|\ Craig Macbride <lhs...@luxor.latrobe.edu.au>
/ \ <s90...@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au>
\_.--.*/
v
John VanHoozer
In what was "Re: Are Evil characters more fun?", E. Lloyd Olson writes:
> if it helps any, here is my evil character experience:
>
> I decided that I wanted to run a con man, so my DM suggested
> neutral evil for an alignment (This is my first campaign, so I
> took his word for it), but it now appears that his (My
> character's) alignment is closer to neutral. The thing is, how
> to make him willing to rip off just about anyone, but not
> willing to kill defenseless women and children. This is my
> solution: although he is almost entirely neutral (not evil),
> he is still interested in self-preservation and comfort. He
> considers many acts evil and will not do them, but he is not
> exactly good, as he won't go out of his way to help anyone
> either (except, of course, close friends). This is the good
> part -- he doesn't consider lying and fraud to be evil acts.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> His logic is thus: Anyone who is taken in by one of my schemes
> is a victim of his own greed and/or stupidity and doesn't
> deserve what he has in the first place.
>
> Whaddaya think?
Well, unless his lies and fraudulent behavior brings death and
destruction, I would say that they are Chaotic or Neutral acts. It
would depend on the general context of the deceits. Evil is the wanton
destruction of life not general principles.
Chaotic Evil:
Saying, "sure, I tied that rope securely and tested it" about a rope
that isn't secure and secretly hoping to cause the death of the
character.
These are the real whacko's the ones that love to kill and do it
all the time. I think they are very hard to play for a long time
and generally don't survive because they always demonstrate their
untrustworthiness.
Lawful Evil:
Saying, "sure, I tied that rope securely and tested it" about a rope
that was just secured and tied to an anvil which the character will
push over the edge when the character is 10ft down a 100 ft cliff
(if the fall doesn't kill him, maybe the anvil will).
These are the Hannibal Lecter's of AD&D. In "Silence of the Lambs",
Hopkin's Lecter tells Jody Foster's character Clarice that he won't
kill her at the end of the movie and we believe him.
Neutral Evil
Saying, "sure, I tied that rope securely and tested it" about a rope
that is tied around a treasure chest instead of an anvil in the
previous example (I can kill him, open the chest, and circumvent
most any trap all at once! what an opportunity!).
Will kill anyone to further his/her own ambitions will lie, tell
half-truths , and whole truth's.
Just my way of looking at it.
jc
Patrick Rannou
Whaddaya think?
I think that the character is indeed LE, with maybe neutral tendencies.
Having an evil character doesn't mean you are out to destroy the
world/conquer it... Your character seems a very interesting one, and I
would let you play it in my camaigns without a problem, evne tough I don't
like evil pcs in my group, yours is closer to neutral so there is no
problem. What I really don't like is those PCs who are sooo evil that they
become one-dimensionnal, have no emotions at all and are just ready to
screw anybody else big way, PC or NPC. THAT I reserve for the villains...
Paradak.
Patrick Rannou
>On backstabbing with a magic weapon...wouldn't the glow from
>the enchanted blade give you away?
Yes, that's just one of the things that makes the whole concept of magical
blades glowing a completely stupid one.
Huh? Why? I happen to like having SOME magical blades who "glow" and some
who don't. Well, most powerful agical blades glow in my world, tough it's
not necesseraly a sure thing. But I fail to see why it is such a stupid
thing...
And I don't think the glow from a sword is nothing nowhere 4th of july
fireworks. Except in real dark spots, the glow of the sword shouldn't be a
problem...
Thus it would be logocal that great powerful magic weapons built *FOR*
thieves or subterranean creatures wouldn't be of the "glowing" type. So
what? A paladin isn't one who want to catch his enemy by surprise, so a
holy sword could glow very brightly for all I care!
Paradak.
Patrick Rannou
In a message dated Mon 6 Jul 92 18:15, Ran...@info.polymtl.ca (patrick Ran
wrote:
[...]
RR> trouble. He isn't a ROLEplayer, he is a one-dimensionnal PC who just
RR> LOOOVE to hack-n-slash and screw everybody else unless it means he
won't
RR> be coming out of it on top. I'm sure you now understand just WHAT kind
of RR> evil player/PC makes me shiver, and wy I usually don't take any
chance.
That's just an example of a lousy roleplayer - I have seen equally bad
roleplayers play good characters. You can give some people a character
with _any_ alignment and they couldn't play it.
Yes, of course. But these players have a very strong tendency to just go
and choose a CN or CE character 90% of the time, which should MEAN
something, no?
Paradak.
David Larue
>>On backstabbing with a magic weapon...wouldn't the glow from
>>the enchanted blade give you away?
>
>Yes, that's just one of the things that makes the whole concept of magical
>blades glowing a completely stupid one.
And also one of the reasons all magic weapons that I have in my games glow
until you get withing 100 feet of an enemy...or, that is...most of
them...<evil grin spreading across face>
-= Justin =-
Eli Boaz
forgotten that any attacks that cause more than 50hp damage forces
the object of the attack to save vs. death or die??? (I modify
the rule to say 50hp of 50% of hp, which ever is greater.)
Example: thief back-stabbing with a short sword (d6/d8) against
a hill giant (type L). (Thief stats: 14str, 18dx, 15cn,
9int, 10wis, 12cha) roll, hit, now damage...
(just rolled a 7) 7+2(mgc on sword)=9
(thief level 13th) 9*5=45
Actually, I allow the thief to add damage, strength, _and_ magic
before multiplying. This makes sense when you consider that a
wizard can fry a good size band of anything with a fireball or two.
(I'm talking 13th+ levels here)... or that a fighter can make
multiple attacks per round, etc...
my .02 worth...
Eli
---
email : wixer!rais...@cs.utexas.edu
uucp : ...!cs.utexas.edu!wixer!raistlin
flames: /dev/null
"Scotty! Beam us aboard!" "Aye, sir. Will a 2x4 do???"
Dave Woods
>>I have decided to start up a thread I haven't seen in a while.
>Namely are evil pc's more fun than good ones? Incedently I got this
>Idea from Pandarak.
>> Lets get some opinions out here people!
>> Chris
>
>Lawful Good I think. The players I have seen play and "evil" PC are really
>doing nothing more than playing Chatoic Neutral with an attitude problem,
>they are not truly evil. True evil PC's do things that would soon find
>them in real trouble with both other PCs and NPCs. They steal and kill not
>simply for money or to save someone. Rather just for the fun of it. If evil
>PCs rescue a fair women-they rape then kill her!! Evil is not a easy alignment
>to play.
>
>Michael Kelly
No you are not describing EVIL alignment, you are describing INSANE and/or
PSYCOTIC (or Homicidal). Evil characters do NOT just kill everyone they meet,
nor do they only try to kill and destroy.
Evil is the desregard for the rights and lives of others, not the attempt to
destroy them. Evil characters will walk around town without killing anybody,
even pay for goods from stores. HOWEVER, they probably don't feel that they
should have to pay for such goods, and if someone in town sufficiently urkes
them, they might have them killed, kidnapped etc.
True evil rather than insane characters will almost ALWAYS be looking out for
their own interest above all, will not risk their lives for others, and
generally have not qualms about lying and cheating. The lives of others,
are not their concern, should others need to die to accomplish a goal,
so be it. If you have to betray and murder a friend, you do it, after all,
you can always find another friend. Evil characters can form alliances, but
will only hold them so long as convient.
If you think this is a 'wimpy' version of evil, think of Nazis in germany,
they didn't go around slaughtering every one in the streets,no, however,
when they decided they didn't want any Jews in their country, they had them
all exterminated. Hitler still went around and kissed babies and sponsered
concerts and operas, while his henchmen were killing people by the millions.
Evil takes on many forms, not just homicidal players running around killing
everything.
Remember two things when playing evil characters (or NPCs):
1> Effiency, not moral correctness is the prime concern
2> giving in to temptation is the way to go.
Dave Woods
dlw...@descartes.uwaterlo.ca
Lei Wang
Many characters, in fact, exhibit this alignment.
It is essentially Selfish.
One of such alignment wouldn't commit an evil act against his morals,
or help another because of the kindness of his heart.
So he's neither good nor Evil.
Lawful? No, since he has no respect for laws.
Chaotic Neutral? No. AD&D specifically states that Chaotic Neutral
is only the alignment of mad men, who go out of their way to be chaotic
and untrustworthy. A chaotic neutral is an insane man, usually not
a selfish one.
Neutral, the only alignment left?
There are two Neutrals, the Neutral for humans and the Neutral for
monsters who don't care.
The selfish man is not neutral as per the Druid, since he has no respect
for laws or balances, and does not seek to help the losing side in a battle.
The selfish man is not neutral like the pet cat, partly because neutral
is only prescribed to unintelligence monsters and partly because he does
care for something: greed and himself.
So there are really no alignment in the alignment system of AD&D for such
a person.
The thing that comes the closest is perhaps Neutral Evil or mild Chaotic
Neutral.
But... there are a lot of alignments which the system doesn't quite cover.
Myself, I've always framed some players as CS (Chaotic Stupid), and some
others as simply M (Moronic).
Scott Mayo
> > if it helps any, here is my evil character experience:
> >
> > I decided that I wanted to run a con man, so my DM suggested
> > neutral evil for an alignment (This is my first campaign, so I
> > took his word for it), but it now appears that his (My
> > character's) alignment is closer to neutral. The thing is, how
> > to make him willing to rip off just about anyone, but not
> > willing to kill defenseless women and children. This is my
> > solution: although he is almost entirely neutral (not evil),
> > he is still interested in self-preservation and comfort. He
> > considers many acts evil and will not do them, but he is not
> > exactly good, as he won't go out of his way to help anyone
> > either (except, of course, close friends). This is the good
> > part -- he doesn't consider lying and fraud to be evil acts.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why not? Most of the world's ethical and religious systems make lying
out to be pretty seriously evil. *He* may not consider it so, and thus,
he might not consider himself evil (most evil characters don't). The
question is what a Detect Align might turn up, not what the character
believes about himself.
Look at it from the point of view of the victim: your con man ripped me
off. That's against the ethic of every good religion, goverment, and
person in the land. Without any bigger moral context, that's an evil
act.
You can justify some thefts: if your con-man only rips off those who
seem to deserve it, you could maybe justify an align like CN; if he is
completely Robin Hood about it, maybe CG. But general conning for the
sake of conning? Evil, nasty and wrong.
Evil doesn't have to mean murder; it is just that murders are also evil.
> > His logic is thus: Anyone who is taken in by one of my schemes
> > is a victim of his own greed and/or stupidity and doesn't
> > deserve what he has in the first place.
Evil. Oppress the stupid merely because they are mentally slower than you.
It is no different than a strong fighter beating up merchants and ripping
them off because he is stronger.
Usually, neutral is best reserved for folk who have complex, ideological
reasons to oppose *both* good and evil - not just embrace just a little,
low-key evil on a small scale. Neutral on the good/evil axis is rare.
My advice is: just play your character as you conceive him. Your DM will
keep track of the alignment, if it matters. But don't expect the better
temples or leaders of the land to bless your name.
On the topic of flexible definitions, I am reminded of an ancedote:
A rich and well-known man approached an attractive woman at a party. He
quietly asked her if she would sleep with him for one million dollars.
She said, with no hesitation, that she would. He then asked her if she
would sleep with him for ten dollars.
"Of course not!" she erupted. "What do you think I am, a whore?"
"Ma'am, we've already established exactly what it is that you are.
All we are doing now is trying to arrive at a price."
--
"Is it dead?"
"I'm not sure. Was it ever alive?"
sm...@wang.com
Scott Mayo
>In article <1992Jul4.2...@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> emei...@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (...) writes:
>>On backstabbing with a magic weapon...wouldn't the glow from
>>the enchanted blade give you away?
>Yes, that's just one of the things that makes the whole concept of magical
>blades glowing a completely stupid one.
In 2ed, magical weapons don't (usually) glow. In either edition, a thief
with a glowing weapon simply wraps the blade in dark cloth; very little light
shines out and the cloth won't affect the hit or damage at all.
JAMES ZAKANY
>(Scott Mayo)
>In 2ed, magical weapons don't (usually) glow. In either edition, a thief
>with a glowing weapon simply wraps the blade in dark cloth; very little light
>shines out and the cloth won't affect the hit or damage at all.
Wrapping a blade in cloth such that it emits no light does not affect the
hit or damage??!? Hee, hee, hee...
Actually, one COULD use weaponblack...
James S. Zakany
Patrick Rannou
>
> Evil is not MORE fun to play. Evil is hard to play, even more so than
>Lawful Good I think. The players I have seen play and "evil" PC are really
>doing nothing more than playing Chatoic Neutral with an attitude problem,
>they are not truly evil. True evil PC's do things that would soon find
>them in real trouble with both other PCs and NPCs. They steal and kill not
>simply for money or to save someone. Rather just for the fun of it. If evil
>PCs rescue a fair women-they rape then kill her!! Evil is not a easy alignment
>to play.
>
>Michael Kelly
No you are not describing EVIL alignment, you are describing INSANE and/or
PSYCOTIC (or Homicidal). Evil characters do NOT just kill everyone they meet,
nor do they only try to kill and destroy.
Evil is the desregard for the rights and lives of others, not the attempt to
destroy them. Evil characters will walk around town without killing anybody,
even pay for goods from stores. HOWEVER, they probably don't feel that they
should have to pay for such goods, and if someone in town sufficiently urkes
them, they might have them killed, kidnapped etc.
True evil rather than insane characters will almost ALWAYS be looking out for
their own interest above all, will not risk their lives for others, and
generally have not qualms about lying and cheating. The lives of others,
are not their concern, should others need to die to accomplish a goal,
so be it. If you have to betray and murder a friend, you do it, after all,
you can always find another friend. Evil characters can form alliances, but
will only hold them so long as convenient.
Hmmm... this sounds a lot much like all those "I'm chaotic neutral because
that way I can choose to do anything I want" characters we too often
see/are plagued with. When a player say his PC is CN, I know that 50%+ of
the time the PC is, in thruth, much more in the CE range... I let the guy
put anything he wants in his alignment box... after all, it's the actual
ACTIONS that speak for one's own alignment. And I use the "one does radiate
evil only when having an evil intent OR actually is doing something evil,
even if the guy doesn't realize it" rule. Worked well for us.
If you think this is a 'wimpy' version of evil, think of Nazis in germany,
they didn't go around slaughtering every one in the streets,no, however,
when they decided they didn't want any Jews in their country, they had them
all exterminated. Hitler still went around and kissed babies and sponsered
concerts and operas, while his henchmen were killing people by the millions.
Evil takes on many forms, not just homicidal players running around killing
everything.
And when they finally lost, the soldiers just said "We were just following
orders!". That's why they "weren't" evil. Yeah, sure. When you know you are
doing something wrong, and still do it, it's evil. And sometimes ignorance
is also a source of evil. An innocent child can do very evil actions
without thinking that what he is doing is wrong. Think about just how much
little childs can hurt their "friend" simply by not thinking about things
like respects, etc. Heck, I'va had a friend who CONTINUALLY "forgot" to
call me when he couldn't come to play. Sure, you call that "he's simply
forgetting important things... he doesn't mean any harm". I believed that
at first, and I'm sure *HE* still believes that. But there is some limit to
ignorance when you can say that *IF* the guy CARED more about people, he
wouldn't forget about their feelings so often. Thus, that guy DOESN'T care
about others, and is EVIL, even tough he is convinced he isn't, and many
other would also find him to be OK.
I.E. In other words, there are more levels of evil than just black and
white, neutral guy and "I'm gonna rape that princess I just saved". That's
so much sick and chaotic evil that I'd say only demons could be THAT
evil... and even there I have my doubts.
Remember two things when playing evil characters (or NPCs):
1> Effiency, not moral correctness is the prime concern
2> giving in to temptation is the way to go.
Yes! Sounds like the way many "not evil" PCs act, no?
Dave Woods
dlw...@descartes.uwaterlo.ca
Many people think that evil is the guy who wants to destroy humankind. NOT!
Good could be better understood as someone who cares for the wellbeing of
others, and who respect others. Evil is the guy who cares mostly only for
himself, and doesn't usually respect others.
Thus the guy who love his wife could be evil even if he took great care of
his wife. She could find him fabulous, but in thruth is it she he love or
the fact that she is his? If she was to say she was going to go with
another guy, I'm sure that while the evil guy would lash out, thus proving
that in fact he never really cared about her, the good guy would try to
understand and convince in a gentler way.
That's how I view alignments. And above all, I view them as only a
guideline. Each character must have a PERSONNALITY, which THEN determines
the character's alignment...
Makes for better roleplaying IHMO...
--
/---------------------------\
| Patrick "Paradak" Rannou. |
| Ran...@info.polymtl.ca |
\---------------------------/
Patrick Rannou
Here's a new thread: These alignements that you created yourself!
Have you ever used some nifty "new" alignement to describe the way a PC
or *a player* thinks and acts? Well, it's time to share it with us!
Two new alignments another poster presented: (which spurred me to start
this thread):
CS Chaotic Stupid
M Moronic
And now, here's mine:
CE Chaotic Everywhere
The player want his PC to be the first to meet someone, see
something, do something, etc... Usually, they either can occupy
two different rooms at the same time or constantly beats the guiness
speed world record because they go to and fro between these same two
rooms faster than one can shoot (usually, at least once a round).
LS Lawful Stupid
These players just kind of get along, never do much, to them
roleplating is "Huh? OK, I do whatever he said" or "HuH? What dice
should I roll to attack already? (even after months of playing).
They usually are the one who go fight that dragon "just for a round or
two" even tough they were NOT charmed into doing it. Also tend
to be a LG: Lawful Goody-two-shoes.
LC Lawful Chaotic
This is the typical case of a paladin who causes far more chaos
than the major recurring villain of the campaign. We can just hope
it isn't done consciously...
CG Chaotic Greedy
Self explanatory. Take the souls of 1,000 dwarves, extract their
lust for gold, and put it into ONE individual.
ND Neutral Diplomat
Just loooves to have these long long talks about just anything, from
"What should we do" to "Battle plans" to dealing with the enemy...
Easy to spot becasue they are ALWAYS between the paladin and the
chaotic neutral (evil tendencies) thief.
TM True Munchkin (tm)
That one's a old one, just like the one that follows:
RL Rules Lawyer
If he isn't playing the mage, he ends up telling the mage
how his spells should work.
NA Neutral Absent
Usually, the body is there but brain activity is negative. The only
action the guy ever does is seem to wake up a little when there is a
fight, and roll the dice. Sometimes it's even worse: the guy watches TV
and then tells another player to simply "roll for him". Then when
the players are asked how they liked the game at the end of the
gaming session, the guy say he didn't like it and that the GM
doesn't make things interesting and lively enough.
ES Evil Sadistic
The typical case being the one who stabs at a goblin 20 times after
it's been killed, drink it's blood, swim in it's entrails,
and make a canoe out of it's skin. Should be a Chtulhu or SS player.
(SS = Suburban Slasher, by the way). Also the one who rape the princess
right after having saved her from the "evil mage" who only wanted
a good ransom for her, and didn't lift a finger on her...)
MU Mixed Up
Typical behaviors: Rolls percentile dice for attacks, D20 for climb
walls, and any other such combinations... Takes half the game re-re-
re-reading the spell descriptions in his spellbook (PH or PH2). Never
know what is going on, confuse the fighter's name with the priest`s
name even after months of playing, etc... etc... etc...
Usually end up attacking the princess thinking it's the evil sorcerer,
and discovering it only after the "princess" he thought he had saved
suddenly casts a fireball at him for having done so, and he still
wonder how the evil mage managed to disguide himself as the princess
months after the actual game where his PC got killed by that damn
fireball...
What do you think about these? Any other ones? Keep 'em coming! ;-)
I remember there even WAS an article in DRAGON presenting a full set of
these funny alignments...
Keith B Richmond
the age of 7 a rampaging army of Alorns and all(the good guys) went and killed
his parents(and the rest of the village)... He immediately killed the soldier
killing his parents(slit his throat from behind) and then vowed to kill every
single Alorn Monarch and as many of the normal citizens as he could. He doesn't
mind killing Angaraks(the bad guys) as long as he's getting money for it. The
good guys he'll kill just for the fun of it... definitely an evil character.
Wonder what alignment you'd assign him?
Keith
Death doesn't hurt-Let me show you