Stupid[edit source]

I thought about laying out why this is a dumb idea. I thought about explaining it out bit by bit, tearing it apart, and laying out the entrails of this retardedness for all to see. But I decided it wasn't worth my time, since you wouldn't understand regardless of how logical someone else was. So this is dumb. That is all. --Ghostwheel 00:32, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

There are, admittedly, many holes in this variant. Yet, this does not give reason to attack teh-storm. Nor does your condescending aditued towards all new homebrewers really provide for rational discussions. Being an administer does not justify treating newbies like dogs. Your skills at being condescending are rarely followed by any logic; but are always accompanied by kindergarten insults.
Teh-Storm, try not to take it personally. Ghost bouts some times. I am not known for my understanding of grammar or standards - yet am great with concepts, and would be willing to help you out with it. No rules just do what's right --Franken Kesey 02:18, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
For reference, Ghost isn't an admin. A jerk at times perhaps, and certainly vocal about his views, but not an admin. - TarkisFlux 05:07, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying --Franken Kesey 05:23, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
So, today right, I woke up at like 5 o'clock in the god damn morning. That was after TWO HOURS of sleep. You know what? That fucking sucks. I tried to get back to sleep, but apparently destiny wants to totally kick me in the face for having the nerve of actually wanting to sleep. So, I totally got up and meandered about, uploading my unique monster to my webserver so I can take it to my laptop when I go into university, as I'm going to be here all day. So, I head out of my house and make my way to Tesco, 'cause I'm totally thirsty and feel really dehydrated. So, I buy some coke. Some coke in glass bottles 'cause it's so much better from coke bottles. This is truth, it is undeniable. You see, the glass seals in the coolness much better than plastic, which has no way of sustaining the cool temperature you should serve coke at. The problem is that they have caps. After searching three different shops for a fucking bottle opener, I came up completely empty handed. I had to use a fork in order to actually open a bloody bottle. In attempt to do so, I sliced across the joint of my finger and that bled. Finally, I managed to get it open (if you were wondering, you put the prong of the fork under each of the small 'teeth' of the cap and lever them outwards in order to get it open and pull the cap off). I also got breakfast; sausage, egg, bacon and hash browns. It was kind of drizzling, not raining enough for me to actually like it, but just enough to force me to wear my coat when I feel awful, which makes me feel kind of worse really. Then, I get into university afterwards and sit down on my laptop and go into the chat to see who's there, while I work on my various things that I actually need to work on. I'm asked to check this page out, y'know; 'cause it's something to check out. I am assaulted by this god damn layout, this piece of fucking shit spew of ungodly spawn that won't even fit onto the width of my laptop's screen at full resolution (unlike, say, the previous skin which did). I'm lead to question to why I was forced to use this skin, I was lead into the idea that the Wikia staff actually completely bloody hates us all and is trying to drive away it's users, trying to penalize me for having a laptop that's not the size of a whale's cock. I hate it, so much. I've seen vomit in a more artistic medium than this.
And all this just to see how stupid of an article has been made here, one that is so atrocious that maybe I could forget about the new layout and actually see something worse than it. Also, I'm totally an admin. --TK 09:07, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
So, if you think the rule doesn't work on grounds of being "stupid", but you think it is a waste of time to say why or give constructive suggestions on how to make it less "stupid", then are you making this site better or worse?
On those grounds, allow the "retard" to pose the question: how do I fix this?--Teh Storm 16:13, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Constructive Ideas[edit source]

I implore users to use more sophisticated, and rational language here!

Some of my idiotic two cents:

  • It would appear that this would be better of in another section, due to the fact, that little is changed from the original rules. Possibly a condition. (stupid right)
  • There are very few quantifiable in-game effects. For example: "Armor Special Abilities do not transcribe to shields, and visa versa." or "If one passes the dodge or dex, gain a +1 moral bonus the following turn." (stupid right)

A few stupid ideas, I know. But am uncertain on exactly what this variant does. Would you be so kind, as to explain it in more detail to my belittled mind? A retard leading retards, is better than a know-it-all leading know-it-alls! I use to have great respect for you TK - more than any other user here. Now its like the paleo wiki all over again! --Franken Kesey 17:49, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

This variant gives a step by step process to figure out how armor class works in situations where how someone missed is important. It also gives a chance for in game equipment wear and tear to occur.
Example: archer using +1 flaming arrows misses a shot when firing at a heavy fighter who has his back to a bunch of cases of explosive material. Unless the archer rolled a one, everyone would be clueless as to what happens. Assuming the fighter has full plate, a heavy steel shield, 13 dex, is human, and was targeted by shield other in the last round. So we apply this variant and get this: if the archers total was 1-10, it was a size miss and he certainly hit the explosives. Total of 11 means the spell stopped the arrow mid-flight, leaving everyone okay and a perfectly fine arrow laying about. A total of 12-13 means the shield got in the way, so the archer rolls damage against the shield as if it were any other object. 14 on the attack indicates that the fighter might have parried with his weapon or dropped low, depending on his style, and everyone is in trouble once again. Finally an attack of 15-21 means the arrow hit the armor and damage is rolled against it, which will result in a need for armor repair but otherwise the fighter is okay.
hopefully that will clear things up. --Teh Storm 22:00, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
When are these situations ever mechanically important? If the answer is never, then this probably belongs in the "Other" section instead of the variant rules section. - TarkisFlux 00:44, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
Edit - apparently I missed the part where armor and shields get destroyed by being hit, because I stopped reading after the largely inconsequential initial part. With this being a wizard with force armor magic items and random bonuses is even more better than being a fighter with metal ones. This is probably not a good change for the game, since the people who actually need to armor are the only ones who are at risk of losing their defenses. - TarkisFlux 05:06, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
This rewards missing...and makes AC in total, weaker. I don't see why AC needs to be made weaker. -- 02:32, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
This helps the attacker-
-I mean the ranger, far better than the victim. It allows one to go around certain aspects of AC. If one is going this route, I'd advise one or of the following: 1) some sort of bonus for when the hapless defender gets lucky; 2) put magical items and armor in explanation; 3) since your niging the defender - some way of niging the attacker (i.e. "if one fails the save by five the bowstring snaps on their arm making them loss one attack action next turn", or "if you fail a save against a shield get its hardness in damage") 4) Some way of combining different aspects would be-
-you still have not explained your theist statement (last line of first paragraph - or second in your case). Franken Kesey 05:53, October 28, 2010 (UTC) (if you were wondering, I was interrupting myself)
I'm starting to think I should post my weapon shock rules, in that case. Simply, my weapon shock rule make damaging objects with the wrong weapon much more costly, all by ruling that weapons that fail to overcome hardness or some forms of damage reduction deal the damage they would have done unto themselves. I never posted this because I use this site as kind of a "idea hospital" where I send my iffy ideas to get better or put to sleep. After all, if an idea is truly a good idea, then it should not need validation.--Teh Storm 19:24, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
While my first thought was "you're just giving us your half-cocked junk? thanks for that...?", it was quickly set aside in favor of simple dismay when I realized what you were actually suggesting. I don't think this is a truly good idea in DnD, nor the corollary you suggested. I think they're both junk actually and shouldn't be used, ever, because of the way they interact with the system (or rather the half that they don't interact with at all). It's like you decided that wizards didn't win enough and the poor mundane guys needed to be beaten with the realistic-ish stick more. There are systems that support that sort of thing; DnD from 3rd edition on is not really one of them. - TarkisFlux 21:33, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, it is. It really is. For systems that evenly match the various classes, D&D is the way to go. Only in D&D do wizards seem to run out of spells. Anywhere else they can recharge them with mana or their spells are innate abilities and you have to wait for a wizard to fuck up before you can even touch them. But in D&D, not only are the majority of spell casters squishies that need to be protected, but they run out of juice and have to sit on their ass until the next day to get the power back. A fighter with the right selecton of feats or even your average rogue with a wand that produces illusions of any kind can tear a mage to ribbons. I think that the classes are well balanced, if not skewed to favor dragons.--Teh Storm 23:22, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, the Wizard doesn't run out of spells until after all his enemies are dead. Sure, a rogue with a wand might be able to tear mages to ribbons, but the mage can use the wand better and doesn't have to waste any money on fancy stabbing implements that break as soon as they hit a guy in full plate. --Foxwarrior 23:26, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
It's not. It's really not. It can be ran that way, but you basically don't take challenges tactically and pick crappy spells for your casters. GURPS would be better, with sufficient guidelines from the GM at chargen. I don't think anything in your last response is even true regarding this edition of DnD (except maybe the rogue bit) after level 3. But I'm not going to get into it. It's rather obvious that your experiences with this edition are very far removed from mine, so much so that I don't think we can even have a conversation on why a rule is good or not. There's no shared reference to build off of. I really don't have anything helpful to add and the insulting has been done by others and isn't really my thing, so I'm out. May you continue to enjoy your games. - TarkisFlux 04:46, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
I thank you for your honesty, and ability to recognize a different playing style as valid. Were we to meet in person I would definitely see a worthy opponent of a differing play style. May others, including myself, learn from your example.--Teh Storm 20:01, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.