Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Silmarien Aldalome 12-02-04, 04:43 PM	Hi everyone. When you build a non PHB Character, with a combination of supernatural and normal abilities. Or if you are made of materials that, erm, don't fit standard rules. You're going to be asked to test-fire the character if you want to use it in the game-proper. I'll return to make the opening post more digestible later. regards stav
Demonfey 12-02-04, 04:46 PM	Things in savage species are okay, as are those mentioned in handbooks, right Stavros?
Droga 12-02-04, 04:46 PM	What is it you want me to do here exactly? Becuse all this crap about my character is getting rediculous.
Demonfey 12-02-04, 04:56 PM	And this should help to end it.
Dyne 12-02-04, 04:58 PM	What is it you want me to do here exactly? Becuse all this crap about my character is getting rediculous. You shouldn't have to do anything here. It's already been stated that your character is okay. I would like to point something out. Under normal circumstances, such tests as these are most likely very inaccurate. Some classes and such excel under certain circumstances and do horrible in others. Some concepts are simply better than the average concept because they are more thought out and focus their strengths in a certain area. Also, some Players are better at using a certain concept than others because they have more experience with it. It shouldn't be assumed that the Law of Averages always applies, because even with PHB stuff it usually doesn't. But, the Law of Averages should be a guidance to balance things. Simply put, Averages should guide things but not rule them. Just my two cents. :twocents: Also, I want to test out a way of dealing with Mass Combat. I should be able to work out all the details within the next few days. It should help to provide a solution of D&D combat with masses of combatants.
Demonfey 12-02-04, 06:53 PM	You just posted the point I didn't want the people still hassling Droga and Stavros to find out, because they will now say that this proves nothing.
Silmarien Aldalome 12-03-04, 05:48 AM	You shouldn't have to do anything here. It's already been stated that your character is okay. I would like to point something out. Under normal circumstances, such tests as these are most likely very inaccurate. Some classes and such excel under certain circumstances and do horrible in others. Some concepts are simply better than the average concept because they are more thought out and focus their strengths in a certain area. Also, some Players are better at using a certain concept than others because they have more experience with it. It shouldn't be assumed that the Law of Averages always applies, because even with PHB stuff it usually doesn't. But, the Law of Averages should be a guidance to balance things. Simply put, Averages should guide things but not rule them. Just my two cents. :twocents: Also, I want to test out a way of dealing with Mass Combat. I should be able to work out all the details within the next few days. It should help to provide a solution of D&D combat with masses of combatants. And mine is stop! Your same argument applies in reverse - swapping perspectives. If that doesn't make sense, you'd better have another think about it. The thing is - there's some truth to your comments, though. Your point speaks to sources of error in test trials. It is a large area that is spoken to by classical test theory. In plain english, your argument is like saying "rolling a dice doesn't return a '1' one in six times because the dice roller has special powers". And - just in case you're about to say "some people know how to rig the dice or roll rigged dice" - that's why we swap dice rollers. And if a dice is rigged - we will get more '1's over many rolls. That's the point of test trials. Look up Principle of Aggregation - I am not going to be your educator on this one. You will find no fewer than 1000 references to in on google. Educate yourself about 1. Random Error 2. Sources of Error 3. How Aggregation smoothes out bumps in sources of error. There is to be no more obstruction of GM decisions - it is disruptive. stavros
Silmarien Aldalome 12-03-04, 06:21 AM	There is another agenda for this thread. And I will code it up in the Opening Post. That agenda is about fostering empathy. By swapping PrCs - each player gets a little glimpse of the world through the other character's eyes. This will encourage us to realise that "we're all in this together" - and to, basically, chill out about a few ECL's. stav
Silmarien Aldalome 12-03-04, 06:39 AM	Things in savage species are okay, as are those mentioned in handbooks, right Stavros? People who have known me for a while know that "everything is OK" in my D&D world view. Everything is welcome. Everything has a place. It's all good. And enjoy yourselves. Some of the non-CORE rules Tomes have PrC properties that are disupted by some players. I personally don't give a rat's arse about whether or not someone has dragon breath. In fact, I think a PC with dragon breath would be a whole lot of fun to combat. @All The key point is estimating character power in a way that is acceptable. No method is perfect, and the least perfect methods are those that rely on argument alone. Our egos get in the way. I've never met a human being without an ego. When the stakes are high (god only knows, I personally really don't think the stakes are high - hello everyone - reality check - we're playing D&D) but when exact quantification of PC power is important to people - we need a method that is least open to dispute. Again - the law of probabilities is not subject (or is less subject) to our ego-biases. ;) Sil-Marsha: *pouts* psychobabble's boring and doesn't help me get ready for the prom. I've got to meet Viggo in 10 minutes *swooshes hair* Regards stav
jagggar 12-03-04, 10:08 AM	Would this be an appropriate place to inquire about being allowed to use d20 Future material as opposed to only D&D material?
Orcy The Green Wonder 12-03-04, 10:21 AM	Orcy has already given you an answer on the subject. D20 future things would not be allowed, the rules sets are two different things...
jagggar 12-03-04, 10:32 AM	I am not sure they are entirely different beasts, though. The Gamemaster section does provide some alternate rules that would serve a more D&D like game, 32 point buy and 50 as massive damage threshold. How much else is there that isn't compatable beyond that and the wealth system?
Orcy The Green Wonder 12-03-04, 10:50 AM	The wealth system is a big one, as is the concept behind it. Someone walking around decked out in full body armor carrying a laser rifle just doesnt fit in a setting like this. Theres a different setup of saves, magic, and other things, such as defense bonueses every level.
jagggar 12-03-04, 03:41 PM	I do believe that wealth will be the biggest problem in combining the two systems, that I know. Some of the other thoughts, I'm not so sure about. Saves: Like D&D, the max base save possible is +14 at level 20. As far as I know, the progressions the classes present are the only differences between the two systems reguarding saves. Magic: I'd consider it weak rather than different (highest level spells are 5th level). I don't look to make a magic-user anyway, nor do I look to buy magical equipment during chracter creation, so I'm not sure that it would create an issue. Defense: Defense has been presented as a variant in Unearthed Arcana. The d20M rules allow for armor and defense bonus to stack, if required though, I wouldn't complain if the UA version in which armor and defense don't stack (highest one is used) was chosen. Wealth, I agree, is probably the biggest difference between the systems. I'm trying to come up with several ways that could be dealt with.
Tenzhi 12-03-04, 06:00 PM	Defense has been presented as a variant in Unearthed Arcana. So have a multitude of other rules that we aren't using.
Dyne 12-03-04, 06:11 PM	And mine is stop! Your same argument applies in reverse - swapping perspectives. If that doesn't make sense, you'd better have another think about it. The thing is - there's some truth to your comments, though. Your point speaks to sources of error in test trials. It is a large area that is spoken to by classical test theory. In plain english, your argument is like saying "rolling a dice doesn't return a '1' one in six times because the dice roller has special powers". And - just in case you're about to say "some people know how to rig the dice or roll rigged dice" - that's why we swap dice rollers. And if a dice is rigged - we will get more '1's over many rolls. That's the point of test trials. Look up Principle of Aggregation - I am not going to be your educator on this one. You will find no fewer than 1000 references to in on google. Educate yourself about 1. Random Error 2. Sources of Error 3. How Aggregation smoothes out bumps in sources of error. There is to be no more obstruction of GM decisions - it is disruptive. stavros I wasn't talking about dice. I was talking mainly about how each character concept has its own strengths and weaknesses. Some characters are crappy at combat because they're designed to be better at something else. Also, I was talking about the player who controls the character. Some people simply stink. Others are really good. You shouldn't get negative ECL's or anything because you know how to play the game well. I'd rather not look up the Principle of Aggregation. It sounds like psychological mumbo-jumbo, and psychology makes my brain turn to pouridge. I didn't mean any offense Stav. I just believe that this Test-Fire thread and the Law of Averages should be used as a guide, but not as a strict law. Averages don't always happen, even in large numbers of rolls. When I rolled out my HP for my character I got something like 64 HP instead of the average amount of 50 something. I didn't rig the dice (I have no idea of how to do that, and I wouldn't want to anyway), and I didn't do anything else to make my result higher. The dice simply rolled in my favor (I like to call it "luck"). Sometimes, I've also had really bad die rolls. Things like that happen. Averages happen most of the time, but not ALL of the time. That's the point I was trying to make. Sorry if I offended anyone. I didn't mean to.
jagggar 12-03-04, 06:18 PM	So have a multitude of other rules that we aren't using. My point in saying that is that it is not an entirely foreign concept to D&D. Being a core part of Modern, I'd think that it would put me at a disadvantage if it was dropped. The D&D version of the Defense rule isn't as advantageous as the Modern version, so if it's a concern about power, the power just got lowered. This thread sounds to me like it's supposed to deal with characters people want to create that the D&D rules do not already cover. I'd like to create a character and it just so happens that Future has the tools avaliable for me to create the character.
Tenzhi 12-03-04, 07:06 PM	Being a core part of Modern, I'd think that it would put me at a disadvantage if it was dropped. The D&D version of the Defense rule isn't as advantageous as the Modern version, so if it's a concern about power, the power just got lowered. It isn't AS advantageous but it still holds an advantage over core. Not only would you have to drop the Defense bonus, you'd have to drop Action Points (which would require the modification/elimination of the majority of class abilities) and modify several feats to be compliant with the D&D rules/feats. And that's before you even get into the question of integrating wealth and technological items into the game.
Tenzhi 12-03-04, 07:13 PM	Averages happen most of the time, but not ALL of the time. That's the point I was trying to make. Indubitably. Science refuses to acknowledge the existence of luck. With a normal set of dice and rolling techniques, I've rolled up two characters in a row with ability scores of 4 or less across the board - that's rolling 4d6 and dropping the lowest.
Silmarien Aldalome 12-03-04, 07:21 PM	DYne - that's fairer commentary. Thank you for the reprieve. However, two things: 1. The Principle of Aggregation is maths, not psychology. I'm also a science grad. Triple major with honours in psych (1999), a UGRAD in immunology and biochem (1986) - and a doctoral degree in psych (2002). Chem, Physics, Maths, were part of the undergrad, and advanced probability modelling taught in the honours and post grad years. I teach ethics and metaethics at university level, work in a public institution. I'm also a therapist, and researcher and I write lots of reports for public institutions and do some program evaluations of publicly funded initiatives. To write for funders, and evaluators, one must have sound skills in lots of areas, and as you can imagine, when public funds are at stake, what one writes, must be scientific, evidence based and withstand the toughest scrutiny. My knowledge of probability is sometimes useful for D&D. You should trust me a little more, and trust that my credentials are well-referred and that I don't make bogus claims. 2. You're right - there is no such thing as a "strict" or "absolute" law. And rules were made to be broken. So - probability stuff needs to be taken in that context. But, again, it's a better method than that lot of rubbish we all produced in the flamey moments of the Half-Elven foundation. Regards stav