2) I go setting a goblin encampment on fire with some burning arrows. The goblins seem to have some sort of sonar because they instantly know where I am despite shooting at 300 foot range through a forest at night and moving quickly. I run into the forest and roll well on stealth. When some are near, ("the closest is ten feet") I roll well on stealth and athletics to climb the tree. Apparently i failed the stealth and get ganked for 34 (everybody at level 1) from three arrows, from apparently most of the way up a tree in a forest. Seems to me it would be hard to shoot through solid wood.
3) I kill some goblin minions on a row boat. I jump into the ocean to get the boat. Instantly attacked for 2/3 of my HP by some sort of Eel. I go nova on it and kill it with my daily, and before I can even start swimming away I get attacked by other eels.
I think maybe it's just that he's never hosted 4th and doesn't realize that passive perception would kinda clue me in on things like there are actually 15 civilians, or that there are actually a whole crapton of goblins nearby, or that there's a bunch of eels near me, not just one. Oh and I hate "hunt the syntax". What's a player to do?
Whenever he does something like this, ask him pointed questions about it. say "How did they know where I was?" but that is all. if he doesn't have an answer quickly, he hasn't thought about it yet
If these are the only three examples, and the worst three to boot, then I would just start asking more pointed questions. If this sort of thing happens often, and to other players, and seems to be a common thing, I would have an out-of-game group meeting, and ask the DM what's going on.
1) When you try to steal a horse while it's hitched to a wagon, while three people are watching, you shouldn't be surprised when they come after you. Your DM was probably in the right on this one, although his time frame was a little fast: peasants spot you, peasants yell for help, peasant mob beats the horse-thief to within an inch of his life.
2) The goblins? They should have seen approximately where you were hiding, because you were lobbing giant glowy projectiles at them. If you manage to hide from them, okay fine, they keep searching for a while and eventually give up. Meanwhile, you're hiding up a tree 300 feet away, which gives them time to get the smoldering fires under control... so now you're facing a goblin camp that's particularly angry, plus they know they're under attack. Fire arrows are really not as effective as all that.
3) This is actually the DM's worst mistake, unless he warned you about the eels first ("Do you know what that sound is, highness? Those are the shrieking eels!")
Oh, and finally: **** is one of those things that's never funny, and joking about it doesn't make you sound smarter. Avoid using words like "gangrape" to describe things that are in absolutely no way analogous to it.
As much as it pains me to admit it (see below), you're probably right. Your DM doesn't like it when you deviate from his internal script. There's no easy way to fix this, other than generally pointing out the meaning of passive Perception and Stealth. However, it should be noted that your actions should have consequences, and there are reasonable, non-railroad ways to punish PCs that act like this.
1) When you try to steal a horse while it's hitched to a wagon, while three people are watching, you shouldn't be surprised when they come after you. Your DM was probably in the right on this one, although his time frame was a little fast: peasants spot you, peasants yell for help, peasant mob beats the horse-thief to within an inch of his life.
2) The goblins? They should have seen approximately where you were hiding, because you were lobbing giant glowy projectiles at them. If you manage to hide from them, okay fine, they keep searching for a while and eventually give up. Meanwhile, you're hiding up a tree 300 feet away, which gives them time to get the smoldering fires under control... so now you're facing a goblin camp that's particularly angry, plus they know they're under attack. Fire arrows are really not as effective as all that.
3) This is actually the DM's worst mistake, unless he warned you about the eels first ("Do you know what that sound is, highness? Those are the shrieking eels!")
Oh, and finally: **** is one of those things that's never funny, and joking about it doesn't make you sound smarter. Avoid using words like "gangrape" to describe things that are in absolutely no way analogous to it.
Well for the first one I knocked out a peasant first. I dont really see how help could arrive in the 6 seconds it would take to action point and kill the other two when apparently there were only 3 people around.
As for the fire arrows - it takes at least a minute for them to fall from 300 feet away - Braveheart might be a crappy movie but they got the longbows right - they don't hit immediately no matter what D&D thinks. I'm pretty sure me shooting over a forest and moving away after a couple of shots is like a DC 10 for stealth, not apparently "at least 20, maybe more".
Since it kept going like this, I just figured since the DM was cheating, I'd cheat and added 10 to all of my stats and skills. it still didn't really make a difference which was lulz for me. "I jump off the tree onto another tree! 35!" "Okay so you go 3.5 feet then fall and take damage" "Go go apparent zero horizontal velocity!"
Edit: As for "****", I obviously didn't use it in a humorous time. You might recall that "****" also refers to "destroy/damage/reduce to ashes" as in "the **** of nanjing".
Well for the first one I knocked out a peasant first. I dont really see how help could arrive in the 6 seconds it would take to action point and kill the other two when apparently there were only 3 people around.
That depends: were you on a deserted road, or just outside a town? Also, why was murdering three peasants to steal a horse justified? Where was the rest of your party at the time?
As for the fire arrows - it takes at least a minute for them to fall from 300 feet away - Braveheart might be a crappy movie but they got the longbows right - they don't hit immediately no matter what D&D thinks. I'm pretty sure me shooting over a forest and moving away after a couple of shots is like a DC 10 for stealth, not apparently "at least 20, maybe more".
From a quick bit of research, let's assume an initial arrow velocity of 60 m/s (about 200 feet per second). We'll also assume you fired at 45 degrees from ground level, to get the best distance possible (since you're already well past the range of a 4e longbow). That means the initial velocity of the arrow upward is 42.4 m/s, which means it will take 4.3 seconds to reach its peak and another 4.3 seconds to fall. That's well short of a minute.
In any case, the Stealth check has nothing to do with the arrows. The arrows tell the goblins where to start looking for you, but they still have to beat your Stealth check in order to target you. As far as that goes, you're right to be upset.
Since it kept going like this, I just figured since the DM was cheating, I'd cheat and added 10 to all of my stats and skills. it still didn't really make a difference which was lulz for me. "I jump off the tree onto another tree! 35!" "Okay so you go 3.5 feet then fall and take damage" "Go go apparent zero horizontal velocity!"
For the second time, yes, your DM screwed up. However, you may be familiar with the idea that two wrongs don't make a right: just because your DM is railroading you doesn't mean you're justified to cheat.
Edit: As for "****", I obviously didn't use it in a humorous time. You might recall that "****" also refers to "destroy/damage/reduce to ashes" as in "the **** of nanjing".
Your usage was technically ironic, rather than actually funny, but my point stands. And while you're correct that "****" has the alternate meaning of "theft", I fail to see any alternative usage for "gangrape". You were drawing a deliberate analogy to a horrific act of violence in order to describe the result of a set of dice rolls, which is entirely inappropriate.
That depends: were you on a deserted road, or just outside a town? Also, why was murdering three peasants to steal a horse justified? Where was the rest of your party at the time?
From the description it was a deserted road.
I was just going to knock them out.
Party wasn't there - it was the beginning of the game and the DM was set on lengthy "beginning boring part" stuff.
From a quick bit of research, let's assume an initial arrow velocity of 60 m/s (about 200 feet per second). We'll also assume you fired at 45 degrees from ground level, to get the best distance possible (since you're already well past the range of a 4e longbow). That means the initial velocity of the arrow upward is 42.4 m/s, which means it will take 4.3 seconds to reach its peak and another 4.3 seconds to fall. That's well short of a minute.
OK you're right - but not correct. There's acceleration/deacceleration. And it's night through compete cover. They could guess the general area, but there's a FOREST between me and them. It shoudl take them far longer to get there than it would for me to leave. Forests are difficult terrain. If somebody who isn't a bear tries running through a forest they are going to trip and break their ankle. Even if there's no thick brush, forests at night are BLACK DARK. They could easily get lost, since it's impossible to move in a straight line. Through a forest with no trail for 300 ft would take between 1 and 5 minutes depending on how much brush there is, and when they get out the other side there's no guaruntee that they are where they hope to be.
In any case, the Stealth check has nothing to do with the arrows. The arrows tell the goblins where to start looking for you, but they still have to beat your Stealth check in order to target you. As far as that goes, you're right to be upset.
If I implied it had anything to do with the arrows, I apologise. Realisitically, and remembering this is LEVEL ONE - with them going through difficult terrain and me rolling well means there should be no possible way for them to basically "instantly" track me down.
For the second time, yes, your DM screwed up. However, you may be familiar with the idea that two wrongs don't make a right: just because your DM is railroading you doesn't mean you're justified to cheat.
Not exactly railroading. It was more like he's deliberately out to kill my character. A level one character rolling 18 should pretty much mean nobody can detect them, period, and taking 32 damage from complete cover again at level one would mean anybody aside from CON 18 or who wasted a feat on Toughness would have died right there.
Your usage was technically ironic, rather than actually funny, but my point stands. And while you're correct that "****" has the alternate meaning of "theft", I fail to see any alternative usage for "gangrape". You were drawing a deliberate analogy to a horrific act of violence in order to describe the result of a set of dice rolls, which is entirely inappropriate.
Who says anything about dice rolls? Apparently they had something like +10 to hit. I'm not going to argue semantics on this thread, it would just devolve into flaming and I'd get banned or something.
From the description it was a deserted road.
Then you're right, and your DM screwed up here, too. Making the peasants tough enough to pose a challenge would have been a much better idea than teleporting in an extra dozen of them.
OK you're right - but not correct. There's acceleration/deacceleration.
I was going to leave the thread alone, and just drop the rest of it--except for this part, which is going to bother me. There's no "acceleration/deacceleration" going on, except for gravity (wind resistance is negligible). Once the arrow leaves the bow, the only force acting on it is gravity, which means the only acceleration is 9.8 m/s^2. It really doesn't take minutes to land.
Then you're right, and your DM screwed up here, too. Making the peasants tough enough to pose a challenge would have been a much better idea than teleporting in an extra dozen of them.
I was going to leave the thread alone, and just drop the rest of it--except for this part, which is going to bother me. There's no "acceleration/deacceleration" going on, except for gravity (wind resistance is negligible). Once the arrow leaves the bow, the only force acting on it is gravity, which means the only acceleration is 9.8 m/s^2. It really doesn't take minutes to land.
I agree one minute is too long... but -> the only acceleration being 9.8 m/s^2 is in a perfect vaccum. On Earth, there's wind resistance and other such things.
Regardless, despite this game being completely not about realism, it's completely unrealistic for goblins to run through a 300 feet forest before I can easily run away. Their speed is what? 6? 6 = 30 feet = 60 seconds to move there - realistically even slower because large forests are thick and difficult to handle terrain. Only bears can run in a forest and not trip on something all day.
1) If he described it as an empty road with no houses for NPCs to emerge from then this is extreemly bad description on his part, if there were houses then it was just bad timing and they should have taken 2-3ish rounds to get there since they were unarmed so they didn't stop to pick up pitchforks.
2) Never mind a rational panic from their tents being on fire. The Goblins should have had an idea, like "those arrows came from the east, fan out and search east." It'll be a slow carful search, probably only moving regular speed double moving. let's pretend for a moment though that they know EXACTLY where you are though: when you consider that you were 300 feet away (roughly 60 squares) they can move at a top speed of 16 squares a round assuming for normal goblins making double moves and running for both of them (run rules page 291)They will still take 4 rounds to get there, with 4 squares to spare, and they will still have needed to double move on that last round so they couldn't attack. this is also provided you are not moving away from them at a rate of 12-14 sqaures a round (6 square or 7 square double move depending on if you're an elf or not.) You should have been pretty much in the clear no matter what unless you had no place to run or hide and they were ready to comb the forest for you all night.
However the fact that you were allowed to fire it from 300 feet is breaking the rules in your favor, max range on a longbow 40 squares and the max range on a greatbow is 50, so you had an extra 50-100 feet that you were firing at, if there was no attack penalty then that's even more in your favor.
3) Ya, you should have seen the other eels if they were within the distance of move and attack in one round. Though I agree, "gangraped" was probably not the best choice of verb here, Because while you can **** a country side, you cannot gang **** a country side, that refers to a very specific action.
Just for fun:
"Once the arrow leaves the bow, the only force acting on it is gravity, which means the only acceleration is 9.8 m/s^2. It really doesn't take minutes to land."
This is actually not true, even if we assume for no wind resistance there is still friction as well as gravity. It will also not keep a constant velocity especially since a lot of the initial momentum is going to be at an upward angle once gravity stops its upward momentum and it starts to fall its speed will be slightly different then it was when it was first fired. From his distance I would expect it would take 15ish seconds to hit with no wind.
I decided to do some research myself,
given an initial speed of 60 M/S it would arrive with a speed of between 40 and 45 M/S
This information blatently stolen from http://www.stortford-archers.org.uk/medieval.htm
This is using a real world aproximate max range of 240 meters but I'm assuming that the max range of a real world bow is thrown out the window as the range is set for us and he is still firing his bow at (past) max range. this means that over the course of the shot it looses up to 20 Meters per second. We're probably looking at about 12-13ish seconds in the air. (2 rounds)
again, the second part is really just me having fun with physics and totally has no place in the game.
Just for fun:
"Once the arrow leaves the bow, the only force acting on it is gravity, which means the only acceleration is 9.8 m/s^2. It really doesn't take minutes to land."
This is actually not true, even if we assume for no wind resistance there is still friction as well as gravity. It will also not keep a constant velocity especially since a lot of the initial momentum is going to be at an upward angle once gravity stops its upward momentum and it starts to fall its speed will be slightly different then it was when it was first fired. From his distance I would expect it would take 15ish seconds to hit with no wind.
Um. Friction is a component of air resistance, and it really is negligible for a small arrow-shaped object moving at relatively low speed in air. Wind obviously could be a factor, but it's one that's impossible to estimate, so I left it out.
I did make one error: if you fired a real longbow (exit velocity of 60 m/s) at a 45 degree angle, it won't land 300 feet away--it'll land about 1,200 feet away. In order to get the arrow to a target 300 feet away, you need to fire it at about 83 degrees from level, in which case it takes about 12.3 seconds to strike the target. You can also fire it at 7 degrees from level, in which case it takes about a second and a half--but in this case, it seems likely that trees would get in the way.
I decided to do some research myself,
given an initial speed of 60 M/S it would arrive with a speed of between 40 and 45 M/S
This information blatently stolen from http://www.stortford-archers.org.uk/medieval.htm
This is using a real world aproximate max range of 240 meters but I'm assuming that the max range of a real world bow is thrown out the window as the range is set for us and he is still firing his bow at (past) max range. this means that over the course of the shot it looses up to 20 Meters per second. We're probably looking at about 12-13ish seconds in the air. (2 rounds)
again, the second part is really just me having fun with physics and totally has no place in the game.
Using the max range of 240 m and assuming the arrow loses velocity at a constant rate, that means it hits a target 300 ft (91.4 m) away still going 54.3 m/s. Assuming he fires it along the curved trajectory instead of the nearly flat one, that increases the arrow's "hang time" to 13.6 seconds.
As much as it pains me to admit it (see below), you're probably right. Your DM doesn't like it when you deviate from his internal script. There's no easy way to fix this, other than generally pointing out the meaning of passive Perception and Stealth. However, it should be noted that your actions should have consequences, and there are reasonable, non-railroad ways to punish PCs that act like this.
1) When you try to steal a horse while it's hitched to a wagon, while three people are watching, you shouldn't be surprised when they come after you. Your DM was probably in the right on this one, although his time frame was a little fast: peasants spot you, peasants yell for help, peasant mob beats the horse-thief to within an inch of his life.
2) The goblins? They should have seen approximately where you were hiding, because you were lobbing giant glowy projectiles at them. If you manage to hide from them, okay fine, they keep searching for a while and eventually give up. Meanwhile, you're hiding up a tree 300 feet away, which gives them time to get the smoldering fires under control... so now you're facing a goblin camp that's particularly angry, plus they know they're under attack. Fire arrows are really not as effective as all that.
3) This is actually the DM's worst mistake, unless he warned you about the eels first ("Do you know what that sound is, highness? Those are the shrieking eels!")
Oh, and finally: **** is one of those things that's never funny, and joking about it doesn't make you sound smarter. Avoid using words like "gangrape" to describe things that are in absolutely no way analogous to it.
The DM should have told him how many people were within hearing/seeing distance, so that the player could make an informed decision. If the player wants to steal a gorram horse, that's an option. Let him deal with the consequences, but give him the appropriate information first. basically, there should have been a chance for him to unhitch the horse, and then the peasants would be alerted probably unless he rolled really high to hide what he was doing, and he'd be on the horse riding away. instead, he was punished by the DM because he wanted to do something the DM didn't like on a personal level, which is complete bull.
Goblins are not smart, the player said he was on the move, and tents go up easily, other than that, sure.
Oh, and finally. Wrong. Anything can be funny in terms of a vague reference which is obviously being used as a joking, and intentionally silly reference.
Without exception. Grow a shell.
Without exception. Grow a shell.
qft
instead, he was punished by the DM because he wanted to do something the DM didn't like on a personal level, which is complete bull.
Read my reply from 2/18 (post #8); I agree, his DM screwed up. There need to be in-game consequences for theft, but magically increasing the number of people on an otherwise-deserted road is a very poor way to handle it. This DM apparently kills players for thinking outside his adventure outline, and that makes him a very poor DM indeed.
Oh, and finally. Wrong. Anything can be funny in terms of a vague reference which is obviously being used as a joking, and intentionally silly reference.
Sure, anything can be funny in a particular context. That's not the same as "nothing is off-limits in public". In particular, this is a subject that has a pretty hefty emotional significance for some people, which means that at least out of consideration for your fellow gamers, you should avoid joking about it.
Let me put it this way: if you're close to four women in your life (say a mom, a sister, a girlfriend/wife, and a close friend), there's a better than 50/50 chance that at least one is a past victim of sexual assault.
Without exception. Grow a shell.
I prefer to have a gaming environment (including the Wizards boards) that's friendly to my wife and female friends. If you'd rather keep yours an exclusive boys-only club, then by all means "grow a shell" instead of "maintain a basic level of emotional sensitivity".
Incidentally, I've now said my piece and will not be responding further to this thread (although I will read any replies).
It's completely inappropriate to bring it up in a joking manner in a gaming forum.
"Gangrape" is not "a colloquialism used to indicate intense physical assault". Its connotations are exclusively sexual. Using it to refer to other situations is a form of hyperbole for effect, that preys upon people's sensitivity to the issue.
It's completely inappropriate to bring it up in a joking manner in a gaming forum.
Except that it is a term commonly used by many gamers in forums and elsewhere to refer to being attacked by a mob of enemies, generally when the attack was either from out of nowhere, had little to no chance of survival, or both. I have heard female gamers use it almost as often as guys, and know very few people who are offended by the usage shown by the poster.
to others, yes, i know women who have been the victims of sexual assault, and at least one man actually, but that doesn't change my stance on this. an internet forum concerning gaming is going to, on occasion, feature the terms **** and gangrape in reference to being savagely owned by and enemy/enemies.
and my game groups are, without exception, co-ed. I haven't played a game that didn't have at least one lady gamer in it since high school, and my DnD group is about half and half. i don't joke about people being raped, i don't joke about raping, but i will make make references like the poster did, whether the girls are there or not.
"Gangrape" is not "a colloquialism used to indicate intense physical assault". Its connotations are exclusively sexual. Using it to refer to other situations is a form of hyperbole for effect, that preys upon people's sensitivity to the issue.
It's completely inappropriate to bring it up in a joking manner in a gaming forum.
No. Once a word is in regular use for any one meaning, that IS it's meaning. Ref how Kleenex, Xerox, and Hodgkins were used to refer to a product even though they are brand names. "Gangrape" has been used to indicate "intense physical assault" in media and colloquialism for at least fourty years. This isn't really anything anybody can argue about. I can reference endless popular media, recorded speech from at least the 60s and so on.
Regardless, you didn't actually reply to my contention: I contend it's insulting to consider a certain segment of society so weak that they are universally offended to a word used in an alternative meaning (and yes even if you don't agree that it is an alternative meaning, my arguement is valid). It assumes that women or whomever have no control over their own emotions, that they have no ability to parse word meanings, and that they are damaged in some way through a pre-existing common use of a word.
And avoiding trivializing a brutal and traumatizing assault that occurs too often is not insulting to others; it's insulting to trivialize it.
Please continue using the word inappropriately. I'm sure you won't remain on these boards much longer.
No. Once a word is in regular use for any one meaning, that IS it's meaning. Ref how Kleenex, Xerox, and Hodgkins were used to refer to a product even though they are brand names. "Gangrape" has been used to indicate "intense physical assault" in media and colloquialism for at least fourty years. This isn't really anything anybody can argue about. I can reference endless popular media, recorded speech from at least the 60s and so on.
Regardless, you didn't actually reply to my contention: I contend it's insulting to consider a certain segment of society so weak that they are universally offended to a word used in an alternative meaning (and yes even if you don't agree that it is an alternative meaning, my arguement is valid). It assumes that women or whomever have no control over their own emotions, that they have no ability to parse word meanings, and that they are damaged in some way through a pre-existing common use of a word.
Actually Mccowen was the one that related this to women in general, not the others debating this one with you, they could be saying that **** victims are going to be sensitive to the word which I would say... yes... they may not have 100% control over their emotions when it comes to the subject and terminology of the word ****. It's like saying that "you mom" jokes are a tired cliché that are used frequently therefore I should be able to make your mom jokes to someone whos mother just died.
It's not a gender it's a group of people that have been affected. Drbadwolf, you say you know several people who have been victims of sexual assault, would you tell them gang **** jokes if they were still emotionally unsound about it? thousands of people come to these forums, we shouldn't make assumptions about what they can and cannot take and simply choose our words carefully. I am considered the expert in my group of friends on crude, vulgar and crass humor, I had someone call me the other day because they were having a sexist joke contest and wanted to hear some of my list, but I don't bring it to the forums because I would offend.
As a conclusion I'd like to point out that the point they are trying to make is that people are going to be offended by the use of that word no matter its context and no matter how many sources you can quote that say differently, they're right as they themselves are clearly upset by its use. People can say "grow a shell" to their hearts content but you are still the aggressor in this situation, they should not have to toughen up for your sake, you should tone it down for theirs. I've had a man use the example "If I really liked slapping people and was slapping you and you wanted me to stop, the answer wouldn't be that you should get tougher because I like slapping, it's that I should stop slapping you because I'm infringing on you."
He was using the fourth definition given. By being so...protective, it's actually more offensive then this so called situation, I mean really...did you think that the OP was implying that there is something funny about a person being sexually abused by several parties? Obviously not, otherwise you have something seriously wrong with your head.
Read my reply from 2/18 (post #8); I agree, his DM screwed up. There need to be in-game consequences for theft, but magically increasing the number of people on an otherwise-deserted road is a very poor way to handle it. This DM apparently kills players for thinking outside his adventure outline, and that makes him a very poor DM indeed.
Of course, the fact that a PC is stealing a horse hatched to a wagon from innocent peasents while admitting the DM was starting the adventure with a boring monologue is also an indication something is wrong ;) To me it seems the player and DM needs to have a chat about their expectations about the game. There is more going on here then bad descriptions and DMs unable to deal with the unexpected (and it certainly looks like that is the case here as well, although, we only see one side of the story).
As for the bow thing. The rules say that when you attack you immediately become visible (sniping could be possible, but I would certainly add a significant penalty on the Stealth check). The rules say you need superior cover or concealment to be able to hide: in short, it needs to be dark or densely overgrown before you can even hide, the fact it is night does not give a bonus. The rules say that you shoot a bow in a direct line. The rules say the arrow arrives in the same round it was shot. These rules are obviously not the rules of RL physics. They are the rules of the D&D game and their intent is to keep things simple, fast and fun. Players that really want to rewrite the game to make it a better similation of life are not the gamers I would want in my group. The styles of gaming are just too different.
As for the bow thing. The rules say that when you attack you immediately become visible (sniping could be possible, but I would certainly add a significant penalty on the Stealth check). The rules say you need superior cover or concealment to be able to hide: in short, it needs to be dark or densely overgrown before you can even hide, the fact it is night does not give a bonus. The rules say that you shoot a bow in a direct line. The rules say the arrow arrives in the same round it was shot. These rules are obviously not the rules of RL physics. They are the rules of the D&D game and their intent is to keep things simple, fast and fun. Players that really want to rewrite the game to make it a better similation of life are not the gamers I would want in my group. The styles of gaming are just too different.
Well, to start, "cover or concealment" is easy to come by in the middle of the forest, in the middle of the night. It's dark, and there's a ton of trees and bushes, so I don't see why he wouldn't be allowed those bonuses.
Arrow travel time, according to the rules evidentally(sorry, i haven't gotten my hands on 4e yet), happens in 1 round... but I can only assume that's for the purpose of battle, where you have a straight shot to your enemy, and everybody is aware of the others' presence. Now, I could be completely wrong, but I don't think it's unfair, to rule, as a GM, that if you're making a shot from WAY out of combat range, that it might take more than a round for your arrows to land (in the earlier posts it was stated that this sort of shot, in real physics, would land in about 12 seconds, which is approximately 2 rounds).
And of course, you're more than welcome to play with whomever you get along with, in the gaming sense, but there's no reason to look down on somebody who is trying to give RL physics implications to their actions, so that they can plan their character's movements accordingly. Not everybody is satisfied with "A wizard did it."
Actually Mccowen was the one that related this to women in general, not the others debating this one with you, they could be saying that **** victims are going to be sensitive to the word which I would say... yes... they may not have 100% control over their emotions when it comes to the subject and terminology of the word ****. It's like saying that "you mom" jokes are a tired cliché that are used frequently therefore I should be able to make your mom jokes to someone whos mother just died.
It's not a gender it's a group of people that have been affected. Drbadwolf, you say you know several people who have been victims of sexual assault, would you tell them gang **** jokes if they were still emotionally unsound about it? thousands of people come to these forums, we shouldn't make assumptions about what they can and cannot take and simply choose our words carefully. I am considered the expert in my group of friends on crude, vulgar and crass humor, I had someone call me the other day because they were having a sexist joke contest and wanted to hear some of my list, but I don't bring it to the forums because I would offend.
As a conclusion I'd like to point out that the point they are trying to make is that people are going to be offended by the use of that word no matter its context and no matter how many sources you can quote that say differently, they're right as they themselves are clearly upset by its use. People can say "grow a shell" to their hearts content but you are still the aggressor in this situation, they should not have to toughen up for your sake, you should tone it down for theirs. I've had a man use the example "If I really liked slapping people and was slapping you and you wanted me to stop, the answer wouldn't be that you should get tougher because I like slapping, it's that I should stop slapping you because I'm infringing on you."
I'm gonna go ahead and sin against the gods of internet forums and you, you are absolutely right, while i still think that the poster was rather clear in his intended use of the word, and most reasonable people should see what he meant and react accordingly, that isn't really the point. Since people will be offended, and it is irrelevent whether that reaction is reasonable or unreasonable, as is whether the offended parties have been victimized or just suffer from the aclu syndrome of "it might offend someone, somewhere, so i'm offended on thier behalf", it behooves us, as posters, to keep certain words and phrases in places where we know the people who will hear us and their likely reactions.
It reeks of oversensitivity and forced politically correctism, and I hate to admit it, but you guys are right.
Gah.
Anyway, in response to more important and on topic things...
The bow. When a player wants to do something not covered by the rules as written, common sense should be used to figure out how to make the player able to attempt it. In this case, the player wanted to shoot a longbow within it's realistic maximum range, in a situation that required him to shoot over trees to hit his mark. Knowing that far shots like that are possible, and that the game covers personal/small scale combat, not the sort of things that are done in massive battles between armies, he had a reasonable expectation of being able to accomplish what he set out to do, and for the shot to take 2 rounds to reach it's target. Add to that the time taken to put out the fires and he should have had plenty of time to move well away from his shooting position, and then get up a tree and hide. It's not about changing the rules to better simulate reality. It's about using reality to piece together how to do something outside the scope of the rules as written.
The horse. Now, it probably wasn't needed to kill the peasants, but i could be wrong, they may have been standing right next to the horses. I would have handled this with a skill challenge, bluff or diplomacy to lower their defenses, either bluff or stealth to move toward the horses without the peasants realizing anything is wrong, either another stealth or a theivery check to unhitch the horse(I'm told by the son of a ferrier that this could take a few seconds if all you are trying to do is get the horse loose of the hitch so you can jump on it's back and ride off) and possibly an acrobatics to get on the horse and away quickly enough that a subsequent acrobatics/athletics check isn't required to escape the grabs of peasants trying to pull you off the horse. Either way he should have had time to unhitch the horse and be riding away before a horde of peasants came out of nowhere, and if they were right there waiting, he should have been informed by passive perception. The player did nothing wrong here(so far as i can tell from his side of the story) except to act against the DM's internal script. There's nothing wrong with occasionally playing a horse thief, and being on the wrong side of the law can make a nice story hook in the hands of a DM who knows his/her business.
Since people will be offended, and it is irrelevent whether that reaction is reasonable or unreasonable, as is whether the offended parties have been victimized or just suffer from the aclu syndrome of "it might offend someone, somewhere, so i'm offended on thier behalf", it behooves us, as posters, to keep certain words and phrases in places where we know the people who will hear us and their likely reactions.
It reeks of oversensitivity and forced politically correctism, and I hate to admit it, but you guys are right.
Yeah, sorry, I'll never let the PC crowd believe they're right on matters like this. They can have their own opinion, and I have my own opinion, but the best I can do is agree to disagree. And doing so involves *Gasp* growing a shell!!
In any case, since when does anybody think it's important to censor yourself to avoid offending strangers on the internet?
I believe in something I like to refer to as "context" and the moment I allow somebody to steal that away from me is the moment I give up everything I believe in, as a person.
Yeah, sorry, I'll never let the PC crowd believe they're right on matters like this. They can have their own opinion, and I have my own opinion, but the best I can do is agree to disagree. And doing so involves *Gasp* growing a shell!!
In any case, since when does anybody think it's important to censor yourself to avoid offending strangers on the internet?
I believe in something I like to refer to as "context" and the moment I allow somebody to steal that away from me is the moment I give up everything I believe in, as a person.
The only problem with that, and it's one that I was long in learning myself, is that simply expecting them to grow a shell isn't agreeing to disagree. It is a tacit statement that your opinion is superior to theirs. While, as i said, i beleive the use of the term gangrape was OBVIOUSLY not referring to sexual assault by multiple parties, continuing this debate rather than just apologizing to those who were offended is needlessly aggressive behavior. at that point you have gone beyond holding to your beliefs, unless your beliefs include the idea that being an a-hole for no good reason is a virtue, in which case don't expect any respect from anyone who isn't an a-hole. behaving in a civilized manner is part of what makes us better than animals.
anyone who is incapable of doing so, or worse, unwilling to do so, is somewhere between animal and human in terms of worth.
whether that fits you or not, i don't know, and am not even trying to suggest, I'm simply explaining why it is preferable to just say something along the lines of "Hey, sorry if my use of that term offends you, I wasn't using it to refer to an act of sexual assault, and am unused to a reference such as the one i made being taken as a reference to the act of sexual assault." in whatever wording fits your particular style of speech.
Refusal to consider the merit of someone else's point of view because it differs from your own is not admirable, rather it constitutes an unwillingness to reason, and as such is beneath the behavior of intelligent people.
That last is directed at both sides of the argument.
The only problem with that, and it's one that I was long in learning myself, is that simply expecting them to grow a shell isn't agreeing to disagree. It is a tacit statement that your opinion is superior to theirs. While, as i said, i beleive the use of the term gangrape was OBVIOUSLY not referring to sexual assault by multiple parties, continuing this debate rather than just apologizing to those who were offended is needlessly aggressive behavior. at that point you have gone beyond holding to your beliefs, unless your beliefs include the idea that being an a-hole for no good reason is a virtue, in which case don't expect any respect from anyone who isn't an a-hole. behaving in a civilized manner is part of what makes us better than animals.
anyone who is incapable of doing so, or worse, unwilling to do so, is somewhere between animal and human in terms of worth.
whether that fits you or not, i don't know, and am not even trying to suggest, I'm simply explaining why it is preferable to just say something along the lines of "Hey, sorry if my use of that term offends you, I wasn't using it to refer to an act of sexual assault, and am unused to a reference such as the one i made being taken as a reference to the act of sexual assault." in whatever wording fits your particular style of speech.
Refusal to consider the merit of someone else's point of view because it differs from your own is not admirable, rather it constitutes an unwillingness to reason, and as such is beneath the behavior of intelligent people.
That last is directed at both sides of the argument.
While you make a point about avoiding direct aggressiveness as part of the whole situation, you also have to realize that this isn't the type of situation where you apologize and it goes away. When I say "agree to disagree" and "grow a shell," I'm referring to the fact that both groups are going to think what they want, regardless of what the other side says, and the best way to deal with it is to just keep your opinion to yourself and not argue about it.
At the end of the day, it's not something that you can just come to a middle-ground on. If the one side continues to use the term, than the other side has "lost" because we're "not being sensitive enough." On the other hand, if we discontinue using these phrases for the sake of the other group, we've "lost" because we "have to be PC to protect their sensibilities." Both answers require one group to cave in to the other's demands, so I have to contend that while being nice and courteous has its own merit, sometimes it's just a matter of whether you're going to bend on your principles or not.
So honestly, when all is said and done, the best way to resolve the issue is for everybody just to shut the f*ck up and keep their opinions to themselves :P
Cool.