Poll . You hate or love D&D rules ?

[Saint_Proverbius]

Royal women typically only had female guards, correct? They're the ones that used the two long swords, because they could be concealed in their robes. Now, if you want to question whether or not those guards were "nobility", then that's the semantic issue here. However, from a European perspective, royal guards would typically be knights, which were considered nobility.

 

[Rosh]

First off, damn that "formatting" is annoying.

Second, a "straw man" is a fallacy of discussion, as XJEDX pointed out. In context, it isn't a person, but a manner of speech. You might also notice "that straw man" was in reference to a particular piece of quoted text. That is why I had quoted it and replied to it.

OK, that's my mistake.
I only want to express that I'm so sick of those Chinese movies misleading the foreign public

So how the hell is that relevent to the topic?

Now onto the topic.

OK, I've asked half a dozen of my classmates, but NO ONE had heard in the Shang Dynasty, noble women led armies, Nor had ANYONE heard that Shen Yunying .

Oh, dear. I guess I've been proven wrong then. *snicker*

To go along that logical fallacy page, I would have to cite Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.

Hua Mulan-as you pointed that , she was not a noble woman. What's more
that story is probably not true. You wont believe Europeans in the middle age practicing
the arts of magic, will you?

Uh...impersonating a guy is far from tossing fireballs. Now you're entering the realm of Appeal to Ridicule.

As much as I loathe the practice, I'm going to have to provide some Google.com links I found of books/excerpts I've found of books I've browsed at the local University which were written by people dedicated to the study of Chinese history.

http://www.insound.com/zinestand/bamboo ... m?aid=7872
http://www.lhup.edu/library/Internation ... issue8.htm

I do find it a bit of a mystery that Shen Yunying is noted as a heroine and yet relatively unknown.

I also have to wonder about Wu Chao, and the possibility of someone in command of an entire navy and army of the time if they didn't have any personal combat skills. Or, for that matter, survive assassination attempts, as a practice of assassins would be to kill the target first and foremost and therefore she would have had to have known some self-defense of some sort. Those of a nobolity were often taught some self-defense skills, of any nationality because of such a reason, and I do think Empress does fit the definition of nobility, although I may be wrong.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

What's more:

The medieval Chinese are known to be heavily patriarchal, but even such a culture produced many formidable women warriors. The Chinese martial art of Wing Chun was developed by a Buddhist nun. Daughters of prominent military families trained in the martial arts. Wives of generals were often chosen for their battle skills. The Yang family of the Song Dynasty (960-1279 CE) was one such military family. When the men were decimated on various military assignments, their wives, mothers, sisters and even maidservants took their places on the battlefield. The famous Hua Mulan of the Sui dynasty (589-618 CE) built a 12 year military career on killing Hun men in combat. Hardly the kind of material for The World of Suzy Wong. There were numerous such Chinese women. Naming them all would fill volumes.

Source: Warriors: Asian women in Asian society

Also, check out this link about Jingdi's tomb which has terracotta men and women soldiers guarding it.

Also, as I've already pointed out, many of the royal women had female guards, and they used that two long sword fighting style I was talking about. As Rosh also pointed out, it wasn't too uncommon that the royal women themselves were trained in fighting skills, and since they also were clothed in flowing robes, it would make sense that fighting style applies to them as well.

Oh yeah, Wing Chun style kung fu was developed by a woman. It's hard to say no women were taught to fight when you have a prime example of a style that was created by Ng Mui, who was a Buddhist nun.

 

[Rosh]

A more full bit on Mulan

Damn, too bad Disney left off the ending. There would have been an education for the kiddies. :wink:

The item of note I must point out is at the bottom of the first paragraph.

Then there is another thing of note, which does point out a lot of the glaring problems of Dizney's botching. There is one point they have that I have to wonder about, and that is about carrying a cricket in public. Since they say it was a male sport, it would only be in question if it was done when she wasn't in male guise. Other than that, it seems pretty spot-on.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I'd like to first state that farmers definitely learned the martial arts. That's where weapons like the scythe, kama, sickle, flail and so forth come from. Soldiers didn't just decide to pick up those weapons on day and fight with them. They just stuck to their axes and swords. In any case, most soldiers were recruited from farms and had some predeliction towards weapons combat before being conscripted.

A large number of weapons are based on farming implements. Those which aren't are probably derived from tools of various other skills, like smithing, forging (hammers) and woodcutting (axes).

As Saint Proverbius pointed out, some martial arts were developed by women. Most notably is Wing Chun. There are also several specific weapon arts used exclusively by women, such as the 'lace fighters' in Japan, which you can watch on TV every year at the Bushido tournament.

I'll also bring up the fact that the Hakka Clan (which is the largest Chinese community) which were a particularly fierce and warrior-like clan were lead by matriarchs, who fought alongside the men in battle.

All in all, you can't really talk to the new crowd of chinese youths who were born and raised in mainland China about the accomplishments of women because they're practically brainwashed by the communist government concerning the subject.

Mulan was real, and Koreans acknowledge that. The Chinese government basically indoctrinates the public that women can't be like Mulan, because women are weak. In a way, the movie was a political commentary on the state of women (being second class citizens) in China.

In a somehat related matter: Arab princesses were taught how to become poisoners and to throw knives.

 

[Storn]

I enjoy the D&D rules, but I don't know - to be quite honest - if it's because of nostalgia (I've been playing it since the 70's) or simply because it's what I'm familiar with. I've played dozens of other PnP games, from Star Frontiers, to Twilight 2000, to GURPS, to all of the Superhero RPG's & Deadlands. I've played tons of different fantasy systems, with one of my favorites being the Elric rules (I liked how Elric handled magic - you had to summon creatures and bend them to your will. I'll never forget the time I summoned a Fire Elemental with the intention of making a flaming longsword; I lost control of it and the elemental burned down the entire town. Ah, those were the days ... I digress)

I guess I play D&D because I've been playing with it for so long, and becuase all of my gaming friends have as well. It's familiar to us all, and it's not difficult for newcomers to pick up (a big plus for those of us trying to get our wives to play).

I'd love for a new system to come along and take the place of D&D - especially with CRPG's since the D&D rules are not very conducive to a computer-gaming environment (see - rest 8 hours to regain spells). But for now, I'll stick to what's available and with what's familiar



Storn

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I'd love for a new system to come along and take the place of D&D - especially with CRPG's since the D&D rules are not very conducive to a computer-gaming environment (see - rest 8 hours to regain spells). But for now, I'll stick to what's available and with what's familiar

I agree. The magic system in D&D isn't exactly the best thing for CRPGs and that rest thing is just one reason why. When I ran campaigns, I rarely allowed the party to rest because if you were hell and gone from town, and deep in something's lair, resting isn't an option. That's something you just can't do in a CRPG, though, because the DM will cut some slack for you if you're managing your resources well.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

Yeah, I agree. The D&D magic system just doesn't work well at all in a CRPG because of resting. I can't remember a D&D CRPG that didn't overpower spellcasters because of unlimited resting with few restrictions and consequences. Sending random monsters to wake you up just doesn't cut it with save and reload, though it can be a very big deal in PnP. Generally, I think systems with regenerating mana and free access to all known spells work best in CRPG's, which is funny since they are usually a pain to keep track of in PnP.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

That's definitely the case, because the computer can keep track of things much better than players and a DM. Mana works so well on the CRPG front because it's limiting, but not so much that saving and loading looks like a fantastic idea, unlike the resting thing.

NWN's resting is absurdly underpowered as well, since it's basically several seconds of idling and you gain everything back instantly. This doesn't restrict magic users much at all, which throws the balance of the system way, way, way off.

 

[Seboss]

 

[Sirus]

 

[Darth Roxor]

Necromancer, moar like negrodancer, amirite

 

[Jaime Lannister]

Did chris beddoes really die in a car crash?

 

[Kaiserin]

I would say that a shield is eventually much more powerful than dual wielding.

At best with dual wielding(and an light offhand) with a str of 10 you'll have two extra attacks, and all of you'll land hits about 10% less often. Yes, that's a gain, you'll hit the enemy more times in the same amount of rounds on average with dual wielding.(if you're fighting someone armor is reasonable at least)

However, getting a shield means that you are already 10% less likely to be hit before it's enchanted. With enhancement bonuses, this will eventually go up to 35%, which is a pretty dramatic difference.

Dual wielder = +5 Full plate, +5 longsword, +5 shortsword Attack bonus +27/+22/+17/+12/+6/ Off hand:+27/+22(after all modifiers with improved dual wield) AC 24(+13 full plate, +1 Dex)

Keep in mind that Two feats are necessary for this in 3.5 and 3 feats are necessary in 3E.

Sword & Board = +5 Full plate, +5 Longsword, +5 Large Shield Attack bonus +29/+24/+19/+14/+9 AC = 31

No feats are necessary to achieve this at all, so you could have picked exotic weapon proficiency bastard sword, weapon focus, and weapon specialization with those three.

#1 Has an 80% chance to hit on two rolls(only one rolls a d6 though), 55% chance on two rolls(only one is a d6), 30% chance on one roll, 5% with one, and flat out can not hit with the last attack.

#2 Has a 100% chance to hit on two rolls, 75% on one, 50% on one, and 25% on the last one.

That's pretty damned balanced.

 

[Raapys]

NWN2 dual wielding with ranger and perfect two-weapon fighting > shield.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

You don't need much AC in NWN2. First of all, enemies seem to easily hit you even with high AC (I tried 40, and it was not enough), but they don't do a lot of damage, especially so since you'll be having Stoneskin on at all times. If that wasn't enough, you can always rest if you get hit bad (and re-cast Stoneskin).

Shields are for Clerics.

 

[Kaiserin]

I don't see why it's a fair argument to say that the rules are defunct because the NWN2 campaign was imbalanced. Especially considering that you can dual wield the shield in tabletop by striking with it. You can't sit down and rest for 30 seconds to get to full health in D&D.

I'll agree that it simply doesn't work for computer games in most cases because a large part of the rules are applying to things that have never been implemented really well in a Computer game. Also, part of the of balancing the game lies in the GM's hands. When people have an infinite amount of time to reach max level and collect the exact items they want to, it fucks things up balance wise. It's really easy to make an overpowered character with the D&D rules, which is why it's up to the Dungeon Master to keep the player's growth in check.

 

[felicity]

By the way the discussion went, I think the question should be changed to "do you like dnd rules in crpg?". I have not played the PnP but for application in computer, I like dnd rules and consider they have great depth. I particular like 3.5 but dislike 2nd... 3.5 provides more options and freedom in character customization. Build variety is better in 3.5 and each plays differently.

A good example would be NWN1. I had played NWN1 for years, this game gave me the greatest satisfactation in any rpg when it comes to character design in the minmax powergaming perspective. Each ability and feat counts, this is the only rpg I need to plan out the whole build on paper, and then revise it a day later to make sure I didn't make hasty judgement. NWN2 is a bad example IMO, dialog, plot, characters in OC are better than NWN1 but every other aspects are worse, especially the multiplayer which is the heart and soul of NWN. Obsidian has broken it into pieces and tried to glue it back into shape, which they have failed. NWN1 interfaces and control is top quality, I can't see why Obsidian had to reinvent the wheel, I bet those noobs never played in any NWN1 PW.

One merit even the most seasoned players may fail to appreciate is, NWN1 actually has, despite the few flaws, a quite sophisticate stealth system. Lighting is taken into account, so as facing direction, spot and listen checks have their own mechanics, e.g. listen can detect around corner, spot cannot, listen not affected by lighting, listen always fail when you're silenced, when you can hear a target but can't spot her, she is targetable but invisible so harder to hit etc.

But all of these need a good module to really see it, OC doesn't do its justice because they are too easy for which I don't blame them... learning the rules is hard enough for new players. In OC I didn't feel the importance of stealth and detect, I felt no need to invest in detect in particular. Best level range need to be 20-40 for max options for customization, a smart and knowledgable DM is mandatory to balance the monsters and items.

A few points on the chinese discussion... I'm a chinese, born in China, grew up in China but I'm no history expert so take it as what you will. One thing I can say for sure though, no one in China hoped the Mulan to be false, and most will dare to claim it's true. Please don't comment on something you have little idea and state it as if it's universal truth.

Noble women were not taught fighting in general, nah no two sword style, those are movies exaggerating. Some male guards could be noble and had titles, but female guards rarely were, and if they had those titles are different than males, often more restrictive in powers. They were mostly close servants, and definately not expert in martial art. Some noble women practice martial art (especially in the early Qing dynasty), most for sport and fun, their effectiveness is in doubt. On some traditional painting you may see women wielding two swords, but those are dancers, yep a sword-dance purely for entertainment in a royal feast, not fighting and of course dancers are not nobles, quite the opposite even...

Wing Chun is believed to be developed by woman, a buddhist nun, this is probably true, but that buddhist nun was not any layman. She was a martial art MASTER, lores say she was a daughter of a master. This is only an individual case... generally women in ancient China do not practice martial art or weaponry any more than western countries. Just because kungfu movies are popularly known made by chinese, doesn't mean it really was prominent, for instance we don't believe westerners were casting magic and slaying dragons in medieval, or peasant women in the west lead armies because there was a Joan...

 

[SkeleTony]

D&D 3rd edition was a HUGE improvement over previous versions and 4th ed. looks even better(if for no other reason than doing away with the quasi-Vancian system of spell casting). But really D&D just sucks. This is all the more inexcusable because as early as 1977 there were relatively modern RPG designs out there with MUCH better systems(i.e. RuneQuest, hell even T&T!) but the AD&D folks refused to make changes they themselves felt should be made because of the threat of alienating fans(many of which wrote in to complain when the original 2nd Ed. was announced with it's many improvements that ended up being cut from the released 2nd ed.).

I do not buy the argument that D&D is good for P&P play but not CRPG. It is/was just a bad system all around.

 

[Emotional Vampire]

I love the core rules of 3.5ED, it's a very elegant system.

 

[David Xachaturian]

I love the core rules of 3.5ED, it's a very elegant system.

About as elegant as a pregnant hippopotamus.

 

[Ebonsword]

As others have stated, it really depends on which version of the rules you are talking about.

Personally, I think that 1st Edition is awesome. Yes, it does lack most of the character customization options of later edtions. However, all of that customtization is exactly what leads to hugely broken characters. There are just too many feats, skills, spells, prestige classes, etc in 3rd Edition for it to ever be adequately balanced. There's just too many variables.

I think that you could make a great CRPG using 1st Edition AD&D, but you would need to create a very complex game engine to do it justice. For example, when faced with a magic resistant monster, you should be able to use a lightning bolt to strike the ceiling and have it collapse upon the monster. Or when fighting wights you should be able to use a rock-to-mud spell followed up with a mud-to-rock spell to trap them in stone so that they can't get close and level-drain you. And you should be able create undead minions yourself and use them as pack mules, trap spotters, etc.

Unfortunately, I don't see any developer taking the time to create such a radical and clever way of playing a CRPG.

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

Mazes and Minotaurs is a much better game than D&D.

 

[felicity]

The reason why people think dnd sucks in crpg...
- BG series the most popular dnd crpg use 2ed, 2ed just sucks.
- IWD2 uses IE which is made for 2ed, it doesn't feel like 3ed.
- NWN OC is crap, and difficulty is so low that any build can win easily.
- Most downloadable modules focus more on roleplay experience, less on difficulty.
- Generally most modules cap at 20 or so, fewer modules have epic level, not much chance to try out different build and feat that requires epic levels.
- DND has complicate rules and tables, deep learning curve confuses players, hard to understand the meaning of the trade-offs and options behind the character build.

I still rather like DND 3ed tho even they have these cons, and have many rules. I like the transparency, no vague formula, everything is out there for you to work on. This is big because only so I can make my choice sensibly.

On the dual-wield discusson...
Whether dual-wield is good depends on your character style. On a stealthy type character, you don't want to wear a shield, because shield penalties stealth and make your character less agile overall. OTOH dual-wield suits well on stealthy character, it gives you more attack per round, which means bigger damage on your coming-out-of-stealth attack, allows quick kill and gives no chance of retaliation. Rangers are particularly good stealther, they have many bonus in wilderness plus nature spells that further enhance their stealth skills.

 

[David Xachaturian]

The reason why people think dnd sucks in crpg...
- BG series the most popular dnd crpg use 2ed, 2ed just sucks.
- IWD2 uses IE which is made for 2ed, it doesn't feel like 3ed.
- NWN OC is crap, and difficulty is so low that any build can win easily.
- Most downloadable modules focus more on roleplay experience, less on difficulty.
- Generally most modules cap at 20 or so, fewer modules have epic level, not much chance to try out different build and feat that requires epic levels.
- DND has complicate rules and tables, deep learning curve confuses players, hard to understand the meaning of the trade-offs and options behind the character build.

I still rather like DND 3ed tho even they have these cons, and have many rules. I like the transparency, no vague formula, everything is out there for you to work on. This is big because only so I can make my choice sensibly.

On the dual-wield discusson...
Whether dual-wield is good depends on your character style. On a stealthy type character, you don't want to wear a shield, because shield penalties stealth and make your character less agile overall. OTOH dual-wield suits well on stealthy character, it gives you more attack per round, which means bigger damage on your coming-out-of-stealth attack, allows quick kill and gives no chance of retaliation. Rangers are particularly good stealther, they have many bonus in wilderness plus nature spells that further enhance their stealth skills.

Actually, when I read a couple of D&D supplement books, I came to hate it even more. It's a hodge-podge. There are some good and very good bits there (illithids for example, Planescape/Dark Sun setting), but they are lost in the stream of endless products, most of which are about power-gaming. The only thing I could compare D&D to is Star Wars Extended Universe. Both are old, both have become popular abruptly, both have pretty much defined the genre afterwards, and both are now exploited mercillessly and shamelessly for $$$. They stopped making sense a long time ago.

Video games are actually good in that you can shut off all the supplement garbage and focus on what the developers selected.