Arohtar, I'll give you an answer that someone gave me on TBP a few years back: are you just now realizing that "D&D Fantasy" is its own genre, and that there are many elements that are just plain implausible?

There are castles, not because the economic cost of building them is at all sensible in a world of high magic, but because we're conditioned to think that "medieval" = "castles," and that's what the creators deliver.

There are small hamlets with (Color)(Animal)(Inn Synonym) -- as well as many other trappings of D&D Fantasy -- because we're conditioned to view low-tech settings through the lens of 1940s-1960s Hollywood.

And so on and so forth.  Merrie Olde England, with wizards and dragons bolted on, has been the expected paradigm for the hobby's history, and the traction the trope has is obvious by reason that most groups don't use the Tekumels or Gloranthas as settings.

Where so many gamers in these discussions cause me to roll my eyes is because they attempt to justify or explain away these admitted flubs, rather than saying "Look, dude, it's just how things are.  Roll with it or create your own setting."

Quote from: Ravenswing;806591Arohtar, I'll give you an answer that someone gave me on TBP a few years back: are you just now realizing that "D&D Fantasy" is its own genre, and that there are many elements that are just plain implausible?

There are castles, not because the economic cost of building them is at all sensible in a world of high magic, but because we're conditioned to think that "medieval" = "castles," and that's what the creators deliver.

There are small hamlets with (Color)(Animal)(Inn Synonym) -- as well as many other trappings of D&D Fantasy -- because we're conditioned to view low-tech settings through the lens of 1940s-1960s Hollywood.

And so on and so forth.  Merrie Olde England, with wizards and dragons bolted on, has been the expected paradigm for the hobby's history, and the traction the trope has is obvious by reason that most groups don't use the Tekumels or Gloranthas as settings.

Where so many gamers in these discussions cause me to roll my eyes is because they attempt to justify or explain away these admitted flubs, rather than saying "Look, dude, it's just how things are.  Roll with it or create your own setting."

i support this post

Quote from: TristramEvans;806563Yeah, you cant do that without specifying a specific D&D setting. Because it assumes any number of things that arent universally true, such as that magic users are incredibly common and willing to fight in wars, that a dragon is a match for a human army, and that spectres actually care about "taking over the world", etc.

A logical inconsistency in a setting does not mean that its defacto just because a rule system allows it to happen: thats in the hands of the GM (and to a somewhat lesser extent, the author)

Magic users do not have to incredibly common for them to have a major impact. In case there were few, they would be in less danger of meeting an opponent able do defend himself, and they would be even more dangerous.

They did not have to want to fight in wars. They could do it by themselves. A flying, invisible magic user could raid a castle or town by himself for fun.

Also spectres did not need to coordinate anything or worry about taking over the world. As long as they moved around independently and killed what they met, the takeover would come all by itself, very quickly.

Imagine your fantasy town. A lonely spectre flies over the wall at night. It sees human settlements everywhere. I can fly, enter through the windows. Even if it should fear the guards, which it probably will not, since it can't be hurt by normal weapons, they do not have much hope of catching it. Think about it. In my fantasy towns it would be a massacre, and after two nights the whole town would be a spectre town.

The only reason it does not happen, is that the DM does not let it happen (as you point out), but it destroys the sense of realism for me to sense the presense of this "DM will" that makes sure that seemingly spectres only attack high level parties of humans when they are ready to deal with it.

Dragons are very dangerous and aggressive, but they only attack the big, thriving cities when it is convenient for the story.

Quote from: Bren;806590The authors of OD&D expected the DM to create a fix that worked for the DM's world. Any reason why you can't do that for your world?

Here I'll give you a start.

1. Because

a) Undead don't want to rule the world. The shades of the dead are unconcerned with material things and worldly power or rule.

b) Undead are by nature extremely selfish and paranoid and don't want to share their power with other undead. Any new undead is a potential rival for that really nice dark crypt and maybe even a threat to the existence of any other wight/wraith/spectre. Intelligent undead may ally with the existing inhabitants of their cemetery or crypt, but this is always a local group and or a temporary alliance and there is always the risk of treachery.

c) Undead have vulnerabilities once they are outside their crypts. Natural daylight destroys them. They cannot enter the abodes of living men/women where blessed clerical symbols are displayed unless the hit dice of the individual wight/wraith/spectre is > the number of cumulative hit dice of the living humans inside the home or village.

d) Wights/Wraiths/Spectres can only travel up to 100 meters x their # hit dice from their resting place. (If you want a bigger range use 1KM x # hit dice.)

e) Make up something else that lets wraiths et al to be interesting but not world dominating.

Yeah, good suggestions for fixes.

you seem to assume the worst of people most wizards dont go around destroying towns because thats evil i am concerned for your mental health please see a doctor

and sure a specter might destroy a town but once that town is destroyed people will find out and people will go in and clear it out along with the spectre that started it

besides if a dragon tried to attack a great big city on its own it would be dead in seconds there strong but not that strong strength in numbers arohtar a fantasy army is composed of all sorts of things troops on the ground magic users slinging spells dragons and griffons in the skys xorns in the ground and planeshifters in the ethereal plane will be necessary if theres ghosts in the enemy army

Quote from: Arohtar;806595Yeah, good suggestions for fixes.

he was not suggesting fixs he was explaining why spectres are not as big a threat as you think

Quote from: tuypo1;806588as for spectres sure most medium level people can only kill a few a day but the really high level ones can cut through huge swaths plus theres more ways to kill an undead then turning

you are really overestimating wizards a spell capable of killing that many people at once would take all day to cast and i can assure you the castle is still a defence against dragons its a heavy stone wall plus there are good dragons

also you want to mass murder thats disturbing

op stands for original post or original poster you idiot

and walls are situational not everybody lives near monsters as an example my party is currently in a town whos only threat is skeletons they rely on there clerics to keep them save (they use to have a much bigger problem but its mostly gone now). the skeleton infestation kept so many monsters out of the area they have nothing coming after them

I do not claim that wizards can kill anyone at once, but a wirard with fly and fire ball can fly in once per day for example, kill some people with his fire ball and fly away again. If the inhabitants of the caste are only fighters, there is not much they can do about it. Even a F36 will die if hit by a 5d6 fire ball every day for weeks.

OP: oh thanks. You can be an idiot yourself.

A castle is a defense against dragons. It's a heavy stone wall. Oh, I see.

Quote from: tuypo1;806598he was not suggesting fixs he was explaining why spectres are not as big a threat as you think

In original D&D these are fixes since they are not mentioned in the rules. If used, they would be additions to the rules - hence fixes.

well at one point you claimed exactly that with disintegration as for the droping in every now and again the wizard will be stoped they do have bows you know and the people can hide from the fireballs inside

Quote from: Arohtar;806601In original D&D these are fixes since they are not mentioned in the rules. If used, they would be additions to the rules - hence fixes.

those things have nothing to do with the rules they are background and i dont belive you that the distance thing was not always there admitidly im pretty sure thats not a thing in 3.5

Quote from: Arohtar;806578What version of the game are you reading? I was referring to the Expert Rules of the D&D (OD&D) game, and no range limitation is mentioned there. On the contrary a 300 yards per round flying speed is mentioned - whics is not much use if "you can't go but a few yards".

So maybe this rule is something you are making up yourself, like Omega did, or maybe TSR fixed the spectre monster in a later edition. The rant was not nuts, it was quite accurate.

Um, that's not OD&D you're talking about.


This is OD&D

Quote from: Ravenswing;806591Arohtar, I'll give you an answer that someone gave me on TBP a few years back: are you just now realizing that "D&D Fantasy" is its own genre, and that there are many elements that are just plain implausible?

There are castles, not because the economic cost of building them is at all sensible in a world of high magic, but because we're conditioned to think that "medieval" = "castles," and that's what the creators deliver.

There are small hamlets with (Color)(Animal)(Inn Synonym) -- as well as many other trappings of D&D Fantasy -- because we're conditioned to view low-tech settings through the lens of 1940s-1960s Hollywood.

And so on and so forth.  Merrie Olde England, with wizards and dragons bolted on, has been the expected paradigm for the hobby's history, and the traction the trope has is obvious by reason that most groups don't use the Tekumels or Gloranthas as settings.

Where so many gamers in these discussions cause me to roll my eyes is because they attempt to justify or explain away these admitted flubs, rather than saying "Look, dude, it's just how things are.  Roll with it or create your own setting."

I agree with what you are writing. I did not just discover the implausibility. I has always buggered me. I no longer play, but felt like ranting about it, and I thought it could be fun to collect more examples of implausibilities.

I used to be a DM also, and as such I would of course be responsible for the setting (create my own setting), and I would try to remove the worst implausibilities. For example I would reduce damage for the fire ball to 1d8. Yeah, that is a short burst of fire that will kill around half of a group of normal men, which I find realistic. I do not see the need for the ridiculously high damage statistics for fire balls. The early games were obviously written for magic user lovers.

Quote from: Arohtar;806594Magic users do not have to incredibly common for them to have a major impact. In case there were few, they would be in less danger of meeting an opponent able do defend himself, and they would be even more dangerous.

They did not have to want to fight in wars. They could do it by themselves. A flying, invisible magic user could raid a castle or town by himself for fun.

Also spectres did not need to coordinate anything or worry about taking over the world. As long as they moved around independently and killed what they met, the takeover would come all by itself, very quickly.

Imagine your fantasy town. A lonely spectre flies over the wall at night. It sees human settlements everywhere. I can fly, enter through the windows. Even if it should fear the guards, which it probably will not, since it can't be hurt by normal weapons, they do not have much hope of catching it. Think about it. In my fantasy towns it would be a massacre, and after two nights the whole town would be a spectre town.

The only reason it does not happen, is that the DM does not let it happen (as you point out), but it destroys the sense of realism for me to sense the presense of this "DM will" that makes sure that seemingly spectres only attack high level parties of humans when they are ready to deal with it.

Dragons are very dangerous and aggressive, but they only attack the big, thriving cities when it is convenient for the story.

Again, you're not talking about a setting, you are speaking in generalities.

"D&D" is not a setting (outside of the cartoon, and even that was later revealed to be part of the Forgotten Realms). So why don't you pick A setting and then pick it apart for its logical inconsistencies?

You're also ascribing human (or in some cases vaudevillian super villain) motivations to inhuman creatures. There's nothing "internally consistent" about that whatsoever.

And if you really think wizards are that powerful, I'd love to play one game where you play a wizard and I get an army of 10,000 high level fighters.

Quote from: Arohtar;806605I has always buggered me.

I do not think that means what you think it means....

Quote from: TristramEvans;806607I do not think that means what you think it means....

a bugger is a species of alien hive mind who cant communicate very well