A quick question: It says at the age of 50 you must start making a save every year to avoid losing a point from an ability score. It doesn't specify the DC of the save or whether it should be modified by an ability score bonus.
Quote from: gilbrinur;1100727A quick question: It says at the age of 50 you must start making a save every year to avoid losing a point from an ability score. It doesn't specify the DC of the save or whether it should be modified by an ability score bonus.
Hi there. If you don't mind, I'm going to move this to the main forum, because it's RPG related and I think it would fit better there.
The saving throw can be modified by CON.
There's no DC because saving throws don't work that way in L&D. You have a Saving Throw number (at level 0 it starts as 16 +/- CHA Modifier) and that's what you have to roll equal or higher than in order to save.
Ewps! A classic RTFM moment. You were a real gentleman about it.
Quote from: gilbrinur;1100945Ewps! A classic RTFM moment. You were a real gentleman about it.
No problem. I'm just very glad anytime someone is interested enough in the game to ask questions about it. And welcome to theRPGsite!
This is unrelated but I noticed a typo in Lion & Dragon and thought I'd mention it. On page 38 at the top where it discusses the blasting wand, the example says "a 5th level magister's wand does 2d6+2" damage, but I believe you meant "6th" level.
Quote from: gilbrinur;1114063This is unrelated but I noticed a typo in Lion & Dragon and thought I'd mention it. On page 38 at the top where it discusses the blasting wand, the example says "a 5th level magister's wand does 2d6+2" damage, but I believe you meant "6th" level.
Thanks, but actually that's not a typo.
The damage of the blasting wand is 1d6+1 for every three levels (rounded up) that a magister has when he creates it.
So:
level 1-3: 1d6+1
level 4-6: 2d6+2
level 7-9: 3d6+3
level 10-12: 4d6+4
etc.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1114409Thanks, but actually that's not a typo.
The damage of the blasting wand is 1d6+1 for every three levels (rounded up) that a magister has when he creates it.
I get what you're saying; it's not a typo. But the "rounded up" part was not clear to me from the text. Even now that I know it I find it difficult to parse the rule that way. The book says the wand will do "1d6+1 damage for every 3 levels that the magister had at the time of activating the blasting wand." Suppose you read this rule: "Each participant will receive one candy bar for every 3 box tops he presents on the final day of the contest." Would you expect to receive 2 candy bars for handing in 5 box tops? I wouldn't. Because I'm diabetic. So I wouldn't be in the contest in the first place. And even if I was, I can tell you I would've collected way more than 5 box tops. Because I play to win. But box tops from what? Sugar cereal? Because with my diabetes I can't eat that either. And I'm not going to go out and buy 3 boxes of sugar cereal I can't eat just so that I can get a candy bar that I also can't eat. So I think the blasting wand rule is ambiguous and could be improved.
P.S., I'm not actually diabetic. I only pretended to be in order to prove my point.
Quote from: gilbrinur;1114665I get what you're saying; it's not a typo. But the "rounded up" part was not clear to me from the text. Even now that I know it I find it difficult to parse the rule that way. The book says the wand will do "1d6+1 damage for every 3 levels that the magister had at the time of activating the blasting wand." Suppose you read this rule: "Each participant will receive one candy bar for every 3 box tops he presents on the final day of the contest." Would you expect to receive 2 candy bars for handing in 5 box tops? I wouldn't. Because I'm diabetic. So I wouldn't be in the contest in the first place. And even if I was, I can tell you I would've collected way more than 5 box tops. Because I play to win. But box tops from what? Sugar cereal? Because with my diabetes I can't eat that either. And I'm not going to go out and buy 3 boxes of sugar cereal I can't eat just so that I can get a candy bar that I also can't eat. So I think the blasting wand rule is ambiguous and could be improved.
P.S., I'm not actually diabetic. I only pretended to be in order to prove my point.
I have no idea why but this is the funniest post I've read in a while.
That is a very weird way of making your point.
My point, anyways, is that at level one you don't do 0 damage with blasting wand, you do 1d6+1.
Anyways, if in YOUR game you want to interpret it differently, and say level 1-2 = 1d6+1, 3-5 = 2d6+2, etc, that can work too.
Quote from: Antiquation!;1114667I have no idea why but this is the funniest post I've read in a while.
And now I want a damn candy bar. Or three.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1114997That is a very weird way of making your point.
My point, anyways, is that at level one you don't do 0 damage with blasting wand, you do 1d6+1.
Anyways, if in YOUR game you want to interpret it differently, and say level 1-2 = 1d6+1, 3-5 = 2d6+2, etc, that can work too.
All diabetes aside, I don't want to change the rule. I also don't want to change a soiled diaper. But given the choice I'd change the diaper before I'd change the rule. That's how strongly I feel about these kinds of things.
Allow me to run down the facts of this case as I understand them:
1. I didn't understand the rule.
2. You mansplained it to me.
3. I understand the rule.
4. It is a perfectly fine rule.
The actual point of my follow-up post was to point out that I found the rule as presented in the book to be confusing. And since you found my post to be confusing, with its "weird" digression into the harsh realities of life for those living with diabetes, I guess we're even. However, I can't help feeling like you've shown insensitivity in your use of the word "weird".
Diabetics are not "weird", sir; they are people just like you and me.A FINAL NOTE REGARDING MY USE OF THE WORD "MANSPLAINED" IN THE ABOVE TEXT: I am not, nor have I ever been, a woman, diabetic or otherwise. Furthermore, I did not find your explanation of the rule to be in any way condescending. My decision to use the word "mansplained" was based purely on the entertainment value of that word to me in that instant. That valuation has declined considerably in the intervening days since I wrote it. If I could go back and change it, I would. However, I do not own a mouse, and the arrow keys on my keyboard are melted. (It's a long story. Ask me about it some other time.)
Quote from: gilbrinur;1115156All diabetes aside, I don't want to change the rule. I also don't want to change a soiled diaper. But given the choice I'd change the diaper before I'd change the rule. That's how strongly I feel about these kinds of things.
Allow me to run down the facts of this case as I understand them:
1. I didn't understand the rule.
2. You mansplained it to me.
3. I understand the rule.
4. It is a perfectly fine rule.
The actual point of my follow-up post was to point out that I found the rule as presented in the book to be confusing. And since you found my post to be confusing, with its "weird" digression into the harsh realities of life for those living with diabetes, I guess we're even. However, I can't help feeling like you've shown insensitivity in your use of the word "weird". Diabetics are not "weird", sir; they are people just like you and me.
A FINAL NOTE REGARDING MY USE OF THE WORD "MANSPLAINED" IN THE ABOVE TEXT: I am not, nor have I ever been, a woman, diabetic or otherwise. Furthermore, I did not find your explanation of the rule to be in any way condescending. My decision to use the word "mansplained" was based purely on the entertainment value of that word to me in that instant. That valuation has declined considerably in the intervening days since I wrote it. If I could go back and change it, I would. However, I do not own a mouse, and the arrow keys on my keyboard are melted. (It's a long story. Ask me about it some other time.)
You are perhaps the strangest and one of the most entertaining posters I've ever encountered. Please post more, and welcome to therpgsite gilbrinur.
Quote from: Antiquation!;1115158Please post more, and welcome to therpgsite gilbrinur.
OK. Here ya go.
Quote from: Antiquation!;1115158Please post more, and welcome to therpgsite gilbrinur.
Here's another one for ya. That'll have to do for now, though. Very busy.
Quote from: gilbrinur;1115166Here's another one for ya. That'll have to do for now, though. Very busy.
Fair enough!
Quote from: Antiquation!;1115158You are perhaps the strangest and one of the most entertaining posters I've ever encountered. Please post more, and welcome to therpgsite gilbrinur.
So shall I dance for you and wear a funny suit and hat with a little propeller on the top? And if I should stop being "strange" and "entertaining" to you, what then? You'll have me...
banned, perhaps? Is that the veiled threat looming beneath the seemingly placid surface waters of your comment? Well hear me now: I am not your little performing trained little beetle or whatever it is. And I'm not a "poster", as you say, to be tacked up on your smelly, sweaty bedroom wall between the 1976 Corvette and the extreme close up of Pamela Anderson's camel toe. I'm a man. A man like you. A man with hopes and dreams. A man with aspirations, wants, needs, drives, impulses, urges, lusts, memory lapses, regrets, and shame. Yes. I am a man. And yet I will rise like a phoenix from the ashes of all the cigarettes and banana peels I smoked just to make it through one more miserable day out there in that rat infested sh*t hole they call "the world". And why? Why, you ask?
Because. That's why.
(To Never Be Continued...)
Quote from: gilbrinur;1114665I get what you're saying; it's not a typo. But the "rounded up" part was not clear to me from the text. Even now that I know it I find it difficult to parse the rule that way. The book says the wand will do "1d6+1 damage for every 3 levels that the magister had at the time of activating the blasting wand." Suppose you read this rule: "Each participant will receive one candy bar for every 3 box tops he presents on the final day of the contest." Would you expect to receive 2 candy bars for handing in 5 box tops? I wouldn't. Because I'm diabetic. So I wouldn't be in the contest in the first place. And even if I was, I can tell you I would've collected way more than 5 box tops. Because I play to win. But box tops from what? Sugar cereal? Because with my diabetes I can't eat that either. And I'm not going to go out and buy 3 boxes of sugar cereal I can't eat just so that I can get a candy bar that I also can't eat. So I think the blasting wand rule is ambiguous and could be improved.
P.S., I'm not actually diabetic. I only pretended to be in order to prove my point.
I think you are over thinking things.
Quote from: gilbrinur;1115201So shall I dance for you and wear a funny suit and hat with a little propeller on the top? And if I should stop being "strange" and "entertaining" to you, what then? You'll have me... banned, perhaps? Is that the veiled threat looming beneath the seemingly placid surface waters of your comment? Well hear me now: I am not your little performing trained little beetle or whatever it is. And I'm not a "poster", as you say, to be tacked up on your smelly, sweaty bedroom wall between the 1976 Corvette and the extreme close up of Pamela Anderson's camel toe. I'm a man. A man like you. A man with hopes and dreams. A man with aspirations, wants, needs, drives, impulses, urges, lusts, memory lapses, regrets, and shame. Yes. I am a man. And yet I will rise like a phoenix from the ashes of all the cigarettes and banana peels I smoked just to make it through one more miserable day out there in that rat infested sh*t hole they call "the world". And why? Why, you ask? Because. That's why.
(To Never Be Continued...)
... :p
Quote from: Snowman0147;1115203I think you are over thinking things.
Of course you do. Dim witted people often accuse highly intelligent people of "over thinking" when the reality is they just can't keep up. But get out your dictionary and your calculator and a note pad and some nice sharp pencils with juicy, plump pink erasers on the ends (you're going to need those) and go over what I wrote very slowly. Perhaps invite that very patient friend from school who always got all the As to give you a hand. Then after much struggle and furrowing of brow I predict that like Goldilocks you'll find the amount of thinking I did was not too little, nor too much, but
juuuust riiiiiight.
Quick to the insult when none was given to you.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1115234Quick to the insult when none was given to you.
No. Not quick. Check the transcript. I waited a full 8 hours before striking.
And let's not forget your brutal, unprovoked "over thinking" attack. You drew first blood. A man has the right to protect himself and his family.
Quote from: gilbrinur;1115309No. Not quick. Check the transcript. I waited a full 8 hours before striking.
And let's not forget your brutal, unprovoked "over thinking" attack. You drew first blood. A man has the right to protect himself and his family.
That is not insult and never intended as such. You choose to take that as a insult and in turn choose to insult me. Now I demand a apology.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1115323That is not insult and never intended as such. You choose to take that as a insult and in turn choose to insult me. Now I demand a apology.
Snowman, this dude is either pulling an Andy Kaufman or is off his meds. Either way, I don't think you're going to get much of an apology.
It's funny, really.
- First there was a rules question, which was explained.
- Then the explanation was said to be mansplaining, for comic effect, with something about pretending to be diabetic that I didn't understand.
- Someone said that was entertaining
- Then we had a paraphrase of the "I'm funny, how? Do I amuse you?" from Goodfellas.
- Then someone says they are maybe overthinking things which is an insult.
I'm struggling to see how someone could think that calling an explanation mansplaining, mocking diabetes, claiming that people want them banned and then claiming to be insulted is not more insulting than the thing they thought was insulting.
10 Posts and he's insulted three people. I think he'll fit right in.
He's entertaining, that's for sure.
I don't appreciate you people talking about me behind my back.
As for the big apology, I've been working on it. It's currently 145 pages and I'm only just getting warmed up. I plan to publish it in hardback. It's going to have original art and one of those little ribbon bookmark things and everything. If that snowman guy wants to read it he's going to have to pay for it though. And it will not be cheap. The title is going to be "Guess Who's Sorry".
Quote from: gilbrinur;1115578I don't appreciate you people talking about me behind my back.
It's okay. You'll learn to appreciate us in time.
Quote from: Brendan;1115622It's okay. You'll learn to appreciate us in time.
One of Us! One of Us! :)
This is the weirdest L&D thread ever.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1115844This is the weirdest L&D thread ever.
Hold my beer.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1115906Hold my beer.
Oh? Are you planning something?
Quote from: RPGPundit;1116362Oh? Are you planning something?
I was going to try to make this thread even sillier but it turned out to be too difficult.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1116483I was going to try to make this thread even sillier but it turned out to be too difficult.
Hang your head in shame.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1116483I was going to try to make this thread even sillier but it turned out to be too difficult.
Even still, I admire the effort.