Recent Alignment/Damnation changes

[osric]

Oh and I can't believe I'm actually gonna have to tell you nerds this, but in D&D you can use two rings, if you want to use a third you have to sacrifice an amulet slot and take a feat! enjoy

[Diazz_Dizazter]

Take a feat? Which ****** version you playing here.

Anything past 2nd Ed is broken.

[Avatar]

Just to sidetrack the discussion, I'll chip in and say that I prefer 3.5 ed to any of the others. They really improved the systems from 2nd ed to 3.0, and 3.5 is only better.

From my earliest memories even with 1st ed AD&D, the rule was only two rings. We did allow people to wear the rings in odd locations (nose rings, ear rings, etc.) but that was probably a house rule.

Charles

[Malison]

d&d 3.0 and 3.5 there is an amulet that lets you wear a ring on it
and at epic levels there is a feat, Additional Magic Item Space, but you don't have to give anything up to use it

[13]

nerds.

[kjartan]

[quote="osric":2tbhuzog]The idea of djinn (genies or any other way you care to spell it) and divas (no gang, not Celine Dion) as the evil and virtuous agents of the gods comes from the Persian religious traditions where in good and bad creatures are sent to help or harass people in crisis. They were later co-opted by invading muslim armies as their societies moved across the Iranian plateau (this is why Aladin has a genie).[/quote:2tbhuzog]
This is true, but we are using D&D djinn and they are elementals, or sort of elemental-people ("outsider with elemental subtype" or something like that). I vaguely think that Muslim djinn are also like people in that they can either be faithful or infidels, and they can go back and forth, but I think I may have just read this in fantasy novels or something, not a reliable source.

Clerics can't damn angels because angels outrank clerics. Witness the 'supplication' spell: the cleric doesn't say "Angel, come help me", the cleric says "Gods, please send me an angel" (that's the supplication) and the gods say "Angel, go help that guy".

They can't damn demons for the reasons you say; you can assume that the effects of the damnation have already been factored into the demon's stats. So there.

[Diazz_Dizazter]

Im not a nerd.

I am a gork. (Half geek, half dork). 0% nerdiness.

[Rodek]

D&D:
editions 3 and 3.5 of dnd, for anyone who has bothered to try em, are generally better than earlier versions -- a lot of effort went into balancing the classes and making things more uniform.

rings:
DND has always only allowed 2 rings (aside from the feat thing) -- one per hand. Not because you only have 2 fingers, but because the magical affects interfere with each other if you have more than one on a hand.

damn:
To the original topic, I feel the changes to damn changes the game mechanics of certain areas in what basically amounts to something arbitrarily selected as worth changing. Oh well, no one asked me, I can think of about 20 things I woulda fixed first though.


Broadside:
Fixing broadside, supposedly a key warrior skill, which would be a good selection for looking at race distinctions rather than weight (which is used to make mobs nopush and shouldnt be adjusted). Generally, humanoid, undead, and so on could be broadsided I would think.

[Leaf]

Just to make sure ... if the mob is a demon, they are already damned?
So they have well have a lower save chance on spells.

If it's an Angel, u can't damn but only curse? So they have a little bit of
a greater chance to pass their saves.

Back in the day, ppl always said Damn = 2x Curse. Is this still the case?

[kjartan]

The effects of the spell didn't change. I think it is indeed similar to curse and twice as strong.

And when I said the effects were already factored in, I didn't mean we had changed the mobs. In general, you can say that demon is damned and therefore has problems, maybe worse problems than you, and that affects his performance. But, he's also extremely tough, hailing from hell as he does, and probably that more than counteracts any feelings of guilt he might harbor.

Besides (again following the lead of D&D) evil always has more plusses - check out the Book of Vile Darkness sometime. I think in D&D this is because five or six players can put together much better tactics than one DM controlling five or six monsters, so the monsters have to be buffed up to make them challenging. In a MUD it's even worse, the DM has to write a program to control the five or six monsters.

[kjartan]

[quote="Rodek":1wrkl3jo]Broadside:
Fixing broadside, supposedly a key warrior skill, which would be a good selection for looking at race distinctions rather than weight (which is used to make mobs nopush and shouldnt be adjusted). Generally, humanoid, undead, and so on could be broadsided I would think.[/quote:1wrkl3jo]

We now have a flag to make mobs nopush independently of their weights, and thus we don't have to have wrong weights - so if you see a mob with wrong weight, please bug it and we'll fix it. We might use weight for other things in the future, so it's better to get them right.

[12345]

I think what someone (forget who) was trying to say is that certain areas will basically receive a shift in balance because of this. The Demonweb probably being the best example. A mob like Orcus or Demo has a habit of beating the tar out of whatever is in front of them even with the added benefit of damn. Since you're now limited to curse, you can expect to take more damage and burn up more of the healo.

Also, to what Leaf was saying, one of the nicer effects to damn was the save penalties. Considering it can make blinds and weakens easier to land it reduces a lot of damage to the tank while the mob is being debuffed, and also makes it more likely that mage spells will hit 2x as hard (ie. not saved).

It also creates something of an additional burden to leaders since they have to keep track of which mobs to damn and which to curse.... or I suppose you could have a d-damner and a d-curser.

Not complaining, just noting what's changed.

[Mace]

There appears to be much pontificating on why some meanings of
'damnation' would have it not affect demons.
...This is all well and good, but the actual, relevant question is: why
instantly make all [large] demons harder than otherwise identical mobs?

The reason people don't like this is because it is a whimsical
change adding another arbitrary limitation. Here's a similar idea:
Simply rename 'damnation' to 'fubar' and then it affects all mobs.
And that change would be equally intelligent.

> cast 'fubar' demogorgon
Now that's an avatar spell!

[Weasel]

[quote="*kjartan*":28r4jbq6]Damnation was changed because it doesn't make any sense that you are damning angels or devils..[/quote:28r4jbq6]

[quote="Mace":28r4jbq6]There appears to be much pontificating on why some meanings of 'damnation' would have it not affect demons.
...This is all well and good, but the actual, relevant question is: why
instantly make all [large] demons harder than otherwise identical mobs?

The reason people don't like this is because it is a whimsical
change adding another arbitrary limitation. Here's a similar idea:
Simply rename 'damnation' to 'fubar' and then it affects all mobs.
And that change would be equally intelligent.

> cast 'fubar' demogorgon
Now that's an avatar spell![/quote:28r4jbq6]

Now there's some solid reasoning - change the spellname to fit mud-reality rather than changing mud-reality to fit the spellname, if reality is the sole reason for the change, rather than :

- restricting the usefulness an established and very frequently used spell,
- making a bunch of mobs harder to take down,
- slowing down groups thru increased heals etc,
- alienating areas that have been run in the past, because they've become less cost-effective now.

..at least changing the name of the spell instead would make sense without detrimentally effecting gameplay.

*applaud* Mace.

BTW, if over half the votes are against this change, will the coders rescind it?

Alternatively, create a new spell that has the same effect as damnation but works on all mobs that damnation no longer works on.. kind of like an offensive blessing? That would then fit the 'reality' reasoning used to legitimize this change. It would also waste leader's time, but whatever...

ALSO, using the same reality reasoning, casting damnation on a non-damnable mob should NOT cause the mob to engage in a fight because it would not be considered an offensive spell to that mob. Thus if a player casts damnation on a mob and nothing happens other tan the mob raises an eyebrow quizically, then the player knows to use an alternative leading attack.. which could be the 'offensive blessing' type spell I mentioned above.. of course all of this is presuming that making gameplay tougher was not the intention of this change...

[Gimlet]

i'm usually neutral to changes on the mud, but i have to say this

this obsession with mud-realism is getting out of hand.

do ppl really care about the real meaning of the word "damnation"

i mean...seriously, was there any serious need to make that change?