• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
mlooney

Generic Table top gaming.

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I'd be willing to bet that many DMs would not allow the Quiver of Ehlonna to hold a ten foot pole. None of the examples are that long. Seems like you should be able to have one custom made, though, right?

It says staffs, so I'd allow a 10' pole.  It doesn't say how long a quarterstaff is in the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2023 at 10:56 AM, mlooney said:

It says staffs, so I'd allow a 10' pole.  It doesn't say how long a quarterstaff is in the rules.

My reference is a bit lame, I recall these from Robin Hood movies, particularly the scenes where two fight non-lethally for right of passage over a log. The staves appear to be man height or slightly longer; men were typically shorter back in the day, so minimum five foot, but six foot would probably be more typical. No more than eight.

Wiki bears this out, for the most part, six to nine feet, as opposed to a 'long staff', ten to twelve feet.

Is this not an SCA thing? Too late period?

Given the ambiguity, I guess I'd allow it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Is this not an SCA thing? Too late period?

The SCA doesn't really do "non lethal" combat.  People carry staffs, they just aren't used in combat as the armor we are assumed to be wearing will protect against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another shot at the OGL

Had to wait to post this because I have not figured out a way to get the permanent link to Dork Tower comics before the next comic posts. On EGS, you can go to the previous day, then click next. That does not work on Dork Tower.

If I'm understanding the context correctly, this is actually a meta-comic; that is John Kovalic and his wife, not Dork Tower characters per se. Dan does this sort of comic occasionally, and Randy Milholland has been doing it a lot lately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves movie. A friend wanted to see it, and I checked the reviews, they were mostly positive. The movie was very good, great casting, plot, stuck to the source material (much better than previous D&D movies), etc.

There was a disturbing subtext. 'Based on Dungeons and Dragons, a Hasbro property'. Hasbro does indeed now own D&D; there are probably D&D related properties that have escaped their grasp, but for the most part, it's a thing. But these soulless cash monkeys had nothing to do with its creation, nurture, growth, lore, the culture that has grown around the game. It was a slap in the face to what has gone on before to call prominent attention to the new fact of Hasbro ownership as if they had created it whole cloth just yesterday. They can all choke and die on their D20s (and may they tread on a field of D4s in their stocking feet before they leave this mortal coil).

Most Hasbro properties suck. The few that don't are worse under their heavy hand than they were before Hasbro came on their scene. The infusion of cash, if there was one, has not aided any of these. I do not expect great things to happen because they've acquired ownership of Dungeons and Dragons. I have no intention of supporting them; I urge any of you that give a $#!% about TTRPG to find an alternate system for your games. Or use an older edition that you already have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

But these soulless cash monkeys had nothing to do with its creation, nurture, growth, lore, the culture that has grown around the game.

Ah, sorta.  The top brass in Hasbro of late have been coming from WotC.

 

23 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I do not expect great things to happen because they've acquired ownership of Dungeons and Dragons.

Hasbro took control of WotC before 3.0 D&D was released.  While granted 4 was a miss fire, 5e has been nothing but successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mlooney said:

Hasbro took control of WotC before 3.0 D&D was released.  While granted 4 was a miss fire, 5e has been nothing but successful.

Hasbro initially to a very hands off approach. 3 and 3.5 were great, and seemed profitable. Does Hasbro get credit for the success of five? It doesn't seem so, but I haven't been following until recently, when they stepped on their dick. I wouldn't think they'd have anything useful to say. It's not like they have experience in that arena.

 

8 hours ago, mlooney said:

Ah, sorta.  The top brass in Hasbro of late have been coming from WotC.

Were these actual WotC-hired employees, or Hasbro-installed WotC minions? Makes a big difference, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Were these actual WotC-hired employees, or Hasbro-installed WotC minions? Makes a big difference, IMO.

WotC really hasn't hired anybody for a while.  And the days of WotC having gamers at the top are long gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IBM did this to Lotus. I don't know why (the f#$%) they wasted the money to buy them, they crapped on the products, they tore the wings off Lotus, then killed them off, and eventually sold the mess they made on the floor to another company.

Per the mentioned recent movie, there is no prehistory; Dungeons and Dragons is a Hasbro property. Other than nit picking about things like, "Do they really own owl bears that came out of a Chinese toy pack?", and acknowledging that they are probably trying to push at the grey areas, their claim is accurate, they currently own the D&D IP. Meh, f#$% 'em. As is said, there are plenty of other fish in the sea (dubious saying in our era, but still for the most part true).

I'm not in favor of neo-feudalism. I can respect their claim to their turf - and avoid it, of in the case of specific IPs, like the rust monster, I've bought enough former editions of your current property that covered it, and have some on hand, that I'll weather your corporate tantrum. (Rust monster has been around since early D&D, the figure came out of the same Asian toy pack. The notion that it consumes armor is unique to D&D).

18 minutes ago, mlooney said:

WotC really hasn't hired anybody for a while.  And the days of WotC having gamers at the top are long gone.

Unlike publishers like Steve Jackson Games, Mongoose, and others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hasbro has done good to WotC, they haven't done any corporate raider shit to them.  Of course the main reason why they bought WotC in the early days was MtG, not D&D.  And they did back down when they were faced with a user revolt re the OGL kerfuffle. And when they did back down they did, in fact, release the whole of the current SRD under a true open source licenses, which is way more than I would have expected them to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2023 at 9:37 AM, mlooney said:

Hasbro has done good to WotC, they haven't done any corporate raider shit to them.  Of course the main reason why they bought WotC in the early days was MtG, not D&D.  And they did back down when they were faced with a user revolt re the OGL kerfuffle. And when they did back down they did, in fact, release the whole of the current SRD under a true open source licenses, which is way more than I would have expected them to do.

All fair points.

I have to wonder why, with a cash cow like MtG in their brands, WotC didn't buy Hasbro. I mean, if you can print money . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While MtG is a license to print money, they still didn't have the cash to buy Hasbro.  Even now WotC is only ~35% of the revenue of Hasbro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yeah, the 'reasonable' DM. I've met that kind. After a long and frustrating game my Strong-Willed character got hit by a Hold Person spell. A 19 die roll was not good enough, I needed a natural 20 to save, taking me out for the rest of the fight. Fantastic climax to the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Ah yeah, the 'reasonable' DM. I've met that kind. After a long and frustrating game my Strong-Willed character got hit by a Hold Person spell. A 19 die roll was not good enough, I needed a natural 20 to save, taking me out for the rest of the fight. Fantastic climax to the game.

That's a fairly high DC.  Well, a 20 isn't all that high, at least for mid to high level characters, but needing to roll a 20 is probably too damn high as that's going to adjust to a 29 or 30.  At least in 5e of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mlooney said:

That's a fairly high DC.  Well, a 20 isn't all that high, at least for mid to high level characters, but needing to roll a 20 is probably too damn high as that's going to adjust to a 29 or 30.  At least in 5e of course.

This was 3.5, as I recall it. I played a 6th level fighter with a will save of +5. Turned out the save DC was 26 total which means my pluses were pointless as only a 20 would have worked anyway. I was so mad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

This was 3.5, as I recall it. I played a 6th level fighter with a will save of +5. Turned out the save DC was 26 total which means my pluses were pointless as only a 20 would have worked anyway. I was so mad.

Will is a weakness of fighters (in D&D); the spell was well applied. He would have kicked butt if it had been poison or a rock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

This was 3.5, as I recall it. I played a 6th level fighter with a will save of +5. Turned out the save DC was 26 total which means my pluses were pointless as only a 20 would have worked anyway. I was so mad.

It's been a decade or so since I've played 3.5  Does a 20 auto save or was that a house rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mlooney said:

It's been a decade or so since I've played 3.5  Does a 20 auto save or was that a house rule?

Sounds like a house rule if applied broadly. As you say, though, it's been a while ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I think WotC peaked with 3.5. Perhaps a future edition will be better, but I have yet to see it.

For all it's faults, at least 5e hasn't come out with dozens of character books and character "builds"  aren't  a big thing, and is optional.  3.x had way to many splat books.  Based on what I've seen in One D&D I'm hopeful for 5.5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now