This page is getting very complicated. Perhaps we should sepparate the non-RPG media into sepparate pages? Dungeons & Dragons (1983) and Dungeons And Dragons 2010? Instead of having every character page or moments subpages on the same page as the roleplaying game subpages, we could move them away and simply link back to the main D&D page?
Edited by SanaNaryon
Red Panda Enthusiast
Could we get a dedicated Troper Tales page? i'm sure people would love to share their stories
Read Forge of Destiny!
Does anybody else think D&D deserves a Franchise page?
Hide / Show Replies
It more than merits one.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
[[VideoGame/PuyoPuyo Cosine!]]
Pulled Zero Context Examples.
- Apocalyptic Log: Multiple examples.
- Beat Still, My Heart: Multiple examples.
- Hostile Weather: Multiple examples.
- Rainbow Motif: Multiple examples.
- Sdrawkcab Name: Multiple examples.
Should the various editions be separated out into their own pages? As someone who has played a considerable amount of 4th, 3.5, and Whitebox; they're all vastly different beasts.
Since the folderization plan didn't seem to go anywhere, anyone think we should move some stuff to a different namespace? For example Monsters / Dungeons and Dragons like we did for Classes / Dungeons and Dragons?
Some Sort Of Troper Anyone else think we should organise the examples into categories such as the gaming and mechanics tropes and then the creature tropes etc.? Then we could have folders.
Giant Space Chinchilla
Makes sense to me.
What would you propose History, Settings, Gaming? (how would you do that anyway since it would vary by group), Creatures, Items, and Mecanics?
Edited by GiantSpaceChinchilla Hide / Show Replies
No, let's try the folders plan first.
I've segregated everything (to the best of my ability) between Settings, Gaming, Creatures, Items, Mechanics, and Meta. Let's see if we can keep that workable before trying to make other pages, since this one isn't so large that it's unmanageable yet.
See you in the discussion pages.
I'm not sure that the tropes are going to their appropiate folder.
Seriously, my avatar comes from the embodiment of the So Bad, It's Good trope.
It's a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but the nitpicker in me needs it to be noted somewhere (this discussion page will do) that the actual name of the game is Dungeons & Dragons not Dungeons and Dragons. Now that I've gotten that off my chest, it can be safely ignored.
Hide / Show Replies
An ampersand is interchangeable with the word and. The game can also be abbreviated as D&D, Dn D, or DND with roughly equal correctness (though I dislike the last one personally).
I must be cruel, but to be kind That bad may begin, and worse be left behind
Wimpy McSquishy
Hey, I'm a little confused about something. Someone wrote that wizards in the 5e playtest can do everything, including healing, better than clerics. I've downloaded the playtest materials and looked them over myself, and I can't find anything to back that up. The wizard has no healing spells, no mechanics that make it good at healing, and its hit die is smaller than the cleric's. Healing has traditionally been a Wisdom-based action (the cleric's specialty), and there's nothing to suggest that that's changed. Can anybody clear this up?
Healing aside, there isn't even anything to suggest that the wizard is a more capable class than any other. It has horrible stats, and the only thing it has over other classes is its wide spell selection. It can dish out a lot of damage, but so can other classes.
I'm going to remove that little bit until someone can shed some light on this.
Edited by jagillette 'Cross my heart, strike me dead, stick a lobster on my head.' Hide / Show Replies
I've never seen anything to indicate that wizards are even as good as fighters at anything in any edition of D&D. Maybe if they didn't die at the drop of a hat and could survive past level 4 it might be a different story.
I must be cruel, but to be kind That bad may begin, and worse be left behind
Since I actually own the "Iconic Characters of Power" novels (So sue me, I like So Bad, It's Good stuff), I wanted to work on perhaps writing up a character sheet for the 3.5 Iconics.
Question is, where would I put it URL-wise?
Edited by ArkadyDarell Hide / Show Replies
Never mind, ended up just putting it at Dungeons & Dragons.
Edited by ArkadyDarell
2.5? 2.5 guys? really? 2.5 doesn't exist and here's why: The Options books require the AD&D 2nd edition books to function, they were never intended to replace the original core rules unlike 3rd and 3.5.
Hide / Show Replies
It was formally an extension and falls back to AD&D2 PHB/DMG as default. But even in this half-baked state there's clearly more differences than between 3 and 3.5 at least. I'd prefer not to call PO "2.5" because it's more branching aside than following a line — but then, i won't call 4 "xD&D" either. :]
...And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense - R.W.Wood
Hey folks I had an idea that we could put up a character page for the types of monsters out there along with some of the significant monsters that Dn D is known for like the beholder, the mindflayer, and the drow. Just a thought
Can someone point me to the supplement where Narzugon Devils are from? I'd like to know why they're considered Noble Demons.
Hide / Show Replies
Monster Manual 3, I believe.
"Stealing is a crime and drugs is a crime too BUT if you steal drugs the two crimes cancel out and it’s like basically doing a good."
Grin and tonic
I'm sure the Genasi
are an example of Alien Hair, having crystals or fire instead of hair. Not sure where they belong in the article.
I just sat there for a straight minute laughing at the 'To Me My Bears' bit. Please, noone ever delete it!
So about that missile pony you promised me.
Perpetually Confused
Removed the following for utterly missing the point. Seeing as the tropes for Five-Man Band are 99% based on each person's personality, who fits what is entirely dependant on individual characters, not on classes. This is just grasping at straws.
- Five-Man Band: The roles in 4th Edition can be seen as this.
- The Hero: Defenders and some Leaders (particularly the Warlord)
- The Lancer: Strikers
- The Smart Guy: Controllers
- The Big Guy: Defenders (if they aren't already The Hero)
- The Chick: Leaders (particularly those who focus on healing)
- Sixth Ranger: Multi-Classers and Hybrids
"2nd edition rules only gave a chance for thieves to successfully move silently, while in 3rd edition the skill system allows all characters to have at least some chance of success" That's not exactly true. As intended "back in the days" any character could try to move silently (with a chance of succes determined by the Dungeon Master), but only the Thief was able to improve his ability. Same goes with the "detect secret doors".
Hide / Show Replies
could just fix it
...And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense - R.W.Wood
Anyone else think we should organise the examples into categories such as the gaming and mechanics tropes and then the creature tropes etc.? Then we could have folders.
Hide / Show Replies
Makes sense to me.
What would you propose History, Settings, Gaming? (how would you do that anyway since it would vary by group), Creatures, Items, and Mecanics?
Resident VideoGame/LifeIsStrange nerd.
The Alignment section has been under constant reedits for the past good while because of people wanting to add their own personal opinion to it. While I understand that some good snark makes things funny, the fact that it's such a hotly contested section means that we should leave it at a neutral standpoint that lacks the snark, but also lacks the controversial parts that keep requiring people to edit the damned section.
Let it be where it is now. I don't want to get over an edit war over this, and I don't think anyone else here does.
"We're still flying." "That's not much." "...it's enough." Hide / Show Replies
I can see the wanting to cut down on the snark, however your proposed change to the definitions to the aliment section is just not correct, "Neutral Good" is a direct translation to "Good" they hold virtually identical descriptions and philosophical identification (same for Neutral Evil" and "Evil"), the alignments in 4e DO for a line of progression, and Lawful Evil & Chaotic Good do not have a strait translation so rather that re-editing it to YOUR personal definition, maybe we should just change it to account for reducing the snark. I am going to change it once more and try to use more objective language.
I'm not really sure you can put Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good into "Unaligned". That would lump it with True Neutral, and Unaligned is defined in the 4e PHB as "having no alignment; not taking a stand". That doesn't sound at all like Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil, both of which are rather strong alignments.
In addition, though chaotic good is not defined as a solid alignment, Good says "you feel no obligation to follow the law blindly" and "when law becomes exploitation, it crosses into evil territory, and good characters feel compelled to fight it." That sounds close enough to Chaotic Good that they put NG and CG together into just Good.
Evil reads "Evil characters use rules and order to maximize personal gain. They don't care whether laws hurt other people. They support institutional structures that give them power, even if that power comes as the expense of others' freedom." That sounds pretty damn close to Lawful Evil. Hence, I think they also put NE and LE together to form "Evil".
I didn't put my personal definition there, I put the ones as found in the 4e PHB.
How about the section reads:
- 4e simplifies the 9 possible alignments down to 5 by combining and modifying many of them. Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil were given direct translations. Chaotic Good was changed to be less revolutionary and rebellious and was placed together with Neutral Good into just "Good". Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil were, in the same manner, combined into "Evil". The final choice, Unaligned, is for both those who are neutral and those who have decided to simply not choose.
Your reading more than the definition has, the problem is the Definition For "Good" is functionally identical to the definition of "NG", i.e. wanting to help people and not blindly following the law (which is also an element of Lawful Good, not following the law blindly). The definition talks about striking a balance between law and chaos, but always choosing what is best for the group as a whole, which is by earlier editions the definition of Neutral good.
"Evil" is like wise functionally identical to "NE" (in that they work towards personal gain with no thought of others). The nature of evil in an absolutest universe is about personal promotion, while a CE character does it out of being an anarchist, NE is Evil for Evils sake, they work both with in and with out of the system established, aka the book definition of evil.
While I understand the problem you have with the "Unaligned can't encompass both good and evil" problem, and it is hard to justify fence sitters as heroic or villainous, the problem is that, as I stated before, your reading more than is actually there. NE = Evil & NG = Good, there is no way around it, because the definitions of those terms fill the same functional role.
And regardless of the whole NG/NE/GOOD/EVIL subject the alignment system in 4e is a line, with the most law abiding on the left (LG) and the least on the right (CE). There is no way around its Linear nature. That is a point you can't deny.
Now if you would read over my most recent change, I removed all of the snark from it, and use far more objective language then either one of use would prefer. Your new definition is longer than the original definition we started this little brouhaha over. My proposal is as such we keep my:
- This is simplified in 4th edition to a line, of Lawful Good", "Good", "Unaligned", "Evil", and "Chaotic Evil". "Neutral Good" and "Neutral Evil" become "Good" and "Evil" respectably, and Unaligned absorbed the rest.
Then add another line, something to the effect of:
- The Major change to the system leaves a lot of room for interpretation though.
or something else that lets in this idea in about that many words.
This is the most concise definition, is the most accurate as far as direct translations are involved, and conveys all of the major ideas.
My "Line" analogy doesn't bash 4e, and doesn't show earlier definitions as superior, it simply highlights the differences between the 2 scales. I am sure you can agree with most of the points I have made, I have spent a lot of time looking at this, in fact I started my 4e experience with a similar position yours. This isn't some random thought or dislike of 4e, this is how the definitions play out.
So, now that you see where I am coming from do you understand my position a little better?
I honestly hadn't read the page history and had no idea the entry was under contention. That said, I'd agree more readily with Dark's summation of it. Placing Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil into Unaligned doesn't make much sense to me. And it wasn't the "line" comment that seemed unnecessarily snarky so much as the huffy "4e strikes again!" bit.
So many words... "But the answer is so plain, and the sole answer" (V.Vysotsky)
Edited by TBeholder ...And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense - R.W.Wood
Originally mentioned this on the Tomb Of Horrors discussion page (by the way, there's a topic there about how the main article is needlessly elitist/arrogant about the 2e version vs. the 3e remake, which I personally feel has a very good point). As nobody really seems to go to that page, I figured I'd repost my issue with the article here.
Well, the 4th edition version is out now. Should Tomb Of Horrors get updated to include the 4e version's details (for example, it's an explicit sequel to the original Tomb of Horrors and to Return to the Tomb of Horrors, and revolves around the party investigating four seperate Tombs — one in the Feywild, the next in the Shadowfell, then the abandoned original, and finally one in the Astral Sea where Acerak is building himself a golem body of astral shards and dead god's flesh), or, as an explicit sequel with a considerably different plot/outline, should it have its own page created?
Anyone have an opinion of adding Item Crafting specifically the mechanical similarity to a Point Build System?
I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but I don't see it in this discussion or the archive, so I'll ask anyway. Is there a page - on Troper Tales or otherwise - where we might share the adventures we've played in or run ourselves, and if there isn't, could we make one in the future? I'm sure there are plenty of people here who'd enjoy creating trope pages for their past or current adventures, and other tropers who play the game could benefit from them in the games they're running or playing in.
Cranky
Talen Lee: The YMMV section seems to me to be pretty much done. So far there have been a pair of edits to it which are basically 'This Troper thinks D&D sucks balls, but other WEIRD people disagree.' I tried very fecking hard to make that section tidy, and I'm willing to keep at it, but I'd rather that there be something MEANINGFUL added to it, like comparisons - and proof for how valid they are or are not. Bonus if they can be funny.
Hide / Show Replies
Well, people going "waagh!" on this serve to demonstrate amount of disagreement on the topic. As long as it's kept pruned to sensible size, naturally. Not that it can be made any less of flamebait than it is anyway. Though maybe it needs more stuff known up to Memetic Mutation — like "cats vs. commoners" and "Bear Lore".
...And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense - R.W.Wood
what is the difference between gamer and mechanics subpage