+ Log in or register to post
Results 191 to 200 of 227
Thread: The Common Commoner
Monday, 23rd August, 2004, 07:08 PM #191
Acolyte (Lvl 2)
Originally Posted by kigmatzomatAreas of strong physical or magical energy may make teleportation more hazardous or even impossible. -Teleport
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Monday, 23rd August, 2004, 07:11 PM #192
The Great Druid (Lvl 17)
Last edited by Raven Crowking; Saturday, 16th July, 2011 at 06:36 PM.
No longer associated with this site
Monday, 23rd August, 2004, 10:27 PM #193
Acolyte (Lvl 2)
Basically, yeah, but less so.Originally Posted by Raven Crowking
Orcs likely have 15-year generations (just guessing based on the age reduction of Half-orcs vs humans) so orcs have 4 generations to ever 3 human ones. 4:3 isn't nearly the same as the 5:1 elf:human or 2:1 halflings:human ratios. Humans might not notice the birthrate advantage of orcs if they live in a mixed community. It's not like your orcish neighbor's newborn will grow old and die in the time it takes you to go from middle-aged to old. That kid will have a (natural) lifespan of 50-70 vs your kids 70-110 and most of the age difference will be at the "Venerable" level.
Orcs don't have any particular advantage compared to humans on the plague front, but their high strength might increase their odds of surviving battles. I toss it out as a wash, given their chaotic-evil society and say orcs and humans have the same general mortality.
Now the orc:elf generation ratio is 7:1, giving orcs a significant advantage. This could be why the orcs target the elves; in a half dozen generations the orcs could actually wipe out an elven community and take their land. Of course, this would require orcs maintaining a plan for more than a century, but what the heck, it could happen somewhere.
Tuesday, 24th August, 2004, 12:43 AM #194
What I understand is that the purpose of the Enrichment effect is NOT to exacerbate the proliferation of weeds. As you yourself point out the net effect of enhancing the output of weeds along with "crops" is ZERO. Pretty spiffy effect for a 3rd level spell - one which is going out of its way to provide very seperate effects, one for "attack" and one for general BENEFIT.Originally Posted by VirgilCaine
If you insist on your interpretation of the spell, by all means go ahead. After all, from a real-world botanists POV you are undoubtedly correct. But it sure does seem to make it a thoroughly pointless effect, and from the D&D spellcasters POV, IMO you're just plain wrong in how it ought to, and does work.
D&D is NOT meant to have too much reality applied to it at virtually ANY point in the rules. At every turn it is in fact attempting to dodge the un-fun and brutality of reality. That's something that should be kept in mind throughout a thread like this - D&D rules are NOT structured to withstand the scrutiny of extended application of real-world physics, or sociology, or even logic in general. That's why it's fantasy roleplaying, not hard SF.
Last edited by D+1; Tuesday, 24th August, 2004 at 12:50 AM.
Actually, my mileage DOES vary - my game is fueled by imagination.
Tuesday, 24th August, 2004, 03:42 AM #195
Acolyte (Lvl 2)
Even his version of the Plant Growth spell does actually provide benefits. It allows land that could not be productively farmed to be productively farmed and allows more production per unit of land. Neither of these are an issue in open and fertile land but where arable land is at a premium, they are a significant benefit. Even if the spell doesn't change the amount of labor necessary per unit of food, it would change the amount of food producable per unit of land. And that would be very significant in any number of situations from medieval Japan which supported a lot of people on a small amount of land to areas where farming is not normally viable.
Originally Posted by D+1
Tuesday, 24th August, 2004, 07:44 AM #196
A 1e title so awesome it's not in the book (Lvl 21)
Which is why it's a bit risky, but I thought puzzling out the life of a common commoner was worth it, since there seemed to be some pretty big misconceptions about 'em.D&D is NOT meant to have too much reality applied to it at virtually ANY point in the rules. At every turn it is in fact attempting to dodge the un-fun and brutality of reality. That's something that should be kept in mind throughout a thread like this - D&D rules are NOT structured to withstand the scrutiny of extended application of real-world physics, or sociology, or even logic in general. That's why it's fantasy roleplaying, not hard SF.
I'd say, yeah, a pre-weeded field would produce more crops as a result of plant growth. But plant growth is a third level spell -- the only fields that would benefit from it are the fields of larger cities, which would require the extra yield to feed people on a lot less land (since more of the land is dedicated to living space), for instance.
And as for other races......hoo boy, that's a whole 'notehr can of worms.
Last edited by Kamikaze Midget; Tuesday, 24th August, 2004 at 07:48 AM.
Tuesday, 24th August, 2004, 08:08 AM #197
Acolyte (Lvl 2)
I wish people would stop chiming in with "D&D rules aren't SUPPOSED to make sense!"
It's been said. All you who believe this, you are welcome to it, please be on your way. For the rest of us, we're fascinated by this stuff. I've been following this thread since it was 4 pages. I'm currently embarking in some world building, so all this debate is proving wonderfully useful. I'd -love- to be able to create a world at least marginally internally consistant, and that's what I'm going for.
That comment on longer lived races is quite neat as well... fits in spectacularly I think. It -is- a whole nother kettle of worms, of course.
One of the things my group has been considering for our collaborative homebrew is making the majority of magic users in the realm artificers instead... we haven't worked out class specs exactly yet, but the thought is that they spend more time building and making stuff than going around casting spells... if in fact they can cast spells directly at all. I (and my group) personally think that this does wonders towards keeping levels low. All that xp spent on making stuff! On the other hand, it does make magical items slightly more common, but only slightly... it's still bloody expensive as far as your regular joe is concerned.
Tuesday, 24th August, 2004, 09:04 AM #198
Ogremoch, Elemental Prince of Evil (Lvl 23)
Just reread the 3.5Ed version of the spell Plant growth.
Plant Growth has 2 different effects, chosen by the spellcaster at the time of casting. It either causes normal vegetation ("grasses, briars, bushes, creepers, thistles, trees, vines") in the targeted area become overgrown and thick enough to hinder movement or causes plants to increase their potential productivity 33% above normal in the next year.
Now, we could get all lawyer-y about the distinction between the use of "normal vegetation" or "plant" in the text, but it wouldn't get us anywhere, since a crop could be a grass, bush, vine, tree, etc.
It is more useful to distinguish based on the 2 effects. The first effect only enhances GROWTH, the other, PRODUCTIVITY. The former is just a simple measurement of plant size, the second would be a measure of fruiting, seeding, leafyness, and other measurements of lushness of the foliage.
Basically, by a straightforward reading of the spell, it should affect any plant in the area of the spell.
Thus, if the second version is cast upon a well-tended field, the result is a net increase in the harvest from the crop. If cast upon an ill-tended field, the weeds would benefit just as much, and the farmer's neighbors would be P-Oed as the weeds spread their increased seed production over the area.
(And, unlike certain previous interpretations I recalled, it does not affect plant creatures.)
That is just a cop-out. The magic system must have an internal logic. If there is insufficient internal logic in the magic system, the game breaks down because it is no longer able to model effects consistently.D&D is NOT meant to have too much reality applied to it at virtually ANY point in the rules. At every turn it is in fact attempting to dodge the un-fun and brutality of reality. That's something that should be kept in mind throughout a thread like this - D&D rules are NOT structured to withstand the scrutiny of extended application of real-world physics, or sociology, or even logic in general. That's why it's fantasy roleplaying, not hard SF.
Tuesday, 24th August, 2004, 09:06 AM #199
I don't necessarily disagree with the above; but how do you 'play smart' in a game world where players can not draw links between cause and effect? For if the rules can not withstand scrutiny of logic how can the world make sense? How can a player avoid appearing like a bull in a china shop? What does a player do if his DM insists that his players should play smart but that the relationships between cause and effect are such personal opinions in any game world? If your DM keeps on insisting where does the fun go?Originally Posted by D+1
Tuesday, 24th August, 2004, 03:41 PM #200
Acolyte (Lvl 2)
Not zero in total, but zero from a *manpower* standpoint.Originally Posted by D+1
It works out perfectly from a *druid's* point of view. Enrichment means every 3 acres produces 4 acres worth of food. It just means you need 4 acres worth of farmers on the 3 acres. So if you have 400 farmers working 400 acres, you can now put them to work on 300 acres producing the same food but freeing up 100 acres to be returned to nature.
The farmer has a potent ally in a 5th+ level druid, has less perimeter to deal with, and probably cuts off a hundred yards worth of walk each day. That may not seem like much but slogging through the rain or carrying bushels of grain a hundred yards is a real pain. It also means they won't pay as much for ploughing; one of the biggest expenses. Net wealth increases for the same effort and more convenience.
Odds are the farmers and the druid split the difference so if the farmers get an extra 25 acres of pasture land they can keep animals on or plant a cash crop so they've just increased their total potential wealth. Especially when that 25 acres produces the equivalent of 33 acres; they just need an additional 33 acres worth of manpower to capitalize on it.
By Frostmarrow in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 15Last Post: Saturday, 17th February, 2007, 08:16 PM
By Psion in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 21Last Post: Thursday, 11th January, 2007, 04:58 AM
By Jürgen Hubert in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 7Last Post: Friday, 18th August, 2006, 05:43 AM
By BluWolf in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 17Last Post: Monday, 17th October, 2005, 01:13 AM
By taliesin15 in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 1Last Post: Sunday, 16th January, 2005, 09:41 AM