The ethics of ... death

[ExploderWizard]

I think it's obvious that this won't be true for all D&D players.

Certainly not. Not everyone plays for the same reasons.

 

[N'raac]

Well, partially because D&D people have in some ways better (magical) methods of traveling, learning, and disseminating knowledge than we do today.

Are they universally available, or tightly guarded secrets? Can any peasant access teleportation magic? If so, why are there still so many dangerous, evil monsters running around when everyone can access powerful magic?

To some extent, yes. However, DMs (and players) are expected to self-police themselves to some extent. Saying that your 1st level character is the guy from the Dos Equis commercials is not forbidden by any rule, but is BS.

And character building rules typically seek to make the available options explicit, and draw the "BS Line".

And there is not one clear "best". If your background is "I'm an elven druid, I've lived in these woods for a hundred years and I know them like the back of my hand", your common or assumed knowledge about that area is probably much deeper and more accurate than that of some dilettante adventurer. But you may be pretty clueless about other environs; effectively raising the DC for unfamiliar settings. Conversely, a well-traveled adventurer may be a jack of all trades, master of none.

I'm a 500 year old elf. I've spent WAY more time in dozens of environments than ANY starting Human adventurer could have spent in even ONE. But I have the same skill ranks as any other L1 character. I think the latter is equitable.

I don't know about that. 3.0 was very open-ended in what a Knowledge skill could be and did not have the monster ID rule; it was codified more for 3.5 (not one of the better updates, IMO). The skill system is a mixed bag; not all skills seem to mean the same thing. Something like Jump has a very clear objective meaning (roll X, Jump Y feet), but Knowledge (as well as many other skills) seems more subjective to me. AFAICT, a 20 Knowledge check means whatever the DM says it does.

I think it's far better than "Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate succeeds and fails on whether the GM is impressed with the player's speech and/or wants the target to be influenced". YMMV

Except that in this case, the 10 + CR rule causes more difficulties in play than if you just ignored it completely, stuck with the general guidelines for Knowledge checks, and let the DM make a quick call.

In your opinion. Why can't I use "Local Knowledge" to read , speak and understand a local language? Aren't the words and writing "local" enough for you?

Well, that would not happen (assuming the other characters maxed their main knowledge skill) unless the wizard had an Int mod 4 higher than the other character. If that's the case, I think Mr. Wizard the Genius deserves it.

Then we disagree. And I'd say the specific disagreement is whether Knowledge should be a Trained skill. I don't care how smart that Wizard is - without religious training, there is knowledge of religion he has simply never been exposed to. Similarly, his book learning doesn't tell him which mushrooms are safe to eat.

But why does this trained only line of reasoning apply only to Knowledge? A character who rolls a 20 on a Jump check jumps as far as the check result dictates. A character who rolls a 20 on Diplo gets the results of a trained diplomat. Why does a character rolling a 20 on Knowledge get no more than a character rolling a 10? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that even a person of average intelligence can answer a DC 20 question 5% of the time. People hear things. The whole Knowledge being trained only thing is another easy ignore in my book.

Roll 20 on Use Magic Device or Handle Animal with no skill ranks. It is different because trained and untrained skills are different.

When people get lucky, any part of the game gets easier. When they get unlucky, the game tends not to go well. That's why we roll dice for everything, because we want random, unpredictable outcomes. No problem here.

And that is why your Bodak encounter did not result in wide scale fatalities - luck.

The NPCs importance to the PCs and his importance in general are different things. To explain, this NPC was a rich guy the characters met only due to a teleportation accident, resurrection in my world requires that a life be sacrificed in exchange for any resurrection, and his traveling party brought along a condemned criminal and resurrection scroll for that purpose, because they knew it was a dangerous trip.

Complete aside, but I'm not seeing that suggesting great restrictions on raising the dead. It seems like something anyone with gold can do. Mind you, if Teleport is a routine travel means available to the peasants, then Raise Dead is probably pretty common too without adding in some restrictions to prevent universality.

Also, how are they going to get out of dodge with that speed? This bodak had 10 Int, and was played as such. He did the best he could. I believe the lesser undead were mowed down by fireballs from the party wizard, who most likely was smart enough to stay far away. Not much a slow-moving bodak can do.

So he was played with the same level of tactics and strategy as a 10 INT fighter? It seems that your expectation of "standard PC knowledge and tactics" is a lot greater than for this Bodak of similar intellect.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Are they universally available, or tightly guarded secrets? Can any peasant access teleportation magic?

No, but it only takes a few world travelers to disseminate information.

And character building rules typically seek to make the available options explicit, and draw the "BS Line".

I think you're really missing the point. The point of the skill system is to describe, not proscribe. Before 3e, there was little to no mechanical representation for a character who knew a lot, let alone about any particular topic. The point of the skill system is to let players describe their characters in a more thorough and standardized fashion. Not so much to draw lines on what they can and cannot do with those skills.

I think it's far better than "Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate succeeds and fails on whether the GM is impressed with the player's speech and/or wants the target to be influenced". YMMV

AFAIC, that's pretty much how most skills work. If a player wants to do something, he declares the action, makes the roll, and I adjudicate it based on how impressed I am by the total package (his description and the roll).

Then we disagree. And I'd say the specific disagreement is whether Knowledge should be a Trained skill. I don't care how smart that Wizard is - without religious training, there is knowledge of religion he has simply never been exposed to. Similarly, his book learning doesn't tell him which mushrooms are safe to eat.

It's not an issue of intelligence, it's more about luck. After all, if an untrained character gets a 15 or a 20 on something, most of that result is likely from the die roll. It just means that the character overheard something years ago and remembered it, or made an intuitive leap. You don't need religious training to have a small chance of having heard of some rare undead creature or any religious fact. Everyone knows a few random esoteric things.

Roll 20 on Use Magic Device or Handle Animal with no skill ranks. It is different because trained and untrained skills are different.

I would think that a sufficiently charismatic person should be able to do things with either of those skills untrained. The whole trained only concept is really unnecessary. If you don't want untrained people doing something, raise the DC.

And that is why your Bodak encounter did not result in wide scale fatalities - luck.

That's why any challenging encounter ends with or without PC fatalities. Luck. Luck is part of the equation.

Complete aside, but I'm not seeing that suggesting great restrictions on raising the dead. It seems like something anyone with gold can do.

Anyone with gold and a spare life to trade (or equal or greater HD to the target to be raised). Which is an official variant, BTW.

So he was played with the same level of tactics and strategy as a 10 INT fighter? It seems that your expectation of "standard PC knowledge and tactics" is a lot greater than for this Bodak of similar intellect.

Not really, no.

 

[N'raac]

No, but it only takes a few world travelers to disseminate information.

Provided they are prepared to spend their time adding to an educational infrastructure. There are quite a few quantum physicists on our world, and we have the Internet. Can you explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy off the top of your head? Do you think you could work with a crisis involving these from memory, or even from the info available online?

I think you're really missing the point. The point of the skill system is to describe, not proscribe. Before 3e, there was little to no mechanical representation for a character who knew a lot, let alone about any particular topic. The point of the skill system is to let players describe their characters in a more thorough and standardized fashion. Not so much to draw lines on what they can and cannot do with those skills.

If the only thing we wanted was standardized description, a few standardized descriptors and a line for "skills and knowledges" would do the trick just fine. No need for mechanics.

AFAIC, that's pretty much how most skills work. If a player wants to do something, he declares the action, makes the roll, and I adjudicate it based on how impressed I am by the total package (his description and the roll).

Here is where we clearly will differ. I do not believe an articulate, passionate player with an 8 CHA character who invests nothing in social skills should gain an advantage because the player is persuasive, nor that the wallflower stuttering player running a suave James Bond character with a high CHA and significant social skill investment should be penalized. I don't ask the couch potato player to demonstrate a shouler roll, tucked into a triple front roll,fkipping sidelong to launch himself upwards, drawing a kitchen knife from a belt loop in the process, when his character attempts to tumble through the enemy ranks to attack the wizard in the back, nor would I give a player with a Black Belt any bonuses in HTH combat. There is no reason player skill should influence social skill success.

Now, I would certainly give a bonus for having, say, useful info to enhance those skills (for example, knowledge that the Baron likes fine wine, and a gift of a rare vintage, would certainly be worth a bonus to Diplomacy). But we also give bonuses in combat for things like higher ground or being invisible. Given those are +1 or +2 bonuses, that's the level I would expect in social situations as well. Mind you, the right intel, gift, threat, bribe, etc. might well be the equivalent of a coup de grace...

It's not an issue of intelligence, it's more about luck. After all, if an untrained character gets a 15 or a 20 on something, most of that result is likely from the die roll. It just means that the character overheard something years ago and remembered it, or made an intuitive leap. You don't need religious training to have a small chance of having heard of some rare undead creature or any religious fact. Everyone knows a few random esoteric things.

The d20 system is inherently random. Why can't Knowledge-history give the player a DC 20 roll to speak or read a dead language or be proficient with an ancient weapon. After all, everyone knows a few random esoteric things, right?

I would think that a sufficiently charismatic person should be able to do things with either of those skills untrained. The whole trained only concept is really unnecessary. If you don't want untrained people doing something, raise the DC.

Once again, the issue here is whether we have a "trained" concept. I have little difficulty with the concept there are things an untrained person cannot do. That doesn't bother me as much as, say, setting the DC to train a horse so high (because untrained people should not be able to accomplish that task) that a horse trainer needs 15 ranks to be able to do his job.

Anyone with gold and a spare life to trade (or equal or greater HD to the target to be raised). Which is an official variant, BTW.

As I said, doesn't sound inordinately restrictive. Just go find a monster with appropriate HD, and don't let it bleed out after you defeat it. Then pull out the scroll, or just start casting the spell.

And why would it matter whether this rule is an "official variant" (whatever one takes that to mean) or a pure homebrewed rule? It seems to make no real difference to the rest of the discussion.

That's why any challenging encounter ends with or without PC fatalities. Luck. Luck is part of the equation.

The importance of luck can be managed. Let's assume two combats. In each one, one combatant requires a 17+ to hit (20%), and the other needs a 5+ to hit (80%). They have equal stats in all other respects (so, for example, who wins initiative is 50/50). In one battle, a single hit will take down the opponent. In the other, it will require 4 hits to take down the opponent.

There is a 50% chance the poor combatant wins initiative, in which case he has a 20% chance of ending the battle immediately, so he has a 10% chance at a win with no counterattack. There is a 50% chance he loses intiative, and a 20% chance his opponent misses, followed by a 20% chance he hits. That's a further 2% chance he can win in the first round. 12%, plus a declining chance of a win the longer the battle drags on.

What are the odds he will hit four times before his opponent hits him four times? One round where he hits and his opponent misses? 50% chance he wins initiative and hits four times in a row? That's a 0.08% chance. His opponent has a 41% chance of hitting four times in a row, so it's more than 40% likely the fight ends with his win in four rounds.

The above isn't as clear as I might like, but the bottom line is that the more rolls must be made, the less luck will influence the results and the more likely the higher bonus succeeds. There can still be statistical outliers, but their likelihood declines. SoD requires only one roll, so it makes luck a much greater factor. Whether that is a good or a bad thing depends on the play style desired.

And randomness plays against the PC's. They will make and face many more rolls than any NPC. If Nameless Opponent #473 rolls a 1 and dies, Nameless Opponent #474 will be along soon (and no matter how Big Bad #473 was, that fight wasn't too memorable when he dropped so easily, so he will be Nameless soon enough). But when PC rolls a 1 and dies, well, roll a new character. Or, if Resurrection costs 5,000 gp and a captured monster, then death is a trivial condition and can easily be dealt with anyway. Just don't hit me with a Rust monster, as it's much more difficult to replace my magic arms and armor than to get Raised!

We can make it more about luck. Let's use d% instead of d20. We can reduce the importance of luck - roll 3d6 instead of 1d20 and the bell curve changes the probabilities a lot.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Provided they are prepared to spend their time adding to an educational infrastructure. There are quite a few quantum physicists on our world, and we have the Internet. Can you explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy off the top of your head? Do you think you could work with a crisis involving these from memory, or even from the info available online?

Could you come up with a more ridiculous example? The pertinent issue is whether I can recognize that certain animals might kill me and know a few general steps to avoid this outcome, and whether someone in a D&D world can do the same. No one is asking the commoner or PC to explain some complicated theory of how death effects draw energy from a negative energy plane nexus, merely that they should recognize what kinds of creatures tend to have them and know to stay away.

If the only thing we wanted was standardized description, a few standardized descriptors and a line for "skills and knowledges" would do the trick just fine. No need for mechanics.

It's a pretty light system as is. The entire Knowledge entry is what, half a page?

There is no reason player skill should influence social skill success.

Player skill doesn't matter? So if one player looks at the map, moves his character around to get a flanking bonus, while another just charges in and says "I attack", the first one shouldn't get a flanking bonus? If one player describes a detailed negotiation, and the other says "I diplo him", we should just ignore that and look at the die roll? I'm not big on giving a player a Diplo bonus just because he has a Benedict Cummerbatch voice, but if he makes actual choices that change the parameters under which the check is made, that seems to easily fall under the "favorable circumstances" clause.

I don't see what's so bad about a game that rewards the skill of a player. Games tend to do that.

The d20 system is inherently random. Why can't Knowledge-history give the player a DC 20 roll to speak or read a dead language or be proficient with an ancient weapon. After all, everyone knows a few random esoteric things, right?

I would think that a reasonable interpretation of the "answer one question" rule would not cover an entire language or style of fighting. However, one really good check might give you some idea of what a phrase in an ancient language means. Seems fine to me.

Once again, the issue here is whether we have a "trained" concept. I have little difficulty with the concept there are things an untrained person cannot do. That doesn't bother me as much as, say, setting the DC to train a horse so high (because untrained people should not be able to accomplish that task) that a horse trainer needs 15 ranks to be able to do his job.

What the trained only concept does is subvert the linear progression of skills and DCs. If something is DC 20, that's how hard it is. Your bonus relative to the DC is how likely you are to succeed. I don't see that anything is gained by mucking up that dynamic. Yes, there are things that only trained people can do. The DCs for those should be in the 20's, so that only trained people can do them. If said tasks are hard enough that an untrained person can't realistically succeed, I don't see why one rank worth of training should make much of a difference. If they are not that hard, I don't see why an untrained person can't do them.

I certainly don't see any reason why a PC who rolls above a 10 on his Int check can't answer medium or hard knowledge questions. Are we to assume that a character without any knowledge ranks does not know a single fact that is not common knowledge? Does he go around asking people what is own name is, and then instantly forget when someone with the knowledge to identify him does let him know? The implications, which whoever revised this for 3.5 clearly did not consider, are ludicrous.

As I said, doesn't sound inordinately restrictive. Just go find a monster with appropriate HD, and don't let it bleed out after you defeat it. Then pull out the scroll, or just start casting the spell.

As long as you're able and willing to do that, no it isn't inordinately restrictive. Those things are not a given, as there is not an infinite supply of creatures that you can kill (let alone without being arrested for murder or being attacked by vengeful allies), and killing creatures with a presumably diminished party carries risk. It also leaves the players in an awkward position because they do not generally know the HD of other creatures and must guess that a creature is powerful enough to be accepted in trade. It also makes resurrection harder the higher in level you get, because lives to trade are more scarce and taking them is more likely to cause problems.

Other than that, no restriction here.

The above isn't as clear as I might like, but the bottom line is that the more rolls must be made, the less luck will influence the results and the more likely the higher bonus succeeds. There can still be statistical outliers, but their likelihood declines. SoD requires only one roll, so it makes luck a much greater factor. Whether that is a good or a bad thing depends on the play style desired.

All of that is fine, yes. SoD is swingy, and in general is an incremental increase in swinginess over battles that do not feature it. This is a perfectly reasonable exercise of the available design space. If you want less swinginess, it's easily avoided.

And randomness plays against the PC's.

Another fair generalization, and again a perfectly valid design choice.

 

[Imaro]

I'll just say, here, that I understood your post perfectly, and appreciated it - thank you.

It goes back to what I said, in support of others, to @Hussar several pages ago: it really does boil down to preferences. If you want the excitement of the "instant gamble" in your D&D, then having SoD there will suit you (this would be Bedrockgames); if the inconsistency bothers you and you want the game to all work on a consistent basis, and you're not bothered about "one off" gambles (this would be me), then they won't.

Pointing out to either of us that we're wrong to like what we like, or that BRG is wrong to say that he likes the excitement of poison being "extra special nasty" even if it doesn't match some sort of imagined "real world model" (which has any relevance why, exactly?), or that I'm wrong because there is no conceivable inconsistency between hit points being the mechanism by which heroes don't die in some situations but not being that in others is both a waste of time and offensive. If you like something different, cool - good for you. But don't argue that black is white because someone likes something different from you.

It's funny the only person I've seen speaking about "objectively" bad game design in this conversation is [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]... But stating your opinions about something and then expecting them not to be discussed and questioned on a discussion board seems rather...strange.

 

[Greenfield]

A small note on "dark matter": It's a commonly misused term. "Dark matter" isn't a mystery at all, and it's easy to find. Look down. You're standing on some right now.

The term refers to any matter that isn't radiating light.

As for "dark energy": See that car driving by outside? There it is, dark energy. That is, an energy form that isn't radiant. In that case, energy of the kinetic type.

Dark matter is hard to see in astronomy because, well, it's dark. (Duh). Starts shine. Planets, not so much. Dust clouds are even harder to see. But that's the only thing mysterious about them.

Now Strange matter, on the other hand, is a mystery. Most of the time, when people talk about "dark matter" as some mysterious stuff, they're thinking of "strange matter", which is something else entirely.

 

[N'raac]

Could you come up with a more ridiculous example? The pertinent issue is whether I can recognize that certain animals might kill me and know a few general steps to avoid this outcome, and whether someone in a D&D world can do the same. No one is asking the commoner or PC to explain some complicated theory of how death effects draw energy from a negative energy plane nexus, merely that they should recognize what kinds of creatures tend to have them and know to stay away.

You were the one discussing "everyone knowing some obscure facts" and "just needing a few well-travelled people so everyone will have heard of all these creatures". We have lots of well travelled people - why do so many people get mauled by Koalas that are "so cute" because they don't realize they have powerful sharp claws?

It's a pretty light system as is. The entire Knowledge entry is what, half a page?

It sets rules for identifying creatures, and dealing with various difficulty levels. The SRD on Knowledge is longer than that on Attacks of Opportunity, so that must be a really light system, huh?

Player skill doesn't matter? So if one player looks at the map, moves his character around to get a flanking bonus, while another just charges in and says "I attack", the first one shouldn't get a flanking bonus? If one player describes a detailed negotiation, and the other says "I diplo him", we should just ignore that and look at the die roll? I'm not big on giving a player a Diplo bonus just because he has a Benedict Cummerbatch voice, but if he makes actual choices that change the parameters under which the check is made, that seems to easily fall under the "favorable circumstances" clause.

I don't see what's so bad about a game that rewards the skill of a player. Games tend to do that.

The flanking character is taking advantage of in-game opportunities to enhance the character's success. That matches up to the diplomatic character who offers something the target really wants in return, or provides a highly appropriate gift. And if a +2 bonus to the diplomacy roll is given in exchange (the same as that Flanking bonus), that seems perfectly reasonable. So would playing off the target's known hatred of orcs, say. But simply making a good speech as a player should have no more effect on success than doing a shoulder roll and tumble to demonstrate how you get into flanking position. It's your character's ability to make a persuasive speech (or tumble, or fight) that determines the character's success.

If the player is a couch potato who has to take two rest beaks to climb a flight of stairs, his character suffers no penalty compared to an iron man competitor when determining success at a feat of endurance. Why should a glib, well spoken player have an advantage over a stuttering wallflower in playing a smooth talking con man or a suave ladies' man spy?

I would think that a reasonable interpretation of the "answer one question" rule would not cover an entire language or style of fighting. However, one really good check might give you some idea of what a phrase in an ancient language means. Seems fine to me.

If we're not clear in what can and cannot be done, then it only comes down to what each of us decides. Why shouldn't a "really good check" get me the whole document, a "pretty good check" get me a page, a good check get a phrase and an OK one get me a word? I'll check one word at a time, by the way. It's easier to roll an OK check!

What the trained only concept does is subvert the linear progression of skills and DCs. If something is DC 20, that's how hard it is. Your bonus relative to the DC is how likely you are to succeed. I don't see that anything is gained by mucking up that dynamic. Yes, there are things that only trained people can do. The DCs for those should be in the 20's, so that only trained people can do them. If said tasks are hard enough that an untrained person can't realistically succeed, I don't see why one rank worth of training should make much of a difference. If they are not that hard, I don't see why an untrained person can't do them.

I think you set the benchmark too high for mundane tasks performed by trained professionals. There are some skills that require basic training to be viable. They are not that hard for someone trained in them. Is it unrealistic that no one untrained has a shot at gleaning the right result because of unusual personal experience. Sure. It's not realistic that the only possibilities to Knowledge are "you know it" or "you don't", rather than "false info". The inability to roll again eliminates reflecting on the matter and realizing the answer. There are infinite real life possibilities, and 20 possible rolls. We sacrifice some corner case possibilities and accept simplification in the interest of playability.

I certainly don't see any reason why a PC who rolls above a 10 on his Int check can't answer medium or hard knowledge questions. Are we to assume that a character without any knowledge ranks does not know a single fact that is not common knowledge? Does he go around asking people what is own name is, and then instantly forget when someone with the knowledge to identify him does let him know? The implications, which whoever revised this for 3.5 clearly did not consider, are ludicrous.

Again, the line gets drawn somewhere. I would suggest that the Knowledge skill sets the bar that Arcane Knowledge with a 11+ DC is not common knowledge. It simply is not. Only those trained in this skill are exposed to it. In play, one may pick up some knowledge, but that would be "player memory/notes" knowledge of things the character has already been exposed to, not a knowledge skill.

As long as you're able and willing to do that, no it isn't inordinately restrictive. Those things are not a given, as there is not an infinite supply of creatures that you can kill (let alone without being arrested for murder or being attacked by vengeful allies), and killing creatures with a presumably diminished party carries risk. It also leaves the players in an awkward position because they do not generally know the HD of other creatures and must guess that a creature is powerful enough to be accepted in trade.

Emphasis added. It's common knowledge what they can do, how to defend against it and how to deal with them, but the players can't know their hit dice? No double standard here! Why can't I make a "common knowledge" roll to remember successful and failed attempts? How did the NPC's group know that criminal would do the trick? Why can't the players use the same approach?

It also makes resurrection harder the higher in level you get, because lives to trade are more scarce and taking them is more likely to cause problems.

I've rarely seen PC's have a shortage of opponents at their power level - and if not, they probably don't need raising.

Other than that, no restriction here.

Exactly.

A small note on "dark matter": It's a commonly misused term. "Dark matter" isn't a mystery at all, and it's easy to find. Look down. You're standing on some right now.

The term refers to any matter that isn't radiating light.

As for "dark energy": See that car driving by outside? There it is, dark energy. That is, an energy form that isn't radiant. In that case, energy of the kinetic type.

Dark matter is hard to see in astronomy because, well, it's dark. (Duh). Starts shine. Planets, not so much. Dust clouds are even harder to see. But that's the only thing mysterious about them.

Now Strange matter, on the other hand, is a mystery. Most of the time, when people talk about "dark matter" as some mysterious stuff, they're thinking of "strange matter", which is something else entirely.

You and Wikipedia disagree on this issue. Which shows the issue of misinformation - as I don't know which is correct, I have a 50/50 chance of getting the answer wrong. "Looks like a Bodak - put salt on his head and he'll be rendered helpless!

 

[N'raac]

Could you come up with a more ridiculous example? The pertinent issue is whether I can recognize that certain animals might kill me and know a few general steps to avoid this outcome, and whether someone in a D&D world can do the same. No one is asking the commoner or PC to explain some complicated theory of how death effects draw energy from a negative energy plane nexus, merely that they should recognize what kinds of creatures tend to have them and know to stay away.

You were the one discussing "everyone knowing some obscure facts" and "just needing a few well-travelled people so everyone will have heard of all these creatures". We have lots of well travelled people - why do so many people get mauled by Koalas that are "so cute" because they don't realize they have powerful sharp claws?

It's a pretty light system as is. The entire Knowledge entry is what, half a page?

It sets rules for identifying creatures, and dealing with various difficulty levels. The SRD on Knowledge is longer than that on Attacks of Opportunity, so that must be a really light system, huh?

Player skill doesn't matter? So if one player looks at the map, moves his character around to get a flanking bonus, while another just charges in and says "I attack", the first one shouldn't get a flanking bonus? If one player describes a detailed negotiation, and the other says "I diplo him", we should just ignore that and look at the die roll? I'm not big on giving a player a Diplo bonus just because he has a Benedict Cummerbatch voice, but if he makes actual choices that change the parameters under which the check is made, that seems to easily fall under the "favorable circumstances" clause.

I don't see what's so bad about a game that rewards the skill of a player. Games tend to do that.

The flanking character is taking advantage of in-game opportunities to enhance the character's success. That matches up to the diplomatic character who offers something the target really wants in return, or provides a highly appropriate gift. And if a +2 bonus to the diplomacy roll is given in exchange (the same as that Flanking bonus), that seems perfectly reasonable. So would playing off the target's known hatred of orcs, say. But simply making a good speech as a player should have no more effect on success than doing a shoulder roll and tumble to demonstrate how you get into flanking position. It's your character's ability to make a persuasive speech (or tumble, or fight) that determines the character's success.

If the player is a couch potato who has to take two rest beaks to climb a flight of stairs, his character suffers no penalty compared to an iron man competitor when determining success at a feat of endurance. Why should a glib, well spoken player have an advantage over a stuttering wallflower in playing a smooth talking con man or a suave ladies' man spy?

I would think that a reasonable interpretation of the "answer one question" rule would not cover an entire language or style of fighting. However, one really good check might give you some idea of what a phrase in an ancient language means. Seems fine to me.

If we're not clear in what can and cannot be done, then it only comes down to what each of us decides. Why shouldn't a "really good check" get me the whole document, a "pretty good check" get me a page, a good check get a phrase and an OK one get me a word? I'll check one word at a time, by the way. It's easier to roll an OK check!

What the trained only concept does is subvert the linear progression of skills and DCs. If something is DC 20, that's how hard it is. Your bonus relative to the DC is how likely you are to succeed. I don't see that anything is gained by mucking up that dynamic. Yes, there are things that only trained people can do. The DCs for those should be in the 20's, so that only trained people can do them. If said tasks are hard enough that an untrained person can't realistically succeed, I don't see why one rank worth of training should make much of a difference. If they are not that hard, I don't see why an untrained person can't do them.

I think you set the benchmark too high for mundane tasks performed by trained professionals. There are some skills that require basic training to be viable. They are not that hard for someone trained in them. Is it unrealistic that no one untrained has a shot at gleaning the right result because of unusual personal experience. Sure. It's not realistic that the only possibilities to Knowledge are "you know it" or "you don't", rather than "false info". The inability to roll again eliminates reflecting on the matter and realizing the answer. There are infinite real life possibilities, and 20 possible rolls. We sacrifice some corner case possibilities and accept simplification in the interest of playability.

I certainly don't see any reason why a PC who rolls above a 10 on his Int check can't answer medium or hard knowledge questions. Are we to assume that a character without any knowledge ranks does not know a single fact that is not common knowledge? Does he go around asking people what is own name is, and then instantly forget when someone with the knowledge to identify him does let him know? The implications, which whoever revised this for 3.5 clearly did not consider, are ludicrous.

Again, the line gets drawn somewhere. I would suggest that the Knowledge skill sets the bar that Arcane Knowledge with a 11+ DC is not common knowledge. It simply is not. Only those trained in this skill are exposed to it. In play, one may pick up some knowledge, but that would be "player memory/notes" knowledge of things the character has already been exposed to, not a knowledge skill.

As long as you're able and willing to do that, no it isn't inordinately restrictive. Those things are not a given, as there is not an infinite supply of creatures that you can kill (let alone without being arrested for murder or being attacked by vengeful allies), and killing creatures with a presumably diminished party carries risk. It also leaves the players in an awkward position because they do not generally know the HD of other creatures and must guess that a creature is powerful enough to be accepted in trade.

Emphasis added. It's common knowledge what they can do, how to defend against it and how to deal with them, but the players can't know their hit dice? No double standard here! Why can't I make a "common knowledge" roll to remember successful and failed attempts? How did the NPC's group know that criminal would do the trick? Why can't the players use the same approach?

It also makes resurrection harder the higher in level you get, because lives to trade are more scarce and taking them is more likely to cause problems.

I've rarely seen PC's have a shortage of opponents at their power level - and if not, they probably don't need raising.

Other than that, no restriction here.

Exactly.

A small note on "dark matter": It's a commonly misused term. "Dark matter" isn't a mystery at all, and it's easy to find. Look down. You're standing on some right now.

The term refers to any matter that isn't radiating light.

As for "dark energy": See that car driving by outside? There it is, dark energy. That is, an energy form that isn't radiant. In that case, energy of the kinetic type.

Dark matter is hard to see in astronomy because, well, it's dark. (Duh). Starts shine. Planets, not so much. Dust clouds are even harder to see. But that's the only thing mysterious about them.

Now Strange matter, on the other hand, is a mystery. Most of the time, when people talk about "dark matter" as some mysterious stuff, they're thinking of "strange matter", which is something else entirely.

You and Wikipedia disagree on this issue. Which shows the issue of misinformation - as I don't know which is correct, I have a 50/50 chance of getting the answer wrong. "Looks like a Bodak - put salt on his head and he'll be rendered helpless!

 

[Greenfield]

I'm not even slightly surprised.

"Normal matter" is actually the minority case in the universe, according to many estimates. The subatomic particles that make it up fall into the general category called Baryons.

"Strange matter" (often referred to as Dark Matter) is said to be non-baryonic. The problem is that there are no samples or examples available The stuff is theoretical.

Originally there was a distinction made between dark matter, that which was simply dark (as in, it didn't radiate any light), and strange matter, which is supposedly a different class of matter entirely.

The two terms have become conflated, and are often used interchangeably.

Some "dark energy" theories suggest that empty vacuum contains energy of a non-radiant form, inherent in the existence of space itself. As space expands, so does the supply of this imeasurable, undetectable energy source, which pretty much shoots the Conservation of Matter and Energy theory to hell.

The evidence for Strange/Dark matter/energy is derived from the observation that the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating, rather than slowing down. Alternate theories include the idea that new space isn't simply being formed at the leading edge of the universal expansion, forced into being by the presence of matter, but also interspersed throughout the existing universe, thus increasing distances between astronomical objects. Another is that the calculated Gravitational Constant is wrong, and perhaps not a "constant" at all. Yet another is that the "known universe" is simply us falling into a black hole, and that the observed accelerating "expansion" is actually the observers falling into the abyss faster than the outer edges, and that the only reason we haven't "hit bottom" yet is due to the time-compression we experience as our falling speed increases.

Personally I like door number three, but that's just me.

All of which has nothing to do with Bodaks or D&D in any way, other than that it's speculation and mostly fantasy. That being said, you should probably disregard everything I've said on the subject.