
                            REC.GAMES.FRP.DND FAQ
                                   Part 8

                        Gamespeak 1: For Player's Eyes
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
For Player's Eyes
  J1: What books do I need in order to play?
  J2: Does the weapon proficiency "Ambidexterity" give me extra attacks? 
  J3: Is the use of poison automatically an evil act?
  J4: What about slitting throats?  Anything else?
  J5: Are all orcs inherently evil?  What about orc babies?
  J6: Can mages wear armor?
  J7: I don't like the spell memorization system for clerics & wizards...
  J8: What does "Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic Good/Neutral/Evil" really 
      indicate?
  J9: Is alignment really necessary?
  J10: What is a morning star?
  J11: But medieval combat wasn't anything like the way it is in *D&D!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

For Player's Eyes
J1:  What books do I need in order to play?

A:  Technically, as a player, you need absolutely nothing.  Nada.  Zilch.
    A pencil, paper, and dice certainly are useful, but can easily be 
    borrowed; rules can be explained by the DM or more experienced 
    players.
      However, it is usually move convenient to have a personal copy of 
    the rules for easy perusal in and outside of the gaming sessions.  To 
    this end, it is advisable to get the Players Handbook (preferably the 
    same edition which the group is playing).  The Complete Handbook for 
    your character's class and/or race may be a welcome addition, as may 
    the Combat & Tactics and Skills & Powers books, but they are not 
    absolutely necessary.  Beyond that, it is just personal preferences.
    Nothing else is truly needed, despite what the promotional material 
    TSR puts out may say; however, most people like having a little more 
    than just the PH by their side when they play.

J2:  Does the weapon proficiency "Ambidexterity" give me extra attacks?

A:  No, it certainly does not.  By itself, Ambidexterity merely eliminates 
    the "off-hand" penalty for using a weapon in your left hand if you are 
    right-handed or vice-versa.  By the same token, it allows characters 
    to do tasks equally well with either hand, so that if one hand is 
    lost, the other can easily take up the slack.
      It is when this is combined with other abilities that things get
    confusing.  Here is a handy-dandy little chart to aid in fathoming the
    mysteries of the interaction of ambidexterity with other abilities:

                                               to-hit penalty
                                           normal         ambid.
                                        main/off-hand   main/off-hand
    Fighting w/ one weapon                 0    -2         0    0
    Fighting w/ two weapons*              -2    -4        -2   -2
    Fighting w/ Two-weapon Style spec.     0    -2         0    0

    * The penalty for using two weapons is modified by the character's 
    Reaction Adjustment, based on DEX; however, the penalty can never be 
    lowered beyond 0 by either this modifier or ambidexterity (i.e., the
    DEX Reaction Adjustment may only lessen the effects of the penalty,
    not grant any plusses to hit).  Any other modifiers work as usual.

      Ambidexterity does not grant extra attacks per round, but fighting
    with one weapon in each hand, whether or not a character is 
    specialized in that style, does.  The limit is that the one wielded in 
    the off-hand (if a character is ambidextrous, he chooses an "off" 
    hand, but has no penalties for using that hand, and can switch in 
    which hand he uses which weapon) must be smaller in size/weight than 
    the one wielded in the main hand, except when both hands wield 
    daggers.  This does not necessarily mean if must be a smaller size 
    class, but that it must be smaller in length and/or weight, which 
    makes for good use of the length/weight charts in the Equipment 
    section of the various PH's.  The length requirement is eliminated 
    when a fighter specializes in the Two-Weapon Style, thus allowing a 
    fighter to wield a long sword in each hand.
    
      Here's a chart to explain the attacks per round of someone fighting 
    with two weapons: 
                                  1 weapon   2 weapons | 2 weapons Att/rnd
    Character level               Att/rnd     Att/rnd  |  main   off-hand
    Fighter 1-6/all other classes   1/1         2/1    |  1/1       1/1
    Fighter 7-12, 1-6 specialized*  3/2         5/2    |  3/2       1/1
    Fighter 13+, 7-12 specialized   2/1         3/1    |  2/1       1/1
    Fighter 13+ specialized         5/2         7/2    |  5/2       1/1

    * "Specialized" refers to whether or not a fighter has specialized in 
    the weapon being used in his main hand, not to "Two-Weapon Style 
    specialization"

      Neither the Ambidexterity proficiency nor Two Weapon Style 
    specialization have any effect on the number of attacks per round.
    As the table shows, the number of attacks per round for the main
    weapon does not change when a second weapon is picked up; the second 
    weapon only gets one attack per round, regardless of character level.  
    For example, a character who normally has 3/2 att/rnd gets one attack 
    during the first round and two attacks during the second round, 
    alternating each round (the lower number of attacks always occurs  
    during odd-numbered rounds).  This character then picks up a second 
    weapon.  Technically, the character now gets 5/2 att/rnd, but it 
    breaks down to one attack with the main weapon and one with the 
    off-hand weapon in the first round, and two attacks with the main 
    weapon and one with the off-hand weapon in the second round, 
    alternating each round.
    
      For those of you crying "munchkin!" to all of this, there is a 
    simple limiting factor: a fighter, for example, only has four starting 
    weapon proficiencies (modified by intelligence by # of languages).
    The weapon of choice is one, specialization in that weapon is one, 
    ambidexterity is one, and two-weapon style is one, taking up all four 
    of the initial slots.  This pretty much turns the character into a 
    Johnny One-Note.  If he wishes to use any other weapons, he'll have to 
    use those extra language slots, which takes away slots from potential 
    non-weapon proficiencies.  This character will be extremely limited in 
    what he can do.  If he is put in a situation where he cannot use his 
    weapon of choice, he will be unable to be very helpful to a group 
    unless the player does some good roleplaying.

J3:  Is the use of poison automatically an evil act?

A:  If depends on how the DM rules.  Some DM's feel that use of poison is
    an inherently evil act, and its use by a character causes an alignment
    switch.  Others feel that, while it is not a particularly good act, it
    is not particularly evil, either, and can be used with caution.  Still
    others feel that poison is just a weapon, as is any other, and thus
    may be used by any and all characters with impunity.  There are
    equally persuasive arguments for any of these positions, and it is
    really best left to individual DM's.  Here to help with the decision 
    are three of the various points of view.

      Poison is a cowardly way out of a situation.  It is best left to 
    those who wish to skulk in the shadows and strike from afar.  It is 
    also good for those people who like to make sure their enemies suffer 
    horrible agonies before dying.  Since poison is essentially a tool for 
    cowardly bullies and torturers, it is a proper tool of those of evil 
    alignment.  Everyone else should stay as far from it as possible.

      The use of poison is not inherently evil, but, by the same token, is
    not inherently good either.  Thus people who wish to stay pure should
    avoid its use, but any others don't have to worry much about how they
    accomplish an end.

      Poison is a weapon, just like any other.  Thus it can be used like
    any other weapon, whether to strike down otherwise-unreachable fiends,
    or to put an end to the overwhelming righteousness of a paladin, or to
    have a political superior suddenly leave his position vacant for the
    taking.  Poison may be used in much the same way as a sword, but has 
    less of a chance of maiming and is thus possibly more humane!  In any 
    case, poison is just the tool--it is the heart behind the action which
    determines one's good or evil nature.

J4:  What about slitting throats?  Anything else?

A:  Once again, this is really a decision for individual DM's.  However,
    there are hardly any situations where slitting a throat could be 
    considered a good act.  In most cases, it requires having an otherwise 
    helpless victim, one which good characters should be trying to reform 
    or turn over to the proper authorities for suitable punishment.  
    Killing someone in cold blood, regardless of their past actions, is an 
    action which any character should seriously think twice about.  In the 
    heat of battle is one thing, but in cold blood (and especially if 
    premeditated) is something else altogether.  A character who 
    consistently does this sort of thing should do some serious 
    introspection on his outlook on life and consider an alignment change 
    to something more suitable.
      Nevertheless, there are a few situations where slitting a throat
    might be a necessity.  Mercy killing is one, as the onset of death is 
    quick.  Dealing with guards who would otherwise raise an alarm is 
    another, but more questionable one.  In either case, if the action 
    does not haunt the character for a long while, then it is quite 
    possible that the character is a closet sociopath, and therefore is 
    not actually of his intended alignment.

J5:  Are all orcs inherently evil?  What about orc babies?

A:  This one is a tough ethical question, and one which many DM's like to
    throw at their players.  After a party sacks an orcish camp and
    completely annihilates the entire adult male population, they are left
    with the women and children.  If they kill them, they are denying that
    orcs have any chance at all at redemption, regardless of whether or 
    not the orc in question is a newborn.  If they do not kill the orcs, 
    then the party is leaving behind a future horde of orcs who want 
    revenge for the slaughter of their fathers.
      This is a perennial problem which each character must sort out on 
    their own.  However, it is much easier for evil characters to make a 
    decision than neutral, and somewhat easier for neutral than good; but 
    knowing this does not make the decision simpler.
      One question which good characters should weigh in their minds: is 
    it better for me to not kill in cold blood, or for the potential for
    future difficulties be taken care of while the solution is easily 
    accomplished?

J6:  Can mages wear armor?

A:  This question has been endlessly debated.  First of all, if he is not
    casting spells, any mage can wear any armor he wants to, unless the
    armor in question is magic and only wearable by warriors, but that's
    a different story.
      The question arises when a mage attempts to cast spells while
    wearing armor.  While the core rulebooks state that wizards may not 
    wear armor while casting spells, many players do not like this rule, 
    as lack of armor gets many a mage killed.  Here are several possible 
    solutions to this situation:

    1) Create an elven fighter/mage who wears elven chainmail, as that is
    a method by which a mage can wear armor and cast spells at the same 
    time under the core rules.
    
    2) All mages may wear any armor, with no penalties, whatsoever.

    3) No mage may wear chain mail or better armor, due to the 
    interference of the metal with magical energies.

    4) All mages may wear any armor, but doing so incurs a possible chance
    of failure.  The wizard must roll percentile dice to see if the spell
    successfully goes off.  The roll must be equal to or under 50% plus 
    twice the armor's armor class.  For example, a mage in chain mail
    must roll (50+(2x5)=60% or lower each time he casts a spell to see
    if the spell was successful.  If the roll is not successful, the
    spell fizzles.  For armors with negative AC, either the AC is doubled 
    and subtracted from 50 to find the target number, or, since anything
    better than 0 is enhanced armor anyway, just use 50% as the target
    number.

    5) All mages may wear any armor, but wearing any mass of metal causes
    the mage to check to see if a wild surge occurs every time he casts a
    spell, due to the interference of the metal with the magical energies.
    
    6) Fighter-mage dual- or multi-classed characters may cast spells in
    armor, as they have learned to move in armor and thus can make the
    necessary gestures to cast spells.
    
    7) Elvish chain can be worn by any wizard without penalizing spell-
    casting at all.  This may be due to either the mail's comfortability
    allowing easy movement or its inherent magical nature not disrupting
    magical energies.

    8) Mages may wear any armor, but certain rules apply.  A mage in armor
    may only defend himself or flee, period.  No spellcasting, no
    attacking, etc.; doing so results in a loss of xp for that playing
    period.  Also, if the armor is magical, the armor's magic does not 
    work if it is specifically intended for some other class.

    9) Create a mage character using the system outlined in the Skills &
    Powers book.  The price is to not have access to some spell schools,
    but a mage willing to go through the trouble of accustoming himself
    to regularly wearing armor should be willing to put up with the 
    sacrifice.

J7:  I don't like the spell memorization system for clerics & wizards...

A:  Take a number and get in line.  There are a seemingly endless list of 
    solutions to this "problem."  The ideas differ for clerics and 
    wizards, though.
      For priests, the solution is simple.  Have the character pray for
    miracles, and let the DM decide which spells the cleric gets that day.
    Level doesn't matter, and the deity is seen to be more omniscient if 
    it can provide in advance the spells which are most likely to be 
    needed.
      For mages, there have been several good solutions posited.  One is 
    to do away with the memorization time.  Another is to use some sort of 
    mana point system.  A third is to let the mage cast any spell in his 
    grimoire, without memorizing it first, but with a chance of spell 
    failure.  There are an infinite number of variations on these and 
    other themes.
      Rewriting the entire spell system is a task not fit for an FAQ, but 
    it is not too difficult to construct your own based on the rough ideas
    above, or to just take a system from some other game and transplant it
    into your campaign.

J8:  What does "Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic Good/Neutral/Evil" really indicate?

A:  Good/Neutral/Evil should be fairly obvious, but Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic
    is often trickier to pin down.  The easiest way to remember it is that
    Law is more concerned with the letter of the law than with the people.
    Chaos can be anti-law, but it can also merely not require set rules of
    conduct.  The PH contains a good description of each of the nine 
    alignment's typical mindsets, but that is just the tip of the iceberg.  
    There are so many variations on each alignment that it is very 
    difficult for any two people to agree on even the vaguest definitions.
    However, if in need of a standard, use the PH stereotypes.

J9:  Is alignment really necessary?

A:  For many people, no.  For just as many others, yes.  Alignment itself 
    is not meant as a straitjacket, but as a tool for playing the 
    character.  There are as many different ways of playing a LG 
    character as there are LG characters, so the argument that the 
    alignment system stifles creativity doesn't hold water.  However, 
    there are just as many characters who don't fit any alignment  
    whatsoever, and should not have an arbitrary label forced on them.  
    Whether or not to use alignments is a question for the entire group to 
    decide, and not one that should be handed down from above.

J10:  What is a morning star?

A:  This is a perennial question both here and on rec.games.frp.misc.
    There are essentially three schools of thought on the matter:

    1) A morning star is an elongated mace

    2) A morning star is a spiked ball, no matter what it's attached to

    3) A morning star is a special type of flail, or "chain-mace"

      According to TSR's Arms & Equipment Guide, p. 82, the AD&D morning
    star is #1 above.  This is borne out by the arrangement of the Tight  
    Groups on p. 59 of the CFH and the description of the weapon on p. 140
    of C&T.  (Note that this is true for 1st edition AD&D as well, as 
    evidenced by the description of bugbears on p. 12 of the MM and 
    the illustration of Hruggek on p. 105 of DDG.)
      Sources that support this description:
    
    _Encyclopedia Britannica_, 11th-14th eds. 
    _Oxford English Dictionary_, 2nd ed. (20 v.)
    Ashdown, C.H. _European Arms and Armour_
    Bull, Stephen. _An Historical Guide to Arms & Armor_
    Stone, G.C. _A Glossary of the Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor_
    Tarassuk, L. & Claude Blair.  _The Complete Encyclopedia of Arms & 
      Weapons_, 

      Description #3 appears to have come into use in the early to 
    mid-19th century.  Many sources that use this interpretation can be
    apparently traced back to a German treatise on medieval weaponry
    written around 1850.  The section on morning stars was based on an
    English work written around 1830, and seems to suffer from a number
    of mistranslations, as that page has a number of incongruities and
    contradictions.
      Description #2 is a recent effort, constructed in an attempt to 
    reconcile the first and third interpretations.
      If you wish to use descriptions #2 or #3 in your games, that is 
    your decision, and is something that many people have done over the
    years.  It may not follow the rulebooks, nor necessarily history 
    itself, but on your own campaign world, you can declare that the 
    grass is purple and the sky is chartreuse, if it works for your
    world.  Just be sure to label this as the way things are done IYC 
    when discussing the weapon on the newsgroup in order to avoid flames.
      For handy reference, here are brief descriptions of the various
    weapons of the affected types (flail and club):

    Flail-like:
      Flail, Threshing: An agricultural device, from which the rest of
    these weapons are derived, consisting of a wooden handle, or "helve",
    attached via a rope, leather thong, or chain to a short, thick 
    wooden club, called a "swingle" or a "swiple/swipple".  They were 
    used for threshing corn or grain, and were found on almost every
    farm.
      Flail, Horseman's: A variation of the threshing flail; it is usually 
    iron shod or solid iron, almost always uses a chain rather than rope
    or leather, and the swingle is often spike-studded or replaced with a 
    spiked iron ball.  Historically, these were lumped together with the
    footman's flail under the general name "military flail".  
    Occasionally, these are referred to by historians as "chain-maces", 
    (especially when the swingle was flanged rather than spiked), which
    only serves to heighten the confusion.
      Flail, Footman's: This type of flail is much larger than either the
    threshing or horseman's flails.  It is a two-handed weapon, and 
    replaces the chain with a single hinge (or two half-links, serving the
    same purpose but not requiring that the weapon be held exactly right
    for the swingle to swing properly).  Historically, these were lumped
    together with the horseman's flail under the generic term "military
    flail".
      Nunchaku: An oriental descendant of the threshing flail; the helve
    and swingle were of equal length, consisted of wood, iron shod wood, or
    iron, and were linked by a short length of chain.
      Three-piece rod: Possibly a variant type of nunchaku, consisting of 
    three short wooden pieces linked by chain or rope, whereas the 
    nunchaku had only two pieces.

    Club-like:
      Club: It's, well, a club.  Anything from a tree branch to a large
    bone to an iron rod to a finely crafted work of art.  It is found in
    nearly infinite variations in nearly every, if not every, culture.
      Mace, Horseman's: A short weapon consisting of a haft with a large
    head.  The head was usually flanged, but many featured spikes, solid
    balls, or anything else that did the job.  Historically speaking,
    this was simply called a mace.
      Mace, Footman's: Larger than a horseman's mace, yet smaller than a
    morning star, this was otherwise identical to a horseman's mace.
      Morning star: A large mace, usually 4-5 feet long.  The head was
    not usually flanged; rather it consisted of a ball, oval, or 
    cylinder which was almost always studded with spikes.  It also usually
    had a larger spike pointing straight up.  Historically, the German 
    term for this weapon, "Morgenstern" (also "Morgen Sterne" or 
    "Morgenstierne"), was used most often.
      Holy Water Sprinkler: This is a type of morning star, invariably
    with a cylindrical spiked head.  The name is an ironic reference to 
    a small device used in the Roman Church, which was dipped in holy 
    water, and then flicked at a crowd, sprinkling droplets of water over 
    them; the weapon is used in a similar manner, but with a larger arc 
    (and with more deadly intentions).  A particularly interesting later 
    version of this weapon, also called "Henry VII's Walking Stick", had 
    four pistol barrels in the head, though it was apparently prone to
    misfire.  It is also often called a "holy water sprinkle".
      Godentag: This is another source of confusion, apparently based on
    varying local usage.  The French godentag was identical to the German
    morgenstern (and with similar ironic meanings: "good day" vs. "morning 
    star").  This is the sense in which the weapon is used in AD&D, as
    mentioned on p. 140 of C&T, under "morning star". However, the Flemish
    godentag was a type of halberd, in the classic axe-pike-pick form.
    Both types of godentags are also referred to as "godendag".

J11:  But medieval combat wasn't anything like the way it is in *D&D!

A:  You're right!  Congratulations, kid; you win the kewpie doll.  The
    combat system in *D&D is a gross simplification of real combat, 
    designed to streamline the process of determining the outcome of such 
    a situation.  Many arguments about the reality of such-and-such a 
    weapon's speed, damage, use, size, etc. are often seen on 
    rec.games.frp.dnd, usually based on personal observations and/or on 
    SCA tournaments.  One thing to keep in mind is that this is just a 
    game; it is not real life.  It is not meant to be extremely realistic.
    There are other, more detailed combat systems out there in other 
    games, several of which take hours to determine one simple combat.
      The best thing to do, in any case, is find a system which the group
    prefers to use and stick with that.  If the group doesn't feel like
    taking the time to learn a new system, then the current one still 
    works just fine for thousands of players, especially with a few house 
    rules to customize it to the specific campaign.

***End Part 8***

