|
That RPGPundit site is pretty solidly grognard.quote:A Serious Question
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2009 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
Yeah, it's even funnier when he wonders why we don't have monks and psions. Because those are both high fantasy staples, and not a product of the "everything in the kitchen sink" mentality of D&D. (Not that I'm really complaining, but Lord of the Rings would have been a far stranger series with the addition of kung fu).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2009 23:28
|
|
|
D&D is a class and role-based game, and it has always been a class and role-based game. I'm not sure how you can complain about it, other than the fact that the game is resisting attempts to make your character completely useless. It's not as though he couldn't multiclass his character to get some sort of sorcerer with hand-to-hand abilities or vice versa. I also love that none of his examples contain multi-classing that involves actual game mechanics. It's almost as though the game gives you a series of mechanics and doesn't really care about how you choose to use them. LightWarden fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Mar 21, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2009 01:36
|
|
|
Odd, rules for HP of doors and things are on page 65 of the DMG. But never let being consistently wrong get in the way of a good rant.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2009 04:10
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:That was Barbarians you tool Sadly, it wasn't. Barbarians were the one class they patted themselves on the back for. Well, and monks. LightWarden fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Mar 30, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2009 22:57
|
|
|
I only understood it thanks to an explanation about 1st edition experience in DM of the Rings.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2009 05:04
|
|
|
It's gotten to the point where I can no longer tell if this is legitimate grognard from the start of the 21st century, of if this is a contemporary parody of grognardism.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2009 02:19
|
|
|
Just don't trust them posted:Half Orcs never made sense to me. Half Orc, half human? How would that happen? Orcs hate every humanoid that isn't also an orc, so how would a human "hook up" with one? The only way a halforc could logically be concieved is via rape, and the offspring would probably be seen as an abbomination and be killed at birth. Unless you were making a campaign world in which orcs get along with other races, they simply don't make sense. Why is it that people complain about half-orcs, but never about tieflings, where someone in the family tree is literally made of evil, if I remember my outsiders correctly. Also, is there a talking points memo going around? I've heard the same ill-informed complaints from everywhere. FWD:FWD:FWD:WIZARDS OF THE CASH! posted:Personally, my biggest problem with 4E was that they've dumbed everything down. Really, really down. I mean, in the PHB, the classes have pretty much been made with a cookie-cutter: you're either this sort of wizard, or that sort of wizard. And what's with the static hit points increase? Did somebody complain too much about rolling 1s for their new HP at every level? In the name of Don Quixote, CHARGE! posted:Nerdrage, eh? well, that's the first time I've heard frustrated annoyance referred to as that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2009 20:07
|
|
|
Good thing WotC puts up all their stuff in the art gallery.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2009 22:46
|
|
|
Mikan posted:Bonus link for oWoD players Now that RPG.net's forums are back online, I can actually add another link to this collection.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2009 23:20
|
|
|
Mikan posted:Having been introduced to tabletop role-playing games as a child by his older brother (Dr. Ki Tae Mok M.D.)... Man, family get-togethers must be pretty awkward. Maybe he can attempt to defuse the tension with some RPGs?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2009 17:31
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:I was browsing the Wizards forums to do some research for my new Eberron campaign and came across a couple of things that might not be grognardy but creepy as gently caress. Apparently, they also call her "Jaelbait". Thanks, TVTropes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2009 13:08
|
|
|
Don't succubi have like a +16 racial bonus to charisma?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2009 14:39
|
|
|
It's probably Lorraine Williams, since she's an individual that became head of TSR, and made many decisions that grognards do not like, and they basically blame her (perhaps rightfully, I don't entirely know) for the fall of TSR.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2009 16:48
|
|
|
"Part of what makes an adventuring party in D&D is that skills and abilities complement each other, and that certain situations call for certain talents." *Wizard literally tells the party to step aside why he trivializes the challenge* "So is it wrong or bad design in an RPG to require patience, knowing that your opportunity to shine will come every now and then?" I cannot think of a situation that calls for a fighter that isn't better served by the cleric casting Divine Might. They're glorified janitors who act as brick walls from time to time. "That +15 bonus is there only by design because they thought it would make for a better game, so the monsters would have to be adjusted accordingly." I thought it was so they could provide a unified system for skills so your players weren't stuck between either incredibly competent or utterly incapable, which is the justification for the change to a similar system in Saga Edition. As for the ability check boosts, it just allows your epic heroes to do heroic things like burst through doors without needing a ram or to roll 20s.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2009 17:51
|
|
|
Wizards need to prepare for certain things, so if I want to summon things for battle, I'd have to dedicate spells to that. *Actually, you don't even bother with that, you just prepare one of the 500 save-or-die/save-or-lose/save-or-suck spells and then go take an 8 hour nap once you're done. Or a 1 hour nap with that sleeping bag from Complete Mage* Better if I prepare my spells for versatility and let the fighter -- who's trained for combat because that's his JOB -- deal with the nasties. *Cleric casts Divine Power, becomes even better than the fighter for the duration of the spell* Find Traps was originally a Cleric Spell, but why prepare it when there's perfectly capable and skilled rogue to do it AND he can neutralize the trap -- because that's his job? Roll a beguiler. Spells per day of a sorcerer, HD of a rogue, skill points of a bard, skill list of a rogue, gets a list of about 10 to 15 enchantment, illusion and utility spells known at once per spell level. Oh, and trapfinding. Your BAB is terrible, but that's what Spell Focus (Enchantment) is for. And of course raising the dead is in the realm of magic, what point does that prove? That fighters are crippled without their glorious casting masters? Glorious casting masters are not crippled without fighters (Cleric with aforementioned Divine Power does everything except Weapon Specialization)? Should the peons revolt, the glorious casting masters have enough save-or-die spells that target Will in order to put the minions back in their place? I strongly disagree with your statement about spellcasters shining all the time. You assume that said spellcaster (and I'm assuming you mean Wizard) is prepared for any situation and that's just not possible. Again, I've seen characters take the back seat to let a fighter, bard, rogue, whatever do his thing because that's what teamwork is about. *Shadow Conjuration, Shadow Evocation... or just casting a mass save-or-lose spell, that usually works* It's not that I "want" people to "wait before being able to do something fun." As a DM you establish various scenarios in the course of the adventure to challenge the players -- playing the game itself is supposed to be fun. Sometimes certain situations require a certain level of expertise, like the time a Bard managed to flatter a Ancient Red Dragon and convince him not to attack us. *Or the time he just cast "Shivering Touch" on it with his familiar and did 3d6 points of Dex damage (no save. There is SR, but that's what you have other spells for) to its score of 10, allowing the party to club to death it like a baby seal and steal its treasure. Also, aforementioned Beguiler has knows Glibness, casts like a sorcerer and has the talky skills on its skill list* It occurs to me that by your attitude you're not familiar with the term "delayed gratification." As part of an adventuring group, your role to aid your party to achieve whatever goal is set for you. Sometimes an opportunity comes along to do something fantastic, sometimes it gets missed, whether it's a die roll or an element of plot. Ah, the life of the party fighter, forever opening potentially trapped doors and hoping that one day there will be a golem there so he can finally prove his worth to the wizard.  To me fourth edition seems to feed on the concept of player entitlement to negative degree. That's epitomized in the class structure as well as the non-random assignment of treasure per level. It was a problem in third edition as well, only not to a degree as I see it. You got that +3/+2 Gnome hooked hammer and you spent your feats on TWF and Exotic Weapon Proficiency to use it. Then you got that +4 great axe and wondered why your campaign didn't allow retraining. You could ask your casting master to make you a weapon that you could wield, but that would involve him spending valuable XP on your sorry self when he could just cast Greater Magic Weapon after jacking his caster level through the roof and call it a day. Or get him to cast Heroics and give you the proficiency feat. Actually, get him to cast Heroics on the Cleric, because the cleric will make better use of the weapon than you will (but hey, maybe he'll let you use his mace!) I even stated that the surplus of Third Edition material was as much a detriment as it was a boon. 3500 feats, and only 300 of them aren't utterly worthless in comparison. This statement, however, is rather damning: "You had to find the exact right combination of feats and prestige classes in order to minmax your character." Actually, it becomes pretty easy to snap the game over your knee with only a little bit of knowledge and like three books. Why would I want to minmax a character if I had a cool concept, such as a fencer in light armor. Yeah I may have a lower than standard armor class, but that means I have to be more tactical with my fights. Look out world, 1d6+5 (15-20/x2) damage coming at ya! Or I could go Rogue 3/Swashbuckler 3 with the Daring Outlaw feat, maybe dual-wield some light blades, consider Invisible Blade, pick up some feats from the Tome of Battle that allow me to add my Dex to damage and do 1d4+10+7d6 damage with each attack and have an AC that's somewhere in the stratosphere. Flank and spank for hundreds of points of damage per round. Or what if I wanted to play a diviner instead of some "boom-chuck"? Actually, playing a diviner over an evoker can be a pretty good idea since you only give one school (hint: evocation), since if you're going to make an enemy fail a save, it might as well be one that removes the enemy from the fight (like say... fear, or hold monster, or even down to sleep at low levels) rather than moderately inconveniences them with some damage (that's what the party fighter is for. That and absorbing hits). Minmaxing is powergaming, as well as playing the system more than the game. Meanwhile I've seen players debilitate themselves for sake of character or thematics or just because it adds something to the play. I even played a Ranger once who was illiterate and spoke a language nobody else used. Do you know hard it can be to pantomime "Two Dark Elves" when you get back from recon? Or that I, as a player, had to choose to keep silent during a particular puzzle because it was language based and the character couldn't spell? *Wizard casts "Detect Thoughts" or perhaps "Telepathic Bond" (minor or otherwise), rendering this problem moot and making you a much better scout in the process* You should thank your glorious wizard master for the mercy he has shown to your pathetic spell-less self. Sort of like the thing with the teleporting and shrinking of canoes. I also disagree with your assessment of Con Games. Look up Amorphous Blob Games at a con and you'll have a fun time. Why would I look up Amorphous Blob Games when I can play games with amorphous blobs at any con?  But seriously, the problem of con games doesn't really enter into this, aside from the fact that you probably shouldn't judge a game solely by its use in one-shots (unless that's what you're looking for).As for playing an ongoing campaign in 4e, my answer is no. Why would I play it? I've read the books, I've tried it at a con (with people who know how to play it, and there isn't much of a learning curve), and I didn't like it. Why would I invest time and money in it then? Because you're wrong about so many other things, I just sort of assumed you're wrong about this one. LightWarden fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Jun 19, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2009 23:55
|
|
|
 Arguing with a brick wall ITT...I somehow missed the fact that you could post anonymously on someone else's journal. Sorry, the guy was just so consistently wrong that the urge to take apart his argument line by line was overwhelming.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2009 03:38
|
|
|
Also, he's got part 2 going... Part Two of Three: Whither Falls Rome? So, I've talked about going to Origins and the evolution of D&D and my subsequent disillusionment with the game. I know one person predicted 4e would "crash and burn," but I think it's more a "run down and smolder" kind of situation. It may have had decent numbers upon release, but are those numbers sufficient for WotC/Hasbro to be satisfied? RPGs are a niche market to begin with, and I wonder if D&D is one of those properties that doesn't lose money, but doesn't make enough profit to truly justify its existence in corporate eye. Sales of 4e seemed fairly lackluster at Origins last year, but that may just be the result of so many people buying the books online or elsewhere prior to the show. On the other hand I have this gut feeling that D&D will cease to be within the next four years -- death by Hasbro's decree. Here's why... The Damned GSL: From the get go, the GSL was a poorly designed device to get the third party designers to fly the 4e flag. At first, parties who signed on were prohibited from working on d20 or 3.X products, but that's been relaxed. I just learned that Goodman Games is now free to re-release their 3.X Dungeon Crawl Classics after some slight modifications (i.e. remove the "Official D&D Product" stuff for one). In addition they also have the rights to do 1st edition material (also known as OSRIC). But there's still the clause that says that if the licensee is sued by WotC and the licensee wins, they still have to pay WotC's lawyers. I have no doubt that a large corporation like Hasbro has attorneys on retainer, and this means they can sit back and use delay tactics to starve smaller companies into submission. Whether or not they're the type of company that will do it makes no difference -- it's the fact that they can. As a result the GSL has (in this blogger's opinion) soured a lot of the third party houses from joining in. And if WotC continues its cycle of core rulebook iterations and Campaign setting sourcebooks, we're not going to see a lot of modules for the game, and that's going to hurt. The Conflicted Audience: Due to the perpetuity of the OGL, the D&D brand is now competing against itself. The reasoning behind making the game "open source" was to encourage people to make and sell products bearing the brand name and increasing its visibility. It was a good idea, an interesting experiment, but you had to wonder just how long it was going to last. Well, now we know -- eight years. Third Edition caused a significant rift in the D&D community to begin with, and WotC's approach to this latest incarnation is pure alienation. While it's necessary to market the game for the new generation, WotC neglected the fact that most of its core audience is well outside the 18-24 demographic, and that their kids are the new target market. Either way, we're the ones with the money. Regardless, the OGL means that 3.X is still a viable market because third party designers don't need to purchase licensing rights to make their stuff. Sure they can't call it an "official" D&D or D20 product, but that's semantics. Kenzer & Co even proved that the GSL can be bypassed if you know what you're doing: they put out one (and only one) 4e sourcebook without signing the agreement. And it's still available. So now you have two medium sized markets for D&D, one of which generates zero revenue for WotC. And if Goodman Games can make 1st Edition AD&D material, that makes another market with the D&D brand name. Now I know not every gamer is going to like a major rules change, but that's why you try to cover as wide a ground as possible if you do make a rules overhaul. It's a hard balance to make -- appealing to your veterans while drawing in new customers, but with the right kind of attention it can be done. There are ways to do it. Otherwise the brand will be fractured into smaller markets of less than favorable income -- which is what we're seeing right now. DDI and the WoW Factor: WotC's online services via DDI is another part of 4e D&D that is not living up to its hype. A subscription based service, they offered things like an online game table, online copies of the rule books (with updated content for errata), a message board and exclusive special content. I know the game table is a reality -- my friend's sons played a 4e game at a neighbor's house. However, I think my group spoiled those boys on the subject of gaming. To their dismay everyone at the 4e game played off their laptops without making a sound. No talking, no laughing -- nothing. Meanwhile these boys play at our table and have a blast. Yeah, we goof around and slip off into side conversations and pass hazardous amounts of gas, but the important part is we relax, roll dice and have fun. As for the rest of the content, I can't say whether that came through, nor can I speak to the quality of the same. From what I've heard, though, it isn't good. I know the boards were broken for quite some time, and with WotC's recent decision to terminate sales of PDFs of their work, I doubt we'll be seeing online books with live updates anymore. Incidentally, from what I heard not only did WotC kill PDF sales, they shut them down in a way that made it impossible to redeem a purchase if someone made one but had yet to download it. I guess they decided to stop shooting themselves in the foot and moved up to their knees. While reloading. Maybe it's just me but WotC's recent activities seem vaguely reminiscent of TSR's 1991-92 crackdown on intellectual properties bearing what they claimed were trademarks. This included phrases like "armor class" and "hit points" and was regarded by most of the player community as being excessively draconian. Many of the victims of this action were people who had created their own D&D material and distributed it on the internet for free. In the end, all that material was placed on a TSR site that allowed three users at any one time and had a download of one bit per hour (if they felt like it). Even if they did the live updates via DDI, I can see that leading to some disparity for those players who don't have subscriptions -- or even an internet connection (not everyone has one, ya know). One of the things that turned me off from Warhammer and 40K gaming (outside of my close gaming circles) was the proliferation of "Chapter Approved" rules that would appear in White Dwarf magazine. It always seemed that a player with the "Chapter Approved" material had an advantage over one who didn't. So what happens when a player has his laptop with updated content and the DM is using the books he bought a year ago? Could be quite the shouting match depending on the people involved. The "WoW factor" is not about any exclamation of how good or bad the game is. In trying to emulate an MMO 4e only serves to show how the pen and paper game will never match up to the digital medium. I've gone into the key differences between the two before, so to summarize, the MMO takes much less effort to play than an RPG. The only thing they really share is they require some form of schedule coordination. The Dungeon and Raid missions in an MMO always require a group, the latter ranging from ten to forty. I have to wonder if that's why the kids in the 4e game I mentioned were so silent and focused. MMO runs in dungeons and raids tend to require a measure of concentration and are to a degree time sensitive. Players have to be very judicious in drawing small encounters to them, and if a certain amount of time passes, slain enemies will reappear. Combined with the real-time, almost twitch style of play MMOs favor, it's no wonder they don't say a word. It's possible that that style play bled into their D&D game, even though you can walk away from the game in mid dungeon crawl and put things on pause until the next session. Misplaced Support: In addition to what appears to be iterating Core Rule books, WotC is also focusing on releasing campaign source material, "power cards" for keeping track of what your character can do, and a few other nifty keen things to make characters cooler. And of course, they're putting out their own brand of miniatures and adventures (aka modules). Which is part of the problem. If you're attracting new players, setting material can be a double-edge sword. Too much information can be intimidating, especially if it's "neat stuff" and novice DMs don't always have a grip on how to keep the game balanced. Power cards are okay, but really benefit players unless the DM wants to shell out a ton of cash to get one of each for himself. More than anything else, a new DM needs modules so he can get an idea how a balanced game can run. In 2008, WotC released exactly six modules. In 2009 they'll have released six more. Nine of these modules are chained together to experience the full gamut of 4e, from 1st to 30th level. This is similar to WotC's eight part series of 3e modules, which did the same (although the level span only went form 1st to 20th). I find it hard to believe that a new DM will get a good grip on the game when one module advances characters three or four levels. That's a big power jump. I see it being more likely to set a fallacy of mechanics into effect (like "four encounters per day" in 3.X). At the time of this writing, Goodman Games produced the same number of modules, ranging from levels 1-9. This is what I call supporting low level play. But looking deeper, these modules seem to reinforce the same fallacy as the WotC modules with a fast jump in levels from start to finish. Still not a good sign. But at least it's something. So now that WotC has done it's iconic "start to finish" series of adventures, will there be modules on the shelves in 2010? Odds are I'd say no, but there's not as many 4e producers as there were 3.X as far as I've looked (which isn't all that much). However given that each of the WotC modules runs about $25 USD, I wouldn't be surprised if the module line dried up because people won't dump that much into something they might only use once (especially when the modules from Goodman Games cost half as much). Hell, I've had the 1st edition module "Ghost Tower of Inverness" for 20 years and I think I've run it twice. Now since 4e favors grid play, it makes sense to use miniatures. WotC's line of plastic figures aren't bad. I'll admit to being old fashioned and preferring to paint metal figs for myself, but that's just aesthetics there. WotC has a good thing going with figures for players, but when it comes to monsters they still have their corporate heads up their committee asses by offering figures in packs of five -- with four of them random. So much for a DM getting the kobolds he needs in a timely manner for that H1 module he purchased. Given that these figurines sell at about $3 USD apiece, the random draw looks to be a wallet draining ploy. If I sound bitter it's only because I feel for anyone stepping behind the DM screen for the first time. It's not an easy thing to do, partly because of the prep work and partly because you know you're going to be the center of attention for several hours while trying to meet your group's expectations. So if the vendor can't be counted on for the essentials, players and DMs alike will use their Google-Fu and Yahoo-te to find other providers. Not only can this prevent further revenue from reaching WotC's coffers, it could lead to something even worse. It could lead the customer to another game...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2009 03:46
|
|
|
Grognard cannot make a sentence without being wrong at some point. It's like he's taken some sort of binding vow  .
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2009 06:04
|
|
|
But... I don't really recall Tolkien giving the hobbit heroes anything other than melee weapons in either the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings trilogy. If they had, then Weathertop might have gone a good deal better. Well, there were hobbit archers in the Scourging of the Shire who killed Wormtongue, but that's all I remember. Admittedly, it's been a while since I've read the books.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2009 19:04
|
|
|
The General posted:There isn't much wrong with it, and the author did a great job of not being creepy about it to. It's actually kind of informative, but why put that much thought into changlings and how they view gender? Actually, the root of that post is in Races of Eberron with stuff about how they apparently change reproductive organs (complete with determining the species of the baby) and have different ways of viewing their abilities. Gender preferences and sexuality are about the only things that the author has expanded on.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2009 14:40
|
|
|
opaopa13 posted:But along the way he also discovers that he is very much interested in studying battle tactics, and so takes up with a warlord for a while to study battle strategies. Does he believe that you need to be of a specific character class in order to plan? If so, which class would that be? I'm not seeing how 3e would have solved this conundrum of his.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2009 04:47
|
|
|
Bob Smith posted:If someone wants to play a pacifist cleric (another one of the old chestnuts grognards love) talk it through with them, but ultimately find a way to let them so that they - and the others - can have fun. Let them use healing powers without the associated attack. If they complain that's not enough, talk with them about "swapping" weapon and armour proficiencies for other feats if it wouldn't ruin your campaign. Interestingly enough, Divine Power allows you to do just thing by introducing a slew of powers at every level that do no damage, just boosting your allies and/or hindering your enemies. Though I'm not sure how you can consider yourself a pacifist if you basically hold down your opponent while your friends beat him to death, but at least they allow you to KO opponents without penalty. Point is, WotC is willing to work with grognards, even when grognards aren't willing to work with WotC.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2009 00:07
|
|
|
Presumably, the fact that a 3.5e rogue was doing 1d6 damage +1d6 sneak attack at 1st level, while a 4e rogue is doing 1d4+Dex damage +2d6 sneak attack (+Cha or +Str in some cases, or perhaps +2d8 sneak attack damage with the backstabber feat) is completely blowing his mind.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2009 23:39
|
|
|
The SRD posted:Energy Drain (Su) This does not strike me as a particularly brilliant use of Lesser Planar Binding.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2009 01:39
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:I bought the pathfinder pdf yesterday, since I couldn't find the 3.5 core books anywhere nearby. You could have asked, we'd have saved you $10.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2009 01:27
|
|
|
Real rogues know that if you're going to burn a weapon proficiency feat, rapier is a trap. You want the DOUBLE SWORD. Sure, you'll look like an utter fool, but maybe you'll be able to deflect their stinging criticism with your +1 to AC.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2009 19:51
|
|
|
"Erotic" RPGs are the funniest RPGs for some reason. Probably because I associate "roleplaying" with "doing stuff you can't do in real life."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2009 04:46
|
|
|
So, while explaining 4e to some friends and getting another "4e=MMO" spiel without the person in question explaining what it meant or why it was a bad thing, so I decided to simply google "4e MMO". It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Really smug fish.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2009 20:57
|
|
|
I'm not entirely sure where he found it, but Google tells me that Sir Yatagan Fracas is played by some dude who goes by the handle of Mallus on ENWorld, RPG.net and this place.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2009 01:44
|
|
|
Cleric could prepare atonement but they couldn't be bothered to rest, then bust out some divination and travel spells? It's 3rd edition D&D, where casters have essentially unlimited options for trivializing challenges.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2009 01:49
|
|
|
As a child, I read one of Salvatore's Forgotten Realms books at the public library (I think it was one of the Crystal Shard ones) wherein one of the characters was a spellcaster who wound up explaining how he prepared spells to another character. It was rather ridiculous, even if the Vancian magic system originated in books.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2009 23:18
|
|
|
CuddlyZombie posted:If you don't force your PCs to become pedophiles, you're no true DM. I'm pretty sure I saw this on TVTropes somewhere, but assuming that it isn't a troll and the DM is a fundamentally broken human being, the NG alignment implies that they're playing an earlier edition, probably 3.5e. They're playing 3.5e and have a wizard, which means there is no problem.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2009 00:12
|
|
|
From here via here.The letter in question posted:Dear Game Industry; These are all completely reasonable requests, hence the grognard panic.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2009 00:07
|
|
|
For some reason I find the "filled with platitudes and emasculating nonsense that could only come from a liberal city like Seattle" statement to be absolutely hilarious. Edit: And Cuddly Zombie beat me to it. Also, the guy seemed to have missed the part where his Meteor Swarm had a less-than-stellar chance of wiping out a squad of CR 3 hobgoblins in 3.5e if they weren't piled up in one area. A chained Charm Monster would probably have been a better use of the spell slot.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2009 03:36
|
|
|
Shivering Touch, level 3 Wizard/Sorcerer and Cleric spell, from the Frostburn supplement. It's remarkably terrible since you can even one-shot great wyrms on account of the fact that it's 3d6 Dex damage, no save, just a touch attack and spell resistance. I'm kind of glad that my Red Hand of Doom group hasn't found that thing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2009 21:13
|
|
|
Sad Mammal posted:I'm not too up on my RPG knowledge; what game has he published? This one, apparently.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2009 00:01
|
|
|
I'm still trying to figure out what mutant green Bob Ross is doing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2009 05:41
|
|
|
Epicurus posted:I don't have a problem with this one. This was always a huge pet peeve of mine; the dragon never misses its attacks under normal circumstances. This is principally a problem with 3.x's retarded failure to increase AC as level rises resulting in bullshit like this. Actually, the problem is that for a 20th level fighter, his AC is laughably low. This guy is stuck in 2nd edition, where a +2 shield and +3 plate are hot stuff. At 20th level, he should have at least +5 platemail, a +5 shield, and a bonus to AC from natural armor and deflection (usually in the form of rings of protection and amulets of natural armor) that could be +5 each as well, meaning that he's probably somewhere in the vicinity of 10 base +3 Dex (mithral platemail) + 8 armor +5 enhancement +2 shield +5 enhancement + 5 natural + 5 deflection = 43, or more, if he goes for any of the fighter AC boosts (a 20th level fighter needs all the help he can get  ) or has allies with spells (ones which provide morale, dodge, or unnamed bonuses to AC), or uses stuff like tower shields or wacky armor. Against the dragon's attack of +34 and +29, he's got a fair shot at this (of course, without gimmick builds there's nothing stopping the dragon from ignoring him and simply going to munch on his lower AC friends).He's losing because he's somehow missing the basic assumption of the fight. Not that the fighter's utter reliance on equipment at higher levels is a particularly fun feature of 3rd edition.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2009 07:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
Bluff, I swear this has never happened before. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2009 21:52
|
|