|
What's a good thing to cook with bratwursts that doesn't involve grilling?
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 07:46 |
|
|
red beans & rice + sausage = victory
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:What's a good thing to cook with bratwursts that doesn't involve grilling? Quiche
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Beer & onions E: and sauerkraut!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Sweet red cabbage. Half to a whole head of read cabbage in a skillet with honey (or agave, or brown sugar), apple cider, lemon juice, pepper, a little salt, cinnamon, maybe a little allspice. Oh, and some diced onion and apple. I just eyeball it and taste the sauce occasionally. Cover, cook on low-to-medium heat until the sauce reduces.
Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Feb 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Not only do you get a slice of the next level, you can try something out and not be stuck with a trap option. 420 free-spec everything errryday.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
The worst thing about this thread is how hungry I get when I read tasty-sounding recipes  Fake edit: wait no the worst thing is still D&D Next lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
I keep a jar of peanut butter in my desk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Well here's a weird twist. The Next miniatures are going to be produced by Wizkids, makers of Pathfinder miniatures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
The women aren't almost-naked and helpless. WOTC ignores TSR's D&D legacy again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
moths posted:Well here's a weird twist. The Next miniatures are going to be produced by Wizkids, makers of Pathfinder miniatures. They're also doing a Dungeons and Dragons Attack Wing game, using the same system that Star Trek Attack Wing and X-Wing uses. http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1xaeik/we_are_wizkids_games_maker_of_games_like_heroclix/ quote:All good questions, some of which we can answer at this time, some of which we can't. The D&D RPG line have a combination of visible and blind packaging, much like our other RPG line Dragon dogfighting, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
moths posted:Well here's a weird twist. The Next miniatures are going to be produced by Wizkids, makers of Pathfinder miniatures. Just when you thought you were maximally confused, Wizards teams up with Wizkids to make miniatures of kid wizards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Swagger Dagger posted:Dragon dogfighting, I guess? I haven't really got an interest in Attack Wing, but if I got to be a dragon I'd probably play. e: The game's aren't compatible, right? There's no way you could set up x-wing vs dragon?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I haven't really got an interest in Attack Wing, but if I got to be a dragon I'd probably play. Star Trek Attack Wing is definitely not compatible with Star Wars. It's possible that whatever D&D thing comes out would be compatible with the Star Trek stuff, but it definitely won't be compatible with the X-Wing stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:Star Trek Attack Wing is definitely not compatible with Star Wars. It's possible that whatever D&D thing comes out would be compatible with the Star Trek stuff, but it definitely won't be compatible with the X-Wing stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Can I make Captain Picard ride a dragon. This is important. He's always riding a dragon in our hearts
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Latest Favorite Recipe Stew Beef a gigantic onion (slice into pieces you like the size of) salt and black pepper a giant (like 17 ounces or whatever) can of diced peeled tomatoes (drained) 2 cups of merlot season and brown the beef, place in crock pot caramelize onions, place in crock pot add wine and drained tomatoes, burn off alcohol, add to crock pot 7 hours on low 1 hour on high classy as gently caress and insanely delicious
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:And of course the vast stonking majority of the article focuses exclusively not just on spellcasters but very obviously on wizards. AH, but they anticipated this with a new Rule of Three! Fighters get extra attacks. Yeah that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:AH, but they anticipated this with a new Rule of Three! quote:more chances to fire off a combat maneuver, the ability to attack multiple foes, more chances for critical hits, and the ability to perform special attacks (like shoving someone down or grappling) as a part of your combat round. Shame none of them are overcoming obstacles but what can you do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:What's a good thing to cook with bratwursts that doesn't involve grilling? If you're not having mashed potato with your sausages all day every day, there us something very wrong with you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:Wait, that's not all! You could also have Also, guys, guys, by EIGHTEENTH level, you could stand up to a dragon on your own. WWWWooooooowwwwwww. So, in order to get to the point where I can actually fight off the monster the game is loving NAMED after, I need to wait until I'm NINE TENTHS of the way through. Next you'll be telling me I adventure washing dishes in the scullery until 16th, at which point I can graduate to killing rats in the basement, and maybe enter a dungeon at level 20.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
He does mention shrugging off spell effects and cheating death after level 11. It would be interesting for a wizards bag if tricks to continually expand but become less and less effective even as it can do more things
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
treeboy posted:He does mention shrugging off spell effects and cheating death after level 11. It would be interesting for a wizards bag if tricks to continually expand but become less and less effective even as it can do more things That's only one side of the issue though. I mean, it's an important one in a game where NPC monsters and evil wizards are going to be using the same spells that PC spellcasters have because you don't want the "Fighter gets hit by Hold Person, Bob spends the next 45 minutes playing Angry Birds because the Fighter's stuck in place" problem. But the bigger issue, and I honestly can't believe it's two years on and this is still even a thing, is that as the Wizard levels up he unlocks the ability to do poo poo like fly, teleport, turn invisible, see into distant places, read minds, all sorts of crazy poo poo. As the Fighter levels up he makes more attacks. I mean, this is almost like a mean-spirited parody at this point only it's being played totally straight. On the one hand you have someone who turns into a magical superhero, then on the other hand you have a guy who rolls two attacks a turn. But wait, once he reaches an even higher level he'll roll three attacks! Oh but I guess you can use one of those attacks to do such amazing feats of superlative martial prowess as; knocking someone over, grabbing someone, shoving them, "disengaging" for free, make someone grant Advantage to an attack that isn't your own. What else can you even say about this that hasn't been said a thousand times over the last two years? They're genuinely committed to planting their flag on the hill of "Fighters = more attacks, done."
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Thing is, the wizard article is all about how the wizard changes as it levels. How leveling up and going up nonexistant tiers opens up the world and gives them bigger and more grand options to effect the setting. How there were set milestones. The article was literally labeled out as "how the game changes as you climb the ladder." And then they answered that question for the fighter: It doesn't. Ever! You never gain new abilities. You never gain new functions. The wizard does. And they constantly get better! But you gain nothing new at all, period. Wizards start with magic missile and end with Wish. Fighters start with attack, and end with attack more. Normally this poo poo is obscured, or at least never outright stated. Every argument about balance starts with one person saying "It's not imbalanced." But now they're waving it out for all to see: "We acknowledge quadratic wizards and linear fighters, and it is our desired outcome."
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Thing is, the wizard article is all about how the wizard changes as it levels. How leveling up and going up nonexistant tiers opens up the world and gives them bigger and more grand options to effect the setting. How there were set milestones. The article was literally labeled out as "how the game changes as you climb the ladder." I said it once and I'll say it again, a fighter can get two attacks per turn. Even basic math demonstrates the fighter is exactly twice as versatile as a wizard who only gets one attack per turn.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
All right, which one of you was it :P http://community.wizards.com/comment/50194041#comment-50194041
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:All right, which one of you was it :P I don't think you should to quote yourself on other forums. kingcom fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Feb 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Swagger Dagger posted:They're also doing a Dungeons and Dragons Attack Wing game, using the same system that Star Trek Attack Wing and X-Wing uses. I know Dragonlance is considered a vile evil in these parts, but this would be pretty much perfect for recreating the War of the Lance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
What's surprising me right now is that even places like ENWorld are calling foul. But then, I guess it's not TOO surprising, since the biggest issue is how blatant it is. Again: imbalance only works when you can pretend to hide it. If you're waving it as a selling feature, most people will not rally behind you. Most fans of previous editions defend it on the basis of "Well I never saw wizards being too powerful." You can't do that when the game openly states it as a fact.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:What's surprising me right now is that even places like ENWorld are calling foul. But then, I guess it's not TOO surprising, since the biggest issue is how blatant it is. Again: imbalance only works when you can pretend to hide it. If you're waving it as a selling feature, most people will not rally behind you. Most fans of previous editions defend it on the basis of "Well I never saw wizards being too powerful." You can't do that when the game openly states it as a fact. Maybe they are really trying to openly court the 3.5e crowd that liked playing as wizards? No more trying to pretend this is the edition for all people. Just to win back the people who went over to Pathfinder? I have no idea what they are doing anymore. Oh and latest L&L is up: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140210 Mike Mearls talks about what worked and what didn't work in D&DN. knux911 fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Feb 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
knux911 posted:I have no idea what they are doing anymore. They're trying to make a less batshit version of 3.5, because one of the big complaints levied against 4e was that 'it doesn't feel like DnD'. It's dumb as poo poo, but there it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
knux911 posted:Mike Mearls talks about what worked and what didn't work in D&DN. Mike Mearls posted:At one point, we considered treating weapons in a manner similar to spells, giving each weapon one or more special maneuvers it could execute... Though some players wanted this complexity, it wasn't for everyone, and that guiding principle steered a lot of our design. I think it's safe to assume that "some players" were the ones playing classes that didn't get spells.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Mike Mearls posted:That feedback was a big part of the reason we avoided adding passive perception to the game until late in the process. Wait, wasn't passive perception in literally the first design blog? The one where Monte Cook "invented" a 4e mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
Yeah but then Monte Cook quit for some unexplained reason so maybe, in the fine tradition of management turnover everywhere, one of the first things they did was toss out anything that he had even vaguely worked on. And goddamnit, I've been suggesting that exact same system to differentiate weapons and make them more meaningful for years now, but of course it gets tossed out because it's "too complex." It's a shame that there aren't any provisions for incorporating things like "modules" in Next by which they could include more "complex" weapons rules for those who want them while making it a simple matter to remove them if you don't, but I guess that's fanciful thinking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
moths posted:I think it's safe to assume that "some players" were the ones playing classes that didn't get spells. It's a shame too since it didn't need to be literally every weapon, they could've easily broken weapons down into their categories with a few notable exceptions (I.e. Pole arms can trip, light blades can disarm, etc) and mitigated the complexity of 100 different specific weapon abilities
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
I'm legit laughing now. This is the third person now in a row to come out and just go "No but gently caress non-casters."
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
"Mike Mearls" posted:At one point, we considered treating weapons in a manner similar to spells, giving each weapon one or more special maneuvers it could execute... Isn't this a thing from Basic? Why is something like this too complex now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Isn't this a thing from Basic? Why is something like this too complex now? Because wizards haven't mastered it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
I like how, "my weapon does like one or two unique things" is too complex but "I for serious have like 15 pages worth of available abilities to choose from on any given day" is not. Like wouldn't that reasoning automatically make Wizards completely unplayable?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 07:46 |
|
|
Mendrian posted:I like how, "my weapon does like one or two unique things" is too complex but "I for serious have like 15 pages worth of available abilities to choose from on any given day" is not. Like wouldn't that reasoning automatically make Wizards completely unplayable? The idea, and I'm being completely serious here, this is actually how I've had this explained to me unironically, is that if a someone wants complexity out of D&D then they play a spellcaster. Fighters and Barbarians and the like are reserved for people who just want to roll attack and damage. So if you were to add complexity to martial classes then suddenly you lose the vital "I waste it with my crossbow" demographic. Somebody's got to be the simplified class and it can't be Wizards, so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 07:48
|
|