| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| shadowni87 |
Posted - 06 Oct 2011 : 21:38:12
is it just me , or is everything after 2nd ed. just getting rediculous!!! if im the only one please let me know, but all the changes made to D&D3 ed. and on just got stupid for all the rules |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Mar 2013 : 21:39:58
quote:
Originally posted by diogrigor
As I said above, I'm not going to argue anymore.
Diffan
just two remarks: I would prefer that you didn't isolate a sentence from my argument and draw conclusions.
And as from where I'm coming, I come from a land where profit is not ABOVE everything else.
thanks for talking
I think we can do without slams on people's nations.  |
| diogrigor |
Posted - 12 Mar 2013 : 20:48:16
As I said above, I'm not going to argue anymore.
Diffan
just two remarks: I would prefer that you didn't isolate a sentence from my argument and draw conclusions.
And as from where I'm coming, I come from a land where profit is not ABOVE everything else.
thanks for talking
|
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 12 Mar 2013 : 20:18:05
quote:
Originally posted by Entreri3478
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I am totally a AD&D "guy"...2e AD&D is good; but they removed some elements of the game that I really liked (Assassins being one, and old school Bards too!).
2e got magic "better" in that it unified Arcane Magic...but I still prefer the 1e method of open ended progression of spells (yes, fireball should not stop at 10d6 in my games!).
Having said that, I like how 3.x looks at skills also...
Over all, I'm a hybrid of 1e/2e/3.x
2E definitely had assassin kits for rogues and fighters too IIRC. Assassins were always my favorite characters to play.
Kits came some time after the game was published...so going from having rules for my assassin to it not even being a class was a bump for me that I never let go of. 
The kits helped make things very adaptable though, very true. They did not come as part of the Player's Handbook though, and core is what is going to decide a game for most folks. I won't go into my friends anger over the changes to Rangers! 
EDIT: OH! And my friend with the Fighter/Thief/Bard was pissed when suddenly Bards were "mini-wizards" with little or no ties to druids! |
| Caladan Brood |
Posted - 12 Mar 2013 : 19:50:30
quote:
touchy feely one world Bob Marley Kumbayah bed wetting political correctness
I lol'd :D |
| Diffan |
Posted - 12 Mar 2013 : 17:27:49
quote:
Originally posted by diogrigor
It seems that I hit a soft spot here...
As I already said, I write as I feel, without an intention to insult anyone.
No insult was taken and I've heard worse about 4E from others, so not really a problem there either.
quote:
Originally posted by diogrigor
However, I insist on my opinion on 4E. It's all about selling the merchandise and nothing more.
Well it's hard to say otherwise since it's a company selling a product. I think any company wants their stuff to sell and WotC had a good model going, creating a game and making products that support that game (miniatures, dungeon tiles, independant board games that tie into the main product, power cards, etc.). Perhaps they're products that don't cater to everyone and perhaps some of those products don't turn into a huge profit, but I'll give them credit for trying.
As for only selling a product and nothing more.....what more is there for a company? I'm trying to understand where your coming from but I'm failing to grasp it. Mayhap it's the product content and it's strong bent towards the mechanics and game side of D&D and not as much of the setting, story, or flavor. That's debatable and I can see that perspective to a point. I've always been more of a "make stuff up" sorta guy so the flavor and fluff aspects of D&D only intrigued me minimally. To each there own though  .
quote:
Originally posted by diogrigor
D&D shouldn't be for everyone.
How is the game supposed to flourish with an idea like this?
quote:
Originally posted by diogrigor
Just for those that actually want to have fun, in a heroic setting, through role-playing and the occasional heroic warfare. Not for every kid grabbing a +4 vorpal flaiming burst two-handed and hacking at the balor. As I said before, D&D is not Diablo in my humble opinion.
D&D, IMO, should be a game for all types of people to engage in. Whether it be super story-oriented, riddled with intrigue and non-combative elements being center piece, combat taking a backseat and only coming up every once in a while TO people who just like to go out and kill stuff, take their items, and sell it. The rules of the game, if they're good, can incorporate both play styles. One style isn't better or worse than the other.
I'll agree that 4E took the combat side of the game to new heights while leaving much in the way of non-combative or intrigue or whatever almost non-existant but I think their belief was "You dont need rules to roleplay" and I very much agree with that. Should the books have talked about it more? Sure, I agree there. But for me, I want rules in my gaming supplements and ways of interacting with the game via mechanics. The roleplay part is the easiest to include beause it's the least intrusive element of the game. I can roleplay without mechanics perfectly fine (and have done a few games of such) but mechanics needs designers and math and parts I'm not entirely good with.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Mar 2013 : 16:27:45
quote:
Originally posted by diogrigor
It seems that I hit a soft spot here...
As I already said, I write as I feel, without an intention to insult anyone.
However, I insist on my opinion on 4E. It's all about selling the merchandise and nothing more. D&D shouldn't be for everyone. Just for those that actually want to have fun, in a heroic setting, through role-playing and the occasional heroic warfare. Not for every kid grabbing a +4 vorpal flaiming burst two-handed and hacking at the balor. As I said before, D&D is not Diablo in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I'm not going to argue anymore about the matter. Just keep playing whatever set/ edition makes you feel good guys. As long as we keep conversing on FR lore I'm happy
Oh, I'm not arguing about the 4E ruleset; I am most against it.
I'm just saying that warforged were not a part of 4E, and that free-willed, sentient constructs were written into FR lore back in 2E, by Ed Greenwood himself.
I don't like 4E, but at the same time, I prefer to see credit given where credit is due. And when it comes to warforged, credit does not go to 4E. And free-willed, sentient constructs were not new when Eber-whatsit intro'ed the warforged, either. |
| diogrigor |
Posted - 12 Mar 2013 : 11:33:07
It seems that I hit a soft spot here...
As I already said, I write as I feel, without an intention to insult anyone.
However, I insist on my opinion on 4E. It's all about selling the merchandise and nothing more. D&D shouldn't be for everyone. Just for those that actually want to have fun, in a heroic setting, through role-playing and the occasional heroic warfare. Not for every kid grabbing a +4 vorpal flaiming burst two-handed and hacking at the balor. As I said before, D&D is not Diablo in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I'm not going to argue anymore about the matter. Just keep playing whatever set/ edition makes you feel good guys. As long as we keep conversing on FR lore I'm happy |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Mar 2013 : 10:08:07
quote:
Originally posted by diogrigor
Now 4E is another matter. It's just the merchandise that WotC (aka HASBRO) wanted to sell. It has nothing to do with role-playing or d&d. It's the "how can we make the product appeal to 10-year olds" idea. I know there are experienced players/ DMs who are fans of 4E. I don't blame them. I just think they haven't seen the point behind all that yet. (Warforged? Really? In d&d? How about space marines and dark eldars? I like 40K too, but it's another story alltogether!)
Warforged had nothing to do with 4E. They were introduced in 3E.
As pointed out before, the idea of free-willed sentient constructs is an old one, and we've had individual examples of them in the Realms at least since 2E. Two of the three that I can immediately name come from Ed's pen. |
| The Masked Mage |
Posted - 12 Mar 2013 : 08:06:50
I have played in many "editions." Basic D&D, DragonQuest, 1st, Battlesystem, & 2nd. The best of these, in my book was second, though I always allowed for 1st Ed. classes like cavalier to be selected. I think the "simplification" done in 3rd edition made things much more complicated - I still don't get most of it. To be fair to 4th edition - I never looked at the rules because reading through the 4th Ed. books very quickly made me decide I wanted nothing to do with any of the changes they were making.
As far as FR goes, I'd say there are definite differences between editions. 4th we know already so no further comment there. 3rd edition was a grand effort by a group of writers to fill in all the mysteries created by the previous editions. This drove me crazy, but some people liked it so to each his own. 2nd more clearly defined rules in its publication than 1st but both were great at creating a broad, wide open world with infinite possibility. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 12 Mar 2013 : 05:33:10
quote:
Originally posted by diogrigor
I know there are experienced players/ DMs who are fans of 4E. I don't blame them. I just think they haven't seen the point behind all that yet. (Warforged? Really? In d&d? How about space marines and dark eldars? I like 40K too, but it's another story alltogether!)
Point behind what exactly? If it's the game, I was under the assumption that it was to have fun. If it's the mechanics, one set does just as good as another and of course people have preferences. SOme scratch a particular itch and some don't. Really not much more to say than that I guess. If it's for the story, again I don't see how mechanics has much in the way of changing this. They're just tools to fuel your imagination, help create immersion, and have fun.
RE: Warforged. I think they're pretty cool, espically in a setting like Eberron though I've ported them over to the Realms as well as 'Gondsmen, created in Lantan and a divine gift from Gond when he came down to Toril during the Time of Troubles.
RE: WH4K, funny you should mention this. I was just thinking how much fun a game like 40K would be with 4E mechanics and some reflavoring! To me, that's what mechanics are, a set of rules that help fuel your game and make it fun. I really don't feel like going into the hundreds and thousands of pages, books, and hours trying to run a 40K game with their supplements if 4E can be converted with reflavoring in 10-minutes with a decent plot and some quick know-how about the setting.
Good times!  |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 11 Mar 2013 : 23:52:05
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I am totally a AD&D "guy"...2e AD&D is good; but they removed some elements of the game that I really liked (Assassins being one, and old school Bards too!).
2e got magic "better" in that it unified Arcane Magic...but I still prefer the 1e method of open ended progression of spells (yes, fireball should not stop at 10d6 in my games!).
Having said that, I like how 3.x looks at skills also...
Over all, I'm a hybrid of 1e/2e/3.x
2E definitely had assassin kits for rogues and fighters too IIRC. Assassins were always my favorite characters to play. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 11 Mar 2013 : 23:42:19
I am totally a AD&D "guy"...2e AD&D is good; but they removed some elements of the game that I really liked (Assassins being one, and old school Bards too!).
2e got magic "better" in that it unified Arcane Magic...but I still prefer the 1e method of open ended progression of spells (yes, fireball should not stop at 10d6 in my games!).
Having said that, I like how 3.x looks at skills also...
Over all, I'm a hybrid of 1e/2e/3.x |
| diogrigor |
Posted - 11 Mar 2013 : 23:20:27
I took my first steps in 2nd edition. The feeling was spectacular. Role -playing an epic character. Someone who mattered in a group of sword wielding - spell hurling heroes wannabes. Well, actually a lot of fun and precious moments with good friends. All in all, 2nd edition had the best plots (Four from Cormyr), the spiciest rulebooks (Secret of the Magister, Necromancer's Handbook), the very definition of FR.
However, soon after I became a DM (out of necessity), I realized that the rules were not as specific and as flexible as they should be (we never played with racial lvl limitations). Soon, we ended up playing a so modified 2E, that 3E came as an official confirmation for our "illegality". 3.5E was just a necessary patch.
I always look up my 2E archive when I'm out of plot ideas, NPCs etc. I care nothing for the WotC opinion on the FR history. I implement what suits me, what I find interesting, whatever I think my players will enjoy (no Mystra is going to die in my world, ever!).
Now 4E is another matter. It's just the merchandise that WotC (aka HASBRO) wanted to sell. It has nothing to do with role-playing or d&d. It's the "how can we make the product appeal to 10-year olds" idea. I know there are experienced players/ DMs who are fans of 4E. I don't blame them. I just think they haven't seen the point behind all that yet. (Warforged? Really? In d&d? How about space marines and dark eldars? I like 40K too, but it's another story alltogether!)
I'm guessing 5E will be no more interesting than 4E. I've coursed through the playtest. D&D is a game written and played by romantics, who want to excel, without feeling that they are gods.
It's not Diablo my friends! and yes, Elminster, Larloch, Mystra, Bane they don't die, not because they can't, but because there's no point into it.
Hope I didn't make people angry. I just said what I feel about it. |
| vorpalanvil |
Posted - 24 Nov 2012 : 09:23:38
In reference to round time, the Players Option: Combat and Tactics treats rounds in much the same way. I love the phase system. I think its a great happy middle between the base 2ed rules which are far too simple and the over complexity of the new Hackmaster rule set. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 23 Nov 2012 : 02:06:58
quote:
Just talking about the rules changes, not about any setting changes. These have always been separate things at my table; the setting remains just what and where the setting is, it is not arbitrarily altered to accomodate, introduce, or explain different rulesets. I've often wondered why many people say that they love something from one edition, something else from another, and vehemently declare their hatred of elements from both ... yet refuse to just adapt all their preferences into a selected house blend ... or why they might revile canon changes while stubbornly insisting on maintaining canon integrity. My logic is to just take the setting I like and rules I like, play the game, quit whining, and have some fun.
This is what I've done. I adopted the new skill rules and feats from 3e and reduced a round to 6 seconds as well, otherwise playing 2e. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 25 Sep 2012 : 11:53:32
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
The dwarves dislike magic, is not a good reason for why there are no dwarvan wizards. It doesn't hold up under the most brief of logical examination. I am saying this, as I feel that it is something that was kind of missing in 2ed.
I don't know what you mean under "logical examination", but there can be a lot of in-universe good reasons for this. Starting from the canonical one: they simply cannot, due to being so non-magical that even magic items fail to activate on them.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Once gamers liked fantasy inspired by Tolkien, Conan, and the Eternal Champion. Today gamers like fantasy inspired by Blizzard and ninjas and the Matrix. Well, Tolkien and Conan are still around - again - but they're influences which have been influenced.
It's an aberration of distance, or a nostalgia filter, if you will. Maybe the situation was slightly better "when computers were big and we were little" but not all that much. All those DC / Marvel comics, Thud and Blunder books, etc are a good evidence of that.
It's just that then there was a trend involving variations of Conan Whose Manliness Is So Great It Diffuses Around (far enough to cover the fans, or so they hope)... and now there is a trend involving Emo Conan With Two Scimitars And One Hell Of A-a-angst.  Unless you're desensitized to one, both trends are about equally hilarious.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
My vote goes to AD&D 2E for maintaining "best" flavour.
IMO, settings should not be allowed to creep into a good core. Neither flavour, nor even smell. Going with this was one of problems with 3e - and the reason why OOC became more MUD-like and prominent.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I use flavor interchangably with version, or other similar words. 
You don't happen to type this under the blessing of the yellow-beaked Holy Penguin?.. Because it looked suspiciously like something a fellow posixoid could let slip.  |
| vorpalanvil |
Posted - 25 Sep 2012 : 08:33:36
My favourite flavour is scotch. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Sep 2012 : 22:27:15
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Flavour is a transient thing which gets dragged along in the Zeitgeist.
Once gamers liked fantasy inspired by Tolkien, Conan, and the Eternal Champion. Today gamers like fantasy inspired by Blizzard and ninjas and the Matrix. Well, Tolkien and Conan are still around - again - but they're influences which have been influenced.
I'm somewhere in the early-middle period ... I like "classic" elves and dwarves and orcs, don't mind the "original" (now forgotten/unpopular) versions of drow and fiendspawn, I'm all for Vancian magic and Gygaxian tables. Though I also like genasi and planeswalking and other things which were once avant garde fantasy. I'm not saying my preferences are "right", just that they're my preferences. My vote goes to AD&D 2E for maintaining "best" flavour.
For the record, when I said 3.5 and Pathfinder were the best flavors, I was using the term incorrectly -- I use flavor interchangably with version, or other similar words.
I know that's not proper English, but my preferred way of talking is to use an odd mix of modern, mangled, and slightly archaic English. And I try to type the way I talk. I rarely use proper English, unless the situation warrants it -- it's simply my preference, unlike a great many other folks with English as their native tongue! 
Between my way of mangling the English language for my own amusement, and my wife's use of odd words she and her mom invented, my son is going to have an interesting vocabulary! |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 17 Sep 2012 : 21:15:31
Flavour is a transient thing which gets dragged along in the Zeitgeist.
Once gamers liked fantasy inspired by Tolkien, Conan, and the Eternal Champion. Today gamers like fantasy inspired by Blizzard and ninjas and the Matrix. Well, Tolkien and Conan are still around - again - but they're influences which have been influenced.
I'm somewhere in the early-middle period ... I like "classic" elves and dwarves and orcs, don't mind the "original" (now forgotten/unpopular) versions of drow and fiendspawn, I'm all for Vancian magic and Gygaxian tables. Though I also like genasi and planeswalking and other things which were once avant garde fantasy. I'm not saying my preferences are "right", just that they're my preferences. My vote goes to AD&D 2E for maintaining "best" flavour. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 16 Sep 2012 : 18:46:03
quote:
Originally posted by Sightless
Wooly, I am afraid I must disagree with part of your last statement. I would be very displeased if, and I don't believe they would do that, but I would be most displeased if Wizards rolled everything back to 2E. I personally like third edition, and while I'm not found of everything that occured in the timeline at that period, I do like a number of things that happened. Most noteably, the absecence of racial restrictions, when no good explanation on thos restrictions were ever given.
The dwarves dislike magic, is not a good reason for why there are no dwarvan wizards. It doesn't hold up under the most brief of logical examination. I am saying this, as I feel that it is something that was kind of missing in 2ed.
I was speaking of the lore, not the ruleset. I think 3.5 and Pathfinder are the best flavors of D&D to date. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 16 Sep 2012 : 18:43:35
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
However, I believe him to be one of those people who will simply argue the opposite side of an issue that you believe in simply to entertain themselves or give their brains a nice cardio session. He is or was in truth engaging in a similar conversation elsewhere on this forum. It is somewhere in the many millions of posts in said forum. I found it by pure chance.
I probably was, as I have engaged in many heated edition arguments and discussions over the past 4 years. Manly because I feel discussion on ideas, impressions, biases, and feelings about such things help others understand another's reasonings and opinions. And sure, I find debate a fun engagment *shruggs* as well as discussing things about D&D and the Realms specifically. Since we're all different and like different stuff, there's bound to be arguments.
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
I have as much desire to find it as I do to search through my 200 odd issues of knights of the dinner table to find the article Diffan asked about earlier (pc power increasing through editions). As you can see, I do not have 2,000 plus posts or 28,000 plus posts here at Candlekeep. That means that I can remember the location and the context of the majority of my posts here. It also means I spend significantly less time here (though I wish I could spend more and enjoy it immensely) I would rather be called a liar directly than be implied to be one.
I hope you don't feel that I've called you a liar because that certainly wasn't my intent. In all honesty, i never even heard of the Knights of the Dinner Table until you mentioned it here. But I freely admit that I didn't purchase one Dragon or Dungeon magazine (or similiar things) until it became available on Dungeons and Dragons Insider. As for asking where I had argued on another thread, I asked because I wanted to see the context in which I was (which is probably totally true, lol). |
| Sightless |
Posted - 16 Sep 2012 : 16:05:26
Wooly, I am afraid I must disagree with part of your last statement. I would be very displeased if, and I don't believe they would do that, but I would be most displeased if Wizards rolled everything back to 2E. I personally like third edition, and while I'm not found of everything that occured in the timeline at that period, I do like a number of things that happened. Most noteably, the absecence of racial restrictions, when no good explanation on thos restrictions were ever given.
The dwarves dislike magic, is not a good reason for why there are no dwarvan wizards. It doesn't hold up under the most brief of logical examination. I am saying this, as I feel that it is something that was kind of missing in 2ed.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 16 Sep 2012 : 14:42:06
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
But in all reality, I feel like you are all just ganging up on the new kid in school, so maybe I will read more and post less. Well met!
No one is ganging up on anyone.
I, personally, am vehemently opposed to the 4E ruleset and to what changes were made to the setting because of that. I'm a huge fan of the 2E era Realms, and in my opinion, they should roll back to right after Cloak & Dagger and start over from there.
And I find that I very, very rarely agree with Diffan. That said, his posts have all been reasonable or respectful. The same can not be said for many of the prior discussions on 4E. |
| vorpalanvil |
Posted - 16 Sep 2012 : 12:12:53
Yes Mr. James, Diffan has made several good points against my arguments. I rather enjoy the passion he has for his game of choice,and the largely informed way in which he makes his arguments for them. I wish that I could find as much well thought logical discourse on a regular basis about all of the hobbies, ideas, philosophies and pursuits I engage in during the course of my day. However, I believe him to be one of those people who will simply argue the opposite side of an issue that you believe in simply to entertain themselves or give their brains a nice cardio session. He is or was in truth engaging in a similar conversation elsewhere on this forum. It is somewhere in the many millions of posts in said forum. I found it by pure chance. I have as much desire to find it as I do to search through my 200 odd issues of knights of the dinner table to find the article Diffan asked about earlier (pc power increasing through editions). As you can see, I do not have 2,000 plus posts or 28,000 plus posts here at Candlekeep. That means that I can remember the location and the context of the majority of my posts here. It also means I spend significantly less time here (though I wish I could spend more and enjoy it immensely) I would rather be called a liar directly than be implied to be one. I did not however realise that this was a place for touchy feely one world Bob Marley Kumbayah bed wetting political correctness, where one cannot utter the word "idiot" but can freely talk about the occurrence and artistic value of a rape scene in a realms novel( which of course is a current thread here, somewhere). Yeah, I speak my mind. I sometimes lack that filter between one's mouth and brain that says " don't say that stupid!( boy, I hope you can say 'stupid' around here)". I cuss so much that in real life I make NecroVMX of youtube fame look like a choir boy. And sometimes I deserve to be reprimanded for that. But in all reality, I feel like you are all just ganging up on the new kid in school, so maybe I will read more and post less. Well met! |
| Sightless |
Posted - 08 Sep 2012 : 00:53:24
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
To get back to brass tacks: I had the fortunate experience of playing in second grade(not 2ed) in the mid 80's. My buddy Steve was really creative but not too book smart so I would get our class assignment done in 10-15 minutes and the teacher would let us play in the coat closet. No books, No dice, etc. Steves' dad was a big fantasy fan and Steve consumed it all with zeal and had the innate ability to be a natural storyteller. We spent every spare minute of inclement weather playing a one on one organic game in second grade.
Fast forward to 1989,1990. My friend were all video game nerds in a time when playing video games was certainly not cool or mainstream like it is nowadays. My dude Jeremy was a few years older and suggested D&D, and with my fond memories I seconded the idea. 2ed was new and I spent all three years of junior high with the same group of friends, mostly with the same characters. In retrospect, how you can play D&D in thirty degree weather for 12 hours is beyond adult me. Then, like many of us I'm sure, no action in high school. Forgot about it, grew up, etc. Till one day in 2000 or so some guys I worked with were talking about "3rd ed" I mentioned a history and interest, and here I am in 2012 having been running a 2ed game for 5 years now.
So, I've a bit to comment on this topic. 3rd is a good system for young kids to learn on. If youn can grasp the basic idea/spirit of the rules you can with 99% accuracy infer the correct ruling of any other rule. But the players are too damn powerful, too much xp is for killing stuff, and every aspect of role playing from race/ class restrictions to spells that don't blow things up or heal stupid players has been removed. It is the first real move towards the video game culture we see in 4th ed. Pathfinder cleans it up a lot, especially in the skills area, but a pinto is a pinto even with a blown 429 cj. Also how you can compare the obvious talent of the Lakey's realistic art with the likes of W.A.R.'s comic book style is beyond me. Even the art of 3rd ed is just too over the top and ridiculous!
I have never played 4th ed but this forums comments speak for themselves. It appears to be WOW on paper which defeats the purpose. I can play some mmo any time without real people.
So all that remains is the old school. As 2ed is as sensible an update to 1st ed as pathfinder is to 3ed/3.5 2nd wins. Especially given the PO books that clean up the base clunky combat system that make combat a race to 0 hit points in the base system, and was clearly a marker for many of the ideas in 3rd. Some of the writing is near brilliant in both of the old editions, and anything is easily transferable from 1st to 2ed. Spells are as unique in nature as are classes. No, it isn't balanced. If you want balance look at the disaster that is the 3ed ranger, paladin, and bard. At one time special, different, and hard to obtain classes, were reduced to generic, underpowered, irrelevant after birth forgotten by anyone who diligently read the rules. Guess what? If you are a fan of the realms, which you probably are if you are reading this, the game world was made for rangers and bards! How in the nine hells should a Paladin be significantly less powerful than any regular jack off who can range from trained soldier to mob muscle is beyond the pale.
I digress. Anyone here who is really a fan of the setting really owes to themselves to read the old source material and see the inherit brilliance, creativity and forethought put in as compared to the low quality of materiel put fourth in recent years.
Mod edit: Adjective removed. Let's be a little more careful with our adjectives, please. We have those who would be offended by the adjective you chose for decribing an MMO.
I’m going to respond to this, simply because I may be the only blind person here and as such some of what I may say might be specific onto obsordity, but still something worth mentioning.
If you can’t see, second edition can be a bear to learn.
3.5 doesn’t have wonky tables, that require page jumping in order for you to match things up. The way the material is modular means that it was both easy for an open source system and for screen-readers to deal with. Second edition, not so much. Path finder is equally great in this regard, but that’s for similar reasons that made 3.5 easy to work with. Now, I’m still trying to learn 2nd edition, it’s just that my brain is starting to bleed until I get there.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 06 Sep 2012 : 20:55:57
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
All right Diffan. I was about to reply last night when I came across another thread on this site where the same basic debate is taking place. Guess who is arguing the side of d20 versus a host of opposition: you! I am all for a good conversation but it seems to me you are just one of those people who like to argue for the sake of doing so. So here's what this humble DM is going to do. Open another "Old One Eye", read the forums for game research, and cease arguing with idiots lest I be mistaken for one. I said good say sir!
Would you care to link or site what the other thread was? I ask sincerely since I can't think of another instance I was arguing against a host of opposition on the likes of d20 vs. another system (or something similiar)? Additionally, I feel I've been extreamly respectful of your posts and attempted to approach your concerns and criticism with an eye towards understanding your own side. At no time did I say you were wrong or an idiot or really bash 2E (I'm assuming your preferred system). I gave reasons why I had some dislikes (which, I might add were ALL mechanical of that system) but I also attempted to show some positive sides of other systems too.
Furthermore, when I asked for some clarification of your views I got references to past-age charts from decades old Dragon Magazines and some guy who wrote a review on 4E at some point from some place which spun it as "not D&D". So yea, of course I'm going to say you should come up with your own personal ideas of how games work because you should never judge a book by it's cover. But I'll just assume that you'll not bother to respond to this post, yet what the hey? I'm a fan of arguing so it's just my nature. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 06 Sep 2012 : 14:58:46
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
All right Diffan. I was about to reply last night when I came across another thread on this site where the same basic debate is taking place. Guess who is arguing the side of d20 versus a host of opposition: you! I am all for a good conversation but it seems to me you are just one of those people who like to argue for the sake of doing so. So here's what this humble DM is going to do. Open another "Old One Eye", read the forums for game research, and cease arguing with idiots lest I be mistaken for one. I said good say sir!
Vorpal, we really don't need that kind of antagonism here at Candlekeep. Consider this your first warning for breaching the Code of Conduct. Additional procedures will be followed-up via PM. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 06 Sep 2012 : 12:02:57
For what it's worth, Diffan is asking legit questions of your criticisms. Your inability to articulate a well-reasoned response shouldn't inform the need to "cease arguing with idiots"...
>_> |
| vorpalanvil |
Posted - 06 Sep 2012 : 09:23:07
All right Diffan. I was about to reply last night when I came across another thread on this site where the same basic debate is taking place. Guess who is arguing the side of d20 versus a host of opposition: you! I am all for a good conversation but it seems to me you are just one of those people who like to argue for the sake of doing so. So here's what this humble DM is going to do. Open another "Old One Eye", read the forums for game research, and cease arguing with idiots lest I be mistaken for one. I said good say sir! |
| vorpalanvil |
Posted - 20 Aug 2012 : 09:29:59
Enjoying the sparing match. I'll respond when I have the time to do so. Until then, "Well met." |
|
|
