Mask_De_H wrote:Oh sweet fuck don't do this again.
![Image](http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--873qvEN2--/197c6irw7p7ibjpg.jpg)
Moderator: Moderators
I had assumed hamstertamer was lying about his friend's too-mature-for-her-age four-year-old as an act of parody in order to passive-aggressively accuse JigokuBosatsu of making things up on the Interwebs to extend his e-peen.Starmaker wrote:Recently, hamstertamer went on a rant about his friend's too-mature-for-her-age four-year-old daughter in order to one-up JigokuBosatsu and his daughter. Now he states all women are interested in sticking their vaginas into everything everything into their vaginas, even though he presumably has a counterexample represented by the aforementioned 4-year-old girl. So there are two options: hamstertamer is just a lying semen-stain in his parthenogenetic dad's pants who doesn't actually hold the opinion he expressed, or he's a pedo. Since internet conversation wouldn't be very productive if every post could be "debunked" with "you're lying about your opinion", I assume it's the latter.Drolyt wrote:What the fuck?Starmaker wrote: You shouldn't be let anywhere near your friend's four-year-old daughter.
Kindly go fuck yourself with a chainsaw, hamstertamer.
Kaelik wrote:Because powerful men get away with terrible shit, and even the public domain ones get ignored, and then, when the floodgates open, it turns out there was a goddam flood behind it.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
Question. Isn't Gargantuan size - "20x20 or larger"? Wouldn't that cover dragons of any size?Dragons
This is almost its own mini book, so I will break down sections by sections.
We start with some stuff on their age catagories, and all dragons of the same age are the same size. This is probably an improvement as its easier to track. They also age at the same rate. Again same deal. What isn't OK is that the biggest dragon ever is 20ft by 20ft. See that pic? our dragon fits inside that building the dragon is sitting on. Fuck this noise. Finish the bottle, and burn the book. No one has ever complained that dragons were too big. I've never heard it once. I hear consistantly that DND dragons aren't big enough to tell the stories we want. Whoever pitched the idea of an elephant sized dragon should have not been laughed out of the room but shouted out. a 20ft dragon is unacceptable.
So either you don't have many monsters much larger than 20x20 or that size category is useless.Longes wrote:Question. Isn't Gargantuan size - "20x20 or larger"? Wouldn't that cover dragons of any size?Dragons
This is almost its own mini book, so I will break down sections by sections.
We start with some stuff on their age catagories, and all dragons of the same age are the same size. This is probably an improvement as its easier to track. They also age at the same rate. Again same deal. What isn't OK is that the biggest dragon ever is 20ft by 20ft. See that pic? our dragon fits inside that building the dragon is sitting on. Fuck this noise. Finish the bottle, and burn the book. No one has ever complained that dragons were too big. I've never heard it once. I hear consistantly that DND dragons aren't big enough to tell the stories we want. Whoever pitched the idea of an elephant sized dragon should have not been laughed out of the room but shouted out. a 20ft dragon is unacceptable.
Technically you are right. In that they wrote the words "Or make some shit up" after a size description. To elaborate on Drolyt's response, either things are the size they wrote or its all just "Make some shit up". Ill evaluate the rules and leave the evaluation of "Make some shit up" to people on their own time.Drolyt wrote:So either you don't have many monsters much larger than 20x20 or that size category is useless.Longes wrote: Question. Isn't Gargantuan size - "20x20 or larger"? Wouldn't that cover dragons of any size?
Monsters of Faerun was a chance for the grognards of WotC to add in all their AD&D nostalgia. It's unsurprising that there's a lot of overlap.Blicero wrote:Congrats on actually getting through this thing. Just skimming through entries, this book seems to have a lot of stuff that the 3E MM did not. A surprising number of those seemed to have their first 3E appearance in that Monstrous Compendium book. Which is weird, because that book was pretty light in content.
Axbeak I found, though I originally saw them in 3E's Arms & Equipment guide, as giant ostrich's that had literal ax-shaped beaks.WTF is an axebeak?
r some obscure hawk they felt a need to include
The death dog as far as I can tell is new to 5e
Fuck you, Monsterious Manael thread. You get to be political every two pages.Krusk wrote: Night Goat and Hamster - Take your weird Pedo/racist/political BS to your own thread and be terrible in it. This is for discussion of the 5e Monster Manual.
That wasn't recent dumbass. And to make sure you get it, my friend's four year daughter does not exist. I was just showcasing "the internet warrior's daughter" of that poster.Starmaker wrote:Recently, hamstertamer went on a rant about his friend's too-mature-for-her-age four-year-old daughter in order to one-up JigokuBosatsu and his daughter. Now he states all women are interested in sticking their vaginas into everything everything into their vaginas, even though he presumably has a counterexample represented by the aforementioned 4-year-old girl. So there are two options: hamstertamer is just a lying semen-stain in his parthenogenetic dad's pants who doesn't actually hold the opinion he expressed, or he's a pedo. Since internet conversation wouldn't be very productive if every post could be "debunked" with "you're lying about your opinion", I assume it's the latter.Drolyt wrote:What the fuck?Starmaker wrote: You shouldn't be let anywhere near your friend's four-year-old daughter.
Kindly go fuck yourself with a chainsaw, hamstertamer.
They aren't avoiding sexy female images in their books because of conservatives, Muslims, or other people who may have a problem with said images. They are avoiding them because of the SJW mob.Omegonthesane wrote:I had assumed hamstertamer was lying about his friend's too-mature-for-her-age four-year-old as an act of parody in order to passive-aggressively accuse JigokuBosatsu of making things up on the Interwebs to extend his e-peen.Starmaker wrote:Recently, hamstertamer went on a rant about his friend's too-mature-for-her-age four-year-old daughter in order to one-up JigokuBosatsu and his daughter. Now he states all women are interested in sticking their vaginas into everything everything into their vaginas, even though he presumably has a counterexample represented by the aforementioned 4-year-old girl. So there are two options: hamstertamer is just a lying semen-stain in his parthenogenetic dad's pants who doesn't actually hold the opinion he expressed, or he's a pedo. Since internet conversation wouldn't be very productive if every post could be "debunked" with "you're lying about your opinion", I assume it's the latter.Drolyt wrote: What the fuck?
Kindly go fuck yourself with a chainsaw, hamstertamer.
I also don't really think the logic
Premise: X thinks you can draw in female customers by selling them sex
Premise: X has mentioned the existence of a prepubescent female, ever
Conclusion: X AM A PEDOFILE!
really holds ground.
EDIT: Though, fuck hamstertamer for suggesting only SJWs are interested in non-porno pandering.
I enjoyed your 100% accurate quotes from me. Never let anyone accuse you of making up fake quotes from a person or of trying to mislead people. But to be fair, you have some really memorable quotes yourself, who can forget when DSMatticus said, "I like dog butt holes. Sorry I just like them. I love getting my little dick dirty. I really love it." That's classic a quote from you. I find it disgusting, but each to one's own I guess.DSMatticus wrote:Hamstertamer's "your daughter is reading books? Stop being such an irresponsible parent and make her go do things outside!" was double-take worthy levels of dumb. Hamstertamer's "the key to holding a woman's attention is their vagina" was... colorfully offensive. With respect to hamstertamer, I am firmly in camp "why is this person saying words and how do I make them stop doing that?" But let's just call him a fucking moron. Or not call him at all; I assume if we don't make eye contact with the crazy person eventually he'll stop talking to us.
Anyway, Night Goat: you lost the right to be taken seriously on social issues when you claimed that being a minority was advantageous in seeking employment. No one is really interested in seeing you point fingers, because you are genuinely one of those racist know-nothing shitstains who whines about how easy black people have it. The truths you know aren't true and the beliefs you hold are unbelievable, and as such your opinions are about as useful as the flaming bag of crap someone needs to leave on your doorstep; sure, you get to laugh at an asshole, but otherwise it's just really shitty.
Read this carefully,Orion wrote:Literally none of us think or have said that they're changing their art to appeal to conservatives. Look at Red Archon's post -- your opinion here is not controversial. We all agree that the art style was changed to appeal the SJW mob.
(Just a quick check. I'm not up on my internet slang but I assume "sjw mob" is a new word for "women, feminists, and people of good taste?)
my response:EDIT: Though, fuck hamstertamer for suggesting only SJWs are interested in non-porno pandering.
They aren't avoiding sexy female images in their books because of conservatives, Muslims, or other people who may have a problem with said images. They are avoiding them because of the SJW mob.