And for the 4rries, we freely admit there's a lot of poorly made shit in 3E, especially for Feats (so many "why would you ever take this?" ones that also seem very specific, as though some dude wanted it in his game and they thought everyone should have a feat for rubbing weird statues in other planes or for fucking corpses) and Spells (so many stupid ones that are too powerful and/or don't seem to make any sense).
Now, can you admit to the stupid shit in 4E? Or would that involve taking Mearls' cock out of your mouth?
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
And for the 4rries, we freely admit there's a lot of poorly made shit in 3E, especially for Feats (so many "why would you ever take this?" ones that also seem very specific, as though some dude wanted it in his game and they thought everyone should have a feat for rubbing weird statues in other planes or for fucking corpses) and Spells (so many stupid ones that are too powerful and/or don't seem to make any sense).
Now, can you admit to the stupid shit in 4E? Or would that involve taking Mearls' cock out of your mouth?
Um, Koumei, what does any of that about 4e have to do with anything of this thread about how the den's views on d&d 3.5 mechanics differs from the consensus found on places like bg and rpgnet?
Gx1080 wrote:Wow. Did absolutely nobody saw some of the 3.5 spells and said: "This seem like too much bullshit", like, before they went to print?
Wait, of course not.
But good point, hating 4E is hardly unique to the Den, these days. So... Tiers, Pun-Pun, various other "Amazing Unbeatable" builds... what else...
Oh, GNS theory. We consider that to be an unintelligible load of shit and deepisms (or possibly derpisms), whereas there are plenty of other forums that wank over it.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
I wasn't thinking about 4e at all, I was just wondering how stuff like Ice Assasain and the ever popular Flesh to Stone actually made it to print as written. I don't see a pattern, unlike, for example, GW's obvious money-grabbing schemes.
Really, from where did that came up? I'm confused
Last edited by Gx1080 on Sun Jul 31, 2011 5:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gx1080 wrote:I was just wondering how stuff like... the ever popular Flesh to Stone actually made it to print as written.
WTF??? And what is the problem with Flesh to Stone?
Ummm...you could turn dudes into marble and sell them? I dunno.
OgreBattle wrote:"And thus the denizens learned that hating Shadzar was the only thing they had in common, and with him gone they turned their venom upon each other"
-Sarpadian Empires, vol. I
Gx1080 wrote:Nevermind about Flesh to Stone, I was (and still I am) confused on what part of what I wrote had anything to do with 4e.
If it makes you feel better, I don't understand what you are saying has to do with 4E either. Mostly because the things you post tend to be rambling and tend to not make any sense at all.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
Oh, here's another thing. I found a thread here from way back when (on the internet, 2005 counts as "way back when") about the archivist, with Frank espousing the claim that a Wizard could add any scroll's spell to their spellbook just as the Archivist can.
Koumei wrote:Now, can you admit to the stupid shit in 4E? Or would that involve taking Mearls' cock out of your mouth?
I think I'm the closest thing we have to a 4rry around here anymore, and no, I can't admit the stupid shit in 4e - not because 4e isn't chock-full of stupid shit and not because Mearls isn't the worst Sage since Mike Nystul - but because any time I try to point out the crap that 4e got wrong a chorus of ignorami, many of whom have minimal or no experience with it join in and drown out any intelligent discussion by refusing to admit that whichever edition they personally don't like could have gotten anything at all right.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
By RAW, wizards can research new spells and put them in their spellbook. The exact process is vague DM fiat, but you explicitly can.
Archivists can scribe spells into their book no matter what spell list they're on. If your DM doesn't want you to have access to scrolls of druid spells or whatever, this ability doesn't do anything. It is slightly less DM fiatty because the process for writing a spell into your book from a scroll is more clearly defined.
Both classes essentially have the class feature "you can add any spell to your list if the DM gives you the right tools." It's just that with the archivist scrolls might fall into your lap as treasure without your DM realizing that you can do that, though if they don't want to allow it you'll find that scrolls are suddenly no longer available.
P.C. Hodgell wrote:That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
shadzar wrote:i think the apostrophe is an outdated idea such as is hyphenation.
Gx: I wrongly assumed that was your angle, because as far as I can tell you're only actually here for the purposes of trolling.
It's actually hilarious how often that happens around here.
Cock1: wtf is up with this thing about Super Chocolate Orange Crown Kingdom?
Cock2: RAWR Mega Chocolate Orange Crown Kingdom sucks and Super Chocolate Orange Crown Kingdom is better. And go suck a barrel of cocks and while doing so choke to death on a cock- your own cock... covered in the vile boiling semen of a barrel of cock-daemons from the cock-realm.
Last edited by quanta on Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The actual wording of the wizard spell learning mechanic is that they can learn it if they find another wizard's spellbook or a scroll they have deciphered. Deciphering a scroll does not require it to be on the Wizard spell list, and is in fact a prerequisite for finding out what spell list it is on. The wizard requires a scroll to be from the wizard spell list to activate it, but they don't need to activate it in order to learn the spell. It's a different set of restrictions and it is much looser.
Basically 100% of all Archivist shenanigans involve the caveat "also, your DM refuses to play Wizards by RAW, because no one actually reads that section of the PHB". Because the Wizard is able to do literally every single Archivist spell combo and more right out of RAW. If your DM is going to let you find Blighter scrolls or some shit , the wizard could do that too.
This puts Archivist shenanigans on very thin ice in my book. They are based on the DM following RAW and giving you access to incredibly bullshit spell lists that almost no one believes in or even knows about.
Josh Kablack wrote:
I think I'm the closest thing we have to a 4rry around here anymore, and no, I can't admit the stupid shit in 4e - not because 4e isn't chock-full of stupid shit and not because Mearls isn't the worst Sage since Mike Nystul - but because any time I try to point out the crap that 4e got wrong a chorus of ignorami, many of whom have minimal or no experience with it join in and drown out any intelligent discussion by refusing to admit that whichever edition they personally don't like could have gotten anything at all right.
Josh Kablack, you are the wind beneath my winds though I am willing to contest your status on this board as best-known 4Erry. Then again I haven't bought any new books since the great errata of Essentials except for Monster Vault and an adventure path or two.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
FrankTrollman wrote:
This puts Archivist shenanigans on very thin ice in my book.
That and the whole "Not from core or even Complete. Strike 1!" thing, where using fewer (and less obscure) splat books improves your chances of being accepted in so many games.
Although they do have "No ASF" in their favour. Shame they lack the rest of the Cleric chassis.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
Koumei wrote:
That and the whole "Not from core or even Complete. Strike 1!" thing, where using fewer (and less obscure) splat books improves your chances of being accepted in so many games.
That's probably the core of the "unconventional" Den wisdom right there: the idea that you're going to be min/maxing for an actual game that you will actually play. Thus, using a Greyhawk class with a Rokugan skill with a Forgotten Realms weapon is automatically not going to fly - because basically no one mixes three settings like that in an actual game.
Charm Monster should be the most broken spell, since it's actually fairly unambiguous that it turns monsters into party members with no meaningful limits. But since DMs normally can't follow a citation to another spell that has a citation to a section in the DMG that has a citation to a skill that has a citation back to the DMG, in actual play its affects are pretty much a crap shoot.
This emphasis on min/maxing towards the limits of how long the DM is willing to listen to you explaining why you think your power works that way is very much a Gaming Den thing.
@Frank
Ok, I thought I knew what Charm Monster does, but after doing the cross-referencing, I'm actually a bit confused. The behavior you describe (party member with no meaningful limits) seems to fall under the "helpful" category, but charm monster & charm person make the target friendly, not helpful.
Koumei wrote:Oh, GNS theory. We consider that to be an unintelligible load of shit and deepisms (or possibly derpisms), whereas there are plenty of other forums that wank over it.
Help me out, please? What's "GNS theory?" It doesn't ring a bell...
You can't fix stupid.
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives." ~ Jackie Robinson
Koumei wrote:Oh, GNS theory. We consider that to be an unintelligible load of shit and deepisms (or possibly derpisms), whereas there are plenty of other forums that wank over it.
Help me out, please? What's "GNS theory?" It doesn't ring a bell...
Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist. Ron Edwards' theory of how roleplaying games work.
It actually has a wikipedia entry, if you're bored enough to read it.
