D&DNext: Playtest Review

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Voss
Prince
Posts: 3912
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Voss »

Chamomile wrote:You know for a while here Shadzar was getting alarmingly close to coherency. Apparently it was just a brief period of lucidity before he receded back into total insanity, though.
The fun part of this set of incoherent ramblings on class based design, you can find the basics of why 4e is a better game than 2e with more options, as it can have sneaky wizards that stab sleeping ogres. And of course, if limited things by classes is in fact good design (such as only rogues can sneak & stab), then 4e has simply refined the 2e concepts into their most efficient form.


I doubt very much that he meant it that way, but his incoherent flailing produces very odd outputs.
Last edited by Voss on Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

hogarth wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote: So hop to it and explain how it's done. In the rules. Of your favorite edition.

Wizard with 15 Dex.
Thief with 16 Dex and a Move Silently Ability of 35%.
Is the wizard an elf? Because then moving silently would use a completely different system altogether for no reason (-4 to an opponent's surprise roll). :tongue:
True! Also, you'd use a completely different system if you were trying to sneak up on a sleeping Pegasus (making a ride flying creatures roll at a "+10 penalty"), or if your target was a dragon (I just.. don't know... that one is complicated).

But I was giving shadzar a softball, the simplest possible case of two characters who used the most common sneaking "systems" for him to explain how it was supposed to work. Which of course, he can't.

The thing is that Move Silently's effects are not defined in the game. What is supposed to happen is that you move at 1/3rd speed and make your Move Silently check, and if you succeed you get a bonus to not being detected. But what that bonus actually is is anyone's guess. It's specifically supposed to range from total immunity to being detected to no help at all depending on the situation. No numbers are given for any of this and it's not at all clear what roll you'd even be making that moving silently would be a bonus to.

-Username17
CCarter
Knight
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:41 pm

Post by CCarter »

Sashi wrote: I think the problem we're seeing with DnDn is that the design goals don't exist. Considering the blather that the dev team goes on about, it appears the only concrete design guideline that exists is "players should roll a d20 to accomplish stuff".
There are no design goals, only marketing goals..
I wish 'roll a d20 to accomplish stuff' was a concrete design guideline; they seem to hover on the edge of just rolling whatever, whenever with bits like skill dice, expertise dice/gladiator theme abilities and such.
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

Folks play E6, so 5 levels for the base class sounds perfect to begin with

then 5 more for your "lets call them PrC's"
...You Lost Me
Duke
Posts: 1854
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:21 am

Post by ...You Lost Me »

Wrong thread ogre.
DSMatticus wrote:Again, look at this fucking map you moron. Take your finger and trace each country's coast, then trace its claim line. Even you - and I say that as someone who could not think less of your intelligence - should be able to tell that one of these things is not like the other.
Kaelik wrote:I invented saying mean things about Tussock.
User avatar
shadzar
Prince
Posts: 4922
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:08 pm

Post by shadzar »

Voss wrote:why 4e is a better game than 2e with more options, as it can have sneaky wizards that stab sleeping ogres.
no it doesnt have more options, it has fake options, that confine players more than any other edition.

4th has MMO roles, and the "classes", rather roles are built within the MMO confines. if TTRPGers wanted to paly only the MMO way, they wouldn't play TTRPGs.

2nd had duties, not confined roles. the walking med-kit was forced onto players by stupid minmaxers and shit that thought the only thing the cleric should do was heal their dumb asses for having poor planning. in no way was the cleric jsut a replacement for the town NPC healer that you could return to. that was a player failure while 4th was a design failure.

you can have sneaky wizards in 2nd, as i mentioned, just they dont use some "sneak" skill, because everyone doesnt need this exact skill created for the pointless thief class. how many people have claimed that a thief is useless or their thief character was outdone by a wizard? well that proves a wizard can do everything a thief can, but being able to doesnt always mean SHOULD do it.

therein lies the problem with the stupid example Frank came up with. also the point of classes in a class-based system. each class does things their own way with how the class works. believe it or not, this is how some people like RPGs of all forms, rather than generic rules for everything and then a class is just some "keyword" slapped onto a set of data like in 4th.
Play the game, not the rules.
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Cyberzombie
Knight-Baron
Posts: 742
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 4:12 am

Post by Cyberzombie »

shadzar wrote: you can have sneaky wizards in 2nd, as i mentioned, just they dont use some "sneak" skill, because everyone doesnt need this exact skill created for the pointless thief class. how many people have claimed that a thief is useless or their thief character was outdone by a wizard? well that proves a wizard can do everything a thief can, but being able to doesnt always mean SHOULD do it.

therein lies the problem with the stupid example Frank came up with. also the point of classes in a class-based system. each class does things their own way with how the class works. believe it or not, this is how some people like RPGs of all forms, rather than generic rules for everything and then a class is just some "keyword" slapped onto a set of data like in 4th.
Frank didn't give an example, he asked a simple question. One that you still haven't answered.
User avatar
Bihlbo
Master
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:46 pm

Post by Bihlbo »

Cyberzombie wrote:
shadzar wrote: you can have sneaky wizards in 2nd, as i mentioned, just they dont use some "sneak" skill, because everyone doesnt need this exact skill created for the pointless thief class. how many people have claimed that a thief is useless or their thief character was outdone by a wizard? well that proves a wizard can do everything a thief can, but being able to doesnt always mean SHOULD do it.

therein lies the problem with the stupid example Frank came up with. also the point of classes in a class-based system. each class does things their own way with how the class works. believe it or not, this is how some people like RPGs of all forms, rather than generic rules for everything and then a class is just some "keyword" slapped onto a set of data like in 4th.
Frank didn't give an example, he asked a simple question. One that you still haven't answered.
It looks like he's trying to say "A thief uses the sneak skill to be sneaky and a wizard uses spells to get the same task accomplished, but that doesn't always mean he's tiptoeing through shadowed areas." But who knows? Shad might be replying to nine threads at once, spread across four years of memory for all the sense he makes.

There is a line of logic in my assumption though, even if Shadzar is talking about something else entirely. If your fighting man opens holes in skin with metal, he doesn't need to know how much fire makes a soul escape. If your bemagicked lass teleports through walls she doesn't need to know how much scuffling a dozey guard can hear or how to bypass a lock with tools.
Last edited by Bihlbo on Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
NineInchNall
Duke
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by NineInchNall »

Um, the point is that the Dex 15 wizard has a higher chance to sneak than the Dex 16 thief because they use different rule systems to go about it.

And that's retarded, so there's no way for shad to respond.
Current pet peeves:
Misuse of "per se". It means "[in] itself", not "precisely". Learn English.
Malformed singular possessives. It's almost always supposed to be 's.
Voss
Prince
Posts: 3912
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Voss »

shadzar wrote:
Voss wrote:why 4e is a better game than 2e with more options, as it can have sneaky wizards that stab sleeping ogres.
no it doesnt have more options, it has fake options, that confine players more than any other edition.

4th has MMO roles, and the "classes", rather roles are built within the MMO confines. if TTRPGers wanted to paly only the MMO way, they wouldn't play TTRPGs.
You're oversimplifying. The 4e cleric can sneak. And fight (and more consistently than a 2e cleric, who is pretty ineffective once he goes through his prepared combat spells (if any). I can't believe I'm even vaguely defending 4e, and I probably shouldn't bother, since I know you spout bullshit via ignorance.
2nd had duties, not confined roles. the walking med-kit was forced onto players by stupid minmaxers and shit that thought the only thing the cleric should do was heal their dumb asses for having poor planning. in no way was the cleric jsut a replacement for the town NPC healer that you could return to. that was a player failure while 4th was a design failure.
The 4e roles were taken from 2e. Warrior (with subclasses of fighter, ranger and paladin), Priest, Rogue, etc. They've been refined, both by MMO experiences, and tabletop rpg experiences, but they were taken by MMOs directly from 2e. 'Duties, not confined roles' is exactly true of 4e as well. You could focus any class into damage or scout, or whatever regardless of role. The class might not be all that functional at it, but it was possible.

Most of the negative aspects of 4e came from regressing to the simplified bullshit of 2e elements, and ignoring 20+ years of rpg development that were designed to overcome the shitty limitations of early D&D.
Last edited by Voss on Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
...You Lost Me
Duke
Posts: 1854
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:21 am

Post by ...You Lost Me »

NineInchNall wrote:Um, the point is that the Dex 15 wizard has a higher chance to sneak than the Dex 16 thief because they use different rule systems to go about it.

And that's retarded, so there's no way for shad to respond.
I would actually like to know how this works.
Seerow
Duke
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 2:46 pm

Post by Seerow »

...You Lost Me wrote:
NineInchNall wrote:Um, the point is that the Dex 15 wizard has a higher chance to sneak than the Dex 16 thief because they use different rule systems to go about it.

And that's retarded, so there's no way for shad to respond.
I would actually like to know how this works.
The Dex 15 Wizard would be told "Roll d20 get under your Dex" and have a 75% chance to succeed. The Dex 16 Rogue will be told "Roll your move silently" and thus gets a 35% chance to succeed.

At least that's my understanding.
User avatar
hogarth
Prince
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by hogarth »

Seerow wrote: The Dex 15 Wizard would be told "Roll d20 get under your Dex" and have a 75% chance to succeed. The Dex 16 Rogue will be told "Roll your move silently" and thus gets a 35% chance to succeed.

At least that's my understanding.
Other possibilities:
* Make it work like climbing, where an untrained PC is slightly worse than a level 1 thief.
* The ol' switcheroo: normal dungeon movement is moving silently (and slowly), and moving at a faster speed gives you a penalty on surprise (see Chapter 14 "Time and Movement: Movement" in the 2E PHB).
Voss
Prince
Posts: 3912
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Voss »

The most likely answers:
- fuck you, no.
- asspull something. This will likely be different each time it comes up.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Seerow wrote:
...You Lost Me wrote:
NineInchNall wrote:Um, the point is that the Dex 15 wizard has a higher chance to sneak than the Dex 16 thief because they use different rule systems to go about it.

And that's retarded, so there's no way for shad to respond.
I would actually like to know how this works.
The Dex 15 Wizard would be told "Roll d20 get under your Dex" and have a 75% chance to succeed. The Dex 16 Rogue will be told "Roll your move silently" and thus gets a 35% chance to succeed.

At least that's my understanding.
This indeed what would most probably happen. Technically, when a Thief makes their Move Silently check, they don't forfeit any other stealth options, and would thus probably be entitled by RAW to an additional Dex check on top of that. In practice, when a Thief fails a Move Silently check, DMs generally assume that they are heard and detected, thus losing out on the Dex check option.

Bottom line is that the actual mechanics of sneaking up on an unaware person do not exist, requiring the DM to asspull something every time. And DM's don't generally like to asspull a series of rolls, so they pretty much just make the player roll one thing. And thus, the character who has a higher Dex and actual Stealth abilities is generally less than half as likely to succeed at an actual sneaking challenge as is the supposed untrained character who is winging it.

Because untrained actions default to ability checks, which are generally more likely than not to succeed. While trained actions actually start with really terrible chances and improve by level. It actually takes a lot of levels before a character's trained abilities catch up with the rules for defaulting available at level 1.

And that is why Shadzar was completely unwilling to answer the question. Both because there really isn't a real RAW answer, and because the ad hoc kludge he would obviously use would produce results that are obviously retarded.

-Username17
CCarter
Knight
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:41 pm

Post by CCarter »

A logical answer might be: 'thieves move silently and easy circumstances (like sleeping target) give a bonus, a non-thief has base 0% but adds whatever bonus the thief would've gotten for a particularly easy task'.

But I'm not disagreeing with Frank; it is very possible an inept GM could give an ability check. Someone eventually noticed and put in a guidelines saying 'don't do that' but not until very late in the history of the edition - Skills and Powers (which also had non weapon proficiency scores that started low and increased with level, instead of using ability checks) mentions it.
User avatar
fbmf
The Great Fence Builder
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by fbmf »

In 2e, when my character failed a Move Silently check, the in joke was that he had suddenly dropped cooking ware. He was automatically detected.

There was no fallback to dex check.

Game On,
fbmf
fectin
Prince
Posts: 3760
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:54 am

Post by fectin »

hogarth wrote:
Sashi wrote:It still doesn't explain why game designers can't seem to do the math in secret in the background.
The whole idea of "doing the math" is flawed to begin with because 99% of the time the goals that game designers set are vague things like "the game should be fun to play" and not mathematically provable things like "a level 97 blastomancer armed with the Sword of Mork should be able to defeat an owlbadger 78.3% of the time".
THIS! This right here is the problem!

(With apologies to hogarth, but the thing he said is cancerous AIDS for design work)

Absolutely, design goals start out fluffy and insubstantial. If you don't derive no-shit requirements from them, you have fucked up.

There are a bunch of ways to do that, but the one I'm most familiar with is the "Systems Engineering V". Basically anything else which is halfway functional is a variation of it, so it's worth learning. Here goes:
1) Elict Needs. Figure out what you're building. Hopefully, this part is easy. "A car." "A toaster." "A space shuttle." " A new RPG."
2) Document Needs. Figure out your high-level user needs. This should be the list of key characteristics which make your product acceptable; if you get them, you succeed, otherwise you fail. For a new car, it's probably 30ish pages of requirements, for a new Dnd, I'd expect 10 pages. Generally, these should be what your widget does vice how it does them, but that's not a hard and fast rule.
3) Requirements Analysis/Derivation: write down a specification for something that fills those user needs. Every single line you write here should be definite, testable, and traceable back to a user need (i.e., user needs can be for "easy to play," functional requirements have to be for "no more than four mathematical operations for any resolution" or whatever). Check that your spec meets your user needs statement. For a car, this is probably a couple hundred pages; for DnD I would SWAG it as around 60. (The DoD also requires you to document how each requirement will be tested, which is generally good practice but not strictly necessary.)
4) Requirements Decomposition: Break your system into subsystems. E.g., 3E could have been something like classes, combat, spells, exploration, items, monsters. Each subsystem gets it's own subsystem spec. and interface spec. Check your traceability. There's wild variation in SSS lengths, but for DnD, using the subsystems I listed, I'd WAG them as averaging 30 pages. Same guideline as before on saying 'what' vice 'how'.
5) Realization/Implementation: Now you finally get to get down with your bad self. Design and build those subsystems to meet spec. Remember to have good configuration management, if only so that the classes group doesn't get surprised by the combat group radically redesigning every week. (This is often broken out to several different phases, but it doesn't have to be. Generally, those phases are roughly describe what your plan is, select hardware, and build your subsystem. That's more important if you have actual hardware).
That's the "down" side of the V. The rest is the upstroke.
6) Unit test: check that your subsystems meet your SSS, and that their interfaces are as advertised.
7) Integrate! Glom those subsystems together.
8) Verification: test that when your subsystems Voltron together, they form something which meets your functional spec.
9) Validation: test that you meet your user needs.
10) Package and Deploy.

For folks following along at home, you'll notice that Frank's instructions for RPG design don't match this, but that you could very easily map them to this process. As a rule of thumb, if you can't describe your design process in terms of what I wrote here, you don't have a design process. ("wish really hard" and the Feynman method do not count).

Saying that "99% of the time the goals that game designers set are vague things like "the game should be fun to play" " is either ignorance of proper design methods, or is an explicit indictment of that 99% of the time. There is no middle ground.
Vebyast wrote:Here's a fun target for Major Creation: hydrazine. One casting every six seconds at CL9 gives you a bit more than 40 liters per second, which is comparable to the flow rates of some small, but serious, rocket engines. Six items running at full blast through a well-engineered engine will put you, and something like 50 tons of cargo, into space. Alternatively, if you thrust sideways, you will briefly be a fireball screaming across the sky at mach 14 before you melt from atmospheric friction.
Voss
Prince
Posts: 3912
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Voss »

CCarter wrote:A logical answer might be: 'thieves move silently and easy circumstances (like sleeping target) give a bonus, a non-thief has base 0% but adds whatever bonus the thief would've gotten for a particularly easy task'.
What bonus? Are there circumstance bonuses for favorable conditions hiding somewhere in a random 2nd edition book?

Not to mention that any given thief can have anywhere between a 0% chance and 100% chance of hiding and/or moving silently. (you can definitely max both by level 5, but you could still have a 0% up into the teens. Or more bizarrely, 100% of one, and 0% of the other.


@fectin- yep, that is certainly a large part of the problem. They also convinced themselves they could replace large parts of the design process with opinion polls, in order to fill time and to back out of any responsibility ('This is what 'the customers' wanted, after all. They even said so, at least by aggregate').

I'm pretty sure the best thing for the IP (and RPGs in general) would be Hasbro deciding that the income from D&D is too trivial for their $4 billion company, and sell it off to some other sucker. But only after firing the entire staff, and publicly shaming them so they never work in the industry again.
User avatar
hogarth
Prince
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by hogarth »

fectin wrote:THIS! This right here is the problem!

(With apologies to hogarth, but the thing he said is cancerous AIDS for design work)

[..]

Saying that "99% of the time the goals that game designers set are vague things like "the game should be fun to play" " is either ignorance of proper design methods, or is an explicit indictment of that 99% of the time. There is no middle ground.
I haven't the foggiest idea whether you're violently agreeing with me or violently disagreeing with me.
fectin
Prince
Posts: 3760
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:54 am

Post by fectin »

You said people behave in a certain way. I said that behavior is bad.

Further, I said that there are only two valid opinions on that behavior: ignorance, or agreeing that it's bad.
Vebyast wrote:Here's a fun target for Major Creation: hydrazine. One casting every six seconds at CL9 gives you a bit more than 40 liters per second, which is comparable to the flow rates of some small, but serious, rocket engines. Six items running at full blast through a well-engineered engine will put you, and something like 50 tons of cargo, into space. Alternatively, if you thrust sideways, you will briefly be a fireball screaming across the sky at mach 14 before you melt from atmospheric friction.
User avatar
shadzar
Prince
Posts: 4922
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:08 pm

Post by shadzar »

FrankTrollman wrote:And that is why Shadzar was completely unwilling to answer the question. Both because there really isn't a real RAW answer, and because the ad hoc kludge he would obviously use would produce results that are obviously retarded.

-Username17
no, it is because i play D&D, not "RAW vs RAI".

the wizard has better things and other duties as part of the party than to sneak and shit. again, you miss the archetype design of pre-WotC editions. it isnt about telling every story about every idea out of left field, no matter how people describe D&D as the uber-generic RPG.

that may offend your sensibilities, but the fact remains you do not understand pre-WotC editions of D&D and what they were made for and are blaming them for you trying to do something wrong with them.

this is a problem as i have said in the past with the existence of the "thief" class, that prevents other things since everybody is a damn thief in the game already. as designed, incorrectly, the thief class has the duties it has. what did OD&D do for sneaking wizards in the absence of a thief class and only having fighting-men, magic-user, and cleric?

if you want to "kludge" something to let the wizard sneak, then you have to go back that far to remove the needless "thief" class, and build from there. Holmes, Gygax, Mentzer, Cook, Winter, etc; all fucked up by including a special class to emulate Bilbo Baggins.

so i dont answer anything really, because as i have said many times on this very forum the "thief" class shouldnt even exist in the first place. your initial question only proves the problem i have said many times and you disagreed with when i stated the thief class shouldnt exist. in the "RAW" the wizard doesnt have that duty the thief does. in the "RAI", you figure it out for yourself as the game is your, not TSRs nor WotCs.
Play the game, not the rules.
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
User avatar
deaddmwalking
King
Posts: 6061
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am

Post by deaddmwalking »

So wizards can never sneak if the thief exists as a class?

And if you remove the Thief, then (and only then) can the Wizard try to sneak?
User avatar
shadzar
Prince
Posts: 4922
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:08 pm

Post by shadzar »

deaddmwalking wrote:So wizards can never sneak if the thief exists as a class?

And if you remove the Thief, then (and only then) can the Wizard try to sneak?
well it goes back to why was a class for stealing shit needed when everything had treasure to begin with and you took it to upgrade yourself anyway in OD&D?

as long as the thief exists as a class in D&D then it will be designed for sneaky-sneak tactics as "rogue" group or class exists to make that the schtick. you would have to remove it from the game and design a way for the other classes to do it if you want something other than the wizard using magic. literally design some kind of sneak mechanic for all classes to use. otherwise well the thief exists to sneak and does it best.


it SHOULD be that the thief class isnt needed and that everyone can do MOST of his stuff commonly as per adventuring requires: sneaking, climbing, removing traps, etc. these are things that would need to be done by anyone. is Indian Jones a thief or fighter? Lara Croft? Merlin? King Arthur? the thief to emulate Bilbo Baggins specifically has been a failure of D&D since its inception.

"You are the burglar thief go burgle thieve something"
Play the game, not the rules.
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
User avatar
nockermensch
Duke
Posts: 1900
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:11 pm
Location: Rio: the Janeiro

Post by nockermensch »

shadzar wrote:
deaddmwalking wrote:So wizards can never sneak if the thief exists as a class?

And if you remove the Thief, then (and only then) can the Wizard try to sneak?
well it goes back to why was a class for stealing shit needed when everything had treasure to begin with and you took it to upgrade yourself anyway in OD&D?

as long as the thief exists as a class in D&D then it will be designed for sneaky-sneak tactics as "rogue" group or class exists to make that the schtick. you would have to remove it from the game and design a way for the other classes to do it if you want something other than the wizard using magic. literally design some kind of sneak mechanic for all classes to use. otherwise well the thief exists to sneak and does it best.


it SHOULD be that the thief class isnt needed and that everyone can do MOST of his stuff commonly as per adventuring requires: sneaking, climbing, removing traps, etc. these are things that would need to be done by anyone. is Indian Jones a thief or fighter? Lara Croft? Merlin? King Arthur? the thief to emulate Bilbo Baggins specifically has been a failure of D&D since its inception.

"You are the burglar thief go burgle thieve something"
shadzar, what the hell. You can't for one hand to ask people to roleplay "Bob, the human warrior" and for the other say that "the thief cannot exist if we want wizards sneaking". I'm pretty sure that even in the fucking Dungeons and Dragons cartoon Presto tip-toed his way around problems some times.

You can't wish that people roleplay their characters without caring for system mastery AND say that characters can't accomplish something that every human learns to do when they're five (walk slow and carefully to the cookie jar). Make up your mind!
@ @ Nockermensch
Koumei wrote:After all, in Firefox you keep tabs in your browser, but in SovietPutin's Russia, browser keeps tabs on you.
Mord wrote:Chromatic Wolves are massively under-CRed. Its "Dood to stone" spell-like is a TPK waiting to happen if you run into it before anyone in the party has Dance of Sack or Shield of Farts.
Post Reply