Zero Buzz on 5E...Is It Dead Out The Gate?

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:32 pm

weapons are one size for all, no giant sized axes for giants, or halfling sized mauls.

Korwin · Post by **Korwin** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 9:20 am

virgil wrote:
Korwin wrote:Dont you know there is no D&D after AD&D?
That still doesn't make the "damn weeaboo thesaurus" accusation any less stupid. You don't need high-falutin' book smarts to the school of magic match the name of its own specialist. Even then, negging anyone involved in D&D for use of synonyms is just...what? This is a game that included four distinct variations on the guisarme along with its plethora of polearms and the random harlot table.

Well, yes. But you are arguing with shadzar...
So not making sense is normal.

zugschef · Post by **zugschef** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:09 am

virgil wrote:Are you retarded?

Are you seriously asking shadzar this question?

Ferret · Post by **Ferret** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 6:38 pm

was Shocking Grasp a cantrip in 4e?

Does magic missile actually fire 3x packets at lvl 1? What's the scaling beyond that? +1/lvl, +1/odd level have been bandied about on various fora.

Parthenon · Post by **Parthenon** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 6:50 pm

Ferret wrote: have been bandied about on various fora.

Did you just... why the fuck would you use "fora" as the plural of forum. Please tell me you made a typo or are being 'ironic', rather than actually thinking that "fora" is a reasonable term to use.

Fwib · Post by **Fwib** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:09 pm

You're not suggesting that there is one true way to spell all words and that all others are wrong, are you?

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:22 pm

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fora

It's fora if we're speaking Latin, or if we're being generous, using it in the context of public speaking.

Though really, fully assimilated words like 'forum' should follow the rules of English and not that of the old language. If it's a Latin neuter that's either not assimilated or predominantly used in scientific context, I can see the argument for retaining the Latin rules; like using bacterium, datum, or agendum.

It is a living language, however, so getting overly particular shouldn't happen. Remember the whole "ain't ain't a word" business?

Fwib · Post by **Fwib** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:34 pm

I accept your explanation of the datums.

momothefiddler · Post by **momothefiddler** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:42 pm

English steals words from other languages on a regular basis. I don't even worry about that any more. That's why I'm okay with stealing a word (forum) and then pluralizing it in the English way (forums) OR just stealing the plural from the original language (fora). What I'm not fine with is taking a word and pluralizing it in a third language before bringing it into English (octopi).

Fwib · Post by **Fwib** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:44 pm

Octopuses? Octopodes? [edit]octopusies! [edit2]*remembers this is not the subject of the thread, apologises for derailing, stops.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:45 pm

Ferret wrote:was Shocking Grasp a cantrip in 4e?

Does magic missile actually fire 3x packets at lvl 1? What's the scaling beyond that? +1/lvl, +1/odd level have been bandied about on various fora.

Shocking grasp was a level 1 encounter power I believe. I don't think there's any at-will touch attacks for 4e wizards, everything is projectiles and blasts.

momothefiddler · Post by **momothefiddler** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:49 pm

Fwib wrote:Octopuses? Octopodes?

Both are fine, yes. But good point. I too shall stop derailing.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 8:11 pm

Data is a word that is both singular and plural. "Datum" isn't an English word in general use at all. You can say "The data shows that you're an asshole," and while some assholes will get mad at you for saying it, it's actually technically correct.

The Wall Street Journal wrote:Most style guides and dictionaries have come to accept the use of the noun data with either singular or plural verbs, and we hereby join the majority.

As usage has evolved from the word's origin as the Latin plural of datum, singular verbs now are often used to refer to collections of information: Little data is available to support the conclusions.

Merriam-Webster's wrote:Data leads a life of its own quite independent of datum, of which it was originally the plural. It occurs in two constructions: as a plural noun (like earnings), taking a plural verb and plural modifiers (as these, many, a few) but not cardinal numbers, and serving as a referent for plural pronouns (as they, them); and as an abstract mass noun (like information), taking a singular verb and singular modifiers (as this, much, little), and being referred to by a singular pronoun (it). Both constructions are standard. The plural construction is more common in print, evidently because the house style of several publishers mandates it.

-Username17

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 8:35 pm

"Data" is more common primarily because "datum" is almost never used. In much the same way, we refer to hair more often than hairs, but they (correctly) retain distinct meanings.

But above and beyond that, the meaning was clear; criticizing someone's playful use of words in a word-based meduim makes you look deeply silly.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 9:17 pm

For all the discussion of words and languages and such: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=55427

Krusk · Post by **Krusk** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 9:49 pm

https://twitter.com/christulach/status/ ... 2316247040

Organized play guy said something about THAC0 being a variant rule in the DMG. Can't find the original quote (Heard it from a friend of a friend), but this is the best legit reference to it I can find.

yay.......

rasmuswagner · Post by **rasmuswagner** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:31 pm

Krusk wrote:https://twitter.com/christulach/status/ ... 2316247040

Organized play guy said something about THAC0 being a variant rule in the DMG. Can't find the original quote (Heard it from a friend of a friend), but this is the best legit reference to it I can find.

yay.......

FUUUUUCK that's some grade-A stupid.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:32 pm

Isn't THACO mathematically equivalent to the system in 3e and 4e, just with the numbers expressed in a confusing way?

Krusk · Post by **Krusk** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:34 pm

RadiantPhoenix wrote:Isn't THACO mathematically equivalent to the system in 3e and 4e, just with the numbers expressed in a confusing way?

Yes.

The only argument I've ever heard to keep it that wasn't "I love the 80's" was "It keeps people who are dumb from playing the game". This is not a good argument.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:49 pm

Krusk wrote:
RadiantPhoenix wrote:Isn't THACO mathematically equivalent to the system in 3e and 4e, just with the numbers expressed in a confusing way?
Yes.

The only argument I've ever heard to keep it that wasn't "I love the 80's" was "It keeps people who are dumb from playing the game". This is not a good argument.

I was trying to argue, "it's not a houserule, it's the same rule written a different way"

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 12:58 am

But "it keeps people who are dumb from playing the game with me" does have a certain appeal...

I'm more concerned about this DMG-as-hackers'-guide idea than I am about thac0 though.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:00 am

RadiantPhoenix wrote:
Krusk wrote:
RadiantPhoenix wrote:Isn't THACO mathematically equivalent to the system in 3e and 4e, just with the numbers expressed in a confusing way?
Yes.

The only argument I've ever heard to keep it that wasn't "I love the 80's" was "It keeps people who are dumb from playing the game". This is not a good argument.
I was trying to argue, "it's not a houserule, it's the same rule written a different way"

yes BAB is THACO just with AC going up not down, and a limit to AC @ around -12.

Some people have no need for ascending AC jsut for the sake of bigger numbers, because math works in both systems as they are the same.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:08 am

I certainly don't need to have math nicely laid out for me, but I certainly prefer it, as does anyone not needing to show off their basic arithmetic skills.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:20 am

I'm pretty sure 99% of the things people love can be described with a sentence that begins "it's not something I need, but..."

I don't need blowjobs, but...

rampaging-poet · Post by **rampaging-poet** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:57 am

shadzar wrote: yes BAB is THACO just with AC going up not down, and a limit to AC @ around -12.

Some people have no need for ascending AC jsut for the sake of bigger numbers, because math works in both systems as they are the same.

You don't need descending AC to have a hard cap. There's nothing wrong with saying "the highest possible Armour Class is 32," which results in easier math and a hard limit on the difficulty of hitting creatures. 3rd edition D&D didn't cap AC (partially due to increased to-hit bonuses compared to prior editions), but that doesn't mean THAC0 is the only way to implement an AC cap.