Boolean wrote:I was being slightly facetious - obviously the more obvious offensiveness is the completely unnecessary use of "gay" as a pejorative. But there's also the question of why it would be gay for the players to be fucked up the ass by horses. That only holds if the players are men.
The ponies are gay, not necessarily the players
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
Psychic Robot wrote:/tg/. Both are from /tg/, actually. There is much lulz to be had by reading edition war threads.
But the quote needs one more sentence, along the lines of "...and when someone says '5th Edition' has nothing to do with Dungeons and Dragons, you'll all say 'but 3rd Edition wasn't Dungeons and Dragons either, so that makes Bavarian gay horsefucking games ok'.
Last edited by Doom on Tue May 05, 2009 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You have something against getting fucked/fucking people in the ass?!
Maybe it was combining this wholesome activity with ponies? Everything's worse with horny ponies after all.
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.
Lago PARANOIA wrote:You have something against getting fucked/fucking people in the ass?!
If I was going to take offense at something in that rant that'd be it. People lobbing the word gay around isn't worth a mention. The implication that guys who receive are bad is pervasive and annoying. Mainly because even people who are otherwise decent, non-homophobic, pro-gay marriage sorts still act as if taking it is bad.
But lets face it, its a rant about a gay, horse sex rpg. Thats funny stuff, fuck looking for offense in it.
Genuine improvement: death HP equal to 1/2 your normal HP. Makes it so that being at 1 HP doesn't mean you're going to take a full attack and drop permanently.
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
Psychic Robot wrote:Genuine improvement: death HP equal to 1/2 your normal HP. Makes it so that being at 1 HP doesn't mean you're going to take a full attack and drop permanently.
That's only because enemy damage is pathetic. Otherwise you die anyways.
Kaelik, to Tzor wrote:
And you aren't shot in the face?
Frank Trollman wrote:A government is also immortal ...On the plus side, once the United Kingdom is no longer united, the United States of America will be the oldest country in the world. USA!
4E finally, finally got rid of the random hit point/level rule.
There was no reason for that to be in the game.
I don't know about you guys, but I actually like the fact that there's a lot more shifts, pushes, pulls, and slides in the game. Now granted, I don't like the fact that the game designers think that forced movement by itself makes an interesting power. Not at all. But it does open up a couple of nice tactical options. For example:
Wizard drops a ray of frost on an enemy, inflicting the 'slow' status for one round.
A sword and board fighter sees his chance and pushes them back two squares with Tide of Iron. Then he moves backwards out of charge/run reach.
See? It's a nice little tactic. It's not game-shaking or anything and it gets really old fast, but it could've been occasionally interesting if there were more things to do.
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.
Crimson Lancer wrote:getting rid of Racial Stat Penalties?
As long as there are racial bonuses, specifically ones that have narrow synergy with specific classes, you haven't actually changed a damn thing on that front.
So no, it isn't worth mentioning. Because it didn't really happen, you've just fallen for a bit of slight of hand.
They really didn't. There is an effective penalty for picking a build that doesn't match your two boosted stats, which locks races in even more thoroughly than they were before. Removing penalties just creates an illusion that you have real choices.
I agree on the basis that they screwed the internal math in the first place, yes. I'm probably just too used to my local group's houserules to fix WotC's mistake. Since we implemented it, playing a Race with no bonus to their main Attack Stat has made a 16 the norm, rather than really "needing" an 18 to be effective. :S
By RAW, however, that's an excellent point. I withdraw the question.
Many people say there will be a 4.5 as if that were a BAD thing.
After reading many of the excellent ideas in this Forum, I can't fucking WAIT for it. :S
Oh, yeah, the dragon wankery in 4th Edition has gone way done.
I can't tell you how much I enjoyed how 4E stuck a finger in the eyes of the dragon fanboys. Take that, bitches.
Though unfortunately those fuckers actually released a book about how awesome and cool dragons are before they released any material on half-orcs. So I should probably take that statement back.
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.
Lago PARANOIA wrote:Oh, yeah, the dragon wankery in 4th Edition has gone way done.
Other then making them as bland as everything else in the system what'd they do? My extremely cursory glance didn't reveal anything serious. And they're all solo bullshit hp bags, so they're still annoying to fight.
All the crap classes like Dragon Shaman have to my knowledge not been ported over yet. But they made Dragonborn core, and curb stomped gnomes and orcs to do it. So if anything, I'd say that dragons are more in your face than they used to be.
The true dragons don't have the [Awesome] subtype that breaks the game by being a specifically different difficulty than their CR would indicate. That's good I guess. But they do have the [Solo] subtype that breaks the game in a slightly different way. I mean, remember how less than 5% of the people who went through their preview adventure actually beat the dragon? And how those that did succeeded by accidentally raping the game with Sleep?
Yeah... that's the kind of basic low level playtesting that I would have assumed 4e would do. But they didn't. Solos were released untested, and Dragons all have the Solo tag. Or rather, they weren't untested, because they actually published playtesting battle reports bout how Dragon Solos took forever of grinding the same at-wills over and over again and the dragons ended up killing players anyway after long bouts of futility. That was fucking written up in their actual playtesting reports and they changed nothing.
Yeah... that's the kind of basic low level playtesting that I would have assumed 4e would do. But they didn't. Solos were released untested, and Dragons all have the Solo tag. Or rather, they weren't untested, because they actually published playtesting battle reports bout how Dragon Solos took forever of grinding the same at-wills over and over again and the dragons ended up killing players anyway after long bouts of futility. That was fucking written up in their actual playtesting reports and they changed nothing.
I'd like to see these playtesting reports.
Dragons are complete sissypants as far as high-level solos go in 4E. A Battlerager Fighter / Adamantine Soldier laughs in their face and just wails on the dragon until they die. And if they want to get serious about it then they pop Boundless Endurance.
Or a Tempest Fighter can just go supernova, ace the dragon in two rounds, say something cheesy about justice and walk off into the sunset.
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.
Well high level shit just wasn't playtested at all. You pull any epic crap that actually matters and you'll find that none of the epic monsters do.
But I'm talking the lower levels. Like the preview game. Or that one where they were sailing around releasing teasers of the campaign. In it they demonstrated that they think spending an hour talking in character as a dwarf fighter represents some sort of playtesting. But they also revealed that the fight between a 12th level party and the Adult Green Dragon dragged on for fucking ever and they even lost some people in like round fifteen or something ridiculous.
Okay, I take back what I said about dragon bullshit. Check out the young black dragon, page 75 of the MM.
Okay, standard stuff. AC is actually a bit high for the level. Most 4th level characters will have around a +10 attack bonus vs. AC, but whatever. The damage is actually kind of weaksauce for a solo monster; the At-Will barely does about 15 damage. But then--
Oh. Ohhhhh. Oh hell no. Look at this:
Cloud of Darkness, Standard, sustain minor, Recharge 4-6
Close Burst 2: this power creates a zone of darkness that remains in place until the end of the dragon's next turn. The zone blocks line of sight for all creatures except the dragon. Any creature entirely within the area (except the dragon) is blinded.
Okay, you stupid fuckers, how exactly will this NOT turn into a TPK?
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.
By the way, could you link to the playtest? I'd be... much obliged.
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.
Yeah, that cloud of darkness just doesn't make sense from a DnD4.0 design point of view.
"All ranged characters are now useless"...this is fun? And melee characters can't really hit the dragon in such a field with anything approaching reliability.
Yes, the party can retreat, but that 'sustain minor' means the dragon just has to sustain it a round or two until the recharge comes up.
Folks on the official forum told me a level 3 party should have no difficulty beating this thing...but the only way my party could is if I conveniently forgot the cloud of TPK power.
Kaelik, to Tzor wrote:
And you aren't shot in the face?
Frank Trollman wrote:A government is also immortal ...On the plus side, once the United Kingdom is no longer united, the United States of America will be the oldest country in the world. USA!
FrankTrollman wrote:Can't Wizards cancel Darkness as a minor action?
I mean, a Wizardless party simply automatically loses at life, but a Wizard Orb Gank Team does OK.
-Username17
Does Light actually cancel out magical darkness effects? It makes sense, but it's also actually useful which I'm sure 4E doesn't want cantrips to be.
The only other low level thing I can think of that actually says it removes zone effect is Dispel Magic but that's level six, a standard action, only a daily, and I don't actually see the spell popping up in character builds that often.
Last edited by sake on Wed May 20, 2009 5:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
It doesn't matter anyway since the dragon sustains the power as a minor action and refreshes it on a roll of 4 to 6.
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.
