Congratulations! Take whatever time you need. This your first? PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated. PPS: (d100=70) A troll. PPSS: I will roll for now, as the die roller on the forums currently changes the result every time the page is loaded. Not very useful, but deek has been wonderful in helping get it going and trying to fix the issue. P...S: I am sorry if my jest at 4th ed. was misinterpreted as anything else. I personally dislike 4th ed., but would never disparage others for their personal preferences.
Hehe what edition bashing? I think you misread the tone of voice (easy to do on a forum ), at least of me. But yeah, to state again: Hope I didn't offend you, or anyone. Was just casually thinking out loud.. in writing. And saying that so far 2nd edition is my favourite. Not that that's going to remain that way necessarily at all. But I am sure it's not bad to have an opinion What I meant with the creativity thing was cutting too many corners apparently. Maybe better phrased would be: "DM's who are new to DMming and start with 3rd edition seem to me in my very limited view to have bigger hurdles (not saying they're large, just bigger) in ignoring the ruleset and just going with their flights of creative imagination which results in things that need new rules to be made up or dice to be thrown as an objective decision-enforcer. The focus seems to have shifted, in my very limited view, from a focus on the story and the player interaction, with dice being used to decide on random occurences in a fixed creative cocreation, to a focus more on the possible actions and frameworks for those actions (rules). Therefore, new DM's will (statistically speaking, meaning averages over large populations) differ in behaviour and style from older DM's. I like the old style." Or something liked that, can't really be bothered too much as it's not important and I need to go to bed Goodnight! EDIT: O I just realized something (which seems to be pretty basically ALWAYS just after posting... why does my mind do this?): I am guessing there's more talk about 3rd edition vs 4th edition somewhere else in the universe that I am completely unaware of, and that may have influenced your reaction (for example, I couldn't fathom why you called it 'war', a very heavy term imo, but now I assume it's because there's much debate about this somewhere else). I am typing this edit to tell you I understand your reaction better now (although it's based on an assumption which may be false).
My problem with 4th ed isn't any of those things -- is that there's no longer any significant mechanical difference between the classes. They over-used the template, so to speak. Every edition of D&D has been getting more and more 'regularized', and to a point, that's a good thing -- but IMHO 4.0 jumped the shark that line a bit too dramatically. When the difference between a Wizard and a Warrior is that one has "spells" and the other has an identical list of abilities but they're called "strikes", that's just...lacking in cool.
Yeah, it can be easy to see that sort of homogeneity. (Means "sameness".) But you can find something like that in 3.x -- every character has skill ranks, feats, etc. Wizards have "spells", but clerics have "prayers". It's not exactly a compelling argument. Reason I'm saying that is, they clearly defined what each class should be doing for the party in combat, then took steps to make sure each class was able to do that job. Fighters are supposed to lock down enemies, and take a beating so that the rest of the group is safe. Wizards are supposed to change the battlefield, by summoning critters, adding hazards, or just wiping out lots of enemies at once. Clerics are the support, handing out bonuses and encouraging teamwork; rogues skirt around the fight, picking off critters one at a time. Sure, all of them have laundry lists of powers. But there are thematic differences: a wizard won't be able to take a beating, or force the big bad guy to only attack one guy. The fighter won't be hitting large areas at range, or leave persistent hazards lying around. Anyone who tries to play a cleric as a damage-dealer will fail miserably. Those who play up to their roles, and help the other players do theirs, tend a lot better. There's a major emphasis on teamwork and collaboration. Granted, some of the classes seem to have lost some of their old flavor. Wizards don't hoard scrolls or try to commandeer other wizards' spellbooks -- they won't benefit from it. Fighters have less emphasis on making multiple attacks. Clerics, thankfully, have it easier: they can heal at range, without giving up their chance to smite evil. Rogues are pretty much the same; sneaky, backstabby goodness. Heck, I've played a rogue who did more damage than anyone else in the party with a lowly dagger, and a 10 Strength. It was more like precision surgery than decapitation. One of the things they tried to do with each class is have them able to show off their shtick -- the thing that makes them unique -- at first level. There are several classes in 3rd Ed that have to gain several levels to really show off what they're made for. (I'm not going to name any names, like druids, 'cause that would be tacky.) Even in a role, the different classes feel, well, different. A fighter is "sticky" -- it's hard for enemies to get around him, or get away once he's near. A paladin, on the other hand, is more proactive (rather than reactive): he singles out the toughest enemy and challenges it. If the challenge is ignored, the enemy automatically takes damage. Range isn't a factor. Both classes say "pay attention to me or be punished", but they do it differently. The combat system really encourages teamwork. Unfortunately, if you get someone at the table that just doesn't get it -- the fighter who has no idea of tactics, or the rogue who won't hit 'em while they're down -- that one player can end up making it ten times harder for everyone else. When it works, it works great. When it doesn't, well, it's a disaster.
I like for a roleplay system to provide a somewhat fair and internally consistent way of determining random outcomes (like fights or searches). ... yeah, nothing more No constricting framework that has to be adhered to. No categorizing with loss of in-between. No emphasis on battle if it does not suit the story. The DM as story-guardian, as opposed to rule-knower and supplier of mobs. What I mean with the constricting framework for example: I expect more players that have come from the newer D&D rules then those who started with first or second edition to have a problem with a DM who just says: "well just try to run past and I'll check on your Dex if you can run past them like a rugby player". I expect players will tell stories to the DM about flatfootedness and attacks of opportunity, instead of going "o wow, I hope I make it!". About the categorisation: What about creatures who're small-and-a-half? Suddenly don't exist anymore? Also, what if I want to play a damage dealing cleric? About emphasis: Yes, it's up to a DM, I am sure diplomatic sessions and discovering clues etc are still very possible, but if you print books filled with 99% combat-related stuff (I am not saying they do, since I haven't read them, simply using the IF -> THEN statement which says nothing about the IF-condition's value) you're not exactly inviting many to ditch combat. Now then does come the statement about the IF-condition: It seems to me that the IF-condition is closer to being fulfilled now as opposed to how it was. Valuing what there is at the moment is no problem at all. And neither is valuing what once was. The problem is being created the moment you mistakenly think these two cannot peacefully coexist.
The important thing to note here is that all of the rules are really just a set of guidelines on how to be a god, and build an internally consistent universe. The world your characters exist in is created as we go by the 6 of us, with me supplying the things you are reacting to and interacting with. All those numbers just represent the math that exists in the world already. And as for your IF-> THEN, I agree with it to a point. If that type of book (and I am not saying that the 3.0-3.5 material is like that) is the first and only exposure a group has, then they are likely to emphasize combat over non-combat adventures. But as a DM, I find that it is important to introduce first yourself, then your group to other concepts and play styles. Some games emphasize combat, like later D&D editions. Other games emphasize intrigue and diplomacy, like V:tM. This game will not just be a dungeon crawl. There are other adventurers in here, as well as things yet to be seen that will change the pace and style of this game. This game is based on the source material, but you have already seen it expand farther then the scope of the original source. It will only grow from here.
Somehow all DM's I ever play with have this exact same attitude.. EDIT: and yeah, sounds very good ^^
Its a DM thing. At its core, the job has 2 descriptions that tie in together. 1, to provide a rich, full, and exiting world for the players to, well, play in. 2, to send wave after wave of challenges at them, with the intention of pushing them to the brink of annihilation, just so they can push back and overcome the odds. It is a delicate balance, but fun to do. Really, I provide the world and you drive the story.
Is there enough space for both Berz and I to fight the mysterious creature at the same time if we move up to the door ?
well it seems we both rushed inside the room which has plenty of space. So you got all the space to chop at thin air with me if you want to ! Yo, this is FUN ! Edit: My apologies for having a lunatic character Berz. If you want to listen you might have to smack him in the back of the head a lil bit. He might not be happy but me as a player approves.
brobbeh: "A necromancer with that!" What does that mean? With what? Is it one of those weird english idioms?
