deganawida

Did you mean "Kingdom"? I'm only asking because the more I hear about your homebrew the more intrigued I become, and if it is "Kingsom", then I'd like to know what that means and how it is important within the world. As for the topic at hand, I picked "Other". For D&D worlds, my current fave is Eberron, followed by a tie between Planescape and Birthright. These three CS's are the most logical and best developed IMO. For novel worlds, I enjoy many; ME is, of course, my favorite, though I also enjoy Midkemia (Feist), the world of the Wheel of Time (though I'm disgusted with Jordan's last five or six novels, not including Winter's Heart), the world of the Belgariad (David Eddings--not the best fantasy, but entertaining), Charles de Lint''s Newport, the world of the "Cups and Sorcery" trilogy (a nice satire/parody with rich detail created and written by Greg Costikyan), the world of Kami Dan'shiir (by Joel Rosenberg), the earth of Terry Brooks' "Word and Void" trilogy, Langkmar (sp?), Tanelorn (and all the multiverse), the world of Tad Williams' "Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn", and the world of J. Gregory Keyes' Waterborn and Blackgod novels. I think that's it. Oh, one last thing, Star Wars does classify as fantasy, because it has magic (the Force) which cannot be explained by the science of the stories.

Um, no. You see, this thread has become skill/mana-based magic vs. Vancian magic, and hasn't for two pages had much to do with DA or NWN2 at all. Would I like WotC to adopt some of these ideas for 4.0? You bet. Do I expect them to do it now, or allow it for NWN2? Not at all.

No, but my Spellcraft-based sysytem has worked well for three years and running.

Sorry, I had my tea come out of my nose, I was guffawing so badly. DnD is NOT balanced. Is 3.x more balanced than previous versions? Yes, but that does not mean that it is balanced.

No, Volourn, it actually is a sacred cow. It is one of those things that the designers of 3E stated would not be significantly changed as it was "integral" to D&D. Further, D&D magic is horrible. Why? Because it is horribly unbalanced. In order to make up for the limited spell use of the magic users in D&D, spells were introduced and designed to give the wizard, cleric, etc. tremendous power. Don't believe me? Then let's take a look at the simplest, most popular D&D spell: Magic Missle. Magic Missle casts a missle of Force which automatically does 1d4+1 point of damage (to a maximum of 5). This is a spell which never misses. No attack roll is made, nor is a Spellcraft check required. Armor has no effect on a Magic Missle, and there is no save Find me a Fighter who never misses. Second, it is a Force effect, which means that it is one of the very few things that can effect Ethereal beings. Now, Volo, I'm sure you're scratching your head right now, thinking, "Howd oes this aaply to the D& Dspell evel issue?" Well, it's fairly simple: the spells only get more and more powerful as the spell level increases. Take a look at spells like Fireball; not many (if any) warriors can do 10d6 worth of damage in a round to all enemies in a 20ft radius. And that's just a 3rd level spell! What about the higher spells? Finger of Death requires a save; if you pass, you just take massive damage, if you fail, you die. Do other, non-spellcasting classes have this cabability? Nope. Shapechange is one of the most ungodly spells that I have ever seen, giving wizards a versatiliity unmatched by any other class. You see, the problem with the current D&D spell system is that spells have to be made more powerful to compensate for the fact that spellslingers only get so much to use per day. This power issue increases exponentially with each spell level, to the point that a 20th level wizard, cleric, or druid is substantially more powerful and infinitely more versatile than any other 20th level class (or even most of those classes once they go epic). That inbalance is symptomatic of the spell level system; if, for example, wizards received a mana pool (or had to make a Spellcraft, which is my preferred solution), then there would be no need for a 1st level spell that always hit, allowed no save, inflicted 1d4+(1->5) points of damage per missile (up to five), and which could hit ethereal creatures. Why? Because they'd be able to cast more, less powerful spells, and would not be totally combat-heavy (or utility-heavy, depending). Moving to a mana-based or skill-based system for magic would go a long way to balancing D&D.

Sacred cow. Same reason that the ranger still gets two-weapon fighting and spells, and the fighter is still the only class that gets worse as it increases in power. I say, slaughter the sacred cows and hold a barbeque for a D&D that makes complete sense.

FR is the definition of "generic and dull".

Well, I don't know how the plot for DA will be, but it will make more use of the "prologues" for the story. Bioware has stated that, depending on what kind of background you pick for your character, the first chapter will be significantly different (different plot points, NPCs, and encounters, not just NPC reactions), and there will be differences throughout the rest of the game to reflect your background. This, to me, is a really neat concept, and should increase replayability. Heck, if even just the first chapter is different, then that's a selling point to me.

Sentinel. One less feat than Guardian, 3 SP/level, and special class ability more useful than the Guardian's. That said, I still play Guardian.

There's a dialog chain that you can only get with T3-M4 with an Int. of 16 or greater and a high Computer Use. It involves a holo of Bastilla (at least that's the one that I got) ordering T3 to find a Jedi if Revan leaves. T3 comes looking for you as part of his programming.

Look, there's no real way to judge. At the end of KotOR2, the Exile is far stronger than Revan, and Kreia acknowledges him as her greatest student. However, the question needs to be asked if this was due to his cipher ability or if before his final confrontation with Kreia he manages to put Malachor V behind him and heal himself. If this is the case, then, yes, he is stronger. If he did not, then I would say no. Master Vrook called the Exile a "mediocre Jedi" before the Mandalorian Wars, intimating that the Exile was not very strong in the Force and/or not particularly dedicated to the Jedi's teachings. Of course, this could just be Vrook talking, so take it with a grain of salt. If Vrook was right, than the Exile is the weaker one, with Revan the stronger. However, comparing Force strength is really a fruitless exercise. Throwing out Force strength as a comparison, I would say that the Exile is the stronger. Why? Several reasons. First, he broke with Revan after the Mandalorian Wars. He was the only Jedi who went to fight with Revan and not be corrupted by Revan. This means that he has an incredible will power, which leads me to my second point. The Exile is the only Jedi ever to cut himself off from the Force, which is something that should be impossible according to all that the Jedi of KotOR2 know. Yet, he managed to do it, and still lived. This extremely powerful will that the Exile has leads me to believe that, if he and Revan were to do battle for some odd reason, the Exile would win, simply because through his will he'd be able to do the impossible. Perhaps a better question would be, who would you rather trust to save your skin? The brilliantly tactician and powerful Force Sensitive Revan, or the very good tactician (he was a general under Revan, and actually receives praise from Mandalore for his deeds) and able to do the impossible Exile? I'd pick the Exile, myself.

Precisely. For the three games prior I had played as Solid Snake, and all the reviews, trailers, and etc. made it seem as though I would play as Solid Snake in MGS2. Then, lo and behold, two hours into the game I'm behind the controls of a whining Nelson twins wannabe. Add to that the ridiculous conspiracy theory of the game and even more ridiculous villains, and it is easy to see why I hate Raiden. 'Course, he got his just desserts in Snake Eater. Heh, Volgin's little "love muffin"...

IBC Cream Soda. The nectar of the gods!

Do you mean that effete Solid Snake "substitute" that Hideo Kojima tried to pass off as the protagonist of MGS2?

Yeah, the version that I had was Civilization: Call to Power.

Sounds a lot like WoD, to me. 'Course, I'd pay good money for a good Mage game.

Amen, brother Visc, amen. 'Course, she is a bit of a toothpick.

The valid version of Windows is correct; as for IE, I don't know. I dl'ed using Firefox, and never use IE (I know it's impossible to get rid of, but I've done as much as I can). It also won't work on anything less than 2000.

Link.

Hey, I just gave this thing a try. It's pretty good! It got some spyware (mostly IncrediMail type stuff from before I used this PC) that Ad-aware SE couldn't nab. Anyone else give it a shot yet, or going to try?

Call to Power 1 was pretty good. I played the heck out of that game. CTP 2, however, was just a stripped down CTP1 repackaged and wih better graphics. Never tried Civ 3, as CTP2 killed any potential enjoyment from any more Civ games for me. AC was great, and I would definitely buy a sequel that maintained the fun, ingenuity, and spirit of the original.

Yeah, that's how I felt as well. That said, have to disagree with both of you in that I would like to play as the Exile again; I found him to be a much more compelling character than Revan. Revan, after all, is great at everything, and never has to work hard to achieve anything. The Exile, however, , and yet becomes something greater than perhaps even Revan (if the others are wrong about him). Further, the emphasis placed on the Exile and the way that the story of KotOR2 was told made me both identify with and care for the Exile more than I ever did for Revan. Plus, it would be nice to get the answers to some questions. Biig Spoiler Below! DO NOT Highlight Unless You Want To Be Spoiled!

I think that she was lying through the whole game. I give my reasoning here.

That was an argument that I made, but some people on various boards (most of whom I consider internet friends) argued that it was D&D in general, not just licensed products. As for including it without support, sure, that 's what I've done for quite a while. However, to some, it isn't "officially supported" unless it's mentioned explicitly in rulebooks or sourcebooks. Also, personally, I've never found much maturity in characters arbitrarily buying drugs or frequenting brothels ("If there are any girls there I want to do them!"), but in dealing with situations that are a lot less black and white, or, if there is a black and white aspect to them, picking the white can lead to dire consequences (instead of the usual, "oh, you're such a good person, let us heap treasure upon you"; I'm a big fan of doing good requiring sacrifice).

Not that long ago, there were numerous cries that Wizards of the Coast was determined to remove any mature elements from D&D, reducing it to a "comic book" sensibility where bad guys were always moustache-twirling melodramatic fools, no good guy ever did bad things, and issues such as slavery, drug abuse, and prostitution would be relegated to vague "bad things" that campaigns were to avoid or the WotC police would show up and confiscate your rulebooks. Well, I disagreed with such claims, and argued vociferously against those who made those arguments. Now, I feel vindicated. I just picked up Sharn: City of Towers this evening, and have given it a cursory look. For those who don't know what this is, Sharn is the major city and first sourcebook for the Eberron campaign setting. So why is this important? Well, for one thing, beginning on page 14 the book details the various "companionship" services available in Sharn, with particular emphasis on the red light districts and prostitution. Let's see, an evening in the Dragonseyes bordello costs only 8 cp! w00t! On the very next page (15 for those not good at math), in a sidebar entitled "Crime Doesn't Pay?", you are given the rates that you can expect for theft, assassination, fencing, etc., all for PC use. When you take a look later in the book at the section which details PC options (making this the one chapter completely open to your players), you find a listing of all major drugs in Sharn, with their cost, "beneficial effects", and rate of addiction. These are just 3 examples of some of the things available in the sourcebook that throw cold water on the "never again will we tackle complex moral/ethical/gray issues in DnD" arguments. These are just the first 3 that I noticed; there's tons more stuff like this scattered throughout the book. So, what does this mean? Well, it means that at least the Eberron campaign setting supports campaigns were the protagonists can be drug-using, prostitute-frequenting characters who make their livings by committing crimes (which seems to be most people's definition of a "mature" game). Or, it means that you can have a campaign where your good-and-true paladin might have a secret additction to Blue Dragons' Blood, where your party may, due to poor finances, find it more lucrative to act as a mini-thieves guild, or where your cleric might not have a problem with joining you at the Dragonseyes for an orgy or two as celebration for a victory won, or where your players are modeled after Sam Spade and Parker (Porter for those who've seen Payback)and still be supported by the setting. So, does this book offer mature options for players and not just NPC's? I think the answer is an overwhelming "yes". So, for those of you who lamented not long ago the "death of maturity" in DnD, rejoice, for you can now have your gray characters and/or stories.