JRRNeiklot

Well, not every trans person has the same opinion on this topic either you know.. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/269735/Opinion_The_Siege_of_Dragonspear_drama_and_the_video_game_community.php Well, then why it is an outrageous surprise, that non-trans people might have different oppinions about this matter as well? *mind blown* The differing opinions are not a surprise, and I didn't even say that they were... But considering the actual content in question (three lines by the TG character, and a line by minsc) what has surprised me is how soft skinned some people are, and the extent that they will go to try and bash the game (while not actually talking about the game) and even destroy the livelihoods of the people who created it No one gives a **** about the tranny. It's the whole leftist propaganda. The line by Minsc, every line by Safana, Jaheira, Viconia, or Corwin. The refugee dialogue - hell, pretty much every line of text pushes some real world agenda and forces the player to accept the SJW opinion. Accept the poor refugees, accept the theft of your gold, it went to a good cause. I also enjoyed being called a racist. How they let one feminazi destroy such a classic game is beyond me.

Sure, but your damage output didn't scale inversely to your ability to TAKE damage. The fighter has always been the best damage dealer, outside of AOE effects. Now my fghter has to just sit there and take it up the ass while some squishy that dies from a spitball gets all the glory. May as well be playing WoW. What? No, that's crazy. Magic (and psionic users) have been out-damaging fighters and barbarians at max level for decades in D&D, both AoE and single target, and it holds true in a large chunk of western RPG's that are based on a Tolkien/D&D style setting. It's actually part of the reason 4th Ed ended up like it did; they were trying to undo decades of screwing the physical combatants and make them actually worthwhile all the way through to level 20. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards Really? A first level fighter with a long sword and an 18 strength in D&D does 1d8+2 damage. A wizard does 1d4+1 with a magic missile. At 7th level, the fighter gets an extra attack, for a possible 2d8+2, the wizard can do 4d4+4, about even, but the wizard can only keep that up a maximum of 4 times a day. The fighter can double that output with a decent dex. You make me laugh. Until 3e, magic users were NEVER king of the hill. Sure, they have meteor swarm, but it took 2 rounds to cast and a three year old with a rock could interrupt it. I've seen that trope, and while it's humorous, it's a spheric cow. In a vacuum, wizard are very powerful, but in reality most of their spells take too long to cast to be that useful in combat. 3e did away with casting times and 4e just turned every one into a magic user. Yeah this isn't how you play D&D. And there's quite a bit of middle ground between meteors and a level one magic missile spell.... like, oh say fireball. At 7th level like your fighter it's a whopping 7d6 damage in a 40' diameter sphere. In 2e Wizards were gods. And how many times can your wizard cast said fireball? Also, a sword swing cannot be interrupted. Come play in my game. Wizards are excellent, but very far from gods, even at high levels.

Lol, the combat is the ONLY thing good about DOS, though I admit the spells could use some work.

There's a difference between hard and no fun. I know how the game works. I can build a party and play just fine. What I can't do is have any fun doing it.

So how much time does a standard action take? It's abstract and never stated, because it can't be interrupted by any means other than on-going damage, or a readied action. Even then you get a concentration check that is relatively easy to make most of the time. Anyway, my point was 3e and beyond, make it really easy on casters. It is very hard to interrupt a spell. In AD&D, you can't even use your dex bonus to dodge an attack. You can't cast on horseback, nor even move 5 feet and cast a spell. If you get hit by anything between the time you start your spell and you finish it, I.E., casting time, the spell is gone. No concentration check, just gone. Casters may rule the roost in 3e, but it's not so in previous editions. In 4e, everyone's a caster. Anyway, this debate is cluttering up the thread, and I apologize for that. I'll stick to the topic at hand.

Although casting time is listed as optional in 2e, I don't ever remember it ever NOT being used. Casting time is listed in the description of every spell, after all. Admittedly, I only played 2e for a year or so before we ran screaming back to 1E, other than at a couple dozen cons.

3rd edition spells have casting times of one action or one round, excepting maybe a very few spells. Pre 3e spells have casting times of segments. One segment is 6 seconds. This allows for interrupting spells and kept magic users from being gods. In 3e, spells are almost never interrupted because you had to ready an action to do so and you were almost always better to take your normal actions. Don't call me crazy and blame it on house rules until you've actually read the rules. Which is...you know...*not* the same thing as "doing away with casting times". I exclusively play sorcs and various types of wizards in 3rd Edition. Tracking your casting time and manipulating your actions etc. is a very important part of that game--and as a caster you have to pay more attention to it than most. Again, I have read the rules. My PHB is open and in front of me right now. You were wrong. Rather than attack me, just admit that you were wrong and that part of your argument is invalid. I haven't attacked you, and I am not wrong. I just pointed out that in PRE 3e rules (for the reading impaired, that means editions before, um, 3E), casters weren't nearly as powerful. Regardless, I wasn't talking about 3e, but since you asked...one action is not a casting time. It means it takes a standard action to use. Since it's instantaneous, it can't be interrupted without readying an action. There are FULL action spells as well, but they take no time either, they just take your action and your movement, sans a five foot step. There are a very few full round spells that can be interrupted. Mostly summoning spells.

3rd edition spells have casting times of one action or one round, excepting maybe a very few spells. Pre 3e spells have casting times of segments. One segment is 6 seconds. This allows for interrupting spells and kept magic users from being gods. In 3e, spells are almost never interrupted because you had to ready an action to do so and you were almost always better to take your normal actions. Don't call me crazy and blame it on house rules until you've actually read the rules.

That had to be pretty cool. You have no idea. Words can't describe how cool.

Play BG1 and 2, then if you really want the experience of POE, go drink an Ebola laced Milkshake and save some money and suffering.

That's not truth. That's your opinion, which is wrong. I'm 46 and I played D&D with Gary Gygax as the dm. If they had stuck to ANY edition of D&D before 4th as inspiration, the game would have been wonderful. Why they stuck to the least liked version of D&D EVER as a template is beyond me.

Uhh. Here, have two level 10 fighters. Now go fight Firkraag. Good luck. Here, have a level 10 wizard and level 10 cleric. If it takes you more than 6 rounds or so and you're taking damage, you're doing something wrong. Wizard gets one shotted (two shotted with stoneskin) and cleric stands there useless for a while, then dies. The fighters will last a bit longer, but same result. If you're killing any dragon, other than a hatchling, with 2 level 10s, the dm is handing it to you. Protection from fire and stoneskin will only last so long. You have to actually hurt the dragon.

Save your money.

Attack speed is listed as slow, average, or fast. I can't find anything that explains how fast "slow" is, however.

Depends on the situation. For AOE, sure. For save or dies, yep. For single target. not even close. And after spell level 3 or 4, casting times for most spells are so long, those spells only get cast in optimum circumstances. I wish I had a dollar for every time one of my casters tried to cast a high level spell just to get it ruined. Example: Wizard begins to cast Bigby's grasping hand. Initiative, wizard rolls a 6 (the best possible result), bad guy rolls a 1 (worst possible result). Wizard adds casting time (7 segments) . Bad guy adds weapon speed of a +1 dagger (1). Bad guy goes first, wizard's spell is interrupted. The wizard has to actually roll a 4 or higher just to get that particular spell off in the same round he started it. It's so easy to disrupt, it's not even funny. The wizard can't even use his dex bonus to dodge an attack, that alone will ruin the spell. This trope of wizards ruling the roost is perpetrated by people who never played the by the rules.

All things being equal, which does the most damage? I'm unsure how I want to go with my fighter. Thanks.

Sure, but your damage output didn't scale inversely to your ability to TAKE damage. The fighter has always been the best damage dealer, outside of AOE effects. Now my fghter has to just sit there and take it up the ass while some squishy that dies from a spitball gets all the glory. May as well be playing WoW. What? No, that's crazy. Magic (and psionic users) have been out-damaging fighters and barbarians at max level for decades in D&D, both AoE and single target, and it holds true in a large chunk of western RPG's that are based on a Tolkien/D&D style setting. It's actually part of the reason 4th Ed ended up like it did; they were trying to undo decades of screwing the physical combatants and make them actually worthwhile all the way through to level 20. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards Really? A first level fighter with a long sword and an 18 strength in D&D does 1d8+2 damage. A wizard does 1d4+1 with a magic missile. At 7th level, the fighter gets an extra attack, for a possible 2d8+2, the wizard can do 4d4+4, about even, but the wizard can only keep that up a maximum of 4 times a day. The fighter can double that output with a decent dex. You make me laugh. Until 3e, magic users were NEVER king of the hill. Sure, they have meteor swarm, but it took 2 rounds to cast and a three year old with a rock could interrupt it. I've seen that trope, and while it's humorous, it's a spheric cow. In a vacuum, wizard are very powerful, but in reality most of their spells take too long to cast to be that useful in combat. 3e did away with casting times and 4e just turned every one into a magic user.

I'm forced into a stupid aggro mechanic, and I'm forced into having some kind of a tank. Putting that kind of armor on my characters again, affects their damage. You're suggesting I have multiple tanks instead of one tank.

Sure, but your damage output didn't scale inversely to your ability to TAKE damage. The fighter has always been the best damage dealer, outside of AOE effects. Now my fghter has to just sit there and take it up the ass while some squishy that dies from a spitball gets all the glory. May as well be playing WoW.

I agree with the original poster. The IE games never enforced an mmo tank/healer/dps mechanic. You could play with 5 wizards or 5 fighters or 5 clerics or 5 thieves. For some reason Obsidian decided to base a game on the most reviled version of D&D ever. I know 4e has its fans, but in a few years it will be dedicated to the dust bin next to Highlander 2. Too bad, really. POE could have been a great game. It looks fantastic, and the story is adequate, but it's ruined by ****ty mechanics. Maybe someone will make a D&D mod for it, until then, doesn't look like I'll be playing. All this game does is make me appreciate the IE games that much more.

Yes.

You mean....no point in murder-grinding.... which is a staple of modern RPGs and MMOs, and IMO needs to be toned down about 20 notches. its a stupid, mindless concept. There's a bajillion other ways to gain exp in a role-playing game, but most have been completely forgotten over the years, and the result? We've now got people like you who don't know what role-playing even is - that actually equate killing exclusively with EXP, to the point where they cannot conceive of other ways to gain levels. Play Planescape Torment sometime and you'll see how wonderful it is to get your exp from talking (for example) instead of just racking up kills. Oh, and there's a whole lot more to exploration than just going out and making things die. Not sure why you even brought up exploration, as the concept itself is virtually unrelated to combat. Lol, that's rich, son. I've been playing rpgs longer than you've been alive. Played in a place I doubt you've even heard of called Lake Geneva in the 70s. I know a thing or two about role playing. EXP for kills has been around since the beginning. Without it you have stupid story games, not rpgs.

Yes, cooldowns, ala the mess that was 4th edition D&D, or encounter powers, however you want to say it. No thanks. As for no combat XP, tough luck, is in, and frankly, is a good thing. In your opinion, which I must point out is in the minority. Sorry for the multiple posts, but I'm not very proficient with the formatting of this board.

This is unbelievably tragic. What are we going to do now? I guess we better give in to all of his demands. I sincerely doubt I'm the only one who feels this way.

You can think what you like, you'll just be wrong.