Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

TrashMan

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1516

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by TrashMan

  1. TrashMan
    Realism is by defeinition believable. Also, quoting definition doesn't make you look smart Or right.
  2. TrashMan
    I'm all for memes and easter eggs. People who are agaisnt them have no sense of humor and they stink like poo. Ermergerd, I used to go "NO WAI!" like you, but then over 9000 bases belonged to us and Epic Win happened because of Chuck Norris.
  3. TrashMan
    I think the JRPG as well as anime are so focus on a certain age group / core market, anime that they almost inherrently use the emo-bad-boy thing as charming. Sigh, so much wasted opportunity over the years. I noticed that problem is far more common in JRPGs as opposed to anime. I've seen some VERY good anime villains. And animes without real villians. Take a look at Monster, Planetes and such.
  4. TrashMan
    Perfection is unatainalbe, but striving for perfection is a never-ending goal. The idea isn't that paladins are infallible. But character assasination and deliberate villifaction - when the writer cleary wants you to hate character X because he's part of a religious order - that is what I hate. That is not an attempt at greyness. It is quite simply "I hate this faction/religion and I will portray them in the most negative light possible." Also, people having differnt moral beliefs does not prove morals are not absolute. After all, if I belive that the earth is flat and you don't, that doenst make both of right. There is one reality, weather we recognize it or not. Altough talking about morality in extreme cases is ... iffy. Since it often means doing "immoral" things to do the moral thing. Is a logical action a moral one? One would say no. And yet a moral action might end up doing far more harm than good. But how can that make it moral to being with? One could write an entire book on this issue, since it's a rather huge topic. So let's not discuss it. It is poitnless, especially in the context of the game - we allready know there is no aligment system.
  5. TrashMan
    I said paladin-like. Without an aligment system you can't have a pure D&D paladin copy. And no, a templar will not be "an ass".
  6. TrashMan
    I say they are. That makes your opinion absolute, not those. Well, good luck proving they AREN'T absolute.
  7. TrashMan
    A good example of a non-aligment based paladin-like class are Templars from DA. I'd like class liek that. Feels very paladinish without being paladins.
  8. TrashMan
    Being fanatical about anything can breed fanaticism. Strictly adhereing to a code can lead to that too. any sice every one of has has some personal philospohy, adhering to it can be abused. I say they are. And your examples are silly. Exceptions prove the rule and moralities and ethics are absolute within a given context. Also, I've yet to see a superior in the miltiary having the authority to order someone to marry. There is a destinction between following sensible orders and being a utter moron.
  9. TrashMan
    I know. A bit more freedom in class creation is why I like Pathfinder. However, I still fail to see why HP increase would depend on class. That's pure Constituation there.
  10. TrashMan
    It doesn't make it right either. I'll just say that my proposal mantains the effectivenes of rouges and their "feel", while bing more credible. Compared to the standard.
  11. TrashMan
    Care to prove that? Because I say that morality IS absolute and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Plenty of characters liek that in plenty of games. But mind you, paladins don't really exist in real life, so "historical examples" dont' exist. You CAN have an order dedicated to good and virtue. Of course, bad apples are bound to be found. But you can also have genuinely good people. And frankly, creating a paladin/templar character/order only to villify them is even more cliche and boring. Bashing religion seems popular and sicne paladins/templars are usualyl religious, some people like to bash them. It sickens me. Just look what happens when people like that get creative control. Anyone played DA:O? Remeber Gregoir, the Knight-Commander of the Ferelden Circle? That reasonable, mild templar? In one DA comic, some BS writer turned him int oa hatefull mage-hater who beats up pregnant women. Or Meredith? The poor woman has gone crazy due to an artifact and people hate on her, but few ever bothered to look more closely at her character or tragic history. How many noticed that she alomst cries, begging for a solution to the mage problem that doesn't involve so strict rules? No one gives her any. No one noticed that she doesn't hate mages at all. How many noticed that the artifact rendered Betram insane within weeks, and Meredith resisted it for YEARS? They don't have to be. Are all good people carbon copies of one another? Certanly not. It all depends on how you viwew aligment and how strict you are in following it. Aligment is a pointer. A point of refference. A tendency. Not a straightjacket. A paladin doesn't have to to a robot that follow every rule to the latter...unless you want him to be.
  12. TrashMan
    Where did I say "unique"? If a ranger or druid has the required agiltiy, skills and equipment (grapling hooks and such) I don't see what would stop them from climbing walls. They probably wouldn't be as fast or as silent as a rogue, but I don't see what's stopping them from trying. Neither should there really be anything to stop them from trying to sneak up upon a unsuspecting guard and silently kill him. They are not as likely as suceed tough.
  13. TrashMan
    You obviosuly misunderstand what I was saying. Of course the complexity of the rules affects everything. Basing a system on d8 and simple calculation and basing it on complex calculations done by a computer - they won't be the same. Intrinsicly. And no, I didn't claim that combat mechanic limit non-combat content. Non-combat had mechanics of it's own. But balancing between them did. And the way the task is achieved sucks, has sucked and will suck. Stabbing a guy isn't really "cunning". Your definition of a good rogue is the one that deals damage DIRECTLY. The idea of indirect damage didn't even occur to you apprently. A rogue should be a support class. It by itself doens't do high damage - but it makes it easier for others to do so. Since he manouvers around and set traps, he can change the tactical aspect of the battlefield. Just by getting behind an opponent he gives the fighter an advantage, because the enemy now has to contend with 2 opponents on opposite side. The fighter basicly gets a bonus too. The "sneak attack" the rouge has is silly and pointless a it is. 1 round = 6 seconds. Therefore DPS. Or if you want to get pedantic, Damage Per Round. Doesn't matter really how you call it - it is damage done in a specific time interval and it exsts in ALL games that deal with damage.
  14. TrashMan
    Don't presume to know what I think makes a class useful. I know all about Rogue DPS vs Utility debates. I've raged at the heart of them for years. The reality is there is no such thing as "utility" vs "damage" because Rogues should be able to do both, as all classes should. There is no MMO style trinity system in single player isometric RPGs, so this isn't a problem. There is such a thing. Because concepts such as "Tank" , "DPS" and so forth don't cease to exist outside of MMO's. Battlefield roles don't case to exist. So there is such a thing as a roll of a class within a specific context (or for a clasless system, role of a character). And I never said rouges shouldn't be able to do any damage. Of course they should. Tehy have weapons and know how to use them. But average damage is more than enough for them. They don't need high burst damage. They don't need high DPS to be usefull.
  15. TrashMan
    Well ease of balance/class differentiation would be one obvious good reason, and kind of makes sense more so with a "stamina" system than with a direct HP system. If you assume that the difference between one levels worth of experience for a mage (which is intellectual, learning things and generally not that physical) and a barbarian (involving lots of hitting things and and being hit) the latter is going to be fundementally better at taking blows and carrying on due to practice. Yes there will be tough wizards who can take blows, but they are the exception rather than the rule and that's what a high constitution score and feats like toughness are there to provide the possibility of. It seems like you really do want to stripmine the classes for differentiating features.... Problem is that "class differentiation" can be an excuse for everytihng. Like restricting weapons. Mages can't use swords. Why? Class differentiation. Clerics can only use maces. Why? Class differentiations. Only rouges can dual-wirld. Why? Class differentiation. This is one of the reasons I started liking class-based systems less and less. They are a set of unrealistic restrictions for the sake of fake diversity. I say fake diversity because such insular and restrictive classes are made for the sake of "diversity and yet they end up hurintg diversity and character creation freedom just as much. Yes, I really would like to see HP divorced from class. Tied to ONLY constitution. NO HP gain per level. They only difference beterrn a mage and barbarian in HP is in the attribute point allocation. Mages would still be generally weaker as they wouldn't put so much points into CON or STR. But nothing is stopping you from making a Arnorld-like of mage.
  16. TrashMan
    Darkspawn are fine. They aren't demonized to the point of comical. They are besital. And speaking of JRPG villains. I can't recall a singel one I would call "good". Pretty emo bishonens do not make compellign villains for me. I kinda have trouble taking them seriously when they look like they spend most their day at a stylist and haird dresser, and when their plans and logic is so redicolously insane. EXAMPLE: "I'm gonna destroy the world because living is painfull. People die! So I will kill them all so they will never have to suffer the pain of dying!"
  17. TrashMan
    I don't. I hate the exponential pwoe groth RPG have these days. It's a very, VERY cheap understanding of "strength" and "power". It is stupid. and it's little more than an means ot boost frai legos. Some people enjoy wading tough hordes of lvl1, 5HP monsters with their LVL99 1000000HP character. I find it boring, stupid nad unchallenging. If I ever were to make a game it wouldn't had such power progression. The difference between a lvl1 and lvl20 character would be in skills and a few attribute points tops. (heck, I might even do away with the whole concept of leveling alltogether) There wouldn't be a massive HP difference. Those lvl1, 5HP monsters could stull butcher you if you're not carefull. The game would feel more like Splinter Cell (in terms of power progression and health) than a average PRG. Sure, your'e badass and 1-on-1 you can take on almost anyone. But you are still VERY killable yourself.
  18. TrashMan
    I would prefer it if the DM is encouraged to let them try it...and then show, in combat, the actual practical consequences of six adventurers taking on thousands upon thousands of Drow in open battle. Which is to say, a very quick TPK owing to combat mechanics, not just the DM reading out 'you lose.' I don't mind either approach. I mean, fi you decide to take on an entire drow army or a god, the results should be pretty obivous, no? The DM could just tell me "you die" or he can throw endlessly respawning monsters at m untill I die. One is quicker. There are games that did that. Like Halo: Reach. You basicly fight till you die. But frankly, I think retreat should be a valid option. Unbeatable boss? Retreat. Throw smoke bombs, create a diversion.. grab the downed party memeber (if any) and run to safety. The player doesn't have to necessarily suffer a TPK.
  19. TrashMan
    What bothered me the most about DA:O was the equipment scaling and character mechanics. The whole items restrictions and attributes made no sense. "You must be lvl14 to equip this item" - worst concept in game design history ever. Leveling felt so pointless and trivial, because you got 3 attribute points each level and dumped tham all into one stat. Not only that, but starting as "above average" with 15 STR and ending up with 60 STR is redicolous. I abosolutely LOVE the DA setting. It is brilliant. Only recently have more and more silly things begun creeping in.
  20. TrashMan
    There is no real reason why rouges should have low HP. Actually, there is no reason for any HP difference between classes at all. It's all a relic of older days.
  21. TrashMan
    Unwinnable is only irritating to people who are obsessive about killing everything. If you don't care about killing everything and are prefectly fine with avoiding than encoutner, then there is no problem. Unwinnalbe battles where you run away? Yes pls. Games have had this pletny of times. Ever tried Amnesia? If you can win every battle, what is the point of ever retreating? And no, not being able to defeat the antagonist in BG makes no sense, since you cannot complete the game. Unless the game ends with your death.
  22. TrashMan
    I really don't think it should be obvious which is which. Games tend to have the PC behave in very unrealistic ways: - breaking in peoples houses and stealing things - talking to everyone in an effort to find quests - takign redicolous risks (because savegame) etc..
  23. TrashMan
    Shep and many others dying at the end of ME3 made PERFECT SENSE and I would prefer it a thousand times over some other crap. ME3 ending was rushed and somewhat badly implemented, but the choices and the outcomes made perfect sense (even if the catalyst didn't). You CAN'T beeat the reapers conventionally. All the armies oyu gathered ultimatively amounted to little. There was no surprise in this. It made sense. Yet people whined because their gathered armeis couldn't destroy the reapers and tehy didn'tlive happily ever after with blue babies. Frak those poeple. I hate them. HATE them. I disliked ME3. I thout the begnign was jsut as bad as the ending. I think the entire ME series went down the crapper and it started going down with ME2 and the terminator baby reaper, and ME3 just made it worse with plot holes withing plot holes, and style over substance and the Cerberus effect. But you know what I DIDN'T do? Throw a temper tantrum, threaten, signed petitions, demanded that the endign be remade. Egoistical, whiny irritants. Did I mention I hate poeple like that?
  24. TrashMan
    Stopped reading at the second panel because they misspelled "ought." Aught means "all," not something you "should" do or have a "duty" to do. So you diss the entire comic because of one characters speech oddity (or misused word)
  25. TrashMan
    One guy attacking a party? Silly. A group of thugs attacking your party? If they think tehy can take you on, why not? Magic items may not be so visible/glowy that one can pick them apart visually. Also, power progression doesn't have to be exponential or huge, so lower level bandits may still be a credible threat even if you are higher level.
×
×
  • Create New...