PK htiw klaw eriF

Series finale of Dexter. A bit anticlimactic, contradicted some character evolution, but otherwise decent.

Going to watch Netflix then get some sleep. Got a long day ahead of me tomorrow.

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/09/21/spider-mans-bond-set-at-50000-and-ordered-to-have-a-mental-evaluation/

Link or equation please. Already established 1 and 2. To 3: Why should the reward be less if you did not kill the minions and instead used other means to neutralize them? The party would still be using their skills to overcome a challenge, and the end result would be the same. How so? You are rewarded XP not for defeating an enemy, you are rewarded XP for killing them. I don't see any good reason why more XP should be given for killing a bandit chief after you have beaten him down to 1HP than if you decide to spare him. I see no problem with that, or how that is exclusive to kill XP.

I wonder, if someone is born with the desire to kill people in brutal ways, would we consider that person to be inherently evil?

Steak.

Maggie? Looks much sexier than she did in the show.

I had a dream some **** hit my car.

While I appreciate pretty much any attractive woman, I'm feeling redheads myself today.

No.

Enlighten us Ros.

That doesn't give any real clue because PE is still a work in progress, as in unfinished, incomplete, etc. They might not be revealing anything about non-combat because they haven't finished fleshing out those systems yet. Since no specifics have been revealed about non-combat abilities, making statements along the lines of "character abilities consist of 90% combat abilities and 10% non-combat abilities" is not based in fact. If you assert otherwise, prove it. No one is arguing that. I'm arguing that combat success =/= body count. Hypothetically: If someone has a quest to slay a giant and they do not kill it, they should not be rewarded as they did not succeed in their task. If they kill it, either by slaughtering it and its entourage or just killing the giant, they should be rewarded the same amount because they both succeeded at their task. I didn't equate combat with body count, I equated rewarding XP for killing to rewarding for body count, not result. Again, if you do not like doing something if you do not receive a reward for doing it, then you should not play a game where that thing is not rewarded.

I'm bored ****less and can't think of anything to play. Suggestions?

Ten rings, like the Mandarin.

anubite, you really need an avi. I keep confusing you and volo.

And that has what to do with the amount of non-combat abilities? I think we are all familiar with the concept of leveling. Combat success =/= body count. Defeating enemies, through whatever means at disposal, is what should be rewarded, not the act of killing. I could play a game with no XP and be perfectly satisfied. But if you are doing something(combat in this case) solely for the XP, not because of enjoyment, then you should probably play something else. I certainly don't. Especially in a game where almost everyone has supernatural abilities.

Drank some whiskey, changed my avi, and stared blankly at my monitor for an hour trying to decide what to play.

Sometimes. Although Trashy's posts do tend to make one's eyes bleed.

Haven't we all been?

Is it just me or are sloths suddenly 100 times more scary? It isn't just you.

The ratio of combat abilities to non-combat abilities has not been confirmed, so your example is flawed. Tying XP to completing objectives or challenges is better than tying it to a body count, because the character actually has to succeed at something to recieve XP. Surely it is more reasonable to correlate growth with success rather than slaughtering mooks.

Well, I'm sure he could, but he would likely be stuck with xhamster. No one should have to use xhamster.