Gromnir

had no notion that pc software piracy were that bad a problem. +70%? sure, hang out at codex and see many folks telling us that piracy is not bad a bad thing, but even there it not seem like 70% o' people is supporting such notions. shows how wrong Gromnir were. we were thinking that this were a very small % in US and slightly worse (but not real bad) in europe. our impression were that only in asia were software piracy a pervasive kinda thing. oh well. if things is that bad, then maybe it were best killed quick... move to consoles and improve the PCness o' those devices and applications rather than prolonging the death throes. HA! Good Fun!

what an odd pov. in this country we ain't forced to endure the children o' Presidents once those Presidents is no longer in office, and those children need not necessarily become President one day. john quincy adams were the son of a former US President, but only the current US prez is a similar example. neither does we force or expect the children of political powerful peoples to follow in their parent's footsteps, 'cause simple blood ties not necessarily confer the requisite ability or desire. the fact that some snotty brat's great-great-great-great-whatever did something noteworthy should mean something to Gromnir? paternalism is bad 'nuff in this country w/o some ridiculous form o' state sanctioned bs to reinforce the antiquated notion. is loads o' folks fighting in afghanastan and iraq and other places. means nothing to Gromnir that some product o' generations o' questionable breeding is also one o' those people fighting. leroy jones, a kid from philadelphia whose momma has cancer and whose sister is still in middle school, had to go off and fight overseas... is making momma proud and sending pretty much all his pay home. more or less noteworthy than harry? more. is not that we dislike harry, but the whole notion o

or you can do like you and newc and either whack on strawman or make nonsense responses... is all the same. 1) the only reason why some folks feel previous editions were less combat focused were 'cause o' nostalgia. 2) am not concerned 'bout notion of combat v. combat focus or other such silliness. really, am not sure why some folks think 1e were less 'bout combat. the rules is invariably there for combat. not need rules to tell folks how to pretend to be a wizard. is when while pretending to be a wizard you claim to have turned somebody into a frog or eluded their sword swing or some other such CONFLICT resolution situation in which a clear objective answer is needed. as to combat applicable v. combat focused... why would eldar want to argue? the spells mentioned above are clearly very useful combat spells. is there others that is less useful? probably, even so, is arguable that pretty much any spell is gonna have some combat application, so why argue degrees... 'specially when your degree conclusion is gonna invariably be different than somebody else? gonna argue what were the original intent o' the developers? good luck with that one. is rarely one such controlling person in d&d rules development, and am not certain they matter anyway. is intent of player that matters more, no? focus v. applicable? is no clear answer... no right answer, so why bother fighting that battle... save to make some sorta point. HA! Good Fun! ps it were 1e the screwed d&d alignment. alignment gots no reason to be subject to rules... but because it is... detect evil and any spell that does different damage based 'pon alignment o' and a bunch o' other crap that shouldn't be part o' d&d, but is 'cause d&d starts as a combat game. horrible. has been following d&d for decades.

can hope... otherwise we start calling josh by a different name: jonah. HA! Good Fun!

you know, the sad thing is that iwd were probably the best game josh has been part of as a developer & contributor. the streamlined and quick development o

hmm, he described nystul's magic aura as a 'combat spell'. to most reasonable users of the english language, that suggests a spell primarily intended for use in combat - whether directly or indirectly. but if you're buying what Gromnir's selling here, there's also a bridge on the Thames i can give you a good deal on. the spell has a very useful combat application. am not caring if its primary use for newc is combat or not. for many people nystul's primary use IS combat related. in point o' fact, at higher levels pretty much the ONLY time the spell is used is in combat related situations. am not gonna make a judgement call as to whether or not newc's or sand's or some other yutz's use is the right one. if a spell has useful combat application, then Gromnir is quite willing to accept that it is a combat spell. again, just as you were wrong 'bout divinations, so too is you wrong 'bout such spells that would serve to mislead those divinations. w/o the combat aspects, there really wouldn't be a need for specific dc based rules 'n such. HA! Good Fun!

really? no doubt your aunt is a very unique woman. if you not like how we phrased then we could simply note that you were complete wrong 'bout nystul's use as a combat spelll AND Gromnir pvp. not need pvp or nazi dms. most typical use we seen of nystuls is to disguise magic gear... which is a combat application (either immediate or remote.) 'course we thought we would respond nicer since we is just a big ol' softy. HA! Good Fun!

mostly Gromnir is the nazi dm. at mid to high levels, d&d 3e character is defined more by his equipment than by his stats. Gomnir spends considerable time and effort to set up an encounter... only to have players ruin the challenge and surprise through use o' peeper spells? no freaking way. d&d has always been pvp, if you include dm in the equation. regarding 3e at level 1-4 a dm works hard to keep players alive. beyond level 12, a dm works hard to keep sessions challenging... necessarily become almost adversarial with players. if players know rules, then the dm must often come up with counter tactics, or players manage to destroy their own fun... effectively pits dm 'gainst players. sure, a dm can simply claim that players failed in their chosen rule exploit, but dm does that too often and players lose faith. use rules to maintain integrity of game is always the best option. HA! Good Fun!

*cough*nystulsmagicaura*cough* ... am not sure that you know what that spell does. we were moments ago talking 'bout the power o' divinations relative to combat. therefore, a spell that likewise obscures the properties o' your magic stuff... is one o' the few low level spells that w finds more effective at high levels. doesn't do a very good job o' tricking foes into believing that you got non-magic stuff, but is excellent at misleading folks into thinking that your magic stuff is less powerful or at least different. is therefore more useful 'gainst those folks who has some method for discovering the attributes o' your combat gear... which is typical not low level foes. HA! Good Fun!

btw, keep in mind that Gromnir enjoys the pure non-combat aspects o' d&d... but no rules is needed to role-play. *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

" the point is that it wasn't a combat-orientated spell." all divination spells is, from Gromnir's pov, combat "orientated." d&d is, first and foremost, a squad-based tactical combat game. is virtually no spell or ability that is complete removed from combat applications. craft items or earn gold? why? to help the local economy or to donate to church o' the bloody nun or somesuch? bah. Gromnir crafts to make better stuff or earn gold to get better stuff... to make us more effective in combat. ultimately there is little in d&d that doesn't come back to combat. HA! Good Fun!

uh, to be precise, the 1e had one page of weapons. as for spells, please to be explaining now the combat meaning of a spell like divination. superior intelligence is always resulting in a tactical advantage. knowledge of enemy location and numbers alone is a huge combat advantage. a clever diviner can, if played according to the rules, break a game precisely 'cause of impact on combats ant larger strategic aspects. however, the problem with divinations is that the spells that give the player knowledge they should not have will never work, 'cause no dm will let 'em work. have your adventure or campaign broken by a diviner? not likely. as for the rogue, no doubt the wotc developers will at some point explain why it is necessary to force onto characters compulsory skills disguised as a fraudulent choice, but Gromnir ain't amused. regardless, they needs to get their editors to do some better checking, 'cause ambiguity is inevitably gonna lead to argument. HA! Good Fun!

is thievery and stealth actually compulsory? wording is kinda funny. "Trained Skills: Stealth and Thievery plus four others. From the class skills list below, choose four more trained skills at 1st level. Class Skills: Acrobatics (Dexterity), Athletics (Str), Bluff (Cha), Dungeoneering (Wis), Insight (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Perception (Wis), Stealth (Dexterity), Streetwise (Cha), Thievery (Dexterity)" thievery and stealth is on the "choose" list. is poorly written regardless, but there is an ambiguity created especially in light o' the following: "Suggested Skills: Acrobatics, Bluff, Insight, Perception, Stealth, Thievery" is kinda counter-intuitive to suggest the choosing o' a mandatory skill. the only thing we has viewed is the above pasted material, so spider most likely knows far more than Gromnir does 'bout this aspect. kinda sucks though if it is required. am wondering how many other Choices wotc will make for us as we build characters with 4e. HA! Good Fun!

btw, having 4-5 past skills all rolled up into one does seem to suggest that the new rogue is far less 'bout recreating the archetypal thief role. ... am ok with the goal, but the means o' achieving seems odd. HA! Good Fun!

really? the 1e PHB had no combat rules. it had a list of weapons and, of course, spells like fireball, etc. but it was nothing like as munchkin as the description of a 4e rogue above. sure, that's probably just a description for marketing purposes but it hardly augurs well. am guessing that thiefy skills is, well, skills. pretty much all the rogue build suggested skills includes "thievery" but am not sure exactly how that works, and what it includes. is lockpick, find trap, set trap and sleight o' hand all included in 1 skill for 4e? whatever changes 4e makes to skills & feats, wotc not seem to wanna let us see for the nonce. the little bit o' info we has gotten so far seems to suggest a clear move towards streamlining skills, but this thievery stuff does seem a bit... extreme. HA! Good Fun!

side note: never actually seen a dual-classed character played fair from level 1 in a pnp group. another flaw of 1e? dual worked in bg, where a single player plays a party and can get to mid-levels after 40 hours o' gameplay. in pnp though... a 7/x fighter/mage were a gimp from the time he/she dualed until time you got 8 levels o' mage... 'least compared to others in your party. and you know how long it took to get 8 levels o' mage playing 1 pnp game session a week in 1e? longer than 40 hours that is for damn sure. to dual you needed ridiculous stats and you had to voluntarily gimp self and your party to achieve munchkin status. 'course the gimping made them balanced, no? no. 1e dual made even less sense than multi-class. HA! Good Fun!

what is point of 4e quote? am relaying why you can't do 1e multi-class nonsense in 3e... is 'cause multi-class dwarven fighter/cleric is clear superior to single class character with same exp. how does jedifilly quote 'bout 4e change that fact? regardless, we doubt even jfilly would isuggest that based on his quote that the dwarven fighter/cleric 11/11 in 4e will be clear superior to a single class human cleric with same exp point totals. such stoopidity were a 1e mistake that were purged... and good riddance. 'course then, as did happen with 1e and 2e and 3e, tsr/wotc or whomever will release loads of crap to keep sales going forward. kits or prestige classes or custom classes or whatever. 4e will, like 3e, only be good if dms is very careful with just how much additional crap they allow beyond the core books. the more crap = the more difficult to balance. HA! Good Fun!

'Small size' will probably cease to matter as storage capacity for all manner of affordable gadgets increase at a dramatic fashion. Portability, however, will probably remain a concern for as long as we travel the way we do. DD will probably take a fair chunk out of movie sales, but it probably won't destroy standard sales. portability is a far less significant factor for movies than for music... still need a tv. and while maybe tvs is getting thinner, they is actually getting bigger. chances are you don't watch movies on a personal tv while jogging or while at gym or while at work.... 'least most people do not. portability is less a factor, but even so, just as most folks not use cds to listen to music no more (particularly 'cause those storage devices is getting smaller and cheaper) it will be much more efficient to store multiple flicks on a small device than has dozens o' discs cluttering up your life. blu-ray victory is pointless and will be short-lived. HA! Good Fun!

"Fine. How do I convert an dwarven fighter/cleric level 11/11 from 2e to 3e?" you can't because that sorta character were one thing that were wrong with 2e. a 2e dwarven fighter/cleric or elven fighter/mage or any o' a host o' other combinations, were clearly superior to a single class character with same exp points. it were a mistake. why can't you reproduce a mistake? 'cause that were one of the things that wotc actually managed to get right with 3e. how can you convert to 3e? no problem. you end up with a dwarven fighter/cleric 4/9 (or even a 4/6 split) that fills exact same role in a 3e campaign and is more fun to play and offers more opportunities for customization. congrats. HA! Good Fun!

a pointless victory for blu and sony? probably. microsoft backed off of full hd-dvd support some time ago. they already had a superior codec, and they saw that by the time the current dvd format were dead, direct download would supplant much of industry... as well as being the clear future. time will tell, but this ain't a vhs v. beta situation being repeated as the successor tech to blu-ray & hd dvd is not the least bit remote. HA! Good Fun!

is manifestly untrue. 1) any and all o' the splat books is usable in greyhawk... and many has greyhawk specific content example: the horrible books like complete divine has greyhawk specific material, including expanded greyhawk domain and deity lists as well as (groan) prcs that is applicable to those gods. epic book gots greyhawk characters and greyhawk gazeeter is more detailed than 1st edition analogue. even got some greyhawk novelizations. over same span o' years, 3e and 3.5 has offered as much (if not more) greyhawk material than any similar span o' time during 1e or 2e incarnations. 2) is more greyhawk adventures than newc suggests heck, one o' those new mega modules is the "expedition to the ruins of greyhawk" thingie. that one module alone is almost equal to any old series o' modules don't compare to the fr or eberon settings. fr weakness is that everything and everybody is mapped out, detailed and given a new prc... and eberon were 'sposed to be the future. greyhawk has gotten much new material (those Return To modules typically adds 2x as much material as were available in the originals) and is not as if old 1e had that much greyhawk specific. most modules were non-specific and the core 1e hard covers not have greyhawk specific for most part. greyhawk gets continued support... just not seem that way compared to fr and eby, and that is a Good thing. leave up to individual dms to flesh out and bring to life rather than being force fed wotc pap. HA! Good Fun!

the default setting for 3e IS/WAS greyhawk. HA! Good Fun!

to answer arkan, waterdeep is now a small port town, noteworthy only for the Prancing Pony brothel and its fat eunuch proprietor... a deceitful rogue named elminster who seems to traffic in information as much as he does flesh and narcotics. ... no, wait, that is in Gromnir's version o' the frs. only has run a fr campaign a couple times, but to keep our sanity we made some serious changes. too bad wotc won't do likewise... not the eunuch elminster bit, but the "serious changes" part. HA! Good Fun!

well, to be fair, Gromnir got himself banned from bioware boards... and we not even have the swede excuse. seems that tolerance for us trollish imbeciles is much more limited nowadays. regardless, it always surprised Gromnir when folks honestly asserted that da were vapourware. a bio board devoted to and maintained by bio... and a half dozen bio developers answering queries and debating suggestions were not 'nuff to convince some pretty darn obtuse folks that they were wrong. makes you wonder why recent news changes some wacky personages pov. HA! Good Fun!

best mako tactic is silly & stoopid. bounce. thresher maws and armatures and gun turrets all has slow reload times on their ranged attacks, and the mako can bounce. as enemy rocket, blast, or acid splash comes at mako, bounce. time jump right and you can jump over any incoming shot and then return fire with cannon or machine gun... or both. is stoopid. even more stoopid: gets thresher maws or armatures down to a sliver o' life with tank, then get out o' mako and kills with your pistol... triple the xp as a kill from within tank. huh? much as with kotor, we enjoyed me in spite of serious flaes. mako were, in virtual all ways, a flaw. first time you fly of of edge o' a mountain and mako takes no damage save for front right tire (what is it with that wheel anyways?) is kinda kewl... if silly. beyond that first moment o' nifty indestructableness, mako sucks. HA! Good Fun!