Gromnir

new crimes needed to be added 'cause when originally envisioned it were not possible to steal use of pure info... and you is getting sentencing guidelines confused with threshold question regarding whether or not a crime were committed by a defendant. is judge having opportunity to tailor punishment? sure, but often there is min and max set... and for good reason. again, threshold question o' whether or not crime were committed does not look to the suffering o' the injured party. is a non-factor. btw, the laws for stealing info is generally stiffer with harsher punishment than simply steal goods. 'course there is exceptions, 'specially the anachronistic laws in some jurisdictions regarding particular types o' produce and livestock. HA! Good Fun!

"When you pirate a game you're stealing the lisence and that's a vastly different concept from stealing somthing physical." this is nuts. is not different from pov of the law... nor should it be. is wrong not 'cause you deprive somebody else of use, but because it Doesn't Belong to You. you is stealing stealing bread to feed your kids 'cause they is starving IS different... is still stealing, but raises a possible defense. heck, why is steal from a fed insured/protected bank wrong? the money is insured by the fed, so nobody lose anything. steal at night when nobody is around, and it ain't even a genuine crime, right? bah. is kookie to claim that there is some special category 'o theft for information and use. is wrong 'cause you take that which you do not own and you did not pay. there is a reason we separate tort from criminal. with criminal larceny the degree to which the injured party suffers is not relevant when determining if there were a crime committed. is simply free rider problem for a new generation, but on a vastly different scale than peoples using public transportation for free. HA! Good Fun!

and now come the stoopid rationalizations. stealing info is different than stealing a thing, right? only to the thief is it different. HA! Good Fun!

"caricatured a bit but still a grain of truth in it" an infinitesimal small grain perhaps. btw, bush, for all his perceived and actual flaws, still had to be elected. you no doubt don't see the significance. "I know that when I was volunteering the fact that my girlfriend was very much against it, along with my parents, made quitting seem almost the only sane thing to do." but they didn't do no news story 'bout you, did they? why not? HA! Good Fun!

how exactly does the money you has spent on games excuse the theft of still more games? am not seeing the point? what a novel approach to be trying in court... "look, i have spent literally hundreds of thousands of dollars on cars over the past 15 years. so i stole a car. big whoop. what are you going to do, throw me in prison for stealing a car? heck, with all the money i have already spent on cars, audi should have given me that s8 for free." ... give it a try. HA! Good Fun!

"Which is more noteworthy: being the son of an aristocratic family and voluntarily going to war, or being the son of an aristocratic family and using your family's influence to get out of going to war?" so what? lower the bar for children who come from substance... get some special pat on back for doing something that literal tens of thousands o' people do? *chuckle* go easy on the stuffing pummeling. fact that there is cruddy aristos out there not makes harry's actions more impressive that leroy from philadelphia. " Given the historical tendency toward the latter in the U.S., I don't think it's so strange to look upon what Harry's doing as refreshing... all things considered." as a history major, no doubt josh can name literally hundreds of US children o' privilege who took on the burden o' military service. wanna start the list, or should Gromnir? fact that you can name folks who has dodged military service with help o' daddy in no way ennobles (pun intended) some aristocrat neither. is it swell that harry took up military service? sure. is more noteworthy than the tens of thousands of others current serving? why? 'cause he is royalty? bah. is not as if he has done something special to earn respect neither. story is noteworthy simply 'cause harry is born o' privilege... which is a crap reason. have some big story every time some corporate ceo's or US senator's son goes to war? makes front page news when leroy or bob or john or many other people you never met or don't know take up military service? maybe if harry had earned privilege we would be more impressed. maybe if story had harry ,the fullbright scholar (or the english equivalent) who were forgoing the opportunity to study abroad and instead joined military 'cause of his personal convictions, we could get impressed or interested in the story, but that ain't it is it? harry's story is only a story 'cause in 1689 parliament decided that not having a king/queen were more trouble than having a catholic king... or perhaps you wanna go back further and say that 'cause william invaded in 1066, Gromnir should give a damn 'bout who is harry? harry ain't news to Gromnir 'til he does something more noteworthy than being related remotely and tangentially to a famous conquerer who died back in 'round 1088 (date looks wrong... can never remember the death dates o' these english monarchs.) HA! Good Fun!

their copy protection scheme were flawed and exacerbated the piracy problem, but given the Scope o' the piracy problem... +70% US. 90% in europe. +90% in asia. those numbers is staggering to Gromnir. free rider problem is covered in pretty much any basic economics course in high school and college, but we ain't never recalled examples wherein +75% o' total consumers for a given service or product is free riding... get over some certain % and almost always does such a service or good end up being wholly or partially subsidized by govt... or it simply disappears if it ain't deemed to be necessary. too inefficient. sure, if you can still make big profit in spite of free riding, then some developers will continue to make pc games and make money doing so, but technology has made piracy more problematic in recent years

why on earth does they keep the ridiculous even-number nonsense for ability scores... or any kinda ability scores that not simply match modifiers? all this talk 'bout streamline and simplification and the most obvious and easiest steps towards accomplishing seems to be... missing. oh well. HA! Good Fun!

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!