newc0253

the quote isn't about 'defending every side of an argument'. it's about continuing to defend one side of an argument even when it leads to absurdity (e.g. claiming nystul's magic aura is a combat spell).

she ploughs a field with great aplomb. hmm, you should have stood with divination. alas, to defend everything is to defend nothing.

and my aunt has always been a tractor, if only she had wheels.

dude, you must have had one nazi DM if your opponents were not only sitting in wait but actively casting divinations to check out your gear ahead of time. either that or you PvPed a lot.

*cough*nystulsmagicaura*cough* of course combat has always major part of D&D. who would deny it? but even the 1e PHB, the closest to the old chainmail rules of any of the formal editions, made nods to the other aspects of the game besides pure combat. no, you don't need dice to roleplay. but there was a point in the history of CRPGs when it seemed that dice-based rules were adding interesting things to what was otherwise a bunch of rules for minatures. a lot of it was silly, a lot of it turned out to be plain unworkable. but there was at least a recognition that there were other goals in the game. now maybe that 4e rogue description above is just marketing guff. who knows? but even if it's just marketing guff, it's still kinda sad because it's pointing in the opposite direction: a regression back below the mean.

no, but i did use Nystul's Magic Aura to make ordinary mushrooms psychedelic.

dunno. something to do with the french verb orienter.

and you can totally use a fork to kill people too. the point wasn't that divination is incapable of being useful in combat. the point is that it wasn't a combat-orientated spell. d-u-h

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.

in 4e, it will be mandatory for rogues to be both cool and awesome. actual thieving be optional.

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.

um, maybe i missed it, but was there anything in that description of 4e rogues doing things like picking locks and disarming traps? in fact, was there anything in that description that wasn't purely combat-orientated? call me being old-fashioned, but that looks like a description of a Diablo character, not a D&D one.

gestalt? bless you.

nah, my idea for continuing the story from NWN2 and MoTB is killer! an evil fluffy pet would fit right in. better still, an epic evil fluffy pet.

fighting better monsters? using 1st and 2nd level spells? the orc is right: dual classing meant the former fighter is crouching behind his buddies for 7 levels worth of fights, tossing off cantrips. a slow and dull way to play through any module or campaign.

i'm never sarcastic. oh no, sir. i love prestige classes. i think they're a fantastic idea. and they make a lot of sense! it fills my heart with joy to think they're probably the future of D&D.

better still, in 3e you can invent your own prestige class to cover any eventuality! turn that 2e dwarven fighter/cleric level 11/11 into a 3e epic mystic dwarven divine champion theurgistophilomancer exemplarsmith 7/7/5/2!

dude, you're so naive ... it's a different edition.

you mean, a continuation of the storyline of NWN2 and MOTB? maybe you could find that you're the inadvertant possessor of a <relic of the planes/dark cosmic curse/evil fluffy pet>. you gradually learn that your <relic/curse/pet> is of great interest to many powerful factions, some who seek to own it for themselves, others to destroy it. you also learn that, by possessing it, you pose great risk to <your companion/those you hold most dear/your other pets>. through the course of your adventures, you discover that the <relic/curse/pet> is actually tied to the fate of <a lost elven empire/countless lost souls across the many planes/a small pet store> and that the only way to prevent great evil is to return to the site of that ancient <battle/eternal plane war/kitten fight> and <destroy the shadow king/confront the soul eater/get fluffy fixed>.

hard to imagine anyone would confuse a premium mod with an expansion pack. that's no disrespect to premium mods, btw. i liked Daggerford and am looking forward to Mysteries of Westgate whenever the frak it gets released. but expansions are a bird of a different feather.

I think it's unlikely that any future D&D CRPG would allow you to determine the outcome of a major shift in any setting, if only because WOTC seems mighty possessive of its settings. of course it's illogical, given that most modules involve you in some earth-shattering event, e.g. the opportunity to become a god at the end of TOB, but heaven forfend if you permanently kill Elminster or Dripptz. I don't care about the FR enough to mind the particular changes they've outlined. it seems to me that commercial pressures dictate that any setting be rejigged from time to time, c.f. Greyhawk, the Traveller universe, etc, as a way to keep things interesting and - most of all - as an opportunity to sell more books.

I reckon the women in Franzetta's and Vallejo's work could be described as a lotta things but 'real' would be pretty low down the list. Or maybe Morgoth just happens to know a lot of women with cast-iron boobies.

i bow to your superior knowledge of the 3e product line.

except that WOTC haven't released any new material for it, unless you count those rehashed 'Return to <name of famous AD&D module>' modules and that stuff in the Dragon. It's a 'living campaign', aka a setting that WOTC has relinquished entirely to the fanbase as a way not to support it otherwise.

I always found it weird that 3e used the Greyhawk pantheon without the Greyhawk setting. As with many folk who grew up with 1e, i've always preferred the low-fi Greyhawk setting to anything that came after (although i did like Planescape). But the deities were hardly central to the setting, so WOTC's decision seemed like a kid who ignores the shiny present and plays instead with the dull wrapping paper. It also sounds kinda funny that WOTC wants to get away from a pantheon that's 'realistic in a sociological sense' and focus on 'a good set of deities that cover most players needs'. I never thought of the Greyhawk pantheon as in any way 'realistic in a sociological sense' but i look forward to a 4e pantheon that includes 'Slorg, the god of strength potions', 'Flarn, the goddess of mass heal scrolls', and 'Vlex, the god of +3 defensive bonus'.