Cantousent

I didn't think Gromnir actually said he was against the culling in the first place. No matter how other societies see animal torture, we live in societies (at least the majority of the folks on this board) which see animal torture in an extremely bad light. I didn't push the fight with Krezak because he confined the rights of the chimp in question to life. I'll agree with that, but that's because I live in a society that sees needless slaughter of animals as inhumane and I'm a product of that society. Now, let's say that the folks in question, in Kashmir, were not threatened by rabid dogs. I would suggest that the culling is inhumane, although I don't think that the policy would, in and of itself, warrent international action. However, given the circumstances, it is a wise policy. Outside of the question of animal rights, the people in any community should have the right to protect themselves against the threat of rabid animals. I don't care whether someone wants to claim that it is inhumane or not. The wife and I have three cats. We take care of them extremely well. They receive regular medical examinations, grooming, and enjoy a healthy diet. We shower them with love and attention. Our eldest cat has had received thousands of dollars of medical care and we've been giving our newest cat medicine daily for, of all things, asthma. I once had to take my cat down to the vet in San Diego only to find out that there was a problem with my radiator. I spent hours driving down, stopping every 20 miles or so to add more radiator fluid. This is with the cat yowling the whole way. I love my cats. Now, if we look at this thread so far, is it a shame that we've spent so much on the care of cats when there are hungry people in the world? ...Or is it a shame that I still don't think that, as a policy, we should value the lives on my cats the same as we value the lives of human beings? The life of a cat... or of a dog... or of a chimp is not worth the life of a human being. Yes, that's because they are the "other." If you have a pet cat... or dog... or chimp, I don't expect that you should be willing to trade the life of your individual pet for the life of another individual human. However, the life of your pet, or mine, is not worth a human life. I don't suppose I'd be happy if someone tried to kill my pet to save an ax murderer. As a society, however, we've got to draw the line somewhere. If you want to create a society where the life of a dust mite is the equal of a human, give it a shot. Make it a religion if you want. The point is, no matter where you draw the line, once you include non humans within the definition of humanity, the line will always be mutable.

Well, in that case, I'll untie my knickers and let my anger subside. If the light at the end of the tunnel is that chimps have the right to live, then I'll rescind my statement and agree.

Why do you feel the need to answer a question I posed specifically to Gromnir, and with such a pointless comparison? Let him defend his own suggestion that a person's attitude towards animals is reflective of that person's basic humanity. More to the point, Krezack, why turn this debate into a discussion of abortion? Apart from your pointless diatribe on the genetic nature of chimps, what the hell is your position vis a vis the culling anyhow? Chimps aren't human. Chimps don't have rights. Chimps should not have rights. This is not the same as advocating inhumane treatment of chimps. Chimps undoubtedly should have protections, but they are not human. If nearly human status yields rights, then what about nearly chimp status? Where does it end? However, animal rights groups should never be confused with animal advocate groups. Advocating humane treatment of animals is not the same as mistaking them for having an equal stake and share in society. Trying to confuse the issue by bringing up pro-life militants is silly. It's comes across as a clumsy attempt to equate denial of chimp rights (don't make me laugh) with anti-abortion violence. Use a brain? As for the culling, that's a policy issue in the country in question. The measure doesn't seem grossly inhumane, even though I'm sure most folks would rather more humane means could be found and afforded. In the long run, however, improving the living standards of the society would probably help improve the treatment of the animals in question at any rate. After all, societies that don't have to worry about throngs of rabid animals are in a better position to impose laws protecting animals in the first place. By the way, while I don't have anything against chimps in the least, that pretty female chimp won't gain much benefit from being 5 times stronger than the average human mail when the human male is carrying a fire arm. We have a hard enough time trying to convince people of our shared humanity. Suggesting that we convince people of our shared humanity with chimps strains credulity.

hahaha They could have done sooo much more with Safiya. They could have done more with Gann also. Seriously, though, I don't think they were any more risque in MotB than a lot of other developers are in other games. Where they did a pretty good job was making it clear enough for most gamers without descending into adolescence. Sometimes maybe a little too clever, I suppose, and other times a little blunt, but a pretty good balance I'd say.

If the DM can do actual 3D calcultions on the fly in his head, there isn't a problem in the first place. Hell, that would be one hell of a DM. If no one can (or tries to) then there isn't a problem because everyone buys into the arrangement. If one person can (or thinks he can) then it's going to be Satan's own time trying to work through the scenarios. Most folks aren't that bad, though. I don't think they'd do that, I hope. hahah At any rate, I wasn't really talking about flying. I'm more thinking up and down in terms of ambush and such. The players I know are pretty good at seeing where I might ambush them by having something drop from a tree or off the roof of a building. But, while they do well enough at preventing me from taking a tactical advantage in such a way, they don't often take advantage of the terrain themselves. I know I was not clear at all.

Well, then, smartypants, I want triangles. That's even simpler than squares (with one less side) and can be used to create slopes and slants better. haha Damn you! You beat me to it. I don't really care about the shape because I don't see any way to do it without some distortion. What would be good, however, is to come up with something that doesn't leave my players thinking only in terms of flat surfaces.

I pretty much agree with Sand. It's clear the DM can modify the rules to reflect a low magic setting, but that's not the baseline for 4th edition. Of course, it wasn't the baseline of 2nd, and sure wasn't the baseline of 3.x. To refer to the FR campaign setting as low magic is laughable. I completely agree that 4th edition seems ubefied. ...But I'm trying to figure out if that's going to be true during actual gameplay. I dunno. We'll have to see.

When was the last time a Kennedy backed candidate made it into the White House? Nuts. Gromnir already made this point, but I'll mention it again for those of you with a tin ear: We haven't had a lot of commanders in chief who were the son of a previous President. When we have had them, they have been duly elected by the people. You know, I think it's great that Harry's volunteered for service in Afghanistan. I think it's even better that he doesn't look to be making a big deal of it. Altogether I think it's admirable for a number of reasons. We SHOULD recognize folks who take on the uniform during times of war even though they have every opportunity to avoid it. However, I also think that we cannot make too much of it, or it cheapens his efforts. So, yes, recognize that someone risked his neck when he didn't need to do so. We should always admire such people. ...But Harry isn't admirable because he's a prince of England. He's admirable because he's a guy who didn't have to take a chance but did. Now, did Leroy join before the terrorist attack and then get shipped off to Afghanistan? If so, he's admirable because he tried to better his life and supports his mom and sister, but not necessarily for risking his neck when he could have avoided it. I can tell you that a lot of folks in the service before the attack didn't really think they'd see action. To be in Afghanistan or Iraq today, however, means that you volunteered to be there. In that case, I admire both Leroy and Harry in about equal measure. One because he risks his neck for his principles and one because he risks his neck for his family (and probably his principles as well). The point is, I'm going to admire most folks who risk their neck. That Leroy doesn't get his due measure shouldn't mean that we should begrudge Harry his. Anyhow, celebrities end up in the limelight. No biggie. I think Gromnir is a little harsh on poor Harry, but Harry is a soldier, so I'm sure he can live with it. However, I think Brdavs is insane. Nevertheless, he used a smiley and so I can't really hold it against him.

Magister started a new thread with more concrete stuff in it. It might be best to close this thread and his new one: http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?showtopic=49082

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT 4TH EDITION AT D&D EXPERIENCE 2008 1. Character roles are more clearly defined. Everyone who

The argument of combat applicable v combat focused is pointless. That's why arguing that Write, Identify, and various enchanting abilities are not directly related to combat is ridiculous. These spells are not used in combat, but have immense impact on combat. Any player can find some way to use any spell either directly in combat or to give an advantage once combat begins. Anyhow, I can't agree about degree because most of our arguments in these threads revolve around degree. How much is enough? A slight change in focus can make the world of difference to the player. There might be different views of degree, but that's precisely where the bulk of these arguments lie. As far as your greater argument goes, in regards to who makes the choice, I agree completely. In fact, I'll go one further and say that the players are driving these decisions. It doesn't make sense that WotC is throwing these elements in at random. I'm sure they've researched what they think the gamers want, and I'm sure they're right. Simpler rules focused more directly on enounter resolution probably serve the bulk of players better. No matter how many folks rail about the absence of Thac0, the streamlining of skills, or the use of charisma to improve armor class, these changes represent a mind set that I see as prevalent today. I might not like the fact that character creation and development seems to be increasingly modeled on the World of Warcraft scheme of a character class combined with talent attribution, but that's probably what players want. If WotC goes too far... if they take the trend past the confines of the consumer base, then they'll address it in the next edition, I'm sure. In the meantime, I'm not writing off 4th edition just yet. I don't like some of what I see, but it's early in the game to judge the whole edition any how. EDIT: I think it would be good to use encounter rather than combat. Even in 3.5, encounters did not need to end in combat, and experience is awarded for resolving an encounter in a positive way.

When arguments fail, you can always use a smiley. If that doesn't work you can shriek "nazi" and leave the boards forever. Forever just ain't what it used to be. At least I can agree with you about the importance of combat preparation in CoC. Simplifying the rules isn't the problem for me. I guess, if the new ruleset isn't robust enough for your tastes, then that might be a problem for you. Simplicity can be wonderful. I've got more than enough 3.5 edition material to last, so I don't need to worry about 4th edition. Hell, I had enough 2nd edition material that I didn't need to get 3rd. I guess the difference is that I already had 3rd edition material upon release but I'm simply not going to buy into 4th edition right now. Of course, I won't wail like a banshee about it like some of you did about the conversion to 3rd.

Yeah, but so what? I mean, what popular tabletop RPG isn't that true of? Or consider some other spells usefulness in combat... How about 1e's Write spell. It was a spell used by a mage to enter spells in his spellbook if the rules would not normally allow it. How is that a combat spell? You could argue that allows the mage to learn more combat spells, but that's like saying a Fireball is a defensive spell, because it destroys the enemy. Or how about Identify or Enchant An Item in 2e? Yes, you can use Enchant An Item to create magic items, but the spell itself has no combat value, and Identify even less so, since it does not alter the item but only gives the player knowledge - a sword +2 is a sword +2 whether the person wielding it knows it or not, it's just a question of whether the GM or the player gets to do the calculation. Good Lord. I think someone made the distinction , very early, between spells that have direct application in combat and spells that have utility outside of combat that give the player a fighting advantage. I would certainly classify a spell that the mage uses to put spells into his spellbook as the perfect example of the latter. I don't believe we should go out of our way to find combat uses for every spell, but you've chosen the worst possible examples of non-combat spells to showcase the non-combat applications of spells. Someone earlier cited gathering intelligence. Entering combat when intelligence is lacking simply lacks intelligence. That aside, I don't think that, just because savvy players can find combat related uses for spells means that players are forced to do so. ...And, while I find the examples of identify and write particularly weak, the point isn't that all spells or abilities must have application, directly or indirectly, in combat. The point I thought newc was making is that the earlier editions weren't quite so openly confined to combat. The fact that the latest editions are apparently trying to integrate every stat more directly into combat underscores this point. It is unsettling to me. 4th edition, so far, really does have the feel of an MMORPG where there's no real pretense, during actual gameplay, that roleplaying really matters. The trickster rogue isn't someone who pulls the wool over the eyes of his foes to achieve his goals outside of combat. Nope, he's just a guy who uses his charm and wit to increase his armor class. I guess it's all good. After all, why even have the pretense of roleplaying any more? DnD was always all about the combat. Why not just quit deluding ourselves, right?

I'd kick your ass, but apparently I'm incapable. Quick, threaten my wife!

You're a unicorn. You're very pure and innocent. Almost everyone loves you and you love almost everyone. You may be naive to the point of gullibility. You're pretty much incapable of violence, the exception being when someone you love is threatened. While your intentions are nothing but good, some might call you a "straight-edger." Your alignment is EXTREMELY *good*. So much for accuracy.

Yeah, stay away from those prescription drugs. They'll kill you. Sleeping pills are dangerous. There tends to be bigger issues at hand when someone needs a prescription sleeping pill. These are powerful drugs, whether they are prescribed or not. I hope it raises the awareness that "hey, maybe I shouldn't take death pills and should work on getting my mind in a place where I don't need drugs to relax." Aside from Hiro's witty remark, Ledger did succumb to drugs, prescription or not. Yes, kids, and adults, should stay off of drugs in the sense that overdosing or improper use may be fatal. Drug abuse is drug abuse, and taking a quantity of drugs sufficient to end your own life should certainly count as drug abuse. Good one, Hiro. Snappy comeback. On the other hand, the police weren't sure about the particulars of the actor's death. If someone gave him the drugs without his knowledge or consent, I don't think we can really classify it as drug use. I'm sorry to hear that someone died under these circumstances. I'm not really a fan, but it's still a shame. I was mostly reading this thread to figure out why it seemed like such a significant event for the world at large. That's not to say that I think death is insignificant, but some folks are acting as if the actor were a head of state or some such. Don't get me wrong, I'm not admonishing folks for feeling grief. I'm just wondering why they feel it so acutely over an actor. I dunno. I guess I feel sad when folks die, but I don't actually personally grieve for folks I don't know.

Just out of interest, which of the classification systems do you prefer? Both have their merits. If I have to chose I do prefer the SNG system though. If for nothing else that it's a theoretical model constructed by gamers as an attempt to analyze the games we play, rather than market researchers doing the same. I also prefer the SNG system, because I can actually place myself somewhere in that system, whereas I cannot do so in the other system. I'm like Spider on this one. The WotC version, amongst other things, seems a bit slipshod to me. That wouldn't matter, except that they aren't some small indie company. They're an established voice, perhaps one of the largest, in the gaming industry.

I think the damage output if fairly inferior. Basically, Solo a lot and run lower level guildies through instances. For that purpose, I think 'Reddy is in great shape. For end level stuff? Not so much, I think. ...But I do have a lot of mana and tend to run out of it slower than the firemages I've seen. I don't know. I'll end up getting a damage meter and testing to see how I do.

I know I'm not in the same league as you guys, although it's too bad I'm not in the same realm as Calax (I'd make him help me :D), but I like my little Aredne. She hit 70 a few weeks ago and I've been trying to do things like get the Karra key. Here she is: http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.x...as&n=Aredne I've also spending more time on my first character on the server, Jacksmith: http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.x...amp;n=Jacksmith Finally, I've got a hunter that I only play with others, Peitho: http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.x...as&n=Peitho I know they're not very good characters, but I like them. :Cant's warm smile icon:

Anything beyond the basic rulebooks is escalation of power, Sand. That's why, along with everything else, your position is hypocritical. You don't mind escalation of power. You mind escalation of power in this edition. You didn't, say, mind the escalation of power from 2nd to 3rd? Or the escalation of power associated with any particular splatbook? Or the escalation (which I perceive) in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting? You claim: "[ i]n case you haven't noticed Cant but their has been an escalation of power with each edition. From 1st, to 2nd, to 3rd, now 4th. 4th Edition makes the 1st level newbies practically super heroes, and once they get to mid to high levels they would become gods." So, all the other escalations between editions are fine? All escalations within editions that arise from extraneous add-ons are fine? This one edition is terrible because it's easier on the 1-3 level players? You state: "[t]hat's okay with you, because their adversaries would be just as ridiculously uber as well." Apparently, in each edition and each extraneous addition to each edition, it's been okay by you. Frankly, I don't care about 4th edition one way or the other. I'm not going to purchase it because I'm heavily invested in 3.5 and I don't want to spend the money on 4th edition until the set is on the shelves and I have a clearer picture of what the new edition does to the game. However, your arguments about the "meaninglessness of death" and the "uber 1-3 level characters" put me in a position of defending the edition simply because your assertions, so wild and strident, are unfair. Well, I'll let you last word me on this. I've been a bit mean to you, so you can even be a meanie to me and I won't hold it against you.

Methinks the man doth protest too much. I mean, 3.5 was good, at least that's what I'm getting from you. But I think the difference, in terms of character strength isn't particularly significant, from what I understand, other than the first few levels. Those are the levels that could use the most work in terms of balance anyhow. *shrug* So, the characters will be too powerful? ...but aren't you the one who says that you make really powerful characters? Well, maybe not "uber." Maybe not ELVISH. hahahaha I guess they aren't celestial, but this: I have been a player and DM of Dungeons and Dragons (in its many versions) for over 25 years, Cant. Though I do contemplate character builds, especially when I am bored at work, I do play the game. I am currently in a Eberron campaign, which is going quite well and has been quite challenging. I am playing a fighter (2)/wizard (5) which I am building to craft and dual wield wands. Imagine unleashing 2 fireballs in a given round at once. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! The feat progression is: Two Weapon Fighting (PHB) Craft Wand (PHB) Double Wand Wielder (CA) Wand Mastery (ECS) Reckless Wand Wielder (CA) Wandstrike (CA) is worthy of comic book guy status. I guess you can create an uber (oh, I'm sorry, you didn't say uber, did you?)... I guess you can create some really POWERFUL (wait, you didn't say elvisih, uber, celestial, or all that and a bag of chips either!) even in the old edition. Really, be like DR. I think her posts sound unhinged, but at least she calls a spade a spade. ...Or are you saying that your... not UBER... not POWERFUL... hmm, whatever you want to call your character, is just the right amount of powerful?

The idea that the new ruleset is too easy strikes me as monumentally stupid. The basic rules have never been the determining factor of difficulty in the game. Never. NEVAR! That's why Sand's complaints lead me to believe that he is a theorists rather than an actual gamer. It has always been the responsibility of the DM to balance the game. Any iteration of the rules can be too easy or too hard with a bad DM. For someone to complain that the new rules make the game too easy, they must have been relying on the rules to make the game difficult or easy all along. I cannot think of a good DM who would have such a reliance. The rules facilitate fun, but the level of difficulty has always been the sole demesne of the DM. Other than the specious nature of Sand's arguments, and the errant bragging about his uber dual wand wielding fighter/warrior/elf/celestial who shoots lazer beams out of his eyes and healing rays out of his arse, I find the underlying premise just plain bogus. Now, if we get away from the difficulty idea, which is worth only scorn and little else, then we come to specific ideas. If someone says that, say, they don't like the threat confirmation rolls, then that's a topic. It's not a matter of easy or not. It's a matter of how you like to see those rules translated. That's why I don't really take the Magister or Spider to task for their comments. Perhaps it's a matter of understanding. Is it not ease so much as simplification? Do you find the new rules too "easy" because you don't think they're robust enough? That at least is a more reasonable complaint. Certainly more than saying the game will be too easy for the players. Any halfway decent DM should be ashamed of making such a claim.

As a straight sim, DnD was never the best choice anyhow.

You know, I was going to argue with you, then I realized I hadn't really spent much time shopping PnP games lately. There are games that want to be "realistic" and provide rules that make single hit deaths against the PC are likely. That's fine, as long as you can find a group of players who like such deaths. It's easier for the DM to make a module too tough than to make it too easy and both are much harder than making it challenging and fun. Single hit deaths against first level characters are so common, if the DM applies the rules exactly as written, that any single encounter is likely to be a bloodbath. Multiply that same encounter multiple times and you're pretty much assured of several character deaths, especially with beginners. As far as hit points, I don't mind a decrease from the upper levels. The characters don't need to have more hit points than elephants. What the characters need is a game where death depends more on decisions than on a single lucky die roll. Permanently giving characters the hit point equivalent of 1-3 level characters, with the other rules in place, means a lot more dying or a lot less combat.

I personally disagree with any decision to lower the hit point pool. I don't want to increase character mortality at low levels any more than I want to decrease it at high levels. While some folks might think it's the bomb, the iron-man idea doesn't hold broad appeal. ...Or, if it does, the trends in PnP and even computer gaming seem at ods with the idea. Mid level DnD is DnD at its best. Lowering the hit point pool to the current range from 1 to 3 is going to mean a lot more death, which makes DnD more of a game of creating characters than actual playing. The real clincher is this: "Lucky (or unlucky) strikes happen in combat. May it be on the table top or in real life. Take that away from the game and you take away the uncertainty factor when it comes with adventuring. Even goblins should get lucky sometimes." Of course, I agree with the statement on its face. I even agree with it as a general rule. However, it's not as important that the goblins be lucky as it is for the characters to be lucky. The goblins are a tool that the DM uses to make the game entertaining for the players. The characters are the tools the players use to play the game. So, yeah the players need to see that the goblins are lucky and the goblins should have a few breaks, but the most important thing is that the players get to play their characters and have fun. Challenge exists in a game to facilitate fun and create a sense of accomplishment. Challenge, in and of itself and for itself is of no use at all outside of the entertainment value to the players. So, make the game challenging, but don't worry about making sure the goblins are just as lucky as the characters. It's not about fair. It's about fun. Since, regardless of your protestations, you appear to be more of a PnP theorist than player, Sand, I'm not surprised that you feel the way you do about these things. I have very little doubt you spend more time contemplating character builds than playing them. Of course, perhaps I'm wrong, but that's my take nonetheless.