Humodour Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 At least you and Volourn are both cool guys in the end. This one's a bit of seedy ****er. My post was on-topic, talking about 4e. you're the one that had a little hissy fit about ADHD. Seriously, dude, let it go. Your post was about mocking those with ADHD. How on-topic is that, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted January 31, 2008 Author Share Posted January 31, 2008 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGH! Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humodour Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGH! Yeah? You have some new info on 4e? Because I'm actually fairly fond of horses, even if they're dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magister Lajciak Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 In the interest of getting the thread back on topic, here are the latest three 'news threads' on 4E from ENWorld arranged from newest to oldest: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=217947 http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=217887 http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=217789 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Bulock Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Also, they revealed today in Ask Wizards that there will be a social encounter system. This sound's pretty interesting, and might encourage more "talk your way out of it" sort of things, but also has the possibility to let lame gamers "roll my bluff check" or whatever constantly and not do any actual role playing. My blood! He punched out all my blood! - Meet the Sandvich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atom523 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 (edited) Also, they revealed today in Ask Wizards that there will be a social encounter system. This sound's pretty interesting, and might encourage more "talk your way out of it" sort of things, but also has the possibility to let lame gamers "roll my bluff check" or whatever constantly and not do any actual role playing. I would love social random encounters. As i mainly play non fighting characters. I fully welcome an official addition to this. When i GM i have them and when i play the GM i usually play with also uses them as well. Can add a lot of fun to a session that might otherwise be purely a romp in violence. There is an easy way out of having players simple roll a bluff check and simply go on. Force them to actually talk and convince you. Make the roll only count as something to help a slightly faltering explanation. If there are wanted posters everywhere for your character you shouldn't be able to simply make a good roll and say something like "dude that totally isn't me". No matter how sincere you sound they will know you are full of crap. Force the players to make a good argument. I have this character who is a pathological liar, not a bad person he just is incapable of telling the truth, I have just about every point i have ever gotten invested in convincing people that i am right but my GM never lets me go with a half ass lie. Even with all my points invested i have to sound convincing. Also on the reverse of that, i have spun amazing lies together but totally screwed up the roll which has caused my beautiful story to fall on it's face as my guy was chucking the entire time due to my roll. heh heh. Force your players to roll play, they will thank you in the end. Also it is more fun for the GM. Edited February 1, 2008 by Atom523 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newc0253 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 a social encounter system you mean, like that table in the 1e DMG? 01-10 Slovenly trull 11-25 Brazen strumpet 26-35 Cheap trollop 36-50 Typical streetwalker 51-65 Saucy tart 66-75 Wanton wench 76-85 Expensive doxy 86-90 Haughty courtesan 91-92 Aged madam 93-94 Wealthy procuress 95-98 Sly pimp 99-00 Rich panderer dumber than a bag of hammers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkan Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Anybody care to summarize the changes that 4E is making "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials "I have also been slowly coming to the realisation that knowledge and happiness are not necessarily coincident, and quite often mutually exclusive" - meta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.E. Sawyer Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Anybody care to summarize the changes that 4E is making 1) Tieflings rul, gnomes drool. 2) Star Wars SAGA rules. twitter tyme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted February 4, 2008 Author Share Posted February 4, 2008 Pretty much, and SWSaga sucks big time. Also I like to know how the hell are they going to justify removing the gnomes out of the primary books when one of their major campaign settings, Eberron, have some very gnome centric aspects to it. What are they going to do? Claim all of House Sivis were actuallly Tieflings in disguise? Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magister Lajciak Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 They are going to add gnomes back into the game in another book - perhaps a supplement or PHB2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Bulock Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080201a Josh also forgot Dragonborn look neat. My blood! He punched out all my blood! - Meet the Sandvich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted February 4, 2008 Author Share Posted February 4, 2008 Dragonborn is nothing new. Races of the Dragon already have material like that. Yes, gnomes might make it in the PHB2 but that does no good for people who want to play the new edition in the Eberron campaign. Also I don't really feel like the need to buy extra books on material that should be in the core books in the first place. Tieflings are nice but they aren't core. Gnomes are core. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Bulock Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Tieflings are nice but they aren't core. Gnomes are core. You got it backwards. Tieflings are in the core book. Gnomes aren't. In all seriousness, I'm excited to have more interesting races in the PHB. Gnomes seem like one of those we have these because every fantasy setting has them sort of races, while tieflings are at least slightly more D&D unique. Same for dragonborn. Half dragon people and half demon people are nothing new, but they at least are new to the PHB, and for those people who don't buy the second, third, etc PHB's, it'll be nice to have some new faces in the book. My blood! He punched out all my blood! - Meet the Sandvich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newc0253 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Half dragon people and half demon people are nothing new, but they at least are new to the PHB, and for those people who don't buy the second, third, etc PHB's, it'll be nice to have some new faces in the book. My objection to the new-fangled playable races isn't that they're overbalanced (although doubtless it will be said that some of them are). Nor do i think players should be forbidden from playing PCs with unusual or bizarre backgrounds. if someone wants to play a monster PC, then so long as the DMs cool with it, then fine. My main objection is that swapping out gnomes for tieflings and half-demons, etc, invites a default campaign in which half-dragon PCs are the norm, rather than the exception. Sure there will be some settings in which those races would be more usual, but it hardly seems to encourage a low-fi approach. Then again, this was all preordained years ago as soon as the FR introduced the drow as a playable race. They've gone from being creatures of myth and rumour to something more commonplace than starbucks. The same will happen with tieflings and half-dragons until, someday, someone will put out yet another edition and gnomes will finally be all the rage again. dumber than a bag of hammers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Bulock Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Then again, this was all preordained years ago as soon as the FR introduced the drow as a playable race. They've gone from being creatures of myth and rumour to something more commonplace than starbucks. The same will happen with tieflings and half-dragons until, someday, someone will put out yet another edition and gnomes will finally be all the rage again. Definitely a good point, but while I hate being the only non-drow in a party (they tend not to fit my playstyle), I do lookforward to playing dragon born or tiefling characters, especially if their inclusion in the PHB means no level adjustment. You can blame the dragonlance setting, but I'm looking forward to have a draconic race that is fairly commonplace. My blood! He punched out all my blood! - Meet the Sandvich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 I don't mind the inclusion of Dragonborn and Tieflings, I just think they should be int he PHB2 and the gnomes be in the PHB. Gnomes are a major part of the main campaign settings that WotC publishes. Removing the gnome from the core means that there is no real point even bothering with the main campaign settings of FR or Eberron til the second set of PHBs are released. If people like myself never bothered to buy the 3.5e PHB2 and DMG2 does WotC really think that we will bother to buy the 4e PHB2? Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelfiredragon Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 never bought those two books/ never bought the 3.5 mm either. thats what the srd was for. Strength through Mercy Head Torturor of the Cult of the Anti-gnome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 I only bought the 3.5e books was because the place I buy gaming books at sold the main three together for a discounted price and I got a good trade on my 3e books. Overall, I only spent $30. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magister Lajciak Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Gnomes seem like one of those we have these because every fantasy setting has them sort of races, while tieflings are at least slightly more D&D unique. Same for dragonborn. Indeed, these races being 'slightly more unique to D&D' and not grounded in mythology and fantasy accounts for most of my apprehension at their inclusion in the core. Still, I am not really opposed to them as both Tieflings and Dragonborn are rather interesting. Besides, I despise gnomes, so their removal does not leave me the least bit annoyed (though their inclusion would not bother me too much either, except as a waste of space, since I ban them in my games anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) Why? They are just a player race. They are no more annoying than humans, elves, dwarves, half elves, half orcs, and halflings. Might as well ban all the races since they are all equally annoying. Edited February 5, 2008 by Sand Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Bulock Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Why? They are just a player race. They are no more annoying than humans, elves, dwarves, half elves, half orcs, and halflings. Might as well ban all the races since they are all equally annoying. I'm not sure exactly why gnomes get me. I'm not a fan of halfings much either, might just be the annoyance of small weapons. Could also be the lighter tone of all of their cultural stuff, or they way that most players always play goofy, "whimsical" gnome characters, and most of my games lean towards the darker side of things. My blood! He punched out all my blood! - Meet the Sandvich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 Well, I wouldn't put Halflings in the lighter tone. In one of my campaigns a player was playing a halfling priest of Urgalon, the halfling death god, and was very grim about his business. His half brother was also a recurring villain, He was a serial killer who worshipped Cyric. That was an interesting campaign that spanned from Toril to Sigil to Oerth to Earth and back to Toril again. Gnomes tend to be serious technological and knowledge minded folks my campaigns. In my FR campaign the gnomes of Lantan had elemental powered submersibles and navy that fiercely protected their borders. They were not whimsical against the party when they tried to sneak into that country to retrieve an escaped criminal and bring him back to the Moonshae Isles, alive. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorian Drake Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) Why? They are just a player race. They are no more annoying than humans, elves, dwarves, half elves, half orcs, and halflings. Might as well ban all the races since they are all equally annoying. I'm not sure exactly why gnomes get me. I'm not a fan of halfings much either, might just be the annoyance of small weapons. Could also be the lighter tone of all of their cultural stuff, or they way that most players always play goofy, "whimsical" gnome characters, and most of my games lean towards the darker side of things. JB, then you really never knew the little ones as I did, only once i had a player who played a gnome bard as one you described, I myself had a halfling barbarian who massecred the people who made stupid jokes on him...was quite a bloodbath, and a lot of times that happened. (well, atleast he gained leves quicker than the others) Anybody care to summarize the changes that 4E is making 1) Tieflings rul, gnomes drool. 2) Star Wars SAGA rules. ? Edited February 5, 2008 by Jorian Drake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 It's just that gnomes and halflings really have no purpose, no reason to exist. Evolution should have weeded them out long ago. I just don't see either of them as adding anything unique to a setting. Thankfully, I don't play settings that have either, so I don't really have to worry about them outside of cRPGs. But in those they are almost always of the comic relief variety, which just makes them more annoying (the only exception I can think of is Mazzy in BG2, which is the only halfling or gnome character I've tolerated in any cRPG). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts