D&D General The perfect D&D edition (according to ENWORLD)

[Garthanos]

See. Not a lie. Just factually incorrect.

LOL ok not a lie because i did not intend to deceive nor was the likely result to be a deception.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It took one person to divert this fairly nice thread into hate...people mentioned not liking everything in the profile without that happening

It takes two to argue, as my mom would say.

 

[Garthanos]

Apparently it's official that bardic inspiration is NOT magic, though you can't poach actually it without also gaining casting.

That latter bit is unfortunate as the fantasy version of King Arthur shouldn't be a Spell caster but as a student of Merlin (who is definitely a Celtic Bard character and Ector very much a Knight)

One of the benefits of having a freer flowing multiclassing is supposed to be having things like the above happen more naturally as part of the story.

 

[Lanefan]

Or to have a measure of unpredictability and that does not require overwhelming and instant extremes.

Just like Gygax rejected critical hits and considered hit points to be undermined by them... err sometimes he did and sometimes it seems like not so much. LOL

I suspect the thinking was that hit points aren't the be-all and end-all of a character's survivability but merely one measure among others, and that there's nothing wrong with mechanics that partially or completely bypass h.p. sometimes: a line of thinking with which I agree.

That said, you're right in that Gygax's rejection of criticals isn't entirely consistent with the rest of his design philosophy - but then, consistency and Gygax weren't exactly joined at the hip at times...

 

[Garthanos]

I suspect the thinking was that hit points aren't the be-all and end-all of a character's survivability but merely one measure among others, and that there's nothing wrong with mechanics that partially or completely bypass h.p. sometimes: a line of thinking with which I agree.

His elaborate descriptions of hit points had them modelling just about everything you might image which might protect a heroic character AND the advancing hit points to create a bastion of reliable defense were a tool that other games like the competitor RuneQuest didnt have... and that D&Dism wasnt realistic nor intended to be. It was a solid distinction and from my experience made D&D feel potentially more heroic than the competition more larger than life more like Conan and Elric and others who stood on piles of enemies with gleaming swords it was a selling point I think that probably did beat RQ even while I loved playing and DMing Stormbringer back in the day it was one of several things that the system fought against very thoroughly. Any and every attack could be death and the way dice work pointless deaths all over the place to the very things Gygax's argument was against.

That said, you're right in that Gygax's rejection of criticals isn't entirely consistent with the rest of his design philosophy - but then, consistency and Gygax weren't exactly joined at the hip at times...

I found it quite consistent with his description of hit points though.

Yeh it is an impression I have but Arneson and He sure spawned something awesome didnt they

 

[Garthanos]

It takes two to argue, as my mom would say.

And one green warty regenerating figure vulnerable to fire to prod many...

 

[Sacrosanct]

And one green warty regenerating figure vulnerable to fire to prod many...

No, he wasn’t trolling, he just disagreed with you. He wasn’t trolling this thread any more then lowkey13 does when he says he hates paladins. People get it, and move on. Well, most people do... And putting someone on ignore, and continuing to bad mouth them and argue against them when they can no longer defend themselves is pretty bad form

 

[Garthanos]

No, he wasn’t trolling.

Reads selfish and spiteful to me and fake, lies about and does not read what he criticizes swaps out the complaints as he goes. To me that is all very bad form whether you call it trolling or not.

What he is spouting works though it certainly got the job done.

Oh I guess I will unblock the jerk though cause I do not care if he reads any of it. I blocked him because i didnt want to read any more about what he had to say but the progs do not really accomplish that.

 

[Garthanos]

And as for me using an emotionally laced word... what do we call using the word Abomination it's utterly incomparable.

 

[happyhermit]

So are you happily applying that spite intention limit on disrespect too?

Dropping outside of D&D and Gaming Scope.
Because ideas really really need to be addressed many of them have huge real world implications and being afraid of disrespecting people because you disregard an idea is a sure fire way to let bad ideas reak havoc.

I never said anyone should be "afraid" of disrespecting people, I know I am not, though I do believe that a certain level of respect should be the default. It's entirely possible to counter bad ideas without being disrespectful, and it's often more successful. The whole point though was the selective sensitivity of those that spread disrespect like it's their job.

It isnt even a tad disrespectful if you treat it honestly and do not intend to disrespect people... if you lie you are disrespecting people regardless of your intent.

Not really, it's possible to lie and be respectful, meanwhile telling the truth in the wrong circumstances can be extremely disrespectful. Ie; Going to a funeral and telling the surviving family unfortunate truths about the deceased.

If something is done out of spite, it's spiteful, if it isn't then it's not. I don't think there is a lot of quibbling about what "spite" means. Since this an internet forum discussion, and quoting definitions is always a good sign, here's the definition google gives;
Spiteful; showing or caused by malice.
Spite; noun; a desire to hurt, annoy, or offend someone. verb; deliberately hurt, annoy, or offend (someone).

What is and isn't disrespectful is slightly less clear, because unlike spike "respect" varies more with context and culture. Google says it means;
Disrespect; showing a lack of respect or courtesy; impolite.
Respect;
1. a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
2. due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others.
verb;
1. admire (someone or something) deeply, as a result of their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

So it's probably "2" that we are looking at. If something shows a lack of "due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others." or if they are being impolite, or not being courteous.