Search results

Isn't most of Darkvision and such low-range? It can give you a skirmish advantage sometimes in certain moments of the day but not always in a large battle - say at long bow and catapult range, orcs are as blind as humans. And after all, there are many locations in which humans essentially "lost"...

Fair enough, but in most cosmologies, outsiders are made of the material of the plane of origin, literally made of evil. I can agree that using non-official or official (see what James Gasik posted, that's a big one) material in which they work differently, a nuance closer to what is done with...

They meant that they didn't want dailies. Now one could argue "what about rage or certain PrCs with X/day powers inm 3e" which is a very valid counter-argument (which I use, I am totally ok with daily!). HP deserves its own thread, but many, me included, maintain that due to the way things...

I maintain is due to the cosmology. Against orcs? I agree. Those are people, regardless of the horrible circumstances they got there. Against demons? No reason to give quarter to literally evil incarnate.

"Everyone is a spellcaster" is reductionist, but you know well what people meant (dislike - which I don't share - for daily powers). The warlord can be perceived like that because many consider HPs at least partially meat points, albeit never completely. Better to not go on the financial part...

People have diverse experiences. What I remember is quite different indeed, and is reflected in this thread. There is one specific way to play and 4e is perfect for that, different experiences dismissed, the math works (false), the game will be the same (false), element X of 3ed must be removed...

Sorry, but here you are re-framing what happened as a mere result of misinformation after the many, many attempts people made to let 4e fans understand that many 4e elements were subjectively bad for some of the customer base. I don't think this is fair.

But the premise of the thread goes beyond a neutral analysis. Here the mere aesthetic of the Paladin was considered problematic.

That circumstances and judgements, context and specific enemy will dictate the actions in base f the alignment. I am frankly almost disturbed by the discourse in this thread because is very absolutist and at the same time rejects the idea that creatures, IRL or in the game world, can analyze...

I recommend you to reread the thread then, OP included.

The 3.5 Psion is indeed very popular, and I am surely not an opponent. A player of mine brought one up to 40th. While the point system is very intuitive and ironically reminds people the system standard mages, sorcerers and wizards use in popular videogames (often called mana; see also the 3.5...

If none was confused, why this was presented as an exception, even a deconstruction of the archetype?

See above my comment about Aragorn, already covered.

I personally think that if you do that, better to get rid of them outright. But to me is funny because the universe remained the same, with devils, angels and demons.

I have to forfeit because you are technically correct - but that book is bonkers. Nothing as such is in the 3e corebooks though, and BoED has been discussed to nausea. Of course, PF1e is an evolution (mostly, I sometimes prefer 3.5 or 3.0 here and there) of 3.5.

It does only in your interpretation which you intentionally devoid of any context. Chaotic Good is not the opposite of objective morality - is just not Lawful Good. Chaotic Good thinks stealing is not bad if it helps the innocent, LG will tell you "there must be another way, the Law is still...

Sorry but no. This whole premise is invalid. The fact that alignment is objective doesn't mean that stealing is always an evil act - because some may break the law to do good, like Robin Hood does. Chaotic, Good. You are filling a lot of space with stuff that isn't there. Holy Word does't...

To do that and also have a good balance seems impossible to me without changing the game beyond recognition. See upthread.

I am just asking people to put a token effort.

I think in order for a game to grant a certain experience, a minimal number of mechanics of a minumum amount of complexity is required. Remove too much, and you don't have the game anymore. We can discuss all the day about the amount of mechanics to be removed (and we do, see the thread and also...