Search results

I can't speak to your specific complaints about 3.PF, but as JeffB sarcastically pointed out, gamey-ness is par for the course in fantasy rpgs and D&D is no exception. (See My Virtual Soapbox for examples of how 3.x is far from realistic.) 4e and PF seem particularly gamey to you simply because...

How exactly do you phrase these restrictions? I'm curious because IME even power gamers will accept restrictions if presented firmly (but not aggressively) as such. Sometimes a player will sigh and briefly bemoan not being able to use their pet class or race, but being a player is after all much...

Yes, this goes quite a ways to explain things. :) I think your 'buildy' player may be less so than you think, or possibly just not very good at it, because I believe optimizing in 4e involves doing what you do: finding the biggest consistent bonuses you can. I'm not a CharOp regular though, so...

Really? I always figured that the paradigm change was the result of 1) the CB and 2) the (albeit silly) marketing slogan "Everything is core." You yourself say that your group probably has all the CB options turned on, though you're not sure. I myself have never met a 4e DM who restricted...

This debate reminds me of one M:tG topic a while back, about the practice of certain players to call their cards "him" regardless of the gender of the character in the artwork. As in, "I tap him [Serra Angel] to deal you 4 damage." (I know it's not really the same thing; I'm just saying.) I...

Yes, they do that because they're crafting theoretical PCs for fun, not generally for a specific campaign. Yes, this has sadly been my experience too. I have strong opinions on this subject, so suffice it to say that this is a big reason I don't go looking for 3.x games anymore. Yes, and...

You just ruined my childhood. :.-( On a more (less?) serious note, it still sounds wrong when I hear someone say 'fishes,' 'peoples' and similar plurals, but at the same time I'm glad that common usage is shifting the English language toward one less confusing quirk. :D

It's like watching two elephants fight over a rusty wrench.

I like 4e's three-and-a-half elven races: wood elves of the forest, high elves from the seelie court, dark elves from the unseelie court, and half elves...you know, I could do without half elves, myself. Three subraces are about as many as I want any one race to have.

Oooh, good one. I'm not a fan of any trend-lines, particularly 'In it to win it!'

I have to admit that until this thread, I thought that 'parlay' was just the way that Jack Sparrow says it. :uhoh:

Oh...I...I think I just had a religious experience. I have finally found my grammatical bible. Thank you for showing me the light, Cadence. :) Quick, somebody get James Jacobs on the phone. This idea is worth millions! I'm only kind of kidding. D&D certainly has a strong tradition of writing...

Oops, my bad. 'Cavalier' is both a noun and an adjective, and 'uncavalier' is neither. Which is strange, because it makes the perfect counterpart to the 'cavalier' adjective.

I'm so onboard with this! And while we're at it, let's scrap Q and X. Y is not a vowel. Ever. It's a dirty changeling, as so many English letters are. English needs to officially recognize ZH as a character, because it's ridiculous to use a sound often enough and yet not have a character for...

Oh gods, we need less of this! Also less letter-sharing in the engineering/science world would make me very happy. Last year a professor had the gall to criticize my previous school's engineering department, which taught me to use 'i' for 'imaginary' rather than 'j.' How silly of them!

I think a few thousand of my brain cells just unloosened themselves as a result of this revelation. :-S A lot like they did when I learned that 'uncavalier' is an adjective, but 'cavalier' is not.

*scratches head* That all sounds like magic to me. Anyone could be a wizard or cleric or what have you, though most aren't. And we know exactly where a wizard's or cleric's power comes from: meta-science or the gods, respectively. (And I hold that, based on the fact that higher-level casters...

Oh jeez, yeah! Do people just not know the trick? (Replace the word with 'it is.' If the sentence still makes sense, use 'it's'; if not, use 'its.') Or do people just not care?

Where I come from, this happens fairly often is speech. "What's wrong, I speak proper."

My mother, who teaches high school English, has kids who write 'gonna' in essays and such, actually thinking it's a legit word. And it probably will be in a hundred years or so. And then people like me will be wondering 'Why is it spelled with an O? That's a U sound!,' not realizing the origin...