Search results

I know this isn't the right class but still I find it hilarious that 4E has an Rogue Epic Destiny that quite literally reads like the plot line to Inception.

That is because most if not all of your arguments were devoid of any facts to support your argument. Why do you think I kept on harping on you about your logical fallacies especial in a game where as Vyvyan Basterd put it you can fix a lot of the problems by slicing out content that the...

Nope. Most classes actually fall under two roles with very few builds falling under a pure role. The PHB 2 and PHB3 actually does point this out using specific terminology while the PHB 1 generally hints at this. The fighter is particularly fun because he can double as defender/striker...

Nope. Trying to generalize from a case of two to three is something that generally gets you laughed at if you try to do it in any other context. Also, its a game which lends itself to easy analysis of the rules which makes these assertions even more hilarious. Thanks for criticizing my use of...

Actually the spellbook design of the original Martial classes pretty much mimicked the design of all the other martial classes in 3.5E except the fighter. Its just that its more overtly obvious in 4E while in 3.5E its a bit more subtle to realize that not much has changed. Really a lot of the...

You mean that they gave them powers just like a bunch of the other classes in 3.5E?

Starting to go through the Pathfinder material I'm coming to the conclusion that it wasn't at all a drastic fix. So far I've actually seen the origins of the AWED format. And yeah you were arguing from a fallacious position. The problem is that you were arguing that it didn't need any drastic...

What time period is this? Its seems like D&D has always had to struggle against either really bizarre bussiness decisions and people who had no idea how to run a business. You mean randomly screwing people over? D&D is a trademark not a copyright. The rule sets fall under copyright. Of course...

People criticize Wizards all the time for the same type of the "play style issues" in 4E. Admittedly, they aren't as drastic but still there are stupid design decisions that they have made that you can fix but aren't in the rules. Actually you are invoking logical fallacies which is why people...

Really? Outside of gaming stores I've had more success finding brand new 3.5E books than I have finding Pathfinder material. It was really kind of pathetic too because often what I would see is the entire collection of D&D material with a single Pathfinder book thrown in. The annoying part...

I don't know in a game where you basically have every single weapon type imaginable do you really think you can easily approach something realistic by making it less complicated. D&D all ready assumes that most of the weapons utilize the same tactics which is to hit stuff with.

Saying that you have to play the game in a specific way in order to avoid problems with a system is not a system that is working correctly. Also, stop using the argument that its subjective. You basically are invoking one of the more common logical fallacies.

Wait a second. How do you make something more realistic without making it more complicated that the D&D Armor Class set-up?

I don't think it has to do with the build though. The major criticism of 3.5E is that certain classes are capable of doing everything. And yes you can force it to be a fun experience but then you are basically admitting that you have to kludge the system to make it work. And before you use...

Copying an entire game system and republishing it is pretty unoriginal. Hell they even cribbed the weird underwear art that I was perplexed at from the 3.5E book. Of course calling them hacks is really stupid because its clear that they do quality work with their modules. Also, I'm not...

Was there ever an edition of D&D that did that though?

I can't believe you actually picked an example where the odds are likely that the made fun of the other combat mechanics. Also, Mearls has called certain mechanics in 4E flawed and dumb and you don't see me getting all whiny about it.

Actually its not all that hyperbolic. After reading the article on the planes on Wikipedia it is readily clear that a lot of planes were just developed for the sake of existing and not for any real game play value.

How is a pun dismissive?

Honestly, I remember listening to this podcast. I never actually realized they were referencing something in game. I thought they just made up the stupidest sounding thing imaginable. Now you are just grasping for insults.