Search results

I know Advanced Basic Challenger D&D 3.333333 (recurring) Edition when I see it. I'll translate for you guys. Like a galeb duhr, but more grumpy. A demon with a combover, obviously. Little known relative of the displacer beast.

After version 4.4 you'd have to jump straight to 4.6, though, as we've been told that "there will be no 4.5". ;) Kind of like how they're skipping number 13 in street numbers in some places now because it affects house prices, maybe.

I note that one side effect of this rule is that a seventh level halfling or a tenth level dwarf or elf has a 95% chance of making this save, given they need a 2 or more. That makes them on average a cat with 19 lives from that point on. Gimli, Legolas and Frodo get plot protection...

Um, you don't have to cheat or house rule running out of HP if you're using the Rules Cyclopedia. There's optional "death's door" rules for below zero HP under the heading Keeping Characters Alive, page 266. They even appear to be more forgiving than the 2E death's door rules, so long as...

Not exactly. You can play a game using this for a campaign with or without any combination of weapon mastery, skills, level limits, optional classes, wargame resolution, dominion rulership, nonlethal combat, THAC0, death or dying conditions, ability checks, saving throw bonuses etc., and then...

My favourite is hidden away in DM Procedures. Basically, the DM can overrule if any thief skill roll works or fails, without rolling. This allows you to play RC kind of like the Lego Star Wars/Indiana Jones/Batman games, where the thief will have an autosuccess on disarming traps, opening...

Pazuzu, although I've never seen him used. Fraz-Urb'Luu and Kostchtchie never seem to get much love. Zuggtmoy probably deserves more props than she gets, as she's easily the most fought of them thanks to T1-4, unless you count Lolth (who's looking a bit tired on the whole).

If only Dungeon Squad! had character levels...although adding them would probably kill the elegance of simplicity thing it has going on. Risus and Fudge struck me as too open-ended, as if "nailing whispers to the wall", as someone put it. They seem less actual games than game design kits for...

No, I don't know him from before this thread.

Someone can be in flanking position, or not. The sneak attack doesn't imply their compliance to a command.

I don't care if you've got a degree in that pseudoscientific excuse for a field. You're engaging in reprehensible sneakyduck tactics by trying to question my integrity in this way, where in reality we're just having an argument. It's an ad hominem attack, and so low of you that it calls into...

That may as be, but the rogue's powers don't hinge on compliance from other party members doing as he says to function, and all that implies. That's the critical detail.

And clearly you're passive aggressive and experiencing cognitive dissonance. You should see a therapist. When you can't win any other way, denigrate your opponent with psychobabble. This is truly the bottom of the barrel, the ultimate in ad hominem attacks. You should be ashamed of yourself...

Bollocks, they engage everybody on the topic, so far as I can see. There aren't enough hours in the day for me to help them establish the kind of reputation as 4E defenders, apologists and shock troops that I associate with some of these names. I don't deny that I have a reputation too, but...

It's exactly how I accept they are - armchair expert's on other's specialist areas, handing out commands! And that's codified into the powers. No matter what passive spin you put on it, that's what this class is.

Then how could I predict exactly who I'd end up arguing with? The usual suspects, falling back on the usual tactics.

That's true. In this case I think they have vested interests that colour their own beliefs too much, though. There are people prepared to put unlimited spin on anything that will defend 4E, or prove it's superiority over alternatives, and I've noted who they are.

Because they don't impinge on the independence of other characters and their status as peers rather than subordinates, nor the central conceit of the adventuring party as a group of heroes rather than a hierarchy of soldiers taking orders. The nearest thing to an argument you have there is...

Because you know "teh troof"! And anyone who disagrees with you is irrational! Of course! Look, I can disagree with you, but I'm not so naive or arrogant as to believe that everyone who disagrees with me is failing to listen to reason. That's just ridiculous. Maybe you should consider that...

Heroes are not soldiers. Soldiers can be heroes, though. Point not refuted. Go look in a dictionary. Note the military and political references. Point not refuted. No, 4E's bad design just violated a central D&D conceit, the nature of the adventuring party. Point not refuted. No, it's...