Search results

I don't know. It's a game, not a political statement. Like others said, I don't think any male would be offended by male stereotypes in game. And like i said, I have never met a female player actually offended by the portrayal of a female character. Have you? Is it the main reason why you and...

Same here. I guess I fall in the "mostly plays idealized versions of himself" category but i've played and seen a few "cross-gender pcs", especially when I started playing, back in middle school. They were generally fun and none of the girls in our group were offended by males playing...

That about sums it up. That's why you can't use the word in a marketing pitch. It looks particularly bad when people don't get your cool.

Agreed. Also, the recycled art would be more understandable if it was all matchless pieces. The bog and dune hags were pretty good, the shop job on the succubus from the Demon Pits, not so much. It really looks like they ran out of time or something.

Which reminds me that I've bought monsterbooks i knew i wouldn't use (not just dnd), only for the art and inspiration. But on the whole, I wasn't impressed by the 1st MM's art direction (too many ugly / cartoony monsters) As for the flavour text, well, you know...

No I won't. I'm sure the next core books will fix some issues I have with 4e, but at this point i'm not even interested in playing 4e anymore. Also I shouldn't have to buy 6 or more books to cover what I consider the bases of a fantasy rpg. MM2, like PHB2, should sell on its own merits. The...

psychological effect then. But foes are automatically affected by the last fighter who "distracted" them, and him only, no matter how trained, wise or intelligent they are compared to said fighter? hmm...

That still doesn't explain how the fighter's mark works. If it's just him harassing an ennemy, there's absolutely no reason why marks shouldn't stack. It doesn't make much sense either that strikers, who have a greater threat range and also deal lots of damage, can't do just the same.

:) Still doesn't work for me.

Exactly It's not complicated, it just dosen't make sense. The additional attack kind of works but not the penalty. If it's about the marked ennemy having to defend himself, i see no reason why marks shouldn't stack. If it's some psychological effect (taunts et al.) I don't see highly trained...

It's not obvious at first glance because of the scale but yes, i think the proportions are wrong more often than not. The heads are too small, torsos are too long (Seker and Freyja are the worst offenders). One of Set's calves is larger than his thigh. Osiris and others have canckles and there's...

Yeah, the style and poses for the greek pantheon were interesting but definitely too sketchy. I also remember Apollo being described as incredibly handsome or something but the picture of him clearly wasn't. I liked his art a lot, back then. But when i look at it now, I think the proportions are...

Loved that book. L&L is one of the first dnd books i bought. I actually had it before the phb.

...and you do realize how it's different from the CS tearing episode, right? sigh... Imaro couldn't do it, but I'll try anyway: Nothing in this anecdote says that player was not calm or polite. Or even overdramatic. For all we know, it could have been amusing, depending on his tone and...

I am french too but it doesn't sound like a french word so i've always pronounced it (hard)Geh-nah-zee. erm... now that i think of it, that sounds exactly like "gay nazi" in french. Maybe that's why D.Monin prefers "jenasi".

none. i've read the core books and played a few sessions though.

I don't know. i haven't read this particular thread, but i have seen some wotc staffers being childish and not particularly funny on these boards and getting away with it.

serves you right! :lol: Precisely, it's just a game. If it was "all in good fun" like the op said i don't see what the problem is. It's not like they mocked him for something personal. If he was a designer and had worked hard on 4e, i could see. No matter how tempting, even I wouldn't boo the 4e...

hmm no. Not considering the fanboi attitude of many posters who defended that. That would be implying 4e is not what the designers intended and that they screwed up somehow. I don't think dnd was that good at simulation before. The point is now it's worse. Each previous edition was a step away...

yes that explains a lot, and it's consistent with M.Mearls' previous references to board games. I didn't buy the books because i had the chance to read them beforehand but clarifying these design goals earlier would have spared us endless threads with comments like "oh, i don't see a change...