Search results

Durkon is second in my oots affections only to O-Chul. This strip cements that firmly.

The difference is largely semantic, but 4e was upfront about it. "Here's PHB1. PHB2 and so on will introduce modular core stuff later." Wizards changed their language for how they referred to the updating process. That is the meaningful (IMO), and un-ironic difference. The rest is window...

Ah, yes. Double-backflip irony with a full twist. None of them have stuck the landing yet, though.

I would give xp for this, if I could, and it wasn't so depressing. :erm: That said.... people need to come into the modern age. This whole notion of 4.0 vs 4.5 is clearly antiquated. 4e was introduced with modular design, and it being moved forward by modular design. There is not, and never...

All that is well and good. But here's where you go off the rails: For you. My mileage varies considerably, as it clearly does for several other people here. Your experience does NOT "say it all." It says that your group uses the earlier edition more efficiently. That is pretty much all it...

Indeed. And I think the answer will vary from person to person and table to table, especially in games like 1e/2e with so many optional subsystems. Depending on how many of those are in play (and which ones), you may well see one table losing nothing with the loss of grid, and another losing much.

Wasn't meant to be applied to you personally. Just a pet peeve that you happened to hit on since I was last at a computer and able to respond to the thread. Human beings are quite bad at this kind of thing, so large numbers of people insisting they can do it with something resembling accuracy...

This was a ways back, but I can't seem to let this go by.... Emphasis mine. Actually, when you are running a battle inside your head, it is exactly like that. In fact, every time someone takes or contemplates an action aloud, the battlefield is redrawn. That's how memory works. If you are...

I seem to be very late to the party, but I wanted to point out that the entire discussion of relative difficulty is ignoring individual differences and trying to set up a fallacious objective standard. To wit... No, it doesn't. I'm going to take the apparently heretical position that 1e is...

The answer depends on the group's comfort level with imprecision of placement. There are more powers in 4e that affect placement and shake up positioning. If you're using a lot of those, the number of variables a human being needs to keep in their head is going to quickly become untenable...

To keep it simple, I'll only address a little of this. This is where the single biggest logical disconnect is coming in, for me (besides the various revisionist histories, but I'm not about to tackle that Gordian knot). Minor encounters can, in fact, be minor encounters in 4e. Resolved...

Considering that we're talking about recent iterations of the D&D rules, weapon position, weapon style, and facing are pretty far outside the bounds of the discussion. But I'll bite. Personally, I care about terrain and relative position of players, which have been fairly important to the...

Not remotely. The complex examples that were gridless rely extensively on DM fiat or player narrative control in terms of exactly where characters or terrain are in relationship to each other. This is not "accurate." It is socially agreed upon handwaving. It's not a bad way to do things, but...

I think people forget or downplay the accuracy angle. Doing complex positioning accurately in your head is, frankly, bunk. But it's a form of bunk that a group will buy into if they trust their DM. If the group has all bought into it, they don't care about the lack of precision. Maybe they...

This is an even bigger rules kludge than anything complained about above. Doing that occasionally and when narratively interesting is fine. But if you do it too often, why bother having a set of rules to adjudicate the combat? If players don't know what their tools will do when used (at least...

I'm not convinced it's necessary speculation, as they've been doing experiments with gut flora in mice where they've been able to successfully introduce novel systems of flora extracted from donor mice without incident.

They mean a synthetic genome. They synthesized a genome and put it into an existing cell in place of its existing genome. The cell then took on the characteristics encoded by the new genome and successfully replicated itself. Definite progress, but I would say that it's being over-sold slightly.

As a DM, I didn't care how long things lasted as long as the players had fun. As a player.... nothing pissed me off more than a 1 or 2 round fight against a big bad. That's the soul of anticlimax. Might be a nemesis we've had for a long time, might be a monster of legend... and it dies to a...

Not exactly. No individual encounter was so bad, but having 3 of them before you learn anything or do anything else interesting was asinine. I like an individual combat that takes an hour, but I want that combat to accomplish something if it takes that long. Plus I'd rather have one or two...

This is not the first time it's come up that the adventure design and the rules design don't seem to be on the same page. My brief experience with WotC adventures for 4e suggests that there are way, way too many fights. So much so that it seems counterproductive if you want to keep selling...