Search results

This is just the kind of thing I've been getting at, Mr. Dancing Baby.

Ok thats what I thought. So what I said earlier stands. Despite the terminology they are using, from what tiny peeks we have recieved of what they are actually doing mechanically, I think Wizards will be improved, overall rather than nerfed. I mean I'm sure there will be negative wizard changes...

I think we actually agree here. I've played a high level wizard in 3.x with the Vancian system, and theres quite a bit of bookeeping. I dont think thats gonna change too much in 4e. Maybe a little less, since if its a reserve type deal where your per encounter and per day stuff is based on...

I dont think the setting calls for a priest class. In the Realms, which is about as polytheistic and god/church focused as it gets, the "clergies" already include non-priest classes. In fact, most gods in most D&D worlds would it seems to me have their clergies best represented by members of...

Ok. I am not going to do this again, especially if your going to resort to simple insults. Adding to ignore list.

No. I have a problem accepting the notion that a piece of art being "crap" is anything other than a subjective personal opinion. If I like something, and you think of it as crap, which of us is right? Neither. Because it is neither. Its art, and therefore, subjective.

Give me an actual definition of "crap". Aside from you not liking it. And all I am "doing to you" is stating the fact that you dont get to decide what is or isnt "crap", for anyone other than yourself.

I dont know why it would need to be proven. Its self evident. Until the last time I had this same discussion on these same boards, everyone I'd ever encountered used art as THE EXAMPLE of subjectivity, as oposed to objectivity. For something to be objective, it must be the same for everyone...

This is a seperate issue. You have, of course, the right to say whatever you please. But actions and words have consquences First, people are allowed to disagree with you, and to express that disagreement. Second, theres the issue of courtesy. People can have different opinions, but respect...

Alone it doesnt. but we're talking about a subjective thing. Quality of art is inherently subjective, by nature. Theres nothing objective about it.

For most of us, liking it and calling it crap at the same time is a contradiction in terms. If you like it, its good on the entertainment level. It might not be as deep or philosophical as some things, but that doesnt make it bad. Art can have many purposes, and achieve each of those purposes...

But when your talking about art, and entertainment, "good" is a totally relative and subjective concept. Thats why I called you an elitist. You believe, seemingly, that enjoyment has no connection to quality, and that quality is determined by a certain set of criteria, and those criteria are...

But its all still relative. One person's crap is another's masterpiece. Its a matter of taste, and of what criteria are being applied (and even those criteria are going to be pretty much subjective.)

For those who are bothered by it, the 9-915 is more of a conceptual problem, brought about by the mechanics. Its not just having something to do, its having something remotely wizard like to do. Also, I correct myself...the combination of per encounter and at will abilities is what will solve...

This to me is still the answer to the "per encounter abilities won't solve the 9:00-9:15 problem." It will solve it, except for those who will play that way no matter what. And the designers have said there will still be resource management. So I am still not sure what people are so worried...

Nobody gets to decide what is or isnt "art" or what does or doesnt have value, for anyone but themselves. At least not when it comes to creative works and the like. Now yes, there are things that are clearly made primarily for profit, reality shows and romance novels and the like. But again...

Ok two things. One, I dont really figure "epic" into my thinking, as the epic rules are....strange and dont really fit well, to me, with the rest of the game. two, I am not sure if I understand...am I correct that your fear is that casters will be overly "nerfed" in 4e?

Your idea of significant appears to be based entirely on wether something effects the NEXT encounter. Something can be significant based solely on how it impacts the CURRENT encounter.

I agree with that as well. But as we're seeing here, some don't realize the facts you just mentioned.