Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheAuldGrump" data-source="post: 5598599" data-attributes="member: 6957">Pour oil on the troubled waters.... Come back later and the waters are still troubled, and now the oil is now on fire.... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!    :eek:"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":eek:" />As has been pointed out there were anti-3e posts in the picture thread on the first page. I rolled my eyes and moved on. Then there was a picture breaking the 'no politics' rule that was also offensive - that one got reported, most likely more than once.Yes, there have been insulting pics of 4e as well - both sides are being offensive! And there is no need - you can make your point without being offensive.I went for pictures of pirates from movies - I own every single one of those movies, and wouldn't give any less than three stars out of five. (The three star is Blackbeard's Ghost - when I was a kid I would have given it a five. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/blush.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":blush:" title="Blush    :blush:" data-shortname=":blush:" /> I loved that movie in the theater. I used the picture for 2e - because while 2e has faded for me a bit I remember loving it.) The first picture is The Black Swan - an old B&W film of possibly the most successful pirate of all time, Henry Morgan - who managed to become Governor of Jamaica. OD&D had its faults, but I don't think anyone would deny it's success.1e and 3.5 were both chosen for maniacal grins - Yellowbeard for 1e and Hook for 3.5. I just liked those pictures. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Jack Sparrow for 4e and Blackbeard for Pathfinder? The most recent success stories in a long line of folks killing things and taking their stuff.I don't think that any were offensive.Saying that Jerry Lewis as an incompetent bellhop is not offensive to 3e?... Sorry, it was offensive. Less offensive would be a picture of a packhorse or mule. But, in honesty? Fighters have served as the party's pack mule since OD&D - it was not new to 3e. Which the picture implied was the case.Saying that they were less effective in 3e? In Basic D&D Clerics had the same attack bonus, could wear the same armor, did the same damage, and could cast spells. It wasn't until Unearthed Arcana and 2e that fighters started becoming more effective. Fighters were again a bit more effective in 3e, but perhaps still had ground to cover to come to parity with spell casters.In Pathfinder fighters have come close to parity, if not reached it - better in armor and weapons use than anyone else, nearly twice the feats of anyone else, and no dead levels. (And fighters getting better protection than anyone else wearing the exact same armor is great. Tankity, tankity, tank!)4e... some might argue that with the strange new Powers and Healing Surges that he is not a Fighter at all anymore, at least in the OD&D - Pathfinder sense. But, you know... if the folks playing them newfangled, motor driven pack mules are having fun? Let them have fun! That's the freakin' point!Me, I want to play with the new, shiny, armor plated pack mule with improved kicking power that is in Pathfinder. He still eats hay and oats, he's still stubborn, and doesn't always go where the wizard wants him to go, but he's my mule, and boy, he can carry a lot of stuff. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />The Auld Grump</blockquote>

Verification