Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hairfoot" data-source="post: 4982885" data-attributes="member: 23732">Crumbs.  You’ve got me there.  I was basing my argument on your constant use of straw men, unfounded assertions about other people’s games, proud lack of experience, the glaring contradiction between what you say and what you do, and the facade of condescending arrogance you affect in order to dismiss reasonable criticism.I didn’t realise I have to guess your favourite game, too.Let’s see…You’ve published reams of houserule material for 4E, including a commercial booklet, consistently mention 4E in the context of your “fave game”, and the only positive examples of play you cite use 4E as the system.Hmm.  Is your favourite game…Rifts?  I knew it!Now, tell us more about this cleric.  Did he get streetwise, thievery and acrobatics as class skills? Does he get to use the bard-implement feats?  Will he be getting Swift Invisibility at 6th level?That’s all bardy stuff the bard gets for being a bard.  Did your “fluff” get translated into rules?  If not, that contradicts your entire argument.  I thought your fave game allowed you to “back [your] fluff up”.  Where are the rules that distinguish this cleric from the other clerics?In OD&D your character is exactly what you describe, without needing to bend and fudge it to fit the mechanics.As for multiclassing, why can’t I start as a bard with cleric features if that’s my concept for the character?  Why do I have to wait?  That would mean I have to alter my story for the character in order to squeeze it into the rules, which is precisely what you deny is a shortcoming of dense rulesets.Oh, good.  Glad I’m up to scratch.  Now show us where you specifically requested examples, as you claim.  You’re going to reach for post #100, of course, so I’ll remind you now that rhetorically asking if an OD&D character gets the same bonus a 4E character would, just so you can dismiss it, doesn’t count.Now, let’s recap.You argue that (a), OD&D offers less diversity than your "fave game" because character descriptions don’t translate into rules, and, (b), that the system is unworkable because it requires too many houserules to function properly.To back (a) up, you’ve provided an example character which has mechanics completely unrelated to its description because the rules don’t allow that much versatility, while in OD&D the rules would allow the character to be precisely what the player describes.  Your argument does not withstand scrutiny.As for (b), let’s review what you’ve said about the matter:How do any of those statements gel with the fact that you’ve published an entire web document of house rulings for 4E to make it work satisfactorily?You have invented or altered rules for:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">“Full Floating Ability Bonuses” </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">“Partial Floating Ability Bonuses” </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Modified wielding for small PCs </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">7 changes to class powers </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Removal of class skills </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Boosts to damage of at-will powers </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Changes to the Astral Whirlwind power </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Changes to abilities for Starpact Warlocks  </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Major changes to wizard’s spellbooks </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Weakening of the Orb of Imposition </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">An AC boost to Bear Shamans </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">5 major changes to magic item rules </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Alterations to saving throws for worsening of effects </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Boost to monster power </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Removal of 10 separate feats </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Heavy armour AC changes </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">4 major changes to item enhancement.</li> </ul>Oh, and you’ve commercially published a booklet which replaces the entire 4E system for designing monsters.That’s 37 house rules even without the monster builder.  37! Is there any original 4E material left that you’ve left untouched?How many houserules were used when you played that one almighty session of OD&D and became the all-knowing oracle you are today?  Two?  Half a dozen?  Thirty-freaking-seven?In over 25 years, I’ve never seen a game – any game – with that many house rules.  If you’re ready to put that much work into altering 4E to suit you, why not save half the time and trouble and just add rules to OD&D until you get the same result?  Or build a game from scratch?Your chutzpah is remarkable, but what on earth convinced you you’d be able to pan OD&D for house rules when you’re the most prolific 4E house ruler on the internet?You had the option to retire gracefully.  It’s been said over and over in the thread that it’s OK for people to like different things, but you were determined to prove that OD&D is objectively terrible.  Then, you could have based your argument on something solid and consistent, but, no, it had to be house rules.Surely you realise how ridiculous you look now.I chuckled extra hard where you changed the rules for small characters because ”being Small has only disadvantages, which some DMs and players think is unfair. Using this house rule, Small characters use two-handed and versatile weapons just as Medium characters do.”After all the lofty criticism of OD&D’s simplicity, you want a house rule for 4E to make all characters conform to the same mechanic?  The irony speaks for itself. Give us a break.  You've proven beyond doubt that you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about when it comes to OD&D, and your house rule argument is hypocritical on a grand scale.</blockquote>

Verification