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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 2787693" data-attributes="member: 30001">That the OP was a power gamer post is my opinion and is based on what is there.  It's not an assumption, it's an interpretation of what I'm reading.  I don't have much to say about Bullgrit personally, this is just a message board so I have to go based on what I'm reading.  I never said that the OP was a whiner.  I don't believe that. I never said you called me a thespian hippy.  I called myself that as a joke because I was in an unsual position of arguing for the roleplaying side of the spectrum. I claimed that a gaming experience that simulated the core REH Conan books almost fit exactly with the complaints that you and Bullgrit had with regards to nerfing characters and such.  There's much more to it than power gaming.  Conan was actually an example of a character who's initial build would have been VERY ill-suited for the bulk of his adventures.  On top of that, his DM takes away his equipment all of the time.  Compare what a "hill barbarian" build would get you compared to the bulk of Conan stories.  In short - I have to assume that you don't know the REH stories, and so I really don't think you got my point at all.   I was hoping that you could understand what I was trying to say without knowing the stories, but I guess not, so please don't be so quick to judge.  It was about more than power gaming.I'm not sure when "playing a fighter with 8 strength" ever became an issue.  There are a couple issues - I don't see where that one fits in.  "Rogues vs. golems" and  "I don't like paladins/clerics because they have to do stuff for campaign reasons"  - just to paraphrase two.  Neither seems to fit.  So I don't disagree at all with what you're saying in this case.  If you want a strong fighter, put the high score in strength.  And yes, that goes hand in hand with character concept.  So I agree with your "mighty warrior on horseback" example.  But what that has to do with said fighter being looked at as a slave due to campaign culture, as an example?  I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here.Yes you can, you just can't do it in 6 seconds.  Is there something inherent in killing folks in 6 seconds (1 round) vs. 7-12 seconds (2 rounds) that makes it less heroic?  I would suggest that your definition is a little too metagamey when 6 vs. 7 seconds is qualitatively different.  Does Whirlwind Attack really say that it's a single swing?  I have a hard time understanding how such minutae would really qualify as a charater concept either.  Conan is a good example of someone who killed hordes of people in what seemed like short amounts of time.  But no one put a stop watch on it.  Is it really that much of a problem if the character build has or doesn't have whirlwind attack?  Remember, I mean from a house-rules perspective - as in Whirlwind attack does or does not exist.Yea, and that's where this becomes a matter of play style.  I would make a similar argument to a thespian DM that gets all resentful about "munchkin" players in his campaign choosing the best feats for their characters.  But when the OP is resigned to playing fighters with two-handed swords because he's ruled out every other race and character*, I think it's time to consider that maybe it's time to reconsider some of your "truths" of what DnD has to offer.(* which is what I thought he was systematically doing in his post, but he's advised me to reconsider that I even grasp the basics of that post.)And rogue in a tower of golems and undead has not had his character concept "completely nullified".  (A rogue fighting a golem still gets hitponits doesn't he?  Skill points?)  Where a character happens to be standing doesn't change the character concept.  Perhaps you're talking about one of Bullgrit's other issues, but I don't know which one.There's much more similarity between Conan and the examples that were given in this thread - but I don't think you'll be convinced of their similarity as long as you misunderstand the one (Conan) and greatly exaggerate the other (nullified character concept).I am sorry that you're offended, if you are.  As to what I'm allowed to say and not say on this board - my comments only apply so far as I understand what you're writing.  I don't think I have to know you to have an opinion about what's being said - I don't have an opinion on what you as a person have done for the last 22 years of gaming.  If I wrote "power-gamer" somewhere, take it as a "what you've written here seems to be a power-gamer type philosophy".  You're right that I really wouldn't know anything about whether or not you're a power gamer.</blockquote>

Verification