Im coming late to this thread, so I'll just throw all of my thoughts in a single post...
pawsplay said:
I'm less interested in comparing D&D 4e to Radiohead than I am to D&D 3e, which was seemingly a very successful game.
Not really... As of today, the number of roleplaying gamers in the world has not increased significantly since the days of 2nd edition AD&D.
However, it seems that WotC's strategy with 4E is to simplify/clarify the rules, make the game more accessible and fun.
This, combined with Hasbro's marketing know-how, could mean that D&D could actually enjoy a second golden age of popularity. If I am reading the signs right, the Beholder in Seattle is just a taste for whats coming, I would expect product placement in TV shows and movies, a few TV commercials (maybe featuring Vin Diesel or other D&D-playing celebrities), a print ad campaign in teen/young adult magazines... etc.
pawsplay said:
Have you? I think you must be confused, because the GSL is not an open license.
The OGL was not open either, at least not in the sense of the Creative Commons, GFDL or other "truly free" licenses.
The whole economic point of both the OGL and the GSL is to
let third parties make supplements for Dungeons and Dragons. Period.
Both licenses allow third parties to do that, and therefore both are useful.
hong said:
"Last night's 'Itchy and Scratchy Show' was, without a doubt, the worst episode ever. Rest assured, I was on the internet within minutes, registering my disgust throughout the world."
Thank you Hong. As always, we can count on your jokes to provide enlightenment. You are like a Zen master in that.
ryryguy said:
I find this "two weapons must grant two attacks" notion sort of interesting. Pawsplay is definitely not alone - FallingIcicle was pushing this very vehemently in the weapon preview thread.
I practice historical fencing on Sundays, and let me tell you: Fighting with sword-and-dagger (and also sword-and-cape) really adds a whole level of complexity to the whole thing and it mainly helps with defense.
The whole point of melee combat (IMHO) is that there is always a rhythm: Strike, parry, counterstrike, riposte, etc. You constantly try to break your opponents rhythm in such a way that you can land a blow without leaving yourself open to attack (since its kinda useless to kill your opponent if you are stabbed in the lung doing so).
Using a weapon in your off-hand helps you use one weapon to cover yourself while attacking with the other one. It really doesn't grant you the ability to land more hits. Of course, having a dagger in your off-hand also helps when you are too close to the opponent and already past the threatening range of a sword, but then you are grappling, not in straight melee.
And let me tell you, at this point in my training, I am more liable to lose a match when I try to TWF than when I use the sword alone.
So I am really ok with people needing feats/powers in order to do the Drizzt-cuisinart thing, although Two Weapon Defense should come for free to those spending the feat (or whatever) to do TWF.
(but of course, Precocious Apprentice said this a lot better)
And sorry Paws, the boxing analogy does not fly... And as much as it looks cool, wielding two long (and heavy) weapons is not better than wielding a long weapon and a shorter one in your off hand.
And Finally, about the monsters we are not getting in the 1st edition MM... Clark Peterson already promised those in the Tome of Horrors 4e, and besides... Not having good dragons or frost giant stats for a few months is not going to kill my game.
