pawsplay's dealbreaker list


First Post
Wisdom Penalty said:
Screw those positive-thinking sons of guns!

But, um, seriously - I don't think the original post really had anything meaningful in it. It was just a laundry list of...complaints. If you want "rational discourse on what elements are good and which are poor" I'd suggest you try some other threads.

There ain't anything ground-breaking, mildly interesting, or profound in this one. (Yes, I realize I'm including myself in that indictment.)

Fair enough. Move on.


p.s. Where you gonna go for logical discourse if not here? You name another board that beats EN World on that metric, and I'm a svirfneblin.

And we needed this giant stinking thread turd why?!?

log in or register to remove this ad


First Post
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."

Yes clearly the 4E forum is the right place to tell us about Itchy and Scratchy...


First Post
DandD said:
This thread is only about 4th edition enthusiasts and 4th edition dislikers throwing mud at each another again, and both sides do it nastily.

It started out as an intelligent and reasonable post about someone view on 4E until f4nbois reared thier ugly heads doing thier best to try and get it locked down per usual.


First Post
Jim DelRosso said:
No doubt. 3e was a great game, and I staunchly defended and praised it for years. Just because I think 4e is going to be an improvement doesn't mean that I buy into all the half-baked slams made against 3e in the last eight years.

For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to brush away all 4e criticisms -- or even all of pawsplay's -- as "smoke". But the minion bar brawl one strikes me as very much in the same category as 3e's sack of rats and blindfolded kobold. I just can't see the string of decisions that would lead to such a thing happening at an actual table.
Personally I find amusing that the people who railed against a housecat being able to kill a wizard (in theory) are now ok with one killing an orc.


Golden Procrastinator
pawsplay said:
Can you substantiate that? I'm looking at a 1e Player's Handbook and I do not see a reference to fighting with two weapons at all.
In 1st edition combat rules are in the Dungeon master Guide and this one is no exception. It's on page 70.


First Post
pawsplay said:
Yeah...from this we know that you can't attack with each weapon in a round without a power to do so, but that doesn't mean that two-weapon fighting is off the table. From that factoid, it's obvious that two-weapon fighting is viable, and there might be feats we don't know about that increase your defense, or change how each hand handles each weapon, or whatever...we don't know yet. Thus the assuming and subsequent pessimism.
Hey Shadey, try to consolidate your posts please.


First Post
The hilarious irony in the whole two weapon combat thing is....

You can't use two-weapon fighting without a feat (and really, to be effective at higher levels its painfully restricted to the improved/greater two-weapon feats that also force a high-dex build upon you) in 3.x. I mean, yea, technically you can swing two longswords without a feat in 3.x, but you aren't going to be hitting the broadside of a barn.

I'm not sure what the difference is in 4e. Yea, you either have to take a power, or possibly a feat, or hey, maybe even both. But um, you had to use the same finite character creation resources to do so in 3.x as well. Calling it a dealbreaker sort of implies you didn't play 3.x, either.

As far as some of the OP's concerns, I feel him on some of the stuff: Eldarin teleport is a little iffy, haven't seen a MM table of contents so we'll see how that goes.

On other things, like the minions and the two-weapon fighting thing though, you totally lose me. Minions are presented in the MM as a tool. There are plenty of non-minion options within the Orc MM entry that you can use if you want to. In fact, if you want to run slightly wimpier orcs, we already know the rules for how to do that. Take the Orc Raider, move him down to level 1, adjust his stats, tadaa. It's like doing it in 3.x, but quicker because the reverse engineering isn't nearly so obtuse.

If you dislike Minions because hypothetically a group of 200 peasents will inevitably triumph over 4 level 30 minions (requiring only 4 20's for victory), I think you are basically just looking for ways to make the rules NOT work for you. From my perspective as a DM, minions look a little more like this:

Minions are totally an abstraction. They are meant to create cinematic battles for higher level players battling against enemies that were once a threat that they can now mow down easily. Sure you can do this in 3.x, they just couldn't really hurt you, which made the threat kind of... unthreatening.

Minions also represent the bastard children of destiny. These are the Orcs that the first hit from a player they will fail to parry, and off with their (insert vital body part here). A standard raiding party of Orcs against a town does not include "X Drudges, X Raiders, X Bloodragers, etc". The DM needs to make intelligent decisions about when the inclusion of minions will add to the encounter. Heck, we've seen a level 3 human sentry who wasn't a minion, and with even a little luck he could kill 3 Orc Drudges, which are significantly higher level than he. It bears repeating that minions are a plot device, not a specific subspecies of the race that somehow evolved to die when hit by anything.

Now, this may be too abstract for some people, and I can buy that. It is the kind of thing that works just perfectly for me, though, as you can easily create larger scale battles for the PC's without overwhelming them with wimps that can barely touch them.

Trust me, I feel your pain, as I have a player in my 3.x campaign who loathes the idea of minions for the same reasons. But it's for the bag of rats reason, not a reason that would ever occur at a gaming table run by a sane DM.

Shadeydm said:
Personally I find amusing that the people who railed against a housecat being able to kill a wizard (in theory) are now ok with one killing an orc.
Are they?

Or to elaborate bit:
It is a common technique to invalidate a sides opinion by claiming it is inconsistent, while missing the fact that neither side consists of uniform people that all have the same priorities and concerns. I have seen this technique employed both by f4nbois and h4ters, and it is just not helpful.

For me: Yes, it would be problematic to me if a Commoner or a Orc can be killed by a housecat. But I have learned that it is a useless idea to run this kind of combat in the first place. It is a theoretical example, maybe one step above the bag of rats, but still outside of the actual concerns of what matters at the game table.
Last edited:


Mod Squad
Staff member
Shadeydm said:
It started out as an intelligent and reasonable post about someone view on 4E until f4nbois reared thier ugly heads doing thier best to try and get it locked down per usual.

Let me make it clear - comments like this do more to bring this thread to lockdown than the others. However, these days we generally prefer booting people from a thread to locking it down.

So, Shadeydm, don't post in this thread again.

The next person to be so rude in here will likely get a three-day vacation.

An Advertisement