Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LokiDR" data-source="post: 1076719" data-attributes="member: 6239">I'm not going to support Artoomis because I think he can handle himself.&nbsp; But I do disagree with some of your points.If one of the goals of 3.5 was a clearer game, is it so much to ask that they deliver on the at promise?&nbsp;&nbsp; Ok, after that last UD thread, I know what you mean.&nbsp; But, as a community, we should agree (to some degree) what the rule means.&nbsp; We have designer intent, balance, and the language.&nbsp; Desigers might disagre an balance is highly subjective.&nbsp; That leave language.&nbsp; I still don't like pretending to be an english major, but it does help settle a question some times.&nbsp;Compare this to any story teller system or BESM.&nbsp; This brain surgury in compareson.&nbsp; D&amp;D 3e and 3.5 seem custom built for rules lawers.&nbsp; This is the rules forum, so I would expect us here.&nbsp;It is a game, a mental exercise.&nbsp; TWF and flurry stacking is a perfect example.&nbsp; It was not intended, the designers have said as much.&nbsp; But how many attacks could you get?&nbsp; How much damage?&nbsp; This is the theory that brought us the smackdown thread that many have enjoyed.&nbsp; This is the metagame, the game about the game.&nbsp; It is still a game, and it is still fun, but don't think that the quibbling here does or should show up on game tables.If the Sage was official, we could finish the discussion faster.&nbsp; But he isn't offical, he isn't well thought out on a number of occasions, and that bothers at least me.&nbsp; The next time I play or run RPGA I can't just say &quot;the Sage ruled...&quot; without being told he isn't offical.WotC promissed a &quot;new age of gaming&quot; a few years back when they bought TSR.&nbsp; Here it is, for better or worse.&nbsp; There are always miscontents, but that means the market is open for other games and variety is good.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LokiDR, post: 1076719, member: 6239"] I'm not going to support Artoomis because I think he can handle himself. But I do disagree with some of your points. If one of the goals of 3.5 was a clearer game, is it so much to ask that they deliver on the at promise? Ok, after that last UD thread, I know what you mean. But, as a community, we should agree (to some degree) what the rule means. We have designer intent, balance, and the language. Desigers might disagre an balance is highly subjective. That leave language. I still don't like pretending to be an english major, but it does help settle a question some times. Compare this to any story teller system or BESM. This brain surgury in compareson. D&D 3e and 3.5 seem custom built for rules lawers. This is the rules forum, so I would expect us here. It is a game, a mental exercise. TWF and flurry stacking is a perfect example. It was not intended, the designers have said as much. But how many attacks could you get? How much damage? This is the theory that brought us the smackdown thread that many have enjoyed. This is the metagame, the game about the game. It is still a game, and it is still fun, but don't think that the quibbling here does or should show up on game tables. If the Sage was official, we could finish the discussion faster. But he isn't offical, he isn't well thought out on a number of occasions, and that bothers at least me. The next time I play or run RPGA I can't just say "the Sage ruled..." without being told he isn't offical. WotC promissed a "new age of gaming" a few years back when they bought TSR. Here it is, for better or worse. There are always miscontents, but that means the market is open for other games and variety is good. [/QUOTE]

Verification