Michael Landis's page

Yeah, I know. I keep hoping for reason and objective analysis but it seems to be drowned out by THIS JUST PLAIN SUCKS responses.

Oh well.

---------O!

We have such crystal sight in lands of fog-
géd eyes! A pox on fools of l'quacity
and begg'rs of questions. Only ours, our minds
can stand and walk to reason now, merely.
And they shall march alone in hushéd awe
and dread, so blindly off a bluff. Fie. Fie!
Such pit'y have I for them, for they can not
ev'r see the alabaster arch--

...

Is that more or less how everyone feels? ;)

Presumably, those kicks are inflicting damage of some kind. So, each time you do it, you drive the person closer to the negative hit point threshold, and once they pass it, they die.

Err... then don't let the 20th level monk kick you? ;)

Edit: Oh wait, I forgot RAW doesn't heal HP with the stabilization. I'm thinking about something else.

But don't let the facts stop you from hating. Carry on.

Hate's a strong word. Let's just say that these intangible, abstract "facts" you speak of can't block my tongue from sticking out. ;p

Is anyone else thinking Frank Costello from the Departed?

I just want to say I don't have any venom for anyone in this whole situation enough to make me curse them to eternal damnation.

Eternal always seemed a bit too much to me...

Sebastian wrote:

VICTORY!!!

golf clap

Heh. :)

Sebastian wrote:

I can't imagine how you will manage to convince me that you read it and knows what it says. Maybe if you read it, that might help too. I find it highly unlikely it said literally "You can say positive things" and the actual text of what it said is relevant.

So if you can't imagine how I can convince you, then there is no way to convince you. Period. Nothing will work as proof. Why then, should I (or anyone else) even bother trying?

Aye. You're on the right track, IMO. Be strong, let it go, it's not worth it. It doesn't matter if you convince one guy right now. If what you say is true, it'll most likely come back around to bite WotC in the arse at some later point.

Hmm... sounds all good... but...

Certainly, there will be a playtester or two who can think of some cons to the new system? As unbiased as John seems to be, I generally prefer "reviews" that talk about the shortcomings as well as the good parts. After all, nothing's perfect.

Let's face it, this playtester is specifically addressing one point raised from a naysayer. That makes his post part of a greater debate of sorts. He doesn't address any negatives from an unrelated area of the issue because he doesn't need to.

I'll have to reread Ari's post to see if he's speaking specifically towards naysayers or not. If so, well then it's the same deal as this post. If not, I'd still prefer one or two statements like "Oh, this is great... except this joint could use a bit of polish" from a few playtesters down the line.

I have no doubt that this system has some aspects that are feel like a breath of fresh air compared to playing with 3.5... but I personally felt that when it first came out 3E had that same edge over 2E. At the moment, 4E's flaws might be going ignored because it's all brand shiny new.

Regardless, I hope a lot more playtesters start talking soon. :)

Primary Slots

We've preserved a number of items that have traditional “plusses.” These are the items we expect everybody to care about, and the ones that are factored into the math behind the game. If you’re 9th level, we expect you to have a set of +2 armor, and the challenges in the game at that level are balanced accordingly.

You know... at this point... isn't it pointless to even HAVE the +2 armor? I mean, this would be true even with 3.5, but if they're just doing math with the monsters and challenges to account for the expectation that every 9th level character will have it, can't they just omit magic armor entirely and do the math to account for its absence? (Maybe if anti-magic fields were common, it would mechanically make a difference...)

And for that matter, why have any gradual enhancement bonuses based on level, weapons or otherwise? If you can just do the math in the system to accommodate characters without it, they don't need to be necessary.

Idunno, maybe I'm thinking too much into it. To me, it just seems to cheapen the idea of a bonus.

I... AM... BEOWUL... er... wait...

Yeah, that bites...... I hate GMs like this. Also, yeah, there are systems that are just bad as well...

...but do guys really think you have it so bad? ;)

(warning, longish thread... the first post is about the system, and then there's some shock and awe posts... and then on the second page you get to see the actual adventure!)

Nevermind...iolosisotisis. ;p

Damnation!

Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanokoniosis

this:

did

already

nobody

Hope

When it comes time to redesign a classic, you have to be careful. You have to retain the integrity of the original game. You want to maintain the look and feel that made it a classic. You don't want to alienate the customers who made the game what it is today.

Is anybody else reading between the lines of this ad or is it just me? ;)

<ducks>

Actually, scratch that. I do as the first incarnation of Daffy Duck:
<hops away, loudly twittering like a maniac>

See? Ninjas are so awesome, they can even make pirates their slaves!

Eh, wot?

Bah. Good luck with sudden strike! A true pirate takes enough rogue levels to stop that nonsense!

And he takes enough Warlock levels to see invisi... okay, fine, I'm not really a pirate.

The rest of those pirate wanna be pretenders can...

What what what?!

Enough! As the RotR game I'm playing in proves: pirates and ninjas *can* get along! My PC pirate is very good friends with my girlfriend's* PC ninja.

Ha ha ha! Meme defied! :P

*Yes, I know that makes it not fair. ;)

When people are skeptical, they grasp at any evidence that their skepticism is justified.

I think this is a very important concept to understand that needs as much reiteration as possible. Though it goes the other way around, too... in the form of rose-tinted glasses. Bringing these two types together always begets steaming controversy.

Despite the fact that I didn't initially feel insulted by most of these quotas per se, I too feel that there's a tinge of presumption in a few of them. Maybe some people are reading too much into some things... but in a few cases I think it's impossible not to. For instance, when I read the Cloud Watching piece, I rolled my eyes. It was filler... garbage, frankly. I already know I am not able to alter WotC's decisions and am just seeing what I want to see... I don't need an analogy to put it in perspective.

Bad Religion.

But I'm always playing them at work because I don't have much else here yet! :D

In terms of movies and possibly comics and other mediums, who do you think is the Whiniest Hero? I personally have never run across a bigger whiner than the karate kid, though the skywalker boys are also pretty darn whiny. However, there could be someone I have overlooked. Thoughts?

The Pumaman.

Anyone know anyone worse?

...but I think you're too respectful of other people's opinions regardless of their quality. Certainly they're allowed to have them, but it seems like you're advocating a system of case by case epiphany as a system of social change.

Well, because I'm just one person, I feel that I can only really try to change the minds of others on a case by case basis. I'll let the politicians and organizations like PETA push awareness of their causes and viewpoints.

In talking on an individual-basis though, I don't necessarily respect the content of everyone's opinions per se, it just helps to respect their entitlement to them in order to try to figure out why others think what they think. If I understand why, I can better argue against it, instead of just saying, "Well, you're obviously just an idiot, good luck with that." Although I could always do that if I think arguing is pointless. ;)

I guess it all depends on what you mean by force. If an idea is really bad, most of the time a person can't help get riled up about it. I don't blame 'em so much. I understand the need to fight. For instance, I don't look back at the Civil War and cry foul. I'm glad the victors forced their idea on everyone. But that's a much higher scale than just me, though. On a personal level, if the other person seems reasonable enough (as in not just shouting out epithets), I try to debate first. Since on some forums I usually have that option, I don't see the need to try to force anything. Besides since people can just ignore what they want... I might as well try honey over vinegar to catch some flies.

As for thet 1960s thing, I'd have to read more about it. They always glossed over the last several decades in my history classes. :/

Shallow attempt to get back to topic:
Sandpoint is amazing! It could use more gnomes to use ghost sound to fool goblins into thinking there's dog barking in an alley... where there's really just lava. Okay, maybe something more realistic. Barrels of acid.

So speaking out against bigotry makes someone a bigot?

Wow. You totally took what I said in the worst possible way.

Try to understand my point and not the one you just ascribed to me. You don't stop bigotry by attacking with bigotry; you can't stop hatred with hatred. Hate only begets more hate. Being rude or insulting doesn't help anything. All you do is alienate the person you're attacking.

This isn't just to say "play nice." Using insults and bluntness could lead to a bullheaded reluctancy to change viewpoints. An intelligent argument wasn't used but rather a unneccessary blow to the person's ego... all in an attempt to force the change of viewpoint. It's intellectual bullying.

In understanding that all of us want our views shared, we should be more understanding of the human that expresses them instead of thinking we're any better than them. We're all the same, in that we all want our viewpoints to be the best most truthy ones ever! I'm not saying that a bad or hateful viewpoint should be respected at all... I'm saying the person should be respected and you can respect that person by arguing against their viewpoint reasonably and tactfully.

Maybe I'm guilty myself of misinterpretation. To me, it certainly sounded like the person was reducing people who "can't handle" the homosexuality or abortion issues down to children. If not, again, I apologize, but if so, he was segregating the other person into a group that I took to mean that he thinks should be scorned as idiots who can't read anything above Highlights. This act is not in agreement with me.

I'm pretty sure Wes was just pointing out that Pathfinder is geared toward people over the age of 13, so therefore PG-13 material is appropriate. He was saying that if you feel that you or someone you know should not be exposed to such material, that Highlights magazine is a great alternative. I don't think he was trying to insult anyone. And he certainly wasn't saying that if you don't agree with him, you are 12. He was merely pointing out that the material was appropriate for who they were trying to reach.

Perhaps. If this is the case I apologize... otherwise :P on all y'all! <scoots away>

Being alive just means that they are some organism, in this case a parasite.

Just a small point of contention...

It's not a parasite. The definition of parasite is not consistent with what that organism is.

New Feats
General Parasite
Prerequisite: Must be an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host.
Benefit: You obtains nutriment from the body of the host.
Normal: You obtain nutriment by just plain killing and/or devouring things... unless you're a plant that isn't a trap for bugs.

Humanoid Parasite
Prerequisite: Must be a person who does not give any useful or proper return for aid, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
Benefit: You don't have to pay for food, shelter, clothing or luxuries.
Normal: You have a job.
Special: This feat automatically applies to all babies & children and most teenagers & college students. If the DM rules that an embyro or fetus is a person, then they automatically gain this feat... but then they're a person... so...

Greek Parasite
Prerequisite: Must be a Greek person, must provide amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.
Benefit: You receive free meals.
Special: Boys with a mentor receive this feat for free... and I guess everyone's OK with that...

Pathfinder, and to a greater extent, all of GameMastery, takes the view that our readers are older than 13 years old and unprejudiced. If that's not the case or anyone is uncomfortable with that, Highlights magazine has been doing some bang-up work in the last 51 years (Goofus and Gallant and the animal search are still my favorites), they’ll do you right.

I love seeing things like this. "You don't agree with me, so you're 12." In this case it translates, "You don't agree with my progressive lack of bigotry, so I'll use bigotry on you."

Other variations on this include presuming low IQ scores, attacking race or creed, or any other form of hypocritical, unveiled bigotry. "You don't agree with me? Well, that because you're just a _________!" Though usually only ageism and high-IQ-elitism is acceptable on forums.

As for that as well as this entire controversy: Agendas shmegendas... could it be that everyone selfishly desires their own personal point of views to be shared by everyone? This very fact makes Sandpoint very conducive of roleplaying!

I of course am a super-planar-grognard or better yet graybeard having snatched the PSCS off the shelves the moment it came out (and still has the original Grubb MotP)!

Nice! Bit jealous, too... berks like me gotta spend plenty of jink to get Planescape stuff these days!

Even though I don't plan on running 2E, recently I've been snatching up Planescape stuff on eBay where I can. Just starting reading "In the Cage." It's like a delicacy to me!

Maybe the high prices of Planescape setting material goes to show something about how well loved the planes really are?

I understand why you like the planes, but I can only understand it because I have some old school background from my teens--the last year of playing is not enough. I can't imagine how confusing it is for anyone new coming in.

I think people who know what they are doing can create the chaos they want, but for those coming into D&D for the first time need an easier way to figure out what the hell is going on, no pun intended.

I know this post was from a while back, but I just wanted to add in: I came in the tabletop games during 3E, and having read the DMG, was fascinated with Great Wheel... enough to buy the Manual of the Planes and soak it in!

Maybe I'm just an exception... but O how quickly have I became a grognard for this particular status quo! ;)

I'll say this first: There's a feat that applies metamagic to wands as well. Metamagic Spell Trigger from Complete Mage. That plus Silent Spell should help with one problem. Of course, it takes a couple feats, but a wizard will have one bonus feat by 9th level.

And here's a thought for a sorcerer: There's a variant sorcerer class in either the DMGII or PHII that replaces the Familiar class feature with something called Metamagic Specialist.

This allows a sorcerer to apply a metamagic feat to a spell *without* increasing the casting time. It works only a few times per day, but since this is probably a single encounter, that shouldn't be a problem for the guy to get a few good spells off.

Just add the Silent Spell metamagic feat! A 9th level sorcerer would at least have a few good 3rd level spells... plus quite a few slots to use...

Hope that helps!