Strawman!'s page

You are correct, the parents that didn't like it, are all douchebags.

Woot! Total agreement.

Can you take 20 to climb a rope above a pool of lava? Falling itself doesn't have a penalty. Hell, falling doesn't even have a penalty above normal ground. It's crashing into the ground at a high speed that has a penalty. :P

Good question!

Charender wrote:

Mynameisjake wrote:

I feel pretty confident in my assertion that a campaign being "story driven" is actually a good thing. YMMV.

Try running a few sessions where you railroad your players and none of their actions matter. Then, when they leave in disgust, tell them that being purely story driven is a good thing.

Presumably, there's a middle ground between story driven games and railroading, and Mynameisjake (and his players) are capable of navigating that uncharted realm.

Shows what you know. There's only one way to run a story driven campaign, and that is to arbitrarily change rules and railroad your players at every point. You're doing it wrong.

There's always woodman, though people seem to think his name is some type of sexual innuendo...

I'm going to find my older brother, brickman. He doesn't burn so easily, and will f&~+ your s!&% up.

The only right way to DM is to make arbitrary changes for petty reasons, particularly when doing so robs player's of the value of their choices. I think everyone can agree with that. Who among us hasn't decided that magic missile wouldn't work on drow because they're super sneaky and shouldn't be subject to automatic hits? Or banned cure spells halfway through a fight to increase the drama?

Keeping the players on their toes requires unpredictability, and the best way to achieve that is through rampant DM fiat. Accept no substitute!

Your toxic stew of ad hominem attacks impresses no one.

Is it just me, or does every thread (other than silly threads) devolve into meta-arguments by the time it reaches page six?

Joey: So, what happens when you're wrong?
straw man: Well, Joey, I'm never wrong.
Joey: But you can't always be right.
straw man: Well, if it's your job to be right, then you're never wrong.
Joey: But what if you are wrong?
straw man: Okay, let's say that you're defending chocolate and I'm defending vanilla. Now, if I were to say to you, "Vanilla's the best flavor ice cream", you'd say …?
Joey: "No, chocolate is."
straw man: Exactly. But you can't win that argument. So, I'll ask you: So you think chocolate is the end-all and be-all of ice cream, do you?
Joey: It's the best ice cream; I wouldn't order any other.
straw man: Oh. So it's all chocolate for you, is it?
Joey: Yes, chocolate is all I need.
straw man: Well, I need more than chocolate. And for that matter, I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to our ice cream, and that, Joey Naylor, that is the definition of liberty.
Joey: But that's not what we're talking about.
straw man: Ah, but that's what I'm talking about.
Joey: But … you didn't prove that vanilla's the best.
straw man: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong, I'm right.
Joey: But you still didn't convince me.

I like 4e and continue to buy their products. I also like PFRPG and will continue to buy their products as well.

So, what you're saying is that you support evil?

Or are you saying you aren't a true fan of D&D?

Or, do you admit to being a sheep?

It's because I'm not blaming the employee's for making a game that you don't like.

This isn't about what I like! It's about evil, objectively demonstrable absolute evil. People who support evil should be punished. 4e is evil. Therefore the people that work on 4e are evil and should be punished. If I learned that Mearls' dog got hit by a car, I'd laugh. Why? Because of the evil he has done. We must destroy these people, force them out of society, and forever shame them for the horror they have perpetuated.

Here's the inherit problem with this suggestion: if the MT had full progression in one type of spellcasting (let's use sorcerers for example), then every other PrC with full casting progression options for sorcerers would pale in comparison. Honestly, being able to compete with other full arcane spellcasters while having potent divine spells would get out of hand very quickly. Unless every other caster class and prestige class received high-level abilities that could compare, very few players would ever play those classes to their highest levels.

So, saying that the MT could be changed to make it better or give it a focus of its own is the same as saying that the MT should be better than a straight caster?

Great point! I see now that there can be no middle ground between MT is inferior to straight casters and MT is better than straight casters.

So what you're saying is, you've lost all your arguments in the past through faulty facts and logic, therefore I win [always].

No, that's what I say! Sheesh.

I strongly suggest potential Superstars start sharpening their pencils....

What if we only write in pen!?!? Or on the computer?!?! Are you saying that only people who write with a pencil can participate in the RPG Superstar contest?!?!?!?

I only hope that total moron is at least capable enough to care for her child with special needs. She should just become a stay at home mom, she obviously is too stupid to be out in public.

Yes! Completely true. That's exactly right: people who question her competence are saying exactly that. Awesome.

Fascinating, but not surprising. It's be nice to see a bit of the graciousness McCain showed in his concession speech trickle down to his disciples. But I guess some things/people will never change.

The election's over folks! Yippee!

Let's go back to arguing about scantily-clad women or something. Or 4E vs PF. Or if Druids are still over-powered.

So, everyone that supported McCain is ill mannered and rude?

And what do you mean by trickle down? I thought trickle down economics didn't really work. I guess it must work, but only in arguments that support your point.

So when Obama makes a mistake, a glaring mistake which was done in public, is excusable, but a supposive mistake that Palin made in private is unexcusable. Interesting. So there is zero chance that if Palin did make a bonehead comment in private, it was due to fatigue as well? Fascinating.

I agree!