Sebastrd's page

Oberoni Fallacy, making an excuse for flaws in a game mechanic just because it exists somewhere else. Doesn't make it right.

Nice try. This entire thread has been about whether or not psionics is over-powered in the context of 3.5 spellcasting. Your complaints point out one scenario in which a single power under very specific circumstances if the dice fall perfectly is much better than a crappy arcane spell and that said scenario obviates the need for a tank.

Other folks have already pointed out the flaws in your spell vs. power scenario. I was just adding that your other example is even less relevant.

Does a Psion armed with the Vigor psionic power (236 hp, plus throw in a Energy Retort power) eliminate the need for a martial tank character? Yes. Not exactly a game mechanic that helps define class roles and promote teamwork, fairness and player spotlight in a role-playing game.

If you're seriously trying to argue that psionics is overpowered because a psion eliminates the need for a tank, please let me introduce you to the druid, cleric, wizard, etc....

I just don't buy into the dichotomy that says that anger and rationality can't co-exist in a person or argument.

It is possible to be angry and still express oneself rationally. In fact, it's expected of those who wish to be perceived as mature or who expect to carry on mature relationships. Control over one's emotions is a hallmark of adulthood.

Basically, there has never been a time when video game marketing didn't use women's bodies to sell games. There has never been a time that didn't have video game marketers who saw women as objects used to sell games rather than people they should be selling games to.

There has never been a time when marketers in general haven't used the bodies of both genders to sell everything. Sex sells. Why expect that video games wouldn't use it to target their core audience?

Easy Kthulhu, it's a game. If you like it..as your unending posts in defense of 5th show you clearly have strong feelings for it. It's alright, dice up and have a go at it.

Did you ever consider that it might not be about the game? Anytime anyone defends WotC, 4E, 5E, etc. on these boards, they're automatically assumed to be fanatics - either of the company or the system.

The reality is that lots of people who like Paizo hate WotC, and they'll badmouth anything that WotC produces just on principle. While those people may have very legitimate reasons for not liking WotC, they often resort to expressing that dislike with poorly constructed arguments and complaints with no basis in reality. Putting "in my opinion" in front of any old ridiculous claim does not excuse someone from expressing themself clearly or doing some simple fact checking.

Regardless of preference, we have a responsibility to be clear and accurate and to add something of value to the conversation.

Are you kidding me>?

Look at the power point totals of 20th level Psion. Now look at the Wizrd chart.

It's clearly a FACT that Psion can cast 24 9th level spells per day and clearly a FACT that a Wizard gets 6 (if he is specialized).

I don't need to support "evidence" of this-- its right there on the class charts.

No one is arguing that a psion does not get enough PP to manifest 24 9th level powers or that a wizard can only cast 6 9th level spells. Your premises are true.

However, your conclusion that those facts mean the psion is more powerful does not necessarily follow. Yours is the literal definition of an "invalid argument".

You are completely disregarding all of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th level spells a wizard can cast in addition to his 9th level spells. You have refused to acknowledge that those spells scale with wizard level, making them more useful than their spell level might imply. You also continue to ignore the flexibility advantage that a wizard enjoys - 6 9th level spells + myriad 1st-8th level spells versus 24 9th level powers.

Your argument, that a psion gets more 9th level powers and is thus superior, is oversimplifying the situation. By your logic, we could conclude that the wizard is clearly superior because he can cast more total spells than a psion can manifest powers. Or we could say the wizard is clearly superior because he has far more spell options than a psion has power options. Or the wizard is superior because none of his spells require expending a psionic focus. The situation is a whole lot more complicated than any of that.

I only played Minecraft briefly when it first came out on Xbox, but I found the lack of story led to boredom, despite having complete creative freedom and ultimately the ability to build whatever the heck I wanted.

I felt the same way. My children, however, play it like electronic Legos. They'll spend hours creating some pretty cool and incredible (for their ages) stuff. It massively encourages and inspires their creativity. It is literally the best "kid" game I've ever seen.

What no one is doing is providing a reasonable counter to my theory that novas are problems and that Psions are too good at doing them.

What you seem to misunderstand and that, coincidentally, everyone else in this thread is trying to convey to you, is that direct damage, blasting style casting is objectively the least effective way to play a caster in 3.5. Enemy HP scales much more quickly than spell damage, to the point that the power of direct damage spells is inversely proportional to character level. Any smart caster will be using buffs, summons, and battlefield control at 20th level.

No one is providing a reasonable counter to your theory, because your theory presupposes an irrelevant playstyle. Perhaps it's "everyone versus you" simply because you are demonstrably incorrect.

Well played, thecursor. Well played.

Oh, I'm well aware why they're putting it on their front page, it's just a bit awkward since I left DnD for Pathfinder a while ago. I guess it's sort of like meeting an ex while you're with your current girl/boyfriend :P

It's sad that people treat games and game companies this way. It's probably a byproduct of the way gamers in general view relationships, but that's a subject for another, most delicately handled thread.

Won't buy, won't play. I will never, ever again touch anything with wizards of the coast logo.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

Okay here are some more from me

" It's not right for a woman to read. Soon she starts getting *ideas*, and *thinking*..."

Disney's Beauty and the Beast

(Paraphrased)

1: What's that you're eating?
2: (Looks at what's in his hand for a little while) No idea.

Ratatouille?

Wizards of the Coast will never get another dollar from me.

Even though the personnel at WotC change occasionally and the design teams change completely from edition to edition? How "noble" of you...

Fourth editon books didn't have version indicators on them either, and neither die the original third edition books.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Keep your highfalutin facts and logic outta the way of some good, old-fashioned, edition-warring nerdrage.

Adult superheroes aren't choosing to wear anything.

Artists, editors and writers are choosing whether their characters wear sexy costumes or not. While they may on occasion do so to reveal character, it's more often they do so on the theory that showing skin boosts sales.

There are no "adult choices" going on here. This isn't about what adults choose to wear and what kids choose to wear.

You're right. It's about what we choose to buy. As long as revealing costumes boost sales, revealing costumes will be the norm. If you're hoping society will suddenly come to its senses and stop liking revealing costumes, you're kidding yourself.

It's almost comical how we're having this conversation about the same culture that demonizes religion and "puritanical prudes" for decrying sexualization and objectification.

And I wonder how often people who aren't affected by it themselves overlook it while it's all around them. Much like racism.

That's an excellent question. I suppose the obvious solution is to be outraged regardless just in case there really is some injustice going on somewhere, rather than to carefully consider the facts. After all, I wouldn't want to be perceived as sexist or racist for not showing enough knee-jerk outrage.

The original Hebrew and context of the time period often shed a lot of light on the meaning of verses like this.

For example, the word for "saw" here means more than just "glimpsed" or "noticed". It means "gazed upon" and means Ham spent some time watching Noah naked. The "naked" here implies shameful nudity. And the "told" here means something akin to "gossiped about" and literally implies betrayal.

It seems that Ham's sin was not simply seeing his dad naked. He basically ogled him, then ran and "tattled" to his brothers trying to make Noah look bad. In contrast, his brothers respectfully covered Noah and left him to sleep it off. Notice they didn't tell anyone.

Some of the other things that the Fundies have issue with, Noah getting drunk and parading around naked post-Flood simply prove that they themselves haven't read the Bible they are stridently defending, because he did do so and he curses Ham for calling him out on it. Genesis, Chapter 9, verse 21-something.

That's not quite correct. First, Noah wasn't parading around. He was specifically naked in his tent. Second, he didn't curse Ham for calling him out on it. He cursed Ham for finding him naked, then running to tell his brothers. In contrast, his brothers walked backward into the tent and covered Noah, so they wouldn't see him naked. They showed some respect rather than going, "Hey, guys, come see Pops naked!"

Uh ... yes, he is. In the past, he's easily handled a wielder of the Phoenix force by reflecting the power back on them. From what I understand, Frost had a sliver of the Phoenix force, not its full measure. (If she had it all, the equation certainly changes in her favor.)

Unless you're a longtime reader of Thor, you're largely unaware of what he's...

I have to disagree with this.

Not counting the "Abstract Entities," of which Marvel has a slew, DC heroes operate on a whole other power level compared to Marvel heroes.

Superman... has been portrayed in a wildly inconsistent manner, but the Silver Age Superman (and hence Superboy Prime I guess) could have gone to Marvel earth and wiped the floor with all the Marvel Heroes.

All the Marvel villains too.

At the same time.

I'm not joking or exaggerating by the way. The only thing that stopped Silver Age Superman was writer contrivance via kryptonite, red sun radiation, or magic if he felt like using that one.

And all that was usually hokey too, because as Brainiac 5 put it when approached about using a red sun projector to depower some rampaging Daxamites:

"You want to shine a lamp on beings who can move faster than light?"

In a medium wherein heroes are exactly as powerful as their respective author feels like making them at the time, it's pretty pointless to argue about which hero is more "powerful" than the other.

It's a trap!

"Courage of the heart is very rare. The stone has a power when it's there."

Not sure if anyone else posted this, but here's a bit of insight as to the FF casting choices(and super hero movies in general).

link

Long story short, Fox is aiming at the largest demographic possible, and source material is taking a back seat. The FF comics aren't all that popular these days, so Fox is trying to minimize risk. So yeah, total pandering, and comic fans can go fly a kite.

I think I'll pass.

Thanks for the link. It was a good read and it reminded me of two things.

1) Even with perfect casting, a FF movie was a longshot. A quick perusal of the Top Ten Superheroes thread will tell you that the FF are not all that popular. I have to laugh at the thought that a studio exec paid actual money for the licensing. The only thing that ever got me even remotely interested in the FF was their association with the Silver Surfer, and they royally screwed that film opportunity.

2) The entire comic book industry is in need of a major overhaul. It's gotten way too complicated for its own good. There are way too many crossovers, niche titles, marketing gimmicks, alternate universes, soap opera style deaths and returns, etc. The industry is a hot mess. I stopped collecting a long time ago; and every time I consider getting back into it, all the nonsense reminds me of why I quit in the first place.

I've said this before and I'm sticking with it. I feel that the comicbook fandom is horribly racist. And it's not the racism of sheet wearing, cross burning church burning and lynching. It's the racism of out of sight out of mind and everything has it's place...as long as their place is OVER THERE.

I disagree. I think the fandom is resistant to ALL change and racism has little or nothing to do with it.

And the for the most part, these writers write these characters as ACTUAL living breathing people and not like some suburban white 13 year old male's impression of what a black male is supposed to sound like (See Brian Azzerello's Cage Mini series or 100 Bullets.)

Again, I disagree. I think the problem is older, more set-in-their ways comic book fans. In fact I think part of the reason comic books are a dying medium is because they continue to cater to an older fan-base. Children are no longer the target audience.

In my experience, kids tend to be way more open-minded and accepting of each other. My (white) daughter's best friend in kindergarten was a black boy. To her, he just happened to have different color skin from her. It didn't, and still doesn't, matter to her in the slightest.

Maybe I'm using an improper yardstick to measure progress. I see the push against sexism in comics and the RPG community and while there is some push-back the overall consensus seems to be that there is a forward progression towards inclusion for women and the LGBT community in comics and RPG's.

Not so in regards to race. You still see a lot of the same attitudes towards blacks in particular on message boards and almost a complete lack of black (particularly black male) images in RPG's. As far as I know I know of only ONE Black Male designer who is working in the industry and that's Quinn Murphy but I think that he's more freelancer than anything.

Whoever does the art for the FATE books really makes an effort to be inclusive. But I think as far as everyone else it seems to be the same old same old.

But like I said, maybe I've been part of the wrong hobby for over 20 years. Maybe those peers of mine weren't wrong. I'm REALLY hesitant to introduce my son to the RPG hobby. Not because it's not fun but pretty much there's NO representation of someone that looks like him. And I know there are people that are going to read this and say that...

I believe the problems with RPG art stem more from marketing departments than designers and fans. If you have the time, read up on the saga of Regdar, AKA "Captain Whitebread, the 3E iconic fighter. His "positioning" in the 3E artwork was a deliberate response to a corporate mandate that he be white even though he was originally intended to be black.

I figure the meeting on this one went thusly:

- We can't make Reed black because he's the smart one!
- We can't make Sue black either, because then we'd have to make her a "sassy black woman". That doesn't really fit the comics and Queen Latifa is both too fat and too busy!
- Well, we can't make Thing black because he's a big orange monster.
- We could just make him speak ebonics! "It be clobberin' time, yo."
- Shut up, Dave.
- That leaves Johnny, the fun loving, not-too-bright prankster.
- (In Unison) Perfect!

My big problem with the combination of a Black Johnny Storm & the idea that the re-boot is going with the Ultimate Fantastic Four premise of them all being teens is pretty simple. Johnny Storm in Ultimate Fantastic Four is written as well below the curve, intelligence-wise of the the students at the institute & comes across pretty much as only there because his dad runs it.

Anyone see where I'm going with this?..

Now if they had Reed Richards as Black, that would be seven different kinds of awesome. Enough so that I could actually overlook my knee-jerk reaction to 'yet-another' Black-guy-with-a-hot-Blonde interracial pairing. Bonus points if they could play him as a kind of young Neal Degrassi Tyson/'Science is Awesome! vibe...

My thoughts exactly. I think it's kind of insulting that they made Johnny the token black guy.

"It's a giant...MAID!"

"May the shwartz be with you"

Spaceballs :)

"Two weeks."

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

My comment was based on personal playing experience (played through about 8 levels of World of Warcraft - exactly enough time to realize there's no point in reading the texts of a quest I was given, because they are as a rule dumb and bland and uninteresting - which reduced the game to a series of fetch quests for me, which made it boring) as well as just general familiarity with MMO players.

When you hear a couple of MMO players discussing their game, it's never about how cool the setting is, or speculations about the story, or sharing the fun of an encounter with some NPC. They are talking about their builds, the 251 new items that the new expansion set will bring, and how fun was that PvP.

I just can't see how this works well with WoD.

To be fair, that attitude was just as prevalent, in my experience, when it came to table-top D&D - especially in 3E.

I don't understand why folks can't just admit when they don't know what they're talking about and let the professionals do their jobs. Does anyone in this thread have any experience whatsoever designing an OS for public comsumption? I doubt it. Does that stop anyone from broadcasting their ignorant, layman's opinion? Of course not.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

The difficulty lies in your last statement. When was the last time WotC managed to put out something truly original that was also decent? Any other company, I would agree wholeheartedly with you, but we're talking about WotC and Hasbro. At least with going with established characters, they have a chance, albeit a very small one, since they seem to do an equally good job screwing those up as well.

The misunderstanding lies in your last post. WotC and Hasbro do not make movies. They license their IP to someone else to make the movies. Regardless of your personal opinion on their track record of originality and/or the importance thereof, their involvment will be minimal at best.

The success or failure of a D&D movie unltimately lies with with whomever gets the licensing and how much money they're willing to throw behind it.

Hilarious. In the same thread that someone admits they are glad QTEs were removed because of difficulty, you're complaining they're too easy. A number of recent games use "blinky prompts", including the Arkham series - which, by the way, I hear is pretty successful.

Plus I don't need a blinky prompt telling me pretty much "The devs consider you too stupid to do this by yourself, so we have made it easy".

You may want to refrain from making such bold statements when it's glaringly obvious that you do need at least one easy button which was not only provided, but that you apparently neglected to use.

Kristen Stewart? Sure, if she could actually deliver a line and not look slightly drugged doing it.

It was a joke implying the quality of her acting fits the quality of the material, as it did with the Twilight series.

Spellfire might work, but who is your top picks for female lead?

Do we have anyone that could pull it off?

Given the material, Kristen Stewart is the obvious choice.

If two thirds of your group wants combat, why are you looking for a system with no combat?

People have no problem understanding whether or not they like a particular thing. That doesn't mean they're adept at articulating why. They get on the internet to vent, often using poorly thought out and/or expressed arguments, and a fight ensues.

Person A expresses opinion (often as fact)

Person B disagrees and refutes Person A

Person A is absolutely correct about their own opinion. Person B is often absolutely correct about why Person A's expression and/or logical reasoning is wrong.

Bottom line: They're both right and nobody is changing anyone's mind.

Scott often takes the role of Person B. He tends to be smarter and/or more articulate than those he argues with, and so comes off as a sanctimonious bully. That doesn't mean he's wrong, or that other folks shouldn't take more time to carefully articulate their opinions using a LOT less hyperbole.

When monsters are made by a completely different set of rules, or worse, no rules at all, but simply mashing stats together until they pose about the right challenge, it feels (at least to me) like the two sides come from completely different worlds and adhere to different laws of phyiscs.

Why should monsters, outside of humanoids (possibly), adhere to the same rules as PCs? They are generally completely different creatures.

What exactly is a "hit dice"? Does your character know how many he has? Do you know how many you have? What "level" are you exactly?

I don't really see much reason that monsters and NPCs should adhere to arbitrarily defined rules meant to balance PC races and classes.

Black Dougal wrote:

what was special about LOTR.

You mean, other than the fact that JRRT could write 10,000 pages about annoying hobbits doing nothing but whining, and somehow still sell books?

If that's all you got out of LotR, I feel especially sorry for you.

Contribution to story not equal to, nor even dependant on, power level.

It's obvious that your disagreement hinges on differing definitions of "contributing to the story". Why not do yourself a favor and make that the focus of the discussion?

Misrepresenting Alan_Beven's implied definition of contribution in order to drive your anti-balance agenda isn't going to convince anyone.

I'll also point out that using non-mechanical, role-play focused contribution as evidence when we're discussing D&D is disingenuous. If non-mechanical, role-play based gaming is what you're going for, there are plenty of more free-form systems out there to use. Part of the appeal of D&D is the mechanics, therefore inability to contribute mechanically is a valid concern.

Consider that the core of D&D is the six attributes, attack vs. AC, Vancian casting, saving throws, etc. In other words, the mechanics are what make it D&D. Take away any of those and you're playing something else. It stands to reason that when playing D&D, one ought to expect the ability to contribute through those mechanics. Saying that one can contribute outside of those mechanics, while true, completely misses the point.

While I don't think Scott expressed himself as clearly as he could have, he has a point. The same phenomenon is being observed and addressed in light of the recent attention to sexual assault in the military.

Criticizing a product we're unhappy with is, I think, a necessary and good thing. However, too often the expression of that criticism strays into the realm of absolutely ridiculous hyperbole. There's a big difference between pointing out specific failings in a game and claiming the game's designers are idiots, implying that they specifically set out to create a bad game, etc.

If folks simply treated game designers/developers and each other with respect, discussion would be a lot more productive. Instead, the anonymity of the internet allows people to express themselves in ways they flat out know are unacceptable. That the general population sees fit to do so only encourages the small minority that is crazy enough not to know the difference, or sociopathic enough to not care.

As I said, the same phenomenon is now being adressed across the military. Making inappropriate, degrading comments or telling off-color jokes to or about one's co-workers is a far cry from sexual assault. However, when such things go unchallenged, it sends the message that such things are acceptable. It encourages predators.

For example, recently a young man was observed telling a group of co-workers, some of with outranked him by a LOT, that he had a party planned for the coming weekend at which he was determined to get laid and would be secretly spiking the punch to facilitate doing so. NO ONE SAID A WORD. Worse, many of them laughed. Perhaps they were nervous, perhaps they didn't think he was serious. Regardless, no one reported anything until early the next week when some female co-workers were overheard relating that they'd been assaulted at the party after getting drunk unintentionally.

At unarmed combat.

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm definitely not willing to take your word for it.

Besides, error or not on my part can you not understand the point I was making?

Your spelling and grammar are so terrible I often find it difficult to understand the points you are trying to make. I find that fascinating given that you constantly seem to be complaining about the intellectual laziness of others.

I quit reading at the point he admits he didn't read either.

And who's gospel truth is that? Guess I don't agree in the slightest. See how that works?

Snark all you want, but, based on personal experience and popular opinion, I stand by my statement. It's probably the only reason DDO survived the last two years of missteps by Turbine - no one else offers the same experience that DDO combat does.

My post was also about tactics games and 2d RPGs, which historically, involved grid based, or grid derived combat. Hence my opinion that 4e is the most friendly rules to that sort of setup.

You'll notice I agreed with that part.

Real time combat... I don't feel any D&D rules set is up to that task, but like the previous post, it's an opinion.

DDO, based on the 3.X rules, does feature real time combat. I agree that no other version of D&D, 4E included, is up to that task. Hence the reason I feel 3.X translates best to a video game.

4e is definitely the most computer friendly version of the game...

This is bandied about as though it were gospel truth, but I don't agree in the slightest. 3.X, as evidenced by DDO, makes a much better video game. DDO has, literally, the best combat of any MMO, mostly owing to the fluid nature of 3.X's combat system. 4E is far too structured and inherently turn-based to make anything but a grid-based game.

The level of micromanagement required to make 3.5 workable at higher levels was something I found unpleasant as a DM. I love a great many elements of the system, and I agree that there are a variety of solutions to address those problems, including carefully examining and banning/allowing feats/classes/spells on a case-by-case basis. Yet, for me, that was a level of work I wasn't really a fan of, and not an ideal solution to the problem.

That's the eventual conclusion I reached, and ultimately drove me into the arms of 4E. Basically, molding the 3.X rules into the game that I wanted would have been so much work, I was better of designing my own system from the ground up.

1) The munchkin is the one that had to admit wrongdoing and beg the group to take him back

The munchkin had to apologize because he went off on a fellow player for role-playing! This one event does not invalidate everything else that occured in the movie.

2) At the end the DM went so far as to have a god change Luster the evil trollop's alignment to good AND change their class to cleric so they had to stay that way or loose all their spells. Thats in no way shape or form letting them play their characters their way. It is pretty literal godming.

I think it's obvious you and I disagree about which scenes were "morals of the story" and which were simply for comedic effect.

We all know the moral of the story. The munchkins are having bad wrong fun and ruining worlds of opportunity. Role play more, munchkin less, and your group will have more fun.

That is NOT the moral of the story. The moral of the story the DM should let the players play their characters the way they want to.

Initially, Lodge is terrified that the munchkin players will ruin his precious module by being typical PCs. Early on he is shown to be heavy-handed and controlling. A key scene is the conversation between Lodge and Joanna wherein she tells him to relax and trust his players. When he finally does so, everyone ends up having a good time.

Also, the bit about Joanna's insane critical attacking fighter is not that optimization is bad. The messages are that A) gamer girls do not exist merely to wear chainmail bikinis and hook up in the tavern and B) it's possible to cleverly optimize without making a cookie-cutter character.

Lodge and Cass represent the railraoding DM vs. the munchkin player. Eventually, both learn their lesson, but with a lot of laughs along the way.

Keep in mind that it's just a movie, and a lot of stuff is simply there for comedic effect. Don't read too much into it.

If you're looking for some help with this game, I highly recommend the wiki. There's a lot of good information, and the forumites there are very helpful.

I guess it's time to look into getting a PS3...