Tell Me Truly, Threadjackers Thread


4th Edition

51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Kruelaid wrote:


Thanks Dad, we didn't know that. I guess you were too busy condescending to spell correctly, eh?

Touche. I can't really respond to such a compelling argument. Were you too busy whining about your backlog to deal with the substance of my post?

As long as your proofreading my posts, you might want to go dredge up the portion heathy quoted where I edited out a word and left a mangled sentence.

Thanks!
Sebastian

The Exchange

Boys, play nice.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

D&D, bringing people together for 30 years!


The Last Rogue wrote:
D&D, bringing people together for 30 years!

It's not just a game, it's like a family reunion!

To answer the "why not 4e now?" question, my concern is completeness. Are they REALLY ready for this? I mean it's 9 months away, how much play testing and revision can really get done by then? I mean effectively. I'm just afraid it's gonna be a half-@ssed effort, then in a year or so 4.5 will come out. I just worry that we will get the RPG equivalent of those kids toys with the lead based paint. Figuratively of course. I don't think they will have books that kill me, well my soul maybe. ;)


hazel monday wrote:

[between the lines]...because we are trying to determine how soon to switch [/between the lines]

[insert maniacal laughter here]

I've got a feeling they've already figured out when they're making the switch, but they're gonna wait a little while to announce it. Telling people about it at this point would just rile too many folks up needlessly . People seem awful sensitive about 4E on both sides right now.

I could be wrong, of course.

To be fair, theirs is a sensible business stance.

Think about it from their point of view: What happens if they say yes now? They lose support of a lot of 3.5e adherents. If they say no? They lose potential 4e customers, and open a huge can of worms in their own, usually stable community.

They are taking the most sensible stance a small company with an uncertain future can take: Paizo is holding out for more evidence.

Someone from Paizo (Erik, I think, but I forget right now) has said that 3.5e will be supported at least until next summer.

So, in that way, they do know when they're going to make the switch. Or, rather, when they're going to decide if that will happen, and how.

Comparing sales of their 3.5e products to customer feedback is not a bad idea, it will give them an idea of when to switch. If the tide changes quickly (possible), then they'll need to change with it.

No skullduggery involved, if you ask me.


swirler wrote:
I'm just afraid it's gonna be a half-@ssed effort, then in a year or so 4.5 will come out.

I have no doubt there will be a 4.5.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

CourtFool wrote:


I have no doubt there will be a 4.5.

Oh come on now.

It will be called Revised Fourth Edition.

Sheesh.


Sebastian wrote:

Oh come on now.

It will be called Revised Fourth Edition.
Sheesh.

good point


Not, "Totally New and Improved Fourth Edition" ?

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Well, I'm anxious to see what 4e does as far as overhauling the system.

I just hope that WotC sticks with 4e for at least 10 years before they come out with another version. That's not too much to ask right?

I was so frustrated with the whole 3.0 to 3.5 thing in a few years time.

So, I hope WotC spends enough time on 4e that a 4.5 isn't needed, and 5.0 is held off for at least a decade. Then I'll feel like I got some mileage out of my expenditure.

Liberty's Edge

I'll buy 5.5e. in about 6 years for my son. He'll be 10 then, so he can play.

Liberty's Edge

You can quote me on that, Sebastian.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Heathansson wrote:
You can quote me on that, Sebastian.

It's on the list. I've even ordered a t-shirt for him with the 5e logo (it has a two headed drow elf on it though - dragons aren't cool enough in the future, so the drow thing is the new symbol of D&D. Also, all pointy weapons are now swords and all blunt weapons are now maces, so as to simplify the weapon system).


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

I loved the Basic Set when I played it, and eagerly embraced 1st edition AD&D when I discovered it existed. I devoured things like Unearthed Arcana and the 2nd edition upgrade (though over the years after it came out I did have a quite large house rules document). When 3rd Edition approached it renewed my excitement for the game and has had me hooked ever since. Now 4th Edition approaches and I'm just not excited.

Is it that I'm happy with 3rd edition?
Is it the flavor changes for 4e leaving me with a sour taste?
Is it the great 3.5 material I have yet to play?
Is it WotC's horrible marketing campaign?

Yes, yes it is.


Sebastian wrote:
Also, all pointy weapons are now swords and all blunt weapons are now maces, so as to simplify the weapon system.

Tee hee. Sometimes I think Sebastian switched sides.

Liberty's Edge

CourtFool wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
Also, all pointy weapons are now swords and all blunt weapons are now maces, so as to simplify the weapon system.
Tee hee. Sometimes I think Sebastian switched sides.

Naah. He wouldn't join a club that would let a guy like him in.


I think Paizo already knows when they're making the switch. I don't necesarily think that's a bad thing. Since I already plan on switching editions when Paizo does anyway ( provided 4E doesn't blow donkeychunks) it doesn't matter to me.

But everything's just guessing at this point.


Heathansson wrote:
Naah. He wouldn't join a club that would let a guy like him in.

I suddenly have an image of him barking at himself in the mirror.


Sebastian wrote:
CourtFool wrote:


I have no doubt there will be a 4.5.

Oh come on now.

It will be called Revised Fourth Edition.

Sheesh.

How about Advanced 4th Edition ... you know, just to get back to the roots of the game and try and lure in the old-school gamers ;-)

Liberty's Edge

CourtFool wrote:
Heathansson wrote:
Naah. He wouldn't join a club that would let a guy like him in.
I suddenly have an image of him barking at himself in the mirror.

This is my favorite post of the day.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Heathansson wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
Heathansson wrote:
Naah. He wouldn't join a club that would let a guy like him in.
I suddenly have an image of him barking at himself in the mirror.
This is my favorite post of the day.

Woof.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
CourtFool wrote:
I do not believe DitheringFool was suggesting that 'fixing' and 'dumbing down' are one and the same. It seems to me he is suggesting they fix 3.5 but believes they are not fixing, but dumbing down 3.5.

Thanks for providing another possible point-of-view/"read" on what was intended. As much as I work and little R&R as I get, something inside kinda snaps when someone seems to be implying I might be lazy.

DitheringFool wrote:
Fair enough. That was a bit harsh and I apologize.

Firstly, thank You for apologizing. I usually pride myself on being able to evaluate people's intentions from multiple angles so I'm sorry for having failed to be able to do so in this instance.

DitheringFool wrote:
I am not opposed to changing the mechanics of the game to address obvious problems (grapple is thrown around a lot). ...I just change them through 3rd party products (Grappling for Beginners) or house rules, but I can see the case for a revision.

Initially this was the route I was taking too. The end goal was to try and represent a more martial-based setting with some of the flavor of Middle Earth. I incorporated a good bit of the martial arts from Oriental Adventures and d20 Modern. Then Unearthed Arcana eventually came out and I thought it was a Godsend — Wound Points, Armor as DR, Recharge Magic, Gestalt Characters...

However, when put into play, the whole wasn't greater than the sum of its parts. I realized that part of the problem was that most of the rules had come from other d20 systems (Star Wars & Modern namely) and didn't quite work right in D&D. In essence, the rules in UA were good *ideas*, but they hadn't been playtested or fleshed out with enough supporting material to work without grinding the gears.

With all the work I was putting in, reengineering things so that the more popular of the alternate rules would actually play *well* together, I surmised that if given another year or two I could have probably published my own 3rd party book. Fully converted spells, monsters and equipment not to mention software tools to aid in converting other material would have basically turned Unearthed Arcana's interesting ideas into a conversion that You could actually pick up and play. While such a system obviously wouldn't interest everyone, I saw enough people commenting on what they would like to see that I suspected there was a potential market.

DitheringFool wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the merit of completely undoing the traditional magic system. I've heard the pros and cons and it mostly sounds like whiny players. If you don't have fun playing a wizard, then don't play a wizard. Why does the game have to change so drastically? The wizard in my group loves playing a wizard as is. Sucks to be him I guess...

From the first Dragonlance novel I ever read, the idea of what I now know as Vancian magic always bugged me. Maybe it's because I was familiar with Jedi interacting with the living Force... Maybe it was the notion that a wizard's power comes from knowing how to manipulate and channel an actual field of energy... However, it always seemed contrived to me that spellcasters were basically just walking magic batteries as opposed to being connected to "The Weave".

In otherwords, I disliked the notion of memorizing spells into slots even when I first started playing 2nd Edition and it has never grown on me. I can see why (for game purposes) it has served as a passable system but it still rubs me the wrong way. I've largely avoid playing casters because I can't get past the fact that it just "feels" wrong to me.

I can understand that folks who like Vancian magic feel that a core part of the game they love is dying. For those of us who dislike it though, perhaps it seems more like the chance for a surgery to allow a boy with a lame foot to run and jump for the first time. Here's hoping that operation is being performed with a skilled hand and not a chainsaw. ;)

DitheringFool wrote:
On the flip side I'll be starting a 3.5 Savage Tide campaign early next year. My players are already pumped and we'll have a blast!

I'm intending to run the STAP after 4E comes out and converting it. Yeah, yeah... I bring a lot bit of my DM work upon myself, I know. :P


A portion of the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 1st Edition preface PHB

"What is here is here, presented is as logical a sequence as possible, clearly, understandably, and with as few ambiguities as could be managed. Many readers will want more matierial. There is a wealth of commercial and fan matieral available for fulfilling such needs. Simiarly, even the most important matierial herein can be altered and bent to suit the needs of individual campaigns. Where possible, true 'guidelines' have been laid down to provide the barest of frameworks for those areas of the campaign which should be the most unusual and unique. Read the work through and assess for yourself what Advanced D&D really is..."

AD&D 2nd edition: "Why 2nd edition? The AD&D game has evolved over the course of 16 years. During that time, the game grew tremendously through play. Changes and improvements(and a few mistakes) were made. These were published in subsequent volumes. By 1988, the game consisted of 12 hardcover rulebooks. It was physically and intellectually unwieldy (but still a lot of fun). The time was right to reorganize and recombine all that information into a manageable package. That package is the second edition.

3rd- see above
wotc 2007 uh oh to many books, rules etc.. do over.
IMHO


one thing I've seen mentioned is that there is an overdependance on magic items in 3.5. Is it really an issue? I haven't noticed it being so, of course that may just be my game. I remember using lots of them in AD&D.


Sebastian wrote:
As long as your proofreading my posts, you might want to go dredge up the portion heathy quoted where I edited out a word and left a mangled sentence.

Well, I'll have a look if I can take my attention off the much more interesting desktop Solitaire game I have going.

And oh, yeah, I just remembered: can I borrow the car tonight pops?


Sebastian, I think the point you're missing is that most of us who answered (B) are:

(1) reasonably satisfied with 3.5

(2) skeptical that any form of D&D can be streamlined all that much and still provide for all the interesting options that the game provides.

(3) expecting, based on past experience, that a complete rules revision will necessitate a "debugged" version just like we had with 3e, which means purchasing yet another set of rulebooks and getting our already overloaded brains confused so that we have to spend more play time looking stuff up in the books than we did with the supposedly too complex 3.5e.

If you read the comments in the thread, I'd estimate about 75% of the people who answered (B) also said we would be looking over the new ruleset and would probably buy the books and/or try it out at some point in the future. The fact that we've got plenty of 3.5e material collected just enables us to put that switchover off for a few years, perhaps until 4.5 comes out. Very few people are avoiding the switch specifically so they can play through their entire collection of 3.5e adventure paths--we just haven't exhausted the fun to be had with 3.5e and a combination of things has given us a less than favorable feeling about 4e. And if 4e really comes through and fulfills the claim that it will be both easier to play and still gives us lots of options, then many of us will probably make the switch.

However, when it gets down to it, D&D has always been a complex game--I can see ways in which it might be streamlined, but what I've seen from WotC doesn't convince me that the product they are producing will be streamlined that much, just complicated in different ways.

We respect your position, Sebastian, and the arguments you've made for shifting over--but we have valid reasons for our position and deserve to be respected too.

On a separate note, for those who complain about the Vancian magic system, it seems to me that 3.5e now provides enough options so that you can play without it if you hate it that much. There are sorcerers and favored souls, all the psionic classes, warlocks, shadowcasters, truenamers, and binders--each of these has different ways of tapping into magical power that don't rely on the "spell memorization" mechanic. So I'm not quite certain why that would drive you to switch over. You don't like the wizard class? Just don't have it in your game.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Peruhain of Brithondy wrote:
Sebastian, I think the point you're missing is<snip>...

Yeah! What the honorable Peruhain of Brithondy said.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Peruhain of Brithondy wrote:
On a separate note, for those who complain about the Vancian magic system, it seems to me that 3.5e now provides...

Hmm, the forum snipped the rest of Your post, but there's enough there for quoting.

Spontaneous spell-casters do help a good deal but of course You still have to sacrifice the flexibility of being able to cast pretty much anything. The Spirit Shaman from Complete Divine was an interesting answer to this, but as I said in the small book I wrote a few posts earlier, for some of us, the notion of a caster being able to "run out" of the ability to channel magic is what doesn't sit well with us.

The Recharge Magic option from Unearthed Arcana is what I'm using in my current campaign but it still falls short of the mark. This is due to the way in which the rest of the game basically expects You to unleash a barrage of Your highest-level spells every round until spent. A happy medium is what's need to satisfy those who feel as I do about Vancian casting. Yet with 4th Ed. already announced, I for one don't feel like engineering whatever that spell system is until I see what the new version brings. I'm just not going to spend any more R&D/playtesting time for new features for a system that will be deprecated/discontinued by the publisher in the very near future...

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Laithoron wrote:
In otherwords, I disliked the notion of memorizing spells into slots even when I first started playing 2nd Edition and it has never grown on me. I can see why (for game purposes) it has served as a passable system but it still rubs me the wrong way. I've largely avoid playing casters because I can't get past the fact that it just "feels" wrong to me.

Sidenote: since you implied third party rules are a viable option... Right now my group is considering The Spellweave with an added house rule to allow extra "castings" if you beat the DC (you suffer a chain of fatigue effects if you fail). I have a lot of spellcaster options supplements and this is the best (since it is also very simple and extendable).

...can you threadjack a threadjack thread?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
DitheringFool wrote:
...can you threadjack a threadjack thread?

One can always try... ;)

BTW, guess I'll have to take a spin by the FLGS to peruse "The Spellweave" first hand.


Peruhain of Brithondy wrote:
However, when it gets down to it, D&D has always been a complex game--I can see ways in which it might be streamlined, but what I've seen from WotC doesn't convince me that the product they are producing will be streamlined that much, just complicated in different ways.

I'd like to disagree with the emphasized part.

I agree that D&D can become complex, depending on what options are used, not to mention house rules.

But at its core, D&D is simple. Or, at least, one of the most simple systems easily available.

That is not to say that there aren't simpler systems, but I would challenge anyone that thinks D&D is complex to go to their FLGS and point out at least one system that is simpler - in under five minutes. (Systems you are already aware of do not count. :-P )

The reason I phrase the challenge that way, is that D&D is often used as the RPG "training wheels." There are many reasons for this...

But it comes down to its core concepts are really simple compared to other systems. The very thing I don't like about the system (the "straight jacketing" of characters), combined with areas others on the boards dislike (Vancian magic), make it very simple to catch on to the flow of the game.

And it is from that point of view that I can not believe 4th Edition will "streamline" the rules. Sure, it may excite many of the current player base... But try to get a neonate of the hobby to grasp the "new and exciting - everybody gets spell like actions" system.
I don't see it as an improvement overall...


swirler wrote:

also I forgot to add these little wotc rants

what the heck??
they are having a rules compendium for 3.5 coming out in october now???
i guess that's good though for the people sticking with 3.5.

Yeah, it seems rather tasteless for WotC to still be pumping out 3.5 books when they've already come out and said that they're "obsolete" due to the "extreme difficulty" in converting 3.5 to 4.0. Reminds me of the poor people that bought the 3.0 books the day before the 3.5 core books were released.


Karelzarath wrote:
Yeah, it seems rather tasteless for WotC to still be pumping out 3.5 books when they've already come out and said that they're "obsolete" due to the "extreme difficulty" in converting 3.5 to 4.0. Reminds me of the poor people that bought the 3.0 books the day before the 3.5 core books were released.

Why is that tasteless? Would you rather they A) announce 4e, then cease publishing anything and go out of business for lack of revenue? or B) stay completely hushed about 4e until they are ready to release it and say "Oh by the way, this is what we've been working on. Here you go."

They've already said that the material that will be coming out between now and the release of 4e will be of three types: rules-light (so much of it can be culled for use in 4e), geared toward 4e (like the preview books coming out this winter), or finishing up a 3.5 series they had already begun (like the Compendiums). I don't think that's a problem at all. Especially as we all know there are many people that want to stay with 3.5 anyway (just as many have stayed with older editions). I might even just pick up a copy of the Rules Compendium just so I can have consolidated rules source in case I run or play in a 3.5 game in the future.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Peruhain of Brithondy wrote:
If you read the comments in the thread, I'd estimate about 75% of the people who answered (B) also said we would be looking over the new ruleset and would probably buy the books and/or try it out at some point in the future.

To be clear, I'm not harping about refusing to switch generally. Personal preferences are not subject to the forces of logic and no amount of argument can convince you that you really like eggs when the smell makes you sick. And the reasoning you provide above is, well, reasonable.

The argument that I specifically attacked is:

1. I have tons of 3.5 material that I want to play.
2. As a result, this is not the right time to release 4e. First, I should be given adequate time to play this backlog, then I will be ready to play 4e.

That argument is nonesense. And, maybe it's just a strawman for me to attack. But to be clear, I am attacking the strawman. To the extent the position is:

1. I like 3.5 and haven't seen (and do not expect to see) a compelling reason to switch.
2. Therefore, I will subside on my backlog rather than switch.

That's kosher.

Peruhain of Brithondy wrote:
We respect your position, Sebastian, and the arguments you've made for shifting over--but we have valid reasons for our position and deserve to be respected too.

And I do my damndest to respect such positions to the extent they are not based on ridiculous assertions about how businesses operate (e.g., WotC should only release one book a quarter, said book should continue to be relevant for 30-40 years, and should otherwise operate as a charity rather than a business) or just plain incorrect (e.g., you will only be able to play online and they will charge you a fee based on the number of hit points that your character has). I also tend to get irritated at elitist arguments (e.g., they want to dumb down the game for those slack-jawed pokemon players), but those invite argument from the getgo.

Peruhain of Brithondy wrote:

On a separate note, for those who complain about the Vancian magic system, it seems to me that 3.5e now provides enough options so that you can play without it if you hate it that much. There are sorcerers and favored souls, all the psionic classes, warlocks, shadowcasters, truenamers, and binders--each of these has different ways of tapping into magical power that don't rely on the "spell memorization" mechanic. So I'm not quite certain why that would drive you to switch over. You don't like the wizard class? Just don't have it in your game.

And, those who complain about the succubus being a devil can just ignore that aspect in 4e and treat them as devils. They can also play with the Great Wheel if it's removed. Those are far less central elements than the magic system itself.

I don't want to begin yet another debate on the actual merits of 4e, but let me say that your definition is a very literal use of vancian casting (As Laithoron said: "the notion of a caster being able to 'run out' of the ability to channel magic is what doesn't sit well with us"). The sorcerer, favored soul, and other spont casters are in the exact same boat as the wizard in terms of problematic vancian casting. Jeremy MacDonald and James Jacobs have presented a much better argument than I ever could about how those classes can blow their wad early in a spectacular display of power and then be next to worthless unless they convince the party to rest. That's one of the core problems with 3e. Yes, they've been taking variant classes built on entirely different models for test drives (e.g., the warlock and, as I understand it, the Tome of Magic classes), but the core rules and most adventures have the vancian magic system as a core element. Trying to strip out vancian magic (or the problems resutling from a vancian magic core) requires stripping out all the spellcasting classes in the game, which is functionally 1/3 of the phb. I like house rules as much as the next guy, but that leaves a sizable hole to fill.

But that's neither here nor there.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Kruelaid wrote:


And oh, yeah, I just remembered: can I borrow the car tonight pops?

No.


Karelzarath wrote:
swirler wrote:

also I forgot to add these little wotc rants

what the heck??
they are having a rules compendium for 3.5 coming out in october now???
i guess that's good though for the people sticking with 3.5.
Yeah, it seems rather tasteless for WotC to still be pumping out 3.5 books when they've already come out and said that they're "obsolete" due to the "extreme difficulty" in converting 3.5 to 4.0. Reminds me of the poor people that bought the 3.0 books the day before the 3.5 core books were released.

I did happen to realize though, atleast these things are coming out for people who wnat them. How many games over the years ahve had books coming out that were never relased. look at the last 2 incarnations of marvel supers games. The spidey book was the next book coming out for both and the systems were dropped right before it came out. What really sucks is, when saga marvel's spidey book was supposed to come out it was pushed back to coincide witht he relaease of the first spidey movie, over a year,t hen never came out. I mean the book was done for cryin out loud. Sure Saga wasnt great but thats not my point. At the time I was looking forward to the book but never got it due to marketing B.S.

did i have a point?
not sure
oh yeah, I guess if people work hard on something and someone wnats it, it should be put out.
well except for albums by female artists who have left the bands who made them famous. Those stink most of the time.


swirler wrote:

oh yeah, I guess if people work hard on something and someone wnats it, it should be put out.

well except for albums by female artists who have left the bands who made them famous. Those stink most of the time.

Nina Gordon (formerly of Verruca Salt) is pretty darn good on her own, even if her music's not what you'd expect from her VS days. The remaining members, however, seem to be desperately trying to find an audience for their music. [/threadjack]


Karelzarath wrote:
Nina Gordon (formerly of Verruca Salt) is pretty darn good on her own, even if her music's not what you'd expect from her VS days. The remaining members, however, seem to be desperately trying to find an audience for their music. [/threadjack]

I was mostly referring to Gwen Stefani and Fergie.


Sebastian wrote:
Personal preferences are not subject to the forces of logic and no amount of argument can convince you that you really like eggs when the smell makes you sick.

Could it be that this is how most of your victims feel and they are simply lacking the ability to communicate it effectively?

Sebastian wrote:
I also tend to get irritated at elitist arguments...

Hypocrite much?


cant we all just get along????
dont cry for me Argentina!!

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

CourtFool wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
Personal preferences are not subject to the forces of logic and no amount of argument can convince you that you really like eggs when the smell makes you sick.

Could it be that this is how most of your victims feel and they are simply lacking the ability to communicate it effectively?

Sebastian wrote:
I also tend to get irritated at elitist arguments...
Hypocrite much?

Now I'm hurt.

Liberty's Edge

While I know WotC has assured us that there will not be a 4.5, I can very well see them coming out with a 'Revised 4th Edition', so they 'technically' didn't lie to us.

There is a matter of trust. Simply put, I don't trust them to be honest with us, because they haven't been honest with us in the past. How long will 4th edition last? I don't know, but I don't really expect it to make it the 12 years they're 'promising'.

How long can I subsist on my 3.5 material? Several years, at least.

I am in the category that doesn't feel compelled to switch. I can do with 3.5 for a long time still. If Paizo continues to support it, I'll certainly delay any 'upgrade' until the last possible moment.

Generally speaking, I don't think I'm interested in the types of changes that 4th edition is going to make. Usually, the pendulum swings back and forth. So, 3rd edition was 'Back to the Dungeon!'. It seems like 4th edition is 'Let's give the MMORG player's what they want!'.

5th edition will hopefully be the system that I will truly enjoy. One where the mechanics work well, but the game can easily allow a low magic setting, or a high magic setting without any major changes to the core rules. I don't think 3.5 is exactly that system, but I have enough experience under the hood to get a pretty close approximation pretty quickly.

In any case, I don't intend to switch ever.

I might change my mind. But it will be some time from now. Quite some time. And with the help of Paizo, it could well be never.


Sebastian wrote:
Now I'm hurt.

You know I got nuthin' but love for you, SB. Without you, who would be my worthy adversary?


I WILL GIVE YOU BATTLE, WRETCHED CUR.
STAND AND DELIVER!!!


Sebastard Sword the Ruleslawyer wrote:

I WILL GIVE YOU BATTLE, WRETCHED CUR.

STAND AND DELIVER!!!

Beavis just called. He wants his TP back.


Sebastard Sword the Ruleslawyer wrote:

I WILL GIVE YOU BATTLE, WRETCHED CUR.

STAND AND DELIVER!!!

When I get home, I am so screencapping this. Thanks for the chuckle.


CourtFool wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
Now I'm hurt.
You know I got nuthin' but love for you, SB. Without you, who would be my worthy adversary?

Worthy? You? Ha! None are worthy of exchanging witicisms with me! I laugh at all of the so-called attempts of the little people to engage me in stimulating conversation. You must all bask in the glory that is me!

Liberty's Edge

CourtFool wrote:
Sebastard Sword the Ruleslawyer wrote:

I WILL GIVE YOU BATTLE, WRETCHED CUR.

STAND AND DELIVER!!!
Beavis just called. He wants his TP back.

That bogart.


If one likes playing 3.x games, then play them! As others have said (and I as well), one could spend a lifetime playing 3.x with the amount of published material you can buy for that game. How much more support do we need for 3.x??? What we do need is support for a 4e version of the rules set. Thus: 4e. Perhaps the sky is falling for all our 3.x material...I will forward the notion that when the first 4e books hit the shelves for sale, all 3.0 and 3.5 material will spontaneously burst into flames. If that happens, then I will be highly upset with the release of 4e.

As ever,
ACE

The Exchange

DeadDMWalking wrote:
There is a matter of trust. Simply put, I don't trust them to be honest with us, because they haven't been honest with us in the past. How long will 4th edition last? I don't know, but I don't really expect it to make it the 12 years they're 'promising'.

Huh? You know, it makes it really difficult to see someone as honest when you expect them to live up to a promise they never made. Unless you can point to a statement I totally missed?

51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Tell Me Truly, Threadjackers Thread All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.