That is what rules should be - a way to get the best performance with the
least amount of procedural overhead.
You say it is best performance, we disagree.
We want more control.
|
Then the problem seems to be that the RPGA rules do not address munchkins and morons sitting there figuring out the permutations of shifting their power attack while other people wait.
Its not the RPGA rules - its the PHB, DMG, and MM. You play those rules (not the optional stuff and advice). There are no rules that govern the time a player can take to take their turn and its not up to the judge to force their own pace to the game.
The table can find its own groove and other players often act to keep up the pace but an RPGA judge is not a GM - they are a judge. There is a huge difference.
*hammers on the table with his hoof*
an RPGA judge is not a GM - they are a judge. There is a huge difference.
A judge has the power to deal with intentional courtroom delays.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Either way.
You win.
Power attack is toast.
Uh...what does winning have to do with it? The only thing I'm arguing is the concept that Power Attack does not have a cost. It does. I also expressed the belief that the cost is worth the benefit in 3e.
If 4e eliminates Power Attack and fails to replace it with something else of equal or greater value, the game will be worse in my opinion.
Power Attack is not on my list of things in 3e that suck, I am indifferent to it. I don't want it to go away, but I don't mind if they replace it with something else if that something else is better.
|
|
That is what rules should be - a way to get the best performance with the
least amount of procedural overhead.You say it is best performance, we disagree.
We want more control.
I get it. But in the case of rules the finer the control, the more detail is required, and thus the game will take longer to play.
Its a continuum. On the one end is pure simulation with rules and mechanics for the most minute details. On the other end is pure story telling with little or no rules. D&D is in the middle. 4E is moving away from simulation but not to the point of becoming SAGA.
If that is where the market is going then cool by me.
Less time playing the rules means more time playing the role.
Your continuum is a nice fabrication, but don't shovel it around here, dude. You do not EITHER roleplay (ED:story telling) OR simulate combat.
AND: I don't see 4E moving away from simulation at all--I see them streamlining and balancing simulation so it resembles a computer game.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Your continuum is a nice fabrication, but don't shovel it around here, dude. You do not EITHER roleplay (ED:story telling) OR simulate combat.
Kruelaid, with all due respect, that doesn't make any sense (and is uncharacteristically nasty). Why does this issue have you so riled?
Your continuum is a nice fabrication, but don't shovel it around here, dude. You do not EITHER roleplay (ED:story telling) OR simulate combat.
Kruelaid, with all due respect, that doesn't make any sense (and is uncharacteristically nasty). Why does this issue have you so riled?
It's not meant to be nasty at all. In fact, I am carefully optimistic about 4E. I simply do not agree with the "power attack is a problem" thesis.
As for the continuum, I understand what he is saying but I think you can have rules and storytelling, and we all know it. It is simply a matter of taste as to whether or not the storytelling must abide by the simulation system or not. In other words you can have as much storytelling as you want, but it's up to the gamers to decide on the complexity of the rules they use to decide the outcomes that appear in their story.
Again, no nastiness intended. All views are fair. We agree to disagree.
|
|
Your continuum is a nice fabrication, but don't shovel it around here, dude. You do not EITHER roleplay (ED:story telling) OR simulate combat.
AND: I don't see 4E moving away from simulation at all--I see them streamlining and balancing simulation so it resembles a computer game.
Uh, its not a fabrication. Its game design. Harmaster = simulation. Vampire = darn close to story telling. Gurps = not quite as big a simulation as harmaster. Amber = storytelling.
All RPGs that use dice to resolve things have a bit of simulation to them. Some have more and some have less.
The trend has been towards a lighter set of rules with more abstraction.
More abstraction mean less control and make the games less about simulation and more about story telling.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It's not meant to be nasty at all. In fact, I am carefully optimistic about 4E. I simply do not agree with the "power attack is a problem" thesis.
I also agree that power attack is not a problem under the current rules set (or, to the extent it is a problem, the benefits outweigh the costs). It's not as hard to calculate as THAC0, it doesn't add much time 90% of the time it is used, and it gives fighter types some interesting options.
But it does have a cost.
As for the continuum, I understand what he is saying but I think you can have rules and storytelling, and we all know it. It is simply a matter of taste as to whether or not the storytelling must abide by the simulation system or not. In other words you can have as much storytelling as you want, but it's up to the gamers to decide on the complexity of the rules they use to decide the outcomes that appear in their story.
Again, no nastiness intended. All views are fair. We agree to disagree.
Okay, I see what you're saying about being able to have storytelling independent of the amount of rules, but I think the rules continuum does exist. For example, a system with a targeting roll, a damage roll, and a resistance roll is significantly more complex than one where you just roll a single die and declare the outcome of the entire encounter. Both systems may have an elaborate story built upon them, one just uses more rules to resolve conflict than the other. And, at the very end of the continuum, you wouldn't use any rules to resolve the conflict. I think that's fair to describe as a continuum. Do you not agree?
Reply to crosswiredmind:
I know a little about game design, but thanks anyway for the lesson. With all due respect you are telling me that my gaming experiences simply do not exist.
You can incorporate storytelling into Harn and Rolemaster and I have participated in doing so. There is no more or less storytelling than the players choose to have but rather a question of whether or not some outcomes are subject to rules or not.
Crosswiredmind, it seems to me that your habit throughout this thread has been to invalidate the experiences of others while justifying your own. Time and time again we have acknowledged that you have a problem with PA and that's fair, yet you fail to acknowledge that we don't have such problems and that our perspective is also fair (or I missed this). Now you are telling me that I have less storytelling when I use more complex rules systems when I know from personal experience that I don't.
And, at the very end of the continuum, you wouldn't use any rules to resolve the conflict. I think that's fair to describe as a continuum. Do you not agree?
Totally.
And I gotta run guys, no hostility intended.
Cheers!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Your continuum is a nice fabrication, but don't shovel it around here, dude. You do not EITHER roleplay (ED:story telling) OR simulate combat.
AND: I don't see 4E moving away from simulation at all--I see them streamlining and balancing simulation so it resembles a computer game.
Uh, its not a fabrication. Its game design. Harmaster = simulation. Vampire = darn close to story telling. Gurps = not quite as big a simulation as harmaster. Amber = storytelling.
All RPGs that use dice to resolve things have a bit of simulation to them. Some have more and some have less.
The trend has been towards a lighter set of rules with more abstraction.
More abstraction mean less control and make the games less about simulation and more about story telling.
Hmm, have to disagree here. The trend has been going into the direction of "rules light" systems during most of the 90s and early 2000ths, but has halted and in some ways reversed after that.
White Wolf had Exalted second edition, which really did not reduce the number of rules, or increase the level of abstraction, but rather introduced rulesets for activities that previously where more or less pure storytelling.
Legend of the five rings split from the rather abstract D20 system, and returned to its skill-rich, multi-attribute system. This is an increase in complexity, and it did the game good, if "common chitchat" can be believed here for once.
In effect, every new rulesbook for D&D has increased the complexity, and "simulation" aspect - look at "heroes of horror" (just an example) - more system for previously pure storytelling.
|
|
Reply to crosswiredmind:
I know a little about game design, but thanks anyway for the lesson. With all due respect you are telling me that my gaming experiences simply do not exist.You can incorporate storytelling into Harn and Rolemaster and I have participated in doing so. There is no more or less storytelling than the players choose to have but rather a question of whether or not some outcomes are subject to rules or not.
Crosswiredmind, it seems to me that your habit throughout this thread has been to invalidate the experiences of others while justifying your own. Time and time again we have acknowledged that you have a problem with PA and that's fair, yet you fail to acknowledge that we don't have such problems and that our perspective is also fair (or I missed this). Now you are telling me that I have less storytelling when I use more complex rules systems when I know from personal experience that I don't.
Dude, you are over reacting.
Of course all rpgs have story telling. But not all rpgs are pure story telling like Amber or Baron Munchausen.
Those are games without rules - at least the kind you may be used to.
Story telling games are a genre of rpg.
I am not saying that you don't tell stories with D&D.
sheesh
|
|
Hmm, have to disagree here. The trend has been going into the direction of "rules light" systems during most of the 90s and early 2000ths, but has halted and in some ways reversed after that.
Yeah - I can see that. But then there are rules sets like True 20 and the new Star Wars rules.
You could very well be correct and it will be interesting to see where it goes.
I think the trend comes from the core mechanic kind of game where one core mechanic spawns multiple situational rules that all mesh into a big system. So even though they have lots of "rules", they all spawn from a core mechanic and so there is nothing really new and most of those rules could have been whipped up as needed by a competent GM.
I shall have to look at the WW stuff though.
Cheers!
Legend of the five rings split from the rather abstract D20 system, and returned to its skill-rich, multi-attribute system. This is an increase in complexity, and it did the game good, if "common chitchat" can be believed here for once.
As a big fan of the L5R game, I have to say that returning to it's multi d10 system was not an increase in complexity. The game flows much smoother, much easier in the non-d20 system...
But I am biased, so break out your salt shakers.
The whole thing seems like a debate of automatic v. manual transmission. I suppose car makers could decide to make every single car manual transmission and rely upon the skill of the drivers to properly operate the vehicles. And there are many people who prefer the additional element of control that the manual transmission provides.
We've butted heads so often I really hate to bring this up...
But that is a bad analogy Sebastian.
Automatic and manual transmissions each have their place depending on the application you have planned for your vehicle.
For example, automatic transmissions are favored in hard core off-roading and rock crawling due to the control they give over a manual.
I get what you were trying to say though... And the analogy can be used. It would be great if Hasbro/WotC could offer different options on the same model of vehicle - rather than deciding to scrap the previous model in favor of a completely new, and redesigned, model.
Too bad they didn't design the parts to be interchangeable.
As a big fan of the L5R game, I have to say that returning to it's multi d10 system was not an increase in complexity. The game flows much smoother, much easier in the non-d20 system...
I love Legend of the Five Rings Third Edition. The mix between class/level based and free, the dice pools with target numbers, and all the other things are very cool.
Plus, the setting itself simply vouches.
|
I get what you were trying to say though... And the analogy can be used. It would be great if Hasbro/WotC could offer different options on the same model of vehicle - rather than deciding to scrap the previous model in favor of a completely new, and redesigned, model.Too bad they didn't design the parts to be interchangeable.
This seems to be a recurring theme. I've stated elsewhere that IMHO(*see below) many of these issues revolve around many in the broader gaming community having *finally* been able to see the wizard-behind-the curtain in 3E and developed modifications to the game to suit their tastes. This is a GREAT thing. I don't love Super-Hero Fantasy but others do. 3E is robust enough for relatively minor tweaks to the game to get the feel you want. But it does require work...3rd party OGL publishers sometimes step in and do the work for you and we have Iron Heroes e.g.
Its unfortunate that WOtC isn't designing 4E with an eye towards different rule-sets (They have tiers, but its really the same rule-set). I'd love to see a game that explicitly defines Sword&sorcery, Low Fantasy, High Fantasy, Super Fantasy (I made the last up) and how the feats/talents/mechanics/etc change with each. Its more work, I'll admit, but I think the rewards would be immense.
I am a fan of Sword &Sorcery myself, and I'll readily admit that the less magic in a game, the less complexity. Although, you could certainly have a very complex sword&sorcery game in terms of more realistic combat and a more developed skill system (Diplomacy for example). So I think a page or so on "How to turn Mechanic X into a basic rule" would be a great idea. Magic, Skills, Combat (melee for the most part) are the holy trinity mechanics. Have the regular "somewhat complex" versions of each with a page on the less complex version is what I am talking about.
The complexity/game-speed issues usually revolve not around complexity of ONE particular mechanic (grapple is a lovely poster-child) but the multiple-mechanics. If my game is fast and suddenly slows down for grapple, its really not much of an issue. But if it is followed by a slow-down due to a polymorphing wizard, followed by a tumbling ogre who is "squeezing" through a narrow space as well and doing a Power Attack, trying to maximize his attack, followed by a Holy Word where you have to compare HD and Alignments of all in the AoE....UGH! Thats slow.
Providing a game that has a "simplified version" of each mechanic in addition to the "normal" goes a long way to the customization people want. I would probably play with "Simplified" Skills and Magic, but use the full-blown Combat to gear my game toward that Sword&Sorcery Feel.
One could always do that on their own, of course, but here's the rub: The more I have to alter the game, the more likely I am to say, "F**K it" and just go with another game...bad for WotC and for D&D...
As long as 4E is somewhere in the Low Fantasy/High Fantasy border, then us Sword and Sorcery and Super Fantasy wedge players don't have much to tweak. Move it to far from center and suddenly one side has a LOT of tweaking to do. And, as long as 4E has a fairly clear way to Increase Complexity (for those over-simplified rules) or decreased complexity (for those over-complex rules) then the tweaking can commence.
So, back on topic. Power Attack is a "complex" mechanic in 3E. It can be a bit hard to really maximize each attack with the RAW. Its easily simplified into: -BAB/2 to hit and +BAB/2 to damage (normal D&D rounding). This basically assumes the variability (0 to BAB) is like a dice roll and takes the average result. You can do that with any variable "complex" rule. Typically, this "nerfs" Power Attack slightly, but it certainly speeds game play in a game where this is a problem.
I only hope 4E has that kind of clear flexibility.
* IMHO...In My Honest Opinion? Why do I need to qualify with "honest"? Does IMO work well? I think I'll drop the H next time. Seems stupid.
|
|
Besides, power attack is one of the most useless feats there is.
????
In my experience, Power Attack is quite often the difference between victory and defeat, and one of the most valuable feats in the game, when facing off against opponents with high hp and/or Damage Resistance.
My reservation with it is that I don't see it as even being a feat, but rather, something that should be a combat option open to everyone, like Fighting Defensively.
It's easy to justify any character taking a wild, powerful swing, to inflict more damage at the expense of accuracy.
Brawn Over Brain.
Hulk Smash!
I thought feats were meant to be special techniques that one had to master, after tracking down hidden monasteries and ancient sensei. I can see how one would need training to master the arts of disarming, feinting, Arcane Strike, etc, but Power Attack? This seems like an anti-feat, requiring neither intelligence, cunning, skill or experience.
...lone figure crawls painfully to the crest of the mountain, before falling at the feet of the mighty-thewed guard. He gasps out the plaintive request....
"Excuse me, is this the Dojo of the Cack-Handed Spaz-Fighting Technique?".
Watch a bunch of kids teasing another, until he becomes a red-faced ball of impotent rage...that kid's using Power Attack, he's just subtracting so much from his base attack that he can't benefit. You can't tell me that kid's been spending a feat...
For example, automatic transmissions are favored in hard core off-roading and rock crawling due to the control they give over a manual.I really hate to bring this up...
But you got it backwards. ;D
Actually, I didn't.
Every time I say that statement, I have to pause to make sure I got it right. Because it sounds so odd.
But automatic transmissions are the trans of choice for hard core off roading and rock crawling. (Sorry, couldn't find a good Google link quickly.)
It is because they are so adept at clutching and preventing "slipping" that they are so prized over manuals in these areas.
|
|
My reservation with it is that I don't see it as even being a feat, but rather, something that should be a combat option open to everyone, like Fighting Defensively.
I agree, and recently had that conversation on another board. There are a few feats I think should be combat maneuvers. Power Attack is definitely one of them.
|
|
Snorter, you make a good point. Perhaps it's being removed as a feat because it'll be a technique available to all?
I'd like to believe that; however, the fact that the designers believe it "too difficult to calculate" would seem to suggest that it won't be an option at all, either as a standard maneuvre, feat, talent or class ability. They want to save us from ourselves!
As an aside; it seems from the posts so far, that the problem is not the calculation of the bonuses, but the players over-analysing, and over-thinking the consequences.
Player A: "Should I take 75% hit chance, for 2d6+20 damage, or 70% hit chance, for 2d6+22....?"
"HHHmmmmmm......"
<drum fingers>
<tries to think up extra bonuses....>
<urge toward caution, from the grey, boring player>
<urge toward blowing the whole BAB, by the psychotic player>
<'helpful' advice from Player B, who has zero idea what PC A's bonuses are, and gets them wrong...>
<5 minute dicussion, while Player A explains how he gets his figures>
<argument over whether all bonuses stack>
<dispute over whether PC A actually picked up the Belt of Ogre Strength, including a recap of the session 3 months ago, and a hasty diagram of where everyone was standing (with lines of sight), when the NPC's body was looted by PC B>
<debate re how PC B's Sleight of Hand would have been lower due to poisoning, and PC A's Sense Motive and Spot would have been higher due to Owl's Wisdom spell, followed by an appeal to the DM to backtrack, and allow a re-roll to spot the looting, and 50 other re-rolls to see PC B wearing said Belt during subsequent adventures. DM says NO>
<PC A reveals the Belt in his possession is not actually that particular Belt, after all, so PC B can keep his other Belt, which smells...HIS Belt is the one he was given as a reward from 'That Guy Whose Name We Can Never Remember, Despite It Being Written Down For Us By The DM, Who Got Sick Of Constantly Having To Spell It For Us'>
<Player C denies all knowledge of 'That Guy...etc', despite him appearing on numerous occasions, giving the party rewards and information, and Player C having had a half-hour solo session of pure role-playing with said NPC.>
<DM shows Player C a full-page illustration of 'That Guy...etc' (the same illustration which has been shown every time he appears), resulting in blank looks>
<Player A tells the others, "It's that guy we nick-named EXPLETIVE-DELETED". All players immediately recall this helpful, selfless, noble NPC>
<Player D points out that PC A could never have reached his opponent to attack him in the first place>
<Player A has to admit that he took Barbarian levels that no-one was aware of. There also follows a debate about a pair of Boots of Swiftness (repeat as above)>
<20 minutes have now passed; everyone has agreed the attack and damage bonuses. Attention returns to the combat grid>
<Player A rolls a natural 1>
Is that the kind of 'slowing-down' of the game, that we want to avoid? Because if so, I don't think Power Attack is to blame...
"No, this is the Dojo of Maths is Hard!"
Seriously though, Snorter, you make a good point. Perhaps it's being removed as a feat because it'll be a technique available to all?
Nah. They seem to think that the average D&D player is barely able to tell the difference between a fighter and a wizard, so simple math is too much to ask of them.
My reservation with it is that I don't see it as even being a feat
I make power attack possible without the feat (at half capacity). So Power Attack is more or less "Improved Power Attack". You can power attack even with light weapons (works half as good as one-handed weapons)
I also made Weapon Finesse a non-feat (you can use the feat to apply it to something you'd otherwise not be able to, like a scimitar)
|
|
I make power attack possible without the feat (at half capacity). So Power Attack is more or less "Improved Power Attack".
Yes, that's my take on it, and if I were designing a game from scratch, that's how I'd go.
I look at it working like parrying/dodging; you have several levels of ability, of varying efficiency.
An untrained user can simply use the Defensive Fighting action (-4 to hit, +2 AC),
A skilled user (5 ranks of Tumble) can use this same option, but get more benefit (-4 to hit, +3 AC),
And a [b]really[/v] trained fighter can use the Combat Expertise feat, for even better efficiency (-X to hit, +X AC) and customise it as he sees fit (up to +/-5).
This gives a lot of leeway for different builds for similar effects. As a rogue, I'll go for option 2, since I have skills coming out my ears. As a fighter, I'll use option 3, since I have feats to spare.
Substitute 'damage' for 'AC', and pick a different skill for Tumble (or even BAB +5 or higher, therefore warrior types get better quicker), and you have the basic mechanic for Power Attack For All.
Dude, you are over reacting.
Whatever. I'm just explaining myself clearly so that there is no misunderstanding. Dismiss what I say however you wish, maybe you'd like to trythis one: "you're just getting emotional!"
Of course all rpgs have story telling. But not all rpgs are pure story telling like Amber or Baron Munchausen.Those are games without rules - at least the kind you may be used to.
Actually I am familiar with those, although I have not played them. But thanks for condescending anyways. Incidentally, I play a pure roleplaying/storytelling game in my English classes, and it really is a lot of fun. But back to what I was saying: rules heavy simulation need not lack storytelling, as your continuum suggested. Nor does it necessarily have less storytelling than a game without the rules that I am "used to".
Story telling games are a genre of rpg.
Sure, I never said they were not, that's not even an issue.
I am not saying that you don't tell stories with D&D.sheesh
What was that onomatopoeia, a fart?... No, actually, your postsuggested that the more simulation you use, the less storytelling you do. And I never cited you saying any such thing about D&D.
And, as of yet, you have not replied.... just a few glib, off topic comments.
Specifically, what I took issue with was this:
Its a continuum. On the one end is pure simulation with rules and mechanics for the most minute details. On the other end is pure story telling with little or no rules. D&D is in the middle. 4E is moving away from simulation but not to the point of becoming SAGA.
Because you call this a continuum it suggests that at one end you have simulation without storytelling, while at the other you have storytelling without rules. I do not believe this construction reflects the realities of RPGs. That's all.
And additionally, I have found your inability to accommodate the experiences and opinions of other posters who agree that PA is not a problem to be rather off-putting.
That's all, no big deal.
Ho hum. Have a nice day.
And by the way, , I really like your rule above (if you ever read this far).
|
|
And by the way, Snorter, I really like your rule above (if you ever read this far).
Thanks. I'm glad you liked it.
I aim to be a useful member of the community.I'm not as prolific as some (530 posts?), but I believe those posts are at least worth reading.
I want people to see my avatar, and think "There's that amazingly clever and talented chap, with the good ideas! And he's so witty and charming, too. I must give him a job immediately!"
that believes 24 is real
that was a joke I hope
surely no one believes that? I mean I bet some people are that dumb, but still...|
|
Kruelaid,
For sake of clarity since I feel you still have not caught my drift ...
All RPGs tell stories.
Those that use few if any rules are called "story telling games". That does not mean that they are the only RPGs that have story telling.
Games like Rolemaster try to get as close to reality as possible which is why they are often termed "simulation gaming".
Hence the continuum ... Baron Munchausen on one end and Rolemaster or Living Steel on the other.
No matter where an RPG lands on that scale they all tell stories.
If you are hung up on the terms lets use this:
story telling through pure abstraction <-----> story telling through detailed and realistic mechanics
D&D is right of center and seems to be drifting to the left.
|
|
And additionally, I have found your inability to accommodate the experiences and opinions of other posters who agree that PA is not a problem to be rather off-putting.
AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!
Some people find the rule to be quite easy to implement and see no reason why it should change. They have a positive view of the rule. They like it just fine.
That does not mean that the rule is just fine the way it is because one experience does not demonstrate a real trend.
I am sure someone liked McDonald's low card burger but McDonald's still canned it because not enough people liked it.
It became apparent to me that I have seen more people struggle with PA and thus slow things down.
I am not invalidating the experiences of others - i am demonstrating that I have seen many examples of play where the rule cause problems.
Apparently Wizards did too.
No matter where an RPG lands on that scale they all tell stories.If you are hung up on the terms lets use this:
story telling through pure abstraction <-----> story telling through detailed and realistic mechanics
I'm not hung up on the terms. What you wrote in the citation immediately above was exactly what I argued earlier in this thread. You said harnmaster was simulation and vampire was storytelling. Your continuum model suggested that there was no storytelling on the simulation end. I suggested that was a fabrication, you denied. It's all on record above.
Now you have conceded exactly what I said.
I have no beef. Just sayin'
Some people find the rule to be quite easy to implement and see no reason why it should change. They have a positive view of the rule. They like it just fine.That does not mean that the rule is just fine the way it is because one experience does not demonstrate a real trend.
I am sure someone liked McDonald's low card burger but McDonald's still canned it because not enough people liked it.
It became apparent to me that I have seen more people struggle with PA and thus slow things down.
I am not invalidating the experiences of others - i am demonstrating that I have seen many examples of play where the rule cause problems.
Apparently Wizards did too.
Cool. And wizards is reacting to those who have a problem with the complexity(ED: oh yeah, and making some money, too). And in defense of your point, all you need at a table is ONE guy who can't do the math to slow things down. It doesn't matter if there are 5 others who can, because, well, you know what they say about a weak link in the chain.
But that does not make the rule broken. Quite precisely, it means there is a rule that adds complexity that some people can't manage quickly. It's a problem in some gaming contexts. Yet I stand by what I have said, and others have agreed, that does not make it broken. Many of us have not had this problem. They have testified and are on the record above.
Like others, I deal with problems like this by managing my table, not changing the rules, although in a home game I am not averse to a few house rules.
In no way do I mean to attack you or single you out, but if you use a model (your continuum) I think you should use it precisely. Many people who run simlulation intense games also incorporate roleplaying(ED: mean storytelling) and your model disparaged this reality (ED: now you have clarified your point).
Enuff said.
????
What did I do?
Please, not another page. For the love of God!
|
I don't see what the big deal is with power attack.
Okay, the enemie's a.c. sucks. Pump up the damage.
Okay, the enemie's a.c. is rockin. Don't pump up the damage.
Why does that require me to drop a C-note for a new game set that's gonna make succubuses devils? Why do I have to pay good money because some guy somewhere can't subtract 5 from a +8 to hit and add 5 to damage?
I don't see what the big deal is with power attack.
Okay, the enemie's a.c. sucks. Pump up the damage.
Okay, the enemie's a.c. is rockin. Don't pump up the damage.Why does that require me to drop a C-note for a new game set that's gonna make succubuses devils? Why do I have to pay good money because some guy somewhere can't subtract 5 from a +8 to hit and add 5 to damage?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAGH! NO NO NO, PLEASE, THINK OF THE BABY HORSES!
I don't see why we can't get another page out of this. Dude, Come back!
|
|
AAAAAAAAAAAAAGH! NO NO NO, PLEASE, THINK OF THE BABY HORSES!I don't see what the big deal is with power attack.
Okay, the enemie's a.c. sucks. Pump up the damage.
Okay, the enemie's a.c. is rockin. Don't pump up the damage.Why does that require me to drop a C-note for a new game set that's gonna make succubuses devils? Why do I have to pay good money because some guy somewhere can't subtract 5 from a +8 to hit and add 5 to damage?
But I'm trying to make horse juice!!!
What's a dead horse's a.c.? I wanna max my power attack on this baby.