It doesn't mattered he played pre-3.0 stuff or not. His opinion and play style is still valid if it works for him and his group.
I find it hilarious that Kthulhu's still making such absurd assumptions about me as a player.
Anyway, I have tried out 2nd edition D&D with the same group that I've regularly played GURPS and Dark Heresy with.
Two of my characters died (second time was a TPK), but it was still fun. Doesn't seem like we're going to try it again, though.
All I have to stay is them's the breaks. Get a new sword.
|
I find it hilarious that Kthulhu's still making such absurd assumptions about me as a player.
Anyway, I have tried out 2nd edition D&D with the same group that I've regularly played GURPS and Dark Heresy with.
Two of my characters died (second time was a TPK), but it was still fun. Doesn't seem like we're going to try it again, though.
People are only going off of your posts which aren't helping your case by the way.
All I was doing was using my long time experience to justify my knowledge of the game. From reading your posts, you don't seem like you are a very inexperienced player. That's not meant as an insult just an observation.
Here's a bit of advice, if you want people to take you seriously then maybe you need to rethink how you speak to them.
Eh, whatever. The only thing that I don't agree with you on is your stance on how to DM.
I still don't agree with you, and some people here have also shown to disagree with you as well*.
You can spare me the advice, since I haven't been the only one spouting stuff here without thinking twice.
* = However, if that style works with your group, then good for you. Nothing to complain about so long as everyone's having fun.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't mattered he played pre-3.0 stuff or not. His opinion and play style is still valid if it works for him and his group.
I didn't say it mattered, just that I have a very hard time imagining it. I can't see him meshing very well in a game with increased levels of GM fiat, that's all.
The thread is like an emotional roller coaster.
Yeah I am about the most chilled out person ever in real life. I get along with everybody. Yet somehow people here just seem dead set on interpreting anything you say in the worst, most offensive possible way.
Yep. I go looking for arguments sometimes, but even when I don't you will find them here. Just make a post!
Some people say I'm pretty chill most of the times.
I'd say he's more of the "dude", whatever that means.
Stig, dude, Walter? Is this a new geek reference I missed?
Stig, dude, Walter? Is this a new geek reference I missed?
Same genesis as "the Dude". Both come from the Big Lebowski. Jeff Bridges played Lebowski - the Dude. Walter, played by John Goodman, was a bit more fixated on rules and never giving up a fight.
Awww, you totally missed your chance for an "It's over your head, Aranna!"
:D
...I fail to grasp this odd slang.
Well thanks Bill. I am glad you answered before Brian did.
Well thanks Bill. I am glad you answered before Brian did.
Not a slam - you've got to watch the movie.
Doh.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Internet makes everybody seem about 10-50% more jerkwad than they actually are.
Yeah?
You think so?Where do you get those figures from?
If you were to make a proper investigation, of credible websites, you'd see it's been proven that the actual effect is from 17% to 53%, but if you want to rely on numbers pulled out of your ass, don't let me stop you.
^------(anyone who can't tell that's a joke, I weep for you...)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
^------(anyone who can't tell that's a joke, I weep for you...)
Wow, that's really condescending. Did you write that entire (rather obvious) joke just so you could feel smarter than those who didn't get it?
It's amazing how immature people can be.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, back on topic,
In the last 14 pages, I don't think anyone raised the following point:
I avoid using Sunder against PCs, and I advise the players to steer clear of the associated feats.
But that's not due to any favouritism to a particular player, respect for an heirloom weapon backstory, or a belief that any PC or NPC should have Plot Immunity.
I just don't like the Sunder rules,and don't think they give believable results.
Things that should be resilient, aren't.
Things that should be breakable, aren't.
Common situations give goofy results.
A Str 8 carpenter shouldn't take till the end of infinity, failing to cut down a sapling with an axe.
You shouldn't be able to smash a hole in a stone wall, using an adamantine hatpin.
As with all goofy rule subsystems, I tell my players that whatever they try to bring to the table becomes fair use in return.
If a tactic sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
If a PC can use it, so can an NPC, and the NPC levels can be added to monster races.
An NPC is just a PC whose player couldn't make it to the table. I reserve the right to run them on behalf of their absent owners, with the same ruthlessness they'd be played, if there was a meat-body owner sat beside me at the session.
And I reserve the right to take copies of any PC they make, file off the serial numbers, and bring them on as a BBEG, either in the current game, or one years from now. "You want to complain about it? You ain't got a leg to stand on, since you're the one pleaded with the group that it was fair and balanced when you played it."
So if you have an idea for a super combo, whether that be a perpetual motion wish factory, an infinite number of followers, or some insane DPR or infallible combat trick, keep it to yourself.
"You really don't want to open that Pandora's Box.".
You shouldn't be able to smash a hole in a stone wall, using an adamantine hatpin.
For the record, the rules say that you generally can't sunder with piercing weapons. They also block certain sundering efforts. I believe the example given is a sword vs. a stone wall.
|
|
Do you have a source for that?
I've checked the Core rules (page 201), the PRD and the d20PFsrd, and the text is identical.
Sunder
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object’s Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Appendix 2). If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.
I think your group is likely to be using a houserule, that they've been using so long, they've forgotten it's a houserule (which is often the way).
I agree that trying to intercept the haft of an enemy's incoming weapon on the point of your spear (rather than deflect it using your own haft) should be a foolhardy move, but you have to take care you don't accidentally ban perfectly reasonable scenarios, such as using a pick to smash through a door.
Not for sundering, but page 173-174, it talks about certain weapons not working for smashing objects, which would make sense to apply to sundering. For example sundering a whip with a club probably shouldn't work.
Well, back on topic,
In the last 14 pages, I don't think anyone raised the following point:
I avoid using Sunder against PCs, and I advise the players to steer clear of the associated feats.
But that's not due to any favouritism to a particular player, respect for an heirloom weapon backstory, or a belief that any PC or NPC should have Plot Immunity.I just don't like the Sunder rules,and don't think they give believable results.
Things that should be resilient, aren't.
Things that should be breakable, aren't.
Common situations give goofy results.A Str 8 carpenter shouldn't take till the end of infinity, failing to cut down a sapling with an axe.
You shouldn't be able to smash a hole in a stone wall, using an adamantine hatpin.
As with all goofy rule subsystems, I tell my players that whatever they try to bring to the table becomes fair use in return.
If a tactic sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
If a PC can use it, so can an NPC, and the NPC levels can be added to monster races.
An NPC is just a PC whose player couldn't make it to the table. I reserve the right to run them on behalf of their absent owners, with the same ruthlessness they'd be played, if there was a meat-body owner sat beside me at the session.
And I reserve the right to take copies of any PC they make, file off the serial numbers, and bring them on as a BBEG, either in the current game, or one years from now. "You want to complain about it? You ain't got a leg to stand on, since you're the one pleaded with the group that it was fair and balanced when you played it."So if you have an idea for a super combo, whether that be a perpetual motion wish factory, an infinite number of followers, or some insane DPR or infallible combat trick, keep it to yourself.
"You really don't want to open that Pandora's Box.".
I still like and use the 3.5 sunder rules. They are coherent, if you are good at what is required, you can get it off and milk your skill.
"The Orc king has a thick skull. He's immune to sword blows, and other piercing/slashing attacks."
"What, no-one brought a club?"
"Club this! I dirty trick him in the crotch."
...that would be what one of my players would say, right after another started exploratory stabbings to find out if this Orc king has thick bones over all his vital organs.
Thick bones? Did someone bring a boning knife, because you can go right around that bone.
Now, hold him down. *eye gleam*
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey! NOW whaddo I do with this POPCORN?!
;)
I do this while watching telenovellas.