Graham wrote:Please also note that our "official" stance if there even is such a thing, is that we like both just fine, but this video was made
for the funny.
That's the gist i get from anything where you guys do the whole 3.5/4e thing
Graham wrote:Please also note that our "official" stance if there even is such a thing, is that we like both just fine, but this video was made
for the funny.
Oh, so I'm silly but valid because I object to the absence of half-orcs?
alignment stuff
Why call them 'powers' then - the word itself implies magic. 'Tricks' would've worked for rogues, 'tactics' for martial characters?
Me and mine never seemed to have more than scope disagreements on the use of skills; can't see where the comprehension problem arises from...
If you don't see the problem inherent in your hint, I don't know what else to say on this issue.
CORE SETTING is a game mechanic
Really? I wonder what I was doing wrong when I DM'ed a battle between two nations, with the PCs being just one unit of one nation's military, without minis, map or anything more than a tally sheet?
Your issues with forgotten realms are outside the scope of this discussion. If you don't want to play 4th edition because of it, fine. Do that, but don't say it makes 4th edition bad, because the two are distinct products.Too bad; it is enough for me, and others.
EPIC FAIL.I'll meet you on the piste; don't forget to bring some muscle rub for all the sore spots you'll have from my foil bending against your ribs.
All-in-all, though, I think this all boils down to an 'apples and oranges' situation. You keep talking about Roll-Playing, and I and others are bringing up issues that impinge on Role-Playing. By this point in the conversation, "East is East & West is West and never the twain shall meet." So I'm out of this.
Really? I never actually tested it.Jillers wrote:if you don't have one role you're screwed.
Morgan wrote:Lyinginbedmon is short, but he makes up for it in awesomeness
RytelCSF wrote:Also, I like to think that PCs being more resilient in 4e is the main reason cH-Jer refuses to run it.
As long as we can agree that neither 4th nor 3.5/pathfinder is inherently evil/sucky.Lyinginbedmon wrote:But yeah, I'm fine dropping it (the argument) for now.
Jer wrote:RytelCSF wrote:Also, I like to think that PCs being more resilient in 4e is the main reason cH-Jer refuses to run it.
No comment.
Kag wrote:As long as we can agree that neither 4th nor 3.5/pathfinder is inherently evil/sucky.
Jer wrote:Real Jer is a lot more concerned with folks actually having fun playing in his games .
Twitter | Click here to join the Desert Bus Community Chat.TheRocket wrote:Apparently the crotch area could not contain the badonkadonk area.
Morgan wrote:Lyinginbedmon is short, but he makes up for it in awesomeness
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests