http://www.gamegrene.com/node/971
QuoteThe biggest noticeable change here is that we're not talking books, any more. At least, not physically. Instead, you've got one big download and then the ongoing subscription, sort of a trickle download thing like Steam used to do when Valve was still around. We'll get to that soon enough.
I'll assume you own 4th Edition for the purposes of this review. If not... good luck. A few years ago I'd have sent you down to your FLGS to grab a copy off the Used Books shelf, but of course the last one closed up shop last month, so that's not an option. You want print you'll have to check out Ebay or Amazon. Irrelevant, though, since what you REALLY want is 5e, right? Right.
So with that, let's look at the D&D Handbook, what we formerly called the Player's Handbook. Why the name change? Well, that's because there's no more delineation between Players and Dungeon Masters. Everyone is a player, and the DM is just a piece of code on the D&D server now. All automated! Sign up and create your characters, and the DM automatically generates a sequence of events for you, perfectly balanced. No prep time, no need to wait for the DM to get his crap together. More on that later. For now, let's look at what's in the D&D Handbook.
For the most part, this is the D&D we know and love. Most of what was in 4e is still here, except it's all been refined and streamlined even further.
Hit points still work the same, but healing surges have been completely revamped. Now every player can use a healing surge in place of a standard action if they want, without any penalty. You won't have to rely on the Leaders to heal you up; you can solo if you want. And best of all, healing surges reset after every encounter -- infinite healing! -- so now you and your group can charge into every encounter without having to spend a half hour discussing, planning or resource managing.
Alignment has also gotten a much needed revamp. Nine alignments were way too many in 3e, and even 5 was cumbersome in 4e, so now we're down to just three: Lawful, Good, and Unaligned. This is a heroic game about good vs evil and I'm glad these rules emphasize that.
It gets better. Just read the whole thing.
Please tell me this isn't serious.
:lulz: that was quite amusing!
reminds me of the april fool's day release for 4th edition. They were joking about how easy they've made the system, and alluded to that 5th edition is going to be even more simple and accessible - in fact, it's just a red kickball with 5E written on it.
:lulz:
God. Forgot what day it was. Woops.
This just reminds me of how much I hate 4th edition.
Might as well play WOW.
That was the point of 4th ed. To make it more playable for people who don't know a lot about tabletop RPGs and don't want to become serious fans of the games.
Quote from: Professor Freeky on April 02, 2010, 09:48:51 PM
That was the point of 4th ed. To make it more playable for people who don't know a lot about tabletop RPGs and don't want to become serious fans of the games.
you sound like one of the second edition gamers who thought that it totally fucked up the entire game when they let non-humans be paladins
Heh, I never played 2nd ed. I just thought I'd heard that somewhere. Maybe not?
BUMP CUZ I AM BAD
Quote from: Jenkem and Bubble Baths on April 02, 2010, 09:48:51 PM
That was the point of 4th ed. To make it more playable for people who don't know a lot about tabletop RPGs and don't want to become serious fans of the games.
Also, ironically my gaming group, who consists of WoWtards with a WoWtard/b/tard hybrid were all WTF IS THIS SHIT with the starter set for 4e. Quickly decided to not ply 4e and go with PF.
:lulz:
They still have issues with PF.
I swear, how the fuck can two college grads not fucking get how to fucking add numbers, or FUCKING read the character sheets.
Wait, your buddies or Paizo?
Quote from: Jenkem and Bubble Baths on April 08, 2011, 04:09:48 AM
Quote from: Donald Coyote on April 08, 2011, 04:02:48 AM
Quote from: Jenkem and Bubble Baths on April 08, 2011, 04:01:27 AM
Wait, your buddies or Paizo?
my buddies.
:lulz: I'm sorry.
I really should just be pickier about the quality of gamer I game with.
I get trolled by the /b/tard enough that it throws off my DMing, which causes him to find himself fucked because I start being a rules dick to him.
EDITED TO REMOVE SOMETHING THAT MIGHT MAKE MY GF WANT TO FLAY ME ALIVE
Damn.
:eek: I should totally run a one-off if/when you come down.
Quote from: Jenkem and Bubble Baths on April 08, 2011, 04:16:39 AM
Damn.
:eek: I should totally run a one-off if/when you come down.
Jumping into DMing after no DnD for almost 5 years with total newbs.....Coyote just wants to play and not have to fucking bleed brain dry.
That's what I intended. Roger sez either I will or he will, he'll write up a special homebrew just for you. :fap:
Quote from: Jenkem and Bubble Baths on April 08, 2011, 04:20:50 AM
That's what I intended. Roger sez either I will or he will, he'll write up a special homebrew just for you. :fap:
Oh dear....I know I should be frightened...but I can't stop..... :fap: :fap: :fap:
Quote from: Donald Coyote on April 07, 2011, 03:51:37 PM
BUMP CUZ I AM BAD
Quote from: Jenkem and Bubble Baths on April 02, 2010, 09:48:51 PM
That was the point of 4th ed. To make it more playable for people who don't know a lot about tabletop RPGs and don't want to become serious fans of the games.
Also, ironically my gaming group, who consists of WoWtards with a WoWtard/b/tard hybrid were all WTF IS THIS SHIT with the starter set for 4e. Quickly decided to not ply 4e and go with PF.
.... Not only do I agree with this, but with the next few posts as well. Must be a sign of the apocalypse....
Just because you disagree with how things get said here doesn't mean it should be surprising you share views. "People are people everywhere."
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 08, 2011, 07:21:47 AM
Quote from: Donald Coyote on April 07, 2011, 03:51:37 PM
BUMP CUZ I AM BAD
Quote from: Jenkem and Bubble Baths on April 02, 2010, 09:48:51 PM
That was the point of 4th ed. To make it more playable for people who don't know a lot about tabletop RPGs and don't want to become serious fans of the games.
Also, ironically my gaming group, who consists of WoWtards with a WoWtard/b/tard hybrid were all WTF IS THIS SHIT with the starter set for 4e. Quickly decided to not ply 4e and go with PF.
.... Not only do I agree with this, but with the next few posts as well. Must be a sign of the apocalypse....
The Aedh is NOT amused. If you stay out threads I am posting in, and if you feel the retarded urge to post anyways, don't fucking quote me, and don't fucking try to have a conversation with me.
I despise you.
Quote from: Jenkem and Bubble Baths on April 08, 2011, 07:28:37 AM
Just because you disagree with how things get said here doesn't mean it should be surprising you share views. "People are people everywhere."
And Coyote is a dick. :lulz:
"People are people everywhere.' ;lulz:
Quote from: Jenkem and Bubble Baths on April 08, 2011, 07:28:37 AM
Just because you disagree with how things get said here doesn't mean it should be surprising you share views. "People are people everywhere."
Wasn't people in general, just that one in particular as should be rather clear from his response. LOL
Quote from: Wyldkat on April 08, 2011, 07:36:45 AM
Quote from: Jenkem and Bubble Baths on April 08, 2011, 07:28:37 AM
Just because you disagree with how things get said here doesn't mean it should be surprising you share views. "People are people everywhere."
Wasn't people in general, just that one in particular as should be rather clear from his response. LOL
I hope you die, painfully.
Quote from: Cramulus on April 02, 2010, 09:53:34 PM
Quote from: Professor Freeky on April 02, 2010, 09:48:51 PM
That was the point of 4th ed. To make it more playable for people who don't know a lot about tabletop RPGs and don't want to become serious fans of the games.
you sound like one of the second edition gamers who thought that it totally fucked up the entire game when they let non-humans be paladins
WAIT, WHAT?
WHAT THE CHRISTSHITTING BUNGLEFUCK IS THIS CRAP?
NON-HUMAN PALADINS?
YOU FUCKING KIDS CAN'T JUST LEAVE SHIT ALONE WHEN IT WORKS, CAN YOU?
:argh!:
ECH,
stopped playing before 3rd edition came out
:lulz:
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on May 20, 2011, 10:45:22 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 02, 2010, 09:53:34 PM
Quote from: Professor Freeky on April 02, 2010, 09:48:51 PM
That was the point of 4th ed. To make it more playable for people who don't know a lot about tabletop RPGs and don't want to become serious fans of the games.
you sound like one of the second edition gamers who thought that it totally fucked up the entire game when they let non-humans be paladins
WAIT, WHAT?
WHAT THE CHRISTSHITTING BUNGLEFUCK IS THIS CRAP?
NON-HUMAN PALADINS?
YOU FUCKING KIDS CAN'T JUST LEAVE SHIT ALONE WHEN IT WORKS, CAN YOU?
:argh!:
ECH,
stopped playing before 3rd edition came out
Also, Dwarven wizards.
One other thing: Pathfinder triumphant, 4e is deader than yesterday's fish.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 21, 2011, 02:10:00 AM
Also, Dwarven wizards.
One other thing: Pathfinder triumphant, 4e is deader than yesterday's fish.
I was vaguely interested in 4th (as a game designer, I wanted to understand the mechanics). And then when they came out with the "Essentials" version, I was like "WTF,
which one is D&D4e?" as it was the same basic rules, but felt like an MMO patch to address players bitching as it just changed power-activation-flow and a few other things.
Pathfinder is definitely my preferred d20 incarnation.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on May 20, 2011, 10:45:22 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 02, 2010, 09:53:34 PM
Quote from: Professor Freeky on April 02, 2010, 09:48:51 PM
That was the point of 4th ed. To make it more playable for people who don't know a lot about tabletop RPGs and don't want to become serious fans of the games.
you sound like one of the second edition gamers who thought that it totally fucked up the entire game when they let non-humans be paladins
WAIT, WHAT?
WHAT THE CHRISTSHITTING BUNGLEFUCK IS THIS CRAP?
NON-HUMAN PALADINS?
YOU FUCKING KIDS CAN'T JUST LEAVE SHIT ALONE WHEN IT WORKS, CAN YOU?
:argh!:
ECH,
stopped playing before 3rd edition came out
You also don't need a 17 Charisma to play one now.
THEN WHAT IS FUCKING POINT?!? :mad:
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on May 22, 2011, 07:13:58 PM
THEN WHAT IS FUCKING POINT?!? :mad:
Using the class as a vehicle for obvious sexual innuendo to creep out the only female gamer in 20 miles?
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on May 22, 2011, 07:13:58 PM
THEN WHAT IS FUCKING POINT?!? :mad:
To smash things in the face?
It's not hard to GET a 17 Charisma, though. You just don't NEED it.
Quote from: Jenkem and SPACE/TIME on May 22, 2011, 07:33:22 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on May 22, 2011, 07:13:58 PM
THEN WHAT IS FUCKING POINT?!? :mad:
To smash things in the face?
It's not hard to GET a 17 Charisma, though. You just don't NEED it.
In 1st ed it was very hard.
Roll 3d6, in order, for your stats.
Lol, fuck that. Point buy FTW.
One of my teachers at school was a DM....2nd ed, as I recall. He used "4d6, throw away the lowest" for stats, and also, if you wanted to lower a stat to boost another, you had to take off two points for every one you put on.
So not impossible to get 17, just fucking difficult.
Also, D&D was ruined when I couldn't play a multiclass fighter/mage/thief from level one.
It's possible in 4e again. There are a lot more options now than when the first players' handbook was released.
You can make a hybrid class now, where you essentially build a class from the properties and powers of two different classes.
Then you can take multiclass feats, which give you one or two features from another class.
so at level 1, you could be a fighter/wizard with 1 sneak attack per encounter, or a fighter/rogue who knows a single spell, or a rogue/wizard with the ability to grab a monster's attention.
My main beef was the skill system. It seemed specifically designed to prevent someone from building a character who was intentionally bad a combat, but good at other useful things. I enjoyed the gameplay when it came to combat, but felt the overall design limited "role" playing. I guess Pathfinder addressed that, but I haven't had any chance to play.
Quote from: Z³ on April 02, 2010, 09:41:56 PM
This just reminds me of how much I hate 4th edition.
Might as well play WOW.
When 4e came out I actually resolved that I would never buy another
Wizards of the Coast product again.
Yep. When 4e was released, I took a look...And then switched to Paizo and never looked back.
Quote from: The Commander on May 31, 2011, 05:39:47 PM
My main beef was the skill system. It seemed specifically designed to prevent someone from building a character who was intentionally bad a combat, but good at other useful things.
Yeah, part of the design goal for 4th edition was to remove the situation where one character solves the encounter while everybody else waits. This meant actually balancing the classes in terms of both in-combat and out-of-combat usefulness. Gone are the days when the party bard does all the talking and the rogue does all the searching... now, everybody plays in every encounter.
It used to really irk me how when I was running a dungeon, most of the dialogue at the table was between the DM and the rogue. Then when we get into combat, everybody can play again.
It also used to irk me that a character could become
bad at combat just by choosing certain conceptual combinations. I ran a campaign where one of the PCs was a thief who ended up becoming ordained as a cleric of the thief god. But it turns out that picking up a few levels of cleric ultimately makes you both a bad rogue and a bad cleric. The multiclass rules are now a bit more permissive of building weird concepts without becoming either game breaking or game losing.
Quote
I enjoyed the gameplay when it came to combat, but felt the overall design limited "role" playing. I guess Pathfinder addressed that, but I haven't had any chance to play.
I always feel mystified by this impression... I run a 4e campaign with a roleplaying emphasis and haven't felt like the rules have gotten in my way in the least.
In terms of the skill system limiting character concept / role play ---
There is nothing stopping you from having a character who is well versed in some certain topic or skill - for example, you can have a character who is a shipwright even though there is no "shipwright" skill on the sheet. Those types of skills usually have little bearing on combat, so I think it was a good design choice to not make people choose between character concept and combat efficacy.
If anything, the "role playing" got taken out in the jump between 2nd and 3rd edition, when they made stuff like Diplomacy into a skill check instead of entirely basing it on a conversation between player and DM. A good change, if you ask me.
Quote from: Cramulus on May 31, 2011, 06:53:14 PM
Yeah, part of the design goal for 4th edition was to remove the situation where one character solves the encounter while everybody else waits. This meant actually balancing the classes in terms of both in-combat and out-of-combat usefulness. Gone are the days when the party bard does all the talking and the rogue does all the searching... now, everybody plays in every encounter.
It used to really irk me how when I was running a dungeon, most of the dialogue at the table was between the DM and the rogue. Then when we get into combat, everybody can play again.
I understand the desire to balance play. I've certainly been in my fair share of games where I've sat around while someone else was busy because they had the skills and abilities needed at that time. But isn't that the point of having different classes to begin with? Bards are
supposed to do the talking because thats what Bards do. Rogues do the sneaking, wizards do magic, and fighters do the fighting. You pick a certain class specifically so you can specialize in something that no one else is as particularly good at, otherwise, why bother?
Quote from: Cramulus on May 31, 2011, 06:53:14 PM
It also used to irk me that a character could become bad at combat just by choosing certain conceptual combinations. I ran a campaign where one of the PCs was a thief who ended up becoming ordained as a cleric of the thief god. But it turns out that picking up a few levels of cleric ultimately makes you both a bad rogue and a bad cleric. The multiclass rules are now a bit more permissive of building weird concepts without becoming either game breaking or game losing.
I can understand being concerned when the results of multiclass combinations result in
unintentionally reducing the effectiveness of the character. But I've always seen that as the point at which the player and the GM get together to figure out how to address the issue. Perhaps you rework the character completely, perhaps you fudge some of the rules and abilities to balance things a little better.
But what about intentional choices to become bad at combat? There is more to adventuring than combat...and I like the flexibility that 3e provided in terms of being able to create a character with that in mind that could still be useful. But lets take it a step further...what if I want to create a character who is terrible at everything, but has a fun personality or that provides challenges for the party to overcome? The new system prohibits that from ever being an option. When looking at the system and playtesting it, I saw no way I could intentionally create a "skill monkey" or a "charisma monkey" who only entered combat as a last resort. I remember asking someone about it, and he said "But why would you want to be bad at combat?"
Quote
In terms of the skill system limiting character concept / role play ---
There is nothing stopping you from having a character who is well versed in some certain topic or skill - for example, you can have a character who is a shipwright even though there is no "shipwright" skill on the sheet. Those types of skills usually have little bearing on combat, so I think it was a good design choice to not make people choose between character concept and combat efficacy.
I guess I am confused by this. I dont see it framed as a choice between concept and combat efficacy...they are not neccessarily opposing qualities. Combat efficacy is part of character concept, not in competition with it, just like skill competancy or magic ability is part of the characters overall concept.
Quote
If anything, the "role playing" got taken out in the jump between 2nd and 3rd edition, when they made stuff like Diplomacy into a skill check instead of entirely basing it on a conversation between player and DM. A good change, if you ask me.
I thought the skill check tool was a good way to handle situations where, for instance, a characters ability in something far outstips the players ability. For example...When trying to intimidate an enemy...if I am playing a character who is much smarter or more charismatic than I am, I can tell the GM what affect I am going for with my opponant..."I say such-and-such...only much prettier", the GM can then use my subsequent role to help gague just how effective I was, rather than just relying on my own personal intelligenceand charisma. I don't really see it as taking away from role-playing, but adding to it.
Quote from: The Commander on May 31, 2011, 08:48:44 PM
I understand the desire to balance play. I've certainly been in my fair share of games where I've sat around while someone else was busy because they had the skills and abilities needed at that time. But isn't that the point of having different classes to begin with? Bards are supposed to do the talking because thats what Bards do. Rogues do the sneaking, wizards do magic, and fighters do the fighting. You pick a certain class specifically so you can specialize in something that no one else is as particularly good at, otherwise, why bother?
It's not like every character is equally skilled at every task. Everybody still has a niche. But you no longer get told, "Sorry, this is the rogue's encounter, why don't you just hang back so you don't fuck everything up?"
Quote from: Cramulus on May 31, 2011, 06:53:14 PM
But what about intentional choices to become bad at combat? There is more to adventuring than combat...and I like the flexibility that 3e provided in terms of being able to create a character with that in mind that could still be useful. But lets take it a step further...what if I want to create a character who is terrible at everything, but has a fun personality or that provides challenges for the party to overcome? The new system prohibits that from ever being an option. When looking at the system and playtesting it, I saw no way I could intentionally create a "skill monkey" or a "charisma monkey" who only entered combat as a last resort. I remember asking someone about it, and he said "But why would you want to be bad at combat?"
There are still a million ways to build a character that is poor at combat encounters. Like you could build a fighter with a 10 in strength, or just take feats/powers that won't come up too frequently. Or choose a suboptimal fighting style, like a rogue with a two handed sword (can't sneak attack), or a fighter who insists on using a dagger.
If you want to play in a campaign where you're constantly talking your way out of combat, that sounds like something that you'd discuss with your GM as a part of campaign concept, not necessarily character build.
To build a 4e character specialized in avoiding combat, I'd take skill training in diplomacy, bluff, and sneak.
QuoteQuote
In terms of the skill system limiting character concept / role play ---
There is nothing stopping you from having a character who is well versed in some certain topic or skill - for example, you can have a character who is a shipwright even though there is no "shipwright" skill on the sheet. Those types of skills usually have little bearing on combat, so I think it was a good design choice to not make people choose between character concept and combat efficacy.
I guess I am confused by this. I dont see it framed as a choice between concept and combat efficacy...they are not neccessarily opposing qualities. Combat efficacy is part of character concept, not in competition with it, just like skill competancy or magic ability is part of the characters overall concept.
Ahh, I had assumed you were talking about the removal of some of the more obscure Lore skills from the skill system. Like in 3e, you could spend skill points to be well versed in heraldry and nobility. In 4e, if you want to be well versed in heraldry, you just tell your GM that you're well versed in heraldry... there's no need to spend anything on it.
A lot of people carry around this idea that if you're really into role playing, your character sheet will have a lot of "role playing" skills (as opposed to skills which can be used in combat). I agree that tjpse aren't mutually exclusive. This is sometimes called the Stormwind Fallacy (http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/146-The-Stormwind-Fallacy). The gist of it is that a game's rules do not prohibit roleplaying - how much you role play is up to your group, it has barely anything to do with the game's rules and how you build your character. So to say that a system limits role playing is a fallacy. Again, I hold up the campaign I'm running (http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/ave-sestina/) which has an emphasis on RP and almost zero likeness to WoW. The only substantive difference between my 4e campaign and the numerous 3e campaigns I've run is that the combat is more interesting (IMO) and moves a lot faster. :p
Quote from: Cramulus on May 31, 2011, 09:08:44 PM
It's not like every character is equally skilled at every task. Everybody still has a niche. But you no longer get told, "Sorry, this is the rogue's encounter, why don't you just hang back so you don't fuck everything up?"
I guess I don't have a problem with the standing by and waiting. Half the time we are still consulting as a group anyway, so it is actually pretty rare that I have *nothing* to do.
Quote from: Cramulus on May 31, 2011, 06:53:14 PM
There are still a million ways to build a character that is poor at combat encounters. Like you could build a fighter with a 10 in strength, or just take feats/powers that won't come up too frequently. Or choose a suboptimal fighting style, like a rogue with a two handed sword (can't sneak attack), or a fighter who insists on using a dagger.
If you want to play in a campaign where you're constantly talking your way out of combat, that sounds like something that you'd discuss with your GM as a part of campaign concept, not necessarily character build.
To build a 4e character specialized in avoiding combat, I'd take skill training in diplomacy, bluff, and sneak.
But these ideas strike me as building a character who is poor at combat
despite the game rules and not in concert
with the game rules. However, I concede the difference between the two is pretty subtle.
Quote
Ahh, I had assumed you were talking about the removal of some of the more obscure Lore skills from the skill system. Like in 3e, you could spend skill points to be well versed in heraldry and nobility. In 4e, if you want to be well versed in heraldry, you just tell your GM that you're well versed in heraldry... there's no need to spend anything on it.
A lot of people carry around this idea that if you're really into role playing, your character sheet will have a lot of "role playing" skills (as opposed to skills which can be used in combat). I agree that tjpse aren't mutually exclusive. This is sometimes called the Stormwind Fallacy (http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/146-The-Stormwind-Fallacy). The gist of it is that a game's rules do not prohibit roleplaying - how much you role play is up to your group, it has barely anything to do with the game's rules and how you build your character. So to say that a system limits role playing is a fallacy. Again, I hold up the campaign I'm running (http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/ave-sestina/) which has an emphasis on RP and almost zero likeness to WoW. The only substantive difference between my 4e campaign and the numerous 3e campaigns I've run is that the combat is more interesting (IMO) and moves a lot faster. :p
My thoughts on this are kind of similar to what I mentioned above. I'm sure I can role play the hell out of a game no matter what the rules are. But I don't want to do so despite the rules. I want the rules of the game to enhance and facilitate and reinforce the roleplaying that I do. I'll admit, I've only had limited experience playing the game when it initially came out, but my initial impression was definitly that the rules were not designed to enhance that aspect of the game.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 31, 2011, 09:01:30 PM
Quote from: The Commander on May 31, 2011, 08:48:44 PM
There is more to adventuring than combat
:crankey:
I STILL think the play bit in the Thief's Council adventure arc was brilliant and interesting. :(
But combat is still the meat and bones of adventuring, and PHAT LOOT is the ligaments and blood.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 31, 2011, 09:01:30 PM
Quote from: The Commander on May 31, 2011, 08:48:44 PM
There is more to adventuring than combat
:crankey:
There is for example the killing of the little Orc and Goblin children in the nursery.
Thank the gods of Lawful-Good there's no Geneva Convention in D&D. :)
Quote from: PopeTom on May 31, 2011, 11:23:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 31, 2011, 09:01:30 PM
Quote from: The Commander on May 31, 2011, 08:48:44 PM
There is more to adventuring than combat
:crankey:
There is for example the killing of the little Orc and Goblin children in the nursery.
Thank the gods of Lawful-Good there's no Geneva Convention in D&D. :)
My guys just usually accidentally the AOE and then there's no problem.
Of course there is more than combat! How can anyone forget looting corpses.
Fuck knows why a Carrion Crawler feels the need to carry gold coins in its stomach or wherever - it's not like it is going to pop out to the corner shop for a loaf of bread and some milk anytime soon - but bless em, they do.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 01, 2011, 12:39:54 AM
Quote from: PopeTom on May 31, 2011, 11:23:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 31, 2011, 09:01:30 PM
Quote from: The Commander on May 31, 2011, 08:48:44 PM
There is more to adventuring than combat
:crankey:
There is for example the killing of the little Orc and Goblin children in the nursery.
Thank the gods of Lawful-Good there's no Geneva Convention in D&D. :)
My guys just usually accidentally the AOE and then there's no problem.
"Party favors!"
"Do we know you?"
"EXPLODO!"
"Just get inside."
Quote from: Cain on June 01, 2011, 01:08:19 AM
Of course there is more than combat! How can anyone forget looting corpses.
Fuck knows why a Carrion Crawler feels the need to carry gold coins in its stomach or wherever - it's not like it is going to pop out to the corner shop for a loaf of bread and some milk anytime soon - but bless em, they do.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: Truth.
D&D economics are a libertarian wet dream. Everyone uses gold (and everyone means everything) and while everything is horribly expensive at the start, if you loot enough dungeons, you will be rich, and therefore everyone poor isn't trying hard enough.
Quote from: Cain on June 01, 2011, 01:12:28 AM
D&D economics are a libertarian wet dream. Everyone uses gold (and everyone means everything) and while everything is horribly expensive at the start, if you loot enough dungeons, you will be rich, and therefore everyone poor isn't trying hard enough.
Being dice-bit is a matter of personal responsibility.