I mean, I agree, it's just usually also useful to leave a comment. I've seen a few answers go -4 or so, although those are usually so bad it makes me doubt said person would be able to contribute at all even with a comment.
I usually leave a comment. Sometimes it's a pointed comment.
Because, for example, I feel like there's no way you can read this site for even 2 minutes and decide that two sentences of edition-warring is an acceptable answer to a complex question.
For the most basic and simple difference:
4e is a battle heavy game.
Not so much about exploration.
Pathfinder is dedicated to exploration.
Battles are be "seamless" with the exploration and light.
That's the central difference between Pathfinder and D&D 4e.
D&D 4e is more suited to casual pl...
Why would you play with a larger sized deck?
1- More fun
2- To show those who rely on law of probability that you can throw that out the window when you're dealing with thousands of options(number of existing cards.) It's the exact same science that "proves" that there is no life on other planets...
There is exactly one statistical reason to have a deck over 60 cards, and that's if you want a four-of of an important card, and even then, you'll still only have a 61 or 62 card deck.
Basically these are two variations of the "forum-like" behaviors that SE is supposed to weed out: drive-by opinion-flames and special-snowflake Time-Cubery.
SE is designed to let Time Cube answers vanish into oblivion instead of turning them into massive attention-hogging threads.
The weirdest thing to me was how hard it undercuts itself.
"Don't play 60 cards! That is what math fascists want you to do! Also anything above 60 is stupid for any deck that actually wants consistency, i.e. winning."
Amusingly, that downvoted "casual/hardcore" answer is on a thread that already has a deleted answer with this phrase: 4e is a combat-based skirmish miniatures game, in which the players are sometimes convinced that moving miniatures on a grid is "roleplaying."
And then another that says: Through limited experience it [4e] seems, how do I put it, much more "video-gamely" to me.
Speaking of Opinions, Edition Wars, and Missing the Point, one of my clients is a 3.5/Pathfinder RPGer. Last night before our meeting she saw me reading my Fate Core book and we talked a bit about it.
Her ability to understand "Fate is a very different system than D&D" is at first limited to her own previously established schema (naturally, that's how the brain works), so her initial takeaway was "Oh, like Pathfinder."
I managed to keep my forehead from driving a hole through the table.
We need a bot that auto-detects edition war comments and changes them to "<The edition I hate> is a combat-addled miniatures skirmish game. In contrast, <the edition I love> is a rich storytelling game, played on the Internet by telling other people I am better than them because I like <some random feature of that edition that has nothing to do with 'roleplaying'>."
@AlexP The bot would also need to be able to produce "<The edition I hate> is a hippie-infested lovenest with no rigor or accountability. In contrast, <the edition I love> is a robust engine capable of handling any situation by RAW alone."
Also, <the edition I hate> is totally a video game, on account of these features it has that are present in video games inspired by Dungeons & Dragons.
I watched a salesman at my FLGS sell a bunch of D&D 1e books to someone after comparing 4e to World of Warcraft the other day. I guess to get the "real" experience or something?
Several different editions of the Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) fantasy role-playing game have been produced since 1974. The current publisher of D&D, Wizards of the Coast, produces new materials only for the most current edition of the game. Many D&D fans, however, continue to play older versions of the game and some third-party companies continue to publish materials compatible with these older editions. Parallel versions of D&D throughout its history and inconsistent product naming practices by D&Ds original publisher TSR can make it difficult to distinguish between some editions of the ga...
Like, the "Advanced" game is literally "And we added a bunch of details, but also there's literally complexity that does nothing, just because these two games were developed in parallel so none of the useful design work in Basic translates over at all."
@KyleSykes There are also a few D&D-like games that people are talking about recently. Legend (@Metool is going to chime in to say that it's awesome ;) ) and 13th Age, for instance.
I find 13th Age interesting just because it's designed by Tweet and Heinsoo, who are two of the most "gearhead-y" designers from 3rd and 4th Edition, respectively. But not interesting enough to check it out myself, tbh, because a D&D-like game doesn't really fit into what I'm playing anytime soon.
I've actually looked into Legend before I think, but just skimmed it. We've also looked into Pathfinder, mainly because another group we know plays it, and we have nostalgia of 3.5.
@KyleSykes I've heard 3.5 is more fun to dust off if you basically only play with books made during the last year or so of its lifetime. I.e. no actual PHB1 classes, just Tome of Battle and Duskblades and similar things.
From Legend IRC, [12:05am] Aerdan: Any Fate fans want to play with an in-progress character manager? I need beta testers.
@Metool Poke @BESW because this.
[12:08am] Aerdan: http://fenrir.aerdan.org/urd/ -- only Open/Save/Save As don't work, otherwise go hog-wild. Known issues: the Stress Track dials presently sort alphabetically by consequence rather than severity. Nothin' I can do about it for now. Consequences in the Skills & Stress tab also don't sort.
gah, NPR had a quick blurb this morning that reminded me of the RFS game we ran this past week. trying to find an article on it because it's both sad and hilarious
@BESW Uhm, because it is possible that it isn't working for them because they're doing it right, because it could be that it's the better option between the existing ones (meaning the others won't work and will be worse too), because people often don't know what is or isn't working for them despite what they say. I see a myriad of options...
Of course one shouldn't assume. One should ask.
"Why isn't that working for you?" "Are you sure this isn't really what you need, provided you change that other thing?"
Huh. There is that, but I thought there was a weapon enchantment that let the weapon return to you, so long as you were holding it for ~24 hours beforehand. Maybe I'm remembering something from 3.5e or Pathfinder..?
Oh, ok, no, sorry, I'm not too into play by forums, I don't think I want to do play by VoIP and if I had to do a Play by Chat I'd better spend my time leveling up in ones I'm already in.
Are there any online sites in which you can look for people that are looking to play in an online play-by-chat RPG Campaign?
I'm thinking of running a Pathfinder campaign for Skype (text only) and I don't have a group of players.
He categorized his hate mail: against killing puppies, against Satan, against satin (there was one that was all about how it's wrong to kill puppies for fabric), for Satan, and "disturbingly fixated with my anus."
Because for every 20 or so hate mails you get about how you are going to hell, you'll get one that is way, WAY too fixated about how you will be tortured there.
Well, I think I might but... it would be from one of the modules I have and... I have bad experiences on pitching characters against module opponents
Also, because of what I said before, it should be play by chat -and- I don't really know when I could be present and not playing another D&D game meanwhile, which could be a big problem given how D&D 3.5 requires a party
Oh, I'm not a politics DM - Even if I like politic plots, I'm not good at them. You know, you get a module, you crack the book open and it has all the encounters pre-planned and the statblocks laid down
This is where Lord_Gareth or KRyan burst in and explain that the Core alone is the most imbalanced group of books you could choose, and that adding more options, especially martial options, will make your game much less swingy in terms of chargen op.
ToB removes action conflicts from melee, provides them with meaningful out-of-combat options via skills and utility maneuvers and adds variety to how you conduct combat
I'm pretty liberal with money. It's mostly "what the pre-made says". So when they gained five times what they should have gained in a single level I panicked.
While reading this
Cohort Question I was kinda struck by a quote in there and instead of asking an unrelated question in that area I figured it would be good to make a separate question.
The quote was "Though I am not advocating a strict adherence to the wealth by level progression..." So my que...
@BESW D&D NPCs can't afford many magical weapons. Not as many as the PCs do and no, not even a significant portion of that as shown in the NPC wealth table. Because if every NPC group was so equipped, given it takes 10 to 13 equal level encounters to level up, the PCs would find like 5 times their equipment in gold every level. That's exponential growth, isn't it?
@Aaron I'm not sure I could make a 1 on 1 D&D game
I've never found any of the artists' reconstructions to be very satisfying.
But it's a really cool thing, especially since the Babylonians had a very different style and context for depicting fantasy and reality in art... and the sirrush is solidly done in "reality."
I like a challenge and I actually tend to use traps and items to weaken stronger foes before I fight them.
Our DM had to increase the powers of the monsters in his game a lot when I joined because I would set up the traps and such. I took out a boss in one blow because of one of my traps once.