« first day (833 days earlier)      last day (2440 days later) » 

12:12 AM
@KRyan please self-flag or self-delete wherever possible.
 
@BrianBallsun-Stanton indeed, I've deleted one of the comments in question; the other... I'm not sure if it's really a problem
 
@KRyan err on the side of deletion
 
eh, fine
 
thanks, mate.
 
@TimothyAWiseman in case you missed my comment before I deleted it, just so you know: you're exactly right with respect to my feelings about Monks. I really like the character archetype and have made many characters like that, but I do not use the Monk class to do it.
 
1:05 AM
@BESW Your diseases question is brilliant. I can't wait to see what other people come up with, and this is actually making me want to use diseases. Main reason I've never considered them is because they are too trivial.
 
@JonathanHobbs Wha sir, I do declah. Yeh'll mahk me blush.
 
I might dump a bounty on that to sponsor activity in the suggestion later.
Actually wait that would be bad. :<
 
But yeah, I've used diseases maybe three or four times, and only once did it ever actually matter after the battle was over.
One of my players is currently giving me an earful about the unfairness to the healer of my first suggestion.
(As if I base the DC on his Heal check, he's SOL in dealing with his own infections.)
To which I reply "Aid Another."
 
Actually, yeah. What does the healer do about his own?
Everyone just piles on Aid Another?
 
Aid Another, or.... yanno, level 6 ritual that a level 1 party gets enough gold to buy a scroll of.
In the expected Party of Five, the healer can easily get a +8 to his Endurance check from Aid Another.
 
1:11 AM
plus equipment!
oooh! untyped bonus
Party gets five sets of tools, and well, win?
 
Alternately, depending on modifiers and how much your party understands probability, it might be more advantageous to just have everyone make a Heal check and hope someone rolls high.
(You don't need to be trained in Heal to try helping a guy with his disease.)
 
Yep
and if you just set this up right as a function of checks...
 
Also, teamwork feats.
 
it's boring.
basically it's "if the party encounters disease more than twice in a given campaign, they'll spec for it and it'll never be a problem."
 
@BrianBallsun-Stanton Yeah that's true. Seeing this conversation now, even making the checks harder, diseases can be trivial to overcome.
I hope someone suggests an alternative mechanism in that question.
 
1:14 AM
Personally if I want to make diseases non-trivial without entirely rebuilding the system, I'd do a combination of the other three suggestions.
Ignore the monster attack save, start them at two, and make the ritual only give automatic success on the next scheduled check.
 
That does help. I guess you can make a disease longlasting by making the check take a while (one week between each)
 
I.... wouldn't want to track that, myself.
But yes, it's definitely an option.
I guess that is a popular question; I just got 90 rep in an hour from it.
 
You could take a leaf out of FATEs book and make the disease a monster or a skill challenge.
 
@SimonGill Yeah, but then you get into the fact that the only engaging 4e skill challenges are the ones that break their own rules.
And I'm really not sure how to translate the "disease as monster" concept into 4e without going all Incredible Journey on the party.
 
@BESW Don't you have rules you like for skill challenges?
 
1:20 AM
@SimonGill Yes.
But they're emphatically a homebrew variant.
 
@BESW Would they work for this?
@BESW You're making a homebrew modification, nothing wrong with recommending a homebrew solution if it works well.
 
@SimonGill They'd work for any skill challenge.
 
@BESW What I mean is, you just said "the only engaging 4e skill challenges are the ones that break their own rules". Would the good rules change that fact?
 
I think so.
Why don't you compose an answer about skill challenges and monsters?
I think I'd have to put in an entire second answer of my own to cover it, and it's your idea.
 
Can you point the link to the good skill challenge rules?
 
1:27 AM
(I think it requires an account to download.)
 
Nope, it's good I can see all the text.
 
He's also got an entirely different set of rules, but I prefer the ones that use the official ruleset for a jumping-off point.
It doesn't alienate my players quite as much.
(And amusingly, a lot of later skill challenges in official adventures keep popping up with individual variants similar to it.)
 
There's nothing in there that deals with effects of failures during the challenge, is there?
 
No, there's resource expenditure in the form of limited healing surge use and that's it.
I usually tack something on myself.
 
1:43 AM
@BESW Yeah well you've turned diseases from being something that is either trivial or flat-out weird into something that can last at least 3 days, even if people spec for it
 
Youv'e got my answer about skill challenges now :)
 
@SimonGill [wild cheering]
Though I am sometimes concerned that "add a FATE mechanic" is becoming something of a catch-all.
In this case though it's totally reasonable.
 
Maybe it is with me - but I think the Fractal is an excellent perspective.
 
Because it's not adding a FATE mechanic; it's being inspired by a FATE mechanic to repurpose an existing 4e mechanic.
 
Yeah. That was the idea.
 
1:51 AM
@KRyan yeah
 
And I suggested using an Exalted mechanic rather than FATE aspects when @Cat was looking for giving up narrative control to her players :P
 
@SimonGill The Fairy Nuff graciously concedes your egalitarian ethos.
 
Yeah, I'll happily recommend bits from all my favourite games to fix flaws in ones I'm not excited about :P
 
2:09 AM
::muttermuttermutter::
 
?
 
oh, just chatty bloody answers.
 
...am I part of that? Because I know I get long-winded.
 
no
Recommend changing word "challenging" to be more appropriate
as you seem to be seeking "relevant" or "interesting" rather than "challenging"
 
Ahah.
I was thinking non-trivial.
 
2:13 AM
also good word
 
"impactful"
("When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean...")
 
Sorry Brian >.<
 
@Lord_Gareth You're absolutely right about the VoP charity thing, but how does that relate to the OP's question about its balance?
Isn't it actually a balancing mechanic that prevents the party from gaining an excess of effective wealth due to the VoP PC's effects-out-of-nowhere that mimic wealth?
 
@BESW - Resource allocation is a form of balance. VoP takes resources and removes them from the party entirely, which harms the entire group and makes the feat increasingly ill-advised.
 
2:17 AM
@Lord_Gareth please amplify your statement with this explanation
 
Especially since VoP's effects that 'mimic' wealth are inferior to wealth
 
is good start.
 
@Lord_Gareth I agree, but it is irrelephant to my question.
By taking the VoP feat, a PC gains effective wealth through features that are normally only available through actual wealth.
If no mechanic is in place to compensate, is that not a problem?
 
You asked about the balance of the feat. Balance does not deal in /why/. Balance deals only in /what/.
 
(I agree the mechanic as it stands is not a good one)
 
2:19 AM
If VoP was balanced then yes, the removal of wealth from the party would be needed
But since it is not, the removal of wealth from the party is unforgivable
That's more of a design-balance question than a game-balance one, though
 
As I see it the charity rule is an overcompensating version of a needed mechanic.
 
Why is for homebrewers and game designers. Players (like the guy asking the question) need to know /what/
And in this case the what is a problem
 
@Lord_Gareth Therein lies my original question: how does your answer relate to the OP's question?
 
Okay, gimmie a minute
The original question asks if Vow of Poverty is overpowered, underpowered, or balanced.
 
Just because it's a valid point about VoP doesn't make it relephant to every question about VoP. As currently worded I can't see it here.
 
2:23 AM
This factor further pushes Vow of Poverty into the 'underpowered' territory, and as a result is relevant for both the sake of completeness /and/ because it eliminates legitimate shared expendiatures of wealth such as, say, giving gold to the artificer to get a wand.
The removal of the wealth also removes opportunity, and both is a direct result of the feat.
 
@Lord_Gareth those two sentences are excellent
well done.
ptu those in.
 
@Lord_Gareth Okay, so talk about that. That's a really important idea.
Say that the entire feat mechanic reduces and removes choices, and include the charity line as part of that concept.
 
'Kay, lemme figure out how I wanna work that in.
Plus doing multiple-intelligences quiz for class right now
 
As you and KRyan have been saying, the main difference in power between 3.5 classes is in the breadth of their choices. VoP eliminates choice in the arena of item acquisition. That should be the central premise of your answer, in my opinion.
(And in purely numbers terms --which I know is narrowminded-- I'm still quite convinced that the problem with charity is one of degree rather than principle.)
 
(Oh in principal it's wonderful and there's a few vow of poverty fixes that @KRyan can point you at where the charity rule would be totally justified/is present)
(The trouble here, with /this/ version, is how much this version harms you)
(Not with the concept of charitable giving)
 
2:32 AM
Then don't call the charity mechanic "unforgivable." It's dramatic hyperbole that obscures your actual valid point: the VoP feat's item-equivalent mechanics are unforgivably imbalanced.
2
 
@BESW +1
Use as objective language as possible. Hyperbole just results in downvotes, as it's not persuasive. Frame it in terms of your personal experience, frame it as good-subjective. We're not as neurotic as wikipedia, but we do have some criteria here.
 
Answer expanded, mind checking it for okay-ness?\
 
Absolutely :)
that's what we're here for.
Added paragraphs, but I'm happier with this :)
you frame your answer in response to the question.
 
Very nice. You could, if you wanted, add a single sentence which makes explicit the fact that the 'mimicked wealth' you receive is not in proportion to the amount of wealth you are expected to be giving away.
 
Also, thanks for sticking with us. I know that this process of revision can't be all that fun compared to a forum.
 
2:38 AM
@BESW The hilarious thing, and the sad thing, is that in sheer raw numbers the benefits from VoP are worth more than wealth-by-level in terms of gold cost.
The trouble isn't the amount you get.
It's that you can't spend it to cover your weaknesses or gain utility
Items can take a weak class and help them compensate in addition to accenting or boosting their strengths
Vow of Poverty only boosts some strengths, and of the ones it chooses those strengths are the least relevant and the least desirous
 
@Lord_Gareth oooh, include that too
 
Okay, then I think you've got a good answer there now.
@Lord_Gareth Seconding Brian on that.
 
With the sole exception of the abilitys score boosts, which are of course the work horse of every build in the universe.
 
And then it'll be an answer I'll happily +1.
 
Just copy/paste, remove your name and edit for grammar?
 
2:40 AM
I personally used VoP regularly in my PCs, but it was largely because I didn't want to make those choices and I understood the consequences of my decision.
 
Which is perfectly legitimate.
 
@Lord_Gareth Maybe removing the editorializing too.
(And I was usually a Wis-stacking monk/ranger-variant druid, so... a hit to my choices kinda helped bring me down to party level.)
 
Editorializing?
 
"The hilarious thing, and the sad thing"
 
Edit'd
 
2:43 AM
While we don't expect answers to be as depersonalized as Wikipedia does, this is not a podium for declamatory rhetoric.
@Lord_Gareth Throw in a couple spaces after your punctuation while it's still hot?
 
Think I caught it.
 
Most excellent, dude.
That is an answer I will happily upvote.
 
KRyan's is more comprehensive but sometimes supplementary information is important too. Knowing WHY something is terrible helps people believe that it is.
And unfortunately I've noticed a high trend of people answering optimization questions that don't understand the realities of the system they're answering for.
 
KRyan's is also an impenetrable undifferentiated Wall O' Text.
 
not sure if the 4e community here is like that since I don't speak 4e
 
2:48 AM
@Lord_Gareth Speaking as the 4e op-guy. Nope!
::smug moustache twirl::
 
Well at least you don't have to deal with it, then.
 
@Lord_Gareth I find it's very easy, once we've gained understanding of a thing, to forget what it was like to not have that understanding --and even more, to not remember what it was like when we didn't know it was a thing at all.
 
I've come from communities where the low-op sections of 3.5 tend to get hostile, confrontational, and downright offensive.
And I'm already noting certain posters (@KRyan's linked me to a few threads but asked me not to comment because it already caused mod headaches) that I'm going to be knife-fighting in the answer trenches with because they're married to information that is wholly and factually wrong.
And the trouble is that in the 3.5 community "Factually correct" does not end the argument
 
@Lord_Gareth And we burn knife-fighting with fire, just BTW.
Present your answer, back it up with citations, and then leave it for peer review.
 
It's easy to become smug and condescending, and that just makes the people who may have less understanding or experience dig in their heels.
 
2:52 AM
@BrianBallsun-Stanton I've been trying to do just that, thus far. If I wasn't you would have seen me on a tear of, "AUGHGODWHYDIDYOUACCEPTTHATANSWERITSSOWRONGWHEREISTHEBRAINBLEACH" already
Which I've avoided
(I hope)
 
@Lord_Gareth good.
 
The purpose of SE is to provide the public with peer-reviewed information. Trying to convince one person of something, or entering into a debate, is not within the scope of the Q&A format of this site.
 
And thus you've avoided the mods having go to the mod-hammer closet. It's a large closet.
 
Does it contain MC Hammer?
 
@BrianBallsun-Stanton And not because it contains many hammers, I'm sure.
 
2:53 AM
@Lord_Gareth I dunno. There's a closet in there marked "beware of the leopard" so... maybe?
 
I suppose a question I should ask right now
 
recursive closets are scary.
 
Is if I notice at trend with a poster consistently giving bad, wrong, or passive-aggressive answers or comments, what should I do?
 
@Lord_Gareth bad/wrong answers. Downvote. Make a single, constructive, well-cited comment.
 
It probably does have a Bowie knife, though. obscuruslupa.tumblr.com/post/40080532519
 
2:54 AM
Bad/wrong comments? Eeeh.
 
@BrianBallsun-Stanton Ignore/flag?
 
Yeah.
passive-agressive? Flag.
we don't like bad behaviour.
mind you, it does need to be egregious.
 
There are some examples of folks passing out hideously bad info in this VoP thread that I've seen giving out bad information in other threads. I'd give an example but I don't wanna name names if this is going to be permanent because it'll cause a fight if they wander into chat.
 
Honestly? downvote and ignore them
 
(Two in particular also insist on starting fights with @KRyan, which annoys me)
 
2:57 AM
sorry, need to sign off. Play nice.
 
If you really really really feel like you need to, leave a comment on the downvoted answer saying "-1 for incorrect information."
 
MODS ARE ASLEEP, POST IN-DEPTH DISSERTATIONS
 
But really, duh that's why it's downvoted.
 
>.>
 
@Lord_Gareth I'm afraid it might be a little easy to do that.
 
3:00 AM
This whole 'choking back the vitriol' thing is proving difficult in an interesting way. I'm used to being able to open up and include sarcasm and "poetic" turns of phrase in my posts. This detached tone is messin' me up.
 
@Lord_Gareth Yup. Different goals, different methods.
There's no interest in establishing cults of personality or convincing individuals, really. It's about providing good information which the community will then cause to bubble to the top.
 
I never really wanted a cult and the one I've got is small and I've got this weird relationship with them
Where I realize something I did was horrible
And go to edit it
And then have to explain to them why it sucked.
Which is the oddest feeling ever. "Guys, I'm sorry, you're literally too ignorant of the system to comprehend the enormity of my mistake."
 
@Phil Hi!
 
hey
 
@KRyan Yo.
 
3:05 AM
@KRyan - WHAZZUP
 
@Lord_Gareth I can?
 
You can what?
 
Provide examples of VoP fixes wherein the charity ruling is balanced.
 
I was under the impression that you were more familiar with the GitP ones, since I've read a whopping 0 of them.
VoP never appealed to me as a concept.
 
@Lord_Gareth note the little up-and-to-the-left arrow next to my comment? you can click it to see exactly what I was responding to
and you can respond to specific things in the same fashion by clicking the down-and-to-the-right arrow on the other side of someone's comment
 
3:09 AM
Coo'
 
@Lord_Gareth Being eloquent is encouraged! If you look at my posts you'll see that I make asides and pop culture references fairly frequently. Haven't been slapped for it yet.
But I keep them relephant, positive, and short.
And if a topic is sensitive (you seem to gravitate toward the more sensitive topics) I try to make sure I'm letting the facts speak for themselves. If an opinion is needed I'll be sure to differentiate it from fact.
 
@Lord_Gareth the best I've seen/heard of/thought of myself is "Vow of Poverty: You do not own personal possessions beyond the bare essentials. (some description similar to the actual feat regarding stuff like clothes and things) However, when you give treasure items to charity, you gain, as a Supernatural benefit, the abilities of any magic item you like, provided the total value of the items whose benefits you emulate is no more than 75% of the value of the treasure donated to charity."
 
@KRyan That's cute.
 
75% is actually probably too low
but the idea is that you pay a feat and a gp premium, and you get the benefits of the items you want and they cannot be stolen
which is a nice benefit
 
@KRyan For an effect that's unstealable, immune to SR, and has a scaling caster level? 75% sound about right.
 
3:13 AM
I'd also probably have exceptions in there for gifts given you specifically, where it might be rude for you to refuse or something
@BESW how does SR come into play with magic items anyway?
ah, wait, it's also immune to dispel
well, that's not good, I'd probably add a caveat that they can be dispelled as items can be
 
@KRyan Poorly optimized example, but first thing on my mind: Necklace of fireballs as an (Su).
 
I'd argue that you have an Su ability to mimic a necklace of fireballs
i.e. you have an Su ability to use fireball as the spell
there is precedent for that kind of indirection
 
And in murky RAW precedent tends to be king
 
Fair enough, but (Su) has certain benefits and interactions that should be considered.
 
@BESW it does, but I'd word it carefully so that the Su ability is merely the item mimicry, without changing the type of the benefits of the item
so if you'd have an item that gives you some Sp ability
it does not become Su
 
3:16 AM
Nice.
It's still undispellable though.
 
you just have an Su ability that mimics it, granting you the ability to use the Sp ability
 
Kryan
 
yeah, that would probably just have to be an explicit exception
 
I'm not replying straight away
Everything I'm thinking right now is wretched and hostile
 
@Lord_Gareth Good call.
Have some tea.
 
3:18 AM
DIE TEA DIE I mean I only drink Chai, the texture of most tea is weird on my tongue
But I'm in class ATM
So chai is beyond my reach
 
I think he's got something that could be worked into a very good concept here: "My point was simple; a broken character is broken because it forces the DM to work around it, instead of the opposite."
 
The trouble is that he's applying a subjective experience (a game run by a mechanically inept DM) and using it to define 'broken'
Which means that he's not leading into the potential of the concept
And is instead spreading bad information in a patronizing fashion.
This...irks...me.
 
I have had many experiences where a character exploits a mechanic to the point where I must define every fight in terms of how to make sure he does not trivialize it. This limits my ability to create interesting encounters because only certain fights will be challenging without being overpowering.
 
@BESW and that's a very good point
 
That DM could have been using any number of things to challenge that character, and all of them are cheaper than water and as common as dirt.
 
3:22 AM
but I don't think it's the one he's making
 
Hence why I said "he's got something that could be worked into a very good concept."
 
Plus the build only functioned as a wall because the DM deliberately played along with it!
Thicket of Blades, THAT is a wall
A literal wall
(And it's made of you)
high AC isn't a wall, it's a neon sign that says "Ignore me"
 
@Lord_Gareth Yup, we've got a 4e monk like that in my group right now actually.
 
@Lord_Gareth this was my point, but I didn't get anywhere trying to explain it
 
Sometimes the comments derail. If the comments are no longer helpful to the thing being commented on, it's time to stop regardless of whether the conversation has reached its conclusion.
If the comments have gone back and forth more than maybe twice and there's still useful results to be squeezed out, suggest that it move to chat.
 
3:25 AM
I think I will.
"Alright; at this point we're talking about a specific campaign and derailing the question. Why not bounce onto chat for awhile where you, KRyan, myself and anyone ele interested can discuss our disagreement over this subject? "
 
In this case you've stopped talking about VoP (the topic on that page) and started talking about intraparty synergy and character design philosophy.
"...where we can discuss it."
 
Just posted quoted comment inviting him to chat
 
Saying it'll be two of you vs one of him is like asking him to step outside to get beat up.
 
@Lord_Gareth you can usually do that better by just @'ing him in chat so he can click it
also, yeah, really, I don't really feel like participating
 
And highlighting the disagreement is making it sounds like it'll be argumentative and unproductive.
 
3:28 AM
I do. I've got a dull axe to grind on this subject and I at least would like to know that I explained to him my stance in a complete and informative fashion.
 
You can edit your comment, or delete it and @ him.
 
"Alright; at this point we're talking about a specific campaign and derailing the question. Why not bounce onto chat for awhile where you, KRyan, myself and anyone else interested can discuss it?"
 
why are you still volunteering me?
 
Sorry, fixing
As I said, it irritates me when people are wrong and then insist on spreading their misinformation - heck, I'm sure that's where the entire Someone Is Wrong On the Internet instinct comes from.
 
@Lord_Gareth I'd just like to make it clear that I have no desire to play referee if he comes in. I'm not a mod, just a guy with an interest in seeing this social experiment fulfill its potential.
 
3:31 AM
Indeed.
I have no interest in starting a fight either.
If I want to start a fight I'll drag it to email
 
But I will bring in a mod if you've dragged a guy into chat to berate him for having a different playstyle than you.
Good. I think it's a discussion that can be handled productively and to the benefit of the community.
 
just lettin' ya know, if you see me give him my email address it's because I'm leaving chat before I blow my top.
 
I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that.
I know you're more mature than to need to tell someone that his game in which everyone is happy and safe is being Played Wrong.
 
Indeed. But I can state accurately that, say, monsters were not being played up to their intelligence scores. And I can also state (accurately) that there are better walls to buy that take less investment AND work on smart monsters.
 
If you look at his info, you'll find that he's been playing PF for under a year and his questions are largely either basic mechanics questions or how to enact mechanics without alienating players.
@Lord_Gareth There's a question in there you could ask and possibly answer: "How can I play monsters to reflect their intelligence?"
 
3:40 AM
Ah, PF. And in this case I think part of the trouble is the PF community, which has a sharp divide right down the middle. The two sides hate each other with a passion.
And the divide in the PF community revolves around optimization. One side tends to play what I'll call 3.PF, blending the two systems to get a more varied game out of both. The other side plays PF only and tends to be strongly influenced by the anti-op stance of the PF design team (which crusades through their forums mocking those who encourage system mastery and, in some cases, banning or fighting with them)
 
They've got a point; anyone who masters 3.5 or PF basically becomes Neo in the Matrix.
If I was invested in maintaining the fiction of a balanced system in that environment I'd probably turn into Agent Smith too.
 
Hah! And since SKR and Buhlman PROMISED a balanced system it's a fiction they're invested in
 
I feel sorry for their situation, even while I think their responses as you describe them are not condonable.
 
I was a victim of their banhammer when I wrote a brief essay explaining the things they did "fix" (and the extent to which they succeeded) and the things they failed to touch or notice.
First they flamed me.
Then they banned me
 
But on the other hand I really do think the entire Internet RPG subculture underestimates the number of entirely happy little BNG groups that sail under the radar with their physical books and photocopied character sheets, unaware of and unconcerned with the vagaries and vitriol of The People Who Are Wrong On The Internet.
 
3:48 AM
Oh certainly, and as I said before the most - MOST - important part of optimization is learning WHEN, and to what extent, to optimize
If you're running an all-commoner game, this is not the time to op
If you join a group and the highest tier around is t4? not the time to op
If your group is having fun at low op or mid op, not the time to be high op
 
@BESW BNG?
 
But - and this is the part that starts fights and gets flaming to happen and causes all the hurt feelings - high op is ALSO a legitimate way to play
 
@SimonGill Big Name Game. Vampire, D&D, etc.
 
@BESW Danke
 
@Lord_Gareth Yes. It's very easy to forget that others don't have to play the way we do, it's okay and even good.
 
3:50 AM
The other thing that causes all the hurt feelings is this one - just because the problems with the system can be ignored or house ruled doesn't mean they are not problems.
Having a local solution doesn't mean you have a universal solution.
 
Heh.
A group chooses a game because it contains an aesthetic or philosophy they want to experience.
The extreme conclusion of Rule 0 is a group which has not chosen a system, but a GM.
A more moderate application of Rule 0 is that the GM applies it when necessary to bring out the aspects of the system the group desires, while allowing the bits the group doesn't appreciate to fall away.
(Houseruling the rough edges off a system)
 
Unfortunately, people without system mastery stumble into different op-levels by accident, which leads to unbalanced groups. That, and high-op in D&D has always been clunky, gimmicky and borderline unplayable. The fact that the game itself offers no indication of op levels, and instead pretends its all balanced is the root of the problem.
 
I'm gonna be less available for a while. Skyping with a client.
@Magician ding!
 
@BESW 'lo :)
 
@Magician I agree that a huge part of the problem was how various D&D designers over the years have chosen to pretend that everything is okay
Paizo more than most; Monte Cook/WotC published a couple of 'mea culpa' articles late in 3.5 confessing to imbalance.
@BESW - So you think the question of "How can I play NPCs to their Intelligence scores?" is worth whipping up a Q and tagging my own A in there as an initial starter?
 
4:17 AM
@Lord_Gareth Yes, it sounds like it would be widely useful and incite a variety of responses.
 
 
1 hour later…
5:35 AM
I LIVE ONCE MORE!
 
5:47 AM
@Lord_Gareth Welcome back.
 
I just got a solution to the debate LitheOhm and I were having about incorporeal undead, Voidstone, and the Sphere of Annihilation
And I'll post it to her thread once I compose it.
@BESW - Things go well with your client or are you still doin' that?
 
yeah, not bad.
It's nearly 4, so now I'm getting a snack before I go shopping.
 

« first day (833 days earlier)      last day (2440 days later) »