DDO is an evolving game, we have new dungeons comming in a couple of weeks and a new claases, races, and skills in march. So tell me how is that not evolving. Thank God I can read and think for my self. I get the fact that there are people out there who do not like DDO, there are some who do not like NWN2. That is ok but why tell people not to play one ot ther other, let them play what they want. I am glad I gave DDO a try I love it think it is a great game for what it gives. I also play NWN2 and think it is a great game in it own right. Every mmorpg has it down sides, all of them. I have played SWG, Auto assault, Anarchy online, I was not a fan of AO or AA. but I never told people not to play ether of them. SWG has it own problems that I will not get in to here. I had to call support for DDO on an in game proplem and they fixed it in 10 mins. to those of you that do not like DDO why do you come here and keep posting that the game sucks you made your point now move on. People will play what ever they like no matter what we say. I think that is the best part of living in the US of A. freedome to play what ever crappy game we want. Have a nice day and have a Happy hoilday season.
Originally posted by Edkenny DDO is an evolving game, we have new dungeons comming in a couple of weeks and a new claases, races, and skills in march. So tell me how is that not evolving. Thank God I can read and think for my self. I get the fact that there are people out there who do not like DDO, there are some who do not like NWN2. That is ok but why tell people not to play one ot ther other, let them play what they want. I am glad I gave DDO a try I love it think it is a great game for what it gives. I also play NWN2 and think it is a great game in it own right. Every mmorpg has it down sides, all of them. I have played SWG, Auto assault, Anarchy online, I was not a fan of AO or AA. but I never told people not to play ether of them. SWG has it own problems that I will not get in to here. I had to call support for DDO on an in game proplem and they fixed it in 10 mins. to those of you that do not like DDO why do you come here and keep posting that the game sucks you made your point now move on. People will play what ever they like no matter what we say. I think that is the best part of living in the US of A. freedome to play what ever crappy game we want. Have a nice day and have a Happy hoilday season. Ed. Kenny
Ed....shut up.
Oh, but the way, US of A isn't number in anything anymore.
CaptainRPG Why don't you go to hell. Who the %^&* do you think can tell someone to shut up. Now as for the crack about America sorry but you are dead wrong, and as a Vet I would love to meet you anytime and any place and show you how wrong you are.
- (In some paladin rules, stealth is only used as a last restort)
- I can only my holy abilities to benefit others not myself.
You should have been at the discussions lawful good = lawful stupid and the purpose of alignment. If a person asks a paladin for some gold, can the paladin refuse? If he does hes not a truly good person. A paladin cannot use stealth so he has to charge in; therefore, he maybe riding into certain death. A Paladin can get themselves in same amount of trouble as a Rogue. In one DM session stories, the DM noted that a rogue (who was really a spy) was chased by the guards and the paladin of their session stop the rogue and handed him to the authorities. Later in that session, the guards came and arrested the Paladin for interfering government affairs. The player had to re-roll a new character because his paladin was later executed.
The definition of Lawful Good from the Player's Guide 2d Edition AD&D:
"Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of the people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed. When people respect the laws and try to help one another, society as a whole prospers. Therefore, lawful good characters strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm. An honest and hard-working serf, a kindly and wise king or a stern but forthright minister of justice are all examples of lawful good people."
This definition leaves the concept of lawful good open to a lot of interpretation, but most often players and DMs just tend to have the concept that a lawful good character exhibits "good" behavior in everything they do and to every purpose and end. The amount of "good" of any action is subjective by the actual definition, based on the laws of the land and the god served.
You ask if someone asks a paladin for gold can they refuse? Certainly, there are many situations in which a paladin can refuse to give gold to someone. If the paladin knows that the person will just drink the gold away, that definitely does not fit the definition of "bringing the greatest benefit to the most people and causing the least harm". The paladin could alternatively offer to buy the NPC a meal, set them up with shelter, etc. If the NPC refuses this offer, the paladin does not have to just give them gold in lieu of offering service that actually serves the greater good and causes the least harm.
Nowhere in the description above does it state that a paladin cannot use stealth. The paladin can use whatever tools or skills available to them to bring about the end result of the "greatest amount of good". Again, the greatest amount of good is subjective. What may be good overall to the majority may not be good to a minority within an area or population.
This is also subjective considering the paladin's personal code of conduct, which further defines the character, as you pointed out.
In the other topic, we came to two conclusions. You cant truly be neutral in DnD because taking a side automatically makes you a follower of a certain alignment and Chaotic Neutral = Nihilist. Your primary alignment cannot be neutral because your primary says you dont have a code of conduct nor do you take any type of action. However, since you are good, you have to have a code of conduct as to what is right and what is wrong.
Actually, according to the definition of True Neutral, a true neutral character believes in a "balance between forces and they refuse to see actions as either good or evil."
They certainly have a code of conduct and that code is balance. They often take sides and shift sides as the balance shifts between good and evil, order and chaos.
It is definitely very rare that you can find a true neutral character, but it's not impossible. A player who wants to be "true neutral" has to tip back and forth on that fine line between forces and take actions that they decide maintain the balance. Many times that can mean that a true neutral character may find him/herself directly opposing members of their own party because of the perceived need to maintain that balance. It's possible, but even the player's guide says that it is very rare.
During a tabletop, I had disarmed my opponent and would kill them after disarming them. The DM questioned the ability at first, but since my attacker used lethal force, I had the right to return the favor. The DM couldnt argue with that since two other lawful characters in my team did the same thing. So whatever applied to me had to be apply to them too. I could trash talk because it was neither lying since all I said was true or cheating since my opponent remained focus. Also I mentioned how powers were given to me by a God so its as form of cheat, which the DM and another player agreed so some changes had to be made.
If I were the DM in the example you gave in your first sentence, I wouldn't have considered the question of lethal force. After all, you disarmed him. However, does the action of killing your opponent serve the greater good? What was the exact situation? Were you in a position to keep the NPC prisoner for a prolonged period of time or turn them over to a city watch?
Did the laws of the land impart you the right to pass judgement in this situation? If so, and your decision was death and that decision is upheld by the laws of the land and your authority, then you acted perfectly within the definition of lawful good. In Megacity, Judge Dredd would be considered lawful good, even though he often passes out summary executions which may not be viewed by some as "good".
Later on I change my code of conduct and presented it to my DM.
I could not be deceitful when talking. (I cannot lie or tell half-truths)I could not use poison tactics, disease tactic, or magical weapons bestowed through spellcasting means. (I couldnt use a +1 weapon, but someone else couldnt put magical fire on my sword.)I could use lethal force and necessary force, but only if Im attacked first.I cannot torture or maim anyone nor can I arrest anyone unless given proper authority.I may use my powers for myself or to benefit others. (An avatar is no good to his/her God, if they are unable to heal themselves to stay alive)I can take action against evil that threaten a city or nation.I cannot take part or execute the orders of someone I know is evil. (In other words, I cannot party with someone is evil or be commanded by them.)
That is a very good route to go; between yourself and your DM, you defined the limits of the lawful system that you work within and it fits within the definition of lawful good. I personally think that the restrictions on using poison or magical weapons created through spellcasting was a little excessive, but that was your choice and it presents lawful order.
Dude, I didnt say there were any combinations to exploit. Im saying that BECAUSE DND TAILORS to you and your partys gameplay, there is no reason for players to try to create class combination in order to beat the game the DM has created.
Still not following you. Every group of players, whether tabletop D&D or electronic, will tend to create the party that is best able to function and support one another within the game environment. It is rare that you will find a party consisting solely of priests or druids or fighters; the classes compliment one another. It isn't exploiting in either PnP D&D or in any electronic version to attempt to create a party between players with classes that compliment one another.
No matter how well the game is tailored, you are still trying to beat the DM. The difference here is that the DM isn't trying to beat you; they are trying (or should be trying) to present you with an entertaining challenge.
The line I was referring to was the last line from your previous post;
"Tailoring the gameplay to your party discourages cross-classing exploits."
You use the specific phrase "cross-classing exploits." What exactly were you referring to? That is why I asked, because honestly, you had me stumped with that line.
The same cannot be said about NWN because the gameplay isnt tailored to your players. The monsters and dungeons are defaulted, meaning they are scripted to function that way against your character. Plus, the DM isnt on 24 hours a day so the players are free to play in ways they want.
You seem to be bouncing back and forth in your references to NWN between networked gameplay and a single player campaign.
In network gameplay in NWN where the DM created a module, the module can be as tailored as the DM creating the module desires; the monsters and dungeons are not defaulted, they are created by the DM and they are scripted by the DM to take specific actions. The DM doesn't have to be on 24 hours a day; they present the players with a module and the players play. If the DM didn't set any level restrictions or specific class rules, so be it.
Thats exactly why I got kicked out. My pure class cleric excelled at everything everyone else did.
And that is not an exploit. As I stated earlier, the perception of that being an exploit comes entirely from the developer (in this case, the DM of the module you were playing). You were working within the ruleset, but because you exceeded expectations, they arbritrarily decided it was an "exploit".
That just isn't so and it's wrong for developers to take that position, just as in this case, it was wrong for the DM to ban you from the server.
Thats exactly what the DM of that module said and I soloed his game by the way. He made the game hard enough for you to have to be dependent on other team members, but cleric are one man armies. The more difficult he made the game, the more I arranged my spells and feat to tackle the problem. Eventually, I playing less and less like a cleric.
Just through sheer numbers I could take down any single player in any class using equal level mobs. If the DM of the game you were playing couldn't do it, he wasn't trying very hard. He was probably still trying to give you the opportunity to actually play a game, rather than just creating a scenario that completely overwhelmed you.
Although, that shouldn't be the goal of any DM, if you throw down the challenge, that's what you get. I wouldn't even play around with a storyline or any content of any kind. You'd get the bum's rush.
I don't care what type of character you have, what feats or skills you have; if I set the module to have you walk into a field and set hundreds of opponents of equal level against you, you will die. Period.
But that shouldn't be the point of the DM. You have to watch the player and present them with a scenario that will give them an enjoyable challenge and allow them to accomplish their goal. Sometimes you have to observe the player over a long period of time.
That's not possible if you, the player, are just creating a character and shifting skills and feats around every time you enter the same module.
For example; I would use darkness spells to blind my enemies so the DM gave the monsters either darkvision or true seeing. So I switch up my tactics and use Blades (forgot the name of the spell) and cast the spell right in front of me. This made the fights incredible short for the henchmen who came at me. For boss battles, I healed myself a lot and buffed before the fight began. You could say I played my cleric like Paladin/Wizard.
The only way you could put me at disadvantage is if you took away some the spells I have or if you gave the monster incredibly high status, but then you would be putting other players at a disadvantage as well. If you put the monster together that would still put other players at disadvantage because I can summon a pet to take damage while I prepare spell take out those enemies.
And thats what Im talking about with catering in both tabletop and NWN. NWN is a game; therefore, the player mentality changes to find ways to beat the game. Tabletop is a FUN SESSION; therefore, you do not have to exploit the game and EVEN if you did the DM would see it and counter it by killing your character off or presenting a challenge that would cripple you.
There really is no difference. In a tabletop game, if the DM kills your character off purposely or presents you with a crippling challenge, they are still trying to beat you and vice versa. It's not my defintion of fun if your character is dead because the DM is left with so few options they feel like they have to present you with an insurmountable challenge (although I've never seen a situation like that before - any competent DM can create a challenge that isn't an outright suicide run. It may be deadly, but not strictly suicidal for the player character).
The player is always trying to create a character that can meet any challenge. That's the nature of a game. They are trying to "beat" the game. If they weren't, you wouldn't be playing a game because there would be no point if you knew that no matter what you did, you would win.
The DM's goal should always be to challenge you without purposely trying to kill you. That challenge doesn't have to be limited to combat.
Nice way to duck answering the question, but I wasnt saying the Ranger is ineffective. Rather Im saying the Paladin is more effective than the Ranger at battling undead and evil. And because the Paladin is able to fight both undead and evil there is no reason to cross class a Ranger with a Paladin. In cross classing a Paladin with a Ranger, I would weaken my Paladins ability rather than help them. This is why I said cross classing is flawed.
I didn't duck the question; the question is moot. The paladin is designed to deal with evil and undead. The ranger is designed to deal with animals and nature. The paladin will not be as capable as the ranger in dealing with animals right out of the box. It's like apples and oranges. If you want to mix apples and oranges, go ahead, but don't try a point comparison of them.
That doesn't mean that a paladin wouldn't benefit from having an animal companion or knowing how to deal with animals. Yes, you are earning less overall experience in your paladin skills that will lessen your overall paladin abilities, but that doesn't mean there is no benefit. It really depends on what you are trying to accomplish with your paladin or ranger by multi or dual-classing them.
You cross class to augment your abilities, period.
No, you don't. You dual or multi-class to gain new abilities to augment your overall character.
A fighter/wizard only cross-class to benefit from both spellcasting and fighting. A wizard cross-classes with an Eldrith Knight so he can retain spellcasting while gaining fighter like attack bonus.
Exactly. Which means as a fighter, you gain wizard abilities; as a fighter, you don't dual/multi-class wizard to augment your existing ability to fight melee. You learn new abilities.
You dont cross class a Rogue with a Ranger because you need more than 10 levels for your pet to be any good. You dont cross class for any other reason except to augment your abilities by giving yourself advantages to use certain feats or abilities. However, in tabletop games, they put restriction on the class to prevent you from continuing to benefit from class abilities or advancing in that class.
That's really a rationalization, since the only reason you can see for dual or multi-classing a ranger/rogue is for the animal companion.
How about the fact that rangers get dual wield for free right off the bat and rogues have to pay for it? That's an advantage right there that augments your character's abilities.
The restrictions you are forced to deal with depend entirely on whether you dual or multi-class.
In multi-classing a character, you continue to develop in two (or three classes, if you choose) and experience points are split between the classes. Dual classing uses the most favorable combat values and saving throws from the existing classes, which is an advantage to say a fighter-wizard, although hit points are reduced compared to what a pure fighter would gain, to include their constitution bonus. The main restriction in multi-classing is that you have to be demi-human (other than human).
In dual-classing, you level up in one class and then become another class and gain no more skills or abilities in your first class. You can use the old class abilities you learned as long as they aren't conflicting with equipment your new class would use (i.e., don't expect to be too sneaky wearing full plate). There's no limit to the number of classes you can dual, other than alignment restrictions. The only other real limitation is the requirement to have scores of 17 or higher in the prime requisite abilities of the new class and the fact that only humans can dual-class.
I don't find any of those restrictions particularly ridiculous. To me, the rationale for only demi-humans being able to multi-class is that typically, at the lowered experience rate, humans don't traditionally live long enough to really become proficient in multiple classes, compared to the longer lifespans of demi-humans. Which is why humans dual-class, so that they can earn skills and abilities from several classes within their lifetimes at a reasonable experience to lifespan rate.
If you could ignore those rules and make up your own, what would be the point of having expanded books about different classes and restrictions? WotC makes money off people who take the rule literally.
You can ignore the rules and make up your own. No one is forcing you to use the D&D system. Make your own if you are dissatisfied and play the way you like. I personally enjoy the system greatly.
Oh, and D&D has existed since around 1974; the restrictions to dual and multi-classing have existed since long before Wizards of the Coast ever purchased the intellectual property. Your efforts to demonize WotC by saying that the rationale for various rule restrictions is motivated by greed just don't hold any water at all, since those restrictions have existed from the beginning of the game.
Uh, no, my statement did no such thing. Bruce was still learning martial art when he was going to college so you can do both at the same time. Benjamin Franklin worked printing press company, kept himself in shape and invented the oven all while practice philosophies. My statement was saying thats illogical to think that you can have one primary goal.
And you still keep ignoring the main point of the discussion; because Bruce Lee attended college while learning martial arts does not mean he specialized in college.
And again, I never said anyone had one primary goal. If you can't agree that the vast majority of people are highly proficient (by highly proficient, I mean better than 80% of the population in that particular skill or ability) in perhaps one or two things and only skilled or learned in other areas, then I can only conclude that you are ignoring reality.
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO SAY SOMETHING IS UNTRUE IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT I REFERRING TO. Youre so quick to say your right, but your slow to admit youre wrong.
Dude I was referring to the Warriors PvE prowess and not dueling prowess. Speaking of PvP, Paladins suck at it. They have a hard time killing anything and I use to play one. As a paladin you find yourself being a healing bot more than a Warrior/Priest blend.
I actually misspoke on that statement; I should have said the only character I played to level 60 was my paladin.
You said:
If you played WoW, the Warrior plays a significant roll because the class has its own skills, meaning he was more than a tank. Now why would the Warrior is more favorable to play in WoW, but not the Fighter in NWN. Simply because DnD players know that a Paladin offers more than a Fighter and can get the same generals feats.
And I told you that was untrue. The warrior in WoW is ONLY a tank. Just like in D&D.
My paladin was not a healing bot; I told teams and groups I joined that I wasn't healing spec'd up front. My paladin was built to take and deal damage. Certainly, I threw heals for myself and others when I could spare them, but that wasn't my primary build.
My best gaming buddy had a warlock that I beat regularly (half the time or more) dueling.
In PvP, the only thing I had to do was what a paladin does best; stay alive. While the warrior is fruitlessly beating on me (or several, as the case was more often than not) it left my team open to deal with them. You stun a warrior enough, lay down consecration, multiply your holy damage with the retribution line and use a high DPS weapon and you'll find warriors get gunshy pretty quickly. The only class that regularly gave me trouble in PvP (or PvE for that matter) was the shaman.
My point of saying that more people play the Warrior more in WoW than a Fighter in DnD has to do with the fact that the Warrior in WoW has own identity and its own class abilities, which is the something the DnD fighter lacks.
And I guess I disagree with you. I've never played a D&D campaign that didn't have someone who preferred to play a fighter. They are the easiest to manage, they deal good direct damage, they have the highest HP and a more open alignment selection. If you elect to kit out a fighter, you get further benefits.
All the classes share the same damn abilities, your point? The fighter comes with no class feat as the paladin. The paladin gets smite evil and lay on hands for example, the fighter gets nothing except bonus feats. Excluding the general abilities, the only abilities the Paladin and Fighter share are equipment based feats.
No, all classes do not share the same abilities.
My point was exactly the same as it was before. You said;
The only thing the paladin gets thats similar to the Fighter is the equipment they can use.
And I pointed out that the similar feats between the two classes are not limited to only the equipment they can use. I am sorry that seems to anger you for some reason.
My point from the beginning was that a paladin which falls from grace becomes a fighter. Essentially, they are fighters with the benefit of a god for a patron, granting them class-specific abilities.
Actually, it depends on the game that fighter has advantage or disadvantage. Youre not guaranteed full-plated armor at the beginning of the game and both the paladin and warrior can use the same weapons. The paladin receives +1 or +2 less than Fighter in terms of HP (Dwarves have a +2 HP advantage) and the Fighter gets more general skills. Both are good tanks in the beginning since the fighter gets more HP and the paladin gets better save. The Fighter dominates for 3 levels and then Paladin surpasses him on the 4th level.
I certainly agree that the paladin has advantages the fighter does not. That's why the alignment consideration is so important, because you're holding the player to a higher standard for those extra abilities.
Rogue gets more skills and they arent thin out as much as Ranger in terms of status. Unless the Ranger a use simple weapon for dual-wielding and is expert marksman, the Ranger is going to put most of his points towards Str, Dex, Con, Wis, Int and a little in Cha. A Rogue only has to focus on Dex, Con, Int. I dont need to go pass 10 on Wis while both Str and Cha are a give or take. A rogue can use magic items and hes the most agile member of the group. Players are going to rely on a Rogue to be Mr. Fix than a Ranger. And why do the hell do we need assistance from your pet. Both Wizard/Sorcerer class and druid come with their own pets, plus instead of animal empathy, we can just kill the animal thats a threat to us. And its not like the pet is going to make a lick of difference and with the pet on our team you now have to worry about healing your pet when he starts dying meaning focusing less on the fight.
Even though a ranger needs a higher strength as a prerequisite for the class, I don't see how that is a detriment when it translates directly into damage bonus the higher you go. In addition, as you pointed out, they get dual wield up front at no cost. They also get priest spells which explains the need for a higher wisdom, where rogues do not.
You're also assuming that the party is being planned to take up the slack for a missing ranger in the pet department. Traditionally in the games I've played, wizard and sorceror classes are the least favored of any of the classes, with druid being only slightly more acceptable. Even if there is a wizard/sorceror or druid present, I doubt anyone is going to complain about the extra damage from another pet. Or two, or three, as the case may be, since Rangers can have more than one.
With a ranger, you get the pet(s), you get the spells, you get some thief skills, you get dual wield, you get medium armor and shield prof (higher AC), and you get all simple and martial weapon profs. Those seem like some pretty nice benefits. Pick up ambidexterity and you offset the two-weapon penalty spending fewer proficieny points than a rogue.
Rogues can also dual wielding, it may cost a few feats, but at least abilities wont be half-baked. As a Rogue, I can exploit the weakness of most enemies without having to pick a favor enemy. A Ranger can only 5 favor enemies to exploit and the extra damage they do is barely above a Fighter with weapon specialization. And the proof that the Ranger sucked was the fact that in 3.5, they had to blend the ranger more with a Fighter and Rogue. He went from an HP of D10 HP to D8 HP and was given Evasion. Everyone talked about how the Ranger sucked before 3.5. Now hes halfway decent.
I think rogues are fine. I think rangers are fine. I don't find one superior to the other. They are both good classes with benefits between them. And they are both separate, distinct classes. The fact that they have crossover skills is no different than what you see between the paladin and the fighter.
Again, another large part of roleplaying has to do with non-statistical differences between classes. The ranger is envisioned as being a woodsman; in their element, they are superior to a rogue in many ways. Vice versa, the ranger will suffer penalties in some skills in a purely urban environment.
The only thing the Ranger is better at than the Rogue is the HP really and you get a pet, which gives you an advantage in one on one fights.
Actually, the ranger gets quite a few perks that give it advantages. HP, multiple pets, dual-wield, priest spells, etc.
Thats not up to you to remind them. You have to play as if they understand their rules. You cannot do that you undermind your players gameplay and their roleplaying. Youre DM so be a DM and set the adventure. You shouldnt be telling them how they should be playing the game or how they should act. They can act out of alignment/character whenever they so please as long as it doesnt violate personality (Refer to my paladin example up above) OR if they are trying to change their alignment.
When I say remind them, I don't literally mean telling them "hey, you're going against your alignment." I mean, reminding them by making events occur as a result of alignment change or situations where they have gone against their alignment to cause them to be aware of the consequences of those actions.
I've been a DM for many, many years. I think I've got a handle on it. At least, I have received extremely few complaints in the past 25 years or so.
Actually, no, a paladin code of conduct dictates their actions, not their alignment. A Rogue has more freedom than a paladin under the same alignment.
The paladin's code of conduct is an adjunct to their lawful good alignment (or if they are working under a modified ruleset, whatever alignment is in line with their diety or order, like an anti-paladin, for example); it doesn't replace it. The negative results to a paladin are the same if they violate their code of conduct or go against their lawful good (or other in modified rulesets) alignment.
And as I said "Huh? You choose your alignment, within certain exceptions. It isn't given to you, except if you are playing a character whose alignment is specifically dictated (i.e., a paladin)." Obviously, there are exceptions in the freedom of the choice of alignment.
Actually, he did set the level restriction properly, but its hard to put a character capable of versatility without putting others at a disadvantage. While this mean have seemingly hurt the cleric, that DM who match CR levels with players level also had to go out of his way to edited the cleric spells to where they didnt work on themselves. They also had their non-holy spell were taken away. The Monk was also put at a disadvantage because monk cant fight anyone at their own level at the beginning of the game unless you give them the equipment to do so. He also had to heavily restrict cross-classing.
Again, it sounds like the DM simply wasn't very good. There are always going to be situations where certain characters are at a disadvantage when compared to other characters. In PnP D&D, at the lower levels you usually end up carrying the wizard or sorceror through those early levels because they can't take that much damage and really don't do that much damage to begin with. Later on, they become powerhouses in the damage department.
Thats because your conservative players. To you the DnD rules are a dogma. They HAVE to be followed. You claim the DnD ruleset doesnt prohibit you yet when I look player handbook and DM ruleset they say different.
Actually, I'm not a conservative player. I change the rules when I feel like they need to be changed and the rules aren't dogma. But I don't find that many occasions where I feel like the rules really need to be changed, and I definitely haven't found huge glaring flaws in the class system that I believe it needs to be changed.
Martial arts and philosophy are NOT the same. This coming from a martial artist himself. Martial artists are the ones who incorporate Buddhist and Confucius ideas into the martial arts, not the other way around.
Who said they were the same thing? I didn't. Not even once. Re-read my statement, and tell me where I said martial arts and philosphy are the same thing.
I said exactly what you said; philosphy in connection with martial arts.
He acted in movied prior to his martial arts action film. Hes been acting since he was kid.
Okay. So he's well known world-wide for his acting efforts outside of his martial arts centered films?
Actually, it is. This coming someone who has relative who use to play for the Green Bay Packers. They dont train a year around, they train for couple of months and they train every now and then to keep their muscle from weakening. Highschool players do the same thing.
So, there are professional high school football players? How's that salary? High school football must be quite the career.
So, now that we've established that high school football isn't a career but professional football is, and that the level of proficiency required to play professional football is higher than that required to play high school football (unless you want to argue that a high school football player and a professional are equals) then my statement that professional football is a specialization and high school football is not stands.
Military is another perfect example. Youre to be soldier and learning civilian type jobs while in the military. You can still learn to survive as soldier using a God and learn to work an engine at the same time. You can specialize in more than one thing.
I'm a twenty year Army veteran. While I learned many skills and was competent in them (various sharpshooter and expert weapons qualification, jumpmaster, DZSTL, platoon sergeant, first sergeant) I knew the most about my specialty. Which is why it is called a specialty.
Although I earned a degree while in the military, I have yet to work in the field my degree is from. So while I have considerable knowledge about the field and have studied the field, I cannot consider myself proficient.
Most book publishing companies and certain board gaming companies only get a couple of cents to a dollar of your profits your book. So if I made a book that sold for $10 dollars, my publishers will only get 10 cents to 1 dollar while I get the rest of the 9 dollars. Now times that about a million and thats how much money youll have. DnD has sold worldwide. If Gygax didnt get his money then he squander his money away or forgot to copyright his ideas and thus bought out the rights from under him.
Except that when they first wrote Dungeons and Dragons, they self-published a run of only 1000 as Tactical Studies Rules (TSR) their own company. At ten dollars apiece they stood to make $10,000 between three guys minus their publishing costs. Whoo. That's quite a bit of money.
And yet, the class system was right there. So apparently, the class system design wasn't an evil machination for world fiscal domination.
It was just a game system designed by a couple friends who decided to publish it.
Also todays DnD books sell for 30 dollars. And this is the problem I was trying to get across to you from the get go is that DnD is the ONLY tabletop game ruling the market. To give you example, Marvel comic went bankruptcy and close their doors for good, DC comic would dominated the comic market and their comicbook prices would SHOOT through the roof because they would be the only source of comicbook entertainment. (I know they are other companies, but DC is one of the best comic companies)
Dungeons and Dragons isn't the only RPG on the market. Although its sales are undoubtedly the highest, White Wolf Publishing (makers of the World of Darkness/Vampire the Masquerade RPG systems) and FanPro (publishers of ShadowRun, formerly FASA, creators of ShadowRun and BattleTech) still merit considerable sales power in tabletop RPG sales. Their core rule books sell for around $35.00 a book. I can get a brand new copy of any of the core rule books for D&D 3.5 for $29.95.
So it looks to me like the pricing of D&D rule books is competitive with those of other tabletop RPG publishers.
I'm not saying no one is making money here; I'm saying that the class system was created and still exists without any profit motivation involved.
I personally prefer AD&D Second Edition. I think the 3.0 and 3.5 rules are... well, crap. When I play, I only play 2nd Edition. To each their own.
Gygax copyrighted the D20 idea so it made it next to impossible to improve on it. It was until later that D20 ruleset was able to be used with other table top game, but it was too late. DnD had saturated the market with the product and other companies that try to come with their own games were overshadowed by DnD presents.
Gary Gygax didn't copyright the D20 system. It was copyrighted by Wizards of the Coast when they purchased TSR and produced AD&D 3rd Edition which was designed around the D20 system. WotC didn't buy TSR until Gary Gygax had been out of the picture for quite some time.
Until that point, RPGs were produced left and right using whatever die system they wanted, which is part of the reason that TSR went bankrupt, trying to sue other RPG publishers while simultaneously inflating their product prices.
To make it simple, had Supermans creators (Superman being the first superhero) had copyright Superhero, you would not have Captain America or other Superheroes we have today.
Marvel and DC comics jointly own the trademark to the word "superhero". They first registered the trademark jointly in 1979 and they recently re-filed to renew the trademark.
Amazing, huh? Bet you didn't know that superhero is trademarked.
However, your premise isn't actually logical. You could still create Captain America and sell comics about him. You just wouldn't call him a superhero. He'd be simply a hero.
Like City of Heroes, which is named thusly because legally they could not call it City of Superheroes.
Todays tabletop games that are non-Forgotten realms games have to sell their games for less than 20 dollars. If you try to go to a company with a new idea of how to do tabletops they reject the ideas because DnD games have the market tied up. DnD didnt evolve because the rules worked, DnD didnt evolved because they never had any competition!
Actually, no. Follow these links and you will see how much they sell their books for:
Those are the two games I play most often other than D&D.
Now; you can purchase any of those books and just about any D&D book for between $7 and $12 on Amazon (or less, depending on whether you want them in absoutely new condition or used).
And in reality, D&D had tons of competition which is why it went into bankruptcy until it was purchased by WotC in 2000.
Those are variation of outcome the DM can look into. I said the book doesnt give you nor does the book give you ideas on varies way to use the Dice system.
And yet, actually, it did. I listed the alternatives the DM gives you and that was from a first edition DM guide. I didn't even go into the entire explanation in the DM between a linear or bell curve when rolling dice, how many and what types of dice you can use, how to draw statistical conclusions from various dice, etc. It's three pages long, which I simply won't re-type here.
No, its actually not. I notice when reviewing the prestige classes, they are very restricted and very have a small number of abilities compare to core class. Prestige classes serve to give core classes more abilities and give the class a more identity. However, this ideas fails, at least with me because prestige lack in either improving abilities or making the class more define. Take the duelist for example, hes a thief without the sneak attack. Rather than making the duelist an extra class, his abilities should have been more expansion of what the Fighter, Rogue and Bard can do.
The only thing the prestige classes do is require you to take specific feats along with the already-existing restrictions of specific sub-classes in order to gain additional or improved abilities.
As an arcane archer I have to be a half-elf; I have to have spellcasting ability which may mean multi-classing and I have to take specific feats.
In exchange, I get to treat normal arrows as though they are enchanted, that cannot be evaded, that unleash area effect spell damage and can even kill someone outright with one shot.
Personally, I'm not so sure that's a bad thing.
I can completely understand that you may not like the whole idea. That doesn't follow that it's a bad idea. I personally think that it typifies the kind of elite training a person would have to undergo to achieve those kinds of results and I guess I just don't have a problem with that.
In the end, no one is standing over your shoulder making certain that you follow each and every rule to the letter. D&D honestly wasn't designed to be about that. The rules are your guidelines, to be modified to fit a play style so that everyone involved in the roleplaying process can have fun.
But when you're talking about translating D&D to an accurate electronic medium, you have to include all of the rules because as a person, your personal preferences for certain rules aren't going to be the same as those of every other person who plays the game. What you consider unimportant may be critical to another player. And so, like it or not, you include classes, feats, skills, abilities, race and class restrictions, alignments, social structures and as many of the other nuances as you can pack into your product.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq Adnihilo Beorn Judge's Edge Somnulus Perfect Black ---------------------- Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2 Everquest / Everquest 2 Anarchy Online Shadowbane Dark Age of Camelot Star Wars Galaxies Matrix Online World of Warcraft Guild Wars City of Heroes
Originally posted by Edkenny CaptainRPG Why don't you go to hell. Who the %^&* do you think can tell someone to shut up. Now as for the crack about America sorry but you are dead wrong, and as a Vet I would love to meet you anytime and any place and show you how wrong you are. Ed.
We rank low on health care and child care. We are debt to China. Other countries make half the products in our country. We hire illlegal immigrants to do what work we are suppose to do. Our sport and olympic starts are starting to test postive for drugs. (Plus we lost the Soccer World Cup) We lost the Vietnam War, we lost the Iraq War (Osama Bin who?) We have the highest conviction rate. (This isn't a good thing) We make the most video games, but our video games sell less than European and Japanese game on the market. We lost a video game tournament to the Koreans. We still using outdated fuel and our politics has been run into the ground politicians. DnD has killed tabletop as we know it and we can't even make decent MMORPG out of it either.
The only thing we can do that makes us number #1 is blowing stuff up (like other countries) and contributing to most of the world's pollution. (70% of the air carbon is from us)
Back to DDO, yes it sucks. Sorry your late getting on the boat, we've agreed at some point that game isn't what it was suppose to be and the only reason Turbine is coming with more content isn't because it's doing well, but because the game is doing horrible. It had 90k players, but has lost thousands since.
Dungeons and Dragons isn't the only RPG on the market. Although its sales are undoubtedly the highest, White Wolf Publishing (makers of the World of Darkness/Vampire the Masquerade RPG systems) and FanPro (publishers of ShadowRun, formerly FASA, creators of ShadowRun and BattleTech) still merit considerable sales power in tabletop RPG sales. Their core rule books sell for around $35.00 a book.
Because now they have grow fan following.
I can get a brand new copy of any of the core rule books for D&D 3.5 for $29.95.
Which is still 30 dollars.
Gary Gygax didn't copyright the D20 system.
Now that I didnt know.
I still have more to say, but I'm tired so I save the rest tomorrow.
So you hate living in America then move out and find another country.
Now back to game issues.
I never said DDO is the best or greatest game ever made. It has it problems as a lot of games do. All I am saying is let people find out what they do and do not like. Take the free trial of a game try it out, talk to other players and get in touch with tech support and see how long it takes to fix a problem. I have friends who tried DDO and did not like it, they play games that I do not like. Hey guess what we still get along. WOW banned a lot of players for not useing windows and for other reasons. I like the fact that if you use a bot you get the boot but not for useing an OS that is not windows, or playing from more than one machine. I tried AA and I did not like it, if they made a few fixes to it maybe I would try again. SWG is so fubar that no one can help or save it. DDO has only been around since Feb of this year so it is still growing so it is still young. DDO is still better then some games and not as good as others but that is life. I wish I could solo more in DDO but hey I have NWN2 for that. When I want real DnD I call my friends over and we play the real thing. I wish I could play DDO as an evil pc but they do not let us, that would be real DnD. I can not wait to see some of the games in the works when they come out and see how they rate. Like Age of Conan and Star Trek online hope the are better then some of what is out there.
CaptainRPG I do not hate you or your point of view, in fact I agree with some of what you say. I hate the fact you do not know how good you have it here that is all.
Originally posted by Edkenny So you hate living in America then move out and find another country. Now back to game issues. I never said DDO is the best or greatest game ever made. It has it problems as a lot of games do. All I am saying is let people find out what they do and do not like. Take the free trial of a game try it out, talk to other players and get in touch with tech support and see how long it takes to fix a problem. I have friends who tried DDO and did not like it, they play games that I do not like. Hey guess what we still get along. WOW banned a lot of players for not useing windows and for other reasons. I like the fact that if you use a bot you get the boot but not for useing an OS that is not windows, or playing from more than one machine. I tried AA and I did not like it, if they made a few fixes to it maybe I would try again. SWG is so fubar that no one can help or save it. DDO has only been around since Feb of this year so it is still growing so it is still young. DDO is still better then some games and not as good as others but that is life. I wish I could solo more in DDO but hey I have NWN2 for that. When I want real DnD I call my friends over and we play the real thing. I wish I could play DDO as an evil pc but they do not let us, that would be real DnD. I can not wait to see some of the games in the works when they come out and see how they rate. Like Age of Conan and Star Trek online hope the are better then some of what is out there. CaptainRPG I do not hate you or your point of view, in fact I agree with some of what you say. I hate the fact you do not know how good you have it here that is all.
Please save your, soldier gun-ho BS for the other blind narrow-minded conservatives.
DDO isn't growing as community. In fact, their messageboards gone quite. Only a few post are made a day compare to the Feb launch. Around June they were a lot people bickering and arguing about the content of DDO by Aug/Sept the messageboards grew quite. DDO isn't fixing problems. They still have same bugs they did at launch. As I said earlier, they adding content to people in. Trial use to be 3 days then a month later it went to 7 now it's a 10 day trial. The game isn't balance, it doesn't have enough levels, it play GW and the graphics are horrid.
I'ma professor by the way. I'm not kid. I teach my college students about people like yourself and we aren't going to have it good if continue to blindly follow your lead.
- I decide to just reply to your post in this manner because there some part I could have gotten "fresh" you with at. So I'll argue as nicely as I can.
- Yes, I know about superhero trademark. However, Jerry Spiegel, the creator of Superman had copyrighted the term first, we would not have a Marvel company today.
- It's not secret that the paladin can crush the Warlock. You clean any curse a Warlock does. In fact, the paladin is the hardest class to kill, but equally, they are the weakest class because it takes forever to kill one target.
- Again, that your opinion against other players and DM. Yes, WE DISCUSSED the alignment description, but description don't always match up with the gameplay. Normally, the majority does't rule, but in this case, it does. Simply put True Neutral cannot really a personality alignment of any characters because there is no balance such thing as balance. I can't kill someone minute and save someone the next. As soon as I act, I'm consider either good or evil. True Neutral is another way of saying selfish. You act on impluse and your actions favor your own means. It's impossible to not do something good or not do something evil.
Many DMs that I know are very anti-true neutral because they are strict with personality and it pisses other players off. Lawfully Good, True Neutral and Chaotic Evil characters cause the most trouble in parties in many of the DnD sessions I hear about. I rarely hear about any other alignment getting as much trouble as those three alignments. Not even Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Evil get into this much trouble.
- Actually, the class do share abilities amongst each. As long as the feats don't require an AB of +11 or spellcaste level then they get most of the same abilities.
- There is no reason to cross-class in DnD ever unless your a Bard, Barbarian or a Fighter. A rogue has no reason to cross a Fighter because all the Rogue's best abilities work well the Dexterity. Not even 4 levels to do +4 extra points with weapon specialization is worth it considering you'll be crapping d12 worth damage down the drain. It's better to do Eldrith Knight combination then Fighter/Wizard combination because it's the same thing.
- The Ranger doesn't get priest like abilities, but Druid abilities.
- Sorry, if you disagree, but augmenting means to make more powerful. Even you admitted that's what players do in DnD session right? By gaining more abilities, are you not getting more powerful? You can spin this anyway you want, Som, but you have to face the the facts that the whole point of cross classing is to augment abilities, whether they make your class abilities more powerful or if they give you more abilities to use, you're become stronger either way.
- Sorry, you didn't use your degree. My grandfather fought in WW2 and he was farmer so you can specialize in 2 things.
- I'm not sure how much highschool players get, but I do know my friend was riding in Lexus that neither his single-mother and his himself could not possible afford. (Me and his mother worked at the same job for a while.) Maybe if you watch "He Got Game", you'll understand.
- Again, you pretend, you don't see who superior. Pretending not to see something doesn't make any less true. Again, this has been discussed on the paper and pencil board and other DM boards. We've all agree that the Ranger is crap and 3.5 same the Ranger from being complete useless. We also had discussion about Fighter vs. Paladin and Wizard vs. Sorcerer. (Not talking about PvP either) We talked about usefulness and the sorcerer narrowly got with a hair. The Fighter had a good argument in beginning, but got beat down near the end because of what I said about the Fighter usefulness as both class reach level 4.
- I'm not getting angry, but rather annoyed at the fact you like discard anything that contradicts your argument. I at least admit to being wrong, but you on the other hand, insist you are right about everything and I'm sorry these things don't fly around here.
I'll more to discuss in the morning. Oh and by the way, DnD has sold worldwide since the 70s so if Gary didn't see a penny for his ideas then he should have his idea copyrighted.
Just a few things about the OP, first of all NWN2 is developed by Obsidian not Bioware.. Second, the two games are completely different. NWN2 is a SinglePlayer game, with a lot of the MP support stripped completely out of it. DnDO is a current MMO that supports a lot more people online at once that NWN2 will ever.
NwN2 isn't good for MP right now, it'll take probably a year or more for some good content to start showing up. Mmostly because Obisidian screwed with the MP code so much that everything is needing fixing.
A lot of people are sticking with NWN1 for right now because NwN2 handles things a little differently and is quite broken as far as custom content is concerned, (no custom tlks, DM client is beta, etc).
If you didn't switch from DDO to NWN1 for Multiplayer, I can hardly see you switching from DDO to NWN2, because they are almost completely the same game. NWN2 and NWN1 use the exact same code base, except that NWN2 has had a lot of it removed, and some of the skill/feat etc selections updated to 3.5. Other than that NWN2 works the same as NWN and if you aren't willing to give up DDO for NWN1 why would you give it up for NWN2? I mean the campaign isn't even playable in MP because of limitations on the server, and the way the OC handles map transitions... The new area transitions pretty much kill servers, and the terrain maps are going to make downloads for PWs a pain in the butt..
If you honestly look at the pros and cons you can see that DDO is for MP and NWN2 is going to have to play a great deal of catchup to even consider doing small on the fly dungeon adventures.
I quit DDO a few months ago. I played during alpha and beta and post-launch. I only bought the game because I was grateful to have playtested for so long. I never really enjoyed it much. I posted this same issue after public release in the DDO forums. I laughed when I opened my game and found that the back cover was an advertisement for Neverwinter Nights 2! They are basically telling people to give their money to Atari and not Turbine!
They've actually had a very robust fan following since they began in 1989 and 1991 respectively. I've played both off and on since they first published and there is and has been a very robust community for both game systems.
Which is still 30 dollars.
Which is no more or less than you would expect to pay for the core rule books of any other tabletop RPG system.
So apparently, as I stated originally, WotC aren't raking in the dough through a master plan of world RPG domination. They are making as much on their books in individual sales as any other RPG publisher and simply building on the system as it existed prior to their purchase of the D&D franchise. Certainly, it can be argued that D&D is the most popular but it's also the oldest tabletop RPG franchise, so that's not exactly surprsing.
Yes, I know about superhero trademark. However, Jerry Spiegel, the creator of Superman had copyrighted the term first, we would not have a Marvel company today.
Yes, we would still have Marvel today. They just couldn't call their creations "superheroes". That wouldn't make the characters any less enjoyable, the illustration any less capable or the stories any poorer. The two are not connected.
It's not secret that the paladin can crush the Warlock. You clean any curse a Warlock does. In fact, the paladin is the hardest class to kill, but equally, they are the weakest class because it takes forever to kill one target.
The point is, especially in full PvP, I don't have to kill anything. All I have to do is stay alive and keep the enemy occupied while my team mates kill them. That doesn't equate to being weak, especially if it takes three or more enemy just to take me down. Death by attrition is a perfectly valid offensive tactic. That doesn't make the paladin weak, especially if I am capable of defeating just about any class in a duel.
Again, that your opinion against other players and DM. Yes, WE DISCUSSED the alignment description, but description don't always match up with the gameplay. Normally, the majority does't rule, but in this case, it does. Simply put True Neutral cannot really a personality alignment of any characters because there is no balance such thing as balance. I can't kill someone minute and save someone the next. As soon as I act, I'm consider either good or evil. True Neutral is another way of saying selfish. You act on impluse and your actions favor your own means. It's impossible to not do something good or not do something evil.
Many DMs that I know are very anti-true neutral because they are strict with personality and it pisses other players off. Lawfully Good, True Neutral and Chaotic Evil characters cause the most trouble in parties in many of the DnD sessions I hear about. I rarely hear about any other alignment getting as much trouble as those three alignments. Not even Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Evil get into this much trouble.
True neutral is a balancing act. It isn't simply doing one good thing and then doing one bad thing. There has to be a balance between the actions and the DM is the final arbiter, as always, of whether a character's actions are true neutral or not.
It's not my opinion. It's the alignment guidelines as provided in the manuals. The DM is the final judge of how those alignment guidelines are implemented. Because you personally do not agree with the alignments as they are described doesn't invalidate them, except in your own gaming sessions.
I know "many DMs" who could care less what alignment you take as long as it is not in direct opposition to a class restriction and you understand the expectations the DM has for that alignment.
I personally think a player trying True Neutral is great fun, exactly because of the friction it causes with their fellow players. Like life, you're not always going to meet and work with people who are a personality match for you. That's part of the fun of roleplaying. If the other players go berserk and kill the player who is true neutral because of his actions, so be it. It's just another part of the story. He creates a new character and off they go again.
In the end, it doesn't matter how you implement, interpret or use alignments in your gaming sessions. That has no effect on how I, my friends or others play D&D. The only time it's a consideration is when you are attempting an accurate translation of tabletop D&D to an electronic medium. At that point, it's not your job to decide what rules are important or not.
Actually, the class do share abilities amongst each.
Now that's an accurate statement; but that is not what you said originally.
All the classes share the same damn abilities, your point?
And my point was that they do not "share the same damn abilities". They share abilities... some or more depending on the class comparison.
There is no reason to cross-class in DnD ever unless your a Bard, Barbarian or a Fighter. A rogue has no reason to cross a Fighter because all the Rogue's best abilities work well the Dexterity. Not even 4 levels to do +4 extra points with weapon specialization is worth it considering you'll be crapping d12 worth damage down the drain. It's better to do Eldrith Knight combination then Fighter/Wizard combination because it's the same thing.
Captain, because you say it doesn't make it so. There are many valid reasons and apparently, there is a huge number of people who agree because they are continuously finding new ways to dual and multi-class to gain benefits that they desire.
A simple web search reveals hundreds of forums with players seeking information on viable dual or multi-classes or on specific builds. So apparently, regardless of your personal opinion, there is a reason to dual or multi-class.
A bard is just about the only character I would never dual class (since according to AD&D Second Edition that I prefer, you cannot multi-class a bard). I mean, how many abilities do you need? The bard can do practically anything! Thief skills, fighter skills, wizard spells... in my opinion, it's not worth dual classing. Now dual classing another class with bard abilities would be useful.
The Ranger doesn't get priest like abilities, but Druid abilities.
"The class' spell abilities were also limited to 1st-3rd level priest spells from the Plant and Animal Spheres." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)
"A ranger can learn priest spells, but only those of the plant and animal spheres (see page 34), when he reaches 8th level (see Table 18). He gains and uses his spells according to the rules given for priests (see page 32)." AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook, pg. 29
Although the druid is a sub-class of the cleric, the Ranger gets its spells from the cleric line.
Sorry, if you disagree, but augmenting means to make more powerful. Even you admitted that's what players do in DnD session right? By gaining more abilities, are you not getting more powerful? You can spin this anyway you want, Som, but you have to face the the facts that the whole point of cross classing is to augment abilities, whether they make your class abilities more powerful or if they give you more abilities to use, you're become stronger either way.
I don't disagree that augmenting means to make the character more powerful; I never have disagreed with that. What I have disagreed with is your premise that you only dual or multi-class to augment existing abilities. That is inaccurate. You dual or multi-class to gain new abilities to augment your overall effectiveness. So your paragraph above simply reinforces what I already said.
Sorry, you didn't use your degree. My grandfather fought in WW2 and he was farmer so you can specialize in 2 things.
I haven't used my degree yet because I have been serving my country until four days ago when I retired. I do intend to use it, though.
So your grandfather continued to maintain his combat abilities throughout his life, thus being a specialist in combat and as a farmer? He continued to study and train in military weapon systems from the point of his service in WWII throughout his life? He practiced land navigation and squad drills regularly?
Somehow I am fairly certain that once his exceptional service was no longer required, he put combat and the vast majority of his combat training behind him in favor of specializing as a farmer. Thus, he was not actually specialized in two things. During the portion of his life he served, he was specialized as a soldier (or Marine or Sailor, as the case may have been) and in the second part of his life he specialized in farming. Rather like dual-classing.
I'm not sure how much highschool players get, but I do know my friend was riding in Lexus that neither his single-mother and his himself could not possible afford. (Me and his mother worked at the same job for a while.) Maybe if you watch "He Got Game", you'll understand.
So what you're saying is that I can expect to see any high school football player driving a Lexus? Aren't they all specialists? Because your first statement was "a high school football player". Doesn't that mean any high school football player?
I played high school football in Texas. They were and still are fairly serious about the game. I practiced for two hours every day during the season and lifted weights and drilled for an hour and a half in the off-season. I don't recall anyone bum rushing me to give me a car. Now that I think about it, I don't remember any of my team mates getting a car. Or anything other than cajoling, yelling, berating, cheering and sweating. Huh.
Again, you pretend, you don't see who superior. Pretending not to see something doesn't make any less true. Again, this has been discussed on the paper and pencil board and other DM boards. We've all agree that the Ranger is crap and 3.5 same the Ranger from being complete useless. We also had discussion about Fighter vs. Paladin and Wizard vs. Sorcerer. (Not talking about PvP either) We talked about usefulness and the sorcerer narrowly got with a hair. The Fighter had a good argument in beginning, but got beat down near the end because of what I said about the Fighter usefulness as both class reach level 4.
I'm not pretending. I dont' see the rogue as superior to the ranger. Period. They are different classses with pluses and minuses on both sides. I wouldn't pick one over the other and if I really felt like I had to have rogue-specific abilities that are not shared with the ranger, I can always dual or multi-class.
In reality, I'd probably choose a bard over both of them.
"We've all agreed that the Ranger is crap". Who's we? I don't agree. So I guess "we" don't agree. Many other D&D players don't agree with you, as they continue to play and enjoy rangers. So the "we" you are referring to is actually you and some others. Not some all-encompassing "we".
I'm not getting angry, but rather annoyed at the fact you like discard anything that contradicts your argument. I at least admit to being wrong, but you on the other hand, insist you are right about everything and I'm sorry these things don't fly around here.
Show me exactly where you have stated once that you were wrong. Not that you didn't know something; where you actually said "Okay, I was wrong about that."
Even when you blatantly stated incorrectly that Gary Gygax copyrighted the D20 system, you didn't say "Ah well, I was wrong there." You said you didn't know that, which is not the same as saying you are wrong.
Inversely, you have accused me at least twice of not being able to admit when I am wrong. There's an old adage about a pot calling a kettle... I'm sure you're familiar with it.
I haven't seen a single point where I have discarded anything. I simply refute your points because I disagree with you. It's a shame that makes you annoyed.
As far as things that don't "fly" around here, apparently here you are incorrect as well. Disagreeing with someone does indeed "fly" around here. This would hardly be the first disagreement I've had on these boards and I do not expect it to be the last.
I decide to just reply to your post in this manner because there some part I could have gotten "fresh" you with at. So I'll argue as nicely as I can.
Don't bother yourself about being civil if it's too much of an effort for you, CaptainRPG. I can take anything you can dish out.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq Adnihilo Beorn Judge's Edge Somnulus Perfect Black ---------------------- Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2 Everquest / Everquest 2 Anarchy Online Shadowbane Dark Age of Camelot Star Wars Galaxies Matrix Online World of Warcraft Guild Wars City of Heroes
Show me exactly where you have stated once that you were wrong.
Quote Now that I didnt know.
If you cant accept that, Som, then Im sorry, but as I told you before, these argument are not going by your rules.
Somehow I am fairly certain that once his exceptional service was no longer required, he put combat and the vast majority of his combat training behind him in favor of specializing as a farmer. Thus, he was not actually specialized in two things. During the portion of his life he served, he was specialized as a soldier (or Marine or Sailor, as the case may have been) and in the second part of his life he specialized in farming. Rather like dual-classing.
Im sorry to shatter your DnD reality, but he was good at farming and combat before the military because his father before him served in World War I. My father specialized in fixing machines and automobile while being a letter opener in the poster office.
AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook, pg. 29
Please update your book. The BS you are spew out isnt matching up with my 3.5 rules. The 3.5 description of the Ranger does not say anything about the spell being cleric.
I mean, how many abilities do you need? The bard can do practically anything!
I can tell you dont talk to fellow DnD members because WotC messageboard, NWN boards and Paper and Pencil messageboard have all the same views of the bard. There is old saying that describes the bard perfect and why few people play the class, The bard can DO EVERYTHING, but sucks at everything.
None of the status does the bard any good except Charisma, which powers his spells and his music. He cant melee good, he cant range attack good, his heal spell are obscelete as soon as you get them, he cant cast spells in armor, and the Rogue gets more skill points and more skills to do his job better. The only reason people play the bard is because they play it for fun. Same reason they play the Fighter and Barbarian.
I don't disagree that augmenting means to make the character more powerfull; I never have disagreed with that.
What I have disagreed with is your premise that you only dual or multi-class to augment existing abilities.
I never said this either, Som. The only refuse I see that come close to what you said is this, Only way to pure class without penalties is to cross class with class that benefits are not low when doing so. For example, in NWN, cross classing a Champion of Torm doesnt affect you Paladins ability to Smite Evil.
This isnt you should cross-class to augment your existing abilities, but rather the only way to avoid major penalties to your characters abilities to cross-class with a class that continues to benefit your classs abilities.
My point about cross-classing is that we gain no benefits from class that completely opposite of them. As I mention early with the Ranger and the Paladin, the Paladin has nothing to gain from the Ranger because the Ranger strengths are Dex based and the animal companion is to weak to use unless you invest 10 levels.
Who cares if the Ranger can tame animals, thats up to the DM whether or not you run into a Scooby Doo with rabies. Most wild animals fall easily to a high class anyway unless they are dire. And again, thats up to the DM whether you into the those type animals. Like I said, most DnD tabletop sessions are carter to their players characters. They are not thrown out at random because the DM is trying to tell a story. Thus, the tabletop players have no real reason to cheat.
I read stories on the Pencil and Paper forum were a player made the perfect character and the DM had him hit with a giant meteor with no reflex save. It went little something like this.
DM: A giant meteor falls out of the sky and crush your character. You are dead.
Player: Do I get a reflex save?
DM: NO, A GIANT METEOR CRUSHES YOUR CHARACTER! YOU ARE DEAD!!!
DM = God. If someone cheated a DM can hand him his ass. I had a friend who experience the same thing. I can care less what you think of those sessions, Im telling how these session go these days since youve been detach from the rpg table since the 2nd Edition came out.
Back to what I said earlier. As you stated when cross class, you gain new abilities. Those abilities augment your character because your character gain advantage he never had before. When a Fighter cross classes with a wizard does, does he not gain bulls strength to enhance his strength. Is he not able to case that allow him to do spell damage. As I told you can spin this anyway you want, but the fact remains, you cross to argument your abilities, period.
Im not going to argue the rest of the stuff because its like arguing with a child. Again, when someone contradicts you, you ignore their argument for the sake of being right and saving face. It a sad day in the world when a middle-aged man goes in denial and on a tangent when someone younger contradicts him in anything. You're just trying to find more reason to carry on the argument rather than let you go of your pride.
One more thing, why do you think they keep updating each addition? If the edition where perfect the way they were then why are they making updates every so often? It's because ruleset become inflexible and obscelete. Just like just 2nd Edition book. Obscelete.
As the OP, i must admit.. a better title for this thread would have been:
"NWN2: The Last Nail in DDO's Coffin"
To the DDO proponents: Ignoring the fact that NWN2 is a deep RPG and DDO is a shallow action game.... NWN2 multiplayer is a persistent chat room with instanced action. DDO is a persistent chat room with instanced action. The only difference is that DDO's chat room is in 3D. And it costs fifteen dollars a month.
Anyone still subscribed to this game? If so, has Turbine finally got all the game-crippling bugs straightened out yet? Are credit cards still accidentally being charged years in advance? Quality.
It seems so long ago that i played.... Maybe because DDO always felt like it was packaged with Windows ME. You know, one of those freebie throwaways that you sometimes find in your box of Chex.
Unfortunately NWN2 was rushed out the door. I'm enjoying it but damn, my expectations were too high. I remember the first one blowing my mind when i first played it. Not so much this time around. I miss the NWN1 module editor.
What the real kicker for me is that Obsidian did the same stupid thing to KotOR. They were hired to do KotOR2 but I didn't like #2 at all. I feel Obsidian has done nothing but rush their projects, because they're aquiring the MMO Game Makers' metality of "rush the product out the door and patch it up and down after release".
Originally posted by isurus As the OP, i must admit.. a better title for this thread would have been:
"NWN2: The Last Nail in DDO's Coffin"
To the DDO proponents: Ignoring the fact that NWN2 is a deep RPG and DDO is a shallow action game.... NWN2 multiplayer is a persistent chat room with instanced action. DDO is a persistent chat room with instanced action. The only difference is that DDO's chat room is in 3D. And it costs fifteen dollars a month.
Anyone still subscribed to this game? If so, has Turbine finally got all the game-crippling bugs straightened out yet? Are credit cards still accidentally being charged years in advance? Quality.
It seems so long ago that i played.... Maybe because DDO always felt like it was packaged with Windows ME. You know, one of those freebie throwaways that you sometimes find in your box of Chex.
Unfortunately NWN2 was rushed out the door. I'm enjoying it but damn, my expectations were too high. I remember the first one blowing my mind when i first played it. Not so much this time around. I miss the NWN1 module editor.
The funny thing is what falls out of the box with my copy of NWN2.... DDO online install CD.
If you cant accept that, Som, then Im sorry, but as I told you before, these argument are not going by your rules.
Saying you were wrong is your rule, CaptainRPG. I have never asked you to say you were wrong, nor have I accused you of being unable to admit you were wrong. All this babble about being wrong originated with you.
And of course, even when you make a statement that is blatantly wrong, you still don't just say "Okay, I was wrong about that" according to the "rules" that you created. It wasn't that you didn't know; you made a blunt statement that was patently incorrect and you didn't even bother trying to put any conditions on it, such as "If I'm not mistaken" or "I think".
Here's the statement you made;
Gygax copyrighted the D20 idea so it made it next to impossible to improve on it.
I provided you with the correct information that Gygax did not copyright the D20 system and that it was actually copyrighted by WotC. By your rules, you were wrong.
I could care less if you say that you are "wrong" or not. I didn't start the whole "wrong" thing to begin with. You did. The only one trying to lay down rules around here is you.
Im sorry to shatter your DnD reality, but he was good at farming and combat before the military because his father before him served in World War I. My father specialized in fixing machines and automobile while being a letter opener in the poster office.
So by your rationale, because my great-grandfather served in WWI, my grandfather served in WWII, my father served during Viet Nam, by osmosis I was some kind of super-soldier. Whoa... I should have asked the Army for a LOT more money while I was in the service. I guess I'll have to try to hit them up for a boost to my retirement pay.
Please update your book. The BS you are spew out isnt matching up with my 3.5 rules. The 3.5 description of the Ranger does not say anything about the spell being cleric.
I replied to your comment which I quote here:
The Ranger doesn't get priest like abilities, but Druid abilities.
You were in turn replying to the comment I made here:
Originally posted by Somnulus
They also get priest spells which explains the need for a higher wisdom, where rogues do not.
I did make a mistake here. My mistake was in assuming that you were actually replying to my original topic, rather than creating a completely different one that didn't address my point.
Returning to my original statement about ranger spells and the need for a higher wisdom, the D&D 3.5 Edition Player's Handbook states on pg. 48 in the Ranger class description that (paraphrased) "the ranger draws their spells from the Divination category (the same spells available to the cleric, druid or paladin)".
Since a good wisdom rating is important in gaining bonus spells per level and resisting spell failure, the rationale for a ranger to have a good wisdom score is still applicable, as in my earlier statement.
I can tell you dont talk to fellow DnD members because WotC messageboard, NWN boards and Paper and Pencil messageboard have all the same views of the bard. There is old saying that describes the bard perfect and why few people play the class, The bard can DO EVERYTHING, but sucks at everything.
None of the status does the bard any good except Charisma, which powers his spells and his music. He cant melee good, he cant range attack good, his heal spell are obscelete as soon as you get them, he cant cast spells in armor, and the Rogue gets more skill points and more skills to do his job better. The only reason people play the bard is because they play it for fun. Same reason they play the Fighter and Barbarian.
"He can't melee good, he can't range attack good"
What's your definition of good? Is he better at melee and ranged combat than a wizard or sorceror, but not as good as a fighter or ranger? That seems good enough to me, considering he gets combat spells, heals and party buffs.
Again, I'm glad the rogue gets more skill points. Can he cast spells? No? Well then, again, it's just your interpretation that sets the rogue above the bard.
Actually, D&D Edition 3.5 says that the bard can cast spells in light armor. Imagine that.
From what I have read and heard, many people think that the 3.5 revisions that upgraded the bard improved the character quite a bit. I'll check in with the group playing 3.5 at the game on Saturday and see what their overall opinion is.
I never said this either, Som. The only refuse I see that come close to what you said is this, Only way to pure class without penalties is to cross class with class that benefits are not low when doing so. For example, in NWN, cross classing a Champion of Torm doesnt affect you Paladins ability to Smite Evil.
You made this statement;
You cross class to augment your abilities, period.
To which I replied that augmenting your abilities is not the only reason to dual or multi-class. You dual or multi-class to add abilities to your character, improving (augmenting) your overall character. Not specifically a pre-existing ability from your primary class.
This isnt you should cross-class to augment your existing abilities, but rather the only way to avoid major penalties to your characters abilities to cross-class with a class that continues to benefit your classs abilities.
While you may benefit your existing class abilities, you also gain new abilities which augments the overall character, not specifically and only your existing abilities, as you stated previously.
My point about cross-classing is that we gain no benefits from class that completely opposite of them. As I mention early with the Ranger and the Paladin, the Paladin has nothing to gain from the Ranger because the Ranger strengths are Dex based and the animal companion is to weak to use unless you invest 10 levels.
Which, in the end, is probably true for a great many people; they would prefer to dual or multi-class to gain abilities that compliment existing abilities. But it is not universally true; they also gain abilities that improve the overall character without specific effect on their primary class abilities. Which was the point I making.
Who cares if the Ranger can tame animals, thats up to the DM whether or not you run into a Scooby Doo with rabies. Most wild animals fall easily to a high class anyway unless they are dire. And again, thats up to the DM whether you into the those type animals. Like I said, most DnD tabletop sessions are carter to their players characters. They are not thrown out at random because the DM is trying to tell a story. Thus, the tabletop players have no real reason to cheat.
Again, it's really up to the player if they feel as though they are receiving a benefit from dual-classing a paladin/ranger and it's up to the DM how they fit that into gameplay. It is completely and entirely your opinion that there is no benefit to be found here, as long as there is one single person playing who believes there is. Since a simple web search reveals that there are people who do, indeed, create paladin/rangers, they must perceive some benefit to it.
Again, how exactly does a tabletop D&D player "cheat"? Regardless of what the DM throws at you, how do you go about the process of "cheating" in a tabletop game?
I read stories on the Pencil and Paper forum were a player made the perfect character and the DM had him hit with a giant meteor with no reflex save. It went little something like this.
DM: A giant meteor falls out of the sky and crush your character. You are dead.
Player: Do I get a reflex save?
DM: NO, A GIANT METEOR CRUSHES YOUR CHARACTER! YOU ARE DEAD!!!
DM = God. If someone cheated a DM can hand him his ass. I had a friend who experience the same thing. I can care less what you think of those sessions, Im telling how these session go these days since youve been detach from the rpg table since the 2nd Edition came out.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the player "cheating" (since you didn't say that the player created a perfect character by "cheating" in some way) and certainly nothing to do with the DM "tailoring" the encounter to the player (which you say keeps a player from cheating).
If that type of play is acceptable to the player and the DM, more power to them.
A DM who decides the only way they can deal with a player who has made an outstanding character within the rules is to use a situation the player cannot escape from to kill them sucks, as far as I'm concerned. I somehow doubt I would be the only player who thought so.
It sounds more like the DM had a personal dislike for either the player, the character or both and was too childish to deal with the situation in any other way. He probably got his widdle feelin's hurt and decided to retaliate in the most grotesquely ridiculous way he could think of. Yay him! He's just so powerful! He's such a DM god! Oooo!
Wow. You think that has never happened in the entire history of D&D at any other gaming session? That somehow, that is unique to 3.5 edition? I can guarantee you, there were plenty of DMs who sucked just as badly as the one in your example in the last 32 years that D&D has existed.
Back to what I said earlier. As you stated when cross class, you gain new abilities. Those abilities augment your character because your character gain advantage he never had before. When a Fighter cross classes with a wizard does, does he not gain bulls strength to enhance his strength. Is he not able to case that allow him to do spell damage. As I told you can spin this anyway you want, but the fact remains, you cross to argument your abilities, period.
If I dual or multi-class a fighter/wizard and I cast Hail of Stone, how, exactly, is this augmenting the fighter's pre-existing abilities? The answer is, it does not. The overall character is improved because now they can cast a ranged area-effect spell, rather than just going in swinging and in lieu of having a weapon. The character is still effective without a weapon, as opposed to a melee fighter who has no weapon.
In the end, I never said that you didn't or couldn't augment the primary class abilities through dual or multi-classing. You, however, did say that the only reason to dual or multi-class was to augment abilities. Period.
Im not going to argue the rest of the stuff because its like arguing with a child. Again, when someone contradicts you, you ignore their argument for the sake of being right and saving face. It a sad day in the world when a middle-aged man goes in denial and on a tangent when someone younger contradicts him in anything. You're just trying to find more reason to carry on the argument rather than let you go of your pride.
I've ignored an argument? Not once. I've approached each and every argument you have presented, regardless of how opinionated or completely devoid of actual fact it was.
Who exactly is more child-like here? The person who simply states an argument and makes every effort to support it with factual data?
Or the person who makes arguments consisting largely of their own opinion (like "rangers suck"), makes inaccurate statements, accuses the other person of failing to admit they are "wrong" when they themselves cannot seem to do so and then personally attacks the other person?
One more thing, why do you think they keep updating each addition? If the edition where perfect the way they were then why are they making updates every so often? It's because ruleset become inflexible and obscelete. Just like just 2nd Edition book. Obscelete.
No, obsolesence is not why they updated the editions. If the first and second editions of D&D were so obsolete, why did the 3rd edition keep the class system? Or the races? Or the alignments? Or maintain the proficiencies and specializations concept from 2nd Edition and expand on them?
2nd Edition AD&D came out mainly because the first edition was so disorganized. Topics that were directly related were placed here and there throughout the manuals and some of the basic game mechanics were contradictory.
Plus, it gave them the opportunity to add new content and to expand on the existing content and game mechanics. Proficiencies and specializations were added, which is a concept that has survived to the 3rd edition, along with the races, classes, alignments, etc. It also introduced the concept of class "kits" with optional rulebooks like the Complete Fighter's Handbook and those for the other classes.
Now, why did they update from 2nd edition to 3rd and then 3.5? Well, one of the reasons is they wanted to standardize the dice mechanic around the D20 system; another reason is that they wanted to remove some of the previous class and race restrictions.
WotC also open-sourced the D20 system under the Open Gaming License so that developers could write new games and content based on the D20 system that would be D&D compliant without getting approval from WotC.
They also added detail to the critical system (like attacks of opportunity) and added prestige classes.
So there are many reasons that subsequent editions were released. You also have to consider human nature. It is unlikely that any RPG developer could present a game system that is flawless the first time. So naturally there will be the need to make corrections and to re-evaluate the system.
There is also the monetary consideration. Both TSR and WotC were in business to make money; if you release a game system one time with no further improvements or additions, you sell that system once and that's it. Although if the system is popular you will continue to generate revenue as new players purchase your manuals and accessories, it is really dependent on how large the company in question is as to whether or not that revenue can keep you solvent.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq Adnihilo Beorn Judge's Edge Somnulus Perfect Black ---------------------- Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2 Everquest / Everquest 2 Anarchy Online Shadowbane Dark Age of Camelot Star Wars Galaxies Matrix Online World of Warcraft Guild Wars City of Heroes
2nd Edition AD&D came out mainly because the first edition was so disorganized. Topics that were directly related were placed here and there throughout the manuals and some of the basic game mechanics were contradictory.
Plus, it gave them the opportunity to add new content and to expand on the existing content and game mechanics.
*Claps*
I skim through most of post until I got to the bottom. You said it exactly and thank you. Had they done it for 3rd Edition and 3.5 Edition, it would made transition from board game to electronic game great.
I skim through most of post until I got to the bottom. You said it exactly and thank you. Had they done it for 3rd Edition and 3.5 Edition, it would made transition from board game to electronic game great.
So in your opinion, Edition 3.0 and 3.5 failed to organize the material properly or provide substantial upgrades or innovations to the overall D&D system? I would definitely agree with you there. That is why I prefer the 2nd Edition.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq Adnihilo Beorn Judge's Edge Somnulus Perfect Black ---------------------- Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2 Everquest / Everquest 2 Anarchy Online Shadowbane Dark Age of Camelot Star Wars Galaxies Matrix Online World of Warcraft Guild Wars City of Heroes
I skim through most of post until I got to the bottom. You said it exactly and thank you. Had they done it for 3rd Edition and 3.5 Edition, it would made transition from board game to electronic game great.
So in your opinion, Edition 3.0 and 3.5 failed to organize the material properly or provide substantial upgrades or innovations to the overall D&D system? I would definitely agree with you there. That is why I prefer the 2nd Edition.
3.0, 3.5 and other DnD books merely expanded on the world, which they shouldn't have done. They should have updates the mechanics and rules to play faster and try to balance the game play between classes. They should have reinvite the gameplay so to speak, which is basically what I did with my game. My gamebook is over 84 pages and it covers most of what the DM book and playerhand book cover. I went into great detail on how to play the game and what now so don't think I half did everything. The reason they aren't as many page as a DnD book is because I wanted to simplify the game rules as much as could. Same with the "classes" and their skill & feats.
I'm pretty sure that Unearthed Arcana was introduced to circumvent many of the problems your talking about. I picked up Unearthed Arcana to discover what the fuss was about, soon after its release. I'm glad I did, because it suggests alterations to core rules to provide a faster gameplay, wrapping up alot of research into TSR, that is otherwise not printed.
Have a gander at this review: Arcana Unearthed Offers a Fantastic Alternative to the PHB. It seems to be referred to as an alternate Player Hand Book instead of a DM Guide. I've used if for a long time and take it for granted that DnD Players and DMs know about it already, but I guess not.
Originally posted by CaptainRPG 3.0, 3.5 and other DnD books merely expanded on the world, which they shouldn't have done. They should have updates the mechanics and rules to play faster and try to balance the game play between classes. They should have reinvite the gameplay so to speak, which is basically what I did with my game. My gamebook is over 84 pages and it covers most of what the DM book and playerhand book cover. I went into great detail on how to play the game and what now so don't think I half did everything. The reason they aren't as many page as a DnD book is because I wanted to simplify the game rules as much as could. Same with the "classes" and their skill & feats.
While I do agree with you about 3.0 and 3.5, I just don't agree if you're referring to 2nd Edition. The rules were very simple, while also having a huge amount of depth and the game mechanics were spot on; nothing was any more or less complex than it needed to be to represent the particular game mechanic. They also left quite a bit up to the DM's interpretation, making suggestions about how a specific situation could be handled rather than dictating it.
And the handbooks (Fighter's, Thieve's, Rangers, Priests, etc).... are an outstanding resource that added whole new dimensions to the classes and gameplay.
Like I said in a previous post; there is absolutely nothing wrong with modifying the mechanics and game rules to suit you. Everybody has done it to some extent or another as long as D&D has existed and it makes sense to modify rules that do not fit your campaign, storyline or players. I have never been a DM who believed that the rules are the rules without exception, but there are specific rules that I personally enforce in my tabletop games that I believe are inviolate and I've never had any issues with players complying with them.
For D&D 3.5, that's pretty much why WotC made the D20 system an open license, so people could feel free to use the core rules and modify them to release and share modified systems and content.
The only time that you don't have that luxury is when you are creating an electronic representation of that gaming system, because every person who plays the electronic game expects to see an approximation of X core rules and game mechanics represented in the game. That unknown quantity changes from player to player, so you have the situation where you need to include all of the tabletop RPG rules and game mechanics so that you can meet the expectations of as many game consumers as possible.
When you start making decisions about what's important and what's not, all you do is invite criticism and reduce your consumer base through word of mouth.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq Adnihilo Beorn Judge's Edge Somnulus Perfect Black ---------------------- Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2 Everquest / Everquest 2 Anarchy Online Shadowbane Dark Age of Camelot Star Wars Galaxies Matrix Online World of Warcraft Guild Wars City of Heroes
Comments
DDO is an evolving game, we have new dungeons comming in a couple of weeks and a new claases, races, and skills in march. So tell me how is that not evolving. Thank God I can read and think for my self. I get the fact that there are people out there who do not like DDO, there are some who do not like NWN2. That is ok but why tell people not to play one ot ther other, let them play what they want. I am glad I gave DDO a try I love it think it is a great game for what it gives. I also play NWN2 and think it is a great game in it own right. Every mmorpg has it down sides, all of them. I have played SWG, Auto assault, Anarchy online, I was not a fan of AO or AA. but I never told people not to play ether of them. SWG has it own problems that I will not get in to here. I had to call support for DDO on an in game proplem and they fixed it in 10 mins. to those of you that do not like DDO why do you come here and keep posting that the game sucks you made your point now move on. People will play what ever they like no matter what we say. I think that is the best part of living in the US of A. freedome to play what ever crappy game we want. Have a nice day and have a Happy hoilday season.
Ed. Kenny
Oh, but the way, US of A isn't number in anything anymore.
CaptainRPG Why don't you go to hell. Who the %^&* do you think can tell someone to shut up. Now as for the crack about America sorry but you are dead wrong, and as a Vet I would love to meet you anytime and any place and show you how wrong you are.
Ed.
The definition of Lawful Good from the Player's Guide 2d Edition AD&D:
"Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of the people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed. When people respect the laws and try to help one another, society as a whole prospers. Therefore, lawful good characters strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm. An honest and hard-working serf, a kindly and wise king or a stern but forthright minister of justice are all examples of lawful good people."
This definition leaves the concept of lawful good open to a lot of interpretation, but most often players and DMs just tend to have the concept that a lawful good character exhibits "good" behavior in everything they do and to every purpose and end. The amount of "good" of any action is subjective by the actual definition, based on the laws of the land and the god served.
You ask if someone asks a paladin for gold can they refuse? Certainly, there are many situations in which a paladin can refuse to give gold to someone. If the paladin knows that the person will just drink the gold away, that definitely does not fit the definition of "bringing the greatest benefit to the most people and causing the least harm". The paladin could alternatively offer to buy the NPC a meal, set them up with shelter, etc. If the NPC refuses this offer, the paladin does not have to just give them gold in lieu of offering service that actually serves the greater good and causes the least harm.
Nowhere in the description above does it state that a paladin cannot use stealth. The paladin can use whatever tools or skills available to them to bring about the end result of the "greatest amount of good". Again, the greatest amount of good is subjective. What may be good overall to the majority may not be good to a minority within an area or population.
This is also subjective considering the paladin's personal code of conduct, which further defines the character, as you pointed out.
Actually, according to the definition of True Neutral, a true neutral character believes in a "balance between forces and they refuse to see actions as either good or evil."
They certainly have a code of conduct and that code is balance. They often take sides and shift sides as the balance shifts between good and evil, order and chaos.
It is definitely very rare that you can find a true neutral character, but it's not impossible. A player who wants to be "true neutral" has to tip back and forth on that fine line between forces and take actions that they decide maintain the balance. Many times that can mean that a true neutral character may find him/herself directly opposing members of their own party because of the perceived need to maintain that balance. It's possible, but even the player's guide says that it is very rare.
If I were the DM in the example you gave in your first sentence, I wouldn't have considered the question of lethal force. After all, you disarmed him. However, does the action of killing your opponent serve the greater good? What was the exact situation? Were you in a position to keep the NPC prisoner for a prolonged period of time or turn them over to a city watch?
Did the laws of the land impart you the right to pass judgement in this situation? If so, and your decision was death and that decision is upheld by the laws of the land and your authority, then you acted perfectly within the definition of lawful good. In Megacity, Judge Dredd would be considered lawful good, even though he often passes out summary executions which may not be viewed by some as "good".
That is a very good route to go; between yourself and your DM, you defined the limits of the lawful system that you work within and it fits within the definition of lawful good. I personally think that the restrictions on using poison or magical weapons created through spellcasting was a little excessive, but that was your choice and it presents lawful order.
Still not following you. Every group of players, whether tabletop D&D or electronic, will tend to create the party that is best able to function and support one another within the game environment. It is rare that you will find a party consisting solely of priests or druids or fighters; the classes compliment one another. It isn't exploiting in either PnP D&D or in any electronic version to attempt to create a party between players with classes that compliment one another.
No matter how well the game is tailored, you are still trying to beat the DM. The difference here is that the DM isn't trying to beat you; they are trying (or should be trying) to present you with an entertaining challenge.
The line I was referring to was the last line from your previous post;
You use the specific phrase "cross-classing exploits." What exactly were you referring to? That is why I asked, because honestly, you had me stumped with that line.
You seem to be bouncing back and forth in your references to NWN between networked gameplay and a single player campaign.
In network gameplay in NWN where the DM created a module, the module can be as tailored as the DM creating the module desires; the monsters and dungeons are not defaulted, they are created by the DM and they are scripted by the DM to take specific actions. The DM doesn't have to be on 24 hours a day; they present the players with a module and the players play. If the DM didn't set any level restrictions or specific class rules, so be it.
And that is not an exploit. As I stated earlier, the perception of that being an exploit comes entirely from the developer (in this case, the DM of the module you were playing). You were working within the ruleset, but because you exceeded expectations, they arbritrarily decided it was an "exploit".
That just isn't so and it's wrong for developers to take that position, just as in this case, it was wrong for the DM to ban you from the server.
Just through sheer numbers I could take down any single player in any class using equal level mobs. If the DM of the game you were playing couldn't do it, he wasn't trying very hard. He was probably still trying to give you the opportunity to actually play a game, rather than just creating a scenario that completely overwhelmed you.
Although, that shouldn't be the goal of any DM, if you throw down the challenge, that's what you get. I wouldn't even play around with a storyline or any content of any kind. You'd get the bum's rush.
I don't care what type of character you have, what feats or skills you have; if I set the module to have you walk into a field and set hundreds of opponents of equal level against you, you will die. Period.
But that shouldn't be the point of the DM. You have to watch the player and present them with a scenario that will give them an enjoyable challenge and allow them to accomplish their goal. Sometimes you have to observe the player over a long period of time.
That's not possible if you, the player, are just creating a character and shifting skills and feats around every time you enter the same module.
There really is no difference. In a tabletop game, if the DM kills your character off purposely or presents you with a crippling challenge, they are still trying to beat you and vice versa. It's not my defintion of fun if your character is dead because the DM is left with so few options they feel like they have to present you with an insurmountable challenge (although I've never seen a situation like that before - any competent DM can create a challenge that isn't an outright suicide run. It may be deadly, but not strictly suicidal for the player character).
The player is always trying to create a character that can meet any challenge. That's the nature of a game. They are trying to "beat" the game. If they weren't, you wouldn't be playing a game because there would be no point if you knew that no matter what you did, you would win.
The DM's goal should always be to challenge you without purposely trying to kill you. That challenge doesn't have to be limited to combat.
I didn't duck the question; the question is moot. The paladin is designed to deal with evil and undead. The ranger is designed to deal with animals and nature. The paladin will not be as capable as the ranger in dealing with animals right out of the box. It's like apples and oranges. If you want to mix apples and oranges, go ahead, but don't try a point comparison of them.
That doesn't mean that a paladin wouldn't benefit from having an animal companion or knowing how to deal with animals. Yes, you are earning less overall experience in your paladin skills that will lessen your overall paladin abilities, but that doesn't mean there is no benefit. It really depends on what you are trying to accomplish with your paladin or ranger by multi or dual-classing them.
No, you don't. You dual or multi-class to gain new abilities to augment your overall character.
Exactly. Which means as a fighter, you gain wizard abilities; as a fighter, you don't dual/multi-class wizard to augment your existing ability to fight melee. You learn new abilities.
That's really a rationalization, since the only reason you can see for dual or multi-classing a ranger/rogue is for the animal companion.
How about the fact that rangers get dual wield for free right off the bat and rogues have to pay for it? That's an advantage right there that augments your character's abilities.
The restrictions you are forced to deal with depend entirely on whether you dual or multi-class.
In multi-classing a character, you continue to develop in two (or three classes, if you choose) and experience points are split between the classes. Dual classing uses the most favorable combat values and saving throws from the existing classes, which is an advantage to say a fighter-wizard, although hit points are reduced compared to what a pure fighter would gain, to include their constitution bonus. The main restriction in multi-classing is that you have to be demi-human (other than human).
In dual-classing, you level up in one class and then become another class and gain no more skills or abilities in your first class. You can use the old class abilities you learned as long as they aren't conflicting with equipment your new class would use (i.e., don't expect to be too sneaky wearing full plate). There's no limit to the number of classes you can dual, other than alignment restrictions. The only other real limitation is the requirement to have scores of 17 or higher in the prime requisite abilities of the new class and the fact that only humans can dual-class.
I don't find any of those restrictions particularly ridiculous. To me, the rationale for only demi-humans being able to multi-class is that typically, at the lowered experience rate, humans don't traditionally live long enough to really become proficient in multiple classes, compared to the longer lifespans of demi-humans. Which is why humans dual-class, so that they can earn skills and abilities from several classes within their lifetimes at a reasonable experience to lifespan rate.
You can ignore the rules and make up your own. No one is forcing you to use the D&D system. Make your own if you are dissatisfied and play the way you like. I personally enjoy the system greatly.
Oh, and D&D has existed since around 1974; the restrictions to dual and multi-classing have existed since long before Wizards of the Coast ever purchased the intellectual property. Your efforts to demonize WotC by saying that the rationale for various rule restrictions is motivated by greed just don't hold any water at all, since those restrictions have existed from the beginning of the game.
And you still keep ignoring the main point of the discussion; because Bruce Lee attended college while learning martial arts does not mean he specialized in college.
And again, I never said anyone had one primary goal. If you can't agree that the vast majority of people are highly proficient (by highly proficient, I mean better than 80% of the population in that particular skill or ability) in perhaps one or two things and only skilled or learned in other areas, then I can only conclude that you are ignoring reality.
I actually misspoke on that statement; I should have said the only character I played to level 60 was my paladin.
You said:
And I told you that was untrue. The warrior in WoW is ONLY a tank. Just like in D&D.
My paladin was not a healing bot; I told teams and groups I joined that I wasn't healing spec'd up front. My paladin was built to take and deal damage. Certainly, I threw heals for myself and others when I could spare them, but that wasn't my primary build.
My best gaming buddy had a warlock that I beat regularly (half the time or more) dueling.
In PvP, the only thing I had to do was what a paladin does best; stay alive. While the warrior is fruitlessly beating on me (or several, as the case was more often than not) it left my team open to deal with them. You stun a warrior enough, lay down consecration, multiply your holy damage with the retribution line and use a high DPS weapon and you'll find warriors get gunshy pretty quickly. The only class that regularly gave me trouble in PvP (or PvE for that matter) was the shaman.
And I guess I disagree with you. I've never played a D&D campaign that didn't have someone who preferred to play a fighter. They are the easiest to manage, they deal good direct damage, they have the highest HP and a more open alignment selection. If you elect to kit out a fighter, you get further benefits.
No, all classes do not share the same abilities.
My point was exactly the same as it was before. You said;
And I pointed out that the similar feats between the two classes are not limited to only the equipment they can use. I am sorry that seems to anger you for some reason.
My point from the beginning was that a paladin which falls from grace becomes a fighter. Essentially, they are fighters with the benefit of a god for a patron, granting them class-specific abilities.
I certainly agree that the paladin has advantages the fighter does not. That's why the alignment consideration is so important, because you're holding the player to a higher standard for those extra abilities.
Even though a ranger needs a higher strength as a prerequisite for the class, I don't see how that is a detriment when it translates directly into damage bonus the higher you go. In addition, as you pointed out, they get dual wield up front at no cost. They also get priest spells which explains the need for a higher wisdom, where rogues do not.
You're also assuming that the party is being planned to take up the slack for a missing ranger in the pet department. Traditionally in the games I've played, wizard and sorceror classes are the least favored of any of the classes, with druid being only slightly more acceptable. Even if there is a wizard/sorceror or druid present, I doubt anyone is going to complain about the extra damage from another pet. Or two, or three, as the case may be, since Rangers can have more than one.
With a ranger, you get the pet(s), you get the spells, you get some thief skills, you get dual wield, you get medium armor and shield prof (higher AC), and you get all simple and martial weapon profs. Those seem like some pretty nice benefits. Pick up ambidexterity and you offset the two-weapon penalty spending fewer proficieny points than a rogue.
I think rogues are fine. I think rangers are fine. I don't find one superior to the other. They are both good classes with benefits between them. And they are both separate, distinct classes. The fact that they have crossover skills is no different than what you see between the paladin and the fighter.
Again, another large part of roleplaying has to do with non-statistical differences between classes. The ranger is envisioned as being a woodsman; in their element, they are superior to a rogue in many ways. Vice versa, the ranger will suffer penalties in some skills in a purely urban environment.
Actually, the ranger gets quite a few perks that give it advantages. HP, multiple pets, dual-wield, priest spells, etc.
When I say remind them, I don't literally mean telling them "hey, you're going against your alignment." I mean, reminding them by making events occur as a result of alignment change or situations where they have gone against their alignment to cause them to be aware of the consequences of those actions.
I've been a DM for many, many years. I think I've got a handle on it. At least, I have received extremely few complaints in the past 25 years or so.
The paladin's code of conduct is an adjunct to their lawful good alignment (or if they are working under a modified ruleset, whatever alignment is in line with their diety or order, like an anti-paladin, for example); it doesn't replace it. The negative results to a paladin are the same if they violate their code of conduct or go against their lawful good (or other in modified rulesets) alignment.
And as I said "Huh? You choose your alignment, within certain exceptions. It isn't given to you, except if you are playing a character whose alignment is specifically dictated (i.e., a paladin)." Obviously, there are exceptions in the freedom of the choice of alignment.
Again, it sounds like the DM simply wasn't very good. There are always going to be situations where certain characters are at a disadvantage when compared to other characters. In PnP D&D, at the lower levels you usually end up carrying the wizard or sorceror through those early levels because they can't take that much damage and really don't do that much damage to begin with. Later on, they become powerhouses in the damage department.
Actually, I'm not a conservative player. I change the rules when I feel like they need to be changed and the rules aren't dogma. But I don't find that many occasions where I feel like the rules really need to be changed, and I definitely haven't found huge glaring flaws in the class system that I believe it needs to be changed.
Who said they were the same thing? I didn't. Not even once. Re-read my statement, and tell me where I said martial arts and philosphy are the same thing.
I said exactly what you said; philosphy in connection with martial arts.
Okay. So he's well known world-wide for his acting efforts outside of his martial arts centered films?
So, there are professional high school football players? How's that salary? High school football must be quite the career.
So, now that we've established that high school football isn't a career but professional football is, and that the level of proficiency required to play professional football is higher than that required to play high school football (unless you want to argue that a high school football player and a professional are equals) then my statement that professional football is a specialization and high school football is not stands.
I'm a twenty year Army veteran. While I learned many skills and was competent in them (various sharpshooter and expert weapons qualification, jumpmaster, DZSTL, platoon sergeant, first sergeant) I knew the most about my specialty. Which is why it is called a specialty.
Although I earned a degree while in the military, I have yet to work in the field my degree is from. So while I have considerable knowledge about the field and have studied the field, I cannot consider myself proficient.
Except that when they first wrote Dungeons and Dragons, they self-published a run of only 1000 as Tactical Studies Rules (TSR) their own company. At ten dollars apiece they stood to make $10,000 between three guys minus their publishing costs. Whoo. That's quite a bit of money.
And yet, the class system was right there. So apparently, the class system design wasn't an evil machination for world fiscal domination.
It was just a game system designed by a couple friends who decided to publish it.
Dungeons and Dragons isn't the only RPG on the market. Although its sales are undoubtedly the highest, White Wolf Publishing (makers of the World of Darkness/Vampire the Masquerade RPG systems) and FanPro (publishers of ShadowRun, formerly FASA, creators of ShadowRun and BattleTech) still merit considerable sales power in tabletop RPG sales. Their core rule books sell for around $35.00 a book. I can get a brand new copy of any of the core rule books for D&D 3.5 for $29.95.
So it looks to me like the pricing of D&D rule books is competitive with those of other tabletop RPG publishers.
I'm not saying no one is making money here; I'm saying that the class system was created and still exists without any profit motivation involved.
I personally prefer AD&D Second Edition. I think the 3.0 and 3.5 rules are... well, crap. When I play, I only play 2nd Edition. To each their own.
Gary Gygax didn't copyright the D20 system. It was copyrighted by Wizards of the Coast when they purchased TSR and produced AD&D 3rd Edition which was designed around the D20 system. WotC didn't buy TSR until Gary Gygax had been out of the picture for quite some time.
Until that point, RPGs were produced left and right using whatever die system they wanted, which is part of the reason that TSR went bankrupt, trying to sue other RPG publishers while simultaneously inflating their product prices.
Marvel and DC comics jointly own the trademark to the word "superhero". They first registered the trademark jointly in 1979 and they recently re-filed to renew the trademark.
Amazing, huh? Bet you didn't know that superhero is trademarked.
However, your premise isn't actually logical. You could still create Captain America and sell comics about him. You just wouldn't call him a superhero. He'd be simply a hero.
Like City of Heroes, which is named thusly because legally they could not call it City of Superheroes.
Actually, no. Follow these links and you will see how much they sell their books for:
http://secure1.white-wolf.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=22
http://www.srrpg.com/products/product.php?i=26000
Those are the two games I play most often other than D&D.
Now; you can purchase any of those books and just about any D&D book for between $7 and $12 on Amazon (or less, depending on whether you want them in absoutely new condition or used).
And in reality, D&D had tons of competition which is why it went into bankruptcy until it was purchased by WotC in 2000.
And yet, actually, it did. I listed the alternatives the DM gives you and that was from a first edition DM guide. I didn't even go into the entire explanation in the DM between a linear or bell curve when rolling dice, how many and what types of dice you can use, how to draw statistical conclusions from various dice, etc. It's three pages long, which I simply won't re-type here.
The only thing the prestige classes do is require you to take specific feats along with the already-existing restrictions of specific sub-classes in order to gain additional or improved abilities.
As an arcane archer I have to be a half-elf; I have to have spellcasting ability which may mean multi-classing and I have to take specific feats.
In exchange, I get to treat normal arrows as though they are enchanted, that cannot be evaded, that unleash area effect spell damage and can even kill someone outright with one shot.
Personally, I'm not so sure that's a bad thing.
I can completely understand that you may not like the whole idea. That doesn't follow that it's a bad idea. I personally think that it typifies the kind of elite training a person would have to undergo to achieve those kinds of results and I guess I just don't have a problem with that.
In the end, no one is standing over your shoulder making certain that you follow each and every rule to the letter. D&D honestly wasn't designed to be about that. The rules are your guidelines, to be modified to fit a play style so that everyone involved in the roleplaying process can have fun.
But when you're talking about translating D&D to an accurate electronic medium, you have to include all of the rules because as a person, your personal preferences for certain rules aren't going to be the same as those of every other person who plays the game. What you consider unimportant may be critical to another player. And so, like it or not, you include classes, feats, skills, abilities, race and class restrictions, alignments, social structures and as many of the other nuances as you can pack into your product.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq
Adnihilo
Beorn Judge's Edge
Somnulus
Perfect Black
----------------------
Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2
Everquest / Everquest 2
Anarchy Online
Shadowbane
Dark Age of Camelot
Star Wars Galaxies
Matrix Online
World of Warcraft
Guild Wars
City of Heroes
rank low on health care and child care. We are debt to China. Other
countries make half the products in our country. We hire illlegal
immigrants to do what work we are suppose to do. Our sport and olympic
starts are starting to test postive for drugs. (Plus we lost the Soccer
World Cup) We lost the Vietnam War, we lost the Iraq War (Osama Bin
who?) We have the highest conviction rate. (This isn't a good thing) We
make the most video games, but our video games sell less than European
and Japanese game on the market. We lost a video game tournament to the
Koreans. We still using outdated fuel and our politics has been run
into the ground politicians. DnD has killed tabletop as we know it and
we can't even make decent MMORPG out of it either.
The only thing we can do that makes us number #1 is blowing stuff up
(like other countries) and contributing to most of the world's
pollution. (70% of the air carbon is from us)
Back to DDO, yes it sucks. Sorry your late getting on the boat, we've
agreed at some point that game isn't what it was suppose to be and the
only reason Turbine is coming with more content isn't because it's
doing well, but because the game is doing horrible. It had 90k players,
but has lost thousands since.
Dungeons and Dragons
isn't the only RPG on the market. Although its sales are undoubtedly the
highest, White Wolf Publishing (makers of the World of Darkness/Vampire the
Masquerade RPG systems) and FanPro (publishers of ShadowRun, formerly FASA,
creators of ShadowRun and BattleTech) still merit considerable sales power in
tabletop RPG sales. Their core rule books sell for around $35.00 a book.
Because now they have grow fan following.
I can get a brand new
copy of any of the core rule books for D&D 3.5 for $29.95.
Which is still 30 dollars.
Gary Gygax didn't copyright the D20 system.
Now that I didnt know.
I still have more to say, but I'm tired so I save the rest tomorrow.
So you hate living in America then move out and find another country.
Now back to game issues.
I never said DDO is the best or greatest game ever made. It has it problems as a lot of games do. All I am saying is let people find out what they do and do not like. Take the free trial of a game try it out, talk to other players and get in touch with tech support and see how long it takes to fix a problem. I have friends who tried DDO and did not like it, they play games that I do not like. Hey guess what we still get along. WOW banned a lot of players for not useing windows and for other reasons. I like the fact that if you use a bot you get the boot but not for useing an OS that is not windows, or playing from more than one machine. I tried AA and I did not like it, if they made a few fixes to it maybe I would try again. SWG is so fubar that no one can help or save it. DDO has only been around since Feb of this year so it is still growing so it is still young. DDO is still better then some games and not as good as others but that is life. I wish I could solo more in DDO but hey I have NWN2 for that. When I want real DnD I call my friends over and we play the real thing. I wish I could play DDO as an evil pc but they do not let us, that would be real DnD. I can not wait to see some of the games in the works when they come out and see how they rate. Like Age of Conan and Star Trek online hope the are better then some of what is out there.
CaptainRPG I do not hate you or your point of view, in fact I agree with some of what you say. I hate the fact you do not know how good you have it here that is all.
DDO isn't growing as community. In fact, their messageboards gone
quite. Only a few post are made a day compare to the Feb launch. Around
June they were a lot people bickering and arguing about the content of
DDO by Aug/Sept the messageboards grew quite. DDO isn't fixing
problems. They still have same bugs they did at launch. As I said
earlier, they adding content to people in. Trial use to be 3 days then
a month later it went to 7 now it's a 10 day trial. The game isn't
balance, it doesn't have enough levels, it play GW and the graphics are
horrid.
I'ma professor by the way. I'm not kid. I teach my college
students about people like yourself and we aren't going to have it good
if continue to blindly follow your lead.
part I could have gotten "fresh" you with at. So I'll argue as nicely
as I can.
- Yes, I know about superhero trademark. However, Jerry Spiegel, the
creator of Superman had copyrighted the term first, we would not have a
Marvel company today.
- It's not secret that the paladin can crush the Warlock. You clean any
curse a Warlock does. In fact, the paladin is the hardest class to
kill, but equally, they are the weakest class because it takes forever
to kill one target.
- Again, that your opinion against other players and DM. Yes, WE
DISCUSSED the alignment description, but description don't always match
up with the gameplay. Normally, the majority does't rule, but in this
case, it does. Simply put True Neutral cannot really a personality
alignment of any characters because there is no balance such thing as
balance. I can't kill someone minute and save someone the next. As soon
as I act, I'm consider either good or evil. True Neutral is another way
of saying selfish. You act on impluse and your actions favor your own
means. It's impossible to not do something good or not do something evil.
Many DMs that I know are very anti-true neutral because they are strict
with personality and it pisses other players off. Lawfully Good, True
Neutral and Chaotic Evil characters cause the most trouble in parties
in many of the DnD sessions I hear about. I rarely hear about any other
alignment getting as much trouble as those three alignments. Not even
Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Evil get into this much trouble.
- Actually, the class do share abilities amongst each. As long as the
feats don't require an AB of +11 or spellcaste level then they get most
of the same abilities.
- There is no reason to cross-class in DnD ever unless your a Bard,
Barbarian or a Fighter. A rogue has no reason to cross a Fighter
because all the Rogue's best abilities work well the Dexterity. Not
even 4 levels to do +4 extra points with weapon specialization is worth
it considering you'll be crapping d12 worth damage down the drain. It's
better to do Eldrith Knight combination then Fighter/Wizard combination
because it's the same thing.
- The Ranger doesn't get priest like abilities, but Druid abilities.
- Sorry, if you disagree, but augmenting means to make more powerful.
Even you admitted that's what players do in DnD session right? By
gaining more abilities, are you not getting more powerful? You can spin
this anyway you want, Som, but you have to face the the facts that the
whole point of cross classing is to augment abilities, whether they
make your class abilities more powerful or if they give you more
abilities to use, you're become stronger either way.
- Sorry, you didn't use your degree. My grandfather fought in WW2 and he was farmer so you can specialize in 2 things.
- I'm not sure how much highschool players get, but I do know my friend
was riding in Lexus that neither his single-mother and his himself
could not possible afford. (Me and his mother worked at the same job
for a while.) Maybe if you watch "He Got Game", you'll understand.
- Again, you pretend, you don't see who superior. Pretending not to see
something doesn't make any less true. Again, this has been discussed on
the paper and pencil board and other DM boards. We've all agree that
the Ranger is crap and 3.5 same the Ranger from being complete useless.
We also had discussion about Fighter vs. Paladin and Wizard vs.
Sorcerer. (Not talking about PvP either) We talked about usefulness and
the sorcerer narrowly got with a hair. The Fighter had a good argument
in beginning, but got beat down near the end because of what I said
about the Fighter usefulness as both class reach level 4.
- I'm not getting angry, but rather annoyed at the fact you like
discard anything that contradicts your argument. I at least admit to
being wrong, but you on the other hand, insist you are right about
everything and I'm sorry these things don't fly around here.
I'll more to discuss in the morning. Oh and by the way, DnD has sold
worldwide since the 70s so if Gary didn't see a penny for his ideas
then he should have his idea copyrighted.
Second, the two games are completely different. NWN2 is a SinglePlayer game, with a lot of the MP support stripped completely out of it. DnDO is a current MMO that supports a lot more people online at once that NWN2 will ever.
NwN2 isn't good for MP right now, it'll take probably a year or more for some good content to start showing up. Mmostly because Obisidian screwed with the MP code so much that everything is needing fixing.
A lot of people are sticking with NWN1 for right now because NwN2 handles things a little differently and is quite broken as far as custom content is concerned, (no custom tlks, DM client is beta, etc).
If you didn't switch from DDO to NWN1 for Multiplayer, I can hardly see you switching from DDO to NWN2, because they are almost completely the same game. NWN2 and NWN1 use the exact same code base, except that NWN2 has had a lot of it removed, and some of the skill/feat etc selections updated to 3.5. Other than that NWN2 works the same as NWN and if you aren't willing to give up DDO for NWN1 why would you give it up for NWN2? I mean the campaign isn't even playable in MP because of limitations on the server, and the way the OC handles map transitions... The new area transitions pretty much kill servers, and the terrain maps are going to make downloads for PWs a pain in the butt..
If you honestly look at the pros and cons you can see that DDO is for MP and NWN2 is going to have to play a great deal of catchup to even consider doing small on the fly dungeon adventures.
I quit DDO a few months ago. I played during alpha and beta and post-launch. I only bought the game because I was grateful to have playtested for so long. I never really enjoyed it much.
I posted this same issue after public release in the DDO forums. I laughed when I opened my game and found that the back cover was an advertisement for Neverwinter Nights 2!
They are basically telling people to give their money to Atari and not Turbine!
Captin rpg your not worth my time
They've actually had a very robust fan following since they began in 1989 and 1991 respectively. I've played both off and on since they first published and there is and has been a very robust community for both game systems.
Which is no more or less than you would expect to pay for the core rule books of any other tabletop RPG system.
So apparently, as I stated originally, WotC aren't raking in the dough through a master plan of world RPG domination. They are making as much on their books in individual sales as any other RPG publisher and simply building on the system as it existed prior to their purchase of the D&D franchise. Certainly, it can be argued that D&D is the most popular but it's also the oldest tabletop RPG franchise, so that's not exactly surprsing.
Yes, we would still have Marvel today. They just couldn't call their creations "superheroes". That wouldn't make the characters any less enjoyable, the illustration any less capable or the stories any poorer. The two are not connected.
The point is, especially in full PvP, I don't have to kill anything. All I have to do is stay alive and keep the enemy occupied while my team mates kill them. That doesn't equate to being weak, especially if it takes three or more enemy just to take me down. Death by attrition is a perfectly valid offensive tactic. That doesn't make the paladin weak, especially if I am capable of defeating just about any class in a duel.
True neutral is a balancing act. It isn't simply doing one good thing and then doing one bad thing. There has to be a balance between the actions and the DM is the final arbiter, as always, of whether a character's actions are true neutral or not.
It's not my opinion. It's the alignment guidelines as provided in the manuals. The DM is the final judge of how those alignment guidelines are implemented. Because you personally do not agree with the alignments as they are described doesn't invalidate them, except in your own gaming sessions.
I know "many DMs" who could care less what alignment you take as long as it is not in direct opposition to a class restriction and you understand the expectations the DM has for that alignment.
I personally think a player trying True Neutral is great fun, exactly because of the friction it causes with their fellow players. Like life, you're not always going to meet and work with people who are a personality match for you. That's part of the fun of roleplaying. If the other players go berserk and kill the player who is true neutral because of his actions, so be it. It's just another part of the story. He creates a new character and off they go again.
In the end, it doesn't matter how you implement, interpret or use alignments in your gaming sessions. That has no effect on how I, my friends or others play D&D. The only time it's a consideration is when you are attempting an accurate translation of tabletop D&D to an electronic medium. At that point, it's not your job to decide what rules are important or not.
Now that's an accurate statement; but that is not what you said originally.
And my point was that they do not "share the same damn abilities". They share abilities... some or more depending on the class comparison.
Captain, because you say it doesn't make it so. There are many valid reasons and apparently, there is a huge number of people who agree because they are continuously finding new ways to dual and multi-class to gain benefits that they desire.
A simple web search reveals hundreds of forums with players seeking information on viable dual or multi-classes or on specific builds. So apparently, regardless of your personal opinion, there is a reason to dual or multi-class.
A bard is just about the only character I would never dual class (since according to AD&D Second Edition that I prefer, you cannot multi-class a bard). I mean, how many abilities do you need? The bard can do practically anything! Thief skills, fighter skills, wizard spells... in my opinion, it's not worth dual classing. Now dual classing another class with bard abilities would be useful.
"These spells are drawn from the cleric spell list and can give rangers the extra protection they need in a tough combat." http://ddo.tentonhammer.com/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=324
"The class' spell abilities were also limited to 1st-3rd level priest spells from the Plant and Animal Spheres."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)
"A ranger can learn priest spells, but only those of the plant and animal spheres (see page 34), when he reaches 8th level (see Table 18). He gains and uses his spells according to the rules given for priests (see page 32)."
AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook, pg. 29
Although the druid is a sub-class of the cleric, the Ranger gets its spells from the cleric line.
I don't disagree that augmenting means to make the character more powerful; I never have disagreed with that. What I have disagreed with is your premise that you only dual or multi-class to augment existing abilities. That is inaccurate. You dual or multi-class to gain new abilities to augment your overall effectiveness. So your paragraph above simply reinforces what I already said.
I haven't used my degree yet because I have been serving my country until four days ago when I retired. I do intend to use it, though.
So your grandfather continued to maintain his combat abilities throughout his life, thus being a specialist in combat and as a farmer? He continued to study and train in military weapon systems from the point of his service in WWII throughout his life? He practiced land navigation and squad drills regularly?
Somehow I am fairly certain that once his exceptional service was no longer required, he put combat and the vast majority of his combat training behind him in favor of specializing as a farmer. Thus, he was not actually specialized in two things. During the portion of his life he served, he was specialized as a soldier (or Marine or Sailor, as the case may have been) and in the second part of his life he specialized in farming. Rather like dual-classing.
So what you're saying is that I can expect to see any high school football player driving a Lexus? Aren't they all specialists? Because your first statement was "a high school football player". Doesn't that mean any high school football player?
I played high school football in Texas. They were and still are fairly serious about the game. I practiced for two hours every day during the season and lifted weights and drilled for an hour and a half in the off-season. I don't recall anyone bum rushing me to give me a car. Now that I think about it, I don't remember any of my team mates getting a car. Or anything other than cajoling, yelling, berating, cheering and sweating. Huh.
I'm not pretending. I dont' see the rogue as superior to the ranger. Period. They are different classses with pluses and minuses on both sides. I wouldn't pick one over the other and if I really felt like I had to have rogue-specific abilities that are not shared with the ranger, I can always dual or multi-class.
In reality, I'd probably choose a bard over both of them.
"We've all agreed that the Ranger is crap". Who's we? I don't agree. So I guess "we" don't agree. Many other D&D players don't agree with you, as they continue to play and enjoy rangers. So the "we" you are referring to is actually you and some others. Not some all-encompassing "we".
Show me exactly where you have stated once that you were wrong. Not that you didn't know something; where you actually said "Okay, I was wrong about that."
Even when you blatantly stated incorrectly that Gary Gygax copyrighted the D20 system, you didn't say "Ah well, I was wrong there." You said you didn't know that, which is not the same as saying you are wrong.
Inversely, you have accused me at least twice of not being able to admit when I am wrong. There's an old adage about a pot calling a kettle... I'm sure you're familiar with it.
I haven't seen a single point where I have discarded anything. I simply refute your points because I disagree with you. It's a shame that makes you annoyed.
As far as things that don't "fly" around here, apparently here you are incorrect as well. Disagreeing with someone does indeed "fly" around here. This would hardly be the first disagreement I've had on these boards and I do not expect it to be the last.
Don't bother yourself about being civil if it's too much of an effort for you, CaptainRPG. I can take anything you can dish out.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq
Adnihilo
Beorn Judge's Edge
Somnulus
Perfect Black
----------------------
Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2
Everquest / Everquest 2
Anarchy Online
Shadowbane
Dark Age of Camelot
Star Wars Galaxies
Matrix Online
World of Warcraft
Guild Wars
City of Heroes
Show me exactly where you have stated once that you were wrong.
Quote Now that I didnt know.
If you cant accept that, Som, then Im sorry, but as I told you before, these argument are not going by your rules.
Somehow
I am fairly certain that once his exceptional service was no longer
required, he put combat and the vast majority of his combat training
behind him in favor of specializing as a farmer. Thus, he was not
actually specialized in two things. During the portion of his life he
served, he was specialized as a soldier (or Marine or Sailor, as the
case may have been) and in the second part of his life he specialized
in farming. Rather like dual-classing.
Im
sorry to shatter your DnD reality, but he was good at farming and
combat before the military because his father before him served in
World War I. My father specialized in fixing machines and automobile
while being a letter opener in the poster office.
AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook, pg. 29
Please
update your book. The BS you are spew out isnt matching up with my 3.5
rules. The 3.5 description of the Ranger does not say anything about
the spell being cleric.
I mean, how many abilities do you need? The bard can do practically anything!
I
can tell you dont talk to fellow DnD members because WotC
messageboard, NWN boards and Paper and Pencil messageboard have all the
same views of the bard. There is old saying that describes the bard
perfect and why few people play the class, The bard can DO EVERYTHING,
but sucks at everything.
None
of the status does the bard any good except Charisma, which powers his
spells and his music. He cant melee good, he cant range attack good,
his heal spell are obscelete as soon as you get them, he cant cast
spells in armor, and the Rogue gets more skill points and more skills
to do his job better. The only reason people play the bard is because
they play it for fun. Same reason they play the Fighter and Barbarian.
I don't disagree that augmenting means to make the character more powerfull; I never have disagreed with that.
What I have disagreed with is your premise that you only dual or multi-class to augment existing abilities.
I
never said this either, Som. The only refuse I see that come close to
what you said is this, Only way to pure class without penalties is to
cross class with class that benefits are not low when doing so. For
example, in NWN, cross classing a Champion of Torm doesnt affect you
Paladins ability to Smite Evil.
This
isnt you should cross-class to augment your existing abilities, but
rather the only way to avoid major penalties to your characters
abilities to cross-class with a class that continues to benefit your
classs abilities.
My
point about cross-classing is that we gain no benefits from class that
completely opposite of them. As I mention early with the Ranger and the
Paladin, the Paladin has nothing to gain from the Ranger because the
Ranger strengths are Dex based and the animal companion is to weak to
use unless you invest 10 levels.
Who
cares if the Ranger can tame animals, thats up to the DM whether or
not you run into a Scooby Doo with rabies. Most wild animals fall
easily to a high class anyway unless they are dire. And again, thats
up to the DM whether you into the those type animals. Like I said, most
DnD tabletop sessions are carter to their players characters. They are
not thrown out at random because the DM is trying to tell a story.
Thus, the tabletop players have no real reason to cheat.
I
read stories on the Pencil and Paper forum were a player made the
perfect character and the DM had him hit with a giant meteor with no
reflex save. It went little something like this.
DM: A giant meteor falls out of the sky and crush your character. You are dead.
Player: Do I get a reflex save?
DM: NO, A GIANT METEOR CRUSHES YOUR CHARACTER! YOU ARE DEAD!!!
DM
= God. If someone cheated a DM can hand him his ass. I had a friend who
experience the same thing. I can care less what you think of those
sessions, Im telling how these session go these days since youve been
detach from the rpg table since the 2nd Edition came out.
Back
to what I said earlier. As you stated when cross class, you gain new
abilities. Those abilities augment your character because your
character gain advantage he never had before. When a Fighter cross
classes with a wizard does, does he not gain bulls strength to enhance
his strength. Is he not able to case that allow him to do spell damage.
As I told you can spin this anyway you want, but the fact remains, you
cross to argument your abilities, period.
Im
not going to argue the rest of the stuff because its like arguing with
a child. Again, when someone contradicts you, you ignore their argument
for the sake of being right and saving face. It a sad day in the world
when a middle-aged man goes in denial and on a tangent when someone
younger contradicts him in anything. You're just trying to find more
reason to carry on the argument rather than let you go of your pride.
One more thing, why do you think they keep updating each addition? If
the edition where perfect the way they were then why are they making
updates every so often? It's because ruleset become inflexible and
obscelete. Just like just 2nd Edition book. Obscelete.
I think and it being WOTC, updates and new edtions are made to sell and earn some easy money... just my guess.
"NWN2: The Last Nail in DDO's Coffin"
To the DDO proponents: Ignoring the fact that NWN2 is a deep RPG and DDO is a shallow action game.... NWN2 multiplayer is a persistent chat room with instanced action. DDO is a persistent chat room with instanced action. The only difference is that DDO's chat room is in 3D. And it costs fifteen dollars a month.
Anyone still subscribed to this game? If so, has Turbine finally got all the game-crippling bugs straightened out yet? Are credit cards still accidentally being charged years in advance? Quality.
It seems so long ago that i played.... Maybe because DDO always felt like it was packaged with Windows ME. You know, one of those freebie throwaways that you sometimes find in your box of Chex.
Unfortunately NWN2 was rushed out the door. I'm enjoying it but damn, my expectations were too high. I remember the first one blowing my mind when i first played it. Not so much this time around. I miss the NWN1 module editor.
What the real kicker for me is that Obsidian did the same stupid thing to KotOR. They were hired to do KotOR2 but I didn't like #2 at all. I feel Obsidian has done nothing but rush their projects, because they're aquiring the MMO Game Makers' metality of "rush the product out the door and patch it up and down after release".
Sad....just sad.
Saying you were wrong is your rule, CaptainRPG. I have never asked you to say you were wrong, nor have I accused you of being unable to admit you were wrong. All this babble about being wrong originated with you.
And of course, even when you make a statement that is blatantly wrong, you still don't just say "Okay, I was wrong about that" according to the "rules" that you created. It wasn't that you didn't know; you made a blunt statement that was patently incorrect and you didn't even bother trying to put any conditions on it, such as "If I'm not mistaken" or "I think".
Here's the statement you made;
I provided you with the correct information that Gygax did not copyright the D20 system and that it was actually copyrighted by WotC. By your rules, you were wrong.
I could care less if you say that you are "wrong" or not. I didn't start the whole "wrong" thing to begin with. You did. The only one trying to lay down rules around here is you.
So by your rationale, because my great-grandfather served in WWI, my grandfather served in WWII, my father served during Viet Nam, by osmosis I was some kind of super-soldier. Whoa... I should have asked the Army for a LOT more money while I was in the service. I guess I'll have to try to hit them up for a boost to my retirement pay.
I replied to your comment which I quote here:
You were in turn replying to the comment I made here:
I did make a mistake here. My mistake was in assuming that you were actually replying to my original topic, rather than creating a completely different one that didn't address my point.
Returning to my original statement about ranger spells and the need for a higher wisdom, the D&D 3.5 Edition Player's Handbook states on pg. 48 in the Ranger class description that (paraphrased) "the ranger draws their spells from the Divination category (the same spells available to the cleric, druid or paladin)".
Since a good wisdom rating is important in gaining bonus spells per level and resisting spell failure, the rationale for a ranger to have a good wisdom score is still applicable, as in my earlier statement.
"He can't melee good, he can't range attack good"
What's your definition of good? Is he better at melee and ranged combat than a wizard or sorceror, but not as good as a fighter or ranger? That seems good enough to me, considering he gets combat spells, heals and party buffs.
Again, I'm glad the rogue gets more skill points. Can he cast spells? No? Well then, again, it's just your interpretation that sets the rogue above the bard.
Actually, D&D Edition 3.5 says that the bard can cast spells in light armor. Imagine that.
From what I have read and heard, many people think that the 3.5 revisions that upgraded the bard improved the character quite a bit. I'll check in with the group playing 3.5 at the game on Saturday and see what their overall opinion is.
You made this statement;
To which I replied that augmenting your abilities is not the only reason to dual or multi-class. You dual or multi-class to add abilities to your character, improving (augmenting) your overall character. Not specifically a pre-existing ability from your primary class.
While you may benefit your existing class abilities, you also gain new abilities which augments the overall character, not specifically and only your existing abilities, as you stated previously.
Which, in the end, is probably true for a great many people; they would prefer to dual or multi-class to gain abilities that compliment existing abilities. But it is not universally true; they also gain abilities that improve the overall character without specific effect on their primary class abilities. Which was the point I making.
Again, it's really up to the player if they feel as though they are receiving a benefit from dual-classing a paladin/ranger and it's up to the DM how they fit that into gameplay. It is completely and entirely your opinion that there is no benefit to be found here, as long as there is one single person playing who believes there is. Since a simple web search reveals that there are people who do, indeed, create paladin/rangers, they must perceive some benefit to it.
Again, how exactly does a tabletop D&D player "cheat"? Regardless of what the DM throws at you, how do you go about the process of "cheating" in a tabletop game?
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the player "cheating" (since you didn't say that the player created a perfect character by "cheating" in some way) and certainly nothing to do with the DM "tailoring" the encounter to the player (which you say keeps a player from cheating).
If that type of play is acceptable to the player and the DM, more power to them.
A DM who decides the only way they can deal with a player who has made an outstanding character within the rules is to use a situation the player cannot escape from to kill them sucks, as far as I'm concerned. I somehow doubt I would be the only player who thought so.
It sounds more like the DM had a personal dislike for either the player, the character or both and was too childish to deal with the situation in any other way. He probably got his widdle feelin's hurt and decided to retaliate in the most grotesquely ridiculous way he could think of. Yay him! He's just so powerful! He's such a DM god! Oooo!
Wow. You think that has never happened in the entire history of D&D at any other gaming session? That somehow, that is unique to 3.5 edition? I can guarantee you, there were plenty of DMs who sucked just as badly as the one in your example in the last 32 years that D&D has existed.
If I dual or multi-class a fighter/wizard and I cast Hail of Stone, how, exactly, is this augmenting the fighter's
pre-existing abilities? The answer is, it does not. The overall character is improved because now they can cast a ranged area-effect spell, rather than just going in swinging and in lieu of having a weapon. The character is still effective without a weapon, as opposed to a melee fighter who has no weapon.
In the end, I never said that you didn't or couldn't augment the primary class abilities through dual or multi-classing. You, however, did say that the only reason to dual or multi-class was to augment abilities. Period.
I've ignored an argument? Not once. I've approached each and every argument you have presented, regardless of how opinionated or completely devoid of actual fact it was.
Who exactly is more child-like here? The person who simply states an argument and makes every effort to support it with factual data?
Or the person who makes arguments consisting largely of their own opinion (like "rangers suck"), makes inaccurate statements, accuses the other person of failing to admit they are "wrong" when they themselves cannot seem to do so and then personally attacks the other person?
No, obsolesence is not why they updated the editions. If the first and second editions of D&D were so obsolete, why did the 3rd edition keep the class system? Or the races? Or the alignments? Or maintain the proficiencies and specializations concept from 2nd Edition and expand on them?
2nd Edition AD&D came out mainly because the first edition was so disorganized. Topics that were directly related were placed here and there throughout the manuals and some of the basic game mechanics were contradictory.
Plus, it gave them the opportunity to add new content and to expand on the existing content and game mechanics. Proficiencies and specializations were added, which is a concept that has survived to the 3rd edition, along with the races, classes, alignments, etc. It also introduced the concept of class "kits" with optional rulebooks like the Complete Fighter's Handbook and those for the other classes.
Now, why did they update from 2nd edition to 3rd and then 3.5? Well, one of the reasons is they wanted to standardize the dice mechanic around the D20 system; another reason is that they wanted to remove some of the previous class and race restrictions.
WotC also open-sourced the D20 system under the Open Gaming License so that developers could write new games and content based on the D20 system that would be D&D compliant without getting approval from WotC.
They also added detail to the critical system (like attacks of opportunity) and added prestige classes.
So there are many reasons that subsequent editions were released. You also have to consider human nature. It is unlikely that any RPG developer could present a game system that is flawless the first time. So naturally there will be the need to make corrections and to re-evaluate the system.
There is also the monetary consideration. Both TSR and WotC were in business to make money; if you release a game system one time with no further improvements or additions, you sell that system once and that's it. Although if the system is popular you will continue to generate revenue as new players purchase your manuals and accessories, it is really dependent on how large the company in question is as to whether or not that revenue can keep you solvent.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq
Adnihilo
Beorn Judge's Edge
Somnulus
Perfect Black
----------------------
Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2
Everquest / Everquest 2
Anarchy Online
Shadowbane
Dark Age of Camelot
Star Wars Galaxies
Matrix Online
World of Warcraft
Guild Wars
City of Heroes
2nd Edition AD&D came out mainly because the first edition was
Plus, it gave them the opportunity to add new content and to expand on the existing content and game mechanics.so disorganized. Topics that were directly related were placed here and
there throughout the manuals and some of the basic game mechanics were
contradictory.
*Claps*
I skim through most of post until I got to the bottom. You said it
exactly and thank you. Had they done it for 3rd Edition and 3.5
Edition, it would made transition from board game to electronic game
great.
So in your opinion, Edition 3.0 and 3.5 failed to organize the material properly or provide substantial upgrades or innovations to the overall D&D system? I would definitely agree with you there. That is why I prefer the 2nd Edition.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq
Adnihilo
Beorn Judge's Edge
Somnulus
Perfect Black
----------------------
Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2
Everquest / Everquest 2
Anarchy Online
Shadowbane
Dark Age of Camelot
Star Wars Galaxies
Matrix Online
World of Warcraft
Guild Wars
City of Heroes
DnD books merely expanded on the world, which they shouldn't have done.
They should have updates the mechanics and rules to play faster and try
to balance the game play between classes. They should have reinvite the
gameplay so to speak, which is basically what I did with my game. My
gamebook is over 84 pages and it covers most of what the DM book and
playerhand book cover. I went into great detail on how to play the game
and what now so don't think I half did everything. The reason they
aren't as many page as a DnD book is because I wanted to simplify the
game rules as much as could. Same with the "classes" and their skill
& feats.
I'm pretty sure that Unearthed Arcana was introduced to circumvent many of the problems your talking about. I picked up Unearthed Arcana to discover what the fuss was about, soon after its release. I'm glad I did, because it suggests alterations to core rules to provide a faster gameplay, wrapping up alot of research into TSR, that is otherwise not printed.
Have a gander at this review: Arcana Unearthed Offers a Fantastic Alternative to the PHB. It seems to be referred to as an alternate Player Hand Book instead of a DM Guide. I've used if for a long time and take it for granted that DnD Players and DMs know about it already, but I guess not.
While I do agree with you about 3.0 and 3.5, I just don't agree if you're referring to 2nd Edition. The rules were very simple, while also having a huge amount of depth and the game mechanics were spot on; nothing was any more or less complex than it needed to be to represent the particular game mechanic. They also left quite a bit up to the DM's interpretation, making suggestions about how a specific situation could be handled rather than dictating it.
And the handbooks (Fighter's, Thieve's, Rangers, Priests, etc).... are an outstanding resource that added whole new dimensions to the classes and gameplay.
Like I said in a previous post; there is absolutely nothing wrong with modifying the mechanics and game rules to suit you. Everybody has done it to some extent or another as long as D&D has existed and it makes sense to modify rules that do not fit your campaign, storyline or players. I have never been a DM who believed that the rules are the rules without exception, but there are specific rules that I personally enforce in my tabletop games that I believe are inviolate and I've never had any issues with players complying with them.
For D&D 3.5, that's pretty much why WotC made the D20 system an open license, so people could feel free to use the core rules and modify them to release and share modified systems and content.
The only time that you don't have that luxury is when you are creating an electronic representation of that gaming system, because every person who plays the electronic game expects to see an approximation of X core rules and game mechanics represented in the game. That unknown quantity changes from player to player, so you have the situation where you need to include all of the tabletop RPG rules and game mechanics so that you can meet the expectations of as many game consumers as possible.
When you start making decisions about what's important and what's not, all you do is invite criticism and reduce your consumer base through word of mouth.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq
Adnihilo
Beorn Judge's Edge
Somnulus
Perfect Black
----------------------
Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2
Everquest / Everquest 2
Anarchy Online
Shadowbane
Dark Age of Camelot
Star Wars Galaxies
Matrix Online
World of Warcraft
Guild Wars
City of Heroes