Quote from: Darwinism;544816Actually you're pretty groggy, I mean come on there's a reason this site gets quoted so often. It's pure strain grog. I mean come on the entire site is built around RPG elitism.

Oh guys by the way SA doesn't really give a shit about you, it's just a small subsection of a subforum (and said subforum is bigger and more active than you, man bet that burns) finds you absolutely hilarious.

You were doing so well until these two comments.  I could give a fuck about SA I'm a Mage player idiot!  Pretty sure that means I like some degree of narrative storytelling.  

As for Dnd the bulk of my experience lies in 2e and 3e. Old schoolers pretty much dismiss the first and the second is only barely tolerated because it's somewhat back compatible and in the same ethos as its predecessors.

Quote from: Marleycat;544836You were doing so well until these two comments.  I could give a fuck about SA I'm a Mage player idiot!  Pretty sure that means I like some degree of narrative storytelling.  As for Dnd the bulk of my experience lies in 2e and 3e. Old schoolers pretty much dismiss the first and the second is only barely tolerated because it's somewhat back compatible and in the same ethos as its predecessors.

I like 3.x and Pathfinder! Just like I enjoy Basic D&D and labyrinth Lord!

Wait, does this mean I'm not an old schooler?

Quote from: jeff37923;544838I like 3.x and Pathfinder! Just like I enjoy Basic D&D and labyrinth Lord!

Wait, does this mean I'm not an old schooler?

No it just means you like the same flavor of Dnd I do. I just don't consider MYSELF old school because I never played anything before 2e (beyond one shots). For example I love Pathfinder because it cleans up 3e a bit and has at-will cantrips which isn't very old school last I knew.

Quote from: Marleycat;544842No it just means you like the same flavor of Dnd I do. I just don't consider MYSELF old school because I never played anything before 2e (beyond one shots). For example I love Pathfinder because it cleans up 3e a bit and has at-will cantrips which aren't very old school.

Cantrips were actually first introduced in a Dragon magazine article for AD&D 1E, then they got crammed into Unearthed Arcana.

I like how Pathfinder cleaned up grappling.

Quote from: jeff37923;544846Cantrips were actually first introduced in a Dragon magazine article for AD&D 1E, then they got crammed into Unearthed Arcana.

I like how Pathfinder cleaned up grappling.

Fine, just call me Miss Minnie Grog.

I knew about cantrips via UA but didn't know they were at-will, cool. The most important reason I love Pathfinder is because of the Magus. A Spellsword done right, a GISH without multiclassing.

Quote from: Marleycat;544847Fine, just call me Miss Minnie Grog.

I knew about cantrips via UA but didn't know they were at-will, cool. The most important reason I love Pathfinder is because of the Magus. A Spellsword done right, a GISH without multiclassing.

The cantrips aren't at-will in AD&D 1E. Sorry.

The biggest reason why I love Pathfinder is that the thousands of dollars of books and minis that I have collected over the course of 3.x is completely compatible with the game. I can even port over stuff from Pathfinder to Labyrinth Lord very easily as well. The second and intertwined reason is that it is d20 OGL, which means I can create stuff for the game and publish it if I so choose as long as I follow the rules for doing so.

Quote from: jeff37923;544850The cantrips aren't at-will in AD&D 1E. Sorry.

The biggest reason why I love Pathfinder is that the thousands of dollars of books and minis that I have collected over the course of 3.x is completely compatible with the game. I can even port over stuff from Pathfinder to Labyrinth Lord very easily as well. The second and intertwined reason is that it is d20 OGL, which means I can create stuff for the game and publish it if I so choose as long as I follow the rules for doing so.

Well obviously I have no interest in publishing but the game being OGL is just as good for me as you because I have LL on PDF from a friend. And I like LL.

Quote from: One Horse Town;544817Actually, i think Darwinism wins. (Edit - well, before his edit, anyhow.)

I don't think so. He's just shifting the goalposts from the subject of lethality to actual choices, which he consciously or not frames as what appears in the rules and what doesn't, which is a retarded point of view when talking about RPGs to begin with.

Quote from: Darwinism;544816Marvel can be nearly equal in terms of lethality, it's just that death is more due to the players making the wrong choices instead of being told, "Woops, you failed your save vs. poison/the orc hit you for max damage," which makes many players wonder why they're even there.

See, the funny thing here is that it's actually mentioned in the books (DMG I believe, but I know I've read it more than once.  Possibly Dragon) that most the times when a character has to make a save or die saving throw, it IS because of bad choices, like not adequately checking the chest for traps or avoiding the rattlesnakes instead of fighting them.  It's also mentioned several times that if a character dies because of a bad choice, tough titties.  But if the player is making good choices and is involved in the game, then it's A-OK for the DM to give extra help to keep those players from permanent death.  Things like extra healing potions, or a rod of resurrection.

I'm afraid this is just another case of you not knowing a damn thing of what you're talking about.

QuoteAnd is also a reason most prior edition games don't start at level 1.

They didn't?  Hey Mr. "You better prove your claims", why don't you practice what your preach and prove this little bit.  Seeing as how level 1-3 modules were the most commonly made and highest selling, I highly doubt what you claim is at all fact.  I know it was a common houserule to start with max HP, but it was much less common to start at higher levels.

QuoteSeriously no one responded to 'high lethality' only existing at levels 1-3. You invest so much into other editions being more lethal while being so incapable of realizing that the absolute majority of the game is not more lethal.

With the frequency of raise dead and resurrection tools available to players in early editions (several modules even gave costs at the local temple to raise dead), it seems you're wrong again.  But you don't have to look at that evidence.  Simply look at the game mechanics and it's easy to see that 1e combat was more lethal than 4e combat.  Run a bunch of like scenarios through each edition, and mathematically 1e would result in more deaths.  Hell, I even gave you examples a couple hours ago (which like every fact that proves you wrong you ignore)

QuoteHahaha no you still take the cake, racism-is-okay dude. I mean come on you're just a horrible person.

BT might be a bigger asshole in real life than you, but you're by far much dumber.

QuoteOh guys by the way SA doesn't really give a shit about you, it's just a small subsection of a subforum (and said subforum is bigger and more active than you, man bet that burns) finds you absolutely hilarious.

Sorry, not buying it.  You've got people constantly quoting other forums (and not just this one) and they're not laughing about the posts.  They are trying to drum up conversation because apparently without it, your thread dies out to just a couple posts a day.  Heck, you've got people outright replying to the quotes like they are having a conversation, which is pretty stupid because it's not like the person they are quoting is going to join SA just to continue a conversation started somewhere else.  If it's so important for Ettin, or Halloween Jack, or Prof Cirno, or Mikan or whoever to reply to a quote, why not just reply to it on the thread it was created.

Oh, wait...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544870Sorry, not buying it.  You've got people constantly quoting other forums (and not just this one) and they're not laughing about the posts.  They are trying to drum up conversation because apparently without it, your thread dies out to just a couple posts a day.  Heck, you've got people outright replying to the quotes like they are having a conversation, which is pretty stupid because it's not like the person they are quoting is going to join SA just to continue a conversation started somewhere else.  If it's so important for Ettin, or Halloween Jack, or Prof Cirno, or Mikan or whoever to reply to a quote, why not just reply to it on the thread it was created.

Oh, wait...

Glass pooshield.  Needs no explanation.

In any case, why are we arguing with this idiot?  Ignore it and it'll go away.

Quote from: Darwinism;544816It depends; Battletoads is high-lethality for arbitrary reasons, like earlier D&D versions. A similar game, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, is also very lethal at higher difficulties without being so intellectually bankrupt as having to resort to hurrr durrr you touched a spike you die gameplay mechanics.

Yeah, maybe it's easier to die in Battletoads. But an actual decent game can be nearly equally lethal while presenting players with actual choices to mitigate lethality. Marvel can be nearly equal in terms of lethality, it's just that death is more due to the players making the wrong choices instead of being told, "Woops, you failed your save vs. poison/the orc hit you for max damage," which makes many players wonder why they're even there. And is also a reason most prior edition games don't start at level 1.

Seriously no one responded to 'high lethality' only existing at levels 1-3. You invest so much into other editions being more lethal while being so incapable of realizing that the absolute majority of the game is not more lethal.

Ah, something resembling an actual argument.  This I can deal with.  Doesn't it feel good to talk things out?

Let's talk 3e.  Despite the hit point bloat in 3e, combat is deadly at low levels due to critical hit multipliers.  Now, 3e was generous and offered a window before death claimed a PC, but the stretch between 0 HP and -10 didn't last long when an orc was critting for 16 damage a pop.  High levels were a worse bet because attack bonus rapidly outstripped AC, monsters could make devastating full attacks, and spellcasters could throw out save-or-lose effects each round.  There's a reason it is called rocket tag.

In 2e, on the other hand, you had no hit point bloat.  You also had save-or-dies, death traps, and character-debilitating abilities like permanent level drain.  There was no death buffer beyond your pool of hit points--reach zero and you're dead.  On top of this, there was no guarantee your character was coming back from the dead.

4e does away with traditional SODs, adds more HP to PCs, makes it easier for them to heal, increases their healing options in combat, extends the negative hit point pool, and offers high level monsters with much lower damage capabilities.  Altogether far less lethal.

QuoteHahaha no you still take the cake, racism-is-okay dude. I mean come on you're just a horrible person. I may not have popular opinions about elfgames and I may not espouse them in a manner that RPGSite tolerates, but you're objectively one of the most disgusting people alive that I've encountered! When it all comes down to it, we disagree about how we play pretend but you'll always be pretty much contemptible in every way.

Seriously you value elfgame arguments higher than you do actual real people. You're fucked in the head, man.

Hey, asshole, I'm not "racism-is-okay dude."  I'm a cisgendered bigot.

Quote from: Benoist;544572We have quite a few people here who like 4e and don't behave like Darwindude and Scrotumjon here.

Unfortunately Benny, there are plenty of people like you here who attack, attack, attack.  You have no desire to 'talk to each other'.

Quote from: Marleycat;544646Hey Sommerjon, I've got a great bridge for you to live under rent free. It'll help you save up and take a reading class.

Oh, I see who finally pulled your head out of Benny's ass to make an attack as well.

Good Job:cheerleader:

Quote from: Sommerjon;544947Oh, I see who finally pulled your head out of Benny's ass to make an attack as well.

Good Job:cheerleader:

We don't exactly get along but whatever. That particular post was in relation to your lack of understanding context when reading a book but my phone wouldn't let me cut and paste your post for some reason. So I just assumed that you must be trolling because nobody can be that stupid without some kind of ulterior motive.

Quote from: Sommerjon;544946Unfortunately Benny, there are plenty of people like you here who attack, attack, attack.  You have no desire to 'talk to each other'.

Ask people who've actually played with me. There are a few on these boards. Or check other threads than the ones you come to fishing for a fight, like the links in my sig. The day you'll start actually contributing something, anything constructive to the site, I'll take you more seriously. As it is now? You're just one of those faceless random accounts trolling occasionally here and there. It's good for the occasional lulz, but not much else.