Quote from: Mistwell;629553I think it's shortsighted to say that D&D is historically a verbal-only game when it came to combat.  It's not.  It could be done that way, but I'd say a majority of the games ever played of D&D involved some sort of battle grid and miniatures or other tokens to represent the players and their foes and movement and range.  Miniatures were an important sales point for TSR from early on, and other companies that supported D&D.  The game was based on a wargame to begin with.  The rules frequently supported such type of play . . .

From the first time I played D&D, we used minis.

Quote from: Piestrio;629536I can honestly say the "Nobody wants to play the cleric" meme is one I've only ever encountered online and in jokes.

That's gaming in various cities across three continents.

Not claiming to be an expert but I suspect the magnitude of this "problem" is greatly magnified by the internet.

I agree. I've never found a group in which clerics were shunned, or heard about such a group.

Quote from: Mistwell;629652And Jeff, I know you have memory problems, so I will just remind you again that *I* wrote that entry, about myself, as an inside joke at CM, one which you do not comprehend because you're not a regular poster there. And, you have a dead link there by the way. In fact, shit, is my entry gone?

That is OK, I still have this:

Quote from: Mistwelling on the Circvus Maximvs WikiFrom The Library of Alexandria
Jump to: navigation, search

Mistwelling a thread is a form of thread derailment not unlike Spoonying a thread or Torming a thread. Where the preferred mechanism of those two was to make a thread all about themselves by in Spoony's case talking about himself and in Torm's case drawing attacks upon himself, Mistwell's chosen approach involves staking out ludicrous White Knight defences of people or positions rightly taking a beating. By presenting a living breathing local target, he provides a distraction of sorts for the subject who has no clue they're being ripped on some silly messageboard somewhere. What he feels he accomplishes by this is unclear, though he does clearly take enjoyment from the conflicts he stirs up.

The more contrarian, wrong-headed or stupid the defence, the more Mistwell likes it, and the more it's guaranteed to atom-bomb a thread. He's become a master at white knighting anything at any time, unfortunately for him he's become so predictable in the role that you see him coming a mile away, and some people have even taken to predicting how and when he's going to charge in on his trusty steed.

Mistwell was first tagged with this post: [1]

"Hey look, Mistwell Mistwells another thread.

That's right, you're now a verb because you've supplanted Spoony and Torm as our resident thread-destroying black-hole of inevitability."

It's everyone's responsibility to help threads avoid Mistwell's event horizon of stupidity. Don't bite on his hasty defences - or if you do, keep it to a simple "you're an idiot" and move on.

Mistwell will white knight almost anything: the Jester seems immune to his, er, proclivities.

Mistwell Flow Chart [2]

Retrieved from "http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/wiki/index.php/Mistwelling"

Quote from: Imperator;629805I agree. I've never found a group in which clerics were shunned, or heard about such a group.

Yeah the last AD&D session I played with Piestrio we had three clerics, a fighter and a rogue show up IIRC. Maybe a monk too? Forget...

Quote from: jibbajibba;629320I think you need an alternate model for a more S&S or swashbuckler feel where you don't want a cleric in the party though.

4E dropped the ball with healing surges in my opinion.

That being said, 4E almost got the 'non magic healing' right. almost.

As in, if Warlords bestowed Temporary HP instead of actual HP, that might have worked.


So, regardless of the version of dnd, I propose that a non magic healer could work using temp. hp.


There is something about non magic actual healing that I dislike...you can't 'Walk it off' from a sword through your belly.

Quote from: Bill;6298814E dropped the ball with healing surges in my opinion.

That being said, 4E almost got the 'non magic healing' right. almost.

As in, if Warlords bestowed Temporary HP instead of actual HP, that might have worked.


So, regardless of the version of dnd, I propose that a non magic healer could work using temp. hp.


There is something about non magic actual healing that I dislike...you can't 'Walk it off' from a sword through your belly.

Its all about what are hit points though right so ..... whole heap of debate on that one

Quote from: Black Vulmea;629687From the first time I played D&D, we used minis.

When I started basic we used graph paper for mapping, and rulers to measure distance with the counters of minis we had from any source.

I did not use minis all the time, but they were there from day one.

Quote from: jibbajibba;629882Its all about what are hit points though right so ..... whole heap of debate on that one

Well, I like some degree of realism with my HP.

Key word is some; I don't expect it to be perfect.

Oldschool dnd HP work fine for me; its more the flavor of a Cleric using Divine healing being equal to a Warlord screaming at you to 'rub some dirt on it!' that I have issues with.

Quote from: Bill;629884Well, I like some degree of realism with my HP.

Key word is some; I don't expect it to be perfect.

Oldschool dnd HP work fine for me; its more the flavor of a Cleric using Divine healing being equal to a Warlord screaming at you to 'rub some dirt on it!' that I have issues with.

To get my head round HP I have to think of them as % so a fighter with 50 hP isn't made of wood or the size of a horse. A wound that does 20% of a 50 HPs guy's hits is the same as a wound that does 1hp to a 5 HP guy.
So healing should work roughly like that.
I don't like a guy shouting to give you extra HP but I think a break especially one with a meal or a real rest shoudl restore something

My games go astep further based on HP being your skill energy etc and an underlying wound mechanic. HPs cure quick after all they aren't real injuries wounds are real injuries. They heal 1 per week. you generally have 4 or 6

Quote from: Mistwell;629668You do know we're not talking about miniatures themselves, but visual representations of things like position, movement, and range, using a grid or something similar, right?  Or did you lose track of what we were discussing and get caught up on the little lead symbol?  I'll repeat the page 26 quote from Basic: "If miniatures are not being used, the DM should draw on a piece of paper, or use something (dice work nicely) to represent the characters in place of miniature figures."
*blah blah snipped*

Mistwell, your quoted examples are not making the points you think they are making.  (Nor do they trump the simple historical fact that minis were always optional, never assumed, and that D&D's big break from chainmail and squad-based minis was just that - that it dispensed with the need for minis.)  I used'em from almost as soon as I started playing, too, and there's no doubt that TSR the company would have preferred I do so - which proves absolutely nothing about the intent of the game designers.  (But, then, you already know all this, and you're trolling.)

I remember, as a teenager, finding it very hard to use minatures for much as the rules assumed a level of wargaming movement proficiency we all lacked.  So we mostly used them for marching order.

There are good and bad things about D&D 4E.  Done as a boardgame it has some really interesting aspects.  The main problem I have with it is that it is painfully slow to play through combat.  Axis and Allies is made by the same company and they had a perfectly fine combat system that balanced risk and reward quite well.  These designers should have talked.  

I remember clerics being very hard to recruit.  Mostly because of the "lose all your powers" rules.  Locally we had the same problem as paladin.  My metric that this was not an isolated problem is the number of queries we saw in Dragaon magazine about letting wizards cast cure spells.  That being said, I completely believe people who say that it was different in different location.  Pre-internet there was a lot more place to place diversity

Quote from: Votan;629997Pre-internet there was a lot more place to place diversity

I think it has always been there and still is. The internet just allows us to know about how things are done in various games and places and converse/argue about it in real time.

Quote from: Piestrio;629364I'm tired of the unspoken assumption that TSR D&D was broken and in need of fixing. Magic needs to be fixed, fighters need to be fixes, healing needs to be fixed, magic items need to be fixed, thieves need to be fixed, classes, XP, monsters, treasure, etc, etc, etc...

fixfixifixfixfixfixfix

Fix it until it doesn't resemble D&D.

I'm just happy to see someone say, "Hey, you know what? Maybe TSR D&D wasn't this huge pile of shit that we thought it was for 13 years"

I thought all those gamers who house-ruled the shit out of D&D back in the 70s and 80s were demonstrating the true spirit of the game.

WotC has already reprinted TSR D&D. What, exactly, do you expect them to do with 5E - keep TSR mechanics and revamp the layout? Maybe design a new cover?

I houseruled my own D&D game so extensively that I had to sit down and try to re-write it from scratch. Recently, I discovered that Dragon Age nailed my wants and preferences, so I didn't need to do all that work after all. Do I call Dragon Age 'D&D'? No. But I can easily run a game with it that plays almost exactly like my group plays D&D. In fact, I suspect my group (who aren't hung up on names and branding and edition wars) will end up calling our Dragon Age game D&D anyway.

Quote from: Haffrung;630049I thought all those gamers who house-ruled the shit out of D&D back in the 70s and 80s were demonstrating the true spirit of the game.

WotC has already reprinted TSR D&D. What, exactly, do you expect them to do with 5E - keep TSR mechanics and revamp the layout? Maybe design a new cover?

I houseruled my own D&D game so extensively that I had to sit down and try to re-write it from scratch. Recently, I discovered that Dragon Age nailed my wants and preferences, so I didn't need to do all that work after all. Do I call Dragon Age 'D&D'? No. But I can easily run a game with it that plays almost exactly like my group plays D&D. In fact, I suspect my group (who aren't hung up on names and branding and edition wars) will end up calling our Dragon Age game D&D anyway.

There is a WORLD of difference between house ruling a game to suit your group and a publisher making changes (to someone else's game BTW) because they personally think they know better.

TSR D&D has value.

When WOTC makes changes to the game, even if you personally like them, something is lost. Something of value.

This is precisely why WOTC and it's fans constantly shit all over TSR D&D (although WOTC has pulled it's head out of it's ass recently). They need to devalue TSR D&D to justify what they did.

As to what I expect them to do?

Well I DON'T expect them to publish actual D&D, they already fucked the game up twice so they obviously kind of suck at it. I am willing to give their new game a shot though.

Really all I want is what Mearls came close to doing and that is to say, "Hey, it sucks that we killed you're favorite game and replaced it with a game we like instead" To acknowledge that TSR D&D is and was fine the way it was. That the game was changed radically not because it was "broken" or "outdated" or "needed" changing but simply because they wanted to change it.  

WOTC is getting there and I really appreciate the re-prints etc...

Quote from: Bill;629881As in, if Warlords bestowed Temporary HP instead of actual HP, that might have worked.

This is why my favourite Warlord is a Pathfinder one:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/adamant-entertainment/tos---warlord