| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Kuje |
Posted - 04 Apr 2009 : 21:15:48
I guess I missed the last few issues because I seemed to have skipped two or three issues but here is the TOC for the recent issue.
http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drtoc/374 |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 14 Apr 2009 : 01:28:20
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And I want to add that Ed wrote Lost Ships (my fave Spelljammer supplement!)...
'Tis mine as well. Which is why I originally purchased two copies -- one for storage and one for regular use. 
quote:
Ed also wrote Ruins of Myth Drannor, which presented stats for the baelnorn... I think Ed likes good-aligned undead. 
Archliches and baelnorns aren't just 'good liches,' though, they're something magically similar but different.
As it is, I would see baelnorns as "good elven undead" only with regard to the purpose of their creation.
As noted in Cormanthyr -- "Baelnorn, the willing undead elves, are the elven equivalent of liches, though they are hardly as disturbingly wrong as the corrupt undead and they do not project the fearsome aura of those wicked creatures."
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 13 Apr 2009 : 21:37:06
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
SJR1 Lost Ships archlich:
Monster/NPC write-up
835 words of description, emphasizing the relationship of the character to the world
470 words of stats and combat information
Arcane Power archlich:
'Destiny' for PCs
265 words of description, emphasizing 'you'
350 words of powers
And I want to add that Ed wrote Lost Ships (my fave Spelljammer supplement!)... And he dropped an archlich down in Waterdeep, in Volo's Guide to Waterdeep.
Ed also wrote Ruins of Myth Drannor, which presented stats for the baelnorn... I think Ed likes good-aligned undead. |
| Ayunken-vanzan |
Posted - 13 Apr 2009 : 20:30:53
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
y'know, all metallics are new in this edition. That was my reading anyway.
I don't want to know what happened to gold dragons, I think.  |
| Faraer |
Posted - 13 Apr 2009 : 20:12:46
SJR1 Lost Ships archlich:
Monster/NPC write-up
835 words of description, emphasizing the relationship of the character to the world
470 words of stats and combat information
Arcane Power archlich:
'Destiny' for PCs
265 words of description, emphasizing 'you'
350 words of powers
Again, just like Ed's early Dragon articles never happened.quote:
As for the gods' beliefs about fate and destiny: nope. They may try to fool mortals by speaking of such things, but to be a god, one MUST believe in free will - - or take the view that one's own godhood is false, because somewhere unperceived there must be REAL gods who control we gods, and thus provide Fate and Destiny. This is a philosophical pit that scribes here at Candlekeep and game designers and fiction editors at TSR and my own players have wallowed around in before, but for the gods to gain and lose power by gaining and losing worshippers, and for PCs to truly be heroes, fate and destiny CAN'T exist.
I suppose you could call it 'bricolage'. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 13 Apr 2009 : 19:15:35
I'm just waiting for a particular article I know is in the pipeline, which has not emerged yet. Maybe next month?
Cheers |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 13 Apr 2009 : 18:48:32
But metallic dragons are not new in any sense. Sure, the MM2 is new, but the creatures themselves are updated.
The language they use makes it seem like the paranoia is true and they want everyone to ignore all previous editions in favor of the new. When 3rd Edition came out, they didn't say 'new goblin', but the 3.0 version of goblins.
I realize that a lot of it is leftover frustration from all the previous weeks news and interviews, especially when Leeds talks like if D&D goes under, no one will be roleplaying anymore. I hate that it sounds very Lorraine-ish to me. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 13 Apr 2009 : 18:29:09
While the dragon preview isn't actually in Dragon, I think what they mean by "new metallic dragon" is that, y'know, all metallics are new in this edition. That was my reading anyway.
|
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 13 Apr 2009 : 18:10:05
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
That and the gawd-awful vulture's beak it has has put me off.
Vulture's beak? For me that might actually be a selling point.
I think it goes well with the Platypus tail! |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 13 Apr 2009 : 17:30:45
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
That and the gawd-awful vulture's beak it has has put me off.
Vulture's beak? For me that might actually be a selling point. |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 13 Apr 2009 : 15:25:13
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Just about all of that rubs me the wrong way.
'Builds'? I HATE that term applied to D&D...
So familiars weren't in the rules at first, either, eh?
'Deva' is a class? So stuck-up female Bards have their own now, huh?
Archwizards, archliches, archfey... it sounds like Ronald McDonald would feel right at home...
Like I keep saying... I'll play 4e when they finish the rules. As long as they keep producing Player's handbooks, the rules are obviously incomplete.
Still no Monks. eh? 
Maybe we'll see a 'Rules Compendium' like we did at the end of 3e. If it's coming out before 5e, I figure I can wait another year before getting on board.
Silly Markus...didn't you get the memo on whats cool??
Seems "Arch" is the new "Shade" |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 13 Apr 2009 : 14:57:14
UGH. I just saw the preview for the MM2 Excerpt: Adamantine Dragon
It REALLY wouldn't tick me off but they keep talking it up as a "NEW" metallic dragon. It was introduced in 2E and updated in 3E. How can this possibly be new?
That and the gawd-awful vulture's beak it has has put me off. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 13 Apr 2009 : 14:33:32
The skill bonuses are from 3E, but the 'spirit form' is not. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 13 Apr 2009 : 14:31:40
Today's two articles are a little more pro forma than Friday's big magic school piece.
Chris Tulach's RPGA report isn't "behind the wall" I don't think, so non-subscribers can probably see that it mostly collects information that we've seen before into a catch-all announcements for his monthly column. New Realms modules are briefly described, set on the Moray and the Eastern Glimmerwood (both having to do with Black Blood cults, looks like), Delzimmer, Thay, and Waterdeep (continuing the necromancer series).
The familiars article kind of points out the oddity of reading these pieces before the actual issue compilation, because it's an expansion on material in Arcane Power, and like most folks, I don't have the book yet! It's not out until next week (the day after I need it for my RPGA character, grumble, grumble). But you can kind of figure out what familiars are going to be like based on what's here--they provide both continuous (active) benefits in the form of small skill bonuses and so on and also have specific combat related roles as well. And they're also apparently not actual animals, but something closer to a shaman's spirit companion that takes the form of an animal (or any number of other things, including some objects). Is that from 3E? I like the sidebars about quirks and personalities, and the list of suggested minis will be handy for people with large WotC pre-painted plastics collections.
Cheers,
Christopher
|
| scererar |
Posted - 11 Apr 2009 : 05:01:52
yes, an excellent article that can easily be dropped into my realms. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 10 Apr 2009 : 23:12:58
The article that went live today, "White Lotus Academy" by Peter Schaefer, has some fun stuff, and I like the "fluff/crunch ratio." The author is clearly influenced by the various wizard academies of recent and more classic fantasy fiction--it's easy to see Rowling and Rothfuss here, and of course, Jane Yolen is always present in this kind of thing, even if only as a sort of tertiary influence via other authors.
The map and detailed background of the school and its instructors, and of its culture and, I guess, "ways and means," take up more than half the space, with the balance given over to offering PHB2 style backgrounds for PCs, a grab bag of Heroic and Paragon tier feats, and some maybe too cool first level attack powers for PC graduates from each of the arcane classes. A Paragon path rounds out the crunchy stuff.
I liked how the piece is laid out, with nice art and a good map. The sidebar featuring a "Roll of Academy Heads" and "A Few Bursar Entries" felt Realmsian to me, actually. It wouldn't take too much work to drop this arcane school in to any number of places in the Realms (if I use it I'm gonna put it in in Harrowdale, with Velarsburg taking the place of the town described in the article). It might also be useful for DMs designing their own arcane schools or who have a player who wants their character to be a graduate of one--just a few proper noun switches to the feats, for example, could be used to seed a school for swordmages in Evereska.
|
| Kyrene |
Posted - 08 Apr 2009 : 10:21:42
Christopher, I really appreciate what you listed liking or being excited about, in the Dragon issue under discussion. As your lack of knowledge about 3/3.5E mechanics clearly show, not all of us are going to agree with you, nor take all of your claims at face value.
Now, I would be excited, as much as you are about everything 4E, if Dragon 374 had but one article about pre-Spellplague Neverwinter, Port Llast or Luskanwith or without some 3.5E crunch, a new prestige class or simply some feats, or a new arcane or divine spell or two tied to the article. Why, I'll even settle for something post-Spellplague if it told me what happened to Lord Nasher, Ophalla, Amundra, Judge Oleff, or any of the myriad and interesting NPCs 'living' in that once-great citynow sadly simply an unexplained ruin after some hundred odd years.
As it stands, I find nothing of interest in it. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 08 Apr 2009 : 00:25:32
Folks, you've all been asked to return to the specific topic of this particular scroll.
Please do so, or I'm afraid I'll have to seal this one up.
Thank you.
[Note:- If you all have an interest in continuing this current bout of off-topicness, please use the 'Private Messaging' function instead.]
|
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 22:34:52
Is the term "build" even used in 4E products? I honestly don't know--I'll check later when I'm figuring out how a guy can make "Godplate." (Once I figure out what "Godplate" is )
Update: yep, "build" is used. Doesn't register on my radar at all beyond being the name for a concept, but I lack some of y'all's familiarity with whatever it is about online culture that make the word bug you.
|
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 22:04:05
That's not flaming or whatever at all--and an imminently reasonable question!
Nope, never did play in those systems. The learning curve seemed/seems pretty danged high at this point, though I'd be happy to sit in on a game.
Now, I do have a passing familiarity with some of the rules, but only because of the "crunch" bits in all the Realms books from that era I've picked up (Shining South and Faiths & Pantheons happen to be on my desk right this second, actually). I've been trying to gradually get all of those products--hang on, I keep a list on my desktop. Okay, I HAVE:
1 Into the Dragon's Lair Nov-00
3 Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting Jun-01
4 Magic of Faerūn Aug-01
5 Lords of Darkness Nov-01
6 Faiths and Pantheons May-02
7 Silver Marches Jul-02
9 Races of Faerūn Mar-03
10 Unapproachable East May-03
11 Underdark Oct-03
12 Player's Guide to Faerūn Mar-04
13 Serpent Kingdoms Jul-04
14 Shining South Oct-04
15 Lost Empires of Faerūn Feb-05
17 City of Splendors: Waterdeep Jun-05
22 Dragons of Faerūn Aug-06
And I NEED:
2 Monsters of Faerūn Feb-01
8 City of the Spider Queen Sep-02
16 Champions of Ruin May-05
18 Sons of Gruumsh Sep-05
19 Champions of Valor Nov-05
20 Power of Faerūn Mar-06
21 Mysteries of the Moonsea Jun-06
23 The Twilight Tomb Sep-06
24 Cormyr: The Tearing of the Weave Mar-07
25 Expedition to Undermountain Jun-07
26 Shadowdale: The Scouring of the Land Jul-07
27 Anauroch: The Empire of Shade Nov-07
So. Whatever I read in the books on that first list is more or less what I know about 3E. Prestige Classes! Oh, and I've got a couple of other non-Realms 3E books around here that I needed for work, mainly to get the most recent vibe on critters and spells and so on that haven't been statted out for 4E yet.
What I've seen makes me think it's a little top-heavy for my tastes, but I don't have any direct experience with it, no. Where do you live? Maybe I can drop in on your game!
As for the meat of your question, if it turned (or turns, I suppose) out that I like it better, sure, I'd say so. But I doubt it would change my mind about whether or not 4E is a good game, because there can be more than one good game in the world. And to be honest, I doubt I'd switch over, because I'm a Realms guy first and an gamer second, and the Realms game that's happening from a creator point of view is 4E.
Y'know, I should make something clear about the timing of certain things. I didn't become a fan of 4E in general and the 15th century Realms in particular because I wanted to write for WotC. I approached WotC about writing gigs because I was so excited about 4E and the 15th century Realms.
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Here's a question that came up from one of your recent posts, Christopher.
Now, you know that I'm not trying to troll or flame-bait you or whatever-the-hell-its-called-this-week, so take this in honest interest and for healthy debate:
You say you've never played 3rd Edition, and that 4th Edition is the best rules you've ever played. Have you tried 3rd Edition (or Pathfinder - gotta keep promoting!)? Do you think you'd change your stance if you did?
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 21:31:33
Here's a question that came up from one of your recent posts, Christopher.
Now, you know that I'm not trying to troll or flame-bait you or whatever-the-hell-its-called-this-week, so take this in honest interest and for healthy debate:
You say you've never played 3rd Edition, and that 4th Edition is the best rules you've ever played. Have you tried 3rd Edition (or Pathfinder - gotta keep promoting!)? Do you think you'd change your stance if you did? |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 20:46:26
The rest of Mark's post seems perfectly reasonable, but just as a point of information, my group of six consisted of myself, who hadn't played D&D since 2E in the early nineties, my buddy Bob--similar story, except he hadn't played for even longer, a couple who has played and continues to play everything under the sun for decades, two folks who had never played any type of RPG before, and our young 'un, who had played some third edition but was mainly familiar with online games and writes about them.
So, a mix of experienced, rusty, inexperienced, and "other-experienced."
From what I've been able to tell, the terms "builds" and "roles" don't have any more (or less) deeper meaning than the terms "ability scores" and "classes."
Edit to say that I was only using past-tense 'cause the group's changing since Bob (the other "rusty" guy besides me) has a new job. And also that by "our young 'un" I mean the youngest player, not our child. We don't have kids.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 20:15:42
I would agree with Chris_Rowe in as far as that without rules for every little thing, GOOD RP is still possible. Anyone who ran games back in OD&D or early 1e knows that (this game sarted out as a combat-simulation). Old-school DMs should have no problem fudging past all those 'holes' that supposedly now exist.
I don't think the rules themselves detract from RPing - you can do that without rules (and Gary Gygax has said as much). So I can see his point, and he is probably playing with a group of experienced D&D players, so his games are running more smoothly now with the stream-lined rules.
The point that some of the rest of us are trying to make is that the rules don't encourage RP... and using a term like 'builds' merely confirms that. Instead of having a group based around classes, the groups are now assembled based on their roles during an encounter (Controller, Striker, etc...)
Being an avid GAMER, and not just an RPGer, I've played tactical simulations, miniatures, and even humungous old-school 'counter' games (from SPI and AH), and I can tell you that the terminology and the 'thrust' of the game has been 'boiled down' to combat resolutions. Since anyone can do anything (cast spells, heal, etc...), the 'RP' element has actually been crippled, and the only difference between one character and another is HOW you deal damage (AOE, DPS, etc...)
What this does is put the RPing solely back into the hands of the real people playing the game... and I'm afraid a LOT of the new gamers are just buying packs of miniatures and running their characters through 'warband encounters' to earn EP and 'Phat Lewtz'.
Can you RP in 4e? Certainly... that has absolutely NOTHING to do with whatever rules-system you are using. However, some systems cater more to the individuality-mindset, and don't merely assign 'roles' to PCs, as if they were two-dimensional cut-outs. Hell... I've even RP'ed using Risk, Clue, and Monopoly (I always play the slumlord ), but that doesn't mean the rules are designed to do so easily.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Yeah, but that's not how the word is being used.
Thank You.
I didn't mean to be insulting AT ALL, and if anyone took that the wrong way, then I apologize.
I always encourage THINKING at my table, not "looking up the solution". Some of the game's most memorable moments wouldn't even exist if everyone followed a set pattern of behaviour. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 18:13:38
Okay, let's get on the topic, and stay on the topic, please. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 17:43:35
quote:
Originally posted by Kyrene
Regurgitated 4 love/hate generalities at this late stage dont count...
Dankie, brah! But that would cut down the post count 'round here considerably, wouldn't it? Take a gander through this very thread, for example.
quote:
Originally posted by Kyrene...very few people have really had an issue with the mechanics of the new edition...
Dr. Rupert, please pick up a courtesy phone. We have an emergency call for Dr. Wooly Rupert.
Anyway, Dragon #374 in particular? I can only comment on what's been posted, but so far, I've found some stuff that's useful, some stuff that's exciting, and some stuff that isn't for me.
The "Players Handbook 3" article is what it is. This April Fool's stuff is strictly a YMMV thing, and mine usually varies pretty low, but as it happens I dig the Penny Arcade guys a bunch, so I like this one.
The article that'll probably be least useful to me is the Character Concepts piece on how to recreate the feel of two popular 3.0/3.5 prestige classes using 4E rules. I never played third edition, so I don't know whether it's successful or not--a guy at the LFR game I played in last night seemed to love the arcane archer--but this isn't really my kind of thing. I usually do character story first and then find the mechanics that support it later and this is sort of a reverse approach. (I did like the Arcane Archer best on my Playstation 2 Baldur's Gate game! "My pack's too heavy!")
Now, the other big article posted so far, the Hybrid Characters playtest, while still kind of complicated and obviously early in the design stage (if they make the cut the hybrids won't appear between covers for a full year), is very interesting to me. Between multi-class feats, racial feats, "multi-class only classes," and of course all those paragon paths, there's already tons of ways to make every character unique, but this strikes me as more like the classic AD&D appendix style dual-class character. As somebody who's probably as big a fan of Steven Erikson and Ian C. Esslemont's Malazan world as I am of the Realms, I've lately been interested in finding a good way to do an "ex-priest," and I think this might be a good route to explore for that.
Chris Youngs' editorial is fine, and does address a "problem" I'm having right now (everybody wants to play with the shiny new PHB2). In the group I DM for, we'd actually decided last summer that we were going to treat our current campaign as a learning experience and would at some point take the decision of whether or not to reset once we were comfortable with the system. So we've just done that, and folks are rolling up an interesting range of characters drawing on both Players Handbooks, articles from Dragon, and Martial Power.
And if that doesn't satisfy 'em, I've set things up so we should be able to do the "Multi-Group Free-for-all" option he describes pretty easily. I think it would be fun to have two groups based in the same place, one high and one low level, who are connected somehow. (None of this addresses my main personal problem of not enough playing time--the game I played in has to end because the DM has a new job. Hopefully my shiny new RPGA card and my first ever LFR character, Ovid Candlemas, shadar-kai wizard, will help out on that front).
Now, by far the bit I like best that's gone live so far is Bill Slavicsek's Ampersand column, with it's preview of how Domains are going to work in Divine Power. I'm super-excited by this material, mainly because I think it's going to be hella fun to see how this works in the Realms, either through WotC designed stuff in the form of Faiths of Faerūn articles, which I speculated about already, or by designing the stuff I need myself. (I don't see what's the what now with the little opening with James Wyatt, unless maybe the supposed "clue" to the 2010 campaign setting that people have been talking about is buried in there somewhere.)
Regarding the stuff that hasn't been released yet, it all looks pretty interesting to me. I'm curious about what races might get introduced in the PHB3 and hope they go with a similar mix of old faves and bold new world as they did this time. One of my players is "building" (ha!) a deva shaman, so that ecology article should be handy, and who doesn't like familiars? Animal companions for all!
Now, as for this...
quote:
Originally posted by Kyrene
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
I'd venture it's as well informed a one as any others you'll see in these parts.
We'll take your word for it...quote:
If familiarity with the system under discussion counts as well informed, anyway.
We'll also take your word for that...
Hee. Wouldn't want to put you out, so, here ya go--they say a picture's worth a thousand words, right? Or in this case, probably closer to a million--not to mention US$ 350 or so!
In your requoting there, you left out my grandiose claims about the length and breadth of my experience in these and related matters. Check this out! That's a first printing, first edition, continually in my possession for over twenty years now! Also, as an added bonus, actual certifications of my love of genre in the form of Hugo and Nebula nominee plaques.
And since I had my camera out anyway, here's a picture of my dogs Puck (standing) and Emma (grumbling) (named for Shakespeare and Austen characters! BritLit geek cred!) and a shot of one of the great loves of my life, my Lemond Tourmalet (gear fetishism geek cred!).
I'll post about the new articles as they come out.
Love and peace,
Christopher
|
| Kyrene |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 13:36:35
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
I'd venture it's as well informed a one as any others you'll see in these parts.
We'll take your word for it...quote:
If familiarity with the system under discussion counts as well informed, anyway.
We'll also take your word for that...
You have stated quite clearly that you have a vested interest in 4 by the amount of product and time you have thusfar consumed. I have stated quite clearly that I have a vested interest in anything but 4 due to refusing to buy anything with that logo on it. Apart from the fact that we are therefore both biased, and therefore our opinionshow well informed or notdont count, very few people have really had an issue with the mechanics of the new edition.
Now, was there something you wished to praise WotC for with regards to Dragon 374 in particular? Im sure wed all love to hear it. Regurgitated 4 love/hate generalities at this late stage dont count... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 03:33:22
quote:
Originally posted by scererar
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
'Builds' are for people who lack imagination, and need someone else to tell them EXACTLY how to put their character together. It's 'RP' for Idiots.
Probably unrelated, but funny thing - I just finished reading an article about debates and read that when folks start calling names or putting folks down, you won the debate or they just don't have anything more articulate to provide.. Just sayin, it was a good article.
I think the word "build" is where folks are sticking to. Really, when you pick the race "elf" and the class "fighter" you are "building" a character. So unless you write a story to decribe your character, without any mechanics, we are all "building".
Yeah, but that's not how the word is being used. |
| scererar |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 03:16:18
Hey, anybody have a chance to check out the hybrid class playtest article published today? I briefly checked it out. From first look, it appears more convoluted than the 2E concept. Thoughts? |
| scererar |
Posted - 07 Apr 2009 : 02:46:18
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
'Builds' are for people who lack imagination, and need someone else to tell them EXACTLY how to put their character together. It's 'RP' for Idiots.
Probably unrelated, but funny thing - I just finished reading an article about debates and read that when folks start calling names or putting folks down, you won the debate or they just don't have anything more articulate to provide.. Just sayin, it was a good article.
I think the word "build" is where folks are sticking to. Really, when you pick the race "elf" and the class "fighter" you are "building" a character. So unless you write a story to decribe your character, without any mechanics, we are all "building". |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 06 Apr 2009 : 15:10:02
Y'know, I've been playing 4E for almost a year now. I've got all the books, a DDI subscription, the whole nine yards. I've also been playing rpgs on and off since 1982. And this system is my favorite among the dozens I've played, by far. It supports roleplaying and storytelling as well as anything I've ever seen, and does it far better than most.
Just my opinion of course--I'd venture it's as well informed a one as any others you'll see in these parts. If familiarity with the system under discussion counts as well informed, anyway.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 06 Apr 2009 : 05:38:52
'Builds' is a MORPG term... thats why it doesn't belong anywhere NEAR D&D. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck....
Anyhow, when I played Diablo II a few years back my son was all into 'builds', and would look-up all the 'accepted' power-builds on line, which included which gear to get for each build (and he even spent REAL money on armor via the Internet!!!).
I dueled him with my completely off-the-wall, non-standard PC and wooped his butt. He then took my character "out for a spin" and wooped everyone else's butt with it - people didn't even know how to fight him!
You know why? Because they were all used to dueling each other and new all the builds!!!
later I did the same thing on WOW, where builds are BIG there (it's a 'must' for everyone, else they called your character 'broken'). Once again, I went my own way and built a character that no-one could wup the first time or two (until you noticed my non-comformist tricks). I had the only Warlock anyone ever saw that didn't use Fear, and melee'd everyone instead (and won!) By that time, my son had learned a thing or two from his pappy (), and built a Shamen that easily took-out other people ten levels higher then himself.
'Builds' are for people who lack imagination, and need someone else to tell them EXACTLY how to put their character together. It's 'RP' for Idiots. Sometimes you get a really rare item, and when you optimize your skills around it, you can break any build (which I did in Diablo and my son did in WoW). It's all about using what you got, not following a schematic like everyone else is. A little creativity goes a long way. |
|
|
