| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Julian Grimm
Seeker
86 Posts |
 Posted - 24 Dec 2009 : 18:20:06
|
| I liked WOTC better when Peter Adkinson had it. It seemed that he really cared about the game and the company. It wasn't just D&D that suffered from the Hasbro takeover either. I used to be an avid M:TG player as well and have not been happy with it for the past few years. |
 |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2009 : 19:35:30
|
And yet I think 4E is selling pretty well in the US despite a recession and economic downturns. The game just couldn't support any more "cruch" (for lack of a better term) and still maintain any sort of freshness. The 3.5 system was just too saturated IMO. Yes, more lore books detailing information about monstes habits and what not, sort of like Lord of Madness, would've been nice but they only go so far for the typical gamer. And for WotC to over-haul the system AGAIN would've turned out even worse I think.
As for the newest system of D&D not resembling what D&D used to be, that's all up for interpretation by the individual. As a whole, D&D is a game for people to role-play fictional characters who star in a story. The mechanics is just a simple medium to help the story along. I don't think one system better justifies what D&D is over another. |
Edited by - Diffan on 24 Dec 2009 19:36:21 |
|
|
|
Julian Grimm
Seeker
86 Posts |
Posted - 24 Dec 2009 : 19:51:58
|
Depends on who you talk to. Close to me there are two game stores. One sells 4e pretty well but the other can't move it and has Pathfinder and used 3.X as the main sellers. I have looked at the 4e books and, to me, it is as alien as trying to read a different language. I may recognize some terms but that is it.
Personally, I would hope for a system that resembles a streamlined 2e and that has less roll-playing aspects. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 25 Dec 2009 : 00:22:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Julian Grimm
Personally, I would hope for a system that resembles a streamlined 2e and that has less roll-playing aspects.
Well, I think a big part of the 3E (and 4E) roll-playing aspects come from a need of the DM to be a referee more than a storyteller in a lot of games. A lot of DMs never learned the fine art of 'give me an X roll' to determine the outcome of some great idea the player had that wasn't covered in traditional rules. So the newer editions tried to cover as many bases as possible so these situations didn't occur as much as before. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 25 Dec 2009 : 03:41:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Julian Grimm
Personally, I would hope for a system that resembles a streamlined 2e and that has less roll-playing aspects.
Well, I think a big part of the 3E (and 4E) roll-playing aspects come from a need of the DM to be a referee more than a storyteller in a lot of games. A lot of DMs never learned the fine art of 'give me an X roll' to determine the outcome of some great idea the player had that wasn't covered in traditional rules. So the newer editions tried to cover as many bases as possible so these situations didn't occur as much as before.
Though the current and previous edition focused more on the combat side of D&D, I don't think that stifles the role-playing experience. Granted, I feel 3E really tried to put a roll to basically everything a character tried to do (primarly in combat) and had rolls for every situation. But 4E really simplified those aspects. Even with the focus of combat (something roll play is intended for) that 3E and 4E emphasised, it didn't take anything away from the Role-playing aspect of the game. Sure, I doubt we'll see a D&D supplement with little or no game mechanics involved (monster stats, feats, power, etc..) but that leaves the DM with a lot of freedom to interject his/her own ideas and storyline. The DM determines if the game is based on roll-play or role-play, not the edition. |
Edited by - Diffan on 25 Dec 2009 03:41:58 |
|
|
|
Julian Grimm
Seeker
86 Posts |
Posted - 25 Dec 2009 : 06:29:20
|
| I have to disagree with the last part. If you really look at 3.X to 4e and things said by the designers you really do see an increase in a roll-play mentality than with prior editions. In fact, look at the core books for those editions and you see a switch from abstract to tactical combat and more rules for things outside of combat that involve many modifiers. Whereas in the past it was handled by "Just roll a 20 and see what happens." |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 25 Dec 2009 : 07:22:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Julian Grimm
I have to disagree with the last part. If you really look at 3.X to 4e and things said by the designers you really do see an increase in a roll-play mentality than with prior editions. In fact, look at the core books for those editions and you see a switch from abstract to tactical combat and more rules for things outside of combat that involve many modifiers. Whereas in the past it was handled by "Just roll a 20 and see what happens."
I really can't confirm or deny this considering I don't own any 2E products nor have I played AD&D for over a decade. Even from what I remember, there were so many charts and what-not I really couldn't decipher what I was supposed to do, lol.
But your correct about how combat is being handled. Though you don't need miniatures to play the game, the rules (espically for 4E) really emphasise them. I don't have any problem with being more tactical and find that aspect fun and intriguing. But even though the books push for that, you don't need to go that route. Everything could be done without a table, map, and miniatures. But no matter what edition you use, it's up to the DM tell a compelling story for your characters to play through. Whether it's wading through orc hoards, rolling die every 10 seconds, and expending powers, magical items, and feats or progressing the storyline with role-playing for everyone at the table it all reamains on how you play, not what you use to play. You can run a 4E game and not roll a single die if all your doing is conversing with NPCs, eachother, or adventuring in the country side. |
|
|
|
woodwwad
Learned Scribe
USA
267 Posts |
Posted - 26 Dec 2009 : 00:45:19
|
| I too hate what they've done with the realms in 4th. But then again, I totally hate 4th. Just a bad edition, it's not really even D&D---the tone and feel are different and the system isn't quality. It's like it's a bad fanstay game, instead of a good one. |
Check out my reviews on youtube of Forgotten Realms and other rpg products. http://www.youtube.com/user/woodwwad?feature=mhum |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 26 Dec 2009 : 15:11:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
I too hate what they've done with the realms in 4th. But then again, I totally hate 4th. Just a bad edition, it's not really even D&D---the tone and feel are different and the system isn't quality. It's like it's a bad fanstay game, instead of a good one.
See, I feel exactly the same way about 2E/AD&D. I couldn't stand level caps, race restrictions, THAC0, 5 different saving throws, weapon speeds, etc. Yet, one redeeming quality for that era of D&D, in my opinion, is the lore that it produced. Even in the BG games, the books you find had no real purpose except to divulge more information, history, and lore into the game setting and they were always fun to read. |
|
|
|
Fizilbert
Learned Scribe
USA
123 Posts |
Posted - 26 Dec 2009 : 17:53:48
|
Some of the stuff you mentioned, like level caps and class restrictions, are optional rules. You didn't have to play with them. Now granted, THAC0 was a bit confusing, but I found once you got use to it, it was very simple to determine if you hit or not. As for 5 saving throws, I could in turn argue why not have 1 instead of the 3 that are in 3.X?
What I hated about 3.X is the fact that they got rid of weapon speeds and casting times. That was probably the biggest thing that killed 3.X for me. I liked what they did with attack rolls and DC rolls, but I just couldn't get past the fact that weapons swung immediately and spells were either immediate or 1 round casting. When every weapon swings at the same time, why have a giant list of weapons? Everyone is gonna pick the weapon that does the most damage. Some of my most memorable fighter characters from 2E were ones that had taken a weapon not typically used and turned it into a devastating weapon. I had a fighter that specialized in throwing daggers, and he could throw like 4 in a round before most other fighters could swing their two handed sword even once.
Same thing with casting times. Why is a wizard going to use a simple first level spell vs a higher level spell when the casting times are all the same? It's better to just go with the high level, high damage spell.
One of my most memorable times playing D&D was when I got into a wizard's duel, and I had to make the decision of whether I was going to go for a quick casting 1st level spell to try and disrupt the other guy's casting, or will I take the risk of trying to cast a higher level spell which would do more damage, but take longer to cast? Would I be able to be that guy's initiative and casting time?
I just seemed like in 3.X those fun moments were taken away. While it made the game simpler to understand and play, some how it just seemed to remove the flavor. It's like a microwave, makes it quick and easy to cook things, but what you cook has less flavor.
That's the way I feel anyway.
|
Fiz
Level 10 Vice-president
World of Elethril |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 26 Dec 2009 : 20:40:57
|
As far as the optional rules go, I was under the impression that if you didn't use them, then your homebrewing. I usually have no problem with this, but the amount of homebrew you throw in can really unbalance the system.
quote:
Originally posted by Fizilbert
As for 5 saving throws, I could in turn argue why not have 1 instead of the 3 that are in 3.X?
I don't think that's a viable method. 2E really went overboard with what saves were supposed to cover and the generalization of those into 3 easy parts just makes things more simple (and to me, fun).
quote:
Originally posted by Fizilbert
What I hated about 3.X is the fact that they got rid of weapon speeds and casting times. That was probably the biggest thing that killed 3.X for me. I liked what they did with attack rolls and DC rolls, but I just couldn't get past the fact that weapons swung immediately and spells were either immediate or 1 round casting. When every weapon swings at the same time, why have a giant list of weapons? Everyone is gonna pick the weapon that does the most damage.
To me, a person picks a certain weapon in 3.X more so for flavor or for a feat progression than straight up damage. Certain feats that came out for Player's Handbook 2 and Complete Warrior required a character to use certain weapons and thus, made those weapons a good choice. In addition, with classes having a base attack bounus it pretty much negated a need for weapon speeds seeing as a 10th level fighter wielding any weapon is only going to swing twice, or three times with Two-Weapon Fighting.
quote:
Originally posted by Fizilbert
Same thing with casting times. Why is a wizard going to use a simple first level spell vs a higher level spell when the casting times are all the same? It's better to just go with the high level, high damage spell.
Considering that each situation is different depends greatly on what level spell a wizard is going to use. If a 15th level wizard is faced with a mob of goblins I highly doubt he's going to be unleashing 8th level spells on them. Probably more like good ol' Fireball or another low-level area spell. And as a wizard progresses, he/she's more often that not going to prepare more utility-type spells of lower level than damaging ones so I think it pretty much renders 1 round+ casting times useless. Now, there spells that have a casting time higher than 1 round, but they're just not as popular or effective as standard spells are.
|
|
|
|
Julian Grimm
Seeker
86 Posts |
Posted - 26 Dec 2009 : 21:44:52
|
If you really look at the number of optional rules in 2e you will find that the system was much more simple than it is given credit for being. As far as the 'houserule/hombrew' equaling unbalanced games it is true to a point. But no more with 2e as in any other edition. You just need to make sure your changes make sense for you and your group.
I've never been a fan of the 'official' or 'one true way' that many fans and companies push. The whole history of RPGs began and should stay with the rules being mere guidelines for play with 'officiality' only being used for organized play or tournaments. One strength 2e has is that the rules are split into standard, optional and tournament areas for each group to adopt. IMO WOTC has tried to kill the idea of this looser style of play from 3.X on and it is something I don't like. |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3287 Posts |
Posted - 26 Dec 2009 : 23:30:45
|
One mans trash is another mans treasure. |
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
|
|
|
woodwwad
Learned Scribe
USA
267 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2009 : 03:58:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by woodwwad
I too hate what they've done with the realms in 4th. But then again, I totally hate 4th. Just a bad edition, it's not really even D&D---the tone and feel are different and the system isn't quality. It's like it's a bad fanstay game, instead of a good one.
See, I feel exactly the same way about 2E/AD&D. I couldn't stand level caps, race restrictions, THAC0, 5 different saving throws, weapon speeds, etc. Yet, one redeeming quality for that era of D&D, in my opinion, is the lore that it produced. Even in the BG games, the books you find had no real purpose except to divulge more information, history, and lore into the game setting and they were always fun to read.
I played a lot of 2nd ed. 3rd ed came out right before I graduated from college. I'm 32. I like 2nd ed. But I agree with you that level caps were a bad idea. I think they are an okay idea for npcs, one you might break here or there but not for pcs, never for pcs. I don't think I ever played with anyone that used that rule for pcs, but I do recall it. I thought some of the race restriction made sense but some didn't. I think Dwarves not being able to be wizards was okay but Halflings not being wizards didn't make any sense---hell, remember Willow? I disagree with you on weapon speed, I used that and really thought it gave a great detail to the game. Why should a guy that uses a two-handed sword go before someone with a dagger? I even thought about bringing weapon speed into 3.5. I do not like the way multiclassing was done, and dual classing was terrible. Multiple classes for characters is handled best in the 3.5 system. It is so nice how they did it. You can start as a fighter, have a few adventures, go up a few levels as fighter. Have another series of adventures where your character becomes a rogue, so you add levels of that class to your character. Then the DM could do a deal that you awaken, and gain levels of sorcerer or you could become full of religion and find your way to priesthood. It makes for much better play than just having to start a character in one class and then being stuck with that class, if you make a mistake you can end up not liking the character but in 3.5 if you pick a monk and end up not wanting to be a monk anymore, you can switch to another class which might lead to making a pc you don't like that much a lot more enjoyable to play. |
Check out my reviews on youtube of Forgotten Realms and other rpg products. http://www.youtube.com/user/woodwwad?feature=mhum |
|
|
|
Fizilbert
Learned Scribe
USA
123 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2009 : 13:25:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
To me, a person picks a certain weapon in 3.X more so for flavor or for a feat progression than straight up damage. Certain feats that came out for Player's Handbook 2 and Complete Warrior required a character to use certain weapons and thus, made those weapons a good choice. In addition, with classes having a base attack bounus it pretty much negated a need for weapon speeds seeing as a 10th level fighter wielding any weapon is only going to swing twice, or three times with Two-Weapon Fighting.
See for me, that's the very problem with that system. It has been my experience that players do not choose weapons based on adding some flavor to their game, or making their characters unique. Especially at first level, they want the weapons that will let them deal the most damage. When you have weapon speeds, you can turn around and tell your players "well you can have that two handed sword or that morning star, but it's going to take you a while to swing it, and you may get gutted by a dagger before you can make a swing."
Like Woodwwad, I'm in my early thirties, and 3.0 came out when I just finished school. I had been part of 2E group while in college. I had bought the 3.0 PH when it came out, and read through it. I liked some of the changes, but some things just stood out as so fundamentally wrong that I just couldn't bring myself to make the switch to 3E. And when it came time recently for me to start DMing my own game, I decided to stick with 2E not only because it was the system I liked the best, but it was the system I was the most familiar with, and it was the system that was cheapest for my players, all of whom have never played D&D and thus had to purchase books for the game.
As Brimstone said, one man's trash is another man's treasure. |
Fiz
Level 10 Vice-president
World of Elethril |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3287 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2009 : 14:04:54
|
It's all about getting with some friends, rolling dice, looting monsters, saving the princess/prince. Just play and have fun. It's a Win/win situation. |
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2009 : 14:05:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fizilbert
See for me, that's the very problem with that system. It has been my experience that players do not choose weapons based on adding some flavor to their game, or making their characters unique. Especially at first level, they want the weapons that will let them deal the most damage. When you have weapon speeds, you can turn around and tell your players "well you can have that two handed sword or that morning star, but it's going to take you a while to swing it, and you may get gutted by a dagger before you can make a swing."
I think this is why they invented Initiative, to see who's going to swing first. While I can't argue that a person wielding a two-handed sword is going to be swinging slower than a person with a dagger, I'm more a simplistic kinda guy. I adhere to the Keep It Simple Stupid method, lol. But to each his own.
quote:
Originally posted by Fizilbert
Like Woodwwad, I'm in my early thirties, and 3.0 came out when I just finished school. I had been part of 2E group while in college. I had bought the 3.0 PH when it came out, and read through it. I liked some of the changes, but some things just stood out as so fundamentally wrong that I just couldn't bring myself to make the switch to 3E. And when it came time recently for me to start DMing my own game, I decided to stick with 2E not only because it was the system I liked the best, but it was the system I was the most familiar with, and it was the system that was cheapest for my players, all of whom have never played D&D and thus had to purchase books for the game.
As Brimstone said, one man's trash is another man's treasure.
I hear ya. I'm in my late 20's and 3E came out my senior year of high school and because I didn't own any 2E stuff, it just seemed the easier path to go with the newest edition. But as 4E reared it's head, I made a choice to play it and see if I liked how it was done. For me, at first I was so pissed when I got the boxed PHB, MM, DMG set. I mean, no charts? No level progression?! WTF? But as I started to divulge deeper into the mechanics, seeing the changes and balance they've brought to the game I felt more comfortable about playing it. But I still have all my 3.5 library and I've used those for inspiration on more than one occasion for running 4E material so I don't think they've gone to waste and I still play 3.5 when someone runs a campaign.
PS- It's good to have a edition discussion without it turning into a stupid flame war over what D&D is "supposed" to be or which edition is right or wrong. |
|
|
|
Julian Grimm
Seeker
86 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2009 : 17:08:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
PS- It's good to have a edition discussion without it turning into a stupid flame war over what D&D is "supposed" to be or which edition is right or wrong.
You have no idea how refreshing this has been for me. |
|
|
|
Fizilbert
Learned Scribe
USA
123 Posts |
Posted - 28 Dec 2009 : 03:16:18
|
See, I dont get that. There is no reason to turn things into a flame war. While I personally think that 4E is trash and 3E is not much better, I respect that not everyone will feel the same. There is no reason why passionate, but respectful discourse can't be had about the subjects. Hell, you might even be able to sway a few people one way or the other. :)
I do admit that 3E did make the game simpler and easier for newbies to learn. Whether or not that was a GOOD thing, well that's the question of the century.
I think Diffan sorta hit the nail on the head when he mentioned some of his initial misgivings about 4E. In 2E you had an abundance of rules, tables, charts, etc.. Some would probably say it had too many rules and charts/tables.
In 3E it seemed there were less charts and tables, and less hard and fast rules. And while I have only glimpsed at 4E, I'll have to take his word on it when he said it had little to no charts and whatnot. For some people, having less regulation is great, it gives them more freedom to do things as they want. Me? I'd rather have an over-abundance of rules and regulations, but have the option to use them or not. For me it's easier to dismiss a rule that I may not need then it is to try and create a new rule when I find it hasn't been covered in the books. Again, it just boils down to a personal preference.
And for the record, weapon speeds was an optional rule in 2E, though probably most DMs used it. |
Fiz
Level 10 Vice-president
World of Elethril |
|
|
|
Julian Grimm
Seeker
86 Posts |
Posted - 28 Dec 2009 : 05:25:35
|
Some of the other forums I visit has some really scary hardliners that can turn any edition discussion into a flamewar. I think the most scary are the 1e hardliners, they are worse than any 3.X/d20 fanatics I have came across and have turned the game into some sort of pseudo religion.
You are right, Fizilbert it is all about preference in your system of choice. Not a hard line in the sand saying 'this edition or nothing.'
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 28 Dec 2009 : 07:14:56
|
It's funny because I've found most of the hardliners I've noticed were Pro anything other than 4E lol. I can understand people not liking the new edition because it's so different than what previous editions have done and most don't like change. And I think people here (and the Old Guard over at WotC) espically don't like 4E because it heralded the over-haul of the Realms.
As far as the changes to the Realms, I like some ideas (such as Returned Aber, earth motes, culling of deities, and some of the major geographical changes) but dislike others (100 year time jump, Shar being the predominate "cool bad-guy", and the destruction of various areas of Faerun that had a lot of potential such as Halruaa, Vilhon Reach, Lantan, and Nimbral). But I've been able to take the good with the bad, adhere to the changes that fit my game and style the most and change the rest. But for me, I like the setting-lite approach. "Great taste, less filling" I say. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 28 Dec 2009 : 07:33:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fizilbert
See, I dont get that. There is no reason to turn things into a flame war. While I personally think that 4E is trash and 3E is not much better, I respect that not everyone will feel the same. There is no reason why passionate, but respectful discourse can't be had about the subjects. Hell, you might even be able to sway a few people one way or the other. :)
Well for some, I think people can take edition criticism a little too personal. I understand that every edition will have flaws or rules that people don't like but to get mad or upset others don't share you view is just silly. An example for 2E is Weapon Speeds, as Fizilbert mentioned. A good one for 3.X was XP penalties for multiclassing (something I've never implemented as a DM). Something I've found to be really stupid with 4E was the limit on how many magical items you could use per day. In 4E you can only use one magical item's daily power per day unless you reached a milestone. I think this is really stupid and limits what a player can do or use at a critical time. What if you really need your flaming sword's power to shoot fire but, oh wait, I've already used my shield's ability to block a critical hit on my ally so, oh well. Better luck next time. Other than that though, I've found very little I've needed to change so I think that's a pretty good sign. And my point here is that there is no one "True" edition to rule them all. And I think that some people have taken up flaming one edition over another as some sort of wierd, crusade with the attempt to sow discontent among people which will somehow reverse what has happened. |
Edited by - Diffan on 28 Dec 2009 14:07:23 |
|
|
|
dwarvenranger
Senior Scribe
USA
428 Posts |
Posted - 28 Dec 2009 : 16:19:39
|
| Lady Fellshot if ya'd be so kind as to pour me a mug as well? My feet are sore from walking across so many worlds lately but I needed to come back to my home. Seems like there'd be good company in this cave... |
If I waited till I knew what I was doing, I'd never get anything done.
|
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 28 Dec 2009 : 17:49:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
It's funny because I've found most of the hardliners I've noticed were Pro anything other than 4E lol. I can understand people not liking the new edition because it's so different than what previous editions have done and most don't like change. And I think people here (and the Old Guard over at WotC) espically don't like 4E because it heralded the over-haul of the Realms.
And we come back to perspective. Being a fan of 3.X/Pathfinder, whenever I discussed the edition change over at the WotC boards, I found that most of the hardliners were of the 4E persuasion. If people are writing things that are against your preferences, you will most often label them as 'hardliners' or something similar, where as the same language and tone by people of like-minded preferences will simply be 'staunch defenders' in your outlook. Which is why I try not to get involved in any edition discussions anymore. You like what you like, I like what I like and we're both having fun. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Fizilbert
Learned Scribe
USA
123 Posts |
Posted - 28 Dec 2009 : 22:49:33
|
| So do we get to pile into the cave in order of which edition we prefer? 3Es at the front, 2Es in the back, and 1Es WAY in the back? ;) |
Fiz
Level 10 Vice-president
World of Elethril |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2009 : 07:50:40
|
| I think I'm gonna get a VIP pass and come or go as I please |
|
|
|
Fizilbert
Learned Scribe
USA
123 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2009 : 16:49:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I think I'm gonna get a VIP pass and come or go as I please
Hey! One of those 4E guys is trying to sneak in! Get him! ;) |
Fiz
Level 10 Vice-president
World of Elethril |
|
|
|
Julian Grimm
Seeker
86 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2009 : 17:35:48
|
| Let them come and go. They may learn something. :D |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2009 : 18:31:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fizilbert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I think I'm gonna get a VIP pass and come or go as I please
Hey! One of those 4E guys is trying to sneak in! Get him! ;)
Now, now, now... Everyone's welcome. For shortly there will be a 4.5 and then a 5th Edition, and he can join in the lamentations of previous editions like the rest of us. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3287 Posts |
Posted - 29 Dec 2009 : 20:18:37
|
Truth!
 |
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Taking my 3.5 books and hiding in a cave
