D&D thread
-
-
-
I got a present! A drawing of my two main characters I been playing in the campaigns and adventures.
Count Rokkaa (former hunter and now forest-owner) sitting on his throne, and his main problem-solver/invesigator: Hataka the tauren paladin, who just wants to axe you a question.
-
So I just finished the Vox Machina storyline of Critical Role. (I started it in 2018, listening to the podcast version during my commute. Then about a year ago, all of a sudden I didn't have a commute anymore and it got a lot harder to dedicate time to it.)
Thoughts:
Matt is an amazing storyteller, worldbuilder, and DM! Wow!
Given my interests, my favorite characters "should have been" Scanlan and Percy, the bard and the engineer. But somehow they turned out to be the two I liked the least. Percy was just annoying, ranging from insufferable to cruel to downright brutal in some parts of his story arc, and frankly, when he died at one point I was honestly hoping he would fail to rezz. I was surprised when, towards the end of the campaign, a certain being used Detect Evil on them and said no one in the party was evil, because it really felt like Taliesen was playing him LE.
And Scanlan... he was just kinda gross, but I think I had a bigger problem with his player. Sam came across as an obnoxious troll who went out of his way to irritate his fellow cast members on several occasions. (And the stunt he pulled of withdrawing Scanlan from the game and replacing him with someone even more obnoxious to the point where everyone ends up wishing they had Scanlan back really didn't win him any points in my view!) Particularly bad was all the sexual harassment towards Pike early on, even after she made it clear she wasn't interested. There are groups out there where that behavior would have gotten his character PK'd with no rezz.
Surprisingly enough, my favorite character turned out to be Grog, because Travis was just so ridiculously entertaining at portraying him! He was hilariously dumb, and Travis always kept in character and remained consistent, doing what Grog would do even when other choices would have made more sense from an OOC perspective. I've never particularly held with the notion of "my guy syndrome" being a legitimate problem, and Travis provides us with an amazing counterexample, of how doing "what my guy would do" can greatly enhance a game rather than detracting from it.
And of course, where would Grog be without Pike? She was sweet and adorable and an absolute powerhouse in battle. It's kind of tragic the way she ended up missing from so many episodes. Like... it was good for Ashley personally, definitely, landing a starring role on a big TV show, but tragic for CR!
I loved the twins. Vax was always a bit OP in combat (nowhere near as bad as Percy early on, but still) and Vex always found some way to be doing something interesting and unexpected. It kinda felt like Liam didn't really embrace the rogue side of his character much, though. He played him as a scrapper more than a thief; I'd expected a lot more sneaking and lockpicking and stuff from the resident rogue. Vex was always coming up with cool tricks, especially after Matt more or less officially recognized that Trinket had become a burden on the party and introduced the amulet-of-inconvenient-bear-storage. Though I do wish Laura was a bit less of a potty mouth. Are all those F-bombs really necessary?
...and then there was Keyleth. Yeah. She was there too. But when the most memorable thing she did in the entire campaign was the infamous goldfish incident... it's hard to have all that much to say about her.
Except that the goldfish incident was freaking hilarious!Out of the guest star party members, I think my favorite was either Kashaw or Lionel. Probably Lionel. I definitely wasn't expecting Napoleon Dynamite, of all people, to show up on there, and he was just ridiculously entertaining with his character. Pat Rothfuss's character wasn't bad, but the player was a real detriment to enjoying it, simply because I kept thinking, "what in the world are you doing wasting so much time on multiple episodes of Critical Role while you're a decade behind on your next book?!?" (One of the few Sam moments I genuinely enjoyed was when he managed to crack up the entire cast by trolling Pat about this.)
I understand that the second campaign is supposed to take place in the same world, several years later. I just kind of wonder... what will they be able to do to top this? Vox Machina set the bar pretty high!
Well, I guess I'll find out.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in [D&D thread](/post/18137MediaMonkey Scan Log (3-9-2020).txt 60):
So I just finished the Vox Machina storyline of Critical Role.
Never have understood how people enjoy watching others play RPGs. So much thumb twiddling and so few good improv sequences.
-
@Dragoon said in D&D thread:
@PotatoEngineer said in D&D thread:
@Jaloopa said in D&D thread:
A book where the author decides how well battles go by dice rolls could be an interesting experiment, or more likely completely ruin the pacing.
Yeah, "and then The Hero died in an unimportant (random) encounter" doesn't make for terribly good storytelling. I can imagine an author writing around that problem (Ha! Decoy protagonist!) But a TPK means a giant rewrite to suddenly promote some side characers, or even re-introducing characters from scratch halfway through the story.
Isn't that basically a choose your own adventure book?
"Gamebook" is the generic name for Choose Your Own Adventure + Dice books. I was a big fan of the Lone Wolf series when I was a kid.
-
@Parody said in D&D thread:
Never have understood how people enjoy watching others play RPGs. So much thumb twiddling and so few good improv sequences.
Agreed, though I will add it’s at least more interesting than spectating at a CCG game. Not that that’s saying much.
-
@Gurth said in D&D thread:
@Parody said in D&D thread:
Never have understood how people enjoy watching others play RPGs. So much thumb twiddling and so few good improv sequences.
Agreed, though I will add it’s at least more interesting than spectating at a CCG game. Not that that’s saying much.
A friend of mine had a commercially sold VHS tape of ESPN's coverage of a Magic the Gathering event from the 90s. The commentators did a lot of explaining the rules. It was absurd. :)
-
@Parody said in D&D thread:
@Mason_Wheeler said in [D&D thread](/post/18137MediaMonkey Scan Log (3-9-2020).txt 60):
So I just finished the Vox Machina storyline of Critical Role.
Never have understood how people enjoy watching others play RPGs. So much thumb twiddling and so few good improv sequences.
It helps when everyone involved is a professional voice actor who's been doing this for years. Makes for a far more interesting and polished experience than what you'd get looking in on the D&D sessions I do with my siblings.
-
@Parody said in D&D thread:
A friend of mine had a commercially sold VHS tape of ESPN's coverage of a Magic the Gathering event from the 90s. The commentators did a lot of explaining the rules. It was absurd. :)
That can’t have been a live commentary, but must have been to a taped match that they could pause all the time to explain the rules …
All CCG games between non-novice players that I’ve ever been a spectator at, consist of one player throwing up one or more cards, usually announcing its name, one or both then rapidly dicking around with the cards, counters, and whatever else they have before them on the table. Then they repeat.
Hardly a word is said beyond names of cards, because seemingly they both know what they do. This is why those games are so bloody dull to watch: unless you also know the rules and the cards at the players’ level, all you see happening is what I just described. I couldn’t see the attraction.
-
@Gurth said in D&D thread:
All CCG games between non-novice players that I’ve ever been a spectator at, consist of one player throwing up one or more cards, usually announcing its name, one or both then rapidly dicking around with the cards, counters, and whatever else they have before them on the table. Then they repeat.
I haven't played for a while, and it was always with friends, not a tournament environment or whatever, but there was always a lot of trash talking going on when we played. I'm sure there was more of that commentary than anything, frankly.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in D&D thread:
@Parody said in D&D thread:
@Mason_Wheeler said in [D&D thread](/post/18137MediaMonkey Scan Log (3-9-2020).txt 60):
So I just finished the Vox Machina storyline of Critical Role.
Never have understood how people enjoy watching others play RPGs. So much thumb twiddling and so few good improv sequences.
It helps when everyone involved is a professional voice actor who's been doing this for years. Makes for a far more interesting and polished experience than what you'd get looking in on the D&D sessions I do with my siblings.
It didn't help Critical Role.
(I'm glad you liked it, though! It just did nothing for me.)
-
@boomzilla said in D&D thread:
@Gurth said in D&D thread:
All CCG games between non-novice players that I’ve ever been a spectator at, consist of one player throwing up one or more cards, usually announcing its name, one or both then rapidly dicking around with the cards, counters, and whatever else they have before them on the table. Then they repeat.
I haven't played for a while, and it was always with friends, not a tournament environment or whatever, but there was always a lot of trash talking going on when we played. I'm sure there was more of that commentary than anything, frankly.
In my games with friends, a lot of time was spent memeing whenever a swamp card was played.
Rzecznik cyganów – 00:25
— xwlk
-
-
@boomzilla said in D&D thread:
@Gurth said in D&D thread:
All CCG games between non-novice players that I’ve ever been a spectator at, consist of one player throwing up one or more cards, usually announcing its name, one or both then rapidly dicking around with the cards, counters, and whatever else they have before them on the table. Then they repeat.
I haven't played for a while, and it was always with friends, not a tournament environment or whatever, but there was always a lot of trash talking going on when we played. I'm sure there was more of that commentary than anything, frankly.
Then you were luckier than I was :) Most of the time I saw M:TG players (because they never played anything else) was at a game store, back when there were still any within reasonable travel distance from where I live, and they all pretty much played like I described.
At one point I even managed to get a Magic player annoyed with me because of that. A few of them decided to hold a small, private tournament after the shop closed for the day, and a friend of mine wanted to join in. Unfortunately for me, we had gone there together in his car, so I was stuck too. Obvious solution: join in the tournament. Obvious problem: I hadn’t played M:TG in five years or so at that point. I knew the basic rules, but had to read almost every card to see what it did. One of the three players I played against didn’t mind, one actively helped me out, and one got ever more annoyed at me.
Success! ;)
-
@Gurth I think I played with randos at a game store once. But dealing with dickhead 11 year olds was not my idea of fun.
-
@boomzilla said in D&D thread:
dealing with dickhead 11 year olds was not my idea of fun.
That's why I never qualified as a teacher
-
@Jaloopa I had fun being a Cubmaster, though. But, very different situation than a teacher.
-
@boomzilla said in D&D thread:
@Jaloopa I had fun being a Cubmaster, though. But, very different situation than a teacher.
But you still didn't have to deal with 11 year olds. When they turn 11, they move on and become SEP.
-
@boomzilla said in D&D thread:
@Gurth I think I played with randos at a game store once. But dealing with dickhead 11 year olds was not my idea of fun.
These were mid-20-somethings, as I recall. At the time I was a little older than that, but close enough to their age bracket to not feel old. However, that one guy did come across as a random mid-20-something dickhead, yes.
-
@Gurth said in D&D thread:
At one point I even managed to get a Magic player annoyed with me because of that. A few of them decided to hold a small, private tournament after the shop closed for the day, and a friend of mine wanted to join in. Unfortunately for me, we had gone there together in his car, so I was stuck too. Obvious solution: join in the tournament. Obvious problem: I hadn’t played M:TG in five years or so at that point. I knew the basic rules, but had to read almost every card to see what it did. One of the three players I played against didn’t mind, one actively helped me out, and one got ever more annoyed at me.
That happened to me a couple of years ago. I was with my brother in a "gaming café" (= a bar with plenty of various board games that you can borrow and play) and ended up with 4-5 other people who had decided to play a mini-tournament with cards that one of them had brought. They were all pretty chill about it and kept saying "that's OK, it's cards from an old extension, we also don't remember them all", but what they meant by "old" was maybe 2 years ago so while they might not remember all individual cards they still remembered quite a few and at least what the extension special rules were. Whereas for me, the most "recent" extension that I semi-regularly played is probably at least 10 years old (mmm... more like 15 going on 20 by now...
).The most painful part was the drafting round (=when packs of cards circulate and you pick one from each pack to build your deck) as I had to carefully read each and every card and really try to remember them to decide what might or might not work, rather than recognising at least some and making automatic associations.
On the whole, it wasn't really a lot of fun, I spent too much time looking at each card and trying to work out everything than actually playing.
Success! ;)
We ended up playing one multi-player round, just for the fun, and of course it got stuck in a state where no-one wanted to commit entirely to an attack because it wouldn't kill anyone and would leave them open to another attack. After maybe 1 hour of not a lot of fun, I decided to blow it up and made one all-out attack, mostly for the fun of playing one interesting combo that I had. I lost almost immediately afterwards, of course, but I think that the other players were split 50-50 between being glad that I broke the deadlock, and being annoyed at me for playing a "dumb" move (that would obviously get me killed, as it did).
-
@remi said in D&D thread:
The most painful part was the drafting round (=when packs of cards circulate and you pick one from each pack to build your deck) as I had to carefully read each and every card and really try to remember them to decide what might or might not work, rather than recognising at least some and making automatic associations.
Oh yeah, now you mention it, that’s what we did too. Everybody bought two (I think) boosters and then they were circulated like you describe. I had to read pretty much all the cards then as well, and held everybody else up tremendously.
On the whole, it wasn't really a lot of fun, I spent too much time looking at each card and trying to work out everything than actually playing.
That sounds very recognisable.
After maybe 1 hour of not a lot of fun, I decided to blow it up and made one all-out attack, mostly for the fun of playing one interesting combo that I had. I lost almost immediately afterwards, of course, but I think that the other players were split 50-50 between being glad that I broke the deadlock, and being annoyed at me for playing a "dumb" move (that would obviously get me killed, as it did).
My view is that most of the M:TG players I’ve seen, were too serious about their game. It’s a game. You’re supposed to play it for fun. Most of them only seemed to derive their fun from winning, not from having a good game that everybody in it enjoyed.
Of course, it may be that I usually enjoy most the kinds of games (in any competitive game) that seem like they can go either way most of the time.
-
@Gurth said in D&D thread:
Oh yeah, now you mention it, that’s what we did too. Everybody bought two (I think) boosters and then they were circulated like you describe. I had to read pretty much all the cards then as well, and held everybody else up tremendously.
IME that's how most (non-official) tournaments go. It's actually a pretty good idea as it avoids one player having over-spent (or over-built) a specific deck that wins all the time, and it also forces some variation from game to game (you can't just bring the same deck over and over). In a sense, it extends the game from just playing cards to also integrate the deck-building, which is part of the experience of the game but often seen as "hidden". Some other card games are almost entirely built on deck-building, the playing of the game being somewhat limited in comparison, and they can be great fun as well (Ascension is the one I remember but there are others).
But of course, in the case of MtG, that only works if all players are equally familiar with the cards (and it only works well if they are all relatively familiar with them, so that packs can circulate fairly quickly). Again, some other games that really are built around deck-building are better at that (by having simpler rules and less complicated and unforeseeable combos), so that they can work even with players with very different knowledge of the cards. But not MtG.
My view is that most of the M:TG players I’ve seen, were too serious about their game. It’s a game. You’re supposed to play it for fun. Most of them only seemed to derive their fun from winning, not from having a good game that everybody in it enjoyed.
It depends a lot of the players but yes, I've seen (and been one, at some point in time...) some very competitive players who only cared about the final win, even if that made the whole game boring. I feel that part of the issue is the existence of the "pro" circuit, as it means the public face of the game is a highly-competitive one. Some decks are also specifically built to get this effect (those that basically lock down the game and rely on e.g. the other side exhausting their draw stack faster than you). They are fun to play a couple of times, for novelty's sake, but after that... meh.
There is also the effect that was happening in the game I was talking about, which is that after a few turns both (or all, in this case) players become entrenched in such a way that no single card can decisively break the deadlock (which is a good thing as otherwise it would turn the game into one of luck!). And at that point, since the true strategic part of the game is in the deck-building, not in playing cards (two reasonably experienced players would play the same hand in roughly the same way), there is not much difference than a player can make (compare with e.g. chess, where in a given situation a better player can try a different strategic option that a lesser player wouldn't think about).
Which is why, when I can, I tend to prefer very quick decks with lot of tiny spells that can be used very quickly in the game (typically lots of tiny creatures), rather than slower decks that have to build up to some higher power cards, but that take longer to reach that state. This means I either manage to overwhelm the other side in the first 5-10 turns, or get hopelessly overwhelmed when the other side reaches their full power. Either way, I get to play relatively fast games and enjoy playing cards and doing stuff rather than just boringly draw-cast a useless spell that doesn't change anything-next turn.
-
@remi said in D&D thread:
IME that's how most (non-official) tournaments go.
I’ve played exactly one in my life, that I described earlier, so I wouldn’t know :)
Again, some other games that really are built around deck-building are better at that (by having simpler rules and less complicated and unforeseeable combos), so that they can work even with players with very different knowledge of the cards. But not MtG.
My favourite card game is Fluxx. Good luck trying any kind of long-term strategy (beyond the turn you’re actually playing right now) in that …
I feel that part of the issue is the existence of the "pro" circuit, as it means the public face of the game is a highly-competitive one.
Quite likely.
Some decks are also specifically built to get this effect (those that basically lock down the game and rely on e.g. the other side exhausting their draw stack faster than you). They are fun to play a couple of times, for novelty's sake, but after that... meh.
I used to have a friend who was quite deeply into M:TG, and recall her describing decks like that. One that has stuck out on my mind is one where, once you got a certain combo on the table, your turn would never end (unless you wanted it to) because you could keep shuffling cards around between your hand, the table and your discards, I think, without actually accomplishing anything other than shuffling those cards around.
compare with e.g. chess, where in a given situation a better player can try a different strategic option that a lesser player wouldn't think about
I understand that high-level chess is very much a memory game: “This is the same board as in the game of Foo vs. Bar on 12-3-1952, and then, Foo moved his knight to F4 and eventually won the game.”
-
@Gurth said in D&D thread:
Some decks are also specifically built to get this effect (those that basically lock down the game and rely on e.g. the other side exhausting their draw stack faster than you). They are fun to play a couple of times, for novelty's sake, but after that... meh.
I used to have a friend who was quite deeply into M:TG, and recall her describing decks like that. One that has stuck out on my mind is one where, once you got a certain combo on the table, your turn would never end (unless you wanted it to) because you could keep shuffling cards around between your hand, the table and your discards, I think, without actually accomplishing anything other than shuffling those cards around.
When my circle of friends and myself were into MtG, we saw various decks built around those ideas. One was indeed cycling your discard forever (and building walls high-enough that nothing could reach you) and wait. Funnier variations of that made the opponent discard a lot, which sped up things tremendously and brought some action to the table (though of the frustrating kind as you see your deck being thrown away... but at least that's part of the game!). My brother built a quite clever (for the time, at least) deck of counter-spells: anything you played was denied in one way or another. It was fun to be beaten this way the first few times ("and how are you going to counter that? ... oh... right...") but again very frustrating afterwards. There were more exotic ones, I remember one that used a special card that meant you couldn't die in the normal way so everything was built to protect that card, and let the opponent deal you as much damage as they liked.
They were fun in terms of deck-building exercises, which again is actually a huge, if not the biggest, part of the game, and they were fun to discover (even if you were the victim of them), but as I said, once the novelty value wears off they become boring.
I understand that high-level chess is very much a memory game: “This is the same board as in the game of Foo vs. Bar on 12-3-1952, and then, Foo moved his knight to F4 and eventually won the game.”
I'm no chess player, but my understanding is that it's true for both openings and end-game, but less so in the middle? Anyway, my point was that there are actually very few possible strategic options in the middle of a MtG game. For a given hand (and deck), all experienced players would play it in very similar ways. MtG champions are champions because of the cleverness of the deck they built, but only marginally because of how cleverly they play their decks.
-
@remi said in D&D thread:
Some decks are also specifically built to get this effect (those that basically lock down the game and rely on e.g. the other side exhausting their draw stack faster than you). They are fun to play a couple of times, for novelty's sake, but after that... meh.
Yeah, I have a "discard deck" and a "land destruction deck." I refer to them as my "dick decks" and usually only bring them out as a last resort.
-
@Gurth said in D&D thread:
My favourite card game is Fluxx. Good luck trying any kind of long-term strategy (beyond the turn you’re actually playing right now) in that …
You can plan long term, and than at the last second get mind-swapped and someone else wins.
-
@remi said in D&D thread:
My brother built a quite clever (for the time, at least) deck of counter-spells: anything you played was denied in one way or another.
Counter decks are fun to play, but will get you beaten up in the parking lot after the match.
-
@Dragoon One of the very few cases where a game with that one became truly fun was the day it went against another counter deck that a friend had made. At some point we were several people around the table trying to keep track of which counter was countering which counter which itself was being countered by... (all with slightly different ways of countering, so it was not just a matter of counting the number of cards but really trying to work out how effects and side-effects (draw a card...) were piling and de-piling as they got resolved, or more added)
We all learnt a lot about the subtle mechanisms of effects resolution (things like relative timings of instant/interrupts... which changed between editions of the game!), which was
in a geeky way.Though on the whole, I preferred to play against a counter deck than against a discard one. At least the counter deck gave you some glimmer of hope as you tried to play cards (and build up your stock to try and overwhelm the counter spells at one point), whereas with a discard deck all you do is watch all your cards being thrown away before you even get to draw them. Plus, I always got the feeling that losing because you couldn't draw anymore was "second rate" defeat, not a "proper" one, because it felt more like an edge condition than a true defeat (of course it's part of the rules, no discussion about it, but it's just how it always felt to me).
-
At least discard decks you can counter with graveyard decks.
-
@Dragoon True, it's fun (in a different way...) when a deck unwittingly reinforces what the opposing deck is trying to do... but even in those cases, once the novelty value of "oh look how my greater strength is actually a huge weakness" wears off, those games become hugely frustrating. Not in the same way, but still.
On the whole, I truly think that the only decks that have a potential for playing a large number of games that are fun for everyone are those that rely on basic mechanisms. Creatures, direct spells. As soon as a deck is built around an idea that's not just "it will deal you damage like this", it might be a great tournament deck but it's also likely a boring deck to play against after some time. You might have some "weird" things in there, but it's like spices in a dish: you need some to truly make it delicious, but put too much and eating it becomes a challenge rather than a pleasure.
-
What's all this nerdy shit? Were talking about tabletop games, not card games
-
@remi said in D&D thread:
Though on the whole, I preferred to play against a counter deck than against a discard one. At least the counter deck gave you some glimmer of hope as you tried to play cards (and build up your stock to try and overwhelm the counter spells at one point), whereas with a discard deck all you do is watch all your cards being thrown away before you even get to draw them. Plus, I always got the feeling that losing because you couldn't draw anymore was "second rate" defeat, not a "proper" one, because it felt more like an edge condition than a true defeat (of course it's part of the rules, no discussion about it, but it's just how it always felt to me).
A significant amount of my discard forcing was by creatures who make you discard when they hurt you, so you definitely wouldn't die by not having cards. Just that you couldn't get stuff out to defend yourself.
-
@Jaloopa said in D&D thread:
What's all this nerdy shit? Were talking about tabletop games, not card games
Agreed. When did this turn into the MTG thread?
-
@remi said in D&D thread:
I always got the feeling that losing because you couldn't draw anymore was "second rate" defeat, not a "proper" one, because it felt more like an edge condition than a true defeat (of course it's part of the rules, no discussion about it, but it's just how it always felt to me).
This is how I won the very first game of Magic I ever played, in 1995. Someone I knew had plenty of cards, put together two decks and let me choose one. He explained the basics of the rules, including that you lose if your deck runs out, and we got to playing. I started, and partway through the game, he used an ability to draw an extra card. Since neither of us got close to losing all our life points, he lost the game because of that extra draw …
-
@Jaloopa said in D&D thread:
What's all this nerdy shit? Were talking about tabletop games, not card games
We've now transitioned to Cicadas and Cricket. Basically just an off-by-one error what with C&C
-
I played Magic a while back; I wasn't quite as good as my brother, but I had enough cards to make some decent decks. Everyone would play over at my house. I have never played at any tournament.
Then I had a deck stolen from my house.
And another.
And another.
After the fifth deck was stolen, and no idea who did it, I stopped playing Magic. After all, the cream of my cards had just been skimmed off for the fifth time...
(I suspect one particular person because my mom once spotted him looking through my brother's deck in his bedroom, where didn't have any business being, but otherwise, I have no idea. I suppose I should have kept the deck somewhere a little less immediately-accessible, but I wanted to play with that, not keep it buried in a drawer. I kept my current deck three feet from my door, at eye level, on top of a bookshelf.)
-
@Jaloopa said in D&D thread:
What's all this nerdy shit? Were talking about tabletop games, not card games
Card games are tabletop games.
-
@Gurth said in D&D thread:
@Jaloopa said in D&D thread:
What's all this nerdy shit? Were talking about tabletop games, not card games
Card games are tabletop games.
-
-
Watching the "post-game content" sessions now, and in The Search for Grog, Grog, being the one they're searching for, is unavailable, so Travis comes up with a new character who he essentially plays as Gilderoy Lockhart.
That's plenty amusing, but I can't help but wonder how to reconcile this with the fact that he's level 18. In the world of D&D, that means he's objectively a mighty hero with a solid background of glorious adventuring under his belt.
-
@Mason_Wheeler even level 1 is well past Lockheart ability
-
@Jaloopa said in D&D thread:
@Mason_Wheeler even level 1 is well past Lockheart ability
I dunno, Lockheart had some damn good fast-talking skills, and could throw a mean charm, as long as it was the one charm he was good at. I figure he's just a min-maxed Bard. At level 1.
-
@PotatoEngineer Could be an Expert being played as a character, or a social rogue
-
I assume it's generally understood that D&D refers to D&D 3.5e and that other usages will be appropriately marked to avoid confusion.
-
@Gribnit said in D&D thread:
I assume it's generally understood that D&D refers to D&D 3.5e and that other usages will be appropriately marked to avoid confusion.
Absolutely not. D&D 3.5e is a dead edition since 2007. We're now twice as far past the end date as the entire lifespan of 3e (including 3.5e). But like zombies (and old Android versions), it stays around. Unqualified references default to the current edition.
And especially in context of a streaming game which explicitly plays 5e...
-
@Benjamin-Hall Hasbro's release schedule doesn't take into account anything about the game.
-
@Gribnit said in D&D thread:
@Benjamin-Hall Hasbro's release schedule doesn't take into account anything about the game.
It's EOL. Has been EOL since 2007. Out of support. Dead.
Do you assume that all unqualified references to Windows mean Windows XP? Because they've been dead similar amounts of time.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
@Gribnit said in D&D thread:
@Benjamin-Hall Hasbro's release schedule doesn't take into account anything about the game.
It's EOL. Has been EOL since 2007. Out of support. Dead.
Do you assume that all unqualified references to Windows mean Windows XP? Because they've been dead similar amounts of time.
The more recent editions are, I suppose, more broadly accessible. Enjoy.
-
@Gribnit said in D&D thread:
@Benjamin-Hall said in D&D thread:
@Gribnit said in D&D thread:
@Benjamin-Hall Hasbro's release schedule doesn't take into account anything about the game.
It's EOL. Has been EOL since 2007. Out of support. Dead.
Do you assume that all unqualified references to Windows mean Windows XP? Because they've been dead similar amounts of time.
The more recent editions are, I suppose, more broadly accessible. Enjoy.
And not riddled with
design decisions (ie they were actually designed to be coherent, rather than just a bunch of stuff thrown together by contractors with no editing). And actually work. So yeah. I will.
