The Gaming Den

Two weapon fighting is all about being able to keep something sharp pointed at your opponents eyes while you stab her in the kidney. You don't attack with two weapons at once, you feint and parry with both weapons and attack with one. It's a lot harder to parry and attack at the same time with a tw...

What don't I understand? Are we playing different games? Why is every strategy or tactic that beats everything called an exploit rather than a legitimate strategy that you'd be a fool not to do? I think part of this comes from people who are "playing the same game" having entirely differe...

They do slow the game down a bit. Really, unless you're adding something special to each attack about the only things iteratives are good for are: 1) Hitting one guy a bunch of times, or 2) Hitting several guys once. The former can be fixed by simply increasing damage or other effects on a single at...

It can make things anticlimactic though. If you already saved the world at 1st level, then getting rid of a corrupt duke several adventures later feels a little petty. But on the other hand, if you keep upping the ante, it gets ridiculous. By 10th level you'd need to be saving the entire dimensiona...

I had to read that twice, thinking "WTF?", before I caught your "Oh wait..."

Still, I don't know why 19-20x3 is better than 18-20x2. The DOT works out the same. Does this work differently in DDO? I thought 19-20/x3 was the equivalent of 17 -20/x2, not 18. 19-20/x3 should be the same as a 10% chance to do +200% damage. 17-20/x2 should be the same as a 20% chance to do +100% ...

Yup, languages were pretty dumb and kind of told you right away who someone else was be deductive reasoning. What would happen when you change alignments, you forget how to speak a language? No bluffing allowed with them around. :X Changing alignments was not a common occurance in 1E AD&D. It w...

Yeah, just because something is controversial doesn't mean it's not true. It just means they don't want to accept the fact that they might be wrong. Does this hurt overall education? Yeah. Does it stop people from actually learning? No. It's ignorant, but it doesn't set them 150 years back at everyt...

Why do you (does anyone) NEED to connect the two outside of just being parts to make up alignment? My point earlier was they aren't connected, other than on that grid. It's entirely possible to view one axis independently of the other. Someone cast Detect Good? Look at the appropriate axis. Just be...

Really, the discreteness of the alignment system isn't due to how the alignments are laid out. It's due to the fact that detect evil , detect good , detect law , and detect chaos exist as they are now. If someone detects as good, their alignment (or subtype) falls in the Good "box[es]". I...

shadzar, I think you're forcing false limitations on the 3x3 system. You can, instead, picture that 3x3 grid as being overlayed on the 2D axis system of alignment. You can literally have a sliding scale and end up in a different position of each of the nine boxes. Your limitation is that you're assu...

Assuming the spells were balanced for it: Recharge + Fatigue. I'd also have some sort of limit on the spells available, sort of like the Known vs. Readied dichotomy from ToB. I'm trying something like this currently in a game I'm running. The classes grant spells known/readied each level, but I'm u...

Are you Chaotic? Yes Are you Good? No, I became Neutral. It isn't brain surgery, or rocket science. Either you are Lawful, Chaotic, or in-between. ALSO, either you are Good, Evil, or In-between. They NEVER have to cross each other in order to function. Chaos is not the opposite of good, and is not ...

Yeah, I like the bulldozer one the best too.

Still, I wonder if any of them were simply shopped. It would have been cool to see multiple angles of some of them to show that they weren't.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:My wife just got these kickass shoes called "five fingers", and she really likes them so far.

My coworker got a pair of those, but he hasn't brought them in yet.
[/offtopic]

To RobbyPants: Sometimes simplicity can be counterintuitive too. I suppose if you find complexity intuitive... And when I say "simple" I mean as complex as it needs to be, and no more. By definition, anything more is waste. Perhaps I wasn't very clear at first. You follow one of the most ...

Neeeek wrote:Here's the truth: Most of the right doesn't know a flying fuck about how our health care system works. At all. The moment you plea to keep the government out of Medicare, you're already a fucking idiot.

LOL

The burden of proof is to prove that god exists, not that he doesn't exist. I mean otherwise you can make all kinds of ludicrous irrational claims that dictate how you live, and say "prove me wrong!" The burden of proof depends on the statement being made and its absolute nature. For the ...

violence in the media wrote:The argument isn't for the participants, it's for the observers. Tzor and I will probably never change each other's minds, but that doesn't mean we can't influence people that are just observing.

I suppose.

Although even with observers, about the best you'll be able to do is sway fence sitters.

Really, discussing it scientifically is meaningless. Why? Why do we give a such a special status to faith? Why is it acceptible that the ancients got to demand that gods and prophets proved themselves by busting out miracles for all manner of silliness, but it's too much to ask god now to let his p...

No, I think he's right. It's just, looking at things like that leaves the possibility of the flying spaghetti monster open as well. It's not that the belief is necessarily wrong, but that it can't be proven wrong. That doesn't make it wrong, but rather unscientific . Really, discussing it scientific...

To me, that site is too cluttered. Whenever I'm browsing, if I encounter a site like that that I don't have to be in, I tend to just leave. That much clutter overwhelms me and I tend to just shut down. If I went in looking for something in particular, I'm likely to hit CTRL + F to 'find' a keyword o...

Maj wrote:If you accept Mormons as Christian, they use the omni terms for sake of conversation ease, but their doctrine doesn't support a deity who possesses the three omnis.

I never knew that.

What I was saying is that we have no way to judge the probability of God's existence, because God is not an empirically observable phenomenon, so attempting to assign a probability to God's existence is pointless, and the decision to believe that God does or does not exist boils down to "which...

I don't think people are debating if governments exist.