IMHO... Base Weapon Damage Should Matter

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Psychic Robot
Prince
Posts: 4607
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

IMHO... Base Weapon Damage Should Matter

Post by Psychic Robot »

Well, it should. I think that the guy wielding a greatsword should do more damage than the guy with the shortsword--but in 3e, if they have similar Strength scores, they're going to do about the same amount of damage.

So, "waaah."

How would you go about making base weapon damage matter? I was thinking of changing Power Attack so that every -2 penalty you took would increase your damage by the base weapon damage (so a guy with a longsword would get +1d8 damage while a guy with a shortsword would get +1d6).

Thoughts? I was also considering changing the first -2 taken to give you [W] + your Strength modifier (or twice that with a two-handed weapon) so that high-level fighters could pretty much automatically do a decent amount of damage while being able to tweak how much they do in a single hit.

(Gaaah, 4e notation, it burns.)
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
You do not seem to do anything.
RiotGearEpsilon
Knight
Posts: 469
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:39 am
Location: Cambridge, Massachusetts

Post by RiotGearEpsilon »

The way 4e does weapons is pretty good and there's no reason not to steal it. The [W] notation is straightforward enough.
User avatar
angelfromanotherpin
Overlord
Posts: 9745
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by angelfromanotherpin »

From a simulationist perspective, a dagger really is about as lethal as a greatsword. You really are about equally screwed if someone lands a meaningful strike with either of them. That applies both in real life and in cinematic tradition.

From a gamist standpoint, what you need to consider is how much more damage does a weapon have to do to offset the cost of 'not carrying a shield?'

Designing from the perspective of 'my gut says greatswords are pimp,' is going to produce pimp greatswords and very few other weapons being used.

At the same time, the way to make base weapon damage matter more is the road you've taken - including it in the math more often than once.
Voss
Prince
Posts: 3912
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Voss »

RiotGearEpsilon wrote:The way 4e does weapons is pretty good and there's no reason not to steal it. The [W] notation is straightforward enough.
Which part of it? Mostly 4e created a system where you want to wield a bastard sword and everything else sucks ass in comparison.

The weapons aren't even vaguely balanced. Most suck, some are good, and one is great.
Last edited by Voss on Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
ckafrica
Duke
Posts: 1139
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: HCMC, Vietnam

Post by ckafrica »

Voss wrote:
RiotGearEpsilon wrote:The way 4e does weapons is pretty good and there's no reason not to steal it. The [W] notation is straightforward enough.
Which part of it? Mostly 4e created a system where you want to wield a bastard sword and everything else sucks ass in comparison.

The weapons aren't even vaguely balanced. Most suck, some are good, and one is great.
I concur. It seems to me that 4e weapons are worse than before.

We need some way to have it so that we can have variety without being kicked in the balls. I don't want to feel bad that I'm using sickles as a character concept instead of axes or whatever else. I don't want everyone using Katanas because the are so much better. We need 2-3 weapon categories that can be balanced out in some way so that no one has to feel kicked in the nuts for their weapon choice.

But what's the magic spot?
User avatar
Psychic Robot
Prince
Posts: 4607
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

Post by Psychic Robot »

Well, perhaps the idea that I suggested in the original post could be modified--instead of giving you [W] damage, it could be a +xd6 or somesuch so that even weak weapons would average out against strong ones.
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
You do not seem to do anything.
Amra
Knight
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Amra »

I think that if we're going to get "simulationist" (I hate that word) about it, then a dagger is about as lethal as a greatsword against a humanoid opponent.

However, there's a very good case for saying that a dagger strike against, say, an elephant or a dragon won't do as much damage as a greatsword. That's pretty accurate: you really don't want to be fighting a bulky/powerful creature with a short-bladed weapon if there's a longer one available.

Factoring creature size vs. weapon size into the equation might give you an opportunity to make base weapon damage count more, but only in situations where the creatures you're fighting are larger than you. Adding 1[W] damage for each size category, perhaps?

Of course, then you're going to have to deal with small creatures and reduce their base damage to begin with!

If you want to avoid designing a huge weapon bias right into the system, you're going to have to have some form of trade-off so it's advantageous to use certain weapon types some of the time and others at other times.

There's nothing to say that *everyone* has to do roughly the same damage against all opponents at all times; that's not "balance", that's "boring". I have no issues with some characters being better at fighting certain creatures. What you've got to do if you want to make base weapon damage count is to make sure that on average, the melee combatants using different fighting styles can contribute equally.

As ckafrica said, a character shouldn't be penalised for using "fighting with sickles" as a character concept because using freaky weapons like that is cool and scary. If you factor in base weapon damage multiple times to make big swords lay the smack down better, you're going to have to give other weapons different advantages.
ckafrica
Duke
Posts: 1139
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: HCMC, Vietnam

Post by ckafrica »

I'd tend to go for 1 handed, 2 handed and light weapons. Add damage types if needed/desired. Figure out what is the balance on damage we want between them. Have a list of possible extra weapon traits that the character can choose from that will allow them to feel like they've got a unique weapon.

Or even different each weapon has an amount of points to spend on it they he can use to buy special characteristics like higher damage, off-hand, defensive, whatever. Tally up the points and there you go. This would need someone good at the maths though. (Not my strong suit)
The internet gave a voice to the world thus gave definitive proof that the world is mostly full of idiots.
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by PhoneLobster »

OK so for most systems, like D&D, the whole bigger damage thing works like this.

It's a method by which some fighting styles are screwed by doing less damage.

Now one way it could work is that you have chance of hit and amount of damage and one guy hits less often and does more (clumsy heavy claymore guy) and the other hits more and does less (accurate dagger dude).

And then you have something that is fair and a mechanical means of depicting exciting variation in style.

Only. It isn't very exciting. And it still leaves big hammers looking a lot like big swords and weird territory like high damage barbed gut ripper daggers or low damage spears or some crap looking confusing or something. Heck it even brings in other weird crap like "I'm not afraid of daggers, it would take at least a bastard sword to kill me in one hit".

So you know what. Fuck it. I don't especially want to see big weapons do more damage. I'm more than happy to see "more damage" being available to anyone by means of a variety of background flavour other than simply being "big axe dude".

I mean didn't we just have someone point out in criticism of 4th edition the other day that taking "high damage potential" away from over half the classes in the game is a bad idea?

Of course you probably still want to differentiate styles of weapon somehow. My own current direction is in keyword match up territory. Dagger attacks get the Fast keyword that benefits them and the Weak keyword that sucks, great swords get the Strong one as a good keyword and Slow as a bad one. Some dudes are good at dodging slow attacks, others are good at absorbing weak ones. Expand the keywords to your satisfactory level of type differentiation and complexity tolerance. And you get flavour and get a different damage "feel" without either weapon actually just plain having a (bullshit non contextual) bigger damage number.

Anyway, point is. Just blindly giving out weapons different damage dice because it FEELS like "more metal = more dice, right?" is probably a bad thing and there are other options.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Having weapons feel different one from another is important, but if you live in a one-blow system the bigger damage weapons are "better" and the lesser damage systems are "worse."

I mean, the old Cal-Tech rules had different damages and numbers of attacks per round with different weapons and had a weapon vs. armor type percentage system that really made weapons feel different. That was good, but probably too intensive.

Lots of different paths are available to weapon differentiation, and it should happen. The 4e methodology where different weapons are different because everyone has slightly different powers by class and every class can only use one or two different weapons is bad; but a thing similar to Polearm Gamble would be possible.

-Username17
User avatar
Judging__Eagle
Prince
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada

Post by Judging__Eagle »

Kukri's are half axe, half machete.

If I hold one in my hand and am slowly walking towards you with one while staring at you, you will be shitting your pants in terror. Since it will chop your face in half as if it was a melon, and you and I both know it.

If I'm running at you with a longsword in my hand, you'll be scared b/c it's got more reach and recovers its inertial motion faster than most other melee weapons.


.... actually, what I think would be important would be the concept of 'reach' and 'speed'.

Weapons with more reach than a weapon that is attacking you allow you to attack before you are attacked.

If you've ever used a two-handed weapon against a person with a one-handed weapon you'll understand how little is needed to have meaningful 'reach' against an enemy. You get to clobber your enemy before they get a chance to even close with you.

Weapons with Speed modify your initiative order every round. First, they up your Initiative, by 1/2 your BaB in round one, then your BaB in round 2; then 1/2 your BaB every round until you're top of the iniative order. After that you get a bonus attack... or something.

I seriously would want to see a dagger fighter getting more attack rounds the longer a fight goes; in round say... 5, he's got and extra attack, in round 10 he's got 2 extra attacks.

That or light weapons simply 'get' more attacks based on your BaB, or whatever is being used to determine to-hit or number of attacks. Probably +1 attack at +1 BaB and one extra at +6, +11 and +16. These extra attacks only work with your main hand and are added on after anything else that would increase your attacks.
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.

While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
User avatar
Bigode
Duke
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Bigode »

Weapon speeds have historically been full of fail, if that counts for something. One of the problem's how they interact with unarmed people.

But, well, why not have everyone deal roughly the same damage (variation can come with character abilities), shift criticals around, and give all weapons different properties (I'd like to see some 3.5 weapons with properties equal to reach ...)?
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
MartinHarper
Knight-Baron
Posts: 703
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by MartinHarper »

I fancy making weapon-choice affect the number of actions you get.

So, a greatsword does great damage, but it is so slow that attacking with it uses both a move action and a standard action. Meanwhile, a dagger does pitiful damage, but every time you attack with it you get a free move action. So the dagger is better for mobile combat, whereas the greatsword is best for static slugfests.

It'd balance as:
* Slow weapon > medium (more damage)
* medium weapon > fast (more damage)
* fast weapon > slow (slow weapon guy never gets a chance to land a hit on fast weapon guy as he ducks in and out of melee range)
User avatar
Bigode
Duke
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Bigode »

MartinHarper wrote:So, a greatsword does great damage, but it is so slow that attacking with it uses both a move action and a standard action. Meanwhile, a dagger does pitiful damage, but every time you attack with it you get a free move action. So the dagger is better for mobile combat, whereas the greatsword is best for static slugfests.
OK, so greatsword fighters either get swift-action teleport, or are sneaky AoO whores (assuming, of course, that you'd let AoOs apply normally), or they don't matter, right?

Or rather: static slugfests don't exist in D&D, and neither should they - Lumberjack Syndrome wasn't an insult for no reason.
Last edited by Bigode on Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
User avatar
Judging__Eagle
Prince
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada

Post by Judging__Eagle »

My proposal is this:

Light Weapons: Grant extra Attacks. +1 Attack (2 Attacks), +1 Attack at +5 BaB (3 Attacks), +2 Attacks at +10 BaB (6 Attacks), +3 Attacks at +15 BaB (10 Attacks). These extra attacks are only with this weapon don't synergize with TWF, Flurry etc.

Medium Weapons: Allow the user to make an AoO on anyone using a Light Weapon, unless you are Denied your Dex mod to your AC. Grant extra Attacks. +1 Attack at +5 BaB (2 Attacks), +1 Attack at +10 BaB (4 Attacks), +1 Attack at +15 BaB (6). These extra attacks are only with this weapon don't synergize with TWF, Flurry etc.

Large Weapons: Allow the user to make an AoO on anyone using a Light Weapon or Medium weapon, unless you are Denied your Dex mod to your AC. When power attacking, every -1 Penalty to your BaB grants an additional 1 point of damage (+3 Damage for ever -1 to BaB).


Basically light fighters use up their attacks with the Feint attack option to deny enemies their Dex-Mod to AC, then attack without provoking an AoO.

Most light weapon fighting techniques focus a lot of their training on doing something to 'open up' their enemies defense, then following up with an attack. So this works for me. The trouble I see is too many dice rolls.

Medium weapon fighters don't provoke AoOs on each other, so they won't feint, but they will against 2H weapon users. Since they are faster than them, they should be able to bluff for some of their attacks.

Heavy Fighters use their BaB or Sense Motive to see thought a Light Fighter's Bluff checks and attack when they see someone trying to enter their threatened space.
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.

While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

If you're getting into the differences between weapon length in any kind of nuanced fashion, you're probably going to want to dump the battlemat.

Actual lethality indeed doesn't really change that much between a katar and a halberd. It's just that the halberd can chop down an enemy with katars from well beyond where a katar wielder can respond. And a katar wielder can turn halberdier into feta from well inside where a halberd can be effectively swung.

Closing range is a dynamic process not well captured by putting people into 5' squares. People could have a non-binary distance, with characters getting chances to damage and foil enemies attempting to close or withdraw out of their preferred weapon distance. It gets a little complicated when you're trying to model multiple enemies at once though, although I could easily see such a system in which giants and dragons were in serious danger from meleeing groups because such enemies could "pile on" once they got distracted and repeatedly jab them with short swords.

Each weapon would have a range of ranges, with use being underwhelming or impossible outside such a range. Zombies could be fearsome because their total lack of personal safety means that they only fail to close to biting range if you actually drop them down with your axe blow on the way in - such that you could seriously get overwhelmed by zombies if they got to you in sufficient numbers.

-Username17
User avatar
Psychic Robot
Prince
Posts: 4607
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

Post by Psychic Robot »

I like a lot of the suggestions in this thread. However, my thing is that while I would love a dagger to "feel" different than a longsword, I don't want an overly-complex system.

What might be an interesting way to do it is to do something like:

1. Light weapons automatically get +2d6 sneak attack damage (or something).
2. Heavy weapons do an additional [W] + Str mod damage when making a full attack.
3. Medium weapons get to be the middle-road.
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
You do not seem to do anything.
User avatar
Judging__Eagle
Prince
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada

Post by Judging__Eagle »

Ehhh.... dumping the battlemat is a bit of a harsh step.

I know that 5' squares make little sense, but they're a decent enough stop-gap to show 'where' people are in an area. Realistically more people can stand in a 5' wide corridor than the game allows (2 and probably 3, with sheilds, blades pointed forward and jabbing, of course they can't really move aside that well, but that's the idea, they want to block the hallway).
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.

While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by PhoneLobster »

OK I'm not liking a lot of what I'm seeing here.

Complex variable reach, is problematic at best. But better than for instance...

Trying to use complex variable reach while still maintaining grid type battle mat positioning of a DIFFERENT granularity. Which is still probably better than...

Extra attacks or actions for some guys!

We know giving extra actions to some of the players unevenly based on fluff is a bad thing. And giving dagger man 5x the attacks to resolve compared to great sword man (or giving greatsword man the same and justifying it with different fluff, like a single sweep for multiple targets) is just as bad.

We don't want 5x the attention and spotlight on dagger guy, and we don't even want big piles of extra actions messing things up beyond whatever the standard is for such things.

Now as to the suggestion from Judging eagle. Wow, no. Having the feature of light weapons be extra attacks that DON'T stack with other typical extra attacks from other typical light weapon fighting styles is sucky. Having medium weapons get their extra attacks conditional on the use of light weapons is sucky, having heavy weapons do the same but better is even more sucky.

As for other things...

Since someone mentioned weapon speeds... Weapon speeds to initiative bonuses/penalties are... odd.

In other news remember that there was a time when different weapons had different THACO arrays? Probably also bad, but remember?
1. Light weapons automatically get +2d6 sneak attack damage (or something).
2. Heavy weapons do an additional [W] + Str mod damage when making a full attack.
3. Medium weapons get to be the middle-road.
That makes little to no sense to me. What exactly does that achieve and why does it try to achieve it?

Still I'd like to think at least this gives some idea that there are lots of directions to go in, admittedly some of them are a bit, well, crap, but there are tons of them, keep your monkeys at the type writers long enough and you may find a good one.
Last edited by PhoneLobster on Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JonSetanta
King
Posts: 5525
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: interbutts

Post by JonSetanta »

Hmm.

Accuracy penalty for greater base weapon damages derived from size (not derived from, say, serrated edge modifications or magic, what have you)

The penalty would be reduced by high STR in addition to providing hit bonus normally. I don't how how it would work yet but it could be derived from the base stat rather than bonus.

Bigger weapons could be used by smaller characters. A Human Fighter could use a giant's greatsword (anime style) but the penalty to hit would be tremendous, at least until they could get their STR high enough to rival that of giants.

Daggers and other low base damage weapons would have little to no penalty. Burly bruisers would gain no benefit to using them later on, but early in levels it would be in ones favor to use longsword/shortsword as opposed to greatsword.
The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:25 pm
Nobody gives a flying fuck about Tordek and Regdar.
User avatar
Psychic Robot
Prince
Posts: 4607
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

Post by Psychic Robot »

PhoneLobster wrote:
1. Light weapons automatically get +2d6 sneak attack damage (or something).
2. Heavy weapons do an additional [W] + Str mod damage when making a full attack.
3. Medium weapons get to be the middle-road.
That makes little to no sense to me. What exactly does that achieve and why does it try to achieve it?
Pah, I should explain. I prefer the Saga Edition of bonus damage sans iterative attacks, encouraging movement rather than "I full attack." Light weapons giving SA damage would encourage a more agile, movement-oriented combat style while heavy weapons giving bonus damage on a "full attack" would encourage a more toe-to-toe style of combat.
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
You do not seem to do anything.
Draco_Argentum
Duke
Posts: 2434
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Draco_Argentum »

Making base damage mean anything in a scaling hp system is really hard. It would be far simpler in TNE where a static CAN modifier would always be of similar value.
User avatar
Judging__Eagle
Prince
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada

Post by Judging__Eagle »

Having the feature of light weapons be extra attacks that DON'T stack with other typical extra attacks from other typical light weapon fighting styles is sucky. Having medium weapons get their extra attacks conditional on the use of light weapons is sucky, having heavy weapons do the same but better is even more sucky.
Medium weapons only get AoOs on light weapon attacks, the extra attacks are normal.

Heavy Weapons get AoOs on medium and light weapon attacks.

Really, Light and Medium weapons don't get more attacks. What they're really getting is more opportunities to use the Feint ability.

TWF still adds off-hand attacks, it just doesn't add +11 off hand attacks.

In any case what we seem to want is the following to be shown:

[*]Weapon size affects how far you can swing; bigger weapon, more reach. More reach, the more often you'll attack people as they move to attack you with smaller weapons

-I don't see why we can't have the current grid system, and a Light, Medium, Large melee weapon range system in place.
-Small/Medium have Light, Med, Large melee ranges

-Ranges overlap from size up or size down. So a Kukri in an ogre's hand is the same reach as a longsword in a humans or a great spear in a pixies ('small is a misnomer imo, really what they are is 'short'). The Kukri is light for the ogre and thus fast in his hands, but the sword is heavier (relatively) for the human and thus (relatively) slower.

-Larger/Smaller creatures have their ranges more or less apparent. So an Ogre with a great sword has more noticeable benefits to getting as close in as possible compared to a Pixie with a great spear. The ogre you rush with a hatchet and chop at his muscles and tendons, the pixie you swat at with a great club.

-If you attack someone who is too close or too far, you provoke an AoO

[*]Weapon size affects how fast you can swing; smaller weapon, less weight. Less weight, more speed of attacks and less effort needed to swing. More speed, more attacks. Less effort, less tired as a fight goes on.

-Ok, so, if you're using a light weapon, all of your attacks allow you to do one free Feint per attack. Instead of tons of extra attacks?

[*]I don't give a shit about how damaging a weapon is. A dagger punctures lungs with as much lethality as a Bastard sword crushes and breaks a ribcage.

[*]Grids, don't mesh well with highly granular weapon sizes

-Honestly, can you manage 8 PCs at once and 12 monsters at the same time without one?
-I need something as well known as or able to be taught in less than 5 minutes before I can actually even consider replacing the grid system.
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.

While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
User avatar
Bigode
Duke
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Bigode »

Every single weapon system that tried to box weapons into wide classes hit huge hosts of problems from weird weapons, verisimilitude and whatever else: ask RiotGearEpsilon if you want an example. That's a large part of why I defend specific properties. Also: different numbers of actions tend to be a really bad idea, and I don't think having a different granularity from 3.5 in 3.5 is feasible at all; what might work's to make every 2-handed weapon a reach weapon, and adjust accordingly.
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
RiotGearEpsilon
Knight
Posts: 469
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:39 am
Location: Cambridge, Massachusetts

Post by RiotGearEpsilon »

Wait, what? I don't have any examples.
Post Reply