|
4 years ago ::
Feb 23, 2009 - 4:33PM
#111
|
|
|
I'm asking cordially
No, you're not.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 23, 2009 - 6:57PM
#112
|
Date Joined:
Jul 17, 2008
|
Dude, Rutilus, you have got to take a huge step backwards. This isn't the "how to please Rutilus the best while he ignores whatever he chooses to" contest. No one dodged or ducked you. This is the content. It was great. If you don't like it, that's okay. It wasn't great for you. Not every article is for each person. Make up your own campaign world and own background info from the gods. That's what I do. But if one portion, an omission of a gods stats, isn't there, and a perfectly valid reason is given, what more do you want, guy?
Look, we don't want WOTC to think we're all unappreciative schmucks. Because then the well will run totally dry. Don't you want these people to continue providing content? What else do they need to do for our pleasure? If you missed a post on this forum, and you say so, then all good. But there's no need to attack content providers.
As for asking cordially, you did no such thing. You gotta own that one.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 23, 2009 - 8:03PM
#113
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2008
|
Not run off. I just haven't checked back recently, and missed the question. :embarrass
And I have to express even more embarrassment. :embarrass  When I wrote my initial draft, I did not intend to leave the "+ Strength modifier" out of the two attack powers. I have no idea how I managed to omit those, since I've written plenty of powers before, but there it is. Leaving those off was a mistake on my part.
Now, this isn't official errata until and unless the good folks at WotC agree with me. But if you want to argue author's intention my intent was that both powers should grant Strength damage.
If you can speak with the people making the compiled issue, they can make the change in the article. Or, if you post in the errata forum, you'd have an excellent chance of being the most likely to be listened to...
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 24, 2009 - 7:27PM
#114
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2001
|
I see you completely ignored the dozen or so requests to see Bane stats. Can't you even COMMENT on it? At least offer those of us paying for this stuff that much instead of ignoring it please. I'm asking cordially, which I hope is sufficient for a detailed response.
People like you don't deserve peoples time and effort to make things like stats with that attitude quite frankly.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 24, 2009 - 7:53PM
#115
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2005
|
Not run off. I just haven't checked back recently, and missed the question. :embarrass
And I have to express even more embarrassment. :embarrass When I wrote my initial draft, I did not intend to leave the "+ Strength modifier" out of the two attack powers. I have no idea how I managed to omit those, since I've written plenty of powers before, but there it is. Leaving those off was a mistake on my part.
Now, this isn't official errata until and unless the good folks at WotC agree with me. But if you want to argue author's intention my intent was that both powers should grant Strength damage.
I agree with some of the other posters it was a great article. I would really love to see official stats for Bane sometime. I can wait for the 4e Deities and Demigods book if I have to though. I really want stats for Asmodeus I am planning a campaign around him and I was hoping by the time my players get to thirtieth to have official stats so I don't have to try and jury rig something.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2009 - 3:17PM
#116
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2007
|
People like you don't deserve peoples time and effort to make things like stats with that attitude quite frankly.
CAuse he was really that rude  .
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 26, 2009 - 4:39AM
#117
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2006
|
He already answered: [b]The D&D Team decided they did not want Bane's stats in the article. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't change it.
All that is left is to wait and see if Wizards decides to change their mind.
No, you're not.
Dude, Rutilus, you have got to take a huge step backwards. This isn't the "how to please Rutilus the best while he ignores whatever he chooses to" contest. No one dodged or ducked you. This is the content. It was great. If you don't like it, that's okay. It wasn't great for you. Not every article is for each person. Make up your own campaign world and own background info from the gods. That's what I do. But if one portion, an omission of a gods stats, isn't there, and a perfectly valid reason is given, what more do you want, guy?
Look, we don't want WOTC to think we're all unappreciative schmucks. Because then the well will run totally dry. Don't you want these people to continue providing content? What else do they need to do for our pleasure? If you missed a post on this forum, and you say so, then all good. But there's no need to attack content providers.
As for asking cordially, you did no such thing. You gotta own that one.
People like you don't deserve peoples time and effort to make things like stats with that attitude quite frankly.
I uh...*speechless*. There was no rudeness. There were SEVERAL pages of posters both pro stats, against stats, and neutral since the last time he had responded regarding wizard's decision. He did not respond to any of those inquiries and just responded to a specific question about the paragon paths. He is a contributing member to WotC and the article creator, if anyone would have any updates regarding this, it would be him.
I find it rather remarkable that any of you could consider that rude or self-serving considering his relative disregard for so many posts requests for such stats (besides my own). Especially considering I didn't even ask for the stats, just an update regarding them, taking into consideration the several pages of posts on this and the incredible amount of views on this thread since his first posts. It's a simple "no, wotc has no plans...etc" or "yes, there are plans...etc" or any such response; I haven't asked for a dissertation, the actual stats, or anything of the sort here.[/b]
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 26, 2009 - 5:48AM
#118
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 26, 2009 - 8:38AM
#119
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2006
|
Directly accusing someone of ignoring you deliberately isn't being rude?
It sure is in my books and again, if I was the author of the article in question I would be ignoring you as well when the answer was pretty obvious right from the start. No, they are not thinking of publishing stats for Gods or creatures officially that go beyond level 35 (is their current stated position).
Edit: To clarify, it was answered on page 1
There was your answer.
On page 1. Nobody ignored you, because your complaint was addressed less than 5 posts into this thread. Hence your accusation above comes off as petty and rude. Hardly "cordial" at all.
Their "decision" was based on their subjective opinion about the needs of their players, which is why there were plenty of people arguing against it since then. It's been almost a month since we started arguing against that opinionated decision that he stated that Wotc made, and hence, a response proper to all of the aforementioned posts would be the decent thing to do.
Therefore, my response was not "rude" or "invalid". It was merely following the rules of netiquette, that paying customers should at least be responded to in a decent manner (especially after so much feedback), and not left to their own devices. Please pay attention to the thread.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 26, 2009 - 11:01AM
#120
|
Date Joined:
Jul 17, 2008
|
Rutilus, reading takes more then scanning words. It requires comprehension. You're missing this.
You are being told, we didn't post Bane's stats because we have nothing beyond level #35
You are saying WotC, you're being bad to your net subscribers for not giving a reason
You are being told again, we gave you a reason
You are saying, Although I am being snippy, this is my cordial request for an answer to the thing you have already answered (OK, I editorialized a tad here and really I am teasing you because at this point, "your attitude" vs "interpreted attitude by others" should be dropped and we move on).
You are being told again, you have been given a very reasonable answer.
You are saying, Guys, come on, answer me already. I paid for this.
If you don't see this is how you're coming across, you'll never get a response. Let me put it differently:
If your complaint is that there are no stats for Bane, many others have said the same thing. I agree with your assessment there. Mind you, not about the lack of stats, just that many others had the same complaint.
If your complaint is that you are not being given a reason for this, that's just inaccurate. It's on this thread numerous times.
If your complaint is neither of these, well, then I am completely confused, see earlier points made above.
|
|
|
