Community

Oct 28, 2012 -- 11:29PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

Oct 28, 2012 -- 11:24PM, Zaramon wrote:

Oct 28, 2012 -- 10:25PM, Qmark wrote:

Oct 28, 2012 -- 10:14PM, Zaramon wrote:

I later amended my statement to be a full blown ghestalt. I want to play a wizard, but with all of the class features of a fighter. And to specifify, I want the skill points of the wizard, and the HD of a fighter. I had to mention those because those were exclusive traits. But everything else, I want it all, because my character concept is someone who is really talented and melds the two disciplines in a unique way. See how silly that is?

Actually, that's fully possible in 2E.  You are just going to have a stupid slow xp table.

So the game is penalizing me for my character concept. Players should not be penalized for their character concepts, we should have more character concepts that don't get discriminated against by stupid mechanics like that. See where egalitarianism leads?

He's refering to 2e multiclassing (which only non-humans could do), which was not to be confused with dual-classing (which only humans could do).

As long as everybody is playing gestalt characters no one is penalized. If only you are gestalt, the other characters are penalized because you can pretty much handle everything without them by making their talented characters seem half as talented.

I tried the gestalt idea. Since I tend to make quirky characters, I liked it okay until I gain a level or two. Then it feels way too easy... like pac-man. Without ghosts and mazes... just rows and rows of cherries and bananas and oranges and "pellets".

Nov 1, 2012 -- 5:02PM, warrl wrote:

Even worse, those aren't specific conclusions printed in the books, they are the specific conclusions that the DM thinks the players should have come to based on the situation at hand, the non-specific guidelines in the books, and the DM's past experience with ethical systems real or imaginary.

You could use that arguement against any system of roleplaying that doens't use simply and/or rules for all interaction (like Choose Your own adventure Novels) Since the DM controls the reaction of NPCs to the player's choices based on "specific conclusions that the DM thinks" about human behavior and social structures of monsterous cultural and racial traits, "the non-specific guidelines in the" monster manual in the behaviour of creatures and "the DM's past experience with" social interaction between people, "real or imaginary"

The DM can make the NPCs unnaturally hostile towards the player or unreasonably insulted, creatures can know things they shouldn't about the players and their actions, such as a group of Goblins who all "happened" to consume potions of Fire Resistance for no particular reason before the fight, effectively neutralizing the Wizard with all fire spells prepared, who they didn't know about.

This is like saying the problem with 3.5's allignment system is that it isn't a board game, like snakes and ladders, which forces you to move to specific squares as a result of X, Y and Z.

Don't blame the ruleset if someone tries using Create Food and Water to summon a Donkey (lions eat Donkeys right?) to ride on and a Water Elemental (hey, it's water) It isn't the fualt of the ruleset, it's the fault of the person.
  

Nov 2, 2012 -- 3:22PM, Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe wrote:

Nov 1, 2012 -- 7:17PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

Nov 1, 2012 -- 5:15PM, Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe wrote:

 Oh.... Strawman.

As long as everybody is playing gestalt characters no one is penalized. If only you are gestalt, the other characters are penalized because you can pretty much handle everything without them by making their talented characters seem half as talented.

I tried the gestalt idea. Since I tend to make quirky characters, I liked it okay until I gain a level or two. Then it feels way too easy... like pac-man. Without ghosts and mazes... just rows and rows of cherries and bananas and oranges and "pellets".

It wasn't a strawman, in order for Strawman Fallacy to be accurate, he would have to have been seriously attempting to interpret his opponent's argument as some grotesque parody of what it actually was.  You either didn't read the entire conversation that led up to that point, or you don't understand what a strawman argument is.

Much like the other poster earlier, who (incorrectly) accused me of ad hominem, when I was saying denigrating and dismissive things about the content of his post.  True ad hominem would have been if I attacked his character in an attempt to demean his credibility.

Back on topic, Zaramon was using argumentum ad ridiculum, or appeal to ridicule.  He was using his oppenent's own reasoning and taking it to an end that he hoped would show his opponent the conclusions that could come from claiming such reasoning for his points. 

I thought that's what he was doing.

Maybe I read it wrong. meh.

I wouldn't worry about it, Joseph. Without proper context it was probably not totally clear. I am sure Zaramon doesn't take it personally...he's a reasonable guy.