Can I get a list please?

[Dust Raven]

Re: see below for sarcasm

 

No, the authors of D&D are definitely not game developers!

 

 

I hope your are referring to the WotC authors.... Gygax and company were definatly game developers... just not developers of good games.

 

[zornwil]

Re: see below for sarcasm

 

I hope your are referring to the WotC authors.... Gygax and company were definatly game developers... just not developers of good games.

 

It was just a joke anyway. I've heard a number of good things about it lately, actually and, besides, I really don't know enough to properly criticize anyway, at least not re the whole core system.

[Fox1]

Re: see below for sarcasm

 

It was just a joke anyway.

 

Obviously jokes should be on the list of things to avoid.

[TheEmerged]

Re: see below for sarcasm

 

RE: DnD Criticism. Goes back to my favorite joke -- the biggest problem with d20 is the d20 itself. Use 2d10 instead and it's not bad. It's still usually level-based (I've heard there's some decent levelless d20 stuff out there) and there are a host of other minor issues -- usually because there are some aspects that got grandfathered without adequate testing (like the idea of 9 spell levels). There are also a couple of aspects that *obviously* didn't get anything other than cursory testing (3.0 Psionic rules, especially psionic combat), and then were pointlessly defended and desperately shoehorned (insert the FSBNNR arguments on the DnDPsi boards...)

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: see below for sarcasm

 

(insert the FSBNNR arguments on the DnDPsi boards...)

FSBNNR?

[zornwil]

Re: see below for sarcasm

 

RE: DnD Criticism. Goes back to my favorite joke -- the biggest problem with d20 is the d20 itself. Use 2d10 instead and it's not bad. It's still usually level-based (I've heard there's some decent levelless d20 stuff out there) and there are a host of other minor issues -- usually because there are some aspects that got grandfathered without adequate testing (like the idea of 9 spell levels). There are also a couple of aspects that *obviously* didn't get anything other than cursory testing (3.0 Psionic rules' date=' especially psionic combat), and then were pointlessly defended and desperately shoehorned (insert the FSBNNR arguments on the DnDPsi boards...)[/quote']

Um, you know that grandfathering and improper testing for a few things is the same criticism that can be levelled at some aspects of HERO, right?

[TheEmerged]

Re: see below for sarcasm

 

FSBNNR = Feats Should Be Nice Not Required. During 3.0, WotC's reaction to the (sometimes glaring) flaws with the psionic rules was to create feats -- feats that in a couple of cases were effectively required by any psion. They were effectively requiring you to either take certain feats or accept a hole in the rules -- so naturally the result was that everyone that was serious about the psionic rules basically created their own psionic house rules, and as a result it wasn't long before we could barely hold a conversation on the boards without diverging into discussing them.

 

RE: Grandfathering and HERO. Um, I've made that very argument, more than once. In particular about figured attributes. I understand why the decision to grandfather this was made, I just feel that was the poorer decision.

 

RE: Insufficient testing. This one I've got to disagree with, after making the caveat that I've adopted a policy of basically ignoring Steve's question board. I haven't seen *anything* from HERO/DoJ that can compare to the bad joke that was 3.0 Psionic Combat rules. Which isn't to say there aren't some things I disagree with, sometimes strongly -- making Suppress cumulative and the Damage Shield requirement of Continuous come to mind -- but rather that there isn't the total disconnect from the realities of gameplay that I've run into with some parts of 3.0

 

And I specify 3.0 because I've done little more than glance at 3.5, except for the 3.5Psi

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: see below for sarcasm

 

FSBNNR = Feats Should Be Nice Not Required. During 3.0' date=' WotC's reaction to the (sometimes glaring) flaws with the psionic rules was to create feats -- feats that in a couple of cases were effectively required by any psion.[/quote']

Thanks.

[zornwil]

Re: see below for sarcasm

 

FSBNNR = Feats Should Be Nice Not Required. During 3.0, WotC's reaction to the (sometimes glaring) flaws with the psionic rules was to create feats -- feats that in a couple of cases were effectively required by any psion. They were effectively requiring you to either take certain feats or accept a hole in the rules -- so naturally the result was that everyone that was serious about the psionic rules basically created their own psionic house rules, and as a result it wasn't long before we could barely hold a conversation on the boards without diverging into discussing them.

 

RE: Grandfathering and HERO. Um, I've made that very argument, more than once. In particular about figured attributes. I understand why the decision to grandfather this was made, I just feel that was the poorer decision.

 

RE: Insufficient testing. This one I've got to disagree with, after making the caveat that I've adopted a policy of basically ignoring Steve's question board. I haven't seen *anything* from HERO/DoJ that can compare to the bad joke that was 3.0 Psionic Combat rules. Which isn't to say there aren't some things I disagree with, sometimes strongly -- making Suppress cumulative and the Damage Shield requirement of Continuous come to mind -- but rather that there isn't the total disconnect from the realities of gameplay that I've run into with some parts of 3.0

 

And I specify 3.0 because I've done little more than glance at 3.5, except for the 3.5Psi

From what I heard 3.5 fixed the psionic issues. But that's only what I heard.

[Vondy]

Re: see below for sarcasm

 

From what I heard 3.5 fixed the psionic issues. But that's only what I heard.

 

Are you trying to tell us you aren't clairvoyant?

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: see below for sarcasm

 

Are you trying to tell us you aren't clairvoyant?

I knew you were going to say that.

[zornwil]

Re: see below for sarcasm

 

I can neither confirm nor deny - same answer to your next question, too.

[TheEmerged]

Re: see below for sarcasm

 

RE: 3.5 DnD Psionic Tangent. Depends on your definition of "fixed". They "fixed" psionic combat by effectively eliminating it (technically they made the combat modes powers). They "fixed" the fact that many of the feats were of wildly different usefulness by creating a new complication (the "focus"). They "fixed" the fact that psions didn't measure up to wizards or sorcerors by effectively requiring everyone to rewrite all their characters.

 

They fixed -- no scare quotes -- the power redundancy problem by doing what many of us on the psionic board clamored for, by replacing the absurd "power chain" mechanic with the mechanic used for Call Weaponry in 3.0 (insert crack about how they had the right mechanic in 3.0 and didn't use it).