roll a d6

[Doug Williams]

I love this.

[Affentitten]

Very cool. But did anyone spot the mistaken use of the creature that never actually occurs in the AD&D universe?

[Magpie_Oz]

An attractive young woman ?

[Doug Williams]

An attractive young woman ?

Yup. (Nods)

[mike_the_wino]

I was struck by the fact that she claims to be a wizard but is carrying a bow. Obviously an elf or ranger class.

sheeesh

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Doesn't a later rulesset allow multi-class characters?

[Doug Williams]

C'mon guys. She is obviously an elf/wizzy/hottie/rogue. Roll a saving throw or lose five geek points.

[mike_the_wino]

Elmar,

Back in the day there was no multi-class bull-shizzle. Old skewl, my wizzle.

[Affentitten]

An attractive young woman ?

Yep. Or a young woman with a discernible waistline at least.

[Affentitten]

I was struck by the fact that she claims to be a wizard but is carrying a bow. Obviously an elf or ranger class.

sheeesh

I think the line says "In the biz of rolling dice, I'm a wizard". This is referring to her 133t dice rolling skills rather than her character class. Because then later on there is a verse about her stealing a wallet from a guy, so we assume she is a rogue.

[Affentitten]

I think the line says "In the biz of rolling dice, I'm a wizard". This is referring to her 133t dice rolling skills rather than her character class. Because then later on there is a verse about her stealing a wallet from a guy, so we assume she is a rogue.

But then she's shown using a lightning spell, so she could be a multiclass Thief/Mage. The real problem is that she's shown using a shield at one point, which is not permitted for either class.

[costard]

Elves get a racial bonus for the use of swords and bows, so she could be an Elven M-U. No need to go multi-class here.

[Affentitten]

But can she use a sword and bow as a straight M-U? Plus she does refer to herself a as a thief.

[Doug Williams]

I think in the current 4E ruleset, multiclassing restrictions are so relaxed as to be almost nonexistant.

[Affentitten]

I think in the current 4E ruleset, multiclassing restrictions are so relaxed as to be almost nonexistant.

Pfft. 4th.

Give me a fat orange demon idol with gems for eyes any day.

[womble]

Pfft. 4th.

Give me a fat orange demon idol with gems for eyes any day.

I used to think that, too, but 3.5 is actually a pretty good updating, as far as it can be, of the creaky old exception-riddled collection of special cases that was AD&D 1st... There's at least a stable core of a mechanic, and some system to govern the exceptions...

[Magpie_Oz]

Is this a D&D Nerd rules fight ?

[Doug Williams]

Is this a D&D Nerd rules fight ?

That's Geek to you. Now get me another Coke.

Zombies all around me I be hacking them all up. I be hacking them all up, I be hacking them all up. When there zombies all around me I be hacking them all up.

[Thomm]

Fine looking young woman with a sense of humor!

The future belongs to her!

Song's definitely better than the original, too.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Affentitten]

I used to think that, too, but 3.5 is actually a pretty good updating, as far as it can be, of the creaky old exception-riddled collection of special cases that was AD&D 1st... There's at least a stable core of a mechanic, and some system to govern the exceptions...

Oh no argument about the dog's breakfast that was 1st ed. A dire example of what happens with no proof reading or professional editing plus only using insiders to play test.

But with the higher editions it just seems that the rules have blown out to almost unworkable magnitude. The volume of character classes, special attacks, skills, feats, bonuses etc just seems too heavy. You get a fight between a high level ranger and a monk and it almost becomes like two tax lawyers citing legislation.

[Michael Emrys]

Really dumb frickin' song. But I suppose the whole thing is fairly representative of D&D players, which is why I've always tried to avoid having anything to do with them.

Michael

[Doug Williams]

Really dumb frickin' song. But I suppose the whole thing is fairly representative of D&D players, which is why I've always tried to avoid having anything to do with them.

Michael

That's sad, because D&D players could certainly learn a thing or two from you, like tact.

Edit: Nevermind, I just noticed your sig file. You either have a great sense of humor, or the biggest ego on the planet. I can't tell which. ;-)

[womble]

Oh no argument about the dog's breakfast that was 1st ed. A dire example of what happens with no proof reading or professional editing plus only using insiders to play test.

But with the higher editions it just seems that the rules have blown out to almost unworkable magnitude. The volume of character classes, special attacks, skills, feats, bonuses etc just seems too heavy. You get a fight between a high level ranger and a monk and it almost becomes like two tax lawyers citing legislation.

That's going to be true in any game where it's starting to verge on 'superhero' power levels. The characters will have a wide range of options which may or may not cancel out in part in toto some of the other character's options... Unless you like games that are "Roll to hit; do damage; your turn" til someone runs out of HP, and since you're here in BFC's forums, I somehow doubt that's the case

Yes, there's lots of stuff to pick from, but that's down to the particular gaming group or the ref to put limits on. It's also a product of a class/level based system, but that's a rant for another time

[Pak_43]

"Really dumb frickin' song. But I suppose the whole thing is fairly representative of D&D players, which is why I've always tried to avoid having anything to do with them."

No worse than a song about a leopard-skin pill-box hat though, surely?

[Affentitten]

That's going to be true in any game where it's starting to verge on 'superhero' power levels.

Which is probably my point. I think it's all got a bit uber.