For people who want to play at whatever the D&D world has for cons or even drop in game at random stores, etc, it's probably more of a problem since if they are all playing 4.0 you need to too.
Good point. For those that want to play in the competitions, they are probably out of luck, if they want to continue playing older versions. If they want to play at cons or gaming stores, I bet they can still find older version games to play in, though I'm sure they're rarer. And if they offer to DM a game, I'm sure they'll find players. There are plenty of people who won't switch, or will only switch grudgingly, who would be happy to play an older version.
3.0 was pretty bad. Real fixes didn't come until 3.5, which wasn't released all that long ago, and now, before people have gotten their moneysworth out of 3.5, we have 4.0.
I know! I was still playing 3.5, and then they came and took all my 3.5 books away and forced me to start 4.0! Those jerks!
And of course, I didn't want to be playing 3.5 either, except they'd already taken all of my earlier edition D&D books away, too!
Are you fucking retarded? You were explicitly told that they are not half-demon and had it explained to you what they actually were and they you had the nerve to scrunch your neanderthal brow and grunt, "err, so like half-demons then?" No, dip-shit. They are not like half-demons. In my long line of German and Irish ancestry there is one black woman about 200 years back. While that may make a black in the minds of some primitives using the "single drop" rule, it doesn't make me a mulatto child eligible for an NAACP scholarship. Do you understand the difference now, or shall I try to grunt it out a little more slowly and simply for you? Are you trying to make up for your lack of a point by pretending to be very, very angry about semantics?
If you've got one black ancestor from 200 years ago, do you look black? Have you seen the 4e pictures of tieflings? If not, look up. There's a picture of one attached to this review. They have big horns, big tails, and red skin. They look like demons. I realize that there may be an actual "half-demon" template, and that tieflings are not it, but for the purposes of a book review, to an audience who may not care about D&D templates, I think "half-demon" is a fair description of tieflings.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a while, but in 2nd edition, if a half-elf mated with a human the offspring was a human, but if a half-elf mated with an elf, the offspring was a half-elf. Even after 200 years. This is only relevant in pointing out that in make-believe D&D land, genetics work however the desingners (or your DM) want them to work.
Tieflings are not half-anything, they are humans with a distant fiendish ancestor, showing only one or two traits of demonic heritage. Or to put more simply, half-demons.
Are you -crazy-? Paladins are probably the most powerful class in DnD! Oft ridiculed for being the choice of people wanting to play "easymode", both RP and combat-wise. That's absurd. Paladins are fine, but they are far from the most powerful class in D&D. They are fighters without the useful feats, and instead with a few low level cleric spells, a magic horse, and a special attack they get to use a few times a day. On top of that, they should have at least 4 high stats.
And that's the jury's fault? The maximum was, according to TFA, $150,000 a song, and the minimum $750. They settled on less than $10,000. The law screwed her over long before the jury became involved (at least on damages; she seems to have screwed herself on the facts of the case and her defense).
So they could have settled on a penalty of anywhere between $18,000 and $3,600,000? Certainly that upper limit is absurd, but I don't see how that takes the blame out of the jury's hands for choosing $222,000 when they could have chosen something more reasonable.
I know it isn't long. It's exactly like in DoD. It's still enough to make me want to murder someone.
The feature has nothing to do with any of that. It's just there to piss you off.
I'm missing something. Why does this bother you so much? It's not like there's a penalty to getting killed.
I've been playing TF2, and it never occurred to me to be upset, much less pissed off, by this. It's a silly 15 seconds of the winning team running around killing the losing team. I usually ignore what's going on during this time (win or lose), and instead look at the scores or how I did that round.
If the designers put it in to piss me off, I think they missed their mark. And what a silly goal for game designers. That almost seems like something maybe they wouldn't try to do.
Actually, PATRIOT Act is also wrong. It's the USAPATRIOT Act, or The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.
For those of you who haven't figured out why this is dumb yet, consider playing a board game with friends, and having one of your more affluent friends pulling out his wallet and offering other players real money for their monopoly money.
That's a nice analogy, but it doesn't really work.
In most board games, it's simply you vs. everyone else. In most MMOs, it's you vs. the game. In this case, a better analogy would be you and your friends sitting around, playing solitaire. If one of your friends pays money to get dealt a better hand, so what? How does that hurt you? If that's what he enjoys, let him!
In PvP you're playing against other players, but it still isn't like Monopoly. In Monopoly, everyone starts at an even level. In MMO PvP, everyone starts at different levels with different equipment and skills. So one person might be better because he's better at the game. Another might be better because he has time to play the game 12 hours a day. Another might be better because he got power leveled by some friends. So what if there is yet another person who got to where he is by paying extra money? The only one of these things that can happen in Monopoly is having a player that's actually better at the game.
I think it's clear from Drinkypoo's post that saving on gas and brake pads aren't his concern. Getting in front of the person who is going to slow him down is his concern.
What did you get? Line position at a red light.
As you know, the red light will eventually turn green again. So the actual answer to the question that you asked and then answered yourself is that Drinkypoo got to avoid being slowed down. Which, fortunately enough, was his goal.
I don't see how doing the things a normal, health 11YO boy should do makes me so unbelievable.
It's not about what you were like when you were 11, it's what an 11 year old boy is like after going through what this boy may have gone through. Maybe this boy had the same skills as you had, and at first he would have killed his captor if he had the opportunity. But maybe the captor made sure that couldn't happen until the boy was broken. Maybe it was Stockholm, or maybe he just convinced the kid that trying to escape would go badly, with him getting killed or his parents getting killed.
But this is all just speculation. Maybe the kid did go along willingly. I'm just trying to say that it's not as easy as waiting for the right moment, killing your captor, and escaping. Eventually almost anyone would break to some degree, especially kids.
I'm also no lawyer, but I'd guess it's legally called kidnapping, regardless of what the child wanted.
Hell, I don't think most of the responses so far would have applied to me at six. By eleven, I truly believe that if I couldn't have outright escaped, I would have killed the guy in his sleep.
So yeah, if it makes me an "asshole", I have trouble believing this as a simple kidnapping.
No, you're not an "asshole." You're clearly superhuman and you have trouble relating to us mortals. Or perhaps you just think very highly of yourself. But my guess would be that you don't understand psychology as well as you think you do. I'm no expert myself, so I won't try to teach you. If you're interested, I'm sure you can teach yourself by doing a little googling.
So wait. You don't think violent video games make kids violent, but you think that hearing vulgar language makes kids use vulgar language?
That's not what I said. I said that shooting video games don't make kids shoot people, but if a kid is using vulgar language in a video game, he will use it out of a video game.
I suspect that the violence you see from kids who have watched Power Rangers is play violence. They're playing Power Rangers and pretending to beat up whatever Power Rangers beat up. They need to be taught how to keep it pretend and not actually hurt anyone, but otherwise, this seems fine to me.
I would be fine with my kids pretending to shoot at each other or pretending to kick at each other. I would not be ok with them swearing and threatening to rape each other. Even if they claimed they were just pretending.
I agree that 8 year olds should not be playing Counter-Strike and should not be using vulgar language.
But, I think the difference between playing a violent video game and using vulgar language is that splattering someone's brains all over a wall in a video game does not make kids go out and shoot people. The kid is playing a character in a video game that does violent things. However, it is the kid, not the character, who is cursing and threatening to rape someone.
I can't say why the kid does what he does. But his not filing charges against the officers does not make what they did legal any more than filing charges would have made it illegal. If I had to guess, I'd say his reasons were something like his lawyer telling him he had a better chance of winning with a lawsuit.
If you can't see this whole bad situation for what it is
I see that it's a bad situation that was made worse by the actions taken by the police. I see that it could have been a simple case of trespassing if the police had just walked with him until they were out of the library. If they really wanted to physically escort him out, it could have been a simple case of trespassing and maybe resisting arrest. But they wanted to use their tasers. Now it's a much worse situation.
all they knew was that they had an unruly, hostile person
It looked to me like they had a guy laying on the ground. Sure, he wasn't leaving like he was being ordered to, but that doesn't seem like a situation that warrants being tased.
So maybe he got more than he deserved, but that doesn't suddenly make the man an innocent victim and the police criminals.
I don't think it suddenly makes the man innocent, but these things aren't mutually exclusive. Tasing a man more than he deserves does seem to me like it makes the police criminals
He got what he deserved. Maybe a little too much of what he deserved, but deserved none the less.
Which is it? Did he get what he deserved, or did he get more than he deserved? That seems to be the question, and despite the rest of your post, you don't seem to know at the end.
I assume CmdrTaco is talking about some other game. In D&D, evasion doesn't provide any kind of miss chance. It allows you to take less damage on certain attacks when making a successful reflex saving throw.
Also, there is no cloak of evasion. There is a ring of evasion, though.
Mine too. I couldn't metamoderate for a while, and I've never been able to moderate since. The post I got banned for had over 700 moderations, and it looked like every account that moderated the post up got banned from moderating.
Just magic, no science. Eberron doesn't really have any more science than your typical D&D setting. It just has more magic used for everyday conveniences (magical street lights, magical carriages, magical flying ships, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. For those that want to play in the competitions, they are probably out of luck, if they want to continue playing older versions. If they want to play at cons or gaming stores, I bet they can still find older version games to play in, though I'm sure they're rarer. And if they offer to DM a game, I'm sure they'll find players. There are plenty of people who won't switch, or will only switch grudgingly, who would be happy to play an older version.
And I still use Office 2000.
I know! I was still playing 3.5, and then they came and took all my 3.5 books away and forced me to start 4.0! Those jerks!
And of course, I didn't want to be playing 3.5 either, except they'd already taken all of my earlier edition D&D books away, too!
If you've got one black ancestor from 200 years ago, do you look black? Have you seen the 4e pictures of tieflings? If not, look up. There's a picture of one attached to this review. They have big horns, big tails, and red skin. They look like demons. I realize that there may be an actual "half-demon" template, and that tieflings are not it, but for the purposes of a book review, to an audience who may not care about D&D templates, I think "half-demon" is a fair description of tieflings.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a while, but in 2nd edition, if a half-elf mated with a human the offspring was a human, but if a half-elf mated with an elf, the offspring was a half-elf. Even after 200 years. This is only relevant in pointing out that in make-believe D&D land, genetics work however the desingners (or your DM) want them to work.
So they could have settled on a penalty of anywhere between $18,000 and $3,600,000? Certainly that upper limit is absurd, but I don't see how that takes the blame out of the jury's hands for choosing $222,000 when they could have chosen something more reasonable.
In the Ocean of Subculture, south of Digg, bordering Reddit and Soviet Russia, is "/."
I've been playing TF2, and it never occurred to me to be upset, much less pissed off, by this. It's a silly 15 seconds of the winning team running around killing the losing team. I usually ignore what's going on during this time (win or lose), and instead look at the scores or how I did that round.
If the designers put it in to piss me off, I think they missed their mark. And what a silly goal for game designers. That almost seems like something maybe they wouldn't try to do.
Actually, PATRIOT Act is also wrong. It's the USAPATRIOT Act, or The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.
I expect that it is the same as watching other people play sports. I don't get it either, but it seems to be fairly popular.
To be fair, "pesky" could be referring to the fact that you only received store credit.
That's a nice analogy, but it doesn't really work.
In most board games, it's simply you vs. everyone else. In most MMOs, it's you vs. the game. In this case, a better analogy would be you and your friends sitting around, playing solitaire. If one of your friends pays money to get dealt a better hand, so what? How does that hurt you? If that's what he enjoys, let him!
In PvP you're playing against other players, but it still isn't like Monopoly. In Monopoly, everyone starts at an even level. In MMO PvP, everyone starts at different levels with different equipment and skills. So one person might be better because he's better at the game. Another might be better because he has time to play the game 12 hours a day. Another might be better because he got power leveled by some friends. So what if there is yet another person who got to where he is by paying extra money? The only one of these things that can happen in Monopoly is having a player that's actually better at the game.
I think it's clear from Drinkypoo's post that saving on gas and brake pads aren't his concern. Getting in front of the person who is going to slow him down is his concern.
/golfclap
What did you get? Line position at a red light.
As you know, the red light will eventually turn green again. So the actual answer to the question that you asked and then answered yourself is that Drinkypoo got to avoid being slowed down. Which, fortunately enough, was his goal.
Bra-vo.
(sigh)
Clearly, the essay was so disturbing, that if the Chicago Tribune posted it, the Chicago Tribune would be arrested, too.
I don't see how doing the things a normal, health 11YO boy should do makes me so unbelievable.
It's not about what you were like when you were 11, it's what an 11 year old boy is like after going through what this boy may have gone through. Maybe this boy had the same skills as you had, and at first he would have killed his captor if he had the opportunity. But maybe the captor made sure that couldn't happen until the boy was broken. Maybe it was Stockholm, or maybe he just convinced the kid that trying to escape would go badly, with him getting killed or his parents getting killed.
But this is all just speculation. Maybe the kid did go along willingly. I'm just trying to say that it's not as easy as waiting for the right moment, killing your captor, and escaping. Eventually almost anyone would break to some degree, especially kids.
I'm also no lawyer, but I'd guess it's legally called kidnapping, regardless of what the child wanted.
Hell, I don't think most of the responses so far would have applied to me at six. By eleven, I truly believe that if I couldn't have outright escaped, I would have killed the guy in his sleep.
So yeah, if it makes me an "asshole", I have trouble believing this as a simple kidnapping.
No, you're not an "asshole." You're clearly superhuman and you have trouble relating to us mortals. Or perhaps you just think very highly of yourself. But my guess would be that you don't understand psychology as well as you think you do. I'm no expert myself, so I won't try to teach you. If you're interested, I'm sure you can teach yourself by doing a little googling.
So wait. You don't think violent video games make kids violent, but you think that hearing vulgar language makes kids use vulgar language?
That's not what I said. I said that shooting video games don't make kids shoot people, but if a kid is using vulgar language in a video game, he will use it out of a video game.
I suspect that the violence you see from kids who have watched Power Rangers is play violence. They're playing Power Rangers and pretending to beat up whatever Power Rangers beat up. They need to be taught how to keep it pretend and not actually hurt anyone, but otherwise, this seems fine to me.
I would be fine with my kids pretending to shoot at each other or pretending to kick at each other. I would not be ok with them swearing and threatening to rape each other. Even if they claimed they were just pretending.
I agree that 8 year olds should not be playing Counter-Strike and should not be using vulgar language.
But, I think the difference between playing a violent video game and using vulgar language is that splattering someone's brains all over a wall in a video game does not make kids go out and shoot people. The kid is playing a character in a video game that does violent things. However, it is the kid, not the character, who is cursing and threatening to rape someone.
I can't say why the kid does what he does. But his not filing charges against the officers does not make what they did legal any more than filing charges would have made it illegal. If I had to guess, I'd say his reasons were something like his lawyer telling him he had a better chance of winning with a lawsuit.
If you can't see this whole bad situation for what it is
I see that it's a bad situation that was made worse by the actions taken by the police. I see that it could have been a simple case of trespassing if the police had just walked with him until they were out of the library. If they really wanted to physically escort him out, it could have been a simple case of trespassing and maybe resisting arrest. But they wanted to use their tasers. Now it's a much worse situation.
all they knew was that they had an unruly, hostile person
It looked to me like they had a guy laying on the ground. Sure, he wasn't leaving like he was being ordered to, but that doesn't seem like a situation that warrants being tased.
So maybe he got more than he deserved, but that doesn't suddenly make the man an innocent victim and the police criminals.
I don't think it suddenly makes the man innocent, but these things aren't mutually exclusive. Tasing a man more than he deserves does seem to me like it makes the police criminals
He got what he deserved. Maybe a little too much of what he deserved, but deserved none the less.
Which is it? Did he get what he deserved, or did he get more than he deserved? That seems to be the question, and despite the rest of your post, you don't seem to know at the end.
You're forgetting that Christians outright and publically denounced the IRA's methods and actions.
All Christians or only some Christians? Or do you think there is some head Christian authority that speaks for all Christians?
Muslims have never denounced the actions of Muslim Extremism.
All Muslims or only some Muslims? Or do you think that there is some head Muslim authority that speaks for all Muslims?
I assume CmdrTaco is talking about some other game. In D&D, evasion doesn't provide any kind of miss chance. It allows you to take less damage on certain attacks when making a successful reflex saving throw.
Also, there is no cloak of evasion. There is a ring of evasion, though.
I think you used to be able to see a list of how many of each type of moderation a comment received.
Mine too. I couldn't metamoderate for a while, and I've never been able to moderate since. The post I got banned for had over 700 moderations, and it looked like every account that moderated the post up got banned from moderating.
Here is the post. Here is a journal entry by sllort that does a much better job of describing what happened.
Ebberon and promises a world of magic and science
Just magic, no science. Eberron doesn't really have any more science than your typical D&D setting. It just has more magic used for everyday conveniences (magical street lights, magical carriages, magical flying ships, etc.)