Poll . You hate or love D&D rules ?

[Spazmo]

GURPS was going to be used for Fallout, but then Interplay lost the liscence, which prompted Tim Cain & Co. to create SPECIAL.

 

[morenoise]

Chinese noble women were taught to fight with two long swords.

Not true.
Your bias that ALL Chinese know Konfu which mainly stems from Chinese movies
is incorrect.
All my life have I lived in that damned country and ive NEVER heared any Chinese noble women were taught fighting! :wink:

Shield AC bonus isn't that much.. Maybe 1-3 extra AC, but that's not going to do much when you get twice the number of attacks.

In the infamous NWN you can get as many as 8 AC
Even you failed to locate that, you can find or buy tons of 6 AC shield.
In 3E a 20 level fight can perform as many as 4 basic attacks
with boots of speed to boost it to 5, so dual weapon only grant 40% more attacks
and the two extra attacks only get 50% str bonus

 

[morenoise]

You're talking low levels here. At higher levels, those disadvantages are lessened with the right feats. A higher level fighter designed with dual wielding in mind should be able to bring down an equal level fighter that's using a shield and sword just because the damage rate for the dual wielder is higher.

You havent read the 3E manual carefully enough Im afraid Saint
a higher level fighter has a higher BAB, thus has more attacks so the bonus attacks will
be less great
a BAB 20 means you attack at 20+bonus(str, weapon etc), then a second attack at
15+bonus, then 10+bonus, then 5+bonus

I agree exactly. But the thing is they cant. Even at high levels, taking every possible feat that improves dual wielding {All three of them} you'll still end up with -2 to hit in both hands.

Indeed dual wielding does not lower your to hit that far
for instance one weapon your to hit is 35, 30, 25,20
two weapon will be 33, 28, 23, 18, 33, 28
their AVERAGE to hit very resemblance.

 

[Rosh]

Chinese noble women were taught to fight with two long swords.

Not true.
Your bias that ALL Chinese know Konfu which mainly stems from Chinese movies
is incorrect.
All my life have I lived in that damned country and ive NEVER heared that! :wink:

You might want to brush up on your reading comprehension there, Sparky.

 

[Akilae]

In a CRPG, as far as I can remember, D&D is nothing more than a combat system, not a rule set. Seriously, it's exactly the same thing as the Jagged Alliance or the X-com combat system. In P&P the game master was in charge of the rest of the interactivity, like talking to people and stuff, if a player came up with an original idea to deal with some thing, he decided to make a roll against player's stats to determine the outcome but in CRPGs they just thought they could replace it by waves and waves of monsters to bash. Could there possibly be a way to wander through a D&D game without killing stuff.

In the only good game based on D&D ( Planescape:Torment as you have guessed ), besides the planescape universe, the only cool stuff was text based and was only using the characteristics like charisma or inteligence or sometimes agility, which could haved been provided by any rule set.

 

[Constipated Craprunner]

Hehe.
Reading English at a II grade level, huh? Hehe.
These are the people who will replace our superpower?

 

[Jed]

Hehe.
Reading English at a II grade level, huh? Hehe.
These are the people who will replace our superpower?

At what level do you read Chinese, Crap?

J

 

[Rosh]

Hehe.
Reading English at a II grade level, huh? Hehe.
These are the people who will replace our superpower?

At what level do you read Chinese, Crap?

J

Dammit, I get sick of that straw man.

It would be one thing if it were a simple issue over translation, but in this case it's a clear matter of someone obviously not being able to understand what was written and then trying to give someone else shit for it. It's quite comical, much like a clueless FOT fanboy saying there's nothing wrong with FOT while not having played any of the CRPGs.

 

[Jed]

Uhh...Rosh, that's not a strawman. A strawman is when you base an argument on tearing apart a poorly constructed charicature of what you're arguing against. I just thought ConCrap was going a little far in the smart-ass dept.

And if we're going back to the argument, Prov said that he read that Chinese noble women were trained to fight with two swords, MoreNoise said (perhaps poorly) that he had never heard that, and he (MoreNoise) had even grown up in China; he then related it to the well-known stereotype that "Asians all know martial arts." Maybe my reading comprehension is at fault, but I don't the point at which you are accusing MoreNoise of needing to brush up on his reading comprehension.

Jed

 

[Morgan]

Hi, people...
I think, what the d&d not bad, but Fusion set is the coolest, cuz there many way can found in one simply situation, and the biggest in their rules and world in thich you was live...
Morgan from Russia.

 

[MaullusKaherdin]

Greetings,

D&D Rules? Well, it depends on the edition. I tolerated 2nd Ed., despite the overly convoluted, mindlessly complicated labyrinthine guidelines and nonsensical restrictions.

Third Edition is another story altogether. I know I may get blasted for this by some D&D purists, but although 3rd ed. may have "dumbed down" D&D rules, I'm not one to complain when something as complicated as the previous edition is simplified. Not only was 3rd ed. simplified for ease of use, but the amount of options available are staggering. Not to mention they got rid of those foolish race/class restrictions. I mean, hell, if I want to play a Dwarven Paladin, I bloody well want to play a Dwarven Paladin. 2nd Ed. didn't have a good reason I couldn't.

Well, I'll sum up with this...I've yet to play a good CRPG that uses the D&D ruleset. Sure, they slap a logo on there and pass crap off as D&D, but they're just poor imitations. Until I can climb, swim, ride, use a disguise, steal...err, appropriate everything but the toenails off of my fallen enemy, it just isn't D&D. When they eventually get it as close as possible on a CRPG, then my friends, then that will be D&D.

Maullus
Who has yet to play PnP D&D, but for some reason can't stop buying the books.

 

[Elwro]

(I've suffered through Rolemaster enough to realize this ).

Heh, Rolemaster... I still like to look at the attack tables. Each weapon has its own, and there are 2200 entries in each table, which fits into one page! I like also the critical strike tables... e.g. Tiny Animal Critical Strike Table...
There are also several hundred spells, I think. Mind you, Rolemaster is totally unplayable, but serves as a good source for ideas for adventures in other systems.

 

[Elwro]

I haven't played AD&D for a few years now, and I started with the original D&D, but as far as I remember one thing I did not like which was not mentioned here is the advancement of fighter-like classes. Being a Mage / Priest you get new spells; being a Thief you get better in your skills; when you are a fighter you roll another Hit Die, subtract 1 from Thac0 and that's all. But maybe my memory fails me here.

 

[Jed]

Who has yet to play PnP D&D, but for some reason can't stop buying the books.

I was involved in an awesome 3E campaign that only lasted three sessions. Haven't played since then, but I do like the books a lot. I justify keeping them as a possible resource for a good 3E CRPG, which with ToEE on the way, my justification might pan out.

J

 

[Rosh]

Uhh...Rosh, that's not a strawman. A strawman is when you base an argument on tearing apart a poorly constructed charicature of what you're arguing against.

An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.

Which is pretty much what it is, since it's an incredibly weak argument that really only worked about ten years ago. Straw men are also used as a counter-point, albeit weak, usually in hope to draw the discussion away from the topic while using hyperbole or skewed representation.

"Lets see how well you speak X language!" or "How well do you speak X language?"(in context of opposition) is so full of bullshit, especially when pertaining to the topic of someone making a fuss over what they assumed was a total quantifier. It's far from asking about clarification, instead it was an assumption resulting from either misunderstanding or a BS reason.

CC's remark doesn't fall into this as he pointed out what it apparently was - someone making an exaggeration over a statement. Personally, I thought he was too lenient in it.

And if we're going back to the argument, Prov said that he read that Chinese noble women were trained to fight with two swords, MoreNoise said (perhaps poorly) that he had never heard that, and he (MoreNoise) had even grown up in China; he then related it to the well-known stereotype that "Asians all know martial arts." Maybe my reading comprehension is at fault, but I don't the point at which you are accusing MoreNoise of needing to brush up on his reading comprehension.

It's quite simple.

Your bias that ALL Chinese know Konfu which mainly stems from Chinese movies is incorrect.

Now try to find where Prov even remotely implied that. In fact, in the context originally presented, the above quote is a straw man in itself if the poster did have some comprehension of English and knowingly made such a bullshit remark. Please read the original posts in question if you need to.

 

[Jed]

CC's remark doesn't fall into this as he pointed out what it apparently was - someone making an exaggeration over a statement. Personally, I thought he was too lenient in it.

Well, I disagree. You had already made the point about reading comprehension, and CC was just jumping on the train for no constructive reason.

Your bias that ALL Chinese know Konfu which mainly stems from Chinese movies is incorrect.

Now try to find where Prov even remotely implied that. In fact, in the context originally presented, the above quote is a straw man in itself if the poster did have some comprehension of English and knowingly made such a bullshit remark. Please read the original posts in question if you need to.

If that really were the case, then it's a red herring, not a strawman.

Here's a useful guide to logical fallacies:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

 

[Jarinor]

Anyway, back to D&D, and away from the strawman/martial arts discussions, I haven't actually played 3E, and my only experience with 2E is CRPG's. I'd just like to point out that, as far as dual wielding goes, I'm a fan of it. I personally like the concept of roleplaying a character (even if it's only in my head) who has trained for many years to become a deadly fighter (in general not the class) who happens to use two weapons. Now, that said, I don't support the idea of using two heavy longswords - someone that strong ought to be using something else. However, someone using two short swords, or two light swords like rapiers, or even scimitars, is far more realistic and palatable, to my mind anyway.

I think D&D could be made much better if ALL your feats were chosen at the beginning, and as you gained in levels and experience, the feats grew ever so slightly more powerful. Or, perhaps, you could choose the initial starting level, reflecting how much time you've spent to date on perfecting that particular feat, and it growing from there. Either way, I think it'd be much better than feat stacking.

Also, is it just me, or does the image of a monk and the description of a monk in 3E seem totally at odds?

 

[Rosh]

Well, I disagree. You had already made the point about reading comprehension, and CC was just jumping on the train for no constructive reason.

Still no call for straw men in that case. Especially when we got rid of the person who persistently kept using them as their only form of communication.

Your bias that ALL Chinese know Konfu which mainly stems from Chinese movies is incorrect.

Now try to find where Prov even remotely implied that. In fact, in the context originally presented, the above quote is a straw man in itself if the poster did have some comprehension of English and knowingly made such a bullshit remark. Please read the original posts in question if you need to.

If that really were the case, then it's a red herring, not a strawman.

Here's a useful guide to logical fallacies:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

That link POINTEDLY paints the picture of what went on. I also pointed out that a straw man can be used as a red herring as well, because of how it is implemented (please do note the differences between them). They are close enough to be confused, but the difference is relation to the original subject, which yes, it is related to the subject in question.

Let me break it down using their own example:

1. Person "Prov" has position "Chinese noble women were taught to fight with two long swords.".
2. Person "morenoise" presents position "Your bias that ALL Chinese know Konfu which mainly stems from Chinese movies is incorrect. " (which is a distorted version of "Chinese noble women were taught to fight with two long swords.").
3. Person "morenoise" attacks position "Your bias that ALL Chinese know Konfu which mainly stems from Chinese movies is incorrect. " (While there were warriors, there were also servants, etc. who weren't taught how to fight and therefore break that "ALL" quantifier. Please note that it is RELATED to the initial discussion point on factors of fighting skills and nationality, and that that "ALL Chinese" would be inclusive to nobles as well, but attacks a set up target.)
4. Therefore "Chinese noble women were taught to fight with two long swords." is false/incorrect/flawed.

It could be taken in further to include the next sentence "All my life have I lived in that damned country and ive NEVER heared any Chinese noble women were taught fighting!" This is in itself an inconclusive statement with only personal bias quantification, leading towards an assumption that it should be absolutely conclusive. It is absolute rubbish, which could be proven wrong by a few historic examples and one big time period of the culture. Most commonly in the Shang Dynasty, there are many of the noble women who led armies and went into battle alongside men, often using the same methods of combat. Of a more recent time off the top of my memory, there was Shen Yunying (I've seen it written as Yun-Ying before, too), who succeeded her noble father when he was killed in battle, moving to lead them in his stead. Then there was the more famous Hau Mu-Lan (Mulan), who impersonated a man to replace her father in battle for 12 years (now THERE'S a stunt, especially given that she would have to impersonate the inflections of the language as well as mannerisms/protocol/etiquette!), which would be pretty fucking hard to do if she wasn't taught any fighting skills. That last one is a bit of a grey area, since she was not a noble, but it would befit that women did get trained and nobles would get training over commoners and other non-warriors.

I could also go into parallels of Japanese culture being a mirror of Chinese in some ways, and that Japanese women of noble status or warrior status were expected to be just as good as men when it came to fighting. Yet, that would only be minorly relevent as it wouldn't be completely verifiable as being a complete mirror of one another.

Then I could also prove that many US high school students have no idea who Polk was, either, except that he migth have invented the Polka. For that matter Taft, and his invention of taffy. :wink: Which appears to be the case here, with someone having lived in China and having failed to notice some aspects of her history.

Back to the language issue being a straw man, I'll present that out as well.

1. Person "CC" has position "Reading English at a II grade level, huh?"
2. Person "XJEDX" presents position "At what level do you read Chinese, Crap?" (which is a distorted version of "Reading English at a II grade level, huh?").
3. Person "XJEDX" attacks position "At what level do you read Chinese, Crap?"
4. Therefore "Reading English at a II grade level, huh?" is false/incorrect/flawed.

This is a straw man that works on the assumption that it isn't kind to expect everyone to speak/write your mothertongue as well as you do. It is a fallacy in the sense that it was the original person in question (morenoise) arguing points that were either a drastic problem in comprehension or were a straw man play, and that someone tells CC that he shouldn't make comment of it because he isn't being "understanding" enough of those reading/writing outside of their mothertongue.

 

[Spazmo]

I never knew there was such a complex methodology behind casual debate.

 

[Jed]

3. Person "XJEDX" attacks position "At what level do you read Chinese, Crap?"

As I stated before, I didn't so much attack CC as I just slapped him a little because I thought he was just being extra-obnoxious by chiming in on the point you'd already made about reading comprehension. Being that I wasn't arguing, I don't feel implicated in the logical fallacy you're presenting. Otherwise I'm really not invested in the argument between Prov & MoreNoise, or you & MoreNoise.

Factoring myself out,
J

 

[Rosh]

Ah, so it was neither a straw man nor a red herring, but instead an Irrelevent Interjection based upon a Redundant Interjection. :wink:

 

[Trash]

Reads entire thread.
Is amazed at how simple communication can be turned into something that pointless and ugly.
Wonders why he even cares.
Shakes head and leaves.

 

[Rosh]

Yes, it does get pretty bad when someone does post what is essentially clueless flamebait.

 

[Constipated Craprunner]

This makes the Council of Chalcedon look like a political debate between Hitler and Trotsky.

 

[morenoise]

Dammit, I get sick of that straw man.

No doubt i'm the straw man you are referring to.

"Lets see how well you speak X language!" or "How well do you speak X language?"(in context of opposition) is so full of bullshit, especially when pertaining to the topic of someone making a fuss over what they assumed was a total quantifier.

I do think i'm a quantifier over that matter
I'm a fresh man of Zhejiang Univesity, one of the top ten universities in China.
And what I know of Chinese women is far away from that.

Let me break it down using their own example:

1. Person "Prov" has position "Chinese noble women were taught to fight with two long swords.".
2. Person "morenoise" presents position "Your bias that ALL Chinese know Konfu which mainly stems from Chinese movies is incorrect. " (which is a distorted version of "Chinese noble women were taught to fight with two long swords.").
3. Person "morenoise" attacks position "Your bias that ALL Chinese know Konfu which mainly stems from Chinese movies is incorrect. " (While there were warriors, there were also servants, etc. who weren't taught how to fight and therefore break that "ALL" quantifier. Please note that it is RELATED to the initial discussion point on factors of fighting skills and nationality, and that that "ALL Chinese" would be inclusive to nobles as well, but attacks a set up target.)
4. Therefore "Chinese noble women were taught to fight with two long swords." is false/incorrect/flawed.

OK, that's my mistake.
I only want to express that I'm so sick of those Chinese movies misleading the foreign
public

Most commonly in the Shang Dynasty, there are many of the noble women who led armies and went into battle alongside men, often using the same methods of combat. Of a more recent time off the top of my memory, there was Shen Yunying (I've seen it written as Yun-Ying before, too), who succeeded her noble father when he was killed in battle, moving to lead them in his stead. Then there was the more famous Hau Mu-Lan (Mulan), who impersonated a man to replace her father in battle for 12 years

OK, I've asked half a dozen of my classmates, but NO ONE had heard in the Shang
Dynasty, noble women led armies, Nor had ANYONE heard that Shen Yunying .
Hua Mulan-as you pointed that , she was not a noble woman. What's more
that story is probably not true. You wont believe Europeans in the middle age practicing
the arts of magic, will you?

I'm not a straw man
I started leaning English in middle school, a little before Fallout was released . So altogather I've learned 6 and a half years
Inspite of my inadquate English, I love CRPG
You know Japan makes Console RPG, Taiwan makes Console RPG
and China makes Console RPG, and in China you will face all of them
I hate them, I'd rather play CRPG with a dictionary
The first crpg i played was mm6
yes , it was a dungeon crawler
but, i was extreme glad to find a rpg i can adventure in the areas i want
create my own squad and dont have to follow those damned story-line
(even that little freedon was imagable in Console rpgs.)
i played many rpgs after that, inclding BG, FOS, MM7, Arcanum, PS:T...
(no , i failed to find FO in China-not even a illegal copy)
FOS shocked me greatly, it told me what a crpg should like
YES, i'll pole play my character as i want
things will happen as they should do
and...
i thought it was the greatest rpg , untill
I find Fallout.
FOS was just a rough made product.
I found NWN a suck game
it was the first time i bought a legal copy of a crpg :D
but it only reminded me those goddamned console rpgs i hated
I'm only to glad to find a site where there are so many hardcore players.
ps: I admire saint so much iwont offend him