PDA

View Full Version : Would it be great if we could learn how to use other weapons



SirSlick
07-03-2007, 09:32 AM
I understand the complexity around having a learning table in the game, however it would be great if you get a weapon or wands and want to use them. I am suggesting building a way to learn other weapons that you are not profieicnt with. And over time become more advanced. Same with weapons you are proficient with, over time you become better.

Ziggy
07-03-2007, 09:34 AM
I understand the complexity around having a learning table in the game, however it would be great if you get a weapon or wands and want to use them. I am suggesting building a way to learn other weapons that you are not profieicnt with. And over time become more advanced. Same with weapons you are proficient with, over time you become better.
Its called feats.:D

Dyson
07-03-2007, 11:37 AM
Feats, exactly.

With my PNP characters I often dish out my skill points and feats in respect to the adventures we've been run through. If we are in the mountains and doing a lot of climbing and such I will usually stick a couple skill points into climb when level time comes around to reflect this. Same with swim, knowledge skills, spellcraft, animal handling, etc. etc. Feats are a little more touchy as they don't come around to often, however I find in PNP anyway it helps to flesh out your character a little more and give him a sense of history and learning. When he gets to higher levels you discover he has a skill set that you would have never thought of but comes in handy. Of course the opposite can happen as well and you end up with some useless jack-of-all-trades guy. The chance you take I guess.


This, I find, is not really a viable way of leveling up your character in DDO as most peeps like to specialize, and to some extent you have to specialize in order to complete the higher end quests.

Uska
07-03-2007, 12:53 PM
already built into the game either use a feat or multiclass no need to add whats already here

Tat2Freak
07-03-2007, 01:45 PM
...so close minded for a bunch of people playing a RPG. The OP is talking about an idea...and all your doing is trying to shut down his creativity...

This is for the OP....maybe something like...the game tracks how long u use an item...sure you get the negative penalty...but if you continue to use the item the penalty is reduced...because as your playing with said item...your character starts to get the feel for it...something like that maybe would work...

Freeman
07-03-2007, 01:48 PM
...so close minded for a bunch of people playing a RPG. The OP is talking about an idea...and all your doing is trying to shut down his creativity...

This is for the OP....maybe something like...the game tracks how long u use an item...sure you get the negative penalty...but if you continue to use the item the penalty is reduced...because as your playing with said item...your character starts to get the feel for it...something like that maybe would work...

The point was that a system of doing this is already built into the game. If you plan on using a weapon you aren't normally familiar with, you take the time to train with it and learn how to use it. This is represented by taking a feat to gain proficiency in that particular weapon. DDO doesn't require the role-playing side of it, but the mechanic is still there. Using a system such as the one suggested by the OP would negate the purpose of the Exotic Weapon proficiency feats entirely.

narizue
07-03-2007, 01:55 PM
...so close minded for a bunch of people playing a RPG. The OP is talking about an idea...and all your doing is trying to shut down his creativity...

Nope. Just trying to keep the system working as intended. Feats provide the needed mechanic. To allow folks to learn to use a weapon over time without the feat requirement would give a tremendous advantage to those who play frequently over the casual player. Just as a note, I am a "hardcore" player, but in all fairness any system that would give that type of advantage to the hardcore over the casual player is not appropriate.

As to being close minded, its not closeminded to point out that the system already has methods in place to allow for learning proficency in weapons that you don't have. Its statement of fact. There is a difference. :D

Tat2Freak
07-03-2007, 01:59 PM
Like I said, close minded....so just because its in place dosent mean it couldnt be improved on or changed...LOL...and you all call yourselves gamers...LOL

Katrina
07-03-2007, 02:21 PM
Like I said, close minded....so just because its in place dosent mean it couldnt be improved on or changed...LOL...and you all call yourselves gamers...LOL

I'm not sure I would consider it close-minded. I think that they're just trying to point out that the sugested method of 'learning' a weapon is a devation from D&D. If the rules start changing we loose D&D and it becomes something different (not inherently bad but definately not D&D).
If we take a 'role-playing' look at how feats are applied we can see how 'learning' a weapon is allready in place. As you gain experience points your character is constantly learning. What exactly your learning varries from character to character but in the end you can sum it up by saying your learning to 'survive'. Whether or not that includes new spells, different tactics in battle, new songs or a deeper understanding of your faith your character grows and learns. To represent this growth we're given feats and skills. Skills are abilities and talents that can be learnt and improvised somewhat quickly. Feats are abilities or talents that take time/effort and devotion to learn (this is why we only get a one every couple of levels).
Example:
Once again from a role-playing point of view, a fighter has been trained in the use of martial weapons by the militia he's serving in. Longswords, Greatswords, axes and bows he feels he's ready to step out into the world and tackle the challenges ahead of him (he's now lvl 1) Shortly after leaving his home village he's ambushed by goblins and near death when a paladin charges down the road and scatters the goblins swinging his sword with two hands. The goblins leader (a bugbear) steps out of the bush and challenges the paladin. In repsonse the paladin grabs a shield and wades into combat with the bugbear. The fighter is in awe of this, after vanquishing the bugbear the two begin a conversation. The fighter learns the paladin is weilding a bastardsword and instantly falls in love with the weapon. The two travel together and spar nightly, the paladin teaching the fighter how the bastardsword works, the in-and-outs of it's balance, how different it is compared to the longsword and greatsword, yet similar at the same time. At first he is clumsy and awkward with the weapon, it's longer and heavier then a longsword but lighter then a greatswords (-4 penalty to attack for non prof.) After many weeks, months or even years (fighter levels to 2 or 3) the fighter becomes familiar with the bastard sword using it daily (exotic weapon prof.: bastard sword) and even begins to develop tactics to show the paladin (weapon specialization: Bastard sword).

Not so brief of an explaination but I believe it shows a little bit more then the numbers and statistics that this game is commonly reduced to.

Tat2Freak
07-03-2007, 02:26 PM
I think that they're just trying to point out that the sugested method of 'learning' a weapon is a devation from D&D. If the rules start changing we loose D&D and it becomes something different (not inherently bad but definately not D&D).

I totally understand what you folks are saying...but, isnt the game deviated enough already...from what I understand of 3.5, this game is "loosely" based on it as it is...am I wrong...

joker965
07-03-2007, 02:26 PM
Like I said, close minded....so just because its in place dosent mean it couldnt be improved on or changed...LOL...and you all call yourselves gamers...LOL

The use of weapons in D&D 3.5 and in DDO is very specific and a "core" rule. In other MMORPGs there is no "actual" ruleset that the game is being crafted from. They can change whatever they want.

How about we just get rid of levels and go pure skill points like UO. That would be "open minded".

Tat2Freak
07-03-2007, 02:33 PM
The use of weapons in D&D 3.5 and in DDO is very specific and a "core" rule. In other MMORPGs there is no "actual" ruleset that the game is being crafted from. They can change whatever they want.

How about we just get rid of levels and go pure skill points like UO. That would be "open minded".


What people argue against and for....havent they ALREADY moved away from the "core" with all the changes they have made?

Katrina
07-03-2007, 02:36 PM
I totally understand what you folks are saying...but, isnt the game deviated enough already...from what I understand of 3.5, this game is "loosely" based on it as it is...am I wrong...

It's not as 'loosely' based as many people believe (keep in mind loosely is a relative term)
The reasons the game differs from 3.5 PnP is more of a programing issue. (except for the ramped up numbers of hp and dmg... imo this is all about the action and intensity of the game)
For the most part the rules on characters, creation, levels, feats, skills and combat are all as close to 3.5 rules as possible.

narizue
07-03-2007, 02:36 PM
Like I said, close minded....so just because its in place dosent mean it couldnt be improved on or changed...LOL...and you all call yourselves gamers...LOL

Close minded? How so? Please expand on that idea. In full sentances even.

Tat2Freak
07-03-2007, 02:40 PM
Close minded? How so? Please expand on that idea. In full sentances even.

No. :)

narizue
07-03-2007, 02:49 PM
No. :)

Duely noted.

Just to reiterate my thoughts, learning curve is represented by the existing rules. To give a time based/use based learning curve for weapon proficenies would have a strong negative impact on the casual gamers, increasing the gap between them and the hardcore players. Like the loot gap is not enough. :D

joker965
07-03-2007, 03:49 PM
What people argue against and for....havent they ALREADY moved away from the "core" with all the changes they have made?

No, the core rules are still there. Some things are missing and some are a little different but the basics are still in place.

Example: To use full plate armor without penalty you must have a feat called "heavy armor prof". To use a martial weapon without penalty you must have the feat. These are "core" rules.

MysticTheurge
07-03-2007, 04:55 PM
havent they ALREADY moved away from the "core" with all the changes they have made?

DDO should only vary from the D&D rules where it's necessary to transform the game into an MMO.

This is not one of those times.

Uska
07-03-2007, 05:31 PM
...so close minded for a bunch of people playing a RPG. The OP is talking about an idea...and all your doing is trying to shut down his creativity...

This is for the OP....maybe something like...the game tracks how long u use an item...sure you get the negative penalty...but if you continue to use the item the penalty is reduced...because as your playing with said item...your character starts to get the feel for it...something like that maybe would work...

Not part of dnd theres no sense in adding or changing a game already made and they most likely cant do this silly thing and sorry its not the creative just copied from some other mmo's

Uska
07-03-2007, 05:33 PM
Like I said, close minded....so just because its in place dosent mean it couldnt be improved on or changed...LOL...and you all call yourselves gamers...LOL

not close minded following the rules if you and the op want this go make your own rpg and then a mmo based on it. just because you and he think its good or better doesnt mean it is

Gadget2775
07-03-2007, 05:34 PM
Long long ago in a MMO far far away...Wait, that's not right. That's how SWG's was set up when I played it initially. With all due repect to the OP that system of advancement is not how this game (or the PnP version it's based on) works.
The developers have however seen fit to include a system that allows us to expand out skills and abilities. It's called the enhancement system, it provides us a means outside of the static leveling process to "learn" new skills and abilities.

Frankenbard
/sing Xun Xun Xun

Richtenfaust
07-03-2007, 06:21 PM
Like I said, close minded....so just because its in place dosent mean it couldnt be improved on or changed...LOL...and you all call yourselves gamers...LOL

Yes, I *am* a gamer...a roleplaying gamer moreso than a video gamer. If this game changes from its D&D fundamentals, I might as well be playing WoW or some other "traditional" MMO. I play this game because it is *D&D*, just like I played SW:G because it was *Star Wars*...when they changed the feel of the game, I stopped playing.

It has nothing to do with being close-minded...it has to do with expecting the game to follow many of the major rules set forth by the RPG, thereby maintaining at least a rudimentary D&D experience when we can't get away to actually play in a tabletop group. Is DDO more MMO than it is D&D? Playwise, yes. Rulewise, no. As Mystic said, some things have to be changed to make it playable as an MMO. Have the Devs changed things above and beyond what is necessary? Oh yes. Have they changed so much that the game is no longer fundamentally D&D? No. But that doesn't mean the OP or anyone else has to *help* them find ways to tear away at the core of the game.

For any other MMO, the OP's suggestion would be great...for this one, it isn't something you are going to get any real support for...except from people who don't know D&D from a portable hole in the wall.

SirSlick
07-05-2007, 12:30 PM
I understand you are all entitled to your opinion, but to have the title of founder and to have such a closed mind to new IDeas, we all played D&D as kids and obviously some of you took it more seriously than others. And perhaps Uska d'Orien is still living in the alternate reality he or she created. But in order for games such as this to draw more people, other than typical DND types they need to adapt as well.

I pay for this yearly just as all of you do, and I'm entitled to my opinions and suggestions. Just as all of you are to yours. Changing the system might chase away a few players, but may also attract so many others. And not for nothing but system stability chases away more people than new suggestions.

SneakThief
07-05-2007, 01:26 PM
And not for nothing but system stability chases away more people than new suggestions.

Yeah ... that's the ticket ... less stabilty ... that will bring the people in droves!

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 07:40 AM
The reasons the game differs from 3.5 PnP is more of a programing issue. (except for the ramped up numbers of hp and dmg... imo this is all about the action and intensity of the game)
I am thoroughly confused. Exactly what are the 'programming issues' that brought us the great deviation called PvP?

I think the OP has a great idea, and I think all of you D&D 3.5 'originalist' should be a more receptive.

Ziggy
07-06-2007, 08:02 AM
I understand you are all entitled to your opinion, but to have the title of founder and to have such a closed mind to new IDeas, we all played D&D as kids and obviously some of you took it more seriously than others. And perhaps Uska d'Orien is still living in the alternate reality he or she created. But in order for games such as this to draw more people, other than typical DND types they need to adapt as well.

I pay for this yearly just as all of you do, and I'm entitled to my opinions and suggestions. Just as all of you are to yours. Changing the system might chase away a few players, but may also attract so many others. And not for nothing but system stability chases away more people than new suggestions.

Changing the system may chase away many of the founders. as well as those who enjoy the D&D ruleset. THats why many of us are here. This game will not compete with WOW/everquest/COX, or whatever MMO you are thinking of at this time. It is a niche game because of the ruleset they are using. It needs to stay that way. Yes your entitled to your opinion

and if your entitled to your opinion, those posting here telling you its a bad idea are also entitled to theirs.

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 08:09 AM
Changing the system may chase away many of the founders. as well as those who enjoy the D&D ruleset. THats why many of us are here.
If your above statement is true, then why didn't all the 'founders' leave after the implementation of PvP? Btw, your premise is that the game would not function unless the all-mighty founders were still playing.

Chase them away .................... it won't hurt my feelings.

Ziggy
07-06-2007, 08:14 AM
If your above statement is true, then why didn't all the 'founders' leave after the implementation of PvP? Btw, your premise is that the game would not function unless the all-mighty founders were still playing.

Chase them away .................... it won't hurt my feelings.
chase away the people that may come if a change were implemented. It wont hurt my feelings.

and technically in PnP, there can be party struggles. PvP as much as i dont like it, can have a place in PnP. Never said it would fail because the founders left, just stating that many of the founders came because of the DD in DDO. not because it was some new MMO.

WolfSpirit
07-06-2007, 08:25 AM
Since The first few posts were shooting down your idea OP, I'm going to give you my example...

My main has rogue and Bard classes. I get to use all kinds of cool piercing weapons, and do. Because I wanted to be front line, I took all the piercing feats possible with my few feats that are available...

But the light Pick, oh my... x4 Crits...:eek:
Nice:cool:

whats that? Neither Bard nor Rogue gets to use the Light Pick?
I'd have to Lose Weapon Focus: Piercing or finesse to take Martial Weapons or Lose another level of Bard to take another class?
Not good...:mad:
Now that would screw up my entire build!:eek:

Oh well, rapiers are very good too...;)

Hmmm... An +3 Ice Bursting light Pick of Pure good rr dwarf... No matter, UMD baby!:)
Grrrr... Not proficient...:mad:
Well, I'll use it anyway, how can I go wrong?
Man, that penalty sucks...:mad:
(Use if for more than 2 weeks straight in every adventure through almost 3 class levels):)
You would think that when you use a weapon for such a long time and swing the thing thousands of times, you could figure out how to use it better...:confused:

Oh, thats not the rules... I see...:mad:

Well, I'll just keep on using it with penalties...
I can get my to hit up to like +20 with good buffs anyway...:D

But I can at least see where you are coming from OP, and the idea might not be written into the PnP D&D rules...
But that doesn't make it a bad idea man. Not in my book.

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 08:27 AM
chase away the people that may come if a change were implemented. It wont hurt my feelings.
So .................. we should not even consider any positive changes to the game - whether that means more players or a better gaming experience - if it doesn't agree with PnP rules? That is laughable.



........just stating that many of the founders came because of the DD in DDO. not because it was some new MMO.
Well, last time I check, the 'DD' is still there and will always be there. I also notice the daily hell raising on the forums because DDO is not true D&D.

Ziggy
07-06-2007, 08:30 AM
So .................. we should not even consider any positive changes to the game - whether that means more players or a better gaming experience - if it doesn't agree with PnP rules? That is laughable.

You do realize that this would require a brand new version of DDO. A complete rewrite of how skill with weapons work. Im not the only one who thinks that this game is better off being as close to the PnP ruleset as possible with exceptions for those rules not suited for real time play.



Well, last time I check, the 'DD' is still there and will always be there. I also notice the daily hell raising on the forums because DDO is not true D&D.
So because people already complain the game isnt D&D enough we should move it further away? how does that possibly make sense to you?

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 08:33 AM
But I can at least see where you are coming from OP, and the idea might not be written into the PnP D&D rules...
But that doesn't make it a bad idea man. Not in my book.
Good to hear.

Now to expand on your light pick example. Maybe it takes you 8 levels to become proficient with the light pick at a rate of 0.5 attack penalty reduction per level with SIGNIFICANT light pick usage over that time frame. Also, maybe you can only be in the process of 'learning' one new weapon at any given time.

What would the problem be with that scenario?

Shecky
07-06-2007, 08:35 AM
Like I said, close minded....so just because its in place dosent mean it couldnt be improved on or changed...LOL...and you all call yourselves gamers...LOL

Meet many kettles?

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 08:35 AM
So because people already complain the game isnt D&D enough we should move it further away? how does that possibly make sense to you?
You stated that 'founders' came to the game simply because 'DD' was in DDO. I submit to you that the original DDO is closer to other MMO's than it is to D&D, therefore, another minor change - for the better - would not be a big deal. All of the is based on your theory that people are here because of the two D's in the game title.

Ziggy
07-06-2007, 08:46 AM
You stated that 'founders' came to the game simply because 'DD' was in DDO. I submit to you that the original DDO is closer to other MMO's than it is to D&D, therefore, another minor change - for the better - would not be a big deal. All of the is based on your theory that people are here because of the two D's in the game title.
I stated that many founder came to this game because it was an MMO that used the D&D ruleset.

And many founders have said as much.

Please explain how this would be better. HOw is it better to rip out the ruleset for using weapons(using feats) and completely rewrite a new ruleset?

Uska
07-06-2007, 08:55 AM
I totally understand what you folks are saying...but, isnt the game deviated enough already...from what I understand of 3.5, this game is "loosely" based on it as it is...am I wrong...

loosely isnt the same as completely broken

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 08:56 AM
Please explain how this would be better.
It would allow more flexibility and versatility with everyone's characters.


HOw is it better to rip out the ruleset for using weapons(using feats) and completely rewrite a new ruleset?
Please explain how the enhancement system has broken the game, and why the rule set rewrite to accommodate enhancements is any different than the doom you preach when it comes to the OP's idea.

WolfSpirit
07-06-2007, 08:56 AM
Good to hear.

Now to expand on your light pick example. Maybe it takes you 8 levels to become proficient with the light pick at a rate of 0.5 attack penalty reduction per level with SIGNIFICANT light pick usage over that time frame. Also, maybe you can only be in the process of 'learning' one new weapon at any given time.

What would the problem be with that scenario?

I like the idea, but it would require a major change in the current system. Well, maybe its just a couple of lines of code, what do I know about code? I'm a hardware/already made software guy. But its a change that will never occur. As you can see, PnP D&D people are very sensitive about the rules. Any deviation from the "bible" core rulebook is blasphemy. But thats the way it is, no sense in fighting with everyone over it.
I played D&D myself for many years. I grew out of it, I discovered girls. Or rather, they discovered me. :D

But I've never lost my love of it (Hence Here I am)

And its normal for people to worship D&D rules.
When the rules went from Basic D&D to Advanced D&D, all my best of friends that I gamed with didn't want to change... Even when I bought the DMs book. Nope, no way!
Then Advanced D&D 2nd Edition... And things started to make more sense rule wise.
I bought everything about it!
Nope, no way don't want to change...
Today? forget it, they still talk about the good ole days of D&D and how it was ruined with every change.
(Though they never REALLY tried it)

My point?
People can be fanatical about what they believe, even if its rules of a game.
And that's ok, it has to be.
Because that's the way it is...

So unless you work for Wizards of the Coast and write the rules your self, your ideas will fall on Deaf Ears.
(And sometimes even if you did and were they still would)

For me? I loved the Super-customization of Oblivion and the "more you use the better you get" thinking that it involved.

But I love this game too, so I'll play it the way it is.

And I understand the PnP people and their love of their rules...

Uska
07-06-2007, 08:57 AM
I understand you are all entitled to your opinion, but to have the title of founder and to have such a closed mind to new IDeas, we all played D&D as kids and obviously some of you took it more seriously than others. And perhaps Uska d'Orien is still living in the alternate reality he or she created. But in order for games such as this to draw more people, other than typical DND types they need to adapt as well.

I pay for this yearly just as all of you do, and I'm entitled to my opinions and suggestions. Just as all of you are to yours. Changing the system might chase away a few players, but may also attract so many others. And not for nothing but system stability chases away more people than new suggestions.

its not a new idea and the game has a base that has rules you dont like it make your own game they cant change mechanics willy nilly they have some guildlines and not breaking core rules anymore then they have to is right up there I am sure. Its a bad idea anyways

as its been said before sometimes a bad idea is just a bad idea or something like that.

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 08:57 AM
loosely isnt the same as completely broken
Completely broken? How about enhancements? Wouldn't it already be broken?

Uska
07-06-2007, 09:00 AM
If your above statement is true, then why didn't all the 'founders' leave after the implementation of PvP? Btw, your premise is that the game would not function unless the all-mighty founders were still playing.

Chase them away .................... it won't hurt my feelings.

Pvp is worthless and completely ingnorable no can challenge you to a duel like they can in other games so your agurement is flawed

Ziggy
07-06-2007, 09:01 AM
It would allow more flexibility and versatility with everyone's characters.

How? because someone can spend 20 hours swinging at a kobold in WW, as opposed to taking a feat?

How exactly does this make characters versitile? what would the feats at creation,3,6,9,12,15, and 18 be used for(the feat progression going up to level 20). What would be the point of multiclassing? what would be the point of all these heavy armor proficiency, or martial weapon proficiency?




Please explain how the enhancement system has broken the game, and why the rule set rewrite to accommodate enhancements is any different than the doom you preach when it comes to the OP's idea.
The enhancement system was not rewritten, it was toned down and more were added, as well as the ability to use more enhancments. If anything all they did was add to the enhancements and change some numbers of the plusses.

The proficiency system as of right now is a yes or no. You are either proficient with the weapon or not, if your not you take the -4 penalty(it is -4 right, i havent used a weapon im not proficient with in a long time). The rewrite you are suggesting is a varying degree of profiency. Therefore that portion of the code would have to be rewritten.

please explain your ideas and possibly we can discuss.

WhtKnt
07-06-2007, 09:02 AM
Like I said, close minded....so just because its in place dosent mean it couldnt be improved on or changed...LOL...and you all call yourselves gamers...LOL
30 years behind a GM screen, slick. I've played just about every PNP RPG there is. You?

If there were not already a method for learning a new weapon, I would agree with the sentiment, but feats handle exactly what the OP is trying to do. Why create a new rule or system to address a problem that is already fixed?

"But I want proficiency in the military pick!"

So, take the appropriate feat. Oh, it interferes with your build? Decisions are a part of life. If everything went the way we wanted it to, I wouldn't have to work for a living.

Should you get better by using it over a period of time? Not really, no. If you've never been taught to use it correctly, all you are doing is cementing your incorrect method of usage into place.

"You can't tell me that if I use a weapon day in and day out, I'm not going to improve at least a little."

Yes, but that's what the increase in base attack represents as you go up in level. It isn't that you're learning to use the weapon better, it's just that you're beginning to learn more about fighting techniques, trying out new ways of using your weapon, etc.

Personally, I'm here because the game is D&D. In fact, I'm one of those who gripe that the game isn't D&D enough. If we deviate too much further, I'm likely to stop playing (and paying).

"Good riddance!"

The loss of one person will not make or break the game, it's true, but if you continue to alienate those who do play for the D&D experience, you're going to lose a lot more than just one person. And Wizards might decide that Turbine has left behind the roots of the game and yank the license for the setting, and that would end your little fun-fest real quick, wouldn't it?

Uska
07-06-2007, 09:03 AM
Completely broken? How about enhancements? Wouldn't it already be broken?

I have said many times I wish they would be gone and totaly changing how feats work though is much worse they tried to work in a game mechanic from eberron. I wish it was done different but not sure how to do in in real time but this idea wont work and is worthless enough said weapons use is fine.

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 09:05 AM
Pvp is worthless and completely ingnorable no can challenge you to a duel like they can in other games so your agurement is flawed
Argument flawed? Um, NO. The value of PvP is not the question. PvP is a deviation from PnP rules, however, when you guys ****oo the OP's ideas you conveniently choose to disregard the existing deviations.

Uska
07-06-2007, 09:07 AM
Argument flawed? Um, NO. The value of PvP is not the question. PvP is a deviation from PnP rules, however, when you guys ****oo the OP's ideas you conveniently choose to disregard the existing deviations.

What are you talking about there are no rules against pvp most just belive its against the spirit of the game so again your wrong

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 09:08 AM
The rewrite you are suggesting is a varying degree of profiency. Therefore that portion of the code would have to be rewritten.
So? Code is rewritten every day. All it take is resources and time.

Ziggy
07-06-2007, 09:09 AM
So? Code is rewritten every day. All it take is resources and time.
Code is not rewritten everyday.

However even if this where true, code rewritten everyday means time away from new dungeons, new levels, new spells.

Which do you think would make people leave faster.

a brand new system for using weapons along with less content

or the system that is already in use and slow content.

Guess which one.

Uska
07-06-2007, 09:09 AM
So? Code is rewritten every day. All it take is resources and time.

Give it up its never gonna happen so whole thing is pointless

Conejo
07-06-2007, 09:11 AM
talk about throwing good money after bad.

ruin the game mechanics and watch how many founders leave.

you don't think we're important? well guess what, we're the people who are responsible for the game launching.

anyway, it's a bad mechanic idea. the game has already taken that into consideration with the ability to take weapon proficiencies as feats or learn them for free for multiclassing.

Memnir
07-06-2007, 09:11 AM
These systems are already in place...

Want to use more weapons/wands/feats, multiclass.
Want to stay pure class - take a Feat.
Want to get better with weapons - take Weapon Focus/Specailize/Greater Focus/ ect.
Want to get better with Wands - take the enhancements to increase DC and damage.


I'm sorry if that answer is "close-minded" - but I happen to think that if it ain't broke, don't try to fix. And, this is one of the facets of the game that is far from broken.

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 09:14 AM
What are you talking about there are no rules against pvp most just belive its against the spirit of the game so again your wrong
The overall point is that you 'purists' are hiding behind the 'it's against the PnP rules' motto when there are MANY existing examples within the game that already break those rules. The OP - and a few others - are advocating something that may indeed improve the game and you choose to blow-it-off because your feet are set in 1970's and 80's concrete.

Conejo
07-06-2007, 09:15 AM
The overall point is that you 'purists' are hiding behind the 'it's against the PnP rules' motto when there are MANY existing examples within the game that already break those rules. The OP - and a few others - are advocating something that may indeed improve the game and you choose to blow-it-off because your feet are set in 1970's and 80's concrete.

and you choose to ignore good sense because you want to be "edgy" or something.

if you want to play another game, go do so. do not try and turn this game into something else.

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 09:16 AM
Give it up its never gonna happen so whole thing is pointless
I remember an interview with one of the dev's very early on, and that dev stated something to the fact that 'PvP will never be implemented into DDO'. ;)

Conejo
07-06-2007, 09:17 AM
I remember an interview with one of the dev's very early on, and that dev stated something to the fact that 'PvP will never be implemented into DDO'. ;)

every time i see an "i remember X was said" that quote can be traced back to Eckleberry.

he was, as we old folks know, the WORST thing that happened to DDO.

he's gone, everything he ruined has been since fixed.

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 09:19 AM
do not try and turn this game into something else.
***BREAKING NEWS***

The game already is 'something else' because it sure isn't D&D.

Shecky
07-06-2007, 09:21 AM
The overall point is that you 'purists' are hiding behind the 'it's against the PnP rules' motto when there are MANY existing examples within the game that already break those rules. The OP - and a few others - are advocating something that may indeed improve the game and you choose to blow-it-off because your feet are set in 1970's and 80's concrete.

How 'bout 2003 (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780786928866&itm=1), chief? Or 2004 (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780786932740&itm=1)? If you feel a need to have it newer than that, some Ritalin might be indicated.

Memnir
07-06-2007, 09:23 AM
***BREAKING NEWS***

The game already is 'something else' because it sure isn't D&D.It may be highly house-ruled, but it's still D&D. And what many are saying is - this would not make for a good addition to the littany of house-rules that already infest the game.

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 09:23 AM
How 'bout 2003 (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780786928866&itm=1), chief? Or 2004 (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780786932740&itm=1)? If you feel a need to have it newer than that, some Ritalin might be indicated.
So, all the rules were completely overhauled with the release of the new book? I think not.

btw, who would the Ritalin be for?

edit: corrected the typo for all the English professors in the audience.


Best typo ever.:D

Ziggy
07-06-2007, 09:26 AM
So, all the rules were completely overhauled with the release of the new book? I think now.

Best typo ever.:D

Shecky
07-06-2007, 09:27 AM
So, all the rules were completely overhauled with the release of the new book?

Nope. Just the dice and a few clarifications. And there's a reason for that...


I think now.

Good to hear.


btw, who would the Ritalin be for?

Focus, kiddo, focus, and you'll find the answer to your question. :D

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 09:28 AM
It may be highly house-ruled, but it's still D&D.
You are either dead or you're not dead, so 'highly house-ruled' means there are significant deviations already in place. What's one more.

Memnir
07-06-2007, 09:28 AM
A bad move, in this case.

Shecky
07-06-2007, 09:31 AM
You are either dead or you're not dead, so 'highly house-ruled' means there are significant deviations already in place. What's one more.

There's one gravity on you already. What's one more?

The point that was being made was that there was already an internally consistent, reasonable, non-overpowering but non-debilitating option in place for doing just what was proposed.

In other words: It ain't broke. Don't "fix" it.

The_Cataclysm
07-06-2007, 09:33 AM
You are either dead or you're not dead, so 'highly house-ruled' means there are significant deviations already in place. What's one more.

Well, because changing this one thing would require you to change the entire feat system, moving it heavily away from D&D.

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 09:40 AM
In other words: It ain't broke. Don't "fix" it.
Every day I read one post or another - usually initiated by a founder - about how the game is already broken because of:

PvP
enhancements
casting times
being able to purchase magical supplies
spell durations
attack bonuses
too much money in the game
not enough money in the game
etc.

If the game is already that broken, then why not consider something else?

Ziggy
07-06-2007, 09:41 AM
If the game is already that broken, then why not consider something else?
So your saying that the game is broke, so lets break it some more?

Memnir
07-06-2007, 09:42 AM
Because more broken does not = Better.
It means more broken.

Katrina
07-06-2007, 09:42 AM
I am thoroughly confused. Exactly what are the 'programming issues' that brought us the great deviation called PvP?

I think the OP has a great idea, and I think all of you D&D 3.5 'originalist' should be a more receptive.

PvP is allowed in 3.5 PnP rules.
I've set my players in tourneyments and championship gladiator fights that have them facing foes and more often then not themselves. I have new players 'spar' and 'train' against more seasoned players so that they learn the basic's of combat quicker and in a non-fatal situation for their charcter. I fail to see why you think it's a deviation the rules and a programing issue.
The enhancement system that your argueing against is in PnP as well. However it has been modified due to the 'programing issues' I brought up. In the Eberron campaign setting PC's and Heroic characters are granted 'Action Points'. These allow PC's to preform a heroic act that sets them above and beyond the common soldier or peseant. Because of the way the 'Action Point' system works I honestly don't see a feasible way of implimenting it other then the enhancement system they have in place. (granted it is a little ramped up but thats a house rule you see across the board with all numbers in DDO) The 'Action Point' system is (imho) essential to the Eberron campaign setting, as essential as Warforged.

The OP has sugested an idea. I'm not saying its a 'bad' idea but as I said before, If you re-write the rules you loose the D&D feel and in my opinion that would be bad for the game.

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 09:43 AM
Because more broken does not = Better.
It means more broken.
Again, if it is already broken, then it can't be broken any more. It is still broken!

Shecky
07-06-2007, 09:43 AM
Every day I read one post or another - usually initiated by a founder - about how the game is already broken because of:

PvP
enhancements
casting times
being able to purchase magical supplies
spell durations
attack bonuses
too much money in the game
not enough money in the game
etc.

If the game is already that broken, then why not consider something else?

And some people tend to overdramatize the differences in what are effectively house rules. I've never felt this game was broken, merely tweaked. Tweaked a LOT, to be sure, but just tweaked, all the same. It's almost a caricature of the base game of D&D (note I said, "almost").

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 09:48 AM
And some people tend to overdramatize the differences in what are effectively house rules. I've never felt this game was broken, merely tweaked. Tweaked a LOT, to be sure, but just tweaked, all the same. It's almost a caricature of the base game of D&D (note I said, "almost").
It is very comical that everyone has to be overly creative with their choice of words regarding the game. All you are doing is trying to sugar coat the word "broken". If you feel better by using choice phrases like "house rules", "almost D&D", or "tweaked"; then by all means do it, but you are only lying to yourselves.

Memnir
07-06-2007, 09:50 AM
Again, if it is already broken, then it can't be broken any more. It is still broken!Yes, it can be broken further - and that is what people are rather patiently trying to tell you. This particular change would be an example of breaking it further as opposed to making a positive change. Making changes just for the sake of change is always a bad thing. As I said before, the Feat and Multiclass features of this game are one of the facets that are working just fine. In other words - they don't need changing.

I'm all for changes that are positive and would make this a better game. Moving closer to PnP instead of away from it when possible. This would be just a silly and needless change that would do nothing for either cause.

Ziggy
07-06-2007, 09:51 AM
Again, if it is already broken, then it can't be broken any more. It is still broken!
car with a flat tire--> broken (where i see DDO)

car with a flat and a leaky radiator --> more broken(where you see DDO)

car with a flat and a siezed engine because we put more holes in the radiator(where you want DDO to go)

Shecky
07-06-2007, 10:10 AM
It is very comical that everyone has to be overly creative with their choice of words regarding the game. All you are doing is trying to sugar coat the word "broken". If you feel better by using choice phrases like "house rules", "almost D&D", or "tweaked"; then by all means do it, but you are only lying to yourselves.

It is very comical that you have to be overly creative with your choice of words regarding the game. All you are doing is trying to overdramatize the phrase "house rules". If you feel better by using attention-mongering phrases like "broken", then by all means do it, but you are only making a mountain out of a molehill to try to establish yourself as The Visionary Problem-Finder. Just because you call something a problem doesn't make you Nader... and even Nader has become a cheap, whiny shadow of himself in the years since that first campaign.

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 10:33 AM
car with a flat tire--> broken (where i see DDO)

car with a flat and a leaky radiator --> more broken(where you see DDO)

car with a flat and a siezed engine because we put more holes in the radiator(where you want DDO to go)
Wow, I can play those games too.

ship with a broken rudder ---> broken, but can be fixed with a few improvements (where I see DDO)

ship with a broken rudder and taking on water ---> still broken, but we have to continue following the rules no matter what (where you see DDO)

ship with a broken rudder and keel ---> damn the torpedoes! er, new ideas! going straight to the bottom of the ocean (where you want DDO to go)

Needless to say, we agree the game is broken. How to fix it? You say continue on as is, and I say try something a little different.

Lorien_the_First_One
07-06-2007, 10:46 AM
Like I said, close minded....so just because its in place dosent mean it couldnt be improved on or changed...LOL...and you all call yourselves gamers...LOL

What is suggested changes a core rule and upsets game balance in favor of power gameers. It's not being close minded, its recognizing a bad idea that is not needed.

Ziggy
07-06-2007, 10:46 AM
Wow, I can play those games too.

ship with a broken rudder ---> broken, but can be fixed with a few improvements (where I see DDO)

ship with a broken rudder and taking on water ---> still broken, but we have to continue following the rules no matter what (where you see DDO)

ship with a broken rudder and keel ---> damn the torpedoes! er, new ideas! going straight to the bottom of the ocean (where you want DDO to go)

Needless to say, we agree the game is broken. How to fix it? You say continue on as is, and I say try something a little different.
hey man your the one saying since its broken we can keep breaking it not me.
You basically want to take apart the rudder and build a new one using different materials and rebuild the boat while its in the water to use this new rudder.

I want to fix the broken rudder get to port and fix the other problems the boat was having.

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 10:52 AM
hey man your the one saying since its broken we can keep breaking it not me.
No, I am acknowledging an idea that sounds like it would be an improvement to the game.

You are saying, that idea - no matter the merits of it - doesn't agree with what this little book tells me, so to hell with it.

Ziggy
07-06-2007, 10:53 AM
No, I am acknowledging an idea that sounds like it would be an improvement to the game.

You are saying, that idea - no matter the merits of it - doesn't agree with what this little book tells me, so to hell with it.
no im saying the little book already has a very good and proven way to do this, so there is no need to take apart the rudder while in the middle of an ocean.

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 10:55 AM
You basically want to take apart the rudder and build a new one using different materials and rebuild the boat while its in the water to use this new rudder.

I want to fix the broken rudder get to port and fix the other problems the boat was having.
Screw the boat and the car. I was demonstrating that anyone could make an analogy say anything they want it to say. Quit dismissing the idea under the guise of breaking the game or a few rules that have already been broken.

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 10:55 AM
This aint one of them things that need repairing.
There is a difference between 'repairing' and 'improving'. I said it may IMPROVE the game.

Ziggy
07-06-2007, 10:56 AM
Screw the boat and the car. I was demonstrating that anyone could make an analogy say anything they want it to say. Quit dismissing the idea under the guise of breaking the game or a few rules that have already been broken.
Im just following YOUR idea that if something has a "few broken thing about it" its better to break it more then to fix the things that are broken.

This aint one of them things that need repairing.

Ziggy
07-06-2007, 11:00 AM
There is a difference between 'repairing' and 'improving'. I said it may IMPROVE the game.
ah well forgive me. ill rephrase.

This isnt one of them things that need improving.

that better.

The_Cataclysm
07-06-2007, 11:02 AM
No matter how much you guys argue it doesn't change one thing. This idea will never be put into the game.

The current sytem works. Deal with it.

Ziggy
07-06-2007, 11:03 AM
No matter how much you guys argue it doesn't change one thing. This idea will never be put into the game.

The current sytem works. Deal with it.
cat im just trying to kill the last 30 minutes of my day.

The_Cataclysm
07-06-2007, 11:06 AM
cat im just trying to kill the last 30 minutes of my day.

I never said you had to stop. :)

Tat2Freak
07-06-2007, 11:40 AM
Changing the system may chase away many of the founders. as well as those who enjoy the D&D ruleset. THats why many of us are here. This game will not compete with WOW/everquest/COX, or whatever MMO you are thinking of at this time. It is a niche game because of the ruleset they are using. It needs to stay that way. Yes your entitled to your opinion

and if your entitled to your opinion, those posting here telling you its a bad idea are also entitled to theirs.

A "niche" game dosent pay the bills....and neither do you.....

Memnir
07-06-2007, 11:43 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen... this thread has now officially jumped the shark. :rolleyes:

Tat2Freak
07-06-2007, 11:45 AM
its not a new idea and the game has a base that has rules you dont like it make your own game they cant change mechanics willy nilly they have some guildlines and not breaking core rules anymore then they have to is right up there I am sure. Its a bad idea anyways

as its been said before sometimes a bad idea is just a bad idea or something like that.


work for them and know EXACTLY where this game is heading...so why dont you tell us all what DDO looks like in 6-8 months...

Tat2Freak
07-06-2007, 11:47 AM
How? because someone can spend 20 hours swinging at a kobold in WW, as opposed to taking a feat?

wants to sit there and do that...why do you care?

Shecky
07-06-2007, 11:52 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen... this thread has now officially jumped the shark. :rolleyes:

Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!

Memnir
07-06-2007, 11:52 AM
Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!
:D

Shecky
07-06-2007, 11:52 AM
:D

Correctamundo.

Dane_McArdy
07-06-2007, 11:53 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen... this thread has now officially jumped the shark. :rolleyes:

How could that be? I haven't posted in this thread till now!

Shecky
07-06-2007, 11:53 AM
*edit* Removed by very polite request. :)

Freeman
07-06-2007, 11:54 AM
Removed since the post was deleted - Freeman

Have we gotten to the Hitler/Nazi references yet, or did I just miss them earlier in the thread? I just want to make sure we cover all the bases before the thread gets locked/deleted. I think we still need a reference to fanboys, a couple of trolls, and an ultimatum or two about quitting the game. Am I missing anything?

Edit: Doh! Okay, Dane is here now, I think that covers the fanboy portion :p

Shecky
07-06-2007, 11:54 AM
Have we gotten to the Hitler/Nazi references yet, or did I just miss them earlier in the thread? I just want to make sure we cover all the bases before the thread gets locked/deleted. I think we still need a reference to fanboys, a couple of trolls, and an ultimatum or two about quitting the game. Am I missing anything?

Edit: Doh! Okay, Dane is here now, I think that covers the fanboy portion :p

HEY! I was here before Dane!

Memnir
07-06-2007, 11:54 AM
And this has what to do with what?epeen.
He has no real argument - so he has to post something with gravitas to make himself seem more relevent.

Shecky
07-06-2007, 11:55 AM
so self-righteous.....its FUNNY.....

Listen up, chief - casting aspersions does absolutely zero for YOUR cred.

Dane_McArdy
07-06-2007, 11:56 AM
Have we gotten to the Hitler/Nazi references yet, or did I just miss them earlier in the thread? I just want to make sure we cover all the bases before the thread gets locked/deleted. I think we still need a reference to fanboys, a couple of trolls, and an ultimatum or two about quitting the game. Am I missing anything?

Edit: Doh! Okay, Dane is here now, I think that covers the fanboy portion :p

/Dane Sings~
SPRINGTIME FOR HITLER AND GERMANY!

Shecky
07-06-2007, 11:57 AM
epeen.
He has no real argument - so he has to post something with gravitas to make himself seem more relevent.

Disagree. Gravitas usually implies at least a modicum of dignified behavior.

Dane_McArdy
07-06-2007, 11:57 AM
Heil ME!

Heil Myself!~ Heil Myself, I'm the German Ethel Merman, dontchaknow!

EDIT: Ethel "Ninja" Merman!

Shecky
07-06-2007, 11:58 AM
/Dane Sings~
SPRINGTIME FOR HITLER AND GERMANY!

Heil ME!

Memnir
07-06-2007, 11:58 AM
Disagree. Gravitas usually implies at least a modicum of pseudo-dignified behavior.Oh, I agree... but this forum has rules one must follow. Hence - I was being as polite as possible. ;)

Memnir
07-06-2007, 11:59 AM
How could that be? I haven't posted in this thread till now!It was an extreme Ninja Post. I had to bend time & space to do it... but I thought it'd be worth the effort. :)

Shecky
07-06-2007, 12:00 PM
Heil Myself!~ Heil Myself, I'm the German Ethel Merman, dontchaknow!

EDIT: Ethel "Ninja" Merman!

It's the Broadway Ninja!

Dane_McArdy
07-06-2007, 12:01 PM
It's the Broadway Ninja!

Now this is a THREAD!

Shecky
07-06-2007, 12:01 PM
Oh, I agree... but this forum has rules one must follow. Hence - I was being polite beyond all bounds of reason. ;)

Fixed it for ya.

Memnir
07-06-2007, 12:01 PM
Thank you sir. :)
See, sometimes things do need fixing!

Shecky
07-06-2007, 12:02 PM
Now this is a THREAD!

*gargles salt water for Ethel Merman voice*

Give my regards to Stormreach,
Remember me at Aspirants' Squaaaaare...

Shecky
07-06-2007, 12:04 PM
Thank you sir. :)
See, sometimes things do need fixing!

Like kobolds.

Memnir
07-06-2007, 12:04 PM
snip-snip! :eek:

Shecky
07-06-2007, 12:05 PM
snip-snip! :eek:

RUN, MOCAT! RUN!

PhoenixFire31
07-06-2007, 12:08 PM
/looks over his shoulder
Have we derailed this one enough, yet?


....NAH! :D

NEVER! How dare you suggest it's been derailed enough!:eek:
o_O look a Hershey Pie...:D
**Woohoo! Ninja'd you AND myself!**

PhoenixFire31
07-06-2007, 12:08 PM
Like kobolds.

Careful there Shecky, my friend. There will be no Bob Barker treatments today.:D

Memnir
07-06-2007, 12:08 PM
/looks over his shoulder
Have we derailed this one enough, yet?


....NAH! :D

PhoenixFire31
07-06-2007, 12:08 PM
Unless it's half off today...

/chases Mocat

Dane_McArdy
07-06-2007, 12:11 PM
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list — I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!
There's the pestilential nuisances who write for autographs —
All people who have flabby hands and irritating laughs —
All children who are up in dates, and floor you with 'em flat —
All persons who in shaking hands, shake hands with you like that —
And all third persons who on spoiling tête-á-têtes insist —
They'd none of 'em be missed — they'd none of 'em be missed!
Chorus.
He's got 'em on the list — he's got 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed.

There's the banjo serenader, and the others of his race,
And the piano-organist — I've got him on the list!
And the people who eat peppermint and puff it in your face,
They never would be missed — they never would be missed!
Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own;
And the lady from the provinces, who dresses like a guy,
And who "doesn't think she dances, but would rather like to try";
And that singular anomaly, the lady novelist —
I don't think she'd be missed — I'm sure she'd not he missed!
Chorus.
He's got her on the list — he's got her on the list;
And I don't think she'll be missed — I'm sure she'll not be missed!

And that Nisi Prius nuisance, who just now is rather rife,
The Judicial humorist — I've got him on the list!
All funny fellows, comic men, and clowns of private life —
They'd none of 'em be missed — they'd none of 'em be missed.
And apologetic statesmen of a compromising kind,
Such as — What d'ye call him — Thing'em-bob, and likewise — Never-mind,
And 'St— 'st— 'st— and What's-his-name, and also You-know-who —
The task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you.
But it really doesn't matter whom you put upon the list,
For they'd none of 'em be missed — they'd none of 'em be missed!
Chorus.
You may put 'em on the list — you may put 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed!

Shecky
07-06-2007, 12:24 PM
*Gilbert & Sullivan stuff*

How about "Three Little Dwarves From School"?

PhoenixFire31
07-06-2007, 12:29 PM
/Dances around hoping to distract everyone....(look at the goth girl LOOK AT HER!):D

Dane_McArdy
07-06-2007, 12:38 PM
How about "Three Little Dwarves From School"?

I did three little fans

Three little fans from DnD are we
Pert as a fan-boi well can be
Filled to the brim with nerdish glee
Three little fans from DnD

Everyone is a source of rules
Nobody’s safe, for we are just fools
Life is a game based on a module
Three little fans from DnD

Three little maids who, all unwary
Three little fans who, all fawn
Come from a gamers GenCon
Freed from societies morons

Three little fans from DnD
Three little fans from DnD

One little fan is a dork, Dane-Dane
Two little fans in attendance get banned
Three little fans is the total sum
Three little fans from DnD
Three little fans from DnD

From three little fans take one away
Two little fans remain, and they
Won't have to wait very long, they say
Three little fans from DnD
Three little fans from DnD

Three little fans who, all fawn
Come from a gamers GenCon
Freed from societies morons
Three little fans from DnD
Three little fans from DnD

Shecky
07-06-2007, 12:39 PM
I did three little fans

Three little fans from DnD are we
Pert as a fan-boi well can be
Filled to the brim with nerdish glee
Three little fans from DnD

Everyone is a source of rules
Nobody’s safe, for we are just fools
Life is a game based on a module
Three little fans from DnD

Three little maids who, all unwary
Three little fans who, all fawn
Come from a gamers GenCon
Freed from societies morons

Three little fans from DnD
Three little fans from DnD

One little fan is a dork, Dane-Dane
Two little fans in attendance get banned
Three little fans is the total sum
Three little fans from DnD
Three little fans from DnD

From three little fans take one away
Two little fans remain, and they
Won't have to wait very long, they say
Three little fans from DnD
Three little fans from DnD

Three little fans who, all fawn
Come from a gamers GenCon
Freed from societies morons
Three little fans from DnD
Three little fans from DnD

Oy. A surfeit of the Mikado.

Dane_McArdy
07-06-2007, 12:43 PM
I hope I don't get in trouble.

Shecky
07-06-2007, 12:47 PM
No, the worst problem incurred by too much G&S is a subtly building but overwhelming sense of cheesiness.

Uska
07-06-2007, 01:08 PM
I hope I don't get in trouble.

Me to was worth a giggle:)

Uska
07-06-2007, 01:09 PM
There is a difference between 'repairing' and 'improving'. I said it may IMPROVE the game.

no it wont

Uska
07-06-2007, 01:11 PM
I remember an interview with one of the dev's very early on, and that dev stated something to the fact that 'PvP will never be implemented into DDO'. ;)

yeah but pvp isnt against the rules of the game what you want is :rolleyes:

Uska
07-06-2007, 01:12 PM
The overall point is that you 'purists' are hiding behind the 'it's against the PnP rules' motto when there are MANY existing examples within the game that already break those rules. The OP - and a few others - are advocating something that may indeed improve the game and you choose to blow-it-off because your feet are set in 1970's and 80's concrete.

you just want this game to be like another mmo its not just enjoy it your rule would only improve it for power gamers no need to fix what nvr was broken

Uska
07-06-2007, 01:13 PM
You are either dead or you're not dead, so 'highly house-ruled' means there are significant deviations already in place. What's one more.

complete power gamer junk thats all. Feats work its the best change from ad&d to 3.0-3.5

Uska
07-06-2007, 01:14 PM
Again, if it is already broken, then it can't be broken any more. It is still broken!

not broke maybe bent a little but by no means broke

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 01:17 PM
not broke maybe bent a little but by no means broke
As I stated before, you can sugar coat the wording however you wish, but you would just be lying to yourself.

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 01:19 PM
you just want this game to be like another mmo ............. your rule would only improve it for power gamers no need to fix what nvr was broken
No, the OP has a good idea that could actually - brace yourself - improve the game :eek: , and everyone could benefit from it.

Edit:
btw, who gets to decide what constitutes a 'power gamer'? You?

Uska
07-06-2007, 01:20 PM
As I stated before, you can sugar coat the wording however you wish, but you would just be lying to yourself.

No dont think so it feels quite bit like dnd to me so you are wrong you dont like how things are go find a game that fits I like the game better now then I did when it started unlike what happened with my fav game which started pretty good and got awful this started pretty good and got better in my mind

Uska
07-06-2007, 01:22 PM
No, the OP has a good idea that could actually - brace yourself - improve the game :eek: , and everyone could benefit from it.

no while the game maybe bent that worst idea yet in the game would really break it. the majority of the people in this thread agree bad idea

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 01:27 PM
the majority of the people in this thread agree bad idea
1st) a majority of the people in this thread does not equal a majority of people that play this game
2nd) just because a majority of people in a thread agree or disagree with something doesn't mean the idea is bad
3rd) a majority voice does not mean the voice is right

Lorien_the_First_One
07-06-2007, 01:32 PM
1st) a majority of the people in this thread does not equal a majority of people that play this game
2nd) just because a majority of people in a thread agree or disagree with something doesn't mean the idea is bad
3rd) a majority voice does not mean the voice is right

All true...but its still a really bad idea. Your ability to hit in D&D is based on your class, various attributes, and your feats. Is is not and should not be based on how many times some idiot at home clicks his mouse button. That makes it about the person and how much time they have to waste, not about the D&D char.

It's a bad idea.

sabs
07-06-2007, 01:35 PM
I am thoroughly confused. Exactly what are the 'programming issues' that brought us the great deviation called PvP?

I think the OP has a great idea, and I think all of you D&D 3.5 'originalist' should be a more receptive.

Huh, there's PVP in D&D.

You've never played a mix alignment group? You've never had the Assassin in the party get hired to kill one of the Party members? I've seen PVP all the time in D&D. In some gaming groups, it works well, in others.. it's a nightmare.

(kinda like in DDO)

Dane_McArdy
07-06-2007, 01:38 PM
No, the OP has a good idea that could actually - brace yourself - improve the game :eek: , and everyone could benefit from it.

Edit:
btw, who gets to decide what constitutes a 'power gamer'? You?

More like, it's your view that it's a good idea, not a solid fact.

Many people here think it's a bad idea. I think it's an idea that doesn't fit in with DnD, and the structure of progression.

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 01:38 PM
Your ability to hit in D&D is based on your class, various attributes, and your feats. Is is not and should not be based on how many times some idiot at home clicks his mouse button.
We are not talking about an across the board to-hit increase. We are talking about a gradual competence increase with one weapon over time instead of burning a feat. There is no way that would be game breaking.

Freeman
07-06-2007, 01:45 PM
We are not talking about an across the board to-hit increase. We are talking about a gradual competence increase with one weapon over time instead of burning a feat. There is no way that would be game breaking.

It would break the purpose of Exotic Weapon feats, making them pointless to take. Since people wouldn't have to spend a feat on exotic weapons, that would free up a feat slot that they could then use to better their character in some other area. The end result would be that characters that used exotic weapons would end up with essentially one more feat than characters that did not use them. While it might be a small difference, it would definitely shift the game balance. Clerics, battlemages, rogues, and bards wouldn't have to multi-class to gain weapon proficiencies either, and that would significantly impact characters in the game. So while it might not break the game, it would have a significant impact on it. All of these changes would be a result of implementing a system that replaces an existing, working system from PnP. That's why I don't think it is a good idea.

Dane_McArdy
07-06-2007, 01:48 PM
We are not talking about an across the board to-hit increase. We are talking about a gradual competence increase with one weapon over time instead of burning a feat. There is no way that would be game breaking.

I didn't say it would be game breaking.

But there is already an acceptable structure for improvement in the game.

Your experience represents all the weapon swining you do in the game and the increase to hit reflects that.

There is also a hierarchy as to what class has the highest to lowest bonus to hit from levels 1-20. Fighters are on top, casters are on the bottom.

Under that system, casters would be required to spend so much time swinging a weapon, that it cuts into what they should be doing more of, casting spells. Because they are trying to earn a bonus on their melee?

No thanks. Again, this suggestion doesn't work with the advancement structure for DnD, paper or pixel at all.

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 01:59 PM
It would break the purpose of Exotic Weapon feats, making them pointless to take. Since people wouldn't have to spend a feat on exotic weapons, that would free up a feat slot that they could then use to better their character in some other area. The end result would be that characters that used exotic weapons would end up with essentially one more feat than characters that did not use them. While it might be a small difference, it would definitely shift the game balance. Clerics, battlemages, rogues, and bards wouldn't have to multi-class to gain weapon proficiencies either, and that would significantly impact characters in the game. So while it might not break the game, it would have a significant impact on it. All of these changes would be a result of implementing a system that replaces an existing, working system from PnP. That's why I don't think it is a good idea.
Finally, someone that can discuss this without going for the "it's against the rules" argument (even though you slipped it in at the end). :D

I think if you limit it to one learned weapon - or some other limiting factor - it really would not be that big of a deal in the end. Maybe the exotics would be off limits, or take twice as long to learn. Just a thought.

Dane_McArdy
07-06-2007, 02:11 PM
Finally, someone that can discuss this without going for the "it's against the rules" argument (even though you slipped it in at the end). :D

I think if you limit it to one learned weapon - or some other limiting factor - it really would not be that big of a deal in the end. Maybe the exotics would be off limits, or take twice as long to learn. Just a thought.

Um, excuse me? My arguement wasn't just, It's against the rules.

There is a very solid, structured method for advancing in the game, and how the experience you learned translates to the effectiveness of your abilities and how well you use them.

As it stands, depending on your class, there is a range on the amount of times you can land a hit. Ideally a fighter at level 1 should have about a 50% chance to land a hit on a mob of the right challenge rating. The percentage goes up as they level. Fighters go up the fastest and most.

If people could get a bonus for simply swinging thier weapon, it alters that percentage, and as such, the balance of the game. Which means that mobs are just going to get harder to hit, to take this into account.

No thanks.

And as for learning other weapons, they have put that in the game already. And it works. If something isn't broken, there isn't a need to fix it.

Katrina
07-06-2007, 02:20 PM
We are not talking about an across the board to-hit increase. We are talking about a gradual competence increase with one weapon over time instead of burning a feat. There is no way that would be game breaking.

So in your scenario what would stop every melee from sitting in the WW swinging a khopesh or bastardsword at kobolds increasing their 'proficiency' with the weapon thereby saving a valuable feat for something like power crit or the like? Or even worse if arcanes or rogues started doing this?
This would unbalance the melee abilities of ALL classes. What would be the point of taking fighter class levels if all you needed to do to get the bonus's they do is sit in a dungeon and click a mouse button? How would this NOT be game breaking?

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 02:29 PM
So in your scenario what would stop every melee from sitting in the WW swinging a khopesh or bastardsword at kobolds increasing their 'proficiency' with the weapon thereby saving a valuable feat for something like power crit or the like? Or even worse if arcanes or rogues started doing this?
This would unbalance the melee abilities of ALL classes. What would be the point of taking fighter class levels if all you needed to do to get the bonus's they do is sit in a dungeon and click a mouse button? How would this NOT be game breaking?
If it were limited to one weapon, then you're not talking about breaking the game. Also, it could be potentially limited to exclude all exotics, or you could trade damage bonuses for the proficiency.

Dane_McArdy
07-06-2007, 02:40 PM
If it were limited to one weapon, then you're not talking about breaking the game. Also, it could be potentially limited to exclude all exotics, or you could trade damage bonuses for the proficiency.

Why would someone spend all that time getting a special bonus to one weapon and then not use that weapon all the time, and spend time finding all the best versions of that weapon?

You underestimate people if you think they are NOT going to always use that weapon they earned a special bonus too. They would even use it agains creatures that have DR to it's damage type, because wouldn't that bonus help over come that? Only mobs that are immune to that type of weapon damage would cause them to switch, and currently, I don't think any creature has total immunity to a certain type of weapon damage. High DR, but not immunity.

Some bosses might, not sure.

Again, what would inspire someone to not always use the weapon they got a bonus from simply from playing the game? Nothing.

And of course, if they went this way, soon people would want it changed from one weapon to two weapons. Or weapon types. Because that is how people are.

WhtKnt
07-06-2007, 03:02 PM
No, the OP has a good idea that could actually - brace yourself - improve the game :eek: , and everyone could benefit from it.
The OP is suggesting a fix for something that doesn't need to be fixed. A fix already exists, it is called feats. "Against the rules" doesn't enter into it; the problem already has a solution built into the game. If you don't want to exercise that solution, that's your choice; just continue to accept the penalty.

MysticTheurge
07-06-2007, 03:04 PM
If it were limited to one weapon, then you're not talking about breaking the game. Also, it could be potentially limited to exclude all exotics, or you could trade damage bonuses for the proficiency.

Ah good. If we're limiting it then you're in luck.

This system is already in place. It's just limited to 0 weapons, and excludes all melee and ranged weapons (but only the slashing, bashing or piercing kinds).

:rolleyes:

WhtKnt
07-06-2007, 03:18 PM
Not to mention, what would happen if this ability were applied equally, to everyone? (And it would have to be.)

So every time I use a weapon, I get a little better with it. Now, I take my longsword, with which every fighter is proficient, and just keep getting better and better, the more I use it. Pretty soon, if I use the longsword exclusively, I'm at, oh, +20 on attack rolls with that weapon, all because I favored it.

Well, maybe we could write it in so that once you reach a level of "proficient," you never get any better, no matter how much you use it?

Fine, so we do that. But now you've destroyed your own logic about getting better with practice. You don't suddenly stop getting better simply because you've (inexplicably, I might add) learned to use the weapon properly.

And if you only do this for "one" weapon, what weapon will it be? If you apply it to the military pick, someone else will complain that it wasn't applied to the great crossbow. If you apply it to the great crossbow, someone else will gripe that they wanted to use it with the two-bladed sword.

Plus, you'll have people saying, "Well, I spent a feat to get proficiency with the great crossbow, but now it turns out I didn't need to do that, so can I get a free feat?"

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 03:23 PM
Plus, you'll have people saying, "Well, I spent a feat to get proficiency with the great crossbow, but now it turns out I didn't need to do that, so can I get a free feat?"
"Well, I spent a feat to get shot-on-the-run so that I would not interupt the reload process while using a bow and moving at the same time, but now it turns out I didn't need to do that, so can I get a free feat?"

Sound familiar?

Dane_McArdy
07-06-2007, 03:26 PM
"Well, I spent a feat to get shot-on-the-run so that I would not interupt the reload process while using a bow and moving at the same time, but now it turns out I didn't need to do that, so can I get a free feat?"

Sound familiar?

Sure does. However, people moving and shooting are slower and have a negative that some one with the feat doesn't. Shot on the run still works and still gives you an advantage. The feat hasn't been made worthless, it did more then provide the ability to move and shoot.

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 03:31 PM
it did more then provide the ability to move and shoot.
If that was your goal by taking the feat, then it absolutely did make the feat worthless.

Edit: not to mention all the BS pre-reqs that you need to get shot-on-the-run.

Dane_McArdy
07-06-2007, 03:45 PM
If that was your goal by taking the feat, then it absolutely did make the feat worthless.

Edit: not to mention all the BS pre-reqs that you need to get shot-on-the-run.

Hence the respec of feat system they put in the game, which could also apply to people that took exotic weapon feat.

But again, the system in place for improving as you swing that weapon is called experience point system, and there isn't any reason, rules aside to add something that would actually unbalance the game by providing an un-need bonus to a weapon, even if it's only just one weapon.

Because as the levels raise up, knew feats will be add to help people get better at fighting.

So again, no, it's not needed.

Shecky
07-06-2007, 03:50 PM
As I stated before, you can sugar coat the wording however you wish, but you would just be lying to yourself.

Can you PM me with your address so I can send you a mirror?


No, the OP has a good idea that could actually - brace yourself - improve the game :eek: , and everyone could benefit from it.

Edit:
btw, who gets to decide what constitutes a 'power gamer'? You?

Zebras have stripes. Powergamers act like powergamers.

May I suggest you also read opposing opinions closely instead of dismissing them airily, out-of-hand and with snippy little epithets? It's been said over and over NOT that it's "against the rules", but that there's already a perfectly functional way IN THE RULES to accomplish just what is being proposed. Your car already has an airbag - why lobby for the inclusion of an ejection seat with parachute?

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 03:55 PM
Can you PM me with your address so I can send you a mirror?
PM sent.

Memnir
07-06-2007, 04:10 PM
I'm gonna try and be understanding of the OP's idea (And Palmetto's unflinching support) for a moment here...

So - lets say at 1st level I decide to focus on Heavy Mace. My adhearance to the weapon yields me - say a +1 to hit with maces by the time I'm done with first and into my second level.

I continue on, and by 4th level perhaps I'm now getting a +2 (!) to damage with Heavy Maces as well. Ok, that's nice. I can get behind that.

So, I keep my diligent focus on Heavy Mace... and maybe by the time I'm 8th level I've swung it enough for another +1 to hit - making me even more effective with em, right? Hey, that's starting to add up!

Maybe that's good enough for some - but I want to keep swinging my Heavy Mace! By 9th level I've swung it enough to really know where to hit an ememy with em, and I get to have double the crit-range. Sweet! I now can get massive numbers just by deciding to keep going with Heavy Mace!

Incouraged by such progress, I keep swinging my Heacy Mace... and by the time I'm at 12th level I can now get another +2 to my damge with em. Hey, now I have +2 added to my To Hit, +4 to damage, and I can crit a lot more often! Awesome!!!


Only problem is I've just described getting the Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Improved Critical, and Greater Weapon Specialization FEATS.

Guess what... they're already in the game!!!

They are there to reflect a characters devotion to a particular weapon - on in DDO a weapon type. They exist to show that the more you use a weapon - the better you get at it. With good reason - only Fighters can fit all these feats into their builds because... get ready for it... they FIGHT with WEAPONS. They already get better with them - so there is no need for this proposed change. There is no need for a Mage to get better with a Kukri because they decide it'd be cool to swing one around because they are.... get ready for it... getting BETTER with SPELLS!

Hey, if my Fighter decided to wave his hands and make crypitc whispers at an enemy before fighting it - can he everntually learn Fireball? I mean - he's making mystic gestures and incantations, right? He's practicing really, really hard... so why can't he toss a Fireball? He really wants to.
By the line of reasoning in this proposal - he should be able to learn how, right?

Hey, if my Rogue squints his eyes and focuses all his Happy Thougts and Positive Vibes at a hurt character in the party... can he toss out a Heal if he keeps practicing it? He's focusing really, really hard... so why can't he toss a Heal? He really wants to.
By the line of reasoning in this proposal - he should be able to learn how, right?

I'm not against this idea due to some blind loyalty to the rules... I'm against it because it makes no sence unless your going to apply it to every class skill and ability. Also, multiclassing and Feats already allow for this sort of "cross training" to happen. It may be all behind the curtain - you may need to roleplay a bit to have all the pieces click come into focus... but all of it is already there. All of it. So this idea has no merrit and no purpose.


...next?

Palmetto
07-06-2007, 05:47 PM
I'm gonna try and be understanding of the OP's idea (And Palmetto's unflinching support) for a moment here...

So - lets say at 1st level I decide to focus on Heavy Mace. My adhearance to the weapon yields me - say a +1 to hit with maces by the time I'm done with first and into my second level.

I continue on, and by 4th level perhaps I'm now getting a +2 (!) to damage with Heavy Maces as well. Ok, that's nice. I can get behind that
Nope, you're assumptions are wrong.

This has only to do with proficiencies.

Dane_McArdy
07-06-2007, 05:55 PM
Nope, you're assumptions are wrong.

This has only to do with proficiencies.

Well then, if that's how you discuss things.

Your wrong.

So far, there are more saying you are wrong, then saying you are right.

Therefore, you must be wrong.

The end Hitler and Nazi's.

Thank you.

MysticTheurge
07-06-2007, 07:50 PM
So far, there are more saying you are wrong, then saying you are right.

He's also made completely unsupported statements that this is a "good idea" and "might improve things" without ever suggesting how.

I try not to argue with people who's only case is "It's not how the D&D rules are!"

Dane_McArdy
07-06-2007, 08:29 PM
He's also made completely unsupported statements that this is a "good idea" and "might improve things" without ever suggesting how.

I try not to argue with people who's only case is "It's not how the D&D rules are!"

I'm just trying to discuss on his level, the way he does. Which is as you described, you just say you are right, or others are wrong, without real reasons.

So, I can only think that the more who say an idea is wrong, must be right. Because that's all we have to go on.

Karos
07-06-2007, 11:17 PM
After reading through the last 161 posts I have to add what I believe the rules of D&D to be. D&D allows for the creation of characters to be roleplayed, but the stats/feats/rules of D&D are only the representation of your characters. If I choose to stand and swing a sword for 4 levels I'm allowed to roleplay my characters strength going up. If my character picks up a skill/weapon and starts trying to learn its ins and outs by using it, or seeking training from others with more knowledge, that is represented by feats. In fact, the description on the srd of martial weapon proficiency is 'You understand how to use that type of martial weapon in combat.'. How is that not what the op is asking for in a roleplaying sense?

Gaining a new feat every 3 levels is the base for the roleplaying aspects of taking and practicing something over the past 3 experience levels of your character and finally being able to put it into practice. Again, feats are representative of your characters growth, if you choose not to take said feats when the opurtunity arises and take something else, you are stating in a roleplaying sense that your character focused or chose to learn something else.

Memnir
07-07-2007, 12:09 AM
Nope, you're assumptions are wrong.

This has only to do with proficiencies.Weapon proficiencies are granted via feats - so I'm right and your being self-contradictory. But -thanks for playing. :)

I also made no assumptions, I stuck to the facts - so sorry if they shread your argument... and I use the term as loosly as I can since your argument is balsa-wood thin. Your just resorting to a Kindergardner's tactics of saying "Nuh-Uh!" when somebody proves you wrong.

Also - care to answer the questions I put to you, Pal? What about spells? Can my fighter learn to use them with praticce? How about having him pick a lock... after all, practice makes perfect in your view. Right? So, if a mage can learn to use a falcion just because he swings it around... can my Paladin shoot a lightning bolt if he carries spell components and wiggles his fingers a lot? How about if he keeps trying really, really hard? Can my Rogue Lay On Hands if he takes his vitamins and says his prayers?

If this theory applies to all "proficiancies" it should apply to ALL "proficiancies" - every single one. And that would destroy game balance and class roles. Not a good change in most people's eyes. If that's your view on a good change - I'd like to hear a well thought out rationale for it. "Nuh-Uh!" wont cut it anymore. If you have a point - make it. Otherwise - pipe down.

So riddle me that, Palmetto. I await your two-sentance non-reply with great... ambivilance, really.

Ziggy
07-07-2007, 09:24 AM
Your car already has an airbag - why lobby for the inclusion of an ejection seat with parachute?
cause that would be awesome.:D

Raithe
07-07-2007, 09:55 AM
Gaining a new feat every 3 levels is the base for the roleplaying aspects of taking and practicing something over the past 3 experience levels of your character and finally being able to put it into practice. Again, feats are representative of your characters growth, if you choose not to take said feats when the opurtunity arises and take something else, you are stating in a roleplaying sense that your character focused or chose to learn something else.

This is correct.

I think I would add that such a confusing request is being submitted simply because of the complete lack of roleplaying in the game. The mentality is "well I needed this feat and this one, and that one over there, but I don't have another feat to spend on the weapon I would like to use. Please make it so I can get the proficiency so I can be an uber killer."

Dungeons & Dragons was just as much about roleplaying the incapabilities of your character as it was roleplaying the abilities.

Lorien_the_First_One
07-07-2007, 06:08 PM
So in your scenario what would stop every melee from sitting in the WW swinging a khopesh or bastardsword at kobolds increasing their 'proficiency' with the weapon thereby saving a valuable feat for something like power crit or the like? Or even worse if arcanes or rogues started doing this?
This would unbalance the melee abilities of ALL classes. What would be the point of taking fighter class levels if all you needed to do to get the bonus's they do is sit in a dungeon and click a mouse button? How would this NOT be game breaking?

You are right on here.

I know people playing other games that advance with this silly method who use 3rd party scripts to swing/mine/fish/whatever 24 hours straight to build up their ability...ya that makes sense.

The OP's idea, while well meant I'm sure, is taking the worst of other games and breaking one of the better parts of D&D design.

sieg33
07-07-2007, 10:13 PM
You learn how to use weapons thru feats. You get feats from leveing up its the only way. Its as simple as that.

Hvymetal
07-08-2007, 07:32 AM
You are right on here.

I know people playing other games that advance with this silly method who use 3rd party scripts to swing/mine/fish/whatever 24 hours straight to build up their ability...ya that makes sense.

The OP's idea, while well meant I'm sure, is taking the worst of other games and breaking one of the better parts of D&D design.
QFT

Seems to me (just a guess mind you) someone found a weapon they want to use without a -4 (possibly one of these loot weekends? hmm?). Can't fit another Multi-Class level or Feat into their build, so why can't I spam swing at something and increase my proficiency, my next prediction is a petition for targetting dummies.

Uska
07-08-2007, 08:00 AM
1st) a majority of the people in this thread does not equal a majority of people that play this game
2nd) just because a majority of people in a thread agree or disagree with something doesn't mean the idea is bad
3rd) a majority voice does not mean the voice is right

its a bad idea its against the rules of core game give up your wrong nothing will ever change that. by against the rules I really mean their is a workable system already in place dont fix what isnt broken

Uska
07-08-2007, 08:02 AM
We are not talking about an across the board to-hit increase. We are talking about a gradual competence increase with one weapon over time instead of burning a feat. There is no way that would be game breaking.

You just cant see the forest can you powergamers and some nonpower gamers would just swing and swing some uisng progams to help do this and yes it breaks the rules of the game(feats) so it breaks the game again by against the rules I mean it goes against an already prefectly workalbe system

Dane_McArdy
07-08-2007, 08:44 AM
At this point, any other arguements are just wasted.

He doesn't want to look at the replies he's gotten, he going to insist on how awesome this idea is.

So it's not really a discussion anymore.

So all post are just useless from now on.

Targitaj_Silverskin
07-08-2007, 08:49 AM
stupid thread, stupid idea, dont need create new rules - just try follow pnp

AmsterdamHeavy
07-09-2007, 08:05 AM
Like I said, close minded....so just because its in place dosent mean it couldnt be improved on or changed...LOL...and you all call yourselves gamers...LOL

Gamers dedicated to a well established system...which you seem to be ****ing on.

Shecky
07-09-2007, 08:57 AM
cause that would be awesome.:D

No, no, a thousand times no. "Why?" you ask. It's simple: Putting ejection seats into cars would inevitably lead to people deliberately having accidents just to fire off the seat! I know this because... well, I'd do it. :D

Dane_McArdy
07-09-2007, 09:46 AM
No, no, a thousand times no. "Why?" you ask. It's simple: Putting ejection seats into cars would inevitably lead to people deliberately having accidents just to fire off the seat! I know this because... well, I'd do it. :D



o o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
ME TOOooooo >_<
splat!

Ziggy
07-09-2007, 10:07 AM
No, no, a thousand times no. "Why?" you ask. It's simple: Putting ejection seats into cars would inevitably lead to people deliberately having accidents just to fire off the seat! I know this because... well, I'd do it. :D
what im not saying the drivers seat.

I want an ejection seat with a parachute on the passenger side.:D

Shecky
07-09-2007, 10:15 AM
what im not saying the drivers seat.

I want an ejection seat with a parachute on the passenger side.:D

Then people would just ask friends to drive and have an accident. I live in New Jersey - I know ALL about people with zero impulse control. :D

Ziggy
07-09-2007, 10:28 AM
Then people would just ask friends to drive and have an accident. I live in New Jersey - I know ALL about people with zero impulse control. :D
Hey i would just ask my friends to hit the red button while im in the passenger seat.

No need to ruin the vehicle.:D

Lorien_the_First_One
07-09-2007, 10:43 AM
We are not talking about an across the board to-hit increase. We are talking about a gradual competence increase with one weapon over time instead of burning a feat. There is no way that would be game breaking.

That doesn't change the issue...One weapon or all of them...Your ability to hit in D&D is based on your class, various attributes, and your feats. Is is not and should not be based on how many times some idiot at home clicks his mouse button.

Lorien_the_First_One
07-09-2007, 10:44 AM
Hey i would just ask my friends to hit the red button while im in the passenger seat.

No need to ruin the vehicle.:D

Ya I couldn't resist that ride either :D

Ziggy
07-09-2007, 10:52 AM
Ya I couldn't resist that ride either :D
alas.

tis why im not allowed to have one. because i would use it.

Why am i never allowed to have cool stuff......

oh yeah thats why, because i would use it.:D

Mad_Bombardier
07-09-2007, 11:36 AM
what im not saying the drivers seat.

I want an ejection seat with a parachute on the passenger side.:DDid you ever see the episode of 'Mythbusters' where they built an ejector seat? Great fun! :D

Shecky
07-09-2007, 11:46 AM
Did you ever see the episode of 'Mythbusters' where they built an ejector seat? Great fun! :D

Where do you think I came up with the idea in the first place? :D

Mad_Bombardier
07-09-2007, 11:48 AM
Where do you think I came up with the idea in the first place? :DJames Bond? :cool:

Ziggy
07-09-2007, 11:55 AM
Did you ever see the episode of 'Mythbusters' where they built an ejector seat? Great fun! :D
Yep

Where do you think I came up with the idea in the first place? :D
thats where i figured the idea came from:D

Shecky
07-09-2007, 12:08 PM
Yep

thats where i figured the idea came from:D

Yup. Bond came first, but Mythbusters had so much more FUN with it. ;)

The_Cataclysm
07-09-2007, 12:09 PM
Yup. Bond came first, but Mythbusters had so much more FUN with it. ;)

Doesn't that go for pretty much everything that they do?

Shecky
07-09-2007, 12:10 PM
Doesn't that go for pretty much everything that they do?

Absolutely. Adam and Jamie, despite doing a great job of serious testing, seem to enjoy themselves WAY too much sometimes LOL!

Ziggy
07-09-2007, 12:11 PM
Absolutely. Adam and Jamie, despite doing a great job of serious testing, seem to enjoy themselves WAY too much sometimes LOL!
Hey if your job was to blow stuff up you would enjoy it just as much.
I know i would.:D

The_Cataclysm
07-09-2007, 12:15 PM
Absolutely. Adam and Jamie, despite doing a great job of serious testing, seem to enjoy themselves WAY too much sometimes LOL!

And that is what makes the show great.

Roguewiz
07-09-2007, 12:15 PM
Like I said, close minded....so just because its in place dosent mean it couldnt be improved on or changed...LOL...and you all call yourselves gamers...LOL

DDO has deviated from PnP enough as is. Allowing people to "train" a specific weapon so they can use it would be a mistake in the part of Turbine. Besides, WoTC wouldn't allow them to make such a change. It goes against the concept of feats.

Shecky
07-09-2007, 12:17 PM
Hey if your job was to blow stuff up you would enjoy it just as much.
I know i would.:D


And that is what makes the show great.

Amen to both.

Now, if you're looking for something with a bit less rush but just as much geek appeal, try "How It's Made". My wife and I have this utterly unholy fascination with that show.

Ziggy
07-09-2007, 12:22 PM
Amen to both.

Now, if you're looking for something with a bit less rush but just as much geek appeal, try "How It's Made". My wife and I have this utterly unholy fascination with that show.
I think ive watched it once or twice.

For some reason i enjoy "Dirty jobs" as well. Its just so satisfying seeing someone do the worst jobs you can imagine, and its not you doing it.:D

Mad_Bombardier
07-09-2007, 12:26 PM
For some reason i enjoy "Dirty jobs" as well. Its just so satisfying seeing someone do the worst jobs you can imagine, and its not you doing it.:DMike Rowe. yay, Bal'more boys! He used to do a local Sunday morning show doing real estate/new homes walkthroughs. So happy to see him having more fun now.

Dane_McArdy
07-09-2007, 12:26 PM
Mythbusters quickly bored me, because it seems they did most of the good myths early on, then ran out of ideas.

Some shows spend their whole time repeating the information, just to strech it out, and that chaps my $%#@!

I myself prefer the forensic evidence shows.

Shecky
07-09-2007, 12:39 PM
Mythbusters quickly bored me, because it seems they did most of the good myths early on, then ran out of ideas.

Some shows spend their whole time repeating the information, just to strech it out, and that chaps my $%#@!

I myself prefer the forensic evidence shows.

My wife watches those damn things at every possible opportunity - she SO wanted to be a forensic criminologist (or whatever it's called).

Yes, Dirty Jobs is cool, too - Mike Rowe is the perfect host. I also like the one he does the voice-overs for, Deadliest Catch. The wife's gotten into the pseudo-spinoff, Ice Truckers, as well. Why on earth that one's on the History Channel, I'll never know...