Author Topic: Subforum Responces  (Read 399 times)

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 1951
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
    • View Profile
Subforum Responces
« on: March 22, 2018, 01:25:45 PM »
Posting in this centralized response thread is easy and desired!

Step 0) Leave a tab with this thread up.
Step 1) Go read the other threads to find something you want to respond to, starting with the stickied Table Of Contents (or this one, if you're really thorough).
Step 2) Once that knee-jerk "must respond" urge hits, click the quote button on whatever thread, like normal.
Step 3) Highlight and cut the quotes you want to respond to. Now you have empty white space that you can't post. This is good, because it stops you from bumping resource threads so people can just see what's new by looking at the thread order.
Step 4) Come back to this thread, and click reply here!
Step 5) Paste that quote so everyone sees what you are talking about, specifically.
Step 6) Type your fervored response out. The more impulsive the better.
Step 7) Who needs to reread from grammar, anyway?
Step 8) Slam down a click on that "Post" button.

And yes, if you post in a thread besides this one, I will reply by just quoting this entire post, maybe with a "see the sticky" line in there somewhere.

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 1951
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
    • View Profile
Re: Subforum Responces
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2018, 01:41:59 PM »
I'll start with the first question: do you guys care if the readme is the button sticky or the Table of Contents (I can change it with bumps)? This thread is going to be on top due to how the forum orders bumped threads.

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7324
  • (un-) Amazingly Unproductive
    • View Profile
Re: Subforum Responces
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2018, 06:06:40 PM »
Wow  :twitch

This is the thread I didn't know I was looking for ...  ;) ... (throwback referent).


But yeah, kudos :clap that you're still at it.

avatar#3 , gravitational lensing edition ... I'm way on the other side of the universe but look like pretty rings

Offline Versatility_Nut

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 139
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Subforum Responces
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2018, 12:48:27 PM »
How about you consolidate things to particular topics, so you don't have a huge number of threads for single items? Do you want several hundred threads with the only search tool being the site? Like, one thread for banned things (which fundamentally shouldn't be a thing, change the things to be acceptable versions of the concept), one for personal errata, one for frequently forgotten errata and so on, then people can check those threads, with them having links inside them to the specific items/being a frequently-edited list up front.

Because you ate over half the threads with posts today. That's potentially annoying to everyone on the site, factually including me, which is why I made this post.

Edit: And no, a table of contents isn't enough. The problem is the thread proliferation making a huge chunk of nothing-threads, sometimes with less than a complete sentence.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2018, 12:50:23 PM by Versatility_Nut »

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 1951
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
    • View Profile
Re: Subforum Responces
« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2018, 06:54:43 PM »
Hello Versatility Nut and welcome to the boards. I'm confident we've not spoken before. Thanks for dropping in. I am surprised anyone noticed, to be honest. Just an FYI I'm probably not going to do the other 50% dumping of the metacompendium today or tomorrow.

How about you consolidate things to particular topics
Because then it's too difficult to find. I've looked through others' (who throw the baby out with the bath water) and think. Okay, let's test if everything is fixed. And then I ctrl+f and find no reference to thought bottles. But I know they have to be thrown out because they break one of the major currencies in D&D: XP.

Quote
Do you want several hundred threads with the only search tool being the site?
Ideally, no. I'd prefer the ability to use subboards to organize things as I have in my already released download. But it was taxing to the already generous mods, and I was also told I should 'stop caring' so much about what others might think of my organization. I promptly put this down for a month; perhaps I did care too much. I figured some distance would help. I haven't decided either way. But a least this way I have confidence that I can link individual fixes for any particular fix. I am also wary of trying to overload information in clumps; I err on the side of modularity.

Quote
That's potentially annoying to everyone on the site, factually including me, which is why I made this post.
Why is what I do over here a problem? Are you implying there's a limit to how much may be posted per day? For months before and during my hiatus, I've made no secret about my intention to dump a lot at once.

@edit, I even mentioned the table of contents as my other option when my original organization plans were shot down. Perhaps you can organize things for me the way you'd like. If it's better, I'll use it. I'll be surprised if you walk the walk, but pleasantly.

:clap that you're still at it.
Yeah my spouse was wondering why I spent all day doing this. I didn't have a good answer of than, "It will help other people" access the information more easily. Also I have, like, a years worth of threads that I need to dump as well. I estimate that there's maybe 1+1+1+2= a full work week of manhours left before I'm 100% "free" of D&D. After that I think I'll capstone run DS3.

Offline Versatility_Nut

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 139
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Subforum Responces
« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2018, 02:12:48 AM »
Hello Versatility Nut and welcome to the boards. I'm confident we've not spoken before. Thanks for dropping in. I am surprised anyone noticed, to be honest. Just an FYI I'm probably not going to do the other 50% dumping of the metacompendium today or tomorrow.
All I did was my normal check of unread posts since last visit, which shows new threads, and saw seven full pages of micro-threads, several being just the title, with the only content of the post being the page number and source and "is banned". And I despise bans because it wreaks of kneejerk reactions and lack of thought. Because I can usually figure out how to replace something with a more balanced version of the idea fairly easily.

Quote
Because then it's too difficult to find. I've looked through other (who throw the baby out with the bath water) and think. Okay, let's test if everything is fixed. And then I ctrl+f and find no reference to thought bottles. But I know they have to be thrown out because they break one of the major currencies in D&D: XP.
You say they "throw the baby out with the bathwater", and yet you go and remove Rogue's immunity to Dex-to-AC-deprivation to replace it with Ref-save-againt-saveless-spells. Which consist of practically nothing at all, with the Improved Uncanny Dodge covering only a single spell I know of. But my problems with your rewrites will be reserved for a separate part of the post.

You could stick them into threads covering topics, like I said. Then link to the post in there, possibly from the central table of contents. Then people looking for particular things still have the table of contents to ctrl+F in to find the thing, while people looking at topics can go over the compiled changes of those topics instead of being stuck rereading all of it.

Also, Nonsi's rewrite over on GiantITP is literally a separate system. Cross compatibility is not intended. In general, people pay attention to core first, then sometimes work their way out from there. Some just expect DMs to be knowledgeable of the system and able to tell what needs banned from splatbooks and not, instead focusing on fixing the fundamental problems of the system, rather than digging for every broken item and trusting their individual judgement of what Must Not Be in a game where you have people who actually like roleplaying as the nigh-omnipotent absurdity of high optimization characters.

Quote
Ideally, no. I'd prefer the ability to use subboards to organize things as I have in my already released download. But it was taxing to the already generous mods, and I was also told I should 'stop caring' so much about what others might think of my organization. I promptly put this down for a month; perhaps I did care too much. I figured some distance would help. I haven't decided either way. But a least this way I have confidence that I can link individual fixes for any particular fix. I am also wary of trying to overload information in clumps; I err on the side of modularity.
If you err on the side of modularity, why have a ban list?

Quote
Why is what I do over here a problem? Are you implying there's a limit to how much may be posted per day? For months before and during my hiatus, I've made no secret about my intention to dump a lot at once.
Look at Unread Posts since Last Visit. Each one of your micro-threads is a seprarate thread entry, meaning your posts are eating up a large mass of space in one of the quick-search presets.

---

My comments:

In general, you seem not to actually understand what separates 3.X from 4e and 5e, as you're trying to make a fair and balanced game out of a system that is literally intended to be unfair and imbalanced. Or at the very least copies far to much from a system designed to be (TSR era D&D) to make it fair and balanced without a complete rewrite of the classes and/or spells. You're doing a lot of small, fiddly changes filled with catches and exceptions that get increasingly convoluted and nonsensical in universe. A Bard taking levels in Sublime Chord has no logical reason, anywhere, to be suddenly losing a bundle of ability score points they chose in character generation. You're commiting the very same act of balancing that made people despise 4e by making the rules bend over for balance, instead of changing them to be balanced by default, or accepting that they're unbalanced and giving advice to make sure the imbalance doesn't ruin the experience. And the experience is what matters, not game balance. Some people like playing ludicrously overpowered characters, you know? Some DMs are perfectly fine trying to outwit their players in the rules that are written, or trying to come up with a situation built from existing rules that can thwart their players.

Furthermore, a lot of your anti-caster measures aren't actually solving any real problems, as the fundamental problem is the spells. If you've fixed the spells, then no other fix is needed, because then the casters are then balanced. If you haven't fixed the spells, and the casters still retain access to the full 9th level spells, then the game is wildly imbalanced. There's no way to balance the game when spellcasters retain their existing spells and Martials aren't given their own abilities to directly compete. The tier system is a horrible balance point, because it's how many problems one can solve, with combat being a very small subset. An Ubercharger can win virtually any combat encounter with only a Flight and Plane Shift item. The Wizard's tier comes from solving everything else, not being beyond an Ubercharger in damage. And because it's non-combat capacity, then everything not relevant to spellcasting is utterly unneeded. The spells do everything, and it's beyond you to fix all of them... Without restarting them from scratch to have only what you cover exist in the altered system. Like Nonsi did over on GiantITP, listing only what's valid in the altered system to cover exactly what characers can have, without worrying about some edge case from a splatbook ruining the attempted fix.

A massive problem is penalizing players by tier, it's mechanically unusable because the DM has no possible way to judge where a player's casting will stop with multiclassing or PRCs and players are capable of playing tier 1 classes to lower-tier competencies. A player might want Druid instead of Wildshape Ranger because of Druids having spells at the first four levels of the game and/or getting access to a better Animal Companion, then play their Druid as nothing but a better Wildshape Ranger, style of spell use included. A Cleric could focus on being a buffbot/healbot instead of ever touching the self-buff abilities, possibly using a Paladin multiclass or PRC Paladin as the source of their melee abilities. A player might want to play a Wizard just because of Intelligence-based casting and the spellbook, something found only on t1 classes. By penalizing the higher tiers in a blanket fashion, you kill a lot of character concepts because of the fact that too damn many are fused to t1 classes at the hip. If you want to balance the game, then rewrite the classes and their ability lists. The problem lies on the end of the classes, not the core rules, and making huge piles of exceptions and clauses to make the game "balanced" won't work, only adding exceedingly finicky complexity to an already headache-inducing system.

You also seem to fail to understand the feel of D&D 3.X, given the flat-bans on large categories of items for the side rules based on them, rather than digging into those side rules to work out the problems with them to render the item acceptable. Take everything that exists for PCs and work out how to balance the idea of it. Thought Bottles are a problem for negating XP costs, so make them do a different thing based on the same idea, like undoing negative levels and mental score damage, something attainable through regular spells, made easy with a small XP cost attached. Yes, this still can work around XP costs, but that's a problem with the rules for Negative Level restoration, not this altered Thought Bottle. Then you go and change that problem rule situation.

There's also some problems with interactions between your own altered rules. What's the "penalty" for players to take a dead PC's items, and therefor wealth, when they get the XP to match it, like you mentioned in Strict WBL Guidelines by saying that Profession of all things gives XP to keep you on track for WBL? Furthermore, how do you solve all the problems wealth generation making XP gives? You'd have to remove every fast wealth loop, and I see nothing about Fabricate on here, so a Wizard can powerlevel forever by mass-producing Masterwork Full Plate and keeping it in their armory. And Wealth by Level is a fucking guideline. Just like the Custom Magic Item "rules". Actually identify this before you make rules respecting it, because people are not going to ever use rules that give a strict XP to GP ratio mandating that you be locked to a line on a graph with no deviation. What the heck happens when you Wish for an item within the cost limit? You've gained total wealth, where does your XP land in the end? What if a DM wants to break the guidelines of WBL to give underperforming characters items that make up for minor deficiencies?

You're not understanding that the point of 3.X is to play a role, and it's built from a system that respects the utterly plausible result of Sword Guy ending up utterly useless in a fight between reality warping madmen able to steal and/or surpass the power of gods. The game's about more than combat, so combat balance need only be within a limit of functioning in general, not be a well-oiled machine like Essentials era 4e. The rules need to permit fun plots, but also resolutions to those plots for bored players, so while some DMs might want to remove Divination for ruining their drawn-out mysteries, others like coming up with the clues most Divination are supposed to give, or working out how to have the resolution offered begin another plot thread to continue with the overall story. E6 exists for keeping magic below derail territory and restrain the game to where the balance doesn't fall apart completely. It is, in no small part, an admission that the game does not accept mundanes beyond 6th level.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6911
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
    • View Profile
Re: Subforum Responces
« Reply #6 on: March 24, 2018, 05:24:30 PM »
PBMC putting the "meta" in metacompendium by realizing his comments are so inaccurate it trolls people into posting corrections.

But can we go deeper? Yes we can. Because he intended his first post to be some kind of defense, insulting everyone who posts in here does it out of hate for his... Stuff. Which of course doubles up as another thing to correct him over.

Look, there is a reason his posts were moved to the homebrew section. And you won't be the first person to suggest a form of quality control either. But no one has come up with a good idea other then the obivous, this is not some kind of guide to how D&D's rules work or a good suggestion of how they should be played. It is a total fabrication that goes against the rules (and logic), hence "homebrew" instead of "handbook". (I'll spellcheck this when I get home later, had to mash post asap)
Would you die if you jumped from my perceived ego to your IQ? - Is 15secs of confirmation bias a goal post worth arguing for? - Ever asked a "victim" what they did to deserve it? - Are the words teen, SJW, & liberal synonyms? - "Only Sith deals in absolutes" contains a misspelled word.

Offline Versatility_Nut

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 139
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Subforum Responces
« Reply #7 on: March 24, 2018, 10:33:34 PM »
PBMC putting the "meta" in metacompendium by realizing his comments are so inaccurate it trolls people into posting corrections.

But can we go deeper? Yes we can. Because he intended his first post to be some kind of defense, insulting everyone who posts in here does it out of hate for his... Stuff. Which of course doubles up as another thing to correct him over.

Look, there is a reason his posts were moved to the homebrew section. And you won't be the first person to suggest a form of quality control either. But no one has come up with a good idea other then the obvious, this is not some kind of guide to how D&D's rules work or a good suggestion of how they should be played. It is a total fabrication that goes against the rules (and logic), hence "homebrew" instead of "handbook". (I'll spellcheck this when I get home later, had to mash post asap)

Honestly, I'm just grumpy that he claims to be keeping the feel of 3.X while trying to be throwing out the caster's supremacy. Which is literally an intended part of the game design, or at the very least had no actions to correct that explicit design choice from 2e (and several actions that exaggerated 2e's acts of assuring it). His claims are utterly contradictory to his goals. Especially when he claims Pathfinder of all things threw out the feel of 3.5, even though Pathfinder has a vastly more conservative focus on the core of the d20 system than even 3.X did, introducing vastly lower diversity in rules than D&D proper ever did. It still lacks a first-party caster-alike that uses an alternate resource system.

As for spellchecks, I reded the one typo the spellcheck built into the browser noticed.

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 1951
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
    • View Profile
Re: Subforum Responces
« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2018, 05:28:41 PM »
which shows new threads
I've never been able to keep up with any forums' all threads posted. Maybe I was too thorough before or maybe these boards have slowed down now. I don't know. But good for your for keeping up with all of them.

Quote
I despise bans because it wreaks of kneejerk reactions and lack of thought. Because I can usually figure out how to replace something with a more balanced version of the idea fairly easily.
Please do try to get creative lieu of me. I've been devoting brain power to other things for months now. But keep in mind that I have 2 fair restrictive other considerations. 1) It has to still be the thing that it was trying to be, just balanced. So for instance Skarrunks weren't mention to cause Pun Pun. They were just meant to cause small mutations. So most of the Manipulate Form text can stay and Skarrunks will still feel like they are using Manipulate Form the way it was designed post-fix. 2) The fix itself has to be applied to something that resembles D&D. This might sound nebulous but just take it at face value. For instance, you can balance thought bottles by saying something like 'We aren't using XP anymore, and thought bottles now do something completely different.' Well that is balanced and it avoids a ban, but it doesn't feel like D&D anymore. It might be great. It might be better than D&D in a certain way. But I'm not making something new. I'm just fixing what is there.

But I'm serious about trying various fixes that I might not see. I would appreciate you trying to get somewhere with something that I gave up on.

Quote
you go and remove Rogue's immunity to Dex-to-AC-deprivation to replace it with Ref-save-against-saveless-spells
Did I? That should have been an option/addition rather than a removal. I'm still in the middle of dumping, so I'm going to request a quote so I can trace it.

Quote
If you err on the side of modularity, why have a ban list?
I don't. Although if you'd like to collate those things so I can triple-check them, it might be a good idea. At least for people who knee-jerk hate for me to ban / give up fixing something, it will tell them where to look to help.

Quote
you're trying to make a fair and balanced game out of a system that is literally intended to be unfair and imbalanced. Or at the very least copies far to much from a system designed to be (TSR era D&D) to make it fair and balanced without a complete rewrite of the classes and/or spells. You're doing a lot of small, fiddly changes filled with catches and exceptions that get increasingly convoluted and nonsensical in universe. A Bard taking levels in Sublime Chord has no logical reason, anywhere, to be suddenly losing a bundle of ability score points they chose in character generation.
I'd be interested if you can find proof that 3rd edition was meant to be as imbalanced as it is. I'm not aiming for total starcraft-level balance. Just a close enough approximation of how I see it played.

But on that last part, Bards x / Sublime Chord y doesn't have to start out with Bard PB. They start out with SC PB. D&D has never explicitly allowed PCs to change their full 20 level build mid play, except via retraining (which I don't like but does address your "nonsensical in-universe" complaint). Even if a DM allowed that among players, in a game where characters suddenly gain access to leveling details that change their abilities, changing their PB doesn't seem that far-fetched to me.  :huh

Quote
You're commiting the very same act of balancing that made people despise 4e by making the rules bend over for balance, instead of changing them to be balanced by default.
Uh. No people didn't like 4e because it starts them balanced by default, not because it was 3e with rules changed to bring balance.

Quote
Some people like playing ludicrously overpowered characters, you know?
Yes I do.

Quote
Furthermore, a lot of your anti-caster measures aren't actually solving any real problems, as the fundamental problem is the spells. If you've fixed the spells, then no other fix is needed, because then the casters are then balanced. If you haven't fixed the spells, and the casters still retain access to the full 9th level spells, then the game is wildly imbalanced.
Aside from that italicized part there in the middle you are a walking advertisement for my fixes. I want to thank you. The truth is, there are ways to break RAW 3rd edition even if all casting classes are banned. That's too harsh for me, obviously and more balanced then otherwise, but still not even close to fool-proof.

Quote
penalizing ... tier, it's mechanically unusable because the DM has no possible way to judge where a player's casting will stop with multiclassing
Ialready address above with asking for full ECL20 builds.

Quote
By penalizing the higher tiers in a blanket fashion, you kill a lot of character concepts because of the fact that too damn many are fused to t1 classes at the hip.
Such as? You're previous example was pretty lose and can be accomplished with a feat to use a spellbook and a feat to swap to more of an int caster. That hasn't changed.

Quote
If you want to balance the game, then rewrite the classes and their ability lists.
No. Absolutely not. That is a good way to make the game no feel like D&D, be a nightmare to keep track of for mental consistency, and make translating build ideas like you mentioned above very problematic. I'd like to draw your attention to your previous quote.

Quote
You also seem to fail to understand the feel of D&D 3.X, given the flat-bans on large categories of items for the side rules based on them, rather than digging into those side rules to work out the problems with them to render the item acceptable.
Slights aside, you are welcome to point to specifics.

Quote
Take everything that exists for PCs and work out how to balance the idea of it. Thought Bottles are a problem for negating XP costs, so make them do a different thing based on the same idea, like undoing negative levels and mental score damage, something attainable through regular spells, made easy with a small XP cost attached.
That first part is a little weak logically. Balancing "ideas" of PrCs don't tell DMs what to do when a Lifedrinker and a Planar Shephard are in the same campaign. As to your specifics that's not really what thought bottles do. They are very different, RAW, from a little restoration spell. Feel free to try again with exact text.

Quote
There's also some problems with interactions between your own altered rules. What's the "penalty" for players to take a dead PC's items, and therefore wealth, when they get the XP to match it, like you mentioned in Strict WBL Guidelines by saying that Profession of all things gives XP to keep you on track for WBL?
I would say "yay some better specifics" here but... there's no problem here. There is no penalty. If you take said items, it counts against WBL (probably in lieu of monster treasure or whatever). If you generate WBL with a non-combat method, your XP matches because you are doing something useful. There's no beef here that I see.

Quote
Furthermore, how do you solve all the problems wealth generation making XP gives? You'd have to remove every fast wealth loop, and I see nothing about Fabricate on here
Furthermore, tisk tisk.  :) Getting ahead of ourselves are we? I already said I haven't dumped the spell stuff yet. You are welcome to go dig up my previous download if you are impatient with me posting things here.

Quote
a Wizard can powerlevel forever by mass-producing Masterwork Full Plate and keeping it in their armory. And Wealth by Level is a fucking guideline. Just like the Custom Magic Item "rules". Actually identify this before you make rules respecting it, because people are not going to ever use rules that give a strict XP to GP ratio mandating that you be locked to a line on a graph with no deviation.
Whoa. Don't go off the deep end here. What's more balanced, a Commoner 1 with ECL 20 WBL, or a Commoner 20 with ECL1 WBL? It's a plot with a straight regression. You can still stay in 100% statistical congruence with that point plot while having non-discrete inflexion points. I never said the second derivative had to be locked at 0.

Quote
What the heck happens when you Wish for an item within the cost limit?
Patience, young padawan. Remember your training:
[if] casters still retain access to the full 9th level spells, then the game is wildly imbalanced
Good. Now focus. Maybe we can address. Maybe we already have and it's just not in front of you yet.

Quote
What if a DM wants to break the guidelines of WBL to give underperforming characters items that make up for minor deficiencies?
I'm pretty sure I mention in several places that it's fine for lower performing (tier, build choice, etc) characters to have individual-only rules bent for them (LA, prereqs, combos, etc). Higher performing players should expect that. DMs should also be up front about how much was bent for whom, even if the details are insignificant and likely to change between campaigns. But I'll mention this again in the strict WBL area, though.

Quote
You're not understanding that the point of 3.X is to play a role, and it's built from a system that respects the utterly plausible result of Sword Guy ending up utterly useless in a fight between reality warping madmen
That seems plausible to me. You're welcome to quote me otherwise, though. For someone I've only spoken to once, you seem to know a lot about me. :cool

Honestly, I'm just grumpy that he claims to be keeping the feel of 3.X while trying to be throwing out the caster's supremacy. Which is literally an intended part of the game design, or at the very least had no actions to correct that explicit design choice from 2e (and several actions that exaggerated 2e's acts of assuring it).
It's the second option. Don't be grumpy! I'm not going to fully overcome caster supremacy; it's going to be there. It will just be manageable enough that when you have a wizard, a cleric, a fighter, and monk in a party, half the players won't think there's no point in playing. You seem to reference GitP a lot, so maybe you'll remember that "how much should you go play super smash bros. in the other room" explanation to caster supremacy that was over there a while ago.

Quote
Pathfinder has a vastly more conservative focus on the core of the d20 system than even 3.X did, introducing vastly lower diversity in rules than D&D proper ever did. It still lacks a first-party caster-alike that uses an alternate resource system.
Well of course PF was core-centric. Core is, in general, less balanced pound for pound than material outside core. Diverse classes are good. You're doing a good job of strengthening my argument. If you like PF because of balance, then I could say your "claims are utterly contradictory to [your] goals." :P

@Soro I have no idea what you are talking about. Is "correct him over" even a real phrase? You never know with really British slang. Yes I official do welcome help, I just know you can't provide it. But I do know you will 1) show no clear inaccuracies (least of all actually being helpful) 2) show me insulting anyone (especially if your posts count as the standard of evidence for not insulting) 3) not resist posting on this board while you are off your meds. Case and point: my posts were not "posts were moved to the homebrew section". I asked for this sub board. I waited half a year for it, and had to wait half a year before that because the BGs abandoned the forum. I've purposely waiting patiently to my own thing without bothering anyone else so that way when you come out of your way to talk about trolling, it's nice and obvious who's trolling who.

Alas, you got me. I replied to your mashed post of random whining: "this is not ... a good suggestion of how [D&D's rules] should be played." Whatever. In fact, if you had A) offered real, helpful insight, B) offered a clear, logical progression of concise, specific citations, & C) actually generated content I could quote, then I'd tell you to keep whatever new prescription they got for you and cling to it for dear life. :lmao





This took too long. It's hot tub time. I'll be back next week. Neat sidenote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWpHLGNHyzU