>D&D 4e >plate armor costs 50 gp >greatsword, greataxe,

>>49298213
You remind me very much of an acquaintance of mine who said Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-Long Blog was "stupid" because "the hero is a bigger jerk than the villain".

>>49298213

>D&D 3.5
>two 10-foot poles cost 4 sp

>one 10-foot ladder costs 5 cp

Why is 3.5 so retarded?

>>49298213

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm plate armour is harder to make than swords. It uses more metal and requires more labour.

Mundane item costs are usually kind of irrelevant after a couple levels in every edition anyway unless you plan on buying a castle or some shit

>>49298344
He's probably bitching that it doesn't cost significantly more

>>49298326
Poles are iron, ladders are wooden.

>>49298213
>Dragonlance
>currency is steel instead of gold
>costs are the same as the PHB but in "steel," so every steel item costs significantly less than its materials

Why is Dragonlance so retarded?

>>49298390
Assuming all that is true, I wouldn't disagree with you. I really only know Dragonlance as the setting with Kender, so it's not like there's a good side I'm aware of

>>49298387
It doesn't say that anywhere and the 10-foot pole pictured in the PHB is clearly wooden.

File: e31.jpg (35KB, 603x315px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 603x315px

>>49298728
Geez, I didn't know people could be triggered this hard, especially by wooden 10-foot poles.

>>49298213
So it does not take entire campaigns worth of earned money to afford some?

>>49298421
I've read one of the older Dragonlance sourcebooks, and I have to say, I'm not entirely sure what exactly they were going for with it. It's pretty safe to say they didn't get there, though, unless the intended destination was "fucking retarded."

>>49298812
It's because some anti-3.X trolls have been particularly active recently, and they're really just annoying shitheads. Of course people are going to be upset about them.

>>49298884

Maybe people should stop being perpetually butt ravaged by dissenting opinions.

Especially when they throw shade against other systems in the first place.

>>49298421
There's also gully dwarves, who are basically dwarves but retarded comic relief and can't count past two (not being able to count past two, yet somehow being able to form full sentences and understand the concept of counting, was intended to be hilarious (it wasn't)). No mention or explanation IIRC on how a society of born alzheimers patients can even live long enough to develop any sort of society or culture, except that they have "keen survival instincts" and oh boy even though they can barely even remember their own names if you corner them you are in for a surprise!

That's also where the "gnomes are mad-yet-incompetent scientists who constantly kill themselves with their experiments" came from IIRC. Again, no mention as to why they haven't driven themselves to extinction long ago.

Also no, neither the setting nor the books are supposed to be ironically retarded lolsorandumb comedy. They're supposed to be serious Epic Fantasy. Let's just say there's a reason Dragonlance doesn't get much attention it's because it's kind of shit.

>>49298950
Are you one of them.
Go away.

>>49298967

No.

If you're too triggered to form rational thought, you should leave.

>>49298213
The game was built to be like WOW, hence the armors being in sold in multiples of 10.

>>49298213
haveyoutriednotplayingD&D.jpg

>>49298973
You are one.
Fuck. Abandon thread, these guys never stop.

>>49298957
I forgot about gully dwarves. Kender are a bit more obvious than most, but every race in that setting is just terrible isn't it?

>>49298361

Particularly for 4e, when magic equipment (which plate armor and the named weapons will be past level 5 for certain) has costs that literally cover the strength of the enchantment, with the base materials being thrown in free.

(i.e. a level 14 magic dagger costs the same amount as a level 14 plate armor. and comes with a free returning enchantment)

>>49298957

Who even okay'd Dragonlance in the first place?

Did nobody even think for a moment how tiresome it'd be dealing with races that were either retarded, self-destructive, or both?

>>49298992

>Start a 4e hate thread
>Gets booty bothered when people start shitting on 3.PF

Pottery

>>49299009

... What's pottery mean in this context?

>>49299019

Are you that guy who got butthurt because someone told him to "lurk moar" last night?

Because I hate to tell ya, but ya need to lurk more.

>>49298994
Yeah basically. But then so is everything else in Dragonlance so at least it has consistency going for it?

>>49299002
>Did nobody even think for a moment at all
I don't think they did.

>>49299019
Meme version of "poetry," making fun of Lucas excusing being unoriginal by calling it poetry, which was highlighted in the Red Letter Media prequel reviews.

It means nothing in this context though, other than being a meme drop by a troll.

>>49298390
The 3.5 Dragonlance Campaign Setting was not accurate to the setting.

>>49299009
I am currently pondering whether my post (>>49298326) steered the thread in this direction or whether it would have ended up like this regardless.

>>49299112
If it wasn't your post, it would've been another. The edition wars never die.

>>49299112

As previously mentioned, 3aboos are perpetually butthurt and will derail any thread whenever someone points out a flaw in 3.PF.

If it wasn't you, it would've been something else.

>>49299139
>>49299112

I mean, it's not like this thread didn't start with OP insulting an edition.

>>49299112
Well at this rate it might just turn into (justified) complaints about Dragonlance if you fags can stop

>>49299147
See this post? This is why people hate you, and why it's so easy to identify you trolls.

>>49299162
Haven't read it, other than the summary of Kendar. Other than them, retardwarves, and suicidal gnomes, were there any other "original" races? Or any other particularly egregious bits of shit?

>>49299200

It also has the Draconians, the results of the minions of Takharris kidnapping a heap of metallic dragon eggs and experimenting on them while they held them hostage (To keep the Metallic dragons out of a fight). Mutated dragonmen with only a hint of the original dragonic power but with unique tricks based on the original dragon (Silver Draconians take on the form of their killer when slain, for instance)

>>49299200
Well there were the Draconians. They were kind of cool I guess. I mean not great, but at least they weren't literal retards (and so of course were naturally villains).

>>49299166

You see these?

>>49298728
>>49298884
>>49298967
>>49298992

Rather than ignoring complaints against 3.PF, using a filter, or just plain coming at people civilly, you immediately sperg out, derail threads, and act like victims while starting shit like >>49298213 unprovoked.

And desu, I'd rather hear about how shitty dragonlance than get into another edition war so I'm going to hide your posts and enjoy the discussion.

Good day ETBA, see you in the next thread.

>>49299264

That actually sounds cool.

How did they fuck it up?

>>49299280
>awkward attempt at damage control

You really don't learn, do you.
Just stop trolling, and act like you've got some sense.

People can spot you particular trolls from miles away.

>>49299299

They didn't really. They are pretty cool villains during the war they originally arrived in and moved a bit past villain into a more morally grey area after the war.

>>49299329

Well that's cool.

So silver dragons take on their killer's appearence, what about the other 5 metallic colors?

>>49299329
Sounds like they were exceptionally alright, compared to the rest of the setting. I might look through the PDF archive and just steal them for a port to Reign.

>>49299002
Admittedly outside of a few rather irrelevant one off stories these races never really come up in the books. The Gnomes managed to build a space ship that went to one of the moons though. I think it blew up after they got back or some shit. Most of Dragonlance actually isn't that bad but it suffers from being dated as fuck. A lot of the tropes and shit in it sort of blended into standard D&D tropes because of how old and influential it was on the earlier editions.

>>49299393

It's also where we get Red, White, and Black mages, among other things.

>>49299393

At the same time though, you're dealing with races that make Puck from "Berserk" look like a scholar, which is kinda bad.

I mean, I guess it's better when they're referred to within the context of the novels but it's still a bit of a tough pill to swallow.

>>49299355
I believe Baaz Draconians explode when they die and there another common breed that turn to stone when killed.

>>49299459
Nobody liked the Kender in the books. Thankfully Mina exterminated most of the little fuckers in the War of Souls. Them and the Elves.

>>49299305
b8

>>49299355

Bazz(Brass): Turn to stone when killed, generally trapping the killer's weapon in their body.
Kapak(Copper): Turns into a torrent of acid when slain.
Sivak(Silver): Can steal the form of anyone they kill, glide, turn into their killer when slain.
Bozak(Bronze): Detonate like a bomb when they die.
Aurak(Gold): Greater magical powers than the others, when they would die they immolate and are in a near invincible berserker rage for several seconds before the fire consumes them.

They were magically enchanted to be Shock Troops so most of the special tricks they have are when they die.

>>49299482

>Nobody liked the Kender in the books. Thankfully Mina exterminated most of the little fuckers in the War of Souls. Them and the Elves.

Did they suffer?

>>49298213
What's wrong with that? In OD&D Plate armor cost 50 GP too, as did a composite longbow.

>>49299619
Not enough. Some were still left roving around Sanctum like a bunch of furry footed gypsies.

>>49300146
Like always then?

>>49299482
>Nobody liked the Kender in the books.
And yet they LET THEM ACT THAT WAY. It was the most infuriating parts of any of the Dragonlance stories I have read. Everyone knows they're constant thieves but they get absolutely no consequences for it.

>>49302600

The archetype of the annoying kender is Tasslehoff. Not all kender act like he does, and some have varying degrees of awareness about the fact that other people have notions of property.

More than that, they also don't just take the most valuable thing in sight. A kender is as likely be obsessed with river stones as he is to think a piece of jewelry is interesting enough to "handle" or "borrow".

There is also the problem that the kender who do act like Tasslehoff wouldn't understand being punished. It would do no good. You would be hurting them or confining them and it wouldn't change them aside from make them think big folk are cruel and evil.

But the real elephant in the room is that problem players (who are problems no matter what the setting or game) use kenders as an excuse to be shitty to the group. A non-shitty player would have their kender be obsessed with leaves, have a leaf collection, and maybe be really fascinated with items that have leaf motifs (leading to misunderstandings where they handle an elven dagger, or knock over an elven suit of armor and annoy the NPCs). But they would never handle from the party.

The shitty player would just steal everything they could because "that's what my character would do!" and take part member's stuff and generally be an asshole. Which they would do anyway, they're just using the kender as a paper shield for their bad behavior.

I have firm policies in all my games that no player is to steal from or kill another person's character, and when I run Dragonlance (yes, I know I have shit taste), kender also fall into that. I will allow someone who has shown restraint and responsibility the ability to handle or borrow items if it is beneficial to the party in some way, such as retrieving a potion for someone so they don't have to go rummaging around in their pack, or a timely alchemist's fire or a rope at an opportune time or something like that.

>>49302600
Something something it's morally wrong to kill them.

>>49303324
>But they would never handle from the party.
Eh... But you're right in that there's a minimally assholish way to play a kender.

>>49302600
>>49303324

Something else: A kender is also likely to let you have his things. He doesn't really place value on them, as he doesn't "own" them in any real sense. So, if he has a spare knife, and you say you like it, he'll probably give it to you.

Which is again, something a problem player wouldn't do, because he'd be giving up one of his character's possessions.

File: 1462180779272.png (1MB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x1280px

>>49303324
>>49303342
>>49303350
Do people actually play kender considering their stats are buried in some Dragonlance book?

"People play kender!" is a fucking meme.

>>49303488

It depends. If the DM and players like Dragonlance enough, they'll probably have a copy of what passes as the setting book for whichever edition of the D&D they play.

>>49303542
I have never seen anyone since the 2000s come out and prefer Dragonlance for a setting.

>>49303488
awoo a cute.

>>49303658
me neither.

>>49303658

There are some still around. There's even an entire fansite with a forum.

I like Dragonlance (and am running it for my players). I own both the 3rd edition DLCS and the AD&D 1e Dragonlance Adventures book. So, if I ever feel like running an older edition, I can use the DA book to build off of.

Personally, I think that DL has some good things in it (the knights, the wizards, the imperfect societies and people), but it's also got some bad, nonsensical stuff in it (steel money and its justification, the Cataclysm and the reasons why it happened, the gnomes, etc.).

My personal Dragonlance games are probably not what someone would expect if they read the 3rd edition setting book or the novels and just jumped in. I've made changes and generally don't like the railroady way that the original modules were done. I'm also not a fan of the direction the novels took.

Some stories are good to read, but not fun to play. Some stories are fun to play, but would make a terrible or tedious novel.

>>49303488
>I haven't seen it so it doesn't exist

Here's your (You).

>>49303925
He's right though. I've only known one ever guy who actually tried, and it wasn't even that bad.

>>49298994
Well their minotaurs are pretty based.

But to hell with their stongest, wisest, oldest "true ogres".

>>49299329
What always bothered me about draconians is that they took dragon eggs (that are few in number) and used them to make invading armies (many in number). That shit just doesn't add up.
>>49305337
Weren't the minotaurs seafarers, or am I thinking of some other setting? Anyhow that was a pretty cool idea.

File: 1377367256601.jpg (76KB, 831x445px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 831x445px

>>49298213

>>49305372
Seafaring mercenary empire builders with loads of gladiatory shit.

>>49305372
Didnt multiple dravonians hatch per egg?

File: world-of-warcraft.jpg (149KB, 800x444px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 800x444px

>>49298213
4e is a game a really gamey game

>>49299037
I've been coming to /tg/ for years and I can tell you're just making shit up.

>>49305441
I keep reporting you and you don't go away, what do I have to do to get your constant rule breaking to GTFO of this board?

>>49298390
if you smelt a big item into smaller coins, ambient kenders steal most of them, so you're left with what, on average, amounts to PHB prices

here, solved that for ya

>>49299002
>it'd be dealing with races that were either retarded, self-destructive, or both
yet no one vetoes setting with humans and dwarves, so your point is moot

>>49305372
Wasnt like the whhole moon made out of eggs? Or am i mixig up settings?

>>49305674
No idea, I've not read the campaign material for the setting just the novels. I recall that the eggs were stored in a mountain somewhere?

>>49305530
>HURRRRR
>STOP HATING D&D
>DURRRRR
Are you at least semi-aware there could be more than just one person posting that pic?
Do you even know what meme is?

I mean it's already mid-September. Summer should be back in schools

>>49305674
If I'm remembering correctly, there were metalic dragon eggs stores on one of the moons, but it only came up in one of the probably-a-folktale books that were generally considered non-canon because a gnomish machine actually worked for once.

>>49305451
Aren't FR minotaurs like that as well?

I don't understand all the hate directed to 4E. It was an incredibly well put together, tight and balanced game. The design space took a lot of inspiration from the likes of Magic the Gathering which was awesome as you had a huge amount of tactical depth when playing. You could also scale it really well so games could range from fighting waves of little mooks to battles with Frost Giants and Dragons and this would all be balanced in the system. It's also really innovative to have a strategic game that pits one mastermind player against 4 or so other players.

The miniatures and battlemats were also really cheap to pick up in comparison to other similiar games like Warhammer and the rules were far more balanced which created some really engaging battles. There was also optional rules to roleplay and create campaigns and stories to link your battles together which our group thought was really cool.

>>49305834
Nah they are mostly of the chaotic retarded "eat human flesh and gang around mazes/tunnels" persuasion.

A few have been more civilized but a far minority, usually from magical experimentation or captive breeding.

>>49305859
4e was a great rpg/boardgame hybrid, but it fell short as a pure "minds eye" RPG.

>>49305859
Heh.

>>49305881
Thank god. 5e is supposed to be one of the crunchier theater of the min RPGs and I'm still bored to tears during combat.

>>49299019
Pot meet kettle.

It's cute when they are this retarded.

>>49305859
My biggest problem with it was the stupid skill challenges

>>49306155
never undestood that saying
okay, i get it, both pot and kettle are black
but that doesn't disprove pot's point, right? kettle is still black.

(not talking about whatever you guys talking about, just thinking aloud about saying)

>>49306201
Played right, you should never even know you are in one (unless there's an actual in-universe score kept).

>>49306210
The saying isn't meant to disprove anything. It's used to accuse someone of hypocrisy.

>>49306239
but hypocrisy doesn't disprove anything either (obviously, not counting "you are shit compared to me because of this thing we both have" situations). i never understood what's the big deal about hypocrisy.

>>49306262
>i never understood what's the big deal about hypocrisy
You look like a moron when you criticize people for doing things that you yourself do.

>>49306262
Let me explain it to you.

Suppose you are advocating, I dunno, defending animals against cruelty.
You go to various rallies of Greenpeace, you condemn people that wear fur and leather, you participate in various vocal movements against animal cruelty etc.

And then, one day, the press finds out that when you are in private, you are kicking dogs and wearing clothing made out of animals that are on Red List of Endangered Species.

Your entire reputation goes to shit, and people remember you only as a liar and a hypocrite.

Now, maybe animal cruelty IS wrong.
But no one is going to listen to you, because you are a hypocrite, because your actions don't match your words.

>>49306318
>>49306311
So, ad hominem in order to deflect criticism from yourself. Got it.

>But no one is going to listen to you, because you are a hypocrite, because your actions don't match your words.

Then those people are idiots? Mother Theresa was a bitch and Gandhi was a pervert - it doesn't make their messages bad ones.

People who let their opinion of the person delivering the message influence the message themselves are retarded.

I mean fuck, that's like arguing that if Hitler stood up and said 'Hey, racism is a terrible thing and this is why: (INSERT LIST HERE)' that people would respond by going 'That racist hypocrite, what the fuck does he know?'.

Holy fuck.

>>49306329
Again, it's not trying to disprove the original statement so it isn't an ad hominem.

>>49306318
>But no one is going to listen to you, because you are a hypocrite, because your actions don't match your words.

Are you telling me you wouldn't listen to a doctor who told you smoking was bad for you if they themselves were a smoker?

What are you, fucking retarded?

Are people in this thread so autistic that they really don't understand why hypocrisy is viewed negatively?

>>49306318
and that's what I don't understand. what is said is more important than who says it (unless we're suspecting them of manipulating us, but that's not the point)
yes, general populace will react as you said, but don't we all here pretend we're free-willed and clearly-thinking human beings who are above such lowly impulses?

>>49306359
I don't think you understand what ad hominem means.

>>49305494
Yea.
Baaz would pop out literally by the dozen or more from a single dragon egg.

>>49306389
Do you fail to understand that it is even more hypocritical for a kettle to call the pot black, because it's also an attempt to deflect the original criticism?

>>49306389
Being a hypocrite is a bad thing.
Ignoring a hypocrite whose right just because he's a hypocrite is worse.

Again, smoking doctor.

>>49306389
It's fine to view hypocrisy negatively, buy the anon is right that being a hypocrite doesn't mean you are wrong. Thinking that is actually a common fallacy.

>>49306431
>>49306432
>>49306436
Of course being a hypocrite doesn't make you wrong. It just makes you a hypocrite. I never said otherwise.

>>49306455
Ah, then you were simply being irrelevant.

>>49306475
What was the point of that post, then?

>>49306455

Are, so you were ignoring the point where the other anon said

>But no one is going to listen to you, because you are a hypocrite, because your actions don't match your words.

And the fact that people were responding to that instead of the issue of hypocrisy?

>>49306496

Clarification, apparently.

The whole pot/kettle thing is usually used when the hypocrisy DOES detract from your argument.

In OPs case, if we assume he plays any other edition of D&D, all of which have just as (or sometimes more) retarded monetary systems and pricetags on shit, you can make the argument that it isn't actually a problem, since OP manages just fine with it in other cases, and he just hopped on the 4e hate bandwagon 6 years late for some reason.

>>49306524
I think derailing a shitty thread is perfectly within /tg/. Look, it even has a shitty waifu OP pic.

>>49298390
Because it's Dragonlance. It's all the worst things about 80's fantasy. Also, it's written by a Mormon and a different kind of idiot.

>"Despite her career and fame as a fantasy author, Weis says she does not read fantasy books."

Yeah, you don't fucking say.

>>49307023
b-but Raistlin...

>"Despite her career and fame as a fantasy author, Weis says she does not read fantasy books."
that's a correct approach. nor should one play any RPGs when making an RPG of their own.

>>49306352
>>49306392
If you don't follow your own message, why should anyone else follow it? Clearly you don't believe it, otherwise you'd be following it too.

Obviously that doesn't apply to objective statements of fact, like "smoking causes serious medical conditions." But when it's a statement about something subjective like whether a certain form of action is or is not moral, then refusal to follow your own rules tears all the weight from your arguments.

>>49306589

>I think derailing a shitty thread is perfectly within /tg/.

This is true.

I have become the faggot.

>>49307061
>"I've got no experience, but that means I have a fresh perspective and no bad habits."

I mean, there's something to be said for not being entirely derivative, but you also shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel. Dragonlance is 90% generic, boring, high-fantasy punctuated by 10% "innovation" that's really just trait reassignment.

"Let's see... Our *throws dart* Minotaurs will be *rolls dice* Klingons, our *draws card* Dwarves will be *consults chart* retarded, interesting, and our Orcs will *reads The Book of Mormon* will be exactly like tolkien Orcs but look kinda dragon-y. Original setting, do not steal."

Really though, it's biggest problem is just being duller than ditch water.

>>49307484
The same could be said of pretty much every setting if you're willing to stretch the definitions far enough.

>>49298213
>Real Life
>600ml Bottle of Coke is $4
>1.25L Bottle of Coke is $2
Why is reality so retarded?

>>49298213
Because they tried to make it like a video game, and it ended up being about as good as a peanut butter and horse cum sandwich.

>>49307692
He asked about 4e, not 3.5 a.k.a. Diablo edition.

>>49298987
>Every problem ever can be solved by playing something other than D&D
Let me guess, le ebin GURPS maymay?

>>49299037
I've been here for over 5 years, and I've never heard that one either. Fuck you, you elitist prick.

>>49307725
More like OSR, Fantasy Craft, Legend by Rule of Cool, Anima, Make You Kingdom, Tenra Bansho Zero, World of Dungeons, Apocalypse World: Fallen Empires, etc.

>>49299112
Edition wars and le "Have you tried not playing D&D?" maymay are inevitable when D&D is merely mentioned, it's not because of you.

>>49307768
>Legend
You're about two years too late, or four years too early.

>>49307768
Or I could NOT have to be bothered with learning a new system because I'm a lazy prick who can work around the issues D&D's system has.

>>49307807
>learning a new system
>hard work
Pick one.

>>49307815
Let the poor sod be. He thinks every system is as retarded with its rules as 3.PF.

Nigga please. Not a single edition of D&D has prices that even approach making sense to any but the most casual inspection.

>>49306432
A smoking doctor who admits that smoking is bad for your health isn't really a hypocrite, though. He's someone with a bad habit. A doctor who advocates smoking because he owns shares of a tobacco company would be a hypocrite.

>>49308035
That's not what hypocrisy means. That's almost the opposite of what hypocrisy means.

>>49307815
>adjusting a system
>easier than learning a new system and then having to fix all of its problems

Yus.

>>49307887
'sup, ETBA.

>>49307887
You are right. >>49308589 seems to think every system needs as heavy houseruling as 3.PF does, which is one of the factors holding him back.

A truly unfortunate soul.

>>49310161
>there are systems that can't be improved by houserules

Anyone can strawman, ETBA.

>>49312023
"can be improved" and "must be improved" are two very different things.

>>49312985
You're right.
But, all you did was open up a subjective argument that I'm just gonna dismiss because only an idiot would walk into a debate with an ETBA.

>>49313114
I'm not even the same guy, man. I just also think that the idea that you have to houserule every game you play is stupid.

The vast majority of systems work fine without house rules.
Anyone who claims otherwise is being wilfully ignorant.

>>49298957
>Gully dwarves
When I was reading that, I told myself that they just didn't speak Common very well and didn't know most of the Common words for numbers. I was trying to make it not stupid. But it's stupid, isn't it?

>>49298213

God damn, who gives a shit, why nitpick over such pointlessly small details