Just a small observation: there's no indication of the dragon's age/size which, in past terms, correlated to threat level.  It might've been a hatchling, or otherwise very young, for all we know.  It's a plausible scenario and, iirc, has been used in at least one published adventure for 3.0: Dungeon of the Fire Opal contains a very young dragon captured by some kobolods, iirc.

As Koltar recently mentioned, and as we were saying in this thread RIGHT BEFORE THE PLAYTEST REPORT WAS POSTED, we haven't seen shit about this fucking game except for some ridiculously sparse bits and pieces.

The only thing that's been revealed via WoTCs marketing "strategy" of half-baked releases and lobotomized previews is that the fan base is  full of screeching muppet heads without an ounce of rationality between them.

Quote from: architect.zeroThis isn't a new phenomenon. Just go and dig up the old usenet discussions surrounding 3e, forget any other example from countless sea-change events in other fields.

Which is the important part. The massive hoopla surrounding 3e died down when folks got to see the final product. Some still didn't like it. But for many, seeing and playing the final product laid to rest some reservations. It definitely laid to rest speculation.

Which is the crux of the problems now. Assumptions. Juxtapose the assumptions made in the first 4e quest thread with the clarifications/statements made by Mearls and you can see how easily and how far off base these assumptions can take you.

Sure, you may like some stuff you hear and may not like other things. But to really know how those things operate, you need context. The context of the whole game. You can read a few random pages from a novel and know how it's going to end.

Seanchai

Quote from: DrewSoul, on the other hand... WTF?

Something destroying the soul or legacy of a previous thing is a kind of argument of last resort.

Seanchai

Quote from: architect.zeroJust a small observation: there's no indication of the dragon's age/size which, in past terms, correlated to threat level.  It might've been a hatchling, or otherwise very young, for all we know.  It's a plausible scenario and, iirc, has been used in at least one published adventure for 3.0: Dungeon of the Fire Opal contains a very young dragon captured by some kobolods, iirc.

You're thinking of the Sunless Citadel. It had a wyrmling white dragon. Dungeon of the Fire Opal, if it's the one I ran for my group, used the AD&D DMG's sample map and random monsters to fill it out. It had a horse-sized red dragon in it.

Quote from: HaffrungSounds like the philosophy behind 4E is: Everything. Now.

Would any philosophy satisfy you? Seriously, you're going on and on about how 4e is destroying the "legacy," making claims and assumptions based next to nothing. You're clearly one of the "edition warriors" you referred to in another thread. Would anything make you happy?

Because, personally, I don't see the point. I can't imagine WotC would bother listening to you and unless I'm a OD&D roxxor-er like yourself, why would I bother either. It's not as if you're having an intelligent discourse anymore...

Seanchai

Quote from: HaffrungWhy is it so hard to admit that different versions of D&D are tailored to different play styles...

'Cause it ain't true.

Quote from: Haffrungfolks may have legitimate reasons for prefering not to play a particular edition?

Who is arguing with that?

Seanchai

Quote from: James McMurrayYou're thinking of the Sunless Citadel. It had a wyrmling white dragon. Dungeon of the Fire Opal, if it's the one I ran for my group, used the AD&D DMG's sample map and random monsters to fill it out. It had a horse-sized red dragon in it.

Thanks for the correction.  I suppose I have them super-imposed on each other due to that "tiny dragon for low-level PCs" relationship.

So that makes TWO adventures where this phenomenon has already occurred.

...or all of you D&D fans could just homebrew your own version of the game and take parts and fiddly bits from each version that you like for your group of friends to game with.

 Is it really that difficult?

I've met plenty of people who still play 2nd edition D&D - but they buy "3.5" dungeon Tiles and miniatures for use with their group's adventures.

 The city maps in CITYSCAPE aren't invalid for 4th or 2nd edition - just because they were released during the 3.5 time period.


- Ed C.

Quote from: sithsonSo is it's poo.

Where do you think that particular blind man was searching?

Quote from: Seanchai'Cause it ain't true.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Sorry Seanchai, but you lost a huge chunk o' credibility there.

Are you honestly saying that BD&D's "nobody low level can do anything" (slight exaggeration) and 4e's "second level characters teleport" are the exact same play styles?

Quote from: James McMurrayAre you honestly saying that BD&D's "nobody low level can do anything" (slight exaggeration) and 4e's "second level characters teleport" are the exact same play styles?

You have 4e?

What I'm honestly saying is that when folks talk about "play styles" they generally mean "the casual gaming I actually do as opposed to the gaming that I claim to do online" and when they say "support" they generally mean "it has rules I like."

Seanchai

Quote from: KoltarI've met plenty of people who still play 2nd edition D&D - but they buy "3.5" dungeon Tiles and miniatures for use with their group's adventures.

 The city maps in CITYSCAPE aren't invalid for 4th or 2nd edition - just because they were released during the 3.5 time period.

Also, minis.

You can use minis for any version of D&D. Hell, the D&D orcs work great as disad'ded GRUPS characters.

Use some common sense here, people.

Quote from: SeanchaiYou have 4e?

Have you been reading this thread?

Change it to 3e's infinnite healing for 2nd level characters if you must.

QuoteWhat I'm honestly saying is that when folks talk about "play styles" they generally mean "the casual gaming I actually do as opposed to the gaming that I claim to do online" and when they say "support" they generally mean "it has rules I like."

So when you plainly state that playstyles of editions don't differ, you're actually saying that you don't think people mean what they say?

Well, thanks for clarifying. Or not. :rolleyes:

Quote from: James McMurrayChange it to 3e's infinnite healing for 2nd level characters if you must.

Depends on the granularity of the conversation. At the basic level, D&D is mainly about exploring and fighting. I don't think that's changing. In all versions so far, you occasionally get beat up so much that you have to stop and rest for a while. What you're talking about is details like amount of healing per day. Yes, those things are likely to change. And the rate at which you go from schlub to go might change.  But I don't think the basics are going to change much.

I have decided to allow 4e to fuck my sister.