VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:36:47 10/09/00 Mon
Author: Fender
Subject: Re: 3rd Edition thoughts
In reply to: Kaan 's message, "Re: 3rd Edition thoughts" on 20:18:45 10/06/00 Fri

First off. Kaan, you really should pay more attention to what people are saying before you blast them away with endless amounts of typing. I was in no way suggesting 3E to be inflexible. In fact I believe quite the contrary. I was stating that there is inflexibility in the ranger class. This would be comparative to other classes of 3E. Also, you should stick to speaking for yourself. I for one, enjoy 2nd edition (I know it has it's problems). If I didn't, I wouldn't play. Simple as that. I agree, there are a ton of supplements with 2E. The original books alone were simply not enough. BUT, most of us have and know the supplements. Not only that. With the 2E experience, we know what rules work and what don't (for the most part). As I stated before, I know WotC has said that they won't make supplements. We shall see. There probably won't be "supplements" as they would choose to call them, but I bet there will be some additional rules and options thrown into something. I have to tell you. 2E was play tested as well. It's not like they just wrote it up and stuck it on the shelf.

See, now you got me looking like I'm anti-3E. That is not the case. I'm simply saying that I don't believe it is as perfect as you seem to believe. No one has mentioned any downsides, so I decided to do so.

BTW. There is certainly a measure of strength involved when it comes to climbing, but agility (which Dnd defines as dexterity) and dexterity are the main factors in climbing. Yes, your forearms begin to ache like hell in certain situations while climbing, but you have to consider the climber's weight. A body builder would have a lot more weight to hold on those three fingers. So basically when talking climbing, you are talking about strength relative to body weight. Might I also mention that strength relative to body weight is a HUGE contributing factor to agility (Coordination also helps). I'm sorry, but I know a few climbers that are way more into it than myself. None of them I would consider extraordinarily strong. They are just physically fit.

This is all IMO :)

30 points sounds a bit skimpy to me, but I'll give it a go. I guess it doesn't matter as long as we all have the same.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.