Luckmann

On the subject of alignment-relative "I don't see why any creatures should be considered in only one aligment. They all have choices." my original argument for the adamant moral alignments of angels in DnD is because they do not have a choice. In a given setting, for example, it's not a given that a "individual" have free will. Again, using the example of DnD, Celestials are tied to their planes. Devils have to be lawful evil. Demons have to be chaotic evil.

Bah. 4th Edition is retarded. It seems that there's a huge discrepancy between 4th Ed. "Base" and the Forgotten Realms setting. To me, there's all sorts of demons or devils serving the evil gods, not at all like they describe it in that text. Although I somewhat agree, the more I think about it. All that necessitates the existance of evil angels is that the profane is divided from the divine, where all gods are served equally by their angelic plebes. That being said, I think the

[quote who="GeneralEtrius" reply="1" id="2272063"]That little comment is an epic FAIL in itself.[/quote]You can't fail Annatar. He has more karma than you. [e digicons]

[quote who="Wintersong" reply="4" id="2271828"]I know that our Luckmann hates D&D 4th but in it, Angels are of all variety. They could be good, bad or weird. They have their own personlaity and serve the gods and/or causes they want/like/get_paid_for. At first I found it weird but I must say that I like what Wizards did there. Just my opinion, eh? I know that throngs of people disagree. [e digicons]XD[/e] [/quote]That's not much of a problem. The point being that afaik, DnD doesn't ha

3rd July. :p

On the subject of "breaking molds", there are just certain things that cannot, or should not, be broken. There's small things, such as "Yeti's have horns". But who's to say that Angels are "good"? Because if Angels weren't good, they wouldn't be angels. Then you might aswell call them something else. Angels also tend to have wings. Every mold gives a certain amount of leniency as to what constitutes breaking that mold. Once you've broken that mold, t

I hate how they're trying to sound like Sport's Commentators. It feels overdone, overblown. It feels like american "documentaries" where they go "LOOK at this man, shuffling DIRT onto a hill - the hill could collapse and KILL HIM at ANY moment! This is surely THE DIRTIEST JOB!" .

[quote who="psychoravin" reply="25" id="2270502"]Victory conditions should not be set on conquer. They should be set on a goals like HOMM quest map except extend it to he who discovers the burial site of the item first WINS! and/or casting the spell of mastery after finding the map quest scroll that would allow it. Goals like these help prevent turtling as characters will have to get out there and find these things. Turtling is lame and a chickens strategy.[/quote]God, get your head out

Giggety!

As I've come to understand it, it's comparable to Baldur's Gate, where there is also turns - although it's still fully in real-time. It's been discussed at some length in some threads. Landi, go fetch! :p[quote who="Scoutdog" reply="7" id="2270201"]Same here. I think that it is something like chess: you move a thing, then the other guy moves a thing, then you go again, etc.[/quote]It's been said by Brad that releasing the tactical combat images with the "chessboard" bottom was a mista

[quote who="Scoutdog" reply="2" id="2269982"]Well, I wouldn't say that is entirely true: Brad had definatively said that there will be tactical combat and that it will not be real-time , which only leaves T-B and S-T. Other than that, though, it's still up in the air.[/quote]Au contraire. What we do know is that tactical combat will be real-time, with a pause function, rather than turn-based or.. I don't even know what S-T is. Unless they've c

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="20" id="2269888"]Are they chaotic good? My guess is the person that wrote that one had to train a mean horse (I swear, some horses go out of their way to give novice trainers a hard time)[/quote]Horses are Chaotic Dumb. :p [quote who="landisaurus" reply="20" id="2269888"]Actually the whole animal int = neutral exists in 3rd as well. If it has int of 1-2 > then it is unable to have an alignment that isn't neutral (I believe it

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="17" id="2269357"]Bah D&D 4th. Its a good hack and slash system, but alignment has no thought in it. They removed several archetype alignments, including "neutral good" which would be what a unicorn. Also arn't they also of animal inteligance in D&D 4th? I.E. are neutral because they arn't smart enough to have an alignment.[/quote]Actually I made a response similar to yours, but I removed it because it turned into <e

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="23" id="2269352"] [...] - also, would you like to be in the avatar swap? [/quote]Unless you got a spectacular idea for a temporary avatar for me, I think I'll pass. I liked the idea, I just don't like the thought of not having my signature avatar. :p

I absolutely love the style of them, by the way. The tiger, the fire lady and the angelbird (current one). I'm sure you've made more, but those are the ones I've seen in the last 30 minutes. :p Edit: You must have quite the .psd template now. I suppose it's pretty much just "put a picture under the layers" and cut, now? [e digicons]:D[/e]

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="11" id="2269219"]Edit: make up your mind wintersong. You've changed your avatar at least twice already today [e digicons]XD[/e] [/quote]But this one has boobs! [e digicons]:(O[/e]

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="12" id="2268980"]Didn't the GC2 AI have to explore to act on its surroundings (at least through 'tough')? But yeah I agree - no fog of war for the AI is the single worst cheat to give the AI in an attempt to make it good because it doesn't just give the AI a bonus, but it actually removes a lot of options from the player. You can't sneak, or go around the back way, or anything like that because it will always see you coming.

Why? Why on a weekend? Why?! [e digicons]:(O[/e]

[quote who="Scoutdog" reply="19" id="2268820"]I actually want hordes of small, weak "cannon fodder" beasts, as well as the big guys, for one simple reason: I want "beast master" to be a valid platystyle in its own right. No powerful cities or great heroes, but a giant army of wild boars (and yes, that IS with an O, not an E :p . Sorry, Luckmann....)[/quote]The druid approach, eh? I'd like to try that out. Although then I wouldn't want 'Beasts' as much as 'Animals'.

It really depends on what we're making. If it's the spell of pure creation, that is, Massive Cold Fusion Power + Universal Energy-to-Matter Constructor, "Spell of Making" sounds great. It's the spell that makes something from nothing. [e digicons]:P[/e] Edit: Man, the basic smiling-smiley creeps me out.

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="10" id="2268775"]Lucmann, it's the Solstice this weekend, not mid-summer.[/quote]Right and yet so wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midsommar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer [quote who="Wikipedia"]The seasons are popularly considered to start on different dates in different cultures. When it is summer in the <

Bah. When does the full game hit? Thought I should try it out.

It's a bit of a pity, because the game does interest me. The review I skimmed through didn't give it too high of a score, but what do they know, after all? I was a huge fan of the Ghostbusters when I was a kid. It's got that "easy 80's" feeling we all love and cherish, even though I'm an '86. :p[quote who="DauntlessAnsible" reply="4" id="2263013"][quote who="acare84" reply="1" id="2261944"]Retail PC version has 5 Securom activation and revoke tool thankfully. <br /

I think a lot of the "confusion" (see: fucknuttery ) stems from Ravinpsycho's fundamental missunderstanding in thinking that this is a, I quote; " I've [...] played more PC wargame s than you'll ever see. " (which is interesting in itself, since apparently, he's got access to a vast number of wargames that no-one else in the gaming community