Talk:Dragoman - Revision history

96.4.63.22 at 19:10, 1 March 2011

2011-03-01T19:10:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:10, 1 March 2011
Line 33:		Line 33:
	Got it. I didn't really know what a Dragoman was, so I was just going on the wikipedia article that describes it as a translator and mediator. With the huckster bit it makes a lot more sense --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]] 15:04, 6 February 2009 (EST)		Got it. I didn't really know what a Dragoman was, so I was just going on the wikipedia article that describes it as a translator and mediator. With the huckster bit it makes a lot more sense --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]] 15:04, 6 February 2009 (EST)
	:Given these skills, do we think disguise should be there? I ask mostly for completely selfish reasons, of course. --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]		:Given these skills, do we think disguise should be there? I ask mostly for completely selfish reasons, of course. --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]
			:: No, we do not. -gm

	----		----

Msallen at 18:03, 1 March 2011

2011-03-01T18:03:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:03, 1 March 2011
Line 32:		Line 32:

	Got it. I didn't really know what a Dragoman was, so I was just going on the wikipedia article that describes it as a translator and mediator. With the huckster bit it makes a lot more sense --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]] 15:04, 6 February 2009 (EST)		Got it. I didn't really know what a Dragoman was, so I was just going on the wikipedia article that describes it as a translator and mediator. With the huckster bit it makes a lot more sense --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]] 15:04, 6 February 2009 (EST)
			:Given these skills, do we think disguise should be there? I ask mostly for completely selfish reasons, of course. --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]

	----		----

Msallen at 14:19, 18 March 2010

2010-03-18T14:19:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:19, 18 March 2010
Line 68:		Line 68:
	::::: That is my furry story. --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]		::::: That is my furry story. --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]
	:::::: Wow, you finally got a new story! I'm proud of you! -gm		:::::: Wow, you finally got a new story! I'm proud of you! -gm
			::::::: I get tons of new stories! Its just if they are not better than the old stories, I just tell the old ones again ;) --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]

207.191.191.21 at 13:36, 18 March 2010

2010-03-18T13:36:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:36, 18 March 2010
Line 67:		Line 67:
	::::: My grad school roommates were obsessed with furries. When I first moved in, I told all my friends that they were furries. After a while, I started to introduce them to everyone, and they started to make friends with my friends. Years later, we learned, much to my roommates' horror, that many of them still thought they were furries.		::::: My grad school roommates were obsessed with furries. When I first moved in, I told all my friends that they were furries. After a while, I started to introduce them to everyone, and they started to make friends with my friends. Years later, we learned, much to my roommates' horror, that many of them still thought they were furries.
	::::: That is my furry story. --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]		::::: That is my furry story. --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]
			:::::: Wow, you finally got a new story! I'm proud of you! -gm

Msallen at 13:07, 18 March 2010

2010-03-18T13:07:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:07, 18 March 2010
Line 62:		Line 62:
	::: All that said, though, I don't think 3.5 was any less of a mini/tactics game than 2, it just added a lot more flexibility to the skill/class system so you can more effective "do anything". I actually think 3.5 was also better defined in terms of rules for tactics/mini gaming than 2 was, wasn't it? --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]		::: All that said, though, I don't think 3.5 was any less of a mini/tactics game than 2, it just added a lot more flexibility to the skill/class system so you can more effective "do anything". I actually think 3.5 was also better defined in terms of rules for tactics/mini gaming than 2 was, wasn't it? --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]
	:::: Probably right, I'm just prejudiced. And I like 3.5e fine, as is evidenced by my obsession, it would just be nice to have a Shadowrun game every once in a while.		:::: Probably right, I'm just prejudiced. And I like 3.5e fine, as is evidenced by my obsession, it would just be nice to have a Shadowrun game every once in a while.

	:::: Also, to be perfectly clear, I am not a furry. Since anthropomorph is another word for furry, the "apologies to any...", was aimed at placating any furries who might be around. Because you never know.		:::: Also, to be perfectly clear, I am not a furry. Since anthropomorph is another word for furry, the "apologies to any...", was aimed at placating any furries who might be around. Because you never know.

	:::: By way of explanation, I offer that a group I hung out with in college had a lot of furry crossover. It was... strange. -[[User:70.188.40.37\|70.188.40.37]]		:::: By way of explanation, I offer that a group I hung out with in college had a lot of furry crossover. It was... strange. -[[User:70.188.40.37\|70.188.40.37]]
			::::: That's exactly what a closeted furry would say!
			::::: My grad school roommates were obsessed with furries. When I first moved in, I told all my friends that they were furries. After a while, I started to introduce them to everyone, and they started to make friends with my friends. Years later, we learned, much to my roommates' horror, that many of them still thought they were furries.
			::::: That is my furry story. --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]

70.188.40.37 at 22:11, 17 March 2010

2010-03-17T22:11:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:11, 17 March 2010
Line 61:		Line 61:
	::: Oooo... I see. Yeah, you should be playing Call of Cthulhu/Gumshoe/World of Darkness, you damn furry hippie. I always felt 3.5 was some sort of weak hybrid... a skill system made for a tactics game, and a combat system that lacked tactical options :\| Its really my favorite game just because it tries to do both, and doesn't totally fail at either! --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]		::: Oooo... I see. Yeah, you should be playing Call of Cthulhu/Gumshoe/World of Darkness, you damn furry hippie. I always felt 3.5 was some sort of weak hybrid... a skill system made for a tactics game, and a combat system that lacked tactical options :\| Its really my favorite game just because it tries to do both, and doesn't totally fail at either! --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]
	::: All that said, though, I don't think 3.5 was any less of a mini/tactics game than 2, it just added a lot more flexibility to the skill/class system so you can more effective "do anything". I actually think 3.5 was also better defined in terms of rules for tactics/mini gaming than 2 was, wasn't it? --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]		::: All that said, though, I don't think 3.5 was any less of a mini/tactics game than 2, it just added a lot more flexibility to the skill/class system so you can more effective "do anything". I actually think 3.5 was also better defined in terms of rules for tactics/mini gaming than 2 was, wasn't it? --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]
			:::: Probably right, I'm just prejudiced. And I like 3.5e fine, as is evidenced by my obsession, it would just be nice to have a Shadowrun game every once in a while.

			:::: Also, to be perfectly clear, I am not a furry. Since anthropomorph is another word for furry, the "apologies to any...", was aimed at placating any furries who might be around. Because you never know.

			:::: By way of explanation, I offer that a group I hung out with in college had a lot of furry crossover. It was... strange. -[[User:70.188.40.37\|70.188.40.37]]

Msallen at 19:20, 17 March 2010

2010-03-17T19:20:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:20, 17 March 2010
Line 60:		Line 60:
	::Less! It is so much of a tactics game, since, like Jonesy mentioned above, all the advancement is based around battle. The hardest guidelines in the game for treasure and XP game all center around defeating opponents--there are some recommendations for other things, but they're not nearly as clearly delineated. D&D 3.5e was basically D&D trying to back off from the mini thing--D&D 4e was them deciding they weren't fooling anyone, so they might as well focus on what they've always been good at. If it weren't for the large number of 3.5e players who were/are also my friends (and the fact that almost all White Wolf players are furries, no offense to any anthropomorphs who may inhabit this wiki), I'd be knee-deep in something (anything!) else, where the mechanics are better at supporting more of the "OK, you do this" mentality, rather than encouraging (even requiring, for the sake of survival) me to sit and cross-reference every decision for balance and mechanics compatibility. -[[User:Slitherrr\|Slitherrr]]		::Less! It is so much of a tactics game, since, like Jonesy mentioned above, all the advancement is based around battle. The hardest guidelines in the game for treasure and XP game all center around defeating opponents--there are some recommendations for other things, but they're not nearly as clearly delineated. D&D 3.5e was basically D&D trying to back off from the mini thing--D&D 4e was them deciding they weren't fooling anyone, so they might as well focus on what they've always been good at. If it weren't for the large number of 3.5e players who were/are also my friends (and the fact that almost all White Wolf players are furries, no offense to any anthropomorphs who may inhabit this wiki), I'd be knee-deep in something (anything!) else, where the mechanics are better at supporting more of the "OK, you do this" mentality, rather than encouraging (even requiring, for the sake of survival) me to sit and cross-reference every decision for balance and mechanics compatibility. -[[User:Slitherrr\|Slitherrr]]
	::: Oooo... I see. Yeah, you should be playing Call of Cthulhu/Gumshoe/World of Darkness, you damn furry hippie. I always felt 3.5 was some sort of weak hybrid... a skill system made for a tactics game, and a combat system that lacked tactical options :\| Its really my favorite game just because it tries to do both, and doesn't totally fail at either! --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]		::: Oooo... I see. Yeah, you should be playing Call of Cthulhu/Gumshoe/World of Darkness, you damn furry hippie. I always felt 3.5 was some sort of weak hybrid... a skill system made for a tactics game, and a combat system that lacked tactical options :\| Its really my favorite game just because it tries to do both, and doesn't totally fail at either! --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]
			::: All that said, though, I don't think 3.5 was any less of a mini/tactics game than 2, it just added a lot more flexibility to the skill/class system so you can more effective "do anything". I actually think 3.5 was also better defined in terms of rules for tactics/mini gaming than 2 was, wasn't it? --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]

Msallen at 18:52, 17 March 2010

2010-03-17T18:52:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:52, 17 March 2010
Line 43:		Line 43:
	::What sort of synergy bonuses are you thinking? It only applies to skill checks as its worded now... not any sort of class feature like spell DCs, or even animal empathy checks. --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]		::What sort of synergy bonuses are you thinking? It only applies to skill checks as its worded now... not any sort of class feature like spell DCs, or even animal empathy checks. --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]
	:::"Grants a +3 on charisma checks and charisma-based skill checks" doesn't sound like just skills to me. I just don't know what else uses Charisma that is considered a check--it certainly wouldn't add to things like base spells, but I'm thinking that there are spell effects that would get a boost from this (not sure, though). Either way, the way it is currently worded very explicitly states that more than just skill checks are affected, but in a non-specific way. Whether or not that is a game-breaking super-synergy situation would take some crawling through docs to determine.		:::"Grants a +3 on charisma checks and charisma-based skill checks" doesn't sound like just skills to me. I just don't know what else uses Charisma that is considered a check--it certainly wouldn't add to things like base spells, but I'm thinking that there are spell effects that would get a boost from this (not sure, though). Either way, the way it is currently worded very explicitly states that more than just skill checks are affected, but in a non-specific way. Whether or not that is a game-breaking super-synergy situation would take some crawling through docs to determine.

	:::Also, just to note, even if it were just skills, Animal Empathy would be included because it "functions just like a Diplomacy check".		:::Also, just to note, even if it were just skills, Animal Empathy would be included because it "functions just like a Diplomacy check".
	:::-[[User:Slitherrr\|Slitherrr]]		:::-[[User:Slitherrr\|Slitherrr]]
Line 53:		Line 52:
	:::::::: Good point and good question. I'd have to do a case by case basis, but as written it says "skill checks and ability checks," both of which have pretty delineated definitions in the SRD. Legend Lore, although your ability score factors in, is not an "ability check." It is a "Legend Lore Check" which = Relevant Stat + Bard (Or Dragoman, or Both, since they would stack for LL). Similarly, even though a cleric's turning check involves Charisma, it is not a "charisma check." This game should be called JD&D. -gm		:::::::: Good point and good question. I'd have to do a case by case basis, but as written it says "skill checks and ability checks," both of which have pretty delineated definitions in the SRD. Legend Lore, although your ability score factors in, is not an "ability check." It is a "Legend Lore Check" which = Relevant Stat + Bard (Or Dragoman, or Both, since they would stack for LL). Similarly, even though a cleric's turning check involves Charisma, it is not a "charisma check." This game should be called JD&D. -gm
	::::::: Well, I don't really mind it being universally stacking because it is, quite literally, a completely hopeless class in combat, which is - let's face it - almost the entire measure of advancement for a class. That's worth quite a lot of points in my book, almost - maybe - enough to overlook the issues with UMD. I must admit, however, that I love UMD, and I'm almost always inclined in its favor. I don't think the skills the class boosts are unbalancing enough to a campaign to really fret over. Until it happens, of course, but I'm pretty confident the ceiling on diplomancer in my world is reasonable enough that dragomancer won't be the straw. If it did get epic too soon, well, then people start treating you like saurmon : kill him before he has a chance to speak. At that point, any budding diplomancer coughcough is itching for a reroll anyway. -gm		::::::: Well, I don't really mind it being universally stacking because it is, quite literally, a completely hopeless class in combat, which is - let's face it - almost the entire measure of advancement for a class. That's worth quite a lot of points in my book, almost - maybe - enough to overlook the issues with UMD. I must admit, however, that I love UMD, and I'm almost always inclined in its favor. I don't think the skills the class boosts are unbalancing enough to a campaign to really fret over. Until it happens, of course, but I'm pretty confident the ceiling on diplomancer in my world is reasonable enough that dragomancer won't be the straw. If it did get epic too soon, well, then people start treating you like saurmon : kill him before he has a chance to speak. At that point, any budding diplomancer coughcough is itching for a reroll anyway. -gm
	:::::::: The one big itch that D&D has never been able to fully scratch is the one that comes from its origins as a tactical minis game. It's my major beef with the system. -[[User:Slitherrr\|Slitherrr]]
	~~::::::::: Very, very true, but I do think the 3.5e skills system was kind of a godsend. -gm~~
	::::::::: Did you want it to be more tactical minis, or less? I assume the former, since its not much of a tactics game. 4e is must more about tactics/minis--you should look at it --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]
	:::::::::: Less! It is so much of a tactics game, since, like Jonesy mentioned above, all the advancement is based around battle. The hardest guidelines in the game for treasure and XP game all center around defeating opponents--there are some recommendations for other things, but they're not nearly as clearly delineated. D&D 3.5e was basically D&D trying to back off from the mini thing--D&D 4e was them deciding they weren't fooling anyone, so they might as well focus on what they've always been good at. If it weren't for the large number of 3.5e players who were/are also my friends (and the fact that almost all White Wolf players are furries, no offense to any anthropomorphs who may inhabit this wiki), I'd be knee-deep in something (anything!) else, where the mechanics are better at supporting more of the "OK, you do this" mentality, rather than encouraging (even requiring, for the sake of survival) me to sit and cross-reference every decision for balance and mechanics compatibility. -[[User:Slitherrr\|Slitherrr]]
	:::::::: I haven't used diplomacy in combat once! Usually because, if they haven't heeded my wisdom and avoided the fight, I want them all to end up dead anyways ;) --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]		:::::::: I haven't used diplomacy in combat once! Usually because, if they haven't heeded my wisdom and avoided the fight, I want them all to end up dead anyways ;) --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]
	::::::::: heh, also, it takes one minute of conversation to trigger a diplomacy check. That's ten rounds. Now, while it's a fair bet that your opponents are going to ignore the guy doing nothing but running his mouth in the middle of a conflict, after ten rounds of combat, it's is probably decided anyway.		::::::::: heh, also, it takes one minute of conversation to trigger a diplomacy check. That's ten rounds. Now, while it's a fair bet that your opponents are going to ignore the guy doing nothing but running his mouth in the middle of a conflict, after ten rounds of combat, it's is probably decided anyway.

			The one big itch that D&D has never been able to fully scratch is the one that comes from its origins as a tactical minis game. It's my major beef with the system. -[[User:Slitherrr\|Slitherrr]]
			:Very, very true, but I do think the 3.5e skills system was kind of a godsend. -gm
			:Did you want it to be more tactical minis, or less? I assume the former, since its not much of a tactics game. 4e is must more about tactics/minis--you should look at it --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]
			::Less! It is so much of a tactics game, since, like Jonesy mentioned above, all the advancement is based around battle. The hardest guidelines in the game for treasure and XP game all center around defeating opponents--there are some recommendations for other things, but they're not nearly as clearly delineated. D&D 3.5e was basically D&D trying to back off from the mini thing--D&D 4e was them deciding they weren't fooling anyone, so they might as well focus on what they've always been good at. If it weren't for the large number of 3.5e players who were/are also my friends (and the fact that almost all White Wolf players are furries, no offense to any anthropomorphs who may inhabit this wiki), I'd be knee-deep in something (anything!) else, where the mechanics are better at supporting more of the "OK, you do this" mentality, rather than encouraging (even requiring, for the sake of survival) me to sit and cross-reference every decision for balance and mechanics compatibility. -[[User:Slitherrr\|Slitherrr]]
			::: Oooo... I see. Yeah, you should be playing Call of Cthulhu/Gumshoe/World of Darkness, you damn furry hippie. I always felt 3.5 was some sort of weak hybrid... a skill system made for a tactics game, and a combat system that lacked tactical options :\| Its really my favorite game just because it tries to do both, and doesn't totally fail at either! --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]

Slitherrr at 18:15, 17 March 2010

2010-03-17T18:15:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:15, 17 March 2010
Line 56:		Line 56:
	::::::::: Very, very true, but I do think the 3.5e skills system was kind of a godsend. -gm		::::::::: Very, very true, but I do think the 3.5e skills system was kind of a godsend. -gm
	::::::::: Did you want it to be more tactical minis, or less? I assume the former, since its not much of a tactics game. 4e is must more about tactics/minis--you should look at it --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]		::::::::: Did you want it to be more tactical minis, or less? I assume the former, since its not much of a tactics game. 4e is must more about tactics/minis--you should look at it --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]
	:::::::::: Less! It is so much of a tactics game, since, like Jonesy mentioned above, all the advancement is based around battle. The hardest guidelines in the game for treasure and XP game all center around defeating opponents--there are some recommendations for other things, but they're not nearly as clearly delineated. D&D 3.5e was basically D&D trying to back off from the mini thing--D&D 4e was them deciding they weren't fooling anyone, so they might as well focus on what they've always been good at. If it weren't for the large number of players who were/are also my friends (and the fact that almost all White Wolf players are furries, no offense to any anthropomorphs who may inhabit this wiki), I'd be knee-deep in something (anything!) else, where the mechanics are better at supporting more of the "OK, you do this" mentality, rather than encouraging (even requiring, for the sake of survival) me to sit and cross-reference every decision for balance and mechanics compatibility. -[[User:Slitherrr\|Slitherrr]]		:::::::::: Less! It is so much of a tactics game, since, like Jonesy mentioned above, all the advancement is based around battle. The hardest guidelines in the game for treasure and XP game all center around defeating opponents--there are some recommendations for other things, but they're not nearly as clearly delineated. D&D 3.5e was basically D&D trying to back off from the mini thing--D&D 4e was them deciding they weren't fooling anyone, so they might as well focus on what they've always been good at. If it weren't for the large number of 3.5e players who were/are also my friends (and the fact that almost all White Wolf players are furries, no offense to any anthropomorphs who may inhabit this wiki), I'd be knee-deep in something (anything!) else, where the mechanics are better at supporting more of the "OK, you do this" mentality, rather than encouraging (even requiring, for the sake of survival) me to sit and cross-reference every decision for balance and mechanics compatibility. -[[User:Slitherrr\|Slitherrr]]
	:::::::: I haven't used diplomacy in combat once! Usually because, if they haven't heeded my wisdom and avoided the fight, I want them all to end up dead anyways ;) --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]		:::::::: I haven't used diplomacy in combat once! Usually because, if they haven't heeded my wisdom and avoided the fight, I want them all to end up dead anyways ;) --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]
	::::::::: heh, also, it takes one minute of conversation to trigger a diplomacy check. That's ten rounds. Now, while it's a fair bet that your opponents are going to ignore the guy doing nothing but running his mouth in the middle of a conflict, after ten rounds of combat, it's is probably decided anyway.		::::::::: heh, also, it takes one minute of conversation to trigger a diplomacy check. That's ten rounds. Now, while it's a fair bet that your opponents are going to ignore the guy doing nothing but running his mouth in the middle of a conflict, after ten rounds of combat, it's is probably decided anyway.

Slitherrr at 18:15, 17 March 2010

2010-03-17T18:15:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:15, 17 March 2010
Line 56:		Line 56:
	::::::::: Very, very true, but I do think the 3.5e skills system was kind of a godsend. -gm		::::::::: Very, very true, but I do think the 3.5e skills system was kind of a godsend. -gm
	::::::::: Did you want it to be more tactical minis, or less? I assume the former, since its not much of a tactics game. 4e is must more about tactics/minis--you should look at it --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]		::::::::: Did you want it to be more tactical minis, or less? I assume the former, since its not much of a tactics game. 4e is must more about tactics/minis--you should look at it --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]
			:::::::::: Less! It is so much of a tactics game, since, like Jonesy mentioned above, all the advancement is based around battle. The hardest guidelines in the game for treasure and XP game all center around defeating opponents--there are some recommendations for other things, but they're not nearly as clearly delineated. D&D 3.5e was basically D&D trying to back off from the mini thing--D&D 4e was them deciding they weren't fooling anyone, so they might as well focus on what they've always been good at. If it weren't for the large number of players who were/are also my friends (and the fact that almost all White Wolf players are furries, no offense to any anthropomorphs who may inhabit this wiki), I'd be knee-deep in something (anything!) else, where the mechanics are better at supporting more of the "OK, you do this" mentality, rather than encouraging (even requiring, for the sake of survival) me to sit and cross-reference every decision for balance and mechanics compatibility. -[[User:Slitherrr\|Slitherrr]]
	:::::::: I haven't used diplomacy in combat once! Usually because, if they haven't heeded my wisdom and avoided the fight, I want them all to end up dead anyways ;) --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]		:::::::: I haven't used diplomacy in combat once! Usually because, if they haven't heeded my wisdom and avoided the fight, I want them all to end up dead anyways ;) --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]
	::::::::: heh, also, it takes one minute of conversation to trigger a diplomacy check. That's ten rounds. Now, while it's a fair bet that your opponents are going to ignore the guy doing nothing but running his mouth in the middle of a conflict, after ten rounds of combat, it's is probably decided anyway.		::::::::: heh, also, it takes one minute of conversation to trigger a diplomacy check. That's ten rounds. Now, while it's a fair bet that your opponents are going to ignore the guy doing nothing but running his mouth in the middle of a conflict, after ten rounds of combat, it's is probably decided anyway.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:20, 17 March 2010
Line 60:		Line 60:
	::Less! It is so much of a tactics game, since, like Jonesy mentioned above, all the advancement is based around battle. The hardest guidelines in the game for treasure and XP game all center around defeating opponents--there are some recommendations for other things, but they're not nearly as clearly delineated. D&D 3.5e was basically D&D trying to back off from the mini thing--D&D 4e was them deciding they weren't fooling anyone, so they might as well focus on what they've always been good at. If it weren't for the large number of 3.5e players who were/are also my friends (and the fact that almost all White Wolf players are furries, no offense to any anthropomorphs who may inhabit this wiki), I'd be knee-deep in something (anything!) else, where the mechanics are better at supporting more of the "OK, you do this" mentality, rather than encouraging (even requiring, for the sake of survival) me to sit and cross-reference every decision for balance and mechanics compatibility. -[[User:Slitherrr\|Slitherrr]]		::Less! It is so much of a tactics game, since, like Jonesy mentioned above, all the advancement is based around battle. The hardest guidelines in the game for treasure and XP game all center around defeating opponents--there are some recommendations for other things, but they're not nearly as clearly delineated. D&D 3.5e was basically D&D trying to back off from the mini thing--D&D 4e was them deciding they weren't fooling anyone, so they might as well focus on what they've always been good at. If it weren't for the large number of 3.5e players who were/are also my friends (and the fact that almost all White Wolf players are furries, no offense to any anthropomorphs who may inhabit this wiki), I'd be knee-deep in something (anything!) else, where the mechanics are better at supporting more of the "OK, you do this" mentality, rather than encouraging (even requiring, for the sake of survival) me to sit and cross-reference every decision for balance and mechanics compatibility. -[[User:Slitherrr\|Slitherrr]]
	::: Oooo... I see. Yeah, you should be playing Call of Cthulhu/Gumshoe/World of Darkness, you damn furry hippie. I always felt 3.5 was some sort of weak hybrid... a skill system made for a tactics game, and a combat system that lacked tactical options :\| Its really my favorite game just because it tries to do both, and doesn't totally fail at either! --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]		::: Oooo... I see. Yeah, you should be playing Call of Cthulhu/Gumshoe/World of Darkness, you damn furry hippie. I always felt 3.5 was some sort of weak hybrid... a skill system made for a tactics game, and a combat system that lacked tactical options :\| Its really my favorite game just because it tries to do both, and doesn't totally fail at either! --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]
			::: All that said, though, I don't think 3.5 was any less of a mini/tactics game than 2, it just added a lot more flexibility to the skill/class system so you can more effective "do anything". I actually think 3.5 was also better defined in terms of rules for tactics/mini gaming than 2 was, wasn't it? --[[User:Msallen\|Msallen]]