User talk:76.165.121.130

I believe this user is the one named "Doom." Sometimes he goes back and rewrites his arguments on Talk pages, which looks like someone's trying to sabotage him (her?) but it's not... I think. --NotBrandX 18:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This user is Doom, yes...I'm not sure what you're saying about sabotage, guess I'll have to look at the talk page. Sorry if I'm editing my responses incorrectly, I mean no attempt at deception.

No no, I'm more worried someone might sabotage YOU, by rewriting something you edited into "disregard that; D&D4e sucks cocks *and so do I* --Doom" or something along those lines. --NotBrandX 18:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Define...

Define "breaks the game."

Define "vandalism."

-Zabasaz May 12, 2010

Vandalism has already been defined for you, so I'm not sure what the point would be. Please stop. Your endless butthurting is bad enough, but the vandalism is tiresome.

"Breaks the game"--this refers to the situation where the game no longer plays as intended, or makes the game no longer playable. For example, in Dungeons and Dragons, Wish or polymorph could easily break the game (eg, polymorphing flies into dragons, or wishing for creatures that grant wishes).

But we're not here to talk about D&D, let's talk about 4e. Lots of things break 4e--even a feat that grants an unsituational +1 to all effects is argued as game-breaking, and Righteous Brand was nerfed to 'just a +3 situational', because '+4 situational' was too strong.

Let's address the case that prompted you to write this, monsters getting reinforcements. If monsters break from a combat, get reinforcements, and come back, the game snaps in half. Most of a party's abilities, including their all-important healing words and second winds, are 'encounter'...having two 'encounters' in a row can easily take simple fights and turn them into hours-long slogfests, simply due the monsters getting reinforcements, and the players no longer having anything to do but spam at-wills. The game wasn't meant for fights to be 20 rounds of at-will actions, it was designed around heroes doing cool things. So, yeah, getting reinforcements breaks the game...like alot of things. This particular issue is particularly noxious because it emphasizes how monsters are just MOBS in a computer file, not actual creatures in an actual world--if the monsters try to pretend to be part of the world in a natural way (i.e., getting help when in trouble), the game just can't handle it.

For what it's worth, the designers weren't thinking Mobile Objects (MObjs) when they made the monsters so two-dimensional. One of the designers has gone on record saying "these monsters are going to live for, what, five rounds? So that's only five things they can do before they die or are otherwise out of the story." Functionally the same, I know, just thought I'd try to exorcise that vidya gaem taint that smells like troll. (I'll try to find the source of that quote so it can be properly cited.) --NotBrandX 18:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite true, and an important concept. I was using it on a forum to demonstrate why fights generally take 7 rounds, following with why battles at paragon typically take 2.5 hours. I'm' sure you'll find the quote somewhere read it a few times myself. Funny thing is, most monsters only have 2 distinct attacks, tops.--Doom

Why, just last Sunday I had an enemy flee and grab some help, I just threw a couple additional enemies at them. They had no problem dealing with. I guess it's just a DM's mistake, not the game ENTIRELY BREAKING as you so strangely word it. So it plays fine, you just seem to think it doesn't because it makes you sound credible, but nobody's buying it, cut it out.

Yes, the DM obviously made a mistake there, since if they went for help, the monsters would go to the next encounter, not just spawn a couple monsters, as opposed to monsters that were actually in the game world. In games with reasonably intelligent DMs, however, going and get reinforcements breaks the game, hence the world becomes a degenerate one, where monsters literally cannot interract with nearby monsters. But you're definitely right, using an example with a stupid DM doesn't demonstrate a thing. Back to the point, it's a common criticism of an unpleasant flaw in the 4e game design. -- Doom

As for "vandalism," I assume an example might refer to me altering where it says that potions simply allow you to spend a healing surge, in the criticisms section? -Zabasaz May 13, 2010

Among many other vandalizations on your part. Of course, the real criticism is that, without a healing surge being spent by the player, the 'magic potion' can't heal the player...yet again, your vandalism demonstrates that you simply do not understand what you are talking about, which is why you are repeatedly asked to stop vandalizing that section. I have to ask, why don't you want players to know that picking a nonstandard race/class combo just means a -1 to most all die rolls? This seems much more clear than 'not a significant'...is the obfuscation that important for you? It's just a -1, after all, why not be honest with it?--Doom

So if I put something that damages the credibility of a criticism into the criticism, it's vandalism? So, you putting that all classes have identical choices and that unconventional race/class combos get a "-1 to most rolls" in a benefit to damage its meaning is vandalism. Therefore you admit that if I am a vandal, you, too, are a vandal. Your logic, rage-motivated and shaky though it was, is falling apart at the seams, Doom. You seem mad to the point that you believe it is simply wrong for anyone to like 4e. You know what other demographic behaves this way? Religious extremists.

And why should I need to tell them about the potential -1 to rolls? The criticisms whine about it at length, they'll find it there. If you're saying it is a criticism, it will remain a criticism. If you want to put it in the benefits, take it out of the criticisms as an admittance that it's not a criticism. You can't have both - this page isn't there simply for you to be mad about 4e in public. So pick one. -Zabasaz May 14, 2010

But why not tell the truth? All classes do have identical choices. A wizard has 4 options for new abilities at level 7. A fighter has 4 options at level 7. A rogue has 4 options. How is 4 not identical to 4? I guess if you want to argue that WoTC designed the game badly and most of those options suck and so shouldn't count, you've got a point...but that seems more of a criticism. 4 = 4 identically, not similarly, honest. Just be honest, is all...it's changing one word that more accurately presents the situation, unlike your smears that ever miss the issue.--Doom

For your next point of confusion, not getting the +2 to a favored attribute means you're rolling 1 lower than everyone else on every combat die roll...basically a '-1 to hit', permanently, nothing 'potential' about it, simple statement of mathematical fact. You say it's 'not significant', and I can respect that point of view (much like tobacco companies say there is no significant evidence that smoking causes lung cancer) but why not trust people to make up their own minds, and just say the truth. You can't understand that a benefit to some is a drawback for others, obviously. Doubtless it's due to your endless intolerant nerdrage, your poor hands must shake with fury as you type. I've never said in any way it's wrong for folks to like 4e...you're delusional here. Hoping to have you nerdrage yourself into an aneurysm, I've taken the liberty of addressing some of your 'benefits'. Have fun with that, and thank you for ceasing your vandalism campaign. Now if I can get you to accept that people can make better, informed, decisions when given the simple truth instead of obfuscations, we'll finally have some peace.--Doom

No two classes have the four same choices, though. So, that argument isn't really going anywhere for you. And me and a friend who both play 4e have concluded that a -1 in the grand scheme of things is generally inconsequential compared to the richness of playing your favored race, which is our words as actual players against your words as "claimed to play and yet talks down to the system like he'd never touch it." So I mean, your logic seems reasonable when YOU hear it... but... ;) -Zabasaz May 16, 2010

Identical NUMBER. Number. A quantity. A numerical number of things. Same number. The number of choices, they are the same. Same number. It's the same number. Get it yet? Same number. Identical number. The number of options are equal. Identically equal same number of options. Making any progress? Same number of choices. The number, a quantity, is equal in all cases. Still no luck? Number picks same. Equal picks same number. Anything?

Ok, so in your opinion, and some random person (again, check the internet, lots of folks know otherwise), -1 is 'not significant. So the -1 doesn't detract from your argument. Thank you for finally conceding it belongs there. No so sure where this richness comes from, however, as no race has any background or culture associated beyond a few sentences at best.

A WIZARD AND A PSION IN 3.5E BOTH GET FIVE BONUS FEATS. ROGUES AND CLERICS BOTH CAN GO TO 20 LEVELS. SAME CLASS. If you're going solely by quantity for that argument, you've already lost. Which you are, so you lose. Some random person would refer to my friend who I and many others respect as a really effective power-gamer (but still a role player I'd trust in my game to role play) so when he tells me "-1 won't mean shit in the long run," I know it's the truth. If you're going to cry all day about being short one on your +23 versus AC 4d10+whatever attack, oh nooooes, 4e is bad gaem. Also, I can't expect you to understand what flavor comes out of playing an interesting race and role playing, since you go by the name "Doom," I mean come on, how much more Mary Sue can you get? --Zabasaz 17:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You're off the deep end here. We're not talking about 3.5, we're talking about 4e. So, going by any measure of rational, it's game over for you. You really should stop posting until you get the medication correct. And thank you for clarifying more fully that -1 isn't a penalty, so you'll have no problem with that being there. --Doom

By the way, nice try on the whole "they're discontinuing 4e with the essentials line," right, just after releasing MM3 and Dark Sun, some random 4e-butthurt troll on the internet says 4e is over. Anyone is going to believe that. Trust me, if it was actually getting canned, we'd know without your help. That said, I'm done with you. By the way, has anyone ever called you immature? Because I've noticed a lot of your arguments amount to "I know you are, but what am I?" --Zabasaz 04:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm just following what WoTC says. I don't think they're lying, but I respect your belief that they are. Squirt all you want, then go away. Note that documentation has been provided, and you've acknowledged -1 isn't a significant penalty, so you can stop changing that now. Thanks. --Doom

I'll only stop taking the -1 out when you take it being a significant penalty out of the Criticisms. Like I said, you can't have both. You're welcome. -Zabasaz 15:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, more of that pyschotic intolerance that you're famous for. I've decided leaving it in makes more sense. When combined with the other patently stupid stuff you say, it demonstrates even more the issues with the system. You're welcome, too. --Doom

4E Skill Challenges

You do know the idea of a skill challenge is that between rolls you are making choices and role playing. It's not like the DM just says, "Here's a cliff, roll me some athletics checks." It takes place over time; it's not hard for a DM to make a good one. --Zabasaz 00:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, ok. Also, I hear the price of eggs in China is up a bit.