The Gaming Den

Kaelik wrote:Congratulations. You have proven to everyone's satisfaction that you are dumber then a box of rocks. You can now stop trying to be as intentionally stupid as possible.

If you're measuring the average amount of damage a PC is capable of doing in 4th Edition D&D, why would you call it DPS? You're going to measure it round by round, because those are the units of time that combat takes place in. It's misleading to call it DPS when using exact numbers, because that implies that you would have to divide your per-round calculations by 6.

What makes more sense?

This rogue build deals an average of 12 damage per round.

or

This rogue build deals an average of 2 damage per second.

Get it now?

Also I'm glad you've ignored my other points to make a faulty ad hominem attack. Way to lose the argument. Yes, saying "DPS" or "DPR" to talk about dealing damage is partially a semantics thing. But you actually insisted on calling it DPS because a round is 6 seconds. It's still misleading to call it DPS in a round-based tabletop game if you're trying to be at all precise. If you're trying to use "DPS" as a general term for "damage output", then ignore the 6 second round emphasis and just say the latter.

But then again, you just oversimplified and generalized how 4e plays to try to say that roles are non-existent, so I'm not surprised.

Also, I'm not getting where some of you are calling 4e inherently unimmersive. If you don't like the flavor of the setting, that's totally understandable. There are better ones. Some people are able to improvise to make the setting more interesting to them and their group.

What gets me the most is that you don't even need dice to roleplay, so why would you use 4e's dice-driven mechanics as a reason for its "bad roleplaying system"? I guess some people just like making excuses for having bad imaginations.

NoobCrusher wrote:Also, I'm not getting where some of you are calling 4e inherently unimmersive. If you don't like the flavor of the setting, that's totally understandable. There are better ones. Some people are able to improvise to make the setting more interesting to them and their group.

What gets me the most is that you don't even need dice to roleplay, so why would you use 4e's dice-driven mechanics as a reason for its "bad roleplaying system"? I guess some people just like making excuses for having bad imaginations.

Because inherently, by definition when used in reference to the entire edition means exactly that. The entire edition is inherently anti conducive to roleplay. It is by no means setting specific.

In any case, having to fix critical design flaws by doing it yourself eliminates any and all reason to use that system. Just make up your own things for free.

The moment you attempt to put any thought into how things work, you are immediately cock slapped by over 9,000 dumbfucks, and as you are coated in slimy pre you realize the true horror of your predicament - you are not playing a game of imagination and creativity. You are in a bad MMO run off a terrible box.

And as you are again slapped by the many large, semi flaccid members you realize something else, even more horrid. They will not stop shoving it into your face until you BEG for more.

NoobCrusher wrote:Some people are able to improvise to make the setting more interesting to them and their group.

I guess some people just like making excuses for having bad imaginations.

Shut your fucking face, unclefucker.

This kind of passive-aggressive crap may slip past the filters on other boards, but around here we recognize it for what it is: cowardly. If you want to insult people, at least have the courage to do so honestly. It not like you're using your real name or face.

Lmfao. I think we just smited him at exactly the same instant.

NC wrote:If you're measuring the average amount of damage a PC is capable of doing in 4th Edition D&D, why would you call it DPS? You're going to measure it round by round, because those are the units of time that combat takes place in. It's misleading to call it DPS when using exact numbers, because that implies that you would have to divide your per-round calculations by 6.

No. Because DPR means "Dick to Pussy Resuscitation" and when you say it you sound like a god damned moron. You're like one of those stupid fucking teabagger protesters. Even if someone agrees with your basic message, they have to admit that you're as retarded appearing as a man making a legal point with sperm dripping down his chin.

DPS is the internationally approved of acronym for damage per unit time. We don't say DPR because that means to wake someone up by initiating sexual intercourse. Similarly we don't say "DOT" (for Damage Over Time) because that's already taken by abilities that do continuous damage for a period of time.

While you would be well within your rights to refer to the concept of how much damage you were doing in a set amount of time as "damage over time" since you would mathematically write that concept D/t - the DOT acronym is fucking taken. And while you could try to be a cute fucker and try to stress the turn based nature of 4e D&D by switching up the agreed upon standard nomenclature from DPS to DPR but you do so only by sounding like a pretentious and fucking stupid fan wank. So don't do it.

-Username17

angelfromanotherpin wrote: Shut your fucking face, unclefucker.

This kind of passive-aggressive crap may slip past the filters on other boards, but around here we recognize it for what it is: cowardly. If you want to insult people, at least have the courage to do so honestly. It not like you're using your real name or face.

Yes, it really takes courage to insult people "honestly" over the internet. Like you, with your brave "shut your fucking face, unclefucker". Real good stuff there, sir.

FrankTrollman wrote: No. Because DPR means "Dick to Pussy Resuscitation" and when you say it you sound like a god damned moron. You're like one of those stupid fucking teabagger protesters. Even if someone agrees with your basic message, they have to admit that you're as retarded appearing as a man making a legal point with sperm dripping down his chin.

And you sound like a god damned moron for not being able to tell that, given the context in which DPR is being used, it means Damage Per Round and not some ridiculous urbandictionary slang. Hell, I've only actually said "DPR" once in this thread and I put it in quotes. Every other time I've actually said Damage Per Round. Acronyms are just shorthand for their full meaning, and DPS means Damage Per Second, which is dumb to use for a tabletop game if you're actually using it for measurement, as the term implies. Durrrrrr.

I like the name signature, by the way. Couldn't tell I was reading a post by FrankTrollman.

-NoobCrusher

The DPS thing is just snark; don't worry about it too much.

As far as this goes, however:

What gets me the most is that you don't even need dice to roleplay, so why would you use 4e's dice-driven mechanics as a reason for its "bad roleplaying system"? I guess some people just like making excuses for having bad imaginations.

Okay, here's a scenario for you:

So Robin Hood holds down the fort until King Richard comes back and decides to try his luck at finding the Holy Grail. It doesn't go too well and most of his men (who were not so Merry after all) frickin' desert him despite his pleading. So he decides to solo it for awhile, maybe find some allies to help him on his quest.

While he's wandering Jerusalem, he hears a horrible rumor. To his surprise the king is an even bigger bastard than Prince John was--establishing primae noctis, worshipping heathen gods, 85% taxes, and burning down fortresses. Apparently, his services are needed again but he gets all angsty and grim because this time he'd be disposing of a real king and the country would be thrown into chaos. But he might as well show up again.

Despite being in foreign territory, Robin Hood still manages to get a tcrew together because he's motherfucking Robin Hood. Just because he had one crew desert him doesn't mean he can't find another, even if their skins are brown and they don't worship his god they way he wants them to.

So he sets sail back to his homeland. Along the way, he's ambushed by pirates twice; the first time he's able to use his elite archery skills and ability to train commoners into badass archers in the span of a week instead of years to fend them off. The second time, though, he needs to use evasive manuevers because there are more of them. Fortunately for him, he has a crackerjack team of buddies and they use every trick in the book to slip by the pirates. Including a few that weren't invented yet, because he has guys from Ethiopia and even friggin' India helping him out.

So his crew eventually gets there and gets off of the ship and they're greeted with a nasty surprise; the witch killed off in the last movie is not only back from the dead, but she has greater powers than ever! She demonstrates this by conjuring a sandstorm in the middle of the forest while Robin's New Merry Men are trying to get back to their secret base. By luck and preseverance, most of them manage to make it to the camp and see what's left of the Old Merry Men. Immediately tensions set in as this new group meets the old and they don't like each other. And then it starts to come up that the treasure Robin Hood squirreled away in his hideout to pay some of his mercenaries is no longer there because they had to use it to buy food for the starving villagers. So now Robin Hood has a bunch of shit on his plate. 1) Smooth the feathers between the New crew and the Old crew. 2) Find a way to feed the people that are now starving. 3) Find a way to pay some of the people he came with them.



Now here's where the bullshit comes in--except for the part where they fight pirates, 4E D&D has absolutely zero mechanics that will influence how that story progressed or will progress! Every goddamn thing up until then was sandboxed.

That's what people are talking about when they say that this edition is unimmersive. When you want to do an adventure like Robin Hood's Return, you can't use it while playing 4E. Now I'm not saying that 3E was much better, because the decision points and plot twists pretty much boiled down to 'roll this skill' or 'have this feat'. But it wasn't THIS bad, no sir!

Roy wrote: Because inherently, by definition when used in reference to the entire edition means exactly that. The entire edition is inherently anti conducive to roleplay. It is by no means setting specific.

In any case, having to fix critical design flaws by doing it yourself eliminates any and all reason to use that system. Just make up your own things for free.

The moment you attempt to put any thought into how things work, you are immediately cock slapped by over 9,000 dumbfucks, and as you are coated in slimy pre you realize the true horror of your predicament - you are not playing a game of imagination and creativity. You are in a bad MMO run off a terrible box.

And as you are again slapped by the many large, semi flaccid members you realize something else, even more horrid. They will not stop shoving it into your face until you BEG for more.

Gosh, you're right. I'd be absolutely disturbed to find out that my positive experiences roleplaying in 4th Ed games have actually been negative. Non-specificity in a setting is actually a flaw, and that cannot be fairly easily adapted into an environment of your choosing. Those games I have played in/am currently playing in where such is the case are actually flavorless and bland. Thanks for opening my eyes, Roy.

Words have meaning. When people use words consistently to mean a specific thing, fighting against it doesn't make any sense.

Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish by not using the DPS nomenclature? It's a word. It means "damage per unit time," which is exactly the concept you're trying to get across. There is nothing whatever wrong with it. You're free to not use acronyms just as you're free to not use contractions. But don't flip out on people who do use the acronyms and contractions of our shared language in their standard usages. It is at best proof of a very poor mastery of the English language and a very poor understanding of one's own mastery level. At worst it's just a blatant distraction as you act like a fuckhole to try to divert attention away from your own flawed arguments to some semantics game.

Right now you're ranking up with asshats who "correct" people who say "octopuses" with the word "octopi." You don't have to use the word "DPS" just as you don't have to use the word "Can't" - but you are required to not be a dick to people for writing correct English on an English language forum.

-Username17

NoobCrusher wrote:

Roy wrote: Because inherently, by definition when used in reference to the entire edition means exactly that. The entire edition is inherently anti conducive to roleplay. It is by no means setting specific.

In any case, having to fix critical design flaws by doing it yourself eliminates any and all reason to use that system. Just make up your own things for free.

The moment you attempt to put any thought into how things work, you are immediately cock slapped by over 9,000 dumbfucks, and as you are coated in slimy pre you realize the true horror of your predicament - you are not playing a game of imagination and creativity. You are in a bad MMO run off a terrible box.

And as you are again slapped by the many large, semi flaccid members you realize something else, even more horrid. They will not stop shoving it into your face until you BEG for more.

Gosh, you're right. I'd be absolutely disturbed to find out that my positive experiences roleplaying in 4th Ed games have actually been negative. Non-specificity in a setting is actually a flaw, and that cannot be fairly easily adapted into an environment of your choosing. Those games I have played in/am currently playing in where such is the case are actually flavorless and bland. Thanks for opening my eyes, Roy.

I was about to call you on not flailing for me. But you delivered while I was writing that. Good.

It's nice you've had good Magical Tea Party sessions. However, this is completely fucking irrelevant to 4.Fail. Cease your obfuscation at once. The moment you cease ignoring the edition, and actually fucking play it, you realize just what a soul sucker it is. Kinda like a mentally teenage girl. As in a woman with the mindset of a teen leecher, regardless of chronological age.

The rest is just you writing words that don't actually fucking say anything.

Except maybe 'WAH, Roy is a Meanieface!'

And since all the cool kids are doing it...

-Roy

Roy wrote: It's nice you've had good Magical Tea Party sessions. However, this is completely fucking irrelevant to 4.Fail. Cease your obfuscation at once. The moment you cease ignoring the edition, and actually fucking play it, you realize just what a soul sucker it is. Kinda like a mentally teenage girl. As in a woman with the mindset of a teen leecher, regardless of chronological age.

sorry you don't like 4e? maybe you can put it in more concise terms with examples like Lago over here has, instead of trying to belittle my games you know nothing about by calling them Magical Tea Parties? D&D has always been combat-centric, but trying to say that it's completely incapable of facilitating an immersive world via analogies that only mean something to you is as fail as you claim 4e to be. Speaking of writing words that don't actually say anything of substance.

-NoobCrusher

FrankTrollman wrote:Words have meaning. When people use words consistently to mean a specific thing, fighting against it doesn't make any sense.

yeah, and DPS means Damage Per Second.

FrankTrollman wrote: Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish by not using the DPS nomenclature? It's a word. It means "damage per unit time," which is exactly the concept you're trying to get across.

Damage per round is a lot more apt than calling it damage per second. I've already demonstrated why, so at this point you're either just trolling or being retarded. Or both, because you're doing a bad job of the former.

FrankTrollman wrote:At worst it's just a blatant distraction as you act like a fuckhole to try to divert attention away from your own flawed arguments to some semantics game.

Arguments you've failed to address several times by throwing insults and selectively picking at semantics. If my arguments are so flawed, why haven't you countered them? I've responded to your comments directly and you've glossed over mine.

-NoobCrusher

NC wrote:Arguments you've failed to address several times by throwing insults and selectively picking at semantics. If my arguments are so flawed, why haven't you countered them? I've responded to your comments directly and you've glossed over mine.

Yes you did. Other people responded on my behalf because your refutation was completely laughable and I laughed at it. But here it is for my own refutation:

NC wrote:No. A mark is an attack roll penalty to an enemy. An AC buff is a direct boost to armor class that would apply to all attacks targeting AC.

You have to be fucking kidding me. You presented a bonus to the DC of a d20 roll as being fundamentally different - enough to justify the creation of an entirely different role from a penalty to the exact same d20 roll. That is totally ridiculous. That's stupid, and you should feel stupid. Because the core mechanic of the game is that you roll a d20, apply modifiers, and compare the result to the modified DC. There are no special effects for getting double the DC (or whatever), a +1 to one is literally exactly the same as a -1 to the other. The two are inseparable.

But beyond that, Shielding Smite is a 1st level "Defender" power that grants bonuses to AC, while Break the Tempo is a "Leader" power that grants penalties to Attack Rolls. Even if we particularly cared about the semantic difference between a penalty to the attack and a bonus to the defense which we don't, the fact remains that your underlying claim that this difference constitutes a meaningful distinction between Leaders and Defenders is comical and unworthy of discussion.

It's not simply that the difference doesn't matter. It's that the difference doesn't exist.

-Username17

NoobCrusher wrote:

Roy wrote: It's nice you've had good Magical Tea Party sessions. However, this is completely fucking irrelevant to 4.Fail. Cease your obfuscation at once. The moment you cease ignoring the edition, and actually fucking play it, you realize just what a soul sucker it is. Kinda like a mentally teenage girl. As in a woman with the mindset of a teen leecher, regardless of chronological age.

sorry you don't like 4e? maybe you can put it in more concise terms with examples like Lago over here has, instead of trying to belittle my games you know nothing about by calling them Magical Tea Parties? D&D has always been combat-centric, but trying to say that it's completely incapable of facilitating an immersive world via analogies that only mean something to you is as fail as you claim 4e to be. Speaking of writing words that don't actually say anything of substance.

-NoobCrusher

Idiot.

Magical Tea Party, just like the game played by 5 year old girls doesn't have any rules, and doesn't have anything to do with anything. It's just making up random crap without any rhyme or reason. It accurately describes anything outside the rules of the game... like roleplaying.

Also, assumptions make an ass out of you and me. I said 4.Fail was incapable of facilitating an immersive world. Not D&D as a whole, and 4.Fail is D&D In Name Only in any case. In earlier editions that stuff comes from an admixture of Tea Party and the rules, to get something consistent with the rules... like characters realizing they aren't hindered by non mortal injuries, because they aren't within the rules of the game world. In 4.Fail, you can try to do the same thing, but the rules will actively chain cock slap you at every turn, because you're just some figure on a 5 foot square closet battle map, ya know? Now go grind on MOBs.

Along the same lines, Magical Tea Party is standard terminology here. You might as well whine someone said 'trigonometry' in a discussion about math.

Just to annoy you...

-Roy

Also, apparently the dumbfuck doesn't get how opposed roll math works. Since Frank already covered the smite, I'll just leave it at that.

Signing posts is fun. I see why Frank does it all the time.

-Roy

Holy fucking shit, you stupid assclown cock-for-brains dickwhore. DPS connotatively means damage over time. Yes, its denotation means DAMAGE PER SECOND PLEASE GARGLE MY BALLS, but, you worthless shitstain, in this particular instance, people are using it to refer to goddamn damage per round because it's less fuckwitted than DPR. You know why? Because everyone fucking knows what DPS is. You're going to have to explain to them what DPR means, and that's a waste of goddamn time, much like what I'm writing right now.

Some people are able to improvise to make the setting more interesting to them and their group.

I guess some people just like making excuses for having bad imaginations.

To agree with what others have said: drink bleach, you stupid twat. This is the kind of horseshit that goes on at RPG.net and the WotC forums. That kind of dickery doesn't fly here.

As long as you are linking or including definitions of your TLA (the letter acronyms), it doesn't matter if you're using one over the other.

However, such is the folly of using acronyms without looking at what others may have used it for.

Hence, if you use 'DPR' on a website with people who are familiar with foul language, you probably shouldn't argue about it, but just define it in each post. That's what signatures are for, anyhow.

-Crissa

Win.

4E is anti-immersive because so many of its powers require you to stop thinking - i.e. are pure combat mechanics - and disallow you to use them in "clever" ways outside combat, or in ways not intended.

I must say, on the subject of acronyms, some time ago I decided that Acronymlande is a terrible place to be if you're in a discussion where there are multiple backgrounds participating in a conversation (and thus not necessarily a shared language). However, when I did that, I flailed at people and told them to explain what their letters mean (or just use straight-out words) and myself obstinately refused to use acronyms at all. Telling someone to use a different acronym is just asinine. Nowadays I'm less likely to fail to recognize an acronym, but still.

I wanna be cool too!

-Kaelik

Let's all just chill here. You're totally getting into the 'OMFG, we won, but at what cost? In fighting monsters, we have become monsters ourselves!!' bullshit.

I approve of comparing classes based on DPR. For example, in 3e Paladins had to be Lawful Good, so they weren't very effective at DPR. However, in 4e Paladins can be of any alignment, so their DPR opportunities have increased significantly. Rogues, meanwhile, continue to do it from behind, so they still suffer in that area.

Crusher, you don't get to accuse someone else of "picking at semantics" when you were the fool who started this pointless DPS vs DPR debate with a pointless WoW snark.

NoobCrusher wrote:I think you might be playing too much WoW, because in D&D it's actually DPR (Damage Per Round).