GrossOldWig wrote:

KillPopRecordsLLC wrote:why would i apologize for asking a question I was just curious about? You guys are just acting like snobby role playing nerd group at high school and you guys jump all over for asking why wizards have 300HP.

I sure hope you guys aren't grown men.

Wizards don't have 300HP.

Stupid.

Well unless they changed the HP rules after 2nd Edition, then the way it would go is something like...

Wizard gets 1d4 HP per level, plus CON bonus (which let's face it, is most likely 0). So with an average of 2.5 HP per level, you'd only have to be level 120 to have 300 HP.

A 120th level wizard would be a force to be reckoned with. Like, the kinda guy who could look at a dragon funny and it would die. More powerful than most of the Gods you'd find in an Unearthed Arcana or Manual of the Planes or whatnot. The kind guy who'd be choking on the ashes of his enemies.

Yeah, grown fucking man right here.

scott wrote:

GrossOldWig wrote:

KillPopRecordsLLC wrote:why would i apologize for asking a question I was just curious about? You guys are just acting like snobby role playing nerd group at high school and you guys jump all over for asking why wizards have 300HP.

I sure hope you guys aren't grown men.

Wizards don't have 300HP.

Stupid.

Well unless they changed the HP rules after 2nd Edition, then the way it would go is something like...

Wizard gets 1d4 HP per level, plus CON bonus (which let's face it, is most likely 0). So with an average of 2.5 HP per level, you'd only have to be level 120 to have 300 HP.

A 120th level wizard would be a force to be reckoned with. Like, the kinda guy who could look at a dragon funny and it would die. More powerful than most of the Gods you'd find in an Unearthed Arcana or Manual of the Planes or whatnot. The kind guy who'd be choking on the ashes of his enemies.

Yeah, grown fucking man right here.

You're right, I should have said, wizards don't typically have 300HP.

4th edition comes out June 7! Maybe there'll be a stat leveling overhaul...

What the fuck are you guys talking about?

otisroom wrote:What the fuck are you guys talking about?

Oh

Whatever, In Utero is the worst Nirvana album anyway.

Yo! this guy aint one of us! throw his ass out ;P.

For the record. Nevermind is the worst album. It goes.

In order of greatness

1)Illiteracy will prevail
2)Incesticide
3)Bleach
4)In utero
5)Nevermind

In Utero may have a better "sound" than Nevermind, but Nevermind has better songs than In Utero. I am always right.

My favorite Nirvana album is Dirt, or whichever one had "Rooster" on it.

Boombats wrote:In Utero may have a better "sound" than Nevermind, but Nevermind has better songs than In Utero. I am always right.

Uhhhhhhhhhh


nah i disagree. I heard nevermind and thought it was pretty damn good but was BLOWN away by the songwriting on in utero. And even from the first time I heard it I thought it was a lot more superior at the time.

I was in my early teens (kurt died when I was 9). I lived in oklahoma most of my life so there wasnt much attention given to rock music. And we didnt have the internet back then. And I knew kurt had died and somehow (maybe I didnt check the dates on the cases) I totally thought Nevermind was their last album. And in utero was release before neveremind.

I guess cause In utero never got any airplay where I lived and teen spirit got some very brief playtime. I think I logically assumed that was their last song or something cause it made so sense why they wouldnt in utero.

But I would listen to in utero and nevermind for a few years after that and I never. NEVER could understood why Nirvana would digress to the sound of nevermind from in utero. You would think a band would progress. Then I did look at the date as I was putting in the cd one day. And realized In Utero came AFTER nevermind which makes a lot more sense and gave me a lot more respect for kurt.