• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

D&D Adventurer WIP Blog Pt. II

Matthew Schroeder said:
Hl3 or bust said:
would you like to list all these "quite many others" and their complaints?
Click to expand...
From memory alone I know Azzy, Dragonmasterxyz, Kepekley, Sera, and some others are against it. It's mostly because the D&D fandom is crafting out a niche within the wiki that's been primarily isolated from the rest of the site that they haven't encountered much open opposition until recently.
Click to expand...
would you happen to have their complaints on hand?

D&D has been criticized......................because it's new? I'll admit that the current ratings can seem weird for someone who looked away for too long, but that's not a legitimate reason to question a verse
 
> Kep

Just said he's neutral.

> Dragon

Yes, I am aware of this one and his list of other people who feel the verse is above its station.

> Azzy

If it's going to be made into a full profile, that's...a bit tricky. Not really sure we should go through with that one, which is how I feel with a lot of composite things in general when used in vs threads. But I dunno. I rather stay out of it, for now.
Azzy disagrees with the premise of a composite in general. His only other words on the subject were that in 5e it would be impossible (which isn't true for other versions, if we're using the lowest point of each version we may as well restrict everyone to Level 3, since that's the highest OG D&D went).
 
Kepekley23 said:
I don't have an opinion on anything, actually. I used to doubt the High 1-B rating, but that has been clarified, so I'm just looking at this thread and waiting for everything to be laid out.
Click to expand...
I think Matt's main issues were the Tier 1 stuff and just the concept. The other tiers are backed by calcs or feats and should be non-issues
 
"Yes? Never had a chance? How long were the profiles like that, I wonder. Since Corellon was made in early 2017 and Aeyu isn't even on that revision list. And... do you? You trust Aeyu? This may be the root of the problem, one feels. "

Why do you act as if this is a sin? Talking about root of problems and using reticence as if this is a shocking twist of events. It's just a matter of diverging opinions, nothing major.

"I could only begin to guess motives for attacking the two other tabletop verses on the wiki aside from Warhammer. One does not need to know motive to know that such a thing is happening, however."

Are you implying I'm against D&D because I'm a Warhammer fanboy? I'm hardly focused on Warhammer currently, and if you would notice I have opposed Azathoth many times in Warhammer Upgrade threads. The notion that this is an internal war between different fandoms is utterly absurd.

Furthermore, Warhammer does not feature such things like a "Composite Space Marine" profile. We only go with canon things and not fan / player creations which are allowed by rules. Warhammer has traditional Tabletop RPGs on top of the Wargames, so it's technically valid to make one. But of course it's not legitimate in the slightest.

""Not seeing it the same" is subjective point of view. I am offering objective truth. Objectively, the profile gives access to all information needed on the given character"

It's not a matter of objective fact, not in the slightest. If it were there wouldn't be any need for discussion of any kind on anything. This is diverging opinions on how strong a character - or in this case a non-canonical thought experiment - is, not a statement of an exact science.
 
"Azzy disagrees with the premise of a composite in general"

So do I, not sure how this is meant to be a point of discussion. You act as if no one can even question your profile much less disagree with you, as if your opinion is fact and all else is folly.
 
1: Aeyu's opinion is entirely irrelevant because he was banned

2: "We only go with canon things and not fan / player creations which are allowed by rules.

this is actually the same case with CA except for in 5e as already stated

3: Scans are objective, regardless of your opinion. This is only not the case if they've been doctored, which is extremely rare
 
1. Aeyu is a she and a few banned members still contribute to the wiki if you would know. Both Everlasting and Aeyu namely.

2. CA isn't canon nor an objective character. It's a fanfic essentially.

3. Scans are interpretative, and have to be discussed. The fact that we've had lenghty discussions over the interpretation of a single scan in this thread proves my point.
 
It is a matter of you "trusting Aeyu's judgement on the verse" when Aeyu clearly did very little with the verse to begin with, whereas we have actually dissected the verse and put it back together again. It is a matter of you trusting anyone who isn't actively working on the verse more than the people working on it.

And you're implying I'm using fan-made things when I'm clearly not, and then saying "Well I just don't feel like this is legitimate" when literally everything on the profile links back to scans of canon content. Nothing on CA is "fan-made", as you so eloquently put it. It is all canon content available to the player.

There isn't need for this discussion. People are having this discussion for motives unknown other than the character being strange and new. You can go through and check every single link and quote and it is all canon- you have yet to give an example of these so called "Fan Made" things you keep referring to.
 
1: That seems very suspicious. Having people who were banned still doing things behind the scenes

2: CA is literally a buildable character if you have the patience for it. It is not a fanfic, and is more doable than things like Composite Link which you've never had an issue with before it seems

3: Scans state things. What is stated and what it means are interpreted.
 
CA is canon. Literally the entire game revolves around the existence of the character and the choices they make, the places they go, and the skills they obtain. It is simply not a linear canon.
 
@Zach

Not a good argument in the slightest.

@Bambu

So apparently, you assume that we dislike the verse and are not a fan of new things and as such we question the verse? If we decide that we don't agree with the scans, with everything else on this site we can say we disagree, research on our own and post are arguments. DnD is not some verse that is unfairly questioned. Don't play the victim card here. You are simply snapping. The questioning of verses is common on this site. Every verse has had it's fair share of questioning. Pokemon, Digimon, TES, Dragon Ball, God of War, Saint Seiya, World of Darkness, Masadaverse, Umineko, I/O, etc, etc have all been questioned in the past. Some even moreso than others.

@Opponents and Supporters alike

People also need to stop acting like what they believe scans or not, is 100% correct. I heavily disagree with a lot of things regarding DnD in terms of abilities. Doesn't mean I am necessarily correct about my doubts. However, as many people will know, you can have multiple blogs of info and still have a verse be question even with all the sources. (Kep was the biggest opponent, for Digimon mind and soul abilities. However, we settled things in a CIVIL conversation and the addition of more scans and blogs). One side needs to act more with respect. It's okay to be blunt, but many times, things can come across as just rude. It's not that damn hard to be nice. As for the other. Stop being so damn whiney that your verse is being questioned. Stop devolving into personal attacks. Stop taking this shit personally. Eventually it comes down to whether your scans are accepted which is what Content Revisions are for. It's not the fault of only one side, but both sides to be blunt. This entire DnD situation is ridiculous and has become very toxic. The actions of those in play prove this much. Grow up and chill out. If you got an issue, feel free to point it out. If you disagree with said issue, how about we don't play the Ad Hominem game and start throwing temper tantrums, hmm?

@Hl3

FYI we do allow the likes of Ever to give his opinion on things. See Blazblue and Zelda threads.
 
@Bambu

People have lives. People have other projects. People cannot always contribute to the wiki. Some of the most intelligent and reliable members on this website are not always the most active. Number of contributions isn't inherently an argument for reliability. You aren't objectively a more trustworthy source whose knowledge I should bend over for.

You're a normal person with opinions that can participate in discussions, and whose ideas and profiles can be questioned.

Again, you strawman my point as you have continuously. Composite Adventurer is fanmade. It's something literally invented by you. It is not an official and legitimate character in no way, shape, or form. And you try to pass it as acceptable and reliable and realistic through what can generously be described as legal technicalities, even though it is the result of symptomatic adding of abilities, skills, classes, feats regardless of consistency, possibility, believability and rule complications.

There is absolutely a need for a discussion. There is absolutely a need to discuss everything, your profile and ideas included. The wiki isn't run by you nor do you have absolute authority over the state of D&D profiles. Right now all you're doing is attemping to silence discussion by positioning yourself as an unquestionable authority in the verse who shouldn't be discussed, while dismissing concerns from members and staff alike by attributing unknowable shady secret motives to them.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
ALSO. We've only had a "lengthy discussion" because you failed to read the scans. Your failure to do so does not indicate illegitimacy of the scans, at all.
Click to expand...
Previously on this same thread I politely asked you to stop referring to the time I accidently missed a line while reading a scan as if it were a "checkmate" against me. But it seems not only you aren't complying, but you are relying on it as a strawman clutch to present me as being ignorant and having no arguments. I would appreciate if you acted more reasonable here.
 
I don't think I'm a victim at all. I think D&D has riled people up and is now on the chopping block for retribution. Saying that you disagree with scans is literally saying you disagree with the canon of the game itself. I'm not even sure where that concept has come from.

Doubting things is fine. I can provide you with any resources you need. I have said this multiple times, I am open to giving out any explanations I can or sending you to a more knowledgeable party on that subject if such a thing exists (such as Qawsed for older versions or Zeromaru for the Dawn War). This is not doubt- this is blind refusal until the point has been beaten to death. I'm sick (literally) and tired (literally, too) of being distracted from actual progress being made because nobody can wrap their minds around the scans. They say it all. As for now, I'm gonna go play No Man's Sky and enjoy the ever-living hell out of it coz this has gotten old.
 
1: I can admit that this is true, but you need to take your own advice in my opinion

2: If CA is such a massive issue, then why not bring up the same complains with Composite Link? Composite Link is literally unmakable, but CA is

3:

first half: This is true

second half: Bambu has never even remotely acted like what you're saying here. He has posted as many scans as humanly possible to make it so that discussion is only about things that genuinely need to be discussed. And about that last bit, it certainly seems shady when people who have been banned are continueing to do things on the wiki, as if they had unfinished business
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
Composite Link is still one single character.
Click to expand...
Just coming to say that this isn't 100% true. Multiple Links aren't part of the Spirit of the Hero from Skyward Sword (the most easy one to see is WW!Link, which is outright stated by the King of Red Lions to not have a connection to OoT!Link), and I could argue that Four Swords and Minish Cap aren't part of it either.

-

Aside from that:

I believe the reason it was ended up as Composite Adventurer instead of Composite (Class) was that any character can multiclass into another, and that would just have been the same as it
 
"I don't think I'm a victim at all. I think D&D has riled people up and is now on the chopping block for retribution."

Incorrect. It's a verse like any other which is being questioned and rightfully so by people because of what they perceive as inaccurate or doubtful. This is exactly what Dragonmasterxyz meant by victimhood. The notion that you and / or your verse are suffering with unjust persecution.

"Saying that you disagree with scans is literally saying you disagree with the canon of the game itself. I'm not even sure where that concept has come from."

Incorrect. Disagreeing with your interpretation of a sca is what's going on here. For instance, one scan says that:

  • Immortals as they are are at best 5D
  • If they were unrestricted they would ascend to higher dimensions and "transcend all boundaries"
This is the factual statement of the scan. The interpretation that this justifies an ever-ascending transfinite number of higher-dimensional existence... That is your opinion, your interpretation, and that is what I questioned.

Not the scan itself, but your interpretation of it.

"This is not doubt- this is blind refusal until the point has been beaten to death. I'm sick (literally) and tired (literally, too) of being distracted from actual progress being made because nobody can wrap their minds around the scans"

If you are literally sick in real life over this, maybe you should step down and preferably do something else during your New Year's Eve. As I've said to the likes of Weekly and Cal in the past, it's not healthy to become so attached to a profile on a wiki.
 
Sorry to interrupt this drama that's going on here at the moment, but I've got some questions regarding the scans used here. From what I saw you're using the "Dungeons & Dragons Guide to Immortals" from the 1983 "Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set". Since then there have been 2 revisions one in 1991 and another in 1994, and there haven't been any mention, that I could find, on Immortals and the Old Ones and the way the planes work. I have been unable to find the 1991 and 1994 revisions, so do you have the scans showing they haven't been retconned in other revisions?
 
Kepekley23 said:
Mr. Bambu said:
They say it all. As for now, I'm gonna go play No Man's Sky and enjoy the ever-living hell out of it coz this has gotten old.
Click to expand...
No Man's Sky is a pile of broken dreams bro. I don't recommend it.
Click to expand...
Beautiful game, like playing meditation as a video game. Plus I need those 40,000,000 credits to get the girthy ship. I loved it before they fixed it and still love it.

I'm weird. Also. I'm gonna purposefully ignore the discussion at hand, but Matt, nah it's just cold as hell and everyone has the flu lol. Got it from my baby brother I suspect, the traitor.
 
@Lephyr

I get that, but what I meant is that every Link is an incarnation of the Hero of Courage. They will most always be related to a Zelda, who's an incarnation of the Goddess Hylia and wields the Triforce of Courage, and will often oppose an incarnation of Demise who wields the Triforce of Power. And in doing so will usually wield a powerful sacred sword to stop evil.

It's an endless mythic cycle, basically. All released by the same company, in the same continuity, with events happening in a mostly linear fashion and following one another.

As such, a Composite Link is far more reasonable than a Composite Dungeons & Dragons / Forgotten Realms Adventurer. The former is taking characters who are literal reincarnations of one another, all connected by the same underlying thread, and saying "What if every incarnation were combined into one?"

The former is taking decades of completely unrelated games, campaigns, stories, classes, editions, etc. and smashing it all together into one singular being "because it's technically possible and not disallowed by the rules".

Which is itself debatable see 5th Edition.
 
Dragonmasterxyz said:
Guess what? If you have issues with Composite Link, feel free to make a CRT about it. If not, drop it and leave it be. This is DnD, nothing else.
Click to expand...
I plan on making a thread about composites in general, honestly. I feel our standards are ill-defined
 
Ogbunabali said:
Sorry to interrupt this drama that's going on here at the moment, but I've got some questions regarding the scans used here. From what I saw you're using the "Dungeons & Dragons Guide to Immortals" from the 1983 "Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set". Since then there have been 2 revisions one in 1991 and another in 1994, and there haven't been any mention, that I could find, on Immortals and the Old Ones and the way the planes work. I have been unable to find the 1991 and 1994 revisions, so do you have the scans showing they haven't been retconned in other revisions?
Click to expand...
Wraith of the Immortals does revise the rules of playing an Immortal and does say that it takes precendence over older stuff if there's a contradiction. But the dimensions and Old Ones were still used in that update and seemingly haven't changed. Just with similarly vague details. Of you need links I can PM you some PDFs

As for using it, the updated way to become an Immortal is linked in on for Bambu's explanation blogs
 
As for 5e there is always a chance of a Epic Level update or something. Assuming D&D just doesn't fuse with MtG
 
One think I have to say is that I really appreciate how calm, collected and reasonable Qawsedf234 have being. The fact that he hasn't resorted to accusations or insults even once is admirable, and his behavior is reflected in how he and I managed to reach a consensus on the tiering of the Immortals and Old Ones.

I think everyone here, myself included, has something to learn here
 
If the problem is that Composite (All Ed.) is imposible (which it is). Why not make multiple Composites of the individual editions?

  • gets thrown out by Matt ovo
 
Qawsedf234 said:
Wraith of the Immortals does revise the rules of playing an Immortal and does say that it takes precendence over older stuff if there's a contradiction. But the dimensions and Old Ones were still used in that update and seemingly haven't changed. Just with similarly vague details. Of you need links I can PM you some PDFs

As for using it, the updated way to become an Immortal is linked in on for Bambu's explanation blogs
Click to expand...
Yeah but that's still of based on the 1991 isn't it. But let me rephrase the question is there a reason why these explanations are being used instead of the 5th edition ones since they seem contradictory or does the canon not change edition to edition with d&d?
 
And? It is much simpler and more reasonable Cross-classing across all classes in all editions is absurd. Making single class profiles is much more reasonable, easily comprehensible and acceptable.
 
Its mostly because I used to debate heavily in the Screwattack YouTube comment section and I don't want to get as emotionally triggered as those got.

Like the 60+ comment chain of Toph metal bending Gaara's blood or the multiple 500 response chains of Superman vs Goku.
 
Matt is right about that, btw. Even with the Epic Level Handbook, there is this thing called "multiclassing rules", and you would need a veeeeeeery rewarding DM to do it at all.

Edit: Rewarding and impossibly lenient.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
And? It is much simpler and more reasonable Cross-classing across all classes in all editions is absurd. Making single class profiles is much more reasonable, easily comprehensible and acceptable.
Click to expand...
you do remember composite Wizard right?

that page was awful

you're asking us to repeat that when the point of CA was to replace it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mr. Bambu
Epic (Cool Dudes Only) Dungeons and Dragons Discussion Thread
7 8 9
Replies
342
Views
14K
Drite77
Drite77
XSOULOFCINDERX
  • Locked
D&D Tyrannosaur revisions.
Replies
16
Views
924
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Dinamic8000
About D&D profiles...
Replies
8
Views
2K
Imaginym
Imaginym
Soupywolf5
  • Locked
It's Gamer 'O Clock!
Replies
23
Views
1K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
The_one_you_least_expect
WYRM & BONMEN General discussion
2 3 4
Replies
136
Views
5K
The_one_you_least_expect
The_one_you_least_expect
Back
Top