Recent content by Tonester

From my understanding of the rules, Conjurations can only be damaged by attacks that specifically target it. Blast and Burst attacks would work, but only if it can somehow target a creature and not an area. For example, some powers target a creature, but do damage in a burst 1 around it. If...

Yea - all of the newer and more complicated classes have muddled this up a bit. I think we all kind of see how it is intended, despite it not being clear and there are definitely some very odd cases which have no clear way of handling the issue. (i.e. Druid with Staff Fighting, Two-Weapon...

Yea - I think the wording, technically, allows it - but it doesn't see to be the intent. I suggested a Staff of Ruin instead. It adds an item bonus to all damage rolls made with the staff. It isn't a full die size, but it is a consistent 2 and works on everything the druid does, and not just...

A druid's beast form has this text in it: My question is as follows: Since the druid can use a staff as an implement, if the druid, in beast form, is using something like a Staff of the Serpent, would the druid benefit from the staff's property? Also, does it matter if the staff is an...

Infernal - More damage. Actually less survivability (imo) than Feylock Star - Pretty balanced and unspecialized. Fey - Least damage out of all of them, but most elusive and defensive and "tricksy" in my opinion. After having played an Infernal, I moved to Feylock and I feel like God now...

After looking at the Swordmage preview, don't worry about balance - it isn't like WoTC cared about it when designing that class :)

^ That is different. What makes it difficult is that in combat, creatuers are aware in 360 degrees. Out of combat, there is some idea of creatures not always being alert/aware of 360 degrees. As soon as you are seen out of combat, I would assume combat starts :)

The problem with doing a Fighter Paragon is the fact that EVERYTHING a fighter does through all 30 levels is strength-based. So, at best, I could add 3 powers for a Paragon Path that allows a Dex-Based defender to be effective at both attacking and at their light armor defense. Based on many...

I would tend to agree. The rules of cover, concealment, total cover, and total concealment don't appear to be altered either way. I agree that Stealth does not upgrade cover or concealment. The issue is what happens to players that are already noticed who then succeed on a stealth check they...

At first, I was going to completely disagree because Divine Challenge in the PHB under Special states: However, after reading the fluff, trying to comprehend its purpose, etc... it seems pretty clear now. RAW: This would not apply to AE attacks as long as the Paladin was included in the AE...

After countless hours of debate, research, etc, I sadly consider myself an expert on the subject. I'd say it really boils down to your DM understanding the poorly-written rules and then being fair in his/her assessment of what is "appropriate." For instance, the above power example states "you...

I thought of doing that, but the 2 classes are too different in order to justify it. This class is extremely dex-based while a fighter class is almost exclusively str-based. The starting armor proficiences for a fighter would be too good as well for a class which has innate shield bonuses...

I totally agree ^. The entire mechanic of "mark" is the same that "taunt" serves in popular CRPGs. The idea is to punish enemies who don't focus their attention on the defender (Paladin). And to be quite honest, I probably WOULD force a Wizard to incur such a penalty if they made an attack...

I wanted to release a preview of the class features to see what people thought of the concept, role, and story. The inspiration for this class is my complete obsession with shield-based combat. In every game I can remember, I always go for the shield classes. Mechanically, the class is a...

This is very incorrect. DC says the penalty and damage is factored in when the Paladin isn't a target of ANY attack... not THE attack. We don't have many lawyers here, do we? :)