Search results

Now *that's* what I call analysis. I think a lot of people aren't getting the fact that it's better to be really good at combat or really good at magic rather than being somewhat good at both. After all-- you can only engage in one or the other in any given round. The Monster Manual...

I think they'd have to stack, or else you make a Ranger/Rogue multiclass unplayable due to being underpowered. And I don't see what the big deal is about a 1 Rogue/1 Ranger having a +2d6 attack in the surprise round only. A regular rogue will have +2d6 in surprise, sneak, and flank attack...

Well, okay. How about a d6 damage bonus to surprise attacks, NOT sneak attacks, adding another d6 every time the Ranger would be due to get another +2 favored enemy bonus?

I'm not the only one who knows what I don't like about the Ranger, since I just told anyone who cares to read this thread. I don't like the Favored Enemy ability. I only said it six times. But that's besides the point; my main question is, "How powerful would you say that ability is?" I'd...

Here's what I'd like the Ranger to have: Either a weak sneak attack or a surprise attack feature. The idea of a "surprise attack" is that it is a more limited sneak attack. It is limited to situations of actual surprise (and, perhaps, versus flat-footed opponents). It would not be available...

Did I write "offended"? I don't know why I did that. I deserve to be made fun of for that. I'm not "offended" by them. I'm <i>annoyed</i> by them. This is why. It seems to me that we have three Outdoorsy type characters. Barbarians, Rangers, Druids. They want to make sure each character...

I disagree. I think even a very weak feat-- like +2 on Tracking checks -- is more flavorful than the dumb +2 Favored enemy bonus. (But clearly the Favored Enemy bonus is more powerful than a +2 bonus to Tracking or Survival!) I just don't see what is "Rangery" about having some dedicated...

In reality -- that is, in the game world-- the group would probably give itself a business name, just as Thorin & Company did in the Hobbit. After all, they have a profit motive. A group would probably just call itself "The X Company" or the "Y Partnership," wherein X or Y are the first place...

I think the Erineys looks pretty good. She looks like a ferocious opponent. A good illustration can turn a pile of stats into a halfway interesting opponent. And a good name. "Githyanki," "Drow," "vampire," etc. On the other hand, there's the Delver. I think I'm going to try drawing...

The Ranger is a bit better now, no doubt about it. But I am still offended by the annoying "Favored Enemy" schtick. This isn't a cool ability, like most character's abilities. Most characters have abilities that allow them to do cool :):):):). The Ranger just gets some plusses to his attacks...

Yes, I know. I'm not directing my criticism at you. If one wants to convert, convert. I'm just using your post as a jumping off point. If conversion is difficult or would violate your character as you've come to know him... well then, <i>don't convert.</i> Once again, he'd just be like an...

I think it interferes with the fantasy feel, myself. But I think guns could definitely work on another plane, a la the Amber series. And, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't there a plane inhabited by dwarf-like creatures -- armed with muskets and blunderbusses -- who were fighting a Vampire King in...

Hah. When they start drawing inch long rock-hard nipples on every vampire, succubus, and goddess in sight, then they'll just be getting back into their old 1e form.

Sirs, Does anyone know when the mag should be hitting the gameshops? Have you guys ever noticed the lag from mailbox to store-shelf? I've been waiting for this screen. I haven't bought or used a screen since the 1e days, but for some reason I got excited about this one. (The fact that it's...

While spells and certain things MUST be converted, is it really the case that most characters must be converted? Look, if you were a Ranger using the 3.0 rules before, can't you continue as a 3.0 Ranger? Can't you just be a slightly variant ranger, a bit different from the "latest recruits"...

The new Jump rules are cool. Finally, you can do that leap across the chasm quickly and without needing to do division.

"With your post count, Billbo, I might suggest that you wont make many allies here by flaming down people for expressing opinions. Ease up man " <i>Well!</i> I'll be sure to ratchet my post-count up real good so I can gain "allies" here. Because, you know, that's <i>just what I need.</i>...

Sorry, I actually posted after I read the referenced post, before I saw your caution. I'll see if I can edit.

If there were a variant wizard class called "The Enchanter," a class specializing in Enchantments, I could see the case for giving such a class almost all Cha-based skills. Because, see, he's an Enchanter. He uses charms. His entire modus operandi is to charm and seduce, and one would imagine...

>>Sorcerers get ALL charisma-based skills as class skills. They are a Charisma based class; to deny them the advantages of utilizing their high charisma for anything other than spellcasting is WRONG. Uhhhh... why? Yes, they have a high charisma. Why does it necessarily follow, then, that they...