Search results

Thanks for the kind words: I spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about effective undead countermeasures. :) I'm really enjoying these write-ups, both because they're fun to read and it gives me a different perspective on the game, which helps when I'm running it. It's been neat hacking...

I'm glad y'all are enjoying the game. I certainly hope that we get these questions answered -- if the sessions thus far are any indication, the process should be a damned blast. :) (Is it bad that part of me wants to substitute ":close:" for "blast" above?)

Well, feinting is only allowed once per encounter, anyway.

Actually, IIRC, Feng Shui did note that describing your action as "shoving the barrle of my M-16 down the guy's throat and pulling the trigger" meant you couldn't then declare that you just knocked him out. ;) All in all, I think this is a good rule. Heck, I invoked it last night to preserve...

Hm. You may be right, but I don't think not being able to SA more than once in a round necessarily means that rogues won't get "strike with two weapons" powers. Arguably, that restriction could have been put in to keep dual-wielding rogues from completely out-pacing single-weapon rogues in the...

It's almost pure speculation, but I'd be surprised if rogues don't get some dual-wielding powers. (Note, the only thing that prevents this from being pure speculation is the sweet picture in R&C of two rogues, both of whom were dual-wielding. That's admittedly thin, but it's a great picture. :))...

A couple thoughts on the two-weapon fighting issue: First, I'd be willing to lay a few bucks on the notion that rogues, at least, will get "attack with two weapons at once" powers. It's in keeping with both their role and their archetype, and R&C included a nice pic of two dual-wielding rogues...

No doubt. 3e was a great game, and I staunchly defended and praised it for years. Just because I think 4e is going to be an improvement doesn't mean that I buy into all the half-baked slams made against 3e in the last eight years. For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to brush away all 4e...

Honestly, that thread supplies pretty much a textbook example of a problem that only exists on the internet, and will almost certainly never come up at the table. Well, you've kind of solved your own problem: the ability of an orc to take more than one hit isn't lost when there are 4-5 orcs in...

But half-elves have far more to do with Elrond and Elros than with the traditional fey. And their parents were all about the love. :)

Neat. :) Though I'm seeing Mouser as rogue (Arcane Initiate) and Fafhrd as fighter (Sneak of Shadows or Warrior of the Wild).

IIRC, Mearls posted a few months back about how quickly he statted up two NPCs for a product using PC classes. Gnoll warlock and something else, I think.

I like the new alignment system, even if it does come hard on the heels of them finally fixing the 3.5 system via the new errata. ;)

R&C also had some art in which rogues were dual-wielding, so maybe we'll see some exploits for them as well. Passive aspects of dual-wielding, such as increased AC, could be modeled by a feat.

Not to discount the rest of your post, but it's worth noting that the above, at least, is exactly what's intended. From what the developers have said, the at-will powers are supposed to replace your normal attack pretty much any time you're not using an encounter or daily power.

Not to mention hosing defenders across the board, even if they're the only defender in their party.

:D In all seriousness, that's a really cool article. Thought-provoking reading, and the sort of the stuff I like to check out in Dragon.

Killing a Zeitgeist will be an Epic-level challenge using the social mass-combat rules from the DMG2! :D

Not me. I love me my crunch, and I was thrilled to get such a crunchy preview for the weekend. :)

It can't be The Rouse: we know he wears a shirt.