Search results

As a player I think whether one prefers 4e or 3e is a matter of taste. For instance: Its easier to play a 'spell caster' in 4e but harder to play a 'noncaster' than it was in 3e (I think 4e struck the ideal balance). But as DM 4e is far better than 3e. More monsters are interesting and fun to...

I too was disappointed by the under use of resistance/vulnerabilities in 4e. Since first reading the 4e monster manual I've wondered why 'weapon' wasn't a damage type so that monsters couldn't have resistance/vulnerability to it. The closest thing is the grick which resist attacks vs. AC...

My group often only has 3 players at any give time. Most recently we finished a game where we only had 3 players from 9th to 12th level. A dragon sorcerer, greatweapon fighter and a rageblood barbarian. There were some tough encounter (even a couple level +4 encounters) but no character...

Its not a must have feat. But it does take away one of the few things strength does (melee basic attacks, athletics, carrying capacity). It also favors characters who purchase an 18 at level 1 over those who purchase only a 16.

I think the real problem with this feat, as has been said, is that it can increase the difference between optimal and suboptimal builds. Making it necessary for characters with suboptimal builds to take if the characters with optimal builds take it. For instance a guy with a 16 strength +2...

Isn't the solution right here? Make everything balanced when levels are equal but if you want to have 'unbalanced' characters simply make some higher levels than others, make channelers 4 levels higher than the rest of the party. Personally I wouldn't want to play in such a game. But if you...

You can only have 1 multiclass. Therefore if you want training in more than just one skill you will have to take the skill training feat.

Don't paladin, cleric and fighter largely cover the European Warrior Monk? At least those are the classes I'd imagine your typical Knight Templar, Teutonic Knight or Hospitllar belonging to. Cleric and paladin fit particuarly well in a fantasy setting.

A lot of the tactical warlord's at will and encounter powers are single person buffs. So at least at low levels, if you team up with another melee character, you shouldn't loose much effectiveness compared to a large party. Also, in my experience when DMing for a small group of players DMs...

Could always just say if 3/4 of its space is in open air it falls. 7 out of 9 for huge 3 out of 4 for large 12 out of 16 for gargantuan

Defenses can change on a round to round basis. Therefore our method of declaring attacks always goes something like this: Attacker: I'm (insert descriptive text) *Dice roll* Attacker: I got (dice roll+modifier) versus (appropriate defense) Defender: That hits/misses my defense. So necessarily...

1. A fight between two PCs is rougly equal, 50/50 odds of going either way depending upon class/build and if played intelligently. So 2 rogues with the exact same build and played smartly would be a 'coin flip' or even battle. 2. A battle of 5 PCs versus 5 standard monsters is not a 'coin flip...

Minions I've made I give about skirmisher defenses and attack. I make the damage within one or two points of 5+1 per 5 levels.

How about, Cleric: "We're getting killed here and I'm running out of healing magic. Someone one do something!". Rogue: "I'll try to pick the lock on the back door, then we can make a get away." Fighter: "If you fail I'll try using brute strength to bust it down. Untill then I'll cover you."...

If comabat challenge is weaker than OA. and If OAs at reach are a paragon tier level power. Then it follows that combat challenge at reach is less than paragon tier. Edit: Misunderstood some of your typing. Attacking off turn with reach is much worse than attacking off turn at range which...

Exactly. Even if you do mark to different targets, since you only get one immediate action per turn you can only attack one of them from combat challenge. The attack granted by combat challenge is an immediate action. It is my opinion that the combat challenge attack should be allowed as long...

If you start with a 16 in your key stat at level 1, your should have a 24 by level 30. The maximum possible in core is to start with a 20 and get an additional +2 by being a demigod for a total of 30 at level 30. But lets assume a 24 in the primary attack stat. Thats a: +7 ability modifier. +6...

I really think the level 16 power is something fighters using polearms should get for free. The action point ability also does not seem useful. Unless it is combined with the level 12 utility. Further I think the level 20 daily should have its burst increased by 1 when an action point is spent...

I'm going to say feature and cite the 'rage mage' of 3e as evidence. Thats not to say anything about balance issues, but flavor wise it can make sense.

Not in my experience. Did this in 3e in a couple of campaigns, worked out well, just level up the players every 3-5 game sessions.