Search results

Heh, Darko is actually a pretty common name in my country :)

If strength doesn't scale as much with magic items/buffs as it does in 3e, I guess it's not that big a deal. But if the only benefit of wielding a weapon two handed is +1 to damage, I can't see why anyone should choose 2H fighting over sword and board.

Does this mean that you don't do more damage when wielding a weapon in two hands, unless it's "Versatile"? That would be kind of strange...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It seems to me that that handaxes will have different mechanics than light blades. They will probably do more damage, or do more damage on a crit or both. To allow them to be used with sneak attack without spending a feat would probably be too powerful a choice.

I want 4e Paladins to shine. I mean literally shine, like a holy, radiant nimbus kind of effect, as an at-will power.

If the damage output diverges greatly between a lvl 1 and a lvl 15 striker, I don't see that as a problem. As long as the damage scales approximately the same as your average monster's hit points that is. I'm sure that the designers are aware of the problem of overspecialization. From what I...

Broken :)

Sounds really interesting. I'd really like to see your 3.75 ranger, and the archery related maneuvers and stances you created. If you find the time please post them, or e-mail them to me. Maybe I could convince my DM to let me play a build like that :)

Didn't you state that SC ranger spells are good? Or are you arguing that 3.5 ranger spells are not spells? There's a difference between saying: All ranger spells are lame. All ranger spells except the ones I think should be martial maneuvers are lame. All ranger spells in the PHB except...

I agree, and if the 4.0 maneuvers/powers are as good as the spells are I'll be happy. I was just wondering why so many people think that the ranger's spellcasting is useless.

Although I've played the ranger only up to lvl. 13. I did so over a course of a year and a half, one session per week. I soon found out that during combat it's much more useful to do a full attack than cast a standard action spell. However, arrow mind, lightfoot, burrow, bears endurance, arrow...

I don't mean to be snarky, but have any of you guys actually played a ranger? Hearing someone say that ranger spells are lame really seems strange.

People who don't mind spending time and effort on creating new classes/races/feats will probably buy anything WoTC publishes anyway. I know I will :)

I hope rituals can be performed during combat, but that it's really hard to do it. One of the most exciting moments in our campaign was protecting the wizard from demons while he was casting break enchantment to free the soul of the fighter.

Why uncool? The way I see it, clerics mostly heal and buff, and occasionaly kick undead a@@. If I give the fire giant 'sorta kinda clerical powers' he's a cleric as far as I'm concerned. And it will (hopefully) take a whole lot less time than it takes to add cleric levels in 3.5.

That kind of "the hero just won't stay down" ability works great in a climactic moment. If you use it in every encounter it turns into an "I recover some of my hit-points" ability.

Static spot, listen, sense motive "defenses". It works great, but we still have some trouble with the passive trapfinding.

I think one-man-army builds will be taken care of. The 4e broken combos will need two or more characters to pull them off. Which is not that bad IMO, teamwork is something my 3e group desperately needs. :)

I hope the rules will define the type of action it takes to switch weapons/items/wizard implements from hand to hand. Also, I hope they define how one character gives/throws something to another character.