Search results

Keep em both. I'm not sure I like that the confirmation roll is gone though. I liked that little moment of suspense. What I really don't like is the critical failure on skill rolls.

I was talking about the male tiefling. Though I admit it's more of a robe than armor.

IMO DM fudging should be very rare and unnecessary. The rules themselves should never allow that the fate of a character or campaign relies on a single die roll.

I knew somebody would complain about the tiefling. The cleavage on that armor was just too much. :p

If I get the feeling that the DM is fumbling his die rolls and/or finding ways to turn my fumbles into successes it diminishes my enjoyment of the game. It always leaves a kind of bitter "undeserved victory" aftertaste. Of course it's not as bad as having your character die, or a whole campaign...

I really liked your Gnome flavor, but I don't think it fits my vision of what a 4e PC is going to be. From the mechanics and flavor previews, I see 4e characters as "Going Around Kicking The Crap Out Of Evil With Our Cool And Balanced Powers" not "Going Around Outsmarting People Because We Are...

If they keep the Golden Wyvern, Lighting Panther Strike, Dragonborn, Tiefling, force their fluff down my throat, I will make sarcastic remarks, use ridiculous metaphors to point out how it sucks, and complain until I'm blue in the face. And then buy 4th edition.

HEAR ME BAHAMUT!!!. THIS ONE'S BLOOD FOR OURS!!! Could work. Also, made me shiver. :D

Although I am honestly fascinated by your explanation I have two objections 1. In your example Wyverns strike 1 point, excluding everything else, not the other way around 2. Are you serious? I mean c'mon, that's just reaching (pardon the pun) Actually, even if I were able to go with this...

heh, they have that item in Drow of the Underdark. Potion bladder, I think it's called.

A friend once played a Gnome bard. He played him as an irresponsible, quick witted, silver tongued wanderer, who liked to drink a tad too much. Great character, really funny. Got creamed in the first round of the first encounter. :)

I have heard this opinion and the explanation behind it about as many times as I've heard the opposite one. I don't care If you think that renaming is an option. That is why I wrote Please.

You really don't understand? I wouldn't think of immune to disease when I first hear of "Diamond Body", I would probably think resistant to damage. But immune to disease also works for me. Diamonds are tough. Disease weakens you. You have a diamond body. You are immune to disease. Gold is...

Honestly, it sounds a bit off to me too. But I'm hoping for some nice flavor that explains the effect. Take a look at "Fire in the blood" spell from Heroes of Horror. Replace "damage on you" with "you deal damage", replace blood with "divine energy", mention "invoking a brief blessing for...

Emphasis mine.

I remember hen I first played a Swordsage and used a maneuver whose name I can't remember right now: Me: "I roll 2d20, choose a result, and if it's the lower one but it hits I do normal damage +1d6 cold. If I choose the higher and it hits I just do normal damage. If I miss I miss." DM: "how do...

I just have problems imagining somebody cleaving with a spear. :)

I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I can't seem to come up with anything. Golden Wyvern adepts are good at shaping and sculpting spells they cast. I try to think why would they call themselves that and my mind grinds to a halt. I was hoping somebody has an idea.

Although I personally dislike the name, let's say that it comes out in the PHB, and that renaming it is not an option. So (pure speculation): A wizard character has a spellcasting style that he calls "Golden Wyvern". He also dabbles in "Emerald Frost", and is known to throw in some "Iron Sigil"...

I can't get the name out of my head all day. Damn you WotC.