Search results

Because he's better at it, which is represented mechanically by the feat and its effects.

4e got around this with the minion rule - they never took damage on a miss. We don't know that 5e won't have a similar rule.

It isn't a change, though, not really - it is a 4th edition element. Reaping strike is a fighter at-will from the first 4e PH, and virtually every daily power that wasn't 'relaible' did half damage on a miss.

I don't find it hard to picture, really. You deflect the fighter's blow with your armor, or shield, but the impact is so strong that it still stings a little. Or the axe blow scrapes along the dragon's scales, not doing significant damage but still knocking a couple loose. Narratively it is...

It does not logically follow that doing a small amount of damage on a miss means that the fighter will automatically win.

Just in case you weren't aware the guy you are replying to is the original designer of the Eberron setting. ;) I initially leaned towards 'it should be like 3.5' but really, there's no reason it has to be. There's no particular reason an aberrant dragonmark can't have a power that one of the...

The vast majority of people probably have no idea what a falchion is.

For me personally, it is because without battlefield control via threatened areas or something similar, I forsee melee characters being totally outclassed (and ranged character play devolving into a lot of kiting.) It probably destroys the whole front line/back line thing, which hurts my...

The problem I see with this system is it just outright breaks when you have an attacker with over double the movement of the target. This is almost certainly going to be the case with most flying monsters for example.

My hope is that with themes integrated from the beginning, the features you get from them won't displace class features. I like the idea of 4e themes, but having to take powers in place of class powers always made them feel like they were diluting the character's identity rather than sharpening it.

I think you're significantly underrating how good spell resistance and 4 points of extra stat boosts are. On top of all the regular elf traits, and the other miscellaneous bonuses they have. LA is an annoying kludgy way to deal with it, but they really are just flat out better by a good amount...

I like the predictability and balance of 4e, but it means that rolling for character stats Just Doesn't Work - variability in attack stats just blows everything - and I think for that reason I'm willing to let all that go. I really, really missed rolling stats. A lot.

OK, so I didn't imagine those Boot Hill crossover rules right there in the core 1e DMG. ;) ====== On the 'I'VE SEEN THINGS IN MY DAY' front: Come July, I'll have been playing D&D for 30 years, and if there's one thing I feel like I can say definitively, it is that nobody ever plays haflings...

I very very badly want DDM tournaments back. I don't care if it has anything to do with the RPG at this point, I have a billion minis I can use for that. The DDM community was just awesome. So in that vein, I really like random, because it enabled Limited play. EDIT: And for the love of Iuz...

I don't think the issue with OP is that it influences the rules as they first come out; the issue is that it is the main driving force for the pages and pages of balance changes and errata we see.

The point I was responding to was a guy saying, essentially, "your combat role has nothing to do with how you roleplay your character!" Yes, class in prior editions informs roleplaying just as much as role does in 4e, that's my point.

I'd like this... as long as I don't have to buy the beginner box and can just go straight to the regular books.

What this question is really asking, I think, is "should we discard sacred cows of D&D for 'better' designed elements from the latest hot indie RPGs". For me that's a big no; they might make a 'better' game in a vaccuum, sure, but if I wanted to play a better game than D&D I've had that option...

I think my problem with the OP's take is that it seems to assume that if two characters aren't equally powerful, that the less-powerful one is not contributing. There's a huge amount of space between 'contributing' and 'useless'.

This is simply not true. If I want to roleplay my character as a cowardly, weak guy who is always picked on, etc., it is going to stretch credulity to the breaking point if I'm playing a 4e defender type role where I have to be able to absorb large amounts of punishment, be in the front lines in...