Search results

Wow, Wulf, stop picking on the poor guy. This is how I've read your posts over the last few pages, and I've gone from irritated to confused, to really just amused by you. "The old edition allowed you to do things on the fly too, you could just make things up. By the way, you know how you were...

I do have to say that the technical problems the board's been having make me sort of drift off for a few days or so, every so often. Trying to follow a thread during peak hours is kind of an exercise in frustration. Good luck to the ENWorld team with the fixes, I'm sure it's frustrating them...

I think it's always good when a new product can make you reconsider your preferences. I may say this over and over again, but I think that if Person A is really into 4e's philosophy, and Person B is not, then going "back to the days" when they still had different takes on how they wanted to play...

I would be more concerned with the intersection of "massively planned plot" and "ranger playing really not seeming to care about anything" than I would about the tactical issues. He seems to be having a good time blowing up bad guys and that's about it; it's possible your players aren't really...

I find summer a difficult time to get people involved in any group activity that requires committment over multiple weeks. Probably best to take a hiatus and see what interest looks like in the fall, maybe? It's a thought.

Actually, I've changed my mind. Heck with it, I wouldn't disallow this after all. At the demigod level, this means if a fight's gone on long enough, you can always end it by spamming your nastiest power every round. The idea that "you have to kill a demigod pretty quick, otherwise they'll get...

(I really got a kick about the initial quote talking about how Divine Miracle was probably unbalanced. Yeah, it's a miracle, it's a carrot to get to level 30. balance has nothing to do with it.) Honestly, though, it does give me an idea. A Demigod Dragonborn, standing at the gates of hell...

I think it's an understandable sentiment - Wizards used to be strikers (as well as a lot of other things), and if that was the thing about them you made the most use of, you may find a Warlock more suited. Since I never really saw the 3.x warlock, I was fine going "Oh, they split the Wizard...

Alraiis, I can respect your take on the rules, but I don't think that's the whole story. The books are pretty specific on how DM adjudication based on "what the table thinks makes the most sense" is the primary method for deciding stuff like this. So yeah, if you want to go "strictly as...

Generally anything affected by a condition or effect acts as if it knows the details and consequences. (Marking is the canonical example.) I suppose that means that no monster affected by it is going to take the 'go prone' effect unless not getting more than half your move is going to be fatal.

Agreed -- there are times when "You're captured instead of killed" isn't plausible, but they're slavers, so if they keep the PCs alive for a bit, they get paid and know that they're "sentencing them to certain doom" (at least until they escape).

At level 4, a wizard can levitate and then move 1 square/turn for one encounter, once per day. At level 16, he can do that plus fly 8 squares/turn for one encounter, once per day. In 3rd, fly lasted longer, and if you wanted to memorize enough copies to keep the entire group aloft, you could...

This is actually a very non-MMO thing about 4e, for those keeping score. :) Defenders do their jobs here by controlling the battlefield as much as by "tanking". (Most MMOs have provisions for near-unlimited healing to be applied on a single target, and tanks are not only harder to hit but also...

I think this is one of many things in 4e that may not be specifically disallowed by the rulebook yet are obviously not ever going to be allowed in play. I'm fine if they want to issue errata to close all of these loopholes, but I don't think it's in any way necessary. "You should assume the game...

Yeah, I'm aware that the wording would need to be tweaked to be made legal, but my point is that if I read the power entry as if it were in plain English, I'm not confused. If I read it in rulesese, I'm confused. So the choice, for me anyway, is pretty simple. :)

Goumindong, you've spent so much time on the last few pages chest-pounding and asserting that you're correct, that I no longer have any idea what your actual position or argument is! :) Anyway, stuff like is unlikely to do much other than get you on ignorelists, because it fails to contribute...

The only issue here is that taking a multiclass feat gives you the existing benefits *plus* a class feature (something that's at least as good as a feat, probably better). I'd expect every PC to multiclass if you were to use these rules; as long as they all do, they'll probably be balanced...

The only issue here is that taking a multiclass feat gives you the existing benefits *plus* a class feature (something that's at least as good as a feat, probably better). I'd expect every PC to multiclass if you were to use these rules; as long as they all do, they'll probably be balanced...

Comparing running out of surges with the "5 minute work day" doesn't really make sense to me -- it seems pretty difficult to run through all of your healing surges in a single encounter. And even if you get really beat up in one fight, it'd be a rare occasion when you'd have any reason to use...

How I read this power as working, in plain English. Attack, if you hit, it does 2d10+x. The next turn, you can burn a minor action to have it do an additional 1d10+x damage. They then get a save; if it's successful, you can't re-sustain it. Yeah, I recognize as written the sustain keyword...