Search results

mkill hit it pretty well. The 4 existing combat roles really do cover the available possibility space. This is partially because the Controller and Leader roles cover a lot of ground. Everything is going to be a hybrid of the existing four to a greater or lesser extent. I will pedantically...

Besides some possibility with scrapper vs. blaster opening up some room for variation in the striker role, I don't really think there's a viable 5th combat role. Everything I can conceive fits within shades of the controller/defender gradient or is too narrow to be particularly useful (see...

There's a metric manure-load of tripping. You can build for a LOT of prone. As for disarming and sundering.... good riddance. More headaches than fun, for all of me. And you have multiple ways to reduce someone's defenses or damage that are for all intents and purposes the same effect, but...

4e reduced linguistic complexity in the game engine. There's a unified language for describing game effects now, making it easier to see that the differences are very often cosmetic. In the past, legacy issues of spell block language versus "I swing my sword x number of times a round" created...

I would guess my pithy comment did little to illustrate how I really feel about Planescape. I don't think of it as a "jokey" setting, although it is full to the rafters with jokes (and unlike most settings, the jokes work). But then, so is life. Irony and humor are central to my view of life...

Apparently I can't give Neonchameleon xp yet, but I was severely beaten to the punch. There's a reason peasants and nobility have different weapons and armor. Try doing significant harm to a guy in plate armor with a club, dagger, or staff before his sword rips you a new one. We read books...

I prefer to think of it as post-irony D&D. There's nothing particularly dark and edgy about a great deal of planescape. I mean... modrons?

There's a difference between "once or twice an encounter based on whatever weapon you're good with" and "always on, but only with specific weapons" which is now possible, but the point is taken.

No, it takes them well past military weapons. If you're using a morningstar, you go from +2/1d10 to an effective +3/2d6. Actually, the average damage is 7.5, which is a little better than 2d6. 3d4 is what springs to mind, so it's like using 3 daggers at the same time. That's at least as good...

While I do like Klaus' bit of story there, I just don't see there being a coherent benefit here. And I really don't think "somebody has to use simple weapons!" is an argument. For one thing, everybody can. And everyone has the option to move up the line if they want to. I've had a cleric...

The cleric is not a striker. How does doing more damage make the cleric better at its job? Since there's only one logical answer to that, I'll go on.... I can see the +1 to attack since leader effects don't go off on misses, but why make give them the damage as well? You're making this into...

Of course not. I've played very cool quarterstaff users as well as craghammer users. While being equally cool, they played differently, and they hit for different amounts of damage. And that is as it should be. Perhaps the worst thing about that one line of powers is that all it effectively...

If clubs, daggers, and quarterstaves are just as good, why did anyone bother inventing the sword and the battleaxe?

Oh, it's turtles all the way down, mate. But I've only got 60' of Darkvision, so anything further down than that might as well be "the Source" instead of just a slightly bigger terrapin.

Sorry for the delay replying. I was away from computers for a week. Which was heavenly. Sure. But why is that a problem? There's a reason simple/martial/superior categories exist. Selectively invalidating that progression is what needs to be justified from the rules side. And from the...

I think the magnitude of y'all's upset about my upset is substantially greater than my upset. It's illogical. I'll get over it or build my next strength cleric with different powers. I am, however, starting to get a little upset about the state of discourse in the 21st century. I thought...

I wouldn't classify it as "crying." The single cleric archetype that has GOOD REASON to use better weapons because they are dedicated to battle and presumably so are their gods, is the one being either encouraged or flat out required to use simple weapons. That doesn't strike you as illogical...

Which works fine if you re-fluff it to actually represent someone who is devout, but leaves out general cleric-y-ness. Plus, these powers are straight up better than a lot of is currently available to str-clerics, and packed with stuff that screams "DWARF!", like the pseudo-defender schtick.

I'm with you on that one. And I like the article overall. Any battle cleric who doesn't worship Moradin is golden with maces now, which is great.

True. But it is sort of weird that a battle-cleric of Moradin would potentially be LESS effective with a hammer than with a silly club.