Search results

I can see what you're saying, Hyp, and it's a good question. However, I think the *intent* is the target of the mark is trying to hit the Paladin (instead of going for a non-hiding target, for instance), so I'd rule it that the target is indeed trying to attack the Paladin, especially if the...

Why? Really? 1) Because not everybody plays up to the top levels, meaning the wizard never 'gets the payoff'. 2) Some DMs play favorites (either intentionally or unintentionally), and the supposed 'balancing factor' of being wimpy at low levels becomes a non-issue because the wizards...

And when such becomes the only balancing factor for wizard types, that's bad game design.

Because Wizards, and all the other high int characters out there, have learned that it's better to not be hit and reason that they should try to not get in the way of a weapon heading at them.

As many have said, it's nothing new. Companion-less Druids and Rangers and mountless Paladins were in 3.x because people wanted options to get away from extra stuff.

And that statement, taken alone, is correct. The fact that some Attack Powers *also* have attached Effects that don't require attack rolls and will kill minions is the part you're missing. Even with the fact that everyone else has been trying to say this. And, if you won't even take the word...

Unfortunately, the Page 219 example has two explanations. 1) That's indeed what they meant, and the Falchion's 'Damage Die' is '2d4' and 2) bad editing as it seems to conflict with examples given elsewhere. Until that's settled, there's no really good way of answering that except via DM...

And, if everybody played Wizards in D&D, they'd be balanced against each other too. The point is that Ars Magica tells you right off that "Wizards wield more power than anyone else and if you're not a wizard, you're going to be noticeably weaker". The same is true about wizards in D&D, but...

No, no we don't. That 'example' (using the term loosely) was so spurious as to be laughable. If that were an actual example from a real game, I'm sorry to say, but the game has *much* more serious issues than the ruleset.

Hehe.. I agree. I really like SKR, and I'm glad for Paizo. I'd like to see how Pathfinder turns out. I've been generally impressed with Paizo's products (with the Harrow deck, however, being a HUGE disappointment).

And, when you're a game designer and you and all your buddies happen to *love* magic users, why not design the game to where the other classes are just support to the class you love the most and therefore obviously make it superior to everything else? But, if a designer is going to make the...

This begs the question then: Why haven't you been doing this for the past 8 years of 3.x? Because, really, AC really hasn't changed between editions since OD&D.

So.... you're saying SKR is Murdock? or is he Faceman?

So, what you're saying is you'd really rather be playing Palladium RPG? Because, you know.. they've been doing that for over 25 years. Oh, and don't forget to give armor and shields SDC... er... HP so they're damaged when they get hit.

All I know is that I want to play "Dungeons & Dragons", not "Storefronts & Shopkeeps". That being said, sure, it'd be great if some publisher put out some trade/commerce rules for people who's campaigns somehow need those finer points. However, I really don't see the PCs (being Heroic, even at...

And they worked like... well... crap. I saw so many different 'new' variations of crafting rules printed up. Some of the variants (the better ones) didn't even resemble closely the 'core' crafting rules, except for the use of crafting skills. And, it looks like with 4th Edition, they decided...

On one hand, the loss of mounts as a power option is a bit disheartening, but, on the other hand, let's face it. At a certain level, mounts just become a method of fast travel as they're much too fragile in combat (even in 3.x). I can't even remember the last time the party bought mounts in...

Your Wizard had a 1 constitution? Did he get ability drained or something before going underwater? And yes, it'd be rare to have zero fire or acid capabilities to use against the troll.

I certainly didn't think post 31 was snarky. I could even envision a pair of Tiefling wizards high-fiving each other in the 'recruitment poster' when I read it. And yes, Tieflings do seem to make pretty good wizards and it's great that Charisma isn't a dump stat anymore.

QFT. Not every adventure is going to take place or start in places where you have your armor on, however, if the party is camping in 'Monster Alley(tm)'*, I don't see any reason why the players should or need to be penalized because they want to rest in their armor. *In our campaigns, there...