Search results

Neceros' Character Record Sheet The portrait edition of the Character Sheet has been updated. I took the landscape variables and put them into a portrait sheet. The first page is the original portrait, but the second page is an alternate portrait front page. The third page is the normal back...

I find it humorous that people who don't apparently like 4e come in here guns blazing because the op wants people to like 4e. I'd agree that Fourth Edition has some uncalled for dislike of it simply because of the marketing these days. Too many people can see bits and pieces and make judgment...

We're missing a lot of the information. We'll have to wait till we're told or showed.

Exactly.

I'd love to see an image of this. :)

Fantastic job. That looks really well done.

Yeah, they are trying to stop people from being able to do that. Not only will you have 3 useless levels, but you'll be three levels behind the class you actually wanted to play. Even more, you'll have an exp penalty. Yuck, yuck, yuck, I have a feeling that there will be some sort of...

I'll sum it up as best I can. Mutliclassing is unneeded. In third edition, you multiclassed for a specific purpose, usually. A wizard needed weapon feats, or armor, or wanted BAB, or whatever. Rogues and Fighters wanted more combat prowess without giving away their Sneak Attack dice, yatta...

Good feedback. I'll tinker with it some more to see what I can get! Edit: Well, I won't be able to graphically position the Defenses next to Abilities without reworking more of the sheet. Possible, but I don't think it's necessary. I did, however, move the defenses up above Movement, so it that...

Did he really say five roles?

Great job.

I went ahead and added another page to this landscape edition. Fixed up a bit of the sections and fixed more spelling errors. Download it on my new section on my site, here: http://www.neceros.com/forum/index.php?automodule=downloads&showfile=6 Also, I've changed the link in the original post...

Wizards site is rubbish. I hope enough people are looking through their files that they eventually redo it.

D&D is a class based system. If you take away the class, you don't have a system. Multiclassing is equivalent to being half, or worse, of a character. In 3.5, Multiclassing was horrible. Multiclassing, by the way, involves Exp Penalties and ensuring you aren't too far apart in class levels...

Again, multiclassing in previous editions was required or wanted because of design flaws. A fighter could not be as powerful as a wizard, so she trained as both to be both. In fourth edition, you don't need to multiclass for your character concept, unless that character concept is literally...

That's my bloody point. With Multiclassing as we see it he doesn't need to switch between Rogue and Fighter in 4th. Everyone needs to rewire themselves to understand the mechanics of 4e. Eventually.

Forgive me of my lack of knowledge of Wow, I stopped after playing EQ for 8 years. I see nothing wrong with a two wielding dps heavy tanker, for a time, at least. I dont think one should be able to go around all day dishing out damage and being tanked up. If the character loses AC for being...

I'm not sure if two weapon fighting requires being a ranger. I just believe the ranger is more adept at it.

This is my point. :)

Then, as I said before. Spend all of your feats on gaining 50% defender 50% striker powers and you're not a heavy defender who can skirmish the field with sneak attacks, or ranger abilities. If you want pure half and half, then at level 11 take another class instead of a paragon path. 20...