Search results

How do they word this stuff, by the way? Is everyone going to pick these up?

I always liked the idea of characters that lean a bit on luck, and don't seem all that impressive in themselves. I think a Human/Halfling Warlord might actually fit the idea pretty well. "Warlord" has an impressive connotation, but the idea of a guy that has a lot of his power invested in making...

Well, you know, money is a pretty good treasure, or art and fine goods.

A DM screen is not at all what I would consider a second tier product, for art.

Well, if it makes you feel better, I read what you said and I liked it. :)

Actually, I've always seen magical research as VERY much trial and error. Wizards might like to think of magic scientifically, but the truth is that they only understand it superficially. They might be able to extract certain effects from magic, but I've never seen any evidence that Wizards...

I want to see how far I can push Jack of All Trades thing. I like the idea of a Fifth character that can sub in at least a little for everyone. One of my first ideas was a city born street-tough who was converted to an acolyte of the god of magic (a Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard. ;)). The system...

That happens at the end of level 30. ;) Destiny!!! Edit: Anyway, I think my first character will be a multiclass character because I really want to see how it works in play in the new edition. Preferably three or more classes, and make it work.

Making a deal with Evil sources like Demons is cocky, but it doesn't have to be evil. It all depends on the circumstances of the deal. Maybe there are circumstances where Demons are forced into a pact/deal situation, and it's often the only weakness they might currently have. Maybe the demon has...

You're claiming a well-studied disinterest. Okay. I remain unconvinced, but whatever. The poll is fine as a conversation starter, I suppose.

Don't even get me started on the title. The poll is about whether Wizards should keep or change the name, not "what should be done." If you're doing something, you're changing it. If you're not doing anything, you're leaving it alone, which is what one side would want. It's a leading question...

Is it really a good idea for a pollster to inform someone of the debate, and then flatly state that one subset of the options has more support? I mean it normally doesn't matter that much, but the whole Golden Wyvern Adept thing is flame-bait. If you want it to stay friendly, you should be...

Paragon works well for a single-classed character. A Rogue 15 in 4e could be described as a "paragon" of Rogueliness. Multiclass characters make the word choice slightly more dubious, but not terrible. I don't really like Epic OR Mythic, but I can't think of anything better, at the moment. I...

Well, but you could reverse that and say that the difference only extends so far out of academia. It's needlessly pedantic to try to apply the academic standard unless you're in a particular environment, or if you need to make the distinction for some specific reason. And that's not because the...

Well, but LOTS of complex animals are sexually dimorphic. The other living things work by budding or division or some such thing. Of the animals, the human differences are relatively unremarkable. That's not precisely the same thing as saying that men and women are basically the same (though I...

No, but it's fun to talk about them. :) Anyway, I wouldn't like a house rule that affected women like that. I like the idea of a strength-based fighter being a woman, and I don't care if she'd be some sort of muscle savant or freak. I wouldn't quit a game because of it, but I would definitely...

Hah! :)

Well, I'd say that it's more about not being unnecessarily restrictive. As you describe, the house rule would be pretty simple to implement. And I'd prefer that I be able to create a very strong female if I feel like it. Really, we don't know what is possible for men and women, just what is likely.

To be clear, I agree with this. But at the same time, I wouldn't correct someone unless it was in an academic setting, or if clarification was necessary given the topic (i.e., with gender identity discussions and such). Edit: This goes to how I view language. If people commonly use the word...

I can see the use for it as an academic jargon, but in the real world people use them interchangeably.