Search results

Yeah, that's right. It's a template, not to be used in it's naked form but to be modified by what's going on in your game. I mean, it even says Don't like it? Change it. The Rules as Written say "Adjust as necessary" It's a template.

Hivemind? There's a 300+ post topic on the use of a skill that hasn't been defined yet. We are RPGers, we'll argue about everything.

Without knowing what Bluff and Diplomacy are supposed to cover, it's impossible to work out what Intimidate should do.

I tell you what - until we find out in the 4e PHB what the intimidate skill covers we are all just guessing. The best example we have is 3.5 version which explicitly won't work in the template given.

"No-one minds a railroad if it leads to awesome town" - SteveD

But it might not. Anyway, it's a template - designed to be altered.

Different people, tho' Meaning that you can't please all of the people, all of the time. Or that moderates get the best deal.

There is a big difference between "If you try an intimidate the duke, you are going to get thrown out or into a fight" and hoop jumping. Still, if people are going to object to a template they can not use a template. This isn't a mechanic, but an example. Nothing indicates it requires a house...

Tell me about your character, please. (I find it hard to write that sentence in a non-sarky tone of voice. Take it from me, I really do want to know about your charcater! Really!)

Post #65 of this very thread suggests otherwise. That post suggests that Orcus (Clark) was misinformed.

Are Orcs dull then?

"Armblade (standard; at-will) Reach 2; +30 vs. AC (+32 against a bloodied target);"

That's exactly how my character names things. 'Cept in this case it would be called a Swordfly.

We don't know, unfortunately. If 'normal men' end up being 1-hp minions then you have a point - but they may not. So, it may be a valid point but I doubt we'll know for a month. "The stats of an average NPC Elf" are unlikely to be an exciting excerpt.

Stands for Basic Expert Companion Master and Immortal 5 sets of D&D games covering levels 1-3 (+ basic rules), 4-14 (+ wilderness), 15-25 (+ Dominions and Mass Battles), 26-36 (+ becoming immortal) and finally being a god. Released in '81 and ran alongside AD&D.

Why no poll? I've been saying, more or less since I learnt about the tiers concept, that 4e sounds like BECMI reloaded. And I loved BECMI.

Sorta. Combat magic seems to be weaker but more regular - non-combat magic is an unknown quantity at the moment. Things like Fly and Invisibility being pushed way up the levels and reduced in potency are examples of Combat magic being reduced. However, the mysterious rituals could in theory...

I've seen nothing that suggests that 4e will increase the level of magic a typical PC has. In fact, the significant downplaying of Wizards means that actual magical power seems to have been reduced. So, I'd say 4e has reduced the power of magic in the typical world overall. Skill, however, and...

I'm generally positive, because it is...well, let me explain. I started with BECMI, where being an Dwarf defined almost everything you were. AD&D's multiclassing would have worked so much better if they had ditched Multiclassing and introduced a base class for each of the (limited) options...

Are they? WOTC_Miko I'm sure pointed out that she took a feat to allow her rogue to use a Rapier as a light blade sorta thing. Feats are how you customise your character now, so a swashbuckling rogue who uses a rapier and shortsword seems to be done via feats, not multiclassing. In 3.5...