Search results

I know not of this "threadcap", only "threadcrap" and I assure you, that's not what you're doing. Also The rest of the post is here.

That's awful. Wonderfully, wonderfully awful.

It's an "equalizer" because it doesn't scale, and requires no skill or tactics on the part of the DM, exactly the type of thing 4e is removing. And "easier than level drain" is both often untrue and not saying much.

I currently intend to be amused when people who think striker means DPR and defender means MMO Tank play a Warlock and find out they're doing less damage than the Fighter with the Greatsword.

I don't believe we've seen the RPG rules, but I do believe charge still requires you to attack from the closest square.

The Succubus can move into melee. If she hits, the tanks has to either move away and let the other monsters past, or stay there and "protect" the Succubus, allowing for actual multilevel tactics, as opposed to much of 3.x's "I blast them with blah, they cast remove blah or suck it up".

Or you could use it on the PC tank to get them to use their action to move away from the creatures they're shielding the squishies from or you can use the dominate power to get them to move back, or just use it on melee creatures so they don't want to be in melee with you. It actually has some...

Nah. I think it's fine as is. You can either do the shift/charge thing (which simulates taking the swing), or move up and use a better ability, which is actually a power (which simulates concentrating on the target not the guy who's attacking you. Of course a Solder/Defender (someone who's...

B is Brute S is Squishie P is PC . . .S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . .P . . . . . . . . After shift . . .S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . . . . . . . . . .P . . . can charge on the following line . . .S . . . . .C . . . .C . . . .C...

Yep, that worked for me. I think I like the Logo. It's appropriately "retro dorky".

The character is losing the ability to use his actual abilities, which for characters who aren't str based is a really big deal. Also remember that character who are actually supposed to "protect the squishies" have actual abilities (like marks, or for higher level monsters much nastier...

Thing is, if you're making your own character, you can choose a power (probably not a daily, probably one which has an additional effect, such as stun or something) and rename it "kick 'em in the 'nads". So long as you find fighting something without obvious 'nads to be an interesting challenge...

Which implies to me that it's that Fighter can do magic, but that Clerics can do much less magic. I really like this idea, but I can see why some people would see it as "not D&D".

Man, I was going to point out that Ravens were symbols of Odin, god of Wisdom and Battle, something that's utterly appropriate, but it's allready all there in that link :(. They also played a tactical place in the Hobbit. Why "white", uhh.... because it rolls of the tongue nicely? Do you need...

See, when you put it like that, I completely agree with you. I was arguing against the idea that such things have to put in the first three books, that things like the extended frostburn/stormwrack rules should be in the DMG as opposed to general environmental effects/damaging terrain rules...

No. Passive is generally for when someone else is rolling, it's there because opposed rolls are much more swingy and random than a single roll vs a DC, only using passive perception in those situations means that your example will never come up. It's all part of the project to unify the rules.

Ah, okay, cool, to satisfy geek curiosity and provide character examples for players, actually, that's not a bad reason. It's just they mentions Jarlaxle and the Red Wizard lich guy as being Solos, and I was trying to think why you wouldn't do that for other characters.

Explain to me the benefit of stating up "important" NPCs as PCs as opposed to Elites or Solos again?

"Change for changes sake" means changing things merely so they are new and shiny without caring if the new is better than the old. Change for no reason other than to change. The Spellplague is there for a very specific reason (the new magic system), so it's very obviously not "Change for changes...

Brutes have low AC, it's Soldiers that have high AC, "Soldier" will often imply specific training and heavy armour. If you want to show specific examples that's fine, but spreading FUD achieves nothing.