Search results

That's not really a video game concept, plenty of RPGs already did that. Alternity, for example. D&D 3e also did this to an extent through skills and feats. Every class can learn every skill and every feat (with a few exceptions, granted), just not as well or soon as the others. There are many...

Part of the entire reason "thief" got changed into "rogue" was to expand it beyond simply sneaking around and picking pockets. Although if assassin is going to part of the core classes from day 1, then I do expect them to dial this back a little. Anyway, I'm not sure I can say about rogues in...

Uhh.. ok, if you say so. I mean, only like two sentences in the Dragonborn pages refer to the Bael Turath/Arkhosia thing so I guess it must bother you really really much, but I still don't see it. In the case of the spell, there is a bit of fluff which you can remove by ignoring one or two...

I voted 1. I do think there's room for humor in D&D (I liked how the Déjà Vu power was listed twice in 3.5's Psionic Handbook) but those Dragon Mirth cartoons do nothing for me.

Except they ditched all divine classes, including paladin and cleric. So the expectation you talk about is really kind of not what's going on in 4e DS. (Yes I know there's a sidebar reminding you that you can Rule 0 this, but the default rule is pretty clear.) How? How is "these guys are...

As it stands right now (4e), monsters are relevant for about 5 levels. If Critter X are typically level 6 then you typically can expect to encounter them around levels 4 to 8. It's possible to go a bit beyond but it's not really ideal. If they flatten the bonus-curve a bit you might extend that...

Races have had mechanical effects since about forever. Either because they were their entire own class, or because they give infravision, can't be Raised, give different thief ability %-adjustments, and so on. I see no reason to change that. I do see reasons to expand it though. Races give a...

One attack roll doesn't normally represent one attack, as such. Combat is supposed to involve feinting, creating openings, probing attacks, and so on. An attack roll is just a single event due to the abstract nature of the system. You're not attacking once every six seconds - you're actually...

In all three editions I played extensively (2e, 3e, 4e) there were opportunity attack rules. And in all three of them I don't feel the effort is worth it. Whatever is gained in a realistic or tactical sense is overshadowed by slowing down game play, a focus on minis as a requirement (rather than...

For goodness' sake, I was only trying to explain why I won't respond to your arguments so that you wouldn't feel as if you were being ignored. I'm trying to be clear. There's no need to be so hostile, ok? And with that I am now, finally, for real-real, out of the discussion.

Elf Witch: When I said "I'm out of this discussion", I meant it.

I'm out of this discussion, btw. I don't think anybody is going to convince anybody else here, everything we say seems to be a repetition of the same steps over and over. I do want to leave one final thought though: There are people who don't see a balance problem. They've never come across...

That doesn't explain why the wizard gets all these options. Why not the fighter? Or the barbarian? Or, more reasonably, the ranger or bard? A wizard/cleric/druid who puts his mind to it can more or less replace any other class (with some exceptions, like wizards and healing) after a certain...

First, I would like to say that no player should ever be a jerk. And games don't need to go out of their way to prevent jerks from happening. You can't prevent that, and it's better handled outside of the game rules. But with that said, here's a thought: If using a spell to hijack the rogue's...

OK. But I don't believe this is what the (pre-4e) complaints about wizards are about, though. Preciously few people think that blasting spells were the problem. A fighter might kill a guy every round. Sure. And the wizard can spend a limited resource to kill, say, two guys a round. Still no...

Respectfully, but you may need to read that particular conversation a bit better. That line of conversation entirely hinged on a miscommunication between Majoru Oakheart and Elf Witch.

I was referring to the way you handle +6 stat items. You said: "I don't care if a +6 item can be made at lower levels it is not happening in my game I am the DM and I will not allow something that game breaking in that early." This is what the "that game breaking" came from. So, you clearly...

So there is "not a balance issue" because you houseruled away "something that game breaking"? Isn't this the textbook definition of the Oberoni Fallacy?

Quoted for truth. I've turned several PCs to stone this way, and it's not like I keep throwing medusas after them every session or something.

1. People can disagree/have different preferences without having "lost their roots". 2. A good DM can do anything. How about an average one? Or a sub-average one? If a product can only be properly used by an above-average user, then it's not a good product. 3. I think you'll find that not...