Search results

Aside from the usual "campaign / party dependent" caviat - Defender: Fighter Leader: Warlord Controller: Wizard Striker: Ranger

I'm always surprised that something that's supposed to be just for a good time provokes this much continual angst.

Errata is good. You could always choose not to use it. A more complicated question is how should that errata be presented, as Zaran alluded to. There are different answers to this, but each seems to have its own particular set of draw-backs.

Admixture is a fine choice. Generally though, to be worth it, you should apply it to a strong at-will that does not have the damage type you want. For example, if you have the feats Resounding Thunder and apply Admixture: thunder to Blazing Starfall, you now have an area burst 2, range 10...

I remember a similar discussion a couple years back on enworld. There was a very helpful post from an army serviceman regarding sleeping in full tactical armor. Seems that, while not ideal, it's not as backbreaking as is commonly thought. Combined with the fact that magic armor has a certain...

I love webcomics (including OOTS), but I have the most difficult time with the following: As soon as I discover one I like, I read it from the beginning to the current comic, very quickly. But then at that point, with the nature of the release schedule, even if it's relatively quick, the story...

Was I supposed to get 20 gp for signing? If you're able to send me some it'd be nice, if not no biggie...

It performs better as a mediocre light striker than a terrible controller.

Oh, I'm very familiar with each of those things, and they have nothing to do with damage boosts being the best determinant of combat effectiveness, or being the only focus of CharOp. Seeker is not good, not be cause it can't do damage; it's not good because it is composed of mostly ignorable...

So... if you were going to disagree with my point, why didn't you choose examples to post up there that actually disputed it?

None of those things dispute what I wrote.

I'm not sure where you're getting this, or if this is just an outdated impression, but this just isn't the case now. At least on the WotC CharOp forums. The metric is not only damage. CharOp'ers try to figure out how to make an effective character, whether it's to do damage, defend, lead...

Compatible. Same rules set. However Essentials is NOT just like Martial Power. There is, for better or for worse, a significantly different design philosophy at work with Essentials. And I definitely see this as more confusing for new players. We've had the PHB, DMG, MM trifecta scheme for...

I let my players play whatever, although for myself I find the basic attack classes extremely boring.

Incredible! Love it :-)

I think this sounds pretty good.

Mm, as far as I can tell psychic is the damage keyword attached to effects like charm / fear / dominate.

I've only run the Scales of War path, and my players seem to enjoy it a great deal. But I do a lot of prep work and changes before hand to make sure each PC fits into the plot, and the module fits into my game world.

It's actually not a bad idea to separate out Effects and Damage. On a theoretical level I think this is good. However has this actually been a problem in your game? If you don't see it in-game often I wouldn't bother with it.

We had a lot of fun with the extremely visceral critical hits from Combat & Tactics.