Search results

Couldn't help but notice that the early art concepts for the dwarven warlock show a beardless lady. What's up wit dat?

BLAH BLAH BLAH was the 3rd edition. Then they produced BLAH BLAH BLAH BL for v3.5. This is going to be BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. Totally new blah concept.

I always thought that being "second best at everything" was one way of doing something better than any other class. ... All those other classes? Specialists. One-trick ponies. The "second best at everything" guy? Flexible. Has the potential to step up and take on any task anywhere. Ad-lib a...

Maybe every multiclass combination isn't supposed to work. I know, that's crazy talk. Questioning the underlying assumption and whatnot. Just an idea.

I hear ya. Selfless people get on my nerves, too. All that "I want to help YOU" baloney, like we're supposed to believe they enjoy supporting others instead of grabbing glory for themselves. Yeesh. :\ Kinda icky when you think about it.

Chuck Norris killed all the gnomes in 4th edition. He's got a race hit list already planned for 5th, 6th and 7th editions.

Chuck Norris urinates random potions. He was the original concept behind the "Wand of Wonder."

When the unstriped tiger is made to quack like a duck and dance upon the nameless wind, then contentment shall reign over the earth. Until then, however, only a blind man can truly taste the bitterness of youth. Bard or monk? Yes. But not both.

You should feel grateful Chuck Norris has allowed you to live long enough to post that. Some say that life on this planet as we know it is actually Chuck Norris' personal 4th edition. He has roundhouse-kicked Earth into oblivion a few times already because humans keep screwing up things.

Chuck Norris roundhouse-kicked all the other classes and races out of the PHB ... 5th edition. Chuck Norris is always an edition ahead. Chuck Norris never rolls to confirm a critical. He IS critical. If you're lucky, he might allow you to invoke his name, "to roll a Chuck Norris." Then again...

I've been fairly satisfied with the various 3E feats that allow for the development of a mage's familiar; it feels almost as though the character is divesting some of his own power into a separate body as an extension of himself. Or in other words, he effectively becomes two characters, a...

Nevermind. PC already addressed the issue.

Seen any hints yet on whether the kinds of bonuses (armor, dodge, inherent, luck, etc.) will be simplified in 4E? It can be a pain now to try to keep track of which bonuses stack or have upper maxima.

It's because the figures you move around in World of Warcraft are nothing more than carefully designed tools, without any true characterization or personality or background history. Those "characters" look cool and they make things go BOOM! but the WoW environment involves very little...

You get points for seeing the functional effects beneath the facade. Kudos. Don't forget, though, the (often somewhat goofy) descriptive text that go along with the class description. At least a few roleplayers will still want some story justification for why they get certain "prestige" abilities.

It's even worse for people who daily deal with text detail in their professional lives. The errors might as well be printed in bold red type. ... Hello, journalist here. And, Eric, don't you handle a lot of books yourself? ... When we ignore the rules and get sloppy on message boards like this...

I remember when 3E was announced that there was much discussion about the HUGE character class advancement changes (no more dual-classing! no more racial limits!), combat mechanics changes (goodbye THAC0! an AoO works exactly how?), etc. It was a major make-over. I'm not getting the same...

There's no reason to not include them as an option. If players like yourself don't want a familiar, then you shouldn't take the familiar. Some of us enjoyed them. Eliminating them entirely is an unncessary restriction.

I think they were put in the teleport chamber at the same time and ended up at their destination smushed together as one creature.

Change is not necessary. There's no need to question old attitudes and language use in new editions.