Search results

Not everybody plays strong and burly barbarians. Lots of people play wizards and rogues.

Snuh.

But it's much harder to learn to use a sword competently than it is to learn to use a gun competently.

The point is that, with the one weapon they share proficiency in, the fighter is only 5% better than the commoner. And that's not realistic given the fighter's extensive combat training. Also, your stance implies that the fighter could have focused his training time on just a few weapons and...

Learning 39 different weapons after his first would make him quite a bit better at fighting in general, too. It's just the way combat training works.

Yes. Along with 40 different weapons. So we've established that he's not some kid straight out of basic training. Yet, for whatever reason, his combat statistics don't reflect that.

But that's the point. For all his extensive training, he only has a 5% better chance to hit an enemy than a commoner with a dagger. That's just silly. It's true that there's no substitute for combat experience, but training makes a big difference - hence the fact that it's a standard staple of...

I didn't say he had practical experience in using them, I said he's been trained in their use. Hence the fact that he can use them without the nonproficiency penalty. Do you have any idea of the amount of training it would take to make someone able to competently use 40 weapons, most of which...

And yet, he's proficient in the use of about 40 different weapons, each of which requires a different fighting style and its own set of skills and tricks to use (even shortswords and longswords, though they may seem superficially similar, use completely different fighting styles). That's a level...

No. You're still thinking in 3E terms. 4E is different because many abilities will now be usable either at will or on a per-encounter basis. Mearls said that wizards who use all their per-day spells will be at 80% power; if that's true, it's vastly different from 3E, where wizards who use all...

Well, one explanation I can think of is that this campaign world exists in the ruins of such a society. Perhaps there was once a great empire in the world (or several great empires), but it was overrun by monsters ten or twenty or fifty years ago and mostly destroyed. A great deal of the...

No, the problem is with the game mechanics. In 3E, you simply cannot design an adventure where the PCs are up against a tight deadline unless you are sending them against very weak opposition. The reason for this is that, in the 3E system, a CR-appropriate encounter is designed to consume 20-25%...

Speaking only for myself.... I don't know. But I do know that I've gotten really tired of the 3rd edition "day," which runs from 8:00 in the morning to 10:00 in the morning. The 3E mechanic of requiring the party to rest after every four (CR appropriate) encounters really limits what you can do...

As has been pointed out, that 1st level fighter is proficient in the use of something like 40 different weapons, from daggers to glaives to longbows. He's clearly not some kid just out of basic - he has very extensive training. The problem is, the rest of his stats don't reflect that.

That's true. Another good example is unintelligent land-bound brute monsters like the Colossal Monstrous Scorpion. They're deadly in a straight-up beatdown fight, but if the party can fly, they can kill them with missile weapons and spells without taking a scratch. Or just bypass them...

I remember one of the Dungeon/Dragon editors (can't recall who at the moment) talking about something similar to this a while ago. He said that a group of 19th level characters fighting a CR 27 enemy doesn't play out nearly the same way as a group of 5th level characters fighting a beholder...

I think people are being a little premature in assuming that there'll be three levels between 0 and 1 in 4E. Everyone is basing their assumptions off 3E, but I don't think you can compare characters between editions so easily. Try comparing a 1E fighter of any given level to a 3E fighter of the...

I've seen it stated many times over the years, both here and at other forums. It's certainly been my experience, as well. The problem with building mass encounters in 3E is that, in order to add enough monsters to make it a "mass" battle, you have to make the monsters so weak that they're not...

Well, I'd rather see that accomplished without adding a mechanic that, IMO, really doesn't fit with the flavor of D&D. The nameless thugs that Batman and Robin fight aren't supposed to be a serious threat; but, last time I checked, orcs are supposed to be a serious threat to low-level D&D...

But high-level characters can already chop through swarms of orcs. Why do we need minion rules for that?