Search results

Different than Frazetta? Yes. A hack? No.

Unity, intelligent leadership, new tactics... is that a fair over-generalization?

While reading a thread about Samurai vs Knights, someone argued the 2 were roughly equal because the Mongols were able to whip them both. Why were the Mongols so effective? Was it numbers? Tactics? What?

I think you need all the mythical creatures that everyone knows about: vampires, dragons, mummies, ghouls, werewolves, zombies... all the standard archetypes. D&D-only creations will require more homework, as the new DM won't already be familiar with them.

Either the current or the previous issue of Dragon has some new fear spells in it... you might take a look at those.

Not so much a hijack as a slight detour... Summoned demons/devils/etc. cannot in turn use their summon ability, right?

Contrary to popular beliefs, the most dangerous animal is not the lion or tiger or even the elephant. The most dangerous animal is a shark riding on an elephant, just trampling and eating everything they see. Thank you, Mr. Handy. No need to add Dire or any other templates...

So if I hate online and prefer solo... stay away from this game, right? (DUH! you reply... what I'm asking is that can you play it single player like you can Diablo, or is this pretty much multiplayer only?)

I don't think Maneuver Foe impinges on Bull Rush. I see them as different ways to accomplish a similar result. Bull Rush relies on strength and physical pushing. Maneuver Foe relies on melee expertise (foot work, riposte, counterattack, sparring) to force a foe to move. The foe can choose not...

Gez, I like that idea! Consider it yoinked!

EVERY feat? Including from all the splat books? That's a LOT of feats. I do like the idea of CHA bonus adding to spells known, though.

Being completely devoid of any creative abilities, I use the tables in Draconomicon to generate art.

Manuever Foe looks really nice! Jump for Cover, too. I agree with Goolspy on Ignore Foe. I think Set should give +2 instead of +1. Defensive Sunder takes the usefulness of Improved Sunder away. I'm not a fan of sundering in the first place, either.

The issue is that the party has no cleric or paladin, just a FS. And with no ability to turn undead, undead encounters are much more dangerous. Esp. those level-draining beasties. I suppose I could ditch the FS and go to UA's spontaneous cleric. But compared to the FS, that alt.Cleric is...

A Warmage, with such a limited spell list, is pretty much screwed when it comes to using wands and scrolls, right? Similar question: can a sorcerer use a scroll or wand of a spell he doesn't know since it is on his list of spells he can choose from?

Sean Reynolds had some stuff about the Swords on his site once upon a time. I'm at work and can't do the research for you, though (our Fun Filter blocks some sites but allows others. Thankfully EN World gets through!)

I'm with you on the wings. I really dislike that class feature and will be doing away with it. I'm definitely pro-spontaneous magic. Sorcerers over wizards. FS over cleric... but I wanted Turning. I started with the Evangelist from Dragon, then looked at the variant in UA, then the FS. I'm not...

But let's compare them to a cleric: 1 better save category Less spells known but more per day No heavy armor No domain powers No turning 3 Elemental Resistances DR Wings Does that mean FS is stronger than Cleric? I'm inclined to say yes. But as I already stated above, I'm a bit retarded on...

Someone suggested a while back on a thread I can't remember that Favored Soul is too weak and should have Turning added back in. I like the idea, and not being a "balance savvy" kind of guy, wanted ya'lls opinion. ("Ya'll" is Texan for plural you, btw :) )

I'm working on a campaign based on the Greyhawk world, with its cosmology and history, but fast-forwarded a few hundred years after an apocalyptic event that largely wipes the continent clean. I've always had a problem with explaining (justifying) numerous monsters wandering around in...