Search results

Honestly, I feel LtA lost a bit too much of it's luster. It's now pure nova-material. As such, it's not actually much less powerful for a bravura warlord like the one we used to have, but the player just doesn't like it anymore. I'd have preferred it to become non-scaling, something like +4/+5...

Or, for a different "consequence for failure" if they are killable, but reducing them to 0 hp will cause them to crumble to dust, making Raise Dead unusable.

Not quite: you need a five minute REST. (ie. no fighting, no running, no major spellcasting) Now, if you're in combat, I don't think you're being very restful? What would happen is that some "until end of encounter" powers might run out early. But, as said, 50 rounds, it's not worth worrying.

Given as I build my 3.5 monsters using a set of 4E style principles, I don't think so. But then, before I started playing 4e I built my monsters even simpler than that (which is to say: I didn't :p)

The difference is, in that case, the peasant did something. Peasant vs. tank. Peasant hits the side of tank with his hoe, doing... Absolutely :):):):)-all.

I would make you make an athletics check to jump. Falling should end your action IMO, but if you can jump that far (and then fall safely afterwards) there'd be no problem.

"hitting" in D&D isn't about your weapon touching them, it's about your weapon striking them hard enough, in a vulnerable enough spot, that they actually notice it. I reckon less than 5% of untrained peasantry would be able to actually HURT aBluespawn Godslayer So, you hate the old versions of...

Yes it would be a lie. For that answer to be true, each worker would need to have built the entire car, by him or herself. For the statement "each X is Y" or "Each X has done Y" to be true, the statement "Xi is Y" or "Xi has done Y" must be true for every X. It is not true that "worker number...

Actually, a penny can be in cup A and in cup B. Cup A just has to be in cup B. However, to be WIELDING a quarterstaff in each hand, each hand must be wielding a quarterstaff. That is, considered individually, every hand must be wielding a quarterstaff. The left hand, considered individually...

You clearly haven't read the rules. You ALWAYS have a 5% chance to hit. a 20 always hits. And, indeed, they can. But it'll be terribly costly. So D&D other than 3.5 is too MMO-like for you? (you know, the whole "+x weapon" thing)

Is your left hand, considered individually, wielding a quarterstaff? Of course not, you're wielding it in both hands. Is your right hand, considered individually, wielding a quarterstaff? Of course not, you're wielding it in both hands.

That's not an issue of RAW anyway, but one of RAI, until they actually change the rule. Which is a contradiction, as we have already discussed. If that were true, and all staff implements were quarterstaffs, all quarterstaffs would consist of an infinite number of quarterstaffs.

Which came afterwards, but yes, point taken. It's not very inventive. Either the wizard uses staff-group weapons as implements; or they use staff implements as implements. If wizards use staff group weapons as implements, why do staff implements exist? There are no "heavy blade implements"...

@ggroy if the Essentials is significantly OP, which do you think will happen more often: A) a group playing normal 4e goes "ooh, uber-overpowered, let's buy that and throw all our old books away" or B) a group playing normal 4e goes "ooh, uber-overpowered? *meh* the game works as is, why break...

Again: why would they want to stop people buying the old books? If they make the essentials classes clearly superior to the old books people will buy one or the other. If they make them reasonably balanced, people will buy both. The only way they'll end up being overpowered is incompetence...

If you can apply all the relevant rules, and get a consistent result, you should apply all the rules and get a consistent result. Perspective A applies all the rules. And gets a consistent result Perspective B invents the rule "all staff weapons are staff implements" and gets an inconsistent...

Why assume that WotC wants to obsolete their old books? WotC wants to make sure they sell as many books as possible. Making the old ones obsolete would be counterproductive to that goal.

Power points would have been okay, had they kept the prices the same throughout tiers, and just stopped giving you more after level 10. They'd be slightly more flexible encounter powers. As is, the end result seems to be "stick with heroic powers always"

If all staff implements are quarterstaffs that is IDENTICAL to stating that only quarterstaffs can be staff implements. Its like the fact that if all computers are electronic*, only electronic things can be computers (*this isn't actually true for every definition of computer, but is so nearly...

The power point system still needs errata imo, so I'm not overly keen on this. (imo: power points need to stop increasing at the end of heroic, apart from bonus paragon PPs. The prices of powers also shouldn't increase. Simple fix that fixes the major bug with the power point system.)