Search results

Thanks for not bothering to read the opening post.

Well, a little bit of controversy in the title often gives you a few more replies. :p What I was trying to get at - before the ever expanding example - was that the name "per encounter" really works against them. Flavorwise, they are plain better than "per day", yet the name implies otherwise.

There is one thing about "per encounter"-abilities that I hate: The flavor of an ability that is encounter-based is totally off. I believe my very first impression of them, once I stopped looking at it mechanicly, was something like this: "An ability can only be used during one encounter, no...

You know, there are things you can lose other than your life. In particular: People your character cares about (for roleplayers), your equipment (for munchkins) and your social status ("Oh, look over there, it's the guy who cannot even deal with a bunch of kobolds!") Most DMs of campaigns...

Explain how the current, rough character concepts are "stretched". And if you do, give me two different takes on a human paladin that are not "stretched". (If you critize Paladins just as much as you critize Warlocks, take Rangers instead, or some other class, except the Cleric and the Wizard...

Just asking for two is way too easy for this kind of class. Guy 1: Entered the pact involuntarily, or while he was heavily disturbed. Tried to get out of it ever since, but couldn't. Rational enough to see that he is got to use his abilities to survive, adventures to get some way out of the...

You are joking, right? Either that, or you never looked at a Wizard 10/Sorcerer 10. It ain't pretty. And yes, it is a valid character concept. That's pretty much what the Simbul in FR looks like, in the official supplements. How can you get any less role-playing than 3.5 Diplomacy skill? And...

The Enworld hive mind has spent quite some time thinking of a better word, and still didn't get come up with any. So Wizards doesn't do too badly. In fact, I think they get too much hate for names in general. Fantasy names just tend to sound cheesy, and only get better by hearing them...

I'm more afraid they are not making enough changes. We all have 3.5 materials. We don't need anymore of those (otherwise we would keep buying them, and Wizards wouldn't need 4th edition). The rules are all written up from scratch. If there is something that works, but will probably work better...

To me, the real danger is that players end up creating characters with alignment in mind, and thus come up with very similar characters. Any person should have more complicated goals than "acting good and acting by the rules". Alignment does not take that away, it doesn't do anything bad in...

This is something I wondered about. People were up in arms about the flavor of the new Warlock class, some saw a pure NPC class. Where I saw a perfectly viable, more clichee than Cleric, player character class. Of course, this is a matter of opinion. I never liked the group of the glorious...

I can see the argument: "Well, SoD sucks in random encounters, but it is fun to use it for BBEGs sometimes", similar to "Well, Flumphs/Red-Stripped-Spagetthi-Monsters are really not required most of the time, but it doesn't hurt to have them in the book". Assuming that Flumphs can somehow ruin...

One thing that come to my mind recently: (Assuming Warlocks will be Controllers, which seems pretty likely by now): In 4E, a group consisting of a Fighter, a Warlord, a Ranger and a Warlock will, if we can believe the designers, work just as well as a traditional group consisting of a Fighter, a...

Yeah, won't happen, Wizards don't have the balls for that. Yet I would love it. That would ensure that Fighters actually are tougher (have higher constitution) than Wizards. Interesting, this poll played out differently than the other one (with a slightly majority for the traditional way)...

There are going to be breathing, eating and sleeping rules, player characters need them. So somewhere in the rules you will have a section that reads: "Breathing: All [x] need to breathe. If they don't have access to air, they ..." So what's [x] going to be? "All Humanoids, Animals, Dragons...

Not in 4E, hopefully.

Because (hopefully), Fireballs are less dangerous in 4E and have less damage variance. AoE crits should have come up in playtesting. And even if you take a large amount of damage from a critical hit and die, the difference is still that you died because you took damage beforehand. With a SoE...

Half-orcs stink and are stupid, whereas elves (especially in LotR) are really just humans except better in every way. D&D is somewhat affected by it, though arguable less than some other games. In particular, D&D elves are short (or used to be), have weak Con, and somehow learn in 120 years...

It's necessary to specifically target them, and to have rules for them. For example, I suspect there will be Death Effects that only target living beings, and rules for eating, sleeping and breathing will probably be tied to living beings as well.

Most of us will probably agree that iconic spells like "Finger of Death" and "Wail of the Banshee" need to be in the game in one or the other, but opinions are divided how exactly they should work. Given that we don't know how they are handled in 4E, I thought it would be interesting to see what...