Search results

I agree with the spirit of allowing "Ducking", but it opens a can of worms in the system. In the past systems (I haven't played 4e yet), house rules have taken on a life of their own. When one ability gets tweaked, then it has repercussions on other classes and features. In our scenario...

It surprises me, but I wouldn't allow my PC's to "aim high". I don't really see it as creative, just manipulative. Only in a certain circumstance would I allow "aiming high" (such as casting high over a prone comrade at the feet of a giant). My reasoning is for speed/fun of the game. In my...

A feat should buy you something, so Bastard sword is okay for my campaign. My PC's care more about the difference between a hammer, an axe and a sword rather than the difference between a big sword and a really big sword. I wouldn't run around redesigning weapons when "Martial Power" is coming...

I feel that Twin Strike needs an adjustment. (so I agree to some extent :) ) OR Careful Attack and the Fighter at will need a bump in attack bonus. Any melee attack doing only weapon damage is weak. So I wouldn't mind a +3 or +4 on the attack bonus for Careful Attack.

My question is: Should 'Careful Attack' be a +4 to hit or, should 'Twin Strike' take a -2 to hit? Consider that the fighter at will attack grants him a +2 to hit. To grant the Ranger +2 advantage over the fighter is too much, or maybe it is fine since the Ranger is a striker. I'm inclined...

This is an important aspect of a campaign setting although most settings do not address it.

Just say that the re-rolling ends the cascade.

I like the idea of Careful Shot having a higher plus to hit rather than increasing its damage. You could always add in other effects that affect a sniping type shot; such as ignoring certain cover or somesuch. Twin Strike should be damage. Careful Shot should be about connecting with hard to...

That is frustrating. But it is the pattern that I have seen with all gamesystems. I look forward to the revisions.

Yes, I feel we now have 4e core. Just enough class options to test out and learn the rules. We won't know until the splatbooks how well WotC expands the options. I expected that to happen, as the splatbook model seems to work well for selling books.

Does this prove that 3e was a good ambassador for the game? 2e was long stale before 3e was born and so really, the loss of gamers due to 2e had an impact on the sales numbers of the first run 3e.

I still have my group's homemade sheets from 1990.

Prices are easily adjusted. But I do agree that the money needs to be relevant or ignored all together. I think that the time aspect of the ritual and keeping scrolls/books handy will be the limiting factor.

No one here is a stripper?

Registered Nurse

I am very hopeful, but 4e is not starting out as well as 3e did. Gleemax is already stinking. Dragon and Dungeon may have fallen into the abyss in a permanent sense. I think that WotC is overreaching and wasting their assets. They need a handful of high quality venues and drop the rest...

The loss of hardcopy magazine support for D&D (as a brand) is a tragedy. Slight bumps in content could sway readership. WotC would have been better served to adjust the paper magazine to its needs rather than ditch it for a fairytale.

Being a fan of both 3e and 4e (so far), I'll keep on coming back. I mostly lurk, but it is a great place for fans of any D&D edition. This is still the best place to read up on gaming advice, rules, etc.....

It seems that there are more rounds fought in a 4e encounter than in a 3e encounter. My experience is that 3e spends a lot of time resolving each player's turn (resolving bonus' and rolling lots of dice) and having fewer rounds fought. All of the opposing dice rolls really make a mess of melee...

If 4e follows the same pattern as 3e, then powers will grow in number as more books are released. The Combat book comes out in October.