Search results

My interest in 13th Age: zero. My interest in 5e: waning. So no.

I know, right? Having an ineffective character is not fun. Having someone tell you your character is terrible is less so. It's why the game should be balanced, so that jerks like me don't come in and ruin everything. Because if you're playing your dual-disarming flail fighter, there's a chance...

Lol, this character would be mechanically awful. You'd have to handwave dice rolls to make up for such a hugely ineffective character. 1. Dual-wielding is weaksauce in 3e, and you'd have huge penalties for not wielding a light weapon in your off-hand. 2. Disarming is hard to pull off on...

White text on a black background is really hard to read.

The issue is not optimizing. There is a certain amount of baseline optimization assumed by the system. The fighter is going to buy up his Strength score, use a +2 sword over a +1 sword, and he's going to get into melee combat and stab things. There's nothing wrong with that because if you...

I'm not sure what all this nonsense is about the Expertise feats being a matter of ego, but I take Expertise feats because I don't want my character to suck.

/rodney dangerfield You think having a wife from Cheliax is bad, you should meet my mother-in-law! /rodney dangerfield

What. Consistently adding +8 to +10 on attack rolls is a "tiny" mistake? Admitting that the entire first Monster Manual was done incorrectly is a "tiny" mistake? Gross monster hit point inflation leading to grindy fights is a "tiny" mistake? 4e math was "mathematically solid" in the sense...

The entirety of Pathfinder requires vast system knowledge. If you're a spellcaster, you can gimp yourself, but even if you do fireball all day erryday, you're going to be okay. If you're not a caster, you need a fair amount of system mastery so you aren't awful. There are a lot of trap...

The Monsters' Vault is the Monster Manual with all the errata applied. Mearls & Co. tacitly admitted that they didn't do the best job on MM1 and that the math was all wrong.

Ryan Dancey:

After playing some more of 4e, I've decided that the combats are pretty boring. Every combat is the same: hit, hit, healing powers, hit, hit, monsters dead, PCs use healing surges. The monsters usually hit every round but don't do enough damage for anyone to care about. Monsters take forever...

If the OP's suggestion isn't a warlord, what is? I'm not really seeing what a warlord does differently. Obviously, there's no 3[W] + status effect or 2[W] + move, but the gist is the same.

I know we'll never go back to fractional attacks, but a man can dream.

As far as I understand the term, "flat math" indicates much smaller numbers in the attack / defense department, not in terms of damage values. The WotC developers have stated they intend for damage to increase by quite a bit so that low-level monsters with low HP become mooks because they die...

My primary concern is how multiple attacks interact with advantage.

I can think of several reasons that multiple attacks are a good mechanic. First, it allows the fighter to do damage to more than one creature without relying on AOE effects. Secondly, it increases the probability of scoring a hit without adding higher numbers. Thirdly, it reduces the chance...

Personally, I think that there should be mechanics to support a 4e's warlord-type powers. I think that character should be the bard, myself, but I can see why other people would not.

I have no idea how you could interpret "getting a castle with an army" as not placing the fighter into a leadership role unless you were only familiar with the 3e version of the fighter, in which case you don't really have a place in talking about how fighters functioned in D&D up until 4e. In...

The current 5e playtest has the fighter get a boost at 6th level, allowing him to make two attacks with a standard action. I prefer multiple attacks to attack bonuses because it helps with the whole "flat math" thing. My two questions are: 1. Should other classes get multiple attacks in a...