Search results

See, I don't concede that at all. A paladin is and always has been more than just some guy with a sword who's god really, really wants him to kill things.

But again, it's not an either/or. Wizards should be able to adequately describe how something works without forcing flavor on us by throwing out names like 'golden wyvern adept'. After all, it's been done for roughly 30 years now.

That would be awesome. Maybe a swift action that gives a +2 bonus to attacks, damage, and AC against evil creatures for every ally within 15'. Maybe call it 'Battle Blessing' and allow it to be used once per encounter. Instead, we're left with Safeguard Smite and the very real possibility of...

This doesn't even make sense. No one here is complaining that the paladin smite isn't called "shining steed strike". Some people aren't happy that the smite doesn't make sense in terms of the basis of how it would work, not whether or not it has some meaningless name that's supposed to evoke...

Then why not let the paladin heal and protect things as swift actions?

See, that's exactly my problem. I don't like that they are forcibly integrated. I think it just seems arbitrary.

I hate fluff tied into crunch, so I chose the second option, despite how silly I found it to be. I mean, it's a bit melodramatic to say that hated fluff is going to ruin my campaign.

It's not that he's doing it while he's hitting something with his sword. It's that he's doing it because he's hitting something with his sword. If they want to give the paladin a 1/encounter ability that lets them do a little healing or a little AC boost to an ally as a swift action, great...

Well, I don't hate 'em, but I'm not all that enthused. I just don't like the idea of a paladin smiting his enemy and that causing some random ally 20 feet away to be harder to hit depending on how wise the paladin is. Any justification for that making any sort of sense just seems so paper-thin...

Awesome, more crunch!

That's kind of what I'm hoping to be my consolation prize at this point. If they're going to move the druid towards wildshaping, I really hope a lot of interesting nature spells make a mass exodus to the cleric's spell list. I don't think it'd be the ideal way I'd like to see it handled, but I'd...

Why not make a druid's spellcasting more unique then? -They could be the only spellcasters that can magically affect animals in any way, whether charming, communicating, summoning, etc. -They could also be the sole users of spells that deal with weather like controlling weather, summoning...

Ok. That would fine, I suppose. Unfortunately, I'm thinking the odds of a spellcasting druid being its own class, with a well-designed and mostly unique spell list, are pretty low. I don't think 3E druids' spells got the proper attention, and if they're talking about taking the druid in 4E and...

Or give them the option of having one or the other and letting that particular druid choose. I think that's better than dividing them into completely different classes called "druid" and "um, druid II".

There's always going to be some overlap among spellcasters. A druid's spellcasting, though, should encompass much more of nature than just producing a lightning bolt or using a spell that has fire. I just think there's a lot of potential for a druid that is focused solely on spellcasting. Using...

Sorcerer sounds really cool. A lot of potential there. Druid, though, was disappointing. I have zero desire to play a wildshaping druid, but a crazy desire to play one that focuses on spells that unleash nature's fury. I was hoping with 4E, there'd be more of a choice in regard to whether a...

No, it was only 8% who said they hated draconic guys the most. I'm sure there are plenty of people who, like myself, hated draconic guys but hated something else even more.

Their physical description being different? "The Dragonborn in their picture looked like big and well muscled lizardmen. They were antropomorphic, had two legs and no wings. It looked as if their hands had claws." As for them having an empire in the past, that doesn't strike me as...

Something happening once doesn't really prove anything. If I win the lottery once, that doesn't make me more likely to win the lottery in the future. Regardless, there's nothing to indicate so far that the dragonborn in 4E will be dramatically different than the dragonborn introduced in the...

With so many other draconic options, why would they call it 'dragonborn' is they weren't going to roughly follow the dragonborn fluff? I suppose it's possible someone just loved the 'dragonborn' name, but I'm not exactly all that hopeful.