Search results

Some people think hit points are abstract, right? As in, if I jab my sword at someone and do 5 damage, it might not literally mean I've run them through or even that I've hit them at all. Realistically speaking, a ranged attack that misses ends up going somewhere. It might hit someone between...

Creative players share that cry. As do early editions of D&D, to an extent. You're assuming the worst. It needn't be that bad.

The warlock was pretty thrilled when she suddenly realized exactly that, late in the playtest adventure I ran. And besides that, eyebite's invisibility power was put to good effect, as I managed to get a monster through the front line (which had spread out too much) and into melee with the warlock.

Against minions, the disadvantage of eyebite (lower damage) doesn't matter since they die in one hit anyway. And since eyebite attacks will instead of reflex, you are at an effective +2 to hit against those kobold minions when you use it instead of eldritch blast.

I am going to kill two birds with one stone by renaming them to "druid" without actually changing their in-game stats. Problem solved: no more dragonborn, and druids are now core.

Is this the whole 'phase 1: ongoing effects; phase 2: actions; phase 3: saves' thing? Early D&D had that too, since it worked like a miniatures game and those sorts of games love their phases. In the Rules Cyclopedia, each round went: A: Initiative B1: Morale B2: Movement B3: Ranged attacks...

Don't the Character Optimization boards already look like that, except with 3e terms?

How do you die on the third round if you haven't already rolled two 'strikes', one on each of the two previous rounds? [edit]: Er... I think I see what's up. Lots of confusion about what exactly the question was. Your chance of dying on the 3rd round, assuming you just went down, is .45 x...

I have a hunch that that was because an axe is a tool and a sword is a weapon, and people that don't tend to get into life or death battles would be expected to prefer a tool that provides them with warmth and shelter to a weapon that doesn't really do much for them. Plus, the axe is far...

Interesting. Maybe this is a style thing. I personally don't think these skills are needed for NPCs at all. Farmer Hamhaft can be a poor farmer, able to feed his family now but worried that the harvest might not be big enough to see them through the winter. And he can do it whether or not...

I have a friend whose single biggest complaint about fourth edition is that there aren't any druids. Clerics of nature gods are not good enough. I'm not entirely sure why, although I suspect it's a mix between the lack of shapechanging and the fact that their character sheet doesn't say...

In my experience, no rpg supports the game I want to run. So I just choose something that is close, make a few houserules if needed, and run it in whatever setting I've envisioned. Deciding if orcs have pig noses or if they are green skinned or if they don't exist at all takes so little effort...

It doesn't grow because of levels, but it might grow because the strikers get cool powers (abilities, feats, powers, magic items, etc.) that increase their offense while the defenders get cool powers that increase their defense. Then again, the gap shouldn't be growing anywhere near as much as...

I know what you mean. I basically understand the encounter powers as a totally unrealistic rule that produces fun, interesting, and entirely reasonable end results. Special move spamming is, in my opinion, neither fun nor verisimilitudinous, and the rule forces people to mix it up a bit more.

Not sure what the final official rules will look like, although by allowing shifting and then moving, they require fewer special rules and allow for the equivalent of a full withdraw action without having to specifically write rules for it. That seems like an all-round win to me, and is what...

While I haven't seen the Archangel Michael's 4th edition D&D stats (and highly doubt there are any), I suspect you'll have your way without even having to bother with houserules. That is, I think it's likely that the whole 'always having something to do' thing is fueled more by at will powers...

Huh. I guess the two of you have mental images of halflings that don't match mine... edit: That sounded snarkier than I had intended. Sorry about that. Basically, if halflings are roughly equivalent to a 11 year old kid (as I imagine them in 4E; they are smaller in 3E), I'd expect a large...

It sounds like you've understood me perfectly well. And your point about 3E also being the most gamist is weird. I don't think it's wrong, but it's just weird to think about. Early D&D seemed so gloriously gamist that it hurts my brain a little to think about how the far more simulationist 3E...

There are interesting points being made in this thread, but unfortunately many of them present information as fact when instead it is opinion and play style. Many people recognize that game rules have weird corner cases and don't expect the entire rest of the fictional world to live by those...

While it's true that the weapon does "1d12+11 fire damage", it's tagged as "Fire, Weapon". Whatever that means. Plane Sailing's theory was that it did both types of damage for purposes of resisting it, kinda like how a 3.5e morningstar works with its bludgeoning and piercing damage.