Search results

Because without that entry, you would have to be in a legal position at the end of every move, and thus couldn't, say, go the full 12 squares if your speed was 6 and the 6th square had one of your allies in it.

Kill him off, in a way that sets up the next adventure. I did this with poor Elmo back in the day with TOEE and it made a good impression with the players. :)

I'm not sure that it matters re: dead or dying. Those conditions are not inflicted on someone directly by an attack power - no attack power I'm aware of has a line like: Hit: 4 [W] + Strength and target is dying

Some of the classes are a bit iffy right out of the PHB (or whatever) alone so I think the ___ Power books are a must-include, personally.

It isn't a question of dogma, it is a question of "you need to be careful with even those 'enemies only' area effect powers." :p

You might do better to just remove stats and assign static bonuses.

Since this is the rules forum, I will give an on-topic answer to the OP: It doesn't matter. With some very minor exceptions, alignment has no mechanical impact in 4e.

Bards aren't set up particularly well to use crossbows. On top of everything else you mention, the euphonic bow paragon path you could use to get around your implement problem doesn't work with crossbows. I don't really see a good way to do a crossbow user without heavy feat investment; you...

The various heavy blade feats all require dexterity.

It specifies martial only.

I think the 'after the save is rolled' thing makes for a pretty good compromise, yeah.

Another one I kind of like is restricting the Orb of Imposition effect to just the next single saving throw against the power. That brings it more in line with the other implements, which mostly only affect one roll.

Orcs have to take their turns one at a time just like players, even if they have the same initiative roll.

This would be held in check at least somewhat by multiple ability dependence - the ranger+barbarian build has the advantage that all the powers use the same stat.

The archer ranger can indeed use Twin Strike in melee. It is unlikely to be a super effective tactic for an archery focused ranger, simply because you likely won't have a lot of points lying around to get yourself a decent strength, and there's also the matter that you're not likely to be able...

Honestly I think we need to just move on from this alignment discussion rabbit hole we've gone down. Stuff like that is always very subjective from game to game and thus makes a very poor choice for evaluating the intimidate skill from a game balance/rules perspective.

Most recently, we had a druid get killed in one shot from ~5 hp to negative bloodied by one of those skeleton archer guys using their encounter shot. Prior to that we lost a couple who were down and bleeding when we had to run away from a fight to prevent a TPK. Prior to that we had a similar...

The issue is more that as currently constituted you can't build a solid melee paladin without multiclassing. Paladins are hands-down the worst designed class in the first PH; setting aside how weak their mark is, there are significant gaps in the choices available to both builds, but the...

But the "rule" for Intimidate says they have to, according to one camp. Look, I'm not saying 'no skills used in combat ever'. I'm saying that the intimidate rule as interpreted by one side is just flat out broken and needs to have official rules specifically defining how it is used - like Bluff...

Not at all. Those checks will be occuring in the context of a skill challenge (or at least an impromptu skill challenge), which is the design space they're intended to operate in. Likewise, I would have no issue with Intimidate being used in that sort of scenario. The problem comes in when the...