Search results

No, I think I understand what he's saying. It is "should" from a mechanical perspective without taking balance into account. If the results are completely unpredictable players won't do it at all, and generally you give people abilities because you want them to use them; if you *are* going to...

Even if you turn it into the equivalent of "stops fighting (save ends)" or whatever, it is still far too powerful a combat effect to grant to everyone as an at-will IMO. 4e is otherwise very careful about parceling out combat attacks for balance reasons, and I think it is a gross...

Yes, although in this particular case you can't choose just part of the movement, as you have a hard requirement on where your shift ends if you choose to take.

Yeah, that is way too good. Aside from the striker damage and defender issues, a way to get 2+/encounter healing at the cost of only 2 feats strikes me as something that would be almost impossible to pass up for most characters. It really messes with class balance too. People could then just...

The immobilize condition ends as soon as the fighter isn't adjacent, so the dragon could shift in if it wanted; thinking about it, the bull rush would end the immobilization even if the dragon *did* then shift in, for just that reason.

Intimidate At-will Standard Action - Ranged sight Target: One bloodied creature Attack: Charisma +5 vs Will Hit: Target is reduced to 0 hit points What DM would allow that in their game? At the cost of a trained skill? That's basically what the "intimidate anytime on any opponent" camp is...

Yeah unless the OP's game rolls stats instead of point buys them or something, what we're talking about is a striker with at best a +3 in his main attack stat, assuming he's playing a dex/wis or int/wis race, and almost nothing in the way of bonuses to other stats at all. Things this means...

I'm not sure bull rushing will help, unless you also ruled that the shift to follow was optional. In any case, the player had it right. The immobilize persists even with the fighter being stunned. Ruling otherwise makes stunning more powerful, which I would argue is in the long run probably a...

Reach weapons are not really a big boost for wardens. On top of all the other things mentioned here, it also doesn't help your pull-them-closer at-will as it isn't tied to weapon reach. Having gone through a number of builds, wardens really seem to perform best when going 1h/shield. The fact...

He would actually have to put a base 17 in his dex/int to get all the way to a +5 by 6th level, not a 16.

All kinds of actions, outside of a fight. This bit of rules text is not only talking about in-combat use of Intimidate. I'm still firmly in the 'this is a list of sample types of things Intimidate COULD be used for, in the right circumstances' camp, personally, it is not carte blanche to get...

Balance-wise I think you have to let mark stack with everything; otherwise it will really impair defenders from doing their job. There's also enough things that apply attack penalties that not allowing at least some sort of stacking will mean that parties can gimp themselves if they don't...

Yeah I still have and love the Greyhawk maps and I carry a large amount of goodwill towards Erik for all his work on that setting over the years. For me the peak of quality was Age of Worms, but some decisions were made to run stuff after that (particularly in Savage Tide, but also a couple...

I let it expire. I'm not playing 3.5 anymore, I don't really have an interest in playing 3.5 anymore, so it was just wasted money, and I had already been pretty dissatisfied with Paizo stuff for a few other reasons.

Solos already shake status effects off really easily from non-CharOp grade characters via saving throws thanks to their +5; the issue in this case it sounds to me was 'til end of next turn' type effects. The better answer is to limit stacking penalties in some way. If you just give them two...

Expect a lot of pressure to allow at least paladins access to Divine Power. Paladins right out of the book have some really terrible gaps in their powers, especially if strength-based.

IMO the way that bit about the Intimidate skill is worded indicates that is a potential use under some circumstances, not a hard and fast 'you can always try this' rule. If it was a specific defined use of the Intimidate skill, usable on any bloodied creature, it would be broken out in the...

This is more or less the conclusion I came to as well, but I don't really like the effect it has on a few of the powers in PHB2 - there's that invoker at-will that does flat damage for its *initial* effect, for example.

Yes, the beast companion can leave the ranger's side. It has to come back again first thing next round before it can do anything else, but it can certainly charge someone in range once it has moved adjacent to the ranger. If the intent was that it had to remain adjacent to the ranger at all...

This would be my take on it. There's no rules grounds for denying players this info.