Search results

This will be my last post in this thread. I wasn't being aggressive in any of my posts. I'm not raving mad about this topic. I'm simply presenting arguments from an understanding perspective. Whether they were promises, plans, words, statements, or whatever semantics you want to use, WotC...

OK, I'm bored.:yawn:

I think it's a lack of faith. The absolute statements made during the 2007 GenCon presentation made it sound as though the tools were nearly complete, especially with all the screenshots and videos. At least that's when I thought, "Wow, they finally got this digital thing right!" after...

1) One month isn't a lot of advance notice for those who have ended their campaigns and/or sold their 3e stuff. 2) It's silence when nothing was said at D&D XP 2008, just two months prior. In fact, they were talking as though these online tools and resources would be available at 4e launch, and...

Keep in mind that some individuals might still feel jaded about "promises" regarding MasterTools made when 3e was released, too.

No, but changes and new adjudications to rules were included in the compendium. Additionally, we saw a plethora of books that included errata available only in the books themselves that were eventually compiled into Rules Compendium (not including spell changes in Spell Compendium with no...

They never said "Our plans our..." They said, "You will..." and "We will..." Additionally, I am not saying they made promises. Reread the OP and my post. I was answering the question, "Why is it that we hang so heavily on the words of WOTC, ascribing their plans as promises?" What I am saying...

Toolset vs. ruleset: In my argument, it's splitting hairs. I'm addressing the general topic in the OP of this thread, which is about words vs. promises. At least in the information I'm addressing above, they were words straight from WotCs proverbial mouths in their 4e announcement last year...

Actually, that's not even true. The compendium contains character options (and now monsters) but not actual rules or other content found in the books (excluding images). For example, let's say a new 4e book introduces a new action type as 3.5 did with immediate or free actions (this is just a...

Because those words are used to manipulate consumer attitudes toward a product to compel interest in said product. As such, consumers begin to act accordingly, as in the case of selling 3.5 products to clear room and make money for 4e products or ending their campaigns (as per WotC's advice on...

You can find the Psychic Theurge PrC in WotC's archives HERE

OK, I misunderstood. I think the Interaction Skill Tricks might be his best bet, but they don't expand on the use of Improved Feint.

The player might want to seriously consider the Thief-Acrobat PrC, too. It really helps with the tumbling, acrobatic fighter/rogue type. PS - Amaril was the name of that character concept mentioned above who also had levels in the 3.0 Thief-Acrobat PrC as well as levels of fighter. The idea...

Here are some options: Feats Tumbling Feint Skill Tricks Group Fake-Out Never Outnumbered Didn't have time to find more, but I'll see what I can dig up tonight. Rest assured, there are plenty of character options for this type of character. It was the first character concept I ever played in...

Also, this map matches up identically to a portion of the FR map between the Misty Vale and the Rathgaunt Hills

Out of curiosity, is anyone willing to put in Torn Asunder's content? It's 100% OGL, but compiles a lot of content from other sources.

I was thinking about this thread some more, and it seems to me that it would almost be impossible to create an exhaustive list, especially if including third-party products. Additionally, it would be easier to list "non-core" PrCs that are not designed for core classes. Honestly, the list of...

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/prc Now you just need a name.

*dingdingdingdingding* We have a winner!

The problem isn't whether or not the deluxe books include errata. The problem is that additional printings of the original book do not include errata, and there's been no definitive answers about whether or not the PDF versions will, too.