Search results

Two words: Blade Cascade

Hunter's Quarry damage can only be applied once per round.

3e Fighters and Clerics were the same, doncha know? They could both take Power Attack.

They are. It even has a sidebar where evil clerics and paladins could be reflavored from the PHB descriptions. Either merely describe the special effects of their powers differently (probably the more common option), or even go so far as to change any power with the Radiant keyword to Necrotic...

Re: Ranger Looks like I made a good guess about the Ranger as being a Striker who minors in Controller. Many of his powers have the choice of either teeing off on one enemy or spreading the punishment. No, the Ranger will never be a full-on replacement for the Wizard in the Controller role, but...

Next turn, which means it can actually be two attacks (one during the turn in which you activated HQ, and then one more on your next turn.)

Oh, good. That nips the potentially broken Warlock/Ranger or Rogue/Ranger in the bud. EDIT: Oh, and I don't know if this is too much to ask, but what is Blade Ward's damage supposed to be?

The Ranger power Blade Ward (Lv. 23 Encounter, IIRC, I'm not where I can access it right now) is missing a number behind the [W] for damage.

Wow, talk about bypassing defenders something fierce. Well, Fighters, anyway. We've seen some burst attacks from Paladins, at least.

"One who practices magic" in D&D could be a Cleric, a Paladin, a Warlock, a Druid, a Shaman, or a Bard. "A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion" in D&D could be, well, anything. At least the first definition for Wizard establishes a game mechanic.

Then I guess you should just play D&D in a language for which Merriam-Webster has no dictionary. Just because "that's how it always was" doesn't make it right. Alignment affecting mechanics is something 4e is getting rid of. And good riddance, indeed. Gaming-constructed pseudo-philosophy...

You're letting alignment straitjacket your entire argument. Tempus is CN. Somehow I think a Paladin glorifying, learning and waging war while calling his name would satisfy him just fine, since he is, you know, the FR god of war. Aside from, again, straitjacketing your entire argument and...

Restrictions = straitjacketing. Or it's making a militaristic champion of a CN or unaligned deity. They're as entitled to them as LG gods are. Oh, you mean those 50 gazillion superfluous PrCs that amounted to little more than glorified Cleric substitution levels? No thanks. A code, perhaps...

I detested 3.0. It felt like a lot of great ideas poorly implemented and even more poorly balanced, so much so that I had gone back to 2e for a few years after. I did make a switch to 3.5 shortly after it was released, and, to be fair, it was a touch of an improvement over 3.0 (removal of the...

And in AD&D 1e.

I don't see the problem in comparison to previous editions. The 3e fluff text described 1st-level player characters as full-fledged adventurers, trained in their craft. If you REALLY wanted to go from peasant-to-immortal (a very overplayed plot line, by the way) in 3e, you would've had to start...

What "experience" led you to this utterly WRONG conclusion?

Well, to be fair, the 3e low HD creatures could all use Aid Another. But yeah, 4e's minions seem far more interesting overall.

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong, as anyone who has any sort of experience with swordsmanship will tell you. Two weapons does NOT allow you to attack faster or more times per round in a typical fight than someone with one weapon. What two weapons CAN do, however, is give you more options on...

A feat may allow you to take a larger weapon in the off-hand. If not, it's easy enough to draft such a feat for house rules. This would make sense, as it would be more difficult to wield two longswords than the more common longsword/dagger.