Search results

I don't particularly care. Yeah, 1-2-1-2 is more mathematically accurate, but I'm definitely keeping an open mind toward 1-1-1-1, so I voted that.

The DDXP game is also apparently in the Forgotten Realms, so that feat may have been campaign-specific. The thing that made Clerics so cheesy in 3e was the fact that they could access every spell on the Cleric list. Domains, rather than adding any of the flavor they should've by perhaps...

Military scout or guerilla trooper that doesn't have to act like a hippie for power.

Nope, big difference. One of Mearls' points that were considered a problem in 3e that would be addressed in 4e was that magic was overpowered, and the nerfing of those spells look like a step in that direction. We expected this, some of us like it, some of us don't. On the other hand, the OP...

On that note, I wonder if we're going to have powers like SWSE's Severing Strike.

Or make it so damage is damage, until the killing/knockout blow. Whips and unarmed strikes (without Improved Unarmed Strike, assuming that feat exists in some form) can only deliver knockout blows, not killing blows.

Examples? Because I haven't seen this happen. All the pro-4e sentiment I've seen is reactionary to the news as it comes out, and then, at best, hopeful speculation beyond this.

Except that it doesn't.

Having opinions based on what's been released so far is fine. Making statements about how things are going to work with absolutely no supporting evidence is NOT fine.

I have a feeling that's a misprint that might be getting fixed. Just a hunch.

I'd say they both have their advantages and disadvantages. A Ranger with a bow has greater range than the Warlock does. Hunter's Quarry and Warlock's Curse can both only (initially) be applied to the closest enemy. Warlocks can curse more than one enemy, assuming they get close enough/he...

I never got the impression the classic alignments would be left out. As long as they're no longer tied to mechanics, I'm fine with it. Most of the silly alignment arguments at the table took place because players were afraid they might have to change their alignments away from that prescribed...

You know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? It's true, you can look it up.

Once per encounter and 5 squares if you're an Eladrin. 3 squares only if you're a Warlock with Fey Pact, and you have to set it up pretty well. Neither of those is in any way comparable to 4e Fly.

Gah, you just HAD to bring back memories of the random unarmed attack table. *shudder*

This. 3.0 Fly, in particular, was flat out ludicrous.

You're saying this like it's a bad thing.

Slow flight from a daily power ... or unlimited fast flight that is unfeasible in many dungeon situations (the exact same reason the 3.5 Paladin's special mount was such a crappy class feature)?

I think these spells are making all those who were crying, "Wizardz r beng redooced 2 boomstix in 4e11!!11!" eat crow. The only one I'm not too sure of is Mirror Image. I'd make it so that if the enemy's attack roll misses by more than 6 (or 4, or 2, depending on how many images you have left)...

You must not have read many threads on the subject, nor seen the countless times such points have been thoroughly debunked as at best, personal taste, and at worst, faulty interpretation and hyperbolized contortions of fact. Seriously, though, if I wanted to, and found others who were willing...