Search results

The 1e Bard would like to have a word with you. In any case, it's still too early to tell. Nearly all the classes have been described as having really cool and powerful stuff, so I probably won't crown a Zilla (if we even have one) until I sit down with the 4e PHB and find ways to break the...

I didn't create any new archery maneuvers and stances, though if I sat down for a while I probably could. What I did was create a "mini-school" just generically called Archery by transforming the archery-related SC spells into maneuvers and stances so they'd fit into the ToB system. The levels...

Are you kidding me? 3.x is where Paladins got neutered. Sure, on paper, it looks like they got a lot of stuff added from AD&D, but Smites were only situational and extremely limited, as was their spellcasting. What you forget is that in 1e and 2e, all Fighters got was Weapon Specialization...

Started with 2e, through the 90s played that but also got acquainted with groups that played 1e still. Actually preferred a lot of things about 1e over 2e. Went on to 3e, which did a lot of things better but also a lot of things not so well. 3.5 fixed a lot of 3.0's problems but also added a...

It does result in a rather lame character, though. Here's the "3.75" Ranger I've been playing with, step-by-step: - Superimposes the Scout onto the Ranger class (Skirmish, enhanced movement, and such). Basically, all that does is make the Ranger 20 what a Swift Hunter-ed Scout 3/Ranger 17 was...

Actually, Wizards' and Clerics' problems in 3.5 is that they are full casters that all too easily make other classes useless with their spells. It's not the same problem 3.5 Rangers have. They're more the result of, "Looks like something they should do, but we were too lazy at the time to make...

Well, you can think that all you want, but unless you give PHB1 specifics (other than Entangle which I already conceded) you're wrong. Okay, I'll concede Longstrider with a caveat: it's pretty lame to have to cast a spell simply to do what certain other classes do all day, all the time, without...

Yup, that's pretty much where I'm at.

Eventually all of them. When I get my hands on the PHB I'll probably turn to Paladins first, then Rangers immediately after. Make sure they don't suck like they did in 3e.

Just as a counter-thread to those giving their reasons for not switching to 4e, I might as well make a thread for those of us that DO plan to move on to 4e, and why you are making the switch.

Look at my post above. A lot of those Spell Compendium spells are combat maneuvers in every way but name and mechanic.

Ahh, Entangle, about the only non-Spell Compendium Ranger spell worth a damn in 3.5. Somehow, I think that spell could be picked up by a Cleric Training feat, and then you move on. Also, I'd have to say that the Spell Compendium presents a bit of irony. It's the book that gave Rangers useful...

That's not a light fighter, though. You only need a 13 DEX for Spring Attack. The rest goes into STR. You can have a heavily-armored Spring Attacker, or at worst medium armor.

Now let's not kid ourselves. Fighters (pure Fighters) that were Dexterity-based were completely ineffective in 3.x. Their damage levels were very non-threatening. Most of your Spring Attack-type light Fighters had levels in another class, such as Rogue, Scout or Duelist. You HAD to multiclass...

How about let's not get rid of any die at all?

Looks like you rolled a 1 on an "Attempt to be Funny" check.

They're nothing I would buy, but I enjoyed sitting on an armchair in the bookstore and browsing through them. They got me hyped for 4e, which I suppose is a goal of WOTC's as well.

2e: + Specialty priests and Spheres. Not perfect, but much more flavorful than 3e Cleric Domains. A more polished rendition of Spheres for 3e would've been a good check on the 3e Cleric's power. + Fighters (and Paladins and Rangers) really were the best melee classes. By far, actually. They...

Well, Rich Baker's lone point of reasoning is pretty ridiculous. The Harpers NEEDED shaking up. So if by "damage" you mean "making the Realms grow a pair for once," then sure. Then 3e came along and neutered it. 4e is wiping the slate clean of the damage 3e caused.

In a nutshell, because it would take a small novel: - Glossing over the consequences of the Harper Schism. - Resurrecting Bane was just flat out lame. And I do NOT want to see anyone using the Tyrantfire as an excuse. - Turning what would've been an intriguing subplot involving the "young...