Search results

And how does this prove or disprove that in 3.5 it was "impossible" to make items unless you were a "high level npc"? But thank you for highlighting things I dislike about 4e. Who is the blacksmith a minion of? Why is he a brute? Why can't he make armor? Pretty impressive stat array too...

So...you agree a 1st level blacksmith can create the stuff a small town would need as well as exceptional weapons and that "high level" isn't required? Ok then.

OK, remove 4 skill points and keep skill focus. Still has a 12 check (14 if a dwarf) STILL enough to make masterwork at 1st level. 4 skill 1 int 3 skill focus 2 mw crafting tools 2 assistant (possible +2 dwarven-ness)

A level 5 expert (blacksmith) can make any kind of weapon needed. +8 skill ranks +1 Intelligence bonus +3 Skill Focus +2 masterwork tools +2 from an assistant or apprentice helping them +16 to his check If he takes 10, that is a 26 check, vs 20 to make masterwork items. The Alexandrian Blog...

Yes, PCs are defined by race AND class. So should monsters. You can restat monsters just fine with 3e system. You add a class or by DM fiat, add a power you want them to have. I want the rules to be the same if you add a barbarian level to a troll or a human. I disagree vehemently that...

But what would be so different about them as compared to regular trolls that would necessitate a lot of work? How would they get these differences? Changing the stats? Sure, some trolls may be stronger, weaker, more dextrous, etc. Those changes take a few seconds. More or less hps? Ok...

How is this different? If the goal is to win, the wizard should be saying "I cast a spell", "I cast a spell", etc A wizard spamming magic missiles at a monster with 50 hps, is not different (except in flavor and the fact that the wizard eventually can't anymore) from the fighter saying "I...

Not everything has to be different. I want a reason for their to be "special" trolls in the same area as regular trolls. I like my cities to make sense and my ecologies to make sense, as much like a viable world (albeit one involving magic) as possible. We've been running through one of the...

Losing the feeling of D&D has never stopped them before, post 3.5 anyway. I will continue to disagree that we need 3 divine oriented classes, in the same way that the sorcerer isn't needed. Fighter, Rogue, Bard, Wizard, Druid, Ranger, Barbarian, Cleric(or priest), Paladin, and Monk. Done.

My first session as a DM was roughly 25 years ago, so I am saying this from some experience... Not every monster needs to be special. As such, at they have roughly 5 books of monsters already fully statted out for 3.5 alone, I think they called them Monster Manuals. The only time I feel...

I want my monsters obeying the same rules of magic as pcs. Thats why they are rules. I want the monsters to have stats and mean the same as.pcs as well. Basically monsters and pcs should follow the same rules in general

12-20? Really? Are you going off of the 4e "talking to someone is an encounter"? We have 5 hour 3x/Pathfinder sessions every week, with about 4-5 combat encounters a night, which goes perfectly. I don't want 12-20 encounters a session. That leaves time for roleplaying.

Encounter and daily powers are things I never want to see again. I don't care for the overly tactical 4e combat at all. When I wanted tactical combat, I played Minis...I mean before they killed that with 4e too.

I want to play FR according to what is really happening in it. I liked what it had, not what it has now. FR is well known, it allows the players (who read the novels) to really feel like they know things their characters in game would (important people, events, places) completely unlike...

Not quite correct. Eladrin are a 2nd/3rd edition celestial of CG alignment. They may have perverted/converted that into now being a 4th edition High Elf, but that is not what they once were.

I would say that keeping Eladrin's in the game as PCs would be a deal breaker for me in general. They already existed, as CG versions of the Deva/Planar/Solar, they sure as heck weren't elf replacements. Otherwise I think half-races would be ok. I'd rather they keep it near the core stuff...

The 4e one was debunked. This one may or may not be fake.

fractional like 2e or iterative like 3e.

I've beta tested release 1.5 of a game, and not been selected to test 1.6. It's not that uncommon to switch testers, especially if they haven't been helpful (and judging by that guy's opinions, I doubt it was that helpful of feedback provided)

With the advent of all of the 3.x paladins of X (freedom, tyranny etc), I would much rather have Paladins just be the class doing the heavy armor wearing, moderate healing, tank type guys in the front of the battle. I could even see reducing clerics to light armor, although medium would be best...