Search results

It ain't that I can't imagine it, it's just such a bunch of conceptual loops for such vanishingly little gratification that it's not worth the time. If they were obvious chimeras it'd be fine, but it seems like if they were, it'd reduce their appeal a bit to people who just want to play a little...

Yeah down to 4. Basically now it's down to seeing what class concepts they deem worthy of filling out in later splatbooks and do they look like something worth playing and while I'll probably get into the new edition sometime it's going to be when it's matured a bit I think.

For gods sakes he wants a fighter/rogue straight out of 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition, is it that hard to divine. A concept that all of those handled more or less well and was neither broken nor unviable in any of them.

You know, having played with variants of 3.5 that do this, it's really only the last thing, number of feats. Prereqs for concept feats can be worked around any number of ways, mainly by making more feats available (that support similar concepts with different mechanics, possibly). It works.

MWP: longsword. Again, this is a promise at this point. I do hope you're right. Not that I particularly agree with your last assertion: people would say "you could do a great deal to modify a character with your feats" in 3.5, if they couldn't multiclass in that edition.

There seems little reason that two half-defender half-striker characters can't be basically as effective as one full defender and one full striker, esp. since 4e makes a point of not letting specific adventuring functions be only the province of one particular role, specifically in this case...

This is a blind assertion until we see the feats. Fourth edition may well make it easier to design your character ten splatbooks in, but I'm not buying that the cores will compare that way.

If you can easily get the flavor of a bunch of different character types by changing a few words, then you don't have strongly defined classes. Which is it?

The game plan appears to be, "sell a whole bunch of different little buckets." Like, with different builds and features for fighters and rogues being in that Martial Power book or whatever it's called. You want an evenly split rogue/wizard type or whatever, though they said they fixed...

I'm a 5. There are things I've heard I really like. There's also some really broad changes in emphasis that I want to see how they shake out in play. And I want to see how the game looks with some of the supplemental rulebooks when they come out. The things I don't like I suspect I could work...

Honestly, it sounds like Moff_Tarkin is playing at a fairly antagonistic table. DM decides to crush his character's strong point, he tries to get money out of his comrades, etc. etc. I mean, I'd laugh at his argument too if I had his shield broken IMC and he wanted to go to the courts ("what...

This is an interesting line of questioning. It's something 1e did a good bit better than 3e, definitely. Given what I have seen of 4e so far I am somewhat optimistic.

Yeah, stick with this sort of line of thinking and try not to bring modern jurisprudence into it. It's not gonna make sense. Things break all the time in D&D worlds, and people deal.

You might believe so, in the context of your game world, but does your paladin? I'd be surprised.

See, lately I've been wondering why you couldn't just remove the requirement that using all your attacks takes a full-round action. Say, use a standard action to attack and a move action, and hit anything in the path of your move (subject to max # of iterative attacks of course).

That doesn't say anything. If you want information on how, specifically, a succubus uses men as her puppets, a Monster Manual is a pretty logical place to look for it. It sure beats crossreferencing. A different angle: while it's certainly possible to make up this sort of thing out of whole...

Guh. Among other things, it is entirely possible for a chaotic good character to not fully respect the personal self-determination of an efreet, just as it is possible for a lawful good character to not fully respect the well-being of an orc.

That's crazy. There's nothing about the alignment system that says that characters have to be philosophically consistent, and that "chaotic" alignments have to adhere to a firm conception of individual rights. Chaotic can mean a number of things, just as lawful can mean adherence to any number...

Five years? That's crap for a mortal! Come on, a hellspawned archetype of evil seduction ought to be able to get wherever she wants in ordinary circumstances within a month. That's how you know something is Wrong. That's the whole point of using supernatural monsters, they – in this role...

But this is a function of will. Two threads over we have people debating the minutiae of 4e's 6-hour-rest, a topic made for DM handwaving if ever there was one. Will that change after 4e's out for a few years? Who knows but I'm a little pessimistic. Books are nice but they can't make you do...