Search results

Well, I'd wager that an untrained man would probably have a serious advantage in a wrestling match against an untrained woman (both of a typical, average build), but adventurers aren't untrained (and the system is more forgiving of weight differences between characters of the same mechanical size).

To put it bluntly, I don't like any of the options. "I will buy it sight unseen" implies willful ignorance. The "probably" option is tied to reviews, which I probably won't need. I'll learn all I need from previews and, if necessary, a personal reading at the bookstore. The little side comments...

Never gonna happen, at least not for humans. Non-humans have some wiggle room, though even they will probably stay far away from it. It's just too big of a mess to deal with. If you want a woman with less strength, then give her less strength in chargen. I don't mind that the system allows...

Well, that sounds like a Fighter/Cleric to me. ;)

But wouldn't the gods prefer a Paladin doing his job and killing Evil for Good, or Good for Evil (etc.)? So his "prayers" are weapon strikes. Makes sense to me.

Paladins won't have more than a handful of smites to use in a battle. There has to be a way to balance at will with per encounter and per day effects. I fail to see how it would be complicated to learn the smites you have and apply their effects. I mean how hard is it to heal someone when you...

If you think of the allies as a group, then you are an ally. It's just allies as opposed to enemies. It makes sense, and it's less wordy than "friendly target" (which would require clarification anyway). Anyway, cool stuff. Smiting is fun. That line of effect smite looks mighty interesting...

The problem with "functional" names is that they are misleading as often as they are helpful, and it really starts to get confusing with a lot of feats because you start getting a whole bunch of synonyms for basically the same thing representing entirely unique effects in the game. The best...

You know, the feat names are misleading, at best, considering how many effects overlap or are variations on the same theme. Also, often the name doesn't really mean anything out of the context of that specific feat. Names are just like that, imo. I don't really care if they are bland or "fancy,"...

I wonder if this is part of a Paragon "path"? Sort of a prestige feat tree?

Pyramid of Shadows?! Dammit, that sounds seriously close to my new campaign idea, just on the name alone!

Yes, but the balloon-puppies are reserved for the Eladrin Warlords to ride into battle!

Come over to the happy side where the cool people love the new dragon people and are excited to populate their Points of Light with them as they play their Eladrin Warlords and Dragonborn Warlocks! We also love words with "war" in them. Warband! Awesome! Warlike! Yes, please! Warriors? Yaay...

He'd be a WarKING. Because he'd be King Crabantula! Inspirational Monster from the Depths of the Ocean! ;)

I could TOTALLY PLAY a Dragoncrab! :D

As long as we're happy. ;)

See, this is where we agree. Unfortunately, there's not much more we can say, though, because my opinion doesn't match yours after that. ;) Edit: You think historically, and think the races should be safer representations from sources like Tolkien and earlier. I personally think that tastes...

Okay, fine. I misunderstood. Are the 3.5 races what you consider core D&D? Edit: Oh, this was the problem last time. It's because they are "generic." I don't think they are. I don't even really think there is such a thing. I think maybe we just don't think about this stuff the same way....

No, my point is that you are implying that they are getting D&D wrong, when, really, it's just that it's changing in a way you don't like. That's fine. You deserve to have the version of D&D you want as much as I do. It's just that the version we're getting is the one we're getting. I think it...

Well, then you could argue that all the way to, "New Editions are Bad!" edit: And that's fine. But we might as well skip to the chase.