Search results

And, well... that's what 4e does! Everyone can contribute usefully in combat, but they all do different things - even within classes, characters can feel useful while still operating differently. Add on top of that, a defender isn't always going to be as useful as a striker, sometimes you'll...

But, if a level /isn't/ power, what is it? Perhaps I'm using a weird, personal definiton of 'power', but I'd venture to say a more experienced musician is a more powerful musician, at least from the point of view of the metrics a game would care about. I mean, it represents experience and skill...

Re: Levels - to me, level has always meant "power", such that two characters of equal level should be equally powerful (however the game quantifies that). If it's important that spellcasters be on average more powerful than non-casters, just give them a few levels. In a team-based mixed-party...

Well, the story. In a book, if there's a lock, but the protagonist can get past it easily, that's it - the protagonist does. It wasn't a challenge, it was window dressing, just like describing the room. If it's actually there in a capacity to impede the PCs, then make it worthwhile. If it's...

No, and yes, but any DM I know (in person, anyways) would let a player retrain more (or rebuild a character, for that matter) if things weren't working out or there was a good story reason. EDIT: Regardless of edition, I should point out. I let that through several times in 3.x, and I've...

As I recall on 3.x, a character was ko'd with nonlethal when the nonlethal damage equaled or exceeded the character's current hp, aye? That means that, unless you're pumping your damage, a good hit will totally negate the actions you put into nonlethal. Which wouldn't be too rare if you're...

1) See, though, if you built a new character in 4e, it could grow organically there. But replicating a character from a previous edition is by nature going to fail at that - you'd no longer be organically building the character, but building with a specific goal in mind! I'd also like to note...

Whoops! :P Guess I owe Neonchameleon an apology - and I 'must spread some experience points around', too. Can someone XP him for me? Neither of you have Avatars, and I agree with practically everything you both say, so you must run together in my mind. :)

I'm curious how that would even be a Freudian slip... Pemerton's not subconciously replacing one word with another there. Ignoring whether you agree with that paragraph, the only way it seems to me you could reach that conclusion is by not reading the whole thing. :uhoh:

Well, for me anyways,"valiant" has connotations of being brave /and/ selfless, whereas a mob-enforcer paladin need only be brave. You see where I'm going? Cowardly Thug doesn't describe what I'm after, but neither does Valiant; I just need a divine warrior willing (and able!) to wade into a mass...

Well, if you want to be a divinely-inspired warrior but you don't want to be in the middle of a mass of infidels, smiting theme for their blasphemies, you don't become a Paladin, you become an Avenger. Paladin has a /very/ specific archetype it's catering to - the Divine Protector / Enforcer...

Well, what about Fate Points or Bennie-style "action points" that you'd gain for acting in character? They're still meta, of course, but not in the sense that Valiant Smite is. VS is directly meta - you perform this action better under circumstances in which you act valiant - whereas Bennies/FP...

Well, /I/ find it trivial, despite knowing the origins of those things. I think that, for me anyways, I want an edition to be mainly concerned with the rules. Fluff is great, but it's so fluid it doesn't need to be hardcoded. I mean, if I wanted Malcanthet in my game, I'd take the 4e succubus...

Okay, now I see what you were saying re: the Marks. I still disagree; the 4e Eberron books were very clear about just how major an off-race mark would be. If I, as DM, didn't think it'd fit my campaign or I didn't think a player would be interested in dealing with the consequences, I'd say no...

[[Double Post, sorry]]

As a /major/ Eberron fan, I'd contest these. Tieflings weren't 'forced' in; Ohr Kaluun already existed (See Secrets of Sarlona), and the other suggestion for their use in 3e (nearness to supernaturally evil influences, such as in the Demon Wastes) still works just fine. Dragonborn almost all...

I'd (personally, mind) peg that on the player - I've found that there's a particular sort that doesn't care about the context, they just set fighting as their go-to option. My old group of players were like this whatever we played, and my longest campaigns with them were in Pathfinder and 3.5...

In practice, they're one in the same.

*sigh*. Welcome to the boards. Though honestly you seem to be about four years late to the party. :/

I just ended up dropping racial stat boosts altogether. Everyone gets a +2 bonus to two stats of their choice. I've even been considering decoupling attack effects (to-hit, damage, secondary, &c.) from abilities period, and just plop those numbers in the level progression. Then ability scores...