Search results

A high cha would certainly be as useful as dex to paragon eladrin wizards, unless they pick the wand implement. Spell Focus is sweet and their tailor-made path (Wizard of the Spiral Tower) uses Cha (Radiant Censure) but not dex. Flavor-wise, the Warlock fey pact seems to fit eladrin too. Wis...

yeah. how could anyone think that was a good idea? It's not like I'll ever use them as a pc race, but still... wtf? I thought they would at least grow one at a later stage and get some sweeping attack racial power. The "beak" of RSKennan's dragonborn reminds me of a dodo. If only db had gone the...

there are already lots of threads about this, they've all been moved to "general" (i'm not sure why though) but i'll bite anyway. Of course saying that 4e is more a board game than a rpg is an overstatement but many wargamey aspects of dnd have been amplified. Things that break...

funny at first, i thought she was keeping some beast on a leash. :lol: yeah. Being able to make ugly characters is all well and good, but i've yet to see a non-ugly one (or a non-manlike female)

no no no. you have to love every single bit of 4e (though you can't possibly hate it). And whether you actually played it is only relevant if you don't like it. :) Same here. 3e certainly needed a makeover and i'm a bit jaded about it so i don't think i will play it anymore. But my first shot at...

seriously what's the point of this poll? no "played and dislike 4e" option and then asking for honesty?

My problem is more explaining why they take effect than how In most cases i don't see the connection between a succesful hit and results like healing allies or teleport. I don't care for lengthy power descriptions, i just want them to make sense. As for visualisation i'm not sure it should be...

This is one thing I wish they had changed, but don't think this particular sacred cow is going anywhere. What bothers me is not the 3-18 attributes vs modifires redundancy, although I'd rather have just modifiers. I don't like these attributes because: 1 - They're not equally useful, and yet...

I won't make a list of all the things that should have been done differently since there are already a lot of threads for that and this one seems to have taken a more specific and interesting turn. I'm with Mustrum on this one, even though I don't agree with him on roles in general and hate how...

My problem with 4e is that it looks like it was built on combat movement and everything else was just slapped on (and yes, i know that is how dnd began but I think it's a huge step backwards.) The result is a lot of nice wargamey rules with vague attempts at in-game explanation and consistency...

:1: I'll skip on all the concepts I liked (druid, bard, sorcerers) that were left out of phb1 because they will all be available (most likely altered beyond recognition) if I buy more books or pay 15$ a month for the right to playtest them. :2: I can't play a non-vancian class. At least 3e...

Dipping into other classes looked like a neat idea in the previews. I thought it meant customising your class without being burdened by all the unwanted bits of another class that may not fit your character concept. How could it end up being so lame? Power swap feats are way too costly and...

This "official answer" makes more sense than the previous one. The other interesting bit is that whereas you replace all the spells in a "package" at appropriate levels (such as 15th), you can retrain spells individually, so you can end up with spells of different levels within the same package...

wow, this is confusing. "swap", "retrain" and "replace" are used interchangeably. the example mentions "swapping Ice Storm out for Wall of Fire" at 15th level, when "you get a chance to retrain a daily attack power". But these are spells of the same level. Following the retraining rules, you...

That's not even the case: This introduction strongly implies that the write-ups are not useable as is, and may not even be balanced. That didn't stop some from using it as an answer to those who complained about not being able to play a gnome out of the box. It was something dangled to placate...

Yeah, so much for the "you can still play a gnome, it's in the MM" argument. (Not that I wanted to play one, but i have a friend who... well not really a friend, some guy i know...) Another broken promise, I guess.

yes, that's how i understand it too. It's clearer on this chart (also p143 in the dmg, i don't know why it isn't in the phb)

I think you got it wrong. You can only add spells that you have access to, and rituals. Of course there are similar features in classes with the same power source, but none are binding. They could design an implement-less arcane caster and that wouldn't affect anything else mechanically. As...

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the obvious (not a rick roll)

That's not what I meant. I've never used a published campaign setting and never cared for most of the dnd backstory (great wheel et al.) I don't need long fluffy descriptions, i just want to feel that a rule stands for something "in game", not the other way around. And when the fluff rationale...