Search results

Pretty much. As far as weapons go, you can use those as implements.

No, it isn't a good indicator of anything, other than maybe that's how one fight might go. The sample size isn't statistically significant so it basically proves nothing about the actual math involved. And that's on top of the other issues like not maxing quarry dice on a crit, etc.

The circumstances in which that power is Really Really Good are pretty rare, most of the time all you're going to get out of it is the +2 to defenses. I think it is OK for parties to occasionally just blow away an encounter that plays to their strengths like this one does. Sometimes you need...

But not shamanistic-style animal/ancestor spirits and the like, which is what primarily makes up the flavor of the Primal source in 4e D&D. It has much more to do with shamanism and animism than it does to do with the fairly typical Western European polytheism of Celtic myth. If we're talking...

The superior weapon feat is often worth +1 to attack by itself (example: bastard sword vs. battle axe), so there's no particular reason to take weapon expertise first. Mileage may vary depending on what class you're playing of course.

Honestly it probably even works better for mythical bards (such as they are) than any of our other choices at the moment. Primal is probably the last choice I'd make other than psionics; the primal power source in D&D is very tied up in ancestor spirits and natural phenomena that have little to...

I know that a lot of effort has gone into the whole "DMs should learn how to say yes" philosophy that infuses 4e, and I don't really have a problem with that when it comes to in-game sorts of things. When it comes to world design though, there's absolutely nothing wrong with saying No to some...

To answer the OP, no, the bard should not have been primal. Given that 4e D&D druids are basically completely divorced from the Celtic roots that at least nominally used to exist, putting bards into what is essentially a shamanistic power source would make little sense, other than doing it just...

The weapon isn't really worth the extra feat to learn it with option 1, so I would definitely go with option 2.

I am pretty sure you'd need a fly speed to be able to sink into the ground and rise back out when phasing.

Because it takes a minor action for the classes in question to apply their marks. If one of the classes was a warden, then it would be a free action to apply that mark, etc. That said I'm not sure you can actually overwrite your own marks by RAW, this topic needs a little more exploration.

Strictly speaking I'm not sure ramps can even exist in the 4e combat system; if everything is a perfect grid of cubes, there's no room for anything halfway like stairs or a ramp would create. Obviously that's not the case but that seems to be the underpinning of the rules arguments in this...

I feel like I should point out that the damage analysis vs. Sacred Flame earlier in the thread is making one rather bad assumption, which is that everyone is always hitting the target the cleric hit with Astral Seal, which is certainly not true and in many cases will not even be optimal.

I prefer this solution, partly because it hearkens back to AD&D so well, where you might have 2-3 real characters running around with a whole menagerie of war dogs, henchmen, and hirelings.

Most psionic characters will have 17 power points, not 15 - you left off the 2 bonus power points that psionic paragon paths come with. There are items and feats that can help with that as well - between Critical Reserve and Psionic Rejuvenation that's another possible 2 power points per...

This is true of most dwarf fighter builds anyway, though, so it isn't like it is some great hardship.

You can actually do a heavy blade-using guardian fighter quite well as an elf, too.

You should see him in person. In any case Jeff makes a legitimate point that the healing rules, if applied to NPCs, can create an absurd situation. The right response isn't to start throwing around accusations about logical fallacies and this and that, in my opinion, the right response is to...

Um, reductio ad absurdum isn't a logical fallacy. You can use it improperly to create logical fallacies, I suppose (particularly straw men), but it is absolutely a legitimate form of argument.

Were I to run a 4e game (I haven't yet) I would just treat it as 'movie healing' - guy with a bunch of bandages on still kicks ass, whatever, and just maybe try to insert longer 'rest/recuperation/squandering of wealth' breaks in between adventures to explain away the post-adventure recovery...