Search results

I guess if it's a GOOD solo adventure, I'll probably give it a shot.

That's what expansion packs are for.

I would totally have the PCs stumble across a sleigh of frozen elves and one fat human in a red coat.

Here's hoping for fewer encounters and more plot than your standard 4e module! "Hey, there is this guy in a tomb who is dead. Crazy, huh? You'd better go and sort him out." *cue fifty combat encounters*

I direct you to the rules of the Marquis of Queensbury, cad!

I'd hope that if I told my players "the guy to your left picks up a stool and tries to bash you over the head with it", the response would be something like "I grab my tankard and smash him in the face!" rather than "I draw my +3 flaming fullblade". If they do the latter, just remind them of...

Sometimes I try to think of how good a "skill" feat would have to be to warrant taking instead of Weapon Expertise. I think even if there was a feat that let you roll a 20 on any skill check on a specific skill (with appropriate DM-limiting to prevent you doing dumb stuff) I would probably...

Well, quite. That's why Weapon Focus is like the tenth feat I would consider getting. Weapon Expertise, now, that's more like it. Toughness, too, and proficiencies. These are feats that can quite literally be the difference between life and death for a character. +3 diplomacy? No. Diplomacy is...

Thing is though, not only are diplomacy checks just a single roll of the dice a lot of the time, but you can also get a lot of mileage out of being clever with what you say. In the same way that a GM won't let a character with high diplomacy just walk all over everybody, a GM won't let an...

Every TPK I've experienced in 4e has been to a party without a leader.

Back during the design phase of 4e there was quite a bit of talk about how powers were being split into two types, "attack" powers and "utility" powers, to prevent people just loading up on combat powers only, and allowing the utility powers to see some use. I've noticed the same problem...

Apropos of nothing, the new Blood Bowl computer game is really rather good. It's just the standard Blood Bowl game ported to computer. Saves all that pesky mucking about with tokens and minis. I'd love it if they gave Necromunda and the other minor Games Workshop games the same treatment. Heck...

I think the biggest problem with systems like this is that - like in combat - you need terrain of some kind to allow maneuvers and suchlike, otherwise it's basically just an exercise in dice-rolling, like skill challenges. That said, I have no idea what "terrain" you could have in a conversation.

Medieval. :P Comes from medi (meaning middle) and aevum (meaning age). Not like, "the middle of the evil times".

Instead of having to alter every monster you ever run, why not just give the PCs bonuses equal to what their magic gear would normally be? So at level 10 they might have: +3 attack/damage +3 to all defenses Much easier, surely?

I do think D&D needs to either jump in with both feet as far as social rules are concerned OR stay out entirely. The current system of relying both on the diplomatic skills of the player AND the diplomatic skills of the character is basically the worst of both worlds. I can see two ways we could...

I'd have thought the players of classes like cleric, who only get two worthwhile at-wills in the PHB anyway, would not be massively impressed by your idea.

Thing is, the way D&D is set up, the evil party *should* go and rescue the baby. You gain XP/power/levels/gear by going on quests, not by standing around in a tavern saying "Nuh-uh!" every time a plot hook shows up. That's also why good parties will basically do every quest that shows up for...

I dunno, that depended a lot on the level you were playing at. Wiping out a dozen orcs with one fireball at level 5 was pretty damn efficient :) (of course, it also meant that you never faced a dozen enemies as a serious encounter ever again)

Yeah, rangers are exactly the same as invokers.