Search results

Less "evil" Of course we have no knowledge of what why and how, but maybe no one was really interested in paying the 5K so there is no need to have it done yet? I suppose that could be a reason, although less likly.

You have a good point, and I can see 1 area where this could come up alot. The online gameboard that Wizards is touting. I also should say that I see min/maxing abilities score, or anything really a little differently. There are character concepts and there are looking at every race in...

Like I said before, we never really had a problem with the 1,2,1,2 rule. (Well, most of the time anyways. If the rule did not exists, there would have been a few times where we did not have to remond people about it. It is an easy rule to forget after all). It wasn't a stumbling block fo us...

I really don't remember this so bear with me: Would that representation have worked differently in 3.5? Wouldn't that spell have been a 10' burst?

Starting off by saying, YMMV Easy enough fix (and probably what most people do anyways, which is why WoTC uses a grid system). Don't draw rooms on a square grid diagonally. Most of the things that I can think of, it is logical to lay a grid system down so the lines match, not the other way...

I guess the only thing I have left to say about this is that I am glad I am not a game designer. It must be a thankless job to have everything that you write disected and torn apart by the players when you whole job is to create something that is fun to play and not overbearing in the rules. I...

How about "about 5 feet, but not exactly"? Why can't the DM just say, Yea, that 60' of rope will work for you to get out of the pit. That is how it USED to work. Move is in a number of squares. When you move, you say you move 4 squares. That is how it seems to be done.

I know that. What if the rule is just to count how many squares and never define what a square is? Just a loose about 5'? Why does it have to be feet? Everything that I have readm they talk about a number of squares. there is a distinction there. Move is 12 squares, not 60 feet for a...

I can't believe that this is an issue, especially, as looking at the pit fiend entry, it is obvious that movement is in number of squares, not feet. the Pit Fiend's Move is : Speed 12, fly 12 (clumsy), teleport 10 Now, do not tell me that the move and fly is 12 feet. No, it is 12 squares...

What you are forgetting here is that they are nothing but words that describe what the classes do. I think the only reason they use these words in D&D is that people already know what they mean. They do not have to describe what they mean. They have been around (in my experience and I am sure...

Well, maybe I did not explixitly state it in this thread (I have elsewhere though) that the CONCEPTS have been. Also read my sig. The CRUNCH has been playtested and all this is a revision and re-image of what exists. Between 2nd and 3rd the core mechanics changed. Btween 3rd and 4th the core...

I think people are taking this too literal. What I have read is that if you have a 10th level elf fighter, it is better if you make a 10th level elf fighter with the new rules (that is level him up) using the same character background. To me, that is just is better than trying to convert your...

But, alot of the concepts are already in other WOTC products, that was playtested and in production now. Star Wars Saga and Tome of Battle. Incorperating them into the main game, while there could be problems, is not all that big of a change compared to the mechanic changes that needed to...

I think it needs to be said, because I keep reading people saying that there is little information about 4E. I have to disagree. There has been alot of flavor information. In a developer blog (the old ones, not the Gleemax ones), there was a statement that I think most people seem to forget...

That we don't know if could be converted or not. Read the FAQ, it has been linked here many times. This is has to be the most misunderstood aspect of the announcement. I am getting to think that a WotC employee should go to everyones house and sit down for 2 hours so everyone can understand...

I agree. I would also add the same for people gushing over it. I understand wanting to buy it to make a decision, but saying right away that your moving to it or not is a bad decision, IMO.

There is no difference to me. There cannot be a good decision either way until you see the rules. Yes, there should be a link to the FAQ from the main site to the FAQ that is already on the gleemax boards. That would help with some of these questions right away.

I wish I could remember where I read it at this point. I have read and watched so many things tryong to get as much info as possible, that I seem to have forgotten... Oh well, I agree. If it works, it should make everything easier to do, without a wait time for when the book material is done.

From the main page of www.dndinsider.com, click on the gleemax D&D portal, click on the 4th edition message boards to get there. Topic is Compiled 4E FAQ. Here is a direct link: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=908272 Here is a snipit on the FAQ about if you need subscription...

I acutally think this highlights that WoTC has to do a very good job of communicating that the DI is not required to play 4th edition. How they need to do that? I am not sure, as I fully understand that, but some people have their questions and concerns. From everything that I read, the DI...