Search results

IME, the main thing that slows 3rd ed combats down is the inconsistent nature of the spells and feats. Much of the time somebody needs to look something up because of some subtle detail. A more consistent game will help with this.

I didn't answer the poll because I think we need to wait and see where and how it appears in the book. I strongly suspect we'll find the Goldern Wyvern stuff introduced in the DMG as a worked example of doing magical traditions for your own world. In which case I have no problem with it. If...

I don't mind warlord as a class name; but warlord and warlock are far too similar as class names - one needs renaming.

I think we'll see a revised 4th edition in about 4 years. But much more like the revised 2nd was, than a 4.5. In other words, new art, an improved layout, some extra rules clarifications and bringing in all the errata from the intervening time. Edit And, come to think of it, they'll probably...

My only worry about 4th Ed is some of the races & classes it looks like they are dropping. Other than that I'm loving it. The combat changes - toptastic - the magic changes - toptastic - stopping the wizard being I-do-it-all - toptastic - dropping the rather lame and overwhelmed school system -...

I will wait and see how it fits into the game. I don't think it is going to be a general feat but one tied to a specific 'order': the Goldern Wyverns. I think the feat is part of a new way of looking at Prestige classes. As such, it could work. If it's a general feat; no, sucks.

Carrying 115 pounds is like giving your skinny girlfriend a piggyback; most blokes can do that without trouble. Lifting 230 pounds and staggering about it is like picking up your rugby playing mate and stumbling a few feet forward. Most blokes can do that. I don't think the numbers are too...

My favourite: The way they're talking about design. Not any specific detail, but the way they talk about everything seems focused on designing for better play with clear goals as to what that means. This pleases me. My least favourite: The selection of classes. Warlock, Warlord - two class...

Much of the problem with the abilities in 3rd Ed was that they were hugely and often needlessly inconsistent (a problem made worse by the subtle shifts of 3.5) - a much consistent design philosophy would make options easier to manage and remember.

Swim Speed is nice, give 'em a decent one and the Sorc should be happy enough. Change the rogue to "natural body of water" or "running water" so they can't use it all the time or perhaps "river, lake or sea". It's not too unbalanced, fast healing is useful for a rogue but sick for a fighter...

I've always enjoyed 3.x d&d; much more so than 2nd ed. But as I got to play more often recently the stupid petty differences between 3.0 and 3.5 and the needlessly inconsistent rules tended to annoy me and bog things down, however more recently I've started getting to grips with those problems...

So, Polar Bears all round? Do you steal heal? Eek, I'm hurt! Cat, bat, cow, moose, beaver, back. I'm better now!

Do you remember the Druid table? Man, it was on drugs. Start slow, get all quick, have to assinate the head druid, become Heirophant, go crazy-moon insane.

You get the better of the attributes for both, IIRC. Yes, most PCs multiclass. Dual-classing is something different; it's kind of insane and no-one I knew ever did 'cos, you know it's insane.

Er..... good luck. Seriously, you will find no direct comparison. I'd guess you'd be something like fighter-11, wizard-10 and you may find a broken kit to use in the complete book of broken elves.

That's a fair point. The trouble, however, is that such a feat becomes wasted when you reach a sufficent level that your tumble is high enough that it always passes. Weapon Finesse carries on being useful. Apologies. I think you've misunderstood my point. Combat in D&D is frequently about...

It's a fair point, and does demonstrate why these numerical comparisons so rarely tell meaningful stories. With Monks in particular that kind of toe-to-toe combat is not where they show their true colours.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponSize d20srd.org is your friend.

I'm unsure on this. It is obvious from threads here and elsewhere that a lot of players enjoy the rules mastery angle of constructing highly effective builds. I think the problem lies in the level of additional power acheivable and, ultimately, in totally unbalancing combos. But that is a...

Three points are being missed here: 1. Any decent dex monk build will include Weapon Finesse, so the str monks aren't actually any more likely to hit. 2. The monks big strength in combat is mobility, and that relies on Tumble, and Tumble is dex based. Particularly at lower (< 7th) levels the...