Search results

Sure, but I think it's worse in 3e. In 1e or 2e, the party might bust into a room, have a fairly easy fight without using any spells or taking much damage, and keep going. In 3e, that won't happen, since before they've gone into the room they've cast Enlarge Person, Haste, Bull's Strength...

The claim "Your mage will never have to resort to a dagger or staff" bothers me WAY more for fluff reasons than for crunch reasons.

3E introduced WAY more buff spells, and their effect was more dramatic. So you would use more spells if you were going nova. In 1/2e, you'd have a few spells you'd use *during* a fight, but it might not go long enough to make a significant dent in your spell list. Buff spells just weren't that...

It used to be the case that cleric magic didn't advance as far as wizard magic. Scaling the cleric back to 7 levels of spells (or its equivalent), with them generally being lower-powered and more defensive than wizard spells, would be a good change. Several high-level spells in 3E were "Quest...

As I've said in other threads, MarauderX's campaign has this as the core group: Drd20 Rog16/Clr3 Rog7/Ran2/Shadowdancer10 Rog3/Sor6/AT9 (LA +1 race) Brb1/Brd14/Seeker of the Song4 In that group, the bard is the best melee combatant (the rogue comes close). He has a ton of HP (due to the...

Maybe by allowing some variant of Supreme Cleave as a high-level feat? You get to take a 5' step after downing an opponent before your Cleave attack, up to a total movement of a single move in a round? I don't like the idea of "I move up to you and hit you 4 times" since it gives the fighter...

Right, I get that no role is really necessary (just very useful). But the overall emphasis on "This is your role, this is what you do" seems a little strict. The multiclassing rules in 3E were a fantastic innovation, allowing for well-rounded characters who were pretty good at a lot of things...

Given that they seem MORE focused on locking characters into their roles and somewhat hostile to versatile multi-role characters (bard, cleric), I don't know if you'll get your wish. I may be misinterpreting what has been said.

By and large I agree with you. The bard, for example, I have NEVER had a problem with, if you look at it as a skill set and ignore the rather silly flavor. He's got a unique set of abilities that are outstandingly useful and a great deal of fun. The paladin I've viewed differently, since...

Sitting back and watching happens in any RPG for a number of reasons. Only the rogue and bard are sneaky enough to scout, so everybody else is stuck watching while that happens. Your PC is temporarily incapacitated, so you're stuck watching for a while. Your PC's abilities aren't useful against...

I recall players with a certain mindset enjoying being the wizard. Strategic, offering advice, playing their character's Int, and being very content to sit back and watch when not needed. "Help us out here!" "It looks to me like you have things well in hand." "Grr...." [some time later]...

In earlier editions, the concept was that the wizard would often in a fight hang back and do nothing, saving his spells for when they were really needed. In that case, the fighter would do more damage over the course of an adventure. A 5th-level wizard in B/E/C/M D&D could have all of 3...

If I really didn't like Vancian magic and the strategic and dramatic potential of limited spells per day, I wouldn't have played a spellcaster in the D&D system. I'd have gone to another system. If I really didn't like alignment having mechanical effects, I wouldn't have played D&D. I'd have...

I think I don't like it. It will save time, but it makes luck less of a variable. The fighter/barbarian in my current game has a fairly poor Will save, but there have been a few neat times when he's made the Will save and the cleric or hexblade haven't. Makes combat a little less predictable.

One big difference with static saves is that you will no longer have a case where the character with Ref 19 (base 10, save bonus +9) makes his save and the character with Ref 20 fails his.

And I'd prefer that the cleric keep his "holy warrior" role, suitable for any god, with the paladin reserved as a unique champion that Lawful Good gets, to reflect a mythic/legendary archetype. Non-LG paladins as a core rule MAY be a deal-breaker for me switching to 4e.

The cleric was there first, and the paladin came along and stepped on his toes. For a long time, the paladin was differentiated by his code, but it looks like 4e is getting rid of this. As a result, there will be TWO classes that are "martial champion of a god or cause."

I don't recall there being any energy drain -- we knew from the beginning that undead were not a major factor in this world, that being one reason I went with druid rather than cleric. (The other reason being that the DM went back to the "blunt weapons only" rule.) I do recall ability damage...

I'm just not seeing the problem. Maybe I've been lucky to have a great DM in MarauderX, but it seems to me that every class has been able to contribute. The core of the party: Drd20 -- the magical powerhouse, with summoning as kind of a pre-emptive healing (i.e. the summons take the hits for...

Well, clerics have always been very capable warriors in D&D. In Basic/Expert, they were very close to fighters as far as melee combat was concerned. Their inspiration is generally cited as the religious orders of knighthood such as the Templars, Hospitalers, and Teutonic Knights. The...