Search results

I like the rules. I think they make sense. I just don't use them because in the end, they are just extra rules with no reward. I like the kind of realism they add, but all the complication only for the sakes of realism is not enough for me. If they die I won't even notice it.

Battlemage Battlewizard Battlecaster Battleweaver Bladeweaver Bladecaster Blademage Shieldcaster Shieldmage Swordmage Swordcaster Swordweaver Manablade Manawar Manawarrior Manaknight Manafighter Manafencer Spellwarrior Spellknight Spellsword Spellfighter Spelldefender Spellfencer Spellwar...

I'll probably be doing that too, but the only problem i see would be if they also copy how the spells work in SWSE. You don't roll only to see if you overcome the enemy defenses, but the check result also determinates the spell effects. Example: result 15 = 2d6 damage, 25 = 4d6, 35 = 6d6, etc.

There is already a cleric of Chuck Norris. He is called AO.

I've seen in WOTC forums a guy said that in Mike Mearls game in Gencon the fireball was dealing 4d6+21 points of damage. I think the point is to have a lotta fun :D and just because the emphasis is on more monsters, it doesn't mean they will be all the same monsters with same HP and same reflex...

Why? Did they say anything that make us believe that?

And isn't that the purpose of fireball? I always hated when I wasted my fireball on all those pesky mooks, wishing to clean up the room, and then the lucky DM saved at least half of them. Two fireball is too costly for this job, one should be enough. 4E is just getting better and better. ;)

I like the flipped saving throws, and I can't still see the problem with that! It's so easier and faster to make a roll for all orcs instead of making a roll for each one.

Maybe. Anyway, doesn't it happen all the time in combat? Attack roll against static AC?

The dice fun is just being flipped from defense to offense.

I just started a solo Heroquest "campaign" with my girlfriend. :P

Yeah right... whatever you say chief.

deleted

I'm sorry to give you bad news, but in Tolkien's works things happen that way because they are meant to happen that way, not because it would be cooler or more dramatic or cinematographic. Same as Conan, I've seen him "playing by the rules" more than any other. If you give us a piece of fantasy...

Don't worry, I just called Mikey Meals on the phone asking about that. He told me to go read the latest Playtest Diary, where the Ranger attacks 3 times in a round.;)

One attack per round? Who said that?

I already see tons of two-handed fighters in 3E. Power Attack anyone? Two handed fighting is a poor choice in 3E, lots of attacks, few hits, poor damage. It's cool though... Paladin+greatsword+power attack+smite evil+Leap Attack=BBEG 1 hit killed. Don't worry, they kept two weapon fighting in...

I hate it too. Fortunately such a rule does not exist in any d20 game I've played so far.

Actually, 1 attack per round makes the combat longer and not faster. You need at least one attack roll to kill one monster, you can't make the combat faster than that. Assuming they are increasing the number of monsters per encounter and more monsters=more attacks to win the combat, if they...

That's not metagaming. That's just making obvious smart and reasonable choices. If the character can rest and become 100% after every encounter, why shouldn't he? It would be silly not doing it. If that's mategaming, then what's the opposite of that? Roleplaying? If the "roleplayer" keeps going...