Search results

True, I am remembering the ranger in our group near the end of our 4e campaign and there were a lot more options by then. That's still the 4e ranger, though, yes?

If one actually wants wilderness stuff, it's not a competition. Rangers didn't need additional combat enhancements, anyway.

I think you are forgetting the utility powers...

Yeah, it was really good. Too bad your son didn't play it for more than a single round.

They did?

You know how both fighter and rogue, as base classes, have no spells but offer subclasses that use magic? Yeah, ranger should follow their lead.

I don't know...there are no hard-and-fast rules about what, exactly, the Stranger can do, or his nature, so it feels weird saying this-or-that is inconsistent with the spirit of ME. Mithril might be medicine for elves...or something else entirely. I feel it's a bit early for any reaction to...

!!!? No, it really isn't...at least not to the 4 people living here who are watching this. It feels suitably like it's got the "spirit of Tolkien's vision." Not that that is hard to do, since that's a very ambiguous phrase in the first place.

Was it a problem? I don't remember 4e barbarians being locked into their choices. Couldn't a player pick a power or two for the times when there is just one solo monster to fight?

As a sandbox to project my own story on, I found it good.

Keep on the Shadowfell. Thunderspire Labyrinth wasn't bad, though.

Mmmm...not really. The presence of Skill Challenges in 4e tells me it wasn't all about combat, not matter what people predestined to complain about 4e would say.

It's a good thing they weren't; "skip to the good stuff" was a 4e mantra.

First, I will echo @doctorbadwolf's suggestion of AiME (though that might be a tad hard to find these days...) Second: I felt similarly to what you wrote above and I concluded that, at least in part, it's because it doesn't resemble magic in any movie or book I have ever seen/read. As such, it...

I confess I don't understand that part. From what I can tell, MMI means I need to ask permission from the DM to do something (and hope they see the narrative of the game in a similar enough way that I do). The player with this background is invoking its benefit, as written. Presumably, the...

Or...it works! Duke is dead, the get the scroll* and then there are in-game consequences. As the DM, I would say the audience is granted: that's the ability. *Of course, "an audience" doesn't mean a non-hostile environment. It just means access to the person. If the PCs were really under...

Nope.

In this particular situation, no, it isn't about crunch. There are many others where the higher degree of crunch helps avoid MMI, though.

I think this is a key point. At a shared gaming table, people won't have equally vibrant imaginations...it's frustrating to see a black-on-white game benefit from the core rulebook get ignored because the person who is in the role of GM has a more limited imagination. That a player would have...

What classes are you referring to?