Search results

I played a self-buffing cleric at around 12th level, and I've had little problem with time. Greater magic weapon and magic vestment (on both shield and armour) left me with the best fighting equipment in the party for much of the adventuring day. In a serious fight, divine power + Quickened...

Come on! A 10th-level Con 16 fighter has about 89 hp. To heal him back from half to full is 10 potions, or 500 gp. Do you honestly consider that to be working great? Riiight.

No, but come 4E, I hope to play a fighter with Triplewart Seadevil Strike.

On a D&D messageboard?

Right. For someone who grew up reading Leiber, Vance, Moorcock, Howard (which I'd consider central inspirations for D&D, just like Tolkien), woody elves and stoneworker dwarves are about as foreign as dragonmen and probably more foreign than demon-blooded people.

While necromancy indeed is a (relatively) commonly used word, ask anyone not familiar with the particulars of D&D what an abjurer or evoker does, and I wouldn't bet they'll get it right, even if they're a fantasy fan. I like current D&D's schools of magic, but it seems to me that they're mostly...

Well, that depends on what spells, powers and other feats look like. In the context of 3E, it would be a very attractive feat, but even now, I could imagine a wizard that focuses on (say) enchantments or rays or summoning and has more important things to take.

Like politics, I'm not sure that many people agree where this sweet spot is.

Stone and magic loving Noldor eladrin? Win. Unified look tieflings? Fail.

They make sense, but I still think the feat is weird in the context provided by the comment about Spring Attack.

He sacrificed two miracles, one greater spell immunity and one blasphemy each day. That, for two feats, 2 hp and martial weapons. He didn't get +2 BAB; a Clr18/Ftr2 is BAB +15, just like Clr20. At another level, there might be BAB gain (+1 at the most, and probably made irrelevant by divine...

This part you emphasized is what makes it truly weird. Why is this not a wizard ability but a feat?

I find it really weird that they thought "you can make your attack in the middle of your move" was a power too specific to be taken by anyone and should be limited to particular classes, but that "you can omit areas from the effect of your wizard spells" is good enough for anyone.

There are many non-core classes I like, but I hope to not need most of them in 4E. Spellthief? Didn't one of the WotC playtesters say that they converted a 3E spellthief to 4E as a multiclass rogue/wizard, and it was exactly what they wanted to play in the first place? Battle sorcerer? I hope...

Ah, you're quite right. Dispel magic as 4th and greater dispel as 5th is still pretty weird, though.

"Mez"?

It's pretty weird, don't you think? It has greater dispel magic as a 5th-level spell, but no dispel magic at all. It has planar binding and lesser planar binding, and I don't see how they fit the schtick, except for being eeevul (if you bind fiends). And yet, it doesn't have greater planar...

They're not exactly opposed, but I wouldn't say not at all: leader helps his side, controller hinders the opposing side. Buff vs. debuff, white raven tactics vs. web.

If you (the general you, for any to whom it applies) have trouble wrapping your head around the concept of a martial controller, maybe a martial controller isn't necessary? I hope WotC doesn't feel compelled to fill out the grid with strained concepts merely for completeness sake, but rather...

They could? I mean, obviously, the implication was there that if you wanted to be a leader, you need Cha and Int (and Wis, I'd suppose), but were there any actual rules for that?