Search results

Thought so. :)

I think this one works if fighting and talking are roughly equally important and represented in the game. It doesn't usually work that well in D&D because D&D is all about killing monsters, punctuated with a bit of talking, so being a crap fighter but a super talker means you're crap most of...

This is very well said.

Core as 4E uses the term (upcoming supplements will assume you use this material) or core as it was often used during the 3E era (non-prestige, 20-level, selectable at 1st level)?

BTW, in this specific case, was this because the double-point skillset turned out as valuable in-game as the other; or because the guy with the single-point character was fine with being half as useful as the other guy? Without knowing the players, I'd give pretty good odds it's the former.

I heartily agree with this. This is, obviously a very subjective judgement, which is why people have fun playing fighters in 2E, bards in 3E, halfling barbarians, specialist wizards, generalist wizards, or anything else decried as unbalanced at some point. However, some assumptions can and...

The very fact that something like this is brought up as an argument illustrates that there is something perverse in the whole scheme. You don't have to convince me that the scheme can be foiled. The DM's arsenal, by definition, is always larger and better, and the fact that the player seems...

Tastes differ and all, but I wouldn't consider the scheme in the original post done well. I would consider it poor form, abusing the letter of the rules for a secondary activity (D&D is about killing monsters and taking their stuff, not trade), obviously leading to a reduction of fun for...

So, to sum up: if you allow this obviously suspect strategy (if it weren't suspect there wouldn't be a thread entitled "Is this broken?" about it), your player will willfully unbalance the game with it, and if you try to retain balance through semi-plausible in-game means, he will do his best to...

That was pretty much the reasoning we used: the ioun stone which grants Alertness is 10,000 gp, and Alertness is a crap feat; ring of evasion is 25,000 gp and Evasion is (the equivalent of) a great feat. So the DM said 20,000 for four extra uses (just like Extra Music), and I said fine. :) BTW...

Right, more like a traditional haunt that clings to a semblance of life even after death, rather than the necropolitan willing transformation ritual as described in Libris Mortis. Is living corpse a template or monster from BoVD? How does it work? Raise dead explicitly won't return someone who...

What is the expert's schtick, described in common language without reference to D&D rules? It's not "skills", since skills in D&D are a rather arbitrary subset of what you'd call skills in a normal conversation. For example, swordfighting isn't a skill, jumping is a skill, running isn't a...

A reasonable reading, but the opposite reading seems equally reasonable. Do you have anything to back up your interpretation?

It's a matter of taste, obviously, but I think it's pretty cool if used with moderation. Sometimes, the soul is strong, or something unusual happens, and somehow, rather than being warped into a murderous monster, the person is trapped in the body of a muderous monster. I think that has story...

Deathless pretty much are vampires that sparkle. If they wanted Good-aligned undead, they shoul've stuck to their guns and made Good-aligned undead, rather than wussing out and making Good-aligned undead-but-not-really-because-undead-aren't-Good.

Necropolitans are great. Played one once, great fun. I don't remember the undead classes from Libris Mortis very well. There's stuff like "master vampire" which gives you classic vampiric stuff you don't get from the template, or "creepy ghoul" which gives you ghoulish abilities that don't come...

Is there a way for a bard to get more bardic music uses, other than taking the Extra Music feat, perhaps a magic item? Something within the price range of a 15th-level character, so it can be pretty expensive.

Stealing a bit from 4E, how about this modification to 3.5: add 1/2 Dex modifier to melee attacks add 1/2 Int(?) modifier to ranged attacks add 1/2 Int modifier to AC add 1/2 Str modifier to Fort add 1/2 Int modifier to Ref add 1/2 Cha modifier to Will Round up for positive modifiers, round...

This is exactly what started me thinking about this: sorcerer : battle sorcerer = beguiler : ???

That explains a lot about the whole 4E-DDI relationship, actually.