Search results

I thought the column was a bit on the long/rambling side, but yes, I thought that part was quite insightful. Especially for a newbie reader; not all subscribers will be grizzled EN World veterans with multiple decades of RPG experience.

1) Leaving out monsters from MM1. 2) The vibe I've been getting that wizardy is going to be more scorching rays and magic missiles than arcane eye and planar binding. 3) The funny, overly compound monster names. Things like bonecrusher zombie, hellsword cambion. On their own, they're OK, I...

In retrospect, I should've included those options for completeness sake, but they wouldn't tell me much about what I was interested in. In fact, I didn't vote myself, because my answer is "even mix, like per-encounter"! :)

If you imagine them as ridiculous, they seem ridiculous. But I see nothing inherently ridiculous in having being able to shoot a magical bolt of fire, and then not being able to shoot a magical bolt of fire until you take 30 seconds to refocus/meditate/relax/realign you chi flow/whatever you...

You were too quick for the poll. :) I'm interested if there's any significant bias for/against the new philosophy of emphasizing per-encounter abilities among players who prefer spellcaster/non-spellcasters.

Just interested in what the ratios are.

I was browsing the Paizo website and found this picture: http://paizo.com/image/content/GameMasteryModules/7.-DariusFinch.jpg A Google Image Search for "paizo" includes this on the first page: http://www.eva-widermann.de/i/151.jpg I've yet to see anything connected with 4th edition that...

I would probably be happier with an advanced ghaele: I like tinkering with characters and this is a rare opportunity to work on a ghaele as a player, and even though the planetar is obviously more powerful, it's missing some interesting abilities which made me pick a ghaele over the more durable...

My AoW wizard will soon be getting 8th-level spells and I'm planning to take greater planar binding. There's a ghaele I've bound previously with which we've parted on relatively friendly terms (considering I trapped her and forced her to do my bidding), and I'm hoping I could work with the DM...

I just listened to the podcast in the background while surfing the Web and I missed this! When was this said?

And then he proceeds to make the balance between fighters and wizards what it was? :D I'm not sure how you judge the power level from what little we got in the playtest reports. And powering up everyone else isn't the only way to make at will (or similar) abilities work, as the quote above...

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. A power comparable to a 9th-level spell? Sure. I haven't tried them out enough to be sure, but Bo9S 9th-level maneuvers at least make a good effort: heal (as spell) on a successful attack, make two full attacks with a single full round action, deal +2d6 Con...

It amazes me that you would claim this has little to with the rules as written. If rules make grappling ogres and throwing them off cliffs difficult (as they do in 3E), you won't see many people (succesfully!) grapple ogres and throw them off cliffs. If they make it easy, you will. Of course...

Please do go into it, at least in broad terms. I don't think I'd be able to track down the article easily, and as someone who loves Vance, likes Vancian magic, but also likes most of the things I've been hearing about 4E, I'm very interested in the subject.

Whoah. Have you actually played Exalted and found it that way? My experience with it is very limited, but one of the strongest impressions was "wow, how weird for White Wolf to make something as tactical and crunchy as D&D!".

That sounds like a reasonable asesessment... and I find it worrying. I don't mind the basic concept of "all MMs are equally core" or waiting for the frost giant until MMx. But I'd hate to see 4E MM1 padded out with crappy, silly monsters the likes of which can be often found in 3E MM2+, just so...

I see two problems. First: making a Paizo 3.75 will lose them a bit of their audience, since some people will see it as not much different than 4E: more books to buy, more rules to learn, more departures from the comfortable status quo. Not making a Paizo 3.75 but sticking with 3.5 will lose...

With a group of such superior quality, you should have no trouble adapting even to Saga-like skills then. Meanwhile, less excellent DMs and players might find their games improved by a system that makes it easier for the DM to engage most of the group. So everybody's happy, right?

It might very well be how Saga does it (I can't check, and I don't remember). That's true, but then, 3E often has trouble with that kind of character too, in the sense that they tend to suck. I very rarely see 3E characters with skill at less than maximum, which couldn't sacrifice that skill...

More or less, yes. If the difference between the best and the worst is somewhere around 10-15 rather than 30-35, this makes it much less likely that a challenge with a DC set to average is still impossible to make for the worst and impossible to fail for the best. "Except in terms of flavour"...