Search results

If they'd simply meant "holding" they would not have used the word "wielding". Sometimes I wonder if people are making jokes when they post questions like this, but sadly they always seem to be for real...

Wow, for a second I actually thought you were being serious. Good post, OP. Very amusing. :)

I would assume that's what the miscellaneous spot is for on the official sheet. Not everyone will carry a shield.

The Fighter/armor thing makes perfect sense as written if you're willing to simply read what it literally says and not assume things beyond what it's telling you. The rules are clear, but mentally adding to them and assuming they are incomplete or that they say one thing but really mean...

Why is this an issue? The DM needs to know when to call for an ability check and when to flat-out not allow certain characters to do certain things. I seem to remember reading this mentioned in the books, too.

I don't think they're perfect, but they are the best multiclass rules yet. They let you do some neat things, without letting you encroach on another class's abilities completely. The main class you chose remains the definitive one, and that is as it should be.

You may have always believed that, but you were always wrong. HP have always represented what they do in 4E. People just ignored what the books defined them as. In other words: This is not 4E's fault, it's yours.

I'm disappointed too, but if they had to delay to get the awesome quality screen that has been described, then I'm all for it. I love what I've heard of this thing! Four panels! Gameboard strength! Landscape! Just about perfect. Now I hope they made extremely sensible choices when it came...

The rules as written are a baseline, and are therefore as simple as possible. You (if you're the DM) can always change or add to this to achieve the desired effects or complexity you want. In this case, I'm not even sure why you'd need rules beyond the guidelines already given for diseases...

I had a player using Ray of Frost for her wizard and she was kicking ass with it. This was vs. goblins first, and then skeletons. The wizard seemed more effective than the more traditional fighting classes at taking them down.

I guess they wanted to focus on the fantastic. But I'd personally like to see some stats for things like big cats, apes, etc. These do crop up often in fantasy, particularly pulp fantasy and adventure fiction.

Same here. :( And if this is indicative of the quality level WotC is comfortable with accepting for 4E, I won't be getting anything past the core.

Thank you for making a useful sheet that isn't ugly. Bonus points for using the actual 4E interior page theme the rulebooks use. WotC: take note.

I don't have any rules advice, but I love the concept. Very appropriate for a fighter.

Powers tend to provide nice bonuses to hit. Don't underestimate this... it is not like earlier editions where the "attack bonus" is static and can be easily compared to enemy AC. It's going to change drastically depending on powers used.

Passive is, well, passive. The PCs roll when they actually decide to attempt something actively.

In my opinion as a big Conan fan, 4E can handle REH style Conan better than the Conan RPG. The healing rules are part of that, btw.

I can't say that I am "severely disappointed" in any aspect of 4E. A few things I wish had been different, but so minor they are barely worth mentioning. If a few sets of examples are sparse, remember they are just that: examples. A lot more are coming, from WotC, fans, etc. The rulebook...

They killed it and it's beautiful. My players and I are finally satisfied with Alignment in D&D. Thanks WotC!

Makes me wish the magazines were still in print. It's basically useless to me in this format. And Plissken... I thought you were dead?