Search results

I agree, and would vote Nephilim if it was a choice.

I actually don't like either name, although in this day and age, deva is way too close to diva, as people have already said. Not that 4E is full of monsters with great names! ;)

Quoted for truth. WotC and classy don't go together very well. It doesn't offend me, but it does inform me as to their attitudes and beliefs.

How can the long-time Ravenloft concept be folded into the core when the concept was that it is not part of the core? :confused: Edit: I should add this is a rhetorical question. I really don't doubt it will be Ravenloft in name only, much like the Forgotten Realms, etc. 4E seems to be all...

You're right, nothing permanent should ever happen to the PCs.

The loss is a printed copy you can read anywhere.

I think just the opposite is true: they know exactly what they are doing, and it is all marketing. They want to "hook" us on the adventure path so we feel like we must follow it (and eventually pay for it, installment by installment) so we can see what happens next. They are treating it just...

Quoted for NOT-truth. What are you thinking, man? Adventure modules are fiction for the DM to read now? They are game aids, nothing more! If this attitude is widespread, I seriously worry about the future of this hobby. Published D&D adventures are not works of fiction!

WotC's attitude in this is, frankly, insulting. I was 100% behind 4E and very excited, but it seems like at every turn they are trying to drive me away as a customer. I'm extremely disappointed with them. They are coming across pretty badly, and like they don't collectively understand how to...

I really like them and think they address some minor problems I've also encountered in 4E games. Good job!

Your DM will determine what an encounter is or is not, and whether you can use your encounter powers or not. This is known as making a ruling, and is the primary role of the DM.

I'd like a new game that plays like original, old-school, D&D. I am playing 4E but it's a different sort of game, and does not satisfy my desire for actual D&D. I also play pretty much every version of D&D/AD&D before 3E (which is not D&D any more than 4E is, and in my opinion it is less...

Huh. I forgot you were only supposed to use one AP per encounter. We've been running it so the PCs can use as many as they want and guess what? There's still not an incentive to push on. It's a neat little perk, not much more.

Set up a simple bell curve rolling table using 2d6 or something. Make the most likely results involve fighting with At Will attacks, then the least likely results can be fighting defensively and outright retreat at the low end, and stronger attack powers leading up to total commitment to kill...

Regardless of edition or game stats, my players have often chosen humans, and I also prefer a human oriented fantasy world. Our 4th edition game is the first time ever we have had a party without a single human, but I believe it is the sense of newness and trying different things with the new...

I'm in total agreement with Merric. I still like the grey box, didn't care for the 2E "update" to the setting. I never did buy the 3E Realms, though. I had stopped caring by the end of 2E. 4E Realms seems like it would fit the game well, but it has almost no resemblance to the Realms I...

I play 4E, and use minis (actually not figures, but still markers representing characters and monsters.) I never use minis when playing 2E or earlier versions though, and never have.

It's not mentioned in the books. Make a ruling or ask your DM to. 4E deals only with the rules you need and leaves the rest to the DM, as it should be.

I wonder why it bothers you so much that you posted that same reply in both threads.

Entertaining replies? Interesting discussion? Enlightenment for those who otherwise would have ignorantly false ideas about earlier editions and spread them around like a disease? Just a few guesses.