Search results

there was a thread (now closed) about it in meta.

Yes this is a refreshing change, although I'd prefer dailies and utilities to be included in the power point pool. The real problem is, as implied in your 2nd point, that there is no logical reason why the psion (rather than say, martial classes) should have this kind of flexibility. So for...

:confused:_

I wouldn't touch that 5e with an 11 foot pole. I think it does. At least it suggests strongly minimizing risk in favour of "tactical thinking". This is definitely not what I want in an rpg. For simulation reasons obviously and because I like rolling dice. Missing may not be fun but it's the...

That sounds a lot like the warlord to me. In tone and spirit. As for being "such an amazingly fun class to play" (or play with), well... exactly like the warlord :angel:

1 & 2) I could live with the true20/UA classes too, but I prefer to see the Expert as the fast/agile guy rather than the skills guy or maybe just as a subset of fighter. The dnd cleric has always felt like a fighter/caster hybrid to me and even then, having both clerics and paladin is...

I don't think this is very likely. Not that 5e is necessarily coming soon (though I'd be pleased), just that fewer (if any) 4e books, will be published in a couple of years due to low sales. In the meantime I will probably play 3.5 or other systems occasionally if I can find other players but...

I feel the opposite. ad&d2 specifically had some edgy settings (darksun, planescape), but the rules were definitely old school compared to its contemporaries. PO and a&d2 itself felt like patches to me. It was fundamentally the same system.

Which is fairly recent. This is also why I'll take "psychic" over "psionic" any time. The former appeared in the pre-industrial era and comes directly from the Greek psychikos "of the soul"; the latter was coined in a modern pseudoscientific context. Also, an abreviation + a suffix that makes...

we want both types to exist side by side but we prefer more intuitive systems like 3e sorcerer or psionics to vancian magic, regardless of flavour or key ability score. I also like different types of magic to differ in their effects rather than casting mechanics (basically a unified system sort...

I think it would be more reliable in both cases. Out of curiosity, do they have public polls (or logged-in only) over there?

This would be a bit more reliable if it was a public poll.

I wasn't playing anymore before 3e brought me back and I'd rather not play than join an older edition or retro-clone campaign. I guess I'd play a one-shot with friends if they insisted but not with a new group. And that goes for 4e too. I've been slacking off again over the last couple of years...

Because crits don't happen exactly once per day, when a player says so. Critical hits effectively model luck/external circumstances, they can happen several times per encounter or not at all. Likewise, sneak attack opportunities are dictated by combat circumstances, not artificially limited. A...

Interesting. You're the first person I know of who prefers 3.5 to 4e and really likes the warlord (to be fair, many of them don't like 4e at all)

Yes. This is exactly what I meant by "amateurish site full of inacuracies and made-up stuff". I don't know every celtic legend but judging from other articles and the "Magickal and Ritual Help", this source doesn't seem very reliable. I think this Lesidhe is just an amalgam of the Slavic Leshy...

I'd go with Eladrin. Arcane Archer sounds like, well, an arcane class and I don't see why a militaristic race with a dex bonus wouldn't have archers. You can always refluff and alter the AA from monster manual (or the class, when it comes out) if you want a elven "Primal Archer" counterpart.

Favourites: sorcerer and maybe bard. But I don't like the supposedly charismatic races so far (I particularly despise dragonborn) Least liked: the Warlord is the epitome of what I hate in 4e. Many wtf powers, too much dependence on other player's actions, terrible name, shaky (leader without...

Yep, "warlord" was a roaring success. Everyone loves misleading class names :angel:

I don't have any issue with the assassin or its being ddi exclusive. I just think the classe's negative connotation is one of the reasons why it won't appear in print. The 3e assassin was an evil-only PRC in the DMG. In 3e, you needed classes for bad guys. In 4e you need a "human assmurderer"...