Search results

the db arcane caster is already covered by sorcerer (cha based). con makes a lot more sense.

bummer. that means no essential mc rules before february. I was kind of hoping they'd be in HotFK. it may also mean that they were not taken into account when designing the new classes :hmm:

The UA barbarian was a fighter with a bunch of survival abilities but with the skill systems in later editions, such a class became redundant. If you have one, it needs a distinct combat shtick and archetype. I know Conan had many talents, probably too many to be a single class, but what stuck...

I usually play cha-based, non-bookish casters but I dislike 4e's "charismatic" races, mostly for aesthetic reasons, ironically. So I ended up with eladrin wizard, for the cool racial power and because it's an obvious choice stat-wise. I haven't played much 4e though, and don't have the latest...

no.

I think these threads simply get more views and comments in General because they are less common here, and thus more noticeable (i.e. for the same reason I'm responding to this thread even though I rarely go to Meta, where it really belongs :)) But I don't think this is what most enworlders are...

yeah, but you're WRONG. it's ad nauseam (feminine, first declension) now bow down.

now that the power structure has loosened up I'd like to see a completely spontaneous spellcaster. of course the sorcerer would fit or the psion but psionic classes are already essentialized in a way. or maybe the HotFK* warlock is spontaneous but I wouln't bet on it. I'd like to see an...

um yeah, I was thinking of paragon multiclassing (I haven't played 4e since 2008 so I tend to mix things up...) still, that's not much flexibility.

that's what I thought at first, but the apparent lack of multiclassing is a real turn-off. I like meaningful differences between the classes, and I don't mind them being focused, as long as I'm not stuck with only one. how are power swaps going to work with classes that don't have dailies?

yeah, there were sidebars about possible inspirations for each class in the AD&D2 players handbook. that included legendary heroes... as well as historical figures and gods (Diana was mentioned for rangers) but at the end of the day, the PCs could only do what the rules said they could do. no...

many simulationist games happen to be rules heavy, especially when they try to cover many genres, like gurps. but a simulationist game doesn't necessarily need complex, granular rules for everything in the game world, just rules that represent an in-game reality. they can be broad approximations...

cool.

I think one of the designers said the original eladrin had a lousy stat combination (dex & int both add to ac) because feystep was better than other racial powers. maybe it's a way to maintain the same balance without messing with the dex option. I don't think eladrins need the cha bonus on top...

are power sources still relevant in Essentials anyway? note that they're not even mentioned in the HotFK table.

uh, ok? I don't recall claiming that dnd was particularly simulationist. I do think that, no matter how many gamist elements and fluff inconsistencies you find in the previous editions, those added in 4e still make it less simulationist (and just because you're willing to accept a certain level...

mine's not very creative. Lutetia (French Lutèce) is just the ancient name of Paris, Lutetius was my old Pendragon character and i thought "Lutecius" looked better and was less common (but some guy in the Czech Republic keeps using it on several sites :mad:)

My homebrew has 4 dominant cultures (western, northern…) and each has its own pantheon, loosely based on RW mythologies with a heavily syncretist approach (i.e. my northern god of thunder is a mix of Taranis, Thor and Perun my southern sun-god is Ra-Tonatiuh...) each pantheon consists of 13...

No. That's a "rules-light vs rules-heavy" or a "combat vs out-of-combat rules" example. When most people say 'simulationism', they don't mean lots of rules, for everything. they mean rules that are intended to be consistent with the fluff. most sim complaints involve existing mechanics, not the...

what about multiclassing? daily-less classes will probably bring about new rules. the previews made me think about giving 4e another chance but the flexibility of multiclassing (or lack thereof) could make or break the deal for me.