Search results

I agree with Drowbane. BotNS maneuvers are not really encounters. I played a Swordsage and would have never thought of doing that without Adaptive Style. (Actually it was a Swordsage/Master of The Nine/Bloodclaw Master with an impressive array of maneuvers). Anyway I think that BotNS has been...

I agree with Chris Nightwing. The fighter has no other ability to increase is effectiveness when stakes are high, while other classes can do that by using their most effective spells for example. I'll let the player decide when he wants to do that and would not like a fixed condition stripping...

Why? (It's a serious question).

It's easier to imagine Bill Gates mowing through a throng of bugs....

Assassin and paladin. I pretty much like the concept of a front-line, self-healing tank and that of ghost that you see only when it's too late. I usually play these concepts in videogames too (just played Skyrim with a two-handed wielder with high regeneration and right after with a character...

I'd like to see 4e style maneuvers or Tome of Battle Warblade stuff.

Do you want to play a wizard or a pyromaniac? Wizards should use magic. I really can't understand people who want to play a wizard that resorts to mundane stuff for 50% of the time or more (sorry for the rant).

+1 and add Tome of Battle stuff too

The second set-up is basically fourth edition so no problems with a warlord. In the first case the warlord will be limited as he can cure only PCs that are above 0 HP. But it would make sense with that mindset.

Actually in 4e you didn't have 30 levels of spells, but 7 or 8 levels in each category (encounter, daily, utility). So more or less D&D always stayed between 7 and 9 spell levels and I guess any would really work. I'd go for 7 to get more distinction between one level and the next one.

I think that tyou're getting close to what the point is. We all agree (I hope) that the number of hit points you have at any time, as long as they are positive, does not impact any of your abilities, and this is true in all editions. This means that there is a clear difference between the sword...

HP are just a measure of your ability to avoid being knocked unconscious. Wounds in D&D terms have no meaning and there is no clear connection between HP and real body damage. It's a simple system that does not want to mimick reality in any way (I think the dev came up with the D&DN definition...

Fully agree with you. Abstruse mentioned the assassin being somebody who kills enemies in a fast and efficient way (or something like that) and thinks that should be a theme. I agree with him on that, but does that cover the 4e shadow assassin? NO. The 4e shadow assassin is defined by stuff...

The main reason is that I loved the 4e assassin and that one will not simply work as a modified rogue. As Remathilis said a shadow assassin is not simply a shadowy rogue. By the way the D&DN rogue is more a skill-monkey than anything else as far as we can see. Assassin and Swordsage are really...

Class definitely. Plus thenes to make it deeper.

We do the same.

I'm not against DR but we should see how it works with monster's damage at higher levels. DR 2 is a big difference if a monster deals 1d4 damage but if it deals 3d10+8 then it's another matter.

I feel more or less the same. Maybe I'd like a little bit more non-magical healing in combat too, but I'll feel fine if they'll give it to the warlord.

I don't see a problem in "miss" damage killing an enemy. Nowhere in D&D I've seen a definition of "hit". As far as I can see, hitting just means delivering an amount of damage that reduces the enemy's HP pool (and HP are vague as well). Damage on a miss just means that your enemy will never...

I don't see any problem. Characters do not know if players hit or miss with their dice. They only can see that the Reaper is able to wear down enemies pretty fast.