Search results

World of Synnibar. But seriously: M&M SWSE Cortex (we use it for Stargate)

Exactly. I don't mind the PC being something special, but I don't want inns looking like the Mos Eisley Cantina.

Has Flumph not been mentioned yet? Also, the Cask Imp from Monsternomicon--not a core D&D monster, but responsible for one of the best sessions I've ever run.

I worry that they might have stripped solo monsters of too many powers. Just a handful of powers is fine for most, but if my BBEG fight goes 20 rounds I want lots of options to keep things interesting.

Well, that was the intent of my post... to preempt the speculation via mockery.

5th Role! OMG! Someone start a scoop thread! What could it BE?! Perhaps something like this? Maybe a non-combat role??? Or a REAL multiclass as totally awesome as 1e/2e? I know, the 5th role must be CHAOTIC NEUTRAL, because no game is complete without a truly evil character that rationalizes...

This was my first concern too, but I think you've hit upon the right solution. If a player really went this way, I'd build in a span of time between tiers for plausibility and let them "reinvent" the character in between.

I too am fine with mechanics treating dabbling and even-splits as different creatures, and requiring new classes for the latter. This is especially true when classes are not only concepts but also "roles." Trying to get a middle of the road character would probably be too swingy. Also, the...

Worries: Including dragon people and demon people will make the fantasy worlds more like the Mos Eisley Cantina than Middle Earth. There's a happy point somewhere in between, but I'm pretty sure its closer to ME (except for Eberron). I guess that's less of a worry and more of an annoyance...

Surely a fighter/wizard would have a decent Int. Especially since it can sub for a good Dex now. And don't forget that trained Arcana probably includes various functions like detect/read magic and the like. As was said above, take the AoE spell rather than magic missile. So for 1 feat, seems...

Normally I'm a stickler too. Yes, it is incorrect. But players (and me) not snorting in derision trumps correct pronunciation for me. I think I'm going with joost-i-car, rather than just-a-car, to try to head off those puns as well.

Cool. Sweet. Angelic power keeping you from squeezing the Charmin. BLEH. I know, I know, I can change it in my game. But it doesn't make the pictures any less dumb.

What's been said that actually constitutes a class? Why can't any of this stuff just be flavor text for existing classes? It's easy to imagine a rogue being a bard. A wizard could just "use music" to cast his spells. Harp implement. Not sure what the concrete difference is between a cantor and...

People really think its not powerful enough? With its defenses, a +14 vs. will, and flight, I think it would normally wipe the floor with a first level party. Dominate is double powerful, because it means that they can't attack you and they attack their comrades. And that's just generic...

DMGII will have Rule Zero in it, so if you want to make use of that you'll have to buy it.

I'm happy to have Tieflings be core, but every time I see the Dragonborn I want to hit them on the head and scream "Not the mama!"

Don't forget the power of Grayskull. And for 4E Anime, the Elemental Plane of Sparkle.

Your points are dead on if those are the two possibilities, but I don't really accept the dichotomy of making gadgets vs. using gadgets that are widespread. Here's what I was thinking: The problem with gadgeteer classes is that you probably don't want a world of weird gnomish technological...

Are we sure that there's still a meaningful distinction between feat and bonus feat?

A well-designed gadget/grenadier class would do fine as a martial controller. Think tanglefoot bags on speed. In some settings, Monk could be the divine striker. I know in FR Ilmater and Shar have some monk type people. Of course, monk could also be psionic or chi. For the divine controller...