Search results

I would add that even if you take a "competitive" view of it, the competition doesn't have to be between the players or the player and the DM. It can be just personal "can I do it" sort of competition. It's not how I play, but I know people who like to challenge themselves in that way. In...

Good point about advanced gear. Those who don't like tracking small things can just assume the characters have any normal gear they happen to need, but still record any exceptional items. 3e had this in a limited way with masterwork tools that give you +2 to the relevant skill check.

The % of being hit is of course tied to this. For example, a 1st level fighter could have around a 1/3 chance of getting hit by a typical foe of that level and go down after four average hits. A 10th level fighter would be hit more often, 1/2 or so, but those would be lesser hits and he'd be...

I, too, would like to get rid of most dailies (except for Vancian magic), as well as per encounter abilities. Some more examples for how abilities could be restricted instead: Only usable if an ally has gone down during the past round. You become fatigued from using the ability, and cannot...

Owlbear is bad enough as a name, but as long as such names are few they are just irritating. If they become very common they turn ridiculous. But it's not like this is a huge issue for me. Way down after getting all the iconic monsters, lots of monster ecology fluff, and short stat blocks...

Being able to take X hits implies he's still up after that many, right? With that assumption I answered 3. The fourth from an orc (or other 1-is-a-challenge monster) should on average take him down, but he might go down from two crits if he's unlucky. The wizard should be able to take 1, 2 if...

I second the notion that compondnames should be fewer. Winterclaw Owlbear? Seriously?

The core doesn't need a hundred types of sword, but I think there should be some detail in equipment in general. 1-3 pages on weapons, 1-3 pages on armor and shields, 1-3 on other adventuring gear, 1-2 on trade goods, hirelings, that sort of thing.

I agree. And that's why at least Harry Potter and Pokemon should probably be left out. Trying to use them as inspiration for a D&D campaign will not work very well. I'm sure a great DM might work it out, but someone for whom the appendix is meant would just get frustrated. Better mention great...

Great post, but this part I disagree with. I think the rogue is strong in combat, because he chooses the fights and situations where he will win. If he is forced to combat without getting a choice he should be in a significantly weaker position. That's why I don't think the rogue should have...

Our standard method to answer "should the character have known what would happen" is a DC 10 Wisdom check. Failure indicates the situation required you to act on reflex and you did something (potentially) stupid.

Almost all of the 4e rogue's powers are tied to a light blade or a crossbow. That means no elven rogues with longswords or longbows, for example. In 3e you could also go unarmed or use a sap to deal non-lethal sneaks. (Of course, in 4e you get to choose if you leave the enemy alive, no matter...

I meant overall, as in the kinds of combat styles the rogue can use, the freedom to focus on combat or exploration or interaction, and yes skills. The main difference in skill versatility is skill points vs. trained skills. A 3e rogue gets to learn new things every level if he so chooses. That...

There was a rogue in the only 4e campaign I played in, but it wasn't mine. Around ten sessions that the rogue was present. I've created a couple of rogues that I never got to play, because we switched back to 3.5. I've only read through Essentials, never played, so I can't say much about the Thief.

Ok, tanglefoot bag works, as does a Str poison. They make one target fight worse. The rest are area effects or just deal damage like fighter does. However, nothing says a fighter can't use those items, so the rogue doesn't actually have an advantage. That's why I'd like to see a special "fight...

They will probably offer both Vancian and some non-Vancian options. For example, the Warlock might be more 4e style and the Wizard more pre-4e, or there may be two versions of Wizard.

None of those addresses the issue I have, though. :erm:

I wanted to say assassin, because the class has never been done properly. Had to choose the psion, though, because I actually hate it.

Way larger than I would make it. My proposal: Weapon Focus: At 1st level, at 3rd level and every three levels thereafter, choose a weapon group. You get a +1 attack bonus with those weapons. Improved Weapon Focus: At 10th level the fighter also gets a +2 damage bonus with his focused weapons...

The rules haven't actually changed to oppose this in 3e or 4e. However, the increased rules coverage has clearly given rise to the sentiment that what the rules don't cover doesn't work, no matter how absurd that is when you actually look at what the DMG says. It should probably be made clearer...