Search results

Except that the Fighter couldn't ever divorce herself from the Defender role entirely until the Slayer. Sure, you could just not use your marking abilities, but it's not like you got anything cool in return for giving up using Combat Challenge. I had several players who wanted to play fighters...

Here it is as a card game.

It worked in Wargames.

When we talk about 4e's innovations, like "role" (tied to class), we need to not just talk about -- as some people in this thread have suggested -- only the concepts found in the first Player's Handbook, but also those which developed as the game evolved. One of the most important post-launch...

Yeah, I noticed that too. I'm a pretty experienced 4e DM (going back to AD&D times) and XP budgets are very useful to me for encounter design. I wonder why Mearls seems to be so out of touch on this point.

Are you trolling now, or have you just not been paying attention to this thread at all?

Wow, those are pretty stupid poll questions. Also, dismaying but not unexpected to see them throwing out every innovation of 4e design.

Wow, I don't think anyone has ever made that (false) comparison before. Ever! Extra XP for originality and thoughtfulness!!

Cool, hope you get what you want in a module.

Except that's the impression that marketing folks -- who DO work for WotC -- were trying to give to reporters: If "help us craft the rules" just means "we're going to put out crappy surveys," then it doesn't mean a whole lot. Marketing hype, hurrah!

Have you tried "Madness at Gardmore Abbey"?

Alternity had an interesting approach to damage reduction. An armor's DR value wasn't a number, but was a roll. So leather might be d6-2 and plate might be 1d6+1. You roll each time you get hit.

A good deal of the reporting on the original 5e announcement used the "crowdsourcing" language and I don't recall WotC objecting to that coverage. (E.g.)

Well, they've been doing all those wacky polls and blog posts. I guess that's what they think "crowdsourcing the next edition of D&D" should look like at this point in time. I don't think it's what most players think it should look like.

1. No. 2. Yes. 3. No. 4. Yes and yes. 5. No.

But 5e is the edition that will unite all the alignment arguments of the last four editions!

This is incorrect. Note the description of their Battle Guardian power for the Knight: And the Righteous Radiance power for the Cavalier: Essentials-style defenders do NOT get a free attack/damage when an enemy hits itself or another enemy, only when they attack an ally. It does work for...

Quick question, why are you using 4e for this when you could use what you already know worked for your group? What aspects of 4e are you seeking to actively use in this game?

Your behavior was sexist, bragging about it sexist, and you're part of the problem with misogyny in gaming. Thank goodness that male chauvinists are the minority these days in gaming -- we HAVE come a long way, most guys aren't nearly as sexist as you are.

This is what I use to organize my D&D tokens.