Search results

Here's a thought. Follow me down the road for a moment. 1. Druids can't cast spells in animal shape, but they can maintain concentration on any pre-cast spells. 2. Dire Beasts can do five times dice damage "when you roll damage for an attack". While implied, it's not quite 100% ironclad that...

Kind of an ironic statement, considering light armor can easily reach the highest AC values (on par with heavy and exceeding medium) but without any of the drawbacks. The only issue is getting a good Dexterity score. But that is not much of a problem: first, classes that wear light armor...

Oh it's even worse than that. We knew from day 1 at least that the 4e gnome would be delayed, but still was on the way. But thus far it sounds like we might not get a 5e Warlord at all, ever. This will make the resistance to switch that much more entrenched.

I like 4e a lot, but even there the Fighter is kind of behind in terms of non-combat powers. He's got the least amount of skills, no aptitude for rituals, and no Utility powers that are really applicable outside of combat. The Fighter sort of makes up for it though, by virtue of being really...

This might've been a convincing argument if Fighters were actually better at combat than their peers. Barbarians, Monks, and Rogues are all highly competitive with the Fighter in terms of combat ability. And I say that conservatively. In my opinion, all three of them are actually way better than...

Indeed, and he'll have to agree to disagree on it. The Barbarian is too different too absorb into the Fighter, because the Barbarian is angry and quick and tough. Yet the Warlord who can literally make people win the fight without ever drawing a weapon can be easily absorbed into the Fighter...

As always, by this logic D&D should have only two or three classes. What is unique about the Paladin that isn't represented by the Cleric or the Fighter? For that matter, what is unique about the Cleric that wouldn't be represented by a multiclass Fighter/Wizard who talks about god a lot? What...

3e material and PF material is nearly identical. That was more or less the point of PF, after all. I have yet to see any evidence that 5e and 4e will be similarly similar. 5e adventures will be made with different assumptions about monster type/numbers, different way to hand out treasure...

I never said it was a binary issue. I said "very few" of those people will do that. Evidently, you disagree. Ain't no problem.

I doubt it. Very few 4e holdouts are going to purchase a 5e adventure just because 5e happens to include a type of Fighter that kind of looks like a Warlord. This is exacerbated by the fact that a lot of those 4e holdouts feel disappointed or offended by the way WotC is treating their favorite...

Cool. Fair warning: LotW is not at all like D&D.

Alright, I'll explain my position then. In a nutshell, TwoSix said he'd prefer a more "guns blazing" style of play. Steeldragons then said that's ok, as long as you accept that your character will probably die. My retort to that was, that it's punishing if a game pretends to support a style of...

So you agree with me then?

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying anybody here is out to punish someone. I'm saying the game would punish (as in: discourage) certain playstyles. Pretty big difference.

Couple of things. 1. That's the 4e method. In my opinion it worked pretty well, but WotC must have access to some data we don't, because they seem fairly adamant against including such methods. That's what it looks like for me anyway. 2. Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you had...

Translation: the game should passive-aggressively punish TwoSix for his preferred playstyle by taking away his character. There are some games where careful, tactical play is required in order to survive combats. There are also games where you're expected to go in, guns (or spells) blazing...

He is almost certainly on the "they stack" side of things. He asked the same question on RPGnet and said there that his DM thinks they won't stack, with the implication that he dislikes that. He is probably looking for rules-savvy people to help him find out if they might stack after all.

I read your previous post about what exactly happened, and I have to say... and please don't take this the wrong way, but it sounds like you guys were playing whilst misunderstanding the rules to such a large degree that your experiences are completely a-typical of how 4e works. 1. Your healers...

First of all, I was talking about whether or not healing felt special. The fact (?) that most groups didn't use CLW wands is besides the point: healing has never been special at all, and the CLW wand is just icing on the cake of blandness. As for the rest of your quote... I have no idea what...

Many people, me included, would argue that healing was never special to begin with. And if anything, 3e's Wand of Cure Light Wounds problem killed any lingering specialness long before 4e came along.