Search results

That's not even remotely what I'm saying. Look at it from this perspective: the "wizard' class is profoundly broad, being able to do pretty much anything he wants with the possible exception of healing (depending on edition and supplements used). But does it suck? No. And it shouldn't. And even...

They tried that in 4e, where Fighters were highly aggressive "defender" characters. Arguably in earlier editions they had lots of followers. Either one could be considered archetypal. As for the question, yes D&D needs Fighters. In 4e they delayed the gnome and the Druid by one year and some...

A Hengeyokai (from Dragon magazine #404) Rogue can get you surprisingly close... As to the question at hand... well Next is not really done, is it? I don't know what I can't make yet. Not for sure, anyway. I do suspect that Warlords (non-magical, non-musical, inspiring heal/buff-style martial...

I know. Which is why I said you had to account for 3 extra spell slots instead of 9. You missed both the 9/19/13 packet and the 10/14/13 one (which was a relatively small update of the previous one). And looking back, the 8/02/13 packet is really rather out of date. Pretty much every class...

I have some real problems with this analysis. First, a short rest as a full hour. I find it implausible that three times per day a party could find a suitable spot to rest for so long. Giving the Fighter action surge during each encounter is an unlikely scenario. Second, the Mage has arcane...

The poll doesn't include enough options. The arrow might "miss", but Elspeth had to twist and turn so much that she sprained a few muscles and tired herself out to account for the damage. The arrow might fail to pierce the armor but some blunt impact goes through. The arrow might nick an...

Legends of the Wulin... now there is a name I hadn't expected to see mentioned here. :) D&D came very close to replicating something similar as LotW did with some traits, feats, and powers in 4e. All light blades could have one certain trait, all axes another, and so on. And then it's a simple...

You fool! You mentioned "damage on a miss", which is the incantation to conjure forth Prince Gorgoroth, demon-lord of unverified credentials! Now he will recite his poem of false authority and we must all dance to the unheard tune until fatigue takes us. This, he wills.

Already kind of answered your own question there. I don't have every book of every edition at the ready, but at least in AD&D you ought to be able to find out more in the Movement sections of the PHB. In the first printing of the AD&D 2e PHB (the blue one) for example, you can find movement...

Since when is a speed of 25 considered "classic" for these D&D races? They used to have one-half the speed of humans. They've been steadily increasing in speed over the past decade and a half. Making them all the same speed is humans is not really my personal preference, I'd like them quicker...

Something is funky with the link in that quote. It takes me to some completely unrelated thread about a Bow of True Arrows, for some reason. :confused:

In a game where armor makes you harder to hit rather harder to hurt I don't find it at all strange that an attack can damage on a miss. Because a "miss" is not a complete disconnect that only swings through the empty air, it's also connecting blows that didn't manage to penetrate armor and other...

Intended as a lighthearted little sidenote: If you look up the weights of those items it turns out that actually it's not all that hard to stay under the light load limit with all that. A dozen sheets of paper weighs next to nothing and potions come in tiny little vials that hold two tablespoons...

Edit: disregard, wrong edition. Or... is it? Jester_Canuck which edition were you talking about when you said: "Monsters should of course have unique abilities, so long as they're actually unique. The bugbear has an ability that could very well just be Sneak Attack, and the death knight has a...

No that's not what they're saying. What they mean is, two-weapon fighting doesn't stack with bonus actions. You can do one or the other, but not both at once. That doesn't mean that two-weapon fighting has a prerequisite in the form of access to bonus actions though. (Rodney clarified as much in...

I wasn't responding to any of your specific points, I was providing my opinion on the spell without any direct response to your post. Your post seems to imply that you're under the impression that I was disagreeing with you in some way. I wasn't.

I've played plenty of Next, both as a DM and as a player of a Cleric, and I think the spell is... eh, balanced... but the kind of balance you get from being broken in two different places at once. Bear with me for a moment. On the one hand, this spell can potentially remove every danger of...

As I made explicitly clear, the quote you're using from me was hyperbolic to make a point. Parody, if you will. It does not reflect my actual thoughts on what I think Mearls is doing. You have quoted that post of mine where I explained this before so I know for a fact that you were already aware...

I don't have huge problems with the article but I do have a few footnotes or nitpicks. First, as others pointed out as well, the amount of magic items is only part of the issue. The power of the items is another. Given that they introduced a common/rare/etc. system right in the core of Next, it...

And you actually believe all that, don't you? There's nothing more for me to really gain out of this. This is becoming an Internet Fight thing. I'm bowing out.