Search results

I don't understand get it. I'm supposed to pay to get my ability scores? This makes no sense with point buy and dice rolling. Also, if a player ever showed up at my table with a scratch-off card full of 18s and told me I had to let him play because it was an OFFICIAL WOTC PRODUCT, I'd make...

Go on, because this sounds quite cool.

In general, yes. Also: >2012 >allowing artificers in your game ISHYGDDT

Can't XP, but this times a hundred. Also this.

The Tragedy of Fat Math: Rolling 1d20 + 37 against AC 48 sucks.

That makes a lot of assumptions about the game that vary from DM to DM in a way that healing surges don't. Wealth-by-level is a guideline, and I've never seen a DM that calculates treasure so that it exactly matches up. The wizard churning out wands of CLW requires 5th level and they have to...

I never understood why the purest of the Yuan-Ti were called "abominations," but that's how it's been (since 3e at least).

This is one of those statements like "4e is deadlier than 3e" that is completely untrue on its face. 4e's game design is one in which characters: • Heal to full with six hours of rest. • Survive several hits before dropping. • Usually heal to full between encounters. • Have character classes...

Namedropping game designers is a weak argument.

No, it doesn't. LF/QW is caused by more powerful options for wizards, not autoscaling. The 3e wizard isn't overpowered because his fireball does 5d6 more damage at 10th level than it did at 5th leve; the 3e wizard is overpowered because his enemies are one saving throw away from being turned...

Low-level PCs are adventurers. High-level PCs are heroes.

Virtually everyone ever, hence its popularity. You could play a game in which your numbers stay constant and the only difference is a chance in powers, but I think that would be unsatisfying. Yes, and that's fighting enemies that are higher or lower level than you are.

I'm not sure what the tragedy is here. I want numbers to get bigger, but not that much bigger. The fighter should get more accurate with his attacks, and he should do more damage. He needn't get +20 to attacks over his career, however.

Wishful thinking.

You are. To be blunt, WotC pooped the bed. They told the old 3e fanbase their ideas were outdated and they needed to, like, get with the times. 3e is junk; 4e is what's hot! Turns out that 3e players didn't like being told they had poor taste, especially after they had invested money into...

I also wonder how damage will scale for melee/ranged for other classes. The rogue getting only sneak attack damage worries me; it was frustrating in 3e at how dependent the rogue was on getting sneak attack damage.

Wonder how they'll handle multiple attacks with CS dice.

Arcane Strike is worse than Weapon Specialization at higher levels because it takes a swift action to activate. No quickened spells that way.

I'd prefer to keep the arbitrary abstractness as minimal as possible. Your use of that adverb causes my head to hurt. Poor form aside, it often indicates a logical leap that segues into a strawman, so let's stop right there. "You're basically saying that--" No, no, I'm not. I'm actually...

They are terribly written.