Search results

Yeah, it is. The homebrew campaign I'm working on deals heavily with the relationship between a town and tribes of goblins, so hopefully this module won't present an overload problem. Maybe I'll alter the KotS encounters.

I just wish they were releasing it tomorrow. May 20th isn't far from the core release date...

I was hoping for some tables, but I like the information we did get. I like how they made Halberds extra-interesting.

Only if you come up with your character and concept on the spot so that game time and creation time directly conflict. Not every min/maxer is an :):):):):):):). I agree with 4e's efforts, but your post is off base.

A good example is the feat that gives +1d10 damage on a crit. With a normal crit range that's only .275 damage per swing, and even critting on 19s it's only worth .55 damage per swing. It's an interesting flavor option, but mechanically it's total crap.

Style requires that in order to use a dagger effectively you have to be more precise.

...because I would say it applies to almost every spell.

The Cleric says: Don't attack me. The Fighter says: You can't get around me. The Paladin says: You have to go through me.

Spell Cleric - - - - Cleric - - - - Warpriest - - Paladin I think the pregen character adequately shows that 4e Clerics are able to choose anything in the spectrum from Spell Cleric to Warpriest.

Question for you guys: Do you make casters deal with the same penalties for firing into melee?

Yes, I think it would be premature... but 3.x sets a dangerous, dumbed-down precedent for Intimidate.

Diplomacy. Intimidate would bring back the Half-Orcs. That's a success in my book. ^^

Hehehe... Heh. Heh. Haha. Muahahahaha! Yeah, it shouldn't be too hard to make a proper skill challenge, bad examples notwithstanding.

What post? Don't feel bad; ninjas scare the Duke, too.

++, but since I'm DMing I won't even get to make a character then. :( Nuh-uh. ;)

Makes me think of Princess Bride.

Rude. Why should intimidate be limited to those encounters when common sense makes it applicable in other scenarios, as well. Anyways, how legitimate is it to intimidate a wolf in that situation unless you're some kind of monster? Not very, if you ask me.

What if you're lying about something they might be afraid of? Perhaps they should be rolled into one skill and represent different levels of difficulty. From personal experience, I know that a good debater is often a good liar. It's just harder to convince someone based on facts you invented...

The funny thing is, my opinion isn't even all that extreme. I like the idea of using skill challenges, I just didn't like this example. That's what my position has been from the beginning. 15+ pages of the thread are devoted to this debate. If you don't want to read it, don't. I'm not...

I think those ramifications should be mentioned when they describe what the skill is, but explicit rules would annoy me. Turning the ramifications of Intimidate into a plot hook could be fun, but the formulaic 3.x rules text for it was dumb.