Search results

They should've just done: 1. Blast X - Ranged, X by X squares 2. Burst X - Non-ranged blast, X by X squares 3. Spin X - Everything within X squares of your character. Meh? This came very close to being an excellent point, but in actuality it's that people didn't want monsters to have...

I agree, except for the 'huge win' part. I think this is a very bad example to give DMs because it involves cooking up what PCs can or can't do ahead of time. I would probably play skill challenges more openly, because this whole "you can't intimidate the Duke" thing screams railroad to me.

Absolutely... but then you'd be playing a sci fi rpg, wouldn't you? In most cases, there would be a net negative impact if one player decided to be a space marine because it would hurt everyone else's verisimilitude. Once again, people are drifting back into stupid straw men... don't tell Mourn...

It doesn't make any sense to sneak attack with a greatsword. Besides... Hunter's Quarry is more assassin-flavored than sneak atttack, if you ask me. It seems like the OP's big problem is that he refuses to see the ranger as anything but a forest-stalker type. Everyone gets 4 skills trained in...

I would stat this as a fighter with the initial ranger feat (marking is very assassin-like) and maybe a utility splash. Take combat feats that involve finesse. Yep. Seems like a good idea to me.

I'm not a fan, actually. I prefer the old one: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG78.jpg

Not everyone puts up a big fuss when they don't get what they want. That doesn't mean it doesn't bother them. It may not, and that's fine... but that's only the case if they weren't particularly excited to play that character concept in the first place. True, but that's because the Dark Sun's...

If this was the intent then Drizzt was a poor example because he is connected with a type of player that everyone thinks is lame. How much enjoyment do you get out of not having a particular race in your campaign? How much enjoyment does a player get from being able to play that particular...

I wasn't disagreeing with you, merely reframing the statement? The DM sacrifices a free time to prepare for the players. That's why we don't railroad. No, I'm employing that you would have to be incredibly thick to think Dragonborn = Space Marines. Slippery slope arguments, and more...

A) True enough, but sometimes as a DM you'll have a better time if players enjoy their options. This point isn't black and white. B) Players have to please a DM to some extent, but the DM has to please players as well. I would say the DM has to try harder than the players to please the other...

Higher AC is better in almost every role, although this is especially true of melee types. I would say the Halfling racials are excellent for a melee ranger or rogue as well, and so they won't necessarily be pressured towards defender roles. As for what other classes have to compensate, you...

Feat-damage efficiency isn't really all that high in the first place. Lethal hunter gives you +1.05 damage after factoring in critcal strikes (assuming you only crit on 20). The '+1d10 on crit' feat is worth 5.5*.05 = .275

I think everyone on the thread would agree that these feats work well for dipping from either class. The argument is on whether or not they can achieve even greater depth. A wizard grabbing fighter multiclass feats would work just fine (better than in 3.5 with the changes to BAB and removal of...

spe·cious adjective 1 apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments 2 pleasing to the eye but deceptive I think the word you're looking for is 'specist.' ;) I'm more of a lurker than a rabid fanboy, but don't let that stop you...

Goblins are highly unlikely, but as a Redcloak fan myself I'd be all for it. :)

Everyone had pet peeves about 3.x, and 4e apparently solves many of them. Heck, if WotC left all else the same and addressed the power/options imbalance between magical and mundane classes, it'd be something to celebrate. Why you feel the need to spout your elitism on this thread is beyond me...

Hence my confusion. ;)

Yeah, they do all look the same, don't they?

I'm not impressed, but I'm not unimpressed... it's exactly what I was expecting and little more. I guess I'm just spoiled from getting so much multiclass crunch. On the other hand, I have a friend who's looking at playing a berserker-type Dragonborn ranger in our first 4e campaign, and these...

This will be my greatest challenge yet! Paladin with Wizard multiclass feats, careful skill selection, and a couple extra feats to fill in the empty space. Fighter/Warlord/Cleric => Paladin Ranger/Rogue => Sneaky Skills/Feats Warlock/Wizard => Wizard I win!