Search results

Well, to be fair, 1e didn't have CR or anything like that, so it's quite trivial for a newbie to build an encounter in 10 minutes. Open the Monster Compendium, take three monsters, and go and play. The charaters surviving such encounter, or the encounter being boring, is a different story...

Really? I don't see any parallelism there. Combat superiority is a single skill, which can be used every round (at the very least, to do damage, or absorve it), where Dragon Shamans had to wait 1d4 rounds to use each skill. That makes an important difference. The playtest even says that, when...

I was going to say exactly this. Now I don't have to. To the OP: have fun playing 4e, or any of the other non d20 alternatives there are out there.

Really? Everybody in my group hate those feats and I always thought it was a common issue across all tables.

By that definition, 3e Barbarians, 2e wizards, and 4e warlords share the "mechanic". They don't. The mechanic is vastly different. CS is not related, in any way, with Channel Divinity. It's not even close to. It's not related to Barbarian Rage, or Bard's songs. They are completelly different...

Combat superiority is renewed every ROUND, not every encounter. And yes, that make it a very different kind of resource than an daily Channel Divinity. It's on a whole different level. Just like Vancian Magic and Spell Points and Daily-Encounter Power are all of them resources, but very...

Channel divinity uses aren't CS dice, because CS dice replenish each round. Every class is going to have some kind of "resource" to manage, but vancian spells, chanel divinity, bard songs, and barbarian rages are, and should always be, different in nature and in mechanics. Barbarians will have...

The problem with Turn Undead, is that it only make sense in a Jewish-Christian mithology of some sort. In this kind of enviroment, the cleric's god is the only god, and he is the guardian of everything that is good against those who are evil. He also take care of the afterliving, so it makes...

I agree with this. I have this kind of player in my game, he likes to play, he loves to chat with us, laugh a bit when a comical situation arise, have fun, eat pizza, and roleplays a bit when needed. He just don't like tactical games, and don't want to make complex decisions. He often don't even...

My personal problem with 3.X fighters, is that they are dull. And Fighter is my favourite class, ever (I like Conan over Gandalf), and I'm currently playing a PF fighter, which I love Roleplaying-wise, but I dislike mechanic-wise. The problem with basic feats and basic static modifiers, is that...

Maybe for you, and some players and playstyles, but obviously not for everybody. "Fighters are dull" was one of the major complaints back in 3.X. Just like "warriors shouldn't have spells" was a major complain with 4e powers. It's hard to balance both, because differerent views have different...

Yes. But he did not say "every character will be able to be created either 1st edition or 4th edition". One player can build a 4e character (let's say, the warlock), while other character can build a 1st edition character (let's say, the wizard).

Johnny Blaze is an angel. The Angel of Vengeance. Yes, I was shocked too. No, it doesn't fit the character at all. And yes, the person who made that script should die in a fire of vengeance.

I agree that they should increase the number of save throws for non-classic saving stats. INT, CHA, and STR need to be checked much more.

double post :/

I think people is missing the point. They didn't say you could play any class you want, with any ruleset you please to do so. What they said, is that you can find a place in a 5e table, whatever is your playstyle or edition of choice. That means that if you like Vancian magic, you can play 5e...

There are animals that are "cunning" and have "intuitiion". They aren't "intelligent". Forget about Lores or Languages. A horse shouldn't resolve a puzzle. Which is not a "lore" check, it's a pure Intelligence check. Intelligence is the measure of your ability to reason. And animals don't...

The problem with that is that you either have mathematician cats, owls, eagles and wolves, or you'll have deaf and blind cats, owls, eagles and wolves. Perception can't be tied to intelligence, because animals aren't intelligent.

I'd go with either AD&D, or 4e hybrid. Either that, or no multiclass at all (and replace multiclass with specific classes. IE: a spellblade for fighter-magic user archetype)

In which edition had fighters better saving throws against *charm* spells? Against Finger of Death, sure, in some of them (speciallly at higher levels). But against Charm? Or dominate? I've been playing since AD&D, not the oldest one, admitedly. But they weren't harder to charm than mages in the...