Search results

Or to make demigods to those who rolled high.

Hasbro is so incredibly big, that WotC isn't even named more than once in their annual brief to shareholders. They only mention Magic the Gathering in a side note, it's a minor product for them, and it's like 10 times bigger than the entire D&D franchise. Just to point out, Paizo Revenue is...

This. Just the posibility to make someday a blockbuster film with D&D logo makes this IP way more expensive than any kickstarter could get.

Why is a heavier story element undesirable? :confused:

At 7th, I don't think burning hands make for such a great daily slot. Wall of iron 1x10 minutes is not the same that wall of iron at-will, specially if you put a gp cost on it. Of course you can't go and use 3.5 spells per encounter as they are now, but that doesn't mean you can't design them...

I happen to disagree. A 3rd level Daily is *not* worth a daily slot when you are 20th level. That's why in 4e you replace low level dailies when you level up, becouse that 1st level daily isn't worth the effort when you are 30th. Except for very specific spells that have no upgrade for very...

I'd make rogues to have +2 to skills, instead of +3. It gives you some incentive to put a high score in, say, wisdom, to search for traps or say, Charisma, to bluff people. With a guaranteed +3, your score is usless unless it's a +4, which seems way too high. It also makes rogues competent (the...

I don't think so. A 20th level wizard being able to cast burning hands 1x encounter isn't really that powerful. Casting low level spells already have a cost of oportunity: the round you are casting Burning Hands, you aren't casting Time Stop, and that's a sensible cost. Plus it makes sense...

Good suggestion!. Make all spells that aren't your max level, to be encounter spells. So a 5th level wizard casts fireball 1xday, but Burning Hands 1x encounter, becouse he is able to memorize it again in short time (the spell itself is not taxing at all, I think you said) I'm going to suggest...

You can already have a fighter that is a necromancer. It has to be an elf, though.

And this is why this is f****g genius.

this

Which is one more than flanking, but requires no positioning, is harder to avoid by the BBEG by shifting away, and works on ranged weapons. I think it's a fair trade off. And yes, Thugs SA sound a little bit over the top.

From expertise & combat maneouvers as seen in Fighter's Combat superiority, for example

Depends on how many attacks you get. If you can get 2-3 attacks per turn later on, it does significantly more damage against single targets imho.

I don'r liike the +1 across the board. I think it's a placeholder until they release some human trait. Humans can be as tough as dwarves (say, norses), as dextreous as halflings (say, eastern), and so insightful as elves (celtics or whatever). But being all of them *at the same time* and better...

This is a good way to see TWF. Whenever you see TWF in D&D, it's either completelly useless because of to-hit penalties (ie: 3.0 flurry of msses), or completelly overpowered because the lack of it (ie: 4e Twin Strike). It's way too much to add double attacks against single targets, it does...

It's Mechanically ineffective as it is now. I'd make it work on 5+

I've only read half the package, but I needed to stop and came here to say just one thing. The fighter is EXCELLENT. Combat superiority is just plainly awesomesauce

The sad part of this, is that the number of rounds in combat should per adventure day shouldn't be a "math" issue, but a "playstyle" issue. Some DM/groups like to fight endless attrition wars in Diablo-like dungeons, some others like to play a lot of exploring/interaction with only a fight per...