Search results

You're more than welcome to create your own rituals, I do so regularly, and use rituals as plot hooks extensively. For cost, I'd take a look at the existing rituals and pick a cost that matches the level. Most rituals within a level will have a similar cost, with a variance for some being more...

I would like to see that as well, but the odds of people like us being the only posters in said thread would be minimal. For some reason, those threads always attract edition warriors, and they spiral out of control very quickly.

Orb of imposition specifically states that it can only be used with wizard spells that a save can end. Instant Friends calls for a save for the initial effect. Tricky wording, but because the orb is supposed to extend durations, and not help with the initial effect, I'd rule against it.

By the end of the 3.5 run, WotC was releasing right about three products a month, between miniatures expansions, adventures, hardback books, and campaign setting books. If you add all the FR and Ebberron glut to your calculations, 4e is still a slower pace.

I would rule no. The elf isn't the one making the attack, the summoned creature is. Temporary bonuses on a wizard don't affect summoned creatures, so I can't really imagine why Elven Accuracy would,

Yup, it was up there for a while, IIRC.

It was stated as a defender in the first Heroes book IIRC.

I think it'll be a defender version of the Warpriest build. Most likely it'll have the at-will/encounter/daily structure we all know and love, but encounters will depend on your domain, similar to clerics.

The big thing to remember about that table is that it's a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. Instead of the same task getting more difficult as you level (and I've seen many people who interpret it as such), it's more like an idea of what the DC's will be based on who would have a difficult...

Nah, I think most people would be giving it guff no matter what was done. And as your post proves, Mike Mearls has officially ruined hugs.

It's perfectly reasonable. In fact, I may steal it.

What I'd like to see is a single book covering Artificers, Runepriests and Seekers. You could do an AP2, DP2 and PP2, but I don't really want anything more for wizards, clerics, druids, etc. Maybe throw it in with some extra Assassin builds, and call it "Player's Option" or "Splatbook A" or...

A half-dragon half-illithid were-terrasque! Or a Warforged Warlord/Warlock named Sun Tzu.

As a bit of a side note, I started a new game today. I lasted a whole four days on my "break" from DMing. Go me.

As somebody who has moved across the country since 4e came out, and played/run games on both the east and west coast, I'd say that 4e has a much more even play style than previous editions had. I think part of that is because of the modular design, part of it is because the rules are just plain...

As for the errata and essentials not being 4.5 thing goes... I know it can look intimidating, but if you actually look at the 22 pages of errata on the PhB, very little of it is actually core rules. Most of the errata involves specific powers, feats or class abilities. Essentials isn't really...

Sure he did. With this post, he ruined at-will powers that don't make zones, because they're not as good anymore. And now, because the at-will powers that do make zones aren't optional, he ruined those to. Oh, the ruination!

I use them because they're faster and easier than drawing a map. They're also far more detailed than I can draw, so they wind up looking better.

I had the pleasure of living ten minutes away from them. Never paying shipping is a glorious thing.

I think limiting elementalists to one element may not necessarily be a good idea, although I'd love it and it'd be easy. How about have the classes sit on the divides between the elements, so each one feels different in an instantly recognizable way, but doesn't have the full spectrum of...