Search results

For all those claiming it's a balance issue - that people are getting something for nothing and cheating the system - consider this. In D&D, and many other systems, if Intelligence is enforced as a limitation to player volition, you have the following options: 1) Play a warrior with low Int...

Well in character, if I was being swarmed by flesh-eating plague beetles, I would be happy for someone to throw a fireball in. Extreme example, but clearly friendly fire is not the worst thing that can happen. And while the characters don't know their HP, they do know their experiences. If a...

Description is a two-edged sword though. Let's say I'm the player, and I have to explain why the dragon is still pinned. Well what if I say: "Obviously, it's pinned because I stabbed my spear through its wing, nailing it to the ground." Is the onus now on the DM to explain why the dragon...

Well, the rock could have been in a bag of holding or glove of storing, Xykon pulls it out, then just falls while holding it. Or even has a Contingent Telekinesis to hurl it. Sure, it's a bit of setup, but not unreasonable for an epic Lich with too much time on his hands, and a fondness for...

Double post.

Why would it be too nasty? Wizards have a lot of burst spells (including an at-will) that can benefit from Enlarge Spell, and Druids are controllers too. At least half of the class/race specific feats have no actual reason to be that specific - they don't apply to something only that...

Actually, this is my problem with the hyper-specialized feats. Because any given book only has 1-3 feats a given character could benefit from, you need a lot of books to fill out a character. Ideally, Arcane Power should be able to supply at least half an arcane character's feats, which would...

I don't so much mind the powering down of feats. While it makes them a lot less exciting to get, that's where powers come in. However, the hyper-specialization is definitely bugging me. A recently looked at Arcane Power. Since I'm playing a Wizard, I figured there would be plenty of good, or...

Target: one creature specifically means it can be used on yourself, an ally, or an enemy. If it was "one enemy", as some powers are, it would mean an enemy only, and if it was "one ally", you couldn't target yourself, but it is none of those.

If you can retry it safely, you can "take 20", with or without a rule, simply by rolling enough times to get a 20. Thirty times or so should do it, if you need to declare it beforehand, and three minutes isn't that long. Take 20 as a rule was simply there to avoid unnecessary rolling and speed...

In the thread about reducing grind, someone had a solution similar to the climax idea. Once the battle reached the turning point (not necessarily bloodied, but the point when one side was clearly winning and the rest was just mop-up), then things went into overdrive - all encounter/recharge...

I see this sentiment a lot, and I want to shake people and say "You realize that there were other classes besides Fighter, right?" In the PHB, about half the 3E classes had massively more options than 4E ones, a couple were comparable, and the rest had less (although later splatbooks added some...

Actually, while taking down the healer might be a higher-priority tactic in general, finishing off the fallen guy right next to you is often better in practice. To attack the healer, you often must move past defenders (taking AoOs), and make an attack which may not hit and probably won't kill...

For fights where the PCs can't intervene, I figure out the results ahead of time (rigorously or not depending on the situation), and then just narrate the action to fit. For fights where the NPCs are basically doing their own thing, but the PCs have a chance to intervene, what I sometimes do...

Now this is something I'm getting sick of hearing. No it does not! A +1 to hit is a 5% better chance - no matter how rare it is. A +1 to damage might be worth more, if 4E monsters had less HP - but in fact, they have more HP. If anything, even something like Weapon Specialization means less...

Well yes, but that's because the Ruthless Ruffian is pretty much a self-justifying subclass. Theme-wise, Brutal Scoundrel covers the territory just fine - the only reason for there to even be a third subclass is the dubious decision to restrict which weapons a Rogue can use. I don't think...

Well, most teleport powers require line of sight, and the rituals (pre-epic) require a target circle. So the only things you have to worry about are: A) Wall-passing stuff like Breaching Armor. B) That one Warlock power that doesn't require line of sight. A low-cost solution I used in 3E...

The 5' step is one of the least strange things about the way initiative works. Which is more odd? 1) A wizard is standing next to an orc. He steps back to cast a spell. The orc doesn't immediately step forward to prevent it. 2) An orc is charging at a wizard who is standing on the other...

This method works better if the PCs aren't completely impartial, and also have different "favorites" from each-other: Divide the contest into multiple factors. For instance, a Chili Cook-Off might have heat, flavor, heartiness, and aroma. Then each contestant rolls for each category - this...

My main issue with the direction is that they mainly seem to be focussing on intra-class balancing, as opposed to inter-class balancing. Their main strategy seems to be: 1) Take a non-spellcaster class. 2) Buff it up a bit overall. 3) Find the strong tactics for it, nerf those tactics. For...