Search results

My advice is "don't force it." Your descriptions will flow easier and combat will be smoother if you are comfortable describing the action. Also, I avoid describing what the PC does at all. That's the player's job. I'll describe the result, but I will never say something like "With a howl of...

I have been tempted as a DM to invoke time limits to tactical discussions. On occasion I jokingly threaten to invoke a mythical "real time is game time" rule. But I never do. Usually the joking gets things moving well enough. Since I play and DM in about equal measure, I see both sides of the...

Wow, this is way off topic now. In our current campaign I've been through five five hour sessions, so 25 hours of play. Other than "enchant item" and "transfer enchantment" I don't think we've used a single ritual. When I browsed through the rituals, my general reaction was "hmm... seems odd...

Most strikers have one, or a couple, damage inducing abilities that produce significant sustainable damage. Rogues have sneak attack, rangers have twin strike and hunter's quarry, barbarians have rage... It sounds like it's working as intended.

All rangers can choose at will, encounter and daily powers that allow them to make attacks with their main hand and off hand weapon. Those powers all say the ranger has to be wielding two weapons (most also work with a ranged weapon so you can make two attacks with a bow, for example). The...

Hmm... I'd have to say that's a pretty compelling argument.

OK, so any time you have an attack which involves rolling dice to determine damage you add the extra damage, right? So an attack which has a [W] damage, plus a Hunter's Quarry, plus a furious assault, plus a 2d6 for a critical hit counts as ONE ROLL, and you add the extra damage only once, not...

OK, I'll stop beating on the limitations of the game mechanics. I do think the pressure to put out money making splat books is a tremendous pressure on the design team and that will inevitably lead to more unbalanced items as they find it more and more difficult to come up with "flavor" items...

I have a 9th level ranger with spiked chain training. My DM will allow farbond spellblade. I don't have one because I took the horribly overpowered and game breaking bloodclaw weapon instead. But if it weren't for that, I probably would have the farbond spellblade. I love the flexibility it offers.

Heh, yeah, let's talk about other items that break the "secondary slot" rules or otherwise unbalance things. Just a quick question. With more and more splat books coming out, do you think this problem is going to get better or worse?

No, you DON'T "get it." It's not about ME. It's about a game system that is so arbitrary and unsound that THE GAME'S OWN DESIGNERS can't stick to the "rules" you think exist. I say again. I. Didn't. Create. The. Iron. Armbands. Of. Power. I really didn't. It wasn't me. It was WIZARDS OF THE...

OK, so the problem isn't that they provide a +2, but that they are "secondary slot items" and therefore should not provide damage bonuses that stack with weapons or feats. That's the sum total of your argument then. I. simply. disagree. It's a magic item. What the heck is the whole concept of...

I see it as the same argument with different perspectives. I doubt I'm going to get a board dedicated to the 4e game to agree with my analysis that 4e is deeply, fundamentally flawed and that this sort of problem was inevitable because of the poor design choices made at the very beginning of...

LOL, in my opinion to point out that people are banning items because of a fundamental flaw in the game design is a perfectly on topic response in a thread about banning items.

LOL, then you obviously haven't been reading the last few pages either because I've directly addressed that multiple times. I am sympathetic to the approach of making all armslot items give a damage bonus, like all neck slot items give a bonus to fort, reflex and will. That way all those...

Hmm... so what if the character's concept depends on executioner's axe? Or dual bastard swords? The whole point of those concept choices is that the character does more damage than with other weapons. How is that logically different than IAoP? "OK, I'm banning IAoP because they do more damage...

Heh, for whoever it was that suggested a discussion of the power of an item is not on topic for a thread about banning items, I can only say "wtf?" Isn't that the whole point of putting something on a banned list? How is it off topic to say "hmmm. you want to ban this, based on its power, I...

You guys aren't understanding me. I'm the one saying that the IAoP and similar items AREN'T broken. Let's do a little ranger math. Most encounters are designed for appropriately built strikers to hit 60% of the time. That means the IAoP are adding 2.4 damage per round, max, unless you use an...

Since I'm being so hard on the arm slot items, I feel I should point out that I think the designers actually did a fairly good job on magic weapons. There are a lot of interesting and comparable weapons to choose from, many of which fit well with particular character builds. It appears to me...

Look, I didn't invent the Iron Armbands of Power. Wizards did. If Wizards thinks they are a legitimate item, and they list them as comparable in value and cost to other items, then those items should be balanced. They are not. This is manifestly obvious. So the only FACT here is that the IAoP...