Search results

I have been a DM for 20 years and I concur with much of what is said. Role gaming is not a total free form experience where players get to run around killing things as they see fit, they should play World of Warcraft if they want that. I have been fortunate for much of my 20 years I have had...

GPs equating to item levels sucks. My players prefer to acquire make items through other means such as deity gifts or scenario earned and have a money system that makes sense and acquire wealth for good gaming reasons like buying estates, building castles or paying hirelings. Ed4 permits this as...

After playing ed 4 through to level 30 I have binned the abstract money system as it destroys the role gaming element. As my group came to comment 'oh another 30 astral dimonds, shall I buy a plus 4 weapon, several villages, nah I'll create a fancy chandellier'.

Following line of sight rules on page 274 the PCs can not see the monsters until A as a line of sight traced through a wall corner is blocked

Can you tell me where this is quoted, this would seem to contradict page 290 single OA per opponent turn? By the way the rules on page 273 state players are adjacent horizontally, vertically and diagonally. Thus can argue that what ever rule applies it applies in all direction. Thanks for...

In ed3.5 there was the concept of opposed diagonal corners such that enemy could not simply move between to PCs that were adjacent, be it along a square edge or by a corner. There is no such stated restriction in Ed 4 and page 283 diagonal movement would appear to permit it as the restriction...

It seems everyone has a valid argument for and against. Can I throw a different angle on the whole topic. Bigby's is a conjuration, a whole debate can be opened up as to wether a conjured 'ally' that is directed to attack by the conjurer provokes attacks of opportunities against the conjurer...

Killing PCs to make a point over a weakness in the game system is not my style especially when they were not being explotative they only had the mount for 1 day for a specific purpose and it just happened during an encounter. Equally a return to the bad old days of earlier edition broken rules...

Thanks for the thoughts. I guess the question was related to the discrepency between falling damage and limitation on epic powers. Take the point on the knock prone being even easier to achieve than immobilse. As for 4E and flying, I think the inclusion of relatively low level flying mounts...

As the rules appear to stand an immobilised flying creature that can not hover will descend its movement distant and then crash if it has not reached the ground. A crashing creature falls upto 100 squares per round unless they can make a DC 30 athletics. In many cases flying creatures do not...

I have a tactical warlord in a party of 6 and it works well. The big advantage we found is being INT based the INT stacks with AC making it a good secondary defender and meaning the front rank can be relatively self sufficient from the strikers and controller. Also being INT based it enables...