Search results

That's what I got the impression off of. It's probably just a hypothetical "if we had a class that is 100% damage" bit.

I understand the switch out, admittedly, it's just I worry when people mention the fighter as straight damage. I'm also arguing that Dominate Person is in itself a gigantic source of DPR when it works and a much more powerful ability than fireball just on a conceptual level. Also, any Vancian...

...Uh, Linear Warrior Quadratic Wizards ISN'T ABOUT DAMAGE. Evocation doesn't even do that much overall damage in 3.Xe. The problem is more when the Wizard has stuff like Dominate Person available, which one hit of which on the Fighter and he has a new minion to add to his DPR. (And we know that...

Yeah, I'm strongly in favor of these two. I'm currently playing a PF Ranger, and I never would have if it wasn't for the option in the APG to take the Mounted Combat style (and it also offers a Two-Handed, Crossbow, and Sword and Shield styles). That, and some featery to make my Animal Companion...

Uh, the PF version does also boost on two-handed weapons. You may already know that, but the wording used so far is a bit unsure. If you do this, make SURE to not allow the Furious Focus feat from PF (ignore Power Attack penalty on your first attack in a round.) Being able to pick any amount...

Well, considering the actual math is one increase for every 4 BAB, and two-handed weapons are now 1 for 3... I think the 4th level Fighter won't mind -2 for +4 or -2 for +6. There's cases where it's a nerf (much higher accuracy above what I usually see, but I tend to run with low-op people)...

Gotta love putting mechanical updates to the Warlock behind a paywall. Didn't errata used to be free?

If this is just errata behind a paywall for the warlord... That would be rather irritating.

Which is why there are rare cards. That kinda confuses me.

Could you trim that quote down?

Seriously, they're improving things by not compiling the articles? That is just LAZY.

Wait - Archer Rangers have a SECOND at-will worth using?

I'm fine with DM's having a party concept, as long as they declare it while recruiting for the game. See the low magic campaign idea a friend of mine had - all humans, all martial classes, inherent bonuses, no magic items. If they spring it on you halfway through character generation, less fun.

Eh, I've run into a lot of human characters - for some builds, having that extra at-will or feat really helps. (Mostly hybrids - I have seen more human hybrids than any other race). What's bizarre is the Pathfinder group I play in, the entire group is two elves, three half-elves, and a...

I'm sorry I have to ask - but how exactly did he min-max a rogue assassin hybrid? I really don't see much synergy there.

I'm going to regret asking, but what about Staffs of Ruin and Siberys Shards of the Mage for implement users?

Redacted.

Not yet, but they're not done working on it yet.

It's kinda embarassing when the online builder is this buggy but the various fan projects using CBLoader to implement this in the old builder are less buggy. (To be fair, I haven't seen one that fully implements essentials yet, but they've had less time to work on it).

Both my 4e groups have pretty much shot down the Magic Item rarity changes for one (Ironically, one DM thinks the new system is too much work). The difference between Essentials and something like Martial Power is its ripping up of numerous design concepts and subsystems of the game and...