Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lurker37" data-source="post: 4072350" data-attributes="member: 9522">*Looks at Hong's avatar.* <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":]" title="Devious    :]" data-shortname=":]" /> "but the DM can change...""but the DM can change...""but the DM can change..."..(100 lines later)"but the DM can change..."MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAA!  Be afraid Hong! Be very afraid!Right, so while we wait for God to kill Hong, here's my thoughts.Fixed Hit points? HELL YES!!! Nothing worse than having the party plate-wearer roll a 1 on Hit points! Random hit points have never made a game I was in better, and caused several otherwise viable and intelligently-planned characters to be quietly retired or die in combats where they really should have lived. The number of times I've seen a DM simply grant a character a re-roll because he doesn't want to have to rebalance the rest of the campaign against a fighter with low hit points... the situation where we all felt such a thing was necessary just shouldn't have arisen in the first place.Random hit points were, in my opinion, the single biggest flaw in previous editions of D&DThe power list is most definitely NOT complete - it doesn't even include all the powers listed in the builds.Shurikens. Most likely a catch-all phrase for any small thrown blade. The problem with a phrase like 'throwing knife' is that it is by no means clear to a group of new players that this does not include throwing a normal dagger. So if "shuriken" is a category of small bladed throwing weapons which are too small to be wielded in melee then I have no problem with it. Every player at the table can instantly recognise what it is and understand that it is different to a melee dagger.Looking at this and the weapon list in the DDI preview, I'm concluding that there has been a move to reduce the number of weapons in 4E. This allows the designers to have more powers, combat moves etc tied to a specific weapon, thus emphasising the difference of each, instead of having 20 different weapons that were all so similar in effect that they might as well have been the same thing to start with. So my expectation is that instead of 37 different types of sword we get four or five, some of which are harder to learn but should still have powers associated with them for those who spend the feat to master them. As for the limitations on the types of weapons that can be used with different powers - we've yet to see if there are feats etc that can extend these options. For instance, there could be a note under its description that notes that rogues who become proficient with it can now use it with powers X,Y and Z. Or there may be rogue powers that specifically apply to rapiers. Perhaps there's a feat that extends the number of weapons a rogue can sneak attack with (Backstab, maybe?). Or perhaps swashbuckler is now a build meant for rangers now. Maybe the harpoon-wielding sailor with no traditional rogue skills is better modelled in 4E as an agile fighter. We just don't know. And we're not going to know until we see a lot more of the rules system.Int on skills - again, we don't know enough yet. There may be a general category of int-based skills which are purely rolled for 'what does this character know about the gameworld?", which characters get a number of based on int.So my overall reaction is that what we know so far looks very much to my liking, but it raises more questions. I am not, however, pessimistic about the answers to those questions at this time.P.S. Nothing personal Hong. It's just that Richard from LFG is my hero. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":]" title="Devious    :]" data-shortname=":]" /> <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /></blockquote>

Verification