This is why I don't plan more than one session at a time. I remember getting very upset when my plans got blown out of the water, now I know it's normal.
I ... hate ... sunrods. You know, those magic items that come three-to-an-adventurer's-kit at 1st level, that conveniently flood any and every encounter area with bright light as a minor action, that render every rules subtlty concerning lighting, every light-creating item (anybody remember the days when adventurers carried torches?), and every moody area description completely moot? Yeah, those. If I were an evil D&D villain, I'd round up the world's supply of sunrods and dump them into a...
View full commentI ... hate ... sunrods. You know, those magic items that come three-to-an-adventurer's-kit at 1st level, that conveniently flood any and every encounter area with bright light as a minor action, that render every rules subtlty concerning lighting, every light-creating item (anybody remember the days when adventurers carried torches?), and every moody area description completely moot? Yeah, those. If I were an evil D&D villain, I'd round up the world's supply of sunrods and dump them into a sphere of annihilation. Mwa-ha-ha-ha!!!!
On a side note, when I create pirate NPC's, I usually include a mix of fighters, rogues, and fighter/rogues, as well as some casters. Clerics of sea gods or wizards with parrot familiars, even a druid with his water and air magicks and a monkey companion, works great. When I PLAY a pirate, however, I generally create him with the ranger class. Why? Because when I play a pirate, I like to dual wield a sword & dirk (or a sword & flintlock, if they're available). The ranger's inability...
View full commentOn a side note, when I create pirate NPC's, I usually include a mix of fighters, rogues, and fighter/rogues, as well as some casters. Clerics of sea gods or wizards with parrot familiars, even a druid with his water and air magicks and a monkey companion, works great.
When I PLAY a pirate, however, I generally create him with the ranger class. Why? Because when I play a pirate, I like to dual wield a sword & dirk (or a sword & flintlock, if they're available). The ranger's inability to wear heavy armor is just fine, too. Plus, he typically gets the right skills for the job (in 3e, for example, he got Climb, Intuit Direction, Knowledge: Nature, Profession: Sailor, Swim, Use Rope, and Wilderness Lore, which are all useful on the open see).
Although favored enemy isn't necessary to the concept, choosing an aquatic favored enemy did assume a certain oceanic history for the character. Similarly, spells weren't absolutely necessary, but in a magical world, spells like resist elements, protection from elements, water walk all came in handy, while spells like animal friendship, summon nature's ally, animal messenger could be used to for very piratey toucans or parrots.
Tracks was the only ability that was rally out of place, so I would usually ask the DM if I could trade it out for something more appropriate (even something like skill focus in profession: sailor). Barring that, I just tied it to the character's life before becoming a pirate.
Hello My name is Kine, It's my pleasure to write you today after viewing your profile on this website , i just want to say hello and how was your day? Well, i will like to known little more about you, and also i want to tell you more about my self, please i will be very happy if can reply me via my email address, so that we can move further for knowing each other (kinemabou @ yahoo.com) I will be waiting for your response, Thanks Yours Kine. (kinemabou @ yahoo.com)
View full commentHello
My name is Kine, It's my pleasure to write you today after viewing your profile on this website , i just want to say hello and how was your day? Well, i will like to known little more about you, and also i want to tell you more about my self,
please i will be very happy if can reply me via my email address, so that we can move further for knowing each other (kinemabou @ yahoo.com) I will be waiting for your response,
Thanks Yours
Kine.
(kinemabou @ yahoo.com)
The problem with capping D&D classes to 4 comes in when we have so many different ideas on what constitutes the attributes of a class from previous editions, such as the varying views on ranger in these posts. Another example would be the bard, which could be a warrior skald, arcane trickster, advisor and keeper of knowledge, roguish gypsy, and more. A general rule I would suggest is that a class with a wide variety of potential backgrounds is worth class and alternative classes...
View full commentThe problem with capping D&D classes to 4 comes in when we have so many different ideas on what constitutes the attributes of a class from previous editions, such as the varying views on ranger in these posts.
Another example would be the bard, which could be a warrior skald, arcane trickster, advisor and keeper of knowledge, roguish gypsy, and more.
A general rule I would suggest is that a class with a wide variety of potential backgrounds is worth class and alternative classes with less variation would be more suitable as a theme.
For example paladin and warlord seem like themes instead of classes to me. Bards and psions do not. Rangers do not. :)
I think that there should be more than 4 class options, but in the modular spirit of D&D Next, it should be possible to play with ONLY those classes and still have a good variety. With Themes you could make a Hunter/Stalker Fighter or Rogue. (Of Course, where the concept of Themes really shines is the possbily of Hunter/Stalker Wizards and other combination that are not obvious and cliche :)). I agree that Rangers should not be bound to one terrain, but have options to be from any environment. I...
View full commentI think that there should be more than 4 class options, but in the modular spirit of D&D Next, it should be possible to play with ONLY those classes and still have a good variety. With Themes you could make a Hunter/Stalker Fighter or Rogue. (Of Course, where the concept of Themes really shines is the possbily of Hunter/Stalker Wizards and other combination that are not obvious and cliche :)). I agree that Rangers should not be bound to one terrain, but have options to be from any environment. I am rather worryed that the only two styles mentioned for Rangers is the "Drizzt Double Weapon" and the Archer. There should be more options - or course the same goes for Fighters. As for Marking, there should be some way for "Defender" classes to Defend besides trying to stand in the way (can be tough with no Attacks of Opportunity) or hit the monster and kill it before it hits someone else. The Guardian Theme Shield Other effect is a good example.