Search results

I don't understand what this has to do with Fighter skills or weapon profs though. Why isn't removing expand enchantment sufficient to fix 100% of this problem? Why do you then ALSO need to crush Fighters and Rogues by removing the only thing they are good at?

I don't think anyone is objecting to the majority of the itemization changes in [2.0] so I'd say without itemization beyond that which a player could easily get soon after joining Alliance (Suit of Armor, Wand, Spellbook with all spells, weapons, shield, some minor potions, etc].

Scholars can buy as many spells as they want. Fighters cannot buy as many disarms, slays, parries, eviscerates etc as they want without being forced to spend lots of dead build buying worthlessly overpriced Weapon Proficiency skills.

I think this quote is very illuminating considering the direction of the 2.0 rules. I also think its flat wrong. The Master Construct scroll would like to have a word with you about having a Fighter in your pocket.

I wonder if people's thoughts and opinions on class balance in 1.3 are tainting the way 2.0 rules are being implemented and created. To that end I'm very curious what people believe about class balance in the current version of the rules we are playing with in Alliance. **EDIT** BECAUSE IT...

The title says it all. What is the design intention to cap the amount of build spent productively on Fighter and Rogue skills but not Scholars?

Evocation magic is bad, it's very rare for people to take it because takeouts are so much stronger. I think this whole scenario is flawed as presented because the ratio isn't 2:1 it's 12:1 because one take out spell will kill the monster.

The Flurry rule as written does not do what you say it does. 1. It requires a pause and resetting of stance when no hits have landed and thus no defenses need to be called. 2. It does not require a pause when multiple players are attacking the same target. 3. It requires a pause when only...

If you strike someone in an area you aren't supposed to our local culture demands that you apologise and ask them if they are ok. The flurry rule is totally unneeded to have that culture. If someone becomes injured as a result of combat the HOLD rule is in place. The flurry rule by itself...

We also do this in Denver.

I really like the creativity behind this proposal, and appreciate how this tries to solve one of the biggest long term problems with Alliance (no build cap and no lobg term spend possibilities) but I'm worried that this hoses long time players ( of which I'm not one). New characters gain build...

If this rule passes I am unlikely to change my shield rep size significantly. I know several people will, and I am certain I will "fight" some NPCs with some. I'd personally much rather go with rules that allow for slightly larger shields and all around easier to measure shields. Giving...

I'm less worried about PCs using big shields and more worried about NPCs using shields so big that there aren't legal shot locations to be placed on them. I play another LARP where this is very common and I find that this trend makes your sheet rather than your real skill more important than I...

I also voted for "no isn't nessicary" but mean "no this is actively bad".

I think it's really important to not fundamentally change the nature of Alliance in the rules rewrite unless players and owners universally agree a part of the game is broken. In my mind there are only two areas where this is true: Magic Item Bloat Crafting Fighting style and a shift to...

I think chapters should have the ability to play the game how they want. That said, the more variations in the rules that exist from chapter to chapter the harder it is for people to travel. It makes our "alliance" more into a set of distinct islands rather than a national tapestry.

Seeing as the new shield rule is unique to this playtest [0.9], it probably warrants it's own thread. That's not to say the people talking about it here are "wrong", just that it deserves it's own separate topic. I think that the flurry rule and shield rule by themselves are insufficient to...

Denver has run at least 3 playtest so far with the intention of running at least 1 more to try to work through Paragon Paths.

Baron Darius do yoy have any informatiin to suggest that people that die and people that are Obliterated have the same chance of returning? This isn't what I took your information to mean, but if true is very interesting.

In the 7th level version asking someone "Are you Undead?" Was always sufficient to clarify. This version where the target retains intelligence it will never clarify that. Are you undead? "No, of course not, lets go kill the necromancer." *Terminate former ally* This is not a fun play...