mouthymerc's page

88 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1. Ancient could be just fluff or it could mean that because it is ancient it could be harder to work on. For instance trying to remove it could be more difficult due to the ancient workmanship. It is probably left to the GM to work it out.
2. The emitter has the qualities as listed on page 176, so yes it has the blast quality.
3. The weapon deals 1d44 E damage. The stun quality means that damage can be either lethal or non-lethal. One would have to decide which before shooting. As per the stun quality this is a move action.

Stuff like that is usually left to individual GMs in order to tailor it their games. Some people will need more info and some will need less.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As an experiment in race creation I have adapted the races from Star Frontiers. Probably will never use them as there are already a ton of official races (that didn't take long), but please feel free to critique them.

+2 STR, +2 CON, -2 DEX
HP: 6
Base Speed: 20 feet.
Elasticity: A Dralasite’s skin is stretchable and supported by a complex muscle structure. This allows them to change the shape of their bodies, within limits. They can “grow” arms and legs to use for walking and handling tools and weapons, and re-absorb limbs when they are not needed. A Dralasite can have a number of limbs equal to its Dexterity divided by 2, rounded down for a minimum of 4 total. The player must decide whether a limb is an arm or a leg when it is grown. Growth makes movement 0 feet during his turn. A dralasite needs at a minimum of 2 legs to be able to walk at base speed, for every additional leg (up to a maximum of 5), speed increases by 5ft. Each addition leg beyond the first two gives a +1 racial bonus to KAC during attempts to be tripped. This will give a dralasite a maximum movement of 35 feet. Dralasites may wield and hold a number of hand's worth of weapons and items, but must have at least 2 legs for melee attacks.
Lie Detection: Dralasite have a +2 racial bonus to Sense Motive checks.
Keen Sense of Smell: Dralasite have a +4 racial bonus to Perception checks that rely on smell.

+2 DEX, +2 INT, -2 CON
HP: 4
Base Speed: 45 feet.
Ambidexterity: While wielding one-handed weapons or items, a Vrusk may make a Draw or Sheath a Weapon, Manipulate an Item, or Reload action as a Swift action.
Comprehension: Because Vrusk have such a complicated society, they are able to understand all sorts of social dealings. All Vrusk characters gain +2 racial bonus on Diplomacy and Sense Motive skill checks.
Steady: Vrusk gain a +4 racial bonus to their KAC during attempts to be tripped.

+2DEX, +2 WIS, -2 STR
HP: 4
Low-Light Vision
Berserk: Yazirians can call upon inner reserves of strength and ferocity, granting them additional combat prowess. You can berserk for a number of rounds equal to 3 + your Constitution modifier plus your character level. The number of rounds need not be consecutive. You can become berserk as a swift action. The total number of rounds of you can berserk per day is renewed after resting for 8 hours, although these hours do not need to be consecutive.
While bersrk, you gain a +2 morale bonus to your melee attacks and damage, as well as a +2 morale bonus on Will saves. In addition, you take a –2 penalty to your energy and kinetic armour classes. While berserk, you cannot use any Dexterity-, Intelligence-, Charisma-based skills (except Acrobatics and Intimidate) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.
You can end being berserk as a swift action and are fatigued after for a number of rounds equal to 2 times the number of rounds spent berserk. You cannot become berserk while fatigued or exhausted. If you fall unconcious, you immediately stop being berserk.
Gliding: Falls from greater than 10 feet do not cause damage if conscious and you are able to glide.  With Gliding, Yazirians can travel a maximum of 30 feet for every 30 foot drop vertical descent. This ability only works in Standard or Low Gravity.

Besk Ironskin wrote:
Thanks! I totally missed that. I think what I'm going to do now though is give them a chance to cure it before they get to the drift rock. Also, I'm definitely going to lower the amount of Akatas on that spaceship.

Couple things you can do.

1. Have them find a couple spell ampoules with Lesser Remove Condition if they want to keep going. Or if someone has that spell.
2. If they can actually stop to take a break or rest for two days, with a successful Medicne Treat Disease check they can get a bonus to their daily checks. Two successful checks and they are cured.

Then there is the fact that humans will breed with anyone/thing they can. We haven't seen any new half-breeds, but I am sure there will be some at some point. That may contribute to the virus analogy.

Whether or not you would allow this in your game is rather moot. Easy to say you would do it differently and means little to the OP. Does it affect the grand scheme of things? Only if it was an important piece of the device. Otherwise it is probably not going to affect much. Should there be repercussions? Absolutely. Many have been suggested. At minimum I would thin it may make things more difficult later on with the enemies they make wrecking other people's property.

LilithsThrall wrote:

Nothing must be used at all times. That's what rule 0 is about. But that doesn't mean that there is no core. And with it being core, the GM has to say 'no' to core rules, not just 'no'. That increases conflict and misunderstandings.

No, it doesn't. People do that. Core does not mean the same thing as it did in the past. It is no harder to say no now than it has been in any edition.

LilithsThrall wrote:
Your point?

That point was directed more at the general conversation on rules bloat. The designers stayed close to the base mechanics for a while, but they always planned to expand on those mechanics in different ways. The PHB3 psionics, Dark Sun themes, and the upcoming Gamma World game are examples of stretching the game so it doesn't become stagnant.

LilithsThrall wrote:

PHB2, DMG2, and MM2- aren't core in 3X

They are explicitly core in 4e, though.

They are core, but not in the sense that they must be used at all times. Core, in 4E, means that the designers are making everything compatible. So you will be able to drop warforged into your Forgotten Realms game or you will be able to take game concepts from the upcoming Dark Sun campaign setting and use them in your Eberron game or whatever. They are trying to design everything to work together if someone chooses to do so. Previous editions had separate rules that sometimes collided when dropped into different settings. Dark Suns races in 2E had different ability modifiers, for example.

4E PHBs and other books (DMG 2, AV 2, MM2, etc.) are exactly as they were in previous editions, more options. Just as in previous editions you can play with the minimum three books, or you can expand your collection. In 3.5, if someone wanted to play a duskblade, they needed to get the PHB 2. Does that make it a "core" book?

Also, the designers have never hidden the fact that they were going to expand on the 4E mechanics, bringing in new options. The advent of the psionic mechanics and the upcoming Dark Sun campaign setting are both examples of them taking the 4E rules set in new directions. These directions, though, still follow the basic precepts already put down.

Twin Agate Dragons wrote:

Originally posted by Dannager on enworld:

See, here's the crazy thing. You don't need to buy any booster packs! You can just buy Gamma World 4e , and you'll probably get a ton of mileage out of just that product. You do not need to buy any booster packs! You can just buy Gamma World 4e, and you'll probably get a ton of mileage out of just that product. If, for some reason, you feel your game is going stale because of lack of variety in mutations or what not, you have the ability to very easily go out and purchase an infusion of new ones. If, for some reason, you feel your game is going stale Because of lack of variety in mutations or what not, you have the ability to very easily go out and purchase an infusion of new ones. They're optional. They're optional. This isn't M:tG. This is not M: tG. Your game won't suck if you don't buy booster packs. Your game will not suck if you do not buy booster packs. You're not competing against each other. You're not competing against each other. Having the cards just right isn't going to matter. Having the cards just right is not going to matter.

Thank you. Thank you.

There will also be Skill Powers. They are utility powers that you can take instead of those granted by your class if you have training in the prerequisite skills. It is a good way for adding a different flavour to your concept. I find that many times when I am building a character in the CB that one of those skill powers actually makes for a better pick than the ones offered up by the class.

Stebehil wrote:

I wonder if corporate managements think that if they fire a few, they not only save a lot of money, but induce the remaining folks to work harder to keep their job. I honestly don´t think that this thinking will do them any good - fear is always a bad advisor, even more so for creative folks.

The security of jobs as it was in the past is long gone. There is a lot more competition now. If the company is not getting the profit it wants or needs heads are going to roll. I agree that fear is a bad motivator for anyone, but it is the one most people can relate to.

Stebehil wrote:
I´m more than happy that paizo does not go corporate. Of course, if you want to make *more* money, you have to at some point.

As long as Paizo is profiting to their liking I'm sure all will be all right. They don't need to be a corporate company, though, to let people go if their not profiting.

Pat o' the Ninth Power wrote:
I'd really like to see a pure melee controller, but I'm not sure what that would look like (Druid is closest for now).

The build for the monk comes pretty close right now. It is a striker with controller tendencies.

Stefan Hill wrote:

The common reply is of course, don't buy it. That is fine until a player turns up to your game and says I'm a X or Y. As DM you say WTF and that really doesn't fit in my carefully crafted world. But it's in the rules the player says AND everything is core... Awkward moment time...

Just because it is "core" to the system does not mean it is automatically core to your game. Let the player bring his idea and if you feel it has merit then let him play it. If you feel it may not be a fit for the game, then explain why it isn't a good fit. The DM, being the one who does a lot of the work, needs to be the final arbiter as he is the one that will have to integrate the character with what ever it brings to the table.

Drakli wrote:

Heck, I could convert Second Darkness to using the Toon rules, but I'm not gonna. n.-

What a wonderful idea. I'll have to dig out my Toon books now.

Gorbacz wrote:

On a side note - while I'm not really a 4e person, my players are asking for a one-shot 4e game to see what the fuss is all about. Anybody up to recommend me a solid 1st lvl module ?

Bear in mind that a) I don't have the time for home brewing, need premade stuff here b) Keep on the Shadowfell is not an option, downloaded it and didn't like it really - far too simplistic plot/RP-wise.

Try this:

The Chelish Inquisition wrote:
You can get the Character Builder demo, quick start rules and introductory adventure on the Test Drive page

I realize that you may not like the adventure, but it is not difficult to add more to the adventure in the way of roleplaying.

David Fryer wrote:
This is something new they are doing with Dark Sun. It's own quasi monster manual.

Instead of the Player's Guide/Campaign Guide route they are going with a Campaign Guide which includes player information and a Creature Catalog for the decidedly Dark Sun monsters. I don't see a real issue with that. The region being covered is much smaller in comparison to the worlds of the Forgotten Realms and Eberron. There will be no new class. All in all they should be able to fit all they need into a Campaign book. I am looking forward to the Dark Sun Creature Catalog.

If you have access to DDi check out the article The Bloodghost Syndicate in Dragon 366. It has a map of their hideout. The article is also available in the Dragon Annual. If you do have access to it then you can adjust it to paragon level in the monster builder.

And Rodney Thompson just had this to say.

I can definitely see mul and thri-kreen making it in with full write-ups. Dragonborn seem to be taking the dray background and will appear as an "other" race available. Goliaths may take the half-giant place in a similar vein. There has been a statement that there will be no new classes in the Player's Guide, but there will be mechanics for giving a decidedly Dark Sun feel to the classes available. I can see the possibility of either alluding to the gladiator and art of the kill articles or some reprinting for their information. A defiling mechanic was alluded to in a blog post by Rodney Thompson (I believe) and it was something that could hurt your allies if used.

More and more hints are coming out but nothing too concrete in detail as yet.

Tharen the Damned wrote:
Appearantly Woc thought so on the onset of 3rd edition. But, as it is plain to see, they revised their opinion (which IMHO already started in the dusk of 3.5).

They made adventures then, but in the more traditional format. Their switch to this delve format seems to be making their adventures more popular. Whether this is because people like their adventures focused around encounters or people just like them because they are more modular is difficult to say. As long as they continue to profit enough from them then we will continue to see them. We may even see 3pp switch to the format.

Tharen the Damned wrote:
It seems that there is a market for adventures after all, or Companies like Goodman would not prosper.

Small companies can succeed with products such as adventures where a large company like WotC would treat them more like support products or maybe even a loss-leader. I have no hard numbers, but it seems to me that the new format adventures seem to be doing well. If they have stumbled onto something which makes the idea of adventures better fiscally, then I can see them running with it, leaving the more fluff-filled adventures to the smaller guys.

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Actually, there isn't much competition, I suspect, against the delve format - most 3rd party publishers have dropped out and the WotC stuff has much greater name recognition. So I suspect for many people it's delve format or bust - very little alternative. Plus they made such a fuss about creating it that it would be a big climb-down to junk it. I'm sure some people like it, of course, but I also suspect there isn't actually that much pressure to change it either even if they didn't, and lot's of corporate pressure not to.

I don't find it a question of competition. As I said, adventures are poor sellers. They tend to be bought by one person in a group (DM) if any at all (as many groups create their own adventures). If the new format finds itself being bought by more people, then it would be foolish not to follow it. It may be that more DMs are finding it easier to take the parts that they like (the different encounters) and inject them into their own adventures. I find the new format of adventures to be very modular,even more so than the past. This may be the reason they are working better than in the past (as they seem to be) and making them viable.

Tharen the Damned wrote:
And if their delve format adventures sell well enough -which they must do, otherwise WoC would change the format/style to suit the consumers- why should they change anything?

This is the most valid point. Adventures are notoriously low sellers when compared to many other types of books. If WotC has found a way to make them a viable product then they are best to run with it.

For those that enjoy more roleplaying it shouldn't be too hard to inject more into the adventure.

"Life don' get no better than dis!"

The impression I got, and I know it isn't clear, but the DC is supposed to increase each day (or round) after the initial period whether or not you succeed.

In the case of starvation, after the initial 3 weeks has passed you start making your Endurance checks at DC 20 the first day, DC 25 the second, DC 30 the third, etc. All this is above and beyond whether or not you succeed. The only thing that influences is whether or not you lose a healing surge.

Not to mention that if you are there picking up another book, it is an excellent deal to add an additional PHB to your table for reference, either for those that do not own their copy or as a general one for the table.

Digitalelf wrote:

When I read something like "can live without EVER meeting another of its kind", I see a lonely creature with a lonely existence (no matter how much it may yearn for companionship from another of its kind). Unique solely because of its rarity...

Ah, so you are treating that statement as the rule rather than the exception. I can see how that would colour your view. I see it the other way. Certainly if the only two devas you ever see in your game are the two in the group, then creating the sense that they are rare can be achieved. If there are two in your group and every other adventure has you running into devas, then that sense can be lost. Everyone is going to have different impressions of what is rare to them.

Whimsy Chris wrote:
I've noticed devas seem surprising popular, and yet they are supposedly rare in the game world. We've had to create stories just to explain why a certain group would have so many of them.

I scratch my head when I see stuff like this. Why would having more than one deva in your group make them any less rare in the game world? Is it unrealistic that someone of a certain race or culture would seek out someone of the same race or culture for companionship? I know it says that a deva can live without ever meeting another one, but are you treating a statement like that as the exception or the rule?

CourtFool wrote:
Or just a class based around the Sword of Truth.

I find it unlikely that they would base a class around a single weapon. The concept of truth may be at its core, though. I think it may be a psionic leader class. The monk is a psionic striker and the psion is a psionic controller. If we get a psychic warrior or soulblade, it may be a defender. The seeker class being a divine one also has some merit. The seeker could be a divine leader that uses divine magic to find the way. We will have to wait and see.

jocundthejolly wrote:
Perhaps you are underestimating the scavenging and tinkering abilities/proclivities of DMs. I think many DMs are creative opportunists who adapt and synthesize bits from various sources (along with inventing some stuff of their own) to make a fun game.

I'm sure they are. A majority, though, do not have the resources to be purchasing the many books just to pull out the one or two things that they want. They will either do without, or they may get the information through other means. Either way, they are not but what is already a niche book. It behooves WotC to make the many books be as broadly appealing as possible in order for them to be profitable to produce.

Asmodeur wrote:

On the other hand, Secrets of the Shadowdale, is a niche product. It's actually a niche of a niche of a niche of a niche of a niche product, or something like that. (of all D&D players, Secrets is a DM book. Of all DM's, Secrets is really only interesting if you play FR. Of all interested DM's who play FR; only a fraction will be interested in a book about Shadowdale..)

This is the unfortunate truth. The audience for such a book is too small for such a product as to make it a less attractive option to produce. The aim is to make products with a broader appeal. I have picked up both Player's Guides so far, but have avoided the Campaign Guides and adventures for lack of interest. That being said, the audience for a book like the campaign guide is still larger than most audiences for most other RPGs in general which is why it is somewhat worthwhile to produce something rather than nothing at all. We just will not be inundated with books on the campaigns.

I like the current incarnation of campaign and player's books.

Arcmagik wrote:

I like the concept of the new Psion but I am firing Wizards now. They promised the fully exclusive class as it would be released in the book and instead we got another playtest?

I don't recall them saying they were going to release the whole class, only one build, just as they did. You'll have to refresh my memory and point out where they said they were going to release the entire class.

Arcmagik wrote:
Oh. How annoying is the fact that the article doesn't have the Power mechanics but instead just has a link to the compendium... Great.

Since the people who will see this are the same that have access to the compendium and the full CB, this is not an issue. It only becomes an issue if you wish to print off the article and share it with others that do not have access. Which, I'm pretty sure, goes towards why they did it that way. It may not be the exclusive reason, though.

I like the class. The new design direction is different without being extremely so. I especially like the design notes that went with the article showing some of the reasoning for some of the directions taken. There will be a telekinetic build included in the PHB3 and another one is going to show up in a Dragon article after the books release. It was hinted at that many, if not all, of the six builds of psion from 3.0 will be back in one form or another.

Also, while not cut in stone, this is not a playtest class like the artificer and others, but an early release of the class as it shall appear. That is not to say that nothing will change, though. Those playtest classes were only released with one build, too.

Kruelaid wrote:
That's a cool quote. But as someone who works in business, I want to know how the hell does he have time to run G. Games as a hobby? WTF?

As per the Goodman post:

First, a little background. I own Goodman Games but don't run it full time. Goodman Games has an outstanding staff who do most of the product development, run the tournaments, handle the shipping, etc. I personally have a full-time "business job" at a Fortune 50 company, where I manage a large staff running a billion-dollar division. Goodman Games is an extremely enjoyable outlet for my love of the hobby, but it's not how I pay my bills. I do it for fun because it is something I absolutely love to do. I wrote my first RPG at the age of 10, self-published my first work at 17, had my first professional contract at 18, had my first staff writer job at 21, and have been involved professionally in the gaming industry ever since.

He doesn't run it fully. It is a hobby, a well loved one that has paid off for him, but still a hobby.

Checked out the revenant race and it is, basically, The Crow. Not that that is a bad thing. It is one of my favorite movies. Resurrected in a new body by the Raven Queen. Too many similarities to count. While they are very Goth, they have nice potential. If you keep them in reserve and not allow players access to them right away, they present an interesting way of bringing back a beloved character, if a bit skewed. Even, as noted in the article, bringing back an entire group if they are TPKed. Fun stuff.

You ever watch a movie where the hero, or even another character, takes a lethal hit, only to have it revealed as a graze? Even if the DM describes it as a direct hit, little did everyone know that the armor (or maybe it was a medallion) deflected the ice lance enough that it wasn't a mortal wound. The avenger thought he was a goner until the warlord snapped him out of it. I can't tell you that it will make things easier for you. If it doesn't work for you, it may never, but things can be consoled after the fact. Whether or not you can accept that explanation is only something you can decide.

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

Here is the thing: The original DCs? In my opinion, they were pretty much perfect.

The problem was, there was a footnote on the bottom of the chart saying to increase DCs by 5 for skills. Now, it seems clear to me that this was only intended for when using the chart for skill Stunts, rather than Skill Challenges. (And it did result in appropriate DCs for stunts, from what I could tell.)

Okay, maybe I use them not as they were presented. I either overlooked that footnote or completely missed it. Worked out for me in the end, though.

Sebastian wrote:
I should probably start a new thread about this, but I've been running my game using the revised DCs feel way too low. I recently started using the DCs printed in the DMG, and they seem to fit my game better. I realize there's all sorts of math to prove they're broken, but they just seem to work for me.

I use them as they were presented originally, too. My players succeed enough as it is, not that that is a bad thing, but I do not want to make it any easier. The math is not the be all and end all in a game that uses randomization. Besides, my players are having fun when they are kicking ass and taking names. They are also having fun in those moments when nothing seems to go their way. Those are the moments that they seem to keep bringing up when they say "Remember when...".

I like to do both. I tend to DM more these days. Back in the days of AD&D I got to play more as my group would switch out DMs. These days I tend to DM more than play. A majority of my play experience has come from Dungeon Delves. When I do get to play as a player these days it is usually in other systems as my group tends to switch to try other things.

I much prefer the situational feats and their bonuses. I get so much more enjoyment in those moments when everything comes together. Those are the moments you tend to remember the most. Not the "You know, I don't think I've missed with one attack roll today" moments.

Sebastrd wrote:
I'm guessing the 2010 setting will be Dragonlance based on the fact that WotC will be hosting a Dragonlance 25th anniversary celebration with Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman at Gencon this year, the same event at which they will announce next year's setting.

I hope not. I have less than zero interest in Dragonlance in any form. I, at least, picked up the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide and will pick up Eberron's, not being interested in any of the campaign stuff put out for them. Dragonlance would, in all likelihood be the first camapign setting where I wouldn't pick up either. I never saw the appeal. I'm holding out for Dark Sun.

Since we haven't really seen anything since 2E, I am also hoping they revamp and overhaul the setting for 4E rather than try to adapt everything in the old setting to 4E to be true. The hope, I would think, would be to bring back fans of the setting, but also to bring in new fans, too.

#4. Mmm, nachos. I like nachos.

I'm only peripherally aware of the controversy, but from the little I've seen it mostly comes down to math. I'm a little dubious of that since there are many variables once you actually get playing. I haven't had much experience playing in the paragon and epic tiers, though the little I have played worked just fine without the feats.

Reminds me a little of the the people stating you needed to start with an 18 in your class's favored stat just to be viable. The game does not always come down to math but it seems that some get focused on that aspect.

bugleyman wrote:
And I guess that is the crux of the matter: I am. But I could be wrong; it wouldn't be the first time.

Pessimists are never disappointed, right?

bugleyman wrote:
As previously mentioned, assassin has a history in D&D. The Warlord did not. Of course, I'd rather there be *no* online-exclusive classes in a PnP game, but as I said earlier, making a 1E class online-exclusive was salt in the wound.

What history? It showed up in one PHB. At this point it is even with the warlord; 1 for 1. You must have had a serious hankerin' for the assassin class from way back when for this to affect you so seriously.

bugleyman wrote:
I wonder if you'd feel the same if "Wizard" were the online-only class.

You are seriously going to compare the assassin to the wizard. One class which only showed up in one PHB compared to another which is definitely considered iconic and has been in every iteration of the game. They are not even close to being the same. You would be better comparing it to the barbarian. It only made it into one PHB (2 if you count 3.5) before 4E, too.

bugleyman wrote:

If assassin is a job description rather than a particular set of abilities, then WHY IS IT A CLASS?

Because they came up with a concept (shadow striker) and needed a name for it. Voila, assassin. They could have used ninja, killer, shadow stalker, or what have you. They settled on assassin.

bugleyman wrote:
Will books be around a while? Of course. Will D&D be around a while, at least as a game with content primarily delivered through books? Not looking likely. Whether that means D&D will no longer be a "table top game" seems to be a matter of opinion, but I do know that isn't what was advertised when people were expressing concerns about the DDI.

D&Di is just another form of medium which they put out information in. Why aren't the classes from the PHB2 in PHB1? Not everyone playing has gone out and bought the PHB2. Is their game any less for it? Only they can say. It is not a necessity to play, though. I am not seeing anything here that portends that their material is heading in the direction of being available only electronically. Only some exclusive goodies for those that subscribe. It is still a very small, if growing, part of the market.

bugleyman wrote:
But I am one; at least, my account has several months of access left. An "assassin" isn't supplementary material to me; to me that is a basic archetype that should be in a PHB. This contention is supported by the presence of the assassin in the PHB in previous editions. As has been pointed out, this may be a semnatics issue, but I'm nonetheless disturbed.

The assassin only ever made it into one PHB, the AD&D 1E one. I think you are ascribing more importance to this than is needed. Assassins, beyond being killers, are not iconic to the game. Maybe they were to some extent back in 1E, but neither before or after that. Anybody can be an assassin.

bugleyman wrote:

If the assassin class can't do an "assassin" better than the rogue, what's the point? If it can, then "book only" players lose out on replicating a classic archetype, which is specifically what was promised wouldn't happen.

Why does it have to be better? Why can it not just be different? The simple fact that it is going to be a shadow striker declares that it is going to be different.

bugleyman wrote:
But again, we're going in circles; I don't think we're going to agree. I would love, however, to archive this thread and revisit it in five years. I would not be at all surprised if the assassin ends up being the turning point in the death of D&D as a PnP game.

Yes, please do. I'm still waiting for all the naysayers from last year that were stating that D&D4E wouldn't last the year due to poor sales and whatever reasons to come back and say "I told you so!". Books are going to be around for a while. At least until cheap forms of electronic readers become available. I think it will definitely still be a table top game, though.

bugleyman wrote:
When you start needing to be a DDI subscriber to play, which this seems a huge step toward, then clearly the DDI is no longer supplementary.

This strikes more as "The sky is falling!" than anything else. I do not see the game being predominately in digital form for many years to come. You are clearly ascribing way too much weight to the online material. It is just as supplementary as any material printed in any of the supplemental books (in any edition). Its value is subjective. If you've been dying to play a shadow striker class, then you may be out of luck until PHB4. At no point do I see you needing to be a D&Di subcriber to play the game, now or any time in the future. I will not deny, though, that being one definitely has its perks.

bugleyman wrote:
On the contrary, the difference is that I can't get the assassin in a book; no offense intended, but that's kinda the whole point. ;-)

While the mediums may be different, it still ends up being something that you are unwilling to put out cash for. And that can be for whatever reason you have, of which I am not discounting. For whatever reasons some choose to forgo the FRPG and others choose to forgo D&Di. At the end of the day it is your choice. There is nothing unfair or wrong here.

Even though this class is going to be available only online right now, it is not to say that WotC may not decide down the road to include it in an annual compilation. At the end of the day, though, it is no different than someone complaining because they can not play a swordmage because they are in the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide and they do not want to pick it up because they are uninterested in any other part of the book. Sometimes you have to make choices.

Assassin is just the name being given to this shadow striker build of a class. The only classes I consider iconic are the big four (although technically the game started with three); cleric, fighter, magic-user, and thief. No one is owed an assassin class. An assassin is just a killer and any class can do this and does. A shadow striker class does sound cool, though, so I imagine all those without access to D&Di will feel like they are missing out on this, what sounds to be an interesting class.

Full Name

Mestari Räjähdys