Post/Author/DateTime	Post
WotC_Bart 01-20-06, 01:00 PM	Hi folks, The following thread is for today's Design & Development column: Proud Nails (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060120a). Have any nails you'd like to take a whack at (or already have, within your own game)? As a side note, You Craft the Creature's next voting is also live; any thoughts for the scores you'll choose? Thanks!
Epic_Meepo 01-20-06, 03:50 PM	Am I the only one irked by the fact that half-fiends have certain racial abilities that don't resemble any racial ability of any existing fiend (sans templates)? All half-fiends can smite good, but how many fiends (sans templates) can actually do that? How many can use horrid wilting as a spell-like ability? And why should the half-fiendish child of an erinyes (who has feathered wings) have bat-like wings? Half-dragons of different ancestries have slightly different racial abilities. Why must all half-fiends be crammed into one mould that doesn't resemble any of the creatures to which they are supposedly related?
Epic_Meepo 01-21-06, 12:44 PM	Surely someone else out there has some irksome rule to complain about in this threat... Oh, well. I've got a few more to mention if no one else does. For example: Have you ever run a combat with a beholder? Have you ever run a combat with a beholder that didn't take forever? No creature should ever get to take thriteen actions during each of its turns, yet a beholder does: a free action to reorient its central eye, a move action, a standard action, and ten free actions to fire its eye rays, most of which require both an attack roll and a saving throw to resolve. At some point, it might be worth it to declare that the combined effect of a beholder's ten eye rays duplicates a prismatic spray spell or two. An encounter with a beholder is complicated enough - what with it moving in three dimensions and causing characters to move in and out of an antimagic cone - without having to resolve thirteen seperate actions every time it's turn comes up in the initiative order.
striderII 01-21-06, 01:29 PM	I'm sure I have more than one, but something that sticks out in my mind is this (and yes, I know it's nitpicky): Weapon weights. Either change them so they're more historically accurate (no greatsword weighs 15 lbs), or explain why there is such a disparity between a weapon in the game, and its historical counterpart. Either way is fine with me, unless the explanation makes no sense whatsoever. ;) strider
Swiftbrook 01-21-06, 01:36 PM	Silence Spell – Proud Nail #3 Categorizing the Silence spell as an illusion is just plain wrong. Based on it’s description and effects, Silence should be an Evocation spell. First the facts In the real world, Sound is a physical effect. {period!} Have you ever gone to a concert and felt the sound from the speakers? Even if you can't hear, you can still feel the sound waves. Now the spell Silence - Illusion (Glamer) “Upon the casting of this spell, complete silence prevails in the affected area. All sound is stopped {a physical effect}: Conversations is impossible, ...... no noise whatsoever issues from, enters, or passes through the area. .... This spell provides a defense against sonic or language-based attacks, such as command, harpy song, a horn of blasting, etc.” [PHB p. 252] “Illusion spells deceive the senses or mind of others.” “Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way other illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, illuminate darkness, or provide protection from the elements.” [PHB p. 158] The Problem The problem is that the Silence spell creates real effects. It stops all sound. It provides defense against sonic attacks. This is a direct contradiction to the definition of glamer that it cannot provide protection. So my proud nail is this: The Silence spell as written causes real effects. Silence shouldn’t be an Illusion spell. It probably should be an Evocation spell. -Swiftbrook
Edymnion 01-21-06, 02:49 PM	That all arrows that hit are automatically destroyed, while those that miss are 50% recoverable. Now, I'm an amature archer. Nothing grand, but I've put many an hour behind a bow, and I know that 50% rate is pretty danged good (ask any archer, they'll have stories about losing arrows in a perfectly flat grassy field in broad daylight while using Fisher Price colored arrows, sometimes they just VANISH). Thats not my quibble though. An arrow that strikes a soft target, like a body, is more likely to hit flesh than bone. It makes no sense that somebody getting shot in the leg destroys the arrow that hit them, while the arrow that missed inside of the rock walled cavern is 50% recoverable. Even using the old "Just because you hit him doesn't mean he's got an arrow sticking out of him, he used up some of his luck in dodging" line of thought, that still means that the arrow went past him and hit the wall or floor, just like a missed arrow did. For game balance, its a way to balance the cost of magic arrows, but it just doesn't really jive with the real world. Even in fantasy, Legolas was recovering arrows from orc bodies, and the human commander that killed Smaug was using a magic arrow that "had never missed it's mark, and that he had always recovered".
Milo HoBo 01-21-06, 03:44 PM	My little problems are simple. Necromancy deals with life, death, and unlife. Yet, cure spells, resurection spells, healing spells, are all conjuration (healing) instead of necromancy. Necromancy shouldn't be just gross, but be a balance of constructive and destructive effects. My other problem is how fighter types are so easily scared (low will save). I mean, they should be grrrr, and warrior types. Not wimps. Just give them a little for saves against fear effects. Intimidation, they should be used to.
Swiftbrook 01-21-06, 04:46 PM	Speading of Bows and Arrows, why don't bow bonuses stack with arrow bonuses? I just don't understand it. I don't buy the "there both enhancement bonuses" line. Armor stacks with shields. Why don't you call an arrows bonus an "ammunition" bonus and the bow's a "weapon" bonus? I don't see why they can't stack. Arrow and bow bonuses stacked just fine for 28 years of D&D! I guess what peevs me the most is that the reasoning for this switch was never explained. -Swiftbrook
Amurayi 01-21-06, 07:52 PM	1. The warlock is able to get "Devils Sight" which allows him even to see in magical darkness. That`s better than every devil out there. Because they only have darkvision. 2. A rogue is better off attacking in bright sunlight instead of the dark alley. Because in the shadowy alley he has concealment thus can`t use his sneak attack. 3. Ever tried to sap someone who has more than 2 levels? No? Of course you didn`t. A sap can`t make so much hitpoint damage to knock someone off his feet (that why I gave my rogue players a "+1 keen sap of sleep" to be able to knock out some low level NPCs at least) 4. Drows and their spelllike abilities: Useless! Why use darkness as this makes it harder for them to hit as well (they also get the miss chance to hit). Why combine their fairy fire with darkness? They would dispel/supress their own Fairy fire as it is a lower level light spell than darkness.
Amurayi 01-21-06, 08:10 PM	5. Magic ammunition is far more expensive than getting a whole magical bow. NONE of my players ever bought a magic arrow once. 6. The whimpy sorcerer has better chances of intimidating opponents than a sturdy fighter (as it`s based on charisma).
Mouseferatu 01-21-06, 08:14 PM	1. The warlock is able to get "Devils Sight" which allows him even to see in magical darkness. That`s better than every devil out there. Because they only have darkvision. Not true. Check out the devil entry in the Monster Manual. Devils can see perfectly in darkness, even magical darkness.
Amurayi 01-21-06, 09:12 PM	Oops. Ok I take that back. :)
Edymnion 01-21-06, 09:30 PM	I guess what peevs me the most is that the reasoning for this switch was never explained.Well, that one is simple. They changed it for the same reason they changed Damage Reduction, so that there would be enough differance between the half editions that you would have to upgrade, while leaving enough the same to be able to claim they were compatible across the board. But yeah, they nerfed bows and arrows, but then forgot to go back and fix the pricing for arrows. We're still paying for the ability to stack, even though they don't do that any more. I mean, do the math. Any time in D&D where you can have charges, or something permanent, the permanent item *ALWAYS* costs much more than the charged item. Seriously, make up a magical rod that lets you shoot a Fireball at will, and see if it costs more, or less than a Wand of Fireball. Same with arrows. They don't stack anymore, but we're still paying *MORE* for the arrows than we are for the bows. WTF?
green_yawgmoth 01-22-06, 02:37 AM	6. The whimpy sorcerer has better chances of intimidating opponents than a sturdy fighter (as it`s based on charisma).Because the fighter with 8 cha is about as scary as a dead tree; sure it might hurt you, but you can when it's planning on doing so about 10 minutes beforehand, giving you ample time to run/get friends/city guard to stop it. The sorcerer knows exactly how to scare the crap out of you with a sentence and a glare, and knows how to be convincing when doing so. There's a reason cha is force of personality. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Paiku 01-22-06, 01:34 PM	A person can draw back, load and shoot a (light) crossbow every round; that is, every six seconds! Ever seen someone draw back, load and fire a crossbow? Even the light ones (i.e. the ones that don't require a winch to draw back) take a lot more strength to draw back than a simple bow does. They usually had a loop of rope or metal in the business end, that the user could slip his foot through, so that he could draw back the string with both hands. The crossbow's benefit is its longer range increment (longer than all but the longbows). There should be a cost for that -- in the real world, there is.
Rocketboy13 01-22-06, 01:51 PM	Much like the crossbow complaint I have issues with the gun rules in the DMG. They take no time to load, and they have no real advantage over any other ranged weapon even though they require an exotic weapon proficiency feat to use properly. :P
FeyearthDM 01-22-06, 07:36 PM	Sheath a Weapon: The rules are silent on what size weapon a character can sheathe (or else it's hidden very well). So, a longspear can be sheathed, an urgosh, a spiked chain, a glaive - a heavy crossbow?! I'm considering a HR stating that 2-handed reach weapons can't be sheathed; however, I'd like to limit sheathing to weapons which have an 'object size' less than the caharacter's size. All larger weapons must be carried in at least 1 hand, or dropped. Does this pound the nail in, or bend it out of shape?
Epic_Meepo 01-23-06, 03:21 PM	For everyone who thinks that magic arrows are overpriced, I'm afraid you're underestimating their worth. Don't believe me? Consider the following: For 2,420,400 gp, a high-level archer can buy a +5 flaming holy speed composite longbow (an epic magic item)... ...or, for only 1,030,500 gp, a high-level archer can buy a +5 holy speed composite longbow and 5,000 +1 flaming arrows, whose combined magic is identical. By using magic arrows, the high-level archer can save over 1.3 million gold pieces. Also, compare the cost of replacing a magic bow that gets destroyed to the cost of replacing a magic arrow that gets destroyed. The magic bow is only a bargain until an opponent introduces it to the business end of an adamantine heavy mace. On the other hand, I have to agree that the rules about arrow breakage are a bit nonsensical. In particular: If I fire an arrow at an orc who has cover behind a brick wall and miss due cover (hitting the brick wall instead of the orc) my arrow breaks 50% of the time. If I ignore the orc, intentionally aim at the brick wall, and hit said wall, the arrow breaks 100% of the time. If an arrow hits a brick wall, why should my intentions about whether or not I wanted it to hit the wall affect its chances of breaking? This is archery, not quantum mechanics.
Epic_Meepo 01-25-06, 03:32 PM	If turning undead were like anything else in the game, it would be an area effect that allows a saving throw. But turning undead isn't like anything else in the game. For some reason, it requires a convoluted process that involves Charisma checks and turning damage (which isn't actually damage, but is called damage anyway). Not to mention the fact that turning results vary depending upon the Hit Dice of undead relative to your level, the position of undead relative to your location, and the turn resistance of the undead (a quantity that was invented exclusively to deal with the complicated mechanics for turning undead and that seems to have no relevance to any other game rules).
Epic_Meepo 01-25-06, 03:35 PM	If the process of creating undead is inherently evil, why don't undead have the evil subtype? It would make much more sense to say that mindless undead are true neutral but have the evil subtype than to say that even mindless undead are neutral evil. How can a mindless creature count as evil if it doesn't have the evil subtype? It just isn't smart enough to be neutral evil. Granted, most undead aren't from evil planes, but spells that create undead and spells that summon creatures from evil planes are both equally evil, represented by the fact that all such spells have the same evil descriptor. And if an intelligent undead conciously chooses to be good-aligned, its "life"-force is still inherently evil. That's a perfect description of what it is to have the evil subtype, is it not?
tompulsar 01-25-06, 04:08 PM	Saving Throws. My problem isn't with saving throw bonuses being high, my problem is with saving throw bonuses being too high, particularly in multi classed characters. Multiclassing between multiple base classes and PrCs tend to ramp up saves so high in PCs that the are impervious to spells and effects. I thing there should be a cap on base save bonuses like the base attack bonus cap (perhaps no more than twice a character's hit dice) or introduce the medium save progression to D&D.
ThatGuyThere 01-25-06, 10:52 PM	I have a couple... Rangers don't get the Knowledge skill for their Favoured Enemy in class. If Bob the Ranger hates Giants (...or Animals...), he can know a good deal about them, by taking Knowledge: Nature. But it's possible to hate undead, and know very little about them - because Knowledge: Religion is cross-class. Intelligence Modifier not applying retroactively to skill points. I understand the, "You weren't smarter at the time", but that isn't that much a more persuasive arguement than "I'm smarter *now*, so I am better at understanding what I know", and it needlessly complicates mid-to-high level character generation. Stacking bows and arrows: Either they don't stack, meaning firing a +1 Flaming arrow from a +1 Icy bow gives you a +1 arrow with either flaming or icy, or they do, allowing a net +2 arrow with icy and flaming. Because right now, you get a net +1 arrow of Icy Flaming. Huh? So they do but don't stack?
green_yawgmoth 01-27-06, 01:45 PM	And if an intelligent undead conciously chooses to be good-aligned, its "life"-force is still inherently evil. That's a perfect description of what it is to have the evil subtype, is it not? NEGATIVE ENERGY IS NOT EVIL!! :rant: In fact, I can't think of a single reason why undead radiate an evil alignment, especially mindless undead. The rules on undead as a whole re one big proud nail/sacred cow that needs to be sawed off with a dremel and painted over. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Epic_Meepo 01-27-06, 03:25 PM	NEGATIVE ENERGY IS NOT EVIL! I am not trying to claim that negative energy is evil. (In fact, in standard D&D cosmology, the Negative Energy Plane is mildly neutral-aligned.) What I have claimed is that the current rules state - rightly or wrongly - that undead are inherently evil. I can't think of a single reason why undead radiate an evil alignment, especially mindless undead. On the table that accompanies the detect evil spell in the 3.5 PHB, you will see that undead have an evil aura, regardless of their alignment. For every creature other than undead, it is explicitly stated that the creature only radiates evil if it has an evil alignment or is the cleric of an evil deity. No such distinction is made for undead: the entry on the table for undead is "undead," not just "evil undead." Even if the table did say that only "evil undead" have an evil aura (or is supposed to say that), mindless undead would still radiate evil because they are evil. Note that skeletons and zombies are all mindless, but the alignment entry for each is "always neutral evil," as per the MM. As of 3.5, skeletons and zombies are not neutral creatures; they are neutral evil. If you want to look outside the core books, the evidence is even clearer. The Book of Vile Darkness, the definative sourcebook on evil in D&D, notes on page 8 that "unliving corpses - corrupt mockeries of life and purity - are inherently evil." Also: "Even if they are commanded to do something good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place." Though the Libris Mortis presents several different in-game theories about the nature of undeath, not one of them contradicts the preceding citations. So if the rules are branding undead as being inherently evil, why not give them the evil subtype? Or if they aren't going to have the evil subtype, why not get rid of the evil descriptor on spells that create undead and call the average undead creature neutral instead of neutral evil?
belefauntes 02-10-06, 04:38 PM	1. The warlock is able to get "Devils Sight" which allows him even to see in magical darkness. That`s better than every devil out there. Because they only have darkvision. ... 4. Drows and their spelllike abilities: Useless! Why use darkness as this makes it harder for them to hit as well (they also get the miss chance to hit). Why combine their fairy fire with darkness? They would dispel/supress their own Fairy fire as it is a lower level light spell than darkness. Yeah, it ALWAYS bothered me in the past that creatures who have the ability to INNATELY create magical darkness, such as the Drow and the Tiefling, don't get the ability to see through it! Particularly the Tiefling, actually. If the warlocks "Devil's Sight" grants them the ability to do this AT FIRST LEVEL, why shouldn't the Tief get something similar? Devils can see through magical darkness. Tieflings get Infernal as one of their starting languages, IMPLYING that they are of devilish ancestry... AAAAAARRRRGHH! Or a FEAT!!!!??? There could be a feat (official, please, if you folks at WotC actually read this stuff) that allows you to see through magical darkness! I don't think it should be a racial feat, per se, but rather a feat with a prerequisite of "Able to cast/invoke darkness as a natural/racial spell-like ability". Heck! You could even add the Deepening Darkness feat (Races of Faerun) as a prerequisite! And another thing. Eyes of Light is a cool feat for a Aasimar. I like it. Where's the Tiefling equivilant? Almost every feat I've seen for folks with a fiendish bloodline requires the character to be evil. I like balance, so it bothers me when I see one side getting more than the other. Especially when the side getting jipped is ALSO the side that gets a stat penalty (Aasimar do not). Okay, that last part was a rant. Sorry. :P