Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jay_Ibero_911 02-12-08, 02:38 PM	I'm preparring to run a year 6 mod for a group, and this mod features several rules items that are currently closed. Specifically polymorph and divine metamagic. I played the mod back when those options were still available, though the party I was in didn't use either and we got along fine. So am I supposed to just run it as is? Or do I remove the banned things while keeping as close to the original as possible?
Howie23 02-12-08, 04:27 PM	I'm preparring to run a year 6 mod for a group, and this mod features several rules items that are currently closed. Specifically polymorph and divine metamagic. I played the mod back when those options were still available, though the party I was in didn't use either and we got along fine. So am I supposed to just run it as is? Or do I remove the banned things while keeping as close to the original as possible? Nothing is closed in LG. Some things are closed to PCs. But, you don't need to worry about it until it shows up in a mod. Oh. Nevermind. http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=839997
solbergb 02-12-08, 06:27 PM	There are two basic approaches. #1 - the official party line from the Circle. I've never seen them deviate officially from this, although some have private reservations. Run it as written, the most egregious examples will have been errattad after the spell was banned, the rest were "playtested like that". (nevermind that the PC's also had these options....) #2 - if the above is distasteful to you (it is to me, I like the rules to be the same on both sides of the table) the easiest solution is to just not use the banned spell/feat/etc. It's easier with things like cleric spells or any spell no a spont caster, as you can always turn it into something else. It's a bit harder with a feat like divine spellpower, as you're shorting the bad guy a feat or three (divine metamagic+extra turning etc). In the end you have to decide how bad it is. If we're talking something like DMM empower used on spiritual weapon per tactical notes, that's not really a big deal. If we're talking about DMM maximize to slam the party with enough damage to drop anyone playing up even if they save, it's kind of a big deal. The answer is similar but slightly different for builds that were never legal (example, improved crit at level 8, when the last feat available was level 6). Then we're advised to make the minimum change possible to make it legal (in that example, pick another weapon specific or crit-specific feat that is legal at L6, something like weapon focus or powre crit or something)
Jay_Ibero_911 02-12-08, 06:58 PM	Well in this case it doesn't seem to make it all that bad on the players, so I'll just run it as is.
JamesMaissen 02-12-08, 09:20 PM	The answer is similar but slightly different for builds that were never legal (example, improved crit at level 8, when the last feat available was level 6). Then we're advised to make the minimum change possible to make it legal (in that example, pick another weapon specific or crit-specific feat that is legal at L6, something like weapon focus or powre crit or something) So should a mod include MM kytons what do you replace the feat with, combat reflexes? -James
Jay_Ibero_911 02-13-08, 01:13 AM	So should a mod include MM kytons what do you replace the feat with, combat reflexes? -James There's a clause somewhere that states that the monsters as listed don't necessarily need to qualify for any feats they have, so it's a non-issue for that particular situation...
JamesMaissen 02-13-08, 09:17 AM	There's a clause somewhere that states that the monsters as listed don't necessarily need to qualify for any feats they have, so it's a non-issue for that particular situation... A clause in LG, or the books themselves? I recall the MM errata swapping out Weapon Finesse to a bonus feat for 0BAB creatures, but it didn't seem to hit the 1BAB 2HD creatures. I'm assuming this is the same thing? I checked the MM errata to see if that's what you meant and it doesn't seem to be that. Does seem to sit badly with me. I really like that in 3e the monsters essentially have the same 'rules' as characters. Sorry for the digression, but the improved crit just made me think of it. If you do find the reference I'd be interested in hearing it. -James
MwaO 02-13-08, 10:39 AM	Does seem to sit badly with me. I really like that in 3e the monsters essentially have the same 'rules' as characters. Racial Bonus feats aren't under the same restrictions - you can use a racial bonus feat even if you don't necessarily have all the prereqs - a Dwarf Marshal 1 has EWP: Dwarven Waraxe as an example despite not having a +1 BAB.
JamesMaissen 02-13-08, 10:50 AM	Racial Bonus feats aren't under the same restrictions - you can use a racial bonus feat even if you don't necessarily have all the prereqs - a Dwarf Marshal 1 has EWP: Dwarven Waraxe as an example despite not having a +1 BAB. I'm not talking about racial bonus feats. I'm talking about normal HD based feats. For example an 8HD Kyton has improved critical. He does have an 8BAB, but we would be talking about a 6HD feat at best here. Likewise an Octopus has weapon finesse as it's only feat. Unlike the 1HD animals it was not changed to a racial bonus feat. The other poster suggested that there was some weird exception for monsters somewhere. I'm curious as to where that is. It doesn't sit well with me as I really like the idea that monsters have to deal with the same rules as non-monsters. -James
JohnduBois 02-13-08, 05:28 PM	The original Monster Manual was pretty thoroughly errata'd. I would assume that if a MM monster still has a feat after the errata, it's supposed to have it. I think the posters are referring more to NPCs statted by authors that have illegal builds (I know that I've accidentally made one and let another slip, and only one of those was unbalancing enough to errata).
Nerax 02-13-08, 07:44 PM	I'm preparring to run a year 6 mod for a group, and this mod features several rules items that are currently closed. Specifically polymorph and divine metamagic. I played the mod back when those options were still available, though the party I was in didn't use either and we got along fine. So am I supposed to just run it as is? Or do I remove the banned things while keeping as close to the original as possible? I ran into this in a late year 6 mod right after the changes. The mod author is a friend of mine so I shot him an e-mail about it. Here is what re responed back with: "Don't replace it with anything. According to LG rules, the module is played as written, everything is grandfathered in. So all modules where NPCs use divine metamagic or divine spell power, the NPCs can still use them until that module retires. Regardless, the PCs can't use them under any circumstances." Hope this helps!
JamesMaissen 02-14-08, 03:54 AM	The original Monster Manual was pretty thoroughly errata'd. I would assume that if a MM monster still has a feat after the errata, it's supposed to have it. You are more trusting than I. I see it very conceivable that they missed these. Especially when I see the lack of quality in many of the books that they put out there. Again, I'd love to see the reference that you said that you had seen at one point. It would be nice to know it at least was deliberate rather than simply them searching, say, for +0BAB creatures with weapon finesse and not looking at any others. If nothing else it says that if you advance a creature to say 8BAB you could have it take all its feats in improved critical, etc. You wouldn't have to worry about qualifying for feats at the HD they were gained but rather just at the end. It doesn't seem right, but I can see them making such rules 'for ease of play'. -James