Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gwumph 06-13-07, 02:35 AM	First off: Let me state for the most part, mod writing has been great and this Living Campaign could not happen without your efforts. :D I am at the level where my character is thinking of upgrading his magical weapons. Under the new LGSC, if you find a Frost Battle-axe, and have access on your AR, you can upgrade your +1 Battle-axe to a +1 Frost Battle-axe. And yet when I search that characters AR, there is not a single enhanced magical battle-axe. In fact when I searched every AR I have ever played or run at all APL's there was not a single magically enhanced Battle-axe. While I do not have as many AR's as some (my list contains 45) this is what I found. So out of 45 AR's at all APL's -Only 2 non-PHB magically enhanced weapon (Cutlass/Elven Thinblade). All those other weapons from all those other books, not a single mention. -Of the PHB weapons, the following weapons have could NOT be found once as magically enhanced..... Morningstar..........Longspear.......... .......Quarterstaff Handaxe..............Kukri.............. ..........Light Pick Battle-axe...........Flail..................... .....Heavey Pick Warhammer..........Glaive............... .......Guisarme Halberd................Lance............ ..........Ranseur Scythe.................Bastard Sword..........Double Sword Dire Flail...............Double Orc Axe.........Gnome hooked hamm and any ranged weapon other than a Long or Short bow. What I am saying writers, is there are enough longswords/rapiers/Greataxe/Greatclub/dagger/short sword/spiked chain enhanced weapons out there. Change up the villian weapons, there is probably well over a hundred different weapons available for use out there, but those 7 above weapons make up well over 80% of the magically enhanced weapons found. Have your Orcs carry Warmaces 2-handed, or have them use mauls. Have your rogue/fighters use a light pick or kukri. The Bright Sands series didn't feature a single exotic weapon from the sandstorm book. You guys are doing a great job, just leave the Longswords at home and dust off that Battle-axe. Cheers Gwumph p.s. I know that somewhere out there that someone will be able to point out a mod where a Battle-axe etc... special weapon can be found......But all I am trying to do is point out the massive lack of variety in weapons on AR's.
gomeztoo 06-13-07, 02:47 AM	The reason these weapons are so prominent is because they are, simply, the best choice - best damage/crit range, no feats needed to use them. Some non PHB items are nice but you either need a feat to use them or they have their own drawbacks : warmace reduces your AC, for instance. Note that very few PCs also choose outside the box - if they do they generally do so for flavor and at teh cost of efficiency: I have a PC that fights with a two-bladed sword and the first comment I get is 'use a greatsword'... So yeah, some variation would be nice. I won't see it happening often as long combat-effectiveness still seems to be one of the factors (for some people, the only factor) in gauching how 'good' a module is.
Gwumph 06-13-07, 03:01 AM	Well in terms of numbers, we have 10 fighter-type Characters that are played on a regular basis. Of those 10: 1 uses a Longsword, and 1 uses a spiked -chain. The other 8 either use PHB weapons (but not one of those 7 mentioned) or a weapon from a supplement book. So thats 80% of the fighter-types using a weapon not list as one of those common 7 weapons.
gomeztoo 06-13-07, 03:11 AM	Most PCs I know use a greatsword or a spiked chain. Other PCs use longswords or scimitars - possibly dwarven waraxe if they're a dwarf. Really, I can't recall many that use anything else.
_metz_ 06-13-07, 03:20 AM	Yes but Mod writers could offer more upgrade favours. By merely saying "here is a +1 adamantine greatsword/longsword" How about "Upgrade any one melee weapon to be adamantine?" There has been far too much favoring of certain weapon types - which helps establish the status quo with the current 'best' weapons. If I could show off an adamantine flaming greataxe, maybe less people would get angry at me for not having a greatsword. through all my ARs though there are LOTS of Great sword access but bugger all greataxe. Thats not very fair, I do agree. If it's not good for NPCs to use em, at least allow more upgrade favours.
Britt 06-13-07, 03:41 AM	Most PCs I know use a greatsword or a spiked chain. Other PCs use longswords or scimitars - possibly dwarven waraxe if they're a dwarf. Really, I can't recall many that use anything else. That's odd that people would use a greatsword. Falchion is by far the most effective 2h martial weapon in the PH for a high-STR fighter. Sure, greatsword is better if you are using a 2h martial weapon with an average or maybe medium STR, but if you are picking a 2h martial weapon based on statistical superiority, having something other than a high STR is a bit oxymoronic.
gomeztoo 06-13-07, 03:50 AM	If I could show off an adamantine flaming greataxe, maybe less people would get angry at me for not having a greatsword. *upgrading* to adamantite... now THAT would be cool ;) Gomez
copper_wyrmling 06-13-07, 04:05 AM	Interesting analysis. My L10 dervish has weapon focus (falchion) and has never found a magic or special-material falchion (with one exception, a unique nonstandard item that could be bought as a falchion, longsword or greatsword iirc). I know quite a lot of PCs who use lances, glaives, ranseurs or guisarmes, and my cleric uses a quarterstaff. However, when playing my dervish I've found that there are enough weapon/armor upgrade favors out there that not finding access to buy specific character-appropriate weaponry is not really a big deal. It's not just that character, either: both my sorcerers have silly amounts of useless weapon-upgrade favors, and my cleric could own a wounding holy defending merciful quarterstaff by now if she felt like it (or most other DMG-upgrade combinations of similar value). I think this is really the way to go - there are so many Open weapons now that it's not fair to expect authors to provide enchanted versions of all of them.
Madfox11 06-13-07, 04:15 AM	A friend of mine once calculated at what Strength the falchion became superior to the great sword and while that value is not entirely out of reach when properly buffed at high APLs it was far from easy to reach (if I remember correctly it was in the mid-thirties). Personally I actually have seen more bastard swords - exotic weapon master prestige class is extremely effective especially with high Strength characters and easily compensates that slightly reduced chance for criticals and it comes with additional flexibility at that (that shield saved my characters life a couple of occasions). I also know a bladesinger who proved to a couple of DMs that at higher levels that the type of dice hardly matters: power attack is what makes the difference. I did use mauls btw in my last adventure, and I have given access to a pretty good rogue rapier (dwarven crafted at that - which is superb for a twig like a rapier ;) And yes, there was a good reason for why a dwarven master smith would craft it) in a still active adventure. The real reason why you don't find many magical enhanced weapons in the Items Found section on the AR is simple: weapons are fairly expensive compared to the NPC Treasure Value table, investing in other items is more cost effective.
copper_wyrmling 06-13-07, 04:24 AM	That's odd that people would use a greatsword. Falchion is by far the most effective 2h martial weapon in the PH for a high-STR fighter. Sure, greatsword is better if you are using a 2h martial weapon with an average or maybe medium STR, but if you are picking a 2h martial weapon based on statistical superiority, having something other than a high STR is a bit oxymoronic. :fight!: Yay falchions! Now if only I could find an adamantine one... (I'm seriously considering buying the adamantine greatsword I recently found access to... most stuff with DR/adamantine isn't crittable anyway...) My falchion-wielding elf dervish is actually a little annoyed that falchions in Bissel seem to be associated with those treacherous elf-hating Kettite scum across the border. He's hopeful that killing Kettites will get him some nice falchions as a result :P
King Kashue 06-13-07, 05:09 AM	A friend of mine once calculated at what Strength the falchion became superior to the great sword and while that value is not entirely out of reach when properly buffed at high APLs it was far from easy to reach (if I remember correctly it was in the mid-thirties). It's actually quite variable, based on how often one crits (since the advantage of the falchion is in the extended crit range)... It also depends on how much static damage you're doing other than your str. Assuming a +1 weapon, weapon spec., and melee weapon mastery (so +5 static damage in addition to str), and assuming a progression of your primary missing only on a one (I.e., your to hit is one below AC). The Falchion becomes better at str 30. If you add improved critical, that lowers to 16, which is obviously quite attainable :D That won't change until you're in a situation where you have attacks in your sequence where you aren't hitting on a roll of 15+ on the die, since that begins to reduce the critical hit advantage. And it won't make a big difference until more than one attack isn't hitting on a roll of 15+ on the die.
Britt 06-13-07, 05:24 AM	As King Kashue points out, the crit range is the main reason the falchion is superior (well, the only reason). Any decent frontline fighter should be getting Improved Crit, which means a 10% extra crit chance over a greatsword. The thing to note is not necessarily the difference of a couple of points of damage, but the huge difference a crit makes when most of your damage comes from bonus damage. Two extra points of damage will almost never make a significant difference in a combat past APL 2 or 4, whereas a crit can turn the tide of battle significantly at all APLs. I played a BDF up to 18th level, starting with a greatsword, switching to a falchion at the first conversion, then to a longsword (RP reasons) at the second conversion. I noticed a significant advantage in combat when I switched to falchion, and I really noticed the difference in crit chance when I switched down to the longsword. In my long experience, dice damage is not where a good BDF gets any significant portion of his damage. It's all in the 1.5x (or 2x) STR damage, 2h PA damage, party buffs, myriad bonus damage feats, etc etc etc. An extra 10% chance to double all that damage always overshadows 2 points of damage, imo. It's the same reason I never took Weapon Spec until I rebuilt him as an NPC with a bunch of PH2 feats. There was always something better and more versatile than 2 points of damage.
Madfox11 06-13-07, 08:18 AM	I actually said in my post that dice type is unimportant. The extra damage due to a critical though is only a small percentage of the total average damage per round, although it is highly dependend on the AC of the opponent and becomes bigger at higher levels (lower AC compared to attack rolls). To deal an average damage bigger than 2 due to a critical you need a rather high damage modifier. It is also muddied by the overkill argument: it does not matter whether or not you kill the monster in 2.1 or 2.11 hits on average it is dead after the third hit. If you really want to go for damage as a high Strength melee fighter though you should go for bastard sword and Exotic Weapon Master. The fact that you deal x2 Str damage when using the blade 2-handed has a much bigger impact than virtually any other feat and certainly than the difference between a falchion and a great sword. It's the same reason I never took Weapon Spec until I rebuilt him as an NPC with a bunch of PH2 feats. There was always something better and more versatile than 2 points of damage. True in a way, although mathematically the same can almost be said for Improved Critical especially since it does not stack with the Keen and a feat is always more expensive than a +1 enhancement.
Britt 06-13-07, 10:05 AM	If you really want to go for damage as a high Strength melee fighter though you should go for bastard sword and Exotic Weapon Master. The fact that you deal x2 Str damage when using the blade 2-handed has a much bigger impact than virtually any other feat and certainly than the difference between a falchion and a great sword. Actually, elven thin blade or light blade, whichever is the 1h version. I thought about converting into that, but at the time, I needed to find access to one and a half-orc with 30+ STR PA 2h with an elven blade just seemed too cheesy. Plus, I got my RP reason for switching to a longsword right before conversion :) True in a way, although mathematically the same can almost be said for Improved Critical especially since it does not stack with the Keen and a feat is always more expensive than a +1 enhancement. Eh, for a fighter by that level, Improved Critical is probably worth it, since you'll have a ton of feats, you'll likely have to golfbag through several different weapons for DR, you need access to Keen, and probably want several other things on your weapon, too. That's just my opinion though; it's probably a toss-up. To get back on topic, I'm a huge fan of non-standard weapons. I see it as one of the ways melee characters get to customize their characters and make themselves stand out a bit.
DroidTrooper 06-13-07, 10:37 AM	I think, the trend for authors, at least that I have seen is to provide favor access to the magical enhancements. ie this groups allows you to upgrade any (often single) weapon (or any PHB weapon) with X ability. I realize this is pretty weak for purposes of crafting. Also, you mention you have 45 ARs. When you look at those ARs are you only looking at the items you have access to, or anywhere on the AR. I have about 60 ARs at this point, and the number of enhanced weapons that I would have access too in the items found box is fairly limited. But in the higher APLs it seems to open up a bit. I have seen a fair amount of unusual weapons wielded by NPCs as well. But to make it onto the AR the weapon in essence had to be a +2 equivillent weapon (8,000 gp). This means that minions and hordes can't really carry them until way up on the food chain, so you are limited to only fairly major encounters (finales). This is because it is not really worthwhile to give access to the +1 enhancement as they have been open for some time now. A single +2 equivilent weapon in mod is (8000/(2*6) = 667 gp in loot. That more than caps an APL4 table and is a about 75% of the wealth per character in APL 6. This would mean the author is tying a huge amount of the potential loot into a single item, which deny quite a bit of flexibility to what type of equipment a bad guy might have. Of course some authors go way overcaps with gp collected via bad guy equipment, but a large number of mods keep it reasonably close as well at least in my observations.
Reylance 06-13-07, 10:56 AM	The greatsword is superior to the falchion in the following ways: 1. An average of two points extra damage against everything immune to crits. 2. At low levels, does considerably more damage if you're facing DR or hardness, and can't reliably hit while power attacking. 2d4+6 averages 1.25 damage against DR 10, and 2d6+6 averages 3.11, more than double. 3. At low levels, the extra damage often means the difference between the creature dying and surviving another one or two rounds. 4. It is the favored weapon of Kord, a popular deity choice if you're going fighting cleric or dipping a level of cleric. At high levels, I'm inclined to agree the falchion is superior, but by that point, you've probably invested in your standard weapon.
Genghis Cohen 06-13-07, 11:21 AM	That's odd that people would use a greatsword. Falchion is by far the most effective 2h martial weapon in the PH for a high-STR fighter. Sure, greatsword is better if you are using a 2h martial weapon with an average or maybe medium STR, but if you are picking a 2h martial weapon based on statistical superiority, having something other than a high STR is a bit oxymoronic.If the character is taking that one level of Exotic Weapon Master and the Uncanny Blow trick, my vote goes to the Bastard Sword for the most damage. For a non-PHB weapon, the Great Scimitar plus EWM's Uncanny Blow plus Improved Critical is brutal.
Mattastrophic 06-13-07, 11:35 AM	Though I've never actually played a front-line fighter yet, I'll say I'm a big fan of reach weapons over non-reach weapons, like the Glaive. Not only do they let you avoid AoOs when closing, but they grant you random AoOs as well as better Cleave opportunities, and if the bad guys close with you, 95% of the time you can take a 5' and keep attacking. -Matt
thorinXXX 06-13-07, 12:36 PM	I actually crunched the numbers on greatsword vs falchion. Assuming that one third of your crits are wasted (constructs, undead, fortification, etc) your total damage bonus must be 26 to break even with a falchion. With Improved Crit the break even point drops to 21. So, a greatsword will be a superior weapon for the majority of your career.
Sieylianna 06-13-07, 12:42 PM	That's odd that people would use a greatsword. Falchion is by far the most effective 2h martial weapon in the PH for a high-STR fighter. Sure, greatsword is better if you are using a 2h martial weapon with an average or maybe medium STR, but if you are picking a 2h martial weapon based on statistical superiority, having something other than a high STR is a bit oxymoronic. My wizard (barbarian) uses a great axe, so I get a chance to use my twelve sided dice. Ed
Britt 06-13-07, 01:27 PM	I actually crunched the numbers on greatsword vs falchion. Assuming that one third of your crits are wasted (constructs, undead, fortification, etc) your total damage bonus must be 26 to break even with a falchion. With Improved Crit the break even point drops to 21. So, a greatsword will be a superior weapon for the majority of your career. First, +21 to damage is easy at mid-levels. If you are BDF, you're looking at a 26-30 STR in combat by level 8 (start with 20, 2 stat bumps, +4 belt, maybe raging), for a +12 to +15 damage from STR. Assume standard power attack of 4, for an extra 8 damage, and you're at +20 to +23 damage. +1 to +3 weapon and you're at +21 to +26 damage. Weapon Spec, if you take it, puts you at +23 to +29 damage. Then you get to add in weapon enchantments, various damage bonus feats, class abilities, buff spells like fires of purity or the like, bard song, enlarge, etc etc. You're easily looking at +27 to +35 bonus damage at level 8 for a well-built BDF. Second, ignoring 1/3 of all crits is huge. I don't think my career total ever approached that. I would disagree with 1/4, but probably wouldn't argue, and could grudgingly accept 1/5, but not 1/3. Dropping the ignore rate to 1/4 or 1/5 is going to drop the break-point by a bit, making it easier to reach at lower levels or for less optimal builds/situations. Third, a purely statistical analysis like that, where you are only looking at the sheer number of points, doesn't catch the true bonus of crits. As I said above, a consistent addition of two points of damage will rarely make the difference in a combat when you're talking bonus damage in the +20 to +40 range on each hit; however, a critical hit can easily change the outcome of a combat with that kind of bonus damage. It's why orcs got so much more deadly in 3.5 over 3.0. They lost 1.5 average damage, but gained 5% crit chance, and their bonus damage isn't nearly what we're talking here. Orcs may not kill you on an average day, but your random chance of death increases. Still, the elven thin blade with EWM is still the best weapon for a BDF, AFAIK. 15-20 crit range with 2x STR and 2x PA is amazing.
Bogjob 06-13-07, 01:37 PM	Personally I love my Starmetal Great Falchion, when I hit with it at APL 6 (my current APL) with Power Attack most creatures stay down after one or two hits, next feat is improved crit which should give me a greatsword with 3 times the threat range 15-20 :D
Britt 06-13-07, 01:56 PM	Yeah, great falchions are very nice. Oh, I forgot about the great scimitar. That's another good one for EWM. I don't recall what the stats are on it, but I'm pretty sure it's another 1h exotic with 18-20 crit range. Are that and the thin blade the only two exotic 1h weapons with 18-20 crit?
thorinXXX 06-13-07, 01:57 PM	If you think that 1/3 of crits being negated is extreme then you have never played a rogue.;) Believe it or not, even counting 100% of the crits only drops the break even point to 23 (19 with improved crit). I know that the uber specialzed guy can get his damage bonus up that high by mid level, but somone who is a bit better rounded is probably hitting that sweet spot at 10th level. The fact that we are having this discussion shows that the weapons are pretty well balanced.:cool: I never crunched the numbers for an EWM thinblade, but I am sure that you can hit the sweet spot before you can get Improved Crit. (Hmmm can I spare the feat for my Dervish wannabe?)
Britt 06-13-07, 02:03 PM	If you think that 1/3 of crits being negated is extreme then you have never played a rogue.;) That all depends on your region and the types of creatures typically encountered. I believe the rate of crit failure in Dyvers is nigh zero :) I know that the uber specialzed guy can get his damage bonus up that high by mid level, but somone who is a bit better rounded is probably hitting that sweet spot at 10th level. My original point, though, was someone choosing a greatsword for purely statistical reasons, should also have a high STR, and that if you have a high STR and want to pick a weapon for statistical reasons from the PH, the falchion was better. I was just pointing out an inconsistency in powergaming :) I'm all for using slightly sub-optimal weapons for flavor/RP reasons, but if you're going to do something (powergame in this case), do it right :D
King Kashue 06-13-07, 02:23 PM	First, +21 to damage is easy at mid-levels. If you are BDF, you're looking at a 26-30 STR in combat by level 8 (start with 20, 2 stat bumps, +4 belt, maybe raging), for a +12 to +15 damage from STR. Assume standard power attack of 4, for an extra 8 damage, and you're at +20 to +23 damage. +1 to +3 weapon and you're at +21 to +26 damage. Weapon Spec, if you take it, puts you at +23 to +29 damage. Then you get to add in weapon enchantments, various damage bonus feats, class abilities, buff spells like fires of purity or the like, bard song, enlarge, etc etc. You're easily looking at +27 to +35 bonus damage at level 8 for a well-built BDF. That seems to be a decent amount of hyperbole Britt. First of all, just the a +4 belt and +2 weapon are 24,000g. The max reward that a level 8 character has when hitting 8 (max being playing up in all modules) is 33K, Most characters are closer to 30K. Even for a BDF, 6,000 on everything but the weapon and the belt isn't likely to happen. An 8th level character cannot even own a +3 weap and the +4 belt unless they've died and are well ahead of the gold curve. Second, you're power attacking for +4, an amount that is statistically sub-optimal. The higher your static damage, the less optimal power attack is. For a character at the damage level you're describing, power attacking for more than +1-3 is almost never statistically optimal. If the argument is about statistically maximizing your damage, why use an example that is inherently suboptimal. Third, you've used a min/maxed half-orc (or wood elf) barbarian for your example. While that STR is possible, you're using it as an example of what is "easy" to attain. Min/maxing precludes broad accessibility. Fourth, you're throwing on a myriad of assorted buffs. "You get to add in weapon enchantments"? No you don't. You've already given your example a +3 weapon he cannot possibly have, it's not going to have more enchantments. :P Of course, all that still doesn't mean you're not right to disagree with Thorin :D Much more reasonably, 18 start str, bumped to 20, with rage to 24. +1 Weapon (honestly, who gets additional pluses as opposed to other enchants), haste (to allow for more pa and an additional high percentage attack), and bard song, Weapon Spec and Melee Weapon Mastery. Assuming one other +1, either STR or enchant. That all nets a 2d4+18. Power attacking for 2 pushes it to 2d4+22. At that point, the falchion is still better than the greatsword, even assuming a 1/4 crit negation rate. In fact, even assuming a 1/3 crit negation rate, it's still better. As I said earlier, until you hit a point where you've got attacks that aren't hitting on 15+, the falchion is a superior weapon for the back half of your career. Both statistically and perceptually.
Britt 06-13-07, 02:38 PM	First of all, just the a +4 belt and +2 weapon are 24,000g. The max reward that a level 8 character has when hitting 8 (max being playing up in all modules) is 33K, Most characters are closer to 30K. Even for a BDF, 6,000 on everything but the weapon and the belt isn't likely to happen. Anything above +1 on the weapon I was assuming as a Greater Magic Weapon buff. That means you just have the +4 belt, which with the upgrade options, I would have easily sunk 16k into at that level. Second, you're power attacking for +4, an amount that is statistically sub-optimal. The higher your static damage, the less optimal power attack is. For a character at the damage level you're describing, power attacking for more than +1-3 is almost never statistically optimal. If the argument is about statistically maximizing your damage, why use an example that is inherently suboptimal. I was just picking half the maximum amount for the purposes of a quick argument, not as an example of the statistical peak in PA choice. Sometimes you'll PA for full, sometimes not at all. I figured half was a good guess for argument's sake. Third, you've used a min/maxed half-orc (or wood elf) barbarian for your example. While that STR is possible, you're using it as an example of what is "easy" to attain. Min/maxing precludes broad accessibility. Nope, we're talking about a powergamer, and a min/maxed half-orc is accessible to everyone. The only reason you wouldn't have it is if you didn't want to have it. So, it is by definition broadly accessible. Fourth, you're throwing on a myriad of assorted buffs. "You get to add in weapon enchantments"? No you don't. You've already given your example a +3 weapon he cannot possibly have, it's not going to have more enchantments. :P Enchantment, not enhancement: Flaming, Shock, etc. Since I was only assuming +1 enhancement that was actually purchased, that leaves the possibility for a +1d6 (3.5 average damage) additional enchantment. Overall, we agree though, even on the more reasonable build. I rarely buy 18s in stats anymore; it's just not reasonable or necessary.
KShaver 06-13-07, 02:54 PM	-Of the PHB weapons, the following weapons have could NOT be found once as magically enhanced..... Morningstar..........Longspear.......... .......Quarterstaff Handaxe..............Kukri.............. ..........Light Pick Battle-axe...........Flail..................... .....Heavy Pick Warhammer..........Glaive............... .......Guisarme Halberd................Lance............ ..........Ranseur Scythe.................Bastard Sword..........Double Sword Dire Flail...............Double Orc Axe.........Gnome hooked hamm and any ranged weapon other than a Long or Short bow. On the last ADP I played there were at least 2 heavy picks, 1 kukri, 1 bastard sword, and 1 hand crossbow. Of course there were also greatswords, rapiers, and bows...not a single battle-axe though, which is what my character has been using since AR2 (I was cheap and got through AR1 with a club, which I still have). It is kinda of strange that more weapons aren't used. Most weapons have a purpose and a reason, be it disarming, or what not. Even most weapons that would only be used strictly for role-playing purposes (Yes NPCs can use gear strictly for role-playing) are generally at least decent enough to use. Speaking of weapon optimization I've been looking at the two heavy picks I have available. Being a gnome I'm not opposed to using a pick and I'm thinking about dumping all of my money into one of them. Current weapon is a small +1 battleaxe and I have the choice of getting: A. A small +1 wounding heavy pick or B. A small +2 keen heavy pick w/one point of non-magical electrical damage per hit Both are of similar costs, and both are primarily meant to be used on crittable creatures. I've leaning towards B for flavor, attack value, and more damage against non-crittable creatures. The problem is against crittable creatures B relies more on my own damage dealing than A, and as a gnome that doesn't add up to much at all. Also for the costs neither one is a significant upgrade to my battle axe as is, thats a lot of money I could use for other things.
King Kashue 06-13-07, 02:59 PM	Nope, we're talking about a powergamer, and a min/maxed half-orc is accessible to everyone. The only reason you wouldn't have it is if you didn't want to have it. So, it is by definition broadly accessible. I didn't realize "well built" was synonymous with "min/maxed" :D Enchantment, not enhancement: Flaming, Shock, etc. Since I was only assuming +1 enhancement that was actually purchased, that leaves the possibility for a +1d6 (3.5 average damage) additional enchantment. Still have the issue of money, since a +2 wep is hard with a +4 belt. In addition, that damage doesn't favor the falchion, because it doesn't multiply on crits. Overall, we agree though, even on the more reasonable build. I rarely buy 18s in stats anymore; it's just not reasonable or necessary. Nor optimal in actuality. When the BDF gets disabled by a Glitterdust at APL 12 because he's got an 8 wis and a +3 will save, all that wonderfully min/maxed damage disappears :D
Franco Un-American 06-13-07, 03:20 PM	That's why Pious Templar/Dragon Disciple should be mandatory for a BDF. Catch'em by surprise with your +16 will save. Oh, and I second the Great Scimitar/Elven Thinblade concept. Uncanny Blow completely jumps them ahead of a Greatsword or Falchion (though at the expense of a usually useless feat). And 18's are great, the trick is to use a racial bonus to get there.
Britt 06-13-07, 03:21 PM	Still have the issue of money, since a +2 wep is hard with a +4 belt. In addition, that damage doesn't favor the falchion, because it doesn't multiply on crits. Good point, forgot about that.
rutrow424 06-13-07, 04:44 PM	I had to make a similar choice for my PC and opted for B for my dwarf. As a TWF ranger, having the extra enhancement bonus increases the chance to hit and actually do damage - but this PC is not designed as a primary damage dealer (14 STR) but a deepwarden with skills who can also fight and take damage. The wounding property just relies too much on hitting often for the effects to accumulate, and is a 16k gp waste if not usuable (crit-immune or not going to hit 4+ times against a single foe). Current weapon is a small +1 battleaxe and I have the choice of getting: A. A small +1 wounding heavy pick or B. A small +2 keen heavy pick w/one point of non-magical electrical damage per hit Both are of similar costs, and both are primarily meant to be used on crittable creatures. I've leaning towards B for flavor, attack value, and more damage against non-crittable creatures. The problem is against crittable creatures B relies more on my own damage dealing than A, and as a gnome that doesn't add up to much at all. Also for the costs neither one is a significant upgrade to my battle axe as is, thats a lot of money I could use for other things.
Genghis Cohen 06-13-07, 06:19 PM	Yeah, great falchions are very nice. Oh, I forgot about the great scimitar. That's another good one for EWM. I don't recall what the stats are on it, but I'm pretty sure it's another 1h exotic with 18-20 crit range. Are that and the thin blade the only two exotic 1h weapons with 18-20 crit?Great Scimitar is out of Sandstorm. 1d8 slashing 18-20/x2 My vote for the best weapon for a Dwarf is the Dwarven Waraxe because you can take EWM and save a feat.
Hariman 06-13-07, 10:15 PM	First off: Let me state for the most part, mod writing has been great and this Living Campaign could not happen without your efforts. :D I am at the level where my character is thinking of upgrading his magical weapons. Under the new LGSC, if you find a Frost Battle-axe, and have access on your AR, you can upgrade your +1 Battle-axe to a +1 Frost Battle-axe. And yet when I search that characters AR, there is not a single enhanced magical battle-axe. In fact when I searched every AR I have ever played or run at all APL's there was not a single magically enhanced Battle-axe. While I do not have as many AR's as some (my list contains 45) this is what I found. <Chart Snip> What I am saying writers, is there are enough longswords/rapiers/Greataxe/Greatclub/dagger/short sword/spiked chain enhanced weapons out there. Change up the villain weapons, there is probably well over a hundred different weapons available for use out there, but those 7 above weapons make up well over 80% of the magically enhanced weapons found. Have your Orcs carry Warmaces 2-handed, or have them use mauls. Have your rogue/fighters use a light pick or kukri. The Bright Sands series didn't feature a single exotic weapon from the sandstorm book. You guys are doing a great job, just leave the Longswords at home and dust off that Battle-axe. Cheers Gwump Actually, you forgot a few weapons. Scythes, picks, rapiers, scimitars and falchions are also big "best weapon/always used" offenders. Addressing Bolded Quote Number One: I think the problem is that Authors can't resist min/maxing NPC weapons "To make them more effective over the NPC's short career before death." Which is foolish, because dozens, if not hundreds, of NPCs get to take shots at the party. And variety is memorable and fun as well. I got INCREDIBLY sick of seeing the same 10 or 12 weapons after the first half dozen times. Especially when "Rogue With Rapier" or "Barbarian with Greataxe (Or Falchion)" or "High Strength and Spiked Chain" (Worst offender of the group, that spiked chain.). Addressing the second bolded quote: That's just wrong. Utterly and truly wrong in so many myriad ways. Hariman PS: Britt: Most people don't go for 20 str, as it dump stats too much. Sixteen or eighteen is more realistic. And I'd prefer a Halberd, Scythe, or a reach weapon over a greatsword. Oh yeah: Glass Cannon Hexblade4/Barbarian1/Dragon Disciple10 (15 level, no high level option.) 19 STR (Base) = +4 Stat Boosts (3) = +2 Reckless Rage = +3 Belt, +6 = +3 Dragon Disciple10 = +4 Strength 42 at level 15. Flight. And, if you go Dragon Disciple 4 and take a level of EWM, +28 Damage instead +21 from the Strength mod. (As opposed to a constant + 24 with DD 10) Plus, with four levels of fighter, you can take weapon specialization and get Melee Weapon Mastery. The main downside is your AC will be low so you'll need other ways to keep from getting hit. Hence, the Glass Cannon Build.
Gwumph 06-14-07, 12:08 AM	WOW 1 sec let me check...... Yes my thread is definitly titled "Attention Mod writers" and not " Falchion/Great Axe Whatever Weapon discussion!!" :D It took all of 4 replies to totally derail this thread. LOL, but a shame since I think it is something that needs to come to light. To answer DroidTrooper: Yes I check at every APL on the AR (so apl2 to apl14 any weapon noted on AR) and yes i noted that most of the enhanced magical weapons turned up after APL 8. That being said most of those weapons that turned up were the list of 7. Kshaver: Like you said, you found those in an Adapted module...and I would hope so. WOTC churns out these all these books with all these nifty weapons and never use them. Also I noted at the bottom on my first post, that I am sure there is an AR out there with some non-7 weapons, But I am just talking about the majority weapons found. Hariman: I am assuming your wrong, utterly wrong comment is meant to be supporting me in my disbelief on how bad the Bright Sands series was handled :D . If I am wrong in my assumption, let me know. p.s. You will note that I did have rapier on my list of 7 overused weapons. As for the whole weapons debates......get a thread will ya!!!:whatsthis
solbergb 06-14-07, 12:13 AM	That's odd that people would use a greatsword. Falchion is by far the most effective 2h martial weapon in the PH for a high-STR fighter. Sure, greatsword is better if you are using a 2h martial weapon with an average or maybe medium STR, but if you are picking a 2h martial weapon based on statistical superiority, having something other than a high STR is a bit oxymoronic. Depends how many crittable enemies you fight. Greatsword is strictly superior when used on objects, constructs, undead, elementals, plants etc. It does 2 points more damage on average per hit, every hit. You need a lot of strength for the extra 5% crit chance on a falchion to overcome that lost damage even on crittable targets, and if you add in the lost damage every time you fight something not crittable, you need even more strength - and even then, you're likely to waste it on overkill. (all the extra damage coming on a crit means it is more likely the extra damage won't be needed to kill the monster) I think the two are a wash. I'm also coming to the conclusion that the best 2h weapons are the three reach weapons (glaive, guisarme and ranseur). It is in my experience very rare that the extra reach gets in the way, and quite common that the extra reach is helpful. Figuring out how to carry more than one non-spike-chain reach weapon is challenging though, enough so that my melee types still have a lot of non-reach weapons in their golfbag.
lunarfish 06-14-07, 01:57 AM	That's why Pious Templar/Dragon Disciple should be mandatory for a BDF. Catch'em by surprise with your +16 will save. Oh, and I second the Great Scimitar/Elven Thinblade concept. Uncanny Blow completely jumps them ahead of a Greatsword or Falchion (though at the expense of a usually useless feat). And 18's are great, the trick is to use a racial bonus to get there. What has actually become as close to "mandatory" as anything will become in LG is the Occult Slayer PrC. High will save, save bonuses vs. spells, free built-in spell turning, and total immunity to mind-affecting is a great way to build your BDF. Plus, it comes at the cost of two feats that are very good anyway, and some skill points your half-orc is probably never going to use anway.
Franco Un-American 06-14-07, 03:15 AM	Point taken. I was mostly going over a tank build of my own, and overlooked Occult Slayer (which this character won't get into until the High Level game.)
Madfox11 06-14-07, 04:28 AM	I just remember a still active Sunndi regional in which me and the author added a shield bash specialist including the shield bashing enhancement. After it premiered, I had a DM coming over complimenting me on that particular build. One of his PCs disarmed the battleaxe, assuming the NPC would do less damage or waste time drawing a weapon. According to the DM the look on the face of that player was priceless when the NPC did almost (the cost of making it work does have an impact on the damage) as much damage with the shield as any othe fighter would do with a great axe. Something similar happened when a PC charged a makeshift barrier, claiming that since the opponents were wielding crossbows they would hardly be effective. It costed them some feats, but he quickly learned that crossbows can be painful with the right feats. The reason why many authors stick to standard weapons btw is not just min-maxing. It is also ease of use. Many of the more exotic weapons require some additional work to be effective such as my shield bash fighter and crossbow archers. Personally I also avoid the x4 critical weapons as an author, especially in the hands of strong opponents. Randomness ultimately hurts the players more than the NPCs, so while a falchion/greatsword might ultimately be better for PCs, from a pure game mechanical nastiness point of view the x4critical weapons are better for NPCs.
Britt 06-14-07, 09:31 AM	I despise the way 90% of all Occult Slayer PCs are roleplayed. If I know someone is an Occult Slayer, I tell them at the beginning of the game that if they voluntarily accept spells from other players or act all nicey-nice with the casters, they will probably get 0 discretionary roleplaying experience.
Madfox11 06-14-07, 09:57 AM	I despise the way 90% of all Occult Slayer PCs are roleplayed. If I know someone is an Occult Slayer, I tell them at the beginning of the game that if they voluntarily accept spells from other players or act all nicey-nice with the casters, they will probably get 0 discretionary roleplaying experience. ::shrug:: All depends on how you interpret the importance of fluff-text. It is a bit like the favored enemy of the 3.0 ranger. Personally see them more as specialist caster hunters, and I find it odd to use a bit of fluff text as the end-all of how to play the class. If they really found it that important they should have turned it into a game mechanic such as with the paladin and the knight. Besides, the class is called 'occult'-slayer not 'magic'-destroyer...
Cardinal Teplin 06-14-07, 10:10 AM	Hmm. what about occult slayers who themselves cast spells? Like the example character in the book...? I'm hoping to make my Bright Sands character an Occult Slayer, largely because it fits in well with his (anti-Rary) storyline. So, hating the misuse of magic, and irresponsible magicians, rather than trying to kill every spellcaster without descrimination. That seems to be the best way to roleplay the character in a game where, by definition, the character will have chosen to adventure with spellcasting characters. You can get away with playing someone who hates other party members if you're also an unwashed barbarian with poor social skills, but if you are a paladin and the party face, it makes that much more difficult. I'm generally happy so long as the occult slayer is roleplaying his hatred in some way.
Britt 06-14-07, 10:18 AM	It's discretionary xp and my discretion is that they should hate spellcasters, based on the flavor text. I'm not taking away class abilities or anything, which is what a code of conduct would do. In 3.0, it was my opinion that rangers that didn't hate their favored enemy also weren't roleplaying properly. They changed that in 3.5, but I think they should change the name of the ability. And on spellcasters as occult slayers, I hate those, too. You can have the ability to cast and not do it.
Lupo 06-14-07, 10:22 AM	I despise the way 90% of all Occult Slayer PCs are roleplayed. If I know someone is an Occult Slayer, I tell them at the beginning of the game that if they voluntarily accept spells from other players or act all nicey-nice with the casters, they will probably get 0 discretionary roleplaying experience. i don't have any occult slayer character ;) and it is unlikely i will get one soon. i do have a character with a special cohort that has two levels in occult slayer (but i consider him an ex-occult slayer now, works just like monk/barbarians that still use all their goodies) and the cohort dislikes a certain group of people as much as possible - those with the scarlet robes . . . . . truly understandable and in character for the cohort. now, what happen if the cohort attacks a fellow player's character for killing?????:confused: and he will do if he ever sniff out such a character (i know that out there are some disgraceful individuals - player characters - that actually have joined the ranks of this damned organization):rolleyes: is the cohort removed from the campaign? or the character with leadership??:confused: ciao martin m.
Cardinal Teplin 06-14-07, 11:25 AM	And on spellcasters as occult slayers, I hate those, too. You can have the ability to cast and not do it. Only if you assume you gain abilities without training. Or practice. And you're on a sticky wicket if you are a paladin refusing abilities granted by your deity. In LG you are thrown together with 5 random companions, which you need to get along with, even if that involves some suspension of disbelief. Three quarters of the base classes are spellcasters, 99% of healing is spellcasting, and all magic items are made by spellcasters casting spells (a fact you know, since spellcraft is a requirement to get into the Pclass). I don't think that Britt's position is unreasonable, but I don't think it's in any way practical either. The issue isn't limited to this class. In our region we have tribal metaorgs which regard male sorcerors as evil, traditions regarding blond hair as suspicious, and official categorisation of half-orcs as inhuman. All this provides some great roleplaying potential for the players, and for their interaction with NPCs. But it really doesn't work having the same tensions enforced on cooperation within the group. Group dynamics are complicated, and the DM isn't in a particularly good position to judge what's going on. We throw players into a situation where they trust 5 random strangers with their lives, something that hits suspension of disbelief pretty hard. Further hammering on that should be avoided.
King Kashue 06-14-07, 12:00 PM	I despise the way 90% of all Occult Slayer PCs are roleplayed. If I know someone is an Occult Slayer, I tell them at the beginning of the game that if they voluntarily accept spells from other players or act all nicey-nice with the casters, they will probably get 0 discretionary roleplaying experience. It's discretionary xp and my discretion is that they should hate spellcasters, based on the flavor text. I'm not taking away class abilities or anything, which is what a code of conduct would do. In 3.0, it was my opinion that rangers that didn't hate their favored enemy also weren't roleplaying properly. They changed that in 3.5, but I think they should change the name of the ability. And on spellcasters as occult slayers, I hate those, too. You can have the ability to cast and not do it. Problem with that point of view is that you're applying an arbitrary limitation without any logical reason. If you're going to dock them for accepting spells, you must also dock them for using any magical items, since those were all constructed by spell casters. It's the logical extension to your position and there is no reason not to do it other than players getting ****** at you (which is not an in-game reason, obviously) and issues of game balance (which is also not a roleplaying reason). If you're basing it on roleplaying, that's what logically should be done, and at that point, you've gone beyond even the ambiguous flavor text and turned them into some 3.5e bastard child of forsakers (without the tasty abilities)...
Britt 06-14-07, 12:06 PM	Problem with that point of view is that you're applying an arbitrary limitation without any logical reason. If you're going to dock them for accepting spells, you must also dock them for using any magical items, since those were all constructed by spell casters. It's the logical extension to your position and there is no reason not to do it other than players getting ****** at you (which is not an in-game reason, obviously) and issues of game balance (which is also not a roleplaying reason). If you're basing it on roleplaying, that's what logically should be done, and at that point, you've gone beyond even the ambiguous flavor text and turned them into some 3.5e bastard child of forsakers (without the tasty abilities)... Non sequitur. It's like House said one time in response to someone asking if his question was rhetorical, it only seems that way because you can't think of an answer. Sorry, not trying to sound like a jerk, it just sounded appropriate :D Just because magical items CAN be created that way doesn't mean it's the only way they can be created. And perhaps creating magical items is an acceptable use of magical powers? As I recall, the flavor text talks about actually casting the spells, which crafting doesn't really do. You use components as if you had, but you don't actually cast the spell. Perhaps occult slayers think casting spells is a form of reality manipulation that is too dangerous to be allowed, and people that do it are to be despised and distrusted; however, magic items do not warp reality, and there is no issue of 'trusting' magic items (except maybe things like a rod of wonder). Magic items have very defined purposes and you can predict what they will do. It doesn't seem at all inconsistent to use magic items and distrust those who make them.
Cardinal Teplin 06-14-07, 12:46 PM	Perhaps occult slayers think casting spells is a form of reality manipulation that is too dangerous to be allowed, and people that do it are to be despised and distrusted; however, magic items do not warp reality, and there is no issue of 'trusting' magic items (except maybe things like a rod of wonder). Hmm. Scorpian Crown? Magic items have very defined purposes and you can predict what they will do. It doesn't seem at all inconsistent to use magic items and distrust those who make them. No, but then it doesn't seem inconsistent, if you're happy with magic items, to distrust spellcasters (whose motives you can't be sure of) but cast spells yourself. By extension, you must be fairly certain of the motives of your cleric of Pelor adventuring companion, particularly if you are a paladin of the same deity yourself. Does this mean you can accept healing from the cleric? This is the problem. If you really are against spellcasting in all it's myriad forms, then you are logically against a wide range of applications, including magic items, magical healing, and acting as a cooperative member of an LG adventuring group. If you have exceptions based on reasonableness, and simply draw the line at a particular point, then you need to justify where that line is. Britt has drawn it at a particular point, but it could equally be drawn at a different point. As a DM, I enforce that there must be a line, and that that line must be roleplayed properly. I don't enforce my particular interpretation of where that line should be.
Cardinal Teplin 06-14-07, 12:53 PM	To bring us screeching back to the original thread.... The reason why magical weapons are so rare is manifold: 1) Any kind of magical ability weapon generally costs at least 8300gp, making them unavailable to all but the highest level NPCs. High level NPCs are a pain to stat, and to review/edit, and may occur less often as a result. 2) Any kind of ability is specific to the weapon it is found on. Various feats and p-classes are weapon specific. Offering a magical ability on anything other than a 'common' weapon means offering something of little interest to the vast majoirty of player characters. 3) Because of (2), weapon upgrades as favours are more common, driving down the placement of random weapons still further. and so on...
King Kashue 06-14-07, 12:53 PM	It doesn't seem at all inconsistent to use magic items and distrust those who make them. It doesn't seem inconsistent to you perhaps, but it certainly does to me. For you to say "accepting spells is such a significant role playing issue that I will dock XP" and then say "magic items? yeah they're fine" seems to me to be internally inconsistent at its very core. Because of this: As I recall, the flavor text talks about actually casting the spells, which crafting doesn't really do. You recall incorrectly. Occult Slayers believe that mortals are too irresponsible to wield magic (CW p. 66) Magic in general, not spellcasting itself. Magic items are most certainly magic (it's kind of in the word itself ;)) Just because magical items CAN be created that way doesn't mean it's the only way they can be created. And perhaps creating magical items is an acceptable use of magical powers? Most items are made by spellcasters and use their spellcasting powers to fuel the process. If you're going to dock Occult Slayers for not hating spellcasters enough to refuse their buff spells, how can you not dock them for not also refusing to use their magical items? And if you're going to allow a variable position on magical items ("perhaps creating magical items is an acceptable use"), how can you logically justify an absolute position on buff spells and healing spells, when the basis for both is identical? Non sequitur? Non sunt sophismata...vere infero ;)
Britt 06-14-07, 12:54 PM	What I'm saying is you can dislike the making of magic items, the casting of spells, etc, but still use the magic items that are there. You wouldn't want someone to make a magic weapon, but if you come across one, using it isn't going to make things any worse. Scrolls, wands, and staves might be a problem, but the rest are already there; the damage is already done.
King Kashue 06-14-07, 12:56 PM	What I'm saying is you can dislike the making of magic items, the casting of spells, etc, but still use the magic items that are there. You wouldn't want someone to make a magic weapon, but if you come across one, using it isn't going to make things any worse. Scrolls, wands, and staves might be a problem, but the rest are already there; the damage is already done. So, like, if you're a Vegan or a member of PETA, you can eat the meat that's already been butchered, or wear an existing fur coat, because it's already been made? Again, our perceptions regarding the application of philosophical and moral ideals differ...:D
Britt 06-14-07, 12:58 PM	And if you're going to allow a variable position on magical items ("perhaps creating magical items is an acceptable use"), how can you logically justify an absolute position on buff spells and healing spells, when the basis for both is identical? Accepting buff and healing spells is encouraging the use of magic and being accepting and forgiving of it. You don't have to accept, encourage, or forgive someone for making a magic item by using it. Like I said in my most recent post, the damage is already done and using the item won't make it any worse. Now, hiring someone to make a magic item for you, that would definitely be against the flavor text.
King Kashue 06-14-07, 01:09 PM	Accepting buff and healing spells is encouraging the use of magic and being accepting and forgiving of it. You don't have to accept, encourage, or forgive someone for making a magic item by using it. Like I said in my most recent post, the damage is already done and using the item won't make it any worse. Now, hiring someone to make a magic item for you, that would definitely be against the flavor text. Again, I don't think too many PETA members are wearing 50 year old fur coats just because they've already been created :D
Britt 06-14-07, 01:15 PM	You have a point there, but that takes it to a level that I wouldn't expect an average person in real life to meet. Personally, I would not wear the fur coat or use the magic item, but I am far more consistent in my internal beliefs than I expect or see others being. That level of consistency is not at all common.
trollbill 06-14-07, 02:24 PM	::shrug:: All depends on how you interpret the importance of fluff-text. Just exactly what is more important than fluff-text for determining Role-Playing rewards? I doubt I will ever play an Occult Slayer in LG as I just can't see how the character would get along with 99% of the parties they are likely to adventure with. Personally I think Occult Slayer should be on the Closed list along side Frenzied Berserker for its potential to be more harmful than useful to the party. Doubly so, seeing as few people I know of actually take levels in it for RP reasons. Now, as to the actual subject of this thread, I have a a greatsword wielding Bbn1/Clr6 of Kord who is saving up to make his +1 Star Metal Greatsword Holy and his regular +1 Greatsword Merciful. If I wanted I could have just as easily done this with any other weapon as the Star Metal, Holy and Merciful access I have is from Favor access that doesn't care what weapon I put it on. So at least at my end, I am not seeing much of a problem with limited weapon-type access.
cycloptic_squirrel 06-14-07, 02:42 PM	Again, I don't think too many PETA members are wearing 50 year old fur coats just because they've already been created :D But I also don't see too many PETA members bulldozing 100 year old houses that have been constructed with animal glue. I doubt that many violinists would turn down an oportunity to play a Stradivarius violin simply based on the catgut strings. And what of food grown with animal manure? I think Occult Slayers would avoid magic items for superflous purposes, as well as not ordering the construction of any new items. But things that are somewhat essential and created 100 years ago I think would be fine.
KarmaInferno 06-14-07, 02:48 PM	And on spellcasters as occult slayers, I hate those, too. Does that include the example Occult Slayer given in the book? =) -karma
gomeztoo 06-14-07, 03:06 PM	I despise the way 90% of all Occult Slayer PCs are roleplayed. My petpeeves is people that dip into dragon disciple. I hate that. But everyone has their ways. You don't have to agree with it. But penalizing? Hmm.
trollbill 06-14-07, 03:11 PM	My petpeeves is people that dip into dragon disciple. I hate that. But everyone has their ways. You don't have to agree with it. But penalizing? Hmm. What's the point of having discresionary role-playing awards if you don't have some criteria for what is and isn't good role-playing?
solbergb 06-14-07, 03:26 PM	I can pull a random sentence out of the flavor text of every PHB base class and penalize players who have the class that don't play that way. It doesn't make much sense to do so though. Frankly I think the persecution of occult slayers by some LG GM's is indefensible, and just leads in the long run to the same kind of thing where even in 3.5, when the rule changed, there is a prominent Nyrond triad and author who will penalize you ingame if you have favored enemy (PC race) going so far as to having the NPC's magically know that you took a class feature which is in no way visible in the game world. The player defines what his character is. In LG, there is no way a GM can know what is "in character' for a given character, he doesn't see the character often enough to know. The roleplay award is for penalizing metagaming behaviors or timewasting out-of-game chatter. Even metagaming behaviors you have to be careful with. That 6 intelligence barbarian may have fought vampires 3 times before level 4 and yes, actually knows that garlic, holy symbols, holy water, silver and magic are helpful, and also knows they turn into smoke and may even know how to kill one. It's better to ask how the character knows that before applying penalties. I find that occult slayers are held to the flavor text in a much stricter way than classes with codes of conduct are (eg, Paladins, Knights). I find that offensive and it erodes my confidence in the GM when I see it. A better approach is to ask the Occult slayer when he's accepting or asking for spells what his criteria for a "irresponsible spellcaster" is and whether or not the PC is somebody in that category (or whether he's overcoming his usual distaste for the "Greater good" or whatever - if Paladins can do it, so can occult slayers...)
solbergb 06-14-07, 03:28 PM	My petpeeves is people that dip into dragon disciple. Maybe they're only 1/36 dragon and can't get the bigger powers. They've "fully awakened" their draconic blood with only 1-2 levels. Without understanding the character, you can't make those value judgements, and you're unlikely to get that understanding in the first session you play with somebody.
darrell_uk 06-14-07, 03:32 PM	*upgrading* to adamantite... now THAT would be cool ;) Gomez Sadly, it's out there. It doesn't make much sense to me either.
trollbill 06-14-07, 03:38 PM	Sadly, it's out there. It doesn't make much sense to me either. I have access to 'upgrading' one of my weapons to Adamantium. Though, technically, it's not an upgrade. The way the favor works is that a magical ceramony is performed to transfer all of the properties of a weapon you already own to an adamantium version of the same weapon.
gomeztoo 06-14-07, 03:43 PM	Without understanding the character, you can't make those value judgements, and you're unlikely to get that understanding in the first session you play with somebody. Everybody has their own way. I judge whether I like a PC when I play with/DM them. But I wince when I hear people talk about taking a 4-level dip in DD just for the statboosts on these boards. That's not designing a character, imo, that's designing a statblock.
Britt 06-14-07, 03:47 PM	The roleplay award is for penalizing metagaming behaviors or timewasting out-of-game chatter. You may think that, but AFAIK, that's not listed anywhere. It is discretionary, meaning up to the discretion of the GM. Like I said, I warn the Occult Slayer player at the beginning of the round, so they see it coming. It's also a maybe, not a definite. There was one in my DDXP Open Fiesta that roleplayed very well in general, so he got it all. Also, everyone needs to remember that failing to get an award does not equal a penalty. A penalty means losing something you already had. You never had the discretionary RP XP, so not getting it isn't a penalty.
solbergb 06-14-07, 04:12 PM	What I object to is you're picking one PRC out of all the classes and PRC's and tying roleplay xp to a bit of flavor text. If I did the same thing with, say, monk, people would think I'm being arbitrary. Mechanically a monk is a superior unarmed fighter, but even in Greyhawk canon, not all monks have the same flavor nor are all characters required to stick to a given monk path. If you exit the class or become nonlawful there are specific penalties applied. But the player doesn't have bonus xp held hostage against something in the PHB flavor text that doesn't fit his character. Or to be more blunt - if you see a monk overeating and sleeping in, you dock him roleplay experience. Because it violates the flavor text that they're disciplined aescetics. This monk may be rigidly accepting the local rules of hospitality over his personal preferences, he may have a pattern of eating one day and fasting three days, he may just do extra kata when he does wake up to overcome the effects of overindulgence - it varies from character to character. I'm cool with the GM asking the rationale for the behavior, but if the player has a good story, he's actually roleplaying the character well, rather than badly, and should get the bonus. You're being inconsistent and not recognizing that the flavor text is the "average" or "most commonly encountered" character of that class. You're ignoring the flavor text for most characters and enforcing it on classes you don't happen to like. The rules may let you do it, but it's an "adversarial" GMing practice and not one I can support or encourage. It's impossible and actually wrong to enforce the flavor text for every class on every character. It is therefore unfair to enforce it on one or two classes or PRC's (for some reason rangers and occult slayers really get the short end of the stick)
Britt 06-14-07, 04:26 PM	You're being inconsistent and not recognizing that the flavor text is the "average" or "most commonly encountered" character of that class. You're ignoring the flavor text for most characters and enforcing it on classes you don't happen to like. I am? Because I don't seem to remember stating how I enforce roleplaying on any classes other than Occult Slayer. That leads me to believe that you are taking your opinion of roleplaying XP, your past experience with one or more other GMs, and projecting that onto anyone that thinks Occult Slayers should distrust all magic users. It sounds more like you are translating "discretionary" into "soldergb's opinion of roleplaying". Not everyone has or has to have the same opinion of what good roleplaying is; that's why it's discretionary. I never said everyone has to conform to my ideas of good roleplaying or share my opinion of what good roleplaying is, but you sure seem to be saying that about your opinions. All I am saying is that I have an opinion, I tell people what it is, and I use the discretionary XP award to enforce that.
DonShard 06-14-07, 04:34 PM	All I am saying is that I have an opinion, I tell people what it is, and I use the discretionary XP award to enforce that. No disrespect intended, but you're a DM, not Steven Spielberg. Let me play my character, and you can play yours.
King Kashue 06-14-07, 04:35 PM	You have a point there, but that takes it to a level that I wouldn't expect an average person in real life to meet. Personally, I would not wear the fur coat or use the magic item, but I am far more consistent in my internal beliefs than I expect or see others being. That level of consistency is not at all common. An occult slayer is an individual that feels so strongly about this principle that s/he is driven to kill anyone who uses magic. Occult slayers believe that mortals are too irresponsible to wield magic, and those who dare to do so must be slain (CW p. 66) I don't know about you, but that sounds like an uncommon level of commitment to the principle :D
King Kashue 06-14-07, 04:41 PM	But I also don't see too many PETA members bulldozing 100 year old houses that have been constructed with animal glue. I doubt that many violinists would turn down an oportunity to play a Stradivarius violin simply based on the catgut strings. And what of food grown with animal manure? I think Occult Slayers would avoid magic items for superflous purposes, as well as not ordering the construction of any new items. But things that are somewhat essential and created 100 years ago I think would be fine. Hide glue is made out of knackered horses, not animals bred to the slaughter. Manure is a normal byproduct of animals living, and collecting it doesn't exploit the animal in the process. And violin strings don't need to be made of gut (it's sheep not cat, by the way), and in fact, the majority aren't currently (and I do know a professional violinist who will not use gut-core strings). Again, my fur coat example really doesn't need to be bypassed. A PETA member would not wear one, even if it was 100 years old... And with Occult slayers, we're talking about people who are so committed to a principle they're willing to kill over it (which exceeds 99.9% of PETA members). So if we say "that principle applies to all spellcasters", and do not allow for exceptions in that regard, I can't see how one can logically devise an in-game justification for other exceptions.
KShaver 06-14-07, 04:43 PM	Or to be more blunt - if you see a monk overeating and sleeping in, you dock him roleplay experience. Because it violates the flavor text that they're disciplined aescetics. This monk may be rigidly accepting the local rules of hospitality over his personal preferences, he may have a pattern of eating one day and fasting three days, he may just do extra kata when he does wake up to overcome the effects of overindulgence... It could be easier than that, his own daily beliefs might require overeating, getting plenty of rest, and only then working hard on his studies. It might seem odd at first, but that sumo style monk has to eat a lot and work in shorter bursts. :P - it varies from character to character. I'm cool with the GM asking the rationale for the behavior, but if the player has a good story, he's actually roleplaying the character well, rather than badly, and should get the bonus. It is therefore unfair to enforce it on one or two classes or PRC's (for some reason rangers and occult slayers really get the short end of the stick) When a character is role played well the build usually explains itself, even if it looked a little off at first. On the other hand a poorly role played character with a build that does't make sense (aside from min/maxing) shouldn't get much in the way rp awards. We don't know the entirety of how everyone judges on this part of the roleplaying award. I'm sure most people, including Britt, factor in more than simply whether the player played a sterotypical member of thier class.
Britt 06-14-07, 04:43 PM	No disrespect intended, but you're a DM, not Steven Spielberg. Let me play my character, and you can play yours. It didn't sound disrespectful, so none inferred. However, what else do you think "discretionary" means other than to make a judgment about what you think good RP is and award accordingly?
Britt 06-14-07, 04:49 PM	And with Occult slayers, we're talking about people who are so committed to a principle they're willing to kill over it (which exceeds 99.9% of PETA members). So if we say "that principle applies to all spellcasters", and do not allow for exceptions in that regard, I can't see how one can logically devise an in-game justification for other exceptions. The same way they justify adventuring with casters that they despise, yet avoid killing them at the same time: they bend their beliefs to accommodate needs, even though their teachings tell them otherwise. I never said they can't adventure with casters or have to try to kill party members; all I said is that they shouldn't be actively encouraging spellcasting or being really friendly to mortal casters. That to me is not bending the teachings in believable ways while still acknowledging that the flavor text has some validity; it is ignoring the existence of the flavor text completely and treating the prestige class as merely a collection of numbers and abilities. That, to me, is not good roleplaying, and I try to discourage it so that the quality of roleplaying, in my mind, is improved.
JamesMaissen 06-14-07, 04:50 PM	Just exactly what is more important than fluff-text for determining Role-Playing rewards? That the character is played consistantly, that the player doesn't use out of game information, and that they stay in the character that they have created rather than one that you may wish to impose upon them. The Occult Slayer is just the whipping boy of choice these days. It used to be the Templar (now Pious Templar). The major crime they have committed is being too 'common place' in perception amongst players. Everything else is a misplaced notion of wanting to add a code of conduct to the class that just isn't there. That there was a class along these lines with a code of conduct and mechanical penalties in the old splat books but didn't appear here only exaserbates the situation as the Occult Slayer is seen as the inheritor of the Forsaker archetype. Opinions are fairly religious on this, so don't expect to sway a person who takes a stance on this issue. Towards the original poster: The other responders have I think reasonably answered your question on finding magical weapons, as 8300+gp is alot of cash if an author is following NPC wealth guidelines (including the limitation of no more than 50% on one item). A 10th level NPC can have 16,000gp worth of gear (baring MIC feats), so you're talking an 11th level NPC before you can expect to see a +1 flaming sword on one while following the guidelines. Even then you're talking 6k out of their 21k gold to deliver that extra d6 of fire damage. And that's just a +1 bump, a +2 equivalent like wounding would only be found on a 14th or higher NPC. Now that can be fudged a bit, but in general the NPC wealth guidelines have a very important purpose in maintaining balance and proper threat level. Giving 3rd level NPCs 3000gp Beads of Force or other consumables has happened, but it tends to skew things and as such should not be the norm. That's why as we in LG use items found as access that favors have a definate place in the scheme of things. They represent finding those willing to craft items for the PC that should be able to be found throughout their adventuring career, rather than just relying upon 'finding' items that they need. But as to 'weird' weapon types, be grateful that LG is based on a liquidating and purchase back scheme rather than a find and keep one. In another system choosing an uncommon weapon would have associated economic penalties as common weapontypes would be found for essentially half-price compared to those commisioned by the PC. -James
DonShard 06-14-07, 04:51 PM	It didn't sound disrespectful, so none inferred. However, what else do you think "discretionary" means other than to make a judgment about what you think good RP is and award accordingly? I understand it's solely up to the DM. I just think that "good RP" should be based on how I play my character, not how I play your interpretation of my character. Of course everything is circumstantial, but I don't think withholding XP bonuses because an Occult Slayer cooperates with a party arcanist is warranted.
King Kashue 06-14-07, 05:12 PM	The same way they justify adventuring with casters that they despise, yet avoid killing them at the same time: they bend their beliefs to accommodate needs, even though their teachings tell them otherwise. I never said they can't adventure with casters or have to try to kill party members; all I said is that they shouldn't be actively encouraging spellcasting or being really friendly to mortal casters. That to me is not bending the teachings in believable ways while still acknowledging that the flavor text has some validity; it is ignoring the existence of the flavor text completely and treating the prestige class as merely a collection of numbers and abilities. That, to me, is not good roleplaying, and I try to discourage it so that the quality of roleplaying, in my mind, is improved. I can see that...but let me know what you think of this as a role-playing justification. 11th level CN Pureblooded Suel Occult Slayer. Has at least one rank in every knowledge skill (including all six locals), and a spellcraft in the high teens. Also speaks 15 different languages (all cross class). Takes great pride in being properly and broadly educated, and particular pride in his understanding of the nature of magic itself. Is disdainful of the uneducated, and of people like the silent ones or the theocracy of the pale, who work against magic, but do not truly have a proper understanding of it. Born of pride in his knowledge, as well as a bit of a conception of racial superiority (though as a side note, he is murderous and viscously cruel towards Scarlet Brotherhood) he defines "responsible use of magic" as essentially "whether I think it is appropriate" (because with his skill and knowledge, he feels he is a qualified judge). This position extends to (verbal) chastisement of his own party members when they are not careful or wise (as he sees it). As a side note, he took the class after being flame struck by a SB priest of Pyremius, a spell which also left the brand of Pyremius permanently in his forehead. Is that a character who is "ignoring the flavor text" and "treating the prestige class as merely a collection of numbers and abilities"? Or is that a character who took the broad outlines of a class, and instead of making him some copy of the textbook, developed a unique and personally suited motivation for the abilities and attitudes of the class?
Britt 06-14-07, 05:14 PM	There are two issues that I think are important here for how to determine "good" roleplaying in LG: First, every judgment has to be made against some sort of standard. You can't judge something against a formless idea of "your PC"; it has to be against someone's interpretation of what your PC should be: yours, mine, the hot dog vendor's, someone's. Second, in a Living campaign, we usually do not have the luxury of a rich background and history with particular characters. We don't know how you built your character, what your character has gone through, if you are playing consistently, or if you are just making something up to appease the GM and try to get roleplaying XP. Put those together and the only and best guide a GM should have as a default is his own opinion of how particular things should be roleplayed. Sure, he should be flexible, but you can't expect a judge to assume you're roleplaying really well for your back story. If I tell you my opinion on Occult Slayers and you give me some cool story about the Scarlet Brotherhood and how you spent years learning how to combat casters because they were the only ones you ever knew (and the SB is known for their casters), but that recently you have seen many noble casters and are reconsidering your beliefs, that's a good story. I still better see some hesitation and distrust, but it's a decent story. If you tell me your an ex-Occult Slayer, having already seen the error of your fanatical ways, great, as long as you aren't taking any more levels in Occult Slayer. If I ever see that character with more levels and no fantastic story, that character is never getting discretionary RP XP from me ever again :p If you tell me that you kill evil spellcasters, that's why you're an Occult Slayer, well, big news here, SO DOES EVERY OTHER ADVENTURER! What makes you different? Why did you train so hard and devote so much time to this particular path? If there's nothing there, you are using the PrC purely for mechanical reasons and ignoring what I think is an important piece of RP background, imo. I'm sure the players would love it if we asked them at the end of the round if they think they played their character well, but how reasonable is that? How many players are going to say "You know what? I didn't roleplay very well, so give me 25% of the RP XP this time", unless they are trying to game the GP:XP curves, which I could easily see some doing. The only reasonable measure we have is what we as GMs think is good RP. You may not agree with us, but that doesn't make you right, nor does it make using your opinion as a measure more reasonable.
solbergb 06-14-07, 05:18 PM	I understand it's solely up to the DM. I just think that "good RP" should be based on how I play my character, not how I play your interpretation of my character. Yeah, that's what I was trying to say, with a lot fewer words :) Maybe I shouldn't worry about it. The people most likely to really badly roleplay are the ones who consider less XP a bonus. None of my characters actually fall into this bucket, and most play against type to some extent, so it's unlikely to bite me in the real world. I am kind of curious as to how that Nyrond guy would react to my wife's "manservant" who has a ranger level to get the "favored enemy" bonuses to social skills, spot and listen with humans - his master is a human and he pays more attention to and adjusts his attitudes to human preconceptions - nonhumans aren't as high on his radar.
Britt 06-14-07, 05:18 PM	Is that a character who is "ignoring the flavor text" and "treating the prestige class as merely a collection of numbers and abilities"? Or is that a character who took the broad outlines of a class, and instead of making him some copy of the textbook, developed a unique and personally suited motivation for the abilities and attitudes of the class? I think that's a little loose, but possibly within the bounds of the flavor. It depends on what the definition of reasonable and wise is, how often something unwise would come up, and how consistent he is in the application of that. If his definition of unwise is being evil and casting a spell, or casting a spell that hurts me, that's just trying to game the system. If it's any Transmutation or Evocation spell because those warp reality, that's a good reason. I would expect him to do a little more than orally chastise the caster, maybe distrust them in the future or something, but that seems like a good hook.
Haro 06-14-07, 05:22 PM	To paraphrase Mayor Quimby, I fully endorse Britt's event and/or product he is peddling. I've given my example in other threads of the OS with the Unicorn Sorceror cohort that she rides into battle and recieves buff spells from. I don't hold OS to a higher standard than Paladins or Knights, but at some point the blatant abuse of the 'role' of an OS begins to affect the disretionary xp I hand out in any given scenario. That's not to say I have never given it to PCs with OS levels, quite the opposite. Lawful Good Beastmasters who use their companions as fleshy trapspringers on the other hand... ;) Joe
King Kashue 06-14-07, 05:27 PM	I've given my example in other threads of the OS with the Unicorn Sorceror cohort that she rides into battle and recieves buff spells from. Yeah...but as was noted before, Unicorns aren't "mortals" :D They're inherently magical creatures will spell like abilities that mimic up to 7th level spells. The argument could easily be made that unicorns are creature that are capable of being responsible with magic.
Britt 06-14-07, 05:32 PM	Yeah...but as was noted before, Unicorns aren't "mortals" :D Really? Because I distinctly recall one-shotting Casey Brown's unicorn cohort with my PC once (I love confusion). It seemed pretty mortal to me.
King Kashue 06-14-07, 05:34 PM	I think that's a little loose, but possibly within the bounds of the flavor. It depends on what the definition of reasonable and wise is, how often something unwise would come up, and how consistent he is in the application of that. If his definition of unwise is being evil and casting a spell, or casting a spell that hurts me, that's just trying to game the system. Well, he could give a rat's arse about good and evil, this is a guy who whirlwinds on fallen enemies just so he doesn't have to fight with the party about executing prisoners. :D If it's any Transmutation or Evocation spell because those warp reality, that's a good reason. I would expect him to do a little more than orally chastise the caster, maybe distrust them in the future or something, but that seems like a good hook. He trusts about seven people total, so there's no worries with mistrusting the spellcasters :D It's less the type of magic, but rather it's use in context (and not in the for me = good, against me = bad way). Spells that only work to self-benefit, and particularly spells that victimize others. For schools, enchantment spells in particular, since they infringe on free will and divination spells, since they reveal knowledge without discipline or rigor. And anything ever cast by anyone wearing dark red :D (This is a character who tried to kill a NG cleric of Lydia since she was Scarlet Brotherhood. It required three members of my party and 20 NPC archers to keep him from gutting her :D)
TWG_Prometheus 06-14-07, 05:35 PM	I can see that...but let me know what you think of this as a role-playing justification. 11th level CN Pureblooded Suel Occult Slayer. Has at least one rank in every knowledge skill (including all six locals), and a spellcraft in the high teens. Also speaks 15 different languages (all cross class). Takes great pride in being properly and broadly educated, and particular pride in his understanding of the nature of magic itself. Is disdainful of the uneducated, and of people like the silent ones or the theocracy of the pale, who work against magic, but do not truly have a proper understanding of it. Born of pride in his knowledge, as well as a bit of a conception of racial superiority (though as a side note, he is murderous and viscously cruel towards Scarlet Brotherhood) he defines "responsible use of magic" as essentially "whether I think it is appropriate" (because with his skill and knowledge, he feels he is a qualified judge). This position extends to (verbal) chastisement of his own party members when they are not careful or wise (as he sees it). As a side note, he took the class after being flame struck by a SB priest of Pyremius, a spell which also left the brand of Pyremius permanently in his forehead. Is that a character who is "ignoring the flavor text" and "treating the prestige class as merely a collection of numbers and abilities"? Or is that a character who took the broad outlines of a class, and instead of making him some copy of the textbook, developed a unique and personally suited motivation for the abilities and attitudes of the class? I think the 'whether I think it is appropriate' bit is where you lost me. It sounded nice on paper for my first read, but I don't buy it. No real person decides things on 'whether I think it is appropriate'. They have reasons they think it might be appropriate or not, and you've failed to define those. If you went on to develop what the character thinks is appropriate, we might be able to find common ground, but if you leave it simply as that: 'whether I think it is appropriate', there's no form to the personality at all and it can't really be roleplayed at all. The guy sounds kind of evil to me anyway. Edit: Following posts defined things better.
DonShard 06-14-07, 05:36 PM	Second, in a Living campaign, we usually do not have the luxury of a rich background and history with particular characters. We don't know how you built your character, what your character has gone through, if you are playing consistently, or if you are just making something up to appease the GM and try to get roleplaying XP. Which is exactly why it seems inappropriate to assume the PC is acting out of character. Innocent until proven guilty is a meme that applies here, if for no other reasons than the practical ones you just listed. As for an XP reward, it is, in my opinion, more valid to assess a player's enrichment of the overall story than whether or not he/she was nasty enough to spellcasters.
King Kashue 06-14-07, 05:36 PM	Really? Because I distinctly recall one-shotting Casey Brown's unicorn cohort with my PC once (I love confusion). It seemed pretty mortal to me. Ah, but what happens to unicorns when they die? They are mortal in that they can die, but they are not like men, who are, but for a few exceptions, mundane and tied to their physical existence. Unicorns are inherently magical beasts, quite different than mortal men...
solbergb 06-14-07, 05:41 PM	Which is exactly why it seems inappropriate to assume the PC is acting out of character. Innocent until proven guilty is a meme that applies here, if for no other reasons than the practical ones you just listed. As for an XP reward, it is, in my opinion, more valid to assess a player's enrichment of the overall story than whether or not he/she was nasty enough to spellcasters. again - better said than my attempts. ditto.
King Kashue 06-14-07, 05:42 PM	The guy sounds kind of evil to me anyway. I'm not sure what sounds evil, other than his attitude towards the Scarlet Brotherhood (an organization based on cruely, murder, slavery, torture, deceit, and ruthless domination of all around them). Though the second post I'll give ya :D He's Chaotic Neutral and has 60+ ARs worth of selfless, heroic deeds...I gotta maintain my neutrality somehow ;) Plus, he's from Onnwal, a country where a group called "The Wreckers" are national heroes...When your basis for comparison are the Scarlet Brotherhood, standard for acceptable behavior are a bit more "flexible" :D However, for a guy who spent 13 TUs being tortured by the Scarlet Brotherhood and had his eye ripped out as an AR consequence, he's wonderfully well adjusted :D
Britt 06-14-07, 05:46 PM	Which is exactly why it seems inappropriate to assume the PC is acting out of character. Innocent until proven guilty is a meme that applies here, if for no other reasons than the practical ones you just listed. As for an XP reward, it is, in my opinion, more valid to assess a player's enrichment of the overall story than whether or not he/she was nasty enough to spellcasters. Innocent until proven guilty is a principle used in criminal law to avoid punishing and culturally stigmatizing an innocent individual. In this case, we are talking about awarding or not awarding. If someone claims they won the lottery but lost their ticket, you don't assume they are innocent and give them the money unless someone proves they did not. And if we assume someone is playing appropriately, when do we ever not award discretionary RP XP? The guy that acts inconsistently? Maybe they are chaotic. The guy that is laful and acts inconsistently? Maybe they have some weird personal code that makes perfect sense but we don't know or understand. With this approach, discretionary roleplay XP becomes pretty much a right, unless you violate a code of conduct or something, in which case it's not really discretionary. It ceases to be something used to encourage good roleplaying and becomes a punishment for bad roleplaying. And I think the only real justification is that people think they deserve it. That doesn't seem like a good reason to me.
Britt 06-14-07, 05:51 PM	Ah, but what happens to unicorns when they die? They are mortal in that they can die, but they are not like men, who are, but for a few exceptions, mundane and tied to their physical existence. Unicorns are inherently magical beasts, quite different than mortal men... If they're native to the prime, they twitch and bleed for a while. After some time, they get cold and rigid, then they start smelling bad. Oh, their spirit goes to Elysium or whatever the CG plane for nature type beings is, just like a CG elf druid's spirit would do. The magical beast type doesn't say anything about not being mortal; it just says that they are like animals but can have an INT higher than 2 (like humans), might have EX or SU abilities (like humans), or might just look weird (like some humans). I think an Occult Slayer should be more likely to view magical beasts as a plague upon Oerth that needs to be purged (like how some play druids re: aberrations), rather than as immortal creatures that directly represent the gods and can be trusted to use magic responsibly.
GreatSiron 06-14-07, 05:52 PM	Here's how I think an Occult Slayer should be played: he hates magic, and he doesn't trust spellcasters. And he turns down every spell except healing, and then only when he's at about a 1/4 of his hit points. Why does he accept healing? Because it's the only way to keep fighting the fight. Does he like the fact he has to take healing spells? No, he loathes it, and he hates both the cleric and himself for having to use magic to keep fighting. It's a good source of internal conflict (damned if I do, damned if I don't.) Same goes for magic weapons. (But not stat boosters, he won't use them) And on his own magic, I think a line in the text says that a spellcaster that takes levels in Occult Slayer has seen the error of his ways, and may still use his magic, but prefers to win the fight by armed force alone. That means a ranger can still use a happy stick, a wizard can still buff himself, etc. But what the wizard won't do is use a scorcing ray or other damage spell, and the ranger won't use something non combat related like longstrider. And neither will use battlefield control, like grease or entangle.
King Kashue 06-14-07, 06:09 PM	Here's how I think an Occult Slayer should be played: Excellent...And when you play your occult slayer that way, I will be more than happy to commend you for it :D
cycloptic_squirrel 06-14-07, 06:10 PM	Hide glue is made out of knackered horses, not animals bred to the slaughter. Manure is a normal byproduct of animals living, and collecting it doesn't exploit the animal in the process. And violin strings don't need to be made of gut (it's sheep not cat, by the way), and in fact, the majority aren't currently (and I do know a professional violinist who will not use gut-core strings). Again, my fur coat example really doesn't need to be bypassed. A PETA member would not wear one, even if it was 100 years old... And with Occult slayers, we're talking about people who are so committed to a principle they're willing to kill over it (which exceeds 99.9% of PETA members). So if we say "that principle applies to all spellcasters", and do not allow for exceptions in that regard, I can't see how one can logically devise an in-game justification for other exceptions. The end product exists, regardless if someone utilizes it or not. I doubt an animal rights activist would purchase a bottle of animal glue, regardless of the source. A lot of manure comes from commercial feedlots, which most activists have a big problem with. My violin example was a top tier historical specimen that would have used catgut (which was made out of many animals), not a random violin for which they have many choices of string materials. As for your fur example, yes I ignore it, simply because it is a very visual product that gets a lot of focus. A lot of products or benefits are derived from animals that activists still choose to utilize because the harm is already done and would rather focus their efforts on activities seeking to prevent further abuse. In a similar manner, though I think it's perfectly reasonable for an Occult Slayer to use a +2 flaming longsword or belt of strength, I doubt one would see much difference in between casting a fireball and using a necklace of fireballs.
King Kashue 06-14-07, 06:14 PM	If they're native to the prime, they twitch and bleed for a while. After some time, they get cold and rigid, then they start smelling bad. Oh, their spirit goes to Elysium or whatever the CG plane for nature type beings is, just like a CG elf druid's spirit would do. As good a guess as mine... And since there really is nothing in the rules to support either position, I guess the only way to settle it is to go ask a unicorn ;) The magical beast type doesn't say anything about not being mortal; it just says that they are like animals but can have an INT higher than 2 (like humans), might have EX or SU abilities (like humans), or might just look weird (like some humans). I think an Occult Slayer should be more likely to view magical beasts as a plague upon Oerth that needs to be purged (like how some play druids re: aberrations), rather than as immortal creatures that directly represent the gods and can be trusted to use magic responsibly. It's not about representing the gods. It's about their existence being inherently magical. They're not spellcasters unless they take class levels, but they all can inherently wield relatively powerful magics. They're born with it, none of them lack it, it's as natural as breathing, eating, and leaving turds in the meadow... It's not analogous to a small fraction of mortal men taking a spellcasting class and messing about with powers they don't possess naturally, powers that they have to bend to their will and maintain control over.
King Kashue 06-14-07, 06:33 PM	The end product exists, regardless if someone utilizes it or not. I doubt an animal rights activist would purchase a bottle of animal glue, regardless of the source. Okay...but then you say: A lot of products or benefits are derived from animals that activists still choose to utilize because the harm is already done and would rather focus their efforts on activities seeking to prevent further abuse. Which is it? A lot of manure comes from commercial feedlots, which most activists have a big problem with. However, that's not inherent to the use of manure. If you're citing it as a product that is inherent problematic (which you are), it doesn't work. My violin example was a top tier historical specimen that would have used catgut (which was made out of many animals), not a random violin for which they have many choices of string materials. Not sure how much experience you've got in the realm, but the only people who really use full gut strings are people doing period music. For the concert musicians who play those million dollar Stradivarii and Amati, etc. they're using either gut-core strings or synthetic-core strings, and it's not as if the latter is just for ethical reasons (i.e., there's no inherent musicality to gut, as many people use Pirastro Oliv, a gut-core, as do the Obligato, a synthetic core)... Again, it's not a problem inherent to the item. There are no "non-magical" magic weapons. As for your fur example, yes I ignore it, simply because it is a very visual product that gets a lot of focus. You're suggesting a motivation based on public scrutiny and adherence to ideals only when someone will notice. In other words, you're suggesting hypocrisy. That's the very issue. If it's only the very obvious things that an Occult slayer avoids, then he is most certainly a hypocrite, which is exactly my problem. Allowing no exception in one instance, but allowing it in another without requires a substantive difference in those situations. I'm not seeing the substantive difference that some people are claiming. If the argument is that Occult slayers are required to disdain all magic, then they should have to disdain all magic. If you allow an exception in one instance, it's hypocrisy to refuse it in another without significant reason.
cycloptic_squirrel 06-14-07, 07:24 PM	Which is it? I'm suggesting that most activists wouldn't object too strenuously to anything made, oh say 50 years ago. However, that's not inherent to the use of manure. If you're citing it as a product that is inherent problematic (which you are), it doesn't work. Manure is a byproduct that can contribute toward the creation and upkeep of feedlots. Besides, according to this logic, leather wouldn't be the huge issue it is. Not sure how much experience you've got in the realm, but the only people who really use full gut strings are people doing period music. For the concert musicians who play those million dollar Stradivarii and Amati, etc. they're using either gut-core strings or synthetic-core strings, and it's not as if the latter is just for ethical reasons (i.e., there's no inherent musicality to gut, as many people use Pirastro Oliv, a gut-core, as do the Obligato, a synthetic core)... OK, so what's your point? Are you suggesting a vegan who gets the chance to play a Stradivarii is going to turn down that opportunity just because the current strings on it are catgut? You're suggesting a motivation based on public scrutiny and adherence to ideals only when someone will notice. In other words, you're suggesting hypocrisy. I am doing no such thing. I am suggesting that any logical animal rights activist would have little moral issue with wearing a 100 year old fur coat; I would think that they avoid it to prevent accusations of hypocrisy and to prevent others bringing it up as a red herring in morality debates. That's the very issue. If it's only the very obvious things that an Occult slayer avoids, then he is most certainly a hypocrite, which is exactly my problem. Allowing no exception in one instance, but allowing it in another without requires a substantive difference in those situations. I'm not seeing the substantive difference that some people are claiming. If the argument is that Occult slayers are required to disdain all magic, then they should have to disdain all magic. If you allow an exception in one instance, it's hypocrisy to refuse it in another without significant reason. I'm suggesting that an Occult Slayer actively seeks to prevent all further spellcasting. The acceptance of a spell is not does nothing to help the spellcaster see the error of their ways. It actually encourages them to do it more often. I can accept the fact that people need to get together with six random people and play nice, but that does not mean you cannot attempt to convert them to your enlightened point of view, nor entreat them to undertake activities that are exactly what you hate your enemies for. The Occult Slayer is not someone who hates magic; just those who cast spells. It's a fine distinction, but an important one.
King Kashue 06-14-07, 08:34 PM	The Occult Slayer is not someone who hates magic; just those who cast spells. It's a fine distinction, but an important one. Britt already said something along this line and it wasn't right then either...;) The flavor text says: Occult slayers believe that mortals are too irresponsible to wield magic, and those who dare to do so must be slain Occult slayers are opposed to any mortals using any magic. Not just spellcasters casting spells, but any mortals using magic... If the idea is to treat flavor text as rules text, one cannot just ignore the bits they don't like. If you're claiming it has some authoritative force, then it has that force, in all cases... If Spellcaster casting spell = magic use = bad, then mortals making and using magic items = magic use = bad. The distinction you and Britt are trying to draw is not in the text of the class. Now, I don't personally care. I'm all for devising unique and personal motivations for why an occult slayer acts as they do. But, if one is going to say "the text is significant to the point of making a ruling on it", then one ought to be logically consistent in one's rulings.
cycloptic_squirrel 06-14-07, 09:10 PM	Occult slayers believe that mortals are too irresponsible to wield magic, and those who dare to do so must be slain Occult slayers are opposed to any mortals using any magic. Not just spellcasters casting spells, but any mortals using magic... If the idea is to treat flavor text as rules text, one cannot just ignore the bits they don't like. If you're claiming it has some authoritative force, then it has that force, in all cases... If Spellcaster casting spell = magic use = bad, then mortals making and using magic items = magic use = bad. Mortals are too irresponsible to wield magic. I do not consider wielding a magical sword to be the same thing as wielding magic. Casting spells is. When you cast a spell you actively create an effect that was not there previously, which is dangerous. A magic item has it's powers already contained, it does a specific thing and does not grow in power. I do not care why an Occult Slayer hates casters or their particular plan for ridding the world of them, but to me the text is pretty clear that the hate runs deep. I would expect an Occult Slayer to treat powerful magic items with similar disdain, but at that point we're splitting hairs. He could have a hatred/fear/disdain for magic items as well as spellcasters, and though I would expect these to frequently overlap, the text says nothing of items. You could make the argument that wielding magic and wielding magic items are the same thing, but no other passage in the text suggests that this hatred of casters must extend to magic in general.
haferka 06-14-07, 09:27 PM	If they're native to the prime, they twitch and bleed for a while. ..... You describe it so well... but you forgot to mention the choice all creatures have upon death... ... Some would say blasphemy.. but i call it choice when the dead rise of their own will rather than to pass onto the afterlife. -Zan Lee (Druid and Death Cultist of the Bandit Kingdoms)
Britt 06-14-07, 10:10 PM	The one-eyed furry creature and I have the same view. I think the implication of the sentence is clearly referring to spellcasters, while you are stretching it to apply to anything related to magic. I don't think 'wield magic' means that.
King Kashue 06-14-07, 10:33 PM	The one-eyed furry creature and I have the same view. I think the implication of the sentence is clearly referring to spellcasters, while you are stretching it to apply to anything related to magic. I don't think 'wield magic' means that. And I don't see how the creation of magic items can be divorced from spellcasting. I don't see the logic in hating furriers but being fine with wearing a fur coat. ;)
cycloptic_squirrel 06-15-07, 02:03 AM	And I don't see how the creation of magic items can be divorced from spellcasting. While I don't think an Occult Slayer would commission the creation of a new magical item, I can't automatically say that they wouldn't. My knowledge of magic item creation is a little fuzzy, but from what I recall, you don't actually have to cast anything; you may even be able to take the view that it is a slow timed release, similar to the difference between a nuclear bomb and a nuclear power plant. You could certainly take the view that both are wrong, but it is possible to accept one and not the other. Besides, as been stated before, there is no benefit from throwing an item away; if there was an object able practice in its creation, its already happened. As for your fur coat analogy that you insist upon bringing up, I think most activists would agree that, while perhaps macabre, it would be acceptable to wear a fur coat made from animals that died naturally in the wild. It is the treatment of the animals created from the coat that is inhumane, not a something inherent with with the coat itself.
Gallaway 06-15-07, 02:15 AM	As for your fur coat analogy that you insist upon bringing up, I think most activists would agree that, while perhaps macabre, it would be acceptable to wear a fur coat made from animals that died naturally in the wild. It is the treatment of the animals created from the coat that is inhumane, not a something inherent with with the coat itself. Having had contact with actual activists at times they can be a wee bit more fanatical than you give them credit. There is also the argument that allowing the trading of xxxx of any type (substitute magic-items/furs/whatever for xxxx) encourages the activity generally and must be stopped. A real world example is the recent banning in many countries of cartoon pornography depicting various illegal acts.
King Kashue 06-15-07, 02:17 AM	Besides, as been stated before, there is no benefit from throwing an item away; if there was an object able practice in its creation, its already happened. But there is value in not using it. If I am an occult slayer, and I don't use that sword, someone else will, and that's one less sword that needs to be made. As for your fur coat analogy that you insist upon bringing up, I think most activists would agree that, while perhaps macabre, it would be acceptable to wear a fur coat made from animals that died naturally in the wild. It is the treatment of the animals created from the coat that is inhumane, not a something inherent with with the coat itself. PETA disagrees with you. To their view, anything made from animal products is bad. And the nutjobs who are willing to kill over animal rights/testing issues most certainly disagree with you (seeing as they go to extremes that even PETA condemns). And if we're taking the flavor text as authoritative, that's what we're dealing with, nutjobs who kill people because they use magic.
cycloptic_squirrel 06-15-07, 03:03 AM	There is also the argument that allowing the trading of xxxx of any type (substitute magic-items/furs/whatever for xxxx) encourages the activity generally and must be stopped. A real world example is the recent banning in many countries of cartoon pornography depicting various illegal acts. This is a very valid argument, but not one that must be agreed to. Especially for an xxx that someone doesn't think is wrong. Remember that I don't think an Occult Slayer must think the creation of magic items are bad, only that I see it as a very logical extension. PETA disagrees with you. To their view, anything made from animal products is bad. Not true. Check out their stance on free range chickens. And if we're taking the flavor text as authoritative, that's what we're dealing with, nutjobs who kill people because they use magic. You do realize anyone that takes a different view from you and/or use extreme measures isn't necessarily a nutjob, right? It is definitely a possibility, but not the only one. History, Living Greyhawk, and even contemporary society are all full of examples of extreme viewpoints held by people that are not nutjobs.
Britt 06-15-07, 03:10 AM	History, Living Greyhawk, and even contemporary society are all full of examples of extreme viewpoints held by people that are not nutjobs. Like me!...ok, not the best example...
King Kashue 06-15-07, 03:50 AM	You do realize anyone that takes a different view from you and/or use extreme measures isn't necessarily a nutjob, right? It is definitely a possibility, but not the only one. History, Living Greyhawk, and even contemporary society are all full of examples of extreme viewpoints held by people that are not nutjobs. First of all, it has nothing to do with "a different view from me"...I actually have no view point on the use of magic, since it, you know, doesn't exist. And second, extreme viewpoints are one thing...killing folks over them is another... Cite me, say, five examples of people who are so dedicated to a principle that they kill other people for violating that principle...Then show me how those five examples are also normal, sane, functioning members of society.
King Kashue 06-15-07, 03:53 AM	Oh, and Not true. Check out their stance on free range chickens. Their position is that a Vegan lifestyle, free from any animal products whatsoever is optimal, morally superior, and should be adopted by everyone. They may seek more limited and compromising ends in their political and social campaigns, but their explicit core tenet is one of the full elimination of animal products.
_metz_ 06-15-07, 03:56 AM	Here's how I think an Occult Slayer should be played: he hates magic, and he doesn't trust spellcasters. And he turns down every spell except healing, and then only when he's at about a 1/4 of his hit points. Why does he accept healing? Because it's the only way to keep fighting the fight. Does he like the fact he has to take healing spells? No, he loathes it, and he hates both the cleric and himself for having to use magic to keep fighting. It's a good source of internal conflict (damned if I do, damned if I don't.) Same goes for magic weapons. (But not stat boosters, he won't use them) And on his own magic, I think a line in the text says that a spellcaster that takes levels in Occult Slayer has seen the error of his ways, and may still use his magic, but prefers to win the fight by armed force alone. That means a ranger can still use a happy stick, a wizard can still buff himself, etc. But what the wizard won't do is use a scorcing ray or other damage spell, and the ranger won't use something non combat related like longstrider. And neither will use battlefield control, like grease or entangle. I would like to point out clerics are COMPLETELY different to arcane casters in an occult slayer's supposed mindset. A cleric's power is granted DIRECTLY from a god. It is NOT the mortal wielding magic as they choose, they are instruments for their gods. If you aregued all occult slayers had to hate clerics then you would get nowhere with me. And I am in the camp that Occult slayer PCs should be at least ANTI arcane magic in mortals. Furthermore, the occult slayer with the unicorn sorcerer cohort, is DIRECTED by the occult slayer, so mortal or not, its arcane powers at the behest of a mortal. I wouldn't like it one bit and would view it as the character optimizing and avoiding the inherent fluff of the class. I wouldn't dock roleplay experience though, as long as the character justified their unusual standing each game. (made it clear through their actions, interactions, and so on) If they didn't, then i would.
Gwumph 06-15-07, 03:56 AM	YOU ARE ALL NUTJOBS........ Here I am post a thread addressing a very CRITICAL flaw in Living Greyhawk. I mean the lack of +1 distance/Exit Wounding Atlatl in AR's is a serious crisis!!! Maybe not as serious as the lack of +1 Bashing/+1 keen Gnome Tortoise Blade. But it's serious stuff. And all you Nutjobs can talk about is fluff text/Falchion/Code of conduct crap..:rant: :banghead: Get it together people...discretionary XP is nothing in importance as to getting an +1 aquatic Khopesh on an AR. Focus gamers, Focus.........Opinion arguements on Fluff Text will continue on long after your bones are dust. But a +1 llusion Bane Sugliin might mean the difference between mortality and Demi-God!!!!:angel:
King Kashue 06-15-07, 04:00 AM	I would like to point out clerics are COMPLETELY different to arcane casters in an occult slayer's supposed mindset. A cleric's power is granted DIRECTLY from a god. It is NOT the mortal wielding magic as they choose, they are instruments for their gods. If you aregued all occult slayers had to hate clerics then you would get nowhere with me. Except your position directly conflicts with the class flavor text. It makes no distinction between divine and arcane magic, and includes the following line: Clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards - the primary targets of occult slayers (CW p. 66) There's no basis in the class text to support your position...
Gwumph 06-15-07, 04:12 AM	LOL Nice to see King Kashue ignore my little rant....... and to continue to argue the most useless of useless arguements.....Interpretation of Fluff-text.....Thats right folks, no longer are we arguing about rules interpretation, we have moved on!!! We are now arguing Fluff interpretation.......so please do continue, I know of quite a few feats that sound really good in the Fluff text....I am gonna use this thread on my DM to use some powerful Fluff text feats!!! :D
Madfox11 06-15-07, 04:39 AM	And as somebody already pointed out: the people that don't care about role-playing will actually cheer the DM that does not give them the RP xp. Getting less xp and the same gold is a benefit from a game mechanical optimization point of view.
_metz_ 06-15-07, 07:34 AM	Except your position directly conflicts with the class flavor text. It makes no distinction between divine and arcane magic, and includes the following line: Clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards - the primary targets of occult slayers (CW p. 66) There's no basis in the class text to support your position... Exactly, therein lies a contradiction. Fluff isn't all that matters. A good explanation of the prestige class and good roleplaying IS what matters. I am Happy to have dips if the character gave a reason for it. e.g: My character will be part Dread Pirate Part Legendary Captain part Scarlet Corsair. Not cos the abilities at early levels of all classes are good and have great synergy, but also because my character wants to be referred to as a pirate, have a clear Captain Rank, AND have established 'a fearsome reputation on the seas' It's silly to say - magic wielded by MORTALS is binding. Are you saying if a demon sorcerer turned up then your occult slayer won't fight it? It is immortal after all. It deserves its magic and the right to beat up your party members by that logic.
Timlagor 06-15-07, 10:39 AM	If you use a magic item then you are taking it out of the market of magic items making it more likely that someone else will have an extra one made. (and yeah I think it's silly to try to enforce such thins on OSs but if I was playing one I'd just shrug and live without the xp so long as that was all the GM tried to do)
Cardinal Teplin 06-15-07, 10:59 AM	There are two issues that I think are important here for how to determine "good" roleplaying in LG: First, every judgment has to be made against some sort of standard. You can't judge something against a formless idea of "your PC"; it has to be against someone's interpretation of what your PC should be: yours, mine, the hot dog vendor's, someone's. Second, in a Living campaign, we usually do not have the luxury of a rich background and history with particular characters. We don't know how you built your character, what your character has gone through, if you are playing consistently, or if you are just making something up to appease the GM and try to get roleplaying XP. Put those together and the only and best guide a GM should have as a default is his own opinion of how particular things should be roleplayed. Whoa! whoa! whoa! The standard for good roleplaying should not be "how the DM thinks this should be roleplayed." We're not comparing the player's fighter to the DM's ideal of how fighters ought to be played. I don't think anyone here would really get the image of an ideally roleplayed wizard in their mind and then rate all wizards based on that. Yet that is exactly what you are suggesting for the Occult Slayer. The standard should be based on the _effect_ of that roleplaying. Is the character portrayed seem like a well-rounded three dimensional character, or a lifeless collection of stats and abilities? Is the character entertaining to others, fun to roleplay with? And so on. Just because you feel you have to judge against a standard, it doesn't mean that that standard should be how you think someone else's character should react to a given circumstance/set of stats/situation. A standard of how coherent the character is, how well their character comes across, whether they helped improve the table experience, etc. allows people to create original characters that go beyond the DM's own ideas while still allowing the DM to rate the overall result. If there's nothing there, you are using the PrC purely for mechanical reasons and ignoring what I think is an important piece of RP background, imo. How important? I met a DM who felt quite strongly that people from my region (Onnwal), which had been invaded by the scarlet Brotherhood, should be prejudiced against those with blond hair. I was told my character was, and I quote "Not racist enough to come from Onnwal." Obviously the ongoing (as it was) and bitter invasion should be a factor in playing characters from the region, but I don't think that was sufficient for the DM to demand that everyone in the region play their reaction to the invasion in the same way. And I don't think that every Occult Slayer should be portraying the same character traits either. Present in some form, sure, but not the DM dictating how that trait should manifest. The only reasonable measure we have is what we as GMs think is good RP. You may not agree with us, but that doesn't make you right, nor does it make using your opinion as a measure more reasonable. I'm not suggesting a different interpretation of the class to be dictated to the players. I'm saying that enforcing your own interpretation of each character class, and rating roleplaying based on how far each player's character strays from the way you would play the same character class, is a very bad approach. It ignores the validity of any interpretation beyond the DM's own, encourages pandering to the DM's opinions, and discourages originality in characterisation. This isn't a question of who has the best interpretation for the class, it's about what works in LG.
King Kashue 06-15-07, 01:44 PM	LOL Nice to see King Kashue ignore my little rant....... Or I was posting while you were and didn't read it at all...You know, one or the other... and to continue to argue the most useless of useless arguements.....Interpretation of Fluff-text.....Thats right folks, no longer are we arguing about rules interpretation, we have moved on!!! We are now arguing Fluff interpretation.......so please do continue, I know of quite a few feats that sound really good in the Fluff text....I am gonna use this thread on my DM to use some powerful Fluff text feats!!! :D No, we're arguing about flavor text... You're ranting about us arguing about flavor text... At least we're still discussing the game ;)
King Kashue 06-15-07, 01:49 PM	Exactly, therein lies a contradiction. Fluff isn't all that matters. A good explanation of the prestige class and good roleplaying IS what matters. Yes...it's a contradiction between what the text actually says and what you claim it says :D You can play your Occult Slayer as someone who is okay with divine magic and has problems with arcane magic. I'd be fine with it, but then again, I'm not the one saying there is a "proper way" to play the class. However, your contention that the class text itself makes a distinction between the two sorts is demonstrably false... It's silly to say - magic wielded by MORTALS is binding. Are you saying if a demon sorcerer turned up then your occult slayer won't fight it? It is immortal after all. It deserves its magic and the right to beat up your party members by that logic. False analogy and strawman. Impressive :D I'd kill the demon because he's a demon and trying to kill me first. His classes have nothing to do with it. Having one reason to kill folks doesn't preclude having other reasons (which is what your goofy analogy suggests).
solbergb 06-15-07, 02:38 PM	to the original poster. Sorry about participating in the thread hijack. Of course it is easy to apologize when I've already said my piece on that topic. As for the original thread - I think the trend to upgrade favors is the only real way to solve the problem, given the NPC pricing guidelines. NPC's have crap equipment because they have very little cash compared to PC's, it's very rare you want it by the time you encounter it.
ithardin 06-16-07, 07:40 PM	I personally like earning "the favor of X." It seems a much more personal reward then "kill them, loot their corpses and then fence their stuff." I once used a favor to rescue an entire table from a looming TPK thanks to an entomber at APL4! I have a favor from a Regional Special module that allows my Dwarven Cleric to play mods in regions that border the Lortmil Mountains for one less TU cost then normal (in essence making them "regional" in TU cost for him). Ian In re the Occult Slayer...he he he. I posted this on the Occult Slayer thread, but thought I would cut & paste it here too. "Harlech, the example Occult Slayer from "Complete Adventurer," pg. 68 is statted as using: 1. A +1 Bastard Sword 2. A +2 Composite Longbow [+4 Str bonus] Extrapolating from the picture of Herlech (pg. 67) it looks like he is wearing a chain shirt. He is statted with a Dex of 16 and his AC is: AC 19 Touch 13 Flatfooted 16 Sooooo, I would posit he is wearing a +2 chain shirt. AC 19 [10 + 3(Dex) + 4(armor) + 2(magic)] So it looks like even though Harlech hates spellcasters, etc. he doesn't mind using and wearing magic items. Ian
Cardinal Teplin 06-20-07, 12:45 PM	As for the original thread - I think the trend to upgrade favors is the only real way to solve the problem, given the NPC pricing guidelines. NPC's have crap equipment because they have very little cash compared to PC's, it's very rare you want it by the time you encounter it. The problem with this is that crafting weapons becomes a fruitless proposition. I was trying to design a character with craft arms & armour, but gave up when I realised that almost all arms and armour upgrades in the game are gained through favours, and thus not available for cradfting...
solbergb 06-20-07, 12:52 PM	Hm, then I'd say the problem is with the craft arms and armor restrictions. Seriously - the number of players that benefit from the favor system of weapon/armor upgrades is much, much greater than the number that qualify for craft arms/armor, much less who would actually take the feat. I frankly don't see why a CRAA type person couldn't go chat with the favor owner and learn how to do a specific thing. Perhaps in the next LGCS there could be some allowance for that. Even now, the favor writers could say "and this favor can be exchanged for the learning the secrets to craft one of these upgrades yourself" to be more inclusive to CRAA people.
Britt 06-20-07, 02:42 PM	I can almost guarantee that magic item crafting will not get better in future LGCS incarnations. It could happen, but I doubt it. CMI (is that the right acronym?) messes with our systems too much for us to want to encourage it.
solbergb 06-20-07, 03:30 PM	ok then the answer is clear. Encourage favors that still control what is given out, but don't exclude the crafters. This is done at the author and editor level. A fairly common approach is to put the item on the AR, but only get access to it if you pleased some NPC or other.
Britt 06-20-07, 03:39 PM	ok then the answer is clear. Encourage favors that still control what is given out, but don't exclude the crafters. This is done at the author and editor level. A fairly common approach is to put the item on the AR, but only get access to it if you pleased some NPC or other. That would be a very clear answer...if we wanted to tweak up crafting from its current state. And I actively edit away what you are talking about, since item access through favors is not the same as Items Found. Items Found should refer to items you actually find during the adventure.
solbergb 06-20-07, 04:23 PM	So regional and core and metaregional access stuff won't be found except in the top box? Because favors make far more sense for that stuff. Adventure access is what you loot from badguys. (ok not quite always, I've seen one module where the adventure access stuff was "what was on sale in this big city for a few days" and a few where it was tied to a travelling merchant or something) Not arguing or debating. Just trying to understand the direction.
Britt 06-20-07, 04:39 PM	Favors or NPCs can change the access of the bottom box. An NPC might offer to hold items for you, or find them for you later, or something of that sort. And this is just how I do things, not all of LG.
Timlagor 06-20-07, 06:04 PM	My understanding is that Britt's comments here aonly apply to the IUZ metaregion since he doesn't do the Cores or anything outside that area (module-wise) ..unless he's involved in ADPs as well as being the poor guy that gets all the rules-hassle ;).
Britt 06-20-07, 06:13 PM	Yeah, I just stick to my IUZ stuff and rules. ADPs are primarily Tim and Pieter with a dash of Steven and Colleen, if memory serves.
solbergb 06-20-07, 07:53 PM	Favors or NPCs can change the access of the bottom box. An NPC might offer to hold items for you, or find them for you later, or something of that sort. And this is just how I do things, not all of LG. Ok...but that's essentially meeting the needs of the crafter guy, as long as something interesting is "found" in the adventure. I mean, I kind of like cleaning out the demons from the Mage Acadamy and getting negotiated item access from them whenever I show up and demand to buy something in recompense, plus an immediate cash reward. After all, those demons aren't carrying any loot so the usual "hope the bad guys hire rich assassins" strategy to get wealth in the BK isn't gonna work here :) (sorry...just remembering a BK module where our level 10 party agreed to be hired as bodyguards for prices measured in silvers per day because we KNEW the guy we were escorting had many, many wealthy enemies....)
Britt 06-20-07, 08:04 PM	(sorry...just remembering a BK module where our level 10 party agreed to be hired as bodyguards for prices measured in silvers per day because we KNEW the guy we were escorting had many, many wealthy enemies....) Hahah, 5-08? I wrote that. I love how lawful Zeech is :) You must have been playing down though, that was APLs 2-8.
Madfox11 06-21-07, 03:43 AM	My opinion on magic item crafting actually does not differ that much from Britt...
solbergb 06-21-07, 07:12 PM	Hahah, 5-08? I wrote that. I love how lawful Zeech is :) You must have been playing down though, that was APLs 2-8. Maybe it was an APL8 party. It probably was actually. Anyway, far too powerful to work for silvers. The NPC's were a lot of fun in that module. My character was level 8-9 during that convention and I bounced back and forth between APL8-10.
Britt 06-21-07, 07:14 PM	Hey, that's standard merc pay for that level, straight out of the DMG! :)
solbergb 06-21-07, 07:15 PM	Which is why most PC's are not, in fact, mercenaries. OTOH, mercenaries don't get into 3 life and death battles every week....
Baracq 06-25-07, 11:15 PM	And if we assume someone is playing appropriately, when do we ever not award discretionary RP XP? The guy that acts inconsistently? Maybe they are chaotic. The guy that is laful and acts inconsistently? Maybe they have some weird personal code that makes perfect sense but we don't know or understand. With this approach, discretionary roleplay XP becomes pretty much a right, unless you violate a code of conduct or something, in which case it's not really discretionary. It ceases to be something used to encourage good roleplaying and becomes a punishment for bad roleplaying. And I think the only real justification is that people think they deserve it. That doesn't seem like a good reason to me. Honestly, I think you're misinterpreting the concept of role-playing XP. Sure, there's a rules element of "how true did the character stay to his roots" in the case of strict classes like the Paladin, but I see RPXP as more along the lines of a "how well did the player interact with the other players at the table?" or "how well did the PC interact with the NPCs in moving the module along?" In cases where Wizards thought it necessary that characters abide strictly by flavor text, they provided us with penalties for the instances in which those rules are broken. And, to tell you the truth, by giving "power gamers" less roleplaying XP, you're playing right into their hands. I mean, I'm not a power gamer - but if you wanted to short my Occult Slayer some XP and give me a little extra gold for my trouble, I certainly wouldn't stop you. If you tell me your an ex-Occult Slayer, having already seen the error of your fanatical ways, great, as long as you aren't taking any more levels in Occult Slayer. If I ever see that character with more levels and no fantastic story, that character is never getting discretionary RP XP from me ever again :p So, for all Occult Slayers out there (I've actually never seen another one): Finish the PrC full level progression, then play with this guy. No worries, you've repented!
Baracq 06-25-07, 11:21 PM	It's discretionary xp and my discretion is that they should hate spellcasters, based on the flavor text. I'm not taking away class abilities or anything, which is what a code of conduct would do. In 3.0, it was my opinion that rangers that didn't hate their favored enemy also weren't roleplaying properly. They changed that in 3.5, but I think they should change the name of the ability. And on spellcasters as occult slayers, I hate those, too. You can have the ability to cast and not do it. When I read your first sentence, the first image that sprung to mind was that of a 5-year-old boy yanking a toy away from his younger sister because it was his to take away. Not meaning to sound like a jerk, it just seemed appropriate. :P (Sorry for the double-post, but I just now started reading the LG boards after leaving the CO)
paigeoliver 06-25-07, 11:37 PM	I get extra pluses. Until my very last module the only weapons I owned better than a plain +1 was a +2 longbow and a +2 lance. Just bought a +1 undead-bane longbow which is my first ever non-plus enhancement. That seems to be a decent amount of hyperbole Britt. Much more reasonably, 18 start str, bumped to 20, with rage to 24. +1 Weapon (honestly, who gets additional pluses as opposed to other enchants), haste (to allow for more pa and an additional high percentage attack), and bard song, Weapon Spec and Melee Weapon Mastery. Assuming one other +1, either STR or enchant.
Eric Anondson 06-26-07, 02:36 AM	Honestly, I think you're misinterpreting the concept of role-playing XP.He's not stomping on the concept of roleplaying XP. He's exercising "discretion". It is, after all, the discretionary roleplaying XP award.In cases where Wizards thought it necessary that characters abide strictly by flavor text, they provided us with penalties for the instances in which those rules are broken.Let's not forget that Complete Warrior was the first post-3.5 builder book. WotC has refined PrC presentation over the course of years since then.And, to tell you the truth, by giving "power gamers" less roleplaying XP, you're playing right into their hands. I mean, I'm not a power gamer - but if you wanted to short my Occult Slayer some XP and give me a little extra gold for my trouble, I certainly wouldn't stop you.Ain't that the truth. Predictably witholding XP from powergamers is like putting back the old LGCS multiclassing penalty rule where PCs took the XP hit but kept getting normal gold, which opened multiclassing abuse as a way to slow retirement and accumulate more gp.
clannagh 06-26-07, 03:35 AM	.Ain't that the truth. Predictably witholding XP from powergamers is like putting back the old LGCS multiclassing penalty rule where PCs took the XP hit but kept getting normal gold, which opened multiclassing abuse as a way to slow retirement and accumulate more gp. What would cause some consternation for the powergaming fraternity would be roleplay mods where: 1. A lot of the gold for the mod was achieved in roleplay style encounters (awards for performances, gifts from admirers, rewards for saving cats from trees .. anything but loot dropped by dead bad guys). 2. Really poor roleplay resulted in something like party get it all wrong and get captured and TU/gear loss. 3. Fighting rather than diplomacy loses you the treasure (maybe the town guard confiscate the loot as a fine for disturbing the peace or maybe the treasure is actually a reward somehow connected with keeping the peace) Possibly just a wee bit controversial though.
copper_wyrmling 06-26-07, 04:04 AM	What would cause some consternation for the powergaming fraternity would be roleplay mods where: 1. A lot of the gold for the mod was achieved in roleplay style encounters (awards for performances, gifts from admirers, rewards for saving cats from trees .. anything but loot dropped by dead bad guys). 2. Really poor roleplay resulted in something like party get it all wrong and get captured and TU/gear loss. 3. Fighting rather than diplomacy loses you the treasure (maybe the town guard confiscate the loot as a fine for disturbing the peace or maybe the treasure is actually a reward somehow connected with keeping the peace) Possibly just a wee bit controversial though. I think what would concern me about such mods is that I've met GMs who do their very best to "win" by making sure the PCs lose. (As an example, I know of a GM who allowed one of the PCs to destroy the key plot item and escape without ever giving the other PCs a chance to intervene, and then declared the scenario over, about 30 minutes into the game, despite the module giving explicit instructions on how to resolve that situation.) Tying lots of gold and xp to something purely subjective like how well the PCs roleplay seems to be asking for abuse. Also, some people confuse roleplaying with investigation / diplomacy. There's not any more roleplay in "I roll a diplomacy check, I get 40" than there is in "I hit AC 35 for 60 damage". Tying lots of gold / XP to whether someone can make a single skill check is just as bad as tying it to whether somebody can do a specified amount of a certain type of damage with a single attack.
Mattastrophic 06-26-07, 09:43 AM	What would cause some consternation for the powergaming fraternity would be roleplay mods where... The belief that roleplaying and "powergaming" are inherently separate is actually a very common misconception. Also, just because someone takes ranks in social skills does not make someone a roleplayer. To get back on track, I'm of the belief that the XP rewards should be objective-based rather than kill-the-badguys-based. It would make LG less about hack-n-slash by giving equal recognition to non-hack-n-slash thinking. -Matt once skill-checked an entire module, and got rewarded with less than 1/4 of the XP and GP. *sigh*
_metz_ 06-26-07, 10:35 AM	The belief that roleplaying and "powergaming" are inherently separate is actually a very common misconception. Also, just because someone takes ranks in social skills does not make someone a roleplayer. I totally agree with this. I have met several people who can show me background for their character, their skills written down that demonstrate this background, a picture they spent 1 hour finding on the net cos it was JUST right. They then proceed to hardly talk all game and often just roll dice. I see roleplaying as INTERACTING. a funny dumb fighter can be very amusing. A separate example: The Int 6 fighter who puts the key in the lock of the case then hits it with his axe cos he was told "put the key in, then open the box" is more amusing than the character who insists on not buffing another character cos of background racial hatred etc. One is active interaction and playing a role out, one is merely following a FORMULA and not actually impressing me. I know several players who do this. Situation A comes up and they always do the same thing/say the same thing, and to them that makes them better role players.
gomeztoo 06-26-07, 11:35 AM	I see roleplaying as INTERACTING. a funny dumb fighter can be very amusing. Yes, especially if you get to throw them into the pool with the princess... ;)
cycloptic_squirrel 06-26-07, 12:35 PM	I think what would concern me about such mods is that I've met GMs who do their very best to "win" by making sure the PCs lose. (As an example, I know of a GM who allowed one of the PCs to destroy the key plot item and escape without ever giving the other PCs a chance to intervene, and then declared the scenario over, about 30 minutes into the game, despite the module giving explicit instructions on how to resolve that situation.) :P Silly DMs. Don't they realize the only way they can claim a win is by TPK? :rolleyes: Sigh, where's my favorite Floridian player when you need him?
Vamroc 06-26-07, 11:03 PM	First off: Let me state for the most part, mod writing has been great and this Living Campaign could not happen without your efforts. :D I am at the level where my character is thinking of upgrading his magical weapons. Under the new LGSC, if you find a Frost Battle-axe, and have access on your AR, you can upgrade your +1 Battle-axe to a +1 Frost Battle-axe. And yet when I search that characters AR, there is not a single enhanced magical battle-axe. In fact when I searched every AR I have ever played or run at all APL's there was not a single magically enhanced Battle-axe. While I do not have as many AR's as some (my list contains 45) this is what I found. So out of 45 AR's at all APL's -Only 2 non-PHB magically enhanced weapon (Cutlass/Elven Thinblade). All those other weapons from all those other books, not a single mention. -Of the PHB weapons, the following weapons have could NOT be found once as magically enhanced..... Morningstar..........Longspear.......... .......Quarterstaff Handaxe..............Kukri.............. ..........Light Pick Battle-axe...........Flail..................... .....Heavey Pick Warhammer..........Glaive............... .......Guisarme Halberd................Lance............ ..........Ranseur Scythe.................Bastard Sword..........Double Sword Dire Flail...............Double Orc Axe.........Gnome hooked hamm and any ranged weapon other than a Long or Short bow. What I am saying writers, is there are enough longswords/rapiers/Greataxe/Greatclub/dagger/short sword/spiked chain enhanced weapons out there. Change up the villian weapons, there is probably well over a hundred different weapons available for use out there, but those 7 above weapons make up well over 80% of the magically enhanced weapons found. Have your Orcs carry Warmaces 2-handed, or have them use mauls. Have your rogue/fighters use a light pick or kukri. The Bright Sands series didn't feature a single exotic weapon from the sandstorm book. You guys are doing a great job, just leave the Longswords at home and dust off that Battle-axe. Cheers Gwumph p.s. I know that somewhere out there that someone will be able to point out a mod where a Battle-axe etc... special weapon can be found......But all I am trying to do is point out the massive lack of variety in weapons on AR's. Why should writers change to weapons that take up feat slots. Just to kill us in a way that is significantly less effective. Wanna fight my LVL2 (Lord Dire) Spellsword with a Kukri. He's armed with his trusty +1 Adamantine Great Sword. Whats a Kukri do a D4 or D6 mabey versus my 2D6+1+ strength. I didn't even add my Blader Smite ability and Arcane Strike. Would you like the RPGA to start saying you have access to only the items you can find in a mod. That meaning if you don't get it in a mod you can't buy it even if it's in the PHB or the DMG. Because thats the only way all the Exotic Weapons can be represented.
_metz_ 06-26-07, 11:40 PM	Why should writers change to weapons that take up feat slots. Just to kill us in a way that is significantly less effective. Wanna fight my LVL2 (Lord Dire) Spellsword with a Kukri. He's armed with his trusty +1 Adamantine Great Sword. Whats a Kukri do a D4 or D6 mabey versus my 2D6+1+ strength. I didn't even add my Blader Smite ability and Arcane Strike. You have a level 2 Character with a +1 Adamantine greatsword? kudos. (I'm kidding, its just your post is hard to track lol) And kukris can be useful, it varies from character to character. this isn't a 'which weapon is better thread'. It's a 'we want more variety thread'. I personally would love to see more great axes, Dwarven Waraxes (haven't seen any of these), Glaives, Halberds, (Yay Halberds) Cutlasses (finally got a bunch of these so am happy) and Bastard Swords with cool abilities. I KNOW and am FULLY AWARE that spiked chains, greatswords and longswords are the norm. Doesn't mean I have to use them. That is what the original poster is getting at, and I totally agree. I do recognise that mod writers usually want to maximize their NPCs effectiveness, but I think flavour should be taken into account. (looks at broken Orc fighters with spiked chains in a known mod) As for the second part of your post, I have no idea what you are going on about, can you make it a bit clearer? (I suggest breaking up your post, using correct syntax and grammar might help) Would you like the RPGA to start saying you have access to only the items you can find in a mod. That meaning if you don't get it in a mod you can't buy it even if it's in the PHB or the DMG. Because thats the only way all the Exotic Weapons can be represented. As far as I can tell thats EXACTLY what the RPGA does when it comes to anything other than +1 standard weapons.
bitznarf 06-27-07, 12:16 AM	I do recognise that mod writers usually want to maximize their NPCs effectiveness, but I think flavour should be taken into account. (looks at broken Orc fighters with spiked chains in a known mod) Just disagreeing with your characterization of those NPCs as 'broken' here. ;) Spiked chains aren't broken, broken is when the NPCs get an extra warrior level for no reason. In my opinion.[/hijack]
_metz_ 06-27-07, 12:34 AM	Just disagreeing with your characterization of those NPCs as 'broken' here. ;) Spiked chains aren't broken, broken is when the NPCs get an extra warrior level for no reason. In my opinion.[/hijack] Nah they were broken cos they had like 15 grand of Equipment on them, were min maxed 28 point buys, and they essentially had a VERY favorable situation that wasn't taken into account in EL. The spiked chains just demonstrated the use of min maxing and optimisation. [/unhijack]
Gwumph 06-27-07, 12:43 AM	Vamroc I think Metz explained me right. Many weapons don't take feat slots. A Ransuer is as easy to use as a Great Sword for a fighter. A light mace is as easy to use as a Rapier for a Rogue. WOTC splat books also include a number of martial weapons. Just change up the weapons for if no other reason then variety is the spice of life!!
Redfist 06-30-07, 10:56 PM	Not all mod writers stick to the "regularly used weapons". Keep your eye out, they pop out now and again. --Gordon
control freak 07-02-07, 10:56 PM	I do recognise that mod writers usually want to maximize their NPCs effectiveness, but I think flavour should be taken into account. (looks at broken Orc fighters with spiked chains in a known mod) we walked throu said mod but more due to DM fally for one instance (rage charge + 12 something to hit against the lvl 1 squishy healer with AC 11 and with min damage he would come close to killing him) and rolls a 1 and that happened all day he had +11 to hit against me and rolled an 8 (ac 20 with rogue) personaly i find many mods that are OVERWHELMING to some people easy simply because i tend to use squishie high damage PCs if they fail a save the battle is effectivly won (and knowing about half the DMs that i play with i just cast my spell and its over(the other half however theres 1 DM i will not sit at a table with EVER he rolled 21 consecutive 20s in frount of us(the odds are like 1 in 10000000 or something we actualy calculated it out) and i finaly ended the enounter with a 20 and 19 to conferm of my own but after that we agreed we will NEVER sit at a table with him again as the DM, not because he is a bad person or a bad DM but simply because we dont want our characters killed if any one else has that happen to them a stupid amount of high rolls makes it funny (and he swiched dice 3 times when rolling thats why we were so amazed) although he was level 2 in apl 6, yah he was easly the MVP of the day critting everything with his falchion, rage full power attack +5 str kills alot of stuff FAST in any event alot of times the mod comes down to the DMs day, if they rolling good your screwed even if your higher then the APL, if REALLY bad then you can play up and never ever die :D personaly i know its a little metagaming but if my DM is mad first thing i do is try to talk him down prior to the game and make sure that he isnt in a bad mood because remember this, DMs in bad moods tend to kill more PCs then happy DMs :D make those "Knowlage: happy DM" checks at the start of each game guys :P some times i even ask the dm to roll a few d20s b4 the game starts :)
solbergb 07-03-07, 10:19 AM	The only thing wrong with the broken orc fighters and barbarians in that module is the writer didn't use elite array like he was supposed to and they had too much wealth for their level (and they appear to have spent all of that wealth on their weapons) As a result, both writer guidelines are being enforced more rigorously this year, across the board. Classed orcs are supposed to have high strength mods and hit hard. This shouldn't be a news flash. Just not quite as hard as they hit in that module. Heck the spike chain weilders didn't even have improved trip till the later APL's where they actually weren't much of a challenge, and they waste a round trying to trip people anyway by their tactics, relying on AOO's to do any damage. Their trip checks were not so high that this was more reliable than just hitting people with their massive strength mods and some power attack..
control freak 07-03-07, 02:33 PM	personaly i got no problems with 28 point NPCs but i think that it should be restricted to buying a 16 in a stat no more because that last modifier point is HUGE at lower apls, and for casters