Post/Author/DateTime	Post
sellout23 12-19-06, 05:49 PM	I herd a rumor that the circle will be banning 80% of the PRC's and Feats(not spells) from the Complete Mage Expansion Book. My source Stated that most of the feats and prestige classes from Complete Mage are over powerd or broken, especially the Master specialist. Can anyone explain to me why this is so? As i do not see anything broken about the Master specialist or any other prc's or feats??? As of right now, Im pretty sure almost 90% of Prc's and feats from the complete series books are allowed!!!
Britt 12-19-06, 05:52 PM	I think you need to stop trusting your source, as we haven't decided anything yet :p We've only barely talked about it for a few minutes, and really only about a few things.
jstorrie 12-19-06, 06:14 PM	Complete Mage is comparitively overpowered, in relation to the other Completes, and I wouldn't be very surprised if large amounts of it didn't make it into the campaign. But as Britt has pointed out, your rumours are jumping the gun a little. (Though if you can't see how the material in that book is much more powerful than current LG rules items, I don't think you're looking hard enough...)
Sieylianna 12-19-06, 07:59 PM	Can anyone explain to me why this is so? As i do not see anything broken about the Master specialist or any other prc's or feats??? If you don't see why the classes are broken, you need to look at it again. Ed
Morgen 12-19-06, 08:21 PM	Master Specialist just looks like it's overpowered. You have to read the usable 1-3/day part of the text for most of the abilities. A lot of that book is just kind of extra wizardy stuff. It'd be nice to see some of the feats not banned, but the reserve feats are a bit much considering the ususally set amount of encounters inside of the average LG mod. I would like to push for Ultimate Magus to be made core though, I've got this great idea for a bard/wizard..... >.>
_m_ 12-19-06, 08:22 PM	indeed. you can't say: almost all of them are fair. nor can you say almost all a broken. its situational. they'll look at them, see if they're fair, then decide.
sellout23 12-19-06, 09:11 PM	ok after looking over the Complete Mage again i've noticed a few things: 1. Master Specialist, i like the fact that your have to be commited as early as 4th level with no good PRC Abilities until 8th level. You can also finish all 10 levels of the Prestige class before level 15!! (great for Grayhack) 2. Abujurant Champion, Full BAB/Full spell casting/Crazy AC(once they make Mage armor an abujuration spell). Great AC Combos like Abujurant savant(More AC), Arcane Disciple Feat (get barkin skin) and polymorph green hag (32AC, starting(assuming 5th level abujurant champion ) yikes!!!) This class is incredible if not broken, but hey! Arcane hierophants were allowed!!! 3. Lots of PRC's that have to be banned in Greyhack. Warlock PRC's,Wu Jen PRC's Etc... 4. Reserve Feats, why play a sorcerer when you can play a wizard(Relavent spellcasting attribute, Intelligence) with reserve feats and a few Pearls of Power? Wow!!! i guess i see why a lot of this is going to be limited or restricted. Complete Mage is a power gamers dream Book!
Britt 12-19-06, 09:13 PM	What is Greyhack?
Genghis Cohen 12-19-06, 09:15 PM	What is Greyhack?Its a D&D campaign setting for bitter adventurers.
Britt 12-19-06, 09:16 PM	If they were actually bitter, they wouldn't play, unless they were sadomasochists. I'm betting it's more a campaign setting for adventurers that like to complain ;)
Arvagor 12-19-06, 09:38 PM	[...]2. Abujurant Champion, Full BAB/Full spell casting/Crazy AC(once they make Mage armor an abujuration spell). [...]If it hasn't changed via errata in the 3 years since PHB v3.5 was published, I don't think it's going to change now... (Although, now that I think about it, it's about time we see some spells that protect against small monkeys wearing funny hats... ;) )
Haro 12-19-06, 09:41 PM	I picture Greyhack as the campaign setting a bunch of tabloid journalists play, sitting around the table with fedoras sitting high on their heads, crumpled polyester suit jacket draped over the back of their chair and a cigarette with an impossibly long ash hanging out the corner of their mouths... ...or maybe I'm thinking of the Greynoir setting? Joe
sellout23 12-19-06, 09:42 PM	If they were actually bitter, they wouldn't play, unless they were sadomasochists. I'm betting it's more a campaign setting for adventurers that like to complain ;) GrayHack is the name one of my friends gave Grayhawk(i think its hilarious). He thinks the only way to expreince D&D is through home campaigns and that the RPGA is home to a bunch of rules hungry power gamers. Yeah, he failed the new GM's test something like 5 times, Lame!!
_m_ 12-19-06, 10:33 PM	(Although, now that I think about it, it's about time we see some spells that protect against small monkeys wearing funny hats... ;) ) hey! thats not fair! gnomes are people too!
Arvagor 12-19-06, 11:11 PM	hey! thats not fair! gnomes are people too!I wasn't thinking gnomes... (apparently the shadows you're so cozy with, _m_, have dulled your sense for subtle pop-culture references... :P )
_m_ 12-19-06, 11:26 PM	I wasn't thinking gnomes... (apparently the shadows you're so cozy with, _m_, have dulled your sense for subtle pop-culture references... :P ) indeed. actually the special cert i got specifically said i had to be less happy and less sociable.
JJeff 12-20-06, 12:47 AM	At least it's better than the term some people are calling Greyhawk in Singapore (those that find the game too structed and inhibiting): Gay-Hawk
catsclaw 12-20-06, 02:02 AM	GrayHack is the name one of my friends gave Grayhawk(i think its hilarious).There's nothing that quite drives home the humor in a pun like congratulating yourself on how clever it is, is there?
KShaver 12-20-06, 11:40 AM	4. Reserve Feats, why play a sorcerer when you can play a wizard(Relavent spellcasting attribute, Intelligence) with reserve feats and a few Pearls of Power? The reserve feat nukes hit like quadrapalegic kittens. Maybe a substitution for having a few cheap damage scrolls on you, but the effect is worthless when you need the big guns...the secondary ability of +caster level is far more powerfull than the unlimited nukes. Admittedly there are a few other things that I'm a bit leary about, but it certainly isn't the reserve feats. Look at the new CMag fiendish/fey heritage lines and compare them to previous CArc fiendish/celestial sorcerer only heritage lines, not there I see a problem.
Lomiat 12-20-06, 05:29 PM	The reserve feat nukes hit like quadrapalegic kittens. Maybe a substitution for having a few cheap damage scrolls on you, but the effect is worthless when you need the big guns...the secondary ability of +caster level is far more powerfull than the unlimited nukes. Admittedly there are a few other things that I'm a bit leary about, but it certainly isn't the reserve feats. Look at the new CMag fiendish/fey heritage lines and compare them to previous CArc fiendish/celestial sorcerer only heritage lines, not there I see a problem. The reserve damage spells are relatively weak, but the reserve teleport effects are... um... Nothing. Triad members please look the other way until after you make the feats core... [Jedi mind trick: "These are not the broken feats you want to restrict..."]
Madfox11 12-21-06, 04:42 AM	The reserve feats in principal look reasonable to me, although I find the caster level boosts somewhat odd. They name it, and than in the generic description of the feats they specifically mention they do stack. I do agree that some of the specific reserve feats look too good to be true... As for the prestige classes, some are definitely good, but is a prestige class like the super specialist really that much better than Fatespinner?
PaulH 12-21-06, 01:01 PM	Hi Ultimate Magus is my favourite - bit like Mystic Theurge, bit with pure arcane power. You could even complete the entire PrC before retiring! The only problem I see is the Expanded Spell Knowledge ability, and the Grey Elf Warmage/Wizard combo. (Adding spells from Wiz spell book to Warmage spells known). Though the pure Warmage gets to add spells at 3rd, 6th, 11th, etc. You would also lose some of the Warmages 'Sudden' metamagic feats. Cheers Paul H
LachlarlanIII 12-21-06, 01:04 PM	The only two aspects of the Master Specialist I would call overpowering are Master Illusionist and Master Diviner. Master Illusionist makes his "save-or-die" spells much harder to resist. Combined with a gnome this could be particularly powerful. The Master Diviner (at 13th lvl minimum) gains True Sight when he casts Detect Magic. I would personally like to play an Ultimate Magus. It's power scales similarly with other Theurge-like classes, and only ends up with 6th level spells by the same level a Mystic Theurge would have 7th.
Japangirl 12-21-06, 05:34 PM	Master Abjurationist is pretty powerful. The level seven ability (moderate) is effectively evasion + Mettle, since on any save for partial spell you take no effect. Also, you waltz right into Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil with the PrC (gives Greater Spell Focus (Abjuration) and Skill Focus (Spellcraft) for free). Of course, you do have to pick between evasion + mettle or the anti-magic bubble . . .
Morgen 12-21-06, 06:45 PM	Don't confuse Gnome Illusionists with Grey Elf Wizards with 20+ starting Intellegence. We'd much rather have 16 con. Tumblepaw Tanglebang. 13HP and growing!
Mommy was an Orc 12-22-06, 12:17 PM	As for the prestige classes, some are definitely good, but is a prestige class like the super specialist really that much better than Fatespinner? You have noted that a Master Specialist(Conjuration) casts standard action Conjuration spells as swift spells at 10th level, right? Aka Orbs...Isn't that right back to the problems with Haste 3.0? Abjurant Champ's problems I've already noted - far too easy to get into, and there are a lot of builds in play who would benefit greatly from it - a lot of people take a level of Sorc or Wizard to exploit that reroll a save card. Abjurant Champ is basically free levelling up of that caster level at no penalty.
Arvagor 12-22-06, 06:36 PM	You have noted that a Master Specialist(Conjuration) casts standard action Conjuration spells as swift spells at 10th level, right? Aka Orbs...Isn't that right back to the problems with Haste 3.0?Not having played under 3.0, I can't comment on the comparison, but what's overpowering about two orbs a round? That's no different than casting a normal one and a quickened one, and at 13th+ level, it doesn't seem like quickened spells should be unexpected...
Lomiat 12-23-06, 12:26 AM	Not having played under 3.0, I can't comment on the comparison, but what's overpowering about two orbs a round? That's no different than casting a normal one and a quickened one, and at 13th+ level, it doesn't seem like quickened spells should be unexpected... It's not different if we were talking about casting an Orb and a Lesser Orb, but the class gains the ability to cast two full-sized Orbs. Or, more precisely, at 10th level, a wizard who has 5th-level spells could cast Evard's quickened and then drop a Cloudkill in the center on the same round. Normally, that would require, at minimum, an 8th level slot for the quickened Evard's. So this puts the caster 5 levels ahead of the minimum alternative... Not at all powerful... A 5-level tactical boost...
Arvagor 12-23-06, 12:46 AM	It's not different if we were talking about casting an Orb and a Lesser Orb, but the class gains the ability to cast two full-sized Orbs. Or, more precisely, at 10th level, a wizard who has 5th-level spells could cast Evard's quickened and then drop a Cloudkill in the center on the same round. Normally, that would require, at minimum, an 8th level slot for the quickened Evard's. So this puts the caster 5 levels ahead of the minimum alternative... Not at all powerful... A 5-level tactical boost...The master specialist doesn't get the Major School Esoterica until the final level of the class (10th), meaning he is at least a 13th level caster, and has just gained access to 7th level spells. So it's not a 5-level boost, but more like a 2-level boost -- hardly out of line for someone who has specialized to the extreme (as we're led to believe the Master Specialist is...) IMO, it's a significant and not unreasonable reward for someone who chooses to stick with the class for the entirety of the class progression.
Mommy was an Orc 12-23-06, 10:50 AM	The master specialist doesn't get the Major School Esoterica until the final level of the class (10th), meaning he is at least a 13th level caster, and has just gained access to 7th level spells. So it's not a 5-level boost, but more like a 2-level boost -- hardly out of line for someone who has specialized to the extreme (as we're led to believe the Master Specialist is...) IMO, it's a significant and not unreasonable reward for someone who chooses to stick with the class for the entirety of the class progression. We're talking about someone essentially getting the ability to Quicken a wide range of spells at no cost. That's ridiculously overpowered. The ability to toss say a free Solid Fog or Evard's at 13th level, means that wizard will be able to do battlefield control, then do something else. He's not using up his highest level spells, he's using up his lowest, spells that Wizards often don't run out of at 13th.
qstor 12-24-06, 12:14 PM	The reserve feats in principal look reasonable to me, although I find the caster level boosts somewhat odd. They name it, and than in the generic description of the feats they specifically mention they do stack. I do agree that some of the specific reserve feats look too good to be true... As for the prestige classes, some are definitely good, but is a prestige class like the super specialist really that much better than Fatespinner? I agree. I don't see a problem with adding some of the generic feats from the book. Mike
Starfox_SFX 12-24-06, 01:18 PM	We're talking about someone essentially getting the ability to Quicken a wide range of spells at no cost. That's ridiculously overpowered. .... We already have divine metamage quicken available at lv 3. If that is in here I don't see why we can't throw the arcane casters a bone every so often. =/
Lomiat 12-24-06, 02:14 PM	We already have divine metamage quicken available at lv 3. If that is in here I don't see why we can't throw the arcane casters a bone every so often. =/ As a player who's made a cleric to break Divine Metamagic: Quicken about as much as possible, I feel comfortable arguing that while DMM: Quicken is broken, it's not so bad, yet, as the Master Conjurer's quicken ability. Consider the expenditure in feat selection: The cleric must buy Quicken Spell and Divine Metamagic: Quicken. Furthermore, in order to do this more than once per day, the cleric has to buy Extra Turning, likely several times. My cleric has a 16 CHA and Extra Turning, allowing him to Quicken spells twice a day if he doesn't turn anything. I plan to take at least one more Extra Turning so that he can Quicken spells in each of the 3 combats he's likely to face in a given day (according to the strictures of the universe in which he lives). That's a total of 4 feats. The Master Specialist? One feat: Spell Focus in the school of her specialization. Which, btw, along with the class, nicely sets up the PC to qualify for Initiate of the Seven-fold Veil or Archmage. Consider the expenditure in attributes: The cleric who plans to Quicken spells must buy a significant CHA score. This goes with the expectation of a reasonable WIS score. All the other scores are as normal. The WIZ aiming for Master Specialist continues to make WIS a dump stat if she so chooses, needing only INT to fuel her spell options. Consider the limitations: Even with 10 attribute points, 4 feats, and a Cloak of Charisma +2 invested to the purpose, my cleric will only be able to sudden Quicken spells 3/day. The Master Specialist is limited only by the number of spells she has available. I'm not arguing that the cleric's DMM:Quicken needs to be upgraded or that the Master Specialist is unfair because it's better than DMM:Quicken (which, however, it is). Rather, I'm arguing that if DMM:Quicken is anywhere near the border of broken, the Master Specialist is far, far past the border.
Mithreinmaethor 12-24-06, 03:44 PM	I would not mind seeing somatic weaponry feat. would be useful for clerics
Arvagor 12-24-06, 04:28 PM	Consider the limitations: Even with 10 attribute points, 4 feats, and a Cloak of Charisma +2 invested to the purpose, my cleric will only be able to sudden Quicken spells 3/day. The Master Specialist is limited only by the number of spells she has available.How so? My copy of Complete Mage says that the ability granted by the Major School Esoterica can only be used 3x/day ...
jokem 12-24-06, 09:15 PM	If they were actually bitter, they wouldn't play, unless they were sadomasochists. I'm betting it's more a campaign setting for adventurers that like to complain ;) More like a campaign setting for Alkaline Adventurers.
Lomiat 12-25-06, 01:01 PM	How so? My copy of Complete Mage says that the ability granted by the Major School Esoterica can only be used 3x/day ... My mistake. I was working from memory, and my memory failed me. Nonetheless, this still allows the Master Conjurer to cast quickened spells with the equivalent of 4 feats and unnamed attribute points it would cost a DMM:Quicken cleric.
Randall Montgomery 12-26-06, 10:51 AM	My mistake. I was working from memory, and my memory failed me. Nonetheless, this still allows the Master Conjurer to cast quickened spells with the equivalent of 4 feats and unnamed attribute points it would cost a DMM:Quicken cleric. Another downside for the wizard taking this option is that they must be specialized, which means they're completely banned from taking two schools of wizard spells. This effectively eliminates almost 1/4 of their spell list, while the cleric with DMM:Quicken still has their spell list completely intact. Personally, I don't really believe the PrCs or feats from Complete Mage are that overly powerful, with some exceptions. Abjurant Champion baffles me, as they say the class relies heavily upon not using armor and shields, but makes no actual restrictions on using them. While the abilities it gives you are good, on casual inspection they just don't seem to mesh well with the type of character who would take them. And while the reserve feats are good, by the time you can use most of them they won't really be necessary, as you'll have more than enough spells to last through the day.
DuctShuiTengu 12-26-06, 11:41 AM	As a player who's made a cleric to break Divine Metamagic: Quicken about as much as possible, I feel comfortable arguing that while DMM: Quicken is broken, it's not so bad, yet, as the Master Conjurer's quicken ability. Consider the expenditure in feat selection: The cleric must buy Quicken Spell and Divine Metamagic: Quicken. Furthermore, in order to do this more than once per day, the cleric has to buy Extra Turning, likely several times. My cleric has a 16 CHA and Extra Turning, allowing him to Quicken spells twice a day if he doesn't turn anything. I plan to take at least one more Extra Turning so that he can Quicken spells in each of the 3 combats he's likely to face in a given day (according to the strictures of the universe in which he lives). That's a total of 4 feats. The Master Specialist? One feat: Spell Focus in the school of her specialization. Which, btw, along with the class, nicely sets up the PC to qualify for Initiate of the Seven-fold Veil or Archmage. Consider the expenditure in attributes: The cleric who plans to Quicken spells must buy a significant CHA score. This goes with the expectation of a reasonable WIS score. All the other scores are as normal. The WIZ aiming for Master Specialist continues to make WIS a dump stat if she so chooses, needing only INT to fuel her spell options. Consider the limitations: Even with 10 attribute points, 4 feats, and a Cloak of Charisma +2 invested to the purpose, my cleric will only be able to sudden Quicken spells 3/day. The Master Specialist is limited only by the number of spells she has available. I'm not arguing that the cleric's DMM:Quicken needs to be upgraded or that the Master Specialist is unfair because it's better than DMM:Quicken (which, however, it is). Rather, I'm arguing that if DMM:Quicken is anywhere near the border of broken, the Master Specialist is far, far past the border. Consider the difference in levels. The Cleric can have DMM Quicken by 3rd level (with Extra Turning to use it more often), while the Master Specialist will be at least 13th level before they get the ability to spontaneously quicken spells with Major School Esoterica.
Sieylianna 12-26-06, 06:48 PM	Another downside for the wizard taking this option is that they must be specialized, which means they're completely banned from taking two schools of wizard spells. This effectively eliminates almost 1/4 of their spell list, while the cleric with DMM:Quicken still has their spell list completely intact. My experience is that a large majority (80% +) of all LG wizards are specialized already, so it's not a limitation. Ed
Randall Montgomery 12-27-06, 11:01 AM	My experience is that a large majority (80% +) of all LG wizards are specialized already, so it's not a limitation. Ed While I haven't met as many LG players as you probably have, out of the dozen or so wizards I've met (myself included), I've yet to meet a specialized wizard. I kind of wish I had specialized, though, as I've got a two-level blank spot between fatespinner and archmage, and the evocation stuff in Master Specialist intrigued me. Ahh well.... :D
Mommy was an Orc 12-27-06, 12:45 PM	While I haven't met as many LG players as you probably have, out of the dozen or so wizards I've met (myself included), I've yet to meet a specialized wizard. I kind of wish I had specialized, though, as I've got a two-level blank spot between fatespinner and archmage, and the evocation stuff in Master Specialist intrigued me. Ahh well.... :D Just to be clear, one of my characters is a 2nd level Wizard, specializing in Conjuration, with all but the ability to cast 2nd level spells prereqs already met. It generally is beneficial in an LG environment to specialize. You give up the ability to cast some spells that others might be able to cast in exchange for the ability to cast more spells. There are times where this will hurt, but when you're playing up 1 to APL, the benefits are quite amazing. i.e. instead of being the Wizard who can cast 2 of his highest level spell, you can cast 3. In a 3 combat in a day mod and out, that means you function as a Wizard of that APL in each combat if you want.
Mortepierre 12-27-06, 01:25 PM	GrayHack is the name one of my friends gave Grayhawk(i think its hilarious). He thinks the only way to expreince D&D is through home campaigns and that the RPGA is home to a bunch of rules hungry power gamers. Actually, it's the new setting for HackMaster.. http://paizo.com/store/games/roleplayingGames/h/hackMaster/modules/v5748btpy7ckw
Lomiat 12-27-06, 05:02 PM	Just to be clear, one of my characters is a 2nd level Wizard, specializing in Conjuration, with all but the ability to cast 2nd level spells prereqs already met. It generally is beneficial in an LG environment to specialize. You give up the ability to cast some spells that others might be able to cast in exchange for the ability to cast more spells. There are times where this will hurt, but when you're playing up 1 to APL, the benefits are quite amazing. i.e. instead of being the Wizard who can cast 2 of his highest level spell, you can cast 3. In a 3 combat in a day mod and out, that means you function as a Wizard of that APL in each combat if you want. "Generally," yes. Of course, it's nice to be the specialist when the other arcanist at your table is the generalist who can shrug and let you cast your Evard's and Stinking Clouds, then goes and prepares all the spells you can't cast. Eventually, spell level doesn't matter so much as a judicious use of spells (and actions, primarily actions).
Mommy was an Orc 12-27-06, 05:53 PM	"Generally," yes. Of course, it's nice to be the specialist when the other arcanist at your table is the generalist who can shrug and let you cast your Evard's and Stinking Clouds, then goes and prepares all the spells you can't cast. Eventually, spell level doesn't matter so much as a judicious use of spells (and actions, primarily actions). Judicious = this character may run out of his top tier spells because he's playing up 1 and he's not a specialist. People remember when a wizard can't cast obvious spell X, especially when the player is doing something stupid to bypass it. What they forget is that most of the time, the problem is the generalist wizard running out of useful spells before the end of a given battle. And they just notch it up to "Wizards, they're always running out of spells." rather than saying, "He chose to run out of spells to not be restricted in spell choice. And he didn't even use spells from the following three schools, X, Y, Z, the entire mod..."
Lomiat 12-27-06, 06:43 PM	Judicious = this character may run out of his top tier spells because he's playing up 1 and he's not a specialist. OR = 11th level wizard casts Polymorph, Greater Mage Armor and Fly on the monk and watches him kill everything without taking a scratch. OR = 9th level wizard realizes that Glitterdust is STILL the best spell to cast at the begining of the combat, even for the first two rounds of the combat. OR = 11th level wizard figures Dim Door to save the Shadowdancer is probably a better bet than using a 6th level spell to attack. OR (prior to the latest Dispel Confusion) = 11th level wizard figures Feeblemind is plenty high-level enough, then follows it up with a Quickened Ray of Stupidity to get rid of a BBEG. And this is all in the last mod the 11th level Wiz played with some guy's 9th level Wiz. Yeah, sure, if I'd had my Wiz prepare top-level spells for opening salvos in combat, running out might have been an issue, but when you know something like Ray of Stupidity or even Glitterdust is as good as it is, you can use higher-level spells for other things, then rely on lower-level spells for combat. Evard's is another example of a lower-level spell that just doesn't really get old.
Genghis Cohen 12-27-06, 06:57 PM	People remember when a wizard can't cast obvious spell XPeople also remember when a wizard can't cast (or read from a scroll, or activate from a wand) obvious spell X because he chose to specialize.
Sieylianna 12-27-06, 07:37 PM	Just to be clear, one of my characters is a 2nd level Wizard, specializing in Conjuration, with all but the ability to cast 2nd level spells prereqs already met. It generally is beneficial in an LG environment to specialize. You give up the ability to cast some spells that others might be able to cast in exchange for the ability to cast more spells. There are times where this will hurt, but when you're playing up 1 to APL, the benefits are quite amazing. My retired wizard specialized in Enchantment originally, but dropped it at the conversion to 3.5. One thing you have to remember in LG is that losing access to schools also means not being able to craft some magic items. The extra spell is nice, but I think the value is greatest at low levels. I also have a barbarian/wizard who is speciailized. IIRC, it's evocation since I was thinking about Rage Mage. He won't be crafting anything and rarely casts more than one spell before charging into melee. He will be going for Abjurant Champion , if it's allowed in LG. Ed
Mommy was an Orc 12-27-06, 08:09 PM	And this is all in the last mod the 11th level Wiz played with some guy's 9th level Wiz. Yeah, sure, if I'd had my Wiz prepare top-level spells for opening salvos in combat, running out might have been an issue, but when you know something like Ray of Stupidity or even Glitterdust is as good as it is, you can use higher-level spells for other things, then rely on lower-level spells for combat. Your generalist wiz, while playing down 1, with another wiz at the table, doesn't seem to have any problems with spell capacity. That's a shocker... The specific problem is when your generalist mage is the only arcane at the table, playing up 1 at APL 12. At that point, you don't have 9th level Wizard boy to maybe get lucky with a Glitterdust, have a spare Greater Mage Armor or Polymorph or 4th level Battlefield control spells to cast so you don't have to. With that Feeblemind/Ray of Stupidity thing, you just wasted two slots of your 5 best slots if the Feeblemind doesn't work. And just to point out the obvious - the extra 6th level slot can be used for Quickened Glitterdust...
Lomiat 12-27-06, 08:35 PM	Your generalist wiz, while playing down 1, with another wiz at the table, doesn't seem to have any problems with spell capacity. That's a shocker... The specific problem is when your generalist mage is the only arcane at the table, playing up 1 at APL 12. At that point, you don't have 9th level Wizard boy to maybe get lucky with a Glitterdust, have a spare Greater Mage Armor or Polymorph or 4th level Battlefield control spells to cast so you don't have to. With that Feeblemind/Ray of Stupidity thing, you just wasted two slots of your 5 best slots if the Feeblemind doesn't work. And just to point out the obvious - the extra 6th level slot can be used for Quickened Glitterdust... Meh... My wizard hasn't run out of spells for ages, and has had to play up more often than not over the last year. Given that most combats in which he's participated last 2-3 rounds maximum, the question has been simply how to prove as effective as possible before the combat's over. Drawing from the above illustration: Greater Mage Armor is Conjuration, Feeblemind and Ray of Stupidity are Enchantment, Polymorph and Fly are Transmutation, False Life and Magic Jar (for the Contingency Fly) are Necromancy, Mass Fire Shield (also cast, though not previously noted) is Evocation, Mirror Image (my wizard's Contingency) is Illusion. All of these spells were in effect during one combat. They represent all schools except Divination and Abjuration. Divination can't be banned, and Abjuration, while it can be banned, is only one school, meaning that in this scenario, were my wizard to cast all of the above spells as a specialist (for the extra slot), he would have had to be a Diviner, even though he didn't cast a single Divination spell in that scenario (and, thus, the slots would have proven "worthless"). I will grant you, Mommy, that (back to topic) the Master Specialist takes great advantage of its extra slots, especially the Conjurer, which prompted this long tangent. I do not argue that the Generalist is more powerful than the Specialist, nor vice versa, simply that the extra spell slots do not automatically make the Specialist more well-suited to LG (as, similarly, the extra slots do not automatically make a Sorcerer or Warmage more powerful than a Wizard). The Master Specialist, by virtue of its intense focus on and improvement of the types of spells that MUST fill those extra slots, could easily make the Specialist a better wizard than the Generalist. Gnome or Gray Elf Illusionist with Illusion save DCs 14 + INT bonus + level. Necromancer bad guys summoning undead. Enchanters using Charm Person to tell bad guys to kill themselves (no modifier to the save). All these are pretty scary things.
Hariman 12-28-06, 09:09 AM	I don't disagree that Abjurant Champion is powerful. (No sane caster wouldn't spend one feat to get that many extra HP. But BAB+5 is a steep requirement for a caster. You need Level 11 at the minimum for a pure Sorc or Wiz. Plus, if you play the class correctly, you're going to have only lower level spell access. You'll be doing your damage in melee, not by casting. It's not hat bad, if mainly because there are only a few AC boosting abjuration spells. There are 3 classes that will be restricted. All are warlock based classes. Unless the LG higher ups decide to allow warlocks. Ha ha ha. The Ultimate Magus has the drawback of delayed spellcasting progression. But gains the ability to boost a LIMITED NUMBER (between 3 and 8, varying by class level) of spells with metamagic feats. An action that both costs extra spell slots to use and is limited by feat selection. AND there is the Multiple Ability Dependency created by needing high charisma and intelligence scores. And the others have to be judged on a case by case basis. The reserve feats have the limitation of being weak. They ALL only allow the use of limited abilities, dependent on the caster NOT using a higher level spell. The caster level boosts help, but aren't THAT spectacular. (+1d6 damage, better SR penetration.) Blade of Force would be the utter bane of incorporeal monsters. Invisible Needle would be just as useful, if not moreso.
Starfox_SFX 12-28-06, 01:36 PM	My mistake. I was working from memory, and my memory failed me. Nonetheless, this still allows the Master Conjurer to cast quickened spells with the equivalent of 4 feats and unnamed attribute points it would cost a DMM:Quicken cleric. Lets not forget the only other option wizards have for quickening high level spells, the awesome Sudden Quicken!:eek: Requireing a mere investment of 7 feats (including the sudden quicken feat itself) for the epic ability to quicken 1 spell per day:D
honeynuggets 12-31-06, 12:42 PM	Complete Mage is comparitively overpowered, in relation to the other Completes, and I wouldn't be very surprised if large amounts of it didn't make it into the campaign. But as Britt has pointed out, your rumours are jumping the gun a little. (Though if you can't see how the material in that book is much more powerful than current LG rules items, I don't think you're looking hard enough...) I would say that Complete Mage in it's entirety makes arcane casters more powerful, but not "overpowered." Current LG rules are unbalanced in favor of certain classes and this would help arcane casters bridge that gulf, though it would still leave other classes wanting. I would be very surprised if anything good from Complete Mage made it into this campaign. The original poster is not "jumping the gun." He is merely anticipating the typical actions of the people in charge of Living Greyhawk based on their past decisions.
honeynuggets 12-31-06, 12:45 PM	At least it's better than the term some people are calling Greyhawk in Singapore (those that find the game too structed and inhibiting): Gay-Hawk Hehe. Sounds like me. I took to calling it Lawful Greyhawk, since it's impossible to role-play a Chaotic Good character.
Arvagor 12-31-06, 01:10 PM	I took to calling it Lawful Greyhawk, since it's impossible to role-play a Chaotic Good character.How so? My rogue in Veluna is Chaotic Good -- started out that way, slowly shifted to Neutral Good since he was doing so much work for the Church of Rao (the legal authority in Veluna), and may have even started into Lawful Good, if not for recent actions the church has taken. He's back to chaotic good, has taken up worship of Trithereon, and is actively seeking to rein in what he sees as abuse of power by the regime. I have many opportunities to play CG while staying completely in character as well...
Britt 12-31-06, 01:20 PM	Ditto. I played 2 lawful characters, one neutral, and 3 chaotic. One of those was EXTREMELY chaotic, as well.
Arvagor 12-31-06, 01:31 PM	Ditto. I played 2 lawful characters, one neutral, and 3 chaotic. One of those was EXTREMELY chaotic, as well.Hmm... Britt = Iuz region, and you're chaotic? Whoulda thunk it... ;)
honeynuggets 12-31-06, 02:10 PM	Ditto. I played 2 lawful characters, one neutral, and 3 chaotic. One of those was EXTREMELY chaotic, as well. Well, I can think of at least two possibilities why the above posters have had success playing Chaotic characters... 1. Niether of you two are playing Chaotic Good in the same way I envision it based on the PHB. 2. You both have laid back DMs. Mine are junk when it comes to things like non-Lawful Good alignment play(among other things). My interpretation of CG is that they abide no Law which might prohibit them from destroying evil. So when a Paladin detects evil, the Paladin may have qualms about killing the creature, but not the CG character. I have had zero success playing this way in Living Greyhawk. I think very few people understand the Chaotic Good alignment because this society makes vigilante action illegal and actively puts it down. Here is another example, our party finds out the location of the evil ogre mage's house within a city (has committed evil acts during adventure). I suspect a trap so I suggest we burn the house down and flush him out. VETO. The DM informs me that my character will automatically be arrested and removed from the campaign if I do that. Realistically, it would have been easy to pull off without witnesses and in the aftermath we could have either left before city guards arrived (Survival check to Track us) or told them the ogre misfired and set the house on fire himself. (Bluff vs Sense Motive) In any case, the Living Greyhawk Campaign Setting has failed to address how to handle examples of non-Lawful alignment gameplay and consequently DMs are just winging it (awfully).
Mommy was an Orc 12-31-06, 02:14 PM	Hehe. Sounds like me. I took to calling it Lawful Greyhawk, since it's impossible to role-play a Chaotic Good character. I've got a Chaotic Good Bard/Marshal, I really haven't found it difficult at all to do that. Being Chaotic doesn't necessarily equal Robin Hood. Heck, I've got a choice of three divine weapons not meant to be wielded by a CG characters and I'm going to wield one of them anyway. Depends on whether or not I really want to destroy a battle interactive or not - there's some serious by the book swiss cheese in a year 5 mod, I have full blown access, and the item is cheap. Of course, there's several problems with that, least of which is that I have no real desire to screw up a convention. But tweaking the followers of Heironeous might be fun for him. "Of course I'm Lawful - see, your weapon likes me..."
Arvagor 12-31-06, 02:39 PM	My interpretation of CG is that they abide no Law which might prohibit them from destroying evil. So when a Paladin detects evil, the Paladin may have qualms about killing the creature, but not the CG character.While that's one possible interpretation, I would argue that the behavior should, in fact, be the opposite -- paladins on the whole are more likely to go off and attack anything that detects as evil on sight, while the CG character should have qualms about doing so, based on CG's respect for life and individual liberty. In any case, the Living Greyhawk Campaign Setting has failed to address how to handle examples of non-Lawful alignment gameplay and consequently DMs are just winging it (awfully).Meaning no disrespect, and though I agree that many DMs don't have a good grasp on playing alignments effectively, I'd wager that the issue your DM(s) had with the actions you describe above is not so much because they are chaotic, but because they aren't particularly good -- Burning someone alive? Thinking you can get away with it because there are no witnesses, or because you can lie your way out of it with the city guard? That is chaotic neutral at best, IMO, with leanings towards chaotic evil. I'd suggest reviewing the general behavior of the various alignments -- http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment
Mommy was an Orc 12-31-06, 02:52 PM	Here is another example, our party finds out the location of the evil ogre mage's house within a city (has committed evil acts during adventure). I suspect a trap so I suggest we burn the house down and flush him out. VETO. The DM informs me that my character will automatically be arrested and removed from the campaign if I do that. So in other words, just to potentially kill this Ogre Mage, you're willing to do the following: Risk being wrong - maybe that's not his house. Maybe he's not the only occupant. Maybe he has a couple of children tucked away for food when he needs it and you're the one murdering them. Risk starting a major fire - maybe only his house burns down, but on the other hand, maybe you set fire to a nearby house. Maybe a few of the city guard die trying to save the innocents for your actions. The problem with your actions isn't whether or not they're chaotic; the problem is that they're evil.
honeynuggets 12-31-06, 04:26 PM	While that's one possible interpretation, I would argue that the behavior should, in fact, be the opposite -- paladins on the whole are more likely to go off and attack anything that detects as evil on sight, while the CG character should have qualms about doing so, based on CG's respect for life and individual liberty. The thing about the Chaotic Good alignment is this...They have rules that they live by, they just aren't the same rules as the establishment lays forth. They make their own rules. So while your Chaotic Good character may live by the rule that all life is sacred, that is not the consistent defining trait of all chaotics. The consistent defining trait of all chaotics is that they make and live by their own personal rules and loathe the idea of someone else telling them what they can and can't do. Some lawful societies specify in their doctrine that all evil is to be destroyed by those whom the society has granted a "license to kill." In this case a Paladin might do as you say and kill anything that detects as evil if he is given that license. However, that same Paladin might have a problem with someone else in the group doing the executing since they haven't been sanctioned by the authority. Many lawful societies are not that efficient however, and require lengthy trials as well as only allowing licensed persons to arrest felons. Meaning no disrespect, and though I agree that many DMs don't have a good grasp on playing alignments effectively, I'd wager that the issue your DM(s) had with the actions you describe above is not so much because they are chaotic, but because they aren't particularly good -- Burning someone alive? Thinking you can get away with it because there are no witnesses, or because you can lie your way out of it with the city guard? That is chaotic neutral at best, IMO, with leanings towards chaotic evil. Here we will differ in opinion due to our different alignments. I consider destroying evil creatures to be an act of good regardless of the method. Doing so in an unlawful way makes it chaotic. I know you believe otherwise so there is no need to repeat your opinion. I'd suggest reviewing the general behavior of the various alignments -- http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment WoTC does not publish an accurate definition of the alignment system. I have noticed many inconsistencies in their definitions. You have to understand that WoTC does not want to condone vigilantism in a lawful society. On the other hand the simple beauty of the alignment wheel clearly defines it. Thus, WoTC has opted to "soften" the examples they give of chaotic good actions. So you read things like "killing others is evil." while Living Greyhawk PCs kill foes left and right. Techincally, WoTC's definition can only be read as "All PCs who kill a monster have comitted an act of evil." Now, people argue, "Well, it's not evil as long as the NPC attacks first." That would mean that PCs always let the NPC take the first offensive action, often giving up Initiative. But think about it. What they are saying is that as long as the NPC attacks first then suddenly it's not evil to kill them anymore? That doesn't make much sense to me. If an NPC has already committed enough evil acts to gain the Evil tag then why wait for it to commit one more act of evil by attacking you in order to justify killing it?
Britt 12-31-06, 04:44 PM	honeynuggets, you're conflating the ideas of chaos/law and good/evil. While your method of killing evil might be chaotic, it can STILL be evil. Showing complete disdain for the safety of innocents is evil. Performing such an action would be chaotic evil. It would be chaotic, like you claim, but it's not chaotic GOOD. Evil people kill evil people all the time.
honeynuggets 12-31-06, 04:46 PM	So in other words, just to potentially kill this Ogre Mage, you're willing to do the following: Risk being wrong - maybe that's not his house. Maybe he's not the only occupant. Maybe he has a couple of children tucked away for food when he needs it and you're the one murdering them. Risk starting a major fire - maybe only his house burns down, but on the other hand, maybe you set fire to a nearby house. Maybe a few of the city guard die trying to save the innocents for your actions. The problem with your actions isn't whether or not they're chaotic; the problem is that they're evil. An Ogre Mage is a mighty ally of evil. In a non-munchkin campaign (where towns have limited magic, wealth, etc.) an Ogre Mage would cause tremendous death and suffering. That said... In the adventure the Ogre Mage was operating out of this house for at least a week so it is unlikely that he was a squatter. That said... Yes. I would risk the house potentially belonging to someone else in order to destroy such an evil. To me, material wealth is not as valuable as the many lives I will save by destroying the Ogre Mage. Yes. I would risk burning a few innocents maybe being chain and occasionally butchered as food inside the house in order to destroy the Ogre Mage. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Yes. I would risk starting a fire, though the map showed the house a whole street away from any neighbor so the risk was slight. Again, I value the many lives saved by destroying him more than a few buildings. Yes. I would risk firefighters dying trying to put out a potential fire. They are trained to fight fires using safety precautions. The problem with your perspective is the same problem that our very real world suffers. To protect against every possible thing that MIGHT go wrong you risk leting a great evil slip through your fingers. It's an idealistic way of thinking you have that evil can be defeated without paying a price. honeynuggets, you're conflating the ideas of chaos/law and good/evil. While your method of killing evil might be chaotic, it can STILL be evil. Showing complete disdain for the safety of innocents is evil. Performing such an action would be chaotic evil. It would be chaotic, like you claim, but it's not chaotic GOOD. Evil people kill evil people all the time. You make the same mistake imho. You 100% risk the lives of good heros by making them walk into a likely ambush just in case there are any living innocent prisoners inside the house. If the heros die, not only will you lose people who are willing to fight the good fight, but you let a powerful evil creature continue it's activities. All for what? The price of a few burnt commoners that may or may not be in there? Very idealistic. In such a world every single module with semi-intelligent evil NPCs would give them some prisoners so they would never fear a fireball or lightning again. Or better yet, every single module would allow the evil NPCs to hold a knife to a prisoner's throat then demand that the PCs drop their weapons and let themselves be shackled.
Japangirl 12-31-06, 04:55 PM	But there's another option! You could, you know, beard the ogre in its den. Go to the house, knock down the door (spell or break, doesn't matter which), and kill it without risking other people. I don't know what APL you played at (APL 2, don't go get the ogre-mage; APL 6, reasonable to go do so; APL 12, it's not even XP but why not?) but most likely, you could reasonably take on that encounter and expect to defeat it. That way you destroy the evil without risking a lot of innocent lives.
Genghis Cohen 12-31-06, 04:59 PM	What they are saying is that as long as the NPC attacks first then suddenly it's not evil to kill them anymore? That doesn't make much sense to me. If an NPC has already committed enough evil acts to gain the Evil tag then why wait for it to commit one more act of evil by attacking you in order to justify killing it?That's a very good point. As I see it, killing is always evil. Its just that there are rare circumstances where not killing is even more evil. As far as the Chaotic Good vs. Lawful Good thing goes, I find it easier to first strip out the Good, and then transpose this dichotomy onto one of freedom versus equality. These are two conflicting, and often opposed, values. In a very extreme example, you can think of Anarchists compared to Maoist China. The Anarchists are definitely chaotic, and the Maoists were so into order and structuring everything that it makes me wonder if the PRC has ever had Pholtus for a state religion. I then take these extreme examples of what I see as Chaotic Neutral and Lawful Neutral, and try to reconcile these views with that of people who are good, and want to do the right thing. I see Lawful Good as people who have an ideological balance between order and good. They are reluctant to abandon either, but when forced to chose, they'll usually chose good over order. Similarly, I see Chaotic Good as people who have little interest in rules or order. They will adopt structure either out of necessity, or because there is in an imperative need for order so that good may be accomplished. In the end, the beauty of D&D's alignment system is that it is highly imprecise and inaccurate. It strongly encourages participants to think about morality and ethics, and this allows us to become better people if we chose to use it for introspection and self betterment.
Arvagor 12-31-06, 05:01 PM	An Ogre Mage is a mighty ally of evil. In a non-munchkin campaign (where towns have limited magic, wealth, etc.) an Ogre Mage would cause tremendous death and suffering.Well, I know of at least one town in the campaign (Farthenmoor) that has limited wealth and magic, that has an ogre mage as its sheriff -- a paladin of Murlynd no less. I'm pretty sure he's not there to cause tremendous death and suffering, nor is a mighty ally of evil... (though there was that athach bartender... :shifty:)
honeynuggets 12-31-06, 05:13 PM	But there's another option! You could, you know, beard the ogre in its den. Go to the house, knock down the door (spell or break, doesn't matter which), and kill it without risking other people. I don't know what APL you played at (APL 2, don't go get the ogre-mage; APL 6, reasonable to go do so; APL 12, it's not even XP but why not?) but most likely, you could reasonably take on that encounter and expect to defeat it. That way you destroy the evil without risking a lot of innocent lives. I think you mean "Board the ogre inside." Your "carpentry" tactic wouldn't do much good against an Ogre Mage I fear. This one at least could have teleported or poofed out in some other manner. We reluctantly did what the DM allowed, which was knock down the door. We saw nothing inside and it was large and two story. We figured we would have to search for him so rather than let just one of us go inside alone we all moved in. We spread out as much as possible in the foyer, but the Ogre Mage still managed to catch us all in a cone of cold. He was invisible at the time. Two of us survived that adventure. I was lucky I had a good reflex save. So I guess your plan didn't work did it? Several good pepople died AND the Ogre Mage lived to commit more atrocities. Well at least the end result was realistic for a lawful society.
Britt 12-31-06, 05:13 PM	You make the same mistake imho. You 100% risk the lives of good heros by making them walk into a likely ambush just in case there are any living innocent prisoners inside the house. If the heros die, not only will you lose people who are willing to fight the good fight, but you let a powerful evil creature continue it's activities. All for what? The price of a few burnt commoners that may or may not be in there? Very idealistic. In such a world every single module with semi-intelligent evil NPCs would give them some prisoners so they would never fear a fireball or lightning again. Or better yet, every single module would allow the evil NPCs to hold a knife to a prisoner's throat then demand that the PCs drop their weapons and let themselves be shackled. But see that's heroes risking their own lives, not risking someone else's lives without that person's permission. Your statement "a few burnt commoners" is decidedly evil. What you are wanting to play is a chaotic evil character that focuses on killing evil creatures, no matter what the cost. You can't play that in LG.
Japangirl 12-31-06, 05:20 PM	I missed the second half of honeynuggets's post, about risking your lives. 1) You're an adventurer. This is what you do for a living, save lives and risk your own. And get treasure. 2) It may be an ambush. But if they don't know when you're coming, you can often surprise them anyways and turn the ambush around. 3) There are many situations where the BBEG has prisoners so you can't fireball or whatever. We get around that by either single-target spells or by melee damage or by fireballing the roof so only his/her top half gets singed and the prisoners lying down helpless don't get touched. Fortunately, the top half is enough. I have both chaotic neutral and chaotic good characters. One of the CN ones would suggest and/or support burning the house down, but would be somewhat uneasy with the idea nonetheless. If another plan could be come up with, she's probably prefer that one, but she wouldn't dismiss the cooking plan out of hand. She would insist on going back and making sure the body was not speak-with-dead-able though. The CG one wouldn't dream of it, because innocent people could get hurt and the party could get caught which would be all sorts of bad for everyone. I do not agree that killing is always evil. Murder is almost always evil, but just killing, like in battle? That I'm not so sure about. However, it is valid to say that a character (or player) thinks that killing is always evil and play the game that way. It is unfortunate that your party did not succeed. However, if you knew beforehand that there was an ogre mage (and it sounds like you did), and you had an arcanist (not unlikely but not guaranteed), said arcanist could have potentially cast See Invisibility on him/herself. Then, while the ogre is waiting for you to get in a nice cone formation, the arcanist starts the combat with a nice glitterdust. There are things you can do when you know what you are going to fight. And while your party members did die, they chose to become adventurers and they chose to risk their lives. You cannot decide to risk others' lives for them, it has to be a personal choice. Or so says my CG wizard.
honeynuggets 12-31-06, 05:47 PM	But see that's heroes risking their own lives, not risking someone else's lives without that person's permission. Your statement "a few burnt commoners" is decidedly evil. What you are wanting to play is a chaotic evil character that focuses on killing evil creatures, no matter what the cost. You can't play that in LG. Hehe. One thing I've learned about alignments is that you can never convince someone that their alignment isn't the best and that other's are inferior or even evil. The only thing you can do is give examples to shed light on how they would act... So based on what I've heard from you. You would rather knock down the door and rush into a potentially lethal trap than burn the house down (and it's associated risks). We listened at the door and heard nothing. The windows were boarded up. We were specifically told that we couldn't expect the city guards to come help since we thought of that too. Defeating the Ogre Mage ourselves was a prerequisite for a chunk of experience. So what would you have done? (even though you know what trap is waiting for you)
honeynuggets 12-31-06, 05:55 PM	I do not agree that killing is always evil. Murder is almost always evil, but just killing, like in battle? That I'm not so sure about. That's the nature of killing. It is unfortunate that your party did not succeed. However, if you knew beforehand that there was an ogre mage (and it sounds like you did), and you had an arcanist (not unlikely but not guaranteed), said arcanist could have potentially cast See Invisibility on him/herself. Then, while the ogre is waiting for you to get in a nice cone formation, the arcanist starts the combat with a nice glitterdust. There are things you can do when you know what you are going to fight. And while your party members did die, they chose to become adventurers and they chose to risk their lives. You cannot decide to risk others' lives for them, it has to be a personal choice. Or so says my CG wizard. I'd love to hear what you would have done. However, play it as if you don't know it's an Ogre Mage, because we didn't. We just knew the evil behind the scenes was based there. There are no sounds from inside. The windows are boarded up. The city guards are not around and the DM says you can't call on them, even for help. What do you do? Assuming you break down the door...You see an empty foyer 20ft x 30ft with three doorways. Stairs on one side of the room lead to a second floor balconey with 2 more doors. Would that be a situation where you use up See Invisible? And who memorizes that instead of Scorching Ray at level 5-6?
Arvagor 12-31-06, 05:59 PM	So what would you have done? (even though you know what trap is waiting for you)Personally (i.e., my main PC)? Activate my ring of blinking and go through the wall. Alternatively, since my main PC is a rogue, wait for my party cleric to cast death ward and delay death on me, then try to disable the trap while everyone else is standing a safe distance away. ;)
Arvagor 12-31-06, 06:01 PM	That's the nature of killing.Ah, the eternal "what is evil?" alignment debate... Death is not evil and killing is not evil -- otherwise, every single animal out there would be neutral evil in alignment.
honeynuggets 12-31-06, 06:10 PM	Personally (i.e., my main PC)? Activate my ring of blinking and go through the wall. Alternatively, since my main PC is a rogue, wait for my party cleric to cast death ward and delay death on me, then try to disable the trap while everyone else is standing a safe distance away. ;) By "trap" I was referring to the ambush inside that we didn't know about. Further, your character level is 5-6 (APL6) if I recall and the best you have for magic items is +1 armor and a +1 weapon. Now what do you do?
Japangirl 12-31-06, 06:16 PM	Well, I actually memorize no scorching rays on my level 6 wizard. I tend to go for glitterdust, see invis, invis, knock, and various spells like that. But I'm a utility wizard and think my job is to make the combat easier/safer for everyone, not blow stuff up. Assuming I didn't just knock the door and we gave plenty of warning by breaking it down, seeing an empty room I would probably do exactly what you did. And get caught in the cone of cold just like you did. Assuming I was still up (let's see, 9d6 damage is an average of 31-32 points of damage, so at level 6 I'm at about -1 if I fail the save) the first thing I do is retreat and cast a glitterdust to try to blind the ogre mage. If I go down because the DM rolled high, then I go down and it's up to my companions. I'm a wizard though, I have low hp. What were the levels/con of the people at your table, that one cone of cold dropped four of them? Or did the DM just roll really well on the damage? When my rogue was low enough to face ogre magi and be scared of them, she would have almost certainly evaded the Cone of Cold (high reflex save) and then thrown a tanglefoot bag at it to try to negate flight and make it easier to hit. Even if she didn't make the save, that still would have been her next action.
Japangirl 12-31-06, 06:18 PM	Personally (i.e., my main PC)? Activate my ring of blinking and go through the wall. Alternatively, since my main PC is a rogue, wait for my party cleric to cast death ward and delay death on me, then try to disable the trap while everyone else is standing a safe distance away. ;) *Wail* I want a ring of blinking!! I've never seen access that wasn't adventure at APL 16 which I can't play quite yet anyways.
Arvagor 12-31-06, 06:20 PM	Further, your character level is 5-6 (APL6) if I recall and the best you have for magic items is +1 armor and a +1 weapon.Sorry, but your restrictions are unrealistic. A PC just hitting level 6 should have around 13K-19K worth of gear. If the best you have for magic items at APL 6 is a +1 weapon and +1 armor, then you shouldn't be playing at APL 6...
honeynuggets 12-31-06, 06:39 PM	But see that's heroes risking their own lives, not risking someone else's lives without that person's permission. Your statement "a few burnt commoners" is decidedly evil. What you are wanting to play is a chaotic evil character that focuses on killing evil creatures, no matter what the cost. You can't play that in LG. And furthermore... I would go so far as saying that even, if I knew for a fact that the Ogre Mage had three innocent commoners chained up in his house and nobody else was going to help us, I would still burn it down. We were level 5-6 and this thing is CR8 evil. It would have been a glorious day for the side of good. Furthermore, even if I WAS one of the innocent commoners chained in there. I would WANT those powerful heroes out there to sacrifice me rather than risk dying themselves. So how do you rationalize my self sacrifice with thinking my other actions evil? Hehe. The reality is that I am simply a different kind of good. But different people have always been persecuted.
Japangirl 12-31-06, 06:43 PM	LG allows for EL +4 encounters. At APL 6, an ogre mage is only EL +2. It's not all that nasty, as encounters go. I mean, sure, an ogre mage is a hard fight, but it doesn't have great AC or high hitpoints, and if you survive the cone of cold you will just kill it. And as for your rationale, your commoner might be all gung-ho about sacrificing his/her life for the greater good. Commoner #2 tied up next to you might not be so happy about it though. It's still not a choice you can make for other people. No one is persecuting you at all. We disagree with you, and think that your actions and alignment are not good, and by D&D good and evil they aren't. No one is threatening to tear up your character or go to your house and beat you up. We are explaining why we think burning the ogre mage alive may not have been the best and, er, goodest (?) choice for your PC to make. Most evil sentient beings don't think they are evil, and may call themselves good. That doesn't mean they are. Beware of hunting evil, lest it corrupt one into thinking that the ends always justify the means.
honeynuggets 12-31-06, 06:48 PM	Well, I actually memorize no scorching rays on my level 6 wizard. I tend to go for glitterdust, see invis, invis, knock, and various spells like that. But I'm a utility wizard and think my job is to make the combat easier/safer for everyone, not blow stuff up. Fair enough, you cast See Invis, sensing this might be the last encounter. Duration 60 minutes. Your Fighter knocks down the door. You are all level 6 except the Fighter that is level 8. The Ogre Mage is Init +4 so he goes before your Wiz prolly...moves to the doorway and Cone of Colds your party. Or you beat his Init and Mark him so others can see him. In which case your party would delay initiative until after you go and prolly still act after the Ogre Mage. It'll be a tough fight. Assuming I didn't just knock the door and we gave plenty of warning by breaking it down, seeing an empty room I would probably do exactly what you did. And get caught in the cone of cold just like you did. Assuming I was still up (let's see, 9d6 damage is an average of 31-32 points of damage, so at level 6 I'm at about -1 if I fail the save) the first thing I do is retreat and cast a glitterdust to try to blind the ogre mage. If I go down because the DM rolled high, then I go down and it's up to my companions. I'm a wizard though, I have low hp. What were the levels/con of the people at your table, that one cone of cold dropped four of them? Or did the DM just roll really well on the damage? The cone of cold didn't drop anyone, but we were all heavily damaged as I recall. The Ogre Mage hits hard too. He chopped down the rest with his sword then me and the Fighter 8 fled the adventure. Guess we should be thankful he didn't chase us lol. When my rogue was low enough to face ogre magi and be scared of them, she would have almost certainly evaded the Cone of Cold (high reflex save) and then thrown a tanglefoot bag at it to try to negate flight and make it easier to hit. Even if she didn't make the save, that still would have been her next action. We had no pure rogue with evasion. Must leave for the night. Thanks for roleplaying out that scenario! Hehe
RanielK 12-31-06, 11:20 PM	Ditto. I played 2 lawful characters, one neutral, and 3 chaotic. One of those was EXTREMELY chaotic, as well. I would say you only count as EXTREMELY chaotic when it is a question of whether or not your familiar must act as the interprter for the wizard because the wizie is really convinced he is a dog and is too busy chewing on the furniture to care what you think. Sadly my wizzie is now cooling his heals in an enchanted iceburg, to be replaced by an auburn haired fellow who thinks he's all that and you civilized lot are a buncha fools. There was the guy who was convinced he was an intelligent ioun stone (or was it some other magical item, Palish folks help me out on this one). So yes, the nutters do abound. As well as the slightly unhinged, the fairly wonky, and those driven right spare because of them. :D
RanielK 12-31-06, 11:58 PM	LG allows for EL +4 encounters. At APL 6, an ogre mage is only EL +2. It's not all that nasty, as encounters go. I mean, sure, an ogre mage is a hard fight, but it doesn't have great AC or high hitpoints, and if you survive the cone of cold you will just kill it. Except that such does not take into account the factors of terrain and tactics, which shift such calculations. In this case, that shift was obviously in favor of the Ogre Mage. And as for your rationale, your commoner might be all gung-ho about sacrificing his/her life for the greater good. Commoner #2 tied up next to you might not be so happy about it though. It's still not a choice you can make for other people. And commoner #3, #4, #5 . . . #1000000000 who all rarely think of anyone but themselves and their immediately kin when the chips are truely down. Ask most strangers "save one family member or five strangers from a burning building" and I guarntee most will say one family member if really pressed on the subject. So, no we shouldn't choose whether Bob has to die to save Suzy or Suzy has to die to save Bob. What we can do is take the Commander's position and accept that some soldiers will die while we take an objective so that many, many others won't die later in the "endgame." No one is persecuting you at all. We disagree with you, and think that your actions and alignment are not good, and by D&D good and evil they aren't. No one is threatening to tear up your character or go to your house and beat you up. We are explaining why we think burning the ogre mage alive may not have been the best and, er, goodest (?) choice for your PC to make. Actually, unless I misremember, the character in question was threatened with the "You Are Evil and Shall Play No More!" tag. Most evil sentient beings don't think they are evil, and may call themselves good. That doesn't mean they are. Beware of hunting evil, lest it corrupt one into thinking that the ends always justify the means. Quiet a few do realize they aren't opperating my normal moral standards, however. Look at the transcripts of the Wannsee Conference in January 1942 (courtesy of that little SOB Eichman's detailed notes) and you'll find the Architects of the Final Solution had a hard time coming out and saying, "we're going to line the Jews, Slavs, Gays, Gypsies, Intellectuals and other undesirables up and kill them as we please and this is a Good Thing (tm) and all the rest of the world will eventually thank us for it." There was much talk of "relocating" and "liberating." IIRC, the representative for the Governor of Poland had executed 100,000+ Jews and had to ask a fair number of times if he had "relocated" his batch of Jews before General Reinhard Heydrich said a simple, terse "yes, you did." None of these men thought themselves evil for removing the "impure." All seemed to realize somewhere in there the atrociousness of their actions in killing people as being more convenient than shipping them out of the country. Yes evil can blind itself to its true nature, on most fronts. The greatest being when no one does a thing about the evil happening in their backyard. First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. Pastor Martin Niemöller
Samwise 01-01-07, 03:01 AM	Yes. I would risk the house potentially belonging to someone else in order to destroy such an evil. To me, material wealth is not as valuable as the many lives I will save by destroying the Ogre Mage. That is more Lawful than Chaotic. Yes. I would risk burning a few innocents maybe being chain and occasionally butchered as food inside the house in order to destroy the Ogre Mage. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. That is absolutely Lawful and not Chaotic. Yes. I would risk starting a fire, though the map showed the house a whole street away from any neighbor so the risk was slight. Again, I value the many lives saved by destroying him more than a few buildings. That kind of risk assessment is generally Neutral. Yes. I would risk firefighters dying trying to put out a potential fire. They are trained to fight fires using safety precautions. That is very much Lawful and not Chaotic. The problem with your perspective is the same problem that our very real world suffers. To protect against every possible thing that MIGHT go wrong you risk leting a great evil slip through your fingers. It's an idealistic way of thinking you have that evil can be defeated without paying a price. That is Lawful Neutral, not Chaotic, and not Good. You make the same mistake imho. You 100% risk the lives of good heros by making them walk into a likely ambush just in case there are any living innocent prisoners inside the house. If the heros die, not only will you lose people who are willing to fight the good fight, but you let a powerful evil creature continue it's activities. All for what? The price of a few burnt commoners that may or may not be in there? Very idealistic. In such a world every single module with semi-intelligent evil NPCs would give them some prisoners so they would never fear a fireball or lightning again. Or better yet, every single module would allow the evil NPCs to hold a knife to a prisoner's throat then demand that the PCs drop their weapons and let themselves be shackled. As others have said, that's what heroes do. Chaotic Good has been defined in the past as the constant knight errant, riding around, doing good deeds, without concern for whether the law has gotten around to rendering a judgment in court or not. You have described going well beyond that into passing judgement on those who are Good, deciding when and where they must die to best serve society as a whole. That would "merely" be Lawful Good, but then you go even further and casually dismiss their deaths as required to keep the society secure no matter their personal choice. There you leave good behind and become Lawful Neutral. Oh, and as for the ambush you didn't know about, if you knew the ogre mage was in there, you knew it could ambush you. What to do? First, spread out a lot more. Yes, that means one person may wind up walking in the door, all alone, and be 2 rounds from help. Provided someone made a Knowledge check, you can expect to know the ogre mage does 9d6 with its cone of cold, and can do that once per day. Barring a lucky follow up crit, I think the 8th level fighter can suck up the 32 average damage from the cone and hold out until everyone else gets there. Second, while the ogre mage goes invisible at will, it still requires a standard action to do so. That means it attacks and stands there visible for a beat down. It then needs to get a 6 on a concentration to go invisbile as a defensive action, or it can eat some AoOs and more likely fail a concentration check against the damage from those. And when it does, glitterdust is one of the more common 2nd level spell choices. With a pathetic Will +3, there should be at least a 50% chance it is now blind. Third, it has AC 18 and 37 hit points. Obviously whether your fighters are tanks or archers matters here, but a 6th level, 16 Str, +1 weapon armed fighter needs an 8 and a 13 to hit on a full attack, and should be doing 1d8+6 damage minimum. Against regen 5, you need maybe 3 rounds of such attacks for a party of 6 to put the thing down. A tougher fighter with Str 18 and a two-handed weapon bumps that to 7 and 12 to hit, and 2d4+9 for the good old spiked chain. That's near death over 50% of the time just from 1 round of attacks from him. Add the archer, a prayer spell, and something vaguely usefil from the other three PCs, and that sucker doesn't have a chance to get into the third round of combat. Fourth, send the druid's animal companion in first. It should have scent, and while it is cruel, it can take that cone of cold for the team. Fifth through twentieth, any number of other tactics, none of which rely on walking into a narrow corridor tha neatly fits the critters single area effect special ability when you know it is waiting for you. I'd have to know your exact party composition to come up with specific tactics but, despite my well known love for it, FFA would sadly be relegated to a lower status for this particular battle
honeynuggets 01-01-07, 11:16 AM	That is more Lawful than Chaotic....yada yada Wow. I totally disagree with your interpretation of alignments. This happens often enough that WoTC should publish a robust list of example actions for the various alignments. Oh, and as for the ambush you didn't know about, if you knew the ogre mage was in there, you knew it could ambush you. What to do? First, spread out a lot more. Yes, that means one person may wind up walking in the door, all alone, and be 2 rounds from help. Provided someone made a Knowledge check, you can expect to know the ogre mage does 9d6 with its cone of cold, and can do that once per day. You don't know it's an Ogre Mage, just that the bad guy behind the events is at this location. Ok. You send one of your group to the door. Let's say your Fighter 8. The rest of the party is 60ft away watching. He knocks down the door and sees an empty foyer 20ft x 30ft with three doorways. Stairs on one side of the foyer lead to a second floor balconey with 2 more doors. What do you do? Does your fighter call the rest of the group or walk in by himself? Does he open some doors? Does the rest of the group move closer? IF the Fighter 8 moves further in alone and out of sight of the group THEN the Ogre Mage ambushes him with Charm Person (50/50 chance of success) (He succeeded against ours) IF the whole group moves up to the Fighter 8 then the Ogre Mage, invisible, moves and uses Cone of Cold to get the majority with priority going to any casters as usual. IF only one other person moves up to the Fighter 8, lets say the Rogue or Ranger, THEN the Ogre Mage uses Charm Person on the Fighter and has him attack the Ranger/Rogue. IF the party moves in to help, then he uses Cone of Cold on them. Anyway, it the encounter itself was challenging and tactically sound which is how an intelligent foe should fight. My belief is that the Ogre Mage still only won because the players were forced to play the Lawful Good alignment by taking excessive precautions against the loss of real estate property which a Chaotic Good character would care nothing about. And also excessive precautions against the mere possibility of some innocents being inside the house. I still say there is no way a group can Lawfully avoid a very tough fight or even swing the advantage in their favor. Sometimes, the only way you can fight Evil effectively is by breaking laws. The best idea so far was Japangirl's to use See invisible since you could metagame that the last fight might be tough. Even then, in order to see the Ogre Mage the Wizard would have to come to the doorway either alone or with some or all of the group, at which point the Ogre Mage would probably get a surprise round and take the Wizard down.
Mommy was an Orc 01-01-07, 12:06 PM	Yes. I would risk the house potentially belonging to someone else in order to destroy such an evil. To me, material wealth is not as valuable as the many lives I will save by destroying the Ogre Mage. Yes. I would risk burning a few innocents maybe being chain and occasionally butchered as food inside the house in order to destroy the Ogre Mage. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The problem is you can be wrong. This might not be the house of the Ogre Mage and other people might be in there. You might be at the house of the Ogre Mage, but he's out at the moment and all you're doing is killing his prisoners. You're willing to potentially kill a bunch of innocents on the unlikely possibility that firing up his house might kill the Ogre Mage. What if the Ogre Mage, seeing his house is on fire, turns invisible, leaves the house, and does a Cone of Cold on you anyway? You're right back in the situation of where your party nearly died anyway. Or better yet, every single module would allow the evil NPCs to hold a knife to a prisoner's throat then demand that the PCs drop their weapons and let themselves be shackled. And the PCs can quite honestly say no to that. There's nothing that states that PCs must do stupid actions to be good. Will surrendering save their lives? Probably not. So some other action is appropriate.
honeynuggets 01-01-07, 12:33 PM	And the PCs can quite honestly say no to that. There's nothing that states that PCs must do stupid actions to be good. Will surrendering save their lives? Probably not. So some other action is appropriate. I've actually had this happen in a Lawful Greyhawk adventure. If we didn't let the NPCs take our weapons they wouldn't let us on their ship and the adventure comes to an end with PCs getting no reward. Go ahead and make up all the excuses you want. If intelligent and evil NPCs were actually played smart, PCs would be dying left and right from this forced Lawful Good gameplay. Either that or they would just never beat a module.
Sieylianna 01-01-07, 12:38 PM	The best idea so far was Japangirl's to use See invisible since you could metagame that the last fight might be tough. Even then, in order to see the Ogre Mage the Wizard would have to come to the doorway either alone or with some or all of the group, at which point the Ogre Mage would probably get a surprise round and take the Wizard down. If he's been doing evil for weeks, you should be able to pick up some hints as to the nature of the threat. if you have that, you know that see invisible, glitterdust and faerie fire are needed to counteract invisibility and resist energy - cold versus it's most powerful attack. If you don't have any idea what you are facing and walk into a prepared ambush; it could be a party problem if they didn't pick up on clues or have the needed skills or it could be an author issue. Just staking out the house for a night or two will help to check for innocents and narrow down what you are facing. Ed
copper_wyrmling 01-01-07, 01:33 PM	Just to add a somewhat related story here... Last year, I played in a battle interactive which featured (among other things) a horde of spawn of Kyuss invading a town. For those who don't know, these creatures are nasty undead that fire brain-eating worms at their victims, and turn them into either zombies or spawns of Kyuss themselves (I can't remember the exact details). I was playing my Chaotic Good sorcerer / wild mage, who at that point was eighth level. We turned a corner and saw part of the undead army coming down the street. My sorcerer opened with Evard's Black Tentacles, so as not to risk the houses on both sides of the street - there might be innocent people in there! Unfortunately, due to some very good rolls from them and poor rolls from me, they walked straight through the tentacles without being grabbed. In that round, our party fighters ran up towards them, and the undead started shooting brain-eating worms at them. The cleric successfully ID'ed them with Knowledge (Religion) and called out the results to the party, but didn't roll high enough on the ensuing turning check to turn any of them. So, start of the next round: my sorcerer sees a large number of spawn-creating undead who have just completely ignored her best spell and appeared impervious to the local cleric's turning attempts; they're shooting brain-eating worms at her low-touch-AC, low-Int fighter friends (and she is extremely protective of her friends, that's part of the reason she's CG not CN); and they're in a 20ft wide street with wooden houses on both sides. She turned to the cleric and said, "Do you have Create Water prepared?" He said, "Yes, why?" She said, "Can you get it ready?" She delayed for the cleric's action, he readied a Create Water, she then fireballed the undead (and the house on one side of the street). The cleric's ready went off and immediately put out the house fire - so the GM ruled that the house was damaged by the fireball, but there was no chance of it continuing to burn and thus trapping people inside. The fireball also killed ALL of the undead (they had pathetic Reflex saves), allowing us to mount a rescue mission to one of the other tables; our cleric's Heal check stopped one of those PCs from dying and returning as spawn in the last possible round. The GM on my table told me (before I cast the fireball) that regardless of whether or not people were harmed, my PC would face charges of arson (there were PLENTY of witnesses); if people were harmed she would also face charges of magical assault and possibly manslaughter / murder. I agreed with that - to my sorcerer, getting rid of the undead was much more important than the laws of Perrenland, although she did her best to try to make sure there were no civilian casualties, since she has no right to determine other people's lives for them (but she figured most people would prefer a raise-able death from a fireball - she would have paid for the Raise if needed - to an unraise-able death and coming back as an undead). In the end, what happened was that under Perrenland law she was expected to pay a fine; she actually agreed with this, but ONLY if it was a payment to the owners of the house to help with repairs, rather than a punitive fine levied by the city (she didn't accept that she'd done anything wrong, or that the laws of Perrenland were at all relevant, but she was willing to help fix the damage she'd done to somebody's home). The other adventurers all argued in her favor, and the magistrate eventually ruled that in light of her heroism in defence of the town, the town would pay for the house repairs. She still gets teased about indiscriminate fireballing, of course, and there's a reason she picked up Sculpt Spell as her next feat ;) That's how I play a Chaotic Good character with a lot of destructive magic at her command. She's made it to L11 with no deaths and no "evil act" AR notations (although there was one where she got warned, because she was about to coup-de-grace an unconscious and stabilized assassin; she went ahead with the coup-de-grace but got grappled and disarmed by the party on their AoOs) - I don't think LG is a harsh environment for her ;) In your example, if she was really worried about the evil she might consider burning down the house, but probably not without first sending in her familiar to scout the place, or having a look around herself (invisible, flying and prepared to leave in a hurry if necessary). If people WERE killed in a fire she started, she would feel that she had to arrange for them to be raised - else she's taking the rest of their life away from them, and her intentions really matter very little to the dead people. The costs of that pile up very quickly, and she likes her treasure ;) This is pretty much entirely independent of the local legal system - she'll obey the laws right up until they require her to do something that she wouldn't do otherwise, or refrain from doing something that she wants to do ;)
Japangirl 01-01-07, 02:00 PM	I laughed, mostly at the description of trying to CDG an unconscious and tied up assassin. My rogue has done that a few times . . . normally it was the Good people who were grappled by the rest of the party after they tried to stop me. Letting assassins live is just silly, they go and kill you later if you let them go now.
copper_wyrmling 01-01-07, 02:05 PM	I laughed, mostly at the description of trying to CDG an unconscious and tied up assassin. My rogue has done that a few times . . . normally it was the Good people who were grappled by the rest of the party after they tried to stop me. Letting assassins live is just silly, they go and kill you later if you let them go now. Yeah, we had a paladin in our party :rolleyes: My sorc had spent the combat yoyo-ing between conscious and unconscious, since she was the assassin's preferred target, and she HATED him and wanted him dead, but the paladin took her dagger away when she tried to cut his throat.
Japangirl 01-01-07, 02:08 PM	Yeah, we had a paladin in our party :rolleyes: My sorc had spent the combat yoyo-ing between conscious and unconscious, since she was the assassin's preferred target, and she HATED him and wanted him dead, but the paladin took her dagger away when she tried to cut his throat. Paladins :rolleyes: .
honeynuggets 01-01-07, 02:48 PM	Just to add a somewhat related story here... Great story! I agree that the sorcerer's actions were Chaotic Good. Chaotic in that laws were ignored. Good in that damage to the property of innocents was paid for. However, Living Greyhawk punished that character's alignment with the fine which makes me right about the campaign having poor rules regarding the play of non-lawful alignments. Being tagged as evil for coup-de-gracing an unconscious evil assassin however is total bull. Living Greyhawk is unfair there. If the penalty for a PC murdering someone is hanging then the same penalty will apply to the assassin. So the only difference is that YOU would get to execute him instead of the city's official executioner. It is wrong for a government to claim the right to execute and deny that same right to individuals. I think my story is different in that it was implied that the Ogre Mage owned the house and had lived there a long time. To me that meant I could "reposses it" by force since the Ogre Mage was evil. I still asked if city guards would be able to "evict" the evil tenant, but that was vetoed. In your example, if she was really worried about the evil she might consider burning down the house, but probably not without first sending in her familiar to scout the place, or having a look around herself (invisible, flying and prepared to leave in a hurry if necessary). If people WERE killed in a fire she started, she would feel that she had to arrange for them to be raised - else she's taking the rest of their life away from them, and her intentions really matter very little to the dead people. The costs of that pile up very quickly, and she likes her treasure ;) This is pretty much entirely independent of the local legal system - she'll obey the laws right up until they require her to do something that she wouldn't do otherwise, or refrain from doing something that she wants to do ;) My character would have thanked any dead innocents for their noble sacrifice. War is hell though.
Mommy was an Orc 01-01-07, 02:57 PM	Go ahead and make up all the excuses you want. If intelligent and evil NPCs were actually played smart, PCs would be dying left and right from this forced Lawful Good gameplay. Either that or they would just never beat a module. I'm not making excuses for Living Greyhawk. Sure, there's some mods that have dumb situations. That doesn't change the fact that your proposed actions are clearly Evil with a capital E. They do nothing other than potentially put innocent lives at risk at no real benefit to yourself. They're most certainly not going to stop the Ogre Mage. I'm not sure what situation would force PCs to die left and right. As I pointed out, your situation with hostages does not force good PCs to surrender. In fact, surrender should generally be viewed as a non-option in that situation by Good PCs.
Samwise 01-01-07, 03:04 PM	Wow. I totally disagree with your interpretation of alignments. This happens often enough that WoTC should publish a robust list of example actions for the various alignments. Why? The only one here who seems to think your actions were Chaotic Good is you. You don't know it's an Ogre Mage, just that the bad guy behind the events is at this location. You said you knew it was an ogre mage. And you said you knew he was waiting to ambush you. I haven't played that adventure, I haven't run that adventure, I haven't read that adventure. I can only make suggestions based on what you say about the situation. You seem determined to change that knowledge and weight everything so that indiscriminate arson without concern for the consequences is the "only" solution. I think my story is different in that it was implied that the Ogre Mage owned the house and had lived there a long time. To me that meant I could "reposses it" by force since the Ogre Mage was evil. I still asked if city guards would be able to "evict" the evil tenant, but that was vetoed. Appealing to the authorities to resolve the situation - also Lawful behavior.
CdrcJsn 01-01-07, 08:13 PM	There was the guy who was convinced he was an intelligent ioun stone (or was it some other magical item, Palish folks help me out on this one). Ioun Stone. A grey, burned out one at that. His apotheosis is coming soon though and he'll be a demigod before long (or at least a hero god). Already he can answer a follower's cry for help by rerolling their saves for them (as long as they stay within 30'). The Theocracy of the Pale...where the true nut jobs find haven in the shadows of the Blinding Light.
CdrcJsn 01-01-07, 08:33 PM	Why? The only one here who seems to think your actions were Chaotic Good is you. And quite a few people think that the character has in fact strong Evil leanings evidenced by the lack of compassion for the life of others. The cone of cold didn't drop anyone, but we were all heavily damaged as I recall. The Ogre Mage hits hard too. He chopped down the rest with his sword then me and the Fighter 8 fled the adventure. Guess we should be thankful he didn't chase us lol. Two fighter types running away from the fight? I would brand the character a coward in addition to Evil. The situation was far from hopeless.
garyjohnson 01-01-07, 08:40 PM	Great story! I agree that the sorcerer's actions were Chaotic Good. Chaotic in that laws were ignored. Good in that damage to the property of innocents was paid for. However, Living Greyhawk punished that character's alignment with the fine which makes me right about the campaign having poor rules regarding the play of non-lawful alignments. The "problem" wasn't anything to do with Living Greyhawk - Perrenland is a Lawful Neutral society, with detailed guidelines for how Das Recht ("the law") interacts with scenarios. Cheers, Gary Johnson
copper_wyrmling 01-01-07, 09:15 PM	The "problem" wasn't anything to do with Living Greyhawk - Perrenland is a Lawful Neutral society, with detailed guidelines for how Das Recht ("the law") interacts with scenarios. Cheers, Gary Johnson Yep, agreed entirely. Taking the actions my sorc did in Sunndi, a mostly Chaotic Good society, would have been completely fine (according to my friends in Sunndi). Doing it in a part of Perrenland that *wasn't* an adventurer-run town would probably have had worse consequences (that town is rather more good, less lawful and less suspicious of magic than is common in Perrenland). Casting any obvious spells in public in Iuzian territory would have gotten my PC killed if she didn't get out of town very fast. I LIKE regional variation, it's fun. If you play someone who disregards the mores of the region you're in, of *course* you'll have a harder time than someone who makes an effort to conform. That's not something we should be arguing about, or trying to fix. If you don't think doing the Lawful Good thing can get you in trouble, visit the Bandit Kingdoms, or just the Iuz metaregion ;)
Hariman 01-01-07, 10:25 PM	Yep, agreed entirely. Taking the actions my sorc did in Sunndi, a mostly Chaotic Good society, would have been completely fine (according to my friends in Sunndi). Doing it in a part of Perrenland that *wasn't* an adventurer-run town would probably have had worse consequences (that town is rather more good, less lawful and less suspicious of magic than is common in Perrenland). Casting any obvious spells in public in Iuzian territory would have gotten my PC killed if she didn't get out of town very fast. I LIKE regional variation, it's fun. If you play someone who disregards the mores of the region you're in, of *course* you'll have a harder time than someone who makes an effort to conform. That's not something we should be arguing about, or trying to fix. If you don't think doing the Lawful Good thing can get you in trouble, visit the Bandit Kingdoms, or just the Iuz metaregion ;) Yeah, it is fun. If you REALLY want a challenge, try playing a necromancer in Keoland. There are a LOT of necromancy (and some spells from other schools, including death effects and Evard's Black Tentacles) that are illegal and could result in imprisonment and fines for a character. (TU/GP losses) Not to mention that any item that uses said spells is also illegal. But you have to get caught to get in trouble. So you just have to be careful with those spells. But wasn't this a conversation about Complete Mage? Oh, and I don't think that Complete Mage is broken. It's just as abuseable as the rest of D&D. The Abjurant Champion's bonus to AC boosting Abjuration spells is only for armor and shield bonuses. So that is a maximum of +10 to AC.
Sutro 01-01-07, 11:37 PM	Wow, thread derailment much? :p When I first looked at the reserve feats, I was kind of shocked at how powerful I thought they were. But when I reflected a little bit, I realized that for the most part, they weren't. The caster level thing can be a bit much, though. I'm already planning the return of Ibn al Faeed, my Jinnbonded/Draconic Heritage/Draconic Power/Fire reserve who'll be tossing 8d6 DC 21 fireballs at 6th level. the sweetness, it is... But I digress. Anyhow, the reserve feat abilities mean you're giving up the action to do something cool like the above to fire off a pretty limited 3d6-5d6 something or another. Bear in mind also that a lot of combats rarely go beyond three-four rounds; the general advice is that if combat goes beyond 3-4 rounds, something has gone wrong, ESPECIALLY at higher APLs. Most likely, you'll rest somewhere between the archetypical three combat encounters. At sixth level, the above-named Ibn can toss four of those fireballs a day and six scorching rays/firebursts, all of which would do considerably more damage than the reserve feat. It's certainly not useless, and there are marathon battles where it would definitely come in handy, but considering that casters' feat choices up till now have been relatively poor, I don't see that they're particularly imbalanced. Bear in mind that the extra d6 of damage a wizard/sorc gets from the caster level represents only 3.5 average damage per round. Whereas, a fighter type at APL 6 with weapon spec can easily be doing 3 attacks around (prim+iterative+haste) and getting 6 damage from his feat per round, in addition to whatever AOOs he gets. -Sutro
Randall Montgomery 01-02-07, 11:15 AM	If you don't think doing the Lawful Good thing can get you in trouble, visit the Bandit Kingdoms, or just the Iuz metaregion ;) Too true. Being a Wizard from Highfolk, I can say with fairly good authority that you're actions would have been seen as quite heroic and quick-witted here - unless you're in the Elven part of town, in which case you'll be executed. :D
honeynuggets 01-02-07, 11:52 AM	The "problem" wasn't anything to do with Living Greyhawk - Perrenland is a Lawful Neutral society, with detailed guidelines for how Das Recht ("the law") interacts with scenarios. Gary Johnson I'd bet these "detailed guidelines" involve ZERO roleplay to allow a character a chance at getting away with the crime. They probably get caught automatically. So I guess Perrenland is 100% devoid of crime since everyone who breaks a law gets caught? I'm not making excuses for Living Greyhawk. Sure, there's some mods that have dumb situations. That doesn't change the fact that your proposed actions are clearly Evil with a capital E. They do nothing other than potentially put innocent lives at risk at no real benefit to yourself. They're most certainly not going to stop the Ogre Mage. Now you are completely off. If you want to argue that "burning out" the Ogre Mage wasn't worth the potential risk to innocent lives, that is a valid belief. I don't agree with it, but it's not a question of right or wrong so much as your personal beliefs. However, burning out an Ogre Mage does do something more than potentially putting lives at risk. It would have severly shifted the balance to our favor. The ogre mage would probably have been forced to break a hole in the roof and fly out through the smoke (allowing a Spot check maybe since he's invisible) or crash through a burning wall, giving everyone: an idea of his location, initiative rolls, etc. I do find it sad that so many of you come across with bold statements like: that tactic is "not going to stop the Ogre Mage" without explaining why you think so. Others claim there were many other options without actually presenting any given my best recollection of the scenario....lol sad.
copper_wyrmling 01-02-07, 03:18 PM	This post is part of the earlier tangent that is entirely irrelevant to the thread title: no need to read it unless that tangent is what you're interested in ;) I'd bet these "detailed guidelines" involve ZERO roleplay to allow a character a chance at getting away with the crime. They probably get caught automatically. So I guess Perrenland is 100% devoid of crime since everyone who breaks a law gets caught? No, my sorcerer had the option to run, she could've gone invisible and left - but that would've been pretty non-good, the town was fighting off an invasion of demons and undead, they NEEDED her. Like I said, witnesses weren't an issue: there were Lawful Neutral people in the party itself who would have reported her, except that she didn't think she'd done anything wrong and freely admitted to her actions, and she wanted to help repair the house if repairs were needed. If she'd had Teleport at that stage, she would certainly have been allowed to teleport away, missing the rest of the interactive, or maybe teleport back in under a disguise - but she didn't want to leave. By the way, Perrenland law is a little unusual: the penalty for EVERY crime is a fine or blood-price (usually paid to the clan of the victim), until you get up to mass-murder / high treason, which carries the death penalty. If you were acting on behalf of your clan or your clan thinks your actions were worthy, they will often cover or partially cover the fine. (Of course, that doesn't help my sorcerer, since she's clanless.)
garyjohnson 01-02-07, 04:17 PM	I'd bet these "detailed guidelines" involve ZERO roleplay to allow a character a chance at getting away with the crime. They probably get caught automatically. So I guess Perrenland is 100% devoid of crime since everyone who breaks a law gets caught? Information on Perrenland's law is available at http://perrenland.rpga-apac.com/gazetteer/law.php and at http://perrenland.rpga-apac.com/download/perrenland-law.pdf - as with any in-game event, the amount of in-character roleplaying involved with resolving a criminal investigation depends on the people at the table, but there's plenty of scope to roleplay out the legal process. To quote from the PDF download: The Process of Perrenese Law Here are the dynamics for the DM to adjudicate the result of a criminal investigation: Identifying the crime: Someone is killed in public, a body is found in suspicious circumstances, and accusation is made – whatever – without a potential crime being identified there is no process. This first step is quite obvious. Initial negotiations between the parties: With an open crime it is possible that the perpetrator may admit or confess and wish to pay the kopprij without protest. In this case the two parties, be they two individuals, families or even whole clans, come to the table, so to speak, and discuss terms. If an agreement is reached that satisfies both parties, well and good. Any agreement reached is ratified: The two parties must then find a judge who will witness and ratify the agreement if he or she is satisfied that both parties are agreed without any duress or any other sinister clues. If the judge is happy that everything seems above board then the agreement is made official, the compensation made, and the matter closed. But should the judge be suspicious or unhappy then he or she may order that an investigation be made. An investigation under the authority of a recognised judge begins: When an unsolved crime is noted, an agreement between parties cannot be made, or the judge is unsatisfied with the agreement, then a proper trial and investigation will commence. Cheers, Gary Johnson
solbergb 01-02-07, 08:46 PM	In the end, what happened was that under Perrenland law she was expected to pay a fine; she actually agreed with this, but ONLY if it was a payment to the owners of the house to help with repairs, rather than a punitive fine levied by the city I actually got some Pale laws clarified writing a mod set in a wooden Pale city where PC's might do similar damage. Pholtan law (being inspired by a LG good, much to the disgust of its LN judges) has some odd provisions that protect people who do something dangerous but "were right". Ie, you kill that assassin and attack first. If it is determined that he really was about to kill the victim, you've not committed any of the legal descriptions of murder. (about the only way you can get in trouble if you're right and don't hurt any but the guilty is to use pagan holy symbols in public which is prostlytizing, or to use arcane magic when not registered with the state, and those are slap-on-the-wrist kinds of crimes, minor fines) We also got approved that the victim could waive the fine for property damage if the person damaging it provides direct restitution and perhaps a small cash payment. Ie, if you break a cart and "make whole" AND it satisfiest he owner of the cart, he can get charges dropped. To satisfy him though if he didn't get his goods to market in time, or if he dislikes adventurers, you might need to pay him a little cash too. A fire started and instantly put out would cause charges to be raised, but the victims could choose direct restitution or even to drop charges if they're happy enough with the PC's. "Yup, my roof is singed but they saved my little boy from getting eaten, so lets just call it even." It is helpful in the Pale to have a good reputation with the commonfolk if you have a tendency to break things during fights.