Post/Author/DateTime	Post
codyknotts 01-04-07, 04:28 PM	Since Britt is rightfully tired of people posting what should or should not be banned in the LGCS, lets start a thread to talk about it. Personally, I would love to see suggestion either: clarified or Banned I hate the use by DMs (and I almost always DM btw) of Suggestion that your party is all dopplegangers and you should kill them. Gets old after a while. I have always used it to get the mounted knight off his horse or to force a player to use a lesser weapon or to fight as a grappler and so on... Also I believe that Healer should be allowed as a playable class. Anyways write your ideas...
NiTessine 01-04-07, 04:59 PM	I think the feat Divine Metamagic and the Raging Spell campaign card should be banned. Hell, ban all cards while you're at it, or at least produce some LG -specific ones. I think the healer should be allowed (on the off chance that there is a player out there with a girlfriend to play it... ;)). So should the PHB2 classes.
LGMoses 01-04-07, 05:02 PM	ha hahaha. I bet a lot of these min/maxed str 18/20 characters could make a solid argument that that suggestion would fail against them, not having any knowledge what a doppleganger is. I haven't had cards ruin a game but they are kinda dumb IMO.
budleiser 01-04-07, 05:21 PM	I hate the use by DMs (and I almost always DM btw) of Suggestion that your party is all dopplegangers and you should kill them. Gets old after a while. Huh? Our DM is too good for that. That would have given me a chance to save again. Our DM was smart his suggestion was to "go home". No additional save, I don't get to participate in combat, and my teammates are left behind with no way to remove the suggestion.
kenobi65 01-04-07, 05:58 PM	Hell, ban all cards while you're at it, or at least produce some LG -specific ones. I believe that, at the GenCon Indy RPGA Members' meeting, Ian Richards said something about them seriously looking at including more cards that could be used in LG. My suspicion is he'd gotten a lot more negative feedback about the cards from LG-only players than he'd expected. We'll see what the next rewards mailing looks like, since that'd be the first one that would likely be affected by such a decision.
Britt 01-04-07, 06:04 PM	Raging Spell is definitely going away. We're talking about DMM/DSP and Healer.
Arvagor 01-04-07, 06:34 PM	I hate the use by DMs (and I almost always DM btw) of Suggestion that your party is all dopplegangers and you should kill them. Gets old after a while.Especially since that doesn't/shouldn't work at all. "Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell." That's why you suggest stuff like, "I'm really thirsty. Please fetch me a glass of the best ale from the Green Dragon Inn in Greyhawk City."
copper_wyrmling 01-04-07, 07:23 PM	Raging Spell is definitely going away. We're talking about DMM/DSP and Healer. Eh... I'm not really surprised about Raging Spell, although it was very nice while it lasted. My cleric enjoyed being able to quicken a holly berry bombs, move in and detonate it on the same round, especially when fighting Mummy Lords with fire vulnerability and pathetic Reflex saves ;) I guess now she just has to go back to casting extended Fire Seeds (duration now up to 5 hours 20 minutes) as a precautionary measure: that works better against grapple-monsters anyway :P My personal experience with DMM has been that the required feat investment makes it a powerful option, but not broken. That said, I haven't seen a DMM (Heighten) build in action, just DMM (Empower) (and I've played a DMM (Quicken) build in a different campaign to see how powerful it was - at least at L15, the answer was "Divine Spell Power Is Infinitely Scarier"). I do think Divine Spell Power is rather over the top for one feat. It's not just the ability to kill everything with Holy Word (that series of spells is really a separate problem); it's the fact that for one turn attempt / spell it's fairly easy to (a) make your buffs extremely difficult to dispel by APL-appropriate casters, (b) get the equivalent of two feats for free (spell pen and greater spell pen) on your offensive spells, and (c) get mini-empower and mini-extend on all the spells that would benefit, for no level adjustment. I mean, if I got a rebuild and went purely for power, my Cha-8 cleric would probably take both Extra Turning and DSP, and use a favor to get a rod of splendor (she has a consecrate aura and access to a sceptre of obedience, so her turning check for DSP would be +14, which gives +4 CL on a roll of 8 or better). Still, if I could nominate one thing from the campaign to be eliminated, it would be Blasphemy and the corresponding spells for other alignments. When I've fought enemies using them, they were either fairly useless, or they led to extremely lethal and unsatisfying encounters. ("The demon uses Blasphemy at caster level 13. Who here has 8 or fewer HD?" "Um... you do realise that we are an APL 8 table? And that we mustered according to "everyone who hasn't played this mod, since it's retiring in three weeks"?" "Um, okay. Who here has nine or more hit dice?" Deathly silence...) They're something I feel guilty about using as a player, because they're either utterly pointless or they end the encounter, and neither case is much fun. With regard to other rules items... all the spells that I asked to be banned at the last LGCS review have either been banned in the last Dispel Confusion, or they're under discussion, or I've changed my mind about them being actually game-breaking (although I still think Nature's Favor is way too good for second level ;) ). Shock Trooper seems to be almost as ubiquitous as Power Attack these days, and being able to full power attack with no attack penalty is pretty powerful, but I don't think it breaks the game. Enhance Wild Shape (Spell Compendium) seems like it could be extremely scary (using "gain the extraordinary abilities of the new form"), but I haven't played a druid enough to know how exploitable this is (if at all). When the Bright Sands arc first started, the documentation said that the Bright Sands spells / feats / PrCs were likely to become available as general Core access in the future - is that still being considered, or is it no longer on the table?
pedr 01-04-07, 07:25 PM	Can I make a strong request that, if DMM goes away, you allow people who've chosen feats planning to take DMM later the chance to replace those feats? I have a first level cleric with Quicken Spell. Now, I know that's arguably 'cheesy' ... but it's a feat combination that has been in the campaign for what, over two years now? I'm not enough of a powergamer to know whether somethings 'overpowered' or abusive ... I just saw the opportunity to use a Core feat (DMM) and so planned for it. I don't mind if you decide that it has overpowered the campaign and needs to go away (though with the restricting of the Libris Mortis 'free turn attempt' rods I think it's probably a lot less problematic than it once was), but don't penalise players who've done nothing but follow the rules, please.
Arvagor 01-04-07, 07:41 PM	Can I make a strong request that, if DMM goes away, you allow people who've chosen feats planning to take DMM later the chance to replace those feats?I'm guessing the argument will be the same as when spikes was originally banned, and all the PCs with Weapon Focus (great club), Weapon Specialization (great club), etc. started whining (and yes, I do mean whining). The response was that great club is as useful a weapon after spikes was banned as it was before (which I happen to agree with, FWIW). Quicken Spell is a useful feat, regardless of whether Divine Metamagic powers it or not, so I'll wager the answer will be "no".
Sutro 01-04-07, 09:48 PM	Coming from someone who has a half-orc with both Shock Trooper and Combat Brute, I can give a little insight into what I think of them. :) There's no doubt that Shock Trooper (and Combat Brute's sundering cleave) abilities are nasty, and even better when used in conjunction with one another. The damage at the end of the charge is usually in the high 30s-low 40s at APL 6. If I decide to make this guy a falchion wielder, there's a 30 percent chance of damage heading into the 80s. But compare this to other characters. Combust does close to the same damage, and doesn't drop a warmage's generally good AC (and usually has a bit better chance to hit.) If you don't drop the target in the first round, you're looking at an absolutely hellacious full attack. Not to mention all the invariables: Is my charge lane blocked? Do I miss? (that's not real likely; I've got +17 to hit, but it does happen) Now, what DOES crack out Heedless Charge is Bracers of Quick Strike. The benefit from these bracers is absolutely out of line with its cost. I would be all for seeing Bracers of Quick Strike removed from the campaign; in fact, I wouldn't mind seeing Miniatures Handbook overall being phased out. (Gloves of Fortunate Striking and the Boots of Charging are also very, very powerful given the cost and what they allow one to do with an alpha strike. And the marshal annoys me. :) ) -Sutro
Arvagor 01-04-07, 10:28 PM	Now, what DOES crack out Heedless Charge is Bracers of Quick Strike. ...Well, it possibly would, if you could gain the benefit of the bracers at the end of the Heedless Charge. But you can't -- the bracers only function when you take the full attack action, and a charge is not a full attack action. The benefit from these bracers is absolutely out of line with its cost.Not really, IMO. The bracers provide 1/10 the benefit of boots of speed for 1/10 the cost. The benefit is actually less, since the boots increase your speed in addition to providing the additional attack, whereas the bracers just give you an extra attack, period. Both require a full attack to gain the extra attack.
Puggle Halfwine 01-04-07, 10:31 PM	Puggle Halfwine + Shock Trooper = "It Dies If I Don't Roll A One!" Rolling a natural one = dead Puggle. 5% chance per round of being full attacked by at least one (usually two or three) high level monsters with AC 12, away from healing or any kind of salvation... is very risky. Disclaimer: This post probably doesn't make much sense to those who havn't played with Puggle before.
copper_wyrmling 01-04-07, 10:36 PM	Puggle Halfwine + Shock Trooper = "It Dies If I Don't Roll A One!" Rolling a natural one = dead Puggle. 5% chance per round of being full attacked by at least one (usually two or three) high level monsters with AC 12, away from healing or any kind of salvation... is very risky. Disclaimer: This post probably doesn't make much sense to those who havn't played with Puggle before. It's fairly typical for mounted shocktroopers, or pouncing shocktroopers (the latter don't have nearly as much of an issue with "if I don't roll a 1"). You can even do a mounted pouncing shocktrooper who gets x3 full-PA damage on every attack in a full attack (you can get all the required feats together by L9, and the easiest way to do it also gets you a flying APL-appropriate mount), but it's kind of overkill at that point ;) But yes, the issue with Shocktrooper isn't the guy who does 40 damage at APL 6, it's the guy who can power attack for everything and still reliably hit on his x3 lance charge, or the guy who can power attack for everything and still hit with all five attacks when wildshaped into a pouncing cat. At high levels, most damage comes from Power Attack in many cases: being able to full-power-attack without an associated penalty to hit is extremely powerful.
Jay_Ibero_911 01-05-07, 12:25 AM	I've seen the nastiness that can occur when shock trooper is combined with pounce, in the form of a well built fighter polymorphed into a cave troll (caster had access from somewhere). DMM I don't have much issue with, as it can turn a cleric into somewhat of a one trick pony. Divine Spellpower is also not so bad, and is only really disgusting when combined with the aforementioned Holy Word type spells. I think it actually would be a pretty good idea to just make THOSE spells restricted. At least now with the Bite of the Were-whatever spells banned, the power gamer in me can stop hoping for access...Though I really just wanted Bite of the Wereboar for the +8 enhancement bonus to natural armor. So here's my Ban scale out of 10, with 10 being a definate ban: Shock Trooper: 7/10 Divine Metamagic: 4/10 Divine Spellpower: 3/10, 9/10 when used with Blasphemy Blasphemy Series: 8/10 I can't think of any other feats, spells, or abilities off the top of my head that seem to have unbalanced the game...
jstorrie 01-05-07, 12:41 AM	Shock Trooper is at appropriate power level, as is DMM in most cases; they have balanced costs for what they grant. The blasphemy series ought to go, though, as it just causes too many headaches.
Gwumph 01-05-07, 03:43 AM	LOL Puggle, I would love to see our characters playing together!!!! We have both take different paths for our mounted Halfling's characters, but it would be great to see them in a tag-team situation!! Only problem is Puggle is a Halfling and Gwumph doesn't like Halflings. :) (see Perrenland Hero's webpage for futher details) Cheers Gwumph
Lupo 01-05-07, 04:11 AM	"divine metamagic you-name-it" when some people state that "divine metamagic you-name-it" is broken and ripe for removal, the same should go for all the "sudden" feats from complete arcane. any cleric who takes "divine metamagic you-name-it" has to invest two - actually most often three, with an additional "extra turning" - feats to get it working. as clerics are only getting six feats in total during their career it is a high investment of their resouces. if taken away, my cleric 4 with "divine metamagic [quicken]" would be ok with keeping the "quicken" but would dearly love to get rid of the "extra turning" and redistribute two points from his way to high charisma - when no "divine metamagic [quicken]" is around. comapare it to the sudden feats for wizards - with the exeption of "sudden quicken" - they have the only prerequisite "any metamagic feat", just nothing complicated for any wizard build i have seen, and wizards get bonus feats every five levels. that would be problematic for warmages, as they get sudden feats as class feature . . . . . divine spellpower: yea, the cost of only one turning attempt and the easy way to get a check that always will get a positive effect make this feat somehow problematic. wotc writers did a poor job there, adding a number of levels equal to the invested turning attempts would make it reasonable. i have one cleric who uses it, the cleric has suffered from each conversion so far, lets keep up the tradition so why not this time:confused: ;) actually he took it after the last conversion nuked his previous feats ;) removal is unproblematic, as it is only one feat, no prerequisites and no one neede to fine tune his character towards it. blasphemy et.al. yea, just restrict it. shock trooper silly concept :) bad if the foe has the "elusive target" feat. only the higher level version of a first level barbarians rage-charge-hit-it-hope-it-is-dead-otherwise-i-am-screwed tactic. occult slayer after another heated discussion on the "occult-slayer" prestige class on one of the yahoo lists, i woul consider making it NPC only (and i would verbally kick any author who then has the NPC occult slayer working in combination with buffing casters). healer if someone really wants to play the class . . . . . . . but i wouldn't. just think of it; four player party: warmage, healer, marshal and swashbuckler, has all four types, arcane, divine, support and full BAB but i wouldn't bet on them ;) PHB-II classes i haven't studied the book in detail yet, just some glimpses of some classes and feats for maxed cheese factors. so pulling all stops here and banning DMM and DSP seems somehow contraproductive ;) ciao martin m.
copper_wyrmling 01-05-07, 04:41 AM	"divine metamagic you-name-it" when some people state that "divine metamagic you-name-it" is broken and ripe for removal, the same should go for all the "sudden" feats from complete arcane. any cleric who takes "divine metamagic you-name-it" has to invest two - actually most often three, with an additional "extra turning" - feats to get it working. as clerics are only getting six feats in total during their career it is a high investment of their resouces. if taken away, my cleric 4 with "divine metamagic [quicken]" would be ok with keeping the "quicken" but would dearly love to get rid of the "extra turning" and redistribute two points from his way to high charisma - when no "divine metamagic [quicken]" is around. comapare it to the sudden feats for wizards - with the exeption of "sudden quicken" - they have the only prerequisite "any metamagic feat", just nothing complicated for any wizard build i have seen, and wizards get bonus feats every five levels. The sudden feats work once / day; the divine metamagic feats work a number of times / day based on the resources you invest. It's not really fair to include the extra turning feat in the feat investment for clerics if you're comparing it to the sudden feats, since the reason for taking extra turning is typically to let you use the feat more than once / day. For example: for a Cha-12 cleric, to maximize a spell once / day costs two feats, Maximize and DMM (Maximize). For a sorcerer, it costs two feats, one metamagic of their choice and Sudden Maximize. The cleric can get extra uses / day by spending more feats (and / or investing more starting points in Cha and buying a cloak later); the sorc has no such option. The sorc, unlike the cleric, needs access - and Sudden Maximize seems to be considered at the overpowered end of the Limited spectrum, I know that last time we redid the Perrenland meta-orgs the Triad publicly said that they wouldn't give access to the feat because it was more powerful than they were comfortable with. And I haven't actually heard of many people doing DMM (Maximize) - the popular ones seem to be DMM (Heighten) (which can't be reproduced with Sudden feats at all), and DMM (Quicken) (and Sudden Quicken has extraordinarily difficult prereqs). Also, there's nothing stopping clerics from taking the Sudden feats (apart from the fact that they're Limited, which is also true for wizards)... but I think most opt for divine metamagic, because it's just better for almost all builds, even when Sudden feats are available through meta-orgs. I do not in fact think that DMM is broken... but when I look at how it compares to the Sudden feats, it seems more overpowered to me, not less.
Iswald 01-05-07, 09:19 AM	I do not in fact think that DMM is broken... but when I look at how it compares to the Sudden feats, it seems more overpowered to me, not less. In my opinion, DMM isn't over powered. When you look at the sudden feats, they are just really weak. I've never understood why you should have to take every other sudden feat before you can take sudden quicken. Well, ok, they missed sudden widen but, that was probably an oversight. :rolleyes: Some of the abuse that I've heard about with the turning feats were based on players not reading the rules. For example, counting all turn attempts, even elemental attempts, when determining how often the feats could be used. Also, some people were using multiple turning based feats in the same round, something specifically not allowed. Combust was mentioned previously. That's a spell I'd prefer to have removed. Why? Spell storing. I don't want the combination used on one of my PCs. ;)
haferka 01-05-07, 09:39 AM	Well, it possibly would, if you could gain the benefit of the bracers at the end of the Heedless Charge. But you can't -- the bracers only function when you take the full attack action, and a charge is not a full attack action. Pounce, allows a full attack action in conjuntion with a charge. So, yes it is possible to use the bracers at the end of the Headless Charge.
JamesMaissen 01-05-07, 10:37 AM	Pounce, allows a full attack action in conjuntion with a charge. So, yes it is possible to use the bracers at the end of the Headless Charge. And that's a problem with bracers of quick strike in your mind? The problem there is with pounce.. boots of speed will give better return than the bracers so I really don't see them as an issue. Pounce has some problems with monsters as well as with players. It's the same reason why Dervish is so powerful a class and why mounted combat is so scary. Getting the equivalent of a full attack action at distance is just nasty. It exaserbates the problems of the turn based system. Atleast with pounce the creature is right there afterwards while the other two typically can retreat and deny a full counterattack. -James
haferka 01-05-07, 11:33 AM	I agree, pounce is the problem. I was just giving an example where you could full attack with a headless charge.
solbergb 01-05-07, 12:09 PM	You can not however ban pounce without banning a bunch of ordinary monsters (including all cats). Even the charging lance guys or pounce guys can usually only kill minion types in one charge. They take a big chunk out of the bad guy, and then he reams them if they aren't supported by other party members. It also really takes a while for it to all come together. Most of the shock trooper builds designed to get ugly don't get ugly till level 10-12. And by then what the casters are doing is also getting ugly.
budleiser 01-05-07, 04:22 PM	You can not however ban pounce without banning a bunch of ordinary monsters (including all cats). Even the charging lance guys or pounce guys can usually only kill minion types in one charge. They take a big chunk out of the bad guy, and then he reams them if they aren't supported by other party members. It also really takes a while for it to all come together. Most of the shock trooper builds designed to get ugly don't get ugly till level 10-12. And by then what the casters are doing is also getting ugly. Why not? Tons of stuff is labeled NPC only.
Sieylianna 01-05-07, 07:41 PM	Can I make a strong request that, if DMM goes away, you allow people who've chosen feats planning to take DMM later the chance to replace those feats? That's why my future RSoP dropped quicken spell at 3.5 conversion. I'm surprised it's still in the campaign. Ed
frupton 01-06-07, 01:49 AM	I agree, pounce is the problem. I was just giving an example where you could full attack with a headless charge. I haven't seen that in LG. Is that from the Sleepy Hollow campaign?
codyknotts 01-06-07, 02:34 AM	The goal: the danger of all high level play and cheez spells is that any that end a fight in 1 round should probably be eliminated. Rationale: D&D should NOT become 1st edition Magic. It is boring that the side that wins initiative wins. It also requires few game skills, just build skills. Shock trooper should be considered because it has few downsides but so should a host of spells Also the fact that magic is MORE powerful at higher levels is fine because it balances out the fact that Wizards are more likely to die early and fighters rule the game early. Also anything (banning Shock Trooper) that would lead to Rogues with Sneak being more useful would be appreciated. So my vote is all win now feats, spells and such should be gone.
haferka 01-06-07, 09:24 AM	So my vote is all win now feats, spells and such should be gone. I see your point, ... BUT... Most of the high level broken stuff requires a combination of rule items.. I really don't know anything about Combat Brute, so I will skip it for now. Only way I know to get pounce is the "Lion's Pounce" which requires 5 levels of Druid ... I don't see any errata on the feat, but it seems to lack the "expend 1 wild shape to gain this benifit" which is in ALL the other wild feats. I would suggest "fixing" the feat by adding this requirement, or simply banning it. If anyone knows of another way to get pounce I'd like to know about it... Also, add a restriction to the lance weapon, which ONLY allows the damage multiplier on the first attack of a charge with a given weapon. It simply doesn't make sense that you would get a huge damage bonus from the initial charge, then yank the weapon out and hit them again, (without the same momentum.. ) and still get the damage modifier for all further attacks that round. Or, even simpler.. limit the lance to a single attack per round. NO matter what. Just to keep it simple. I prefer the first option, becouse I see loopholes in the second already... like droping the first lance, and quickdrawing another...
ranagrande 01-06-07, 09:46 AM	If anyone knows of another way to get pounce I'd like to know about it... The Wildrunner prestige class from Races of the Wild gets the pounce ability at level 6.
Genghis Cohen 01-07-07, 01:57 PM	Here's my list for things that should be restricted: 1) Holy Word/Blasphemy - As has already been pointed out, it either is useless or ends encointers immediately. We're not just here to collect ARs, we're here to play. Holy Word makes us AR collectors. Also, please ban both or none. Lets keep this balanced. 2) Divine Metamagic - I'm currently in a RHoD campaign with a 6 person party. We have two clerics, and one has DMM Quicken. This means that when things are looking nasty, we actually have three clerics for a round, as well as the other four players (including an optimized battlefield control Wizard.) I see the cheese. Its not organic cheese. Its Velveeta. While I don't have a DMM character, or one that's building to this, if DMM is banned, please allow those characters who were building to it to replace their metamagic feat. That's all I've got.
Lupo 01-07-07, 04:01 PM	<snip> While I don't have a DMM character, or one that's building to this, if DMM is banned, please allow those characters who were building to it to replace their metamagic feat. That's all I've got. no, i am fine with the "quicken" feat. ok, it is first usable at level 7 for a quickened "cure minor" but that is still useful - my cleric can stabilize a fallen comrade AND do something else, the problematic part is the "extra turning" my cleric took at level 1 due to the "3rd level rule" (without it, he would have taken "quicken" AND "divine metamagic quicken" at first level, delaying "extra turning" at least till level 3 or even 6) and the 6 points invested in charisma, definitely too much when one can't get the planned DMM "quicken" with it. ciao martin m.
clannagh 01-07-07, 05:32 PM	I find it curious that clerics who optimise their turning for actually turning undead are criticised and Radiant Servants who merely specialise in waht clerics are meant to do (heal and turn) are "cheesy" but if, instead, they try and use turn abilities for something other than turning then DMM is overpowered.
Jay_Ibero_911 01-07-07, 06:21 PM	I see your point, ... BUT... Most of the high level broken stuff requires a combination of rule items.. I really don't know anything about Combat Brute, so I will skip it for now. Only way I know to get pounce is the "Lion's Pounce" which requires 5 levels of Druid ... I don't see any errata on the feat, but it seems to lack the "expend 1 wild shape to gain this benifit" which is in ALL the other wild feats. I would suggest "fixing" the feat by adding this requirement, or simply banning it. If anyone knows of another way to get pounce I'd like to know about it... Also, add a restriction to the lance weapon, which ONLY allows the damage multiplier on the first attack of a charge with a given weapon. It simply doesn't make sense that you would get a huge damage bonus from the initial charge, then yank the weapon out and hit them again, (without the same momentum.. ) and still get the damage modifier for all further attacks that round. Or, even simpler.. limit the lance to a single attack per round. NO matter what. Just to keep it simple. I prefer the first option, becouse I see loopholes in the second already... like droping the first lance, and quickdrawing another... Lion's Pounce clearly states you may spend a use of wildshape as a free action to make a full attack at the end of a charge... After thinking about it...no matter what we ban or restrict, there's always going to be something at the top of the power curve, and if we get rid of too much, the game could boil down to mildly flavored chess. There will always be people who will use whatever is at the top of the power curve, and Authors who will do the same. Sometimes it's fun to be able to walk all over the enemy, and sometimes it's fun for the party to get it's collective butts kicked (as long as it's not an unrecoverable TPK). So while I still agree that that Blasphemy/Holy Word should be restricted, as they generally do turn out to be WIN now or worthless, I think perhaps the best solution would be to make DMM and Shock Trooper limited, so as to reduce their use without elminating it. And I think Occult Slayer should remain core, as I find nothing about it disruptive to gameplay.
clannagh 01-07-07, 07:59 PM	I am kinda picking up across the boards suggestions that all sorts of things be restricted because they are "too powerful with shock trooper" . Doesnt this suggest that its shock trooper that needs looking at ???
_m_ 01-07-07, 11:26 PM	I am kinda picking up across the boards suggestions that all sorts of things be restricted because they are "too powerful with shock trooper" . Doesnt this suggest that its shock trooper that needs looking at ??? yeah, i tend to agree: why nerf or ban 7 feats because they are too good with shock trooper, when one could simply fix the shock trooper itself.
codyknotts 01-08-07, 01:00 AM	Shock Trooper is the power feat for fighters and enables crazy damage. It violates the idea of power attack COSTING a chance to hit. The fighter no longer has to consider the side effect. This is even more so when there is only one big bad enemy. The result is a lesser game, dominated by one player Same with Blasphemy and Holy Word. Please Please ban the shock trooper
solbergb 01-08-07, 03:04 PM	Shock trooper doesn't actually do enough damage to kill the monster, just rip a chunk out of it. The damage is usually comparable to what an arcane can do with an appropriately metamagicked ray spell, level per level. It lets a fighter do damage closer to what he'd do in a full attack with little or moderate poewr attack under circumstances when it could charge. This is the normal use for the feat. It's entirely appropriate at that power level. If you're facing a charge/pouncemonkey that exceeds that boundary of what the feat can do, the easiest answer is for NPC's to do the same thing that PC's do when they encounter a bunch of guys with lances ready to spirited charge - mess up the charge lanes. (make the terrain difficult, hit the guy with a tanglefoot bag, block vision, put an expendible guy between you and the charger, etc)
budleiser 01-08-07, 03:09 PM	The damage is usually comparable to what an arcane can do with an appropriately metamagicked ray spell, level per level. Amen. Of course we have much faster power curves. Didn't really have to avoid combat just to survive so that someday we could hit our curve and become useful. We have better AC, HP, Fort saves, Etc.
Synecdoche 01-08-07, 05:05 PM	My feelings about banning: Divine Metamagic: 80% - Not only unbalanced, but it takes away from cleric's role and makes them one-trick ponies. Divine Spellpower: 40% - In practice, not so bad. Shock Trooper: 60% - Too much at high levels. If the best argument for keeping it is that it makes fighters equal to casters, then that implicitly says its way better than all other melee builds. Blasphemy Series: 90% - As everyone knows, too much or nothing.
bitznarf 01-08-07, 11:08 PM	Shock Trooper: 60% - Too much at high levels. If the best argument for keeping it is that it makes fighters equal to casters, then that implicitly says its way better than all other melee builds. While I can hardly disagree with the statement that shock trooper is cheesy, I do disagree with the statement that it is way better than all other melee builds. For example, take the spiked chain cheese: I don't think anyone can argue that a spiked chain and related feats/builds is cheesy. The difference, from my viewpoint, is that I don't see a glaring weakness in the spiked chain cheese (correct me if I am wrong), where-as the heedless charge line does: totally tanked AC. Should it be banned? IMO no, as it does take 2 feats to get to (assuming that power attack is considered standard), and comparing it to Craft Wonderous or Holy Word/Blasphemy... thats just my 2 cents
_m_ 01-08-07, 11:20 PM	thats just my 2 cents ... i wish I had 2 cents...
bitznarf 01-09-07, 01:08 AM	... i wish I had 2 cents... sadly, having just given away my 2 cents, I am also left penniless and destitute
Arvagor 01-09-07, 01:39 AM	... i wish I had 2 cents...sadly, having just given away my 2 cents, I am also left penniless and destitute Oh, good grief! Here, have some of mine... :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents:
Iswald 01-09-07, 11:37 AM	Also, add a restriction to the lance weapon, which ONLY allows the damage multiplier on the first attack of a charge with a given weapon. It simply doesn't make sense that you would get a huge damage bonus from the initial charge, then yank the weapon out and hit them again, (without the same momentum.. ) and still get the damage modifier for all further attacks that round. Just treat it like a volley. You only get your sneak attack/spirited charge bonus on the first attack.
haferka 01-09-07, 11:38 AM	Oh, good grief! Here, have some of mine... :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: no one has any cents!!! Anything less than a gp rounds to the nearest gp. Beggers be gone.
Iswald 01-09-07, 11:40 AM	Divine Metamagic: 80% - Not only unbalanced, but it takes away from cleric's role and makes them one-trick ponies. This is the logic I would use to keep DMM. They've become one trick ponies, having given up a lot to be one. But, I don't see how it takes away from the cleric's role if they still have to be a cleric.
kenobi65 01-09-07, 11:59 AM	sadly, having just given away my 2 cents, I am also left penniless and destitute People say, "a penny for your thoughts", but then you give them your two cents' worth. Someone's making a fortune, an extra penny at a time. ;)
pedr 01-09-07, 12:09 PM	People say, "a penny for your thoughts", but then you give them your two cents' worth. Someone's making a fortune, an extra penny at a time. ;)Not if they're asking for an English penny - Then the profit is about 1 percent of a cent a time ;)
codyknotts 01-09-07, 02:31 PM	It is interesting that there seems consensus on the banning of DMM and such. Some arguement on Shock Trooper. As a DM I find the drop in AC not that important at higher levels where the enemy generally is autohitting (except for the Cork character that lowers it to attack) In addition, does anyone think that Divine Insight should have been banned? Is there anything other than the three things mentioned before that should be banned? Any spells? Feats? PRCs?
kenobi65 01-09-07, 02:48 PM	In addition, does anyone think that Divine Insight should have been banned? There was a lot of discussion on that topic on the LG Yahoo group when the decision came down a few weeks back. Most responses fell into one of three areas: 1) Divine Insight makes skill-based PCs useless and steals their thunder, so it should go away (this view was pointed to by the Circle, as well) 2) I used Divine Insight, but I knew it was cheese, and I figured it would go away. It's too good of a bonus, and lasts too long. 3) Taking Divine Insight away gimps the ability of clerics to fill in the gaps of an unbalanced party, and overcome skill-based "gates" in modules that the party might not be able to overcome otherwise
clannagh 01-09-07, 06:26 PM	The difference, from my viewpoint, is that I don't see a glaring weakness in the spiked chain cheese (correct me if I am wrong), where-as the heedless charge line does: totally tanked AC. There certianly is a glaring weakness ... a huge feat investment to make the whole thing work optimally .. and using arguments about the effectiveness of a character with chain prof/chain focus/finesse/expertise/power attack/deft opportunist/combat reflexes/imp trip/imp disarm/exotic weapon master (and there are 4 or 5 more chain relevant feats if you want to keep going) to argue against chains generically is silly. If you really look at a lot of the arguments they are really about the improved trip feat being overpowered not the chain. In particular the wording that says the second attack occurs "as if the first never happened" meaning the effects of improved feint, true strike etc carry on to the free attack and feasibly (i just banned this in a game i ran yesterday) a trip attack and follow up free attack with weapons in different hands both as primaries in the same turn.
CdrcJsn 01-09-07, 07:05 PM	The only thing that makes DMM potentially abusive is that it allows a cleric to effectively use spell slots that they don't have access to. If the feat were instead limited to combos that produce effects that the character can normally use, then there wouldn't be an issue. For example, a 3rd lvl cleric can use DMM:Quicken to cast a quickened 2nd level spell, normally a 6th level spell slot. I can see how many people might see that as overly powerful. However, if quickening a 2nd level slot via DMM required that you be able to use 6th level spell slots (i.e. 11th level caster) then nobody would think the feat broken and the feat will still see use. On the other hand, I don't know of too many DMM clerics breaking mods right now. Even for the high level LG game rebuild, I found other feats worth taking than DMM for my cleric.
copper_wyrmling 01-09-07, 07:43 PM	In particular the wording that says the second attack occurs "as if the first never happened" meaning the effects of improved feint, true strike etc carry on to the free attack This is incorrect, there is a FAQ ruling on it (search for Improved Trip to find it; the copy I'm reading isn't the most recent one, but this ruling hasn't changed): Question: Suppose a character with the Improved Trip feat uses the Bluff skill to successfully feint in combat and uses his next melee attack to trip the duped opponent. It seems clear that the character ignores that opponent’s Dexterity bonus to Armor Class for the touch attack to initiate the trip. Assuming that the trip attempt is successful, Improved Trip provides an additional attack as if the character hadn’t used her attack for the trip attempt. Does this mean that the character continues to ignore the tripped opponent’s Dexterity bonus to Armor Class for the additional attack granted by Improved Trip feat? How do other “next attack only” effects (like the true strike spell) work with the Improved Trip feat? Answer: In each case, the initial attack in trip attempt is the “next attack,” not the extra attack that you get from the Improved Trip feat. That is, if you’ve made a successful feint, your foe is denied any Dexterity bonus to Armor Class when you make the initial melee touch attack to start your trip attempt, but not when you attack him after a successful trip. Likewise, if you use the true strike spell, the +20 attack bonus applies to the touch attack, not to the free attack. The Improved Trip feat description says that you get an extra attack after a successful trip attempt “as though you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt.” That, however, is just a shorthand way of explaining what part of your normal attack routine you use for the extra attack; it’s not meant to imply that you enter some kind of strange time warp when you make trip attacks. Incidentally, if people were saying that Divine Insight "lasted too long" - they did realise that the skill bonus applies to one check only, right? The hours / level duration is how long you can hold onto the spell before triggering it; once it's triggered it applies to a single roll. (For example, a cleric who wishes to search every square of the room using Divine Insight needs to recast the spell for each square.)
Iswald 01-10-07, 09:40 AM	It is interesting that there seems consensus on the banning of DMM and such. I'm not seeing a consensus... Even if there was one here, it wouldn't be representative of all players, only the subset that bothers to read and post in these forums.
Lupo 01-10-07, 10:10 AM	It is interesting that there seems consensus on the banning of DMM and such. Some arguement on Shock Trooper. As a DM I find the drop in AC not that important at higher levels where the enemy generally is autohitting (except for the Cork character that lowers it to attack) In addition, does anyone think that Divine Insight should have been banned? Is there anything other than the three things mentioned before that should be banned? Any spells? Feats? PRCs? no consensus on banning DMM or DSP here, if anyone derived this impression from any if my posts, the impression is WRONG :) banning anything is always complicated and remember that modules that have NPC use the newly banned features still continue to use them. so even if DMM and/or DSP is banned for PCs, it might be still used by their foes for TWO years! and DMM definitely calls for a massive PC conversion, as characters tend to have at least one connected feat (extra turning) associated with it, as well as specific stat point distribution. ciao martin m.
bitznarf 01-10-07, 10:52 AM	There certianly is a glaring weakness ... a huge feat investment to make the whole thing work optimally .. and using arguments about the effectiveness of a character with chain prof/chain focus/finesse/expertise/power attack/deft opportunist/combat reflexes/imp trip/imp disarm/exotic weapon master (and there are 4 or 5 more chain relevant feats if you want to keep going) to argue against chains generically is silly. By 'glaring weakness' I was referring to some actual game mechanic that is a weak spot for spiked chain users in particular (rather then low will saves on a lot of mutts, not just some spiked chain users). Things like combat reflexes and EWM just adds gravy to the base EWP/combat expertise/imp disarm cheese. On a side note, I am not saying that I think (or don't think for that matter) that spiked chains should be banned, merely that they have the same level of power, if not more then heedless charge does, at least the way I see it.
jstorrie 01-10-07, 12:53 PM	Also the fact that magic is MORE powerful at higher levels is fine because it balances out the fact that Wizards are more likely to die early and fighters rule the game early. Also anything (banning Shock Trooper) that would lead to Rogues with Sneak being more useful would be appreciated. Grease, Colour Spray, Sleep? Arcane casters are very powerful in the early game. In the early game, the fighter's attack rolls and AC aren't even that much higher than the wizard's. You're describing 2e; well-built arcane casters are fine in low-level 3.5. Fighters are still fine at APL 14, too. Shock Trooper is certainly not a win-now feat. As someone has accurately described earlier in the thread, it's a pseudo-pounce, allowing you to do damage comparable to a full attack when charging. Yes, it is a problem when combined with pounce abilities, but as far as I know there are only three that are easily accessible in LG (Lion's Pounce, Lion's Charge, and Wildrunner's shout), of which only the Wildrunner ability is particularly attractive to a BDF build. Once you use Shock Trooper, you will most likely eat a full Power Attack in return. It is a very high-risk tactic and appropriately balanced.
amnuxoll 01-10-07, 01:35 PM	Enter my vote to restrict Divine Metamagic. I only wish I had more votes (or is it pennies?) Divine Spellpower can be abused too. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing it go, but I'm willing to live with it if it doesn't go. Shock Trooper I've not seen abused and so abstain.
clannagh 01-10-07, 05:35 PM	Grease, Colour Spray, Sleep? Arcane casters are very powerful in the early game. In the early game, the fighter's attack rolls and AC aren't even that much higher than the wizard's. You're describing 2e; well-built arcane casters are fine in low-level 3.5. Fighters are still fine at APL 14, too. Shock Trooper is certainly not a win-now feat. As someone has accurately described earlier in the thread, it's a pseudo-pounce, allowing you to do damage comparable to a full attack when charging. Yes, it is a problem when combined with pounce abilities, but as far as I know there are only three that are easily accessible in LG (Lion's Pounce, Lion's Charge, and Wildrunner's shout), of which only the Wildrunner ability is particularly attractive to a BDF build. Once you use Shock Trooper, you will most likely eat a full Power Attack in return. It is a very high-risk tactic and appropriately balanced. i thought shock trooper also worked if you wild shaped into dire lion or something similiar that has pounce inately ? I may be wrong have never used the feat.
chesspiece 01-10-07, 08:16 PM	i thought shock trooper also worked if you wild shaped into dire lion or something similiar that has pounce inately ? I may be wrong have never used the feat. Correct. Also Warchanter3 can buff a fighter so that any full attack works (+damage / -AC) and doesn't require Shocktrooper / charge lanes.
solbergb 01-10-07, 08:19 PM	Yes, but to do that you need at least 5 levels of druid and thus have lost 3 BAB right away. Which limits how bad it is. at level 9, (which is as early as you can get the combo together without mixing in fighter levels...that can lower it to about 7 or 8) you are getting 5 attacks and thus getting about a 1/5 power attack mix, but with only a BAB of 6. so +30 damage attributed to power attack. Nice, but hardly gamebreaking at level 9. A vanilla barb/shocktrooper only gets +18 damage at L9 from the feat but he's much more capable of dealing with damage reduction, reach issues etc. The wildrunners get the most benefit, but that doesn't really come together till level 12. At which point the melee monsters have 200-300hp so they're likely still standing anyway.
Gwumph 01-10-07, 10:56 PM	Honestly Shock Trooper is a 1 hit kill feat for only 1 type of character. A mounted one with all the feats and pounce. Narrowed further it's most effective with small mounted characters (since large mounts don't seem to do well). Even then it mostly won't work. Even then heedless charge doesn't deal more damage, it just insures a higher chance of hitting. Unless you go straight fighter (very rare) you won't get shock trooper until 9th level. At that level a small sized charger double handing the lance and plus some nice bonuses, should get you roughly 90-100 points damage plus 3D6. Very nice, but 90% of the BBEG will have way more than that amount of HP. So that leaves the small character with rougly an 8 AC within full attack range of a very ****** off BBEG. Any non-mounted 9th level fighter would be hard pressed to equal that (equal to 3 attacks). So the question is are you going to ban a feat just because quite powerful for a select group of characters and merely a good feat with eveyone else. As for pounce + Shock trooper, u need to be a 5th level halfling druid with the feats mounted combat, ride-by attack, spirited charge, power attack, improved bull-rush, shock trooper, and lions pounce for it to all work!!!!! Then i agree it becomes Uber powerful. As for Wildrunner PrC, the earlist you get get it would be 12th level. If you go spirited charge route, you still need all the above feats (minus lions pounce) for it to work a fraction of the time (large mounts don't do well in LG modules), and if the Wildrunner is not mounted then they are only doing 3 attacks which is equal to a spirited charge. So again the question is should a good feat be banned because it becomes Uber-powerful with " pounce + Shock trooper, u need to be a 5th level halfling druid with the feats mounted combat, ride-by attack, spirited charge, power attack, improved bull-rush, shock trooper, and lions pounce for it to all work, but is merely a good feat for all the other fighter types out there.
_m_ 01-10-07, 11:04 PM	It is interesting that there seems consensus on the banning of DMM and such. Some arguement on Shock Trooper. As a DM I find the drop in AC not that important at higher levels where the enemy generally is autohitting (except for the Cork character that lowers it to attack) In addition, does anyone think that Divine Insight should have been banned? Is there anything other than the three things mentioned before that should be banned? Any spells? Feats? PRCs? shadowcraft mage is too good imo. i mean, i actually have 1, but its kind of dumb. sudden maximise is, atm, limited, i think it should simply be out. again, talking from experience
clannagh 01-11-07, 12:53 AM	shadowcraft mage is too good imo. i mean, i actually have 1, but its kind of dumb. sudden maximise is, atm, limited, i think it should simply be out. again, talking from experience sudden maximise while you still had it was pretty amazing .. i tend to think your born of three thunders is a wee bit powerfula s well but not enough to ban
cycloptic_squirrel 01-11-07, 08:11 AM	What about Occult Slayer? From what I can tell, it's a ridiculously good PRC which has easy prereqs that you can hit early. I like the flavor of it, but without a drawback I think it's overpowered. Something like... 'you cannot voluntarily lower SR or fail a save for a spell or spell-like ability'. It seems that a high percentage of occult slayers out there have an attitude of 'I hate all spellcasters, but you I'll kill last, along with the 58 other support cleric/wizard/bard/etc types that I met randomly but I instantly trusted enough to buff me up.' I realize that in most cases the circle cannot simply tack on a requirement like this, but I'm hoping for some weird reason it might work. An alternative solution would be to move it to limited and tie access to an unremovable curse that essentially fulfills the same function. It would only stop new people from abusing it and it goes against LG's universal stand against grandfathered rules, but it'd be better than an outright restriction. If the nerf bat cannot hit this PRC, I'd sadly support bringing out the flamethrower of restriction.
chesspiece 01-11-07, 09:41 AM	(I can already hear the rotten produce flying my way, but here goes...) If you impose additional restrictions on the Occult Slayer because it's at the high end of the curve and because there are implied restrictions in the flavour text, then you should do the same for Pious Templar. And there goes ~50% of the APL10+ BDFs. Pious Templars are supposed to be devoted to protecting your churches and going on missions endorsed by your church - which tend to be pretty rare in most LG adventures (with some regional exceptions). But as been pointed out elsewhere: - this is flavour text and the classes don't have a rigid Codes of Conduct - if we focus on eliminating the top of the power curve, there will always be something else at the top - some Players / PCs actually can come up with adequate IC justification for these PRCs. I was in a party that was captured by an untiered encounter which led to an escape Special Mission. After spending months incarcerated & tortured by an Iuzian Wizard cult, I think any of those PCs would be justified to take OS and focus against that cult. Sadly, none of the PCs were built along those lines so there are no OS's amongst my city's gamers. - the Circle is loathe to add / modify rule books so the likely choices are allow (Core) or ban (Restricted).
cycloptic_squirrel 01-11-07, 12:12 PM	(I can already hear the rotten produce flying my way, but here goes...) :teach: When life gives you tomatoes, make... um, tomatoade?:thinks: As far as the templar thing goes, I see your point, but disagree as to the scope. Templars have to follow the same code a cleric would and their choice of weapon adds a slight restriction. (Raiding a temple-library of Tsolorandril must be a suicide mission.) Not nearly as restrictive as the flavor text implies, but it's something. At the same time I wouldn't argue strongly if you were suggesting tying access to a temple meta-org and requiring that all adventures cost double TUs. I just don't see Templars nearly as free to break the intent in which they were meant to be played. With the Occult Slayer, some people do have legitimate reasons, and some people do roleplay it well, but the potential for abuse is staggering. It disturbs me that I can easily find room for this PRC in a fighter/mage build with a divine splash. And no attitudes have to change! Even if the guy's a member of both the local church and the wizards guild. He can have a full caster cohort and hang around with clerics of Bocoob all day. But it's OK, because he only hates spellcasters that seek to do him harm. Congratulations, you just described 95% of all fighters, barbarians, and other melee types. *end rant* Maybe I'm taking the flavor of this PRC too seriously. (Please tell me if so.) Yes, I am in favor of eliminating the top of the power curve if there doesn't seem to be enough balancing factors. Yes, I know we're on a dangerously slippery slope that, unchecked, would end with half the PRCs and spells banned and 85% of people's builds crippled. I am in no way demanding that Occult Slayer be dealt with (in fact I'd be surprised), but I thought I'd bring it up because it seems the most egregious offender and it's something that's irked me for a while now. Pass the juicer, I have a feeling I might need to make some tomatoade as well.
Lupo 01-11-07, 02:41 PM	some base their claim to ban the "occult slayer" prestige class on the vast number of fighter builds that have it. "when more than every second fighter has some levels in "occult slayer" there must be something wrong with the class!" obviously the "occult slayer" is one of the very powerful prestige classes ;) so some seem to dislike powerful prestige classes, ok, with this logic let's ban: "radiant servants of mighty cheese" first, second and third :P "pious templar" :P "divine oracle" (every second wiz build seems to have it, and it is WRONG for wizards to wield divine powers, wrong, wrong, wrong :rant:) "fatespinner", it is just to powerfull to force rerolls ;) "master of many forms" etc. etc. etc. etc. soon we all will have obedient "only the powerless" prestige classes characters soon. in a world of magic, frontline fighters with mostly barbarian and fighter levels learn pretty fast: 1: your will save sucks ;) 2: magic is more powerful than the sword 3: as long as you don't do anything against it you are a victim of magic sooner or later. any fighter with more than 4 intelligence will get this, right? :D there are some obvious choices to do something about it and one of the ways is a certain prestige class, and as long as it is legal in LG there is nothing wrong with it! those players that can't muster enough in-character explanation and role play at least some of the character's hate for (certain) spellcasters, wouldn't be able to do so for any other class either. those are the palys who just ignore their code, knights who don't protect anything but their butt, clerics of lawful deities who behave chaotic, druids that make a fortune in selling timber, and the like. one just has to live with them, some are at least fun to play with, some are just rollers and munchkins :P ciao martin m. ps: i only have a cohort with two levels of "occult slayer", i wouldn't be the happiest camper around if the class is moved to "restricted", but i wouldn't get the fits either.
Arvagor 01-11-07, 03:41 PM	Pious Templars are supposed to be devoted to protecting your churches and going on missions endorsed by your church - which tend to be pretty rare in most LG adventures (with some regional exceptions). This brings up an interesting question (that maybe Britt will chime in on :) )... Can regional triads place restrictions on classes that are otherwise Core access? Pious Templar (or the preponderance of PCs with that class is one that has always bothered me -- perhaps bothered is a bit strong, and maybe I'm a fuddy-duddy in this regards, but I'm in the camp of flavor text is there for a reason... Maybe it's not necessarily as strong as a true "code of conduct", but it should still be adhered to. In that respect, pious templars should be staying close to home. So could a triad say that if you are a pious templar devoted to a church in that region, that you must remain in that region? Mechanically, I'm thinking of something similar to the restrictions on one of the recent Knights of the Hart variations, something like "PC can spend no more than 26 TUs per year on non-regional adventures"?
Britt 01-11-07, 04:12 PM	Triads cannot change the mechanics of a class. What they might be able to get away with is provisional access to Limited PrCs. Maybe they could say you gain access to PrC X, but if you ever do Y, you lose access. This would prevent them from taking further levels, but do nothing to the class itself.
Arvagor 01-11-07, 06:40 PM	Triads cannot change the mechanics of a class. What they might be able to get away with is provisional access to Limited PrCs. Maybe they could say you gain access to PrC X, but if you ever do Y, you lose access. This would prevent them from taking further levels, but do nothing to the class itself. I'm not talking about changing the mechanics of the class itself. I'm talking about putting in restrictions on how much the class is allowed to be played inside/outside a particular region. What I meant by "mechanic" is just like what is now in place for the Knights of the High Forest (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/lgpg/20061128a):For purposes of the Living Greyhawk campaign, the elf or half-elf must be a Highfolk regional character and must take an oath to protect the land of Highfolk. This oath grounds the knight in the regions of Highfolk, Furyondy, Veluna, and the metaregion of Iuz’s Border States. A knight PC may only spend a limited time away from these lands; in Living Greyhawk terms, they cannot spend more than 26 time units a year playing adventures set in regions outside these areas. Contact the Highfolk triad for more information on how to meet any other requirements not listed here.It doesn't seem an unreasonable requirement for someone "Sworn to the defense of a temple site..." to be limited on movements/adventuring outside of the region he is supposedly sworn to protect -- no more limiting, really, than regions putting rules and/or punishments in place for casting magic illegally or worshipping deities that are not preferred by the state...
clannagh 01-11-07, 07:15 PM	just a thought on existing core feats that may become limited Is it possible to allow characters who have taken them as core before a certian date (ie well before it became known they would become limited) to be "certed " to keep them to avoid unnecesary pain and grief ? This will not help characters who are building towards a feat and taken pre-requisites but may soften the blow a touch.
Britt 01-11-07, 07:18 PM	If it's just taken off the Core list, nothing happens to PCs that already took it. It's when it gets moved to Restricted that there's a problem.