Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Prof. Pacali 12-14-07, 10:04 AM	I have one copy of the Orbital Spellstone card, and am wondering which 1st level spells would be best to put in the stone. Any suggestions?
awroe 12-14-07, 10:24 AM	True Strike?
Prof. Pacali 12-14-07, 10:39 AM	True Strike? I don't think True Strike would qualify. The text on the reward card is ambiguous about which spells will work (the actual text: "Whenever a personal or touch spell with a duration expressed in rounds or minutes per level is cast on the user..."). True Strike's duration is "expressed" as "see text". What I'm hoping to find is a good use for the card that won't see too much table variation.
kenobi65 12-14-07, 10:43 AM	True Strike? Already being discussed over here: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=965514 Short answer: don't count on it.
awroe 12-14-07, 10:52 AM	Already being discussed over here: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=965514 Short answer: don't count on it. Boo. What about something like Prot Evil?
MwaO 12-14-07, 11:51 AM	I don't think True Strike would qualify. The text on the reward card is ambiguous about which spells will work (the actual text: "Whenever a personal or touch spell with a duration expressed in rounds or minutes per level is cast on the user..."). True Strike's duration is "expressed" as "see text". What I'm hoping to find is a good use for the card that won't see too much table variation. Speaking as someone who took 2 rounds of attacks from 6 Greater Shadows and then later on a Dread Wraith last night at APL 10, I'd have to vote for Shield. :) It wouldn't have helped that much with the Shadows(they could only hit me on a 20), but with the Dread Wraith, I could have fought defensively and done shield for a touch AC of 32.
Vamroc 12-15-07, 12:05 PM	Critical Strike Duration 1 round if there was ever a spell that should be more that lvl 1 that's it. +4 to confirm +1D6 and double the threat range of your weapon if your in a flank or against a foe denied it dex.:dancin:
MwaO 12-15-07, 01:09 PM	It has roughly the same issue as true strike - its duration isn't expressed in rounds/minutes, it is a round.
Sieylianna 12-15-07, 02:54 PM	I'm thinking mirror image for my barbarian/wizard. Ed
Vamroc 12-15-07, 03:29 PM	It has roughly the same issue as true strike - its duration isn't expressed in rounds/minutes, it is a round. Each orbital spellstone stores a small bit of a spell’s energy to be used later. Whenever a personal or touch spell with a duration expressed in rounds or minutes per level is cast on the user, the orbital spellstone user can choose to store a small bit of that spell’s energy in the stone. As an immediate action, the spellstone user can release the stone’s energy on himself, receiving the benefits of the spell stored for one round. The spell’s caster level is the minimum level necessary to cast the spell. The stone then turns black and becomes inactive for 24 hours. It's about interpretation when I read "duration expressed in rounds". I view it as any spell that uses the term round to convey how long it lasts. In this instance one round would be the minimum duration requirement for the spellstone to store the spell. The spellstone only allowes for the spell to be used for one round any way that's why spells with a one round duration are the best use for the stone.
MwaO 12-15-07, 05:34 PM	Each orbital spellstone stores a small bit of a spell’s energy to be used later If it worked with 1 round spells, that would be the entire spell, not a small bit of it...
kenobi65 12-15-07, 06:04 PM	It's about interpretation when I read "duration expressed in rounds". Exactly...interpretation is the key word there. It all depends on how you parse what is (IMO) a poorly-written sentence. That phrase on the card could be intepreted one of two ways: (a) The spellstone works on spells with a duration listed in "rounds" or "minutes per level" or (b) The spellstone works on spells with a duration listed in "rounds per level" or "minutes per level". This exact same discussion occurred on the Living Greyhawk Yahoo group last week. Interpretation (a) seemed to be the minority view, so, at best, I'd say "expect significant table variation". It'd be my hope that this gets cleared up in a Dispel Confusion.
Vamroc 12-16-07, 12:59 AM	If it worked with 1 round spells, that would be the entire spell, not a small bit of it... Hey I didn't write it if I had it would have been much more precise to exclude that kind of logic bomb. I whole heartedly think it breaks the spirit of intent but hey blame the sloppy text. It's about energy a one round spell uses up a small amount to start with and only last for one round this what makes for high cheese. Are multi round spells better yes but when you cast them in to a stone they become a delay tactic nothing more and they have to benefit only you. A one round Mage Armor pointless who care if it's immediate it's one round if you have multiple stones then they becomes more useful and more interesting.
magebeast 12-16-07, 03:15 AM	If you can borrow a second orbital spellstone, false life is a pretty fantastic spell for any situation where you're going to eat a couple of attacks in a row - first attack eats up your temps, immediate action for some more temps and hope to god that you don't eat a full round after this.
MwaO 12-16-07, 07:59 AM	Hey I didn't write it if I had it would have been much more precise to exclude that kind of logic bomb. I whole heartedly think it breaks the spirit of intent but hey blame the sloppy text. As a player of LG, you're supposed to honor the spirit of the rules as well as the RAW. If you think it whole heartedly breaks the intent, you're not supposed to do it. This is in the LGCS. If you can borrow a second orbital spellstone, false life is a pretty fantastic spell for any situation where you're going to eat a couple of attacks in a row - first attack eats up your temps, immediate action for some more temps and hope to god that you don't eat a full round after this. False Life is not measured in rounds or minutes, but hours.
JohnduBois 12-16-07, 11:19 AM	My paladin's using it for Divine Sacrifice. Other spells I can see being useful with one stone: Shield (if you know you're getting blasted by Empowered Magic Missiles or the like) Mage Armor (Having +4 to AC against an attack as an immediate action is never bad) Sanctuary (Delaying tactic) Comprehend Languages Divine Favor Entropic Shield Hide from Undead Protection from Evil/Chaos/Good/Law (when you're being attacked by summoned monsters) Shield of Faith Expeditious Retreat I also think this card is probably more useful for classes and prestige classes that get a limited number of spells that are exceptionally useful (like all those CD PrCs that get a small, but quality, spell list). In those cases, the orbital spellstone essentially functions as an emergency pearl of power.
magebeast 12-16-07, 01:41 PM	As a player of LG, you're supposed to honor the spirit of the rules as well as the RAW. If you think it whole heartedly breaks the intent, you're not supposed to do it. This is in the LGCS. False Life is not measured in rounds or minutes, but hours. Oh hell. Well, I never did activate the orbital spellstones, so that's good.
Hariman 12-16-07, 11:22 PM	My paladin's using it for Divine Sacrifice. Other spells I can see being useful with one stone: Shield (if you know you're getting blasted by Empowered Magic Missiles or the like) Mage Armor (Having +4 to AC against an attack as an immediate action is never bad) Sanctuary (Delaying tactic) Comprehend Languages Divine Favor Entropic Shield Hide from Undead Protection from Evil/Chaos/Good/Law (when you're being attacked by summoned monsters) Shield of Faith Expeditious Retreat I also think this card is probably more useful for classes and prestige classes that get a limited number of spells that are exceptionally useful (like all those CD PrCs that get a small, but quality, spell list). In those cases, the orbital spellstone essentially functions as an emergency pearl of power. Mage Armor is hours per level, so it doesn't qualify for Spell stone use. Shield accomplishes the same thing and blocks magic missiles. Hexblades, Paladins, Spellswords (and other gish types), bards, trapsmiths, and a number of other classes would fit this bill. Trapsmiths especially, as their spell list is funky. My question is: Would a spell-like ability work with an orbital spellstone? Because having the ability to use a kobold's 1/day spell like ability with a spell stone would be a great thing.
Arvagor 12-17-07, 02:14 AM	My question is: Would a spell-like ability work with an orbital spellstone? Because having the ability to use a kobold's 1/day spell like ability with a spell stone would be a great thing.I would rule no... No matter how similar they seem, a spell-like ability is not the same as a spell, and the orbital spellstone calls for the latter...
Vamroc 12-17-07, 12:05 PM	Mage Armor is hours per level, so it doesn't qualify for Spell stone use. Shield accomplishes the same thing and blocks magic missiles. Hexblades, Paladins, Spellswords (and other gish types), bards, trapsmiths, and a number of other classes would fit this bill. Trapsmiths especially, as their spell list is funky. My question is: Would a spell-like ability work with an orbital spellstone? Because having the ability to use a kobold's 1/day spell like ability with a spell stone would be a great thing. No because it's a Spell Like Ability meaning it's magic that duplicates the effect of a spell but is not actually that spell. As I said it's about interpretation you could say that the card is merely suggesting spells with a duration of a round or longer can be stored. The stone only allows the spell to be avctive for one round no matter how long the spell lasts. This is why the only the only effective use for the stone is the one I object to the most.
Arvagor 12-17-07, 12:53 PM	as I aslo said one round Mage Armor pointless.IF mage armor were allowed (and I completely understand that it is not), it is not pointless - who wouldn't want +4 AC versus an attack from an incorporeal undead -- dread wraith, for example, or greater shadow? One round of them not hitting is one more round you're not Con- or Str-drained...
magebeast 12-17-07, 01:30 PM	IF mage armor were allowed (and I completely understand that it is not), it is not pointless - who wouldn't want +4 AC versus an attack from an incorporeal undead -- dread wraith, for example, or greater shadow? One round of them not hitting is one more round you're not Con- or Str-drained... Once you hit APL 6 or so its usefulness declines because the duration starts to cover you for most of the day.
TWG_Prometheus 12-17-07, 04:50 PM	My paladin's using it for Divine Sacrifice. Other spells I can see being useful with one stone: Shield (if you know you're getting blasted by Empowered Magic Missiles or the like) Mage Armor (Having +4 to AC against an attack as an immediate action is never bad) Sanctuary (Delaying tactic) Comprehend Languages Divine Favor Entropic Shield Hide from Undead Protection from Evil/Chaos/Good/Law (when you're being attacked by summoned monsters) Shield of Faith Expeditious Retreat Mage Armor: It doesn't work - Mage Armor's duration is in hours per level, but that's been covered. Sanctuary: I'd avoid this due to probable arguments about the resulting spell's save DC. Comprehend Languages: I'm undecided on how useful being able to read text or understand a speaker for one round would be. Divine Favor: The resulting spell is at minimum caster level as per the rules text on the card. You'll only get +1 attack and +1 damage out of it. The others look pretty good to me, at least at first glance. Protection from Evil and Shield look like the cream of the crop to me. Shield of Faith is almost as good as Protection from Evil at caster level 1 because there's a few times when ProEvil just doesn't do anything, so it makes the list too. Using Expeditious Retreat with the stone is identical to a full casting of Swift Expeditious Retreat, so that works for me as well. Overall, I'd look for spells that grant you their full bonus without regard for the caster level the spell is cast at, and avoid trying to cram 1 round spells in there altogether.
Lightblade 12-17-07, 10:41 PM	I'm surprised nobody mentioned Grease; the +10 to escape/resist grapples for a round could be clutch. I suppose you'd probably take the get out of grapple free card in that case, though.
kenobi65 12-17-07, 11:54 PM	I'm surprised nobody mentioned Grease I don't think that Grease would be a legal use. I think the card only works on Personal or Touch spells.
Lightblade 12-18-07, 12:55 AM	Oh, good point. In that case, Resist Energy for rangers would be a great pick. For bards, Improvisation could be nice.
magebeast 12-18-07, 02:46 AM	Oh, good point. In that case, Resist Energy for rangers would be a great pick. For bards, Improvisation could be nice. Improvisation is OK. You get four points of spin, and you can't spend more than one point on a single roll.
Timlagor 12-18-07, 11:59 AM	pretty sure that's 4 and 2 per roll.
magebeast 12-18-07, 02:38 PM	pretty sure that's 4 and 2 per roll. You get twice your caster level and can spend up to half you caster level per roll. EDIT: Unless the spell has been errata'ed and I don't believe it has.
Hariman 12-19-07, 12:49 AM	No because it's a Spell Like Ability meaning it's magic that duplicates the effect of a spell but is not actually that spell. As I said it's about interpretation you could say that the card is merely suggesting spells with a duration of a round or longer can be stored. The stone only allows the spell to be avctive for one round no matter how long the spell lasts. This is why the only the only effective use for the stone is the one I object to the most. Awww, Kobolds get no love! Wait, what? You cast the spell (Shield, for instance.) and the spell works normally, except you tell the spellstone "store this spell". Later, after Shield has worn off, you activate the spellstone and gain the spell's minimum caster level effect for one round. For spells like Critical Strike and other 1 round spells, they don't meet the "rounds" criteria. Technically, anything that doesn't have "x rounds" or "1 round per level" doesn't meet the "Rounds" requirement. It's like Infernal Sorcerer Howl. The text of ISH reads "...all opponents within the cone take x damage..." instead of "...all creatures within the cone take x damage...". Some people would argue that the word "opponents" lets a character pick and choose who is an opponent and who isn't. Most DMs will read the feat and say "It's a cone, it hits everybody." The intent of the Spellstone Card is, to me an many others: "...rounds per level or minutes per level..." Which will likely be the ruling you get at many a table.
awroe 12-19-07, 08:45 AM	Using Expeditious Retreat with the stone is identical to a full casting of Swift Expeditious Retreat, so that works for me as well. Though generally you'd be better memorising the Swift Expeditious Retreat spell and using the card slot for something else.
kenobi65 12-19-07, 10:31 AM	For spells like Critical Strike and other 1 round spells, they don't meet the "rounds" criteria. Technically, anything that doesn't have "x rounds" or "1 round per level" doesn't meet the "Rounds" requirement. Well, that's the gist of the discussion that's going on about the card. That text isn't clear (or, isn't sufficiently clear to forestall arguments). It says "rounds or minutes per level." Some (most likely those who have a one-round spell they like) interpret "rounds" as allowing a 1-round spell, since they feel that its duration *is* defined in rounds. Most folks who've posted, either here or on the LG Yahoo list, have indicated that they interpret it as "rounds per level or minutes per level", but that's by no means a universal interpretation.
Vamroc 12-20-07, 01:49 PM	This is what the card should say Who ever holds the stone can store a small portion of any touch or personal spell. It must have a duration of one round per level or one minute per level. The stone can then be given to any charactor or kept for personal use. As an immediate action the charactor that has the stone can activate the spell. It now has a duration of one round other than that the spell functions normally the stone can be used once every twenty four hours. The more spellstones you have the higher the spell you can store meaning if have four stones you can store one fourth level spell or two second level spells. A charactor can only have four spellstones and the charactor must be the minimum caster level required to cast the spell in the stone. :banghead:
kenobi65 12-20-07, 03:47 PM	This is what the card should say Who ever holds the stone can store a small portion of any touch or personal spell. It must have a duration of one round per level or one minute per level. The stone can then be given to any player or kept for personal use. As an immediate action the player that has the stone can activate the spell. It now has a duration of one round other than that the spell functions normally the stone can be used once every twenty four hours. The more spellstones you have the higher the spell you can store meaning if have four stones you can store one four level spell or two second level spells. A player can only have four spellstones and the player must be the minimum caster level required to cast the spell in the stone. :banghead: One thing I'd change to your suggestion: replace mentions of "player" with "character". Players don't cast spells or use magic items; their characters do.
Vamroc 12-21-07, 12:47 PM	One thing I'd change to your suggestion: replace mentions of "player" with "character". Players don't cast spells or use magic items; their characters do. I came up with that completely on the fly and it took about twenty minutes to get the language precise. So there is no room for interpretation or negotiation and no one can say this how I see it working. Because there it is etched in stone please any WizOs reading that post send me a pm for ending the debate on the issue.:clap:
bitznarf 12-21-07, 12:53 PM	What do the WizOs have to do with this?
kenobi65 12-21-07, 04:25 PM	I came up with that completely on the fly and it took about twenty minutes to get the language precise. So there is no room for interpretation or negotiation and no one can say this how I see it working. Well, except that your language violates one of the syntax principles that the D&D rules follow -- clearly separating the definition between "player" and "character". If it's describing something happening within the game world (like casting a spell or using an item, which is what you're describing), you use the term "character", not "player".
Vamroc 12-21-07, 07:01 PM	Well, except that your language violates one of the syntax principles that the D&D rules follow -- clearly separating the definition between "player" and "character". If it's describing something happening within the game world (like casting a spell or using an item, which is what you're describing), you use the term "character", not "player". I corrected that read it again
Arvagor 12-21-07, 07:37 PM	[...] So there is no room for interpretation or negotiation and no one can say this how I see it working. [...] "... the charactor must be the minimum caster level required to cast the spell in the stone." That means that a Wiz5 couldn't cast a shield into a spellstone -- he's CL 5, and shield is a 1st level spell. Your 5th sentence (begins "It now has ...") is also run-on, possibly three separate sentences. Creating rules text that has no room for interpretation ain't easy...
Vamroc 12-21-07, 09:37 PM	"... the charactor must be the minimum caster level required to cast the spell in the stone." That means that a Wiz5 couldn't cast a shield into a spellstone -- he's CL 5, and shield is a 1st level spell. Your 5th sentence (begins "It now has ...") is also run-on, possibly three separate sentences. Creating rules text that has no room for interpretation ain't easy... What it means is the charactor that has the stone must be at least first level and the spell would go of at his or her caster level. Not at the level of the person who put the spell in the stone.
magebeast 12-21-07, 10:34 PM	What it means is the charactor that has the stone must be at least first level and the spell would go of at his or her caster level. Not at the level of the person who put the spell in the stone. Your rules text doesn't say "at least" and it still contains instances of the word "player" as opposed to "character". Really, the original rules text on the cards would be fine if it read either "rounds or rounds per level" or "rounds per level" as opposed to just "rounds".
Hariman 12-24-07, 04:05 AM	Has anybody considered how useful two orbital spellstone cards would be when combined with the stat boosting spells? (At least for those people who haven't bought stat boosting items yet.) A caster could cast Fox's Cunning (or the relevant stat booster for his casting) before an early combat and have a boost for a save or two in a later combat.
Timlagor 12-31-07, 02:04 PM	I can't imagine using these in preference to my other cards.
Hariman 12-31-07, 11:15 PM	I can't imagine using these in preference to my other cards. Can't argue here. My primary, a sorcerer 5, always has Second Wind and Not This Time. Strangely enough, I actually took him through an APL 10 with those two cards and never had to use them. Then again, we had 4 sorcerers and 2 clerics at the table! An orbital spellstone is probably a placeholder until you get something better.
bitznarf 01-01-08, 12:12 AM	My rogue has already used it to ward off a domination. The biggest benefit of the card is the ability to use it as a immediate action.
Lomiat 01-06-08, 12:18 PM	My rogue has already used it to ward off a domination. The biggest benefit of the card is the ability to use it as a immediate action. Awww.... I bet Drufus would have had more fun if he'd been able to stab the other PCs... in that, "Sorry, I can't help myself" way. Honestly, if Drufus picks up enough ranks in Bluff, maybe he can get Dominated even when there are no hostile casters nearby... Then, again, Drufus did seem a bit nicer and more inclined to respect fellow party members than Rackhir... (( Sometimes, I like playing at the tables with the DMs who say, "No cards." Not all the time, but some of these cards are far stronger than feats (or at least as strong). The new ones, for example, and Not This Time, Feign Surprise, Charm of the Fortunate, etc. When you consider how much of an advantage the PCs already have over the poor evil mook monsters, it's just kind of playing dirty to use the cards. )) (( ... until my wizard is about to fail a Fort save, of course. "Not This Time!" ;) ))
bitznarf 01-07-08, 12:08 AM	Awww.... I bet Drufus would have had more fun if he'd been able to stab the other PCs... in that, "Sorry, I can't help myself" way. Well, to be fair, I did get dominated in another mod by something, and stayed in that dominated state for a while while talking to NPCs and stuff. I had alot of fun making suggestions as to what I would be told to do. I was basically told "this is the things objective. It is Smart. Be Smart on it's side." So I did. The party was fully aware that I was dominated and decided to let it sit as was for the time being too. It's the 'being dominated by something that wants to kill me' that annoys Drufus. Benign domination by evil creatures? Go for it. Then, again, Drufus did seem a bit nicer and more inclined to respect fellow party members than Rackhir... Drufus always respects his tools...
Timlagor 01-11-08, 08:11 PM	While you might like it occasionally and while I can certainly sympathise with them, I'm pretty certain that LG GMs are not allowed to ban Reward Cards from the table.
Hariman 01-12-08, 12:35 AM	While you might like it occasionally and while I can certainly sympathise with them, I'm pretty certain that LG GMs are not allowed to ban Reward Cards from the table. I was at a game where the majority of players forgot to even bring out the reward cards and the DM forgot to ask about them. But you're right, outright banning something that is allowed in the campaign is not allowed.
kenobi65 01-12-08, 01:38 AM	But you're right, outright banning something that is allowed in the campaign is not allowed. Yup, it's like saying, "I don't like those Greyhawk feats from Dragon, you can't use them at my table."
Maesto 01-14-08, 03:44 PM	Mmm... I personally think that the game runs better without cards. But they're sure handy when you're looking at a TPK ;-)
Hariman 01-15-08, 03:33 AM	Mmm... I personally think that the game runs better without cards. But they're sure handy when you're looking at a TPK ;-) But they're an iffy proposition. I used Not This Time to avoid a swarm's nausea effect and later wished I had a second for the Energy Drain. Damn Wights. And damn the writers that make them go after casters. At least I didn't have to spend the money getting raised. I'm actually going to profit off of energy drain. I'll just hate having to regain level 5.
JamesMaissen 01-16-08, 12:04 AM	And damn the writers that make them go after casters. Try not to look like a caster when you can get away with it. -James
Hariman 01-17-08, 03:28 AM	Try not to look like a caster when you can get away with it. -James Disguise self will be an option in a level or 3. Can't wear armor. A monk's outfit, cleric's vestments or other "doesn't match the class" garb might not do much. Casting spells is a requirement of being a caster. So what haven't I thought of?
MwaO 01-17-08, 11:01 AM	Disguise self will be an option in a level or 3. Can't wear armor. A monk's outfit, cleric's vestments or other "doesn't match the class" garb might not do much. Casting spells is a requirement of being a caster. So what haven't I thought of? A lightly armored character, wearing what looks like leather, without a spell component pouch, carrying a Rapier and Dagger is what exactly? i.e. Spell Component Pouch is in your Heward's Handy Haversack or in some easily accessible place. Round 1, you free action drop one of the weapons, move action pull out the pouch, then cast. Your 'lightly armored' is you simply putting things underneath your clothing that look like they could be leather armor, but is simply bulky clothing. You just make sure to have a spell or two that you can cast without material component in case there's a surprise round.
chesspiece 01-17-08, 02:58 PM	The following (from the RPGA General forum) was news to me, so I thought I'd quote it under an ongoing Rewards Card thread. What will happen to the campaign cards that we already own? Will they be brought over to the 4E campaigns some how? This has already been answered...the answer is no....I will try and find where I saw this adn post it. I just remember it coming from someone in an official possition like Chris Tulach. I can confirm the answer to campaign cards is no. There will be new cards for the new campaigns. While I realize that this isn't from the Official's mouth, it sounds definite to me. C'est la vie.
Hariman 01-18-08, 04:27 AM	A lightly armored character, wearing what looks like leather, without a spell component pouch, carrying a Rapier and Dagger is what exactly? i.e. Spell Component Pouch is in your Heward's Handy Haversack or in some easily accessible place. Round 1, you free action drop one of the weapons, move action pull out the pouch, then cast. Your 'lightly armored' is you simply putting things underneath your clothing that look like they could be leather armor, but is simply bulky clothing. You just make sure to have a spell or two that you can cast without material component in case there's a surprise round. DMs in my area would likely require a disguise check to pull it off.
JamesMaissen 01-18-08, 04:47 PM	DMs in my area would likely require a disguise check to pull it off. Laugh at them. If they are serious then allow anyone that is suspicious to get a spot check. If so then they notice that you are disguised. It doesn't let them see the 'WIZARD' tattoo on your forehead in any case as the hat is blocking it... -James
MwaO 01-18-08, 05:42 PM	DMs in my area would likely require a disguise check to pull it off. Even if they do, so what? The disguise check is free. You should be getting at least +5 for minor details only - you're not trying to reinvent the wheel here, you're just trying to make it look like you might be wearing armor underneath your clothing. You are after all wielding two weapons, a very common thing to do as a TWF Rogue. Take 10. Even with an 8 Charisma, that's a result of 14. Don't forget Bluff synergy bonus if you have it. Someone runs into combat, they need to get at least a +14 Spot roll to see it, which is then modified by distance. Someone is 60' away when the combat starts, that's a +20. Some things will see through it, but a lot of things won't. And that's what you want.
copperwyrmling 01-18-08, 05:50 PM	Laugh at them. If they are serious then allow anyone that is suspicious to get a spot check. If so then they notice that you are disguised. It doesn't let them see the 'WIZARD' tattoo on your forehead in any case as the hat is blocking it... -James Well, no. A successful Spot check would let them notice that the "leather armor" under your cloak is, in fact, just bulky clothing, but that's the only bit of it that seems to require a Disguise check to me - similarly I'd require a disguise check for someone trying to conceal their light armor under normal clothing when trying to get into a party (there's an armor enhancement for that). I considered disguising my sorcerer as a monk at several points - monk's outfit, assorted exotic monk weapons, spell component pouch hidden since she had very few spells that needed components - but at the stage where she was most fragile she was also very paranoid about being mistaken for a Scarlet Brotherhood member, and looking like a pure-Suel monk would not have helped there.
Hariman 01-18-08, 07:48 PM	Even if they do, so what? The disguise check is free. You should be getting at least +5 for minor details only - you're not trying to reinvent the wheel here, you're just trying to make it look like you might be wearing armor underneath your clothing. You are after all wielding two weapons, a very common thing to do as a TWF Rogue. Take 10. Even with an 8 Charisma, that's a result of 14. Don't forget Bluff synergy bonus if you have it. Someone runs into combat, they need to get at least a +14 Spot roll to see it, which is then modified by distance. Someone is 60' away when the combat starts, that's a +20. Some things will see through it, but a lot of things won't. And that's what you want. Now, we're talking about a sorcerer here. Not an ugly wizard. He's got Cha 16 at level 4. But still, the best bet is probably staying out of melee range. It's not always possible. I've had the DM run a redcap through several AoOs to get to my sorcerer, and the wight chose to target me instead of the tanks. In both cases the instructions for the DMs were "this enemy will attack arcane casters first". But like I said, I'm going to profit off of getting level drained. :ayyyy!: And that won't hurt me at all, considering the sorcerer is going to be my Red Hand of Doom character. I'll also take it as a valuable lesson. Stay away from melee enemies and behind someone else for ranged enemies. Hariman. PS: The redcap killed my character with a 90 damage critical hit. That's why my sorcerer has mirror image.
MwaO 01-18-08, 09:36 PM	Now, we're talking about a sorcerer here. Not an ugly wizard. He's got Cha 16 at level 4. But still, the best bet is probably staying out of melee range. It's not always possible. I've had the DM run a redcap through several AoOs to get to my sorcerer, and the wight chose to target me instead of the tanks. In both cases the instructions for the DMs were "this enemy will attack arcane casters first". I was pointing out that the worst case scenario favors even the 8 Charisma Wizard. But you're much better than him... So look at what your Disguise score now is: Assume 5 ranks of Bluff, 0 ranks in Disguise. Cha+3, +2 for Bluff, +5 for minor details, +10 for take 10. That's a 20 Spot check...and it will go up as your Charisma score goes up. A lot of monsters don't have pluses to spot or will get killed by the -1/10'. Also, it is usually better to make a monster pay if it is going to focus on you - if a Redcap is taking a whole bunch of AoOs to get to you, run around it with a double move and force it to take the exact same AoOs all over again until it stops. Do a Run action and get to medium range. Throw a spell that means it doesn't even have the option of attacking you rather than one that still gives it a percentage chance of turning you into paste.
Sieylianna 01-19-08, 11:18 AM	Now, we're talking about a sorcerer here. Not an ugly wizard. He's got Cha 16 at level 4. But still, the best bet is probably staying out of melee range. It's not always possible. I've had the DM run a redcap through several AoOs to get to my sorcerer, and the wight chose to target me instead of the tanks. In both cases the instructions for the DMs were "this enemy will attack arcane casters first". That's why my original wizard wore a mithral chain shirt with the twilight enhancement. My new wizard/barbarian can't decide between mithral chain shirt or mithral breastplate. Mithral full plate was one of the options until the end of the campaign was announced, he has 1/2 price access to all three, but there isn't enough time to get the arcane spell failure down to a manageable level. Of course, many DM's ignore it anyway. "The bad guys have been keeping an eye on your group for days and know you are a wizard". The "Not this Time" card is great for all the death attacks you attract. Ed
JamesMaissen 01-19-08, 04:24 PM	Of course, many DM's ignore it anyway. "The bad guys have been keeping an eye on your group for days and know you are a wizard". Ed That's a problem with the DMs. Take them to task on it. -James
Hariman 01-20-08, 10:00 AM	I was pointing out that the worst case scenario favors even the 8 Charisma Wizard. But you're much better than him... So look at what your Disguise score now is: Assume 5 ranks of Bluff, 0 ranks in Disguise. Cha+3, +2 for Bluff, +5 for minor details, +10 for take 10. That's a 20 Spot check...and it will go up as your Charisma score goes up. A lot of monsters don't have pluses to spot or will get killed by the -1/10'. Also, it is usually better to make a monster pay if it is going to focus on you - if a Redcap is taking a whole bunch of AoOs to get to you, run around it with a double move and force it to take the exact same AoOs all over again until it stops. Do a Run action and get to medium range. Throw a spell that means it doesn't even have the option of attacking you rather than one that still gives it a percentage chance of turning you into paste. You don't understand. The redcap walked through 3 or 4 AoOs and then killed my sorcerer in a single hit. And he shrugged off AoOs like they were spitwads. (The rest of the party had already bounced off of his AC/DR.) One of the party members disarming him is what saved the party from getting a horrific beatdown. It's far better for my casters to stay the hell away. Also, don't assume anything. My sorcerer has no ranks in bluff nor any in disguise. So the best he could muster is +5 or maybe +7. It's still better than nothing, but it's only going to do so much. (Mage Armor helps. As soon as he gets to 5th he'll have mage armor and false life up most of the day. Yay for lesser rods of extend.) His wand of Baleful Transposition is his "get out of melee free" card. But only for 9 more times.
MwaO 01-20-08, 10:24 AM	Also, don't assume anything. My sorcerer has no ranks in bluff nor any in disguise. So the best he could muster is +5 I'm not - you get a +5 for minor details only(it is in the disguise skill) - you're not actually really disguising yourself, you're making it look like you have armor under your clothing. This is no cost either. That's still +18, which is a hard to make spot check - add 30' and it means making a +21. Some creatures won't make it, which is infinitely better than everything making it.