Post/Author/DateTime	Post
bruiserdeck 10-31-06, 10:33 PM	we all know of the house rules thread... well this is the book rules thread. what book rules do you simply reject on principal and replace with some house rule. most of us replace spell components with an inexhaustable spell components bag for example. personaly I cant stand the rule that says who ever has the initiative in the first round automaticaly catches the opponent flat footed (unless they have uncanny dodge) this rule is silly to me. 2 guys stand 50 feet away from each other in an arena weapons drawn ready to fight. the guard yells "FIGHT" and just because fighter (A) rolled a 18 and fighter (B) rolled a 15 fighter (A) gets to charge 50 feet and attack while (B) stands there flat footed not noticing the incoming attack. I MUST house rule this any time I DM.
Seerow 10-31-06, 10:35 PM	"You're a fighter, you don't get nice things" - PHB Page 38. Also on page 90.
Millennium 10-31-06, 10:41 PM	most of us replace spell components with an inexhaustable spell components bag for example. Um... that's not a house rule. That's RAW, at least for non-costly components (those that don't have a price listed in the spell description). Are you saying that you do this for costly components as well?
LCD2YOU 10-31-06, 10:43 PM	The NPC levels used in the DMG for everyone else is just way too low and don't take into account difficult places or times.
Cherubaddon 10-31-06, 10:47 PM	Are you saying that you do this for costly components as well? Yeah! Insane wizard power! Cast Circle/Symbol of Death five times a day! Muhahahaha *insane cackling*!
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-31-06, 10:57 PM	Craft (alchemy) requiring caster levels. Its moronic.
Crust 10-31-06, 11:00 PM	Improved critical and keen stack in my games. Imp. crit. is the skill of the wielder, and keen is a magical property applied to the weapon. Of course they stack. I never understood the change.
KurenaiYami 10-31-06, 11:01 PM	Craft (alchemy) requiring caster levels. Its moronic. Second. I also don't like death by massive damage. It makes sense, but...I just don't like it. Especially once we get into epic levels and they have to make a save every time they take a hit, and automatically fail 1/20th of that time.
ChaoticGood 10-31-06, 11:06 PM	I also don't like death by massive damage. It makes sense, but...I just don't like it. Especially once we get into epic levels and they have to make a save every time they take a hit, and automatically fail 1/20th of that time. Umm... Did you read the Epic Level Handbook? I'm pretty sure that your massive damage threshold increases once you get into Epic levels. If it's not a standard rule, I know that it is at least presented as an option.
brog 10-31-06, 11:11 PM	this rule is silly to me. 2 guys stand 50 feet away from each other in an arena weapons drawn ready to fight. the guard yells "FIGHT" and just because fighter (A) rolled a 18 and fighter (B) rolled a 15 fighter (A) gets to charge 50 feet and attack while (B) stands there flat footed not noticing the incoming attack. Most d&d battles aren't in an arena. This rule simulates reaction times when neither party is expecting the other at that moment.
ashcat_lt 10-31-06, 11:17 PM	2 guys stand 50 feet away from each other in an arena weapons drawn ready to fight. the guard yells "FIGHT" and just because fighter (A) rolled a 18 and fighter (B) rolled a 15 fighter (A) gets to charge 50 feet and attack while (B) stands there flat footed not noticing the incoming attack. I MUST house rule this any time I DM. In this case, the first round of combat took place, at the latest, when the two dudes drew their weapons. By the time the guy says "FIGHT" they are at least to the second round, and neither is flat-footed any longer.
J.Augustus Rose II 10-31-06, 11:21 PM	Wing attacks. I will not accept wing attacks. They make no sense to me and I will not accept them. How can a membrane hurt you? Is there a lot of wing-induced wind or something? I just don't get it. So the DM renamed them "unnamed attacks." And I'm okay with that.
Imban 10-31-06, 11:27 PM	Spell-like Wish has got to go.
Thubby 10-31-06, 11:28 PM	this rule is silly to me. 2 guys stand 50 feet away from each other in an arena weapons drawn ready to fight. the guard yells "FIGHT" and just because fighter (A) rolled a 18 and fighter (B) rolled a 15 fighter (A) gets to charge 50 feet and attack while (B) stands there flat footed not noticing the incoming attack. see, i find it makes perfect sense, in almost every movie scene like this, book ive read, and anime thing on earth, one guy is always caught off guard because one guy is so fast to act. its not a matter of not noticing, its reaction time.
Bowmore 10-31-06, 11:29 PM	"You're a fighter, you don't get nice things" - PHB Page 38. Also on page 90. QFT. Oh god, is that ever QFT. I'm not a very big fan, either, of how much value Wizards places in the perceived versatility of the fighter. But let's not turn this into another fighter discussion thread. I don't like how the books automatically assume you use a grid and minis for combat. Some of us still do it the old-fashioned way, you know: our imaginations. Wait, that's not technically a rule. Hold on, lemme grab my PHB. ... Okay, here we go. I don't like how standing prone provokes an attack of opportunity. Well, it kinda makes sense, but I wish the Tumble DC to avoid it was lower.
XanderCage72344 10-31-06, 11:30 PM	The fact that you can automatically fail fort and will save... reflex save i can see but come on fortatude and will saves. i absolutly refuse to beleive that my character can automatically fail how resiliant his body is, phyisically and mentally. like i said i can kind of see reflex saves, it is after all a physical move, and you can always trip or stummble. just my 2 cents
KurenaiYami 10-31-06, 11:31 PM	Umm... Did you read the Epic Level Handbook? I'm pretty sure that your massive damage threshold increases once you get into Epic levels. If it's not a standard rule, I know that it is at least presented as an option. No I did not, but it doesn't matter. Unless the threshold is ten times as high. I still don't like it for level one through twenty, which is why I used the qualifier "especially."
Thubby 10-31-06, 11:32 PM	Wing attacks. I will not accept wing attacks. They make no sense to me and I will not accept them. How can a membrane hurt you? Is there a lot of wing-induced wind or something? I just don't get it. So the DM renamed them "unnamed attacks." And I'm okay with that. as i understand in , "wing attack" is beating them with the joint that controls open shut of the wing. if you look at a wing (especialy a bats) the structure is alot like a hand,(in appearance, and anatomicaly) 4 "fingers" have the membrane, and that hook at the top is the thumb. so getting hit with that is like being punched in the face.
Thubby 10-31-06, 11:35 PM	the rule i hate the most is the tumble rules, no matter what your fighting, regardless of size, skill, speed, all anyone needs is a 15 to get around it, and there is no way around tumble, no feat to make it harder, or item, ANYTHING!!!
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-31-06, 11:38 PM	Wing attacks. I will not accept wing attacks. They make no sense to me and I will not accept them. How can a membrane hurt you? Is there a lot of wing-induced wind or something? I just don't get it. So the DM renamed them "unnamed attacks." And I'm okay with that. There's a couple of ways I view it: 1) Wing buffets that slam you with the shear pressure of the air. 2) Raking you with the wing claws on the end of a dragon or bat's wing. 3) Outward smack with the leading edge (the 'pinky finger' of the wing)
KurenaiYami 10-31-06, 11:38 PM	the rule i hate the most is the tumble rules, no matter what your fighting, regardless of size, skill, speed, all anyone needs is a 15 to get around it, and there is no way around it, no feat to make it harder, or item, ANYTHING!!! Heh, yeah. What do you need to auto-hit that now? Let's assume a halfling monk (because they amuse me) with full 20 Dex. Takes Skill Focus (Tumble) and...Acrobatic? Probably not, but whichever gets it a +2 to Tumble. So that's +10 right there. You could auto-succeed on tumble from level 2 on if you either use flaws or are a Strongheart Halfling. That's fun. I need to make a tumbling halfling monk now.
Arcen 10-31-06, 11:39 PM	Craft (alchemy) requiring caster levels. Its moronic. I agree totally. Also, Poison = Evil. So basically a paladin using a +5 Flaming Vorpal sword to smash a goblin is good but a rogue using poison to render the same goblin unconcious is evil? That's like saying shooting an escaped elephant with a tranquelizer gun is evil but using an Uzi on it? Sure why not!
Seerow 10-31-06, 11:40 PM	QFT. Oh god, is that ever QFT. I'm not a very big fan, either, of how much value Wizards places in the perceived versatility of the fighter. But let's not turn this into another fighter discussion thread. *cartoon voice* He don't know me very well, do he? No, seriously, read the sig. That's just what I do. Drop hand grenades into the discussion and such. =D
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-31-06, 11:50 PM	Also, Poison = Evil. That's not a rule actually. Its just against the Paladin code because those guys allegedly have honor of some sort.
bruiserdeck 11-01-06, 12:06 AM	LOL unnamed attacks. he bites you claws twice and swings an unnamed attack in your direction :D I agree on the first round thing. is that a real rule some where or just how you rationalize it. another one that i dont agree with is hitpoints. a standard human... every day average joe commoner gets d6 hitpoints right? or is it d8? so why doe wizards only start with 4+con? i always allow wizards to start off at first level with 6+con and if i am running a low magic campeign where i am nerfing magic in some way or another i allow them to roll d6 per level.
ChaoticGood 11-01-06, 12:18 AM	another one that i dont agree with is hitpoints. a standard human... every day average joe commoner gets d6 hitpoints right? or is it d8? so why doe wizards only start with 4+con? Actually, a Commoner starts with d4 + Con hit points as well. The reason a Wizard starts with the same hit points is that they spend their "training time" reading books instead of doing endurance training (such as learning to wear armor).
Wood 11-01-06, 12:24 AM	If we're talking about extraneous rules lets not to forget to mention rolling to "confirm" a critical hit. Rolling to confirm a critical hit is like asking God, "are you sure?"
Red12 11-01-06, 12:43 AM	"You're a fighter, you don't get nice things" - PHB Page 38. Also on page 90. That is so going in the sig. I agree with the Craft (Alchemy) nonsense. Is it really so hard to put different objects together that you need magic? Well, I'm surprised this hasnt been mentioned: Alignment
xpochian 11-01-06, 12:47 AM	There's a couple of ways I view it: 1) Wing buffets that slam you with the shear pressure of the air. 2) Raking you with the wing claws on the end of a dragon or bat's wing. 3) Outward smack with the leading edge (the 'pinky finger' of the wing) See, my issue with these is that why on earth would a winged creature try to hit you with what is arguably the most fragile part of the very same anatomy that enabled it to fly? Would you try to attack someone with your neck? How about the back of your head? Try this: go and slap your brother or dad the face, and when they start to retaliate, turn around and try to hit them with the back of your head, or your neck. See what happens. It just makes no sense whatsoever. That's like being attacked by a 79 year-old man and he gives you a cane swing, and then tries to bash into you with his 79 year-old-man's hip. It would completely break and disable his primary method of transportation; he's now (broken) boned. I also loathe the fact that a charismatic PC with a high enough charisma has a cohort (which I'm ok with) and then like nine-dozen first level characters running after him. Maybe I misread that feat, but it bothers me to no end and changes the game from a small-group-themed fantasy RPG into Age of Empires vs. three very confused looking ogre mages.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-01-06, 12:47 AM	Well, I'm surprised this hasnt been mentioned: Alignment Only because the word 'Alignment' is the verbal component for Firestorm...
Aeren 11-01-06, 12:48 AM	I just think of something, shouldn't there be an Attack of Oportunity when a person makes a charge attack? That would already count as a reaction to it instead of waiting for the action not doing anything.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-01-06, 12:49 AM	See, my issue with these is that why on earth would a winged creature try to hit you with what is arguably the MOST FRAGILE PART OF THE VERY SAME ANATOMY THAT ALLOWS IT TO FLY. Dragons don't have fragile parts to thier anatomy. ;)
albinomonkeyking 11-01-06, 12:53 AM	carrying capacity etc, etc. The loads for a person with a relatively high str are low as hell, until you get to 39+, then it gets out of control. Would it really have been that hard to just write the chart out more? Or make a system that was less easy to abuse horribly? And yes, it has come up in a game, the DM who ran that game doesn't speak of that character anymore, he simply shakes his head and mutters regrets.
Kradlo 11-01-06, 12:54 AM	If we're talking about extraneous rules lets not to forget to mention rolling to "confirm" a critical hit. Rolling to confirm a critical hit is like asking God, "are you sure?" Oh, hell no! Otherwise you'll critical every time you roll a 20, regardless of the AC or your attack bonus. "Let's see, I need a 20 to hit you, but if I hit, it's a critical." Sorry, can't agree with you on this one.
Red12 11-01-06, 12:54 AM	Only because the word 'Alignment' is the verbal component for Firestorm... Touche'.... very much touche... Scribing Spells into the spellbook rules in general, anyone?
crossp 11-01-06, 12:55 AM	A kobold has 10 negative hit points. The tarrasque has 10 negative hit points. I give people negative hit points equal to their con scores. I also hate that adventurers are these incredibly tough people who can take scads of damage from razor-sharp blades, fire, and the energy of death itself, but the moment you go unconscious you've got anywhere from 6 to 60 seconds to pray you don't bleed out. Not sure how to fix that. I also hate all of the permanent buff items (gloves of dex, for example). They just don't have the capacity for fun gameplay that things like cloaks of arachnidia, nolzur's magic pigments, or Decanters of endless water have. Nevertheless, characters scrounge every gold piece they can find to buy a cloak of charisma. Then they put it on, change a few numbers, and forget they even have it.
albinomonkeyking 11-01-06, 12:57 AM	Oh yeah, generally illiteracy is taken out for the barbarian class, firstly because........well.....it doesn't matter much because none of us make barbarians, second because, that is just dumb, that is like saying, you are a wizard, you HAVE to have knowledges. I know you can simply use skill points to eliminate it but still....
CroBob 11-01-06, 01:19 AM	Heh, yeah. What do you need to auto-hit that now? Let's assume a halfling monk (because they amuse me) with full 20 Dex. Takes Skill Focus (Tumble) and...Acrobatic? Probably not, but whichever gets it a +2 to Tumble. So that's +10 right there. You could auto-succeed on tumble from level 2 on if you either use flaws or are a Strongheart Halfling. That's fun. I need to make a tumbling halfling monk now. An optional rule could be that they get a reflex save vs your check, or maybe add their base attack to the DC you must hit to tumble by.
Maestro3030 11-01-06, 01:29 AM	Wing attacks. I will not accept wing attacks. They make no sense to me and I will not accept them. How can a membrane hurt you? Is there a lot of wing-induced wind or something? I just don't get it. So the DM renamed them "unnamed attacks." Yeah, the Draconomicon actually describes a wing attack. I admit to being confused up until I read this, but it makes a bit of sense. Basically, the dragon keeps the "fingers" supporting the wings closed, so they aren't damaged by the impact of the blow, and uses the knobbly bit as a bludgeoning weapon. Their example of this is a human using their fist as a weapon. So, pretty much as Thubby said. Obviously, as the DM you are free to describe the attack pretty much as you want, even "unnamed" if that's what floats your boat.
J.Augustus Rose II 11-01-06, 01:37 AM	Yeah, the Draconomicon actually describes a wing attack. I admit to being confused up until I read this, but it makes a bit of sense. Basically, the dragon keeps the "fingers" supporting the wings closed, so they aren't damaged by the impact of the blow, and uses the knobbly bit as a bludgeoning weapon. Their example of this is a human using their fist as a weapon. So, pretty much as Thubby said. Obviously, as the DM you are free to describe the attack pretty much as you want, even "unnamed" if that's what floats your boat. Like xpochian said, that just doesn't make any sense. Hitting something with the nobby/fingers/whatever part of the wing would be monstrously awkward. Plus not all of the dragon's wings are built like bat wings. It's just really illogical.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-01-06, 01:59 AM	Plus not all of the dragon's wings are built like bat wings. Explained away by the fact that Lockwood style dragons suck and aren't indicative of how dragons should look.
Rhomphaia 11-01-06, 02:06 AM	The fact that an untrained Knowledge check can only succeed on a DC of 10 or less...EVER, no matter what the level. 1 or 50, it doesn't matter. Also, the keen and Improved Critical not stacking doesn't make sense, but I know why they ruled otherwise. However, since they nerfed the **** out of Vorpal and changed the way it worked, the fix was unnecessary.
xpochian 11-01-06, 02:44 AM	Dragons don't have fragile parts to thier anatomy. ;) I realize logic doesn't come into a fantasy RPG here, but waving about something that is mostly membranous = risk of getting said membrane ruptured. I realize it's probably more of a scrape or a clawing, but it's still silly. Dragons are tough yes, but wouldn't you logically want to try to injure or poke a hole through the weakest-looking area; 2 inch thick armour-like scales or a much more permeable and weaker membrane. I bring this up because most of my players think this way too, and always aim for the damned membranes, causing my dragons to roll their wings up on to their backs, like mantles.
bruiserdeck 11-01-06, 03:30 AM	I just think of something, shouldn't there be an Attack of Oportunity when a person makes a charge attack? That would already count as a reaction to it instead of waiting for the action not doing anything. I agree... maybe not an attack of opportunity but possibly special action to prepare for the guy you see running at you from accross the room. like to set a spear, ready a defence or make a simultanious attack i donno ... just suggestions. to be honest I have special combat rules that account for taking especially long actions in a round simply because of timing issues like that.
bruiserdeck 11-01-06, 03:36 AM	I never liked the book rule about spells... I always thought it was a bit silly that a wizard casts a spell and then simply forgets how to cast it... or for some reason does remember it but only remembers how to do it a limited number of times... I am a fan of limiting spell casting... but i have always disliked this rule. I like the spell points system frum UA alot more although that leads to balance issues.
Reversefigure4 11-01-06, 03:51 AM	I'm with the alchemy caster levels. To create non-magical items, you need to know magic? No matter how many Craft ranks you have or how high your intelligence, it won't count until you throw a bard level in there? And godless clerics. Ugh. Drawing divine power from... whatever the hell you feel like. A cleric of Lawful Plants?
Heahengel 11-01-06, 03:56 AM	I agree... maybe not an attack of opportunity but possibly special action to prepare for the guy you see running at you from accross the room. like to set a spear, ready a defence or make a simultanious attack i donno ... just suggestions. to be honest I have special combat rules that account for taking especially long actions in a round simply because of timing issues like that. As far as this goes, I don't agree. If you are doing something else (fighting an enemy casting a spell, etc, then you are occupied that round (combat being more simultaneous than is portrayed by the rule system)). A charging character isn't creating some massive opening in his defenses, like running away from you. If you aren't doing anything that round, well then feel free to have delayed your action or readied that spear against the charge. Also, there is a feat that does this (Sidestep charge, although it isn't precisely this). Also, if you have a spear, or any reach weapon, then they probably do provoke an AOO anyway.
Papa_duval 11-01-06, 05:33 AM	Re: wing attacks being unrealistic My advice to you would be to go and play with the swans by the local lake - see if they use their wings to beat at you (they will) and see how much it can hurt (broken bones are common when swans attack people) Also, watch out for their bite :)
MerlintheTuna 11-01-06, 05:48 AM	"No Overruns on a Charge." So the time when you're most recklessly trying to get to someone, you're not allowed to run anyone over on the way. As I understand it, the reasoning for this is that a character ends up with a weird number of actions, since a Charge is a full-round action and an Overrun is a standard action. Also, if you COULD Overrun on a charge, you could charge through allies' squares (since they can allow you to pass). For whatever reason, WotC considers this to be a particularly valuable ability. I do not, and as such just allow that in the first place, turning Overruns into free actions taken during non-5-foot-step movement.
Gyrofthewastes 11-01-06, 05:51 AM	That spell-replicating magic items have a base save equal to the MINIMUM possible to cast said spell. Makes an entire class of treasure virtually worthless and unused.
J.Augustus Rose II 11-01-06, 05:56 AM	Re: wing attacks being unrealistic My advice to you would be to go and play with the swans by the local lake - see if they use their wings to beat at you (they will) and see how much it can hurt (broken bones are common when swans attack people) Also, watch out for their bite :) I've been attacked by swans and geese and their wings don't hurt at all. People might break bones falling all over themselves during a swan attack but there's not enough strength in the wing to break a bone. Their bites, on the other hand, hurt more than most people would imagine.
Cifer 11-01-06, 07:26 AM	If we're talking about extraneous rules lets not to forget to mention rolling to "confirm" a critical hit. Rolling to confirm a critical hit is like asking God, "are you sure?" Actually, it's more like "Do you want 30 level 1 orcs to clobber your mighty L20 character to death?" I just think of something, shouldn't there be an Attack of Oportunity when a person makes a charge attack? There is, if you've got "Hold the line" - practical feat that lets you AoO whenever something charging enters your threatened area, meaning you can even protect your friends if they are near you. The fact that an untrained Knowledge check can only succeed on a DC of 10 or less...EVER, no matter what the level. 1 or 50, it doesn't matter. Also, the keen and Improved Critical not stacking doesn't make sense, but I know why they ruled otherwise. However, since they nerfed the **** out of Vorpal and changed the way it worked, the fix was unnecessary. Oh, you can stack funny stuff on crits - vorpal is merely the beginning. Full agreement on the knowledges, though.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-01-06, 07:27 AM	I bring this up because most of my players think this way too, and always aim for the damned membranes, causing my dragons to roll their wings up on to their backs, like mantles. How are they doing this in a game that expressly has no called shots? :confused:
MerlintheTuna 11-01-06, 07:29 AM	Knowledge checks are especially funny for one reason: DC 10 is supposed to be common knowledge, but by definition only about half of the people around will know it.
(Psi)SeveredHead 11-01-06, 07:31 AM	Turn undead. I hate the HD cap, and it's not part of the unified mechanic. Plus PrCs dispense with it as if it's some kind of "cost" and the PrC often ends up overpowered, and they're used to power over-the-top feats like Divine Metamagic.
Burgundy Lotus 11-01-06, 07:34 AM	I've been attacked by swans and geese and their wings don't hurt at all. People might break bones falling all over themselves during a swan attack but there's not enough strength in the wing to break a bone. Their bites, on the other hand, hurt more than most people would imagine. Their wings may do little real damage but they do actually attack with them. His reply was in response to people saying that winged animals do not attack with them as they are too fragile and the animal would not want to risk them being damaged which is untrue as buffeting a foe with their wings is quite effective at driving things off.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-01-06, 07:36 AM	Turn undead. Oh god, I hate the whole concept. Especially the fact that EVERY god in DnD has some kind of fixation with undead to the point where all thier clergy has some capability to deal with them.
Papa_duval 11-01-06, 07:40 AM	Their wings may do little real damage but they do actually attack with them. His reply was in response to people saying that winged animals do not attack with them as they are too fragile and the animal would not want to risk them being damaged which is untrue as buffeting a foe with their wings is quite effective at driving things off. Thanks :) This is why wing attacks are usually called a 'Wing Buffet' not a 'wing punch' A swan doing so to you may not hurt that much - but consider how much power is in their wings, then make the swan dragon sized.
Kraleck 11-01-06, 07:47 AM	Vorpal working on any Critical Confirmation. I've House Ruled that only a 20 on a Critical Confirmation causes Vorpal effects. That'll teach those PCs to kill everything that moves by beheading it.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-01-06, 07:51 AM	Vorpal working on any Critical Confirmation. I've House Ruled that only a 20 on a Critical Confirmation causes Vorpal effects. That'll teach those PCs to kill everything that moves by beheading it. Vorpal only works on a natural 20 in 3.5. All part of a campaign to make critical effects blowful.
Kraleck 11-01-06, 07:54 AM	Vorpal only works on a natural 20 in 3.5. All part of a campaign to make critical effects blowful. Haven't updated from 3.0 yet. Just ordered the 3.5 core manuals yesterday.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-01-06, 07:58 AM	Haven't updated from 3.0 yet. Good. Stay there. You'll have less houseruling to do to make the game playable.
J.Augustus Rose II 11-01-06, 09:00 AM	Thanks :) This is why wing attacks are usually called a 'Wing Buffet' not a 'wing punch' A swan doing so to you may not hurt that much - but consider how much power is in their wings, then make the swan dragon sized. Yes, except that a swan's wings and a dragon's wings are made out of different material. You could hit someone with a membrane all day long and it's not going to do anything but rip up the membrane. You never see bats hitting their prey with their wings do you? Plus swans and dragons are built differently. If we were comparing swans and wyverns it would be different. But we're not. So...yeah.
babysamurai 11-01-06, 09:29 AM	Turn undead. I hate the HD cap, and it's not part of the unified mechanic. The Turning variant in Complete Divine might be up your alley.
runestar 11-01-06, 09:38 AM	It should be noted that some rules are the way they are for balance reasons, which might not necessarily translate well into flavour...:)
The Ultimate Dragongod 11-01-06, 09:39 AM	Craft (alchemy) requiring caster levels. Its moronic. I support this message. I never liked the book rule about spells... I always thought it was a bit silly that a wizard casts a spell and then simply forgets how to cast it... or for some reason does remember it but only remembers how to do it a limited number of times... I am a fan of limiting spell casting... but i have always disliked this rule. I like the spell points system frum UA alot more although that leads to balance issues. Everybody refers to wizard casting as 'forgetting' when they cast. However, that is how it was described in earlier editions. What occurs now is that the wizard spends that hour when he 'prepares' spells casting each spell he wants to use for the day up until the very last word, gesture, and without the material component. Then when he needs to, he can say a word, make a gesture, and provide the focus and material component and the spell goes off. The spell is not 'forgotten,' it's just finished. The wizard doesn't have it available because he' expended the energy. If he wants another spell, he need to spend the time casting a new one. Of course, wizards can't do this infinitely. I'm just assuming that it's taxing to do all this (reshape reality) and that could be the reasoning for why the wizard can't prepare more spells whenever he wants. But here's mine: though this isn't a book rule, I want to state that I find a lot of wizards material not flexible enough. I often have to make minor changes in classes to make them have more flavor or just be more flexible. Like, with the wizard I altered the spellbook text so that 'spellbooks need not be actual spellbooks' and provided a short paragraph on differing ways wizards record their spells. For warrior-style classes, a lack of higher level abilities. Barbarians are really the exception here in that they get to improve their rage. But when the fighter hits 16th level and he barbarian is getting his superior rage abilities, the fighter is finished with feat trees, and he's back to taking things like dodge. The paladin basically gets nothing after level 5 that's very noteworhy. I imagine a mentor saying, "Here's your mount, and don't bother coming back until epic level."
HauptSin 11-01-06, 10:14 AM	On Dragon Wings: Really, I've always thought of them as extra arms with less dexterity than their actual forelimbs. So a dragon wing attack would be something similar to a humanoid backhand or elbow attack. Also, most dragons' wings are tipped with at least one gigantic claw, so they could easily stab /rake with them... And you've got to rememeber that the wing bones in many older dragons are larger than the average human, and even the membranous skin that forms their wings is incredibly strong, seeing as they can support the immense weights of the dragon's body.
Sereno 11-01-06, 10:53 AM	See, my issue with these is that why on earth would a winged creature try to hit you with what is arguably the most fragile part of the very same anatomy that enabled it to fly? Strangely, an angry goose will attack by battering with its wings. Wing bones might be light, but they're attached to very strong muscles and very resilient.... However, with a creature as small as a goose, the damage to a human is minimal (though a shot in a sensitive area can be really painful). Multiply the size several magnitudes and the concept is still valid; resilient bones attached to powerful muscles; arguably, the strongest muscles in the creature's body....
babysamurai 11-01-06, 10:58 AM	Strangely, an angry goose will attack by battering with its wings. Yeah, and it’s usually because someone turned off Chicago.
batmanjr 11-01-06, 11:13 AM	My big beef comes in comparing Sorcerer hp to Wizard hp. Wizards have low hp because they are book worms(supposedly) and spend much of their time inside studying and learning magic. So, what about the sorcerer? It's innate magic, not learned. The sorcerer could be a farm hand that is out in the fields since he was a wee lad. I think they should have d6 instead of d4. And also, since I'm tired of reading the posts about them: DROP THE WHOLE DRAGON WING DISCUSSIONIf you want to discuss it more then start a new thread and quit plugging up this one.
SeattleLightning 11-01-06, 11:20 AM	The rules that bug me the most have to do with grappling, though I suppose its more because of a lack of clarity I have also never been a fan of energy drain. It's such a pain to regress a character back one (or more) levels.
Wood 11-01-06, 11:21 AM	Oh, hell no! Otherwise you'll critical every time you roll a 20, regardless of the AC or your attack bonus. No :censored: Sherlock. "Let's see, I need a 20 to hit you, but if I hit, it's a critical." Yeah that's the concept. Sorry, can't agree with you on this one. Most of the problems with the world today could be solved if more people would simply listen to me. As far as I'm concerned the 3.what ever rule books are good for only one thing: a flat surface upon which to roll dice. I've been forced to accept most of the garbage that wizards has pumped out over the past few years as gospel, but I absolutely refuse to ever put this rule into play. For decades before Hasbro and Wizards of the Coast ever came along rolling a twenty meant an automatic hit and double damage, regardless of any other factors. If you called a shot to the moon, and then rolled a twenty, it was then on the DMs shoulders to make it somehow make sense that it happened. Thats how it was for years and years and years and I see no reason, other than nerfing the game, to change it now. and I don't nerf anything. Aside from all that, rolling to "confirm" a critical hit implies that you for some reason do not know if what you just rolled is in fact a critical hit. I don't know about you, but when I roll my dice I can plainly see what is rolled. The numbers are quite distinct for everyone at the table to see. I don't need to confirm anything. The only higher power in a dungeon than the dungeon master is the dice. If the dice roll twenty, then its an automatic hit and double damage. I will not risk insulting the judgment of my dice, or anyone else's, by asking them to repeat themselves. You roll the dice once. If the dice declare critical, then it's a critical. The dice have spoken.
batmanjr 11-01-06, 11:23 AM	Exactly. A 1 is always a fumble. Why don't they have a fumble confirm roll or something?
Einvaldurinn_mikli 11-01-06, 11:29 AM	*Snip* Wow. You are so full of ****, I don't think I have seen anything close to it for ages.
ToxicWiz 11-01-06, 11:38 AM	the alchemy and magic one. At this moment I am playing a garanadier of a goblin with that rule fixed up :) the other's I wanted to put... I forgot about. Well, yeah Craft(Alchemy) shouldn't require a caster level. that's my opinion. thanks :D
Wood 11-01-06, 11:39 AM	Exactly. A 1 is always a fumble. Why don't they have a fumble confirm roll or something? No doubt. Why don't they have a fumble confirmation roll? or a save confirmation roll? I'm surprised they don't require confirmation for rolling max damage. Wow. You are so full of ****, I don't think I have seen anything close to it for ages. Clearly you've never been to Singapore.
Epicweaver 11-01-06, 11:40 AM	Craft (alchemy) requiring caster levels. Its moronic.I completely agree!
Einvaldurinn_mikli 11-01-06, 11:42 AM	Clearly you've never been to Singapore. Can't say that I have. So it's not a nice place then?
Wood 11-01-06, 11:47 AM	So it's not a nice place then? You also clearly do not watch the news. Would you like my travel agents number? The Conch Republic is lovely this time of year.
Solik 11-01-06, 11:49 AM	*snip* Quite easily the least useful post in the entire thread. Off-topic, baiting, and condescending. At any rate -- Intimidate being a Charisma skill. The result is that friendly half-elven bards are great at intimidating, while big, mean, unfriendly half-orc barbarians are awful at it. It's nonsense. I allow players to use Strength instead of Charisma for Intimidate if they wish.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 11-01-06, 11:50 AM	You also clearly do not watch the news. Nope. I mainly read newspapers and seeing as how asia really doesn't concern me, I skip those articles.
Celestine_AutumnStar 11-01-06, 11:52 AM	No doubt. Why don't they have a fumble confirmation roll? or a save confirmation roll? I'm surprised they don't require confirmation for rolling max damage. Because there are no fumbles to begin with? :rolleyes: Clearly you've never been to Singapore. And now you are quoting bad movies, do you contribute anything to these boards other than sexist comments and inaccurate rules advice/opinions?... oh yeah and bad quotes from worse movies
Celestine_AutumnStar 11-01-06, 11:53 AM	At any rate -- Intimidate being a Charisma skill. The result is that friendly half-elven bards are great at intimidating, while big, mean, unfriendly half-orc barbarians are awful at it. It's nonsense. I allow players to use Strength instead of Charisma for Intimidate if they wish. As does "he who shall not be named" in our campaign.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-01-06, 12:03 PM	It should be noted that some rules are the way they are for balance reasons, which might not necessarily translate well into flavour...:) Only the confirm crit one from what I've read. The others are designers trying to tell you what flavor of game you should be playing. "Dur... crit should be special..." and all that bull.
Wood 11-01-06, 12:06 PM	"Dur... crit should be special..." well said :clap:
Cifer 11-01-06, 12:09 PM	Most of the problems with the world today could be solved if more people would simply listen to me. Healthy self-esteem, huh? Exactly. A 1 is always a fumble. Why don't they have a fumble confirm roll or something? Because a 1 makes your attack miss automatically, in the same way a 20 lets you hit automatically. If you want full crit rules on a simple 20 and argue for this with the "balancing" 1, well, hooray for crit miss tables and the inevitable warrior shooting himself in the foot. For decades before Hasbro and Wizards of the Coast ever came along rolling a twenty meant an automatic hit and double damage, regardless of any other factors. If you called a shot to the moon, and then rolled a twenty, it was then on the DMs shoulders to make it somehow make sense that it happened. And the moon is still hit today. What's your problem? That you don't deal automatic double damage anymore but rather have the chance to either deal quadruple damage or double on more numbers than 20? Oooh, the nerf... and even the membranous skin that forms their wings is incredibly strong, seeing as they can support the immense weights of the dragon's body. Actually, I doubt they can do that. It's less "They've got massive wingspan and muscles meaning they can fly" but more "They've got the 'The game is called Dungeons and Dragons' bonus, meaning they can fly". Under normal physics, one needs about 10m+ wingspan to make an adolescent human capable of flying (thank you, Engel rpg). You don't want to scale that up to dragon size...
Wood 11-01-06, 12:14 PM	Healthy self-esteem, huh? Indeed. And don't sass your elders young man. Didn't your mother teach you any manners?
GloomoftheNight 11-01-06, 12:17 PM	the rule i hate the most is the tumble rules, no matter what your fighting, regardless of size, skill, speed, all anyone needs is a 15 to get around it, and there is no way around tumble, no feat to make it harder, or item, ANYTHING!!! Not sure if any mentioned, but there are rules for more difficult tumble checks. Basically, the opponent gets a opposed check for AOO.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-01-06, 12:20 PM	well said :clap: Erm... not for you. That was in reference to improved crit and keen not stacking. Your 'no confirmation rolls' idea is still very, very bad.
Witch 11-01-06, 12:23 PM	Indeed. And don't sass your elders young man. Didn't your mother teach you any manners? Age does not merit being correct, my dear friend. The aged should know.
Wood 11-01-06, 12:23 PM	Erm... not for you. You'll notice I quoted you out of context.
Wood 11-01-06, 12:28 PM	Age does not merit being correct, my dear friend. The aged should know. The aged does know. Being correct is based on the merits of provable logic and reasoning grounded on valid data gathered from astute observation. How's the weather in Belgium?
Einvaldurinn_mikli 11-01-06, 12:35 PM	The aged does know. Being correct is based on the merits of provable logic and reasoning grounded on valid data gathered from astute observation. You are actually claiming logic as your defense? :heehee
Wood 11-01-06, 12:38 PM	You are actually claiming logic as your defense? :heehee Absolutely. When the dice are rolled the result is apparent. Saying that it isn't apparent is not logical. You don't have to be Mr Spock to deduce that one. I'm suddenly very glad that I own all the star trek dvds.
Heahengel 11-01-06, 12:40 PM	Exactly. A 1 is always a fumble. Why don't they have a fumble confirm roll or something? Well a roll of 20 is still an auto hit, just like a 1 is an auto miss. You just have to confirm to get all that fun bonus damage/effects. As there are no 'critical fumbles' in D+D this mechanic isn't needed. I am curious, Wood, do you still use the expanded crit ranges and multipliers? Weapons are balanced based on the confirmation system, so taking that out might screm things up balance wise. Personally, I dislike the bleeding out/dying rules, and have seen them house ruled a few times. Also, I dislike that delaying your action on the first round of a fight keeps you flat footed until you take an action. Somtimes my character wins initiative, but I don't want to attack first for roleplaying reasons, and I also don't want to spend my action doing something else. I generally just say something and do nothing with my action.
Celestine_AutumnStar 11-01-06, 12:44 PM	All of this fumble nonsense is making my head hurt. A natural 1 is not a "fumble" it is a miss and anything else is a houserule. A natural 20 is not a "crit" it is a hit and you get to roll again to confirm a crit. Sometimes its hard for the small minded to grasp these things, isn't it?
Wood 11-01-06, 12:45 PM	I am curious, Wood, do you still use the expanded crit ranges and multipliers? Yup. I don't nerf anything.
cvazi 11-01-06, 12:50 PM	Spot, Bluff and Sense Motive should be class skills for full BAB classes (mostly the fighter). Bluff for feignting and Sense Motive for defending against feignting and "reading" your opponents uses from CAdv. Spot should just be a no brainer. Poisons should be better. In classic literature, poisons were used to take down the mighty warrior that noone could take down by force of arms, yet fighter classes are pretty much immune to poison due to a stron fort save.:thinks:
revnk 11-01-06, 12:55 PM	Lack of facing. Apparently you can run pell-mell down a rope bridge towards a safe exit while being pursued by horrible things on wings and yet you can still see them coming because there is no facing in standard 3.5. Love that. Will be adopting a facing variant from Unearthed Arcana as soon as I can fairly do so.
Wood 11-01-06, 12:56 PM	Poisons should be better. In classic literature, poisons were used to take down the mighty warrior that noone could take down by force of arms, yet fighter classes are pretty much immune to poison due to a stron fort save.:thinks: Thats actually a really valid point. Good show cvazi. I can see house rules in my future that increase the potency of poisons, and in game circumstances that make them much harder to obtain. kudos.
Milandros 11-01-06, 12:56 PM	For decades before Hasbro and Wizards of the Coast ever came along rolling a twenty meant an automatic hit and double damage, regardless of any other factors. If you called a shot to the moon, and then rolled a twenty, it was then on the DMs shoulders to make it somehow make sense that it happened. Thats how it was for years and years and years and I see no reason, other than nerfing the game, to change it now. First of all, "for decades before Hasbro and WotC came along" we had different saving throws for Rod, Staff and Wand as opposed to Spells as opposed to Death Magic. I presume you're still playing 2.0, 1.0 or even Basic? If not, do you keep the old THAC0 rules and have armour be more effective the lower your armour class is? Do you have different XP progression charts for different classes? Is Elf a class instead of a race? Things change, and in terms of basic rulesets D&D 3.5 is by far the best of the bunch. The way some things have gone (3.7x10E45 different prestigeless Prestige Classes and "only noobs play at less than 25th level" attitudes, for example) are not to my liking, but the basic rules system is by far the most polished and useable. Secondly, I don't think it's a nerf at all. Instead of only criticalling on a 20, you can now critical on a higher threat ranger - heck, a good old longsword now has twice the chance to threaten a critical that it did before. The corfirmation roll pulls that back a bit towards the 1 in 20 chance, but it's still not less, generally, than before, and if you want to build a character that focusses on criticals you can. If you don't have a crit confirmation, then Keen, Improved Critical and so on become truly deadly feats when used with a high threat range weapon - I presume you've made all weapons 20/x2?
Wood 11-01-06, 01:13 PM	I presume you're still playing 2.0, 1.0 or even Basic? In point of fact I don't really play much D&D at all these days. I prefer to run Call of Cthulhu single shot adventures. But when we do play D&D we use a kind of eclectic rule set that spans all the various incarnations of the game. We take what we want, and leave the rest. Just like a salad bar. If not, do you keep the old THAC0 rules and have armour be more effective the lower your armour class is? Do you have different XP progression charts for different classes? Is Elf a class instead of a race? I don't think anyone would willingly go back to that madness. Though I will say that there was an instance, only a few months ago, where I put an NPC in play that had a negative armor class. It took me a minute to realize it after announcing his armor class to the party. The youngsters were quite confused. Things change, and in terms of basic rulesets D&D 3.5 is by far the best of the bunch. In some ways I agree with that sentiment, but in other ways I very much disagree. (see above salad bar remark.) The way some things have gone (3.7x10E45 different prestigeless Prestige Classes and "only noobs play at less than 25th level" attitudes, for example) are not to my liking... Nor to mine. Secondly, I don't think it's a nerf at all. Instead of only criticalling on a 20, you can now critical on a higher threat ranger - heck, a good old longsword now has twice the chance to threaten a critical that it did before. Look, it's not about in game power mechanics. It's about the dice. My ultimate position is this: Any rule that requires more dice rolling is bad. If a 19 is a crit for the weapon in play, and the dice show 19 or better then it's a crit. Why roll more dice? I presume you've made all weapons 20/x2? Of course. Even a rusted, blunted, hundred year old pitchfork in the hands of a commoner (read: zero lvl fighter) deals out x2 on a 20.
FriendoftheDork 11-01-06, 01:17 PM	Thats actually a really valid point. Good show cvazi. I can see house rules in my future that increase the potency of poisons, and in game circumstances that make them much harder to obtain. kudos. Here are mine: Save VS poisons are to halve ability damage, not to negate it. Thus no matter your save, if you take hevy ability damage you will still suffer somewhat. Note that taking 1 damage lowers it to 0 when halved. As for your problem with crits: You're simply too fond of the "old way" of doing things. You also doesen't seem to understand what a critical hit is nowadays, which is a well place strike from part luck, part skill. If all 20s are crits that means they're all dependent on luck. Why shouldn't good warriors strike better than normal people? BTW In my games we use fumble HOUSE RULES and when rolling a one you roll again to confirm it. Not confirming the roll of one, that is of course self-evident, but confirming that the strike in question was both unlucky and also a result of poor skill. It doesen't make sense that a 20th level fighter with 4 attacks should fumble around once every 1 of 5 rounds (once per 30 seconds!) Explain to me how that is logical to you. At any rate -- Intimidate being a Charisma skill. The result is that friendly half-elven bards are great at intimidating, while big, mean, unfriendly half-orc barbarians are awful at it. It's nonsense. I allow players to use Strength instead of Charisma for Intimidate if they wish Again it seems people's problems with the rules often stem from the fact that they do not understand the rule or the reason behind it to begin with. The fact is that charisma and friendliness are two different things... for instance a balor is not exactly friendly, but surely have high charisma. AND is damn scary to boot! So does your half-elf bard, meaning despite his otherwise friendly demeanor he can ACT scary if he wants to. The half-orc barbarian with 6 charisma has a hard time scaring anyone other than with brute strength, especially since he is not awesome, has low self-esteem and sense of self, and might be scared himself, or shy. A really tough, scary, combat brute or barbarian leader, who's loud, outspoken and iron self esteem probably would have rather high charisma. Too bad many dump the stat and that half-orcs have penalty in it. However, there is an optional rule that allows you to use strength bonus instead of charisma when using physical intimidation (in complete something I think), I use it for appropriate situations.
revnk 11-01-06, 01:19 PM	For decades before Hasbro and Wizards of the Coast ever came along rolling a twenty meant an automatic hit and double damage, regardless of any other factors. Not, to the best of my recollection, in first edition. The only double damage rules I can recall were house rules. I can't vouch for what was in second edition--my friends and I all bypassed it for its suckage and betrayal. In any event, 2E came out in 1989, so any double damage rules it may have included were only for a decade-give-or-take-a-couple-of-years. I don't remember an auto hit rule, either, but I will pull out my ancient tome of forbidden lore--okay, my Dungeon Master's Guide with the ifreet on the cover, spine in good shape--and double check when I get home from work tonight. I suspect you're wrong, but I've misremembered things before. What I do remember, however, is that the to-hit charts included a repetition of six "20s" at the very low and negative ACs--and then went to 20+ numbers. That suggests that auto-20 was not a rule, since some ACs could only be hit if you rolled a modified total of 25 or higher. But I could be prematurely senile.
aotrscommander 11-01-06, 01:23 PM	As I recall, 2nd AD&D didn't have any proper rules for criticals; I believe there was an optional rule about a 20 giving you a second attack, but most of the time (in the games I played), crits were houseruled (and often followed the Baldur's Gate-style of crit = double damage). A 20 was an automatic hit by then, however. Edit: Oh, I suppose I should actually make a contribution too, since I've been meaning to! Personally: Spiked armour, and most of the racial double weapons. Just no. Not for any particular game reasons, I just think that they are really silly. (My personal 'favourite' was in 3.0 and in Sword and Fist, I think it was, and the 'tumbling crossbow bolt' which by flying erratically, somehow managed to be more accurate. I don't think so.) I think there should be more effective poisons (i,e higher DC), and the current poisons should be cheaper, given the current rules, since most of them are useless at higher levels. (We once had to subdue a half-dragon paladin. In the end we had to go toe-to-toe, since realistically, he was effectively immune to any poisons we could throw at him in small doses, and they were too expensive to be able to buy them enmasse (we were about level 6-7 at the time). I am also leery of the feats and class abilities in the PHB II that allow you to automatically make saves, as this makes a character practically immune to ertain type of attack. As currently they only affected Fort saves, but it's not an issue I feel I need to address at the moment, but I am concerned it may set a precedence for the future.
Red12 11-01-06, 01:45 PM	I'm pretty sure AD&D had double damage crits. It was striaght up regular D&D that didnt have a set rule. But regardless. Why is it so hard for everyone to accept that this is a rule he disagree's with on principal? It was all a fine and jolly thread until someone said "Oh hell no" to his post, and as a result Wood said why he didnt like it, a referance to the old days. The result= flaming. He likes his rules better than yours. How can anyone have a problem with this? No :censored: people! People like their own rules! I like my rules the best. Why? Cause they make the most sense to me! It is the same with everyone. You dont have to agree, but it is rather moronic to try and prove why someone should like something. Please stop with comments like " Sometimes its hard for the small minded to grasp these things, isn't it?", or, "You are actually claiming logic as your defense?". It's pointless and childish. Please grow up. IMO, 2nd Edition AD&D is my favorite ruleset. The rules were there, but there was a lot of stuff that was MENT to be houseruled based on context. Everyone accepted this- it was a part of the game. It's different now, can't say I agree with a lot of it. Yes, it is easier to get a grip on the mechanics, but at the same time, some of them leave a bad taste in my mouth. And I dont have to justify it to anyone. That being said: One, I suppose this is a "rule", is that Wizards doesnt take into account other suppliments when designing new ones. (Dieties and Demigods NOT using ELH anyone?)
Cinnamongrl 11-01-06, 01:47 PM	Second. I also don't like death by massive damage. It makes sense, but...I just don't like it. Especially once we get into epic levels and they have to make a save every time they take a hit, and automatically fail 1/20th of that time. Massive damage doesn't work right at all, a weak little commoner can never die of massive damage, and a hardy powerful fighter gets taken out with one decent shot. I propose a diffrent spin on Massive damage. In real life when you take "massive damage" you go into shock, which without treatment you could possibly die. If you take massive damage you should make a fort save and instead of more damage you are stunned, dazed, unconsious, or make up a new status for shock specifically.
Piuro 11-01-06, 01:51 PM	AC rules. After the first few levels, AC is useless. You're going to either be hit every time, or never.
Rhomphaia 11-01-06, 02:05 PM	Well, at least the discussion on wing attacks is over.
FriendoftheDork 11-01-06, 02:20 PM	Heres a rule that annoy me alot: That although HP represents the ability to turn hits into glancing blows, it is still used to resist dying from falls, being immersed in lava or acid, being crushed by a trap etc. Oh and the AC rules annoy me in the respect that it both represents the ability to evade blows as well as the ability to withstand direct hits. I've tried making armor give DR, but that doesen't work well either because of the stupid damage system where your typical 10th level fighter has no problems doing 50 damage or more in one blow!
Varia 11-01-06, 02:43 PM	See, my issue with these is that why on earth would a winged creature try to hit you with what is arguably the most fragile part of the very same anatomy that enabled it to fly? Er, wings support the entire body weight of the critter, theyre not the most fragile part of the body. Usually the second wing-joint is used which is both strong and knuckly (and may have a wingclaw attached too), not any part of the membrane or feathered area. You are aware that there have been several incidents where swans have killed people with their wings, are you not? If you would like to go complain to mother nature about how unrealistic swans are youre welcome to do so, but youre gonna get laughed at... Would you like to complain about sheep and goats and buffalo etc attacking with their heads too, while youre at it? In combat creatures will use whatever they have that can deliver the most damage. If thats their wings then thats what they'll use. A note however, its almost exclusively a prey thing, and only used if they cant or wont flee (caught by surprise, guarding a nest, etc). Predators usually have better options with talons and beaks, although they too may resort to wings as well if pressed hard enough. Shouldnt tempt fate like that, Romphaia! :P Varia
Thubby 11-01-06, 02:45 PM	Heres a rule that annoy me alot: That although HP represents the ability to turn hits into glancing blows. where does it say that:confused:, i have always understood hp to be the ability to endure pain, and be harder to kill. one guy will die when you cut his arm open, the other laugh.
Keevo_Darkwood 11-01-06, 02:46 PM	Would you try to attack someone with your neck? How about the back of your head? *As an unknown assailant bear-hugs me from behind, you see me snap off two quick reverse-headbutts. A few seconds later, as the would-be mugger has tears gushing from the eyes and blood from what used to be the nose, I turn to xpochian and smile* Now, you were saying....? :D Only because the word 'Alignment' is the verbal component for Firestorm... To quote Bowmore, "oh god, is that ever QFT". :rolleyes: Dragons don't have fragile parts to thier anatomy. ;) Bard (slayer of Smaug) would beg to differ. :D The tarrasque has 10 negative hit points. I give people negative hit points equal to their con scores. As do I. I also hate that adventurers are these incredibly tough people who can take scads of damage from razor-sharp blades, fire, and the energy of death itself, but the moment you go unconscious you've got anywhere from 6 to 60 seconds to pray you don't bleed out. Not sure how to fix that. The human heart can pump at least 6 quarts of blood all the way around the body in a minute. Unfortunately, most adult human bodies hold only about 5 quarts of blood. If anything, fix the part before the word "but". And also, since I'm tired of reading the posts about them: DROP THE WHOLE DRAGON WING DISCUSSION *smiles softly* In the immortal words of Dr. Evil, "how about NO?". :evillaugh So, what sort of sauce d'ya want with 'em: mild, hot, extra-hot, or BBQ? :smirk: *readies an action to cast Expeditious Retreat*
Millennium 11-01-06, 02:58 PM	I'm pretty sure AD&D had double damage crits. It was striaght up regular D&D that didnt have a set rule. 2e didn't have crits at all. I think they discussed this in the DMG, and one of the major reasons they didn't include critical hits is because they didn't want to include critical fumbles, and saw no sense in including one without the other. That said, critical hits (particularly the double-damage variety) were an extremely common houserule. That being said: One, I suppose this is a "rule", is that Wizards doesnt take into account other suppliments when designing new ones. (Dieties and Demigods NOT using ELH anyone?) Deities and Demigods doesn't use the ELH because the ELH didn't yet exist at the time. It wouldn't be released for several more months. The FRCS had the same problem, though they patched it in the ELH by including rebuilt NPCs for that setting.
J.Augustus Rose II 11-01-06, 03:22 PM	And also, since I'm tired of reading the posts about them: DROP THE WHOLE DRAGON WING DISCUSSIONIf you want to discuss it more then start a new thread and quit plugging up this one. I'm sorry, are you a moderator? Is this your personal board? This thread is about book rules you can't accept and wing attacks are a book rule I can't accept. If you don't like it, then don't read the posts. Otherwise, keep your comments to yourself. No one cares what you're tired of reading.
Salla 11-01-06, 03:26 PM	I agree totally. Also, Poison = Evil. So basically a paladin using a +5 Flaming Vorpal sword to smash a goblin is good but a rogue using poison to render the same goblin unconcious is evil? That's like saying shooting an escaped elephant with a tranquelizer gun is evil but using an Uzi on it? Sure why not! I was gonna read the whole thing but ... that's not true. Nowhere in ANY book, save for the incredibly wonky BoVD and BoED (nonstandard supplements if EVER there were any), is it implied that poison use is evil. Anyway, the rule I can't stand is Favored Classes and Multiclass XP penalties. I houserule those out every time.
FriendoftheDork 11-01-06, 03:33 PM	where does it say that:confused:, i have always understood hp to be the ability to endure pain, and be harder to kill. one guy will die when you cut his arm open, the other laugh. Try the combat chapter, hit points. They also represent "toughing it out" to some degree, that some people are hardened and resist damage easier. It's "abstract". However I dislike the "10 mortal wounds and still fighting on" thing they got. Oh, that stuff is fine and dandy with the diehard feat, but not for every damn adventurer past level 3.
Salla 11-01-06, 03:35 PM	Try the combat chapter, hit points. They also represent "toughing it out" to some degree, that some people are hardened and resist damage easier. It's "abstract". However I dislike the "10 mortal wounds and still fighting on" thing they got. Oh, that stuff is fine and dandy with the diehard feat, but not for every damn adventurer past level 3. HP also accounts for defensive prowess, rolling with the shot, parrying and other things like that. You can drop from 200 HP to 5 and not actually have been touched ... you're just really worn out from parrying, blocking, and dodging. As you say, it's abstract; it means whatever the DM and players decide it means.
Sulaco 11-01-06, 03:54 PM	Scribing Spells into the spellbook rules in general, anyone? Oh Bog, they are just horrible. One rulle I change is that caster of all sorts do not need to memorize/perpare 0-level spells. You can cast any of them you want, whenever you want, limited only by the max number you can cast in a day.
Sulaco 11-01-06, 04:10 PM	I've been attacked by swans and geese and their wings don't hurt at all. Then you haven't been attacked by a swan, you've merely been warned off by one. A swan will indeed attack with its wing and can break a man's arm. However, it is more than likely it will break the wing in the process as well. They are not intelligent, reasoning beings and act out of a sense of self-preservation and instinct if pressed hard enough. Similar behaviour is seen in humans. People who have been victims of blade attacks normally have deep cuts on their hands and arms called "defensive wounds." This is caused from using the arms to block the blade, thus protecting the more vital areas of head and torso. It makes no logical sense to want to damage your hands and arms in such a manner, but it is far more desireable than a mortal injury to the vitals and is instinctive. If I were a dragon I would certainly take a broken wing over a +4 longsword to the babymaker.
FriendoftheDork 11-01-06, 04:39 PM	HP also accounts for defensive prowess, rolling with the shot, parrying and other things like that. You can drop from 200 HP to 5 and not actually have been touched ... you're just really worn out from parrying, blocking, and dodging. As you say, it's abstract; it means whatever the DM and players decide it means. Well, yeah. My problem is that 200hp character cannot die from a fall, or being totally immersed in acid. Even lava will take a few rounds to kill him. It's just stupid IMO.
Salla 11-01-06, 04:48 PM	Well, yeah. My problem is that 200hp character cannot die from a fall, or being totally immersed in acid. Even lava will take a few rounds to kill him. It's just stupid IMO. Perhaps he landed well, or on a soft patch of earth, or on a rock outcropping in the lava or acid. You need to be creative with that sort of thing. Besides, I think a no-save/no-damage-roll 'this happens and you just die' is unfair and pretty stupid, myself. It's a game; it's not supposed to represent reality on anything more than the most basic level. It's supposed to be playable, not realistic, IMHO. I think d20 Modern put it best, with something like 'it represents reality as depicted in movies' (excerpted/paraphrased), and heroes in movies and the like regularly survive things that would kill anything else.
Salla 11-01-06, 04:55 PM	Exactly. A 1 is always a fumble. Why don't they have a fumble confirm roll or something? No, a 1 is always a FAILURE, just as a 20 is always a SUCCESS on attack rolls and saving throws (NOT skill checks!). The combat rules have a specific 'critical success' rule, but unless one is engaging in poorly thought-out variant rules, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CRITICAL FUMBLE.
Reversefigure4 11-01-06, 04:57 PM	At any rate -- Intimidate being a Charisma skill. The result is that friendly half-elven bards are great at intimidating, while big, mean, unfriendly half-orc barbarians are awful at it. It's nonsense. I allow players to use Strength instead of Charisma for Intimidate if they wish. I'd point out that if the half-orc barbarian wants to be better at it, he should be with ease. Intimidate isn't a class skill for bards. The bard would have to cross class multiple skill points into it, and still have a half max ranks cap, while the barb has more than enough skill points to pump into it (class skill) and make up for low Cha.
malignor 11-01-06, 05:04 PM	Re: Wing attacks. - Imagine the wing "fingers" are together during the swing, and open at the very end. Effect similar to a flyswatter. SMACK! - Ever seen those upward Kung-Fu strikes using the hard part of the wrist? A wing is basically a short arm with super long, webbed fingers (look at any bird or bat skeleton). So a wrist-strike is theoretically possible. ... if I were to BS an explanation, I'd use these two.
Sulaco 11-01-06, 05:08 PM	At any rate -- Intimidate being a Charisma skill. The result is that friendly half-elven bards are great at intimidating, while big, mean, unfriendly half-orc barbarians are awful at it. It's nonsense. It makes perfect sense to me. Intimidate is the ability to convince people that you will do them harm if they do not give you what they want. The big, mean, unfriendly half-orc barbarian skips right to the actual doing harm part until he get's what he wants. There is no intimidation involved. I do believe, however, that the mere presence of the big, mean, unfriendly half-orc barbarian should grant a substantial synergy bonus to a companion's intimidate check. ;) IMO the "use STR instead" method a cop out to offset the single tangible CHA-related deficit for min/maxers who use CHA as a dump-stat.
Thubby 11-01-06, 05:29 PM	Wood did you take Skill Focus, Offend as your first level feat or what? thsi is new, i actauly agree with you. low blow wood.
Gyrofthewastes 11-01-06, 05:52 PM	It's an integral part of the game as far as I'm concerned. Sometimes things go surprisingly well, as in the case of a critical hit. Sometimes things go monstrously and unexpectedly wrong, as in the case of a fumble. Just makes it more exciting. You want to play some other game than D&D, that's your business. But then don't bother complaining here about your house rules. Check this out and compare: Oberoni fallacy. A natural 1 is not even always a failure in 3.x. For instance: Most skill checks.
batmanjr 11-01-06, 05:59 PM	[QUOTE]No, a 1 is always a FAILURE, just as a 20 is always a SUCCESS[QUOTE] Everyone who posted this is exactly correct, I mis-posted, sorry for getting everyone all worked up. As far as the whole dragon wing business goes, dragging it out, only diminishes the quality of the thread(not that other posters haven't already done that-myself included) to where no new posts ADD anything to the discussion. Rules I'm not a fan of: Str and Dex adding to attack bonuses. If I can juggle 100 objects, why would that make me better at firing a bow? So I can bench 1000 lbs, why would that make it easier for me to hit something? I agree that when I did hit the damage would be greater, but not easier to hit.
FeceMan 11-01-06, 06:01 PM	Rules I'm not a fan of: Str and Dex adding to attack bonuses. If I can juggle 100 objects, why would that make me better at firing a bow? So I can bench 1000 lbs, why would that make it easier for me to hit something? I agree that when I did hit the damage would be greater, but not easier to hit. Because adding DEX represents actually making contact with the target (and hitting a vulnerable portion) and adding STR represents being able to break through the target's armor even to score a hit.
john_045412 11-01-06, 06:04 PM	Spot, Bluff and Sense Motive should be class skills for full BAB classes (mostly the fighter). Bluff for feignting and Sense Motive for defending against feignting and "reading" your opponents uses from CAdv. Spot should just be a no brainer. Poisons should be better. In classic literature, poisons were used to take down the mighty warrior that noone could take down by force of arms, yet fighter classes are pretty much immune to poison due to a stron fort save.:thinks: Agree! Low level HP mechanics annoy me. To much room for one lucky/unlucky hit to change things and the power ramp from 1st to third increases hp by 100% then 50% where as hp from 10th to 11th is 10%. Double starting hp (or just starting at 2nd) helps most of my campaigns. If you give a character 5.5 extra hp at first level it smooths down the ramp a bit. Not specifically a rule, but the lack of common sence applied to rules annoys me. Example: 1st round of combat flat footed makes sense when there is no abitrary start to combat. You bash through a door, round a corner or the like then flat footed make sense. You see an enemy airship approaching... or the previous arena case do not make sense. Outlandish Diplomacy annoys me Actually use of skill rolls over roleplaying (as opposed to in support of role playing) Abuse of game mechanics (spiked chain for example) - house ruled out Over use of special combat maneuvers (grapple, trip, and sunder specifically) - addressed OOC with players, especially at creation Sunder in general. Damn, a mean dm at mid to high levels sundering every attack could cost a party (especially melee weapon user) alot of money. If you are into it... then any wizard/artificer who can should build a sunder golem guard or necromancers summon a large sunder-ombie. - not used by enemies unless PCs get sunder happy.
wrecan 11-01-06, 06:06 PM	The result is that friendly half-elven bards are great at intimidating, while big, mean, unfriendly half-orc barbarians are awful at it. That's because it's silly that half-orcs get a Charisma penalty. Charisma is not attractiveness, but force of personality, which big, mean, unfriendly half-orcs should have in abundance. Half-orcs should get a Wisdom penalty to complement their Intelligence Penalty. I also think Intimidate checks should eb subject to size modifiers.
Salla 11-01-06, 06:07 PM	Wood did you take Skill Focus, Offend as your first level feat or what? That said, the only fumble rule in any WotC documents is a variant rule in the DMG, pg 28, specifically designated as a variant and thus not standard operating procedures. "If you want to model the chance that in combat a character may fumble his weapon, then when a player rolls a 1 on his attack roll, have him make a DC 10 Dexterity check. If he fails, his character fumbles. You need to decide what it means to fumble, but in general, that character should probably lose a turn of activity as he regains his balance, picks up a dropped weapon, clears his head, steadies himself, or whatever. Fumbles are not appropriate to all games. They can add excitement or interest to combat, but they can also detract from the fun. They certainly add more randomness to combat. Add this variant rule only after careful consideration."
Salla 11-01-06, 06:09 PM	That's because it's silly that half-orcs get a Charisma penalty. Charisma is not attractiveness, but force of personality, which big, mean, unfriendly half-orcs should have in abundance. Half-orcs should get a Wisdom penalty to complement their Intelligence Penalty. I also think Intimidate checks should eb subject to size modifiers. I envision the problem with half-orc intimidation, and the Charisma penalty, as being a case of 'overdoing it'. Rather than coming off as self-assured and confident, they go too far and come off as blustering pro wrestlers. And Intimidate checks are subject to size modifiers; check the PHB again. ;)
Red12 11-01-06, 06:09 PM	Just ignore Wood. I've found that debating with people whose only real defense is throwing out ad hominem attacks is a lot like arguing with an arrogant, pretentious ass who think he's above everyone else. Now, combine the two of those and you'll understand why I don't argue with Wood. You know, I'm not saying I agree with Wood. In fact, I probably dont like him. However, indirect character attacks are more dispicable than just saying it to someones face. Just sayin' Also, just because an argument is ad hominem does not make it incorrect ;) Rules I'm not a fan of: Str and Dex adding to attack bonuses. If I can juggle 100 objects, why would that make me better at firing a bow? So I can bench 1000 lbs, why would that make it easier for me to hit something? I agree that when I did hit the damage would be greater, but not easier to hit. Think about it this way= a football player can lift and swing a greatmace a hellava lot easier than say, your average nerd. I CANT see str and dex not affecting attack rolls- to get rid of them takes away all representation of natural fighting ability. EDIT: As for half orcs and intimidation. At level 1= A bard with 16 CHA and a half orc barb with 8 CHA who puts 4 ranks into intimidate are the same. level 2 and above, the barb has better intimidation. Seems pretty sensible to me. Ranks are far more important than ability modifiers
Gyrofthewastes 11-01-06, 06:16 PM	Also, just because an argument is ad hominem does not make it incorrect Actually, yes it does. An Ad Hominem attack is a classic fallacy. That is what fallacy means: Main Entry: fal·la·cy Pronunciation: 'fa-l&-sE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -cies Etymology: Latin fallacia, from fallac-, fallax deceitful, from fallere to deceive 1 a obsolete : GUILE, TRICKERY b : deceptive appearance : DECEPTION 2 a : a false or mistaken idea <popular fallacies> b : erroneous character : ERRONEOUSNESS 3 : an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference ...but the presence of an Ad Hominem attack does not necessarily mean that other arguments presented are equally invalid. Nor is an INSULTING argument necessarily Ad Hominem.
Cifer 11-01-06, 06:17 PM	where does it say that, i have always understood hp to be the ability to endure pain, and be harder to kill. one guy will die when you cut his arm open, the other laugh. Tell me how anyone can survive, say, 12 well-swung hits with a greataxe (let's assume a 16 strength, makes for 12*(12+3)=180 damage. Not exactly unsurvivable).
wrecan 11-01-06, 06:23 PM	they go too far and come off as blustering pro wrestlers. I think I am far more likely to be intimidated by a blustering pro wrestler than a supermodel. Charisma penalties to half-orcs is silly. It's a holdover from when Charisma meant attractiveness.
Salla 11-01-06, 06:24 PM	I think I am far more likely to be intimidated by a blustering pro wrestler than a supermodel. Charisma penalties to half-orcs is silly. It's a holdover from when Charisma meant attractiveness. I, on the other hand, am more likely to be intimidated by James Bond than Hulk Hogan. YMMV.
Thubby 11-01-06, 06:27 PM	Tell me how anyone can survive, say, 12 well-swung hits with a greataxe (let's assume a 16 strength, makes for 12*(12+3)=180 damage. Not exactly unsurvivable). watch more anime, thats how! seriously, look at super heros, any cartoon (naruto), that is basicaly what adventurors are, super heros, people with abilities far exceeding the average. your example is somewhat flawed, 12 hits doing 15 dmg does do 180 dmg, total. but not to one spot, thats like 15 dmg to your arm, 15 to your chest, 30 to your left leg, etc.. alot of little hits (in reality) dont equel 1 big one. and most people cant survive 180 dmg in one hit, (hence death from massive dmg, despite that being kinda screwy too) and most people dont have 180 hp.
Always-Late 11-01-06, 06:29 PM	Tell me how anyone can survive, say, 12 well-swung hits with a greataxe (let's assume a 16 strength, makes for 12*(12+3)=180 damage. Not exactly unsurvivable).Yeah, if you're a level 15 Barbarian with 22 Con... Or a level 72 commoner with an array of 10's.
Red12 11-01-06, 06:31 PM	Actually, yes it does. An Ad Hominem attack is a classic fallacy. That is what fallacy means: blah blah blah ...but the presence of an Ad Hominem attack does not necessarily mean that other arguments presented are equally invalid. Nor is an INSULTING argument necessarily Ad Hominem. Oh, you think you need to define fallacy for me? I suppose the english-philosiphy double major I have makes me incapable of asserting what fallacy means. Please... grow up. Wood is in fact correct. People are doo doo heads because they think they can tell him his play style sucks, all because he believes his play style is better. Its a personal attack, sure. Is it incorrect? No. Could most of his stuff be defined as Ad Hominem? Ehh, maybe one or two. The rest of the "attacks" are there to be just that. He's not even providing an argument any more. (and without an argument, there is no fallacy) EDIT: Fixed quote for length
Heahengel 11-01-06, 06:54 PM	Over use of special combat maneuvers (grapple, trip, and sunder specifically) - addressed OOC with players, especially at creation I agree with most of what you said, but I wonder about this - what is your threshold for over use? Those maneuvers are basically what makes a fighter. If I am playing a fighter (or monk, or any character who makes use of comnbat maneuvers), I will probably have a few of those and use them whenever they are useful in a fight (which certainly isn't all the time). If someone is playing a reaping mauler then it just makes sense for him to grapple all of the medium and smaller enemies he faces, and probably some of the larger ones as well. Its when he tries to grapple a dragon, fails, and complains about it that you have a problem. I guess the counter argument is that that can get a bit repetetive, but it still makes sense roleplaying wise. If one solution always makes sense and its what you are good at, then thats what you are going to do.
DarknessEternal 11-01-06, 06:59 PM	Short Swords only do Piercing damage. My ass. They started their life as a slashing only weapon. In our games they are either. Death by Massive Damage is pretty lame as well. It should really be named Death by Massive Damage to PCs since that's all it ever kills effectively.
revnk 11-01-06, 07:37 PM	I think the discussion has moved on, but I did want to add that I did check my old AD&D books when I got home, and no, there is no double damage on a roll of "20" in first edition. Some folks did do that as a house rule, however.
LCD2YOU 11-01-06, 07:53 PM	Other rules that give me heartburn and I've changed: 1: Curative and Healing spells are Conjuration. BS, they're Necromancy 2: Positive Energy is "good". It's just a tool. 3: Negative Energy is "evil". It too is just a tool. 4: Zombies and Skeletons are inherently "evil". I can see skeletons cleaning sewer systems in large and good cities so the good citizens don't have to go down there and get sick. Zombies, well they're yucky but yucky =/= evil. 5: Long Bows do only d8 of damage and crit only on a 20. They do d12 and crit on a 19-20 x3 (just try and get one) in my game. The Elves make them and that's why they kick the crap out of their enemies. 6: Heavy Crossbows do only whatever. They do 2d10 and crit 18-20 x3 (again just try to get one) in my game. The Dwarves make 'em and unless you're a Dwarf friend, forget it. 7: Curative spells dont take a toll on the caster. I've changed all of that. Combat is deadly so my players try things other than resorting to combat first.
Eldermount 11-01-06, 07:55 PM	I think the discussion has moved on, but I did want to add that I did check my old AD&D books when I got home, and no, there is no double damage on a roll of "20" in first edition. Some folks did do that as a house rule, however. Let me add that there was no automatic hit on a 20 in 1st edition, either.
LCD2YOU 11-01-06, 07:57 PM	Let me add that there was no automatic hit on a 20 in 1st edition, either.Also note that in AD&D 1st, to hit AC -2 when you were a 1st or 2nd level anything meant you needed a Natural 20 and no amount of bonuses were going to help.
TheWerg 11-01-06, 07:59 PM	...the english-philosiphy double major I have... People are doo doo heads... It just makes me laugh that you brag about your english major then go on to use the phrase "doo doo heads".
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-01-06, 08:05 PM	2: Positive Energy is "good". It's just a tool. 3: Negative Energy is "evil". It too is just a tool. Actually, they aren't. A lot of people on the boards simply beleive they are because they believe what other posters tell them. 5: Long Bows do only d8 of damage and crit only on a 20. They do d12 and crit on a 19-20 x3 (just try and get one) in my game. The Elves make them and that's why they kick the crap out of their enemies. 6: Heavy Crossbows do only whatever. They do 2d10 and crit 18-20 x3 (again just try to get one) in my game. The Dwarves make 'em and unless you're a Dwarf friend, forget it. That's just a *tiny* bit broken there, dude. Are they at least like double exotic or something? 7: Curative spells dont take a toll on the caster.[QUOTE] A-buh? [QUOTE]I've changed all of that. Combat is deadly so my players try things other than resorting to combat first. Again. A-buh?
LCD2YOU 11-01-06, 08:21 PM	Actually, they aren't. A lot of people on the boards simply beleive they are because they believe what other posters tell them.I'll go look. You may be right but even I believe that they are in the Core books. They might just be in the ret of the stuff though.That's just a *tiny* bit broken there, dude. Are they at least like double exotic or something?Perhaps. They are devastating but are best used en masse. Also, a Large Shield does wonders when arrows are being fired at you, as does having a decent distance between you and the person shooting at you. Yes, it is a bit hard but I like it as do the players.7: Curative spells dont take a toll on the caster. A-buh?Yup. When a Cure spell is used, the Caster takes half of it as damage. To "shake off" the damage, must roll a DC equal to the total points healed. Blindness and Diseases are even tougher. There are rituals that can be performed to lower the chance but on a total failure, it can be quite hard on the caster. Tends to keep the Cleric from being just a healing battery and makes them and the players think about things. I know it's hard but I don't force it on everyone. If a 2/3 majority of the players don't like it, I drop it.Again. A-buh?Again my combats are fierce and I don't have the bad guys roll over and die. I nearly killed a group of five 6th level PCs who took on 12 Warrior 1st and 2nd Orcs who held the high ground. They kept on peppering the group with arrows (not Longbows but 3.5 DnD Short Bows) especially the mage, and rolling rocks on them when they tried to scale it. The group ran for their lives and never again assumed that I pulled punches.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-01-06, 08:33 PM	Perhaps. They are devastating but are best used en masse. En masse, they obliterate anything that moves! 10% of the time, you will kill any monster CR 4 or below in one shot! 1d12 19-20x3 is better than every single other weapon in the game. And you're just giving them to about 50% of the classes in the game for free? Hell yeah the players love it, you give out TOW missle launchers for 75gp. Also, a Large Shield does wonders when arrows are being fired at you, No plus to AC is going to save your butt from these things. as does having a decent distance between you and the person shooting at you. You mean the 1200ft required to be out of range of a longbow?
Kyuketsukiouji 11-01-06, 08:43 PM	There's only two things I personally have a problem with. 1. Afflictions (horrible, horrible flavor text. The absolute worse thing I've seen printed in a very, very long time). 2. The Craft skill mechanism for transformational processes (turning raw gems into cut gems, for instance, takes an impossibly huge amount of time), so I change spicemaking and gemcutting into a Profession, instead of a craft. I'm not overly fond of that craft alchemy restriction, either.
LCD2YOU 11-01-06, 08:45 PM	En masse, they obliterate anything that moves! 10% of the time, you will kill any monster CR 4 or below in one shot!En masse refers to armies that you're firing at.1d12 19-20x3 is better than every single other weapon in the game. And you're just giving them to about 50% of the classes in the game for free? Hell yeah the players love it, you give out TOW missle launchers for 75gp.Save they can't buy them at all. Read again, only the elves make them and unless the PC is out on the behest of their leadership 9something PCs never are) they are forbidden to take them lest they fall into the wrong hands. Also, never let the elven nations know you have one. They'll be a bit upset.No plus to AC is going to save your butt from these things. You mean the 1200ft required to be out of range of a longbow?Only in parabolic, indirect, fire. Direct fire, ie one where they are shooting directly at you, is much less of course. Shooting downhill or from a high position, such as a battlement on a keep, gives archers a great advantage. The problem is with indirect fire is that most individuals can easily move from them. Armies can't however. That is why indirect works against huge and slow targets. Even then an army with heavy shields and shield tactics, aka the Tortise, can still close. A sturdy but heavy steel shield gives a great deal of protection from arrows. Which is why if you want to have your awesome spiked chain fighter, you'll soon learn why sword and sheild was the preferred weapon and defense of choice.
Always-Late 11-01-06, 08:49 PM	En masse refers to armies that you're firing at.Save they can't buy them at all. Read again, only the elves make them and unless the PC is out on the behest of their leadership (something PCs never are) they are forbidden to take them lest they fall into the wrong hands. Also, never let the elven nations know you have one. They'll be a bit upset.But you can't accept the 1d8 20/x2 longbow? As in, you wouldn't play in a game that used them? (Rhetorical questions abound!) Anyway, what about elven PCs?
terrainmonkey 11-01-06, 08:55 PM	multi classing EXP hits. gone. sorcerers not advancing in spellcasting power equal to wizards? fixed. now, they use the chart one level higher than they actually are. i never understood why they had to wait until 4th level to get a second level spell. stupid design. makes the sorcerer not even a viable class to play. Automatic familiars. IMC you have to go to wherever the familiar is that you want and cast the spell "Find Familiar" if you want one. no freebies. same goes for druids and rangers. you want an animal? go find one in the wilderness. automatic success for diplomacy, gather info, and most charisma based spells. i force people to role play it out. and yes, if you aren't a fast talker in the real world then don't make one in the game. if you trip and stumble over words and are intimidated by me as a DM and can't form a coherent sentence or thought, don't play a character who claims he can. don't roll for gather info if you haven't asked NPCs for it. sure, the rolls speed up game play, but don't enforce role play. D4 for wizards and sorcerers. stupid. changed to d6. i use critical fumbles for every roll, even skill checks. then a confirmation. if the dice comes up 5 or less, sorry, you flubbed it. now it's my turn to have fun doing mean things to you. -10 damage = death. nope. not IMC. negative con is death. skill check modifiers for armor. nope. gone IMC. buying magic items and item creation? much harder to do, there are no magic shops and the cost listed in the DMG is doubled or tripled if you want to make it. how this "i go buy a cloak of charisma +4" crap ever got started i'll never know. but i don't like it one bit. no siree keen and imp crit don't stack? like hell they don't. they do IMC. that never got changed. sure you still need a confirmation roll, but the logic for "game balance" never made sense. one is a magical effect. one is the ability to inflict more harm. put both together and they stack. period. end of discussion.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-01-06, 09:00 PM	Read again, only the elves make them and unless the PC is out on the behest of their leadership 9something PCs never are) they are forbidden to take them lest they fall into the wrong hands. Then what's the point? let the PCs have the 1d8 x3 longbow and then have the elf Bow of Extreme and Impressive Brokeness as an exotic weapon. Also, the heavy x-bow you're talking about is called a ballista in the DMG.
LCD2YOU 11-01-06, 09:00 PM	But you can't accept the 1d8 20/x2 longbow? As in, you wouldn't play in a game that used them? (Rhetorical questions abound!) Anyway, what about elven PCs?Perhaps, but I think Longbows are not something you want to mess with. They drop people like flies. As for Elven PCs, they are not allowed to take bows at first level (they can try of course but it is something that must be RP'd out). It is almost like a right of passage when they reach a certain age or level, they can take them. Their comrades are gently reminded that the bow belongs to the elve's family and to please return it if something happens to the elf at the earliest possible time. That is why finding an "Elvish Longbow" is such a big deal. That doesn't mean that some elf won't notice you still..... Also, I control who can play an elf in a world such as this. I let people know how I expect their Paladin to be played and I tell them how I expect an elf to be played. If nobody wants to do that, we go back to standard rules for those items. EDIT: This is only because an elven nation in my world is incredibly powerful. Attacking them is foolish unless you are incredibly powerful. All the "other" bows are equal to short bows. Some place have "medium bows" which are the same as the PHB Longbow. Even they are hard to come by and belong to certain city states who are not happy to part with them.
Thubby 11-01-06, 09:06 PM	En masse refers to armies that you're firing at.Save they can't buy them at all. Read again, only the elves make them and unless the PC is out on the behest of their leadership 9something PCs never are) they are forbidden to take them lest they fall into the wrong hands. Also, never let the elven nations know you have one. They'll be a bit upset.Only in parabolic, indirect, fire. Direct fire, ie one where they are shooting directly at you, is much less of course. Shooting downhill or from a high position, such as a battlement on a keep, gives archers a great advantage. The problem is with indirect fire is that most individuals can easily move from them. Armies can't however. That is why indirect works against huge and slow targets. Even then an army with heavy shields and shield tactics, aka the Tortise, can still close. A sturdy but heavy steel shield gives a great deal of protection from arrows. Which is why if you want to have your awesome spiked chain fighter, you'll soon learn why sword and sheild was the preferred weapon and defense of choice. i believe were all looking for statistic balance, not vague logical (but unsupported rule wise) thing. :D
LCD2YOU 11-01-06, 09:09 PM	Then what's the point? let the PCs have the 1d8 x3 longbow and then have the elf Bow of Extreme and Impressive Brokeness as an exotic weapon. Also, the heavy x-bow you're talking about is called a ballista in the DMG.That's perfectly fine Vaal. However it's called my game. Like I said if the players don't like it (they could be used on them) I don't use it. I don't see why you're doing this as I'm not calling it RAW and I've stated my position and what can make me change it if it is not liked. What's the beef?
Kyuketsukiouji 11-01-06, 09:10 PM	What's the beef? Dunno. The fact that this thread isn't about your houserules, but instead about existing rules people don't use?
LCD2YOU 11-01-06, 09:14 PM	i believe were all looking for statistic balance, not vague logical (but unsupported rule wise) thing. :DThe balance is as follows: They are very rare The Evles have them There are ways to defeat them, Heavy Steel Shields most notably They can be used by and on the PCs and NPCs alike They are actually much harder to use at range and moving makes you even harder to hit They are even more rarely seen and they are a weapon that the elves use most when going to war
Molitor 11-01-06, 09:14 PM	I agree totally. Also, Poison = Evil. So basically a paladin using a +5 Flaming Vorpal sword to smash a goblin is good but a rogue using poison to render the same goblin unconcious is evil? That's like saying shooting an escaped elephant with a tranquelizer gun is evil but using an Uzi on it? Sure why not! Me and my players have debated over this time and again. The real reason I believe paladins don't use poison is because it is illegal.
LCD2YOU 11-01-06, 09:15 PM	Dunno. The fact that this thread isn't about your houserules, but instead about existing rules people don't use?You're absolutely correct. I should have just told him that is what I do and ignored Vaal afterwards. Perhaps he and I should ahve taken if offline if he wanted to continue via messages. But I was asked and I answewred Vaal. I'll say no more on this thread about it.
Red12 11-01-06, 09:19 PM	It just makes me laugh that you brag about your english major then go on to use the phrase "doo doo heads". Who said anything about bragging? Just so happens it insults me on two different levels that it's implied that I dont know the definition of something I also majored in. Of course. You've never used "doo doo head" before? I suppose I've been around 3rd graders too long :surrender :
pmurray@bigpond.com 11-01-06, 09:21 PM	Wing attacks. I will not accept wing attacks. They make no sense to me and I will not accept them. How can a membrane hurt you? Is there a lot of wing-induced wind or something? I just don't get it. You have clearly never been swooped by a magpie. They have been known to kill small children. Come to Australia next spring (nesting season is almost over now) and enjoy the thrill. (ps: I'm pretty sure that the birds that we call "magpies" are not actually magpies at all - different species)
Rhomphaia 11-01-06, 09:50 PM	Just a couple of things... Automatic familiars. IMC you have to go to wherever the familiar is that you want and cast the spell "Find Familiar" if you want one. no freebies. You call 100gp a freebie? Curious. automatic success for diplomacy, gather info, and most charisma based spells. i force people to role play it out. and yes, if you aren't a fast talker in the real world then don't make one in the game. if you trip and stumble over words and are intimidated by me as a DM and can't form a coherent sentence or thought, don't play a character who claims he can. don't roll for gather info if you haven't asked NPCs for it. sure, the rolls speed up game play, but don't enforce role play. So do any elves play at your table? How about wizards or world class bodybuilders? If not, then don't allow these things in the game either. If you disallow someone to play a charismatic person because they aren't one in real life, then why let them play a strong warrior or a magic using elf if they are not one in real life either? This is a common mistake. D&D is meant to be a game where you can escape your mundane, real life mortal limits for a few hours. Why play the game if you're going to be hampered by them? i use critical fumbles for every roll, even skill checks. then a confirmation. if the dice comes up 5 or less, sorry, you flubbed it. now it's my turn to have fun doing mean things to you. Ah, now I understand. You are an adversarial DM. if your players enjoy this, well, more power to you. -10 damage = death. nope. not IMC. negative con is death. Not that it's a bad rule, but how do you pull this off? I have found that -10 modified by Con modifier works very well. skill check modifiers for armor. nope. gone IMC. Huh? keen and imp crit don't stack? like hell they don't. they do IMC. that never got changed. sure you still need a confirmation roll, but the logic for "game balance" never made sense. one is a magical effect. one is the ability to inflict more harm. put both together and they stack. period. end of discussion. Okay, I am afraid I wasn't clear enough before (seeing that it was a throw away post essentially, can I be blamed?). While I do agree that Keen and Improved Critical should stack, there are clear reasons why they do not. As I mentioned before, one of the big reasons (Vorpal) is no longer necessary since they changed how Vorpal worked. However, a rule everyone seems to overlook (or at least they don't realize that it is there) is that you still need to actually hit in order to threaten a critical. If your threat range is 15-20, but you need a roll (before modifiers) of 18 to hit, then a roll of 15, 16 or 17 will not threaten a critical. This also means that these two stacking will give a much higher benefit to weapons with higher damage multipliers (such as picks) than it would weapons with wider threat ranges (such as most swords), for the reason stated above. As I say, I may not agree with it, but I do see the reason for the rule to be in place.
Rhomphaia 11-01-06, 09:51 PM	Nobody could have that big a hard on for any weapon other than a katana. Sigged
High Octane 11-01-06, 09:56 PM	Although I think keen and improved critical should NOT stack, I WILL agree that improved critical needs to be improved. I personally think the pre-requisites should be BAB +2 and weapon focus. That makes it good for lower level fighters before they would normally have access to the keen ability, and only fighters would have access to it at 2nd level, giving ever so slight a boost to the fledgling fighter.
Heahengel 11-01-06, 10:00 PM	While I do agree that Keen and Improved Critical should stack, there are clear reasons why they do not. As I mentioned before, one of the big reasons (Vorpal) is no longer necessary since they changed how Vorpal worked. However, a rule everyone seems to overlook (or at least they don't realize that it is there) is that you still need to actually hit in order to threaten a critical. If your threat range is 15-20, but you need a roll (before modifiers) of 18 to hit, then a roll of 15, 16 or 17 will not threaten a critical. This also means that these two stacking will give a much higher benefit to weapons with higher damage multipliers (such as picks) than it would weapons with wider threat ranges (such as most swords), for the reason stated above. As I say, I may not agree with it, but I do see the reason for the rule to be in place. At the point when you need an 18+ to hit, having an 18-20 threat range doesn't help much because it is rare that you will confirm a threat. I admit that a slight advantage the goes to those weapons in that situation as compared to normal, but I don't think it really unbalances them. Edit: My guess is that the pick so empowered will do better than a Keen + IC rapier but not a rapier with other equivalent abilities to keen and IC, which to me means it isn't overpowered. BUt let me check the math.
Bowmore 11-01-06, 10:23 PM	I'm not a very big fan of the rules for high jumps. Yeah, they're realistic, and they're light-years beyond the obscene jump rules of 3.0, but something still irks me about them. Then again, I watch a lot of kung fu flicks and anime, so people making fantastic leaps is a normal part of combat in my mind. ...I'll get my coat... :allalone:
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-01-06, 10:31 PM	The pathetically slow speed which you jump (limited by your move speed) is the dumbest part of the Jump rules.
High Octane 11-01-06, 11:15 PM	The pathetically slow speed which you jump (limited by your move speed) is the dumbest part of the Jump rules. Well if your jump speed could be faster than movement speed why wouldnt you just jump everywhere? That would be rather silly wouldnt it?
Bowmore 11-01-06, 11:26 PM	I don't know about you, but I get tired (and sometimes injured) when I jump from place to place. Perhaps this could be rectified by actually taking ranks in jump... But anyway, I'm just fine with the rules for long jumps. It's an easy way to move while ignoring bad terrain, and looks totally stylin' if you use it in conjunction with spring attack. Again, it's high jump I have a beef with. I've tried (and failed a few times) at finding alternatives, such as core and prestige classes with Acrobatics-related abilities, or even making a special jump ability that uses an entirely different jump chart, but it never comes out feeling quite right.
TheWerg 11-01-06, 11:26 PM	Who said anything about bragging? Just so happens it insults me on two different levels that it's implied that I dont know the definition of something I also majored in. Of course. You've never used "doo doo head" before? I suppose I've been around 3rd graders too long :surrender : Sorry if I offended you. I'm just addicted to irony and needed my daily hit. :P
High Octane 11-01-06, 11:33 PM	I don't know about you, but I get tired (and sometimes injured) when I jump from place to place. Perhaps this could be rectified by actually taking ranks in jump... But anyway, I'm just fine with the rules for long jumps. It's an easy way to move while ignoring bad terrain, and looks totally stylin' if you use it in conjunction with spring attack. Again, it's high jump I have a beef with. I've tried (and failed a few times) at finding alternatives, such as core and prestige classes with Acrobatics-related abilities, or even making a special jump ability that uses an entirely different jump chart, but it never comes out feeling quite right. Sadly, you really cant do too much for high jumps without breaking serious laws of physics. Even the highest high jumpers in real life dont get very high. But thats what the climb skill is for.
Vaelan 11-01-06, 11:39 PM	Well if your jump speed could be faster than movement speed why wouldnt you just jump everywhere? You generally need a running start to jump very far, so people would be jumping about half of everywhere, probably even less.
Bowmore 11-01-06, 11:39 PM	Sadly, you really cant do too much for high jumps without breaking serious laws of physics. Even the highest high jumpers in real life dont get very high. But thats what the climb skill is for. Maybe I've just been playing / watching too much Star Wars, kung fu flicks, anime, and playing too many video games...
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-01-06, 11:43 PM	Well if your jump speed could be faster than movement speed why wouldnt you just jump everywhere? That would be rather silly wouldnt it? If I dedicated ranks, feats and magic items to gain a standing jump skill high enogh to be faster than my base speed (That's a +60, folks) I damn well diserve to jump everywhere. Edit: Also, for 250gp, I can have a constant move speed of 50 from a horse and not have to spend a single feat or skill rank. Sadly, you really cant do too much for high jumps without breaking serious laws of physics. Even the highest high jumpers in real life dont get very high. I play a magical elf who uses bat guano to throw fireballs at my enemies. The laws of physics left a while ago.
terrainmonkey 11-01-06, 11:52 PM	So do any elves play at your table? How about wizards or world class bodybuilders? If not, then don't allow these things in the game either. If you disallow someone to play a charismatic person because they aren't one in real life, then why let them play a strong warrior or a magic using elf if they are not one in real life either? This is a common mistake. D&D is meant to be a game where you can escape your mundane, real life mortal limits for a few hours. Why play the game if you're going to be hampered by them? okay, let me answer this. yes, people play elves because they are a RACE. they play wizards because they are a CLASS. These things are concrete, set in stone. there is no disputing them. if a person says his character is an elf, that's fine. if he says he's a fighter or a person with a high strength, that is fine too. again, no dispute. however, charisma based skills such as diplomacy, intimidate, gather info, and the like are based on role playing skills. they always have been. ergo, if you feel as though you do not possess the relevant skills to speak to my NPCs coherently, and get your point across effectively, don't come to my table with an 18 charisma bard and try to pull it off. i'm not saying you have to act, but the more a character stumbles and trips over his words, or mumbles, or stutters, i use that as a negative modifer and give penalties. everything said at the table is in character. once you belly up to my table and start playing, everything you say and do is in character. so, if you are playing a fighter, you fight. if you are playing a bard, you better damn well have some poems or stories to tell in the midst of combat or before it starts to simulate you're inspiring courage. otherwise, it doesn't work. period. If you have taken diplomacy and maxed it out, and you are trying to use the skill, talk to me in character, make it good, make your argument and try to convince me. I, as the NPC, will give you modifiers and penalties based on how well i think you did and how well you've made your case. THEN and only Then do i have you make your roll. it's worked for me for the past 25+ years and i'm not about to change it for a new edition. Its all well and good to play a world class bodybuilder who can bend bars and lift gates and a thief who picks the lock on a magical door with success. these are quantifiable rules that are easily understood. the 3.x diplomacy rules suck and i don't use them. i have my own, thank you very much, and they involve role playing the situation. and isn't that what the game is about? role playing? in thier current state, a person who maxes out diplomacy can have the potentiality of talking a king out of a kingdom just by walking up to the king and saying, "i'm rolling a diplomacy. i've got a +40 or 50 or whatever ungodly number." then he rolls the dice and wa la! by the rulebook it happens. i feel this is wrong. there are some things the rule book cannot effecively quantify, and the current diplomacy rules is one of them. thus, the reason i changed them: to enhance roleplaying at the table. so far, i haven't had any problems with my players so i'm inclined to keep to my way of doing things. no one has ever complained that this is wrong or unfair. of course, half of my group went to drama and acting school so i think i'm doin' okay by them.
High Octane 11-01-06, 11:56 PM	If I dedicated ranks, feats and magic items to gain a standing jump skill high enogh to be faster than my base speed (That's a +60, folks) I damn well diserve to jump everywhere. Okay THAT I agree with. But this really has a low likelyhood of happening since by that time you could easily get a magic item that increases your movement speed. Heck by that level you could easily afford dimension door items, so I guess if you wanted to max out your skill like that to move you could. But, why would you WANT to?
Stormonu 11-02-06, 12:11 AM	Cantrips taking up a full page in a spellbook. WTF? 1/3 of the wizard's starting spellbook is filled with cantrips? Also the costs to scribe a spellbook. I'd rather just bind a bunch of scrolls together and call it my "travelling spellbook". Also, the how short so many of the spells durations have been made in 3.5. Most went from lasting tooooooo long in 3.0 to being over with tooo quickly in 3.5. I've jumped all the non-direct attack spells up one category in my games (1 round/level -> 1 minute/level -> 10 minutes/level -> 1 hour/level -> 4 hours/level -> 1 day/level). Finally, the removal of "utility" creatures from the Summon Monster spells. I'd like to either see them put back in, or special version that allow you to summon "servants" that either can't attack or are very weak attackers.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-02-06, 12:59 AM	Okay THAT I agree with. But this really has a low likelyhood of happening since by that time you could easily get a magic item that increases your movement speed. Heck by that level you could easily afford dimension door items, so I guess if you wanted to max out your skill like that to move you could. But, why would you WANT to? Same reason I use kukri instead of spiked chains: because its cooler than the lameness others always use.
Rhomphaia 11-02-06, 01:39 AM	okay, let me answer this. yes, people play elves because they are a RACE. they play wizards because they are a CLASS. These things are concrete, set in stone. there is no disputing them. if a person says his character is an elf, that's fine. if he says he's a fighter or a person with a high strength, that is fine too. again, no dispute. It's the same thing. You force people to play a certain way, and actually role play a certain set of capabilities. Why not have the player of the fighter actually try to jump over a chasm (or distance that equates such) or have the rogue's player actually try to pick a lock. The rules for social skills are just as set in stone as any other skill, and even moreso in some cases. however, charisma based skills such as diplomacy, intimidate, gather info, and the like are based on role playing skills. they always have been. No, they haven't. There were times when these skills did not exist and people were forced to do just what you are forcing them to do; play it out and hope the DM feels like being nice today. ergo, if you feel as though you do not possess the relevant skills to speak to my NPCs coherently, and get your point across effectively, don't come to my table with an 18 charisma bard and try to pull it off. Isn't this what playing is about, being able to do something normally out of your range for a while? Honestly, if I could pull off role playing an 18 Charisma bard, I would probably be out conning people out of their money, not sitting around a table with bad house rules. i'm not saying you have to act, No, that's exactly what you're saying. but the more a character stumbles and trips over his words, or mumbles, or stutters, i use that as a negative modifer and give penalties. So you give a penalty to someone with a speech impediment, even though their character doesn't have one? That's fair. everything said at the table is in character. One of the (if not the) worst house-rule EVER. I have never seen anything good come from this rule. once you belly up to my table and start playing, everything you say and do is in character. so, if you are playing a fighter, you fight. if you are playing a bard, you better damn well have some poems or stories to tell in the midst of combat or before it starts to simulate you're inspiring courage. otherwise, it doesn't work. period. Again, basing character abilities off of a player's real life abilities is a bad ****ing idea. Period. If you have taken diplomacy and maxed it out, and you are trying to use the skill, talk to me in character, make it good, make your argument and try to convince me. I, as the NPC, will give you modifiers and penalties based on how well i think you did and how well you've made your case. THEN and only Then do i have you make your roll. How about this, the rule my group uses. The player gives the general gist of what he/she is saying and how (the general tone) of how he says it. The DM then determines which skill is rolled and what modifiers to apply. it's worked for me for the past 25+ years and i'm not about to change it for a new edition. Don't expect any new players then either. Most of the people I know like some of these rules because it makes things like a bard playable. Its all well and good to play a world class bodybuilder who can bend bars and lift gates and a thief who picks the lock on a magical door with success. these are quantifiable rules that are easily understood. So are the social skill rules. Actually take time to read them and maybe you'll understand. the 3.x diplomacy rules suck and i don't use them. i have my own, thank you very much, and they involve role playing the situation. and isn't that what the game is about? role playing? Yes, it is about Role playing, not being shoehorned into a stereotype based on real world capabilities. I am not the most charismatic guy in the world, but I can still (unless of course I was in one of your games) pull of a wonderful bard. Just because someone does not possess a real life characteristic does not mean their character lacks that same characteristic. in thier current state, a person who maxes out diplomacy can have the potentiality of talking a king out of a kingdom just by walking up to the king and saying, "i'm rolling a diplomacy. i've got a +40 or 50 or whatever ungodly number." then he rolls the dice and wa la! by the rulebook it happens. i feel this is wrong. The bold part is the only correct portion. You are correct in thinking so because it is wrong. The DM can choose (by the rules given in the books) to simply say that there is no way a character can talk a person into taking a certain course of action. He can just say it isn't possible. The king and his kingdom are a prime example of one thing that should not be possible. there are some things the rule book cannot effecively quantify, and the current diplomacy rules is one of them. Wrong, the diplomacy rules are perfectly well quantified. You just aren't reading them in depth for whatever reason. If you still don't like them, then here is a simple house-rule. Make it an opposed Sense Motive check to resist it. Or modify the given DCs by the ranks in SM that the target has. Either of these simple fixes alleviates all kinds of problems. thus, the reason i changed them: to enhance roleplaying at the table. Exactly, ROLE playing, not a course in method acting. so far, i haven't had any problems with my players so i'm inclined to keep to my way of doing things. no one has ever complained that this is wrong or unfair. of course, half of my group went to drama and acting school so i think i'm doin' okay by them. And when new players come in, these current players will be at an unfair advantage with your houserule in regards to classes available. Any house rule that forces a player to completely rely on his or her own faculties is metagaming. I am not trying to tell you that you need to change your rule. If it works for you, then fine. However, keep in mind that just because it works does not mean it is a good houserule.
Always-Late 11-02-06, 01:53 AM	Okay THAT I agree with. But this really has a low likelyhood of happening since by that time you could easily get a magic item that increases your movement speed. Heck by that level you could easily afford dimension door items, so I guess if you wanted to max out your skill like that to move you could. But, why would you WANT to?Jump Spell: +30 Thri-Kreen Racial Bonus: +30 Yeah, I think we're done. Because jumping everywhere is fun.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-02-06, 02:08 AM	Jump Spell: +30 Thri-Kreen Racial Bonus: +30 Yeah, I think we're done. Because jumping everywhere is fun. Then again, if you're playing a big grasshopper anyway.... Speaking of which, theJump skill rules mean that a grasshopper is also constrained by its base speed rather than how incredibly fast it can jump from place to place.
Sereno 11-02-06, 09:15 AM	- Ever seen those upward Kung-Fu strikes using the hard part of the wrist? A wing is basically a short arm with super long, webbed fingers (look at any bird or bat skeleton). So a wrist-strike is theoretically possible. The wrist-strike is actually surprisingly powerful. Back when I used to take karate (in my late teens early 20s), I used to do a board breaking "trick" where I would have three assistants hold two boards (1" pine, so it *would* break) about 8" apart and a third across the front like a three-sided "box". I would put my hand vertically between the two boards with my middle finger just touching the third, then I could break all three boards ... left-right with two quick wrist-strikes and the third with a punch from finger-tip distance. It looked and sounded cool because the boards would just go pop!-pop!-pop! and it would look like I barely moved. I doubt if I could still do it, though.... :(
Sulaco 11-02-06, 10:26 AM	I think I am far more likely to be intimidated by a blustering pro wrestler than a supermodel. Not if the supermodel had maxmized her Initimidate ranks and th wrestler didn't. Have you never seen someone trying to act really tough and just found is funny instead? I have. I've had someone try to intimidate me and instead I just ended up laughing in their face. Being big or muscular or ugly does not necesarily make one intimidating, it is force of personality. Intimidate is a threat - either direct or implied - and as such is basically a form of bluff: you are trying to convince the target that the threat is real in order to get what you want from him. Being able to bench-press a 1972 Buick Skylark has Bog-all to do with it. Not all intimidate checks need involve physical violence, either. Really, is Grognard the Gluttion, the hulking half-orc mass of muscle, really going to be intimidating when he says "Me am going to find out you dark secrets and am going to tell them to all the peoples." Hell no. Grognard doesn;t have two brain cells to rub together, how is he going to find out anything about you? The threat, and thus the intimidate, fails by a longshot. On the flipside, Snekay Pete the Halfling Thief has you tied up in a warehouse. No matter what you say or do he just sits there, cleaning his nails with a razor-sharp dagger and smiling at you. Hour ofter hour of the flick flick flick of his dagger and that smile - that horrible, knowing smile. He never even seems to blink, he just kep smiling and cleaning his nails...his nails... Oh god, my nails! That creepy little bastard is going to cut off my damned finger nails! Did he just smile at me again? Is he reading my mind? Wait, why did he stop? Oh Bog no! I can't take it! Arrrggh!!!! It is all about personality. ;)
FriendoftheDork 11-02-06, 10:33 AM	Perhaps he landed well, or on a soft patch of earth, or on a rock outcropping in the lava or acid. You need to be creative with that sort of thing. Besides, I think a no-save/no-damage-roll 'this happens and you just die' is unfair and pretty stupid, myself. It's a game; it's not supposed to represent reality on anything more than the most basic level. It's supposed to be playable, not realistic, IMHO. I think d20 Modern put it best, with something like 'it represents reality as depicted in movies' (excerpted/paraphrased), and heroes in movies and the like regularly survive things that would kill anything else. ...And perhaps there comes a flying saucer to fly him to safety. After all, it's not supposed to be realistic, and this is a game where people make fireballs out of bat guano :rolleyes: Seriously, that sort of thing works well in Life of Brian but not in my game. Frankly, it's not believable. And even if there are movies were heroes always seem to escape great dangers, it's usually done dramatically and only narrowly. If I can't temporarily fool myself into believing the main character is in some danger, there really is no suspense. Here's my fix: such damage goes to WP, which is equal to your constituation. Thus a even a 1st level commoner is unlikely to die from 20' drop, and even a great hero is likely to die from a 50' one. But of course falling down is not automatic, I grant saves to avoid and sometimes saves/checks to grasp something on the way down. Still I bet my heroes will be getting rings of feather fall pretty soon, and avoid being immersed in acid baths and such nastiness. Which really is OK for me.
wrecan 11-02-06, 10:41 AM	Not if the supermodel had maxmized her Initimidate ranks and th wrestler didn't. I'm not arguing that skill ranks are unimportant. I'm saying that all else being equal, it is ridiculous that an average unskilled gnome is more intimidating than an average unskilled half-orc. The reason is not a problem with the Intimidate Skill being Charisma-based. I agree that it should be. The problem is that there is no reaosn for half-orcs to receive a -2 racial penalty to Charisma.
Senevri 11-02-06, 10:49 AM	Hmhmhm. Actually, I can see a half-orc having bad self-esteem... growing up not fitting in et al. But why would a full-blooded orc have a charisma penalty?
DarknessEternal 11-02-06, 10:50 AM	I'm saying that all else being equal, it is ridiculous that an average unskilled gnome is more intimidating than an average unskilled half-orc. No they aren't. Size modifiers apply to Intimidate.
Morrowner 11-02-06, 10:57 AM	They should apply their Strength to Intimidate.The Supermodel just really illustrates the ludicrousness of the way Intimidate is handled. A 5'5'' bimbo with "max ranks" is scarier than the average Half-Orc by the rules. Because apparently 4 ranks in Intimidate is the scariness equivalent of being a 6'6 300 pounds of pure muscle, man beast. Think about it this way...Who's scarier You're average D lineman or Suzy Kolber?
cvazi 11-02-06, 11:28 AM	Who's scarier You're average D lineman or Suzy Kolber?That depends, does Suzy Kolber have a vise grip on my genitalia and a dagger through my shoulder? Simply being big and strong does not mean more intimidating. It takes Charisma to make a mark believe that they are A. In immenent danger and B. The only way to avoid that danger to to help the intimidator. Size helps in part A, but not part B.
Sulaco 11-02-06, 11:31 AM	That depends, does Suzy Kolber have a vise grip on my genitalia and a dagger through my shoulder? Simply being big and strong does not mean more intimidating. It takes Charisma to make a mark believe that they are A. In immenent danger and B. The only way to avoid that danger to to help the intimidator. Size helps in part A, but not part B. Precisely (even though I have no idea who Suzy Kolber is). If you are big and bulky and your intimidate attempt involves the threat of immediate physical violence I might give you a +2 circumstance bonus to your check, but just being big does not necessarily make you intimidating. Every 6'4", 300 pound guy who has been called a "big teddy bear" can vouch for that. I reiterate my poition that basing intimidate on STR is a min/max copout.
Malraux 11-02-06, 11:32 AM	The key to understanding why intimidate is based on CHA rather than STR is that intimidating isn't just about scaring the person, but scaring the person into doing what you want them to do. Sure the muscled barbarian can scare the crap out of the captured bad guy. Buy the bard can convince him to actually give out the information he wants. Perhaps the intimidate check in combat to demoralize the opponent should be STR based, as that is really about just scaring the other guy. But in the typical situation, intimidate isn't just about scaring.
StormKnight 11-02-06, 11:39 AM	I can't stand that damages for improvised weapons are based directly on weight. With an essentially abstract combat and damage system, this direct and linear real world correlation just doesn't work. Nor do I particularly feel like having to figure out how much a tree weighs when a giant picks it up and throws it at you. Thus I just simplify it based on the rough size category of the object. On other topics... Charisma and Intimidate I think I am far more likely to be intimidated by a blustering pro wrestler than a supermodel. Charisma penalties to half-orcs is silly. It's a holdover from when Charisma meant attractiveness. Since charisma does not mean attractiveness, as you yourself stated, why should you even mention a supermodel in your example? Are supermodels innately charismatic? Are pro wrestlers, who rely heavily on creating an exciting character and playing the part to acheive popularity, in any way uncharismatic? The rules don't say "Half orcs are ugly", it says they are dull and crude. The just don't tend to to have the social ability - the charisma - to present the best face for a situation. They may lack the insight to know what words and gestures to best use to convey their meaning, or the restraint to avoid showing the wrong emotions (such as showing that you are really scared to death of the dragon you are trying to get to back off). The problem is that there is no reaosn for half-orcs to receive a -2 racial penalty to Charisma. Is there any reason for orcs to have a bonus to strength, or elves to have a bonus to dexterity? Orcs are strong and uncharismatic because some rules designer decided they would be. On roleplaying skills Mixed bag here. I tend to feel that the main point of having these rules is to provide a means of mechanics for things we can't just do at the table. We are ENTIRELY capable of sitting around and talking at the table, so I don't see why we need much in the way of mechanics for it. If you want to try to "fast talk" someone, with the DM playing the someone, we are not capable of doing that; I, as the DM KNOW what you are trying to do; I have knowledge of your goals, I can't be taken in by it. Thus we have a skill to cover whether or not you succeed when you try. However, you as a player are quite capable of saying "Hey look, a distraction!" in order to cause me to know to tell you to make a Bluff check. If you aren't capable of that, I very much doubt you had the basic social skills to find a group of people to play the game with in the first place. If you want to persuade someone of something, while we can definetly talk, we may reach a point where either we don't want to spend the effort to go into details (we want to establish a truce viable to both sides - ok, great, but its Dungeons and Dragons, not Politics and Paper Trails) or where I need to decide whether an NPC will be moved. Thus, we can make a diplomacy check to resolve this. But again, if you aren't capable of articulating "Hey, I think we should put an end to this whole mess and, ya know, make love not war", I can't imagine why you even want to play a game that is essentially a social experience. On Paladins and Poison Also, Poison = Evil. So basically a paladin using a +5 Flaming Vorpal sword to smash a goblin is good but a rogue using poison to render the same goblin unconcious is evil? Poison isn't prohibited to Paladins on the grounds of it being "evil", its that it is dishonorable. While I am sure one can make cases where this would not be true, the normal use of poison is to kill or sicken someone in an underhanded, devious manner, normally in which they would not know who harmed them, and often delivered in an innocuous context. I mean, really, how many times did you ever see someone say "I am here to defeat you! Now please drink this vial of poison!" ? It just isn't used that way. Paladins are supposed to be honorable and trustworthy. An opponent should be willing to invite a paladin to her castle to discuss terms and options because she knows that a paladin WON'T stab her in the middle of the talks, or sprinkle poison in the wine, or anything treacherous like that. Poison is normally used for treacherous purpouses, which is why its probably excluded. Personally, I have no problems with Paladins using contact based poisons in open combat. But that's another story entirely. On Dragon Wings and Swans :uh-huh:
wrecan 11-02-06, 11:39 AM	No they aren't. Size modifiers apply to Intimidate. So they are! Heh. thought I've been house ruling that the whole time!
wrecan 11-02-06, 11:47 AM	Since charisma does not mean attractiveness, as you yourself stated, why should you even mention a supermodel in your example? Because i was talking about the reasons that half-orcs get a Charisma penalty. There is no reason for that. Half-orcs should have as much presence as any other humanoid. The rules don't say "Half orcs are ugly", it says they are dull and crude. The just don't tend to to have the social ability - the charisma - to present the best face for a situation. Then they should get a penalty to Diplomacy. Charisma isn't merely social ability, but presence of personality. Being dull and crude shouldn't cut it. Now, if they were big, but lackluster and reserved, I'd buy a Charisma penalty. But that's not how half-orcs are described (or any of the other humanoids with Charisma penalties, for that matter) Orcs are strong and uncharismatic because some rules designer decided they would be. But the justification for half-orcs' Charisma penalty doesn't match what Charisma is. Socially awkward? Fine. Penalize their Diplomacy and Gather Information checks. Don't penalize their Use Magic Device and Intimidate checks along with it. They did it right with half-elves. Half-elves don't get a Charisma boost. They get a skill boost. really, how many times did you ever see someone say "I am here to defeat you! Now please drink this vial of poison!" ? It just isn't used that way. I agree with respect to clandestine poisons, that may be ingestible. But why prevent a paladin from coating his weapon with a Dex poison? Particularly one that might be quite obvious? What makes slicing someone with a poisoned blade (that has a nonlethal poison) less honorable than just using the blade alone?
Sereno 11-02-06, 11:52 AM	If you are big and bulky and your intimidate attempt involves the threat of immediate physical violence I might give you a +2 circumstance bonus to your check, but just being big does not necessarily make you intimidating. Every 6'4", 300 pound guy who has been called a "big teddy bear" can vouch for that. I reiterate my poition that basing intimidate on STR is a min/max copout. I agree with you. Size and strength can *assist* an Intimidate check, but Str and Chr are not interchangeable, IMC. Part of the problem, here, is that for some people size/strength just ISN'T intimidating. Consider the first duel scene from "Rob Roy" ... Guthrie is much larger and stronger than Archie, but Archie isn't the least intimidated by him because he KNOWS he's an expert swordsman and Guthrie really is "just" big and strong.
babysamurai 11-02-06, 11:53 AM	The multi-class restriction for monks and paladins. Apparently, they only put it there to appease some whiny play-testers.
Sereno 11-02-06, 11:55 AM	I agree with respect to clandestine poisons, that may be ingestible. But why prevent a paladin from coating his weapon with a Dex poison? Particularly one that might be quite obvious? What makes slicing someone with a poisoned blade (that has a nonlethal poison) less honorable than just using the blade alone? In fact, using any of the non-Con poisons should actually be seen as "merciful" behavior in a paladin. I don't need to kill you, all I need to do is incapacitate you through Str/Dex poison and take you prisoner (or leave you to heal naturally, which will take a few days but WILL (by RAW) happen, so you don't become a thorn in my side later on my quest). Personally, I'd allow it provided that A) there's nothing clandestine about it; it's clearly visible and (possibly) even announced by the paladin "I will fight you, varlet. I don't want to kill you, but know that my blade is treated with Purple Worm venom and will weaken you with each cut...." and B) it's never one of the Con poisons.
Archangel62 11-02-06, 11:58 AM	For me the book rule issues are more in line with the Taint rules...but that was because the DM had them hit us at level 1...nothing like facing a dread necromancer, failing the saves, and the next morning having your feet fold in, your eyes fall out.... Then again it did help explain why there were so few adventurers.
StormKnight 11-02-06, 12:26 PM	There is no reason for that. Half-orcs should have as much presence as any other humanoid. Except that the designers evidently don't think so. Which is totally arbitrary, but then, so is deciding that elves should be agile. Then they should get a penalty to Diplomacy. Charisma isn't merely social ability, but presence of personality. But Charisma isn't just force of personality, its also persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead and physical attractiveness. If half-orcs miss out on half those qualities, I don't see how a CHA penalty is out of place. (Holy cow, you learn something new every day - up until I read that just now I didn't realize CHA even mentioned personal attractiveness!) I agree with respect to clandestine poisons, that may be ingestible. But why prevent a paladin from coating his weapon with a Dex poison? Particularly one that might be quite obvious? What makes slicing someone with a poisoned blade (that has a nonlethal poison) less honorable than just using the blade alone? I also find it illogical, and as I said, I have no problems with paladins using weapon based poisons. But I can see that since poisons are generally associated with treacherous and sneaky action, the dislike of them could spread to any poison as well, regardless of use.
KurenaiYami 11-02-06, 01:10 PM	Not if the supermodel On the flipside, Snekay Pete the Halfling Thief has you tied up in a warehouse. No matter what you say or do he just sits there, cleaning his nails with a razor-sharp dagger and smiling at you. Hour ofter hour of the flick flick flick of his dagger and that smile - that horrible, knowing smile. He never even seems to blink, he just kep smiling and cleaning his nails...his nails... Oh god, my nails! That creepy little bastard is going to cut off my damned finger nails! Did he just smile at me again? Is he reading my mind? Wait, why did he stop? Oh Bog no! I can't take it! Arrrggh!!!! It is all about personality. ;) Kinda of off topic, but I just have to say: pwn. That was quite entertaining to read.
revnk 11-02-06, 01:13 PM	Just to add my own ha'penny to the Charisma/Intimidate issue, I'd point out that I've been in plenty of situations where I was intimidated by someone who was especially attractive or someone was "intense" (radiating a competence or leadership quality aside from attractiveness that may or may not have been backed up by actual competence). Looking at the SRD (my rulebooks are at home), I don't see anything that equates being intimidated with being frightened, unless you count "demoralize opponent"--and there are factors other than fear that can lead to someone being shaken or losing their resolve. And, like Sulaco, I've had large muscular people make threats that were just laughable. The upshot of all this being that one might indeed imagine a high-CHA supermodel who intimidates everyone around her without threats largely by playing on others' sexual insecurities--men tend to become nervous and flustered as they try to appear "manly," women tend to feel inadequate around her, etc. The supermodel's ranks in Intimidate simply reflect "knowing how to use it" in a way that's not Diplomatic (it doesn't involve persuading or negotiating). And one might imagine a low-CHA bruiser who doesn't quite convince when he threatens to rip the head off of someone--at the core of his bullying are obvious insecurities that allow almost anyone to stare him down. The key is understanding that Charisma reflects presence and that the Intimidate skill isn't confined to threats of violence. To some extent the traditional Cha penalty to half-orcs and orcs is a relic of AD&D and a relic of the blurriness in original D&D between "charisma" and "attractiveness." Even leaving out the attractiveness issue, it can be pointed out that D&D orcs were directly inspired by Tolkien's orcs--who were weak-willed creatures with very little force of personality. Such creatures weren't actually all that intimidating: although they could sometimes enforce their will on prisoners by abusing them, they could easily be cowed by stronger personalities. This leads us to a second conclusion: that even when the Intimidate skill is used to cow an opponent with fear, the skill really reflects the "awesomeness" of the intimidator. In other words, if Aragorn (say) tries to Intimidate an opponent with threats, his threats are made credible by his kingly attitude and the light in his eyes, not by how tall he is or how hard he can swing a sword. Conversely, an orc or troll trying the same thing lacks the same authority, and if you stare back he'll flinch. Hope that makes some sense.
High Octane 11-02-06, 01:22 PM	Let me say this: Intimidate skill is NOT a measure of how scary you are. Its a measure of how much UNNATURAL fear you can instill into your target. An old catholic priest may be harmless physically but Ive seen some that could SCARE the hell (literally) out of you.
FeceMan 11-02-06, 01:24 PM	"That is CONCENTRATED EVIL coming out the back of you!"
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-02-06, 02:08 PM	Have you never seen someone trying to act really tough and just found is funny instead? I have. "Macho Man" Randy Savage OH YEAH! Also, pretty != high charisma, everyone!
malakaiunseen 11-02-06, 02:09 PM	Man I had to read through a lot of crap just to make sure this one hadn't already been said: Adventurers sell stuff at half price. Merchants at full price. What the? My PC's sell direct to other adventurers wherever possible, avoid the middleman, save a fortune. also: ...the english-philosiphy double major I have... People are doo doo heads... It just makes me laugh that you brag about your english major then go on to use the phrase "doo doo heads LMAO
Sulaco 11-02-06, 02:15 PM	It just makes me laugh that you brag about your english major then go on to use the phrase "doo doo heads LMAO It should make you laugh. It is called "irony" and is intedned for humourous effect.
calvinNhobbes 11-02-06, 02:18 PM	I find the rules relating BAB, unarmed strikes, and natural attacks to be completely illogical. A storm giant can make 3 unarmed strikes at 26/21/16 or two slam attacks at 26/26. In addition, the storm giant needs a feat to cause lethal damage with his unarmed strikes but not a slam attack. Uh?!?! Isn't a punch a punch? Also, claw attacks and unarmed strikes. A monk troll could unleash a flurry of unarmed strikes (including multiple punches), but he can only claw once with each hand maximum. Natural attacks really should have somehow been related to BAB. A large dragon can attack with a bite, 2 claws, 2 wings, and a tail slap. But the same dragon can never attack with 3 claw attacks in the same round. Which comes back to the dragon wing attack comment. Um...if you got big teeth and claws, why are you attacking with your wings anyway? I could see bite attacks being limited to once per round, but other natural attacks should be based off the BAB for determining number of attacks. EDIT: Also if you did have natural attacks based on BAB, then you could just get rid of the whole "unarmed strike" thing and just give humanoids a slam attack as a natural attack. Just have all slam attacks follow the unarmed strike rules and give big scary monsters like giants "improved slam attack" as a bonus feat so their slam attacks do lethal damage.
LCD2YOU 11-02-06, 02:31 PM	Two books: BoVD and BoED Yeah they have some good things in them but as for "rules for good" and "rules for evil", they are contradictory and haphazard.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-02-06, 02:40 PM	Two books: BoVD and BoED Yeah they have some good things in them but as for "rules for good" and "rules for evil", they are contradictory and haphazard. The reactions are always the same: 1) Realizing how drearily bad the books are 2) Unstoppable anger at people who reacted with 1
Thubby 11-02-06, 03:08 PM	on the poison issue, i think its because poison causes unnecessary, and extreme, harm. being poisoned hurts, i should know, i was bitten by a snake once, it feels like acid trying to eat up your arm, makes moving difficult, is nausiating beyond words, and can be crippling. the best example i can give, would be for someone to punch you in the stomach, hit you in the head with a 2 by 4, then take a branding iron to the part that got hit. look at ancient descriptions of symptoms of poison (man made in particular), its disturbing. and often crippling, even if you dont die, it will usualy leave you in agony for the rest of your life.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 11-02-06, 03:11 PM	And slowly beating someone to death isn't painful? Just what do you think normal combat feels like, a peck on the cheek?
wrecan 11-02-06, 03:12 PM	on the poison issue, i think its because poison causes unnecessary, and extreme, harm. being poisoned hurts, i should know, i was bitten by a snake once, it feels like acid trying to eat up your arm, makes moving difficult, is nausiating beyond words, and can be crippling. That's Constitution poison. What about Dex poison? the best example i can give, would be for someone to punch you in the stomach, hit you in the head with a 2 by 4, then take a branding iron to the part that got hit. look at ancient descriptions of symptoms of poison (man made in particular), its disturbing. and often crippling, even if you dont die, it will usualy leave you in agony for the rest of your life. D&D poison doesn't work that way. Even if it did, the paladin's already planning to stab you through the eye. Poison could save your life.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-02-06, 03:20 PM	on the poison issue, i think its because poison causes unnecessary, and extreme, harm. *starts swinging flail* But this feels like being licked by fluffy kittens!
Piuro 11-02-06, 03:33 PM	That's Constitution poison. What about Dex poison? D&D poison doesn't work that way. Even if it did, the paladin's already planning to stab you through the eye. Poison could save your life. Boy would that be funny. You get hit with a poison, and a magic fist comes out of the air, punches you in the stomach while an animated 2x4 has at your head. Then comes the branding iron...
Archangel62 11-02-06, 03:50 PM	Well, this isn't a mechanical issue, more something that popped up recently. People talk about metagame concepts and I realized an interesting thing. a +5 sword in real world tems means nothing. I mean +5 to what? The same holds true for the stat boosters but at least those could be Least, Standard, and Greater with the epic ones having special names. I just wonder about it, the same for armor really, I mean the question is sort of what do you call them in a game world since the plus stuff is more of a metagame term for tracking than anything else.
john_045412 11-02-06, 04:16 PM	I agree with most of what you said, but I wonder about this - what is your threshold for over use? Those maneuvers are basically what makes a fighter. If I am playing a fighter (or monk, or any character who makes use of comnbat maneuvers), I will probably have a few of those and use them whenever they are useful in a fight (which certainly isn't all the time). If someone is playing a reaping mauler then it just makes sense for him to grapple all of the medium and smaller enemies he faces, and probably some of the larger ones as well. Its when he tries to grapple a dragon, fails, and complains about it that you have a problem. I guess the counter argument is that that can get a bit repetetive, but it still makes sense roleplaying wise. If one solution always makes sense and its what you are good at, then thats what you are going to do. Over use is defined by the situation and more directly the other players. Some examples. One time a DM allows a party to portable hole suffocate something because it was the first "creative" time they thought of it. GREAT (well I don't like it, but if it's new and creative I almost always reward it the first time) The 20th time they try it... it just gets old and forces the DM to combat that specific tactic. An example of over use would be the attempt by some to become a spiked chain trip master (especially before the group clarified AoO's happen before action). Funny thing is... before the mechanics were discovered, never once did someone imagine their character wielding a spiked chain. Oh... the ones I mention are just ones that have occured recently.
Sulaco 11-02-06, 04:22 PM	Poison is sneaky, unchivalrous and unsporting. It doesn't give the opponent a chance to fight back like he can in a stand-up fight. Some people call this evil, some don't.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-02-06, 04:28 PM	Which is why paladins can't use it, but it isn't classed as evil by any book giving at least lip service to sanity.
wrecan 11-02-06, 04:42 PM	Paladins aren't banned from using poison due to its "evilness", but because it is one of the few things described under a paladin's code of conduct as "dishonorable" Even if you were to excise every reference to alignment in the game, paladins would still be barred from using poison.
Sulaco 11-02-06, 04:48 PM	Which is why paladins can't use it, but it isn't classed as evil by any book giving at least lip service to sanity. The problem is the nice=good, not nice=evil thing again. "Using poison is not not, thus it must be evil" goes the logic. At best it is a law/chaos issue. It is sneaky and underhanded, denying the opponent a chance to defend themself openly and fairly it is a chaotic act. This still bans it from paladins but brings it more in line with logic.
boozerker 11-02-06, 04:53 PM	Dragons don't have fragile parts to thier anatomy. ;) Tough dragon wings. They'd hurt like a punch. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/draco_gallery/75574.jpg This next one's wing attack would hurt opponents. Might even poke an eye out. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/draco_gallery/75646.jpg But this next one's wing attacks would hurt the dragon itself. An open umbrella is a sturdier weapon. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/draco_gallery/75557.jpg
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-02-06, 04:56 PM	I'd just say 'dishonorable, thus against the code' and call it a day. Another dumb rule in the book: Dragonfear. This ability more or less admits that some designers think players can't roleplay and so have created a mechanic to force them to.
Molitor 11-02-06, 04:59 PM	Poison use is generally regarded as illegal as well, and hence another reason why paladins shouldn't use it.
wrecan 11-02-06, 05:13 PM	That's a good point. That's another "rule" I can't stand (poisons being always illegal), particularly since it's stated as a general rule even though it is should be a campaign-specific option.
Celestine_AutumnStar 11-02-06, 05:21 PM	That's a good point. That's another "rule" I can't stand (poisons being always illegal), particularly since it's stated as a general rule even though it is should be a campaign-specific option. Throughout history anything that is only a poison (as opposed to an ingredient in something else that also happens to be poisonous) has been illegal, just saying...
Sulaco 11-02-06, 05:31 PM	I'd just say 'dishonorable, thus against the code' and call it a day. Short, simple and to the point, just like a halfling assassin. I like it. Another dumb rule in the book: Dragonfear. This ability more or less admits that some designers think players can't roleplay and so have created a mechanic to force them to. That is all part-and-parcel of the "dragons as demigods" aspect of D&D that - as a whole - I do not like.
Sulaco 11-02-06, 05:32 PM	Throughout history anything that is only a poison (as opposed to an ingredient in something else that also happens to be poisonous) has been illegal, just saying... Not true at all. I can go to my local supermarket and pick up rat poison on the way home from work.
Celestine_AutumnStar 11-02-06, 05:35 PM	Not true at all. I can go to my local supermarket and pick up rat poison on the way home from work. Modern "vermin control" poisons were not factored in to my statement.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-02-06, 05:43 PM	My shampoo contains selenium, a prime heavy metal used by domestic murderers.
malignor 11-02-06, 06:01 PM	My shampoo contains selenium, a prime heavy metal used by domestic murderers.So you can claim you have "heavy metal hair"?
revnk 11-02-06, 06:07 PM	"Vermin control poisons," modern or not, include strychnine and arsenic. Both of which also just happen to be classic tools of the mystery writers' trade. Other poisons can be found in the wild: belladonna, nightshade and hemlock all being classic poisons that one might easily grown in a garden. Indeed, I would have to guess that the statements, "Throughout history anything that is only a poison (as opposed to an ingredient in something else that also happens to be poisonous) has been illegal... Modern 'vermin control' poisons [not included]," is almost directly untrue absent some sourcing: historically, poisons have been almost entirely unregulated, and it's only in the past century or so that any poison control/tracking regulations have come into play. As for dragons' aura of fear, I suspect it's less "demigod" and more residual Tolkien.
TheWerg 11-02-06, 06:50 PM	Sorry to bring them back up, but I want to get my opinion in on a couple of things: Half-Orcs and Intimidate: Easy solution here. Everyone says Half-Orcs are underpowered. Give them a racial bonus to intimidate, since people probably naturally fear half-orcs. Kills two birds with one stone. Charisma-based skills and RPing: In my game, I strike a balance. I use rolls and modifiers and all of that, but it tends to work one of two ways. If you roll well, either the person naturally feels attracted to you or I give you useful tips. If you roll poorly, the person naturally dislikes you. Then, the RPing commences. That way, a great RPer can still sometimes work their way out of a hole (I once had a player end up best friends with an NPC after rolling a natural 1), and even a poor RPer can get by on a good Dip score and a decent roll. I haven't had any complaints, and my players seem to like the system, since it's fair to most parties.
terrainmonkey 11-02-06, 06:53 PM	okay, about the paladin using poison issue. i have allowed a paladin to use sleep poison on arrows before to subdue a group of foes. basically, he was on a quest by himself and had to infiltrate the cave of a goblin lair to rescue the rest of the party. he didn't want to go charging right in, so he sat outside and sniped the goblins from afar. if they didn't die, most of them were put to sleep, and then he just went up and tied them up with rope. he used stealth and guile to go in and get the rest of his companions. i seem to remember him putting well over 25 goblins to sleep until he got to a large room with the main goblin warboss and then charged in with sword and shield to finish them off. It was a smart way to do things and i awarded him extra xp for going about it the smart way. so no, poison use isn't illegal or evil in this sense because it was more of a tactical necessity than anything else.
wrecan 11-02-06, 06:57 PM	Throughout history anything that is only a poison (as opposed to an ingredient in something else that also happens to be poisonous) has been illegal, just saying... In D&D, poisons don't look like they do in the modern world. The more appropriate analogy would be tranquilizers. It doesn't make any sense that a paladin is not allowed to take down a criminal with a sleep dart, but could shoot the guy through with holes using a repeating crossbow.
krazykelc 11-02-06, 07:03 PM	the rule i hate the most is the tumble rules, no matter what your fighting, regardless of size, skill, speed, all anyone needs is a 15 to get around it, and there is no way around tumble, no feat to make it harder, or item, ANYTHING!!! the knight class has an ability that makes it harder for rouges to tumble past them, if that helps. also they get an ability that makes any area around them difficult terrain. but yeah....it's still only one class. anyway, consider playing a knight. they get d12 hps and really nice abilities. (and they're pretty..or something0
Thomar_of_Uointer 11-02-06, 07:37 PM	Back on topic... Vancian spellcasting.
PsychicKid 11-02-06, 07:44 PM	"You're a fighter, you don't get nice things" - PHB Page 38. Also on page 90. What are you talking about?
Keevo_Darkwood 11-02-06, 08:15 PM	What are you talking about? Not being a telepath, nor being at all acquainted with Seerow, I'm forced to make a calculated guess based on the contents of the PH on pages 38 and 90: Seerow was being sarcastic, in that having oodles of bonus feats, chosen from a rather extensive list, is quite a nice thing (which, IMO, it is).
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-02-06, 08:17 PM	Oddles of bonus feats from a list that blows, being the problem.
coomber 11-02-06, 08:20 PM	Back on topic... Vancian spellcasting. Finally! This is scrapped IMC. I have never understood how clerics, wizards, etc are supposed to predict what situation they are going to find themselves in each day. All spellcasters spontaneously cast, making sorcerors redundant.
Leress 11-02-06, 08:56 PM	Back on topic... Vancian spellcasting. I scrapped that system in my game and I use the one from The Slayers d20 system.:D
Celestine_AutumnStar 11-02-06, 08:57 PM	Spell Points!
David_Roben2 11-02-06, 09:01 PM	I completely understand that these are all people's opinions and not actually anyone trying to influence anyone else to their side of the fence. That said, I would like to throw out a few opinions of my own on the houserules given. All spellcasters spontaneously cast I don't like this idea too much. Are you limiting the amount of known spells (thus making wizards redundant instead of sorcerors)? If not, then the already powerful spellcasting classes are getting an incredible boost, making the other classes fall even further behind. *all the "limit your characters to your own ability" stuff*Now, I'm not playing with your group, so whatever works for you enjoy. I personally find this game as a great way to help those with lacking social skills...umm practice? It lets them try to open up and grow without the recourse of actually humiliation. I will give bonuses and penalties (never more than +/- 5) based on the roleplaying they can come up with. This gives them the incentive to try to talk to the npc's. Not only that, but it adds to the fun by being able to be something that you could never be in real life. Let your dreams of being a fast talking bard come true. You may never be able to be that suave in real life, but here anything is possible.
The White Sorcerer 11-02-06, 09:18 PM	The problem is the nice=good, not nice=evil thing again. I think it's more of a "paladin = good, forbidden by paladin's code of conduct = evil" thing.
Thomar_of_Uointer 11-02-06, 09:23 PM	Please cut the "poison is evil" argument. It's not the point of this thread. The rules clearly state that paladins cannot use poison without violating their CoC, and the rules do not state that poison is evil. Both are mutually compatible, and there are actual contradictions with worse implications in the core rules. Back on topic, the energy missile power from the XPH. Scale like every other power, darn it!
Thubby 11-02-06, 09:35 PM	if you look at boed (i know, i know, bad book, bla bla) it says paladins CAN use poisons that do not inflict ability damage, ironicaly, drow poison. because (as its been said) it doesnt cause harm, it even saves lives. as to the other abiliy poisons. dex poison is like temporarily giving someone parkinsins (spelling?), and if anyone knows someone who has it, you know how bad it is (and giving someone abiltiy damage can take days, or weeks to heal). wis is like trying to drive someone insane, or like giving them als himers (spellign again), your dismantling their brain. same pretty much goes for int, and charisma is robbing someone of their identity. str is obvious (i think). im not saying their evil, im just saying their un-good(lack of better word) enough to repel paladins, and that makes sense to me. you have to think beyond the stats, whats it LIKE to lose 10 strength???? thats like notbeing able to lift your child.
StrangeMelodies 11-02-06, 09:44 PM	Whoever mentioned Healing spells, right on. Necromancy is the school pertaining to positive and negative energy. Conjuration is the school of transporting matter. Healing in Conjuration implies that when you CLW somebody you are actually bringing in skin and blood from somewhere else to patch them up with. Sucks for whoever those body parts used to belong to. And good clerics get this as a spontaneous ability? Also add me to the camp that hates the fact that all clerics get turn or rebuke undead. Why should a god of magic or war take care to explicitly arm his servants against a relatively niche creature type, instead of giving them abilities they'll actually care about? I give each deity in my campaign a specific set of powers they grant to their clerics that's actually related to that deity's portfolio, as well as customized spell lists. It's a lot more work, but I feel that really differentiating the gods and making them more than a pair of domains adds a lot to the versimilitude of the setting.
Kazeofwinds 11-02-06, 09:47 PM	I scrapped that system in my game and I use the one from The Slayers d20 system.:D I'd actually really like to hear what you did, I have a copy but was too lazy to come up with a conversion. Anyways Class Alignment restrictions (Except paladins, though UA ones are fine) Multiclassing Exp Penalties Cross-Class skills being 2 points/level Half-Dragons not getting wings unles they're large
Solik 11-02-06, 10:59 PM	"Turn Undead" is a poorly-named ability, probably chosen because of its familiarity rather than for its accuracy. "Channel Energy" would be a much better name, with Turn/Rebuke Undead being one (common) application of the ability. Making it a class ability rather than a divine spell makes it easy to use Charisma as the prime stat instead of Wisdom, giving a little more MAD to a rather powerful class (and IMO, I think all classes should have as much MAD as possible, if only for variability in individuals... but the designers disagreed).
Dragoon 11-02-06, 11:34 PM	Hrm, I dislike the Use Magic Device and all that jazz for wands. I figure a wizard can say, "Here Generic Commoner. Say "Poof" and it shoots a fireball at whatever you point it at." and it works for the commoner. Anyone have any idea why that works the way it does, or am I getting it wrong?
xpochian 11-03-06, 02:54 AM	Re: wing attacks being unrealistic My advice to you would be to go and play with the swans by the local lake - see if they use their wings to beat at you (they will) and see how much it can hurt (broken bones are common when swans attack people) Also, watch out for their bite :) This isn't meant to be a sarcastic reply, but let's pretend that I would. I'd also bring a baseball bat and the second one of them start to hiss and raise their wings at me, you can be sure where I'm going to aim. Sure, I'll get my ass bitten about a dozen times before I can (hopefully) run away. I may even have my arm/wrist broken. I would also wager that I'd have theoretically broken at least 5 or 6 wings too. My point isn't that it can be done, but that a very intelligent creature shouldn't and wouldn't risk something as valuable as a wing, when it has things like thick, meaty tails and vicious claws and bites. p.s. I love swans...they go great with garlic vinegarette and chilled merlot. ;)
xpochian 11-03-06, 03:03 AM	Necromancy is the school pertaining to positive and negative energy. Conjuration is the school of transporting matter. Healing in Conjuration implies that when you CLW somebody you are actually bringing in skin and blood from somewhere else to patch them up with... Spot on. Maybe a throwback from my old 2e days, but healing is necromancy. Of course, it'd be funnier if you merely swapped the two conditions; a la teleport, I can see it now: St. Peter: Welcome my son. You are a good soul and lived a long...uh...healthy...productive life as a shepherd. Shepherd: Where the hell is my arm...and where is there a hole where my liver used to be? I was tending my herd a minute ago and then I heard a heavenly choir and felt like I was being torn in two! St. Peter: Well, they were needed elsewhere...some of our more...devout agents required them. See, Angus Stormhammer needed your liver and arm...uh...more than you did. He helps our mortal agent cleanse the taint of evil from your former world, whereas you merely ensure that people have coats and mutton around the holidays. You do the math.
Archangel62 11-03-06, 03:34 AM	I just figured that it conjured pure matter from the positive energy plains.
Papa_duval 11-03-06, 05:49 AM	This isn't meant to be a sarcastic reply, but let's pretend that I would. I'd also bring a baseball bat and the second one of them start to hiss and raise their wings at me, you can be sure where I'm going to aim. Sure, I'll get my ass bitten about a dozen times before I can (hopefully) run away. I may even have my arm/wrist broken. I would also wager that I'd have theoretically broken at least 5 or 6 wings too. My point isn't that it can be done, but that a very intelligent creature shouldn't and wouldn't risk something as valuable as a wing, when it has things like thick, meaty tails and vicious claws and bites. p.s. I love swans...they go great with garlic vinegarette and chilled merlot. ;) Ok, well, Swans aren't exactly know for being intelligent critters - and considering they only attack when threatened (and when they can't fly away - like if they are protecting their young) then anyone properly prepared would win in a fight with a swan. Go you. Now, make that swan 100ft long, 60ft tall with wings bones that are thicker than your chest. Now, when they buffet their two wings together, the force of the wind they create will likely knock you down. Why can't people realise that its not a wing punch, its a wing buffet - This is why its only really large winged creatures that get this attack. A buffet doesn't have to simply be a blow, but can be a violent shock or concussion, like wind buffeting a house. The dragon snaps its wings forward, pushing a large volume of air at the opponent. DnD simplifies this by having this body of air do damage (Imagine the damage a hurricane can do to your house.) Also, a buffet can be a series of repeated strikes - individually not powerful, but combined to serious effect. (like a dragon beating its wing forward, slapping against a foe repeatedly.)
Papa_duval 11-03-06, 05:53 AM	My point isn't that it can be done, but that a very intelligent creature shouldn't and wouldn't risk something as valuable as a wing, when it has things like thick, meaty tails and vicious claws and bites. If the dragons life was threatened, it would use any and all options available to it to defeat its foes or escape. Look, we know birds will currently use their wings as a weapon if threatened - so any argument that some creature 'wouldn't' use their wings as a weapon if they could is a fallacy. And its not about intelligence, its about instinct - they exact same instincts that have you put your hands up to block attacks. You'r arms will get injured, but your insticts still make you block to protect your more important body parts (head, chest)
coomber 11-03-06, 07:16 AM	I completely understand that these are all people's opinions and not actually anyone trying to influence anyone else to their side of the fence. That said, I would like to throw out a few opinions of my own on the houserules given. All casters spontaneous cast. I don't like this idea too much. Are you limiting the amount of known spells (thus making wizards redundant instead of sorcerors)? If not, then the already powerful spellcasting classes are getting an incredible boost, making the other classes fall even further behind. Nope, I am not limiting the amount of known spells. Obviously it's an advantage for the spellcasters but it has never proven to be a gamebreaker in my experience. My campaigns are generally low-level so I can get away with it.
TheCheshireCat 11-03-06, 07:43 AM	On Half-Orc's Charisma: I attribute the -2 as their lack of "force of will". Not necessarily ugliness. Or Crudeness. If it was one of these, they wouldn't really get the negative when dealing with other Half-Orcs, would they? No. It's lack of "Force of Will". When someone tells them to do something, they do it. In fact. I believe that's their motto. What group of creatures show up the most often having their own Hoards? Orcs. When a creature with some presence shows up, they follow them. I'm pretty sure I've encountered many more Orc hoards than even Kobold hoards. And addressing the penalty to "force of will" explains why you get a negative to Use Magic Device, Intimidate and the like. Orc trying to intimidate: "GRR! I Grog will snap neck of you if place your leader lives you do not tell me!!" Charismatic Human Sorceror: "Shut-up Vermin, before I slaughter you like the insect you are." Orc: Yessir. ::is cowed::
babysamurai 11-03-06, 07:47 AM	Spell Points! Absolutely! Now that I’m using the lovely Spell Point system from UA, I will never go back. It also makes the whole magic/psionics transparency thing smoother.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-03-06, 07:47 AM	The important part being that the poor, week willed dolt would, in fact, say 'Grrr' out loud instead of growling.
babysamurai 11-03-06, 07:53 AM	"Turn Undead" is a poorly-named ability, probably chosen because of its familiarity rather than for its accuracy. Well, I’m implementing the Turning variant in Complete Divine, which works identically to the Chastise Spirits ability of the Spirit Shaman. So maybe call it Chastise Undead? "You’re a very naughty wight" *waving finger*
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-03-06, 07:58 AM	Anyone else have a problem with the fact that every god in DnD is so concerned about undead that they grants some power over them to every single one of thier clerics? Why is the god of the art of sandwich craft granting turn undead?
Burgundy Lotus 11-03-06, 08:04 AM	Anyone else have a problem with the fact that every god in DnD is so concerned about undead that they grants some power over them to every single one of thier clerics? Why is the god of the art of sandwich craft granting turn undead? If you'd even seen a Zombie Hoagie you'd understand *shudders at the memory*
Sereno 11-03-06, 08:42 AM	the rule i hate the most is the tumble rules, no matter what your fighting, regardless of size, skill, speed, all anyone needs is a 15 to get around it, and there is no way around tumble, no feat to make it harder, or item, ANYTHING!!! That's because you are probably misunderstanding what the Tumble skill check is about. It's not a measure of an opponent's ability to hit ... it's a measure of the tumbler's ability to keep themselves fully protected while tumbling. It's not affected by the skill of the attacker, merely the skill of the tumbler. If you're skilled at Tumbling, you know how to do it just right so that you never uncover the weak parts of your armor to your enemy.
Gorteck 11-03-06, 09:05 AM	hears a few things i just cant accept in D&D even tho for one i hate how D&D can be miss used no matter who you are ... Wish ... my players have found to many ways how to misuse this and i hate the ****in spell coz of that so it waves bye bye inless IM CONTROLING IT AS THE DM! the whole thing of players only spend 30% of there starting gold on one item ... spell casters dount need to spend there gold sep for basic supplys and how to carry all there gold intill that one *****in item ... i can see that and i hate ppl doing that so i kinda agree with that but i would increase it coz i find eveyone kinda douse that allso Stoneshape ... i walk up to the badguy and cast stoneshape at his feat makeing him fall i then make the brick i had and smash him into the ground with it on the first round coz i got to go first ... i hate how you can misuse this spell ... allso Spell resistance ... coz you eather have a **** LOAD of it or not enuf to even bother makeing a roll ... the whole bluff/imitidation check sometimes "Look give me the money or this sword will cut off a nother finger" ... the guy dosnt need to roll a initdation check in fact just kill him and steal the gold ... and get the XP for the death The whole Deck of many things ... the most epic item in the game for godly ness coz if you get 4 players who all agree to use it and all know how to kinda use it then you will get someone epicly powerfull ... BTW on a test im a D100 ... so this is why im crazy ok? and yes i know you all miss my Annoying sounds ^^ :D :P :eek: :w00t: :plotting:
Sulaco 11-03-06, 10:30 AM	Modern "vermin control" poisons were not factored in to my statement. But they do disprove it.
Lord Otaku 11-03-06, 10:53 AM	Explained away by the fact that Lockwood style dragons suck and aren't indicative of how dragons should look. Amen. :D Seriously. I've been making a Dragon Cohort, and I've been debating inflating its ECL by taking the Half-Dragon Template to make it Half-Cromatic just to get rid of those stupid looking sail-wings. :pbbbtt:
revnk 11-03-06, 11:04 AM	Why is the god of the art of sandwich craft granting turn undead? Because vampires should not be allowed to steal your lunch. And they will, if you let them. Stupid, lunch-stealing vampires. MAKE YOUR OWN DAMN SANDWICHES, YOU BASTARDS! On a more serous note: TheCheshireCat, I agree completely.
JadeReaver 11-03-06, 11:58 AM	Because vampires should not be allowed to steal your lunch. And they will, if you let them. Stupid, lunch-stealing vampires. MAKE YOUR OWN DAMN SANDWICHES, YOU BASTARDS! Indeed, many a good sandwich has been lost to those filthy blood suckers. It all started with the great vampiro-sandwich wars of 345 . . .
Archangel62 11-03-06, 12:25 PM	Hrm, I dislike the Use Magic Device and all that jazz for wands. I figure a wizard can say, "Here Generic Commoner. Say "Poof" and it shoots a fireball at whatever you point it at." and it works for the commoner. Anyone have any idea why that works the way it does, or am I getting it wrong? Actually it makes some sense, the thing is the average commoner won't have the skill but I can see the reasoning in it. The want is essentially a little stack of pre-cast spells you just need to work out the command trigger.
DIESCUMDIE 11-03-06, 12:34 PM	First I have to say; revnk "Arguing with stubborn people is like mud wrestling with a pig. Eventually you realize the pig likes it." -credited to a sign at the Green Mesquite Barbecue in Austin. Can I sig this? Please:( About intimadate. The rob roy quote explained it best. Using modern day examples doesn't work, I'm intimidated by large groups of kids because they're annoying play music in the bus and shout, little fatherless asbo chav scum, and you'll be arrested for telling them to shut up. Big people generally don't intimidate me because I'm confident that most of them aren't willing to violate societies norms and kill me to level up and steal my magic items. Grapple sunder etc. Why so complicated? Useful in combat, useful out of combat. Not a good system. Vancian casting. Skills are realistic carrying capacity isn't. Why? I dont change these rules though, not worth the aggro
Piuro 11-03-06, 01:03 PM	Poison is sneaky, unchivalrous and unsporting. It doesn't give the opponent a chance to fight back like he can in a stand-up fight. Some people call this evil, some don't. So a paladin can never, ever win initiative.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-03-06, 01:29 PM	The class didn't think that through too far. It didn't think anything through too far. That's why we have threads advocating they be LN killmonkeys all the time.
Solik 11-03-06, 01:33 PM	Anyone else have a problem with the fact that every god in DnD is so concerned about undead that they grants some power over them to every single one of thier clerics? Well, like I said, I think that's just because the ability is poorly named and weakly defined. It's really Channel Energy, and the ability, at base, is nothing more than the channeling of positive or negative energy. It just so happens that the most obvious application of that is dealing with the undead, which are numerous in D&D. However, there are other applications as well, some of them even well-defined. For example, in a certain published adventure, a cleric who channels positive can use that ability to close a gate into the Nine Hells. In Core, there's not a lot of other ways to use it, but divine metamagic provides another mechanism to use the channeled energy (with varying degrees of brokenness, sure, but that's another topic). Specific deities sometimes grant other ways of using that energy; for example, Selune's Moon domain allows her clerics to turn lycanthropes by modifying the channeled energy appropriately. It's a pity the designers haven't taken that farther; I'd love to have seen all the domain abilities be related to channeling in some way. Regarding wand usage: it's more than just a simple command word. Wondrous items are simple command words and such, and you'll note that anyone can use them. Wands are special in how they function. I don't think the rulebooks are too specific on that, but I could just be forgetting. Anyways, flavor it however you like.
Sulaco 11-03-06, 01:34 PM	So a paladin can never, ever win initiative. Uh, who's the what now? What is this non-sequitur intended to mean? :confused:
Sulaco 11-03-06, 01:36 PM	The class didn't think that through too far. It didn't think anything through too far. That's why we have threads advocating they be LN killmonkeys all the time. Where are these threads? I have seen several wherein paladins and the ethics of killing have been discussed but, except for a handful of absurdly hyperbolic posts from people who think the paladin's code means he can never take a life, I have seen no such suggestion at all.
Keevo_Darkwood 11-03-06, 01:47 PM	Uh, who's the what now? What is this non-sequitur intended to mean? :confused: Less of a non-sequiteur than you'd think, actually. I think it refers to the fact that, if a paladin strikes first, s/he may actually defeat the enemy before said enemy has a chance to hit back, thereby making winning an initiative roll "sneaky, unchivalrous, and unsporting", as you'd described using poison to be. Poison is sneaky, unchivalrous and unsporting. It doesn't give the opponent a chance to fight back like he can in a stand-up fight. Some people call this evil, some don't.
Solik 11-03-06, 01:55 PM	Well, that depends. If it's an announced fight, then the enemy would not be flat-footed, and thus can be considered capable of defending itself when attacked. If a character with such a code wins initiative, then he would have to forego any flat-footed bonus on his attack (see PHB2 Knights).
XalinPhir 11-03-06, 02:04 PM	my main pet peeve is the haste spell, i think it should allow an extra spell or whatever you can do, no restrections as it "is" an extra action, its so poweful in every other game why is it so toned down in d&d its forefather. At least make a greater haste or somthing... and secondly the spell DC for casters is so weak even at level 20 a level one fighter can make the save...whats up with that??? I was all for spell focus until they reduced it from 2 to 1. And now they even have other feats to counter the spell focus, so what there saying is i may be a badass mage but i will only affect things 50% of the time with my spells...:mad: thanks for wasting my time.
Sim_antix 11-03-06, 02:29 PM	Thats why instead of 10 + Spell Level + Ability Modifier I use 1d20 + Spell Level + Ability Modifier + Synergy from Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcane or religion)
revnk 11-03-06, 02:47 PM	Can I sig this? Please:( I think I saw it on John Scalzi's blog and then nicked it, so I can't lay any particular claim to it. Indeed, perhaps it should spread as an internet meme--it seems to cover so many online "arguments." JadeReaver, do you mean the great vampiro-sandwich wars of 345 CE or the great vampiro-sandwich wars of 345 BCE? Many don't realize that, by a strange coincidence, there were actually two great vampiro-sandwich wars 690 years apart. The great vampiro-sandwich wars of 345 (BCE) were a tragedy for sandwich-makers and lunch aficionados, and led to the bleak Just-A-Salad-And-Water ages of the second century BCE. The great vampiro-sandwich wars of 345 (CE), however, were a stunning defeat for the undead, thanks largely to the invention of "Bob Caesar's Trademark Garlic-And-Oil Anti-Vampire Sandwich Drizzle" (now known simply as "Italian Dressing") in 338 CE. Caesar, of course, went on to invent the Caesar's Salad in 352 and Caesar's Palace in 358, both of which made the Caesar family quite wealthy for the next 190 years (when Caesar's Palace was burned to the ground by irate elderly tourists from the Visigoth Pastures nursing home in Palm Beach, Florida, not to be rebuilt for 14 centuries).
Aufenshauft 11-03-06, 02:57 PM	De facto poison immunity by people. Did you know that the average high level barbarian is immune to cyanide? Here is my rule. Poison rules as normal, but reduced prices severely for crafting (so if you want a poisoner, you can but for others it is difficult). +15 dc to combine two doses into one dose for application purposes. For each dose of poison you are exposed to, you make a separate roll. If you have more than one dose in your system you gain an unnamded +1 stackable increase in the DC. Example: Thog (lvl20 barb) get stung by wasp. Laughs happy-like at bug and sqishes. Walk into hive thinking easy xp. Get stung 3 times on round 2, for a total of 4 doses. His DC for all of the three saves becomes 21. Thog still fine, and keep squishing. Next Round he gets stung 5 more times, sending the DC to 26. Next Round he kills the leftovers off but gets stung 3 more times before they retreat. Now he has to make saves at 29 until the first dose of poison is out of his system in 1 minute. Even he likely takes at least a little damage, but those saves will be massively more intertaining as a result. And he was an idiot for doing that, there is a chance his dex gets dropped to 0 as a result and the surviving wasps lay eggs in him for good measure.
Thubby 11-03-06, 03:26 PM	That's because you are probably misunderstanding what the Tumble skill check is about. It's not a measure of an opponent's ability to hit ... it's a measure of the tumbler's ability to keep themselves fully protected while tumbling. It's not affected by the skill of the attacker, merely the skill of the tumbler. If you're skilled at Tumbling, you know how to do it just right so that you never uncover the weak parts of your armor to your enemy. no, i undestand that, but a skilled opponent knows(and can exploit) smaller flaws and openings, and even force people to expose them. the 20th level fighter would know exactly where to hit, how to STOP THE MOTION, force a misstep, anything. a 15 is something that is difficult, but not too difficult for average joe (i know its trained only, but focus on the number). i find it appauling that a level 2 rogue knows how to cover every spot on their body, leave nothing exposed, and dance between the blades perfectly.
Morrowner 11-03-06, 03:31 PM	You're telling me you want the pinnacle of toughness in core D&D to have more of a legit reason to fear a wasp nest than your average poison dripping beast? I've taken 12 stings from a hornet and I lived. I kicked open a log unknowing that it had about a 100 hornets in it in 4th grade. It hurt like a bastard for my brother and I but I don't think we were in danger of paralysis!
cvazi 11-03-06, 03:34 PM	De facto poison immunity by people. Did you know that the average high level barbarian is immune to cyanide? Here is my rule. Poison rules as normal, but reduced prices severely for crafting (so if you want a poisoner, you can but for others it is difficult). +15 dc to combine two doses into one dose for application purposes. For each dose of poison you are exposed to, you make a separate roll. If you have more than one dose in your system you gain an unnamded +1 stackable increase in the DC. Example: Thog (lvl20 barb) get stung by wasp. Laughs happy-like at bug and sqishes. Walk into hive thinking easy xp. Get stung 3 times on round 2, for a total of 4 doses. His DC for all of the three saves becomes 21. Thog still fine, and keep squishing. Next Round he gets stung 5 more times, sending the DC to 26. Next Round he kills the leftovers off but gets stung 3 more times before they retreat. Now he has to make saves at 29 until the first dose of poison is out of his system in 1 minute. Even he likely takes at least a little damage, but those saves will be massively more intertaining as a result. And he was an idiot for doing that, there is a chance his dex gets dropped to 0 as a result and the surviving wasps lay eggs in him for good measure.That is a cool rule. I will have to contemplate this. . . One more thing that aggrevates me, a 5 foot step regardless of size. So a rat can move almost 20 times it's body length without incurring and AoO, but a Tarrasque can't even shift it's weight? What kinda sense is that?
Ilthorin 11-03-06, 03:44 PM	hmm...rules my group dislike The whole paladin's mount dwells "somewhere else" until needed nonsense doesn't sit right with me. Initiative rolled once for an entire encounter...this makes no sense to me. We roll initiative each round and no it doesn't slow combat down. Oh we also use a d10 for initiative rather then a d20. I am not a fan of memorized spell casting either and have ignored it in the past. Our current campaign i am using it at the players request to "try it out" So far it has been okay but I am not sure they are all abiding by it.
JadeReaver 11-03-06, 04:33 PM	JadeReaver, do you mean the great vampiro-sandwich wars of 345 CE or the great vampiro-sandwich wars of 345 BCE? Many don't realize that, by a strange coincidence, there were actually two great vampiro-sandwich wars 690 years apart. The great vampiro-sandwich wars of 345 (BCE) were a tragedy for sandwich-makers and lunch aficionados, and led to the bleak Just-A-Salad-And-Water ages of the second century BCE. The great vampiro-sandwich wars of 345 (CE), however, were a stunning defeat for the undead, thanks largely to the invention of "Bob Caesar's Trademark Garlic-And-Oil Anti-Vampire Sandwich Drizzle" (now known simply as "Italian Dressing") in 338 CE. Caesar, of course, went on to invent the Caesar's Salad in 352 and Caesar's Palace in 358, both of which made the Caesar family quite wealthy for the next 190 years (when Caesar's Palace was burned to the ground by irate elderly tourists from the Visigoth Pastures nursing home in Palm Beach, Florida, not to be rebuilt for 14 centuries). CE, of course. Damned vampires have been nursing a grudge ever since . . . swapping unsuspecting sandwiches like the cowards they are and then slinking back into the shadows. Its because of this that a largely unknown secret Cold Pastromi War has been going on ever since . . . good thing I like garlic-and-oil-anti-sandwich drizzle, once melted a vampire's face with one sound belch when I caught him trying to make off with my cold cuts. Jerk coulda at least asked. Little did he know my connection to the remaining Caesar decendants, who managed to escape with the recipe intact. Yes, the day will come when sandwiches will no longer need fear the preying hands of the vampires. . . but alas, that day has not yet come. I will wait in my vampire proof shelter doused in garlic-and-oil-anti-sandwich drizzle until that time. . . . I pray the God of Sandwich Crafting, and his consort the Demigoddess of Finger Foods, will give me the strength to turn away those viscious bloodsuckers if they dare show there faces here . . .
Sulaco 11-03-06, 05:33 PM	Less of a non-sequiteur than you'd think, actually. I think it refers to the fact that, if a paladin strikes first, s/he may actually defeat the enemy before said enemy has a chance to hit back, thereby making winning an initiative roll "sneaky, unchivalrous, and unsporting", as you'd described using poison to be. Getting init is not a senak attack. You roll init when combat begins. Drawing your blade and stiking more quickly than the guy who is drawing his blade to strike you is not "sneaky, unchivalrous, and unsporting."
Moblin 11-03-06, 05:37 PM	Explained away by the fact that Lockwood style dragons suck and aren't indicative of how dragons should look. I'll just disagre with you and leave it at that :) (I like his style. Well exept for the gold dragon)
Piuro 11-03-06, 06:03 PM	Getting init is not a senak attack. You roll init when combat begins. Drawing your blade and stiking more quickly than the guy who is drawing his blade to strike you is not "sneaky, unchivalrous, and unsporting." So you always have your paladin hold off his action until the opponent is no longer flat-footed?
Sim_antix 11-03-06, 06:06 PM	So you always have your paladin hold off his action until the opponent is no longer flat-footed? Where are you getting this from? He is saying that in combat as long as the paladin isn't sneaking up behind or ambushing his opponent that it is fine for him to win initiative and catch his opponent flat-footed. In fact I would say that if the paladin wins initiative with all his armor and most likely low dex score then the opponent deserved to be caught flat-footed.
Piuro 11-03-06, 06:10 PM	Okay, i'm wrong, dirty tactics are always evil. I guess I had this silly notion that destroying evil was more important than making sure evil had a fair chance to kick goods ass.
Keevo_Darkwood 11-03-06, 06:11 PM	Getting init is not a senak attack. You roll init when combat begins. Drawing your blade and stiking more quickly than the guy who is drawing his blade to strike you is not "sneaky, unchivalrous, and unsporting." Heyyyyyy, now....I'm not surprised that you disagree with that, and that's all right. Point your retort at Vaalingrade, though; I was just clarifying what he'd said.
Witch 11-03-06, 06:12 PM	Getting init is not a senak attack. You roll init when combat begins. Drawing your blade and stiking more quickly than the guy who is drawing his blade to strike you is not "sneaky, unchivalrous, and unsporting." Wasn't there a paladin sneak attack prestige class?
Sim_antix 11-03-06, 06:25 PM	Okay, i'm wrong, dirty tactics are always evil. I guess I had this silly notion that destroying evil was more important than making sure evil had a fair chance to kick goods ass. Maybe if you are a good rogue or fighter or barbarian. But a paladin lives his life by a code of honor and part of that is giving everyone a fair chance to defend themselves in combat.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-03-06, 06:31 PM	Heyyyyyy, now....I'm not surprised that you disagree with that, and that's all right. Point your retort at Vaalingrade, though; I was just clarifying what he'd said. Piuro was the person you were clarifying, not me.
Piuro 11-03-06, 06:33 PM	I feel overlooked :(
Keevo_Darkwood 11-03-06, 06:54 PM	Piuro was the person you were clarifying, not me. Ah, yeah. My bad. Indeed, it was. *nods as he sits back down and lets the thread move along*
Magnus_the_Mad 11-03-06, 08:29 PM	See, my issue with these is that why on earth would a winged creature try to hit you with what is arguably the most fragile part of the very same anatomy that enabled it to fly? Would you try to attack someone with your neck? How about the back of your head? Try this: go and slap your brother or dad the face, and when they start to retaliate, turn around and try to hit them with the back of your head, or your neck. See what happens. It just makes no sense whatsoever. That's like being attacked by a 79 year-old man and he gives you a cane swing, and then tries to bash into you with his 79 year-old-man's hip. It would completely break and disable his primary method of transportation; he's now (broken) boned. Sure..... ok. Let me break it down for you in layman's terms. You are smaller and more fragile than me (you being the character and me being the dragon) and by default I can hurt you really easy with my natural attacks. A more appropriate example would be this: My cat gets a hair up her butt and claws my ankle. It hurts like heck, but isn't enough to take me down. I then grab the cat by the scruff of the neck and head butt the crapola out of her using my natural attack!! Get the point now? Hope so. Wing attacks make sense. Need another example of how a membrane hitting you at strength 32 might feel? Got outside, hang a 10' X 10' blue tarp on a clothes line or something in about a 25 mph wind and stand at the end flapping in the breeze. Be sure to place your face against the flapping end of the tarp. One good whipping, a bloody nose and some cuts on your face later and you can see how a membrane might hurt the heck out of you!! Guess it's just my perspective. ;)
Morrowner 11-03-06, 09:17 PM	I've never done this but I might in the future: You know how lame some breath attacks are because they don't scale with the creature? Let's say I go temporarily insane and whip up a campaign and the BBEG is a freaking Destrachan. Rawr! Look at the breath weapon it has though. The damage sucks! It's pretty obvious that the lethal damage is given in a 1:2 ratio of d6 damage to hit dice and 3:4 for 1d6 nonlethal damage. Would a max diced Destrachan dealing 12d6/14d6 really be that broken or must the Destrachan have to stay in Sucksville with his lousy breath weapon? I say scale damage. Remember the Destrachan! /Circuitous rant paid for by the Committee of Destrachans Don't Suck, really.
Red12 11-03-06, 09:18 PM	Maybe if you are a good rogue or fighter or barbarian. But a paladin lives his life by a code of honor and part of that is giving everyone a fair chance to defend themselves in combat. What you describe is the Knights Code, not the Paladins. The Paladin does not have to be "honor-bound" so to speak. I interpret his lawful-ness as more "Works for the benift of the community over the benift of the individual". He is not limited by any set code of ethics (as the Knight), he is designed to be a force of good for everyone. I think Sneak Attack is poorly named. It is more "Striking a specific vital area" (which is what you are trying to do anyways, just its easier to inflict more damage when they cant see it coming). Bashing your opponent with a mace repeatedly is no different than sliding your knife across his throat, although one may be more painful.
Slayer_5 11-03-06, 11:35 PM	About tumble, in Sword & Fist there was a Varient idea that if someone made a tumble check, you could make a counter-tumble check. If you beat theirs, you still got the AoO. Still doesn't help fighters... I hate how Wizards can't heal. They can summon blasts of fire, turn gold coins into gold dragons, and teleport around, but they can't heal a person. What about healing is so bloody divine??? And I also hate how sorcerors get the shaft, especially at Epic Levels. no new spells known or spell slots. NO EPIC SPELL SLOTS!!! And Wee Jas, the Sorceress Queen doesn't have a single sorc level...
Always-Late 11-03-06, 11:56 PM	I hate how Wizards can't heal. They can summon blasts of fire, turn gold coins into gold dragons, and teleport around, but they can't heal a person. What about healing is so bloody divine???I hate how fighters can't do anything. They can hit things, hit things, hit things, and... hit things, I think.
Tanin 11-04-06, 12:34 AM	I hate how upon character creation everyone starts with the Common Language. I shouldn't be forced into everyone knowing how to communicate with each other.
Piuro 11-04-06, 12:36 AM	I hate how Wizards can't heal. They can summon blasts of fire, turn gold coins into gold dragons, and teleport around, but they can't heal a person. What about healing is so bloody divine??? Jesus didnt blow up everything in a 30' sphere (Though if he did, the inquisition might have got real interesting).
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-04-06, 12:54 AM	I hate how Wizards can't heal. They can summon blasts of fire, turn gold coins into gold dragons, and teleport around, but they can't heal a person. What about healing is so bloody divine??? A sacred cow that's impossible to kill. Same reason monks can't multiclass.
Archangel62 11-04-06, 12:55 AM	One thing that bugs me is more how strangely things scale, AC for example isn't really a curve, it seems more like a bar graph with epilepsy.
Leress 11-04-06, 01:43 AM	I'd actually really like to hear what you did, I have a copy but was too lazy to come up with a conversion. Well the thing is...I have the Advanced d20 Magic Book by Guardians of order and they did the converting for me. (It still needed adjustments...but not many)
High Octane 11-04-06, 01:56 AM	A sacred cow that's impossible to kill. Same reason monks can't multiclass. I find it the thin line seaparating arcane and divine. I personally would CONSIDER allowing healing, but I would make sorc/wizard spell equivelants at LEAST a level higher each.
Red12 11-04-06, 03:44 AM	Allowing healing magic would weaken Arcane Casters. Think about it. The wizard has no way to sponatenously convert that. All of a sudden: Cure Serious Wounds instead of: Fly, Fireball, etc The sorcerer? Possibly more useful, cause you could get away with only one, but still, coughing up one of your few spells known for... healing? Hard to do, really. Of course, I want a universal spell list, but thats me :P
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-04-06, 07:23 AM	I find it the thin line seaparating arcane and divine. Which is totally unneeded. Speaking of which -- Arcane Spell Failure
revnk 11-04-06, 09:48 AM	I pray the God of Sandwich Crafting, and his consort the Demigoddess of Finger Foods, will give me the strength to turn away those viscious bloodsuckers if they dare show there faces here . . . May the gods of quick and convenient dining bless you, o last child of Caesar's line! :)
Drizztman42 11-04-06, 10:34 AM	The reason you have to confirm a critical is because rolling a 20 means you hit them in a vulnerable area, like the chest. The confirming roll is to see if you hit any vital organs
Senevri 11-04-06, 11:21 AM	Hmm. Actually, Wizards _can_ cure, sorta, in higher levels. - Summon critters which have Cure SLAs - Gate to Positive Energy Plane for a short while, then Gate back. Also, Bards, arcane casters. How'bout that? Armor and cure. Qualify directly for Combat Medic, and get spontaneous Heal, too.
Sim_antix 11-04-06, 01:04 PM	In my campaign the school of necromancy has access to healing spells. Of course the school of necromancy is also banned (in the world not the game) so nobody in the world knows that the same twisted necros that raise the undead could also restore their lost limb or even bring them back to life.
DarknessEternal 11-04-06, 01:31 PM	There are several arcane spells available to Sorcerers/Wizards that heal actual hit points. They just don't get Cure Assorted Wounds.
High Octane 11-04-06, 02:10 PM	Which is totally unneeded. Then why have more than one kind of spellcaster?
Andrew_980 11-04-06, 02:13 PM	On the dragons wings: The wing attack doesn't bother me, its the claw/claw/bite/wing/wing/tail/rearclaw/rearclaw thing (i know it was that bad in 2e at least) that got to me. I say if that is how they can fight my monk should punch/punch/headbutt/kick/kick/teabag (no damage but funny) if it can use all limbs so should I. On save/damage/ect Sometimes you just need to accept some non-sense for the game to function, one nick of a knife often killed in reality. On alignment: If it is object and unbending then DEFINE THE DAMNED THING, istead of saying "it is objective and never subjective but you just go fight over WHAT it is" Stuff that bothers me: Tumble, it seems like everybody takes it to aviod AOOs but think about the RP aplication, are all warriors acrobats? Knowlege skills such as local and history should be available to all classes, as should diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, jump, climb, balance, and swim. Multiclass penalties and "racial prefered class". i can see trying to limit level dippers but the prefered class crap is almost as bad as the old class limits Old PCs, like elves or dwarves having the same abilities at 100 as a 16 year old human. Just how could they not learn a bit more in that time? they had to work hard to aviod learning to be so unskilled.
High Octane 11-04-06, 02:34 PM	Tumble is only a class skill for a few classes that I think SHOULD be able to duck and dodge around in a fight.
Lunas_Argent 11-04-06, 02:46 PM	Wing attacks. I will not accept wing attacks. They make no sense to me and I will not accept them. How can a membrane hurt you? Is there a lot of wing-induced wind or something? I just don't get it. So the DM renamed them "unnamed attacks." And I'm okay with that. A good sized goose or a swan can break a humans leg or arm by swinging its wing at you. Granted you can also easily break its wing by kicking at it when it does. Kind of like how an orangutan has arms much slimmer than a weightlifter, but is very strong for its size
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-04-06, 03:33 PM	Then why have more than one kind of spellcaster? IF that's the readon, why are there wizards, sorcerers and bards?
Spacefrog 11-04-06, 07:12 PM	I agree totally. Also, Poison = Evil. So basically a paladin using a +5 Flaming Vorpal sword to smash a goblin is good but a rogue using poison to render the same goblin unconcious is evil? That's like saying shooting an escaped elephant with a tranquelizer gun is evil but using an Uzi on it? Sure why not! In a similar vein, I don't like the way that casting certain spells is automatically an evil act. (Or automatically a good, lawful or chaotic act.)
syrinth 11-04-06, 07:20 PM	Eeps! He's begun speaking the Firestorm spell! As for rules in the books I really dislike, I've gotta say... Divine Magic in general. I know that healing is needed, but quite frankly resurrection and all the crud that divine magic can do just really irks me. Yes, I'm arcane biased... I know :P
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-04-06, 08:05 PM	In a similar vein, I don't like the way that casting certain spells is automatically an evil act. (Or automatically a good, lawful or chaotic act.) They aren't. Not by Core at least. Anything that says otherwise should be taunted and mocked constantly.
syrinth 11-04-06, 08:08 PM	*runs around blowing out ceremonial candles and scuffing out magic circle* Let's just all agree to back away from casting the Firestorm spell:) We all have our own opinions on what constitutes alignment and alignment violations so lets just leave our initial statements and leave it at that. Note: I'm not necessarily saying that I blame anyone or their interpretation of the alignment rules. I'm merely trying to stop anything from blowing out of proportion before the Firestorm spell gets cast ;)
DarknessEternal 11-05-06, 01:45 AM	words... You're not funny or even interesting. Alignment is not up for debate in D&D. Alignment is rigidly defined. What you think is good and evil in the real world is just as relevant as an Ogre's Strength in the real world. In other words, it's entirely irrelevant. D&D tells us what good and evil are as far as it is concerned. If you have some problem with that, replace the words "good" and "evil" with "flarg" and "meenon" .
Sim_antix 11-05-06, 02:15 AM	Alignment sucks. I haven't used it since 2E. I keep track of whether a character is serving a God properly (especially when its a Cleric and spells are on the line) but other than that I let their actions define their characters.
TheWerg 11-05-06, 02:57 AM	You're not funny or even interesting. Alignment is not up for debate in D&D. Alignment is rigidly defined. What you think is good and evil in the real world is just as relevant as an Ogre's Strength in the real world. In other words, it's entirely irrelevant. D&D tells us what good and evil are as far as it is concerned. If you have some problem with that, replace the words "good" and "evil" with "flarg" and "meenon" . Umm, how new are you to these forums? Alignment is very clearly up to debate, and not clearly defined at all. Alignment threads go for hundreds of posts, and no one can absolutely define alignment, as you say the core books do. If you really think one page of descriptions can define good and evil, you live in a pretty black and white world. Sorry if I insult you or anything, but this post is incorrect. Alignment is arguably the most debatable thing in D&D.
Ogmug 11-05-06, 03:54 AM	Non-lethal damage cannot kill you, no matter HOW much you take. A giant, smacks you about but does 200 points of non lethal to your little 10hp body, oh well, you don't die. begin starving? Oh, guess what. nope. please, someone show me in the books where NLD can turn lethal, besides drowning?
syrinth 11-05-06, 04:09 AM	Huh, well that was an interesting take on words of peace. If you want to sound big and intimidating then I'm shaking. Due to the numerous flamewars that occur over alignment, it is rather obvious that what alignment is is not rigidly defined enough otherwise these wars would never occur. Anyways, do what you want. Was just trying to stop the thread from being consumed in the throes of an alignment flaming death. Lastly, your short and insulting posts don't exactly thrill me either.
Witch 11-05-06, 05:19 AM	Alignment sucks. I haven't used it since 2E. I keep track of whether a character is serving a God properly (especially when its a Cleric and spells are on the line) but other than that I let their actions define their characters. And the different with alignment is...? Alignment doesn't determine action - action determines alignment (except for exemplar outsiders)
Derren S. 11-05-06, 05:24 AM	On the dragons wings: The wing attack doesn't bother me, its the claw/claw/bite/wing/wing/tail/rearclaw/rearclaw thing (i know it was that bad in 2e at least) that got to me. I say if that is how they can fight my monk should punch/punch/headbutt/kick/kick/teabag (no damage but funny) if it can use all limbs so should I. The monk is already doing this. Each unarmed attack from a monk can come from any body part.
Senevri 11-05-06, 05:31 AM	Hsss! Firestorm!
Kobold_Avenger 11-05-06, 05:32 AM	SR.... it needs to be reworked... You got a 1 on your ref save, i rolled 60 damage ,you fire resist 10, you have 30 hp left and your still standing how....?!?!?
Witch 11-05-06, 05:34 AM	SR.... it needs to be reworked... You got a 1 on your ref save, i rolled 60 damage ,you fire resist 10, you have 30 hp left and your still standing how....?!?!? I have no clue what you mean.
Kobold_Avenger 11-05-06, 05:54 AM	Spell Resist
Witch 11-05-06, 07:03 AM	I see no reference to Spell Resistance in your post.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-05-06, 08:24 AM	Umm, how new are you to these forums? Alignment is very clearly up to debate, and not clearly defined at all. Alignment threads go for hundreds of posts, and no one can absolutely define alignment, as you say the core books do. If you really think one page of descriptions can define good and evil, you live in a pretty black and white world. No, you see, you have to think and do as you're told, TheWerg. Its the only way. Also, I love how the "Please don't start a flamewar" post was the one that triggered the irrational flame from out of left field. That said, DnD, for all its saying alignment is objective, keeps it vague enough that it's entirely subjective. Its cute in its attempts to make an irrational concept seem somewhat sane, even though it fails badly all the time.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-05-06, 08:29 AM	I see no reference to Spell Resistance in your post. In the portion you quoted. It starts with "SR". However, it then goes on to imply fire resistance. Avenger, I think you're not understanding SR. SR means the magic itself has no effect on you. The caster rolls a caster level check against your SR and if they fail, the spells fails to effect you. There is not damage involved if the spell fails.
Sim_antix 11-05-06, 01:16 PM	And the different with alignment is...? Alignment doesn't determine action - action determines alignment (except for exemplar outsiders) The difference is that there is no alignment, you just are you. There are no alignment concerns, like "you can't be a monk cause your not lawful" You can't just "detect evil" on everyone to determine if they should live or die. *Note I still have detect evil and good but it only applies to the most extreme cases such as outsiders and those devoted to a diety.
alecthemad 11-05-06, 01:24 PM	Non-lethal damage cannot kill you, no matter HOW much you take. A giant, smacks you about but does 200 points of non lethal to your little 10hp body, oh well, you don't die. begin starving? Oh, guess what. nope. please, someone show me in the books where NLD can turn lethal, besides drowning? I looked in my books and could not find anything to disagree with you. But I have this nagging feeling that there is a rule out there somewhere that when the nonlethal takes you to unconscious any subsequent damage is lethal.
Witch 11-05-06, 01:28 PM	The difference is that there is no alignment, you just are you. There are no alignment concerns, like "you can't be a monk cause your not lawful" You can't just "detect evil" on everyone to determine if they should live or die. *Note I still have detect evil and good but it only applies to the most extreme cases such as outsiders and those devoted to a diety. Monks shouldn't have that restriction anyway. And Detect Evil is not in itself a valid reason to kill.
alecthemad 11-05-06, 01:30 PM	Ok here is something. Pg 139 on PHB. You can declare to do lethal damage with your unarmed strike before your attack roll. You take -4 on your attack. So the giant could kill the commoner. Or you can beat your opponent unconscious and then beat him to death. I suppose that means you can also do unarmed coup de grace.
Sim_antix 11-05-06, 01:31 PM	Monks shouldn't have that restriction anyway. And Detect Evil is not in itself a valid reason to kill. Im sorry but if I can detect whether a peron is good or evil and I am a good oooo lets just say PALADIN who has devoted his life to erradicating all evil and somebody shows up as evil, then yeah thats pretty much all the validation to kill I would need.
Thubby 11-05-06, 01:42 PM	Im sorry but if I can detect whether a peron is good or evil and I am a good oooo lets just say PALADIN who has devoted his life to erradicating all evil and somebody shows up as evil, then yeah thats pretty much all the validation to kill I would need. and you would lose your paladin abilities, especialy within a city, you are breaking a law, one enforced by "legitimate authority". its said in the dnd books. read the past parts of this thread.
Sim_antix 11-05-06, 01:47 PM	Why would Peylor deny me my abilities for destroying evil?
Always-Late 11-05-06, 01:55 PM	Why would Peylor deny me my abilities for destroying evil?Destroying evil != good the way destroying neutral != neutral.
Sim_antix 11-05-06, 02:00 PM	Destroying Good = Evil but Destroying Evil =/= Good? Don't get me wrong, I agree that just because you destroyed evil that in and of itself does not make you good, however a God who despises evil probably isn't going to punish one of his followers for executing a murderer or rapist.
clarkvalentine 11-05-06, 02:01 PM	...however a God who despises evil probably isn't going to punish one of his followers for executing a murderer or rapist. That depends on the god, doesn't it? Absolute statements regarding alignment are always wrong. (Yes, likely including this one.)
Sim_antix 11-05-06, 02:03 PM	You did notice how I said probably, right?
Always-Late 11-05-06, 02:15 PM	Destroying Good = Evil but Destroying Evil =/= Good? Don't get me wrong, I agree that just because you destroyed evil that in and of itself does not make you good, however a God who despises evil probably isn't going to punish one of his followers for executing a murderer or rapist.Destroying Good = Evil Destroying Neutral = Evil Destroying Evil = Depends
narukagami 11-05-06, 02:19 PM	Its probably been said, I really don't have the drive to read the whole thread and I stopped skimming half way through the dragon wing debate. So if its been said, consider this me seconding it. A PC with high charisma and good diplomacy will be loved by all, but an Epic Level NPC with 80+ cha and 100+ diplomacy will have absolutly no influence over a 1st level PC's attitude what-so-ever. And I want to add something to those who think Intimidate shouldn't be a Cha skill: Look up the definition of the word "Charisma". Also, do alittle research on intimidation and interrogation tactics and which ones do and do not work.
Sim_antix 11-05-06, 02:19 PM	Or you can be like me and just ignore alignment all together and then it doesn't matter who or what you destroy. There will of course be reactions for the actions taken, but you don't have to worry about whether you are going against your alignment. Of course you better be concerned about going against your Gods will if you have dedicated yourself to one, and are currently recieving powers due to that dedication.
justdmjeff 11-05-06, 02:58 PM	Im sorry but if I can detect whether a peron is good or evil and I am a good oooo lets just say PALADIN who has devoted his life to erradicating all evil and somebody shows up as evil, then yeah thats pretty much all the validation to kill I would need. But a paladin is also lawful and must follow the laws of the land. If the law states a trial must take place first then the paladin broke the law and would lose his abilities. If you are going to allow good and evil, you must also allow law and chaos. Good idea for an adventure though. Paladin kills being that is about to hatch an evil plot. He has no proof and is put on trial for murder. Characters must come up with proof of evil dude's plot before the trial ends.
DarknessEternal 11-05-06, 03:04 PM	Why would Peylor deny me my abilities for destroying evil? Because you'd be doing evil. The ends do not justify the means for Paladins.
KurenaiYami 11-05-06, 03:18 PM	Why would Peylor deny me my abilities for destroying evil? Because you dishonored him by mispelling his name. :D Just kidding. These alignment problems never really seem to come up in my campaign. Alignment is still there, I even have a Paladin who detects evil regularly, but he is very flamboyant about his being a Paladin, so in a social setting, evil stays 65 feet away from him to circumvent that whole problem. Lots of spells can be fired from outside the range. SR.... it needs to be reworked... You got a 1 on your ref save, i rolled 60 damage ,you fire resist 10, you have 30 hp left and your still standing how....?!?!? For those of you who don't seem to be getting it, if you read everything here, you'd notice he would STILL DIE. The Spell Resistance is a force that keeps him alive. Spell resistance would be the answer to the question that he asked. It doesn't make a very valid argument though. "Why don't you like Spell Resistance?" "It lets them live more often!" "..."
Ogmug 11-05-06, 03:19 PM	Ok here is something. Pg 139 on PHB. You can declare to do lethal damage with your unarmed strike before your attack roll. You take -4 on your attack. So the giant could kill the commoner. Or you can beat your opponent unconscious and then beat him to death. I suppose that means you can also do unarmed coup de grace. but you cannot beat the commoner to death using NLD (as was stated in the post). everyone knows you can kill with LD (lethal damage). Personally? I feel that if you do enough damage to drop someone from 3 to -13, he should be dead (oops. i hit him too hard). If you start taking environmental damage (heat stroke in the desert) you should eventually die (but not according to raw). If you don't eat for a month, you should die (again not according to raw), etc. etc.
TheWerg 11-05-06, 03:44 PM	Actually, I believe with the environmental damage, it eventually becomes lethal... don't know the page number right now, but I think it's in the DMG Glossary section... Chapter 8? It says that once you pass out, you start taking lethal damage... it kinda makes sense? I guess?
Ogmug 11-05-06, 03:49 PM	Actually, I believe with the environmental damage, it eventually becomes lethal... don't know the page number right now, but I think it's in the DMG Glossary section... Chapter 8? It says that once you pass out, you start taking lethal damage... it kinda makes sense? I guess? chapter 8 is correct (well that is one good thing) I still hate that a person can beat you with a weapon (doing non-leathal damage), and say.. hit a 3hp kobold with the flat of a sword, doing critical NLD, and get say.. 33 hps of NLD on the creature..but it doesn't die (despite the fact that you clunked it so hard it would have been paste)
Stev Beren 11-05-06, 03:59 PM	See, my issue with these is that why on earth would a winged creature try to hit you with what is arguably the most fragile part of the very same anatomy that enabled it to fly? Would you try to attack someone with your neck? How about the back of your head? Try this: go and slap your brother or dad the face, and when they start to retaliate, turn around and try to hit them with the back of your head, or your neck. See what happens. It just makes no sense whatsoever. That's like being attacked by a 79 year-old man and he gives you a cane swing, and then tries to bash into you with his 79 year-old-man's hip. It would completely break and disable his primary method of transportation; he's now (broken) boned. I also loathe the fact that a charismatic PC with a high enough charisma has a cohort (which I'm ok with) and then like nine-dozen first level characters running after him. Maybe I misread that feat, but it bothers me to no end and changes the game from a small-group-themed fantasy RPG into Age of Empires vs. three very confused looking ogre mages. Ask someone who has been attacked by an angry male Swan. They can do QUITE a bit of damage, and are nowhere near the size of a Dragon.
Witch 11-05-06, 04:02 PM	Im sorry but if I can detect whether a peron is good or evil and I am a good oooo lets just say PALADIN who has devoted his life to erradicating all evil and somebody shows up as evil, then yeah thats pretty much all the validation to kill I would need. Who says the person is evil? He may have had a spell cast on him by an evil person that fakes an alignment? He may be a victim of having a helm of opposite alignment.
Proteus414 11-05-06, 04:17 PM	If one action point in Eberron will stabilize a character between -1 and -9, then two action points in my campaign will effectively stabilize a character to -9 from wherever she is . . . Think of it as cinema.
Reversefigure4 11-05-06, 05:29 PM	Needless alignment restrictions. I understand why Paladins must be LG, as champions of justice and righteousness. I understand why Clerics need to share a similar viewpoint to their deity. But I can't understand the restrictions on Monks, Bards, and Barbarians. No matter how much honour your Bard has, no matter how routine and predictable he is, he can't be lawful or he won't be able to sing as well. A Monk of Fharlanghn who simply wanders where the wind take him, doing something different every day for no particular purpose, cannot be Chaotic or he'll stop being able to throw effective punches. It ends up in a situation where you either needlessly restrict the character's personality, or you make a Chaotic Monk with the personality you want who simply happens to have "L" written on his sheet.
alecthemad 11-05-06, 05:32 PM	but you cannot beat the commoner to death using NLD (as was stated in the post). everyone knows you can kill with LD (lethal damage). Personally? I feel that if you do enough damage to drop someone from 3 to -13, he should be dead (oops. i hit him too hard). Look Non-lethal damage is exactly what it says it is. If something is not lethal then of course you cannot kill someone with it. The thing is if you chose to do so you can NLD someone unconscious and then kill them and never have to pick up a weapon.
Ogmug 11-05-06, 05:35 PM	Ever hear of accidental death? unarmed attacks do nld, without the feat. It just seems silly, if you hit someone hard enough to cave in thier skull, even accidentally, it doesn't. I have seen people beaten to death with fists. /shrug
Witch 11-05-06, 05:46 PM	I have seen people beaten to death with fists. /shrug Their combatants likely possessed Improved Unarmed Strike, then.
The White Sorcerer 11-05-06, 06:10 PM	The non-lethal damage discussion reminds me of the river scene from The Gamers.
Thynass 11-05-06, 06:29 PM	On the NLD topic, how do blunt weapons cause NLD, any more than their normal attacks would? Striking at limbs rather than vital locations would be less serious, but is hardly likely to knock someone out. You could argue you hit them less hard, but then where's the difference between this and rolling a "1" for damage. And again there is the issue that it would be possible to accidently hit someone and actually cause them real harm. One way around the NLD could be lethal issue is that when NLD is caused, half of it is real damage, the other half subdual. That way, it is possible to knock someone out (since they only bleed under 0 if it is all "real" damage), but offers the possibility of "accidents". My personal dislike is HP. I understand why they make sense in terms of the games mechanic (they reduce the possibility of high level characters being killed in single blows by inferior opponents, allow varying levels of spell damage etc.), but, regardless of justification in the rules, they don't make sense. I don't care how well my barbarian can roll with blows, when he falls 200 feet, he should break every bone in his body, not take 20d6 damage and survive because he has a stupid number of HP. If a giant steps on you, it steps on you, end of story. If you fall in lava... You get the idea. (I know there is the "death by massive damage" rule, but DC 15 is hardly difficult to beat, esspecially for any class that has Fort. as one of it's key saves; there's not even an incremental DC for more damage).
Vaelan 11-05-06, 06:31 PM	A situation once came up in which it would be best for a guard to become unconscious for about a week. My solution? Beat him senseless then continue wailing on him with a nonlethal weapon until his nonlethal damage is somewhere in the 1000s. It was a joke, and I am inclined to think the same of any DM that would allow it.
alecthemad 11-05-06, 06:50 PM	Ever hear of accidental death? unarmed attacks do nld, without the feat. It just seems silly, if you hit someone hard enough to cave in thier skull, even accidentally, it doesn't. I have seen people beaten to death with fists. /shrug You must not have read my previous post. It says in the PHB that you can use your unarmed attack to do lethal damage even if you do not have the feat. You take a -4 to you unarmed to hit and you will deal lethal damage. So a characters fist deal NLD with no penalty and LD with a penalty. Problem solved using the rules. edit: The rule is in the PHB pg 139 right hand column near the top. It seems that your only quibble is that NLD by it self will not kill some one. And really that is the point to NON-lethal damage. You are trying to hit someone in a fashion that does not kill them. If you want to kill them then you take a penalty or have the appropriate feats.
revnk 11-05-06, 07:18 PM	But a paladin is also lawful and must follow the laws of the land. I really wanted to stay out of the alignment subthread, but I have to point out that "law" and "chaos" in alignment reference the heirarchical forces holding the cosmos together versus the inchoate forces impeling it towards entropy: it might have been clearer if they had used "axiomatic" and "anarchic" or similar words back in the 1970s, but Gygax had been reading Michael Moorcock and Elric serves/commands/opposes the Gods of Chaos. (The Warhammer universe borrows quite a bit of flavor from Moorcock's cosmology--reading their treatment of chaos might help with context if you don't have time to pick up any of the Elric books. The Elric books themselves are fantasy classics, heavily influenced D&D, are fun quick reads, and have recently been republished in affordable compilation volumes--something to run out and buy/borrow or add to your Christmas lists!) I know that's probably as clear as mud, justdmjeff, but the reason it's important is that a paladin dealing with an evil (or chaotic) society would not be obliged to follow their laws if they conflicted with his Code, his deity or his alignment--he might even be obliged to struggle against those laws. Examples might include a society with legal slavery, a society with a rigid caste system that allows higher-caste people to oppress and torture low-castes at whim, a society that recognizes no law but that money or might make right, etc. A paladin is not required to tolerate injustice merely because a king decreed it! Good gaming!
Ogmug 11-05-06, 07:19 PM	my point is, NLD does not scale, or prohibit massive amounts of damage. There never was a problem, except in your mind apparently. If you have 1 hp and a giant hits you for 87 hps of NLD you only go "buH" and pass out. It doesn't matter that he pushed you entirely into the ground like a tent spike. And I already know the frelling rules about how to convert that to LD, that is not what I have issue with. This is after all a thread titled "Book rules that you just can't accept", convieniently placed at the top here. The issue is with the entire LD/NLD system. If, for some ungodly reason a Great Wyrm dragon wants to "subdue" a 1st level commoner with a NLD of his claw, and does a critical on it the commoner should accidentally die. It is perhaps a symptom of the abstract nature of HPS that causes this. Or perhaps the NLD should also impose a penalty to the damage done as well, when consciously "pulling blows"
justdmjeff 11-05-06, 08:13 PM	I really wanted to stay out of the alignment subthread, but I have to point out that "law" and "chaos" in alignment reference the heirarchical forces holding the cosmos together versus the inchoate forces impeling it towards entropy: it might have been clearer if they had used "axiomatic" and "anarchic" or similar words back in the 1970s, but Gygax had been reading Michael Moorcock and Elric serves/commands/opposes the Gods of Chaos. (The Warhammer universe borrows quite a bit of flavor from Moorcock's cosmology--reading their treatment of chaos might help with context if you don't have time to pick up any of the Elric books. The Elric books themselves are fantasy classics, heavily influenced D&D, are fun quick reads, and have recently been republished in affordable compilation volumes--something to run out and buy/borrow or add to your Christmas lists!) I know that's probably as clear as mud, justdmjeff, but the reason it's important is that a paladin dealing with an evil (or chaotic) society would not be obliged to follow their laws if they conflicted with his Code, his deity or his alignment--he might even be obliged to struggle against those laws. Examples might include a society with legal slavery, a society with a rigid caste system that allows higher-caste people to oppress and torture low-castes at whim, a society that recognizes no law but that money or might make right, etc. A paladin is not required to tolerate injustice merely because a king decreed it! Good gaming! Why thank you very much for clearing that up for me. Excuse me while I go marry my cousin. Golly gee whiz, I'm such a dofus. Unfortunately, I was using general terms and responding to the general post that said "detect evil. Good enough for me to kill it." I should have said that circumstances should be met by the Code of the God of the paladin before killing can take place. As another poster asked "what if the alignment was changed magically?" Then I believe that the killing would be unjustified in the eyes of the paladin's God and proper punishment would be in order. In the world of D&D, just because it looks like a duck and walks like a duck does not mean it is a duck.
Davith Bothain 11-05-06, 08:55 PM	Apparently what people get hung up on in regards to alignment in D&D that it is either subjective or objective. Since the rules are quite vague in regards to this, it is easy to see it as being one or the other. A third thought is supported by RAW, however: it is both. Just as in real life, we honestly have no idea what is truly right and what is truly wrong. We have only our own gut feelings and senses of morality as shaped by our myriad life experiences and cultural upbringings. Even though he doesn't truly know he is doing good, that Lawful Good paladin does his best to be a beacon of justice and right, and a great multitude of others around would agree. If it were just this alone, everything would be fine aside from the fact that players would go around wanting to create goblin assassins butchering dwarven housewives because it acts in the greater good as determined by his personal moral compass. Here's where the objective part comes in. In the D&D multiverse, there are spells that detect the moral and ethical alignment(s) of an individual, areas which bar entry to individuals who have "good" or "evil" on their character sheets, and entire planes of existence which align themselves along these lines. There is a definite good and evil within the multiverse, and it's an elemental force. Everything in plane 'a' is most definitely Good while everything in plane 'b' is certainly Evil. Whatever the reasons behind the lack of official definition behind what is 'Good' and what is 'Evil' (likely so as not to offend by publishing a definite moral code unto individuals of a plethora of faiths and belief systems, but I have no real wish to speculate), the truth behind it all is up to the DM. You may not like his or her view on morality and may try to strongarm him or her into altering things to better fit yours, but, ultimately, good and evil (and, for that matter, law and chaos) are to be determined by the players and it needs to stay that way no matter what your characters may think. So while your paladin may consider himself to be the definition of Lawful Good, he may, in fact, be the multiiverse's definition of Chaotic Evil. Personal code aside, the forces of the cosmos are not going to take lightly to this horrible perversion and will revoke his supernatural abilities at the soonest possible opportunity (meaning immediately). So, in the end, your character can think himself however he'd like: maybe killing kittens is, for some reason, the ultimate good, but your average goodly cleric would still think such an act abominable. If the multiversal alignment matches your own, great. If not, then you might want to change, but, in all likelihood, you'll probably want to stay "wrong". And this is why I cannot live with supernatural abilities depending upon adherence to a personal code. And while we could spend hours debating upon the possible reasons why WotC designed the alignment system this way, there really is no point. Because, just like in real life, the intention behind things does not matter unless you actually care about it. I, for one, don't honestly think too much about the learned views of the designers and playtesters of the game: if they keep churning out material vaguely relevant to the style of play I wish to adopt, I continue to buy their products. Otherwise, I think I'll allow my imagination to branch out into the mechanical portion of play (not something at which I'm horribly proficient, but neither absolutely terrible).
thought_riot 11-05-06, 09:29 PM	I realize that some of the stuff in this post is a few days old, but I'm reading the thread from first to last and making this post as I go along. I'm simply gathering my thoughts from the first post to the last, so I realize that some things I say, as well as some things I reply to, may have already been said. Exactly. A 1 is always a fumble. Why don't they have a fumble confirm roll or something? No doubt. Why don't they have a fumble confirmation roll? or a save confirmation roll? I'm surprised they don't require confirmation for rolling max damage. "Critical fumbles" are completely optional. "Critical hits" are not. A natural 1 is always a miss, a natural 20 is always a hit, with the possiblity of a critical hit. You don't have to confirm to make sure it's a hit - it's already a hit - you have to confirm that it is indeed a more powerful hit. On a roll of a 1, it's an automatic miss. Most "critical fumble" rules that I've seen include a confirmation roll. However, by the book, critical fumbles are optional. Absolutely. When the dice are rolled the result is apparent. Saying that it isn't apparent is not logical. You don't have to be Mr Spock to deduce that one. Yes. The result is apparent. A natural 20 is an automatic hit! That's pretty damn apparent to me. I don't nerf anything. Except the critical confirmation rules! In point of fact I don't really play much D&D at all these days. I prefer to run Call of Cthulhu single shot adventures. But when we do play D&D we use a kind of eclectic rule set that spans all the various incarnations of the game. We take what we want, and leave the rest. Just like a salad bar. Correct me if I'm wrong. The definition of "nerf" is to "do away with" or "make bad" or something along those lines. You're basically nerfing the rules you want to nerf, and not nerfing the rules you don't want to nerf. That isn't bad, it's how you play, but you're a hypocrite for saying "I don't nerf anything" in that case. Look, it's not about in game power mechanics. It's about the dice. My ultimate position is this: Any rule that requires more dice rolling is bad. If a 19 is a crit for the weapon in play, and the dice show 19 or better then it's a crit. Why roll more dice? Balance issues, etc. Of course. Even a rusted, blunted, hundred year old pitchfork in the hands of a commoner (read: zero lvl fighter) deals out x2 on a 20. That's not what he said. He's asking if you've made the 19-20/x2 weapons 20/x2, or the 20/x3 weapons 20/x2, etc. You've answered that already though - you don't because you don't nerf anything (except the things you want to nerf). Massive damage doesn't work right at all, a weak little commoner can never die of massive damage, and a hardy powerful fighter gets taken out with one decent shot. That's probably because one simple swing of a sword can knock the commoner dead. In real life when you take "massive damage" you go into shock, which without treatment you could possibly die. If you take massive damage you should make a fort save and instead of more damage you are stunned, dazed, unconsious, or make up a new status for shock specifically. Well, in real life, I'd say when you take massive damage, you die. For example, if you fall off the top of a skyscraper, you're going to die, because you've taken the D&D equivalent of "massive damage." Surely you're not proposing that a human being can fall from a height such as that and merely go into shock...So, I'd say you should take each situation on it's own merit. A dragon swiping at a fighter may cause your house rule massive damage to go into effect, while the same fighter falling 3,000 feet should use the by-the-book massive damage. Well, yeah. My problem is that 200hp character cannot die from a fall, or being totally immersed in acid. Even lava will take a few rounds to kill him. It's just stupid IMO. The 200hp character can die from a fall - a large enough fall. By the time you have 200hp, your character isn't a regular human being. He's an epic hero of sorts. He does things ordinary humans cannot do. Also, a real life human probably won't die instantly in lava either. "A few rounds" is merely a few seconds, so that makes perfect sense. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CRITICAL FUMBLE. Yes, there is. However, it's an optional rule. Str and Dex adding to attack bonuses. If I can juggle 100 objects, why would that make me better at firing a bow? So I can bench 1000 lbs, why would that make it easier for me to hit something? I agree that when I did hit the damage would be greater, but not easier to hit. Well, you can fail to beat an enemy's armor class and your sword could still make contact with him, he was just able to shrug it off easily, or your blow just didn't have enough strength behind it. That's why Strength is used for attack bonuses. As for Dexterity, you can make a better case for that. However, it probably has to do with a character with a higher Dexterity can steady himself better and thus make a more accurate shot. I see no reference to Spell Resistance in your post. See: SR.... it needs to be reworked... You got a 1 on your ref save, i rolled 60 damage ,you fire resist 10, you have 30 hp left and your still standing how....?!?!?
angryman 11-05-06, 09:29 PM	It just makes me laugh that you brag about your english major then go on to use the phrase "doo doo heads". I also have an english-philosophy double major and I am not impressed by such claims, fallacious or otherwise. I spent most of my university years drinking beer in the wonderful university beer garden, and still managed to pull an "A" average. Either beer makes me smart or the course was easy.
PHGraves 11-05-06, 09:54 PM	As to NLD: I once tried to do NLD when shooting someone with an M4 in the Stargate game. Nothing in the rules said I couldn't. As to wizards that cannot heal: Sure you can, you just need the Complete Divine handbook and have the exact same alignment as the deity with the Healing domain that you worship. Feat - Arcane Disciple (Healing) Feat - Spontaneous Healer You can do this at 1st level.
Red12 11-05-06, 09:54 PM	I also have an english-philosophy double major and I am not impressed by such claims, fallacious or otherwise. I spent most of my university years drinking beer in the wonderful university beer garden, and still managed to pull an "A" average. Either beer makes me smart or the course was easy. Now if you had read the actual post, you would realize I was just mildly insulted that it was suggested after 5 years of hard work (currently attaining Masters) I would not understand one of the most basic of things in my field of study. Congradulations that you had an easy time. Thanks for wasting everyones' time and causing me to respond, wasting more time.
narukagami 11-05-06, 09:59 PM	Thanks for wasting everyones' time and causing me to respond, wasting more time. "Waste of time" That sort of sums up the entire direction this derailed thread has taken. Its a shame no one can type the "A" word without this forum gearing up for war. :rolleyes: And yet, I do nothing but cause further damage by pointing out the damage done! Oh the delicious irony!
syrinth 11-05-06, 10:10 PM	*Is so going to regret this* Okay people, lets step away from the ceremonial circle of Firestorm summoning while it's still going through the gateway and all cast Greater Dispel magic while we have the chance. :P Another thing that's always bothered me is Natural Spell. Of course, I just delete the feat but I still dislike it's existence.
revnk 11-05-06, 10:28 PM	justdmjeff, I apologize if you took offense at my post. 'T'wasn't my intention to cause offense. thought_riot, while it's true that a fall of 90' or more might trigger a massive damage Fort save if 50+ points of damage are done, the maximum damage a fall can do (20d6 for a maximum 120 points of damage) is far less than a 200 hp character needs to worry about. In prior versions of D&D there wasn't a massive damage rule, hence a very old joke about 10th level fighters having rubber bottoms. In those old days, it wasn't unusual for fighters of a certain level to simply jump off cliffs instead of bothering to attempt a climb. Davith Bothain, great post.
Vanulf 11-05-06, 10:45 PM	It's a Darwinian concept: Alcohol kills off the slow, weak brain cells. Thereby making the whole brain smarter. Simple survival of the fittest.
angryman 11-05-06, 10:52 PM	Now if you had read the actual post, you would realize I was just mildly insulted that it was suggested after 5 years of hard work (currently attaining Masters) I would not understand one of the most basic of things in my field of study. Congradulations that you had an easy time. Thanks for wasting everyones' time and causing me to respond, wasting more time. 5 years of hard work and you can't spell congratulations. Sorry, I just had to. :D And to Vanulf, Your theory checks out. I will therefore drink *more* beer to improve my mental capacity. :cheers:
Vanulf 11-05-06, 11:05 PM	I looked in my books and could not find anything to disagree with you. But I have this nagging feeling that there is a rule out there somewhere that when the nonlethal takes you to unconscious any subsequent damage is lethal. I believe NLD from enviromental sources (Heat in the desert, Cold in the arctic, Etc...) as well as suffocation and starvation will eventually be turned into lethal damage when you fall unconscious.
Vanulf 11-05-06, 11:06 PM	Thank you, Angryman That's how I won on Jeopardy!
SnowSage 11-05-06, 11:19 PM	I really wanted to stay out of the alignment subthread, but I have to point out that "law" and "chaos" in alignment reference the heirarchical forces holding the cosmos together versus the inchoate forces impeling it towards entropy: it might have been clearer if they had used "axiomatic" and "anarchic" or similar words back in the 1970s, but Gygax had been reading Michael Moorcock and Elric serves/commands/opposes the Gods of Chaos. (The Warhammer universe borrows quite a bit of flavor from Moorcock's cosmology--reading their treatment of chaos might help with context if you don't have time to pick up any of the Elric books. The Elric books themselves are fantasy classics, heavily influenced D&D, are fun quick reads, and have recently been republished in affordable compilation volumes--something to run out and buy/borrow or add to your Christmas lists!) I know that's probably as clear as mud, justdmjeff, but the reason it's important is that a paladin dealing with an evil (or chaotic) society would not be obliged to follow their laws if they conflicted with his Code, his deity or his alignment--he might even be obliged to struggle against those laws. Examples might include a society with legal slavery, a society with a rigid caste system that allows higher-caste people to oppress and torture low-castes at whim, a society that recognizes no law but that money or might make right, etc. A paladin is not required to tolerate injustice merely because a king decreed it! Good gaming! Although your examples are prime examples of times when a paladin would go against the law, he would still consider the circumstances first, while my favorate variant ever, the paladin of freedom, would recklessly charge at the first slaveowner he saw and say to hell with the laws... I've said it before and I'll say it again: Lawful good is more consistantly good, but Chaotic good has the most potential for good
SnowSage 11-05-06, 11:23 PM	and also, about the massive damage, granted, I have only read about 2/3 of this thread, but I would like to ask why there isn't a rule about taking the massive trauma penalties when you get dealt a certain percentage of your hit points in one strike... this would make lower levels even more challenging, but would make higher levels even more fun.
mephistophelesatefaust 11-06-06, 02:47 AM	Re: Wing attacks. - Ever seen those upward Kung-Fu strikes using the hard part of the wrist? A wing is basically a short arm with super long, webbed fingers (look at any bird or bat skeleton). So a wrist-strike is theoretically possible. That attack, by the way, is referred to as a "ridge hand," at least in kenpo. It is not a very powerful attack, and is used primarily when another weapon cannot easily be brought to bear (sp?). That being said, it should be pointed out that the equivalent anatomical point on the dragon is located near the juncture of the wing and the shoulder, thus making it nigh-impossible to effectively deliver such a strike. Additionally, the targets for the ridge hand are all precise, structurally weak points, due to the relatively high probability that one will miscalculate and strike with the weak carpal bones of the wrist (which, I will add, hurts like hell). So massive a creature would likely be incapable of delivering such a subtle blow. ...Sorry, probably reading waaaay too far into this... Carry on, then.
Zaner 11-06-06, 02:56 AM	Heh, yeah. What do you need to auto-hit that now? Let's assume a halfling monk (because they amuse me) with full 20 Dex. Takes Skill Focus (Tumble) and...Acrobatic? Probably not, but whichever gets it a +2 to Tumble. So that's +10 right there. You could auto-succeed on tumble from level 2 on if you either use flaws or are a Strongheart Halfling. That's fun. I need to make a tumbling halfling monk now. isnt that why they have botches? (roll of 1)
KurenaiYami 11-06-06, 03:10 AM	isnt that why they have botches? (roll of 1) Uh...Tumble is a skill check. Natural ones are only autofail on Attacks and Saves.
Zaner 11-06-06, 03:16 AM	Uh...Tumble is a skill check. Natural ones are only autofail on Attacks and Saves. really wow ill tell my DM that
High Octane 11-06-06, 03:57 AM	really wow ill tell my DM that Dont tell him though until one of your characters rolls a 1on his skill check and he thinks of a horrible elaborate thing to happen to your character, then shatter his dreams with that rule. It makes them cry.
KurenaiYami 11-06-06, 04:25 AM	Dont tell him though until one of your characters rolls a 1on his skill check and he thinks of a horrible elaborate thing to happen to your character, then shatter his dreams with that rule. It makes them cry. Second. Though it does run the risk of the DM just going "screw that, I house rule that it still fails!" But, IMO, 'tis worth the gamble.
thought_riot 11-06-06, 07:25 AM	Your DM may already know that it's not a core rule. He may have just house ruled it (which is common) without clarifying that it's a house rule.
JadeReaver 11-06-06, 09:45 AM	Disclaimer: These are rules I do not like, therefore, my opinion and not an attempt to alter the universal laws of RAW, thus angering various indescribable godlike beings who would then smite me out of existence . . . Much of this has been said before, but I wholeheartedly agree . . . -Death by massive damage: I don't use it, because it seems redundant to me. I feel massive damage is relative to the character, as shown in his hit points. To a first level commoner, a greatsword swipe is massive damage. To a high level character, that same swipe is not nearly so deadly, not because the sword bounces off of his mighty high-level skull, but because his skill, luck, and heroic nature allow for the effect that such a swipe never really gets a solid hit on him . . . well, at least the first several or more. -The fact that the system is built on the need to have magic items to be competitive for a character of your level, which just ends up boning the non-casters more than anyone else. -AC doesn't increase by character level, unless your a Monk . . .or something Monk-like, and the Unearthed Arcana option seems to be too much of a jump in the opposite direction. -Fighters having no real class "abilities" of their own. -Druids wildshaping into dinosaurs makes me a sad DM. (I've house ruled that dinsaurs are aberrations and Dire Animals are magical beasts-- helps a little bit), but like the option offered for Druids in the PH2 -The whole Divine/Arcane magic separation, which seems to be a joke anymore, since every new splatbook that comes out seems to take a big dump on that distinction anyway. -Prestige classes-- never really liked the idea. I would rather several hundred base classes, than a single prestige class. -Rogue evasion being used in a locked 10' x10' room even though there's no where to go when that fireball goes off. It just goes beyond my ability to suspend disbelief. -Grappling: I can say little more than I dislike it with a passion as is. Probably because I had a player that abused it like a red-headed step child. -Weapon damage increases by size-they seem a bit too high for me.
Sereno 11-06-06, 09:52 AM	no, i undestand that, but a skilled opponent knows(and can exploit) smaller flaws and openings, and even force people to expose them. the 20th level fighter would know exactly where to hit, how to STOP THE MOTION, force a misstep, anything. a 15 is something that is difficult, but not too difficult for average joe (i know its trained only, but focus on the number). If that were the case, though, high BAB should mean more in terms of AoO for any reason ... not just the tumbling rogue. But, BAB doesn't mean anything as far as taking advantage of AoOs, at all. Just because someone is better at striking fast and hard, doesn't mean that they are gaining the ability to make AoO's against combatants who ARE trained to avoid them. i find it appauling that a level 2 rogue knows how to cover every spot on their body, leave nothing exposed, and dance between the blades perfectly. It's not "every spot" ... it's just the important ones when moving through a threatened area. After all, it's not like the fighter can't target the rogue on his turn and full attack the guy ... it's just the rogue dodging *one* AoO!
Sulaco 11-06-06, 12:07 PM	So you always have your paladin hold off his action until the opponent is no longer flat-footed? No, why would I? What a silly question.
Sulaco 11-06-06, 12:08 PM	Okay, i'm wrong, dirty tactics are always evil. I guess I had this silly notion that destroying evil was more important than making sure evil had a fair chance to kick goods ass. Then why are you suggestiong something ludicrous like a paladin holding off his attack until his opponent is no longer flat-footed? :confused:
Sulaco 11-06-06, 12:32 PM	Wing attacks. I will not accept wing attacks. They make no sense to me and I will not accept them. How can a membrane hurt you? Is there a lot of wing-induced wind or something? It's not the membrane, it is the bones thicker than a man's torso hitting you driven by flight muscles bigger than your entire body.
Sim_antix 11-06-06, 12:41 PM	Thats just it people, I don't have alignment so there is no way that any of these scenarios will come up. Only by knowing a persons actions will you be able to determine if they are "good" or "evil" (except in extreme cases as noted in an earlier post)
justdmjeff 11-06-06, 12:52 PM	Thats just it people, I don't have alignment so there is no way that any of these scenarios will come up. Only by knowing a persons actions will you be able to determine if they are "good" or "evil" (except in extreme cases as noted in an earlier post) Just a question then. How does your motivation get determined? In my games alignment plays more of a role in determining motivation of the characters than anything else. In other words the DM is not going to use a burning orphanage as a motivating factor if all the characters are chaotic neutral.
StormKnight 11-06-06, 02:04 PM	and say.. hit a 3hp kobold with the flat of a sword, doing critical NLD, and get say.. 33 hps of NLD on the creature..but it doesn't die (despite the fact that you clunked it so hard it would have been paste) This always strikes me as a poor comprehension of hit points and the combat system. If you have gotten a critical and done 33 points of NLD, you haven't "hit it so hard it would be paste", you have hit it precisely right to knock it out very effectively. This might, in fact, be a fairly light strike in a vital nerve point. (A 50 point NLD critical? Holy cow, you just pulled off the Vucan nerve pinch!) (If one wants a chance of accidentally causing lethal damage on a NLD attack, I think that's fine, but it should be on a poor or barely missed attck roll, certainly not on a critical). Well, in real life, I'd say when you take massive damage, you die. For example, if you fall off the top of a skyscraper, you're going to die, because you've taken the D&D equivalent of "massive damage." Surely you're not proposing that a human being can fall from a height such as that and merely go into shock... If you take 50+ damage in real life, you do in fact die, seeing as no "real" person has nearly 50 HP. Real people have, in fact, survived falls from such altitudes, however. If a giant steps on you, it steps on you, end of story. This is another HP fallacy. If a giant attacks you and you still have 50 HP left, obviously the giant DIDN'T manage to stomp you into the ground. Maybe it kicked you with its toe, and grazed you and knocked you flying, or you rolled out of the way and slammed into a big rock. The description of "the giant steps on you" should be used after the attack and damage roll makes it logical that the giant did, in fact, step on you. However, this all blows up based on the fantasy reality at some point. Who says that, in fact, a Warforged cannot in fact, get stepped on by a giant and keep working?
calvinNhobbes 11-06-06, 02:17 PM	Rogue evasion being used in a locked 10' x10' room even though there's no where to go when that fireball goes off. It just goes beyond my ability to suspend disbelief. I've always envisioned magic to be much less predictable. I mean if a fireball really filled every square inch of the effected area then why should anyone get a reflex save at all? I always describe a fireball exploding and sending fire jets off in random directions, sort of like a firework. If you are lucky or extraordinarily quick you can dodge it.
JadeReaver 11-06-06, 02:28 PM	I've always envisioned magic to be much less predictable. I mean if a fireball really filled every square inch of the effected area then why should anyone get a reflex save at all? I always describe a fireball exploding and sending fire jets off in random directions, sort of like a firework. If you are lucky or extraordinarily quick you can dodge it. That's an interesting way to look at it *shrugs*. Hey, if it works for you, and your group is all kosher with it, who am I to argue? As far as the reflex save, I envisioned it more as covering up, and leaving less surface area of your character directly exposed, thus reducing some of the damage, not necessarily getting out of the way, despite it being all around you (for a brief instant of time, I might add)
FeceMan 11-06-06, 02:54 PM	Dont tell him though until one of your characters rolls a 1on his skill check and he thinks of a horrible elaborate thing to happen to your character, then shatter his dreams with that rule. It makes them cry. He'll just say, "It's a houserule."
calvinNhobbes 11-06-06, 02:59 PM	As far as the reflex save, I envisioned it more as covering up, and leaving less surface area of your character directly exposed, thus reducing some of the damage, not necessarily getting out of the way, despite it being all around you (for a brief instant of time, I might add) Yah, I used to think of it that way as well, but as you've already said yourself that description doesn't really explain everything. It's much easier to modify how magic is viewed (since it has no real world counterpart) than try and explain that despite the fact the entire room was filled to flames you are not hurt at all. I don't change the mechanics, just the fluff.
Thubby 11-06-06, 03:03 PM	and also, about the massive damage, granted, I have only read about 2/3 of this thread, but I would like to ask why there isn't a rule about taking the massive trauma penalties when you get dealt a certain percentage of your hit points in one strike... this would make lower levels even more challenging, but would make higher levels even more fun. its called clobbered, its an optional rule in the dmg :)
Sim_antix 11-06-06, 03:23 PM	Just a question then. How does your motivation get determined? In my games alignment plays more of a role in determining motivation of the characters than anything else. In other words the DM is not going to use a burning orphanage as a motivating factor if all the characters are chaotic neutral. I talk to my players and find out what their characters motivations are. If someone tells me they want to play the ultimate thief then I don't need a descriptor like chaotic to tell me they plan on breaking the law.
Kursk 11-06-06, 03:36 PM	Death from massive damage. Flatfooted because init. No AoO on touch attacks spells. Those are the 3 I've nixed from the beginning.
JadeReaver 11-06-06, 03:38 PM	Yah, I used to think of it that way as well, but as you've already said yourself that description doesn't really explain everything. It's much easier to modify how magic is viewed (since it has no real world counterpart) than try and explain that despite the fact the entire room was filled to flames you are not hurt at all. I don't change the mechanics, just the fluff. Er, well, I didn't really say that the description didn't explain everything, though I suppose one could read that interpretation. Any description is likely to be lacking on some detail, so that seems kinda moot. But again, we're talking about rules we don't like here, and while I have no problem with the "fireworks" view of fireball explodination, I don't see it that way. Granted, you've been cool in explaining your reasons for doing things the way you do (and your disagreements with my approach) without being an ass about it (which is more than some board members here can manage), and that's fine and much appreciated. However, I don't buy it for my own game. And I have had no complaints about it.
calvinNhobbes 11-06-06, 04:02 PM	Er, well, I didn't really say that the description didn't explain everything, though I suppose one could read that interpretation. Any description is likely to be lacking on some detail, so that seems kinda moot. But again, we're talking about rules we don't like here, and while I have no problem with the "fireworks" view of fireball explodination, I don't see it that way. Granted, you've been cool in explaining your reasons for doing things the way you do (and your disagreements with my approach) without being an ass about it (which is more than some board members here can manage), and that's fine and much appreciated. However, I don't buy it for my own game. And I have had no complaints about it. Well, by saying you didn't like evasion working in a locked 10x10 room with a fireball I just assumed that interpretation. Instead of making a houserule to say evasion doesn't work in a locked 10x10 room with a fireball, I decided to try and form a logical explanation on how it could work, hence the "fireworks" fireball. I think a houserule in this situation is completely fine and makes sense, but like I said I to avoid changing the mechanics of an ability to fit the "reality" of magic. Hey, but it's all about fun anyway, so to each their own. The most important thing in this discussion is whether you are the one firing the fireball or trying to dodge it. :eek: I like rogues, let me guess you are a wizard fan? :)
thought_riot 11-06-06, 04:12 PM	Just a question then. How does your motivation get determined? In my games alignment plays more of a role in determining motivation of the characters than anything else. In other words the DM is not going to use a burning orphanage as a motivating factor if all the characters are chaotic neutral. I suppose that can be taken care of by knowing the personality of your players. You don't need an in-game element such as alignment to tell you what sorts of things motivate the characters. Prior to a campaign, you can talk at the table about what sorts of stuff motivates them. Do they like to help people? Are they in it only for the treasure and money? Do they seek fame? etc.
SnowSage 11-06-06, 04:20 PM	Hey, but it's all about fun anyway, so to each their own. The most important thing in this discussion is whether you are the one firing the fireball or trying to dodge it. ........Or both... but let's not go into that story... :weep: :weep:
SnowSage 11-06-06, 04:22 PM	I suppose that can be taken care of by knowing the personality of your players. You don't need an in-game element such as alignment to tell you what sorts of things motivate the characters. Prior to a campaign, you can talk at the table about what sorts of stuff motivates them. Do they like to help people? Are they in it only for the treasure and money? Do they seek fame? etc. This is true with some people, however, others, like me, are more chaotic in their roleplaying... I keep to charracter for the most part, however, my charracter's personality, and what I plan to do with him changes every week or so... he is still the same person, but he changes, as do real people... so one day be may want to uphold the law above all else, and the next meeting he wants to overthrow the government in the name of the rights of the people... {Had it happen once.}
clarkvalentine 11-06-06, 04:42 PM	Just a question then. How does your motivation get determined? Same way it does in the majority of RPGs that don't have alignment - present an interesting challenge in which your characters have a personal stake, then stand back to watch how they solve it.
justdmjeff 11-06-06, 04:52 PM	I suppose that can be taken care of by knowing the personality of your players. You don't need an in-game element such as alignment to tell you what sorts of things motivate the characters. Prior to a campaign, you can talk at the table about what sorts of stuff motivates them. Do they like to help people? Are they in it only for the treasure and money? Do they seek fame? etc. I agree with Snowsage. People do not always play a character that parallels their own personality. Especially teenagers. I guess if you play with an experienced group of people you do not need to use alignment. They are mature enough to stay true to the character they have created. But from my experience of DMing my two teenage sons, I need that information to keep them in line. If you are a thief and CG, robbing from the rich to give to the poor is fine, but killing the rich while they sleep is not.
justdmjeff 11-06-06, 04:54 PM	Same way it does in the majority of RPGs that don't have alignment - present an interesting challenge in which your characters have a personal stake, then stand back to watch how they solve it. Sorry, I never have played another RPG.
EscherEnigma 11-06-06, 08:57 PM	RAW that annoy: Grappling: If theres a substantial difference between teh grapplers theres almost no chance of success. and if that creature (which is supposedly a fair CR for your level) has that much of a better grapple... then you probably won't escape and you'll probably explode. Case in point: Annis Hag. Perform: bards having to spend 1/3 of their skill points to be good at more then one kind of performance. Sing AND dance? apparently it's overpowered. And just forget being able to sing, dance, and play an instrument if you want to be able to have lots of useful other skills. Knowledge DCs: To recognize a monster the knowledge check is 10 + HD. So... most people can recognize the rare but harmless black albino butterfly that only comes to this part of the woods once every thousand years, but if you want to know what that big red scaly thing that just ate your house and toasted your church is... nope. no clue. Favored Soul: Ok, maybe it's just me, but the raw say that they use charisma for bonus spells/day and how high level spells they cast, but wisdom for the save DCs?! talk about weird. Elves, dwarves, half-orcs and half-elves: So dwarves get a great ability boost for a penalty to what most consider a dump stat, darkvision, a crapload of random skill boosts, random bonuses vs. common enemies, stonecunning, etc. etc., elves get free weapon profs, immunity to various things, free searching for secret doors, and other stuff, and half-orcs get... +2 str for -2 int and -2 cha? oh, and darkvision. and... not much else. Half-elves get... half the skill boosts as elves and not much else. Yay for racial balance.
Phantem2 11-06-06, 09:20 PM	I agree that half-orcs and half-elves suck something fierce compared to an elf or a dwarf. As far as alignment is concerned i usually have my players come up with some kind of supreme goal and there alignments reflects how they intend to achieve that goal as well as what that goal is. After all, the players are special individuals with greater skills than the average person and this is due to a strong motavation towards some goal. You dont spend hours studying books of magic to do nothing, you do it for something like spreading an undead plague onto the entire world, that is worth hours of study, (I'm a colledge student, i dont study things if there is'nt a reason to do it) i'm not too concerned about massive damage because by the time you can do that much dmg you can make the save. Jumping everywhere is a lot of fun, if not practical. I find the rules for natural wpns vs manufactured wpns a bit confusing as well as the feats for natural wpns, the rules ar'nt bad, but it could be done better, at least i think so. P.S. Sorry for any misspelled words I am an engineering major not an english major.
thought_riot 11-06-06, 09:30 PM	People do not always play a character that parallels their own personality. I guess I was misinterpreted. Every campaign, a player could want something else. One campaign, he might want to be motivated by money, while another he might want to use the destruction of evil as his motivation. You don't need alignment to tell you what motivates your character. You can choose that yourself. Especially teenagers. I guess if you play with an experienced group of people you do not need to use alignment. I'm a teenager myself (17), and my playgroup is between the ages of 15 and 18. We do write down a character's alignment on the character sheets, but it rarely comes into play outside of protection/detection/ and stuff like that.
clarkvalentine 11-06-06, 09:38 PM	Sorry, I never have played another RPG. Well, the long and short of it is that a player generally doesn't need alignment to find motivation. Like I suggested, just present them a conflict in which their character has a personal stake, and let them have at it.
Eled_the_Worm_Tamer 11-07-06, 02:59 PM	Skill Synery: Great idea, poor execution. Only matters at level 2, giving a huge leap to certain skills, and then never again, Id have preffered a +x to first skill for every Y ranks in senond skill, rewarding dedication, not taking 5 ranks for the Synergy bonus and abandoning skills as soon as yu pass lv 2.
Sim_antix 11-07-06, 03:21 PM	I agree with Snowsage. People do not always play a character that parallels their own personality. Especially teenagers. I guess if you play with an experienced group of people you do not need to use alignment. They are mature enough to stay true to the character they have created. But from my experience of DMing my two teenage sons, I need that information to keep them in line. If you are a thief and CG, robbing from the rich to give to the poor is fine, but killing the rich while they sleep is not. That is why I don't have alignment. The players can have their characters do whatever they want. If they all of a sudden developed a muderous instinct and now have little regard for life then I will take note of it. I already had it happen with my GFs Halfling Rogue. She was technically "supposed" to be good, but then when a bar brawl errupted and the Barbarian that was travelling with them was losing, she didn't even hesitate and just drew her dagger and gutted the man attacking him. Now she is going to become a Shadow Blade and have lots of fun being a little more evil than originally planned.
Sim_antix 11-07-06, 03:22 PM	Skill Synery: Great idea, poor execution. Only matters at level 2, giving a huge leap to certain skills, and then never again, Id have preffered a +x to first skill for every Y ranks in senond skill, rewarding dedication, not taking 5 ranks for the Synergy bonus and abandoning skills as soon as yu pass lv 2. House Rule In my campaign synergies give a +1 synergy bonus for every 5 ranks in a synergistic skill.
Nelagend 11-07-06, 03:33 PM	The OP's rules they can't accept seem perfectly reasonable to me, but I view physics as being warped in the D&D universe. Charge attacks to me look rather like Charge from WoW, and are almost instantaneous. The two that really get my gourd are advanced weapon pricing and skeleton damage reduction. If an adamantine battleaxe costs barely more than an adamantine dagger, anyone who gets a battleaxe as loot will want to melt it down and make daggers to quadruple their profits - and this is including the cost of their crafting! I always, ALWAYS use half or less of the the cost of the masterwork or special material price plus some multiple of the base item's price. This way, there's some reality to the relative costs of different weapons, and some reason to why adamantine versions of the cheaper weapons exist at all. Under book rules, they're never cost-effective. And skeletons having DR 5 instead of 50% is just bogus. That was put in the game to help players who... can't divide by 2? That's basic arithmetic. If you think about the physics of the situation, you're hitting less target area and the damage would be reduced by a percentage rather than negated. It leads to fighters screaming in frustration at level 1 and throwing out the morningstar by level 6, as Weapon Specialization and extra plusses on the main sword make it the better choice.
bruiserdeck 11-07-06, 03:41 PM	Charge attacks to me look rather like Charge from WoW, and are almost instantaneous. LOL i always have tht immage when some one does a charge also. but that immage does not effect how I view the mechanics. I have another post that mentinos the funny economy of D&D. where 4 pounds of mithral make 20 pounds mithral chain armor. the skels... I see where your coming from. buut i always looked at it as having to do with hardness. but now that you spell it out.. yea. 50% sounds like a better idea.
DarknessEternal 11-07-06, 05:40 PM	That is why I don't have alignment. Everything you wrote suggests that you mistakenly view alignment as dictating how PCs act. In fact, it is the other way around. PCs can act however they want, whenever they want. It is their actions that dictate their alignments. Alignment chosen by the player is merely supposed to be helpful information to the DM about how your character is going to view morality. It's a simple way to flesh out a personality.
bruiserdeck 11-07-06, 09:13 PM	I totaly agree
Kobold_Avenger 11-07-06, 10:34 PM	Perhaps i wasn't very clear on what i meant regarding the Spell Resist.. I meant that something like a fireball that creates a blast of fire does no damage to something that's SR is higher than the caster level check of the caster even when it failed it's save and the damage should be enough to kill it. It's like a 1 HP drow thats bound head and foot(thus cant make ref save) takes no damage, when a 20HP giant who makes it's save dies.
WhiteRaven810 11-07-06, 11:02 PM	Wizard's using scrolls to scribe new spells in their spellbooks. It's incredibly cheaper and illogical. You have this tiny peice of paper with a handful of chicken scratches, yet you can sit down and fill in nine pages of your spellbook with the ability to cast Wish.
thought_riot 11-07-06, 11:50 PM	Perhaps i wasn't very clear on what i meant regarding the Spell Resist.. I meant that something like a fireball that creates a blast of fire does no damage to something that's SR is higher than the caster level check of the caster even when it failed it's save and the damage should be enough to kill it. It's like a 1 HP drow thats bound head and foot(thus cant make ref save) takes no damage, when a 20HP giant who makes it's save dies. But...that does make perfect sense. Things with spell resistance are naturally resistant to magic. Therefore, there's a chance your spells fail to affect them. I don't see the problem.
Sim_antix 11-08-06, 01:36 PM	Everything you wrote suggests that you mistakenly view alignment as dictating how PCs act. In fact, it is the other way around. PCs can act however they want, whenever they want. It is their actions that dictate their alignments. Alignment chosen by the player is merely supposed to be helpful information to the DM about how your character is going to view morality. It's a simple way to flesh out a personality. Nothing about alignment is simple. I know alignment doesn't dictate how a character must act but it also creates the work of having to determine whether they are following that alignment or not. Also I got sick of seeing CN written down 95% of the time.
thought_riot 11-08-06, 03:48 PM	Also I got sick of seeing CN written down 95% of the time. Heh. That used to be the default alignment of my group, but it's since lost the Chaotic and most of my players now usually just put N.
Morrowner 11-08-06, 04:59 PM	Ah, Chaotic Dick. That alignment can be a handful.:eek:
narukagami 11-08-06, 05:00 PM	I've honestly never been a fan of alignment as presented in D&D. It got to the point I let one of my players get away with just writing down "Goodish".
EscherEnigma 11-08-06, 06:38 PM	Heh. While my group does normally put down one of the actual alignments, common jokes include "Lawful stupid" "Evil *******" "Chaotic Jerk" "True Apathy" and other assorted ones. Oh, and "Neutral Lead Sheet."
revnk 11-08-06, 08:34 PM	I've honestly never been a fan of alignment as presented in D&D. It got to the point I let one of my players get away with just writing down "Goodish". I may have to "borrow" that one....:)
Cosmoknight 11-08-06, 08:37 PM	Get rid of spot and listen, replace them with Notice. If you are trying to identify something by eating it would you need a Taste skill as well? Notice rolls them all up nicely and by all means make them a class skill for everyone. As to skills make all classes at least 4 skill points. All spells should have some save to them, make it harder but still give a save. Something like touch of idiocy really should have some save against it other than SR.
thought_riot 11-08-06, 10:04 PM	Get rid of spot and listen, replace them with Notice. If you are trying to identify something by eating it would you need a Taste skill as well? Notice rolls them all up nicely and by all means make them a class skill for everyone. Uh...tasting doesn't require skill because...well...you automatically taste things. Spot and Listen are for things that aren't obvious. You don't need to make Listen checks to hear your ally talk. You need to make Listen checks to hear that rogue creeping up behind you. You don't need to make Spot checks to see your writing utensil on your desk. You need to make spot checks to notice that bird flying off in the distance. See the difference? Spot and Listen are for noticing things that aren't always noticeable - things that some people will miss (failed checks), and things that others will see (successful checks). As to skills make all classes at least 4 skill points. Why?
bruiserdeck 11-08-06, 10:43 PM	I think what cosmo knight is trying to get at is why split the skill between spot and listen when one skill can cover both. and i think its a good idea. what about smell for example? no skill for that, but one should be able to notice the silent arival of zombies. (just an example) Not everything in D&D is specific. a bowyer/fletcher is assumed to have enough blacksmithing skills to make arrow heads for example. a thing like "notice" would work well especially in a game that does not generaly take facing into account. "Notice" would be opposed by the compound skill "sneak" thus a person trying to hide or otherwise avoid detection would use the sneak skill and this assumes the character is taking all sences into account, hiding, moving silently, attempting to mask his/her scent, and avoid leaving tracks. while a person using the "notice" skill would represent a person paying carefull attention to the clues his provide him such as sounds, smells, and things that dont look quite right. this would of course effect players like rangers/rogues/ninja/scout greatly.. my human ranger gets 7 skill points per level. every level I use 4 of them on hide, move silently, spot, and listen. for those who think 6 or 7 skills per level are too much I guess they would want to nerf scout/stealth class skills. but personally I think changing hide/move to sneak and listen/spot to notice or some such would be excelent with no modification in skill points earned.
thought_riot 11-08-06, 10:51 PM	I think what cosmo knight is trying to get at is why split the skill between spot and listen when one skill can cover both. and i think its a good idea. Except for the fact that your eyes and ears are completely different. You can have good eyesight, but bad hearing, and vice versa. Wrapping them up into one skill makes it seem as though good eyesight and good hearing always comes together. And that's completely false. what about smell for example? no skill for that, but one should be able to notice the silent arival of zombies. (just an example) There's the Scent special ability. D&D assumes that the human (and the other regular races) nose is rather weak compared to other species. It makes sense to add another skill for Smell, I guess, although I wouldn't as I think it just complicates things. However, like I said above, rolling it all up into one skill, while nice and neat, makes no sense what so ever. Good hearing != Good vision != Good smell. a thing like "notice" would work well especially in a game that does not generaly take facing into account. "Notice" would be opposed by the compound skill "sneak" thus a person trying to hide or otherwise avoid detection would use the sneak skill and this assumes the character is taking all sences into account, hiding, moving silently, attempting to mask his/her scent, and avoid leaving tracks. Again, there comes a problem when rolling up skills into one. I can be good at hiding because I'm small and can hide myself behind things easier, but I might be clumsy, and thus making noise and failing my Move Silently check. One "sneak" skill assumes that everyone who is good at concealing themselves from sight is also good at silencing their movements. And, again, that's totally false. while a person using the "notice" skill would represent a person paying carefull attention to the clues his provide him such as sounds, smells, and things that dont look quite right. See above. this would of course effect players like rangers greatly.. my human ranger gets 7 skill points per level. every level I use 4 of them on hide, movesilently, spot, and listen. It would increase their power level greatly, as well as being completely illogical. but personally I think changing hide/move to sneak and listen/spot to notice or some such would be excelent with no modification in skill points earned. There's no logic behind it. At all.
bruiserdeck 11-08-06, 11:11 PM	Except for the fact that your eyes and ears are completely different. I think your overemphisizing the specifics and not noticing the point i am attempting to make. all stats and skills in D&D have a fair amount of generality to them. a person with high inteligence is assumed to be a fast learner and generaly smart... we all know that in reality some people are MUCH smarter in cirtain fields than others. Science vs Language for example. You can have good eyesight, but bad hearing, and vice versa. Wrapping them up into one skill makes it seem as though good eyesight and good hearing always comes together. And that's completely false. . As is the idea that by running around and killing a few monsters I can suddenly make my eyes better at seeing. D&D assumes that all people of the same race have equally effective senses the skill signifies the persons ability to gather information from those senses. a high spot check does not mean that i can see better than any one. it simply means that I am better able to gather specific information from the things i see. compounding all of those things into "notice" would simply mean that the character is better able to gather information from all of their senses and a person using "sneak" is better able to reduce the number of signals for others to notice. as to skills points... well.. i could go on and on about how scout or rogue type classes have a much higher skill burden than other classes but you could simply counter with your oppinion that X class needs more skill points for Y reason or maybe you feel that classes in general get too many skills to play with but thats a whole other tangent. bottom line is that your totaly entitled to your oppinion on the matter Cosmoknights idea makes total sence to me and i was simply trying to flesh out the concept he was trying to make.
EscherEnigma 11-08-06, 11:19 PM	You don't need to make Spot checks to see your writing utensil on your desk. Really? Then why do I spend 5 minutes looking for my pencil when half the time its right there on my desk? heh. Anyway, joking aside, I can see both sides to this: in favor of hide/move silently and spot/listen: they're quite distinct actions and a person can be good at both, one but not the other, or neither. Different circumstances can benefit one but not the other, or hamper one but not the other. If you're closing your eyes to avoid a gaze attack how are you using a 'notice' skill to guess where the medusa is? For realism, this is clearly superior to lumping them together. in favor of sneak and notice: do we REALLY need to roll two dice, add two separate modifiers, and compare two totals when we're only doing one thing? Sides, if you're good at one, you're PROBABLY good at the other. And really, it's not like this game is stressing realism anyway (really, by the rules people's hearing increases with age. Not to mention 1d6 damage per 10 feet fallen. great realism.) It simplifies the dice rolls, it streamlines gameplay, and it isn't THAT much of a stretch (circumstantial bonuses/penalties can be assigned when you're using one sense/skill in favor of the other) Honestly though? Its a simple decision the designers make and we can either choose to go with it or mod it, just like every other decision.
thought_riot 11-08-06, 11:23 PM	all stats and skills in D&D have a fair amount of generality to them. a person with high inteligence is assumed to be a fast learner and generaly smart... we all know that in reality some people are MUCH smarter in cirtain fields than others. Science vs Language for example. This exists in D&D too. See the Knowledge skills. As is the idea that by running around and killing a few monsters I can suddenly make my eyes better at seeing. If you really think about it though, it makes sense. As you gain experience (in both senses of the word, literal and D&D), you hone your skills better. As I grow up in real life, I become better at certain things. In D&D, spotting and hearing are two skills that can become better over time. D&D assumes that all people of the same race have equally effective senses the skill signifies the persons ability to gather information from those senses. a high spot check does not mean that i can see better than any one. it simply means that I am better able to gather specific information from the things i see. compounding all of those things into "notice" would simply mean that the character is better able to gather information from all of their senses and a person using "sneak" is better able to reduce the number of signals for others to notice. Well, I'd say that Spot and Listen ARE actually indicative of how well a person has honed his sense of sight and hearing. A person with ranks in Listen can simply hear better (and thus, hear more things) than a person without any ranks in Listen. As for Spot, a person with ranks can simply see smaller or hidden things better than a person without any ranks. To take a real world example - Joe, who has good eyesight, can make out the tiny outline of a ship out on the horizon. Jack, who has poor eyesight, can't see the ship at all. In the D&D world, Joe would have more ranks in Spot than Jack. (Of course, it could've just been that Joe rolled higher than Jack on his check, but you get what I'm saying.) bottom line is that your totaly entitled to your oppinion on the matter Cosmoknights idea makes total sence to me and i was simply trying to flesh out the concept he was trying to make. Of course, everybody's entitled to their opinions on matters. There's nothing wrong with a little debate, is there? I personally don't care whether you or Cosmoknight combine said skills in your games. It doesn't affect me, and if that's what makes the game better for you, go for it. I understand D&D isn't the greatest system for realism, but I strive to make my games as realistic as possible, and thus, combing sight and hearing into one skill doesn't make any sense to me.
thought_riot 11-08-06, 11:26 PM	Really? Then why do I spend 5 minutes looking for my pencil when half the time its right there on my desk? You made repeated Spot (or Search) checks and failed. Finally, you succeeded! :p Anyway, joking aside, I can see both sides to this: in favor of hide/move silently and spot/listen: they're quite distinct actions and a person can be good at both, one but not the other, or neither. Different circumstances can benefit one but not the other, or hamper one but not the other. If you're closing your eyes to avoid a gaze attack how are you using a 'notice' skill to guess where the medusa is? For realism, this is clearly superior to lumping them together. in favor of sneak and notice: do we REALLY need to roll two dice, add two separate modifiers, and compare two totals when we're only doing one thing? Sides, if you're good at one, you're PROBABLY good at the other. And really, it's not like this game is stressing realism anyway (really, by the rules people's hearing increases with age. Not to mention 1d6 damage per 10 feet fallen. great realism.) It simplifies the dice rolls, it streamlines gameplay, and it isn't THAT much of a stretch (circumstantial bonuses/penalties can be assigned when you're using one sense/skill in favor of the other) I understand both sides as well, but I always tend to strongly favor realism. I also prefer to stick to the book as often as possible. Unless there is something I see that is extremely wrong/unusable/broken in the rules, I tend to go with it. Honestly though? Its a simple decision the designers make and we can either choose to go with it or mod it, just like every other decision. Precisely.
Sim_antix 11-08-06, 11:32 PM	I considered uping all of the classes that have 2+ Int for skills to 4+ but ultimately decided against it because I didn't want to up any of the other classes skill points.
Sereno 11-09-06, 08:29 AM	As is the idea that by running around and killing a few monsters I can suddenly make my eyes better at seeing. That's because you've focused on the "game mechanic" of XP and not looking at what it represents. It's not: a PC and a monster enter a cage and fight to the death, the PC wins, the PC gets XP. It's actually a reflection of the "real" life-experience gained for going out into a dangerous world, meeting challenges (not all of which are monsters) and returning alive to talk about it. The more time you spend in hostile environments, the more you learn about surviving in them. The first time you hear the rustle of leaves when there's no wind you might not make much of it ... after you survive the ambush by the sneaky kobolds, you'll start to tune in on such "unnatural" sounds better and thus you've gained some ranks in Listen. The next time you hear that "out of place" rustle of leaves, you'll be more likely to notice it as a potential threat.
Sulaco 11-09-06, 09:16 AM	Except for the fact that your eyes and ears are completely different. You can have good eyesight, but bad hearing, and vice versa. Wrapping them up into one skill makes it seem as though good eyesight and good hearing always comes together. And that's completely false. No, it makes it seems that you are using all of your senses. The point of not botheirng to specify one sense or another is that a Notice skill would encompass the totality of all your sense, including your "sixth sense." I like it. Again, there comes a problem when rolling up skills into one. I can be good at hiding because I'm small and can hide myself behind things easier, but I might be clumsy, and thus making noise and failing my Move Silently check. One "sneak" skill assumes that everyone who is good at concealing themselves from sight is also good at silencing their movements. And, again, that's totally false. And where does it stop? Do you start breaking down Hide into things like "hiding behind tall, thin objects," "hiding in shadows," "hiding in a crowd," etc. I have great manual desterity (though one would assume othewised based on my typing skill). I can do very fine detialed work and even pick locks. I am a decent shot with firearms, okay with bows, moderately accurate with thrown objects, and a deadeye with crossbows. I cannot ski, skate, rollerblade or skateboards to save my soul (I fall down - always). Does all this mean I must start breaking down Dex into manual dexterity, balance, throwing, pulling, and holding? Who cares if it is ostensibly "realistic" or not? D&D alreayd simplifies a lot of disparate skills and abilities into smaller, easier units and doing it with Notice and/or Sneak is no different and is not a bad idea at all. There is logic behind this idea, and that logic is to keep the game simple and fun.
calvinNhobbes 11-09-06, 09:38 AM	My issue with combining hide and move silently together into one skill is for large camoflauged creatures like a treant. They are good at hiding despite their huge size (+16 racial bonus in forests), but not at moving silently, which makes sense since they are lumbering treefolk. If you combine hide and move silently then you would have to add additional rules to give creatures such as the treant circumstance modifiers for different aspects of the "sneak" skill. However, I do think some skills need to just go, like Open Locks. A lock is just a device with a high disable DC.
aotrscommander 11-09-06, 09:50 AM	Should I mortify everone by saying Rolemaster has one skill instead of Spot/Listen called Perception since it's inception? (Which I think it more catchy than Notice!) Of course, until 3.x, D&D was really lacking in a perception-type skill in the first place (save for theif skills!). You could drop Spot/Listen and replace them with a single skill, and just have (racial) circumstances for perception rolls related to sight/smell etc. Rolemaster also has one skill for Move Silently and Hide, called (imaginatively!) Stalk/Hide, which balances it out.
babysamurai 11-09-06, 10:37 AM	I have great manual desterity (though one would assume othewised based on my typing skill). I can do very fine detialed work and even pick locks. I am a decent shot with firearms, okay with bows, moderately accurate with thrown objects, and a deadeye with crossbows. I cannot ski, skate, rollerblade or skateboards to save my soul (I fall down - always). Does all this mean I must start breaking down Dex into manual dexterity, balance, throwing, pulling, and holding? This reminds me of that travesty of a 2nd edition book Skills&Powers, where they broke down Dexterity into "Aim" and "Balance". *shudders*
thought_riot 11-09-06, 01:23 PM	No, it makes it seems that you are using all of your senses. The point of not botheirng to specify one sense or another is that a Notice skill would encompass the totality of all your sense, including your "sixth sense." I just don't think it's as realistic as I like my games to be. What do you do about a blind person? He can't Spot things, but he can Listen. Deaf people can't Listen but they can Spot. In those rare cases, you'd have to make up for that by limiting Notice for such characters. I just don't think it makes any sense from a realism point of view. And where does it stop? Do you start breaking down Hide into things like "hiding behind tall, thin objects," "hiding in shadows," "hiding in a crowd," etc. I'd just leave it as it is now. Hide represents your total ability to conceal yourself. Move Silently represents your total ability to silence your movements. I have great manual desterity (though one would assume othewised based on my typing skill). I can do very fine detialed work and even pick locks. I am a decent shot with firearms, okay with bows, moderately accurate with thrown objects, and a deadeye with crossbows. I cannot ski, skate, rollerblade or skateboards to save my soul (I fall down - always). Does all this mean I must start breaking down Dex into manual dexterity, balance, throwing, pulling, and holding? Not at all. In your case, if you were to build yourself into a D&D character, you'd have a decent Dexterity score, say a +2 modifier. You'd have a decent base attack bonus and ranks in Open Lock. I don't know what sort of skill skiing, skating, rollerblading, and skateboarding would be, but I'd assume that you might have a negative modifier to such skills, like a Flaw mechanic. Real life humans are a lot more varied than they are in D&D, and it's very hard to actually duplicate such variety in a game system. Who cares if it is ostensibly "realistic" or not? D&D alreayd simplifies a lot of disparate skills and abilities into smaller, easier units and doing it with Notice and/or Sneak is no different and is not a bad idea at all. I care for my games. I wouldn't object in playing in such a game. I just simply wouldn't implement the Notice/Sneak skills into my game. No idea is bad as long as it enhances the fun of the game for those playing. This idea is bad for the type of game I prefer, while it's good for others. There is logic behind this idea, and that logic is to keep the game simple and fun. I believe the game is already simple enough. I also have a lot of fun with it how it is and I think that combining skills that by realistic standards shouldn't be combined detracts from my idea of fun. Of course, if it enhances your fun, go for it. However, I do think some skills need to just go, like Open Locks. A lock is just a device with a high disable DC. That's a suggestion I'd be cool with for my games, although I don't see myself doing anything with skills right now. Open Lock is a more specific type of Disable Device so it makes sense to lump the two into one skill. You could drop Spot/Listen and replace them with a single skill, and just have (racial) circumstances for perception rolls related to sight/smell etc. See...that adds unneeded complexity, I'd say. It's much simpler now to show that halflings have better hearing than humans by saying "+2 Listen." With the Notice/Perception skill, it becomes "+2 Notice when listening." I just don't like it. I have no objections to anybody using it in their game, of course. If it makes you enjoy your D&D experience better, than more power to you.
calvinNhobbes 11-09-06, 04:02 PM	Also, on a side note, I think more skills should give synergy bonuses. Example, How does ranks in knowledge (engineering) not give a synergy bonus to disable device checks?
High Octane 11-09-06, 05:02 PM	Isnt it a bit overpowering to roll spot and listen together? Thats probably why they stay separate, because perception would be way too good a skill.
Sulaco 11-09-06, 05:12 PM	I just don't think it's as realistic as I like my games to be. What do you do about a blind person? He can't Spot things, but he can Listen. Deaf people can't Listen but they can Spot. In those rare cases, you'd have to make up for that by limiting Notice for such characters. I just don't think it makes any sense from a realism point of view. D&D is not realistic. Using that as a justificaiton for including or banning anything from the game is entierly erroneous IMO. I'd just leave it as it is now. Hide represents your total ability to conceal yourself. Move Silently represents your total ability to silence your movements. And both of them together consitute your ability to Sneak. Real life humans are a lot more varied than they are in D&D, and it's very hard to actually duplicate such variety in a game system. Which was precisely my point. There is a lot of stuff that in real-life is distinct, but modelling that in the game is often unnecessary. The argument for having distinct Hide and Move Silently skills is the same one for splitting DEX into sub-categories. Some see value in it, some do not. The question is not "does doing it this way model real-life more accurately," the question is "does doing it this way make the game more fun." I care for my games. I am not sure what this is intended to mean, though it implies that those who do other than do you do not "care for" their games. This idea is bad for the type of game I prefer, while it's good for others. That is the crux of the matter right there. All this stuff about "realism" and "logic" and "sense" is meaningless. It may be how you choose to justify your preferences to yourself, but all it really get's down to is that you prefer X over Y and there is nothing at all wrong with that.
Sulaco 11-09-06, 05:22 PM	Also, on a side note, I think more skills should give synergy bonuses. Example, How does ranks in knowledge (engineering) not give a synergy bonus to disable device checks? I grant synergy bonuses to skills based on appropriate knowledge, craft and profession skills. I also use a sliding scale rather than the flat +2 bonus for skills over 5: • skill of 1-5 = synergy bonus +1 • skill of 6-10 = synergy bonus +2 • skill of 11-15 = synergy bonus +3 • skill of 16-20 = synergy bonus +4
calvinNhobbes 11-09-06, 05:50 PM	And both of them together consitute your ability to Sneak. While true, it is possible to be good at hiding and not good at moving around quietly, or vice a versa. I mean we could continue to collapse all the skills down until we get the skill "Live", and then just give circumstance bonuses depending on how good you are are certain aspects of life, but then that's not much fun. :P Logical arguments can be made for either combining listen/spot and hide/move silently or keeping them separate. I prefer to just keep them separate since it gives me more options in character and monster development (ie. the lumbering camoflouged hulk or the brightly glowing but deathly silent spirit)
KurenaiYami 11-09-06, 05:52 PM	While true, it is possible to be good at hiding and not good at moving around quietly, or vice a versa. I mean we could continue to collapse all the skills down until we get the skill "Live", and then just give circumstance bonuses depending on how good you are are certain aspects of life, but then that's not much fun. :P Logical arguments can be made for either combining listen/spot and hide/move silently or keeping them separate. I prefer to just keep them separate since it gives me more options in character and monster development (ie. the lumbering camoflouged hulk or the brightly glowing but deathly silent spirit) Man, it would suck to fail a "live" check.
Solik 11-09-06, 06:17 PM	Since you can argue it either way, consider it from a perspective of gameplay. Your average rogue sneaking around has to succeed on two opposed rolls to not be noticed. That's two chances to fail. With Sneak vs Perception, there's only one roll, and thus one chance to fail. Combining the skills is simply a boost for stealth-based gameplay. While it's true that you only need to boost one skill now (Perception) to notice somebody, really, you could do that before; either Listen or Spot alone would help you detect someone who was sneaking around.
Keevo_Darkwood 11-09-06, 07:35 PM	I grant synergy bonuses to skills based on appropriate knowledge, craft and profession skills. I also use a sliding scale rather than the flat +2 bonus for skills over 5: • skill of 1-5 = synergy bonus +1 • skill of 6-10 = synergy bonus +2 • skill of 11-15 = synergy bonus +3 • skill of 16-20 = synergy bonus +4 Skill of 21-23 (assuming no Epic progression) = synergy bonus +5? Or, did you leave that one out deliberately? All in all, an excellent use of the Rule Zero pen. :thumbsup: Methinks I'll borrow this. :)
Thubby 11-09-06, 08:42 PM	Man, it would suck to fail a "live" check. :rofl: nice. i can see it now "i roll a 1 on my life check. (dm) you... um... die:nonono: (player) CURSE YOU 20 SIDED DIE AND YOUR AUTOMATIC 5% FAIL CHANCE, CURSE YOU!!! "
thought_riot 11-09-06, 10:06 PM	D&D is not realistic. Using that as a justificaiton for including or banning anything from the game is entierly erroneous IMO. I prefer to run games as realistic as possible. No game can mimic real life, but I prefer to run a game that is as realistic as possible. That's my style of play. If yours is different, so be it. Everybody prefers different styles of gaming. And both of them together consitute your ability to Sneak. Yet you can be good at one, but not the other. Which was precisely my point. There is a lot of stuff that in real-life is distinct, but modelling that in the game is often unnecessary. The argument for having distinct Hide and Move Silently skills is the same one for splitting DEX into sub-categories. Some see value in it, some do not. The question is not "does doing it this way model real-life more accurately," the question is "does doing it this way make the game more fun." And keeping them seperate, for me, makes the game more fun... I am not sure what this is intended to mean, though it implies that those who do other than do you do not "care for" their games. I was replying to: Who cares if it is ostensibly "realistic" or not? That is the crux of the matter right there. All this stuff about "realism" and "logic" and "sense" is meaningless. It may be how you choose to justify your preferences to yourself, but all it really get's down to is that you prefer X over Y and there is nothing at all wrong with that. And there's nothing at all wrong with explaining why my preference is the way it is...just as there's nothing wrong with you or others preferring it a different way.
DarknessEternal 11-10-06, 01:05 AM	Can we make this thread more about "book rules you don't like" and less about "book rules that other people dont't like that you don't like."?
thought_riot 11-10-06, 01:20 AM	Can we make this thread more about "book rules you don't like" and less about "book rules that other people dont't like that you don't like."? These threads generate discussion and debate. I enjoy that. :shrug:
syrinth 11-10-06, 01:21 AM	Regardless of the fact that they do, I really doubt that that is the intention of these threads :P They are merely to state what our opinions are, not to go on a, relatively, extended debate as to who is right and how. Just my opinion though so.
EscherEnigma 11-10-06, 01:29 AM	Eh. Even at the most heated it's been comparatively temperate. And people are still posting so it can't be THAT bad.
syrinth 11-10-06, 01:30 AM	I'm not saying that we've all shuffled back to our ceremonial Firestorm circles, but the thread has been derailed somewhat :D
thought_riot 11-10-06, 01:44 AM	You really can't make a thread such as this expect it to be nothing except a list of bad book rules. When you make a thread that calls on peoples' opinions, you're inviting discussion and debate. That's just the way it works.
syrinth 11-10-06, 01:46 AM	Actually, you can. You just have to hope that people know when to call it quits like I am now about this very topic :D
thought_riot 11-10-06, 01:58 AM	Actually, you can. You just have to hope that people know when to call it quits like I am now about this very topic :D *shrug* I like threads like these because they get varied opinions out in the open, and spur debate and stimulate interesting conversations.
babysamurai 11-10-06, 04:57 AM	I don't know what sort of skill skiing, skating, rollerblading, and skateboarding would be, That would be the "Balance" skill.
Goon_for_Hire 11-10-06, 08:16 AM	On Familiars: Owls and hawks can talk to most birds, cats can speak to any feline, and rats to any rodent... but bats can only talk to other bats. What the :censored: is that about? I mean, bats are still rodents, so a rat familiar should be able to strike up a conversation with a bat, but what? Are the bats all Bloc Quebecois members or something? On Troglodytes: Okay these things smell so foul that they make anything in a spears reach wretch, gag, and vomit. I'd imagine that the stench has a lesser but similarlyoffensive bouquet at longer ranges, yet they have a hide skill?! On Ghouls: Okay, help me on this one. We have an undead that spends it's time looting tombs or digging up graves to desecrate the bodies therein. They are smart in a feral kind of way, and so I can see sneaky, but why do they have a climb skill? After a night of clawing through the earth and lurking in catacombs do they just need a break to go climb trees, have a nice round of spelunking? Do they go rock climbing on the weekends? What? Also, are they so bloody common tht elves have needed to evolve a special defence agains their paralytic touch that doesn't work against anything else? Why?! How could the necromantic sciences be so intense, or for that matter, why would there be so many bloody tombs in the world if theere were enough ghouls out there to make a significant impact on the evolutionary path of the elvish race?
Papa_duval 11-10-06, 09:25 AM	Also, are they so bloody common tht elves have needed to evolve a special defence agains their paralytic touch that doesn't work against anything else? Why?! How could the necromantic sciences be so intense, or for that matter, why would there be so many bloody tombs in the world if theere were enough ghouls out there to make a significant impact on the evolutionary path of the elvish race? Well, this one could easily be parallel evolution - as in, the Elves natural physiology works in a way that makes them immune to ghoul paralysis, though the evolutionary trait (or the god given gift, since this is fantasy) developed with some other stimulus, and it just happened to coincide that it allowed immunity. From a game design point of view, i suspect its just a throwback to older editions. It is a strange ability to have, the immunity to sleep makes sense, as elves don't actually sleep - but they can be paralysed and they have no particular immunity to venom (this would probably be a better racial ability for dwarves, who do have particularly strong resistance to toxins) It could be that Elves were originally considered to be blessed with a really strong life-force, and thus were able to ignore the negative energy aspect of the paralysis Take your pick :)
Sulaco 11-10-06, 09:27 AM	Man, it would suck to fail a "live" check. Used to happen all the time in 1e AD&D, which was rife with "save or die" spells and traps.
Sulaco 11-10-06, 09:30 AM	While true, it is possible to be good at hiding and not good at moving around quietly, or vice a versa. I mean we could continue to collapse all the skills down until we get the skill "Live", and then just give circumstance bonuses depending on how good you are are certain aspects of life, but then that's not much fun. :P Logical arguments can be made for either combining listen/spot and hide/move silently or keeping them separate. I prefer to just keep them separate since it gives me more options in character and monster development (ie. the lumbering camoflouged hulk or the brightly glowing but deathly silent spirit) Arguments can be made for combining them, keeping them as-is, or even breaking them abpart into more sub-skills, the point is that none of them are intrinsically any more "realistic" or "logical" than any other. And even if they were, the goal of D&D is not to foter "realism" or "logic," it is to have fun, and ultimately it just comes down to which version accomplishes that goal for you and your group. That was, and remains, my point.
Sulaco 11-10-06, 09:37 AM	I prefer to run games as realistic as possible. No game can mimic real life, but I prefer to run a game that is as realistic as possible. That's my style of play. If yours is different, so be it. Everybody prefers different styles of gaming. ... And there's nothing at all wrong with explaining why my preference is the way it is...just as there's nothing wrong with you or others preferring it a different way. Who said I run it a different way? Don't assume how I run a game based solely on my comments in a thread about someone else's house rules. In my games I strive for versitimilitude - a sense or feel of realism - rather than realism itself. D&D is inherently unrealistic and trying to hammer realism into it is like trying to put a cat in the bath - it fights you every step of the way and even if you succeed no one is happy. There is nothing about either seperate or combined Sneak or Perception skills that is inherently verisimilar.
Sulaco 11-10-06, 09:39 AM	Can we make this thread more about "book rules you don't like" and less about "book rules that other people dont't like that you don't like."? Why? These are discussion forums, not list forums. The thread spawned discussion which is on-topic (house rules), and that is the goal of the forums. There is no problem.
Sulaco 11-10-06, 09:43 AM	That would be the "Balance" skill. But then why is balance a skill when it is actually a component of dexterity itself? That is kinda like making "lift" or "pull" into skills.
calvinNhobbes 11-10-06, 10:42 AM	But then why is balance a skill when it is actually a component of dexterity itself? That is kinda like making "lift" or "pull" into skills. You can make an unskilled balance check, which is in fact a dexterity check. Putting points in balance means you have trained to be better at balance (ie. training in martials arts of gymnastics, or yoga). Putting points in sleight of hand means you have better hand/eye coordination. So perhaps in your example, you actually have a naturally low dexterity, but many ranks in sleight of hand to reflect your hand dexterity. Edit: FYI, I usually just lump Use Rope into sleight of hand for this reason.
Sulaco 11-10-06, 10:45 AM	You can make an unskilled balance check, which is in fact a dexterity check. Putting points in balance means you have trained to be better at balance (ie. training in martials arts of gymnastics, or yoga). Putting points in sleight of hand means you have better hand/eye coordination. So perhaps in your example, you actually have a naturally low dexterity, but many ranks in sleight of hand to reflect your hand dexterity. Nope. I have no training at all in anything close to sleight of hand and am very flexible (can out my foot behind my head, for example)
calvinNhobbes 11-10-06, 11:40 AM	Nope. I have no training at all in anything close to sleight of hand and am very flexible (can out my foot behind my head, for example) Or perhaps sleight of hand is just another too narrow of a skill that needs to be gotten rid of and replaced with something general like "Hand Coordination". In addition, sometimes you don't need to have "actual" training to reflect skill points. You may just practiced it on your own out of necessity, or because you like to, or whatever. In addition, I would think Escape Artist reflects the "flexibility" aspect of the dexterity attribute. I think skills need to be made less specific in what can be done with them.
SolemnDusk 11-10-06, 12:12 PM	Yeah, but a single 'hand coordination' skill seems to be too much consolidation. A character could be very good at 'hand coordination' for say, opening locks, but very bad at 'hand coordination' for sleight of hand. Having one 'hand coordination' skill is getting closer and closer (albeit still quite far off) to removing skills altogether, and just using Stat checks for all skill-based actions... IMHO, consolidating (or ultimately removing) skills is taking away an aspect of the game that is very important to roleplaying, as it shows varying levels of ability in different skills, which is quite realistic. Personally, I can see how a 'kick-in-the-door' style of campaign could go with consolidated, or even no skills. There could be a single ability, like 'Skill', that was somehow based on the current rules of Skill Points per level, so that Rogues would be inherently better than fighters at things that required a certain amount of technique... However, I would only want to see those rules used in roll-playing games. My 2cp. Oh, since I bothered to speak up, and it seems the 'Skill' discussion is winding down... MY DM USES 'AUTOMATIC FUMBLE IF YOU ROLL A NATURAL 1!!!!!!!!!!!!' I MEAN REALLY, WTF????? Why should a 20th level Fighter AUTOMATICALLY drop his weapon (that's what my DM uses for fumbles) on one out of twenty attacks? Heck, doesn't a Fighter 20 technically have a 20% chance per round to drop a weapon, where a Wizard 20 only has 10% chance? Doesn't that make Two Weapon Fighting and Haste kind of counter-productive? Are wizards better fighters than... Fighters? Horse (four letter word for urine)! We've only played a few sessions, but I'm gonna mention to him that 'if it is unnecessary to roll to confirm critical misses, I don't think we should have to roll to confirm critical hits, either...' and he can kiss my keen katana +1 weilding butt. But that discussion has been covered, so I'll bring up my least-liked rule... Multiclassing XP penalty. So, if I go spend a year studying to be a blacksmith, then spend 3 years practicing kendo, that makes me inherently worse at learning how to be a professional chef. HOW??? *Wishes self was Blacksmith 1/Kendo Student 3/Chef 1* :(
EscherEnigma 11-10-06, 12:17 PM	*Wishes self was Blacksmith 1/Kendo Student 3/Chef 1* Iron Chef using homemade samurai swords?
Sulaco 11-10-06, 12:18 PM	Multiclassing XP penalty. So, if I go spend a year studying to be a blacksmith, then spend 3 years practicing kendo, that makes me inherently worse at learning how to be a professional chef. HOW??? *Wishes self was Blacksmith 1/Kendo Student 3/Chef 1* :( It doesn't. As a human your highest level is not factored, remember.
SolemnDusk 11-10-06, 12:40 PM	It doesn't. As a human your highest level is not factored, remember. D'oh! Okay, if I decided to practice blacksmithing for a year, then kendo for 3, then a chef for 5, I would be inherently worse at learning how to knit, how??? (Sheesh, Sulaco. Throwin' wrenches in my gears, man, I mean, c'mon! Jeeze.) ;)
TheWerg 11-10-06, 12:40 PM	It doesn't. As a human your highest level is not factored, remember. I thought it was his first class, since that's his favored one. He actually would be worse at being a chef in that situation. One of the reasons I don't like Multiclass Exp penalties as they are.
calvinNhobbes 11-10-06, 12:49 PM	Yeah, but a single 'hand coordination' skill seems to be too much consolidation. A character could be very good at 'hand coordination' for say, opening locks, but very bad at 'hand coordination' for sleight of hand. It was just a quick name of teh top of my head. However, I agree you can have varying degrees of coordination which is why disable device is a separate skill (Open locks should just be a part of disable device). However, it seems lame that all I can do with sleight of hand it palm a coin or pick pocket. If you just called is something like "hand coordination" you could even have it give synergy bonuses to something like disable device. Of course something like disable device really should be a combo skill involving both INT(adjusting by knowledge engineering) and DEX (adjusted by hand coordination). But then that's just too complicated for a game.
Sulaco 11-10-06, 02:50 PM	I thought it was his first class, since that's his favored one. No. For humans your favoured class is the higest-level one, not the first one.
TheWerg 11-10-06, 02:53 PM	No. For humans your favoured class is the higest-level one, not the first one. Upon referencing my book, you are proven correct. I always thought that it was the first class, but oh well.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 11-10-06, 02:59 PM	I actually read all 17 pages of of this monsterousity. I know just about everyone of these has been covered, so I'll just rehash it all with my thoughts on the subjects. Vancian spell casting.---Retarded. Spell points is so much neater, and makes a heck of a lot more sense. Multi-classing XP penalties.---I'm not a fan of XP penalties as a hole, and I see no reason why your previouse classes have any bearing on your future classes. Further the fact that your giving up higher level abilities, for lower level abilities should be enough of a reason not multiclass. Why penalise with XP. Favoured classes.--This just make absolutely no nice, and only serves to further racial stereotyping. All elves are good with magic, and taking levels of wizard won't hurt them, but fighter/ranger elves get XP penalties? All Halflings are rogues? The fighter class as a hole.--- The class over nothing past 4th level, and even then very little after 2nd. Its basically, feats and base attack, in exchange for abilities, and skills. The hole class seems like it was an after thought, or made from the left over crap that was floating around when the other classes were made. The myth that is game balance.--- All things are not equal in this game. Even pure has choices that are just plain better then others. This isn't lttle things, like max ranks, over not. Or odd levels in the fighter class. But a complaint about things, power attack, and two handed weapon fighting being inherently better then sword, and board style. Or Druid verses anything. The Druid is so powerful that only way to make a bad one is to waer metal armour with it. Another balance complaint would be spell casting over not. Spells are so much more powerful then then not having them that, it is stupid not to take them. Especailly at higher levels. And with there versitility, you can use thenm to cover anything any other class can do. Locked door? Never fear, I've got Knock. Need some ones ass kicked? Ok one moment please...Fist of stone, enlarge, shcoking weapon, devine might, fire ball, etc, etc. There really isn't any reason not to be a caster. Or anything a caster can't do. The CR system.---On the surface this isn't too bad of a sytem except that it doesn't account for abnoramal (read typical) adventurers. Even assuming an ideal party ( wizard, cleric, rogue, and fighter), there are still massive differences that will effect how an encounter goes. Their level of optimization, the tactics they employ, and what type of gear they have. To name but a few. Right now, My party could handle something like say a hydra, or other CR 10 devil. But a construct would beat them like mules. That of course still does account for tactics employed by the DM. There is a big difference in difficulty between the DM that has a dragon flying, using its breath to strafe the party, and concentrate on the healer. Then swoop in to mope up. Or maybe the dragon that starts the fight by dropping a rock the wizard, breathing on the cleric, and front line meat sheld. Then landing in front of the rogue, and tearing it a new one. Or an easy fight would be the gragon that kinda lands in front of the party, and goes teo to teo with the meat sheild, and ignores the back line sapport characters. This difference can change the CR by a range of easily 2 points.
ryryguy 11-10-06, 03:02 PM	Skill Synery: Great idea, poor execution. Only matters at level 2, giving a huge leap to certain skills, and then never again, Id have preffered a +x to first skill for every Y ranks in senond skill, rewarding dedication, not taking 5 ranks for the Synergy bonus and abandoning skills as soon as yu pass lv 2. IIRC, Spycraft does something like this. I think they give you a +1 synergy per 5 ranks of the synergistic skill. (And synergy bonuses from different skills don't stack if there is overlap.)
Sang-Drax 11-10-06, 10:31 PM	Great thread, btw. I don't like the claw/claw/bite routine. Or 20 tentacles and such. I mean, just because a creature has lots of appendages it doesn't mean it can use all of them in 6 seconds, no matter if they have a Dex of 8 or something. It's like saying that humans fight using both fists and kicking with both legs all the time - which is obviously not true. I'm totally against the XP penalties for multiclassing as well. It's only an attempt to make half-elves quasi-useful, since fav class (any) is all they got. Besides, no-one simply goes and says, "well, I think I can live with that XP penalty, since I *really* want to play an elven shugenja/bard". It ends up limiting possibilities of play, and not balancing, since accepting XP penalties is not an option. I don't like the ranged combat rules either. First, it doesn't matter whether your Str is 45 or 9, the distance a bowshot will reach is the same. Plus, your projectile hits with the same force, whether the target is at 100 feet or 10 feet. Not to mention that they're both as easy to hit. A better ruling would be that the distance affects any ranged attacks the same way (say, -2 for each 20 feet or whatever)... but some weapons simply won't reach that far.
TwiddleStootch 11-10-06, 11:07 PM	I don't like the ranged combat rules either. First, it doesn't matter whether your Str is 45 or 9, the distance a bowshot will reach is the same. Plus, your projectile hits with the same force, whether the target is at 100 feet or 10 feet. Not to mention that they're both as easy to hit. A better ruling would be that the distance affects any ranged attacks the same way (say, -2 for each 20 feet or whatever)... but some weapons simply won't reach that far. I am a bit confused here, are you using a different version from 3.5, or has there been an errata? the rules as I know them don't have Str determine firing distance, each weapon has a range increment, with a max of 10 for ranged weapons, at a -2 penalty for each increment. and Str only affects damage if you have a composite bow.
kalmarjan 11-10-06, 11:22 PM	I hate the fact that spell casting classes need to prepare their spells in advance. It just seems so.... stupid to me. IMC, all spell casters cast their spells spontaneously. The difference is that the wizard can only cast the spells in the books that he studies in the day, (So he still needs his spell books) and the components for larger spells are still used. Both sides (DM's and PCs) use this rule, and it makes for more interesting play. Rather than, "Oh ****! I need a dispel magic spell!", it changes to "Do I have the slot for it?" Remember back in 2.0 when the wizard had a travelling spell book? I also brought those back. :) Sandeman
Thubby 11-10-06, 11:25 PM	the rules as I know them don't have Str determine firing distance. thats what he is complaining about. his arguement is (or so i assume), is that a stronger person can draw a bow harder, and thus make it shoot farther. not that i agree/disagree, just explaining.
TwiddleStootch 11-10-06, 11:28 PM	ahh, I see, sorry. I thought he was says that ranged weapons distances weren't affected by STr, weather it is 45 or 9. my bad.
TwiddleStootch 11-10-06, 11:30 PM	*snip* Sandeman there is a variant called 'Spell Points' that might be what you are looking for. you can get all the rules on it here: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm EDIT-Sorry for the double post, I wasn't thinking.
Sim_antix 11-11-06, 12:22 AM	Spot should synergize Search.
residieu 11-11-06, 01:14 AM	The Warrior class - Why do we need this? If you want a less skilled fighter, just make a lower level fighter.
FeceMan 11-11-06, 01:19 AM	What in the world is a travelling spellbook? And, while we're at it, where in the world is Carmen Sandiego?
Sim_antix 11-11-06, 01:27 AM	A travelling spellbook is a smaller spellbook that you take with you when traveling so as to not have the extra encumberance of a 20+ pound book or two with you.
FeceMan 11-11-06, 01:34 AM	A travelling spellbook is a smaller spellbook that you take with you when traveling so as to not have the extra encumberance of a 20+ pound book or two with you. Oh. Um...I like not having to worry about spellbook weight because the mechanics of spellbooks are stupid?
residieu 11-11-06, 01:35 AM	A travelling spellbook is a smaller spellbook that you take with you when traveling so as to not have the extra encumberance of a 20+ pound book or two with you. Assuming, of course, you have some secure place where you can leave your main spell book where you trust it would not get lost/stolen/destroyed. I've never played a wizard in that position. The safest place for his spellbook has always been right in his own hands.
The White Sorcerer 11-11-06, 01:38 AM	The Warrior class - Why do we need this? If you want a less skilled fighter, just make a lower level fighter. Because even a 1st-level fighter should be more powerful than the average town guard. How would a 0-level fighter work?
Sim_antix 11-11-06, 01:42 AM	Oh. Um...I like not having to worry about spellbook weight because the mechanics of spellbooks are stupid? I disagree. I think its a nice check to a Wizards power, especially since I use Spell Points and there would be no reason to ever play a Sorcerer if Wizards didn't need their spells in book form.
Optimator 11-11-06, 02:50 AM	Well if your jump speed could be faster than movement speed why wouldnt you just jump everywhere? That would be rather silly wouldnt it? I know this is, like, 12 pages ago, but when I read this I couldn't help thinking about the N64 Zelda games and rolling everywhere, then thinking about Castlevania: Symphony of the Night and using the back-dash everywhere instead of running.
thought_riot 11-11-06, 02:55 AM	I used to jump everywhere in Morrowind too. Not only did that actually speed you up, it increased your athletics and in turn helped you gain levels fast. :p
Leress 11-11-06, 04:10 AM	Why do Barbarian have Illiteracy and commoners don't? That never made sense to me. It is marginal way of balancing the Barbarian.
Optimator 11-11-06, 04:30 AM	Well, the rule I like least is actually a lack of ruling. I LOVED called shots. I really miss called shots. Nothing made me happier than shooting eyes. Constantly. Always the eyes. **** eyes. :pbbbtt: Also, on alignment, I always liked to think about it like this: A Lawful Neutral person is Lawful and Neutral, not LawfulNeutral. This is especially helpful, IMHO, with the dreaded Chaotic Neutral character. If you seperate the two alignments, it smooths things out a bit. Instead of CN meaning the character is bat**** insane, CN dude is just as chaotic as the CE and CG people and just an neutral as the LN and N characters. The NG person is the same "good" as the LG person. Sometimes it seems like, say, a Lawful Good character would act in a specific way, influenced by their alignment. In my eyes, they act is two ways: they are Good and they are Lawful. A character could think to themselves, "The lawful part of me wants suchandsuch, and the good part wants whatever" instead of, "The lawful good part of me wants ..." I thought I'd just share that with y'all. It has really helped me in the past when an alignment conflict comes up.
bruiserdeck 11-11-06, 04:40 AM	I disagree. I think its a nice check to a Wizards power, especially since I use Spell Points and there would be no reason to ever play a Sorcerer if Wizards didn't need their spells in book form. never really thought about it. but i totaly agree. why do tanks and rangers and the like get weighed down for every piece of armor, arrows and loot they carry. (if your playing by the rules) but a mage can carry a bloody library of spells and most people act like its about as heavy as their character sheets.
kalmarjan 11-11-06, 08:28 AM	never really thought about it. but i totaly agree. why do tanks and rangers and the like get weighed down for every piece of armor, arrows and loot they carry. (if your playing by the rules) but a mage can carry a bloody library of spells and most people act like its about as heavy as their character sheets. I disagree. I think its a nice check to a Wizards power, especially since I use Spell Points and there would be no reason to ever play a Sorcerer if Wizards didn't need their spells in book form. I was thinking of this too when I came up with my houserule. (BTW-I have never really looked into spell points, I have at this point ONLY dictated that you do not need to memorize the spell. I may take a look later.) At issue is the balance - thing is, the wizards advantage over the sorcerer is their ability to cast more spells in a day. Their disadvantage is that they can only cast the spells they have "memorized." What I did to bring it back was - the wizard is able to cast spontaneously any spell that he knows - providing that he reads it in the morning during his "memorization time." What that means is if the wizard is in his library, then he will have access to all those spells. The reason I brought the travelling spell book back is because the wizard does not usually lug all of his spell books around. (Encumrance... sure) If the wizard ever was to be seperated from his book, he would be screwed... thus the advantage of sorcerers over wizards. Back in 2e, there were specific rules as to how many pages in your spell book a spell consumed. I do not think there is a rule for that in 3e, but it does not make sense that an 18th level wizard would be carrying all those spell books with him. Usually they would be content to take their "traveling spells" with them. As for armor, I do not encumber the character with it. I just reduce their speed. Otherwise, when you take encumbrabce into account, no NPC would carry anything. They would not be able to. They are assumed to have the feat to use it, right, so it seems logical that while learning the feat to don the type of armor, they would have also learned to compensate for the weight. Perhaps it is not realistic, but OTOH, this is a fantasy game we are playing, not Dungeons and Accountants. Sandeman
SnowSage 11-11-06, 08:35 AM	I was thinking of this too when I came up with my houserule. (BTW-I have never really looked into spell points, I have at this point ONLY dictated that you do not need to memorize the spell. I may take a look later.) At issue is the balance - thing is, the wizards advantage over the sorcerer is their ability to cast more spells in a day. Their disadvantage is that they can only cast the spells they have "memorized." What I did to bring it back was - the wizard is able to cast spontaneously any spell that he knows - providing that he reads it in the morning during his "memorization time." What that means is if the wizard is in his library, then he will have access to all those spells. The reason I brought the travelling spell book back is because the wizard does not usually lug all of his spell books around. (Encumrance... sure) If the wizard ever was to be seperated from his book, he would be screwed... thus the advantage of sorcerers over wizards. Back in 2e, there were specific rules as to how many pages in your spell book a spell consumed. I do not think there is a rule for that in 3e, but it does not make sense that an 18th level wizard would be carrying all those spell books with him. Usually they would be content to take their "traveling spells" with them. As for armor, I do not encumber the character with it. I just reduce their speed. Otherwise, when you take encumbrabce into account, no NPC would carry anything. They would not be able to. They are assumed to have the feat to use it, right, so it seems logical that while learning the feat to don the type of armor, they would have also learned to compensate for the weight. Perhaps it is not realistic, but OTOH, this is a fantasy game we are playing, not Dungeons and Accountants. Sandeman Actually, no... Sorcerrors get more spells per day, wizards simply have access to more spells. The basic rules say that a wizard has a spellbook containing X # of spells at Z level which he can use Y times a day. A sorcerror at Z level has A number of spells he knows which he can use B times per day. B>Y and A<X assuming both are level Z... that's the way the rules work.
kalmarjan 11-11-06, 08:51 AM	Actually, no... Sorcerrors get more spells per day, wizards simply have access to more spells. The basic rules say that a wizard has a spellbook containing X # of spells at Z level which he can use Y times a day. A sorcerror at Z level has A number of spells he knows which he can use B times per day. B>Y and A<X assuming both are level Z... that's the way the rules work. You are correct, (My tired mind wrote that one wrong... I meant to say that the wizard's advantage is that they have the ability to cast more higher level spells per day) - but flawed in one aspect. Sorcerers do gain more spells to use per day, but at a cost of casting at a lower spell level than their counterparts, Wizards. A 5th level sorcerer only has access to 2nd level spells, where a wizard has access to 3rd level spells. Also, going through the level progression, by level 20, the wizard has access to a total of 40 spells, where the sorcerer gains 60. This seems like more, right? Compare the breakdown though, and you will see that it is more slanted towards the wizard. A wizard has no cap as to the spells that they can know, a sorcerer does. Wizard: 4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4 Sorcerer: 6/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/6 Wizard spells known: u/u/u/u/u/u/u/u/u/u Sorcerer spells known: 9/5/5/4/4/4/3/3/3/3 So while the sorcerer can cast more spells per day, the choice in their spells had better be a good one. Sure, they can choose to drop a spell for a better one, but who cares? Comparing the two, even if I take away the memorization rules, (Which in my opinion are just flavor anyway), the sorcerer will still be limited to the amount of spell he knows, and just when he can cast the spell. I guess to further this model, I would make each "slot" worth 1 point per spell level. Then just directly convert the spell level to a point cost. If I read correctly, the spell levels go in multiples of 3, right? Sandeman
SnowSage 11-11-06, 09:02 AM	You are correct, (My tired mind wrote that one wrong... I meant to say that the wizard's advantage is that they have the ability to cast more higher level spells per day) - but flawed in one aspect. Sorcerers do gain more spells to use per day, but at a cost of casting at a lower spell level than their counterparts, Wizards. A 5th level sorcerer only has access to 2nd level spells, where a wizard has access to 3rd level spells. Also, going through the level progression, by level 20, the wizard has access to a total of 40 spells, where the sorcerer gains 60. This seems like more, right? Compare the breakdown though, and you will see that it is more slanted towards the wizard. A wizard has no cap as to the spells that they can know, a sorcerer does. Wizard: 4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4 Sorcerer: 6/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/6/6 Wizard spells known: u/u/u/u/u/u/u/u/u/u Sorcerer spells known: 9/5/5/4/4/4/3/3/3/3 So while the sorcerer can cast more spells per day, the choice in their spells had better be a good one. Sure, they can choose to drop a spell for a better one, but who cares? Comparing the two, even if I take away the memorization rules, (Which in my opinion are just flavor anyway), the sorcerer will still be limited to the amount of spell he knows, and just when he can cast the spell. I guess to further this model, I would make each "slot" worth 1 point per spell level. Then just directly convert the spell level to a point cost. If I read correctly, the spell levels go in multiples of 3, right? Sandeman This is true, however, some people {myself included} favor the ability to adapt to the specific situation via spontanious casting over flexability through having a royal library sized spell collection. Also, some of us LIKE one trick ponys who can use that trick as much as they want. That's why I play almost exclusively physical warriors and warlocks...
kalmarjan 11-11-06, 09:24 AM	This is true, however, some people {myself included} favor the ability to adapt to the specific situation via spontanious casting over flexability through having a royal library sized spell collection. Also, some of us LIKE one trick ponys who can use that trick as much as they want. That's why I play almost exclusively physical warriors and warlocks... Yes, us DMs love one trick ponies as well. Once word gets around about the fireball blasting sorcerer, it is not really that hard to undo them as well. All that aside, so far I have not really noticed anything different about abolishing the "you must memorize spells" system. If anything, it has made combat that much better, since now it really is challenging to know that the PCs and or the NPCs have access to their whole list of spells. I even think it promotes the usefullness of the spellcasting classes. Once the spells are done for the day, (Or god forbid you memorize a spell that has no place in the current play, be it combat or whether you need to remove a curse..) the spell casting classes really cannot contribute as much. For instance, as a cleric, you may be needed to cast remove curse. But you memorized Searing light instead. Now you would be forced to rest for the 8 hours, then memorize before you would be able to move on. God forbid you are a wizard in combat who only has resist energy and spider climb left in your memorize spells for the day. That is not very productive gameplay for me. Especially due to a mechanic from game days gone by. I abolished the memorization rules in 2e as well without much game unbalance. I am sure that it will be the same here. Sandeman
Sim_antix 11-11-06, 09:45 AM	House Rule I use a straight 1 Spell Level = 1 Spell Point system for my campaign and it works just fine. I cap the number of Spell Points you are able to channel at any one time at your Caster Level. Therefor a 5th level wizard could cast 5 Spell Points at any one time.
Senevri 11-11-06, 10:41 AM	I abolished the memorization rules in 2e as well without much game unbalance. I am sure that it will be the same here. Oh, no. ...Let me put it this way - it doesn't matter now, because nobody will ever ever EVER play a sorcerer in your games. Actually, I suggest you discourage anyone from ever playing a sorcerer, so that they don't get blown out of water by wizards. Beyond that, it doesn't matter. A nice power-up for wizards, though. Memorizing all of your spells takes one hour. It takes 15 minutes to get into the right mind-set, but after that, you can memorize a lot of spells in one single minute. A smart caster keeps scrolls of the rarely needed spells, and keeps oft-needed and multi-use spells memorized. How do you handle metamagic, by the way? Do you allow spontaneous metamagic for Wizards?
Sim_antix 11-11-06, 10:45 AM	Thats not true. A sorcerer can cast more spells and is not reliant on his book. By making them still have to study their spells every day and only beng able to cast the ones that they have studied that day you are not unbalancing them and are instead simply removing vacian casting, which as everyone knows, sucks.
residieu 11-11-06, 10:49 AM	House Rule I use a straight 1 Spell Level = 1 Spell Point system for my campaign and it works just fine. I cap the number of Spell Points you are able to channel at any one time at your Caster Level. Therefor a 5th level wizard could cast 5 Spell Points at any one time. What do you mean by "any one time" You let a 5th level wizard cast 5th level spells? Or 3rd level spells with 2 metamagic levels (since he should only know 3rds) Or only use 5 spell points a round (if hasted)?
Sim_antix 11-11-06, 10:51 AM	I knew I should have clarified, my bad. I meant that when casting and applying any metamagic to that spell that the total spell points spent cannot exceed their caster level.
FeceMan 11-11-06, 11:23 AM	Why do Barbarian have Illiteracy and commoners don't? That never made sense to me. It is marginal way of balancing the Barbarian. Those two skill points are a HUGE balancing factor. Without them, the barbarian would be so broken that WotC would explode instead of errating things.
kalmarjan 11-11-06, 12:21 PM	Oh, no. ...Let me put it this way - it doesn't matter now, because nobody will ever ever EVER play a sorcerer in your games. Actually, I suggest you discourage anyone from ever playing a sorcerer, so that they don't get blown out of water by wizards. Beyond that, it doesn't matter. A nice power-up for wizards, though. Memorizing all of your spells takes one hour. It takes 15 minutes to get into the right mind-set, but after that, you can memorize a lot of spells in one single minute. A smart caster keeps scrolls of the rarely needed spells, and keeps oft-needed and multi-use spells memorized. How do you handle metamagic, by the way? Do you allow spontaneous metamagic for Wizards? Funny thing, I do not agree with your first statement. I do actually have a sorcerer playing in my campaign right now. Again, the only thing I have taken away is the requirement to "prepare" spells by memorizing them. The wizard still has to study his spells in the morning, but get an abstract "slot". Note, the wizard still needs to have the spells available to him by what he is studying. If the spell is not in writing in front of him when he starts the day off reading for spells, then the spell is not available to him. A sorcerer on the other hand, "Knows" the spell, so does not require the book. It does give a slightly better edge to the wizard against the core rules RAW, but the only complaint I recieved before we decided on whether or not to follow this house rule was whether or not the Priest class would be more powerful. As for metamagic, I do it like this: When the spell is cast, you apply the metamagic feat. If the feat requires you to memorize the spell as one slot higher, then you cast it at one slot higher. Also note, I still use components in my game. (Okay, *maybe not for the lower level spells*). The question here is balance, right? What I would like to know is how do we justify the need for wizards to "prepare" their spells by memorizing them. Does it have an impact to let them cast whatever spells they study in the morning? Sure, but I think it is a good impact. I guess on way to look at this is I am turning the wizard into a quasi-sorcerer. I am limiting them to the spells that they have at hand, but giving them the ability to spontaneously cast. Perhaps this could be a new class? LOL (Probably has been done before though.) Sandeman
kalmarjan 11-11-06, 12:22 PM	Those two skill points are a HUGE balancing factor. Without them, the barbarian would be so broken that WotC would explode instead of errating things. Hmm... without invoking the flamewar that would ensue by my asking the next question here: Can you justify your statement? Seems pretty bold. Or are you just joking? I think it is more of a flavor rule. Is there really any game effect that the barbarian loses because of illiteracy? Sandeman
Senevri 11-11-06, 01:04 PM	Funny thing, I do not agree with your first statement. I do actually have a sorcerer playing in my campaign right now. Again, the only thing I have taken away is the requirement to "prepare" spells by memorizing them. The wizard still has to study his spells in the morning, but get an abstract "slot". Note, the wizard still needs to have the spells available to him by what he is studying. If the spell is not in writing in front of him when he starts the day off reading for spells, then the spell is not available to him. ...I'm not sure I understand. Are you using the slots as a spells known per day, but allowing casting spontaneously, capped to the number of slots? A sorcerer on the other hand, "Knows" the spell, so does not require the book. It does give a slightly better edge to the wizard against the core rules RAW, but the only complaint I recieved before we decided on whether or not to follow this house rule was whether or not the Priest class would be more powerful. As for metamagic, I do it like this: When the spell is cast, you apply the metamagic feat. If the feat requires you to memorize the spell as one slot higher, then you cast it at one slot higher. Well, the requirement of a book, may or may not matter, depending. ...So like a sorcerer, but without the delay. Surely, you've eliminated the full-round delay for sorcerers, too, then? Also note, I still use components in my game. (Okay, *maybe not for the lower level spells*). The question here is balance, right? ...So, you've been giving your Sorcerers Eschew Materials for free at level 1, then? Everyone uses material components, however a lot of the stuff comes with a single entry, "spell component pouch". Other spells have costly material components, but that's an attempt to balance the spells, or discourage their use a bit, at least. ( 5000GP worth o' diamonds for Raise Dead, for an example. ) What I would like to know is how do we justify the need for wizards to "prepare" their spells by memorizing them. Does it have an impact to let them cast whatever spells they study in the morning? Sure, but I think it is a good impact. Well, the pseudo-explanation is that wizards cast the spells when they prepare them, except for the few final components - that way, they can cast them quickly, as a ( usually a ) standard action. I mean, it would be easier if they'd have access to everything when they need it, but in the games I've played, the tactical choice of picking spells and leaving slots open for later studying, has been part of the point of playing a Wizard. I guess on way to look at this is I am turning the wizard into a quasi-sorcerer. I am limiting them to the spells that they have at hand, but giving them the ability to spontaneously cast. Well, it's not as bad as I first read. It's still a power-up, and if one cares about balance, of one gets free stuff, others should, too. Wizards are already the third most powerful class in the game. If one cares about balance, which is overrated, IMO.
Sim_antix 11-11-06, 02:27 PM	I use the Meta-Magic Specialist Variant from Unearthed Aracana or is it Players Handbook II? Either way yeah sorcerers can cast meta-magic spells without the delay.
kalmarjan 11-11-06, 04:51 PM	...I'm not sure I understand. Are you using the slots as a spells known per day, but allowing casting spontaneously, capped to the number of slots? Exactly. Well, the requirement of a book, may or may not matter, depending. ...So like a sorcerer, but without the delay. Surely, you've eliminated the full-round delay for sorcerers, too, then? It does matter if the wizard has a book, as that book of spells is what the wizard is limited to. As for the full round delay for sorcerers, are you refering to when they use metamagic? ...So, you've been giving your Sorcerers Eschew Materials for free at level 1, then? Everyone uses material components, however a lot of the stuff comes with a single entry, "spell component pouch". Other spells have costly material components, but that's an attempt to balance the spells, or discourage their use a bit, at least. ( 5000GP worth o' diamonds for Raise Dead, for an example. ) Kind of. What I do to make life a lot easier is to put a cap the free availability of components. Anything that is cheaper than 10 GP, I throw into the preparation time for the wizard/sorcerer. I also just deduct a set amount from them from each adventure. For components that are greater in value, such as your raise dead spell, for sure I stick to that. Again, it is something that the players and I have discussed and agreed upon. Note, what happens with the players also happens with the NPCs. As for the explanation of the wizard preparing the spell just to the point of casting, in my books, that is too retarded to even speak about. Again, perhaps one of the points to playing a wizard was picking the right spells for the adventure. I am not so sure... as I thought wizards were supposed to be the "big guns" of the party. Nothing ruins an adventure (or believability) like, "Sorry guys! I got to rest. All I have memorized is protection from evil. I know its the fourth round, but we gotta go!" See my point? Well, it's not as bad as I first read. It's still a power-up, and if one cares about balance, of one gets free stuff, others should, too. Wizards are already the third most powerful class in the game. If one cares about balance, which is overrated, IMO. I have heard this as well. From a balance perspective, I guess it is different strokes. While I see no problem with it, others (Gary Gygax) would argue otherwise. A lot of things are compared in the classes these days. It's great to compare two classes at 20th level, for sure. One other thing to hold in mind is the road there. Part of what makes a fighter suck compared to a cleric or a wizard is the trade off for the higher hitpoints at lower levels. That's another argument though. :) Like I said, I like both classes, and if I had my way, I would combine the best of both classes and call it something like a mage or something like that. I am willing to bet though that the people at WOTC will release something in the next incarnation of D&D that gets rid of the stupid memorize rule. Sandeman
SolemnDusk 11-11-06, 08:33 PM	(This whole page.) Flaming flamingo feet, Batman! Aaah... This is why I looooove Psionics... (Ardent=Good times.)
Ridureyu 11-12-06, 12:16 AM	Of course. Even a rusted, blunted, hundred year old pitchfork in the hands of a commoner (read: zero lvl fighter) deals out x2 on a 20. Well, when you jab a pitchfork into somebody's eye, it's going to hurt. And godless clerics. Ugh. Drawing divine power from... whatever the hell you feel like. A cleric of Lawful Plants? http://youtube.com/watch?v=HeZELhU2PJY And finally... never mind. I can't think of any rules complaints after watching that dude.
Subversive 11-12-06, 03:03 AM	Poison. Poison drives me crazy. "Hey, I just got bitten by a black widow." [one minute later] "Ok, I'm good to go." Poison should be treated like diseases, but with faster onsets and hit times, like one ding to con/hour, or 1d6 to dex/round for a set duration. If you want to shake off the effects, you need to make two (or more depending on the poison) consecutive saves. I understand they're trying to keep things simple and elegant, but in this case, simplicity sucks. -Steve
Proteus414 11-12-06, 07:15 AM	Oh, no. ...Let me put it this way - it doesn't matter now, because nobody will ever ever EVER play a sorcerer in your games. Actually, I suggest you discourage anyone from ever playing a sorcerer, so that they don't get blown out of water by wizards. I often wonder, though, how effective it would be to take a couple of levels of Sorcerer mixed in with Wizard. How do you calculate the number of spells per day a caster has? Do the caster levels stack in this case? Use a Sor 1/Wiz 3 and let me know . . .
Senevri 11-12-06, 09:22 AM	I often wonder, though, how effective it would be to take a couple of levels of Sorcerer mixed in with Wizard. How do you calculate the number of spells per day a caster has? Do the caster levels stack in this case? Use a Sor 1/Wiz 3 and let me know . . . They are com----pletely separate. You're essentially asking, what if a druid took a level of cleric. There is a PrC that helps, though. Old T&B did suggest - and a questionable suggestion it is, in many ways - picking a level of Sorcerer if you're a specialist wizard. That way you could still access items.
3erocks 11-12-06, 12:23 PM	The power attack with two handed weapon mass damage thing. I have made a house rule that you can only subtract up to your level and of course double it. Still my players were doing way to much damage and its annoying!.
brd_hef 11-12-06, 02:14 PM	as a DM i hate heavy fort. is there a way around it ? as a player i love it unless creatures have it.
brd_hef 11-12-06, 02:16 PM	power attk only allows you to use up to your BAB.
narukagami 11-12-06, 02:16 PM	The power attack with two handed weapon mass damage thing. I have made a house rule that you can only subtract up to your level and of course double it. Still my players were doing way to much damage and its annoying!. The cap for powerattack is your BAB. For characters without full BAB progression, you only helped them. For characters with full BAB progression, you changed nothing.
Burgundy Lotus 11-12-06, 04:14 PM	The cap for powerattack is your BAB. For characters without full BAB progression, you only helped them. For characters with full BAB progression, you changed nothing. Exactly what I was thinking
byakuganbrawler 11-12-06, 04:35 PM	I belive a sorceror has a better selection of weapons than the wizard oh yeah the duskblade is waaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy too powerful :mage: :fighter:
Ridureyu 11-12-06, 06:00 PM	If D&D were really like "How things work in the movies," then Charisma would be the only important stat. You need to know alchemy? Look hot. You need to win a fight? Look hot.
thought_riot 11-12-06, 06:20 PM	as a DM i hate heavy fort. is there a way around it ? as a player i love it unless creatures have it. LOL. Sorry. That's like saying "As a DM, I hate when players succeed on their saving throws. As a player, I love it, unless my enemy succeeds." .... How exactly is that a book rule you dont like?
MarkLentini 11-12-06, 07:38 PM	A 55 lb halfling, in leather armor on a 150 lb dog gets the same bonus (x2 or x3 or whatever) as a 250 lb human, in full plate on a 1000 lbs warhorse when charging. Makes me crazy.
Subversive 11-12-06, 07:45 PM	A 55 lb halfling, in leather armor on a 150 lb dog gets the same bonus (x2 or x3 or whatever) as a 250 lb human, in full plate on a 1000 lbs warhorse when charging. Makes me crazy. Hey, smaller weapons means pointier weapons, right? :D
Nom 11-12-06, 08:00 PM	Vancian spell casting.---Retarded. Spell points is so much neater, and makes a heck of a lot more sense.Actually, from one important perspective they are not retarded. Remeber that D&D grew out of wargaming. In a wargame, it's a lot cleaner to have a fixed set of abilities (just tick off a box) rather than doing "one from list A, one from list B, and that costs C" during game time. As written, spells basically work like spell-like abilities that can be customised during downtime. Whether that decision continued to make sense as the game grew in sophistication and evolved beyond simple combat is a different discussion. But both prepared and dynamic casting have their advantages and disadvantages, and being willing to examine the differences rather than just dismiss things as "retarded" makes one's arguments a lot more credible.
Sim_antix 11-12-06, 08:08 PM	Yeah except when all you have known is the role playing aspect and have never played the war gaming style then vancian casting is clearly inferior as well as not making alot of sense. I have to agree though that it is best to cite reasons for disliking something as it makes a better argument debate wise than "thats retarded yo"
Leress 12-20-06, 04:50 AM	I don't know if someone else already said this but... Divine not being affected by spell chance failure like arcane magic.:confused: :confused:
syrinth 12-20-06, 05:19 AM	I don't know if someone else already said this but... Divine not being affected by spell chance failure like arcane magic. *begins foaming at the mouth and cursing incoherently*
Zumarai 12-20-06, 05:37 AM	-Multi-class restriction for monks and paladins. -20% XP penalty multi-classing non-favoured rubbish. -Skill selection/options
blinks 12-20-06, 10:29 AM	... and automatically fail 1/20th of that time. The fact that you can automatically fail fort and will save... I thought that the only thing you could auto-fail (or crit, for that matter) was attack rolls. Someone will have to double check for me. That's right -- no auto-failing skill checks or fort saves. Just attack rolls. (And even that has an official variant.) Oh, and my disliked book rule: encumbrance. Especially when I'm playing with my "all combat, all the time" group, I just don't make them keep track of all the stuff they're carrying (usually not too much anyway). Just gets in the way.
High Octane 12-20-06, 10:33 AM	A 55 lb halfling, in leather armor on a 150 lb dog gets the same bonus (x2 or x3 or whatever) as a 250 lb human, in full plate on a 1000 lbs warhorse when charging. Makes me crazy. Yeah. They both do 3 times as much damage. But the halfling does LESS damage to start, so he ends up doing less in the end.
Zumarai 12-20-06, 10:34 AM	I thought that the only thing you could auto-fail (or crit, for that matter) was attack rolls. Someone will have to double check for me. *double checks* Indeed, rolling a "1" on a save is an automatic fail.
Sphyre 12-20-06, 11:44 AM	I also don't like death by massive damage. It makes sense, but...I just don't like it. Especially once we get into epic levels and they have to make a save every time they take a hit, and automatically fail 1/20th of that time. I don't do death by massive damage either. For one it's yet another instant death that just hurts the PCs. But it also makes spells that deal hitpoint damage also save or dies. At 15d6 when you roll average damage, your damage spells (oooh yay! lets make area of effect spells too!) are dealing damage and forcing a save or die. Empowered Fireballs, on average are AoE save or dies too. Since all spells are standard actions, and fighters get more attacks as they level up, as opposed to a direct increase in damage. And isn't it the popular opinion that casters are already strong? Add to enigma that at 50+ HP you're vulnerable to a save or die from the Harm spell, while if you have 1-50 HP you're not vulnerable to it. That's just a few of the reasons why I houserule it out.
Sphyre 12-20-06, 11:48 AM	I thought that the only thing you could auto-fail (or crit, for that matter) was attack rolls. Someone will have to double check for me. That's right -- no auto-failing skill checks or fort saves. Just attack rolls. (And even that has an official variant.) Things subject to auto-success/auto-fail on 20 or 1: Rolls to hit Saves Things not subject to auto-success/auto-fail on 20 or 1: Opposed rolls Skill checks Ability checks I can't think of anything else that requires a d20... but i'm sure there's more.
Abulafia 12-20-06, 12:57 PM	Improved critical and keen stack in my games. Imp. crit. is the skill of the wielder, and keen is a magical property applied to the weapon. Of course they stack. I never understood the change.100% agreement. "Keen" implies the weapon is sharper -- does the Improved Critical feat now merely mean that I learned how to sharpen my weapon? Pet peeve number one is spell components. While they offer some flavor, the rule assumptions are ridiculous -- a small bag contains all of this stuff? And they're assumed to never run out? And it takes less than six seconds to, say, crush a diamond and sprinkle it over somebody? But if someone takes away your magic baggie, you can't cast spells? I dumped the whole concept from my game and never looked back. My other big peeve (and I apologize if it's already been listed, but I'm not going to read 19 pages) is the new polymorph rules. I had no problems with the old Polymorph spell (the Sage's writings on the matter were pretty clear, I thought), so I ignored the rule change and kept it in. Now a sizable chunk of new material has substantially different game mechanics, and every time a new book comes out I get to rack my brains trying to figure out which spells I should allow, or what kinds of special abilities the monsters have. Thanks, Wizards!
SevSaint 12-20-06, 01:20 PM	personaly I cant stand the rule that says who ever has the initiative in the first round automaticaly catches the opponent flat footed (unless they have uncanny dodge) I agree for the sake of realism, but how else could you deal with it. In game terms it applies but out of game it doesn't make sense. The reason is because we all dont do things one person at a time. The reason this rule applies and i accept it (rogues and improved ini are more effective) is because it's a turn based game. Each round is suppose to all happen simotanesly and initiative is suppose to determine how quick a player responds, at least thats what i interupt which may be wrong.
Kursk 12-20-06, 01:46 PM	personaly I cant stand the rule that says who ever has the initiative in the first round automaticaly catches the opponent flat footed (unless they have uncanny dodge) We toasted this one from the beginning. Only "suprise" allows that.
High Octane 12-20-06, 01:49 PM	We toasted this one from the beginning. Only "suprise" allows that. Honestly I never KNEW about it, and I dont think it works at all, so Ill leave it.
clarkvalentine 12-20-06, 02:16 PM	Each round is suppose to all happen simotanesly and initiative is suppose to determine how quick a player responds, at least thats what i interupt which may be wrong. Right - if you win initiative, you draw and strike before your opponent gets his bearings. That's the benefit of winning initiative. Everyone says they hate this rule, but I never did see the problem with it.
Kursk 12-20-06, 02:30 PM	Right - if you win initiative, you draw and strike before your opponent gets his bearings. That's the benefit of winning initiative. Everyone says they hate this rule, but I never did see the problem with it. So the Orc & 20th level fighter eye each other across 30' of open space, the orc wins init. He moves 30' to the 20th level fighter (who just stands there stunned and can't raise his weapon or shuffle his feet) and strikes without the fighter being able to even weave or dodge. Yep, no problem there. :rolleyes:
calvinNhobbes 12-20-06, 02:39 PM	A 55 lb halfling, in leather armor on a 150 lb dog gets the same bonus (x2 or x3 or whatever) as a 250 lb human, in full plate on a 1000 lbs warhorse when charging. Makes me crazy. Eh, I'm ok with this. I mean if you get run through with a lance, you get run through with a lance. It's going to hurt alot. In theory, the human on a large steed is going to get more to hit bonuses for strength and being higher, and is going to do more damage also due to the strength bonus. You know, it's kind of like, what hurts more getting your head cut off with a short sword or a two handed sword. Err.. who cares you are dead.
Abulafia 12-20-06, 02:42 PM	So the Orc & 20th level fighter eye each other across 30' of open space, the orc away wins init. He moves 30' to the 20th level fighter (who just stands there stunned and can't raise his weapon or shuffle his feet) and strikes without the fighter being able to even weave or dodge. You seem to think this is unrealistic, but you're not considering what's going on in the fighter's mind: Hey, look at that orc! A single orc, wielding a greataxe. Boy, that takes me back . . . I remember when I was Level 1 and used to fight these guys all the time. Good times. Oh, wait: he's running over here! Is he seriously thinking about attacking me in melee? Doesn't he know that I can do four attacks per round? Ah well. Poor little bugger. I'll let him get one good hit in for old time's sake. Even if he crits, I'll still have 300 more hit points.
Kursk 12-20-06, 02:55 PM	You seem to think this is unrealistic, but you're not considering what's going on in the fighter's mind: Hey, look at that orc! A single orc, wielding a greataxe. Boy, that takes me back . . . I remember when I was Level 1 and used to fight these guys all the time. Good times. Oh, wait: he's running over here! Is he seriously thinking about attacking me in melee? Doesn't he know that I can do four attacks per round? Ah well. Poor little bugger. I'll let him get one good hit in for old time's sake. Even if he crits, I'll still have 300 more hit points. I love it! :bump:
Sphyre 12-20-06, 02:59 PM	Ah well. Poor little bugger. I'll let him get one good hit in for old time's sake. Even if he crits, I'll still have 300 more hit points. HAX! Don't you know fighters are supposed to be underpowered? :tongue:
Leress 12-20-06, 10:51 PM	I don't know if someone else already said this but... Divine not being affected by spell chance failure like arcane magic. *begins foaming at the mouth and cursing incoherently* Is that an agreement or disagreement???:confused:
Nom 12-20-06, 11:07 PM	We toasted this one from the beginning. Only "suprise" allows that.No, SevSaint is correct. You are flat-footed until your turn to act. Don't forget that "moving 30 ft. and attacking" is about 5 seconds activity. Sure, if you knew the orc was there and had been expecting trouble for the last 30 seconds, you'd be unlikely to be caught off-guard. But because of the system model you might not have even been aware of the potential for trouble until he came running at you. Remember that it can take an alert car driver well over a second to even realise that he needs to start braking (let alone do so), and that's an alert driver looking at a small area and responding with a relatively small movement. Now consider distractions, poor light, 360 degrees (and possibly up and down), and moving your entire body into position. 3-5 seconds doesn't seem nearly as unreasonable.
syrinth 12-21-06, 12:14 AM	Is that an agreement or disagreement???:confused: That is me hating the bloody fact that divine casters can wear armor ewith no problem.
Mock26 12-21-06, 12:21 AM	That is me hating the bloody fact that divine casters can wear armor ewith no problem. Divine casters can wear armor because their spells are granted from gods and goddesses, and since these are divine beings they get to create the laws of the universe. So, they want their clerics to be able to kick some serious but alongside the fighters AND cast spells. Who's to doubt the wisdom of the gods and goddesses? Oh, and clerics are based on the militaristic religious orders of the Middle Ages. These were warrior priests. Yes, those priests could not cast spells, but Gary Gygax and his successors opted for a little creative licensing when they wrote the game.
KurenaiYami 12-21-06, 02:18 AM	That is me hating the bloody fact that divine casters can wear armor ewith no problem. Yeah, but Arcane spells pack more of a punch. Clerics can keep their defense. Wizards get offense. Everybody's happy.
darksyngr 12-21-06, 02:22 AM	stat increase. I don't usually do it by level. I allow characters 'train' to increase their stats. IE: STR can be increased by doing WT-Lifting over a certain time frame for a max of 18... higher requires magic item.
darksyngr 12-21-06, 02:27 AM	That is me hating the bloody fact that divine casters can wear armor ewith no problem. As someone else stated: Divine casters pray to have their powers granted. However, wizards must use complex gestures which armor would reduce the mages manuverability to cast. The more regid the armor the greater chance of a spell fail. I forgo spell failure when spells do not require somatic movement. I have had a wizard that took spells with no somatic components and wore chain mail.
syrinth 12-21-06, 03:06 AM	Yes, I know "the reason" I just think it's stupid. As for wizards spells packing more punch, of course! I mean, it's not like clerics get AoEs that deal half divine damage that isnt elemental and they certainly don't have access to any of the wizards spells, I mean that'd be ludicrous if they did.
Leress 12-21-06, 03:50 AM	Divine casters can wear armor because their spells are granted from gods and goddesses, and since these are divine beings they get to create the laws of the universe. So, they want their clerics to be able to kick some serious but alongside the fighters AND cast spells. Who's to doubt the wisdom of the gods and goddesses? Oh, and clerics are based on the militaristic religious orders of the Middle Ages. These were warrior priests. Yes, those priests could not cast spells, but Gary Gygax and his successors opted for a little creative licensing when they wrote the game. But spell chance failure is cause by having gestures interfered with not because it is arcane. Divine have somantic components.
KurenaiYami 12-21-06, 04:03 AM	But spell chance failure is cause by having gestures interfered with not because it is arcane. Divine have somantic components. That's just a Cleric waving to his God to say hello.
DracoPhoenix 12-21-06, 05:18 AM	There's like 12+ pages here. Anyone know if DM0's come up yet? If not, how many people would actually like that one pulled? :) (ok. don't answer, I think I just figured out where 8 pages at least came from :D)
Trokanis_Knightblade 12-21-06, 05:23 AM	Part1. Here's how I see it as far as flat footed is concerned, 2 combatants standing in a arena waiting to beat eachother senseless no one is caught unawares. Street side, a person attacks you even if they draw and charge from 30 ft, sorry you're flat footed, barring some class feature like precognition. (that is my HOUSE rule, that is how I see it, a mix of realism along with the book rule) {let me say again house rule variant, to each their own, my house my rules :devil: I do it this way for flavor, fun and a bit of structure} Part2. Not really a rule but a game aspect I think AC needs a little work, I just don't like how (as it has been said earlier in this thread) after a few levels it becomes you're hit all the time or never hit, usually being the PC's are hit all the time, and have trouble hitting others. Unless you're a min/maxed PC designed for uber ac, you're looking at what a 25 ac with a shield and some neat items, maybe 28 if you stack some feats in, while any ogre barb can hit you on a 7, and anything stronger hits you without barely a roll. In return you go to hit them and oops you didn't hit their 38+ ac, (using a demon for example.) Now being tired this isn't "perfect" examples, but for the most part I just feel it's a little on the iffy side. ESPECIALLY in the games I play in, whereas magic items aren't common.
darksyngr 12-21-06, 05:35 AM	I think Shadowrun had the best concept for AC if a bit complex. I would love for WotC to reintro it in one of their books. I also think Unearthed Arcana addressed the AC problem, but can't look through book right now to find it.