Duncan & Dragons's page

Ok, so I have a Were-monkey with a DR 5/silver as part of its traits.
(Were-monkey is a mythological creature not in the Beastiary used for demonstration sake)....

Robyn

Seriously, this is probably the most creative idea for were-creatures I have ever read. It actually makes sense that some magical disease causes you to regress to a Monkey/Ape. Could you imagine a barroom brawl where someone turns into a Silverback Gorilla? It would be like the magical equivalent of the Incredible Hulk.

I need to play Devil's Advocate here (would that be a Tiefling Lawyer?).

Although I do not necesarily advise this, my group usually plays with a Warlock (Striker), Warden (Defender) and Wizard (Controller). That's right, no Leader/Healer. We basically have classes that have lots of temp hit points and most of us have Inititate of Faith. We also take magic that allows use of Healing Surges.

My point is that a Leader is not necessarily a must-have party member. I am sure that this is not an optimal party, but there are options that still let people choose their favoriate class without saying, 'Who's the Leader?'

P.S. I don't fully understand the evolution of how it happened. We started at low levels with at least one Cleric/Warlord/Bard. We had lots of deaths. Now everyone is more self reliant and we have fewer deaths.

EDIT: I think that the Tiefling Warlock and the Eladrin Wizard being hard to tack down also helps keep them safe.

Personally, I think it would have been easily to just have a 'Defensive' keyword for powers so they don't provoke, but this method mostly works, I suppose.

Defensive keyword would definitely have been better - this feels like a kludge. Works but its not elegant.

I could see how certain powers could cause a chain reaction of Immediate Interrupts interfering with each other across the battlefield. We mostly just look at what happens during your turn and making sure we do not provoke an OA. I should probably pay more attention.....

I can not figure out why they call these powers "Close Burst 5" instead of "Range 5" unless they get better...

The reason this, and several similar powers, are "one target within a Close Burst 5" is because a "Ranged 5" effect would provoke an OA, while this does not.

All Warden's get it, it's a class feature.

Warden's Grip, at will, Primal...

Now if the Warden had an opponent within 5 squares that was marked and this opponent attack someone else, the attacker affect would be:
1- -2 to the attack as a general affect for being marked
2- If the Warden chooses, Slide 1 and slowed for Warden's Grip

If adjacent, would the Warden get an AoO? Only if they had another power similar to the fighters Combat Challenge I think. If they have another power that can cause an AoO, do they get the AoO AND the Wardens Grip affect? I think they would have to choose one interrupt or reaction per turn.

Minor points, but I am saying that just because they get to mark all adjacent opponents at once as a free action does not mean they get more than one immediate interrupt/reaction to use all those marks. The only thing that applies to everything is the -2 for attacking someone besides the marker.

No need to respond unless I am off base. Thanks.

EDIT: More clarification. The player can not wait for all the enemy attacks to occur and then after the last attack say, "As an Immediate Reaction, all my marked opponents that attacked someone else get hit by Warden's Grip. So all those guys who attacked someone else get to be slide/slowed." We resolve one opponent at a time and the Warden chooses whether to affect that ONE opponent. Once again, just because they get to mark all adjacent opponents at once as a free action does not mean they get more than one interrupt to use all those marks.

EDIT2: At least at lower levels. I don't know whether these powers escalate to hit more targets since it is a Burst power. I can not figure out why they call these powers "Close Burst 5" instead of "Range 5" unless they get better with level/feat/powers and affect more than one target.

Lunge is not useless at all. Warden's have a ranged interrupt for marked foes, so you can start a turn adjacent, to, say, 2 baddies. Mark for free, charge baddie 3, use Lunge, mark him. Now, you have 3 marked, and you can mess with all three.

Warden's are very very very good at defining where on the battlefield the enemy can move. They don't punish movement as much as a fighter or paladin, but they say 'You can go here or there. No where else.'

What stops the multiple AoO from happening?

When you move away in my example? Nothing, you take the AoOs. So what - you're a tank, you take hits :) On Whiteclaw, my warden in Rosey's PbP, I never worry about if I take an AoO. I worry about finding a way to make sure I can get to where I'm needed most on the field. I draw a lot of AoOs.

The markee (is that a word?) can still shift 'out of range' and then attack someone or charge someone else. I don't have my books handy, but it is not like the Avenger powers that allow you to follow the enemy and attack them? For example, we had a bad guy teleport the other night and then attack someone else. The Warden player argued that he should get an AoO even though he had no means of reaching the bad guy.

EDIT: I have to look up this ranged interrupt power for marked foes Amelia mentioned. Our player did not mention it. Do all Warden's get it or did the Player have to pick a Feat or Power to get it?

I likes MJ66's simple solution.

On a related question, how does everyone handle the 'half squares' on the edge of a room when using Dwarven Forge? I would like to count them as squares but the truth is it causes a miniature traffic jam where the figures do not fit. I was think of saying "this is DM space for the furniture only".

EDIT: I was also thinking of having people put figures on the corner between four squares. Wiht half squares on four sides of a room it actually works out.

I've been thinking about ....
I like magic items, but I dislike the complete the utter necessity of certain magic items. For example, if a high-level character loses their high level weapon/implement, and they didn't happen to carry a spare in their bag, their effectiveness in battle drops to nearly nil.

We appear to have conflicting rules. But the intent of the rules still seems to be that you only get multiple attacks when you take a full action that does not involve movement except 5' step. I am counting overrun as an attack and charge as an attack.

Until someone clarifies, I would allow some to TRY to charge and overrun an intevening opponent, the kobold lineman, on the way to the kobold shaman. If the kobold lineman allows you to pass (maybe an intimidation check?) you can continue the charge un-impeded and attack the kobold shaman. (I would give the kobold lineman an AoO.) If the lineman interferes, you use a standard action to resolve the overrun. If you successfully overrun, you can move to, BUT NOT ATTACK, the kobold shaman.

I hope we eventually have feats that will allow higher level types to use the POWER ATTACK FEAT TREE to allow these action combinations similarily to how the COMBAT EXPERTISE FEAT TREE allows Whirlwind Attack.

You know that you can get 5 by 8 index card holders that will hold all the map cards

What the f!@! is this thread about?

Now it has many elements including:

1- People who can't see needing LoS
2- People who don't have LoS on what can be seen without LoS rules
3- Paizo staff who gracefully exited when things got ugly; I think they had line of sight on cookies
4- People trying to provide concealment for the LoS argument by providing a smoke screen discussion on visibility
5- People could not see someone else’s point; so they made wrong assumptions and took offense; but the other person did not see (although they were flat footed) and the attack missed; other people did see and assumed they were attacked
6- People were genuinely rude
7- Lilith described how nice life is with cookies and no grid; apparently nice people see other nice people, but not on a grid and no LoS is involved; has anyone ever sent Lilith cookies?
8- Some people were fencing in prose and quotes on page 2; some of it had LoS blocked by <Spoiler: Show>
9- Some guy likes being a programmer who reads; Someone else liked not being a programmer
10- Some statistical analysis of each other’s sarcasm on page 3
11- I visited d20pfrpg.com; it is really good; it has LoS defined but there was no Line of Effect to most posters on this thread because there was no link
12- Apparently some of us went into a closet on page 3; this blocked LoE & LoS but it was too dark to see; Noloelos is my new PCs name
13- People who are exasperated by this thread not dying, but they usually quickly turn invisible...

I think I missed a Perception Check and did not see something in this thread. My wife says I miss a lot of Perception Checks. At least I think that is what she said because my daughter had to tell me about it later. Sometimes if you do not have LoS on what your wife says, it has LoE on your love life....

[D&D rolls a Diplomacy Check and gets a...]

I am going to risk abuse on this sarcastic thread.

I think the original posters point was valid. There has been a paradigm change from Line of Sight being a defined term back to line of sight being a common sense. Since I assume most of us came from playing 3.5 (big asssumption), I think the question was reasonable to ask.

It makes us subject to house rules and interpretation. Take the situation where a character was 'around a corner' and down the hall a goblin ran across the hallway between two doors. If I was a guest at DM's PRPG, I could see the DM adjudicating this three ways:

1- "I use 3.5 Line of Sight rules. The Line of Sight was down the wall, was therefore unobstructed and you see the goblin."

2- "I use PRPG line of sight, which I interpret as center of square to center to 'whatever'. You did not tell me you were checking around the corner regularily; therefore you did not see the goblin."

3- "I use a PRPG common sense definition of sight. I assumed you were seeking cover and also peaking around the corner. I gave you a check to see the goblin and the result was..[fill in blank]."

Now flip the situation around and have the PC run across the hall and the goblin being around the corner. It becomes even more emotional when the player is told the goblin had a readied action to shoot an arrow if he sees the PC. This is what causes people to get mad at each other.

Although I agree with the general concept of method 3, I don't see any of them as wrong. I could see people having some disappointment based on what different DM's and different Players were assuming. Maybe it would be better just to have said 'what you can see' rather than using the old term 'Line of Sight'.

PS I am in favor of using a grid because it clearly helps you understand where eveything is. I still have nightmares about D&D in the old days with arguments about whether the fireball fired into a room explodes out of the room and kills the party. But I also see how the grid has changed my groups style of play.

I got a crazy thought. How about PfRPG v2.0 around the time an average gamers hard cover book has the cover fall off from use? Basically fix typos, make rule clarification and some legitimate 'oops we should have done it this way' stuff.

Maybe it does not meet the 'v2.0 test' but we have to buy new books someday.

Perhaps, instead of a numerical value for hp for these guys, just give them a bloodied state. So now, the first hit on the goon reduces it to bloodied (with all the mechanics that are included in that), and another hit kills it.

Shouldn't an animal companion have four feats regardless of HD? Unless it is a snake, than it has no feats.

Sorry.....

Since no one else commented, I applaud your concept of a Goon. I have no idea what the XP would be and whether it is balanced. I don't play Exalted, but Goons should be fun.

-----------------------------------

Player - "I hit him for five damage; so the Minion is dead."

DM - "Did I say he was a Minion? He is still alive and as a matter of fact he hits you for 24 fire damage."

Player - "What? He must be a Minion; there are twelve of them! You are cheating."

DM - "No, he is not a Minion and I am not 'cheating'. I am using exciting new monsters concepts to keep you on your toes. Did you take that fire damage? Oh, and On-going Fire Damage 5."

I don't mean to be persnickity but, Forced Movement has nothing to do with Teleport. Forced movement is a sub-paragraph to Push, Pull, Slide. Forced movement says no vertical movement and you get a saving throw if you go over the edge.

Teleport is in a different paragraph. It has no restrictions on vertical movement. It has no situation mentioned that will allow a saving throw. Teleport seems to be more powerful than forced movement in that you can go vertical and no save since you are never near the edge of the cliff. One instant you are safe, the next you are treading air. Maybe it was an oversight, but those are not RAW teleport restrictions.

This section about the portal dragon implies that you can teleport people into a space that will lead to fall, but the DM should be nice about it. No restriction I see on being nice if you are a player. So the poor DM is forced into a quandary. If the players go flying, they get to use a tactic on the monsters that the DM is discouraged to use on the players. I have not seen the stat block on a Portal Dragon, but I assume they have wings and can basically dominate a airborne fight if you are mounted.

This sounds like a loop hole that players can exploit. If you got a bunch of obnoxious rules lawyers that like to argue, I would go with the house rule that you can only teleport to a hard surface. I am going to discuss with my players but I am going for the concept that you always get at least one save if the alternative is death. So a teleport to a reasonable fall is ok. But if you want to kill something outright, it better be an exceptional situation. I may regret this.
,
New Magic Item. A saddle that does not let you get teleported off of your mount. Sounds good, but a little less functional than Dragonrider armor since it is so specific. But most high level folks could afford a good saddle without tying up your armor slot for a 'seat belt'.

Even Newer Magic Item. Maybe a belt that defends you against baneful teleports? It gives you a save? Is that the wrong item slot for this type of magic? This would cost more than the saddle since it would work when you are mounted and when you are not.

Where do people get that you can not teleport into the air?

I understand that a decent house rule is that you can only teleport to 'hard surfaces'. It will stop alot of abuse. But is there something in the rules? I thought the only 'rule' was that forced movement can not be vertical.

I just wanted to chime into to say I appreciate everyones comments. My conclusion is that the rules don't cover this. And then I want added fuel to the fire.

Forced movement can sometimes allow you to knock someone into a pit after a failed save. Likewise, an attack that causes you to suffer the Prone condition while mounted allows a saving throw to stay mounted. (I think I remember that right) You can knock them off the flying mount with a Prone condition plus failed save. Likewise, trying to teleport a rider off the mount should be allowed... somehow.

I think I am going to add this paradigm. I think the ability to teleport or force move your opponent was intended to affect the tactical layout of the battlefield. It was not intended to be a damage producing effect. However, sometimes it works out that you can both force them to move AND have them take damage after a failed save if you are lucky/clever. (I am presuming the DM is smart enough to make the pit a reasonable fall for that level encounter.) Same for teleport; it can cause damage in the right situation. However, I also believe a teleport should be a little bit better than a forced move. (We all agree teleporting over a level appropriate pit is OK. Right? Else they should have said something in the book. The 'teleport to strong surface' house rule is just to stop abuse?)

So here is my proposal;

1- Forced move can cause reasonable damage if you fail a save.

2- Forced movement can cause 'instant death falls' (i.e. bottomless pits) with two saves. (One failed puts you over the edge. The second save is that grab for a rock, branch, etc 20 feet down.)

3- Teleport is better and can cause reasonable damage WITHOUT a save. Teleport over the reasonably sized pit and you 'fall down go boom'.

4- Teleport can cause 'instant death falls' with a failed save. So teleporting over the Bottomless Pit allows you to grab the side of the pit 20' down if you save. Teleporting the rider off of a HIGH elevation mount should allow a save, but not if you are only 40' up. Maybe the save is the mount flying back under and catching you, but you lose a round.

5- A rider who gets the Prone condition dismounts if you fail the save. No damage but the denial of the mount is bad.

6- A flying rider who gets a Prone condition dismounts with a failed save. But at high elevations you get a 'death fall save' to grab the stirup (spellng?)or be saved by the mount before you go splat.

And then just to cause debate:
Maybe the 'death fall save' should allow a save with a one half level bonus? Or maybe three saves equals death? Or maybe you get a third 'death fall save' only at paragon levels? (Heroic types die if they go airborne)

Is this in the spirit of 4e? As things get worse, you get more saves? Likewise, this provides a model for other situations. The worse the punishment, the more the saves. The mark on the wall is zero hit points plus 3 failed savings equals death. Also 3 failed saves equals Petrification.

I was DMing this weekend and ran into a situation. The parties Warlock had a power that allows him to teleport an opponent. The party happen to have been standing on the city walls being attacked by a spell cast mounted on a Manticore. He wanted to use the teleport to seperate the rider from the mount. My call was that the creatures could not be seperated and the spell caster and manticore were teleported together.

I don't care about this exact situation since it would have been fun to drop the spell caster 50 feet or so. What I am concerned about is at higher levels when they are in aerial combat. One attack could drop a rider to their death, no saving throw, although admittedly you need to succeed in the attack. It would require anyone with intellgence to use Dragonrider armor. And I don't know if all classes even have access to armor that can accept Dragonrider enchantment.

It also concerned me because it seems an easy way for me, the DM, to kill half the group. A couple of teleporters could just teleport the characters off of their mounts. Likewise, with the ability to teleport a rider off the mount, the same logic should allow you to teleport an item away from a person holding it.

The only thing close I could find in the DMG is how to handle forced movement on a mounted character. It really did not help. Any ideas or rules anyone has seen?

EDIT: The DMG says: "Forced Movement: If an attack that forces movement targets you but not your mount, you can choose for your mount to also be affected, so that you and your mount continue to move together." I just felt that teleporting is not similar enough to say this is the same rule for teleporting. But I think this would be the intent of the designers.

Congrats! I could not resist a bad name idea:

Duncan & Draco.

I will risk posting in this thread and try a minor thread jack.

Why do ghouls have to look dead or even be dead? Isn't that a D&D thing? I thought ghouls were people that ate other people. I think it started with a living person eating dead people and then the person died from all the necrotic energy and became an undead ghoul. Then they started killing living people for food. But does the ghoul body have to decay like a zombie? I thought that vampires drank the blood and ghouls eat the flesh to maintain themselves? So she can have a young body but she gets to eat you on your dinner date.

Or maybe this topic is covered in Dungeon Critters Revisited.

A point of clarification: being Slowed reduces your Speed to 2, but this does not mean you can only move two squares at a time. It simply menas that you can only move two squares at a time when using a form of movement based on your Speed.

Of course, if you want the "slowed" condition to be a little more harsh, you are free to make it cap any kind of movement to 2 squares. Just make sure everybody knows that's the interpretation you are going to use beforehand so nobody gets surprised by it.

I understand the rules as Matthew has summarized, but do you think that is what the game wanted to happen? I don't mind the running thing because you get negative modifiers. But should Vault the Fallen allow you to shift that much? Was the intent something like; 'You are half frozen. Any of your movement is reduced (including shifts, slides, etc.) but your buddy can slide you with his powers since your being half frozen would not matter to him moving you." Did they just write the rules that way to be concise, but they really wanted to say, "All self initiated movement is reduced, not just your speed. Ok, you can teleport normal distances, but no using loop holes to move around."

I co-Dm with another guy (He plays for 3 levels, then I play for 3 levels). I am the RAW guy and he is the Intent Of The Rules guy. I enjoy the Intent Of The Rules approach but it always causes arguments at the table. Maybe it just depends on people's personalities at the table. Ideally, as Jason said, everyone would agree before hand, but new things always come up.

I think several people, including myself, have considered it. But no one has done it yet to my knowledge. I am not talking about an adventure convertion, that has been done, but rather a "this in 4e equals this in 3.5/PfRPG" primer.

If you want a head start, I would look at osme of the fan projects for convertions from 3.5 to 4.0. A little reserach might identify patterns such as you have hypothesised in your post.

Craig , is ending his contest soon. If you want to talk about how you use Alea Tools, now is the time. See my original post for the link.

Wow interesting dilema. I wonder if the question should be; Does PfRPG or 4e fix this issue? I have never done the analysis like you have, but as a 3.5 DM I have got the impression that this is a re-occuring problem. Although maybe not to this extreme. I will watch this thread in anticipation.

Just imagine all of the spells redone so that the spell caster is outclassing everyone at the table it would be interesting no.

Isn't that pretty much how it works now? How D&D has been since the beginning?

Spellcasters have always been "outclassing everyone at the table"

p.s. Is artillery still the biggest killer on the battlefield? Has land mines replaced it? These low intensity conflicts have outdated my military training.

I recommend it if you are a DM, but I would not if you are a player.

Not that there is any reason not to subscribe as a DM, but the only thing I personally use as a DM is encounter creation stuff.

Thanks for the advice Disenchanter.

I have posted a copy of the Alea Tools Color Code Chart at ENWORLD, here.

Craig of Alea Tools has posted a thread on ENWORLD, here, to try to get input on how people are using Alea Tools in their 4th Edition games. He has also made it a contest of sorts by offering 'free stuff' for 'winning ideas'.

He has posted a JPG of the chart I made for what colors designate conditions according to my house rules. I also posted an explanation of my thought process for the design. Any input, posted here or there, would be appreciated. The input is partially for me and partially for Craig who is trying to advise people on how to use Alea Tools for 4e.

Finally, how do I post an actual excel spreadsheet (or clear JPG) of the chart?

Alright, I did not see anyone say it.. why buy it when you can get it for free? I have the DDI and we get downloads fast. I have not bought a hardcopy book yet, even the core books. I feel the subscription is worth the ability to make characters with pre-populated power cards. So I 'feel' that all books are essentially free. I just cannot take them to the park with me ...

Maybe I should word it this way, DDI lets you test ride for free.

Theoretically speaking, isn't the warlord a Leader rather than a Defender? Could explain the whole losing consciousness thing.

Since as you said you are not the Defender, you are up there fighting with less ability to hit, a lower AC and fewer hp/surges. And it gets worse since you are fast forwarding combat; two attacks on you in one round so that an ally (presumably a Defender) gets a second attack on the enemy. Maybe the opponent dies faster, but so does the Bravura Warlord.

The class seems flawed. It exposes your weaknesses to get your special powers working. It would be a like a Wizard who gets +2d6 damage to his attacks spells, but you must cast the spell in melee and let the opponent get an AO. I think it needs a way of getting temp hit points. Bravura Warlord is a fun class, but it seems foolish unless you are incredibly lucky.

Dwarves bring a lot to the table by default, and Con is always handy - but lack of either primary or secondary stats, plus specialization in low-proficiency weapons... well, it isn't a game-breaker, but I suspect it is one of several factors that have hindered the character.

Well, there are a number of very nice feats for it in a few online Dragon articles. I'm not sure if you or anyone in your group has access, but the ones that stand out:
- Harlequin Assault ...
- Menacing Brute Style, ...

Well, the main problem with Bravura Warlords is that they're highly reliant on luck. If you're rolling well, the enemies will be beaten into a bloody pulp. If you're not, you're going to be the bloody pulp.

... or is it just me.

I am currently the party Leader. I have picked Bravura Warlord. For those who have not looked at the class, they have a lot of powers that are based off of 'give the enemy a free attack in order for your ally to get a free attack.' It is fun. I keep loosing consciousness.

I am a Dwarf. I use a Reckless Maul (+4 damage, -2 to your AC). So I gave up the shield option. I picked fun feats that helped healing and charge and such. My fighters are a bit 'cautious' and I frequently went in first with a Charge. I did not fare well.

Eventually my DM and I talked and he let me exchange a bunch of feats to take Scale Armor proficiency, Heavy Shield proficiency and Durable. I just could not spare the AC and hit points. I also have a Walking Dead Cloak (2 surges when I take 2nd Wind) and Dwarven Armor (daily free surge) so I do not suck up too much healing resources. The Reckless property is now on a Craghammer and I use the Reckless property sparingly. I also wait for the fighter to get engaged and then I move into a tactical spot in the second line. I also cannot safely engage brutes since they 'always' hit. Finally, the group never seems to line up right for me to use my 'all allies in X radius heal' powers.

So now that I am cowardly wimp, I still I feel like a liability. I still suck up the Healing Surges that I should be using to help the party. I always run out of healing surges first and the group takes an extended rest. Is the Bravura Warlord pretty on paper but works out poorly since 'hit-me, hit-you' does not play well? Am I missing another major weakness besides the need to maximize hp and AC? The only thing keeping me alive is that I threaten to come back as a female gnome bard if the DM kills me.

I am not an expert, but I shop on eBay more than I should.

My gut says that you should sell them on eBay as individual items unless you have a complete set. Even with a complete set you would be better selling with the same auction end time but advertise that a complete set is available. That way the completionist will be forced to raise his bid to get the one item he wants verses the guy who wants the set. List the most valuable items last. When the guy who wants the set starts winning the low value items, he will be forced to bid against the completionist for the high value items to complete the set.

That said, to just get rid of them while making a reasonable amount of money for the effort, sell them in lots (Rolemaster and AD&D). I am betting that they are not worth that much unless you have a diamond in the rough. Just selling them in lots usually make senses or else the post office runs make it not worth it.

To determine if you have a diamond in the rough, do a search active sales (both auction and 'buy-it now' items) and searches by completed auctions. Competioned auction only stay up for about two weeks so you might have to search over several weeks. If you have something that is worth money, set a long auction window (10 days) and sell it with a Reserve (maybe 75% value). Keep repeating the auction until your Reserve is met. Everyone does not shop every week.

Or write numbers on papers and pull from a hat.

ps My wife says the local vendors do not support iPhone cellular service in Iraq, but maybe in Kuwait they do.

Have a great time in Kuwait. If you are lucky enough not to be on patrol alot, keep in touch with USO/Red Cross. When I was in Bosnia they gave out free MtG cards and we had a mini-convention. I doubt WotC will give out free D&D games but maybe you could get support for WWGD or something.

ps I am just assuming Paizo is too small to support the troops like Hasbro.

pss When did dice become prohibited? My wife has mentions alcohol and porn, but why dice?

Is it my birthday present Vic?

It's your bday today? (19th)
Mine too!
Cake for me!

My wife is on a trip and she left a message that my present would not be delivered today as planned. She obviously called Vic and told him to send me something special as a back-up plan. So whatever it is, it is my birthday present! I will share though.

Didn't Trued20 have some sort of saving throw for damage effects? I think this is what you are describing where you get physically worse as you fail savings throws from damage.

Sort of, more or less, could've been very similar, not sure. I didn't play True20, but if there is already something like this and you've played what was your experience with it?

Thanks

Well, it doesn't look like I'll get a chance to check out the Condition Track with D&D before the playtest ends. I'll be out of town for several days and unable to do it before the end. This thread will be lockarino'd before then. Drat.

I will restrict myself to 4e push/pull/slide effects. I am not sure whether these options are best served through Feats or Combat Maneuvers, but I would enjoy the following:
Exchange place with enemy (Ya missed me!)
Exchange place with friend (Get over here!)
Pull your enemy towards you as you move back (Lock blades and pull!!!)
Push (We already have Bullrush so this is covered)
Slide (maybe a feat that gives a sideways effect to a Bullrush?)
Movement w/o AoO beyond 5' free step (Tumbling sort of covers this)

I think this whole concept also needs to be worked in with Full-Round Iterative Attacks. I think that is what really makes the battlefield static. To help that, I wish certain certain Feat Trees allowed more movement with multiple attacks. Power Attack Tree sort of has it with Greater Cleave. [Attack (and kill), 5' step, Attack]. Give the Combat Expertise the ability to exchange places. Create a Charge Tree (Charge/Overrun/Bullrush) that allows you to knock someone down on the way to a second opponent and give you silde effects. Expand the Spring Attack Tree to allow moving between opponents (even if that means moving through one of them). Basically give more options. Isn't that what 3rd Editon is about?

One of the Order of the Stick comics has Elan learning a Prestige class that allows him the use CHA as a bonus to hit. It was supposed to be based on some obscure source book. The Flamboyant Swashbuckler prestige class or something. Anybody know if it was a joke or is a true source book out there?

Yep. No more +20 to Diplomacy at 2nd level if you're a Half-Elf Bard. 3.5 had the absurdity of the following:
5 ranks at 2nd level
+4 18 starting Cha
+2 racial
+2 synergy (5 ranks Bluff)
+2 synergy (5 ranks Knowledge (nobility and royalty))
+2 synergy (5 ranks Sense Motive)
+3 Skill Focus (Diplomacy)

Aren't both half-elves and half-orcs based on Tolkien?

Half-elves; such as Aragorn and Elrond. No forceful unions there.

Half-orcs; Uruk-hai. Large, strong orcs developed by Saruman to be able to work in daylight. I think they were referred to as a crossbreed which I always thought of as more wizardly tampering than a product of rape. I always thought Orcs were 'breed' in vats so half-orcs were also 'breed' in vats. Did Tolkien even have female orcs? Anyways, the forceful union issue could easily have been avoided.

But I also don't see half-orcs as a necessity in D&D. I see them as campaign specific. It is just that so many of us see the default D&D world as Tolkien-based. Someone once said that all modern fantasy writers are 'just moving furniture around in Tolkiens' attic'. (Count this quote as VERY paraphrased)

(ever seen a karate staff kata competition?
A staff should be finessable if used as a double weapon
counting both ends as ligth weapons
you still need two weapon figthing anyways

Just because a highly trained expert has alot of skill with a weapon does not mean that accuarcy comes from innate, natural born dexterity. It comes from lots and lots or training. Staff kata's that you watch are a result of high BAB, not finessable high DEX.
The staff is far too long, and weighs much much more than any other fineeseable weapon.
By and large the finesseable weapons are very small. The rapier being the largest, but even then not morein weight than a few pounds, at that.

The staff is a bludgeoning weapon and thereby does its damage by speed of strike/centrifugal force, not dextrous pokes. In karate Kata, those aren't dextrous pokes, those are high force thrusts by the by.

I imagine the reason a Q-Staff is treated like any other double weapon is for game balance. Would it be abuseable to allow Q-staff to use weapon finesse?

As for kata discussion, I think of a finessable weapon as one that you can use your innate speed and accuracy vs. innate strength. I see high force thrusts as a factor of speed (and therefore dexterity) not strength. I am going to go out on limb here and say that most weapons use strength to batter through the opponents defense. Even if it is not true, that is the basis of the D&D combat system giving you a bonus to hit. Finesse weapons use dexterity to go around the defenses or hit an opening in the defenses. The rules only give this quality to light weapons, but I could imagine other weapons having this quality. I don't think of a bo staff as beating its way past a sword. I see it as a dexterous thrust to the throat (Asian bo staff here not a European Q-Staff), so I would like to allow it to use weapon finesse. But again, is this an abuseable rule?

Note that in reality both strength and dexterity would affect your ability to successfully attack, but we are forced to only use one or the other in D&D. I argue that all light weapons should automatically use DEX since STR does not come into play. Weapon Finesse should allow you to use DEX with a weapon that normally allows STR. It is a feat that should allows you to train yourself to use a weapon different than its normal abilities. But than you would need to create more rules that say a two-handed weapon (or maybe a Heavy weapon designation) can not use weapon finesse.

1- I liked the books.
2- There is fourth book in the series now. I do not recall the name. It starts with a 'T'. I did not see anyone mention the fourth book upthread.

EDIT; Drat, Aubrey referred to the fourth book days ago.

This is still excellent. I wish Paizo would put stuff like this in a PDF to accompany the book.

Channeling flavor
Torag
positive - those affected feel as if they've been hammerstruck, and see their wounds smooth away, as if they were flaws pounded out of a blade of steel, leaving only smooth unblemished skin behind. The effect is sudden and startling, and leaves behind only warmed skin and a slight soreness.