Duncan & Dragons's page

I took this article different than others. The blog was just an excuse to get customer feedback through a survey. Sure the author did reminisce about the Fighter class though the editions, but it was just a vehicle to discuss the direction the Fighter can take in the future.

It was just a discussion on the different Fighter 'types' (without judgement) and then asked which version you would like emphasised next.

Let's see if I can mis-quote Vic:

I ... recall promising ...only products everyone likes.

Thank you for your commitment to excellent products Vic!

NOTE: Hopefully, everyone can clearly see I am butchering his comment. It was just too tempting.

Search in ebay using "D&D Fortune feywild". I think both Auggies and Troll & Toad sell them from their non-ebay sites also. Well, maybe not Feywild yet, but they have the two older sets.

I am so proud of this thread. I knew it was destined for greatness, and seeing it reach 1000 posts makes me tear up.

And the OP still only has one post to his name.

I think the thread should get credit in the post count for the comments Gary deleted. Or maybe some sort of record for thread with most deleted comments?

Creatures in Gaseous Form can't enter water, but what if they're already in water? I think there's no clear rules answer.

I would think they just 'float' to the surface at maximum speed during their turn. No other action possible until they surface.

I generally only allow readied actions after initiative starts. Otherwise, every DM (in self defense) would have every Orc charge with a Readied Action if someone opens the door. I say 'Self Defense' since ever character will say 'I have a Readied Action to shot anything ugly in the room once the door is open'. It just become who says 'Readied Action' first.

In your example, roll initiative. If the character wins, his action; but you might want to mention they have four crossbows leveled and they look trigger happy. If the guards win, they have Readied Actions to fire and then tell your thief not to move.

Yes, when using a AoO on a non-Prone target you can use Trip (unless it is a snake or something).

There is just some stupid loop hole around Greater Trip that lets people create a do-loop if a Prone target attempts to stand and get a AoO-Trip-AoO-Trip-AoO-Trip-etc. cycle going. It would have been as simple as saying that 'Greater Trip can be used only once per target per round' or something. Instead they decided that you can not knock a 'Prone target Prone'. Again they could have just as easily said 'The stand-up attempt is not sucessful but does not count as being knock Prone. You are just maintaining the Prone condition.'

It is a common tactic to sweep someones legs as they try to stand up. They should have found a way for the rules to allow it, without abusing it.

I should find a video where an attack dog does not allow a person to stand because the dog keeps knocking the target down.

As Jiggy pointed out, the FAQ does say you cannot Trip someone who is Prone. I wish I had thought of looking in the FAQ first. I also agree that, because of Trip Lock, it makes sense not to give someone the ability to Trip a Prone person.

However, my first thought on the situation was that you should handle it like an AoO from Spell Casting. To quote the Injury section of Concentration Checks; "If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect." In other words, you interrupt the person mid-action with a chance of it going either way.

I would have said a successful Trip while you are ‘trying to Stand-up” would require a Reflex Save. A failed save would give the same result as a failed Concentration Check; you wasted the action and in this case, stay Prone. This creates parallelism between the rules.

I know AoOs usually happen before the action, but sometimes it just does not make sense when no one is moving between squares.

I would try to stay close to the system optional rules. Therefore, use the Wounds/Vigor optional rules from UC.

If you need it more gritty than that, I think you should tone it down a bit and change the penalties. Something that makes you want healing, but not loss the ability to hit. Maybe something like this:

Lightly wounded: 75%-100% of total hp. No wound penalty.
Moderately wounded: 50%-75% of total hp. -1 penalty to actions.
Seriously wounded: 25%-50% of total hp. -1 penalty to actions, -1 AC/Reflex.
Critically wounded: 0%-25% of total hp. -2 penalty to actions, -2 AC/Reflex.

You might have to change the 'wounded conditions' naming so that people understand it is based on Vigor Points, not Wounds Points. Maybe injured?

EDIT: In hindsight, just use the existing conditions. Make people 'Fatigued' at 50% hp (or Bloodied) and 'Exhausted' at 25% hp (Critically Injured)

This is my order of value for the next 'printing'.

1- 'Re-organized for usability'. This would help both old timers and newcomers.

2- Incorporating optional rules to make to rules easier for beginners. For example, default feats and skills that are always selected for your class. Later on you can introduce the concept of selecting different feats and skills.

3- Rule tweaks. What Paizo would have done different if they had omnipotence and infinite resources.

I am also assuming that errata would be addressed.

I'm not going to shell out 50 bucks for a visual re-do of existing material.

Maybe not yet, but there will come a time where everyone needs to re-buy because their old books are falling apart. It would be nice if the new printing is better organized. And I think if it was better organized, people would adopt it sooner.

How else could he never have been successfully shot by the androids?

Lazerguns have atrocious accuracy. Have you never watched G.I. Joe?

No, that was the next generation. Now I feel old.

I like the idea of being able to break down a specific weapon and being able to purchase its powers. However, it also opens the door about which powers should 'stack'. You should give the DM some room to make the weapon reasonable.

EDIT: Or else the DM will just say , 'No'.

Thundarr's sword just had the brilliant energy and flaming properties.

Thundarr must have had a Light Saber and been a Jedi Master. How else could he never have been successfully shot by the androids?

You have to read the items power carefully. If the powers have the same type of bonus, they do not stack.

The Headband of Alluring Charisma is described as "grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to Charisma" The Rod of Splendor is also described as "gains a +4 enhancement bonus to her Charisma". They are both grant an 'enhancement' bonus to the attribute, so they do not stack. You only take the larger bonus.

The Circlet of Persuasion, however, "grants a +3 competence bonus on the wearer's Charisma-based checks". So it would stack for checks with the other two items since they were 'enhancement' bonuses and the Circlet is a 'competence' bonus.

I think there is a list of bonus types somewhere, but I do not know the location.

Can you take a Pixie hostage and shake the pixie dust off against their will to grant Flight?

EDIT: I can see the black market application of this trait. Little caged pixies for sale!

Seriously though. A racial power to grant Fly to an ally for one round is reasonable.

Have you thought about Gestalt? It is from 3.5 and is giving every character two classes. You take the best of both classes for everything. This is a bit over simplified but I think accurate.

So you could be a Cleric - Druid with lots of Healing and an Animal Companion. The other person could be a Fighter - Mage. Strong both in combat and casting spells.

I think the example in the book is for this very situation where you have too few players to be versatile.

EDIT: The Fighter - Mage could specialize in Summoning and therefore usually have a Summoned 'Battle Buddy'.

EDIT 2: I know this is slightly off-topic, but it addresses the underlaying issue of only two people playing.

I envisioned the Thailand style (Mu Tai?) of wrapping your hands in cloth wraps and then using resin to stick broken glass on the wraps. Then add poison!

Even if inappropriate for a player, it makes a fun concept for an Lawful Evil Enemy.

I think this is the last post on the page and is a good transition point....does anyone have more on Monte?

P.S. I liked this whole marketing discussion de-railing, as it is not really an edition flame war, but it is about the business of the game we love. However, I want to hear at least one new fact about Monte so we can start rumor mongering exponentially.

I have the old version of the character builder but it has a page for your companions. It is under the 'Manage' tab. I presume the Essentials version has the same function somewhere. I have not used it but I believe when you gain your companion 'power' you pick your companion and it adds it to the companion tab. The 'Shop' tab allows you to add items of equipment to your companion.

The article was a bit too short and should have been more in-depth, but I'm thinking that he wants to know if people like passive perception as it is in 4E, or if they'd prefer a different approach.

How's this different from taking 10 or 20?

I may be reading too much into the article, but I think he is talking about introducing a concept called 'Expert'. An Expert has an Expert Passive Perception somewhere between his Passive Perception and an Active Perception check, but only in a special area.

So a Rogue who is a 'Trap Expert' might have a Trap Passive Perception that is higher than the usual Passive Perception. A Elf might be an Expert at Secret Doors and a Dwarf might be an Expert in Stonecraft.

To make up numbers, if you have Perception Skill of 5 your Passive Check is 15 and you have a high of 25 with an active check. So maybe an Trap Expert, has a Passive Check of 20 vs. Traps only. (This is a educated guess and is not specifically from the article). This way a Trap expert has a good chance of seeing the trap, but you do not need to make trap checks every five feet.

Maybe training in a skill gives you the usual bonus, but maybe an 'Expert Feat' has an additional 5 bonus in their passive check in that area.

If I am right, I like it. However, I am reading allot into his twice use of the word 'Expert'.

You are right .... it doesn't suck anymore... wait, that is not enough to say.

I was using the PRD during a game the other day and noticed the change. I like the format and I am impressed how quickly the new content is being added. You are the best! Now I have another reason to get an iPad.

Will the ill-mannered, wretch formerly known as 'Lilith' be giving whippin's now that she is Custom-arrh Service? It seem a fate most fawl.

I think the Professor covered the DM preparation subject quite well.

I also add that in game play the rules, and specifically powers, are very easy to adjudicate. Less arguing at the table about what you can do.

Ouch. Does this work at all levels? For example, maybe 80% hp at Heroic tier, 70% at Paragon tier, 60% at Epic tire? Or is this a Dark Sun thing because you want it gritty?

Fights take much too long using the normal stats, and equal level or level + 1 encounters are just boring and not dangerous at all for the party. I have a long running planescape campaign, where I used to just double monster damage and half monster HP.

I got that reducing the players HP is much more efficient then reducing ALL the monsters HPs. This way is a clever twist.

I was just curious if it works at all levels of play. I guess, 'Yes' is the answer.

EDIT: Wait, are you reducing the PLAYERS HPs to 60% OR BOTH players and MONSTERS?

One house rule I also used in my DS campaign is to set all HP (and therefore bloodied HP/Surges) to be only 60% of official 4E values. I used to modify the monsters, but that's too much time wasted. This is simpler and it worked quite well - now even equal-level encounters are dangerous for the optimized player chars...

Ouch. Does this work at all levels? For example, maybe 80% hp at Heroic tier, 70% at Paragon tier, 60% at Epic tire? Or is this a Dark Sun thing because you want it gritty?

Yes, I read the thread.

Finally, if you do decide that it is a Small creature and that the character can invent something to act as an opposable thumb, he has picked a creature that has already been characterized as 'non-violent'. If the character tries to train the monkey for violence, let him try to train the creature with negative modifier of -2, or maybe -4, and see how the dice fall.

I was using the term 'train' since up thread we were talking about training humans as soldiers. Subsititute the words 'Diplomacy Check' for the word 'train' if you like.

I was trying to suggest that this does not have to be black-and-white. You as the DM can let the character try to influence an NPC to become an Animal Companion/Combatant but with a negative modifier to the chance of success. Just like they can try to talk the King's daughter into becoming an Assassin. But if you have already decided 'she is kind and good' there is a negative modifier to trying to influence her to do something against her nature.

I think I have upset you so I will drop from the thread. My apologies.

My comment on size was that it appears more of a Tiny animal than a Small one and is inappropiate as a combatant. Tell him to buy a Chimpanzee (which I guess is Small) and start training it from an infant. Therefore, the subject of the spider monkey's disposition is irrelevant.

Remind him that these creatures do not have opposable thumbs and therefore can not use weapons. Therefore, the subject of the spider monkey's disposition is irrelevant.

Finally, if you do decide that it is a Small creature and that the character can invent something to act as an opposable thumb, he has picked a creature that has already been characterized as 'non-violent'. If the character tries to train the monkey for violence, let him try to train the creature with negative modifier of -2, or maybe -4, and see how the dice fall.

Isn't a Spider Monkey like six inches tall? How much damage can a bow six inches long do? 1 hp on a critical?

EDIT: I guess they are about 24 lbs. I thought I saw some monkey once that was tiny and called a spider monkey.

But someone will say you should have made the map different for the Haunted Dungeon. That way we can make the Haunted Dungeon levels 2 and 3, and the Beginner Box level 1.

But then people who pick up F-M: HD would have to buy the Beginner Box to get level 1.

Bah, Humbug.

The flip-maps and map packs that compliment each other are still great stand-alone products. So this could be. The maps could stand alone or be used in combination.

It does not matter, we already know it is going to be terrific.

Is that a new or pre-existing Flip-Mat? If new, will it be available apart from the box?

One side of it is the same as one side of Flip-Mat: Haunted Dungeon (and depicts the location used for the introductory adventure); the other side is a blank grid taken from Flip-Mat: Basic, so new GMs can make their own maps for further adventures.

So I have to also buy the Haunted Dungeon to get both maps. I am OK with this, but some might complain. It probably makes sense for a 'beginner' to give flexibility. But someone will say you should have made the map different for the Haunted Dungeon. That way we can make the Haunted Dungeon levels 2 and 3, and the Beginner Box level 1.

For my part, I intend to get both and then cut up the Beginner Box map as 'geomorphs' for the other dungeon flip-maps. I have done this on purpose before for things like the city flip-map. It almost looks like the Haunted Dungeon map is meant to be used with 'geomorphs' since it is more 'modular'. This sounds like a map pack idea like the new sets that have the building interiors for the shops/crypts.

There was book called "The Power Gamer's 3.5 Wizard Strategy Guide". I don't have it, but if you read some reviews it might be what you are looking for.

Perhaps Paizo could put out an anthology of the best third-party Pathfinder material either as a dead-tree book or in PDF format?

I think part of the success of Monte Cook's 'Best of' book (if one book can be called a success) was that there was allot of low to mid-quality product available. So Monte was helping people ignore the worst and find the best.

I presume (presuming maybe a big mistake) that the market is more stable now and has more quality control. So a 'Best of' Pathfinder book would give less value.

This might not help, but I have several times considered the idea of a 'possessed' item as a character. Basically, a sword or something inhabited by a ghost.

I never got far, but it was around when Ghostwalk came out. I could not figure out how to make it so that the ghost can do things that help or compliment the carrying character or party without becoming a 'super' character (invisible, intangible, etc.). Also not over-shadow the party because the person carrying the possessed item became 'as powerful' as two characters. Maybe the ghost could only talk to the bearer out of combat (and see through their senses), but in combat the ghost would be released to be a combatant.

I wanted to make the ghost's goal to get resurrected or something so that the character was not a dead end.

I throw it out there because this might get you some of the role-playing you want without the need for domination or the liabilites of the 'host'.

I don't have the strength to read this thread, but in an effort to give people what may be a twist on this topic to reach 1000 posts, the thread seems totally PC oriented.

Charisma is one-sided in favor of PCs. PC's have the ability to ignore NPC's charisma and specifically Diplomacy checks.

Characters expect their high CHA/Diplomacy to give them everything from lower prices, room & board, Ball invitations and members of the opposite sex. But when the mayor of the town (high CHA and Diplomacy) gives a impassioned speach for assistance (DM gives great speak and then rolls a natural 20). PC's can give it no credance.

DM as Mayor: "Blah, blah, blah...Help us!"

PCs: Let's go to the next town.

DM: I rolled a friggin' 20 and that makes it a 50 Diplomacy check! You feel the need to help.

PCs: Don't try to railroad the plot. We want to do something else.

nice, I....ahh... mean, sick
good article, bad pun

Not sure what this would exactly be, but it does raise interesting questions about MASS COMBAT SIMULATION using skill challenges.

I have always wondered why I have never found a bow magical property that allows an arrow of force to be evoked everytime you pull the bow string back. Maybe +1 property? If the 'force' arrow is too powerful, since it can hit ghosts, make it summon a mundane arrow.

Is it really that powerful, or is it just taboo to make something that is "a wand of infinite magic missiles" in some peoples minds? I mean is it really more powerful than a property that adds +1d6 fire damage to every shot or every swing of the sword?

EDIT- I quickly run for my books to make sure it does not exist already.

Anything new on the next Character Builder update?

On a related topic, is anything new coming out soon after Essentials?

I presume Gamma World will not be in DDI. If it is a 'collectible card game' they do not want to make the same mistake as with the power cards (i.e. giving people the ability to print cards for free with DDI.)

What happened to this months update? Is it delayed because Essentials is forcing a major revamp?

No one is going to hunt you down, burn your house, pillage your sister, kick your dog and take all of your books if you don't do it 100% exactly right by the rules.

speak for yourself. I plan on doing these things if he doesn't play exactly my way. actually i may do these things regardless of how Chort plays........

+1 Indeed. What he said. <.<

I watched Inception the other day...

I think the way it works is that; if the DMs subconscious mind notices you misinterpreting the rules, every NPC in the world will hunt you down, burn your house, pillage your sister, kick your dog and take all of your books.

I'm starting to wonder if the hp issue really isn't about hp at all, but about power scaling.

Specifically, at wills.

At wills only scale once - at 21. And then only 1W, or 1 die I think that if they scaled each tier, some of the grind at paragon and epic might be reduced.

I do wonder, though, why everything else that runs though tiers scales at all three of them, and at wills only twice.

I also wish At-wills scaled sooner. But I think it is more emotional than rational. I think the reason the At-Wills scale at 21st level is that the Encounter and Dailies are being traded in the Paragon levels (11-20). So your Encounter and Dailies are slowly getting better through these levels. Finally at 21st thay give a similar bonues to your At-Wills. Otherwise, At-wills might actually be 'better' than some Encounter powers since encounters generally do 2W damage.

I did not research this answer. It is just my instinct. It would be fun if the At-Wills scaled earlier though.

I wanted something with MANA.

Mana = magical energy

Ferrum = Iron, Sword [maybe sword iron?](Some internet latin translator I found)

Ferrumana = Iron sword magic?

Ferrumancer = Iron magic weaver?

Ferrumanist = One who uses iron mana? (Ferrumanaist?)

EDIT: Ferrumanator!!

Being that I'm REALLY new to 4e, off the top of my head, I'd think Necromancer would've been a Leader. But, I could be wrong, and most likely am.

He leads the dead, true. But I think it would be like the Wizard (Controller) that uses the Summoner build. So the Necromancer controls the battle field with summoned undead. Or something like that.

Leaders help others with healing and bonuses and such.

Apparently Heroes of Shadow will feature the Assassin, the Necromancer and the Hexblade.

So everyone is guessing:

Assassin - Striker (this is known)
Necromancer - Controller
Hexblade - Defender

A Shadow Power Leader would be nice. We also have the Warlock. Hmmm.....Not Shadow power but Scourges have lots of Necro damage and temp hit points. Maybe they will give us a Warlock Build that is a Leader or has a Leader secondary role to help the party by gving them life force from the enemy. Kind of a Vampire channeller.

I can dream. Dark, shadowy dreams.

Hey, my memory might be bad, but don't alot of 4e DM's have house rules to reduce HP's to 75%? I see people talking about MM3 having increased damage output and reduced HP's for Elite/Solos. Does the MM3 seem to address HP's in general for all monster types?

The related question would be; 'With the increased damage output in MM3, are DM's using the MM3 HP's as printed or are they still reducing HP's?'

As I said at the beginning, my memory might be bad about this whole topic.

P.S. I currently use HP's as printed. I am considering using reduced HP's especially for Elite/Solo.

I am in the camp that thinks that updated printings should include the most up-to-date rules. Paizo has listened to the customer and I believe the majority are best served by an reprint that reflects the current state of the rules.

I thought I might repeat an idea I had for how to present Errata/changes between editions:

On the PRD, any text which has changed between editions is ¨hilighted¨ in another color. There can be different colors for different printings, or different colors for simple type-O´s, phrase re-wordings/clarifications, and design changes (like Paladin Super Smite).
All this ¨hillighting¨can be turned off by the user of the PRD clicking a button that tells the computer/server not to display Errata color hilights and just send the plain text.

I like Quandary's thinking. I have no comments to add for PRD, but for the printed copy I think Paizo might consider something similar to the 'legal' method of updating documents.

I do not recall the entire legal annotation method, but it partially involves crossing out the old words and then printing in the new words. Building on this concept; rule changes might be underlined in the text with a footnote saying when the change was made. I do not think we need to cross out the old words necessarily. Also typos do not need underlining/clarification. But an underline (or italics or something) lets someone with the new book know that something was changed. If your DM is not up-to-date with that rule change, you can tell the DM when it changed based on a footnote.

On the other hand, I totally defer to Paizo's judgment on making the rulebook pleasing to the eye if this methods sucks.

The smart action by the player would be to ready action total defense if he was personally attacked.

That way, he would get his attacks of opportunity *which is the only thing he loses between fighting defensively and total defense* up and until he personally was attacked, at which point he would enjoy his +4 to defense.

Smart action, or rule exploit?

My take on this subject. The player should declare if he is Fighting Defensively or Total Defense on his turn, regardless if he can actually make any attack. The difference is that;

1- Fighting defensively gives +2 to AC but allows AoO (-2 to attack due to fighting defensively).
2- Total defense gives you +4 to AC but no AoO.
It also prevents the silliness of the Readied Action changing your initiative order.

Basically the character communicates whether he is fighting half-arse, but will try to make cheap shots, or he communicates that he is doing nothing but defend himself.

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

Where can I find this new Golarion Mythological Beastiary? Is it in the Paizo product catalog yet?

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.

We don't have fighters in our group, so we don't deal with Combat Challenge much. A lot of Immediate Interrupts are are Burst or Teleport. So we have a habit, presumably bad, of assuming Immediate Interrupts/Reactions do not cause OA.

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.....