|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Recent Posts
I like this one. I think 3E Gauntlets of Ogre Power lack the . . . well *OGRE POWER* of the old 1st edition ones - and lack the flavor as well. I think this is an excellent example of how stat enhancing items should be handled. I do however, strongly agree with Grimcleaver about the sympathetic nature of magic. What next? Fishing waders of Dexterity? ;^} - DM
First, I'd like to thank everyone who's commented about my design. You're all right about the wording, it was the best I could do on such short notice. I wrote this at the last minute as I recall. Editing things down to 200 words really made it difficult to be as specific as I wanted. I originally intened to list out all the condition that I thought should apply, but it became apparent quickly that that was right out. ;^) I was sure it wasn't going to get picked because some of the wording wasn't quite right. I'm glad it did. Magic item creation is not my strong suit - although some people might disagree after they read my next submission. ;^D Callum is correct in that "trauma" means wounds, hit point damage, etc. He's also right about the cloak being able to transfer only one malady at a time. After the wearer recovers, then he or she can absorb another. I don't what I was thinking about when I wrote "accidents of birth." Maybe that Gamma Hero game I've been playing in for about a year? There are no mechanics for birth defects or mutations in the SRD! But! *IF* there were . . . the Cloak of Rian's Mercy wouldn't be able to absorb them. ;^) Thanks again, - DM
We actually have several topics discussed here, all of which I find interesting. One, as far as role-playing goes, sometimes relying on stereotypes is handy, to throw out a single comment in a combat heavy session. Stereotypes, also gives beginners a place to *start roleplaying.* Two, as far as all "demi-humans" being related, etc., I think is a good idea - at least it *is* an idea. Part of the problem with D&D is that it has no cosmology, no history, no inherent cohesion. How did elves & dwarves come to be in D&D? Well, they've always let YOU be the one to decide that, but if you've noticed, many DM's have never bothered to make that decision, and so, sometimes it seems that ol' Dave Hargrave's Arduin Grimoire and the mish-mash of craziness therien is D&D taken to it's furthest logical conclusion. Someone mentioned Shadowrun. An excellent example of a cohesive back-story, etc., for all races, monsters, you name it. I had ran a variant world I made (years ago) wherein humans were composed of 5 varieties (elves, dwarves, gnomes, trolls & ogres). You couldn't play a "human," or rather they were all human, etc. Three, ah half-elves, half-orcs, half-breeds . . . half-assed. I'm sure I 've criticized them on these boards before. Not only do they not make any kind of biological sense, but they're not at all creative as concepts in and of themselves. Instead of inventing an entirely new race (or species or what have you), let's just make a half-breed, with half the stats - and we don't even have to come up with backstory! Brilliant? No, lazy. Four, for me, the longevity problem is easily solved, but discarding the idea that elves (etc) have 150 year long childhoods. IMO, they should reach maturity at the same rate as humans, age very little for hundreds of years, and then spontaneously age at an alarming rate at the end of their life-cycle. PC's elves (or whatever), are therefore *young* elves (15-40, whatever). Tolkien's elves should be ignored for D&D, or otherwise recreated entirely. Stats would be something like: STR +0, DEX +2, CON +4 (plus elves are immune to disease), INT +2 (and they gain all the advantages of longevity, but no penalties), WIS +0, CHA +4. My .02. - FM
I agree . . . 6 players is *plenty!* It's what I've got in 3 different groups I play in, and that's just fine! I've GM'ed as many as eight, but thank the gods it didn't last long. I've played in a 12 person game once - it was a cool concept, but really quite boring in practice. Some of the best games I've ran or playing in had only 3 players - but it never lasts because every time other people heard about how great the game was and joined up. So for me, the range is 3-6 PC's. - FM
Well, W.E. Ray, I'm no historian, but it is news to me that Akkad predates Sumer. I've never heard that before, and I don't believe that to be the case, and according to Wikipedia, it is not. I can't help you with Druaga, either. Maybe Gygax made him up? So much of Sumerian culture has been lost, who can blame him? Aside from the Innana/Dummuzi (aka Tammuz) story, which is retold in many variations, the creations story of Marduk slaying Tiamat, the stories (6 tablets is I recall?) of Gilgamesh & his buddy Enkidu are the most complete. Good luck, boy wonder! - FM
Also known as Empathic Cloaks, these garments were originally created to honor the memory of Sister Rian the Merciful. These cloaks are most commonly white in color. If the wearer desires, she may, as a standard action, with a touch absorb any single disease, poison, condition, or similar malady into herself from another person. The cloak is limited to physical conditions only. Energy drain effects, magical diseases, curses, conditions which are the result of trauma, or accidents of birth, cannot be transferred. The duration of the transferred condition or effect is halved for the wearer of the cloak to a maximum of one day, thus permanent conditions, such as from a Blindness spell, effects the wearer for only a single day. A transferred condition never worsens for the wearer, (i.e. secondary effects from diseases and poisons don’t occur). If the wearer transfers a condition she is normally immune to, such as a Paladin’s immunity to disease, she suffers the effect as though she were not immune. Empathic transfer can be done as often as desired, but only one condition may be endured at a time. Moderate transmutation; CL 7th; Craft Wondrous Item, restoration; Price 20,000 gp.
Using a Mac to print is easier than with a PC. Macs have been the industry standard in printing & graphics for a generation. Usually, all you have to do is plug in your printer, and your Mac will automatically detect what version and which driver you should use (since you have an older mac you might actually have to install the driver from the CD that comes with your new printer). All you have to do is open a given application/file and hit Command (aka the Apple key) + P.
Is there an official or OGL feat that would allow a first level character to move further in a round than his race normally could? I need something just like the barbarian's Fast Movement ability, only for a non-barbarian. There's been a variety of feats in that direction since 3rd edition. I remember the Swift Feet {ahem, Feat} from an old Birthright adaptation . . . The Conan RPG has Fleet-Footed. Dash from Complete Warrior "You may increase your movement by 5’ as long as you are wearing no more than Light armor and are no more than Lightly Encumbered." There have been a bunch of other varieties. Regardless, mody of them (being feats) increase the PC's base movement rate by +10. Some version only by +5. Some require that the character be lightly armored, others do not. Most have no prerequisites. Fleet-footed, could be taken up to 3 times, but most could only be taken once. Dash is by far the suckiest I'd say make up your own rule as would best suit your campaign. Hope this helps. - FM FM
If you wanted to add 1 range band per +1 Str pull, but keep the penalty progression going, that might work: that way, you can fire your +4 Str bow a maximum of 1540 feet (110 ft. x 14 range bands), with a -28 penalty.I'd just let player to add in 1-2 (2 for bows & arbalests, 1 for everything else) more range increments per +1 Str mod, but firing a mighty bow at 12x increments suffers the same progression of penalties (I.e. it gets even harder at beyond extreme ranges, but the PC gets to roll a die!) Sigh . . . yeah, well it *was* a dozen or so posts between yours and mine . . . awwww, shucks . . . who am I kidding? [Belated] D'oh! ;^b
irrelevant to the game mechanics, but just f.y.i., composite bows are callede such because they are made out of layers of different woods (and nowadays some other synthetic materials)presses tgether. Not all of them are recurve, and not all recurve bows are composite, a plain single wood bow can be a recurve bow. Dank is correct. Additionally, a bow made from a single peice of wood would be called a "Self Bow." Western bows, such as the long bows, are also known as "Straight Bows," because they are essentially perfectly straight until they're strung. Historically, most composite bows have been recurve, whereas most self bows have been straight. Composite, recurve bows aren't inherently more powerful than self bows. A recurve bow is only easier to pull at the beginning, but is just as difficult, if not more so, at the end of the draw, whereas the pull of a straight bow is equally difficult throughout the draw. There is no reason why the pull of a recurve could be considered mighty, while the pull of straight would not. Increasing the pull of any antique-type bow would simply be a matter of increasing the strength and durability of the bow. Thus, a 'mighty' longbow (or a mighty recurve bow!) would simply be made from a stronger wood or from a thicker peice of wood with a heavier test string. I'm also ambivalent about your ruling, although I disagree with it, as the ability to hurl something further does not increase your accuracy at greater distances. Rather, were I to bother, I'd just let player to add in 1-2 (2 for bows & arbalests, 1 for everything else) more range increments per +1 Str mod, but firing a mighty bow at 12x increments suffers the same progression of penalties (I.e. it gets even harder at beyond extreme ranges, but the PC gets to roll a die!) My .02 - er, make it .01 (from inflation ;^) - FM
Iron Heroes ROCKS! 9 fighting man classes (11 with IH Player's Companion), each having it's own unique approach to combat. Dozens of Traits to flesh out a PC's physique / mind / background. Soooooooooo many damned feats . . . and feat mastery, too - you're character can progress specifically in special manuevers or methods of combat (or Lore or Social skill, etc). All skills have uses in combat, such as using sense motive to size up an opponent. IH rocks. Pure & simple. - FM
An Order of Knights Squireship in the Order requires the following: A) Lawful alignment preferred, Chaotics are banned.
Benefits of being part of the Knighthood include: A) Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Kn: Nobility & Royal and Ride become class skills at 1st level.
The Goal is play a "Knights of the Round Table" campaign wherein *everyone* is a knight, wears full plate, can fight with sword & lance, and rides a powerful steed. FAQ "But whatta 'bout that don't wanna participate in *any* concept?" Answer 1 (preferred): Tell 'em to go screw up some other GM's games. Answer 2 (sometime's necessary): They get nothing. Participants are rewarded, all others simply aren't penalized. ;^)
I'm currently playing a Barbarin 2 / Druid 6 / Nature's Warrior 3 in the Age of Worms, and NPC Guy is right. Nature's Warrior is a pretty cool PrC (from CWar). Add some wild shape feats and you have yourself a real monster! That character, Tarnak, is also the only divine caster in the party. We also have a bard, whom also can cast CLW's. Despite that, I *never* rack CLW's more than twice, nor waste a higher level slot on CMW's, and neither does the bard. Instead, we regularly pool our resources (as a team) and purchase wands of CLW's & CMW's, etc - and use those when we need to, and it's worked out extremely well! Both the bard and my Tarnak get to use our spells to our greatest effect & not just as healing batteries. At this point, I'd even recommend this for clerics, too. It'd be a lot more fun to play a cleric who casts spells besides healing. - FM
I can also see an alternative other than special abilities - giving the fighter better feats. Instead of just giving the fighter feats that are the same as 3rd level class abilities, the same as eveyone else, give the fighter feats that require a certain level and are as powerful as class features/feats that other classes would get at those levels. You should check out Arcana Evolved's concept of Combat Rites. Combat manuevers (mechanically similar to very, short-termed spells) for warriors - and they come in 4 levels of magnitude no less. Gotta hand it to that Monte - his ideas are waaaay ahead of just 4th edition . . . - FM
I really dont see the point of the experience penalty for multiple classes or cross classing or whatever you want to call it. Agreed. I like the Mongoose's Conan RPG take on multiclassing, in that you are free to multiclass as much as you like without penalty. The Conan RPG still has favored classes, but they work differently. Their system rewards playing the genre by giving bonus feats (for taking levels in a favored class) at levels 1, 5, and 10. I think rewarding a player's voluntary cooperation is much better than penalizing a player's attempt to be unique. I think the the whole combat system needs reworking as well as the magic system; lol Armor for instance needs reworking as well as saves for magic without making things cumbersome, though a lot of options given in various books are in the right direction as these authors see the same need as I do :) I definitely think armor should provide DR. Both the Conan RPG & Iron Heroes have interesting takes on the approach thereof. And I've posted recently here the encumerance system & armor effect on movement should be simplified. Someone once mentioned a system using "stones" that sounded much more intuitive. The feat system needs reworking; I suggest breaking them into two or more separate sections and award a lot more feats than the current game generates or perhaps make a lot of things that are feats into skills as some of these are very borderline. Definitely. More feats & separating great feats (like Weapon Finesse & Power Attack) from the crappy ones (like Skill Focus, etc) would encourage PC's to broaden their character's more. the idea of game balance needs help so that we all have the same concept of what balance the game is shooting for as a goal. Also agreed, they need some sort mechanic, even if they don't publish it, that balances new classes, like Warlock & Scout, with the core classes, most of which are self-evidently inferior to many, if not most, of the newer ones. Why so much magic restriction; who cares how many magic rings somebody wears; why just two; seems very arbitrary to me without sound reason backing it up. I see your point, but it's almost moot if they're going to rework the *entire* magic system. Otherwise, I disagree with the 2 rings limitation, although I do so for balance in the Monty Hall Magic Items System - but that's just a personal bias (obviously). ;^) Myself, I'm working on an Iron Heroes / Conan RPG system using R. E. Howard's setting & Mongoose's magic system, along with IH classes, skills, challenges, tokens and feats, and so far, I'm quite pleased with how things are going. - FM
I was reading up on the scout and saw its nifty little abilitly at 18th level to gain freedom of movement permanently. That a sparked a memory of seeing.....somewhere.....that the freedom of movement spell allows the benefactor to ignore the max dex limit of armor. Does anyone have any idea what im talking about. If so, where is it? If not, I'm clearly loosing my mind. Thanks. HA! If any of my players tried to pull that off, I'd rule that they'd managed to "liberate themselves" from their armor instead. I've never heard of such a rule. If you see it anywhere, I recommend that you ignore it! Otherwise, much like a Web spell, they move past their armor, they don't carry it with them unhindered. - FM JIC, regarding snarky, lawyerese, smart-ass players. Get thyself a gavel, GM! ;^)
Careful, though... we're quickly edging into the territory of a "1-class" game, . . WoC has also created a related variant in D20 Modern, namely core classes based on Stats. There's the Strong Hero, the Smart Hero, etc. After that , traditional "classes" are based on professions. D20 Modern intuitively separates nurture from nature, which is a pretty neat idea, IMHO. Also, if you're interested in variant fighters, check out Iron Heroes. They've got over 12 fighting man classes - each completely unique, and are based on each type of warrior's approach to combat, methods, etc. Very cool!
I'm looking for a few Vermin oriented Prestige Classes. I know there is the Master of Flies in Savage Species, the Vermin Keeper in Underdark, and the Vermin Lord in the Book of Vile Darkness. I'm woncering if there are any others out there? I'm avoiding spider PrC's and those associated Lolth. I'm looking for something to use with Obox Ob. There's some stuff for druids in the Eberron Campaign setting. The Ashbound & maybe Children of Winter (Feats) deals with vermin. So does the Eldeen Ranger prestige class, *IF* you take the Ashbound option. Some of the other Eberron books might have some more of the things you're looking for. Hope this helps. - FM
No changes. *Those abilities* simply require a less restrictive range of mobility that only comes with lighter armors. I have to disagree with you there, Magnus. What Scribe & Doug said.
Well, from experience, it's turned out to be not that big a deal. Frankly, it makes combat go quicker, as all 2nd & 3rd row types don't have to wait for the fighters & clerics (etc) to enter the fray before they dare (for fear of getting chopped down). Additionally, most PC's in heavy armor will be limited to x3 movement, so those rangers & barbarians can *still* escape if they need to. Moreover, one doesn't play a barbarian nor a ranger to have a greater movement rate than a fighter (well . . . at least a ranger doesn't). It's all their other capabilites that people generally play. Furthermore, lots of people use feats (be they house or from other systems) that allow a PC's base movement rate to increase by +10. Include spells such as Longstrider, and my encumberance house rule isn't that massive an advantage, and it removes that counter-intuitive, gygaxian bias against plate armor that's persisted for more than 30 years. Encumberance rules in 3E has annoyed the crap out me since I had a PC remove his plate armor & carried so his character could move 30' (and run at x4, mind you). It's just NOT easier to carry 60 lbs. of plate armor than it is to wear it (the weight of the breastplate, helm & hip armor falls nicely on the hips; armor on the arms & legs straps to their respetive parts - it's not that bad). I don't expect "reality" or anything of the sort, but I do demand a *little* intuitive consistency (and in my humble opinion it's such a simple fix). But, do as you will, my geek-brother! Every DM's got his own mods! It's *always* been that way, and it *always* will be! ;^D - FM
The problem isn't with armors, but with the encumberance rules, and how D & D ties walking speed with a type of armor. Encumberance is something that has bothered me, both as a GM and a player, for some time now. The encumberance system is just completely off. It doesn’t even mimic fantasy well. I don’t like how a movement rate / encumberance is tied specifically to a suit of armor. A suit of Full Plate armor is about 65 lbs on average. That weight is evenly distributed across your entire body with straps & buckles, etc. That’s heavy, sure, but *it’s made to be used in combat,* and fitted for its wearer. Now let’s apply that suit of armor to our heroic 3.5 Ed Fighter with that 18 Str and we have a little common sense problem. According to the rules, a light load for our hero, let’s call him Joe, is 100 lbs. Impressive. Joe is an incredibly strong human being (or dwarf, or whatever). And yet, in his plate armor, Joe’s base movement rate is 20, and his run is just x3 that. At first glance, that looks fine. But what happens when Joe is unarmored, but picks up his armor (in a large sack or something) and carries it over his back? Well, the answer is, according to 3.5 ed rules, is that Joe has no movement restrictions whatsoever. He can walk 30′ as a standard move action, and can run x4 that. That's stunningly counter-intuitive. So I’ve come up with the following house rules 1) Ignore the Speed Rules listed under Table 7-6: Armor & Shields on page 123 of the PHB (3.5, naturally). 2) Use Table 9-2: Carrying Loads for ALL ENCUMBERANCE instead. Just add up the weights and you’re done. 3) Neither a MEDIUM LOAD *nor* a MEDIUM SUIT of ARMOR lowers your BASE MOVEMENT RATE! 4) INSTEAD, either a MEDIUM LOAD *or* a MEDIUM SUIT of ARMOR lowers your MAXIMUM RUN MOVEMENT to x3!! Unless you’re a dwarf, then you can still RUN with a heavy pack. 5) The rules for HEAVY LOADS or ARMORS remain unchanged. (You suffer both penalties - i.e. your move is 20, and your sprint is limited to just 3x that, or 60 in this case.) Why 3, 4 & 5? Because carrying a *fairly* heavy weight, like I often did when I was a FedEx Courier, doesn’t slow down the rate you can walk at, only how long you can carry said weight. What you can’t do while carrying, say 45 lbs, is RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN!! Wearing a suit of chainmail isn’t going to affect how fast *you can walk!* But, what it does affect is how fast you can run! My .02. ;^)
In an attempt to solve the problem of min-maxing via point buy & the statistically (often) radical divergent results from rolling 4d6, I made a probability table based on this guy's stuff: http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/dnd/abilities.html My table looks like this (sorry, I'm not putting in an html table - I hope this comes out ok) (To generate your Ability Scores, roll d100 six times and consult the following table): Roll (d100) Ability Score / Result
Urf . . . well . . . you can kinda make it out if you can spot where the wraps are occuring. Anyway . . . The statistical model being used is based on the probabilities of choosing the best 3 of 4d6 six times and arranging the results as desired. The mean results looks very similar to the “Elite Array” method of generating ability scores in the DMG, or 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 8. Instead of all PCs having identical scores, the randomized statistical model allows stable, equitable, and playable ability score generation, but eliminates extreme min-maxing. The sixth roll is skewed to produce more moderate results. If desired, you may instead choose the elite array score (see DMG) in leiu of rolling. It still needs work, as I would like to narrow done the ranges a little more, but as it is it is *highly* unlikely that any character would have to be rerolled (for poor results) using this table. My .02. ;^)
What specific effect did you have in mind? Telekinesis (Affects entire object, limited effect {only to push/hold things to the ground})? Missile Deflection? Flight Useable Against Others? How about what Gravity actually does, which is make a person or object heavier? In M & M, 1 rank of Gravity Power allows you to double a person or objects weight. More ranks means more doublings. If a brick (or whatever) carrying capacity is exceeded, then he'll be slowed or stopped entirely. If his weight exceeds the capacity of the surface he's standing on to hold him, then it will collapse under him. The power is better purchased as an area affect.
When I said "you can't do that" I was talking about fitting your own concept into the rules (rather than picking from a set selection of choices). "Your character can do anything you design it to do" rather than "your character can do whatever the pregenerated design lets you do.". Quite literally, HERO system can model any concept (from large scale to little quirks), once you figure out which game mechanic(s) to apply. He's right about the Hero System - it's the most customizeable system ever devised, although Mutants & Masterminds is a pretty darn good 2nd choice - if you value customization most of all. M & M is, however, much simpler than Hero. However, despite Hero System's versatility & complexity, it doesn't do *absolutely everything* perfectly, for example, making a character with Gravity Powers in Hero can be a real pain. You've also got to watch what you're players create using the Hero System very carefully. Hero is a power-gamers wet dream with complex accounting & tax deductible credits. The higher the power level the greater the complexity. It can be a lot of work to run a HERO campaign, but it can be lots of fun too. It's *especially good* for low & middle power level campaigns, like the pulp-to-WW2 era one I've been running a PC in for years (about to come to an end soon, too, I'm sorry to say - but it's been awesome). If you want to run Silver Surfer / Legion of Super Heroes or cosmic powerhouse campaign - I'd save myself a few early gray hairs and use M & M 2 for that. It's much more inherently balanced & easier to run than Hero. My .02. - FM
My TOP TEN, er . . . or whatever, is: 1) IRON HEROES (by Malhavoc Press) is the manliest RPG ever made. Who needs magic & special powers when you have skill and large pair of balls. I've incorporated the material from the great iron heroes hack (http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/ih/). 2) SCAP hardcover. Best "module" ever. 'Nuff said. 3) ARCANA EVOLVED (also by Malhavoc Press) great races (except the Sibeccai), feats and classes. The Champion is what the paladin *should* have been. The monk is *nothing* compared to an Oathsworn. 4) MUTANTS & MASTERMINDS (by Green Ronin). If you enjoy Champions, but you're sick of spending all that time on character generation, then this is the game for you. Most of the Hero System's versatility in less than a 1/4 the time. 5) STAR WARS D20 . . . although I *do* miss the "infinite sixes" ;^( 6) CONAN RPG (by Mongoose Publishing) . . . alrighty, it's not the greatest all on it's own, but it's *awesome* source material if you're a Robert E. Howard fan, and the magic system is great. I've embedded the Conan Sorcery rules into Iron Heroes & deleted the Arcanist. 7) Uhm . . . crap! That's all I can think of now! Well . . . that's my top 7, er . . . 6! ;^)
Wow. That's some really, really great stuff. I'd like to read some more. It has a Spelljammer bouquet with just enough Gamma World and Dark Sun to give it a little spice and nuttiness . . . ;^) I like it. I'm going to copy & paste what you've posted. I think it would make a great setting for Arcana Evolved! I do, however, agree with Phil's criticism about the dueling wizards to a certain extent. If the Gemini-Godling-Demons, were somehow creations/godlings freed from imprisonment - by competing wizard guilds, or what have you - then it would add a little more flair (IMHO, mind you), than just two "guys." Otherwise I think I think that's an awesome setting. If WotC ever does a contest, like they did with Eberron, you should enter this as a proposal. - FM
I'd like to see some *new* races - and for them to delete the crappy half-elves/orcs. I'd like to see armor provide DR, instead of an AC bonus, or perhaps a combination of the two (reflecting valance points in plate armor, etc.), and therefore a Basic Defense Value should be added. They could steal from Iron Heroes . . . I'd like to see Sorceror's have *their own* spell lists! How does it make sense for someone born with magical ability to cast something *invented* by a wizard, such as Mordenkainen? I'd like them to change back the names of spells they PC'ed for 3.5 - sometimes things are named what they are for because they're so old everyone's forgotten why a given thing has a given name. Why is Dick short for Richard? I don't want or need *consistent naming conventions* - It's Polymorph Other, damnit! It's a freaking *Minor* Globe of Invulnerability! For 25 years those spells were named so and nobody complained. Speaking of Polymorph (Self, in this case), it sure would be nice if they could fix that gaping wound. If you take the form of a wolf, you *suddenly* gain an ability wolves learn from their elders (i.e. Improved Trip), but you can't make use of the scent ability, which is an innate ability; and this makes sense how, exactly? I'd like to see elven babes be attractive, *again* . . . and would like to see artwork that depicts elven babes as hotties, not as alien, bug-eyed freakazoids. Check out that painting of the grey elves in PHB 2.0 to see what I mean. I'd like to see D. A. Trampier lose it and become a crazy, loser nerd (again) and produce art for 4th edition, *and* start drawing Wormy (again). Lastly, I'd like to see WotC completely biff 4.0, and then see Hasbro sell the D & D license to Paizo for a song. But, I'm crazy, and you guys shouldn't be reading this. Oh, J$%@&$US! The meatheads in the white coats are coming! Gotta go! ;^D
The thing that I think is the most broken about 3.5 is the whole 'favored classes' system. It just doesn't make sense that if you want to play a dwarven wizard / rogue, you get docked XP. Our group doesn't even use the rule. Yes! Testify, brotha! Hallelujah! ;^) I like the Conan RPG concept of favored classes . . . if you take 1, 5 or 10 levels of a favored class you are rewarded with a bonus feat, but never penalized for doing something different. The point is, PC's should be *rewarded for playing the genre* (whatever it happens to be), and not *penalized* for trying to do something different.
A spiked chain is a piercing weapon and can therefore be used under water without penalty. Egad. I'll take that a step further. *ALL* the "made-up" weapons are stupid, the spiked chain being first among them. No such weapon ever existed. Now, if one were to create campaign with "bizarre, fantasy weapons," etc., along with a whole bunch crazy weapons and NO normal weapons, like Broadswords, etc., then the spiked chain'd be ok.
I'd have to agree - Arcana Evolved is pretty awesome. They also add a new class - the Ritual Warrior, and add in Combat Rites (different effects that warrior types can perform in combat). Personally, I think all the races are pretty awesome with exception of the Sibeccai, which I've replaced with Dwarves. One furry race, Litorians, are enough unless you're running a furry world, in which case their shouldn't be any "humans." Overall, I think it's better than D & D. I only wish it had the support (in terms of modules, adventure paths & settings) that D & D has/does receive.
Actually many of Disenchater's ideas combine quite nicely with Fatespinners . . . and then you wouldn't have to worry about that 15 Dex . . . Additionally, you use a shield while two-weapon fighting & gain the *full* benefit of a heavy steel shield with Improved Shield Bash . . . Have fun! ;^)
Yeah, just do away with half breeds all together. Better that way.That's one of my most common house rules. I generally don't like half elves or orcs. Sometimes I'll allow gblins, though. Nor do I. They are both conceptually lame. 3 core races are stolen from Tolkien (I'm leaving out elves and dwarves because they had their origins in nordic myths), hobbits, the numenoreans (among others), and orcs. Post lawsuit, hobbits became halflings, but it's still an original idea . . . at least for Tolkien (great artist steal). Core half-elves, however, have NOTHING of the flare of Aragorn, the dunedain, the numenoreans, Elrond half-elven - you name it. It's just a lame meta-combo of stats, and, oh, let's see . . . a human barbarian or something raped your elven mother. And unless they are first & second born "children of Iluvatar" the fact they can interbreed at all is just silly. Core half-orcs have even less concept behind them than half-elves. They couldn't allow orc characters in core (going a long way back) *because orcs are so evil* AND, because if they allowed PC orc (including that +4 Strength bonus), then pretty much everyone'd be playing orcs . . . so they half-assed it, instead of just creating something new - or stealing from another source! Awwwwwwwww, shucks . . . I'm just b+!&~ing. ;^)
I loved the game from the very beginning (back in '77 or '78 - I'm not actually sure which, offhand), but I really have to agree with you about the Dark Tower (by Judge's Guild). That was an awesome experience. It was my wizard along with a dwarven fighter/cleric and an elven fighter/mage . . . We found the Heart of Law right away - the dwarf got it, I think. We were grossly outmatched (my wizard was about 9th lvl & had the most exp's). When my wizard got the Soul of Chaos, I barely escaped my compatriots with my character's life - but was then hopelessly lost! In the end I was able to follow my comrades (invisibly) to the final battle with the lich & the chosen Son of Set. I watched my former comrades fall gloriously - the dwarf more than once, thanks to the Heart of Law - before the incredible powers of the evil pair! When it was over, I killed both badly wounded evil creatures with a x1.5 Fireball (and a great roll)! The other 2 players just glared at me balefully . . . and I admit I couldn't help being smugly pleased with myself. However, being evil now, and therefore greedy, I attempted to marry the Heart of Law to myself along with the Soul of Chaos . . . the DM rolled randomly to determine which power would claim victory for my wizard's body & soul - the resulting explosion killed my character & destroyed *everything* nearby, including magic items. Fortunately, the Heart of Law won and my wizard was ressurected . . . priceless. A few years ago, before 3.5 came out, Judge'S Guild made a comeback, and I bought it & ran their 3rd edition version of the Dark Tower (I had purchased the original years ago at a Con) and ran it for and "old school" run. We had a blast! That dungeon was decades ahead of it's time. It's really got a nice plot to it! My players got into a knock-down drag-out with the combined forces of the town (or what was left of them) *and* the evil wizard that lasted 5 gaming session! ;^D Literally 30 hours of combat! They ran for their lives from the 3rd level to the fourth, from room to room, but each step was only out of the frying pan, but into the fire! You shoulda heard 'em roar like vikings when they finally achieved victory! I was in tears. It was hysterical! One of the best old-school dungeons ever! - FM
One thing I have a small problem with is, the evil theme. The PCs are supposed to be evil yet work together. Possible, but ultimately a time-bomb . . . I *mostly* agree with this, and it's also NOT necessary since this "party of lost souls" is clearly being coerced by the Inevitable, or whomever the real big bad is. If they were mostly Good or Neutral then they'd all have the dilemna of trying to figure out a way to save themselves and not serve evil while doing precisely that. The same rule would apply to a few evil characters - what's in it for them to help some other guy take over the universe? Another trick might be to fool the mostly good-aligned party into thinking that they're actually working for good guys when they're not (same rule applies to an evil team - a *Dirty Dozen* campaign). Man! Will they be pissed when they figure it out later in the campaign! ;^D Regardless of whether or not the party is Good, Neutral, Evil or a mix of all three, I think it would be best if the GM demand that everyone be Lawful - that way they'd have to honor the *letter* of their contracts, but would allow clever PC's to occassionally ignore the *spirit* of their contracts. I also agree that the character's "deaths" be part of their back-story and not something played out. Don't have PC's play stuff that entirely pre-determined, it's not fun, and they'll resent it. They always do. Good Luck!
Really liked your approach to it, Forever Man. I think I will use your houserules (maybe with a slight modification), and then allow raising, but it's going to be rare, expensive and with consequences. Maybe the raisee (is that a word?) suffers some minor physical deformities or something upon returning. Thanks! If you like, I can arrange to put my action buck tiles (for printing 3 per 8.5 x 11" sheet) at rpgenius.com . . . so you can use print outs (to mention nothing of modding in photoshop) yourself. As far as raising/ressurection goes . . . I agree that it's pretty cheesy. I've been playing D & D for almost 30 years now, and, although I really love the d20 system and its versatility, I find the entire D & D magic system from ressurection to spells & spell casting to it's Monty Hall magic items & crafting system to be, well . . . anti-heroic. D & D is still it's own genre, and is not a generic or general fanstasy genre at all. D & D is still the "redmod, hollypuck" (or whatever old english words Gary Gygax feels is appropos) Gygaxian tongue-in-cheek fantasy magic system that it's always been. Personally, I'm an Iron Heroes man. I think that's the best fantasy genre out (IMHO) there! But I mostly play (and GM) D & D the most because that's what everyone knows & there's never been room for an equal in the rpg business. Good luck!
I also use action points, but I call them "Action Bucks" because I made artistic versions of dollar billz. Ever worried about player acccounting of their points? Well, I don't. If one of my players wants the benefit, he's actually got "spend the buck" (by handing over the bill to me)! And it's a much more visceral experience for my players. They all make sure they've got their action bucks on the table along with their dice, pencils and character sheets. I've got Red & Green varieties of Action Bucks(tm ;^). On the most basic level, both kinds grant a 1d8 bonus to a d20 roll. By making them rarer and more effective, most of my players tend to use them when they need it the most! Everybody gets 1 green buck upon gaining a level, plus 1 more for every 4th lvl they possess (no round offs). I only give out a red buck when a player or the group does something really special - like when they complete a chapter in SCAP, or when an individual really demonstrates ingenuity in some way. My action bucks also have the following properties (most of which I copied & modded from this guy: http://www.fief.org/ShackledCity/ ): 1. Stabilize. Don't want to die? Use an action buck to automatically stabilize. Does not help if you are already dead.
<sniff> *That's beautiful, man!* <sniff> ;^) - FM
In SCAP (Flood Season), one of my buffed-up players got seriously "de-buffed" from a Dispel Magic from Tarkilar. Yet we ran into a quandry. The party cleric had cast Magic Weapon on the character's Greataxe. Tarkilar used a "targeted" dispel. The PHB mentions that the "targeted" dispel can be cast on a creature or object, but the examples suggest that creature targetted version is for dispelling buffs, whereas the object targetted version is for *permanent* magic items, and I can find any example that clarifies this little dilemna. Magic Weapon is effectively just a temporary buff, but it's cast on the weapon, not the PC. How do you guys think I should rule on this? - Honorable Judge Forever Man ;^)
I think Paizo's future is quite bright. I've been playing D & D (as well as other RPGs) since 1978, and Shackled City was simply far and above the best "module" (if you can forgive the ancient term) ever created. Despite setting the bar for modules, at one point, at a new, all-time high, at another point, many ancients, like myself, said, "Well it's about damned time somebody published a campaign-in-a-box!" I just don't have as much time to write as much of my own stuff anymore. But Shackled City would have been successful, even if it's quality as a campaign wasn't so high, because of this innovation alone. The adventure path is now the standard that all gaming companies should compete for, and no other company is in as good a position to bear that standard, than Paizo, and their cadre of evil/insane geek-genuises (that's intended as a compliment ;^). J. Jacobs & his boys have the ball, and it's their game to lose. My prediction of the outcome for Rise of the Runelords: touchdown. And I look forward to the game after that. - FM
Darn . . . I placed this in the wrong directory. Sorry. ;^( Back to my staff / magic item question: Et al, I'm a little confused about who can use a given staff from the DMG. A Staff of Defense, for example, has both Clerical *and* Arcane spells. Does that mean a cleric can use the divine spells therein, and while only a sorceror or wizard can use said staff to cast its shield spell? Just want to a clarification, Thanks! - FM
Et al, I'm a little confused about who can use a given staff from the DMG. A Staff of Defense, for example, has both Clerical *and* Arcane spells. Does that mean a cleric can use the divine spells therein, and while only a sorceror or wizard can use said staff to cast its shield spell? Just want to a clarification, Thanks! - FM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
