Hawk Kriegsman's page

Sorry to be so late to the party.

This is an excellent tool. Well done.

Does any one know how to rotate the text on the vertical streets so that the show on the street?

It appears possible to rotate text based on my search of the internet, but my skill is limited to the city map toolkit.

Any help would be greatly appreciatd.

Thanx!

Hawk

Here is the wording from invisibility:

Quote:

The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.

I would view this the same as a delayed blast fireball and would pop the invisibility when the detonate/fireball went off. If there where enemies in the area of effect.

I will go with that.

Thanks for the response.

Hawk

Question came up in last night's session.

The party wizard was invisibile when casting detonate. I ruled that she became visible upon casting.

She is stating that she would not become visible until the spell goes off in the next round, becasue this initial casting of the spell is not an attack as it is infusing her body with energy.

I can see her point.

What do other's think?

Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanx!

Hawk

Hello All,

Thanks for all the input.

@ leo1925: they are in the darklands right now and will be for a while; teleporting out of the darklands is a risky proposition.

@ wraithstrike: I am sure that the size modifier is for size category and most all gems are fine in size. Looking at the table you can certainly get to +9 without size.

As to the one object at a time. Very good point.

I think I am going to allow it. They will have to do it one gem at a time, so that will certainly limit the usefulness of the spell.

Thanx!

Hawk

@wraithsrike,

Thanks for the input.

You said you would allow it in some situations.

I believe what they intend to do is use the polymorph any object spell to turn various gems into diamonds. The diamonds to then be used as spell components for restoration, raise dead, etc....

Would you allow that?

Thanx!

Hawk

I don't think the OP was referring to any spell, but simply to "going to town and exchanging all my platimum pieces into smaller currency".

I am referring to the spell Polymorph Any Object.

Thanx!

Hawk

This spell cannot create material of great intrinsic value, such as copper, silver, gems, silk, gold, platinum, mithral, or adamantine. It also cannot reproduce the special properties of cold iron in order to overcome the damage reduction of certain creatures.

Yes I understand this part 100%. It clearly states you cannot take a 100 small lead disks and turn them into 100 platinum pieces. This would be creating an item of great intrinsic value.

By RAW no. When it say "create" it means transform since polymorph can't really create anything, but only transform one thing to another.

Well that is why I ask. I am reading the rule as you cannot turn lead into gold.....etc.

But if I start with an item of great intrinsic value can I not polymorph it into another item of great intrinsic value?

I have created nothing only transformed. This is what my players are stongly suggesting.

Anyone else?

Thanx!

Hawk

Hello All,

My players have asked me to rule on this:

Can they change an item of value into another item of equal value?

Example: 5000 GP worth of gold into 5000 GP worth of silver

or 1000 GP of rubies into 1000 GP of diamonds?

The rule as I read it would seem to allow this as wealth is not being created only transformed.

Any input would be welcome here.

Thanx!

Hawk

Well of course it is always up to the GM. If the GM wishes, he could throw away the item creation rules completely and use his own. However, that would not be RAW, it would be a house rule.

Agreed 100%.

As Paizo used the line of: Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. that alone indicates that by RAW you can take that +5 for spells you do not know.

Read it again.

Bolding mine.

Nowhere in this sentance does it say that you can take a +5 to overcome the lack of having the spell. It also states that under each specific magic item.

The two things you must have per the RAW are the item creation feat and the spell. The +5 DC is applied to things like: not having 5 ranks in climb, not being an elf, not being proficient with a longbow....etc

In the end though, I agree the creation rules can be confusing, are worded poorly in some instances as well as contradictory. Even though this area is understandable enough in being able to take a +5 DC for spells not known, it could still have been worded better.

Agreed 100%

Well, that is an interesting take on the rules. So you are saying you would not allow someone who took the Master Craftsman feat to make anything more than a +1 armor/weapon or Wonderous Item?

It is not a take at all. The RAW clearly states simple magic items. What is missing is the definition of simple.

I can tell you that is certainly not what the developers intended and really makes the feat not worthwhile to take at all.

I am not sure how you can make that statement. Did they tell you this?

I place the emphasis on the +5 DC as that is what is RAW. You are welcome to make whatever changes you want to your campaign as you are the DM, but please don't try to argue what you are doing is RAW.

You you are emphasizing is not RAW, per what you posted above.

I am not arguing with you at all. I am pointing out RAW as I read it.

Not at all. And no consternation on the rule. Just pointing out what is RAW. :)
I haven't actually even talked to my GM about this yet. With the exception of letting him know I wish to take some item creation feats. No, I am trying to get this worked out in my head, first. As I have said, and I know others agree, the creation rules could have been written a little clearer, so just trying to hammer out what is RAW and what isn't, so my GM can decide what he does want and doesn't want to use.

No what I see you trying to do is get the delvelopers or the community to agree with you so that you can tell your GM such.

Since you are convinced you are right I will leave you be.

Thanx!

Hawk

Actually, it does say that.

I cannot supply the quote as it is out of the book and I am at work. For some reason, the PRD does not quote it the same. But it says something along the lines of the creator can take a +5 DC modifier in case he cannot meet a prerequisite and uses spells as an example.
So if you don’t want to allow arcane casters to use the +5 DC for divine spells, that is your right and choice. But by RAW, it is allowed. With anything besides spell completion/trigger items, which a potion is neither.

I am familiar with the sentence that you are refering to. It is also contridictary to what is listed under each magic item. Also Paizo has made it quite clear (in another thread of yours) that it is up to the GM to decide. So techincally your read of it is RAW as is mine.

I will supply the quote when I get home this evening, unless someone else can do so until then.
Another way to look at it is if the creator was not able to use the +5 DC to supplement spells not known, how could a non-spellcasting character take Master Craftsman?

Very interesting. I overlooked this. However the description of the feat states simple magic items.

So I would allow a +1 weapon or +1 armor or Boots of Elvinkind
or Bracers of Archery, Lesser or similar items all day long.

Anything beyond that is not simple.

It all depends on how the GM interprets the RAW. I place the emphasis on the creation per the items. You clearly default to the +5 DC sentance.

I am guessing your DM does not allow you to do it the way you want, hence all your consternation over this rule. :)

Thanx!

Hawk

I knew this would come up again. Actually, strictly by RAW, you are not limited. That statement you bolded is under crafting all magic items, including wonderous items and armor and weapons. And we know you can take a +5 DC when you don’t know the spell for those.

Actually nowhere in RAW does it say that. Under magic item creation it says for each type of item you need to have prepared the spell (prepared casters) or have access to it (spontaneous casters)and the required item creation feat.

If your DM allows it then great for you.

If your DM does not allow it than I agree with their decision.

I am not letting arcane casters creating divine items in my game nor divine casters creating arcane items.

Thanx!

Hawk

Of all the various scales we've used... the Gazetter is the most accurate. With the release of the Inner Sea World Guide and the companion map folio for the Inner Sea... THOSE will be the most accurate.

Thanks for the answer.

Since the map folio is still a couple weeks away, any chance you could tell me the distance between Falcon's Hallow and Olfden per this product?

I would hate to create a map and then find out the scale is off.

Thanx!

Hawk

The distance from Falcon's Hollow to where?

I guess that would be helpful.

Falcon's Hollow to Olfden.

Thanx!

Hawk

What is the accurate map scale?

If I use the map in the Darkmoon Vale guide the distance from Falcon's Hollow is about 30 miles.

If I use the Andoran guide the distance is 100 miles.

The Campaign Setting and the Gazetter also have different scales.

I am trying to map northwestern Andoran and really need an accurate measurement.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanx!

Hawk

It really was no trouble.

I actually bought it.

For me it is the right thing to do.

No pun intended.

Thanx!

Hawk

Hello All,

Finally got a chance to get the download and all is well.

Thanks much to Vic and the fine folks at Rite publishing.

Now to buy the 101 Magical Weapon properties to pay for what I got by accident.

Thanx!

Hawk

Hello Guys,

Unfortunately the link is incorrect (at least in my downloads). I get two files:

101_1st_Level_Spells_PFRPG_v1 & 101_1st_LS_PrinterFriendly

I downloaded and saved both files without a problem.

The printer friendly file was fine, however when I opened the other file I got 101 Magical Weapon Properties.

I tried the download again just now and the 101_1st_Level_Spells_PFRPG_v1 file gets me the 101 Weapon Properties.

So I still don't have a full copy of 101 1st level spells and I owe Rite Publishing $5 for the 101 Magical Weapon Properties (which is nice by the way).

Thanx!

Hawk

Thanks for the quick response.

It was no inconvenience at all.

No apology needed.

Thanx!

Hawk

@Hawk Kriegsman, again if your having a problem email me at steve (at) RitePublishing (dot) com

Hi Steve,

I am not having a problem. Something is wrong with the link.

The download I get from the Paizo store just does not have two files in it. I get one file as I detailed above.

I was letting you and Paizo know that the link may have an issue.

I am sure Paizo will get it fixed in due course.

I have the spells (and they are nice). The rest is chrome and polish for me.

E-Mail sent.

Again thanks for the quick response.

Thanx!

Hawk

Hello Guys,

Thanks for the fast responses.

My bad! I negleted to mention that 1st level spells download only had one file in it, while the others had two files.

I just downloaded it again and I get a single file.

The file name I recieved is: RIP0065E.

So it seems to be a Paizo store issue?

Let me know what you need me to do to get the full version.

Thanx!

Hawk

Hello,

I just got the PDF of this (as well as the other 3 too!)and my download had no cover page, title page, index page, or back cover. It also did not have the bookmarks or the neat background like the other 3 do.

Is this intentional or did I get a bad download?

Not complaining for $5 but it did seem odd.

Thanx!

Hawk

Thank you all very much for the responses.

I have an additional question regarding question 2.

Can you put more than 1 type of energy on a weapon?

I do not see anything that says you cannot.

If you can does that mean that you could command both energy types to be on at the same time?

Thanx!

Hawk

1. Seekers of Secrets

2. The listing for the energy specifically states that the fire/ cold/ electricity does not harm the wielder.

The issue is I am actually making my players activate the energy property. Now they almost never get a chance to waste a SA to activate it.

Thanx!

Hawk

1. The Student of War PRC has the Know Your Enemy Ability which requires a move action to use.

Can the Student of War be moving while using this ability?

2. Flaming, frost and shock wepons become so on command.

Is there a duration on how long this lasts?

Can a player just state that it is always active?

3. Detonate Spell (APG)

Can casters use the Selective Spell Metamagic (APG) feat to exclude themselved from the automatic half damage they take?

Thanx!

Hawk

Edited: added a third question

Spes Magna Mark wrote:

In Pathfinder, a character gets retroactive skill points from Intelligences increases. This is a change from 3.5.

Mark L. Chance
Spes Magna Games

Could you link or tell me where to locate this rule in PF PRD? I can't reach that site right now.

Here you go. Directly from www,d20pfsrd.com

Int & Skill Points

Thanks to Specs Magna Mark for this.

Hawk

Then how is Badbak correct when he asked a question?

EDIT for clarification.

Let me put it this way:

You had the correct answer initially (agreed), but you stated someone that asked a question was correct, followed by only posting the wrong rules which stated the opposite of the correct answer without providing context or explaining the difference. Thus you relied on others to realize what you were posting wasn't in fact the rules, but the 3.5 rules and that if they wanted to know if there was actually a change they would have to go and look for themselves.

IF instead you had posted:

Hawk Kriegsman wrote:

"Yes your skill points go up.

In 3.5 this was not the case however:

3.5 SRD wrote:

When an ability score changes, all attributes associated with that score change accordingly. A character does not retroactively get additional skill points for previous levels if she increases her intelligence.

However in pathfinder SRD we find:

PFSRD wrote:

Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics as appropriate. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.

Then everything would have been in order with explanations, citations, and clear understanding of what is the case, what was the case and what it means.

Snip........Meh nevermind.

Thanx!

Hawk

When answering rules questions about pathfinder it is best to use the pathfinder rules since they are not the same as the D&D 3.5 rule set.

And when responding to someone's quotes it is really a good idea to read what he wrote and understand the context in which it was written.

Look again closely Abraham.

1: I said skill points went up.

2: I responded to badbak to his query that this was changed in pathfinder from 3.5

Remember Abraham reading is a skill

Thanx!

Hawk

Yes your skill points go up.

and badbak is correct.

When an ability score changes, all attributes associated with that score change accordingly. A character does not retroactively get additional skill points for previous levels if she increases her intelligence.

Thanx!

Hawk

All classes are capable of swashbuckling.

Yes of course. Some are better suited to it than others.

Thanx!

Hawk

Against my better judgement I am going to chip in.

I can tell you that based on what I have read here I can say RVD that you would drive my table nuts too.

Although I will admit it seems like the other people at your table would too.

For missing details: apologize and ask for them to be repeated; a decent DM should not have a problem with this. Just make sure are not missing details because you are screwing around. I think you may be missing details because you are preoccupied with looking up a rule, giving advice or contemplating a innovated turn.

As for giving advice in game: DON'T. It has been my experiece that this annoys other player more than not. If you need to make a comment have your character do it in game, be brief about it and be done. If you want to talk to the person do it after the session. Also if you are constantly making suboptimal choices on your turn you only compound the problem of giving advice.

As for correcting the DM on a rule in game: DON'T. No DM will get the rules 100% right in all circumstances. There are too many rules to remember. Trust that your DM is to provide you with entertainment and a good time. Nothing ruins an encounter quicker that someone halting the procceedings to look up a rule. It kills the flow, tension and the situation. Also while you may have gotten the rule right on that occasion you very well may have cost your party in the long run. See a DM usually gives the player's breaks here and there that the players are never aware of, but when they get rules lawyered they tend to be less and less forgiving and hold the players to the same standard.

If you must ruleslawyer do it after the session. I know when I screw up I like it pointed out. But not in the middle of a game.

As for taking the creative appoach more ofter than not: DON'T. Nothing annoys players more than one of there own consistantly making suboptimal choices. It frustrates them to no end wheter you win the fight or not.

Play to your strengths. Only unusual circumstances call for unusual tactics. A 4th level fighter verses 5 gnolls is not unusual. The fighter is designed to swing and kill. If you need creative become a swashbuckler or rogue.

Hope this as well as the other advice helps.

Thanx!

Hawk

Hello All,

I ordered the GMG from Amazon on the July 11th and recieved July 13th with no issues at all.

I just went to Amazon and I was able to put it in my cart.

Thanx!

Hawk

You will be happy to know that there is a whole chapter devoted to rewards in the GMG Guide complete with random magic item generation tables.

In the mean time you certainly could use table 3-5 from the DMG making sure you keep the overall GP limit as listed in table 12-5 of the PFCR.

Thanx!

Hawk

Yes I stand corrected the GMG only has magic item generation tables.

Thanx!

Hawk

I actually do use facing as I just cannot accept the head on a swivel 360 degree field of vision thing.

So OP's questions would work in my game as such (assuming the attacke comes from behind out of LOS):

Scorching Ray: Invisibility by the attacker is lost and while you do not see the attacker immediately you do know that he is behind you (due to a cinged backside). On the victim's turn he can turnaround and respond accordingly.

Arrow: again while you would not see the attcker immediately you would know the attacker is behind you (due to an arrow in your backside).

I do allow advantages for facing. You can use Stealth in plain sight is no one has LOS to you. You still have to make a stealth check verses perception (they could hear or smell you). If successful you gain the benefits normally entitled to stealth.

Thanx!

Hawk

I believe the appropriet response is: LOL!

I second this. LOL!

Thanx!

Hawk

You will be happy to know that there is a whole chapter devoted to rewards in the GMy Guide complete with random generation tables.

In the mean time you certainly could use table 3-5 from the DMG making sure you keep the overall GP limit as listed in table 12-5 of the PFCR.

Thanx!

Hawk

I ran my players through a "Pathfinderized" Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. It was time consuming but manageable.

I had the temple located in the Five Kings Mountains and the various environs located in northern Andoran, nortern Taldor and southen Galt.

I am now running them through a "Pathfinderized" Ruins of Greyhawk/Return to the Ruins of Greyhawk.

I put these ruins in the Fog Peaks.

They are having a blast with it so far.

Thanx!

Hawk

You always get at least one skill point no matter what.

Per the PRD under intelligence:

The number of skill points gained each level, though your character always gets at least 1 skill point per level.

Thanx!

Hawk

@Ogre

The wizard's arcane bond would work as you state provided the bonded object was a ring or an amulet. Staves, wands and weapons must be wielded. If the wizard does not have these three items out then he is SOL.

@knightofstyx

I would absolutely allow a paralyzed individual/creature to use an SLA.

@Maveric28

No I would not allow someone to stand still to avoid an AoO. No matter how still you try to be you cannot be as still as someone who is paralyzed. Plus if someone tried to stand still while in someone's threatened area I would say that would provoke an AoO.

To all:

Also I would use the RAW and they would get an AoO when they activate it.

I don't see it as too harsh at all. In my book a spellcaster who winds up paralyzed next to his foes deserves everything he gets.

Thanx!

Hawk

Hello All,

I would actually allow it as a command word activated ability.

Being only able to use it the round after you activate it makes it not so great especially with the kind of foes a 6th level party can expect to face.

As a DM that power really would not bother me too much.

As for cost: it would be 2,000 (+1 weapon) + 300 (masterwork) + cost of actual weapon + 1,800 (1st level command word activated power)+ 3,600 (tripling the 1,800 to reflect the power of a +20 to hit every other round).

So about 7,700 to 7,750 GP depending on weapon.

That is a large chunck of the 12,000 GP the rogue has to spend.

Not a wise investement to me.

Thanx!

Hawk

And your players may not even notice it themselves. Unless you compare it like that, you probably don't even notice, and if there isn't a sorcerer and wizard in the party, you're not likely to compare that way. If the players are conservative with spells, it could go completely unnoticed. Glad it got you thinking, and thank you for the ideas.

You are right there, nobody really does notice the differences.

Glad I was able to contribute a little something.

Thanx!

Hawk

Yeah, that's the problem I have. Sorcerers don't get enough spells over the wizard. Your 7th level example has the sorcerer able to cast 6 more 1st, 3 more 2nd, or 2 more 3rd level spells than the wizard. The wizard can cast 4th level spells. And swap them out as needed, where the sorcerer is stuck with the same spells every encounter.

I see what you are saying but do keep in mind that the wizard is also stuck with the same spells every encounter too unless he stops for 8 hours to rest and then another hour to prepare.

The 7th level wizard still only has 5 1st, 4 2nd, 3 3rd and 2 4th level spells that he can prepare. There is no change from the RAW. He does not get to cast anything that is in his book.

The wizard can also prepare 8 of his minimum 15 spells known at 7th. The sorcerer knows 10 spells period. So the sorcerer gets two spells known more but can't change any of them, they are of lower level than the wizards, and can cast them at most 6 times and at least 2 times more than a wizard.

But that is more an issue with the RAW than the point system I use.

Being able to get to get 2 more spells per spell level is a nice advantage to the sorcerer.

This is why I think the sorcerer needs a bump, in RAW and in your system. Just moving their spell progression up to where they get spell levels at the same level as a wizard would satisfy me.

I will have to mull this over a bit as I have have had very little issue with the sorcerer / wizard difference per the RAW and the spell point system I use.

Thanx!

Hawk

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Beats TOZ with a set of XPH on a chain

Thank you sir, may I have another?

@Hawk
I ask about the sorcerers in your game because a 5th level sorcerer with an 18 CHA in that party would have the following.

1st = 7
2nd = 5

This would give him 17 spell points.

1 X 7 = 7
2 X 5 = 10

Your wizard can now cast just as many spells as the sorcerer, and can swap his spells known every day, while the sorcerer is stuck with the same six spells until his next level.

Sorry for the delay.

Yes that is correct, but sorcerers do wind up getting more spell points as they go up in levels.

This same sorcerer would have 36 points at 7th level while the wizard from my example would have 30 points.

So a sorcerer gets more spell points and can cast all spells he knows while the wizard can only cast the spells he has prepared.

Again in terms of spell levels no one can cast more levels of spells under the system I use than the RAW.

Thanx!

Hawk

Hawk Kriegsman wrote:

The wizard cast no more levels of spells than he could under RAw, he now has a little more flexibility.

He still has to prepare what spells he knows for the day just like before.

Do you use sorcerers in your games? What do they get different from the wizard?

Yes I use sorcerers in my game. They don't have to prepare spells just like before.

Thanx!

Hawk

I also a spell point system in my game.

Mine is simple.

A 5th level wizard with an 18 int has the following spell slots per the RAW.

1st= 4
2nd = 3
3rd = 2

In my game the wizard would have 16 spell points.

4 x 1 = 4
3 x 2 = 6
2 x 3 = 6

The wizard cast no more levels of spells than he could under RAw, he now has a little more flexibility.

He still has to prepare what spells he knows for the day just like before.

As for 0 level spells: You get 4 until 5th level at which point it becomes 1 per level. I don't use the unlimited cantrip rule.

Cantrips have their own tracking.

As for metamagic effects: the affected spell cost what ever spell points that its slot would be and the max spell level would be just the same.

Example: the above wizard has still spell which would cost him 1 extra spell point and he would be limited to 2nd level or lower spells.

The system works quite well and the players like it.

Thanx!

Hawk

My game has had two warblades in it and neither broke the game.

Neither had house rules wither.

Now with the switch from 3.5 to Pathfinder these characters have had a bit of conversion work.

Here is what I done:

Weapon Aptitude is removed. Replaced with Fighter Aptitude

Fighter Aptitude = you are considered a fighter of 3 levels less for the purposes of fighter only feats, bravery, weapon and armor training.

Manuevers are usable once per encounter.

All manuevers reviewed to determine intended effect when used. Poor wording ignored.

Iron Heart Surge: To me the intent was to will or physicaly power yourself out of an effect or condition while in combat.

So I have ruled on things as follows:

Hold Person & Paralysis: yes it works

Web: yes it works, but the web does not go away.
You break free of it not dispel it.

Antimagic Field: No, it does not affect you, it does effect your stuff.

Staggered: yes

Starvation: No - go get a sandwhich

Suffocation: Yes,temporarily as I allow the use to reset your time without air back to the first round for purposes of figuring the DC needed to stay conscious.

Anyways the one use per combat makes most maneuvers reasonable.

Thanx!

Hawk

Sorry to come to this so late.

The map is really well done.

Is their a map key to go along with this map?

Thanx!

Hawk

The poison should probably change and grow stronger, yeah. And furthermore, the different breeds of vermin (be they scorpion or spider or crab or centipede or whatever) should also have other abilities as well. The tables of different vermin in the Bestiary are meant to be guidelines for stating up differently sized creatures but there simply wasn't room to do full details.

We'll be providing stats for these larger and smaller vermin in upcoming products eventually; some will certainly show up in Bestiary 2.

Until then, the best way to handle a larger vermin's poison is to just recalculate it based on the new size's Hit Dice and Constitution modifier, and maybe increase the size of the dice used to roll the poison by one step for each increase in size. Using these rules, a Colossal black scorpion would probably have poison that looks like:

Black scorpion venom: Sting—injury; save Fort DC 32; frequency 1/round for 6 rounds; effect 1d6 Strength damage; cure 1 save.

Thank you very much.

Hawk

Hello All,

Does the poison from a Huge monstrous scorpion increase in damage or duration over what is presented with a large monstrous scorpion?

If so how does one calculate a new level of damage or duration?

I can find nothing that says it does.

I understand the DC of the save goes up.

I cannot believe the poison does not become more damaging.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanx!

Hawk

I use use the following:

10 Feet: 1d6
20 Feet: 3d6
30 Feet: 6D6
40 Feet: 10d6
50 Feet: 15d6
60+ Feet: 21d6

Any 6's that are rolled cause a bludgeoining critical injury
(I have my own home brewed charts).

This makes falling dangerous but survivable.

It makes a player think twice before leaping of tall structures.

Hasn't made my players any less heroic or made them any more inclined to make people fall to their deaths.

Thanx!

Hawk

dulsin wrote:

-Being hit by lightning?

I think Natural lightning should be nasty. If I was going to throw out natural lightning I would put it at the 15-20 dice range. Not the carpet burns that druids pull out. Again that would be mostly a story device since it is HIGHLY unlikely to get hit by lightning unless you are in metal armor standing on a hill.

Yet there are people in recorded history that have been struck by lightning several times, like Roy Sullivan. Unless real life rangers gain the improved evasion feat, that one doesn't jibe real well with such a large amount of damage dealt.

Mother nature rolled mostly 1's and 2's and Mr. Sullivan must be about an 8th level (Park)Ranger. Obviously he is very lucky too!

Thanx!

Hawk