This to me would be like learning that you supposed to negotiate with a Rakshsa for the release of hostages at level 1-3 and coming back the next session ready to bless a crossbow bolt and let the true strike casting wizard shoot it because you found out it was an instant kill ( or at least used to be ) during the down time.
Once again lack of info on why is the issue. In the Viking example it's evident why humans only. However lets say a guy shows up with a short bearded human with a high con, a Scottish accent, worse alcoholism than the cast of Jersey Shore, and a big axe. Will you be frustrated because he is a dwarf rip-off? ( and yes I know that guy fits in great with Vikings)
The thing is the GM is only at fault if there is a complete refusal of discussion. If I say that I'm running Dragonlance you can't be a halfling but if what your wanting is a small race who are good at sneaking that's an option. If you wanted to play a warforged your outta luck as well but maybe you just wanted the constructy flavor (mmnm wood, metal, and oil) so we might ask the resident tinker gnome if he minds you playing a gnomish invention of a close friend who he is helping test. But if I just say no without at least learning what your seeking then who am I helping.
On the flip side if it's a game set in the godless years and you demand to play a cleric or you won't play there isn't much I can do to help. Same thing if you show up with a 3pp moogle race that you have to play, and by Reorx's beard you mean a moogle not a kender then am I the problem?
What I've picked up from the thread is that there is no problem with any of the hypothetical characters, all the hypothetical players seem to be unyielding douches. Because if we decide to play a game of political intrigue and you bring Sir Smash and Burn, then the player not the dwarf fighter is the problem. If no elves exist in your world then 90% of the time bringing an elf is bad form. But if we are playing a campaign where it just might work (exploring a new continent, interplanetary travel, or the like) then asking isn't out of the question. Heck asking for something and listing your main reason/s why should never be considered bad. However only having that one idea and refusing to budge is bad for the player to do, just like adamantly refusing to at least talk to the player as a GM isn't going to help anything
Alrighty after reading this thread it's clear what I'm doing wrong as a GM. I watched too many Saturday morning cartoons as a child. Coupled with too much comic books. It causes me to instead of blanket barring of things based in concept to wrap my head around a way to fit the square peg in the round hole. Sure a bit of cutting might happen, but whether it's to the peg or hole remains to be seen.
My point was that they were all twisted evil lil bastartds. Then it was revealed that not all were changed over. Simply because no elves have been seen for 40000 yrs doesn't mean that there aren't some out their somewhere, if it can fit the narritive. It's funny how there were no oracles or alchemist ( as in the classes with the abilities they bring) in my home setting until hmm I like the rules for this sure lets use it, same with the Bo9S classes nothing out there was even close to what they did but that didn't stop me from working them into my games.
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
BBT flurry is not twf anymore. Flurry is now simply extra attacks at certain levels. Thus rulings affecting TWF and THW dont affect flurrying with a THW.
Also how come everytime the devs rule in a way you dont like you start firing off outlandish off the cuff reasons why this new ruling is completly ruining the game.
Malachi using the actual rules show me one thing that will break. You and both know that your above list is worse scare tactics than political talk radio. You still can't seem to understand the word can't. All the FAQ has to say is that without EWP you cannot wield a bastard sword in one hand. It's called a rules exception.
Fixed it for you.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Clicked the button but as you already know I'm firmly in the rules language camp. One-handed weapon is a rules term it does not mean the same thing as a weapon wielded in one hand. So when you use a weapon as a one-handed weapon you use the rules for one handed weapons. When you are simply wielding it in one hand then use the rules appropriate to what type of weapon it is.
BBEG A enemy figure who has some how managed to rise to some form of power within his tribe, religion, or other group despite the fact he usually dies to Adventurers within 18 secs of actually confronting them due to his egotistical need to confront them at odds of at least 4 to 1.
Wait you mean my GM lied and my barbarian doesn't lose his class features if his Int is higher than 7 or if I wear more than a lion cloth?? Am I also allowed to talk in complete sentences or is actually banned?
In all seriousness always crazy mouth foaming barbarians are as bad as always evil orcs right Mikaze?
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Speaking of Religion can I speak to you about the wonders of his Magnificance Lord Wraithstrike.
I usually try to have a contingency plan ready for running away. The best I've seen however went to our party monk a tetori who had grab and rhino's charge. He really liked to charge and burn ki to grapple spellcasters. He had ready to charge the next person who cast a spell believing the enemy wizard would cast shortly after his turn the wizard died on the next turn from the paladin followed by every one but the monk and sorcerer failing a save against a contingent wail of the banshee. The wizard goes to cast teleport the monk looks up " what about my readied action".
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
I was meaning that you were right except that Mwangi is better because of dinosaurs.
Detect Magic wrote:
This highlights how I feel as well on the issue though said far more eloquently than I could even begin to. Bravo!
Been following this for awhile now and honestly I'm with Kirth. I've had to modify classes/ races but very few times have I ever had such an issue that something was banned( one example of banned is the Truenamer and that was a group agreement). On the other end I've had GMs ban classes at their whim or bad rules reading. Two GMs I've had banned monks completely one because they had read the rules horribly wrong ( they thought a monk could flurry with all of his limbs as in at 1st level 2x hands feet and head for 10 attacks). The other banned it because quivering palm was overpowered and broken. Even after being shown that an equal level wizard could install kill so much better and more efficiently he still thought it was a game ruining ability.
So I had to pass on my favorite class every time they ran ( which for years those were the only DND to be played) and go for something else. All because of very uninformed gms who didnt want to even try to listen to any reason.
I'll take some good old fashioned Jack Chick over Robertson any day. Some one in my neighborhood used to give out his little graphic novels every Halloween.
I remember those from church camp that's where I learned DND was about summoning the devil. And rock and roll albums were blessed with animal and virgin sacrifice by the Church of Satan. Yeah fast forward 10 years and I started playing best friend at the time was the preachers kid. He wouldn't play without making sure it was cool with his dad so i let his dad borrow my books. Two weeks later his dad's only things to say where "I don't see a big deal with this." And "Are halflings anything like hobbits?"
Also on the subject of things being "exceptions " look to the Titan Mauler it was supposed to be an exception. But to do something different than the rules you have to have rules that allow it. The Titan Mauler didn't have rules to let you actually do what it was supposed to do so it doesn't let you do it.
More wood for the flames here is the 3.5 paladin of freedom's code reprinted.
Code of Conduct
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Would that be enough to qualify it as a two-handed weapon?
Cost should have been the balancing factor. But no people still freaked so now we have a full BaB class whose signature weapon has slower reload than a crossbow, the same range as a thrown weapon, and not the ability to critically fail but a better chance at a crit fail than it has of critting. All for what 10-40 ( or as I call it get eaten range) for touch attacks that we can expand x times a day with our limited grit points.
Bill lets ignore the mom and baby.
It will cause a healer to decide to let a loved one die.
It takes away the ability of the character to use reasoning and thought in their actions and simply attack in some way instead of doing something that might be much more important to them.
And even if we allow the "throw a rock" loophole it still waste a standard action and still can cause someone to act out of character.
In the very long thread on the subject (which has no resolution) it was asked if anyone has done this in PFS and how gms would rule on the subject.
Please let's limit this to whether or not you allow it and if you have a strong reason why or why not please explain.
Either way if they fail the second save on hideous laughter it's still a good send them away for a few rounds tactic as Jiggy pointed out.
Spell components 5g
You do realize even at the d8 they end up in with monks robes a fighter is going to have so many stacked bonuses to damage that the monks 2d10 is just shameful.
I mean really over a monk with the exact same str( which is unlikely) and the exact same AoMF at level 12( when the monk gets 2d6) the fighter has 10 more static damage 7 higher hit chance and one more attack and a higher threat range than the monk. And that's assuming the monk can afford the str pumping like a fighter can.