Bulette

Xellan's page

411 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 411 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Just let them do it for free. Or, if you want to associate some sort of cost with it, change it from a pearl to a loop similar to the Analyze Dweomer spell.

First off, any group I know wouldn't even think to use a magic item that they haven't identified unless they were desperate, and then they'd prey you didn't curse the thing. It's bad enough the spell takes an hour to cast the spell, meaning it's unlikely they'll have time until they rest for the night. Then they have to worry about whether they have a 100gp pearl (or at least a 100gp to burn). Meanwhile, there's that treasure. Just sitting there. Not being used.

Second, it's a drain on the party loot. If you're thinking of tossing some pearls in the treasure just to make sure the party can identify all or most of the magic items, then it's not really a burden. And if you don't, then it's precisely that. A burden.

Finally, the spellcasters have a hard enough time trying to make sure they get to BE spellcasters through the course of an adventuring day without having to 'waste' any of their precious spells on identifying magic items. So there's already a cost involved. Every spell they sacrifice on identifying magic items is another round of combat they don't get to be a spellcaster. Oh boy, let's break out that crossbow and shoot that barn over there! All I got left is Identify! WHEE!

Sarcasm aside, there's plenty of reasons to nix the cost. As a midline in my games, I've just had folks use a 100gp Focus instead of Material component, and there's been no flood of treasure overwhelming my game.

EDIT: And there's not a single reason I can think of that you shouldn't nix the cost.


mwbeeler wrote:
A mid-level fighter should be able to murdalize people with a salt shaker, if need be.

But the really cool kids do it with a tea cup.


KnightErrantJR wrote:

So, basically, the system is broken, has to be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up on order to make sure that it makes sense and is balanced, but before the article is up, they mention that its still guess work and an "art" to pricing magic items . . .

Hm.

(For what its worth, I'm not opposed to magic item levels. I kind of like them, especially if they remain "guidelines" instead of "you can't use these until you are level X." I'm just saying that it struck me as odd that they still don't sound too confident about magic item pricing)

In my own opinion - and mind you, this is something that's bugged the crap out of me for a while - D&D will never have a firm pricing scheme for magic items because it suffers a host of problems:

* Too many effects (feats, class abilities, spells, monster abilities...)
* Too many creative uses/abuses/loopholes
* System isn't broken down into a mathmatical point scheme
* D&D design has always been, and still is, guesswork and playtesting.

While these aren't exactly problems in all ways, they make a mess of coming up with a formula for pricing. Maybe chaos theory and fuzzy math might be able to make sense of the spaghetti-pile that is D&D, but how do you account for the sauce?

I like item levels; using character level for a gauge on what's appropriate is, honestly, the very core of the system - encounters, feats, abilities... Everything else goes off that, and the whole wealth scheme and item pricing in 3e was just another method to simulate that. Here, they're taking out the middleman, so to speak, and being more honest about who should have what.

And since someone's already brought it up... I don't care what they /say/ about item level vs character level, there's no way they could enforce a hard rule on when someone can equip something. If they did put it in print, I'd laugh at them and equip my 9th level sword on my 7th level fighter. Hah! Take THAT! :)


I offer up my own suggestion:

Hard Pill

As in 'A Hard Pill to Swallow'

Maybe it's not particularly original, but it has a reasonably well known phrase to play off of, and I don't see any problem calling it a pill if that's what it is.


There are feats that deal with this very issue, as well as a skill trick.. Check Complete Adventurer, and Complete Scoundrel for starters. Also look into the consolidated feat list on the WotC site (you have to go to the archive, and click on the D&D brand archives, I think). Finally, check the DragonDex, which still has a list of all the articles and whatnot ever put out by dragon. There's a master index that'll take you to feats specifically, or you can go to the article index to hunt through the article titles to see if there's anything likely. It's late, or I'd add the links myself. I'll try to remember to do it later, if you haven't had any luck finding any of that stuff.


Wicht wrote:


Does your DM really do this? He needs a better system and/or more dice.

If I have several monsters caught in my players fireball, I tend to roll their saving throws as a group. All the goblins one die, the leader gets his own die, the familiar saves with his master, etc. If I do roll for more than one group I just roll all the dice at once, remembering which color die goes with who.

Heh. I'll have to tell my wife that the real reason I have two pounds of dice is because it speeds up game play. ...It's not an addiction at all. I can stop buying dice anytime I feel like it...

My DM? Depends. If it's a group of orcs or something, then no. He'll only roll once if they're all mooks with the same stats. But if we're fighting a variety of things with different save bonuses? Then yes. He'll roll for each. And this is something that DOES happen. Frequently.

With saves being static, it means that you only ever have to roll a single d20 for /any/ given attack. There are no 'conditions' that common sense or experience dictates are 'acceptable' tp handwave for speeding up play. The speed is automatically built into the play. One attack, one d20, roll damage, subtract hit points, next guy's turn.


DitheringFool wrote:
Ooh, ooh, ooh, I want to play the party wizard! I've always wanted to try out that Force Missle Mage...

When you need the very /best/ magic missile to cast at the darkness! :) (Sorry. HAD to say it)


Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Agreed. This is one of the most ridiculous and "anti-D&D" changes that will be in 4th edition. You know everyone loves to just sit there while the DM rolls dice to see if the dragon roasts their character, or they get turned to stone by a medusa.

I bet they're going to like it better than sitting there while the DM rolls dice for each and every monster caught in the wizard's fireball.


Stedd Grimwold wrote:

I'd reprint, but it occurs to me that the copyright prohibits distribution or public display or some such language so I'll refrain.

I'm pretty sure reprinting it here is covered under "Fair Use", as the purpose of this thread is to discuss that article. Also, given the number of articles that have been reprinted in other threads, I think Gary or someone would've deleted offending posts before if it was a problem.

....

As for the article, I'm kind of interested in how the tiers work into things. Are they moving away from level based prerequisites, and going for tier stuff? Are they basing it on tiers? Or is the idea really just half-formed still at this late stage in the game?

I'm curious to see how that'll evolve by the time the books hit the shelves.

Also, I don't think the feats are bad at all. Toughness is finally worthwhile. Alertness got a really awesome boost (I don't know what 'combat advantage' is in 4e, but in 3e it would equate to not being flat-footed and keeping your dex bonus in the surprise round). Gold Wyvern should probably just dump the wisdom limit - by 'Paragon' levels, you shouldn't have to pick and choose which of your buddies will have to take a hit to really maximize your area abilities. And First Reaction... meh, it just needs a better name. Sounds like a good feat for those critical battles, depending on how scarce action points are.


Mr. Jason wrote:

But at the same time it really does feel very video game-like. Folks have referred to the cards higher up in the thread as a "contract," which is what it seems like to me. The party does [insert task here] and they will receive a defined amount of experience and treasure. What especially bothers me is that it seems the players would immediately be told exactly what they'll get as a reward, down to the last experience point. And including experience points might tip off players to an adventure that will get more complicated (and so longer and harder). Seems too meta-gamey to me.

It doesn't help that this the cards sound like they'll use the format for WoW quests - what you need to do to complete the quest, who you need to report back to, and what you'll get afterwards.

I honestly don't know what the 'Quest Rules' are comprised of, since they really only gave some vague examples.

As for the cards, only details knowable to the PCs would or should be on them. Stuff like: The goal, what the IC reward is (wealth, land, titles), who's offering it, and maybe the major complications that they've been told about.

A sample Quest Card:
===================
Goal: Retrieve the Sword of Winter and use it to kill the Fire King.
Reward: Lands and Title for each character.
Contact: King Terel or Chancellor Malachai
Location: Said to be in the Tomb of Jormungand the Terrible.
Complications: The tomb may have undead, and Jormungand's advisor was known for summoning fiends to his service.
===================

Other pertinent details could be included, of course, depending on space. And, DMs could give out quest cards each time the PCs run into something, allowing them to reference back to it later if they're already in the middle of something. Having such a thing, assuming it isn't lost, means that it's less likely to be forgotten, and enables the party to pick up on hooks when they're ready, rather than bypassing them and (often, in my experience) forgetting all about the opportunity.


Fine, let me play devil's advocate:

Does anyone seriously believe that this particular suggestion is so lacking in merit that it /shouldn't/ be in the book? Will it not in any way be helpful to enough new and old DMs that it's just a waste of print?


Stebehil wrote:

So far, it seems that 4e aims at teenagers (with cool powers and cool gizmos and whatnot). That implies that I am no longer their target audience (I´m 37, just for the record).

I'd encourage you not to get discouraged just because something is or seems targeted at teenagers.

I'm 34. Over the years, I've come to learn that I really don't like DMing. Part of that is because I want to /play/ my cool concepts and throw them into the fiery baptism of a campaign, and really get into the meat of the character. Being DM robs me of that because I play /so many/ other characters that I can't immerse myself in a single character like I want to.

Another part of that is I just don't feel I'm very good at it. There's a lot of stuff to remember. Rules that need looked up, both in the core book and in the suppliments that come out. And honestly, I don't have the patience to really fully familiarize myself with all of it. As a player, all I need to know is what's pertinent to my character. As a DM, I need to know SO MUCH MORE. It's a CHORE, a JOB. I come to the table to play, not to work.

So the 'dumbing down', the target audience of teenagers, the streamlining and focus on fast and easy play... That stuff gives me hope that DMing, for me, won't be a chore. It'll be fast, streamlined, easy (easier, or easy enough) to handle so I don't get frustrated with having to spend hours on hours of prep time to have a good session, or wing it and run the good chance of having a crappy session.

The engaging stories? The interactive tapestry of exploring a fantasy world with my friends? The fond memories that'll last a lifetime? You bring that to the table. D&D just brings a set of rules (and advice) to add the game to the stories you tell.

Even if it's tailored to teenagers, you might find the DM's job is made easier. There's quite possibly stuff (and I hope /plenty of stuff) in there you can use anyway to bring a better game. And that, I think, means everyone wins.

And, you know. It's a /game/. It's /play/. If it's aimed at a younger audience, and we like it, doesn't that just make us young at heart? :)

Stebehil wrote:


I know I´m generalizing here, so don´t be mad at me.

I get upset when someone makes an insulting comment ala "This stuff is for stupid/forgetful/lame n00bs." because that implies that if I like it, I'm a stupid/forgetful/lame n00b. I get and respect that not everyone likes every/many/any of the changes being made. But there's been a lot of hostility toward WotC, and that's bled over into people making a lot of remarks that backhandedly say "This sucks, and if you like it you suck too." I don't accuse anyone of doing it intentionally, but it's a huge turnoff (to me anyway) and it's hostile and alienating (IMO) to folks who /do/ like the changes.

EDIT: And a lot of my house rules and proposals I've posted here, have been in the spirit of making D&D less complicated for me and I hope for others.


Varl wrote:
My point wasn't in regards to using the cards as a prop. That's fine. I like Gamemastery products. It was in regards to the fact that they tell us these great story arc tie-ins above and the interweaving plotlines, when technically, those have always been part of the game. It's like they've had an epiphany that you really can tie-in separate adventures with one another like it's an original feature of the game when it's not.

And if that age old advice isn't written down in the books, how is a DM new to the game going to benefit from it? After years of frustration, learning his craft through trial and error? What happens if this newbie just gets fed up because D&D turned out to be too hard? I'd rather it be there for people to take advantage of from the start.

Not everyone is playing that way out of the box. Not everyone has the advantage of being 'apprenticed' to a skilled DM for years before they handle their own adventures. And not everyone has the time or patience for trial by fire. Kudos, I say. About time they spelled it out to reach and embrace even MORE new players more readily.


Varl wrote:
I want to know when plot twists like this became a new DM tactic, and why a new edition was needed to bring it out in people. I thought everybody DM'd this way, or at least, tried to. This is standard adventure creation fare. It's like they've forgotten how to create plot twists and intrigue into their storylines.

I'd rather put forth the suggestion that it is not a driving force behind a new edition. Instead, /because/ they are coming out with a new edition, they are including it and many other things in the collective advice that they're making available in their products.

Also, I don't view any of the reposted article as insulting. First off, the man plainly states that it's 'one suggestion'. Second off, having physical representation of the quests and optional quests that your characters have accumulated is not a bad thing. If anything, it allows a DM to present MORE options for reward because they'll all be kept track of.

And just because you need, or desire, the cards in your game doesn't make /anyone/ stupid. At least some of us gamers have lives outside of gaming. We have families, friends, jobs... the list goes on. There's a lot to keep track of, and we don't always have the time or focus to remember everything we're supposed to be doing or might want to do over the course of weeks and months. Sometimes things fall through the cracks.

And to be perfectly honest? Not everyone is some brilliant game savant who can juggle 3 campaigns, their RL lives, and whatever else. Some of us out here /like/ these suggestions and changes WotC is making to make the game easier, faster, and more streamlined to play.

I'll be damned if I'm going to look down my nose at someone because they need or want to use some of these simple suggestions in their games. I'm not stupid, /they're/ not stupid, and I don't think there's any place for that elitist tripe in the hobby.


Nor would it be particularly game breaking to grant the priest the benefits of the spell.

Who are you if not your own ally?


I think all the bile, vomit, and offended attitudes over this are ill placed.

First off, as I know has been said before on other threads, it's not like WotC is purposely targetting any one person, or any group of people, to piss them off on a personal level.

Also, I don't get the reaction to them plucking various gods they think are cool, and placing them in their 'core setting', whatever it is. It's not like the 'new campaign, familiar faces' thing hasn't been done before; and not just by people using homebrew worlds. Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Eberron, Mystara, etc... Every single one of these worlds has taken familiar faces - the PC races, classes, monsters of all kinds - and may or may not have put a new spin on them.

[sarcasm]
Heaven forbid they mix and match some of their favorite gods for a new pantheon. It's never been done before. Why, it's just sacrilege!
[/sarcasm]

I'd be willing to bet money that if they came up an entirely new pantheon with all new names, folks still wouldn't be happy. Instead they'd be complaining about the old deities being abandoned, how it was a kick in the face to gamers everywhere, and how the new god of tyrrany - Harknor - should've just been called Bane.


The only place the distinction really matters is when choosing psionic Item Creation feats. For example, a Crystal Capacitor has its own feat, in spite of it being the equivalent of a Pearl of Power, which is made via the Craft Wondrous Item feat. By the same token, one can make a psionic Ring of Invisibility much earlier, because it's covered under the Craft Universal Item feat, rather than Forge Ring.

But good/bad? I've always been a fan of psionics. Just make sure you know the rules and quirks for psionics, and don't let your players pull a fast one on you. I think you'll find they work pretty well.


Turin the Mad wrote:
And Xellan has nicely, directly pointed at what makes Feral so broken. NO class grants such awesome melee prowess (IIRC, four attack options normally found only in animals...) AND Fast Healing in the fashion that the template does, for a paltry +1 level adjustment. For a once-in-a-blue-moon encounter, feral is acceptable. For a PC ... intolerable, imo.

Actually, I don't consider the Feral template to be broken. I consider it a strong +1 LA, or potentially a solid +2, depending on the preferences of the DM and his campaign style.

First off, one thing to keep in mind is that those nifty charted abilities do not get better with level. Those increases are a function of racial HD, not any HD gained from class levels (meaning they get a flat Fast healing 2, and improved grab and that's it for most PC races). So unless you're allowing multi HD creatures as PCs, not that big a deal.

The speed boost is nice, but this is purely to get this thing in melee range. Battlefield mobility is a /good/ thing for everyone concerned - players and DMs alike - because it means the combat doesn't drag on needlessly. The +6 Natural Armor may seem huge, but it's at least partially mitigated by the -2 Dex penalty and makes up for the likelihood of this character shunning the heavier armors.

The natural attack routine is also nice, especially at low levels where the extra attack is going to help. However, the attack it gets isn't anything spectacular; it's the equivalent of a simple weapon, the morningstar without the dual damage type. And improved grab simply encourages the character to focus on a single enemy, tangling them up in what could prove to be an effective grappling tactic. Most PC races won't get the additional combat abilities, but even if you allowed it, it just continues to build on that effective grapple tactic and supplants iterative attacks the warrior would have gotten anyway. Maybe allow them as feats.

The fast healing in actual combat isn't all that big a deal, equating to an extra 10 HP in the span of an expected 5 rounds of fighting. It's outside the combat this ability really shines, reducing the need for that after-battle healing. While this may seem strong, it loses some of its oomph at later levels (especially since they aren't getting increases up to fast healing 5) when the feral character has a lot more HP and may not always have time to rest between encounters.

The ability bonuses... Meh. Such a character is going to have crap skill points and isn't likely to end up with an uber AC without some serious devotion to it in the form of magic items, and the heavier armor forces a sacrifice of precious mobility.

Overall, the feral template ends up being one of those where the +1 LA is constantly justified throughout a 20 level career. I'd even consider allowing its abilities to advance with class HD, though I'd seriously consider bumping it to a +2 LA at that point. Personally, I consider it a benchmark of what a +1 LA /should/ be - it makes me feel like I actually got something comparable to a class level for the sacrifice I made, not an ever diminishing return.


The Feral template's LA does not increase as the character goes up in levels. It remains a constant +1 LA. The reason the CR increases with HD is because the Fast Healing increases with HD and it gains new Special Attacks as well. Note, this is racial HD, not HD from class levels. That's why the LA doesn't increase.

And yeah. No extra HD (and note: the HD increase only affects racial HD).


Saern wrote:
And this coming from a prospective English major!

You've reminded me of a joke told to me by an old boss, who claimed to be an english major in college (and interestingly, ended up an air traffic controller).

There was a redneck boy raised on a farm, who was always told by his daddy that he should pay attention in school so he could someday go to college and make a better life for himself. He was a smart kid, did well in school, and ended up earning a scholarship to an ivy league school. His first day, he was amazed at the size of the campus, but found himself a bit lost. So, he decided to ask for directions.

He looked about for the first person coming his way, approached them, and said, "Excuse me, but could you tell me where the..." but the person snubbed them, and walked off without letting him finish asking his question.

Another person came by, but again they walked off. After a couple more times of this, he got frustrated at how rude people were, and decided he wouldn't let the next person snub him so easily.

The very next time someone came along, he jumped in front of them and wouldn't get out of the way. Quickly, he said in a clear voice, "Excuse me! Could you tell me where the admissions office is at?"

The man stopped, frowned, and stated arrogancely, "You stupid hick. Don't you know that you /never/ end a sentence in a preposition? Now, get out of my way!"

The redneck paused, considered this wisdom, and replied, "You know... you're right. Let me rephrase that." And without getting out of the man's way, said, "Excuse me. Could you tell me where the admissions office is at, jackass?" :)


Just figured I'd chime in on this..

My daughter's currently playing a Warlock (I made the character for her). It's going for all the Fey Heritage feats, plus it has Eldritch Claws (one of the last dragon mags) and Weapon Finesse for the claws.

It's a pretty strong combination, with all the spell like abilities from Fey Heritage (the Charm Monster spell like ability means she doesn't have to waste an invocation on it - who's /really/ going to need it more than once per day?), plus the ability to instantly switch from blasting at range to ripping folks to shreds in melee. All without need for an actual weapon. The Vitriolic Blast invocation lets her overcome SR, and Eldritch Doom (we're L16+) means she's a fantastic blaster. It's left my wizard needing to think of an alternate strategy aside from loading up on evocations.

I can't speak for the Dragonfire Adept, but since I saw you mentioned the combination of Fey Heritage and Warlock, I thought I'd give you a look at what you can expect at the higher levels from that combo.


You might also consider checking at Wal-mart in their cheap software racks. You can usually find a floorplan program for designing houses and landscapes, etc. Last one I saw was about ten bucks.


Jim Helbron wrote:

Disagree with much that you said, but in an attempt to be expedient, here's the chief reason why I disagree: When a video game company markets their sequel ie: Halo3, Final Fantasy "blank+1", etc..., they do tell you what's gonna be cool about it. What they DO NOT tell you is how much Halo, Halo 2 , Final Fantasy 1-100 (or whatever they are on now) SUCKED A** and why you should totally expunge all memories from your brain.

To do what the arrogant a-holes on the 4E design team are doing is basically to urinate on all the great work and effort of the previous designers. It's fine to say that "we never really liked how such-and-such worked," but to say it was all garbage (which if you read between the lines is what they are doing) is insulting to not just the previous designers, but the customer base and long-time fans as well.

Which wasn't really the issue I was addressing; the only point I was trying to make is that overall we aren't being given any less information than we could realistically expect with a bit over 7 months to release, /and/ that until the release of the product, we can't expect to make any kind of informed decision. We're being given 'screenshots' in the form of flavor text from races and classes, reviews of gameplay, etc... So I went with the video game analogy.

Unlike a video game, however, when we go to the store and put the product into our hands, we can flip through the pages and view /all/ the information right there /before we buy/ (although 'all' is relative, given all three books, as far as we know, won't be out until July 2008).

Anyway, as for what games I intend to play... I'll be plugging away at 3.5 up to and beyond the release of 4.0. Other games I'd recommend: BESM, Rifts, and maybe some shadowrun (I haven't even seen 4e for that one).


You'll want to run it by your DM, but IMO, the warlock should be able to translate just about any spell into an Invocation so long as it fits one or more of the following:

* Battlefield control (wall spells, caustic mire, etc)
* Single target utility/defensive; should restrict to self only.
* Non-evocation/conjuration hostile spell

Basically, they get all the attack power they should ever need in the form of their eldritch blast, so the above spell types allow them some versatility so they're not the one trick ponies people proclaimed them to be early on. Any of these extras you add /may/ merit a little enhancement (like the wall of fire invocation destroying the body of anyone slain by its damage), if they seem a little weak for their invocation level, or they might be fine as they are. Strong multifunction spells like Dispel magic - or if you wanted to try a variant of Telekinesis - usually focus on a single aspect as an invocation.


ArchLich wrote:
...or not being allowed to make an informed decision.

I've heard a lot of complaints about 4e. Raging over the changes that are upcoming, seething over the contempt that folks are perceiving from WotC to their customer base, and the anger over the cancellation of Dungeon and Dragon magazines.

But this one just makes me go "Huh?" And here's why:

The product (4e) won't even start to hit the shelves until May 2008.

So how on earth are you not being allowed to make an informed decision? How can you possibly make an informed decision until sometime in or after May 2008? Consider, first off, that everything between now and May is most certainly going to be marketing spin. WotC is going to leak everything they can to make it sound cool and exciting and make you want to buy it, as best as they know how. But that isn't going to be much. It's certainly not going to be enough for you to make any kind of informed decision.

You cannot, and should not, hope to make an informed decision until you can hold the final product in your hands and view all the material for yourself.

Instead, you (you in specific, and you in the general sense) should take everything that comes out between now and May 2008 with a grain of salt. Understand that it can and may well change between now and then. Understand that you're /not/ going to get all that much data on what they're doing until the final product hits the shelves. I mean, it would kind of go against the purpose of trying to sell a product to put everything in your hands without having to buy it.

And really, WotC isn't doing anything, marketing wise, that I haven't seen with video games. They slowly leak out information about gameplay and what's 'new' in the 'sequel' to make us think that it's really going to be something awesome or cool (which some of us will -and have- certainly think sucks and just not for us). Only, with D&D, we have one very obvious advantage over buying a video game. We get to go into our FLGS, put that book in our hands, and /see/ all the levels and information for ourselves. We have the complete strategy guide, the behind the scenes information of how this or that works, /everything/. All the information we need to decide whether the game is really for us before we buy it. A video game doesn't give us that. We have to buy it on faith, take it home, put it in our console, and only /then/ find out if it sucks or not.


I'd say "Yes and No".

There /is/ an inherent problem with Obscuring Mist as a counter to invisibility in that if you are any further than 5 feet from the invisible creature, they have total concealment against you regardless of their invisibility. You just don't see them.

However, I'd say that if you were within 5 feet, be that from some sort of 'sweep' in which you run (or fly) through the area, or just where you happen to end your movement (or a lucky happenstance), then their square would be pinpointed in spite of their invisibility. They'd still get the benefit of the 50% miss chance against attacks, however (or perhaps suffer effects similar to a glitterdust spell).

As for making a 'sweep', I think handling it as an overrun was a good idea. I'd say the same for a character running along the ground trying to do the same thing - or mounted on a horse, or whatever.

As for handling an attack... Make them ready an action to make the attack. They don't know when, exactly, they're going to make the attack, or even if the opportunity will present itself. But they're 'ready' for it, so that seems the best course of action. They can either finish their movement if they have fly-by-attack or spring-attack, or stop if they don't (or choose to stop).

I suppose they could use their free actions to call out the square the enemy is in, but that also seems a complicated mess all its own.


I wonder how many of the ladies that frequent these boards you fellas just offended with those winning quips.


Grimcleaver wrote:

I guess you're assuming I'm either on the pro or anti side of the 4.0 way of doing saves. The truth is I'm really kind of against any kind of cheesy save, no matter who makes it or if they already do or not. I think "saves" should be a matter of roleplay and adjudicated as would any other situation in game. Personally I would much rather characters just play through it. It just makes for a better story.

Then you've been 'against' a core mechanic that has persisted through all D&D's permutations. Basic, advanced, second edition, third edition, and now the upcoming fourth edition. It's not exactly something new or surprising.


damnitall22 wrote:
I'm just saying that I can deal with half dmg... but it says if the dragon rolls a one he somehow completely missed the everyone who is dead center in front of him. Maybe it's just the Marine in me talking but it's just silly.

No, actually. It says: "The dragon might roll a 1 and automatically miss no matter how much tougher it is than you..."

And just two sentences prior, it establishes what happens when the dragon misses: "When a dragon breathes fire on you, it attacks your Reflex and deals half damage if it misses."

All it's saying is that a roll of one automatically 'misses', which is more or less the same as rolling a 20 on a save and automatically succeeding.


Not that I can think of off hand, BUT, I can offer up a couple suggestions:

A) Make a new feat, requiring Weapon Finesse.

B) Make a House Rule that Weapon Finesse allows Dex to be applied to damage as well. I think this would put Weapon Finesse on the upper end of the scale as far as feat power goes, but I don't think it'd be particularly unbalanced. I'd also rule that this damage can't benefit from strength feats, like power attack.


Spellshards aren't a bad idea. There's also the Kiira(sp?) of the Forgotten Realms (kinda like a Blessed Book, but it's a gem instead of a book). There's also a feat/alternate class feature in one of the final three dragon mags that allows the mage to completely memorize his spellbook.. Eidetic Mage or something like that.


The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
I <3 Dark Sun. Emoticons cannot truly express it.

Yeah. We need on that represents someone squealing like a little fan-girl, jumping up and down hysterically screaming, "WAI! WAI! DARK SUN ATHAS DRAGON SORCERERS WAAIII KAWAII!!!!" Maybe something like...

X8D-B<

The uh, B is supposed to be hands clapping.


Stedd Grimwold wrote:

And you've come exactly to where I have posed the million dollar question:

Will there be enough similarity? Another way to put it is "How much has to change before you cry foul?"

The whole point on crunch and fluff was to suggest that at least with this iteration, we are going to see a LOT of change, both to crunch and the fluff. This is unprecedented in D&D evolution.

I could care less if they changed the core mechanic to d100, for example, but its the total of ALL changes that is the issue. A man may get a little botox and look better for it. But you get a face lift, botox, eye work, nose work, chin work, liposuction, etc etc, and you end up like some gross parady of yourself (hello michael jackson).

So this is what I am wondering. When is it too much change? Can you live with a complete crunch overhaul and a complete "setting" overhaul and still feel comfortable with it as D&D?

Not a complete crunch overhaul, no. I still want to roll a D20. I still want the six stats as they are. I want AC. I want fighters and wizards and clerics and rogues. We'll see a lot of change, yes. But nothing I've read so far suggests there's going to be so much change that nothing of the prior D&D rulesets will be present.

And yeah. To me all the fluff overhaul is just another setting. And, an intriguing one at that.


There's an older suppliment called Chronomancy from 2e that you might look into. I know it's not 3e, but if you're not looking for rules then you don't really need to limit yourself to 3e products.

Also, the Forge of War suppliment for Eberron discusses time travel. It might end up being too setting specific, but I haven't really buried my nose in it so I couldn't say for sure.


Valegrim wrote:
The whole move to computerizing D&D in 4ed is my prime turnoff.

Tell me about it! You know how much of a hassle it's been with writer's cramp, postage fees, and the /trees/ I've killed to have all those web enhancements and articles printed out for me, or to participate in these boards?! That new online gaming table's /totally/ going to force me to buy a computer!

Damn you WotC. Damn you to the Abyss!!! Oh, wait... does that exist in the new edition? I forget. GNOME POWER!!!!!


To me, D&D is the Crunch. It's the ruleset that's always defined "What is D&D" for me, because the rest of it has changed from setting to setting. Some has been fantasy, some has been modern or futuristic. Some have been epic, and yet others have been gritty. But when it was all said and done, it was the six attributes, the roll of a d20, and all the mechanics that made the game D&D.

If I want to, I can take pretty much ANY campaign setting, and use the fluff and simply use a different set of rules. If I want something level-less and point based, GURPS is right there waiting for me. Want a bit of an anime feel, ala Lodoss Wars? Pow, BESM is right there on my shelf. But for me it's no longer D&D. It's Eberron GURPS, or Forgotten Realms BESM.

Now, that doesn't mean the rules can't ever change, evolve, or even become something that's a far cry from their earlier iterations. D20/3e is, IMO, so far the /best/ iteration of those rules that have ever existed. Many of the old elements have survived in some form or another. Thac0 has become BAB. Saving throws stuck around, but were simplified. The Six Stats are still present, and refined. AC has likewise seen improvement. The terminology is there, and I don't think someone from the 'old school' will have much trouble catching on because there's a lot of similarity, in spite of all that's changed.

In the new iteration that's coming down the pike, I expect I'll see some new crunch, some changed crunch, and some crunch that's still the same. It won't quite be the same game I've played for over 15 years now, but it just might still be D&D.


Watch me turn green with envy. Damn you, Saern. :P


Nicolas Logue wrote:

My spellcaster characters just down a bottle of Guayaki Yerba Mate before combat begins and they have NO problem with those Concentration checks, er-herrrm!

Huh? O_o;


Valegrim wrote:
hmm, I dont understand; could you give a few details on why it is expendible as it seems directly related to defensively casting...

It's expendible in the sense that a separate skill seems superfluous. The function of the Concentration checks can simply be rolled into the skills that apply (Spellcraft for spells and spell like abilities, psicraft for psionic and psi-like powers, open locks, disable device, heal, etc... as appropriate).

Now, on the one hand, having the concentration skill allowed the game designers to describe this very basic function for such skill checks in one central place, rather than reprinting the information in the various skill descriptions. However, they could have easily done it by making a 'Using Skills While Distracted' section, or somesuch, without actually creating a skill that has the sole purpose of using other skills and abilities in touchy circumstances.


Christopher West wrote:

I call for concentration checks whenever PCs have to undertake a sensitive task under pressure, or otherwise need to maintain focus on something. Rolling it into spellcraft would leave psions and monks and other classes without a key skill.

I don't think it would break the game to let casters make spellcraft checks to cast spells while threatened, but I would not get rid of the Concentration skill. It would create a problematic gap in the skill system.

Player: "I'm going to focus my mind on this pictographic door puzzle and try to solve it before the chamber fills with water; it's already up to my chest! What should I roll?"

DM: "Uh, spellcraft?"

Psions would simply roll it into Psicraft (their version of Spellcraft). I don't consider it a 'key skill' for monks because they don't actually have anything dependant on a Concentration roll.

Monks don't actually /do/ anything that requires a concentration check, so I don't consider it a 'key skill' for them. It's certainly flavor, but has no actual function for any of their abilities.

Concentration /does/ in fact apply to any use of skill that requires focus under conditions where they might be distracted. Skills such as open lock, disable device, heal, etc... However, it's easy to simply roll those functions into the skill itself; just require an additional skill check each time the character suffers the distraction.

Also, I don't envision Concentration as a 'solve the puzzle' kind of skill. Some sort of knowledge check, or even a raw Intelligence check, would seem more appropriate to me.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Grindor wrote:
4.Will always strive to keep a promise if possible, no matter risk to self
Okay, this is good. Like Xellan said, 'strive' can have different interpretations. Maybe he's using it as a loophole, but sometimes keeping a promise is simply impossible due to external factors that can't be helped. Also, different people have different interpretations of what a promise is. For example, many people consider 'I will try to do X' as a promise. To me though, that is just a statement of intent and is subject to change as the situation changes. A promise to me requires the actual use of the word, such as 'I promise to try to do X'.

Right. Just a kneejerk reaction to the language, and attempting to close a potential loophole (we /are/ talking Lawful here). Since I didn't see anything about actual penalties for breaking his code, I figured failing to keep a promise was a matter of honor. It could be a point of shame, or the character could feel that he truly did everything in his power and come away with a clear conscience. Going above and beyond and still failing isn't something I'd punish someone for, but I'd gladly put them through the ringer to see just how determined they are to keep the promise.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:


Grindor wrote:
6.Will only kill those who attack myself or an innocent party

This is good, though again is indicitive of Goodness rather than Law.

Yeah, I was mostly going with the assumption that he wasn't going to arbitrarily whip out his sword and kill someone without good cause, since that's a fairly blatant evil act. So assuming that, I just strove to provide a less 'good' and more 'law' rule to abide.


I came up with an alternate for 6. after some more thought:

6. Must offer quarter when asked, though terms may be demanded.

This isn't as merciful as the first, as he's only required to offer mercy when asked for it. He can let people die, coup de grace, or whatever, but if they surrender, he can't kill them unless they refuse his terms (if he demands any).


Kurocyn wrote:

And here I am. ^ ^

Okay, so yeah. My whole post was way unclear so I'll take the bad for that. As you can see, my 'Pitfalls' section was /intended/ to be in response to rolling Concentration into Spellcraft, which I am all in favor of. And yes, I think those skill points are precious enough that it would be a Very Good Thing, and add to the overall enjoyment of the game.

Now, again as an aside: Yes, I'd rule that much in favor of Archers too. If a spellcaster can cast a spell without provoking AoO, then archers should be able to as well. I'd say more, but I don't want to threadjack more than I have already.


I'd first propose a change to your player, as follows:

Code of Conduct wrote:


1.When asked, always render aid to the innocent.
2.----
3.----
4.Will always keep a promise, no matter risk to self
5.----
6.May only kill as a last resort.
7.----

1. Really, he's striving for a neutral version of charity; the above requires him to aid people whenever they asked (if they don't ask, they don't need help), but provides for the enemy loophole. Your enemies aren't innocent in your eyes.

2. The whole trust thing is a non-stricture. It's a personal preference, not something that should be in a code.

3. Striving to train is flavor, and meaningless unless it causes him actual hardship. Strike it from the code.

4. Don't strive. Do it. 'Striving' lets you off with a 'well, I tried' excuse. The above change allows you to really put his code to the test.

5. This one's just a repeat of 3. Kill it too.

6. C'mon, only allowed to kill if you're defending yourself or innocents? That's pretty much every combat situation an adventurer comes across. The rewording forces him to extend some mercy to anyone he doesn't /have/ to kill (No coup de grace, no killing someone who has surrendered, etc.), regardless of who or what they are. Don't tag him for just dropping something during the pitch of battle, AND allow him to 'let' die if they're below 0 HP. That way it's not Good, but it can inconvenience him when people surrender. Even then, it's still not much of a stricture, but it's good color.

7. Who you sacrifice yourself for isn't a stricture unless you're forced to sacrifice yourself for a friend. Better to strike this stricture, since any such 'promises' of self sacrifice can be handled by 4.


Pitfalls of Rolling Concentration into Spellcraft:
* Yet Another House Rule, but it's not like a slew of those don't exist anyway.

* It's possible freeing up those skill points would make it even easier for some prestige classes to be obtained, though whether this is a problem or not is entirely subjective.

* Someone's going to complain, and think it's broken. ;)

In all seriousness, *I* can't think of too many actual downsides, let alone anything significant. Kill the Skill, I say.

Aside to FS: I'm actually in favor of removing the AoO for casting a spell as a function of BAB; hit +2 BAB, and you no longer provoke AoO unless someone has an ability that affects your ability to cast defensively. But that's another topic altogether.

Edit: Edited for clarity severely lacking earlier.


Saern wrote:

Hmmm. What if you just did that now? Simply get rid of Concentration, which only serves to drain skill points from casters for one purpose (holding onto spells under duress) and make it into Spellcraft, which seems a bit underused itself.

I'm guessing there's half a million implications, good and bad, that this will bring up. But I'm too tired to think about them right now. So, I'll leave that to others to point out for me. :)

You know, I've given it a lot of thought lately (a few weeks now, off and on, I think) and I can't think of any actual problems that result. Prestige class requirements are easily changed out for Spellcraft or some other appropriate skill. Combat casting can provide its bonus to spellcraft for defensive casting (though compared to Skill Focus, combat casting is pretty well worthless). Uses for concentration outside spells and powers can be rolled into other skills. And, using the CON bonus for such checks isn't so necessary that it can't be tossed in favor of INT.

Plus it frees up precious skill points for classes, like the cleric, which are skill point destitute.


My personal house rules:

1) No distinction between class and cross-class skills. All skills can be taken without restriction by any class, costing 1 skill point per rank.

2) Sorcerers get Wizard bonus feats as per the Wizard. The extra spells/day are a fair trade for the lack of versatility.

3) The Summon Familiar class feature is replaced by Obtain Familiar (complete arcane) as a bonus feat. This allows class levels from all arcane classes to stack for the purpose of familiar benefits.

4) Bonus feats are no longer restricted by categories or lists, fighters, wizards, and the like may choose whatever feat they like with their bonuses with one exception; when a class grants a specific feat (like when the Ranger gains Track as a bonus feat), that feat is taken normally. If the character already possesses that feat, /then/ he may select any other feat he qualifies for without exception (ie, no more granting a feat as a bonus, but giving nothing if the character already has the feat).

5) No more 'virtual' feats. A class either grants a feat as a bonus, or it doesn't. When a class grants a feat 'even if the character doesn't meet the prerequisites', the ability to bypass the requirements are considered an additional class feature of the class at the level /that/ feat was obtained. Such class features do not automatically allow the character to qualify for feats further along in a feat chain, until and only if it grants that ability at a later level. Class features that grant limited - x/day uses - of a feat's effects do not benefit from this rule.


Well, if I were to truly alter the Cast Defensively option to my own tastes, I'd do the following:

A) Spellcasters would /not/ provoke attacks of opportunity for casting spells, as a matter of course. This is what they /do/; they cast spells in a fight.

a1) Alternately, spellcasters would provoke attacks of opportunity and use the standard Defensive Casting rules until they reached some level determined by their class (a relatively low level at that), when they would no longer provoke AoO for casting in melee unless their opponent had special training as detailed below. Maybe make it dependant on their BAB; at +2 BAB, they no longer suffer AoO for casting in melee (it makes sense that clerics and bards, which see melee more often than wizards and sorcerers, would pick this up earlier).

B) SOME opponents might have special training in the form of a feat, skill trick, or some other option that allows them to force a mage to make a skill check or provoke AoO. The check DC would be 15 + Spell Level + BAB. Again, not everyone can do this, just those who've been trained to exploit vulnerabilities in the casting process. The Mage Slayer feat would be next on the chain.

C) Concentration goes bye bye. It's a stupid skill on its own, and should be rolled into Spellcraft. That /is/ the skill for spellwork, after all. Concentration is only used in conjunction with spells, powers, and similar abilities.


Reckless wrote:

If all the dead "silently fade away beyond all ken" then why would the devils have such a great interest in souls? (The "new" defining characteristic of Devils.) Now, if the article had said "beyond mortal ken" this might have made more sense.

But beyond ALL ken? No point in devils, now is there?

I imagine - though it's entirely possible I'm wrong - that the intent of that statement /isn't/ to say that one's soul goes poof and not even the gods know what happen to it. It's more likely that it just means that the 'land of the dead' is a waystation of sorts, and not a final resting place.

And yes, it had me scratching my head too until I took some time to mull it over. Chalk it up to a poorly phrased remark.


The 8th Pagan wrote:
But throwing the Abyss in with the elemental planes just seems wrong.

I'm guessing they're going for an Alpha/Omega feel to the elemental planes. On the one hand, you have the fundamental elements of all things seething in a plane of creation, and right smack in the middle of it you have this vile, corrupt /thing/ wear the would-be destroyers of all reside. Seems appropriate to me.

Also, I get the visual that the Abyss is this enormous gaping pit like a whirlpool/vortex/black hole with all the abyssal realms whirling and floating inside it. There's nothing to suggest that 'infinite' layers can't be simulated by having some of those abyssal realms be ever deeper in the funnel.

1 to 50 of 411 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>