Adam P's page

Good tips. Right on with the goblins. Getting more players would be great but won't really be possible for now.
He's not big on fantasy or sci-fi, more reasons why he's a "fringe" player.
Video games: racing and sports games -_-
He likes drama shows, comedy, a bit of horror (aliens OMG). He loves Lost more than anything. I've never seen it but it seems it might be ripe for trope-stealing. Any Lost fans here?

ossian666 wrote:

I see the area of effect as the walls that make up the outside of the hemisphere.

And that's wrong. Hence the 'contradictions' you're getting.

Look, you can't throw an offensive spell at someone and stay invisible. You attack someone, you pop back into visibility and take the very real possibility that they're going to stick a sword in your spleen. You're attacking them by trapping them in the ice just as sure as if you used a fireball, hold person, or resilient sphere.

Quote:

If you use the regular Wall of Ice planes version you could construct a box around the enemy and that wouldn't break Invisibility (because its a plane not an area)

No you cannot. Wall of ice is not shapable (s) It comes in a hemisphere with a very small radius or rather large "anchored plane of ice, up to one 10-ft. square/level" THATS the part of the spell description that says you can't turn it into a box to box people in.

Okay, so what if the enemy is in a tunnel and you block off the tunnel with a a single plane of ice? It would be just as effective in trapping him (just as "harmful") as casting the hemisphere. Would invisibility drop in that situation?

So one of my players plays a samurai and I let him tweak the class because the available one didn't fit the flavor he wanted. I'm thinking he might be too powerful now. He and the other PC I'll mention are only level 3 and I'd like to nip it in the bud if possible.

In the last encounter, the samurai was forced to get on a boat filled with enemies with the other PC, a bard, among them. I figured he'd go in, making an honorable display of courage and then be quickly captured. It wasn't that smooth. Despite there being 2 rangers, a rogue, a barbarian/bard, most of them levels 3 or 4, AND the other PC (who was admittedly being very cautious not to kill him) it took 10 rounds to subdue him. This didn't seem right to me. I even fudged the numbers a bit because people were getting bored with it. He mostly fought defensively, trying for non-lethal damage, and everyone was fatigued but him because he used resolve.

Maybe it just seemed longer because there were so many people on the battlefield, but he's pretty cocky and confident he could have killed at least half of them if he had tried.

It seems to me kind of low-challenge for the final battle. But you could always give Razmir summoning powers and bring in more baddies based on how well the party is doing.

So how much higher is "too high" to attack or be attacked by the lower creature?

Actually, I take a different world-view on TWF.

Historically speaking, it was never done. Well, almost never. Not in the sense of someone using two weapons that were both meant to be offensive weapons of the sort meant for killing an opponent.

I think dual-wielding should be just as viable an option as any other. Disregarding all else, dual-wielding is COOL. Or at least cool to some. If a player feels awesome while wielding two daggers, and balance can be maintained, then why make it more difficult for him technically? Nerfing him til he's at a disadvantage, and therefore not as cool, makes no sense. Nor does trying to over-complicate things to discourage players from playing a way that suits their aesthetic tastes. Ideally, my players would be on even ground, while feeling as bad-A as possible. Isn't that the point of the game, after all?

Hi, this question is probably answered somewhere but I'm not sure where. If a druid, for example, starts with a hawk companion, and then levels to 7, then releases that companion and meditates to gain a new bear companion, is that bear at level 7 or does it start at level one? In other words, is a druid's animal companion always at an equal level to him or does a companion level separately (though at the same time)?

Hi, everybody.
I'm the GM for my group and we're all completely new. When making their characters some of my friends thought that the "Weapon Finesse" feat allowed you to apply your DEX to attack rolls AND damage rolls. Now I realize that it's wrong. I'm thinking about just going with it and tweaking the feat to be like that. Will this cause balance problems down the road or make it unfair for some of the other guys? They based some of their other character choices on this assumption but we haven't started the campaign yet so there's still time to change. What should I do?