Celric's page

So far one of the major complaints that has been following 4th ed is the limited at wills. This is especially prevalent when most of the PC's play humans and if are of the same class they only have 4 choices to choose 3 from.

As you can imagine there is a lack of variation due to this. Has anyone out there come up with new At-Wills they'd like to share?

I haven't found this to be a problem with my group. They equate the at-will powers to just "I swing my sword" in other editions (though the new at will powers do tend to have more flourish to them). The edition to the basic attack action of these at wills, plus the special encounter and daily powers make my group quite happy. YYMV.

I'm curious -- how much of your gaming sessions are spent playing out combat?

50% would be a lot for us. Sometimes we've had nights where only a single combat occurred (and at times it would be none if I weren't careful as DM to make sure it happens).

Out of combat? Well, it tends to vary depending on how hard the combats are that do happen. Sometimes the combat that is scheduled to occur can last quite a while (especially when we began - those lasted far longer than they should have) - but typically we can resolve all but the most difficult battles in about 15-20 minutes on average. That leaves lots of time to roleplay the other aspects of the game...

I would say that in a 4 hour session there is equal time spent in combat-situations (including traps and skill challenges). Roughly. Some dungeon crawling scenarios are far more in-combat than out, and most town scenarios are far more out of combat than in.

Hope that helps at all :)

I found Arcane bond to be useful and not broken, but I am also not *trying* to see what I can get out of my DM, not hogging the spotlight for my character, and trying to use the spirit of the item to good effect.

I have a level 5 Wizard (generalist) with silver bracers as his bonded item and I have him clink them together thematically when I cast my spell from them (ala the evil sorcerer from Conan the Destroyer, but dressed better). I have enchanted them to act as a helm of disguise via Create Wonderous Items.

My first Bonded item was a staff (@ 2nd level) that I made into a +1/+1 staff for 1000gp, sucking all my gold at that level. I got cocky because I had a magic weapon and the fighter didn't (yeah, I played him to have a complex), waded into battle, and then had it sundered after "casting" a spell out of it.

I found that playing a wizard costs money. Money for spells, money to write those spells into your book, money to create magic items, money for spell componants. If I balance all this out against the fact that I can only cast one extra spell that I know once per day of adventuring... Yeah, I find it balances nicely.

However when you go back to the thread that addresses the mechanics, there really was never a problem with how the cleric invoked their diety (the example with a cleric of Torag banging their weapons and armor was a great one), so long as they were invoked.

Particularly in a Silence situation, which led to concern about doing it in such a way that it can't be observed or overheard.

Look to your own great example. Your Cleric isn't naming his god, and he is using bluff and subterfuge, but all that aside- he is invoking a diety and all those beggars know that! The action is demonstrative and public.

I've thought about this quite a bit in the last two days and here is what I came up with:

If the cleric was per RAW 3.5, I would have to say that invoking their god to turn or rebuke undead is a supernatural ability that needs no verbal componant. By presenting your (un)holy symbol and focusing your will, you are giving the undead a glimpse of the energies (positive or negative) that are yours to command, and the undead upon seeing this display are either disintegrated, frightened into running, or compeled to obey you. Personally, I'd never thought about using silence to preserve the undead from a turning attempt, though I don't believe that I would have allowed such an attempt to succeed.

The PF Cleric is a different creature though. He can channel positive/negative energies to much greater effect and either heal or harm those around him. The cleric, no matter his flavor, can now affect the world about him with significant consequences because his ability to effect ONLY UNDEAD has been expanded so greatly. No longer can the good cleric spend a turn attempt to heal his wounded comrads in the midst of combat with gnolls because the gnolls will be likewise healed. No longer can the evil cleric repuke undead within a circle of lesser priests, as that would likely kill all his acolites. In this case, when the ability to turn/rebuke is used to specifically heal or harm something that is NOT undead, I would say that silently presenting your holy symbol is simply not enough. You must be able to invoke your god's will, in some manner, as well. Hopefully the rules will bear this out.

Am I the only DM who allows my NPCs the -10 to die rule?

I only allow that if the NCP will make the story progress; if not, I'll let um die at 0 hp.

But that goes back to the game mechanic aspect of the conversation, in the other thread linked above... Please Celric, chime in your thoughts. That conversation is linked in the first post of this thread.

Should any cleric be able to harnass that kind of power, silently and stealthily? Or does their faith, or the god's need to proselytize, mandate something a little more demonstrative?

Well, my first reaction was much like yours in the other thread: Not only do you present your symbol, but say something priest-like to let your foe know who is smiting them (or helping them).

My second reaction was, well, not all wizards use the same methods (thus the need to decipher someone else's grimore, even if it's the same spell) to cast the same exact magic, but Clerics are basically only casting those spells that the Deity allows them, and even their alignments are restricted to being within one step of their god's. Why not let some of that flavor rub off on the ability to channel positive/negative energy?

I've got no tried and true answer for either position :)

What I was thinking in my earlier example was of an evil cleric impersonating a good cleric in a crowd of hopeful beggars, or as the one sent to check up on the orphanage to ensure they were healthy and hale (that school-house example was also great). Would the evil god care that his follower was using a bit of subterfuge to discredit a good god's church? Would that evil god care that the cleric channels negative energy through Him, even though the cleric invokes another god's name or is using a disguised holy symbol? I'll bet that his god knows what's in his heart :)

"I will grant you all the blessing of our God, because his is a hand of generousity, but if there is one amoung you with doubt, then all shall pay for that un-believers' act of faithlessness!"

I'd bet you that anyone with ranks in bluff (or deceit, or whatever) that looks into a crowd of hopeful people will see the exploit needed to abuse that crowd, and when things go bad for the crowd, there will always be that undesireable in town to use as the scapegoat.

Why, starting hp for commoners is usually 4, if we apply the bonus Hp from pathfinder they'll have around ten, a 3d6 turn is all thats needed, or if they don't get the bonus hp then 1d6 could kill them.

heh. Even better - how many hp's do the children in the orphanage have? Or the beggars waiting in line trying to get a free handout from the local good temple?

I'd say there's no better way to discredit a good church than to have some evil cleric disguise himself and have at it...

I recently managed to blow about 100 points in a single round, with temporal acceleration and both normal and quickened powers in the "virtual rounds" and something else in the "actual round".

I like psionics and have many a fond memory of them. I can't see the problem with including them in the Pathfinder world, especially if on a limited basis.

For example, I included Psionics in the Forgotten realms, but only allowed a single people to have it "commonly" - The Bedine from the Anaroch Desert. IMC, they hate magic and kill wizards/sorcerers on sight if they are able to, but I felt that they still needed something, since they were the decendents of the Netherese, and having a "magic" system based on Willpower had the perfect flavor.

I included the above quote as a preface to my support of psionics because I was wondering how you did this. I don't have the books with me at work, but I remember reading that you couldn't spend more points on any manifested power greater than your level. This would mean that increasing a 3rd level power like energy-ball (which takes 5 power points to produce) by 2 points to augment the damage would require you to be a level 7 psion. Do I understand that correctly?

... By making the women disfigure/scar their faces, Ileosa is symbolically saying "Your old life is gone," and by putting them in identical suits of armor she's trying to strip their personality and make them into a team, something larger than the individual parts. Gray Maidens have a certain stormtrooper vibe to them as a result. Or, to be honest, they're like marines; by enforcing dress codes and short haircuts, the marines enforce the fact that individuality is a danger to the group.

Philip Slater said: A person in uniform is merely an extension of another person's will.

Clearly the Queen has taken this to its extreme conclusion.

Sorry for the jack... but where is the bard info? I only see the ranger stuff

Though, given the above, no Bard would ever be without the Extra Music feat...

There are two things that bother me about the bard: The bardic knowledge could be much more easily represented as a bonus to Knowledge skills instead of the clunky system it currently uses.

Secondly, bardic music has two problems. By 20th level, you get 20 uses per day of bardic music, and none of the abilities ever use more than one use. What bard is even going to use 10 uses in a single day? Second, nearly all the bardic music abilities could be simply represented as spells, and it seems redundant to have both.

Actually, that's a good point and gives me an idea. What if, in addition to the standard spell slots that the Bard in given, they are also able to tap into the magical nature of their music in a different way? If you had the option of using 1 use of bardic music to cast a first level spell, 2 uses of music to cast a second level one, 3 uses for a third, etc...

Sure, that would mean that a bard of 5th level would be able to cast an additional 5 levels of spells, but he could use them in any way he wanted (2 first level, 1 inspire courage and 1 second level). If the spells he could cast normally were ones that he had to memorize (ala the wizard); well, he could pick those up anywhere (but gets none to start with, nor automatically at every level). Cleric, Druid, Wizard, whatever. He can still only cast like four max (say, plus his Int mod). Then you could have those "music" spells he would typically know be the paltry 2 or something that he gets when he can cast spells of a new level - spontaneously cast through his understanding of the magic of the universe...

Is this too far out there?

This order is still pending... Is there a problem with it or am I just being impatient?

Thanks for you help!
Celric

I'd leave the music but incorporate magic into the music and not as a slapped on ability that makes a bard a poor sorcerer. Abilities similar to that of a warlock but that are sonic in nature would be fitting.

You mean like a scaling sonic attack (a watered-down Shout if you like)? That would be great, but maybe too cool...

I love being able to cast spells on the fly like a sorcerer does, but for me at least, having a severely limited amount of spells to choose from is more of a hinderence than it should be. If the bard that folks are describing here would be typical, then why not have them know a small charm of illusion, learned from the Pasha's daughter, or a spell of opening picked up from a priest of Mask, or a lance of sound effect crafted from his studies into the primal forces of music? The way the bard works now, they are never learning any high magic anyway. Seventh through Ninth level spells are impossible for them to cast without it being through some magical medium (like a scroll), and since it's not on their spell list it's even more difficult to attempt. Even the number of spells that they can cast per level, per day is limited.

So, they are clearly not a wizard (lack of ability to know every spell), but not a sorcerer either (lack of power). However, if you wanted to give them a boost, you could make it so that they had a few more spells known, but still keep the number of spells that they can cast each day to a minimum. You could also bring back a few of the better sound spells or create new ones. Bridge of Sound comes to mind, and maybe Thunderlance... Heck, waaay back in 2nd Ed, there was a specialty school of magic called Song (of course, it went up to level 9, but hey, the point is valid...)

...I'll take that back. If something has to go, the bardic knowledge ability is almost pure 3rd ed.

An argument could be made that historical bards were given such a broad education that it supports such an ability, but if something's got to go, that's the least "flavorful" of his abilities.

I dissagree, but only so far as the class feature is called "Bardic Knowledge." Lore would be a better name, and could just be replaced with something as simple as a +1 bonus to knowledge skills known (or +1 per level). This would also keep other classes from saying thinkgs like: "The Loremaster gains the ability to know stuff like a bard does, and levels in bard stack with loremaster levels for the purpose of determining what the total lore bonus is."

I find that having a bonus to knowledge skills is very appropriate for someone supposedly so well traveled, especially if they went to all the trouble of putting ranks into them.

Music may not play a huge roll in modern warfare but in ancient times it was very important. Music can be heard for miles, it cuts over shouts and cries on the battlefield, and in could be both intimidating and inspiring. Imagine being on the opposing side of that Valkyrie helicopter assault, basically you know they're coming (because you can hear them coming), and you also know that they know you know they're coming . . . and they don't care. They're saying "here we come and there's not a darn thing you can do about it. Go ahead, try to fight us, we're giving you time to prepare . . . it's not going to make a single lick of difference . . . "

Good example. I was also thinking of Highlander (the original) and various other Scottish period movies where the pipers would play during combat. Plus the fiddler in that Gina Davis Pirate movie (whose name escapes me at the moment) when they were fighting ship to ship at one point... Oh, and bugles/horns in combat are so historic it's almost not worth mentioning - except that I just have. Sure, the bugle was a signal to do something, but in fantasy it can have a completely different, magical, effect. And I'm all for preserving that.

As for spells, I'd take spellcasting away from the bard entirely completely and replace it with better bardic music/ buff abilities, increased HD, and better saves

Yeah... I'd give them more spells to choose from, but the same number to cast each day. Plus all Sonic Spells. If there was ever a class that should have access to sonic spells, is there a better candidate than the Bard?

Of course, this all depends on how you view the Bard.
Is it a performer first, someone to inpire and buff the party?
Or is it a jack of all trades skill based adventurer with a splash of modest magic?

I view the Bard as someone that has chosen the life of the wandering minstrel first and formost. For me, it's all about the music and the magic that flows from it that the Bard alone has access to. That magical music is powerful, sure, but not so powerful that the bard can just do that to get by. I mean, if you're a swinger of swords, you can pretty much be assured of a job with a caravan, or manning the gates to the town, but who wants someone around that is only there to entertain most of the time?

So, the bard needs to be able to pick up other skills along the way just to be useful to others. Fortunately, his predilection to roaming the land, talking to folks, collecting tidbits of information about this and that, and a general curiousity about how things work all converge into a useful whole.

What *could* this mean mechanically? Well, the way these new rules read, the bard could just pick out 6 skills (much like the expert does now), plus Preception and Perform. That would make my bard more of an urbanite who fell in with the wrong crowd and knows lots about thieving, while your bard is more of a wilderness savant with knowledge of all the landmarks and inhabitants for miles around, and someone else's bard is a master weaponsmith with such a grasp of magics that he can imbue music into steel. At their core, they all know the magic inherent in all music, can tell if someone is lying and what their audience wants to hear, and how to manipulate either to acheive some greater end.

And if there were paths of Bardic Music in much the same manner as there are schools of magic, or domains, it would both go a long way toward making the bard extremely adaptable, and extremely complex. I don't know what I'd vote for more - but I did like one poster's suggestion of making bardic music effects into feats, all of them I mean...

I think Bards are fine the way they are. They don't seem out of place or strange in the way they operate. How many people use music to amp themselves up for a workout? I for one can really have my mood adjusted by music. Music during combat, sure a bit off but I look at it this way, not only does the music get me amp'd up but if I'm fighting and look over at my friend who is putting himself in danger playing to get me amp'd up that's just going to make me fight all the harder. If it not your style that fine change it, but I don't think its an inherent issue with the class per se. The class is just set up for a certain style just like a standard Cleric is set up for a specific play style.

Another good example is to check out the differences between watching a fight scene in a movie with the music as intended, and then with the music stripped out. The entire feel of the action is completely different.

Bards and music go together - I thought it was a stretch to also include other performance arts (I just can't see a mime inspiring me to do anything), but some do make sense. Coaches are consistantly given credit for inspiring their teams toward greatness - that's oratory, not musical. And I also feel that the music taps into the magic. Any class can sing a song, but the bard can infuse his song with magical power to accomplish something besides entertainment.

If I was fighting for survival (as someone above posted) and someone started singing a song to inspire me, I would think it was a waste of his breath and ignore it. However, if that song caused my blows to land more often, and to hurt my enemies more when they did, then I would say that that person might have just saved my life.

I have to say that I really liked (and was excited to read about) the four re-done classes, but was a bit disappointed to not see the Ranger, Paladin, Druid, Sorcerer, and especially, the Bard - by far my favority class to play from a storytelling aspect, though I've always felt that they suffer from a distinct lack of true survivability when it comes to "agressive negotiations". You know, the killing things and taking their stuff part of D&D that is both mindless and theraputic after a hectic work week...

I've done some noodling and would like to see something done to the spells that Bards can know. If they are the masters of music that they were imagined to be in earlier editions, then why don't they have more sonic based attack spells? And it always bothered me that they could pick up skills and songs here and there, but not spells, even though the spells on their list were drawn from other class lists... For instance, would it completely break the game if they picked up the spell entangle? Or fly? Or Sonic snap?

I guess I'm just interested in what the Bard will look like in this incarnation - or re-imagining if you prefer that phrase.

I have house-ruled that the bard can learn spells from any list, but bar any base damage spell not sonic-based (so no getting around it with energy substitution). They can also pick up spells through their travels, but are limited to their Intellegence modifier + Class level of these extra spells. They don't start with these extra spells, so a level 1 bard only knows 4 zero level spells, but a level 2 bard with a 14 INT could know 5 zero level and up to 6 1st level spells. Since the spells per day remains the same, it just made them more versitile. I found that knowing 6 1st level spells (at 2nd level) but only being able to cast 1 of them each day wasn't terribly game-breaking. Swapping spells became a non-issue because even at high levels, they could still learn a few extra spells (they only go to 6th level anyways).

Maybe you'll incorporate some of these suggestions, and maybe not, but there they are. I hope to see the "new" bard soon...

I just started reading up on this stuff today so maybe I missed something, but the thing that is confusing me is this: If I am in a 1st level campaign and I want to have a staff as my bonded item do I have to save up 16500 gp to buy the cheapest one on the market or can I just use a peice of wood until I imbue it with the powers of an actual staff?

My reading tells me that either can be the case. You forge the bond with object and that is what makes it special for the purposes of casting one spell per day through it, and what makes it easier to enchant later on.

I know that there was an article somewhere (maybe in an old Dragon) whereby a paladin could substitue the bond he forged with his mount with a bonded sword, which he *could* enchant (or have enchanted) much the same way at this class suggests. Here are my thoughts by way of some things I have read above:

If the bonded object is a familiar, then it seems to have all the standard extraordinary benefits of typical familiars, except that you don't get the XP hit from the death of it.

If the bonded object is a ring or amulet, then it would take up that slot on your characters body - but, you can mitigate that somewhat by being able to enchant it at less cost. Further, if you try to cast a spell without your object in hand (or worn) you risk losing the spell. This makes disarms against the typical caster EXTREMELY valuable - though it has long been my experience that with the low hit points wizards used to have this isn't really ever needed. With 6 per level... we'll see.

My guess (though the rules don't officially state it) is that even though you are assumed to have the required feats when magiking your own bpnded object, you still can't enchant a ring or stave yourself until 12th level, or an amulet until 3rd level, or a weapon or wand until 5th. I would also surmise that if you wanted to change the object you're bonded to, it would only cost 200gp/level and 8 hours of alone time with it. Also, at 12th level, if your bonded staff +2 defending/+2 dispelling gets sundered, you can always bond a new mundane staff for 24,000gp - but, alas, your cool staff is kaput.

Seems like the bonding to an object is both better and worse than having a familiar, but not a slam dunk...

I too am very excited at the direction FR is going.

Yeah, I don't know if I would say that I'm "very excited", but I am interested in reading about the changes to the magic system. IMO, there were many different magic systems in place already what with the additions to sorcerers in 3e, then truenamers and shadow adapts and shadow weave casters, then incarnium, warlocks, psionics... Gah!!!

I have to say that I am excited (albeit in a limited way) to see just what these changes to the realms actually pan out to be. I remember the first adventure I bought (and still own and have converted for my new group) for the FR, Under Illifarn, and from then on I was hooked to the setting. That was probably in the early 80's and after reading the DragonLance novels. DragonLance never really appealed to me as a game setting in much the same way that the Wheel of Time setting never really did, but the books were great.
I remember reading the last Dragonlance novel before the new Age took over and lost me, and thinking that all game worlds have this happen. Heroes try and eventually fail, if only to the passing of time. Having Tanis Half-elven say the line about "going out through the kitchen" struck me (at the time - I was young) as one of the most enduring things that I would ever read and this oddly appropriate phrase has certainly stuck with me since.
Reading all the above responses, I have to say that despite the detractors and supporters, I'm ready for the change. I'm not sure that stretching my campaign to instantly include areas of transposed Abier or intergrating powerful new nation/race combos will occur. Heck, I've been gaming in the Realms for almost 20 years and have all the books (highly used) to prove it - but there are still areas that have never been visited by me or my group. Mazteca? Never been. Evermeet? Isn't that place mythical unless you're an elf? And isn't there some kind of oriental land on the other side of Thay or a whole continant of snake-worshiping folks?
Yeah, I've seen the setting go from 20 gods to 200, been back to the time of Netheral, deep in the heart of the Great desert and under it too, been on a trading mission to Ten Towns and flushed out Grell in the Vast Swamp in Cormyr, seen gods fall like comets from the sky when 3.0 came online and though I never did free Liira from Hell, I conqured the Bloodstone lands and bragged about it for weeks back in Middle School. Stupid Lich-King ridng a Dragon. I've had maybe 300 characters in this timeframe in five different editions (1, 2, 2.5 (remember the crappy "options", 3, 3.5) and DM'd um all too. Never once did I meet Elminster, Drizzt (although some kid in my son's 4th grade class is named Drizzt :P) or any of the other folks from the books... Wait - I did meet Fouzl way back in Pools of Radiance... but the game didn't need um to be fun.
When Azoun died I thought it was his time to go - and it made a great end of a story arc as well as a time of change. That's adventurer speak for getting off the tavern stool and honing the rust off your blade.
There are always hold-overs from the last generation. Grandparents tell us how it was in their day so we have something to compare today to, just like Drizzt and King Battlehammer will live to remind your characters, or ones like them, what is means to be a hero in a fantasy setting. My dad's grandfather was Caramon, so I'm taking up the sword and carving my name in history just like he did! Hey twin? There're no wizards in the family (mom says so)... wanna go adventuring together? Here... wear this red robe I found, 'cause wizards don't wear armor...

Beloved Realms? Yeah, I get that. But I like gaming too and if the "new" realms are a little too wierd for my taste, well - I've got 20 years of experience with it and I'm sure that with an afternoon's work I can find all the things I loved about it and make certain it remains a place I love to adventure in.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for the feedback. I thought that's how it should work, but I wanted to make sure that was the general opinion and not just me being biased towards my own character. ;)

I seem to remember that this was in a sage advice somewhere (might be just faulty memory). The arguement for it was how cool it was for the player, and the arguement against was mostly sour-grapes from the DM's perspective. I also remember something along the lines of it only dis-allowing AoO from the recipient of your attack - not his buddies that may also threaten you during either of your movement actions.

Thus, if you had two ogres fighting side by side, you would provoke attacks from one of them but not the one you were attacking. Lines of hobgoblin longspearman work the same way.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for cool tactical moves from the PC's, but no cool feat will work in every situation.

my pc s were a little to tough to fight the pirates.in the blockade,so i ran it with them playing the npcs in the fight.the pc s were in tamoachan and the blue nixie , the sea wyvern left that night while they were adventureing with urol. ...this encounter would not have been worth running in my game so thats how i did it to make it seem a more dangerous journey.

That idea is awesome! Consider it stolen.

I think it would be a great idea to have a player's section, where these things can actually be discussed by players. For instance:

I, too, was lucky enough to find such an idol. The small town of Farshore was able to identify it as an idol dedicated to some god of bats - we neglected to pay the "sage" for this obvious information and ultimately decided to keep the thing to sell in Sasserine when we get back for its full value, or barter with some of the locals if they take a liking to it.

Just because it's outside the game doesn't automatically make it metagaming in a bad way. Some gungho Players want to game during the week too, and some are more aggressive than others when it comes to roleplaying. If this is done via a webboard or email in character and it comes out in the gaming session later - and it was ultimately helpful for the party - then more of the players will be thinking about their character during the week and how they might react (or whatever) and bring that to the table. Viola! Roleplaying is born.

And in reality, I simply cannot, as a DM, keep a non-posting lurker from reading these boards and scrounging for hints, clues and spoilers. I change just enough to keep them guessing anyway, and they are a level and a bit higher than the adventures anyway, so I advance stuff based on that, too. But finding the perfect idea on your own or finding it here (or elsewhere) is hard for me (at least) to spot.

If you are still lurking, Toolbag, start another thread in the Dragon section of these messageboards. So far as I know, all the stuff in Dragon Magazine is geared toward the players and there are hints enough in the mag without the hassle of being accused of cheating at your table by accidently reading something here. Subscribing to the mag would be even better, IMHO.

Celric

Wait - I just remembered something terrible while reading this thread...

Doesn't the Assassin Vine have the ability to entangle?

I'm not too worried about my PC's fireballing the pirate ships into oblivion, since they have no arcane spellcaster in the group. The warlock can dish out damage to individual targets, and the druid may have some decent spells prepared, but the ranger, monk, and rogue will most likely be waiting for the rush of the land attackers, or be taking on the monsters individually.

I'm not too worried about the party's warmage fireballing the ships either, but only because she will probably be a level higher than the adventure calls for and will have access to spells like blade barrier and disintigrate. I'm fairly certain that a blade barrier centered in the rigging would stop a ship pretty quickly, and disintigrate would make quick work of the wooden hulls.

My PC's are canny enough to figure out that the beach is the best place to attack the pirates - beach landings are historically difficult to accomplish without lots of losses - and the protected cove is a good choke point for the ships to be unable to easily escape, should any be able to do so.

Dispite their probable course of action aligning with the adventure, I feel that the battle should be easily won, and that is not something I'm willing to allow the PC's to get away with often.

I have 5 players in my group:
Human warmage
Human Cleric
Human Fighter (archery spec)
Human Paladin
Xeph Scout/fighter

How I intend to accomplish the battle [/i]feeling[i] harder than it is probably going to go, will be to split up the party into groups. The archer can 'lead' a token force of warriors, Olman hunters, and the squirrel/monkey-folk to repel groups of pirates that reach shore. The warmage can deal with the yaun-ti, while the cleric and paladin deal with the Vrocks and their successfully summoned minions. The Scout will help out guarding Lavinia and the Jade Ravens and helping to mop up pirates. Everyone useful and highly important, and at least artificially in support of the others (deathwatch and similar cooperative spells will make coordinating the "units" easier).

Other Ideas are always welcome!

Celric

This class makes the wizard obsolete. It does all of the same things, only better. The Mystic Theurge pales in comparison as well.

Try to work out the balance issues. Basically, this class needs to be watered down.

I disagree. I think the class does nothing to "obsolete" the wizard class that, say, a warmage or beguiler does to the sorcerer. Remember, The wizard gets a few perks that this class would not. A familiar, bonus feats and a free scribe scroll feat. Instead, it gives a character access to a few more spells than a wizard would otherwise have, a roleplaying mechanic in the form of a modified timeless body, and the ability to refocus ones feats to any school of magic they can cast once per level.

If you look at this logically, the bard already does this kind of thing in a limited manner. Do you want the main firepower in your party to be able to blast things OR heal hurt party members? Keep in mind that the spells first have to be found, and be able to be scribed - and that all this costs moola. 100gp per page to be exact. Sure, you can scribe a fourth level Druid spell and a 3rd level bard only spell, and 2 4th level wizard spells, but that's 1500 gold, plus that cost of the scroll. What other equipment does your character want?

I would note an addendum to an above poster that said it would be a disservice to the other classes if a mage were to get the same kind of lower level availability for their spells. I agree, but I'm not sure how I would determine fairness. Split the difference? Always take the higher? In the end, however, I don't think it would make a bit of difference.

Celric

I didn't think that my players were really doing that well, but it seems I was mistaken! I think that only one of the pc's have been seriously threatened with death and I have been steadily increasing the power of the incounters because I have been finding them too easy for the group.

The party consists of a Truenamer Aventi, a Druid, a Paladin, and a Scout/fighter (all human) and they roll up their stats.

My first Mag showed up a bit later than I wanted, so I ran them through the first part of Tammaret's Fate (I think is the name of it), had them get "rescued" by Lavinia and fall into her imploy after a few interesting encounters. They were all of second level before they truely started the AP.

At the beginning of tonight's gaming session they will be 3rd level and should still be challenged by the Lotus dragons in their hideout according to the adventure, but I have high doubts about that.

For instance, under Parrot Island (where they are currently "trapped") they encountered the Ravenous Zombies in flanking pairs of four (two in front and two behind) and still managed to fight through to victory without too much of a sweat. So, wanting to give them a good challenge, I sent in a Boneclaw undead from Libris Mortis instead of the "leader" undead whose name escapes me. It certainly did a number on them, dropping the paladin and scout into the single digits and running the druid out of spells, but in the end the PC's prevailed with a combination of Full Defense, a healing wand and the Truenamer's Word of wounding (or whatever the spell is called).

Right now I'm not even giving them XP; I'm just telling them when they are going to level based on what the adventure is giving them to accomplish, which seems fair to me. I don't find this adventure a meatgrinder at all, but maybe the Lotus Dragons will prove me wrong.

I was personally wondering just how the navigators would fail a check in the first place. The adventure claims that the ships need to make a daily navigation check in the form of a Knowledge (Geography) check. If your expedition is hugging the shoreline (roughly 2000 of the 3000 miles of the voyage) and anyone with ONE rank of geography takes ten, the ships will never become lost (according to the adventure, pg 22, it is a DC 8 ckeck).

Even after the expedition turns from the sight of land it is only a DC 17 check to make the daily piloting roll. Normally, I would think that a DC 17 check is a fair indicator, but the navigator on the Blue Nixie and Urol Forol both have a +12 modifier to thier rolls. If they take ten, then again the expedition will never get lost.

Was this intended to streamline the voyage or unintentional and the PC's should have to also worry about their stores of food and such.

If this is the case (the PC's need to worry) then I will have Rowyn poison some of the stores with her arsenic and, coupled with some creative charm person effects, suggestions, and invisible occurances, this should put the ever superstitious salty crew in an almost mutinous state.

...Or is that going too far...

Celric

The Seekers (and the other affiliations the PCs can join) will continue to have tidbits dropped in as the campaign progresses. For the most part, the bulk of the information about them is in Dragon #348.

Excellent! Thank you all.

Dragon #348 had assorted affiliations the players could join, one of which was the Seekers.

Thanks for the info, and I do have that issue, but I don't remember there being anything on the hidden lodge specifically. Clearly, I'll have to look again. Any info on whether or not it will have future ramifications in later chapters of the AP?

Okay. So my players are all highly apt at reading into stuff, have devoured the contents of the STAP player's guide and are actually roleplaying for a change. I would like to reward them for paying attention to the small text and using their non-combat skills and I intend to do so in the form of increased contacts and easier interplay with the savage tide non-savage denizens.

The problem is that we are in part 3 of the first adventure and they are obsessed with the 8 pointed star that "resembles a symbol on a building in the Merchant District". They think that it might be a family holding of the Vanderboren's since it was all over the Vanderboren family vault and hope that they might be able to find Vanthus nearby.

My question is, what is the deal with this lodge? Who's running it, what are it's aims, goals, etc? Is there information about this somewhere else, will it play an important role in the later adventures or was it included for the sole purpose of allowing the PC's to have a vehicle to interact with and possibly join a semi-secret soceity?

So my problem is not creating the lodge out of whole cloth and running with it past level 20 if necessary, but tying in the elements I invent with the published reality.

Any help will be much appreciated.

Celric

bump

Apologies, but I have not received my Issue #139. It has been awhile since I expected it. Can you please send me another issue? Thank you in advance.

Celric

I would like to see a paladin with two longswords. I would also like to see a paladin with a large emphasis in Cha and Wis -- their prowess lies in spellcasting and other abilities rather than brute force. Include some useful divine feats... Just a few thoughts.

My wife and I ran into this little interesting scenario recently: she is a Paladin and I play a cleric, both are dedicated to Kelemvor (the just God of Death in FR). As a cleric, I am trying to become elegible for the Doomguild PrC, one of the requirements is I must match the God's alignment exactly (LN), while she is LG, obviously. I picked up the Book of Exalted Deeds to be a better priest. You know the drill - new feats, spells, and ways to screw over undead and evil creatures that have it coming to them. Well it turns out that I am ineligible for 90% of the stuff in the book because I am not "good". GAH! However, in looking up stuff for myself, I did find a whole slew of stuff divine feat-wise, and the whole book is literally full of paladin-y goodness.

In line with the other minor tweak I'm considering (see the "Do You See What I See?" thread), would it really be that bad to allow bane weapons (and the ranger class ability feature) to apply to all humanoids equally, rather than have subsets for every major grouping of species? It just seems to me that the difference in physiologies isn't great enough to negate those bonuses, especially when there is only one category for such vast, diverse groups of beings as magical beasts and undead. So, what say you all?

I think that the Bane ability is vastly different than the Ranger's ability to have a favored enemy. Here's how I see it: if you take all humanoids and lump them into the same group, you now have a (bane)weapon that acts as +2 higher and does an extra 2d6 dmaage against pretty much anything that walks on two legs and is not a giant. Goblins, Orcs, Aventi, Humans, Elves, gnomes, etc. That's a mighty big grouping and I would probably balance it out by adding maybe 2 to the base of what it already costs to make a bane weapon.

In my mind, I rationalize the construction of creating one of these weapons by having a bit of blood of the creature the weapon is bane against. So if it's just a bane of humans, then any human will work (due to the human blood); if it's a bane against magical beasts, then the blood of any magical beast should do it because of the magical properties in it's blood. The same with lycanthropes, undead (though maybe it's the negative energy it disrupts instead), giants, etc. If it was a banes against all humanoids, that it would take a whole lot of blood from a whole lot a creatures.

The Ranger ability let's you get a bonus to spot, bluff, listen, survival, etc - due to your intimate familiarity with orcs (or whatever), who just don't act like humans, goblins or gnomes, IMO.

Heh, look at the difference in what you are saying and what I am here Celric... You are saying that a "real" reason for taking a skill is equivilant to stacking a +x somewhere to a dice roll. Why is that?

If a salty sea dog is already proficient in sailing, navigation, astrology, etc. from the get go in a campaign then that's perfectally fine; then there is no need to spend skill points in those areas at all and this conversation is moot. Not only that, but there is no need to encourage adding skill points here by drawing up house rules to give bonuses for those skills.

If, however, to call yourself a salty sea dog you need to be proficient in those skills, then a player needs to put some ranks in those skills and will be rewarded by the DM in game for being a salty sea dog. This won't appear anywhere on a character sheet with a +3 to salty seadogsmanship...rather, the PC is investing in salty sea dog contacts, reputation, community status, etc.

You are right about PCs being heroes or antiheroes in the sense that while putting 30 ranks in stonecutting will make them a master stonecutter, it won't help make a tumble or spot check with a +x to a dice roll.

As ever,
ACE

No, no. You misunderstand me, my friend. I agree that taking skills to flesh out a character and give him the game mechanics to support his character traits is a Good and Wise Thing (tm), and should be encouraged.

However, I know that some players out there (mine included) just don't look at the character sheet that way. They invision a character that is a swarthy theif, raised in the temple but escaping at every opportunity to look for a half remembered sister that might have been sold into slavery while he was still very young. So their character sheets will have stuff like Escape artist, Hide, Move Silently, Gather Info, Search, Bluff and maybe even Open Locks and Disable devices - but more than likely will have no ranks in Knowledge (religion), or Craft (bookbinding), or profession (scribe) - all of which will be much more likely acquired at the temple.

So I have the feeling that if I (as DM) fail to make the profession skills very important by telling the players that these skills will be very important, then they will just not get taken over those skills that will allow the characters to actually survive.

The failing might be mine (as the DM) to make these skills truely necessary, but if the sheets didn't have them listed at all, I seriously doubt that some players would even notice, let alone miss them.

Quick question for you master DMs:

Is there some official rule on the order in which defensive spells are applied? I'll give a potential scenario -

Enemy cleric has numerous defensive spells layered on him:
Spell Turning (1d4+6, rolled a 2 for 8 levels)
Spell Resistance (SR 25)
Spell Immunity (Scorching Ray)
Death Ward
Entropic Field
Protection from Energy (Fire) [120 pts.]

PC shoots a Scorching Ray at the cleric. How are the defensive spells applied? Does the defending player announce the order, or what?

PS: If you can guess the NPC in question, you win the grand-pubah prize!

Well, I don't know what Entropic Field does, so I am discounting it. :)

Celric

What? If what you are really trying to say is: "There is little reason to put ranks in Profession for stat block related bonuses" then, you have a point to flesh out. There are quite obvious reasons to put ranks in Profession that functionally do not provide stat block bonuses (although some do anyway):

1. A profession further defines a player character in terms of ROLE PLAYING that character. It is a guide for how a player approaches the thoughts and actions of their PC
2. Professions give the DM more personal material to customize the game for the players. In short, they offer plot hook possibilities to construct adventures around.
As ever,
ACE

I don't find these reasons obvious at all, and neither provides stat block bonuses. If I wanted to play a salty sea dog in a role playing sense, then I would just craft up his character traits to include them. My players feel much the same way - if there is no "real" reason to put ranks in something, then there are other skills that do help that need those ranks.

One problem is that the PC's are adventurers, not craftsmen. If they wanted to make a safe living making horseshoes and nails and tools and armor, weapons, books, etc., then they wouldn't be risking their lives daily by adventuring. If you wanted to make profession into something that players would take to help them define their characters, it has to be made important for them, throughout the game, for them to do so. And not just in the "how much money will I make this week" sense, either.

I give synergy bonuses to any profession skill with ranks at graduated levels. 5 ranks: +2, 10 ranks: +4, etc. which are added to any roll that has to deal with the profession (and I interpret loosely). Same with the Craft Skill. That way, if a bard had 5 ranks in Profession (Minstrel), 5 ranks in Craft (ballad), a masterwork Lute, and 5 ranks in perform, he could expect a +11 to his roll to wow the crowd. If the little piggy Fighter had 5 ranks in Profession (stonecutting), 5 ranks in Craft (stonework), 5 ranks in Profession (engineering), 5 in knowledge (engineering), and masterwork stoneworkers tools, he could expect to get a +13 to build his house out of bricks so the wolf couldn't get him.
Will either of these break the game - hardly! And that's because players just don't do stuff that often that creates the need to winter in a town while broke and find something to do for the next 3 months until the passes thaw.

The gist of my argument is that there is little - no incentive to put any ranks into Profession unless you're going to sail a ship. Most adventurers probably spend a bit of downtime in town every now and then. With Perform, a low-level adventurer (say 5th level) can supplement his income with an extra 25-50 gold a week, while someone who actually *works* with skill in his Profession earns less than half with the same amount of ranks. On the other hand, I don't really want to increase the yield for Profession, since it is already miles away from the earnings of untrained laborers (which I don't want to mess with again, since that's pretty much a foundation thing).

Your reasoning seems valid until you realize that the perform skill is basically an entertainment venue. The difference in pay for one performance can be explained in the same way that actors get way more pay than the sound guy does. Or even mediocre football players compaired to a bricklayer. Sure the bricklayer builds a work of art and someone gets to then live in it, but the potential of the craft in finite, while the potential for the performer is basically infinite with newer "works" of his craft happening as quickly as the player can roll the dice.

Snorter- are you saying Rogues shouldn't get experience for doing Rogue things?

Of course he's not suggesting that (I hope). He's just pointing out that the rules seem to suggest that without rolling any dice or taking any real risk a rogue can gain XP for basically nothing.

So no dice were rolled, he got the jewels and he didn't even have any feats! XP or no XP? It's a tough call actually, or at least in my mind. Sure, the little guy did steal stuff so clearly I cannot drink the wine in front of me. But, I also know that the challenge wasn't even difficult enough to make him roll his dice, so I clearly can't choose the wine in front of you, either.
Half XP sounds about right to me, but that means that every rogue will only get much better over time because his skills include stuff to help him along (Hide, Move Silently, Bluff, Slight of Hand, Climb, Open Locks and Disable Device), while those trying to stop him are guards - typically warriors and fighters - that just don't have the skills to oppose rogues and form an effective foil to their dastardly deeds. About the only place they would match up would be in the rogue was rying to climb a wall to escape and the fighter also maxed out his climb skill (and even then he would face an armor penalty).
So what's the logical answer? Stay tuned to find out - hopefully in another un-hyjacked thread ;)

Celric

Snorter- are you saying Rogues shouldn't get experience for doing Rogue things?

And if your DM allows you to gain XP by being a living mine detector find another DM.

Actually, I think that if a DM is allowing you to gain experience by being a human mine detecter that you should be counting your blessings and waiting for the other shoe to drop. IMC, if I decide to lay down a bunch of traps (or allow them to exist in a pre-made adventure as is) they are alows there for a reason. I added traps all through the kobold-held areas of the Sunless Citadel adventure because I thought that the devious little kobolds would use them to "discourage" the goblins from encroaching on their turf. And, I had the kbold chief tell the party that there were traps there for that very reason - and the party still sprang some of them anyways.

Green. Slime. Pit. And if you're really unlucky and survive without learning your lesson, it's an illusionary floor covered pit trap that is only 10 feet deep, but the bottom is actually a touch activated portal to the plane of green slime.

DM: I know a fun game! You roll a d20, and if you get a 12 or less, I blow your head off with a shotgun. Want to play?
Rogue: Uh...is there anything I can do to improve those odds?
DM: No. Not until you go up another level.
Rogue: What happens if I just don't roll the d20?
DM: Oh, well then you don't "find the trap" and I just blow your head off anyway. Doesn't that sound like a fun game?
Rogue: ...

While I understand where you are coming from here, I also think that if there is a pile of folks with their heads blown off in front of your rogue - well, he might just think that there's a trap nearby. Just possibly. Or maybe not a pile of the headless, but a lot of blood stains or some other indication. There are very few advantures these days where the trap itself doesn't interact in some small way with the environment it is placed in, and all of those indications are there for the spot and search checks.

I suspect that the root of the disagreement is in my interpretation of "taking 20" on a search check -- looking at the problem area from every conceivable angle, getting in and poking at suspicious areas, and generally abandoning caution in favor of trying to figure out what's in there. If you're willing to accept 19 failures (14 of them "greater" failures -- five or more under the DC) that implies recklessness, to my way of thinking.

In truth, taking 20 on a search check always struck me as toeing the cheating line. Here's my thought process:

M'kay... Interesting viewpoints. I particularly like (and dislike at the same time) the idea that Rogues or Bards should be able to Take 10 and find most anything, given proper synergies and skill levels...

If you're supposed to be able to find them with a simple Take 10, then answer this seemingly stupid application of the rules: You get experience for defeating traps.
:Snip: *grumble*
Syrinx

Don't get me wrong, in a world filled with lethal traps, poisons, weird creatures and magic, I'm assuming that some group of folks (we'll call them rogues) have learned a specific skill set to overcome the obstacles placed between them and their next "score." Assuming, however, is not held up by the rules, which explicitly state that you cannot take ten/twenty if failing will have dire consequences. Not just your run-of-the-mill ones, but the ones of the dire variety. It's inconvenient to miss that secret door because you failed your roll in a different way than it's inconvenient to roll up a new character because you fell into a pool of green slime.

Personally, if the DC for a trap is low enough that taking ten will overcome it, I allow the PC's to pass by without rolling (provided they found the thing first), and award 1/2 XP for the "encounter" because at least they were looking for a trap that might have otherwise caused more hardship than it was worth. Does this mean that I am awarding a specific PC build? You bet! But I have to rationalize that with the fact that finding hidden stuff and disarming traps is What-Rogues-Do (TM). But if it's not a hard enought DC to threaten the little guy, then they just don't gain the full XP they would normally enjoy. If they have to roll the dice (because the DC is higher than taking 10 would allow) then they would get full XP for defeating the encounter.

IMHO, XP awards for skill usage is a tough thing to swallow. Mainly, it all boils down to a hit or a miss - you either disarm the trap, or you all die in green slime. You either talk your way out of trouble, or the guards don't believe that the person you just murdered was a werewolf and they execute you.
So now you're thinking, do I just want to fight that CR10 dragon or enter his CR10 trapped lair? It might take you and your party 20 rounds to finally finish off the dragon, but the misses you rolled when you swung your sword 40 times didn't doom your entire party. Wanna test your dice 40 times in this lair? 20? 5? It really only takes 1 missed die roll to ruin your day when it comes to traps, but other skills are like that as well. Jump over that ravine? I'd rather build a bridge, thank you! A dire lion is chasing the party? Run skill don't fail me now! That sign either says "this way to the land of magical treasure" or "this way to the last place you will ever see"... I knew I should have put more ranks into decipher script.

What was my point again...? Oh, right. If you think of your character as if he was a vibrant, living, participent in your campaign world, then the option of taking ten for stuff you already know how to do certainly makes sense. But if it's old hat stuuf that you already know how to do, then it needs to have an XP hit to balance.

I guess I'm not understanding the scenario you're describing. Can the trap be detected via a Search check from outside the square or not? (Does the rogue have to "step into the square to get a better look at the wall," or can he find it without doing so?) If the answer is yes, then why can't the rogue Search for 20 times as long before stepping into the square? If the answer is no, then haven't you just described a trap that cannot be detected at all by Searching?

I never make anything "go off" because of a failed search check, you simply fail to find anything. If you then do something that would trigger a trap (etc), then that's a seperate thing.

The DCs for locks and traps are usually set at 20 or higher, so taking 10 only works for a high-level rogue working on a simple challenge. ("Hell, I could pick this lock in my sleep!")

As for disabling device, I'd say you can take ten on it as long as you're not under some kind of obvious threat or time pressure. Since there are almost always consequences for failure (spring the trap, sabotage fails to work as planned but you can't tell you botched the job) taking 20 is almost never an option. And since disable DCs for all but the simplest traps are generally 20 or above, taking 10 is only safe for a mid-level or higher rogue working on a very basic trap.

Actually, the DC for locks isn't all that great and anyone can do it. Searching for traps is something only someone with trapfinding can do - and that's a different thing anyway. I believe that you should take ten when there is reason to believe that you will make it anyway. I would argue that the DC for opening locks and finding traps in any adventure should be the median amount for any task. For instance, if your 3rd level rogue has a 16 dex (+3), a maxed out Disable device (+6), and a synergy bonus (+2), why shouldn't he be able to take ten if the DC of the trap is only 21? He should already know that the trap is something he could normally disable. Move along, move along. If he has to ply his skill and stretch it to newer limits where the chances of success are more hit or miss... well, I would think that a rogue would know when to hold em and when to fold em, as it were. He knows his own craft.

Celric

What does this do - in practice?

Yes, it changes the secondary attack from -5 to -2 - yup happy with that.

Anyone got an example from the MM that they can explain the number crunching of it. A ghoul for example...

Attack: Bite +2
Full Attack: Bite +2 and 2 claws +0

I would have expected the Full Attack to have been 3 less than the single standard attack Bite - and the same for the claws (expect for the difference due to the 1.5 str mod). What am I doing wrong?

I think I see where the confusion happened. The feat states that "the Creature's secondary attacks with natural weapons take only a -2 penalty." I think you might have been trying to reduce the primary attack by 3 to get the secondary bonus... Maybe.

The above poster is correct; the secondary attack is only two less than the primary.