Clockstomper's page

Not if you want the meat to stay tender and juicy.

Wing Buffet sounds like a delicious choice.

Not if he takes toughness.

Readied actions interrupt actions; but the assertion that an action must be complete in order to have been spent is spurious.

I've scanned the thread and I didn't see this example: if you ready an action to interrupt a spell, and succeed, does the spellcaster simply get to cast again? If a new move action is granted because the first move action wasn't "actually used", then why wouldn't this wizard get to cast another spell because he didn't "actually use" his standard action.

Or simply: if you are facing an opponent with infinite AoOs, can you keep attempting to leave a threatened square for as many times as it takes for you to succeed or die?

For instance (assumes 30' movement): Charging someone 40' away.

The player declares a charge and moves 20' when,
the GM says, "now that you are closer, a readied action spell goes off and you see an obscured pit 10' in front of you."
The player stops his charge.

My line:
I would allow the player to convert the charge (full round action) into a move action and finish out his turn.

Your line: (Please correct if I am mistaken)
You would allow the player to stop the charge, but they have lost their full round action.

If the pit spell was readied to cast against the charging character at some point in their movement, the game mechanics give them a saving throw to avoid falling in. Neither action above is how I would rule. The charging character rolls a save. If they do, they avoid the pit and get to pick where they leaped to avoid it, per the spell. If they don't, they couldn't stop in time and fell in.

Both "my line" or "your line" are the same as saying a character gets to change their move action after a trap goes off to not set off the trap.

You don't have to be difficult about it, but you know, give a man a fish...

When he doesn't know the answers to something within a fair time frame, just make a ruling. He can't remember if a spell is Close or Medium? Then it's Close, moving on. He can't remember if it's minutes or rounds? Then it's rounds, moving on.

It's not a penalty, it's just for ease of play for everyone else (can't remember the DC for your fireballs? Base DC for a 3rd level spell is 14, that's what we'll call it, moving on). If he wants to figure it out, he can. If you keep doing it for him...

Luke Skywalker did not know he was going to be a Jedi knight when he was shooting Wamprats with Bigs at Beggers canyon. Young Skywalker had not planned out his future beyond going to Tashi station to pick up those damn power converters. He got caught up in the story and adapted to the events that unfolded.

Here's the thing, if being a Wamprat Pilot 3/Jedi 3 makes Luke *significantly* weaker than being either Wamprat Pilot 6 or Jedi 6 (or realizing all your Wamprat Pilot feats are useless now, etc.) then Luke's player is likely going to have a lot less fun - unless there's something to mitigate that (awesome opportunities for RP, retraining to fix power level, GM mitigating some of the "weaker" skills are really coming in helpful, etc.)...

Same deal if the player envisioned played a scoundrel who piloted ships, and the GM keeps hinting that he'd better listen to the goofy old man's mysticism or else... that player wants to play Han Solo, not Luke. Maybe that player would get excited about jumping paths to Jedi - or becoming a Bounty Hunter - but why get upset at that player if they don't? Changing paths isn't the only way to be creative and roleplay.

--> Regarding some of your other posts here, Muad'Dib, look, I agree to a certain extent: I'm currently playing a Witch who envisioned himself as an ex-thief doing lots of illusions - and I accidentally set off a trap, an illusion really backfired - so that character made some other choices. I didn't take Spell Focus: Illusion for one thing. He also recently had a "spiritual" encounter that made him take a feat choice that wasn't on my plan. One of our most experienced players, whose character is a Skald who loved fire magic, is now obsessed with electricity because he drained the soul of a mad storm wizard into his sword and had an awful dream encounter with him. That player has made ability choices since then based on that. But it would have been equally valid for him to "redouble" his obsession with fire and continue on whatever his plan was.

Oh, and my awesome GM still managed to have me end up in a death feud with the local thieves' guild, with me having to face the leader, who it turns out, was an illusionist all along! Did he get frustrated with me, that I changed my focus away from illusion, even though he planned that plot levels back? No! That's why I agree that the OP's problem is silly - being frustrated about this is useless. Use what people bring to the game and play.

snip

... in encounters, a map is used which shows where all the difficult terrain is. In reality, you can't always see where difficult terrain is since there is always a patch of mud to slip on, a hidden tree root or some other obstacle that you can't see if you go rushing off. You might see that there is some brush between you and your destination, but you don't usually try and run around it in the dark because of the hidden dangers. PC's however, seem to have perfect knowledge and happily run around difficult terrain because it is not hidden. That needs to change.

1 - Players are heroes, who don't enjoy being told they tripped on a stick - they also aren't "reality TV" people attempting to create drama.

2 - If you want the environment to be more difficult, make it more difficult. There are plenty of game mechanics for that. "That brush is difficult terrain, you'll move at half-speed." Tell them they'll have to make an Acrobatics check or a Reflex save to avoid the obstacle. If you want, you can treat terrain obstacles like traps. For instance, a loose section of soil that is about to give way on a hill is essentially a pit trap. Set a reasonable DC to notice the dangerous terrain and a DC to avoid falling when it goes off. Maybe characters with Survival or Kn:Nature get a bonus to notice them. Etc.

3 - Encounters don't have to be roll-init-go-nukes. One thing I like to do is keep things in non-init, but limit the amount of action each character can take. In this situation, characters can take/make strategic choices that up the drama and give the GM chances to describe what's happening. "Fighty McSpellsword hustles around the ridge. Sneaky O'Bowman, you see the beast follow your friend's noise. It looks like it's trying to sneak around behind him... It doesn't seem to hear you as you clamber up over the boulder." It's more fun. In my experience, once you roll initiative, players sort of go "the jig is up!" and start charging and shooting, but by having your beasts and baddies act strategically in encounters, you will encourage players to do the same.

How did a thread about the most useless spells become a discussion centered about what some people don't like about some of the best spells in the game?

True Strike: I play a lot of wizards and I almost never prepare this, but when I do, I have a reason (like, I must-must land this Ray attack on that high-Dex Baddie!). It's actually very useful. It's just not useful if your yardstick for useful is "do X damage per turn, in the smallest amount of turns possible".

To answer the OP's question, I've always felt that Hold Portal was rather silly. It should really be called "Moderate Reinforcement of Portal".

The table is there for one purpose: to give you the same rough number that "standard" game balance uses for character wealth.

This number is super-duper abstract and can't possible account for everything. It even tells you, on the page, that different campaigns will do things differently. And even if you're in an AP, character choices and needs - and GM style - change a lot. So, you really need to ask yourself just one question:

Do the players have enough wealth that meeting challenges is still fun?

This number gives you a nice, objective reference point, but it's less important that answering that question thoughtfully, based on the detail of the game you are in.

Have the friendly dragon tell them there is something powerful hidden under the gazebo. After numerous take 20 checks on the (nonexistent) mystery, inform the players that they have starved to death.

Seems simple. The attack ignores armor and shield. A shield is a bit like a door you wear on your arm. It seems intended that the ammunition would go through the door.

If that's too loosey-goosey: Imagine a guy standing behind a suit of armor that he's not wearing. The weapon ammunition clearly* goes through that. Imagine he's standing behind a suit of wooden armor that he's not wearing. The ammunition clearly goes through that. Imagine he's standing behind a door made of the same amount of a material - it clearly goes through that.

The silly thing is that a brilliant energy projectile would never stop until it hit living matter. I suppose we're lucky that range increments aren't up for discussion.

tl/dr: in case of brilliant energy weapons, install a thin sheet of meat on all your doors. Right behind the thin sheet of lead you're using for that other stuff.

(* "clearly" used in the non-pejorative sense of "this connection is plain", rather than "everyone who disagrees with this level of plainness is an idiot", cause, you know, feel free to disagree).

Saw my item. After seeing some really well designed items, I now feel bad about my own entry's obvious problem and promise to downvote it accordingly. Happy Voting, all!

In fashion: mysteriously formless objects that require lengthy description of their varying forms...

(I just saw the most awesome rod ever, btw. I won't say anything about what it does... but it's exactly what a rod should be, afore the metamagics moved in... an object anyone of any class could find a neat use for).