Demon9ne's page

The corebook states that spells cast are sold for CL * SL * 10.

However, that can make a PC who is selling spells a lot of money over time, given significant demand.

I'd like to hear from any GMs who have allowed this. How did it go? Specifically, how did you determine what a PC could earn in a given day/week/month/year?

Essentially, Pathfinder has ECL, it just doesn't have LA. That plus the "Challenging monstrous races" chart CrackedOzy referenced (while meant for parties) is actually pretty similar to the old LA system, combined with the Unearthed Arcana system of reducing your LA. Although it's pretty generous, at 10 RP per LA (plus faster reduction). Also, it actually speeds up leveling, since it provides adequate challenge, but that provides extra experience points as well.

I completely forgot about the Unearthed Arcana rules.

So if I'm understanding those rules, a Centaur would have a +2 LA (based on 28 RP) that would be reduced by 1 at level 6 (for 7,000 xp) and level 9 (for another 9,000 xp).

Is that correct? And other than spending the experience, what statistics, if any, should change when the cost is paid at levels 6 and 9?

Linking point buy to race points is really clever. I like that.

In regard to the sidebar posted above, that is a DM tool for XP calculation, and doesn't really address "player-player balance", as far as I can tell.

I'm not likely to buy a 3rd party supplement and design a 20 level class just to play a certain race.

Thanks for the advice though.

So is racial "playability" simply subject to DM discretion alone, or are there any suggestions or rules in the books for balancing races above 10 RP?

Specifically, I'm looking at possibly playing a Centaur in the future, if my DM and I can balance it against the rest of the party somehow.

But perhaps more importantly, I'm wondering how other DMs handle this.

Any advice is appreciated.

If it's a stone building, check out the Soften Earth and Stone spell, if you have a Druid in the party. Otherwise, the Stone Shape spell is available to various casters.

A Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering) roll ought to tell you how to make the building less structurally sound, quickly.

To do it without magic, you could dig a cavern beneath it, and then pull the supports afterward; building suddenly disappears into the ground.

I could use the standard XP table, but I feel like combat vs. social interaction is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Combat is almost always life-threatening, whereas a social interaction could simply revolve around garnishing some information from an NPC through roleplaying/dialogue.

I want to reward players for taking the time to converse with NPCs in greater detail than "I'm looking to buy a sword."-type pleasantries. I feel like I could use a quick, balanced rule for such interactions, and I feel like the XP on the default table is probably excessive.

I'm trying to get my house rules straightened out for a future game, and I haven't touched this premise yet. I'd really like to include rules to reward players for their roleplaying with NPCs outside of combat, but I'm not yet sure how much XP to throw at players in this portion of game.

In addition to the amount of XP, I would also need to determine the circumstance(s) under which the players have earned it.

Anyone with suggestions, or rules they could share?

If I may interject--While the idea of throwing around Gunslinger/Samurai/Ninja multiclass archetypes in this thread may be a good use of our time, we only have access to alpha/beta versions of these classes. Ultimate Combat comes out in about 2-3 weeks. I'm thinking we should hold off putting any of them into a Multiclass Archetypes document until the actual book comes out.

I've been playing with the munitions expert (alchemist/gunslinger) archetype concept, and I think this is exactly what I'm going to do.

Lotsa stuff

Arg!! I was under the impression the archetype was inquisitor/cleric and was stealing from the ranger and rogue (a little too much).

Well, hopefully some of the thoughts I conveyed at least have your ideas brewing.

I'm probably going to take on the Munitions Expert next.

Just an update. This is a pain in the ass. There are a lot of rules to absorb. I'm attempting to trade the mortar and pestle for a mortar and pistol. Literally. Gods willing, that will be the name of an ability.

I've also emailed it to you Demon9ne.

This doc is gigantor. I'll try to get around to taking a good look at it.

I hope the next PDF isn't in any rush.

Temple Assassin, Draft 2...

I have some thoughts.

I recommend a little more customization, a little more assassin PrC, and a little less rogue.

I'd consider poison use. Possibly as an option in place of a teamwork feat.

I'd consider a stealth or invisibility related ability also (possibly just a stealth skill bonus vs. favored enemy).

I would either look at death attack as an option, or restrict sneak attack damage to the first attack of a combat only (whether flanking or flat-footed or not). Probably the latter. With this restriction, and the replacement of spells, it could easily have the full progression (2d6-10d6). The problem with sneak attack 'as is' is that it completely changes a class's role. The Temple Assassin shouldn't be (more of) a rogueish flanking buddy, and should instead gravitate toward high immediate damage followed by defense. The thematic translation being I strike you and I survive to make sure you die.

I like the faith-based favored enemy ability and the rogue talent swaps. I also like that the only spellcasting is from a domain at 1st level (not sure if this was intentional or not though).

Trapfinding is an interesting choice and it certainly aids the role, but it's still stealing the rogue's pedestal. You might consider an ability to supernaturally bypass traps without springing them or even noticing them. Thematically, My faith protects me from all but the most devious traps of an opposing faith, or when my target is near.

Thoughts?

You should tell the player no, and explain that it isn't good for the campaign. If your player is roleplaying the character maturely, things are still going to occur that subtract from the enjoyability of the game for everyone. Consider these questions:

- Do you want to take time out to write up and discuss stats for a weredolphin race?
- Do you want to put the game's story on hold while your players deal with the consequences of the character's actions during a full moon?
- Have you considered that the player could bite NPCs (resulting in a desert suddenly full of weredolphins)?
- The character will want to know more about the species he is a member of. It's likely this information won't be found in a desert. Are you prepared for the possibility of a character wanting to leave the setting?
- It's also possible the character will want to learn about the people that bit him. Are you interested in sacrificing prep time to consider weredolphin locations/culture?

I could probably continue asking you questions like these.

If you're a new or rusty GM, I recommend that you don't make a single player (or a single character) an exception. Allow him to play a race from the Core Rulebook, as your other players are.

I need some help with the name, I'm not liking Lord of constructs.

I think that "Construct Engineer" captures the role well.

Golemsmith is very specific. It's golems. Why golems? Golems are a tiny subset of constructs. That's like, you want a class focused on creating monstrous humanoids, and you call it the Minotaur Machine.

Minotaur Machine takes the bull by the horns though! ;)

I'm using the Summoner chassis for the "Lord of Constructs". Its a Summoner(P)/Wizard Elementalist(S) multiclass archetype. I'm debating whether to go with spontaneous caster like summoner or spellbook caster like wizard?

I vote for spellbook caster. Thematically, it seems more sensible.

Don't forget spells to repair constructs too (mending, make whole, etc.). =)

I'm probably going to take on the Munitions Expert next. Flak, according to his post above, seems to be looking into the Temple Assassin.

Elghinn - I'd also be happy to look at the finished version of the Sword Dancer, to look for typos, grammar wonkiness, balance concerns, etc. when you have it finished. (Take your time, of course.)

I had more luck with this link.

But the sword dancer doesn't have dancing weapons, he dances -with- his weapon.

In that case, maybe an arcana or ability to give it the dancing property! =)

Still just brainstorming of course. Do whatever you have to to keep the class consistently-themed.

I think I made that a special magus arcana the sword dancer can take if he likes. Do you think that should be an automatic ability at 14th level? Seems pretty good, especially since it would be "free."

It should be better than pretty good at 14th, no? =)

You could also make it an arcana, with a subsequent arcana allowing it to make an attack of opportunity every round. Just brainstorming.

I've always felt that flanking with a spiritual weapon or dancing weapon should provide the +2 bonus.

These remind me of a Dragon article from way back at the beginning of the 3E era that had some cool multi-class combos. I forget what issue that was in.

You may be referring to Dragon #289, which featured:

The Martial Artist (Fighter/Monk)
The Monastic Defender (Monk/Sohei)
The Spirit Warrior (Fighter/Shaman)

At 14th level, we can just... I dunno. What -can- we do????

Have you given the caster and weapon the ability to flank (for +2) yet? =)

...

For those paying attention, the Living Song (Sorcerer/Bard), which I believe we resolved to rename to Living Refrain, is almost done. \o/

...

P.S. Elghinn, how is the Lord of Constructs working out?

It seems like everybody likes to talk about controversial stuff, but nobody wants to be the one who started the moral conversation. In that context, the post count here makes a lot of sense.

I for one am very glad this thread exists. SKR strode through the arguing masses like a bare-chested Liberty, canon in hand, and went off; and I learned some things I otherwise probably would not have.

This thread has an interesting subject being discussed, dev opinions/knowledge, and sporadic links to nude art. It's a shame that it may someday end.

When will people learn?

Monks are Mage slayers, through and through.

Monks are everybody slayers, but mages probably do have it the worst.

Got it--I have another iteration or two before I send this though.

You can edit your new email addy out of the post above if you want to--I copy-pasted it. (I think you have an hour to do so.)

Demon9ne wrote:

Elghinn I decided to take a shot at the Living Song idea. This is not as easy as you make it seem. ;)

Is it possible I could email you a PDF of what I have soon? (I don't think this board has private messages.)

Are you not wanting to share with everyone? Just kidding. I'd prefer not to put my personal email up on the boards. You can just post it as a spoiler and I can copy/paste it into a Word doc. Or if you have a place to down load on the net you could put it there?

Actually, you're right--I don't want to share half-finished/half-balanced stuff. But more importantly, this is formatted text and a formatted class table.

Maybe you can try to catch me on Pathfinder chat today? (Or tomorrow, if you're short on time?)

Elghinn I decided to take a shot at the Living Song idea. This is not as easy as you make it seem. ;)

Is it possible I could email you a PDF of what I have soon? (I don't think this board has private messages.)

Monks is so fricking rad because they talk and the party is like nobody likes you and then the monks kills them all with his death touches and then the monks is a wandering monks and contemplates stuff and is really quiet and then he joins another party somehow because he is just freaking rad and can join parties without talking and then he contemplates stuff because just thinking is lame and eventually the new party is like nobody likes you and the monks kills them all too with his flurrys and then he is wandering again in his rad mysterious way and becomes even more enlightened and kills some helpless albino crocodiles after a rad altar jump and thinks up some great comparisons involving grasshoppers and finds another party to share it with and they say nobody likes you and then the monks kills them with his sandals and then rad rad rad rad monk jump kick saaiiiis rad rad

So you've read Hook Mountain Massacre I take it?

No. Is that the mountain?

Honestly though, it would be hard to build an able sorcerer if you couldn't stop picturing the iconic double-fisting cheeseburgers.

Less destructive book censorship:

- Create a paper book cover from a paper bag, newspaper, printer paper, etc. Google 'paper book covers' for ideas.

- Photocopy pages with artwork you don't like, cut out the offensive artwork from the photocopy, photocopy the result, attach to the book's page with three small paper clips (top, right, bottom). This is not so good for the book's binding over time, but it beats magic marker (which can bleed through) by far.

- Least destructive: buy some clear plastic page protectors (the type that can hold pages in binders), carefully slice the long side open with an x-acto knife, slide the photocopied page in (from the above suggestion), and slide it onto the book's offending page upside-down. Trim the protruding side with 3 holes off, if you want. Carefully tape the open side (which would be the bottom now) closed, if you want.

I don't share the OP's opinion at all, but I understand because I'm guilty of the opposite. If Seoni were a morbidly obese slob instead of a hottie, I certainly wouldn't want to look at her.

A cart has a 1/2 ton capacity.

Goods and Services, CTRL-F: Transport

One other thing that deserves mention:

Players will sometimes hoard treasure like points in a video game, in which case it might not be a game-breaking situation.

If it's not broken, don't fix it.

For a while, this was a BIG problem in my game.

.
.
.

I solved this problem in many ways.

- I threw some enemies at my group without treasure, and increased experience a little to compensate.
- I added some social encounters to the game that were engineered to make characters want to donate to NPCs and/or their organizations.
- I reminded the group that they could turn down a new character that wouldn't mesh with the group and find someone else instead. (In which case the player of the new character would generate another character. This might seem like a separate issue, but it strongly relates.)
- I suggested to the group that they write wills, if they don't want their own possessions to be strewn about if they die.
- I stopped rewarding player death with the ability to play a rich character. I did this by ruling that new characters enter the game at the level of their previous character, minus one (which of course is cumulative if a player dies a lot). I also decided that 50% of the starting wealth would be rolled on, with percentiles.
- I stopped being afraid of throwing loads of enemies at the players, instead of huge single enemies.
- I tailored much of the loot in the game, rolling about 25% of it randomly. The tailored portion contained stuff that was not in the books, and had lots of value aside from it's price.
- I gave the group options and incentives toward purchasing property, which is costly.

Now if I could just add the Crystalline Creature in there...I'd be a disco ball of Drow defeating light lol.

Pretty amusing. But my money is on this DM pulling the rules out from under you when you need them most, again.

Do tell us how it turns out.

You should look at the rules for custom spells in Ultimate Magic. There's tips for balancing and some explanation for seemingly underbalanced spells.

For instance, it states that many caps exist to keep later levels interesting (because using the same few spells for 9 straight levels isn't any fun). Etc.

Also a very good suggestion. But they don't "need" my character in any way. My damage output doesn't do enough on its own to make them worry about not having me around. My healing doesn't bother them as they have an Oracle/Cleric heal battery sitting around...they find traps, etc. It's a party of 6 as it is. My character can't really put them into a situation like that, and is more likely to end up in that situation himself.

And the off-hand of leading them to their deaths is probably not likely either. But then-again, once a bad guy has been fully introduced, I'm sure I'll be given a chance to do something.

I don't really want to build a counter-character, but I am curious to see what builds are up here in case I do. I have a higher HD advantage and a much higher gold advantage. But NOTHING is preventing them from taking it from me.

A gestalt party of 6 characters with uberstats and a GM that selectively breaks rules?

You should do something better: anything else.

Lifting the federal ban on heroin isnt the same as legalizing heroin anyway. Id imagine it would be still illegal in 50 out of 50 states. But in case it wouldnt here is what happened in Portugal when they decriminilized it.

I don't think decriminalization worked at all in Portugal, to be honest, but suppose it did: Portugal is culturally unlike us, and has a 70% smaller population. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

If drugs become legal here, Americans will (ab)use them, whether lethal or not. It's just like fast food--which we know is terrible--yet still consume way too much of.

You know where people wouldn't eat themselves to death like that? Portugal. They're not like us.

Never choose to build a 'counter character', or whatever you want to call it.

Instead, play your existing character, fueled by the hatred of drow. They might not be evil in your DM's world, but they're dicks to you. Voluntarily obey them, while becoming more inept over time at what you should be good at (if you're the Wizard, memorize poor spells because you "thought it would be a good idea"--speak convincingly as a player, if need be.) and maintain your character's quiet hatred until it can come to a proper fruition. Hopefully you can "forget" to heal someone, or have something you deem more important to do, while they lay dying.

Perhaps most importantly, be fair. If they cast a spell to read your thoughts, blatantly tell them your character is thinking about stabbing them, or whatever other flavorful imagery you can come up with. If they kill you for that, so be it. Die with a smile on your face.

It's fun to play a character who keeps their enemies closest.

It's not fun to play an awesome new character who dies quickly anyway, because the DM makes poor decisions. (The other probable route.)

I do not think that there would be any state that would legalize heroin given the opportunity.

Just because my house probably won't get robbed doesn't mean I'm going to take the locks off my doors.

I like Ron Paul. I'd love to have a couple beers with him and ask him hundreds of questions. I voted for him in the last primaries. However...

Just like back then, I don't think that his tremendous goals for this country are reasonable in scope. If this were a monarchy, maybe, but there's a lot of other politicians in Washington. And while I do like Ron, I'm not a fan of the rest of his party, to be honest.

Further--legalized heroin? Don't any of you have kids? I don't, and nor will I ever if there's a chance that I send them to school in the morning, only to see them in the afternoon in a body bag. Heroin can kill someone very quickly--even the first time it's (ab)used. And the typical rebuttal, that good parenting alone can prevent this scenario, is absolutely inane.

Also worth a quick mention is Ron's age. God knows who his VP would be--and I don't want another Republican who can't even speak correctly in our country's highest seat of power if something bad were to happen.

I think Obama has been holding it together well enough after the mess he inherited, (he certainly aced the Bin Laden issue) and at this point I think he has my vote.

I'll need to take a look at your Lord of Constructs idea. I've been trying to figure out the best way to turn my "Golemsmith" PrC I created for 3.5E into a multiclass archetype, but being that I haven't played a bunch of the classes, let alone the archetypes, I'm not sure who to combine to get what I want. Pretty much it would be a Spellcaster with the ability to create a bond with a special golem, which they can custom-make; increase AC, damage, special abilities, DR, add a paralye, finger of death or disintegration ray, etc. It was based upon a PC my friend played - a drow wizard who constructed an iron golem giant spider he could actually get inside of for protection, and eventually used a wish to turn it into an adamantine spider golem, and it had a disintegrate wand or sothing or other that served as it's stinger. Went by the name of "Goliath", in honor of the Spacecraft human team's to-legged walking machine that always said "Goliath on line". He was fun.

I like the Temple Assassin concept, the taxidermist (perhaps an ALchemist/Ranger might be better?), the pioneer, sword dancer and living song too.

The Alchemist/Gunslinger combo I had in mind was probably similar to your Munitions Expert, but I called him a Grenadier or Master Gunwright. Must ponder.

Your Arcane Vessel idea puts me in mind of a 3.5E PrC I created called an Arcist. They could manipulate and bend magic to their will, including disjoining spells that are cast at them, snatching and hurling them back at the caster, or disjoining magical items by touch. Again, must ponder.

Further brainstorming:

My inner child says the Lord of Constructs could be even more fun if many small golems could come together and form Voltron. Take that or leave it. But honestly, it would be nice to have a mechanic to choose either one golem eidolon or more than one (Broodmaster instead). The giant spider your friend played sounds fun. It reminds me of the Onyx Spiders from Forgotten Realms in Menzo (large black spider statues that would animate and attack enemies of Lolth, as I recall) and also the big mechanical spider from the film Wild Wild West.

As far as the Temple Assassin goes, I've always enjoyed the idea of faiths (good and evil) employing assassins to kill important targets--for evil faiths, it's just common sense (eat breakfast, dispatch murderers), and for good faiths, it's to stop even greater evil from occurring (the old kill-one-to-save-thousands rationale).

The Arcane Vessel could have ties to raw magic by means of abilities that effect their metamagic feats. Maybe they're swappable, or any number of other interesting things. A lot of customization could happen in the metamagic feat department, I think.

The Munitions Expert might be cool if he could just sacrifice bombs/mutagens/etc. on the spot, by pouring them in a special compartment (a modification class feature, maybe) on his gun. That would mute the "Hey--I'm making more bullets!" chatter and shift the focus away from crafting (which the Alchemist often does enough of already).

Ranger could definitely work for the Taxidermist, but the concept as I visualized it was closer to a big game hunter like this guy; someone who just wants more heads on the walls of their office and uses superior technology to achieve that end. I should also mention that I think the vivisectionist archetype is great not only because of the connection to anatomy, but also the lack of ethics (endangered? pff...).

The Light In Darkness didn't really catch your eye, but I think it's an interesting idea: a good deity forces good power upon an evil cleric regardless of whether they like it or not. It would finally be a decent excuse to allow an evil cleric to channel positive energy, among other possibilities. Although I wouldn't blame you if you want to steer clear of alignment/moral rules when possible. I'm often not a fan either.

It might be interesting if the Pioneer had a tie of some sort to strategic architecture (battlements, etc.), as he'd be helping with settlement defenses. This might be hard to tie in, rules-wise; I don't know how I would do it.

The Sworddancer could expand the role of the animate weapon in many ways. I doubt you would need suggestions here, as the possibilities are many.

I had the idea that the Living Song would disappear (through an eventual class feature) in areas of natural/magical silence, after a few moments without significant "background noise". They would become very hard to detect (short duration improved invisibility), but with the trade-off that they would become physically weaker while invisible because they are sustained by sound. If you could roll with this idea somehow, I think it has merit.

Lord of Constructs (Summoner [Vanilla or UM: Broodmaster] & Wizard [UM: Wood or Metal Elemental School] -- Abilities related to construct eidolons.)

Temple Assassin (Inquisitor & Rogue or Ninja -- Abilities related to killing strategic targets of a faith.)

Arcane Vessel (Magus & Oracle -- Abilities stemming from a mental and physical connection to raw magic. Ability to identify items by touch.)

Munitions Expert (Alchemist & Gunslinger -- Ability to create exotic, alchemical ammunitions.)

Taxidermist (Alchemist [UM: Vivisectionist Archetype] & Gunslinger -- Abilities relating to hunting and preserving rare creature specimens and/or collecting grim trophies.)

Light In Darkness (Oracle & Cleric -- Redemption-themed abilities given to an evil cleric, by a good deity.)

Pioneer (Ranger & Inquisitor -- Abilities related to the acquisition and defense of new settlements, from native threats.)

Sworddancer (Bard & Magus [UM: Spellblade Archetype] -- Abilities related to dance and the utilization of animate weaponry.)

Living Song (Bard & Sorcerer [UM: Maestro Bloodline] -- Abilities related to sound, silence, sonic effects, and/or environmental noise.)

Some general advice:

- Decide what motivates the brigand leader (besides getting out of jail), if anything. It could be a turning point in the conversation, if the player makes mention of it.
- Similarly, decide what aggravates the brigand leader, or causes them to 'shut down' during conversation, if anything.
- Decide whether the brigand leader already worships a deity (in which case they could be more difficult to convert--especially if the deity is morally opposing the player's deity).
- If you've decided that the brigand leader has any strong beliefs (that would manifest outwardly, even involuntarily) consider allowing your player a sense motive check to pick up on said cues.
- Attempt to roleplay through at least some of the conversation and follow the roleplaying with the dice rolls.
- Diplomacy and Knowledge (Religion) are probably optimal choices here. If you can't find DCs, approximate fair DCs based on similarities and differences between the converter and the desired convert.
- If the attempt is unsuccessful, consider having the brigand leader convince the player of the opposite, to further their escape plans. =)

it would be easier to take the Vow of poverty of complete divine from 3.5, adding (perhaps) that one item that can be valuable.

Your idea is good, the save DC's of his abilities will be higher because of level, and lower because of no ability-items.
Without gametesting, it's difficult to judge all the aspects.

Only downfall is that exp for next level is pretty steep, so a 50% bonus is very far away from 50% more levels.

Thanks. =)

As (I believe) others have stated, having an item of significant value really isn't much in the way of compensation for the myriad (possible) stat losses.

I very much agree with your latter observation. I really wanted to get through the text in the rule and considered numeric balance second to concise wording.

That having been said, the amount of bonus experience could probably be increased, level-based, and/or based on character advancement (slow, medium, or fast experience progression) to fit different campaigns. Low-magic, medium-magic, and high-magic campaigns could also be considered. It's possible that the best solution is a small table, to represent various games.

This rule attempts to address the lack of balance of the VoP monk against party members, who are covered in an array of magic items confering all manner of stat bonuses. It answers the question: How did a naked guy just punch my +5 vorpal sword in half?

Put simply: He's enlightened.

Vow of Poverty: The monk taking a vow of poverty must never own more than six possessions—a simple set of clothing, a pair of sandals or shoes, a bowl, a sack, a blanket, and any one other item. Five of these items must be of plain and simple make, though one can be of some value (often an heirloom of great personal significance to the monk). The monk can never keep more money or wealth on his person than he needs to feed, bathe, and shelter himself for 1 week in modest accommodations. He cannot borrow or carry wealth or items worth more than 50 gp that belong to others. He is allowed to accept and use curative potions (or similar magical items where the item is consumed and is valueless thereafter) from other creatures. A monk with this vow increases his ki pool by 1 ki point for every 2 monk levels (minimum +1)...

...A monk living in peaceful accordance with this vow becomes more enlightened and earns half again as much experience (+50%) whenever gaining experience. Additional experience earned in this manner should be tracked separately. All bonuses gained from (levels granted by) this portion of experience should be immediately ignored if the monk breaks this vow, until the monk is redeemed. Levels gained from this portion of experience do not count when determining average party level. A monk with this vow earns the still mind class feature upon reaching level 20...

For low-level campaigns, or those using a level 21+ experience table, this rule variation could end here. For high-level campaigns utilizing the default experience table, consider the following addendum:

...A level 20 monk with this vow has reached an enlightened state that is difficult to surpass. Only by reflecting on the greatest of accomplishments can the monk achieve clearer inner harmony. Whenever a level 20 or higher monk completes a legendary quest, defeats a legendary creature (CR 20+), or secures an immensely powerful magical item or artifact (with help, naturally, as the monk cannot possess it), the monk gains permanent increases to their base attack bonus, saving throws, flurry of blows attack bonus, unarmed damage, AC bonus, and fast movement, following the pattern on Table 3-10. The maximum amounts these bonuses can increase to is left up to GM discretion, to fit the scope and desired power level of the campaign.

Discuss?

"OMG, our food and water is ruined! What do we do now?"

We demand saving throws for our food and water, which were attended objects.

This type of PvP thing is often suggested (and summarily shot down) in gaming groups far and wide.

I'm of the opinion that to accurately gauge two classes against one another in combat, one would have to account for the infinite possible environments and circumstances that such battles could occur within.

If we were intellectually or technologically capable of doing such a thing, the resulting numbers would still hold little meaning.

If we ultimately learned that the monk was 2% worse than the fighter overall--what next? And vice versa?

In my games, it's often "You all wake up, prepare yourselves, and eat. Cross off a ration."

Then, the players who ran out of (or forgot to purchase) rations will make survival rolls to hunt/gather and I roll a random encounter chance. Sometimes they want a deer, but end up with something less timid. =)

It's a bit tedious, so in most campaigns I allow Everlasting Rations/Waterskins (from the 3.5 Magic Item Compendium).

9. A spellcaster has no control over a summoned swarm. Such a swarm attacks the nearest creature, whether friendly to the spellcaster or no.

Howie, as far as summoning goes, I think better wording would be:

A spellcaster has no control over summoned creatures unless able to communicate with them. A summoned creature with 3 or more Intelligence can understand simple spoken commands. Summoned swarms that occupy an area greater than their target may damage nearby allies.

Here's the rules relevant to the last sentence:

Swarm Attack: creatures with the swarm subtype don’t make standard melee attacks. Instead, they deal automatic damage to any creature whose space they occupy at the end of their move, with no attack roll needed.

Summoned Creatures should attack the closest PC enemy they are summoned near.

Then?:

A summoned creature targets the nearest enemy of the summoner unless it possesses 3+ Intelligence, allowing it to be instructed otherwise by the summoner.

If anyone can elaborate on this, or post official rules, please do so.

I think it was already brought up that unless a creature can understand you, you can't direct it to do any more than attack your enemies - which it does automatically. And since templated creatures no longer get an automatic 3 Int, you can't really get the VAST MAJORITY of the Summon Monster list to do anything useful.

If this is correct, then I guess the case is as follows?:

The GM chooses a summoned creature's targets unless the creature has 3+ Intelligence, allowing it to be instructed otherwise by the PC.

Demon9ne wrote:

Run is speed x3, or speed x4 unencumbered, and is not necessarily taken in a straight line. ~ p.180

This one is incorrect I'm afraid. Running still requires a straight line.

Good catch. It's worth noting that there's movement rules on p.180 and p.188. p.180 states that 3x speed is in medium or heavy armor, and p.188 states only heavy armor. Is this errata'ed? I'd assume it's only heavy armor.