DoveArrow's page

Get me excited about reading the Monster Manual!

Personally, I think they're all pretty entertaining to read about. That said, I don't think you'll really know how cool a monster is until you run a campaign that requires them. For example, I never gave the allip a a moment's thought until I started running a sea campaign. Then all of a sudden they seemed like a terrifying villain full of possibilities.

As for monsters to steer clear of, the only one I've ever run that I found to be absolutely miserable is the animated object. Due to their hardness, the things are hard as nails to kill. Meanwhile, they often don't have any special attacks of any kind, so they're dull as nails to run. (Did I overdo it on the nail similes?)

I think if you want to use an animated object, be careful with the hardness. Also, try giving it a special attack of some kind. For example, a candelabra isn't that exciting. A candelabra that can cast produce flame once every 1d4 rounds is lots of fun.

I find that dressing the part helps. :-)

Seriously, though, I'm all about voices when I play my characters and I find that picking a voice that sounds feminine helps me get in the role. I usually go for a softer, more breathy voice to smooth out some of the gravel in my own voice. I also find raising the octave just a little bit helps.

My favorite female characters I've played have been Marzena, from Age of Worms (my character died and we were playing the module where we were rescuing her, so I thought it was a good way to get back into the game). For her, I settled on a bit of a British accent that really sold it. Another character I liked was when I was the RPGA Mark of Heroes series and I got to play Matron Martra. I loved her character and I enjoyed playing her like Princess Leia from Episode IV.

For a male character, I would try thinking of an actor whose voice you can imagine fits the character you're trying to play and then try to speak like that. Lower your voice a few octaves and add some gravel to it. My wife also suggests adding some swagger to the way you speak. That'll help you pull it off.

When I find the idea tank is running on empty, I usually try doing what I call a musing. It's basically a stream of consciousness outpouring of ideas, thoughts about those ideas, problems I see with those ideas, and possible ways to fix said problems.

A lot of these ideas are terrible, but usually one or two of them is good. Eventually, I get to a place where a story starts to develop and I find I'm able to move forward with actually writing it down.

If you want an idea of what something like this might look like, take a look at Rich Burlew's "The New World" articles. That's essentially where I got the idea.

My wife and I have a friend who is deaf and we're thinking about inviting her to our game. While my wife can sign pretty well, my signing skills are pretty rudimentary and the other players at the table don't sign at all. My question is, has anyone here had deaf players at the table in a situation like this, and if so, what did you do to help the hearing and deaf players communicate with one another and how did you help everyone feel included? Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks.

You could take a look at the work I've done with spell seeds. Mind you, what I've created so far is only for evocation spells, but it might get your juices going.

Um, he's sick. My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious...

Thank you, Simone.

I think the idea of a defense bonus is great for low magic campaigns, and it's something I've even considered trying myself. I'm not sure how much I like the idea of mixing AC and DR together, though. I think if you're going to use DR to replace AC, you need to go all the way. Otherwise, you're not fixing anything. You're just adding an extra level of book keeping to the game.

I also think that DR 2/- really isn't worth it at higher levels. This is particularly true when you consider that many monsters can drop players from full hit points to unconscious in one round if they succeed on all of their attack rolls. Given that you've reduced the armor bonus of most of the standard armor, I think it's going to make for a pretty deadly game.

That said, I think you're definitely on to something, and I'd like to know how it works out in your own games.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

By the way, if you notice any weird skills that look like something out of 4E, these are my own, house rule skills, which you can read about here. I usually put links to the page when those skills come up, but this post was a long time in the making, and I may have missed a link here and there.

In order to avoid repeating myself, I think the best place to start is here. Once you're finished reading, follow the link I include in the top of my blog post, or just click the following link.

Once you're done reading, please let me know what you think. In particular, I'd like to know if there's anything that you think seems broken. If you'd like to post sample spells crafted using this system, that would be really cool too.

By the way, what's your take on how it should work? Do you think it should work the way you described it, or do you think that's too confusing? I find myself a little ambivalent.

I'm on my phone now, but from what I recall, the acid flask / icicle / etc says it does an additional damage of d6 per two levels. That to me means the other damage is the same.

That is what it says, and I see your confusion. However, like I said, it's not what I intended. Let me think about how to reword it. In the meantime, I look forward to your other comments.

Cheapy, your feedback is fantastic. Thank you so much!

Here are your individual comments, and the changes I've made based on them.

The Shadow Bolt is clearly based off of the Warlock's Eldritch Blast, so it seems weird that Spell Penetration works with the EB, but not the SB.

I actually went back and forth on how the shadow bolt ability should work, and made a lot of edits to it before I settled on the current version. I think in one of those edits I just forgot to include the text about Spell Penetration. I'll fix it.

Shadowy Aura and Shadow Stealth seem backwards. I can summon shadows around me before I can use the shadows to help me in stealth?

Shadow Stealth seems like it should be a level 1 ability.

I see your point about shadowy aura and shadow stealth being backwards. However, I like the progression of shadow stealth, and I'm a little reluctant to make it a 1st level ability. That said, it wouldn't take much to make it a 4th level ability. Take a look at the changes I've made and let me know what you think.

3/4ths BAB classes have d8 in Pathfinder, and since this is in the Pathfinder homebrew section, I figure you're at least going for Pathfinder.

Oh. I didn't realize that. The group I play with is still playing 3.5, so I had no idea that the base Hit Dice are tied to the BAB for classes in Pathfinder. However, that's an easy fix.

How often can someone use Shadow Aura? As often as they like, so it's just a standard action every class level rounds?

Whoops. It's 1 round per shadow-tattoo artist level per day. Fixed.

And let me make sure this is correct: A shadow bolt with Acid Flask will do 20d6 worth of damage at level 20, 10d6 unresistable, and 10d6 acid. Is the Acid part subject to SR as well, so that it needs a touch attack, a saving throw, and SR?

I thought about doing it your way, where the first 10d6 are unresistable, but I thought it would get confusing. Instead, a shadow bolt with acid flask will do 20d6 worth of damage at level 20, save for half. Otherwise, you are correct.

By the way, your confusion makes me think that perhaps this ability isn't as clearly written as it could be. Any suggestions for clarification?

What system is this for? Those skills definitely aren't PF, and seem to be 4e.

My blog has a lot of house rule stuff. The skill set is a bit of an amalgamation of 3.5, 4E, Pathfinder, and even some d20 Modern thrown in there for good measure.

I'll probably put up a PDF version of the class with 3.5 skills at some point, but I saved the file to a thumb drive, and left it at work. In the meantime, if you follow the links for each of the skills, and take a look at the conversion table in my entry on House Skills, you should be able to convert the skill set to Pathfinder or 3.5 pretty easily.

No comments? Is... is that a good thing?

I just posted a new class to my blog. I'd like to get some feedback on it. The link is provided below. Let me know what you think. Thanks.

Shadow-Tattoo Artist

A while back, I made some tweaks to the mob template from Dungeon Master's Guide II and created a new template called a troop. I posted it on my blog, in case you're interested.

http://houserules3e.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/troop/

I'd throw a party like Andrew Jackson.

Well first, make sure you don't put yourself in a position where something might happen. Hormones can kick in pretty quick when you're alone with someone you find attractive in a private setting. If you're with a group of people in a public place, there are a lot fewer available opportunities to stray. This is particularly true if you're with people who know that you're married, and who might be put off if you start chasing around after some short skirt.

Another thing you can do is tell the person you find attractive that you're married. You don't have to be overt about it, just slip it into the conversation. Try something like, "My wife was telling me the funniest story. Apparently, she saw some poodle humping some guy's leg while shouting, 'It's all Sebastian's fault! It's all Sebastian's fault!" I find that telling a woman that I'm married is an easy way to keep myself in check. It also tells the person that I'm with that I'm not looking and that they shouldn't try anything.

Finally, talk to your wife. Let her know that you love her, and that being away from her is making you feel lonely. Perhaps there is something that the two of you can do to make the time apart more bearable. You may be in for some difficult conversations, but if she can't be sympathetic and understanding that you're having a difficult time without her, then I think you need to seriously consider how solid your relationship is.

These are just some of the things that I find useful. Take them for what they're worth.

Credit also goes to those who would have answered...

My god ... the United States is full of ... argumentative n00bs.

Hey, look at that. Post 600. That seems special somehow. :-)

Ooh, and now I crossed over onto page 13. I'm so happy.

I thought I was well established here, but I didn't even know this thread existed. I must be a n00b.

Hey, look at that. Post 600. That seems special somehow. :-)

I thought I was well established here, but I didn't even know this thread existed. I must be a n00b.

I'm not big on video games. Oh, and I hated Spider Man 2. I mean, seriously, are you really going to expect someone to stand in front of a miniature sun for eight hours a day to push down tiny solar flares with octopus arms that are connected into the person's spine? Seriously? First of all, who would sign up for a job like that? Second, what happens when that person needs to go to the bathroom or... you know... DIES OF BOREDOM?

Also, you aren't going to shut down a fusion reaction by pouring water on it. That's just going to make it worse.

If you use the character builder it will generally factor all that stuff in correctly and display the correct damage bonus for a given power. Generally.

Yes, but if I use the character builder, then I won't ever learn how to do it. Also, I have to pay that monthly fee. Blech!

So while I'm technically DMing a 4E game for one group, I'm now playing a character in another campaign, and in many respects it seems like playing a character is a totally different beast, and right now I'm struggling to understand how you're supposed to calculate damage.

That's quite the run on sentence I have there in my first post.

Base modifier for damage rolls. You add any magic weapon enhancements on top of that. If you had a +3 weapon, you'd be doing 1W damage plus your base modifier, plus 3 for the weapon enhancement. If you have any feats or equipment that up your damage (Bloodsoaked Bracers give a +2 to damage against bloodied foes, for example) that stacks with the other bonuses.

Thanks.

So while I'm technically DMing a 4E game for one group, I'm now playing a character in another campaign, and in many respects it seems like playing a character is a totally different beast, and right now I'm struggling to understand how you're supposed to calculate damage.

For example, let's say I'm playing a 14th level character with a 22 Wis, and I have a power that says it deals 1[W] + Wis modifier damage. However, on my character sheet, I have two Wisdom modifiers. I have my base modifier (+6), and I have my level modifier (+13).

I looked under the rules for modifiers in the first chapter of the PHB, and it seems to suggest I should use the latter. However, the group I'm playing with thinks it should be the former. Which one is it?

They talk about them in brief in Races of Eberron, but that's about it.

Honestly, I don't think the d20 System is really all that rules heavy. Granted, it may not be the simplest system out there, but I was able to create my first character with just the rulebook, and nobody helping me. The only other system I've been able to do that with is the Savage Worlds system, so in my opinion, that's saying something.

Personally, I think systems whose rules are vague or incomplete are far worse than a system whose rules are well defined. I remember playing in a game (I believe it was the Palladium system), where one of the players decided to jump out of a plane some 20 feet off the ground. First thing we did was look up rules for falling damage... only to discover that there were no rules for falling damage. At that point, we were at a total loss as to what should happen next. Would the player's character take damage? Would he break his legs? What would even happen if he broke his legs? We had no idea. Ultimately, we decided to just use the rules for falling damage from D&D, because it was something we were all familiar with, and because the rules were clearly defined.

Now that's not to say that a rules heavy system can't detract from the gaming experience. I remember when I tried to play the Hero System, and how badly my head would spin during character creation as I looked up one ability after another- each of which referenced two other abilities, and was based on some god awful formula- only to forget what it was that I had originally looked up. All this for a system whose combat mechanic was laughably simple. But I digress.

Getting back to the d20 system, I think that the problem players and DMs have when they complain about the rules has more to with player behavior and not with the rules themselves. Too often, I've seen games grind to a halt because two players decide they want to take precious time away from the game in order to argue over a particular rule. The worst is when players and DMs argue over something that has nothing to do with what's happening in game. I can't tell you how many times I've found myself banging my head on the table, listening to two players argue over 3.5 grapple rules when nobody was even being grappled.

Honestly, I think the best thing you can do to stop this sort of nonsense is to have DMs make a call based on their current understanding of the rules, and then let someone look the rule up while the game continues. If that person discovers that the DM's ruling is in error, then that's the ruling you use in the future. In the meantime, the game goes on.

I noticed the thread for Rubbish Christmas Presents and I wondered…is 'rubbish' closer to 'crap' or 'garbage'?

Sigh

'Bugger' too? Would you use 'bugger' in polite company?

Now you're just being lazy.

My wife and I both got a good chuckle. :-)

Elven Fighter.

Gnome psion. Oh wait...

I find it a little surprising that people who complain about point buy often say that it allows players to min/max their characters. It surprises me because our group actually started using point buy in order to prevent players from min/maxing. For example, we noticed that DMs rarely expected players to keep their ability scores if they rolled poorly, because it put them at a disadvantage compared to players who rolled well. We also noticed that DMs never expected players to roll again when they rolled exceptionally high on their ability scores. Because of this, we noticed players in our games often wound up with characters that had ability scores far higher than anything they would have had if they had used point buy.

I'm curious to know what sorts of experiences people have had with point buy. Have you noticed that it results in min/maxed characters, or have you noticed the opposite? Let me know.

Personally, I don't think it's appropriate to use rules lawyering as a method to attack someone else, regardless of the situation. I think that attacking someone in such a passive aggressive manner will not only detract from that person's enjoyment of the game, but also from everyone else's. I also think that it's likely to result in reactions from the player that run counter to the ones you would prefer.

I know that it can get frustrating when you have players at the table who don't know the rules as well as you do, and who don't seem to be making any effort to learn them. However, I think the best tactic you can take is to have patience, to correct them without getting frustrated, and to realize that they're going to learn the rules over time simply by playing the game. After all, that's how you learned the rules.

Finally, when the bickering starts, throw a wandering monster at them. Nothing brings warring factions together faster than a common enemy.

I like this idea. Not only does it have the potential to stop the fight, but it also brings everyone's attention back to the game.

Like it or not, people that don't like math aren't going to enjoy D&D very much.

I'm sticking with my cultural argument, because I don't like math all that much, and I like D&D just fine. :-)

I don't think DMs are getting softer. I think what's happened is that, over time, players, DMs, and game designers have learned what does and does not make a game fun, and in general, the things you've listed aren't fun. For example, I remember a game where I decided to have a bunch of hired thugs kidnap the party and force them to compete in an underground, gladiatorial arena. To ensure that the party wouldn't escape, I made the thugs' CR twice the level of the party. I also decided that the thugs would attack the party with saps while they slept, so that they wouldn't have any armor. My hope was that this combat would prove to be challenging, but ultimately overwhelming for the party. In reality, though, it just turned into a one sided pummeling. My players didn't have any fun, because they felt like there was nothing they could do to defend themselves, and I didn't have any fun, because the players weren't exactly shy about voicing their discontent.

Now that's not to say that you can't make scenarios like these fun. You just need to make your players feel like their choices can affect the outcome of the game. For example, if you force the players to check their weapons at the city gates, don't pit them against a bunch of thugs with longswords. Instead, have the thugs come at the PCs with fists, bottles, and rocks. Such a combat gives your players an opportunity to learn the rules for unarmed combat and improvised weapons without feeling like they are at a disadvantage. Meanwhile, the uniqueness of the combat will make the game feel interesting and entertaining for everyone involved.

Geeky girls get books. About things like horses and Little House on the Prairie & Chronicles of Narnia. And make-up and hair & girl toys.

Hey! I read the Chronicles of Narnia, and I'm as manly as the next guy! Granted, I don't like sports, cars, or beer, and I have a female character for an avatar, but that's entirely beside the point. :-P

There also is a limited degree of truth to differences in the brain, simply because D&D is very math oriented, and more males than females lean towards such. It's also why you see more females in game systems that are not so heavy on the rules. Of course, there's still plenty of women who like math, and men that don't, that's just the natural brain tendency at work.

While I agree that there are natural differences in brain chemistry between men and women, I am not at all convinced that these differences have much effect on either gender's ability to do math. If there are such differences, I should point out that several studies have shown that women are actually better at doing simple arithmetic than men are, so I doubt that some simple addition, subtraction, and multiplication would deter most women from playing.

On the other hand, I would agree that there are social stigmas that discourage women from getting involved in both mathematics and roleplaying games. However, I think that these are more cultural, rather than biological.

One difficult element I see here is that its something of a catch 22. Woman who love gaming so much that they become professional writers in the hobby are also likely to be the exceptions to the rule that men like combat and woman like plot.

Certainly to write for any derivative of D&D one needs to be able to eat breath and sleep mechanics. Thus it appeals to woman that are already somewhat breaking the mold.

I think that's true of just about any woman trying to do anything in an arena traditionally dominated by men. That said, I think that once an exceptional woman breaks that mold, she tends to pave the way for other women to follow.

As for men liking combat and women liking plot, I don't think those stereotypes necessarily hold. Perhaps it's true that men place more emphasis on combat, while women tend to place more emphasis on plot. However, I think all players appreciate a good plot, just as much as they appreciate a good combat. If they didn't, I don't think Ravenloft- a heavily plot driven adventure, with some of the most interesting combats ever written- would have been so well received by the gaming community. This is particularly true when you consider that the module was published during a time when the industry was almost entirely male-dominated.

I think the reason that roleplaying games and video games primarily appeal to men is because roleplaying games and video games have generally been written by men, and tailored to appeal to a male audience.

I think that as the industry tries to appeal more to women, and as more women start to occupy high level positions in the gaming industry, you'll start to see an uptick in the number of women playing. In fact, I think that trend has already started. I know I certainly see it at my gaming table. That said, I think it will be a long time before you see the same number of women gaming as men.

You have goatse listed in your favorites list.

"Tonight is the Night I Fell Asleep at the Wheel"
Barenaked Ladies

I got suspicious when they asked me for my birthday, so I put in a fake one. Now it won't let me view the video. Oh well. :-)

I don't think I'd call it 'Serious Topics.'I think 'Politics and Religion' makes more sense, as these are the discussions most people are having. Other than that, though, I have no problem with this idea.

Work sucks, but I guess it's better than not working. *sigh*

My wife's comment: "I'm sure she's excited to, you know, be warmer."

For the evolution discussion, that common cold is, technically, a disease rather than an organism. The particular organism causing the disease (let's say rhinovirus) will indeed mutate into more adaptive, resilient rhinovirus (microevolution). However, nothing's yet convinced me 100% on that rhinovirus becoming, say Penicillium candida (because I love me some Brie!), or later still a tsetse fly (macroevolution, at least as much as I have studied thus far). I'd welcome some specific direction to further research, however, as I always like to speak from a position of knowledge rather than supposition.

I did a quick Google search on how viruses may have evolved and came up with this article. The thing I found most interesting about it is the theory that viruses may have actually evolved from bacteria, rather than the other way around. It actually makes a lot of sense, if you think about it. Viruses survive by inserting themselves into our cells' DNA, forcing them to produce copies of the virus. In fact, it's a little like cancer, which incidentally, has been shown to be transmittable in some species.

As far as macroevolution versus microevolution, it's a bit of a misnomer, since 'macroevolution' is really just the result of 'microevolution' occurring over an extended period of time. As far as further research is concerned, if you're in college, I would suggest taking a paleoanthropology course. I know for me, it illuminated so much that I did not understand about natural selection, or the tools that archaeologists use to date bones.

If you're not in college, National Geographic recently published an article that discusses many of the known hominids from whom we descended. They also did one on whale evolution, which I found utterly fascinating.

Finally, you may want to check out a book, called Evolution and Christian Faith: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist. I'm not sure if it's the book I read, but if it is, the author tries very hard to demonstrate that there needn't be a conflict between the theory of natural selection, and belief in Christianity. Rather, the two can exist harmoniously together, as I believe they should.

I don't think that any of these readings are the end-all-be-all on the subject of evolution. However, I think they can provide a jumping off point for you, if you're really interested in learning more. I do think that if you keep an open mind, you'll find that natural selection is a beautiful theory that explains much about our world, and that it need not conflict with a belief in God, or Christ's teachings.

Edit: I'm realizing now that I'm responding to a post that was waaaaaay back. Oh well. :-)

Would you ever have sex with a stranger for money?

The fact that people are talking about capital punishment and political systems in this thread makes me think that maybe that the question I'm seeing is different from the one everyone else read.