Gem Inspector

Facade's page

11 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS


Mage Armor.


"Str 18 Con 16 Dex 12 Int 11 Wis 8 and Cha 16? What do you think?"

I would probably do.

Str 20 Con 16 Dex 12 Int 11* Wis 8* Cha 14

Depending on the DM. I would rely on either items or ability score
raises to keep my Charisma high enough for full spell access.


I would rate my attributes a bit different. Since I prefer hitting really hard over tripping stuff. I've found that tripping builds become worse and worse as a campaign goes on.

1. Str - For a smashing good time.
2. Con - Hps and Fort save. Very important on the front line.
3. Cha - Spells! Make sure it's high enough you can cast all your spells.
4. Dex - Reflex saves and possibly an AC boost.
5. Int/Wis - Make a choice here between 1 skill and +1 will save.
6. Int/Wis

I think Mystery of Battle is not only strictly better than Mystery of Metal. It's probably better for your friends play style. Mystery of Metal seems like it would be better suited for someone who really enjoys the role playing aspects of the game.


I let PCs roll all of their own skill checks. I strongly believe that a PCs fate should lie in her own hands. I also believe that a PC should have a pretty good idea how successful she was when using a skill. A small amount of meta gaming should be expected from any group. As long as it isn't at a ridiculous level it's just part of the game. If a player is going a bit too far, simply explain that he is using out of game knowledge in a way that is detrimental too the current game state.


Corsairs Eye Patch is pretty sweet for an actual pirate. If 3k is in your budget.


Bracers of Entangling Blast. Damaging spells entangle targets. Swift action 3/day. 2k.

Anklet of Translocation. 2/day teleport 10ft as a swift action. 1.4k

Amulet of Tears. 3/day gain 12 temporary hps as a swift action. 2.3k?

My current group is level 11. Almost everyone in my group is still wearing at least one of these items. Most of which were bought somewhere around level 5 or 6.

The MiC has tons of really good bargain bin items. These are the first three that came too mind.


I strongly agree on Bard or Inquisitor. If the Druid is gonna be in melee a bunch. I would lean towards Bard. If he is gonna be out of melee as much as possible. I would go with Inquisitor.


I would ask if I could have both Dimension Door and the Ki High jump ability as a 3/day ability. I can't see many reasonable GMs having an issue with that.


Grick wrote:
Jo Bird wrote:
I remember once upon a time reading a rule that said whoever was closer to the cover had cover, and if both were equal distance then both had cover from one another. That may just be my imagination though, or it may be some lingering memory of 3.5, I really don't know.

Low Obstacles and Cover: "A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he's closer to the obstacle than his target."

For the OP: The tower shield user is already taking a penalty for using it, it doesn't prevent him from doing anything else. (He's holding the thing, he can easily move it out of the way and smack you if you start casting or whatever)

You could -maybe- argue for Partial Cover, based on DM discretion, but I wouldn't allow it. He's already gimped by carrying the thing and spending his standard action to set it.

The -2 penalty is for the sheer weight and girth of the tower shield and has absolutely nothing to do with a cover bonus.


King of Vrock wrote:
Facade wrote:

If my opponent uses a tower shield for total cover and I am directly on the other side of the shield face. Am I treated as having partial or at least soft cover vs him?

It is my belief that I at the very least have soft cover if not partial cover and will not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Total cover goes both ways... If you can't attack him, he can't attack you.

--Vrock block

I thought this was the case as well. However my DM quoted this line from the tower shield description.

"That edge is treated as a solid wall for attacks targeting you only."

I am pretty sure the intent was preventing allies granting each other total cover. However as it is written only the wielder of the shield gets the benefits of total cover. Unless we are both missing something.

My question is. Shouldn't I at least get partial or soft cover vs my opponent when he uses a tower shield for total cover. It isn't like he can just ignore the big huge shield in his way.


If my opponent uses a tower shield for total cover and I am directly on the other side of the shield face. Am I treated as having partial or at least soft cover vs him?

It is my belief that I at the very least have soft cover if not partial cover and will not provoke attacks of opportunity.