Forgotten Knight's page

As per the spell Miracle, you can duplicate any other (non-cleric) spell of 7th level or lower.

Also a duplicated spell allows saving throws and spell resistance as normal, but the save DCs are as for a 9th-level spell. When a miracle spell duplicates a spell with a material component that costs more than 100 gp, you must provide that component.

If we look at Supernatural Abilities they aren't subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or dispel magic. Also as Spell Like abilities they have no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus.

Now my question is this.

Let say I used a Miracle (as a Supernatural Ability) to duplicate the effect of the spell Flesh to Stone. Is Flesh to Stone then treated as a Supernatural Ability, because I am using Miracle (as a Supernatural Ability), or is it treated list a spell, and thus allowing spell resistance?

For feats such as Natural Spell, which require you to have the wild shape class feature, could a character with the Shaman Shapeshift Hex qualify for the feat?

I have a player who is asking me about this, and before I answer him I wanted to do a little bit of research on it. I can not find anything one way or another, so I wanted to ask here if there has ever been a ruling on this.

Baval wrote:

Right ok fair enough, so then why isnt the bard and the barbarian crafting? They dont need feats, craft up some ammo or some daggers. Otherwise theyre not doing their full share, and so they get less of a share.

After all, if the crafter has to fight, why doesnt the fighter have to craft?

And again, the Barbarian and the Bard do have a contract in place, they get a share of the loot. The Crafter is also making the same contract: Ill do what I do best at no cost, and in exchange i get 25% of the loot. Thats only fair. Were not expecting the Barbarian to translate ancient tomes or the Bard to tank hits because thats not what theyre good at, so why expect the crafter to do what he isnt good at?

No, a party member doesnt earn its share by "doing whatever they can for the party", a party member earns its share by contributing to the adventure. If the crafter is there and hes fighting with you hes earning his share, he doesnt also owe you a free axe just because its within his power to make one. You can argue all you want "but he has a better chance of surviving if he gives me what I want" but he has an even better chance of surviving if he just hires and outfits a few mercenaries to do similar work for him and bring back a share of the profits.

The starting point for me based on my own experience (and while i have been playing for a long time i recognize that is a drop in the bucket compared to the collective table experience of the forums) is that the party splits loot equally among all PCs; Cohorts, hirelings and NPCs do not normally get shares and instead are either along for their own story reasons or charge flat fees for services. The shares that PCs get is due to the characters providing their services to the party.

The argument that Crafter chose one feat over another and the party should pay Crafter to use that feat is a slippery slope. Why not have Cleric charge per spell, domain or channeling that someone else benefits from. Sure Barbarian doesnt have to invest as...

I see a lot of comparison to what the crafter is doing in his down time to what the rest of the party is doing in the adventuring time. I feel like people are looking over any contributions said crafter is making to the group when everyone is out adventuring.

I will use a character of mine as an example.

I am playing a Shaman of the Heavens. I do some healing, some combat control, defensive spells and some offensive spells. I have occasionally been know to actually attack things with my weapon. It does not happen often, but it does.

Now using what you say, if I charge my party members for crafting while I am in downtime, they have every right to charge me for services during combat. Does that mean I can also charge them for every time I have to save them in said fight? (It happens quite a lot) It becomes a vicious cycle.

Personally I do not charge anyone anything to craft for them. However I will only craft them things my character feel they need, not what they want. But mostly I just craft for myself because 90% of the treasure we get is no real thing I want. Lots of weapons and armor.

I personally just think you should do what you feel your character would do, if that is charge your party, charge your party. If you want to make things for free, make things for free. But no matter what you do, just accept whatever consequences come from it.

This is definitely useful information to have. Thank you for doing this.

Hey, on the subject of sleep walking, wife (IRL) used to walk, talk, and do things while she was asleep. Her conversations were nonsense, real words but not coherent sentences, she didn't ever fall down, even sleepwalking on stairs, and sometimes she moved things around, even cooking meals (though it was more like starting to but then wandering back to bed, sometimes bringing pans with her).

So there's real-world precedent for people standing and carrying things, even while asleep.

I know it is possible to sleep while standing, and also to not drop what you are holding while standing. I did it once in boot camp.

However if you ever watch any form of fighting (boxing, MMA, German Fencing) if someone gets knocked out they go down. A lot of that has to do with moving around, your bodies momentum and stuff to that effect. A character in a fight that gets put to sleep, common sense says they are gonna go down. Now the guard that is just standing there, when he gets put to sleep he may continue to stand there.

But this is just my opinion, and it would be how I handled the situation in a game I ran.

Back to the OP, let your GM make a ruling. Ultimately they have the final say.

I was trying to find the exact post, but alas I failed my perception check.

But I took a screen shot of something James Jacobs posted to show some friends, so I will repeat what he said.

"Nowhere do the rules state that if you fall unconscious or die do you fall prone.

Sometimes, we don't bother putting rules in because hopefully the answers are obvious.

AKA: If you don't sleep, you become fatigued."

That was his exact post. I think this falls into the obvious common sense thing here.

In the remake of the AD&D adventure, Tomb of Horrors, there were a set of huge double doors towards the end that were steel, but covered in a illusion to appear to be Mithril. It said in the notes to it that they were no longer actual Mithril because the demon's guarding the place got tired of the adventurer's stealing the doors.

Does it really matter? If you are close enough to see the Gazebo, then its too late for you as the Gazebo has already noticed you. You are dead, its a Gazebo after all.

dot

dot

I will start by saying this is just my opinion on this matter but here goes.

If you attach dispel magic to a unhallow then it should behave as follows. I don't feel as it is going to dispel spells in play on someone when they enter the area, but more so I think if someone is in the area of the spell and they themselves try to cast a spell it would use the dispel magic to counter it. If you are looking at the whole idea of the spell unhallow, and all the other things you can attach to it, it makes more sense that the dispel magic would be countering any attempts of someone to cast a spell within its area.

But what about the line, cannot be detected.

See invisibility shouldn't work.

The person can not be detected. So spells like detect evil, detect magic, detect law...none of those would work. Its the same sort of discussion that went on with Invisibility and Non-detection.

The ability states as the OP posted

Undetectable: This grants its bonded user the ability to become utterly undetectable while invisible. While invisible and in physical contact with this item, the bonded creature can't be detected or scryed by any method.

I think this is a case of RAW vs RAI. I would think it was intended to be any form of detect spell or any form of scrying. But f you take it as written i can see it as nothing can detect it.

In my game I made a ruling to use what i believe to be the RAI. I explained it to my players using examples and that is how it is being done. You could always do the same thing. If they ever come out and clarify it in a Errata or FAQ then I will change my ruling.

Also, Forgotten Knight, how do you deal with the Diplomacy thing? The same player in my group has a tremendous diplomacy and he expects it to be an auto win for everything he does. I am usually pretty good about it but if it ever doesn't work how he wants he gets all angry. It's become a very frustrating point for me.

I try to take into account a few things.

1.) If combat has already started then I tell him it wont work while in combat, and he is ok with that and we move on.

2.) If not in combat I do a couple quick things. First I look at the alignment, the level of the encounter (peon...mid range...or main villian) and lastly if the creature can actually understand him. I will usually hold at least a round at that point and see what everyone decides to do. If everyone just waits I give him his chance.

3.) I start everything as unfriendly. I have him tell me exactly what he wants to say to them, and then go from there. After he has said his spill I let him make a roll and if he gets them the 2 steps to friendly I let it work.

I just make sure I have read the adventure well, know who the main players are (NPC's), and some times just wing it. If someone wants to invest in their character to be able to do that, I let them take a shot.

I have a player who tries to diplomacy his way through almost every encounter. But that is how he built his character so i do my best to try to accommodate that, but some times it just isn't going to work.

My favorite thing (or what I find to be most annoying is) when a player rolls the die and without knowing what he hit just says "Threat" and then rolls the die again. Every time I have to stop and ask him what AC that hits, cause there are quite a few times when he is not even hitting the creature, but just assumes that a threat means an auto hit.

Similarly - why do the Wizard get to use his Will save for his items when he's targeted by mage's disjunction?

Exactly, that too.

@blahpers You are right, it is a why are the rules this way situation. I do think it would be easier and simpler if it was just 1 way, as opposed to different for different situations.

I realize it is a game, and the game has rules, and these happen to be the rules. I just like to theorize and try to make sense of things. So that is what I am doing.

So I am completely aware of the rules here, and that is not the reason for bringing this up. I do have a question for exactly how this is suppose to work.

Let say for example we have a wizard that decides he wants to toy with a foolish fighter who is charging up to him to try to kill him. (A foolish move on the fighter's part because everyone knows he stands no chance against said wizard...or so thinks public opinion) But anyway Mr. wizard thinks it would be funny to target Mr. Fighter's trusty magical longsword with a Disintegrate.

For a moment lets set aside the notion that he can or can not target the weapon. Let us just assume he can, and make this example simple.

The fighter is armed with this weapon, so the item is assumed to be "attended", therefor it could use the fighters fortitude save, or its own, which ever is better. Now this is a +4 longsword (CL 12th) so its base save would be 8 (half the caster level + 2). However it is wielded by a 14th level fighter (Base of 9 + CON mod + whatever other magic bonus he might have). SO of course the item would use the save of the fighter.

Now here is where my question comes up. How does being very resistant as a fighter have any bearing on how resistant your magic items are? How does your ability to shrug off the effects of this spell allow your item to do the same thing? The only one that makes any real sense is the reflex save since you would be moving the item. But if you roll a natural 1 on your save how is the item able to benefit from your reflex save bonus?

Anyway, just some random rules discussion I had with my gaming group that I thought I would share and let others chime in on.

Thank you for the responses, it helps.

Recently in the game I am running, the question of how Mythic Surge is used came up.

During the fight with the BBEG, one of my players rolled an 18 on the die to hit the Villain with the weapon he was wielding. He then informed me that he wanted to use one of his Mythic surge's to add to the dice. I told him go ahead, and when he rolled a 4 he then informed me since he was able to modify it to a "20" that it was then a threat of a critical hit. That is where all the questioning started.

His claim is that by using surge it adds to the dice "modifying" the roll. He interprets that as it changes the actual roll of the dice, and there for if he can get to at least a 20 then it should be a threat of a critical hit.

I completely disagree with that. It is suppose to add to the final value, but not modify the actual dice roll to make it a natural 20. I read it aloud to him, and read the definition aloud to him and he still stands by his belief. I would like to get a ruling one way or another. I told him that I was going with my interpretation of it for the time being and I would look into it and come up with a final ruling before the next game, but I am not finding anything on the boards or FAQ to give me a definite answer.

What is everyone else's take on this?

I also critiqued your item in the main thread, not sure exactly where, but I think it is on page 11.

Ninth Page Critiques:

Myriad Scabbard

Thanks for the critique. Thats kinda the thought I had in making it, something that would be useful. But you are right, I am getting a lot of the same, it just had no WOW factor. I took the "what would be really useful" approach, as opposed to the "What is the most ridiculous thing I can think of" approach.

Mantle of Butterflies

I think this was well done for a first attempt. Overall a fun item, not sure if I would ever want to use it on a character, unless I was playing a Bard.

There were a couple of things I did have a issue with. As you did, I think maybe the swarm should not have been mobile.

Average swarm 5 foot radius, and the butterfly swarm is a 20 foot radius. The 20 feet is right on par with obscuring mist, and comparing that to a actual swarm I think the Butterfly swarm is a bit stronger.

Last thing I would have changed is maybe make the HP to disperse it a bit smaller. That seems kinda high to me, but otherwise as I said a fun item.

PAGE 9

124) Myriad Scabbard
The Good: You saw a RP problem (having a bunch of situational back up weapons with no way to store them and fixed it.
The Bad: except there's tons of items that already solve this problem.
The Ugly: I get it your item is a little more helpful with action economy but that is not a superstar concept.
Overall: 3 stars- useful but Middling for me, great name though.

Thank you for the feedback.

Myriad Scabbard
Aura Moderate Conjuration; CL 9th
Slot None; Price 2,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.
Description
This black scabbard seems plain and well used. However the magic of the item is revealed upon attempting to sheath a blade. When the tip of a sword or dagger is placed within the mouth of the scabbard, the scabbard adjusts to fit the size of the blade. Upon releasing the hilt of the sword or dagger the weapon vanishes 1 round later, allowing another blade to be inserted. The scabbard can hold up to 6 different blades of any size or type. As a swift action, the wielder can grasp the mouth of the scabbard, and cause the hilt of any blade within to appear. The hilt will remain for 1 round before vanishing again. The scabbard weighs the same no matter what is placed inside.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, secret chest; Cost 1000 gp

I would appreciate any feedback offered.
Thanks

A word count of 397. Shouldn't things like this not even be in the items we vote on?

61.) The Foaming Toad
62.) The Catapult Moose

I know I have read this at one point elsewhere in the threads, and I am just repeating it. But I tend to agree.

I think a better name for the Warpriest would have been Templar.

But that is just my opinion on the matter.

I have read through the ACG PDF multiple times now. I have yet to be able to play any of them yet, as I have a job to go to during the week and if I want to continue to play Pathfinder I need to continue to make money.

However, I plan to test them when I can.

In the mean time I have come up with a few general thoughts.

1.) I don't quite see the point of a few of the classes. For example the Brawler. It does have a slightly better BAB than a Monk, and better saves than a Fighter. The insta-feat is rather nice. But I think my lack of excitement for this class is due to no interest in playing a Monk Character.

2.) I see a lot of people questioning what "Niche" do these things fill. I have the perfect answer for that. Not every gaming group has 6+ people playing in it. The group I game with has 4 people, myself included. So character selection is always a big quandary, and no one likes being stuck in a role they don't want to do (that's mostly the healer) I think the Hybrid's will give much more options to people in smaller groups to get the basics covered, and still be able to contribute how they want to. I think the Bloodrager, Warpriest, Hunter, Shaman, and Skald are prime choices for small groups.

3.) These are not for everyone, but perfect for others. I have read negative comments, I have read positive ones. The people at Paizo are doing a great job coming up with new things for us all, great creativity is a lot harder than you think. Look at the RPG Superstar contest for example. They don't need to make everyone happy with everything in the book. If there was just 1 thing in the book I like, I will probably buy it.

Anyway just a couple of thoughts. I look forward to trying out a few of these "Hybrids" in the game I am running to see how the flow.

Than what does control mean under Ride - control mount in battle? The check is only required for untrained mounts, but the effect (controlling your mount in battle) is automatic for trained mounts.

To control your mount technically has nothing to do with your mount. Yes you are controlling your mount, but the purpose of this skill is allow the rider to take his/her actions. You control your mount enough so that you can act normally, otherwise you are trying to hold on for dear life as it is moving about the battlefield. A combat trained animal knows to attack when you give it the order. And if you are mounted on this combat trained animal you need to hold on so you do not fall off and get left behind. So you make your ride check to hold on (control mount).

So let say I had a creature with a negative energy breath weapon. If it breaths this breath weapon on a group of vampires is it going to heal them or damage them?

The breath weapon does not state that it would heal any undead, so does that mean this negative energy is going to harm the undead?

The game I am currently playing in I took leadership and have a cohort. The cohort is a sorcerer, and I took her because the group had no arcane caster. There has been more then one ocasion where she has saved the party because they do something stupid. She is also a Magic item crafter, and no sooner did the party find out she could do that then the requests started to pile up.

As far as group wealth she always takes a cut of my divide of money. However when we come across a wand, scroll, staff or any other obvious "caster" item goes to her. For granted one particular player in the group (The Paladin) wants all the treasure we find to be sold off so he can raise the money to buy his gear, so that usually requires a bit of convincing on my part to not have to sell it. I created a back story for the Cohort, and she has her own quirks, agenda, and wants. She does theings for the group and therefor she gets rewarded with items accordingly.

However a couple levels later the same player (the Paladin) decided to take leadership and had his own cohort. This cohort is nothing more then an extension of his character. Does nothing but heal/buff/craft for his character. His cohort gets no specail treatement, gets magic items if no one wants them and actually takes no money because he has dedicated his life to the Paladin.

When running games I have no problem with the Leadership feat. I had one game where we lost 2 of the 5 players due to them moving away (they were a married couple) and as opposed to bringing in new people mid-AP I just gave each of the 3 remaining the leadership feat for free. As the remaining party was a Sorcerer, Bard and Witch. But in each instance I made the Cohort. They way I see it, you really have no control over what sort of person you attract, you can hope for a particular class, but does not mean you will get it. If you don't wnat the help you can send them away, but what if no one else comes along.

Anyway in regards to the OP's post.

If someone has a cohort then it is their responsibility to keep that cohort happy, not the rest of the party. If the cohort is going to do things for the rest of the party then the cohort should be compensated. If they are helping then if a particular item comes up that the cohort can use, let them have it. You cant tell me that there is that big of a difference between selling 8 +1 ring of protections and selling 7 of them. If another player is that greedy, well then that is something all together different.

The WPL in my mind is not really accurate. If all the treasure you come across is being sold so you can buy things for your character then you will always be about half of where you should be. However if you keep all the items you come across and can't use them, then what good does that do you. It is not a perfect system, but merely a guide that you should try to be close to. If it does not work, it does not work. If it does for you, then more power to you.

As long as everyone is having fun then it should not matter what gear everyone has, or what you give the cohort.

I see problems with this. What you should probably suggest to him as an alternative would be to take a good look at combining some levels of Alchemist with levels of Barbarian.

He could achieve his big nasty hulk build, without driving you crazy and without homebrewing up something that could potentially screw up the game for everyone else.

I will make that suggestion and see what he thinks.

I have a friend of mine in the campaign I am getting ready to run here in a few months. We will be playing RotRL. I am working with people on their characters, trying to work within the rules so they can do what they want to. Everything is going well, then I have one of the players do this.

He wants to play a Human, that was raised by a dwarven Druid, and gets the benifits of having proficiency with the dwarven weapons. Well I did some searching and found the Racial trait that can be swapped out so he can take the weapon familiarity of his adoptive parents. He was not happy loosing the bonus feat, saying since he was raised with them he should know how to use them. I told him he could, but he has to take the optional racial trait. He has not decided on that one yet.

Next he wants to be able to rage, and become large when he does so. I suggested he look at the Titan Mauler archetype. He was not happy with that cause it would take too long before he could get large.

So he asked me if we could come up with a archetype for him to use, no sooner did I say yes then he sent me this:

Hulking Rager:

Upon reaching 2nd level the Hulking Rager can spend 2 points of rage per round to be effected by the Enlarge Person spell. The Hulking Rager gains all bonuses and minuses of this spell for the duration of the rage. This ability replaces Uncanny Dodge that would be gained at 2nd level and Improved Uncanny dodge that would be gained at 5th.

Upon reaching 3rd level... I dont have anything for this yet. This will replace Trap Sense. Suggestions?

Upon reaching 7th level the Hulking Rager can spend 2 points of rage per round to be effected by Righteous Might as per the spell as if cast by minimum level spell caster for the spell. This ability replaces Damage Reduction.

Upon reaching 14th level the Hulking Rager can spend 2 points of rage per round to be effected by Righteous Might as per the spell as if cast by a 15th level caster. This ability replaces Indomitable Will.

As you can see from this it is obvious what he is trying to do.

Now the adivice I need, is there anything we can do or I can do to find him what he wants without letting him be completely broken and OP?

I have said nothing from 3.5 or 3rd party, and I would be willing to work with him on a archetype, but where should I start with this?

THis thread has been an interesting read. As I recently got back from vacation, and I have missed out on fun topics such as this.

I started playing D&D back when Dwarf and Elf were character classes. I have done every edition that has come along, there are definately some aspects I miss from the older editions, and there are lots of things I love about Pathfinder.

THe current game I am playing in we had someone die, and die via a death effect, so raise dead would not work. Now out of game we had a nice long discussion about what we were going to do. Once we decided out of game that we were going to bring his character back, we then moved it to in game discussion. The paladin wanted him brought back to life so he could help vanquish the evil in the world (also the dead character and the paladin followed the same god. My character ( A cleric of Urgathoa) said no. He was new to the party, and thought it to be best to allow him to feed the ranks of the Pallid Princess as a corpse. Well I lost the vote, so we had to travel to find a place to get him brought back. Once again I refused to cast gentle repose, so we drug a stinking corpse half way across the country.

Anyway I get sidetracked easily. I think a good reason for the cost to bring them back is "payment" to your god. You are using their magic, and they have to have one of their agents ferry the characters soul back to the body, from the land of the dead, and you do have to pay the ferry man right?

Anyway my post is a bit out of time with the rest, but I just had to comment.

I am starting to wonder if this is a bad joke. Maybe they have actually set us upon the rejected items, and maybe they just need 4 more and are letting us decide that? Anyway I will admit I have seen 3 items now I liked, but there are a lot of format errors, I saw one that had no format at all. But perhaps that is how it is, for every good item maybe we have to look at 500 bad?

I have seen the same pairing twice. In each instance I chose to not vote for either as both items were in a way...terrible? I feel for the Judges as some of these items are just....wow.

I just have a question, and I want to ask before I give the player an answer.

A player in one of my games asked me if there was a feat that allows you to treat a one handed weapon as if were a light weapon. I have looked through the feats and did not find anything, but I just want to make sure.

I am not using any 3rd party things, so if there is a 3rd party feat, that I am not interested in. Just curious as to if there is one in any of the Pathfinder Books. I realize there is something like this for Mythic play test rules, but what about standard stuff?

Thanks...

If you ever need any idea's for great traps try taking a look at the old AD&D module Tomb of Horrors. That had some great traps.

Another great trap I used once was a prismatic spray trap. I do not remember all the trap details, but it magically reset itself every round unless it was disarmed.

All I had to do was put it in the center of a hallway, at the other end was a monster sounding the alarm, and every one of the characters ran straight across the room. I killed 1, turned one character to stone, and then sent one of the companions to another plane. The best part about the character sent to another plane was she was the one carring most of the wizards equipment, including the spell book.

I don't know if it is a player vs. GM mindset so much so as something else. What that is I am not sure. I have been playing D&D/AD&D/3.0/3.5/Pathfinder now for 25 years. I know a lot of the rules, sometimes I even confuse them. I run a couple games, and play in one as well. As a GM if I have a player that wants to try something, and it sounds feasable, I try to come up with a way to apply a "rule" to it so it can work for their benifit. It is hard in the game I play to seperate what I am a person know, vs. what my character knows. But I think because I know a lot of the rules it allows me to be very creative as a player. For example using the spell enervate to save a Dhampir character in my group from death. I am not sure everyone would have thought to use the spell like that.

On the flip side of this I played in a game that a guy I knew was running. It was his first game he ever ran, and he left no creativity. If the rules did not say you could do it, then you could not. I was ok with that, until he stopped enforcing that rule on the npc's. For example I was playing a tiefling, who had a hat a disguise to hide his true appearance. Though it was a wated magic item as everyone could see through the guise. We always failed our saving throws (He rolled those for us by the way) but my favorite was when we were killing this monster, who I assume was almost dead, acted out of turn and did a 360 degree bull rush to everyone, provoked no attacks of oppertunity and fled far enough away that no one could attack it or cast a spell on it. This of course led to me arguing with him over it and me getting kicked out of the game. Which in the long run was for the best. His arguement was that it was in its natural enviroment, and could there for do things like that. THis was a big instance of a DM vs. the players mentality. He was a very competitive guy, and hated to loose. So he carried that over to his DMing style.

Anyway I notice there are definately different styles to play, but I would not say it is DM vs. player differences. There may actually be too many to list.

I just have a few house rules I use.

1st.) Natural 1 and 20's on skill and ability checks. If you roll a natural 20 on a skill or ability check you get a +10 to the result. If you roll a natural 1 you get a -10 to the result. Anyone can get lucky or even someone who is the best at something can screw up from time to time.

2nd.) If you take Leadership as a Feat I make the NPC and level it.

3rd.) When crafting no taking 10 on the craft checks. You have to always roll for it.

So I have a player in a campaign I am running (RotRL AE). He has taken some item creation feats, which I was fine with. I told him before hand that he would actually have to spend the money and "buy" the magical materials needed to create whatever item he wish's to. To this point we are both at a understanding.

Between book 2 and book there there is a bit of travel time involved. I created encounters for them and even put a bit of info in the towns and settlements they would come across. In the travels the group has come across more treasure, and he now wants to make some magic items because of there is time to. However he has not "purchased" the materials. So the argument came up when they got to the first settlement and he went to purchase these materials. The settlement was a Village, and based on the settlement portion in the GM guide, the village has a base limit of 500 gp. So I told him he could purchase 500 gp worth of materials, and would have to wait and get more in the next settlement. I was told I was in the wrong, and since no single material for this would ever cost over 500 gp he should be able to spend all his money and turn it into the equivilant of materials for magic item contruction, which would be about 5000 gp worth of materials at this point.

We he argued his point for a while and finally gave up, calling my ruling stupid and demanded to be able to change all his feats since it was my goal to nerf all the item creation feats. But he wasn't willing to give up any of the items he had already made.

So my question is, Am I in the wrong here? Does it make sense what I am saying? I could not find anything definitive. I try to be fair in regards to everything but to me it made sense.

Anyway I would appreciate any and all feedback.

Also along that line I hold the same rule for spell component's like diamond dust...stuff like that.

I like to look through the miniatures I have, and then find one I can build a character around.

I have played so many different class types over the years, I am pretty comfortable playing them all, well except Paladins, I just don't like them so I don't play them.

But yeah, I jsut find a cool looking miniature and then try to decide what sort of "character" he would be and then run with it.

I am marking this for reference. I had a question about this book and this thread answered it.

dot for reference

Thank you for the various suggestions everyone. I appreciate it.

I am running Carrion Crown for them, and just finishing up Broken Moon. I have looked through the rest of the books and most of the creatures tend to be humanoid types. I will look over everything and see what I can do. Once again Thanks.

dotting this for reference, thanks for this.

Thank you everyone for your feedback.

And thank you Cheapy for pointing me to the other thread and comment by Jason Bulmahn.

I looked through trying to find this as a topic, but I could not in the limited time I have, so I decided to jsut post a new thread. So if this has already been covered somewhere I appologize.

I have a character in the game I am running that is playing a strength based Monk who has improved trip and greater trip. It is a really cool build, and I wish I would have thought of it myself, but now I have to deal with the fact that every combat goes the same way. Cleric casts enlarge person on him, he moves up and trips everything and repositioning mobs to alow the group mates to flank them on the ground. Its a great tactic, I will give them that, but its getting kinda old as the person running it.

I read up on what each of the monsters can do, but no matter what I look at each things CMD and when I see that is it below 30 I know how the fight will go. I am running a AP for the group, so I dont want to change very much of it to deal with this, but does anyone have any advice on how to deal with this, or make it more of a challenge? The way the AP is written there is not a good way to deal with things that trip.

SO I have a Paladin in the group I play in, and of course he likes to go around smiting everything that is evil. SO my question is, does the Paladin's smite ability over come the Epic DR?

I am just reading through these rules, and our DM is thinking about trying to implement some of these, and I know this will be brought up, so I figured I would ask now.

I have a group I run where I deal with this same sort of issue, and another group that I play in. I have a player that in my opinion cares more about the combat portion of everything then the story. SO to not take anything away from the experience everyone has I started keeping everything in initiative. It is a little more owrk on my part, But no one can use the excuse that they were not actually there when a trap went off, as they have moved their character to whever ever they choose to move themselves. It keeps the players honest.

One of the house rules I have adopted for things along this line. And by all means feel free to use it or ignore me. But If a character has a higher strength score then the DC to break down a door, I just give it to them as long as the take a full round action to attempt to break it down. To me it makes sense, and all my players like the idea.