Frats's page

It's definately a good and heroic action, and it should definately be awarded. I think that the Aid in Combat action is more of a problem then the Bull Rush is.

But still; I don't think a Bull Rush can be considered friendly.

Also, the Fighter either isn't aware he is in mortal danger or is willing to take the chance that he's going to get himself killed. It's what Fighters do.

He won't be expecting a 'rescue' in mid combat, not even if he's hurt. He doesn't know the monsters turn is coming up and that he's down to a few last hitpoints. (depending on your system, he might know he is hurt, but still isn't aware he is in his last 6 seconds)

This is not someone not knowing he's going to be overrun by a train. This is someone willfully standing in front of an onrushing train for whatever reason, and he's not willing to budge. If he was, he'd have used his own action to escape the situation.

Maybe this is just me, but isn't "shoving the Fighter out of the way of the monster when he is about to bash him to a pulp" the perfect example of what the Aid in Combat action is meant for?

I'd say, give the guy a +2 AC and be done with it...

On a side-note, a 'friendly' bull-rush is like a 'friendly' punch in the nose. You may have all the good intentions in the world, it's still not going to be a very nice thing to do, and someone who doesn't see it coming is probably very reluctant to go along with it.

So if you'd actually want to shove someone away using brute force, who isn't expecting you and is pumped up from adrenaline because he is in a life threatening situation... he's going to struggle for all his worth.

And depending on the Fighter, he might even take his own AoO, just because he isn't expecting the Cleric to smash into him with everything he's got.

Destroying a creature by Turning isn't putting it to 0 HP in combat, so I'd think they'd be destroyed anyway...

But I'm not sure if there's a ruling for it.

I'd rule it'd take full damage.

The creature believes it is frozen; it should act as being frozen. That's the whole idea behind the spell, the mind believes, so the body acts like it.

Just like a normal creature takes damage from the spell, even though it isn't actually hit by anything, a regenerative creature should take full damage because it believes the spell is real.

(I hope this is understandable...)

The Wizard is a Book-learner.

If you increase his skills; I'd say give him 2 extra points per level he can only spend to bump his Knowledge skills.

That sounds pretty Wizardly.

Isn't the Javelin a combination of Flaming/Shocking/w'ever only with Piercing and Distance? That would make it +2; where the fact that the extra damage only functions at range probably compensates that it can't be prevented with Resistances.

The armor sound really powerful; and I'm too tired to put a price on it now. I could try in the morning, and maybe come up with some more items to.

The calculation noted above is somewhat (read: somewhat) equalized because a 15 may be a threat, it is not neccesarily a hit. You still need to hit to be able to threaten, which is much more likely on a 19-20 range then it is on a 15-20 range.

The 'Dm's best friend' is a rule from the DMG.

Basically: A favorable circumstance adds +2 to the check, a disfavorable circumstance adds -2 to the check.

It's perfect for quick rulings.

Unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike, but not Improved Grapple; in which case your unarmed attack is considered a 'weapon'.

I once designed a Class called the Rune Flinger.

Basically, imagine a guy with a stamp, who puts a nice picture of a bunny on your forehead.

Now, chance the guy with a big, burly Troll, the stamp with a 3-pound rock thrown at your face and the bunny by a magic 'Mark of Pain' or other type of Spell.

That's basically what a Rune Flinger does. It had some minor balance issues but I could fix those and show you the works, if you like?

He would work magic through carving a rune in a rock, and then 'stamping' the Rune onto living tissue or an item by contact (touch at first, thrown after a few levels) His Runespells all revolved around a buff or debuff with a duration.

I'm not sure that's what you're looking for, but if you like the idea, I'll put in these here boards for you :)

A Mind Flayer with snakes instead of tentacles...

Beyond that, most of the good stuff has been named. What's wrong with just taking a Giant?

The Ninja has Poison Use, which removes the chance to actually poison yourself. Not sure if that's an actual Feat, but it probably is, somewhere...

I believe poison is crafted with Craft (Poisonmaking)

That'd be my guess anyway, it seems appropriate.

Wizards can copy scrolls, and methinks they copy more then 2 spells from a scroll per level. Unless you want to allow Clerics to copy spells from scrolls, but that doesn't seem to be what you're after.

And yes, I was answering Tambryn's question :)

A 'dead level' is when you add a level to your class, but gain no new abilities. Basically, little about your character changes, which can dull the sense of achievement for many players, since they do not gain any new options.

Since Clerics have no new abilities whatsoever, most levels can be called 'dead' although arguably, gaining access to a whole new level of spells is quite a new ability.

The worst type of 'dead level' are once such as 5th level Fighter. No Feat, no Ability point, no increased saves... nothing. Just your amazing 2+int skill points and 1d10+con hp.

Thanks for the input everyone.

Yes, a sorcerer or wizard can use a spell-completion item containing a spell they've never heard of as long as it's on their class spell list. If they couldn't, then a sorcerer who didn't know fireball and who had never been subject to or seen a fireball in action wouldn't be able to use a wand of it. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and it certainly isn't balanced.

Actually, I think it makes sense that a Sorcerer who had never seen a Fireball in action wouldn't be able to use a wand of it immideately.

The same would go for a Scroll of an unknown spell; the caster in question should have to do some research to figure out how his new works before he can cast it even, even if he knows the name of the spell.

Even if not in 'how to activate' then in 'what the hell will this actually do, once in effect?'

This sounds very interesting, really. One of the reasons I started up the other thread is because Clerics & Druids seem to get it all for free when new books are published. Limiting the number of spells they know would be a nice way to limit this.

Although I'm not sure whether 4 spells would be a good start; the Cleric list should at least match the Wizard's one in size I think. It definately allows more variation in Clerics, especially with so many spells to choose from.

If you have time on your hands, you could even divide the list in 'Deity given' and 'Self picked'? IE: each Cleric gains certain new spells at every odd level from his Deity, and the rest he picks himself?

It would also help to identify Clerics from the same faith...

As far as I know it's Rules As Written.

There might be some Acronyms I've yet to figure out, but I can't think of any right now.

What hops to mind is Bard (with Perform (Dance) or something other non-vocal) multiclassed with Rogue and/or Fighter.

Ruling that dance can trigger Bardic Music with dance (seems fair since you sacrifice your spells for a very minor benefit) and then multiclassing into Rogue or Fighter seems pretty much what you seek.

Because, as said above, taking the music from the bard leaves just a rogue with less skills. (ALL Bardic spells require sound, you can't Silence them. so no spell casting either)

Silent Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit

A silent spell can be cast with no verbal components. Spells without verbal components are not affected. A silent spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level.
Special

Bard spells cannot be enhanced by this metamagic feat.

For a lot of items, and for learning purposes, you need certain spells on your spell list. But with all the new books coming out, spell lists keep expanding and expanding.

Are all of these just considered to be 'on your list'?

This seems somewhat unfair against the spontaneous casters (and wizards, in lesser degree)

But if it's not like that, how exactly would you add spells to your spell list? Anyone use house-rules or guidelines to determine whether or not a spell is one someones spell list?

Same goes for custom spells; if a party comes across a Wand of Custom Spell X that is sor/wiz2, would any sorceror or wizard be able to use said wand, even though they've never even heard of the spell before, nor have seen it in action?

What are your thoughts on this expanding list situation?

I don't Clerics can at all, since they receive spells through a ritual prayer, performed at the same time everyday (right?)

As for Wizards; I believe they can leave empty as many slots as they like. I can't remember there being a max.

I'd in the same crowd as most posters here: DON'T DO IT!

I've both played and DM'ed for years and I still haven't a clue on how to properly play an Epic character, let alone DM for ten of then

This is madness and you can be pretty much garantueed you're not going to like it; it'll be a constant arguing and looking up on rules, combat rounds that last 5 hours each as people look over their immense list of spells or feats, monsters that are either dead in a second or kill a party-member each round...

I would advise even experienced DM's against running ten Epic level pc's, let alone one who's hardly ever played before...

I usually don't get to four per game day althoug I run a lot of one-shots which last about one day (game-time) and some 8 hours (real time)

I prefer to build a lot of suspense in my games and combat distracts from it. It's better to have the PC's sweating over what is going to happen for 3 hours then it is to have them fight things every other minute; they tend to loose the story a bit.

Last night I did make it though; 4 full encounters in a single session. They fled one; completed 3 and just barely managed to all stay alive. It did start to distract from the story though; especially the almost random encounter that have little to do with it.

Although they just loved fighting Snuggles, the 20ft parrot from hell.

As an NPC spell, Magic Aura is underestimated. It can keep low-level PC busy for hours trying to figure out how to undo the 'illusion' or deal with the obvisious 'trap'

Underestimated spell?

Shrink Item!

Just put some trinket in a room, something that looks valuable and they're definately going to put in their backpack, and then laugh your ass off when the players come up to the wizard, who claps his hands and transforms the 'trinket' into a 16ft tall, thousands of pounds statue, while still in your backpack.

And don't forget the massive slingbullet, shrunk down to regular size. Wizards readies to drop the spell, Fighter slings the stone. *splat*

I'm going to combine D&D with Mutants&Masterminds.

It's a near perfect system, I'll just have to add the proper flavor and I'll never have to buy D&D books again! Mwaha!

Leap Attack!

That's what I was looking for indeed, thank you :)

Defending stacks with itself?

That could make fighting a Marilith, Thri-Keen or other many-armed creature a lot more dangerous all of a sudden. I think you can come up with a much higher AC build, if you use a base creature with 4 or 6 arms... ;)

Isn't their also something like Jumping Charge in Complete Warrior?

I know at least there ís a Flying Kick feat in there.

Yep, it's on the Wizards site:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20040117a

Enjoy!

I don't believe you actually need an Int of 13 to cast a Metamagic spell of first level, heightened to third. But I might have misunderstood it; so if anyone has a clarification that'd be a lot better ;)

This is going to be a two-fold question. First one is: is this allowed by RAW? Second one is: if not, would it be broken to allow it?

The whole question is about creatures with multiple base attack per round (IE: more then +6 BAB)

First off; do you have to make every attack with the same weapon, or could you use different weapons for each attack? For example, could you hold two weapons and strike once with each of them; one at +6 and one at +1, or must you use the same weapon for both strikes?
Could you strike once, drop weapon, quickdraw another weapon, and then strike again?

Could you use a throwing weapon, use quickdraw to grab your greataxe with both hands and then strike with that?

And then; must you use your attacks from high to low? Or can you change the order? For above example; use the throwing weapon at your +1 attack bonus and the Greataxe as second attack with +6?

Are there any reasons why doing so shouldn't be allowed? I think it would make for much more exciting fights (roleplayingwise ;) then when characters run their normal attacks from top to bottom as 'swing with sword, swing with sword, swing with sword, swing with sword.'

Gotta love Kobolds :)

Half-Dragon Kobolds even more. My party was quite terrified when the pesky little critters unleashed fiery hell upon them. Even with a DC 10 save for half damage, it's a scary thing to witness.

Also, various undead, especially the Wraith (for some reason) and the Ghouls.

And Trolls in all their varieties. Somehow, I love using those...

And last: Golems. But with my low-level games I hardly use those, and if I do they are usually not meant to be smashed.

Does 'Fortunate Fate' actually cheat death? IE: work when reduced to -20 instantly?

Hmmm. I wanted to make a comparison, and only arrived at 'the magic item system is broken.'

No real help from me, I'm afraid. This is what I was going to do:

Compare the item to something else that can cheat death. The thing I came up with was the Scarab of Protection. That's priced at 38.000, has 12 charges of various resistance effects and grants SR 20.
Now, to divide these up in two abilties ('cheat death and other nasty effects' and 'SR 20') I'd compare it to an item that grants an equal SR.

Came up with the Mantle of Spell Resistance. This grants SR 21 and costs 90.000gp.

*confused*

Anyway. There have been a lot of good suggestions here, so there is little more to add anyway. I'd probably go with 'a little under a ring of one wish' in cost. Cheating death is a powerful ability and shouldn't be measured by spell or caster level, but by raw potential.

(just like True Strike, for example.)

Wizards could have an Int of 11 but still be 10th level. They'd just be stuck with (Metamagiced?) first level spells all the way.

There's probably a good reason why minimum DC is assumed. But it indeed isn't explained what happens when someone smarter crafts the wand, or if the PC's do it themselves...

I don't think an item that grants a +8 bonus as Mage Armor + Shield and immunity to Magic Missile should be any more expensive then an item that grants a +8 AC bonus to armor.

Afterall; the former item uses up both your shield AC and armor AC modifiers, while the second can be stacked with a self-cast Shield spell for a total +12 modifier.

Then again; full immunity to Magic Missiles adds a little, so same price seems fair.

I don't think you're supposed to be halving the cost for what your character pays. The base cost you calculated is what he pays in materials; purchasing said staff would cost double that.

Lets see...

I'd most likely play such a character as someone who knows, but does not understand.
Someone who can explain the basics of how just about anything works instinctively, but is at a complete loss when asked exactly how it works or how it should be put to use.

He could almost be the teacher that explains everything beautifully, that children listen to intensly and that motivates them to perform well, but when asked to explain something in detail or suddenly forced to talk about something he hadn't prepared, has to resort to looking it up in a book or preparing it for a later lesson.

Someone who knows what he is supposed to be doing, and does it well, but has trouble performing outside of that little, well prepared box or coming up with things that haven't been tried before.

But maybe that's not at all how it should be... character and stats are often hard to combine.

It's not like you really need the magic either.

Take a Halfling, add a base Dex of 16 for a total of 18, add a Chain Shirt, a Heavy Shield, a Light weapon, Phalanx Fighting (Complete Warrior I believe?) and Dodge and you have a base AC at first level of 10 +4 dex +4 armor +3 shield +1 dodge +1 size = 23.
It ups to 25 if you have a buddy with Phalanx Fighting standing next to you. And you're not even lowering your attack bonus yet.

The thing is usually to hit opponents in their weak spot, as said before. But yes, AC might be slightly broken at times.

If I said that there where massive bidding wars for the weak stuff then I'd have to face the music when it finally did come to the powerful stuff. If the wimpy stuff for their level is becoming way overpriced what does that say about the stuff that is about right for their level? Completely unattainable? If a 4,000 gp +2 Shield can't be had without selling ones soul then what does that say about the 72,000 gp sword? Epic levels only?

Expensive stuff need not be out of their reach. There's way less buyers for those things. If the PC's are the only ones that can afford a 72,000gp sword, but there are 500 buyers for the shop's last two +1 shields, then the price for the shields will rise, but not affect the cost of the sword at all.

I agree that it's bit of a nich-situation. Compare it with Magic Missile and Burning Hands, maybe? Magic Missile deals more damage at first level and will deal more damage from 7th level and up, has no save, affects incorporeal creatures, and has much greater range.

Given the choice, most casters go for Magic Missile.

However, Burning Hands has its own uses and the area affect can be very usefull when swarmed by small critters, plus you can use it to engage swarms and its nice to attack creatures with the Cold subtype better.

Is it better then Magic Missile? No, usually it isn't. But, sometimes it can be. I see no need to nerf Burning Hands, because it has its own uses. I'll aplaud any caster willing to pick it over Magic Missile, but I do not feel the need to change it. Both spells have their uses, and I find neither to be broken or too weak.

The same goes for Mage Armor and Shield. In most situations, Mage Armor is the better choice. But for armored casters, Shield is actually the better option. And when facing opponents that rely on Magic Missile (fairly common for low level spellcasters) then the Shield spell is much, much better. (hey, that's another point where Burning Hands would be the better choice over Magic Missile... a Shielded opponent)

Both have their uses. A straight caster would go for Mage Armor probably, while a fighting caster would probably pick up Shield.

It sounds like these characters put way to much of their GP in AC bonusses.. I run an 8th level melee character with an AC of 18 and it isn't very hindering..

If they put 60% of their gold into AC bonusses, they will lag behind on many other fields. Most of these have been noted already, but just hit them with stuff that negates armor.

Most enemies should be able to come up with something to negate their armor when they figure out normal attacks aren't cutting it. Plus, the party will have a reduced access to scrolls, wands, potions, back-up weapons and probably any and all 'just in case' items.

I don't think the game is broken, it just player choices. If you put everything in AC, it will be high. Just as you attack bonus will be high if you put everything there.

But any smart enemy will know that you take an opponent down by attacking his weak spot, not his strong spot.

Floors are immune to critical hits (since they're objects)

I'd say splash weapons don't deal critical hits, since they're not directed at something in particular; creatures take damage from a grenade because they happen to be there when it explodes, not because they're targeted by the grenade.

If you allow grenades to crit, you should allow Fireballs as well, it's the same basic concept.

Miko, from Order of the Stick. :)

Beyond that, I agree with what has been said on this thread before; go with a Fighter, possibly mix it up with some Aristocrat or Expert, and you have yourself a Samurai.

You all make me feel like a little child :(

I'm 20 years old (does that make me one of the youngest members here?) and have been playing since I was round 14, so that makes a year or 6. Mostly DM'ing duty, some playing.

I've seen 3.0, but not long enough to notice any change when we switched to 3.5 a few months later.

The only experience I have with 2.0 was from computer games, and that didn't really help a lot.

Could you give some more information, or maybe some examples?

It's kinda hard to help you, if we don't know what exactly the problem is...

Do you enforce player silence when battle is engaged? Since they can't hear each other; force them to STFU when it's not their turn. And don't forget to sneak attack one of them from behind and not tell anyone until his turn comes up; then go 'you're dead/dying/KO' and move on.

Fighting in total silence is incredibly difficult since you have to plan everything perfectly. And remember: no plan survives contact with the enemy. Make him come up with something clever that throws them into disarray and force them to figure out what to do in mid combat, with no talking to each other, and each man fighting for himself.

Silence IC should mean silence OC. If you deprive your enemy of tactical planning but allow the PC to chat OC, then Silence becomes quickly overpowered. If you force them to work as a unit without allowing them to communicate... they might pick up a new tactic.

Is it really relevant to have 'rules' for cannibalism?

As far as I see it, it is a label applied by people. If you don't want to be considered a cannibal by a certain people, ask them what they find cannibalistic and don't eat that.

The concept varies per race, there's no way to pin it down.

It's like asking 'what is faith?' or 'what is a good life?'

Everyone has an answer, everyone bickers, but I doubt any will either be defined by rules, let alone be accepted by everyone as such rules.

My run would be to think about the cultures of the creatures in question and see how they stand on the point of cannibalism and take it from there. Read back through the thread, pretty much every race noted has its own ideas.

Ai, I wasn't saying it'd be balanced for D&D. M&M relies on skill checks far less and it's more or less based on 'simple = better' so it combined a few things.
Since anyone can buy as many skills as they need, it's not really gamebreaking either; the points aren't fixed per level or anything.

For D&D, I'd probably not recommend a lot of combining since indeed the number of skills per class is based upon the assumption that Move Silently, Hide, Spot and Listen are 4 skills, not two.

Of course, you could always combine the two and make them cost 2 skill points per rank. Ease of game, without worrying about breaking anything.

Mutants&Masterminds also uses this option. It also adds one other, really good, option. Namely the 'other' senses.

In D&D, if you hide from something with Scent, what would you roll? There's no skill for that. With the grouping, all these simply fall under the Stealth option. Of course you could add some circumstance bonusses (ie: a penalty if you do not have the sense yourself, or a penalty when you are not aware someone has a particular sense) and really make your life a lot easier.

Also, Tumble and Balance are combined into Athletics (Jump should be added too in D&D, it doesn't exist as a skill in M&M) and I believe some others are as well. I'll check up tomorrow, it's a bit late for that now :)

There is also the fact that the Amulet of Natural weapons works for ALL natural weapons (right?)

So, a character with 2 claws, a bite and a tail-slap would effectively enchant 4 attacks with only one item slot.

This post stacks with Fatespinner's, btw. It just improves the power even more.