Yes, that sounds very reasonable.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Wow, thanks for the pointer. Will definitely visit (I will be in Graz for business in two weeks).
Combine it with spell perfection and the elemental focus feats. Yes, thats a +8 to DC.
And yes, thats pretty much gamebreaking.
Since no player ever used an ability or spell to daze a creature before this is not really a probloem. Really what means (besides the daze spells which no one uses) are there?
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
Daze and Daze Monster are both Enchantment(compulsion)[mind-affecting], and many things are immune to that. I don't see any language in Dazing Spell that specifies that it works exactly like Daze or Daze Monster, so by RAW those with immunity to Enchantment(compulsion)[mind-affecting] don't seem to be immune to Dazing Spell effects, but I would not be surprised if the Rules as Intended would allow such creatures to be immune to Dazing Spell.
Thanks, I like that even better as a houserule.
My party consists of 6 reasonably optimized PCs and I suspect the lone Wendigo will not offer much of a challenge to them once they are able to confront him (action economy...).
What would be some nice, thematically fitting mooks that he could be surrounded with? About CR 9-12 would be best I think.
I'll add to that a bit, and changing things in the past so they work now. For example, after an a fight, someone forgets to pick up a weapon they had disarmed. The DM assumes they forgot it, the players assumed it was so obvious that they retrieved it after the fight, the didn't mention it, and in the next fight, it becomes an issue. So, to jsut get over it, the DM "retcons it" so that they did in fact pick up the weapon.
Thats not retconning. Retcon: Player specifically stated he did NOT pick up the weapon and later its decided he actually did.
Just give them PB 25 and make sure they choose powerful classes (I liked the suggestions above). I would go with one Wizard, one Paladin (alternatively a ranger with favored enemy: giants), one Combat-Cleric (if staying with core classes).
No need for full HP / level - maybe let them roll two hit dice each level and keep the higher result.
And switch Xanesha and her sister. ;)
As far as I am informed dungeonaday.com is pretty much dead? No new subscribers, the existing ones aren't charged any more?
So if dungeonaday.com would be running strong, I would follow your logic here: pull back the .pdf if its not selling good enough, to increase attractiveness of a subscription.
But as things are, I am afraid I do not follow. If this .pdf sells mediocre, you will stop selling it? Why?
Gloves of dueling are a must and increase WT by +2/+2. The Two-Handed Fighter Archetype gives double STR bonus to damage on all but the first attacks.
with improved critical this is against AC 40:
137,75 (w/o PA)
138,3 (w PA)
Potentially a +2 greatsword of speed instead of a +5 greatsword will increase this numbers further.
A shining child’s primary attack is a ray of searing light. This attack has a range of 120 feet and bypasses all damage reduction.
Ranged searing ray +19 touch (10d6 fire)
The bit about ignoring DR seems redundant to me: energy damage always ignores DR.
Speculation on my part: Maybe the intention was for the ray to ignore fire resistance / immunity?
EDIT: Also: This is one tough critter.
As far as I know this was neither in 3.5 nor in 3.0.
Note that total defense != fighting defensively. You can make AoOs while fighting defensively and will usually be fighting defensively while using crane style.
My question referred specifically to the total defense option.
I pointed out to you before that reality is not as clear cut as you provokingly implied.
I am in no "camp", certainly not in the "rule 0 rules all" camp. You try to categorize people here in a decidedly binary or black-white fashion. And you are surprised that p*ss*s them off?
Please stop trolling, we are having a discussion here.
You fail to acknowledge that +5 to all stats is a big deal and the notion that it was not intended for every 13th level party to get that is perfectly reasonable.