James Blair's page

I agree "monster feats" are not designed with the same rigor as feats intended for PC's. Just about every one of them has a weak prerequisite. Fly-by Attack, for instance, just requires the ability to fly, while its ground-bound counterpart Spring Attack requires a decent Dexterity and two other feats. Fly-by is a LOT more powerful than Spring Attack!

Since the Alchemist class and the "Vestigial" Arm discovery exist, it is easily possible for a normal character to have 3 or 4 arms. Or in the case of this race, 5 or 6 arms!

I could see someone creating a Warforged as the actual character with a human cohort, and then roleplay the cohort as if he were the "real" character with a Mighty Slave! That approach wouldn't cost any money at all, and actually has some game balance so many DM's would allow it.

There are some drawbacks, of course. You would need to create a new character (i.e. you can't do this with your current character). Things get difficult if the Mighty Slave is killed off (on the plus side, you can resurrect it). The concept also gets a bit tiresome if multiple people do it or you repeat the concept too much. The "real character" is a little weak in combat, and some DM's may decide to seize control of it once in a while because it is technically a cohort. In short, you wouldn't want to try this with a "control freak" DM.

Constructs are generally pretty thick with abilities that is inconvenient for PC's to have access to, even by proxy. If it's weaker than a PC, it is pathetic and rarely contributes much to combat. If it is stronger or even equal to a PC, well, the PC with the Mighty Slave just got more powerful than the others. So the game system compensates by making them expensive, so only players interested in the flavor of having Not-so-mighty Slaves would be willing to pay for them.

I favor the idea of making PC-owned constructs magic items akin to Figurines of Wondrous Power. They're portable, and only have to be worried with when they're actually being used. Who says all of them have to be goats, elephants, lions, and black panthers? They are expensive, but they don't look as expensive to golems while being almost as useful.

Constructs used as monsters strike me as more a magical fortress feature than anything else.

1. Effects with "save ends both" are split into two effects with "save ends". While it rarely happens, I don't really want to keep track of "double conditions" that may conflict with other effects.

2. My minions are always derived from a base monster of equal level. They have 1/4 normal HP and they are considered bloodied or not bloodied (whichever is worse for the minion) for purposes of being targets of a power. They also have fixed damage, as if they rolled 1/3 the maximum dice result (i.e. 1 for d4, 2 for d6 or d8, 3 for d10, or 4 for d12). This makes them easy opponents without turning them into sacks of free XP.

"In Soviet Russia, the chandalier swings YOU!"

Aside from the heavily-modified minion I posted before, I've tried a version of minion that got a saving throw against those "cheesy auto-hit powers" but were otherwise like normal minions. That seemed too subject to random chance - sometimes all the minions remained standing, which to me felt as bad as killing them all.

Hmm... maybe put some limits on the "cheesy auto-hit powers"... apply an attack roll equal to the one stated in the power (most powers specify an attack roll SOMEWHERE) for minions only? Use basic attack roll based on the primary class stat if none specified (like the Wall spells). Then again, one should consider if minions are really supposed to be able (much less willing) to run through Walls of Fire!

My "quickie minion creation" works as follows:

1. Start with a non-minion, non-elite, non-solo monster.
2. Divide HP by 4 and round down. Minions are always considered bloodied.
3. Where it would normally roll damage, use fixed damage as if it rolled 1/3 max on each die (1 for d4, 2 for d6 and d8, 3 for d10, 4 for d12).
4. Treat minion "save ends" effects as one-time effects, as if the target automatically made their first save.

I don't mind tracking HP totals on even large numbers of monsters, so this system works for me. They still go down quickly, but the party gets to earn their 1/4 XP.

I looked at the Shingle Chase skill list, and noticed that most of them seemed to convert to only 2-3 skills (Athletics, Acrobatics, and Perception covered about 90% of them). I had this shiny new Harrow deck I bought from Paizo lately, and since my players were not interested in gambling with them I felt I had to work Harrow cards in there somewhere.

I set up 15 cards face-down, then placed 15 more face-up next to them. Movement between cards was similar. The ability on the card determined the ability involved in the check, and "alignment" determined the difficulty (DC 11 for LG, DC 12 for NG, ... on down to DC 19 for CE). The player was allowed to use any skill that used the card's ability score.

To move 2 squares, the player had to pass the "public" face-up skill check. To move 3 squares, the player had to pass the "public" skill check and the "private" face-down skill check. Once revealed, the "private" check was known to the players.

I'm trying to sound out whether it is a good idea or not. I get the sense that it is not a horrible idea, but it is also not one to stir strong opinion one way or another (and that's assuming there's a couple people out there that agreed with my post but did not reply). I guess "despecifying" skills is a bit too much like 4e, though what they did there was more like "unfolding" the skills (i.e. knocking the word Knowledge off it).

Frankly, getting my players to select a Knowledge or Craft skill is like pulling teeth, and only a bard will ever select a Perform skill. There is a definite preference toward selecting skills that I ask for people to roll in play. How on Oerth can I ask someone to make a Craft (basketweaving) feat with a straight face. Isn't it just better to let the player pick "Craft skill" and let him surprise you with what he makes? Can't anyone be a Gandalf-like character who seems to know a fair bit about everything (and make a Spellcraft or Concentration check too)?

Maybe allowing the Versatile Crafting and Versatile Knowledge feats is the way to go. Just take the Versatile Performer feat and global-replace with Craft and Knowledge, I suppose.

The difference between +0 and +1 doesn't seem all that strong in a d20 world. Imagine, if you will, a new but attentive player talking to an experienced DM:

DM: So, what kind of character do you want to play?

Player: I'm thinking of playing a fast-striking sneaky guy who is deadly accurate with his weapon, though not necessarily very strong.

DM: Well, that clearly points to you being a fighter or a rogue. The fighter can generally cover the fighting part, but stealth is not their strong suit. A rogue can do everything you wish except for that "accurate" part. You see, weapons accuracy is based on Strength, and... wait a minute! I remember a feat called Weapon Finesse that allows you to use Dexterity to attack with light weapons instead of Strength. That looks perfect for you!

Player: Good. I mean, I'm human, so I get two feats. So I can pick another feat... hand me the Player's Handbook, will you?

(DM hands over book. Player looks at book, then frowns.)

Player: I see that feat you're talking about, but it requires +1 Base Attack Bonus, and rogues don't get that until level 2. I could wait until level 2, but... I don't get another feat until level 3! You mean I have to stumble around using Strength to attack with through the first month or so of the game?

DM: (What do you say?)

I'd say Rule 0 that +1 BAB requirement away, at least for rogues. If it were another class, I might think differently, but there is a disconnect here that I don't really like.

I'd like to name the feat "Skill Synergy". Add a +2 synergy bonus to any two related skills. Then eliminate the "normal" skill synergy bonuses. Now the synergy bonuses "work together"!

This also frees up all these cool feat names for something more creative!

My thought for simplifying the skills system considerably, and making certain skills more attractive, is to remove the "specify sub-category"
choice from all skills.

Have Craft skill? You make stuff. What stuff do you make? Well, whatever the campaign requires! Don't lock this character in a junkyard with plenty of food...

Have Perform skill? You entertain people. How? Well, however the campaign requires! Most entertainers have several favorite ways to entertain, and most also don't have some huge Intelligence score to learn a whole bunch of skills.

Have Knowledge skill? You know stuff. What stuff do you know? Well, whatever the campaign requires! As a DM, how many times have you seen your players choose arcana, religion, and dungeoneering when all your fun stuff involves history and nobility? Admittedly, a high-Intelligence character can know a lot of these skills, but for some reason little things like Spellcraft, Concentration, and cross-class Spot ranks seem to come first. It's pretty bad when cross-class Spot beats out a major category like this!

Have Profession skill? OK, this one's tough... justifying knowing how to do any job is kind of tough. It's probably necessary to remove this skill and ask each character to justify any non-adventuring job he has with backstory.

Simulationists can always say something like "pick 1 to 3 things you know/make/entertain with, and take a penalty with anything else". Another alternative is to have feats like Versatile Performer to cover Craft and Knowledge skills available, so at least the character can have it simple if he wants to!

What do you think?

I think the +1 BAB requirement is a little annoying. My argument is that Weapon Finesse is a character-defining feat to any "speed" character, so any "speed" character should be able to start out with it. Exactly like a "power" character can start out with Power Attack, another clear character-defining feat.

As I noted in another thread (before I knew this one existed), if there were to be a grouping of skills combined into Athletics I would favor Climb, Jump, and Swim. Not because they are the same thing, but they group together the Strength skills nicely. My version of Acrobatics would combine Balance, Escape Artist, and Tumble (a similar grouping of Dexerity skills). I think this is basically a requirement if you want any skill to compare with Almighty Stealth and Almighty Perception!

I can see Fly being a useful but rarely-chosen skill in a typical D&D campaign, like Use Magic Device. In a more "Dragonball Z" campaign, it could be up there with Spot and Tumble. In a "Low Fantasy" campaign, I can see it being eliminated (i.e. the PC's shouldn't be flying around long enough to actually learn to get used to it).

If you're going to combine skills into Athletics and Acrobatics, it would make the most sense to put three Strength skills (Climb, Jump, Swim) in Athletics and three Dexterity skills (Balance, Escape Artist, Tumble) in Acrobatics. That also solves such issues regarding which stat should be assigned to the two skills.

I liked the way the Kids' plans weren't always so perfect in this one, and that they managed to portray a villain that didn't completely disrespect his opponents just because they were kids!

A worthy Narnia sequel. Bring on the Dawn Treader!

If you don't have an actual joke to tell, beat it! 4e's status as a joke has hardly been established, since it doesn't even exist yet in its final form.

OK, to avoid fleeing this thread myself, I'll contribute an "oldie but goodie"...

Two men climb ride the elevator to a nightclub on the tenth floor of a hotel, joining a third man at the bar.

The first man is obviously drunk. He turns to the third man and offers, "Hic! I bet ya twenny dollars that I c'n - hic - drink this in one gulp, then step off that there balcony without falling down!"

The third man, being a bit buzzed himself and eager to make some easy money (and not thinking much of the consequences), accepts the bet. The first man cooly drinks his undoubtedly strong drink, and to the third man's shock he steps off the tenth floor balcony and floats in mid-air!

The third man is exited and gladly hands over the money, then demands to try it himself. He drinks the same drink, takes the same step off the balcony, and promptly plummets to the ground below.

The second man turns to the first man and says, "Superman, you're horrible when you're drunk!"

I suppose Vriksha trees are a special kind of tree with 4 huge/gargantuan rigid leaves in an orthogonal pattern. Not terribly realistic perhaps, but not much less realistic than Monkey Goblins.

The neat part of the encounter is that you can replace the Monkey Goblins with almost any bipedal Small creature you want (fiendish monkeys, kobolds, phanatons, or whatever) and it still works.

OFF-TOPIC EDIT: It seems I've been demoted from "Charter Subscriber" to plain old "Subscriber". Why is that?

Rock the boat...
(Don't rock the boat, baby!)
Rock the boat...
(Don't tip the boat over!)

The encounter's almost as dangerous to the monsters as it is to the party. The bonus for early detection is rather large... most parties I know would deliberately tip the boat without entering it while the rest ready missile weapons to deal with anyone who makes it out of the boat. I guess it depends on whether the PC's expect a fight or not.

Frankly, I rarely run into a situation where only a 20 hits, and many of them are in areas of the rules that will probably disappear in 4e rules (e.g. wizards attacking with daggers, late iterative attacks with Power Attack or Combat Expertise active, etc.). I also don't tend to send level 1 kobolds against level 10 characters, though I can see that as a stronger possibility.

All that said, it's easy to fix. If you NEED a 20 to hit, then 20 is a hit and not a crit. Otherwise, 20 is a crit. Not a difficult rule exception, in my mind...

I'm indifferent to the "max rather than double" rule. It has its good and bad points. It leaves more room for other crit options (like decks and tables) than 3e did. I can easily see someone using the Rolemaster crit tables, with the crit intensity determined by the margin of the hit, or something like that.

You pretty much have to resolve an AoO before the triggering action. For instance, if a caster decides to move 30 feet before casting a spell, it would seem silly to execute the AoO (for the movement) after he moves, right? Most AoO situations are similar.

Now, one can argue that a successful Trip interrupts the action of getting up to the extent that the getting up fails. But this opens a can of worms that I as a DM am unwilling to eat (i.e. having monsters that do it is not worth having PC's that do it), so I just say no.

That being said, my Black Monk will probably have legs, and the flying implemented as some kind of mystical "wuxia" move. Launching Trip attacks with no legs is sooo undignified!